Board adopts SRF policy amendments after months of stakeholder negotiations; chromium‑6 funding concerns remain

The State Water Resources Control Board adopted amendments to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) policies on May 6 after a protracted stakeholder process that focused on revised project‑priority scoring, affordability metrics and readiness criteria.

The amendments formalize a priority score system that includes (1) a project score recognizing regulatory drivers and public‑health priorities, (2) a secondary score for co‑benefits such as water recycling and equivalency volunteers, (3) an affordability score that includes community median household income and sewer rates as a percentage of MHI, and (4) a readiness score that now awards points for 50% plans and specifications in some cases. The policy also restores a “secondary” score band after stakeholder requests and clarifies that loan repayment commencement is tied to disbursements received rather than the full loan amount when construction is delayed.

Lisa Hong, supervising engineer for the SRF programs, and Mike Downey, assistant deputy director, presented analysis showing historical applicants are likely to score well under the revised approach and that the policy preserves pathways for small disadvantaged communities to receive principal forgiveness and grants under the intended‑use plan. The board heard extensive testimony from cities and water agencies, many urging more explicit accommodation for medium and large systems that serve disadvantaged communities and face high compliance costs for new contaminants such as hexavalent chromium (Cr6).

Several Coachella Valley speakers described proposed Chromium‑6 compliance costs of tens of millions for medium‑sized systems, with rate increases they said could exceed 100–200% for vulnerable customers. Water agencies asked staff and the board to consider ways to make those projects eligible for grant or principal‑forgiveness pathways in the annual intended‑use plan; several stakeholders asked for a narrow exception to treat medium and large systems serving disadvantaged areas as “small” for affordability scoring when projects would directly protect disadvantaged neighborhoods.

After discussion, board members voted to adopt the policy amendments and accompanying change sheets. The roll call vote was recorded as unanimous (ayes recorded for Board Members Firestone, McGuire, Morgan, Vice Chair D’Adamo and Chair Esquivel). Staff said the changes will apply to the next intended‑use plan cycle and reiterated that principal‑forgiveness and other grant programs continue to be allocated through the annual IUP process.

Ending: Board members encouraged applicants with urgent Chromium‑6 needs to submit applications so staff can evaluate demand in the upcoming IUP cycle and recommended further stakeholder work to refine affordability calculations and scoring tie‑breakers in the future.