SUMMARY REPORT
A NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE
DELEGATED CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Prepared for
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Larry Walker Associates
January 1981
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
A NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE
DELEGATED CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Prepared for
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/•
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Contract No. 68-03-2674, Task 93
EPA Project Officer Albert Pelmoter
Larry Walker Associates
January 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRDDUCTIOJ 1-1
Background 1-1
Purposes of the Evaluation 1-1
Conduct of the Evaluation 1-2
Acknowledgements 1-3
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
Summary 2-1
Recommendations 2-10
CHAPTER 3 STATUS OF DELEGATION 3-1
The Delegation Process 3-1
Delegated States 3-4
Status of State Assumption of Delegable Functions 3-7
CHAPTER 4 EPA REGIONAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE UNDER DELEGATION 4-1
Progress Toward Delegation 4-2
Organizational Structure and Resources 4-7
Regional Management of the Delegated Program . . 4-11
Grants Processing Procedures 4-15
Processing Times for Regional Reviews 4-21
Regional Monitoring of State Performance .... 4-26
Overall Regional Office Performance 4-29
-------
CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DELEGATED
STATES 5-1
Organizational Structure and Resources 5-1
State Management of the Delegated Program . . . 5-9
State Grants Processing Procedures 5-18
Quality of State Reviews 5-23
Processing Times for State Reviews 5-26
Overall State Performance 5-31
CHAPTER 6 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DELEGATED CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 6-1
Operational Problems with Delegation 6-2
Problems Associated with the Law and
Regulations 6-13
Program Needs 6-26
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
3-1 STATUS OF STATE DELEGATIONS 3-5
3-2 STATUS OF STATE ASSUMPTION
OF DELEGABLE FUNTIONS 3-8
3-3 SCHEDULE FOR FULL DELEGATION 3-11
4-1 TIME FOR FULL STATE ASSUMPTION
OF ALL DELEGABLE FUNCTIONS 4-4
4-2 PROCESSING TIMES FOR REGIONAL REVIEWS 4-22
4-3 SUMMARY OF REGIONAL OFFICE MONITORING
OF DELEGATED STATES 4-31
5-1 SUMMARY OF STATE INTERACTION ON
INDIVIDUAL GRANT PROJECTS 5-21
5-2 PROCESSING TIMES FOR STATE REVIEWS 5-30
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
5-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE STAFFING
LEVELS AND ANNUAL ALLOCATION 5-4
111
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In passing the Clean Water Act of 1977 (the Act) ,
Congress provided for and, in fact, encouraged the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate day-to-day ad-
ministration of the construction grants program to inter-
ested and qualified states. By early 1980, two thirds of
the states had entered into delegation agreements with
EPA, and a number of other states were in the process of
negotiating agreements.
About this time, the EPA Office of Water Program Oper-
ations decided to conduct a nationwide evaluation of the
delegated program. The primary impetus behind this was
EPA's interest in assuring that delegation be successfully
implemented, and its desire to identify any problems that
may be developing so they can be corrected at an early
stage.
PURPOSES OF THE EVALUATION
The specific purposes of the evaluation were as follows:
1. To determine the status of delegation in each state
and region.
2. To evaluate the EPA regional offices' performance
of functions related to delegation.
3. To evaluate the performance of the delegated states.
4. To identify any problems and needs that are devel-
oping.
1-1
-------
5. To develop recommendations for improving the ad-
ministration of the delegated program.
The evaluation, while it served as a fact finding in-
vestigation on the one hand, was strongly oriented towards
the development of recommendations for improving the dele-
gated construction grants program at the state, the region-
al office, and the EPA Headquarters levels.
CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION
The authors visited each of the ten EPA regional offices
and one delegated state within each region to gather the in-
formation necessary to perform this evaluation. Generally,
two days were spent in each regional office and three days
in each state office.
The following states were visited:
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Connecticut
New York
Maryland
Georgia
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Montana
Arizona
Idaho
These states were selected by the respective regions
under general guidance from EPA Headquarters. The objec-
tive was to visit the states which had progressed the
furthest towards full delegation. This criterion was used
with the idea that problems and needs were more likely to
1-2
-------
be apparent in these states than in states which were just
beginning to assume the program.
During both the regional office and state visits, in-
formation was gathered on delegation status/ organizational
characteristics, management and operating procedures, and
work products. Regional office .and state views on program
problems and needs also were solicited.
In conjunction with these visits, the performance of
each region and state was evaluated, using criteria agreed
to in advance by EPA Headquarters. Individual reports
evaluating each regional office and state were then prepar-
ed. Each region and state was given an opportunity to
review and comment on the draft report before it was final-
ized and submitted to EPA Headquarters.
Subsequently, the present report was prepared, evaluat-
ing the delegated program from a national perspective.
This report summarizes the findings of the individual
field evaluations, identifies program-wide problems and
needs, and contains recommendations for improving adminis-
tration of the delegated program. The second chapter
contains a summary of the report and the recommendations.
The third chapter contains a discussion of the status of de-
legation throughout the country. The fourth chapter con-
tains a generalized evaluation of the performance of the
EPA regional offices under delegation. The fifth chapter
contains a generalized evaluation of the states' performance
in administering the delegated program. Finally, the sixth
chapter contains a discussion of programwide problems and
needs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the assist-
ance and cooperation of the various EPA regional office
1-3
-------
staffs and the state staffs during the conduct of this
investigation. Without exception these individuals gave
considerably of their valuable time, and they were coopera-
tive, constructive and open in their comments. Without
such cooperation and openness this evaluation would not
have been possible.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the help and
assistance of Mr. Albert Pelmoter, the EPA project officer
on this evaluation. Mr. Pelmoter is the Chief of the Policy
Guidance Branch of the Municipal Construction Division within
the Office of Water Program Operations.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a summary of the findings of the
national evaluation of the delegated construction grants
program, and of the recommendations which have been formula-
ted to improve overall administration of the delegated
program. The points outlined below are more fully discussed
in the remainder of this report.
SUMMARY
Status of Delegation
1. The process of delegating full authority to admin-
ister the program to the states is a lengthy one, requiring
considerable time and effort of both the regional offices
and the states. It is not a quick process in cases where
everything goes well, and usually at least some problems
are encountered. It is therefore not surprising that/
three years after passage of the 1977 Clean Water Act, no
state has yet taken over the program in its entirety. In
fact/ only about a third of the delegated states are admin-
istering the bulk of the delegable functions.
2. To date, 37 states (or 74% of all states) have en-
tered into delegation agreements with their respective EPA
regional offices. These delegated states coincidently re-
ceive 75% of the annual appropriation under the current
allotment formula and they have 74% of the active grant
projects.
3. Of the 13 non-delegated states, 5 states are cur-
rently negotiating delegation agreements and will likely
receive delegation in Fiscal Year 1981. Two other states
are interested in delegation and are pursuing it with
2-1
-------
their respective regions; they will likely receive delega-
tion within the next year or two. The 6 remaining states
are not pursuing delegation at this time primarily because
of the resource implications. In these states, the current
administration has policies against expanding state staff,
irrespective of the source of funds. It is unlikely that
any of these states will receive delegation within the
next several years.
4. Most delegated states are in the process of transi-
tion. While the delegated states are taking over adminis-
tration of numerous delegable activities from the EPA
regional offices, the regional offices are still adminis-
tering significant functions in 24 of the 37 delegated
states. In addition, under separate agreements with the
regions, the Corps of Engineers is performing construction
inspections and related construction activities in 33 of
the 37 delegated states. So at the present time, in most
delegated states, the regions, the Corps of Engineers,
and the states are involved in performing functions related
to individual grant projects.
5. Within a year, 27 of the 37 presently delegated
states will have taken over all delegable functions except
those construction related activities typically performed
by the Corps of Engineers.
6. It is likely that Corps of Engineers involvement
will continue in most states into the foreseeable future.
At present, only 4 states have taken over construction
inspections and related activities typically performed by
the Corps of Engineers. Only 2 additional states plan to
take over these activities within the next year. The re-
maining states do not plan to take over Corps of Engineers
performed activities until they can be assured, through
Section 205(g) of the Act, of reliable and adequate funding.
Recent amendments to Section 205(g) will greatly increase
the reliability of funding, but there remains a question
2-2
-------
as to whether the current 2% level will be adequate to
allow some states to take over these activities.
EPA Regional Office Performance Under Delegation
1. The regions have been quite aggressive in pursuing
delegation agreements with interested states. While the re-
gions may have proceeded cautiously with states having little
prior experience in the program, in general they were able to
negotiate agreements acceptable to both parties. As stated
previously, the likelihood that 6 states will not negotiate
agreements is due primarily to state administration policies,
and is not a reflection of the regional offices' efforts.
2. The rate at which specific delegable functions have
been turned over to delegated states has varied considerably,
with many states assuming all of the delegable functions
(except those typically performed by the Corps of Engineers)
within about a year and a half after execution of a delega-
tion agreement. In other cases this has taken up to three
years. The authors feel that, in several regions, the
current delegation schedules can be accelerated, though in
most cases they appear reasonable.
3. Some delegation agreements do not provide for dele-
gation of all delegable functions. Examples of functions
not included in some agreements are Minority Business
Enterprises (MBE), Grants Information and Control System
(GICS), official project files and payments.
4. There have been some outstanding examples of train-
ing provided by the regions to delegated states, but in
general the training provided has been rather modest.
5. The present organizational structures in the re-
gions, though adequate prior to delegation and even during
the current transition period, are generally not well suited
for operation under a fully delegated system. The major pro-
blems are that most regions divide responsibility for a given
2-3
-------
state among several organizational units and most organiza-
tional structures do not reflect the need for specialized
monitoring of delegated state performance.
6. The resources currently employed by the regional
offices for administration of the delegated program appear
adequate, given the present status of delegation. As states
assume all of the legally delegable functions, regional re-
sources currently employed to perform these functions can be
reduced. At the same time, however, resources for overseeing
and coordinating the program with the states and for monitor-
ing the performance of delegated states will have to be
increased.
7. The regions generally employ sound management
practices in terms of administering the delegated program,
though there are needs for improved management information
systems and for the establishment of regular and formalized
communications with each of the delegated states.
8. Only one region currently is employing grants
processing procedures consistent with the concept of dele-
gation and in a way that results in the achievement of
benefits conceived to be associated with delegation. Other
regions are still making the transition from a non-delega-
ted to a fully delegated mode of operation. While these
regions are moving in the right direction, they generally
are receiving more information and documents than they
really need on individual projects, and they generally are
not accepting state certifications without at least some
review. On the positive side, there appears to be little
if any second-guessing of state decisions by the regions.
9. Regional office processing of state certified grant
awards and their issuance of findings of no significant im-
pact (FNSI's) needs to become more efficient. While regional
office processing times for grant awards have been reduced
on the average by 42% since delegation, they are still higher
than necessary. The combined processing time for the three
2-4
-------
grant awards (Steps 1, 2, and 3) averages 127 days, whereas
the authors believe a total combined processing time of
between 15 and 30 days is possible for these three awards.
10. The regions are not yet doing a fully adequate job
of monitoring the performance of delegated states. Four re-
gions (at the time of the field visits) had performed no
monitoring at all. Most of the monitoring that had been
performed, while detailed and constructive, was narrow in
perspective. Most of the monitoring focussed on determin-
ing state compliance with the processing procedures outlined
in the delegation agreement. Few monitoring programs have
taken an in depth look at the quality or processing times
of the state's reviews, or at the state's overall manage-
ment of the delegated program.
State Performance Under Delegation
1. On an overall basis, states appear to be doing a
good job of administering the delegated program.
2. The states appear to have adequate resources and
acceptable organizational structures to administer the pro-
gram considering where the states presently are in delega-
tion. There are several isolated cases in which resource
levels need to be increased and there are several situations
where organizational structures need to be improved. These,
however, are relatively minor in significance.
3. The management staffs at the state level appear to
be quite capable of managing the program. Most of the state
managers, however, at this point in time, appear to be focus-
sing their attention on taking over the delegated functions
and on dealing with problems and issues associated with
individual grant projects. Few state managers have been
able to focus attention on managing the program as a whole.
4. State managers could benefit from the development
of certain additional management tools, such as a management
2-5
-------
information system, a project tracking system, and a program
planning system. States would also benefit from regular and
formalized communications with the EPA regional office and
some formalized means of communications with grantees and
consultants.
5. The grants processing procedures employed by the
states appear generally to be adequate and in conformance
with the procedures identified in the delegation agreements.
Only 3 of 10 states visited, however, actively deal with
grantees and consultants during the preparation stage of
facilities plans, and plans and specifications. Most states
wait until drafts of final products are completed until re-
views are made and input provided.
6. State reviews of both facilities plans, and plans
and specifications appear to be of very good quality. They
are generally thorough and substantive in nature and will
likely lead to better, more cost-effective projects. Only
in 1 state was a clear deficiency noted (in the review of
plans and specifications), while in 2 other states, reviews
of inconsistent quality were noted (in one state relative
to plans and specifications and in the other relative to
facilities plans).
7. State processing times are generally in need of
improvement. With several exceptions, states do not appear
to be focussing attention on the time spent on their
reviews. In several states, total processing times for
the 5 main state reviews are approaching 2 years. The
authors believe total processing times for these reviews
in the order of 8 months is achieveable, given proper
attention and the implementation of certain management
practices.
Problems and Needs Associated with the Delegated Program
1. The objectives which prompted Congress to encourage
2-6
-------
delegation have not, as yet, been achieved: optimal use
of state and federal resources has not yet been achieved;
duplication has not totally been eliminated; management
of the program has not yet been decentralized and the speed
of processing grant projects has not been adequately in-
creased. The primary reason why these objectives have not
been fully achieved is that delegation is not yet fully
implemented. Beyond this reason, there are other factors
contributing to the lack of achievement of Congressional
objectives. Some of these factors are operational in
nature and can be corrected through modification of manage-
ment practices and procedures. Several others, however,
are built into the law and the regulations and will require
amendments to those documents to correct.
2. While the transition towards full delegation is well
along in most states, the potential benefits of delegation,
in terms of elimination of duplication and optimal use of
federal and state resources, will not be realized until the
delegation process is completed. Short of full delegation,
EPA duplication of states' efforts, and EPA resource needs
will be proportionally greater than is suggested by the
achieved degree of delegation. Likewise, decentralization
of management will not come until the delegation process
is completed.
3. The involvement of the Corps of Engineers in the
delegated program, if not handled properly, can impair
achievement of the objective of decentralizing management
of the program. The basic problems are that the Corps of
Engineers has agreements with the EPA regions and not with
the states, and the Corps of Engineers feels it must deal
officially through the regions. The states generally,
therefore, are not totally responsible for the construction
aspects of the program. The exceptions occur when states
take over all Step 3 activities from the Corps of Engineers
or when states pursue and assume responsibility for the
2-7
-------
Step 3 portion of the program even though the Corps performs
many of the activities. In the usual case, however, respon-
sibility appears to be divided between the regions, the
Corps of Engineers, and the states.
4. The way in which new program requirements are typic-
ally implemented also impedes achievement of full delega-
tion and the resulting benefits. Typically, regional of-
fices administer new program requirements until the delega-
tion agreements can be amended to outline detailed proced-
ures for the new requirements. As this process generally
takes considerable time and as new requirements are common,
as long as this process is perpetuated, total delegation
of all delegable functions to the states will never quite
occur. Therefore, to some extent, unnecessary duplication
and time delays will continue to be problems.
5. The increasingly common practice of leaving por-
tions of the responsibility for administering new program
requirements at the regional level is another problem
impeding the achievement of the objectives of delegation.
Examples are reviews associated with advanced waste treat-
ment, MBE, and Section 316A of the Clean Air Act. Not
delegating project-related review functions, for whatever
reason, detracts from achievement of the potential benefits
of delegation and from the original objectives for which
delegation was designed.
6. The fact that certain project-related functions are
non-delegable, as per EPA regulations, causes duplication of
effort and time delays, and does not appear to result in any
benefits over having the states take full responsibility for
these functions. Examples of non-delegable functions in-
clude civil rights determinations, grant awards, grant
amendments, wage rate determinations, bid protests, resolu-
tion of audit exceptions, and issuance of FNSI's. Such
functions could successfully be taken over by the states.
2-8
-------
7. In several regions, the issue of whether the re-
gions or states have responsibility for interpreting federal
regulations and policies has arisen. Related to this
issue, a few regions have attempted to impose policies
more restrictive than federal policies on delegated states,
raising objections from the states involved.
8. The funding available to delegated states through
Section 205(g) of the Act appears to be inadequate to allow
some states to assume the construction inspection and related
activities typically performed by the Corps of Engineers.
Three of the ten states visited by the authors were operat-
ing at budget levels in excess of their annual Section
205(g) allotment (the states borrowed from reserved funds
to make up this deficit). The recent amendments to the
Act, tying Section 205(g) funding to the authorizations in
the Act will provide near term relief for the deficiency;
however, over the longer term, especially if appropriation
levels approach authorization levels, the 2% funding level
will be inadequate.
9. The fact that EPA will have to continue indefinitely
to administer the construction grants program in a small
minority of non-delegated states will result in inefficien-
cies from a national perspective. Approximately 5 regions
will be administering the program in two ways: fully
administering the program in one state, and overseeing a
fully delegated program in all the other states. Because
only a few states (6) will remain non-delegated, it may be
advantageous for EPA to either press for delegation in
these states or develop an alternative means of administer-
ing the non-delegated program in these states. Relief
from direct administration of the program in all states
would allow EPA to focus its full attention on the broader
responsibilities of overviewing the program from a regional
and national perspective, and insuring that national water
pollution control objectives are being achieved. Where
2-9
-------
Section 205(g) agreements can't be-negotiated, it would be
advantageous for EPA to get the States to perform certain
grant processing activities under section 106 agreements.
1(K EPA Headquarters needs to develop an oversight
program to insure that each regional office is fulfilling
its responsibility under delegation and that the national
program is achieving the objectives for which it was design-
ed.
11. One of the major challenges which EPA Headquarters
faces under delegation is how to gain access to the knowledge
that the states will be gathering as they administer the
program on a day-to-day basis, so that EPA can do an effect-
ive job of directing the national program. This will not
be an easy task given the fact that approximately 40 states
will be administering the program. Without question, the
states have to play a stronger advisory role than they have
in the past. A key question, however, given the nature of
the delegation to the states, is whether the states should
be given a role stronger than just an advisory role, for
example, whether they should be given a role in program
management.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section contains the recommendations that have been
developed as a result of the evaluation of the delegated
construction grants program. Implementation of these recom-
mendations will lead to improved administration of the dele-
gated program and will allow achievement of the objectives
for which the delegated program was designed, namely:
• Optimal use of state and federal resources.
• Elimination of duplication at the state and
federal level.
• Decentralization of management of the program.
• Speeding up the processing of grant projects.
2-10
-------
The recommendations have been listed under the agencies
that will be responsible for their implementation: either
the states, the EPA regional offices, or EPA Headquarters.
Further, the recommendations have been prioritized into three
classes, Priority 1, 2, or 3. Priority 1 recommendations are
considered the.most critical to the success of the delegated
program and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Priority 2 recommendations are important and will lead to
significant improvement of the delegated program, but are
not so critical that they have to be implemented immediately.
Priority 3 recommendations are actions that will lead to
desirable refinements of the program and will assist in
the achievement of the original objectives of delegation,
but their implementation is not as critical as Priority 1
and 2 recommendations. It would not be critical if imple-
mentation of these recommendations was deferred for several
years.
Recommendations for Delegated States
1. Focus increased attention on managing the construc-
tion grants program within the state as opposed to focussing
only on managing the performance of delegated functions and
the processing of projects. The objective in this regard
should be to manage the program in a way that best facili-
tates achievements of the goals of the Clean Water Act.
In addition, states should strive to administer the program
in a manner that maintains program integrity and public
trust (Priority 1).
2. Develop a management information system which pro-
vides program managers with the information they need to
make sound program management decisions. Specifically, a
monthly management report should be developed which identi-
fies what has been accomplished over the past year, the
current status of the program, and future projections of
2-11
-------
key items such as obligations, awards, etc. (Priority 2).
3. State program managers should break away periodi-
cally from the day-to-day pressures of the program to look
and plan ahead. The development of annual program goals
and objectives either through the use of a management by
objectives approach or the State EPA agreement process is
recommended (Priority 2).
4. States should get more aggressive in terms of track-
ing and expediting grant projects. State project managers
should be charged with closely tracking the projects for
which they are responsible, and with taking aggressive
action to keep the projects on schedule (Priority 1).
5. In order to assist in tracking and expediting pro-
jects, each state should develop and implement a project
tracking system suited to the state's needs. This system
should provide for the development of detailed and realistic
time schedules for each active project, routine monitoring
of the actual progress of projects in comparison to the sche-
dules, and regular updating of the schedules. The imple-
mentation of the project tracking system can be phased,
starting initially with a manually maintained tracking
system for key projects and eventually going to a computer-
ized system (if warranted) for all projects (Priority 1).
6. Become more actively involved with consultants and
grantees during the facilities planning and design processes.
