EPA administers its environmental enforcement responsibilities through  its headquarters Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  (OECA). EPA has established principles for its enforcement and compliance  program. However, when we reviewed EPA’s enforcement  efforts we found that variations among EPA’s regional offices had led to  inconsistencies in the actions they take to enforce environmental  requirements. For example, we found that  inspection coverage by EPA and state enforcement staff varied for  facilities discharging pollutants within each region,  the number and type of enforcement actions taken by EPA’s regions also  varied,  the size of the penalties assessed and the criteria used in determining  penalties assessed varied by region, and  the regions’ overall strategies in overseeing the states within their  jurisdiction varied, which may have resulted in more in-depth reviews in  some regional programs than in others. We identified a number of factors that contributed to variations in EPA’s  enforcement that included the following:    differences in the philosophical approaches among enforcement staff  about how to best achieve compliance with environmental requirements,    differences in state laws and enforcement authorities, and in the manner in  which regions respond to these differences,    variations in resources available to both state and regional enforcement  the flexibility afforded by EPA policies and guidance that allow states a  degree of latitude in their enforcement programs, and  incomplete and inadequate enforcement data which, among other things,  hamper EPA’s ability to accurately characterize the extent of variations. At that time, we reported that EPA had improved  its oversight of state enforcement programs by implementing the State  Review Framework (SRF). While we recognized the value in EPA’s  identification and documentation of these findings, we also reported that  EPA had not developed a plan for how it would uniformly address them in  a timely manner, nor had the agency identified the root causes of the  weaknesses, although some EPA and state officials attributed the  weaknesses to causes such as increased workloads concomitant with  budgetary reductions. EPA generally agreed with most of the  recommendations we made in 2007, but did not specifically comment on  the recommendations we made in 2000. Enforcement Resources Have Not Kept Pace with Increased Responsibilities and Better Resource Planning Would Enhance Enforcement Activities

In 2005, we reported that the scope of EPA’s responsibilities under the  Clean Water Act had increased significantly since 1972, along with the  workload associated with implementing and enforcing the act’s  requirements. At the same time, EPA had  authorized states to take on more responsibilities, shifting the agency’s  workload from direct implementation to oversight. In 2007, we reported that while overall funding for carrying out  enforcement activities to regions and authorized states had increased from  fiscal years 1997 through 2006, these increases had not kept pace with  inflation and the growth in enforcement responsibilities. Over the 10-year  period we reviewed, EPA’s enforcement funding to the regions increased  from $288 million in fiscal year 1997 to $322 million in fiscal year 2006, but  declined in real terms by 8 percent. Both EPA and state officials told us  they found it difficult to respond to new requirements while carrying out  their previous responsibilities. Although we recognized that resources had not kept pace with EPA’s  responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, we also found that EPA’s  process for budgeting and allocating resources did not fully consider the  agency’s current workload, either for specific statutory requirements, such  as those included in the Clean Water Act, or for the broader goals and  objectives in the agency’s strategic plan. To develop the  estimates of the gap, EPA and the states created a detailed model of  activities associated with implementing the Clean Water Act, the average  time it took to complete such activities, and the costs of performing them. Our 2007 report acknowledged that EPA had made substantial progress in  improving priority setting and enforcement planning with states through  its system for setting national enforcement priorities and the National  Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), which was  designed to give states demonstrating strong environmental performance  greater flexibility and autonomy in planning and operating their  environmental programs. Measures Used to Report on the Effectiveness of Enforcement Efforts Can Be Improved

In 2008, we reported that EPA relies on a variety of measures to assess and  report on the effectiveness of its civil and criminal enforcement  programs. Moreover, we identified three shortcomings in  how EPA calculates and reports penalty information to the Congress and  the public that may result in an inaccurate assessment of the program.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to help reduce water pollution and improve the health of the nation's waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers its enforcement responsibilities under the act through its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), as well as its 10 regional offices and the states. Over the last 9 years, GAO has undertaken a number of reviews of EPA's environmental enforcement activities, including for the Clean Water Act. For this testimony statement, GAO was asked to summarize the results of five prior reports on the effectiveness of EPA's enforcement program. Specifically, this statement includes information on the (1) factors that cause variations in enforcement activities and lead to inconsistencies across regions, (2) impact that inadequate resources and work force planning has had on enforcement, (3) efforts EPA has taken to improve priority planning, and (4) accuracy and transparency of measures of program effectiveness. GAO's prior recommendations have included the need for EPA to collect more complete and reliable data, develop improved guidance, and better performance measures. Although EPA has generally agreed with these recommendations, its implementation has been uneven. GAO is not making new recommendations in this statement.

What GAO Found

In 2000, GAO found variations among EPA's regional offices in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements. For example, the regions varied in the inspection coverage of facilities discharging pollutants, the number and type of enforcement actions taken, and the size of the penalties assessed and the criteria used in determining penalties. GAO also found that variations in the regions' strategies for overseeing state programs may have resulted in more in-depth reviews in some regional programs than in others. Several factors contributed to these variations including differences in the philosophical approaches among enforcement staff about how best to achieve compliance with environmental requirements, differences in state laws and enforcement authorities and how the regions respond to these differences, variations in resources available to state and regional offices, the flexibility afforded by EPA policies and guidance that allow latitude in state enforcement programs, and incomplete and inadequate enforcement data that hampered EPA's ability to accurately characterize the extent of variations. In 2007, GAO reported improvements in EPA's oversight of state enforcement activities with the implementation of a state review framework. However, while this framework helped identify several weaknesses in state programs, the agency had not developed a plan for how it would uniformly address these weaknesses or identify the root causes of these weaknesses. In 2005, GAO reported that the scope of EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act along with workload associated with implementing and enforcing the act's requirements had increased significantly. At the same time, EPA had authorized states to take on more responsibilities, shifting the agency's workload from direct implementation to oversight. In 2007, GAO reported that while overall funding for enforcement activities had increased from $288 million in fiscal year 1997 to $322 million in fiscal year 2006, resources had not kept pace with inflation or the increased responsibilities. Both EPA and state officials told GAO that they found it difficult to respond to new requirements while carrying out previous responsibilities and regional offices had reduced enforcement staff by about 5 percent. In 2005, GAO also reported that EPA's process for budgeting and allocating resources did not fully consider the agency's workload, either for specific statutory requirements such as those included in the Clean Water Act or the broader goals and objectives in the agency's strategic plan. Any efforts made by the agency to develop a more systematic process would be hampered by the lack of comprehensive and accurate workload data. In 2007, GAO reported that EPA had made substantial progress in improving priority setting and enforcement planning with states through its system for setting national enforcement priorities and this had fostered a more cooperative relationship with the states. Finally, in 2008, GAO reported that EPA could improve the accuracy and transparency of some of the measures that it uses to assess and report on the effectiveness of its civil and criminal enforcement programs. GAO identified shortcomings in how EPA calculates and reports these data that may prevent the agency from providing Congress and the public with a fair assessment of the programs.