View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: A Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to restart a Trump Administration-era plan to increase water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Central and Southern California. This action aims to prioritize water for human use over protections for endangered fish species.
Money: While the memorandum itself does not appropriate new funds, it directs the implementation of a previous plan. Related California water infrastructure projects have significant costs; for example, a proposed 45-mile water tunnel beneath the Delta is estimated to cost $20.1 billion. The economic impact of water allocation is substantial, with the State Water Project supporting a $2.3 trillion portion of the state's economy.
Your Impact: For residents and farmers in the Central Valley and Southern California, this could mean a more reliable water supply. For those reliant on the Delta's ecosystem, such as the fishing industry, it could lead to further declines in fish populations and associated economic harm.
Status: This is a directive issued via a Presidential Memorandum on January 20, 2025. Federal agencies have 90 days from the date of the memorandum to report on their progress in implementing the policy.
What's Actually in the Bill
This Presidential Memorandum directs federal agencies to revert to water management policies from the first Trump Administration. These policies, detailed in the 2019 Biological Opinions, were designed to allow for greater flexibility in water diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP), which supply water to millions of people and vast agricultural lands. The memo explicitly frames the issue as a choice between providing water for people and protecting fish species like the Delta smelt.
Core Provisions:
- Directs the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior to restart work to increase water diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
- Mandates that this work be based on the plans developed during the first Trump Administration, specifically citing the 2019 Biological Opinions from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Requires the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to report back within 90 days on the progress of implementing these policies.
Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):
The memorandum states its purpose is to provide a reliable water supply to Southern California, which it claims is desperately needed. It asserts that the previous administration's plan was wrongly halted by a lawsuit from the State of California, which prioritized the protection of the Delta smelt and other fish, causing a "catastrophic halt" to water infrastructure improvements and allowing enormous amounts of water to flow "wastefully into the Pacific Ocean."
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: Agriculture, Municipal Water Supply, Commercial and Recreational Fishing, Environmental Conservation.
Timeline: Agencies are required to report on progress within 90 days of the January 20, 2025 memorandum. Implementation of the water diversion changes would follow.
Scope: The directive primarily impacts the management of the federal Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project, affecting water deliveries to an estimated 27 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland.
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
The Water Wars Emerge (1980s-2007):
The conflict over Northern California's water is decades old, rooted in the construction of the massive Central Valley Project and State Water Project. These systems transport water south, transforming arid land into productive farms but also drastically altering the Delta's ecosystem. In the 1980s, populations of native fish like the Delta smelt began to crash. In 1993, the Delta smelt was listed as a threatened species under both federal and state Endangered Species Acts, setting the stage for legal battles over water management.
The Era of Biological Opinions (2008-2019):
In 2007, a federal judge found that existing water management plans failed to protect the Delta smelt and ordered new biological opinions. The subsequent regulations, issued under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, placed restrictions on water pumping to protect the fish. This angered agricultural interests who argued the restrictions created a "man-made drought." In 2019, the Trump administration finalized new biological opinions that relaxed these protections to "maximize water deliveries." An earlier, suppressed government report had warned that these changes would likely jeopardize the existence of endangered salmon and steelhead trout.
Legal Challenges and Policy Reversals (2020-2025):
In February 2020, the State of California, under Governor Gavin Newsom, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block the 2019 biological opinions, arguing they were "scientifically-challenged" and would push species toward extinction. A federal judge later temporarily blocked the Trump water plan. The Biden administration, alongside state agencies, began to re-evaluate these policies. However, this new memorandum seeks to abruptly reverse course and fully reinstate the 2019 rules.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- Fulfilling a Campaign Promise: The memorandum fulfills a long-standing promise to agricultural communities in the Central Valley to increase water supplies.
- Framing the Debate: The language "Putting People over Fish" is a deliberate political framing designed to resonate with voters who feel that environmental regulations have gone too far and are harming their economic well-being.
- Recent Events: The memo cites "deadly and historically destructive wildfires" as a key justification, arguing that a more reliable water supply is critical for firefighting and vegetation management.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups: farmers in the Central Valley, urban water users in Southern California, and anyone whose livelihood is connected to the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem.
What Could Change for You:
Potential Benefits:
- Farmers: Agricultural districts in the Central Valley could see an increase in water allocations, potentially leading to higher crop yields and lower operational costs. The CVP provides water to some of the most valuable farmland in the nation.
- Southern California Residents: Increased water deliveries could bolster water reserves for the 27 million people who rely on the State Water Project, potentially leading to greater water security and fewer use restrictions, especially during dry years.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (1-3 years):
- Fishing Industry: Commercial and recreational salmon fishing, which has already suffered from closures due to low fish populations, could face further collapse. Critics of the 2019 rules called them a "salmon extinction plan."
