Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sackett Permitting Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders press board over Sackett‑driven staffing BCP and possible fee impacts
Summary
Stakeholders pressed the State Water Resources Control Board on a Sackett‑related BCP that requests 12 permit positions, asking for regional breakdowns and warning that passing costs to already‑strained local governments could be inequitable; staff said fee impacts are unknown until May/June data are available.
Stakeholders at the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Fee Stakeholder meeting focused several questions on a BCP the board described as necessary to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court Sackett decision.
Cassandra White, fee and revenue branch manager, and Phil Crater, board staff, said the Sackett BCP requests roughly $2.6 million and 12 permit positions to cover work no longer handled via federal section‑401 certifications. Phil told stakeholders the package includes four positions to issue state waste discharge requirements in waters that are no longer federally regulated, three positions to develop state equivalents of formerly federal general permits for construction and industrial stormwater, and five positions to staff enforcement and field surveillance.
Stakeholders raised equity and transparency concerns. "I will... object to including statewide general fund expenditures on the backs of rate payers," said one stakeholder (Bob), urging that the Legislature include funding when it enacts obligations. Local government representatives asked whether the new positions would be funded through fee increases and noted constrained local budgets and public‑safety obligations. Phil acknowledged the burden and said staff are pursuing two steps to reduce costs where possible: expanding and streamlining use of general permits to lower administrative costs and reexamining the WDPF fee structure to align fees more closely with where costs are incurred. "We need to have staff on hand and available to issue the waste discharge requirements so we don't become a bottleneck in that permitting activity," Phil said.
Staff repeatedly told participants that specific fee impacts cannot be determined in this meeting because fund‑condition and revenue/expenditure data will not be final until the May revise; staff committed to provide program‑level breakdowns and a regional allocation of positions in advance of the June stakeholder meeting. Stakeholders asked for a separate fee treatment for public‑safety projects and highlighted environmental‑justice concerns for lower‑income counties.
Next steps: staff will post a program‑by‑program impact analysis and a regional breakdown of the requested positions before the June stakeholder meeting; no fee adjustments were approved at this session.
