STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 9:10 A.M. Reported by: MARY GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES ---oOo--- 2 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 JOHN CAFFREY, CO-HEARING OFFICER JAMES STUBCHAER, CO-HEARING OFFICER 5 MARC DEL PIERO MARY JANE FORSTER 6 JOHN W. BROWN 7 STAFF MEMBERS: 8 THOMAS HOWARD - Supervising Engineer 9 VICTORIA A. WHITNEY - Senior Engineer 10 COUNSEL: 11 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER - Chief Counsel 12 WALTER PETTIT - Executive Director BARBARA LEIDIGH - Senior Staff Counsel 13 14 ---oOo--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3625 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 4 134 West Sycamore STreet Willows, California 95988 5 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 6 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER, III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 11 P.O. Box 357 Quincy, California 95971 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 14 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 17 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GRAY BOBKER 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 21 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 24 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3626 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 4 2480 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 7 2800 Cottage Way, Roon E1712 Sacramento, California 95825 8 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 10 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 13 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 19 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 20 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 23 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 24 Visalia, California 93191 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3627 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 4 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 7 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 8 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 10 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 11 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 14 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 17 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 18 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 19 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 21 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 24 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California 90075 25 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3628 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 5 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 6 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 8 Sacramento, California 95814 9 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 10 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 11 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFIN, MASUDA & GODWIN 14 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 15 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 17 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 18 Sacramento, California 95814 19 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 Oakland, California 94618 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3629 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE 4 P.O. Box 846 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 7 P.O. Box 1019 Madera, California 93639 8 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 10 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 2300 River Plaza Drive 11 Sacramento, California 95833 12 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 13 MORRISON & FORESTER 755 Page Mill Road 14 Palo Alto, California 94303 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 17 P.O. Box 777 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 20 926 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 23 P.O. Box 427 Durham, California 95938 24 BY: DON HEFFREN 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3630 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 4 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 7 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 10 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY 13 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 17 BY: BILL KETSCHER 18 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 20 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 23 P.O. Box 606 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3631 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 4 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 7 1201 Civic Center Drive Yuba City, California 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGTAION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKIEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 10 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95816 11 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 14 Walnut Creek, California 94596 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 17 22759 South Mercey Springs Road Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 20 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 Merced, California 95344 21 BY: MIICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 22 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 23 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3632 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 3728 Sonora, California 95730 5 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 6 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER. 11 1550 California Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 15 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 16 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 17 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 18 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 21 501 Walker Street Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 24 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3633 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 4 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 7 P.O. Box 1461 Stockton, California 95201 8 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. and 9 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 10 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 11 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 1100 Whitney Avenue 12 Corcoran, California 93212 13 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 14 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 18 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B Chico, California 95926 19 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 20 SIERRA CLUB: 21 JENNA OLSEN 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 24 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 25 Woodland, California 95695 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3634 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGENS & ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGENS 4 P.O. Box 60940 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 P.O. Box 156 Dos Palos, California 93620 8 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 9 BETSY REIFSNIDER 10 128 J Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 11 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 13 P.O. Box 2067 Merced, California 95344 14 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 15 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 16 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 17 Stockton, California 95202 18 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 19 JAMES F. ROBERTS P.O. Box 54153 20 Los Angeles, California 90054 21 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 22 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 23 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3635 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 4 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94194 5 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 7 DAVID A. SANDINO, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Captiol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3636 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 4 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 5 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 6 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 7 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 8 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC.: 11 209 South Locust Street Visalia, California 93279 12 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 13 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 15 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 18 1213 Market Street Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 21 P.O. Box 156 Hayfork, California 96041 22 BY: TOM STOKELY 23 CITY OF REDDING: 24 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 25 Redding, California 96001 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3637 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHEMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 2 Sutter Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 5 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 6 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 7 BEST BEST & KREIGER P.O. Box 1028 8 Riverside, California 92502 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 9 COUTNY OF TEHEMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHEMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11 P.O. Box 250 Red Bluff, California 96080 12 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 13 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 14 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS P.O. Box 667 15 San Andreas, California 95249 16 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 HENRY WILLY 6755 Lake Amador Drive 18 Ione, California 95640 19 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 2291 West March Lane, S.B. 100 21 Stockton, California 95207 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3638 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 3641 6 AFTERNOON SESSION 3752 7 END OF PROCEEDINGS 3861 8 OPENING STATEMENTS: 9 STEVE CHEDESTER 3645 10 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 3650 11 CASE IN CHIEF: 12 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 3659 13 PANEL: 14 MICHAEL FORD STEVE ROBERTS 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 16 MATTHEW CAMPBELL 3680 17 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 3685 PAUL SIMMONS 3692 18 THOMAS BIRMINGHAM 3702 ROBERT B. MADDOW 3709 19 MICHAEL SEXTON 3716 MICHAEL JACKSON 3730 20 JOHN HERRICK 3757 STAFF 3778 21 BOARD 3795 22 CASE IN CHIEF: 23 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 3809 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3639 1 I N D E X (Cont'd.) 2 PANEL: 3 ALEX HILDEBRAND 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 5 PAUL SIMMONS 3831 6 DANIEL GALLERY 3832 MICHAEL SEXTON 3835 7 MICHAEL JACKSON 3848 8 ---oOo--- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3640 1 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998, 9:10 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back. This 5 is the continuation of the Bay-Delta water rights hearings. 6 When last we met we completed Phase IV, with the exception 7 of the closing statements which will be written and will be 8 submitted at a future date that we agreed upon. 9 This morning we will begin Phase V which is, 10 quote: 11 "The responsibilities for meeting the dissolved 12 oxygen and Southern Delta salinity objectives." 13 Let me ask if there is -- are there representatives 14 in the audience for any of the parties that have not 15 identified themselves into the record during previous 16 phases of the hearing that need to now do so? 17 Good morning, Mr. Sexton. 18 MR. SEXTON: Good morning, Mr. Caffrey. For purposes 19 of Phase V, I will be cocounsel with Mr. Birmingham on 20 behalf of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority in 21 addition to the other clients that I've already made 22 appearances for. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir, we will 24 note that, that is in the record. Mr. Simpson, sir. 25 MR. SIMMONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Paul Simmons. I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3641 1 don't -- 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Simmons, I'm sorry, Mr. Simmons. 3 MR. SIMMONS: That's all right. I don't know if I've 4 made an appearance yet in the hearings, but in Phase V I 5 will be representing the City of Stockton along with 6 Virginia Cahill. I'll be handling the DO issues and she'll 7 be handling everything else. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Let the record show 9 that there are no demerits for identifying yourself more 10 than once during these proceedings. Any other 11 representatives wish to identify themselves? 12 Yes, sir, Mr. Turner. 13 MR. TURNER: I'm James Turner. I'm filling in for 14 Alf Brandt on behalf of the Department of the Interior. 15 His wife had a baby this morning. So I'll be filling in 16 for him today, possibly tomorrow, until he recovers. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, give Alf our congratulations. 18 MR. TURNER: Thank you. 19 MR. JACKSON: Was it a girl or a boy? 20 MR. TURNER: A boy. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: A boy. Let the record show it was a 22 boy. 23 MR. TURNER: I didn't get the name. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Good morning, ma'am. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: My name is Karna Harrigfeld. I am CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3642 1 going to be representing Stockton East Water District with 2 Jeanne Zolezzi as cocounsel. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Can you give me your name 4 again. 5 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. It's Karna Harrigfeld. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Harrigfeld? 7 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yeah. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: I can give you a card. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 11 MR. JACKSON: Michael Jackson. I will be assisting 12 in the representative -- in representing Trinity County 13 when they put their case on. I will still be representing 14 the Regional Council of Rural Counties. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Anybody else, 16 then? All right. Thank you very much. This is the time, 17 then, for policy statements by interested parties who will 18 not be presenting cases in chief. Anybody wishing to 19 present a policy statement this morning? 20 MR. NOMELLINI: I want to do the opening statement, 21 not the policy statement. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: We will -- 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And I'm not putting on a case in 24 chief. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Maybe I should clarify for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3643 1 some that may not have been here before. Mr. Nomellini 2 gives us a segue for an important point. We will also 3 call -- after this call for policy statements, we will also 4 call for opening statements for parties participating, but 5 not presenting cases in chief. So that is another option 6 for you. 7 Policy statements, as most of you I'm sure know, 8 there's a five-minute limitation. It's a general statement 9 that is not in the evidentiary record, per se. It is as a 10 matter of fact, given less weight than actual testimonial 11 facts, so to speak. So anybody wishing to avail themselves 12 of the policy statements? 13 Mr. Simmons, sir. 14 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, I think that last week I 15 relayed to you an inquiry from a nonparty who had asked the 16 City be able to make a policy statement. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: You did, sir. 18 MR. SIMMONS: And he wanted to be able to know if 19 you'd have the time frame. And I relayed the Chair's 20 remarks that he would just come first thing. He would stay 21 tomorrow, or Thursday he could go. And I believe he's 22 coming tomorrow morning at 9:00. His name is Mr. Locke, 23 L-O-C-K-E, or L-O-C-K-H-E. So he'll be here at 9:00 24 tomorrow morning as I understand. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3644 1 We'll take him first thing in the morning if he's bright 2 and early, or at any other time that he arrives for a 3 five-minute policy statement. We'll allow that courtesy. 4 Thank you, sir. Then I presume there are no policy 5 statements this morning. 6 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chedester had his hand up. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. 8 MR. CHEDESTER: For an opening statement. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: For an opening statement. Thank you, 10 sir. All right. It is now time for opening statements for 11 parties not presenting evidence or cases in chief, so to 12 speak. 13 Good morning, sir. Please, come forward. We'll 14 go with you first, Mr. Chedester, and then Mr. Nomellini. 15 Anybody else wishing to avail themselves of that 16 opportunity? All right. Mr. Chedester and then 17 Mr. Nomellini. 18 Good morning, sir, and welcome. 19 ---oOo--- 20 OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 21 EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY 22 BY STEVE CHEDESTER 23 MR. CHEDESTER: Good morning. Good morning, 24 Chairman Caffrey and Board Members. My name is Steve 25 Chedester. I'm with the San Joaquin River Exchange CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3645 1 Contractors Water Authority. And I'm presenting an opening 2 statement. I want to thank you for allowing me to talk to 3 you at this time this morning. 4 In reading the testimony submitted it appeared 5 that this Phase V of these proceedings are beginning to be 6 a mini Phase VIII. And it seems like everybody is going to 7 be contentious and everybody blaming everybody else. 8 For example, Trinity County claims that the 9 irrigation of the west side -- west agriculture violates 10 the California Constitution. After all, they argue that it 11 makes no sense to irrigate somniferous soils, better to 12 take water away from the west side ag and give it back to 13 the Trinity County than to irrigate those west side ag 14 soils. 15 City of Stockton tries to focus your attention 16 away from its treatment plant discharges. Better to blame 17 all the San Joaquin River quality problems on the west side 18 ag dischargers. Contra Costa wants the highest water 19 quality at its intakes. That is because they don't want to 20 pay for higher treatment costs. South Delta Water Agency 21 just wants all the water that they need to get categorized 22 as either riparian, or area of origin. And most important, 23 they want it unblemished in water quality. And, again, 24 that comes, by their view, from the west side agriculture. 25 Stockton East, Central Delta, Central San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3646 1 Resource Conservation District wants CVP water from the 2 Stanislaus River. And since their contracts are junior to 3 most of the rest of the CVP, the way they see getting water 4 is attacking, again, those west side ag drainage 5 discharges. After all, if the west side didn't put any of 6 its water -- any of the salts into the San Joaquin River, 7 New Melones wouldn't have to comply with its D-1422 8 requirements to release water on Vernalis with the water 9 quality standards. And that water would then be available 10 for Stockton East and Central Delta and such. 11 So what's wrong with all of this? In our view is 12 that the first thing that's wrong is that all of these 13 positions, arguments ignore the obvious. That is, in the 14 1930's congress decided that it would be a good idea to 15 build the Central Valley Project and that one of its goals 16 was to deliver San Joaquin River water from -- to Kern 17 County and the Bakersfield area. 18 To make that goal a reality, the government needed 19 to dam the river at Friant -- the San Joaquin River at 20 Friant in order to convey this water to the Kern and 21 Bakersfield area. Since the San Joaquin River water was 22 already appropriated for beneficial uses, the government 23 had to deal with the parties that held the San Joaquin 24 River water rights, which were Miller and Lux, or their 25 successors whom I represent today. The entity today is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3647 1 referred to as the "Exchange Contractors," in short. 2 And that they had appropriated the San Joaquin 3 River water for agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley since 4 the 1800 -- late 1800's, the government purchased some of 5 the water rights from Miller and Lux, but they needed to 6 tie up almost all of the water of the upper San Joaquin. 7 In order to do that, the government contracted 8 with the successors to Miller and Lux to provide them a 9 substitute water supply from the Sacramento River watershed 10 delivered to them at the Mendota pool by a means of the 11 Delta-Mendota Canal. The exchange contract was executed in 12 1939 and continues in effect today. 13 The Exchange Contractors continue to do what their 14 predecessors have done since the 1800's, they farm. They 15 farm high quality cotton, melons, tomatoes, alfalfa, 16 dairies, over 75 different crops and commodities. And 17 their annual output, farm output is in excess of 400 18 million dollars a year. 19 So who gets the water from the upper San Joaquin 20 today? As I mentioned earlier, Friant division of the CVP, 21 whose 15,000 family farms irrigate about a million acres of 22 permanent plantings, mainly orchard. Does anyone seriously 23 contend that congress' intent did not have river quality 24 impacts? I believe the answer to that is no. 25 There was a plan to address water quality impacts. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3648 1 Yes, the government agreed to build an out-of-valley drain 2 to take water from irrigated farmland. As mentioned 3 earlier, Friant Dam was completed in 1942. And the 4 Exchange Contractors began receiving their substitute water 5 supply in 1951. 6 In the early 1960's, the government authorized the 7 San Luis use of the CVP and construction of an integral 8 feature of that system, the San Luis drain to remove 9 agricultural drainage. It's now 1998, the drain has not 10 been built. And even a Federal Court judge has recognized 11 that the policy of Bureau of Reclamation is not to 12 construct this facility. And it will not be constructed 13 without the order of the Court. So the Court judge ordered 14 the Bureau of Reclamation to apply for this Board for 15 appropriate permits. 16 The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 17 Board recommends an out-of-valley drain. This Board has -- 18 this Board has urged the Bureau to reevaluate alternatives 19 for completing the drain to discharge salts from 20 agricultural drainage outside of the San Joaquin Valley to 21 pursue the appropriate permits. This Board should continue 22 to pursue the permit -- I'm sorry, should continue to 23 permit the Regional Board's work to reduce salt loads. 24 You should also urge the Bureau of Reclamation so 25 that they will move forward with permitting the process for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3649 1 an out-of-valley drainage facility. Finally, you should 2 urge, if they will, and order if they will not those 3 parties close to the Delta to clean up their own acts 4 before they criticize the west side agricultural drainage. 5 And that's my conclusion of my opening statement. Thank 6 you. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you very much, 8 Mr. Chedester. Mr. Nomellini, good morning. 9 ---oOo--- 10 OPENING STATEMENT BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 11 BY DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members 13 of the Board. Dante John Nomellini for the Central Delta 14 parties. Our view is a little different than our friends 15 in the valley. I'm not sure that the burden is properly 16 placed upon the farmers who are trying to survive in the 17 Central Valley, or the farmers in the Delta. I believe our 18 government agencies are primarily responsible for the 19 predicament in which we find ourselves today. 20 The San Joaquin River salinity problem, in our 21 view, is one that should fall at the feet of the Bureau of 22 Reclamation. The Bureau itself, of course, controls most 23 of the projects that affect the San Joaquin. And it is, in 24 our view, primarily responsible for the problems that we 25 have. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3650 1 Now, there are a number of things that we've cited 2 during the course of these hearings that you're going to 3 get tired of hearing us by the time we get through Phase 4 VIII. But first of all, the Bureau of Reclamation went 5 forward with the San Luis unit of the San Joaquin Valley 6 Project, contrary to the specific legislative mandate that 7 was: 8 (Reading): 9 "That construction of the San Luis unit shall 10 not be commenced until the secretary has 11 received satisfactory assurance from the State 12 of California that it will make provision for a 13 master drainage outlet and disposal channel for 14 the San Joaquin Valley." 15 Now, although steps were taken in the direction of 16 a drain -- 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, I have to rise to object. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe Mr. Nomellini has failed 20 to adequately quote from Section 1-A of the San Luis Act. 21 We have seen lots of examples recently where partial 22 statements can be made, but I believe that the -- that 23 Section 1-A of the San Luis Act, actually, provides that 24 the construction of the San Luis drain shall not commence, 25 until the secretary has received adequate assurances from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3651 1 the State of California that it will build a master drain 2 or -- this is the part Mr. Nomellini has left out, or "the 3 secretary has made provision for drainage." 4 And, in fact, that issue has been adjudicated a 5 number of times in the United States District Court for the 6 Eastern District of California. And the district court has 7 determined that the secretary did make adequate provision 8 for drainage. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 10 Mr. Nomellini, do you dispute Mr. Birmingham's statement? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. I'll give you the paragraph so 12 you can read it for yourself. Our view of it is that the 13 Bureau did not act responsible and forthrightly. It's like 14 defining terms. You know, whichever position you want to 15 make, it's an argument that I think we're talking about. 