State Water Legislation

Your editorial was both disappointing and simplistic. More than that, it does a great injustice to leaders in both houses of our Legislature who have the understanding and courage to try to solve the water problems relating to the delta.

Before going on, it would be well to have in mind that the great State Water Project, upon which millions of citizens throughout the state depend for their water supply, is incomplete and therefore must operate in a very inefficient manner.

Studies indicate about 500,000 acre-feet of water annually (enough for a million families in and around the home for a year) could be available for urban and agricultural users if the stored water north of the delta, at Oroville, could be conveyed more efficiently to the pumps at the aqueduct in the South Delta, rather than having to meander through existing constricted channels.

Until improvements take place, severe fisheries damage due to periodic reverse flows in the delta continues, water quality problems remain, and water transport for the South San Francisco Bay area and the San Joaquin Valley as well as Southern California is unduly curtailed.

These long existing problems did not go away with the failure of the Peripheral Canal measure, which was supported by more than 60% of Southern California voters. The well-known alternative to the proposed Peripheral Canal is a project to widen, deepen and connect channels. That this is a reasonable approach to addressing the problems of the delta is evidenced by the support of fisheries organizations, San Joaquin Valley interests, urban areas, and delta farmers themselves. Nevertheless, as has been the case with all major water legislation, even this approach has become controversial.

The Times apparently prefers to avoid confrontation irrespective of the merits of proposed legislation. With that timidity, California and indeed the Southwest would still be the desert that some muse about from the comfort of their homes (with running water).

The Times’ criticism of the channel system improvement legislation offered by Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino) and Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), water leaders in their respective houses, is that their proposed legislation is comprehensive! Since when is that something to be ashamed of? The Times prefers instead the limited steps being undertaken or being considered by the Department of Water Resources. Nothing in the more comprehensive bills is inconsistent with the department’s program. Moreover, legislation authorizes facilities that ultimately will prove necessary.

In criticizing the authors of legislation, The Times refers to their efforts as “meddling” and manifesting “the clash of legislative egos.” Does it stand to reason that these experienced, busy legislators with lots of other problems to consider have undertaken to solve the serious water and water-related problems, with the certain political battles that are attendant, do so for some difficult-to-perceive ego gratification?

No, they have undertaken to carry out the responsibilities of their office knowing in advance that they would be subjected to political controversy and journalistic second-guessing. For taking this initiative, Sen. Ayala and Assemblyman Costa deserve the thanks of all of us.

HARRIETT M. WIEDER

Irvine

Wieder is supervisor in the Second District of Orange County and chairman of the Southern California Water Committee.