fragmented, and even perhaps antagonistic, management of the plan’s implementation more likely. Thus, for example, the BDCP states, “The [Implementation Office] will not be involved in the development or operation of the [State Water Project] and/or [Central Valley Project] facilities” (draft BDCP, p. 7-5). Further, the plan states, “No general delegation of authority by [the California Department of Water Resources] or the [Bureau of] Reclamation to the Program Manager or one of their employees assigned to the [Implementation Office] will occur” (draft BDCP p. 7-7). The plan also proposes that agency personnel be assigned to populate various BDCP implementation committees. This seems to further ensure that inter-agency conflicts and traditional turf battles will be strongly internalized in the management arrangements. The plan, then, envisions that traditional agency missions and turf will be protected, leaving the program manager to navigate through a maze of conflicting interests without any real authority or capacity to resolve conflicts and otherwise ensure that the management approach is integrated.

There is an important literature on the problem of management fragmentation in the planning and operations management of large water schemes (Conca, 2005; Feldman, 2011; Scholz and Siftel, 2005). There is additional helpful literature on network governance (Kettl and Goldsmith, 2004) and collaborative federalism (Emerson and Murchie, 2010). This work underscores the importance of collaboration, the sharing of authority and power, and acknowledgment of the interests of all stakeholders if the large-scale management of water is to be integrated and successful. The panel recommends that the BDCP’s authors give this matter careful attention.

Development and implementation of large restoration and conservation programs such as the BDCP often require a complex structure to incorporate technical, political, and legal realities and the evolving dynamics of both the physical and organizational environments. The panel recommends that the agencies responsible for implementing the BDCP review other examples of large scale restoration programs that have been developed and implemented. One such example is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where management coordinates through a General Management Plan executed with several cooperative agreements. Although CalFed dissolved, the former CalFed institutional structure dealt with some of the same management issues. The CalFed experience and associated body of literature could be a useful source of positive and negative lessons.

Another example is the Everglades restoration program (CERP; www.evergladesplan.org), with which several committees of the National Research Council have been involved for many years (NRC, 2006, 2008, 2010c). Since its authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the CERP has necessitated the development of a number of coordination processes, agreements, and carefully designed planning and implementation efforts (Figure 6 in Box 2 of this report) to incorporate the unprecedented scope and complexity of the final plan, regulations of the federal and state governments, and stakeholder interests. However, unlike the BDCP, the CERP’s focus was more on



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement