Defying Tyranny Chowing Down on a Double-Double

As soon as I heard In-N-Out Burger joints were being shut down by California governments for not checking for COVID vaccine status at the door, I snapped into action. I drove my creaking 2010 Camry to the nearest In-N-Out, on Bristol and MacArthur in Santa Ana, marched inside and ordered a Double-Double, protein style, extra mustard, no tomato. This is Orange County, where we still enjoy a few more freedoms than the rest of the state. 

I looked around to see if Gov. Gavin Newsom was standing in line, maskless, as at his infamous French Pantry escapade a year ago. He wasn’t. I guess my $5 burger wasn’t elitist enough for someone with $350-a-plate tastes.

Nobody checked my vaccination status. Maybe only 20 percent of patrons were wearing masks. I wasn’t. Sometimes you have to just brave the elements.

Once again, we’re being told the Science (capital “S”) mandates the vaccine-checking. It’s the same Science that told us for decades eating Double-Doubles was bad because they were “high fat,” and we were supposed to instead eat “low fat” candy bars loaded with sugar. See Gary Taubes’ books for the history of that Science deception.

An obvious objection to this new mandate is: minimum-wage fast-food workers are not certified health specialists. How are they to know who has a valid vaxx-ID and who doesn’t? And if a 99-pound woman worker confronts a 250-pound unvaxx’d weightlifter, and he insists he’s coming into the restaurant anyway, what’s she supposed to do?

Then there’s the problem of authenticating the IDs. How are these fast-food workers supposed to know if one is valid and another invalid? What about expiration dates? How about counterfeit IDs? Will plainclothes police (real police) also be patrolling these places, arresting not just scofflaws, but workers who make an incorrect guess about a valid/invalid vaxx-ID?

The California DMV, which issues driver’s licenses and IDs for non-drivers, is a perpetual laughingstock for its incompetence.

Then there’s the Unemployment Development Department, which blew as much as $31 billion on fake claims to criminals. It also was another government agency checking IDs. To correct that, it instituted an absurdly complex and hardly working system that stifled true claims by actual people who really were unemployed.

If the California DMV and the EDD can’t get their acts together on driver’s licenses and IDs, how are minimum-wage clerks at a restaurant supposed to do so? 

If government insists on In-N-Out and other restaurants checking for IDs, it ought to provide the proper experts to do so, at taxpayer expense. This also would require months of training for new people. Or current health workers could be reassigned from their current jobs, such as saving people in the ER hauled in with heart attacks, broken bones and gunshot wounds.

Or maybe the government could just take over all restaurants, and all food production and distribution for that matter. Make sure our food is safe! Everyone in the food industry then could be paid high union wages with great perks and pensions. 

Agriculture could be bundled together into something called Collective Farms. Costs could be cut because, instead of wasteful, duplicative competition, the Collective scientifically would apportion supply and demand, eliminating all waste.

Food grown on the Collective Farms efficiently would be transported to the Collective Restaurants, which would be run along the latest hygienic lines, as established by the CDC. 

Only when government efficiently runs everything will we be free of all worries and cares about disease. Only then can we join hands and promote global freedom, democracy, liberty and niceness.

Longtime Orange County Register editorialist John Seiler now also writes for the Epoch Times and blogs at: johnseiler.substack.com

Underground Regulations and California’s Administrative Procedure Act

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) is charged with ensuring that agency and department regulations are “clear, necessary, legally valid, and available to the public.” OAL is responsible for reviewing proposed regulations by California’s more than 200 state agencies and departments that have rulemaking authority.

The formal rulemaking process is established by the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the APA sets forth the criteria by which OAL reviews all of those regulations. OAL reviews regular and emergency rulemaking projects, as well as challenged “underground” regulations.

On the OAL website (www.oal.ca.gov), readers can track on a table the list of rulemaking actions submitted to OAL for review. This list is updated daily per OAL. The website also contains a listing of underground regulation petitions that are under review by OAL. (https://oal.ca.gov/underground_regulations/underground-regulations-under-review/).

Concerning the review of alleged underground regulations, the role of OAL is specified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 1, Division 1, Chapter 2, which is titled “Underground Regulations.”

