United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, U. S. Senate 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMPLIANCE AND 

ENFORCEMENT 

EPA’s Effort to Improve and 

Make More Consistent Its 

Compliance and 

Enforcement Activities 

Statement of John B. Stephenson, 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 

 

GAO-06-840T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND 

ENFORCEMENT 

EPA's Efforts to Improve and Make More 

Consistent Its Compliance and 

Enforcement Activities 

Highlights of GAO-06-840T, testimony 

before the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, U.S. Senate 

The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) enforces the nation’s

environmental laws and regulations 

through its Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA). While OECA provides

overall direction on enforcement 

policies and occasionally takes 

direct enforcement action, many

enforcement responsibilities are

carried out by EPA’s 10 regional 

offices. In addition, these offices

oversee the enforcement programs

of state agencies that have been 

delegated the authority to enforce 

federal environmental protection

regulations. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

reports on EPA’s enforcement 

activities issued over the past

several years and on observations

from ongoing work that is being 

performed at the request of this 

Committee and the Subcommittee 

on Interior, Environment and 

Related Agencies, House 

Committee on Appropriations. 

GAO’s previous reports examined 

the (1) consistency among EPA 

regions in carrying out

enforcement activities, (2) factors 

that contribute to any 

inconsistency, and (3) EPA’s 

actions to address these factors. 

Our current work examines how 

EPA, in consultation with regions 

and states, sets priorities for 

compliance and enforcement and 

how the agency and states 

determine respective compliance

and enforcement roles and

responsibilities and allocate

resources for these purposes. 

EPA regions vary substantially in the actions they take to enforce 

environmental requirements, according to GAO’s analysis of key 

management indicators that EPA headquarters uses to monitor regional 

performance. These indicators include the number of inspections performed 

at regulated facilities and the amount of penalties assessed for 

noncompliance with environmental regulations. In addition, the regions 

differ substantially in their overall strategies to oversee states within their 

jurisdictions. For example, contrary to EPA policy, some regions did not 

require states to report all significant violators, while other regions adhered 

to EPA’s policy in this regard. 

GAO identified several factors that contribute to regional variations in 

enforcement. These factors include (1) differences in philosophy among 

regional enforcement staff about how best to secure compliance with 

environmental requirements; (2) incomplete and unreliable enforcement 

data that impede EPA’s ability to accurately determine the extent to which 

variations occur; and (3) an antiquated workforce planning and allocation 

system that is not adequate for deploying staff in a manner to ensure 

consistency and effectiveness in enforcing environmental requirements. 

EPA recognizes that while some variation in environmental enforcement is 

necessary to reflect local conditions, core enforcement requirements must 

be consistently implemented to ensure fairness and equitable treatment. 

Consequently, similar violations should be met with similar enforcement 

responses regardless of geographic location. In response to GAO findings 

and recommendations, EPA has initiated or planned several long-term 

actions that are intended to achieve greater consistency in state and regional 

enforcement actions. These include (1) a new State Review Framework 

process for measuring states’ performance of core enforcement activities, 

(2) a number of initiatives to improve the agency’s compliance and 

enforcement data, and (3) enhancements to the agency’s workforce planning 

and allocation system to improve the agency’s ability to match its staff and 

technical capabilities with the needs of individual regions. However, these 

actions have yet to achieve significant results and will likely require a 

number of years and a steady top-level commitment of staff and financial 

resources to substantially improve EPA’s ability to target enforcement 

actions in a consistent and equitable manner. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-840T.

To view the full product, click on the link 

above. 

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) difficulties in ensuring consistent and equitable

enforcement actions among its regions and among the states. Our 

testimony today is based on reports we have issued on EPA’s compliance 

and enforcement activities over the past several years,1

 and provides some 

observations from the ongoing work that we are performing at your 

request and that of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and 

Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. As you know, we 

are assessing how EPA, in consultation with regions and state agencies, 

sets priorities for compliance and enforcement and how the agency and 

the states determine respective compliance and enforcement roles and 

responsibilities and allocate resources for these purposes. As part of this 

effort, we are assessing EPA’s initiated and planned actions to address key 

factors that result in inconsistencies—identified in our previous work—in 

carrying out its enforcement responsibilities. We expect to complete this 

ongoing review on EPA and state enforcement and issue our report in 

March 2007.

