Inflamed rhetoric not providing meaningful Delta solutions

March 29, 3:18 PMCalifornia Infrastructure Policy ExaminerJeff Burgess

Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the California Infrastructure Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Photo from Department of Water Resources

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is – if implemented as currently envisioned – likely to be the most impactful regulatory change in California’s water management since the State Water Project (SWP) started in the 1960’s. Much like the SWP, the arguments against the BDCP are primarily provincial, and often raucous.

A few months ago I attended several BDCP outreach meetings in the Delta region, held by the State Department of Resources (DWR) and its partner agencies. During the meetings, many local residents passionately stated that they felt powerless to participate in this process. One attendee even equated the process to a rape, while another claimed the process was led by his “mortal enemies.”

On March 24th I attended another public meeting, again attended by a large crowd of angry Delta locals. Frankly – the attendees did have a reason to be upset: DWR and the other lead agencies have yet to define an actual plan. Instead, attendees were provided with a beautifully designed, likely expensive glossy brochure, detailing the problem (which has been detailed thoroughly before), yet offering few clues as to the direction of the plan. This had to be discouraging to attendees, as they saw the same information presented months ago at the previous round of meetings I attended.

However, this unfortunate lapse in the State’s progress certainly doesn’t mean Delta locals should reduce themselves to outlandish, ultimately self-destructive behavior. In one example, a local citizen prefaced his comments by saying that he had watched Chinatown before the meeting. While California State Natural Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman does look like a guy straight out of Hollywood’s central casting, it’s a silly leap to compare him with Noah Cross – John Houston’s devious water baron. Does this attendee, and the dozen others who made similar comments, really think the BDCP is a 21st century water conspiracy, headed by villains who hire thugs to protect the secret dumping of perfectly good freshwater into the ocean, simply to garner support for water projects?

Clearly, there’s a palpable distrust of the State’s goals in implementing the BDCP. But, why reject the plan before it’s unveiled? Most of the engineers, planners and scientists working on the BDCP are simply trying to apply the best known methodologies to meet the two, co-equal goals laid out by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Delta Vision Task Force: “Restore the Delta ecosystem and create a more reliable water supply for California.” Those sound like pretty good ideas to me. These mandates are stipulated by federal courts, are scrupulously overseen by environmentalists and agricultural interests, and are sure to go through a series of lawsuits before they are approved. Given this uncompromising, bright light of oversight, does anyone really think DWR is some backroom Star Chamber, trying to take water at the expense of fish they are mandated to protect? Is DWR really trying to hasten the expansion of water exports to the detriment of Delta landowners?

Having said that, I do believe Delta citizens have a right to be concerned that the auxiliary conveyance solution being studied as part of the BDCP could someday be used to divert water that they rely on for cultivation. However, I believe the local community would be better served by dialing down the rhetoric and joining the process constructively. By applying their passion usefully, Delta citizens might be the critical voice needed to remedy the real problem behind California’s water needs – a lack of water storage. More on that next week…