[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6650654,"mediaKeyId","2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834","parentId",2505952,"title","Administration outlines multi‑year Proposition 4 spending plan for water and coastal resilience","audioSeconds",716,"startMs",2634000,"endMs",3350000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834&start=2634&end=3350","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834/thumbnail_2634000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6650654/California/Administration-outlines-multiyear-Proposition-4-spending-plan-for-water-and-coastal-resilience","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650654-d67eafd8a76f3322b78744fe5042b804/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438025&Signature=jZOrvSMUtEMTk4wiKwK-Q9-nfPXIws370oa1ikxevsIQAdTxuE7St~Ma7kwlYrERRiL6K3yS-x-zEchvYzr-mzPVw5~hXZ4w0nKlnNim2Jg2xEfU3ocz5585ytvPf~srlqN-pZ5DNSv4V~TJ3PrOHacfLz9uCp9FZM1dFwKCD7KBBBewo0tVxHOelSpgaDgsEbJ0TNUwZB9lF80n-PT62HrweIqxLIg-3KNCXSUhd-2j0HxxJj7AvLxjemoSgqrGsDTrVgvuQ9aFLtSESW1WS1AGPfpwTpRcVU~4awru-OnvCg1vuGNn8keLvjjZ3l9LhVW6kdG6s16ihFrRm7L61g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","California administration officials and agency leaders on Tuesday described a multi‑year spending plan for Proposition 4 that prioritizes drinking water and wastewater assistance, recycled water, dam safety, groundwater management and flood protection while reserving larger investments in later years for project implementation and staffing.

The administration plan allocates roughly $3.8 billion of the $10 billion bond to the water chapter, with roughly $183 million identified for drinking water and wastewater programs administered by the State Water Resources Control Board in the upcoming year, Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4. \"These bond dollars are some of our most flexible\" funding, Esquivel said, and can be used without some of the federal restrictions attached to federal aid.

Why it matters: Proposition 4 is intended to finance climate resilience and water investments statewide. Lawmakers and analysts told committee members they want more detail and more public reporting about how the bond will be spent and flagged concerns where the administration proposes shifting existing general‑fund appropriations onto the bond.

Administration overview and LAO review

Andrew Hall of the Department of Finance and Casey Shemke of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) said the administration
pproach is deliberately multi‑year. Shemke said the budget year request for groundwater storage, banking and recharge is limited in the first year but is intended to build on prior investments and to support guideline development for competitive grant programs. \"The request looks small in the budget year but it's really building off of a healthy investment,\" Shemke said, noting prior state investment in SGMA implementation.

Sonia Pedic of the Legislative Analyst's Office told the committee the water chapter is the largest single component of the bond (about $3.8 billion) and covers more than 32 programs administered by nine departments. Pedic said many of the funded programs are established and have existing prioritization mechanisms, such as the Water Board's annual drinking water needs assessment and DWR's Central Valley flood protection planning. The LAO recommended requiring additional reporting in the out years for newer or restart programs whose guidelines are not yet finalized.

Salton Sea, tribal water, recycled water and dam safety

The administration plans to devote $160 million for Salton Sea projects and $10 million to create the Salton Sea Conservancy, implementing legislation passed last year contingent on voter approval of Proposition 4, the LAO and the Water Board said. \"The projects have already been identified,\" Pedic said, and the administration proposed appropriating most of the project funds in 2025–26.

Esquivel said the Water Board will draw down about $183 million this budget year for drinking water and wastewater work, including septic‑to‑sewer conversions, recycled water and tribal water projects, plus a targeted fund for the Tijuana River Valley and other border water quality challenges.

On dam safety, DWR described $480 million in Proposition 4 funding to assist dam owners with repairs and rehabilitation. Assemblymembers asked why the administration proposed shifting $47 million in earlier dam safety appropriations to Proposition 4 as a \"backfill\"; Megan Larson of the Department of Finance said the move was intended to preserve general fund resiliency amid overall budget pressure and was not a policy decision to reduce dam safety work.

Groundwater and SGMA

DWR officials reiterated that SGMA implementation has received extensive prior funding and that Proposition 4 funding for groundwater will be used where additional needs remain. Shemke said more than $350 million has been spent in the last three years on SGMA implementation and that the bond funding would be targeted through new program guidelines and stakeholder engagement.

