Guam EPA board presses agency on enforcement shortfalls and inspection capacity

At a March 20 meeting, members of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency board of directors raised repeated concerns about the agency’s enforcement capacity and the frequency of on-site inspections, citing recent media reports about a Tumon stairway and perceived gaps in oversight.

"I feel like for a lot of people, EPA is something they have to tolerate instead of something they respect," an unidentified board member said, summarizing frustrations voiced publicly after the news coverage. The comment prompted a lengthy agency response and a detailed discussion of operational constraints.

Acting deputy administrator Glenn Snickis outlined Guam EPA’s complaint-and-enforcement workflow: complaints are logged in a central database, referred to the appropriate program, investigated in the field, and—when violations are found—managed through written notices of violation and orders of compliance. "We do an inspection. We get all the information we possibly can," Snickis said, describing the steps that can lead to a notice of violation, an order of compliance, and eventual referral to the attorney general or court if a site fails to correct problems.

Snickis acknowledged limitations. He reported the agency has 55 employees across programs and described how inspection teams rotate between fieldwork and administrative duties to complete permit reviews, field inspections and enforcement paperwork. He said some programs operate with only a few inspectors (for example, four inspectors for certain water-related functions and three dedicated solid-waste inspectors), and that vehicle and office space shortages reduce flexibility for surprise checks and follow-up visits.

Ron Charfus, introduced to the board as an acting supervisor for inspectors, described day-to-day field operations and confirmed inspectors perform a range of checks from erosion control and grease trap compliance to septic and construction-site inspections. Charfus noted his teams prioritize complaints but that limited staff and shared vehicle pools complicate scheduling.

Board members pressed for more measurable performance tracking. One director urged collecting weekly or monthly key performance indicators showing inspections completed by program and trend lines year-over-year. Snickis said the agency already reports inspection counts quarterly and annually and provides monthly activity updates internally; he agreed that more visible metrics for the board would help.

The board also discussed citations and the court process. Snickis described litter citations and administrative penalty orders for noncompliance and said outcomes depend on judges; he added that some recent cases were dismissed despite the agency’s evidence. He flagged the need to better document property ownership and vehicle data by coordinating with other agencies, which can slow enforcement actions.

Members recommended several near-term steps: review and publish permit/inspection fee schedules, track inspection metrics more transparently for board oversight, and explore hiring and workspace adjustments to support additional inspectors. Snickis said some of those steps are already under consideration and that the agency is recruiting for critical engineering and inspection roles.

The meeting record shows this was a substantive policy exchange rather than a vote-driven action; board members asked staff to return with additional data and possible administrative changes at a future meeting.