- SB 872 would dedicate long-term funding to repair Delta levees and fix subsidence damage to State Water Project canals.
- The bill has united water agencies, agriculture, environmental groups, labor and lawmakers from Northern and Southern California.
- Supporters warn of major diminished water deliveries and rising costs without action.
A sweeping proposal to invest $300 million annually in California’s aging water infrastructure is gaining momentum in the Legislature, backed by an unusually broad coalition of water agencies, local governments, labor groups and environmental advocates.
Senate Bill 872 by Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, would commit about $6 billion over 20 years to maintaining California’s core water infrastructure—one of the largest sustained investments in levees and conveyance systems in recent years.
Supporters argue the cost of inaction would be far higher, citing risks ranging from catastrophic levee failures to gradual declines in delivery capacity for the State Water Project.
At a policy committee hearing last week, McNerney framed the bill as a core infrastructure investment tied directly to the state’s economic and water security.
“One of the most critical functions of the state is to provide infrastructure, and water is the most critical factor,” he told lawmakers, emphasizing the need to act before failures occur. “The longer we put it off, the more severe the problem is going to be.”
Weak levees and sinking land
The bill’s findings and a committee analysis point to a system under mounting stress.
Many of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees — about 1,100 miles in total — were built more than a century ago and face increasing risks from climate-driven storms, sea level rise and seismic events. A major levee failure could flood islands, disrupt water deliveries and allow saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies.
At the same time, decades of groundwater overdraft have caused widespread land subsidence in parts of the San Joaquin Valley. That sinking ground has damaged canals, reducing their carrying capacity and limiting the state’s ability to move water when it is most needed.
Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton (office photo)Subsidence is imperiling up to 80% of the system’s water supplies, while levee failures could trigger catastrophic flooding in the Delta.
At a press conference last week, Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, expanded on the scale of the problem, noting that more than 200 miles of the California Aqueduct have already been affected by subsidence.
“Without near-term repairs, [the Department of Water Resources] estimates a continued reductions in deliveries — until hitting a complete elimination of deliveries by 2045,” said Pierre.
The Delta also supports hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland and a multibillion-dollar regional economy, while serving as a hub for water exports to other parts of the state.
Local officials stressed the connection between levee maintenance and agricultural viability in the Delta.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
Sacramento County Supervisor Pat Hume said levee upkeep is currently borne by local reclamation districts, cutting into farm margins and threatening long-term operations, “which cuts into the margins of the people producing our food and threatens their operations.”
He added that inefficiencies caused by subsidence may already be wasting water.
“It is estimated that up to one-third of the water that gets exported from the Delta never makes it to its destination,” he said, pointing to seepage, evaporation and subsidence issues.
Urban water agencies echoed those concerns, emphasizing the statewide impact.
Shivaji Deshmukh, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, warned that the risks to the State Water Project are on par with “the devastating forecast that we are facing along the Colorado River” amid a deepening snow drought in the West.
“Losing 87% of the aqueduct’s delivery capacity within 15 short years is untenable and unacceptable,” he said. “Increasing pumping to compensate for a fraction of the loss just exasperates the challenge.”
Southern California relies on imported water for about half its supply, he noted, making the reliability of the State Water Project critical.
Environmental and Delta perspective
Environmental groups supporting the bill framed levee investments as essential not just for water supply, but for ecosystems and local communities.
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, which has often clashed intensely with water contractors, pointed to the Delta’s role as home to four million residents, prime farmland and hundreds of species.
“We cannot protect the people, the ecosystem, tribal beneficial uses or local economies, and we cannot protect sharing a sustainable, science-based water supply without the current levy upgrades that SB 872 will provide,” she said.
The amicable tone stands in contrast to the group’s comments last Thursday urging state lawmakers to overturn a regulatory proposal by the State Water Resources Control Board that would incorporate a voluntary agreements approach — known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program — into its pending Bay-Delta Plan update. It called the agency’s backing of the innovative alternative to the current flows-only paradigm as a “descent into dysfunction.” State Water Contractors has been a leading proponent of the agreements.
Restore the Delta and its tribal partners are also urging lawmakers to reject the reappointment of the board’s agricultural member, Dorene D’Adamo, over her endorsement of the agreements.
Sierra Club California is also backing SB 872, highlighting risks to environmental justice communities.
At the press conference, lawmakers emphasized the unusual alignment.
“We’re bringing Southern California and Northern California melting together,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera. “Can you imagine the Dodgers and San Francisco coming together?”
Asm. John Harabedian, D-Pasadena, also a co-author on the bill, added that water infrastructure often goes overlooked until disaster strikes.
“No one talks about infrastructure until the levee breaks,” he said.
McNerney has described the bill as a “pragmatic and peaceful solution” that bridges longstanding water conflicts by focusing on shared infrastructure needs.
The bill has gained no opposition and easily passed its first committee, but steep fiscal hurdles are ahead.
Funding tradeoffs
SB 872 would primarily fund the effort through continuous appropriations from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which collects revenue from the cap-and-invest program.
That funding structure is a central feature — and a point of concern.
The GGRF has historically generated between $2 billion and $5 billion annually, totaling more than $26 billion from 2013 to 2023.
Much of that revenue is already committed. Roughly 65% has been dedicated to ongoing programs, ranging from high-speed rail to affordable housing, transit and forest resilience. Early auction results suggest revenues may not reach the levels needed to comfortably fund all existing obligations.
Committee staff warned that adding a new $300 million annual commitment “would only make matters worse” for already constrained funding priorities.
As a result, McNerney amended the bill to create a separate fund that could draw from multiple sources, rather than relying solely on GGRF. Yet that raises other spending issues. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the governor’s proposed budget projects multiyear deficits ranging from $20 billion to $35 billion annually and warns the state faces structural budget challenges that could force difficult spending choices.
