Chief
08-11-2008, 07:13 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/374396_ecology11.html
Fees now fund less than half of staff necessary to monitor pollution
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER
When the Department of Ecology – the state agency that watches over polluters – recently tallied how many folks it needed to protect the health of Puget Sound and local lakes and rivers, officials came to a startling conclusion.
The number of people policing water quality is less than half what's needed to do the job.
Statewide, there are more than 6,500 construction sites, sewage treatment plants, machine shops, sand and gravel businesses and others holding permits limiting how much they can pollute. But there are only about 114 Ecology staffers to oversee them. The department estimates that about 280 employees are needed.
"The permits are really important; it's really our core work," said Sandy Howard, Ecology's Water Quality Program spokeswoman. "They're our primary tool for preventing pollution."
The trouble is that funding comes almost entirely from fees collected from the businesses and governments participating in the program.
Ecology is limited by public initiatives and state laws as to how fast and by how much the fees can be raised. Over the years, the fees haven't kept up with program costs as the permits have become increasingly complex and controversial, frequently resulting in lengthy court battles that chew up scarce resources.
"This is a program that is not just underfunded, it's critically underfunded to the point that there are aspects of the program that are dysfunctional," said Bruce Wishart, policy director for People for Puget Sound, an environmental group.
"Their ability to do compliance and enforcement work is severely compromised," he said. "We have a very serious problem on our hands."
The situation has become so dire that in January Ecology convened a task force that includes Wishart and representatives of the businesses, state agencies and local governments holding permits. They're working on a short-term fix to get more money for the program as quickly as possible as well as a permanent funding solution.
The shortfall has meant cuts in the number of people writing permits that set pollution limits, staff who provide technical support for solving pollution problems, and inspectors dropping in on permittees to make sure they're following the rules, said Kelly Susewind, interim director of Ecology's Water Quality Program. He said the program is still doing its job, but not as well as it could.
But many task force members want better accounting of how large a staff is really justified. And there's no consensus on who should pay to cover the gap. In the 2008 fiscal year, $17.4 million in fees were collected. It's unlikely the state's general fund would be tapped; last week Gov. Chris Gregoire ordered a hiring freeze and other budget cuts for state agencies.
**SCHNIPP**
I've got real mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the State has set standards for Ecology to enforce, and failed to provide the necessary funding to support that effort. That's typical of so many things, where the Gubment passes some good sounding legislation, but the enforcement turns out to be too expensive or onerous to comply with.
On the other hand, we have local organizations, Like the Port of Vancouver, who work with Ecology, but carry the burden of cleanup and long term monitoring themselves. If Fruit Valley had been forced to wait until the Department of Ecology came in and paid to clean up the TCE plume, most of those homes would likely be abandoned by now. Ecology assists the Port of Vancouver, but it is the Staff down there who carries the ball on the actual cleanup work.
So is the answer to simply double the Staff at Ecology? Should the entire program be overhauled to see what level of regulations we really need and can afford?? Should Ecology be forced to live within it's present budget??
A whole lot of important questions and no easy answers.
Fees now fund less than half of staff necessary to monitor pollution
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER
When the Department of Ecology – the state agency that watches over polluters – recently tallied how many folks it needed to protect the health of Puget Sound and local lakes and rivers, officials came to a startling conclusion.
The number of people policing water quality is less than half what's needed to do the job.
Statewide, there are more than 6,500 construction sites, sewage treatment plants, machine shops, sand and gravel businesses and others holding permits limiting how much they can pollute. But there are only about 114 Ecology staffers to oversee them. The department estimates that about 280 employees are needed.
"The permits are really important; it's really our core work," said Sandy Howard, Ecology's Water Quality Program spokeswoman. "They're our primary tool for preventing pollution."
The trouble is that funding comes almost entirely from fees collected from the businesses and governments participating in the program.
Ecology is limited by public initiatives and state laws as to how fast and by how much the fees can be raised. Over the years, the fees haven't kept up with program costs as the permits have become increasingly complex and controversial, frequently resulting in lengthy court battles that chew up scarce resources.
"This is a program that is not just underfunded, it's critically underfunded to the point that there are aspects of the program that are dysfunctional," said Bruce Wishart, policy director for People for Puget Sound, an environmental group.
"Their ability to do compliance and enforcement work is severely compromised," he said. "We have a very serious problem on our hands."
The situation has become so dire that in January Ecology convened a task force that includes Wishart and representatives of the businesses, state agencies and local governments holding permits. They're working on a short-term fix to get more money for the program as quickly as possible as well as a permanent funding solution.
The shortfall has meant cuts in the number of people writing permits that set pollution limits, staff who provide technical support for solving pollution problems, and inspectors dropping in on permittees to make sure they're following the rules, said Kelly Susewind, interim director of Ecology's Water Quality Program. He said the program is still doing its job, but not as well as it could.
But many task force members want better accounting of how large a staff is really justified. And there's no consensus on who should pay to cover the gap. In the 2008 fiscal year, $17.4 million in fees were collected. It's unlikely the state's general fund would be tapped; last week Gov. Chris Gregoire ordered a hiring freeze and other budget cuts for state agencies.
**SCHNIPP**
I've got real mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the State has set standards for Ecology to enforce, and failed to provide the necessary funding to support that effort. That's typical of so many things, where the Gubment passes some good sounding legislation, but the enforcement turns out to be too expensive or onerous to comply with.
On the other hand, we have local organizations, Like the Port of Vancouver, who work with Ecology, but carry the burden of cleanup and long term monitoring themselves. If Fruit Valley had been forced to wait until the Department of Ecology came in and paid to clean up the TCE plume, most of those homes would likely be abandoned by now. Ecology assists the Port of Vancouver, but it is the Staff down there who carries the ball on the actual cleanup work.
So is the answer to simply double the Staff at Ecology? Should the entire program be overhauled to see what level of regulations we really need and can afford?? Should Ecology be forced to live within it's present budget??
A whole lot of important questions and no easy answers.