Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014: Drinking Water Capital Reserve Fund: administration.
The proposed changes in SB 66 specifically require the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct an analysis of the criteria governing the use of these funds, with mandatory reporting to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water and the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife every two years starting in 2025. The implications of SB 66 may enhance funding support for regions severely impacted by water contamination issues, potentially leading to improved public health outcomes and compliance with federal and state drinking water standards.
Senate Bill 66 aims to amend Section 79724 of the California Water Code, focusing on the administration of the Drinking Water Capital Reserve Fund established under the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. The bill authorizes the allocation of $260 million for grants and loans directed towards public water system infrastructure improvements, particularly to ensure compliance with safe drinking water standards and to support affordable drinking water access for disadvantaged communities. It emphasizes projects that rectify contamination issues or provide alternate water sources for small community water systems.
The sentiment surrounding SB 66 is generally favorable among advocates of public health and environmental justice. Supporters appreciate the focus on disadvantaged communities that struggle with inadequate water access. However, there are likely to be differing views on the allocation process, with some stakeholders advocating for greater transparency and urgency in fund distribution. Critics may argue that equity in access to funding needs to be ensured to avoid further disparities among various communities.
While SB 66 aims to improve drinking water infrastructure, notable contention might arise around implementation details, especially regarding the selection of projects funded by the reserve. The bill's prioritization of projects affecting disadvantaged communities may lead to debates about resource allocation versus the needs of other areas. The construction grant limits—$5 million for individual projects and up to $20 million for regional benefits—can also generate discussions on whether these limits adequately address the scale of improvements needed in certain communities.