AB 514 adds Section 106.6 to the Water Code and declares it California policy to encourage — not require — both locally and regionally developed emergency water supplies and to support their use during droughts or unplanned service disruptions. The bill defines “emergency water supplies” and clarifies which entities qualify as “water suppliers.”
The bill matters because it signals a statewide push for greater water-supply resilience while stopping short of imposing new legal obligations. Its practical effect will depend on follow-up actions by agencies, funding agencies, and water suppliers themselves, since the text explicitly avoids altering water rights, contractual obligations, or forcing plan updates.
At a Glance
What It Does
Declares state policy to encourage development and use of emergency water supplies, defines ‘‘emergency water supplies’’ as supplies to which a supplier has an established legal right and that are identified in a supplier’s shortage or drought plan, and defines ‘‘water supplier’’ to include public and private providers serving municipal or agricultural needs. The section also states it does not require changes to operations, demand management, or shortage plans, nor does it authorize interference with water rights or contractual obligations.
Who It Affects
Local and regional water suppliers — public and private — that provide municipal or agricultural water and prepare water shortage contingency or drought plans. It also touches regional joint powers authorities, planners who prepare drought plans, water-right holders, and ratepayers who could ultimately fund resilience projects.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a formal policy signal that may shape incentives, grant criteria, and planning priorities without creating new compliance obligations. That makes it a potential lever for funding programs and voluntary coordination, but not a source of enforceable duties or direct legal authority over existing water rights.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 514 inserts a new Section 106.6 into the California Water Code that is essentially a policy directive: the Legislature states it prefers encouraging local and regional water suppliers to develop ‘‘emergency water supplies’’ and supports their use during droughts or service disruptions. The language is intentionally nonbinding — the bill frames development as encouraged but explicitly avoids creating mandates.
The bill tightens the concept of ‘‘emergency water supplies’’ by tying it to two practical tests: (1) the supplier must have an established legal right to the water, and (2) the supplies must be developed and identified in a supplier’s water shortage contingency plan or drought plan. The bill also limits the category to supplies that supplement the baseline water that suppliers use during nonshortage periods, so these are meant as additions to, not replacements for, normal supplies.AB 514’s scope extends beyond public agencies to include privately owned suppliers that provide water for municipal or agricultural purposes, making the policy applicable to investor-owned utilities and mutual water companies as well as municipal utilities and irrigation districts.
At the same time, the bill contains several carve-outs: it does not require suppliers to modify operating rules, demand management programs, or existing shortage plans, and it does not give suppliers authority to interfere with water rights, contractual rights, or statutory duties related to exchange, conveyance, or storage.In practice, the bill creates a low‑command, high‑signal tool. It lowers the legal risk of promoting and using identified emergency supplies by recognizing them in statute, but it leaves most implementation choices — including whether to pursue projects, how to finance them, and how to coordinate regionally — to local decisionmakers and funding bodies.
Key open questions for implementers include how agencies will interpret “established legal right,” whether funders will require identification of emergency supplies as a grant condition, and how identification in plans will interact with the bill’s non‑mandate language.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Water Code §106.6, which declares it state policy to encourage, but not require, development and use of emergency water supplies by local and regional suppliers.
It defines ‘‘emergency water supplies’’ as supplies to which a supplier has an established legal right, that the supplier has developed and identified in a water shortage contingency or drought plan, and that are additional to baseline supplies used in nonshortage times.
‘‘Water supplier’’ is defined broadly to include public and privately owned entities that provide water for municipal or agricultural purposes.
Section 106.6(b)(1) ties eligibility to an ‘‘established legal right,’’ making property or contractual entitlement a condition for an identified emergency supply.
Section 106.6(c) expressly states the section does not require suppliers to add or modify operations or demand management plans, does not authorize interference with water rights or contractual obligations, and does not require modification of shortage or drought plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on climate, drought risk, and the need for resilience
The bill opens with findings that California’s precipitation variability and climate change increase the frequency and severity of droughts and that more resilience is needed. Those findings provide the policy rationale for the statutory statement that follows and frame emergency supplies as one of several resilience tools. Practically, the findings set legislative intent — useful if agencies later write guidance or conditions for funding that rely on the statute’s purpose.
