Increases in EPA Funding Have Not Kept Pace with Inflation and Enforcement Responsibilities

Overall funding to regions and authorized states increased from fiscal  years 1997 through 2006. However, these increases did not keep pace with  inflation and the growth in enforcement responsibilities. According to officials in OECA and EPA’s Office of the Chief Financial  Officer, OECA headquarters absorbed decreases in OECA’s total  enforcement funding in recent years to prevent further reductions to the  regions. For example, data  provided to us by New York State officials showed that the state’s grant  for hazardous waste management dropped in real terms by 19 percent  between fiscal years 1997 and 2006. As a result of this decline in funding,  New York State officials said that the grant supports fewer full-time staff. EPA and States Have Taken Steps to Improve Planning and Priority Setting for Enforcement, but Results Are Uneven

EPA has made substantial progress in improving priority setting and  enforcement planning with states through its system for setting national  enforcement priorities and NEPPS, which have fostered a more  cooperative relationship. For example, on states’ recommendation, OECA  accepted as a priority ensuring that facilities handling hazardous  substances, such as lead or mercury, have the financial resources to close  their facilities, clean up contamination, and compensate communities and  individuals affected by the contamination. EPA and states have also made  some progress in using NEPPS for joint planning and resource allocation. State participation in the partnership grew from 6 pilot states in fiscal year  1996 to 41 states in fiscal year 2006. EPA responsibility. State Review Framework Has the Potential to Provide More Consistent Oversight

With its implementation of the SRF, EPA has—for the first time—a  consistent approach for overseeing authorized states’ compliance and  enforcement programs and has identified several significant weaknesses in  how states enforce their environmental laws in accordance with federal  requirements. Until EPA addresses enforcement weaknesses and  their causes, it faces limitations in determining whether states perform  timely and appropriate enforcement, and whether they apply penalties to  environmental violators in a fair and consistent manner within and among  the states. In this regard,  its structured approach provides consistent information that would be  useful to (1) inform the public about how well the states are implementing  their enforcement responsibilities and (2) serve as a basis for assessing the  performance of EPA’s regions, which have been inconsistent in their  enforcement and oversight efforts in the past. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance EPA’s oversight of regional and state enforcement activities to  implement environmental programs consistent with the requirements of  federal statutes and regulations, we recommend that the Administrator of  EPA take the following actions:  include, in EPA’s fiscal year 2008 evaluation of the SRF, an assessment of  lessons learned and an action plan for determining how significant  problems identified in state programs will be uniformly and expeditiously  addressed;   evaluate the capacity of individual authorized state programs, where the  SRF finds the state appears to lack sufficient resources (e.g., funding, staff,  and expertise), to implement and enforce authorized programs and then  develop an action plan to improve that state’s capacity;    publish the SRF findings so that the public will know how well state  regulators are enforcing authorized programs and protecting public health  and the environmental conditions in their communities; and   conduct a performance assessment similar to SRF for regional  enforcement programs. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and  authorized state agencies work together to deploy resources, plan, set  priorities, and define roles and responsibilities for enforcement of and  compliance with environmental programs consistent with federal  requirements, we (1) identified the federal resources provided to EPA  regions and states for enforcement between 1997 and 2006, and obtained  EPA regional and states’ views on the adequacy of these resources to  implement their activities; (2) determined EPA’s progress in improving  priority setting and enforcement planning with its regions and authorized  states; and (3) examined EPA efforts to improve its oversight of states’  enforcement and compliance programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces the nation's environmental laws through its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). OECA sets overall enforcement policies and through its 10 regions oversees state agencies authorized to implement environmental programs consistent with federal requirements. GAO was asked to (1) identify trends in federal resources to regions and states for enforcement between 1997 and 2006, and determine regions' and states' views on the adequacy of these resources; (2) determine EPA's progress in improving priority setting and enforcement planning with states; and (3) examine EPA's efforts to improve oversight of states' enforcement programs and identify additional actions EPA could take to ensure more consistent state performance and oversight. GAO examined information from all 10 regions and 10 authorized states, among other things.

What GAO Found

Overall funding to regions and authorized states increased from 1997 through 2006, but these increases did not keep pace with inflation and the growth in enforcement responsibilities. Over the 10-year period, EPA's enforcement funding to the regions decreased 8 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. Regional officials said they reduced the number of enforcement staff by about 5 percent. EPA's grants to states to implement federal environmental programs also declined by 9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms while enforcement and other environmental program responsibilities increased. According to state officials, reductions in grant funds have limited their ability to meet EPA's requests to implement new requirements. For example, according to New York State officials responsible for the hazardous waste program, a reduction in EPA grants between 1997 and 2006 has meant a 38 percent reduction in the full-time state staff supported by federal funding for this program. However, EPA information on the workload and staffing needs of its regions and the states is incomplete, and, thus, it is not possible with existing data to determine their overall capacity to meet their enforcement responsibilities. EPA has made substantial progress in improving priority setting and enforcement planning with states through its system for setting national enforcement priorities and the EPA/state National Environmental Partnership System (NEPPS), which have fostered a more cooperative relationship. For example, on states' recommendation, OECA accepted as a priority ensuring that facilities handling hazardous substances, such as lead or mercury, have the financial resources to close their facilities, clean up contamination, and compensate communities and individuals affected by the contamination. EPA and states have also made some progress in using NEPPS for joint planning and resource allocation. State participation in the partnership grew from 6 pilot states in fiscal year 1996 to 41 states in fiscal year 2006. EPA has improved its oversight of state enforcement programs by implementing the State Review Framework (SRF) as a means to perform a consistent approach for overseeing the programs. Moreover, EPA can make additional progress by addressing weaknesses that the SRF reviews identified and by implementing other improvements to ensure oversight that is more consistent. For example, the SRF reviews show that EPA has limited ability to determine whether the states are performing timely, appropriate enforcement and whether penalties are applied to environmental violators in a fair and consistent manner within and among the states. In addition, GAO noted that EPA could make further use of the SRF to (1) determine the root causes of poorly performing programs; (2) inform the public about how well the states are implementing their enforcement responsibilities; and (3) extend the use of the SRF methodology to assess the performance of EPA's regions, which have been inconsistent in their enforcement and oversight efforts.