Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Resources Control Board details budget drivers, new BCPs for Safe Drinking Water Account
Summary
Staff outlined a modest net increase to the Safe Drinking Water Account in the Governor's January budget proposal and described four budget change proposals (CalEPA consolidated administration, recycled water implementation under SB 31, San Diego recycling oversight, and AB 1096 school lead reporting) and associated cost impacts.
The State Water Resources Control Board presented proposed fee-setting figures and budget change proposals (BCPs) for the Safe Drinking Water Account during a virtual stakeholder meeting.
Tracy Lots said last fiscal year’s fee-setting budget for the Safe Drinking Water Account was approximately $51.2 million and the Governor’s January proposed fee-setting budget for fiscal year 2026–27 is about $51.66 million, a net increase of roughly $445,000 (0.9%). She said state operations — mainly employee compensation for salaries, healthcare and retirement — and several BCPs are the main cost drivers.
Cassandra White and Tracy Lots detailed four BCPs affecting the account. The CalEPA consolidated administration request would add positions and reimbursement authority under Public Resources Code sections 71121–71126; the water board’s total share is described as about $1.7 million split across multiple funds, with the Safe Drinking Water Account bearing a portion. The recycled water program needs BCP, driven by Senate Bill 31, was identified as adding roughly $492,000 to the Safe Drinking Water Account to staff new permitting and oversight responsibilities.
Staff said the board requests approximately $785,000 ongoing for three permanent positions to oversee water recycling projects in San Diego County following the county’s termination of its oversight delegation agreement; staff clarified this cost will be direct-charged to San Diego County for hours billed rather than distributed to fee payers. For school lead reporting required by Assembly Bill 1096, the board requests a one-time $500,000 contract to upgrade information systems to compile and post lead sampling data from elementary schools and child-care facilities to the board’s website.
A stakeholder, Bob Gore (representing a group of cities and water districts), asked whether the San Diego oversight costs are permanent or one-time. Staff (Darren) answered the positions are permanent and will be direct-charged to San Diego County.
Staff also noted a $2 million government-efficiency reduction linked to fiscal year 2024–25 budget letter 24-24 and a small decrease tied to PRAA. Staff emphasized the figures presented are early in the budget process and more detailed fund-condition tables and cost-driver updates will be provided at the June stakeholder meeting.
The board did not take formal votes during the meeting. Staff encouraged stakeholders to review the posted BCP details (linked on the agenda) and to submit questions ahead of the June meeting.
