The State Water Resources Control Board unanimously adopted the state’s fiscal 2026–27 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan on August 18, a move that establishes guidelines for future water infrastructure investments. The Board's 5–0 vote formally approved Resolution 2026-0030, which directs significant funding towards improving drinking water systems across California.
According to the board’s August 18–19 meeting minutes, the comprehensive package incorporates guidelines for complementary funding derived from the Budget Act of 2024, alongside allocations from Propositions 1, 68, and 4. These state initiatives are intended to support various water-related projects and programs, ensuring the availability of resources for local water agencies.
Further expanding its scope, the approved plan includes several supplemental intended-use plans. These targeted programs address critical challenges such as emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies and the replacement of lead service lines, a significant public health concern. Additionally, the plan accounts for extra appropriations allocated under the Disaster Relief Act of 2019, providing a framework for state support in areas affected by past emergencies.
The adoption of the resolution followed a formal motion by Board Member Jared Blumenfeld, which was then seconded by Member Nichole Morgan. The vote, as recorded in the meeting minutes, was without dissent. Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel, Vice Chair Dorene D’Adamo, and Members Sean Maguire, Morgan, and Blumenfeld all cast affirmative votes, demonstrating unified support for the state's drinking water funding strategy. There were no 'no' votes, abstentions, or absences noted for this item.
Public input was a component of the board's consideration for this significant item. The meeting minutes show that comments were received from a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from the South Coast Water District, the Community Water Center, the Association of California Water Agencies, the California Municipal Utilities Association, and the Placer County Water Agency. Members of the public also contributed their perspectives during the session.
Despite the plan's adoption, the meeting record from the State Water Board did not identify several key financial and logistical details. Specifics such as the plan’s total funding amount, the precise allocation formula for distributing funds, or a list of eligible projects or applicants were not made available. Furthermore, the record did not detail how funding would be distributed to disadvantaged communities or provide an implementation timetable for the plan’s various components. These crucial details, which will dictate the real-world impact and execution of the plan, would need to be obtained directly from the State Water Board’s Division of Financial Assistance or through the final plan documents.