The thrust of this involvement should be to assist grantees
and consultants in producing an acceptable product, avoiding
common pitfalls and minimizing wasted effort. To accomplish
this, the states should maintain regular contact with con-
sultants and grantees during planning and design phases,
and whenever possible, review and comment on intermediate
products. In the facilities planning phase, the state
should review population and waste load projections as
they are developed, review proposed alternatives before
they are evaluated, review cost-effective analyses before
2-12
-------
recommended plans are selected, and finally, review draft
facilities plans before local public hearings are held.
In the design phase, the state should review a detailed
preliminary design report early in the design process, an
intermediate set of plans and specifications at approxi-
mately the mid-point of design, and a set of preliminary
or nearly complete plans and specifications (Priority 1).
7. Focus greater attention on reducing state proces-
sing times. Specifically, states should develop processing
time goals for all significant reviews and approvals, charge
staff with processing documents in accordance with those
goals, and routinely monitor actual performance against
the goals. Also, states should be more aggressive in
getting grantees to respond to state comments within a
reasonable time period (Priority 1) .
8. Implement jointly with the EPA regional office
regularly scheduled management meetings between the grants
program managers within each organization. These meetings
should be designed to keep lines of communication open and
should be used to discuss such things as new program re-
quirements, program status, major program issues, projects
of interest to EPA, anticipated outputs over the coming
months, problems being encountered, etc. (Priority 1).
9. Establish a formalized means of communication with
consultants, grantees and others having an interest in the
program. Such communications should address issues on a
broader scope than the project-by-project and issue-by-issue
communications which typically take place on individual
projects. The development of an advisory committee repre-
senting the various interests in the program, and the
publication of newsletters and/or grants bulletins should
be considered (Priority 2 in larger states and Priority 3
in smaller states).
10. Pursue responsibility for the entire program,
including the construction portion of the program. Where
2-13
-------
the Corps of Engineers is performing construction-related
activities, the states can still assume overall responsi-
bility for the construction part of the program, i.e. the
state can oversee and coordinate the activities of the
Corps of Engineers. A good way to accomplish this is to
have a construction management coordinator in a smaller
state, or, in a larger state, a construction management
unit (Priority 1).
11. Seek all delegable functions associated with the
program. Do not hold back on taking certain functions be-
cause of a disagreement over the policy behind the function
(Priority 1).
12. Actively support amendments to Section 205(g) of
the Act which would provide a more adequate amount of admin-
istrative funds for delegated states (Priority 2).
Recommendations for EPA Regional Offices
1. Delegate all legally delegable functions to the
delegated states, including preparation of federal grant
offers and environmental assessments, the official project
files, GICS and the processing of payments (Priority 1).
2. Examine the phase-in schedules for all delegated
states to insure that delegation is moving as rapidly as
possible, compressing existing schedules wherever possible
(Priority 1).
3. For newly delegated states, phase delegation of
individual functions so that entire blocks of functions
(as opposed to discreet disconnected functions) are dele-
gated. For example, do not delegate some of the functions
associated with processing a Step 1 application package
without delegating all of the functions associated with
that action; similarly, do not delegate some of the func-
tions associated with the review of facilities plans without
delegating all associated functions (Priority 2).
2-14
-------
4. When a new requirement is imposed on the program,
the states should administer the new requirement from the
start. It ought not to be administered initially by the
regions. Where an amendment to the delegation agreement
or a new appendix is necessary, states should initially
administer the requirement in accordance with interim pro-
cedures agreed to with the region until the amendment or
new appendix is developed. (Priority 1).
5. Encourage the states to assume all program manage-
ment responsibilitiesr including responsibility for the
Step 3 portion of the program (even though many of the
Step 3 activities are performed by the Corps of Engineers).
Relative to Step 3, this could be accomplished by encourag-
ing the Corps of Engineers to enter into an agreement with
the states, or alternatively, specifically delegating the
responsibility for managing the Step 3 portion of the
program to the states (Priority 2).
6. Devote greater resources and attention to providing
better and more intensive training and guidance to states in
advance of the scheduled dates for state assumption of dele-
gated functions (Priority 1).
7. Encourage states to develop the capablity to
interpret federal regulations and policies and to make
such interpretations as long as they are found (through
the after-the-fact monitoring program) to be consistent
with those regulations and policies. Further, do not
impose restrictive regional interpretations of national
policies on delegated states (Priority 3).
8. Reassess the region's organizational structure
and resource needs in light of the impending, fully dele-
gated mode of operation. Most regions should be ready to
implement any organizational changes prior to the end of
calendar year 1981, at which time almost 60% of the states
will be fully delegated (Priority 2).
2-15
-------
9. Develop a means of coming to agreement with dele-
gated states as to program direction, goals, and objectives,
in addition to the agreements already reached on program
resources and outputs. The State EPA agreement can be a
useful mechanism for dealing with these issues (Priority 3).
10. Develop a series of management reports (perhaps in
conjunction with other regions and headquarters) that meet
the region's needs under delegation. The availability of
a state-prepared monthly management report (previously re-
commended) will help in this regard, but will not be totally
sufficient to meet regional needs (Priority 2).
11. Implement jointly with each of the delegated
states a regular and formalized means of communication,
along the lines of a regularly scheduled management meeting.
These meetings should be used to discuss program and pro-
ject-related issues and problems, and to insure that the
regions and the states are getting the information they
need to carry out their responsibilities under delegation
(Priority 1).
12. Re-evaluate the need for regional receipt of
specific documents and information in relation to individual
grant projects. Cease receiving those documents and pieces
of information that are unnecessary to the region's func-
tioning insofar as taking the project-related actions that
it must take under delegation (Priority 2).
13. Implement a regional policy whereby after a func-
tion has been delegated, state certifications of individual
grant applications are accepted without review of supporting
documents. A relatively short, specifically defined initial
period of review is acceptable if there is some concern
about the state's ability to administer the delegated
function. Generally, however, training and guidance in
advance of delegation of specific functions is preferable
to this approach (Priority 1).
2-16
-------
14. Focus greater attention on the time expended for
regional processing of state-certified grant awards and
FNSI's. Specifically, the regions should develop time-based
goals for each of these reviews, hold staff responsible
for meeting the goals, and routinely monitor actual perfor-
mance as compared to the goals. The goals for the proces-
sing of grant awards should be in the order of 5 to 10
days each and the goals for issuance of FNSI's should be
in the order of 30 days or less (Priority 1).
15. Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation
program to insure that the delegated states are administer-
ing the program in accordance with national program goals
and in a manner that maintains program integrity and public
trust. The guidance currently being prepared by EPA can
be used as a starting point for the development of the
monitoring and evaluation program (Priority 1).
Recommendations for EPA Headquarters
1. Draft and support amendments to Section 205(g) of
the Act which would make the source of funding for the states
more adequate. Recent amendments to the Clean Water Act have
tied Section 205(g) funding to the authorizations contained
in the Act, and will make funding far more stable. However,
the 2% level will have to be increased to allow states to
assume all delegable functions (Priority 2).
2. Amend the State Management Assistance Grant Regula-
tions to allow delegation of the following functions: civil
rights determinations, final dispute determination, bid
protests, and resolution of audit exceptions. Wage rate
determinations, currently considered by many regions to be
non-delegable, also should be delegated (Priority 1).
3. Initiate actions to legalize delegation of the
signing of grant awards to the states. In the interim,
while the legal aspects of this are being worked out,
2-17
-------
initiate a procedure whereby both the region and the state
sign the grant awards (Priority 2).
4. Initiate a pilot program in several states to
delegate NEPA. Based on the results of the pilot program,
EPA should make a decision as to whether NEPA should be
delegated to the states (Priority 2).
5. Amend the national Corps of Engineers agreements
to require the Corps, of Engineers to enter into agreements
with delegated states rather than with EPA regional offices,
at the time a state has received full delegation of all
other delegable functions (Priority 2).
6. Develop a program that will lead to delegation of
all 50 states within the next several years (Priority 2).
7. Develop a policy for administering the grants pro-
gram in those states which are not interested in or are
not capable of administering the delegated program. Consider
making use of EPA-staffed field operations offices similar
to those in Region X, IPA's to the states, service centers,
or some combination of these (Priority 2).
8. Assist EPA regions in the development of management
information systems and reports that will meet their needs
under delegation (Priority 2).
9. Assist states in the development of management
information systems and reports that will allow them to
make sound program management decisions (Priority 1).
10. Assist states in the development of several model
project tracking systems. At least two models should be
developed, one for the larger states and one for the smaller
states (Priority 1).
11. Establish several management assistance teams
within EPA to assist states in improving their overall
management and administration of the delegated program.
These teams can be located either in headquarters, in
several regions, or at several "service centers". These
teams should be made up of trained and experienced people
2-18
-------
with expertize in management and administration. These teams
could also be utilized to assist the regions in improving
their management of the delegated program (Priority 3).
12. Amend the Regional Report Card System to reflect
delegation. As far as delegation is concerned, the report
card scores should reflect the regions' progress towards
delegation, regional processing times on state-certified
documents, the regions' monitoring program, and the perfor-
mance of the states within the region (Priority 1).
13. Develop an overall focus for the program, includ-
ing a clearly defined objective to work towards and a
realistic time frame in which to accomplish this objective.
The chosen objective should be the driving force behind
administration of the program at the federal, regional,
and state levels. The status of progress towards the
objective should become a measure of the success of the
program. (The 1990 Construction Grants Strategy is intended
to develop this focus)(Priority 2).
14. Develop a headquarters program to monitor and
oversee delegation (Priority 2). The program should include
the following:
• An up-to-date system that contains basic informa-
tion on the status of delegation, the budget, and
the resources associated with each delegated
state and each region (much of this information
is already maintained within OWPO).
• An annual assessment of how well each region is
performing its responsibilities under delegation
(the report card can be used to supplement this
evaluation).
• A biennial assessment of how well each state is
fulfilling its responsibilities under delegation,
drawing upon the results of regional monitoring
efforts.
2-19
-------
A means of identifying significant problems and
needs associated with delegation.
The preparation of a biennial report which sum-
marizes the above information and findings and
contains recommendations for improving the dele-
gated program. For the next several years,
an annual report would be desirable.
2-20
-------
CHAPTER 3
STATUS OF DELEGATION
This chapter describes the current status of delegation
throughout the country. It identifies which states have en-
tered into delegation agreements with EPA, and describes
the current status of state assumption of delegable func-
tions. The chapter begins with a description of the pro-
cesses and steps necessary for states to enter into delega-
tion agreements and to take over administration of all of
the delegable functions. Such background information is
valuable in assessing the status of delegation.
THE DELEGATION PROCESS
The process of delegating authority to administer the
construction grants program to the states and the subsequent
process of the states taking over all delegable functions is
not a simple one. The first requirement for delegation is
a state which is interested in delegation and, as assessed
by the respective EPA regional office, is qualified for and
capable of administering the program. In fact, a number of
states are not interested in delegation. Further, in the
case of several states, the regions have been hesitant to
delegate because of a lack of confidence in the state's
ability to run the program.
Once an EPA region and a qualified state agree to pursue
delegation, a number of actions must be taken before a dele-
gation agreement can be executed. The state must make a
work load analysis and estimate the manpower needed to
take over each aspect of the program. Next, the state
generally has to develop an appropriate organizational
structure. Finally, the state must get the concurrance of
the governor's office and the state legislature to assume
3-1
-------
delegation and to hire the staff needed to administer the
program, as indicated by the manpower analysis. Often
these requests are forwarded to the governor and legislature
in the form of a budget request during the state's normal
budget cycle.
During this time, the state and the region are normally
negotiating the terms of the general delegation agreement and
the attached appendices, which describe how the state will
perform the individual functions which are to be initially
delegated. Generally, a number of specific functions, such
as plans of study, infiltration/inflow analyses, etc., are
delegated to the state upon execution of the delegation
agreement, and the remaining functions are scheduled for
delegation over a several year period, as the state adds
and trains new staff. The delegation agreement initially
includes only those appendices which describe the functions
to be delegated upon execution of the agreement. The
drafting and negotiation of the appendices which deal with
functions to be subsequently delegated take place later,
generally just before the state's scheduled assumption of
those functions.
During negotiation of the delegation agreement, numer-
ous points of disagreement may arise between the region
and the state. These may include the sequencing of state
assumption of specific functions, the magnitude of the
state staff to be employed, and the detailed procedures
outlined in the appendices relative to each initially
delegated function. Differences in opinion between the
EPA regional office and the state over such issues can
extend the negotiation period.
From a regional perspective, the most difficulties arise
in developing the first delegation agreement. Once a region
goes through the process of developing and negotiating a
delegation agreement and appendices with one state, the
same agreement and appendices are generally used, with
3-2
-------
only minor changes, for all future delegations within the
region.
Within a given region, regional office negotiations re-
garding delegation generally start with a larger state
which has previous, significant involvement in grants pro-
gram administration, generally under a Section 106 delega-
tion agreement. (Under Section 106 of the Act, many states
were reviewing plans and specifications, operation and
maintenance manuals, and change orders.) Once the basic
agreement and the appendices are worked out with the first
state, or when negotiations are fairly far along, the
region usually begins negotiating with other states. At
the same time, states with only casual initial interest in
delegation tend to become more interested, as they observe
other states in the region actively pursuing delegation.
Upon execution of the delegation agreement, a state
generally is given immediate authority to administer the
initially delegated functions, with state assumption of
the remaining functions phased in accordance with the
negotiated time schedule contained in the agreement. Usual-
ly less than half of the delegable functions are delegated
to the state upon execution of the agreement. Most agree-
ments provide a 15 to 36 month transition period for state
assumption of all of the remaining functions.
Prior to taking over subsequent functions, the state
must recruit and train new staff. In some cases, it is
necessary for states to establish new civil service classi-
fications or increased salary levels to allow recruiting
of qualified personnel. In addition, prior to state assump-
tion of subsequent functions, new appendices must be draft-
ed and negotiated. Sometimes they are drafted initially
by the region, sometimes by the states, and, in some cases,
it is a joint effort.
A number of factors may interfere with state adherence
to the schedule contained in the delegation agreement for
3-3
-------
assumption of the remaining delegable functions. The state
may encounter difficulty in hiring staff. Either the
region or the state (whoever is responsible for preparing
the drafts of subsequent appendices) may be diverted to
other activities, considered to be of higher priority.
There also may be disagreements over the procedures to be
included in the new appendices. Any of these occurrences
may cause delays in meeting the original time schedule.
The bottom line is that the process of delegating full
authority to administer the program to the states is a lengthy
one, requiring considerable time and effort of both the re-
gional offices and the states. It is not a quick process
in cases where everything goes well, and usually at least
some problems are encountered.
It is therefore not surprising that, three years after
passage of the 1977 Clean Water Act, no state has yet taken
over the program in its entirety. In fact, only 13 states
have assumed all the functions except those administered by
the Corps of Engineers and one or more new program re-
quirements. While many states have executed delegation
agreements with their respective regional offices, most
are in a transition phase. They are administering some of
the functions related to the processing of individual
grant projects, but the regions are still administering a
number of delegable functions.
DELEGATED STATES
At the time of this report 37 states have entered into de-
legation agreements with their respective regional offices.
The states, together with the dates their agreements were
executed, are listed in Table 3-1. This table also identi-
fies the non-delegated states, including the several states
which are currently negotiating agreements with EPA.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-1
STATUS OF STATE DELEGATIONS*
Region Delegated States
I New Hampshire
Maine
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
II New York
New Jersey
III Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Delaware
IV Georgia
South Carolina
Mississippi
North Carolina
Kentucky
V Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Michigan
VI Texas
Oklahoma
VII Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
VIII South Dakota
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
Colorado
Utah
IX California
Arizona
X Alaska
Idaho
Washington
Agreement Date
10/6/78
4/16/79
5/11/79
6/1/79
9/21/79
9/25/80
12/26/78
9/26/79
1/10/79
7/2/79
7/11/79
9/26/80
10/26/78
3/15/79
12/12/79
12/26/79
7/27/80
8/3/78
10/2/78
3/14/79
3/30/79
9/8/78
2/29/80
5/30/79
7/31/79
9/22/80
4/6/79
5/21/79
7/9/79
8/17/79
9/27/79
9/27/79
8/17/78
3/29/79
12/7/78
3/5/79
8/17/79
Non-Delegated States
Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Indiana
Ohiob
Louisiana b
New Mexico
Arkansas"
Kansas
Hawaii
Nevada5
Oregon
As of October 1980.
These states are currently in the process of negotiating delegation
agreements.
3-5
-------
Of interest is that 74% of the 50 states have entered
into delegation agreements. These delegated states also,
coincidently, receive 75% of the annual appropriation under
the current allotment formula and they have 74% of the
active construction grants projects (as indicated in EPA's
"Activities of the Grants Assistance Programs" July 1979).
The 3 largest states which are not delegated are Ohio,
Florida, and Indiana. These 3 states account for over
half of the appropriations that go to the 13 non-delegated
states and 40% of the active projects.
Of the 13 non-delegated states, five (Alabama, Ohio,
New Mexico, Arkansas and Nevada) are currently negotiating
delegation agreements and it can be expected that they
will be executed in Fiscal Year 1981.
In 2 of the states (Indiana and Hawaii), there is
state interest in delegation, but the respective regions
have concerns that are causing them to proceed cautiously.
In the case of Indiana, the region is concerned that the
organizational structure within the existing state agency
may not be amenable to administering the program effective-
ly. The region is also concerned that the low salary
structures in the state may prevent the state from attract-
ing and maintaining qualified personnel. The region has
asked the state to perform a management and organization
study. In the case of Hawaii, the region feels that the
state is currently burdened with the task of assuming
other delegable EPA programs and lacks sufficient interest
at this time to lead to the necessary commitment to the
grant program. Therefore, the region is not actively
pursuing delegation.
The 6 remaining non-delegated states (Virginia, Flori-
da, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kansas and Oregon) are not pursu-
ing delegation at this time because of the resource implic-
ations. In each case, the state's administration has a
policy not to expand the state government's staff, even if
3-6
-------
the expansion is to be financed by federal funds. Until
these current policies change, it is unlikely that any of
these states will seek delegation in the near future,
although several of the regions (Region VII in the case of
Kansas and Region VI in the case of Louisiana) are active-
ly pursuing delegation.
In summary, 37 states have executed delegation agree-
ments. Five states will likely execute agreements in the
near future and two additional states may possibly execute
agreements within the next year or two. Six states are
not expected to enter delegation agreements within the
next several years, if at all.
STATUS OF STATE ASSUMPTION OF DELEGABLE FUNCTIONS
As stated peviously, most delegated states are in the
transition process of taking over administration of the
numerous delegable activities from the EPA Regional Offices.
Most of the 37 delegated states have taken over significant
functions, but at the same time a number of significant
functions have not yet been delegated and are still being
administered at the regional level. Also, under a separate
national agreement with EPA, the Corps of Engineers is
performing construction inspections and related activities
in 33 of the 37 states. At the present time, in most states
there are three agencies administering parts of the construc-
tion grants program: the regions, the Corps of Engineers,
and the states.
The current status of delegation in each of the 50 states
in relation to the 28 most significant functions associated
with program administration is shown in Table 3-2. This table
also indicates the number of states to which each function
has been delegated. As can be seen, functions related to
plans and specifications, operation and maintenance manuals,
change orders, pre-application conferences, and Step 1, 2,
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-2: STATUS OF STATE ASSUMPTION OF DELEGABLE FUNCTIONS
Function a
STEP 1
Preappli cation Conference
Step 1 Application
Plan of Study
Public Participation
Infiltration/Inflow, SSES
Environmental Assessment
Facility Plan
STEP 2
Step 2 Application
Value Engineering
Bi ddabi 1 i ty/Constructab i 1 i ty
Plans and Specifications
STEP 3
Step 3 Application
User Charge/ICR
Sewer Use Ordinance
0 & M Manual
Bid Documents
Preconstruction Conference
Change Orders
Interim Inspections
On Site Presence
Final Inspections
Pretreatment
ALL STEPS
A/E Subagreements
MBE
Federal Grant Offer
Payments
GICS
Official Files
Region I
a
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
5
s
w
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
s
w
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
NH
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
R
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
V7
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Rpr
s
c
s
c
c
c
c
c
c
TT
NY
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
Reqion III
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
c
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
VA
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
s
c
s
s
s
c
s
s
c
c
c
Reqion IV
Al.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
GA
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
i>
s
s
IN
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Rec
Tl
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
b
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
b
IN
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Ml
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
b
s
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
b
s
s
s
ion V 1
MN
s
s
s
s
b
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
b
b
b
b
c
b
c
c
c
b
s
s
s
s
OH
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Ml
s
s
s
b
b
b
b
s
b
b
b
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
b
c
b
s
s
s
s
s
u>
I
00
5 Function delegated to state; cFunction performed by the Corps of Engineers; dl Function performed by EPA
*This table includes the 28 most significant functions, but excludes a number of functions typically delegated.
