State Water Board hears sharply divided views on draft Sacramento Delta updates to Bay Delta Plan

The State Water Resources Control Board held a public workshop on Jan. 23 to receive comments on draft Sacramento Delta updates to the Bay‑Delta Plan, focused on two staff‑described provisions: an in‑stream flow protection approach intended to expand curtailment beyond the State and federal projects during extremely dry conditions, and several options to protect the base upon which Voluntary Agreement (VA) flows are intended to be added from new water supply projects.

Why it matters: these options affect how the board will balance in‑stream flows for fish and wildlife, tribal beneficial uses and public health against water deliveries for cities, farms and other users. They also affect whether the projects will again seek temporary urgency change petitions (TUCPs) in drought years, and whether new water‑supply projects can divert during months and years when VA flows are intended to provide ecological benefits.

Staff presentation and the two options Diane Riddle, assistant deputy director in the board’s Division of Water Rights, introduced the day and said staff would summarize two potential provisions released in the October 2024 draft updates. Jeff Laird, water resources control engineer, and Claudia Bucelli, environmental scientist, described the provisions and related policy questions. Laird summarized the in‑stream flow concept as an alternative to expanding the so‑called term 91 curtailment language: "Building on this concept, additional curtailments would be added during critical water years and declared drought emergencies that would require the bypass of base Delta outflows in order of water right priority, making the base Delta outflows unavailable for diversion." (staff presentation)

On protecting VA flows from diminution by new projects, staff outlined two draft options in the plan: - Option 1: any water right application approved after Jan. 1, 2025 would not be authorized to divert in a way that changes the magnitude or timing of inflows/outflows in Jan.–June unless the Net Delta Outflow Index is at least 42,800 cfs (a threshold staff flagged as the level at which VA benefits would be expected to be preserved in the January–June period). The draft includes de‑minimis exceptions and ties the threshold to scientific analysis in the staff report. - Option 2: newly approved water rights after Jan. 1, 2025 would be subject to the regulatory pathway (tributary inflow and inflow‑based Delta outflow requirements such as an inflow floor expressed as percent of unimpaired flow), rather than being permitted to ride on top of the VA framework.

Department of Water Resources (DWR) alternative: DWR and some VA signatories proposed a different path that relies on a multi‑year science program (including a life‑cycle model focused on longfin smelt) to identify a long‑term flow protection criterion; DWR described a schedule that would produce a model in roughly three years and a flow protection recommendation later in the VA term (the VA term would run eight years with potential extension). DWR presenters said the life‑cycle model would integrate flow, habitat, temperature and other drivers to inform a protection level for baseflows.

Public panels and comment themes The day included four topical panels and extensive public comments. The panels and public comment reflected two broad coalitions: - Environmental/tribal and fishing groups urged the board to reject the VA pathway unless it is accompanied by legally enforceable regulatory safeguards and argued the best current science supports higher unimpaired‑flow targets (many speakers recommended 55%–65% of unimpaired flow or higher). Representatives from the Delta Tribal Environmental Coalition (DTEC) told the board the VAs were negotiated without tribal inclusion and urged formal recognition of tribal beneficial uses in the plan. Several environmental and fishing organizations argued the VA framework risks legal and enforcement gaps and would delay regulatory protections. - State, regional and local water agencies, water contractors and many Bay‑Area and Solano County cities urged the board to retain the Healthy Rivers & Landscapes (HRL) VA pathway as the best practicable route to deliver water and habitat improvements while avoiding near‑term large supply losses. Agencies such as the Association of California Water Agencies and multiple Solano County agencies said the unimpaired‑flow regulatory pathway as drafted could cause severe shortfalls for municipal supplies and local economies and urged careful evaluation, stress tests and, where needed, sequencing to avoid unintended harms to communities.

Science, temperature and drought procedures DWR and other presenters emphasized the role of a more integrated science program. DWR and CDFW staff said longfin smelt currently offers one of the best candidates for an outflow‑based model because its abundance shows a measurable relationship with spring outflow; DWR/CDFW described a multi‑year life‑cycle modeling effort to refine protection criteria. Others—including board members and outside scientists—pressed for better projections of water‑supply impacts, for cold‑water storage strategies and for described operational innovations such as the recently announced "Drought Protection Program" between settlement contractors and Reclamation that would reduce certain contractor deliveries in critical years to protect cold water pools.

Next steps Staff reminded participants of written comment deadlines for the topics discussed: comments on the options described January 30, 2025, and continued staff work and stakeholder working groups starting immediately. Staff and several panelists asked parties to help develop more specific, implementable approaches that the board could evaluate.

Ending: forward path Board members closed by thanking speakers and stressing that both the regulatory backstop and any VA pathway will need more specific, implementable rules and data—on accounting, monitoring, cold‑water storage and how new projects would be treated—before the board could adopt updates. The board will continue staff‑led working sessions before the next public synthesis and consideration of revised regulatory language.