Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Needs Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board hears UCLA update on statewide wastewater needs assessment; notifications to facilities coming soon
Summary
UCLA and State Water Board staff presented results from the Phase 1–2 wastewater needs assessment, covering inadequacy and risk criteria for ~2,182 facilities; staff said notification letters to facilities deemed inadequate are imminent and that solutions-and-cost estimates will be completed by May 2027.
UCLA researchers and State Water Board staff on July 7 briefed the board on the multiyear California Wastewater Needs Assessment and the status of the inadequate‑systems list.
Danielle Jimerson (senior engineer, Division of Water Quality) laid out the project background, advisory group process and uses for the statewide inadequate systems list: increasing awareness, supporting planning and funding decisions, and identifying candidates for regionalization or technical assistance. Jimerson said the list is non‑regulatory and intended to be a living document that can be refined over time.
Greg Pierce, the UCLA lead investigator, described the Phase 2 methodology and results. The contracted analysis reviewed roughly 2,182 facilities and systems, applied inadequacy criteria across three facility/system types and implemented a separate risk assessment for systems 'at risk' of future inadequacy. Pierce said the final inadequacy assessment was refined through iterative review from January–May 2026; he noted a reduction in some NPDES/SSSGO categories and a small increase among Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) systems in the final list.
Pierce and Jimerson emphasized limits and data gaps: many WDR permits lack consolidated compliance and enforcement data, precise geographic shapefiles are missing for a number of systems and affordability/rate data are incomplete. They described a UC ANR field campaign that visited 55 sites and conducted 80 interviews to ground‑truth the analysis and document lived experience in small and rural communities. Pierce cautioned that parcel‑level model outputs are approximations and should not be used for regulatory actions.
Staff said the water boards will soon send notification letters to facilities that meet the inadequate criteria, and will provide supporting documentation and a petition process for facilities that believe they were mischaracterized. Pierce said the solutions‑and‑costs modeling is a statewide, planning‑level exercise (not a site‑specific engineering design) and is expected to conclude in May 2027, with a comprehensive public report by June 2027.
Board members and stakeholders pressed on how project‑level cost estimates and existing engineering plans will be integrated; staff said the analysis can incorporate known, submitted costs and will pull in better local cost data where available to estimate a funding gap. Several board members applauded the advisory group approach and urged continued work to close data gaps so the list better informs prioritization and funding decisions.
Public commenters representing Central Valley operators and CASA praised the effort while asking staff to refine thresholds (some high‑performing agencies were included under a broad percentile cutoff) and to ensure the assessment supports a clear funding pathway to deliver projects.
Next steps: the board and staff will continue advisory‑group iterations; the water boards will send notification letters to facilities deemed inadequate; staff will complete the solutions‑and‑costs assessment by May 2027 and publish a comprehensive report in June 2027.
