Reason #1 – Trust

There are many complex reasons why legislation to block ESA protections in the Delta would be unproductive.  One of the most important reasons, however, is simple: trust.  The lack of trust among stakeholders has been a major obstacle to progress on Delta issues for years.  As a result, discussions about solutions to the challenges in the Delta often don’t get out of the starting gate.  

Over the past several months, I’ve written many times about the provisions of the policy reform package that the state legislature passed last November.  However, beyond the details of the many bills in that package, that legislation started to rebuild trust among some of the warring parties in the Delta.  That trust is fragile, and it’s not universal, but it’s an important ingredient for progress. 

For example, NRDC has been a long-time opponent of a peripheral canal in the Delta.  However, as a result of increasing awareness of sea level rise, subsidence and earthquake risks in the Delta, we’ve moved from that simple position to a more open and nuanced one.   In short, our position on Delta infrastructure will be determined by its design, proposed operations and assurances that it will be operated responsibly.  That last point is where trust comes in.

You see, the problem is that new infrastructure in the Delta could be managed to improve ecosystem health – or to further damage Delta resources.  It could be used to restore fisheries, or could serve as the final nail in their coffin. 

The request from some South of Delta water users for the last few years has been simple: “Let us build a very large peripheral canal.  Trust us.  It will be operated responsibly pursuant to a scientifically-developed plan.”  The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is struggling to design a facility (be it a canal, tunnel or pipeline), determine how it might be operated, and design governance “assurances” to ensure those operations.   

It’s pretty obvious where this is going.  If Congress were to waive ESA protections for the Delta that were designed after extensive scientific review, at a time when several species are on the brink of extinction, when the salmon fishery is in danger of a permanent closure, and when water supply reductions have been caused largely by drought (rather than environmental protections), it’s difficult to imagine that any trust would survive in the Delta debate.  Instead, environmentalists, fishermen, Delta interests and others in Northern California would see any Delta facility as a grab for more water.  If Congress were to block ESA protections, the only responsible assumption regarding any future Delta facility would be that, when the chips are down, good science and legal protections will be trumped by political pressure. 

In short, such legislation would cause the Delta debate to revert back to an old-fashioned North/South water war.  We’ve seen that kind of gridlock before.  The Los Angeles Times makes this point in an editorial this morning about an ESA rider.

The problems in the Delta are real.  And many water interests have been cautiously looking for new solutions. Trust is one of the missing ingredients that can help us find them.  That’s one reason why so many understand that a bill blocking ESA protections in the Delta could cause long-lasting damage.  Today more than ever, it’s critical that we look for opportunities to rebuild trust, rather than to destroy it.