- Ecosystem Health: Reduced water flows could increase salinity in the Delta, harming habitat for multiple species, including the critically endangered Delta smelt and the longfin smelt.
Long-term:
- Water Reliability: Environmental groups argue that prioritizing water extraction at the expense of the ecosystem's health could lead to a larger, more catastrophic collapse in the future, ultimately threatening the reliability of the entire system.
- Increased Litigation: This policy will almost certainly face immediate and prolonged legal challenges from the State of California and environmental organizations, creating uncertainty around water management for years.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: Agricultural users in the Central Valley, municipal water districts in Southern California, commercial and recreational fishing communities, Native American tribes with fishing rights.
Secondary Groups: Consumers of California agricultural products, taxpayers funding environmental restoration and litigation, residents of the Delta region.
Regional Impact: The most significant impacts will be felt in California's Central Valley, Southern California, and the San Francisco Bay-Delta region.
Bottom Line: The directive forces a trade-off: it could provide more water for farms and cities in the short term, but at the potential cost of driving several fish species to extinction and causing long-term damage to the state's largest estuary.
Where the Parties Stand
Republican Position: "Water for People, Not a Three-Inch Fish"
Core Stance: Generally supports maximizing water deliveries to agricultural and urban areas, viewing environmental regulations as a primary obstacle to economic prosperity.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Prioritizing water for farms and cities is essential for California's economy and food security.
- ✓ Environmental regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Act, have been implemented in an extreme way that harms people.
- ✗ State and federal environmental agencies have overreached their authority, allowing valuable freshwater to "flow wastefully into the Pacific Ocean."
Legislative Strategy: To strongly support the memorandum and push for its swift implementation by the federal agencies. They will likely characterize legal challenges as partisan attempts to undermine a common-sense policy.
Democratic Position: "Science-Based Solutions for a Resilient Future"
Core Stance: Generally supports a balanced approach that provides water reliability while protecting the environment, emphasizing voluntary agreements and scientifically-grounded policies.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ The 2019 biological opinions being reinstated were "scientifically-challenged" and ignore the best available science on what is needed to protect the ecosystem.
- ⚠️ While acknowledging the need for a reliable water supply, they argue that destroying the Delta's ecosystem is not a sustainable long-term solution.
- ✗ The memorandum's approach will lead to the extinction of native fish species and violates environmental laws.
Legislative Strategy: To oppose the memorandum through legal action, arguing it violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. They will likely advocate for a return to negotiated agreements between federal and state governments and water users.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable
Basis of Authority:
The federal government's authority to manage the Central Valley Project and regulate water flows stems from Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the project involves navigable waters and federal lands/infrastructure. The core of the legal conflict, however, revolves around the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Endangered Species Act (Section 7): Requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to "jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species..."
Constitutional Implications:
[Statutory Interpretation]: The central legal question is not about the Constitution itself, but whether the administration's actions comply with the strict requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The memorandum directs agencies to implement a plan that a prior scientific analysis found would likely jeopardize protected species, setting up a direct conflict with the ESA's mandate.
[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has affirmed that the ESA gives species preservation priority over other considerations, including economic ones. Legal challenges will argue the new policy is an "arbitrary and capricious" decision that ignores scientific findings, which courts have previously found to be unlawful.
[Federalism]: The State of California has its own Endangered Species Act and water quality laws (like the Clean Water Act). The state will argue that the federal government's actions infringe upon its ability to protect its own natural resources and that the new plan will violate state environmental standards.
Potential Legal Challenges:
Immediate lawsuits are expected from the State of California and a coalition of environmental and fishing groups. Their primary claims will be that the reimplementation of the 2019 biological opinions violates the non-discretionary duties of the Endangered Species Act and is based on a politically motivated rejection of scientific evidence, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
Your Action Options
TO SUPPORT THIS DIRECTIVE
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the Presidential Memorandum on California water deliveries."
- Contact the Agencies: Contact the public affairs offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce to voice your support for maximizing water deliveries.
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Detailed Email: Find contact information for the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce on their respective websites.
- Join an Organization: Look for agricultural associations or coalitions of water contractors in California that advocate for increased water supplies.
TO OPPOSE THIS DIRECTIVE
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the Presidential Memorandum that undermines the Endangered Species Act in California."
- Contact State Officials: Call the office of the Governor of California and the state's Attorney General to express support for legal challenges against the directive.
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the potential environmental and economic consequences of the directive for the fishing industry and the Delta ecosystem.
- Join an Organization: A wide range of environmental and conservation groups actively oppose these policies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), San Francisco Baykeeper, and the Golden State Salmon Association.