California lawmakers decline to audit $20 billion Delta water tunnel

Kate Wolffe, The Sacramento Bee on Jun 18, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

California’s state auditor will not investigate the state’s controversial Delta Conveyance Project, which would divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta down to farms and consumers in Southern California.

Despite the proposal receiving some bipartisan support Wednesday afternoon, lawmakers on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee stopped short of recommending the project be audited.

State Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, was one of the members who did not approve of the proposal, in part because he said it wasn’t needed.

“The scrutiny that this project is under I think has created a level of transparency that even (The Department of Water Resources) couldn’t stop.”

Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, D-Stockton, was the effort’s ferocious champion. She represents the Delta — the rural area between Sacramento, Stockton and the San Francisco Bay — which includes a number of riverways and small cities like Locke and Walnut Grove. For decades, residents of the Delta have been opposed to iterations of the project.

In May, Gov. Gavin Newsom laid the groundwork to ‘fast-track’ the project, streamlining permitting and limiting judicial review for environmental challenges.

However, Ransom said relevant agencies haven’t been forthcoming with answers about questions she has about the project.

“We need to have a better understanding of what it’s going to cost, who it’s going to cost,” she said.

The project is currently slated to cost $20 billion. Ransom said that same estimate has held true since 2020, despite inflation and rising construction costs.

“When I questioned the department about how they have insulated this project from significant cost growth, they were unable to provide an answer,” she said.

In fact, according to the Department of Water Resources, the project was slated to cost about $16 billion in 2020, and was updated to cost over $20 billion in 2024.

During the hearing, state Sen. Suzette Valladares, R-Acton, questioned Ransom’s intentions in bringing the audit forward, especially when the project is still in design stages.

“What is the actual goal of the audit?” she asked. “Is it about improving oversight or delaying the project?”

Ransom insisted the goal was not to delay or end the project, but to “reinforce the public’s trust in the state’s institution.”

Valladares stepped up for her constituents in the Lancaster and Santa Clarita area.

“Southern California is part of California and needs water,” Valladeres said. “I would hope that we can come together in recognizing that we are your brothers and sisters in Southern California.”

Despite six lawmakers voting to approve the audit, no one made a vocal endorsement. The proposal failed because it didn’t receive the votes necessary from the state Senate side. At least four votes are necessary from both houses on the joint committee.

At her request, Ransom was granted reconsideration of the audit proposal, meaning the issue will be on a future audit committee agenda.

The Delta Conveyance project is still accruing permits from various agencies, and according to CalMatters, state officials said the build could start by 2029. The process is estimated to take about 13 years.

_____