Delta

Oct. 27 (UPI) — A Delta Air Lines flight attendant inadvertently deployed the plane’s emergency slide, before departing Pittsburgh International Airport over the weekend, forcing passengers to rebook and costing the airline “as much as $200,000.”

Passengers, bound for Salt Lake City on the Airbus A220-300, were rebooked onto other flights Saturday night and Sunday morning.

“While the aircraft door was being opened, crew inadvertently deployed an emergency slide at the gate in PIT,” a Delta Air Lines spokesperson said in a statement. “As a result, customers on the return flight from PIT to SLC were rebooked on other Delta flights to their destination later that evening or the following morning.”

The expensive error could cost the airline “as much as $200,000” for passengers’ hotel accommodations and repacking the slide, which can cost $12,000, according to aviation website simplifying.com. Other industry sources put the cost to repack an emergency slide on Airbus A220 models between $50,000 and $100,000.

The flight attendant told passengers he had 26 years of flying experience and admitted he accidentally raised the door handle while arming the plane for departure, which triggered the emergency slide to inflate.

“He did apologize and was quite flustered, cited over the 26 years of career, it never happened,” one passenger said.

Emergency slides are built to fully deploy in seconds in order to get passengers to safety as quickly as possible. In this case, the slide deployed against the jet bridge. That left passengers trapped inside the plane for more than an hour as engineers worked to disassemble it.

Passengers on one budget airline might be subjected to even more fees when it comes to their seat selection, but there is one particular way to try and get around it

A budget airline has introduced a new fee for passengers who want to be able to recline their seat on their journey – and some aviation experts are unimpressed with the introduction of the new cost.

When it comes to booking a flight, the original price you see listed is often for the most basic option – and for a lot of airlines, even booking a specific seat to be with your friends or family will mean your wallet takes a hit.

From baggage costs to seat selection, it can seem like almost everything you might need on a flight will end up costing you even more – which can be a serious pain when most people are operating on pretty tight budgets.

READ MORE: Brit in Australia ‘baffled’ by unexpected feature on trains but everyone says same thingREAD MORE: ‘I refuse to give up bus seat for elderly passengers – it’s my right to sit too’

One more budget airline has decided to join the ranks of the businesses determined to eke as much out of their customers as possible, and will now be charging their customers to have a seat that reclines, redesigning their cabins with rows of fixed seats on some of their planes to fit in an extra row.

To avoid the extra cost, you’ll need to book one of the fixed seats in the Economy cabin.

The major Canadian airline, WestJet, will not have the vast majority of its Economy seats fixed upright, with passengers given the opportunity instead to pay more for a seat in the Premium cabin. The 12 seats in Premium will be ergonomically designed, have four options to adjust the headrest, and will recline.

Behind Premium will be 36 ‘Extended Comfort’ seats, part of the Economy option, which don’t recline, but do offer a bit more legroom for passengers.

“The cabin has been thoughtfully designed to offer WestJet’s welcoming service at every budget,” the Executive Vice-President and Chief Experience Officer of WestJet – Samantha Taylor – said in a statement, per news.com.au.

“It reflects our commitment to elevating every aspect of the travel experience and meeting guest demand for a broader range of product offerings,” the exec continued.

However, the experts are not necessarily impressed with the argument that the change is about creating more choice for consumers, or that by fitting in an extra row, prices will actually come down that much for passengers using the airline.

“The imagination of airline marketers never stops to astound me: the depths they will go through kind of gives people an impression that if I pay more, I get more,” John Gradek, an aviation lecturer at McGill University, fumed.

The airline passenger rights expert added: “Right now, it’s like you pay more to get what you had.”

WestJet is by no means the first airline to remove the option of reclining seats – Ryanair did so all the way back in 2004, and many other budget airlines operate similarly.

Even more premium airlines like British Airways, American Airlines, and Delta have reduced the number of reclining seats on offer, with BA removing them entirely on short-haul aircraft.

