[{"_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",6151326,"mediaKeyId","5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739","parentId",5503712,"title","UMass presents statewide predictive model to map unsewered parcels; staff warns model is a gap-filling tool, not a regulatory list","audioSeconds",605,"startMs",7572680,"endMs",8177815,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739&start=7572&end=8177","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739/thumbnail_7572680.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6151326/California/UMass-presents-statewide-predictive-model-to-map-unsewered-parcels-staff-warns-model-is-a-gap-filling-tool-not-a-regulatory-list","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151326-d35ef0c9bb18e753d423af6382e9fb07/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833395&Signature=FLI-2MEtoW2LT6NYx3rIxBIJai45SieR9-kbd3vYf5DtutF00TKPt7R~uu8fvRpohFp596mm-RLF9NynvEJJzSHMocb5M4sTBS5G5XbXnmb53eEDHHFC-2SvQBdbh6vq6FA~C4~fvkNpmyy-j8DbnmvF4IGkmH2LKmK3iyZtod-r0dnmYbmOOrDq5skrCOumQhWsEM809c2eJsk-e9yL1IIKQ8xvdt~gpPhWWpNfCDMjLRU3MaiuiMZcjt~x~nSlImYh06bJ3JNowJyVtygDTa5w-eJRhuNCC3HZ6iJJScmJZdTflYR3nZV31gBxg0yCpUybajwA-BKyMaUrTb6AeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State Water Resources Control Board Meeting","date","2025-07-28T23:45:42Z","article","Researchers from the University of Massachusetts presented a machine-learning model designed to identify unsewered areas and approximate whether a parcel is served by sewer or an on-site system. UMass described the model as a statewide gap-filling tool to support the wastewater needs assessment where complete ground-truth data are not available.

UMass explained the model uses parcel-level features (building density, road network, census variables, parcel value, distance to treatment facilities and other spatial inputs) to make predictions in two stages: first, whether a parcel has a need for sanitation infrastructure; second, whether that parcel is likely sewer-served or on-site-served. The model outputs both a classification and a confidence score for each parcel.

Project staff emphasized key caveats: model predictions are “good approximations to the best of our knowledge” and should not be used as regulatory determinations or to publish parcel-level labels. \"The predictions that are made by models, they're good approximations to the best of our knowledge,\" a presenter said. The team also said the model will not publicly display parcel-level data to protect privacy.

UMass said county-level label coverage varies and showed county-by-county prediction confidence; accuracy on held-out test labels ranged across counties but was acceptable in many places (mid-80s to mid-90s in counties with labeled data), allowing staff to infer broader coverage where labels are missing. Advisory-group members urged careful vetting, multiple validation steps with regional boards and counties, and layered public release protocols to avoid prematurely labeling properties.

Next steps: UMass will continue to refine the model and work with regional boards on validation. The advisory group and State Water Board staff said the model will be updated as regional ground-truth data become available and that the model will inform — but not replace — on-the-ground verification and regulatory decisions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wastewater Needs Assessment (WWNA) Advisory Group meetings - July 25, 2025 AG Mtg Recording","oneSentenceSummary","University of Massachusetts researchers described a two-stage machine-learning model that predicts whether land parcels need sanitation infrastructure and whether service is by sewer or on-site systems; staff cautioned the model will be used to fill data gaps and not for regulatory enforcement or to publish parcel-level data publicly.","taxTitle","State Water Resources Control Board, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76764,"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},6151330,"State outlines solutions framework and high-level costing approach for inadequate wastewater systems",1551,5084945,6636275,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739&start=5084&end=6636","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739/thumbnail_5084945.jpg","/articles/6151330/California/State-outlines-solutions-framework-and-high-level-costing-approach-for-inadequate-wastewater-systems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151330-429bf1ac865c9e277dfb409867b41de7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833395&Signature=YGXhrsSAn2L-hCoQFRGca-mRqi5libTyZRbCHZAAQlBnlrROs4ks~A~pU0u4IkiHRxRip7B9TbHcc3pi~vyISfSWjH8zjiU1ZLGB1JTeOwBS2W1p6egRqU7b5j51jERuTmnfLxPD-~nNfJplM4T8n9QopH19NEm0BIJpdP7XLhVQnS4EcB8c19lIWPmXLSav14Tgf8QKPHZqZXae-pjtW8dvsiXj~sJh4Lp0H78U5lodbJCQvRlAzJlp0b4A2awDjWRTinykNm7Rrt6Q0vcOtnqEUCZiH4SN8g1EZzRKF6NQAy5KVQUFEvLSAeDOHVfnOrtNZSS094lYmGpwFkkakg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Board technical staff described the approach they will use to model and cost remedies for facilities flagged as inadequate, proposing modular “solution packages” that combine technical remedial actions with administrative and operational assistance.

