EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 2000, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated a study of the State’s drinking water and plumbing control programs. The study was prompted by a State Task Force on Public Water Protection that concluded benefits may be realized from the integration and coordination of drinking water regulations and program administration within the DEP.

The objective of the study undertaken by Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker (BDMP) was to identify and examine work processes, resources, and activities within the Drinking Water and Waste Water and Plumbing Control Programs, DEP, and other related State programs in order to document areas for potential integration. BDMP was charged with developing up to three scenarios for combining or reorganizing the two programs. The three potential scenarios included:

· Keeping the Programs at DHS;

· Integrating the Programs into the present organizational and operating structure of the DEP; and

· Integrating the Programs into the DEP but through the creation of a new Bureau.

A Project Team comprised of DEP and DHS staff was assembled to participate in the study. During meetings facilitated by BDMP, the team provided process and resource information, recommended staff and external stakeholders to be interviewed, and validated our findings and recommendations. BDMP also interviewed staff and stakeholders, reviewed processes in all departments, and analyzed financial, human, and information systems resources information.

Based on the results of the study, we conclude that the two Programs are operating effectively within the DHS Division of Health Engineering. There is little evidence that the Programs would be more effective or efficient if moved to the DEP or another State agency.

In our opinion, related DEP and DHS programs and activities will benefit through improved communication and cooperation between the Departments, without the need for formal Program consolidation. In this report, we have identified opportunities for potential cooperative efforts along with recommendations addressing other DHS staff, process, and resource issues. We encourage management to prioritize the recommendations and develop an implementation plan to address high priority action items as soon as practical. Our recommendations include:

· Undertaking a joint vision session between DEP and DHS.

· Increasing visibility of the Drinking Water Program within the State and regulated communities.

· Empowering the DWP to enforce the protection of drinking water sources.

· Further strengthening the organizational structure of the Drinking Water Program.

· Sharing Program information between the DHS and DEP.

We would like to acknowledge the cooperation and support of the DEP, DHS, Department Commissioners, stakeholders, and regulated community during this study. We found all parties to be dedicated to the improvement of drinking water administration and processes.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Over the past three years, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Human Services (DHS), the Legislature, and stakeholders have cooperated on efforts to better coordinate drinking water regulations and Program administration within the State of Maine. The following paragraphs describe the significant activities and legislation that led to this review and the submission of our report:

· Upon receipt of the results of the Study of MTBE in Public and Private Water Supplies, Governor King submitted an action plan that included the creation of a Work Group to recommend improvements in the protection of Wellheads of Public Water Supplies.

· The Work Group met from July through November 1998 and identified a number of options to better protect the State’s water supplies.

· Legislation was then submitted to create a Task Force to address the issues and recommendations of the Work Group in a formal manner, and with Legislative support.

On June 17, 1999, H.P. 1103 – L.D. 1550, Resolve, to establish a Task Force to Study the Improvement of Public Water Supply Protection, was enacted. Section 1 of the legislation established a Task Force to study the improvement of public water supply protection. The Task Force convened in October 1999 to study the improvement of public water supply protection. In January 2000, the Task Force issued its report “Task Force to Study the Improvement of Public Water Supply Protection,” making several priority recommendations. One recommendation was that benefits might be realized from the integration and coordination of drinking water regulations and Program administration within one agency.

Taking these recommendations under consideration, the Legislature passed H.P. 1862 – L.D. 2597. Section 13 of this legislation directed the DEP and DHS to jointly hire a consultant to review the drinking water and plumbing control Programs to determine how Program integration and coordination could best be accomplished. The outcome of this review would be a report, by February 1, 2001, of findings to the joint standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resources and human service matters.

On September 2, 2000, the DEP and DHS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) titled “Review of Drinking Water and Plumbing Control Programs.” The DEP and DHS selected Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker (BDMP) to undertake the study and work began on October 26, 2000, with expected completion on February 1, 2001.

