The Buckeye Valley Water Authority Executive Committee voted to submit a planning application to the State Water Board’s SAFER program to study consolidating water infrastructure and possible jurisdictional reorganizations, staff told the committee at its meeting. The motion to apply passed on a roll call vote after public comment.

Committee members and staff said the SAFER planning grant would fund a high-level planning process to map connections — including recycled-water and raw-water conveyance options — and to study costs tied to consolidations or other organizational changes. Staff repeatedly emphasized that submitting the application does not by itself obligate the authority to annex territory or merge agencies.

Staff said the planning application is iterative: the initial submittal is likely to be revised by state reviewers, and the final accepted plan may differ from what is submitted. “It’s going to be the imperfect iterative process that we’re going to go through here in the next year-ish on a time frame,” a staff member said, noting the application is intended to identify work the authority would later negotiate and accept if it chooses to receive grant funds.

Why it matters: the SAFER program funds planning and capital projects intended to make small, local water systems more resilient by enabling infrastructure consolidation and by incentivizing jurisdictional reorganizations. Committee members and staff said the grant could help the authority evaluate interconnections, recycled-water production and distribution, and whether to pursue organizational changes under state law.

During discussion, staff described two distinct uses of the word consolidation: “little c” consolidation, meaning physical infrastructure interties that allow water to move across boundaries; and “big C” consolidation, meaning jurisdictional consolidation where separate local agencies reorganize into a single successor agency under state law. Staff identified the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act as the state statute that governs changes of organization such as annexation, detachment, merger and consolidation.

Staff noted some components commonly discussed — for example, connecting local sewer flows into regional plants to produce recycled water — may or may not be eligible for SAFER funds, and that the authority must ask rather than assume. “We just don’t know unless we ask,” a staff member said when asked whether sewer tie-ins or raw-water lines would be eligible. Committee members also asked whether irrigation or raw-water conveyance for agricultural customers could be included; staff said irrigation (raw water) is generally not within the SAFER planning program’s scope but that framing wastewater tie-ins as recycled-water projects could make those elements eligible.

Members raised operational and regulatory concerns discussed during earlier meetings, including permitting, the time required for state review, and the likelihood that state reviewers will request clarifications or deny specific items. Staff told the committee the planning grant could reimburse certain costs tied to reorganization analyses and other preparatory work, but that reimbursement would depend on the state’s accepted scope.

Committee members asked about the scale and effort of the application. One member described the application document as lengthy; staff confirmed the application packet includes many pages and exhibits and said staff had reviewed the materials and would seek committee input on the high-level concept rather than detailed design during the planning phase.

The committee approved a motion to apply for the SAFER planning grant and directed staff to submit the application and to return with more-detailed briefings as the process proceeds. The vote was recorded by roll call with affirmative votes from the listed members.

The authority’s staff said the planning phase could take months and that subsequent meetings would address details, potential costs and any formal commitments the committee would consider before accepting funds that carry conditions.

Ending: Staff said they would bring future updates to the committee as the authority works through the application and state review; the authority’s vote authorizes only the application submittal, not any later commitment to consolidation or annexation.