For some, it’s a solution to ensure reliable water for millions of Californians while protecting fish and the environment. For others, it’s a travesty that will deprive the state’s rivers of vital water and push its declining native fish closer to extinction.

A controversial plan that dramatically changes how the state governs the pumping of water out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta — the heart of the state water system — was adopted by California regulators late Thursday after two days of debate involving more than 200 people.

The plan adopted by the five-member State Water Resources Control Board breaks from the traditional approach of requiring all water agencies to limit pumping to maintain required minimum levels of water in rivers and the estuary. Instead, it allows agencies the option of negotiated deals in which they commit to ensuring certain river flows for the environment and contribute funds for projects that restore habitat for fish in the Delta.

Dozens of local water agencies have signed these so-called voluntary agreements and have begun investing in projects to restore wetlands and floodplains along rivers. This approach, which state officials call the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, was endorsed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and supported by water agencies that serve farms and cities, as well as business groups.

“This is a paradigm shift,” California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot told the board during Thursday’s hearing. “This is the most durable, balanced way to meet the moment of what we have to do, which is restore environmental conditions in a way that protects water security for California communities.”

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water for 19 million people, also supported the plan for the Delta and San Francisco Bay.

Nina Hawk, the district’s chief of Bay-Delta resources, called it “a landmark achievement in moving towards collaborative, science-based decision making to provide reliable water for California’s people, businesses and wildlife.”

Environmental activists, fishing advocates and Native leaders strongly criticized the plan, saying it will allow cities and farms to take far too much water out of the Delta. They argued it will devastate threatened and endangered fish, including Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt and Delta smelt.

Jon Rosenfield, science director of the nonprofit group San Francisco Baykeeper, called it “an extinction plan.”

Barry Nelson, of the Golden State Salmon Assn., called it “a scam” that will “make the Bay-Delta ecosystem worse, less healthy.”

Malissa Tayaba, vice chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, told the board members: “You are on the wrong side of history, and we will prevail.”

A large majority of those who spoke at the meeting in Sacramento opposed the voluntary agreements.

But the board voted 4-1 to adopt the plan.

Board Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel called it a “modernized regulatory approach” and a “generational shift that is long overdue in the way we manage the Bay-Delta.”

Board member Nichole Morgan, who grew up fishing in the Delta, cast the sole “no” vote.

The Delta provides water for nearly 30 million people and 4 million acres of farmland. As the state has relied heavily on its water, the ecosystem has suffered, and fish populations have declined. During droughts, algae blooms have turned waterways bright green.

State officials said it’s important to take a different approach as climate change compounds the pressures on the state’s water system.

They said water agencies have committed under the agreements to carry out restoration work on about 20,000 acres of floodplain habitat as well as more than 5,000 acres of tidal wetlands. Agencies have pledged $2.9 billion under the program, and much of the funds will go toward restoring aquatic habitat for fish, officials said.

Although many water agencies support the plan, some have raised objections. The Trump administration, which manages one of the state’s two main water systems, said last month that the plan will shortchange farmers by restricting how much water is pumped. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said unless the plan is changed, it won’t participate. That puts in doubt hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

And Westlands Water District, the largest irrigation authority in the Central Valley, also said it plans to pull out of the program, arguing it abandons key parts of agreements negotiated with the state in 2022.

The update of the Bay-Delta plan has been years in the making.

The last substantial changes to the plan date back to 1995 for much of the watershed. The update approved Thursday sets rules for the Sacramento River and the rest of the Delta, where pumps operated by state and federal agencies send water flowing in aqueducts to farms and cities.

The eight-year plan, which takes effect next year, calls for the board to review the efforts annually based on scientific analyses. If the more collaborative approach falters and a water agency fails to meet commitments, regulators still have the option of putting it back under the traditional regulations.

Environmental advocates criticized what they described as backroom deals intended to help powerful water suppliers and farming companies.

Several speakers noted that while fish species are declining dramatically, about 80% of the water that’s diverted and pumped in California is used for agriculture, and vast quantities of almonds and pistachios are being shipped overseas.

The plan is aimed at “maintaining as much irrigated agriculture as possible,” Max Gomberg, of the nonprofit California Water Impact Network, told the board. “You are choosing personal ambition over professional integrity and subservience over leadership.”

The board’s members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Their endorsement of the Bay-Delta plan completes one of Newsom’s water policy priorities.

During his two terms, Newsom has also pushed for major new projects including the construction of a proposed 45-mile water tunnel beneath the Delta and Sites Reservoir northwest of Sacramento.

Some who spoke at the meeting criticized the Newsom administration over a recent$180-million deal to secure water from a Northern California farm to help fish and the environment, saying it was a bad deal for taxpayers.

Others said the state, by negotiating deals behind closed doors, had excluded Native tribes.

Esquivel pointed out that the plan recognizes tribes’ use of water and calls for a tribal advisory committee. He said, unlike in past years, the board has made sure to hear from tribal members.

But Emoni Durham, a Native student, took issue with that.

“You pump water out of the rivers to put in reservoirs so that these farmers have water in the desert,” she said. “You’re more concerned about politics than the livelihood of the tribal people who actually know how to take care of this land.”

At another point in the meeting, Esquivel told leaders of water agencies: “Your commitments are the fastest route to real gains in these rivers. Help us prove it.”

He said the measure of the plan’s success “will be how these rivers and our incredible estuary look in the years ahead.”

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.