Committee concerns: reporting, funding shifts and timelines

Multiple members raised concerns about the administration
pproach to shifting existing general fund allocations onto the bond (\"backfilling\") rather than delivering new money. Assemblymember comments repeatedly asked for a single public dashboard and regular reporting showing where funds are directed, and the LAO recommended asking the administration for more detailed budget requests in future years for programs without updated guidelines.

The committee also asked the administration to identify programs for which multiyear appropriations are essential (for example, staffing to stand up new grant programs and multi‑year implementation of complex flood or restoration projects).

What remains unresolved

Members asked for additional detail about: whether in‑stream flow programs were being reduced (administration and Water Board officials said they did not expect reductions); how the administration will prioritize a modest tribal water fund of $25 million over the life of the bond (roughly $11 million requested in the budget year for initial work); and how groundwater recharge and multi‑benefit land repurposing programs will be designed.

The LAO and several committee members said they will press the administration for future, project‑level updates and for greater transparency if the legislature is to assess progress and to avoid using bond money as a substitute for recurring general‑fund responsibilities.

Ending

Committee members and agency witnesses agreed to follow up on program guidelines, monitoring reports and possible additional hearings. Several legislators urged the administration to prioritize public dashboards and annual reports so that both the public and the Legislature can track where Proposition 4 dollars go and whether bond funds are additive rather than replacing existing state spending.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 On Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, And Transportation","oneSentenceSummary","California administration officials and agency leaders on Tuesday described a multi‑year spending plan for Proposition 4 that prioritizes drinking water and wastewater assistance, recycled water, dam safety, groundwater management and flood protection while reserving larger investments in later years for project implementation and staffing.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6650639,"Ocean Protection Council, Coastal Conservancy and Fish & Wildlife outline Prop 4 coastal resilience and fisheries priorities",1003,6107000,7110000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834&start=6107&end=7110","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834/thumbnail_6107000.jpg","/articles/6650639/California/Ocean-Protection-Council-Coastal-Conservancy-and-Fish-Wildlife-outline-Prop-4-coastal-resilience-and-fisheries-priorities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650639-d0f0207795a5cc6ff341f20d9f2de579/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438025&Signature=SbTPLkjYzlyTIY3fjo1EfDDxqcaYest1XE4ZgOE-JPB5Ivtp7mFSh7RIXOzNZuxWynjgHG318YKiiNyxkP8uvoZ9-p3DhcIFJnAlga1BBJmuGVZXJfhmQDY2dfPSzwB~dtkTYcFWCyO13Ew9LVms5V5Fr6lB6cyLlx3D1nVz8ywuKsAJwEqjohI4TivvDEpAiOEi8JVk3yOjaviZcK8iJzLXJV5wV5Ofi8w5-jKXDmzWjFScvvifLDRVIRwWjLbgZcn3dF~NAACjMFUcqEl57VAy8vgSj3lR35hMoUh2Q~X4F91msaGa92-OqYV-dezV9W7pg-BpH9MloluIQohE5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Leaders from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), the California Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Wildlife told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee that Proposition 4 funds will support a range of coastal resilience activities, including sea‑level rise planning grants, kelp and marine habitat restoration, Baylands restoration and a fisheries‑focused package to support monitoring and climate adaptation.

OPC and coastal grants

Caitlin Kalua, deputy director of the Ocean Protection Council, said OPC was proposed to receive $135 million over the life of the bond and that the agency had identified immediate priority projects in excess of $50 million for near‑term work. \"We
nticipate that the number of applicants and the need for sea‑level rise planning and technical assistance will substantially increase in coming years,\" she told the panel.

Amy Hutzel of the Coastal Conservancy said the combined coastal and flood management and coastal resilience portions of Prop 4 total roughly $415 million, with an $85 million set‑aside for San Francisco Bay. The Conservancy proposed a modest FY25‑26 rollout (about 10 percent of total funds) to avoid overloading staffing and to prioritize shovel‑ready projects that can proceed with design, permitting and matching funds.

Fish and Wildlife priorities

Chuck Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, described a proposed $75 million Fish & Wildlife allocation in Proposition 4 and said the department proposed to focus on \"climate‑ready fisheries\" and monitoring. \"We take 11, almost 12,000,000 and apply it to salmon monitoring and new technology,\" Bonham said, explaining requests for better tagging, telemetry and digital reporting to inform fishery management. He also said $5 million of a separate hatchery line item would help operate a new facility intended to support spring‑run Chinook projects on the San Joaquin.

