Newsom's power play on the Delta tunnel
Not only lawmakers, but the Legislature's nonpartisan, independent chief policy analyst.
The Legislative Analyst's Office has recommended that legislators hold off voting on what the governor seeks because they're being pressed to act without enough time to properly study the complex matter.
Newsom is asking the Legislature to 'fast-track' construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California.
Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor's latest move to expedite construction.
If there are any supporters at the state Capitol outside the governor's office for his fast-track proposal, they're not speaking up.
'Nobody's told me they're excited about it,' says state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), an East San Francisco Bay lawmaker who is co-chairman of the Legislative Delta Caucus. The 15-member bipartisan group of lawmakers who represent the delta region strongly oppose the tunnel — calling it a water grab — and are fighting Newsom's bill.
The black mark on the governor's proposal is that he's trying to shove it through the Legislature as part of a new state budget being negotiated for the fiscal year starting July 1. But it has nothing to do with budget spending.
The tunnel would not be paid for through the budget's general fund which is fed by taxes. It would be financed by water users through increased monthly rates, mainly for Southern Californians.
Newsom is seeking to make his proposal one of several budget 'trailer' bills. That way, it can avoid normal public hearings by legislative policy committees. There'd be little scrutiny by lawmakers, interest groups or citizens. The measure would require only a simple majority vote in each house.
'We're battling it out,' says Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the Delta Caucus' co-chair whose district covers the delta as it enters San Francisco Bay.
'This is not about the project itself. This is about how you want to do things in the state of California. This [fast-track] is comprehensive policy that the budget is not intended to include,' says Wilson.
Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek issued a report concluding: 'We recommend deferring action … without prejudice. The policy issues do not have budget implications. Deferring action would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications and trade-offs.'
The analyst added: 'In effect, approving this proposal would signal the Legislature's support for the [tunnel], something the Legislature might not be prepared to do — because it would remove many of the obstacles to move forward on the project.
'Moreover, even if the Legislature were inclined to support the project, some of the particular details of this proposal merit closer scrutiny.'
Newsom tried a similar quickie tactic two years ago to fast-track the tunnel. And incensed legislators balked.
'He waited now again until the last moment,' Wilson says. 'And he's doubled down.'
She asserts that the governor is seeking even more shortcuts for tunnel construction than he did last time.
'There are some people who support the project who don't support doing it this way,' she says. 'The Legislature doesn't like it when the governor injects major policy into a budget conversation. This level of policy change would usually go through several committees.'
Not even the Legislature's two Democratic leaders are siding with the Democratic governor, it appears. They're keeping mum publicly.
Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) has always opposed the tunnel project. So quietly has Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), I'm told by legislative insiders.
McGuire and Rivas apparently both are trying to avoid a distracting fight over the tunnel within their party caucuses at tense budget time.
Newsom insists that the project is needed to increase the reliability of delta water deliveries as climate change alters Sierra snowpack runoff and the sea level rises, making the vast estuary more salty.
He also claims it will safeguard against an earthquake toppling fragile levees, flooding the delta and halting water deliveries. But that seems bogus. There has never been a quake that seriously damaged a delta levee. And there's no major fault under the delta.
The tunnel would siphon relatively fresh Sacramento River water at the north end of the delta and deliver it to facilities at the more brackish south end. From there, water is pumped into a State Water Project aqueduct and moved south, mostly to Southern California.
'A tunnel that big, that deep, is going to cause a lot of problems for agriculture and tourism,' says McNerney. 'One town will be totally destroyed — Hood. It's a small town, but people there have rights.'
Newsom's legislation would make it simpler to obtain permits for the project. The state's own water rights would be permanent, not subject to renewal. The state would be authorized to issue unlimited revenue bonds for tunnel construction, repaid by water users. It also would be easier to buy out farmers and run the tunnel through their orchards and vineyards. And it would limit and expedite court challenges.
'For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We're done with barriers,' Newson declared in unveiling his proposal in mid-May.
But lawmakers shouldn't be done with solid, carefully reasoned legislating.
On policy this significant involving a project so monumental, the Legislature should spend enough time to get it right — regardless of a lame-duck governor's desire to start shoveling dirt before his term expires in 18 months.
The must-read: Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash The TK: State lawmakers considering policy changes after L.A. wildfires The L.A. Times Special: Homeland Security's 'sanctuary city' list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point
Until next week,George Skelton
—Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
43 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Some communities won't fly new state flag: ‘It's not a greater Minnesota flag'
MINNEAPOLIS - Old Glory is the only flag flying outside Detroit Lakes City Hall. You won't see the Minnesota state flag - the retired one or the new one that a number of communities refuse to hoist on flagpoles. Minnesota's new state flag was divisive from the start, especially in deep red, rural areas. The flag redesign process sparked intense Republican-led opposition as the DFL-controlled Legislature formed a commission in 2023 to replace the old flag. Some counties passed resolutions rejecting the new design before it was adopted last year. Now some cities are voting against flying it. "I think part of it is people think the new flag is ugly," said Detroit Lakes Mayor Matt Brenk. "Some people think the old flag was racist. I mean, there's all sorts of reasons that people are picking a side on this deal." Detroit Lakes is the latest city to oppose flying the new state flag in north-central Minnesota, where you're more likely to see the old banner on front porches, farms and lakefront properties. "We were on the lake this weekend and noticed a lot of the old flags and a few new ones," said Pequot Lakes Mayor Tyler Gardner. "They typically wouldn't have had a state flag before. It used to just be the American flag." Pequot Lakes is still flying the retired state flag and doesn't plan on raising the new one, Gardner said. "It drives us nuts that there's a divisive argument over a flag, that, let's be honest, it's a state flag. Does anybody really look at them that much?" Crosslake is also supporting the old state flag. In May, the council unanimously voted not to fly the new one. The cities are in Becker and Crow Wing counties, which also don't fly the new state flag. Only state buildings are required to fly the state flag. It's optional at city- and county-owned buildings: Some fly the old flag, many raised the new one, and some never flew the state flag. Julie Ring, executive director of the Association of Minnesota Counties, said in an email that she was unaware that any counties had taken action against the new state flag. The League of Minnesota Cities said it doesn't track flag activity, nor is it a topic on which it provides guidance or opinions. The Minnesota Secretary of State's Office shares flag etiquette, but it wouldn't weigh in on the cities and counties refusing to fly the new flag. Crow Wing County was the first to pass a resolution against the flag design, followed by Nobles, Houston and McLeod. The cost associated with replacing flags was cited as a concern. Even if a county opts out of supporting the official state flag, it is required in every courtroom. The 87 county courthouses are funded and overseen by the state as part of the judicial district court system. Kyle Christopherson, state court spokesman, said judicial districts worked with each county separately to determine payments for flag and seal replacements in courtrooms. Some counties fronted the bill while most were paid for by the state. The Ninth Judicial District, made up of 17 counties in northwest Minnesota, for example, paid for flag and seal replacements in all counties except Aitkin and Crow Wing. County Administrator Deborah Erickson said Crow Wing spent $10,000 to replace the state seals and nine flags in the courthouse. She sees the new state flag flying outside the Brainerd fire station on her drive to work. The county decided not to hoist the new flag at its veterans memorial, where the retired flag previously flew. Many jurisdictions didn't switch over to the new flag for practical, not political, reasons. In Dodge County, officials decided to use up their remaining stock of old flags. "It's just until the current supplies run out, then we would make the conversion," said County Administrator Jim Elmquist. The average outdoor flag lasts up to 90 days, depending on weather. A few old flags are still flying, but Elmquist said they will be replaced by fall. Faribault passed a resolution in February 2024 against the new state flag design, but the city hasn't opposed flying it since, said city spokesman Brad Phenow. "Now we've been following suit, and if we know when a flag needs to be replaced, we replace it with a new one," he said. The former state flag displayed the old state seal, which showed a white settler plowing a field while looking at a Native American man riding toward him on horseback. The imagery dates back to when Minnesota was still a territory and is viewed as a celebration of the idea that settlers were destined to take over the land. Tribes criticized that image as racist and it has long been the subject of controversy. High school students first brought these concerns to state lawmakers in 2017, but a redesign push didn't take hold until recently. A 13-member commission was given four months in late 2023 and a budget of $35,000 to redesign the flag and seal. They sifted through thousands of flag submissions from the public and narrowed it down to a finalist while making a few tweaks. The winner was a deep blue abstract shape of Minnesota with a white eight-pointed star - a nod to the state's motto, "Star of the North" - next to a block of light blue to represent Minnesota's abundance of water. The old flag was adopted in 1957, while the state seal represented Minnesota for most of the state's 166-year history. Both were replaced in 2024 on May 11 - Statehood Day. Crosslake Mayor Jackson Purfeerst cited the Native American imagery as a reason the city voted to continue flying it. "We are flying the original Minnesota state flag because of how rich Crosslake's history is with Native Americans and the tribes," Purfeerst said in a video on Facebook that garnered more than 500 comments of praise. "We have multiple Indian burial grounds all over town. We had one of the biggest battles of Native Americans on Rush Lake. ... We are honoring our history, we are honoring our culture, and we are honoring who came before us." In Babbitt, on the eastern edge of the Iron Range, the City Council first approved a measure opposing the new flag in 2024. It voted in February against flying the new flag, a decision that Councilor Jim Lassi says has garnered much community support. "Historically, we've probably had one of the most beautiful flags out of all 50 states," Lassi said. "You could tell right away that it represents Minnesota," with lakes and showy lady's slippers woven into the design. Lassi said the new flag is "ugly" and caters to "wokeness." Detroit Lakes went back and forth on the new flag. In March, the council voted in support of flying it, but then came backlash from residents and some council members. They voted again in May to not fly it, then in June decided not to fly either state flag after a tie-breaking vote from the mayor. Brian Ahlsten, who lives in Detroit Lakes and previously lived in the Twin Cities, said at the June council meeting that the new state flag doesn't represent rural Minnesota. "Some have tried to turn this into a left vs. right issue," he said. "This is more of a Twin Cities vs. greater Minnesota issue. … This flag serves to drive a wedge between us. It's a Twin Cities flag. It's not a greater Minnesota flag." Wendy Spry, who serves on the council and is an enrolled member of White Earth Nation, said the flag was changed for a reason. "This council turned its back on unity and welcomeness," she said. --- (Jana Hollingsworth, Trey Mewes and Jp Lawrence of the Minnesota Star Tribune contributed to this story.) --- Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump and GOP target ballots arriving after Election Day that delay counts and feed conspiracy fears
