Environmental groups and tribal communities submitted written comments to state water regulators this week reiterating that the proposed Bay-Delta water management plan weakens water protections and could open the door to ecosystem disaster.

During a three-day hearing last week, the tribal members warned that the plan would result in “privatizing water, prioritizing corporate profit over people.” In a news release on Tuesday, Gary Mulcahy of the Winnemem Wintu called the California State Water Board “clueless,” and Regina Chichizola, executive director of Save California Salmon, blasted state officials’ move to “advocate for an eight-year experiment that fails to meet water, environmental and aquatic species needs on so many levels as the VAs currently stand.”

The VAs refer to the voluntary agreement pathway, formally called Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, which gives participating water agencies more flexibility in how they meet state water rules.

Right now, the Bay-Delta is governed by a statewide water quality control plan that decides when and how much water can be diverted, and what conditions must be maintained to protect the water’s ecosystems. The plan would give water agencies the option to participate in the voluntary agreement pathway, under which they would commit to a negotiated mix of scheduled flow contributions, habitat restoration projects and ongoing scientific monitoring.

At the same time, it also establishes “unimpaired flow rules,” or limits on how much water can be diverted, that would apply to non-participants and could also take effect if the voluntary program fails to meet its environmental commitments.

“For generations, California built its water system by excluding Tribal Nations — treating our rights as invisible while benefiting from our rivers, our lands, and our stewardship. The Bay-Delta Plan cannot move forward honestly without confronting that legacy,” Frankie Myers, a Yurok tribal member said Tuesday in a news release.

“Reconciliation is not symbolic. It requires the State to acknowledge its history of injustice and take meaningful action to correct a system that has long denied Tribes a rightful seat at the table.”

Why the groups oppose the deal

Tribal, fisheries and environmental groups oppose the voluntary agreements as the primary pathway of the plan. They have described the pathway as handing too much discretion to water agencies and as a “failure” of the regulator to do its job.

Unlike regional water agencies, which have voiced concerns about the flow rules in the plan’s regulatory pathway, the groups strongly prefer firm, enforceable minimum inflows into the Delta, rather than negotiated or flexible ones.

“They use the word ‘experiments’ a lot. The water agencies did when they talked about the voluntary agreement’s approach during the hearing last week,” said Layne Fajeau, an associate organizer at Sierra Club California.

“It would be great if we were at a time where we could experiment with regulation and find out a perfect way to maximize their freedom and ability to find what works for them and is convenient for them with salmon restoration.” Fajeau continued. “But we’re not.”

Fajeau referred to the board’s scientists’ recommendation that 55% unimpaired flows — meaning 55% of the water that would naturally run in the river without dams or diversions stays in the system rather than being stored in reservoirs — is the “absolute minimum” to support salmon recovery.

Stressing that this 55% threshold is what the groups want as the primary pathway, not just as a backstop if the VAs fall short, Fajeau framed the State Water Board’s duty as being a strong regulator on top of water agencies, not deferring to them.

“We need the Delta to have minimum inflows at this point. It’s been pumped dry year after year, after year, and we don’t really trust water agencies to provide and decide upon the convenient water inflows for them to leave in the Delta that will lead to salmon restoration and ecological restoration,” Fajeau said.

The proposal is expected to be revised one final time, followed by a last hearing, and adopted in the fall of 2026.

Environmental group signals legal challenges

Conner Everts, executive director of the Southern California Watershed Alliance, told The Sacramento Bee on Tuesday that neither environmental groups nor tribes were consulted when state officials first rolled out the voluntary agreements back in 2018.

Instead, the VA concept was unveiled at a State Water Board hearing by the heads of the Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife as a done deal, “blindsiding” the environmental advocates and tribal members. His claim aligns with testimonies and written comments from tribal members, who said they were “not consulted or included in the VA process, despite having critical connections with, and rights to, the waters impacted.”

When environmental and tribal groups raised concerns about the cut-off consultation process, Everts said there was no real response from state regulators.

“Eventually, (the plan) would impact other waters, besides the waters in our discussion on the Delta,” Everts said, adding that if the plan continues in its current direction, the Southern California Watershed Alliance will consider legal challenges over violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA.

“We have to. We were left with no other option at this point,” he added.

_____

©2026 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.