Shasta Dam may grow under Trump, sparking concern

Though President Donald Trump has yet to explicitly order the Shasta Dam to be enlarged — something Republican lawmakers have been considering for decades — recent actions by his administration signal that he is moving in that direction. 

As CalMatters’ Alastair Bland explains, the prospect of raising the dam underscores the ongoing dispute between farmers, environmentalists and other key stakeholders over California’s water supply and its effect on the state’s fragile ecosystems. 

Increasing the Shasta Dam, such as raising the dam height by 18 feet, would deliver more water from the Sacramento River to Central Valley farmers.

So far Trump has signed executive orders instructing federal agencies to waive environmental rules with the aim to deliver more water to California growers. Earlier this month a congressional committee’s budget reconciliation bill also earmarked $2 billion “for construction and associated activities” that raise the capacity of the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s water storage facilities.

One proponent of the dam expansion is the Westlands Water District, which provides water to San Joaquin Valley farmers who grow nuts, fruits, grains and vegetables. Increasing the reservoir’s volume would be good for the ecosystem, according to the district, because it would help threatened Chinook salmon spawn by keeping the water colder.

Barry Nelson, a policy advisor with the conservation group Golden State Salmon Association, disagrees. 

• Nelson: “The idea that a Shasta raise would benefit salmon — particularly under this set of federal agencies — is absurd.”

Some state officials have also opposed expanding the dam in the past. In 2013 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said raising the dam would have “significant and unavoidable impacts” on the Sacramento River ecosystem.

Members of the Winnemem Wintu tribe, who hold the Sacramento River as sacred, argue that a dam expansion would claim their last remaining territory, and could violate the state’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Read more here.

From CalMatters higher education reporter Mikhail Zinshteyn:

California says its policy of granting in-state tuition to immigrant students without legal status in the U.S. “complies with federal law,” seeking to repudiate a recent Trump executive order that directed his administration to find ways to bar states from allowing the practice.

The California Student Aid Commission, which oversees state financial aid, issued a memo last week that said its policies are legal and notes that 25 states provide in-state tuition to immigrant students without legal status; some of these are so-called red states, such as Texas and Utah. The memo also cites past state and federal court rulings upholding in-state tuition policies.

California began granting in-state residency for immigrant students without legal status after a 2001 state law. An estimated 60,000 college students in California benefit from the law, which applies only to public institutions. The state is home to nearly 3 million public college and university students overall.

Trump’s order questioned why immigrant students without legal status can attend a public college with in-state tuition but out-of-state students cannot. His order relied on an interpretation of a 1996 immigration law.

A federal appeals court in 2023 dismissed a similar challenge echoed by Trump, writing that the 1996 law “has nothing to say about a rule like” in-state tuition for students without legal status. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to unveil an update to his January state budget proposal later this week, dubbed the May Revise, laying out more detail on funding for colleges, prisons, environmental programs, health care and so much more. 

The governor’s preliminary $332 billion budget plan in January had a “modest” surplus of $363 million initially estimated for 2025-26. But Newsom cautioned even then that California’s financial outlook was muddied by Trump’s anticipated economic policies and the colossal damage from the Los Angeles-area fires. 

Now the state could be facing at least a $10 billion budget shortfall, reported Politico, in part due to a Medi-Cal budget gap and stock market declines in response to Trump’s tariff policies.

In an updated forecast of Californias tax revenue by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, revenues for 2025-26 are expected to be $7.8 billion less than projected in January. A combination of California’s “stagnant economy,” the stock market’s instability and “recent federal policy actions,” led the office to conclude that “the path to future growth could be narrow.”

• Jason Sisney, budget advisor for the California Assembly, on future deficits: “State officials will find it difficult to avoid cuts to projected growth in health and social services programs, as well as higher education, housing, and natural resources programs, to begin lowering future projected deficits.” 

After a series of late-season storms, California’s Sierra Nevada snowpack reached 110% of the state’s average. CalMatters’ Alastair and video strategy director Robert Meeks have a video segment on this critical win for water storage as part of our partnership with PBS SoCal. Watch it here.

SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal.