After years of deliberations, California water officials voted Wednesday to adopt a landmark regulation that will govern water use and conservation in the state for years to come.

The “Making conservation a Californian way of life“The framework will apply to around 400 urban water utilities and will require them, among other things, to set water use budgets and meet local savings targets. The measures are intended to help conserve supplies as climate change brings hotter and drier conditions.

The five-member State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously to adopt the rules, which are based on two 2018 bills that directed the state to create new standards.

“When we think about the Colorado River, the Bay Delta and the stressed watersheds from which much of the urban supply comes to our cities and towns, we need to demonstrate – to other states and to ourselves – that we are taking steps to reduce that burden,” Chairman Joaquin Esquivel said during Wednesday's board meeting. He added that such efforts are needed “especially in dry seasons, but in all water years to ensure that we all continue to have adequate supplies and thriving communities.”

The framework marks a departure from the one-size-fits-all approach that has governed California water for years, such as the Mandatory nationwide water reduction of 25% ordered by Governor Jerry Brown during the drought of 2012 to 2016. The new rules instead allow providers to consider local factors such as climate, population and property size, and to take into account previous investments in conservation.

The adoption followed significant revisions based on feedback from local water conservation groups that indicated the rules would impose significant costs on some utilities and customers. Environmental groups also said the rules did not go far enough.

“This rule will be a major challenge – it will require a statewide effort to change the way we use water in California,” said Chelsea Haines, regulatory manager at the California Water Utilities Association, which represents about 90% of the state's municipal and agricultural utilities. “It's an unprecedented approach and will require a significant amount of funding and technical assistance.”

ACWA was among a coalition of industry groups that said the rules would create an undue cost burden on low-income and disadvantaged providers who may have a harder time meeting the new requirements. Most of the agencies facing the steepest cuts are inland areas and areas below the state's median household income, they said.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for example, has already made significant progress in saving and would not need to achieve its first 6% reduction until 2035. Other areas, such as the city of Bakersfield, would need to reduce emissions by 25% by 2030 to comply with regulations.

Haines' concerns echoed a report released in January by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which criticized an earlier version of the proposal as costly, complicated and unrealistic.

In response to this report and complaints from water authorities, the Board decided Relaxation of nature conservation requirementsAmong other things, the Board reduced the number of suppliers that would have to reduce their water consumption by more than 20% and extended the overall period for water savings by five years to 2040.

“To do this well and do this right – and to achieve all of the long-term goals that we really aspire to as a community – the additional five years that the State Water Board has granted us are really important and I think will help us ultimately get a better outcome,” Haines said before Wednesday's vote.

Further drafts of the regulation published in May and June included further incremental changes, including increasing the water budget for existing trees in residential areas as well as planting trees suitable for new climates. It also expanded alternative compliance paths for certain suppliers facing major cuts, including more time to implement plans to achieve long-term targets.

Haines said she appreciated the panel's willingness to work with water agencies, but expressed concern that the final rule would still not be able to meet all the needs of some smaller utilities.

“The State Water Board has made important changes to the regulation to avoid some of these impacts or to provide more flexibility to water utilities, but there will still be significant cost impacts for some water utilities in some communities,” she said. “And unfortunately with the budget nowno significant financial or technical support is available.”

But other groups argue the rules are too lax — especially given that the state faces a potential 10% decline in water supplies by 2040, according to Newsom's report. Strategy for a hotter, drier future.

“I think that's a good framework, but I continue to believe that we have a lot more opportunities across the state to reduce water use and prepare our communities for more extremes – more extreme droughts, higher temperatures, all the things we're already experiencing 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 with the final rule in a letter to the board earlier this week, saying the approved rules were a watered-down version of earlier drafts that set higher goals and tighter deadlines for conservation actions.

“While this rule could have been an important tool to proactively manage the state's urban water resources, improve California's climate resilience, and reduce unnecessary water waste, it fell far short of the goals of the California Legislature and Governor Newsom's water supply strategy,” the letter said.

Critics expressed concern that the final draft would leave room for backtracking or that agencies that had met regional targets would fall short of the individual goals set by the state legislation. They also raised concerns about weakened standards for outdoor facility efficiency and unlimited allocations for land that could potentially be irrigated.

The combination of these problems, according to their analysis, will result in 390,000 acre-feet less water being saved by 2030 than in previous designs. (One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons.)

In addition, the final rule means that half of the state's municipal water utilities, which serve about 72 percent of California's population, will not have to begin reducing their water use until 2035—more than a decade from now.

Cooley said the cost concerns of smaller and disadvantaged facilities are valid, but she pointed out that conserving water is far less costly than developing new supplies, especially with restrictions on groundwater use and cuts to imports from the Colorado River expected soon.

“There will be less water in the future and we need to look at alternatives,” she said. “Conservation and efficiency are the cheapest alternatives available to us. It's not free … but it's far cheaper than recycled water, than desalination, than most other water supply options we have.”

During Wednesday's meeting, board member Laurel Firestone said she too would have liked an earlier deadline for some agencies. She encouraged the board to continue to engage with stakeholders and work to improve data and reporting practices as the rules take effect.

“I believe these standards are achievable,” Firestone said. “But I believe the key, no matter what happens, will be the implementation and the lessons we learn, especially in the first few years.”

Other provisions of the adopted regulation include instructing water authorities to identify and pursue opportunities for residential renewal as frequently and as early as possible, since in cities almost half of the water used outdoors is lost through wind, evaporation or runoff.

Staff will also be instructed to consider affordability and equity in implementing the regulations, including supporting water utilities that are struggling to meet their legal obligations and developing strategies to support low-income households.

Suppliers who violate the rules face action or even fines, but officials said the focus is on progress and compliance. By December 2028, staff must submit a recommendation to the board on whether to adopt additional policies or guidelines establishing enforcement procedures.

Despite some lingering concerns about the final rule, board members and experts said it was ultimately more important to get to work and start implementing it. The rules will take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

“This is not a perfect regulation — we can never have a perfect regulation — but it is significant,” said Esquivel, the board chairman. “And it takes us in a direction toward the future that we can all be proud of and that is a national leader. Everyone has reason to be proud.”

Times writer Ian James contributed to this report.