Matilija dam removal and regional projects

The Coastal Conservancy described Matilija Dam removal (Ventura County) as a high‑priority project that requires preconstruction work such as levee and bridge adjustments and land acquisitions. The Conservancy said Proposition 4 funds will be administered through its existing grant programs and will emphasize multi‑benefit projects that integrate nature‑based solutions.

Legislative response

The LAO told the committee that the administration's slower FY25‑26 rollout for coastal resilience reflects legitimate capacity, staffing and project readiness constraints; the LAO endorsed the multi‑year approach but recommended continued monitoring so funds are spent on priority projects and leveraged with federal money where possible.

Ending

Committee members underscored the importance of timely implementation for projects tied to sea‑level rise and kelp restoration and asked agencies to coordinate closely with state parks, regional collaboratives and federal partners. Members also stressed transparency and annual reports for multi‑year appropriations.","Officials from the Ocean Protection Council, Coastal Conservancy and Department of Fish and Wildlife described how Proposition 4 funds would support sea‑level rise planning and implementation, habitat and kelp restoration, San Francisco Bay projects and a $75 million Fish & Wildlife package focused on \"climate‑ready\" fisheries and monitoring.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6650645,"State Water Board outlines SAFER progress; officials say funding gap remains for small systems and domestic wells",307,6554000,6861000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834&start=6554&end=6861","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834/thumbnail_6554000.jpg","/articles/6650645/California/State-Water-Board-outlines-SAFER-progress-officials-say-funding-gap-remains-for-small-systems-and-domestic-wells","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650645-2ae4d044b38e65869636da240d8eabc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438025&Signature=SGo8eonhieWy3ee4bSJwYS7sMztktNZC3LfUKOHohyTY6xoDXopNAj~Id7LFRJD6J4oPPCMRg35~mQ5PDbfBPfmJuAAHJD9Pi6uadYwzanLopnZdEkQDVPBI0KAX56b~GJrSenM8O4GiG1bZEP~E8FcT231hvkEBnNTvuD-xxyx9ZWtNyJs~3qYTnzpJUarj2jy2EPKRbFivkGTyG40Uf5FrkWBc1JYkhH~JLqCJH7rvuge~FfwIom9A99BzlK2E85LuF5vCXSDuLbzen3KCHCcLSzYHIE1te44BUB4C2iLJHYo4tsPOeAMf~ZbbfSRcRj4FRm-efc5Az1p0tfH3BA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Water Resources Control Board on Tuesday summarized progress under California's Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) effort and highlighted persistent gaps in service and affordability for small and rural systems.

Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, described the program as an evolution after the 2012 recognition of the human right to water and the subsequent creation of a dedicated funding stream. \"In 2019...the safe and affordable fund [was created] a hundred and thirty million dollars a year for a first 10 year commitment,\" he said.

Progress and gaps

Esquivel said the board has reduced the population without consistent safe drinking water from about 1.6 million to roughly 800,000 people and has brought about 300 drinking water systems back into compliance since the SAFER program began. He told the committee the state tracks approximately 2,800 community water systems (serving 15 or more connections), while there are more than 7,000 local water providers when smaller ‘‘state smalls’’ and private domestic wells are counted.

The board noted that consolidation into larger systems is often the most durable solution, but not every community is eligible for consolidation. Agency staff said some earlier investments were not sustained where local operation and maintenance capacity and rate structures were insufficient.

LAO points and funding horizon

The Legislative Analyst's Office raised two issues for the Legislature to consider: how to ensure state funded improvements are maintained over time (especially for very small systems or domestic wells that face fewer regulatory controls) and how to address water affordability because the SAFER funding mechanism (a portion of cap‑and‑trade/GGRF revenue) is scheduled as a time‑limited stream (the board said it was a commitment for the first 10 years).

Officials said the state's needs assessment shows an estimated funding gap of roughly $5 billion over five years for failed and at‑risk systems. Board staff urged targeted investments in consolidation, staffing and technical assistance to reduce dynamic failures and to help small utilities plan for operations and maintenance.

