The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) is a new agency with an old, controversial job: creating a more reliable and expanded freshwater supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for an often parched state, while protecting and enhancing the environmental quality of the endangered delta watershed. Empowered by the Delta Reform Act of 2009, its primary task is crafting a plan by 2012 that reflects the goals embodied by the legislation.  

The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC website)

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the largest estuary on the Pacific coast of North and South America. Runoff from several mountain ranges in the Sierra Nevada flows into the delta, fans out from the Central Valley and heads toward the Pacific Ocean via the San Francisco Bay.

The delta was an open freshwater wetland dotted with small islands prone to regular flooding when farmers began reclaiming the land in the 1850s. A series of levees, now totaling 1,100 miles, created new waterways and added protection for the larger islands.

The delta’s 738,000 acres of land are home to 750 animal and plant species, some threatened or endangered. More than 1,800 agricultural users draw water from the delta to grow $500 million worth of corn, grain, hay, sugar beets, alfalfa, pasture, tomatoes, asparagus, safflower, and fruit. Around 12 million people a year partake of recreational activities there. It has 300 marinas, 57,000 navigable waterways and 20 species of sport fish. And it is the largest source of fresh water for agriculture and drinking throughout the state, including large and thirsty populations in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The delta is divided into two zones: primary and secondary. The former contains 60 islands spread out across 500,000 acres, which cannot be developed. The secondary zone is home to Stockton and several other growing urban areas with half a million people.

After decades of competing demands on the ecosystem, the delta is suffering. Runoff from agriculture and industry has polluted the water. Invasive, non-native species have disrupted the food chain. An aging system of levees threatens to inundate the delta with salt water and flood communities. Demands from the south for water exacerbate a host of problems. And global warming looms.

Conflicts between stakeholders in the region have continued unabated for a century. In 1982, California voters defeated a controversial ballot initiative that would have diverted water around the delta along what is commonly referred to as the Peripheral Canal before sending it south.

In 1994, California and the federal government created the CalFed Bay-Delta Program to mediate the conflicts between farmers, urban dwellers, utilities, industrialists, environmentalists and the state. It grew during the Clinton administration to be an amalgamation of 25 local, state and federal agencies, and other organizations but waned during the Bush years. Its funding was inconsistent, its powers were limited and its bureaucracy was cumbersome. CalFed produced a 30-year plan for the delta in 2000, but was largely considered ineffective.

The Legislature created the Bay-Delta Authority in 2002 to oversee CalFed, but it stopped meeting after a few years.

Governor Schwarzenegger created the Delta Vision Blue-Ribbon Task Force in 2006—the first year of a drought that wasn’t officially declared over for five years—and it produced a strategic plan largely adopted by the Legislature in the Delta Reform Act of 2009.

The act created the Delta Stewardship Council and consolidated the duties of more than 200 agencies into one body. Task force Chairman Phil Isenberg, former Assemblyman and Sacramento mayor, became its first chairman. The council absorbed much of CalFed’s staff and agenda.

The act’s five bills also set mandatory urban water conservation targets for the state, identified freshwater flow needed for fish and wildlife in the watershed, required groundwater monitoring and established a new Delta Conservancy. While these legislative items focus on environmentally friendly practices, the council is also working to divert more water from the delta to homes, water treatment pumps and facilities, and suppliers.

At the heart of the struggle over crafting a plan is a central proposal for a peripheral canal. The act established that restoring the ecosystem and achieving water supply reliability were co-equal goals. It also set November 2010 as the date for a public vote on an $11.1 billion general obligation bond to pay for it all.

The council first met in April 2010 and by year’s end had adopted an interim Delta Plan that declared the delta “in crisis” and that existing policies are “not sustainable.” The interim plan laid the structural groundwork—appointing responsible agencies for different objectives and duties—prior to official passage of a Delta Plan. In August, a deteriorating economy, bad poll numbers and a worried Governor Schwarzenegger compelled the Legislature to pull the bond measure from the ballot and delay it until November 2012.

The Delta Stewardship Council’s staff worked through a series of drafts in 2011 that included an environmental impact record, but announced in October that it wouldn’t meet the January 1, 2012 deadline laid out in the Delta Restoration Act and was now aiming for a spring release.

