Advisory members push for more O&M, domestic-well support and clearer affordability plans as consolidations accelerate

Advisory members at the State Water Resources Control Board's SAFER meeting on March 12 pressed staff for more aggressive use of operation-and-maintenance (O&M) funds, better outreach about how domestic-well programs are spending their allocations, and clearer communication to communities about likely rate changes after consolidation.

Kristen Dobin (UC Agriculture and Natural Resources) asked whether O&M funding is reaching systems before they require state-appointed administrators and urged staff to use O&M proactively to prevent failures. Jeff Budzel (Division of Financial Assistance) said there are two grant agreements: one that funds an administrator's activities and a separate O&M grant that goes directly to the system for day-to-day costs. "You'll have two grant agreements," he explained, adding that administrators receive a separate contract for their work while O&M grants are intended for system-level operating expenses.

Members said those distinctions are not yet preventing a practical concentration of O&M dollars in systems already under administration, and they recommended examining outreach, eligibility barriers and application bottlenecks. "What I'm seeing here is maybe there's got to be a bottleneck of why this funding isn't reaching other systems," Dobin said, urging staff to investigate whether application process, eligibility criteria or outreach is constraining access.

Domestic-well support and funding pace: Jeff reported roughly $238 million of SAFER and related program funding available for domestic-well assistance from 2020 through 2026, with about 68% spent to date. Some advisory members noted that private-well owners are not regulated and so remain difficult to reach; staff said co-funding with local management zones and GSAs (for nitrate control and dry-well mitigation) is part of the strategy, but finding willing local partners remains a challenge.

Affordability and consolidation: Multiple members raised the central question residents face when consolidation is proposed: what will my monthly bill be after consolidation? Jim Sullivan (domestic-well representative) and others said the difference between current very-low local rates and consolidated-system rates (sometimes double or more) undermines support for projects. Participants endorsed case studies and "do-nothing" lifecycle comparisons that honestly show the cost of deferred maintenance versus the cost of consolidation plus ongoing O&M and potential rate-subsidy options.

DDW and DFA staff said rate-subsidy agreements and targeted O&M support are tools the boards can use to soften monthly costs where funding permits, and that technical-assistance providers can help prepare comparative analyses that show realistic life-cycle costs. Staff encouraged advisory members to bring candidate case studies so the agencies can publish comparable examples.

Bottom line: Advisory members urged the Board to (1) broaden O&M outreach and eligibility so more systems can use O&M to avoid administrative takeover, (2) monitor domestic-well program carryover and partner recruitment, and (3) develop public-facing examples that make the tradeoffs among do-nothing, treatment, and consolidation transparent for residents deciding whether to support a change in service.

Next steps: Staff committed to investigate O&M distribution, examine application/eligibility bottlenecks, and explore publishing case studies showing pre- and post-consolidation bill impacts.