Connect with us

Politics

Newsom administration unveils new $20-billion cost estimate for delta water tunnel

Published

on

Newsom administration unveils new -billion cost estimate for delta water tunnel

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration announced that the estimated cost of building a tunnel to transport water beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta has risen to $20.1 billion.

The estimate is part of a new cost-benefit analysis by the California Department of Water Resources, which concluded that the projected benefits of constructing the water tunnel would far outweigh the costs.

State officials released the analysis Thursday, saying the proposed Delta Conveyance Project is vital to improving the reliability of water supplies in the face of climate change, sea level rise and the risks of an earthquake that could put existing infrastructure out of commission for months.

The state estimates that the project’s benefits would total nearly $38 billion by offsetting steep reductions in water deliveries due to existing infrastructure limitations and climate change.

A gull flies above McLeod Lake in Stockton.

Advertisement

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

“The project easily passes a benefit-cost test,” said David Sunding, a UC Berkeley emeritus professor who led the analysis as a consultant for the state. “The benefits clearly justify the costs.”

The last time the state produced an estimate, in 2020, the price tag came to $16 billion. The cost increase, Sunding said, is almost entirely due to inflation. The projected benefits also increased.

The cost analysis is the state’s latest step toward building the 45-mile tunnel, which would create a second route to draw water from the Sacramento River into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.

Advertisement

Newsom says the project is critical for California’s future, but opponents argue it is a costly boondoggle that would harm the delta and further imperil its ecosystem.

Environmental groups, Indigenous tribes, fishing organizations and local agencies have filed lawsuits seeking to block the project.

This week, dozens of groups filed protests with the State Water Resources Control Board challenging a state petition to change its “point of diversion” in the delta — one of the steps necessary to move forward with construction.

The State Water Project supplies 27 million people and about 750,000 acres of farmland — fueling a $2.3-trillion portion of the state’s economy.

Flooded rice fields along the San Joaquin River in Stockton.

Flooded rice fields along the San Joaquin River in Stockton.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

But state officials say the state’s existing pumping infrastructure in the south delta, which draws water into the California Aqueduct, is vulnerable to the more intense extremes driven by climate change, as well as sea level rise.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

They estimate that if the state relies on its current infrastructure, there would likely be a 22% reduction in water deliveries by 2070. However, construction of the tunnel would boost supplies by an estimated 400,000 acre-feet annually, compared to the “no project” alternative.

Advertisement

The estimates included an analysis of impacts from sea level rise — using scenarios of a 1.8 feet or 3.5 feet rise by 2070 — which would bring increasing risks of delta levees failing or being overtopped, and higher salinity water encroaching on existing infrastructure.

State officials also analyzed the risk that a major earthquake would pose to the existing infrastructure, which they say could disrupt deliveries of supplies for months. Sunding said the tunnel would have a “superior ability” to withstand earthquakes and would make the state’s system less vulnerable.

A sign of opposition to the Delta Conveyance Project along a levee road near the Sacramento River in Hood.

A sign of opposition to the Delta Conveyance Project along a levee road near the Sacramento River in Hood.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

“I get a lump in my throat when I look at the potential for a catastrophic failure in the delta,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the state Department of Water Resources. “This is a project that just provides enormous value to the broad California economy.”

Advertisement

Nemeth said the analysis shows that doing nothing would mean substantial costs for the state through frequent water shortages, mandatory restrictions in cities, and reductions in agricultural supplies that would force farmers to leave fields dry and fallow.

“It is vastly more efficient and economical to avoid declining supplies,” Nemeth said.

The costs of the project would be paid for by urban and agricultural water districts that decide to participate.

The state’s cost-benefit analysis is intended to provide information that local water agencies, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, will consider.

The Antioch Bridge over the San Joaquin River

The Antioch Bridge over the San Joaquin River.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

In preparing the updated cost estimate, the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority examined potential “design and construction innovations” that could reduce the overall costs by about $1.2 billion.

Currently, about 56% of water deliveries from the State Water Project supply urban areas, while nearly 44% go to agriculture.

The analysis projects that with the tunnel, California would have fewer periods of mandatory water rationing and also less severe rationing, Sunding said. The project “helps to preserve the supplies that would otherwise be eroded through climate change,” he said.

