To paraphrase Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry in the 1973 classic Magnum Force, the governor needs to know his limits.

Even a governor with no major political opposition and a very friendly and usually supportive legislature has limited power.

Governor Gavin Newsom may have felt the limits this time. Leading lawmakers are pushing back against his latecomer bill to expedite construction of a waterway tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta, which has been highly controversial.

Similar to his pattern, Newsom is trying to thwart the bill at the last minute, not giving legislators and the public enough time to evaluate and debate it. This is extremely frustrating for lawmakers, whether leaders or back-ventures.

“It feels disrespectful to the other party.” [legislative] State Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) said earlier this month during a Senate committee hearing on the governor’s proposal.

Rep. Carlos Villapudua (D-Stockton) said, “It’s just too inappropriate to try to force something at the last minute on such a controversial issue.”

Newsom did a similar thing last year, after which he boasted of his success in thwarting lawmakers. Near the end of the two-year term, the governor sent Congress an ambitious package of climate change proposals, most of which passed.

The governor can hold the bill hostage and “thwart” the legislators. He could refuse to sign bills drafted by lawmakers who voted against his proposal. Governors have a long time to bring bills to Congress, which greatly shortens the time it takes for opponents to organize opposition campaigns.

This year, Mr. Newsom waited until May 19 to propose a sketchy infrastructure bill, asking lawmakers to pass it within five weeks as part of the state’s annual budget. What he suggested has nothing to do with the budget.But he can hold legislators’ favorite budget items hostage to votes on his proposal.

The governor’s bill could also be included in a budget “trailer” bill that does not need to undergo scrutiny by the policy committee.

Newsom proposed a sweeping package of 11 bills that would facilitate the construction of clean energy, transportation and water projects, including the Delta Tunnel.

In essence, they do this by cutting corners on environmental protection. A lawsuit brought under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 must be closed within 270 days unless a judge finds it impracticable. Now, such lawsuits can go on for years.

As for the tunnel, it would reduce the number of votes required for approval by the critical Delta Oversight Board. Protections for the endangered sandhill crane that winters there will be eased. And they fear that the role of local interests in tunnel design will be diminished.

For 60 years, governors have tried to build the project in one form or another, but have been pushed back by grassroots activists and state voters.

Delta is California’s primary water hub, serving 27 million people and irrigating 3 million acres.

“It’s the backbone of the state’s water system,” said Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources agency secretary. “We rent our time in the delta, which is highly vulnerable to salt water intrusion, at risk of sea level rise from climate change, and at risk of earthquakes.

“We can’t continue to have legal deadlocks year after year as a result of lawsuits. Let’s think about how we can rationalize lawsuits and decide for or against tunnels.”

And if that doesn’t work, states can “go back to square one and take a different approach,” he says.

Opponents of the plan, especially delta residents, including farmers, argue that future saltwater intrusion is one reason the tunnel should not be built. It would draw water from the fresher northern delta and push back the salt water coming in from the San Francisco Bay, before flowing through the southern tip where it is more saline as it is today.

Opponents say the highly saline water will have disastrous effects on Stockton, smaller delta communities and agriculture.

In terms of seismic threats, no earthquakes have ever damaged the delta levees and there are no major faults under the estuary. Even so, wouldn’t underground tunnels be damaged by a major earthquake?

Fisheries and boaters fear that reduced freshwater flow through the delta could dramatically reduce salmon runs and exacerbate the toxic algal blooms that clog waterways in the summer.

“The whole system crashed,” said Barry Nelson, a consultant for the Golden State Salmon Association. That’s partly because of the giant fish-chomping pumps in the South Delta and government regulations that often deprive baby salmon of enough water to make it out to sea.

“If there is a tunnel, [state] “It’s about dramatically increasing water pumping from the Sacramento River system and further reducing salmon populations,” Nelson said.

It depends on how the tunnel is regulated. But there is no trust in government regulators among tunnel opponents.

Mr. Vijapudua drafted a letter signed by 10 members of both parties to Mr. Newsom and congressional leaders asking them to remove the tunnel plan from the governor’s policy package.

“Including Delta was not very wise,” says Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), a former secretary of natural resources who helped push then-Governor John Laird. Jerry Brown’s failed twin tunnel project.

“A $16 billion project [the tunnel] It can have significant impacts on large ecologically sensitive and important areas. Something of that magnitude should not be tracked quickly through the environmental review process. ”

Oh yes. Cost: Virtually everyone knows that a 45-mile-long, 9-foot-wide tunnel costs much more than advertised. And so far it hasn’t even been funded. Water users will have to pay a fee.

Newsom should listen to Dirty Harry.