Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Funding Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates unified water infrastructure fee study as staff warns of large long‑term funding gap
Summary
Board members expressed concern that a proposed fee study could resemble a new 'water tax' on suppliers; Director Candace Hasenjager said the study is exploratory and cited an estimated long-term infrastructure funding gap of roughly $60 billion (older numbers), urging public participation in prioritization and rule‑making.
Board members spent part of the Oct. 9 meeting discussing a unified water infrastructure plan and an accompanying fee study required under 2024 legislation. Several board members and water-district managers said preliminary figures caused concern that the proposed mechanism could function like a 'water tax' and impose significant costs on local suppliers.
Dana Van Horn (board member) said some districts described the proposal as "a water tax basically" and warned it could lead to large customer cost increases. Director Candace Hasenjager responded that the fee study is an initial finance analysis required by HB 280 and is intended to identify potential options, not to set final policy. Hasenjager said the numbers in the study show a significant long-term infrastructure need — staff cited roughly a $60 billion need to 2060 based on older estimates — and that the study’s purpose is to test financing approaches and prioritization methods.
Hasenjager also outlined public outreach plans and a schedule for the Unified Water Infrastructure Plan, including public meetings and a formal rule-making period. She said the Division will provide virtual options for public comment and emphasized that the state will continue to work with local partners to develop ranking and prioritization criteria for projects.
No formal policy or fee was approved at the meeting; board members were encouraged to participate in upcoming public meetings and to use the 40-day rule‑making period to provide input on the draft prioritization process.