When people in the U.S. think about flying, Delta Air Lines (DAL 0.74%) and United Airlines (UAL -1.01%) might be the first companies that come to mind. They both have large market capitalizations and many travelers have flown with one or the other, but they employ very different strategies. Because of this difference, investors can tell which airline is truly first-class.

Different tracks

United CEO Scott Kirby is betting on initiatives such as adding planes and making upgrades like better in-flight Wi-Fi. I like this plan, but it also has risks. Operational mistakes, rising labor costs, and headwinds in other countries are cutting into United’s profits.

Image source: Getty Images.

Delta, led by CEO Ed Bastian, is acting differently. Instead of rushing to get more planes, Delta is focusing on making customers happier and being careful with money. The airline is investing in things like Delta Concierge AI, which is supposed to make travel feel more personal and smooth. Its business model counts on premium seats and loyalty programs. Almost 60% of Delta’s money now comes from these sought-after seats and perks.

Delta is often ranked high in customer surveys and for being on time. This good reputation helps it avoid the price wars that can quickly hurt profits in the airline business.

A cleaner balance sheet

Airlines traditionally carry a lot of debt, but Delta is different here, too. In the most recent quarter, Delta had about $16 billion in net debt, equating to a 30 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio (which shows how much of the business’s value has been financed with debt). This is quite a lot, but it is less than United’s $18 billion, which gives it a 36 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio.

This difference is important. Delta has its best credit rating in years, and leaders have said that controlling debt is a main goal. United, on the other hand, has more debt, which makes it riskier if fuel prices go up, travel decreases, or international expansion plans run into hiccups and the business is pressured.

Hubs vs. horizons

The two airlines also use their networks differently. Delta has strong hubs in cities such as Atlanta, which allow it to group flights together and run its operations smoothly. United is more focused on international growth, which could be beneficial if everything goes well, but it is more complex and risky. Recent global issues, including tariffs and travel restrictions have revealed how fragile this type of growth can be.

By the numbers

The financial results confirm the story. Delta regularly has higher operating and profit margins than United, and it still manages to increase revenue at a steady rate. It also makes more free cash flow, which is needed for a company to pay down debt and give money back to shareholders. Delta’s stock yields about 1.3% at current prices, while United does not pay a dividend.

Even with its stronger financial base, Delta’s stock is slightly cheaper than United’s. Delta’s valuation is about 6.9 based on enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), compared to 10.6 for United. Investors are paying less for a company that makes more reliable profits and is better managed.

What matters for investors

United’s growth plan sounds exciting, and it might work if international markets do well and its operations run smoothly. But there are a lot of risky ifs. For investors who want more reliable returns, Delta’s mix of reliability, profits, and a strong financial base makes it a safer choice.

Delta could be harmed by rising fuel prices, labor disputes, or a decrease in travel. But compared to United’s game plan, the company seems better prepared to handle potential complications without causing trouble for shareholders.

If you had to pay more for a dollar of earnings from either of these airlines, which would it be: The one pursuing growth with a lot of debt, or the one quietly producing higher margins, happier customers, and a stronger financial base?

For me, the choice is clear. Delta isn’t just another airline stock — it’s the first-class option in the sector.

Last Wednesday, Delta Air Lines (DAL -0.83%) delivered a strong June-quarter update and reiterated its 2025 outlook, helping steady sentiment after a choppy year for airlines. The Atlanta-based carrier, one of the largest global network airlines, highlighted resilient premium demand, steady co-brand card economics, and progress on costs — all while acknowledging ongoing softness in economy seats.

The mix between main cabin and premium cabins has become a key storyline for Delta. Premium revenue and loyalty economics are doing more heavy lifting, while management trims weaker main cabin flying and leans into higher-margin products. With this backdrop, are shares a buy? More specifically, with guidance intact and premium resilience evident, do shares offer an attractive risk-reward today?

Image source: Getty Images.