Caitlin, a research engineer with the Office of Water Programs, described the team’s approach: identify the presumed underlying cause for a facility’s inadequacy (for example, hydraulic overloading, treatment-process failure, or reporting deficiencies); then assign a set of remedial actions drawn from a menu of common fixes. \"We kind of narrowed on this idea of having a solution package, which is gonna be a package of what we're referring to as remedial actions,\" she said.

Remedial action examples for treatment plants include storage basins, pond desludging, liners, filtration or flotation additions, or full facility replacement; for collection systems, options include spot pipe repair, lining or widespread rehabilitation scaled by miles of pipe, and pump-station rehabilitation. Administrative and operational interventions include technical assistance, interim administrative appointments, contract operator support and SCADA upgrades.

Jonathan Kaplan outlined the cost methodology: derive capital and O&M costs from state engineering reports (approximately 200 DFA reports were reviewed), apply soft-cost multipliers (planning, design, permitting, construction contingency and oversight), calculate net-present-value of O&M over a 20-year window and add managerial/technical-assistance costs. Staff said they will use regional cost adjustments and CPI updates to normalize older estimates and may borrow methodology from the drinking-water needs assessment.

Staff flagged open issues still under development: thresholds for choosing facility replacement versus remedial fixes, non-economic selection criteria (climate resilience, operational simplicity, future regulations), and how to cost and assign managerial/administrative assistance. The team requested technical feedback and said they may consult advisory-group members and wastewater practitioners for better cost inputs, especially for administrative support measures.

Next steps: staff will complete cost curves, finalize soft-cost multipliers and provide more detailed modeling outputs in phase 2 and in office hours for technical review.","Staff described a modular ‘solution package’ approach that pairs remedial infrastructure actions with administrative support and explained the cost-assessment methodology (capital, soft costs, O&M and managerial assistance) to estimate statewide needs.",{"_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},6151335,"State staff deliver statewide facilities inventory: 2,657 wastewater systems slated for assessment",347,845274,1192710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739&start=845&end=1192","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739/thumbnail_845274.jpg","/articles/6151335/California/State-staff-deliver-statewide-facilities-inventory-2657-wastewater-systems-slated-for-assessment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151335-2fe46eb33f41e1789de949ee111d6528/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833395&Signature=AQtrtt2Ten7OZaOesy0wEPexAUQeZkYIgZCtliAE23SnLCjLuZAXp36VoK74aMyUN6-5uv~-USCqkTXONupi6wR1hMhiLBklWo8GJJyki7B~c6CxvHmM21ZtsKjQOmnla6D01NOxx4Yt6R2OnkbaYii5XDRKzaV46c6ajnOJ217AO7wT0UIf-t5CIuj~GtT4Hy~6UYvCOJ1ypBfefzqw6Vv6SEokyAuENivYdpyqHTRB618ZBp4utD23cvy053zLOHXhB6lPp8SqjskhHvnJDVopkOoQRUSO4JPowIVR0ZU8GamRm2EJ1M7PWLODYBS77dl6UOmuDdQGaEwhUe~2Nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Board technical staff told the advisory group that phase 1c of the wastewater needs assessment has produced a statewide facilities inventory to be assessed for inadequacy and risk, naming 2,657 systems across all nine regional boards.

Dakota Keane, a geologist at the Office of Water Programs, summarized the data collection effort and the resulting facilities list, saying the effort produced a “first-of-its-kind methodology to determine whether or not a given facility is actually treating domestic sanitation related wastewater.” The inventory combines facilities regulated under WDRs (discharge to land), permitted collection systems and NPDES systems (discharges to surface waters).

The inventory draws on many sources, staff said: regional board data, engineering reports for state-funded projects, a UC ANR baseline survey and sewershed boundaries provided by the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA). Staff also compiled geospatial datasets to assess possible groundwater impacts and to inform solutions modeling. The inventory excludes facilities that do not process domestic sanitary waste (for example, commercial-only or non-sanitary reuse sites), and staff said private residences will be handled through a separate unsewered analysis.

Staff acknowledged remaining data gaps — notably for on-site systems — and said some on-site/system-level assessment work will be handled in phase 1e (solutions and cost assessment) or phase 1d (groundwater impacts), with plans to gather more complete data in subsequent steps.

Timetable and next steps: staff said phase 1 report sections are under internal review and the draft will be shared with advisory members by early fall. Office hours and quarterly advisory meetings will continue through phase 2 (July 2025–June 2027) to allow data validation and focused technical engagement.

