AB 2215 Explained
Assembly Bill Would Extend Water Rights and Expedite DCP Construction
Update: On July 1, 2026, this bill was pulled from the California Senate
Committee on Natural Resources and Water and will not move forward.
In California, water rights are administered through permits that stipulate terms and conditions. For example, the permits state that during times of drought, the volume of diverted water will be cut (“curtailment”). There is also well-established precedent for making water rights conditional on the completion of certain infrastructure projects, such as a reservoir or conveyance methods (e.g., canals, tunnels, pumps, etc.). Applicants can apply for extensions if they miss deadlines, but those extensions are not guaranteed. Furthermore, if project plans change, applicants can submit a new application to meet their permit conditions; however, they must then perform environmental impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and demonstrate why their project is in the public interest. Moreover, all water rights are subject to the public trust doctrine, which requires state agencies to protect public trust resources like fish and other aquatic organisms. The public trust doctrine is an overarching legal framework that supersedes water rights permit terms.
When the Department of Water Resources received water rights permits for the State Water Project (SWP) in 1972, those permits made future water diversions conditional on the completion of water delivery infrastructure projects by 1980, and the provision of water for beneficial uses by 1990.
When the Department failed to meet those deadlines it applied for an extension, which was granted. After the Department missed the second extension in 2009, it waited 15 years to withdraw the application and file a new one. The new application does not include the required CEQA analysis and does not respond to public interest critiques raised by C-WIN and other organizations opposed to taking even more water out of the beleaguered Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
In 2018 the California legislature passed a bill establishing the Administrative Hearings Office (AHO) within the State Water Resources Control Board, the state agency that administers the water rights system. The AHO was created to provide a “neutral, fair, and efficient” forum for water rights adjudications. The AHO is staffed with knowledgeable attorneys who serve as hearing officers (i.e., administrative law judges) and professional staff with relevant technical expertise. When hearing water rights cases, the AHO must evaluate both the public trust and the public interest.
The Department’s current SWP water rights application, which was filed in January 2025, is currently pending at the AHO. If the Department and the 29 SWP contractors wanted to utilize a “neutral, fair, and efficient” forum, the Department would complete its CEQA analysis and the SWP contractors would make an evidentiary case that supports the rationale for permits extensions decades after the initial deadlines passed. Instead, the SWP contractors sponsored legislation—AB 2215—which would extend the SWP water rights permits through 2046. No other water rights permit holder has ever received an extension via legislation.
As noted by legislative committee staff, the bill raises multiple troubling issues, including whether there is an urgent need to extend the SWP permits, and the precedent that would be set by bypassing existing administrative processes. The Department and most SWP contractors are proponents of the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP), a $60-$100 billion tunnel designed to funnel more water from the Delta to Silicon Valley, San Joaquin Valley agriculture, and Southern California. The DCP would not be able to deliver the promised water unless these water rights permits are approved.
C-WIN has published extensive commentary and analysis explaining why the DCP is a harmful and unnecessary project. In addition, in May 2026, a coalition of environmental organizations, fishing groups, and tribes released a Water Renaissance Plan, which provides a blueprint for a more affordable and healthier water future without the DCP.
Ultimately, AB 2215 is a fight over the processes that determine whether the DCP gets built. It would also set precedent for whether powerful water interests can seek relief from the legislature if they don’t want to follow the existing rules.