Delta conveyance trailer bills draw strong opposition; lawmakers seek clearer cost and legal details

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard substantive objections to trailer-bill language in the May Revision that would affect the Delta Conveyance Project and related state water planning.

Andrew Arch of the Department of Finance told the committee the May Revision contains “trailer bill language for the Delta Conveyance Project” intended to streamline administrative processes for what the administration described as a high-priority water infrastructure effort. Multiple Assembly members pushed back, saying the Legislature had previously rejected a fast-track approach and that including large project authority in the budget bypasses the committee review the members said such a project would normally receive.

One Assembly member told the administration that placing broad bonding and expedited implementation language in the budget would amount to a “blank check,” citing public concern and the potential multi‑billion-dollar cost of the project. The member said prior litigation had limited DWR’s ability to issue debt for tunnel-related work and asked the administration for details on any court rulings and how the trailer language would interact with those rulings.

Local government and environmental groups urged rejection or extensive revision of the proposal. Karen Lang of the Delta Counties Coalition told the committee the coalition is “in adamant opposition to the proposal before you related to the tunnel.” She warned that typical revenue-bond repayment structures do not begin until after project completion and urged caution on the budget track.

Cynthia Cortez, policy program manager with Restore the Delta, told the committee she was in “strong opposition of the May revision trailer bill proposal that seeks to fast track the Delta conveyance project and sabotage the Bay Delta water quality control plan through the state budget process.” Mariah Larson of the Golden State Salmon Association also spoke in opposition.

Stakeholders raised several practical concerns at the hearing: the potential scale of borrowing (witnesses and members cited estimates ranging from tens of billions to as high as $100 billion), the projected multi‑year construction timeline (a commenter referenced a 15‑year horizon), and the ecological impacts on the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and its fisheries. Members asked the administration to provide a written set of questions about Delta Conveyance and to respond at the follow-up hearing.

Ending: No vote was taken; the subcommittee requested written responses and a detailed accounting of legal constraints, estimated costs and timelines before any budgetary or trailer-bill action.