In Section 250(a), it provides the following definition: “’underground regulation’ means any guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application, or other rule, including a rule governing a state agency procedure, that is a regulation as defined in Section 11342.600 of the Government Code, but has not been adopted as a regulation and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to the AP A and is not subject to an express statutory exemption from adoption pursuant to the APA.”

In CCR Section 260, the submission of underground regulation petitions is discussed. Section 270 deals with the OAL review of these petitions. And, Section 280 describes the suspension of underground regulation actions. In terms of “underground regulations,” OAL is charged with reviewing any such challenged regulatory agency actions by way of a petition filed with OAL.

According to the OAL, “if a state agency issues, utilizes, enforces, or attempts to enforce a rule without following the APA when it is required to, the rule is called an ‘underground regulation.’ State agencies are prohibited from enforcing underground regulations.” If an individual or entity believes a state agency or department has issued an alleged underground regulation, that issuance can be challenged by filing a written petition with OAL.

If OAL accepts the petition for review, then OAL may issue a determination. According to OAL, this program is informally known as the “Chapter Two Unit,” or “CTU,” because OAL’s regulations regarding underground regulations are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 1, Chapter 2. The OAL website provides information on underground regulations and how to submit a written petition to OAL alleging an underground regulation.

OAL’s review of an alleged underground regulation is limited to a 3-step analysis to determine whether the alleged underground regulation must be adopted as a regulation pursuant to the APA. First, is the policy or procedure either a rule or standard of general application, or a modification or supplement to such a rule? Second, has the policy or procedure been adopted by the agency to either implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the agency, or govern the agency’s procedure?

If the answer to these two questions is “yes,” then the challenged rule is a regulation. However, before a determination is complete, OAL must review the final step of the analysis. Has the policy or procedure been expressly exempted by statute from the requirement that it be adopted as a “regulation” pursuant to the APA?

If the answer to this final question is yes, then the underground regulation did not have to go through the APA process. However, if the answer to this last question is no, then the rule is an underground regulation and cannot be enforced by the agency or department. Instead, it must go through the formal rulemaking process pursuant to the APA.

Finally, readers should be aware of Government Code Section 11340.5(e) which provides that, if an interested person has already begun litigation challenging an underground regulation, a determination issued by OAL may not be considered by the court in that pending litigation. Those challenging an alleged underground regulation should determine whether they want to pursue OAL review of the agency action, or whether to go directly to court to challenge it.

How have California’s courts viewed underground regulations by the state’s rulemaking bodies?

Click to read full article on California Globe

Bill requiring Trump to release taxes to make CA ballot reaches Newsom’s desk

When Gov. Gavin Newsom got back from his vacation last week, awaiting him was a bill that some see as a principled attempt to force President Donald Trump to be transparent about his personal finances and that others – including California’s last governor – see as partisan meddling that could haunt elections across the nation going forward.

Senate Bill 27 was enrolled and sent to the governor’s office on July 15 after passing the Assembly 29-10 and the Senate 57-17 along party lines. Newsom has until July 30 to act on it. Introduced by Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, it would require presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release their most recent five years of tax returns as a prerequisite for appearing on the California ballot.

McGuire and Wiener reject the characterization that it is an attempt to punish Trump, who has famously feuded with California officials via the media and in court since he began his presidential campaign in 2015. Instead, they say it is an attempt to preserve democratic norms by ensuring that voters know about candidates’ financial entanglements before they become U.S. president or governor of the nation’s richest, most populous state.

It’s unclear, however, whether the measure is constitutional. Some attorneys say the Constitution has long enshrined states’ rights, including partial sovereignty, on many fronts. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a state cannot add additional qualifications for candidates for federal office. California’s legislative counsel cited this history in a 2017 opinion raising doubts about whether Trump could be compelled to release his taxes as a precondition of getting on the Golden State’s ballot.

Brown vetoed similar bill, cited bad precedent

In vetoing similar legislation in 2017, Brown not only questioned its constitutionality, he worried about the precedent it would set in his veto message.

“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?” he wrote. California’s enactment would start the U.S. “down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.”