1.1 Background

The DHS Bureau of Health, Division of Health Engineering, administers two Programs related to drinking water and wastewater regulation. The Drinking Water Program (DWP) is responsible for enforcing the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act in Maine and has primary responsibility for administering the State’s Rules Relating to Drinking Water. The DWP regulates over 2,200 public water systems in Maine. The Wastewater and Plumbing Control Program (WWPCP) is responsible for regulating on-site sewage disposal systems. The WWPCP promulgates and administers the Maine State Plumbing Code, Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules that sets statewide standards for the design and installation of these systems. These Programs have historically been viewed as relating to public health issues and have been housed within the DHS Division of Health Engineering. The DEP and other State agencies also administer various water quality protection Programs that affect drinking water, both surface and groundwater.

There has been some sentiment in the State that the mission and vision of the DWP and WWPCP can be better met by moving the Programs from the DHS to the DEP. This sentiment is based on the perception that the Programs currently lack visibility within the DHS (the Programs are supported by 43 employees within a department of 2,200 employees) which adversely impacts the Program’s access to headcount and funding and ability to pass legislation. In addition, prior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) reviews were critical of the DWP’s management structure and operation.

Proponents of the move contend that the DEP can better fulfill the mission of the Programs. The proponents point out the DEP’s focus on environmental issues, the opportunity to consolidate drinking water Programs, the DEP’s success with funding efforts involving bonds approved by the public, its ability to administer federal laws, and its recent success in forming working relationships with stakeholders.

1.2 Project Objective and Scope

The objective of this study was to identify and examine related tasks, work processes, resources, and activities within the DWP, WWPCP, and DEP in order to clearly document areas for potential integration and efficiency of related drinking water Programs.

H.P. 1862 – L.D. 2597, Chapter 761, Section 13 directed the DEP and DHS to hire a consultant to review various State agencies as alternatives to host the Program. The consultant was charged with evaluating the assets and liabilities of each given their missions, structure, indirect costs, data management systems, enforcement capabilities, and coordination of effort. The consultant would then develop a potential scenario for how these Programs could be structured if they were moved to another department and, by February 1, 2001, submit a report on these findings to the joint standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resources and human service matters.

Accordingly, BDMP was charged with developing up to three scenarios for combining or reorganizing the DWP and WWPCP to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of drinking water Programs in the State. In the course of discussions with the Project Team and members of management from DHS and DEP, the following scenarios were agreed upon as the focus of our study:

Scenario 1

The DWP and WWPCP will remain with the DHS Division of Health Engineering and recommendations will be provided to address issues identified by the Task Force, US EPA, and other interested parties.

Scenario 2 and Scenario 3

The DWP and WWPCP would move to the DEP and be merged into the existing DEP organizational and operating structure.

Alternatively, DWP and WWPCP would move to the DEP and a separate Bureau, such as a “Bureau of Water,” would be created to accommodate the Programs and other operating goals of the DEP.

1.3 Project Approach

The project approach was developed based on the needs expressed in the RFP and our management consulting experience. The approach included a number of activities that led to the development of a conclusion and several related recommendations. This approach was based upon the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the DWP and WWPCP if left at DHS (Scenario 1) and if moved to the DEP (Scenario 2 or 3).

Our study included a review of pertinent historical and legislative documents, assessment of physical and human resources, compilation of cost and funding information, assessment of the satisfaction and expectations of the affected agencies and third parties, and an assessment of current work processes. We employed a structured approach that included:

· Collection of information pertinent to the history, structure, and operation of the relevant Programs.

· Interviews and group discussions with DHS, DEP, and other stakeholders identified by DHS and DEP.

· Objective analysis of information gathered.

· Development of a draft report.

· Validation of findings and recommendations.

The DHS and DEP assembled a Project Team to provide guidance and input throughout the project (see Appendix A for a listing of Project Team members). The Team met periodically to review progress, to offer suggestions regarding areas to be investigated and persons to be interviewed, and to validate findings.

We assessed current work processes for the DHS Division of Health Engineering relating to the DWP and WWPCP Programs. We identified and examined applicable business processes, workflow, and inventory; assessed physical and human resources allocated to these Programs; and reviewed cost and funding information in order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the Programs. We performed similar tasks for related DEP Programs. We also assessed the satisfaction and expectations of affected agencies and third parties through individual and group stakeholder meetings and met with the commissioners of both DEP and DHS in order to solicit their opinions and views (see Appendix B for a listing of stakeholders interviewed).

