Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) may become the law of the land (and water) as early as 2011. If it does, how well will it protect endangered species? And how much water will be determined to be safely exported to the farms and cities that depend on Delta supplies before any major possible changes to habitat or infrastructure are implemented?

The BDCP is known to many as a controversial and complex planning process that aims to provide long-term operating permits for the state and federal projects that convey water from northern California to farms and cities in the central and southern parts of the state. In exchange for these permits, the projects will implement a Habitat Conservation Plan that meets recovery standards specified by the Endangered Species Act.

Skeptics abound, and are mostly focused on the BDCP’s long-term plans. The largest controversy has focused on the inclusion of a “peripheral canal” to move water around, rather than through, the Delta before being delivered to farms and cities.

Even if a canal is part of the solution (and that is far from a foregone conclusion), it is critical that before permits are approved, we determine how to operate the system in the near term, before new infrastructure is in place—and to do it in a way that enhances species recovery rather than simply preventing the further decline of species.

The BDCP has recently been grappling with this difficult issue and is considering a variety of actions that have the potential to improve conditions for endangered fish. These actions range from reducing toxins and invasive species to mechanical experiments such as “2-gates” which would modify in-Delta flows in response to real-time fish movement. (See here for the current list of actions under consideration.)

Water agencies are hopeful that these measures will provide ecosystem benefits that are significant enough to warrant increased water exports. EDF fully supports evaluation of these measures. We believe, however, that the Biological Opinions are the best available, peer-reviewed scientific information to prevent extinction of at-risk species. We are therefore reluctant to agree to increases in exports absent PROOF that the anticipated benefits from these measures are indeed realized.

This is a necessary threshold, particularly since the goal of the BDCP, as agreed to by government agencies, water districts and environmental groups alike, is to do better than the existing Biological Opinions and contribute to the recovery of endangered species (rather than merely maintain a precarious existence on the brink of extinction). Ultimately, the state and federal fish agencies which must approve the BDCP plan will have to agree to this threshold as well.

For those interested in getting into the details on this issue, please see this letter recently submitted by EDF, The Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife, which outlines our concerns and makes recommendations to help the process move toward a successful outcome.