Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

Ohio is facing a $8 billion dollar budget gap.  Governor-elect Kasich has stressed the need to streamline state government as part of solving the budget crisis as well as making government more efficient. 

During his campaign he already announced one very creative proposal to eliminate the Ohio Dept. of Development.  Could an idea being tested in other states- combining State environmental programs-be a proposal worth considering in Ohio? 

Good in Theory?

A brief overview of the current state structure suggests combining responsibilities would gain efficiencies.  Similar functions and staff with similar capabilities are spread across five different state agencies. 

Combining functions and potentially agencies could benefit those organizations.  Greater efficiency is not only good for business, its good for agencies that are constantly fighting for funding to support their programs.

The counter argument is that combining large government agencies you run the danger of creating even a larger bureaucracy.  Not only could there be even more layers of management the organization could become too large to effectively manage. 

An Overview of the Current Ohio Structure

Most environmental regulatory functions are split between the Ohio EPA and the Dept. of Natural Resources.  However,  there are clean up, regulatory and grant programs related to the environment spread across a total of five different state agencies. 

Here is just a quick look at various functions that have commonalities and are divided up between multiple agencies.

Brownfield Redevelopment and Clean Up

• Clean Ohio Program- divided between Ohio Dept. of Development and Ohio EPA

Federal Water Pollution Permitting Programs

• Combined Animal Feeding Operations NPDES (Clean Water Act) permit program-  Department of Agriculture
• NPDES (Clean Water Act) permit program- Ohio EPA

Litter and Recycling

• Division of Soil & Water Resources (Previously Divisions of Soil & Water Conservation and Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention)- ODNR
• Division of Solid Waste Management (manages Solid Waste Management District recycling efforts)- Ohio EPA

Wetlands

• Environmental Review Program (Wetlands)- ODNR
• Division of Surface Water (401 and Isolated Wetlands Permitting)- Ohio EPA

Ground Water Management

• Ground water well information (within Division of Soil & Water Resources)- ODNR
• Division of Drinking and Ground Waters- Ohio EPA

Surface Water and Lake Erie

• Soil and Water Conservation programs - ODNR
• Coastal Zone Management Program - ODNR
• Great Lake Compact Program (Under development)- ODNR
• Lake Erie grants program- Lake Erie Commission
• Surface water Lake Erie Unit- Ohio EPA
• Surface water regulatory and permitting programs- Ohio EPA

Underground Storage Tanks

• Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks (BUSTR)- regulation and clean up of releases of hazardous substances from USTs- Dept. of Commerce
• Clean up of hazardous substances un-related to USTs- Ohio EPA
  Diesel Engine Grant Programs

Diesel Emission Reduction Programs

• Diesel Emission Reduction Grant Program- Ohio Dept. of Development
• School bus diesel emission grant program- Ohio EPA

The list of similar functions spread across multiple agencies is probably longer.   In addition to similar regulatory functions, each of these agencies maintain their own Information Technology Offices, HR, Motor Pools, Facilities Management, Press Offices and Director's Offices.  Combining support offices could also gain efficiencies.

Not a Budget Fix

After modifications to its funding strategy, Ohio EPA utilizes no general revenue funds to support its programs.  ODNR has substantially reduced its reliance on GRF.  So combining agencies is not going to do much to fix the $8 billion dollar budget hole.

However, both agencies (as well as the other three agencies) assess multiple fees to business to support their programs.  These fees have regularly been increased to support rising human resource expenses within the Agencies.  Fees, while imposing costs on businesses, have traditionally not received the same political attention as GRF.

While streamlining and combining functions may not solve the $8 billion budget hole, it could avoid or reduce the need to raise fees on businesses. 

For a discussion of what has occurred in other states...continue reading.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Many of the Midwest states, including Ohio, face significant state budget shortfalls- Ohio faces a projected $8 billion dollar hole in its next budget.  With the shortfalls, is very unlikely additional revenue will be available to support existing programs.

The state budget crisis occurs at the same time U.S. EPA has been very active in revising federal air quality standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards- NAAQS).  As a result of changes to federal standards, states face a massive workload in the next few years on air quality issues. 

Below is a chart showing all of the revised federal air quality standards.  In response to each new standards, the states must develop plans for reducing emissions to show compliance with the revised standards (State Implementation Plans- SIPs).  In the next four years, States will be required to develop at least five new SIPs.

Preparation of SIPs is important work that can have wide ranging impacts on the economy.   If additional regulations to reduce air pollution are necessary, these new regulations increase compliance costs for businesses. 

In determining whether additional regulatory programs are needed, states and U.S. EPA rely upon air quality modeling.  Using air qualify modeling to evaluate alternatives is complex work and sometimes modeling can be inaccurate.

When Ohio EPA evaluated options for Cleveland to attain the 1997 ozone standard (85 ppt), modeling predicted no combination of controls could bring the area into compliance. After an intensive effort by multiple parties (locals, Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA) it was determined Cleveland did not need to adopt aggressive controls to comply because the modeling was either:

1. Underestimating the benefits of some existing pollution reduction programs; or
2. Data regarding emissions from existing sources in the modeling was outdated.

With states facing budget shortfalls and unprecedented amounts of air quality work, one has to question whether a similar effort could be undertaken in the next couple of years.  If that is not the case, decisions on costly new controls could be based on inaccurate or incomplete data. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks