Division of Drinking Water staff proposed changing Section 64.310 so the division, not individual community water systems, determines eligibility for disadvantaged-community (DAC) fee reductions.

The proposal, introduced during the State Water Resources Control Board's Drinking Water and Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program stakeholder meeting, would apply only to state-regulated water systems; systems regulated by county agencies would not be eligible for the new DAC fee reduction process, staff said.

Division of Drinking Water staff member (identified in the transcript as Wendy) said, "So, we are proposing a change to Section 64.310, which is the reduction of fees for public water systems." She added the division "will now be determining a water systems [sic] disadvantage fee reduction eligibility" using the division's needs-assessment median household income data and that "there will be an opportunity for water systems who disagree with their disadvantaged community status to petition."

Tracy Lotz of the fee and revenue branch framed the discussion as an early-stage proposal that staff will flesh out as the budget process advances. David Ciccarelli, fee and revenue branch, said the item is a high-level introduction and that staff will provide more details in subsequent meetings.

Staff explained why the proposed change is under consideration: community water systems currently self-certify median household income, a process staff described as occasionally inefficient or unreliable. The division said some systems may be missing out on DAC fee reductions and that a division-led determination would allow staff to verify the reliability of sources used to establish eligibility.

Program staff emphasized the change would not be implemented immediately. Staff said they are still evaluating how many systems would gain or lose DAC eligibility under the new method and that they expect to share estimates at the June stakeholder meeting. When asked how many systems would be newly included or excluded, staff replied, "We'll have those numbers in June in the June workshop" and cautioned those figures will likely be estimates until invoicing and evaluation proceed.

No formal action was taken; the meeting was an informational stakeholder session tied to the state budget timetable. Staff invited written questions and feedback via the posted stakeholder email and said they will return with more developed proposals after the May revise and ahead of the June 10 stakeholder meeting.

The proposal, as described on the record, would: limit the change to state-regulated systems; replace self-certification with division determinations based on needs-assessment median household income data; and create a petition mechanism for systems that dispute their DAC status.