The Brief

After decades of deterioration and ecological collapse in the heart of California’s water system, state regulators this week embraced the Newsom administration’s controversial plan to overhaul how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it.

It’s a major development in a long-running battle over how much water must flow through the Delta for the survival of iconic Chinook salmon, sturgeon and other species — and how much can be tapped for tens of millions of Californians and vast tracts of Central Valley farmland.

On one side are conservationists, the fishing industry, Delta communities and Native tribes: They want stringent rules requiring cities and farms to take less water from the imperiled watershed.

On the other are Gov. Gavin Newsom, major urban and agricultural water suppliers, and the state and federal agencies tasked with exporting Delta water to farms and cities further south. They back a $2.9 billion pact reached three years ago that would allow water users to help restore fish habitat and forgo some water, rather than face strict requirements mandating how much water must remain in the rivers.

Today, staff with the State Water Resources Control Board threw their support behind the pact as the major path forward in a long-awaited update they released today. Next comes a period of public comment and hearings before the water board’s five governor-appointed members will consider adopting the plan.

The pact, backed by $1.5 billion in state funding, is called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program but better known as the “voluntary agreements.” Under today’s plan, if adopted, those who don’t sign on to the deal would face minimum flow requirements, which the water board may also consider adopting if the voluntary agreements fail to show “sufficient benefits” at the end of an eight year term.

The stakes are high for revamping the Delta’s rulebook as fish populations plummet, commercial salmon fishing faces an unprecedented third year of shutdowns, and farmers struggle with unpredictable water supplies and restrictions on groundwater pumping.

Participants in the deal — including Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest agricultural supplier — say the Newsom-backed voluntary agreements will keep water flowing for farms and cities, and promote restoration of floodplains and other river features.

“It's a false narrative that it's people in cities, against agriculture, against fish. I think we as Californians need all of that to be able to function,” said Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands Water District. “We can actually maintain water delivery for our cities and our farms, but we can actually also be pretty thoughtful for our ecological systems.”

But opponents are dismayed. They say that the voluntary agreements provide too little water and too little habitat to protect the fragile Delta ecosystem and the fish, industries and residents that rely on it.

“This latest plan is a shocking display of cowardice,” said Jon Rosenfield, science director of San Francisco Baykeeper.

“Even if the pledged water is delivered as promised, which is a big if, it barely moves the needle on the lack of adequate flows for fish, wildlife, fisheries and the communities that depend on those things,” Rosenfield said.

Newsom also said today that he intended to use the budget process to push through a bill that would waive requirements under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act for water quality control plans like this one. Lawmakers punted on Newsom’s bill earlier this summer during the thick of budget negotiations, but could still take it up before the end of session.

Environmental groups fear that, if the bill passes, it could limit disclosures about how the plan would affect the Bay-Delta, and their ability to sue.

Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, said the exemption is “bordering on undemocratic because you are cutting out the public in an important process … For the Bay-Delta, that is particularly important.”

Rosenfield added: “If it’s such a great plan, why would you want to hide the results from the public?”

Epicenter of water wars

California’s Bay-Delta has long been the epicenter of the state’s water wars. The watershed, formed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, stretches from about Fresno to beyond the Oregon border and drains about 40% of California.

It’s the core of the state’s water supply, supports much of the state’s imperiled commercial salmon fishery, and is home to hundreds of native plant and animal species.

For years, state regulators have warned that the Delta is experiencing an “ecological crisis” with a “prolonged and precipitous decline in numerous native species,” including endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the tiny Delta smelt.

Current requirements have “failed to protect fish and wildlife” and must be updated “in an expedited manner to halt and reverse the ecosystem collapse,” according to a 2017 fact sheet from the water board.

But the rulebook hasn’t been meaningfully updated in 30 years. State regulators adopted new flow requirements in 2018 for portions of the Lower San Joaquin River and its major tributaries, but they have been tied up by litigation and, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, by “consideration of (voluntary agreements).” They have not yet been implemented.

Now, regulators are considering updates for the rest of the watershed. This much larger portion includes the Sacramento River and its tributaries as well as the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne Rivers and the San Francisco Bay-Delta.

Newsom has long pushed for a deal with water-users over mandates.

“Our first task is to cross the finish line on real agreements to save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta,” he said in his first State of the State address. “We must get this done — for the resilience of our mighty rivers, the stability of our agriculture sector, and the millions who depend on this water every day.”

An aerial view of the California Department of Water Resources’ bioacoustic fish fence installed at the junction of the Sacramento River, right, and Georgiana Slough at Walnut Grove in Sacramento County on Nov, 30, 2023.

(

Xavier Mascareñas

/

California Department of Water Resources

)

State officials say that they expect this approach will engender more cooperation and avoid lawsuits that could delay action.

“Sometimes people say, ‘Well, isn't it just politics and not science that's driving this?’” Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary of Natural Resources, which supports the agreements, told CalMatters in April 2024 before a series of workshops about the agreements. “And I say, ‘Well, ultimately, in California water, the decisions are often validated through legal challenge.’”

The voluntary agreements are the culmination of years of negotiations with powerful urban and agricultural suppliers such as the Westlands Water District and the agencies that make up the State Water Contractors. Though called “voluntary,” water board executive director Eric Oppenheimer says they would still be legally enforceable.

The proposal meters out an average of up to 700,000 acre-feet of water in certain years, according to state officials — enough to supply up to 2.5 million households for a year.

The amount varies, though depending on how wet or dry the year. Water users have not committed to leaving any additional water in several rivers including the Sacramento, Yuba, and Feather in critically dry years.  

It also calls for restoration of around 45,000 acres of spawning, rearing and floodplain habitats, backed by about $1.5 billion in state funding, $600 million from the water providers, and $740 million expected from federal funds, according to Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors.

By also promoting habitat restoration under the voluntary agreements, “we think we can achieve significant ecosystem improvements, and we think it can be done with a lower water supply impact,” said Eric Oppenheimer, executive director of the State Water Resources Control Board.

But, he said, at the end of eight years, if the “board made a determination that the voluntary agreement pathway wasn't achieving sufficient benefits, it could then start a process to shift over to the regulatory pathway.”

The regulatory pathway, by contrast, calls for maintaining flows of 35% to 55% of the amount of water that the rivers would have carried were they not dammed or diverted — an amount called unimpaired flow. For some, rain-fed tributaries that provide municipal supplies, there would be no flow requirement at all in the driest conditions.

Water suppliers say such mandates would strike a major blow to their ability to provide water for cities and farms, and touted the habitat projects supported by the voluntary agreements.

“We're talking … about significant reductions in delivery to the San Joaquin Valley during dry years,” Pierre said. “I would never argue that fish don't need water. They of course do. But in that water are things like refuge and food and adequate temperatures that are really being promoted.”

Like a fish needs water

Opponents, however, say there is far too little water provided in the voluntary agreements, and that the updated flow requirements are also far weaker than previous proposals.

State officials did not provide a comparison between the two pathways. Oppenheimer said that the comparison is not “apples to apples” because of the inclusion of habitat restoration efforts under the voluntary agreements.

“I know everybody wants to know how the two compare when you compare flow. But you know, from my perspective, it's not a valid comparison,” he said. “There is no translation between habitat and water.”

That, environmentalists say, is the problem. Fish habitat, they say, needs to be wet.

“For fish, flow is the habitat. There is no evidence that restoring floodplains or tidal marshes, in the absence of adequate flow, produces any benefit,” Rosenfield said.

Conservationists and fishing organizations also fear that the voluntary agreements would pave the way for more water to be diverted from the Delta by future water projects such as Sites Reservoir and the deeply controversial Delta tunnel.

A state analysis, published in 2023, reported that without additional protections, “existing flows may be reduced in the future, particularly with climate change and additional water development.”

Opponents have also warned that thousands of acres of the habitat restoration promised under the voluntary agreements are already in the works, which they say reduces how much the deal would benefit fish species. (Pierre counters that this is a plus of the agreements, and reflects early action during negotiations.)

And critics say that the voluntary agreements require money and cooperation from a federal government that has slashed environmental programs and called for “Putting People over Fish” in a memorandum issued on President Trump’s first day in office.

"This is a sad day for the State Water Board and one more on a long list of bad days for salmon,” Scott Artis, executive director, Golden State Salmon Association, said in a statement. “Commercial fishing in California has been closed for three years because of unsustainable water diversions. This looks like a plan to kill California’s most important wild salmon runs and fishing jobs.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.