REFLECTING ON THE FUTURE EPA-STATE PARTNERSHIP
“Back to the Future”
Robert J. Zimmerman Chief Operating Officer Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control June 10, 2008
Performance Partnerships Work Best:
1. 2. When the Federal Government intends that services be delivered at State and local levels. Where there is shared agreement among Federal, State and local partners about national goals and objectives. Where progress toward the goals and objectives can be measured.
3.
OMB Memorandum (M-95-08) to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding Performance Partnerships from Alice M. Rivlin; - March 28, 1995.
Federal Goal:
“Our goal must be to dramatically restructure the relationship between the Federal Government and the States and localities to create stronger partnerships. Performance partnerships provide a new opportunity to provide States and localities more flexibility to solve their problems, in return for more accountability for results.”
OMB Memorandum (M-95-08) to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding Performance Partnerships from Alice M. Rivlin - March 28, 1995
Guiding Principles for Designing and Implementing Performance Partnerships:
Program Consolidations Partnership Increased Flexibility Improved Accountability Measuring Performance Performance Incentives
(continued)
Guiding Principles for Designing and Implementing Performance Partnerships:
Shift in the Locus of Decision-making Administrative Simplification Administrative Savings Implementation Entitlement Programs
OMB Memorandum (M-95-08) to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding Performance Partnerships from Alice M. Rivlin - March 28, 1995.
Shifts in Locus of Decision-Making
DOA Rural Development Programs DOE and Labor: GI Bill for America’s Workers DHSS: Public Health Service Dept of Housing and Urban Development Dept of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency
$988 mill
State Directors (coordinating with the State Rural Development Councils, and State and local governments) would be able to shift resources among existing programs to meet the specific needs of each State.
$14.1 bill
Most program and administrative design responsibilities are shifted from Federal to State and local levels. Individuals empowered to select training.
$3.0 bill
Five of 16 program groups will be State grant programs, where decisionmaking would be left to States. States will be eligible for most of the other 11 grant clusters.
$26.0 bill
Decisionmaking shifted to States, cities and communities
$25.0 bill
Fewer Federal constraints on use of funds shifts decisionmaking to States and localities; infrastructure Bank decisions reflect market viability of investments.
$634 mill
Participating States would be able to make funding decisions based on their administrative procedures.
Taken from The President’s Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 1996.
Comparison of Federal-State Allocation of Responsibility in Five Environmental Statutes – ELI Report – September 1995
CAA (NAAQS)
Delegation – State responsibility Federal Oversight of State Program Compliance “primary responsibility”
CWA (NPDES)
(state may administer own program) - permit review
RCRA (HWM)
“in lieu of (state program as replacement for federal program)” - inspections - inventory
SDWA (PWS)
“primary enforcement responsibility” - reporting
- reporting - review of decisions (on noncompliance penalties - self review of SIP with submission of results to EPA for “effectiveness assessment”
Principles for an Evolving Oversight System Under NEPPS:
Include evaluation of environmental indicators Ensure that numerical data informs oversight, but is not mistaken for oversight Assess the federally authorized program within the broader context of the entire state environmental program
Limit oversight for states which meet the goals of the federal statutes. (continued)
Principles for an Evolving Oversight System Under NEPPS:
Reduce the need for intense oversight by using partnership mechanisms Select and refine oversight tools to focus on the purposes of oversight Ensure transparency of oversight Preserve accountability as the central purpose of oversight.
Excerpted from the Environmental Law Institute, “Federal Oversight of Authorized State Environmental Programs: Reforming the System” September 1995
Relationship of Performance Partnership Grants to Reform of Oversight Approach:
Concurrent effort to reform oversight and combine multiple grants
Both initiatives share many of the same objectives
(e.g. focus on environmental results, incentives for improved performance, flexibility to achieve objectives, accountability to public)
Over time, intent is to merge the two efforts in practice
Excerpted from “State/EPA Joint Commitment to Reform Oversight and Create a NEPPS” May 17, 1995
After More than a Decade, Changes are Needed to:
Fully embrace broader “environmental” context (e.g. more than federal definition of environment) Evolve oversight system consistent with initial aspirations
Reconsider viability of achieving a merger in practice of oversight and grant making
Achieve shift in locus of decision-making (e.g. problems, priorities, funding allocations, etc.), and remove as potential barrier especially in light of efforts to nationalize programs Realign partnership system with conditions where they “work best”
For Further Discussion:
Contact Information: Robert J. Zimmerman Chief Operating Officer DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Voice: (302) 739-9000 E-mail: robert.zimmerman@state.de.us