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

Even a governor with little political opposition and a very friendly, usually cooperative legislature has limits to power.

This time Governor Gavin Newsom may have found his limits. Key lawmakers are fighting back against his late-introduced law to expedite construction of a highly controversial water tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

As is his pattern, Newsom attempts to squeeze through legislation at the last minute, denying lawmakers and the public adequate time to evaluate and discuss the proposal. This really gets on the nerves of lawmakers, whether they are leaders or backbenchers.

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

“To try to do something like this at the last minute on such a controversial issue is so inappropriate,” said Rep. Carlos Villapudua (D-Stockton).

Newsom did so last year and later boasted about his success in blocking lawmakers. Towards the end of his two-year term, the governor sent the legislature an ambitious package of climate action proposals, and most of them passed.

A governor can “block” lawmakers by holding their bills hostage. He could refuse to sign a bill written by a lawmaker who votes against his proposal. By waiting long enough for a governor to submit his bills to the legislature, he also greatly reduces the time opponents have to organize opposition.

That year, Newsom waited until May 19 to propose a draft infrastructure bill, which he was scheduled to pass by lawmakers within five weeks as part of the annual state budget. What he proposes has nothing to do with the budget. But he can hold lawmakers’ favorite budget items hostage to their votes for his proposal

In addition, the governor’s legislation can be enshrined in budget “trailer” legislation that does not require scrutiny by policy committees.

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

This would be achieved essentially by reducing environmental protection. Lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 would have to be completed within 270 days unless a judge determines it is impracticable. Such lawsuits can drag on for years.

As for the tunnel, the vote required for approval by a key Delta oversight committee would be reduced. Protection for endangered wintering cranes would be relaxed. And the role of local interests in the design of the tunnel would be weakened, they fear.

Governors have tried for six decades to build this project in some form, but have been repulsed by grassroots activists or state voters.

The delta is California’s most important water hub, serving 27 million people and irrigating 3 million hectares.

“It’s the backbone of our state’s water system,” says Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the state agency for natural resources. “We have borrowed time in the Delta. It is highly vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and is at risk of sea rise as a result of climate change. And there is a risk of earthquakes.

“We cannot remain in limbo year after year because of litigation. Let’s figure out how to streamline the litigation and give the tunnel a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

And if it doesn’t work, he says, the state can “go back to the drawing board and take a different approach.”

Project opponents – particularly residents of the delta, including farmers – claim that future saltwater intrusion is one reason the tunnel should not be built. It would siphon water from the fresher northern delta before it could flow through the saline southern end, as it does now, pushing back salt water intruding from San Francisco Bay.

The saltier water would be disastrous for Stockton, smaller Delta communities and agriculture, opponents say.

As for seismic hazard, no earthquake has ever damaged a delta dam and there are no major faults under the estuary. Anyway, couldn’t a major tremor damage an underground tunnel?

The fishing industry and boaters fear that reducing freshwater flow through the delta will decimate salmon stocks and exacerbate toxic algae that clog waterways in summer.

“The whole system collapsed,” says Barry Nelson, advisor to the Golden State Salmon Assn. That’s partly because of the huge fishing pumps in the Southern Delta and government regulations that often deprive baby salmon of strong enough water flow when attempting to migrate to the sea.

“The tunnel would make that possible [state] to dramatically increase pumping capacity from the Sacramento River system and further reduce the salmon population,” says Nelson.

That would depend on how the tunnel is regulated. But the opponents of the tunnel do not trust the state regulatory authorities.

Villapudua authored a letter to Newsom and lawmakers, signed by 10 lawmakers from both parties, asking for the tunnel project to be removed from the governor’s package.

“It wasn’t very wise to include the delta,” says Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), a former natural resources secretary who helped persuade the then-governor to do so. Jerry Brown’s failed twin tunnel project.

“A $16 billion project like [the tunnel] is likely to have a significant impact on a large, ecologically sensitive and important area. Something of this magnitude should not be rushed through an environmental assessment process.”

Oh yeah. The Cost: Virtually everyone knows that the price for this 45-mile, 39-foot-wide tunnel would be much higher than advertised. And so far there isn’t even any funding for it. Water users would pay.

Newsom should listen to Dirty Harry.

The post Column: On delta tunnel, Newson ought to heed Soiled Harry’s sound recommendation appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The owners of Oilcan Harry’s, STS Warehouse, LLC, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against their new landlord, claiming they have not been given access to their new location at 219 W. Fourth St. (down the block from their current location) and that an HVAC system has not been installed in the building.

The move precedes a redevelopment of Fourth Street. A residential building will be built at Oilcan Harry’s current location.

Oilcan Harry’s finds temporary space before move into new downtown tower

STS signed its new lease on May 18. In it, the landlord was to install an HVAC system by July 1 and secure a change of use for the property to operate as a bar/nightclub. STS began hiring architects and consultants to design the new space.

However, the move has stalled.

According to the lawsuit, landlord Thomas C. Calhoon refused to give STS access. Allegedly, Calhoon told STS on Oct. 4 He has a pending sale of the land to LV Company, an Austin-based real estate investment firm, and he could not allow STS to do anything without LV’s approval.

In response, STS sent a formal demand letter on Oct. 11.

“Defendant refused to act and told Plaintiff that he will not approve anything requests related to the Lease Property unless David Kanne approves the request on behalf of LV Company,” the lawsuit reads.

LV responded to STS on Oct. 14

“Counsel for LV Company asserted that Plaintiff is required to obtain approval prior to submitting a permit request but did not reference where the obligation in the lease such obligation is,” the lawsuit reads.

KXAN reached out to Calhoon and LV Company for comment. LV responded, but Calhoon has not yet. We will update this story when we hear back.

LV responded with the following statement:

LV Collective does not currently own the space that Oil Can Harry’s occupies and can’t accommodate specific requests. We plan to purchase the property, are excited for the bar to occupy the space and fully intend to honor the lease.

True Point Communications, on behalf of LV Collective

STS had asked LV to meet with counsel on Oct. 14, which LV asked to reschedule to Oct. 25. On Monday, LV allegedly told STS it would need another week to review. Both parties’ legal teams have not yet met.

“Despite several requests, neither Defendant nor LV Company has agreed to provide access to the Leased Property so that Plaintiff can fulfill its obligations under the Lease,” the lawsuit reads.

You can download the full lawsuit below.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County Civil Court, accuses Calhoon of breaching the contract. It asks for the court to compel action and monetary relief of $1,000,000 for lost income and legal fees.

The post Oilcan Harry’s sues new landlord over entry to new location, HVAC set up appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.