Bay-Delta water plan divides tribes, farmers and regulators
California is weighing its first major rewrite of Bay-Delta water rules in decades, considering changes to how much water must remain in rivers and giving regional water agencies a more flexible way to comply with those limits.
On the second day of a three-day State Water Resources Control Board hearing on Thursday, stakeholders fell into three broad camps as they continued to debate how California should manage the Bay-Delta in the years ahead.
They included state officials backing adoption of the plan, environmental and tribal groups seeking stronger protections, and water agencies that welcomed added flexibility but pushed for major changes to the staff proposal.
Critics call for stronger safeguards
During a presentation on Wednesday, board staff walked through the revised draft Bay-Delta Plan released in December.
The Bay-Delta is managed with the state water board setting specific limits for how much water must stay in rivers and what counts as acceptable water quality, and building those limits into permits and orders, leaving water agencies with little room for how they meet those rules.
The proposed plan would instead let water agencies opt into a new program, under which the agencies would follow a negotiated package of timed water releases, habitat restoration work and long-term monitoring, rather than only meeting fixed flow targets through traditional regulations.
With that proposal, agencies that join the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program would have more flexibility in how they meet the state’s requirements for keeping enough water in rivers and protecting water quality.
“I am passionate that this is the pathway to recover fish ... people, tribes, fishermen, all of us who rely on those fisheries,” Wade Crowfoot, California’s Natural Resources secretary, said during Wednesday’s hearing.
Critics, including environmental and tribal groups, as well as commercial and recreational fishing advocates such as John McManus of the Golden State Salmon Association, say the proposal opens the door to weakened enforceable safeguards.
“We need better benchmarks so that if (the plan) fails, you can act expeditiously,” McManus said during public comment on Thursday, urging the State Water Resources Control Board to factor in recent federal changes that allow increased pumping from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta under what is known as Action 5.
With those new federal rules allowing more water to be pumped from the Delta, the conservation group says fish are under even greater strain, arguing the state’s Bay-Delta plan should have simple checkpoints to tighten protections if the voluntary program doesn’t do enough to protect salmon and other struggling fish.
Noting that the advocates are not seeking to end irrigated agriculture, McManus contended that recent salmon rebounds followed wetter years with more water in rivers, not habitat projects.
“We’re losing species. We’ve lost the Delta smelt, long fin smelt are hammered. Salmon runs have gotten hammered, and even our hatchery runs in the Sacramento Valley are negatively affected by flow conditions in the Sacramento River. So we need some help,” McManus added.
The board is not taking any action during this week’s hearing, which concludes Friday. It will accept written comments through Monday and then consider final action on the Bay-Delta update at a later, publicly noticed meeting, Board Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel said.
A day ahead of the hearing, leaders of environmental and tribal groups reiterated their opposition to the proposal, criticizing its reliance on voluntary agreements that they said could benefit water users without meaningful public accountability or tribal consent.
“The proposed update prioritizes water districts and wealthy agricultural interests over the Board’s obligations to uphold the Public Trust Doctrine and protect water quality for the Tribes and communities that depend upon Delta waterways,” Morgen Snyder, director of policy and programs at Restore the Delta said in a statement.
Water agencies back Healthy Rivers but want looser flow rules
For some water agencies, the proposal’s added flexibility under Healthy Rivers and Landscapes was a selling point, but officials also urged changes to key parts of the staff proposal, especially the rules for how much water must stay in rivers.
Multiple local water agency representatives said they support the overall framework of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, but warned that the updated plan’s mandatory unimpaired flow standards could threaten the state’s water supply reliability.
The crux of the issue lies in proposed flow rules that would require up to 55% of the natural water flow remain in the river during winter and spring, rather than being captured and stored in reservoirs.
Andy Fecko, general manager of the Placer County Water Agency, told The Sacramento Bee the proposed flow rules would drain reservoirs too early in the year and increase river temperatures later in the summer, complicating efforts to protect fish and stabilize groundwater supplies.
“Not only does the staff proposal significantly impact Sacramento region’s water supply, but it’s actually detrimental in the long term to threatened species on the lower American River like steelhead and for all salmonoids,” Fecko said.
At Folsom Reservoir, rain and snow typically arrive in winter and early spring, followed by long, hot summers that can last much of the year. The reservoir is designed to capture spring snowmelt and hold that water so it can be used later, including during the hottest months.
Under the state’s proposal, however, Fecko explained, federal operators would be required to pass through roughly 55% of incoming water between January and June instead of storing it — meaning the reservoir would enter summer at a much lower level than usual.
“That significantly lower reservoir then heats up more quickly in the hot summers. By the fall, when salmon are coming into the system, there is no cold water left, because you have less water (at Folsom Reservoir) to start with,” Fecko said.
Simply put, with less water stored, the reservoir loses its ability to stay cool, causing temperatures to rise by late summer. In effect, according to Fecko, releasing more water in winter and spring leaves less water to manage temperatures later in the year, increasing the risk of higher river temperatures when fish are most vulnerable.
Jim Peifer, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Water Authority, agreed, while also pointing out that reduced surface water storage could force water agencies to rely more heavily on groundwater pumping.
“The staff proposal had indicated that there could be an impact of nearly a million acre feet on the groundwater basin in our region,” Peifer said, adding that it would undermine the region’s efforts to adapt to climate change and strengthen long-term water supply reliability.
This story was originally published January 30, 2026 at 9:48 AM.
