Key player in California’s water wars embraces controversial pact

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.”