Community and partner roles: staff thanked regional boards and CASA for data contributions and emphasized that regional validation will be a part of the process before any public lists are released.","Staff summarized Phase 1c data collection and produced a facilities list of 2,657 systems across California that will be assessed for inadequacy and risk, noting supporting geospatial datasets, partners and identified data gaps.",{"_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},6151340,"State wastewater advisory group refines ‘inadequacy’ and risk metrics for collection systems and treatment plants",3060,1620615,4680855,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739&start=1620&end=4680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5503712-3dc39abf5168761e053fcd4ca2cce739/thumbnail_1620615.jpg","/articles/6151340/California/State-wastewater-advisory-group-refines-inadequacy-and-risk-metrics-for-collection-systems-and-treatment-plants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151340-8725a0a6d8519a688609388167cc9d97/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833395&Signature=VFXNHEbU6kzDQvtWFvqvzkYfwW~lesDHIqEJllKHkawqE0YOU-UeFtgweQLP~afTXU-IFddn8DSQq6GsFyzTibcdGmlVRTkO8D4Jn5BKpMSJUIPYuVIVD7yMxOobyk78xTnTKjek2YPOUM52WffERdfCi1P49J28E3j0vaycCbwVIdDsYn65voAPbpnNHjC-YCiOEtilW22BJgDlOpDOxIKpcOuM3R0LHV33xkUYNr6dBvKzZ9vFwRUfkAfeqKpqXjiUxMuVWqhOvDnz~g5tGkgKVVbflhF9JgtsgsPvWliRvLNg7ImGnrVPLHWZW30O9L563fZKU-FAsCaa7tJQQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Water Board staff and advisory-group members presented updated methods on how the state will flag wastewater systems and treatment facilities as “inadequate” and assess risk, laying out separate formulas for collection systems regulated under the sanitary sewer system general order (SSS Go), NPDES-permitted plants and facilities subject to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).

The state team said the approach will treat inadequacy and risk as distinct analyses and calculate separate scores for each facility type, then share initial lists with regional boards, the Water Board executive team and the advisory group before any public release.

The updated collection-system (SSS Go) criteria would flag a system as inadequate if it met two or more conditions from categories that include high rates of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), spill recovery performance, missing plans or certifications, and enforcement history. \"If a system has has met the inadequacy criteria for 2 or more of the criteria that is going to be presented, then that system would be flagged as inadequate,\" said staff member Grace Harrison during the presentation.

The NPDES and WDR approaches rely more heavily on federal and existing state designations. For NPDES-regulated plants, the advisory team will rely largely on EPA’s “significant noncompliance” (SNC) definition — including missing discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), missed compliance-schedule milestones and repeated effluent exceedances — while the WDR assessment combines chronic effluent violations, open enforcement orders and a weighted set of monitoring-and-reporting (M&R) violations.

Staff said some variables (for example, certain monitoring-reporting violations) will be weighted rather than treated as binary flags, and acknowledged the need to avoid labeling systems that are already actively addressing problems via enforcement orders or implementation plans. Staff described the process to refine the lists: model the criteria, share an initial list internally, then with the regional boards and finally with the advisory group before any public-facing publication in the final report.

Advisory-group members recommended banding or size-based thresholds so small systems are not unfairly classified for single events, combining multiple reporting measures into a single reporting variable to reduce false positives, and clarifying whether systems under active enforcement but making progress should remain on an inadequate list. Staff said those checks will be part of back-end filtering prior to public release.

The state also described a separate, multi-part risk assessment that will include socioeconomic indicators (household burden, DAC status, majority communities of color), operational metrics (percent cleaned annually, percent inspected by CCTV, system age) and environmental/public-health factors (proximity to impaired waters, drought/flood exposure, presence of constituents of emerging concern). Many of those thresholds are still under development and will be refined during upcoming office hours and advisory meetings.

Direction and next steps: staff will continue to refine thresholds and weighting, operationalize the criteria against the facilities database, share initial lists with regional boards for validation and then present results to the advisory group before publishing a final, public list in the phase 1 report.","Advisory group members and state staff updated criteria to flag wastewater collection systems and facilities as ‘inadequate’ or “at risk,” emphasizing separate calculations for collection systems (SSSGo), NPDES plants and WDR facilities and proposing multiple review steps before public lists are published.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

UMass presents statewide predictive model to map unsewered parcels; staff warns model is a gap-filling tool, not a regulatory list

State outlines solutions framework and high-level costing approach for inadequate wastewater systems

State staff deliver statewide facilities inventory: 2,657 wastewater systems slated for assessment

State wastewater advisory group refines ‘inadequacy’ and risk metrics for collection systems and treatment plants