State Water Board outlines SAFER fund sources, $130 million annual target and FEP timetable
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Jeff Wetzel described the Fund Expenditure Plan development process, the mix of funding sources that support SAFER, an approximate $130,000,000 annual state fund, project caps guided by the intended‑use plan, and the public comment schedule for the FEP draft.
Jeff Wetzel, supervisor in the Division of Financial Assistance, briefed the SAFER advisory group on Feb. 12 about how the board develops its annual Fund Expenditure Plan (FEP) and the funding sources that underlie the SAFER program.
"We get about a $130,000,000 each year for the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund," Wetzel said, and described the fund as one component of a broader portfolio that also includes the drinking water state revolving fund (federal match), bond funds, general‑fund pots for infrastructure and emerging contaminants, and occasional one‑time allocations. He said the SAFER fund is versatile: it can pay for interim supplies (bottled or hauled water), emergency repairs, technical assistance, planning and construction, and operation and maintenance or administrator contracts for systems lacking local governance.
Wetzel reviewed how inputs (the needs assessment, advisory‑group feedback, program commitments and anticipated funding) feed into the FEP. He said the board typically drafts the FEP in spring, releases a draft in June or July for a 30‑day public comment period, holds additional advisory meetings, and seeks board adoption in late summer or early fall for the coming fiscal year (which begins July 1).
Advisory members asked about maximum funding caps per project and whether additional federal or state programs can be layered to address cost overruns. Wetzel explained that the intended‑use plan (IUP) sets size‑based funding caps and that final budget amendments or other funding streams (DWR, FEMA, settlement funds, SRF principal forgiveness) have been used to align additional resources when needed. He said committed projects appear in the FEP as awards move forward and that program staff track projects that are in construction and then drop from the failing list when returned to compliance.
The meeting also included a practitioner update: Adam Rausch announced Pescadero Middle‑High School recently completed a consolidation project, funded through prior Prop 1 technical assistance and SAFER construction funds, and now receives safe drinking water from San Mateo County Service Area 11.
Next steps: staff will solicit advisory input on the FEP as the draft is prepared this spring and will provide materials ahead of meetings.