Bail-bond reform up next?

California has long been known as a law-and-order state, particularly following the crime spikes of the 1980s. But in recent years, a variety of criminal-justice reforms have been pushing the pendulum back in the other direction, albeit in a relatively quiet way. 

While much of this back and forth has played out in the ballot box, it isn’t the only place where reform is moving forward. When the Legislature reconvenes in December, some legislators will almost certainly introduce bills that would reform the state’s system of “money bail.” 

Many are unfamiliar with the system by which criminal defendants post a bond that allows them to avoid jail time as their case winds its way through the system. A judge will set a bail amount that reflects the severity of the alleged crime and the defendant’s perceived flight risk. The defendant can post the full amount, which would be forfeited if he or she doesn’t show up at the appointed court date.

Those who lack the resources also can go to a bail bonds company and pay a nonrefundable percentage (commonly 10 percent) of the bail. The bail bondsman posts the full amount and assumes liability to assure the defendant shows up for trial.

The bail bonds industry argues the system works well as it is designed. But critics of the system, including the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, have raised some concerns.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

• “Will Donald Trump accept a high-profile legal setback so soon after his greatest triumph? That’s the question hanging over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University that’s now being heard in a San Diego federal court.” CalWatchdog has more. 

• “Scores of communities across California and the nation over the last decade have declared themselves ‘sanctuary cities,’ a politically potent if largely symbolic designation aimed at expressing solidarity and granting protection for immigrants in this country illegally. … But with President-elect Donald Trump vowing to deport millions of immigrants, the role of sanctuary cities is likely to get more complicated and controversial.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “Gov. Jerry Brown’s massive Delta tunnels project is moving forward through a series of state and federal environmental reviews. But it still faces an array of major hurdles including public opposition, financing and approvals by state water contractors.” Capitol Weekly has more. 

• California agriculture industry optimistic about Trump Ag policy,” writes Capital Public Radio. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @CalVoterFdn

For the first time, California regulators have warmed to the idea of directly serving up treated sewer water to residents, underscoring the difficulty officials have had in uniting around alternative means of setting the state’s water policy on stable foundations.

Direct use

“A new report released by the State Water Resources Control Board last week outlines what needs to happen before drinking treated wastewater, also known as ‘direct potable reuse,’ becomes a reality,” Southern California Public Radio reported. In sum, a battery of new regulations, focused on ensuring that filtration processes meet a number of rigorous criteria, would be required — a goal the board opted not to suggest a timeline for.

“But in Southern California, many of us already are drinking treated wastewater — at least, indirectly,” the station added. “Places like Orange County, the Chino Basin and coastal Los Angeles have been blending treated wastewater with groundwater for years. But the difference is, the treated sewer water has been sitting in a reservoir or underground aquifer before it gets delivered to our tap. That means the water is diluted, and it also gives water managers time to wait for lab results from the wastewater treatment plant, and make last minute changes if something goes awry.” 

Fish or foul

At the same time as it has warmed up to sewer water, however, the board has unsettled the water debate still further by pushing for more aquatic protections for fish. According to its new plans, “the amount of water in the San Joaquin River and its major tributaries that would remain available for fish during certain times of the year would more than double to a suggested starting point of 40 percent of the river water from nearly 20 percent,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Right now, around 80 percent of the river water is diverted for use by farms and cities,” the paper noted. “The diversions have helped sustain some communities through the state’s five-year drought, but have left fish vulnerable. Officials of the regulatory agency said the increases were needed to help restore endangered salmon and steelhead, populations of which have plummeted. Some tributaries fall to as low as a trickle in places.”

The eyebrow-raising news deepened rifts with farmers and others desperate to return as close to pre-drought levels of use as possible. Merced County supervisor Deidre Kelsey, describing herself as “kind of aghast,” told BuzzFeed News the plan was “so preposterous” that it “can’t work. Unless everybody picks and moves out of the valley.”

Tunnel trouble

The fish issue has not created the only impasse in California’s long-term plans for protecting and managing its water resources. In a disappointment for supporters of an ambitious plan to send Delta water underground toward Southern California consumers, a financially discouraging report requested by Sacramento recently came to light. “Giant tunnels that Gov. Jerry Brown wants to build to haul water across California are economically feasible only if the federal government bears a third of the nearly $16 billion cost because local water districts may not benefit as expected,” the Associated Press reported, citing the unreleased analysis, which was commissioned last year.

“Further, no local water districts have agreed to pay their slated share for the tunnels because of uncertainty over regulatory approval and whether it would be worth the expense for them. Spending on the project has become the subject of an ongoing state audit and federal financial review. With districts balking, the state for the first time is dipping into public funds — fees paid by users of existing state water projects — to get the project through the planning phase, state spokeswoman Nancy Vogel told The Associated Press last month.”

The issue actually is quite simple, even though the political machinations are complex. There are two main types of bonds to finance long-term infrastructure projects. The most common are general-obligation ones, which are repaid through revenues in the state’s general fund. In other words, the money to repay investors comes directly from taxpayers. The California Constitution requires a vote of the people before the state government can take on such debt.

By contrast, revenue bonds are repaid by users of the project. For instance, they typically are used on bridge projects, where users repay the debt by paying tolls, or on water projects, where water ratepayers repay the debt. The state does not require a public vote for these projects. Proposition 53 would require such a vote if the bond amount tops $2 billion. It “applies to any projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state, or by a joint agency formed between the state” and another agency, according to its official summary.

Opponents believe it could harm the ability of the state – and local joint-powers agencies – to build necessary projects. “Prop. 53 could threaten a wide range of local water projects including storage, desalination, recycling and other vital projects to protect our water supply and access to clean, safe drinking water,” argued the Association of California Water Agencies, in the official ballot argument against the measure. They fear that, say, Northern California voters would not vote to fund a project designed to benefit Southern California water users.

The Banks Pumping Plant looking toward the Bay Delta, where tunnels are planned that could protect fish. Photo courtesy of www.hcn.org

But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, in its analysis of the measure, explains that “[r]elatively few state projects are likely to be large enough to meet the measure’s $2 billion requirement for voter approval.” Indeed, the only two current projects that could trigger its vote requirement are the $17-billion-plus plan to build twin tunnels underneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to divert water toward Southern California and the governor’s $68-billion high-speed rail project, which could possibly employ the use of revenue bonds, although its current funding is uncertain.

Critics of the measure note it is funded largely by Dino Cortopassi, a retired Stockton-area farmer and opponent of both projects. Supporters say the measure is about controlling the state’s wall of debt, not about stopping any particular project. Cortopassi, for instance, in 2014 sponsored a series of newspaper advertisements across the state (titled, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!”) accusing state officials of using “deceptive” accounting to hide the size of the state’s debt and unfunded liabilities. The measure is designed to stop state agencies from using this particular form of debt to circumvent a public vote and fund mega-projects.

Even though revenue bonds are funded by user fees, they still often rely on taxpayer dollars, Prop. 53 supporters note. For instance, the revenue bonds that would fund the twin tunnels project would be funded “mostly by rate hikes and property tax increases on water customers,” according to a San Jose Mercury News report. In other words, the “revenue” stream is from higher property taxes and rate hikes on customers. Since those bills are ultimately paid for, in part, by taxpayers, supporters think taxpayers should have a vote. Furthermore, some projects funded by revenue bonds have sought taxpayer help and enjoy some taxpayer subsidies.

The initiative’s opponents say municipalities are not on the hook for these bonds. But supporters argue that, while governments may not legally be required to make good on them if a project fails, they might have little choice but to help pay off the debt, given the impact a failure would have on their community’s overall credit rating.

“Clever legislators and lobbyists have expanded the definition of revenue bonds to apply to many projects that are tough sells,” wrote the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain. “No voter wants to spend on prisons, for example. So lawmakers rewrote the law to finance prison construction with revenue bonds.”

Prop. 53 supporters see that as evidence that voters need to close a loophole used by legislators to fund projects without public support. Requiring a vote is not the same thing as stopping a project; supporters simply need to do a good job packaging the project in a way that appeals to voters, who tend to vote in favor of the vast majority of bond-funded projects that come before them anyway, they say.

Opponents point to this element of the LAO report: “(T)here is some uncertainty regarding which projects would be affected. This is because the measure does not define a ‘project.’ As a result, the courts and the state would have to make decisions about what they consider to be a single project.” There’s some question, the LAO continued, about whether a single building would be a project or whether the definition of “project” covers multiple buildings that are part of a complex. These uncertainties could create litigation problems, although supporters say the fear is overblown.

Primarily, supporters see Prop. 53 as a means to rein in runaway levels of debt that plague state government and to put into place a means to at least consult with voters the next time an administration proposes a massive statewide infrastructure project. Opponents fear the measure could hold up important regional projects, as a joint agency has to lobby the entire state to win approval for something that’s fairly local.

There is a third possibility: The bar is so high for triggering a vote that the measure may be much ado about very little. As the LAO explained, “(I)t is unlikely that very many projects would be large enough to be affected by the measure.” On a ballot filled with hot-button issues, such as marijuana legalization and eliminating the death penalty, this one might cause voters to shrug.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

What to watch for in Sacramento this month

Good morning, and welcome to August, which is sure to be a busy month in Sacramento as legislators fight to get their priorities passed before the legislative session ends on August 31. 

While a large number of bills will be debated, there are four major things to watch for: Environment, transportation, affordable housing and overtime for farmworkers.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• The Los Angeles city attorney is warning three area (crisis pregnancy centers) that they’re breaking a new state reproductive disclosure law and could face fines of $500 if they don’t comply,” which represents the first time steps have been taken to enforce the seven-month-old Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act. Rewire has more. 

• A bill in Sacramento looks to cap environmental lawsuits against large development projects at nine months, which supporters see as a big boost for development around the state, reports the Los Angeles Times.

• Why experts say drone education isn’t working, reports the San Bernardino County Sun.  

• Oops: “A half century after building the largest water-delivery system in America, California officials say they now realize they put their giant straws to capture Delta water in the wrong place.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

Assembly:

• In at 1 p.m.

Senate: 

• In at 2 p.m.

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @LABJnews

Good news for Brown’s twin tunnels project

Good morning. Happy Hump Day. 

The California Supreme Court cleared a big obstacle to Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to tunnel more Delta water out of Northern California, allowing the Southland’s Metropolitan Water District to proceed with the purchase of estuary islands that would be key to speeding up construction.

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news:

• “Orange County congresswoman Loretta Sanchez let loose on President Obama for endorsing her rival in California’s U.S. Senate race, accusing him of being part of the ‘entrenched political establishment’ that has failed California voters,” writes the Los Angeles Times. 
• Premiums for health insurance plans purchased through state-run “Obamacare” exchanges are projected to rise more than 13 percent statewide next year, with some premiums doubling in certain areas of the state. The San Jose Mercury News has more.
• “(Gov. Jerry Brown) has proposed legislation to streamline approval for housing with units for low-income residents. The state Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents ironworkers, roofers, electrical workers and other construction unions, wants Brown to force home-builders to pay construction workers at rates often equivalent to union wages to qualify under the plan, something the governor is resisting,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
• The California Republican Party confirmed that the staffers who fell ill this week at the Republican National Convention in Ohio had norovirus — also known as the winter vomiting bug — but reported there have been no new outbreaks in the past 24 hours.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til August.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mfleming

New follower: @RSI

The California Supreme Court cleared a big obstacle to Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to tunnel more Delta water out of Northern California, allowing the Southland’s Metropolitan Water District to proceed with the purchase of estuary islands that would be key to speeding up construction. 

“The previous owner, Delta Wetlands, an affiliate of a Swiss insurer, had wanted to build reservoirs on the islands to market water to areas south of the Delta,” according to the Sacramento Bee. “The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t settle Metropolitan’s legal fight over the pending sale,” however, as the Bee observed, allowing San Joaquin’s lawsuit to go forward along with a separate suit arguing “that Delta Wetlands signed a contract that requires future buyers to abide by the negotiated settlements.”

Nevertheless, Brown’s plan has already gained strength under the ruling. “Two of the islands are in the path of the proposed $15-billion tunnel system, a project that MWD supports,” the Los Angeles Times noted. “MWD ownership of the islands would eliminate the need for eminent domain proceedings and provide easy access for construction crews on part of the project route.”

Environmental uncertainty

Still, a somewhat cagey WMD quickly left the fate of the tunnel project, which would promise a massive and controversial undertaking even under the best circumstances, up in the air. “An MWD spokesman reiterated Friday that the agency has not proposed a project for the land,” the Times reported.  

“In the past, the district has said the 20,000 acres could be converted to fish and wildlife habitat or used to store materials for emergency levee repairs. They have also said the islands could be used to provide access for the construction of the tunnel system, which would carry Sacramento River water under the delta to the pumping operations that send supplies south.”

The court decision marked yet another turn in fortunes for the proposed deal, reversing a lower court’s own prior change of course. “One day after lifting a temporary order that blocked the sale, the state’s Third District Court of Appeal reinstated the stay, preventing the big Metropolitan Water District from completing the $175 million purchase of the islands,” as the San Jose Mercury News reported.

In addition to eminent domain and breach of contract issues, MWD quickly faced staunch opposition to the prospect of tunnel construction on environmental grounds. Opponents, including “Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties, environmentalists, and Delta land owners,” argued “the tunnels will be used to export more Delta water to Southern California, and they assert that an environmental impact report should be done before the land sale is allowed,” the Mercury News added. In response, MWD claimed “there is no reason to stop the sale nor require an environmental report because no formal plan has been filed to use the island properties in a water project.”

Racing the clock

For now, that argument has helped suffice to keep the deal moving forward. But by the time all the issues and controversies surrounding the ownership and use of the islands have finally been adjudicated, the political landscape in Sacramento could well be remade. Officials told the Times it could take “months or even years until all the legal challenges to the purchase are resolved,” placing the go-ahead for Brown’s tunnel project outside the reach of Brown himself, who is termed out of the governor’s office this year.

But Brown has moved perhaps as decisively as possible to hurry things along, bringing on former Clinton secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to tip the Bay Area scales in Brown’s favor. Babbitt has remained “friends with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among the most influential voices on the topic, and has access to partisans in the San Joaquin Valley and in Southern California,” Dan Morain recently noted at the Bee. “One of Babbitt’s chief aides at Interior was Jay Ziegler. Now, Ziegler is policy director for The Nature Conservancy, one of the most influential environmentalist groups on water issues. In the Clinton years, Babbitt’s undersecretary was John Garamendi. As the Democratic congressman who represents the Delta, Garamendi is a pointed critic of Brown’s tunnel project.”

Despite decades spent puzzling over the tall order of improving the state’s massive network of waterways, “those who need water the most, farmers, are in a poor position to take advantage of any deluge,” the New York Times reported. “If El Niño floods pour into the Central Valley, the farmers will inevitably watch millions of gallons of water flow to the sea.” State leaders, the paper noted, have wound up under the gun to determine “how best to save the water that arrives between the drought years, weighing the value of billion-dollar construction projects against smaller and less expensive measures.”

From the ballot box to Gov. Jerry Brown’s office, a whole raft of measures have been pursued from Sacramento. But none of them were poised to make the difference this rainy season. “California voters approved more than $7 billion in new bonds last year to improve water infrastructure, including nearly $3 billion for storage,” as ABC News Fresno observed. But with critics charging that new dams will come up short, “California Governor Jerry Brown is also pushing a controversial proposal for two massive tunnels to move water with fewer environmental issues,” the station added.

Beltway bickering

In Washington, the outlook hasn’t been any clearer. Earlier this month, California members of the House of Representatives angrily gave up on landmark water legislation aimed at benefiting the state. “In a remarkably acrimonious ending to negotiations that once seemed close to bearing fruit, GOP House members acknowledged the bill’s failure while putting the blame squarely on California’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer,” McClatchy reported. “The utter collapse of negotiations means a California water package — that in its latest manifestation spanned 92 pages — will not be slipped into a much larger, must-pass omnibus federal spending package needed to keep the federal government open. If legislative efforts are revived, they will come in the new year.”

Especially in the Delta region itself, public opinion has turned sharply against the scheme, which would cost over $15 billion dollars and reshape the area with massive infrastructure construction. “In recent weeks, opponents protested at the state Capitol and submitted volumes of critical comments to state and federal officials on the environmental impact of the plan,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “A wealthy Stockton-area farmer and food processor, Dean Cortopassi, qualified for the November 2016 ballot a measure that could complicate the project, if not stop it altogether.”

On the other hand, according to the Bee, the upheaval “didn’t appear to tilt controversy surrounding the project beyond its traditional bearings. Delta landowners, Northern Californians and many environmentalists have for years opposed a conveyance, while labor unions and building trades groups that stand to benefit from a project support it.”

But over the course of a public comment period on the proposal, Brown’s plan was subjected to withering criticism from a vocal minority of Californians. “By midday Friday, 2,340 unique letters had been submitted, along with 6,665 form letters and 19,047 letters that were the result of online petitions, a spokeswoman with the California Natural Resources Agency said. That’s in addition to about 2,000 unique letters and 10,000 form letters received last year in response to an earlier version of the tunnels plan,” Recordnet reported.

Big blowback

One such comment came from Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., who called the tunnel project a “multi-billion boondoggle,” according to the Appeal Democrat. “If we allow the Delta to be drained by a massive new plumbing system, it will put at risk many Delta jobs and forever change the Delta’s culture and quality of life,” he wrote.

Garamendi’s constituents have largely agreed. “The project to divert some Sacramento River water before it reaches the estuary is controversial, particularly in San Joaquin County and the rest of the Delta,” as Recordnet observed. “Opponents have relentlessly attacked the project from multiple fronts — questioning its economics, warning about its environmental impacts, and predicting hard times ahead for Delta farmers.”

But Brown has stuck to his guns, blasting the negative comments and vowing that the project would make a decisive and urgently needed difference in California’s distribution and consumption of water. “The delta pipeline is essential to […] protecting fish and water quality. Without this fix, San Joaquin farms, Silicon Valley and other vital centers of the California economy will suffer devastating losses in their water supply,” he said in a prepared statement. “Claims to the contrary are false, shameful and do a profound disservice to California’s future.”

Debating democracy

Instead of dissipating the tension, however, Brown’s words have only added to it, helping ensure that the issue will come to a head at the ballot box, when voters weigh in on Cortopassi’s initiative. He and his wife, the Bee noted, “have bankrolled the No Blank Checks Initiative ballot effort, pumping $4 million into the petition drive, consultants and other expenses since March.”

“Under his proposed ballot measure, any revenue bonds for public works involving the state would have to go to a public vote. That would complicate Brown’s planned strategy to pay for the twin tunnels, which rests on water users financing bonds to help fund the $15 billion project.”

As George Skelton suggested at the Los Angeles Times, some skepticism toward the initiative has centered around the potential problems inherent in turning over the fate of all similar large-scale projects to the whims of voters. “But the tunnel project was purposely set up to avoid the electorate. Politicians and their appointees are making all the decisions,” he noted.

New Melones Dam (Wikimedia)

Demonstrating the simple power of reducing daily water usage, Californians have impressed regulators and policymakers by taking a huge bite out of statewide consumption. “The numbers reflect broad conservation success at a crucial time,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Last year, Californians used more water in July than any other month, mostly because of lawn watering in the summer heat. This year’s urban conservation efforts resulted in a savings of more than 74 billion gallons in July compared with 2013, more than double the amount of water that the entire city of Sacramento will use in a year.”

Changing minds

The data lent some unexpected credence to what seemed like an outlandish prospect just a year ago. While many analysts presumed that huge new infrastructure projects would have to be undertaken to respond effectively to the drought, now some have begun to suggest that mere saving may be enough.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the sheer quantity of water saved — 414,800 acre-feet — measured favorably against some of the biggest and most expensive water storage facilities proposed to date. Both the expansion of Shasta Dam and a new Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River would open up around half that amount annually, the Times noted. Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy for Stanford’s Water in the West initiative, told the Times “there are so many soft paths that we can take that might have a lot less environmental impact and be a lot less expensive, and still meet our future demand. This is probably a smarter tack than building more infrastructure, and moving more water around long distances.”

A massive new Delta tunnels project, promoted by Gov. Jerry Brown and set to cost at least $17 billion, has recently become the center of one of the Golden State’s several water-driven controversies. Meanwhile, predictions of a powerful El Nino storm season have done little to reduce ongoing jockeying between Northern and Southern California over water sources, water rights and water costs. And economists have begun to question whether California’s more limited access to water will begin to take a toll on the state’s pace of expansion, including many new housing developments authorized before the cutbacks began in earnest, according to the New York Times.

Unintended costs

The big savings have come with significant unanticipated costs, however — not always measurable in monetary terms. In what the Los Angeles Times called “a paradox of conservation, water agencies say the unprecedented savings — 31 percent in July over July 2013 — are causing or compounding a slew of problems.”

“Sanitation districts are yanking tree roots out of manholes and stepping up maintenance on their pipes to prevent corrosion and the spread of odors. And when people use less potable water, officials say, there’s less wastewater available to recycle. Water suppliers, meanwhile, say the dramatic decrease in consumption has created multimillion-dollar revenue shortfalls.”

At the same time, California’s smaller cities have been thrown back on their heels by the stringent new regulations keeping consumption low. “State officials are starting to realize that some water mandates have the potential to cause serious economic problems for smaller communities such as Lemoore, Sanger, Hanford and Livingston,” the Fresno Bee reported.

The problem suggested a Catch-22, with the choice coming down to businesses in those areas making water cuts that result in cuts to jobs, or residents making up the difference by scaling back their consumption well in excess of the new mandates. “The cities are at or near the top of the state’s priority watch list to reduce water consumption, according to state Water Resources Control Board documents. All are missing the state’s reduction mandate by 10 percent or more.”

The Banks Pumping Plant looking toward the Bay Delta, where tunnels are planned that could protect fish. Photo courtesy of www.hcn.org

California taxpayers may be liable for picking up part of the $15 billion cost of the proposed Delta tunnels project, an economist warned at a legislative hearing last week.

The project consists of two 40-foot diameter, 30-mile-long pipes transferring water from the Sacramento River in the north Delta to pumping plants in the south Delta. From there the water is pumped to San Joaquin Valley farms and southern California homes and businesses.

Where Will Funding Come From?

One quarter of the project’s cost is expected to be provided by a $60 annual rate increase on Southern California water users, according to Dr. Jeffrey Michael, director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at the University of the Pacific.

The rest of the cost is planned to be provided by Central Valley farmers. The problem for those farmers is that the upfront costs for tunnel construction would total about $160,000 per acre, Michael told the Senate Select Committee on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on Aug. 18.

“That’s multiples above the value of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley,” he said. “Even great almond orchards with a reliable supply don’t rate anywhere near that amount. Worse yet, one of the financial problems with tunnels are drought years. When you get into an extended drought and the tunnels aren’t producing any additional water for the farmers, they are already financially constrained … yet they have to come up with $1 billion a year or more in debt service payments.

Michael continued, “I don’t see any way how it’s viable without some sort of taxpayer subsidy or backing.”

True Project Cost

If there is a taxpayer subsidy, it could be expensive. Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, warned that the estimated $15 billion price tag could be as high as $70 billion by the time the project is finished. “We know that it’s going to go over projected amounts,” he said.

Legislative analyst Rachel Ehlers told the committee that the Legislature should be concerned about the state having to financially support the project, which has been dubbed the California WaterFix.

“The administration is envisioning that water contractors will pay for the bulk of costs for constructing the WaterFix,” she said. “But are we sure those contract terms protect the state from any cost overruns? Are there other costs that could materialize? What about costs for ecosystem restoration related to the proposed tunnels or other conditions in the Delta? How will this interact with state responsibilities for that?

“So [you should be] thinking about where the funding might come from and what risks there may be to the state. It’s important for the lawyers to get in the weeds for that to make sure that the state is protected.”

Strong opposition

The informational committee hearing was designed to answer the question, “Are the tunnels good for California?” But, unlike most legislative informational hearings in which panels of witnesses testify for and against an issue, there was only one panel at last week’s hearing. And all of the witnesses, along with the Delta and Bay Area legislators and audience speakers at the hearing, were opposed to the tunnels project.

Their concern is that the taking of water from the north Delta would result in decreased water flows to the heart of the Delta, resulting in further damage to an already fragile and unhealthy ecosystem and increased salinity in the drinking and irrigation water for about 500,000 Delta residents.

They are not mollified by assurances from state officials that the tunnels project would actually improve conditions in the Delta.

Defending the project

“We can’t just cross our fingers, hoping for the best in the Delta,” said Gov. Jerry Brown in an April 30 press release. “Fish populations are at an all-time low. Bold action is imperative. We’ve listened to the public and carefully studied the science. This revised plan is the absolute best path forward.”

The tunnels project will “accelerate restoration of the Delta’s ecosystem and fix the state’s aging water infrastructure,” the press release said. “The revised plan substantially improves the health of California’s fisheries, increases water reliability and addresses the uncertainty of climate change.”

The tunnels project does include 30,000 acres of Delta habitat restoration along with another 16,000 acres of habitat mitigation related to the tunnel construction. But that’s a significant decrease from the 150,000 acres in habitat restoration that had been planned in a previous incarnation of the project. In addition, a previous 50-year habitat preservation commitment has been eliminated due to uncertainties such as the potential impacts of climate change.

A Delicate Ecosystem

An environmental scientist, Dr. Christina Swanson, former president of the western division of the American Fisheries Society, told the committee that reducing the freshwater flow in the Delta would exacerbate an already disastrous situation for the ecosystem.

“The ecosystem is highly degraded,” she said. “And virtually all of the native fish populations, particularly those that live in open water habitats, are declining and have been declining for decades to either record low levels or near record low levels. This includes delta smelt, longfin smelt, split-tails, starry flounder. So we definitely have a problem here.

 

“The primary cause, because it’s the primary physical and ecological driver in this estuary and ecosystem, is the alteration and large scale reduction in freshwater flows that flow into the Delta, through the Delta and out of the Delta into the estuary. That reduction is largely the result of man-made water management operations, storage on the rivers and diversion from the rivers and in the Delta.”

Alternative Plan

Craig Wilson, the state’s first Delta Watermaster and a former attorney for the State Water Resources Control Board, proposed an alternative to the tunnels project. It would take water from the west Delta, resulting in shorter tunnels, combined with a gate that could be closed if the Delta water became too salty or contaminated along with a desalination facility.

Wilson said that “the present conveyance system is the worst of both worlds. It is not very efficient in moving water from the north to the south, and it’s been very destructive.”

But he also doesn’t think the tunnels project is the solution. “I agree that the $15 billion price tag is grossly understated when you think about the amount of material that has to be excavated and put somewhere. Most of the benefits to the tunnels accrue to the exporters to the south and not the other parts of the state, the Delta and others.”

The only person at the hearing representing southern California water users was Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, whose district includes parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

“Southern California is looking for reducing our dependence on the Delta to the maximum extent possible,” she said. “We are heavily investing in recycled water.”

Sacramento County Supervisor Don Nottoli, who is the former chair of the Delta Protection Commission, responded that the Delta levees could be upgraded for $2-4 billion, much less cost than the tunnels project.

“That investment over time could not only armor the system in a way that is environmentally friendly, but also [help] on the climate change aspect of it because you can raise levees over time,” he said. “There’s a viable way to do it. It won’t happen overnight, but much more quickly than if you were to build a tunnel.”

Too Little, Too Late?

It remains to be seen whether last week’s anti-tunnels hearing and the alternative Delta improvement proposals will prove to be too little, too late. But they definitely are as far as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is concerned. That district, which provides water for nearly 19 million people in six counties, is eager to get the tunnels project moving.

“We are reaching the end of a long, winding road,” said MWD General Manger Jeffrey Kightlinger in a July 9 press release. “Metropolitan and other public water agencies have invested nearly a quarter billion dollars in this process because California simply had no other plan to reliably deliver water to two-thirds of California and to restore the Delta.

“Today represents the last planning milestone before producing a final plan for Metropolitan and the other agencies to consider. We applaud the bold leadership of Governor Brown in pursuing this necessary project. A million hours of planning must result in a final plan that is good for the California economy and environment. Everyone loses with the continued status quo.”

The press release was issued upon the recirculation of the environmental impact report for the tunnels project, which has been designated as Alternative 4A. The public comment period on that report has been extended to Oct. 30.

“The two-month extension gives the public, government agencies, and independent scientists more time to consider refinements and changes made since last summer to the plan that seeks to secure California’s water supplies and improve ecosystem conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” said a Department of Water Resources press release.

“The Delta is the West Coast’s largest estuary and is the hub of the state’s water distribution system. It provides water to 25 million of California’s 38 million residents and 3 million of roughly 9 million irrigated acres of farmland. The Delta also harbors several threatened and endangered species.”

Comments should be emailed to BDCPComments@icfi.com.