ATLANTA (AP) — President Donald Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after Election Day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it. Part of Trump's executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an Election Day deadline for mail ballots. At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by Election Day. Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Order asserts federal law prohibits counting late ballots The ballot deadline section of Trump's wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes Election Day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date. 'This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,' the executive order states. It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight 'dumps' of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But ballots received after Election Day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting. Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not. 'There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after Election Day,' said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an Election Day deadline. In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to 'take all necessary action' to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance. Trump's rhetoric motivates Republican states Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to Election Day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation. Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state's practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after Election Day, a change that will take effect for next year's midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017. Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires. 'We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame," he said. A history of complaints in California California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared. 'The rest of the country shouldn't have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,' U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing. He said California's "lax election laws' were to blame for the delays. The nation's most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined. California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by then. A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall's election found that 40% waited until Election Day to return their ballot. Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night. California Democrats consider changes to speed the count Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a postelection review and certify the results. Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of Election Day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks' association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election. Assemblyman Marc Berman introduced legislation that would keep the state's 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren't going to meet that deadline and give a reason. 'I don't think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren't out there and that this lack of confidence doesn't exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,' said Berman, a Democrat. 'There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.' He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the Senate. 'My hope is that this will strengthen people's confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,' Berman said.
2 hours ago
Trump, GOP target ballots arriving after Election Day that feed conspiracy fears
ATLANTA -- President Donald Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after Election Day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it. Part of Trump's executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an Election Day deadline for mail ballots. At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by Election Day. Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature. The ballot deadline section of Trump's wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes Election Day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date. 'This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,' the executive order states. It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight 'dumps' of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But ballots received after Election Day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting. Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not. 'There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after Election Day,' said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an Election Day deadline. In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to 'take all necessary action' to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance. Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to Election Day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation. Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state's practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after Election Day, a change that will take effect for next year's midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017. Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires. 'We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame," he said. California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared. 'The rest of the country shouldn't have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,' U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing. He said California's "lax election laws' were to blame for the delays. The nation's most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined. California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by then. A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall's election found that 40% waited until Election Day to return their ballot. Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night. Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a postelection review and certify the results. Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of Election Day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks' association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election. Assemblyman Marc Berman introduced legislation that would keep the state's 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren't going to meet that deadline and give a reason. 'I don't think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren't out there and that this lack of confidence doesn't exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,' said Berman, a Democrat. 'There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.' He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the Senate. 'My hope is that this will strengthen people's confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,' Berman said.
