Letter from Sacramento: California’s Muddy Water Policy: Part 1

This is the first in a two-part series around California water. This month I’ll detail the mechanisms by which the Newsom Administration is trying to divert more water from the San Francisco Bay-Delta: negotiated backroom deals known as “voluntary agreements.” Next month, I’ll discuss why the state is doing this: securing water for two bad water projects. I’ll also highlight how you can get involved in pushing back on these harmful projects. 

Since the day he was elected in 2018, the Governor’s water policy has been…muddy. 

On that day, as lieutenant governor, he signed onto a letter with then-Governor Brown, instructing the State Water Board chair to postpone a public hearing set for the very next day about new water rules affecting rivers that flow into the San Francisco Bay-Delta.

The Bay-Delta spans about 1,100 square miles where the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems meet the San Francisco Bay complex. It’s the largest estuary on the west coast of North America and boasts about 750 different wildlife and plant species, including salmon.

Those rules were backed by environmentalists and supported by science. But big water contractors wanted out of the rules and suggested a voluntary agreement (VA) approach - an approach Sierra Club California and other environmental and EJ groups have criticized time and time again.

VAs are not effective measures to develop and/or implement water quality, flow standards, or habitat requirements. These likely-unenforceable agreements between state agencies and water suppliers only serve to benefit those water agencies and, ultimately, the interests they serve (primarily large agricultural businesses). Historically, only legal and regulatory action under long-time state and federal environmental and conservation laws have provided enforceable standards and protected California’s fish and wildlife, public health, and other public trust resources.

Even then, since 2018, the Newsom Administration has continuously stalled the development and implementation of the regulatory process that would provide the key protective measures for the Bay-Delta in an effort to further VAs. Every few months, the administration and water agencies propose a framework that fails to protect the Bay-Delta’s ecosystem, and the communities that depend on that ecosystem. 

Late last month, the Newsom administration announced the latest in this never ending saga. The admin announced it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding that will be the framework of a proposed VA deal. Like earlier announcements, this new VA deal was the result of backroom negotiations that included only water agencies, federal agencies, and the state. No other stakeholders - Native American Tribes, salmon fishermen, conservation groups, environmental justice advocates, or Delta communities - were invited to the table to discuss this MOU despite California’s water policy affecting all of us. Sierra Club California and our allies sent a letter to the governor decrying the exclusionary practices of VA negotiators back in 2021. It’s now clear the state refuses to change course. 

Not only is the process behind  the development of this new agreement bad, the agreement itself contradicts the current scientific consensus around water issues and ecosystems. 

The new VA deal uses a weak baseline of how much water should be left in the environment established by Trump administration officials back in 2019. These rules - known as biological opinions - were promulgated by the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service and increase water diversions, as well as  weaken or eliminate protections for salmon and other endangered species.

The rules are currently being actively challenged in court by the California government, fishing groups, and environmentalists. To use these rules as a baseline standard for the amount of water flowing into the Delta means that the state isn’t serious about providing the necessary amount of water for the environment of Delta communities. 

Who’s funding this, you ask? Taxpayers. When it comes to costs for the VA, federal and state taxpayers will bear the brunt of the bill for the voluntary agreement – not the water districts that actually signed the MOU.

It’s clear that California’s water management is in crisis. But this crisis presents the opportunity to push our officials to implement sound water management that doesn’t require large diversions from our already strained ecosystems. Thanks to a recent report from the Pacific Institute, we have some recommendations on how to do that. 

In their new report titled “The Untapped Potential of California’s Urban Water Supply,” the Pacific Institute examines the potential to reduce urban water use by implementing specific efficiency measures, while expanding local water supplies through water reuse and stormwater capture approaches. Together, these strategies can reduce the gap between water supply and use, providing effective drought responses in the near-term and permanent improvements in water-supply reliability in the longer-term. 

Why does this matter? Some of the signatories to the VAs include urban water agencies and wholesalers, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). A behemoth in California water policy, MWD has spent decades trying to get more water from the Bay-Delta. 

While the report doesn’t detail the measures the agricultural industry should take to lessen its water use, the report’s detailed analysis and recommendations for urban water use are just as important.

Adopting the Pacific Institute’s recommendations has the potential to reduce urban water use in California by between 2 and 3.1 million acre-feet of water per year, unlocking that water supply for other needs such as increasing flows through the Bay Delta and its tributaries.

The South Coast alone, which includes areas served by MWD, has the highest total water savings potential of any region in California. Water efficiency measures there could save between 1.1 and 1.7 million acre-feet of water annually. These measures include actions like installation of efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances, conversion to climate appropriate landscaping, irrigation efficiency, and fixing leaks in the water distribution system. Water reuse and stormwater capture alternatives could also result in savings upwards of 1 million acre-feet per year each in the South Coast region. 

Adopting any of these three methodologies in the South Coast region alone would provide greater reduction in water consumption than would be required under the recent MOU. 

If the state is to get serious about environmentally beneficial water management, The Pacific Institute report details some of the actions necessary. I urge Governor Newsom to take a long and hard look. 

Now that you know how the state has managed to manage California’s water systems horribly, stay tuned for part 2 next month which will detail the “why” part of the state's actions (spoiler: they’re trying to destroy Northern California and the Delta’s physical environment). 

Till then, stay safe! 

Sincerely,