Newsom says California needs to build a water tunnel. Opponents argue costs are too high

A state analysis ranks a 45-mile tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta as the single most effective action to adapt California's water system to climate change. Opponents including environmental advocates and Delta leaders warn the tunnel would damage habitats and several fish species and raise water rates for millions of Californians. The state estimates construction costs at $20.1 billion if water agencies contribute, while ECOnorthwest projects $60 billion to $100 billion or more. Critics argue the administration is downplaying costs and that alternative, more economical water-supply measures exist, especially for Southern California ratepayers.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom pushes for building a giant water tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, his administration is saying it's the 'single most effective' way for California to provide enough water as the warming climate brings deeper droughts and more intense storms. Environmental advocates and political leaders in the Delta, among other opponents, condemned a new state analysis that draws that conclusion, arguing that building the tunnel would harm the environment and several types of fish and would push water rates much higher for millions of Californians.

The potential costs of building the 45-mile tunnel are generating heated debate. The state has estimated the project, if water agencies participate and contribute, would cost $20.1 billion. But in a separate , economic research firm ECOnorthwest found the costs would probably range from about $60 billion to $100 billion or even more. 'Unfortunately, the Newsom administration is brushing over and leaving out the real costs of the tunnel, both to the ratepayers and taxpayers and the environment,' said Carolee Krieger, executive director of the California Water Impact Network, a nonprofit group that commissioned the economic analysis. She said the high costs would fall largely on people in Southern California through their water bills, and that there are better and more economical ways of securing water supplies for the region.

Read at Los Angeles Times