Duct Tape, Baling Wire and Adaptive Management

Adaptive management – it has become a popular term among those of us who debate the future of the complex San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.   This flexible approach to resource management allows for the testing of hypotheses in complex systems and, through to a feedback loop involving careful monitoring and measurement of progress toward management goals, is designed to lead, in an iterative manner, to better decision-making over time. 

In the Bay-Delta, adaptive management is essential, if we are to improve the health of this complex and dynamic ecosystem.   We will never fully understand the complex natural mechanisms in the Delta.  That realization is inevitable, given that we now know that the Delta is subject to powerful forces, such as invasive species, climate change, earthquakes and subsidence that will shape the Delta over time.  This means that, when it comes to our regulatory system in the Delta, we can never (as a famous TV pitch man says) “Set it and forget it.”

Today, the Bay-Delta is subject to a patchwork of adaptive management and old-school regulatory approaches.  If we are to succeed in managing the Bay-Delta for the co-equal goals of ecosystem health and water supply, we must reform our institutions so that they are capable of fully integrated adaptive management.  The Delta Vision Task Force strongly supported an adaptive management approach to the Delta.  (See page 131 of the Strategic Plan) 

The old approach to regulation – establishing relatively fixed environmental standards and simply monitoring implementation – is still seen at the State Water Resources Control Board.  The bulk of the State Board’s water quality standards for the Delta were negotiated and put in place 15 years ago.  State law calls for a triennial review of these standards, to respond to on-the-ground developments and improved scientific understanding.  However, the State Board has been remarkably slow in updating those standards and in responding to the ongoing collapse of the Delta ecosystem.  This is a far cry from the agile, science-driven approach that is the goal of adaptive management.  The existing SWRCB standards are widely recognized as inadequate to protect the beneficial uses of the Delta.  These standards must be improved.  Indeed, Delta Vision specifically called for stronger State Board standards to provide greater outflow at critical times.  But it’s not just the standards that must be improved; the old, rigid approach to regulation must adapt as well. 

There is one place where real adaptive management is occurring today – in the implementation of the new Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on delta smelt.  The new BO creates a mechanism that uses the results of ongoing monitoring and the recommendations of a group of scientists called the Delta Smelt Working Group to inform real-time decision-making by the Service, in an attempt to prevent this species from falling over the edge of extinction.  After the Working Group reviews the latest scientific results and makes management recommendations, the State and federal water projects may propose alternative approaches, and the Service makes final decisions on a relatively short timeline.  This approach is science based, highly adaptive, nearly real-time and designed to allow for the input of the regulated agencies.

This BO addresses the needs of a single species (although many species benefit from actions to protect the smelt).  Achieving the co-equal goals envisioned by Delta Vision, however, will require adaptive management decisions that consider a full range of species, habitat conditions, water quality and ongoing changes in the ecosystem. 

As the state legislature considers Delta governance reform legislation to implement the recommendations of the Delta Vision Task Force’s Strategic Plan, it should pay particular attention to the creation of an adaptive water management program that meets the requirements of state and federal law, that fully protects all beneficial uses (e.g. commercial and recreational fishing, not just listed species.), that includes measurable, enforceable biological objectives and is based on sound science.   Baseline State Board standards like X2 are essential to ecosystem health, but the Board cannot fully protect beneficial uses without adding a more adaptive approach. 

One option would be to build on the approach in the smelt BO and create, under a new California Ecosystem and Water Council, a Delta Water Management Group including all of the state and federal regulatory agencies (SWRCB, DFG, NMGS, FWS and EPA).  Such a group could lead to a more coordinated, adaptive approach among all of the relevant regulatory agencies.  It would allow these agencies to share a common base of scientific analysis on a broad range of issues (including the Delta Smelt Working Group and the CALFED Science Program.  It would provide a forum to work through the delicate balancing act of ensuring the protection of different parts of the ecosystem – such as providing adequate flows for the Delta and sufficient cold water for salmon spawning upstream.  It would also provide a more transparent forum for environmentalists and water users alike.  Finally, creating a more functional, adaptive regulatory program would likely reduce court intervention.    There would be no need to revisit the underlying authority of these agencies.  Each of these agencies has an important role to play in making final regulatory decisions.  However, reforming the existing system through the creation of such a body could help support Delta Vision’s co-equal goals and bring the management of the Delta into the 21st century.