EPA seeks to achieve cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land in 

many different ways. Compliance with the nation’s environmental laws is 

the goal, and enforcement is a vital part of the effort to encourage state 

and local governments, companies, and others who are regulated to meet 

their environmental obligations. Enforcement deters those who might 

otherwise seek to profit from violating the law, and levels the playing field

for environmentally compliant companies. 

EPA administers its environmental enforcement responsibilities through 

its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While 

OECA provides overall direction on enforcement policies, and 

occasionally takes direct enforcement action, many of its enforcement 

responsibilities are carried out by its 10 regional offices (regions). These 

regions, in addition to taking direct enforcement action, oversee the 

 1

See GAO, Environmental Protection: More Consistency Needed Among EPA Regions in

Approach to Enforcement, GAO/RCED-00-108 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2000); Human

Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its

Strategic Goals, GAO-01-812 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001); and Clean Water Act:

Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better Respond to Changing Needs and

Fiscal Constraints, GAO-05-721 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-06-840T 
enforcement programs of state agencies that have been delegated 

authority for enforcing federal environmental protection requirements.2

In my testimony today, I will describe the (1) extent to which variations 

exist among EPA’s regions in enforcing environmental requirements, (2) 

key factors that contribute to any such variations, and (3) status of the 

agency’s efforts to address these factors. 

In summary, as we previously reported on regional efforts to enforce 

provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the regions vary

substantially in the actions they take to enforce environmental 

requirements. These variations show up in key management indicators 

that EPA headquarters officials have used to monitor regional

performance, such as the number of inspections performed at regulated 

facilities and the amount of penalties assessed for noncompliance with 

environmental regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2000, the number of 

inspections conducted under the Clean Air Act compared with the number 

of facilities in each region subject to EPA’s inspection under the act varied 

from a high of 80 percent in Region 3 to a low of 27 percent in Regions 1 

and 2. 

We also reported that it is important to understand the reasons for some of

these variations, such as a regional determination to conduct more indepth inspections at a fewer number of facilities instead of conducting less

intensive examinations at many more facilities. Accordingly, we 

recommended that EPA clarify which enforcement actions it expects to 

see consistently implemented across the regions and direct the regions to 

supplement its reporting with information that helps explain why variation

occurred. We did not focus our work on the effects of inconsistent 

enforcement on various types of businesses, including small businesses, 

the particular focus of the Committee’s hearing today. However, in 

performing our work we noted that a recent study for the Small Business 

Administration,3

 as well as other studies, have suggested that 

environmental requirements fall most heavily on small businesses. To the 

 2

For many federal environmental programs, EPA either authorizes states to administer the 

federal program or retains authority to administer the program for the state. The state 

programs that have been approved by EPA are described as “delegated” in this testimony 

for clarity and consistency with EPA program terminology.

3

W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, a report prepared at the

request of the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (Washington, D.C., 

September 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-840T 
extent that this is the case, small businesses could be especially 

disadvantaged by any inconsistencies and inequities in EPA’s enforcement 

approach. EPA has made progress toward resolving challenges in its 

enforcement activities that we have previously identified. Nonetheless, 

each of the challenges is complex and will require much more work and 

continued vigilance to overcome. 

Our work has identified several factors contributing to regional variations: 

(1) differences in the philosophy of enforcement staff about how to best 

achieve compliance with environmental requirements; (2) incomplete and

inadequate enforcement data, which hamper EPA’s ability to accurately 

determine the extent of variations; and (3) an antiquated workforce 

planning and allocation system that is not adequate for deploying staff to 

ensure greater consistency and effectiveness in enforcing environmental 

requirements. 

