is authorized, depending on the funding, a series of technical refinements beginning with detailed designs and ending with construction occurs prior to its operation. Project Cooperation Agreements between the federal and the state partner are obtained prior to the initiation of construction. The current progress of CERP has demonstrated the need for formal agreement among partners. One example of such as agreement is the Design Agreement between the USACE and SFWMD (http://www.evergladesplan.org). Implementation of the agreement is ensured by an interagency unit known as the Design Coordination Team (DCT), which oversees the schedules and budgets, plans and specifications, and contractual work.
However, no matter how good the management structure may be, it is no guarantee of progress; it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Experience with large restoration projects elsewhere, and especially in the Delta, reveals that progress will be affected by lawsuits, economic crises, unexpected (and expected) environmental events, cost overruns, political changes, and so on. Yet the literature and examples mentioned here show that management of complicated systems, where more than one agency has management responsibilities, can be successful as long as there is adequate coordination and clear accountability. Apparently, the new deputy secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency has the BDCP as his major responsibility, which is an encouraging development. The panel recommends that the BDCP’s authors give this matter careful attention, because an appropriate system of management is necessary but not sufficient for the use of coherent, synthesized science in future iterations of the BDCP and a successful adaptive management program.