Get reorganization right

While there is good reason to watch very carefully the restructuring that’s being proposed for the state Department of Natural Resources, there’s no reason to panic — at least not yet.

Many of the changes that are being suggested make sense if the agency is to become more efficient and its employees more productive, something that has become necessary as the DNR’s staff has shrunk to meet demographic and budgetary changes. Other changes — such as allowing businesses to write their own permits — are questionable.

As the agency goes through the process of reorganization, citizens should keep a careful eye on the proposed changes and make sure their voices are heard. Protection of the state’s habitats, waterways, air and land must not be compromised — even through unintended consequences.

Deputy Secretary Kurt Thiede said in an interview with the Journal Sentinel that no decisions have been finalized, but work will be completed by July 1 after input from business, environmental and wildlife groups, constituencies with often competing agendas. The DNR studied efforts of 11 other states that are taking similar steps, including Minnesota, Iowa and Indiana.

Thiede emphasized to Journal Sentinel reporter Lee Bergquist that environmental protections won’t be weakened and the DNR would still have to approve permits. “This isn’t about changing the law, not following the law,” he said.

Maybe, but the protections can still be weakened if the changes aren’t thoroughly vetted or thought through. As former DNR Secretary Matthew J. Frank noted, “The devil is in the details. The question is, how will this actually be implemented? You need a system where the DNR, as an independent agency, exercises its authority on whether a permit is granted. That has to be protected. That can’t be handed over to business.”

Frank was speaking specifically about a proposal to turn over the brunt of permit writing to businesses, but what he said applies in a general sense, as well.

In the case of the permits, for example, businesses in some cases do have the necessary expertise to write them and could thus free up time for DNR staff to concentrate on more important work. And the permits still would have to be approved by DNR staff, so state oversight would remain in place. But only if DNR officials make sure they weren’t just rubber stamping permits in the interest of efficiency.

Among other changes, the Journal Sentinel reported, the DNR would transfer management of some properties to other organizations and turn over work to others. It might also merge some duties with the state Department of Transportation. Other efforts are aimed at realigning personnel and operations across the department.

As we said, if these changes make the agency more effective and efficient while still protecting Wisconsin’s great natural treasures, that will be a good thing.

But attitude is important as well. DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp recalled at one agency listening session how an employee told her that the “deer and the butterflies and clean air and clean water, that those were our customers. And I said, ‘Well, the last time I checked, they don’t pay taxes and they don’t sign our paychecks.’ ”

The agency has to answer to those who pay taxes. But its mission is to protect the resources that define Wisconsin and make it a place people want to live and visit.

The DNR can do both — but only if it’s done carefully and right. Citizens need to watch this process closely.