Officials defend Delta Conveyance trailer‑bill language as litigation looms; lawmakers voice concern

Department of Water Resources Director Carla Nemeth and Department of Finance staff defended trailer‑bill language aimed at accelerating the Delta Conveyance project during a May hearing of the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2, while several senators and other attendees warned the provisions risked undermining environmental review, tribal protections and local property rights.

Nemeth told the committee the department anticipates extensive litigation and is seeking “judicial streamlining” to obtain faster court decisions and to reduce years of delay that officials say inflate project costs. She said the trailer‑bill language is not intended to remove environmental review: the project has a certified CEQA document, a California Endangered Species Act permit and pending water‑rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) and its Office of General Counsel described two main items in the language: a 270‑day statutory timeline for court review modeled on prior infrastructure statutes, and provisions limiting extraordinary injunctions unless there is an imminent threat to public health or safety. DWR counsel Chris Butcher said the approach mirrors earlier statute used for other major projects and would apply beyond CEQA to other judicial challenges.

Lawmakers pressed DWR on how the trailer bill would interact with ongoing litigation — including a pending validation appeal about whether DWR can issue revenue bonds for the project — and on whether the state is effectively seeking to short‑circuit legal and public review. Senator Jerry McNerney and others noted the May language would expand DWR’s bonding authority and asked why the administration was placing such provisions in the budget rather than as standalone policy bills.

DWR officials said the project would be financed with revenue bonds payable by State Water Project contractors, not by the state general fund. Andrew Murch of the Department of Finance said official offering documents would state clearly these are not general‑obligation bonds and that the state would not back interest or principal with general‑fund revenues.

Senators and Delta representatives raised other specific concerns: whether trailer language could affect existing water rights and seniority, how the statute would treat tribal cultural resources acknowledged under AB 52, and whether eminent‑domain procedures could disadvantage landowners. DWR said it conducted AB 52 consultation with tribes and is drafting a resource management plan for construction‑phase discoveries; on eminent domain the department said the proposal would allow the department to accept a landowner’s appraisal earlier in negotiations to speed settlements, not to eliminate compensation rights.

Several lawmakers urged further scrutiny. Senator Ben Hueso (speaker transcript: “Senator McNerney” and others) criticized using the budget process for major policy changes and warned the trailer bill could set a precedent for reducing public review; other members of the delegation for Delta counties said they opposed the bonding authority and judicial limits as written.

Why it matters: The Delta Conveyance project is framed by state officials as a climate‑adaptation and infrastructure modernization measure intended to maintain reliability of the State Water Project in a hotter, drier California. Opponents say the project risks environmental harm and economic impacts for Delta residents and that changes to judicial review and eminent‑domain rules merit a standalone legislative process and fuller public debate.

Details and next steps: DWR said local water contractors will have to choose whether to participate and fund construction; DWR also expects water‑rights petitions to proceed before the State Water Board. The department is awaiting the court of appeal’s scheduling of the validation case briefing. Senate members said they will continue hearings and consider whether to treat the trailer provisions differently in budget negotiations.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the meeting transcript; direct quotes above are attributed to those speakers in the transcript record.

Ending: Committee members asked DWR and Finance to provide further legal analysis, clarity on interactions with water rights proceedings and more detail on eminent‑domain safeguards before any trailer language is finalized in statute or budget action.