[ad_1]
The board of California’s largest municipal water provider voted Tuesday to spend $141.6 million on the bulk of preliminary planning work for the state’s proposed Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water tunnel. .
The decision means the Southern California Metropolitan Water District will continue to pay nearly half of the pre-construction costs for the 45 miles of tunnels proposed beneath the Delta, but Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that in the face of climate change. states that the state needs to protect its water supply. Change and seismic risk.
“This is about planning for the next 100 years,” said MWD Board of Directors Chairman Adan Ortega Jr.
MWD’s 38-member board of directors decided to approve the funding after intense debate.
Supporters, including business advocates and local water officials, said the project would ensure reliability of supply to protect Southern California’s economy. Opponents, including environmentalists and Delta residents, say the plan will harm the environment and bring endangered fish species to the brink, while failing to deliver promised water supply benefits. He argued that it was a costly outrage that would force the government to take action.
The Metropolitan Water District’s board has not yet decided whether to invest in building the tunnel, which the state estimates will cost $20.1 billion. That decision is not expected until 2027.
Ortega said funding the initial work will allow authorities to “gather important information on the benefits and costs of the project and assess whether to fully participate in its construction.”
Newsom praised the agency’s support and said the tunnel, called the Delta Transportation Project, is “the most important climate adaptation project in the United States.”
“We’re doing everything we can to move that project forward,” the governor said at an event at a rice farm in Northern California.
Newsom met with MWD leaders in Los Angeles last week to encourage support for the project, and state Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot also made his administration’s case known at Tuesday’s meeting.
“Governor, Mr. Newsom has two years left in his term and we are laser-focused on completing permitting and certification to get this project shovel-ready,” Crow said. Mr Foote said. “Your continued partnership is essential to moving this project forward.”
Mr Crowfoot said building the tunnel would be necessary to modernize the state’s infrastructure in preparation for more severe droughts and floods due to climate change, and to withstand the risk of rising sea levels and earthquakes that could shut down existing infrastructure. He reiterated the Newsom administration’s position that it is essential.
“We need to continue delivering this abundant, affordable water source to all of California for decades to come,” Crowfoot told the board. “This is a foundational project for our water resistance.”
The board voted overwhelmingly to support the state’s requested funding.
Board member Mark Gold was the lone vote against it. Gold, who represents Santa Monica, raised a variety of concerns and questions at Monday’s committee meeting. He noted that there are currently about 10 lawsuits in which environmental groups, local agencies and tribes are trying to block the state plan.
Gold noted that state regulators are also in the midst of discussions to update California’s plan for water management in the Delta.
Additionally, Gold said it appears premature to make funding decisions for 2026 and 2027 now. While 11 other water utilities in Southern California and the Bay Area have agreed to state funding requests, two agricultural water companies, Kern County Water Authority and Dudley Ridge Water District, have not yet approved additional funding. Mr. Gold called this a “red flag.” ”
He also questioned why the state was not increasing its contribution to the bill. “If this is such a priority for California, why isn’t the state even offering to pay for some of it? Most of it? All of it?” Gold said.
Gold, among other things, raised questions about whether MWD would ultimately be able to fund the project, especially when considered in conjunction with other large investments. The district is also moving ahead with plans to build an $8 billion water recycling facility in Southern California, a project he said could be completed within 10 years.
Gold said he is concerned about an “off-ramp” that could result in the district withdrawing from participation in the project. Explaining his vote, he said he probably would have supported funding if these “off-ramps” had been strengthened.
MWD officials say the district has several “off-ramps” that allow the state to cut funding for a variety of reasons, including failure to secure water rights changes or other necessary rulings. He said it was possible.
Gold said he was concerned about protecting the district’s finances and protecting “the Delta ecosystem, which frankly is degrading and potentially collapsing.”
“There’s a lot of risk involved in doing this right,” he said.
Fish populations in the Delta and San Francisco Bay have declined in recent years, with species ranging from winter Chinook salmon to longfin smelt listed as endangered by the federal government. Extracting water to supply farms and cities contributes to ecosystem degradation.
The tunnel would bring water under the Delta, creating a second route to bring water from the Sacramento River to the State Water Project’s aqueduct, which serves 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland.
State water managers say the project will allow the state to capture and transport more water during the rainy season, easing water supply restrictions related to fish protection at the state’s pumping facilities. There is.
Newsom said he hopes the project will be fully cleared to proceed by the time he leaves office in early 2027. The state’s current plan is to begin construction in late 2029.
Crowfoot said the goal is to have the tunnel built in 2042.
The Metropolitan Water District, which provides drinking water to about 19 million people in Southern California, has spent $160.8 million to support the project since 2020.
A coalition of environmental groups urged the MWD board not to provide any further funding.
The group Restore the Delta denounced the decision as a “move to further unwarranted water theft,” saying the tunnel would expand agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley at the expense of the environment, Delta communities and ratepayers. He claimed that it was aimed at. Southern California.
Opponents of tunnels say instead the state should change water management to protect the health of the estuary and improve existing infrastructure, while strengthening aging levees and restoring natural floodplains. They argue that investment should be made in other approaches to the delta, such as reducing flood risk by increasing the risk of flooding.
Critics also want Southern California to reduce its dependence on imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River by investing in local efforts to increase supply, such as wastewater recycling.
The vote came amid internal turmoil within MWD. In June, the board placed general manager Adel Hagekalil on administrative leave and began an investigation into allegations of harassment against him by the district’s chief financial officer. Mr. Hagekhalil has denied any wrongdoing.
The board of directors voted in October to extend Hagekhalil’s leave while the investigation continues, with Deven Upadhyay serving as interim general manager.
Some environmental activists opposed to the tunnel said it was unfortunate that Hagekhalil was sidelined, as they believe he could have brought a more critical perspective to the discussion. .
Various versions of this plan have been debated in California for decades. The first called for building a canal around the delta and later twin tunnels under the delta, followed by Newsom’s current single-tunnel proposal.
In 2016, MWD purchased several islands in the delta for $175 million in connection with an earlier project. The tunnel was then rerouted and moved away from the island.
“It’s a different approach, but essentially it’s the same project with endless amounts of money,” said Connor Everts, executive director of the Southern California Watershed Alliance. “They just keep throwing money at things that will never get built.”
During the Council meeting, stakeholders on both sides of the discussion said water affordability is an issue that will need careful consideration in the coming years.
Earlier this year, the MWD board voted to increase area-wide tax rates and property taxes over the next two years to partially offset lost revenue from conservation efforts and reduced water use.
Some opponents of the project emphasized cost concerns. Crystal Moreno of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians explained the deepening affordability crisis and asked: Is there actually a reliability problem? ”
Moreno said the construction work would also disrupt and desecrate the tribe’s sacred sites, including the burial grounds of their ancestors.
Some argued that taking more water would destroy the delta’s ecosystem and harm local communities.
“This is a terrible idea,” said John Minehan, a Lodi resident who grew up fishing and picnicking with his family along the Delta River. “This is one of the most beautiful areas in California. It’s actually a gem. And what you’re going to do is dig it up and turn it into a pot of mud.”
He said MWD’s efforts to “grab as much water as possible and derive wealth from this precious resource” would create an environmental disaster.
“It will ruin the lives of the people who live in and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, not to mention all the species that live in that area,” Minehan said.
Supporters said they believe building the tunnel would improve the reliability of the water supply and address the risks of existing infrastructure.
“There is no better, more cost-effective option to protect Southern California’s water security,” said Richard Lambros, managing director of the Southern California Leadership Council. He called it “the sustainable, climate-resilient insurance our region needs.”
Christopher Anderson, a policy advocate with the California Chamber of Commerce, said the reliability of water supply is “foundational to California’s ability to sustain and grow its economy,” and this project is designed to ensure that reliability. said it is essential.
State Water Contractors General Manager Jennifer Pierre praised MWD’s decision to participate in the next phase of planning and pre-construction work. He said the project will “build climate and seismic resilience into the foundation of California’s water infrastructure, making it better prepared for increased periods of drought and extreme weather.”
[ad_2]Source link
