Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the On Site Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board adopts statewide on‑site nonpotable reuse regulations under SB 966
Summary
The board voted unanimously to adopt risk‑based building‑scale on‑site nonpotable reuse regulations required by SB 966, setting treatment trains, notification and commissioning obligations for local permitting and leaving primary implementation to local jurisdictions.
The State Water Resources Control Board on Tuesday adopted statewide regulations implementing Senate Bill 966 that set health‑protective, risk‑based standards for on‑site treatment and reuse of nonpotable water in multifamily residential, commercial and mixed‑use buildings.
The board’s action, approved by roll call, inserts criteria into California’s water recycling framework to govern graywater, roof‑runoff and certain stormwater and on‑site wastewater systems used for nonpotable end uses at the building scale. Chair Joaquin Esquivel said the rules are intended to expand options for local jurisdictions while protecting public health and aligning with other state priorities.
Staff described a multi‑year development process that began after SB 966 (2018) and included an external scientific peer review of pathogen log‑reduction targets, several public comment periods and targeted revisions. Shirley Rosalella, the staff lead, said the final text provides a prescriptive set of approved pathogen‑control treatment trains for streamlined local review and built in an approval path for alternate trains that have prior local authorization. Rosalella also described required notifications to water and sewer providers during commissioning and decommissioning to reduce cross‑connection risk.
Several public commenters praised the board for creating statewide clarity but urged changes before implementation. Industry and stormwater advocates warned that the regulations could be read as applying to some stormwater capture projects and that prescriptive treatment and automatic diversion rules could make certain small‑scale stormwater reuse or infiltration projects economically infeasible. Jennifer Toney of the board’s DFA (in a later agenda item) emphasized that state grant programs will be available for urban stormwater projects, and multiple presenters asked staff to clarify where the on‑site rules intersect with regional stormwater permits.
Board members and staff said the statute intentionally vests primary implementation authority with local jurisdictions. Rosalella noted that the board is prohibited by statute from taking over local permitting and that the regulations are intended to be a consistent baseline, with counties and cities choosing whether and how to implement local on‑site programs. Chair Esquivel said the board will track implementation and suggested future check‑ins to examine how local programs adopt the standards.
The regulation package includes several explicit limits: it does not replace Title 22 centralized recycled water rules, it excludes certain source waters and uses that require separate risk assessment (for example, some cooling tower and foundation drainage uses were deferred to a future rulemaking), and it preserves local authority to require operator qualifications beyond the minimum knowledge standards in the text. Rosalella and staff also noted an operator certification program for on‑site reuse systems is under development by industry groups and is expected to be operational in 2026.
Next steps: with board adoption the rulemaking package will be sent to the Department of Finance and then the Office of Administrative Law; staff estimated final filing and effectiveness in early 2026 (with subsequent local ordinance adoption and building standards updates following). The board directed staff to continue outreach, provide clarifying FAQs about interactions with stormwater and regional permits, and return with information on early implementation and any unintended consequences.
Vote: The motion to adopt was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote with all members present voting ‘Aye.’
Why it matters: The rules create a statewide, baseline path for building‑scale reuse systems that local governments may adopt and administer. Supporters say the standards will expand tools to increase local water supplies and resilience; critics worry about cost and the potential to discourage certain stormwater reuse approaches if interactions with municipal stormwater permits are not clarified.
