Legislators vow to fight Newsom’s plans for Delta water tunnel
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.