16 In any event, there's no drain. We have vast deliveries of 17 water going into the area that is clearly recognized I 18 think by all, that in order to sustain agriculture in the 19 valley you've got to address the salt management and the 20 salt loading problem. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask one thing. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Did we get the citation clearly into 24 the record so that all can read it for themselves? 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if Mr. Nomellini could just CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3652 1 read all of the provision of Section 1-A that pertain to 2 the construction of the master drain. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you be willing to do that, 4 Mr. Nomellini? 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah, let me read it into the record. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, do. Thank you. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: What I was quoting was Section 1 of 8 the Act. I don't see the A part there, Tom. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I can read that paragraph. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: We can put -- 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me just a moment, 12 Mr. Nomellini. I just want to say for the record, and 13 correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Leidigh, I don't think there's 14 necessarily anywhere in our procedures a process for 15 interrupting an opening statement. Rebuttal is an 16 opportunity later. So I just want to say for the record 17 that you are providing a courtesy. And this is not a 18 criticism on Mr. Birmingham, he raises a point. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: But we appreciate the congeniality 21 between you two. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm not offended by it at all. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Right. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: We'll get the proper language to the 25 Board for the Act, Section 1-A of the Act, to make sure CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3653 1 it's in the record available for everybody. I was 2 referring to the San Luis Act of June 3rd, 1960, Public Law 3 86-488. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And rather than interrupt 5 Mr. Nomellini further, we will obtain a copy of Section 1-A 6 and provide it to the Board at the conclusion of 7 Mr. Nomellini's statement. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. And thank 9 you, Mr. Nomellini. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, proceed, sir. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: The point being that in order to have 13 a drainage system that works, it was contemplated from the 14 very beginning that there needs to be an outlet of that 15 drainage system, that you can't keep the salts in the 16 valley and maintain the salt balance. 17 What has happened over the years is that we don't 18 have the drainage system with the outlet. We continue to 19 bring water into the Central Valley which brings with it 20 salts. And we have this salt loading that we're trying to 21 manage, some of it is put into evaporation ponds. A lot of 22 it is going into the water supply, into the soil, into the 23 groundwater, and much of it migrates to the river, in our 24 view. 25 So we view the Bureau as responsible for not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3654 1 closing the loop. It needs -- the valley needs the 2 drainage solution. But absent a drainage solution, how do 3 we justify continuing to bring greater quantities of water 4 into the Central Valley? 5 Now, when we talk about exports to the Central 6 Valley we note that the Bureau has been exporting water 7 that is being delivered outside the permitted place of use 8 of the permits. We think that's wrong. That's not 9 permitted. It's not allowed. Yet, it does, in part, 10 contribute to this salt balance problem. 11 More importantly is: Where do we place the burden 12 for solving the salt problem that's created by the Bureau's 13 exports to the Central Valley? Should that burden be 14 placed on the areas of origin, such as the contractors from 15 the Stanislaus River, or should it be placed on the export 16 contractors themselves and should that water be taken from 17 them? In our view, we think legally it should be their 18 burden. 19 We've not suggested that there be a total shutdown 20 of the valley. We've been arguing about the illegal 21 diversions that we see that go outside the permitted place 22 of use. We've been arguing about where you get the water 23 to do the dilution. We've argued very much that the use of 24 Stanislaus River water, which deprives the area of origin 25 of their needed supplies, an improper source for that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3655 1 water. It should be a guarantor, not the main source, and 2 that the water should come from the exporters. 3 Now, is the State of California without 4 participation in this? Not in our view, because they 5 coordinated operations, they wheel water for the Feds. 6 They have been using their facilities under these joint 7 points of diversion to facilitate greater CVP exports. So 8 we see the role of the State of California through the 9 Department of Water Resources and the State Water Project 10 as a partner, so to speak, in a portion of the 11 responsibility for the drainage problem. 12 The long and the short of our position is we've 13 been disappointed that the Bureau has not been required to 14 come forth with their plan for addressing the water quality 15 and fish flows of the San Joaquin. And we think it's 16 incomplete for the Bureau to just come forward with a fish 17 flow plan and not to address the water quality. All the 18 rest of us come up with all kinds of possible solutions to 19 the problem, but the entities that control what goes on in 20 water are not willing to come forward forthrightly and set 21 forth their plan with all the expertise that they have to 22 address these problems. 23 And we think it would really be helpful if they 24 were required to come forward with a plan with some 25 leverage above it, that if you do not come forward with a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3656 1 plan, then we can see no solution but to curtail exports, 2 which are limited to surplus water, to those areas that 3 cause problems. But we think that there should be a plan 4 that could carry us through this. And the leadership on 5 that should come from the federal government. 6 I think that's enough for an opening statement. 7 Thank you very much. And I will get you the right section 8 of the San Luis Act. Thank you. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you as well, 10 Mr. Nomellini. 11 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Brown. 13 MEMBER BROWN: Can I ask Mr. Nomellini a question? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: You may, sir. 15 MEMBER BROWN: You say there's no plan, 16 Mr. Nomellini. Why do you think that's so? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Who do I blame for not having a plan? 18 MEMBER BROWN: Sure. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: I don't know. I think -- you know I 20 think that the State Board has put the salinity requirement 21 on the CVP, you know, as part of their previous orders. 22 And, yet, the Department of Interior comes back, for 23 example, and deals with a fish flow plan for the San 24 Joaquin that, obviously, shows there's going to be a 25 violation of the water quality standards. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3657 1 I think they're going to do that until you guys -- 2 and I think the State Board has the leverage here to 3 redirect what's happening with the Bureau. I think the 4 Bureau has told us a number of times, at least in court, 5 they've said, "Look, you guys have problems with this area 6 of origin, Watershed Protection Act." It's up to the State 7 Board to tell us what to do. 8 So I don't know, maybe politically they can't act, 9 because they've got fish people on one side, Bureau people 10 on the other. I don't know, but it needs that -- it needs 11 that coordinated approach. We're trying to push this 12 elephant up the hill and we're not doing very well. And I 13 don't expect we're going to do very well until they change 14 their attitude. And I think you people have the power to 15 encourage them to do it, or maybe they're looking for the 16 third party to give them the solution to their internal 17 problem. They can answer it better than I can. 18 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that. Those are all the 19 results of what's happening, and my question was: Why? 20 MR. NOMELLINI: I'd say politics. 21 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Thank you. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Let me -- thank you, 23 Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Brown. Let me read the order of the 24 cases in chief that we now have for Phase V: 25 Department of Water Resources, South Delta Water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3658 1 Agency, Contra Costa Water District, City of Stockton, 2 County of Trinity, United States Department of Interior, 3 Stockton East Water District, San Luis and Delta-Mendota 4 Water Authority, San Joaquin River Group Authority, San 5 Joaquin County. 6 Did I leave anybody out? That will be the order 7 that we take the cases in chief. Let me now ask: Are 8 there any witnesses here today that are going to be 9 participating and testifying in Phase V that have not taken 10 the oath? Please, stand if you have not taken the oath and 11 raise your right hand. 12 Do you promise to tell the truth in these 13 proceedings? 14 THE AUDIENCE: I do. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. Please, be seated. Is the 16 Department of Water Resources now ready to present their 17 case in chief? 18 MR. SANDINO: Yes, Mr. Caffrey. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning, Mr. Sandino. 20 MR. SANDINO: Good morning. 21 ---oOo--- 22 CASE IN CHIEF FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 23 BY DAVID A. SANDINO 24 MR. SANDINO: Good morning, Chairman Caffrey, Members 25 of the Board, Board staff. The Department of Water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3659 1 Resources will present evidence today in support of its 2 permanent barriers program, which is described in the 3 Board's Draft Environmental Impact Report both as 4 alternative three for implementing the South Delta water 5 quality objectives relating to agriculture; and as 6 alternative three for implementing the dissolved oxygen 7 objective near Stockton. 8 The program consists of the construction and the 9 operation of four permanent barriers in the South Delta for 10 the principal purpose of addressing southern Delta water 11 circulation and water levels and which will also provide 12 benefits to migratory fish. 13 One of these barriers, the head of the Old River 14 barrier, was the subject of extensive testimony in Phase II 15 relating to the San Joaquin River Agreement. There was 16 substantial testimony during that phase about the benefits 17 to migratory fish afforded by the head of Old River 18 barrier. The contribution of the other three barriers, 19 commonly referred to as the agricultural barriers, towards 20 implementing the South Delta objectives and their 21 relationship to the head of Old River barrier, will be the 22 focus of our testimony today. 23 Our written testimony was prepared jointly by Mike 24 Ford and Steve Roberts, two engineers on our staff. The 25 Department's oral testimony today will be presented by Mike CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3660 1 Ford, who is the program manager for DWR Delta planning and 2 Mr. Roberts' supervisor. 3 Mr. Ford's testimony will include a detailed 4 history about South Delta salinity problems and efforts to 5 address them, our experience with the implementation of the 6 temporary barrier program. How we would propose to operate 7 the permanent barriers and their benefits, the status of 8 the permanent barrier program, and, finally, our views on 9 the dissolved oxygen objective. 10 To summarize some of the key points of our 11 testimony, the Department's barrier program is a component 12 of our Interim South Delta Program and is the result of 13 over a decade of intensive engineering and environmental 14 analysis and study. This comprehensive program has been 15 developed in cooperation with United States Bureau of 16 Reclamation and the South Delta Water Agency and in 17 consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife 18 Service, the National Marine Fishery Service, the Army 19 Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. 20 Mr. Ford will present evidence that the factors 21 affecting salinity in the southern Delta are complex and 22 the Department is not able to control many of the factors 23 that affect South Delta water quality. However, our 24 studies and experience with the temporary barriers show 25 that the permanent barriers will improve water quality in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3661 1 the South Delta at many of the test locations. 2 The Board Draft EIR also concludes that the 3 permanent barrier program is a preferred alternative to 4 improve South Delta water quality. Besides providing 5 salinity benefits, our testimony will show that the 6 barriers will also provide improvements in water levels for 7 many of the South Delta agricultural water users, which is 8 another reason why we are proposing to implement the 9 permanent barrier program. 10 We are proposing permanent barriers rather than 11 temporary barriers, which are described in the Board's 12 Draft EIR as alternative two, because of the realtime 13 operational flexibility afforded by the permanent barriers 14 and because of their smaller impacts to navigation and 15 recreation in comparison to the impacts caused by the 16 temporary barriers. 17 Mr. Ford will also present evidence about the 18 history and the current status of our efforts in the South 19 Delta. In the early 1980's South Delta Water Agency 20 initiated a litigation against the Bureau and the 21 Department relating to water qualities and levels in the 22 South Delta. The Department, the Bureau and South Delta 23 Water Agency in 1990 signed a letter of support for a draft 24 settlement agreement, which is included in our testimony as 25 an attachment, that includes the implementation of a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3662 1 barriers program. 2 The Department is currently in the process of 3 addressing the environmental impacts associated with the 4 program. The Department and the Bureau have issued a Draft 5 Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact Statement 6 as required by CEQA/NEPA. The Department and the Bureau 7 are currently in the process of obtaining necessary 8 authorization under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and 9 Harbors Act from the Army Corps of Engineers and the 10 endangered species laws from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 11 National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of 12 Fish and Game. 13 Because, in part, of our success in obtaining 14 these authorizations for our temporary barrier program, we 15 are optimistic that we will be able to finish all the 16 environmental requirements for the permanent barrier 17 program with its enhanced and operational flexibility in 18 early 1999. 19 Mr. Ford will also present evidence that the 20 dissolved oxygen objective is also subject to a variety of 21 influences. And the Department does not believe that State 22 Water Project operations significantly affect the dissolved 23 oxygen levels near the City of Stockton. However, the head 24 of the Old River barrier may contribute to improvements in 25 dissolved oxygen levels. And the Department is willing to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3663 1 consider operations of the barriers in a flexible manner to 2 help address dissolved oxygen issues consistent with our 3 responsibilities to South Delta water users and our 4 environmental commitments. 5 In conclusion, we believe that our evidence will 6 support the Board finding that the permanent barrier 7 program is a reasonable alternative to address salinity 8 levels in the South Delta and that it also contributes to 9 the implementation of the dissolved oxygen objective. We 10 believe our evidence will also support the Board concluding 11 that the program satisfies the State Water Project's 12 contribution to the achievement of the South Delta water 13 quality objectives. 14 That concludes our opening statement. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sandino. Am I to 16 understand that you have two witnesses for this phase? 17 MR. SANDINO: Actually, we only have one witness who 18 will be presenting the oral testimony. Our written 19 testimony was presented by two individuals, Mr. Ford and 20 Mr. Roberts, on the possibility that one may not be 21 available, but -- 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I see, but they both have equal levels 23 of expertise? 24 MR. SANDINO: Yes, they do. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3664 1 MR. SANDINO: Actually, Mr. Ford is Mr. Roberts' 2 supervisor. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Oh, I see. Thank you. Let me, just 4 for Mr. Ford's benefit and for the benefit of all those who 5 will appear throughout the rest of these proceedings as 6 witnesses, if you haven't heard me before, there's a 7 20-minute limit. And it's a strict limit on the 8 presentation of your direct evidence. 9 The reason for that is the Board has the physical 10 evidentiary exhibits that you have heretofore presented 11 before it so that we have access to that information. And 12 the purpose of your direct oral testimony is summarization. 13 We do not have a limit on cross-examination as long as the 14 cross-examination is relevant. We try to have a goal of 15 about an hour, but that doesn't always work out. And like 16 I say, as long as it remains relevant it is a due process 17 issue. 18 With that, then, Mr. Sandino, please, proceed. 19 MR. SANDINO: Thank you. Mr. Ford, did you take the 20 oath of office this morning? 21 MR. FORD: Yes, I did. 22 MR. SANDINO: Would you, please, state your complete 23 name and spell it for the record. 24 MR. FORD: John Michael Ford. J-O-H-N -- I'm just 25 kidding. Do you want me to spell it? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3665 1 MR. SANDINO: No. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: There's a lot of different spellings, 3 by the way. 4 MR. SANDINO: You have before you exhibit -- DWR 5 Exhibit 5. Is this an accurate statement of your 6 qualifications? 7 MR. FORD: Yes, it is. 8 MR. SANDINO: Could you, please, summarize your 9 qualifications for the Board. 10 MR. FORD: Basically, I've been working for the 11 Department of Water Resources for over 18 years. My basic 12 experience during that time has been extensive in Delta 13 modeling and also DWRSIM. I worked for several years in 14 operations and maintenance as the chief of compliance 15 monitoring I -- under operations center up there including 16 Delta standards compliance. For the last several years 17 I've worked in the Division of Planning in heading up both 18 the Los Grandes Project and the Interim South Delta 19 Project. And I've also been the Bay-Delta hearings 20 coordinator for the Department several years ago. 21 MR. SANDINO: You have before you a copy of DWR 22 Exhibit 37 which is our written testimony for this phase. 23 Was this testimony jointly prepared by you and Mr. Roberts? 24 MR. FORD: Yes, it was. 25 MR. SANDINO: Is Mr. Roberts a member of your program CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3666 1 staff under your direct supervision? 2 MR. FORD: Yes, he is. 3 MR. SANDINO: Are you competent to testify about all 4 the matters contained in Exhibit DWR 37? 5 MR. FORD: Yes, I am. 6 MR. SANDINO: Is DWR Exhibit 37 a true and correct 7 copy of your testimony? 8 MR. FORD: Yes, it is. 9 MR. SANDINO: Could you, please, summarize the 10 testimony for the Board. 11 MR. FORD: Yes. Good morning, Chairman Caffrey and 12 Members of the Board and Board staff. The May 1995 Water 13 Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 14 and San Francisco estuary issued by the Board adopted 15 year-round South Delta salinity objectives of between 0.7 16 EC and 1.0 EC at four locations: San Joaquin River at 17 Vernalis, San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge, Old River 18 near Middle River and Old River at Tracy Road Bridge. 19 In addition, a dissolved oxygen standard of 6.0 milligrams 20 per liter or better on the San Joaquin River between Turner 21 Cut and Stockton was adopted from September through 22 November. 23 The purpose of my testimony today is to explain to 24 the Board what the Department of Water Resources believes 25 are the appropriate water quality implementation measures CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3667 1 for the State Water Project's and the Federal Central 2 Valley Project's contribution to the achievement of these 3 objectives in the South Delta. In order to stay within the 4 Board's 20-minute time limit for oral testimony, I will be 5 summarizing much of my written testimony. 6 The factors affecting salinity in the South Delta 7 are different than those affecting dissolved oxygen levels 8 along the San Joaquin River. I will address the salinity 9 objectives first, followed by some limited remarks on the 10 dissolved oxygen objective. 11 The water quality of irrigation water in the South 12 Delta is important both to crop variety and yield. Water 13 quality in this area is complex and is affected by a number 14 of interrelated factors including: The incoming water 15 quality of the San Joaquin River at Vernalis; salt water 16 intrusion from the Bay; local agricultural drainage 17 returns; the circulation of water in the channels of the 18 South Delta; and SWP/CVP exports which generally provides 19 significant improvements to water quality by improving 20 circulation and drawing better water quality into the area. 21 In addition, adverse salinity levels in the South 22 Delta frequently arise due to the dominant influence of 23 local and upstream land-derived salts from lands that are 24 irrigated with imported water containing a substantial salt 25 load. This situation differs from that found in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3668 1 central and northern Delta where water quality control is 2 directly influenced by seawater intrusion and the 3 regulation of flow. 4 Another principal concern for South Delta water 5 supply is low water levels. Moderate to high water levels 6 in the area are needed to ensure that adequate 7 agricultural -- are needed to ensure that agricultural 8 diversion facilities have adequate draft. If water levels 9 are too low, local diverters may be unable to pump at all, 10 or diversion intakes can cavitate, resulting in higher 11 pumping costs and increase wear on intake pumps. 12 The pump machinery can subsequently fail resulting 13 in a loss of irrigation water for crops and increased costs 14 to agricultural users in the area to replace the failing 15 machinery. Water levels in the area similar to salinity 16 levels are affected by a number of factors: Low river 17 flows entering the South Delta canals; local channel 18 depletions by agricultural diversions; natural tidal 19 variations, especially during periods of extreme low tides; 20 fluctuations in atmospheric pressure, local wind direction 21 and velocity exacerbate low water level conditions; limited 22 channel capacities and diversions at project export 23 facilities. 24 Although the 1990 Water Quality Control Plan does 25 not propose water level standards for the interior South CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3669 1 Delta, DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working 2 with the South Delta Water Agency for many years to develop 3 a plan addressing both water level and salinity problems 4 and has reached an agreement with South Delta Water Agency 5 on a comprehensive solution. The solution that DWR, 6 Reclamation and South Delta have agreed upon is the South 7 Delta barriers program. 8 Three barriers, this is Figure 2 from my written 9 testimony, are proposed at the following locations -- 10 C.O. CAFFREY: You need to pull it forward. 11 MR. FORD: The one to the most north is Middle River 12 southeast of North Canal. The one -- to the most south -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you push the transparency up a 14 little bit so that the Board Members can see it. Thank 15 you. 16 MR. FORD: The second one is the Old River Tracy 17 barrier that's just northeast of Tracy Pumping Plant; the 18 Grant Line Canal just east of Old River. And a fourth 19 barrier that provides additional fish protection is located 20 at the head of Old River to aid upstream migrant San 21 Joaquin fall-run chinook salmon and enhance survival of the 22 outmigration salmon smolts through the Delta. 23 While the head of Old River barrier has been 24 installed since the 1960's, DWR has sought to install and 25 operate the remaining South Delta barriers since 1990. All CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3670 1 the barriers installed and operating to date have been 2 temporary structures which are installed and removed on an 3 annual basis. 4 DWR is completing the environmental documentation 5 in obtaining the permits to construct and operate four 6 permanent barrier constructions at these same locations. 7 The permanent structures would be radial-gate structures 8 which would eliminate the continuing need for installation 9 of the temporary barriers. 10 The function of these barriers is to allow -- I 11 should say, primarily the three agricultural barriers, is 12 to allow water to flow upstream of the barriers on the 13 rising tide, or flood tide, and to prevent the water flow 14 downstream of the barriers during the falling of ebb tide. 15 In this manner, the barriers fill the South Delta channels 16 by trapping water on the flood tide and ensuring that it 17 does not drain away from these channels during the ebb 18 tide. 19 Barriers operations also improve existing 20 circulation, or net flow patterns in the South Delta which 21 also improves salinity levels by transporting excessive 22 salt loads away from the South Delta into the Central Delta 23 where it is blended with lower salinity water from the 24 Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers. 25 While the barriers improve water levels and salinity CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3671 1 in the South Delta, they are by no means a "cure-all" for 2 South Delta salinity problems. The barriers themselves do 3 not consume the salt load, instead they cause a net 4 circulation of flow which transports the salt away from the 5 South Delta to other areas of the Delta where the salt can 6 be assimilated without exceeding other water quality 7 standards. This inherently means that while salinity 8 levels in some areas may improve with barrier operation, 9 other areas may experience minor degradation of water 10 quality with the barriers. 