By Dan Bacher <\/p>\n
Seven California counties \u2013 in coalition with environmental groups, fishing associations and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe \u2013 won their second big victory against the Newsom Administration and California Department of Water Resources<\/a> when it comes to financing the proposed $20 billion Delta Conveyance Project, also known as \u201cthe Delta Tunnel.\u201d<\/p>\n The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District just upheld a Sacramento County judge\u2019s decision in 2024<\/a> that state authorities have an invalid bond plan to fund the highly embattled project. Specifically, the appellate court agreed with the original judge that the state Department of Water Resources, or DWR, lacks the authority to issue revenue bonds to pay for the massive tunnel that would benefit central and southern California Ag interests and a handful of Newsom mega-donors<\/a>.<\/p>\n Sacramento, Yolo, San Joaquin, Solano, Contra Costa, Butte and Plumas counties were major litigants against DWR in the case.<\/p>\n In affirming the trial court\u2019s decision, the Court of Appeal detailed that \u201cthe Delta Program\u2019s scope is so opaque and ill-defined as to afford DWR nearly unlimited discretion to specify the facilities for which the bonds will be issued,\u201d and, in effect, \u201cthe Bond Resolutions would give DWR authority to issue an unlimited amount of bonds to finance the work.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, attorneys Thomas Keeling and Roger Moore, who represented the counties, laid out their thoughts on the decision.<\/p>\n \u201cDWR\u2019s own preliminary estimate of DCP costs was over $20 billion, and other expert analyses cited by critics have put the DCP\u2019s estimated costs at as much as three to five times higher,\u201d the attorneys said, adding that the counties and their related water agencies had \u201cchallenged DWR\u2019s authority to issue an uncapped amount of bonds.\u201d<\/p>\n Keeling and Moore also noted that \u201ca diverse array of other agencies and groups also opposed DWR, including certain state water contractors and environmental, taxpayer, fisheries, and tribal organizations,\u201d all of whom were relieved when the Sacramento court had \u201centered judgment against DWR, rejecting DWR\u2019s claim to almost unlimited authority in such matters.\u201d<\/p>\n Finding that DWR exceeded its delegated authority, the court ruled that the Water Code \u201cdoes not give DWR carte blanche to do as it wishes.\u201d<\/p>\n Additionally, the appellate court agreed with the counties and other opponents about further risks from validating DWR\u2019s \u201cproblematic\u201d definition of revenue, and pledges of revenues, to be paid by state water contractors. The court found that the \u201ccontentious\u201d and unsettled issue of whether DWR even has the authority to charge contractors for Delta conveyance costs is an \u201cintegral component\u201d of DWR\u2019s proposed bond financing. Removing that issue for separate consideration in \u201cpiecemeal fashion\u201d would be at odds with validation law.<\/p>\n Newsom, DWR and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California argue that the Delta Tunnel is \u201can essential climate adaptation strategy\u201d and a project that \u201cprotects against future water supply losses caused by climate change, sea level rise, and earthquakes.\u201d DWR says that it will also help \u201censure that the [state water project] can capture, move and store water to make the most of big, but infrequent, storm events.\u201d<\/p>\n The growing alliance of environmental groups, indigenous tribes, local governments and fishing associations that oppose the project argue that it will collapse wild salmon populations, harm wildlife, destroy generational farms<\/a>, trigger widespread eminent domain seizures<\/a> near historic towns<\/a> and kill off most local businesses<\/a> from Freeport to Rio Vista through years and years of construction impacts.<\/p>\n