Legislative Analyst's Office

Analysis of the 2000-01 Budget Bill

---

Departments Disregard
Legislative Directive

Departments within the Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies have generally disregarded legislative directive to provide program and expenditure information. The lack of information hinders the Legislature's oversight of state programs. We recommend that the Legislature withhold action on the budgets of the Secretaries for Resources and Environmental Protection (Cal-EPA) pending submittal of previously requested supplemental reports by the agencies and their constituent departments and boards.

We further recommend that where a required supplemental report would provide supporting information for particular budget proposals, those proposals be denied absent the required report.

Additionally, we recommend that instead of adopting supplemental language directing departments to provide information at a future time, the Legislature disapprove any funding requests for which the departments fail to sufficiently respond during the budget hearing process to the Legislature's concerns.

In the Supplemental Report of the 1999 Budget Act , the Legislature directed various departments within the Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies to report on a number of their programs and activities. The Legislature's purpose in requesting these reports was to exercise legislative oversight by holding the departments accountable for their use of funds and staff in achieving statutory objectives and goals. Many of these reports were required to be submitted by early January 2000 in order to provide the Legislature with pertinent information as it reviews the 2000-01 budget. Figure 1 (see next page) lists the departments, reports, and their due dates, as well as the status of those reports.

Figure 1
Resources and Environmental Protection Departments 1999-00 Supplemental Report Requirements Statusa
	Due Date	Status
Resource Secretary
Long-term funding	1/10/2000	Received
Santa Monica Bay	1/10/2000	Not received
Cal-EPA Secretary
Environmental justice	9/1/99	Not received
Agency structure	1/10/2000	Not received
Agency funding review	1/10/2000	Not received
Santa Monica Bay	1/10/2000	Not received
Scientific peer review	Quarterly	Not received
Enforcement	1/10/2000	Not received
Colorado River Board	Quarterly	Received
Conservation	10/1/1999	Received
Fish and Game
NCCP	1/10/2000	Not received
Species mitigation	1/10/2000	Not received
AB 3158 fees	11/1/1999	Not received
Coastal Commission	1/10/2000	Received
Parks and Recreation
Staffing	9/1/1999	Not received
Routine maintenance	1/10/2000	Not received
Deferred maintenance	1/10/2000	Not received
Bay Conservation and Development Commission	1/10/2000	Received
Air Resources Board
Economic analysis	10/1/1999	Not received
PM 2.5	10/1/1999	Not received
California Integrated Waste Management Board
IWMA implementation	1/10/2000	Not received
Tire remediation	9/1/1999	Received
Pesticide Regulation
Performance measure	1/1/2000	Not received
State Water Resources Control Board
Water quality monitoring	1/10/2000	Not received
Water discharge inspections	1/10/2000	Not received
MTBE contamination	10/1/1999	Not received
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Oil refineries inspection	1/10/2000	Not received
Toxic exposure at schools	1/10/2000	Not received
Vacancy rates	10/1/1999	Not received
Office of Emergency Health Hazard Assessment
Public health goals	1/10/2000	Not received
Public health goals	10/1/1999	Not received
a As of January 31, 2000.

Reasons for Information Requirement and Nature of Information to Be Submitted. In reviewing the 1999-00 budget for resources and environmental protection programs, the Legislature expressed concerns over the adequacy of funding for a number of programs. It also was concerned with the level of activities being carried out under these programs. In particular, the Legislature was concerned that environmental protection laws and requirements were not being fully enforced. As a result, the Legislature adopted numerous supplemental report requirements directing departments to report on the funding levels, statutory requirements, and workload of a number of programs.

For example, the Secretary for Cal-EPA is required to report on the funding provided for environmental protection programs to ensure that those activities posing the greatest environmental and public health risks are given priority for funding. The State Water Resources Control Board is directed to report on the watershed and coastal resources where ambient surface water quality monitoring has been conducted, provide a plan for a program to monitor ambient surface water quality and groundwater quality, and identify how the 2000-01 Governor's budget proposal addresses that plan.

Similarly, the Department of Fish and Game is directed to report on the funding and staffing level needed to implement a program to monitor species for which the department has statutory management responsibilities and to mitigate adverse impact on these species. The Department of Parks and Recreation is directed to report on the total funding necessary to cover the costs of regularly scheduled, routine maintenance of its properties and facilities.

Departments Generally Disregard Legislative Directive; Legislature's Program Oversight Reduced. As Figure 1 shows, at the time this analysis was prepared, most of the required reports had not been submitted. The failure to meet the reporting requirements shows a general disregard of legislative directive on the part of the administration. Additionally, the lack of information hinders the Legislature's ability to evaluate the departments' budget needs, assess their performance, and hold the departments accountable for their performance.

Reports Submitted Do Not Respond to Directive. In the few instances where reports were submitted, we found that they often are not responsive to the directive and provide little useful information sought by the Legislature. For instance, the Resources Agency was directed to provide an estimate of the funding needed by the agency and its constituent departments to comply with statutory requirements, and make recommendations on funding adjustments. While the report was submitted on time, the report did not address the issues raised, and provided little useful information to assist the Legislature.

Analyst Recommendations. It is important that the Legislature have a means of obtaining information it deems necessary to make policy and budget decisions. In view of the general lack of regard for legislative directive to provide information in these program areas, we recommend the Legislature do the following:

• Withhold action on the budgets of the Secretaries for Resources and Environmental Protection until the reports due from the agencies and their constituent departments and boards are submitted to the Legislature as required by previously adopted supplemental report language.
• Disapprove any funding proposals in the 2000-01 budget where a required supplemental report would have provided information for the evaluation of the proposal. For instance, the 2000-01 budget includes an augmentation request for the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct ambient water quality monitoring. The budget also proposes an increase of $3 million for DPR to augment its routine maintenance funding. However, supplemental reports due on these programs have not been submitted. Without the information, it would be difficult for the Legislature to assess whether these proposals are warranted, and whether the proposed activities meet legislative priorities.
• Disapprove funding for questionable requests lacking adequate justification instead of adopting supplemental report language. In recent years, the Legislature has adopted supplemental report requirements in order to allow departments to proceed with proposed expenditures and activities even though the effectiveness of these proposals are questionable. In doing so, the Legislature assumes that the information to be provided in the subsequent report would enable the Legislature to better assess the merits of the administration's programs and efforts. Because experience shows that the departments are not inclined to comply with the reporting requirements, we recommend that rather than adopting supplemental language directing such reports, the Legislature disapprove any expenditure requests that it finds not adequately justified or questionable in terms of their effectiveness to achieve statutory goals and priorities. Doing so may induce the departments to be more responsive and provide useful information that enables the Legislature to exercise its oversight role more effectively.