Cutting the Resources Without Cutting the Work
When I was at consultant McKinsey & Co, one of their philosophies in doing cost reduction studies was that you don't cut staffing without first cutting back the work. Identify the activities that don't need to be done or can be streamlined, change the processes to match, and then cut staffing.
This, of course, is not the way it usually happens, even in good companies. Most companies just whack staff counts by some percentage, perhaps across the board and perhaps weighted by intuitions as to where the company is fat. In a good company with good managers and good incentives, the organization can generally be trusted to cut back on the least useful activities in response to the staff cuts. But in bad organizations with poor incentives, one has no idea if high value or low value activities are being cut. And in the government, you can almost be assured that when staff and budgets are cut, low-value activities are preserved while high-value core mission activities are cut. In my world of public parks, staff cuts almost always lead to preservation of bloated headquarters staff while maintenance budgets and staff actually service visitors in parks is slashed.
And then there is this on new rules being imposed by the Trump Administration on NEPA. If you want to know why infrastructure projects almost never get started and public lands are seldom improved, NEPA is a big part of the reason. It is something that is desperately in need of reform. But the Trump Administration appears to be making the same mistake I discussed above, cutting resources without cutting the work required:
Yesterday Greenwire ran a story about how one of the new political appointees at the Department of the Interior issued a memo requiring that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies (those Environmental Impact Statements you hear so much about) be completed in one year, and be no more than 150 pages long.
If there were ever any doubts that the Trump Administration minions have absolutely no idea what they’re doing, this should put them to rest. Ostensibly intended to “streamline the regulatory process”, blah, blah, blah, its effect will be precisely the opposite; this one memo will delay and stop more projects than anything the environmental community has ever come up with. The activists may be livid, but I promise you that their lawyers are going, “Yee-ha!” I certainly would be if I were still doing NEPA cases.
The NEPA and the hundreds of court decisions interpreting it are painfully clear on how detailed an EIS has to be. Putting artificial and arbitrary limits on an EIS will make it so much easier to show how the EIS does not “take a hard look at the environmental consequences,” contain “a detailed statement of any adverse environmental effects” of a proposed project, etc.
