SB 31 amends multiple sections of the Water Code to accelerate and operationalize expanded use of recycled water across California. It refines how “recycled water” is defined for spill‑notification purposes, creates an exception for storm discharges from decorative ponds restored with recycled water, allows limited incidental spray into outdoor eating areas when specific disinfection and regulatory standards are met, clarifies that common‑area landscape irrigation outside a residence is not part of that residence’s plumbing system, and explicitly adds food handling and processing facilities to the list of “structures” where recycled water may be used for toilets and certain outdoor irrigation.
For compliance officers, water agencies, property owners, and food processors, the bill alters notification thresholds, references specific State regulations (Title 22 and Title 23), and imposes or preserves several engineering, monitoring, and labeling responsibilities. The changes lower some barriers to recycled‑water deployment while shifting implementation details and enforcement burdens to local agencies and recycled‑water suppliers.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 31 narrows the legal definition of recycled water for spill‑reporting, sets different notification volumes depending on treatment level, and excludes storm overflows from decorative impoundments refilled with recycled water. It permits incidental spray into outdoor eating areas if irrigation uses disinfected tertiary treated recycled water meeting Title 23 §493.4, treats common‑area irrigation as separate from individual residences (not dual‑plumbed), and expands the definition of eligible “structures” to include food handling and processing facilities with specific limits on where recycled water may enter.
Who It Affects
Recycled‑water agencies and utilities, regional water boards (notification and enforcement), developers and property managers (landscape and plumbing design), food processors and commercial cafeterias, and local public agencies that can mandate recycled‑water use. Condominium associations and building owners also face reporting, backflow protection, testing, and disclosure obligations when dual plumbing is involved.
Why It Matters
The law makes it easier for agencies to require and deploy recycled water in built environments while tying those expansions to concrete regulatory standards and plumbing safeguards. That combination lowers legal uncertainty for reuse projects but concentrates operational risk and compliance costs on water suppliers, building owners, and local permitting authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 31 rewrites how the Water Code treats recycled water in several practical ways intended to speed adoption while preserving key health safeguards. For spill notifications, the bill distinguishes recycled water by treatment level: water defined as “disinfected tertiary 2.2” (or that which receives even more advanced treatment) is subject to the existing 50,000‑gallon immediate‑notification threshold; recycled water treated below that level is subject to a much smaller 1,000‑gallon threshold.
The bill also clarifies that water discharged from decorative ponds or impoundments during storm events does not count as an unauthorized discharge when those ponds were refilled with recycled water after evaporation, so long as they are not intended for public contact.
On public‑use sites, the bill relaxes a longstanding practical barrier: it explicitly allows incidental spray, mist, or runoff to enter outdoor eating areas of parks and open spaces if the irrigation uses disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that complies with Title 23 §493.4. That is a narrow change — it does not permit free‑for‑all spraying — but it unblocks some park irrigation designs that previously raised enforcement questions.SB 31 treats outdoor common‑area landscape irrigation that does not cross into an individual residence as a separate use, not part of the single‑premises plumbing system.
That means such areas are not legally a “dual‑plumbed” extension of a homeowner’s potable system, simplifying how developers and homeowners’ associations plan irrigation and avoiding reclassification that would trigger dual‑plumbing requirements.The bill also expands the statutory list of “structures” to include food handling and processing facilities. It authorizes recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing and for outdoor irrigation in and around food facilities, commercial and institutional buildings, and cafeterias — but with important constraints: recycled water cannot enter the rooms where food is handled or processed, closed recycled‑water piping may pass through those rooms, and outdoor irrigation at facilities that handle food outside is prohibited while food is actively being handled outdoors.
Finally, for condominium projects and other dual‑plumbed settings, the bill preserves and clarifies existing engineering, backflow, testing, color‑coding, and disclosure requirements that agencies must meet before indoor recycled water use is approved.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill keeps a 50,000‑gallon immediate‑notification trigger but limits it to recycled water treated to “disinfected tertiary 2.2” or better; recycled water treated below that level triggers notification at 1,000 gallons.
Water discharged from decorative, non‑public‑contact impoundments during storms is not treated as an unauthorized discharge if the impoundment was refilled with recycled water to replace evaporative losses.
Incidental spray, mist, or runoff into outdoor eating areas is allowed only when irrigation uses disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that complies with Title 23 §493.4.
Outdoor common‑area landscape irrigation that does not cross into a residence is explicitly not part of that residence’s premises and is not treated as dual plumbing; recycled water used there still must meet Section 13550 standards.
Food handling and processing facilities are added to the statutory definition of “structures,” allowing recycled water for toilets/urinals and nearby outdoor irrigation so long as recycled water does not enter the rooms where food is actually handled or processed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings tying the bill to state water reuse goals and existing Title 22/23 standards
This section records the state's reuse targets from California’s Water Supply Strategy and reminds readers that uniform statewide recycling criteria come from Title 22. Practically, it sets the bill’s policy frame: increase reuse to meet quantitative targets while updating regulations that haven't kept pace with modern treatment and reuse technologies.
Revised definitions and spill‑notification thresholds; decorative‑pond exception
This amendment separates recycled water into two regulatory buckets for notification: (c) covers wastewater treated to disinfected tertiary 2.2 or beyond and preserves a 50,000‑gallon immediate‑notification rule; (d) covers recycled water treated below that level and sets a 1,000‑gallon trigger. It adds an explicit exception so that storm discharges from decorative bodies of water refilled with recycled water to replace evaporation are not treated as unauthorized discharges, provided those impoundments are not intended for public contact. For water agencies and compliance staff, this changes the calculus for monitoring, reporting, and what counts as an emergency notification.