Recent results underline resilience

If there’s a meaningful slowdown in travel, Delta isn’t seeing it. The company’s second quarter produced record revenue and double-digit margins, giving management enough confidence to reiterate its full-year guidance. In the quarter, operating revenue was roughly $16.6 billion, operating margin was 13%, and earnings per share landed at $2.10 on the company’s non-GAAP basis. Management guided the September quarter to flat to up low-single-digit revenue growth year over year and a 9% to 11% operating margin, and reaffirmed full-year targets for earnings per share of $5.25 to $6.25 and free cash flow of $3 billion to $4 billion.

Beyond the headline numbers, the mix story stood out. Management said in the company’s second-quarter earnings call that “main cabin margins remain soft,” while reiterating that diversified revenue streams — credit card remuneration, loyalty, and premium cabins — now represent a large slice of the business. That matches comments on the call that softness is “largely contained to main cabin,” with premium products and the Delta-American Express partnership offsetting the pressure.

Asked whether the premium outperformance would persist, Delta president Glen Hauenstein said, “there’s nothing in any of the forward bookings that would have us indicate that there is a diminishing demand for premium cabins or services,” adding that Delta continues to evaluate aircraft layouts to “put more and more premium” seats on board. In addressing main cabin weakness, Hauenstein explained that the company is removing the “weakest trips,” often off-peak departures midweek or very early or late, to consolidate demand and improve unit revenues.

What it means for the stock

After this update, Delta provided an upbeat near-term revenue outlook and reaffirmed profit guidance, pointing to steady demand and industry capacity adjustments. Management now expects third-quarter revenue to be up about 2% to 4% year over year, and it provided earnings guidance of $1.25 to $1.75 per share.

Overall, this guidance signals that premium demand and loyalty revenue are cushioning the main cabin softness. And that industry supply is tightening where it’s least painful — the lower end of the market.

Valuation helps the case for the stock. With shares recently around $60 to $61, and a 2025 earnings target of $5.25 to $6.25 per share, Delta trades at roughly 10 to 11 times this year’s expected earnings — reasonable for a carrier producing double-digit margins and multibillion-dollar free cash flow. The company also raised its quarterly dividend by 25% earlier this year; at recent prices, the annualized dividend yield at about 1.2%, a modest payout that still signals confidence in cash generation.

There are risks. Main cabin softness could linger longer than expected, especially if consumer budgets tighten or international shoulder-season strength fades. Jet fuel and labor remain key cost variables, and any mistimed capacity reductions could pressure unit economics. But management is already trimming off-peak flying, expanding premium seating, and leaning on high-quality loyalty economics — strategies that can protect margins while demand normalizes.

Stepping back reveals that the picture is balanced but constructive, and ultimately good enough to make the stock a buy. Solid June-quarter profitability, guidance reaffirmation, resilient premium demand, and capacity discipline all support the view that Delta’s earnings power is intact. At a valuation that is not stretched, the shares look like a reasonable way to participate if premium strength and industry supply rationalization continue to play out. For investors comfortable with the usual airline cyclicality, Delta’s mix of premium momentum, loyalty cash flows, and cost focus makes the stock a credible buy candidate today.

On the fringes of Okpanam in Delta State, South South Nigeria, there was once a place known simply as “Fulani Camp.” For decades, it was a quiet settlement where nomadic herders grazed cattle, built homes from bamboo and mud, and lived peacefully in proximity with indigenous neighbours. Tensions were not uncommon, but life carried on. People traded, children played, and Saturdays meant weddings, football, and farming.

Today, the same community is unrecognisable. In its place stands a fortified enclave, now dominated by the Eastern Security Network (ESN)—the militant wing of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Residents call it “liberated territory.” But liberation from what? According to several residents of Okpanam, homegrown terrorism replaced a relatively peaceful herding community whose only documented ‘crime’ in the community was being subjected to ethnic profiling. 

