$3 Billion Error Calls into Question Validity of State's BDCP Analysis

Press Release

Northern California Members of Congress are pointing to a nearly $3 billion error made by the State as yet another indication that Governor Brown's proposed $14.5 billion water grab isn't ready for prime time.

Late last night, the California Natural Resources Agency released a correction to revise the state's original cost estimate of an alternative, smaller water project supported by a broad array of interests, including northern California Members of Congress. The state originally asserted the alternative to the governor's plan would save $3 billion and that this was too small of a savings to merit changing the governor's plan. But last night the state admitted it had made a mistake and that the alternative would actually be $6 billion less expensive than the governor's plan -- a $3 billion difference.

The alternative project, known as the "portfolio alternative," contains a single-bore, smaller capacity tunnel and invests in a variety of local water supplies, storage, recycling and levee projects to stretch water usage and provide greater resource flexibility. The state's original estimate assumed the alternative project was a dual-bore project. With the revised cost projections, this single bore tunnel is estimated to cost nearly $6 billion less than the dual-bore proposal favored by the State.

Rep. George Miller (CA-11), Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9), Rep. John Garamendi (CA-3), Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5), Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-6) and Rep. Ami Bera (CA-7) issued the following statement after learning about the state's serious error:

"The state's $3 billion error is unacceptable and emblematic of the BDCP's deeply flawed process, one that lacks input from Delta stakeholders. It is an example of the risks of pushing through a plan without fully understanding the consequences or alternatives. It's clear that the Brown Administration did not honestly analyze the Portfolio Alternative, which offers an all-of-the-above approach to California's water problems, as a viable option. The state owes the public a full and proper explanation of both of these plans, who will truly benefit from each, and what they will actually cost. They should not rush this process until they can do so in an open and transparent manner."