California water board hears competing views on major water plan update

The Bay-Delta is a watershed that provides drinking and municipal water to some 30 million people, along with irrigation water for 4 million acres.SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — People and agencies facing the effects of proposed changes to a major California water plan spoke in waves Wednesday, making their cases to the state’s water board.The State Water Resources Control Board is proposing amendments to the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality control plan. The plan sets water quality goals for the Bay-Delta, a massive watershed that provides drinking and municipal water to some 30 million people, along with irrigation water for 4 million acres.The law requires periodic updates to the plan, leading to a multiyear process that culminated in a two- to three-day meeting that began Wednesday. The water board did not vote on the proposed changes that day.“That is not a delay,” said E. Joaquin Esquivel, the water board’s chair, of the time and amount of public comment that went into the plan’s development. “It’s the substance of this plan.”A key aspect of the proposed changes offers two pathways for water-rights holders to meet water quality goals: a voluntary agreement path, also called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, and a regulatory path.The voluntary agreement path would let water agencies meet plan requirements through water flows and habitat improvements. Agencies would use projects to improve flows and restore floodplains, giving them more flexibility in required water diversions.The regulatory path would require a minimum level of unimpaired flows year-round, subject to water conditions.Many people who spoke to the water board Wednesday wanted changes to the proposed plan.Luz Gómez, president of the East Bay Municipal Water District, told the board she favored the voluntary agreement path. Her district receives the vast majority of its water from the Mokelumne River and has worked on projects to enhance salmon spawning habitat. The river accounts for 40% of commercial salmon catch in some years.The regulatory path could harm fisheries, she added. Agencies without an approved voluntary agreement would be required to follow the regulatory path.Derrick Lum, with the Solano Irrigation District, also favored the voluntary agreement path for his agency.“I’d like to see that get over the finish line,” he added.Lum argued that providing unimpeded flows works only when Monticello Dam is full. He asked that his county face no requirement to provide unimpeded flows.Napa Mayor Scott Sedgley said his agricultural community needs reliable water supplies and that the regulatory path would constrain it. He argued the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program and reliable water supplies should not be competing goals.Chris Anderson, with the state Chamber of Commerce, said he supported the voluntary agreement path, though he emphasized the need for accountability.“Obviously, this pathway only succeeds if the parties believe it’s implementable,” he added.Several independent speakers, as well as tribal members, pushed back against voluntary agreements during public comment.Wes Chuang said the public could not comment when water agencies use voluntary agreements under the plan. Norma Wallace, who said she spoke for the salmon, argued that voluntary agreements would perpetuate the status quo.“The status quo is driving the salmon to extinction,” she added.Martha Krieger, with the Sierra Club, also pointed to the status quo in her statement. She said voluntary agreements would lead to the extinction of species and the destruction of the fishing industry. Instead, the board should base its plan on science and unimpeded flows.“They shouldn’t be based on political pressure or wishful thinking,” Krieger said.Some tribal members also opposed allowing voluntary agreements under the plan.Kasil Willie, with Save California Salmon, said tribes had worked with the water board for years, though trust had deteriorated over time. Allowing voluntary agreements would further erode that trust, she said.“Tribes were excluded from the creation of voluntary agreements,” she added.Brian Wallace, with Indigenous Futures Society, asked the board to take three actions: release interagency records reflecting the scientific basis for the proposed changes, conduct government-to-government consultation with tribes before approving the plan and give tribes a role in monitoring voluntary agreements.Esquivel said no scientific information had been kept hidden during the development of the proposed changes.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads