1263 01 02 03 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 04 05 06 07 08 PUBLIC HEARING 09 10 11 11 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING 12 13 14 15 HELD AT: 16 BONDERSON BUILDING 16 901 P STREET 17 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 17 18 18 19 19 TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998 20 9:00 A.M. 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 1264 01 APPEARANCES 01 BOARD MEMBERS: 02 02 JOHN CAFFREY, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JOHN W. BROWN 04 MARY JANE FORSTER 04 MARC DEL PIERO 05 05 STAFF MEMBERS: 06 06 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 07 VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT 07 THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 08 08 COUNSEL: 09 09 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL 10 BARBARA LEIDIGH 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 1265 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 02 03 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 03 134 West Sycamore Street 04 Willows, California 95988 04 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 05 05 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 07 P.O. BOX 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 08 09 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 09 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 10 P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 11 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 13 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 14 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 16 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 18 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 19 19 GARY BOBKER 20 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 20 San Rafael, California 94901 21 21 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 22 22 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 23 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 23 San Francisco, California 94109 24 24 25 25 1266 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 02 03 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 03 2480 Union Street 04 San Francisco, California 94123 04 05 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 05 06 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 06 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 07 Sacramento, California 95825 07 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 08 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 08 09 BYRON M. BUCK 09 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 11 12 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 12 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 13 Sacramento, California 95814 13 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 14 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 15 15 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 16 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 17 18 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 18 19 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 19 71 Stevenson Street 20 San Francisco, California 94105 20 21 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 21 22 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 22 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 23 Visalia, California 93291 23 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 24 24 25 25 1267 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 02 03 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 03 6201 S Street 04 Sacramento, California 95817 04 05 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 06 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor 07 Stockton, California 95202 07 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 08 08 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 09 09 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 10 375 Eleventh Street 10 Oakland, California 94623 11 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 11 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 12 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 13 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 14 Berkeley, California 94702 14 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 15 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 16 P.O. Box 5654 17 Fresno, California 93755 17 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 18 18 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 19 19 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 20 P.O. Box 2365 20 Flournoy, California 96029 21 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 21 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 22 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 23 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 24 Los Angeles, California 90075 24 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 25 25 1268 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 02 03 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 03 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 04 San Francisco, California 94102 04 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 05 05 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 07 926 J Street, Suite 505 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 08 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 09 09 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 10 101 West Walnut Street 10 Pasadena, California 91103 11 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 11 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 12 13 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 13 517 East Olive Street 14 Turlock, California 95381 14 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 15 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 16 16 RICHARD GOLB 17 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 18 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 20 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 20 Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 21 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 22 23 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. 23 and 24 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 25 Oakland, California 94618 25 1269 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 02 03 SIMON GRANVILLE 03 P.O. Box 846 04 San Andreas, California 95249 04 05 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 06 P.O. Box 1019 07 Madera, California 93639 07 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 08 08 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 09 09 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 10 2300 River Plaza Drive 10 Sacramento, California 95833 11 11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 MORRISON & FORESTER 13 755 Page Mill Road 13 Palo Alto, California 94303 14 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 14 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 15 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 16 P.O. Box 777 17 Shasta Lake, California 96019 17 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 18 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 19 926 J Street 20 Sacramento, California 95814 20 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 21 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 22 P.O. Box 427 23 Durham, California 95938 23 BY: DON HEFFREN 24 24 25 25 1270 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 02 03 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 03 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East 04 Stockton, California 95267 04 05 COUNTY OF GLENN: 05 06 NORMAN Y. HERRING 06 525 West Sycamore Street 07 Willows, California 95988 07 08 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 08 09 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 09 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 11 12 JULIE KELLY 12 P.O. Box 307 13 Vina, California 96092 13 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 14 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 15 P.O. Box 4060 16 Modesto, California 95352 16 BY: BILL KETSCHER 17 17 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 18 18 SAVE THE BAY 19 1736 Franklin Street 19 Oakland, California 94612 20 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 20 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 21 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 22 P.O. Box 606 23 Manton, California 96059 23 24 24 25 25 1271 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 02 03 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 03 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 04 Sacramento, California 95814 04 05 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 05 06 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 06 1201 Civic Center Drive 07 Yuba City 95993 07 08 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 08 09 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 09 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 10 Sacramento, California 95816 10 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 11 11 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 13 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 13 Walnut Creek, California 94596 14 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 14 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 DON MARCIOCHI 16 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 17 Los Banos, California 93635 17 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 18 19 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 19 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 20 Merced, California 95344 20 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 21 21 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 22 22 R.W. MCCOMAS 23 4150 County Road K 23 Orland, California 95963 24 24 25 25 1272 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 02 03 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 03 P.O. Box 3728 04 Sonora, California 95730 04 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 05 05 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 07 P.O. Box 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 08 09 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 09 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER 10 1550 California Street, Suite 6 11 San Francisco, California 94109 11 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 12 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 13 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95965 14 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 15 15 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 16 16 DE CUIR & SOMACH 17 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 18 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 19 20 STEVE MORA 20 501 Walker Street 21 Orland, California 95963 21 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 22 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 23 P.O. Box 4060 24 Modesto, California 95352 24 25 25 1273 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 02 03 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 03 P.O. Box 7442 04 San Francisco, California 94120 04 05 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 05 06 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 06 P.O. Box 1461 07 Stockton, California 95201 07 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 08 and 08 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 09 09 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 10 10 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 11 1100 Whitney Avenue 11 Corcoran, California 93212 12 12 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 13 13 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 14 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 15 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 15 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 17 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 18 Chico, California 95926 18 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 19 19 SIERRA CLUB: 20 20 JENNA OLSEN 21 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 22 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 23 23 LYNNEL POLLOCK 24 625 Court Street 24 Woodland, California 95695 25 25 1274 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PATRICK PORGENS AND ASSOCIATES: 02 03 PATRICK PORGENS 03 P.O. Box 60940 04 Sacramento, California 95860 04 05 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 DIANE RATHMANN 06 07 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 07 08 BETSY REIFSNIDER 08 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 09 Sacramento, California 95814 09 10 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 10 11 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 11 P.O. Box 2067 12 Merced, California 95344 12 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 13 13 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 14 14 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 15 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 15 Stockton, California 95202 16 16 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 17 17 JAMES F. ROBERTS 18 P.O. Box 54153 18 Los Angeles, California 90054 19 19 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 20 20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 21 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 22 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 1275 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 02 03 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 03 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 04 San Francisco, California 94194 04 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 05 05 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 06 06 CATHY CROTHERS, ESQ. 07 P.O. Box 942836 07 Sacramento, California 94236 08 08 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 09 09 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 10 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 10 Fresno, California 93720 11 11 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 12 12 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 13 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 13 Sacramento, California 95814 14 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 14 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 15 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 16 P.O. Box 1679 17 Oroville, California 95965 17 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 18 18 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 19 19 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE 20 P.O. Box 20 20 Stockton, California 95203 21 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 21 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 22 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 23 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 24 Sacramento, California 95814 24 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. 25 25 1276 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 02 03 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 03 P.O. Box 1679 04 Oroville, California 95965 04 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 05 05 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 06 06 DE CUIR & SOMACH 07 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 08 09 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 09 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 10 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 11 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 15 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 16 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 17 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 18 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 19 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 20 P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 21 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 24 Redding, California 96001 25 25 1277 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 02 03 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 03 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 04 Red Bluff, California 96080 04 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 05 05 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 06 06 BEST BEST & KREIGER 07 P.O. Box 1028 07 Riverside, California 92502 08 BY: GREGORY WILKINSON, ESQ. 08 09 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 09 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 10 P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 11 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 14 San Andreas, California 95249 15 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive 17 Ione, California 95640 18 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 20 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 21 22 ---oOo--- 22 23 23 24 24 25 1278 01 INDEX 02 PAGE 03 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP: 04 MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B: 04 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 05 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 1281 05 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 06 BY MR. NOMELLINI 1288 06 BY MR. SUYEYASU 1291 07 BY MR. HERRICK 1309 07 BY MR. MADDOW 1315 08 BY STAFF 1322 08 BY BOARD MEMBERS 1323 09 REDIRECT EXAMINATION: 09 BY MR. SEXTON AND MR. ROBBINS 1324 10 RECROSS-EXAMINATION: 10 BY MR. MADDOW 1334 11 BY MR. SUYEYASU 1336 11 BY MR. NOMELLINI 1341 12 BY MR. HERRICK 1347 12 13 13 MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT: 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 14 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 1349 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 15 BY MR. MADDOW 1352 16 BY MR. SUYEYASU 1358 16 BY MR. NOMELLINI 1359 17 BY MR. HERRICK 1362 17 BY MR. JACKSON 1366 18 18 DANIEL STEINER: 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 19 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 1374 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 20 BY MR. HERRICK 1388 21 BY MR. NOMELLINI 1461 21 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 1279 01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 02 TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's find our seats, and we will resume 05 the hearing. This will be our longest week so far, three 06 days in a row, if we survive it. Get all the way through 07 it. 08 Good morning, to all. 09 When last we left, Mr. O'Laughlin was going to address 10 us this morning and let us know what his decision is with 11 regard to whether or not he wants to present the biological 12 panel for redirect. 13 I am sorry, Mr. O'Laughlin, are you ready yet? 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Go ahead. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: I was just going to turn it over to you 16 and find out what your pleasure is. 17 I also want to remind everyone that if Mr. Birmingham 18 is here, he had requested, if you were going to present the 19 panel for redirect, he wanted the opportunity to 20 cross-examine them before you did that. If they were going 21 to be back here. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Since last week, Mr. Birmingham and I 23 have had several discussions. And what he and I have 24 tentatively agreed to is that we will not be calling back 25 the panel as a whole. Mr. Birmingham only has questions of 1280 01 one witness at this time. So, we will -- we are making 02 arrangements currently with Mr. Birmingham's schedule and 03 the biologist to get them both here at the same time. We 04 expect that to occur either late Wednesday or Thursday. 05 After he is done with his cross-examination, we may 06 have some slight redirect of the same witness, and then we 07 will be finished. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you tell us who that witness is? 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The witness is Mr. Chuck Hansen. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Hansen, all right. We will make a 11 note of that and look forward to your informing us as to 12 when we can expect to have him back with us. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Hopefully, if the testimony goes 14 according to plan, it will be late Wednesday afternoon or 15 early Thursday morning. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Then, with that, were you then going to 17 bring on your next panel or witness? 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. I was going to bring on my next 19 witness, if I may, Mr. Marc Van Camp. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 21 Good morning, Mr. Van Camp. 22 MR. VAN CAMP: Good morning. 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // 1281 01 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 TESTIMONY OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B TO AGREEMENT 03 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Morning, Mr. Van Camp. For the 05 record, San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit Number 7 06 is a statement of qualifications for Marc Van Camp. 07 Is that a true and correct copy of your CV? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it is. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What we would like to do today, Mr. 10 Chairman -- 11 Have you taken the oath previously, Mr. Van Camp? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I did. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Robbins, for reminding us 14 of that important detail. It's keeping me on the straight 15 and narrow. I appreciate it. This is like Monday morning; 16 it is Tuesday. But we have to freshen ourselves up in the 17 first hour, excuse me. It was a good weekend. 18 And Mr. Brown is also keeping me honest. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What we would like to do today, Mr. 20 Chairman, is break Mr. Van Camp's testimony into two 21 separate and distinct parts. What we would like to do is 22 present testimony in regards to San Joaquin River Group 23 Authority Exhibit Number 8, which is the testimony of Marc 24 Van Camp on Appendix B of the San Joaquin River Agreement. 25 We would then like to have cross-examination and redirect of 1282 01 Mr. Van Camp on Appendix B. Finish that exhibit. Then we 02 would move to San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 03 Number 9, the testimony of Marc Van Camp on the Division 04 Agreement, have cross-examination, redirect of Exhibit 05 Number 9 and complete San Joaquin River Group Exhibit Number 06 9. 07 We think they're separate and distinct. We think it 08 would be clearer for everybody moving forward in this 09 fashion. We realize that there is some overlap, but, 10 hopefully, the overlap is fairly small between the two 11 exhibits that were proffered into testimony. 12 Mr. Van Camp -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask, just as courtesy, I don't 14 imagine there is any objection because nobody jumped up and 15 said so. 16 Is there any objection to what Mr. O'Laughlin 17 proposes? 18 Fine. Please proceed that way, Mr. O'Laughlin. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 20 Mr. Van Camp, marked as San Joaquin River Group 21 Authority Exhibit Number 8 is the testimony of Marc Van Camp 22 on Appendix B of the San Joaquin River Agreement. 23 Is that a true and correct copy of your testimony? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it is. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you prepare that testimony? 1283 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I did. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Your signature occurs on the last 03 page, under penalty of perjury; is that correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: It does. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Van Camp, for the parties present 06 and for the Board, can you briefly summarize your testimony 07 in regards to San Joaquin River Agreement Number 8. 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I can. Just one point, Tim, in 09 your opening statement I believe you referred to the 10 division agreement as Exhibit 9. It's actually 19. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sorry. 12 MR. VAN CAMP: In regard to Appendix B, which as Tim 13 identified, is part of Exhibit SJRG Exhibit Number 2, the 14 title of that document is the Planning and Operation, 15 coordination for the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan. 16 The purpose of that document was to provide a framework 17 of communications and procedures for operations, to 18 formalize the past coordinated operations, to provide a 19 specified flow at Vernalis. Appendix B establishes a 20 hydrology group which reports to the technical group as 21 identified in the agreement, the San Joaquin River 22 Agreement. 23 The Bureau of Reclamation representative and a 24 representative from the San Joaquin River Group are cochairs 25 of the hydrology group. Appendix B calls for the hydrology 1284 01 group to do certain items, certain tasks. Those are develop 02 forecasts of flows, forecasts of flow at Vernalis. That 03 begins as early as February 10th of each year. 04 Determine the test flow target, calculate the 05 supplemental water, develop an operations plan to make that 06 supplemental water available, and develop a post operation 07 report as far as how releases took place and what the flow 08 was at Vernalis over the year. 09 To describe a little bit about the test flow target -- 10 Bill, maybe you could put up the first overhead. 11 And you will see I have identified at the bottom here, 12 I apologize for the handwriting which was done this morning, 13 it is from Page 1 of Exhibit 8. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Did you verbally identify the exhibit 15 just now? I'm sorry. 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. This is a table that is contained 17 in Page 1 of Exhibit 8. It has simply been blown up so 18 everybody can see it, hopefully. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 20 MR. VAN CAMP: This table here shows the single step 21 criteria as defined in the agreement. It was -- it's a tool 22 to provide an incremental increase in flows in each of the 23 single step years. 24 As you can see, at the year we begin the forecast of 25 the average flow at Vernalis, which is called the existing 1285 01 flow, which is defined in the agreement. And based on that 02 flow, we move up a single step; if it is zero to 1,999, we 03 move up to 2,000, and so forth down the table. 04 In order to come to an agreement amongst the parties, 05 we developed a tool which uses the San Joaquin River Index, 06 the 60-20-20. 07 And, Bill, you can go ahead and place that up there. 08 This is a copy of the table that is on Page 2 of 09 Exhibit 8 and also on Page 4 of the Appendix B, which is 10 part of Exhibit 2. The numbers were assigned based on the 11 last year classification in order to come up with two 12 provisions of the single step. And that is, first, the 13 double-step criteria in some years parties to the agreement 14 desired to have an additional increase in flow above the 15 single step. And the tool that was developed through the 16 discussions of the parties was that if the current year and 17 the previous year forecast is equal to or greater than a 18 seven, so if we had a wet year and a dry year, we would move 19 up two steps in the previous table that you saw. 20 On the other side of the equation, on the sequential 21 dry year relaxation provision in the agreement, if the 22 current year and previous two years is equal to or less than 23 four, then there is no supplemental water provided by the 24 parties. At that point, the willing seller/willing buyer 25 provisions of the agreement kick in. But there is no 1286 01 identified additional supplement water provided. As an 02 example, if there was two critical years, if the current 03 year was critical and the previous year was dry and the year 04 before that was critical, we would have a four, an indicator 05 of 4, and, therefore, that sequential dry year 06 classification or criteria would kick in. 07 Again, this Appendix B was to formalize those 08 communications, and those communications have at least taken 09 place in 1993 and 1994. 10 And, Bill, if you can put up Number 3. 11 This shows the -- 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Identify the exhibit. 13 MR. VAN CAMP: That is Figure 6 of Exhibit 8, what is 14 up on the screen right now. 15 And that plot is a plot of the San Joaquin River at 16 Vernalis, which is dark line on top. And this is for the 17 period of April through June 1993. And the lines in the 18 lower side of the graph are Stanislaus River at Goodwin, 19 Tuolumne at LaGrange and Merced at Cressey. 20 Through the management of those flows, mostly by the 21 resource agencies in informal phone calls to the various 22 operators, coordinated the flows to achieve what you see at 23 Vernalis. 24 And the next overhead, Bill, is 1994, which is the same 25 plot. This is -- the 1994 plot is Figure 7 of Exhibit 1287 01 Number 8. 02 This shows the coordinated operations, again, done 03 mostly on an informal basis by the resource agencies, I 04 believe -- at least, the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and 05 Game and others were involved -- and shows how the flows in 06 the tributaries can be scheduled to achieve certain actions 07 at Vernalis or certain flows at Vernalis, in this case pulse 08 flows. 09 With that, it is my opinion that the formalizing of 10 these coordinations, the discussions between the parties, 11 the fact that we have a member from each of the signatories 12 to the agreement are party to the hydrology group, and the 13 hydrology group is open for anybody to come to that meeting, 14 and those forecasts will be made on a regular basis, 15 starting February 10th. That that form of coordinated 16 operations can give us the assurance to meet the target 17 flows in the agreement. 18 That it is all I have for Appendix B. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Van Camp. 20 Anything else? Any other portion of direct? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No, Mr. Chairman. We are ready for 22 cross-examination. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: By a showing of hands, can we see how 24 many parties wish to cross-examine this witness on this 25 portion of his direct. 1288 01 All right. We will start with Mr. Nomellini and then 02 will go to Mr. Suyeyasu and Mr. Herrick. Let's see. Oh, 03 Mr. Maddow, excuse me, sir. Mr. Jackson. All right, sir, 04 we will let you bat cleanup this time, Michael? 05 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Did I get everybody? 07 I have Nomellini, Suyeyasu, Herrick, Maddow and 08 Jackson for cross-examination in that order. 09 All right, good morning, Mr. Nomellini. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 12 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 13 BY CENTRAL DELTA AGENCY 14 BY MR. NOMELLINI 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Good morning. 16 For the record, Dante John Nomellini on behalf of the 17 Central Delta parties. 18 The definition of existing flow that exists in the 19 agreement does not appear to mention power releases. Am I 20 reading that correct, Mr. Van Camp? Or maybe you can tell 21 me what your understanding is. How are power releases 22 handled in the definition of existing flow? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: To answer your first question, I do not 24 see it in the written definition in the agreement. 25 I would like to ask what -- when are you wanting to 1289 01 identify power releases? 02 MR. NOMELLINI: As I understand your formula, you 03 forecast what the flow would have been according to this 04 formula that describes existing flow; is that correct? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Does this mean that the forecasted flow 07 excludes releases from power production? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: No. If an entity was releasing water 09 for power purposes, that would show up in their forecast. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Where in the definition of existing 11 flow would it show up? I am calling your attention to Page 12 4 of the proposed San Joaquin River Agreement, Paragraph 3.2 13 of definitions. 14 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not see it in that definition. It 15 would come out through the forecasts that are provided to 16 the hydrology group. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Is this definition in error, in your 18 opinion? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: No. It simply does not specifically 20 identify power releases. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: You're representing in your testimony 22 that it would be included, somehow, but not in this 23 definition? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: It identifies forecasted flows in the 25 text right above -- right after existing flows. That is 1290 01 where I believe it would be included. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to flood control releases 03 from a federal storage facility, such as New Melones, is 04 there any reasons those flows are not included in the 05 forecasted flows? What was your answer to that? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: Could you please ask the question 07 again. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any reason that flood control 09 releases from a federal facility, namely New Melones, would 10 not be included in the existing flow forecast? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not have an answer for you. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Based on the target flow versus 13 existing flow comparison, is it possible that in any year 14 the target flow would be lower than what would have 15 otherwise occurred under natural conditions? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. That is all I have. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 19 Mr. Suyeyasu. 20 Good morning. 21 ---oOo--- 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 1291 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 03 BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 04 BY MR. SUYEYASU 05 MR. SUYEYASU: Good morning. Dan Suyeyasu for the 06 Environmental Defense Fund. 07 Mr. Van Camp, if I could direct your attention to 08 Figure 1 of your testimony. That is it. 09 Now, in reading your testimony, my understanding of 10 your point of this figure is that within a given 11 hydrological classification, the existing flows at Vernalis 12 can be quite varied; is that correct? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: That is true. 14 Bill, you have the wrong overhead up. We are 15 addressing Figure 1, which is the bar graph that we did not 16 present, but was included in my testimony. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: That is correct. 18 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Can you pull it down so we can see 19 what water year it is. 20 MR. SUYEYASU: Critical. Does this graph suggest to 21 you that in the year 1961, when the existing flow at 22 Vernalis was approximately 300 cfs, that a target flow under 23 the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program could not be met? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: I would suggest when we look at 25 historical hydrology we wait for the subject of the 1292 01 testimony. 02 MR. SUYEYASU: Your point in including this figure in 03 the testimony is that the existing flows at Vernalis are 04 quite varied within a given hydrological year; is that 05 correct? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: The reason for this graph was to say we 07 needed a different trigger or tool to develop the target 08 flows rather than just year types. 09 MR. SUYEYASU: Why is it that you needed the different 10 trigger than -- 11 MR. VAN CAMP: Because of the variable flows. 12 MR. SUYEYASU: Why is it not possible to implement the 13 Vernalis Adaptive Management Experiment with the year types, 14 hydrological year types? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: This data that you see on the overhead, 16 which is part of Exhibit 8, Figure 1 of Exhibit 8, was 17 looked at early on in the process. And looking at the 18 variability, we move to a different tool to develop the 19 incremental improvement to flows. 20 So, beyond an initial look, we moved to a different 21 process which is the existing flow, bumping up from existing 22 flows, and using the indicator to come up with the 23 sequential dry year relaxation and double-step criteria. 24 MR. SUYEYASU: What in particular was the problem with 25 using this flow regimen? 1293 01 MR. VAN CAMP: What flow? 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What 03 flow regimen? 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Be a little more specific. 05 MR. SUYEYASU: What specifically was the problem with 06 using the hydrological year classifications of the critical 07 dry, above normal wet year to develop an experimental 08 design? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: The wide variability of flows within a 10 given year time. 11 MR. SUYEYASU: That is the wide variability at 12 Vernalis; is that correct? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct. 14 MR. SUYEYASU: Did you look at all in making this 15 assessment of what unpampered flows at Vernalis would be? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I did not. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: Would it change your assessment of 18 whether or not an experiment could be run off of the 19 hydrological year classification if you knew that in 1961, 20 for example, that DWR estimate of unimpaired flows was 9,000 21 cfs? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: The question is difficult to answer. I 23 did not look at unimpaired flows, so I have a tough time 24 answering that I would change my decision on whether it 25 could be used or not. 1294 01 MR. SUYEYASU: Under current management conditions on 02 the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, would the flows 03 for the 1961 hydrological conditions be higher than that 04 indicated in this figure? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Based on what? 06 MR. SUYEYASU: Based on the in-stream flow requirements 07 on the Merced, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Usually, I try to rule before people 09 keep talking, and I will sustain the objection. I 10 appreciate your -- I didn't mean to be facetious at your 11 experience, Mr. Suyeyasu. 12 I just want to remind everybody, if you have questions 13 or whatever, try to give them through the chair, try to wait 14 for me to answer. 15 But I am sustaining the objection, so go ahead. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, if you were to prepare a similar 17 graph as this in Figure 1, only looking at what the 18 in-stream flows -- looking at what the existing flows at 19 Vernalis would be under the current regulatory requirements 20 on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, would the flow 21 -- would the existing flow at Vernalis in 1961 be different 22 than that listed in this graph? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe, yes. 24 MR. SUYEYASU: And how would it be different? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe there has been an increase in 1295 01 in-stream flows on the Tuolumne system. 02 MR. SUYEYASU: Under the agreement if the existing flow 03 is determined to be 31 cfs at Vernalis, and the single-step 04 criteria is in effect, what would the target flow be? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 31 cfs? 06 MR. SUYEYASU: 3100, sorry. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That would really be low. 08 MR. VAN CAMP: The single-step criteria would indicate 09 that you would move to 3,200 cfs if the double- step 10 criteria for dry year, sequential or sequential dry year, 11 criteria did not come into play. You did not provide me 12 enough information on the previous years. 13 MR. SUYEYASU: If they were under the single- step 14 criteria, what would the total obligation of the tributary 15 parties be to provide this flow? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: I am not prepared to do that 17 calculation. You mean volume? 18 MR. SUYEYASU: Volume or cfs, the amount. 19 MR. VAN CAMP: It would be 100 cfs of supplemental 20 water. 21 MR. SUYEYASU: According to that same table, if the 22 existing flow was determined to be 3,200 cfs and the 23 single-step criteria is in effect, what would the target 24 flow be then? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: 4,450. 1296 01 MR. SUYEYASU: What would the total obligation of the 02 tributary parties be to provide the flow in cfs? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: If I'm doing my subtraction correctly, 04 that would be 1,250. 05 MR. SUYEYASU: Is it correct that, if there is a 100 06 cfs change in the existing flow, it would change the 07 obligation of the tributary parties by 1,150? 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. 09 MR. SUYEYASU: 1,300 cfs? 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That misstates the testimony, too. 11 You keep bouncing around the number. Get the number right. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, is your objection based on 13 the incorrect statement of the number? 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Objection sustained. 16 Please try the question again, Mr. Suyeyasu. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: So, is it correct that if there is a 100 18 cubic foot per second change in the existing flow, it would 19 trigger a change in the obligation of the parties by 1,150 20 cfs? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: In your specific example, yes. 22 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, do you know of other examples in 23 California or elsewhere where a small change in the forecast 24 -- a small change in the forecast can trigger a large change 25 in an in-stream flow requirement? 1297 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. SUYEYASU: What kind of examples do you know? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: In-stream flows on the Merced River are 04 dictated by an inflow projection, which is a number, and if 05 it is at or below that, it's a certain instream flow. If it 06 exceeds that, it is some larger number. 07 MR. SUYEYASU: Do you know of any other examples other 08 than the Merced? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: Offhand, no. 10 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, is it the case that in the Merced 11 example that you have given, that the party or parties 12 responsible for compliance with that instream flow 13 requirement are also the ones who determine what the 14 forecast will be on that river? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Could you say that again, please? 16 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, in the case of the Merced River, 17 are the party or parties who are responsible for providing 18 the instream flows under the flow requirement, also the 19 parties who determine what the forecasted water flows will 20 be that determine what the instream flow requirement is? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 22 MR. SUYEYASU: Do you know why it is that the same 23 parties do not establish what the forecasted flows will be 24 who also provide the instream flow required water? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I do not. 1298 01 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, under the San Joaquin River 02 Agreement, who is it that is allowed to serve on the 03 hydrological committee? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Each signatory has a representative for 05 the group. The technical committee can appoint others to 06 the hydrology group. The hydrology group as last year is 07 open for anybody to attend those meetings. 08 MR. SUYEYASU: People who attend those meetings who 09 have not been picked to be on that group by one of the 10 parties to the agreement, do they have any voting power 11 within the group? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: The hydrology group is simply advisory 13 to the technical committee. 14 MR. SUYEYASU: Who is allowed to serve on the technical 15 committee? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you know. 17 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know without looking at the 18 settlement agreement. 19 MR. SUYEYASU: So the hydrology group merely makes 20 recommendation to the technical committee; is that correct? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 22 MR. SUYEYASU: Must the technical group follow the 23 recommendations of the hydrology group? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not believe that is defined, 25 whether they have to. 1299 01 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, in assessing and in setting up the 02 criteria for establishing the existing flows at Vernalis, do 03 you know if the hydrology group will consider the water 04 taken out of the stream by the San Joaquin River Group 05 Authority members? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: Through the forecast, you mean? 07 MR. SUYEYASU: Yes. 08 MR. VAN CAMP: The forecast will provide a flow that is 09 at their downstream measuring locations; and, therefore, it 10 considers already what diversions they have taken out and 11 provide the forecasted flow that will be used by the 12 hydrology group to estimate the flow at Vernalis. 13 MR. SUYEYASU: If the members of the San Joaquin River 14 Group Authority decide to increase their diversions from the 15 stream during the pulse flow period, it would change the 16 estimate of existing flow made by that hydrology group? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: The forecasting of flows happens on a 18 regular basis. And that would show up in the changing 19 forecasts on a weekly basis or biweekly basis as we move 20 from February 10th to the test period. If there is changes 21 made in diversions or forecasts, those will be presented to 22 the group and questioned by all those involved. 23 Yes, changing conditions, accretions, can affect those 24 forecasts and depletions. 25 MR. SUYEYASU: So, if in the planning process the 1300 01 hydrology group has a forecast of 3,200 cfs of the existing 02 flow at the Vernalis, you said that there would be a 03 potential obligation to the tributary parties of 1,250 cfs, 04 assuming a single-step criteria; is that correct? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: If at the next hydrology group meeting, 07 one of the members of the San Joaquin River Group Authority 08 came forward and said, "We are going to increase our 09 diversions during the pulse flow period by 100 cfs," would 10 that change the total predicted obligations of the parties? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: Not directly. 12 MR. SUYEYASU: Why not directly? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: Because the flow in the river could 14 still be as the same forecasted flow as originally estimated 15 because of minimum in-stream flows or flood control 16 releases. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: Assuming that the minimum in-stream 18 flows and the flood control releases were the same as the 19 previous forecast, if the parties to the San Joaquin River 20 Group Authority decided to increase their diversions from 21 the stream by 100 cfs, would that reduce the predictions of 22 the forecasted flow at Vernalis? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 24 MR. SUYEYASU: Why not? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: Because the minimum in-stream flow would 1301 01 still be met, as with the previous forecast. The diversions 02 are occurring upstream of the minimum in-stream flows. 03 MR. SUYEYASU: Where are those minimum in-stream flows 04 required, at which points? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: Excuse me, for a second I want to pull 06 that up. 07 That is really part of the Division Agreement 08 testimony. Would you like me to go ahead and identify 09 those? 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Just go ahead and answer. 11 MR. VAN CAMP: As indicated, the parties will provide a 12 forecast of flows starting February 10th at their downstream 13 measuring locations that will be fed into the hydrology 14 group to estimate the Vernalis flow. 15 On the Merced that is at a gauge located on the Merced 16 River at Schaffer Bridge, or at Cressey. There is two 17 locations there because of accuracy of gauge at a certain 18 level. 19 For the Stanislaus, Oakdale Irrigation District/South 20 San Joaquin it is the Stanislaus River below Goodwin Dam 21 near Knights Ferry. 22 For Modesto and Turlock on the Tuolumne, it is the 23 Tuolumne River near LaGrange. 24 For the San Joaquin Exchange Contractors, there are 25 four locations. It is Salt Slough near the confluence with 1302 01 West Delta Drain. It is West Delta Drain near the 02 confluence with Salt Slough. It is boundary drain and 03 Orestimba Creek at Highway 33. 04 MR. SUYEYASU: The in-stream flow requirements on the 05 Merced, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, as well as those for the San 06 Joaquin Exchange Contractors, are established at these 07 points that you have listed? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: No. The reservoir operators will 09 provide their forecasts, which involved in their forecast 10 includes their understanding of meeting their in-stream flow 11 requirements. In the Exchange Contractors case, it is 12 handled slightly differently, where the flow at those 13 locations I identified is average for the week period before 14 the test period, and then flows above that average are to be 15 provided for the supplement water component. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: The week before the test period those 17 are measured at these compliance points you located to 18 determine what the existing flow will be during the test 19 period? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 21 MR. SUYEYASU: Is that correct? 22 They just take direct measurement of the flows at those 23 periods to determine the existing flows; is that correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: They have measuring facilities, 25 continuous measuring facilities at boundary drain and 1303 01 Orestimba Creek. The other two locations, they have a 02 checkerboard structure and are concerning installation of a 03 recording device to measure the flows at those locations, or 04 considering consolidating those two points into one 05 measuring location. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: If during this week before the pulse 07 flow period when the existing flows are measured, if the 08 parties to the San Joaquin River Agreement increase their 09 diversions by 100 cfs, would that reduce the predicted -- 10 the forecast of the existing flow during the test period? 11 MR. ROBBINS: That has been asked and answered 12 already. He's indicated that it would not. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to allow the answering. 14 Go ahead and answer it. 15 MR. VAN CAMP: As I indicated, the forecasted flows are 16 on the tributaries, the reservoir tributaries. So those 17 diversions would not impact that. The base flow of the 18 Exchange Contractors is determined a week before the test 19 period. And from that we measured. 20 MR. SUYEYASU: So, to establish the existing flow 21 outlined in the agreement, you take the base flow of the 22 tributary parties and combine that with the forecasted flows 23 from the projects; is that correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: You were not clear on -- 25 MR. SUYEYASU: I am sorry. Let me -- strike that 1304 01 question. 02 Is there any way for the parties to the San Joaquin 03 River Agreement, the tributary interest parties to the 04 agreement, to change through their behavior up and until the 05 test flow period what the existing flow will be during the 06 test period? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: Through the checks and balances of the 08 hydrology group, the forecast being provided -- I believe, 09 any adjustments that are out of the ordinary would be caught 10 by the hydrology group. 11 I do not anticipate any last minute adjustments to 12 effect the existing flow which, as you point out in your 13 example, is only at the break points in the existing flow 14 table, which I think would occur on a very infrequent 15 basis. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: You stated that you did not expect any 17 adjustments. What type of adjustments are you referring to 18 that might influence the determination of existing flow? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I was referring to your example of 20 somebody increasing diversion at the last minute. 21 MR. SUYEYASU: The initial assessments of existing flow 22 at Vernalis during the pulse flow period is made in 23 February; is that correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 25 MR. SUYEYASU: And that initial assessment in February 1305 01 does consider what the predicted depletions by the tributary 02 parties will be during the pulse flow period; is that 03 correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: It has a standard estimate of 05 accretion/depletion. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: So, there will be a period during which 07 such adjustments can be made from February until the 08 April/May pulse flow period; is that correct? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: Adjustments to the forecast will be 10 made on a regular basis. 11 MR. SUYEYASU: Adjustments to tributary party 12 depletion levels can also be made during that period; is 13 that correct? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Certainly, irrigators must have the 15 opportunity to change their demands from February on. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, would those adjustments from 17 February on change the prediction of existing flow at 18 Vernalis? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: It could. 20 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, you said that any such last minute 21 adjustments would be, I think I believe you said, would be 22 caught by the hydrology group. 23 What did you mean by that? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: I mean recognized. If somebody changes 25 operations in what you have provided as your examples, those 1306 01 would be seen in those forecasted flows. 02 MR. SUYEYASU: Would the hydrology group object to 03 those changes in the operations by a tributary party? 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for speculation. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, you said that those adjustments 07 would be caught by the hydrology group. What would they do 08 when they caught those adjustments? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: I think that is up to the hydrology 10 group, which we have not, and they would make a 11 recommendation to the technical group. 12 MR. SUYEYASU: If the technical committee decided to 13 not follow that recommendation, but, in fact, established an 14 existing flow based on the increased depletions by the 15 tributary parties to, quote-unquote, adjustments that you 16 identified, would that have the potential to change what the 17 target flows were during the test flow period? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: If they were -- adjustments were big 19 enough and right at the brink of the range of flows shown on 20 the table. So, I believe it is a very infrequent potential 21 occurrence. 22 MR. SUYEYASU: Once again, who is it that serves on 23 the technical committee? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: The Appendix B currently lists the 25 entities: the Bureau, DWR, and members of the San Joaquin 1307 01 River Group. But it identifies that each signatory to the 02 agreement are to be involved in the hydrology group. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: He said technical group. 04 MR. VAN CAMP: I apologize. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Just for the record you're going to 06 correct yourself and respond to the technical committee 07 rather than the advisory group? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. My previous answer was relative to 09 the hydrology group. I believe the make-up of the technical 10 group is defined in the agreement in Paragraph 11. 11 MR. SUYEYASU: Are any of the parties who would be 12 assigning people to the technical committee also those who 13 will be obligated to provide flows under the San Joaquin 14 River Agreement? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. Signatories to the agreement will 16 be participating in the technical committee. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: So, the people who obligated to provide 18 the flows for the San Joaquin River Agreement are the same 19 people who are determining what the existing flow on the 20 stream will be; is that correct? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: A portion. The technical committee, I 22 believe, is made up of more than just those providing the 23 flows. 24 MR. SUYEYASU: But they will be on the technical 25 committee; is that correct? 1308 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. SUYEYASU: Do you see any conflict of interest in 03 that arrangement? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Not with the checks and balances I have 05 identified in Appendix B through the forecasting of flows, 06 and all signatories in the open meetings that will be 07 involved. 08 MR. SUYEYASU: And Appendix B outlines the hydrology 09 group; is that correct? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 11 MR. SUYEYASU: And the hydrology group only makes 12 advisory opinions to the technical committee; is that 13 correct. 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 15 MR. SUYEYASU: And you consider that a check and a 16 balance? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 18 MR. SUYEYASU: No further questions. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Suyeyasu. 20 Mr. Herrick, your turn to cross-examine this witness. 21 Good morning, sir, welcome. 22 ---oOo--- 23 // 24 // 25 // 1309 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 03 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 04 BY MR. HERRICK 05 MR. HERRICK: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 06 and Board Members. 07 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 08 Mr. Van Camp, I just have a few questions. I want to 09 make it clear for the record here the hydrology group is 10 making forecasts of the following week's flows or following 11 months flows when they are developing their existing flows; 12 what time period are they forecasting? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: The forecasts will certainly cover the 14 pulse flow period and likely go past the pulse flow period. 15 MR. HERRICK: So, if they do it in February, they are 16 forecasting April, May and then each one subsequent to that 17 is still forecasting April/May, correct? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: And beyond, yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you talk about the 20 forecasted average flow. Can you explain what is being 21 averaged? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: It is the average flow during the test 23 period. So, the forecasted flow at Vernalis over a 31-day 24 period, which is the test period, the daily flow is averaged 25 to come up with the existing flow. 1310 01 MR. HERRICK: Does that calculation have anything to do 02 with prior years of that year type or is it just that year's 03 flows? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: It is based on that year's flows. 05 MR. HERRICK: In response to a question by Mr. 06 Nomellini you said you believed releases for power 07 generations were included in existing flows; is that 08 correct? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: The power releases are discretionary by 10 the parties that run those power projects. 11 MR. HERRICK: By "discretionary," you mean there is a 12 time frame in which they can make those releases, it is not 13 narrowed down too much; is that correct? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: So, would it be correct to say in one 16 year for power generation purposes a signatory to this might 17 make releases during March of that year? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: For power generation? 19 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 20 MR. VAN CAMP: That is a possibility. 21 MR. HERRICK: Could they also do it for April? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Not to belabor the point, but for May, 24 also? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: It is discretionary. 1311 01 MR. HERRICK: At what point, if you know, do these 02 people that make -- these entities that make power releases 03 decide when they are going to make those releases? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: I assume during the time period that 05 they are finalizing their forecasts. 06 MR. HERRICK: In the consideration of developing the 07 existing flow, are you aware of any criteria or requirements 08 that would force the hydrology group to recognize changes 09 for power releases? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Any requirement for -- can you say that 11 again. 12 MR. HERRICK: Let me restate it again. 13 If somebody historically has made a power generation 14 release in April, and then they decide to make that some 15 other time, does that affect the existing flow 16 calculations? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: It would affect the existing flow. 18 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Suyeyasu was asking you about checks 19 and balances. Are there any criteria or regulations or 20 rules that the hydrology group has with regards to changes 21 made by parties that affect flow? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: No rules. The hydrology group would 23 identify that change in operation. 24 MR. HERRICK: Are you -- similar question about the 25 technical committee. Are there any rules or criteria or 1312 01 regulations binding them in such matters if a party has made 02 changes to flows that affect the existing flows? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: I don't know. 04 MR. HERRICK: When they are forecasting the existing 05 flow, does it take into consideration any diversions that 06 may be occurring between the release points and the measure 07 points? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Between the release points and 09 measuring points? 10 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of any diversions between 11 the releases that go into existing flow and the measuring 12 points? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You mean at Vernalis or do you mean 14 the measuring points in the various tributaries? 15 MR. HERRICK: It is my understanding from your 16 testimony that there were measuring points in the various 17 tributaries downstream of the reservoirs except for the 18 Exchange Contractors, and it is at that point that they are 19 making the forecast for flows; is that correct? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: I am asking you if you know of any 22 diversions in-between the point where the water is being 23 released, the reservoir, and the point where they are 24 measured? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: Those are taken into account in their 1313 01 forecast. 02 MR. HERRICK: You also talked about accretions to the 03 river being taken into account, correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: What methodology will the hydrology group 06 be using to estimate these accretions? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know at this time. 08 MR. HERRICK: As far as you know, there is no check on 09 what method they will be using to measure those accretions? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Those technical representatives will 11 agree on what accretions/depletions to include in the 12 existing flow forecast. 13 MR. HERRICK: I believe that you said that the 14 hydrology group will also come up with an operations plan to 15 decide on how the supplemental flow will be provided; is 16 that correct? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: Are you suggesting or saying, then, that 19 once they decide how much water is needed, they have 20 flexibility in determining where that water comes from? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: The hydrology group needs to schedule 22 that flow to meet the requests of the biologists and the 23 technical group in meeting the target flows. 24 MR. HERRICK: They could get it different places; is 25 that correct? 1314 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. HERRICK: Your testimony talks about double step 03 and the sequential dry year relaxation, correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: Have you determined the probability in 06 this 12-year period of the VAMP agreement, of the San 07 Joaquin River Agreement, the probability that the double 08 step will occur? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I have not. 10 MR. HERRICK: Have you done the calculation to 11 determine probability for whether or not the relaxation 12 standard will occur? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: I have not. 14 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any calculation to 15 determine the number of years in which the VAMP flows may 16 not be met under this program? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: I have not. 18 MR. HERRICK: Have you done a comparison of the flows 19 set forth in your testimony with the 1995 Water Quality 20 Control Plan flows? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 22 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any investigation to 23 determine whether or not the existing flows are sufficient 24 to meet downstream riparian needs? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 1315 01 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. 02 Thank you. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 04 Mr. Maddow. 05 ---oOo--- 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 07 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 08 BY CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 09 BY MR. MADDOW 10 MR. MADDOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 11 Board. I am Robert Maddow appearing on behalf of the Contra 12 Costa Water District. I would like to acknowledge the 13 presence of the historic Bay-Delta tables this morning, 14 which are a throwback and a help. 15 Good morning, Mr. Van Camp. 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Good morning. 17 MR. MADDOW: I have been very interested in the 18 colloquy in which wick you have been having with the 19 previous two examiners about the checks and balances and 20 have a couple of questions along those lines, just to be 21 sure that I understand them. 22 I would like to, by way of context, simply have you 23 remember that my client takes its water supply from Old 24 River and from Rock Slough. And in that respect, my client 25 is interested in how these decisions that you have been 1316 01 talking about would be made. 02 My first question is: Do you anticipate that during 03 the period of time, from the beginning of the forecasts 04 through the test flow period, that the groups, the hydrology 05 group and the technical committee, will be meeting 06 constantly? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: The Appendix B calls for them meeting 08 biweekly and then weekly to review the forecasts and review 09 more current and accurate numbers, yes. 10 MR. MADDOW: I noted in testimony in Exhibit 9 for a 11 number of years you have particularly been a consultant to 12 the Merced Irrigation District. 13 Is that correct? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 15 MR. MADDOW: Just using the Merced example, and not 16 using the names of individuals, could you give me an idea 17 who you might anticipate would be the Merced Irrigation 18 District's representative on the hydrology group, on the 19 technical group, on the management committee? Would it be 20 the same people on all three or are there different 21 individuals? That is what I am trying to get. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you know. 23 MR. MADDOW: If you know. Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to ask the attorneys, mostly 25 Mr. O'Laughlin, I appreciate your protection of your client 1317 01 there, but to minimize the colloquies and work through the 02 Chair, gentlemen, by your questions. 03 Thank you. 04 Go ahead, Mr. Maddow. 05 MR. MADDOW: Did you understand the question, Mr. Van 06 Camp? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. I do not believe that it would be 08 required to be the same person on each of those groups. 09 MR. MADDOW: Since the hydrology group will be making 10 recommendations to the technical committee, it's actually 11 the technical committee that has the key decision making 12 role with regard to whether or not supplement flows will be 13 required of the members of the San Joaquin River Group 14 Authority. 15 Is that correct? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 17 MR. MADDOW: As I understand your discussion with Mr. 18 Suyeyasu about checks and balances, one of the checks and 19 balances is that there is a unanimous voting requirement for 20 that committee; is that correct? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know offhand. 22 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. 23 You talked about the forecast period, the period during 24 the year when forecasts would be made and the test flow 25 period, Mr. Van Camp. Would the hydrology group's 1318 01 recommendations for the technical committee's decisions have 02 any impact on the operations of the San Joaquin River Group 03 Authority members in periods other than the pulse flow 04 period? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: Can you please go over that again? 06 MR. MADDOW: Would the decisions of the hydrology group 07 and the technical group -- excuse me, let me start 08 again, please. 09 Would the recommendations of the hydrology group and 10 the decisions of the technical committee ever have an impact 11 on the operations of members of the San Joaquin River Group 12 Authority in periods other than pulse flow periods? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know. 14 MR. MADDOW: As you understand the role of the 15 hydrology group, in particular, and the technical committee, 16 in particular, Mr. Van Camp, would there ever be a situation 17 in which the decisions, recommendations and decisions, would 18 take into consideration any Water Quality Control Plan 19 objectives other than Vernalis flows? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: This is set up to meet a test flow 21 target at Vernalis, only. 22 MR. MADDOW: Referring to Appendix B on Page 1, which 23 is, again, the topic of your Exhibit Number 8, I guess, 24 just looking at Page 1 of Appendix B in the second 25 paragraph, there is a reference to: 1319 01 The directly linked operation of the fishery 02 barrier at the head of Old River. 03 (Reading.) 04 Do you see that, Mr. Van Camp? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do. 06 MR. MADDOW: Does the framework for operations of the 07 VAMP include any consideration of any barriers other than 08 the head of Old River barrier? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: That is part of the VAMP. I am trying 10 to testify to Appendix B. I don't have an answer for you. 11 MR. MADDOW: You had quite a dialogue with Mr. 12 Suyeyasu about changes, adjustments, that might be made, 13 which might then have an impact on the flow obligations of 14 the signatories to the agreement. 