California CCR Requirements

California community water systems follow the same federal Consumer Confidence Report framework as every other state — but California adds a second layer of obligations under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, including mandatory disclosure of Public Health Goals, stricter language thresholds than the federal baseline, and contaminant-specific rules for hexavalent chromium and PFAS that predate or go beyond federal requirements. Understanding both layers is what separates a compliant California CCR from one that satisfies only the federal floor.

Who issues a CCR in California

The primacy agency for California drinking water is the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB DDW). For some water systems, a Local Primacy Agency (LPA) — typically a county environmental health department — serves as the direct oversight authority. Either way, the regulatory framework is the same.

California has approximately 3,077 active community water systems (CWS) ranging from small rural districts serving a few hundred connections to large metropolitan agencies serving millions of customers. Every one of them is required to issue an annual Consumer Confidence Report.

Certification of CCR delivery goes to the applicable DDW district office or LPA. The SWRCB DDW publishes guidance, templates, and the electronic Annual Report (eAR) system that systems use to file. The DDW's CCR page at waterboards.ca.gov is the authoritative source for current guidance documents.

California's CCR rule on top of the federal floor

Federal CCR requirements live in 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O, §§ 141.151–141.156. California codifies its parallel CCR rule in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 20 of the California Code of Regulations — primarily at 22 CCR § 64481 (content requirements) and 22 CCR § 64483 (delivery and recordkeeping). The statutory authority is Health & Safety Code § 116470.

Where the federal rule sets a floor, Title 22 typically meets or exceeds it. The key differences:

The Title 22 framework does not replace the federal Subpart O requirements — it extends them. A California CCR must satisfy both sets of rules simultaneously.

Public Health Goals (PHGs)

A Public Health Goal is a California-specific health benchmark. PHGs are set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) under the California Safe Drinking Water Act. OEHHA establishes PHGs based exclusively on public health considerations — no cost or technical feasibility factor is applied. OEHHA maintains the current PHG list.

The difference between a PHG and a Maximum Contaminant Level matters for CCR readers. An MCL is the enforceable standard — the legal ceiling above which a violation occurs. A PHG is the health-based target below which no known or expected health risk exists. Because MCLs must account for treatment feasibility and cost, they are often set substantially higher than the corresponding PHG.

The gap can be large. Arsenic illustrates the point: the federal and California MCL is 10 µg/L, but OEHHA's PHG for arsenic is 0.004 µg/L — based on lung and urinary bladder cancer risk at a de minimis one-in-a-million lifetime exposure level. A system whose water contains 2 µg/L of arsenic is fully compliant with the MCL but detecting arsenic at 500 times the PHG. The CCR is required to show both values so customers can make an informed judgment.

For more on how PHGs are defined and how to read them in your CCR data table, see the PHG glossary entry.

Section 64481 of Title 22 requires every CCR data table to include a PHG column. The table must also include a definition: "The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency." Systems that detect a contaminant but have no corresponding PHG — because OEHHA has not yet set one — leave that column blank or annotate it accordingly.

California language and translation thresholds

The federal CCR rule at 40 CFR § 141.153(h)(3) requires that reports in communities with a "large proportion" of limited-English-proficient consumers include translated content, with "large proportion" determined by the primacy agency. There is no fixed federal numeric threshold.

California sets a specific number. Health & Safety Code § 116470 and the implementing Title 22 rules require CCRs to specify where residents may obtain a Spanish translation or assistance in Spanish, "as well as in other languages where non-English speaking groups exceed 1,000 residents or 10 percent of the residents in a community" — whichever is smaller. That threshold applies to each non-English language group independently. A community where 900 Spanish speakers represent 12% of residents must provide Spanish-language assistance even though the absolute count is below 1,000, because the 10% trigger fires.

This is a meaningful operational difference from the federal default. California water systems in urban areas often serve communities where two, three, or more language groups independently meet the threshold — requiring multilingual notification strategies that go well beyond a single Spanish translation insert.

The language requirement in California has historically highlighted Spanish, Chinese, and Hmong as common languages requiring attention in many parts of the state, though the triggering analysis must be done for each system based on its actual service area demographics.

Separate from the translation content obligation, the federal 2024 CCR Rule revisions require systems serving 100,000 or more persons to develop a formal Limited English Proficiency (LEP) assistance plan, with the first plan due with the first report in 2027. California systems at that size must comply with both the Title 22 translation content requirements and the federal LEP plan requirement.

For a full breakdown of the federal and California translation obligations, see Translation Requirements.

California-specific contaminants of concern

Hexavalent chromium (Cr-6)

California has a state-only MCL for hexavalent chromium as a separate analyte, set at 10 µg/L. The SWRCB adopted this standard in April 2024, with an effective date of October 1, 2024. This was a re-adoption: California had previously set a Cr-6 MCL in 2014, but a 2017 court decision vacated that standard on procedural grounds related to the economic feasibility analysis. The 2024 rule completed a revised economic analysis and re-adopted the limit.

No federal MCL exists for hexavalent chromium as a distinct species. The federal total chromium MCL is 100 µg/L, which applies to all chromium compounds combined. California systems must report Cr-6 separately in their CCRs under the state standard, in addition to any total chromium reporting required federally.

PFAS: notification levels and response levels

California established non-regulatory Notification Levels (NLs) and Response Levels (RLs) for several PFAS compounds before the federal PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulations were finalized in 2024. Notification Levels are health-based advisory concentrations; if detection exceeds an NL substantially, the Division of Drinking Water recommends taking the source out of service. Response Levels are the threshold at which DDW recommends source removal.

Current SWRCB PFAS advisory levels include PFOA at 4.0 ng/L (NL) / 10 ng/L (RL) and PFOS at 4.0 ng/L (NL) / 40 ng/L (RL). These were established before — and are in some cases more stringent than or aligned with — the EPA's April 2024 NPDWR individual MCLs of 4.0 ng/L for both PFOA and PFOS. OEHHA adopted Public Health Goals for PFOA (0.007 ng/L) and PFOS in April 2024; PHG work for additional PFAS is ongoing.

With federal PFAS monitoring complete by April 26, 2027 and public reporting required in 2027 CCRs, California systems will need to satisfy both the federal NPDWR disclosure requirements and any applicable state notification and PHG disclosure requirements in the same document. The federal rule establishes 5 individual MCLs (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA) plus 1 Hazard Index for a mixture of {PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, PFBS}. The California CCR must also include PHG values for any PFAS compounds for which OEHHA has established a PHG.

Perchlorate and Central Valley nitrate

California has a state MCL for perchlorate at 6 µg/L — lower than the EPA's 2024 federal perchlorate MCL of 10 µg/L [VERIFY: EPA 2024 perchlorate NPDWR MCL value]. Systems detecting perchlorate must report it in their CCR data table against the California standard.

Nitrate contamination is elevated in parts of the Central Valley due to agricultural runoff and historical land use. Systems detecting nitrate above the MCL of 10 mg/L as nitrogen must include the infant-formula warning language required by federal regulation: a statement that nitrate at that level can cause "blue baby syndrome" in infants under six months. California systems in nitrate-affected areas should verify their source water assessment and include source contribution information in the CCR.

For lead-specific information, including the new LCRI action level effective November 1, 2027, see Lead and Your CCR.

Deadlines: federal July 1 plus the electronic Annual Report

The federal CCR deadline is July 1 of each year, covering data from the prior calendar year (January 1 through December 31). California does not extend this deadline. The 2025 CCR — covering 2024 water quality data — was due to customers by July 1, 2025, with certification submitted to the DDW district office or LPA by October 1, 2025.

The SWRCB DDW guidance specifies that the certification deadline is October 1, not 10 days post-delivery as required federally. California systems should check whether their LPA applies the 10-day federal window or the state's October 1 deadline — the more conservative of the two applies where both are in force. [VERIFY: confirm whether California's October 1 certification deadline supersedes or coexists with the federal 10-day window; SWRCB guidance says October 1, but 40 CFR § 141.155(d) requires certification within 10 days of delivery.]

Systems serving 10,000 or more persons must deliver the CCR twice per year beginning with reports due in 2027. The second report is due by December 31. Both reports cover the same underlying water quality dataset but must be distributed to all customers. California systems at that size face an October 1 certification deadline for the July 1 report and will need to establish a parallel certification process for the December 31 report when the biannual requirement takes effect.

The electronic Annual Report (eAR) is California's statewide filing system for annual water quality and compliance data. California community water systems submit the eAR to SWRCB DDW each year through the DRINC portal at drinc.ca.gov. The eAR includes CCR-related data — source water information, detected contaminant levels, and CCR certification status. Timely eAR submission is a separate compliance obligation from the customer-facing CCR mailing; systems must satisfy both.

What's changing in 2027 for California systems

The two largest changes affecting California CCRs in 2027 both originate at the federal level:

LCRI compliance — November 1, 2027. The Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), finalized October 8, 2024, lower the lead action level from 15 µg/L to 10 µg/L (0.010 mg/L) beginning November 1, 2027. Systems sampling at lead service line sites must collect paired first-and-fifth-liter samples and use the higher of the two values when determining compliance. This is a material change from prior sampling protocols. CCRs covering 2027 data — due July 1, 2028 — must reflect the new action level in all lead disclosure language. The 2027 CCR (due July 1, 2027, covering 2026 data) is the last one filed under the prior 15 µg/L action level.

PFAS reporting begins. Federal PFAS monitoring must be completed by April 26, 2027. Results must be disclosed in the CCR for the monitoring period. California systems will simultaneously need to ensure their CCR data tables include state PHG values for any PFAS compounds with an established OEHHA PHG.

Mandatory summary section (§ 141.156) — January 1, 2027. The 2024 CCR Rule revisions add a new mandatory summary section at the beginning of every CCR, effective January 1, 2027. The summary must be written in plain language, may use infographics, and must appear prominently at the start of the report.

Biannual delivery for systems serving 10,000 or more. Beginning with 2027 reports, these systems must deliver the CCR twice — once by July 1 and once by December 31. California systems at this size should begin establishing workflows now; the first December 31 delivery for the 2027 report will be the first instance.

For a complete rundown of all federal changes taking effect in 2027 and their operational implications, see What's Changing in 2027.

Templates and tools California systems use

Most California community water systems produce their CCR using one of several approaches: a state-provided template in the DDW guidance package, a word-processing document adapted from prior-year filings, or a third-party service that handles data assembly and formatting.

The DDW publishes annual guidance documents and sample tables to help systems structure their CCRs to meet Title 22 and § 64481 requirements. These templates cover the required contaminant data table columns — including the PHG column — and provide the mandatory health-effects language for regulated contaminants.

For systems looking to automate the process, LevelFlo builds Consumer Confidence Reports for California community water systems — pulling water quality data from the state's electronic Annual Report and producing a finished, Title 22-compliant CCR PDF. Join the waitlist.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-03. Next scheduled review: August 2026 (quarterly cadence per IA Decision 9).