By Alan Riquelmy, Courthouse News Service
The plan to build a huge tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta passed a key hurdle Thursday with the California Department of Water Resources approval following the release of an environmental impact report this month.
The controversial controversial project would include a 36-foot wide tunnel that extends some 45 miles. Two intake facilities south of Sacramento would pump 3,000 cubic feet of water per second from the Sacramento River into the tunnel. It would draw some 500,000 acre-feet of water a year, enough for about 5.2 million people.
State officials in 2022 estimated it could take 12 to 15 years to construct at an estimated cost of $16 billion.
“Today marks another significant milestone in our efforts to modernize state water infrastructure and adapt to the challenges of changing precipitation patterns,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, in a statement.
State officials anticipate losing 10% of their water supply by 2040 because of climate change. They’ve pointed to the tunnel, officially called the Delta Conveyance Project, as an essential part of Governor Gavin Newsom’s water supply strategy.
That strategy includes capturing more water during wet seasons to shield against future climate-caused losses. Once complete, the conveyance system will be used to move more water. It also would protect against earthquakes which could potentially sever water connections to millions of people.
California officials expect intense weather shifts, from droughts to floods, as climate change intensifies. That will put significant strain on the infrastructure of the state’s 60-year-old water project.
In contrast, the Delta Conveyance Project could have captured water from January’s atmospheric rivers for 2.3 million people’s yearly use.
The project underwent significant review before receiving certification of its environmental impact report on Dec. 8. That included a 142-day public comment period. The water resources department received over 700 letters and 7,000 comments. The final environmental report contains responses to all substantive comments.
“The environmental review process has been thorough and provided us with opportunities to work with the community to minimize potential impacts,” said Carrie Buckman, the project’s environmental program manager, in a statement. “We are now poised to take the next steps in engineering, design and permitting, and further developing a comprehensive Community Benefits Program.”
The Department of Water Resources said it made a concerted effort to address concerns about the project’s effects on the delta, as well as on tribes and people in historic and legacy communities. That included minimizing impacts on noise, air quality, boating and land use.
“We made several notable design refinements specifically to avoid or minimize local construction impacts,” said Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, which is responsible for engineering and design work, and ultimately construction. “We reduced the number of tunnel shafts, chose state-of-the-art fish screens to improve performance and reduce the size of the on-bank structure, and found a way to connect straight to the California Aqueduct.”
The project has seen strong opposition over the years. Signs against the tunnels are common sights in some areas. Additionally, U.S. Representative Josh Harder, a Democrat who represents the areas of the Central Valley including parts of the delta, reintroduced a bill in February called the Stop the Delta Tunnel Act. It would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from issuing a permit required to build the project.
“This updated plan is still exactly what we thought — a disastrous water grab to steal our valley water,” Harder said in a Dec. 8 statement, the day the environmental report was released. “Sacramento is hellbent on spending $16 billion of our taxpayer dollars to ship our water down south so Beverly Hills can have green lawns. It’s a complete disgrace. Our community is universally opposed to this project and we will not stop fighting this tooth and nail.”
The water resources department now will work toward obtaining the state and federal permits required for the project. A new cost estimate and benefit-cost analysis is expected in mid-2024.
