state water resources control board office of research , … · 2012-06-18 · 401 cert cafo/d irr...
TRANSCRIPT
June 15, 2012
State Water Resources Control BoardOffice of Research , Planning, and Performance
Purpose
�Describe the link between fees collected and expenditures; and
�Align Water Board resources, priorities, and workload outputs.
Report Content1. 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,
$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* 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 Fund for TMDL, SWAMP, etc in FY 11-12 will come
from WDPF
Based on FY 2010/11 Expenditure Data
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.
Next Steps-Phase 2
� Additional input/participation from stakeholder
� Evaluate compliance costs
� Identify potential areas for cost savings and prepare recommendations for cost saving actions
Timeline� Proposed workplan by July 17, 2012
� Report/project complete one year after workplanapproved.
Contact usOffice of Research Planning and PerformanceEric Oppenheimer
(916) 445-5960
Rafael Maestu
(916) 341-5894
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/docs/resource_alignment_report.pdf