California Water Action Plan

California Water Action Plan
Name	California Water Action Plan
Jurisdiction	California
Formed	2014
Parent department	California Natural Resources Agency

California Water Action Plan The California Water Action Plan is a statewide initiative launched in 2014 to address water supply, quality, and ecosystem resilience across California. It was announced by then-Governor Jerry Brown and coordinated among agencies including the California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Water Resources. The plan responds to drought conditions evident during the 2010s and builds upon prior policy frameworks such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

Background and Development

The plan emerged amid severe droughts that affected Central Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Los Angeles water users during the 2012–2016 drought, intersecting with actions by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, State Water Resources Control Board, and regional agencies like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Influences included litigation such as Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne-era water disputes, endangered species protections under the Endangered Species Act, and recommendations from commissions including the Delta Stewardship Council and the California Water Commission. Stakeholders ranged from agricultural interests represented by the California Farm Bureau Federation to environmental groups like the Sierra Club and tribal governments including the Yurok Tribe.

Goals and Objectives

The plan set multi-pronged goals emphasizing sustainable supply, ecosystem restoration, and improved water quality across regions such as the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and the Salton Sea. Objectives included enhancing groundwater recharge consistent with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act timelines, expanding water storage proposals akin to projects debated by the California Water Commission, and modernizing conveyance where relevant to discussions involving the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. It sought to integrate protections for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, habitat goals advanced by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and flood risk reduction measures similar to work by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in collaboration with local governments like the County of Sacramento.

Key Programs and Initiatives

Programs highlighted conjunctive use and recharge partnerships with agencies such as the United States Geological Survey, pilot projects funded through the California Natural Resources Agency grants, and restoration efforts in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River corridors. Initiatives included urban water conservation measures promoted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the City of San Diego, investment in recycled water programs aligned with projects by the Orange County Water District, and habitat restoration contracts with NGOs including The Nature Conservancy and Audubon California. The plan referenced collaboration with academic institutions such as the University of California, Davis, Stanford University, and California State University, Sacramento on hydrologic modeling and climate adaptation research influenced by reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Implementation and Funding

Implementation relied on interagency coordination among the California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Water Resources, and federal partners including the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Funding streams combined state bonds approved in measures like Proposition 1 with allocations via the California Climate Investment framework and grants administered by the California Water Commission. Private-public partnerships involved utilities such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District and investor-owned companies like Pacific Gas and Electric Company when infrastructure interfaces were involved. The plan also mobilized funds connected to litigation settlements resembling provisions seen in actions by NRDC-related consent decrees.

Impacts and Outcomes

Reported outcomes included expanded groundwater recharge projects in regions across the Central Valley, increased urban conservation in metropolitan areas including San Francisco and Los Angeles, and investments in habitat restoration in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Measurable results tied to monitoring by the State Water Resources Control Board and research from University of California campuses documented shifts in water use patterns similar to trends reported during post-drought recovery phases. The plan influenced subsequent policy instruments such as updates to California's Climate Change Scoping Plan and regulatory adjustments by the California Public Utilities Commission concerning water-energy nexus planning.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics from agricultural coalitions like the California Farm Bureau Federation and some county supervisors in Fresno County argued that elements of the plan risked economic impacts to irrigated agriculture and local water rights defended in cases before the California Supreme Court. Environmental advocates including Defenders of Wildlife pointed to perceived shortfalls in enforcement and slow progress in Delta ecosystem recovery, while civil rights and community groups expressed concerns about equitable distribution affecting communities served by districts such as the Imperial Irrigation District and neighborhoods in Riverside County. Debates also involved federal-state tensions with the United States Environmental Protection Agency over water quality standards and litigation brought by tribes asserting treaty rights analogous to disputes seen in other water settlements.

Category:Water management in California