prepared—a management system that lacks coordination among entities and clear accountability. No one public agency, stakeholder group or individual has been made accountable for the coherence, thoroughness, and effectiveness of the final product. Rather, the plan appears to reflect the differing perspectives of federal, state, and local agencies, and the many stakeholder groups involved. Although this is not strictly a scientific issue, fragmented management is a significant impediment to the use and inclusion of coherent science in future iterations of the BDCP. Different science bears on the missions of the various public agencies, and different stakeholders put differing degrees of emphasis on specific pieces of science. Unless the management structure is made more coherent and unified, the final product may continue to suffer from a lack of integration in an attempt to satisfy all discrete interests and not, as a result, the larger public interests.
The panel finds the draft BDCP to be incomplete or unclear in a variety of ways and places. The plan is missing the type of structure usually associated with current planning methods in which the goals and objectives are specified, alternative measures for achieving the objectives are introduced and analyzed, and a course of action is identified based on analytical optimization of economic, social, and environmental factors. Yet the panel underscores the importance of a credible and a robust BDCP in addressing the various water management problems that beset the Delta. A stronger, more complete, and more scientifically credible BDCP that effectively integrates and utilizes science could indeed pave the way toward the next generation of solutions to California’s chronic water problems.