11 Given this fact and the difficulty in controlling 12 other factors affecting South Delta salinity, it is not 13 possible to guarantee the attainment of specific salinity 14 objectives even if the barriers are operating. And this is 15 exactly why the agreement between DWR, Reclamation and 16 South Delta Water Agency does not address the attainment of 17 any specific given salinity criteria with the barriers. 18 It is important to note, however, that the 19 increased efficiency and operational flexibility that is 20 provided by the permanent barriers, in contrast to the 21 temporary barriers, offer the ability to adjust barrier 22 operations to protect South Delta agricultural uses while 23 minimizing any secondary water quality affects to other 24 Delta users. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman, question: Before you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3672 1 take Figure 2 off. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Stubchaer. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: On the Figure 2 in the black and 4 white exhibit it appears that the Paradise Cut stops just 5 short of the San Joaquin River. And on this one it looks 6 like the Paradise Cut is connected to the San Joaquin 7 River; do you know -- 8 MR. ROBERTS: It's not connected. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: It's not connected. 10 THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? 11 MR. ROBERTS: My name is Steve Roberts. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. FORD: To illustrate this point about affects and 14 how the barriers operation in terms of moving the salt 15 around the Delta, I'd like to refer to this exhibit. This 16 is exhibit -- or Figure 8, I'm sorry, in my written 17 testimony. I have modified this exhibit from what is in my 18 written testimony. We do have a hundred copies of it 19 available. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: You say you have modified it? 21 MR. FORD: Yeah. Let me explain what I've done. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Is it significant? 23 MR. FORD: No. The only thing that I've done here 24 is, you see these numbers here with and without the 25 barriers, are showing predicted salinity levels in TDS as CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3673 1 per our Delta modeling. And that's what is in my Figure 8. 2 What I've taken the liberty of doing for this exhibit is 3 converting electrical conductivity, since that's what the 4 Board is proposing the standards in. So the numbers in 5 parentheses are basically the parts per million TDS 6 converted to EC. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh? 8 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. I wanted to inquire whether you 9 have an exhibit number for this? 10 MR. FORD: Yeah. It's -- 11 C.O. CAFFREY: You're using the same exhibit? 12 MR. FORD: It's Figure 8 in my testimony. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Should we call this 8-B or 8-A, 14 whatever? 15 MS. LEIDIGH: I think we need to distinguish it. So 16 let's call it 8-B. Is that okay? 17 MR. SANDINO: Well, it would be DWR Exhibit 37, 18 Figure 8-B. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: That's fine. 20 MR. SANDINO: And we're circulating copies, and we'll 21 also serve a copy on all the parties. 22 MEMBER BROWN: Question, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sandino. Mr. Brown? 24 MEMBER BROWN: The salinity figures remain the same, 25 you just changed it from TDS to electrical conductivity? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3674 1 MR. FORD: That's exactly correct. There's no real 2 re-information here. All I've done is converted the TDS 3 predictions to EC. 4 MEMBER BROWN: While I have him interrupted, 5 Mr. Chairman, if I may? 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Brown. 7 MEMBER BROWN: On the submergence of your pumps and 8 cavitation, are those mainly vertical turbine pumps at 9 exports -- 10 MR. FORD: Probably, I think you should probably talk 11 to Mr. Hildebrand who will be coming up shortly in terms of 12 the various machineries and things that's in the South 13 Delta. 14 MEMBER BROWN: All right. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, proceed, sir. 16 MR. FORD: Okay. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: By the way, let me also state as far 18 as my earlier statement about timing, when you're 19 interrupted we don't -- that's not on your clock, it's on 20 ours. So we stopped the clock during that little 21 questioning period. Go ahead. 22 MR. FORD: That's fine. With regards to this figure, 23 the salinity levels at the various South Delta locations 24 are predicted using DWR's Delta Simulation Model. We have 25 two scenarios here, the same hydrology. In the no-barrier CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3675 1 scenario, the water qualities shown are predicted in TDS. 2 Converting these to EC levels we find that under the 3 no-barrier scenario the monthly EC -- 4 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman? 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Ford. Mr. Brown has a 6 question. 7 MEMBER BROWN: I'd like to confer with Mr. Stubchaer 8 on an issue here relating to -- 9 C.O. CAFFREY: You want us to go off the record? 10 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go off the record for a moment. 12 (Off the record from 9:58 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) 13 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We're back on the record. 14 MR. FORD: Okay. Again, the point of this figure is 15 simply to show the net effect that the barriers would have 16 on salinity levels in the South Delta with their operation 17 versus no barriers. 18 Under the no-barriers scenario, you can see that 19 for this hydrology the EC's are predicted at .52 EC near 20 Brandt Bridge, .85 EC at Old River near Middle River, 21 .35 in upper Middle River, .87 at Old River near Tracy Road 22 Bridge, .73 at Old River near Tracy Pumping Plant and 23 .22 EC at Turner Cut. Note also that the EC at Vernalis 24 under this hydraulic condition is .89, which does exceed 25 the agricultural objective limit of .7 during July. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3676 1 Now the model is run assuming that all three of 2 the proposed agricultural barriers are operating. With the 3 barriers in operation we find the monthly daily EC, or 4 monthly average EC, is now predicted as follows: .88 EC at 5 the San Joaquin River near Brandt Bridge, .86 EC at Old 6 River near Middle River, .32 at upper Middle River, .49 at 7 Old River near Tracy Road Bridge, .44 at Old River near 8 Tracy Pumping Plant and .33 at Turner Cut. 9 The reason we put this figure up before the Board 10 is to reinforce two points which I made earlier. One, is 11 the barriers improve water quality in some areas while it 12 might cause a minor degradation in other areas. In this 13 example, water quality with the barriers was better -- or 14 was improved at upper Middle River, Old River near Tracy 15 Road Bridge and Old River near Tracy Pumping Plant. 16 At Old River near Middle River water quality was, 17 essentially, the same. Water quality with the barriers in 18 operation was poorer at the San Joaquin River near Brandt 19 Bridge and slightly poorer at Turner Cut. 20 The second point is that barrier operations cannot 21 guarantee compliance with the South Delta salinity 22 objectives, which the Board has proposed -- or has adopted 23 since the barriers cannot address the other factors 24 addressing salinity in the South Delta. In this example, 25 the proposed South Delta salinity objective at Old River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3677 1 near Middle River, which is in the 1990 Water Quality 2 Control Plan, would not be met due to the dominant 3 influence of poor quality water entering the South Delta at 4 Vernalis and, of course, the Vernalis standard would not be 5 met, also. 6 Therefore, DWR's recommendation with regard to the 7 South Delta salinity objectives in the Water Quality 8 Control Plan is that the Board recognize and accept DWR's 9 efforts to implement the South Delta barriers program as 10 the appropriate water quality implementation measures for 11 the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project to 12 contribute to the achievement of water quality objectives 13 in the South Delta. 14 Now, I'll briefly address -- very briefly address 15 the dissolved oxygen standard in the San Joaquin River 16 between Old River and Stockton. Dissolved oxygen levels in 17 this area are affected by a number of factors such as long 18 residence times, stagnant waterways, upstream municipal 19 wastewater discharges, algae blooms, low flows and summer 20 high -- summer and fall high temperatures. 21 The barrier at the head of Old River is normally 22 operated in the spring, April through May, to improve fish 23 passage and survival and in the fall, September through 24 November, to improve dissolved oxygen levels along the San 25 Joaquin River. The barrier achieves this in both instances CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3678 1 by forcing flow on the San Joaquin River to remain in the 2 river instead of entering Old River at its junction with 3 the San Joaquin River. 4 In this manner, the barrier effectively increases 5 the flow along the San Joaquin River between Old River and 6 Stockton. The Department has installed a temporary head 7 barrier in the fall since the 1960's and in the spring 8 since 1990. 9 A permanent head barrier is being pursued -- 10 pursued by DWR in conjunction with the three permanent 11 agricultural barriers. And it would also provide 12 additional operational flexibility to increase dissolved 13 oxygen levels in the fall and fish passage in the spring. 14 In the interim, the Department plans to install and operate 15 a temporary barrier at this location in both seasons. 16 DWR believes that the fall head -- the fall head 17 barrier should be a key component of any comprehensive 18 long-term plan to help meet the Board's DO objective. 19 Earlier operation of the fish structure in terms of the 20 fall in coordination with pollution control measures may 21 help to meet the DO objective in the late summer. The 22 Department is willing to consider such operation of this 23 structure provided that water levels and circulation in the 24 South Delta are protected and that Tracy wastewater 25 treatment plant discharges are taken into account. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3679 1 And that concludes my testimony. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ford. By 3 showing of hands, do any of the parties wish to 4 cross-examine these witnesses? Let's see: Mr. Campbell, 5 Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Herrick -- please keep your hands up 6 until I call your name -- Mr. Simmons, Mr. Birmingham. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Maddow, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Jackson, 9 Mr. Herrick. Have I missed anybody? All right. We'll 10 take them in the order I read them: Campbell, Nomellini 11 Simmons, Birmingham, Maddow, Sexton, Jackson, Herrick. 12 Mr. Campbell. 13 ---oOo--- 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 15 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 16 BY MATTHEW CAMPBELL 17 MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of 18 the Board. Matthew Campbell, Deputy Attorney General on 19 behalf of the Department of Fish and Game. 20 Mr. Ford, you've testified that the barriers 21 improve water quality only to the extent that they improve 22 water circulation in the South Delta; is that correct? 23 MR. FORD: Yeah. The -- the improvement in salinity 24 in the South Delta is basically due to the improvement in 25 circulation. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3680 1 MR. CAMPBELL: I believe you also testified to 2 improve water quality in that context it is necessary to 3 control and dilute the salt load in the San Joaquin River 4 at Vernalis? 5 MR. FORD: In general, what we find is that the -- to 6 meet the Board's salinity objectives, even with barrier 7 operation, salinity standard at Vernalis must be met. And 8 in terms of the Brandt Bridge salinity objective, even with 9 the barriers operation, in that case Vernalis water quality 10 has to be significantly better than what's proposed. 11 MR. CAMPBELL: But to summarize as it's stated in 12 your written testimony, I believe this is a quote, 13 (Reading): 14 "For instance, it is also necessary to control 15 and dilute the salt load in the San Joaquin 16 River at Vernalis." 17 Is that your testimony? 18 MR. FORD: True. 19 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. Do the barriers reduce the 20 salt load imported by the Delta-Mendota canal? 21 MR. FORD: What the barriers do is they reduce the 22 salinity at the Tracy Pumping Plant. So to the degree that 23 the recirculation of the salts occurs as it comes down the 24 San Joaquin River and is picked up at Tracy and exported 25 back, the barriers improve the quality of the water that's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3681 1 exported to Tracy reducing the salt load in the west side 2 area. 3 MR. CAMPBELL: Would raising -- or is raising the 4 water levels with barriers a method of ensuring water 5 supplies for farmers in the South Delta? 6 MR. FORD: That is one way to ensure the water 7 supplies for the South Delta. 8 MR. CAMPBELL: Has the Department of Water Resources 9 evaluated alternatives to the barriers that could provide 10 South Delta farmers with adequate water supplies? 11 MR. FORD: We have evaluated the number of 12 alternatives under both the -- in attempting to meet the 13 requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the 14 Board's alternative analysis, and also for the purpose of 15 NEPA and CEQA. We've looked at such alternatives as 16 curtailing pumping, increasing flow; basically providing 17 independent water -- moving the siphons providing 18 independent water distribution facilities to farmers. And 19 we've also been asked to look at the possibility regarding 20 the water level problems of dredging and relocating 21 siphons. 22 In the first two I listed, we have not been able 23 to determine the feasibility of those projects to date. We 24 have serious concerns, also, about the possibility of the 25 dredging, relocation. See that's a partial fix, but I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3682 1 guess -- well, may not address all of the factors that 2 relate to South Delta water supply, it is one possible 3 means of ensuring an adequate water supply at least to some 4 of the South Delta farmers. 5 MR. CAMPBELL: To what extent can alternatives to the 6 Grant Line barrier benefit farmers in areas that would be 7 influenced by the installation and operation of the Grant 8 Line barriers? 9 MR. FORD: Well, Grant Line barriers is basically -- 10 it's the largest of the proposed barriers. It's also the 11 one that probably creates the most havoc in terms of 12 navigation and recreation concerns in the area. It's the 13 most extensive permanent barrier. And we have been asked 14 to look at -- that is one of the areas along Grant Line 15 Canal where we've been requested by Fish and Game, Fish and 16 Wildlife Service and NMFS to look at alternatives to 17 building the Grant Line barrier, in particular, in that 18 location. And we have looked at dredging and relocating 19 intakes along the Grant Line Canal. 20 MR. CAMPBELL: Have you concluded those evaluations? 21 MR. FORD: No, we have not. 22 MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. But -- 23 MR. FORD: We're in the process -- we're currently 24 right in the process of endangered species consultation 25 that are both federal and state law. That's some of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3683 1 information that we've been asked to provide. 2 MR. CAMPBELL: I believe you have testified that the 3 Department of Water Resources believes that it is essential 4 that the flow and fish structure -- fish structures be 5 considered together as a package. Is that correct? 6 MR. FORD: Yes, that's correct. 7 MR. CAMPBELL: Would it be necessary to operate the 8 Old River at Tracy and Middle River barriers if the head of 9 Old River barrier was operated earlier in the spring, such 10 as March? 11 MR. FORD: Yes, we believe it would. 12 MR. CAMPBELL: Can you explain why? 13 MR. FORD: Actually, it would probably depend on the 14 water years, but basically South Delta farmers can irrigate 15 even as early as February or March, depending on the 16 specific weather conditions of that year. Any time the 17 head of Old River barrier goes into operation in the 18 spring, it cuts off their natural water supply, and they 19 can experience some severely low water level, the Middle 20 River and Tracy barriers to basically alleviate those 21 impacts. 22 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Ford and Members of the 23 Board. I have no further questions. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. 25 Mr. Nomellini. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3684 1 ---oOo--- 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 3 BY THE CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 4 BY DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for the Central 6 Delta parties. 7 Mr. Ford, does the Department support the 8 requirement that the Bureau meet the Vernalis water quality 9 objectives? 10 MR. FORD: I'm sorry, does the Department support the 11 Board's requirement? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 13 MR. FORD: I think the Department supports whatever 14 Board standards are adopted. We're going to support the 15 meaning of the requirements that are adopted. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any opinion as to whether 17 or not increased exports to the west side of the valley add 18 to the salinity load in the San Joaquin River? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: I just asked whether he had any 21 opinion, first of all. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question, 23 Mr. Ford? 24 MR. FORD: Yes. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have an answer? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3685 1 MR. FORD: Yes, I do. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, proceed. 3 MR. FORD: I would say, I'm not an expert on west 4 side drainage issues and by no means an agricultural 5 specialist, but -- 6 C.O. CAFFREY: You're not required to answer any 7 questions you don't feel expert enough to answer. That's 8 just it. I'm not trying to leverage you in either 9 direction. I just want you to understand your rights in 10 your situation as a witness. If you know the answer and 11 have an opinion, go ahead; if not, you don't have to 12 answer. 13 MR. FORD: I guess you know I'm aware -- that to the 14 degree that there are drainage problems on the west side 15 and that exacerbates problems on the San Joaquin River. 16 And, obviously, farmers in that area need water -- need a 17 water supply to feed their crops, so they're getting it 18 from the Delta. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: In your statement you indicate that 20 the Bureau's pumps have to pump during low tide periods. 21 Is that correct? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And this is in contrast to the state 24 pumps which pump out of a forebay? 25 MR. FORD: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3686 1 MR. NOMELLINI: And isn't it true that the federal 2 pumps aggravate the water level problem more than the state 3 pumps? 4 MR. FORD: That's what our studies have shown. You 5 know to the degree water is diverted during the low tide 6 periods that's the -- that's the -- that's the most impact 7 case on the South Delta. To the degree that either export 8 facility, whether it be Tracy or Banks, can export -- can 9 basically lay off of exporting during those low-tide 10 situations that's what they have to do. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that in some 12 circumstances the barriers, South Delta barriers, are 13 necessary to maintain water levels for agricultural 14 purposes in the South Delta? 15 MR. FORD: Yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And are they sometimes necessary to 17 mitigate the adverse impact on water levels caused by the 18 Bureau pumps? 19 MR. FORD: They're to mitigate for not only the 20 affects of the Bureau's pumps any incremental affects that 21 the state project could have and, also, the combined 22 affects of all the other water users along the San Joaquin 23 that also, you know, contribute to South Delta's water 24 levels. It's not just Tracy's pumps, it's a much bigger 25 mixed bag of things than that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3687 1 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Staying on that point and 2 recognize the bigger, more complex issue, is it not true 3 that the operation of the CVP pumps does, in some 4 circumstances, aggravate the water level problem in the 5 South Delta? 6 MR. FORD: Yes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: And to the extent that there is that 8 incremental aggravation by the CVP pumps, the barriers 9 would mitigate for that, would they not? 10 MR. FORD: Correct. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Now, could you put up on the 12 screen DWR 37, Figure 8-B, the new exhibit? 13 MR. ROBERTS: Is that okay? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. That's fine. Now, I believe 15 in response to a question with regard to the connection of 16 Paradise Cut to the San Joaquin River, it was pointed out 17 that Paradise Cut is separated on these exhibits from the 18 San Joaquin River. 19 Is it true, is it not, that Paradise Cut itself 20 intersects the San Joaquin River, but the hydraulic 21 continuity isn't there except during the wet periods? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: So more accurately, Paradise Cut does 24 connect next to the San Joaquin River, but it doesn't have 25 water in it connecting the two during dry periods? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3688 1 MR. FORD: Correct. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, going to the without-barrier 3 condition, on this exhibit, we see that the water quality 4 on the San Joaquin at Brandt -- I guess it's Brandt, that 5 305 TDS versus the 520 at Vernalis? 6 MR. FORD: Correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know how that water quality at 8 that point is improved? 9 MR. FORD: Well, basically, in the -- in the 10 no-barrier scenario much of the San Joaquin River water at 11 Vernalis, when it flows down the river and it hits the 12 junction with Old River, much of that flow then goes down 13 Old River towards the pumps and does not show up at Brandt 14 Bridge, which is why you see higher water qualities at the 15 pumps in the no-barriers scenario. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Staying right on that, 17 let's assume that the bad quality San Joaquin River water 18 goes to the pumps, then where does the good water quality 19 come from at Brandt Bridge to make up that 305? 20 MR. FORD: I believe that's -- I believe that's just 21 basically a mixture of the tidal waters coming in from the 22 San Joaquin and any mixing that would come down through the 23 Mokelumne rivers down to the lower San Joaquin River. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: So it's basically a reverse flow that 25 contributes water at that point, is that true? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3689 1 MR. FORD: I would guess that under this scenario 2 there was a reverse flow there, but I can't say that for 3 positive. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. In your written testimony 5 you talk about the ISDP, which is the Interim South Delta 6 Program; is that correct? 7 MR. FORD: Correct. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: And at page 5, do you have your 9 testimony? With regard to page 5 you describe a series of 10 components, I believe, of the ISDP. First one says: 11 (Reading): 12 "Dredging five miles below river north at Clifton 13 Court Forebay to improve channel carrying 14 capacity." 15 You would agree, would you not, that that component 16 is not presented by you to show that it in any way improves 17 salinity in the San Joaquin River? 18 MR. FORD: No. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And, likewise, constructing and 20 operating a new intake gate at the northeast corner at 21 Clifton Court Forebay would not improve salinity in the San 22 Joaquin River? 23 MR. FORD: Correct. The -- yeah. The ISDP is a 24 number of components. And these -- these components relate 25 to increasing the pumping capability at Banks Pumping Plant CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3690 1 really don't have anything to do with the San Joaquin River 2 water pump. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. And your testimony would be 4 the same with regard to number three -- 5 MR. FORD: Yes, it would. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: -- which is authorization from the 7 Corps under Section 10 to increase diverting? 8 MR. FORD: Correct. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you 10 very much. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Stubchaer. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Going back three questions. I think 15 you asked: You would agree, would you not, that 16 such-and-such and such-and-such was such-and-such. And I 17 think he agreed with you and he said "no," because the way 18 you phrased the question, the "no" meant he didn't agree 19 with you. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Maybe I can clarify. It is clear, is 21 it not, Mr. Ford, that dredging five miles of Old River 22 north of Clifton Court Forebay to improve channel carrying 23 capacity does not improve the salinity in the San Joaquin 24 River? 25 MR. FORD: That is correct. And it's also true for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3691 1 the other two components. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Constructing and operating a new 3 intake gate at the northeast corner at Clifton Court 4 Forebay? 5 MR. FORD: Correct. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: And obtaining authorization for the 7 Corps to increase diversions at Clifton Court? 8 MR. FORD: That is correct. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Thank you. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. Thank you, 11 Mr. Stubchaer. 12 Mr. Simmons. 13 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning. 15 ---oOo--- 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 17 BY THE CITY OF STOCKTON 18 BY PAUL SIMMONS 19 MR. SIMMONS: Paul Simmons for the City of Stockton. 20 I'll try to make sure you know what answer I want to each 21 question. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: That would be unique. It would be 23 more unique to get the answer, but anyway, go ahead. 24 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Ford, I'm going to ask you 25 primarily about the Old River barrier and your plans with CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3692 1 regard to the Old River barrier in the future. Part of it 2 is just to confirm some points I believe you covered in 3 your testimony. 4 First of all, I believe you testified that the 5 Department has been installing the temporary rock barriers 6 since the 1960's. And it's my understanding that this was, 7 in part, to address the resources agencies' concerns about 8 fisheries and dissolved oxygen. Is that correct? 9 MR. FORD: Yes, that's correct. 10 MR. SIMMONS: Now, as -- am I right that 11 October 1st is your approximate target date to install the 12 barrier, at least that is the ISDP current target date? 13 MR. FORD: That's correct. 14 MR. SIMMONS: But is it also correct that sometimes 15 in the past that you have sometimes installed that barrier 16 in September, sometimes in September? 17 MR. FORD: We have installed it earlier than 18 September at the request of Fish and Game. 19 MR. SIMMONS: And is that something that you're 20 willing to look at as part of the ISDP, also? 21 MR. FORD: We would certainly be willing to restore 22 that. Again, as I said in my testimony, provided that the 23 South Delta water supply conditions relating to water 24 levels and circulation were protected. 25 MR. SIMMONS: I understand that. Now, when you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3693 1 install the temporary barrier in the fall, do you 2 coordinate with the resources agencies, Fish and Game, Fish 3 and Wildlife Service? 4 MR. FORD: Yes, we do. 5 MR. SIMMONS: And since you started installing the 6 barrier in the 1960's, subsequent to that time the State 7 Board has adopted a 6.0 milligram per liter objective that 8 commences on September 1st. You're aware of that? 9 MR. FORD: Yes, I am. 10 MR. SIMMONS: And that's for the -- for -- to protect 11 the migrating chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River? 12 MR. FORD: Correct. 13 MR. SIMMONS: Now, has the resources agencies asked 14 you to install it early in September, let's say on 15 September 1st, to protect the salmon in the San Joaquin 16 River? 17 MR. FORD: I don't believe we have ever been asked to 18 install it as early as September 1st, but I think we have 19 been asked to install it, you know, approximately mid 20 September. 21 MR. SIMMONS: If I understand what you're going 22 through on the ISDP, right now you're trying to work out 23 some concerns about the fisheries impacts of the ISDP 24 itself; is that right? 25 MR. FORD: Correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3694 1 MR. SIMMONS: Now, are those concerns -- do those 2 concerns focus on the fall Old River barrier operation, or 3 are they primarily focused on the springtime issues? 4 MR. FORD: They're probably -- yeah, probably 5 primarily focused on agricultural structures. The head 6 barrier, by acknowledgement, is basically a fish barrier. 7 So the concerns are in the effects of the agricultural 8 barriers in conjunction with the fall head spring barrier 9 and the agricultural barriers themselves; as well as, 10 again, the other components of our project that are not 11 specifically dealing with the Board's objectives that 12 Mr. Nomellini just alluded to. 13 MR. SIMMONS: One of the fisheries' concerns about 14 the ISDP is a Delta smelt concern; is that right? 15 MR. FORD: Correct. 16 MR. SIMMONS: Is that a springtime issue primarily? 17 MR. FORD: Yes, spring and summer. 18 MR. SIMMONS: In your written testimony and your 19 verbal testimony you talked about long residence times and 20 stagnant waterways as being factors that affect DO 21 concentrations? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. SIMMONS: And there are slack flows or reverse 24 flows in the San Joaquin River at times; is that right? 25 MR. FORD: Yes, it is. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3695 1 MR. SIMMONS: Does the operation of the Old River 2 barrier help mitigate for impacts to DO caused by these 3 kind of conditions? 4 MR. FORD: Yes, it does. 5 MR. SIMMONS: You also talked about nonpoint sources, 6 nutrients and algal blooms as factors that affect DO? 7 MR. FORD: Correct. 8 MR. SIMMONS: Is it fair to say that the Old River 9 barrier, in some sense, helps to mitigate the impacts of 10 those factors? 11 MR. FORD: Yes, it does. 12 MR. SIMMONS: Are you aware of anything else being 13 done to address those factors that I just talked about? 14 MR. FORD: I'm aware that the City of Stockton has 15 basically made some treatment -- has improved their 16 treatment plant discharge facilities as, I believe, the 17 Regional Water Quality Control Board has ordered. 18 MR. SIMMONS: And are you aware of any other things 19 that are being done to address the nonpoint sources, 20 nutrients and algal bloom? 21 MR. FORD: No, not specifically. 22 MR. SIMMONS: You also testified that the barrier, 23 it's in your written testimony, can't solve the DO issue 24 itself? 25 MR. FORD: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3696 1 MR. SIMMONS: Do you believe that the solution to the 2 DO problems are an attempt to take into consideration all 3 of the factors that we discussed? 4 MR. FORD: Yes. 5 MR. SIMMONS: In the -- in your temporary rock 6 barrier program, as I understand it, you are right now 7 planning to start putting culverts in the rock barriers 8 themselves that will let some water pass through the 9 barrier? 10 MR. FORD: Correct. 11 MR. SIMMONS: And is the purpose of that to give you 12 some flexibility to be able to more or less adaptively 13 manage that head of Old River in the short term? 14 MR. FORD: It is to do the very thing that I talked 15 about earlier, to try to operate that barrier as much as 16 possible, but also to ensure that the South Delta Water 17 Agency's needs are protected. 18 MR. SIMMONS: So it gives you a better ability to 19 take into consideration both the South Delta Water Agency's 20 issues and the San Joaquin River DO issue and anything 21 else? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. In light of that, the barriers, 23 in or out, and if it has an adverse impact on South Delta, 24 the only solution is that without culverts is to remove it. 25 MR. SIMMONS: Now, when you have a permanent operable CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3697 1 structure, will your ability to adaptively manage the 2 system be enhanced? 3 MR. FORD: Yes, it will. 4 MR. SIMMONS: And could this facility be partially 5 opened at some times and completely opened at some times 6 and closed at others? 7 MR. FORD: Yes. 8 MR. SIMMONS: And would it be possible to operate 9 that facility in a manner that takes into account the South 10 Delta concerns as well as other San Joaquin River concerns? 11 MR. FORD: Yes. 12 MR. SIMMONS: Could it take into consideration the 13 flows, the tides, the occurrence of algal blooms and the 14 other factors that we talked about as part of an adaptive 15 management program? 16 MR. FORD: Yes. 17 MR. SIMMONS: And could it be operated on a realtime 18 basis to take into account for these things? 19 MR. FORD: Yes. 20 MR. SIMMONS: Do you think that anyone has gone very 21 far to date in trying to develop that type of program for 22 the operation of the barrier? 23 MR. FORD: No. 24 MR. SIMMONS: And I believe it was your testimony 25 that so long as the South Delta interests are taken care CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3698 1 of, that the Department is willing to participate in an 2 effort to maximize the benefits as part of a comprehensive 3 program to address the DO issue; is that right? 4 MR. FORD: Yes. And, in general, you know, 5 obviously, we want it and also balance the effects on -- 6 any effects to the barriers in terms of other Delta 7 resources. 8 MR. SIMMONS: And if the Board directed that such a 9 program were undertaken, would the Department be willing to 10 participate in that? 11 MR. FORD: If the Board directed we would 12 participate. 13 MR. SIMMONS: No further questions. Thank you very 14 much. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 16 Why don't we take a 12-minute break and -- 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Chairman? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Before we take a break I do have 20 copies of Section 1-A of the San Luis Act which I said I 21 would provide after Mr. Nomellini's statement. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There are 20 copies, which I'm 24 giving to the Board staff. But if the Board looks at the 25 bottom of the first column, on the top of the second column CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3699 1 it states: 2 (Reading): 3 "Construction of the San Luis unit shall not be 4 commenced until the secretary has," and then as 5 Mr. Nomellini stated, "receives satisfactory 6 assurance from the State of California that it 7 would make provision for a master drainage outlet 8 and disposal canal for the San Joaquin Valley as 9 generally outlined in the California Water Plan 10 Bulletin Number 3 of the California Department of 11 Water Resources, which will adequately serve as 12 connection therewith a drainage system for the San 13 Luis unit; or as made provision for constructing 14 the San Luis interceptor drain in the Delta 15 designed to meet the drainage requirements of the 16 San Luis units as described in the San Luis Plan." 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Was that a direct reading, 18 Mr. Birmingham? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: With the exception of the last part. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Which you just stated? 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm trying to avoid making an argument 23 so we don't get into -- 24 MR. NOMELLINI: That's the same language I had. When 25 he looked at the one in my hand he thought it was not the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3700 1 same language, but it's the same and that's what I was 2 referring to. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And this is -- 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: This is taken, Mr. Chairman, from an 7 appendix to the Special Task Force Report on the San Luis 8 unit, which is an official government publication prepared 9 pursuant to Public Law 94-46. And I have copies of the 10 section for other parties as well. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 12 Mr. Nomellini? 13 MR. NOMELLINI: I would stipulate that that is a 14 correct copy of the section that I was quoting from. And I 15 appreciate Mr. Birmingham providing that in light of me. 16 Thank you, Tom. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. It's not very often to 18 have a love feast here, but we're glad to have them when 19 they occur. 20 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Caffrey. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Ms. Whitney. 22 MS. WHITNEY: We need to specify an exhibit number 23 for this. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Is this an exhibit, or is it just a 25 reading into the record? I thought it was existent in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3701 1 record without it necessarily being an exhibit for any 2 particular party. Am I right? 3 MS. LEIDIGH: Right. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you for keeping us 5 honest though, Ms. Whitney. Let's take a 12-minute break. 6 (Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) 7 C.O. CAFFREY: We're back. Mr. Birmingham, if you're 8 ready to cross-examine, sir. 9 ---oOo--- 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 11 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 12 BY THOMAS BIRMINGHAM 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 Mr. Ford, my name is Tom Birmingham. I represent 15 Westlands Water District. On page 6 of Department of Water 16 Resources Exhibit 37 it states that the South Delta area 17 has had a long history of water supply and water quality 18 problems. You see that on page 6 of DWR Exhibit 37, 19 Mr. Ford? 20 MR. FORD: Yes, I do. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can you, please, tell me what you 22 mean by "long history." 23 MR. FORD: Well, what I meant in the context of that 24 was basically that we've basically been working with the 25 South Delta Water Agency since, I believe, about the 1970s CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3702 1 to come up with a solution to the water level and water 2 quality problems that they have in the area. 3 And even if you go back to the '80s, for example, 4 when the Department was proposing a peripheral canal and 5 those kind of things, it was always recognized that there 6 are other issues in the South Delta that would need to be 7 addressed and that some sort of long-term solution would be 8 needed. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It's correct, isn't it, that the 10 South Delta Water Agency was created in 1973? 11 MR. FORD: Yeah, I believe that's correct. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And part of the reason that South 13 Delta Water Agency was created was to deal with water 14 quality problems in the South Delta; is that correct? 15 MR. FORD: Correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So at least as early as 1973 there 17 were water quality problems in the South Delta? 18 MR. FORD: Correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And isn't it correct that prior to 20 1967 there were water quality problems in the South Delta? 21 MR. FORD: I don't know. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: DWR Exhibit 37 also states that 23 "Moderate to high water levels in the South Delta are 24 needed to ensure ag diversion -- ag diversion facilities 25 have adequate draft." Is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3703 1 MR. FORD: Correct. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that there are more 3 than 1800 diversions in the Delta for agricultural 4 production? 5 MR. FORD: Yes, that's about the right number. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And -- 7 MR. FORD: In the entire Delta. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And do you know how many ag 9 diversions there are within the South Delta Water Agency? 10 MR. FORD: Individual diversions, no, I don't. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The water that's diverted in the 12 Delta is pumped back into the Delta as agricultural return 13 flows; is that correct? 14 MR. FORD: Correct. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And of the return flows that are 16 pumped back into the Delta, typically, are saline; is that 17 correct? 18 MR. FORD: Correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the flows that are pumped back 20 into the Delta, the agricultural return flows have high 21 concentrations of organic compounds? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The organic compounds that are 24 contained in the agricultural return flows within the Delta 25 are derived from the decay of vegetation and oxidation of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3704 1 the Delta peat soils; is that correct? 2 MR. FORD: Correct. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the return flows typically 4 contain nitrates and sulfates derived from fertilizers; is 5 that correct? 6 MR. FORD: I don't know, but I would assume that's 7 correct, but I don't have specific knowledge. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you familiar with the Draft 9 Environmental Impact Report that was prepared by the 10 Department of Water Resources for the Delta barriers 11 program? 12 MR. FORD: The Interim South Delta Program? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. 14 MR. FORD: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd like to show you a page taken 16 from the Draft Environmental Impact Report, page 4-15. Do 17 you recognize that as a page taken from the Draft 18 Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Department of 19 Water Resources for the interim Delta barriers program? 20 MR. FORD: Yes. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And is it correct that the Draft 22 Environmental Impact Report concludes that agricultural 23 return flows that are discharged by agricultural water 24 users in the Delta typically contain nitrates and sulfates 25 derived from fertilizers? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3705 1 MR. FORD: Yes. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham, would you mind pulling 3 that mic over a little bit to your right, we're having a 4 little trouble hearing you up here. Thank you, sir. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In your testimony, Mr. Ford, you 6 describe the phenomenon of recirculation of South Delta 7 water during the irrigation season; is that correct? 8 MR. FORD: Correct. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the recirculation -- well, will 10 you describe further what you mean by the recirculation of 11 agricultural water in the South Delta. 12 MR. FORD: Basically, that the salt that's in the 13 water that is diverted by the South Delta is used to 14 irrigate the crops. The crops use the water and leave the 15 salts in the ground. And then as the agricultural drainage 16 comes off, it goes into the waters of the Delta where it 17 can be picked up by another diverter in the South Delta, it 18 can be exported by the pumps, or some portion of it could 19 flow out -- out of the Delta in terms -- in terms of Delta 20 outflow. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the recirculation within the 22 South Delta by agricultural water users further degrades 23 water quality in the South Delta; is that correct? 24 MR. FORD: That would be correct. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it also correct that urban CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3706 1 runoff, particularly from the City of Stockton, contributes 2 to degraded water quality in the South Delta? 3 MR. FORD: Yes. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, your testimony, DWR Exhibit 37, 5 on page 7 lists a number of factors that affect the water 6 levels in the Delta; is that correct? 7 MR. FORD: Yes. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And included among the factors that 9 affect water levels in the South Delta are local channel 10 depletions by agricultural water users within the South 11 Delta; is that correct? 12 MR. FORD: That's correct. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And natural tidal variations? 14 MR. FORD: Correct. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Fluctuations in barometric pressure? 16 MR. FORD: Correct. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Local wind directions and 18 velocities? 19 MR. FORD: Correct. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And limited channel capacities? 21 MR. FORD: Correct. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the operation of the state and 23 federal pumps, the export pumps, those pumps don't affect 24 the factors we just enumerated; isn't that correct, 25 Mr. Ford? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3707 1 MR. FORD: That's correct. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And on page 8 of your testimony you 3 state that the operation of the State Water Project and 4 Central Valley Project exports, generally, provide 5 significant improvements to water quality by improving 6 circulation and drawing better quality water into the area; 7 is that correct? 8 MR. FORD: That's correct. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Could you, please, explain further 10 how operation of the State Water Project and Central Valley 11 Project export pumps contribute or provide significant 12 improvements to water quality in the South Delta. 13 MR. FORD: Water quality on the Sacramento River and 14 Mokelumne system is generally of much better water quality 15 than what's in the San Joaquin River. The effect of the 16 CVP and the State Water Project export facilities in the 17 South Delta is to draw some of that better water quality 18 into the South Delta, which mixes with the poorer water 19 quality on the San Joaquin. In effect, the draw in the 20 pumps pulls that better quality water into the South Delta 21 and provides incremental increase in their water quality. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On page 26 of your testimony, DWR 23 Exhibit 37, you state that, "The temporary rock barrier at 24 the head of Old River has been installed since the 1960's 25 to help improve DO levels downstream for migrating salmon." CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3708 1 Is that correct? 2 MR. FORD: Correct. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can you state, more specifically, 4 when in the 1960's the Department of Water Resources began 5 installing the temporary rock barriers at the head of Old 6 River? 7 MR. FORD: I believe the first year of installation 8 was 1963. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no further questions. Thank 10 you very much. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 12 Mr. Maddow. Good morning. 13 ---oOo--- 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 15 BY CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 16 BY ROBERT MADDOW 17 MR. MADDOW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members 18 of the Board. I'm Robert Maddow appearing for the Contra 19 Costa Water District. 20 Good morning, Mr. Ford. 21 MR. FORD: Good morning, Mr. Maddow. 22 MR. MADDOW: I have just a few questions for Mr. Ford 23 this morning related to Department of Water Resources 24 Exhibit 37. 25 Mr. Ford, in Exhibit 37, particularly in Figures CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3709 1 11 through 13 in the testimony that accompanies it, you 2 refer to the variability of salinity; is that correct? 3 MR. FORD: Correct. 4 MR. MADDOW: And as I understood your testimony, is 5 it fair for me to infer that even with the flow barriers 6 that it is your testimony that other salinity control 7 measures are going to be necessary before South Delta 8 salinity objectives can be met? Is that a fair inference? 9 MR. FORD: The barriers in and of themselves even 10 with the permanent barriers, yes, could not guarantee 11 compliance with the Board's objectives at all times. 12 MR. MADDOW: And I understood your testimony today to 13 indicate that when the barriers do operate, the result is 14 that salts are transported out of the South Delta due to 15 enhanced circulation and that those salts, then, can tend 16 to move toward the Central Delta area. Is that correct? 17 MR. FORD: That's correct. 18 MR. MADDOW: Now, I understood your testimony this 19 morning to be that as a result of that salt transport there 20 would be minor degradation in salinity in some areas. Is 21 that correct? 22 MR. FORD: That's correct. 23 MR. MADDOW: Directing your attention to the figure 24 which you placed on the board today, which I think we've 25 identified now as DWR Figure 8-B from -- excuse me, Figure CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3710 1 8-B from DWR Exhibit 37 -- and thank you, Mr. Roberts, for 2 putting that on the overhead. 3 I believe you testified, Mr. Ford, that the data 4 displayed on Figure 8-B are the results of simulations 5 using DWRSIM. Is that correct? 6 MR. FORD: The Delta Simulation Model, DWRSIM is the 7 operations model. 8 MR. MADDOW: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Ford, for 9 correcting me in that. Directing your attention to the 10 "without barriers" and "with barriers" figures and focusing 11 for the moment on Clifton Court Forebay. As I understand 12 the data displayed on Figure 8-B, with the barriers there 13 would be an increase in Clifton Court salinity from 178 14 units to 189 units. Is that correct? 15 MR. FORD: That's correct. 16 MR. MADDOW: Now, could I direct your attention to 17 the data for Columbia Cut and Mr. -- excuse me, 18 Mr. Roberts, I believe, is indicating Columbia Cut if we -- 19 yes, thank you. If we refer to the location map, it's at 20 the Number 8 on the chart. 21 And, Mr. Ford, could you tell us what happens to 22 salinity at Columbia Cut when the barriers are installed 23 according to this simulation? 24 MR. FORD: There's no change. 25 MR. MADDOW: And how about Turner Cut? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3711 1 MR. FORD: Turner Cut salinity is increased from 134 2 parts per million TDS to 197. 3 MR. MADDOW: Now, I understood your testimony to be 4 that there would be minor degradation that would result 5 from the installation of the barriers, minor degradation in 6 some areas. And I was looking to understand whether the 7 changes at those three points we just talked about would 8 qualify, in your opinion, as minor degradation, Mr. Ford. 9 MR. FORD: Within the context of my intended 10 definition of it, yes, it would be. I realize that you're 11 basically looking at, essentially, almost a 50-percent 12 increase there. But what you also have to keep in mind is 13 that, in general, salinity in the Central Delta is much 14 better than what's in the South Delta. 15 So even though the salinity in the Central Delta 16 in this case would be degraded, you know, fairly -- by a 17 fairly large amount, the water quality that is in that area 18 is still much better and is suitable for existing uses in 19 that area. 20 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Ford, did you bring an overhead 21 projection of Figure 16 from DWR Exhibit 37? 22 MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. 23 MR. FORD: Yeah. 24 MR. MADDOW: And Mr. Roberts is placing that on the 25 overhead for us. Thank you very much. With the -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3712 1 directing your attention, Mr. Ford, to Figure 16 and the 2 same three points we discussed a moment ago, Clifton Court, 3 Turner Cut and Columbia Cut, would you characterize the 4 salinity changes there as constituting minor degradation? 5 And could you describe what those changes are? 6 MR. FORD: Well, the changes at Clifton Court are 7 from 187 to 225. The changes at Turner Cut are 327 to 366 8 and Columbia Cut is 123 to 217. 9 MR. MADDOW: Now, with regard to Columbia Cut, does 10 that still fall -- does that still fall within minor 11 degradation as you characterized it a moment ago, Mr. Ford? 12 MR. FORD: Yes, because of the reasons that I said 13 that agricultural uses in that area are -- are still being 14 met. The water is of suitable quality for irrigation needs 15 in that area. 16 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Ford, I was trying to understand in 17 reading DWR Exhibit 37 why it is that in the Figure 8 18 simulation there's no change at Columbia Court, and in the 19 Figure 16 simulation there is a change in the data at 20 Columbia Court from 100 -- I believe 123 parts to 217 21 parts. Could you describe why those two months' 22 simulations are so different? 23 MR. FORD: We're talking about Columbia Cut? 24 MR. MADDOW: Columbia Cut, please. 25 MR. FORD: My guess is that in that instance the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3713 1 model number is probably incorrect in where it shows "no 2 change." We'd have to recheck that. 3 MR. MADDOW: Now, Mr. Ford, is it correct that in -- 4 neither in Figure 8 or Figure 16, which is currently on the 5 overhead, that you have indicated the locations of, or the 6 corresponding salinities for any of the diversion points of 7 the Contra Costa District? 8 MR. FORD: That's not shown on this figure, correct. 9 MR. MADDOW: And is it also correct that the impacts 10 on Contra Costa points of diversion have not been analyzed 11 in DWR Exhibit 37? 12 MR. FORD: In this exhibit they have not. 13 MR. MADDOW: The South Delta barriers, which are 14 described in your testimony, are the subjects of ESA 15 consultation that is currently underway. Is that correct, 16 Mr. Ford? 17 MR. FORD: Correct. 18 MR. MADDOW: And have there been, or do you 19 anticipate that there will be, design changes or conceptual 20 changes in these barriers as a result of those ESA 21 consultations? 22 MR. FORD: Not so much design changes as probably 23 operational changes. We've already identified one change 24 that I believe Contra Costa will be referring to in their 25 testimony, which is a change in the operation of Grant Line CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3714 1 Canal barrier with a partial operation. We may be looking 2 at some other possible changes in other barrier operations. 3 Also, the affects that you see with regard to our Interim 4 South Delta Program also deal with proposed pumping 5 increases. 6 MR. MADDOW: Can we assume, then, Mr. Ford, that the 7 model results that are shown in DWR 37 are not the results 8 of the most recent simulations that have been prepared for 9 the barriers? 10 MR. FORD: Those simulations were done using our 11 original proposal for barrier operations, which at this 12 point we envision being somewhat modified before we come up 13 with a final operations plan. 14 MR. MADDOW: So it's possible we could be looking at 15 new hydrologic operations before you're completed with your 16 work in the planning stages? 17 MR. FORD: Correct. 18 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. And finally just two more 19 questions, Mr. Ford. As I understood DWR Exhibit 37, it is 20 silent on any measures that would be intended to mitigate 21 for the minor degradation caused by implementation of the 22 barriers proposal; is that correct? 23 MR. FORD: Correct. 24 MR. MADDOW: Are you aware of any efforts that DWR is 25 making to mitigate for the impacts of the minor degradation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3715 1 that would be caused by the barriers? 2 MR. FORD: We've had some preliminary discussions 3 with Contra Costa Water District about a possible menu of 4 mitigation measures. At this point in time we believe it's 5 premature to make a commitment on any sort of specific 6 mitigation measure, or even to determine whether one is 7 needed. We'll need to further assess that, I guess, after 8 we finalize the project operation criteria where we go back 9 and revisit that. 10 MR. MADDOW: I have no further questions. Thank you, 11 Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. Mr. Sexton. 13 Good morning. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 16 BY SAN LUIS DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 17 BY MICHAEL SEXTON 18 MR. SEXTON: Good morning, sir. Good morning, 19 Mr. Ford, my name is Michael Sexton. 20 MR. FORD: Good morning. 21 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Ford, in your testimony at page 8 -- 22 and I think this was touched on by Mr. Birmingham also 23 briefly, you state that water quality of irrigation water 24 in the South Delta is important to crop variety and yield. 25 That's probably a given, correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3716 1 MR. FORD: Correct. 2 MR. SEXTON: And then you went on to say that water 3 quality in the area is affected by the following factors, 4 and one of those factors that you cite is local 5 agricultural drainage returns. 6 MR. FORD: Correct. 7 MR. SEXTON: Local agricultural drainage returns then 8 would include drainage returns from the South Delta Water 9 District area? 10 MR. FORD: Yes, it would. 11 MR. SEXTON: In connection with the DWRSIM, the 12 modeling that you have done, has DWR collected any data 13 regarding the discharges of South Delta's agricultural 14 return flows? In other words, the salt makeup, and any 15 other constituent makeup in those drainage flows? 16 MR. FORD: I know the Department has collected some 17 data on drainage water quality. And I know that some of it 18 was done through our municipality water quality 19 investigation, but I could not tell you where it was 20 located and how old the data is, or how often it was 21 collected. 22 MR. SEXTON: Okay. In -- could you put up Figure 8-B 23 of the modified figure that you showed earlier? 24 MR. ROBERTS: Sure. 25 MR. SEXTON: Now, on Figure 8-B you've shown some CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3717 1 salinity values with and without the barriers. My question 2 is: In connection with the simulation that resulted in 3 those numbers, did you use any values for the South Delta 4 discharges? 5 MR. FORD: Yes. 6 MR. SEXTON: Do you know what those values are? 7 MR. FORD: No. My understanding of those are that 8 they are basically a fixed set of values that are varied 9 just by year type. In other words, that there's a set of 10 drainage returns that might be used for wet, above or below 11 wet years. There might be another set pattern in terms of 12 quality and quantity of those drainage returns in dry and 13 critical years. And that would pertain to the rest of the 14 Delta as well as the South Delta, but I don't know what 15 those values are. 16 MR. SEXTON: Since this phase of the Water Board 17 proceeding involves the South Delta salinity, in your view 18 wouldn't it be important to present the South Delta 19 drainage values to the Board in connection with your 20 testimony? 21 MR. FORD: I don't have an opinion on that. 22 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Let me ask it this way: Can you 23 get your hand on the values that were assigned to South 24 Delta's discharge in connection with the simulation model 25 that resulted in Figure 8-B? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3718 1 MR. FORD: Yes, we can. 2 MR. SEXTON: Could I ask that that data be provided 3 to the parties, Mr. Chairman? 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, you may. I don't -- is there any 5 objection to receiving that information? Mr. Jackson? 6 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Caffrey, would that information 7 also be available to everyone upstream of Vernalis what 8 their agricultural returns figures are? 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Anybody who's a party would have 10 access. 11 MR. JACKSON: It would seem to me that if we're going 12 to do one party we should do all parties. I would be 13 interested in Mr. Sexton's Exchange Contractors, San Luis 14 and Delta-Mendota. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Stubchaer. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is this information that you 17 requested input into a model, and if so, is the model in 18 the record? 19 MR. SEXTON: The information I'm requesting I believe 20 is input to the model. And, yet, I don't seem to have that 21 data. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: I'll ask our staff: Is the modeling 23 in the record? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, do you have a comment? 25 Is this in the record already? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3719 1 MS. LEIDIGH: DWR has put the model in the record. 2 DWR has -- I'm sorry, staff has the model as part of 3 Staff's exhibits. And I guess we are getting the data so 4 we will have that. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: So where does that leave us in terms 6 of the request to provide everybody with a copy of it? Is 7 that pertinent to this phase? I guess I need a little bit 8 better understanding of what we're trying to accomplish 9 here. 10 MR. SEXTON: Let me try to clarify the reason for my 11 request, Mr. Chairman. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 13 MR. SEXTON: If I could refer the witness to page 9 14 of his testimony, right at the top of the page. Your 15 testimony seems to be suggesting that salinity problems in 16 the area of the South Delta are due to the dominant 17 influence of, at least in some part, local land-derived 18 salts. 19 Now, I think you testified that those local 20 influences would include influences from South Delta; is 21 that correct, sir? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. SEXTON: My question then is: Since your 24 testimony is that salinity problems in the Delta are due, 25 at least in part, due to the dominant influence of local CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3720 1 land-derived salts, my question is: Has DWR in its model 2 accounted for this influence, and if so, what are those 3 values and how have you accounted for them? 4 MR. FORD: We have accounted for them. I don't know 5 the specific values. And we can make them available if the 6 Board wants them. 7 MR. SEXTON: That was the reason for my question 8 regarding the data, Mr. Chairman. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman? 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: My question is that they may already 12 be in the record if we have the model. But we only have 13 the round parameters for the salinity -- 14 MR. HOWARD: The Department is preparing a CD that 15 provides all of its input parameters for us. And we have, 16 yet, to receive that CD. We referenced the model as an 17 exhibit in the Board's list of exhibits, however. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. 19 MR. HOWARD: So that information is forthcoming, but 20 it's not presently -- we don't presently have it. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: I see. Thank you. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll go off the record for a minute. 23 (Off the record from 11:18 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.) 24 C.O. CAFFREY: We're back on the record. Excuse me, 25 Ms. Whitney or Mr. Howard, would we be able to put the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3721 1 information from the CD rom -- I am assuming it's a CD rom, 2 maybe it's not, maybe it's another type of disk. But the 3 point is would we be able to put that on our web page? 4 MS. WHITNEY: Yes, once we get it, but we don't have 5 it. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Understand that you don't have it. 7 All right. Mr. Sandino? 8 MR. SANDINO: Yes, as to when you'll get it, I just 9 spoke to Mr. Chun of our modeling staff and he said it 10 would probably be completed within a week. So we'll be 11 giving that to the Board staff shortly. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: That's how we'll handle this matter, 13 as soon as we have it we will put it on our web page and 14 that will probably take about a week. And all who wish 15 access can download it. And we'll handle it that way, Mr. 16 Sexton. So we'll have that information available, sir. 17 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I 18 may reserve the right to recall this witness for 19 examination after we've looked at that data in the event 20 that it becomes necessary to do so. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe it would be reasonable and 22 appropriate, since we don't have that data now. Any 23 problems with that, Ms. Leidigh? Of course, I probably 24 should ask Mr. Sandino, because everybody is supposed to be 25 available throughout the course of the proceedings. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3722 1 Would Mr. Ford be available, Mr. Sandino? 2 MR. SANDINO: He would be available. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: We don't want to cut into anybody's 4 vacation or anything. 5 MR. FORD: Not a problem. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ford. 7 Thank you, Mr. Sandino. Go ahead, Mr. Sexton. 8 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Ford, in response to a question, I 9 think it was posed by Mr. Simmons on behalf of the City of 10 Stockton he asked questions relating to whether one point 11 source discharges contributed to the consumption of 12 dissolved oxygen. Do you recall that? 13 MR. FORD: I don't recall -- I do recall mentioning 14 nonpoint sources. 15 MR. SEXTON: Let me ask it this way: Do nonsource -- 16 sources discharges result in consumption of dissolved 17 oxygen in the Delta? 18 MR. FORD: Yes. Yes. 19 MR. SEXTON: Other than from South Delta Water 20 Agency, where else would those discharges come from? 21 MR. FORD: Nonpoint, I couldn't say. 22 MR. SEXTON: You would agree that they would come 23 from South Delta, wouldn't you say? 24 MR. FORD: Yes. 25 MR. SEXTON: You testified in connection with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3723 1 salinity values in the with-and without-barriers 2 simulation, depicted on DWR 37 Exhibit 8-B, that the with 3 agricultural-barriers model demonstrated some impacts 4 within the Central Delta. Isn't that correct, sir? 5 MR. FORD: Some affects? 6 MR. SEXTON: Yeah, affects. 7 MR. FORD: In the Central Delta? 8 MR. SEXTON: In other words, within the Central Delta 9 the with barriers simulation shows that there would be an 10 increase in salinity, correct? 11 MR. FORD: Yeah. 12 MR. SEXTON: And DWR's position is that increase in 13 salinity is acceptable, correct? 14 MR. FORD: I think our position before the Board in 15 this context is basically, you know, that to the degree 16 that we meet water quality standards that the Board sets in 17 other areas, that if we are still meeting those standards 18 even though there's a slight degradation, at least they may 19 not be significant. 20 MR. SEXTON: All right. And so then it would follow 21 that your testimony on behalf of DWR is that the use of 22 freshwater for blending to meet beneficial uses within the 23 Delta is -- is all right? In other words, that's an 24 acceptable use of freshwater? 25 MR. FORD: I'm sorry, could you restate that question CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3724 1 once more? I'm not -- 2 MR. SEXTON: I believe that your testimony then on 3 behalf of DWR is that the use of freshwater to blend higher 4 salinity water in order to achieve lower salinity water is 5 okay? 6 MR. FORD: I don't think my testimony goes quite that 7 far, but -- but I think I get what you're asking which is 8 basically the barriers -- the affect of the barriers is to 9 create a circulation pattern which can carry a salt load 10 out of the South Delta and transport it into other areas of 11 the Delta. And there may be a degradation of the water 12 quality in those areas where the barriers' influence causes 13 the salts to be transported; is that the blending of the 14 salt water and freshwater that you're talking about? 15 MR. SEXTON: Yeah. And my question is: The impact 16 of the South Delta is acceptable, because the salinity is 17 being blended by volumes of freshwater? 18 MR. FORD: That would be true. And also as you move 19 more and more into the Central Delta there's much more 20 tidal excursion, influence of tides, larger volumes of 21 water. In general, the relative contribution of the salt 22 load from the South Delta in those areas would be 23 relatively minor. 24 MR. SEXTON: You testified very briefly in response 25 to a question by Mr. Nomellini regarding west side CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3725 1 agricultural discharges, that you were at least to some 2 extent familiar with agricultural drainage problems on the 3 west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Do you recall that, 4 sir? 5 MR. FORD: I really am not that familiar. The only 6 thing -- let me -- I'll try to clarify that. About really 7 the only thing that I know about the west side problems are 8 that they use water from the Delta to irrigate their crops. 9 The drainage returns that come off of those crops are 10 generally poor water quality that end up to a large degree 11 in the San Joaquin River and create other problems. 12 MR. SEXTON: Okay. 13 MR. FORD: That's really the extent of my knowledge 14 of what the real problem is down there. 15 MR. SEXTON: Yeah. But you do work with South Delta 16 Water Agency in connection with your work at DWR; is that 17 correct? 18 MR. FORD: Yes, I do. 19 MR. SEXTON: In connection with your work with South 20 Delta, has DWR done any examination of South Delta's 21 discharges to determine to what extent those discharges 22 contribute to salt loads within the Delta? 23 MR. FORD: I'm not aware of any that we have. I'm 24 sure we've looked at it, but if you're asking if I'm 25 personally aware, I'm not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3726 1 MR. SEXTON: Well, if you say you're sure you've 2 looked at it, in other words, looked at the contribution of 3 South Delta salt loads to the Delta, what, if anything, has 4 DWR done to account for those salt loads -- the discharges 5 of those salt loads? 6 MR. FORD: The primary focus of our barriers program 7 has basically -- not to look at, you know, when we 8 initiated the barriers program, it was not specifically 9 with the idea of obtaining proposed Board standards. It 10 was basically with the idea of working as a good neighbor 11 with South Delta Water Agency where all State Water Project 12 and Central Valley Project divert out of the South Delta, 13 so that they would basically be working together in a 14 cooperative fashion to try to solve their problems without 15 any specific finger pointing of who is right, who is wrong. 16 MR. SEXTON: Who would be working to ultimately 17 resolve the drainage problem? 18 MR. FORD: To solve -- to mutually solve their water 19 supply problem. 20 MR. SEXTON: You're referring to South Delta? 21 MR. FORD: Correct. 22 MR. SEXTON: What, if anything, are you aware of that 23 South Delta has done to mitigate its discharges of salts to 24 the Delta? 25 MR. FORD: I'm not aware of anything that they've CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3727 1 done. 2 MR. SEXTON: May I refer you, again, to Figure 8-B, 3 which is on the overhead. You testified, I believe, that 4 the with-barrier simulation shows that there is improved 5 water quality at the South Delta pumps. Correct, sir? 6 MR. FORD: At Tracy? 7 MR. SEXTON: At Tracy. 8 MR. FORD: Correct. 9 MR. SEXTON: If there is improved water quality at 10 Tracy, wouldn't it follow, then, that there would have to 11 be improved water quality at Vernalis? 12 MR. FORD: No. 13 MR. SEXTON: When you look at the with- and 14 without-barriers -- 15 MR. FORD: No, it would not. 16 MR. SEXTON: Why is that? 17 MR. FORD: Basically what happens as much of the 18 Vernalis water in the without-barrier scenario ends up at 19 Tracy, much of that 520 water that you see at Vernalis ends 20 at the Tracy Pumping Plant, which is why you see Tracy 21 shown at 406. With the barriers in operation, in 22 particular the Old River -- or the barrier near Tracy, 23 there is a net push of water upstream of the barriers, 24 which prevents much of that Vernalis salts from directly 25 reaching Tracy, Tracy Pumping Plant. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3728 1 So that, basically, the salt load that's coming in 2 from Vernalis instead of going to the west towards Tracy 3 Pumping Plant in the with-barrier scenario is much more of 4 it is forced into the Central Delta. Some portion of that 5 will then be transported down into the South Delta again, 6 but not near to the degree that -- at Tracy there's a much 7 significant improvement. 8 MR. SEXTON: But wouldn't there have to be some 9 improvement? 10 MR. FORD: At Tracy? 11 MR. SEXTON: No, at Vernalis. 12 MR. SANDINO: Maybe you might want to re-ask your 13 question. 14 MR. SEXTON: I guess I don't understand -- 15 MR. FORD: I think I do understand his question now. 16 Are you saying that if you improve Tracy water -- the water 17 quality of Tracy export water, is that going to eventually 18 show up as a resulting improvement in water quality? 19 MR. SEXTON: Yeah, that's my question. 20 MR. FORD: At Vernalis? 21 MR. SEXTON: Yes. 22 MR. FORD: Yes, it should, but I don't know the time 23 that it would take that salt balance affect to be showing 24 up at Vernalis. 25 MR. SEXTON: But eventually it would result in an CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3729 1 improvement? 2 MR. FORD: Yes. Correct. 3 MR. SEXTON: All right. That's all I have. Thank 4 you. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. Mr. Jackson, 6 good morning, sir. 7 MR. JACKSON: Good morning. Sir. 8 ---oOo--- 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 10 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 11 BY MICHAEL JACKSON 12 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Ford, calling -- it's okay. You 13 can leave that up, because I want to use it as well. 14 Calling your attention -- could you pull it down, actually, 15 just a bit so we can get that first. 16 Calling your attention to both your testimony and 17 Figure 8-B of DWR Number 37 and your testimony in 18 particular on the first page of your testimony, you've got 19 nine locations mapped on your -- on your first location map 20 on Figure 8-B. How many of those locations are locations 21 that have water quality standards in the Water Quality 22 Control Plan? 23 MR. FORD: Four. 24 MR. JACKSON: Which four are they? 25 MR. FORD: Vernalis, Brandt Bridge, Old River near CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3730 1 Middle River and Old River at Tracy Road Bridge. 2 MR. JACKSON: All right. Is that number one, two, 3 three and four on this map? 4 MR. FORD: Yeah, one, two, three and five. 5 MR. JACKSON: One, two, three and five. Now, calling 6 your attention to the without-barrier segment, does this 7 document show that according to your simulation three of 8 the four water quality standards are violated on a monthly 9 average in terms of EC in July of critical years? 10 MR. FORD: In this scenario, in the 11 without-barrier -- in the without-barriers scenario, yes, 12 three of the four would be violated. 13 MR. JACKSON: Is there anything involved in your 14 various barrier -- various barrier projects that will 15 change the Vernalis standard, or the water quality at 16 Vernalis? 17 MR. FORD: The -- the affect that we just have 18 mentioned earlier under cross-examination, the only thing 19 that will address Vernalis water quality specifically with 20 the barriers is that the barriers will improve Tracy 21 Pumping Plant quality, and that should eventually translate 22 into an improvement in drainage water quality and resulting 23 quality at Vernalis. 24 MR. JACKSON: What scientific study do you have that 25 supports that position that a change in export water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3731 1 quality at the Tracy pumps will result in improvement on 2 the upper San Joaquin River? 3 MR. FORD: I think there have been studies done by 4 other parties. I don't think we have a specific study. To 5 me it's just -- I -- it's just sort of a common sense 6 thing, quite frankly. If you decrease the salt -- amount 7 of salt that you're importing into the area, it's 8 eventually going to result in reduction in the salt that's 9 coming back into the system. 10 MR. JACKSON: Is there any scientific study that has 11 examined that question? 12 MR. FORD: No, not by DWR. 13 MR. JACKSON: Do you know of any other by any other 14 governmental agency? 15 MR. FORD: I think the South Delta Water Agency has 16 conducted a study on that on its very own. 17 MR. JACKSON: All right. To your knowledge are there 18 any other? 19 MR. FORD: Not that I'm aware of. 20 MR. JACKSON: All right. Calling your attention, 21 then to the with-agricultural barriers, does your modeling 22 show that in July of critical years with the agricultural 23 barriers there will still be three out of four of water 24 quality standards at locations one, two, three and five on 25 your location list that will be violated with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3732 1 agricultural barriers? 2 MR. FORD: Under this hydrology, yes. 3 MR. JACKSON: Now, will that happen in every July of 4 the critical year? 5 MR. FORD: No, it would not. I believe this specific 6 simulation is -- was done -- it was July 1990. Every 7 critical year is slightly different. However, the Board's 8 standards don't distinguish between different months. It's 9 just based on year types. 10 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, would it then be fair 11 to say that that will happen in August of a critical year? 12 MR. FORD: It could very well happen in August as 13 well. 14 MR. JACKSON: And September? 15 MR. FORD: Yes. 16 MR. JACKSON: And October? 17 MR. FORD: In October, I believe -- I'm not sure in 18 October. 19 MR. JACKSON: All right. Will it happen in July of a 20 dry year? 21 MR. FORD: Yes, it could -- it could happen. 22 MR. JACKSON: And August of a dry year? 23 MR. FORD: Yes. 24 MR. JACKSON: And September of a dry year? 25 MR. FORD: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3733 1 MR. JACKSON: Will it happen in July of a below 2 normal year? 3 MR. FORD: It could happen at any time given the 4 uncontrol -- the uncontrollability of the numerous factors 5 that affects salinity in the South Delta, which is why the 6 Department is recommending that the Board not -- or at 7 least limit the Department's responsibility to meeting this 8 here objective as implementing the barriers program. 9 MR. JACKSON: If the -- are there others, other than 10 DWR, which you believe can control the quality of water 11 entering at Vernalis? 12 MR. FORD: I don't have an opinion on that. 13 MR. JACKSON: So these other uncontrollable factors 14 you haven't done any studies in regards to those at all? 15 MR. FORD: Not that I'm aware of. 16 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, calling your attention 17 to the without barriers and the with barriers, both show a 18 violation at Vernalis, do they not? 19 MR. FORD: Yes. 20 MR. JACKSON: And they're exactly the same either 21 way? 22 MR. FORD: Correct. 