Inside California's $20 Billion Water Tunnel Decision | Graham Bradner

California is planning to build a massive water project, a $20 billion project. Some people are concerned after the bullet train project getting delayed and the budgets going up and up, California is unable to build massive projects like this. Today, we sit down with Graham Bradner, who's an executive director for the organization that's behind developing this project. Today, he's gonna give us an insider view of this project, how it will impact the community, and what measures he's taking to make sure we don't end up the same way as the bullet train. This project is being designed for a hundred year minimum life expectancy. So it would be delivering water for the next century. So this is really a generational improvement that will continue to provide water throughout the state for many generations to come. Some people in your space that argue that there might be better ways of getting this water. What are your thoughts on that? I'm Siamak, welcome to California Insider. Graham, it's great to have you, welcome. Thank you, happy to be here. We wanna talk to you about one of the biggest projects the state is gonna do, which is the Delta Conveyance Project. Can you tell us more about this project? The State Water Project, first of all, is backbone infrastructure for the state of California. So this is a system that delivers water to 27 million Californians throughout the state. 750,000 acres of ag land is supported by the State Water Project. So Delta Conveyance, the Delta Conveyance Project is an augmentation to that system. It's intended to improve the ability to deliver water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. There is the existing State Water Project infrastructure that's mostly positioned in the South Delta. So that's where the pumps and the canals start that head South and over to the Bay Area. So the Delta Conveyance Project would add two new intakes on the main stem of the Sacramento River on the far Northern side of the Delta, and then connect those intakes through 45 miles of tunnel down to the far Southern end where those existing facilities already are, and connect those up at the Bethany Reservoir, which is kind of a key meeting spot for all the canals that take off from there. Right now, there is a big problem with pumps and that people are always wondering, like how much can you pump and all that. And would this project solve this problem in a sense? There are a couple of issues evolving. One is a change in climate, which is affecting the runoff patterns through the Delta. As the past years have demonstrated, even in dry years, there are big storms that come and huge pulses of water that flow through the system. But there are also a lot of operational restrictions and limitations on the existing system that prevent really the full use of the State Water Project water right. So this project is intended to work in conjunction with those existing facilities, so combined and in concert with, but having intakes on the completely opposite end of the Delta would provide a lot more flexibility in terms of adjusting for river conditions or regulatory considerations. And in some situations, it may be such that both are operating at the same time. So it allows for capturing high flow conditions, although relatively brief, but to capture significant quantities of water and move it downstream into storage throughout the system. Does it give assurance to farmers and the water users after this project is built that we will have the water? Because some years, farmers tell us that they're not getting enough allocations. There absolutely has been a lot of variability in terms of the deliveries on the State Water Project. We've been tracking this with the Department of Water Resources for the past five years. Each of the years has been different, but in every year, the project would have delivered additional water had it been in place. A really good example is last year. So just, this would be the water year 24-25. Almost a million acre feet would have been captured and delivered through the Delta Conveyance Project had it been in place. To put that into context, Diamond Valley Reservoir, which is a very large Southern California reservoir, holds about 800,000 acre feet in total. So this is about 1.2 times the volume of Diamond Valley. So that's a significant amount of water. These could be considered missed opportunities because the existing system limitations we talked about. So when the rain comes in, we see those footage of when the water is going to the ocean because we can't capture it, right? That's correct. And so having the intakes on the main stem of the Sacramento River as on-bank intakes really alleviates a number of the challenges that may prevent or limit the use of the existing system. So this provides a set of intakes in a very different condition where, in which case the state would be able to divert in cases where they can't out of the South. Graham, this is a large project. This is a significant project, like 24 billion, 20 to 24 billion? Our last estimate in 2024 dollars is 20.1 billion. 