Gov. Gavin Newsom’s attempt to fast track the construction of the Delta Conveyance Project had a setback Tuesday.
The governor’s strategy of inserting a bundle of policy changes into the state budget was rejected by a budget subcommittee, essentially sending a message to Newsom that the Legislature would rather discuss his suggestions using the normal legislative process.
The Delta Conveyance Project is a proposal for a 45-mile gravity-fed canal that would carry excess water from the Sacramento River to join the preexisting aqueduct system that provides water to millions of users in Central and Southern California.
In Newsom’s May revised budget, he added proposals that would speed land acquisition, require the State Water Resources Control Board to cancel certain objections, make permanent the water rights permit for the State Water Project and shorten litigation timelines. The proposal also includes some exceptions regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires environmental analysis, public input and the consideration of alternatives for building projects. CEQA mandates can be administratively heavy and serve as the basis for lawsuits and delays.
Three members of the Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy voted to reject the fast-tracking proposal — Sen. Ben Allen, D-El Segundo; Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas; and Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton. Sen. Steven Choi, R-Irvine, abstained from voting.
McNerney is a member of the Delta Caucus, a group of legislators who opposed the tunnel entirely.
He said in a statement Tuesday, “The destructive and unaffordable Delta Tunnel Project should be shelved permanently.”
Governor’s office disappointed by decision
Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said the governor received letters of support from 28 bipartisan legislators, as well as from water agency and community leaders, including the State Building and Construction Trades Council and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians in San Jacinto in Riverside County.
“The Legislature’s failure to include the proposal is disappointing,” Gallegos said. “The Governor’s proposal will prevent years of delay and billions of dollars in extra project costs while ensuring our ability to supply water to 40 million Californians. We are optimistic that the project will be approved in the final budget.”
A report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended that the Legislature take no immediate action on Newsom’s proposals. The opinion was that more time is needed to fully understand the impacts, especially given the potential for reduced oversight and equity concerns.
“The Legislature’s failure to include the proposal is disappointing. … We are optimistic that the project will be approved in the final budget.” Tara Gallegos, Newsom spokesperson
“While certain aspects of this proposal may offer benefits, they also could result in unintended consequences,” the analysis said. “Our recommendation to defer action on this proposal reflects our view that the Legislature should have sufficient time to fully consider the potential impacts of this proposal, particularly given that it is not directly related to passing or implementing the state budget.”
On Friday, both houses in the Legislature will vote on their own budget bill, but negotiations with the governor could continue over the next few weeks. The fiscal year ends June 30, and a final budget must be in place by July 1.