There is a recent precedent for a state seeking to limit a sitting president’s access to the ballot. In 2011, the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature responded to unsupported, much-ridiculed claims that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia by passing a measure requiring that presidential candidates provide birth certificates before they could be placed on subsequent presidential ballots. The validity of the birth certificates would have been determined by the Arizona secretary of state.

But GOP Gov. Jan Brewer, a former Arizona secretary of state, vetoed the bill. “I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” she said.

Axios reported last month that lawmakers in 25 states have introduced bills linking ballot eligibility to presidential candidates releasing their tax returns. The Nexis news database shows California to be the only state that has sent such a measure to the governor. The most progress elsewhere appears to be in Rhode Island and Maryland, where the state Senates have given their approval to such legislation.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

How Can California Reduce the Costs of Incarceration?

California Governor Gavin Newsom has agreed to give state prison correctional officers a 3 percent raise. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, there is “no evident justification” for this raise.

recent article in the Sacramento Bee summarizes portions of the LAO report, writing “The last time the state compared state correctional officers’ salaries to their local government counterparts, in 2013, state correctional officers made 40 percent more than officers in county-run jails, according to the LAO analysis,” and, “Since 2013, salary increases for state correctional officers have increased by a compounded 24 percent, according to the LAO.”

Within the LAO report, it is made clear that the rising cost for pensions is a major factor in escalating compensation costs for California’s prison guards. In theory, the cost to provide pension benefits is reasonable. The so-called “normal cost” of a pension is how much you have to pay if your pension system is fully funded. Unfortunately, that’s a big if. Today, the normal cost is only a small fraction of total pension costs. Most of the money going to CalPERS is to pay down their unfunded liability, built up over years of insufficient annual payments, along with lower than projected investment returns, and benefit enhancements that were justified using overly optimistic financial projections. CalPERS, the pension system that serves the California Correctional Officers, is underfunded by at least $138 billion. It is only 71 percent funded.

To see how this translates into the cost of individual pension benefits for California’s prison guards, useful information can be had by downloading raw data for state agencies from the California State Controller’s “public pay” online database. For example, using the most recent available data from the State Controller, in 2017 there were 21,558 prison guards who worked full time that year and were eligible for a “[email protected]” pension (pension equals three percent, times years worked, times final year base pay – eligibility at age 50). The average base pay for these guards was $87,460. Their average pension cost was $40,061, forty five percent.

State Controller data also offers insight into how much the modest PEPRA reforms of 2013 reduced pension costs, since California’s Dept. of Corrections also had 7,161 prison guards who in 2017 worked full time and were eligible for a “[email protected]” pension – in some cases this reduction was due to PEPRA. Their average base pay was $93,054, and their average pension contribution was $21,716, which equates to 23 percent, only half as much.

It’s easy to rail against the pay and pension benefits collected by public employees in California. And in the case of overpaid, underworked state and local bureaucrats who often are incompetent and indifferent towards business owners and homeowners who are trying in good faith to navigate California’s ridiculously excessive rules and regulations, that ire is appropriate. But before leveling that criticism at California’s correctional officers, one might consider what it takes to manage the criminally insane, or members of international gangs with friends inside and outside of prison, or, for that matter, the general prison population of thieves, thugs, wastrels and predators. If it’s such a cush job, go apply.

Nonetheless, especially when it comes to California’s pensions, something’s got to give. One solution which could be done overnight, without legislation or litigation if the CCPOA would agree, would be to reduce the pension multiplier from 3.0 percent to 2.5 percent for all future work by all correctional officers regardless of hire date. The three percent accrual for work performed to-date would be preserved. This single change could save the state tens of billions.

Government union members need to understand something unequivocally: There is no special interest in California that even approaches government unions in terms of raw political power. With great power comes great responsibility.  Conscientious members of these unions should demand this power is used for the common good.

In the case of the prison guards, that would not only involve a voluntary, and significant concession on the question of pensions, as described. It would involve aggressive political involvement in correcting some huge, and very recent, policy mistakes. To cite just one example, California’s Prop. 47, the so called “get out of jail free” law, needs to be repealed through a ballot initiative. Somehow, the tens of thousands of drug addicts, drunks, and mentally ill who currently constitute the bulk of California’s unsheltered homeless need to be cost-effectively reincarcerated.

