Gov. Brown got a jolt this week: Nearly two dozen fellow Democrats in the Legislature urged him to drop his plans to drill two tunnels in the Delta, and instead scale down the project.
From the LAT's Michael Mishak: "On Thursday, 22 lawmakers from districts throughout the state released a letter urging the Brown administration to consider an alternative to the most ambitious water supply project proposed in California in decades."
"Brown's still-evolving proposal calls for the construction of two massive tunnels beneath the delta to transport water south, in addition to the restoration of tens of thousands of acres of delta habitat. Opponents, including farmers and a number of conservation groups, argue that the plan could sully irrigation water, endanger fish and rob the ecosystem of needed flows."
"In their letter, lawmakers advocated an alternative plan that calls for a smaller, less expensive water facility -- one tunnel -- and half the amount of habitat restoration. Under the plan, the cost savings would help pay for other actions, including reinforcing delta levees and increasing water recycling and conservation."
And some more bad news for Brown. The Legislature's lawyer says Brown can't take money from voter-approved Proposition 39 and give it to the schools, which Brown has proposed. The initiative was passed last November to close a corporate loophole and raise money for green energy programs, among other things.
From Tom Chorneau at the Cabinet Report: "A legislative legal opinion released Thursday casts further doubt on a proposal by the governor to include as part of the state’s constitutional funding guarantee for schools next year $450 million earmarked for energy efficiency projects."
"The idea, which Brown included in his January budget, has already drawn sharp criticism from the non-partisan Legislative Analyst, which warned earlier this year that the money could not be counted in the school funding guarantee because it had been specifically identified as “special funds” as part of a voter initiative."
"At a budget hearing Thursday, state Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, read into the record what he said were the operative sections of a legal opinion he had asked for on the question from the Legislative Counsel’s office."
Back to water, the feds' most comprehensive environmental study of the Klamath River system that flows from Oregon into California to the ocean propses the removal of four dams -- which would be the largest dam-removal project in state's history.
From Peter Fimrite in the Chronicle: "The study predicts dam removal would employ 4,600 people during 15 years of work, and result in an 81 percent increase in chinook and similar increases in steelhead trout and coho salmon."
"The project, which would cost about $1 billion, including habitat restoration and sediment removal, would nevertheless cost less over time than maintaining the reservoirs and building federally mandated fish ladders, according to Interior Department scientists."
"The report "represents the most comprehensive scientific, engineering and environmental evaluation of facilities removal ever undertaken in the Klamath Basin," said Ken Salazar, secretary of the interior, in a statement."
The officer who piloted the tanker that struck the Bay Bridge in January committed a series of mistakes that resulted in the mishap, according to a state investigation.
From the Chronicle's Carl Nolte: "A "chain of errors" by ship pilot Capt. Guy Kleess caused the tanker Overseas Reymar to crash into a tower of the Bay Bridge, according to an investigation by the state Board of Pilot Commissioners, which suspended the pilot's license Thursday."
"The commission also plans to file a formal charge - called an accusation - that will result in a trial before a state judge."
"The Overseas Reymar, a 748-foot-long tanker, was proceeding to sea from an anchorage off San Francisco after discharging its cargo of crude oil at a Martinez refinery when it hit the base of the Echo tower of the Bay Bridge on Jan. 7."
It seems that government projects aren't the only ones that have cost overruns -- Apple's planned iSpaceship, which looks like a cross between a doughnut and flying saucer, is coming in at $2 billion over projectios.
From the Mercury-News' Patrick May: "According to a report from Bloomberg Businessweek on Thursday, the architectural creation hailed by Cupertino officials as "unprecedented" and "truly a legacy building" after it was famously announced by then-CEO Steve Jobs in 2011 may ultimately pencil out at $5 billion. Citing unnamed sources, Bloomberg said that compares with an original cost estimate that sources put at $3 billion."
"Apple has never publicly shared any budget estimates for the project, and the company would not comment on the report. It's been clear for years now that Apple would need much more space to accommodate its burgeoning workforce than its current headquarters at One Infinite Loop can handle. And the fact that the land for the new building has mushroomed from the 50-acre property first announced in 2006 to the 175-acre facility Jobs announced in 2011, it's no surprise that Apple's construction bills could be higher than first planned."
"I haven't heard anything from Apple to suggest the costs have gone up dramatically or that they're planning on scaling back," said Cupertino Councilman Mark Santoro."