“This is not the camp we knew,” said Chinedu Okonkwo, a 42-year-old teacher and lifelong resident of Okpanam. “It used to be tense, yes, but now it’s terrifying. The former occupants are gone. In their place are fighters with guns and stringent rules.”

Warnings of separatist presence have grown into a daily reality. In July 2025, the Nigerian Army’s 63 Brigade and Joint Task Force, South South, conducted a series of intelligence-led raids on the area. Thirteen individuals were arrested between July 26 and Aug. 1, including four identified as IPOB/ESN operatives. Yet, residents say the group remains entrenched in the area.

“They vanish during operations,” Chinedu added. “And reappear just days later. Stronger, even.”

In many towns across the South East, Monday has become synonymous with fear due to the infamous sit-at-home orders enforced by IPOB. In Okpanam, however, it is Saturday that has become the day of dread.

The streets empty predictably every Saturday at 6 a.m.. Markets stay shuttered. Churches hold no vigils. The local variant of the sit-at-home rule—originally a protest strategy—has morphed here into a mandatory ritual, enforced by the threat of violence.

“This is our day for the cause,” said a young man who introduced himself only as Emeka, acting as a spokesperson for the group. “We honour our fallen. We show our loyalty. Without obedience, there is no freedom.”

Despite the IPOB leadership’s 2023 announcement to cancel sit-at-home orders, the ground reality presents a different perspective. Enforcement of this blatant abuse of freedom of movement has become the job of local cells.

For traders like Mama Nkechi, a provisions seller, the toll is unbearable. “I lose two days every week—Monday and Saturday,” she said. “That’s over 100 days in a year. How do I feed my children?”

A 2025 economic report estimated losses from the sit-at-home policy at over ₦7.6 trillion in two years across the South East. In micro-economies like Okpanam, those figures translate to hunger, school dropouts, and displaced families.

Every Friday at dusk, a different ritual begins, one not found in any scripture or traditional custom.

“We bring them food—yams, garri, sometimes cash,” said an elderly woman, her voice barely above a whisper. “We don’t hand it over directly. We leave it at the edge of the forest and walk away. They’ll collect it later.”

This system of enforced offerings has become a strange mix of coerced tax and reluctant gratitude. The militants are called “Umu Oma”—the good ones—though often with irony thick enough to taste. Many residents, caught between fear and a sliver of protection, comply to maintain peace.

“They say they protect us from outsiders,” she added. “But who protects us from them?”

The donations buy relative calm from the very people that terrorise the community, a twisted sense of insurance in a place where traditional state security is either absent or arrives only with boots and bullets. For many, it is a deeply psychological surrender.

Lessons behind curtains

Education has also fallen victim to this new order. Schools that once rang with the chatter of children now sit silent on weekends, their gates chained shut. But learning continues—quietly, covertly.

Chinedu, the local teacher, hosts lessons for a handful of students in his sitting room on Saturdays. “We close the curtains and whisper,” he said. “The children want to learn. Their parents want them to learn. But we can’t be too visible.”

SBM Intelligence has reported severe disruptions in the region, including national exam cancellations and repeated school closures.

Occupation, ethnicity, and the echoes of Sambisa

The irony of the camp in Okpanam is not lost on residents. The ethnic landscape of the camp, once home to nomadic herders, has undergone a radical transformation. Following rising tensions over grazing rights, farmer-herder clashes, and growing anti-outsider sentiment, the herding community fled. In their absence, the ESN found fertile ground, thick bush, sparse oversight, and lingering resentment made the forest there an ideal base. 

Military attempts to reclaim the area have so far proved temporary. After every operation, the group returns, sometimes with recruits, often with renewed confidence. The community, meanwhile, has grown more cautious, quieter, and more afraid.

A conflicted hope

Despite the suffocating grip of the new order, some residents still express conflicted sympathy.

“Before they came, herders destroyed our crops. Our daughters were afraid to walk alone,” said Sunday, a local mechanic. “Now, that threat is gone. But look at what we have instead.”

