Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Spending Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Resources Control Board advisory reviews SAFER spending plan as members press staff for funding scenarios
Summary
Advisory members reviewed the draft spending-plan process for the SAFER drinking-water program, pressed staff for clearer projections after possible budget cuts were raised, and asked for follow-up data on funding scenarios, program outputs and how funds reach small systems.
Advisory members to the State Water Resources Control Board’s SAFER (drinking-water) program spent the March 12 webinar reviewing the draft spending-plan timetable, program outputs and potential funding risks as the board prepares a fiscal-year plan for public comment.
Jeff Westson of the Division of Financial Assistance walked the group through the agency’s annual process: staff will finish an internal draft, post it for a 30‑day public comment period and present a revised draft to the advisory group before the board considers adoption around August. Westson said the draft will include detailed priority categories and that staff plan to model funding scenarios after recent legislative activity affected program revenues.
The spending-plan presentation included program metrics since SAFER began: staff reported roughly $997 million in total resources for drinking‑water projects (as of FY2025) and highlighted outputs including new wells tested, bottled-water deliveries, and construction commitments. Westson and Brian Potter (Division of Drinking Water) described about $130 million per year commonly earmarked for the SAFER fund but told members the precise future annual allocation is uncertain.
“Those funds have been anticipated to reduce over the next several years,” Westson said in response to a member question, adding that internal estimates vary and that staff would provide more concrete modeling in the draft plan. An advisory member cited a speculative figure that had circulated — “I heard 95 million” — and Westson said that figure was not finalized and that the agency is treating such numbers as provisional until state budget decisions are clear.
Members pressed staff on where gaps form between allocated dollars and on-the-ground outcomes. Kristen Dubin and others asked why some maintenance and administrator agreements appear concentrated on a small set of systems; staff replied that certain systems require continuing administrator support because they have prolonged or complex failures and that other programs can provide direct construction or planning grants.
Why this matters: advisory members represent communities that depend on SAFER funding to correct contamination, replace failing wells and finance consolidations. Members asked staff to show funding‑availability scenarios in the public draft so communities can plan and to document which programs and application steps create the largest delays.
Staff response and next steps: Westson said the draft spending plan will be posted for 30 days of public comment (typically in July), followed by a second advisory meeting to review public feedback. Staff committed to returning to the group with scenario modeling and clearer breakouts of program balances and to identify where administrative or eligibility barriers keep funds from reaching certain systems.
The advisory group scheduled follow-up conversation items: a deeper workshop on common barriers and realistic project timelines, and a staff follow-up that will summarize how TA (technical assistance), planning grants and construction funds interact in practice. The webinar concluded with staff noting a plan to provide data on projected annual SAFER allocations in the coming budget cycle.
