Delta Flows: Crashing the Principals' Office

Delta Flows, October 11, 2010- News from Restore the Delta

Crashing the Principals' Office

By Brett Baker

Over the past several weeks, the media has reported on "secret meetings" being held behind closed doors to set the course for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Resources Agency Director Lester Snow went before the DSC last week to refute the reports of "secret meetings" saying they were due to insufficient fact checking on the part of reporters and news media.

On the morning of September 30th, 2010, a BDCP principals meeting was convened at the California Farm Bureau Federation off of Garden Highway in Sacramento. Those on the invite list included BDCP steering committee members who were only privy to the discussion, but not allowed to speak. (Melinda Terry of the North Delta Water Agency- the sole Delta rep in the room - told us that she was offered a seat for having signed the planning agreement, but not offered a speaking seat.) Speaking seats were reserved for "principals"- representatives of the entities who have financed the planning process-the finest display of pay-to-play I have never seen in government.

A group of four individuals Bill Jennings, Dan Bacher, Jim Beuttler, and I walked into the conference room unannounced, and were welcomed by complete silence and awkward stares. It was as if the scent of the Ganges on a warm summer evening had followed us into the room, which is ironic when one realizes that we were there to protect the Sacramento River.

As folks attempted to regain composure, we were asked by the meeting facilitator to introduce our selves. So we did. She then recommended to the group that we be allowed to stay as did David Nawi, Senior advisor to the Secretary of the Department of Interior.

The meeting was recessed, and immediately a group convened in the hallway to discuss how the "principals" would like to address our presence. It could be described as a secret meeting within the secret meeting.

We were approached by the meeting facilitator, and asked to leave for the sake of equity..Apparently, other folks, including Senator Lois Wolk's staff, had been turned away because the "principals" felt it was a necessity to have closed door discussions in addressing such contentious issues. The meeting facilitator then attempted to pacify our concerns, saying the entirety of the discussion would be reported to the Delta Counties Coalition(DCC) next Thursday (October 7, 2010). Of course this reply begs the question, "If they intended on reporting the entirety of the discussion, what was the harm in letting us stay?" After all, we should trust them to self-disclose the decisions that they reached in private that will greatly affect Delta communities and water resources for the entire state for centuries to come.

The meeting facilitator also informed us that if we were to stay that we must swear to remain silent for the remainder of the meeting and not report the names or attribute quotes to any of the folks in the room. Specifically, folks in the room had agreed to a non attribution clause, because having the dialogue around the table attributed to any one particular entity may be problematic for the entity's public relations efforts.

We responded that as American citizens we felt we were entitled to our first amendment rights and could make no such promise. She went on to say that this was not a first amendment issue, and the discussion digressed from there.

Lester Snow then called her out into the hallway for a brief discussion and she returned to ask us to leave. Mr. Jennings, for clarifications sake, asked if she was prepared to have us arrested if we refused. She replied that they weren't. Overall, the meeting facilitator was pleasant and courteous as were we. We were then told that if we did not leave, the "principals" would have to leave.

And leave they did. The meeting was not reconvened, and following Lester Snow's lead the attendees began to slowly file out of the room.

As this event was scheduled to be a two-day meeting. I surmised that they might hold the next day's meeting at the Federal Building in downtown Sacramento, where security is a little tighter.

As our fate was being decided in the hallway, we were greeted by environmental observers (others relegated to non-speaking seats), Kim Delfino from Defenders of Wildlife, Cynthia Koehler and Ann Hayden from Environmental Defense, and Gary Bobker of The Bay Institute. We also had a polite talk with Jason Peltier of Westlands Water District. We made small talk and joked about the deficiencies of the process.

The last two principals remaining in the room were Roger Patterson and Jeffry Kightlinger of Metropolitan Water District, who also followed us into the parking lot for a bit of civil discussion.

I feel that we walked away with a new found respect from the folks in the room. Several told us that for the most part they understood and even supported our bit of formal protest.

On a personal note, I felt like I was able to exercise my rights as an American that morning, and having done so now posses a much better understanding of Margaret Mead's quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does"

All in all we walked into the meeting at 9:20 a.m., and discussion ceased by 10:30 a.m. The room was empty and the only sign that a meeting had occurred were the empty coffee cups left around the table.

It was encouraging to feel a victory in this war on the Delta- no matter how small. Today is another day, and our work continues...




Called into the Principals' Office: The Not-So-Superintendent

Lester Snow may have been kicked upstairs from DWR Director to Resources Agency Secretary partly to ensure delivery of the Bay Delta Consesrvation Plan. The Administration may have been thinking that potentially regulated entities (PREs) around the BDCP table were losing focus and Snow would be the one to get fol
ks back on track and encourage compromise. Unfortunately, last month the table was moved to a back room, and people from the Delta weren't given a key to get in.

Delta legislators complained in a formal letter to Snow and the Department of the Interior, but the Schwarzenegger Administration is showing itself to be increasingly contemptuous of California's elected representatives.