To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Programs in the context of the three scenarios, we studied:

· Mission and purpose of the DWP, WWPCP, and related DEP Programs.

· Management and organizational structure at the DHS and DEP.

· Level of satisfaction experienced by external and internal stakeholders.

· Allocation of human, physical, and financial resources.

· Processes being undertaken at DWP, WWPCP, and DEP, particularly inter-relationships and overlap of duties.

We met with the Project Team to review and validate our preliminary findings. The purpose of this meeting was to ensure that we understood how the Programs function, that our recommendations were based on valid assumptions, and that potential alternatives for the Programs had been identified.

After this meeting, we conducted additional meetings with Project Team members and stakeholders to complete our analysis and develop our draft report. The draft report document was delivered to the Project Team and a meeting took place to discuss our recommendations, answer questions, and consider comments.

2.0 CONCLUSION

Based on our analysis, we conclude that the DWP and WWPCP should remain within DHS, Division of Health Engineering (Scenario 1). We believe the two Programs do and can continue to meet the needs of the State and the regulated community effectively and efficiently. The following issues factored heavily into our decision:

· There has been a notable improvement in the management of the DWP over the past year. These improvements address many of the concerns identified in prior US EPA reviews.

· Additional collaboration between DEP and DHS could bring about the changes desired by the Legislature and task force, without the need to formally consolidate the Programs.

· Breaking the DWP and WWPCP away from other Programs in the Division of Health Engineering, such as the Eating and Lodging Program, would be likely to create issues that could reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the Division as a whole.

· The overall opinion of the stakeholders is that the Programs are effective and should remain with the DHS Bureau of Health Engineering.

· The DEP and DHS are subject to two different indirect cost formulas. Moving the Programs to the DEP could result in a reduction of the funds available to the DWP.

Conversely, there was no strong evidence to suggest that Scenario 2 or 3 would improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the two Programs. Implementation of either of these two scenarios would require additional one-time investment in planning and relocation costs, and could impact the funds available to the DWP to carry out its mission. The Commissioner of the DEP suggested that a move would necessitate a significant reorganization of the staff and would likely create a need for a new management-level position to run the Programs.

2.1 Opportunities for Improvements

Even though we conclude that the needs of the State are best served by keeping the DWP and WWPCP within DHS, there are opportunities to improve the Program effectiveness and efficiency for the benefit of both DHS and DEP. Our recommendations include such areas as:

· Undertaking a joint vision session to allow DEP and DHS to come to agreement regarding areas of formalized collaboration.

· Heightening the visibility of the Programs by improving communication with the Legislature and internal staff regarding the mission, vision, and accomplishments of the Programs.

· Empowering the DWP to enforce the protection of drinking water sources.

· Continuing efforts to strengthen the Program staff, including converting the six US EPA Grant Fund positions at the DWP to State-funded positions. This requires significant interaction with the Legislature.

· Leveraging the Memorandum of Agreement structure now in place to support enhanced collaboration between DHS and DEP.

· Developing a strategy to share Program information between the DHS and DEP. For example, consider sharing mapping information contained in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (FSDWIS) and the Geographic Information System (GIS).

· Developing procedures for allowing DEP to have input into the rules for managing the Local Plumbing Inspectors (LPI).

· Developing a plan to clarify and document which services are provided by the Departments to address the perceived overlap of responsibilities.

Our recommendations, along with other opportunities to improve overall Program effectiveness, are described in this report.

3.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR SCENARIO 1

In the course of our study, we assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of the Programs at the DHS and how well the Programs would function if moved to DEP. To gauge both Program effectiveness and Program efficiency we considered if the Programs were “doing the right things.”

3.1 Program Effectiveness

To gauge Program effectiveness, we considered: the Programs’ ability to effectively carry out its mission and mandated responsibilities, stakeholder assessment of how well the Programs meet their needs, and the management and organizational structure that supports the Programs.

