AB 990 amends Health and Safety Code §116460 to modernize how public water systems notify customers when they update their emergency notification plans. The bill explicitly encourages systems to use other communications technology—text messages, email, social media—when providing notice of plan updates, and to notify customers in their preferred language when resources allow.
It also clarifies that the State Water Resources Control Board approves those plans and must adopt implementing regulations, retaining an exclusion authority for the board.
The change matters for operators, regulators, and public‑health stakeholders because it pushes systems toward multilingual and digital outreach without imposing unconditional mandates or funding. That combination creates operational and compliance questions for small systems, opens choices for larger systems that already use digital channels, and leaves implementation details to forthcoming regulations and the board’s discretionary exclusion authority.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds permissive language that authorizes and encourages public water systems to notify customers by text, email, social media, or other communications technology when they update emergency notification plans. It also encourages notifying customers in their preferred language, but only "if resources are available." The State Water Resources Control Board must approve plans and adopt implementing regulations, and may exclude systems where exclusion serves the public interest.
Who It Affects
Community and noncommunity public water systems across California—particularly small and medium systems that manage customer outreach—along with customers who have limited English proficiency and rely on nontraditional communication channels. The State Water Resources Control Board gains explicit statutory approval authority and regulatory rulemaking responsibility.
Why It Matters
AB 990 nudges emergency communications toward modern, multilingual channels, which could improve timely reach during contamination events. Because the provisions are permissive and resource‑conditioned, effects will vary by system capacity; compliance officers and operators must decide whether to expand outreach infrastructure ahead of state regulations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Current law already requires public water systems to have an emergency notification plan approved by the regulator and to notify customers immediately of bacterial spikes or other imminent dangers. AB 990 keeps that approval structure but inserts new, nonbinding directions for how systems may communicate with customers when they update their plans.
Specifically, when a system revises its emergency notification plan it "may, and is encouraged to," use alternative communications technologies—examples named in the bill are text, email, and social media—to alert water users of the update.
The bill also adds parallel language about language access: systems "may, and is encouraged to," provide notifications in customers' preferred languages, but only "if resources are available." That conditional phrasing stops short of a mandatory translation requirement and ties language access explicitly to a system’s resource position. AB 990 leaves the precise mechanics of identifying preferred language, translation quality, and timing unspecified; those implementation details are left to the State Water Resources Control Board’s forthcoming regulations.Operationally, the statute continues to tie approval of emergency notification plans to a precondition for permits, variances, or exemptions, but the text contains a drafting irregularity in that provision (see below).
The bill also replaces references to the "department" with the "state board," signaling the State Water Resources Control Board as the approving authority. Finally, the board retains authority to adopt implementing regulations and to exclude particular systems from the statutory requirements when exclusion serves the public interest, preserving discretion but also creating variability in statewide coverage.
The Five Things You Need to Know
When updating an emergency notification plan, a public water system "may, and is encouraged to" notify customers via other communications technology such as text messages, email, or social media.
The bill encourages systems to provide notifications in customers' preferred languages, but only "if resources are available," making translation nonmandatory and conditional on capacity.
AB 990 specifies that emergency notification plans must be submitted to and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (the bill replaces references to the department with the state board).
The State Water Resources Control Board must adopt regulations to implement §116460 and may exempt specific public water systems from the section when exclusion "best serves the public interest.", The text contains a drafting inconsistency in the permit/variance provision (it reads "may shall not be issued or amended"), creating uncertainty about whether permits can be issued before plan approval.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Approval requirement for emergency notification plans
This subsection keeps the core rule that a public water system cannot operate without an emergency notification plan that has been submitted to and approved by the state board, and it preserves the substantive trigger—immediate notice to customers when there's a bacterial spike or other imminent primary‑standard failure. Practically, the approval requirement remains the gatekeeper for systems seeking to operate or demonstrate compliance during public‑health events.
Encouragement to use digital communications when updating plans
Subsection (b) authorizes and encourages systems, when they update their emergency notification plans, to notify users by alternative communications technologies—explicitly naming text, email, and social media. That language is permissive rather than mandatory: systems gain clear statutory cover to use these channels, but the provision contains no timeline, minimum coverage obligations, or technical standards for delivery and verification.
Permit/variance linkage (drafting irregularity)
This provision ties the issuance or amendment of permits, variances, or exemptions to approval of an emergency notification plan. However, the bill text contains conflicting phrasing—"may shall not be issued or amended"—which produces ambiguity about whether the statute prohibits issuing permits before plan approval or merely contemplates a permissive requirement. That drafting error will require clarification in committee reports, conforming amendments, or through regulatory interpretation.
Encouragement to provide notifications in customers' preferred language
Subsection (d) adds language urging systems to provide notifications in users' preferred languages when updating plans, but conditions that encouragement on the availability of resources. The provision creates a protected objective—better language access—without establishing funding, translation standards, or mandatory timelines, leaving the operational burden and prioritization to systems and later regulations.
Regulations and exclusion authority for the state board
The final subsection requires the state board to adopt implementing regulations and permits the board to exclude specific public water systems from the statute when exclusion serves the public interest. That gives the board rulemaking control and discretion to create exceptions, which can streamline oversight for certain systems but may also produce uneven application of the notification goals across jurisdictions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Customers with limited English proficiency — the bill explicitly encourages notification in a customer's preferred language, which can improve comprehension during emergencies when translations are used.
- Mobile and digitally connected customers — systems are encouraged to use text, email, and social media, which can speed delivery and reach people who rely on mobile alerts.
- Larger water systems and utilities with existing communications infrastructure — these providers can formalize multichannel strategies with statutory backing and may face lower marginal implementation costs.
- Emergency managers and public‑health responders — broader, faster notification channels improve situational awareness and can accelerate protective actions during contamination events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and rural public water systems — these operators will likely shoulder the translation, platform integration, and outreach costs (and may lack staff or budget to implement multilingual, digital notifications).
- State Water Resources Control Board — the board must draft and implement regulations, manage approvals, and adjudicate exclusions, which creates administrative workload without accompanying funding in the bill.
- Ratepayers of affected systems — if systems choose to expand communications capabilities, those expenses may be recovered through rates or local assessments, shifting costs to customers.
- Local public‑health agencies — where systems lack capacity, local agencies may be asked to assist with outreach or translation during emergencies, adding operational burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improving access to emergency water‑safety information—by encouraging multilingual and digital outreach—and avoiding unfunded mandates on small water systems; the bill favors flexibility and encouragement over firm obligations, but that choice risks leaving the populations most in need without reliable, timely notifications while creating legal and administrative uncertainty for regulators and operators.
AB 990 tries to nudge public water systems toward modern, multilingual emergency communications but stops short of creating enforceable obligations. The bill’s repeated use of "may, and is encouraged to" plus the qualification "if resources are available" means implementation will depend heavily on each system’s budget, staffing, and policy choices.
That structure risks producing a patchwork of protections: urban and well‑funded systems will likely expand outreach quickly, while small, resource‑constrained systems may continue to rely on legacy channels, leaving vulnerable populations without reliable multilingual or digital alerts.
Beyond capacity gaps, the bill leaves several practical questions unresolved. It does not define how systems must identify a customer's "preferred language," how quickly translations must be produced after plan updates or emergency notices, or what constitutes acceptable accuracy.
The ambiguous drafting in the permit/variance clause ("may shall not") creates legal uncertainty about whether permits can be granted before a plan is approved. Finally, the bill provides no funding mechanism; the duties it encourages could become de facto mandates in practice, pressuring systems to act without state financial support and inviting disputes about compliance and enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.