Finally, EPA recognizes that to ensure fair and equitable treatment, core 

enforcement requirements must be consistently implemented so that 

similar violations are met with similar enforcement responses, regardless 

of geographic location. Accordingly, and in response to our findings and 

recommendations, the agency has initiated or planned actions that are 

intended to achieve greater consistency in regional and state enforcement 

activities. These actions include the following: 

• Developing the State Review Framework. This framework involves a new 

process for conducting reviews and measuring the performance of core 

enforcement programs in states with delegated authority (as well as 

nondelegated programs implemented by EPA regions). Although the 

process is a promising means for ensuring more consistent enforcement 

actions, it is too early to assess whether the process will result in more 

consistent enforcement actions and a level playing field for the regulated

community across the nation. 

• Improving management information. EPA has a number of ongoing 

activities to improve the agency’s enforcement data, but the data problems 

are long-standing and complex. It will likely require a number of years and 

a steady top-level commitment of staff and financial resources to 

substantially improve the data so that they can be effectively used to target

enforcement actions in a consistent and equitable manner. 

• Enhancing workforce planning and allocation. For the past several years,

EPA has taken measures to improve its ability to match its staff and 

technical capabilities with the needs of individual regions and states. For 

Page 3 GAO-06-840T 
example, EPA developed a human capital strategy and performed a study 

of its workforce competencies. Nonetheless, the agency still needs to 

determine how to deploy its employees among its strategic goals and 

geographic locations so that it can most effectively use its resources, 

including its compliance and enforcement resources. 

EPA’s enforcement program depends heavily upon inspections by regional 

or state enforcement staff as the primary means of detecting violations 

and evaluating overall facility compliance. Thus, the quality and the 

content of the agency’s and states’ inspections, and the number of 

inspections undertaken to ensure adequate coverage, are important 

indicators of the enforcement program’s effectiveness. However, as we 

reported in 2000, EPA’s regional offices varied substantially on the actions 

they take to enforce the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Consistent 

with earlier observations of EPA’s Office of Inspector General and internal 

agency studies, we found these variations in regional actions reflected in 

the (1) number of inspections EPA and state enforcement personnel 

conducted at facilities discharging pollutants within a region, (2) number 

and type of enforcement actions taken, and (3) the size of the penalties 

assessed and the criteria used in determining the penalties assessed. For 

example, as figure 1 indicates, the number of inspections conducted under 

the Clean Air Act in fiscal year 2000 compared with the number of 

facilities in each region subject to EPA’s inspection under the act varied 

from a high of 80 percent in Region 3 to a low of 27 percent in Regions 1 

and 2. 

Regional Enforcement 

Activities Vary 

Substantially 

Page 4 GAO-06-840T 
Figure 1: Percentage of Total Regulated Facilities Inspected Under the Clean Air Act 

During Fiscal Year 2000, by EPA Region

While the variations in enforcement raise questions about the need for 

greater consistency, it is also important to get behind the data to 

understand the cause of the variations and the extent to which they reflect 

a problem. For example, EPA attributed the low number of inspections by 

its Region 5, in Chicago, to the regional office’s decision at the time to 

focus limited resources on performing detailed and resource-intensive 

investigations of the region’s numerous electric power plants, rather than

conducting a greater number of less intensive inspections. 

We agree that regional data can be easily misinterpreted without the 

contextual information needed to clarify whether variation in a given 

instance is inappropriate or whether it reflects the appropriate exercise of

flexibility by regions and states to tailor their priorities to their individual 

needs and circumstances. In this regard, we recommended that it would 

be appropriate for EPA to (1) clarify which aspects of the enforcement 

program it expects to see implemented consistently from region to region 

and which aspects may appropriately be subject to greater variation and 

(2) supplement region-by-region data with contextual information that 

helps to explain why variations occur and thereby clarify the extent to 

which variations are problematic. 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EPA Region

Percentage

Source: GAO’s analysis of EPA data.

Page 5 GAO-06-840T 
Our findings were also consistent with the findings of EPA’s Inspector 

General and OECA that regions vary in the way they oversee statedelegated programs. In this regard, contrary to EPA policy, some regions 

did not (1) conduct an adequate number of oversight inspections of state 

programs, (2) sufficiently encourage states to consider economic benefit 

in calculating penalties, (3) take more direct federal actions where states 

were slow to act, and (4) require states to report all significant violators. 

