State Water Board reviews draft 2025 Safe Drinking Water Plan, invites public comment through Aug. 29

SACRAMENTO — The State Water Resources Control Board on July 15 reviewed the draft 2025 Safe Drinking Water Plan, a legislatively required five‑year report that assesses California’s drinking-water systems, outlines technical and financial needs, and recommends legislative and program actions to improve access to safe water.

Daryl Baljimes, deputy director for the Division of Drinking Water, introduced the workshop and called Lawrence Sanchez the plan’s lead. Sanchez told the board the document compiles “analytical and encyclopedic” information on public water systems and presents more than 70 recommendations covering consolidation, technology and data systems, financing, and emergency preparedness.

“The plan includes recommendations for legislative action, program action by the State Water Board, stakeholders and by public water systems,” Sanchez said. He said the document was posted July 7 and that the public comment period closes at noon on Aug. 29, with the board aiming to adopt a final plan late this year and submit it to the Legislature in early 2026.

The presentation emphasized four cross-cutting themes — emergency preparedness, sustainability, equity (human right to water), and program action — and noted the continued vulnerability of small systems: 96% of public water systems serve fewer than 10,000 connections and the majority of violations occur in systems with fewer than 500 connections. Sanchez said consolidation, mutual aid, technical, managerial and financial (TMF) capacity-building, and targeted financing remain central strategies.

Board members praised the breadth of the plan. Chair Joaquin Escobel said the document helps the board “wrap our arms” around the division’s work and highlighted recent funding accomplishments, including expanded grants and the arrearage relief program.

Public commenters included Nick Blair of the Association of California Water Agencies, who asked how potential federal cuts to SRF funding might affect state planning and implementation; Jennifer Clary of Clean Water Action, who urged clearer prioritization in the plan’s many recommendations and flagged perchlorate and PFAS for closer attention; and Natalie Escobedo Garcia of Leadership Council, who asked for a clearer status update on implementation of the chrome‑6 MCL across system sizes.

Sanchez outlined progress since the 2020 plan, including adoption of federal PFAS rules, California hexavalent chromium standards and regulations for direct potable reuse, upgrades to monitoring and public dashboards, and an increase in funding and technical assistance through SAFER and state programs. He said staff would post methods for submitting written comments on the board website.

The board did not take an action on the draft at the workshop; staff will review and consider comments before returning to the board later this year with a final plan.