State Water Legislation

Your editorial regarding my legislative proposals to meet California’s water needs requires some clarification. Your explanation of my proposals leaves me in a quandary. Either I am writing the bills incorrectly, or you are reading them incorrectly.

Specifically, you state that I am proposing the construction of a new delta channel that would allow more Sacramento River water to reach the state pumps in the south end of the delta. Without qualification, this statement is factually incorrect. It does not remotely resemble any legislation of mine. My SB 32 deals with that subject.

Proposals for a delta facility have been seriously considered since 1960. In 1982 when the voters rejected SB 200, the Peripheral Canal, they essentially made that declared option a thing of the past. No one has documented what is second best.

Gov. George Deukmejian was quoted both prior to and after his reelection that there was no need for a delta facility. Prior to his reelection, I believed he was posturing for votes in the San Francisco Bay area. After his reelection, it was obvious he was politically evading the issue. All the issues revolve around the governor. It appears he has at this time chosen to sidestep water as one of them. Succinctly, it appears he does not need water development as an issue for his future political goals.

On Feb. 27 I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources on the “Need for Construction of a Delta Water Facility.” The purpose of the hearing was to determine the true position of the Administration on this important issue. As a matter of record, it acknowledged the need for a facility. It also acknowledged it had the responsibility to select it. I happen to agree with them on both counts.

No administration will build a delta facility it does not select. The Legislature cannot pick a facility and then expect the executive branch to vigorously pursue the environmental documentation to justify the Legislature’s selection. The Peripheral Canal was not selected by the Legislature but by three separate administrations. A delta facility will never be built untilt he executive branch of government makes the selection.

To clarify SB 32, it does two things regarding the delta facility. It mandates the director of Water Resources to designate the delta facility of its choice, not mine or the Legislature’s, on or before Jan. 4, 1988. It mandates that it put the facility of its selection on a construction schedule on or before Jan. 5, 1988. How your newspaper can take a bill that says “pick it and build it” as forcing a specific proposal is unclear to me. I sincerely believe you have improperly presented the measure to your readers.

RUBEN S. AYALA

Chairman

Senate Committee on

Agriculture and Water Resources

Sacramento