When Gavin Newsom is sworn in as California governor on Jan. 7, he’s already indicated he will take criticisms of the state’s troubled $77 billion high-speed rail project seriously.

That’s in sharp contrast to outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown, who described project critics as “declinists” with no vision for what the Golden State could become. Brown only offered vague pronouncements when asked about giant cost overruns and the $50 billion or more gap between available funding and what’s needed to build the high-speed rail linking Los Angeles and San Francisco.

If Newsom lives up to his word, he’s going to need to respond to profound issues raised by project watchers in and out of the state government over the last two months.

In November, state Auditor Elaine Howle issued a harsh report on poor management practices in the California High-Speed Rail Authority, especially the billions in cost overruns due to the decision to launch construction of the project’s $10.6 billion, 119-mile first segment in the Central Valley before the authority was fully ready. Howle’s audit led Newsom to tell a Fresno audience that he might shake up the leadership of the rail authority.

Among the few specifically positive observations that Newsom has made in recent months about the project was that the first segment held promise to link Silicon Valley workers with less expensive housing in the Central Valley.

Project seen as ‘notoriously unpopular’ in Central Valley

But a Dec. 23 Sacramento Bee analysis found that even though the bullet train project was generating thousands of jobs in the agricultural region, it was “notoriously unpopular” among residents.

“They resent how construction has carved up their farms and scrambled their highways,” the Bee reported. “Completion of just a partial segment through the Valley is still years away, and residents doubt the project will ever get finished. They question the promises that high-speed rail will lift the Valley out of its economic doldrums.”

This skepticism is increasingly shared by elected Democrats both in the Central Valley and the rest of the state.

A Dec. 28 Los Angeles Times report quoted Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon as saying problems with the bullet train are so widespread that it should “be paused for a reassessment.” Rendon said the prospect that the project would run out of money before ever reaching the Los Angeles region left voters in the area feeling deceived.

Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, has made clear that he will work to have rail authority chairman Dan Richard ousted because of cost overruns and management issues.

The bullet train’s image has also deteriorated among state pundits.

When California voters approved $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the then-$45 billion project in 2008, the ballot initiative was broadly supported by newspaper editorial boards.

“Americans who visit Japan or Europe and hop a bullet train get a stunning reminder of how far behind much of the industrialized world we are in swift, clean, efficient transportation,” the San Jose Mercury-News editorial page declared on Oct. 18, 2008. “Californians can change that by approving Proposition 1A, a bond to begin construction of a high-speed rail system that would whisk passengers from Los Angeles to the Bay Area through downtown San Jose in a mere 2 1/2 hours. It will be a catalyst for the economic growth of California and this region over the next 100 years.”

An editorial printed last month in the Mercury-News showed a 180-degree swing in opinion: “The incompetence and irresponsibility at the California High-Speed Rail Authority are staggering. … It’s time to end this fiasco to stop throwing good money after bad.”

Decision on cap-and-trade funding may signal Newsom’s intentions

An early sign of Newsom’s level of enthusiasm for continuing on Brown’s path is likely in coming weeks as initial work is done on the 2019-20 state budget. The California Air Resources Board reported pulling in $813 million from its Nov. 14 auction of cap-and-trade air pollution credits – a heavy haul.

If Newsom opposes diverting 25 percent of cap-and-trade revenue to the bullet-train project – as has been done since 2015 – that will be the clearest indication yet that he is ready to back away from the troubled project.

It’s Senate Bill 539, by U.S. Senate candidate Kevin de León, a state senator from Los Angeles. The measure would limit the impact on affluent residents of the new $10,000 federal limit on deducting state and local taxes from federal tax returns by sharply increasing an existing tax credit for contributions to a college scholarship program already run by the state.

If SB539 is signed by Brown, families making more than $100,000 – especially homeowners – could potentially save billions of dollars with the new, much higher 75 percent credit. In 2015 – the most recent year for which statistics are available – 6.1 million California tax filers used the state and local tax deduction, with an average of $18,438, according to the Tax Policy Center.