Permits limited incidental spray to reach outdoor dining areas under Title 23 standards
This change inserts a carve‑out allowing incidental spray, mist, or runoff into outdoor eating areas when irrigated with disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that complies with Title 23 §493.4. The mechanics rely on existing state regulations rather than creating new technical thresholds in statute, so agencies and site designers must consult Title 23 to understand allowable irrigation methods, setback requirements, and disinfection standards that make this limited exposure permissible.
Common‑area irrigation treated as separate from individual residences (not dual‑plumbed)
This amendment clarifies that outdoor landscape irrigation of common areas that doesn’t enter a residence’s boundaries is not part of the same premises and thus not considered a dual‑plumbed system. The policy effect is to ease design and permitting for homeowners’ associations and developers by avoiding classification that would otherwise require dual plumbing of individual units; however, the recycled water used must still meet the standards set in Section 13550, so quality and availability determinations remain necessary.
Expands the statutory list of 'structures' and preserves condominium dual‑plumbing safety requirements
This section adds food handling and processing facilities to the list of structures where recycled water use is contemplated. It also restates procedural and technical requirements for condominium projects using indoor recycled water: agencies must file an engineering report with the State Water Resources Control Board, include backflow protection approved by the board, require annual inspections of backflow devices, test for cross‑connections at least once every four years, color‑code recycled lines, and include specific notice language in condominium declarations. Those mechanics remain critical gateposts before indoor nonpotable uses are approved.
Permits recycled water for toilets/urinals and limited outdoor irrigation near food facilities with conditions
This provision authorizes public agencies to require recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing and for outdoor irrigation in and around food handling/processing facilities, commercial and institutional buildings, and cafeterias where the recycled water does not enter the rooms where food is handled. It allows closed recycled‑water piping to pass through such rooms but prohibits outdoor irrigation with recycled water while food is being handled outdoors. Implementation depends on prior determinations that recycled water ‘is available’ and meets Section 13550 standards plus an engineering report addressing cross‑connection control and monitoring.
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
- Municipal and regional water agencies — gain a clearer statutory basis to expand recycled‑water projects (common‑area irrigation, toilets in eligible structures) and to rely on Title 22/23 standards when authorizing limited exposures.
- Developers and homeowners’ associations — benefit from the clarification that common‑area irrigation outside a residence isn’t dual plumbing, simplifying design and reducing the need to retrofit individual units.
- Parks and recreation managers — can irrigate landscapes near outdoor dining with disinfected tertiary recycled water under defined regulatory conditions, allowing greener landscapes with less potable demand.
- Food processing and commercial facility operators — receive explicit authorization to use recycled water for toilets, urinals, and adjacent outdoor irrigation, creating operational flexibility where potable supplies are constrained.
- Statewide water reuse goals — the bill reduces legal friction for reuse projects, supporting the State’s quantitative targets by aligning statute with current treatment capabilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recycled‑water suppliers and utilities — responsible for meeting treatment, monitoring, reporting, and possible expanded distribution infrastructure, plus new administrative duties tied to availability findings and state board filings.
- Condominium associations and building owners — must maintain engineering reports, backflow devices inspected annually, quad‑yearly cross‑connection testing, recordkeeping, and required declaration language, producing recurring compliance costs.
- Local public agencies and permitting bodies — bear oversight burdens to enforce quality standards, approve engineering reports, and review availability determinations, potentially without new dedicated funding.
- Food facilities and commercial site operators — must design irrigation schedules and physical separations to ensure recycled water never enters food processing rooms and must avoid outdoor recycled‑water irrigation during active outdoor food handling, which constrains operations and scheduling.
- Small businesses adjacent to irrigated outdoor dining — face potential reputational and customer‑comfort risks when incidental spray is allowed, and may need to coordinate with park managers or water agencies about irrigation timing and signage.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing ambitious reuse (to reduce potable demand and meet statewide targets) against the need for stringent, enforceable public‑health protections and clear implementation responsibilities. Easing technical and legal barriers accelerates deployment but concentrates operational risk, monitoring, and cost on agencies, property owners, and businesses — a trade‑off between speed of reuse rollout and the administrative capacity required to keep that rollout safe and socially acceptable.
SB 31 combines loosened access to recycled water with multiple cross‑references to existing Title 22 and Title 23 regulations and to state board determinations. That design keeps technical standards in the regulatory code rather than statute, which reduces legislative micromanagement but raises dependency on regulatory updates and inter‑agency coordination for implementation.
Relying on the State Department of Health Care Services’ descriptive treatment terms (for example, “disinfected tertiary 2.2”) means agencies must track evolving technical definitions and may face interpretation disputes about when advanced treatment 'beyond' that level applies.
The bill shifts many compliance costs to local implementers: utilities must monitor different spill thresholds, condominium regimes must sustain recordkeeping and recurring tests, and food facilities must operationalize tight separation between recycled‑water systems and food processing. Those requirements will create administrative and inspection workloads for regional boards and local health departments; without matched funding or staffing, enforcement could be uneven.
Finally, permitting incidental spray into outdoor dining areas addresses a practical barrier but creates a perception and risk management issue: even minimal exposure events require clear public communication, irrigation timing controls, and potentially additional site design to avoid complaints or liability claims.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.