20.1 billion. Correct. The state, you know, right now, unfortunately we don't have a very good reputation for building big projects like this. What are your thoughts on this project? So I'm familiar with that reputation. I guess starting first with the organization that I work for, the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, is a purpose-built organization. It's a joint powers authority formed by the 16 public water agencies that are participating in this program by water through the State Water Project. So there's a clear connection between those responsible for governance and oversight, who are those same 16 public water agencies. They form the board that I report to. So there's a very clear connection to the work that's being done, the funds that are being spent, and those are the folks who are paying the bills associated with the work. So first of all, I think that's a very good structure. These JPA structures do work, and it's been working very well for the years that I've been involved, and really since the organization was created. Another key issue is that, I know we have been in the planning and permitting phase for probably the last six years. These large projects really take a very long time to work through the permitting process. We're getting close to completing that. It's an effort led by the Department of Water Resources. They ultimately will own and operate the system as part of the State Water Project. But the role of permitting is a very important role. It's a necessary role to consider impacts and disclose those impacts and sort out potential mitigations to address them. But the notion that it takes six, seven, eight years to get a large project into the delivery phase is certainly a challenge, and I think many large projects experience the same challenge. What you're mentioning is this is not funded by taxpayers. Essentially, the water agencies are funding this. That is correct. And the ratepayers, they will figure out the ratepayers would end up paying. That's right. So it's not funded through broad tax base. It's not funded through general fund at the state level. It is all funded through the participating public water agencies who, through their water sales, would cover their portion of the cost. And it could come in various forms, depending on how the agency structures their finances and income. Does a structure like this remove the political pressure? I think it does remove some of the political pressure, although at the same time, we're partnered with the Department of Water Resources as the ultimate owner and operator of the system. So the state would own it. The state would own it when it's done, but we're the agency responsible for design and construction. The State Water Project in general has been removed somewhat from political conditions because the way that I'm describing this project would be funded is the same way that the State Water Project is funded overall. There is no general fund that supports the State Water Project. That system is entirely paid for by the water agencies that receive the water. And in doing that, it removes it from the political cycles that may affect other large commitments at the statewide level as there's political turnover and change, priorities change. But delivering water through the State Water Project is really not an option to be changed because it's the water agencies who pay for it. They fund all the work that's performed on the system. You mentioned it takes six years to do this, six to seven years to do the permitting. Can you tell us what's the process like? And is this reasonable? That's a difficult question as to whether it's reasonable. I can tell you some of the things we've done maybe a little differently on our project, on the Delta Conveyance Project. When Governor Newsom took over and California Water Fix, which was a twin tunnel version of the project was downsized to a single tunnel project. We took full advantage of really thinking through the configuration of this project, recognizing the difficulties of permitting in the state and also in a setting like the Delta, which is an environmentally and agriculturally significant and sensitive area. So we knew there were significant permits that were gonna have to be worked through in the process. So we started early citing all of the project facilities from scratch, thinking through existing infrastructure, farmland designation, environmental habitat, anything that we knew would be an important consideration when it came to laying out the new configuration of the project. We took that on early, even before the environmental permitting process had really started. So that the concept that we took into the CEQA process already had significant refinements in terms of managing and minimizing community effects to the region. That was a somewhat novel approach to dedicate that amount of energy prior to CEQA and then carrying a project that already incorporated a lot of those refinements even into the CEQA process before impacts were identified and necessary mitigations then identified. So we weren't waiting on CEQA to tell us where we needed to make changes. We made a lot of changes before. So this is a very long project. Like the length of this project is 40 something miles. Is that- It's 45 miles of tunnel. Yes. And it goes through different communities, right? It does. It starts around the community of Hood in the North Delta along the Sacramento River. The tunnel alignment swings East towards Interstate 5. We generally avoid tunneling under populated areas. The good thing here is this is a very rural setting. So there's existing infrastructure, a lot of existing farmland, levees, other types of infrastructure. But in terms of populated areas, we swing over towards Interstate 5 then down towards the Port of Stockton and then back over towards the South Delta near Clifton Court, Fort Bay. So we do generally avoid significant populated areas. You mentioned that you actually mitigated some of the CEQA related risks in the design phase. Did you design it in a way where you don't have a lot of environmental impact or did you have to go with a certain design and you