State officials also compared the costs of additional supplies from the tunnel, at $1,325 per acre-foot, to the costs of additional supplies through investments in desalination, wastewater recycling, stormwater capture and conservation.

Advertisement

Sunding said they found the median costs of these other types of investments would be higher, with the exception of conservation, which is “in the same ballpark” with the project.

“But it is important to note that we’ve done a lot of water conservation in the state, particularly in Southern California and some parts of the Bay Area, and a lot of the cheapest water conservation projects have already been done,” Sunding said. “So there are limits to how much more water conservation there can be.”

However, other experts say California still has a great deal of potential to continue reducing water use through conservation. Researchers with the Pacific Institute, a water think tank, found in a 2022 study that the state could reduce water use by more than 30% in cities and suburbs by investing in measures to use water more efficiently.

Opponents of the tunnel project have argued the state should instead invest in other approaches in the delta, such as shoring up levees and restoring natural floodplains to reduce flood risks, while changing water management to protect the estuary’s health.

An angler casts into a reservoir.

An angler casts into Bethany Reservoir in Byron.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Fish populations have suffered declines in recent years, and environmentalists say the tunnel would cause additional ecological harm.

State officials say the tunnel would lessen limitations on water deliveries linked to fish protections at the state’s existing pumping facilities in the south delta.

They point to this year as an example. Despite a wet winter and ample river flows, a rise in the deaths of steelhead trout and other fish in areas around the pumps forced reductions in pumping.

The Department of Water Resources said that if the delta tunnel had been in operation this year, an additional 909,000 acre-feet of water could have been delivered from intakes in the north delta, helping to resolve what officials described as “difficult conflicts” in the south delta.

Advertisement

“The status quo is not an option going forward. It’s just not something that can be maintained,” Sunding said. “One way or another, the system is going to change. Climate change is going to have its impact.”

Politics

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

Published

on

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

new video loaded: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

transcript

transcript

Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat. Destroy the navy. No nukes. President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks. Two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back. We’re going to execute at his command the objectives we’ve set out to achieve.” “We expect to take additional losses. And as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses. But as the secretary said, this is major combat operations.” Reporter: “Are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran?” “No, but we’re not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do. I think — it’s one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or others should tell the American people. This — and our enemies by the way — here’s exactly what we’ll do. Why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody, what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective?”

Advertisement
At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

By Christina Kelso

March 2, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

Published

on

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Americans could soon see higher gas prices as escalating tensions in the Middle East threaten a critical global oil chokepoint, raising fears of supply disruptions that could quickly reverberate across U.S. energy markets.

After joint U.S.–Israeli strikes, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, targeted Iranian sites over the weekend and killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, concerns quickly shifted to how Tehran might respond and whether oil infrastructure or tanker traffic could become collateral damage.

Any disruption to global crude supplies could translate into higher costs for American drivers at the pump.

“Every time we’ve had flare-ups in the Middle East like we’re seeing right now — and we’ve seen this kind of situation periodically over the last 50 years — it has caused significant disruption to energy markets,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

“I would expect we could see anywhere from 25 to 50 cents a gallon increase in gas prices in the short term,” he said.

Experts say Americans will likely pay more for gas due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. (Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

Market data already shows prices moving higher.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said oil prices were up $5 per barrel, while wholesale gasoline prices had risen 11 cents per gallon.

He expects retail gas prices to begin climbing immediately, especially in areas where stations tend to adjust prices in sharp, periodic jumps.

Advertisement

The national average could hit $3 per gallon as soon as Monday, De Haan said, with some stations increasing prices by 10 to 30 cents this week and potentially more in markets that see larger price swings.

Moore warned that prices could climb further and remain elevated if vital transit routes or oil facilities are disrupted.

TRUMP PLEDGES TO ‘AVENGE’ FALLEN US SERVICE MEMBERS AS TENSIONS WITH IRAN INTENSIFY

The ongoing conflict in Iran is near a major energy corridor. (Contributor/Getty Images)

“Huge amounts of global oil travel through the Strait of Hormuz, so this could be incredibly disruptive, delaying delivery of oil and gas,” he said.

Advertisement

“The Iranians have already knocked out some oil facilities in the Middle East, and who knows what they’re up to next. When you have less supply, prices go up. The big question is whether this will be a temporary bump or something more prolonged.”

The ongoing conflict sits near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important energy corridors.

