The latest, though perhaps not the last consolidation initiative coming from the governor is a plan to merge four natural resource agencies – Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Conservation, Agriculture and Marine Resources – into no more than two departments.

The Legislature’s debate on that proposal should focus on balancing efficiency with providing quality services, while keeping in mind the larger picture of the growing state budget shortfall and its implications for programs and services well beyond natural resources. In that context, the merger discussion must go forward.

Each department has its constituency of users; they will, understandably, find a change disconcerting, and will resist it with all the political leverage they can muster. That is no reason not to re-examine and reshape what these departments do and how they do it.

Though there is a public safety element to the work these agencies do, their focus is essentially on things, as opposed to people. Regulating, managing and supporting resources such as fish, deer, farms and forests are the concerns of these agencies. Administrative downsizing would likely change the access interest groups have to these state offices. Interest groups, however, are under a false understanding if they believe these departments exist foremost to do their bidding rather than protect these public resources.

As the governor’s curtailment order and subsequent budget cuts begin to take affect, thousands of young, disabled, elderly and poor Mainers will suffer the consequences of fewer services. Forestry, blueberry, dairy, snowmobile and hunting advocates would do well to temper their opposition to change in deference to this harsh reality.

While it’s true that each of the subject departments works on economic development, combining their efforts under one or two administrations will not necessarily reduce effectiveness. At the federal level, there was a clear consensus that putting law enforcement, border protection and intelligence agencies under the arms of the Department of Homeland Security made sense not for saving money, but because they could function more effectively. Reorganized – or merged – resource departments may actually achieve similar improvements in quality of service as they more readily share information and learn from one another.

The details of a merger have yet to be seen, but the Legislature should focus on efficiency and savings in this area as one part of a larger debate over prioritizing increasingly limited state services.