In a significant boost for Gov. Jerry Brown’s $17 billion plan to build two massive tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Delta to more easily move water south, Silicon Valley’s largest water agency Tuesday endorsed the project and voted to commit up to $650 million to help pay for it.

With a 4-3 vote after a packed four-hour meeting, the Santa Clara Valley Water District reversed a decision it made in October to oppose the two-tunnel project.

Unions and Silicon Valley’s largest business group recommended a yes vote, while environmental groups, Delta residents and the majority of speakers urged a no vote. Critics argued the project would harm wildlife and water quality in the Delta and San Francisco Bay, while also putting ratepayers of Santa Clara Valley at risk for cost overruns similar to those that occurred on the Bay Bridge and high-speed rail projects. The district’s staff said the project would cost the average ratepayer $10.26 a month in higher water bills by 2033.

Immediately after the vote, Brown praised the district for supporting the controversial tunnels plan, which along with high-speed rail is viewed as one of his legacy projects.

“Simply put, this courageous decision will help two million Santa Clarans have a more reliable water supply,” the governor said.

Critics also weighed in.

“It is irresponsible for a seven-member board, without a vote of its ratepayers, to commit astronomical sums of money to a project that has never had a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis or accurate cost estimate, threatens to destroy an entire ecosystem and way of life and does not create a single drop of new water,” said Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Fairfield, who represents Delta communities in eastern Contra Costa and Solano counties.

Other large Bay Area water agencies, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water District, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, are not participating in the project.

The tunnels plan, which would be one of the largest public works projects in California history, still has significant hurdles to clear before construction can begin. It must obtain water rights from the State Water Resources Control Board, has already been hit with at least 30 lawsuits and has not yet received clear support from any of the six major candidates for governor who are most likely to succeed Brown when he leaves office in eight months.

“This is a project that is certainly more likely to go forward — both tunnels — than it was a couple of months ago,” said Buzz Thompson, a Stanford law professor and water expert. “But it’s not a done deal.”

The board members who supported the project Tuesday — Barbara Keegan, Tony Estremera, Gary Kremen and Nai Hsueh — said it would help provide more reliable water to Silicon Valley in the future and would be cheaper than recycled water, desalination and other sources.

“We want to try and get stability and cover the future needs of Silicon Valley,” Estremera said. “It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It’s important for us to have as much security as we can.”

Board members Dick Santos, Linda LeZotte and John Varela voted no.

The project, which Brown’s administration has called WaterFix, would build two tunnels, each 35 miles long and 40 feet high. The $16.7 billion cost would be paid by water agencies that participate through higher water rates and possibly higher property taxes. The tunnels would move water from the Sacramento River, 17 miles south of Sacramento, to the huge pumps at Tracy that are part of the State Water Project, reducing reliance on those pumps.

Courts have ruled that the pumps must be turned down, or shut off temporarily, at certain times of the year, when salmon, Delta smelt and other endangered fish swim near those pumps. Tunnels bored more than 100 feet below Delta mud would allow the state to more easily move water south during very wet winters in “big gulps,” supporters argue.

“California is the fifth largest economy in the world, and Silicon Valley is a primary driver of the GDP,” said Mike Mielke, senior vice president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents many of the largest businesses in Silicon Valley. “Our success — the envy of much of the world — is at risk unless we protect our water supply.”

But critics called the tunnels a costly boondoggle that would allow large agribusiness interests in the San Joaquin Valley, as well as urban users in Los Angeles, to eventually take more fresh water out of the Delta, a fragile system of islands and sloughs that flows into San Francisco Bay. They called it a water grab from Northern California that would degrade wildlife and water quality in San Francisco Bay and the Delta, while also saddling ratepayers with a blank check.

“Other than labor and the business community, I have not received a single message of support,” said board member Varela. “I choose not to mortgage our constituents’ future with unfettered debt.”

The tunnels project, which is similar to the Peripheral Canal project that state voters rejected in 1982 when Brown also was governor, had been struggling for cash. Late last year, Westlands Water District, a large farm water agency in Fresno, backed out of contributing $3 billion, citing high costs and debt risk.

But last month, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 20 million people in Los Angeles and other counties, breathed new life into its chances when it increased its contribution to $10.8 billion, providing new momentum.

Several Santa Clara Valley Water District board members said Tuesday that Metropolitan’s decision motivated them to change course. They said that only by helping design, fund and build the tunnels could they have a seat at the table. Santa Clara Valley would have one seat on a five-member partnership to design and build the project; Metropolitan would have two, the Kern County Water Agency would have one and the State Water Contractors, a coalition of 28 water districts and cities, would have another.

Opponents said the district would likely be outvoted by Southern California interests, whom they did not trust to protect the environment or the water rates of Santa Clara County residents.

“Those, coupled with my uneasiness with the superior position of Met, makes it impossible for me to support this project,” said board member LeZotte.

The district’s chairman, Dick Santos, agreed.

“This is a very complex project and unfortunately it comes with too many risks,” Santos said. “Too many yellow flags.”





The judge targeted for recall speaking out, rising costs of home renovation, and Uber’s plans for a flying fleet are all in today’s Current.

The district’s legal counsel, Stan Yamamoto, assured the board that the way the agreements are written, the district and Santa Clara County residents will not be liable for the entire $650 million if the district later wants to walk away from the project. Several attorneys independent of the project have said, however, that the language in the agreements is not clear on that key point.

Santos said that last October, when the board supported a smaller, one-tunnel approach, every board member felt good about it. Now, he said, with a much larger two-tunnel project, voters of Santa Clara County should have a right to vote on it. No other board members supported a public vote.

“Let the people vote,” Santos said. “You need trust.”