Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Delta Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge stronger flows, warn of rollbacks during Bay‑Delta Plan forum
Summary
At a State Water Resources Control Board public forum, commenters were split: some urged stronger, science‑based flow protections for rivers and the estuary, while others warned of coordinated letters and rollback requests that could reduce the regulatory baseline for the Bay‑Delta Plan.
During public forum at the State Water Resources Control Board meeting on Feb. 18, a series of commenters addressed the Bay‑Delta Plan update and related voluntary agreements (VAs), offering sharply different views on science, equity, and political risk.
Several speakers urged strong, science‑based flow protections. Julianne Purcell, who identified herself as a landscape architect, said, "The plan is based on good scientific analysis and facts," and urged the board to include minimum flows she described as necessary to support salmon and healthy rivers. Martin Gothberg also supported the update as a means to restore estuary health and salmon runs.
Other speakers warned that recent letters and requests to the governor and federal agencies seek to roll back regulatory standards and could shrink the regulatory baseline that the board uses to analyze VA benefits. Barry Nelson of the Golden State Salmon Association outlined a set of post‑workshop letters and documents and warned that "between rollbacks and proposed new projects, the VA parties are proposing to take more water out of the [system] than they're proposing to put back." Gary Bobker of Friends of the River and others said the X2 outflow standard has a scientific basis and criticized efforts to re‑characterize that baseline.
Chair Joaquin Esquivel reminded commenters that because the formal Bay‑Delta Plan comment period is closed, remarks made during this public forum will not be part of the administrative record for the plan; he said another public comment opportunity will open with the next draft. Commenters nonetheless used the forum to press the board on questions including: whether VA parties will commit new federal funding (speakers referenced a $740 million figure raised in letters), how rollback requests might affect basin analyses, and whether the board should prioritize unimpaired or stronger flow standards.
Why it matters: Commenters framed the dispute as one between proponents who say updated, science‑based flow requirements are essential to restore fisheries and opponents who say political and regulatory rollbacks will undercut protections. Board staff and members will weigh those perspectives when the board moves to future decision stages and any subsequent official comment periods.
