The State Water Resources Control Board (SWB) and its nine regional boards oversee the allocation of the state’s water resources to various entities and for diverse uses, including agricultural irrigation, hydro electrical power generation and municipal water supplies. The board is in the California Environmental Protection Agency and is responsible for safeguarding the cleanliness and purity of Californians’ water for everything from bubble baths to streams and beaches. The State Water Board is a regulatory body which manages water rights and issues permits for the use of water from the state’s lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks, and also monitors water quality and pollution. It does not oversee the rights of underground water supplies; that use is regulated by municipalities and counties. The board is separate from and has different responsibilities than the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which manages state-owned water infrastructure, such as dams, reservoirs and aqueduct. DWR, like any other water user, must apply for water rights permits from the State Water Board.

Who We Are, What We Do (SWRCB website)

The history of water rights and control in California is long and complicated, a result of the state’s unique geography that places the largest population centers in semi-arid climates, separated from major water resources by hundreds of miles and by high-desert. With rich agricultural land competing for those same resources, control over water has historically been an area rife with dissent and political machinations.

In 1913 the state legislature passed the Water Commission Act, assigning to a newly created Water Commission the authority to grant permits and license surface water rights. Later, the Dickey Act of 1949 created a Water Pollution Control Board and divided the state into nine water control regions administered by Regional Water Quality Control Boards.  In 1956, the State Water Rights Board replaced the Water Commission. A separate agency, the Department of Water Resources, was also created and tasked with physically managing the state’s water as part of the State Water Project. The department operates 32 storage facilities, 17 pumping plants, 5 hydroelectric plants, 3 pumping-generating plants, and nearly 700 miles of canals. 

In 1967, the functions of the State Water Rights Board and Water Pollution Control Board were merged into the State Water Resources Control Board. The precedent setting Porter-Cologne Act of 1969 broadened the reach of the board by granting it ultimate authority over water rights and quality, and empowered the board with additional pollution control duties.  The legislation also established the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.  Porter-Cologne is often seen as a model for the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. A 1991 executive order by Gov. Pete Wilson created the state Environmental Protection Agency and placed the Water Resources board within it.

History of the Water Boards (SWRCB website)

The Water Resources Control Board acts through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, each made up of nine members, which develop localized plans that meet the needs of their communities, within the guidelines set by the board. Regional boards have nine members, also appointed by the governor and approved by the state senate. The nine regions are: North Coast, San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Central Valley, Lahontan, Colorado River Basin, Santa Ana and San Diego.

The agency operates in more than two dozen fields, which can be roughly divided into four areas: water rights, water quality, financial assistance and enforcement. The board consists of five members, with expertise in engineering, water quality, water supply, and public advocacy. They serve four-year terms, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate.

Water Rights

At the core of the water board’s power is the granting of licenses or permits to use the state’s water.Under California law, there are essentially two types of water rights, called a dual rights system. The system is a mixture of riparian rights, derived from English common law, and prior appropriation rights, developed in California and Colorado. Riparian rights apply to those who own land that borders a lake, stream, river or other body of water. Owners of such property have an “undiminished, unaltered flow” of the water, and are free to use that water (for beneficial purpose) without applying for a permit or license. These rights are also senior, that is, they have precedence in any legal action regarding the use of the water over secondary or junior rights. 

Appropriative rights are the area in which the board operates. Prior to the creation of the Water Commission in 1914, appropriative rights over water were claimed by posting a public notice and filing a copy of the notice with the local County Recorder.  Those rights and permits are now granted by the board, after applications are filed and reviewed. Applicants must prove that the water would be put to beneficial use, and will maintain quality and pollution standards. In the case of competing interests, the board may conduct hearings or field investigations. At the end of the process, the board will issue or deny a license and either decision is subject to review by the Superior Court.  

Water Quality

The board has primary responsibility for meeting state and federal water quality standards, assesses groundwater quality, permits pollution discharges which may impact ground and surface waters, and investigates and directs the cleanup of contaminated groundwater resources. It performs these tasks through its own offices and in cooperation with the nine regional boards. One key program in this area is the

Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program, a long-term project designed to measure and assess groundwater quality in California.

Financial Assistance

The board provides grants and loans to cities and counties for construction of municipal sewage and water recycling plants, watershed construction and protection projects, pollution control projects (such as beach clean ups), the repair of underground storage tanks, and other areas.

Enforcement

 In 2006 the board created the Office of Enforcement, which is comprised of legal and investigative units. The legal unit assists the board and the nine regions in preparing matters for administrative action or for referral to outside prosecutors and the courts.

The Underground Storage Tanks Enforcement Unit looks into violations of requirements for underground storage units. The Special Investigations Unit assists the board and the nine local regions with inquiries, and investigates operator certification violations. 