15 As I understand it, you have participated in the 16 Bay-Delta proceedings before this Board for almost 15 years, 17 Mr. Van Camp; is that correct? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 19 MR. MADDOW: Given your expertise, would you consider 20 the VAMP to now be essentially establishing a new form of 21 priority for the San Joaquin River Group Authority members? 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for legal 23 conclusion. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I will sustain the objection. 25 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Van Camp, I take it that you are 1320 01 familiar with the water rights priority system which exists 02 in California law from your practice as an expert in 03 hydrology; is that correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 05 MR. MADDOW: I am not asking for a legal conclusion in 06 this, Mr. Van Camp. I would simply like to know whether, in 07 the scheduling of the releases that will be a part of the 08 operations of the signatories to the group, would you 09 consider these decisions by the technical committee to 10 constitute a new obligation which these water rights holders 11 will be facing? 12 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion, 13 which the Chair has already ruled on. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize before you go any further 15 with your objection. I was in consultation up here and was 16 distracted and did not hear the question. I will have to 17 either have the Court Reporter read it back, unless Mr. 18 Maddow wants to repeat it. 19 MR. SEXTON: I have a secondary objection. To the 20 extent that the Chair would rule that it does not call for a 21 legal conclusion, then the witness' testimony, the subject 22 is totally irrelevant. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you read back the question? 24 (Record read as requested.) 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Objection sustained. 1321 01 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Chairman, in view of the Exhibit 8 02 and Exhibit 9 sort of crossover, I have some other questions 03 along that line, but I think they may be more appropriate 04 when we get to the division agreements, so I will stop at 05 this point. 06 Thank you. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Maddow. 08 Mr. Jackson. 09 MR. JACKSON: I got here late, almost late, did I 10 understand that Mr. Van Camp will testify later in regard to 11 the division agreement? 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is correct. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: That is correct. 14 MR. JACKSON: Then I have no questions for him at this 15 point. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 17 Mr. O'Laughlin, did you wish to offer any redirect at 18 this time? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If I could take a short break. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I have 21 overlooked our staff. I was on a roll here. I didn't mean 22 to imply that your questions are not important, to the 23 staff. Does the staff have any questions? 24 MR. HOWARD: I have one question. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: We have one question from Mr. Howard. 1322 01 You are certainly allowed more than one, Mr. Howard. 02 Go ahead. 03 ---oOo--- 04 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 05 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 06 BY STAFF 07 MR. HOWARD: Have you or the San Joaquin River Group 08 done any studies to estimate your ability to predict flows 09 at Vernalis? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Well, the past operations that I showed 11 for '93, '94, is -- would be my answer to that, the fact 12 that they coordinated operations to meet a certain flow. I 13 have not tested what was actually at Vernalis as compared to 14 what they were shooting for. But it shows that that 15 operation can put a flow in the river at Vernalis showing 16 the pulse flows that we saw in the graph, and this year 17 operations were being forecasted. Of course, then Mother 18 Nature took over and we lost control of the system. 19 MS. WHITNEY: That actually leads into my question. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: That question is from Ms. Whitney. 21 MS. WHITNEY: In response to a question from Mr. 22 Nomellini, you said that there were no instances where the 23 target flows would be less than the existing flows. But 24 that is not the case in really wet years like this year; is 25 that correct? 1323 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Well, that is a detail. At a point in 02 the Appendix B when the flows go out of control, at times it 03 could be desirable to have a constant flow of 7,000 for a 04 target or for a data point. And the parties will try to 05 meet that target flow, if possible. But at times when the 06 flow goes out of control, then there is not much any of us 07 can do. 08 MS. WHITNEY: That is what happened this year, correct? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything else from the staff? 11 How about the Board Members, any questions? 12 Mr. Stubchaer has a question. 13 ---oOo--- 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 15 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 16 BY BOARD MEMBERS 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is the reason the single-step criteria 18 was selected instead of a ramp function because the fishery 19 biologists wanted certain flow levels so they could test the 20 effectiveness of the adaptive management plan? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe that is correct. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Any other questions from Board Members? 24 Mr. Pettit? 25 MR. PETTIT: No, sir. 1324 01 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Now I am at the point where 02 I can ask Mr. O'Laughlin if he wishes to offer any redirect 03 from this witness. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If I might, Chairman Caffrey, I would 05 like to take five minutes. As you know, I am representing a 06 wide range of people here today and have a short conference 07 with them, and then come back, if we could maybe take our 08 morning break. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: As always your timing is perfect. Let's 10 take our 12-minute break, and that will give you the time 11 you need. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 13 (Break taken.) 14 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 15 Mr. O'Laughlin. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The first person who would like to ask 17 redirect questions is Mr. Michael Sexton. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Good morning, Mr. Sexton. 19 ---oOo--- 20 REDIRECT TESTIMONY OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 21 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 22 BY MR. SEXTON AND MR. ROBBINS 23 MR. SEXTON: Morning, Mr. Caffrey, Members of the 24 Board. My name is Michael Sexton, the attorney for the 25 Exchange Contractors and Co-counsel for the San Joaquin 1325 01 River Group Authority. 02 Mr. Van Camp, do you recall during your 03 cross-examination you were asked some questions about checks 04 and balances, sir? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 06 MR. SEXTON: Would referring to the San Joaquin River 07 Agreement, itself, assist you in responding to some of those 08 questions regarding, for example, the makeup of the 09 technical committee? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 11 MR. SEXTON: Could I refer you, for example, sir, to 12 the San Joaquin River Agreement, first page, Paragraph 1.1. 13 Do you see in that the California Department of Fish and 14 Game is a party to the agreement? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 16 MR. SEXTON: Looking down at the next paragraph, do you 17 also see that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is 18 a party to the agreement? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. 20 MR. SEXTON: I refer you now over to Paragraph 11 on 21 page -- start with Page 15. At the top of the page there is 22 a Paragraph 11.3. 23 Do you see that, sir? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do. 25 MR. SEXTON: You see it starting on the second line who 1326 01 representatives to the technical committee would be made up 02 of. Could you explain that please. 03 MR. VAN CAMP: It indicates that representatives shall 04 be made up of technical specialists in engineering, 05 hydrology and aquatic science. 06 MR. SEXTON: Looking back at Paragraph 11.1 on the 07 previous page -- 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 09 MR. SEXTON: Could you review, starting, like, on the 10 fourth line there, where it says "each party." 11 MR. SUYEYASU: I would like to object. I think this 12 agreement speaks for itself. He is merely calling for the 13 witness to read from the agreement. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to overrule the objection. 15 We've been proceeding all through this entire hearing 16 allowing people to make reference to documents. In fact, 17 we've had situations where people have been cross-examining, 18 and you know who you are, have read paragraphs to people, 19 and asked them if that was correct. It was right out of 20 their direct. So, we have established that procedure, and I 21 am going to overrule the objection. 22 MR. SEXTON: Does the sentence that I have just 23 referred you to, Mr. Van Camp, refresh your recollection on 24 which parties or on the makeup of the technical committee? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. It indicates that each party shall 1327 01 have the right to place a technical person on the 02 committee. 03 MR. SEXTON: About three-quarters of the way down the 04 paragraph there is a sentence beginning, "The SJRGTC shall 05 make its decisions." 06 Could you read that sentence, and I would ask you if 07 that refreshes your recollection as to whether the technical 08 committee must take action by unanimous vote. 09 MR. VAN CAMP: The SJRTC shall make its decision by 10 consensus, which allows any party representative to veto any 11 decision or action by the SJRTC, provided that a 12 recommendation by any member or invited technical specialist 13 shall be forwarded to a management committee. 14 MR. SEXTON: So, for example, a member of U.S. Fish and 15 Wildlife Service who serves on the technical committee could 16 veto any decision made by the technical committee? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 18 MR. SEXTON: Likewise, any member from the Department 19 of Fish and Game serving on the technical committee could 20 likewise veto any decision by the technical? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 22 MR. SEXTON: If the gentleman from the Environmental 23 Defense Fund chose to sign this agreement and placed a party 24 on the technical committee, then he, too, could veto any 25 action of the committee? 1328 01 MR VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. SEXTON: No further questions. 03 Thank you, sir. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 05 Are there others wishing to -- 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: One more, Mr. Caffrey. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Robbins. Good morning, sir. 08 MR. ROBBINS: Ken Robbins for Merced Irrigation and the 09 Joaquin River Group. 10 Mr. Van Camp, I just wanted to talk a little bit about 11 -- get some clarification from you relative to the issue of 12 power flows. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Robbins. 14 Mr. Jackson. 15 MR. JACKSON: Is this another direct by two lawyers 16 from the same party? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, it is. This entire presentation, 18 as I understand it, the entire presentation of the case in 19 chief of the San Joaquin River Group is a combination of 20 parties, and cases in chief for that matter, and it was my 21 understanding that some of these witnesses would be 22 presented on group, if that is -- 23 MR. JACKSON: I understood that the groups would be 24 presented. How many lawyers do you get in the group to do 25 direct examination or redirect? 1329 01 MR. ROBBINS: That sounds like the beginning of a bad 02 joke. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Gentlemen, I am not at the point where, 04 as hearing officer, I am ready to take my legal advice from 05 the parties, although on occasion I'll base my rulings on 06 some of your advice, obviously. But what I want to do here 07 is go to our counsel, Ms. Leidigh, with her expertise on 08 regulations and see if there is anything that disallows this 09 kind of procedure. 10 Ms. Leidigh, please, your thought. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Actually nothing is really spotting 12 here, says anything about number of attorneys who can 13 present. But it is the Board's normal practice to have only 14 one person asking questions, one attorney representative 15 asking questions, on behalf of a party. 16 I think that you could give permission in special 17 instances like this to do that, where it is obvious that 18 they have prepared to ask these questions separately. But 19 it is normally Board's practice to require only one person 20 to come up and represent parties. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Ms. Leidigh. 22 As Ms. Leidigh states, it is the authority of the 23 hearing officer to grant permission for an exception to that 24 normal practice even though it is not specified in the 25 regulations; I will grant that permission inasmuch as we 1330 01 have the departure from the norm, anyway, in this particular 02 presentation of this combined case in chief. So, I 03 understand that this redirect is limited to these two 04 attorneys asking questions. 05 Is that right, Mr. O'Laughlin? 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is correct, Mr. Caffrey. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Please proceed. 08 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Van Camp, we are going to talk a 09 little bit about the issue concerning the power releases for 10 the power licenses, if you will. You were asked a question 11 concerning power releases and whether they were included in 12 definition of existing flow as it were. And I believe you 13 indicated that it would be found in the forecast. 14 Is that correct? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct, if they were there. 16 MR. ROBBINS: Are you aware of power releases that 17 occur on the San Joaquin River system at the last points of 18 control on the tributaries that are purely power releases? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I am not. 20 MR. ROBBINS: Do the agencies that control the last 21 points of storage on those tributaries normally generate 22 power with water released? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Not just solely for power generation. 24 That generation is normally made in connection with releases 25 for other purposes. 1331 01 MR. ROBBINS: If power is being generated with flows 02 that are being released, for instance, for flood control, 03 would that show up in your calculation of existing flow? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 05 MR. ROBBINS: Let's assume, though, for hypothetical 06 purposes that one of the facilities on the San Joaquin River 07 system was releasing water under its power licenses, and it 08 had no other purposes. It wasn't existing flow. There 09 wasn't power -- strike that. It wasn't flood control 10 release. It was not in-stream flow requirements. It was 11 not water for diversion. It was strictly under a power 12 license. 13 We know you testified that doesn't occur, but let's 14 assume that it did. 15 Would that show up under your definition of existing 16 flow? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: In the forecasted flows? 18 MR. ROBBINS: You would see it in the forecast, but is 19 it part of the definition of existing flow? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 21 MR. ROBBINS: Can you show me under Paragraph 3.2 where 22 it is part of -- 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Excuse me, it is not in the definition 24 and would not be part of existing flow. 25 MR. ROBBINS: So, water released purely for power 1332 01 purposes would not be -- you would see it in the forecast 02 and you would account for it, but it would not be part of 03 the definition of existing flow; is that correct? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 05 MR. ROBBINS: What would be the effects of that? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: That would put more water in the system 07 than originally called for under the supplemental water 08 requirements. 09 MR. ROBBINS: I also draw your attention to Section 3.2 10 of the San Joaquin River Agreement, Subsection C. 11 Flood control releases from any non federal 12 storage facility. (Reading.) 13 What that means is that flood control releases from 14 either Don Pedro or Exchequer; is that correct? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 16 MR. ROBBINS: Or potentially upstream of New Melones, 17 if being passed through New Melones? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 19 MR. ROBBINS: Do you recall why flood control releases 20 from federal storage facilities were not included in the 21 definition of existing flow? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: The existing flow was made without those 23 so that those floods control releases would be an increment 24 above the supplemental flow. 25 MR. ROBBINS: So, it is your testimony that if, in 1333 01 fact, a federal storage facility were releasing flood 02 control releases, that would not affect existing flow? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 04 MR. ROBBINS: No further questions. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins. 06 That completes the redirect, then, Mr. O'Laughlin? 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, it does, Mr. Caffrey. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Any parties wishing to recross? 09 Mr. Maddow, Mr. Suyeyasu, Mr. Nomellini and Mr. 10 Herrick. 11 Did I miss anybody? I have Maddow, Suyeyasu, Nomellini 12 and Herrick with regard to recross-examination. I remind 13 everybody, unlike cross-examination which can go a little 14 bit beyond or somewhat beyond the scope of the direct 15 testimony, recross is limited to the scope of redirect. 16 With that reminder, then, let us begin with Mr. 17 Maddow. I am going to ask Mr. Stubchaer and the other Board 18 Members to not hesitate to raise the issue if they think we 19 are going beyond what the scope of the redirect was. 20 So please proceed, Mr. Maddow. 21 ---oOo--- 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 1334 01 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 03 BY CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 04 BY MR. MADDOW 05 MR. MADDOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Robert Maddow 06 for Contra Costa Water District. 07 One question, Mr. Van Camp, Mr. Sexton reviewed with 08 you a portion of Paragraph 11.1 of the San Joaquin River 09 Settlement Agreement concerning the veto authority. 10 Can you tell us your understanding of the results of 11 the exerciser of the veto by any member of the technical 12 committee? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: It would be forwarded to the management 14 committee. 15 MR. MADDOW: And the management committee is also 16 described in the settlement agreement? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 18 MR. MADDOW: And contains veto language; is that 19 correct? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 21 MR. MADDOW: The question then is: If these vetoes are 22 exercised at those levels, what is the default position? 23 Strike that, Mr. Chairman. Let me be more precise. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Maddow. 25 MR. MADDOW: In the event that the decisions of the 1335 01 technical committee and management committee result in a 02 veto, what I am trying to ascertain, Mr. Van Camp, what 03 would then govern the operations that would otherwise have 04 been covered by this settlement agreement? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: That is covered -- the parties would 06 try in good faith -- this is covered in Item 11-6 of the 07 agreement, which is on page 15 -- on a schedule and move 08 into the issues and mediation as described in other sections 09 of the agreement. 10 MR. MADDOW: So, there is a dispute resolution process 11 that follows on the veto you went through with Mr. Sexton? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 13 MR. MADDOW: My question is: What occurs if that 14 dispute resolution process has not worked and there is a 15 remaining dispute growing out of the work of the hydrology 16 committee, technical committee, management committee, 17 dispute resolution process? All these checks and balances 18 have been exercised. 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know offhand. 20 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 22 Mr. Suyeyasu. 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // 1336 01 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 03 BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 04 BY MR. SUYEYASU 05 MR. SUYEYASU: Mr. Van Camp, you stated that if I 06 decided to approve the San Joaquin or sign the San Joaquin 07 River Agreement, that I could serve on the technical 08 committee and have a veto power over that committee; is that 09 correct? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 11 MR. SUYEYASU: If I were to sign the San Joaquin River 12 Agreement, I would also have to endorse the use of a 13 hatchery-bred fish to do a study within the San Joaquin 14 River Bay-Delta; is that correct? 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Outside the scope of 16 testimony. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: It is beyond your area of expertise? 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Not only that; it is beyond the scope 19 of the redirect. What hatchery fish has to do with -- 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Of course it is certainly that. 21 You will have to forget that question, Mr. Suyeyasu. 22 As I stated earlier, the scope of redirect is limited to the 23 actual redirect scope. So you can't go beyond what the 24 nature of the questioning and answering was in redirect. 25 MR. SUYEYASU: In the direct examination a question was 1337 01 asked of this witness, what would happen if I were to 02 approve the San Joaquin River Agreement. I am exploring the 03 further implications of that beyond just my ability to veto. 04 There are large implications of my signing it that I think 05 may be proper. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Nevertheless, I believe you would have 07 to handle that in some other aspect of the hearing, such as 08 your summation or at some other opportunity, your rebuttal. 09 But the rules are pretty clear in the regulations on what 10 redirect and recross is all about. Otherwise we would be 11 going through everything all over again. So, that is why 12 there are those limitations. 13 You will have those, sir, other opportunities, to make 14 your argument or to make your case as we have just 15 delineated. 16 Go ahead. 17 MR. SUYEYASU: You also stated that the Fish and 18 Wildlife Service will be on the technical committee; is 19 that correct? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 21 MR. SUYEYASU: And that a representative of Fish and 22 Wildlife Service would have this veto authority; is that 23 correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 25 MR. SUYEYASU: Do you know if anyone from the Fish and 1338 01 Wildlife Service has committed to attend all the technical 02 committee meetings? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: I could not know. 04 MR. SUYEYASU: The Fish and Wildlife Service is an 05 agency of the United States Government; is that correct? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: That is my understanding. 07 MR. SUYEYASU: They are within the Department of the 08 Interior? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin, that is not that 10 obvious to a lot of people. I am sorry, that is humor. A 11 poor attempt at it, I might add. 12 I know what kind of things are said about the Water 13 Board. I am not picking on any federal agency. 14 MR. BRANDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Suyeyasu. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: They are an agency within the Department 17 of the Interior; is that correct? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe so. 19 MR. SUYEYASU: Ultimately, the Secretary of the 20 Interior controls what is done with the Fish and Wildlife 21 Service; is that correct? 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for legal 23 conclusion. 24 MR. BRANDT: Calls for speculation. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. 1339 01 MR. SUYEYASU: If I might respond? 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 03 MR. SUYEYASU: This gentleman has suggested that the 04 presence of the Fish and Wildlife Service on the technical 05 committee serves as some sort of check and balance. I think 06 it is fair for me to establish that the Fish and Wildlife 07 Service is part of a larger political picture, and they are 08 not always just looking out for the fish. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. O'Laughlin. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If that is what he is trying to do, 11 then that is outside the scope of the redirect that was 12 done. He can bring that up in either his rebuttal case or 13 his closing argument. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. I think that is -- again, I think 15 that is the same kind of situation that we had before. I am 16 inclined to agree with Mr. O'Laughlin. I am also getting 17 the same intimations coming from both ears, going into both 18 ears from my fellow Board Members. 19 Again, you will have an opportunity to make those 20 arguments in your summation, perhaps in your rebuttal. 21 Go ahead. 22 MR. SUYEYASU: Now, as you stated to Mr. Maddow, if 23 somebody on the technical committee essentially vetoes a 24 decision of the technical committee, then that decision gets 25 passed on to the management committee; is that correct? 1340 01 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, I didn't hear the objection. 03 MR. SEXTON: Asked and answered. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it has been asked and answered. 05 Try another question, Mr. Suyeyasu. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: When a matter goes to the mediation 07 process that is set forth in agreement, who pays for that 08 mediation process? 09 MR. SEXTON: Objection. The document speaks for itself 10 on that subject. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to overrule the objection. 12 We have allowed people to read from the document in the 13 past. 14 Go ahead, answer the question. 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Paragraph 14 in the agreement is 16 relative to mediation. I could certainly read it, but I am 17 certainly not the best qualified to interpret that mediation 18 clause. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. I was in a consultation here 20 with another Board Member, who was asking me a question. 21 Repeat your answer, sir. 22 MR. VAN CAMP: The mediation clause is contained on 23 Page 17 of the agreement under Paragraph 14. I could 24 certainly read it, but I'm not the best to interpret that. 25 It's kind of a legal opinion. 1341 01 C.O. CAFFREY: What are you asking for here again? 02 MR. SUYEYASU: I'm asking who pays for the mediation 03 costs if that provision is -- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you know the answer to that question? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: That's the answer. 07 Go on to the next question. 08 MR. SUYEYASU: Would you please read the first sentence 09 of Paragraph 14.3 of the San Joaquin River Agreement. 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Mediation costs shall be divided as 11 follows: 50 percent paid by the party or parties asserting 12 a veto and 50 percent by the remaining party or parties. 13 MR. SUYEYASU: No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Suyeyasu. 15 Mr. Nomellini. 16 ---oOo--- 17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 18 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 19 BY CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY 20 BY MR. NOMELLINI 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for the Central 22 Delta parties. 23 Mr. Van Camp, calling your attention to Page 2 of 24 Exhibit 8, which is your testimony, and Paragraph 9 on that 25 page, you indicate: 1342 01 The use of forecasted flow ("existing flow"). 02 (Reading.) 03 Did you intend that to mean that forecasted flow was 04 the same as existing flow as defined in the San Joaquin 05 River Agreement? 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. This is outside the scope 07 of the redirect. 08 MR. NOMELLNI: Oh, it is not. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay, give it a try, Mr. Nomellini. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: The questioning by Mr. Robbins was in 11 regard to the existing flow definition. What I had done on 12 direct was ask questions as to whether or not power releases 13 were included in that and whether or not releases from 14 federal -- flood releases from federal facilities were 15 included in that. Then the redirect came up, questioned Mr. 16 Van Camp as to the inclusion of those two, trying to 17 establish, and what I thought I heard was they were trying 18 to establish a difference between what is termed "forecasted 19 flow" and "existing flow." 20 And I see that as directly contrary to this particular 21 statement. And so I wanted to pursue that to get the record 22 clear on what the differences are, if any, and I wanted to 23 start with that paragraph. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm going to overrule the objection and 25 see where you are going to take us, Mr. Nomellini. 1343 01 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm not going to go too far. It is a 02 very narrow issue. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We never go too far. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you for that. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you intend by your testimony and 07 this Paragraph 9, again, of Exhibit 8 that forecasted flow 08 and existing flow as defined in the San Joaquin River 09 Agreement were the same? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: The forecasting and existing flows, 11 depending on the adjustments that need to be made, could be 12 the same. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: What differences are there in the 14 definition of forecasted flow and existing flow? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: The forecasted flow could have some 16 operation at New Melones different than the interim 17 operations. The existing flow has the interim operations of 18 New Melones. In addition -- excuse me for a second, I need 19 to find something. 20 On Page 5 of the Appendix B, which is exhibit -- part 21 of Exhibit 2, adjustment for water purchases outside of the 22 agreement are -- also could be different from the forecasted 23 existing flow, such that those purchases would be added, a 24 supplemental flow or added flow to the supplemental volume 25 of water provided through the agreement. 1344 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you saying that that would adjust 02 the forecasted flow? 03 MR. VAN CAMP: For determination of the supplemental 04 water provided by the parties. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: So your answer is, yes, it would adjust 06 the forecasted flows, and then you're explaining that the 07 forecasted flow is for the purpose of establishing the 08 target flow. Is that what your testimony is? 09 MR. VAN CAMP: The volume of supplemental water is 10 calculated using the existing flow. Then that volume of 11 water can be provided to meet the test flow target. If 12 operations at New Melones are different than the interim 13 operations, such that the flow was higher than the Interim 14 Operations Plan, the same volume of water would be provided 15 by the agreement. 16 The water provided through New Melones in excess of the 17 Interim Operations Plan would be added on to that. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So, this existing flow definition is 19 used to determine what the supplemental flow obligation is 20 by the San Joaquin River Agreement parties; is that correct? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLNI: Whereas the forecasted flow, which could 23 be different -- 24 Right? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 1345 01 MR. NOMELLINI: -- is used to set the target flow? 02 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. The existing flow, excuse me, is 03 used to set the target flow. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Your testimony, then, on Page 2, 05 Exhibit 8, Paragraph 9 is incorrect, then, to the extent 06 that it says: 07 The use of a forecasted flow to establish the 08 test flow target was decided upon in order to 09 assure incremental flow. (Reading.) 10 Is that correct, this is an incorrect statement? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: The use of the forecasted -- if the 12 forecasted flow was the same as the existing flow, then no. 13 The forecasted flow can be the same as the existing 14 flow. 15 MR. NOMELLNI: If the forecasted flow is different than 16 existing flow, then this statement on Page 2, Paragraph 9 is 17 incorrect. Is that true? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that existing flow, as 20 defined in the San Joaquin River Agreement, does not include 21 power releases? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: I agree to the extent those are solely 23 power releases. If only power releases, they would not be 24 part of the existing flow. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that flood control 1346 01 releases from federal storage facilities are not included in 02 the existing flow as defined in the San Joaquin River 03 Agreement? 04 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. I believe that misstates the 05 definition under 3.2 (D). It is not just all flood control 06 releases; it is flood control releases that are required to 07 be made during the pulse flow period. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: I wasn't trying to restate; I was 09 asking a specific question. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Is your question -- is that the question 11 or were you asking a different question? 12 MR. NOMELLNI: I will ask it again. I was asking a 13 different question. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: The objection is overruled. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree, Mr. Van Camp, that flood 16 control releases from federal storage facilities are not 17 included in the definition of existing flow in the San 18 Joaquin River Agreement? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: That is all I have. 21 Thank you. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 23 Mr. Herrick. 24 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 ---oOo--- 1347 01 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - APPENDIX B 03 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 04 BY MR. HERRICK 05 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Van Camp, I believe on redirect you 06 said that the additional flows in the forecasted flows would 07 be supplemental to the target flows; is that correct? 08 MR. VAN CAMP: Could you rephrase the question? 09 MR. HERRICK: I apologize because I am not following 10 part of this either. 11 You said just a moment ago that if New Melones 12 operation was different than the interim plan, there would 13 be additional water coming down, to generalize; is that 14 correct? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: Would that additional water be in 17 addition to the target flow? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: It could be. The supplemental water 19 calculated would then be more than needed to reach the 20 target flows. And, therefore, that same volume of water 21 would be available and would be directed to the technical 22 committee to make a decision on what to do with that 23 additional volume of water. 24 MR. HERRICK: So, you could end up with a flow higher 25 than the VAMP target flow, correct? 1348 01 MR. VAN CAMP: If elected to do so by the technical 02 committee. 03 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall whether or not the purpose 04 of the VAMP target flows was to hold conditions steady in 05 order to develop good technical data? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe that was testified to earlier, 07 yes. 08 MR. HERRICK: In the situation we just discussed, the 09 parties could then agree to provide more flow than they 10 originally determined was appropriate in that year type? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: If it was -- if the technical committee 12 decided to do that, yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: That is all I have. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: That completes the recross for this 16 portion of the witness' testimony. 17 I did it again. Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. I don't 18 know what the staff did to me last week. I keep forgetting 19 about you. I am sorry. 20 Does the staff have any questions? 21 MR. HOWARD: No. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: No questions from the staff. 23 Anything from the Board Members? 24 All right. Thank you. 25 Now that completes the redirect portion, or at least 1349 01 the redirect for this portion of the this witness' 02 testimony. 03 Do you wish now, Mr. O'Laughlin, to present the second 04 part? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman. We are 06 going to try to move right along. 07 ---oOo--- 08 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 09 TESTIMONY OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 10 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Once again, Mr. Van Camp, I would like 12 to refer your attention to San Joaquin River Group Authority 13 Exhibit Number 9. 14 Is that a true and correct copy of your testimony in 15 regards to the Division Agreement? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You prepared that testimony; is that 18 correct? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I did. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You signed that under penalty of 21 perjury; is that correct? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In that San Joaquin River Group 24 Authority Exhibit Number 9, it refers to the Division 25 Agreement that is set forth in San Joaquin River Group 1350 01 Authority Exhibit Number 19; is that correct? 02 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it does. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And, to the best of your knowledge, 04 Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the San Joaquin 05 River Group Authority Division Agreement? 06 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Could you please briefly summarize for 08 the State Water Resources Control Board and the parties the 09 testimony that you have prepared in San Joaquin River Group 10 Authority Exhibit Number 9. 11 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. The Division Agreement provides -- 12 is to define the responsibility of the parties to provide 13 the supplemental flow. It provides flexibility between the 14 parties for making that water available to meet at the test 15 flow target. 16 Absent arrangements between the parties, it defines the 17 responsibility which is contained in the table. 18 Bill, if you could -- 19 This is part of my testimony, which is Exhibit 9, and 20 it is also part of the Division Agreement, which is Exhibit 21 SJRG 19, and that is on Page 3, Table 1. Again, it's simply 22 been enlarged for viewing purposes. 23 You will see the division here as you go down to the 24 first block of water. The first block of 50,000 acre-feet 25 of water is to be provided in that order. 1351 01 First 25 is responsibility of Merced. Next ten is 02 Oakdale and South San Joaquin, and next five is the Exchange 03 Contractors, and 10,000 for Modesto and TID. That is for 04 the first block of 50,000 of supplemental water determined. 05 Then you move through those groups 50, 23, 17 and 20 to 06 come up to the total responsibilities at different levels of 07 supplemental water. This division was arrived at through 08 many discussions amongst the general managers and technical 09 advisers of the parties involved. The quantities will be 10 provided above the flows, we have already discussed, and at 11 those locations identified in the appendix, and we also 12 discussed. 13 The Division Agreement also divides the money that is 14 called for in the agreement. 15 So, in summary, the agreement was arrived at simply 16 through negotiations of the parties, based on their 17 understanding of the potential impacts to them and then the 18 default schedule is this, absent at any flexible arrangement 19 amongst the parties. And that is the extent of the Division 20 Agreement. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That completes the direct testimony of 22 Mr. Van Camp on San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibits 9 23 and 19. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, gentlemen. 25 By a showing of hands, who wishes to cross-examine Mr. 1352 01 Van Camp? 02 Mr. Suyeyasu, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Maddow, 03 Mr. Jackson. 04 Let's start with Mr. Maddow this time. 05 Did I miss anybody, by the way? We have Maddow, 06 Suyeyasu, Nomellini, Herrick and Jackson. 07 Mr. Maddow. 08 ---oOo--- 09 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 10 OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 11 BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 12 BY MR. MADDOW 13 MR. MADDOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Robert 14 Maddow for the Contra Costa Water District. 15 Mr. Van Camp, you testified that the table which you 16 put up on the screen, which appears both in San Joaquin 17 River Group 9 and in Exhibit 19, is the default schedule, I 18 believe. Is that the term that you used? 19 Could you explain what that means. 20 MR. VAN CAMP: It means that absent any other 21 arrangements made between the parties, this is the 22 schedule of flows to be provided by each party. It allows 23 for flexibility from one party to request another party to 24 make their release. 25 MR. MADDOW: Earlier in your testimony concerning your 1353 01 Exhibit 8 we talked about disputes and matters like 02 that. And I was trying to understand at that time what 03 happens in the event that there is not a clear decision on 04 the part of all of the parties concerning the operations at 05 any given year. 06 In that respect, I want to know whether in a situation 07 where there is a dispute or where there is not a clear cut 08 decision on a particular pulse flow period operations plan, 09 is it your testimony that the schedule of releases would, in 10 fact, be made? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: I am sorry. I didn't follow you through 12 your hypothetical. 13 MR. MADDOW: In my hypothetical, Mr. Van Camp, I am 14 trying to get at the circumstance in which there is some 15 dispute among the parties to the agreement concerning a 16 particular year's operations plan. And, therefore, there is 17 not an approved operation plan as it has been described in 18 your earlier testimony. 19 My question is whether in that circumstance releases 20 would be made in accordance with the schedule which you 21 described as the default schedule? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: You're -- the dispute that you are 23 identifying is that relative to the volume or who is to 24 release it? 25 MR. MADDOW: It could be either one, Mr. Van Camp. 1354 01 MR. VAN CAMP: We discussed the dispute relative to the 02 supplemental water, that it went to the management 03 committee. If there's no other arrangements on the 04 allocation of that supplemental water, it defaults to the 05 schedule. 06 MR. MADDOW: In Exhibit 9, Mr. Van Camp, in your 07 Paragraph 6, which I believe is on Page 2 of Exhibit 9, you 08 describe quantities of water and priorities which were 09 established through discussions between the general 10 managers. Could you please explain the word "priorities" as 11 it is used in that sentence. 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Certainly. The word "priority" in 13 referring to the overhead is the fact that the first 25,000 14 acre-feet would be provided by Merced Irrigation District. 15 So, they were the first to contribute water. That is where 16 priority -- 17 MR. MADDOW: If I understand your answer, then, Mr. Van 18 Camp, the word "priorities" is used solely within the terms 19 of this agreement as opposed to priorities in the sense of 20 water rights priorities, for example? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 22 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. 23 In these discussions, which you referred to, which led 24 up to the Division Agreement, was there any consideration of 25 allocation among the parties on a water rights basis? 1355 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Each party considered factors that they 02 determined to be important. That would require a lot of 03 speculation as to the outcome of the Bay-Delta hearings 04 themselves. So each party had to consider those factors to 05 some extent. 06 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Van Camp, in the event of termination 07 of the San Joaquin River Agreement would the default 08 schedule remain in effect, in your opinion? 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for a legal 10 conclusion. The San Joaquin River Agreement has within it a 11 default mechanism that has already been previously testified 12 to, that it goes to the State Water Project contractors and 13 WDR and the CVP. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. 15 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Van Camp, do you believe that the 16 allocation of responsibility among the San Joaquin River 17 Group members provides a reasonable framework for the State 18 Water Resources Control Board to use regarding meeting 19 Water Quality Control Plan objectives in the event that the 20 San Joaquin River Group is terminated? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. That calls for speculation 22 and a legal conclusion and is outside the scope of the 23 witness' expertise. 24 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Chairman, if I may. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, Mr. Maddow. 1356 01 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Van Camp is qualified as an expert. 02 We briefly discussed the background which he has summarized 03 in their Exhibit Number 7. And it's my intention to get at 04 the questions of whether or not, in the event this agreement 05 for some reason falls and we get to the end of the default 06 period that Mr. O'Laughlin just referred to, whether we are 07 going to have in the agreement that is before you now in 08 this default mechanism, which Mr. Van Camp has talked about, 09 a basis that this Board can turn to so that we all know what 10 is going to happen on the San Joaquin River if this 11 agreement should be prematurely terminated. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: As I mentioned previously and it's 13 been previously testified to, if the agreement is 14 terminated, what happens under agreement is that there is, 15 quote, a default mechanism at that time wherein the CVP and 16 the DWR will make flows available for two years while we 17 come back to this Board and figure what responsibilities are 18 going to be required on the San Joaquin River. 19 Whether or not it is this or something else entirely 20 different, that is entirely speculative as to what is going 21 to happen with this Board's decision at the end of that 22 two-year period. 23 MR. MADDOW: This witness is an expert on Bay-Delta 24 matters, Mr. Chairman, by his own testimony and by the 25 statement of qualifications which has been offered in 1357 01 support of his expertise. 02 My question is whether, in light of that expertise, he 03 believes this would be a reasonable starting point for the 04 process Mr. O'Laughlin just referred to. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't want to argue it any further. I 06 do want to say that while this Chair and this Hearing 07 Officer has ruled on a few occasions about objections on the 08 basis of legal expertise, it also recognizes -- we also 09 recognize that engineers in the field have a lot of 10 knowledge, and I also think that it is important for the 11 Board to hear expert opinion. 12 So, I am going to ask the witness to answer this. I am 13 going to overrule the objection and ask the witness, if he 14 can, answer to the best of his ability and opinion. 15 MR. VAN CAMP: My answer is that this is a negotiated 16 settlement, and I do not know all the details that went into 17 each party's decision making to come up to these 18 quantities. So, I do not have the basis for answering. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. MADDOW: I have nothing further. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 23 Mr. Suyeyasu. Good morning again, sir. 24 ---oOo--- 25 // 1358 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 02 OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 03 BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 04 BY MR. SUYEYASU 05 MR. SUYEYASU: Mr. Van Camp, in Table 1 of Exhibit 19, 06 outlining the amount of water to be provided by the various 07 parties in meeting the water requirements put to the San 08 Joaquin River Group Authority, why is it, in your opinion, 09 that the Merced Irrigation District's contributions are a 10 lot larger than the other groups? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe I testified to that, that each 12 party sat down to negotiate these quantities and considered 13 factors that were critical to them. 14 MR. SUYEYASU: In providing the water that's outlined 15 on this table, do you know where it is going to come from in 16 terms of -- is it going to be released from storage, reduced 17 consumption, that sort of thing? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: These reservoir operators identified on 19 this list will make additional releases to make additional 20 flow available at their measuring points. 21 MR. SUYEYASU: So, this water will come out of 22 reservoir storage; is that correct? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. In the reservoir operations in the 24 Exchange Contractor case it is a water management practice 25 that will make water available at their points of control. 1359 01 MR. SUYEYASU: For the Exchange Contractors. For the 02 first 50,000 acre-feet, somehow they would reduce their 03 diversions from the river by 5,000 cfs? Is that what you 04 are suggesting? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 06 MR. SUYEYASU: You said they would make water 07 management decisions that would somehow provide this 5,000 08 cfs. What would those water management decisions be? 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. It's 5,000 acre-feet. 10 MR. SUYEYASU: I'm sorry, 5,000 acre-feet. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. You corrected your question. 12 Go ahead. 13 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know the specifics within the 14 Exchange Contractors, as to how the water will be made 15 available. 16 MR. SUYEYASU: No further questions. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Suyeyasu. 18 Mr. Nomellini. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 22 OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 23 BY CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY 24 BY MR. NOMELLINI 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta 1360 01 Parties. 02 If you could put that same chart back up there, Bill. 03 Thank you. 04 Where is the measuring point for Merced? I guess that 05 reference on that chart is Merced Irrigation District. That 06 is on the Merced River, isn't it? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it is. 08 MR. NOMELLNI: It may seem obvious. Oakdale, OID and 09 South San Joaquin Irrigation District, what river is that 10 release point or measuring point? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: Stanislaus. 12 MR. NOMELLNI: For Exchange Contractors, where is the 13 measuring point for that release? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: As I testified earlier, is at four 15 locations. Is at Salt Slough near the confluence with West 16 Delta drain. At West Delta drain near the confluence with 17 Salt Slough. It's at the boundary drains and at Orestimba 18 Creek. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: For MID/TID, where is that measuring 20 from? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Tuolumne River near LaGrange. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you indicated in your testimony 23 that the Division Agreement allows for the water quantity 24 responsibility of one party to be provided through and by 25 any one of the other parties; is that correct? 1361 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: So in a given year, it is possible that 03 the Merced release, looking at the first column, of 25,000 04 could be instead released by Oakdale Irrigation District for 05 San Joaquin on the Stanislaus and we would have zero on the 06 Merced River and 35,000 on the Stanislaus; is that correct? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: That flexibility is there, but that is 08 an unlikely scenario. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Why is that unlikely? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: The flexibility was provided most 11 specifically for the potential channel capacities on the 12 Stanislaus such that the Oakdale South San Joaquin water 13 might have to be provided by other entities. 14 But your example is correct, that flexibility is 15 there. 16 MR. NOMELLNI: So, the reverse, you say, is more 17 likely, that we could on occasion end up with, in this same 18 first column, with 35,000 coming down the Merced and no 19 release on the Stanislaus from Oakdale Irrigation District 20 and South San Joaquin? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: That is all I have. 23 Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 25 Mr. Herrick. 1362 01 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 02 ---oOo--- 03 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 04 OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 05 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 06 BY MR. HERRICK 07 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick for South Delta Water 08 Agency. I have a couple questions, Mr. Van Camp. 09 Pardon me if this is my ignorance, and I know there 10 would be a few comments about that. But you said earlier 11 that the Division Agreement allows one party to request 12 another make its releases. I don't want to misstate that. 13 It is my understanding from your testimony, both written and 14 oral, that there is flexibility in the Division Agreement 15 for who actually supplies the increments of water. Is that 16 correct? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: If those arrangements are made between 18 the parties, then it allows that flexibility. 19 MR. HERRICK: I don't see that in the agreement. Are 20 you referring to the part which says amendments can be made 21 by unanimous consent? 22 Is there something else that supports that or is that 23 it? And I'm looking at Page 4 of the agreement. I don't 24 mean to test your knowledge here, but I really can't find 25 that flexibility in the agreement. 1363 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Without going through it, I would have 02 to look for it myself. 03 MR. HERRICK: In your response to questions just a 04 moment ago, you said that the water would be made available 05 from storage to supply, the various increments of flow; is 06 that correct? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: Waters would be released from reservoirs 08 at those sites, yes. 09 MR. HERRICK: That is what I want to clarify. 10 Depending on outflow and inflow, there is a technical 11 conclusion whether it is storage or not? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: That is why I hope I indicated "released 13 from those storage facilities." 14 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall when the discussions for 15 dividing up the responsibilities here first began? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 17 MR. HERRICK: Again, I am not trying to trick you; I am 18 just trying to jog your memory. Was it within a year or 19 more than a year ago? Just trying to narrow it down a 20 little bit. 21 MR. VAN CAMP: I would probably say more than a year 22 ago. 23 MR. HERRICK: Was is not more than two years ago? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Now you are testing me. 25 MR. HERRICK: You did testify that you were part of the 1364 01 development of this, correct? 02 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: You don't remember when you started as 04 part of this? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: I have been working with Merced since 06 1991. I do not remember when the discussions began relative 07 to the San Joaquin River Agreement. 08 MR. HERRICK: That is all I have. 09 Thank you. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 11 Mr. Jackson. 12 MR. JACKSON: Yes, Mr. Caffrey. May I inquire of Mr. 13 O'Laughlin if this witness will testify at any other time in 14 the phases of these hearings? 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. Mr. Van Camp will be present in 17 Phase II-A. We had previously submitted the testimony from 18 Mr. Van Camp with Mr. Selb in regards to other issues that 19 he would be addressing, so he will be available for Phase 20 II-A. 21 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Caffrey, do you want me to ask the 22 questions of this witness at this point relating to this 23 testimony or save it all for him later on? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, since I am not really sure what 25 questions you are going to ask, maybe Ms. Leidigh has some 1365 01 advice for us. I see her pulling the mike forward. 02 Ms. Leidigh, we all recognize that the Board has yet 03 to decide officially whether there will be a II-A. If there 04 isn't one -- 05 MR. JACKSON: Then I am lost. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, no, because then there will be an 07 VIII. 08 MR. JACKSON: If there is no II-A, there is an VIII. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: That is the one where we all put on our 10 armor. 11 Yes, Ms. Leidigh. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: I was going to just point out, if the 13 question is relevant in this phase, he can ask it in this 14 phase. If he feels that it would be relevant in another 15 phase, he could wait in his discretion and ask it in the 16 other phase. But it's ultimately up to the attorney. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: As Ms. Leidigh has clarified my own 18 statement, it really goes to the nature of your questions. 19 You can try it here, and if anybody gets excited, we will 20 take it up at that point. 21 MR. JACKSON: They don't get mad in here, your Honor. 22 ---oOo--- 23 // 24 // 25 // 1366 01 // 02 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 03 OF MARC VAN CAMP - DIVISION AGREEMENT 04 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 05 BY MR. JACKSON 06 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention, Mr. Van Camp, to 07 your testimony on Page 2 of your testimony, we are looking 08 at a set of numbers. Are these numbers hypothetical? 09 Merced, 36,500; OID, 14 6; Exchange, 7 3. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, Mr. Jackson, are we 11 referring to the chart that was up there? 12 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, Page 2. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Of the testimony. 14 MR. JACKSON: Could we put that chart up? 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Do we have that one? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. It's hypothetical. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will deal with it. 18 MR. VAN CAMP: It is contained in Exhibit 9, Page 2. 19 MR. JACKSON: Page 2 of Exhibit 9. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead with your questions. 21 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Van Camp, are these hypothetical 22 numbers? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 24 MR. JACKSON: They are to show the process by which the 25 water would be divided; is that correct? 1367 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to the paragraph 03 underneath that hypothetical, and first I want to ask you a 04 question about the first question, or the first sentence, in 05 which you say that: 06 The quantities of water in priorities were 07 established through discussions. (Reading.) 08 That paragraph. 09 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 10 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to the part after 11 the comma, following in part, comma: 12 On each party's analysis of its ability to 13 make water available without adversely 14 impacting its water users. (Reading.) 15 Was that the nature of the conversation that took place 16 among the parties? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: I am saying that was considered by each 18 party in arriving at the default scheduling identified on 19 the other exhibit. 20 MR. JACKSON: In other words, if I were looking at the 21 OID/ SSJID number of 14 6 in the hypothetical, I could infer 22 from that that OID/SSJID had made such analysis, correct? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know. 24 MR. JACKSON: But you said they had? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: I assumed they had through those 1368 01 discussions, yes. 02 MR. JACKSON: And you did this under oath; this is your 03 best belief at the present time? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 05 MR. JACKSON: That OID, SSJID, and, I guess, MID and 06 TID are both on the Stanislaus River; is that correct? 07 MR. VAN CAMP: OID and SSJID are on the Stanislaus. 08 MR. JACKSON: Is there anybody else here on the 09 Stanislaus? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 11 MR. JACKSON: And so, OID/SSJID has made an analysis of 12 its ability to make water available without adversely 13 impacting its water users on the Stanislaus? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. And I am unaware of the results of 15 that. 16 MR. JACKSON: So, there is some amount of water 17 available on the Stanislaus that could be released without 18 adversely impacting contracts? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: As I indicated, I am not aware of the 20 results of that analysis. 21 MR. JACKSON: That would be the individual agency? You 22 work for Merced, don't you? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do. 24 MR. JACKSON: So, you were representing Merced during 25 these -- 1369 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. JACKSON: -- hearings or meetings? 03 So the 36,500 can be released by Merced without 04 impacting its water users? 05 MR. VAN CAMP: I can't say that. It depends on the 06 year type, the sequence of dry years in projects that occur 07 to make additional water available for -- projects that 08 occur to make up for these additional reservoir releases. 09 MR. JACKSON: So, is the statement wrong, in regard to 10 Merced that there has been no analysis of the ability of the 11 individual folks to make this water available without 12 adversely impacting their water users? 13 MR. SEXTON: Objection, Mr. Chairman, on two grounds. 14 First, Confidential Evidence Code, settlement discussions. 15 And the second one is relevance. The purpose of this phase, 16 as I understood it, was for the Board to make a 17 determination of whether the San Joaquin agreement provided 18 equivalent protection to the Water Quality Control Plan, and 19 only if the Board ruled on the affirmative on that subject, 20 would we then go into Phase II-A, which is going to be 21 implementation. 22 It sounds like Mr. Jackson's questions are related to 23 implementation rather than to equivalency. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Jackson. 25 MR. JACKSON: There is some -- the phasing thing is 1370 01 very difficult. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: I understand that. 03 MR. JACKSON: And I think we all understand that. This 04 is being submitted in this hearing. That was the reason for 05 my question. Am I going to be able to cross-examine on this 06 document in II-A when it was submitted for II. I am being 07 told to wait until II-A; there may not be a II-A, and this 08 document is in II and it is the testimony of the witness, 09 and the documents are in direct contradiction to each 10 other. I want to know when I get to do that. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I understood your question, and correct 12 me if I misunderstood it, Mr. Jackson. But I am inclined to 13 overrule the objection because I understood your question to 14 be asking for a clarification of Part 6 on Page 2 of the 15 exhibit in question. You were again asking for his opinion. 16 I thought, on -- 17 MR. JACKSON: All I am doing is trying to understand 18 the sentence he indicated he didn't know whether the 19 sentence was correct in regard to the others. So now I am 20 asking about the one he works for. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I have an observation, but I am going to 22 refrain from testifying. 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Those impacts -- 24 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, I have an objection. 25 Again, I believe that the testimony that Mr. Van Camp's 1371 01 provided he's mischaracterized. 02 He testifies in his testimony that the decision was 03 made in part upon this. He is asking him to conclude that 04 it was, in fact, entirely based upon this. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Robbins, that is what I 06 would have observed had I had that opportunity. I am the 07 Hearing Officer. That was why I was overruling that 08 objection and giving Mr. Van Camp the opportunity to look at 09 his own statement and recognize the phrase "in part." So 10 you may answer the question, sir. 11 MR. VAN CAMP: That is correct. It says "in part." 12 You answered the question quite well. 13 MR. JACKSON: Which part? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Does anybody wish to strike the Hearing 15 Officer's testimony? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Those analyses were done to understand 17 the impacts, former said. In addition to that analysis, the 18 district is considering numerous projects to help offset any 19 potential impacts as a result of additional in-stream flows 20 or flows for meeting supplement water under VAMP. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 22 Please proceed, Mr. Jackson. 23 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. 24 Did Merced make an analysis of its ability to make 25 water available without adversely impacting its water users? 1372 01 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 02 MR. JACKSON: Is that analysis in the record in any 03 fashion? 04 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 05 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to the second 06 paragraph or the second sentence in Paragraph 6: 07 Each party considered those factors it deemed 08 to be relevant in determining the amount of 09 water to generate and/or provide for purposes 10 of flood. (Reading.) 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Pulse flows. 12 MR. JACKSON: Pulse flows, excuse me. 13 What factors were deemed relevant? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know. 15 MR. JACKSON: Were the factors different for each of 16 the individual -- each of the individual districts, or were 17 there a set of criteria that were to be considered? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Again, without -- I do not know those 19 factors. These were negotiations amongst the parties. 20 MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, did the Bureau make an 21 analysis of its ability to make water available for the 22 backstop without adversely impacting its water users? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not know. 24 MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 1373 01 Any questions from the staff? 02 MR. HOWARD: No. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything from the Board Members or Mr. 04 Pettit? 05 All right. Thank you. 06 Off the record for just a moment. 07 (Discussion held off the record.) 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Back on the record. 09 That completes the cross-examination. 10 Mr. O'Laughlin, do you wish to offer any redirect? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We do not wish to offer any redirect 12 at this time, Mr. Caffrey. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 14 That, I believe, completes the direct testimony of Mr. 15 Van Camp. 16 Thank you, sir. 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: We understand that you may be appearing 19 again later. 20 It is 20 to 12. You want to try and -- let's see, you 21 have -- who is your next witness, Mr. O'Laughlin? I think 22 maybe we can at least get started and go to about 12 or 23 12:15. 24 Are you ready at this point? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, we are, and we would ask that 1374 01 Mr. Steiner be allowed to testify at this time. I believe 02 we can probably get him done by 12. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: That would be fine. Thank you. We are 04 not going to hold you to that. We are ready with new tape, 05 and please proceed, Mr. O'Laughlin. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Caffrey. 07 ---oOo--- 08 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 09 TESTIMONY OF MR. STEINER 10 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, we have had previously 12 marked as San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit Number 13 10 a statement of qualifications of Daniel B. Steiner. 14 Is that a true and correct copy of your CV? 15 MR. STEINER: Yes, and I have been sworn in. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Didn't even let me ask my question. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, Mr. Brown reminds me, did he 18 say that he just took the oath? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: He has been sworn. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Please proceed. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, we have had previously 22 marked and submitted written testimony, San Joaquin River 23 Group Authority Exhibit Number 11, which is the testimony of 24 Daniel B. Steiner concerning the San Joaquin River 25 Agreement. 1375 01 Did you prepare that written testimony, Mr. Steiner? 02 MR. STEINER: Yes, I did. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you also sign that testimony under 04 penalty of perjury? 05 MR. STEINER: Yes, I did. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Could you briefly summarize, reminding 07 that you have 20 minutes pursuant to the rules to briefly 08 summarize your testimony as set forth in that exhibit. 09 MR. STEINER: Yes. The purpose of my testimony was to 10 provide a hydrologic background as far as the performance of 11 the San Joaquin River Agreement. And so my discussion is 12 mostly technical in terms of hydrology studies, the 13 assumptions that were used in them, to finally get us to a 14 point of understanding what an outcome could be in terms of 15 hydrology in the San Joaquin River would be under the 16 performance of the San Joaquin River Agreement. 17 Bill, put up 11.1. 18 What I have given the Board at this point, this is just 19 paraphrasing out of my direct testimony, but it is a new 20 piece of paper. So, the references as far as Exhibit SJRGA 21 11, which is my original document and the bullets are just a 22 summary of bits and pieces of the boards that are in that 23 document. I have given a suffix of .1 so you can follow 24 along. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You have six pages which are synopses of 1376 01 your testimony, and then, I assume, Mr. O'Laughlin and his 02 attorneys will be offering these as exhibits when we get all 03 the exhibits? 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask, Ms. Leidigh, you had a 06 question? 07 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. Staff was wondering whether this 08 exhibit has been provided to all of the parties? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Good question. 10 MR. STEINER: SJRGA 11, which is the foundation of all 11 the synopses, has been. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: What about 11.1? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 11.1 has not been provided, but will 14 be. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. Our practice has 16 been to make sure all the parties have copies of all 17 synopses that are flashing on the screen. So, we will do 18 that as quickly as possible. Sir. Thank you. 19 Mr. Jackson has a question. 20 MR. JACKSON: The way this is going to break down, they 21 will probably do direct and there will be lunch. Could we 22 have them for cross? 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry? 24 MR. JACKSON: Could we have them before cross? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Could we provide copies during the lunch 1377 01 hour? Would that be possible? In fact, we are just trying 02 -- we have a request here from Mr. Jackson if he could have 03 copies of these synopses before cross-examination, which 04 will probably occur, obviously occur after lunch. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We will endeavor to do so. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 07 Mr. Steiner, go ahead. We did not subtract time during 08 our little colloquy. We are back on your clock. Go ahead. 09 MR. STEINER: What I have provided here in synopsis is 10 what we are trying to do with our hydrologic analyses. As 11 far as the San Joaquin River Agreement goes, there are 12 various components of water. It is not simply the VAMP 13 period. The San Joaquin River is a little more 14 comprehensive; that is, providing various components of flow 15 or water to the system. 16 What I have listed here are the basic components of the 17 hydrology. The water mix from the providers that is ending 18 up in the analysis. We have the VAMP test flow targets 19 driving as far as the April, May periods in terms of water; 20 and then the allocation is provided by the Division 21 Agreement which Mr. Van Camp described previously. 22 We also have a component of flow called the October 23 water which is provided by Merced Irrigation District under 24 the terms of the San Joaquin River Agreement. It is another 25 12,500 acre-feet of water each year. Then we have a third 1378 01 component of water which we analyzed, which is the Oakdale 02 Irrigation water, which is a 15,000 acre-foot component of 03 water provided back to Reclamation. This water is 04 essentially a -- it is a reduction in reservation by 05 Reclamation instead of Oakdale being -- the two districts 06 being allocated 600,000 acre-foot, 15,000 acre-foot is put 07 back into the mix for the Interior to allocate under their 08 normal procedures. 09 On top of that 15,000 acre-feet from Oakdale, there is 10 also a proportion of the committee that Oakdale has made 11 towards the VAMP contribution, which amounts up to 11,000 12 acre-feet. That portion of the 11,000 acre-feet that is not 13 used and any particular year under VAMP also reverts back to 14 the Reclamation, or back to Interior to allocate within the 15 New Melones operation. 16 The analysis was prepared under three hydrologic 17 settings. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me. Let the record show we are 19 now referring to SJRGA Exhibit 11-2. 20 As you turn the pages, could you put that in your 21 testimony? 22 MR. STEINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 We have three settings of which we evaluated to show 24 the incremental changes in hydrology that has occurred in 25 various actions in the San Joaquin Valley. 1379 01 MR. SUYEYASU: Mr. Chairman, if I might object -- 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Suyeyasu. 03 MR. SUYEYASU: I am not quite sure what the relevance 04 of this testimony is that compares the flows under current 05 settings and the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord settings to the 06 question that is before the Board, comparing equivalency of 07 the San Joaquin River Agreement to the Water Quality Control 08 Plan. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin, you have a comment you 10 want to make? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, I do. Basically, this is the 12 baseline for implementation of the 1995 Water Quality 13 Control Plan. We can't understand where we are going unless 14 we understand where we've been. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 16 Mr. Jackson. 17 MR. JACKSON: The 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, though, was 18 modified by 95-6. We are in here doing 95-6 which is the 19 Water Quality Control Plan. So the Bay-Delta Accord doesn't 20 mean anything. It is just confusing. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Whether it is confusing or not, it is 22 for you to work out. It is basically a baseline underlining 23 hydrologic assumptions that were used in the modeling. That 24 is all it is. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: It goes to the Board to determine the 1380 01 weight of evidence. This is direct testimony, a little 02 overview. I assume this is in your detailed exhibit, so go 03 ahead and testify. 04 MR. STEINER: Maybe this will partially explain why we 05 have this setting recognized. It is the setting that 06 existed during the environmental report that the staff put 07 out originally for the development of the '95 Water Quality 08 Control Plan. Within the Water Quality Control Plan there 09 was recognition that events were going to happen subsequent 10 to the adoption of the Water Quality Control Plan, 11 regardless of Board actions. And specifically what we are 12 dealing with here is that by the -- in the interim, between 13 now and those days of the 1994 and the 1995 Water Quality 14 Control Plan, releases on the Tuolumne River were 15 reestablished by the FERC proceeding which was recognized by 16 your order of the '95 Water Quality Control Plan. We are 17 trying to illustrate how the environment has changed since 18 the adoption of the '95 Water Quality Control Plan. That is 19 only the difference between current setting and the 1994 20 Bay-Delta setting, is purely the occurrence of the new FERC 21 decision on the Tuolumne River. 22 Again, the current setting is our traditional view of 23 what is out there right now, in terms of the environmental 24 setting and hydrology, the SJRG setting is a reflection of 25 if the SRJG were implemented under the premise I gave on the 1381 01 previous exhibit. Those three components of water, what 02 Vernalis would look like. 03 It is a little amazing that we have gone this far 04 through the proceeding and we haven't had a map on the San 05 Joaquin River on the screen yet. Exhibit 11.3 is such a 06 map. 07 What we are attempting to model here is the interaction 08 and resultant of the operation of the San Joaquin River 09 system upstream of Vernalis, which is denoted on the lower 10 left-hand corner. There is Vernalis mark inflow. The 11 geographical area we are dealing with is immediately 12 upstream of Vernalis, is the Stanislaus River with New 13 Melones on it. We then move to the next upstream stream 14 which is the Tuolumne River with New Don Pedro. Then we 15 move again further upstream to the Merced River with 16 Exchequer on it. 17 The components of the flow we are trying to capture 18 are the entities who have provided, will provide, water 19 under the SJRA, could make water available on the Stanislaus 20 River. That would be Oakdale and South San Joaquin. We 21 have Modesto and Turlock ID on the Tuolumne River. And we 22 have Merced ID on the Merced River. We also have the 23 component of flow from the Exchange Contractors showing to 24 generally coming into the system. They're upstream of 25 Orestimba Creek. 1382 01 In terms of the -- that's the geographical presentation 02 of it. We capture that geographical location by the use of 03 three models. Those three models are -- the exhibit is 04 11.4. The modeling tools we did to capture that area are 05 the San Joaquin area simulation model known as SANJASM, 06 which primarily models, as we used the model, upstream of 07 the confluence of the Stanislaus River. So we are capturing 08 the Tuolumne, Merced and west side operation with SANJASM. 09 Stanislaus Operations model referred to as STNMOD is 10 capturing below or inclusive of the confluence of Stanislaus 11 to Vernalis. So it adds the Stanislaus River operation to 12 the San Joaquin operation. And then we have to rely on some 13 information from PROSIM, which is the general CVP, Delta and 14 system model to provide some information regarding the west 15 side operation in the San Joaquin Valley. 16 Information between these models is extracted and 17 interlaced and finally provide results at Vernalis. 18 Referring to Exhibit 11.5, the basic assumptions we did 19 in terms of setting up the approach to modeling. You will 20 see results from my presentation being presented in either 21 April or May terms. This is the use of the models to try to 22 depict what if 31-day pulse flow or 30-day pulse flow 23 occurred entirely in April or instead it occurred entirely 24 in May. Other analyses tries to split the April 15th to May 25 15th period with monthly models. There is a little 1383 01 awkwardness in trying to work with those result. 02 But, also, looking at this analysis from either all 03 April or all May perspectives gives us a little more 04 information what if the pulse flow period which is allowed 05 under the SJRA and Appendix A, what if it were to shift 06 essentially forward as far as possible for the out-migration 07 period or as late as possible or indeed thought viable from 08 the test standpoint. 09 The second item that, as far as approach goes, is that 10 we are really using a 71 historical trace, the typical 1922 11 through 1992 hydrologic sequence to try to depict a 12-year 12 test pattern here. You have to be careful in looking at the 13 results in that we are really trying to create an operation 14 plan or identify the potential risk using a long-termed 15 hydrologic sequence, but we are trying to relate it back to 16 what might happen in the next 12 years. Please keep that 17 mind when you look at the numbers, sequences that may happen 18 and the odds of things happening. 19 A basic assumption in the modeling is that we are 20 operating the system to the New Melones Interim Operation 21 Plan as it exists today. And then, also, as far as when 22 there is supplemental water determined for the VAMP portion, 23 the April/May period is divided among the parties by the 24 default schedule that Mr. Van Camp discussed. 25 The 11.6 exhibit essentially cuts to the chase here. 1384 01 As far as the answer, I will present some graphics to follow 02 this up. But, basically, the results that we find from the 03 analysis is that Vernalis flow conditions during April and 04 May will significantly increase when compared to the 05 Bay-Delta Accord. That was essentially before the Water 06 Quality Control Plan of 1995. 07 There are also increases incrementally just from the 08 SJRA above that post FERC condition. As far as results I 09 present to you, there is also the potential that flows will 10 be higher in certain years, in certain months due to the 11 opportunity to exercisers, the willing seller component of 12 the SRJA. Essentially, what I will be presenting to you is 13 the basic guaranteed water which is associated with the 14 110,000 acre-foot cap. 15 Associated with the SJRA there is an opportunity to 16 provide more flows under the willing seller component. 17 There is also opportunities in dryer years that more water 18 will be available than just the provision of flow by the 19 SJRG up to the 2,000 calculation point. 20 The third observation we make from the analysis is that 21 you will see that the April, May and October flows, because 22 that where we have our water dedicated from the SJRA, you 23 are going to see bumps in the those months from the results. 24 That doesn't happen all by itself or out of thin air. You 25 will notice that in certain wetter years that there will be 1385 01 some decrease inflows than other periods of year as we 02 discussed, that a significant amount of this water comes out 03 of the operation of the reservoirs, and that if you put 04 water in one period of the year, it may come out of a 05 subsequent year in a wetter period when you are trying to 06 refill it. 07 These next exhibits I put are direct extracts out of my 08 testimony. I will reference them as I put them up. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Just so you will know, you have about 10 seven and a half minutes left, Mr. Steiner. 11 MR. STEINER: These are all from Exhibit 11. You can 12 find either the figure number -- this is Figure 2 from my 13 Exhibit 11, directly. This is focused on the pulse flow 14 period alone, to show the difference between the three 15 settings. In terms of -- I have reduced the data. Again, I 16 have worked with a 71-year sequence hydrologic cycle. I 17 didn't think we wanted to see 71 columns of 12 month's data, 18 so I tried to collapse it to view in terms of averaging 19 within a year type. For instance, that is the average of 20 all critical years in that upper left-hand block of the 21 change in flow on an average month, all critical years, from 22 one environmental setting to the next. 23 So, what we have is in a critical year, if the pulse is 24 aimed at April, we have a movement from under 2,000 cfs that 25 was existing on average during critical years under the 1994 1386 01 Bay-Delta setting subsequent to SJRA implementation an 02 average flow that is going to get you about 2500 cfs on 03 average for all critical years. Again, by each year type 04 you would see improvements in terms of implementation of the 05 SJRA, the change at Vernalis flows during the pulse flow 06 period that will occur. 07 Again, the upper block as if we were to focus that 08 pulse flow of VAMP during April. The lower graph represents 09 if you were to focus instead the out-migration flow during 10 the month of May. 11 This next exhibit is Page 3, Figure 3, Page 1 out of 5 12 out of my Exhibit 11, my testimony. This is looking at the 13 entire year at a glance for all critical years. What you 14 will see is under the April pulse flow, which is the upper 15 block of data, that you will see a bump in flow during the 16 month of April. And essentially no change in flows 17 occurring during the rest of the year, going out on to 18 September till you come back to October. Of course, that is 19 an indication of the Merced water under the San Joaquin 20 River Agreement boosting October flows in every year. 21 You will see occasionally in this type of year a 22 subsequent slight reduction. For instance, this is the 23 month of November, which would be indicative of one of the 24 reservoirs or couple of the reservoirs providing those flows 25 in April and October and possibly recapturing it in a 1387 01 subsequent month. Generally, you will see in critical and 02 dry years the normal bumping of flows due to the SJRA. 03 While if you look at Figure 3, Page 4 of 5 of my Exhibit 11, 04 that in above normal years you will also see a slight bump 05 in April or May due to the pulse flow period, a slight bump 06 in October of existing condition. However, more often you 07 will see -- more often in the drier years you will see the 08 subsequent affect of reservoirs refill operation, and 09 subsequent years such as in the early winter as it is 10 regaining the storage that was provided for the earlier 11 supplemental water periods. 12 That concludes my direct testimony. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Steiner, and Mr. 14 O'Laughlin. 15 This is probably as good a time as any to take a lunch 16 break. When we come back we will have cross-examination and 17 understand you are going to try to make available copies of 18 the six transparencies. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. They are hopefully being copied 20 right now. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We will come back here at, make it, 22 1:15. That is a little over an hour. 23 Thank you very much. 24 (Luncheon break taken.) 25 ---oOo--- 1388 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 ---oOo--- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon. We are back on the 04 record. 05 Mr. O'Laughlin, I saw you go out. I assumed you came 06 back in. I just brought the gavel down and opened things 07 up. 08 We are going to cross-examine Mr. Steiner. By a 09 showing of hands, can we see who wants to cross-examine Mr. 10 Steiner. We have Mr. Herrick, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Suyeyasu, 11 Mr. Maddow. Have I missed anybody? Mr. Gallery. I have 12 Herrick, Suyeyasu, Nomellini, Maddow and Gallery. We will 13 start with Mr. Herrick for Mr. Steiner. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 16 OF MR. STEINER 17 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 18 BY MR. HERRICK 19 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick for South Delta Water 20 Agency. 21 Mr. Steiner, I would like to start on your Table 1, 22 Page 2 of 2, which is Page 15 of SJRA Exhibit 11, please. 23 Just for the record, could you please identify what 24 this chart tells the Board. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. 1389 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, please. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I realize for these purposes we have 03 overheads of almost all the figures and tables, and if you 04 bear with us, we will try to get them on the overhead. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: That will be helpful for all of us. 06 Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 07 MR. STEINER: Did you want to go to Page 15? 08 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 09 Before you start, let me just say, apparently, 15 is 10 for May, the modeling, and 14 was just for April. I just 11 happened to pick 15. 12 Could you please identify that exhibit. 13 MR. STEINER: This is from SJRG, Exhibit 11, Table 1, 14 Page 2 of 2, Page 15 of my testimony. 15 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain to us column seven, 16 talks about May Vernalis existing flow; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 18 MR. HERRICK: Is the existing flow your current 19 situation under your modeling? 20 MR. STEINER: That is right. That represents the 21 current setting as I described before. This would be 22 simulated flow during May at Vernalis without the 23 implementation of the SJRA. 24 MR. HERRICK: Do you have an exhibit or modeling 25 information evidencing the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 1390 01 flows that would be required? 02 MR. STEINER: It would be attached in one of my 03 computer files that I submitted to the Board. 04 MR. HERRICK: Do you have some results to present today 05 that show your comparison of the SJRA with the Water Quality 06 Control Plan? 07 MR. STEINER: I do not have an exhibit for that. 08 MR. HERRICK: I want to briefly put this up here for 09 the moment; we can take it down in a minute. 10 For the record, I have put up there Table 3 from the 11 1995 Water Quality Control Plan which sets forth the flows 12 required in different year types. This is underlying from 13 my question, Mr. Steiner, so I am just trying to make it 14 clear. 15 Over there in the middle it has water year types for 16 the April 15th through May 15th flows and critical years 17 3100. There is another number; we will get to that. Dry 18 years, 4020. Below normal is 4620. Above normal is 5730; 19 and wet is 7330. 20 Were you aware of this information when you were doing 21 your modeling? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes, I was. 23 MR. HERRICK: I apologize to the Board for the time 24 this will take. But, Mr. Steiner, let's go through this for 25 dry years. 1391 01 Bill, would you put your one back up. 02 Mr. Steiner, would you pick the first dry year, going 03 from top to bottom. 04 MR. STEINER: Just dry? 05 MR. HERRICK: Just dry. 06 MR. STEINER: It would be 1926. 07 MR. HERRICK: What is the VAMP flow for that year? 08 MR. STEINER: The existing flow was 2681 as simulated 09 We would be doing a single step two 3200 cfs. 10 MR. HERRICK: The VAMP flow, absent some other 11 occurrence, would be 3200? 12 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 13 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall from our last transparency 14 we just had for dry years the flow was 4020; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. STEINER: It might have been as far as the year 17 type, yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to trick you. My reading 19 of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan is that in dry years 20 the flow was always 4020; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: For dry year classification the 22 requirement would have been 4020 or 4880. 23 MR. HERRICK: Somewhere in your testimony or exhibits 24 have you made any comparisons to determine various flows 25 effects, the comparison being the 1995 Water Quality Control 1392 01 Plan of 40 20 as compared to the VAMP flow? 02 MR. STEINER: Roughly, yes, we have done that as far as 03 if there was a difference between the VAMP test flows and 04 the full '95 Water Quality Control Plan. 05 MR. HERRICK: Where is that in your testimony or 06 exhibit? 07 MR. STEINER: It is not in my testimony. You just need 08 to extract what we did simulate and compare it to these 09 tables. 10 MR. HERRICK: It is my understanding that your 11 comparison draws conclusion -- your testimony draws 12 conclusions based on a comparison of a current modeling 13 setting and the San Joaquin River Agreement setting? 14 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: The purpose of Phase II is to consider 16 whether implementing the SJRA will provide environmental 17 benefits in the Lower San Joaquin River ad southern Delta at 18 a level of protection equivalent to the level of protection 19 in the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan. 20 Was that your instruction when you were asked to 21 present this evidence? 22 MR. STEINER: I was not asked to determine equivalency. 23 I provided the biologists information where they can see 24 these target flows from the VAMP in combination with the 25 export restrictions side of the VAMP, also for them to draw 1393 01 conclusions regarding equivalency. 02 MR. HERRICK: Let's go down this exhibit. The first 03 dry year was 1926. Let's just stay on dry years. 04 What is the next dry year there? 05 MR. STEINER: 1933. 06 MR. HERRICK: What is the VAMP flow, which is column 07 eight? 08 MR. STEINER: 3200 cfs. 09 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that is lower than 10 the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan flow of 4020? 11 MR. STEINER: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year? 13 MR. STEINER: 1939. 14 MR. HERRICK: What is the flow under column eight? 15 MR. STEINER: 5700 cfs. 16 MR. HERRICK: That is larger than the 4020 flow, 17 correct? 18 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: Can you tell from your chart whether that 20 is due to the double step or whether that is just the 21 regular step? 22 MR. STEINER: That would have to be a double step. 23 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain how you determined that? 24 MR. STEINER: I look and can see that the existing flow 25 was 3321, and a single step would have taken us to a level 1394 01 of 5450. Instead, I see that we went to 5700 cfs. And also 02 to use columns four, five and six you would be able to find 03 those extra criteria that would get you to the double step. 04 MR. HERRICK: Column six then gives a number above the 05 seven, which kicks in the double step; is that correct? 06 MR. STEINER: That's correct. Actually -- 07 MR. HERRICK: That is column five? 08 MR. STEINER: Column five is the double step. 09 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year after that? 10 MR. STEINER: 1947. 11 MR. HERRICK: What is the SRJA flow in that? 12 MR. STEINER: The VAMP target would be 3200 cfs. 13 MR. HERRICK: That, again, is lower than the 4020 of 14 the '95 plan, correct? 15 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 16 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain whether you have 17 modeled the VAMP flows or the San Joaquin River Agreement 18 flows? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In this diagram or in all of them? 20 MR. HERRICK: I am just going for this diagram. 21 MR. STEINER: I have modeled the entire San Joaquin 22 River Agreement, which is a combination of the VAMP, the 23 October water and the Oakdale water. 24 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar, then, with pulse flow 25 numbers given under the VAMP portion of the San Joaquin 1395 01 River Agreement? 02 MR. STEINER: Yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: Do you believe that the San Joaquin River 04 Agreement flows are different than the VAMP flows for that 05 pulse flow period? 06 MR. STEINER: No. The VAMP is a component of the San 07 Joaquin River Agreement. 08 MR. HERRICK: Is it your testimony that the minimum 09 target flow under the VAMP is the same as the minimum target 10 flow under the San Joaquin River Agreement? 11 MR. STEINER: Yes. Because the VAMP is a portion of 12 the San Joaquin River Agreement? 13 MR. HERRICK: Were you here last week when the 14 biologist testified and told us that 3200 was their minimum 15 for the VAMP flows? 16 MR. STEINER: Now I see where you are going. VAMP, as 17 far as Appendix A, is the testing procedure that the target 18 points. While I believe what you are asking here is because 19 I have different points in lower than the 3200 cfs. That 20 although the VAMP itself calls for a test point of 3200 cfs, 21 there is another calculation process we do here which finds 22 the obligation of San Joaquin River entities. 23 MR. HERRICK: I will get to it later. You have modeled 24 other things based on the flows, correct? 25 MR. STEINER: I don't know what you mean -- 1396 01 MR. HERRICK: Your testimony includes results, effects 02 on water quality? 03 MR. STEINER: It is a result of the modeling. 04 MR. HERRICK: Has your modeling for water quality taken 05 into account the difference between the VAMP flow and the 06 San Joaquin River flow? 07 MR. STEINER: What I am modeling is the water -- I 08 believe the answer is no. It is modeling these numbers 09 here, as far as how much water is provided by the San 10 Joaquin River Agreement as it may be limited during critical 11 years and with the 110,000 acre-foot cap. 12 MR. HERRICK: The last dry year we talked about was 13 1947, I believe. What's the next dry year after that on 14 that chart? 15 MR. STEINER: 1955. 16 MR. HERRICK: What is the VAMP? What is the flow in 17 column eight? 18 MR. STEINER: 3200 cfs. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: This is an eye test, I am starting to 20 realize. 21 MR. HERRICK: That, again, 3200 is lower than the 4020 22 of the '95 plan; is that true? 23 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: What is the next year after 1955? 25 MR. STEINER: 1959. 1397 01 MR. HERRICK: What is the flow under column eight? 02 MR. STEINER: 4450 cfs. 03 MR. HERRICK: That is larger than the 1995 plan flow, 04 correct? 05 MR. STEINER: It falls between the two flows that may 06 occur in the '95 plan. 07 MR. HERRICK: Correct, it is larger than the 4020 08 number? 09 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: Again, can you determine whether or not 11 that is due to the single step or double step? 12 MR. STEINER: That would have to be a double step. 13 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year? 14 MR. STEINER: 1964. 15 MR. HERRICK: What is the flow in column eight? 16 MR. STEINER: 3200 Cfs. 17 MR. HERRICK: Again, would you agree that that is lower 18 than the 4020 of the 1995 plan flows? 19 MR. STEINER: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year after '64? 21 MR. STEINER: 1968. 22 MR. HERRICK: What is the column eight flow in that? 23 MR. STEINER: 5700 cfs. 24 MR. HERRICK: Can you determine whether that is due to 25 a double step or single step? 1398 01 MR. STEINER: That is a double step. 02 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year? 03 MR. STEINER: 1972. 04 MR. HERRICK: What is the column eight flow for that 05 year? 06 MR. STEINER: 3200 cfs. 07 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that 3200 is again lower 08 than the 1995 plan flow of 4020? 09 MR. STEINER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: What is the next dry year after 1972? 11 MR. STEINER: 1981. 12 MR. HERRICK: What is the column eight flow for that 13 year? 14 MR. STEINER: 5700 cfs. 15 MR. HERRICK: That is higher than the 4020 flow of the 16 plan, correct? 17 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 18 MR. HERRICK: Can you determine whether that is due to 19 a single step or double step? 20 MR. STEINER: That would be a double step. 21 MR. HERRICK: What is the last dry year mentioned on 22 this chart? 23 MR. STEINER: 1985. 24 MR. HERRICK: What is the column eight flow on that? 25 MR. STEINER: 3200 cfs. 1399 01 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that is less than 02 the 4020 flow of the 1995 plan? 03 MR. STEINER: Yes. 04 MR. HERRICK: Without jogging your memory too much, 05 would you agree that the dry years we just covered on that 06 we had four years where the column eight flow was larger 07 than the 1995 plan flows; is that correct? 08 MR. STEINER: I would have to go back and recount. I 09 didn't keep tally. It sounds about right. 10 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall any of those increased 11 flows were due to something other than a double step? 12 MR. STEINER: No. 13 MR. HERRICK: You would agree that the only time, using 14 this hydrology, modeling the past, correct? 15 MR. STEINER: It is using the past, projecting a common 16 level from here on out. 17 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that under dry years the 18 only time that the column eight flows are larger than the 19 '95 plan flows are when there is a double step? 20 MR. STEINER: That is what these results are showing. 21 MR. HERRICK: Did you make any calculation to estimate 22 or determine how many times a double step might occur in a 23 12-year period? 24 MR. STEINER: I did no statistical analysis. 25 MR. HERRICK: Have you done this same kind of analysis 1400 01 that we went through dry years, comparing the '95 plan flows 02 with the column eight flows for the other year types? 03 MR. STEINER: Nothing as specific as you lead me 04 through. 05 MR. HERRICK: You haven't determined how the San 06 Joaquin River Agreement flows compare to the 1995 plan 07 flows; is that right? 08 MR. STEINER: On average I know of the general number, 09 the difference. 10 MR. HERRICK: What is that difference? 11 MR. HERRICK: It is about 30 to 40,000 acre-foot on 12 average less. 13 MR. HERRICK: Which is less? 14 MR. STEINER: The San Joaquin River Agreement. 15 MR. HERRICK: What is the range? Is that lumping -- 16 excuse me, let me start over. 17 Is that average lumping in wet years and above normal 18 years and below normal years and dry years and critical 19 years? 20 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: Can you separate that out any, how it 22 affects critical years? 23 MR. STEINER: You could. 24 MR. HERRICK: Have you done that? 25 MR. STEINER: Not that I can -- it is self-evident as 1401 01 you look at the record. I can't give you what the 02 difference would be during critical years. 03 MR. HERRICK: If somebody is trying to compare how this 04 plan, the San Joaquin River Agreement, this agreement, 05 compares to the 1995 plan, wouldn't you agree that it would 06 be beneficial to see how the plan compares to each year 07 type? 08 MR. STEINER: I believe, yes, it would be, and I 09 believe that is what the biologist did when they combined 10 these flow differences with the export reductions that are 11 also in the VAMP. 12 MR. HERRICK: What the biologists testified to is on 13 the record. It is your belief that they compared flows? 14 MR. STEINER: One of the elements that they looked at. 15 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, could you turn to your 16 Figure 3, beginning on Page 19 of your testimony. 17 Now, Page 19 of your testimony, can you just identify 18 that quickly for the record. 19 MR. STEINER: In Exhibit 11 of the SJRA is Figure 3, 20 Page 105, Page 19 of my testimony. 21 MR. HERRICK: It's got two -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We have an overhead. 23 MR. HERRICK: Thanks. 24 It has two different bar charts. The top one being the 25 April pulse flow modeling and the bottom one being the May 1402 01 pulse flow, correct? 02 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 03 MR. HERRICK: Could you briefly explain why you've done 04 those two separate months rather than the April through May, 05 31-day? 06 MR. STEINER: Because the pulse flow period could be as 07 early as April or as late as May in terms of 30 or 31 days 08 of pulse flow. It also enters into a discussion of what we 09 can do without models. They are a monthly time step model. 10 MR. HERRICK: In the months of October for both of 11 those months could you, for the record, just identify the 12 flows under the month of October for the San Joaquin River 13 Agreement? 14 MR. STEINER: Under the -- 15 MR. HERRICK: The far left. There is October, begins 16 on the left for both charts. 17 MR. STEINER: The SJRA flow condition would be about 18 1500 cfs at Vernalis during November. 19 MR. HERRICK: The May one is a little larger, 16, 20 maybe? I am not trying to prejudice you on that. 21 MR. STEINER: A little larger. 22 MR. HERRICK: Bill, would you put this one back on. 23 Thank you very much. 24 Mr. Steiner, under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 25 you will see under water year types it says all for 1403 01 October, and it has 1000 cfs; is that correct? 02 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 03 MR. HERRICK: It also has a number 19, and 19 refers to 04 footnote 19. This transparency has that footnote. 05 Are you familiar with this footnote in that plan? 06 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 07 MR. HERRICK: Just to save time, doesn't this -- I will 08 read it to you. It says: 09 The amount of additional water to be limited 10 to that amount necessary to provide a monthly 11 average flow of 2000 cfs. (Reading.) 12 Then there is an exception of critical year, 13 consecutive critical years; is that correct? 14 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: Did you take that into account when you 16 were modeling, doing your modeling for this presentation? 17 MR. STEINER: No. Because that wasn't what the SJRA 18 set out to do. It provided 12,500 acre-feet from Merced 19 each and every year without -- this was what partially drove 20 that. However, it was not a direct linkage to trying to 21 meet that standard. 