Expert testimony reveals Delta Tunnel project violates California’s climate and affordability goals

While opponents of the Delta Tunnel in September stopped a legislative proposal by Governor Newsom’s Office to fast-track the embattled pork barrel project, the decades-long battle to stop the environmentally destructive project continues. 

First, In recent testimony to the State Water Resources Control Board, California Water Impact Network senior policy advisor Max Gomberg said Governor Newsom’s proposed Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) “runs contrary to state laws on climate adaptation, racial equity, and sustainable water management.”

Gomberg’s testimony explains that the state legislature “has passed multiple laws over the past two decades designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help Californians adapt to climate change-driven weather extremes without creating an affordability crisis, and ensure that low-income communities receive their fair share of investments in climate resilience,” according to a press release from the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN).

The climate policies specific to water use, including the Delta Reform Act of 2009, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA] of 2014, and the 2018 water conservation statutes AB 1668 & SB 606, all recognize the need to reduce unsustainable water use in an era of increasing hydrologic extremes.

“The Governor thinks that spending $60 to $100 billion building a tunnel to maintain current levels of water use is reasonable, but it contradicts clear legislative direction,” Gomberg observed. “If we want to reduce agricultural sector emissions, reduce the number of people at risk from extreme heat and wildfire, and keep urban water supply affordable, we need a smaller water budget, especially for agriculture.”

Gomberg noted that a major purpose of the DCP would be supplying Kern County agriculture with additional water, which would both decrease the land repurposing necessary to achieve SGMA requirements and cut the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required of the agricultural sector. Also, using the DCP to supply additional water to inland Southern California as planned would increase vehicle GHG emissions, increase the number of people exposed to extreme heat and wildfire, and undermine state water conservation goals.

“Southern California communities will have adequate water supplies so long as we develop local supplies and prioritize existing imported supplies for efficient urban use,” Gomberg stated.

Gomberg also explained that the DCP would have profound adverse effects on tribal economies and cultures and communities of color.

“The project will essentially preclude the Board’s own racial equity resolution that commits to addressing the disproportionate impacts that climate change is having on the access of Black and indigenous communities to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water and sanitation, local groundwater resources, healthy watersheds and robust, sustainable fisheries,” Gomberg stated.  

Gomberg testified that shelving the DCP and reducing State Water Project contract allocations would produce multiple benefits, including

• Improvement of Delta water quality and ecosystems

• Greater water affordability for ratepayers

• Increased capital for sustainable climate adaptation projects, such as recycled water

• Enhanced ability to meet urban water conservation targets

• Retirement of marginal land in Kern County

• Greater SWP operational flexibility

• Elimination of the need for Temporary Urgency Change Petitions

“The public interest implications of the DCP cannot be overstated,” Gomberg concluded. “While denying DWR’s application would not solve California’s climate challenges, it would create opportunities for water sector climate resilience that cannot otherwise be realized. The public interest will be well served by rejecting DWR’s application for this project.”

Second, Restore the Delta noted that two new developments this week expose “major flaws in the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) rush to advance the controversial Delta Conveyance Project (Delta Tunnel) despite repeated warnings from regulators and the courts that its process is incomplete and inconsistent with state law.”

“In an October 10 letter, the State Water Resources Control Board’s Administrative Hearing Officer directed DWR to redo and supplement its climate and regulatory modeling for the Delta Conveyance Project, finding the agency’s submissions “inadequate to inform the State Water Board’s decision” on whether the project complies with the Delta Reform Act and protects fish, wildlife, and water quality. DWR must now provide new modeling that incorporates current regulatory requirements and a reasonable range of future climate scenarios before rebuttal testimony begins,” according to a statement from Restore the Delta.

Just days later, San Francisco Baykeeper and Restore the Delta sent a letter questioning how DWR could simultaneously file for a consistency determination with the Delta Stewardship Council — essentially claiming the project meets all Delta Plan requirements — while still lacking key scientific and technical information required under state law.

The groups point out that DWR itself previously told a court that such geotechnical work was necessary before making a consistency finding, and that the court prohibited DWR from conducting the drilling and trenching it said it needed. That case remains under appeal.

“When the courts told DWR that its plan to move forward with extensive drilling, boring, and trenching in the Delta related to the Tunnel was unlawful, DWR insisted that it needed to do that work in order to determine whether the Tunnel was consistent with the Delta Plan,” said Eric Buescher, Managing Attorney for San Francisco Baykeeper. “But earlier this month, despite not having done that work, DWR went ahead and claimed consistency. DWR has not explained to the public, the Stewardship Council, or the courts why it changed its position, and it appears that DWR continues to march to the beat of its own drum, regardless of the facts, its prior statements to the courts, or the requirements of the Delta Reform Act.”

“After years of public outcry, court challenges, and state hearings, DWR still cannot provide a complete or transparent record for this project,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “The agency’s refusal to follow its own stated process—while pushing forward a consistency claim based on missing data—undermines public trust and violates the spirit of California’s water protection laws. The people of the Delta deserve a fair, science-based review, not a predetermined outcome.”

“Together, the two letters reveal a troubling pattern of procedural shortcuts and contradictory claims by DWR as it seeks to move the multi-billion-dollar tunnel project toward approval. Both the Hearing Officer’s directive and the groups’ letter underscore that the Delta Conveyance Project remains far from ready for a legitimate consistency determination, much less any final state approval,” Barrigan-Parrilla concluded.