In a 2015 inaugural address at the State Capitol, then-governor Jerry Brown referred to California water while discussing debt, education, renewable energy, climate policy, health care, and changes to the criminal-justice system.

Brown did not specifically name the peripheral tunnels then proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. He did, however, describe the recently approved water bond and the California Water Action Plan as responses to the state’s water challenges.

Brown’s address emphasized voter approval of Propositions 1 and 2, planned investment in water projects, the state’s reserve fund, and what he called the long-term sustainability of California’s water supply.

Critics called for another approach

Opponents of the proposed water-export tunnels used the inauguration to argue that the state should abandon the project. Their objections centered on drinking-water quality, Delta communities, sustainable farms, salmon and other Pacific fisheries, environmental law, project cost, and the absence of newly created water.

The alternative presented at the time called for recycling, stormwater capture, conservation, groundwater cleanup and recharge, reduced Delta exports, stronger levees, and investment in regional water independence.

Critics argued that those measures could make water available across California while supporting durable employment and preserving fisheries and farms. They also contended that redesigning the pumps did not resolve their concerns under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.

The two proposals as advocates framed them

The figures below reproduce claims made in the historical argument; they are not current estimates or independently verified projections.

Proposed tunnels

Claimed cost
$67 billion
Claimed new water
None
Employment claim
10,000 temporary construction jobs, with critics predicting losses in Delta farming and fisheries-related work.
Primary beneficiaries alleged by critics
Large agricultural operations in the western San Joaquin Valley.

Sustainable-water alternative

Claimed cost
$12 billion
Claimed new water
5–10 million acre-feet
Employment claim
Thousands of longer-term jobs installing conservation devices and replacing infrastructure.
Intended beneficiaries
Communities and water users across California.

Why the argument still matters

The dispute captures a recurring California policy question: whether limited public resources should support a single large conveyance project or a portfolio of local and regional investments. It also shows why cost, ecological effects, water reliability, who pays, and who benefits must be examined together.

This is an edited archive presentation of an article first published externally in 2015. Read the original publication or consult the archived address reference.