We determined that the Programs were effectively carrying out their mission at the DHS. We found little evidence to indicate that there would be a substantial increase in effectiveness if the Programs were moved to DEP, and some evidence that would indicate the potential for a decrease in effectiveness if the Programs were moved to DEP.

3.1.1 Management

Background

In 1998, Van Wie Associates undertook a comprehensive audit of the DWP in its summary of findings. The results of the report concluded that the organizational structure of the DWP and the vacant director’s position were impacting the DWP’s ability to carry out its duties. The report cited the following as some of the significant issues with the DWP:

· Primacy Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – Weak in the area of enforcement and emergency planning

· Compliance/Enforcement Strategy and Tracking – Lack of integration with all Program areas and lack of strategic direction from Bureau management

· Marginally functional data management system – Inadequate planning for the design and development of the Oracle-based data management system

· Staffing, Budgeting, and Planning – In particular, the reliance on contract employees

· Program Management – Particularly, a lack of coordination and teamwork

· Program Administration – Particularly, in reference to written policies

· Interagency Cooperation – Interagency cooperation in the area of enforcement

Prior US EPA audit results and the perspectives of the State legislature, the Task Force, the US EPA, and certain members of the regulated community supported these findings.

In May 2000, a DWP director was hired. Since that time, the above issues have been or are being addressed. All stakeholders, both internal and external, have observed an improvement in the DWP since the director began her work. Specifically, her accomplishments include:

· Improved relationship with the US EPA. Discussions have taken place regarding audit letters and enforcement issues. The US EPA has recognized the various improvements with the DWP and has sent them a letter commending them for those improvements (refer to Appendix H).

· Updating of Maine rules related to Drinking Water, Fluoridation, and Cross Connections. Increase in Administrative Orders and volume of Notices of Non-Compliance.

· Implementation of FSDWIS, a US EPA supported data management system that will allow improved data collection and reporting and will interface with the US EPA system.

· Filling of vacant positions. Requested the conversion of six US EPA Training Grant positions to permanent State positions. The request progressed to the Governor’s Office (more progress than previously), but was not included in the Governor’s budget.

· Initiated sessions to improve departmental communication skills and team building. Regular meetings with the Director and Section Managers and their staff. In the process of compiling a set of policies and procedures and initiating a five-year strategic plan.

· Developed new policies regarding compliance and field services.

· Ensuring that certain Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) are followed. Will focus on interagency cooperation as internal issues are addressed.

The efforts of the new director address the efficiency and effectiveness issues that were identified in the Van Wie Report. When interviewed, both the US EPA’s Maine Drinking Water Coordinator and the Assistant Director of Drinking Water Policy of the Region 1 US EPA office in Boston, Massachusetts, reported improvement regarding historical issues with the DWP and a level of satisfaction with the DWP. External stakeholders expressed an increase in overall satisfaction with Program administration since May 2000.

Recommendations

To build upon the managerial improvements cited by the stakeholders during the study, we recommend:

· The DWP director should continue to work in close collaboration with the US EPA.

· The DWP director should continue to increase her visibility and the visibility of the Program with the Legislature, stakeholders, and members of the regulated community. This effort should include a plan for the continuous education of the Legislature and stakeholders regarding the mission and vision of the DWP, as well as its ongoing accomplishments.

In addition, the DHS Commissioner should continue his level of involvement with the DWP to ensure the Program achieves the level of visibility needed to accomplish its mission.

3.1.2 Organization

Background

In addition to a Program manager, the DWP has 33 employees. The staff positions for the DWP are funded from the general fund, from funds received from AFM fees, and from funds received from two types of federal grants: the PWSS and the SRF. The DWP provides a 20% match for its State Revolving Loan Grant and a 33% match for the PWSS grant.

The WWPCP has eight employees. Currently, the Program manager position is vacant. The staff positions in the WWPCP are funded from Program fees only. In addition to the DWP and WWPCP, the Division of Health Engineering administers the Radiological Health Program and the Eating and Lodging Program. These two Programs, along with Division Administration, account for the other 26 positions in Health Engineering.

