Returning to a pre-1849 version of the Delta will never happen. However, as Delta Science Program’s Enright has pointed out in the Delta Stewardship Council’s draft Delta Plan, it may be possible to modify Delta flow in a way that benefits its native species. “Until large-scale restoration is in place decades hence, we can meet ecosystem goals in the interim by using the best available scientific under- standing of the functions that flows provide to native species,” Enright wrote in the draft plan. Prior to Enright’s finding, the National Research Council’s Com- mittee on Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta released a report that said “it is likely that water scarcity in the Delta will become increasingly severe,” and that “failure to acknowledge this problem and craft plans and policies that address water scarcity for all needs has made Delta water management more difficult than is necessary.”
Because “successfully rehabilitat- ing the Delta ecosystem by targeting how an individual stressor impacts a particular species seems doubtful ... hard decisions will need to be made about balancing risks for different water uses, such as allocating water to support economic activity, sanitation, or other needs,” the committee said, noting that “opportunities exist to mitigate or reverse the effects of many stressors.”
While it would be “premature” to prescribe specific flow targets, there are parameters state agencies and stake- holders will have to keep in mind, such as managing inflows and diversions “in ways more consistent with … the historical hydrograph,” according to the PPIC report. A “reconciled” Delta might feature upstream diversions in the spring, higher summer flows in the San Joaquin River, additional flows in some years to repel salinity in the fall and an expanded floodplain on the Yolo Bypass.
July/August 2012
The report notes that “the changes we recommend would alter the existing physical structure of the Delta and the administration of the water supply systems that affect flows of water with- in and through the estuary,” and that the State Water Board “has authority to find that such changes are consistent with water quality standards for the Delta … and to approve such changes within its water rights jurisdiction.” Guy with NCWA is concerned the state will seek a solution to the flow issue by taking water from his members. “The reality is the tension in the Delta is between exports and water use in the Delta and I think that is the debate that needs to be focused on,” he said. “From the upstream area, we have been willing to work with everybody and will continue to do so … but we don’t think we ought to solve their problems.” Just increasing flows will not solve
the Delta’s problems in and of itself, said Rosenfield. “No one I know has suggested that changing Delta out- flow is a panacea,” he said. “But the scientific community and the agencies responsible for managing fish and wild- life in the Delta ecosystem have been unanimous and extremely consistent in saying that freshwater flows are an essential part of any effort to reverse the dramatic population declines that have led to half a dozen endangered fish species in the Delta.”
Howard acknowledged the criti- cism that the State Water Board is exclusively focused on flow, which he said “is simply not an accurate assess- ment of what the Board does.” “We take information on every- thing associated with the Delta [and] it’s not a fair characterization that somehow the Water Board is fixated on a flow-centric kind of assessment because it’s actually quite to the contrary,” he said. “If one looks across all the agencies and all the people with responsibility in the Delta, the Water Board is the one best situated to look at all of the dimensions of the Delta’s problems and to try to address them holistically. That’s what it tries to do.” ❖