Regional and state officials generally indicated that it was difficult for 

them to ascertain the extent of variation in regional enforcement activities,

given their focus on activities within their own geographic environment. 

However, EPA headquarters officials responsible for the air and water 

programs noted that such variation is fairly commonplace and does pose 

problems. The director of OECA’s water enforcement division, for 

example, told us that, in reacting to similar violations, enforcement 

responses in certain regions are stronger than they are in others and that 

such inconsistencies have increased.

Similarly, the director of OECA’s air enforcement division said that, given 

the considerable autonomy of the regional offices, it is not surprising that 

variations exist in how they approach enforcement and state oversight. In

this regard, the director noted, disparities exist among regions in the 

number and quality of inspections conducted and in the number of permits 

written in relation to the number of sources requiring permits. 

In response to these findings, a number of regions have begun to develop

and implement state audit protocols, believing that having such protocols 

could help them review the state programs within their jurisdiction with 

greater consistency. Here, too, regional approaches differ. For example:

• Region 1, in Boston, has adopted a comprehensive “multimedia” approach 

in which it simultaneously audits all of a state’s delegated environmental 

programs. 

• Region 3, in Philadelphia, favors a more targeted approach in which air, 

water, and waste programs are audited individually. 

• In Region 5, in Chicago, the office’s air enforcement branch chief said that 

he did not view an audit protocol as particularly useful, noting that he 

prefers regional staff to engage in joint inspections with states to assess 

the states’ performance in the field and to take direct federal action when

a state action is inadequate. 

Page 6 GAO-06-840T 
We recognize the potential of these protocols to achieve greater 

consistency by a region in its oversight of its states, and the need to tailor 

such protocols to meet regional concerns. However, we also believe that 

EPA guidance on key elements that should be common to all protocols 

would help engender a higher level of consistency among all 10 regions in 

how they oversee states. 

While EPA’s data show variations in key measures associated with the 

agency’s enforcement program, they do little to explain the causes of the 

variations. Without information on causes, it is difficult to determine the 

extent to which variations represent a problem, are preventable, or reflect 

appropriate regional and state flexibility in applying national program 

goals to unique circumstances. Our work identified the following causes: 

(1) differences in philosophical approaches to enforcement, (2) 

incomplete and inaccurate national enforcement data, and (3) an 

antiquated workforce planning and allocation system. 

While OECA has issued policies, memorandums, and other documents to 

guide regions in their approach to enforcement, the considerable 

autonomy built into EPA’s decentralized, multilevel organizational 

structure allows regional offices considerable latitude in adapting 

headquarters’ direction in a way they believe best suits their jurisdiction. 

The variations we identified often reflect different enforcement 

approaches in determining whether the region should (1) rely 

predominantly on fines and other traditional enforcement methods to 

deter noncompliance and to bring violators into compliance or (2) place 

greater reliance on alternative strategies, such as compliance assistance 

(workshops, site visits, and other activities to identify and resolve 

potential compliance problems). Regions have also differed on whether 

deterrence could be achieved best through a small number of high-profile,

resource-intensive cases or a larger number of smaller cases that establish

a more widespread, albeit lower profile, enforcement presence. Further 

complicating matters are the wide differences among states in their 

enforcement approaches and the various ways in which regions respond 

to these differences. Some regions step more readily into cases when they 

consider a state’s action to be inadequate, while other regions are more 

concerned about infringing on the discretion of states that have been 

delegated enforcement responsibilities. While all of these approaches may 

be permissible, EPA has experienced problems in identifying and 

communicating the extent to which variation either represents a problem 

Several Factors 

Contribute to 

Variations in Regional 

Enforcement 

Programs 

Regions Differ in Their 

Philosophical Approaches 

to Enforcement 

Page 7 GAO-06-840T 
or the appropriate exercise of flexibility by regions and states to apply 

national program goals to their unique circumstances. 

OECA needs accurate and complete enforcement data to determine 

whether regions and states are consistently implementing core program 

requirements and, if not, whether significant variations in meeting these 

requirements should be corrected. The region or the state responsible for 

carrying out the enforcement program is responsible for entering data into

EPA’s national databases. However, both the quality of and quality 

controls over these data were criticized by state and regional staff we 

interviewed. 