California’s prison guards union can and should play a productive role in reforming the laws that prevent society from getting these most problematic of the homeless off the streets. They should then work creatively with legislators and local authorities to figure out how best to help these people. Why can’t state and local mental health professionals in partnership with the Dept. of Corrections build less expensive work camps for nonviolent addicts and alcoholics, where they could dry out and contribute to society? Why does it have to cost $71,000 per year to incarcerate the average prisoner in California? Why are comparable amounts necessary to shelter the homeless? This is ridiculous.

There’s more. Instead of demanding annual raises in an attempt to cope with the cost-of-living in California, why aren’t government unions supporting policies that might lower California’s cost-of-living? Support an overhaul of California’s excessive environmentalist legislation – why does it take six years or more to build an apartment building in California, when it only takes months in other states? Support deregulation of land development, because high-density infill is an exercise in futility unless it’s matched by new construction on open land within this vast, nearly empty state. Support nuclear power, and reform ill-conceived renewables mandates. Et cetera.

California’s prison guards union may wish to think outside the cell.

This article originally appeared on the website of the California Policy Center.

California lawmakers weigh budget proposals to cover health care for illegal immigrants

California lawmakers are weighing proposals this week that would offer government-funded health care to adult illegal immigrants but are at odds over how far to go.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed $98 million a year to cover low-income illegal immigrants between the ages of 19 and 25, but the state Assembly’s bill would cover all illegal immigrants over the age of 19 living in California – a proposal that would cost an estimated $3.4 billion.

The state Senate, meanwhile, wants to cover adults ages 19 to 25, plus seniors 65 and older. That bill’s sponsor, Sen. Maria Elana Durazo, scoffed at cost concerns, noting the state has a projected $21.5 billion budget surplus.

Of the three million in California who don’t have health insurance, about 1.8 million are illegal immigrants, according to legislative staffers. Nearly half those have incomes low enough to qualify them for the Medi-Cal program. …

Click here to read the full article from Fox News

Use $21 Billion Surplus Instead of Taxing Californians More

California has a record $21.5 billion surplus.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that we have all that money because you are being overtaxed.

Earlier this month, Gov. Gavin Newsom released his revised budget proposal, the largest in California history.

At a staggering $214 billion dollars, the budget is larger than that of most nations and every other state.

The budget also includes a new $140 million tax on water customers to help all Californians have access to clean water.

Clean water is important, and there are a million people in the Central Valley without access to it. But do we need a new tax to pay for it?  Maybe we don’t.

To read the entire column, please click here.

Gov. Newsom Backtracks on Single-Payer Health Care Promises

Twenty months ago, then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom sealed the endorsement of the powerful California Nurses Association in the governor’s race with an impassioned promise to bring single-payer health care to the Golden State.

“There’s no reason to wait around on universal health care and single-payer in California. It’s time to move [Senate Bill] 562. It’s time to get it out of committee,” Newsom told a nurses union conference in September 2017. “If we can’t get it done next year, you have my firm and absolute commitment as your next governor that I will lead the effort to get it done. We will have universal health care in the state of California.”

But now, as Newsom undertakes a “California for All” tour of the state’s largest cities, that ambitious rhetoric has long since given way to more modest proposals – and to attempts to dampen expectations. Instead of the governor reviving Senate Bill 562 – a 2017 measure passed by the Senate that would have committed the state to creating a single-payer system – he now says that’s not feasible without the assistance of the federal government.

Newsom has asked the Trump administration to give California a waiver from federal laws allowing the state to set up its own unique health care system – and for a sum equivalent to the amount the federal government now spends on health care for state residents. Senate Bill 562 died in the Assembly over expectations it would cost about $400 billion a year – double the state’s budget.

Governor risks backlash from fellow Democrats

The May Revise of the 2019-20 state budget that Newsom unveiled last week includes several proposals to expand availability of health care partly subsidized by the state government, in particular raising the income threshold of eligibility up to $73,000 a year. Individuals who make $48,000 a year or more are not eligible for federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But he stopped short of extending Medicaid coverage to unauthorized individuals in California, citing its $3.4 billion cost. And he made no concrete proposals on advancing single-payer beyond previously announced plans to use the newly created state Council on Health Care Delivery Systems to examine how the state could transition to such a system.

