[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6278540,"mediaKeyId","2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67","parentId",2640809,"title","State Water Board reopens cost-of-compliance talks; stakeholders propose data consolidation, program coordination and innovation grants","audioSeconds",171,"startMs",4819000,"endMs",4990000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67&start=4819&end=4990","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67/thumbnail_4819000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6278540/California/State-Water-Board-reopens-cost-of-compliance-talks-stakeholders-propose-data-consolidation-program-coordination-and-innovation-grants","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278540-bf45d207d0713e69f0497cbc2e1a1a6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1776609550&Signature=PlXd3vT4u1xaRRAqWbcEw3YKb1LWJaM1C4Uw3a9b0lmFcMF86SHiDUF0F2bJGW6O0bksZknZzGaAkt5G3fcQVgmB-X3-4SG62H5uYqWXiBZxVu7WNVKUPnEEPYsg4HtXkgLbo3rSRAQj5PYPQlBzaPaY6ZBLWxhYRJ3XyfLzUqm5~8LQPCdV7JuPa1glmE0HI7BvfWQeZllIb1ZwsF-~cFueyOxtU2l56DGfmFTJqajV8UqteegyNHNHCl4w7tt9V3uBUv9OjjE5CgbLyTB~DDmz3s45idSZbvhMfMTpU0VzmWmOX4H5g2Uq2ZJXAQiY8Kotm1rz1BPToMHIszuajA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State Water Resources Control Board Meeting","date","2025-03-14T17:54:55Z","article","The State Water Resources Control Board and Division of Water Quality reopened a multi-stakeholder discussion about the “cost of compliance” — the total expenses permittees incur to meet water-board requirements — and invited regulated entities, regional boards and other agencies to work together on efficiency measures.

Phil Crater, deputy director of the Division of Water Quality, said the board has emphasized cost-of-compliance work since a 2012 resource-alignment evaluation and wants to continue identifying ways to reduce monitoring, reporting and treatment costs without sacrificing environmental protections. “We recognize that fees are one among many costs that regulated entities incur to comply with their permits,” he said.

Stakeholder proposals and discussion: Bob Gore and others urged a practical, collaborative approach: “If we can all work together and share operational information, there's going to be efficiencies,” Gore said. Stakeholders and industry representatives offered several recurring ideas:

- Consolidate reporting portals and data submissions. Noelle Kramers of the Wine Institute and other commenters said multiple, overlapping reporting systems force dischargers to repackage similar data for different portals. Multiple participants pointed to the CRO/CROW collaboration (a cross-agency effort) as a possible avenue for data alignment.

- Coordinate regional board-level changes where appropriate. Multiple commenters said the most effective changes often must originate at regional boards because those boards set local permit terms; Bob Gore and State Board staff recommended creating subgroups with regional staff to work through regional specifics.

- Examine frequency and scope of monitoring. Some stakeholders suggested reduced testing frequency for facilities with strong compliance records or replacing costly tests with lower-cost alternatives where scientifically appropriate.

- Consider innovation or grant programs to offset upfront investments. Bob Gore proposed a long-term idea analogous to the Carl Moyer program for air quality — a grant program to fund compliance equipment or innovative technologies that reduce long-term costs.

Participation and next steps: DWQ staff collected names and questions and said they would share the list with Bob Gore, who volunteered to help organize a working group of interested stakeholders and regional board staff. Phil Crater said DWQ and the State Water Board will participate and provide available budget and program information to seed the subgroup’s work. Sarah from Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc. and other coalition representatives asked to participate and to provide program-level examples, such as the irrigated lands coalition approach and the Central Valley Dairy Representative Monitoring Program, which they said have produced cost savings through collective approaches.

Ending: Staff invited those interested to email the Fee Branch and said they will circulate participant lists and meeting summaries; they also asked stakeholders to submit specific, actionable ideas that could be evaluated in subsequent sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3-6-2025 Water Quality Fees Stakeholder Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The board reopened a cost-of-compliance initiative to identify ways to reduce the regulatory cost burden on permittees. Stakeholders suggested consolidating reporting portals, coordinating regional implementation, and exploring innovation grants to support compliance investments.","taxTitle","State Water Resources Control Board, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76764,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278545,"State Water Board to begin stakeholder process on Water Quality Certification fee categories for FY26–27",57,4528000,4585000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67&start=4528&end=4585","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67/thumbnail_4528000.jpg","/articles/6278545/California/State-Water-Board-to-begin-stakeholder-process-on-Water-Quality-Certification-fee-categories-for-FY2627","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278545-c6f4bca55388b95938c3de0164fef188/orig.mp4?Expires=1776609550&Signature=N29GoG~9F9Go0qdSZSWe-bbhfuR4pQajt9~TQSmXLeUJdN64RuL-p4UdCjeggZbgb0S4tClRburlrEaGQi2uL6GfTM2AnnS-lGUMdenMmPPuAXgu0pakbDJgXsWEM-yNWpCWsWEhacE5IHd6ent2gv3Yzlad8o5SrxaoNpjAm1B~AjBImwz88Hv~FSjGGVVtdJeBBAKSpLEaOEsm-KfHi2YNCzzlF5GwpUK1eESArw8yU3L43gbHChihPbyIzEnGzuGgpw4Pd9ifhUnaF6FLmRnsIakPrI6MMqkvCyFFL~zgvlorNEb3VT-SePLw6csSXlaeJ2hIyKQLHAN~7D0TUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Board staff announced they will begin a stakeholder process to revise fee-category methodologies for the Water Quality Certification Program, with adoption anticipated for fiscal year 2026–27.

