At the opening public‑comment period of the State Water Resources Control Board's Aug. 19 meeting, a string of speakers raised several distinct concerns for the board's attention: better coordination of multiple water funding sources, alleged worker‑safety and environmental justice failures at waste facilities in the Bay Area, possible violations of open‑meetings rules and procedural complaints, and a request from tribal leaders to reschedule hearings that conflict with California Native American Day.

Coordination of funding pots and emphasis on drinking water projects

Bob Gorham opened public forum asking the board to play a more active role coordinating the many federal, state and local funding pots available for water projects. He urged reconciling disparate rules across funds, leveraging low‑interest financing and convening partners — conservancies, CNRA, CDFW and federal agencies — to multiply the effect of available dollars and speed projects for drinking water and disadvantaged communities.

Worker safety, environmental justice and a request to agendize

Jeff Ellsworth, former mayor of St. Helena and member of California LULAC’s Napa Valley waste workers advisory committee, told the board he represents LULAC members concerned about working conditions at Upper Valley Disposal Service’s Clover Flat Landfill in Napa County and alleged long‑term failure to address toxic wastewater, fires, improper handling of radioactive materials and a Latino worker fatality in 2013. Ellsworth said a national LULAC resolution was adopted earlier this year calling for increased accountability and requested the stateboard agendize the matter with sworn testimony at the earliest possible meeting.

Open‑meetings concerns and statutory references

Ray Tahir used his time to allege procedural wrongdoing and to press the board for records and answers. He cited the Bagley‑Keene Open Meeting Act and raised questions about how language added to statutory materials (transcript references to "section 13287") and recent changes to statutes or implementing rules were handled. Tahir also demanded written responses to several questions within 10 days, alleging the board and staff had been evasive on prior requests.

Tribal scheduling and civil‑rights complaint

Gary Mulcahy told the board that proposed DWR/Delta or POI hearing dates (Sept. 25–26 in staff notices) conflict with California Native American Day events and with tribal year‑end ceremonies, and asked the board to reconsider hearing dates so tribes can participate. He said a Title VI civil‑rights complaint the tribes filed has been on the board’s agenda for more than a year without decisive action, and urged the board to either resume negotiations with investigators or move the investigation forward.

Commission staffing and written guidance

Walter Lam of the Bay Wetlands Land Trust described a separate matter involving the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Lam said commission staff (who are board employees) had not provided written guidance to commission members before a vote that removed terms such as "climate change" and "environmental justice" from a work plan. He said this omission has occurred repeatedly and requested the state board provide facts. Chief Counsel Michael Laufer answered during public forum that staff had been working on a factual summary and would follow up with Mr. Lam shortly.

Board response and follow up

Chair Joaquin Esquivel and board staff acknowledged the range of concerns. Laufer said the board would follow up on Lam's request and that staff had circulated a draft transmittal to assemble factual findings. The board also acknowledged Mulcahy’s request about tribal participation and said staff would reconvene internally to see whether hearing dates could be adjusted to avoid conflicts.

Why this matters

Public‑forum remarks raised three distinct oversight and policy issues for the board: (1) how to better coordinate multiple funding programs and rules to serve disadvantaged communities, (2) whether regional boards or other agencies should undertake formal investigations into alleged worker‑safety and environmental justice failures at waste handling facilities, and (3) how to ensure the state board’s procedures and meeting schedules do not impede tribal participation or statutory public‑process rights.

No formal board action was recorded on the public‑comment requests during this meeting; several speakers asked for future staff follow‑up and formal agendizing.