Environmental groups weigh in on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan

DWR Delta Minor Slough #5

Photo courtesy of the Department of Water Resources

So what does the environmental community think of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan? In order to understand the details of the Plan better, earlier this year American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy commissioned an independent science panel review to evaluate the draft documents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.  (Click here for the report.)  The independent panel was led by Jeffrey Mount, a professor emeritus at UC Davis, and consisted of William Fleenor, an engineer at UC Davis;  Brian Gray, a law professor at UC Hastings; and scientists Bruce Herbold and Wim Kimmerer.  The panel issued their report in September.

At the November 8 workstudy session at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, John Cain from American Rivers and Leo Winternitz from the Nature Conservancy discussed the panel’s findings, and gave their perspectives on what is needed for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to be successful.  Later on during the public comment, Kate Poole spoke briefly about the NRDC’s portfolio alternative.

John Cain, American Rivers

American Rivers has been engaged with the development of the BDCP since its inception, but the organization hasn’t yet taken a position on it, John Cain said.  “We are pretty clear, though, that the status quo is simply not an acceptable alternative; we are not interested in perpetuating the status quo.  We really want to help find a solution.”

Cain reviewed the findings of the independent panel with the water district board members.  The panel was asked if the BDCP operations would shift Delta exports from dry years to wet years; the panel found that for the most part, they did not.  “In most dry years, there are no substantive changes over the no-action alternative,” he said.  “By and large this just doesn’t change the status quo about how water is diverted that much because the system is so heavily constrained by upstream water rights, by regulations, by upstream reservoirs, and by water quality standards in the Delta.”

“A big point that the panel was making was that trying to develop a plan within all of the constraints that we already have on us almost guarantees that you’re going to develop sort of a sub-optimum plan,” he said.  “Wouldn’t it be great if we could work together to figure out a way of unconstraining the system a little bit so we could develop a more optimal plan for the Delta.”

“The panel also found that all of the mitigation approaches have high uncertainties, and that success is only likely to occur if there is a robust adaptive management and a real-time operations program, and the plan provides neither,” said Mr. Cain.  “Those are their findings, not ours.”

The panel did find some good news in that the BDCP could improve conditions for smelt, but were wary of modeling and behavioral uncertainties.   The panel also said that the plan appeared to be too optimistic about floodplain benefits for Delta smelt and longfin smelt.  “They do, however, say that many other species will benefit from tidal marsh restoration, and they say a lot of very good things about floodplain restoration in the report,”   said Cain.

The panel also said that the BDCP blurs the lines between implementation and regulation, and grants the permittees unusual decision authority and that it places undue financial responsibilities on the state and federal governments, he said, noting that they have been told some of these deficiencies have been corrected in the plan that will be released later this month.

“I’ll just tell you my short conclusion from this … there’s lots of uncertainty, it’s going to cost a lot of money, the plan’s adaptive management program will not work even if operated as promised, the plan doesn’t appear to make a big difference in either of the coequal goals, in part because the system is so constrained, and the plan gives lots of authority to people and institutions that are not trusted in Northern California and particularly the Delta.”

However, Cain thinks the plan can be corrected and made better.  He then discussed what he thought was needed to craft a successful solution for the Delta.  For one, further urbanization of the Delta needs to be prevented, he said.  “We think it will decrease water quality, it will preclude restoration opportunities, and it will constrain upstream reservoirs because of how they will have to be operated to manage flood hazards for the newly built downstream communities in the floodplains.  And it just increases risk to the state and federal government when these areas flood and we as taxpayers all have to help bail the flooded residents out.”

Floodplains need to be expanded, he said.  “Floodplains grow salmon, and this is a great opportunity for us to work together to figure out how to restore as much floodplain habitat as possible.”  The plans for the Yolo Bypass are great, Cain acknowledged, but in the 12 years he’s been working on this, progress has been minimal.

“We’re also proposing a bypass in the north Delta along the Yolo Bypass called the Sacramento Bypass,  also in the south Delta there are opportunities for a bypass that could really protect the communities of Lathrop and Stockton,” he said.  “Expanding the Yolo Bypass would lower flood stage in the city of Sacramento during a 200 year event by 3 to 4 feet.  …  We think that doing these things ultimately expands the floodway downstream of the reservoirs and increases flexibility for how you can operate the reservoir.”

