[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6200305,"mediaKeyId","3814593-4a90c1083c7faaf9f65ba0bfcb776d4b","parentId",3814593,"title","State Water Board staff flag $1.2 million budget increase, Monterey primacy takeover and disadvantaged-community fee changes","audioSeconds",3088,"startMs",4096000,"endMs",7184000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3814593-4a90c1083c7faaf9f65ba0bfcb776d4b&start=4096&end=7184","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3814593-4a90c1083c7faaf9f65ba0bfcb776d4b/thumbnail_4096000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6200305/California/State-Water-Board-staff-flag-12-million-budget-increase-Monterey-primacy-takeover-and-disadvantaged-community-fee-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200305-17a2a197fdd6bfc20663f6decf1173ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770591580&Signature=CsVJ~YMh8lywh4smQLCmTDzHWnqKpLCCkV2GxbjhUo7Z0f5dx0iiHXrxmY0LsvW-xCuL6j7ARAm2bYRuxf7V6zp3oa9VTAsJIw8ohX6mX2yuO9swDOSTKmr0UdA~YkUuvHzkB74B1MUn94xIZbfJSFrjjgppQAjsge-q2FaBpqf9ocnaGy7F-JN8xpMp-OSOzQy8~6Oztl5LpF3ycAjeY7vONw0m4rQoO5MYX5uSZJxJgN28jBc6mCdxKhjv50IXwRjs2dlbYECwO5pt1QhHfzUuK5MMaQtw0M1Jl280NeXjmg5AEwpXEwmWH~LZknkvuA6tsQLnv6Y86NBgG8Asjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State Water Resources Control Board","date","2025-06-13T18:31:48Z","article","State Water Resources Control Board staff told stakeholders on a virtual June stakeholder call that the board’s proposed fee-setting budget for the Safe Drinking Water Account in the governor’s May revise is $49.2 million for fiscal year 2025–26, about $1.2 million (2.5%) higher than last year.

The change is driven primarily by several budget change proposals (BCPs) and other adjustments, board staff said. Cassandra White of the Fee and Revenue Branch and Tracy Lutz walked stakeholders through the cost drivers; John Russell, deputy director of Division of Administrative Services, said staff used the May revise figures as the baseline for the presentation.

Why it matters: the board’s fee revenues and the Safe Drinking Water Account are used to regulate small water systems across California. An increase in the fee-setting budget or a change in who qualifies for fee reductions could shift costs among water systems and ratepayers.

The most significant BCPs identified by staff were:
- Monterey County primacy delegation termination: $2.7 million and 12 permanent positions to return regulation of about 250 small water systems from Monterey County to the State Water Resources Control Board (expected September 2025), Andrew (Drinking Water Program staff) said. The Monterey takeover is the single largest BCP affecting the account.
- Legal resources to respond to federal actions: CalEPA requested $2.9 million across agencies; the State Water Board’s total is $800,000 and would fund three permanent positions, with the Safe Drinking Water Account’s share described as $200,000 in the presentation.
- Senate Bill 1188 (technical, managerial and financial standards): $925,000 to fund three permanent positions and information-technology work to develop a data intake portal and integrate Electronic Annual Report (EAR) data into the SAFER Clearinghouse.

Staff also pointed to a $2.0 million reduction tied to government-efficiency, budget-letter adjustments (section 4.05, budget letter 24-24) and smaller adjustments to state operations and pro rata charges. Cassandra White summarized the net effect as “nearly $3,600,000 or 7.5% to the safe drinking water account” in BCP activity, offset in part by other reductions.

On the fund condition, David Ciccarelli, Fee and Revenue Branch chief, said the board closed FY 2023–24 with about $42.7 million in total revenue, $40.2 million in expenditures and an ending balance of roughly $5.3 million (about 13.3%). The FY 2024–25 forecast shows higher revenues and expenditures and a reserve that staff described as “prudent.” For FY 2025–26 the May revise figures show a projected structural shortfall of roughly $450,000 if no fee changes are made. Staff presented two options: use reserves to cover the gap, or increase fees by about 1.5% (estimated to produce roughly $720,000) to bring the account back to balance.

Stakeholder concerns: Bob Gore, representing Modesto Irrigation District, said he objected to charging fee payers for legal-defense positions and called the allocation “wholly inappropriate as a general fund expense,” adding that if fee payers must cover the work, the positions should be temporary rather than permanent. Tim (stakeholder) voiced similar objections. John Russell acknowledged the concern and said the administration prioritized drinking water as a high-priority program in implementing vacancy and operating reductions, and that the figures presented were based on the May revise and still subject to the Legislature’s final adopted budget.

Disadvantaged communities proposal: Cassandra White and Wendy (Division of Drinking Water) said staff are preparing a proposal to change how the board determines which community water systems qualify for a disadvantaged-community (DAC) fee reduction. Currently systems self-certify; the proposal would adopt a consistent, MHI-based definition across board programs, align with DFA funding definitions, and add a petition process so systems could contest a board determination. Staff warned that applying a new definition would increase the number of systems eligible for reduced fees and therefore reduce revenues from non-DAC systems unless the board offsets the change through other fee adjustments or by using reserves. Staff said they will present a formal proposal and impact estimates at the next stakeholder meeting on August 1.

Next steps and staff role: Ciccarelli said staff will present finalized figures after the state budget is adopted and will brief board members; final policy decisions on whether to use reserves or propose fee changes rest with the board. Staff encouraged stakeholders to send follow-up questions by email and to attend the August 1 stakeholder meeting for the formal disadvantaged-communities proposal.

Ending: Staff emphasized that the numbers presented were based on the governor’s May revise and could change in the final state budget. Stakeholders requested additional analysis on long-term impacts of counties returning local-primacy responsibilities to the state and asked the board to consider whether the legal-resources BCP should be funded from the general fund rather than fee funds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","6 10 25 Drinking Water and ELAP Fees Stakeholder Meeting Recording","oneSentenceSummary","State Water Resources Control Board staff told stakeholders on a virtual call that the governor's May revise increases the safe drinking water fee-setting budget to $49.2 million for FY 2025–26, driven by several budget change proposals including a $2.7 million Monterey County primacy takeover and new legal-defense positions.","taxTitle","State Water Resources Control Board, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",16198,"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},6200300,"State Water Board: ELAP fund stable for now; staff not proposing fee changes",390,7200000,7590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3814593-4a90c1083c7faaf9f65ba0bfcb776d4b&start=7200&end=7590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3814593-4a90c1083c7faaf9f65ba0bfcb776d4b/thumbnail_7200000.jpg","/articles/6200300/California/State-Water-Board-ELAP-fund-stable-for-now-staff-not-proposing-fee-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200300-7a27ccd06342f964b95df07d9e9a58f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770591581&Signature=ekNA1k77zXmOask5pRXkMHX~~jq~6IM3CLecItUbHZTUOMtzwBUA99CzXc1FPvOCQne53KhWhtub8a2zg7L-lvS8sPxLXL119Keqo-Bz5dc02rhXZtcaNeF4-VS2E5QqhBvF3Nw1hN43uR0x2O1iLNmYbpypXi76-DECEtyIYMv-h0Wn0O8eUSYCha2DCQebrYeXXIcPvIYvIOqhvdnSG6JoA6VVXPbUpBByoLOx6mHv58zvqEt1tjf3svJiYNzrN~e9JBGX-ZnoD0nYYFnsVNx48ZrwoGFL9cz9h9V9ksXWj3PyctP9ZPKrFPFJGPEAFMbZIGKSlwqdjhLa~6jI5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Resources Control Board staff reported to stakeholders on a virtual call that the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) fee-setting budget in the governor’s May revise for fiscal year 2025–26 is $4.6 million, down about $80,000 (1.7%) from last year’s fee-setting budget.

Tracy Lutz summarized ELAP cost drivers and David Ciccarelli explained the fund condition: staff said ELAP closed FY 2023–24 with revenues exceeding expenditures and a built fund reserve; current forecasts show revenues and expenditures roughly aligned under existing fee schedules, and staff are not proposing fee adjustments for ELAP at this time.

Why it matters: ELAP accredits or inspects environmental laboratories that perform drinking-water and environmental testing. Fee changes or program cuts can affect lab operating costs and accreditation capacity.

Key figures and staff comments: Lutz told participants that state operations, government-efficiency reductions (budget letter 24-24) and pro rata adjustments account for the small net decrease in ELAP’s budget. Ciccarelli said that staff have seen a modest drop in the number of participating labs in prior years but that the trend appears to be stabilizing; as a result, staff feel the current fund reserve and revenue forecast can support current program activity without a fee increase.

Stakeholders responded: Tim (stakeholder) commented that some labs are facing “incredible increases in the cost of new equipment to actually perform some of the tests” and suggested fee relief would be beneficial. Staff acknowledged the equipment-cost concern but said current projections support no fee change this year; they will continue to monitor participation and costs.

Next steps: ELAP staff will continue monitoring lab participation, equipment-cost pressures, and expenditures; any future proposals for fee changes would be returned to stakeholders and the board for policy consideration. The next joint Drinking Water and ELAP stakeholder meeting is scheduled for August 1, when staff will present final figures after the state budget is adopted.

Ending: For now, ELAP staff said they plan no fee-change proposal and will present updated fund figures to stakeholders and board members after the final state budget is known.","State Water Resources Control Board staff said the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program's (ELAP) fee-setting budget is slightly lower in the governor’s May revise and that staff are not proposing fee changes for labs this year, citing a built-up fund reserve and stabilized lab participation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State Water Board staff flag $1.2 million budget increase, Monterey primacy takeover and disadvantaged-community fee changes

State Water Board: ELAP fund stable for now; staff not proposing fee changes