23 MR. JACKSON: In other words, the barriers do nothing 24 to deal with water quality at Vernalis? 25 MR. FORD: No, the barriers do, but -- but -- but in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3734 1 this instance for the purpose -- this is a model result. 2 And in this instance the water quality at Vernalis was held 3 constant, just as if we held -- just like we held all the 4 other export rates, Sacramento flow, Vernalis flow 5 depletion, all those things were held at a constant. The 6 purpose of this illustration is purely to show the 7 incremental affect of the barriers. 8 MR. JACKSON: All right. So the two places where 9 changes could potentially be made would be in the quality 10 of water entering at Vernalis; is that correct? 11 MR. FORD: Correct. 12 MR. JACKSON: That would change the numbers -- 13 MR. FORD: Correct. 14 MR. JACKSON: -- elsewhere? And the amount of 15 pumping that's taken place at the pumps? 16 MR. FORD: I think the affect of the pumps that you 17 will find may slightly improve water levels, but will 18 actually make the water quality worse. 19 MR. JACKSON: Do you -- 20 MR. FORD: I testified earlier about the effects of 21 the pumps are to draw better quality water from the 22 Sacramento River and Mokelumne system into the South Delta. 23 That's taken into account in this scenario. 24 MR. JACKSON: And in doing so, that drawing 25 Sacramento River water, increases reverse flow towards the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3735 1 pumps, does it not? 2 MR. FORD: That's true. 3 MR. JACKSON: And so it might increase residence 4 time, correct? 5 MR. FORD: Are we talking about fish? 6 MR. JACKSON: I'm talking about residence time for 7 any species that lives in the South Delta. 8 MR. FORD: I'm not sure I understand the question. 9 Residence time of what? 10 MR. JACKSON: The San Joaquin water leaving the river 11 through the Delta. 12 MR. FORD: Pumping -- increasing pumping would 13 increase the time that the San Joaquin River stays in the 14 Delta? 15 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 16 MR. FORD: I don't have an opinion on that. 17 MR. JACKSON: Well, let's see if we can determine 18 what's happening here. Let's go from position Number 1 at 19 Vernalis to position Number 2 in the San Joaquin River at 20 Brandt Bridge. Under this simulation without the barriers 21 water quality in July in a critical year at Brandt Bridge 22 would be within the standards of the Water Quality Control 23 Plan, would it not? 24 MR. FORD: Yes. 25 MR. JACKSON: And your building the barriers causes a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3736 1 violation of the water quality standards at Brandt Bridge, 2 correct? 3 MR. FORD: Under this scenario, yeah, you would not 4 be able to meet Brandt Bridge. So that's why we say don't 5 adopt these standards in terms of our responsibility for 6 meeting them. There needs to be other things done besides 7 just the barriers. The barriers cannot -- 8 MR. JACKSON: What things, in your opinion? 9 MR. FORD: There's probably only two things. There's 10 either -- the only things that could happen would basically 11 be to treat the discharges in the system, or throw more 12 water at the system, which I don't think is a viable 13 alternative. 14 MR. JACKSON: All right. So -- excuse me. What do 15 you mean by "throwing more water at the system"? 16 MR. FORD: Release more water out of the San Joaquin 17 system for the salt purposes for improving water quality at 18 Vernalis. 19 MR. JACKSON: And that would improve water quality at 20 Vernalis according to your modeling? 21 MR. FORD: It would improve water quality at Vernalis 22 according to our modeling. Whether it's a reasonable way 23 to treat the problem is another matter. 24 MR. JACKSON: I'm asking about the modeling. 25 MR. FORD: I know. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3737 1 MR. JACKSON: It would improve water quality at 2 Vernalis? 3 MR. FORD: I'll stand by my statement. 4 MR. JACKSON: All right. How much water would be 5 necessary to bring water quality at Vernalis within the 6 water quality control standard? 7 MR. FORD: In this scenario? 8 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 9 MR. FORD: I don't know, a considerable amount. 10 MR. JACKSON: Did you attempt to model that to bring 11 the water quality within the water quality standard at 12 Vernalis? 13 MR. FORD: No, we did not. 14 MR. JACKSON: Why not? 15 MR. FORD: Because this is basically a historical 16 hydrology, which shows that at times Vernalis water quality 17 cannot be met. 18 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, have you done an 19 Environmental Impact Report to determine what adverse 20 affects would be caused by raising -- or by lowering water 21 quality at Brandt Bridge as a result of you building your 22 barriers? 23 MR. FORD: We will need to address all the impacts in 24 our CEQA/NEPA document. 25 MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed the State Board's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3738 1 CEQA document? 2 MR. FORD: Yeah, I've looked at it. 3 MR. JACKSON: Does that document tell you what the 4 environmental effect would be of you building your barriers 5 and thereby raising -- or lowering the water quality in the 6 San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge? 7 MR. FORD: I believe the Board's analysis is a more 8 general analysis and defers to the ISDP/EIRS for more 9 specific analysis. 10 MR. JACKSON: There is no -- in your opinion, there 11 is no analysis yet complete of the effects of intentionally 12 raising or lowering the water quality standards at Brandt 13 Bridge? 14 MR. FORD: Part of that reason, Mr. Jackson, is 15 because, I just alluded to earlier, is that we're still 16 finalizing operation criteria for the barriers. So we're 17 going to have ten different possible permutations of 18 barrier operations. You know it behooves us in the 19 interest of our modelers to try to minimize our workload to 20 wait until we've got something that we think is pretty 21 close to the final operation. 22 MR. JACKSON: All right. Let me ask you a question. 23 The barrier that changes the water quality at Brandt Bridge 24 is the head of Old River barrier, is it not? 25 MR. FORD: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3739 1 MR. JACKSON: What -- 2 MR. FORD: In this instance, this is only with the 3 three agricultural barriers operating. The head of Old 4 River barrier is not in operation in July. 5 MR. JACKSON: Under this scenario? 6 MR. FORD: Correct. 7 MR. JACKSON: Okay. So what, then, is the cause of 8 the -- of the lowered water quality at Brandt Bridge, which 9 of the barriers causes that effect? 10 MR. FORD: I can't say specifically. All three of 11 the barriers are operating under this scenario. And that's 12 our proposal. And we have not looked at some sort of 13 analysis which basically says only Middle River barrier is 14 operating, not the other two and vise versa. 15 MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you believe that the 16 better water quality without barriers at Brandt Bridge is 17 caused by flow in the Mokelumne River? 18 MR. FORD: No. That was not my -- my statement 19 was -- are you talking about the without barriers? 20 MR. JACKSON: I'm talking about without barriers. 21 MR. FORD: In that instance, much of the water that's 22 flowing at Vernalis, without a head barrier and without any 23 of the agricultural barriers, tends to enter into Old River 24 and travel west towards the Tracy Pumping Plant. 25 It does not show up to the same degree at Brandt CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3740 1 Bridge. With the agricultural barriers operating that -- 2 there is much more of the Vernalis flow that will remain in 3 the San Joaquin River. And, therefore, the increased salt 4 concentration that you see at Brandt Bridge is a direct 5 reflection of the fact that more of the Vernalis water is 6 flowing past that location with the barriers in operation. 7 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to the -- 8 to the locations in which the water quality is improved by 9 the barriers, are any of those -- are any of those 10 locations locations in which water quality is evaluated 11 according to standards in the Water Quality Control Plan? 12 MR. FORD: Old River at Tracy Road Bridge. 13 MR. JACKSON: And that's the only one, correct? 14 MR. FORD: In this scenario. 15 MR. JACKSON: So, in other words, without the 16 barriers you violate -- your models show that the existing 17 situation violates the standards in three of the four 18 areas, and with the barriers you violate in three of the 19 four areas? 20 MR. FORD: Well, for the -- the point -- I think 21 you're taking that a little out of the context in which 22 this is made. That is true under this specific scenario. 23 However, the reason that situation is not -- the -- you 24 know, the situation that you see real often. 25 This was sort of an extreme situation. And the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3741 1 reason that we chose to make this was, because we wanted to 2 emphasize that even with the barriers cannot meet the 3 salinity objectives that the Board has adopted in all 4 conditions. There are plenty of conditions where we can 5 meet the standards with the barriers in operation, but 6 that's not the point here. 7 The point is we want the Board to recognize that 8 even with the barriers, we can't guarantee the operations. 9 Now, to portray this as a typical scenario that you're 10 going to encounter with the barriers in operation would be 11 inaccurate. 12 MR. JACKSON: And you modeled what you called a 13 "typical scenario"? 14 MR. FORD: Yes. 15 MR. JACKSON: And what does it show in terms of -- at 16 Vernalis? Is there any difference in water quality at 17 Vernalis under such a circumstance? 18 MR. FORD: Under the assumptions that we have made, 19 Vernalis water quality would always remain constant, 20 because we're looking at the affects of the barriers. But 21 there would be -- my statement is that, you know, my 22 opinion is that there would be a long-term increase in 23 Vernalis water quality with the barriers in operation 24 because of the improvement at the Tracy Pumping Plant. 25 MR. JACKSON: And a long-term decrease, as I look at CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3742 1 it, in water quality at Clifton Court Forebay? 2 MR. FORD: There would be some degradation of water 3 quality at Clifton Court Forebay at times. 4 MR. JACKSON: How often would that occur? 5 MR. FORD: I couldn't put a number to it. Again, it 6 would -- the affect that you would see at Clifton Court 7 Forebay -- again, this was an extreme dry scenario where 8 you see salinity levels at relatively high. In most 9 conditions with the barriers operating, water quality at 10 Clifton Court is more than adequate to meet contractors' 11 needs and there might be some slight degradation, but it 12 would be minimal. 13 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to Turner Cut, 14 it's clear that with the operation of the barriers under 15 this simulation for July of a critical year, the water 16 quality declines with the barriers by about 50 percent from 17 its existing situation; is that right? 18 MR. FORD: That would be correct. 19 MR. JACKSON: Now, you've indicated that there are 20 many other kinds of things which can accumulate. Have you 21 determined whether that loss of quality caused at Turner 22 Cut caused by the agricultural barriers will compound other 23 problems? Will it become -- accumulate with other problems 24 in the Central Delta? 25 MR. FORD: We haven't looked at that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3743 1 MR. JACKSON: So it's just your basis that accepting 2 a 50-percent decline in water quality in July of critical 3 years, you're assuming that there are no other compounding 4 factors at that location that would cause this to be an 5 important change in terms of water quality? 6 MR. SANDINO: I'm going to object. I have to ask if 7 Counsel would re-ask the question. 8 MR. JACKSON: Sure. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: I had trouble understanding it myself. 10 MR. JACKSON: Sure. And I could probably do a better 11 shot at it. 12 The only thing you've examined in these runs is 13 the affect of the barriers, correct? 14 MR. FORD: Correct. 15 MR. JACKSON: Do you have any way of knowing whether 16 or not the barriers' affect at Turner Cut would be enough 17 in combination with other existing factors to cause 18 environmental damage at Turner Cut? 19 MR. FORD: Environmental damage? 20 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 21 MR. FORD: I guess, basically, the standards in this 22 area for fish and wildlife, I'm not aware of any. I mean, 23 basically what we're dealing with in this area of the Delta 24 is agriculture. And I think it's generally well recognized 25 that a .45 EC in water quality is pretty darn good water. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3744 1 What we're seeing here is that the EC at Turner Cut went to 2 .22 to .34. 3 In our opinion, for agricultural uses, that's 4 still pretty good water, quality water. Whether the fish 5 see any difference with .22 or .34, I'm not an expert on 6 that. But I'm not aware of any standards that have been 7 imposed in that area to protect Fish and Wildlife 8 Service -- or that protect fish and wildlife that indicate 9 that that water quality would be an impact on them. 10 MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge you have, however, 11 done no studies at DWR to determine that? 12 MR. FORD: No. 13 MR. JACKSON: Have you done any studies in this draft 14 environmental document you're preparing to determine that? 15 MR. SANDINO: I'm going to object. Is the question: 16 Whether he's done studies or whether this is part of the 17 analysis for our Draft Environmental Impact Report? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you clarify it? 19 MR. JACKSON: Yes, I can ask it in two questions, 20 then. Is this part of your analysis for your Draft 21 Environmental Impact Report? 22 MR. FORD: No, it's not. 23 MR. JACKSON: Have you done any studies in this 24 regard? 25 MR. FORD: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3745 1 MR. JACKSON: Okay. Now, you've indicated that at -- 2 let's take -- let's take first the San Joaquin River at 3 Brandt Bridge. The present EC under your -- under this 4 simulation in July of a critical year is .52, which is 5 appropriate for agriculture, correct? 6 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. I'm saying that that water is 7 suitable -- I don't think I said "appropriate." I said 8 basically I think that standard is well within the limits 9 that the Board set in this plan and others regarding -- 10 that protect beneficial uses of Delta agriculture. 11 MR. JACKSON: But when you build your barriers you 12 change that to .88 in this simulation, do you not? 13 MR. FORD: That's correct. 14 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether that's appropriate 15 for agriculture or whether that's suitable for agriculture? 16 MR. FORD: What it shows is that you would be pushing 17 the envelope in meeting the salinity objectives that the 18 Board is proposing, including the ones at Brandt Bridge. 19 MR. JACKSON: Well, now, calling your attention to 20 the location four, which is Old River at the Tracy Road 21 Bridge, this present condition is .87 without the barriers 22 under this simulation, correct? 23 MR. FORD: Correct. 24 MR. JACKSON: And we're doing this work because 25 that's not suitable, right? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3746 1 MR. FORD: Correct. 2 MR. JACKSON: And so we're going to shift the salt, 3 essentially, down to the San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge 4 where the number, essentially, goes back to .88, that 5 wouldn't be any more suitable than the .87 under the 6 without-barriers scenario, would it? 7 MR. FORD: Yeah, this area shows that, essentially, 8 there would be a trade-off between water quality at Tracy 9 Road Bridge and what you had at Brandt Bridge. 10 MR. JACKSON: Has your environmental analysis in 11 dealing with your proposed barriers program taken a look at 12 the affect on agriculture in the area of Brandt Road -- 13 Brandt Bridge? 14 MR. FORD: No, I don't believe we have. 15 MR. JACKSON: Now, in regard to the barrier project, 16 is it fair to say that the barrier project improves water 17 quality for the federal pumps and decreases water quality 18 for the state pumps? 19 MR. FORD: Generally, that's what we see. 20 MR. JACKSON: Which of the two projects is more 21 urban-water oriented? 22 MR. FORD: State project. 23 MR. JACKSON: We've heard an awful lot in the last 24 couple years about water quality in Southern California. 25 Have you evaluated the increased treatment cost caused by CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3747 1 decreasing the water quality of the source water at Clifton 2 Court? 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question -- 5 MR. FORD: Yeah, I do. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: -- Mr. Ford? I guess go ahead. 7 MR. FORD: We keep running into this, that we have 8 not finalized operations of the barrier. And one thing 9 this scenario does not take into the modification of the 10 Grant Line Canal barrier, which we've already made, which 11 reduces impacts not only to Brandt Bridge but to the 12 effects that you would see in the Central Delta and also 13 Contra Costa. 14 So we expect other operational changes to be made. 15 And I guess if we are going to have an affect on either of 16 the export facilities' water quality at the time the 17 operation is finalized, then we will address that. 18 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, calling your attention 19 to the two without barriers and with barriers in Figure 8-B 20 of DWR Number 37, it's clear that the number for TDS with 21 the agricultural barriers from Clifton Court is higher with 22 the barriers than without the barriers, right? 23 MR. FORD: Correct. 24 MR. JACKSON: Now, where does this salt -- additional 25 salt load come from since, clearly, it is not coming down CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3748 1 Old River? 2 MR. FORD: What happens is in this scenario there 3 will be -- because the affect of the barriers' operation is 4 to create net push of water out of Old River into the San 5 Joaquin River, and the supply and the demands into the 6 South Delta area aren't the same, then that there needs to 7 be a result increase in reverse flows from the Central 8 Delta into the South Delta generally occurring through 9 Turner and Columbia Cut, 8 and 9. And the water that is 10 carried through there then will come back into the -- some 11 of the portion of that will come back into the South Delta 12 through Old -- through Middle River and eventually show up 13 at the pumps. 14 MR. JACKSON: And, actually, it will be -- you will 15 bring more salt from the Central Delta to Clifton Court 16 than if you had not done the project? 17 MR. FORD: There would be -- there would be an 18 increase in salts with barrier operation at Clifton Court 19 under some scenarios. I guess -- 20 MR. JACKSON: And -- 21 MR. FORD: -- part of our program for ISDP is not to 22 only look at just the barriers, but it's also to increase 23 the operational capability of the State Water Project so 24 that we could increase our exports during times that better 25 water quality is available and maybe reduce them at times CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3749 1 when the water quality is poor. 2 MR. JACKSON: Would it be fair to say, then, that the 3 whole project depends upon taking more water from the 4 Sacramento River to make up for the less water you take 5 from the San Joaquin? 6 MR. FORD: No, that would not be an accurate 7 characterization. 8 MR. JACKSON: Well, what is this better water that 9 you're talking about? Where does it come from? 10 MR. FORD: It could come out of the San Joaquin 11 system. It did this year. 12 MR. JACKSON: Why was this year different? 13 MR. FORD: It was a wet year -- well, I don't know 14 that it was different. We've had four in a row. 15 MR. JACKSON: So in a situation in which you are in a 16 critically dry year, the better water quality will come 17 from where? 18 MR. FORD: Sacramento River. 19 MR. JACKSON: Do you know how much that will increase 20 the reverse flows? Have you modeled that? 21 MR. FORD: The pumping increases that we are 22 proposing are above and beyond what we're currently 23 authorized to pump, which is roughly around 6700 csf. 24 Those pumping increases above and beyond that amount are 25 going to almost virtually always occur during excess-flow CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3750 1 conditions. And under those conditions you're going to 2 have very little reverse flow. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Jackson, excuse me for 4 interrupting. How much more time do you feel you're going 5 to need for your cross-examining? I only ask because it's 6 12 noon and we might just break now. 7 MR. JACKSON: We can break now. I wouldn't think it 8 would be more than 15 minutes, or 20, but it depends on the 9 answers. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll just break now and come back at 11 1:15. All right. Thank you. 12 (Luncheon recess.) 13 ---oOo--- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3751 1 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998, 1:18 P.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: We will resume. Is Mr. Jackson here? 5 MR. SANDINO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring 6 something to your attention. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 8 MR. SANDINO: There was a question before lunch about 9 DWR providing our modeling input on a CD to the Board 10 staff, and Mr. Chun has just informed me that that has been 11 done, or is about to be done today. So we'll be bringing 12 that CD over. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Very good. Thank you very much, 14 Mr. Sandino. That's a week sooner than we had just when 15 last we discussed this. Thank you, sir. 16 And, Mr. Jackson, please resume your 17 cross-examination, sir. 18 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Mr. Ford, we've been 19 talking about monthly average TDS under various barrier 20 configurations. Did any of your modeling include other 21 water quality parameters other than TDS? 22 MR. FORD: No, it didn't. 23 MR. JACKSON: You made no -- you made no attempt to 24 determine whether or not bromide levels would be changed at 25 Clifton Court Forebay? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3752 1 MR. FORD: We have done that analysis since the draft 2 EIRS came out. 3 MR. JACKSON: What did it show in terms of with the 4 barriers and without the barriers? 5 MR. FORD: It's not a significant impact. 6 MR. JACKSON: No change of any kind? 7 MR. FORD: No. 8 MR. JACKSON: And what were the bromide levels for 9 July of a critical year at Clifton Court Forebay? 10 MR. FORD: I don't know. 11 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Ford, calling your attention to 12 location number nine at Turner Cut, where the -- where the 13 levels of TDS are elevated by 50 percent with the barriers 14 over what they would be without the barriers in July of a 15 critical year, did you model additional water coming in 16 from the Mokelumne River that might lower the elevated TDS 17 levels at that location? 18 MR. FORD: Yes, we did. 19 MR. JACKSON: And where -- was that location 20 responsive to flows in the lower Mokelumne River? 21 MR. FORD: I'm not sure what you mean by 22 "responsive." That area already, obviously, experiences 23 some influence in terms of the flow amount of water quality 24 in the Mokelumne. We haven't put a percentage on that. 25 This is basically what the model shows. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3753 1 MR. JACKSON: Well, do you remember your testimony in 2 regard to Mr. Sexton's question about using water to dilute 3 TDS concentrations? 4 MR. FORD: Yes. 5 MR. JACKSON: If there was more water in the 6 Mokelumne River, would those TDS concentrations be reduced? 7 MR. FORD: At that location at Turner Cut, I would 8 expect to see some improvement, but I don't think it would 9 be as dramatic as what you might see at other areas further 10 to the west of Turner Cut. 11 MR. JACKSON: Why not, sir? 12 MR. FORD: Because most of that flow, I think -- most 13 of that flow would likely travel towards the western Delta, 14 or be drawn down through Old and Middle Rivers towards the 15 pumping plants, depending on what the specific hydrology 16 was. 17 MR. JACKSON: And did you model the hydrology to see 18 which direction the elevated -- the enhanced TDS would 19 travel? 20 MR. FORD: Well, we modeled it, but I mean when we 21 put the model in, we put in all the flows, what the exports 22 are, what the channel depletions are. The model would, 23 certainly, would predict what the reverse flow was in 24 whatever channel you were interested in, but I don't know 25 what it was in this particular scenario. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3754 1 MR. JACKSON: And that's part of the data that you're 2 turning in to the State Board today? 3 MR. FORD: The data that we were turning in, I 4 believe it was related to South Delta agricultural drainage 5 amounts and quality out of model and didn't include reverse 6 flow. Are you talking about -- 7 MR. JACKSON: Yes, I'm talking about the reverse 8 flow. Are those parts of your modeling going to be 9 submitted to the State Board? 10 MR. FORD: I don't think we had planned to. 11 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Caffrey, I'd like that to be part 12 of the record. The argument is that the conditions are 13 better, because the water is coming from the Central Delta. 14 The Central Delta affects the Sacramento River winter-run 15 chinook salmon, the Delta smelt. And those model runs 16 would be, I think, best evidence. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Sandino, is that something that 18 you could make available without much trouble? 19 MR. SANDINO: Why don't you let me look into it. I'm 20 not sure how difficult it is, and maybe I can let the Board 21 know maybe today or tomorrow? 22 MR. FORD: Can I ask, reverse flow where? 23 MR. JACKSON: From Turner Cut to the export 24 facilities. 25 MR. FORD: The net flow in Turner Cut just under -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3755 1 MR. JACKSON: Under the two configurations. 2 MR. FORD: Sure. 3 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I have no further 4 questions. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Ms. Leidigh, 6 are you okay if the Department is able to present that data 7 for that specific area, do you have any problems with the 8 relevancy of it? 9 MS. LEIDIGH: It seems to me to be relevant. I don't 10 know -- 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the word -- 12 MS. LEIDIGH: It seems relevant to me. I don't know 13 if the other staff have any other comments or not. No 14 other comments. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We'll wait to hear from 16 you, Mr. Sandino, if that's something you can provide. 17 We'll certainly accept it into the record and make it 18 available to all the parties in some capacity. Thank you, 19 sir. 20 MR. SANDINO: You're welcome. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, are you ready, sir? 22 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm going to let you go first one of 24 these days. I must be starting at the wrong end of the 25 room. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3756 1 MEMBER FORSTER: He moves. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: You move around, that's what it is. 3 MR. HERRICK: I'm very shifty. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: That's what it is, very shifty. 5 ---oOo--- 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 7 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 8 BY JOHN HERRICK 9 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick for South Delta Water 10 Agency. Thank you very much. I'd just like to start to 11 say -- start off with saying that South Delta really 12 appreciates the efforts DWR has put forward. We're 13 generally in agreement with them on most things. And we'll 14 make clear the things we don't. We would like to 15 compliment the two individuals sitting here, no offense to 16 Mr. Sandino. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: You didn't mention which two. 18 MR. SANDINO: I'm not an individual. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: He's not an individual. He's a 20 lawyer. 21 MR. HERRICK: Anyway, without beating a dead horse, 22 we do appreciate their efforts. They've been very helpful. 23 Mr. Ford, you said that -- in your written 24 testimony and your oral testimony, that the export pumps by 25 pulling the water across the Central Delta improve water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3757 1 quality in the South Delta; is that correct? 2 MR. FORD: Correct. 3 MR. HERRICK: That's not an absolute, is it, because 4 don't the pumps cause some problems by creating no zones 5 rather than improving water quality in all areas? 6 MR. FORD: Yeah. There are no zones created, but 7 they're not just due to the pumps. They're due to existing 8 ag diversions in the South Delta, depending on all kinds of 9 factors, agriculture diversions, Vernalis flow, but, yeah, 10 that was meant to be a general statement in terms of water 11 quality improvement. 12 MR. HERRICK: Now, your testimony references the 13 draft contract between the Bureau, DWR and South Delta. 14 Just for the record, that contract is not yet signed, is 15 it? 16 MR. FORD: That's correct. We're pretty much waiting 17 on the Bureau of Reclamation to get congressional 18 authorization to sign it. 19 MR. HERRICK: That was my next question: Is it your 20 understanding -- maybe you're not qualified to answer that, 21 but is it your understanding that DWR is ready to sign? 22 MR. FORD: Yes, that's my understanding. 23 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Ford, does the operation of the 24 barriers as envisioned in your testimony, does that have 25 any affect on X2? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3758 1 MR. FORD: No, it does not. 2 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain why? And by that I'm 3 getting at: Does the operation of the barrier affect Delta 4 outflow? 5 MR. FORD: Yeah. Basically, how I understand X2 it 6 is a function of the total outflow out of the Delta. 7 It's -- X2 is basically an indicator of the salt intrusion 8 from the bay into the Delta and the balance between the 9 tides coming in and the freshwater output coming out. 10 The barriers, although they do change internal 11 circulation patterns in the South Delta, do not, as I said 12 earlier, they do not consume salt. They also do not 13 consume water. So while there may be internal changes in 14 circulation, the net Delta outflow is not affected by the 15 barrier at all. 16 MR. HERRICK: And absent some increase in export 17 pumping, the barriers do not cause any additional water 18 flowing to the pumps, correct? 19 MR. FORD: Correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: They'll redirect that water -- I'll 21 just say from what it would be in the absence of the 22 barriers; is that correct? 23 MR. FORD: Yeah. 24 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Ford, do the barriers increase the 25 water levels upstream of the barriers more than they CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3759 1 would -- more than the water levels would be in the absence 2 of the barriers? 3 MR. FORD: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: And do they -- do any increase it above 5 where it would be on the normal high high tide? 6 MR. FORD: No, they do not. 7 MR. HERRICK: And that's what I'm getting at. They 8 trap water at a high tide; is that correct? 9 MR. FORD: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: But they don't raise the water higher 11 than what it would have been in the absence of the barriers 12 at the high tide? 13 MR. FORD: No, the barriers don't change the high 14 tides at all. Basically, what they do is they change the 15 low tides. 16 MR. HERRICK: Correct. Sorry. Mr. Ford, when the 17 water levels increase in the channels, does not the water 18 now cover a greater area of the levees? And by that I 19 mean, isn't the cross-section where the water is located on 20 the high tide now held there rather than being a low level 21 where it would cover less of the levee? 22 MR. FORD: Yeah, there would be more water volume in 23 the channels upstream in the barriers. 24 MR. HERRICK: Could you put on Figure 8, Mr. Roberts, 25 please? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3760 1 MR. ROBERTS: Sure. I'm sorry. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: This is 8-B for the record. 3 MR. HERRICK: This is DWR 37, Figure 8-B. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Right. 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. A couple questions on this, 6 Mr. Ford. You and I talked at the lunch break with 7 Mr. Hildebrand. The increase of -- excuse me, the increase 8 of TDS that the with-barrier scenario shows at Clifton 9 Court Forebay, isn't that an average number during this 10 scenario in the Forebay; is that correct? 11 MR. FORD: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Is that different than the amount -- 13 the TDS of the water that is being drawn by those state 14 pumps? 15 MR. FORD: I think the question as I understood it 16 was basically: Is the -- this graph indicates that the 17 water quality is, actually, almost in the Forebay itself. 18 I think the question was: Basically, is the water quality 19 that the State Water Project since it operates the Forebay 20 and takes water in at the high tide, doesn't normally take 21 it in low tide, would that water quality be taken in only 22 on the high tide be equivalent to the average water 23 quality -- excuse me, average water quality than would be 24 experienced outside of the gates? 25 And I think that my understanding of this water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3761 1 quality is that it is actually taken outside the gates and 2 not in the Forebay as its shown. So in -- under that 3 circumstance, there would be a change in water quality 4 experience depending on if you were just taking it in on 5 the high tide and not on the low tide. This -- and what I 6 don't know, I don't know if that change in water quality 7 would be positive or negative. 8 MR. HERRICK: But the number that's on the 9 Figure 8-B is an average; is that correct? 10 MR. FORD: That's my understanding. 11 MR. HERRICK: And would you expect that the times 12 that the State project takes water to be times of a better 13 water quality than the average? 14 MR. FORD: I don't know. It would be different. 15 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 16 MR. FORD: I don't know. 17 MR. HERRICK: This figure also shows, as other people 18 have questioned, the increase in TDS or EC shown on this at 19 Brandt Bridge under the with-barrier scenario, correct? 20 MR. FORD: Correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: I'd just like to confirm that if you 22 trace the San Joaquin River's route under the with-barrier, 23 the 518 TDS drops down to 197 at Turner Cut; is that 24 correct? 25 MR. FORD: Correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3762 1 MR. HERRICK: And then according to this it drops 2 further down to 124 at Columbia? 3 MR. FORD: Correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: So the increase in TDS at Brandt Bridge 5 is quickly diluted, and shall we say, disappears by the 6 time the flows reach Columbia Cut? 7 MR. FORD: Right. 8 MR. HERRICK: Part of the discussions -- or maybe 9 your testimony, excuse me, seem to suggest that the flow 10 with the barriers will always be downstream on Grant Line. 11 Now -- that's not this figure, I'm sorry. 12 Could you clarify how you would expect flows -- 13 flow patterns in the South Delta with the operation of all 14 three tidal barriers? 15 MR. FORD: With all three tidal barriers? 16 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 17 MR. FORD: Basically, with all three tidal barriers 18 in operation you would expect to see a net flow in Middle 19 River, which is upstream of the barriers, moving down 20 through Middle River. Now, dealing -- going down to Old 21 River, over by the barrier, Old River over by the old 22 barrier, similarly with the operation of the barriers you 23 would expect flow in that portion of the channel to go 24 upstream also. 25 And both of those flows coming out of Middle and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3763 1 Old River would sort of head back towards Grant Line Canal 2 and where it would basically go back through there. And, 3 of course, the balance of the water that would be supplying 4 the State and Federal projects would come through Old and 5 Middle River coming down towards the pumps. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ford, do you have 7 an overhead of Figure 6? Isn't what you're describing in 8 Figure 6? 9 MR. FORD: I believe that's correct. 10 MR. SANDINO: Yeah. 11 MR. FORD: Correct. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you identify that for the 13 record even though we made mention of it here. 14 MR. FORD: Correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: For the record, this is Figure 6 which 16 is part of DWR 37. 17 MR. FORD: Again, you didn't ask me a question about 18 the without-barrier scenario at this point. So, basically, 19 what we have is a flow at Middle River that is to the south 20 and then a flow in Middle -- in Old River, which is towards 21 the east. And both of those flows then turn around and go 22 down Grant Line Canal to the west. 23 MEMBER BROWN: Move it up on the screen. 24 MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. 25 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Ford, the operational criteria for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3764 1 the barriers is still being developed; is that correct? 2 MR. FORD: That's correct. 3 MR. HERRICK: And one of the scenarios includes flow 4 down Grant Line only as necessary to flush certain parts of 5 Old River; is that correct? 6 MR. FORD: Yeah. We've looked at the Grant Line 7 operation which would effectively be only a partial 8 operation. Normally the barriers would be operated during 9 the entire ebb tide. What we've look at at a Grant Line 10 operation is that it would only be closed during the last 11 half of the ebb tide. So, effectively, you cut the 12 operating time of that barrier in half. And that reduces 13 some of the potential affects that -- on water quality that 14 that barrier in combination with the others can produce on 15 other Delta users, while we're still seeking to operate it 16 enough to maintain minimum water levels that are necessary 17 for South Delta agricultural use. 18 MR. HERRICK: And that analysis is still going on, 19 correct? 20 MR. FORD: Correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: What possible operations might help 22 lessen some of the transferred salinity issues? 23 MR. FORD: Right. We have done that analysis 24 already, but we are still waiting to see through 25 consultation under the ESA that we might end up with other CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3765 1 possible operational criteria for the barrier and modeled 2 as a package. 3 MR. HERRICK: Even with the modification of the Grant 4 Line barrier, you still expect downstream flows in the main 5 stem of the San Joaquin; is that correct? 6 MR. FORD: Correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: And absent the barriers, I'll just ask: 8 Periodically, don't you have reverse flows on the San 9 Joaquin River? 10 MR. FORD: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: And could you briefly explain the 12 problems that those reverse flows cause or contribute to? 13 MR. FORD: Well, basically the only problem that I'm 14 aware of that the reverse flow can contribute to is, 15 basically, is a DO problem at times. 16 MR. HERRICK: Doesn't the reverse flow contribute 17 toward those no zones that we talked about earlier, or can 18 contribute to them? 19 MR. FORD: No, not in this instance, because 20 basically what you've got there is you've got a supply into 21 the South Delta area that is going to be met by flow coming 22 from somewhere. Which is, you know -- and what you see in 23 the without-barrier scenario is the combination of that 24 demand from the San Joaquin River is a combination of the 25 flow above Old River on the San Joaquin going towards it. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3766 1 And the other one coming -- reversing coming towards it. 2 But the no zones that you see inside the South 3 Delta area are not necessarily a function of the flow 4 reversing on the San Joaquin. It's just more a function of 5 what is flows available at Vernalis, what the local 6 diversion patterns are and what project exports are. 7 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Let's turn to the head of Old 8 River barrier. And maybe we should go back to Figure 8, 9 sorry, 8-B, 8-B which we had earlier. 10 Just for the record, Mr. Ford, the historic 11 operation of the HOR barrier, head of Old River barrier, 12 excuse me, has allowed just through leakage water to pass 13 through it; is that correct? 14 MR. FORD: That's correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: And that isn't so much a design benefit 16 as just an operational fact of life; is that correct? 17 MR. FORD: Correct. 18 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of in the past few years 19 any instances where the head of Old River barrier was a 20 contributing factor to low water levels downstream of it? 21 MR. FORD: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: And those low water levels are what the 23 tidal barriers are trying to address -- let me start over, 24 that's misleading. 25 The fact that there are low water levels in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3767 1 South Delta sometimes is one of the issues that the tidal 2 barriers is trying to address, correct? 3 MR. FORD: Correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: And it is possible that the head of Old 5 River barrier, the fish barrier, either creates nuances or 6 exacerbates those low water issues; is that correct? 7 MR. FORD: Correct. The head barrier cuts off the 8 natural flow of water in the South Delta that would occur 9 in the absence of it. 10 MR. HERRICK: I don't mean to trick you, I don't 11 recall. A couple years ago we had a site visit on Old 12 River and Middle River. Were you at those meetings? 13 MR. FORD: I've been at a number of meetings out 14 there. 15 MR. HERRICK: I'd like you to confirm whether or not 16 you recall visits to Old River and Middle River during head 17 of Old River operations where those rivers had stretches 18 that were dry or little trickles of water. 19 MR. FORD: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is one of the proposed changes to the 21 head of Old River barrier the inclusion of culverts to 22 allow water to pass through? 23 MR. FORD: Yes, it is. 24 MR. HERRICK: And we heard the attorney for the City 25 of Stockton talk about flexibility in operations and that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3768 1 is part of the anticipated plan of DWR; is that correct? 2 MR. FORD: Correct. The culverts would have slide 3 gates on them that would either be opened or closed 4 depending on the need. And each culvert would have a 5 separate slide gate. 6 MR. HERRICK: And DWR has no preference, necessarily, 7 as to which interests would be given a higher 8 consideration, do they, other than the purpose of the 9 project? 10 MR. FORD: I'm not sure I understand your question. 11 MR. HERRICK: In the flexible operation of this, do 12 you have a superior consideration in deciding whether or 13 not to redirect flow down the San Joaquin, or allow it to 14 pass through the culverts in the head of the Old River 15 barrier? 16 MR. FORD: The reason the culverts are being 17 installed is to ensure adequate water supply to the South 18 Delta Water Agency while we can still leave the barrier in 19 so it can perform, at least partially, to other functions. 20 As I said before, in the absence of that as an operable 21 tool for that barrier, if the placement of that barrier 22 causes adverse impacts downstream, the only alternative we 23 have now with a no-culvert barrier is to remove it. 24 The reason we put the culverts in there is maybe 25 still allow some flow to pass down in that kind of a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3769 1 circumstance, enough flow to take care of -- to offset the 2 adverse impacts downstream while still accomplishing at 3 least all, or some portion, of the benefits along the San 4 Joaquin that would be caused by the operation of the 5 barrier. 6 MR. HERRICK: Now, I'd like to clarify, the Figure 7 8-B is one example that you've given here of the modeling 8 that you've done for this project; is that correct? 9 MR. FORD: Yeah. And we've done a lot of model runs. 10 Again, this was just one instance brought out to highlight 11 some points we wanted to make before the Board. 12 MR. HERRICK: And just -- although it's been read 13 before, this Figure 8-B shows a monthly average TDS, and 14 then you added EC under various barrier configurations, 15 July of critical year; is that correct? 16 MR. FORD: July of a critical year, yeah. Correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: Now, this scenario is predicated upon 18 the water coming down the San Joaquin River as measured at 19 Vernalis as being in excess of the Vernalis water quality 20 standard; is that right? 21 MR. FORD: The assumption then -- again, this was a 22 July -- the answer is, yes. This July 1990 of the 23 historical records for that period show that basically the 24 water quality was -- it would not have met the standards. 25 MR. HERRICK: And this modeling attempts to hold CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3770 1 other criteria steady and just measure the incremental 2 changes due to the barriers? 3 MR. FORD: That is correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: Now, would you confirm that none of the 5 TDS, or EC levels downstream of Vernalis under either 6 scenario are greater than the TDS or EC coming in from 7 Vernalis? 8 MR. FORD: That's correct. 9 MR. HERRICK: Now, if the Vernalis standard was met 10 under these conditions, do you have any opinion as to 11 whether or not any of the downstream measuring points would 12 also be in violation? 13 MR. FORD: In general, what our studies have shown is 14 that if the Vernalis water quality is met, that -- then -- 15 if the barriers are in operation and the Vernalis water 16 quality is met, that the other South Delta interior 17 standards would be met. 18 However, as I talked before, there is a lot of 19 different variables affecting salinity in this area. And 20 in any point in time one of them could -- could kind of 21 drive salinity to exceed it at one location. But it would 22 be fair to say that, generally, if you meet the Vernalis 23 salinity standard and you have the barriers in operation, 24 you'll meet the other interior objectives. 25 MR. HERRICK: And as I understand your position, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3771 1 then, DWR just wants to make sure that absent a meeting of 2 the Vernalis standard, they're not obligated to do 3 something additional in the interior Delta? 4 MR. FORD: I think the Department's position is, 5 basically, that we signed an agreement with the South Delta 6 Water Agency which says that -- that in terms of 7 litigation, that was advanced that we've reached a 8 settlement. And in terms of Board hearings, like I said 9 before, our position is basically that the Board has 10 adopted these objectives and that the State Water Project 11 contribution to meeting these objectives should be limited 12 to implementing the barriers program. And that's, 13 essentially, it. 14 MR. HERRICK: Let's assume that the Vernalis standard 15 is met; in your other scenarios does the modeling show any 16 violations of interior Delta standards? 17 MR. FORD: No. 18 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall, and maybe you don't, but 19 the Brandt Bridge, does that go up in every scenario in the 20 operation of the tidal barriers over what it would without 21 the barrier under whatever scenario you're examining? 22 MR. FORD: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I need to 23 backtrack. I was not thinking clearly. What our modeling 24 does show -- I need to retract the statement I made a 25 minute ago. What we see is that if we meet Vernalis and we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3772 1 have the barriers in operation, that we could meet the Old 2 River and Middle River station and the Old River at Tracy. 3 If you are just meaning meeting the standard at 4 Vernalis, because you'll see the same trend at Brandt 5 Bridge, the salinity will increase over that at Vernalis. 6 And if you're right at the limit at Vernalis, then, you're 7 probably not met the standard at Brandt Bridge. In order 8 to meet the standard at Brandt Bridge, you have to have 9 better salinity than Vernalis and have the barriers in 10 operation. 11 Because, again, the net effect of the barriers is 12 to circulate some of that water quality out into the main 13 stem of the San Joaquin. So what you see at Brandt Bridge 14 is, basically, the result of the Vernalis salinity and any 15 salt returns that are in the South Delta, too, both of them 16 are being pushed out. So under that scenario, generally, 17 you'll see that the Brandt Bridge salinity is higher than 18 that at Vernalis. 19 MR. HERRICK: In your earlier testimony you were 20 asked a question about the history of the South Delta 21 supply and quality problems. Do you recall those 22 questions? 23 MR. FORD: Yeah. 24 MR. HERRICK: To your knowledge, were there any 25 supply or quality problems in the South Delta prior to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3773 1 operation of the State and Federal projects? 2 MR. FORD: I don't know. 3 MR. HERRICK: Another question that was asked of you 4 deals with organic compounds being returned to South Delta 5 waters through agricultural diversions. Do you recall 6 that? 7 MR. FORD: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of whether or not there's 9 any peat soils in the South Delta? 10 MR. FORD: No, I'm not. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of whether or not the 12 peat soils are limited to the Central Delta? 13 MR. FORD: I know there's a lot of peat soils in the 14 Central Delta. 15 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any knowledge of whether or 16 not the return flows from the South Delta agricultural 17 diversions add any salt to the South Delta waters as 18 opposed to concentrating salts? 19 MR. FORD: Could you ask the question, again? 20 MR. HERRICK: One of the questions you were asked 21 dealt with -- I believe the questioner used the term 22 "land-derived salts." 23 MR. FORD: Right. 24 MR. HERRICK: Applying net salts on the lands in the 25 South Delta were being put back in the waters of the South CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3774 1 Delta. Are you aware of whether or not there are such 2 salts on the lands in the South Delta that are indigenous? 3 MR. FORD: Oh, indigenous. I believe the salts that 4 are coming out of South Delta ag drainage, the returns are 5 primarily the salts that are coming into the system through 6 either Vernalis or some portion of salt water that makes 7 its way down in the South Delta. So they're not the 8 salts -- those are salts that are applied to the South 9 Delta lands through the irrigation. 10 MR. HERRICK: There were questions asked of you 11 regarding the numerous factors you listed as contributing 12 to the water level problem in the South Delta. Do you 13 recall that? 14 MR. FORD: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Can you say, or will you say, whether 16 or not the operation of the export pumps is the major 17 problem contributing to water levels in the South Delta? 18 MR. FORD: Certainly, I -- I don't know what "major" 19 means. Certainly, we acknowledge and the fact -- 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. If the witness does not 21 know what "major" means, I'm going to object to the 22 question on the grounds that it's ambiguous. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: On the basis of? I couldn't hear the 24 last part, Mr. Birmingham. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If the witness does not understand CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3775 1 what Mr. Herrick means by "major," I'm going to object to 2 the question on the grounds that it's ambiguous. 3 MR. HERRICK: I'll just ask it with a different word. 4 That's fine. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, do so. 6 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Ford, in your earlier testimony you 7 were asked about the contributing factors towards South 8 Delta water levels. Do you have an opinion as to whether 9 or not the export pumps of the State and Federal projects 10 are the largest contributor to those level problems? 11 MR. FORD: My opinion is that -- are you -- when you 12 talk about the "projects," are we talking about the export 13 facilities? 14 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I thought I said the export 15 project. 