Ending

The Water Board and the Legislature agreed on follow‑up: agencies will provide more program detail and options for ensuring that state investments produce durable operation and maintenance capacity, and the Legislature will consider options to address affordability and the funding cliff after the initial SAFER funding period.","State Water Resources Control Board officials described progress under the SAFER program and remaining gaps: the board reported reduced numbers of people lacking reliable safe drinking water but said a multi‑billion dollar 5‑year funding gap still exists for the smallest, failing systems and domestic wells.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6650650,"Researchers and state agencies push brine‑management pilots and new desalination technologies as brine volumes grow",1123,9521000,10644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834&start=9521&end=10644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2505952-06024ba382a297b636cdcb91a8a46834/thumbnail_9521000.jpg","/articles/6650650/California/Researchers-and-state-agencies-push-brinemanagement-pilots-and-new-desalination-technologies-as-brine-volumes-grow","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650650-23870664d7fe8e29c90a82d48458fa07/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438025&Signature=S1guOS6SKidCrUKsnkCnxI74RPsrorSkyTVZFmYSkZdlPXp-8r7jEAHjl35QOVSzq8abkUojiNLLDTrswwzw1qMaYIW8JRzsP~f1gHgTROOSXeau4xcyEXrtjryRN5ZjCgjXw3hiG4FakZUXZLqc9s0ebIWbp2FmQ71wYxjlMkJt7jSwPejnkEk3kgMbb7bYMuUJfQ-CfozIC9T3GrY77ew~GCwhbpvCns6s3W13FTTxOXU0uWp~Clt0Oag429TL5v-bEbxP59k7G~nb~GTYgpwGi291GRbNlB-t5G7-NcWj-BSxJ0Y9Y8FdFIg566CQDEu44zqmtc9owCA-S1fRjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State officials, researchers and industry representatives told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee that rising desalination and water recycling activity will produce larger volumes of saline \"brine\" and that the state should encourage pilots that reduce disposal volumes and recover valuable materials.

\"Brine disposal and management is a growing issue, and it is one that is causing water to become increasingly expensive,\" Chair Bennett told the panel when introducing the discussion. Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said current regulatory frameworks require salt‑and‑nutrient management plans when recycled water is proposed for a basin and that regional solutions, such as the Central Valley's CV‑Salts program, will be necessary.

New pilot projects and technology

Peter Fisk, executive director of the National Alliance for Water Innovation, described federally funded R&D and California pilots that aim to squeeze more fresh water from brine and to harvest minerals. \"We have new cycles that enable you to squeeze most of the drops of water out\" of a concentrate that historically discarded roughly half the feedwater, Fisk said. He described pilot work in Cambria and other sites to extract magnesium and other materials from brine and pilots producing gypsum and chemicals that can be sold or used on‑site.

Fisk said some pilots are already obtaining commercial commitments for recovered commodities and that state investment so far has leveraged federal funds at roughly a 3:1 ratio. He asked the committee to consider targeted incentives to accelerate demonstration and early deployment of extraction and zero‑liquid discharge technologies.

Regulatory context and energy implications

State Water Board and DWR officials said the board has developed permitting pathways for common ocean discharges and that regulators can and will review alternative approaches proposed by project proponents. Esquivel noted the dominant role of reverse‑osmosis technology but said emerging chemical and alternative separation cycles are promising. Department of Water Resources and Water Board staff cautioned that many advanced chemical or thermal separation processes are energy‑intensive and that coordination with energy agencies may be needed.

Legislative questions raised

Committee members asked whether current marine water‑quality regulations are sufficient to protect bays and inland aquifers, how the state will monitor brine discharges, and whether new inland disposal methods will need technical or financial support. The LAO suggested the Legislature consider regional collaboration and review other states' approaches. Water Board staff said they will continue to permit and adapt as new technologies emerge and urged pilots and proofs of concept to show feasibility.

Ending

Lawmakers and witnesses agreed to follow up on specific pilot sites, regulatory adaptations and the possible role for modest targeted incentives or technical assistance aimed at encouraging technologies that reduce disposal volumes and recover useful commodities from brine.","Witnesses at the Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing highlighted regulatory guardrails and emerging pilots to reduce brine volumes, extract valuable minerals and cut costs for desalination and water recycling, while urging continued regulatory flexibility and state support for demonstrations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Administration outlines multi‑year Proposition 4 spending plan for water and coastal resilience

Ocean Protection Council, Coastal Conservancy and Fish & Wildlife outline Prop 4 coastal resilience and fisheries priorities

State Water Board outlines SAFER progress; officials say funding gap remains for small systems and domestic wells

Researchers and state agencies push brine‑management pilots and new desalination technologies as brine volumes grow