The state has not learned from history. I refer to the merger of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Department of Environment and Natural Resources. These two agencies prior to the recent state-imposed merger did not create a plan describing future operation after the merger. Where is a report showing government dollars saved by the merger? No such report was provided. The news media reported that almost no details have been released about the merger.
A state spokesperson also acknowledged that details on the merger don’t exist. And to a further point, state government provides no reports concluding that either department had been failing in its duties. The merger is not based on money and it is not based on government failure. What is the basis for the merger? The merger was a political act rather than an effort to create better government efficiency.
A merger of government agencies is no different than a merger of businesses. The foremost argument by government (and business) in supporting the act of merger is the money argument: “the government will save money.” Will two state agencies merged as one save money and still each do their real job? No such evidence was presented. It is easy to cut and slash government departments to save money, but an economic advantage is hard to support if there has been no financial analysis. And just as relevant, how do you show an advantage if the merged agencies do not have related purposes along with some essential areas of comparable regulation?
These two different state agencies were created to serve separate goals. The Department of Agriculture is principally chartered to deal with supporting agriculture and economic development related to ag. It is agriculture’s advocate on behalf of the state. The Department of the Environment and Natural Resources is a regulatory agency meant to oversee, for good or ill, activity that affects the air, water, and earth in the state.
The DENR deals with mining, oil exploration, maintaining water quality standards and regulating issues of pollution and resource management. These issues are not within the field of knowledge of experts in the Department of Agriculture. Even when the interest of the two agencies at first glance overlap, the two have little to no interaction. For example, when a large-scale dairy milking operation applied a few years back for a 750,000 gallons-per-day water use permit, the DENR played an important and exclusive role in the permitting process. The Department of Agriculture was not involved at all in the permitting and the ensuing litigation affecting the permit application. The expertise of the two agencies are identified as different by their long-standing separate existence.
Those arguing for a merger often state that the merger is a ‘merger of equals’. Life does not work that way. In every merger one of the parties loses authority. To hold that a merger does not result in one party’s loss of authority is propagated hog manure. When observing a merger, think of submission and think of robust degrees of subservience to a single new boss. Think marriage.
Let me paint another picture. The DENR is the disciplinarian concerned with keeping the public in line on natural resource and environmental matters. The Department of Agriculture is the agency principally encouraging growth in the agricultural industry sector. On their own, both have a place and are essential. But when these two management approaches are housed under one roof natural conflict will occur.
The Department of Agriculture is a significant agency for the state. It is an active promotional spokesman for the state’s largest economic sector. Agriculture contributes 32 billion dollars to the state economy. Like it or not the DENR has the government role of a traffic cop. The DENR has too few advocates in the world of political influence. The DENR is an agency whose effectiveness political leaders would prefer to dilute. The DENR is the real target in this merger.
The DENR is patterned after and is the result of the earlier creation of the U S EPA. The purposes and origin of the DENR as well as its relationship with the EPA are lost on the current state administration. Richard Nixon established the EPA years ago to consolidate required environmental responsibilities overseen by different federal agencies all into one agency. He consolidated programs from departments including the US Department of Agriculture and the Interior Department. Nixon’s course of action had foresight. In support of the EPA as a new agency Nixon stated, “Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country.” I do not suggest I think the EPA or DENR are anywhere near perfect. Far from it. I have my concerns and will continue to recommend that changes are in order. But a neutering job (taking the word ‘environment’ out of the title of the new merged department) is a not-too-subtle act by the administration reflecting its overall intent for the merger.
Government serves critical roles in society, and in some areas performs them well. In some areas not so well. Reform of government and the reorganization of government are a good thing. Transplant surgery in which the wrong organ is put in the wrong part of the body is not a good thing. South Dakota’s merger of two disparate departments is not based on saving money; not based on future efficiencies in new agency operations; and not based on existing failures of either agency. I invite the readers to let me know in ten years’ time the name of the party who will unhesitatingly acknowledge its success.