Cassandra White said the board will work with program staff to revise how fees are categorized and calculated for Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certifications. She said the revision will not affect the 2025–26 fee structure but that starting early will enable meaningful engagement. “Within the next few weeks, we'll begin scheduling Water Quality Certification specific stakeholder meetings,” White said, and she encouraged interested parties to sign up for the board’s fee-mailing list.

Why it matters: Water Quality Certification determines requirements for projects that potentially affect water quality and can affect project timelines and costs for infrastructure and development projects. Changes to fee categories could alter how applicants for 401 certifications are charged when the revisions take effect in 2026–27.

Next steps: staff said they will schedule program-level stakeholder meetings in the coming weeks, collect input, and plan outreach. Participants may sign up via the Fee Branch mailing list (feebranchwaterboards@waterboards.ca.gov). Staff emphasized that any changes would be adopted through the board’s normal regulatory and fee-adoption process and would be presented to stakeholders well before adoption.

Ending: Stakeholders who want to be included in the Water Quality Certification fee discussions were asked to subscribe to the fee regulations mailing list and attend the upcoming program-specific sessions.","Staff said they will begin outreach to revise fee-category methodologies for the Water Quality Certification Program, with anticipated adoption in fiscal year 2026–27.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278551,"San Bernardino officials say water-board permit fees strain public-safety maintenance; staff offer follow-up",83,3612000,3695000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67&start=3612&end=3695","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67/thumbnail_3612000.jpg","/articles/6278551/California/San-Bernardino-officials-say-water-board-permit-fees-strain-public-safety-maintenance-staff-offer-follow-up","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278551-9758812610ab674b906284946a983cbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1776609550&Signature=EH7vdOKQmVIXrrsdRnUXSWBS9dHbsr22HVUYgPyKJHm02VMWw-n4h8ssssB-m0QdbORNHsWeisnkfKmpIS4wMiSEXDAXEvfP8i0eaf5yXnXYwxgrAZi4umXOSIIFspv1Qo23hduONV1zyn3tS4imfmM3m49O91ig9-peodfKF5kVvbJPtxryVzeRwpQq98OYEj0MgTXyd2Yn3R8prpdP0s6IgJhLXZQB0tfLgV9A5zolEH7pOm2wecV-d62ynZakKka9Ja7vVohw5CXtCeu~HmXj3XZD7yVW42mygJZqqBtUdOBKmMJsVyI17w8ccMe7PxSCghtLFbiX1Q5u1pWRBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Bernardino County public-works officials urged the State Water Resources Control Board to consider fee adjustments for temporary, emergency and routine maintenance projects used for public safety, saying the current fee schedule does not distinguish those short-term activities from permanent development.

Michelle Derry of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Public Works described multiple recent emergencies in burn-scarred areas and asked whether the water board could reduce fees for short-term public-safety work. “When we submit our applications... we're gonna be paying millions of dollars in fees,” Derry said, adding that a single permit for a linear, temporary maintenance project could cost roughly $365,000 under the current fee schedule.

Why it matters: Derry and other local officials said these linear flood-control and sediment-removal projects are essential to protect downstream communities after wildfires and storms. They argued the current fee calculation — which can scale with project footprint or linear length — imposes very high costs on routine public-safety work and could reduce funds available for on-the-ground protection.

Board response and next steps: David Ciccarelli and other state staff said the place to start is program staff who design fee methodologies. Phil Crater, deputy director of Division of Water Quality, and other staff agreed to open follow-up discussions with San Bernardino County and regional program managers. Phil and David specifically offered contacts and asked Michelle Derry to contact Phil, David or program manager Karen (name provided in the meeting) to schedule a focused conversation. Phil said the board does not currently exempt emergency work from fees under the uniform schedule but expressed willingness to “look at” whether emergency or public-safety projects could be treated differently going forward.

Context and examples from stakeholders: Derry said the county manages more than 122,000 acres of fire-scarred lands and already pays significant other permitting fees to departments such as California Department of Fish and Wildlife; the county’s water-board fees for large, temporary, linear projects add materially to those costs.

