Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB 280 Wip Integration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State moves to unify water‑infrastructure planning under HB 280; coordination, fee study and WIP timelines outlined
Summary
Division staff briefed the council on the HB 280‑driven unified Water Infrastructure Plan (WIP), an 'integration of existing funds' study and a fee study; agencies must submit relevant agency plans by June 30 and the WIP is due the following March. The presentation emphasized prioritization, preservation of technical expertise in existing boards, and the need for grants and technical assistance for small suppliers.
Candice (Division of Water Resources) presented the integration of existing funds study and the new processes created by HB 280.
She explained that HB 280 requires relevant agencies to submit prioritized 'relevant agency plans' by June 30 and that the Water Infrastructure Plan (WIP) will be produced by March of the next year to list prioritized statewide water infrastructure projects. A separate fee study (to be finished Oct. 31) will examine potential fund sources and user fees for water infrastructure. Candice said the WIP aims to centralize applications and project lists so the Water Development Coordinating Council can compare projects and assign them to appropriate funding boards rather than creating a single new funding board.
Candice cited the Division’s compilation of state funding sources and a rough order‑of‑magnitude need estimate presented in the State Water Infrastructure Plan: the Division identified tens of billions in needs across water supply, water quality, wastewater and irrigation projects. She emphasized recommendations from the existing funds study: (1) provide more state funding and technical‑assistance grants for small systems; (2) keep the Division of Drinking Water, Division of Water Quality and Board of Water Resources in their lanes because they administer federal funds and have specialized expertise; and (3) pursue targeted statutory changes to enable consolidation or transfers when the unified planning process shows that is appropriate. Representative Snyder was identified as the likely sponsor for implementing legislation.
Council members from rural areas raised concerns that complex application cycles and federal parameters can favor larger systems and asked how 'buckets' or categories would be used to compare different project types. Candice said the rulemaking and prioritization methodology is still being developed and invited local input on the ranking criteria.
Quote: "We are required to complete an integration of existing funds," Candice said, noting timelines and deliverables under HB 280.
Next steps: the Division will circulate the study, convene a work group on the fee analysis and develop the prioritization rules through rulemaking and stakeholder input.