This explains the bipartisan appeal of the measure, which passed the Assembly and Senate with a total of two negative votes – one Republican (state Sen. Jim Nielsen of Fresno) and one Democrat (Assemblyman Jim Frazier of Contra Costa County).

It’s not clear whether Brown will sign the measure. While he called the Republican tax overhaul approved last December “evil in the extreme” at the time it was being considered by Congress, he’s been reported to be skeptical that any state tax avoidance effort would be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service.

That’s the impression the IRS has sought to create since the state and local tax deduction was limited. And last month, the IRS proposed a 15 percent cap on deductibility of certain gifts, including to state programs like the one that would benefit from SB539.

IRS rule could reduce deductions for private tuition

The proposed IRS rule is so broad, however, that Gannett News Service reported on Aug. 24 that it could affect laws allowing for state and local tax credits for charitable contributions in 34 states. In several Republican-dominated states, these credits are available for private school tuition.

This generated a sharp reaction from EdChoice, an Indianapolis-based national nonprofit organization that’s devoted to encouraging alternatives to traditional public schools.

“The IRS chose to adopt a new rule after New York and a few other states who overtax their citizens at the state and local level had the audacity to create federal tax-dodging schemes,” EdChoice told Gannett. “These tax-dodging schemes do not compare in intent or purpose to the charitable programs created years ago to help children access K-12 education where they fit in and can learn.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, disputed the idea that the proposed IRS rule would have a heavy impact on donations to private schools and to school choice advocates.

In July, four states – New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland – sued the federal government over the deduction limit, saying it amounts to unconstitutional “double taxation.” The Tax Foundation says those states and California are the five where taxpayers will face the biggest hit.

But most tax experts think the lawsuit is unlikely to win, given the long-established primacy of Congress in setting tax laws and of the IRS in interpreting them.

California has already sued the Trump administration more than 50 times – but not, so far at least, over the tax deduction change.

Court OKs constitutional challenge to new law affecting farm industry

Good morning. TGIT. Sorry we went dark yesterday — scheduling conflict. However, had we not been dark, we would have told you about how a federal appeals court last week had taken the highly unusual step of finding a U.S. constitutional cause of action in a challenge to a California state law, which is the latest wrinkle in a long-running and bitter dispute between a farm workers’ union and two large Central Valley fruit growers.

The California Legislature approved a law last year that was designed to protect the state’s businesses after two court decisions left them open to unforeseen liabilities regarding the minimum wage.

The measure, Assembly Bill 1513, which passed by solid majorities, was a sign of concern about broad economic harm if companies who had acted in good faith were forced to pay various fines for some commonly accepted payment practices.

This legislative overhaul of the state’s wage-and-hour law waived all penalties if, by this Thursday, the companies paid their piece-rate workers back wages for any unpaid rest periods.

The legislation would have been largely noncontroversial, except that it included carve-outs for two Fresno-based fruit growers – Fowler Packing Co. and Gerawan Farming.

In other words, the law apparently applied to every California business, except for these particular companies, both of which had run afoul of a union.

Check CalWatchdog to find out what happens next. 

In other news: 

• “Sharing in a new emerging consensus in favor of substantial infrastructure spending, California Democrats have teed up the policy for early action in 2017, triggering renewed debate over the wisdom of funding the effort through significant new transportation-related fees and taxes.” CalWatchdog has more. 

• “Contradicting claims made by President-elect Donald Trump, the state Assembly’s top Republican said Wednesday that he doesn’t believe there was rampant voter fraud in California on Nov. 8.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “In the weeks since Donald Trump’s election, Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to press forward with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and on Tuesday he said the state is “taking whatever steps we can to find allies and partners” in that cause. But in private meetings with Republican governors here Tuesday, Brown encountered some resistance to one major initiative — his effort to integrate California’s largest power grid with other states in the region.” Politico has more. 

• “Assemblyman Jim Frazier announced Wednesday an effort to combat recently approved federal legislation that would maximize water exports from the Delta to Southern California agriculture.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till January. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mfleming

New follower: @ByJudyLin

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

De Leon introduced the board-packing plan shortly after Republicans engineered a takeover of the board, swinging the focus from environmentalists to business interests. In December, the board disregarded SCAQMD staff recommendations and instead adopted rules on refineries backed by the oil industry, and in March it ousted the the longtime director who had been seen as anti-business.  