The potential for a backlash from Newsom’s own party is clear. Politico reported in March than Newsom believed strongly that leadership on single-payer should be led by “the horseshoe,” an insider’s term for the governor’s unusually shaped office. But having a commission look at the state’s possible courses of action isn’t the dramatic move that fans of Democratic presidential candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren want. A Quinnipiac University poll released in February showed 61 percent of state Democrats back a government-run single-payer system in California.

The California Nurses Association has expressed disappointment with the lack of progress. In February, CNA lobbyist Stephanie Roberson told the Sacramento Bee that it was “baffling” that no state lawmaker had introduced a measure like Senate Bill 562 and said her union strongly believed that incremental improvements in health care access were not enough.

“We can’t, as leaders, just protect what we have because we fundamentally believe that health care is [a] human right,” Roberson said.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

California’s Private Economy Fuels State Budget Surpluses

Taxes continue to pour into the state treasury, like spring snowmelt into Lake Oroville. Thanks to the engine of California’s private economy – the creativity of business leaders and productivity of employees – and the wealth it creates, Governor Gavin Newsom last week announced that revenues exceeded earlier budget estimates by more than $3 billion, enabling him to propose bolstering reserves, paying down debt, and boosting education spending.

Californians have enjoyed nearly ten years of economic growth, and one of the biggest beneficiaries has been the state budget. Since the depths of the recession the state budget has increased by 82% – that’s more than $95 billion. Compare that to the recession years when the Governor and Legislature were forced to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending.

Today with a healthy budget and continuing prospects for growth, Governor Newsom has set aside $16.5 billion in a rainy-day reserve to hedge against the next economic downturn and continued to boost education spending. In addition he proposes spending more than $9 billion to pay down unfunded pension liabilities and pay off longstanding debts and deferrals.

But what goes up inevitably will come down, and a key responsibility for a chief executive is to look to the future – not only to spread the blessings of prosperity but to protect against shortfalls.

When he released his revised budget proposal last week, Governor Newsom recognized this, insisting that “We need to have a structurally balanced budget because we are entering the end of the beginning of a new phase of economic reality. The headwinds are real.”

The precarious condition of state finances is well known. The top one percent of earners pays nearly half of all income taxes and these taxes provide 70 percent of all General Fund revenues. The Administration forecasts that a moderate recession would reduce state revenues by $70 billion over three years.

The Governor and the Legislature should continue to insist on a savings strategy pioneered by Governor Brown. Top up the budget reserve, reject new taxes, and resist demands to build into the budget new, ongoing spending that will be painful to unwind when the economy slows.

The easiest money to save for a rainy day is money you haven’t committed to ongoing programs.

The good news is that the extra revenues the state receives once the reserve fund is filled are directed to infrastructure, which can be used to help create high paying jobs for skilled workers to improve and upgrade our highways, mass transit, public buildings and flood control facilities. This has the three-fold benefit of providing mobility, safety and public services for residents, creating well-paying jobs for Californians, and budgeting responsibly for the fiscal health of the state.

The budget windfalls should also allay the calls for new or higher taxes, which have proliferated in the early days of the legislative session. The existing state corporate tax rate, combined with the effects from federal tax reform, resulted in a surge of more than a billion dollars of new revenues this year.

 Only a few members of the current Legislature were in Sacramento during the last recession, so it may be understandable that many members call for increases in ongoing programs. But nobody wants to return to the bad-old-days of deep cuts to education and safety net programs. We can help those in need if the private sector continues to thrive and generate tax revenue. Success of the private sector economy provides the foundation for a state budget to provide services to the people of California.

Loren Kaye president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

High-Speed Alternatives to High-Speed Rail

On the campaign trail, California governor Gavin Newsom expressed support for the state’s high-speed rail project, but he’s been more reticent since taking office earlier this year. In February, he proposed to cut back on the plan because it “would cost too much and … take too long,” a welcome note of skepticism, but soon afterward, his staff issued a “clarification” explaining that the governor was simply “refocusing to get a finished product from Bakersfield to Merced,” the first leg of the envisioned rail system.

