Newsom’s Push to Fast-Track Delta Tunnel Fails, Moving Fight to High-Stakes Hearing

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s attempt to fast-track his proposal for a 45-mile tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta failed to pass the Legislature before its deadline overnight Tuesday.

The Newsom administration’s tunnel plan aims to send more Northern California water south and prop up the State Water Project as climate change threatens water supplies. Some water agencies are supportive of the plan, along with agricultural and business groups.

After the trailer bill failed to pass before midnight, the fate of the tunnel plan is now in the hands of the State Water Resources Control Board, which is holding a monthslong hearing on the project’s viability and the delicate balance of water rights. That hearing, which is set to conclude next month but may be extended, will produce an opinion from the hearing officer as early as 2026 and a decision from the board members on whether to oppose the tunnel or side with Newsom.

At the same time, the board is updating the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, a massive proposal for protecting the estuary that could reduce the likelihood of extracting water from the river system, essentially making a tunnel project less feasible.

California leaders are grappling with an enormous question due to the significant alterations in the state’s waterways and the threat posed by human-caused climate change: How much water needs to remain in rivers to keep the system safe from environmental collapse?

“That’s how far we’ve let this go,” said Ashley Overhouse, water policy adviser at Defenders of Wildlife. “We are at the point where we want to make sure that we are keeping the delta functional on a last lifeline.”

As part of the board’s water quality control plan process, it’s considering a request from the Newsom administration to relax regulations on the amount of water that must stay in the delta ecosystem, Overhouse said.

Water advocates and environmental organizers are highly critical of Newsom’s plan, arguing that it would devastate riverine ecosystems and surrounding communities. They are dubious of the administration’s argument that the tunnel is the right solution to make the state system more resilient to climate change.

San Francisco Baykeeper Science Director Jon Rosenfield applauded the Legislature’s decision to rely on processes that would require the tunnel project to undergo environmental review.

“I think the Legislature got that message, understood it, and recognized it as true to California’s values and spurned the governor’s efforts to waive California laws for pet projects,” Rosenfield said.

Newsom’s trailer bill could have streamlined water rights and other aspects of the project, which his administration estimates could cost $20 billion. In June, Newsom tried to tie similar bills to the passage of the state budget, but legislators pushed those plans out.

He continued to call on the Legislature to ease the permitting process, but his administration failed to get it passed during this legislative session. The Newsom administration did not respond to KQED’s request for comment.

The State Water Contractors association of public water agencies, among the supporters of the tunnel project, said it would have helped save its customers millions of dollars and vowed to support legislation next year.

“Even if action is delayed this year, the need for modern delta conveyance has never been greater, and the sooner we are able to make a decision on construction, the less that construction will cost,” said Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors.

Californians for Water Security, a coalition of dozens of local governments, family farms, labor unions and business groups, said they are “disappointed that the negotiations” stalled. The group said the tunnel project could have captured enough water during last year’s atmospheric rivers “to meet the needs of 9.8 million people.”

Newsom said the tunnel is imperative for adapting the state to a hotter and drier climate that could result in a 10% reduction in water by the 2040s. California’s current water system is outdated and unprepared to handle the supercharged storms and droughts of the future, Newsom said in May, adding that not investing in a new tunnel would cost Californians more in the long run.

For at least six decades, and multiple governors, California leaders have sought to export more water from Northern California to the south. The proposal for the delta water project has had several transformations, including plans for a canal and twin tunnels. When Newsom came into office, he promoted the idea of a single tunnel, known as the Delta Conveyance Project.

Today, the State Water Project captures, moves and stores enough water to be used by 27 million people and service 750,000 acres of farmland.

Richard Walker, professor emeritus of economic and urban geography at UC Berkeley, who said he helped defeat the original canal project with his research, called the project a “zombie idea that won’t … go away” because of Central Valley agribusiness and developers in Southern California who want more water to make more money.

“I don’t care what the water board decides,” Walker said. “It won’t solve a problem that can’t be solved. We have to live within our variability.”

Walker called the single tunnel the “ugly stepchild” of an idea that Californians defeated more than half a century ago and has “no business being built because it’s a bad investment that will not do what it’s supposed to do, which is solve the water problems for California south of the Bay Area.”

Opponents framed Newsom’s tunnel plan as one that aligns with President Donald Trump’s January executive action that aimed to redirect more water from Northern California southward to farms and cities. At a rally last Friday on the steps of the Capitol, one opponent of the tunnels said the Legislature needs to stop Newsom from “turning into Trump in order to defeat Trump.”

Rosenfield, with San Francisco Baykeeper, said the tunnel project is likely to cost as much as $100 billion, which is five times higher than the amount the Newsom administration proposed.

“Newsom desperately wants to win approval for his tunnel so he can claim that he’s done more than President Trump to help the Central Valley industrial nut farms and corporate landowners who export water from San Francisco Bay’s estuary,” Rosenfield said.

Opponents said sucking more water out of the Sacramento River and into the tunnel would eviscerate delta communities, adding that the water is needed for the viability of fish and wildlife.

Tribal leaders also believe diverting more water from the Sacramento River will put “tribes in a position of lacking access to the things that we need for our cultural practices,” said Malissa Tayaba, vice chair and director of traditional ecological knowledge of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. “Everything that we need comes from the river. Our baskets come from the rivers. Our food sources came from the river.”

Laurie Riggio and James Renwick farm 80 acres of asparagus and other crops on Sherman Island on the edge of Sacramento County. Holding a sign that read “Stop the Suck” at a recent rally against the project, Riggio said the tunnel would have “very severe” effects on the region, including allowing more saltwater to intrude deeper into the Delta where they live.

“It will destroy Northern California farmland, and that’s one of the most pressing issues,” Riggio said. “The other is going to be loss of habitat for fish, including delta smelt, but also salmon.”