SB 746 adds two new grant programs to the Water Code: the Urban Water Community Drought Relief program and the Small Community Drought Relief program. Both programs authorize the Department of Water Resources to make grants for interim or immediate drought relief — such as hauled water, temporary tanks, and emergency interties — and, subject to appropriation, to fund additional projects that strengthen water-system resiliency.
Crucially, the bill explicitly allows grant funds to be used for projects that reduce wildfire risk for entire neighborhoods by improving water delivery systems for fire suppression in communities located in State Fire Marshal–designated high or very high fire hazard severity zones (or local equivalents). The Urban program lists a broader set of eligible projects (including conservation incentives and repair of source-water conveyance) than the Small Community program, which focuses on emergency deliveries, infrastructure, and fish-and-wildlife rescue.
At a Glance
What It Does
The statute creates two DWR-administered grant programs that provide interim drought relief and, when the Legislature appropriates money, fund broader water-system and fire-suppression projects. Grants may cover temporary water deliveries, emergency interties or wells, and water-delivery upgrades intended to aid firefighting in high/very high fire hazard zones.
Who It Affects
The Urban program must benefit communities served by an 'urban water supplier' (per Section 10617); the Small Community program targets communities not served by an urban water supplier — generally smaller or rural systems. Local governments, water districts, and community organizations that apply for grants are directly affected, as are residents of high and very high fire hazard areas.
Why It Matters
The measure ties drought-relief funding to wildfire risk mitigation, allowing water dollars to be used for fire-suppression infrastructure — a shift from purely short-term relief toward capital investments that address both water security and fire readiness. That creates new funding pathways for communities with aging systems but also forces prioritization decisions for limited state appropriations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 746 places two categorical grant programs inside the Department of Water Resources: one for urban communities and one for small or rural communities not served by urban water suppliers. Both programs are described as tools for "interim or immediate drought relief" — meaning the Legislature intends them to respond to urgent water-supply failures or contamination threats.
However, funding is not automatic: the programs may deploy money only if the Legislature makes an appropriation after the sections become operative.
Each program is tied to the existing legal framework for wildfire hazard mapping: projects that reduce wildfire risk by improving water delivery for fire suppression are eligible where communities sit in high or very high fire hazard severity zones as designated by the State Fire Marshal or by a local agency. In practice that means eligible projects can range from hauled water and bottled water distributions to capital investments such as emergency interties, drilling or rehabilitating wells, and upgrades to distribution systems that improve firefighting access.The Urban program explicitly lists a wider range of eligible activities, including conservation programs (education, fixture replacement incentives, turf replacement rebates) and repairs to facilities that convey source water to treatment plants — items aimed at preserving supply availability.
The Small Community program focuses more narrowly on emergency deliveries, infrastructure projects, and fish-and-wildlife rescue or relocation, reflecting the different operational realities and capacity of small systems.Because the statute defers actual spending to future appropriations, its immediate effect is to create an authorization and eligibility framework. That framework aligns drought relief with wildfire mitigation, but it does not create a dedicated funding stream, nor does it lay out administrative rules, application procedures, match requirements, or prioritization criteria — those will be determined when and if the department promulgates program guidance and when the Legislature provides funds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute establishes two distinct DWR grant programs: the Urban Water Community Drought Relief program (Section 13198.5) and the Small Community Drought Relief program (Section 13198.51).
Grants are limited to projects that benefit either communities served by an urban water supplier (urban program) or communities not so served (small community program), referencing Section 10617 for the urban-supplier definition.
Funding is discretionary and available only "upon appropriation" after the operative date; the sections create eligibility but do not appropriate money or set award processes.
The Urban program explicitly authorizes wildfire-risk reduction through water-delivery improvements plus a broader set of eligible activities (emergency interties, new wells, conservation incentives, source-water conveyance repairs).
Both programs authorize emergency water deliveries (hauled water, tanks, bottled water, vending machines), infrastructure for emergency interties and wells, and projects to rescue or relocate fish and wildlife; eligibility for wildfire-related projects is limited to State Fire Marshal or locally designated high or very high fire hazard zones.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on wildfire, infrastructure, and rural impacts
This section recites findings that California’s recent megafires and aging infrastructure have left rural communities vulnerable and imposed large postfire costs. It frames the policy justification for linking drought relief to investments that also reduce wildfire risk — the factual predicate the Legislature uses to authorize the two programs. Practically, these findings provide the statutory rationale that program guidance and grant criteria will likely reference when prioritizing projects.
Urban Water Community Drought Relief program — scope and eligible projects
Subdivision (a) establishes the program in DWR to provide interim or immediate drought relief for urban communities. Subdivision (b) limits benefits to communities served by an 'urban water supplier' (Section 10617). Subdivision (c) lists eligible activities: water deliveries; emergency interties, drilling/rehabilitating wells, and permanent infrastructure; projects to reduce wildfire risk via water-delivery improvements in State Fire Marshal or local-designated high/very high zones; conservation programs like fixture rebates and turf replacement; and repairs to conveyance feeding treatment plants. For implementers, this section defines a broad menu of capital and operational interventions but does not set priorities, match requirements, or application timelines.
Small Community Drought Relief program — eligibility and targeted emergency measures
This section mirrors the Urban program but flips the beneficiary test: projects must benefit communities not served by an urban water supplier. The enumerated eligible activities focus on emergency deliveries, emergency interties and wells, water-delivery upgrades for firefighting in high/very high hazard zones, and fish-and-wildlife rescue/relocation. The narrower list reflects an intent to tailor interventions to small-system constraints, but like the Urban program it leaves administrative details and funding decisions to future appropriations and department procedures.
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 rural water systems that lack urban supplier status — they gain a statutory pathway to request grants for emergency water deliveries, wells, interties, and firefighting-oriented delivery upgrades when supplies fail or are contaminated.
- Urban water suppliers and their service areas — the Urban program allows districts and large suppliers to seek funding for both short-term relief (hauled water, temporary tanks) and longer-term infrastructure or conservation projects that preserve supply and support fire suppression.
- Communities located in State Fire Marshal or locally designated high/very high fire hazard severity zones — these neighborhoods can qualify for projects specifically aimed at improving water access for firefighting across entire neighborhoods.
- Local fire agencies and first responders — improved water-delivery infrastructure and emergency interties can expand on-the-ground firefighting options and pre-position resources, especially where hydrant networks are limited.
- Fish and wildlife conservation groups and ecosystems — both programs authorize rescue, protection, and relocation projects for fish and wildlife impacted by drought or water contamination, creating an explicit funding source for those activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Water Resources — the agency will bear program administration responsibilities (designing application processes, oversight, and grant management) without dedicated funds in the statute; implementation depends on future appropriations and internal capacity.
- State budget/Legislature — the statute creates an entitlement-like authorization that competes for limited appropriations; funding these programs will require trade-offs in the annual budget process.
- Local water suppliers and small communities — applicants may face costs to prepare grant applications, develop project plans, or provide local matching funds or maintenance commitments even though the bill does not prescribe match rules.
- Contractors and engineers — the bill likely increases demand for firms that design and build emergency interties, wells, storage tanks, and distribution upgrades, shifting workload and procurement needs at the local level.
- Overlapping agencies and programs (e.g., CalFire, FEMA, state emergency funds) — potential duplication or coordination burdens may arise as multiple funding streams and permitting regimes intersect for projects that serve both drought and wildfire purposes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether limited drought-relief appropriations should prioritize immediate, short-term emergency aid (hauled water, bottled water, temporary tanks) that protects health now, or capital investments in water-delivery infrastructure that reduce wildfire risk and improve long-term resilience but take time to implement and may not address urgent needs.
The statute creates eligibility categories and a broad menu of permitted uses, but it contains no appropriation, no administrative regulations, and no prioritization criteria — so creating usable programs will require substantial follow-through by DWR and the Legislature. That gap creates uncertainty: communities may identify high-value, shovel-ready projects but still lack a predictable funding stream or clear scoring criteria to compete for limited dollars.
Tying drought-relief dollars to wildfire-risk reduction helps rectify infrastructure weaknesses in fire-prone communities, but it also creates a programmatic tension over intent and measurement. Is success measured by immediate lives-and-health protections (emergency water deliveries) or by longer-term reductions in fire damage risk (installation of fire-suppression infrastructure)?
Different metrics and timelines will favor different applicants and projects, making prioritization politically and technically fraught. Coordination across agencies — State Fire Marshal, CalFire, local governments, and DWR — will be required to confirm hazard designations, align project scopes, and avoid duplicative funding, but the bill leaves those coordination mechanics unspecified.
Finally, small and rural communities often lack grant-writing capacity and the technical expertise to plan capital projects, which risks leaving funding accessible mainly to better-resourced districts. The statute does authorize fish-and-wildlife rescue work alongside human-safety projects; allocating limited appropriations between ecological priorities and household emergency needs will raise difficult and defensible policy choices at the funding stage.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.