Glimmers of Hope in the Delta

The water world is abuzz with talk of the many flaws in the new State framework of proposals for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and of the new "Principal's Process."  But there are two other important recent developments on Delta issues that have garnered far less attention. 

First, about two months ago, nearly everyone in the Bay-Delta Conservation Planning process quietly admitted that the current approach was not working.  After more than $100 million dollars in spending on consultants, the BDCP is not close to producing a credible analysis of the potential impacts of major changes in the Delta.  Without such a science-driven analysis, BDCP can never design a successful plan.  And after four years of grueling meetings, the Steering Committee process had not resolved key policy issues, leaving the process gridlocked.   Admitting that a new direction is needed represents an important first step in getting the process on track. 

Second, federal agencies are now engaging at the highest level.  Less distracted by the Gulf spill and increasingly aware of the problems in the Delta and the BDCP, the feds are stepping up their involvement.  That is also a good thing.  Making significant progress in the Delta will require effective federal leadership.  (The previous federal administration paid little attention to finding credible, long-term answers to the problems facing the Delta.)

The process today is struggling to find a more promising approach.  But that's not a surprise, given that the BDCP is suddenly undergoing an unplanned, but long overdue, change of direction.  We should expect that it will take a little time for a coherent new effort to emerge.  As state and federal leaders, and stakeholders consider the next steps, here are two suggestions.  First, for the next few months, the process should focus on breaking the BDCP logjam on key foundational issues.  Such as:

• What is the purpose of the project with regard to water supply reliability -- to massively increase diversions or to improve the physical stability and predictability of Delta water supplies?  The former is unlikely to be scientifically justifiable or legally permitable. The latter approach addresses the key issues and represents the path to success.  Under federal law, agency planning and projects are guided by a "project purpose" as adopted in a "purpose and need" statement.  The current indefensible purpose and need statement was adopted without public input, bypassing all of the relevant Delta planning processes.   Currently, according to a federal register notice from 2009 one purpose of the BDCP is to "restore and protect the ability of the SWP and CVP to deliver up to full contract amounts".  Making full deliveries would require a vast increase in Delta diversions.  This current project purpose conflicts with the recommendations of the Delta Vision Task Force and the flows criteria adopted by the State Water Board.  It has been criticized by the EPA.  It also conflicts with state law - SB 1 ordered the BDCP to analyze an alternative that would reduce Delta diversions and established a state policy of reducing reliance on the Delta. 

• How will BDCP ensure that the BDCP "effects analysis" will be scientifically credible? The current effort must be improved to ensure that scientific feedback is incorporated into a sound analysis.  A rigorous and credible analysis of possible effects of major changes to the Delta is essential. 

• What are the specific quantifiable objectives that will be used to measure progress, to guide scientific analysis and design and adaptively manage the BDCP plan?  In a system as complex as the Bay-Delta, no ecosystem restoration plan can succeed over the long-term if  it does not define, in clear, quantifiable terms, how progress will be measured.     

Discussion on all three of these issues has been stuck for years, blocking progress.  Resolving these issues would represent a significant step forward and help narrow the differences among stakeholders through a scientifically credible planning effort.   

Second, drafting a credible BDCP plan will require hard work and considerable time.  That plan must then be incorporated into the Delta Plan, which must be developed by the Delta Stewardship Council.  And then the plan must be implemented.  Without broader involvement by stakeholders and the interested public, this process is not likely to succeed.  Delta legislators have loudly objected to the current process, which excludes their constituents. This is, after all, a plan for the Delta.  It is simply not credible that an effective plan will be developed and implemented without involving the community that will be affected the most - the Delta.  Managing a planning process to address the legitimate interests of the water users, the environmental community, the fishing community and the Delta community is - to paraphrase Winston Churchill -- the worst of all possible approaches to writing a Delta plan, except for all of the others.   

There is plenty to divide the water community at the moment, and plenty of discouraging news.  However, there is too much at stake to simply walk away from the effort to find workable solutions in the Delta.  Fortunately, in the gloomy world of the Delta, there are a few signs of hope that a more effective path forward can emerge. 

Comments