“This shipping route represents around 25% of global oil trade and 23% of liquefied natural gas trade,” explained Jaime Brito, executive director of refining and oil products at OPIS.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane between Iran and Oman that has long been a flashpoint during regional crises, serves as a vital artery for global energy markets.

Roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products — about one-fifth of global oil supply — transit the strait each day, underscoring how disruption there can quickly send shockwaves through international energy markets.

Advertisement

HORMUZ ERUPTS: ATTACKS, GPS JAMMING, HOUTHI THREATS ROCK STRAIT AMID US-ISRAELI STRIKES

A satellite view of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.  (Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2025/Amanda Macias/Fox News Digital)

Highlighting the growing concern, Maersk, widely regarded as a bellwether for global ocean freight, said it will suspend all vessel crossings through the Strait of Hormuz until further notice and cautioned that services to Arabian Gulf ports may be delayed.

Still, not all price movements are immediate.

“Developments over the weekend in the Middle East should hypothetically take time to ripple into the global supply chain. An initial assessment would suggest no specific price impacts should be seen in the gasoline market across the world, including the U.S.,” Brito told Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

However, Brito said prices could climb quickly if markets expect trouble ahead, even before supplies are actually affected.

As a result, Brito said, developments in Iran may have already translated into higher gasoline, diesel and other fuel prices in parts of the U.S., depending on regional supply dynamics and individual company pricing strategies.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Experts say the increase in gas prices will be largely determined by how long the conflict in the Middle East lasts. (John McCall/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

From a domestic standpoint, Brito added that gasoline prices follow a seasonal pattern, typically climbing during the summer travel months.

Advertisement

“March prices are not expected to be significantly high,” he said, noting that spring break travel could support demand in certain areas — but not at the level seen during peak summer driving season.

Ultimately, the direction of gasoline prices will depend less on seasonal demand and more on how the geopolitical situation unfolds in the days ahead.

Related Article

Tomahawks spearheaded US strike on Iran — why presidents reach for this missile first
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Iran’s supreme leader killed in U.S.-Israeli attack, Trump says

Published

on

Iran’s supreme leader killed in U.S.-Israeli attack, Trump says

The U.S. and Israel pummeled Iran early Saturday in an attack aimed at razing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions and thwarting its efforts to influence the Middle East though proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attack, according to President Trump, who in a post on Truth Social wrote that “one of the most evil people in History, is dead. This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans.”

More than 200 people were killed in Iran and hundreds more injured, according to Iran’s Red Crescent.

The attacks spurred a furious Iranian retaliation, with multiple barrages striking Israel, a number of Gulf nations and Jordan; and fulfilled long-standing fears that a confrontation with Iran would plunge the entire region into war.

Reports of Khamenei’s death prompted diverse reactions worldwide: In portions of Tehran and Los Angeles, home to a large Persian population, people took to the streets to celebrate. In New York, protesters gathered at Times Square to denounce the attack.

Advertisement

The attack came eight weeks after U.S. forces deployed by Trump toppled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and Trump said Saturday’s operation also presented a chance for regime change.

Addressing the Iranian people, Trump said, “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”

Trump made the comments in an eight-minute prerecorded video. “This will be probably your only chance for generations,” Trump said, adding, “For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.”

The Iranian government confirmed Khamenei’s death.

The attacks began with Israeli strikes Saturday morning — a workday in Iran — on Tehran, the capital, with residents speaking of attacks near Khamenei’s compound, the presidential palace, Iran’s National Security Council, the ministries of defense and intelligence, the Atomic Energy Organization and a military complex.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

In Tehran there were scenes of panic, with residents racing to stock up on supplies, leaving shelves bare in grocery stores across the city. Others, heeding warnings from authorities of further strikes, decided to leave the capital. Images on social media showed highways leading out of Tehran choked with traffic.

“It’s going to take 10 hours at least, but it doesn’t matter,” said Zainab, who was loading her car with whatever she could stuff inside for the drive to her sister’s home in Iran’s northeast.

Advertisement

By the end of the day, the streets of Tehran appeared all but abandoned, with residents hunkering down for a night punctuated by the sounds of blasts reverberating across the capital.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a vociferous advocate for attacking Iran — and who has spent years urging Washington to do so — said the campaign would continue “as long as needed.”

Trump, who long insisted Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, also addressed Iran’s efforts in the Middle East in his video message.