California Water Rights Fact Sheet (pdf)

California Code of Regulations Title 23

General Fund support for the Water Resources Board has declined about 66% since fiscal year 2000-2001. For the most part, this does not reflect a drop in reduced activity by the board. Rather, this decline has been largely offset by newly available bond funds and revenues from increased fees. About 4% of the board’s money presently comes from the General Fund.

Of the board’s $828 million in expenses, the largest amounts of money are consumed by three items. Some $356 million is allocated to the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund. The fund is used to reimburse companies for the cost of repairing or replacing leaking petroleum storage units, primarily at gas stations. The problem is widespread enough that in 2009 the board suspended payments to operators, having exhausted its funds. Ironically, much of the problem is the result of the state’s decision to mandate the use of the additive MTBE in gasoline. MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a known carcinogen, was supposed to make gasoline burn more cleanly, but proved to be a corrosive substance that affected rubber fuel lines and plastics, such as the linings used in petroleum storage tanks. And the additive did not biodegrade, but remained intact in groundwater, thus falling under the domain of the board. Years later, the problem persists, according to local news reports.

Grants to communities, school districts, watersheds, flood control projects and other local initiatives account for another $180 million in expenditures. Salaries and benefits for the department add up to $167 million, while nearly three dozen other accounts divide the remaining dollars. 

Other money flows through the board, either on a self-funding basis or a result of federal largesse. For example, the State Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, a fund seeded with federal funds and most recently augmented by funding from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provides low–interest loans to water agencies to improve water treatment and wastewater facilities.

2010-11 Budget Resources and Environmental Protection (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

A quote often attributed to Mark Twain, “whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over,” accurately reflects the combative nature of water use and control in California and the history of the State Water Resources Control Board.

Mono Lake and the Water Wars

The 1974 movie “Chinatown” made famous the Los Angeles water wars by fictionalizing the city’s unquentiable thirst and devious machinations as it plotted to divert water from the Owens Valley, hundreds of miles northeast. The city succeeded in that quest by building the 223-mile Los Angeles Aqueduct between 1905 and 1913. By 1928, Los Angeles owned 90% of the Owens Valley water rights and had already turned “The Switzerland of California” into a desert. Its thirst continued to grow.

In the 1930s, the City of Los Angeles sought new water resources for its growing population and began buying water rights in the Mono Basin, north of Owens Valley. An extension to the Los Angeles Aqueduct was built and by 1941 a series of creeks were diverted to it. The creeks, however, had fed Mono Lake, and by the 1970s the water levels had dropped precipitously.  In 1979 a group called the Mono Lake Committee and the National Audubon Society sued the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, arguing that redirecting the creeks violated the public trust doctrine, which says that navigable bodies of water must be managed for the benefit of all. The lawsuit made its way through the courts over a number of years and in 1984 the California Supreme Court ruled against the city.

Further lawsuits were filed, and the State Water Resources Control Board settled the issue in 1994 after a series of hearings that lasted 44 days.  Board Vice-Chair Marc Del Piero, the sole hearing officer,  established what were called “significant public trust protection and eco-system restoration standards,”  requiring the DWP to release water into Mono Lake to raise the lake level 20 feet above the then-current level of 25 feet, although still below the 1941 level. The board continued to monitor compliance with its ruling and in 1998 ordered the implementation of stream and waterfowl habitat restoration measures that both sides had finally agreed to. As of 2003, the water level in Mono Lake has risen 9 feet.

Political and Legal Chronology (Mono Basin Clearinghouse)

1994 Mono Lake Ruling  (Mono Basin Clearinghouse)

A History (Mono Lake Committee)

Groundwater

Groundwater is the water table located beneath the surface of the ground, sometimes called an aquifer. In dry years, 40% of the California water supply (30% in average year) comes from under ground. At least 43% of people get some of their water from these sources. Although the Water Resources board administers surface water rights (streams, rivers, lakes, etc.) it has no permitting authority over groundwater. In a pair of reports addressing this issue, the Office of the Legislative Analyst pointed out that no one does.  The use of groundwater is assumed to belong to the owner of the property overlying the groundwater basin.

The Water Resources board already has some skin in the game. It monitors groundwater quality, issues permits for pollutant discharges that impact groundwater quality, and oversees and helps fund the cleanup of groundwater contamination. So, the Legislative Analyst recommended that the legislature have both the Water Resources board and the Department of Water Resources develop an appropriate groundwater rights system that maintains as much local control as possible. The Analyst suggested the system be phased in over a 10-year period and that the board eventually manage it.

Improving Management of the State’s Groundwater (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)

Liquid Assets (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Outside the Box

Proposed reforms of government entities often take the form of suggested structural changes of the entity itself. But the Public Policy Institute of California suggests that the Water Resources board has a history of innovation it can tap to bypass institutional barriers and reform itself to accomplish goals not otherwise attainable.