thought about how to deal with the environmental impact? When we set about redesigning the project for a single tunnel configuration, the Department of Water Resources issued 10 objectives to us to consider how we might, for instance, minimize impact on existing farmland usage, how we might minimize potential flood risk increases associated with the project, how we might minimize increasing demand on what is already a somewhat stretched emergency response system within the Delta. So with these objectives, then we set about essentially redesigning the project. And so for each major project facility, whether it's the intakes, the pumping plant at the South, the launch shafts for the tunnel boring machines, we created a repeatable process of considering potential candidate sites, screening them based on a number of factors. So as I mentioned, it might be the presence of habitat that might be important habitat. There's various farmland designations throughout the area. So understanding what those current designations are and usage at the surface, the presence of existing infrastructure that might be affected by the construction of the project, existing structures, houses, buildings, other structures along the way. And so by performing that siting study, we developed a configuration that minimizes those impacts irrespective of their consideration through the permit process. But just knowing that going into the process of permitting that many of these considerations had already been built into the concept as opposed to waiting for the permits to tell us where we needed to make changes. So most of the projects we build go the other way, right? We kind of plan and then we go through the CEQA and then the CEQA will say, make the changes and then you have to go make the changes. So you guys figured out what to do beforehand. Yes, because a project at this scale, I think it was a good strategic decision to really dedicate the energy and effort early, not only so that we could develop a concept as we've been talking about, but also to really bring a comprehensive project to the table so that not just the major elements of the project were being considered through the permits, but even the ancillary impacts, the roads that we're gonna need to haul materials on and access the sites. How would those be affected? Existing roads, are we gonna need to modify interchanges and off ramps so that the project footprint captures a fully constructible project, not leaving anything out to be decided later, which is pretty typical. Like you're saying, other projects, maybe not of this scale would enter the CEQA process with less refinement on those, maybe ancillary or kind of detailed elements. But because the project is the scale that it is, we feel it was worth the energy to really map out a complete project that could then be taken into CEQA. Now, there's a lot of CEQA lawsuits. Are you concerned of you guys getting some of those too in this way? Is it customary for a lot of projects, especially your size is huge, a lot of projects in California would hit those, will have those lawsuits hit them. Do you think you guys will get some of those as well? Well, you're right. I mean, right now the legal focus is typically on the environmental permitting side of things. Those are ongoing, but as DWR is the lead permit agency, those are not directly pointed at the DCA. I expect into the future with a project of this scale, there will certainly be issues of some form or another. The topic of permits will start to transition to a permit compliance viewpoint. So once all the permits have been obtained, there are the regulatory requirements and commitments associated with those permits. And so it'll be our responsibility working very closely with DWR to make sure that we are compliant with all the regulatory requirements. So that's really the next phase that we'll be moving into once the major permits are all in hand. So once you have the permits, then you're going to look at the compliance, if you can be compliant with them. And then from there, when would you guys start the construction? First of all, we have been working on the compliance side now just to collecting the commitments and requirements along the way so that we're not waiting till the very end to assemble them together and see what we're dealing with. So we have been collecting and compiling along the way, but upon completing the couple really significant remaining permits, then yes, we will be shifting to really a go-no-go decision phase for the water agencies. And so these are all of the public water agencies considering their participation in the project for delivery, signing on for their portion of the debt service associated with the bonds that would be used to fund construction of the project. So that's really the next major phase that we'll be entering. Our anticipation is maybe middle, late 27 that we'll start with the public water agencies and probably take the better part of a year to get through the 16 agencies. Having done that, we would then really be focused on the delivery phase of the program. Construction of some of the very early elements would be in mid 29. That's really for the compensatory mitigation projects that are necessary to mitigate the project elements. And then likely starting major construction elements on the features of the Delta Conveyance Project around 2030, 2031. You mentioned the go-no-go phase. Is there a chance for this to get stopped or is it that the water agencies, not all of them may participate in it? I'd say it's more the latter. I mean, the decision is a decision for the water agencies to consider their participation. So that