Becerra Refuses Water-Policy Interview; Hilton Proposes $150 Billion Spending Plan

Democrat Xavier Becerra, the frontrunner for California governor, declined multiple interview requests from CalMatters on water policy and offers no specific water proposals on his campaign website. Republican Steve Hilton, by contrast, detailed a plan he co-wrote that estimates water infrastructure projects could cost as much as $150 billion.

Becerra’s campaign, after several follow-ups, provided a single statement promising to “bring everyone to the table” but naming no projects, no dollar figures, and no timeline. His campaign spokesperson Jonathan Underland wrote: “As governor, Becerra will bring everyone to the table to modernize our water infrastructure, guarantee safe, affordable drinking water for every Californian, give farms and businesses the reliable supply they need to grow, and prepare for the wet and dry years ahead.”

Hilton’s 2024 plan, co-written with Edward Ring of the libertarian California Policy Center, is titled “Achieving Water Abundance.” It proposes a 2% allocation from the state’s general fund, taken by “cutting wasteful and ineffective programs,” plus unspecified additional funding sources. The plan does not name which programs would be cut or detail how the $150 billion estimate was calculated.

Becerra refused CalMatters’ interview requests. CalMatters sent him the same list of questions Hilton answered over the phone. Becerra did not respond to those questions.

“(Becerra) knows that there is not a whole lot of upside for him in coming out with detailed plans ahead of the election,” Max Gomberg, an independent water consultant and former climate and conservation manager for the State Water Resources Control Board, told CalMatters. “Because no matter what he says, someone will pop up to criticize it.”

Hilton supports building Sites Reservoir, a Northern California project expected to cost between $6.2 and $6.8 billion, and raising Shasta dam higher, a proposal backed by the Trump administration. Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest farm water supplier, has long supported both projects. Allison Febbo, Westlands’ general manager, said neither candidate has met with Westlands staff.

Hilton opposes the Delta tunnel, a decades-old plan to route water around the fragile Delta. “I’m totally against it,” he said. “It’s ridiculous, and unnecessary.”

Becerra, questioned about the Delta tunnel at a January forum hosted by California Environmental Voters, said, “We should never say no to anything until we’ve examined it completely … everything should be on the table, and everyone should be at the table.” He did not say whether he supports building it.

At their only one-on-one debate, Hilton described Becerra’s record as attorney general as “suing to stop our farmers getting the water that they need.” Becerra responded: “Donald Trump was trying to impose his standards on California when it comes to water infrastructure. We have a right to make sure water in California is regulated by California.” As attorney general, Becerra sued the Trump administration more than 120 times, including lawsuits that beat back a Westlands-assisted effort to raise Shasta dam.

Both candidates agreed at an April Fresno forum that protecting groundwater is important and that the state’s policy to rein in agricultural overpumping may be overburdened by bureaucracy. Hilton said the answer is more surface water and that “it’s all insane. It all needs to be cut back and shut down wherever possible.” Becerra said, “I’m not sure how some folks who want to get rid of our rules that help us manage groundwater believe that we can do the right thing without some guidance. I agree that maybe there’s too much regulation … and we have to trim it back. But let’s be honest: we need groundwater.”

Becerra told the Fresno forum audience, “I will tell you, as governor, when you’re at the table sitting with me, I will listen to what you think we need to do. Because water is more precious than gold. Let’s make it work.” He added, “We have enough water in California. It’s making the best use of it, and the state has an obligation to be the big investor to make it work for everyone.” He did not state a dollar figure for that investment.

Polling earlier this summer by the Association of California Water Agencies and FM3 Research found 83% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and 67% of Republicans say they are more likely to support a candidate who “prioritizes improving California’s water reliability and affordability.”

The Breakdown

• Becerra declined multiple CalMatters interview requests on water policy, refused to answer written questions Hilton answered, and offers no specific water proposals on his campaign website.
• Hilton co-wrote a 2024 plan estimating water projects could cost as much as $150 billion, funded in part by a 2% allocation from the state’s general fund taken by “cutting wasteful and ineffective programs.” The plan does not name which programs would be cut.
• Hilton supports Sites Reservoir ($6.2 to $6.8 billion) and raising Shasta dam. He opposes the Delta tunnel.
• Becerra has not stated whether he supports Sites, Shasta, or the Delta tunnel. On the Delta tunnel, he said at a January forum that “everything should be on the table.”
• Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest farm water supplier, supports Sites and Shasta. Neither candidate has met with Westlands staff, according to the district’s general manager.

What This Means for You

Fresno County voters will decide this race. One candidate answered CalMatters’ questions on water policy; the other refused the interview and provided a single nonspecific statement. One candidate detailed a $150 billion spending plan; the other promised the state would be “the big investor” but named no figure. If you’re weighing which candidate is prepared to manage California’s water, you’re doing it with one side of the conversation missing — by that candidate’s choice.

What to Watch

Hilton’s $150 billion estimate assumes “regulatory reforms” but does not detail which regulations would be cut or what those reforms would cost to implement. His plan proposes funding the projects in part by “cutting wasteful and ineffective programs” to free up a 2% allocation from the state’s general fund — but does not name a single program to be cut. A voter weighing this plan has no way to verify whether the math works, whether the regulations can legally be cut, or which public services would lose funding to pay for it.

Becerra’s refusal to detail his water policy leaves a different question: What does “bringing everyone to the table” mean in practice when the table includes Westlands Water District, fishing and environmental groups, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, and residents in communities where grandmothers fear to bathe babies in tap water? Becerra has not said which of those parties’ priorities he would favor, which he would override, or how he would choose. His statement that the state has “an obligation to be the big investor” promises spending with no number attached — a commitment a voter cannot evaluate.

Both candidates promised “abundance.” Greg Gartrell, retired water manager at a Northern California water district and now an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said, “Rule 1. There is plenty of water, there is no more cheap water. The only cheap water is water that someone else pays for and gives to you below cost.” Neither candidate has said who would pay, and who would go without, under their version of abundance.