The state is preparing for a fifth year of drought — with or without El Niño storms — as evidenced by the release Friday afternoon of its next set of mandatory water conservation regulations.

California’s urban water users will be squeezed further with additional emergency water-saving regulations that could extend until Oct. 31 depending on the extent of winter precipitation, mountain snowpack and water levels in the state’s reservoirs, according to the State Water Resources Control Board.

“The recent rain and snow are an extremely welcome start, however we’ve got to keep conserving, El Niño or not,” said Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the state water board. “We don’t know if the next two months will bring us the considerable rain and snow that we need to make a dent in this drought. Even with promising Las Vegas odds, we are not going to bet on the weather.”

Californians reduced their water use by 26 percent overall during a six-month period between June and November, saving more than 1 million acre-feet, enough to supply 5 million Californians with water for a year. Regulators want to see the effort continue because reservoir levels are still about 50 percent of normal. The board will re-evaluate the emergency drought regulations in April.

While the existing regulation requiring 25 percent savings as measured against the base year of 2013 will expire at the end of February, the new Draft Emergency Water Conservation Regulation continues the efforts but includes some relief for cities struggling to meet the highest conservation levels.

If enough cities qualify for changes, it could result in a decrease of overall water conservation below the 25 percent mandated by Gov. Jerry Brown last May, said Eric Oppenheimer, the state water board’s chief deputy director.

“We anticipate the number will be between 20 percent and 25 percent, likely closer to the 20 percent mark,” he said.

Under the current regulation, cities, counties and water companies responsible for delivering urban supplies were given conservation targets in May of 4 percent to 36 percent based on previous water use. If an agency fails to meet accumulated savings targets by the end of February, it could be fined by the state board.

So far, Redlands, Indio, Coachella Valley Water District and Beverly Hills each received fines from the state for $61,000 in October. Only Beverly Hills has paid the fine. Redlands has asked for a hearing, said Matthew Buffleben, chief of the special investigations unit of the state board.

If the draft plan is approved, some urban water agencies may see conservation standards drop by as little as 2 percent and as much as 8 percent if they ask for relief and comply with the softer regulations.

For example, agencies can shave percentage points off their targets if they can prove they serve a warmer or drier climate. This would mostly apply to the Inland Empire and Coachella Valley water agencies and cities.

Also, a reduction could be granted if a supplier could show a substantial increase in commercial and residential users since 2013.

Agencies that added desalinated water or “drought-resilient water supplies” could get a target reduction. Agencies using recycled water to replenish the groundwater could see reduced targets; however, using recycled water for landscape irrigation would not qualify for a reduction, Oppenheimer explained.

The largest reduction an agency can realize is 8 percent, he said.

Also proposed is language that allows local agencies to penalize homeowners associations or community service organizations from impeding homeowners from reducing or eliminating outdoor watering during a declared drought emergency.

The public has until noon Jan. 28 to comment on the revised plan. Comments can be sent online to commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov. The board is scheduled to vote on the regulations Feb. 2.

In December, many cities wrote letters to the state board asking for lowered conservation targets.

The city of Rolling Hills asked the board for a 4 percent reduction, saying the 36 percent conservation goal is “onerous” and dangerous to the residential community because it could expose it to wildfires.

Cities with high conservation targets are asking for them to be lowered. For example, the city of Glendora, which saved 33.5 percent, nearly reaching its 36 percent target, asked for relief.