relationship to water diversion projects. Specifically, these 
studies and cooperative efforts learned six important things: 
(1) striped bass and pelagic fish eggs were being diverted from 
the system; (2) the louver fish screen efficiencies at the 
intake of state and Federal water diversions, depending on the 
species and life stages, were quite low, ranging from about 5 to 
80 percent, (3) water diversions act as density independent 
sources of mortality for young striped bass; (4) flow reversals 
which were associated with pumping confuse young adult fish 
migration; (5) pumping increases flow velocities in channels, 
and that in turn reduces the standing crop of food organisms 
that are produced there; and (6) the actual magnitude of flow 
passing through the Delta into the Bay affects the distribution 
and abundance of fish and their food organisms. 
This information was used for two significant purposes in 
California. First of all, it was used to develop recommenda¬ 
tions for the controversial Peripheral Canal. This was a 
structure proposed for diverting water around the Delta system 
for transport to the southern part of the state. Secondly, the 
information developed by the Interagency Program was used in 
1978 by the regulatory State Water Resources Control Board to 
develop standards to protect beneficial uses in the Delta 
component of the system. The Board adopted Water Rights 
Decision 1485, which innovatively established flow/salinity 
standards necessary to protect fishery resources in the estuary 
based on information available at that time. However, there was 
still division. The studies were looking at the Delta and not 
the Bay portion of the estuary. In adopting D-1485, the State 
Board took another positive step to bridge this division. They 
mandated, in D-1485, that flow studies would be carried out in 
the Bay, downstream of the Delta, and that these studies would 
be paid for by the water diversion permit holders; in this case, 
the Department of Water Resources and the Federal Bureau of 
Reclamation. The Interagency Program already in place became 
the vehicle to implement this study in 1980. 
Biological portions of the Delta Outflow/San Francisco Bay 
Study began in 1980, but again division occurred. This time, 
the division was regarding the roles of hydrodynamic and fishery 
studies. While the fishery studies continued, project 
biologists and engineers debated the following questions: "What 
should be the driving force for the Bay outflow study?" In 
other words, should biology precede hydrodynamic work and 
provide the basis for the structure of hydrodynamic study plans 
or should hydrodynamics precede biology? This issue remained 
unresolved for about four years until it was agreed that the 
hydrodynamic program should answer "biologically relevant 
hydrodynamic questions." In other words, the study would be 
based on the needs of the biological program. 
The hydrodynamic study plan which was implemented earlier by 
DWR was augmented in 1984 and interagency cooperation again 
bridged another division. At this time, two more agencies 
71 