This sentiment, however controversial, highlights the complexity of life under militant control across southeast Nigeria. For many, the choice isn’t between peace and violence but between two different brands of violence—one masked as protection, the other dressed in a state uniform.

As security operations resume in fits and starts, and as IPOB continues its fragmented messaging from abroad, one question echoes louder than any generator or gunshot: Where is peace and security?

Saturdays, once reserved for weddings, church gatherings, farming, and rest, the seventh day now brings only silence. And in that silence lies a warning that, for many communities across South East and South-South Nigeria, the line between protest and predation has all but vanished.

Across the South East, no one speaks too loudly. Children no longer run freely. Traders count not profits, but losses. And as each week ends with offerings. “Someday, Saturdays will come back to us,” said Chinedu. “I just hope we’ll still be here to see it.”

Salt crusts crackle underfoot as Habibullah Khatti walks to his mother’s grave to say a final goodbye before he abandons his parched island village on Pakistan’s Indus delta.

Seawater intrusion into the delta, where the Indus River meets the Arabian Sea in the south of the country, has triggered the collapse of farming and fishing communities.

“The saline water has surrounded us from all four sides,” said Khatti from Abdullah Mirbahar village in the town of Kharo Chan, about 15km (9 miles) from where the river empties into the sea.

As fish stocks fell, the 54-year-old turned to tailoring, until that too became impossible, with only four of the 150 households remaining.

“In the evening, an eerie silence takes over the area,” he said, as stray dogs wandered through the deserted wooden and bamboo houses.

Kharo Chan once comprised about 40 villages, but most have disappeared under rising seawater. The town’s population fell from 26,000 in 1981 to 11,000 in 2023, according to census data.

Khatti is preparing to move his family to nearby Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, which is swelling with economic migrants, including people from the Indus delta.

The Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, which advocates for fishing communities, estimates that tens of thousands of people have been displaced from the delta’s coastal districts.

However, more than 1.2 million people have been displaced from the overall Indus delta region in the last two decades, according to a study published in March by the Jinnah Institute, a think tank led by a former climate change minister.

The downstream flow of water into the delta has decreased by 80 percent since the 1950s, as a result of irrigation canals, hydropower dams and the effects of climate change on glacial and snow melt, according to a 2018 study by the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water.

That has led to devastating seawater intrusion. The salinity of the water has risen by about 70 percent since 1990, making it impossible to grow crops and severely affecting the shrimp and crab populations.

“The delta is both sinking and shrinking,” said Muhammad Ali Anjum, a local WWF conservationist.

Beginning in Tibet, the Indus River flows through disputed Kashmir before traversing the entire length of Pakistan. The river and its tributaries irrigate about 80 percent of the country’s farmland, supporting millions of livelihoods. The delta, formed by rich sediment deposited by the river as it meets the sea, was once ideal for farming, fishing, mangroves and wildlife.

But more than 16 percent of fertile land has become unproductive due to encroaching seawater, a government water agency study found in 2019.

In the town of Keti Bandar, which spreads inland from the water’s edge, a white layer of salt crystals covers the ground. Boats carry in drinkable water from kilometres away, and villagers cart it home via donkeys.

“Who leaves their homeland willingly?” said Haji Karam Jat, whose house was swallowed by the rising water level.

He rebuilt farther inland, anticipating more families would join him. “A person only leaves their motherland when they have no other choice.”

British colonial rulers were the first to alter the course of the Indus River with canals and dams, followed more recently by dozens of hydropower projects. Earlier this year, several military-led canal projects on the Indus River were halted when farmers in the low-lying riverine areas of Sindh province protested.

To combat the degradation of the Indus River Basin, the government and the United Nations launched the “Living Indus Initiative” in 2021. One intervention focuses on restoring the delta by addressing soil salinity and protecting local agriculture and ecosystems.

The Sindh government is currently running its own mangrove restoration project, aiming to revive forests that serve as a natural barrier against saltwater intrusion. Even as mangroves are restored in some parts of the coastline, land grabbing and residential development projects drive clearing in other areas.

