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

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.