22 MR. HERRICK: Is it your testimony that the San Joaquin 23 River Agreement does not meet this 2,000 cfs goal? 24 MR. STEINER: In certain circumstances it would not. 25 MR. HERRICK: What circumstances would those be, if you 1404 01 know? 02 MR. STEINER: We would have to compare the results, if 03 you went to a flow table for October and find out when it 04 did not achieve that objective. 05 MR. HERRICK: You don't have an estimate of when that 06 occurs? 07 MR. STEINER: I would have to do the analysis, no. 08 MR. HERRICK: Looking at your Figure 3, though, it 09 appears that in critical years it's always below that 10 amount, correct? 11 MR. STEINER: That would be a little too large a leap. 12 I wouldn't say it's always there. That is an average bar. 13 Even the standard objective over that the 2,000 acre-feet 14 does not happen in every critical year. 15 MR. HERRICK: Do you have an overhead for Page 2 of 5 16 on Figure 3? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes, I do. 18 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 19 MR. STEINER: I lost track; is it Page 20 you want? 20 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 21 This is for dry years; is that correct? 22 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: Again, it is a bar chart showing the 24 difference, the averages of flows under the SJRA current for 25 the two months? 1405 01 MR. STEINER: For all dry years. 02 MR. HERRICK: In the months of October we can see that 03 the flow is higher than 2000; is that correct? 04 MR. STEINER: The average is, yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: Because it is an average, are there 06 instances when it is less than 2,000? 07 MR. STEINER: There might. I would have to exam my 08 record to find out. 09 MR. HERRICK: That is not part of your testimony -- 10 that isn't provided in your testimony when that occurs? 11 MR. STEINER: If you include that my data files are 12 attached to my testimony, yes, it is there. I will just 13 have to extract it. 14 MR. HERRICK: I didn't get any copy of data files when 15 I got a copy of your testimony. What are you referring to? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The modeling results were submitted on 17 disk to the State Water Resources Control Board pursuant to 18 the notice we filed with the State Water Resources Control 19 Board. His complete hydrologic modeling has been submitted 20 to the Board. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Are they in our general record? In our 22 files, or what? They are delineated at the bottom of your 23 testimony, as I see it. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. They are on the last page of his 25 testimony. We delineated what they were and filed them with 1406 01 the Board. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: In any event, he answered the question 03 and said the data is available there. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is where the data is. We have 05 copies of those disks. 06 C.O. STUBCHAER: Could I ask a new question? 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, Mr. Stubchaer. 08 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Howard, did we post any of these 09 data on this web site? 10 MR. HOWARD: No, we did not. 11 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, could we go back. I am 12 sorry for jumping back and forth. Could we go back to your 13 Page 15, which is that Table 1, which is the May flow. 14 Mr. Steiner, we saw from the examination of the dry 15 years that when there is a double step you've included that 16 in the flow target calculation; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: Did you take into consideration the 19 relaxation of the requirements in your calculations here? 20 MR. STEINER: Could you pick it out of that table, when 21 the relaxations would occur. 22 MR. HERRICK: Let's just take 1931, the bottom of the 23 first block there. The existing flow is 1244; is that 24 correct? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes, that's correct. 1407 01 MR. HERRICK: The target flow is then 2000; is that 02 correct? 03 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 04 MR. HERRICK: Then column nine shows that there is no 05 additional water provided by San Joaquin River Agreement? 06 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 07 MR. HERRICK: If we go back to column six, we see that 08 is a number three. Could you explain with that means. 09 MR. STEINER: That is the mechanism to determine if 10 there is a dry year, sequential dry year relaxation. Since 11 that value is four or less, it would say that there is no 12 firm requirement of the SJRA trips to provide water above 13 existing flow in that particular occurrence. 14 MR. HERRICK: When you modeled this, did you model 2000 15 or 1244? 16 MR. STEINER: I modeled 1244. 17 MR. HERRICK: I believe you said earlier you made no 18 calculation as to how many times the double step may occur; 19 is that correct? 20 MR. STEINER: I know from working with these numbers 21 for a couple of years now that the double step happens, I 22 believe, 15, 18 times out of the 71-year sequence. 23 MR. HERRICK: What percentage is that? Do you know? 24 MR. STEINER: I have to figure it out. 25 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any calculations as to how 1408 01 many times the relaxation requirement occurs? 02 MR. STEINER: I believe it happens, without going 03 through every one of these, five or six times of which 04 several of those are in the most recent drought period. 05 MR. HERRICK: In fact, the most recent drought is at 06 the bottom of the chart? 07 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 08 MR. HERRICK: We have four relaxation years in a row. 09 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: If I could now turn to your exhibit, 11 let's go to Page 24 which is Table 3 of your exhibit. 12 MR. STEINER: I may not have a overhead for that. 13 MR. HERRICK: Do you have Page 26? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes, I do. 15 MR. HERRICK: Let's start with that. 16 MR. HERRICK: Page 26 of your testimony is the current 17 transparency, which is Table 3? 18 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: One of the pages of Table 3. Could you 20 explain what this table is telling us? 21 MR. STEINER: This table is a different table to where 22 I have the results of TDS at Vernalis under the current 23 condition, study, and also under the condition, which is 24 San Joaquin River Agreement, is employed. And those studies 25 generate a water quality at Vernalis. And this table is the 1409 01 simple mathematical difference between the SJRA setting at 02 the current setting. 03 MR. HERRICK: You have compared the current setting 04 with the SJRA, correct? 05 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 06 MR. HERRICK: You've developed differences as to 07 whether it is a positive impact or negative impact on TDS; 08 is that correct? 09 MR. STEINER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Have you done this same comparison on the 11 Water Quality Control Plan flows? 12 MR. STEINER: No, I have not. 13 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that the Water Quality 14 Control Plan has an EC requirement for agricultural flows? 15 MR. STEINER: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: All the agricultural flow is salinity 17 standard? 18 MR. STEINER: That is a salinity standard at Vernalis. 19 MR. HERRICK: Different designations here. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's take a time-out here. I want to 21 go off the record for about 30 seconds for a consultation. 22 Excuse me, Mr. Herrick. 23 MR. HERRICK: No problem. 24 (Discussion held off the record.) 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, Mr. Steiner and Mr. 1410 01 O'Laughlin we are back on the record. Thank you for your 02 indulgence. And we will start the clock again. None of 03 that was at your expense. 04 MR. HERRICK: Pardon me for being repetitive, I don't 05 recall where we left off. I think I asked you whether or 06 not you have compared SJRA water quality impacts with those 07 required in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan; is that 08 correct? 09 MR. STEINER: I did not run a difference between the 10 '95 plan and SJRA. 11 MR. HERRICK: Your prior documents deal with TDS, 12 correct? 13 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: The standard is EC; is that correct? 15 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 16 MR. HERRICK: Could you give us a conversion from the 17 standard of .7/1.0 into TDS? 18 MR. STEINER: What one would assume is that the 1.0 19 standard for EC converts to a 650 TDS and the .7 converts to 20 a 455 TDS. 21 MR. HERRICK: If we go back a couple of pages, 22 unfortunately we don't have an overhead for that and I 23 apologize, also. Let's go to Page 24. That is the April 24 modeling. You have that in front of you? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes, I do. 1411 01 MR. HERRICK: Let's just take August. And bearing in 02 mind that the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan requires 455 03 TDS; is that correct? 04 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 05 MR. HERRICK: Would you point out the number of years 06 where the San Joaquin River Agreement has TDS higher than 07 455. 08 MR. STEINER: That setting will occur -- 09 MR. HERRICK: I am actually asking you to go down the 10 whole list, if you don't mind. 11 MR. STEINER: Could I possibly take you to Page 27 12 instead? 13 MR. HERRICK: Well, that one kind of has additional 14 information on it, and we will get to that. Let me go down 15 this one first. I know it is a lot; there is a lot of 16 numbers being thrown around. 17 MR. STEINER: There would be exceedances of the 18 objective at Vernalis in 1924. 19 MR. GODWIN: Mr. Chairman. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Godwin. 21 MR. GODWIN: You were asking him to compare with the 22 river agreement setting. This table is current setting. 23 MR. HERRICK: Yes, it is. I am sorry. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. 25 Godwin. 1412 01 MR. HERRICK: Should be Page 25 of your testimony. I 02 apologize for that. 03 MR. STEINER: On Page 25, which is results of salinity 04 at Vernalis under the SJRA setting, you would find 05 exceedances in 1924, 1926, 1929, 1930, '31, '33, '34, '39, 06 '44, '47, shows very slight at '48, '49, '55, '59, '60, '61, 07 '62, '64, '72, '76, '77, '85, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91. That 08 was it. 09 MR. HERRICK: Just for the record, I was keeping track 10 of them. I count 27 instances where the water quality 11 standard is above the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for 12 April; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: Not for April. 14 MR. HERRICK: Not April? I am sorry, the modeling is 15 April. The month was August we went through. 16 MR. STEINER: And I did not keep tallies. 17 MR. HERRICK: Somewhere around that number, wasn't it? 18 MR. STEINER: I couldn't validate that. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The number speaks for itself. 20 MR. HERRICK: To be fair, let's go through it really 21 quickly and see how many are below the standard for the same 22 month of August. 23 MR. STEINER: You want at or below? 24 MR. HERRICK: Below. 25 MR. STEINER: 1967, 1983, and shows 1992 as far as 1413 01 being under, while the rest remain at the standard. 02 MR. HERRICK: I think you missed one; 1932 is one, 03 correct? 04 MR. STEINER: Yes. That would be the case. 05 MR. HERRICK: Did you count those; do you agree that is 06 four? 07 MR. STEINER: I honestly didn't keep track, Mr. 08 Herrick. 09 MR. HERRICK: So, have you made any conclusions in your 10 testimony with regard to how the water quality at Vernalis 11 is affected or compares as between the San Joaquin River 12 Agreement and the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 13 MR. STEINER: I am not sure if you are asking operation 14 to achieve the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan or just 15 compared to what we just went over? 16 MR. HERRICK: Just what we did. Have you done that in 17 your work for your employer for this hearing? 18 MR. STEINER: I guess it's evident by this record right 19 here of how many times there is an exceedance or meeting or 20 better than meeting water quality at Vernalis since the 21 measure of compliance is against the 1995 Water Quality 22 Control Plan. 23 MR. HERRICK: Your written testimony, not the 24 attachment, but your written testimony doesn't discuss this 25 issue at all, does it? 1414 01 MR. STEINER: I believe it does, as far as change that 02 occurs by implementing the San Joaquin River Agreement as 03 opposed to not doing something. 04 MR. HERRICK: It is my understanding, the changes you 05 note in your testimony compare the current with the SJRA, 06 and that is different than with the 1995 plan, isn't it? 07 MR. STEINER: I believe it would be different, yes. 08 Although the results for August may not be any different by 09 assuming compliance with the '95 Water Quality Control Plan. 10 I do not know that answer. But it could be very similar to 11 this exact result in August. 12 MR. HERRICK: If the plan were in effect and being met, 13 I guess this is a hypothetical, it would have 455 TDS in 14 August, every day, would it? 15 MR. STEINER: That would make sense if there was 16 hydrology to support it. 17 MR. HERRICK: Your analysis does give us TDS in August 18 under the SJRA, correct? 19 MR. STEINER: That's correct, which would result of the 20 SJRA in combination with the rest of the operation on the 21 San Joaquin River. 22 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain to us what X2 means. 23 MR. STEINER: It is the location of a salinity gradient 24 as measured from the Golden Gate. 25 MR. HERRICK: Not trying to trick you, isn't that one 1415 01 of the criteria in the Water Quality Control Plan? 02 MR. STEINER: Yes, it is. 03 MR. HERRICK: Could you give us your understanding of 04 -- again, I am not trying to be too strict. What does that 05 mean? In other words, somebody's drawn a line somewhere, 06 but does that apply to the Water Quality Control Plan? 07 MR. STEINER: It enters into several objectives within 08 the '95 Water Quality Control Plan. 09 MR. HERRICK: What are the methods of maintaining this 10 X2 at any certain place? 11 MR. STEINER: Releases of water. 12 MR. HERRICK: In your analysis of the San Joaquin River 13 Agreement, did you do any analysis on how it affects X2? 14 MR. STEINER: No, I did not. 15 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason you didn't do that, 16 given that X2 is part of the '95 plan? 17 MR. STEINER: This analysis focused on trying to 18 provide the water to Vernalis; and in combination with that 19 you have operations required for exports that has not been 20 performed. 21 MR. HERRICK: You recall when we had the overhead 22 showing the plan requirements for flows, that there were two 23 numbers for each year type? 24 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 25 MR. HERRICK: Each year had a higher number that we 1416 01 didn't cover, correct? 02 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 03 MR. HERRICK: Is it your recollection that that higher 04 number kicks in depending on where X2 is? 05 MR. STEINER: Where the required X2 location is, yes. 06 MR. HERRICK: Do you have an understanding as to why 07 there would be a higher flow at Vernalis, depending at where 08 X2 is? 09 MR. STEINER: It was part of the mantra that derived 10 into the establishment of the San Joaquin-Vernalis standard. 11 MR. HERRICK: Wasn't the additional flow to contribute 12 to helping -- to contribute to meet X2 at a certain point? 13 MR. STEINER: That was the intention behind it as I 14 interpret it. 15 MR. HERRICK: To your knowledge is there some provision 16 for that in SJRA? 17 MR. STEINER: No there is not. 18 MR. HERRICK: So, you have not modeled that criteria or 19 that data for your presentation today? 20 MR. STEINER: Other than it is embedded in the models 21 as far as requirement at Vernalis based on the X2 criteria. 22 We have embedded in the models the full '95 plan, including 23 X2 provision at Vernalis. 24 MR. HERRICK: Your results didn't give you any 25 information on how SJRA affects X2 or did it? 1417 01 MR. STEINER: How the SJRA affected X2 was not 02 incorporated into my analysis. 03 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, could you tell us what 04 assumptions you made, if any, in your model as to where the 05 water provided under SRJA would come? 06 MR. STEINER: Yes. Can I? Yes, I am. Would you like 07 me to? 08 MR. HERRICK: Please, do. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, 10 we've now had copies of San Joaquin River Group Authority 11 11.1 through 11.6 made. Copies have been handed out. If 12 parties don't have them, they are on the back table. We 13 will be providing a proof of service and sending those out 14 this afternoon. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 16 MR. STEINER: In terms of modeling assumptions, when we 17 derive an amount of supplemental water provided under VAMP, 18 we would allocate it to the parties according to the 19 Division Agreement table that Mr. Van Camp presented. At 20 that point we would go to the modeling and make that water 21 happen. 22 In terms of the Merced River, we place that water in 23 the river, as far as an incremental change from the existing 24 condition. That water would come from reservoir operations 25 or, at times, reductions in surface diversions. 1418 01 For the Tuolumne River it entirely came from reservoir 02 operation. It would occur in the river above existing 03 flow. 04 At the Stanislaus River, when those parties provided 05 water, it had a little more complicated procedure. When 06 there was room to put water down the Stanislaus River 07 without going over the 1500 cfs objective at Goodwin, it 08 would go in the river. To the extent that the Stanislaus 09 party's water could not be moved through Goodwin and 10 maintained no greater than 1500 cfs, the water was moved to 11 the Tuolumne River system and placed on top of Tuolumne 12 River party's obligation to get the water into the system. 13 In terms of the Exchange Contractors, their portions 14 were added as a supplement accretion to the Lower San 15 Joaquin River. 16 MR. HERRICK: When you say some of the water from 17 OID/SSJID would be shipped over to the Tuolumne, can they 18 currently do that? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. 20 That is not what he said. He said that MID and TID would 21 release their water. He didn't say they would ship it over 22 there. 23 MR. HERRICK: Would you explain to me how the -- 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Objection sustained. 25 MR. HERRICK: I will try to restate it. 1419 01 C.O. CAFFREY: I was thinking what Mr. O'Laughlin was 02 saying, trying to get the tape to pass through a little 03 quicker on my part. 04 Go ahead, maybe you can rephrase the question, or do 05 you want to -- 06 MR. HERRICK: I will rephrase it. 07 Explain to the Board how releases in MID and TID would 08 constitute part of the OID/SSJID flows. 09 MR. STEINER: This would likely fall under the 10 flexibility that Mr. Van Camp explained where, if water 11 cannot be provided on the Stanislaus, another party would 12 cover the share. Physically, they are investigating the 13 opportunities to move that water across their systems. For 14 modeling purposes I can make it happen. 15 MR. HERRICK: Have you done modeling for the provision 16 of flows under the agreement in methods different than set 17 forth in the Division Agreement? 18 MR. STEINER: I believe I am carrying out the Division 19 Agreement to the letter, as far as what water comes from, 20 with this nuance that I make some of the Stanislaus water 21 occur over in the Tuolumne River. 22 MR. HERRICK: As you said, both you and Mr. Van Camp 23 testified to flexibility in the operation of the Division 24 Agreement, correct? 25 MR. STEINER: There is that flexibility. 1420 01 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to explore whether or not, if 02 that flexibility is exercised, anybody has done any modeling 03 to see the results, see the effects. 04 MR. STEINER: I don't believe so. I am not in -- in a 05 sense I am not using the flexibility here because I am 06 getting the water from the Stanislaus parties' 07 entitlements. 08 MR. HERRICK: When you have these flows, you then use 09 them later on to calculate TDS at Vernalis, correct? 10 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 11 MR. HERRICK: Could you briefly explain how you to do 12 that. 13 MR. STEINER: These models automatically account for 14 where water is coming from and results in a calculation of 15 melded water quality at Vernalis. So, it is inherent to the 16 models; it just happens because it is programmed correctly. 17 MR. HERRICK: So the model just tells you if there is 18 increased flow that has some results or some effect? 19 MR. STEINER: If there is a difference of flow, the 20 water quality will react to it. 21 MR. HERRICK: Do those assumptions -- let me back up. 22 Did you add any new assumptions, or did you use the 23 assumptions given in the models? 24 MR. STEINER: I am quite certain I used all the 25 assumptions that are in the model. It is just that we had 1421 01 to adapt the models to do this under special circumstance. 02 MR. HERRICK: Do those model assumptions give any 03 consideration to not where but how the flow is provided? 04 MR. STEINER: I don't know the distinction. 05 MR. HERRICK: Let's just take Merced. Merced could 06 provide the flows in numerous ways. I believe that is 07 testimony by Mr. Selb and Mr. Van Camp that will be 08 presented later. They talk about various methods. There is 09 conservation and there is prevention of evaporation or 10 prevention of loss. There could actually be less 11 consumption, right? There are various ways to provide the 12 water? 13 MR. STEINER: There are various ways that water could 14 be provided, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Since you're an expert in the downstream 16 flows, does it make a difference on the flows how you get 17 the water? 18 MR. STEINER: In terms of the equations that are used 19 to get to Vernalis, as far as water quality, the fact that 20 you are assuming that water gets into the river, however the 21 extra water was treated for the river, the fact that it was 22 released below their control point in entering the main stem 23 of the San Joaquin River, it treats all the water the same. 24 MR. HERRICK: If the water under the Division Agreement 25 is provided in a method that decreases consumption at a 1422 01 later point, does the model take into consideration the 02 change in TDS that may occur from that? 03 MR. STEINER: That water gets back into the reservoir 04 system and still looks like reservoir water to the model. 05 MR. HERRICK: Let me rephrase that. Let's just say in 06 order to provide 25,000 acre-feet, somebody uses 25,000 07 acre-feet or less. In other words, they have the dam. They 08 would have used it at some point. Instead of doing that, 09 they release it for the pulse flow. 10 Have you followed that so far? 11 MR. STEINER: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Does it make a difference to you in your 13 calculation of TDS what that previous use would have been? 14 MR. STEINER: No, it does not. 15 MR. HERRICK: Why not? 16 MR. STEINER: That reaction concerns -- we created a 17 release down the river instead of, I believe what you are 18 saying, is a release to delivery. It is still the same 19 source water. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is there a different water available 21 later on because you've made that release now? 22 MR. STEINER: A difference of the water where? 23 MR. HERRICK: Let's change the hypothetical. Let's say 24 that the 25,000 acre-feet would be applied to agricultural 25 land. Do the models take into account that that application 1423 01 of water to agricultural land may cause a return flow to the 02 river? 03 MR. STEINER: In this particular study, I do not know 04 what a reduction in deliveries would do -- a reduction in 05 surface diversions would do at the end of the system. 06 MR. HERRICK: Isn't that important to know as to how 07 much water is available in the systems which drives your 08 calculations for later years? 09 MR. STEINER: The various methods that we're 10 investigating here, we don't know what the specific reaction 11 may be to a surface water delivery reduction. It could be 12 additional pumpage and still deliver the same amount of 13 water. 14 MR. HERRICK: How do you determine whether or not there 15 is carryover for the following year? 16 MR. STEINER: I don't understand linkage of that 17 discussion. 18 MR. HERRICK: If the water was not applied -- let's say 19 the water is applied and it generates a return flow as most 20 agricultural water does. Would you agree with that? 21 MR. STEINER: It is a very broad statement. But 22 application of water could lead to return flows. 23 MR. HERRICK: And that return flow enters the river at 24 some time of the year? 25 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 1424 01 MR. HERRICK: That return flow is part of the total 02 flow of the system, correct? 03 MR. STEINER: If it is hydraulically connected. 04 MR. HERRICK: And the total flow of the system is one 05 of the things you used to calculate the TDS? 06 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 07 MR. HERRICK: So, if you had less total flow because 08 there is no return flow, would that affect your calculation 09 of TDS? 10 MR. STEINER: If you did another element of the inputs 11 to the river system, it would have an affect on TDS. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are you saying that all of your 13 calculations do not consider how the increased pulse flow 14 may effect water availability in the system at some later 15 point? 16 MR. STEINER: The modeling results, specific case by 17 case, where the water came from in terms of if there was a 18 reduction in surface water diversions, the model would have 19 captured through its equations of return flows some 20 reduction return flow. 21 MR. HERRICK: The model will make an assumption. Tell 22 me what that assumption is since I believe we just said 23 there is various ways that the water could have been 24 provided. Is the model assuming one way? 25 MR. STEINER: The model is assuming one way. 1425 01 MR. HERRICK: Your knowledge of the SJRA, does that 02 specify that one way? 03 MR. STEINER: No, it doesn't. I ran purely a test of 04 one way it may happen. 05 MR. HERRICK: If the water provided under SJRA is not 06 done that one way, then your model results would not reflect 07 the true stated TDS in the river? 08 MR. STEINER: You would have to create that other way 09 to evaluate it. 10 MR. HERRICK: Not create, you'd have to plug that into 11 your model? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Your modeling doesn't do that now? 14 MR. STEINER: It investigated in one way. 15 MR. HERRICK: Because you don't know how the water is 16 being provided, you are unable to calculate the effects on 17 TDS? 18 MR. STEINER: I evaluated the effects of TDS the way we 19 modeled it. 20 MR. HERRICK: Explain to me what that way is. 21 MR. STEINER: It goes back to then, as I just explained 22 where the water would come from on the Merced River. It is 23 the increased releases from reservoirs and an occasional 24 reduction in surface water diversions. 25 On the Tuolumne it is all by reservoir operations. 1426 01 On the Stanislaus River it is the bypass of a diversion 02 by the Stanislaus entities. That happens, bypass, either 03 goes down the river or it is placed in the Tuolumne River 04 system. 05 And as far as the Exchange Contractors, it is all 06 assumed as an incremental input from water supply of the 07 Exchange Contractors into the river. 08 MR. HERRICK: Let's go back to the Stanislaus. You 09 said it is a -- they don't make the diversion, they allow it 10 to pass; is that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: The way that I have modeled it is that 12 the requirement is in April or May, as far as their VAMP 13 components. And that water is -- there is room at Goodwin 14 under 1500 cfs with care as a reduction to their surface 15 water diversions on the year to make up for that incremental 16 flow down the Stanislaus. 17 MR. HERRICK: You are still meaning that they would 18 have diverted that water in the absence of SJRA? 19 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any information regarding 21 historical diversions that support that they would have 22 diverted all of it? 23 MR. STEINER: Not in front of me. 24 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar -- maybe not. Are you 25 familiar with the OID/SSJID agreement with the Bureau 1427 01 regarding the water in New Melones? 02 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry, Mr. Herrick. 04 MR. HERRICK: I can just redo it, see if I can cure 05 that. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't we try that. Go ahead. 07 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that OID and SSJID have an 08 agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the 09 provision of water to them from New Melones? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that one of the conditions 12 of that contains a conservation account? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am aware of that. 14 MR. HERRICK: Can you explain what that means to you. 15 MR. STEINER: Although it doesn't apply to the 16 modeling, it never places itself in the midst of this 17 modeling. My understanding of the conservation account is 18 they have the ability to move their allocation from one year 19 to another at the risk of being spilled from New Melones any 20 time there is a spill from New Melones. 21 MR. HERRICK: You say your modeling does not take that 22 into consideration? 23 MR. STEINER: Does not take it into consideration. 24 MR. HERRICK: Would your modeling results be different 25 if the water released under SJRA was held in that reserve 1428 01 account rather than diverted? 02 MR. STEINER: As I would relay that to modeling, is 03 that the conservation account could allow the districts to 04 move their entitlement from one year to another. And to 05 build a conservation account, if I recollect correctly, is 06 that they have to take in one year less than their 07 entitlement to build that account. Since we have assumed 08 that they are taking all of their entitlement each and every 09 year, the conservation account would never provide movement 10 of water from one year to another in my modeling. 11 MR. HERRICK: I understand your assumption is that they 12 would take it all in one year. Let me march you through 13 another hypothetical. 14 Let's say the conservation account has water in it. 15 The next year's hydrology is poor. So that in the absence 16 of the San Joaquin River Agreement, would have used the 17 water in their conservation account. Is it your testimony 18 that your modeling does not take that into consideration? 19 MR. STEINER: I never put it in as an assumption. 20 MR. HERRICK: Under that hypothetical with that 21 conservation account water been added to the flows, the net 22 flows of the Stanislaus River if they used it that year? 23 MR. STEINER: I am quite confused with the 24 hypothetical. I am not certain anymore now. 25 MR. HERRICK: If the water is in the conservation 1429 01 account and they decided to use it, they will divert it, 02 correct, to their agricultural use? 03 MR. STEINER: As compared to my base study, which they 04 only use their entitlement if they were granted through 05 their conservation account the ability to take more water in 06 in another year than their entitlement, that would change 07 some of the results in the analysis. 08 MR. HERRICK: I apologize for this getting confusing. 09 It doesn't have to be more than their entitlement? If the 10 next year is bone dry, the conservation account plus their 11 regular amount may not exceed their entitlement, correct? 12 No water flows down the river? 13 MR. STEINER: You have lost track of me at this point 14 about the water down the river. 15 MR. HERRICK: You said that they may take more than 16 allocation by using the conservation account? 17 MR. STEINER: That is my understanding of how that 18 conservation account works. 19 MR. HERRICK: Let's just assume that it is a dry, dry, 20 dry, dry year, the year that they want to use the 21 conversation account. The only water available may be the 22 conservation account, correct? 23 MR. STEINER: I would expect if the calculation said 24 that they had zero entitlement, that could be the case. 25 MR. HERRICK: If they use that conservation account, 1430 01 they would, I assume, use it for their regular agricultural 02 purposes, correct? 03 MR. STEINER: I could speculate that far, yes. 04 MR. HERRICK: As we said earlier, generally the use of 05 agricultural water generates return flow; is that correct? 06 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 07 MR. HERRICK: That return flow would go into the 08 Stanislaus River, correct? 09 MR. STEINER: It could go various places, yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: One of the places would be the Stanislaus 11 River? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: The reason I go through that is you said 14 you assumed that they diverted all the water for your 15 modeling purposes, each year? 16 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: So if they don't divert it, but they use 18 it in a subsequent year, would that subsequent year use 19 affect a calculation of TDS at Vernalis? 20 MR. STEINER: It would change the year to year 21 depiction, yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: I just want to make sure we are clear, 23 you have not done that under this analysis, modeling or in 24 your testimony? 25 MR. STEINER: No I did not do that hypothetical. 1431 01 MR. HERRICK: If you could turn to Page 13 of your 02 testimony. Briefly, could you tell the Board what this 03 overhead shows? 04 MR. STEINER: Again, this is from my exhibit, Testimony 05 11, Figure 3, Page 1 of 5. This is a summary of the flows 06 at Vernalis grouped together by year type, by month. And we 07 have two depictions here: one if the VAMP pulse flows were 08 focused in April and the other being that VAMP pulse flows 09 is focused in May. 10 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, these are averages, correct? 11 MR. STEINER: This would be the average of all critical 12 years, classification years. 13 MR. HERRICK: The average per month? 14 MR. STEINER: By month, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Is your testimony under SJRA the net 16 outflow during that year increases? 17 MR. STEINER: By visual observation it appears that the 18 answer is the net flow past Vernalis increases. 19 MR. HERRICK: Under the agreement, there is more water 20 flowing out than without the agreement; is that correct? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 22 "net outflow." I don't know if he is referring to Vernalis 23 or if he is referring to the Bay-Delta with the export 24 limitations. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you clarify, Mr. Herrick, and 1432 01 repose our question? 02 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 03 As the overhead shows, this is flow at Vernalis. 04 Let me reask the question. 05 Does this -- do these two bar graphs show a net 06 increase of flow at Vernalis during these year types? 07 MR. STEINER: Yes, it does. 08 MR. HERRICK: Do you have an understanding as to -- let 09 me start over. 10 Do you have an explanation as to how the outflow can 11 increase over the year? 12 MR. STEINER: As compared to what? 13 MR. HERRICK: Let me say that I assume you would agree 14 in any one year there is a fixed amount of water upstream. 15 It rains. There is storage. There is carryover. There is 16 a certain amount every year. 17 MR. STEINER: But you can't lose track of the nexus 18 from one year to another. 