Internal OECA studies have also acknowledged the seriousness of the data 

problem. An OECA work group, the “Targeting Program Review Team,” 

stated that key functions related to data quality, such as the consistent 

entry of information by regions and states, were not working properly and 

that there were important information gaps in EPA’s enforcement-related 

databases. Another OECA work group concluded in 2006, “OECA 

managers do not have available to them timely, complete, and detailed

analyses of regional or national performance.” A third OECA work group 

asserted that the situation has deteriorated from past years, noting: 

“managers in the regions and in OECA headquarters have become increasingly frustrated 

that they are not receiving from [the Office of Compliance] the reports and data analyses 

they need to manage their programs...[and there] has been less attention to the data in the

national systems, a commensurate decline in data quality, and insufficient use of data by 

enforcement/compliance managers.” 

Consistent with our findings and recommendations, EPA’s Office of 

Inspector General recently reported that, “OECA’s 2005 publicly-reported

GPRA [Government Performance and Results Act] performance measures 

do not effectively characterize changes in compliance or other outcomes 

because OECA lacks reliable compliance rates and other reliable outcome

data. In the absence of compliance rates, OECA reports proxies for 

compliance to the public and does not know if compliance is actually 

going up or down. As a result, OECA does not have all the data it needs to

make management and program decisions. What is missing most, the 

biggest gap, is information about compliance rates. OECA cannot 

demonstrate the reliability of other measures because it has not verified 

that estimated, predicted, or facility self-reported outcomes actually took 

place. Some measures do not clearly link to OECA’s strategic goals. 

Finally, OECA frequently changed its performance measures from year to 

National Enforcement 

Data Are Incomplete and 

Inaccurate 

Page 8 GAO-06-840T 
year, which reduced transparency.” For example, between fiscal years 

1999-2005, OECA reported on a low of 23 performance measures to a high 

of 69 measures, depending on the fiscal year. 

Although EPA is working to improve its data, the problems are extensive 

and complex. For example, the Inspector General recently reported that

OECA cannot generate programmatic compliance information for five of 

six program areas; lacks knowledge of the number, location, and levels of

compliance for a significant portion of its regulated universe; and 

concentrates most of its regulatory activities on large entities and knows 

little about the identities or cumulative impact of small entities. 

Consequently, the Inspector General reported, OECA currently cannot

develop programmatic compliance information, adequately report on the

size of the universe for which it maintains responsibility, or rely on the 

regulated universe data to assess the effectiveness of enforcement 

strategies.4

As we reported, EPA’s process for budgeting and allocating resources 

does not fully consider the agency’s current workload, either for specific 

statutory requirements, such as those included in the Clean Water Act, or 

for broader goals and objectives in the agency’s strategic plan. Instead, in 

preparing its requests for funding and staffing, EPA makes incremental 

adjustments, largely based on historical precedents, and thus its process 

does not reflect a bottom-up review of the nature or distribution of the 

current workload. While EPA has initiated several projects over the past 

decade to improve its workload and workforce assessment systems, it 

continues to face major challenges in this area 

If EPA is to substantially improve its resource planning, we reported, it 

must adopt a more rigorous and systematic process for (1) obtaining 

reliable data on key workload indicators, such as the quality of water in 

particular areas, which can be used to budget and allocate resources, and

(2) designing budget and cost accounting systems that are able to isolate 

the resources needed and allocated to key enforcement activities. 

EPA’s Workforce Planning 

and Allocation System Is 

Not Adequate for 

Effectively Deploying Staff 

to Regions 

 4

EPA Office of Inspector General, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated

Entities Impedes EPA’s Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance, 

Report No. 2005-P-00024, September 19, 2005.

