Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Delta Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates accuse board of sidelining Title VI process and curtailing public review of revised Bay‑Delta plan
Summary
An environmental justice and tribal coalition told the board it has minimized Title VI oversight and shortened review timelines for the revised Bay‑Delta plan and related documents, arguing that the board’s schedule and document releases prevent equitable participation from tribes and disadvantaged communities.
Barbara Berrigan, representing an environmental and tribal justice group, told the State Water Resources Control Board on Sept. 16 that the agency has "abdicated" its Title VI investigation and folded unresolved civil‑rights concerns into broader Bay‑Delta planning work. Berrigan said the board removed the Title VI investigation from closed‑session agendas and has not adequately responded to requests for extended public review periods for the revised Bay‑Delta plan and its substitute environmental document.
"The board's abdication of the Title VI process calls into question its seriousness about racial equity and nondiscrimination," Berrigan said. She said the board granted a 19‑day extension for a Sept. 29 deadline that she described as “untenable” given the release of significant new materials, including two proposed voluntary agreements, more than 400 pages of analysis and 1.7 gigabytes of underlying data since the board released the revised plan on July 24.
Berrigan urged the board to circulate a substitute environmental document for the significantly revised plan, to extend comment timelines so tribes and environmental justice communities can meaningfully participate, and to respond to prior public comments on the original draft Bay‑Delta plan and staff reports.
Chair Joaquin Esquivel responded that the board is "in a complicated space" and that it has been attempting to incorporate tribal beneficial uses into its drafts. He explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is primarily a disclosure statute and that the board's authorities under the Porter‑Cologne Water Quality Control Act are where balancing and designations (including tribal beneficial uses) take place. Esquivel said the board is taking requests seriously and "taking into deep consideration" the extension and participation concerns while noting that some deliberations have occurred confidentially.
Why it matters: Title VI complaints and CEQA timelines determine how and when tribes, tribal communities and disadvantaged populations can review and respond to major revisions of water‑quality plans that govern allocations, beneficial uses and regional operations across the Bay‑Delta watershed.
Details and next steps: Berrigan said affected parties have requested extensions and that the volume of new technical material impedes meaningful review by organizations without the staffing resources of large water districts. The board did not immediately announce a new timeline at the meeting but said staff were considering the submissions and the board’s legal obligations. Berrigan asked whether the board will reform its processes to ensure equity; the board said it would continue discussions and offered to meet with stakeholders outside public forum.
Sources: Public comment by Barbara Berrigan; Chair Joaquin Esquivel’s response at Sept. 16, 2025 State Water Resources Control Board meeting.
