Trump has vowed to pump more water. Government data show pumping was down for maintenance
But records show that the day he made that announcement, the federal government's pumping facility in Northern California was delivering less water than usual, apparently because managers had reduced pumping for several days of routine maintenance.
The records indicate that the day after Trump's announcement, on Saturday, the federally managed pumping plant resumed regular levels of water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta into the aqueducts of the Central Valley Project.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's daily pumping data for the Jones Pumping Plant shows that on Jan. 21, the amount of water pumped decreased to about 1,900 acre-feet, down from about 6,900 acre-feet the day before. Pumping continued at reduced levels of about 1,800 acre-feet each day from Jan. 22 through Jan. 24, when Trump visited Los Angeles.
The pumping returned to higher levels on Saturday, Jan. 25, delivering 5,300 acre-feet of water that day, or about 1.7 billion gallons.
On Monday night, Trump said on social media that the U.S. military had 'entered' California and 'TURNED ON THE WATER,' a claim that state officials promptly denied.
The California Department of Water Resources responded in a statement: 'The military did not enter California. The federal government restarted federal water pumps after they were offline for maintenance for three days.'
Gov. Gavin Newsom responded at a news conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday.
'There were no military sent to the Central Valley. That was reported but wasn't in evidence,' Newsom said.
He said the federal government was doing maintenance on the Central Valley Project from Jan. 21 to Jan. 24.
'Between the 21st and 24th, the federal government was doing maintenance on their system. It's maintenance that is well coordinated with the State Water Project that does not end pumping,' Newsom said.
For four days, maintenance work on power transmission lines prevented operation of another pumping plant south of the Delta near San Luis Reservoir, which led managers to reduce pumping at the Jones Pumping Plant.
'On the 24th, that maintenance ended, and they started turning back on the pumps,' Newsom said. 'It takes a few days to get the pumps back to 100%, and perhaps that was what they were celebrating.'
The Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project, did not respond to requests for information about the maintenance that temporarily reduced water deliveries.
The unofficial Department of Government Efficiency, which Trump plans to consult for recommendations on cutting government spending, said in a social media post that it congratulates the administration for 'more than doubling the Federally pumped water flowing toward Southern California.'
According to the government data, the Trump administration has not yet increased pumping above the levels that the federal facility was drawing from the Delta under the Biden administration earlier this month. (On Tuesday, the pumping plant delivered nearly 6,900 acre-feet. On Wednesday, that decreased somewhat to about 5,100 acre-feet, and on Thursday, pumping returned to more than 6,800 acre-feet.)
Water experts have pointed out that Trump made several inaccurate statements on social media and during his L.A. visit. For example, he said he was opening up the flow of water 'from the Pacific Northwest' and 'parts of Canada' — from where California has no aqueducts, pipelines or other avenues for water flow.
He also said he intended to increase the flow of water to Los Angeles, even though urban areas of Southern California are supplied not by the federally managed Central Valley Project but by the State Water Project, the other main north-to-south water conduit in the region — which hasn't been directly affected by his executive orders.
'I don't think he's interested in water. I think he's interested in other things — for which this is perhaps a rhetorical vehicle,' said Jay Lund, a UC Davis emeritus professor of civil and environmental engineering.
Lund said he thinks one aim of Trump's statements might be 'keeping other people off balance,' including political adversaries in California.
'He likes to occupy space, it seems,' Lund said. 'He's not doing things that would actually provide water. He's setting up some rhetorical conditions for perhaps other things he's interested in accomplishing.'
Trump has clashed with Newsom on California water policy and has repeatedly criticized environmental protections for endangered fish species in the Delta, which place constraints on water deliveries.
Trump issued an order on Sunday directing federal agencies to 'maximize' water deliveries in California and 'override' state policies if necessary.
Lund noted, however, that the movement of water in California is largely controlled by local and regional agencies. Because of state environmental laws and other factors, he said, the president is generally 'not in a strong position to greatly alter how California manages water.'
'You're never quite sure where it's going to lead to. But he does business by menacing a bit,' Lund said. 'My impression of this is, a lot of these things are really more signaling rather than substance.'
If Trump eventually increases federal pumping via the federally controlled Central Valley Project, that would primarily benefit the agriculture industry in the San Joaquin Valley, sending more water flowing to farms that produce almonds, pistachios, tomatoes and other crops. The CVP ends in the southern San Joaquin Valley near Bakersfield and does not reach Southern California's urban areas to the south.
Lund and other experts have pointed out that because state flow requirements to protect endangered fish will remain in place regardless of any federal changes, an increase in pumping by the federal system could, in theory, lead to a decrease in pumping by the State Water Project and less water flowing to urban Southern California.
'He might be arguing about the share of federal versus state pumping, but I don't see much promise in being able to increase the total amount of pumping,' Lund said.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the wildfires in Southern California underscored why the state should be delivering more water south from the Delta. But California water managers have said L.A. and other cities are not currently short of water, pointing out that the region's reservoirs are at record-high levels.
State officials have also said that pumping to move water south from the Delta has nothing to do with the local fire response in Los Angeles.
Even with ample supplies in reservoirs, local water systems were pushed to their limits as the fires rapidly spread, driven by strong winds.
When the L.A. water system lost pressure in parts of Pacific Palisades, some fire hydrants ran dry in high-elevation areas, hindering the firefighting effort. Newsom has ordered an investigation into the loss of pressure to hydrants and the lack of water available from a reservoir in Pacific Palisades that was out of commission for repairs.
In his latest executive order, Trump criticized 'disastrous' policies and water 'mismanagement' by California, and directed federal agencies to scrap a plan that the Biden administration adopted last month, establishing new rules for operating the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
Instead, Trump told federal agencies to more or less follow a plan adopted during his first presidency, which California and environmental groups successfully challenged in court.
Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, responded to Trump's order earlier this week saying the directive has no immediate impact on operations of the State Water Project, which supplies water for 27 million people.
Nemeth said the current rules for the operations of the two water systems in the Delta actually supply Californians with more water than they'd have access to under Trump's 2020 rules, since the latest plan was written based on new science and with added flexibility to 'respond more nimbly to real-time conditions' in rivers and the Delta.
'To abandon these new frameworks would harm California water users and protection of native fish species,' Nemeth said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says
Newsom has called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. WASHINGTON ― California Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal aimed at creating five new Democratic congressional seats begins with overwhelming support ahead of a planned November referendum when voters would decide its fate, according to a survey conducted by his longtime pollster. The proposal is backed by 57% of California voters and opposed by 35%, the poll taken by Democratic pollster David Binder found, according to a report by Axios. Another 8% of voters in the heavily Democratic state said they were undecided. Newsom has portrayed his mid-term redistricting push as necessary to offset Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's pursuit to create five new Republican congressional districts in Texas. President Donald Trump has publicly lobbied for the gerrymandering in Texas to boost Republican chances in the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom last week called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. The poll found 84% of California's Democratic voters support the redistricting plan while 79% of the state's Republicans oppose it. The 57% in overall support for the redistricting plan is a jump from the 51% who said they backed redrawing California's congressional maps in a July poll. California currently has 43 congressional seats held by Democrats and nine by Republicans. The creation of five new Democratic-friendly districts could sway California's delegation to a 48-5 advantage for Democrats. Yet the move comes with risk for Democrats because it might create several competitive seats that Republicans could target. "I know they say, 'Don't mess with Texas,'" Newsom, widely considered a potential presidential candidate in 2028, quipped at a Democratic rally kicking off the redistricting campaign last week. "Well, don't mess with the great Golden State." California has an independent redistricting commission that is designed to limit partisan influence on the map-drawing process, but Newsom said the measure would allow a new process to draw maps that would go into effect for House elections in 2026, 2028, and 2030, before ceding power back to the commission to draw maps ahead of 2032. Redistricting in all states is required by federal law every 10 years following the release of new U.S. Census Bureau figures; however, Trump pushed Texas Republicans to jumpstart the process in the middle of the decade, setting off a cross-country redistricting fight. Redistricting efforts are also ongoing in Florida and Ohio that could benefit Republicans, while Republican-controlled Indiana and Missouri are also discussing redrawing their maps. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives at stake, with Republicans currently holding a 219-212 majority. Contributing: Erin Mansfield of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.