California regulators have adopted a controversial plan that significantly alters how the state governs water pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the heart of the state's water system. The new approach, endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom and supported by water agencies serving farms and cities, replaces the traditional requirement for all water agencies to limit pumping to maintain minimum river flows with voluntary agreements. These agreements commit agencies to ensuring specific river flows for environmental protection and funding habitat restoration projects for fish. The State Water Resources Control Board voted 4-1 to approve the plan, with Board Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel calling it a 'modernized regulatory approach' and a 'generational shift' in water management. Environmental groups, fishing advocates, and Native leaders strongly criticized the plan, arguing it will allow excessive water extraction that could devastate endangered fish species including Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Delta smelt. They labeled it an 'extinction plan' and a 'scam' that will worsen the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The plan has faced opposition from the Trump administration and Westlands Water District, which claims it restricts water pumping for farmers and may withhold federal funding. Despite criticism, the plan includes commitments to restore 20,000 acres of floodplain habitat and 5,000 acres of tidal wetlands, with $2.9 billion pledged for habitat restoration. The board will annually review the plan's effectiveness through scientific analysis, with the option to revert to traditional regulations if commitments are not met. The adoption of this plan completes one of Governor Newsom's key water policy priorities, following years of development and previous updates dating back to 1995. The plan also comes amid criticism of a recent $180 million deal to secure water from a Northern California farm, which environmental advocates called a 'really bad investment' for taxpayers. Native tribes were also excluded from decision-making processes, with tribal leaders criticizing the lack of meaningful consultation.

California regulators have adopted a controversial plan that significantly alters how the state governs water pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the heart of the state's water system. The new approach, endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom and supported by water agencies serving farms and cities, replaces the traditional requirement for all water agencies to limit pumping to maintain minimum river flows with voluntary agreements. These agreements commit agencies to ensuring specific river flows for environmental protection and funding habitat restoration projects for fish. The State Water Resources Control Board voted 4-1 to approve the plan, with Board Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel calling it a 'modernized regulatory approach' and a 'generational shift' in water management. Environmental groups, fishing advocates, and Native leaders strongly criticized the plan, arguing it will allow excessive water extraction that could devastate endangered fish species including Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Delta smelt. They labeled it an 'extinction plan' and a 'scam' that will worsen the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The plan has faced opposition from the Trump administration and Westlands Water District, which claims it restricts water pumping for farmers and may withhold federal funding. Despite criticism, the plan includes commitments to restore 20,000 acres of floodplain habitat and 5,000 acres of tidal wetlands, with $2.9 billion pledged for habitat restoration. The board will annually review the plan's effectiveness through scientific analysis, with the option to revert to traditional regulations if commitments are not met. The adoption of this plan completes one of Governor Newsom's key water policy priorities, following years of development and previous updates dating back to 1995. The plan also comes amid criticism of a recent $180 million deal to secure water from a Northern California farm, which environmental advocates called a 'really bad investment' for taxpayers. Native tribes were also excluded from decision-making processes, with tribal leaders criticizing the lack of meaningful consultation.