April 17, 2012

Agenda Item 5

State Water Resources Control Board Office of Research , Planning, and Performance

Purpose

Describe the link between fees collected and expenditures; and

Align Water Board resources, priorities, and workload outputs.

Report Content 1. Sources and uses of revenues for programs funded by

the Waste Discharge Permit Fund

2. Water Board priority setting and constraints to aligning priorities with expenditures

3. A systematic approach to set performance targets based on available resources and priorities

WDPF Programs NPDES Wastewater Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) NPDES Stormwater Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Land Disposal Basin Planning Enforcement Coordination Timber Harvest Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) 401 Certification/Wetlands Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Irrigated Lands (ILRP) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Program (GAMA)

Key Finding: Modest growth in WDPF program

expenditures with declines in staffing

662

649

621

584 585 584 580

597 591 593

581 581

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

FY 2000-01

FY 2001-02

FY 2002-03

FY 2003-04

FY 2004-05

FY 2005-06

FY 2006-07

FY 2007-08

FY 2008-09

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

FY 2011-12

EXPENDITURE NOMINAL $ EXPENDITURE REAL $ (2012) PY

Key Finding: Program funding is dramatically shifting

from the general fund to fees

FEDERAL, $7,537,425 ,

9%IWMA,

$5,882,731 , 7%

FEES , $17,873,842

, 21%General

Fund, $53,098,892

, 63%

FY 2000-01

FEDERAL, $9,584,950 ,

8% IWMA,

$4,250,742 , 4%

FEES ,

$95,681,049 , 82%

General Fund,

$7,336,201 ,

6%

FY 2011-12*

*Projected expenditures

Key Finding: Resource allocations generally align

with funding sources

$(19,825,659)

$(16,942,082)

$(17,833,211)

$(9,046,830)

$(2,865,022)

$(293,011)

$(6,466,251)

$7,881,200

$7,674,812

$7,160,119

$6,750,228

$5,631,997

$4,083,931

$3,101,038

$2,509,298

$2,935,806

$1,335,311

$1,002,983

$1,305,889

$716,401

$1,211,512

$3,494,451

$8,655,957

$2,953,734

$6,849,858

$6,593,595

$6,151,477

$5,799,319

$4,839,426

$3,506,713

$2,664,189

$2,155,811

$3,139,791

$0

$2,627,504

$4,044,109

$2,117,492

$0

$(0)

$(11,490,706)

$(20,000,000) $(15,000,000) $(10,000,000) $(5,000,000) $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000

NPDES

TMDL

SW

WDR

LandD

BasinP

Enf. C.

TH

SWAMP

401 Cert

CAFO/D

IRR

GAMA

FROM FEES FROM FEDS + OTHER FROM WDPF DIRECT PROGRAM OPERATING AND EQ INDIRECT TO WDPF GENERAL FUND

SOURCES OF FUNDS USES OF FUNDS

NOTES: 1) Funds "from WDPF" are from fees from other programs, 2) "Funds to WDPF" subsidize other programs 3) Funds from General Fun d for TMDL, SWAMP, etc in FY 11-12 will come from WDPF

Key Finding: Resources used in the Irrigated Lands and 401

WQ Cert programs may exceed revenues

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Budgeted Survey Results

Water Board priorities are established by:

Allocating resources to programs;

Allocating resources to activities within programs;

State and Regional Boards (priority projects); and

Legislative mandates

Program Expenditures

Tools and methods for setting priorities Strategic Plan

SWAMP and GAMA Data

Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report)

Board Direction

Annual Accomplishments Report

Triennial Review

106 Workplan (US EPA)

Priority-setting mechanisms could be enhanced to allow for more holistic priority-setting and funding decisions across programs.

Priority Setting Constraints

Overall reduction in staffing resources and some programs may already be underfunded

Certain funds are earmarked

Need to align revenues with expenditures

Legislative priorities may result in a redirection of resources from existing priorities

The end result is that our resource allocation mix may not always reflect the most important water quality or water allocation concerns.

Target Setting (aligning resources with priorities and outputs)

A systematic method for setting performance targets based on available resources and priorities, starting with four programs:

1) NPDES Wastewater;

2) NPDES Stormwater;

3) Waste Discharge to Land; and

4) Irrigated Lands.

Target Setting Approach Provide flexibility to align targets with priorities

Based on a uniform approach and standardized cost factors

Allow comparable results across the state

Outputs/targets based on actual allocation of resources

Recognize that certain tasks or functions will not fit established cost factors, but account for these tasks

Target Setting Approach Allocate Resources

to Programs

(existing or needed)

Define and Distribute

Resources to

Program Activities

Apply

Cost Factors

Targets

Set

Priorities

Target Setting

Cost Factors Based on professional judgment of the roundtable

participants (i.e., staff experts)

Validated using information from:

1. The 2000 Needs Assessment

2. US EPA contractor costs for developing NPDES permits and conducting inspections

The unit cost factors developed as part of this report should be viewed as a starting point and will be revised over time.

Possible Next Steps

Finalize Phase 1 Report

Expand target setting methods to additional programs

Engage stakeholders to help identify potential opportunities to increase efficiencies and reduce compliance costs

Others?