Restoring the natural hydrograph is essential; reservoirs operations as well as implementation of the water quality control plan have changed the natural hydrograph, Cain said.  “As a result of regulations we have in the Delta, the highest flows of the year on the Feather River are in July and August, but under natural conditions, the highest flows of the year are in April and May.  Today, the lowest flows of the year are in April and May, so not only have our reservoirs really altered the hydrograph, but the rules in the Delta really alter the hydrograph, and you’ll find from the Mount report that unfortunately, the proposed BDCP solution does not do enough to address this.”

The point of diversion absolutely must move, Cain said.  “We think it’s important for the BDCP project proponents to reconsider their intake strategy and their intake alternatives,” he said.  “But we don’t think that the BDCP project applicants actually explored any significant variation in alternatives for intakes.  We think a western alignment would allow for a much greater opportunities.”

Cain acknowledged that it was quite possible that a large intake in the western Delta would not be compatible with the smelt, “but I think it’s fair to say it’s attractive to in-Delta stakeholders because it creates a physical assurance that that excessive amounts of water will not be taken out of the Delta and cause the salinity to intrude into the Central Delta.”

“We also think it’s very important to improve the south Delta conveyance, but the existing BDCP doesn’t do a lot to change the south Delta conveyance,” he said.  “We think that there are some opportunities to make the south Delta work better in combination with the new north Delta and we have been asking for that evaluation for a long time.”

Outflow must be significantly increased, Cain emphasized.  “It’s not just an ecological problem, it’s a political problem, we think the best way to get the BDCP permitted is to develop a plan that actually makes a commitment to significantly increase outflow.  Not by 1 or 2 % but by 10 to 20%, enough to really ring the bell, and then go tell people, this is a plan that does what everyone in Northern California thinks is necessary to protect the Delta; it increases outflow.”

However, increasing outflow should not come by decreasing exports, Cain said.  “Our organization is not going to measure progress or the success of a solution based on how much it cuts back exports,” said Mr. Cain.  The answer lies upstream: “People have been very hesitant to reach out to upstream diverters and try to extract water out of them; we don’t want to create World War III out of this, but we think it’s possible to develop a global settlement in combination with the Sacramento Valley water users and the San Joaquin Valley water users, so that we can actually achieve greater inflow to the Delta.  Perhaps a water bond could pay for capital improvements that would in essence compensate Sacramento Valley water users and San Joaquin Valley water users in a way that would make it easier for them to provide more inflow to the Delta, so that the exporters could take as much as they currently have and result in increased outflow.”

Mr. Cain said that his organization did not sign the portfolio alternative approach, but his organization and many other have been advocating taking this kind of approach.  “The one reason why I didn’t personally sign the portfolio alternative letter, while I agree with almost all elements of the portfolio letter, is that the idea of having a small facility and claiming that it would allow a big gulp, little sip doesn’t pass the red-faced test, in my mind; it is not the proper physical solution; it’s more of a political solution,” he said.  “We just don’t think it’s going to solve the problem because you’re just still going to continue to pump a lot of water from the south Delta.”

Leo Winternitz, Nature Conservancy

Leo Winternitz began by saying that the Nature Conservancy was one of the first major environmental organizations to recognize and publicly state the need for new conveyance in the Delta.  “The Nature Conservancy is also one of the largest landowners in the Delta,” he said.  “We own and manage over 10,000 acres of farmland on Staten Island and McCormack Williamson Tract; we grow crops and we manage for wildlife, sandhill cranes and migratory birds; and on McCormack Williamson Tract, there are 1600 acre-island that we’re currently preparing that for restoration to return it to both floodplain and tidal marsh habitat.”

Mr. Winternitz said that the Nature Conservancy recognized that the current Delta configuration is harmful to fish and has contributed to the environmental degradation leading to unreliable water supplies for the export community.  “Today, we’re working with state and federal organizations, with water agencies, with other environmental organizations, to help ensure that whatever BDCP alternative is ultimately selected, is that it will be capable of recovering and restoring native fish and other animal populations and their habitats.”

The Nature Conservancy expects from the BDCP a plan that will make a significant contribution towards the recovery of covered species because this is what is required in the NCCP process, he said.  It comes down to six actions:

One: increase Delta outflow:  Winternitz noted that from the 1930s to today, Delta outflow has decreased by over 50%.  “Delta outflow is the freshwater component of the estuary.  It provides for habitat, it sets up gravitational circulations, and it provides for the specific water quality parameters that these native species need during certain life stages.”  He pointed out that the BDCP provides only limited benefit for Delta smelt and longfin smelt.  “If our goal is significant contribution to recovery, then we have to provide more than a limited benefit.”

Second, reverse flows must be significantly reduced, and a new conveyance facility would address this, he said.   “It would take water from the Sacramento River in the northern Delta and transport that water, allowing the provision for more natural flow conditions in the south and west Delta – if it’s operated like that.”

Three, restoring habitat where feasible: “The BDCP has set a challenging goal of restoring over 100,000 acres over a period 30 to 40 years.  This will take a while; it will not be cheap.  …    These are the kinds of habitat that our native species evolved with, so if you lost 95% of it, regardless of the debate out there, you would think that to help recover the species, you’d try and reintroduce the habitat that they evolved with.”   Although the panel found that marsh and floodplain restoration unlikely to benefit the smelt species, there’s room for scientific disagreement here, Winternitz said. “This issue can only be resolved through experiments, by building restoration projects quickly so we can start studying them and learning what it is that they provide.”

Four, specific, measurable and obtainable goals and objectives:  Winternitz noted that although the panel did not study this, his organization is fairly comfortable with the BDCP’s biological goals and objectives.

Five, science and adaptive management are key: “They are the eyes and the ears of the BDCP,” Mr. Winternitz said.  “They will let us know whether or not we are meeting our objectives and if we are not, then providing information on changes that we should be making so we can meet our objectives.”  However, he noted that the panel said that the decision tree process, a very important component of adaptive management and BDCP, is unlikely to achieve the goal of significantly reducing uncertainties before the North Delta facility is constructed.

Six, effective governance:  “We need a governance structure established to achieve the conservation objectives through management of water operations and restoration.  And the Mount panel concludes here that the draft BDCP governance section blurs the lines between implementation and regulation and grants the permittees, in their words, unusual decision authority.”  He added that the regulatory assurances in the plan shift undue financial responsibility on the state and federal governments should modifications to the plan be necessary, so the panel recommends the permits be issued every 10 years, based on conditions at the time and prior performance.

Besides these six actions, continuing to maintain and improve levees is very important, and water quality in the Delta must be protected.  two other actions that lie outside of the BDCP are also important, Winternitz said.

But most importantly, the BDCP must be contribute to recovery of the species, or exports will likely be reduced, Winternitz said.  “But in the end, it comes down to this.  If the BDCP can restore the Delta’s environment, than there will be water supply reliability.  If the BDCP cannot restore the Delta’s environment, then what we are experiencing in the Delta today, which is a diminishing environment, and unreliable water supplies is like to be our continued future.”

The BDCP is fixable and doable, Winternitz said, pointing out a lot of money has been spent already and a lot of good data generated.   “We are identifying and finally narrowing it down to what it is that needs to be addressed in order to meet an NCCP standard, in order to address the Delta issues, and essentially that can provide some degree of water supply reliability.  We’re getting there.  You’re not going to get everybody to agree throughout Northern California or even Southern California that this is the right way to go, that there are other alternatives for the state to develop and use its water supplies, but again, I want to point out that as long as we continue to move water from Northern California to Southern California, and we use the Delta to do that, we need a different system.  This system doesn’t work.  So it doesn’t really leave us much choice other than to fix this BDCP and get it going.”

Kate Poole, Natural Resources Defense Council

During the public comment period, Kate Poole spoke briefly about the NRDC’s portfolio alternative.  “We don’t think that the Delta solution is a choice between the current BDCP project on the table and the status quo.  There are many other solutions out there that work better for the Delta’s environment, work better for the state’s water supply, and also work better for the communities than the current proposal,” she said.

The NRDC put the portfolio alternative on the table because they think it has more potential than the current project, although she admitted she didn’t know if it was the right solution.  “Part of why we put it out there was is that we think it needs to be analyzed to give us the information that all of us need in order to construct the best solution for the Delta.”

She cautioned the board members to consider the impact on rates, and how that could possible preclude other investments.  “It might crowd out some of the other needed investments that we need to make to reach an overall water supply and Delta solution for this state, which include things like needed investments in conservation, local solutions, recycling – all of those things that will help the district to become less dependent on the Delta and have a more secure water supply.”

Written by Chris “Maven” Austin