-------
TABLE 3-2: STATUS OF STATE ASSUMPTION OF DELEGABLE FUNCTIONS
Function3
STEP 1
Preappli cation Conference
Step 1 Application
Plan of Study
Public Participation
Infiltration/Inflow, SSES
Environmental Assessment
Facility Plan
STEP 2
Step 2 Application
Value Engineering
Bi ddabil i ty/Constructabil i t>
Plans and Specifications
STEP 3
Step 3 Application
User Charge/ICR
Sewer Use Ordinance
0 & M Manual
Bid Documents
Preconstruction Conference
Change Orders
Interim Inspections
On Site Presence
Final Inspections
Pretreatment
ALL STEPS
A/E Subagreements
MBE
Federal Grant Offer
Payments
GICS
Official Files
Region VI
AR LA
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
NM
c
c
c
c
c
c
OK
s
s
b
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
TX
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Region VII
TA1
c
c
c
c
c
KS
c
c
c
c
c
MO
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
NB
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
Region VIII
CO
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
s
MT
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
ND
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
SD
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
UT
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
s
WY
s
c
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
Region IX
AZ
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
.s
s
s
s
s
s
CA
s
§
$
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
c
c
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
HI
c
c
c
c
c
NV
c
c
c
c
c
Region X
AK
5
S
5
S
g
s
s
s
s
s
c
c
c
s
s
ID
s
s
s
s
s
S
c
s
s
s
Q
c
S
C
c
c
s
OR
c
C
c,
c
c
c
WA
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Q
c
c
s
s
s
STATE
34
29
27
20
25
22
19
28
21
6
33
25
23
26
33
18
16
32
10
5
10
16
21
2
18
19
23
8
Total
CORPS
44
16
28
9
40
45
40
3
EPA
16
21
23
30
25
28
31
22
29
17
25
27
24
17
16
6
9
34
29
48
32
31
24
42
LO
I
5 Function delegated to state; c Function performed by the Corps of Engineers; CUFunction performed by EPA
This table includes the 28 most significant functions, but excludes a number of functions typically delegated.
-------
and 3 applications are the functions for which authority
has been delegated to the greatest extent. Of interest, a
number of states had been delegated authority to review
plans and specifications, change orders and operation and
maintenance manuals under Section 106 of the Act, prior
to the Section 205(g) delegation agreements.
Table 3-2 shows that the least delegated functions are
minority business enterprises (MBE) and the various functions
that are typically performed by the Corps of Engineers, name-
ly, biddability/constructability reviews of plans and spec-
ifications, and interim, onsite, and final construction
inspections.
At the present time, 13 states have assumed all deleg-
able functions except for MBE and/or those functions which
are typically performed by the Corps of Engineers. These 13
states are listed in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 also lists the
dates by which additional states are expected to become es-
sentially fully delegated (i.e., all functions delegated
except for MBE and those performed by the Corps of Engineers).
As can be seen from Table 3-3, within one year, 27 of the
37 delegated states will be essentially fully delegated.
It is difficult to anticipate the rate at which states
will assume the construction-related activities that are cur-
rently being performed by the Corps of Engineers. In fact,
it is possible that some states will never assume these
responsibilities. Most states are interested in eventually
taking over all delegable program functions, including
those being administered by the Corps of Engineers. How-
ever, at this time, only 4 states (New Hampshire, Maryland,
Texas, and Montana) have done so and only 2 additional
states (Georgia and Pennsylvania) anticipate taking over
Corps of Engineers activities within the next year. Most
states plan to continue to rely on the Corps of Engineers
to perform these functions in the foreseeable future.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-3
SCHEDULE FOR FULL DELEGATION
Date for Full Delegation9 State (Region)c
Presently Delegated Connecticut (I)
New Hampshire (I)
Maryland (III)
Georgia (IV)
Illinois (V)
Michigan (V)
Minnesota (V)
Wisconsin (V)
Texas (VI)
Montana (VIII)
Arizona (IX)
California (IX)
Washington (X)
Cumulative
Total
By March 1981
By June 1981
By September 1981
By December 1981
By December 1982
By December 1983
Colorado (VIII)
Alaska (X)
Idaho (X)
New York (II)
Pennsylvania (III)
North Carolina (IV)
North Dakota (VIII)
Massachusetts (I)
South Carolina (IV)
Missouri (VII)
Nebraska (VII)
Vermont (I)
Mississippi (IV)
Utah (VIII)
Maine(I)
Rhode Island (I)
West Virginia (III)
South Dakota (VIII)
New Jersey (II)
Oklahoma (VI)
Wyoming (VIII)
13
16
20
24
27
31
34
Full delegation is defined as including all delegable functions
except those commonly performed by the Corps of Engineers and MBE.
'Delegated as of October 1980.
•»
'Schedules were unavailable for Delaware, Kentucky and Iowa.
3-11
-------
For several reasons, states are not moving as aggressi-
vely to take over the Corps of Engineers-administered
activities as they have the EPA-administered activities.
Probably the biggest reason is the concern about the adequacy
of funding available under Section 205(g) to cover the
additional administrative activities, and the uncertain
nature of this funding. States either don't have sufficient
funds available from Section 205(g) to take over these
activities, or, if they do they are concerned about the
uncertainty of future funding levels. The problems incurred
by California have caused most states to move cautiously
into this area. California, once fully delegated, was forced
to reduce staff and turn much of the construction related
activities over to the Corps of Engineers as a result of
reduction in appropriations over recent years and corres-
ponding reduction in Section 205(g) funding. The states
that presently have sufficient funds are hesitant to add
the staff necessary to take over these functions; the
states fear that they may later have to lay off staff and
once again involve the Corps of Engineers in their program.
The states would rather wait until the funding source is
made more adequate and predictable.
The other reason keeping some states from aggressively
moving to take over activities presently performed by the
Corps of Engineers is that they feel that the most critical
functions are in Steps 1 and 2 of the process. These
states are satisfied with having the Corps of Engineers
perform the construction-related functions in Step 3 in
the near term as long as the Corps of Engineers does a
good job.
In summary, delegation is in a transition phase, with
the construction grants program moving from an EPA-state
administered program to a state-Corps of Engineers adminis-
tered program. At the present time, all three agencies
are performing functions in most states, though EPA is
3-12
-------
essentially out of the program in 13 of the 37 delegated
states, administering only the MBE function and several
non-delegable functions. Within a year, however, 27 states
will be essentially fully delegated. It is likely though,
that the Corps of Engineers involvement will continue in
most states indefinitely. At present, the Corps of Engine-
ers is involved in all but 4 states, and even after a
year, they will still be involved in performing construc-
tion inspections and related Step 3 activities in 31 of
the 37 delegated states. So, whereas the EPA-to-state
delegation process will be completed in 27 states within a
year, a dual agency involvement, in terms of the states
and the Corps of Engineers will continue indefinitely in
all but 6 states.
3-13
-------
CHAPTER 4
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE UNDER DELEGATION
This chapter presents a general evaluation of the per-
formance, with regard to delegation, of the EPA Regional
Offices. Under delegation, regions continue to have numer-
ous and important responsibilities relative to the construc-
tion grants program. The more important responsibilities
include the following:
• To implement delegation in interested and
qualified states.
• To adequately organize and staff to oversee
the delegated program in each state.
• To effectively manage the delegated program.
• To employ grant processing procedures for state
certifications and for non-delegable functions which
are consistent with the concept of delegation.
• To process state certifications and perform other
non-delegable functions in a time-efficient manner.
• To effectively monitor and evaluate the performance
of delegated states.
In addition to the major responsibilities outlined
above, the regions have numerous other responsibilities
related to delegation, including the interpretation of
policies, communication and coordination with EPA Headquar-
ters, responding to public and congressional inquiries,
etc. The general performance of the ten EPA Regional
Offices in each of the six areas listed above is discussed
in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that the
regional office performance as presented in this chapter
is based on field observations made by the authors between
May and August of 1980. Since that time the regions have
continued to improve their operations under delegation.
The result of this continuing improvement is that a number
4-1
-------
of the problems, identified in this chapter may already
have been eliminated and a number of the recommendations
already implemented.
PROGRESS TOWARD DELEGATION
The regions are responsible for implementing delega-
tion. Specifically, this responsibility includes executing
delegation agreements with interested and qualified states,
turning over the various delegable functions to the delega-
ted states in accordance with a reasonable time schedule,
and training delegated state staffs, where needed, in the
performance of delegated functions.
Insofar as their progress towards entering into delega-
tion agreements is concerned, the regions have an impressive
record. As indicated in Chapter 3, 37 of the 50 states have
executed delegation agreements as of this time. Within a
year that number will increase to between 42 and 44, leaving
between 6 and 8 states non-delegated. Considering that 6 of
the non-delegated states do not wish to pursue delegation
because they have policies against expanding state govern-
ment staffing, this is an impressive record.
The regions generally have been able to negotiate dele-
gation agreements with interested states, even if the states
had little or no previous experience in the program. In
those cases where a state has not established a track record
in the program, the regions often require as conditions of
delegation, certain changes in the state's organizational
structure, resources, procedures and/or employee classifi-
cation system. In some cases, especially where the states
greatly expanded their staffs, the regions insist on compre-
hensive state-developed training programs (Region II in the
case of New York), or conduct extensive training programs
themselves for the states (Region IX in the case of Arizona).
In almost all cases, it appears that if a state is int-
4-2
-------
erested in delegation, the region (even if it has concerns
about the state's experience or capabilities) pursues dele-
gation, while at the same time trying to build capability
at the state level. Another tactic utilized in this situa-
tion is to extend the transition period for full delegation.
The regions appear to be quite aggressive in implement-
ing delegation agreements. Several were active at the Gover-
nor's Office level, working to generate state interest in
delegation. Others were actively involved in encouraging
state legislators to increase state salary levels so that the
state could attract qualified personnel to administer the
delegated program. One region funded a management and organ-
izational study to assist a state in determining the best
organizational structure and the resources needed to admin-
ister the delegated program. Several regions have sent EPA
employees on one- or two-year assignments to the state
offices to assist them with getting their programs operating.
There is considerable variability in the rate at
which regions are turning over administration of specific
functions to delegated states. The average time spent or
anticipated in each region to delegate all of the activities
to the delegated states (except for those activities typic-
ally performed by the Corps of Engineers) is shown in Table
4-1. As can be seen, the average time for the states to
take over full program administration is 23 months, or just
under two years. In a number of regions (Regions IV, V, and
IX), states have typically assumed the program in a year and
a half. At the other extreme (Region II) the time for full
state assumption of the program is three years. A number of
factors affect the time required for full delegation, includ-
ing the judgement of the individual regional offices and the
states as to what is a reasonable time period for transition
to full delegation, and the previous experience of the state
with the construction grants program.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
TIME FOR FULL STATE ASSUMPTION OF ALL DELEGABLE FUNCTIONS3
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Number of States
6
2
3
4
4
2
2
6
lc
. 3
33
Average Time for Full Delegation,
Months9
22
36
24
18
16
26
26
27
19
21
23
aBased on the time spent or anticipated (after signing of the dele-
gation agreement) for states to assume authority for all functions
except MBE and those functions typically performed by the Corps of
Engineers.
Only those states where firm target dates for full delegation exist
and were available at the time of the study are shown.
GDoes not include California, which was already fully administering
the program prior to execution of the Section 205(g) delegation
agreement.
4-4
-------
At this point in time, the dicussion is somewhat aca-
demic, as most of the states presently delegated will be
fully delegated within a year. It is felt, however, that
it may be possible for several of the current delegation
schedules to be accelerated: New Jersey (Region II), Okla-
homa (Region VI), and Wyoming (Region VIII).
One additional point under "Progress Towards Delega-
tion" relates to the fact that the delegation agreements
executed by some regions do not provide for delegation of
all delegable activities. In some cases, such as MBE, it
appears that some regions question whether that function
is delegable. In other cases there is no question about
delegability; rather, the region has either made a decision
not to delegate certain functions or has merely overlooked
several functions typically delegated. In these cases,
the states have not been aware of, or if they were, have
not pressed delegation of these functions. As an example,
in one region (Region X), the preparation of preliminary
environmental assessments, the preparation of federal grant
offers, the processing of interim payment requests, and the
maintenance of the official project files have not been
scheduled for delegation. In a few other cases, states
have been hesitant to assume certain functions.
There has also been some slippage of scheduled dates for
state assumption of delegable functions in most regions. In
general, the slippage appears due to either the regional
office or the state, or both, being diverted from perform-
ing actions necessary to maintain the schedule, to activi-
ties considered to be of higher priority.
The training provided by the regions to the delegated
states has been quite variable. There are several outstand-
ing examples of training provided by the regions. The best
example pertinent to a state with little prior experience
in the grants program was where a region (Region IX) sent a
4-5
-------
4-person team of highly qualified personnel to a state
(Arizona) for a one-year period on an "IPA" assignment. Two
of these people helped the new state staff establish proce-
dures, and the other two trained the staff. One person
trained the technical staff and one trained the administra-
tive staff. This particular effort produced impressive
results as the state, with over 90% of its staff on board
for less than a year, has a program as good as many of the
states with years of experience in the program. Several
other regions had impressive on-the-job type training efforts
in certain states (Region III in the case of Pennsylvania,
Region VIII in the case of Montana, and Region X in the
case of Washington). These programs appeared somewhat
unique to the given state rather than a regional practice.
In the case of Regions VIII and X, these training programs
were facilitated by regional operations offices located in
the respective states involved. Other regions had on-the-
job training efforts limited in scope and directed toward
several delegated functions (A/E subagreements, preparation
of federal grant offers, preparation of environmental docu-
ments, etc.). One region (Region II) required the state
to develop and conduct an intensive training program for
its new staff.
Another region (Region I) is in the process of conduct-
ing an extensive training program for all the states within
the region relative to the environmental aspects of the pro-
gram. To assist with this effort, the region, in conjunction
with a private consulting firm, has prepared a detailed envi-
ronmental review manual. This manual was designed to assist
states in gaining an understanding of EPA's environmental
review requirements. It contains all of the procedures and
requirements of the major environmental laws, regulations
and policies that impact on the construction grant program.
This manual is being supplemented with a two-day training
session in each of the region's states.
4-6
-------
Even though there are outstanding examples of regional
training efforts as noted above, the training more typically
provided by the regions to the delegated states has been
relatively modest. The training more commonly provided
includes the scheduling of the standard EPA training courses
in the region, telephone consultation with state staff on
specific questions, and the presentation of several lectures
on individual review functions in the state offices. In
some states with considerable past experience in the program,
this level of training is satisfactory; but, in the less
experienced states, it falls short of needs.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESOURCES
As stated in previous sections of this report, most
regions are in a transition phase, moving from the previous
non-delegated mode of operation towards a fully delegated
program. Within a year, this transition period will be
complete for approximately 27 of the 37 presently delegated
states. In general, the present organizational structures
utilized by the regions, and to a lesser extent the resources
available, represent a non-delegated mode of operation.
The current organizational structures and resource levels,
though adequate prior to delegation and even during the
transition period, are not well suited for a fully delegated
mode of operation.
' The present organizational structures utilized by the
regional office water divisions are highly variable. Three
regions' water divisions (Regions II, III, and IX) are organ-
ized on a geographical branch basis, with each geographical
branch being responsible for all of the water program
activities within a given state. The remaining 7 regions
have programmatic based branches, with each branch respon-
sible for a different program area. Within these branches,
the individual sections are often organized on a geographi-
4-7
-------
cal basis, with each section being responsible for the
particular program in a given state. In 4 of these latter
7 regions (Regions IV, V, VII, and VIII), programmatic
activities associated with the construction grants program
are divided between two programmatic branches. While the
two programmatic branches generally both have state sec-
tions, no single person within the regional organizational
structure has total responsibility for administration of
the grants program in a given state (though one of the two
section chiefs may have a lead responsibility).
Several regions have implemented organizational changes
to accommodate delegation. In one case (Region IX), the
region has set up geographical branches to handle all of
the water program activities within a given state, and has
developed a program support branch to provide technical
support to the branches and to coordinate the grants-relat-
ed activities in the various branches. Region III has an
organizational structure almost identical to that in Region
IX. Another region (Region II) already having geographical
branches, has developed state-wide program support sections
within each of the two geographical branches, separate
from the grants processing sections. The state-wide sec-
tions have responsibility for programmatic dealings with
the individual states, whereas the grants processing sec-
tions have responsibility for processing certified grant
documents and peforming non-delegated functions associated
with individual grant projects.
Of the ten regional offices, two are considered to have
organizational structures well suited for a delegated mode
of operation (Regions III and IX). Four others (Regions I,
II, VI, and X) have organizational structures that could
easily accommodate a delegated mode of operation, though
organizational modifications may be beneficial. The
remaining four regions (Regions IV, V, VII, and VIII)
should evaluate possible organizational changes to facili-
4-8
-------
tate a delegated mode of operation.
In terms of organizational needs under delegation four
basic types of needs exist within the regional offices.
First, there is a need for resources to process certified
grant applications and associated documents. Resources
are also needed to perform non-delegated NEPA activities.
There is a need for resources to oversee the program, in-
cluding day-to-day communication and coordination with the
states. Finally, there is a need to monitor the perfor-
mance of individual delegated states.
Examining each of these four needs and the best way to
satisfy each, gives some indication of the type of organiza-
tional structure that might be best suited for delegation.
For example, the need for program management and coordina-
tion with delegated states should be the responsibility of
a high level program manager within the regional office,
whose responsibilities are limited to a single delegated
state (an exception could be made in regions with a large
number of small states, where one program manager could be
responsible for two states). This suggests the need for a
geographical section containing the program manager together
with a limited number of staff, to process state certifica-
tions and perform non-delegated NEPA activities. These
geographical units could also be responsible for other
water programs in a given state. Because of the relatively
minor resource needs, however, these geographical branches
or sections would be small in size.
With regard to the regions' monitoring responsibilities
under delegation, a different approach is suggested. To
adequately monitor the performance of delegated states,
regions need to have personnel who are experienced and
specialized in particular program activities. For example.
the region should have a sanitary engineer who is familiar
with facilities planning, design, and other related techni-
cal activities. The region also needs expertise in the
4-9
-------
administrative area, the environmental area, and in certain
other areas such as user charges, operation and maintenance,
etc. It is questionable whether such resources, needed
only for monitoring the performance of delegated states,
could be duplicated in each of the relatively small geo-
graphical branches or sections that have responsibility
for program management, processing of certifications, and
performance of NEPA functions. This, therefore, suggests
utilizing a separate pool of specialized resources for
monitoring all of the delegated states within a particular
region.
Of the existing organizational structures utilized
by the regional offices, both Region III and Region IX
have organizational structures that are oriented in the
above suggested direction. Region IX is probably the best
example because that region is well into delegation in
both of the two delegated states within the region, whereas
Region III is only partially through the transition period
towards full delegation. Two other regions (Region I and
Region VI), have organizational structures that would easily
facilitate changes in the direction of the above suggested
organizational structure.
It would be desirable to implement any necessary organ-
izational changes prior to most of the states within a given
region achieving full delegation status. As previously indi-
cated, this is approximately a year away for most regions.
Therefore, it would be desirable for the regions (except for
Regions III and IX) to make organizational studies in the
near future so that any recommended changes can be placed
in operation over the next year. Three regions are already
actively working towards this end (Regions I,V, and VIII).
From a resources standpoint, the resources presently
employed by the regional offices for administration of the
delegated construction grants program appear adequate, given
the present status of delegation. At the present time, most
4-10
-------
regions are not only processing state certification packages
and performing non-delegated NEPA functions, but are also
performing other functions which have not yet been delegated,
providing increased training to delegated states, as well
as, in some cases, performing various technical and adminis-
trative activities on projects that preceded delegation
and were not turned over to the delegated states. Within
several years, this situation will change and the resource
needs of the regional offices should be less than they are
at the present time. However, all of the regional resources
that are currently employed to perform processing activities
during this transition phase cannot be eliminated. As pre-
viously stated, even after full delegation, resources will
be necessary to process state certification packages, to per-
form non-delegated NEPA functions, to oversee the program and
to monitor the performance of delegated states. While the
need for these four functions currently exists, generally
the resources that are being applied for overseeing the
program and for monitoring are considerably less than
those which are needed under a fully delegated mode of
operation. Hence whereas the resources utilized for proces-
sing individual grant projects will decrease within the
next several years, resource increases will have to be pro-
vided in these other areas.
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DELEGATED PROGRAM
Several management tools are critical to successful
regional management of the delegated construction grants
program. These tools include:
• An adequate reporting mechanism that allows the
region's management to stay on top of and track
the progress of the program in each state.
• An effective means of communications with each
delegated state.
4-11
-------
• An effective monitoring program to assure sound
state administration of the program
the program.
In terms of having adequate reporting mechanisms, the
regions generally have available to them considerable manage-
ment information, primarily as the result of GIGS. Through
various programs available from headquarters, most regions
produce numerous GIGS reports on a weekly, monthly, and
quarterly basis. These reports provide regional managers
with information on grant awards, obligations, outlays, and
the status of all funds. GICS reports are also used to
identify the length of time that various applications have
been in-house at the regional offices. Regional office
managers appear to be using these and other GICS produced
reports to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities;
these reports also are used by state program managers.
While many useful GICS reports are available in each
regional they were programmed to serve the regions' needs
in a pre-delegation mode of operation. Whereas they satis-
factorily met the regions' needs at the time, additional
needs exist relative to delegation. For example, there
are typical pieces of information that are important under
delegation that are not currently contained in the GICS
system. These include the regional receipt dates for
state-drafted environmental assessments and the dates for
issuance of FNSI's. The regional reports also do not
report on the progress of projects that are currently in
the state offices for processing. Nor do they report impor-
tant performance-related aspects of the state's administra-
tion of the program, such as state processing time for appli-
cations, facilities plans, and plans and specifications.
