I wonder if NIMBYism blocked that?
And if an agency wanted to transport water like the USA national oil pipeline system, would they be blocked similarly?
If desalination becomes widespread, I imagine the water not shipped to the coast could remain in the Central Valley. I don’t know one way or another if this would make political or economic sense.
EDIT: Wikipedia has a good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California
The upfront cost from my understanding is in drilling a deep well. Those wells keep getting deeper and costing more. But, past that, it's just the cost of running the pumps to drain the underground aquifers. IIUC the cost of water is free plus the cost of harvesting it from the commons.
I might be wrong here, but all the billboards that say "is growing food wasting water?" along the interstates in California don't really matter over long time horizons. They're advocating for draining the water tables. You can't do that forever. Doesn't matter if it was a "waste" or not, it'll be gone soon and they'll have to pay to pull water from somewhere else or stop growing crops there (or the state will pay to give them water).
When "free" water runs out, other water sources will suddenly be cost effective. But it's hard to compete with free.
Many of these canals are quite old and while they do require some maintenance, the upfront costs of the dams, reservoirs , and canals are largely paid off. Those maintenance costs and any upgrades are paid by the district customers.
What it does not do is provide freshwater for argibusinesses. As California is also proving in the Central Valley. :(