In what Gov. Gavin 海角社区appom hailed as a major milestone, his $20 billion Delta tunnel largely cleared another chokepoint last week 鈥� but it still faces obstacles of a different magnitude.
For more than , California鈥檚 leaders have debated rerouting water around, rather than through, the network of rivers, farmland and marshes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 海角社区appom鈥檚 version would pipe Sacramento River water through to a reservoir on the California Aqueduct, in an effort to shore up state supplies and send more water south.
Delta communities call the plan a water grab that would devastate one of the country鈥檚 largest estuaries and . State officials and major water suppliers say it鈥檚 necessary to safeguard water for two-thirds of Californians against the threats of climate change and natural disasters.
Tasked with refereeing the fight, a state agency called the Delta Stewardship Council weighed opponents鈥� many challenges to the project and last week voted to require the Department of Water Resources to address just two of them.
海角社区appom , saying 鈥渨e are closer than ever to seeing this important piece of infrastructure completed.鈥�
Maybe closer than ever, California water watchers say, but still far from complete. Far bigger obstacles loom: court rulings that have upended California鈥檚 financing plans, critical water rights decisions still to come from state regulators, and water agencies that have yet to decide whether the tunnel鈥檚 water will be worth the cost.
鈥淭hese are all existential,鈥� said Jeffrey Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got some pretty tough hurdles ahead.鈥�
A dying Delta
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the heart of California鈥檚 nature-defying water systems, where state and federal pumps send Northern California river water coursing to cities and farms in the lower half of the state.
The Delta is 鈥� wracked by algal blooms, degraded water quality and fish species spiraling towards extinction. Residents, environmentalists and fear that diverting freshwater through a tunnel will push it over the edge.
Voters the first-generation tunnel 鈥� a peripheral canal 鈥� in the 1980s, during Gov. Jerry Brown鈥檚 first stint as governor. But governor after governor has . The canal eventually became the twin tunnels that became 海角社区appom鈥檚 Delta Conveyance Project, which remains mired in planning.
Carrie Buckman, environmental program manager for the tunnel project at the Department of Water Resources, is optimistic that construction could start as soon as 2029 and would last around 13 years.
But with 海角社区appom in his , the clock is ticking. And the region鈥檚 residents continue in limbo 鈥� bracing for a project that would carve through their communities, farms and waterways.
鈥淣obody seems to care about the people out here on the ground,鈥� said Duane Martin Jr., a third-generation cattleman in the Delta.
Martin steered his pickup down country roads, along the orchards and pastures of Sacramento County. Great egrets strutted the edges of fields to snatch small, struggling creatures from the grass, and red-winged blackbirds clung to golden stalks of mustard.
Martin worries for his cattle operation. His father was a cattleman. His grandfather was a cattleman. Now a father himself, his daughters鈥� cattle graze in the pasture outside his home.
He鈥檚 outraged by the prospect of the truck traffic, the noise, the churn of the concrete batch plant and the roughly 200-acre pile of tunnel muck planned for land where he鈥檚 been grazing cattle for decades.
But more than that, he said, gruff beneath his Stetson, 鈥淚t鈥檚 the community that they鈥檙e going to impact 鈥� those of us that have lived here most of our lives.鈥�
鈥淭hey鈥檙e going to change the Delta area forever.鈥�
An unending water war
The Delta鈥檚 vulnerability is real: levees are at risk of crumbling under age, earthquakes and climate-fueled storms; sea level rise threatens to flood the system with too much saltwater.
For Buckman, it鈥檚 simple: As climate change makes California鈥檚 swings from wet to dry more extreme, 鈥淚t鈥檚 about water supply.鈥�
Mount, like the water suppliers supporting the project, believes construction is inevitable. 鈥淚f you don鈥檛 build it in this generation, you鈥檒l build it in the next,鈥� he said. 鈥淏uild a tunnel, or start a very painful process of really cutting back on water supplies from the Delta.鈥�
The costs are high; around by the Department of Water Resources鈥� estimate, , by an economic assessment commissioned by opponents.
California doesn鈥檛 yet have a way to pay for it. State water managers planned to issue revenue bonds, to be paid back by water agencies receiving water from the tunnel 鈥� and their customers.
But a trial court said that the water code did not give the Water Resources 鈥渃arte blanche to do as it wishes鈥� and the financing plan 鈥渆xceeded its delegated authority.鈥� The Third District Court of Appeal agreed, and in April, the California Supreme Court .
Buckman said that the department still plans to issue bonds and is figuring out its next steps.