Representatives to the board are local city council members and county supervisors, appointed locally. De Leon’s bill would have added three seats to the 13-member board, appointed by the the Senate Rules Committee (which de Leon chairs), the Assembly speaker and the governor.

During floor debate, proponents argued that the measure was about adding diversity to the almost all-white board that had no Latinos, which defies the demographics of the heavily-Latino region. 

“Needless to say, I’m disappointed,” de Leon told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “Any time people of color are excluded from decision-making processes directly tied to their health and wellbeing, fundamental change is needed. This is a textbook example of institutional racism.”

De Leon added that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican who also sits on the SCAQMD board, is termed-out and will soon be replaced by “someone far more progressive on the matter,” likely shifting the balance of power back to the environmentalists. 

However, of the current board’s ethnic composition, and the persistent lack of diversity, belies the fact that it’s largely been in Democratic, or environmentalist, control for years. De Leon did not say whether he’d reintroduce similar measures in the future.

Local control

Many opponents of the measure argued that the bill was a power grab by state policy makers at the expense of local control. And the large bloc of Democrats who either voted no or abstained suggest that the matter is not purely partisan.

“State versus local, that’s what this is about,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who helped devise the SDAQMD takeover. “It happened to be Republicans, but it was a state/local fight.”

But it was still a big win for Republicans, who are steadily slipping in their share of voter registration throughout the state, face the very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature next year and are not considered a consistent threat in any statewide election. For Republicans, local offices are where they can have a policy impact.

And despite several major policy victories for environmentalists, the defeat of the de Leon measure is a big win for the advocates of economic development. 

John Husing, the chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, has been studying Southern California’s economy since 1964. His research suggests a correlation between the rise of poverty and the rise of environmental regulations in the state. Husing argues that while the policies have had a positive impact on air quality in the region, the policies are imbalanced in relation to business development and subsequently drive poverty, which affects health. 

“The whole air-quality, green initiative is having detrimental effect on moving people out of poverty and into the middle class,” Husing said of the SCAQMD region and the neighboring central valley.

Environment v. economy

Environmentalists have often said that any job loss associated with these air-quality policies would be offset by job creation in green sectors. However, Husing says statistics say that isn’t true, at least not in areas with high unemployment, like many communities in the SCAQMD.

Citing data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Husing said from 2010 to 2016 the U.S. added 836,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to California which added 42,500 — a mere 5.1 percent. While the growth rate is on pace with with the national average, it lags by over 50 percent behind the state’s share of gross state product.

Husing said that the sluggish growth of manufacturing jobs in the state is attributed to three factors: Companies leaving, companies growing beyond the state’s borders and out-of-state companies refusing to grow in the state.

“Whose affected by that? It’s not the companies,” Husing said. “They’re doing fine some place else. It’s workers whose jobs are never created. … So you’re basically cutting off routes to the middle class for those workers.”

The vote

The measure failed just before the stroke of midnight on Wednesday, 30-36. And while it is seen as a victory for Republicans, the measure was largely defeated by the 14 assemblymembers, all Democrats, who didn’t vote.

Those who didn’t vote were Luis Alejo of Watsonville, Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Kansen Chu of San Jose, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Rich Gordon of Menlo Park, Adam Gray of Merced (who was not present), Kevin Mullin of South San Francisco and Shirley Weber of San Diego. The six who didn’t vote and live in the region were Ian Calderon of Whittier, Eduardo Garcia of Coachella, Mike Gipson of Carson, Roger Hernandez of West Covina, Chris Holden of Pasadena and Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach.

Legislators asking for hike in gas tax to fund transpo plan

Good morning. Happy Monday. And welcome to the final stretch in Sacramento, where the legislative session ends on the 31st. 

One of the biggest items left unresolved is a transportation plan. The top transportation legislators in each chamber — Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, and Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose — are pitching a 17-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase to fund a $7.4 billion transportation program. They also want to increase the tax on diesel fuels by 30 cents a gallon and to make it easier to get approvals for transportation infrastructure improvements. Their proposal exceeds what Gov. Jerry Brown pitched last year.