“We are going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces,” he said. “And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Trump also said U.S. military forces “may have casualties,” adding, “That often happens in war.”

Advertisement

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, in a statement, said that “Iranians have never surrendered to aggression.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was leading Iran’s delegation in Oman-brokered negotiations, said the war on Iran was “wholly unprovoked, illegal and illegitimate.”

“Our powerful armed forces are prepared for this day and will teach the aggressors the lesson they deserve,” he wrote on X.

Iranians protest on Saturday in Tehran against attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States.

Iranians protest on Saturday in Tehran against attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Israel’s military said its attacks were the largest military flyover in its history, with some 200 warplanes dropping hundreds of munitions on about 500 objectives.

Outside of Tehran, explosions could be heard in other cities, including Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah, Qom and Urmia, according to Iranian state media. An attack on the city of Minab struck a girls’ school, killing at least 85 students and injuring dozens of others, state-run media said.

Iran’s Red Crescent later said 201 people were killed in attacks across the country, and that 24 out of Iran’s 32 provinces were hit. More than 700 people were injured.

Cellphone and internet communications were disrupted shortly after the attacks began but have since been restored.

Iran struck back across the Middle East, with barrages reported on U.S. bases in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Debris from one of those missiles killed one person in the UAE; another struck a hotel in Dubai. A Kuwaiti airport was hit, but no injuries were reported.

Advertisement

Iran also dispatched multiple waves of missiles to Israel, with residents in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon seeing vapor trails crisscrossing the skies above and the explosive sounds of interceptions.

The waves of ordnance spurred airspace closures across the region, with many airlines suspending service to affected countries and leaving tens of thousands of people stranded.

Araghchi informed his Iraqi counterpart, Fuad Hussein, on Saturday that Tehran will limit its response to U.S. military bases in the region, and that Iran was acting in self-defense.

But the attacks nevertheless infuriated Arab governments. Many came out with statements excoriating Iran for what they described as an unprovoked attack on their sovereignty.

Russia, whose ties with Iran have deepened in recent years, demanded Israel and the U.S. halt military operations. According to the Associated Press, U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said, “We insist on the immediate resumption of political and diplomatic settlement efforts … based on international law, mutual respect and a balance of interests.”

Advertisement

In a sign of the rapidly expanding impact of the war, messages purporting to be from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were sent to ships ordering them to stay away from the Strait of Hormuz with “immediate effect.”

Shutting the strait, a strategic passageway through which one-fifth of global oil supplies pass, would probably lead to an immediate spike in energy prices and disrupt other shipping.

The opening salvos of what promises to be a lengthy campaign come two days after the U.S. and Iran concluded a third round of Oman-brokered negotiations in Geneva aimed at reducing tensions and stopping the prospect of war.

On Friday, Trump expressed displeasure with the pace of the talks, saying the Iranian side was not negotiating in “good faith” or giving in to U.S. demands. But Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said a deal was “within reach.”

On Saturday, Albusaidi expressed dismay that “active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined.”

Advertisement

“Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause of global peace are well served by this. And I pray for the innocents who will suffer,” he said in a statement on X.

The American strikes on Iran drew immediate reaction on Capitol Hill as Democrats and a small bloc of Republicans accused the White House of sidelining Congress on actions they fear will trigger a broader conflict in the Middle East.

“By the president’s own words, ‘American heroes may be lost.’ That alone should have demanded the highest level of scrutiny, deliberation, and accountability, yet the president moved forward without seeking congressional authorization,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) called on lawmakers to back a measure he is co-sponsoring with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that would compel the administration to seek congressional approval before engaging in any further activity in Iran.

“The American people are tired of regime change wars that cost us billions of dollars and risk our lives,” Khanna said in a video posted on X.

Advertisement

As Democrats warned of constitutional overreach, other lawmakers rallied behind the president.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, said in a statement that Trump had taken “decisive action against the threat posed by the world’s leading proliferator of terrorism, the Iranian regime.”

“This is a pivotal and necessary operation to protect Americans and American interests,” Wicker said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio notified some members of Congress’ Gang of Eight, which are the top four leaders in the House and Senate and top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence committees, according to CBS News.

Bulos reported from El Obeid, Sudan, Ceballos from Washington, D.C., and special correspondent Mostaghim from Tehran.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending