Silicon Valley's largest water authority will vote Tuesday on whether to support Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to spend $20 billion to construct a large, 45-mile-long tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to move water from Northern California to Southern California to facilitate California.

The board of directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, a government agency based in San Jose, will achieve this Consider contributing $9.7 million for planning and geotechnical studies for the project, which is amongst California's longest-running and most controversial water proposals.

Newsom's idea is to construct a 36 foot high concrete tunnel Taking water from the Sacramento River about 15 miles south of Sacramento, near the town of Courtland, and sending it about 150 feet deep over 45 miles beneath the marshes and marshes of the Delta to the large State Water Project pumps near Tracy to advertise, thereby achieving the reduction trust in them.

In recent years, courts have ruled that pumps have to be shut down or temporarily turned off at certain times of the yr when salmon, delta smelt and other endangered fish swim near them, disrupting the usage of farms and cities like San Jose, Los Angeles can be restricted. Angeles and San Diego will have the opportunity to receive water. A tunnel drilled beneath the delta's mud would allow the state to maneuver water south in “big bursts” during very wet winters, advocates argue, particularly vital as climate change makes rainstorms wetter and drought years worse .

“Given our changing hydrology, there is a greater risk that we will need to move water during these major events,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, which might oversee construction.

Nemeth found that within the spring of 2023, when California was inundated by atmospheric river storms, 156,000 cubic feet of water per second – an infinite amount, much like the flow of the Columbia River – flowed through the delta and under the Golden Gate Bridge to the ocean. When state and federal pumps near Tracy reach maximum capability, they will pump about 15,000 cfs. The tunnel would help California more reliably move more water south, to the San Luis Reservoir, aquifers and other places, she said.

Had the tunnel been constructed during atmospheric river storms last spring, it might have moved 941,000 acre feet of water – enough for 9.8 million those that would otherwise have flowed into the ocean, she added.

Opponents of the project, which include environmental groups and Delta counties reminiscent of Contra Costa, call the project a Southern California water grab that takes an excessive amount of freshwater, degrades water quality within the Delta and San Francisco Bay, and harms salmon and other fish and wildlife populations .

“The Delta Tunnel would burden our infrastructure and communities with more than a decade of unbearable construction, ultimately increasing water salinity and harmful algae blooms and causing the Sacramento River to temporarily backflow,” wrote Contra Costa County Supervisor Ken Carlson . in a letter to the Santa Clara Valley Water District last week that was also signed by supervisors from Solano, Yolo, San Joaquin and Sacramento counties.

The project has been around for generations. In 1982, former Gov. Jerry Brown called it “the peripheral channel.” This yr, voters rejected it in a statewide election that became a water fight between Northern California and Southern California. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger each tried unsuccessfully to bring it back, and Brown, who renamed it the “California Water Fix,” pushed for a two-tunnel version a decade ago but left office in 2019 following the large Westlands Water's faltering district in Fresno has pulled out of the partnership.

Newsom took office in 2019 and scaled down the plan to only a tunnel. He stressed the necessity within the face of climate change and against earthquakes that would destroy the delta's dikes.

In December, the state certified its final environmental impact statement. Also this month, Southern California's massive Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to twenty million people, voted to contribute $141 million to its remaining studies.

There are 18 agencies which have agreed to be partners within the project and canopy the prices. The goal is to interrupt ground in 2027 and complete construction in 2042, Nemeth said.

The big query for these local authorities — whether to finance the $20 billion construction cost and who can pay for overruns — will are available 2026 or 2027. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's share can be about $650 million.

Two other Bay Area water agencies, the Alameda County Water District in Fremont and the Zone 7 Water Agency in Livermore, also recently endorsed the project and agreed to fund a few of its studies. East Bay MUD and Contra Costa Water District aren’t partners within the project.

Newsom called the project one in all his top priorities in the ultimate two years of his term.

In 2019, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board voted 4-3 to support the plan and contribute $11 million for its planning and environmental studies.