As yet, no water agency has committed to paying for a tunnel 鈥� and no agency likely will, until the department can finance it, according to Kelley Taber, an attorney representing tunnel opponents.
The federal government and the powerful irrigation districts it supplies have already opted out, Buckman said.
鈥淎g, at large, cannot afford to pay for large infrastructure projects,鈥� said Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors, an association of public water agencies that receive water from California鈥檚 massive delivery system, the State Water Project. But she said the costs don鈥檛 diminish the need.
That leaves the bulk of the bill with urban water suppliers and their customers.
Metropolitan Water District, the Southern California water import giant that supplies half the state鈥檚 population, is already paying nearly half the tunnel鈥檚 planning costs 鈥� but it鈥檚 also in local recycled water supplies.
Its board isn鈥檛 expected to vote on whether to shoulder much of the tunnel鈥檚 construction costs . No construction commitment before then means no commitment before a new governor takes office.
Meanwhile, major water rights questions remain unresolved.
State regulators are that could last through the summer about whether to allow the Department of Water Resources to divert Sacramento River water into the proposed tunnel intakes.
海角社区appom has since his first days as governor. Four 海角社区appom appointees sit on the seven-member Delta Stewardship Council that just advanced the tunnel project, minus a couple speedbumps. He has also championed unsuccessful legislative fixes to .
The question is whether the next governor will continue the push. Pierre said they must 鈥� the need for the tunnel is clear.
Mount isn鈥檛 as sure. It will depend on the next governor鈥檚 priorities 鈥� and who they put in key leadership positions.
鈥淲hoever they appoint, that is really where it happens,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard for me to imagine that if Brown and/or 海角社区appom weren鈥檛 all in on this, it would have gotten this far.鈥�
鈥楾hey鈥檙e gonna have to take it鈥�
Martin pulls his pickup to the side of the road next to a lush pasture he leases that鈥檚 more prairie than Pacific. This is one of the next battlegrounds for the tunnel project.
In the spring and summer, Martin grazes hundreds of cows and their calves here. And in the winter, the Sacramento Area Sewer District plans to pipe recycled water onto the fields, creating seasonal feeding grounds and rest stops for the sandhill crane and .
It鈥檚 part of the largest agricultural recycled water project in the state, , to provide highly treated wastewater to 16,000 acres of farmland in the region and take the pressure off local groundwater supplies.
California has already awarded more than $400 million for Harvest Water, but the funding hinges on the environmental benefits like habitat the project will provide, according to the sewer district鈥檚 Jofil Borja. It鈥檚 an ideal spot, between the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Cosumnes River Preserve.
And that鈥檚 where it runs up against the tunnel project. The pastures where Martin grazes his cattle and the sewer district plans to create seasonal habitat are also in the Department of Water Resources鈥� sights. State water managers plan to build a nearly 600-acre construction complex 鈥� with a permanent 214-acre mound of excavated tunnel materials up to 15 feet tall 鈥� .
鈥淵ou tell me if you want to be the neighbor that lives right there, lookin鈥� out his front yard at this pile of muck,鈥� Martin said, gesturing at a house across the road. Right now, its view is a sea of grass that disappears into a darker line of trees.
In refereeing the fight over this land, the Delta Stewardship Council last week ordered the Department of Water Resources to resolve its conflicts with Harvest Water over the site, or explain why that isn鈥檛 possible, .
Kelley Taber, the attorney representing the sewer district, is celebrating the mixed victory.
鈥淚 always thought that this was going to be (the department鈥檚) Achilles heel,鈥� Taber said. Among the 鈥渕ultitude of disastrous impacts to the Delta,鈥� she said, it鈥檚 鈥渢he most obvious fatal flaw.鈥�
Buckman disputed staff鈥檚 assessment of the siting conflict in a letter to the council, saying that the tunnel project can鈥檛 avoid the entire Harvest Water footprint, and that the habitats don鈥檛 exist yet. But, she added, the department would 鈥渨ork promptly鈥� to address the issue.
If it does, to the council鈥檚 satisfaction, state water managers will still need to buy or seize the land. The landowner declined to speak on the record.
Martin expects it will be a fight 鈥� and he鈥檚 ready for it. Under eminent domain, the state can forcibly take property for a public purpose. The landowner can contest it. But he鈥檚 unlikely to stop it.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e gonna have to take it,鈥� Martin said. 鈥淚鈥檝e got a lot of friends that leave, but I ain鈥檛 about to quit. I鈥檓 a fighter, and I鈥檓 going to stay here and fight for it to the death.鈥�
___
This story was originally published by and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
