Superior Daily Telegram - Editorial - 5/9/01

Splitting the state DNR is a bad idea

The plan by Republican lawmakers to split up the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is bound to spur some sharp differences of opinion and lively debate.  But why now and why the rush to get this proposal into the state budget bill awaiting legislative action?  Reorganizing the DNR is a big deal, and one that deserves careful consideration, hearings and plenty of time for everyone to be heard.  Hardly the kind of thing to attach to the budget at this late stage, and yet proponents want to see it take effect July 1.

But that's only one of the problems with the plan.  Is this change necessary?  Will it improve service to the public, and will it save money?  Reps. John Gard, R-Peshtigo, and Rep. DuWayne Johnsrud, R-Eastman, want to create a Department of Environmental Management and a Department of Fish, Wildlife, Parks and Forestry. Gard, co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee, says the split isn't likely to save money but would provide better accountability for this large agency's many functions.

The DNR handles a broad range of jobs and services, including rules and fees for hunting and fishing, protection of state wetlands and cleanup of contaminated sites.  DNR officials such as former secretary George Meyer have tried to keep the agency separated from politics, but some policies have proved controversial and even unpopular.  So far, the advocates of this split haven't produced a good argument that there's a lack of accountability or bad management at the DNR.  In fact, we've seen nothing to show that the DNR isn't doing a fine job.

Gard said the change would leave no confusion about how money from fishing and hunting licenses and park fees is being spent.  He maintains that a major portion of that money now goes to other environmental programs, but if that's the main problem here, there are other ways of dealing with funding issues than by reorganizing the agency.  "This is not about hating the DNR," he said, but rather it's about doing things better.

At this point, this plan sounds like it's coming from people with disagreements with the DNR. Lawmakers need to open up this plan to the public and examine how it would mean doing things better.  There are many concerns and questions being raised, such as the suggestion of Rep. Gary Sherman, D-Port Wing, that this proposal aims to downplay environmental protection and to weaken the parts of the agency that aren't politically popular.  And that would be bad policymaking.