State policy: encourage but do not mandate emergency supplies
This subsection establishes the core rule: the state encourages development and use of both locally and regionally developed emergency water supplies during droughts or unplanned disruptions. The choice of ‘‘encourage’’ versus ‘‘require’’ matters legally: it creates a policy expectation without creating an enforceable duty, leaving implementation to suppliers and funding programs rather than to regulatory commands.
Definition — what counts as an emergency water supply
The bill defines emergency water supplies narrowly: they must be supplies to which the supplier has an ‘‘established legal right,’’ must be developed and identified in a supplier’s water shortage contingency or drought plan, and must be additional to normal baseline supplies. That combination ties the concept to legal entitlement and to formal planning documents, so ad hoc or purely temporary emergency deliveries without legal backing or plan recognition are unlikely to qualify under this text.
Who is a water supplier and limits on the section’s authority
Subsection (b)(2) defines ‘‘water supplier’’ to include public and privately owned suppliers serving municipal or agricultural users, ensuring the policy covers a wide range of entities. Subsection (c) places explicit limits on the statute’s reach: it does not force suppliers to alter operational or demand‑management plans, does not permit interference with any water right or contractual or statutory obligations, and does not mandate changes to shortage or drought plans. These limits constrain both legal exposure and regulatory reach.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local water suppliers with existing legal access to supplemental supplies — they get statutory recognition that may lower administrative friction and strengthen grant applications when proposing emergency supplies that are already legally secured.
- Regional water authorities and joint powers entities — the bill endorses regionally developed supplies, which can justify collaborative projects and planning coordination without imposing mandates.
- Private water suppliers and mutual water companies — the inclusive definition brings investor‑owned and privately held suppliers under the policy umbrella, making them eligible for the same policy signaling and potential programmatic incentives.
- Municipal and agricultural customers in service areas that adopt emergency supplies — customers stand to gain greater resilience during droughts and unplanned outages if suppliers follow through with projects identified under the statute.
- State and local planners — agencies that design drought response and grant programs gain a clean statutory purpose to prioritize emergency supply projects in voluntary programs and guidance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Water suppliers that choose to develop emergency supplies — they will bear capital, operating, and legal costs to secure rights, build facilities, and incorporate supplies into plans when they opt in.
- Ratepayers — if suppliers fund emergency-supply projects through rates or bonds, customers could face higher charges to pay for added infrastructure or storage capacity.
- Local governments and regional coordinators — voluntary regional efforts will require staff time, technical studies, and coordination costs that local governments or joint powers authorities may need to absorb.
- Funding agencies and grant programs — if agencies align grant criteria with this policy, they may need to design new application rules, monitoring, and reporting, creating administrative burdens.
- Water-right holders and counterparties — although the bill preserves rights, the process of identifying and deploying emergency supplies could spark negotiation costs or litigation over what constitutes an ‘‘established legal right’’ and how use is prioritized in shortage events.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals that pull in opposite directions: increasing resilience by encouraging emergency supplies and preserving existing water rights and contractual frameworks by avoiding mandates or interference. That produces a soft‑law approach that may protect legal stability but risks producing little material increase in emergency capacity without parallel incentives, funding, or clearer administrative rules.
AB 514 is a classic ‘‘policy signal’’ statute: it says the state prefers more emergency supplies but stops short of creating obligations, funding, or enforcement mechanisms. That gap is the principal implementation risk — absent tied funding, regulatory incentives, or changes to planning requirements, suppliers may opt not to invest, limiting real-world impact.
Practitioners should watch whether state agencies or grant programs adopt the statute as a criterion for awarding resilience funds or crafting guidance, because those downstream decisions will determine whether the policy produces projects.
The bill’s reliance on an ‘‘established legal right’’ as a gatekeeper raises thorny practical questions. The phrase will exclude some informal mutual‑aid arrangements, temporary purchases, or supplies contingent on emergency contracts unless suppliers obtain or document a legal entitlement; proving or acquiring those rights can be costly.
The statute also asks suppliers to identify supplies in shortage or drought plans but then says it does not require plan changes. That tension leaves uncertainty about whether a supply must be in a formally updated plan to be recognized, whether previously identified supplies qualify, and who has the authority to adjudicate disputes.
Finally, by explicitly preserving water rights and contractual obligations, the bill reduces regulatory risk but may also limit creative operational solutions that would otherwise require temporary reallocation of entitlements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.