is really the major point that we're heading towards is the collection of 16 water agencies, each individually need to commit to their portion of the debt service. And that's really the next big milestone that we'll be entering for the project. Depending on how that goes, really dictates the future of the program. And what would they get for participating besides signing up on the debt? Do they get more water or do they get a better price? So this project is being designed for a hundred year minimum life expectancy. So it would be delivering water for the next century through this system. It is combating the changing conditions within the Delta, which have already reduced in exports compared to historical performance and which are forecast to continue to decline. And so what this project does through its enhanced flexibility is allow the State Water Project to stabilize and offset the degradation that will continue to occur if nothing is done about it. So it stabilizes the water supply for the future. Opportunistically, it will yield water above, just as I mentioned with the missed opportunities, there will be opportunities to capture additional water and put it into storage for dry years. I guess to be very clear on a point, this is not a new water right that's required for the State Water Project. There is an existing water right. This system would be operated within that water right, but it would allow for more flexibility in conditions and adapting the operations in the Delta, depending on what the runoff is or what other limitations might be curtailing their exports. When you go to the construction phase, you mentioned it would take 10 to 12 years, right? Is there any reasons for that? I know this is a massive project, but are there any hurdles that you might face in construction? You're right about the schedule. It's about 13 years of construction associated with the project. The main cause of that, although if you really study the elements of the project, there are just several very large features that take many years to fully construct, but it is the tunnel itself that really drives the schedule. Those tunnel boring machines excavate on the order of two miles per year. And so we would have currently four TBMs that would be excavating simultaneously along separate reaches of the project, but it's that production rate that tends to drive the schedule. The reason the tunnel approach is the selected approach is that it so significantly reduces the impacts at the surface. And it provides significantly improved resilience to seismic impacts and effects. So there are a number of benefits associated with the tunnel construction or the tunnel usage as part of the permanent facility, but it does come at a cost, which is time. You mentioned seismic. How does it work with seismic issues? You said it's better. It's better, it's better. So there's a condition in the Delta where, if you're familiar, there's about a thousand or more miles of levees constructed within the Delta. They encircle what are now called islands, but essentially they're tracks of land that have subsided. The elevation has fallen due to a variety of factors, but the levees around their perimeter continue to be built higher and higher to deal with that subsidence, but also to deal with changing hydrology, which at times through tidal effects and concentration of storms, you can have very high extreme water events. So that combined effect is really worsened by the soil within the Delta, which is what's referred to as peat or organic soil. And so these are very thick deposits, 10, 20, 40, 50, 60 feet of organic matter in a map of, and these are like old tule reeds and old vegetation from the area that have been compressed, and they're really the surface soil within the Delta. And then the levees are built on top of that. And so that material, it's not a reliable material when it comes to seismic performance. So that's one issue. The other is that it's all saturated, which is also, from a liquefaction standpoint, is a necessary requirement that it be fully saturated. So you have those elements combining to make surface construction very difficult and seismic stability also very difficult within the Delta. Alternatively, with the tunnel construction, it would be built down in depths 100 to 150 feet in that horizon. The soil at that depth is much older and more consolidated mineral soil, so typical sand, silt, clay, materials that behave predictably when exposed to seismic shaking. But just the consolidation, the predictability of that soil, it can be designed in a way that's traditional as opposed to the way surface structures in the Delta are designed, which is more challenging. How big is the tunnel, like in terms of the width? Like, is it a very wide one or is it? Yeah, the inside diameter of the tunnel is 36 feet. So external diameter is around 40. Okay, it's pretty big, okay. Yeah, well, and that's another point, too. When you ask about the seismic resilience is that the tunnel itself is designed state-of-the-art. You know, there are modern design standards, especially when it comes to circular structures like a tunnel, which are inherently very strong. And so you have the ability to really incorporate all that's necessary into that structure to manage fault offsets, those types of things. I mean, this is very common practice to create elements of the tunnel that can even shift and manage to hold together during a significant seismic event. Those types of things can be done at the surface, too. But really, the tunnel will be a state-of-the-art feature that's designed to modern standards, consolidated soil, much more predictable