Finally, though unrelated to delegation, GICS reports typic-
ally do not contain projections of such important things
as obligations, awards, etc.
While major changes are not necessary, the current GICS
4-12
-------
generated programs should be re-evaluated in light of a dele-
gated mode of operation. Re-evaluation should be conducted
over the next year so that by the time many of the states
become fully delegated, the regions will have the informa-
tion they need to carry out their program management respon-
sibilities. Because this same need exists in all ten
regions, EPA headquarters, possibly in conjunction with
several interested regions, should develop a management
reporting system to meet these new needs. State-generated
management information reports, designed primarily to meet
state management needs, may also be of considerable use to
the regional offices, in terms of giving them the information
they need to carry out their management responsibilities.
Beyond the generally adequate existence of GIGS gener-
ated information reports, there is great variability in terms
of the regional management of the construction grants pro-
gram. A number of regions employ rather unique and impres-
sive management practices. For example, several regions
(Regions V, VII, and X) have developed performance standards
for each regional office employee. Some regions have also
developed written procedures manuals to clarify internal
operating procedures under delegation (Regions VII and
X) . Several regions are conducting regularly scheduled
and broadly scoped monthly management meetings with each
delegated state (Regions V and IX). One region, in the
case of a particular state (Region III, in the state of
Pennsylvania) is also holding regularly scheduled monthly
management meetings with the state. Another region, in
one particular state (Region VIII, in the state of Montana),
is conducting monthly training sessions with the state.
Several regions are also holding semi-annual meetings with
all of the states within the region to update them on current
developments relative to the construction grants program
(Regions III, VIII, and X). Several regions (Region X
being a particularly good example) are utilizing the State
4-13
-------
EPA agreement process as a management tool for guiding the
direction of the delegated program. Major issues are iden-
tified for resolution, and state and regional performance
objectives are identified.
Finally, one region has developed a rather unique man-
agement tool in cooperation and conjunction with one of its
delegated states (Region X and the State of Idaho). This is
a computerized project tracking system utilizing GIGS. The
system will contain a detailed, continuously updated time
schedule for each active project within the state. Regularly
produced reports will be used by state grants project man-
agers to follow the progress of their individual projects,
to identify expected receipt dates of various grant docu-
ments, and to generate projections of work load. This is the
only sophisticated project tracking system that was observed
in any of the 10 regions or states visited during this study
Though a number of regions have some interesting and
progressive management tools, in general there are some add-
itional tools and practices that would assist the regions in
managing the delegated program. For example, most regions
(all but Regions V and IX) would benefit from establishment
of a formal and regular means of communication with each
delegated state. It is suggested that regions meet on a
regular basis with each delegated state. As an alternative,
conference calls could be utilized in place of the meetings,
as is done in Region V. At these meetings the regions
could update the states on new federal policies, programs,
direction, and areas of concern, and likewise the states
could update the regional offices on state direction, poli-
cies, performance and problems. Also, the regions and states
could jointly discuss issues or projects of common interest.
Adequate communications are of vital importance to the sucess
of a delegated program. The common tendency, as delegation
is implemented, is to leave communications to chance and for
4-14
-------
regions and delegated states to communicate with one another
only as specific problems and issues arise. Communications
are so important that they should not be left to chance.
If anything, regions and states should err on the side of
over-communications rather than under-communications. Re-
gularly scheduled, formalized meetings are an effective way
of achieving the necessary level of communications between
regions and delegated states.
Beyond this, regions might want to consider some of the
management tools and practices being utilized within other
regions, as previously discussed. Such practices include im-
plementation of performance standards, written internal pro-
cedures, joint meetings with all of the states within a re-
gion, and use of the State EPA agreement as a management tool.
Another aspect of the region's management of the dele-
gated program that deserves mention is the general attitude
that exists within the regional offices towards delegation.
In general, the attitude appears to be quite positive,
both towards delegation and towards the delegated states.
The regions appear to be working cooperatively with the
states to accomplish the job of administering the program.
In summary, the regions generally employ sound manage-
ment practices in administering the delegated construction
grants program, though there are needs for modifications
in the management information system (i.e., GIGS) and for
establishment of regular and formalized communications with
each of the delegated states. Beyond those two basic needs,
implementation of additional management practices employed
in several regions may further assist the regions in carry-
ing out their management responsibilities.
GRANTS PROCESSING PROCEDURES
In evaluating the regions' processing of grants under
delegation, the following areas were examined:
4-15
-------
• Is the region processing state certified grant
applications and other documents in a way consis-
tent with the concept of delegation and in a way
that avoids duplication of state activities?
• Is the region processing state certified applica-
tions without second-guessing state decisions?
• Is the region receiving more information than it
needs under a delegated mode of operation?
As indicated previously in this report, most regions are
in a transition stage, performing some functions which have
not yet been delegated and reviewing state certifications on
other functions which have been delegated. Most regions are
still grappling with the issue of how they intend to operate
under a fully delegated mode of operation. Those regions
which have decided how they intend to operate have not yet
reached the point where they are comfortably operating in
their intended mode. Few regions are presently operating
in a mode that results in maximization of the benefits that
could be realized from delegating the program to the states.
The one exception to the above comments is Region IX,
which has been operating in a fully delegated mode for 5
years. In Region IX, the state of California received
delegation in 1975 under a special provision, prior to
enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Region IX, there-
fore, has had time to adjust its operation for a delegated
mode. In fact, Region IX has modified its organizational
structure, its allocation of resources, its management of
the program, and its grants processing procedures to accom-
modate a delegated mode of operation. Most regions are
moving in that direction, but they have much more to modify,
before they reach the mode of operation employed by Region
IX.
Before commenting on the regions' grants processing
procedures, the authors would like to discuss their concept
of the manner in which regions should operate in a truly
4-16
-------
delegated mode. First, the regions should receive only
those documents from delegated states (relative to individual
grant projects) that are necessary for the regions to take
the actions that they have to take under delegation.
Basically, there are only four actions that the regions
must take on individual projects under delegation. The
regions must award grants for Steps 1, 2, and 3, and the
regions must either issue the FNSI or prepare a federal
environmental impact statement. Under a fully delegated
mode of operation, no additional actions need to be taken by
the regions' water divisions relative to individual grant
projects.
Second, the regions should accept state certifications
without question and, in conjunction with this, rely on
after-the-fact monitoring to determine whether or not state
performance is in compliance with the terms of the delegation
agreement. Regions should not review certified grant appli-
cations to double-check and make sure that the state proper-
ly certified a project prior to making a grant award.
In comparison to this ideal mode of operation under
delegation, most regions are in fact receiving more project-
related information and documents than are essential under
delegation (except for Region IX). While some regions
have moved in the direction of reducing the amount of paper
and documents they receive relative to individual grant
projects, many are receiving the same amount of documenta-
tion that they received prior to delegation. Many regions
continue to receive correspondence relating to individual
projects, operation and maintenance manuals, sewer use
ordinances, facilities plans, plans and specifications,
change orders, construction inspection reports, etc. None
of these items require action by the regions under delega-
tion.
While no significant problems result from the regions'
continuing to receive these documents, this practice does
4-17
-------
result in unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary expenditure
of manpower at both the state and regional offices, and it
provides a temptation to regional office staff to review,
rather than accept, state actions under delegation. Several
regions make the argument that they must continue to receive
this information in order to perform their monitoring
responsibilities. However, most regions are traveling to
state offices and reviewing state files and documents in
order to review the small percentage (about 10%) of projects
that are evaluated as part of the regions's monitoring
program.
As to the second point in the ideal mode of operation
under delegation, most regions, at the present time, are not
achieving the objective of accepting state certifications
without further reviewing them. Most regions are performing
cursory reviews of all state-certified documents, some in
greater depth than others. Only 3 of the 10 regions, at
the time the evaluations were made, were operating in a
mode of accepting without question state certifications and
relying on after-the-fact monitoring to assess and evaluate
state performance (Regions V. VII, and IX).
Most of the remaining 7 regions recognize that their
current mode of operation is inconsistent with the concept
of a truly delegated mode of operation and they are moving
in the direction of the proper mode of operation One
common rationale given for regions failing to accept state
certification packages without review is that the regions
are performing training of the states through this practice.
In other words, by reviewing state certification packages
prior to grant award and feeding back any deficiencies to
the states, the regions are, in effect, training state
staff. The authors recognize this approach as a reasonable
one, but have several problems with the manner in which it
is put into practice. First, in almost every instance,
this "training" is unofficial, i.e., it is not recognized in
4-18
-------
the delegation agreement nor is the state made aware that the
region is operating in a training mode. This undoubtedly
leads to misunderstandings between the states and the re-
gions. From a state perspective, it appears that the
region has not accepted delegation and/or lacks trust in
the state's abilities. The other problem noted is that,
invariably, this "training" practice has no defined time
limits. In the regions that are utilizing this technique,
the regional staffs could not estimate how long this practice
might continue. Nor were management personnel within the
respective regional offices able to gauge whether their
staff was continuing this practice for an unnecessarily
long period, or stopping it too soon.
Finally, it should be pointed out that this practice
requires resources at the regional level and leads to
delays in regional actions on grant awards. This "training"
appears to have had an impact on regional approvals of
recommended projects on only rare occasions, and in some
regions it has kept regional staff so busy, they have
slighted their monitoring responsibilities. It is defin-
itely a practice that should not be extended beyond the
time necessary to assure the region that the state has
an adequate program.
One final comment relative to the regions' processing
procedures under delegation relates to the apparent lack of
awareness in some regions, below the top managerial level,
as to how the regional office is supposed to operate in a
delegated mode. In general, the top management within each
regional office appears fully aware of the proper mode of
operation under delegation and comfortable with the manner
in which the region will function under delegation. At the
staff levels, different understandings of functioning under
delegation often exist. Often times the regional office
staff appears not to understand how the regions are supposed
to process certified grant applications under delegation.
4-19
-------
It appears as if the regions' management, in these cases,
has not formally, or at least effectively, communicated to
staff level personnel the role and approach of the regions
under a delegated mode of operation. Somewhat related to
this is the fact that a number of regions have not yet
addressed significant issues that must be addressed to
effectuate a successful operation under delegation. As
will be discussed later, many regions have not yet fully
addressed the methods by which they will monitor and evalu-
ate the performance of delegated states nor have they
decided on the exact procedures they will use to process
state certified documents. In these situations, the authors
feel it is important for the regions to fully communicate
to staff the proper mode of operation under a fully dele-
gated program, and for the regions to place attention on
how they will process certified grant applications under a
fully delegated mode of operation, as well as how they
will monitor the performance of delegated states.
In summary, only one region (Region IX) currently is
employing processing procedures consistent with the concept
of delegation and in a manner that will result in the full
achievement of benefits associated with delegation. Other
regions are in a transition mode of operation, making the
transition from a non-delegated mode to a fully delegated
mode. While they are moving in the right direction and
making progress, at the present time regions generally are
receiving more information and documents than they really
need on individual projects and, to varying degrees, they
are not meeting the goal of accepting state certifications
without review.
In order to eliminate these problems, the regions
should, in the near future, identify the individual pro-
ject-related documents that they need in order to take the
actions that they must take on individual projects. Subse-
quently, they should stop receiving all other documents.
4-20
-------
Further, the regions should move as rapidly as possible to
a truly delegated mode of operation, whereby state certifi-
cations are accepted without question, and after-the-fact
monitoring is relied upon to assess state performance.
Until these actions are taken, the regions and the states
will not be operating in a truly delegated mode; duplica-
tion, inefficiencies and time delays will continue to
exist and the potential benefits of delegation will not be
realized.
PROCESSING TIMES FOR REGIONAL REVIEWS
The regions have to conduct 4 major reviews relative
to each grant project in delegated states. Three of these
reviews relate to the acceptance of state certifications
and the award of grants for Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3
applications. In addition, regions must review the environ-
mental aspects of each project and issue the FNSI prior
to state certification of the Step 2 application. The
average processing times for each of these reviews for each
of the 10 regions, both prior to and after delegation are
shown in Table 4-2. The processing times shown are those
relative to projects within the states that the authors
evaluated within each region.
Table 4-2 indicates that there has been considerable
variability among regions as to the time it takes to pro-
cess individual grant applications, both prior to and
subsequent to delegation. Several points apparent from
the table are of interest. First, delegation does not
necessarily result in significant reductions in total pro-
cessing time. In several regions processing times after
delegation were about the same as processing times prior
to delegation. On the contrary, in half of the regions
shown in the Table 4-2, delegation brought about 50 to 75
percent reductions in overall processing times.
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-2
PROCESSING TIMES FOR REGIONAL REVIEWS
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Connecticut
New York
Maryland
Georgia
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Montana
Arizona
Idaho
Average
Processing Time Prior
to Deleqation, in davsa
Step 1
73(14)
117(74)
149(20)
87(5)
47(19)
84(40)
100(86)
44(6)
20(9)
30(11)
Step 2
180(9)
59(33)
299(10)
97(10)
116(18)
184(7)
128(11)
85(4)
20(8)
45(11)
Step 3
115(11)
87(34)
174(17)
53(9)
91(18)
77(10)
100(9)
41(6)
17(18)
32(6)
Total b
368
263
622
237
254
345
328
170
57
107
220e
Processing Time After Delegation, in days
Step 1
99(1)
31(19)
121(2)
30(2)
63(17)
65(58)
21(9)
17(16)
5(2)
36(8)
Step 2
c
58(12)
c
10(5)
99(30)
108(10)
26(8)
11(7)
50)
44(2)
Step 3
81(3)
51(4)
142(1)
17(9)
71(12)
67(10)
c
11(5)
3(3)
c
Sub Total
c
140
c
57
233
240
147
39
13
112
127
hNSl
124
c
c
30
38
48
c
60
c
c
Total
c
>c
c
87
271
288
c
99
c
c
Total Change After
Deleqation, in days
8 days shorter (l,3)d
123 days shorter
60 days shorter (l,3)d
180 days shorter
21 days shorter
105 days shorter
181 days shorter
131 days shorter
44 days shorter
5 days longer (1,2)d
3 days shorter
.c-
I
NJ
Usually, based on the projects processed in the fiscal year prior to delegation. The number of projects processed are
These figures only relate to the total average time for the award of Step 1, 2Sand 3 grants and do not consider the
time required for issuance of the FNSI (times prior to delegation are unavailable). In several regions, Step 2
c review time probably includes time for issuance of the FNSPs.
Information unavailable.
Based on difference in total processing times for those steps shown in parentheses.
eDoes not include Regions I and III because their totals after delegation were unavailable. If these regions had been
included, the average processing time prior to delegation would have been 275 days.
-------
Also of interest are the significant reductions brought
about by 2 of the regions in the several months prior to the
authors' field visits. Region V reduced its total processing
time on Michigan projects (for all 3 steps) from 233 days,
as shown in the table, to 142 days over the past six months.
Likewise, Region VI reduced its total processing time on
Texas projects from 240 days, as shown in the table, to
just 63 days over the last several months. In both of
these cases, the reductions were brought about by the
region's top management establishing processing time goals
for each of the key reviews performed by the regional
office. In both cases, the reduction in processing times
was dramatic, almost overnight.
One other point of interest in Table 4-2 is that the
total processing time after delegation in each of the
regions is highly variable, ranging from a low of 13 days
in Region IX (in the state of Arizona) to a high of almost
5 months (the processing times f6r Regions V and VI were
not referenced because of the recent improvements previous-
ly discussed). When one considers that under delegation,
the region does not perform a substantive review of the
state certifications, it appears that the processing times
obtained in Region IX are achievable in other regions,
provided attention is focussed by the regional offices on
reducing overall processing time. Under delegation, the
regions are supposed to accept state certifications without
review and basically sign the state-prepared federal grant
offer. This action on any given grant award should be able
to be completed within 5 to 10 days. Hence the total time
that it takes for a region to process grants for all 3 steps
should be in the order of 15 to 30 days. Again, from Table
4-2, only Region IX meets this goal, though Regions IV, VI
(based on recent improvements), and VIII are not far from
the goal. It should be noted that in Region VIII, the
regional office is still preparing the federal grant offers.
4-23
-------
Were the state to prepare the federal grant offer, the
region would easily be able to reduce its total processing
time for all 3 steps on Montana projects to less than 30
days.
The authors are confident that all regions can reduce
their total processing time for Step 1, 2, and 3 grant awards
to less than 30 days in a relatively short period of time,
given the following provisions. Namely, the regions must
receive state-prepared federal grant offers along with
the state certifications, the regions must operate in a
truly delegated mode and accept state certification without
review, and further, the regions must focus attention on
rapid processing of certification documents.
Some might question why attention to processing time
is important. The average processing time in all regions
for the Step 1, 2, and 3 certifications is currently in
the order of 4 months. Therefore, reducing this time to
approximately 1 month would cut 3 months from the total
processing time for individual construction grant projects.
Likewise, assuming an average inflation rate of 1% per
month, such a reduction would effectively lower the price
of each construction grant project by 3%. It would also
expand the buying power available through annual appropria-
tions. On the national scale, this reduction would amount
to an effective savings of $136 million per year (assuming
a $3.4 billion appropriation). Of course, the expected
benefits of rapid processing of state certifications are
based on the assumption that the project is on a fundable
portion of the priority list, and that funding is available.
Regional processing times for FNSI's are surprisingly
low, considering that the regional review of the state-
prepared environmental assessment and the issuance of the
FNSI is the most substantive review function that the re-
gions perform relative to individual grant projects. In
general, it appears that the environmental review functions
4-24
-------
are being carried out in the order of 1 to 2 months time.
The authors are of the opinion that, in general, this
review can be performed in less than 30 days. Region IV,
in the case of Georgia's projects, is currently meeting
this proposed processing time as is Region V (over the
past 6 months) in the case of Michigan's projects.
In summary, regional office performance in terms of
the processing time for the award of grants and issuance
of FNSI's under delegation is generally in need of improve-
ment. In several regions, only minor improvement is called
for, but in most regions considerable improvement is needed.
The authors are of the opinion that the regions can bring
about rapid reductions in total processing time, as have
several of the regions recently, by focussing more atten-
tion on this important aspect of program administration,
by implementing relatively simple time management tools,
and by operating in a truly delegated mode. More specifi-
cal-ly, each region should establish, processing time goals
for each of its significant review activities, including
the award of Step 1, 2, and 3 grants and the issuance of
FNSI's. The processing time goals for grant awards should
be between 5 and 10 calendar days for each step, and the
processing time goals for the issuance of the FNSI's,
after receipt of the state-prepared environmental assess-
ment, should be in the order of 30 days or less. Further,
the regions should charge staff with meeting these goals and
the regions should routinely track actual performance against
these goals. The regions should then provide feedback to
staff where processing time goals are not achieved. Through
implementation of these relatively simple measures, consid-
erable reduction in total processing time will result.
This, in turn, will result in lower project costs, and
will expand the buying power available from fixed allotments
of construction grant funds.
4-25
-------
REGIONAL MONITORING OF STATE PERFORMANCE
One of the prime functions of the regional offices
under delegation is to monitor the performance of delegated
states for the purpose of insuring that the states are
adequately administering the delegated construction grants
program. In general, all of the regional offices are
struggling, at least to some extent, with how best to
monitor and evaluate the performance of delegated states.
Several have attempted on their own to develop rather
comprehensive monitoring programs, while the majority of
the regions are looking forward to guidance from EPA Head-
quarters.
Table 4-3 provides a summary of the regional office
monitoring performed to date on the delegated states which
the authors evaluated. As is shown in Table 4-3, only 6
of the 10 EPA regions have performed a substantive amount
of monitoring on the selected delegated state. Three
regions have conducted no monitoring at all, and one region
has conducted only a very limited amount of monitoring.
The monitoring has been weighted heavily towards determining
compliance of the state with the procedures contained in
the delegation agreements. While most of the regions that
have performed monitoring evaluate the quality of the
state reviews to some extent, none of the regions take a
comprehensive and effective look at the quality of all
of the significant state reviews. In addition, only one
region evaluates the processing times of state reviews.
Several regions have expanded the scope of their moni-
toring effort to reach beyond state processing of individual
grant projects by focussing attention on evaluating the
state's overall management and administration of the dele-
gated construction grants program. The monitoring programs
in Regions II, IV, and X are particularly impressive in
this regard. In addition, 3 of the regions (Regions IV,
4-26
-------
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL OFFICE MONITORING OF DELEGATED STATES9
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Connecticut
New York
Maryland
Georgia
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Montana
Ari zona
Idaho
Responsibility
Clear
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some Overlap
Internal
Guidance
No
*
Yes
Yes, but
Limited
No
Yes, but
Limited
No
No
No
Yes
*
Yes
Monitoring
Performed
No
Yes
Very <
Limited
Partial ,
Mgmt. only
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Before or
After Fact
—
After
After
—
After
__
After
—
After
After
Focus of Monitorincj Performed by Region
State
Procedures
—
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
--
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Quality
--
No
Yes
No
Limited
--
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Timing
—
No
Limited
No
Li mi tec
--
Limited
--
Li mi tec
*
Yes
Manage-
ment
—
*
Yes
No
*
Yes
Limited
—
Limited
--
Limited
*
Yes
nternal to
Region
--
No
No
*
Yes
No
—
Yes
--
No
*
Yes
Substan-
tiveness
—
*
Yes
--
*
Yes
*
Yes
--
*
Yes
--
Yes
*
Yes
-P--
I
S3
Based on the monitoring that had been performed by each regional office, on the state within the region
that the authors evaluated, prior to the authors' field visits.
Especially impressive aspect of the monitoring program employed by the region.
-------
VII, and X) are utilizing their monitoring program to look
not only at the state's performance under delegation, but
also to look internally at the region's performance.
In all cases where the regions conduct significant
monitoring, the regions' monitoring appears to be substan-
tive in nature. It is generally detailed and constructive,
and undoubtedly will lead to improved state administration
of the delegated program. It should also be noted that, in
all cases where the region had performed monitoring, the
states which were monitored appeared to be appreciative of
the region's monitoring efforts and generally felt that
the monitoring was conducted in a constructive and helpful
manner.
Of the 6 regions which have conducted monitoring, the
monitoring program conducted by Region X on the state of Idaho
is considered by the authors to be the best monitoring
program. This particular monitoring effort looked not
only at the state's processing procedures, but also at the
quality of the state's review, the time expended on state
reviews, the state's overall management of the delegated pro-
gram, and in addition, looked at the regional office's
performance under delegation. Of interest, the State of
Idaho actively participates in the region's monitoring of
that state. The only area where this monitoring program
was somewhat weak was in the area of evaluation of the
quality of state reviews.
Two other monitoring programs, namely that of Region II
and that of Region IX, are felt to be superior to the other
monitoring programs (except for Region X's program). The
Region II monitoring program is especially strong in the
area of evaluating state management and administration of
the construction grants program. The Region IX monitoring
program is fairly comprehensive in nature and looks at
all aspects of the delegated state program, though the
timing and the management aspects are not looked at in
4-28
-------
great detail. One interesting aspect of the Region IX
monitoring program is that the region routinely contacts
consulting engineers and grantees in conjunction with its
monitoring to receive outside input as to state performance.
In summary, the regions have not yet developed and im-
plemented effective programs for monitoring and evaluating
the performance of delegated states. Four regions have
performed no monitoring at all, and most of the monitoring
that has been conducted, while detailed and substantive,
is somewhat narrow in perspective. Most of the monitoring
performed to date has dealt with determining state com-
pliance with the processing procedures contained in the
delegation agreement. In general, the regions need to
broaden the scope of their monitoring programs to examine
not only the state processing procedures but also the
quality and processing times associated with state reviews
and the state's overall management of the delegated program.
Of those monitoring efforts that have been conducted, the
Region X monitoring program is considered to be the best
in that it is not only detailed and substantive, but it
is also fairly broad in perspective.
OVERALL REGIONAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE
On an overall basis, the authors rate the performance of
the EPA regional offices under delegation as good. Almost
all regions have moved aggressively to implement delegation
agreements with interested and qualified states. Most
regions are proceeding to fully delegate the specific
program functions to delegated states over about an 18-month
period, though several regions have been slow to turn over
specific functions to states. Some outstanding examples
of regional efforts to train delegated state personnel
have been noted, but the typical regional effort in the
area of training has been relatively modest.
4-29
-------
The organizational structures and the resources util-
ized by the regional offices to oversee the delegated
construction grants program are considered adequate at
the present time. Currently, most regions are in a transi-
tion phase, between a non-delegated and a fully-delegated
mode of operation. At the time when most of the states
within each region become fully delegated, the current
organizational structures, with a few exeptions, will no
longer best serve the region's needs. Most regions, there-
fore, need to reassess their organizational structures in
light of the impending, fully delegated mode of operation.
They also need to reassess their resource needs for this
situation. Chapter 3 of this report indicated that within
a year, 27 of the 37 currently delegated states will be
fully delegated. This establishes the time frame over
which the regions should re-evaluate their organizational
structures and their resource needs. Of all the regions,
two (Region III and Region IX) are considered to have the
organizational structures most suited to delegation.
The regions generally employ sound management practices
for overseeing the delegated program. However, the GICS
based management information system needs to be updated to
meet the regions' needs under delegation, and the regions
need to establish regular and formalized communications
with each delegated state.
In terms of grants processing procedures employed by the
regional offices, most regions, as previously stated, are in
a transitional period, still performing certain non-delega-
ted functions as well as approving state-certified documents.
Because of this, regions are still grappling with how they
intend to operate in a fully delegated mode. Only one region
(Region IX) is currently employing processing procedures con-
sistent with the concepts of delegation, in a manner that
will result in the achievement of the expected benefits of
delegation. The other regions, while they are moving in
4-30
-------
the right direction, are receiving more information and
documents than they need on individual grant projects, and
they are generally not achieving the objective of accepting
state certifications without review.
Regional office performance in terms of the processing
times for award of grants and the issuance of FNSI's under
delegation is generally in need of improvement. There has
been overall improvement in processing times in most of the
regions since delegation, but there is considerable room for
additional improvement. Whereas the average regional pro-
cessing time for award of grants for all three steps of a
typical construction grants project is about 4 months, it
should be possible to reduce this total processing time to
less than 1 month. That this is possible is evidenced
by the processing times acheived in several regions. In
order to reduce processing time, the regional offices need
to focus additional attention and effort in this critical
area. More specifically, each regional office should de-
velop processing time goals for each of its key reviews,
and should routinely monitor actual performance against
those goals. The processing time goals for the issuance
of grant awards should be between 5 and 10 days, and the
processing time goals for the issuance of FNSI's should be
30 days or less. Through implementation of these relatively
simple measures, considerable reduction in processing time
will result. In turn, this will lead to reduced project
costs and expanded buying power from annual appropriations.
In terms of monitoring the performance of delegated
states, 6 of the 10 regions have performed substantive
monitoring on the delegated states. Four regions have not
conducted any significant monitoring. The monitoring that
has been conducted, while detailed and substantive in
nature, is generally narrow in scope. Most of the monitor-
ing has been oriented towards determining state compliance
with the procedures outlined in the delegation agreement.
4-31
-------
Few monitoring programs adequately evaluate the quality of
state reviews, the processing time of state reviews, or
the state's overall management and administration of the
delegated construction grants program.
4-32
-------
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DELEGATED STATES
This chapter presents a general evaluation of the per-
formance of the 10 delegated states visited in conjunction
with the national assessment of the delegated construction
grants program. The performance of these states, in terms
of administering the delegated program, was evaluated in
the following areas:
• Organizational Structure and Resources
• State Management of the Program
• Grant Processing Procedures
• Quality of State Reviews
• Processing Time for State Reviews
The general evaluation of the 10 delegated states is
contained in the following paragraphs. As was noted in
the previous chapter, the observations and recommendations
contained in this chapter are Abased on field visits made
to the state offices between May and August of 1980. As a
result of state efforts made since that time, a number of
the problems identified in this chapter may already have
been eliminated and a number of the recommendations already
implemented.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESOURCES
In general, based on the 10 states evaluated, the
delegated states have adequate resources to properly admin-
ister the construction grants program. Only in certain
units within several states were deficiencies in resources
observed. For example, the state of Maryland, adequately
staffed in most areas, is considered to have a shortage of
staff in the project management unit. The personnel in
this unit are charged with reviewing the facilities plans
5-1
-------
and managing each project throughout the three steps of
the construction grants process. Given the broad responsi-
bilities of this unit, additional resources are needed to
properly fulfill the responsibilities. In the state of
Georgia, whereas sufficient engineering and technical staff
exist within the program, the administrative staff and the
proposed staffing for the construction inspection activities
are judged to be on the light side. In the state of Texas,
several additional positions are needed to staff the environ-
mental unit, the unit that is responsible for the prepara-
tion of the preliminary environmental assessments. In
the state of Montana, which has a grants staff of under a
dozen people, two additional staff are needed, one to
serve as an assistant to the chief of the Constructions
Grant Section, and another to coordinate the construction
activities within the state. Beyond these instances, the
resources employed by the states to administer the delegated
program appear to be adequate.
Of interest, only one state out of the ten visited, the
state of New York, has been unable to fill budgeted positions.
Many other states complained of low salary levels and of the
difficulty in hiring and keeping engineers, but in fact the
states visited were generally staffed close to the current
budget levels. Several states, to accommodate low salaries
paid engineers within the state, hired persons with other
technical backgrounds to fulfill tasks commonly fulfilled
by engineers. For example, the state of Arizona hired
non-engineering professionals (a lawyer, a planner, etc. )
to review facilities plans. Likewise, the project managers
in the Maryland project management unit are non-engineers.
In both of these cases, the non-engineering professionals
worked under the direction of an experienced professional
engineer. Also, many states have set up administrative
units containing non-engineers, for the purpose of removing
much of the administrative work load from the engineering
5-2
-------
staffs so that engineers can concentrate primarily on
technical matters. In several instances, states were able
to get the state legislature to elevate the salaries for
newly hired engineers above the level that would normally
be paid. EPA regional offices have assisted the states in
getting these higher salary levels.
As stated previously, only the state of New York has had
serious problems hiring necessary staff. The problems
encountered in New York are not due to engineering salary
levels. They are due to a number of civil service related
problems. No one problem has stood in the way of the New
York hiring program, but rather three or four problems have
each resulted in keeping the state from hiring twenty or
so additional personnel. In spite of these problems, the
state currently has a staff of 215 people, compared to
the ultimate objective of 283 people, and is only about 20
people behind the hiring schedule contained in the delega-
tion agreement.
Figure 5-1 contains a graph of the personnel to be
employed at "full delegation" within each of the ten dele-
gated states in relation to the federal allocation to the
state (based on a $3.4 billion national appropriation).
As can be seen, there is a close relationship between
state staffing levels and the federal allocation to that
particular state, although state staffing levels generally
were determined based on a detailed manpower analysis.
Some of the variations found from the midline of the envel-
ope of curves readily can be explained. For example, the
author previously noted that the state of Georgia needed
additional administrative staff and construction personnel.
This would elevate the state resources towards the middle of
the envelope of curves. The state of Maryland, on the high
side of the envelope, is fully administering all of those
activites that are traditionally performed by the Corps of
Engineers in other states, including biddability/construct-
5-3
-------
FIGURE 5-1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE STAFFING LEVELS AND
ANNUAL ALLOCATION
03
O
to
&-
01
ex
01
CO
s-
O)
300
400
Annual Federal Allocation to State, in millions of Dollars
(Based on a $3.4 billion national appropriation)
5-4
-------
ability reviews, interim inspections, on-site inspections
and final inspections. Because of the close relationship
found, it is suggested that Figure 5-1 be utilized as a
preliminary basis for estimating staffing needs in states
which are not yet delegated.
The authors explored the relationship between the number
of active projects within a given state and the staffing
level, but found little relationship and considerable vari-
ability between states. Therefore, it is felt that the re-
source/federal allocation relationship is the best approach
for estimating and evaluating resource needs.
An additional aspect of the general subject of resources
is the adequacy of the federal funding available to delegated
states for program administration under Section 205(g) of the
Act. Three of the ten states visited are operating with
budgets in excess of the administrative funding annually
available from Section 205(g), i.e., in excess of 2% of their
allocation. In all three cases, the states are making up
their current budget deficit by borrowing from Section 205(g)
funds that had been reserved during the initial years of the
Act, but went unused because the state was not yet fully
staffed. The 3 states that are currently operating on budgets
in excess of the annual provisions of Section 205(g) are
Connecticut, Arizona, and Idaho. Further, 3 additional
states, Michigan, Missouri, and Montana, will be at the level
of 2% of their allocation or in excess of that level within
one or two years from now. It should also be pointed out
that none of these 6 states is administering any of the
activities typically performed by the Corps of Engineers
(except that Connecticut is performing some interim inspec-
tions). From this, it appears that the 2% funding available
from Section 205(g) of the Act is not adequate on a long-
term basis in more than half of the ten states visited.
Furthermore, the 2% funding is only sufficient in the
short-term because of the present ability of most states
5-5
-------
to utilize funds which were reserved during the early
years of delegation before the states were fully staffed.
This problem will be discussed more fully in Chapter 6.
In summary, with a few isolated exceptions, states are
adequately staffed to properly administer the delegated con-
struction grant program (given the current status of dele-
gation in those states). However, the administrative fund-
ing available to delegated states through Section 205(g) of
the Act is not adequate in most states to allow the states
to take over construction related activities being performed
by the Corps of Engineers.
The 10 states visited during this national evaluation
offer a number of varying organizational approaches to admin-
istering the delegated construction grants program. The
organizational structures vary from the situation iii the
state of Montana, where a single organizational unit of
eleven people with a single supervisor administer all aspects
of the construction grants program, to that in the state
of Idaho, where construction grants projects are processed
by one of the three state regional offices with the state's
central office having coordinating and quality control res-
ponsibilities, to the structure in the state of New York,
where program administrative responsibilities are divided
between three offices of the Department of Environmental
Conservation. Though the organizational structures of the
10 states vary considerably, the organizational structures
are generally considered adequate. Several problems were
observed, but none so serious that they need immediate atten-
tion, although some do merit watching over future years.
The authors feel that 4 of the states visited have
organizational structures that are less than ideal and that
these states should remain sensitive to the potential prob-
lems which could develop. If problems are observed, the
states should consider organizational changes. The first
of these four states is the state of New York where, as
5-6
-------
previously stated, three major offices under the Department
of Environmental Conservation have significant construction
grants program related responsibilities. The commissioner
of the department, who is also responsible for all conser-
vation and natural resources related activites in the state,
is the only person with total responsibility for the con-
struction grants program. Further, within the Office of
Environmental Quality, the office having the major responsi-
bility for the program, responsibility for the program is
currently divided between two division directors who share
equally that office's responsibilities for administering
the grants program. A recent proposal would have the
grants-related activities currently being administered by
one of these divisions, the Water Division, transferred
to the other division, the Construction Management Division.
This organizational change, if it does go forward, will take
care of perhaps the most serious organizational problem in
the state of New York. While the remaining organizational
structure is far from ideal, the authors investigated the
rationale for dividing the program between three offices,
and concluded that little other choice exists, without
changing the overall structure of the department. Therefore,
the New York staff involved in grants program administration
is faced with the challenge of trying to make a less than
ideal organizational structure work effectively. It appears
that the state is doing a fairly good job in this regard.
Three other states, Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona, have
less than ideal organizational structures. The primary
organizational problem in these states is that significant
program-related activities are not totally under the control
of a single program manager. In the case of Georgia, the
authors recommended that the construction grants program
manager take responsibility for program activities not
currently under his direction, at the time the state takes
on construction-related activities currently being performed
5-7
-------
by the Corps of Engineers. In the other two cases, the
authors recommended that the states just watch these sit-
uations closely, and if problems start to develop, con-
sider moving these other activities under the authority
of a single construction grant program manager.
Several other states, in the view of the authors, have
organizational structures that need improvement in certain
areas. For example, the authors feel that the Georgia
organizational structure needs strengthening in the adminis-
trative area. The Missouri organizational structure needs
units added to handle environmental matters, construction-
related matters, and administrative matters. The Montana
organizational structure needs an assistant construction
grants section chief to help the section chief supervise
the staff under him. Several states need a construction
management coordinator to oversee the construction aspects
of the program.
Of interest is the previously referred to organizational
structure existing in the state of Idaho. In the case of
Idaho, the state's central office is responsible for the
construction grants program from a programmatic standpoint,
whereas the state's three regional offices are responsible
for performing all project review and project related admini-
strative activities. The state's central office performs
a quality review function of regional actions on key docu-
ments and provides guidance to and coordinates the efforts
of the individual regional offices. Whereas initially the
authors had some concerns with this organizational structure,
it was apparent upon investigation that the organization
was working quite effectively, primarily because of the
strong working relationship existing between the state's
central office and the three regional offices. It was
clear to the authors that, whereas organizationally the
construction grants staff in the regional offices did not
answer to the program managers in the state office, from a
5-8
-------
programmatic standpoint they did. The authors are satisfied
that, while this is an unusual organizational structure,
it is operating effectively. In fact, it appears that
this unusual organizational structure has led to better
management and better coordination than typically exists
between organizational units that are housed in the same
offices. In the case of the state of Idaho, the staff
acknowledged that dividing responsibilities between the
state's central and regional offices presented potential
problems and therefore a number of effective management
practices were implemented to minimize the potential prob-
lems .
In summary, the states' organizational structures for
administering the delegated construction grants program are
generally considered adequate. The only exceptions are the
several states which have organizational structures that need
expanding or strengthening, and several others which have
organizational structures where some significant construc-
tion grants-related activities are not under .the direction
of a single program manager.
STATE MANAGEMENT OF THE DELEGATED PROGRAM
In evaluating the adequacy of state management of the
delegated construction grants program, the authors consid-
ered the following factors:
• The apparent capability of the state's manage-
ment staff.
• Whether the state has an adequate information
reporting system to provide managers with the
information they need to manage the program.
• Whether the state has an adequate system for
planning, directing and controlling the conduct
of the program.
• Whether the state has an adequate method for
5-9
-------
tracking, controlling and where appropriate,
expediting the progress ,of individual grant
projects.
• Whether the state adequately communicates with
the EPA regional office as well as with grantees,
consultants and other outside interests.
In general, the authors are impressed with the state
managers of the construction grants program. These individ-
uals were generally experienced in the program prior to
delegation, and they appeared energetic and dedicated to-
wards doing a good job in the program. They also appear
to attach a sense of importance to performing their jobs
well and they seem to have a good sense of perspective as
to which of the many aspects of the program are most import-
ant and which are of lesser importance. Based on the
review of the 10 delegated states, the authors have no
qualms about the management capabilities that exist at the
state level. All of the states visited have managers who
are fully capable of doing an excellent job of administering
the program.
The authors found a great deal of variability in the
adequacy of the states' information reporting systems to
give state managers the information they need to properly
manage the program. Four of the ten states visited have
little or no information reporting systems available to
the program managers. Several states, including Maryland,
Michigan, Montana, and Idaho, have monthly reports which
describe the current financial status of the program within
the state as well as significant activities completed
during the previous month (such as grant awards, certifica-
tions, etc.). Two states, New York and Texas, are using
GIGS to a considerable extent to meet their management
information needs. The state of Texas, to meet its infor-
mation needs, produces some 40 GIGS reports- many of which
were programmed by the state staff. The state of New York
5-10
-------
has the widest array of management information reporting
of any of the states visited, expecially at the program-
wide level. In addition to its GICS reports, the state
updates the project priority list and the schedules associ-
ated with the projects on that list on a monthly basis,
produces a monthly project milestone tracking report, and
produces a monthly accomplishment report.
In general, while there are some interesting and useful
management reports being prepared in a number of the delega-
ted states, the authors feel that there is a need for more
extensive information reporting in most states, especially
at the program-wide level. Each state responsible for
administering the construction grants program should have
a monthly management report which describes the current
status of the construction grants program within that state,
records past outputs and accomplishments at least over the
previous year, and projects key activities and accomplish-
ments, including awards and obligations. While many states
have monthly management reports that adequately describe
current program status, few of these reports take an historic
view of the accomplishments within the program, and none
contain projections of future activities. Projecting fu-
ture activities is essential if program managers are to
be on top of the program and are to manage it in a pro-
active rather than a reactive manner.
A number of states have sound management tools to assist
them in planning, directing, and controlling the conduct of
the delegated program. One state, Maryland, has developed
program goals which are included in a regularly produced
report for the Governor. Another state, Idaho, in conjunc-
tion with the EPA regional office, is using the State EPA
agreement as a means for planning future program activities
and direction. Three states. New York, Georgia, and Arizona,
have management by objective (MBO) systems in place and
operating, primarily at the staff level. In these systems
5-11
-------
each staff member negotiates a set of performance object-
ives with his supervisor and then conducts his activities
towards the end of meeting those objectives. In the case
of the MBO systems in Georgia and Arizona, the performance
standards at the staff level include such things as output
levels expected and processing times for various reviews
performed by staff. The state of Connecticut also is in
the process of implementing an MBO system, though it will
take several years to fully implement.
The authors were impressed by the MBO system utilized
in these states, especially where the objectives which were
developed dealt with important criteria such as outputs and
project processing time. It should be noted that in the 2
states (Georgia and Arizona) where performance standards
contain processing time standards, processing times are
less than the average in the other states. The use of MBO
or performance standards appears to yield positive results.
The authors believe that the MBO approach is a good
management tool, though additional benefits would accrue
from this tool if it were applied not only to the staff
performance, but also to the program level. It would be
beneficial for all states to employ some type of long-range
planning mechanism such as MBO. It is very easy for state
program managers to become engrossed in the day-to-day
pressures of processing individual construction grants pro-
jects and to never look ahead or plan ahead or spend time
trying to anticipate problems and develop solutions to
them before they become crises.
With the exception of 2 states, Maryland and Missouri,
the states visited appear to be focussing their attention
primarily on immediate problems and issues rather than
looking and planning ahead. All states should employ some
type of system that forces them to periodically remove
themselves from the day-to-day pressures of the program
and to look and to plan ahead. Again, an MBO approach is
5-12
-------
a useful tool in accomplishing this objective.
Several states have developed rather comprehensive
training programs to assist in their management of staffs
which are almost entirely new to the program. The state
of Missouri has a full time training coordinator and a
very extensive technical, administrative, and skill-oriented
training program for all of its staff members. The state
of Arizona has drawn upon EPA regional office resources,
available for one year IPA assignments to train its staff
on an on-the-job basis.
The state of Idaho, primarily because of the organiza-
tional structure previously discussed, is in the process
of developing a quality control program to insure that
project level reviews are of adequate quality.
Only 2 of the 10 states visited (Georgia and Idaho) have
developed project tracking systems that allow them to follow
closely the progress of individual projects throughout the
entire construction grants process. The state of Georgia has
developed a key project tracking system which is manually
updated on a continual basis. Key projects have been
chosen primarily on the basis of their dollar size and
their impact on the overall state rate of obligations.
The state of Idaho, in conjunction with the EPA regional
office, has developed a rather extensive computerized,
project tracking system that, when fully implemented, will
project work load and key document receipt dates as well
as track the progress of all active grant projects. This
particular program, now fully developed but not yet imple-
mented, will operate off of GIGS. This is the only project
tracking system existing in the states visited that deals
with all projects in a fairly sophisticated manner. Further,
it is the only attempt observed to project future work load.
Several other states employ systems for following the
progress of individual projects that border on a project
tracking system. The state of New York regularly updates
5-13
-------
the schedules of individual projects contained on the
priority list and produces a monthly milestone tracking
report on all projects that are scheduled for grant award
during the current fiscal year. The monthly milestone
tracking report also identifies specific problems that may
keep a project from reaching the grant award stage prior to
the end of the fiscal year. The states of Michigan and
Arizona also utilize the project priority list and the
target certification dates as a means of tracking indivi-
dual projects. In general, these types of systems, while
they are in the right direction, do not fully satisfy the
needs of the states in terms of a project tracking system.
The authors believe that all states responsible for
administering the construction grants program should utilize
some type of project tracking system. Small states do not
need a system as sophisticated as the Idaho system, but
even the large states would benefit through implementation
of a system as simple as the manually maintained state of
Georgia system. Only with the use of a project tracking
system can states stay on top of the progress of projects
and keep them moving as rapidly as possible through the
long, complex construction grants process. A project track-
ing system should have certain features. It should have
rather detailed schedules for each active project, should
provide for routine monitoring of the actual progress of
projects against the schedules, and should provide for the
continual updating of project schedules. In addition, the
system should be supplemented with aggressive effort on the
part of the state to maintain the schedules and, where neces-
sary, expedite projects.
In terms of this latter point, some states appeared to
have a sense of apathy insofar as the need to expedite pro-
jects and the state's ability to do so. In some states
there seemed to be the feeling that if a project was delayed
as a result of a grantee or a consultant not acting with
5-14
-------
reasonable haste, then that was the grantee's problem and
not the state's problem. The authors would disagree with
that philosophy. The faster the projects move through the
system, the sooner they get built, the sooner the national
and state water pollution control goals (for which this
program was designed) are achieved, and the greater the
buying power which the state gets with its fixed allocation
of federal construction grant funds. It most certainly is
in the states' interest to move construction grants projects
of good quality through the complicated three-step process as
rapidly as possible. A project tracking system along with
an aggressive state attitude toward maintaining project
schedules is a necessary tool if this difficult task is to
be accomplished.
In terms of the final factor for evaluation, i.e.,
state communication with the EPA regional offices as well
as with grantees and consultants, several states employed
practices to accomplish this. The state of Arizona meets
wi'th the management staff of the EPA regional office on a
monthly basis to discuss program and project-related activ-
ities, problems and issues. The state of Michigan accomp-
lishes this same purpose through the use of monthly confer-
ence calls with the EPA regional office. These are the
only two states visited, which on a regular and formalized
basis meet with the EPA regional offices. Communications
between delegated states and their respective EPA regional
offices are of utmost importance, too important to leave to
chance. As recommended in the previous chapter on the
regional offices, all regions and states should meet on a
regular basis to discuss current program and project related
issues, similar to what is being done in both the states
of Arizona and Michigan.
As far as communicating with grantees, consultants, and
other outside interests is concerned, several states are
employing outside advisory committees for this purpose.
5-15
-------
The state of Maryland has a very active advisory committee
in place and is devoting two man years of effort towards
servicing this committee. The committee assists the state
in identifying and resolving program-related issues. The
states of Georgia and Texas are in the process of institu-
ting advisory committees and are well along in that process.
The authors noted that in the state of Maryland,
detailed minutes are produced at the monthly advisory com-
mittee meetings and then are distributed widely throughout
the state. Thus the advisory committee also serves as a
mechanism to distribute current program-related information
to all of those interested in the construction grants
program.
In addition, several states have regularly published
documents that are routinely sent to grantees and consult-
ants. The state of New York produces Technical Information
Pamphlets (TIPS) that address technical matters associated
with the construction grants program. The TIPS are sent
out to all consultants active in the grants program within
the state. The state of Montana has policy statements
that it distributes within its own staff as well as to
consultants active in the program. The state of Maryland
has both a series of construction grants memos and several
technical bulletins which have been distributed to consult-
ants. The state of Michigan holds periodic workshops with
consulting engineers, oriented towards educating the con-
sultants in new program requirements but also dealing with
current issues identified by the consultants as well as by
the state.
The authors believe that for states to do the best
possible job of managing the construction grants program,
they need to employ an effective means of communicating
with consultants, grantees, and others having an interest
in the program. While communication typically takes place
on a project-by-project basis, there is a need for communi-
5-16
-------
cation in a broader sense, beyond just a project-by-project
type of discussion which benefits only a single grantee or
consultant.
In summary, the authors were impressed with the manage-
ment staffs of the 10 states which were visited. The
management staffs in these states appear to be fully capable
of doing an excellent job of administering the construction
grants program. State managers to this point in time,
however, have focussed their efforts primarily on taking
over the delegated program from EPA and on dealing with
issues and problems associated with individual construction
grant projects. Few, at this stage, have had time to make
the transition into taking a broader management perspective,
a perspective focussed on managing the program as opposed
to just managing the processing of individual projects.
Undoubtedly, states will make the transition naturally
into fulfilling their broader program-wide management res-
ponsibilities. Much faster progress could be made in this
reg'ard, however, if the states implemented several key
management tools. The construction grants program is so
large and so complex that no program manager can do a
proper job of managing the program, no matter what his/her
managerial ability, without a fairly sophisticated set of
management tools. For example, every state visited needs to
improve and expand its current management information report-
ing system. All states need a management information sys-
tem that tells them what they have accomplished in the
past, the current status of the program, and where the
program is headed in the future. Further- all states need
a project tracking system that will allow state project
reviewers to closely track and, where necessary, expedite
the progress of individual grant projects. States need
some type of system, such as MBO, to force them to remove
themselves from the day-to-day pressures of the construction
grants program and to look ahead and to plan ahead. States
5-17
-------
also need to work at improving communications both with
the EPA regional offices and with grantees,- consultants,
and other outside interests.
STATE GRANTS PROCESSING PROCEDURES
In general, states appear to be utilizing sound grants
processing procedures. There appears to be a clear delinea-
tion of responsibility between the various organizational
units within each state organization, there does not appear
to be any overlapping reviews or inefficiencies, and no
procedures are employed that appear to be unnecessary or
to have only minimal benefits. Further, based primarily
on the EPA monitoring that was performed, states generally
appear to be complying with the terms of the delegation
agreements relative to the specific processing procedures
contained in those agreements.
The authors have one general comment to offer that
relates to processing procedures and applies to most states
—that is, most states need to more actively deal with
grantees and consultants during the preparation stage of
facilities plans, and plans and specifications. A summary
of state interaction with grantees and consultants on indi-
vidual grant projects in each of the 10 states visited is
presented in Table 5-1. As can be seen from Table 5-1,
most states are conducting a pre-application conference
with individual grantees. Only about half of the states,
however, provide intermediate review of the facilities
plans. The other half of the states generally wait for a
draft facilities plan before they become involved in review-
ing the facilities planning effort. Two states review
only the final facilities plan, i.e., after the grantee
has gone to public hearing and officially adopted the
plan.
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF STATE INTERACTION ON INDIVIDUAL GRANT PROJECTS
State
Connecticut
New York
Maryland
Georgia
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Montana
Arizona
Idaho
Pre-appli-
cation
Conferences
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Single
Conference
for all
Yes
If Grantee
requests
Yes
Yes
Interned.
Fac. Plan
Reviews
No
Limited
No
Yes
Mid-
course
Review
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Draft
Fac. Plan
Review
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Final
Fac. Plan
Review
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Prelim.
Design
Review.
No
Li mi tec
No
Yes
Li mi tec
No
^
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Intermed.
Design
Review
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Limited
Yes
Prelim.
Plans & Specs
Review
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Final Plans
& Specs
Review
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
Admin, order w/ schedule on
all projects. On P&S, field
visit, operability review
P&S operability review
Active construction mgmt..
program, small communities
program
Active state involvement
during fac. planning, P&S
On P&S, field visit, review
w/ operator
P&S operability review
Active construction mgmt.
program
Site, geologic survey during
facility plan review
Payment schedules require
interned, submittals.
Operability review at 80% of
construction. Comprehensive
design review report prepared
Active State involvement
during fac. ping. Active
Construction Mgmt. Program
Active State involvement
during fac. planning, P&S
-------
Six of the ten states do not review the plans and speci-
fications during the design preparation phase of individual
grant projects, but rather, they wait until at least prelim-
inary plans and specifications (90-100% complete) have
been submitted before they review the design in any signi-
ficant way. Two states, namely Georgia and Idaho, review
designs throughout the design preparation process. They
initially review preliminary design reports and then they
perform intermediate design reviews at approximately the
halfway point in the design process, prior to reviewing
preliminary and then final plans and specifications. These
same states are performing similar in-progress reviews
during the facilities planning process. In both states,
after the pre-application conference there is continual
dialogue and review of intermediate products of the facili-
ties planning process prior to receipt and review of the
draft facilities plan. The state of Montana also has a
continuous dialogue and review with the consultant during
the facilities planning process.
Continuous review of intermediate products during the
facilities planning and design preparation phases of the
program are highly desirable procedures for effective ad-
ministration of the construction grants program. Such
reviews accomplish a number of things. First, they prevent
the consultant and the grantee from taking a direction
that is not acceptable to the state and which is therefore
wasting effort, time, and money. Second, they place the
state in a much stronger position in terms of having an
impact on the proposed facilities plan or design. It is
much easier to influence a consultant's direction in both
the planning and design processes when the state comments
during the process rather than waiting until the consultant
has finalized the plan or design, convinced the grantee
that it is the best possible approach, and then submitted
it to the state for review. The consultant generally
5-20
-------
resists suggested changes at this point in time because
his professional reputation is at stake. At the same
time, the state is constrained by a deadline and is not as
free to propose significant changes in the planning or
design. Also, the benefits of proposed changes have to be
weighed against delays in project implementation. A final
benefit of continuous and intermediate review is that the
processing time for the final product can be shortened
considerably if the state has followed the project closely
throughout its developmental stages. By the time a facili-
ties plan is submitted, the state has already dealt with a
number of key aspects of that plan and is fairly familiar
with it. Therefore, the state reviewer can proceed more
rapidly through the review process. The same benefits
apply to the review of plans and specifications.
Beyond the above general comment, the authors observed
a number of interesting approaches utilized by states in the
processing of individual grant projects. The state of
Connecticut, for example, issues administrative orders con-
taining fairly detailed time schedules on all projects at
the time a project's Step 1 application is approved. These
orders and the associated time schedules are then used to
track and keep on schedule individual projects. Several
states, namely New York, Connecticut, Michigan, and Texas,-
are performing operability reviews of plans and specifica-
tions, using personnel who are familiar with the operation
and maintenance aspects of treatment plants to perform
this function. In the case of Texas, the state has a
small unit made up of licensed plant operators who perform
the review. The state of Maryland has an assistance program
for small communities, administered under contract, by the
state agency that is responsible for the planning, construc-
tion and operation of all state-owned water and sewage
facilities. This state agency also is the single largest
grantee in the state of Maryland (in terms of having the
5-21
-------
greatest number of active grant projects), and is therefore
very familiar with the construction grants process.
There are other interesting approaches utilized by sev-
eral states in administering various aspects of the con-
struction grants program. The states of Maryland and
Texas have active and impressive construction management
programs.. The state of Missouri conducts detailed site
and geologic surveys on all project sites during the facil-
ities plan review stage to prevent problems that have
typically occurred in the past due to a lack of adequate
site information. The state of Montana places requirements
for intermediate submittals of facilities plans, and plans
and specifications, in the payment schedules associated
with individual grant projects. Payments are not made
unless these intermediate submittals are made. Montana
also conducts operability reviews of treatment plants when
construction is about 80% complete. The idea here is to
identify necessary operations-related changes at a point
in time when changes can be made more easily, i.e., before
the contractor completes construction and moves off the
site. The state of Montana also produces a very comprehen-
sive design review report in conjunction with its review
of each construction grants project. The design report is
divided into various sections, including process design,
hydraulic design, operability, safety/ and specifications.
Also of interest in this regard, the state of Montana
makes its own detailed design calculations to check the
adequacy of the process and hydraulic designs of each
project. Several other states, including the states of
Georgia, Idaho and Arizona, also perform detailed design
calculations for use in their review of proposed designs.
In summary, the state procedures for processing indivi-
dual grant projects are generally considered adequate.
The one need that most states have in this area is to more
actively review intermediate products during the facilities
5-22
-------
planning and design preparation stages. During the facili-
ties planning stage, the state should review population
and flow projections as they are developed, review proposed
alternatives before they are evaluated, review cost-effec-
tive analyses before recommended plans are selected, and
finally review draft facilities plans before local public
hearings are held. In the design phase of the program,
states should require the submittal of and review detailed
preliminary design reports, should review a set of plans
and specifications at approximately the mid-point of the
design process, and should review preliminary, or nearly
complete plans and specifications. Such intermediate re-
views should minimize wasted effort on the part of the
consultant, allow the state to have a much greater impact
on projects, and should speed up the review of individual
projects. The end result will be better projects construc-
ted sooner and at lower costs.
QUALITY OF STATE REVIEWS
In evaluating the adequacy of the state reviews from a
quality standpoint, the authors focussed primarily on the
technical reviews performed by the state on facilities
plans, and plans and specifications. These are key state
reviews in that they have the greatest potential for influ-
encing the selection, cost, and adequacy of a project. To
perform this evaluation/ the authors reviewed the files on
several projects which recently received state facilities
plan approval, and plans and specifications approval. Usu-
ally 4 to 6 projects were reviewed in each of these two
areas.
In evaluating state reviews, the authors addressed sev-
eral questions. First, were the state reviews thorough
and detailed or were they cursory in nature? Second, were
the state reviews substantive, i.e., were they such that
5-23
-------
they would have positive impacts op significant aspects of
the project, such as the performance of the project, its
cost, its environmental impact or its operability? If a
review was found to be thorough and detailed and substan-
tive as defined above, it was concluded that the review
was of good quality. By evaluating 4 to 6 reviews in each
category, the authors were generally able to get a reason-
able indication of the quality of these key state technical
reviews.
Based on these evaluations, the authors conclude that
the state reviews of facilities plans, and plans and specifi-
cations are generally of very good quality. They generally
appear to be thorough and detailed and substantive in
nature and, in the eyes of the authors, will lead to better,
more cost-effective projects. There are several exceptions
to this general finding. One state has plans and specifi-
cations reviews that, while very detailed, are not considered
to be substantive in nature. These reviews deal with
things like dimensional errors, missing sections or profiles.
and inconsistencies contained in the plans and specifica-
tions. In the eyes of the authors, these reviews are more
along the lines of biddability/constructability reviews,
and miss key aspects of the design, such as the adequacy
of the process design, the cost-effectiveness of various
aspects of the design, and the operability of the facility.
In one other state, some of the plans and specifications
reviews are very good, while others lack thoroughness and
do not appear to be substantive. In this case and a similar
case regarding the inconsistent reviews of facilities plans
in another state, the authors were hesitant to draw any
sweeping conclusions because of the small sampling of
projects that were reviewed. Rather, it was recommended
that these 2 states make a more detailed and in depth
review of their own technical reviews in each of these
areas. If the authors' preliminary observations are sub-
5-24
-------
stantiated, then the states will have to try to improve
their reviews.
There are two states in which the reviews of plans and
specifications are substantive, thorough, and detailed but
which do not contain any indication that the process design
had been reviewed. In both cases, the states pointed out that
process-related reviews are generally conducted during the
latter stages of the facilities planning review process. The
authors were unable to totally substantiate this and there-
fore recommended that both of those states take a closer
look at the situation to insure that the process design
review was not falling through the cracks, somewhere between
the facilities planning and design stages. In this regard,
the authors also have concern as to whether a good process
review can be made before the consultant really becomes
involved with the details of the design; this concern is
based on the general nature of the process-related informa-
tion that is available at the facilities planning stage.
The authors prefer the approach utilized in several states
whereby a detailed preliminary design report, containing
plant layouts, unit sizings and loadings, etc., is submitted
to the state for detailed review early in the design process.
In summary, the state reviews of both facilities plans,
and plans and specifications appear to be of very good
quality. They are generally detailed, thorough, and sub-
stantive in nature and will likely lead to better, more
cost effective projects. Only in 1 state was a clear
deficiency noted (in the review of plans and specifications),
while in 2 other states inconsistent reviews (in one case
of plans and specifications and in the other case of facil-
ities plans) were noted. Further, the authors found that
two states may be not giving proper attention to the process
design review aspects of treatment facilities because of
an overlap with the facilities planning review.
5-25
-------
PROCESSING TIMES FOR STATE REVIEWS
The processing times of state reviews and approvals of
grant applications and key documents is an important aspect
of state administration of the construction grants program.
The time spent conducting state reviews impacts on the rate
at which clean water goals are achieved, on the cost of proj-
ects, as well as on the buying power available from a state's
annual allotment of the national construction grant funds.
In evaluating state performance in this area, the following
factors were considered--
• Does the state have reasonable time targets or
goals for its key reviews?
• Does the state have an adequate internal manage-
ment system that encourages achievements of these
goals?
• Are the actual approval times since delegation
generally consistent with the state's time goals?
• Are the actual review and approval times for
key documents adequate or are they in need of
improvement, based on the following criteria:
Step 1, 2, and 3 applications certified
within one month.
Facilities plans approved within three
months.
Plans and specifications approved within
two months.
Only 3 of 10 states have processing time goals for key
state reviews. One of these, the state of Georgia, has pro-
cessing time goals for its reviews written into the perfor-
mance standards for each employee. The uniform state stan-
dard is to respond to all documents submitted by the gran-
tee or consultant and acknowledge receipt, within 5 days
of receipt. Further, the state has a goal of preparing
comment letters on all documents within 30 days of receipt.
5-26
-------
The management system employed to encourage achievement of
these goals is a regularly scheduled performance evaluation
of each employee. The employee's performance is judged in
part as to whether or not he was able to meet these goals
on his projects. The state of Arizona utilizes an almost
identical approach to encouraging rapid processing of pro-
jects. The results of this type of approach are quite
impressive, as indicated in Table 5-2, which summarizes
state processing times for all 10 states for each of the
key review activities.
The state of Idaho has processing time goals written
into its delegation agreement with the EPA regional office.
For example, in the delegation agreement appendix which
deals with plans and specifications, the region has identi-
fied processing time goals for the state. The region
then, as part of its routine monitoring of state performance,
checks the actual state performance in comparison with the
review times contained in the delegation agreement. Again.
as a- result of this system, the review times in the state
of Idaho, as compared to most of the other states, are
impressive.
In the other 7 states, there are no set time goals nor
are there established management systems to encourage rapid
processing of grant documents. Generally, the approach in
the other states is to try to get the documents out as rapidly
as possible, though no specific definition of "as rapidly
as possible" is made. In some cases, states are attempting
to complete their reviews in sufficient time to meet target
certification dates which are contained in the project
priority list. Such an approach does not appear to be
effective in terms of reducing processing times either
because the certification dates are outdated, or if they are
updated, they are updated only a month ahead of the current
month.
5-27
-------
TABLE 5-2. PROCESSING TIMES FOR STATE REVIEWS
State
Connecticut
tew York
Maryland
Georgia
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Montana
Arizona
Idaho
AVERAGE
Processing Time, Jn daysa
Step 1
Applications
55(3)
a
38(4)
51(6)
94(T6)
101(101)
218(6)
37(10)
18(2)
17(11)
84
Facilities
Plan
Review time
included in Step 2
Comments only
135(9)
b
43(9)
228('8)
Not delegated
212(3)
b
b
160
Step 2
Applications
175(7)
b
41(4)
49(8)
75(23)
130(17)
114(6)
9(15)
21(2)
18(3)
57
Plans and
Specifications
270(9)
145(4)
66(6)
26(4)
162(26)
100(15)
270(5)
113(5)
b
b
144
Step 3
Applications
166(3)
b
92(6)
73(6)
107(11)
111(13)
Not delegated
55(6)
22(3)
9(1)
79
Total
666
b
b
242
666
b
426
b
b
524
Ui
ro
oo
Based on approvals since delegation of a particular function, or if records were poor, on a sampling of recent
approvals. Numbers shown in parentheses are the number of approvals made.
Processing times were not available either because the function had not yet been delegated, or because no approvals
had been made since delegation, or because of a lack of records.
-------
Comparing the processing times contained in Table 5-2
with the general criteria which the authors previously out-
lined , makes it apparent that with the several exceptions
already noted (the states of Georgia, Arizona, and Idaho).
state processing times are in need of considerable improve-
ment. Of particular interest is the total processing time
required for all 5 of the key state reviews. In several
states, where information is available, the total state
review time is aproaching two years. This means that each
project is delayed approximately two years pending state
review and approval. Likewise, achievement of state water
pollution control goals that will be affected by those
projects are delayed two years, the costs of those projects
are elevated in excess of 20% due to inflation and the
buying power of the state's annual allocation of funds
is likewise reduced by over 20%. Clearly, substantial bene-
fits will result if these long review times can be shortened.
Most states need to focus greater attention on processing
grants-related documents in a time-efficient manner. The
short review times observed in the 3 states previously
mentioned, together with the authors' findings that those
particular states are doing a good job from a quality
standpoint, indicates that shorter reviews are possible
without sacrificing the quality of the reviews.
Because of the importance of time-efficient reviews in
program administration, each state should identify as a
major program goal over the next year a significant reduc-
tion in the processing time for approval of key documents.
To facilitate achievement of this goal, processing time
goals should be established for the 5 key state reviews,
along the lines of the criteria listed earlier in this
section. Further, each state should regularly monitor
actual performance against the processing time goals that
have been established and give feedback to staff whenever
processing times are inconsistent with these goals.
5-29
-------
Another important aspect of reducing processing time is
to expend effort towards insuring rapid turnaround at the
grantee and consultant level. The processing times shown
in Table 5-2 include not only the state time for commenting
on the initial submittal.- but also grantee response time,
as well as subsequent review time expended at the state
level. Time expended at the grantee level in responding
to state comments is as costly as time spent at the state
level in preparing initial comments and reviewing subsequent
submittals. The states must take responsibility for insur-
ing that grantee responses are received in a reasonably
short amount of time.
Several recommendations made earlier in this chapter
will assist states in reducing processing times. An early
and continuous involvement of state reviewers in the facil-
ities planning and design preparation stages should allow
states to review intermediate products (without stopping
the consultant's progress) and therefore reduce the state
processing time of final products. Not only should state
processing time be reduced.- but also it should be less
likely that the grantee will have to make a major change
in the facilities plan or design, that would otherwise tend
to delay grantee response time. Also, implementation of a
project tracking system and an aggressive effort by the
state to maintain projects on schedule will be valuable in
reducing grantee response time and insuring rapid processing
time at the state level.
In summary, with several exceptions, state processing
times are in need of considerable improvement. States need
to focus a significant amount of attention on reducing their
total processing times. Implementation of certain manage-
ment tools, such as the establishment of goals for each key
review performed by the state, and routine tracking of actual
performance against those goals will be of considerable ass-
istance in this effort. Greater involvement by state staff
5-30
-------
with grantees and consultants during the facilities planning
and design preparation phases of projects, and implementa-
tion of a project tracking system will also be of assist-
ance in this regard.
OVERALL STATE PERFORMANCE
On an overall basis, states appear to be doing a good
job of administering the delegated construction grants pro-
gram. In general they appear to have adequate resources
to administer the program and acceptable organizational
structures. There are several isolated cases in which
resource levels need to be increased and there are several
situations where organizational structures need to be stren-
gthened. These cases, however, are relatively minor in
significance.
The management staffs at the state level appear to be
quite capable of managing this large complex program. Most
of the state managers, however, appear to be focussing their
attention and efforts on taking over the delegated program
and on dealing with problems and issues associated with indi-
vidual grant projects. Few state managers, at this point
in time, have been able to focus attention on managing the
program as a whole. While this change in management focus
will undoubtedly evolve over time, (given the capability
of the state managers), implementation of certain manage-
ment tools would assist state managers in making this
transition at a faster rate. Specifically, each state
should employ certain key management tools. These should
include:
• A management reporting system which provides
program managers with information on current
program status, past performance, and future
projections.
• A project tracking system.
5-31
-------
• A system such as MBO which provides the state
with a mechanism to look and to plan ahead.
• Regular and formalized communications with the
EPA regional office.
• Some formalized means of communications with
grantees and consultants such as an outside
advisory committee, or regular publications or
bulletins, or both.
With the addition of these management tools and the capa-
bility of the state managers, there is no question that
the construction grants program can be properly managed
at the state level.
In terms of grants processing procedures, the proce-
dures employed by the states appear to be generally adequate
and they appear to be in conformance with the procedures
identified in the delegation agreements. The major recom-
mendation in this area is that states become more actively
involved with grantees and consultants during the facilities
planning and design preparation stages. Each state should
review intermediate products as they are produced in both
the facilities planning and design phases of the program,
as a few states are now doing. Such intermediate reviews
will minimize misdirection on the part of the consultants
during both these phases of the program, thereby reducing
engineering costs and wasted effort. In addition, inter-
mediate reviews will allow the state to have greater impact
on these projects and will reduce the processing times for
state reviews. As a result, the cost of the projects at
the local level will be less and, at the same time, the
buying power of the states' annual allotment of federal
construction funds will be increased.
The states appear to be consistently doing a very good
job in terms of the quality of their reviews. In general,
state reviews of facilities plans, and plans and specifica-
tions were found to be detailed, thorough, and substantive
5-32
-------
in nature. These reviews undoubtedly will lead to better
and more cost-effective projects. The only problems observed
involved just a few states. In the case of 1 state, reviews
of plans and specifications, while detailed, were found to
be non-substantive, and in 2 other states inconsistent
reviews in terms of thoroughness and substantiveness were
found (in one state related to design reviews and in the
other related to facilities plan reviews). In each of
these cases the state was encouraged to perform its own
evaluation to confirm" the authors' preliminary findings,
and take corrective action if necessary.
In terms of the processing times for their reviews, most
states need to make significant improvements. While several
states are performing well in this area, total review times
for the 5 key state reviews is approaching several years in
some states. Most states need to focus greater attention on
reducing their processing times. Implementation of rela-
tively simple measures, such as the establishment of time-
related goals for each key review and regular monitoring
of actual performance against those goals, would greatly
assist the states in reducing processing times. Also of
assistance in this regard would be more active state involve-
ment with consultants and grantees during the facilities
planning and design preparation stages, and implementation
of a project tracking system, both of which were recommended
earlier.
5-33
-------
CHAPTER 6
PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DELEGATED
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
When the Clean Water Act of 1977 was passed, Congress
provided for and encouraged delegation, with the following
objectives in mind:
• That it would lead to optimal use of state and
federal resources.
• That it would eliminate duplication at the state
and federal level.
• That it would lead to decentralized management of
the program.
• That it would speed up the processing of grant
projects.
Based on field visits and evaluations made as a part
of this study, it is clear that these objectives have not,
as yet, been achieved. Perhaps the major reason for this
is that delegation is not yet fully implemented. While
many states have entered into delegation agreements, only
about one-third of those states are administering all of
the delegable functions and most of those states have
become fully delegated only within the past few months.
At the time the authors made their field evaluations, none
of the 10 states visited were fully delegated.
Beyond the fact that delegation is still in a transition
phase, there are other factors contributing to why congres-
sional objectives have not been achieved. These factors
will not necessarily disappear when delegation is fully
implemented. Some of these impediments are operational
and are correctable through modification of management
practices and procedures. Several others, however, are
built into the law and the regulations which established
delegation and therefore, to be remedied, will require
6-1
-------
amendments to those documents. These problems, as well as
additional program needs, are discussed in the remainder
of this chapter.
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS WITH DELEGATION
Transition to Full Delegation not yet Complete
The objectives of delegation obviously cannot be a-
chieved until delegation is fully implemented, i.e., until
states are administering all of the legally delegable func-
tions. What may not be obvious, however, is that when
the program is partially delegated, the resulting benefits
are not directly proportional to the benefits that can be
expected from full delegation. To the contrary, the result-
ing benefits are considerably less. For example, a program
that is 75% delegated in a certain state does not result
in 75% of the benefits of full delegation. It does not
reduce regional manpower requirements for processing pro-
jects by 75%, nor does it eliminate 75% of the duplicative
review, nor does it reduce processing times by 75% of the
reductions possible at full delegation.
The above point can be illustrated by referring to the
original objectives of delegation and then examining several
examples encountered in the field visits. Consider the
second objective, the elimination of duplication. Under a
partially delegated program, there is duplication of effort
on functions which have already been delegated because
individual review functions are not totally isolated from
one another. An illustrative example is where a state had
been delegated the authority to review and certify plans
of study and Step 1 grant applications, but had not yet
been delegated the authority to review and approve A/E
subagreements. In this case it is readily apparent that
6-2
-------
there is duplicative handling of the A/E subagreement
by both the state and the EPA regional office. But, what
is not so obvious, is that there is also duplicative review
of the plan of study-and the Step 1 application. For, in
order to properly review the A/E subagreement, the EPA
regional office must also review the plan of study and the
Step 1 application. The plan of study describes the project
and the scope of work for the facilities planning study.
The EPA reviewer must have an understanding of the scope
of work if he/she is to properly evaluate the resonableness
of the subagreement. He/she must also check certain infor-
mation contained in the application itself to insure that
the subagreement is consistent with the cost and descrip-
tion of work described in the application, which will in
turn be the basis for the Step 1 grant.
So in this example, whereas at first glance* duplica-
tion appears to have been eliminated on 2 of 3 functions,
it actually has not been eliminated. This example can
also be used to illustrate that optimal use of federal and
state resources (the first objective) is not achieved to
the extent that would be expected with 2 of 3 key review
functions associated with the Step 1 grant delegated.
That optimal use of federal and state resources does
not occur in proportion to the degree of delegation is
further verified by the fact that most of the states visit-
ed had the majority of the delegable tasks delegated to
them at the time of the visits and were generally close to
the full staffing levels called for in the delegation
agreement. Yet, the regional staffs (with some exceptions)
were essentially at or near the strength they had been
prior to delegation. In general, the regional staffs
appeared to be busy and, in a number of cases, unable to
keep up with the work load. It might be argued that this
is the result of new regional work load responsibilities
associated with training and monitoring state staff. How-
6-3
-------
ever, the authors observed no monitoring programs and only
one training program that utilized more than a fraction of
a man year in a given state. While this may be due partial-
ly to the considerable number of special activities over the
past year (AST/AWT, the deferral, etc.)* part of the reason
is also that, even in a substantially delegated program,
regions must continue to perform a number of overlapping,
project-related review activites.
Consider now the relative achievement of the third
objective of delegation, the decentralization of management
to the states. With delegation in a transition phase, the
take over by the states of the program management is also
in a transition phase. In general, the authors did not
sense that the states feel responsible for managing the
program as yet, even if they have substantial delegation
and are expending much greater manpower than are the regions
on the state's projects. The current atmosphere is more
one of shared responsibility. The regions probably still
feel greater responsibility for program management than do
the states, because the regions previously had a position
of full program management responsibility. The states, on
the other hand, had little program management responsibili-
ties and with the laborious task of taking over the project
review responsibilities and hiring and training new staff,
they have not developed an attitude whereby they feel
responsible for all aspects of the program. Therefore,
while project management responsibilities may have been
shifted to the states to a considerable extent, program
management responsibilities have been slower to shift.
The slower shifting of program management responsibil-
ities may be due in part to the fact that most states do
not yet have all of the project-review responsibilities;
it therefore is difficult for them to feel responsible for
the program. Before the states assume responsibility for
managing the program, they must feel that they are respon-
6-4
-------
sible for the program. They must feel that if things go
'well, they are responsible and, likewise, if things go
poorly they are also responsible. The feeling of respon-
sibility that must precede state assumption of program
management responsibility probably will not occur until
sometime after all of the project review responsibilities
have been delegated to the states. Even then, it will not
necessarily occur.
One development that may make it difficult to decentral-
ize program management, even after full delegation, is the
entry of the Corps of Engineers into the program. The
Corps of Engineers' heavy involvement in most states in
the Step 3 portion of the program brings with it some
subtle sugggestions that may impare the states' developing
a feeling of responsibility for the program and subsequently
assuming program management responsibilities. The entry
of the Corps of Engineers into the program, and particularly
.the way in which the Corps of Engineers has been brought into
the program, suggests that the states will not be responsible
for the program after all. It suggests that the states will
only be responsible for reviewing certain aspects of indi-
vidual construction grant projects, and that EPA will
continue to have prime responsibility for managing the
program. This subtle suggestion evolves from the fact
that the EPA regions have delegated portions of the project
review responsibilities to the states (namely, Steps 1 &
2) and portions of the project review responsibilities to
the Corps of Engineers (namely, Step 3 construction-relat-
ed activities). Further, the Corps of Engineers feels it
cannot work directly for or with the states, it can only
perform work (at least officially) for another federal
agency. Therefore, officially the Corps of Engineers deals
through the EPA regional office. The Corps of Engineers
has its agreement with the regions and transmits originals
6-5
-------
of its inspection reports, etc. to the regions, with copies
to the states.
In this situation, it will be difficult for the states
to assume responsibility for the program. Because the Corps
of Engineers' agreement and official communications are with
EPA, rather than with the states, the states are not respon-
sible for a significant aspect of the program, the construc-
tion aspect. Without responsibility for all aspects of
the program, the states cannot assume responsibility for
the program. Unless something is changed, therefore, even
after "full delegation" to the states, Congress1 objective
of decentralization of program management will not be re-
alized.
An additional problem with the current arrangement with
the Corps of Engineers is that it has the effect of dividing
responsibility for the program, with the result that no one
is clearly responsible or held accountable if problems occur
during Step 3. To get the job done, especially one as big
and as complex as administration of the construction grant
program, total program responsibility has to be concentrated
in a single organization, and perhaps in a single individual.
When responsibility is divided, as it is in this situation,
no one person or organization is responsible.
Of interest is the fact that one of the objectives of
delegation was to remove a layer of government from the ad-
ministration of the program. With the Corps of Engineers
involvement, there are now three agencies involved in the
processing of individual grant projects. This is not to
say that bringing the Corps of Engineers into the program
was a mistake. On the contrary, their involvement appears
to be quite beneficial and the authors see nothing wrong
with their continuing to be involved. The problem is the
way in which the Corps of Engineers has been brought in-
that is, with the Corps of Engineers essentially working
for EPA at the same time that the states are supposed to
6-6
-------
be assuming responsibility for the program.
The obvious solution to this situation is to have the
Corps of Engineers work under the direction and control of
the states. This can be accomplished in several ways. Rath-
er than the Corps of Engineers entering agreements with
each regional office, they could enter an agreement with
each delegated state. Alternatively, EPA could delegate,
as one region has done, the responsibility for managing
the Step 3 portion of the program to the states. These
alternatives in essence make the states responsible for
all aspects of Step 3, including the work performed by the
Corps of Engineers, and allow the states to assume a total
program management role.
Unless an alternative along the lines of those suggested
above is implemented, true decentralization of management can
only take place if the delegated states take over, as some
already have, those Step 3 functions that are commonly ad-
ministered by the Corps of Engineers, removing the Corps
of Engineers from the program entirely. As discussed
earlier in this report, state assumption of Corps of Engi-
neers activities is unlikely to occur in the near future,
because of the limitations on and the instability of Sec-
tion 205(g) funding.
In terms of Congress1 last objective of delegation,
speeding up the processing of grants, it is clear from the
discussion in Chapter 4 that delegation does not necessari-
ly result in significantly faster processing at the region-
al offices. While delegation should theoretically enable
regions to reduce their processing times significantly,
other management practices in conjunction with delegation
are necessary if this goal is to be accomplished. Again,
without these additional management practices, even comple-
tion of the transition to full delegation will not cause
this goal to be achieved, at least to the degree which is
possible.
6-7
-------
Further, to speed up the processing of projects through
delegation, one cannot focus only on regional processing
time. While the time for regional processing of projects
should be able to be reduced significantly (with the addi-
tional management practices referred to above), delegation
gives the states the responsibility for processing projects
in accordance with all of the federal requirements that
previously had burdened and slowed EPA's reviews. Transfer-
ring this review responsibility to the states does not
mean that the states will be able to process the documents
any faster. In fact, as pointed out in Chapter 5, state
processing times under delegation (with a few exceptions)
have not been very good.
While statistics on state processing time prior to dele-
gation are not generally available. the authors would
venture to guess that the total processing time for projects
has increased, rather than decreased, at this stage of
delegation. This guess is based on the moderate reduction
in EPA processing times noted in Chapter 4 and the likeli-
hood that state processing times have increased to a great-
er extent, due to the new federal requirements the states
are now administering.
Delegation alone will not result in the achievement of
Congress1 objective of speeding up the processing of grant
projects. Delegation in combination with implementation
of certain management practices, discussed in Chapters 4
and 5, can result in achievement of these objectives.
In summary then, one of the problems with the delegated
program at this stage is that it is only partially implemen-
ted. Most states are still in the transition phase of
taking over project-related review functions from the EPA
regional offices. While this transition is well along in
most states, the potential benefits of delegation, in
terms of elimination of duplication and optimal use of
federal and state resources, will not be apparent until
6-8
-------
delegation is completed. Short of full delegation, EPA
duplication of states' effort and EPA's resource needs
will be higher than is suggested by the achieved degree of
delegation. Likewise, decentralization of management and
state assumption of program management responsibilities
will not come until the delegation process is completed.
When the delegation process is completed, the current way
in which the Corps of Engineers is involved in the program
will prevent achievement of the third objective, though
there are several ways in which both continued Corps of
Engineers involvement and state assumption of program man-
agement responsibilities can occur. Finally, while partial
delegation has probably not had an impact on the processing
time of projects (except perhaps in the negative sense),
full delegation in itself will not result in achievement
of this objective. Full delegation however, together with
implementation of certain management practices, can enable
realization of this final objective.
So, partial delegation has not resulted in any signifi-
cant realization of congressional objectives. When full
delegation is completed, two of these objectives will for
the most part, be realized (optimizing resources and elimi-
nating duplication) and the realization of two others
(decentralization of management and speeding up project
processing times) will be enhanced, though full delegation
alone will not cause realization of these objectives.
Other measures will also be necessary.
Based on the conclusion in the above discussion, i.e.,
that partial delegation does not yield significant benefits,
and based on the discussion in Chapter 5. that even relatively
inexperienced states have been able to take over the program
quite rapidly, it appears that EPA should move as rapidly as
possible towards full delegation in all delegated states.
Further, newly delegated states should be guided through the
transition process at a faster pace than were many of the
6-9
-------
initially delegated states. To do this, greater EPA train-
ing and guidance will undoubtedly be required.
Regional Practice Of Administering New Requirements
Another problem which impacts implementation of full
delegation, observed during the field evaluations, occurs
when new program requirements are issued, usually in the
form of a new Program Requirements Memo (PRM). It is
common practice, when a new program requirement becomes
effective, for the regional office to initially administer
the new requireement; the regional office continues admini-
stering the new requirement until the region and the state
can negotiate an amendment to the delegation agreement to
specifically address the new requirement. This appears to
be the case even when the state has received delegation of
other program aspects related to the requirement. For ex-
ample, the state may already have been delegated facilities
plans, but when the public participation or some similar
requirements become effective, EPA would initially adminis-
ter these new requirements. The effect of this type of
approach, given the fact that new program requirements
appear continually, is that the states never quite have
full authority to administer all of the legally delegable
functions associated with individual grant projects. Rath-
er, the regions are continually in the position of having
to review state-certified documents to check for the new
requirement that has not yet been delegated, because an
amendment to the delegation agreement has not yet been
negotiated. What previously had been full delegation of
a function reverts back to a partial delegation. Invariab-
ly, this type of approach results in duplication of effort
and time delays. Often these time delays are quite signif-
icant because of the fact that the requirement is a new
one and the regions are not initially certain how they
want to administer it.
6-10
-------
Perpetuation of the practice discussed above will pre-
vent total delegation from occurring, and therefore will
impede achievement of the objectives for which delegation
was designed. The authors see no reason why, when a new
program requirement is issued, that the regional staff
cannot immediately meet with state staff to discuss admini-
stration of this new requirement. Most probably a similar
discussion has to be held within the regional office when
the region takes on administration of a new requirement;
so, why not replace that internal discussion with a discus-
sion with the delegated states? The interim procedures to
carry out this new program requirement can be negotiated
with the state and then utilized until a formal modification
to the delegation agreement can be negotiated. Such a prac-
tice would maintain all delegable project review activities
at the state level even in the wake of continuing implemen-
tation of new requirements. Likewise, it would eliminate
duplication of effort related to the new function, would
reduce manpower requirements at the regional level, and
would reduce the processing time associated with individual
grant projects.