Brown’s proposal — which went nowhere in a special session — was built on a 6 cent per gallon tax increase and other provisions that would have funded a $3.6 billion transportation plan.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

• Speaking of a transportation plan, it’s one of several big items that will likely go unresolved this session, causing finger pointing and frustration. The San Jose Mercury News has more. 
• “For years, state lawmakers have been trying to crack down on private meetings between utility companies and members of the California Public Utilities Commission after revelations that top officials and industry executives had frequent dinner dates, shared talking points and even sketched out details of the multibillion-dollar closure of a Southern California nuclear power plant during a secret rendezvous in a luxury hotel in Poland.” But some worry that a package of bills under consideration by the Legislature to overhaul the commission won’t go far enough. The Los Angeles Times has more. 
• One senator upset someone on the other side of the Capitol, so they removed her name from her bill in retaliation. The Sacramento Bee has more. 
• And in a few days, the Legislature will say goodbye to one of its most accomplished members. The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Assembly:

• In at 1 p.m.

Senate:

• In at 1 p.m.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @SophiaBollag

Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, and Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, propose a 17 cent per gallon tax increase to fund a $7.4 billion transportation program, with likely additional annual hikes after adoption because the rate is indexed to inflation. They also want to increase the tax on diesel fuels by 30 cents a gallon, with the same indexing provision, and to make it easier to get approvals for transportation infrastructure improvements.

Brown’s proposal — which went nowhere in a special session — was built on a 6 cent per gallon tax increase and other provisions that would have funded a $3.6 billion transportation plan.

Bitterness over 2010 gas tax swap hangs over debate

The huge problem facing any proposal to raise taxes of this sort is the need for two-thirds approval, which means Republican votes in both the Assembly and Senate are necessary. And Democrats lobbying for GOP support don’t just have to overcome traditional Republican opposition to higher taxes. There continues to be deep bitterness over the gas tax swap that GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic lawmakers pulled off in 2010 to plug a $1.8 billion hole in the 2010-11 budget. Republicans aware of this history would struggle to believe that the tax hikes that Frazier and Beall seek for road repairs might not at some future date be used to pay for state salaries, pensions or other needs unrelated to potholes and aging bridges.

The background: Irate over previous diversions of gasoline sales taxes from road repairs to other uses, California voters twice this century passed ballot measures — Proposition 42 in 2002 and Proposition 1A in 2006 — that banned such use of gas sales tax revenue.

But gasoline excise taxes can be spent on general fund obligations. So in 2010, gas excise taxes were sharply raised and gas sales taxes sharply reduced. Because the move was revenue-neutral, Schwarzenegger and Democrats successfully argued that the maneuver only needed to pass on a simple majority vote — not the two-thirds vote needed for tax hikes.

As a result, each year, the state Board of Equalization announces whether it is raising or cutting state excise taxes on gasoline to honor the deal’s requirement that the 2010 gas tax swap be roughly revenue-neutral.

Recent coverage of the Frazier-Beall initiative has not detailed whether the 17 cent per gallon tax hike would be entirely in the gas sales tax or entirely in the gas excise tax or a combination of increases in each.  If it were in the gas sales tax, that would nominally mean the money could only be spent on road repairs and infrastructure improvement because of Propositions 42 and 1A. But another gas tax swap could enable the money to be diverted to the general fund by a simple majority of the Legislature in the future, at least if the governor was amenable.

Republican lawmakers are also likely to be wary of another part of the Democratic lawmakers’ proposal: a $165 yearly fee for owners of zero-emission vehicles to help pay for road improvements. While that’s higher than what most states with such fees charge, it’s only half of what the average U.S. car owner pays in gas taxes a year, according to data from 2013. 

The argument that zero-emission vehicles should pay more toward road maintenance is dismissed by greens who cite the environmental benefits of the vehicles. But as such vehicles become more common — and as states push gas taxes higher — owners of regular vehicles and free-market advocates are likely to cry foul.

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.