DEQ’s leader inherits a toxic mess

Battered credibility, low staff morale and funding woes mark state agency

By Nick Budnick

Pamplin Media Group, Jul 17, 2008, Updated Oct 30, 2009 (1 Reader comment)

Jonathan House / Pamplin Media Group

At the helm for only a month, Department of Environmental Quality Director Dick Pedersen gets to clean up an agency plagued by low funding, low morale and, according to critics, debatable effectiveness.

Some people think of the state Department of Environmental Quality as the agency that sticks a funnel on your tailpipe every couple of years.

True enough — but that’s just a small part of the story. In fact, the 750-person agency plays a key role in enforcing the laws that protect Oregon’s air, water and land.

But when Dick Pedersen began as director of the DEQ in June, he inherited an agency whose problems include low funding and poor internal morale — as well as a reputation, as watchdogs go, of being more a Chihuahua than a pit bull.

In 2004, for instance, Portland-based criminal investigators affiliated with the federal Environmental Protection Agency canceled their long-standing practice of meeting weekly with DEQ’s enforcement unit, saying in effect that the state of Oregon didn’t seem interested in nailing lawbreakers.

Meanwhile, a group of Lewis & Clark law students has been working with the nonprofit Northwest Environmental Defense Center to sue violators of the federal Clean Water Act —and so far, they’ve scored more penalties than the entire DEQ.

Asked about these issues, Pedersen, 56, comes off as earnest and optimistic. While he does not promise radical change in his agency, he does promise improvement.

Sustainable Life: What was your background before coming to DEQ 12 years ago?

Pedersen: I have a degree from Carroll College in Helena, Mont. It’s a combined degree in biology and chemistry, and I worked for the state of Montana for 18 years for their counterpart to DEQ doing water, land, Superfund issues there. Then I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service here for three years.

I was born and raised in Montana, as was my wife. But we’re Oregonians now, and we love it here. We’re here to stay.

SL: What do you think DEQ needs to do better?

Pedersen: I think we need to be more of a voice for the environment and communicate environmental issues. I think DEQ needs to be the go-to agency with questions and concerns about environmental issues.

SL: The rap on DEQ from environmentalists is that you have an agency staffed with smart, dedicated well-meaning people, but who for political and budget reasons are not able to do the job they feel is necessary. Can you speak to that?

Pedersen: I think that all Oregonians should be proud of the work force here at DEQ. They’re incredibly talented and creative, they’re here because they want to be here and they just have a passion for the work they do.

I do believe it’s been tough for staff here because of lack of staff and funding. Often the issues that we’re dealing with are so complicated that it’s very difficult for staff to engage fully in them.

SL: You answered the budget part of the question, but not the politics. Does politics get in the way of this agency’s ability to do its job?

Pedersen: Three-quarters of our budget is from fees that are paid for by the regulated community. We work closely with the regulated community because we write permits for them that protect public health and the environment.

There is a good relationship with the regulated community; I think that has been perceived as getting pressure, political or otherwise, to not carry forth our environmental mission.

The reality is we get fees from the regulated community (but) we don’t write a permit based on what the permittee wants us to write.

SL: So does your agency have a problem with enforcement?

Pedersen: We’ve done some comparisons to Washington state’s Department of Ecology and over the years we have issued as many environmental cases as Washington has and collected about equal amounts of money. They have more staff; they are a bigger state in terms of population.

When you talk about budget cuts, what I think is a fair criticism is I don’t think we’ve had the staff out in the field to watch things and pay attention to things.

1 | 2 Next Page >>

Facebook	Digg	Del.icio.us
Newsvine	Stumbleupon	Reddit