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. The rule is in Title 22, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (22 CCR § 64481). Every CCR must include information in Spanish about the importance of the report, or a phone number or address where Spanish-speaking residents can get a translated copy or help in Spanish. For each other non-English-speaking group that exceeds 1,000 residents or 10 percent of the residents in a community, the report must carry the same information in that language. That threshold applies to each language group independently. A community where 900 Vietnamese speakers make up 12% of residents needs Vietnamese-language information even though the 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 rule names only Spanish. Every other language is triggered by the 1,000-or-10% test, which 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 of 6 µg/L. There is no federal perchlorate MCL yet: EPA proposed one in January 2026, with options of 20, 40, or 80 µg/L, and must issue a final rule by May 21, 2027. 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.

That October 1 date comes from Title 22, which allows 3 months after the July 1 delivery deadline, the same window the federal rule allowed before 2027. Starting with reports due in 2027, the revised federal rule requires the copy of the report and the certification no later than 10 days after the required delivery date, which is July 11. Both rules apply to California systems, so the earlier federal date is the one to plan around until Title 22 is updated.

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. The December 31 delivery is the same report distributed again to all customers; if the system had a violation or action level exceedance between January 1 and June 30, or received results from required unregulated contaminant monitoring, it must add a 6-month update covering that information. California systems at that size will also need a certification process for the December 31 delivery.

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. The CCR due July 1, 2027 covers 2026 monitoring, so its lead results are measured against the 15 µg/L action level in force when those samples were taken. The 10 µg/L level applies once a report covers monitoring done under the LCRI.

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).