Cal. WAT § 9613
This is the official text of Cal. WAT § 9613, part of California’s Water Code — governs water rights and water resource management.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
(a) Consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 5096.821 of the Public Resources Code, the department may implement flood protection improvements for urban areas protected by facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control before the adoption of Central Valley Flood Protection Plan if the director determines, in writing, that all of the following apply:
(1) The improvements are necessary and require state funding before the completion of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan prepared pursuant to Section 9612.
(2) The improvements will reduce or avoid risk to human life in one or more urban areas.
(3) The improvements will not impair or impede future changes to regional flood protection or the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
(4) The improvements will be maintained by a local agency that has committed sufficient funding to maintain both the existing and improved facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control.
(5) The affected cities, counties, and other public agencies will have sufficient revenue resources for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
(6) Upon the allocation of funds for a project, the proposed project is ready for implementation.
(7) The improvements comply with existing law.
(b) The flood protection improvements authorized by this section may include improvements to specific facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or acquisition of flood easements for floodways that support facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to increase levels of flood protection for urban areas in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5096.821 of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The department and the board shall investigate and evaluate the feasibility of potential bypasses or floodways that would significantly reduce flood stage in the San Joaquin River Watershed, upstream and south of Paradise Cut.
(1) The improvements are necessary and require state funding before the completion of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan prepared pursuant to Section 9612.
(2) The improvements will reduce or avoid risk to human life in one or more urban areas.
(3) The improvements will not impair or impede future changes to regional flood protection or the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
(4) The improvements will be maintained by a local agency that has committed sufficient funding to maintain both the existing and improved facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control.
(5) The affected cities, counties, and other public agencies will have sufficient revenue resources for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
(6) Upon the allocation of funds for a project, the proposed project is ready for implementation.
(7) The improvements comply with existing law.
(b) The flood protection improvements authorized by this section may include improvements to specific facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or acquisition of flood easements for floodways that support facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to increase levels of flood protection for urban areas in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5096.821 of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The department and the board shall investigate and evaluate the feasibility of potential bypasses or floodways that would significantly reduce flood stage in the San Joaquin River Watershed, upstream and south of Paradise Cut.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in California?
Find a California lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.