Neighbouring India, meanwhile, poses a looming threat to the river and its delta, after revoking a 1960 water treaty with Pakistan, which divides control over the Indus basin rivers. It has threatened never to reinstate the treaty and to build dams upstream, squeezing the flow of water to Pakistan, which has called it “an act of war”.

Alongside their homes, the communities have lost a way of life tightly bound up in the delta, said climate activist Fatima Majeed, who works with the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum.

Women, in particular, who for generations have stitched nets and packed the day’s catches, struggle to find work when they migrate to cities, said Majeed, whose grandfather relocated the family from Kharo Chan to the outskirts of Karachi.

“We haven’t just lost our land; we’ve lost our culture.”

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven’t been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it’s currently making a ton of weighty decisions.

They’ll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending.

But the lawmakers’ moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump’s power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla’s being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question.

Plus congressional wrangling over Trump’s “Big Beautiful” ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war.

Meanwhile, it’s one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars.

The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn’t, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom.

The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of “trailer bills” containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms.

The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1.

Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I’ve written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a “follow” — a report on where those matters stand.

Prop. 36

For starters, there’s Proposition 36 funding.

Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties.

Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time.

Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts’ progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure’s backers estimate a $250-million annual tab.

Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn’t provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan.

But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million.

Woefully inadequate, the measure’s backers contend. They’re pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate.

Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won’t work, he insists.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There’s nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says.

“I want to make sure we uphold the voters’ wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,” Blakespear says. “This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.”

Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: “I’ll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.” He asserts the budget now being negotiated won’t hold up because of chaos under Trump, who’s constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California.

Healthcare for immigrants

Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California’s version of federal Medicaid for the poor.

But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn’t kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn’t set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget.

The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll.

To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1.

The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers “unsatisfactory immigration status.” What does that mean? Hopefully it’s being negotiated.

Delta tunnel

And there’s the matter of the governor’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature.

The governor wants to “fast-track” construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property.

Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely “No”: come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don’t try to fast-track the Legislature.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘A good day’: Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot
The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles
The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What’s next?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is up to his old tricks, trying to ram major policy change through the state Legislature on short notice. And again lawmakers are pushing back.

Not only lawmakers, but the Legislature’s nonpartisan, independent chief policy analyst.

The Legislative Analyst‘s Office has recommended that legislators hold off voting on what the governor seeks because they’re being pressed to act without enough time to properly study the complex matter.

Newsom is asking the Legislature to “fast-track” construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California.

Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor’s latest move to expedite construction.

If there are any supporters at the state Capitol outside the governor’s office for his fast-track proposal, they’re not speaking up.

“Nobody’s told me they’re excited about it,” says state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), an East San Francisco Bay lawmaker who is co-chairman of the Legislative Delta Caucus. The 15-member bipartisan group of lawmakers who represent the delta region strongly oppose the tunnel — calling it a water grab — and are fighting Newsom’s bill.

The black mark on the governor’s proposal is that he’s trying to shove it through the Legislature as part of a new state budget being negotiated for the fiscal year starting July 1. But it has nothing to do with budget spending.

The tunnel would not be paid for through the budget’s general fund which is fed by taxes. It would be financed by water users through increased monthly rates, mainly for Southern Californians.

Newsom is seeking to make his proposal one of several budget “trailer” bills. That way, it can avoid normal public hearings by legislative policy committees. There’d be little scrutiny by lawmakers, interest groups or citizens. The measure would require only a simple majority vote in each house.

“We’re battling it out,” says Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the Delta Caucus’ co-chair whose district covers the delta as it enters San Francisco Bay.

“This is not about the project itself. This is about how you want to do things in the state of California. This [fast-track] is comprehensive policy that the budget is not intended to include,” says Wilson.

Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek issued a report concluding: “We recommend deferring action … without prejudice. The policy issues do not have budget implications. Deferring action would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications and trade-offs.”

The analyst added: “In effect, approving this proposal would signal the Legislature’s support for the [tunnel], something the Legislature might not be prepared to do — because it would remove many of the obstacles to move forward on the project.

“Moreover, even if the Legislature were inclined to support the project, some of the particular details of this proposal merit closer scrutiny.”

Newsom tried a similar quickie tactic two years ago to fast-track the tunnel. And incensed legislators balked.

“He waited now again until the last moment,” Wilson says. “And he’s doubled down.”

She asserts that the governor is seeking even more shortcuts for tunnel construction than he did last time.

“There are some people who support the project who don’t support doing it this way,” she says. “The Legislature doesn’t like it when the governor injects major policy into a budget conversation. This level of policy change would usually go through several committees.”

Not even the Legislature’s two Democratic leaders are siding with the Democratic governor, it appears. They’re keeping mum publicly.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) has always opposed the tunnel project. So quietly has Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), I’m told by legislative insiders.

McGuire and Rivas apparently both are trying to avoid a distracting fight over the tunnel within their party caucuses at tense budget time.

Newsom insists that the project is needed to increase the reliability of delta water deliveries as climate change alters Sierra snowpack runoff and the sea level rises, making the vast estuary more salty.

He also claims it will safeguard against an earthquake toppling fragile levees, flooding the delta and halting water deliveries. But that seems bogus. There has never been a quake that seriously damaged a delta levee. And there’s no major fault under the delta.

The tunnel would siphon relatively fresh Sacramento River water at the north end of the delta and deliver it to facilities at the more brackish south end. From there, water is pumped into a State Water Project aqueduct and moved south, mostly to Southern California.

“A tunnel that big, that deep, is going to cause a lot of problems for agriculture and tourism,” says McNerney. “One town will be totally destroyed — Hood. It’s a small town, but people there have rights.”

Newsom’s legislation would make it simpler to obtain permits for the project. The state’s own water rights would be permanent, not subject to renewal. The state would be authorized to issue unlimited revenue bonds for tunnel construction, repaid by water users. It also would be easier to buy out farmers and run the tunnel through their orchards and vineyards. And it would limit and expedite court challenges.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newson declared in unveiling his proposal in mid-May.

But lawmakers shouldn’t be done with solid, carefully reasoned legislating.

On policy this significant involving a project so monumental, the Legislature should spend enough time to get it right — regardless of a lame-duck governor’s desire to start shoveling dirt before his term expires in 18 months.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash
The TK: State lawmakers considering policy changes after L.A. wildfires
The L.A. Times Special: Homeland Security’s ‘sanctuary city’ list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

A group of California legislators representing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta area said Tuesday that they will fight Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel, contending the project is a threat to their region and would leave millions of Californians paying much higher water bills.

Newsom has said the tunnel project is vital to improving the reliability of water deliveries as climate change shrinks California’s snowpack and alters the timing of runoff. But the Democratic lawmakers criticized Newsom’s latest proposal to accelerate steps toward construction of the 45-mile tunnel by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

“Fast-tracking the Delta Conveyance Project is a direct attack on our region’s environmental integrity, economic stability and public trust,” said Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). “We are united in our opposition to this project, not just because of what it threatens to destroy, but because of what it represents — a broken process that silences local voices.”

Wilson and other members of the Delta caucus spoke at a news conference in the Capitol. They said the project would harm the Delta’s farmlands, communities and ecosystem, and would place a large financial burden on ratepayers in Southern California.

They said the cost, most recently estimated at $20.1 billion, is likely to be much higher.

“The project would have to be paid for by ratepayers who are already overburdened with soaring utility costs and aren’t even aware of how the cost of this is going to impact them in their pocketbooks,” said state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton). “This project will set a precedent for bypassing well-established environmental laws.”

The tunnel would transport water from the Sacramento River to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland, including parts of the Central Valley.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

The legislators called for different types of water solutions, including investing in projects to recycle wastewater, boost water storage, and rebuild aging levees in the delta to protect freshwater supplies and reduce earthquake risks.

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, has said the tunnel project is critical for the state’s future.

The governor said his latest proposal would simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

The governor’s approach, part of his latest budget proposal, was praised by supporters of the project and managers of water agencies, who said it would reduce regulatory and legal uncertainty.

Charley Wilson, executive director of the nonprofit Southern California Water Coalition, said the ability of the State Water Project to reliably deliver water is declining, while demand continues to rise.

“Southern California stands to lose up to 10% of our water supply from the State Water Project if we don’t act,” Wilson said, calling the project the best path to offsetting those losses.

Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, said the governor’s proposal would “save years of delay and potentially billions in costs by removing unnecessary hurdles.”

The legislators, however, said they will fight Newsom’s attempt to short-cut the established process.

“The governor is asking for a blank check, without cost caps, without meaningful oversight, without even committee hearings,” said state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento). “What we have before us is a proposal to advance this under the dead of night with no public oversight or input.”

Cabaldon stressed that the public ultimately would pay for the project.

“The real threat here is to the pocketbooks, the monthly water bills, of residents throughout Southern California,” Cabaldon said.

McNerny said he expects the group of legislators will “do pretty well in gathering Senate opposition.”

“There is going to be significant opposition. It’s going to be vocal. It’s going to be harsh,” he said.

The project has been supported by leaders of water agencies in Southern California who are considering investing in it.

In December, the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted to spend $141.6 million for a large share of the preliminary planning work. The district, which delivers water for 19 million people, isn’t expected to decide whether to invest in building the tunnel until 2027.

The legislators spoke beside leaders of environmental, fishing and tribal groups who oppose the project. Malissa Tayaba, vice chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, said the project would harm the region and her tribe.

“It seems that to Gov. Newsom, our culture, our ancestors and the environment that sustains us is worth less than the ability to over-divert water from our rivers to send more water and money to commercial water interests,” Tayaba said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing to accelerate his administration’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

Newsom urged the Legislature on Wednesday to adopt his plan to “fast-track” the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, as part of his revised May budget proposal.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newsom said. “Our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future. Let’s get this built.”

The tunnel would create a second route to transport water to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the Delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the Delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the Delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

“It’s a top-down push for an unaffordable, unnecessary tunnel that fails to solve the state’s real water challenges,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta.

She said the governor “wants to bypass the legal and public processes because the project doesn’t pass the economic or environmental standards Californians expect.”

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, is pushing to lay the groundwork for the project.

Newsom said his proposal would: simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

Announcing the proposal, the governor’s office said that “while the project has received some necessary permits, its path forward is burdened by complicated regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic delays.”

The State Water Resources Control Board is currently considering a petition by the Newsom administration to amend water rights permits so that flows could be diverted from new points on the Sacramento River where the intakes of the 45-mile tunnel would be built.

The governor’s latest proposal was praised by water agencies including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is currently spending about $142 million on the preliminary planning.

MWD General Manager Deven Upadhyay called Newsom’s proposal a “bold step” toward protecting water supplies, saying the approach would support completion of the planning work, reduce “regulatory and legal uncertainties,” and allow the MWD board to make an informed decision about whether to make a long-term investment to help foot the bill for construction.

Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, said the governor’s approach makes sense to address costly delays and upgrade essential infrastructure that is “in dire need of modernization.”

Environmental and fishing groups, however, called Newsom’s proposal a reckless attempt to bypass the existing legal process and make it harder for opponents to challenge the project over what they contend would be harmful effects on the Delta region and the environment.

Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Assn., a group that represents fishing communities, called Newsom’s proposal “an attack on the salmon fishing industry and the state’s biggest rivers.”

Commercial salmon fishing has been canceled for three consecutive years because of a decline in the Chinook salmon population. Artis said building the tunnel would represent a “nail in the coffin of California’s once mighty salmon runs.”