Delta Conveyance Project

In the 1960s, Governor Pat Brown supported two large projects that reallocated water from the northern portion of the state to Southern California.

In the early 1980s, his son, Governor Jerry Brown, attempted a third, the Peripheral Canal, which failed to gain voter support.

It has 600 miles (970 km) of canals and moves up to 13 million acre feet per year and generates electricity—about half of which is used by the system.

[4] Before the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992, the water transported from northern California went primarily to agriculture (90%), with the remaining 10% going to urban users.

[citation needed] When Governor Jerry Brown was previously in office, he championed an earlier version of the tunnels project called the Peripheral Canal.

It would have transported water from near Sacramento around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into the Central Valley Project and exported it to southern California.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service said it would not issue permits for the plan because the state could not prove that the habitat restoration project would help the salmon, sturgeon, or delta smelt.

The EcoRestore project only attempts to restore 30,000 acres (12,000 ha) over five years at a cost of $300 million, funded with state bond money and other sources.

[8][9] The WaterFix project was proposed to address the issues of the water system infrastructure in California being "unreliable and outdated".

The water flows through a maze of river channels and sloughs before entering the Clifton Court Forebay north of Tracy.

The freshwater/saltwater gradient has moved inland because of the 5 to 7 million acre-feet (6.2 to 8.6 km3) of water being removed from the delta each year for delivery to the Central Valley and Southern California.

The Eco Restore plan is to mitigate the effects the California Water Fix will have on the environment either through construction or operation.

[16] The California Water Fix was subject to a biological assessment, which is required for any project that has the potential of having an impact on the environment.

The adjacent table shows a page from the biological assessment which lists threatened and endangered species that have the potential of being affected by the implementation of the California Water Fix.

In 2014, the state proposed that customers of the project would make billions of dollars in annual fixed payments, even during drought periods when water deliveries would drop or even cease.

The State Treasurer's Office released a study in November 2014 conducted by consultants who found the project was feasible.

[24] The Metropolitan Water District has stated that the project will only cost each homeowner $5 a month, but it hasn't provided any analysis to support the figure.

[25][26] But several of the agencies who would be required to pay for the construction project have stated they can't justify the costs if there's a chance they'll end up with less water.

[24] In March 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission assessed a rare fine on Westlands in a settlement for misleading bond investors about the impact that the drought and water cuts had on its revenues.

[29] The size of the WaterFix project is as large or larger than English Channel Tunnel and Boston's Big Dig,[27] both of which were significantly more costly than originally anticipated.

Economist Jeffrey Michael, a professor of policy at the university, wrote that the project would deliver too little additional water for the cost.

[34] If the bill is passed there will be no mitigation for the damage that may occur along the San Joaquin river or in the Delta due to the California Water Fix.

[36] The basis for the project is that a new diversion system and extensive habitat restoration would improve delta conditions, boost the populations of imperiled fish, and ease limits on exports.

Proponents also believe that the project would protect the state's water system from the sea level rise expected to occur due to global warming.

[37] Opponents are concerned that the project will reduce the amount of freshwater flowing through the delta and cause worsening saltwater intrusion.

In September 2016, the board proposed rules that would allow up to 40 percent of the San Joaquin River watershed's water to flow through into the delta during the winter and spring months.

The formerly large populations of Delta smelt, Chinook salmon and other native fish have dropped to historically low levels.

[39] Environmental groups are unanimously opposed to and/or have voiced strong concerns about the project, including national groups such as: the Center for Biological Diversity, National Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition; state groups such as Friends of the River, California SportFishing Protection Alliance, Sierra Club CA, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Environmental Protection Information Center, California Water Impact Network, Clean Water Action, Citizens Water Watch Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Pacific Coast Fed.

[48] A second lawsuit was also filed against the project by the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.