The high-speed rail project is a disaster, with cost projections ballooning and the anticipated time of a trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles coming in at four hours; an airplane can get you there in one. The practical thing for Newsom to do would be to scrap it entirely, but that’s not politically feasible. He might be better advised to consider a private-market alternative that could satisfy both practical and political considerations: an autonomous autobahn, where, according to Motor Trend writer Mark Rechtin, “vehicles equipped with self-driving technology run in platoons at a constant 120 mph.”

It may be some time before autonomous cars can navigate streets and adapt to all the complexities of urban life, but self-driving freeway travel might not be so far off. It will require better highways, which don’t come cheap in California, where road construction costs 2.5 times the national average, due in large part to costly environmental reviews and pro-union contracts. But even at $7 million a mile for new rural-freeway construction and $11 million per mile for its urban counterpart, the price tag for a California superfast highway, stretching roughly 500 miles — the distance between San Diego and Sacramento — would be only about 5 percent of that of high-speed rail, which current projections put between $70 billion and $120 billion. The model is Germany’s autobahn, “a reliable national highway system that is very safe despite an unrestricted speed limit,” according to state senator John Moorlach of Orange County. Moorlach cites a World Health Organization study that estimates that road traffic deaths-per-mile in Germany are one-third as common as in the United States.

Access to this high-tech superhighway would be strictly controlled. “Only properly inspected smart vehicles with transponders would be permitted,” says Rechtin. With usage limited to qualified automobiles, the cost of building an autonomous autobahn would properly be shouldered by those who drive on it, preferably via tolls. “Who wouldn’t pay an extra $100 (half a plane ticket) to zip along, hands-free, at double the speed of the current I-5, not having to deal with TSA at the airport, and still have access to their own car when they reach their destination?” Rechtin asks. In this scenario, the autobahn would be the car version of an express flyer, with exits and rest stops spaced out at 50-mile intervals to reduce lane-changing.

Moorlach introduced a bill to open such a road earlier this year. In its original language, it required the California Department of Transportation to build “two additional traffic lanes on northbound and southbound Interstate Route 5 and State Route 99,” the major north-south freeway routes in the state, and to “prohibit the imposition of a maximum speed limit for those traffic lanes.” Since amended, the bill now more modestly directs the department to “submit a report that includes policy recommendations to the Legislature and the California Transportation Commission on any potential advantages of the German autobahn system compared to California’s state highway system and on the feasibility of implementing those potential advantages in California.” Moorlach believes that his autobahn project would appeal to the state’s Europhiles in the same way that the Euro-flavored “bullet train” attracted their support.

An autonomous autobahn is not the only alternative to government-run high-speed rail, however. A Florida-based firm, now called Virgin Trains USA after partnering with British billionaire Richard Branson, operates the country’s only private-owned intercity rail line and is moving ahead with a rail project connecting Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Virgin Trains USA is confident that it can keep costs down and make a profit; no one believes that California’s high-speed rail project could do either of those. California policymakers would also be wise to keep an eye on a private-sector rail project in Texas, as well as Elon Musk’s hyperloop proposal.

These initiatives may or may not pan out, but as Pacific Research Institute fellow Bartlett Cleland says, whether the market deems them successes or failures, “the risk will be borne by investors”—not taxpayers. The same can’t be said of California’s high-speed rail; taxpayers may have to cover nearly all its construction costs. It’s time for the Golden State to shelve this unworkable project and start looking at alternatives that might actually succeed in moving people around the state ten years from now.

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

This article was originally published by City Journal online

Newsom scraps $16B plan for tunnels to deliver water to Southern California

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has formally abandoned a plan to build two giant tunnels to reroute the state’s water from north to south, an idea pushed by his predecessor, Jerry Brown.

Newsom had signaled the move in his State of the State address in February but made it official Thursday by asking state agencies to withdraw existing permits for the project and start over with plans for a single tunnel

“I do not support the twin tunnels,” Newsom, a former lieutenant governor and San Francisco mayor, has said. “But we can build on the important work that’s already been done.”

California has already spent $240 million developing the project, according to state Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth. She told The Associated Press that some of that work will inform the new approach. …

Click here to read the full article from Fox News