State Water Resources Control Board: drought planning.
If enacted, AB 2451 will significantly impact the regulatory framework governing water usage in California's coastal watersheds. By implementing new guidelines during periods of water shortage, the legislation aims to bolster drought preparedness and improve climate resilience. The bill also imposes potential civil liabilities on individuals or entities that violate guidelines or requirements, holding them accountable for violations that occur during critical water scarcity periods. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of public involvement, mandating public comment periods before adopting any principles or guidelines.
Assembly Bill 2451 aims to enhance drought planning and climate resilience through the establishment of a specialized Drought Section within the California State Water Resources Control Board. The bill mandates the creation of principles and guidelines for the diversion and use of water in coastal watersheds during periods of water shortage. Important considerations for the guidelines include public trust uses, public health and safety, and ensuring a human right to water. The bill emphasizes the necessity for watershed-level contingency plans to address water allocation in drought conditions, requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt relevant principles and guidelines by March 31, 2024.
The sentiment surrounding AB 2451 appears to be largely supportive among environmental and public health advocates who view it as a necessary step towards more sustainable water management practices in the face of increasing drought conditions. Proponents argue that it reflects an urgent response to the challenges posed by climate change, particularly the escalating severity and frequency of droughts in California. Critics, however, may argue that the bill could entail bureaucratic hurdles or that the emphasis on state-level intervention may not adequately meet localized water needs.
Notable points of contention may arise regarding the enforcement of the guidelines and the potential for conflicts between state regulations and local water management practices. Stakeholders may express concerns about how the civil liability aspect is applied and whether the financial penalties would be sufficient to deter violations or disproportionately affect smaller water users. Additional debates may center on the practical effectiveness of the guidelines in balancing diverse water needs among agricultural, urban, and ecological interests.