A 2011 report by the institute points out that in the past the board has creatively used its authority under the “reasonable use” provisions of the California constitution and the public trust doctrine to address a number of water problems. For example, the board encouraged water conservation by declaring excess water use to be unreasonable in 1984, regulated federal dams to protect the state's environment in 1978 and engaged in efforts to increase water flows in the Delta in 2001.

The report suggested that even without specific legislative authority it can allow farmers to participate in water markets within or outside a water district, impose conservation standards as a condition of continued appropriation and require use of tiered pricing systems, designed to encourage conservation, as a condition of continued use of an appropriation permit.

Managing California's Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation (Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

The San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta

In November 2009, the state enacted a 5-piece package of water-related legislation meant to transform management of resources in the Northern California delta region. The far-reaching law calls for a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020,  creates a Stewardship Council to develop and manage a Delta plan, and gives new authority and funding to the Water Resources Control board. An $11.1 billion water bond to support the overhaul of the state’s water system was originally slated for the November 2010 ballot, but was moved to November 2012.

The Delta has long been a source of controversy and concern as competing forces try to sustain an ecosystem verging on collapse while diverting water to needy farmers and parched Southern Californians. The 700,000-acre Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast; a fragile home to 750 distinct species of plants and animals. It is also 1,200 miles of navigable waterways with a variety of commercial and recreational uses, and a major source of water for farmers in Central California and urban dwellers further south. It is estimated that 45% of the nation’s fruits and vegetables are grown on land irrigated with Delta water. Various state agencies, including the Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources, are involved in its stewardship.

Years of struggle to conjure up a definitive Delta plan culminated in a joint state/federal program known as CALFED in 2000, which floundered almost immediately. In 2007, matters seemed to come to a head when a U.S. District Court judge ruled Delta smelt and salmon were being jeopardized in violation of federal law and ordered that actions be taken immediately to halt the degradation. With lawsuits flying in state and federal courts, California was faced with the real possibility of losing control of its water resources if it didn’t act decisively.

The 2009 legislation directed the Water Board to come up with “Delta flow” numbers, explicit figures on how much fresh water is needed in the estuary to maintain its viability. The higher the flow, the less water available to ship elsewhere. The board released its report in August 2010 and to no one’s surprise raised the flows significantly. One analysis asserted, “The flow criteria suggest flow rates that would cut in half all water diversions and consumptive uses from the Delta.” 

Its findings and recommendations, which are to be incorporated into a Bay Delta Conservation Plan, were welcomed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "We kept the lawyers away and allowed science to prevail," said EDF’s Cynthia Koehler. “The board's determinations send a strong signal and serve as a foundation to protect the long-term health of the Delta and reverse the decline of its wildlife.”

But the flow numbers were greeted with derision from others.

"The board just put the stake through the heart of the co-equal goals of restoration and water supply as defined by increased exports out of the Delta." – Bill Jennings, executive director, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

"This may be the best way for us to kill the (Bay Delta Conservation Plan) process."  – Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, executive director of Restore the Delta.

"If implemented fully the flow criteria recommended in the Draft Report would - effectively – shut down California. ...Water deliveries north of the Delta, which include diversions under many of the most senior water rights in the Central Valley, would be reduced by 67%.  This would mean that the average water year would now look like 1992, which was a critically dry year and the last year of a six-year drought." – Northern California Water Association.

"The Delta Flow Criteria Report answers the question: If only a few people lived in California and there were no laws, no water rights, no concerns for human health and safety, and no other demands on our water supplies, how much water could be devoted to  ‘desirable fish'? ... In other words, the draft Delta Flow Criteria Report is a purely theoretical exercise with no application in the real world." – San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority.

"The proposed criteria would render California's water system virtually inoperable.”  – Westlands Water District.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is being developed by eight federal and state agencies; including the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Water Resources Board is not one of them. In December 2010, a draft of the plan was released and the Environmental Defense Fund had lost some of its enthusiasm. "This draft lacks fundamental environmental safeguards," says EDF water resource analyst Ann Hayden. Among its concerns was a $12 billion plan to build a tunnel for moving water around the Delta. In general, the EDF felt the plan ignored the board’s  August flow determinations and contradicted the state policy expressed in the November 2009 legislation.

Other environmentalists concurred. "Whether it's the quality of the analysis, or paying attention to the best available scientific information, or facing up to some hard policy choices about the future, the plan simply does not pass the laugh test." – Gary Bobker at the Bay Institute.

“It doesn't represent an agreement among the state agencies let alone among federal agencies, Congress or the California Legislature.” – Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council.

If and when a plan is agreed upon, its implementation will be overseen by the Water Resources Board through the newly-mandated Delta watermaster. The board appointed attorney Craig M. Wilson, its chief counsel from 2000-2005, to the position in July 2010. Not everyone is happy with the selection. “The Delta watermaster is tasked with essentially harassing long-standing senior-water-rights holders in the Delta whose rights go back, in many cases, 130 years,” said Carolee Krieger, president of the California Water Impact Network. "Corporate agribusiness, with junior water rights in the Central Valley, are driving the recent Delta water legislature and the watermaster's agenda with complaints that the watermaster must investigate. We're really distressed."

Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP website)

A Water Source for Most Californians (The Nature Conservancy)

A Bucket of Reform or but a Drop? (Natural Resources & Environment) (pdf)

Calming the California Water Wars (by Peter Klebnikov, Environmental Defense Fund)

Water Supply Threat (California Farm Water Coalition)

Bay Delta Conservation Plan Has Major Flaws  (Environmental Defense Fund)

California’s Ailing Water Supply Needs Help (San Francisco Chronicle editorial)

State Water Board Appoints Attorney as Delta Watermaster (by Suzanne Rust, California Watch)

Thermoelectric Power

The largest use of water in the United States is for cooling power plants. In 2005, it accounted for 41% of all freshwater withdrawals. Nearly all the water withdrawn for this thermoelectric power was surface water used for once-through cooling at power plants. Only 29% of thermoelectric power withdrawals were saltwater. The water is looped once through the power plant, raising the water’s temperature a few degrees, and then dumped back into nature.

Environmentalists say  the practice devastates sea life; utilities say the effect is minimal. In May 2010, the Water Resources board approved regulations that apply to 19 existing power plants (two nuclear) that use once-through cooling systems. The policy identifies closed-cycle wet cooling as the preferred technology and requires plants to reduce their water intake or otherwise reduce their impact on aquatic life. Closed-cycle wet cooling uses evaporation to cool water.

Cal Watchdog says the policy is right out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm by, in effect,  proclaiming that, “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.” They argue that “to stop the loss of 57 seals, sea lions or sea turtles per year from ocean water intake systems” the board is encouraging a switch to alternative energy sources like wind power that will “kill more than 75,000 birds per year” in California when a projected 18,000 wind turbines are constructed. CalWatchdog also claims the policy encourages the plants to pipe in fresh water from the Delta, thereby threatening that ecosystem. The Water Resources board points out that in addition to the animals cited above, “Annually, impingement results in mortality to over 2.6 million fish, and entrainment to over 19 billion fish larvae.”

A more measured critique of the policy also expressed concern that plants may find it more feasible to switch from salt water to fresh water for cooling, likely tapping underground aquifers that are no less vulnerable to harm than the Delta. The author, while generally supportive of the board’s effort to protect the environment, questioned its encouragement of using recycled water, arguing that irrigation is a better use, and expressed fear that plants would use chemical treatments to prevent salt-water corrosion which would end up in the environment. He also worried that a closed-cycle system would return even saltier water to the ocean. “Switching to other cooling technologies might lead to other water or environmental impacts, and a more thorough analysis of these is needed,” he concluded.

Power plant operators expressed concern that the new policy would be expensive. A spokesman for the San Onofre nuclear power plant said, “We believe we presented compelling data to the Water Board which showed the costs would be wholly disproportionate with the environmental benefits.” A Diablo Canyon spokesman  estimated it would cost $4.5 billion to install cooling towers on site, although a cost-benefit analysis was not considered a “compelling reason” for non-compliance.

While some critics favor more scientific study and cost-analysis, others think the answer lies in politics and literature. “Sometimes we can find insight in novels such as Jane Austen’s ‘Lady Susan’ where the main character writes in a letter to a friend: ‘In short, when a person is always to deceive, it is impossible to be consistent.’ It is apparent that politics, not impacts to plant or animal life, is what really drives environmental policy in California.”

Board Policy on Thermal Discharges (SWRCB website)

2010 Accomplishments Report (California Water Boards) (pdf)

Water Board Dunks ‘Animal Farm’ Policy (by Wayne Lusvardi, Cal Watchdog)

Ending Once-Through Cooling (Matthew Heberger)

California Orders Plants to Cut Intake Flow by 93% (American Water Intelligence)

Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005 (U.S. Geological Survey)

State Plan Could End Seawater Cooling by Diablo, Morro Bay Power Plants (San Luis Obispo Tribune)

California's Energy Industries Facing Heat Over Water Shortages (by Melissa Mahony, Smart Planet)

Charles Hoppin, 2009-2013

Tam M. Doduc, 2006-2009

Arthur Baggett, Jr., 2000-2005

James M. Stubchaer, 1998-2000

John  P. Caffrey, 1992-1998

W. Don Maughan, 1986-1992

Raymond Stone, 1985-1986

Carol Onorato, 1982-1985

Carla Bard, 1979-1982

John E. Bryson, 1976-1979

Win Adams, 1972-1976

Kerry Mulligan, 1967-1972