Pat Brown’s Sage Advice on the Peripheral Canal

Former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown deserves great credit for presenting the facts (Letters, Feb. 7) on the need for building a Peripheral Canal in order to meet California’s water needs.

He also deserves the thanks of millions of Californians for providing the leadership that was essential in order to secure statewide voter approval in 1960 of the $1.75-billion bond issue to finance the State Water Project. As he said, he was regarded as a “traitor” by some Northern Californians for leading the parade for the project. However, he had the support of many residents of Oroville and neighboring cities who were deeply concerned by the floods that roared down the Feather River at times. They wanted the flood control protection that the proposed state project would provide.

It was a group of Oroville civic leaders who planned a meeting that was held in Bakersfield in 1955 to organize the Feather River Project Assn. to campaign for the successful bond issue. I was one of the Southern Californians who participated in the formation of the group now known as the California Water Resources Assn. Our primary interest was to secure more water for our area, but we also were sympathetic with the people confronted with the threat of floods.

The bonds were authorized, the State Aqueduct was built, but one vital part of it--the Peripheral Canal--has not yet been built. It is needed to enable the aqueduct to fulfill the contracts that were signed for water deliveries to agencies that are paying for the project. The missing link has been held in limbo because of the unrelenting, strong opposition of varied Northern interests, including some members of the Legislature and environmental extremists.

That stubborn opposition continues, even though, as Gov. Brown stated: “The Peripheral Canal would be good for the (Sacramento-San Joaquin) Delta, it would be good for Northern California, it would be good for the San Joaquin Valley and for Southern California. It should be built. I am surprised that the people who know the problems of growth in this state are giving up so easily.”

The semblance of “giving up” may be due to the constant attacks by the opponents of sensible and needed water developments, who are well-organized in their campaign tactics. They claim that Band-Aid measures such as conservation and water purchases are the answer, even though conservation programs have been under way by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Metropolitan Water District for the past several years.

In other words, they are for anything that will prevent or delay indefinitely the realization of the Peripheral Canal and storage dams and reservoirs such as have made possible the economic and population growth of California.

The people who are living here today must have guarantees of reliable water supplies for present needs and future growth. Additional supply sources must be developed for the population increase of 43% by 2010 in just six Southern California counties that is predicted in a recent report by the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Pat Brown knows the answer to this serious problem and has documented it well in his letter to The Times. His sage advice could be the catalyst for generating statewide support to clear the way to completing the important project he promoted.

ROBERT LEE

Newport Beach