“The delta poses a lot of risks,” said Cindy Kao, the county’s import water manager. “Sea level rise, climate change, seismic issues and environmental issues. This will make our water supply more resilient and reliable.”

Critics say water agencies across the state should do more to enhance local supplies, reminiscent of through stormwater capture, recycled water and environmental protections, somewhat than counting on water transported a whole bunch of miles away.

“It's a really risky and unsafe project,” Katja Irving, conservation officer for the Guadalupe Regional Group, told the Sierra Club. “We will spend a lot of money on it before we know whether it will be feasible. And we could instead spend that money on repairing local dams or reducing water rates.”

Tesla Inc.'s electric vehicles can be excluded from consumer rebates under a proposal from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, pitting the incoming Democratic presidential candidate against Republican strongman Elon Musk.

Newsom unveiled plans Monday to supply discounts to electric vehicle buyers if President-elect Donald Trump repeals a federal subsidy. A program that California allowed to run out in 2023 may very well be restarted instead of the $7,500 tax credit, the governor said.

RELATED: Elon Musk shares some details about his immigration journey. Experts say they still have questions

His office told Bloomberg News that the present proposal includes market share limits that will exclude Tesla's popular electric automotive models. The details — including Tesla's possible omission from the credits — are being negotiated with the state legislature and will change, Newsom's office said.

“This is about creating the market conditions for more of these automakers to gain a foothold,” the governor’s office said. It was not immediately clear whether other automakers can be excluded.

Musk, Tesla's billionaire CEO, posted on his social media platform X that the proposal was “crazy,” citing the automaker's manufacturing presence within the state.

The move would exclude market-leading Tesla from a key incentive program aimed toward encouraging wider adoption of electrical vehicles at a time when growth in fully electric vehicles is slowing. Tesla's models qualify for the federal credit established as a part of the climate law signed by President Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Tesla expulsion could boost Newsom's standing on the left because it triggers renewed conflict with Musk, who has turn out to be a member of Trump's inner circle and has taken on the role of helping the brand new administration cut government spending. Musk has said he agrees with eliminating federal subsidies.

“This is a slap in the face to Tesla,” Gene Munster, managing partner of Deepwater Asset Management, said of the California proposal.

Tension in California

Musk had angrily denounced government orders to shut Tesla's Fremont factory in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, calling them “fascist” in an earnings release. When Musk announced the headquarters move, Newsom said Tesla owed a part of its success to California.

Tesla still accounts for greater than half of all latest electric vehicles sold in California, but its market power is waning. According to the California New Car Dealers Association, Tesla's sales in California fell 12.6% in the primary three quarters in comparison with a 12 months ago, although overall electric vehicle sales within the state rose 1%. Tesla manufactured 54.5% of all electric vehicles registered within the state in the primary three quarters, a major decline from 63% in the identical period last 12 months.

California clashed continuously with Trump over auto emissions rules in the course of the latest president's first term, and state leaders have made clear they are actually preparing for an additional fight. Newsom has already sought to insulate the state's policies on issues corresponding to reproductive rights, climate and immigration from potential threats under a Trump administration.

Trump has long criticized the Biden administration's efforts to subsidize electric vehicles to advertise the adoption of cleaner cars. His transition team is now searching for to lower fuel efficiency requirements for brand new cars and light-weight trucks as a part of plans to ease Biden policies, which the president-elect has dubbed the “EV mandate,” Bloomberg News reported last week.

California and states like Oregon and Colorado are currently exempt from regulations that prevent them from adopting their very own emissions standards for brand new vehicles. More than a dozen states, representing greater than a 3rd of the U.S. auto market, have now officially chosen to follow California's rules.

In his first term, Trump took aim at California's right to set stricter gasoline consumption rules than the federal government. He is anticipated to make one other try and reverse California's carveout under the 1970 Clean Air Act after he takes office in January.

Tesla shares fell 2.9% as of three:53 p.m. in New York.

For more stories like this, take a look at Bloomberg.com

©2024 Bloomberg LP

Originally published: November 26, 2024 at 6:45 am PST

After the U.S. Supreme Court granted cities sweeping latest powers to clear homeless encampments last month, Governor Gavin Newsom had a transparent message for local authorities: No more excuses.

Newsom is under growing pressure to make progress on homelessness. He ordered state agencies to work with cities and counties to shut encampments and threatened to chop funding to local governments that fail to get more people off the streets.

“This is a crisis,” he told local authorities. “Behave like it.”

In the Bay Area, public response to Newsom's order and landmark ruling has varied between full-throated support and guarantees to keep up the establishment. Yet across the region, where an estimated 37,000 people were homeless ultimately count, a shift in the way in which cities are addressing homelessness is already underway.

Days after the Supreme Court allowed cities to implement camping bans without providing shelter to the homeless, San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced a high-profile crackdown on the camps, ordering officials to supply homeless people in camps bus tickets out of the town before offering them shelter. The Supreme Court ruling lifted a brief restraining order that had partially limited the town's authority to clear camps.

“We're going to be very aggressive and forceful in moving the camps, possibly even with criminal consequences,” she said at a mayoral debate earlier this month. “Thank God for the Supreme Court's change of decision.”

Though he has made fewer headlines than Breed, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan made clear in an interview that his city can be working to ramp up raids with “the goal” of providing housing for encampment residents every time possible. His office said the town plans to rent 10 more people to interrupt up the encampments and recruit additional city employees to assist with a plan to maneuver 500 homeless people from local waterways to approved campsites.

“We will continue to aggressively clear out camps that are unsafe and unsanitary,” Mahan said.

In Oakland, nevertheless, Mayor Sheng Thao said in an announcement that the Supreme Court ruling “does not change what my administration has focused on and advocated for from day one.” Instead of clearing more encampments, she emphasized efforts to create inexpensive housing.

Still, Oakland homeless activist Talya Husbands-Hankin raised concerns concerning the city's plans to update its “encampment management” policies consequently of the ruling. Officials declined to supply details concerning the potential changes.

Husbands-Hankin argued that the town's ongoing raids are already traumatic for homeless people and infrequently accomplish little aside from moving encampments from one neighborhood to a different.

“I am extremely concerned because the city’s current encampment policies have caused great harm to homeless communities across the city,” she said.

In a recently cleared encampment beneath an elevated BART track in East Oakland, Luis Baillegas was digging through a tangle of copper wires to sell as scrap metal. He was told to pack up his blue canvas tent and move on, but work crews had to date spared his dwelling. He said nobody had offered him shelter.

“For now, I’m staying here because there’s no other place I can go,” Baillegas said.

The Bay Area's smaller cities, meanwhile, have remained largely tight-lipped about their plans for encampments. But this week, East Palo Alto Mayor Antonio Lopez announced he would introduce an emergency ordinance that, if passed, would direct officials to clear encampments after homeless persons are repeatedly offered a bed in a shelter. He called on cities across the peninsula to adopt similar plans.

“We have to respond in a unified manner, we have to take a unified stance,” Lopez told local news organizations.

In Berkeley, authorities look like taking a special tack, a minimum of publicly. The city may soon consider a resolution to forestall latest fines for the homeless, at the same time as it continues to conduct raids.

“The status quo before the (Supreme Court’s) decision remains,” said Stefan Elgstrand, assistant to Mayor Jesse Arreguin.

According to a Current survey According to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, nearly 70% of Bay Area residents said homelessness is a “major problem” within the region. Although the poll didn’t ask about clearing encampments, they found that greater than three-quarters of voters statewide support measures that provide rental subsidies to homeless families and construct more tiny-home shelters.

Experts say while drugs and mental health issues are necessary causes of homelessness, the severe lack of inexpensive housing is the fundamental reason the crisis is way worse within the Bay Area and California than in other parts of the country. High housing costs mean that low-income persons are more prone to lose their homes in the event that they lose their jobs or experience a traumatic life event. They also make it harder for people to seek out latest housing after being forced out.

Jason McDaniel, a political science professor at San Francisco State University, said that despite widespread public frustration with homelessness, authorities' differing attitudes toward the encampments can have as much to do with politics as with what they consider is sweet policy.

Mahan, then again, was easily re-elected earlier this yr. His relatively restrained response to the Supreme Court ruling could also be an indication that he’s satisfied along with his progress on homelessness and sees no must “take a position that is changing,” McDaniel said.

Meanwhile, Thao is involved in a federal corruption investigation and must face a Intensifying recall effortsFor this reason, she could also be afraid of angering her core left-wing voters, who’re largely critical of the elections.

“If you lose your core support, you have no one left,” McDaniel said.

While many California classrooms already ban cell phones, Governor Gavin Newsom has called for stricter measures through a statewide restriction or ban on the favored devices. But many Bay Area schools remain divided over the proposal.

Newsom had already approved a law in 2019 that empowers school districts to limit or ban student cellphone use in class. He recently said he plans to further restrict student cellphone use in class based on that law – AB 272 – but offered no specific plans. His office declined to supply further details.

“I look forward to working with lawmakers to limit smartphone use during the school day,” Newsom said in a press release. “When children and teens are in school, they should be focused on their studies – not their screens.”

The announcement got here after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on Congress to require warning labels on social media platforms warning that social media use can harm teens' mental health.

There continues to be disagreement amongst researchers as as to if digital media might be blamed for the deterioration of mental health amongst children and adolescents. Some have argued There is little evidence of a link between the usage of digital technology and the mental health of young people. Others say that smartphones cause a “Epidemic of mental illness.”

Many Bay Area districts already restrict or prohibit student cellular phone use in class. Often, students are allowed to make use of their phones between classes or outside of sophistication time.

“Cell phones are part of our culture and a necessary means of communication for many students and families related to transportation, extracurricular activities, child care and monitoring student health,” said Michelle Dawson, spokeswoman for the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. “Our focus is to teach students how to use their cell phones respectfully, responsibly and within our established policies.”

Former Fremont Unified School District Superintendent CJ Cammack said that while the district allows “reasonable” cellphone use, elementary school students are required to show off their devices during school hours. Cammack added that middle and highschool teachers are allowed to limit or prohibit cellphone use of their individual classrooms.

As executive director of the buyer advocacy group California for Safe Technology, Cheryl Matthews advocates for restrictions and bans on students' cellular phone and social media use. She says that while social media has some positive features, it is simply too distracting for college students and has gotten “out of control.”

“Cell phone bans … improve academic performance, encourage more face-to-face interaction (and) reduce cyberbullying,” Matthews said. “It promotes healthier habits and ensures school integrity because kids can't cheat on assignments.”

Some districts have already banned cell phones entirely throughout the school day. Just last month, the Los Angeles Unified School District — the state's largest — made headlines when its school board voted to ban students from using cell phones starting in 2025.

The San Mateo Union High School District banned cellphone use in schools in 2019 after teachers raised concerns about their students' social media habits and addictions, said Adam Gelb, former assistant principal at San Mateo High School.

The district has partnered with technology company Yondr to supply students with magnetic bags to lock their phones in throughout the school day. Once the bag is locked, students must tap it on a release base to access their phone.

Gelb said the highschool allows students to maintain their phones of their backpacks or on their desks, but teachers will occasionally unlock the phones to ascertain that students' phones are securely locked.

“All students (and) all classes had their phones in their pockets all day long from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.,” Gelb said.

But stricter cell phone restrictions have raised doubts amongst some parents and students about safety in schools.

Gelb said San Mateo High School incorporated the luggage into existing security drills so students and teachers can be prepared to unlock their phones within the event of an emergency.

But Zoe Touray, a member of the gun control group March for Our Lives, said it was her phone that saved her life when a 15-year-old boy shot and killed 4 students at a Michigan highschool three years ago.

Touray said she and other Oxford High School students thought the November 2021 shooting was just one other lockdown drill until they saw students running out of the constructing on social media and realized the danger they were in.

“I think that's the only major downside that the governor is suggesting, simply because my phone was the most important thing in my life that day. And it still is to this day,” Touray said. “Even now … I can look for an exit, but my first thought is, 'Where's my phone?' So I can contact my mom or the police if I need to. My phone is always my first choice.”

Sara Herrera, mother of a student at Valley Christian Schools in San Jose, said the concept of ​​tighter restrictions worries her if her daughter cannot contact her throughout the day.

“I have to have access to her in some way,” Herrera said.

“Given the significant demographic, topographical and ideological differences among California's 940 school districts and 58 county school boards, we should not leave this issue to lawmakers in Sacramento but address it at the local level,” said Troy Flint, the association's communications director.

Don Austin, superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District, agreed that decisions regarding student cellphone use should remain with locally elected school boards, stressing that it is mindless for schools in districts that provide students with computers and Wi-Fi access to limit or ban cellphones.

“I am convinced that addictive social media applications are harmful to students. There are many ways to address this problem that go beyond bans or restrictions on mobile devices,” Austin said. “If social media is the enemy, perhaps the restrictions should be tailored to the social media channels.”

As some Californians proceed to look for methods to affordably insure their homes, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a push Friday to hurry up the speed at which insurance firms can raise rates.

Faster approval of rate increases is certainly one of the important thing reforms insurers say is needed to remain afloat amid a growing variety of costly claims within the Golden State, particularly related to recent wildfires and other rising costs of climate change.

Newsom said he’s drafting a “trailer bill” that might shorten the present approval process to 60 days – laws he hopes will stem the exodus of insurers bailing out their businesses from California and residents' financial fears in reference to canceled policies.

The current process gives the Department of Insurance as much as 84 days to approve requests to extend insurance premiums. However, this era may take significantly longer if a public hearing is requested by consumer advocates or other groups.

“We need to stabilize this market,” Newsom said during a news conference Friday about his revised budget proposal. “We have to send the right signals, we have to make a difference.”

While this transformation could temporarily lead to higher bills for consumers, advocates argue that the changes will make home insurance more available. In turn, more options could also allow residents to avoid the danger of California's “FAIR Plan,” the state's “insurer of last resort” that gives exorbitant premiums in comparison with regular insurance and can also be on the verge of bankruptcy.

Denni Ritter, vice chairman of state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, praised the news of expedited approvals Friday afternoon.

“Accelerating the rate review process is an essential part of addressing California’s insurance crisis,” Ritter said in a press release. “We look forward to working with the administration, the Legislature and the Department of Insurance on this critical reform and other reforms necessary to fix our broken regulatory system and increase the availability of insurance for homeowners, drivers and businesses in California. “

The governor said he chose to work with state lawmakers on this “trailer bill” reasonably than seek an executive order to maneuver the method forward.

California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara began working with Newsom last fall to modernize and overhaul three a long time of state regulations, including efforts to permit insurance firms to make use of catastrophe models to set rates and charge consumers for the associated fee of reinsurance provide insurance for insurers.

However, Lara said the continued work isn’t expected to be implemented until December.

“(Lara’s) team is working hard, I know how concerned the Legislature is about this,” Newsom said. “But December? I don’t think we have that much time.”

Instead of pushing back on Newsom's announcement of his latest bill, Lara thanked the governor for supporting his own efforts, dubbed the Sustainable Insurance Strategy.

“Newsom is right: time is of the essence,” Lara posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. “Our partnership with the Governor and Legislature is critical to stabilizing our market. We have made significant progress, but there is still more to do.”