behavior from a seismic shaking perspective. From the position you're at, Graham, do you see a part of this project that is riskier that you cannot predict and you might think this part may not go well? Is there certain parts that you can point out that you are concerned about? I mean, I think projects at this scale present a challenge. And I think you mentioned that there are other examples. Constructing a tunnel of this length certainly is not at the limits of the industry by any stretch, but it is gonna have its challenges. It will take time to build. I think time is probably the biggest challenge that we have on this project. I think we've seen it to date, taken six, seven years to get back to this point where we have a project that's nearly fully permitted, being teed up for all the water agency decisions to move forward. After that, we finally can really transition into the delivery phase and get this project done. So I think with these big projects, time is probably the biggest factor. You mentioned the industry. This is not the biggest for the industry. Can you tell us more examples? Well, down here in LA, there's a lot of transit lines constructed through. So the LA region is full of tunnel boring machines, excavating various metro lines through the area. There are significant tunnels. A lot of times they are constructed for transportation, but there are also trains, cars. So if you look around, the Miami airport has recently constructed a tunnel that if you've been down to Miami, it's kind of difficult to get to the airport. They have a large bridge that is a constriction, so they've tunneled underneath the channel to access. Over to another big use of this type of technology is in older coastal cities, where again, due to changing climate and hydrology, the old stormwater systems and sewer systems can't keep up with a certain, once a certain level of storm hits and there can be a lot of damage caused by those systems overflowing. So for instance, London has recently finished the Tideway program, which created combined sewer outfall systems throughout the city underneath London that can hold this water temporarily and then discharge it upon treatment. That's also very common use throughout the US as well. So the water tunnel like this is used other places. Yes. It's not its own first. It is not its own first, but when you think about a tunnel exactly like this in soft ground conveying water 45 miles, that may be a somewhat unique configuration, but there's nothing about it that's new to the industry. It's just each project, each configuration has got its own kind of unique combinations, but we're not at the, anywhere near the, what really seems to be the limiter is diameter on tunnel boring machines, and that is an ever- They can't make it larger. Yeah, that is an ever-growing limit. So I think they're approaching 60 feet now in terms of total diameter. Do you think that can happen by the time you start the construction? That's already happened. Our tunnel will not be getting that big. Our tunnel will stay at the diameter it is. It's long enough and big enough, so. If you had a bigger tunnel, would that transport more water or we don't have the water to transport? That's a different question, I suppose. I mean, the diameter of the tunnel is designed based on the flow. And so, because what you're trying to do in that case is move the water at a certain velocity so that it's keeping the sediment moving and not depositing in the tunnel, but not moving too fast so that you have friction and things starting to degrade the tunnel lining. So really it's the flow that drives the diameter in this case. And so, I mean, the tunnel is sized appropriately for a 6,000 cubic foot per second diversion, which is the design standard, the design criteria for the project. Currently we are funded through the end of calendar year 2028 and so that's intended to leave space for the water agencies to hold those implementation votes that we talked about between mid-27, mid-28. So that's where that will really dictate the path forward. But we're covered as an organization and as a program through the end of 28. So there's a little bit of buffer there. The future beyond 2028 is really all about design and constructing this project. And will you guys be responsible for that or is there going to be another entity? No, it is us. We are responsible for the design and construction of the project, yes. So right now we work with DWR very closely. We'll continue to work with DWR through the delivery of the project, but the responsibility is the DCAs. So Graham, you're bringing all this water and it's extra water. We know the value of it. A lot of people have come on the show and everybody knows by now the value of water in California. What's the cost benefit? So you're spending $20 billion for this project. Can you tell us the cost benefit of this? Along with that estimate I mentioned that was published back in 2024, there was a benefit cost analysis performed at a statewide level. That cost benefit analysis took the updated cost estimate we provided, also the total 100 years of operations and maintenance costs associated with the project, took the unmitigated environmental impacts and quantified those in terms of a cost. So that all got racked up on the cost side. On the benefit side, it's the water supply reliability benefits, water quality benefits, seismic resilience, seismic improvements. So those were compared through that analysis. At that time, the benefit cost ratio is 2.2 to one. So for every dollar spent, $2.2 in return for all of those who receive water from the system. And to reiterate, this is a 100 year system. So this is really a generational improvement to the project that will continue to provide water throughout the state for many generations to come. What about the current system? Is the current system okay for another 100 years? Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, as you know, systems need upgrading and maintenance. No system is ever good forever. Within the Delta, it relies on the levees that have been built over time to route water through the channels and sloughs. So water enters the Delta through the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, and a number of other tributaries that flow in from various points. The existing State Water Project pump is in the very South Delta down by Clifton Court Forbay. So the existing system relies on the levees within the Delta to continue to function in order to route that surface water to where it needs to be in the South Delta. I think there is a need to continue to maintain and upgrade those levees. That's just sort of constant in the Delta where the subsidence is occurring annually, just continuously on an ongoing basis to ensure those levees continue to perform. It is the state's priority to continue operating as a priority, the existing infrastructure in the South. So yes, I think there is definitely a need to continue upgrading the levees within the Delta, for instance, but it's not at the cost of Delta Conveyance and upgrading those levees does not remove the need for the Delta Conveyance Project for the reasons we just described. They are really intended to be operated as complementary components of the same system. So you mentioned this is gonna cost about 20 billion. Based on our experience with other big projects in the state, the costs have gone up and up and up. Are you anticipating the costs to go up significantly from here? So to clarify, the 20.1 billion, so that was an estimate in 24 and 23, so the dollar basis is important. It's an undiscounted estimate, an economic term that essentially means the time value of money is not included in that estimate. So inflation will cause it to go up? Well, the benefit-cost analysis does build in the time-related aspects of the analysis because you have an offset benefit in construction periods. You've got 20 years of all expenditures and then you've got 100 years of benefits that accrue. So the way economists handle this is through discounting. They discount back to a consistent dollar basis and that's what we have with the benefit-cost ratio. So those offsetting costs and benefits have both been discounted back to that same 20, $23 basis. We will be updating the cost estimate next year. So this is really a key predecessor to the water agencies making their implementation decisions. We will be updating the estimate to a class three estimate. So that's an improvement over the last estimate, which was a class four. Really just narrowing the accuracy, tightening up conservatisms and just removing some of the uncertainty associated with cost estimating for that class three. So that will be in 2027. It's supported by a significant improvement in the system-wide engineering, also a requirement to qualify as a class three estimate. So we've moved the overall system-wide design substantially forward. That information is feeding the updated cost estimate. At the same time, we're considering a number of potential refinements to the design and construction program to better manage schedule, better manage risk, actually remove hard costs through reduced quantities. We talked about this back in the 24 estimate. We put our base estimate out of 20.1 billion, but we highlighted several potential refinements to the project, which even at that early stage, we were very comfortable saying, we see one and a quarter billion saved through this set of refinements here. And this is just scratching the surface because we're at a very, we were at a very early conceptual design phase. And so for us to come out with those types of refinements, we would need to feel very confident and comfortable talking about those now, which we are and were then. So we're continuing to work on the refinement side of the design as we're enhancing the design, collecting more subsurface information, trying to tease out conservatisms that we knew were built in to the original very conservative early design so that we're attempting to offset some of those inflationary impacts. So that next estimate that comes out in 27 will be a class three estimate, fully supported by a system-wide design. Which is more detailed, class three, more accurate. More accurate. So it'll move initially at the very early concept stages of a project, you'd call it a class five, and then it increments up to a class one, meaning you're essentially in construction. Your actual cost. There's very little margin of error associated with a class one estimate. Class five has a very large margin of error. And so we're incrementally moving our way across that spectrum. And a class three is the right point to be at for making significant funding decisions. It recognizes still the uncertainty that we have on the project, but it captures a level of detail that's reasonable and appropriate for this stage. We do also need to be very thoughtful about incorporating contingencies and cost to treat risk and manage risk, evaluating schedule quantitatively. So these are all parts of what are wrapped up into a class three estimate and disclosure. You mentioned the water agencies, some of them have to sell, they have to definitely get bonds, right? To support this kind of a- Yeah, this project will be funded by revenue bonds. There are two potential pathways to that. One