Ending: State staff invited San Bernardino County and other local agencies to follow up offline; they said program staff will examine whether a different approach — for example, an emergency exemption or different linear-calculation method for public-safety maintenance — is feasible within existing authority and orders.","Representatives from San Bernardino County urged the State Water Board to consider fee reductions or exemptions for temporary, emergency and routine public-safety maintenance projects, saying current fees can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars per permit.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6278554,"State Water Board staff say budget drills could lower some water-quality fees; May revise will set details",775,2525000,3300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67&start=2525&end=3300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640809-3781a49a68f91250bf1e4fc0341a8a67/thumbnail_2525000.jpg","/articles/6278554/California/State-Water-Board-staff-say-budget-drills-could-lower-some-water-quality-fees-May-revise-will-set-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278554-682770725ebdb751e6f5001631daed85/orig.mp4?Expires=1776609550&Signature=BmRaXm83TGWkwkiY6SsTb7nipJhwwbaYzyBOHAl0pdVc76motL0GfuBMwZhcJYjx~VcgqkJ1eZuQ8AUtyWWzBJgbVd3XDWda8tYDk-H433KJQAhXH-AurOxXwqWDEeFmR5r2pmLOGgfC6kbYp2CBe2znZy5CvtKH40QjgMiBEGpnvNYY2IaHSG3DmLlVuSkt4k74wPv9z4MupHguZsn-L9TtxIvxlRvnKDnhU5uNUoV5L-NU4WJCcezxw2eoLvmvbGy79BGLu6aKSXxkD8Y~is9PXRunhdM6voPKuxapgmBrv3Z9qP6uv~CRK8Pb3dFG9zlx-wAIJIFGd9tZcV0ypA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Resources Control Board staff told stakeholders that temporary, statewide budget “drills” from the Department of Finance could reduce the board’s operating costs and — if those reductions are finalized in the May revision to the governor’s budget — could reduce fee needs for the Waste Discharge Permit Fund (WDPF).

Deputy Director John Russell said the board was directed to run two reduction exercises — a vacancy reduction drill and a separate operating reduction exercise — that together required about a 7.94% decrease to operating budgets. He said the exercises arrived after the usual budget materials were prepared and that staff lack final numbers until Finance finishes its review. “Those drills showed up in the governor’s budget as a control section,” Russell said. “We just don't have the information available to generate the detailed cost drivers that we normally do.”

Why it matters: the WDPF supports permitting and regulatory staff whose salaries and program costs are funded by fees on permittees. If agreed reductions lower base expenditures, staff said, less fee revenue may be needed, opening the possibility of fee relief when the May revised budget is published. Cassandra White and other Fee Branch staff said they expect to run the usual cost-driver analyses after the May revise and present firm fee proposals at the June 11 stakeholder meeting.

Key details from staff presentations: Cassandra White summarized the January proposed fee-setting budget as roughly $200 million for fiscal year 2025–26 and reported a net year-over-year decrease of about $1.3 million (0.7%) in the January materials. She said the largest state-operations change was a small increase (mainly compensation), while “pro rata” allocations from other state agencies were down approximately $1.5 million (about 0.7%). Staff emphasized those figures reflect the January proposal and will be updated in May.

Stakeholders asked about federal funding and other revenue sources. Sharon Green of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts asked whether pending federal changes — including to Section 106 grants — would affect fees. Staff said they were monitoring potential federal impacts but did not expect immediate effects to the WDPF; however, some state grant-funded programs (for example, certain SRF-related activities) could be affected. Outside speaker Bob Gore and other commenters warned that federal program changes are uncertain and may play out over months.

Cannabis program funding: an emailed question requested a 75% fee reduction for cannabis-related fees. Staff said cannabis-fee staffing has already been reduced “by about 70–80%,” from about 60 originally fee-funded positions to roughly 10 staff currently paid from cannabis fees, and that they have worked with the Department of Finance to shift some positions to the cannabis tax fund. Staff will evaluate cannabis revenue and expenditures after the May revise to determine appropriate fees for 2025–26.

Next steps and timing: staff said they will publish the complete cost-driver tables, fund-condition statements and proposed fee schedules after the May revise. The next WDPF stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 11, when staff expect to present revised, detailed analyses.

Ending: Stakeholders were asked to submit questions by email and to monitor the Water Board fee web page for handouts and materials. Staff emphasized they could not finalize proposals until Department of Finance completes its review and the May revised budget is available.","State Water Resources Control Board staff told stakeholders on May 1 they are still finalizing reductions required by Department of Finance budget drills and that those cuts — if finalized in the May revise — could reduce fee needs in the Waste Discharge Permit Fund.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State Water Board reopens cost-of-compliance talks; stakeholders propose data consolidation, program coordination and innovation grants

State Water Board to begin stakeholder process on Water Quality Certification fee categories for FY26–27

San Bernardino officials say water-board permit fees strain public-safety maintenance; staff offer follow-up

State Water Board staff say budget drills could lower some water-quality fees; May revise will set details