At the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) meeting on September 23, Snow provided a briefing on the situation, With his federal counterpart, Interior Undersecretary David Nawi, at his side Lester presented his rebuttal letter sent to Senator Wolk and other state legislators and federal representatives.

Snow vehemently argued that the "closed-door, back room discussions" referenced by legislators were not in-fact taking place in "smoke-filled rooms." He blamed the whole fuss on inexperienced media people not fact-checking their claims prior to filing their stories. (Most people wouldn't classify the Contra Costa Times' Mike Taugher with careless media people.)

Snow stopped just short of criticizing the judgment of Senator Wolk and everyone else who signed the letter. What was really going on, he said, was an attempt to get BDCP Principals on the same page, and he felt the talks made BDCP a better process because in his opinion all the "main caucuses" were in the room. He pointed out that, after all, the decision making will take place in public meetings.

But Snow was clearly shaken, as if even he didn't believe that what was coming out of his mouth was the whole truth. We wouldn't blame him for feeling that from the standpoint of ethics, continuing to strong-arm Delta communities and the ecosystem really isn't worth it.

The product of the meetings was a report titled "Issues for Discussion for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan." (Available at http://www.resources.ca.gov/restoring_the_delta.html) Snow was careful to point out that this was not a draft plan, just a progress report on what has been considered throughout the planning process. Something that will give the transition team of an incoming administration an idea of where things stand.

Nawi noted that the current information compiled by the BDCP steering committee lacked a framework that made BDCP understandable. Is this a nice way of saying that the whole plan is basically incoherent?

There was some discussion about assigning a staff "point person" from both DSC and BDCP to ensure increased communication between the two entities.

Nawi spoke briefly about the federal government's commitment to best available science and the furthering of the "co-equal goals," as well as increasing its involvement in Delta Planning.




They had to pay someone to tell them this....

DSC independent consultant ARCADIS released a report that bashed BDCP's progress and lack of significant findings, and the lack of willingness and/or ability to ask the right questions. A notable weakness is the vagueness surrounding proposed operational criteria and conservation measures. RTD reported on this last month (August 25) in our "Haste makes waste, again" article.

The DSC briefly discussed the ARCADIS report, and we can only hope that they give it the attention it warrants.

If the folks running BDCP had listened to and addressed the issues and concerns we have heard continually brought up at public scoping meetings and community outreach meetings, maybe the council could have saved itself the ARCADIS consulting fee.



Technically speaking

There was a good bit of discussion regarding the DSC's adoption of a Delta Plan, the folding in of BDCP, and how an appeal should be handled if someone takes issue with the Plan.

Greg Zlotnik (State Water Contractors) requested some clarification from the Council on the necessity of BDCP in a Delta Plan. Isenberg reminded Zlotnik that "necessity" was not the critical point; the critical point was whether the BDCP would remain eligible for state funding. (It is easy to forget that taxpayers are funding this process on which the State of California has now spent over $100 million.)

Isenberg: "That is why you are here."

Zlotnick: "No, it isn't."

Isenberg: "Trust me, that IS why you are here."

After some debate on legislative interpretation, it was determined that if the BDCP is submitted and DSC receives no appeal requests (unlikely), then BDCP is automatically rolled into the Delta plan.

Mr. Zlotnik and Mark Rentz of ACWA took issue with a perceived conflict of interest that DSC will be the ruling body if the Delta Plan, which the DSC is charged with approving in the first place, should face an appeal. After a great deal of discussion, Isenberg assured folks that this was legal and even typical. He pointed out that the Coastal Commission and Delta Protection Commission both review appeals on their own work. He held firm to that view despite arguments that a "de novo" process ("a new trial by a different tribunal") should be followed instead.

The newly-appointed Executive Director of the DPC, Mike Machado, was warmly received, congratulated on his appointment, and thanked by the Council. Machado reported on the ongoing Economic Sustainability planning. He also reported that a draft primary zone study should be out in October and adopted by December. In addition, he reported that the DPC is moving forward with their National Heritage Area (NHA) feasibility plan.

Gary Bardini, DWR's new Chief of Hydrology and Flood Operations, gave a rundown on Delta levee maintenance activities. The DRMS study was heavily referenced, and once again the Delta was characterized as one giant seismically vulnerable subsiding peat marsh.

Randy Fiorini asked Bardini if DWR's current efforts would result in an overall Delta levee plan. Isenberg stepped in to explain that it wouldn't. The state does not have an overarching Delta-wide plan for non-project levees, and the subventions program that is in place for cost sharing with the local agencies hasn't been working for the past couple of years.

Fiorini and especially Hank Nodoff seemed astounded that we lack a comprehensive levee plan. Isenberg went on to explain that the reason the state avoided dealing with local agencies was to avoid liability in the event of a failure. The looks on the faces of the DSC members was priceless: the entire council (except Isenberg, who had a devilish grin on his face) was clearly shocked.

Council members, thank you for having the grace to be appalled by this preposterous state of affairs.