SB 1313 creates a new chapter in the California Health and Safety Code that lets the State Water Resources Control Board fund projects to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water and source water. The measure ties funding to legislative appropriation and permits the board to deliver assistance as grants or loans, drawing on the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the federal Clean Water SRF, and the federal Emerging Contaminants grant program when allowable under federal law.
The bill enumerates eligible activities — from source investigation and monitoring to planning, treatment, technical assistance, and public outreach — and allows the board to implement the program through a policy handbook or workplan that is exempt from California's standard rulemaking process. It also defines key terms (including “small” and “disadvantaged” communities) and makes clear the chapter does not expand a state obligation to provide funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1313 authorizes the State Water Board, subject to legislative appropriation and federal law, to provide grants or loans to public water systems to detect, investigate, plan for, and treat PFAS in drinking and source waters. The statute specifies eligible activities and three principal funding sources the board may use.
Who It Affects
Community and nonprofit noncommunity public water systems statewide, with explicit attention to small communities (population <10,000 lacking debt capacity) and disadvantaged communities (median household income below 80% of state). The board, local utilities, engineering firms, and households in contaminated areas will also be implicated.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a targeted funding pathway for PFAS—an emerging contaminant with growing regulatory attention—while giving the board administrative flexibility to move faster than traditional rulemaking. For regulators and utilities, it reshapes funding options and prioritization for contamination response and infrastructure upgrades.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1313 adds a dedicated statutory framework to let the State Water Resources Control Board fund measures that detect and reduce PFAS in drinking water and source water. The law is permissive, not mandatory: the board may provide grants or loans only if the Legislature appropriates money for that purpose and only to the extent federal law allows using particular federal funding streams.
The bill names three potential funding pools—the state Safe Drinking Water SRF, the federal Clean Water SRF, and the federal Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities grant—and ties program activities to what federal rules permit.
Rather than creating a single grant program with a fixed list of eligible expenses, the statute lists categories of permissible activities: source investigation and new source development, planning and design, household service connections, public engagement, technical assistance, baseline testing and sampling, and treatment. That scope is broad enough to cover everything from short-term bottled water or point-of-entry systems to capital treatment works and long-term monitoring, but the bill leaves details—eligibility criteria, prioritization, cost-sharing, and performance requirements—to the board’s implementing handbook or workplan.The bill also sets basic definitions that matter for eligibility and prioritization.
It defines small communities as populations under 10,000 that the board determines lack capacity to incur debt, and it treats communities with median household income under 80% of statewide as disadvantaged. Importantly, SB 1313 expressly says it does not create a new state obligation to fund these projects; funding remains discretionary and contingent on appropriation.
Finally, the bill allows the board to adopt a policy handbook or workplan to implement the program and exempts that document from the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements, giving the board a faster, less formal route to set program rules and priorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to issue grants or loans to public water systems to address PFAS, but only upon legislative appropriation and consistent with federal law.
Permissible funding sources named in the statute are the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and the federal Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities grant program.
Eligible activities include source investigations and new source development, planning and design, providing household access to drinking water, public engagement and education, technical assistance, baseline testing or sampling, and treatment.
The statute defines a 'small community' as a population under 10,000 that the board finds lacks capacity to incur debt and defines 'disadvantaged community' as a community with median household income below 80% of the statewide median.
The board may implement the program through a policy handbook or workplan that is explicitly exempt from California’s Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: who and what the chapter covers
This section supplies the operative definitions: 'board' (State Water Board), categories of public water systems (community, noncommunity, nonprofit), 'PFAS', 'small community' (population <10,000 and a board finding about debt capacity), and 'disadvantaged community' (MHI < 80% of statewide). Those definitions determine program reach and eligibility, and the 'small community' definition explicitly vests discretion with the board to make capacity findings, a practical lever for prioritization.
Authorized funding sources and appropriation requirement
This subsection lists the funding sources the board may use: the state Safe Drinking Water SRF, the federal Clean Water SRF, and the federal Emerging Contaminants grant program. The language conditions spending on legislative appropriation and federal law compatibility, which means program design must respect SRF rules, federal allowable costs, and any strings attached to federal grants.
Grants and loans to public water systems
The board may deploy funds as grants or loans to public water systems, explicitly including systems serving small or disadvantaged communities. That dual authority lets the board tailor financial assistance to recipient capacity, but it also creates trade-offs: loans preserve revolving capital but may be unaffordable for systems the statute is intended to help, while grants use limited appropriations and may require legislative buy-in.
Permissible uses: investigation, planning, treatment, outreach
The bill lists specific eligible uses—source water activities and investigations, planning and design, providing household access to drinking water services, public communication and education, technical assistance, baseline testing or sampling, and treatment. The list is broad by design, allowing both short-term relief (e.g., testing, point-of-entry systems, household connections) and capital projects (treatment plants), but each use will be constrained by fund source rules and the board’s implementing guidance.
No new state funding obligation created
This short subsection makes a legal point: the chapter does not expand any state obligation to provide resources. Practically, it preserves legislative discretion over appropriations and limits legal claims that could compel funding, leaving implementation dependent on budget choices and external federal funds.
Implementation via handbook or workplan exempt from APA
The board may implement the chapter through a policy handbook or workplan and the bill removes that document from the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking process. That grants the board operational flexibility and a faster path to set eligibility, scoring, and procedural rules—but it also narrows formal public comment and oversight mechanisms that typically accompany administrative rulemaking.
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
- Small and disadvantaged community water systems: The statute prioritizes systems with limited debt capacity and low median incomes, increasing their access to grants or favorable loans for PFAS testing, treatment, and infrastructure.
- Households in PFAS-affected areas: The bill authorizes funding for household access to safe drinking water and for point-of-entry or centralized treatment that can reduce exposure for residents.
- Local utilities and wastewater operators: Eligible activities include source investigation, treatment, and recycled water work, so utilities responsible for treatment can access technical and capital assistance.
- Engineering, testing, and technical-assistance providers: Expanded projects for investigation, planning, and treatment create demand for consultants, labs, and construction contractors.
- Environmental justice advocates and public health agencies: The statutory focus on disadvantaged communities and public engagement funds supports community-level remediation and information campaigns.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Water Resources Control Board: The board must design, administer, and prioritize the program, adding staffing, program management, and oversight responsibilities without guaranteed appropriation.
- State budget/Legislature: Because the funds require appropriation, the state budget bears the fiscal decision and competing priorities may limit available funding.
- Public water systems that take loans: Systems that receive SRF loans bear repayment obligations and potentially higher local rates if grants are not available or sufficient.
- Ratepayers and local taxpayers: When projects use loans or local matching funds, residents may face higher water rates or local assessments to cover debt service and O&M costs.
- Private polluters: The bill does not create new liability or cost-recovery mechanisms against PFAS manufacturers or dischargers; polluters are not required to pay under this text.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speed and equity versus fiscal and procedural constraints: the bill aims to quickly direct limited public resources to vulnerable communities for urgent PFAS response, but doing so through SRF loans, appropriations, and an APA-exempt handbook creates trade-offs—shifting costs to local systems and ratepayers, constraining legislative and public oversight, and leaving long-term funding and polluter accountability unresolved.
SB 1313 threads a narrow needle: it provides an authorization and framework for PFAS funding but leaves most critical program design choices to the board and to annual appropriations. Conditioning assistance on legislative appropriation and federal-law compatibility means the program’s scale will depend on budget cycles and on whether federal SRF and grant rules permit the uses envisioned.
Using SRF dollars as loans preserves capital but risks shifting costs back to systems and ratepayers; relying on one-time appropriations or federal grants for grants limits sustainability for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring.
The bill’s allowance for implementation by a policy handbook or workplan accelerates deployment but reduces formal public rulemaking, raising questions about transparency, stakeholder input, and judicial review. Key operational details are unresolved in the text: how the board will prioritize among applicants, how it will define and document a "small community's" inability to incur debt, whether cost-sharing or matching will be required, and how long-term O&M and monitoring costs will be funded.
Finally, because the statute does not attach new liability to PFAS producers or dischargers, it preserves the status quo on cost allocation and leaves local agencies and ratepayers responsible for remediation financing unless other legal avenues are pursued.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.