Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Last Tuesday, the State Water Resources Control Board ruled on the petition by Federal and State water project operators to retroactively relax standards in the Delta. The Board refused the petition but announced that there would be no “enforcement” for violating Delta outflow standards in early February.

In 1994, as part of the Bay-Delta Accord, the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project agreed to meet Delta outflow standards, known as “X2”, to provide low-salinity habitat for Delta fish. The original plan was that after three years, other water agencies in the Central Valley would share in the outflow obligations. But the projects, with support of their contractors, determined that involving others was too problematic and have agreed to continue to bear sole responsibility for meeting this obligation.

Casual conversations with project operators have indicated that they have no plans for ensuring that more such petitions will not be forthcoming in 2009 or in the future. They point out that much has changed since 1994. California’s population has grown by almost a third, and other environmental objectives have been put in place, such as increased flows on the Trinity River and the recent court ruling, followed by a new “Biological Opinion”, to minimize reverse flows in the Delta to protect endangered smelt.

In our testimony before the Board, we acknowledged that the projects were in a tough spot and did not take a position on whether to grant the petition. But we did emphasize that the current drought, while serious, is well within the range of what our planning models have anticipated. And we asked the Board to take steps to ensure such actions did not recur. They have not responded to our request, but we intend to pursue it. We believe it is critical that the projects obey the operating rules to which they agree – at all times, not merely when it is convenient.

This experience looms large as we try to negotiate a Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which may lead to construction of a Peripheral Canal that would divert water around the Delta. The Canal’s supporters and detractors alike agree that the health of the estuary would depend on a set of operating rules that guarantee Delta inflows and outflows, as well as the timing and volume of diversions.

Cynics say the only way to avoid having a canal disrupt ecologically sustainable Delta flows is not to build one or, at the very least, to build a small one.

Supporters insist that a large canal is preferable so “big gulps” of water could be diverted when fish are not in danger and that we can establish legally enforceable protective operating criteria to reduce diversions when necessary.

Given this month’s unenforced violation and no plan to prevent recurrence, how are we supposed to trust the projects with a Peripheral Canal? Can we really expect the State Board to enforce rules for operating a canal when they are not doing so for the present system? The situation reminds one of those famous “Peanuts” cartoons when Lucy continually promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown to kick, only to pull it away at the last minute.

Stay tuned. We’ll invite the projects and their contractors to answer these questions.