WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering diverting millions of dollars from San Francisco Bay shoreline restoration and flood control to help build the president’s wall on the southern border — part of a bigger plan under consideration to move disaster relief money to the project.

The White House is looking at nearly $2.5 billion allocated for California projects being worked on by the Army Corps of Engineers as possible sources to fund President Trump’s wall, according to a list of targeted projects obtained by The Chronicle from a source familiar with discussions. The White House could try to tap the money if Trump declares a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border to get around Congress’ refusal to approve his request for $5.7 billion for wall construction.

Other California projects on the list include nearly $1.6 billion for an American River flood control project in the Sacramento area, $200 million to raise Folsom Dam, nearly $260 million for dam work at Lake Isabella in Kern County and $13 million for a Yuba River flood control levee in Marysville.

All told, the administration is looking at nearly $14 billion in Army Corps of Engineers funds that were part of a disaster relief appropriation made by Congress last year and have yet to be spent or obligated. That includes nearly $2.5 billion in hurricane relief for Puerto Rico and billions for hurricane-related aid in Texas. NBC News was first to report that the administration was considering the idea.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Trump has said he will “most likely” declare an emergency if he and congressional Democrats can’t agree on wall funding, although he said Friday he was “not going to do it so fast.” Trump walked away from a bipartisan deal in December that would have provided $1.6 billion for his wall efforts, demanding $5.7 billion and sending the government into a shutdown.

The impasse has forced about 800,000 federal workers and thousands of contractors either to go on furlough or work without pay.

The San Francisco Bay project is a long-in-the-works effort to build up levees and convert 3,000 acres of former salt ponds in the South Bay back into marshlands.

The federal government allocated $177 million for the project, but California’s Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are expected to reimburse the Army Corps for half that amount.

The restoration is considered a crucial part of a region-wide effort to restore 100,000 acres of former wetlands around the bay within 50 years. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline project would also protect bay communities against expected sea level rise.

“What they’re really talking about is killing a flood protection project in Silicon Valley to build a stupid wall,” said Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat, who has been working since 2002 on research and planning for the project. “We have real flood risk for the northern part of the city of San Jose for which we have a real solution, and now they want to snatch it away from us.”

David Lewis, executive director of the environmental group Save the Bay, said he believes it would be illegal for Trump to divert money from a project that Congress mandated.

“It’s vital to the restoration of San Francisco Bay and it’s already been delayed for many years, so keeping it moving is a high priority,” Lewis said. “It’s crucial for fish and wildlife and endangered species. Wetlands really are the front line protection from sea level rise for shoreline communities.”

A concerted effort has been made over the past two decades to repair the wetlands. Much of the 30,000 acres of shoreline flats once owned by salt manufacturers Leslie and Cargill have been restored. Three thousand acres near Alviso are scheduled to be the next phase of the job.

“This is a critical missing link for flood protection,” Schuchat said. “This is 3,000 acres of wetlands restoration that we can’t restore until the levee gets built.”

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove (Sacramento County), whose district includes the American and Yuba river projects, said it was unclear how seriously the administration was looking at diverting the money. He noted that Trump has chilly relations with the state’s Democratic leaders, and speculated that might influence what the White House does.

He pointed out that the dam project at Lake Isabella, for example, is in the district represented by House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

“If they persist and decide this is where they’re going to go to get the money, they will go project by project and they’ll look at Lake Isabella and go, ‘Kevin McCarthy? Not a good idea,’” Garamendi predicted. “They’ll go to Sacramento: ‘Gavin Newsom? Screw him.’ There will be that kind of thing going on, picking and choosing based on the politics of that particular project.”

Newsom, California’s new governor, called the idea of diverting disaster money “unconscionable” in a tweet.

Unconscionable -- the President of the United States is trying to take funds away from California communities devastated by natural disasters to pay for an immoral wall that America doesn’t need or want. These games need to end. https://t.co/MGVXYMTF8P — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2019

Earlier this week, Trump renewed his threat to cut off wildfire disaster aid to California “unless they get their act together” on unspecified forest management practices.

Any move to declare an emergency for the southern border would face pushback from Democrats, either in the form of a legal challenge, congressional action or both.

But it’s not just Democrats who are concerned about diverting disaster-related funding. Trump could face bipartisan obstacles if he were to pursue the idea.

The top Republican on the House’s tax-writing committee, Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, represents a Houston district that was devastated by Hurricane Harvey in 2017. He told reporters Friday that he does not believe the White House will follow through.

“I feel confident that disaster relief dollars will not be tapped,” Brady said, citing his conversations with the White House. “They’re assessing throughout the breadth of government what are the unobligated funds and what can be tapped in the short term. But beyond that, I think it’s an assessment.”

The consideration alone, though, set off California lawmakers.

“Just the fact this would be under consideration is seriously concerning,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who chairs a key water subcommittee in the House.

“Whatever he chooses to do, we’re going to take him to court,” Huffman said. “This is political theater. He knows he’s not going to get his stupid wall ... so we’re going to have to play out this Kabuki for a few more rounds.”

Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale (Butte County), said he is concerned as well about the Army Corps money suggestion.

“Let’s be very, very careful before we do something that pronounced on funding for Puerto Rico — let’s do a better assessment of that,” LaMalfa said. “And when we’re talking about some of the other infrastructure that would affect California’s flood control systems there, again, I’ve got a lot of concern about that, because (while) all of the areas I’m hearing about aren’t actually my own district, it’s all kind of a part of a matrix of systems.”

He added that although House GOP leader McCarthy is “straddling a thin line” in what he can say about Trump publicly, the GOP leader’s relationship with the president will “be very, very helpful.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Tal Kopan reported from Washington. Chronicle staff writer Peter Fimrite reported from San Francisco. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com; pfimrite@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan; @pfimrite