19 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 20 How do you get more outflow in one year type? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. It calls for speculation 22 and, not only that, it is vague and ambiguous. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I was distracted. I would like to hear 24 the question again. Can you read it back. 25 (Record read as requested.) 1433 01 C.O. CAFFREY: You need more specificity? 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It is vague and ambiguous, and it 03 calls for speculation. Also, it assumes some facts or some 04 hypotheticals that we don't have in front of us as to what 05 is the baseline for assuming the outflow. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question. Mr. 07 Steiner? 08 MR. STEINER: I could create a question. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Your job is not to help him. I am just 10 asking you if you understand the question. Several people 11 in the room seem not to be able to understand it. 12 MR. STEINER: Not without guessing what he was really 13 asking. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to sustain the objection. 15 Mr. Herrick, try to break it up or get a little more 16 specific. 17 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. There are two bars on these 18 bar graphs, are there not, Mr. Steiner? 19 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: The white bar is the current? 21 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 22 MR. HERRICK: Let's just assume for this apparent 23 hypothetical that the current is the outflow for that year. 24 That year type, okay? 25 MR. STEINER: Right. 1434 01 MR. HERRICK: There are certain amounts each month, 02 although they are averages, of outflow under that critical 03 year type? 04 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 05 MR. HERRICK: The other bars are the black bars which 06 show outflow for each month under the SJRA? 07 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 08 MR. HERRICK: By what method does the outflow for the 09 entire year increase under SJRA as compared to the current? 10 MR. STEINER: In this particular case it could be the 11 result of simply -- 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Go ahead, finish the answer. 13 MR. STEINER: In the critical years here, since the 14 system is pretty much performing at minimum flows in the 15 tributary system, this could be the result of -- I know a 16 part of this result is because it is coming out of reservoir 17 storage, carryover storage to the next year. In fact, in 18 critical years we may be releasing more water from 19 reservoirs than we would have under the current condition 20 and it would result in a lower carryover storage going to 21 non-critical years. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe I am interrupting your train of 23 thought. Do you need to desperately ask that next question? 24 I just want to remind everybody, especially you, Mr. 25 Herrick and the witness, that that buzzing was just the 1435 01 indicator from our timing system that cross-examination has 02 gone on for one hour. That is just a target. 03 You are going to need more time, I presume, Mr. Herrick? 04 MR. HERRICK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it will 05 be more than 15, 20 minutes. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can we take a short break at this 07 time? He is getting thirsty. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: There you go again, Mr. O'Laughlin. I 09 was just going to make that suggestion. It's 25 minutes 10 after 2, let's take our 12-minute break and come back and 11 give Mr. Herrick some more time. 12 Thank you. 13 (Break taken.) 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's take our seats, resume the 15 hearing. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, an issue came up during 17 Mr. Steiner's testimony in regards to the data files 18 supporting this testimony. We submitted those files to the 19 State Water Resources Control Board when we filed the 20 initial testimony. There were 20 copies of the initial 21 testimony, plus one set of data files that was presented to 22 the State Water Resources Control Board. Unfortunately, the 23 State Board cannot find its data files that we submitted. 24 What we have done is given to Ms. Whitney the data 25 files set forth in Mr. Steiner's testimony and marked them 1436 01 as 11.7. 02 We had thought that these data files would be at the 03 State Water Resources Control Board. And our understanding 04 was if any party wanted a copy of them, they would see them 05 in Mr. Steiner's testimony and request them, because his 06 testimony is based off of the data files that were 07 presented. If any party does request -- can request a copy 08 of the data files from us, we will make those available. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. For whatever 10 reason, we have had the misunderstanding, and I appreciate 11 that offer. I hope everybody heard that. 12 Mr. O'Laughlin, if anybody needs to look at that level 13 of detail, they can ask Mr. O'Laughlin who will provide you 14 with a copy. 15 MS. WHITNEY: Alternatively, we could post those files 16 on our web site, which is what we have done with the data 17 files that we relied on that DWR prepared for us. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: They are not so numerous that we can do 19 that, then? There it is, then, folks, all you need is a 20 computer and they will be on the -- 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Also need Lotus. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's put it this way: if you don't have 23 Lotus or you don't have a computer, I think Mr. O'Laughlin 24 will still make his offer available. Hopefully, by putting 25 it on the Internet we will have everything under control. 1437 01 Thank you, Ms. Whitney. 02 Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 03 I lost track. You said you needed, what was it, 04 another 20 minutes? 05 MR. HERRICK: Probably about 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir, please proceed. 07 MR. HERRICK: Can we put Page 19 back on the overhead. 08 Mr. Steiner, I think before we left for break I was 09 asking you a question about comparing the current and the 10 SJRA total outflow for this critical year type. Do you 11 recall that? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Just trying to get back to where we were, 14 sorry. 15 What is your understanding as to how there is more 16 outflow during that year on average under the SJRA than 17 under the current? 18 MR. STEINER: Well, under the SJRA, since it requires 19 greater flow in April, for instance, to meet the VAMP flows 20 and the provisional water in October by Merced, that would 21 explain why the black bars are greater than the white bars 22 in those particular months. 23 As you look at the rest of the year, as far as the 24 flows that occur on average for that year type plus all the 25 other months, you won't see much of any change in flow which 1438 01 would be an indication that the system's pretty much 02 operating at minimal or fixed operation regardless of what 03 the April, October releases would do. 04 And that could be the result of simply as to provide 05 those April, October flows, it came out of reservoir storage 06 and carried over into the next year which may not be a 07 critical year to where you would have more water in a 08 critical year, potentially at the expense of another year. 09 MR. HERRICK: That is my next question. If the water 10 supplied from storage, would there then be less water in 11 storage for next year, for the next year? 12 MR. STEINER: That would follow, yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Does your modeling take that into 14 consideration in calculating a following year's 15 availability? 16 MR. STEINER: Yes, it did. 17 MR. HERRICK: Same thing with regard to water quality. 18 MR. STEINER: Water quality -- the model is operating, 19 as far as water goes, the water quality objective of the 20 models is constantly working within the parameters of the 21 available water. 22 MR. HERRICK: Just for clarification, I am trying to 23 understand, if the model takes water from storage and then 24 assumes there is less water the next year, depending on year 25 type, do your results then show an effect on water quality, 1439 01 given that decreasing carryover? 02 MR. STEINER: Yes. Water quality results change. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer has a question. 05 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, I apologize for 06 interrupting. I have a follow-up question on what you have 07 been asking; that is, does the model consider the TDS of the 08 various sources of water? 09 MR. STEINER: Yes, it does. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: If you had irrigation return water of 11 a higher TDS than the reservoir release water, that would be 12 accounted for? 13 MR. STEINER: Although that gets to the specifics of 14 the equations that finally develop the water quality at 15 Vernalis. All those parameters are surrogated into an 16 equation that relates flow with water quality. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can you explain what "surrogated 18 into" means? 19 MR. STEINER: It is lumped together. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown observed that. Thank you, 21 that is more technical for the engineers. Mr. Brown is our 22 in-house comedy. He does pretty well at it, too. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Excuse the interruption. Thank you 24 for that. 25 MR. HERRICK: Certainly, no problem. 1440 01 Mr. Steiner, we talked about your modeling not taking 02 into consideration certain flexibility that you believe is 03 in the Division Agreement, correct? 04 MR. STEINER: In the analysis, I did not exercise that 05 avenue. 06 MR. HERRICK: So, I am just trying to get you to see 07 whether or not you did any analysis of the affects of 08 people or users upstream of Vernalis depending on where the 09 water came from. 10 MR. STEINER: I don't understand the question. 11 MR. HERRICK: If the water doesn't come from all three 12 tributaries, it comes from one, could that have possible 13 effects on the water quality at different points upstream of 14 Vernalis? 15 MR. STEINER: Within the river it would definitely do 16 that from a practical side. In terms of the modeling here, 17 I believe the way that the model treats water from 18 Stanislaus, water from Merced, water from Tuolumne, it would 19 be no difference in terms of that contribution of that water 20 quality at Vernalis. 21 MR. HERRICK: If more percentage that year comes from 22 the Stanislaus than the Merced or Tuolumne, would that 23 affect the users on the San Joaquin River upstream of the 24 Stanislaus confluence with the San Joaquin? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 1441 01 affect users upstream. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. Try again. 03 MR. HERRICK: Same question. The question is: Would 04 that affect the TDS upstream from the Stanislaus junction 05 with the San Joaquin? 06 MR. STEINER: Could you give me the hypothetical? 07 MR. HERRICK: What you modeled was the default position 08 of the Division Agreement, correct? 09 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: That brings flows first from the Merced 11 River and then from the other tributaries, correct? 12 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 13 MR. HERRICK: You also testified there were certain 14 flexibilities so that those flows may not be provided in 15 accordance with the Division Agreement; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: Let's just assume for the hypothetical 18 that those flows, a larger percentage are being provided 19 from the Stanislaus River. Okay? That is hypothetical. 20 Would that affect -- would that, in your opinion, affect the 21 TDS upstream on the San Joaquin of where it joins the 22 Stanislaus? 23 MR. STEINER: Given the rest of the hydrology staying 24 equal, if you moved additional water from the Merced and the 25 Tuolumne from where I modeled the SJRA Agreement, and 1442 01 instead put that at the Stanislaus River, then although the 02 model doesn't detect until you get to Maze or until you get 03 to Vernalis, the model would see a different TDS 04 concentration above the mouth of the Stanislaus River in 05 your hypothetical. 06 MR. HERRICK: Your modeling did not do calculations 07 like that? 08 MR. STEINER: Because we did not model a different 09 assumption from where the water could come from. 10 MR. HERRICK: Let's go now to the page in your 11 testimony that you referenced earlier, and it is page -- I 12 think it is Page 27. Again for the record, Mr. Steiner, 13 would you identify the overhead we have up. 14 MR. STEINER: We have Table 3, Page 4 of 8 of my 15 testimony, which is SJRGA 11. 16 MR. HERRICK: What do the shaded bars indicate? 17 MR. STEINER: The entire table is essentially a 18 threshold approach to meeting the water quality objective at 19 Vernalis. And the shaded areas, if you can envision this as 20 a spreadsheet with cells, that, for instance, when you go to 21 July of 1924, you will see a shaded area with some asterisks 22 in it. The shaded area represents that under the current 23 condition the water quality objective in that particular 24 month would have been exceeded. 25 In terms of earlier discussion, that is a 455 TDS 1443 01 month. If you are to look at the model results, you will 02 see that in July the water quality at Vernalis under the 03 current condition would have been greater than 455 TDS. 04 That rings true for the rest of the exhibit up there; that 05 any time you see a shaded area, that is a point of 06 exceedance of water quality objective under the current 07 condition, as modeled by my analysis. 08 MR. HERRICK: And the current condition includes the 09 New Melones Interim Operation Plan; is that correct? 10 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 11 MR. HERRICK: Your exhibit says: 12 Shaded periods without the asterisks indicate 13 increment of times when Vernalis water 14 quality objectives could be achieved 15 subsequent to SJRA. (Reading.) 16 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: What do you mean by "could be achieved"? 18 MR. STEINER: The modeling assumed. As we put in the 19 SJRA flows, that is the VAMP flows, the Merced water flows, 20 the Oakdale water flows or volumes of water available, that 21 when we remodeled from the current condition at times the 22 water provided by the SJRAG, if you let it flow 23 automatically through the Interim Operations Plan of New 24 Melones, will sometimes change the result whether you're in 25 exceedance or not in exceedance. 1444 01 And in particular, October, what you will see there is 02 that due to the Merced River water, that is, you'll see 03 nothing but shaded areas with no asterisks in it. That 04 indicates that the Merced water during October will be 05 sufficient enough to dilute the river system to where the 06 Water Quality Plan objective will be met purely by the 07 addition of the water from the Merced system. That is where 08 the October changes. 09 What this is is a betterment of the water quality, and 10 the reduction of exceedances of the objective due to the 11 SJRA. That philosophy also falls true when you look at a 12 year and a month, like, I believe, June of 1933. You will 13 see that there is a cell there shaded and with no 14 asterisks. That June, what has happened is that additional 15 water is provided within the system by the SJR, and, in that 16 case that is likely a case where the Oakdale water in 17 combination with the VAMP water, potentially all the water 18 that is introduced by these other entities, trickled back 19 into the Interim Operations Plan of New Melones, and that it 20 changes when the allocations of each one of those sources of 21 water would occur and you would actually reduce one of the 22 exceedances from the base case. 23 MR. HERRICK: The asterisks are at the tail end of the 24 bar. 25 MR. STEINER: Yes. 1445 01 MR. HERRICK: Just generally speaking, is it true that 02 more often than not in July and August there is an 03 exceedance of the waste quality control salinity standard? 04 MR. STEINER: What this depicts is that there are 05 exceedances under the base case. There are occasions due to 06 the SJRA that the situation is improved, but all exceedances 07 are not removed. 08 MR. HERRICK: But the -- any exceedance with an 09 asterisk remains under the SJRA? 10 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 11 MR. HERRICK: Explain how extra water for water quality 12 becomes available under the SJRA. 13 MR. STEINER: If we use as a basis the New Melones 14 Interim Operation Plan, that that is as it exists and is 15 constructed today, that's due to Oakdale. It is almost all, 16 if not all, the water that is provided by Oakdale as far as 17 reducing their reservation from Reclamation under their 18 entitlements, it kicks back into the allocation procedure 19 for the Interim Operations Plan. That will normally result 20 as -- it will go into the equation as looking as additional 21 storage in the New Melones, because it was not diverted by 22 the Stanislaus entities. 23 To the extent that storage goes up and the allocation 24 procedures for the Interim Operations Plan are based on a 25 storage plus projected inflow, linear allocation procedure, 1446 01 the fact that there is more water available for allocation 02 to other uses, for each one of the allocations will be given 03 additional water. For instance, water quality allocation 04 would go up by the mere fact that storage went up. 05 MR. HERRICK: Is it your testimony that by OID not 06 diverting part of its entitlement, that water goes back into 07 the pot and not into their conservation account? 08 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 09 MR. HERRICK: What is the -- I recall that OID is going 10 to 15,000 acre-feet for October; is that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: That is not correct. 12 MR. HERRICK: There is a 15,000 acre-feet additional 13 amount of water for pulse flow in April, May? 14 MR. STEINER: That is not what it is either. 15 MR. HERRICK: I'm sorry, please explain the Oakdale -- 16 that additional water you were just talking about not going 17 to diversion. 18 MR. STEINER: I am going to reference the San Joaquin 19 River Agreement which is Exhibit Number 2. Referencing 20 Paragraph 8.5 on Page 11. 21 MR. HERRICK: So without repeating this too much, 22 Oakdale is offering to sell an additional 15,000 acre-feet; 23 is that correct? 24 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 25 MR. HERRICK: Any part of their 11,000 acre-feet set 1447 01 forth in the Division Agreement that they don't use is also 02 going back into the pot, so to speak? 03 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 04 MR. HERRICK: The total maximum amount of each year is 05 26,000 acre-feet from Oakdale; is that correct? 06 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 07 MR. HERRICK: We are talking about the amount that goes 08 back to the pot? 09 MR. STEINER: It is going back in allocation 10 procedure. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the Interim 12 Operation plan for New Melones? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 14 MR. HERRICK: The inflow -- the storage plus inflow 15 numbers are a million four to 2,000,000, 2,000,000 to 16 2,000,005, 2,000,005 to 3,000,000 and 3,000,000 to 17 6,000,000; is that correct? 18 MR. STEINER: Yes, it is. 19 MR. HERRICK: That is how they calculate. Have you 20 done a calculation comparing the maximum exposure of 26,000 21 acre-feet into the pot as it compares to those threshold 22 numbers in the interim plan? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Vague and ambiguous as to "exposure." 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you clarify, Mr. Herrick? 25 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 1448 01 Have you calculated what the effect of adding 26,000 02 acre-feet is to any one of those inflow storage plus inflow 03 numbers on the interim plan? 04 MR. STEINER: Yes. In one fashion or another, the 05 water automatically wraps itself back into the model. And 06 whether we cross thresholds here or not, I would have to 07 investigate the results. But it is automatically 08 incorporated into the modeling results. 09 MR. HERRICK: Is that why your chart that is on the 10 overhead says that the San Joaquin River Agreement could 11 improve water quality because the carryover will not 12 necessarily effect the storage plus inflow number? 13 MR. STEINER: If you're tugging on the word "could," it 14 is because I felt a little hesitant to make a statement for 15 the Interior. In terms of the modeling assumptions and 16 assuming the Interim Operations Plan is played out as I 17 modeled it, it would, if you assume that operations would 18 equal modeling results. 19 MR. HERRICK: Explain to me why it would if the New 20 Melones Interim Plan, storage plus inflow, is a range. 21 Doesn't the 26,000 acre-feet either fall within the range or 22 near the cusp? It doesn't necessarily bump you into the 23 next year type? 24 MR. STEINER: I think maybe you're missing how the 25 ranges are used in the allocation; that is, it is not a 1449 01 stair step. It is actually a linear interpolation within 02 the range to where, if you had 1 acre-feet, in theory the 03 slope of the line is going to change allocation a little 04 bit. 05 MR. HERRICK: If you remove the wet water years from 06 the exhibit up on the overhead, do you know how many, what 07 percentage of years there is a water quality standard being 08 violated? 09 MR. STEINER: Try that, what are you -- 10 MR. HERRICK: The exhibit there has all the water year 11 types, that is 1922 to 1991, '92. A good number of those 12 are wet or above normal years. Correct? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any understanding as to how 15 often water quality standards are violated in wet or above 16 normal years? 17 MR. STEINER: I'd have to dig a little deeper to give 18 you a breakdown. 19 MR. HERRICK: If the Board would give me just a moment 20 here, I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Sir. 22 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, you said that your modeling 23 assumed that the, I'll just say the, 26,000 amount that is a 24 maximum for Oakdale Irrigation, it is thrown back in the 25 pot; is that correct? 1450 01 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 02 MR. HERRICK: As part of your analysis, did you take 03 into consideration the AFRP program CVPIA? 04 MR. STEINER: My understanding and the way that I 05 watched this is that it is incorporated in the Interim 06 Operations Plan. 07 MR. HERRICK: Well, are you aware that the AFRP sets 08 different flows on the Stanislaus River than does the 09 Interim Operations Plan? 10 MR. BRANDT: I think I am going to just object to 11 clarify. The AFRP gets thrown around a lot. I will object 12 based on vague. What are we talking about, which AFRP? 13 There is no final AFRP? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: As a previous witness explained in 15 another phase. Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 16 Could you be a more little specific in the question? 17 The buzzer was set at 20 minutes. I know you need a little 18 more time. Please proceed. 19 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 Are you familiar with the draft Anadromous Fish 21 Restoration Program document? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes. At one time or another, I have been 23 through it. 24 MR. HERRICK: I haven't made copies for anybody. I 25 have in front of me the May 30th, 1997. To your knowledge, 1451 01 is that the most recent draft? 02 MR. STEINER: Yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: Have you examined the flows on the 04 Stanislaus River under that document? 05 MR. STEINER: I am sure I browsed past it, but I could 06 not cite you at this point. 07 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to trick you or anything. 08 I have a couple of copies. I am not trying to put it in 09 evidence, but I do want to ask him, and I am using this to 10 help jar his memory, if that is all right. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a document in the record, is it 12 not? Yes. Go ahead. 13 MR. HERRICK: Now, Mr. Steiner, is it correct to note 14 that the AFRP flows -- lets back up. 15 This is not a finally adopted program, correct? 16 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: It is going through its NEPA analysis and 18 other considerations? 19 MR. STEINER: I am not sure how we would even 20 characterize this as adopted. 21 MR. HERRICK: Do you note in here, you said you were 22 familiar with the document, that the pulse flow period in 23 some years is not 31 days but 60 days; is that correct? 24 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 25 MR. HERRICK: So did you take that into consideration 1452 01 when you're calculating the 26,000 acre-feet from OID going 02 back into the pot? Did you take into consideration that 03 rather than going back in the pot it may be released that 04 same year for AFRP purposes? 05 MR. STEINER: I did not take it any further than what 06 is inherent in the Interim Operations Plan, to spread the 07 water across a pattern, and it was developed for 08 incorporation in the operations plan. 09 I guess I want to take it one step further. As far as 10 when you say that -- if the inference is that this the 11 latest AFRP action for the Stanislaus River, if I recollect 12 correctly, the December or the Garamendi 1997 document and 13 actions for AFRP, I believe, specifically referenced that 14 the AFRP action on the Stanislaus River is consistent with 15 the Interim Operations Plan. 16 MR. HERRICK: If the -- the question was: Have you 17 considered in your modeling whether or not the additional 18 flows made available from Oakdale Irrigation District might 19 be released under the AFRP program? 20 MR. STEINER: I believe the Interim Operations Plan and 21 the fishery component of it is consistent with trying to 22 achieve AFRP actions. 23 MR. HERRICK: If the AFRP flows in one year are more 24 than the Interim Operations Plan flows, would that affect 25 your modeling results? 1453 01 MR. STEINER: Yes, if that was set as the standard, and 02 they are essentially changing what the assumed pattern and 03 allocations are for the fishery side, it would change the 04 results of the study. 05 MR. HERRICK: In your analysis, did you model the 06 effects on downstream uses? By that I mean riparian uses in 07 the South Delta caused by the SJRA? 08 MR. STEINER: I had no basis to even evaluate that. 09 MR. HERRICK: On Page 11 of your testimony you talk 10 about, at the bottom of that first paragraph at the top, you 11 say: 12 This occasional occurrence in the modeling 13 was remedied by shifting any excess in 14 Vernalis flow caused by the OID reallocation 15 water from assumed month of VAMP pulse flow 16 to the other potential post flow month. 17 (Reading.) 18 What is the other potential post flow? 19 MR. STEINER: If we are running an April pulse flow 20 month period and this occurrence happened, I would shift the 21 overshoot at Vernalis to May, the other identified period 22 within the pulse flow period. 23 MR. HERRICK: Does that have the effect of extending 24 the pulse flow past the 31 days, then? 25 MR. STEINER: You could do that. Essentially it is 1454 01 just moving a lump of water that was overshooting the 02 Vernalis VAMP target flow to the other month. Whether they 03 squeeze it in and extend it a number of days or they spread 04 it out the whole month, it doesn't change the results in my 05 studies. 06 MR. HERRICK: In the absence of the San Joaquin River 07 Agreement, do you conclude or assume that more water would 08 be left in the reservoirs until, perhaps, filled by flood 09 releases? 10 MR. STEINER: Which reservoirs? 11 MR. HERRICK: Any reservoirs. 12 MR. STEINER: With the implementation of SJRA you will 13 find an overall average reduction in carryover storage in 14 the Tuolumne system and in the Merced system. In the 15 Stanislaus system you will find that the average carryover 16 increases and the minimum storage increases in New Melones 17 due to implementation of the SJRA. 18 MR. HERRICK: If the storage increases in that one 19 watershed, is that storage then lost later in times of flood 20 control releases? 21 MR. STEINER: Not necessarily. 22 MR. HERRICK: In some instances would it? 23 MR. STEINER: In some instances it could be a spill. 24 MR. HERRICK: Would you characterize that as a decrease 25 in the yield, then, of that system? 1455 01 MR. STEINER: No. 02 MR. HERRICK: In the watersheds where there is a 03 decrease in carryover, would you characterize that as a 04 decrease in yield in the system? 05 MR. STEINER: You would have to define "yield." Yield 06 has a large number of meanings. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: We are going to go off the record for 30 08 seconds, if you bear with us, Mr. Herrick. 09 (Discussion held off the record.) 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. 11 We are back on the record. 12 Please proceed, Mr. Herrick. I neglected to ask you 13 before how much additional time you might need. 14 MR. HERRICK: I overshot, but I have a few more. Five 15 minutes. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 17 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. I have been informed by staff 18 that the most recent draft of the AFRP is not in the record. 19 Their copy was an earlier draft. But I have been told I can 20 put that into evidence by referencing it, if I may. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: And I would like to do that. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: If you use a document in 24 cross-examination, you can offer it now. But is the 25 procedure, the correct procedure, Ms. Leidigh, since this is 1456 01 a little different, to accept that now or at some later 02 point? What is your recommendation? Or at least to take it 03 up for consideration now or at some later date? 04 MS. LEIDIGH: I think it should be given a number for 05 identification. It would be South Delta Water Agency 06 number. But I would recommend you wait until we are 07 finished with cross-examination before -- whether to accept 08 it. C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. We will give 09 that a number. Staff have a number to recommend or have one 10 that you would prefer? 11 MR. HERRICK: I believe it will be is SDWA 37. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Does that make sense? 13 All right. Staff is nodding in the affirmative, that 14 is the sequence, and we will call it 37. 15 I am sorry, Mr. O'Laughlin. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is a copy going to be made available 17 to all parties since it has now been identified as an 18 exhibit? 19 MR. HERRICK: I think I was doing it as reference, so I 20 don't have to do that. No offense to the copying companies. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: But reference to what because the 22 document is not in front of -- 23 MR. HERRICK: It is a government document, I believe. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, you want to give the 25 explanation on that. 1457 01 MS. LEIDIGH: The Board has a regulation, which we 02 provided copies of with a revised hearing notice. It talks 03 about offering exhibits by reference, and I will tell you 04 what that regulation number is. Just a moment. 05 It's 723 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 06 648.3. It allows people to offer certain documents by 07 reference. What it says is: 08 Public records of the Board that are relevant 09 to the subject of the hearing and books, 10 reports and other evidence that have been 11 prepared and published by a public agency, if 12 otherwise admissible, may in the discretion 13 of the Board be received in evidence as 14 exhibits by reference without the necessity 15 of supplying copies to the Board and other 16 parties, provided the original or any copy is 17 in the possession of the Board and specific 18 file folder or other exact location where it 19 can be found is identified. The party 20 offering an exhibit by reference shall 21 designate the particular portions on which 22 the party relies. Each exhibit shall be 23 appropriately identified and designated in 24 the record as an exhibit of the party 25 offering the exhibit or an exhibit of Board 1458 01 staff. (Reading.) 02 That is the whole regulation. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I think a short version of that is that 04 when Mr. Herrick offers this, if he is relying on the entire 05 document, he needs to say so, otherwise he heeds to 06 reference portions of it. We keep the file up in our 07 records somewhere. There is no necessity for him to provide 08 copies to anybody since it is a public document produced by 09 another public agency and is readily available to the 10 public. 11 Correct? 12 MS. LEIDIGH: That is correct. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: That is clarification on the record. We 14 haven't ruled yet whether to accept it because we will wait 15 until we are done with all the cross-examination. 16 Thank you, Ms. Leidigh. 17 Please proceed, Mr. Herrick. You said you needed about 18 five more minutes? 19 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman, I will just reference -- 20 excuse me, I will just cite to Pages 90 through 96 of that 21 document which deals with the Stanislaus River. Of course, 22 later in these proceedings we may use other parts of the 23 document, and I will reference those then. 24 Mr. Steiner, in your calculation or your determination 25 of the current setting for your modeling purposes, did you 1459 01 take into consideration the recent purchases that have been 02 made by the Bureau of Reclamation for fishery purposes? 03 MR. STEINER: Which purchases would those be? 04 MR. HERRICK: Any purchases they made in the past, I'll 05 say, three years. 06 MR. STEINER: The fact that I am modeling, essentially, 07 the current condition and going towards the SJRA condition, 08 the current condition does not have any of those historical 09 purchases in it. My understanding is that all of those 10 purchases are done at this point, and they do not exist into 11 the future that I am working with now. 12 MR. HERRICK: The purchases, if any, in the last three 13 years are not part of historical data? 14 MR. STEINER: I do not model the historical data. I 15 use historical hydrology to establish what Mother Nature 16 gives us into the system. I then model the operation of the 17 system, and the operation of the system under the current 18 case does not assume, for instance, the Oakdale/Stanislaus 19 sale to the Bureau of Reclamation that occurred previously. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is it your understanding that provisions 21 of other law, then, does not direct the Bureau to make 22 purchases for fishery reasons? 23 MR. STEINER: I don't understand the question. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please speak into the mike. 25 MR. HERRICK: You say you didn't take into 1460 01 consideration any purchases in the past few years. I am 02 asking you whether or not you have an understanding as to 03 any obligation of the Bureau to continue to make purchases. 04 MR. STEINER: In general knowledge under CVPIA I 05 understand that they still have a desire, a directive, to be 06 making additional purchases. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Steiner, sorry to interrupt you, but 08 some of us are having difficulty hearing you. Pull that 09 thing closer. 10 MR. HERRICK: So, you didn't take into consideration 11 any other transfers that may or may not be contemplated by 12 the parties to the San Joaquin River Agreement; is that 13 correct? 14 MR. STEINER: I took it into consideration, and we put 15 it as zero. 16 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. 17 Thank you. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 19 Mr. Nomellini. Good afternoon. Just for purposes of 20 housekeeping, how much time do you think you are going to 21 need, Mr. Nomellini? The reason I ask is because I have 22 something I have to attend to, and we are -- I always say 23 we are going to wind up as close as we can to 4:00, and 24 usually go closer to 5. But today 4 is fairly important, so 25 I just need to know if I am going to break up or get to 1461 01 other people later. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Since it is critical that I leave the 03 hearing at 4, why don't we make a deal and we will end it 04 before 4. If you have to break me up, fine. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: You also have to leave at 4, so it looks 06 like you are the last one that will be cross-examining 07 today, if you're accurate on your time. Then if you are not 08 finished, we will just resume with you tomorrow morning. 09 Please proceed, Mr. Nomellini. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP 12 OF DANIEL STEINER 13 BY CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY 14 BY MR. NOMELLINI 15 MR. NOMELLINI: For the record, Dante John Nomellini on 16 behalf of the Central Delta parties. 17 Mr. Steiner, if we could start with Bill's good work 18 with your SJRGA 11.6, which I believe you testified to as 19 your results. 20 This is a summary of your results; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: I see up at the top your comparison for 23 April and May was to the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord setting; is 24 that correct? 25 MR. STEINER: That summary conclusion directly 1462 01 addressed that comparison. The graphic that I put up 02 covered both that and the current setting. 03 MR. NOMELLNI: Staying with the exhibit up on the 04 viewer, is this 1994 Bay-Delta Accord also referred to as 05 the Principals Agreement? Or do you know? 06 MR. STEINER: No, that is the same. I am trying to 07 relate what had to do with -- 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Why I am asking the question? 09 MR. STEINER: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLNI: Why would -- why did you make the 11 comparison to the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord setting rather than 12 to the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 13 MR. STEINER: The simple answer is it is the same 14 except for result of the operation, and that the 1995 Water 15 Quality Control Plan is not fully complied with on the San 16 Joaquin River system today. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So your testimony is that the 1994 18 Bay-Delta Accord is the same as the 1995 Water Quality 19 Control Plan? 20 MR. STEINER: The reference to the 1994 Bay-Delta 21 Accord is a point in time in terms of this description here. 22 And that nomenclature, that term of art I created is 23 associated with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan as it is 24 currently being adhered to, essentially comparable to the 25 State Board staff Alternative 2, the current condition, as 1463 01 best as two projects can meet with one exception; and that 02 is on the Tuolumne River it contains the old FERC 03 requirements instead of the new FERC requirements which 04 occurred after December of 1994. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Your testimony is that the difference 06 between the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord setting and the 1995 Water 07 Quality Control Plan is the FERC decision on the Tuolumne, 08 the recent FERC decision on the Tuolumne? 09 MR. STEINER: As simply stated, yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in this setting do you have the 11 range of Vernalis flow that was actually incorporated in the 12 1995 plan? 13 MR. STEINER: Try again. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: The 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 15 contains the Vernalis flow requirements as a range or two 16 figures, an upper figure related to, what I will call, X2 17 and a lower figure. You follow me on that? 18 MR. STEINER: They are both related to X2 positions. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You understand the two figures? 20 MR. STEINER: Yes. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Are both figures incorporated in this 22 1994 Bay-Delta Accord setting? 23 MR. STEINER: Yes. 24 MR. NOMELLNI: The upper range is also incorporated in 25 this analysis? 1464 01 MR. STEINER: It is playing in the analysis somewhere, 02 yes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the assumption that the 04 1995 Water Quality Control Plan would not be met, were you 05 instructed to model it with the current level of violation? 06 MR. STEINER: I was not instructed. It is an outcome 07 of the combination of the operations of the tributaries, in 08 combination with the Interim Operations Plan of New 09 Melones. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there some restriction in the 11 modeling that would prohibit analysis of a situation where 12 there was compliance with the 1995 Water Quality Control 13 Plan? 14 MR. STEINER: You would have to come with scheme or 15 mechanism to get additional water. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you think of any scheme that could 17 provide such water? 18 MR. STEINER: I could come up with hundreds of schemes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: One of those could be releases from 20 Friant Reservoir in the San Joaquin River, could it not? 21 MR. STEINER: That could be a scheme. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Another one could be releases of water 23 purchased from water contractors on the west side of the 24 valley and released into the Mendota Pool, would it not? 25 MR. STEINER: That could be. 1465 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Another one might even be use of some 02 form of recirculation of water in the San Joaquin? 03 MR. STEINER: That could be. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: You understand, do you not, that the 05 San Joaquin River Agreement extends for some period of time, 06 perhaps as much as 12 years? 07 MR. STEINER: Correct. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: So your modeling assumes that for this 09 12-year period there would be no effective decision by the 10 State Board on implementing the 1995 Water Quality Control? 11 MR. STEINER: That wasn't in the thought process of how 12 I modeled. I modeled over 71 years of sequential hydrology 13 in the application of the San Joaquin River Agreement, and 14 that is what will be in place. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Your attorneys didn't tell you, then, 16 to model this in a violation form? 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Argumentative. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: I am not argumentative. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It has been asked and answered. He 20 already testified -- 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, he did. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't ask him whether his attorneys 23 told him not to model compliance with the 1995 Water Quality 24 Control Plan. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe you asked if he was instructed 1466 01 to violate, and the Board takes that as referring to 02 everybody who might possibly instruct him, including his 03 attorneys, so the question has been asked. 04 Objection sustained. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the flexibility in the 06 provision of water, you had indicated that it was possible 07 for the water that was required to come from Oakdale and 08 South San Joaquin to be provided from the Tuolumne instead; 09 is that correct? 10 MR. STEINER: That is what I testified, that how I did 11 it in my modeling the flexibility extends beyond just that. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: So the flexibility is generally 13 amicable to all of the people or entities providing water 14 under the San Joaquin River Agreement; is that correct? 15 MR. STEINER: That is what I believe. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: So, it is possible that the Exchange 17 Contractors could provide the increment of water that would 18 otherwise be forthcoming from Oakdale and South San Joaquin; 19 is that correct? 20 MR. STEINER: That is a hypothetical, yes. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: With that hypothetical, is there 22 anything in your modeling that attempted to display what the 23 impact of such a flexible arrangement might be on water 24 quality in the San Joaquin River? 25 MR. STEINER: I have the capability and the tool, but I 1467 01 did not investigate that. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: You had not. 03 Is the water quality in the model for releases from the 04 Exchange Contractors different than the water quality in the 05 model for releases by Oakdale and South San Joaquin? 06 MR. STEINER: Yes, it would be. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it higher or lower? And I am talk 08 about is Exchange Contractor release water quality higher in 09 TDS than the water quality for the releases from Oakdale and 10 South San Joaquin in your model? 11 MR. STEINER: The modeling procedure in equations that 12 are used to get to upstream of the confluence with the 13 Stanislaus River has one equation or one equation for two 14 different seasons, two equations for two different seasons, 15 and that the water coming from the Exchange Contractors 16 would be the same as water coming from Merced or Tuolumne 17 Rivers. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: In water quality? 19 MR. STEINER: Yes. It is a simple equation that 20 relates flow to loading or concentration above the mouth of 21 the Stanislaus River, and so, In terms of how I put the 22 exchange water in, would be equal in effect as the Tuolumne 23 and Merced. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you believe that the -- or in your 25 opinion is the quality of the water to be released by the 1468 01 Exchange Contractors the same as the quality to be released, 02 for example, by the Merced Irrigation District? 03 MR. STEINER: As far as when it reaches Maze Bridge, I 04 have no knowledge one way or the other. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: No inkling? 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: No knowledge? You are an expert, are 09 you not? 10 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: On modeling? 12 MR. STEINER: And I'd like to think I'm a little beyond 13 that. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: But not on salinity of the San Joaquin 15 River? 16 MR. STEINER: Not to specificity as you are asking. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated that, if I heard you 18 correctly, that the San Joaquin River Agreement would 19 provide 30 to 40,000 acre-feet per year less water on the 20 average than the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. 21 Is that what you testified to? 22 MR. STEINER: The context of that was that if you look 23 at the results of the SJRA during the VAMP flow period, that 24 achieving the flows that I have modeled, that when you 25 compare that to the Water Quality Control Plan pulse flow 1469 01 period, on average, it will be under the Water Quality 02 Control Plan between 30 and 40,000. Why I give the range, 03 because whether it is April or May. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Then I believe you said, and I may have 05 missed it again, that it was an equivalent, in your view, 06 and I gather that was the SJ, San Joaquin River Agreement 07 April, May flows, were equivalent to the plan because of 08 reduction in exports? 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that what you testified to? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I am going to object; that is not what 12 he testified to. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Wait a minute, Mr. O'Laughlin. Excuse 14 me for talking over you. I am breaking my own rules 15 here. I think he changed it in the middle of your objection 16 to a question which he's really asking him if that was his 17 testimony. If it isn't his testimony, then Mr. Steiner can 18 say no. 19 But I note your concern, and let's see what Mr. 20 Steiner's answer is. 21 MR. STEINER: No, it is not my testimony in the context 22 you provided. 23 MR. NOMELLNI: What is your testimony -- 24 C.O. CAFFREY: You saved me from ruling there. 25 MR. NOMELLNI: What is your testimony with regard to 1470 01 the equivalency of the -- do you have opinion as to whether 02 or not this reduced flow provided by the San Joaquin River 03 Agreement versus the Water Quality Control Plan, 1995 Water 04 Quality Control Plan, is somehow equivalent to the Water 05 Quality Control Plan flows? 06 MR. STEINER: Of course, on straight flow versus flow 07 you couldn't possibly call it equivalent since it is a lower 08 flow. That is not the question. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Very good. 10 What is the question? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, I object. That is an 12 argumentative question. The witness is asked to respond to 13 questions, not to give questions. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I believe that the witness was 15 really saying -- he was probably using the term question 16 interchangeably with issue, and I think Mr. Nomellini's 17 question is a fair one because the witness brought it up. 18 So, answer the question, Mr. Steiner. 19 MR. STEINER: I, as a hydrologist and modeler of this, 20 was asked to provide information to the biologists to 21 address the issue of equivalency. I presented them results, 22 which were used to put into the package of equivalency, both 23 flows and anticipated exports, and although I don't concern 24 myself with it, the existence of a barrier at Old River. 25 The entire composite as I understand the biologist 1471 01 testimony, that was the question of equivalency, not any 02 single aspect such as flow of the '95 plan compared to flow 03 of the VAMP. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: In your modeling did you make any 05 assumptions with regard to the level of exports during the 06 pulse flow? 07 MR. STEINER: It is incorporated into the analysis by 08 the connection of the PROSIM results into return flows from 09 the west side. So to some extent exports are considered, or 10 the results of exports are considered. We do not do the 11 modeling directly as far as -- analysis stops at the 12 availability of flow at Vernalis, and we don't do that final 13 step of exports under VAMP. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know if the modeling reflected a 15 level of exports comparable to the 2250 cubic feet per 16 second that was applicable last year, or do you know what 17 the level is in the modeling? 18 MR. STEINER: Yes, I know what the level is. 19 MR. NOMELLNI: What is the magnitude of the exports 20 that are included in the model? 21 MR. STEINER: It is essentially the operation as 22 allowed under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: That would be 100 percent of the San 24 Joaquin River flow? Would it be 100 percent of the San 25 Joaquin River flow? 1472 01 MR. STEINER: During the pulse flow period, you could 02 have flows as great as the -- exports as great as the flow 03 that occurs at Vernalis. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: If the current condition was 2250, then 05 there would be a distortion in the results, at least as to 06 the return flows coming back down the San Joaquin, would it 07 not? 08 MR. STEINER: Distortion where? 09 MR. NOMELLINI: In the export flows. 10 MR. STEINER: As compared to what? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: As compared to a wet period like this 12 year. If you had a limitation of 2250 versus 100 percent of 13 the San Joaquin River flow, there would be a substantial 14 difference in the assumed level of exports, would there not? 15 MR. STEINER: If you ran a reduction in exports 16 according to VAMP, it would affect, at least one month of 17 operation, from the west side. In terms of the difference 18 which then plays back to the San Joaquin River for return 19 flows, we find by the analysis that it is a very minor 20 change in return flows. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Your VAMP variable is compared to the 22 100 percent of the San Joaquin River flows; is that what you 23 are saying? 24 MR. STEINER: Try again, sir. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: When you said it is virtually 1473 01 insignificant in the modeling, was that a comparison of the 02 San Joaquin River Agreement flows to 100 percent of the San 03 Joaquin River flow? 04 MR. STEINER: There were various iterations where I 05 come to that conclusion of trying to get to the current 06 condition. We ran a series of different export operations 07 just to get the study to iterate -- to close in on itself as 08 putting exports versus Vernalis. And during that exerciser, 09 I found that the affect of the changing export level did not 10 substantially change the results in the San Joaquin River. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the models capability. 12 These models that you used, I think there were three of them 13 that were integrated in your model; is that correct? 14 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: How good are these models at reflecting 16 Vernalis water quality, in your opinion? 17 MR. STEINER: They're as good as we have. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Fair enough. 19 Would you rate that very good, good or not so good? 20 MR. STEINER: That is subjective, and I couldn't give 21 you an opinion on that. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: You have no opinion? 23 MR. STEINER: They are not out to lunch. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Now we are really getting scientific. 25 MR. NOMELLNI: I am sure that constitutes substantial 1474 01 evidence upon which to base your decision. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: We have gone from subjective to who 03 knows where. 04 MR. NOMELLNI: Not out to lunch. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Nomellini. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: In your modeling you made certain 07 assumptions as to source of the water, which I understood 08 was pretty much the default condition with the one exception 09 of the Oakdale and South San Joaquin when the river flow 10 would exceed the 1500 cubic feet per second, you bumped it 11 over to the Tuolumne; is that correct? 12 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: And you testified also that you didn't 14 test any other flexibility in the source of water for the 15 San Joaquin River; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: I did not test an alternative. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you also testified that it was 18 assumed that the water would -- and you said would come from 19 releases from storage on the Merced, did you not? 20 MR. STEINER: You use the term "storage." It could 21 have been a bypass up to storage. It essentially came as a 22 release from reservoir. 23 MR. NOMELLNI: Did you make any assumption as to 24 whether or not it was stored water or water from some other 25 source? 1475 01 MR. STEINER: What is the delineation between "stored 02 water or somewhere else"? 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, is it extra water that was 04 carried over in storage that would not have been in the 05 system were it not for this release? Talking about your 06 assumption in the model? 07 MR. STEINER: It comes as a release from the reservoir. 08 At times that could come from the carryover storage. 09 Sometimes it could have come from a release that would have 10 happened in another month. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a reduction in demand that 12 accompanies that release of water in your model? 13 MR. STEINER: In the case of Merced, I had to affect 14 surface water diversions occasionally because the amount of 15 water that was required for the Merced participation. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying right on those surface water 17 diversions, what -- could you describe your assumption as to 18 what that surface water diversion is? 19 MR. STEINER: There is a pattern and an annual assumed 20 amount of desired surface water diversion for each one of 21 the canal systems. And in combination with the iteration of 22 running the 71 years of sequence of modeling, that to 23 provide Merced's obligation through all periods, wet or dry 24 and sequences of dry, that there was not enough reservoir 25 storage to keep the diversions at that constant year-by-year 1476 01 level. So, a rule had to be developed which would apply 02 deficiencies beyond the base case, to back off enough 03 release to have it in reservoir to provide for the VAMP and 04 the October flow, to close the entire operation cycle. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: I understand that. 06 Now, what was that, an averaging of the reduction of 07 diversions to users in the irrigation district, or what was 08 it? 09 MR. STEINER: It was not average. It was creating a 10 rule that would apply under certain hydrologic conditions. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you describe that rule? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLNI: What is it? 14 MR. STEINER: In general, the operational approach 15 was to try to limit reductions of surface water diversions 16 during the first critical year of the sequence, but allow 17 greater delivery or diversion reductions in the second year 18 of a critical sequence. And the amount, as far as 19 percentage reduction, was an iteration attempt to make the 20 reservoir balance. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: We are now with a formula that goes 22 into the second year after a dry year? 23 MR. STEINER: After a critical year. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Was there any particular month that the 25 diversions were reduced by this formula? 1477 01 MR. STEINER: When a reduction was applied, it was done 02 on a pro rata demand shape across the entire year. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying again on the Merced, was there 04 a corresponding reduction in in-stream flow in the Merced 05 during that year after the critical year because of the 06 reduction in demand put across the entire year? 07 MR. STEINER: Want to define "in-stream flow"? 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Water in the river below the release 09 point. 10 MR. STEINER: When the water -- the minimum in-stream 11 flow requirement did not change. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: That wasn't my question. My question 13 was: Was there a reduction in the flow in the river below 14 the release point due to the this pro rata allocation of 15 some deficiency in the second year or the year after the 16 critical year to make up for the lack of water? 17 MR. STEINER: SANJASM, to some extent, will capture a 18 difference in applied water trickling all the way back to 19 return, but it will be very minor. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: So, there is accounted for in this 21 model, because of this assumption, a reduction in return 22 flow to the river below the release point at least with 23 regard to the Merced? 24 MR. STEINER: Only to the extent that the mechanisms 25 embedded in the model do. 1478 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, these mechanisms embedded in the 02 model, in your opinion, are they good, not out to lunch or 03 very good with regard to reflecting that impact? 04 MR. STEINER: I don't have an opinion on that. I am 05 accepting the model as being accurate. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go over to the Tuolumne. With 07 regard to the water that would be released to Tuolumne, what 08 was your assumption as to the source of that water other 09 than the water that could come over through some yet to be 10 devised transfer from the Stanislaus? 11 MR. STEINER: The Tuolumne assumption all comes from 12 reservoir release. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Reservoir release. 14 Is that accompanied by any reduction in demand along 15 the Tuolumne? 16 MR. STEINER: There was no required reduction due to 17 the increment of the SJRA. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you characterize that source as 19 being stored water? 20 MR. STEINER: It did not necessarily occur as stored 21 water; it could have been bypassed. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you characterize that water as 23 being surplus water? 24 MR. STEINER: I would not characterize it. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: It was beyond what was needed in the 1479 01 district, was it not? 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 03 "surplus." 04 MR. NOMELLINI: I am off of surplus. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it is a little vague. If you 06 feel you have an answer to it? 07 MR. STEINER: I do not characterize that release. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Objection is sustained. 09 You can try again. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to. 11 Putting aside characterization of that release, was 12 that -- would that water have been used by the Merced -- not 13 the Merced, excuse me. Would that water have been used in 14 any service area along the Tuolumne River? 15 MR. STEINER: It could have been. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: But you don't know? 17 MR. STEINER: No. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So the modeling does not reflect any 19 reduction in return flow that you know of due to a reduction 20 in usage in the service area along the Tuolumne? 21 MR. STEINER: On the Tuolumne, since I did not change 22 surface water diversions, there would be no change in the 23 model. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: As far as the model is concerned, there 25 was no reduction in demand or use on the Tuolumne? 1480 01 MR. STEINER: That's correct. It would manifest as a 02 difference in carryover or storage. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the Stanislaus now, what 04 was the source of the Oakdale and South San Joaquin water as 05 you modeled in the data that you presented in your testimony? 06 MR. STEINER: In effect, it is a reduction of surface 07 water available to the districts. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Does that include a reduction in demand? 09 MR. STEINER: I can't address that. All I can say is I 10 model it as a reduction in surface water delivery. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: That would be surface water delivery to 12 the users within the districts; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: I don't go that far. It was the water 14 available to the districts. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Then the modeling does not account for 16 reduction in return flow that would accompany such a 17 reduction in surface water delivery? 18 MR. STEINER: I do not believe it does. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You testified that the San Joaquin 20 River Agreement included extra water purchases, did you 21 not? 22 MR. STEINER: You need to define "extra water 23 purchases" versus what you think I testified to. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: In the San Joaquin River Agreement 25 there is a right to buy -- the Bureau has a right to buy an 1481 01 additional 15,000 acre-feet of water from Oakdale and South 02 San Joaquin; is that correct? 03 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: And there is a right to buy an 05 additional 12,500 acre-feet on the Merced, I think from the 06 Merced Irrigation District. Does that sound right? 07 MR. STEINER: That's correct. Except on the Oakdale, 08 which I believe, was Oakdale, not South San Joaquin. 09 MR. NOMELLNI: Now, in the modeling results that you 10 presented on Table 3, Page 7 of 8, Page 30 of your 11 testimony, does this table reflect results that include the 12 purchase of the 15,000 acre-feet from Oakdale and 12,500 13 from Merced? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes, it does. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: So, if those purchases were not made as 16 a part of the San Joaquin River Agreement, then the 17 degradation in water quality that would result would be 18 increased, would it not? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 20 Degradation as to what baseline? 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you clarify? 22 MR. NOMELLNI: Degradation as to Table 3, Page 7 of 8, 23 which is the SJRA setting minus current setting? 24 MR. STEINER: I don't know what you're referring to as 25 "degradation." 1482 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the salinity at Vernalis be 02 increased because these water purchases, and I am talking 03 about the 15,000 from Oakdale and 12,500 from the Merced, 04 were not made? 05 MR. STEINER: I still don't have a definition of 06 "degradation" as far -- 07 MR. NOMELLINI: I tried not to use degradation. I 08 tried to ask whether or not the salinity at Vernalis would 09 be increased if you did not make the assumption that two 10 water purchases were included in the modeling? 11 MR. STEINER: It would be different than presented up 12 here. There would be some betterments. There could be some 13 degradations. But all I can tell you is that it would be 14 different than that table that you see up there. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you make any estimate of what 16 additional amount of water required to meet the Vernalis 17 water quality standard would be if added to the San Joaquin 18 River Agreement? 19 MR. STEINER: The model presents that result. I don't 20 have a report for you. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it in that disk you have floating 22 around here that has been offered? 23 MR. STEINER: I believe you will find it in those 24 models. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any recollection what the 1483 01 magnitude might be? 02 MR. STEINER: No. I would rather not misstate it. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it more than 50,000 acre-feet per 04 annum on the average? 05 MR. STEINER: I answered I'd rather not misstate it. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: One brief moment to check my notes, and 07 then I will be through. 08 (Discussion held off record.) 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: While he is reviewing his notes 10 briefly, since the cross-examination of Mr. Steiner has not 11 been completed, I have a scheduling problem with a witness. 12 That witness is only available on Wednesday morning. So my 13 plan was to bring Mr. List in on Wednesday morning at 9:00 14 a.m. Do his direct and cross -- 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Your problem is not with Mr. Steiner; it 16 is with -- 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It's with Mr. List. Then what we 18 would do is, as soon as Mr. List is completed tomorrow, Mr. 19 Steiner would then come back on the stand, and we would 20 finish his cross-examination and redirect and recross. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Because I made a deal that I would quit 22 by 4, I am quitting. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, you are completed, then, Mr. 24 Nomellini? 25 MR. NOMELLNI: I've completed. 1484 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 02 Let me talk on the record with Mr. O'Laughlin. 03 Unless there is any objection, we can certainly do 04 that. Although if we get into a situation with Mr. List 05 where it takes more than a day to get through -- 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner will be back whenever Mr. 07 List is done. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe I misunderstood. Is Mr. List 09 available for more than a day? That is what I am trying to 10 get to. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. But I do not believe that the 12 scope and extent of his testimony is such that it should 13 take more than two hours to complete, direct and cross and 14 redirect and recross. It is a very limited scope of 15 testimony. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: State his name and age? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: There is some disagreement in the 18 audience, but I will certainly -- I also didn't hear any 19 objection. I will certainly allow you to arrange your 20 witnesses in the way you wish. Hopefully, we could finish 21 in one day. If we can't, we can't, and we will have to 22 bring him back at a later date as well. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That would be fine, Mr. Chairman. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me also observe before you all stand 25 up and leave, not that Robert Frost, the American poet, is a 1485 01 witness here, but I would like to quote him, and one of my 02 favorite poems, Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening, he 03 says: 04 We have promises to keep and miles to go 05 before we sleep. 06 And this is turning into perhaps a more protracted 07 process than even I had envisioned. Nonetheless, we will go 08 through it. I want to point out, that for this witness 09 alone we still have three more cross-examiners, plus the 10 staff and the Board Members. 11 I am not done yet, Mr. Jackson. 12 We are going to be here for a long summer and a long 13 fall, and that is fine, because it is important work. 14 But I just want to remind everybody when they are doing 15 their cross-examination, please, try not to take advantage 16 of the fact that we don't really have a limit there. 17 Christmas and brevity is always helpful. 18 I am going to let Mr. Jackson go first because I cut 19 him off, and then I'll go to you, Mr. Maddow. 20 MR. JACKSON: I just want to get on the 21 cross-examination list. I don't know that I am on it. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't believe I have you, Mr. 23 Jackson. 24 MR. JACKSON: I was outside. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 1486 01 Let me, just for the record, read the order that we 02 will take up starting -- wait a minute; I am confused. Are 03 we going to do this tomorrow? 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: After Mr. List. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a good point. We may get to it 06 tomorrow or we may not. But when we get back to this 07 witness for cross-examination, we will have this order: Mr. 08 Suyeyasu, Mr. Maddow, Mr. Gallery and Mr. Jackson, and, 09 then, of course, the staff and the Board Members. 10 Mr. Maddow. 11 MR. MADDOW: Chairman Caffrey, I had three lines of 12 inquiry for Mr. Steiner. Mr. Herrick covered all three of 13 them. I will not cross-examine in this phase of the 14 cross-examination of Mr. Steiner. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir, for letting us know 16 that. Then the order will be: Mr. Suyeyasu, Mr. Gallery 17 and Mr. Jackson when we get back to this witness. 18 Anything else before we adjourn for today? 19 We will back tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in this room. 20 Thank you all very much. 21 (Hearing adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 1487 01 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 02 03 04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 04 ) ss. 05 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 05 06 06 07 08 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 09 official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 10 and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand 11 writing those proceedings; 12 That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be 13 reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 1278 through 14 1485 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 5th day of August 1998. 19 20 21 22 22 23 ______________________________ 23 ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 24 25