Dialoguing on the BDCP

by Joe Mathews | August 6th, 2012

The Delta Dialogues took a hard turn into a big, newsy controversy in July, with a day-long gathering devoted to discussion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and how its recent announcement should affect the future of the Dialogues.

The turn came at the fourth monthly session of the dialogues, at the Westlands Water District offices on the Capitol Mall in Sacramento that came two days after the BDCP press conference hosted by the state and federal governments. The turn was intentional, with facilitators of the Dialogues framing the session around the BDCP as a way of pushing the Dialogues more deeply into specifics. “We want to go into the fire,” Kristin Cobble, one of the facilitators with Groupaya, told the group early in the day. “We want to go where the lightning rod is provoking us.”

And so they did, for more than five hours, a session that produced some of the most difficult and enlightening conversations of the Dialogues. The tone remained civil, but the exchanges were frank and the differences seemed stark for the first time in a process that has emphasized what the participants have in common.

Participants from the environmental community and water users acknowledged that they supported the BDCP process, while others were more critical, with some questioning whether it was designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion: The building of a conveyance to bring water from north to south via tunnels. Mary Piepho, a Contra Costa County supervisor, said the BDCP was “not a balanced, thorough proposal. Not comprehensive enough. It doesn’t include local government at the table or water storage components. It lacks a thorough cost benefit analysis and only one project alternative is being analyzed.”

State agency officials are part of the Dialogues, but none attended this meeting. Some participants raised questions about that absence, but no explanation for their absence was discussed.

Despite different opinions about the BDCP, some key points of agreement emerged. Participants agreed that there were deep fears about the BDCP process, and that those fears remained a huge obstacle to making progress in the Delta. (The room was divided on whether those fears were based on real risks or were more a byproduct of mistrust based on previous broken promises about Delta policies.) Participants agreed that the status quo was unacceptable, and that they were willing to make concessions in the name of progress.

One strong criticism of the BDCP also emerged, both from those sympathetic to the plan and those critical of it — that the BDCP process had not been sufficiently inclusive of “in-Delta” constituencies, particularly local governments and farmers. As a result, the recommendations were not as complete as participants would have liked.

Jim Fiedler of the Santa Clara Water District said the problem stemmed from the BDCP’s focus on its “co-equal goals” — ecosystem restoration and water supply — to the exclusion of the people in the Delta. Leo Winternitz of The Nature Conservancy said he had felt “elation” from the BDCP’s commitment to restoring the Delta environment, but “disappointment” because “there was no strong similar commitment to protecting the Delta quality of life.”

The conversation felt disjointed at times. During the middle of the day, facilitators attempted to use the BDCP conversation to leap into a more difficult, specific conversation that would look at the details involved in creating a new method of governance for the Delta. This push occasioned puzzled looks from participants, and facilitators retreated.

The conversation also seemed to miss North Delta farmer Russell van Loben Sels, who was ill. He sent along an email that was critical of BDCP and that was discussed for nearly half an hour. His name was mentioned more times than that any other participant, despite his absence.

In the afternoon, the conversation turned to determining how the Dialogues should go forward in light of BDCP. Should the Dialogues focus on misinformation and areas of disagreement about the facts of the Delta? Or should the focus be on how in-Delta interests don’t have trust in BDCP and other processes, and what would make them trust?

Through the discussion, it became clear that the questions were related. And, in a curious way, one area of agreement emerged: A shared feeling of mistrust. Multiple participants recalled broken promises related to the Delta. Given that history, participants said, as the meeting concluded, that they valued the opportunity the Dialogues provide for open conversation, even over controversial subjects.

In an email chain that followed up the meeting, participants said they would like to keep the momentum and have more follow-up conversations before the next regularly scheduled Dialogue gathering (August 24).

Dialogue Map of the July BDCP Recommendations

by Rebecca Petzel | August 3rd, 2012

Last week, Governor Jerry Brown announced joint recommendations from state and federal agencies regarding key elements of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

In order to help facilitate discussion around these recommendations at our Delta Dialogue meeting last Friday, we took the 55-page document and created a Dialogue Map version. Dialogue Mapping is a process of capturing complex issues in real-time as participants talk. It is both a powerful technique for visually representing complex issues as well as for building shared understanding among a group around wicked problems.

You can see our Dialogue Map version of the recommendations below (best viewed in full-screen mode), or you can download a PDF version for printing. Leave a comment below if you have any feedback or questions about the maps, and feel free to share!

How will we address BDCP in the next meeting?

by Campbell Ingram | July 20th, 2012

I wanted to offer a short note about the next Delta Dialogues meeting on July 27 — in light of the significant announcement we anticipate next Wednesday, July 25, regarding the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

While most of our discussions in the Dialogues have been linked to issues addressed in the BDCP, we have not yet had direct, specific conversation in the Dialogues about BDCP. It seems logical that this should now change. Indeed, our meeting on July 27 provides an opportunity for a discussion around what the July 25 announcement contains.

The Dialogues are currently the only forum that provides a broad representation of Delta stakeholders and a safe space for constructive dialogue. Given this special environment, we anticipate a fair amount of time being devoted to the BDCP during the meeting on the 27th.