California desperately needs to make progress on its beleaguered Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Conflicts over imperiled fish have disrupted water deliveries. The ecosystem is in rapid decline. If left unaddressed, the threat of earthquakes and the long-term impacts of climate change could cause even more conflict and harm to everyone who has a stake in the Delta – water users, farmers, fishing interests, environmentalists and others.

Sadly, the linchpin of any sort of deal to bring peace to his estuary – the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or BDCP – has been heading in the wrong direction for years, and continues down a perilous path. Paid for and driven by water contractors, this "conservation plan" has been disproportionately focused on construction of a canal or tunnel that would provide water exporters with extra supplies. State and federal officials seem determined to finalize plans for some form of tunnel or canal by next year, even though there remain serious questions about the financing, impacts and governance of this audacious feat of plumbing, and its impact on Delta communities.

Since taking office, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird and his deputy, Gerald Meral, have worked to make BDCP more inclusive, getting rid of the "loyalty oath" that committed participants to accept the final outcome without criticism. Yet Laird and Meral haven't gone far enough, and they haven't seriously challenged the underlying premise of BDCP – that contractors will be able to get more water from the Delta and mitigate the impacts on fish by restoring wetlands on a vast scale.

Will these wetlands compensate for the extra water diverted? Or does the Delta need stronger flows to help salmon and other fish? And what will be the ecological trade-offs of a canal or tunnel? Will it help the Delta smelt (by reducing pumping in the south Delta) but contribute to the demise of salmon, which could be harmed by the enormous water intakes the state would build on the Sacramento River near Hood?

To this point, answers to those questions are muddled, which is hugely problematic. Answers – backed up by credible, independent science – are essential in planning any kind of multi-billion-dollar reengineering of the Delta.

Expediency and credibility are in direct conflict as BDCP lunges ahead. Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had to backpedal on finalizing a memorandum of agreement that federal and state officials quietly negotiated with water contractors a few months ago. The pact, which gave water contractors certain privileges in the BDCP process, had come under harsh criticism from U.S. Rep. George Miller and other congressional Democrats from Northern California.

To make matters worse, it was revealed two weeks ago that the state Department of Water Resources was hiring the assistant general manager of the state water contractors, Laura King Moon, to help the agency complete the conservation plan. While Moon is clearly capable and as knowledgable about the BDCP as anyone, her hiring ("on loan" from the water contractors) only cemented the impression that, of the equal partners in the Bay Delta process, some are more equal than others.

It may well be that a contractor-driven process can produce a conservation plan that passes legal muster, eases water deliveries and restores imperiled species, but there is a serious risk that it could be blocked by the courts or a ballot initiative, setting back the Delta for decades.

There's no doubt that leaders such as Salazar and Laird are committed to environmental protection. To shore up those credentials, they need to wrest the BDCP out of private hands and make it a truly inclusive process, grounded on science and equally focused on Delta restoration and water reliability.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.