After years of deliberation, California water officials voted Wednesday to adopt a landmark regulation that will guide water use and conservation in the state for years to come.
,Making conservation a California way of life” The framework will apply to about 400 urban water suppliers and will require them to adopt water-use budgets and meet local conservation targets, among other guidelines. These measures are intended to help preserve supplies Climate change causing hotter and drier conditions,
“As we think colorado river, Gulf Delta“With the majority of the urban supply in our cities and communities coming from stressed watersheds, we need to show — to other states and to ourselves — that we are taking steps to reduce that burden,” said Chairman Joaquin Esquivel during Wednesday’s board meeting. He added that such efforts are needed “especially during times of drought, but also during all water year types to ensure we all continue to have adequate supplies and thriving communities.”
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, environment, health and science.
This framework marks a shift from the one-size-fits-all approach that has governed California’s waters for years, e.g. 25% mandatory statewide water reduction Ordered by Governor Jerry Brown during the drought of 2012 to 2016. The new rules will enable suppliers to evaluate local factors such as climate, population and lot size, and take into account past investments in conservation.
Its approval comes after significant revisions were made based on feedback from local water groups – who said the rules would impose a significant cost burden on some suppliers and customers – and environmental organizations, which said the rules did not go far enough.
“This regulation will be very challenging — it will require a statewide effort to change the way water is used in California,” said Chelsea Haynes, regulatory oversight manager. Association of California Water Agencieswhich represents about 90% of the state’s urban and agricultural suppliers. “This is an unprecedented approach, and it will require a significant amount of funding and technical support.”
ACWA was one of a coalition of industry groups that said the rules would create an unfair cost burden for low-income and disadvantaged suppliers who may have difficulty meeting the new requirements. They said most of the agencies facing the biggest cuts are inland areas and areas that are below the state’s median household income level.
For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has already made significant progress in conservation and will not need to achieve its first reduction, 6%, until 2035. Other areas, such as the city of Bakersfield, will need to achieve a 25% reduction by 2030 to remain in compliance.
Haynes’ concerns echo those of a report published in January by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which criticized an earlier version of the proposal. Expensive, complicated and unrealistic.
In response to that report and complaints from water agencies, the board decided that Relaxing conservation requirementsAmong other changes, the board has reduced the number of suppliers that must reduce water use by more than 20% and extended the overall deadline for water reductions to 2040 — an additional five years.
“In order to do this well and properly — and achieve all of the long-term goals that we really want as a community — the additional five years provided by the State Water Board is really important, and I think it will help us ultimately get a better outcome,” Haynes said before Wednesday’s vote.
Additional drafts of the regulation released in May and June made other incremental changes, including increasing water budgets for existing residential trees as well as the planting of new climate-ready trees. It also expanded alternative compliance pathways for some suppliers facing large reductions, including providing more time to implement plans to meet long-term objectives.
Haynes said she appreciates the board’s willingness to work with water agencies, but she worries the final regulation still won’t be able to meet all the needs of some smaller suppliers.
“The State Water Board has made significant changes to the regulation to help avoid some of these impacts or provide more flexibility to water suppliers, but there will still be a really significant cost impact on some water suppliers in some communities,” he said. “And unfortunately now with budgetThere is no significant financial or technical support available.”
Other groups, however, believe the rules are too lax — especially when the state faces a 10% reduction in water supply by 2040, according to Newsom. Strategies for a hotter, drier future,
“I think it’s a great framework, but I also think we have a lot more opportunities to reduce water use across the state and help our communities prepare for more extreme conditions — more extreme droughts, higher temperatures, all the things we’re already seeing and that are going to get worse,” said Heather Cooley, research director at the Pacific Institute.
The Pacific Institute was among a coalition of environmental groups that expressed disappointment about the final regulation in a letter to the board earlier this week. They say the approved rule is a weaker version of earlier drafts, which set higher goals and stricter deadlines for conservation measures.
“While this regulation could have been an important tool to proactively manage the state’s urban water supply, improve California’s climate resilience, and reduce unnecessary water waste, it falls far short of the goals set forth by the California Legislature and Governor Newsom’s water supply strategy,” the letter states.
Critics said they worried the final draft would leave room for backsliding, or for agencies that meet regional goals to fall short of meeting individual targets established by the state Legislature. They also expressed concern about weak outdoor landscape efficiency standards and potentially uncapped allowances for irrigated lands.
According to their analysis, the combination of all these issues would result in 390,000 acre-feet less water being conserved by 2030 than in earlier drafts. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons.)
Furthermore, the final regulation means that half of the state’s urban water suppliers, serving about 72% of Californians, won’t have to start cutting water use until 2035 — that’s more than a decade from now.
Cooley said cost concerns about small and disadvantaged agencies are valid. But he said conservation is far less expensive than developing new supply, especially when Restrictions on groundwater use And Cutting off imported supplies from the Colorado River It is expected to be implemented soon.
“There will be less supply available in the future, and we have to look at alternatives,” he said. “Conservation and efficiency is the cheapest option available to us. It’s not free … but it’s far less expensive than recycled water, desalination and really most of the other water supply options we have.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, board member Laurel Firestone said she also would have liked to see earlier deadlines for some agencies. She encouraged the board to continue engaging with stakeholders and work to improve data and reporting practices as the rules are implemented.
“I think these standards are achievable,” Firestone said. “But I think no matter what happens, the key thing is going to be the implementation and the learning that we’re doing, especially in the first couple of years.”
Other provisions of the approved regulation include instructions to water agencies to identify and use opportunities to update residential landscapes as soon as possible, as nearly half of the water used outdoors in cities is lost to wind, evaporation or runoff.
It also directs staff to consider affordability and equity when implementing regulations, including by providing assistance to water suppliers that are struggling to meet regulatory obligations, and developing strategies to provide assistance to low-income households.
Suppliers who violate this framework could be prosecuted or fined, but officials said the emphasis would be on progress and compliance. By December 2028, staff will have to make a recommendation to the board on whether to adopt additional policies or guidelines establishing enforcement procedures.
Some concerns remain about the final regulation, but board members and experts said it’s more important to finally get to work and begin implementation. The rules will go into effect by Jan. 1, 2025.
“This is not a perfect regulation — we can never create a perfect regulation — but it is an important regulation,” said board chairman Esquivel. “And it moves us in a direction for the future that we can all be proud of, and it’s nation-leading. Everybody has a lot to be proud of.”
Times staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.
