Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews fund status and implications of House Bill 285 for a state water infrastructure fund
Summary
Staff updated the board on fund balances, dam-safety lists and the potential effects of House Bill 285, which would create/expand a water infrastructure fund (WIF) and allow cross-agency fund sharing; staff described next steps and potential policy tradeoffs for small/rural applicants.
Board staff provided an updated status of agency loan and grant funds, described current obligations and open balances, and discussed how proposed legislation (House Bill 285) could affect fund use and distribution.
Shailene DeBernardi told the board the revolving construction fund still had more than $15 million available for smaller projects despite recent obligations and ARPA contracting. The conservation and development (C&D) fund—used for larger projects—remains well capitalized; staff said the current C&D balance on the books exceeds $170 million but noted some of those funds are tentatively allocated for Southern Utah reuse projects.
Staff and the director reviewed the impact of House Bill 285 and related 2024 legislation (HB 280). Staff said HB 285, as discussed in the briefing, would allow state water funding programs (drinking water, water quality, and the Board of Water Resources funds) to both contribute to and receive money from a unified water infrastructure fund (WIF). That, staff said, could make it easier to address very large regional projects whose costs exceed individual boards' balances by pooling resources and presenting a prioritized list to the Legislature. Staff also described that inclusion in the WIF would not automatically change current appropriations; it would change mechanisms for pooling and distributing additional appropriations if the Legislature authorized them.
Staff cautioned the board that integrating city-loan funds into a centralized fund could raise policy questions the board would need to consider, including whether C&D guidelines should be amended to allow 0%-interest loans (currently available under the city-loan fund) for certain municipal applicants. Staff said the division will press to maintain rural and small-entity visibility in any prioritization framework and flagged the need for active outreach to identify smaller projects for the prioritized list.
During the briefing Joel Williams walked through several tracked bills that staff will monitor; topics included county-classification thresholds, a bill to prohibit certain forms of weather geoengineering with an explicit carve-out for state cloud-seeding operations, and a proposal addressing fluoridation of public drinking-water systems. Staff recommended continued monitoring and said they will bring policy proposals to the board for any guideline changes that may be required if HB 285 or related bills pass.
The board discussed priorities for an upcoming statewide prioritization effort and asked staff to return with concrete guideline options before any statutory integration of funds.