The Task Force to Study the Improvement of Public Water Supply focused on the status of the DWP and the protection of drinking water resources to ensure public health. The Task Force recognized that the Division of Health Engineering administered other related programs. For this reason, in Recommendation #5 of its report, the Task Force also advised that the consultant charged with the study should recommend whether the WWPCP should also be moved in order to accomplish the overall goal of the Task Force. It was the relationship of the DWP and WWPCP, not the efficiency or effectiveness of the WWPCP, that was being addressed.

In 1992, the US EPA began a process to revoke the State of Maine’s delegation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly referred to as primacy. This action was primarily due to understaffing in the DWP that was resulting in a lack of enforcement. To resolve the staffing problem, US EPA provided funds, as a temporary measure, to the NEIWPCC to hire staff to work at DWP so that DWP can better fulfill its primary responsibilities. Since 1993 the US EPA has continued to fund staff through NEIWPCC. In fact, the DWP now has six full-time, one full-time short-term, and one-half-time short-term positions supplied through NEIWPCC. The US EPA is very anxious to have these positions be made State positions for the sake of resource continuity and stability. Over time, there have been attempts to discontinue the Training Grant and acquire the six full-time persons as State employees. As recently as the current budget cycle, DHS requested the addition of the six positions, but the request was not included in the Governor’s budget package. The stability of the DWP may be jeopardized by personnel turnover resulting from Training Grant personnel dissatisfaction.

The WWPCP works closely with the Eating and Lodging Program to the extent that customer files are shared by both Programs and physically housed in the WWPCP. Because the Eating and Lodging Program visits approximately 6,000 customers (1,800 of which are public water supplies) on a regular basis, it shares information with the WWPCP that it could not easily share if the Programs were geographically separated. The sharing of information increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the WWPCP and the Eating and Lodging Program and should be continued.

Recommendations

In addition to recent efforts to strengthen the organizational structure of the Programs, we recommend:

· The Director should continue her efforts to improve the DWP team, including conversion of the US EPA grant positions to permanent State-funded positions.

· Initiatives to include the WWPCP data and activities in FSDWIS should be explored.

· The Division should fill the vacant WWPCP Program Manager position as soon as possible. We understand that the position is being funded in the budget beginning July 1, 2001.

· The DWP, WWPCP, and DEP should establish a formal collaborative arrangement to help achieve the objectives that were intended to be realized from the Task Force study. Building upon the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) structure already put into place for the purposes of inter-agency collaboration, the DWP, WWPCP, and DEP should work together on issues such as: areas of overlap regarding sanitary systems, Overboard Discharge Grants, and water quality approvals for projects.

· There is an opportunity for the WWPCP and the DEP to work together to develop additional standards of operation for the LPIs. These standards could formalize policies and procedures to be followed when the DEP and LPIs interact.

3.1.3 Mission and Purpose

Background

The purpose of the DWP is to protect human health through maintenance of drinking water quality. The DWP’s mission is to provide administration and enforcement of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act in the State of Maine. The Program works regularly with the internal departments at the DHS and also with the DEP on various issues and procedures related to drinking water.

In order to carry out its mission, the DWP works closely with the Drinking Water Commission (DWC). The DWC was established in 1993 and is made up of nine members, one member representing the DHS and eight other members appointed by the Governor that have an association with public water systems. The DWC is primarily responsible for establishing annual drinking water fees that are assessed against all public water systems in the State. The DWC also advises the DWP on drinking water issues and evaluates Program resources to plan for future Program needs and to justify possible fee increases.

The mission of the WWPCP is to minimize health and safety hazards associated with improperly installed subsurface wastewater disposal systems. A MOA was issued in June 1998 and addresses the interaction of the WWPCP with other departments, including the DEP. This MOA between DHS and DEP outlines rules and responsibilities of each group regarding groundwater classification, wastewater disposal, and water quality impact from engineered systems.

Recommendations

The following recommendations reflect opportunities to further refine and communicate the mission and purpose of the Programs in the State:

· Continue efforts to develop a strategic business plan for the DWP.

January 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· There has been a notable improvement in the management of the DWP over the past year. These improvements address many of the concerns identified in prior US EPA reviews.