is the Department of Water Resources who routinely sells bonds now to fund major capital programs, State Water Project or otherwise. So they have existing infrastructure in place for revenue bond and managing those proceeds. Alternatively, so do the water agencies. Many of the larger water agencies, especially like Metropolitan Water District routinely uses revenue bonds to fund large capital programs. I guess I mentioned two options, but really the third option would be the Delta Conveyance Finance Authority, which was a separate JPA that was established by the same collection of public water agencies. And that finance authority would also be a potential option. But I think right now the working assumption is that the Department of Water Resources would sell the revenue bonds, but it would be each of the public water agencies that would assume the debt for their portion of the project and would be required to repay those bonds over the life of the bond period. In a project like this, it's 13 years of construction. So you're gonna spend all this money over 13 years. Do they sell these bonds like every other year, every year, or do you get the money upfront? How does that work? Typically it's timed. So there is a projection of cashflow necessary for the project and the revenue bonds are sequenced in advance so that it's not arriving just in time. Nobody would wanna run a project like that. But at the same time, you don't necessarily want to hang on to the bond proceeds too long either. There's limits there. So really it's a kind of an offset curve where you know when you're gonna need those bond, where you're gonna need those proceeds to pay for capital improvements. And then you've got sort of an offset curve where you're actually selling and collecting the revenue associated with those bonds in advance, but not too far in advance. So Graham, there are some people in your space that argue that there might be better ways of getting this water, other opportunities, recycling the water, doing desal. What are your thoughts on that? So first of all, the State Water Project Water for most, if not all agencies is the least expensive supply they have. I would never advocate that anyone put all of their eggs in one basket on water supply, but the notion of a portfolio is absolutely the correct approach here. But many of these other supplies are significantly more expensive. They can't produce at the same quantity. So while there is a need to continue to advance alternative supplies, State Water Project provides really a backbone supply to those areas. And in many cases, you can't recycle or create water without a clean imported supply that's feeding them. I think this is also important, thinking about the context around the Colorado River, which is under significant stress. And so it really just heightens the importance of the State Water Project for imported supplies. It is a very clean, reliable supply of water, delivers over two and a half million acre feet per year on average. So that supply is just an incredibly important supply statewide. Because of the size of your project, and some people might compare you to the high-speed rail, how can we make sure we don't end up with the project that's gonna cost like four or five times anticipated, many, many decades of not knowing where it's going? First of all, I guess I would distinguish that Delta Conveyance is very different in a couple of key ways. So first of all, it's a modification to an existing system as opposed to constructing an entirely new statewide system. So the State Water Project exists. This is an augmentation and a very focused portion of the Delta. So that alone is a significant difference between Delta Conveyance and high-speed rail. It's just scope and breadth of work area. We have a direct connection between the water agencies who fund the project and the governance of the DCA. So they are appointed to the board of directors. They manage and oversee the work performed by the DCA. So there's just a very short and direct connection between those funding the project and those governing the work we do, which is delivering on the design and construction of the facilities. And then lastly, I think, looking at the footprint of the project, which as I'm sure you know, can be a challenge depending on the status of property acquisition. The fact that a majority of the project is underground through a tunnel really minimizes the surficial impacts, minimizes the property acquisition requirements compared to what it would be if it were a surface canal cutting across all of that infrastructure and land. So there's, I think, some key distinctions here. It is a more finite and well-defined scope of work. So the leadership is very clear and you talk to your board members, right? Is that, do you do it on a regular basis and are they involved? Yes, we meet regularly and for that matter, our meetings are public. You know, we do operate as a public body with under the Brown Act. So everything that we do at the board level is available to the public. We're very transparent about the work we do. Also, I think really essential for programs like this. And yeah, it is the board of directors that provide direction to me as the executive director of the DCA. So close connection to the water agencies. Graham Bradner, it was great to have you on California Insider. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Tell us what you think about the Delta Convoys project. Make sure to tell us in the comments or email us at siamakacaliforniasider.com. We read all of your emails and comments. I'm Siamak Kourami, this is California Insider. We'll see you next time.