New Program Requirements Which Are Non-Delegable
One other aspect of new program requirements that is of
concern relates to the increasingly common practice of leav-
ing portions of the responsibility for new program require-
ments at the regional level, i.e., essentially identifying
certain functions as non-delegable. The AST/AWT reviews
certainly are reflective of this approach (though EPA did
not have much choice on this), and similar approaches seem
to be taken in regard to other new program requirements,
such as MBE, pre-construction lags, and the PRM on Section
316A of the Clean Air Act. The practice of identifying
functions as non-delegable appears to be born out of a
philosophy that whereas EPA can entrust the states to
6-11
-------
perform many functions, there are certain functions which
only EPA can perform. Again, as indicated previously in
this chapter, not delegating project-related review func-
tions, for whatever reason, detracts from the achievement
of the potential benefits of delegation and of the original
objectives for which delegation was designed.
Question Of Authority To Interpret Federal Policy
Another problem in several regions relating to the div-
ision of responsibilities between the regional offices and
the delegated states is the issue of authority for inter-
pretation of federal regulations, PRM'S, and other program
policies. Do the states have authority to make interpreta-
tions of these requirements, or does the authority rest
solely with the regional offices? A related question is
whether the regional offices have the authority to impose
policies more restrictive than national policies on the
states. This latter question arose during the field visits
when it was found that several regions had developed region-
al policies more restrictive than federal policies in a
given area and were imposing those policies on delegated
states. An example is a region that for years had utilized
a fairly restrictive policy on the funding of intercepter
sewers, considerably more restrictive than the federal
policy. The issue is whether or not that region could
impose the restrictive policy on its delegated states, or
whether the delegated states have the authority to use a
different interpretation, as long as it is not inconsistent
with federal policy.
The authors believe that the states should have the re-
sponsibility for interpreting EPA regulations and policies
related to their projects unless a proposed interpretation
has national policy implications, in which case EPA head-
quarters should resolve the issue. The authors do not
believe that the EPA regions should impose their own inter-
6-12
-------
pretations, outside of interpretations made at the national
level, on delegated states. There is an argument for
consistency of interpretation at the national level, and
there is an argument for consistency at the state level.
There does not appear to be an argument for consistency at
the regional level under the concept of delegation.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAW AND REGULATIONS
Beyond the problems associated with delegation which
stem from current operating procedures and practices, there
are several problems which have their roots in the laws
and regulations which apply to delegation.
A Number Of Project-Related Functions Are Not Delegable
One problem that will impede achievement of the object-
ives of delegation is that even under "full delegation",
EPA retains responsibility for performing a number of
project-related functions on each construction grants pro-
ject. The project-related functions which EPA regula-
tions identify as non-delegable and which EPA retains
responsibility for are as follows:
On All Projects
• Civil Rights Determinations
• NEPA Review and Issuance of the FNSI
• Award of Step 1, 2, and 3 Grants
• Amendments to Step 1, 2, and 3 Grants
• Wage Rate Determinations (Federal policy prevents
delegation)
• Minority Business Enterprise (Federal policy pre-
vents delegation)
On Some Projects
• Bid Protests
• Resolution of Disputes
6-13
-------
• Resolution of Audit Exceptions
• Resolution of Issues on Projects of Overriding
Federal Interest
• Preparation of Federal Environmental Impact State-
ments
In each of the above cases, documents must be passed from
the state to the regional office, a review made by the region,
and a decision rendered and transmitted back to the state.
In the case of the EPA project level reviews performed on all
projects, the state has already reviewed and approved the
respective documents before transmitting them to the regional
office, because transmitting an unacceptable document would
lead to further delays. Thus, these reviews generally
constitute a duplication of effort and, as a result, less
than optimal use of federal and state resources. Because
of the requirement that states transmit the documents to
the regional offices, and the subsequent required EPA
review, processing time is extended over what it would be
if only the state reviewed the document.
In two of the cases where EPA occasionally becomes in-
volved in projects, namely bid protests and audit resolu-
tion, duplication of effort also results. In the case of
a bid protest, the state is already familiar with the
project, and probably with the nature of the bid protest
because of its processing of the plans and specifications
and the bid documents. The EPA regional office is not
familiar with the project. Therefore, someone from the
regional office has to get the background on the project
and the protest. Often he/she relies on briefings and
information received from the state staff member who is
already familiar with the situation. The logistics, namely
the separation of the state and regional offices, further
add to the difficulties of the process. Thus, because
EPA, rather than the state, must process bid protests,
additional unnecessary resources have to be expanded both
by EPA and the state. Similar problems exist in the case
of audit resolution.
6-14
-------
While more efficient use of manpower and time savings
would result if all of these project-related review functions
were delegated, the question remains as to whether something
would be lost or risked if this were done. In relation to
MBE, civil rights determinations, wage rate determinations,
bid protests and audit resolution, the authors feel that the
answer to that question is "no". There may be some who argue
that the states cannot be trusted to carry out these actions.
One gets the impression that this feeling exists in regard
to MBE. Yet, it seems inconsistent to trust the states with
complex multi-million dollar decisions and not to trust them
to determine whether a consultant made a good faith effort
to involve MBE's. The latter types of functions are relati-
vely simple and easy compared to the functions the states
have already been entrusted with. When one considers the
"consequences of error" for one of these non-delegated
functions and the "consequences of error" for the cost-
effectiveness and design reviews that the state does,
there is no comparison. The consequence of occasionally
approving a contract where a good faith effort was not
made to secure MBE involvement is relatively minor, assuming
that the region's monitoring program will insure that such
actions are minimized. On the contrary, the consequence
of a non-cost-effective project being built can be the
permanent loss of millions of taxpayers dollars. The
consequence of an inadequate design being approved can
likewise be the loss of millions of dollars and an unnecessary
and substantial delay in cleaning up a serious pollution
problem.
Refraining from delegating these few remaining project-
related actions causes duplication of effort, time delays,
and does not seem to result in any benefits over having the
state take responsibility for them. The after-the-fact mon-
itoring conducted in conjunction with delegation should be
6-15
-------
able to identify any problems in the states' handling of
these reviews.
The cases of grant awards and NEPA are a little
different. Making the grant awards is the action to award
the federal funds, and it can be argued that only the
federal government ought to take such action. In reality,
however, the action of awarding the grant is strictly
ministerial under the delegated mode of operation. Basical-
ly, the region receives a state certification, a checklist
and the typed federal grant offer. No meaningful informa-
tion related to the project is submitted with the package.
If the state certifies the project and demonstrates with
the attached checklist that all federal requirements have
been satisfied, then the region is supposed to make the
award. In effect, then, the significant action is taken
at the state level when the project is certified. No
action, consistent with the terms of the delegation agree-
ment, could be taken by the region to modify the project
or not make the award.
Therefore, no readily apparent benefit is associated
with the regions, as opposed to the states, making the
awards. The cost of this practice, on the other hand, is
duplication of effort and lost time. Based on Table 4-2,
the regions currently average 4 months total to make the 3
grant awards involved in a typical project. Assuming a 1%
per month inflation rate and a $3.4 billion national
appropriation, the process of having the regions make the
grant awards is currently costing $182 million per year in
terms of lost buying power. Assuming that total regional
processing time for all 3 awards can be reduced to one
month, as the authors believe it can, the lost buying power,
while reduced, is still a significant amount, $45 million.
The authors see two other advantages to delegating
grant awards to the states. First, such a practice removes
the regions from the uncomfortable situation they are
6-16
-------
in under delegation—especially the regional official who
signs the grant award. By signing his/her name and making
the grant award, the regional official is taking the res-
ponsibility for releasing federal funds for the subject
project. In the eyes of the public, he/she is responsible
for that project being a good one. If the project is a
disaster, he/she in effect would be held responsible by
the public. Yet, under delegation, the regional official
cannot question the project and he/she basically has no
information available with which to evaluate whether the
project is a good one or a poor one. The regional official
must trust that the state has done a good job on the project
and must trust the region's monitoring program to identify
any state processing deficiencies that might allow poor
projects to pass through the system. Being that monitoring
programs are conducted after the fact and generally look
only at about 10% of the states' actions, this is not a
comfortable position to be in, ,as several Regional Water
Division Directors have indicated to the authors. Having
the state make the grant awards would remove the regions
from this position.
One other negative aspect of having the region make
the actual grant awards is that it removes some of the
responsibility from the state. If there is a problem, the
state can point to the region which signed the award.
While the state actually took the significant action, the
public would tend to hold EPA responsible and it would be
difficult for EPA to argue that they are not responsible,
although they signed the grant. This situation, i.e.,
ambiguous assignment of responsibility for project level
decisions, has the effect of relieving (to some extent)
the state of responsibility for the projects and the
program. If anything goes wrong, there is at least a
chance that EPA will have to share the responsibility.
6-17
-------
The authors believe that the states will better admin-
ister the program if they are not in a position of sharing
responsibility. If the states know that if there are any
mishaps associated with a project or the program, they are
responsible, the weight of that responsibility (especially
for a program as large as the construction grants program)
will encourage them to more carefully review projects and
manage the program. Requiring that the states make the
grant awards, then, shifts responsibility to the states,
removes the region from an uncomfortable position, reduces
EPA manpower requirements, eliminates duplication, and saves
time and money, all of which are positive.
On the negative side, there may be a legitimate con-
cern, that as EPA delegates the program and reduces its
resources, EPA may lose interest in the program and not
support it politically as vigorously as it has in the
past. Keeping grant awards at the regional office level
may tend to maintain a strong EPA interest in the program.
It also may encourage regions to conduct meaningful monitor-
ing programs, which in turn will hold the states more
accountable for doing a good job of administering the
program. In these respects, keeping grant awards at the
regional level may be beneficial.
Again, the non-delegated NEPA functions are different
than the non-delegated functions referred to earlier, in
that the environmental review that the EPA regional offices
make of individual grant projects is the one substantive
review made under delegation. The primary purpose of this
review, according to the EPA regulations, is to determine
whether a federal environmental impact statement will be
required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Based
on the review, either an environmental impact statement
is prepared or, more commonly, a finding of no signifi-
cant impact (FNSI) is issued. There are probably several
6-18
-------
reasons why NEPA responsibilities were the only substantive
non-delegated function when the Section 205(g) regulations
were formulated. One reason is that environmental groups
were concerned about whether or not states would have the
same environmental ethic that EPA has demonstrated over
the years. Because of this concern, environmental groups
opposed the concept of delegation. Refraining from delega-
tion of NEPA responsibilities would certainly make these
groups more comfortable with delegation. There is also
some question as to whether the federal NEPA responsi-
bilities can be delegated to states. There are several
federal programs, however, where the responsibilities for
NEPA have been delegated to the states. In one case, such
delegation was provided for in the federal legislation cover-
ing the particular program involved. From this standpoint
then, the concept of delegating NEPA responsibilities to
states is not without precedent.
Again, as in the other cases discussed, the advantages
of delegating NEPA would be a savings in manpower, elimina-
tion of additional duplication of effort, the saving in
time and therefore money, and more clearly placing responsi-
bility for all aspects of the program on the delegated
states. In essence, while NEPA cannot be delegated to
states under existing EPA regulations, most states are
performing, or are planning to perform, many of the necessary
preliminary activities associated with the EPA NEPA review.
Most states under delegation will be preparing the environ-
mental assessments on which the regional office issuance
of a FNSI will be based. Of the 10 states visited by the
authors, 5 of those states were preparing environmental
assessments. In these states, the EPA regions were review-
ing the assements, making any changes that they felt were
necessary, and when they were satisfied, were issuing the
FNSI.
6-19
-------
In the usual situation, early in the period of time
during which the states were preparing the environmental
assessments, the regions had a number of problems with the
state-prepared assessments. The primary problems were that
the assessments lacked sufficient detail or did not cover
certain environmental issues of concern to the regional
office. Over time, however, in each case, the prepara-
tion of the environmental assessments gradually improved
to the point that the regional office was generally satis-
fied with the assessments that had been prepared. Occasion
ally, however, additional information was requested for
placement into the assessment, or editorial changes were
made. In no cases that the authors were made aware of
(either by the states or by the regional offices), did the
regional review of an environmental assessment lead to a
modification of a project or to a federal decision to
prepare a federal environmental impact statement. In several
states, the state preparation of the environmental assess-
ment had reached a level of satisfaction to the regions,
such that the regions were not making any modifications
to the assessments, but were just reviewing them and issuing
the FNSI.
Thus, while NEPA cannot now be legally delegated, much
of the work associated with NEPA is, in fact, being perform-
ed by delegated states. Further, the work that the states
are doing generally appears to be satisfactory to the EPA
regional offices, once the state gains an appreciation of
what the region wants in the assessments. In the authors'
opinion, then, the one remaining substantive regional re-
view associated with delegation has reached the point in some
states where regional action is no longer substantive; rath-
6-20
-------
er- the regions are accepting state determinations.
Based on this experience- the authors conclude that the
states which they observed (and possibly other states) have
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA regional office
that they have the environmental ethic to administer the
NEPA aspects of the program. Once this has been demonstrat-
ed to a regional office, it appears to the authors that
before-the-fact regional office review and approval of NEPA
documents and regional issuance of the FNSI, serves limited,
if any, benefit.
The authors realize that this is a sensitive issue and
EPA would certainly be wise to carefully consider all of the
ramifications before moving to delegate NEPA to any state.
At the same time, the authors point out that administration
of NEPA aspects of the program is another project-related
function that has to be performed by EPA under the current
system of delegation, and therefore detracts, at least to
some extent, from achievement of the initial objectives of
delegation. To delegate NEPA, along with the other project
-related activities described previously, would further
enhance achievement of the objectives for which delegation
was intended, namely optimization of federal and state
resources, elimination of duplication, decentralization of
management, and speeding up of the processing of grants.
In monetary terms, again using the 1% per month inflation
rate, and assuming that the regional offices can reduce
their NEPA review times to 30 days, continuing to have the
final NEPA sign-off in the regional offices costs $45 million
per year, based on a $3.4 billion per year appropriation.
Inadequacy Of Section 205(g) Funding
A second problem stemming from the law, and more speci-
fically from Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act relates
to the provision for funding. Section 205{g) provides states
6-21
-------
with up to 2% of their annual construction grants allotment
for program administration. There are two basic problems
with this system of funding. The first problem is that
congressional appropriations, especially in recent years,
have not been predictable. There has been at least one
year since the Clean Water Act of 1977 was passed wherein
it appeared that Congress would not make an appropriation,
and in at least one other year an extremely low appropria-
tion appeared highly possible. A funding system which
bases administrative funds on erratic and unpredictable
congressional appropriations is not a reliable funding
system, and causes delegated states to act fairly conserva-
tively in terms of adding staff. One instance that brought
this problem to the forefront was the experience in the
state of California, which had already staffed up to a
fully delegated level, when the Section 205(g) provision
was added to the Act. The state had no reserve funds to
fall back on (as did other states) when Section 205(g) was
added, and basically had to rely on the annual 2% of the
state's share of the national appropriation. Since the
Act was passed, however, the appropriations have decreased
each year. As a result, the state had to reduce its budget
each year, at the same time reducing staff associated with
the construction grants program. Over the last several
years, the staff has been reduced from a level of 165 to a
current level of 111. Along with these reductions, the state
has been forced to reduce its level of review of projects,
and to turn much of its construction-related activities
over to the Corps of Engineers. Previously, the Corps of
Engineers had not been involved in the California program
because the state had an established construction manage-
ment program.
6-22
-------
Many of the states involved in the construction grants
program are quite familiar with the situation in California,
and therefore most of them are very cautious about taking on
additional program activities. Particularly affected are
those activities being administered by the Corps of Engine-
ers. Within the next year or so, most states will have
been delegated administrative responsibility for all of
the delegable Step 1 and 2 activities. Most states would
like to take over construction-related activities as well
so that they have all aspects of the program under their
direction and control. However, given the funding uncertain-
ties that currently exist, and given the significant staff
resources necessary to take over those activities being
performed by the Corps of Engineers, most states will not
seek, in the foreseeable future, delegation of these activi-
ties. No state wants to add staff to take over these add-
itional activities and to then find themselves in the
situation that California found itself in.
There is an additional problem with the current system
for funding state administration of the delegated grants
program. Specifically, the 2% funding level appears to be
inadequate for many states to properly administer all
aspects of the program. Of the 10 states that were visited
in conjunction with this study 3 states had operating
budgets in excess of 2% of their allocation. These budget
deficits were being made up by utilizing Section 205(g)
funds that had been reserved in the early years of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, before the states had increased
their staffs so as to function under delegation. Within a
year or two another 3 of the states visited expect to be at
the 2% funding limit, as they continue to add staff and as
personnel costs increase. Therefore, more than half of the
10 states visited will soon be operating with budgets at, or
in excess of the 2% allotment.
6-23
-------
The authors feel that Congress should act to provide
states with a more stable source of funding for administra-
tion of the construction grants program and that funding
has to be increased above the 2% level. Recently enacted
legislation tying Section 205(g) funding to the authoriza-
tion level will greatly assist in stabilizing funding.
However, funding may still prove to be inadequate in magni-
tude if appropriation levels approach authorization levels.
Delegation is Optional With The States
Another problem resulting from the Act is that the
choice to pursue delegation is left to the respective
discretion of the EPA regional offices and the individual
states. If either party desires not to pursue delegation,
then delegation is not implemented. As pointed out in
Chapter 3, most of the remaining non-delegated states are
states which have chosen not to pursue delegation, primari-
ly because of a concern about the impact of the additional
resources required on the size of state government.
Initially, this situation did not appear to present any
problem. It now appears, however, that within one year,
between 42 and 44 states will be delegated and it is likely
that within several years approximately 90% of the 50
states will have entered into delegation agreements with
EPA. This leaves a small number of states which will not
have delegation. In turn, this will require, at least as
presently conceived, the respective EPA regional offices
to administer the program in those non-delegated states.
Thus, approximately 5 EPA regional offices will be adminis-
tering the program in two different ways. On the one
hand, they will have program level responsibilities and
project responsibilities in one state within the region,
and only program level responsibilities in the other states.
The authors feel that this mixing of responsibilities be-
6-24
-------
tween program level and project level, especially since
the non-delegated states will be a small minority is an
inefficient way to administer the program from a national
perspective, and certainly from EPA's perspective. The
authors feel it would be desirable to develop a system
that would essentially lead to full delegation of all 50
states within the next several years.
Another basis for the authors' suggestion is their
observation, during visits to 10 delegated states throughout
the country, that states have shown considerable ability
to take on administration of the delegated program. The
authors are convinced that the remaining non-delegated
states, given adequate resources and given assistance from
EPA in the initial periods of delegation, can effectively
assume and administer the delegated program.
Having all 50 states delegated would allow EPA to focus
on fulfilling a broader responsibility related to the con-
struction grants program, that 'is, the responsibility of
overviewing the program from a regional and from a national
perspective to insure that the program is being properly
administered and that national water pollution control
objectives are being achieved.
In summary, concerning the problems with delegation
that are built into the system itself, the authors believe
that the EPA regulations should be amended to allow delega-
tion of all project-related responsibilities to the states.-
that the level of funding should be increased above the 2%
level and that EPA, perhaps with congressional assistance,
should develop a mechanism to achieve delegation in all 50
states.
6-25
-------
PROGRAM NEEDS
EPA Headquarters Needs
In order to evaluate and monitor the delegated construc-
tion grants program, EPA Headquarters needs to perform the
following tasks:
• Establish and maintain an up-to-date information sys-
tem that contains the following information for each
state:
- Certain background information on each delegated
state.
- Current information on the status of delegation
in each state.
- Information on the budget and manpower resources
associated with each delegated program.
- Summary of this information on a national level.
• Perform an annual assessment of how well each region-
al EPA office is fulfilling its responsibilities
under delegation.
• Perform a biennial assessment of how well each state
is fulfilling its responsibilities under delegation.
• Identify, based on the above assessments, significant
problems that exist or are arising, either within
individual states or regions, or with the delegated
program as a whole.
• Finally, EPA needs to prepare a biennial report on
delegation which summarizes this information, asses-
ses the overall impact of delegation and whether
the program's objectives are being achieved, and
identifies recommendations for improving the pro-
gram. In the early years of delegation, EPA may
want to produce this report annually.
6-26
-------
Need for State Involvement in Program Management
One of the more difficult problems facing EPA (and
particularly EPA Headquarters) while operating in a delegated
mode is how to direct the national program in a way that
best facilitates achievement of the goals of the Act.
What makes this task so difficult is that under delegation,
EPA (both headquarters and the regions) will be removed
from the day-to-day administration of grant projects and
the program. EPA will not be in a position to identify
program problems and needs directly, nor will they be able
to accurately evaluate the impact of potential national
directives on the program. Under delegation, only the states
will have the capability to provide this information. In
other words, under delegation EPA retains the responsibility
for directing the national program, but the states, who
are administrating the program on a day-to-day basis, have
much of the knowledge needed to provide this direction.
The challenge, under delegation, then, is. to make the
knowledge that the states will be gathering as they admin-
ister the program available to EPA so that they can do an
effective job of directing the national program.
This will not be an easy task. The key obviously is
communications. But how does EPA Headquarters communicate
with 40 or 50 states? Should the EPA regions continue to
serve as key communication links between the states and
EPA Headquarters, or should the states communicate directly
with Headquarters? Beyond the opportunity to communicate
with EPA Headquarters, should the states play primarily an
advisory role or should they be given a stronger role in
program management?
These questions all involve significant issues that
must be addressed if EPA is to continue to effectively
direct the national program under a, delegated mode of
operation-
6-27
------- |