For decades, California officials have debated and discussed various projects to redirect more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta toward communities and farms in the southern portion of the state.
The latest iteration of these plans is the Delta Conveyance Project, a single tunnel along the Sacramento River stretching just south of Clarksburg near the town of Hood, to a reservoir near Livermore.
This project was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has spent much of his two terms streamlining its development process. More recently the governor used his May budget revision to fast-track the Delta Conveyance Project, saying that was a critical addition to the State Water Project.
That announcement drew criticism from opponents. The 15-member Delta Caucus — a bipartisan group of lawmakers representing Delta communities — sent a letter to Newsom and legislative leaders saying they are “unanimous in strong opposition to the governor’s proposal to fast-track the Delta tunnel.”
One of the caucus members is State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo), who previously served as the mayor of West Sacramento for two decades.
Cabaldon recently spoke with Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez about the caucus’s opposition to the Delta Conveyance Project, and the alternative methods that could help meet the state’s water needs.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Before becoming a state legislator, what was your awareness and view of the Delta project, both under Governors Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom?
Well, heck, one of the first votes I cast as a Californian was against the original Delta project when it was called the Peripheral Canal. This was a proposal that was soundly rejected 2-1 statewide. Then I served on the Delta Protection Commission for two decades and worked on process after process by different governors to try to build this kind of a project. But, the voters turned it down because it is so expensive and so environmentally damaging. I think in the Sacramento region we often take it for granted. We're surrounded by the rivers and the snow pack.
But these proposals to divert so much water from the Delta, which is the lifeblood of the whole state, and to literally build a tunnel around it so the water no longer flows through are an incredible economic and environmental threat to our region as well.
Newsom has made the Delta Conveyance Project a priority since he was first elected. Did you know from the get-go that you would be at odds with the governor, and that you might need to mount a resistance?
The governor… he's been frustrated about this project because the courts have ruled against it many times. Even folks in Southern California, they've said, "we're not sure we want to pay for such a gigantic boondoggle." You say it’s $20 billion, but that number is from a couple of years ago. If you still believe that, then maybe there's a high speed rail project I should tell you a little bit about.
This project's likely to be $40, $50, $60 billion by the time it's completed. Gov. Newsom has been facing barrier after barrier to this project, and so in a fit of frustration he just proposed in the budget act that we waive everything. If a judge said it, or if there’s any environmental law or anything, we should just suspend all of that so his project can move forward. That takes the legislature’s agreement to do.
I'm very proud that so far, the legislature has been stepping up. Our caucus of legislators from around the Delta region have been pushing hard, and we're not going to settle for abusing the budget process in order to advance this gigantic water freeway to Southern California.
The May revise is the governor's proposal to set a balanced budget in the next fiscal year. How can something like building new water infrastructure be incorporated into closing a $12 billion dollar deficit?
For decades, every May, the governor submits a May revision. The only purpose of that is to say, "hey, our tax revenues have come in a little better or a little worse since January… So before you pass a final budget let's make sure you’ve got the latest numbers." But this governor has used the opportunity to add on all kinds of pet projects and policies that otherwise wouldn't survive the light of day.
This is a super expedited process that there are virtually no public hearings about. There's no inspection, the press can't get access to it. It's an attempt to fast track, and it’s the responsibility then of the legislature to say, "You know what? No.” The people of California repeatedly said legislation requires public review [and] investigation analysis. It can't just be one guy's ideas. That's what we're trying to stop here.
This is such a gigantic project that has such enormous environmental [and] economic implications. We have to take the time in order to get it right. And we have to let the courts and the regulatory agencies do their job to make sure that the dire consequences that we all see coming don’t become reality with this project.
The Delta Caucus includes 15 lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, along the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. They came out in unanimous opposition to the governor’s proposal. Why do you think this project has sparked such bipartisan opposition?
The folks [who are] for the project, I think they're living in this 1980's idea about what water should be. The way to solve the water challenges for Southern California and to keep developing in more deserts is obvious — look at all that water that's in Northern California and and in Central California, let's send it south. In some sense it builds off that original idea from the State Water Project itself… move water from Shasta Dam to the rest of California.
That's not crazy, but a lot's changed since the 1980s when this idea first came out that I think governors are just ignoring. Since that time, because of water conservation, water use across the state — maybe especially in LA and Southern California — is going down. The technologies around desalination and groundwater recharge, water storage, water recapture, recycling… the options that are before us today are so much better than they were before. And so the opponents have come forward, we’ve all said look, this doesn’t make sense for the Delta. It also doesn't make sense for the communities around the Delta.
When it comes to those alternatives you laid out like ground water storage or recycling water, how would they be accomplished? Would it meet the needs that something like the Delta Conveyance Project could provide?
Yes, because the tunnel doesn’t create any new water. It is just moving water around, and it can't do that for much of the year because of other federal and state environmental laws. And so the tunnel would only function during portions of the year anyway, and not in the portions of the year when the water is needed the most in Southern California.
And so it is the case, maybe 15 years ago, that water recycling, ground water recharge, some of these other solutions… they were viable then but they were a little bit more expensive than the tunnel project. But since that time, they've gotten cheaper because both California’s government, but also in Europe and Asia and elsewhere, the science is getting better and the markets are getting stronger on these other water alternatives. And at the same time the cost of the Delta tunnels have been going up. And so even the economics now are on the side of these other alternatives that can and will meet the needs of what Southern California needs in order to thrive.
What would you say to the argument that bureaucracy is too slow and has too many hurdles… and that fast-tracking this project lifts those obstacles?
I actually agree totally with that premise. We have way too much red tape, way too much bureaucracy, and we do need to radically streamline those things…so that we can build housing…affordable for all Californians and to invest in communities like my own in West Sacramento. But the reason why some of those environmental rules exist is exactly for this kind of project.
So no, we don't need so much red tape in order to build a three-story apartment building…but we do need strong environmental laws when somebody is proposing to take all the water out of the Delta and ship it across the state, with earthquakes and subsidence and everything else that's going on. If there's a point to all that bureaucracy, it is to get exactly these kinds of investments right, and make sure that we’re not creating a boondoggle that will fail, and that will bankrupt either the state or Californians.
What dialogue have you and your Delta colleagues had with the governor's office?
We have been in conversations with the governor's office since the 1980s. I think we've been clear with the governor's office and with our colleagues in the legislature — this is a red line. This issue is too important to the communities of the Delta, and it's too important to California as a whole.
We look forward to evaluating and investing in alternatives. But what the governor has proposed for the members of the Delta Caucus, that’s dead on arrival — and it is also completely inappropriate for the budget process. But, we welcome the conversation going forward around meeting the water needs and the community needs for all of California in the months that follow… after this tunnel project budget language that he’s proposed dies of its own weight.
CapRadio also contacted Newsom’s office for comment and received the following statement:
“The Governor’s proposal for the Delta Conveyance Project is about looking ahead, seeing where delays, cost overruns, and lengthy pointless legal battles will drag down progress – and to prevent them. Californians want to see projects get built and quickly - this is the Governor’s focus. The fact is, the Delta Conveyance Project will help modernize and prepare our water systems for the future, is supported by water users, and takes a scientific and climate-based approach which balances the state water needs with our efforts to protect habitats and water supply.”
Follow us for more stories like this
CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.
Donate Today
