One cannot fault the Senator for serving as the voice for her constituents, but a little review is in order. In 1982 the Periperhal Canal was a 22,000 cubic foot per second facility. When this proposal started six years ago it was a canal two thirds that size. Delta residents objected to the effects of a canal, despite the fact that the 1100 miles of channels in the delta are essentially man made canals.. The canal was dropped in favor of pipelines running under the land to avoid distruption. Ths size of these tunnels have now been downsized further to 9,000 cubic feet per second and two intake systems have been eliminated. When proposals to guarantee a fixed amount of water supply necessary to assure financing were criticized those guarntees were dropped in favor of an open ended science evaluation to assure the ecosystem water comes first. And yet the objections continue.

The alternative of fix the levees and more conservation, recycling etc is no alternative at all. All the competent experts have testified you cannot make the levees earthquake safe. Further, aggressive conservation and recyling has been underway for twenty years. LA uses no more water than they did over twenty years ago even with a growth of one million people. Agricultural acreage is shrinking, not expanding. This is not about moving ever more water,its about making the existing supply more reliable while restoring wetlands to provice better habitat for fish.

Finally, its not "our" water. Under state law water belongs to the people of the state and this project merely uses water rights granted over 50 years ago. No new water is necessary. This project looks to the benefit of the state as a whole and when all the dust settles that will be evident to all.