Environment agencies in Great Lakes states reorganize, downsize

By Allison Bush, bushalli@msu.edu
Great Lakes Echo
July 3, 2009

Some cash-strapped state agencies charged with protecting the Great Lakes environment are merging and reorganizing to do more with less.

Michigan’s Senate could vote next week to combine that state’s Department of Environmental Quality with the Department of Natural Resources. The House of Representatives approved a similar measure recently. Other states are considering similar moves.

Ironically, the functions of both of Michigan’s agencies had once been combined. In 1995, then Gov. John Engler split them ostensibly to place regulatory programs into their own department.

Will bringing them back together save money? Supporters of the merger say it could save up to $2 million, but opponents are skeptical.

“There’s some logic – all the functions that are trying to protect natural resources would be in one agency,” said James Clift, policy director of the Michigan Environmental Council, a statewide coalition of environmental groups. “The lines of communication are nice and clear.”

But although there is some duplication between the two agencies, there is not enough that simply combining the departments will save millions of dollars, Clift said.

“It might even cost a little bit of money in the short run to do the reorganization,” he said.

To save money, the state will have to cut environmental programs. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is proposing to transfer control of its wetland protection program to the federal government, he said.

“But because the economy has slowed down, the number of wetland permits coming in has been greatly reduced,” he said. “Because nobody’s building homes, we could have run programs on less money for the short term.”

Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Indiana also each have two main environmental departments facing budget cuts, according to officials.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources might merge with the state’s Historic Preservation Agency, said Charles Jackson, executive director for the Illinois Environmental Council. Those agencies had also once been together.

Officials from Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania said that although their departments are expecting cuts, mergers have not been proposed. .

But times are tight among state resource agencies. Pennsylvania has been talking about closing state parks.
“The full ramifications of the budget deficit is not going to be known for awhile,” said Davitt Woodwell, vice president for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.

Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York each have one main environmental department. Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources plans to consolidate several of its southern region field offices.

“There are differences in the different states, and there has been a long history of discussion about whether it’s important to have the agencies all in one department or separated,” said Anne Woiwode, state director of the Michigan Sierra Club.

The most critical issue is not whether there are one or two departments, but whether there is transparency and a chance for the public to participate, she said.

When Engler split Michigan’s departments, environmental groups said the split was done primarily to shut out public input into resource decisions.

All the regulatory activities were then placed in the Department of Environmental Quality. Citizen boards that had been in place to provide an opportunity for public comment were also eliminated, Woiwode said.

However, Granholm’s Department of Environmental Quality has “made a point of reversing a trend of shutting the public out,” Woiwode said.

The difference between the department under Engler and Granholm shows that simply having an agency doesn’t necessarily have specific implications, she said.

When it comes down to it, many states will likely have to reduce their environmental departments, and determining which programs are going to be maintained and restored is the critical issue, she said.