About The Delta (Restore the Delta)

California’s Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conflict: from Cooperation to Chicken (by Kaveh Madani and Jay R. Lund, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences)

Legislation (DSC website)

New State Agency Tries to Revive Delta (by Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle)

Who’s Running the Delta Stewardship Council? (by Katy Grimes, Cal Watchdog)

California’s Delta Stewardship Council Gets Down to Business (by Richard Frank, University of California, Berkeley)

Drought, Politics Trouble Farmers in California (by John McChesney, NPR)

Meetings Will Discuss Plans for Delta (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

Delaying the $11 Billion Water Bond: What Does It Mean for the Delta? (by Daniel Kelly, Somach Simmons & Dunn law firm)

California Drought Officially Ends (by Don Thompson, Associated Press)

The Delta Stewardship Council primary responsibility is to develop a plan for the delta by 2012 and implement it. The Delta Restoration Act of 2009, which created it, directs the council to pursue the dual goal of protecting the delta watershed—the largest estuary on the West Coast—while establishing a more reliable water supply for California.

The act also empowers the council to administer contracts, grants, easements and other agreements.

The council has seven members—four appointed by the governor, one each picked by the state Assembly and state Senate, and the chairman of the Delta Protection Committee. They select their own chairman.

The council selects the 10-member Delta Independent Science Board, a panel of nationally or internationally prominent scientists that provides oversight of the research, monitoring and assessment programs associated with the delta. They are appointed for five-year terms. The board replaces its predecessor, the CalFed Independent Science Board.

The council and science board work with the Delta Science Program, which synthesizes and develops scientific information on various issues affecting the delta. The $5–10 million/year program funds research through grants and fellowships. The science program has funded more than 79 research projects totaling $24 million and received 49 proposals in 2010 requesting $31 million in funding.

The council has an executive staff headed by an executive officer. It includes a chief counsel, lead scientist, chief information officer, public information officer, administrative chief, human resources chief and contracts manager.

The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC website)

Delta Science Program Seeks New Lead Scientist (Aquafornia)

The Delta Stewardship Council has a $38.2 million budget, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the $11.1 billion it would direct if the November 2012 bond measure passes.

The bond issue includes: $3 billion for water storage projects; $2.25 billion for projects that “support delta sustainability options;” $1.7 billion for watershed and ecosystem protection and restoration; $1.4 billion for “integrated regional water management projects;” $1.25 billion for water recycling and treatment; $1 billion for groundwater cleanup and protection; and $455 million for drought relief and community assistance programs.

Currently, state tax dollars allotted to the council are used to pay more than 50 staff members and to fund research for the Delta Plan.

FY 2011-12 Budget (Ebudget)

Three-Year Budget (pdf)

Delta’s Future Hinges on Cash (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

California Water Bond (2012) (Ballotpedia)

The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan

The Delta Stewardship Council operates on a parallel track with the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a joint state and federal effort with a low profile and a narrower focus: balancing water supply reliability and ecosystem health. The same 2009 legislation that created the council also dictated the integration of the two processes as they develop.

In May 2011, a panel of scientists appointed by the National Research Council at the behest of the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior concluded that a November 2010 draft of the BDCP was “incomplete in a number of important areas” with “key scientific and structural gaps.”  It said data was “fragmented and presented in an unconnected manner, making its meaning difficult to understand.”

What it didn’t like was the plan’s assumption that the state should build a peripheral canal around the delta to facilitate shipping water south. The “entire effort is little more than a post-hoc rationalization of a previously selected group of facilities, including a (canal or tunnel).” A San Francisco Chronicle editorial deemed the four-year, $150 million plan failed at its core. “The first error that needs to be fixed is the idea that a ‘conveyance’ around the delta is a given fact rather than a controversial option.”

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a peripheral canal at the polls in 1982.

New York Times reporter Felicity Barringer summarized the BDCP report with a quote from Marlon Brando in “The Wild One”: “We don’t go anywhere. Going somewhere is for squares. We just go.”

In October 2011, the BDCP released an August memorandum of agreement with water export agencies to begin preparation for a $12 billion canal. The agreement would facilitate the agencies spending $100 million for consulting and planning work. Five Northern California members of Congress protested the signing, saying it “was developed behind closed doors” and left scant time for public comment.