Page 9 GAO-06-840T 
Without reliable workforce information, EPA cannot ensure consistency in 

its enforcement activities by hiring the right number or type of staff or 

allocating existing staff resources to meet current or future needs. In this 

regard, since 1990, EPA has hired thousands of employees without 

systematically considering the workforce impact of changes in 

environmental statutes and regulations, technological advances in 

affecting the skills and expertise needed to conduct enforcement actions, 

or the expansion in state environmental staff. EPA has yet to factor these 

workforce changes into its allocation of existing staff resources to its 

headquarters and regional offices to meet its strategic goals. Consequently, 

should EPA either downsize or increase its enforcement and compliance 

staff, it would not have the information needed to determine how many 

employees are appropriate, what technical skills they must have, and how 

best to allocate employees among strategic goals and geographic locations

in order to ensure that reductions or increases could be absorbed with 

minimal adverse impacts in carrying out the agency’s mission. 

Over the past several years, EPA has initiated or planned several actions to

improve its enforcement program. We believe that a few of these actions 

hold particular promise for addressing inconsistencies in regional 

enforcement activities. These actions include (1) the creation of a State

Review Framework, (2) improvements in the quality of enforcement data, 

and (3) enhancements to the agency’s workforce planning and allocation 

system. 

The State Review Framework is a new process for conducting 

performance reviews of enforcement and compliance activities in the 

states (as well as for nondelegated programs implemented by EPA 

regions). These reviews are intended to provide a mechanism by which 

EPA can ensure a consistent level of environmental and public health 

protection across the country. OECA is in the second year of a 3-year 

project to make State Review Framework reviews an integral part of the 

regional and state oversight and planning process and to integrate any 

regional or state corrective or follow-up actions into working agreements 

between headquarters, regions, and states. It is too early to assess whether 

the process will provide an effective means for ensuring more consistent 

enforcement actions and oversight of state programs to help ensure a level

playing field for the regulated community across the country. Issues that 

still need to be addressed include how EPA will assess states’ 

EPA Has Initiated or 

Planned Actions to 

Achieve Greater 

Consistency in 

Enforcement 

Activities 

EPA’s State Review 

Framework Holds 

Promise, but It Is Too 

Early to Assess Its 

Effectiveness 

Page 10 GAO-06-840T 
implementation of alternative enforcement and compliance strategies, 

such as strategies to assist businesses in their efforts to comply with 

environmental regulations; encourage businesses to take steps to reduce 

pollution; offer incentives (e.g., public recognition) for businesses that 

demonstrate good records of compliance; and encourage businesses to 

participate in programs to audit their environmental performance and

make the results of these audits and corrective actions available to EPA, 

other environmental regulators, and the public. 

Regardless of other improvements EPA makes to the enforcement 

program, it needs to have sufficient environmental data to measure 

changes in environmental conditions, assess the effectiveness of the 

program, and make decisions about resource allocations. Through its 

Environmental Indicators Initiative and other efforts, EPA has made some 

progress in addressing critical data gaps in the agency’s environmental 

information. However, the agency still has a long way to go in obtaining 

the data it needs to manage for environmental results and needs to work 

with its state and other partners to build on its efforts to fill critical gaps in 

environmental data. Filling such gaps in EPA’s knowledge of

environmental conditions and trends should, in turn, translate into better

approaches in allocating funds to achieve desired environmental results. 

Such knowledge will be useful in making future decisions related to 

strategic planning, resource allocations, and program management. 

Nevertheless, most of the performance measures that EPA and the states 

are still using focus on outputs rather than on results, such as the number 

of environmental pollution permits issued, the number of environmental 

standards established, and the number of facilities inspected. These types 

of measures can provide important information for EPA and state 

managers to use in managing their programs, but they do not reflect the 

actual environmental outcomes that EPA must know in order to ensure 

that resources are being allocated in the most cost-effective ways to 

improve environmental conditions and public health. 

EPA also has worked with the states and regional offices to improve 

enforcement data in its Permit Compliance System and believes that its 

efforts have improved data quality. EPA officials said that the system will 

be incorporated into the Integrated Compliance Information System, 

which is being phased in this year. According to information EPA 

provided, the modernization effort will identify the data elements to be 

entered and maintained by the states and regions and will include 

additional data entry for minor facilities and special regulatory program 

Efforts Are Underway to 

Improve Data, but Critical 

Gaps Remain 

Page 11 GAO-06-840T 
areas, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, combined sewer 

overflows, and storm water. Regarding the National Water Quality 

Inventory, the Office of Water recently began advocating the use of 

standardized, probability-based, statistical surveys of state waters so that 

water quality information would be comparable among states and from 

year-to-year.

While these efforts are steps in the right direction, progress in this area has 

been slow and the benefits of initiatives currently in the discussion or 

planning stages are likely to be years away from realization. For example, 

initiatives to improve EPA’s ability to manage for environmental results 

are essentially long-term. They will require a long-term commitment of 

management attention, follow-through, and support—including the 

dedication of appropriate and sufficient resources—for their potential to 

be fully realized. A number of similar initiatives in the past have been 

short-lived and unproductive in terms of lasting contributions to improved 

performance management. The ultimate payoff will depend on how fully 

EPA’s organization and management support these initiatives and the 

extent to which identified needs are addressed in a determined, 

systematic, and sustained fashion over the next several years.

Since the late 1990s, EPA has made progress in improving the management 

of its human capital. EPA’s human capital strategic plan was designed to 

ensure a systematic process for identifying the agency’s human capital

requirements to meet strategic goals. Furthermore, EPA’s strategic 

planning includes a cross-goal strategy to link strategic planning efforts to 

the agency’s human capital strategy. Despite such progress, effectively 

implementing a human capital strategic plan remains a major challenge. 

Consequently, the agency needs to continue monitoring progress in 

developing a system that will ensure a well-trained and motivated 

workforce with the right mix of skills and experience. In this regard, the 

agency still has not taken the actions that we recommended in July 2001 to

comprehensively assess its workforce—how many employees it needs to 

accomplish its mission, what and where technical skills are required, and 

how best to allocate employees among EPA’s strategic goals and 

geographic locations. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, EPA’s 

process for budgeting and allocating resources does not fully consider the 

agency’s current workload. With prior years’ allocations as the baseline,

year-to-year changes are marginal and occur in response to (1) direction 

from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress, (2) spending 

caps imposed by EPA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and (3) 

priorities negotiated by senior agency managers.

EPA Has Improved the 

Management of its Human 

Capital System, but 

Challenges Remain in 

Allocating Staff to Match 

Enforcement 

Requirements in its 

Regions 

Page 12 GAO-06-840T 
EPA’s program offices and regions have some flexibility in realigning 

resources based on their actual workload, but the overall impact of these 

changes is also minor, according to agency officials. Changes at the margin

may not be sufficient because both the nature and distribution of the 

workload have changed as the scope of activities regulated has increased 

and as EPA has taken on new responsibilities while shifting others to the 

states. For example, controls over pollution from storm water and animal 

waste at concentrated feeding operations have increased the number of 

regulated entities by hundreds of thousands and required more resources 

in some regions of the country. However, EPA may be unable to respond 

effectively to changing needs and constrained resources because it does 

not have a system in place to conduct periodic “bottom-up” assessments of 

the work that needs to be done, the distribution of the workload, or the 

staff and other resource needs. 

Mr. Chairman, to its credit, EPA has initiated a number of actions to 

improve its enforcement activities and has invested considerable time and 

resources to make these activities more effective and efficient. While we 

applaud EPA’s actions, they have thus far achieved only limited success 

and illustrate both the importance and the difficulty of addressing the 

long-standing problems in ensuring the consistent application of 

enforcement requirements, fines and penalties for violations of

requirements, and the oversight of state environmental programs. To finish 

the job, EPA must remain committed to continuing the steps that it has 

already taken. In this regard, given the difficulties of the improvements 

that EPA is attempting to make and the time likely to be required to 

achieve them, it is important that the agency remain vigilant. It needs to

guard against any erosion of its efforts by factors that have hampered past 

efforts to improve its operations, such as changes in top management and 

priorities and constraints on available resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or Members of the Committee may 

have. 

If you have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202)

512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Major contributors to this testimony 

include Ed Kratzer, John C. Smith, Ralph Lowry, Ignacio Yanes, Kevin 

Bray, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 13 GAO-06-840T (360722) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER