Gov. Jerry Brown’s aides treated the release last week of a massive environmental review that marshaled evidence in support of his $15.7 billion plan to build two 35-mile-long tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as an

Critics, however, scoffed, saying Brown’s project becomes more unpopular the more it is discussed. In October, when the governor hoped to have consolidated broad support behind the plan, four Northern California members of Congress and eight members of the California Legislature sent letters imploring the federal government to look at what they called fundamental flaws in the project, starting with its shaky financing.

The 90,000-page document hailed by the Brown administration concludes that the two huge tunnels would stabilize statewide water deliveries from the Sacramento River and improve the health of the Delta in a way that was the least problematic of various options now being considered. If approved by state and federal regulators and the Legislature, the project would divert in normal conditions 5 percent more water from the river than is now standard.

The governor told reporters the tunnels had been subject to “more environmental review than any other project in the history of the world.”

Greens, some farmers implacably opposed

Yet even if regulators give their blessing, Brown faces huge political obstacles: While the project has the support of water districts in Southern and Central California and is expected to win support from the business community, politically influential environmentalists have been staunch opponents. They argue that the massive tunnels would actually create new environmental problems, among other criticisms.

The proposal also remains deeply unpopular with Northern California farmers. “We just don’t think that the only answer is to take more water out of a river in crisis,” said Osha Meserve, a Sacramento land-use lawyer working with agriculture and conservation groups, told the Los Angeles Times. Meserve said even if the review was “a million pages,” it couldn’t redeem a bad idea.

The project could also be a tough sell to the public, Sacramento insiders believe — and not just because it would raise water rates statewide. Some Californians unaware of the state’s 160-year history of trying to create a more reliable state water system may see it as a costly overreaction to the drought. Some will look at the highly publicized problems with two other big state projects — the bullet train and the Bay Bridge — and wonder whether the state is up to the challenge of building two massive tunnels.

In May 2015, Brown said critics of his “WaterFix” plan should “shut up” until they were more familiar with it. But in the ensuing 19 months, criticism has only grown as more details are released. Environmentalists think Brown is overselling the benefits of the plan. Many Republicans say the billions would be much better spent on new dams and reservoirs.

It appears the governor will have to do considerable lobbying and arm-twisting — much as he did with Propositions 47 and 57, his two criminal-justice reforms — to line up support in the Legislature. A campaign apparatus — the Californians for Water Security — has been set up to aid his efforts. But as he grows closer to the end of his fourth and final term as governor, his influence seems likely to wane.

Some lawmakers hope to give voters veto power

Meanwhile, a new hurdle looms. A bill with eight co-authors that sought to require a public vote before the tunnels could be built — AB 1713 — passed an Assembly committee on an 8-4 vote early this year only to never be considered again. It is likely to re-emerge in the coming session, its sponsors say.

In his first go-around as governor, Brown’s similarly ambitious proposal to shift water from Northern California to points south was rejected soundly at the ballot box. Proposition 9, the Peripheral Canal Act, lost 62 percent to 38 percent in June 1982. Opponents built their campaign on the idea that the project was highly expensive and that it helped Southern California at the expense of Northern California.

In Texas they call their emergency drought alleviation plan SWIFT, short for State Water Improvement Fund for Texas.

In California, they might as well call our bundle of water projects SLOW, for the “State that Left Out Water” from its water plans.

The contrast between the two states indicates how California, even with a supermajority one-party government, cannot move quickly to build new dams to alleviate droughts or court-ordered shutdowns to protect fish during dry years. Thus, the unofficial water plan for California is to take water from farmers as the only alternative.

The Texas SWIFT project already is funded by $2 billion in cash out of the state’s “rainy day fund” and a voter-approved $6 billion water bond.

Texas also has a $53 billion water bond on the ballot for November 2013, including 26 new reservoirs, to undertake long-range plans to alleviate future droughts and accommodate an expected 10 million new residents by 2050.  Texas welcomes growth and is planning for it.

CA SLOW

In California, the state also has a $53 billion bundle of water plans for conveyance tunnels, Delta Restoration, Delta levee repairs, and a water bond that would build up to 3 new reservoirs.

California’s $11 billion water bond was withdrawn from the ballot in 2010 and again in 2012, and is pending review by the voters in November 2014. It is called the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act.

California’s water bond would only fund two to three new reservoirs.  That is, if environmentalists don’t block the reservoirs’ construction or require such costly mitigations that the projects would have to be abandoned.  Thus the default water plan in California calls for taking water back from farmers, rather than building new dams or making Delta water deliveries more reliable.

Unlike Texas, California has had no budget reserves or drought fund to move quickly to alleviate drought conditions.

Gov. Jerry Brown and the state Legislature can move forward building water conveyance tunnels through the Delta without voter approval.  But there is push back due to the cost of the tunnels and the destruction of local farming lands. And the environmental impact report for state’s Delta Restoration Plan is already tied up in lawsuits.

Texas uses 100 gallons less per household per day than CA

California has a self-created image of the leading state when it comes to water and energy conservation.  But Texas households use 100 gallons a day less per household on average than California households (see table below). California can’t even keep up with Texas’ water conservation performance despite Texas’ much hotter climate.

On average, Texas uses 9.2 million acre-feet of water per year for agricultural irrigation.  California uses 34 million acre-feet.  An acre-foot of water is a football field of water one foot high.  Roughly, about 3 acre feet of water are needed to irrigate one acre of farmland per year.  If water use is an accurate gauge, California’s agricultural economy is three times that of Texas.

California’s agricultural economy would shrink if it were not for farmers shifting to groundwater supplies during natural droughts or bureaucratic reductions in water deliveries. California groundwater adjudication is more than a century old and actually works quite well deciding water rights among private parties, as well as for governments at all levels. But environmentalists want to eliminate all water rights law by having government regulate all withdrawals of groundwater.

Unfortunately, the default water policy of California is one of subtraction: take water from farmers by environmental lawsuits to protect fish that don’t need protection; and by Congressional takebacks of previous federal water allocations.

Californians may be getting tired of comparisons with Texas. But water allocation and conservation is another area in which the Lone Star State is looking toward providing for its SWIFT, inevitable future of growth in population and business. The Golden State is squandering its existing riches while being SLOW to provide for future needs.

                   California versus Texas Water Systems and Anti-Drought Plans