An especially interesting part of Isenberg’s comments relates to his views of how science fits into BDCP. He says it isn’t clear how the proposed management/science system will work. He notes that the current BDCP governance proposal seems to place water operations and ecosystem operations in different organization silos. “It is hard to see how bifurcated water and ecosystem science and decision-making meets the requirements of the coequal goals, let alone the direction of the Governor and the Secretary on the role of science.” THEY said science would guide water exports.
Isenberg mentions the Interagency Ecological Program, the Delta Science Program, and the Delta Independent Science Board, but he isn’t sure that these agencies will be the primary sources of scientific information. He wonders how much the science effort will cost, and where the money will come from. “It is possible,” he says, “that BDCP intends to depend exclusively on science presented by project applicants, water contractors or advocacy groups.” (Emphasis added; this seems like a nice way of describing purchased science.) He says he prefers the use of independent science. (So do we. And it seems to us that the Delta Stewardship Council should have more than just a preference for this approach when it evaluates BDCP for inclusion in the Delta Plan.)