Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding And Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SAFER advisory group presses State Water Resources Control Board on shrinking climate fund and how to protect drinking-water projects
Summary
Advisory members at the March 12 SAFER meeting urged staff to plan for declines in greenhouse-gas-linked revenue that fund the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water program, pressing for contingency targets, clearer public project tracking and more accessible metrics before the fund-expenditure plan is finalized.
Advisory members of the State Water Resources Control Board's SAFER advisory group warned March 12 that a planned drop in greenhouse-gas reduction fund allocations could shrink the program's flexible funding pot and complicate plans to close long-running water-quality problems.
Jeff Budzel, speaking for the Division of Financial Assistance, told the group that the annual Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund has typically received about $130 million a year and that legislative negotiations have created uncertainty about future revenue. "The safe and affordable drinking water fund does come from a portion of the greenhouse gas reduction fund and that is anticipated to reduce over the next couple years," he said, noting staff were already reviewing other funding sources and would capture options in the draft fund-expenditure (FE) plan.
Why it matters: SAFER staff use the fund's flexible dollars to meet gaps that other grants and loan programs cannot, including operation-and-maintenance support and interim bottled-water assistance. Advisory members said a reduced annual allocation would force the agency to make trade-offs among construction, planning, technical assistance and O&M that could slow progress on certain projects.
At the meeting advisory members pressed staff for clearer contingency planning and transparency. Saurin Nelson (Association of California Water Agencies) asked how DFA is preparing for scenarios in which the SAFER annual allocation drops; Budzel said staff are "pivoting" internally to draw more from other funding pots (state revolving fund, GGRF sub-allocations, Proposition funds) while trying to preserve the SAFER fund's flexibility.
Board and staff projections: Staff said the FE planning calendar anticipates a public draft in late June or early July, a 30-day comment period, and a final presentation to the board around August; the advisory group will hold a second meeting during that public comment period to gather recommendations on targets for FY2026-27.
Project tracking and public data: Several members asked for better public visibility into where projects stand. "Is there a way on the SAFER dashboard to identify where a particular system is in the phases?" asked Bruce Hattleshelt. DFA and DDW staff said they are working to align project-phase definitions and data systems so that project-level progress can be displayed more usefully to the public.
Staff reinforced the limits of certainty: DFA cannot yet confirm the exact FY2026-27 SAFER allocation; preliminary figures circulating in public discussion suggested a possible drop from $130M toward the $95M range, Budzel said, but he characterized that figure as unconfirmed and said a May revised state budget should provide more clarity. Meanwhile, staff noted roughly $997M in combined funding sources across SRF, GGRF, Proposition and SAFER accounts that could be matched to program priorities.
What's next: Staff committed to show more concrete funding numbers in the draft FE plan and to return to the advisory group during the 30-day public-comment window. They also agreed to follow up on dashboard visibility and the data needed to let the public and advisory members track individual systems by project phase.
The meeting concluded with a request from members to carve more agenda time for open discussion and for DFA/DDW to present a clearer contingency roadmap if SAFER allocations fall.
