To the editor: The governor’s message on the projected cost of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnel is basically this: Trust me, this $20.1-billion project is a great deal. (“Newsom administration unveils new $20-billion cost estimate for delta water tunnel,” May 16)
If Californians are wary of this claim, they should be.
This growing price tag is already enormous and it still doesn’t capture all the costs. What proponents of the massive tunnel fail to mention are the huge environmental costs that come with diverting billions of gallons of water from the Sacramento River. A true cost-benefits analysis would factor in the threats to imperiled fish and the harms to communities that rely on a functioning delta.
Californians should also be wary of any claims that the tunnel is a climate solution. Putting more stress on an ecosystem that’s already suffering from climate change doesn’t sound like much of a solution. It sounds like a lose-lose proposition for utility ratepayers and the environment alike.
Frances Tinney, Oakland
The writer is an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of several environmental groups suing the state over the delta tunnel.
..
To the editor: If there is anyone out there who believes the $20-billion estimate to build the delta water tunnel, I suggest you take a ride on the $33-billion — no, $50-billion; no, $80-billion; no, $100-billion; no, $128-billion — bullet train.
You’d better do it soon, before the next increase.
Mike Liewald, Los Alamitos
..
To the editor: We already have the beginning of a surface aqueduct that could go around the delta with perhaps pipelines in some locations.
What would be the cost to complete that proposal? How much quicker could it be built? And how vulnerable to earthquakes would it be? Even if damaged by an earthquake, the repair of a surface asset would be quicker than the repair of a tunnel under the delta.
This is information we need to compare with the tunnel’s cost in order to make a decision.
Douglas M. Chapman, Santa Ana