Delta Stewardship Council Keys to Success – BDCP (by Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council)

Calif. Water Plan for Delta Full of Holes (San Francisco Chronicle editorial)

A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California's Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (National Research Council) (pdf)

California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan Incomplete; Needs Better Integration to be More Scientifically Credible (National Research Council press release)

Representatives Question Short Comment Period for Delta Plan (by Dan Bacher, IndyBay)

California Representatives Slam 'Closed Door' Bay-Delta Process (by Dan Bacher, IndyBay)

A New Department of Water Management

The year after the Delta Stewardship Council was established in 2009, the independent Little Hoover Commission recommended that the state create a new structure of water governance.

It cited the “bold reforms” in the act that created the council and called for a new Department of Water Management within the Natural Resources Agency to continue the momentum by consolidating and coordinating water planning and management activities throughout state government. The commission noted that the Department of Fish and Game, the Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources aren’t always on the same page. They would all report to the new department, along with the Delta Stewardship Council, the State Water Authority and the Central Valley Project.

Modernizing California's Water Governance (Little Hoover Commission)

The Peripheral Canal

The Peripheral Canal is one of the most contentious issues in the contentious history of California water. It is often called “the third rail” of California politics, feared by voters and deadly to the touch for legislators.

The canal proposal has a number of variations but basically aims to divert water from the Sacramento River around the delta to pumps on the delta’s southern edge to facilitate transport south where fresh water is in short supply. It first made the ballot in 1982 and was soundly defeated.

It’s a divisive proposition that pits North versus South; enrages some environmentalists; scares some fiscal conservatives; entices water agencies, agribusiness and thirsty Californians; and confuses many. The canal looms large over the activities of the Delta Stewardship Council, which many believe will at some point directly advocate its construction using proceeds from an $11.1 billion bond issue headed for the November 2012 ballot.

The Delta Debate: Resurrecting the Canal (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

For the Canal

Supporters say a canal would benefit the delta ecology. Presently water is drawn from the Sacramento River and funneled through the delta to pumps. This disrupts normal water flow, threatens native fish and wreaks general havoc upon the ecosystem. By diverting the water from the river to a canal, the delta would be allowed to return to a more natural state.

Supporters also see the canal as a safeguard against catastrophic failure by the series of levees that protect the delta. New studies show that rising sea levels from global warming, the threat of a major earthquake and deterioration of the levee system itself virtually guarantees some kind of disaster by century’s end. Failure of the levees to hold would draw a huge pulse of salt water from the San Francisco Bay, disrupting the flow of fresh water to the south and possibly destroying the delta ecosystem.

A canal would at least protect the flow of fresh water from the river. The goal, proponents say, isn’t the pumping of more water from the delta for shipment south. It’s to guarantee a stable, predictable amount of water.

At present, there is no single canal proposal. Some have proposed that the canal be a pipeline. Others envision a thousand-foot wide unlined canal, or a massive tunnel under the western delta. Different proposals come with different price tags, benefits and impacts. The Delta Stewardship Council is ideally situated to sort out the science, the competing interests and the myriad proposals.

Proponents argue it’s a win-win situation for North and South. Agribusiness and environmentalist. Thrifty taxpayer and thirsty consumer. Interest rates are at record lows, so floating a bond issue now to pay for the canal makes financial sense. Projects like this put people to work, stimulate the economy and strengthen the infrastructure.     

Peripheral Canal Is Best Strategy for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waters, Report Says (by Tami Abdollah, Los Angeles Times)

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

A Tale of Two Peripheral Canals. Or Is it Three? (by Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council blog)

Against the Canal

Opponents of the canal claim it would deteriorate delta water quality, make for unsustainable agricultural practices near the delta, violate the Clean Air Act, kill recreation around the delta and get rid of incentives to fix levees. Instead of constructing an expensive canal, we should be reducing exports of delta water, rebuilding levees, making state and regional workers implement conservation practices, and letting locals lead the way in land use decisions.

Opponents of the canal see it as a water grab by the South, pure and simple. Talk of environmental benefits is a smokescreen. Once the canal is built, pressure will build to ship more water out of the region. At this point, no one knows how much water would be diverted, how the project would affect the delta environment, what the impact would be on fish, or what the effect would be on water quality.

The canal is a political firefight that is overwhelming discussion of preserving a fragile and deteriorating ecosystem amid a community of half a million local residents. 

Environmental Water Caucus Unveils California Water Solutions (by Dan Bacher, California Progress Report)

California Representatives Slam “Closed Door” Bay-Delta Process (by Dan Bacher, IndyBay)

Tell the Delta Stewardship Council That They Must Protect Funding for Delta Levee Maintenance In The Delta Plan! (Restore the Delta)

The Bond

“The game in politics is, if you think you're going to lose the fight over somebody having authority to do something, then you make sure they don't have any money or staff to do it.”—Delta Stewardship Council Chairman Phil Isenberg

The Delta Reform Act of 2009 dictated that a bond measure be placed on the November 2010 ballot to fund the water projects expected to emerge from the council’s work. The projects include: upgrades for aging reservoirs and aqueducts; conservation and recycling programs; groundwater, watershed, drought relief and water projects; and surface storage.

The bond seemed headed for almost certain defeat at the polls and was pulled from the ballot by the Legislature, which set a new November 2012 date for a vote on the $11.1 billion measure.

Frequently Asked Questions (Association of California Water Agencies) (pdf)

Massive Water Bond Delayed: Back to More Realistic Water Solutions (by Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, San Francisco Chronicle blog)

The 2010 California Water Bond: What Does It Say and Do? (Pacific Institute)

For the Bond

Advocates say the bond finances a broad range of much-needed projects that balance protection of the delta with the state’s fresh water needs. The ecological problems in the delta are profound, have been ignored for decades and need to be addressed now. The delta is not a local or even regional issue because, like it or not, it is the largest supplier of fresh water for the state.

No final decisions have been made by the council on the most contentious issue, a Peripheral Canal, while extensive studies and research continue. Passage of the Delta Reform Act of 2009 received bipartisan legislative support and was passed with a two-thirds majority. It’s expensive, but it’s never been cheaper to borrow money. The investment in infrastructure will stimulate the economy, provide jobs, help the environment and stabilize fresh water resources for years to come.

The Delta Stewardship Council is a lean, focused agency and well-positioned to efficiently put the bond money to good use. It’s a grand plan with a big price tag, advocates say, but the time has come to act. 

Statements in Support of Alternate Delta Plan (Association for California Water Agencies)

Delta’s Future Hinges on Cash (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

Against the Bond

Environmentalists and those living in and around the delta say the bond measure is bloated with unnecessary and expensive statewide solutions to regional issues. It includes at least $2 billion in projects unrelated to the delta, including: $100 million for Lake Tahoe watershed and recreation projects; $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy; $40 million to educate Californians about water; $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach; and $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy.

It is also an attempt, opponents say, to ram through funding for a Peripheral Canal already rejected once by the voters (in 1982), has a prohibitive price tag in an era of annual deficits and fails to properly protect the delta ecology.

What is desperately needed is a plan to save the delta. It’s a complicated undertaking that will suffer from distractions. Agribusiness, utilities, corporate interests and thirsty Southern Californians who support the bond measure don’t care about the delta and have strived to limit input from local residents.

Despite all the talk about balancing ecological protection of the delta with water needs elsewhere, opponents maintain, the canal will rob the delta of needed fresh water and tip the fragile ecosystem into a crisis it can’t survive.

California already spends 7.8% of its General Fund revenues on servicing its debt each year. The cuts it made to the social safety net, education and other public services in 2011 were draconian. It has been estimated that servicing the debt will cost the state $385 million a year until 2015 and $765 million a year for a few decades after that. Floating an $11.1 billion bond will force even more cuts in future years.

Voters know this. A bond this size won’t pass and could doom future efforts to finance projects to shore up delta levees, fight invasive plant and animal species, reduce salinity, cope with future threats from global warming and protect endangered habitats.

Saving the delta is too important to embroil it in a North-South fight over fresh water supplies and stick it in the middle of a battle over scarce financial resources.

With Drought Long Passed, Will Voters Back Pricey Water Bond? (by Lance Williams, California Watch)

Delta Fish Rebound Endangers Already Troubled Water Bond, Claim Opponents (by Dan Aiello, California Progress Report)

California May See Changes to Pricey Water Bond (by Jim Christie, Reuters)

California Water Bond (2012) (Ballotpedia)