16 MR. FORD: Okay. My opinion is it's not the most 17 significant. 18 MR. HERRICK: Is the most significant the amount of 19 water coming down the river, then? 20 MR. FORD: I think it's a combination of -- my 21 opinion is that it's a combination of Vernalis flows. 22 Also, it's the result of, you know, intense agricultural 23 use within the South Delta area itself in terms of the 24 magnitude of that use versus the flows available at 25 Vernalis. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3776 1 And, also, the fact that many of the South Delta 2 channels are extremely shallow and have extremely limited 3 carrying capacity. And for -- during the peak diversion 4 season the amount of water that those channels can hold is 5 just not adequate to support the diversions that are 6 necessary to farm there. 7 MR. HERRICK: We heard questions asked of you 8 regarding the effects of an increase in TDS at Turner Cut 9 resulting from the operation of the barriers. Has the 10 Department of Fish and Game, or Fish and Wildlife Service, 11 made any comments on the Draft EIR/EIS alleging that that 12 increase in TDS will have any adverse effects on, I'll say, 13 any wildlife? 14 MR. FORD: No, they have not. 15 MR. HERRICK: I think we went over this, I just want 16 to confirm. There was also discussions about the pull of 17 water from the Central Delta being increased due to the 18 operation of the barriers. Is that correct? 19 MR. FORD: Correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: But that's not a net increase of pull 21 to the pumps, correct? 22 MR. FORD: No, it's not. It's just a change in the 23 source of the water towards the pumps, correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: And that's because the San Joaquin 25 River flow instead of going directly to the pumps is now CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3777 1 being dumped in with the Central Delta amount; is that 2 correct? 3 MR. FORD: That is correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: And would you agree that the intent of 5 the barrier program, among other things, is to assist in 6 redistributing the burden of high TDS levels in the South 7 Delta? 8 MR. FORD: Yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. Thank 10 you. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 12 That completes the cross-examination by the parties. Let 13 me ask staff if they have any questions. 14 Mr. Howard. 15 ---oOo--- 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 17 BY STAFF 18 MR. HOWARD: The Department has been running the 19 temporary barrier program for several years now, as I 20 understand. Has the Department documented any 21 fishery-related impacts associated with the temporary 22 barriers program? 23 MR. FORD: No, I don't believe we have. And we've 24 documented -- we've documented presence of fish. And we've 25 documented the water level increases and the fact that the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3778 1 barriers improve circulation, but most of our monitoring 2 relates to changes in vegetation and those kind of things 3 that would be caused by change in water level elevation. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me interrupt a moment. 5 Mr. Brandt, congratulations. 6 (Applause.) 7 MR. BRANDT: No. No. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Everybody doing well? 9 MR. BRANDT: Yes, both doing well. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: He didn't include himself, apparently. 11 I'm sorry, Mr. Howard. Please, proceed. 12 MR. HOWARD: Has the Department of Water Resources 13 conducted any focused fishery-related studies during the 14 operation of the temporary barrier program for the purpose 15 of ascertaining whether there were any impacts to the 16 fishery during the operation of the program? 17 MR. FORD: We have conducted some studies around the 18 head of Old River barriers, you know, in terms of the 19 passage of fish through there. And with regard to -- 20 excuse me, with regard to potential impacts of the barriers 21 on fisheries, I think most of the -- we have not seen any 22 significant increase in entrainment, or straying. 23 You know, basically the data that we collect just 24 doesn't support the conclusion of those kinds of impacts. 25 A lot of the concerns that various fishery agencies in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3779 1 interest have about the barrier operations are based in 2 large part on modeling results, which indicate that the 3 barriers will change net flow patterns within the South 4 Delta. And anything that changes existing flow patterns is 5 of concern to them and tends to have them concerned about 6 that change confusing the fish. 7 MR. HOWARD: In your testimony you indicated that you 8 are presently in consultation with the fishery agencies 9 regarding the Endangered Species Act compliance. Besides 10 the issue you just raised regarding the change inflow 11 patterns, is there any other specific concern that the 12 fishery agencies are raising during this consultation? 13 MR. FORD: Regarding barriers operations only? 14 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 15 MR. FORD: Not the other elements that we're also 16 consulting on? 17 MR. HOWARD: I assume the other elements are the 18 increased pumping -- 19 MR. FORD: Dredging -- 20 MR. HOWARD: The entire Interim South Delta Program 21 components. 22 MR. FORD: Well, there's concerns about -- there's 23 concerns about, you know, affects on fish is one of the 24 barriers on fish. The second result would be -- basically 25 the concern is that the pumping that would be utilized CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3780 1 would only be used to -- during periods when excess flows 2 were available and when it would not harm the fish, 3 basically, significantly. And we're looking at different 4 kinds of traders or constraints that would guarantee that. 5 And, certainly, as a practical matter there's a 6 concern about basically ensuring that nothing that we do to 7 carry out that program would be incompatible with anything 8 that might be contemplated in the longer-term perspective 9 such as CalFed. 10 MR. HOWARD: My recollection was that a year or two 11 ago there was installation -- perhaps, it was the Old River 12 barrier that occurred in the spring. And shortly 13 thereafter, there was an increase in entrainment of Delta 14 smelt. Is that recollection correct? 15 MR. FORD: I think that was like two years ago. 16 MR. HOWARD: And the result was that the barrier was 17 removed shortly after that. Did the fishery agencies at 18 that time ascribe the increase entrainment to the barrier 19 operation? 20 MR. FORD: I don't really want to speak to what the 21 fishery agencies' thought process was on that. Basically, 22 what we have was we have a biological opinion that when -- 23 if we hit certain take limits at the pumps we develop -- we 24 hit what we call the "yellow light plan," which is 25 basically where they had a menu of options to choose from, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3781 1 which would include such things as reducing pumping and a 2 number of other things. 3 And which included, you know, alteration to the 4 degree we could. You might look at joint points kinds of 5 things. You would look at modifying operation at Clifton 6 Court Forebay. And we looked at another thing on the -- on 7 the menu was basically the removal of the head barrier. 8 And it so came to pass that that's basically what happened, 9 we were told to remove the head barrier. 10 MR. HOWARD: Did entrainment fall off after the 11 removal of the barrier at the head of Old River? 12 MR. FORD: My recollection was that it continued to 13 increase for several weeks before it fell off. 14 MR. HOWARD: We've received letters, a couple of 15 letters in the last couple of months, from diverters in the 16 South Delta complaining about low water levels. Did the 17 Department investigate the cause of the low water levels 18 associated with those complaints? 19 MR. FORD: Yes, we've been in contact with South 20 Delta Water Agency on all of its complaints -- are you 21 talking about the letters that have just come out in the 22 last several months? 23 MR. HOWARD: Yes, I am. 24 MR. FORD: Okay. 25 MR. HOWARD: And was there some resolution of what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3782 1 the source of the problem was that was causing those water 2 levels? 3 MR. FORD: Well, actually, quite frankly that one was 4 kind of a puzzling one for us, because when we went back 5 and looked at historical water levels -- I'm sorry. When 6 we went back and looked at the raw data in terms of actual 7 water levels during the period that the South Delta -- some 8 of the irrigators of the South Delta, it was just a few, 9 some right there on Old River along Fabian Track and along 10 the West Side Irrigation District -- when we, actually, 11 went and looked at the actual data, we found that the water 12 levels during that time were about plus or minus a half a 13 foot. 14 And based on our previous experience in South 15 Delta, we generally found that they tend to start having a 16 lot of complaints when they get at or below about a minus a 17 half a foot. So there was about a foot swing there. It 18 was better than that. And we were kind of puzzled why they 19 would be experiencing some water level problems. 20 At the same time, there's been a lot of sediment 21 that's been coming down the San Joaquin River in these last 22 four wet years in a row. And anybody that's been out there 23 in the South Delta would come as no surprise, there's a lot 24 of silt that's accumulated over the last couple years. And 25 there's been a significant siltation in the South Delta CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3783 1 area, which has further reduced the channel carrying 2 capacity in those areas. That may be contributing to part 3 of the problem, too. That may be why, what we thought was 4 an appropriate water threshold before is not necessarily 5 functioning, at least, in this particular area of the 6 Delta. 7 But anyway, we had talked with South Delta since 8 then. They were also concerned about what might happen in 9 September. I think we've reached agreement with them, at 10 least right, now in terms of a monitoring plan for that. I 11 believe we basically made it through the low water level 12 time in September. And we are unaware of any complaints 13 that they have this month. 14 In terms of West Side Irrigation District, we 15 surveyed the irrigation canal that they use and basically 16 found it was pretty choked up with debris. And our 17 conclusion, DWR's and Reclamation's, was their problems 18 were basically caused because they just don't have enough 19 conveyance capacity in their canal and they need to dredge 20 it. 21 MR. HOWARD: The siltation problems that you've 22 identified in South Delta channels that's causing problems 23 with diversion of water, does the Department, or any other 24 entity as far as you know, have any plans to try to address 25 this problem? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3784 1 MR. FORD: That's a really good question. No. I 2 mean, it's being talked about as I was -- last I was aware 3 it was being talked about as a possible component of the 4 FEAT, which is the Governor's Flood Emergency Action Team, 5 report. I think, you know, any dredging that has to be 6 done in the Delta, obviously, need to get a 404 permit from 7 the Corps, unless it's small enough that it falls within 8 some type of nationwide exemption, which wouldn't get much 9 accomplished. 10 We don't -- the Department doesn't have any plans 11 at this point in time. We realize -- I think it's 12 basically: Who's going to pay for it? And then, who's 13 going to jump through the hoops with the regulatory 14 agencies? We don't see it, certainly, as being the 15 Department's fault. It's really an upstream problem in 16 terms of -- and not pointing a finger at any one individual 17 thing, it's basically a watershed management problem where 18 you've got this large sediment load that comes down during 19 high flow events. And when it hits the Delta, it just 20 shallows -- it settles out and siltation happens. That 21 probably wasn't the best choice of words. 22 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Actually, it probably was the best 23 choice of words. 24 MR. HOWARD: On page 11 of your testimony you 25 indicate that the Grant Line Canal barrier will operate, or CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3785 1 is proposed in this particular submittal to operate, 2 between June 1 and October 1. 3 The Middle River and Old River at Tracy barriers, 4 however, begin operation on April 15th. I'm curious why 5 the difference in the starting date for the operation of 6 the barriers? 7 MR. FORD: Well, typically, in that earlier period, 8 from April 15th to May 15th, again, now this can vary. But 9 typically South Delta diversions are not nearly at their 10 peak. And they generally can have adequate water levels as 11 with an April 15th operation would through -- through May 12 15th with just the Middle and Tracy barriers. 13 I guess -- to cut to the chase, in terms of the 14 Grant Line barrier there has -- we have identified already 15 that we're looking at a modified partial operation of the 16 Grant Line barrier. The Grant Line barrier is probably the 17 single -- the barrier that causes the most concern amongst 18 all the regulatory agencies in terms of the potential 19 adverse affects to fish. 20 That's one of the reasons we've gone to a partial 21 operation. And I think that same concern is one of the 22 reasons that under the temporary barriers they restricted 23 the operation until June 1. And didn't -- and we did 24 petition for an earlier operation, and we were basically 25 turned down. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3786 1 MR. HOWARD: This sort of relates to the same 2 question. On page 16 you say that the Interim South Delta 3 Program never operates the Grant Line flow structure with 4 the head of Old River barrier. Why is that, specifically? 5 MR. FORD: Right. Well, again, it gets -- it gets 6 down to basically trying to do what you have to do to 7 protect South Delta's needs without -- without changing, or 8 redistributing -- changing flow patterns, or redistributing 9 salt loads, or what have you when you don't need to do it. 10 And the Grant Line operation, we found, generally 11 speaking, that we can get by and meet South Delta's 12 irrigation needs from April through May with only the 13 Middle and Tracy barrier and we don't need a Grant Line 14 barrier. But after when -- by the time we get to June, 15 obviously, normally South Delta Water Agency is really 16 getting ready to crank up and do the peak -- most of their 17 irrigating. And under those conditions there's a great big 18 demand along Grant Line Canal. And we need that barrier to 19 start operating during that period. 20 MR. HOWARD: You had indicated in your testimony that 21 the Department cannot guarantee any particular water 22 quality objective, or that "the" water quality objectives 23 would be met? 24 MR. FORD: Right. 25 MR. HOWARD: Is it possible for the Department to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3787 1 guarantee that any level of water quality can be met, 2 any -- that is, any specific level of water quality can be 3 met? 4 MR. FORD: No. 5 MR. HOWARD: Have you looked at whether any specific 6 level of water quality can be met in relationship to the 7 incoming water at Vernalis? 8 MR. FORD: No. We haven't specifically looked at 9 that, but we have seen, as a general trend in our studies 10 that I mentioned earlier, that if Vernalis water quality is 11 met then, generally, with the barrier operations you can 12 also meet the standards at the Old River and Middle River 13 and Boulder and Tracy Road Bridge stations, which would 14 lead one to believe that whatever Vernalis was, that you'll 15 get equivalent or better quality than at those two 16 stations. 17 As I mentioned before, because the way the 18 barriers operate and the site of Brandt Bridge will, 19 basically, generally reflect the water quality at Vernalis 20 and be slightly increased above and beyond that, because of 21 also some of the salt from the South Delta being 22 transported to that location by the barriers. 23 MR. HOWARD: You had indicated that you thought that 24 the Department's responsibility, as relates to the meeting 25 the objectives in the Water Quality Control Plan, should be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3788 1 that they would be required to operate the barriers in 2 South Delta barriers. Does the Department have some 3 specific recommendation regarding how a permit term might 4 be structured to reflect that type of responsibility? 5 MR. FORD: I'd like to defer to Mr. Sandino. 6 MR. HOWARD: If you can't answer, that's fine. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: He can't testify. 8 MR. HOWARD: Yeah. He can't testify. 9 MR. FORD: I'm not aware of -- 10 MR. SANDINO: We were proposing to address that in 11 our closing brief. We addressed a similar issue with the 12 marsh and we would address this issue the same way in our 13 closing brief. So we will have some proposals for Board 14 staff at that time. 15 MR. HOWARD: I guess I'm curious. If the Board were 16 to recognize the interim South Delta barrier operation as 17 an appropriate implementation mechanism, would the Board be 18 required to specify the operation of those barriers as it 19 does, for example, with the Delta cross-channel gates and 20 its objectives? 21 MR. FORD: I don't know what the Board could or could 22 not do in that regard. Our preference would be that the 23 Board defer the operations to us in the South Delta for a 24 number of reasons. One is, you know, we don't know exactly 25 what we're going to get coming out of the ESA consultation. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3789 1 Again, we want to preserve operation of flexibility, not 2 have a fixed operational pattern to be able to do -- to 3 deal with different sorts of situations, whether they be 4 water level situations, dissolved oxygen concerns, presence 5 of Delta smelt, what have you. 6 We'd like to basically be able to have the 7 operational flexibility to deal with those things on a 8 realtime basis. And, granted, we don't know -- have all 9 the answers on how we would do that right now, but we're 10 hopeful that you know as we -- in conjunction with realtime 11 data collection, we get more experience so we can start 12 learning how to better balance those needs. 13 And -- and so I think, basically, what we're going 14 to try to do in operating these barriers is balance the 15 needs of South Delta, balance the needs of other water 16 users in the South Delta and balance the needs of 17 fisheries. And there may be a fairly flexible framework of 18 operation needed within that. So I would recommend that we 19 don't have a rigorous operating schedule that we have to 20 adhere to. 21 MR. HOWARD: The Water Quality Control Plan has a 22 provision in it that requires -- that sets water quality 23 objectives for the South Delta at the locations that you've 24 identified. But it also has a provision that says, and 25 I'll quote it. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3790 1 (Reading): 2 "If a three-party contract has been implemented 3 among the Department of Water Resources, the 4 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and South Delta Water 5 Agency, that contract will be reviewed prior to 6 implementation of the above, and after also 7 considering the needs of other beneficial 8 uses revisions will be made to the objectives 9 and compliance monitoring locations noted as 10 appropriate." 11 Does the Department intend to pursue this 12 particular provision of the Water Quality Control Plan in 13 this proceeding or in subsequent proceedings? 14 MR. FORD: I guess, basically, my interpretation of 15 how the Department is reading this provision is we're, 16 basically, asking you to accept our share of implementing 17 this objective as implementing the barriers program, 18 attempting to implement the barriers program. 19 MR. HOWARD: But you don't anticipate having this 20 contract signed within the time frame of this proceeding? 21 MR. FORD: We -- our hope right now would be that it 22 might be possible to have this contract signed as early as 23 summer of 1999. And, granted, that that is optimistic. 24 But if -- if -- right now given our current schedule, if we 25 could complete the ESA consultation and ensure that, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3791 1 basically, that the actions we're taking are not 2 incompatible with what CalFed is contemplating, then it's 3 possible that we could issue a final ER/EIS early in 1999. 4 And would assume, as I think, under terms of the 5 three-party contract, the Department is ready to sign, 6 South Delta, as I understand it, is ready to sign. The big 7 hurdle would be the Reclamation signing. And I would 8 assume if we got through the ESA consultation and we were 9 able to develop a proposal that Fish and Wildlife Service 10 found acceptable, that Interior would have -- would be more 11 likely to get authorization, congressional authorization to 12 sign it. 13 MR. HOWARD: You had testified that the -- 14 approximately the maximum capacity of the Department's 15 facility, export facility, is 6700 csf, not the capacity 16 but the pumping limit, shall I say. 17 MR. FORD: The limit on the diversions at Clifton 18 Court Forebay. 19 MR. HOWARD: Right. However, the present physical 20 capacity and its authorized capacity under its water rights 21 permits is 10,300, I believe. Minus the Interim South 22 Delta Program, is there any way that you believe that the 23 Department is going to be able to use its maximum physical 24 and permitted capacity? 25 MR. FORD: To -- no. The short answer is no. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3792 1 Basically, what we're looking at is to use 10,300; we have 2 to make some fundamental hydraulic improvements in Old 3 River, which is what we're proposing. But, in our view, we 4 also have to ensure that increasing our diversions above 5 and beyond our current permitted capacity doesn't leave the 6 South Delta Water Agency high and dry. 7 So that's, in a sense, why the ISDP has both the 8 components. One of which is basically a long-term solution 9 for South Delta Water Agency supply problems. And then 10 given we've taken care of that, then we would seek to 11 increase our diversions and our ability to divert out of 12 the South Delta. 13 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. That's all the questions 14 that I have, Mr. Ford. Ms. Whitney has a question. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Whitney? 16 MS. WHITNEY: In response to a question from 17 Mr. Simmons you said that DWR would consider earlier 18 operation of the barriers, that is earlier than October 19 sometime into September, to help with the DO problem. And 20 the last statement on your written testimony said that you 21 would consider that operation provided that water levels 22 and circulation in the South Delta are protected and that 23 the Tracy wastewater treatment plant discharges are taken 24 into account. Could you explain why those need to be taken 25 into account and what the problem is? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3793 1 MR. FORD: The concern there is that, basically, the 2 wastewater plant discharges made from the Tracy plant in 3 the absence of the head barrier are normally diluted with 4 water that's coming down the Vernalis and enters into Old 5 River and eventually gets over there. And so that can help 6 dilute the concentrations of the discharges in that area 7 and also help to create -- to not create a poor water 8 quality situation there, particularly, in terms of 9 dissolved oxygen, also. 10 So what we're basically saying there is, we need 11 to keep an eye on the Tracy -- with what's going on along 12 that stretch of Old River and make sure that in operating 13 head barrier we don't cut off flow that would be needed to 14 ensure an adequate water quality in that reach in the South 15 Delta. 16 MS. WHITNEY: Do you have any idea how much flow is 17 required? I assume it depends somewhat on the Tracy 18 discharges. 19 MR. FORD: I would guess -- well, I think it just 20 depends on a lot of factors down there. It depends on the 21 temperature of the water, how much they're discharging. 22 And, you know, it could take up to a couple hundred csf, I 23 would imagine, under some circumstances. 24 MS. WHITNEY: Thank you. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that it from the staff? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3794 1 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Questions from the Board Members? 3 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Just -- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Del Piero. 5 ---oOo--- 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 7 BY BOARD MEMBERS 8 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Just clarification, in regards to 9 the question asked, I just want to make sure I understand. 10 Discharge from the Tracy sewage plant, is that what is 11 being diluted, or is the plant discharging effluent that 12 has a lesser salt content than that which is in the canal? 13 MR. FORD: The flows necessary to basically -- 14 MEMBER DEL PIERO: The flow, which one? 15 MR. FORD: The flow that would come -- 16 MEMBER DEL PIERO: From the plant, or in the -- 17 MR. FORD: No. No. 18 MEMBER DEL PIERO: -- or in the canal? 19 MR. FORD: Yeah, that would come from the San Joaquin 20 into Old River down into the South Delta area is basically 21 to dilute ammonia. 22 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Ammonia. So salt is not an issue 23 from the Tracy plant? 24 MR. FORD: No. 25 MEMBER DEL PIERO: What's the TDS level from the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3795 1 effluent discharge from the plant, on average? 2 MR. FORD: I don't know, Mr. Del Piero. 3 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Have you ever tested it? 4 MR. FORD: No. 5 MEMBER DEL PIERO: So we don't know if salt is a 6 problem, then. Thanks. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you contemplating a further 8 answer? 9 MR. SANDINO: No. We're just thinking here. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Yes, Mr. Brown, you had a 11 question? 12 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, sir. 14 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Ford, you made a statement 15 something to the effect that the barriers could increase 16 the water supply? 17 MR. FORD: Correct. 18 MEMBER BROWN: Does it, actually, increase the water 19 supply or help the pumping water level? 20 MR. FORD: What I meant by that is -- that in order 21 for South Delta to divert the water that they need to 22 support their industry and their crops, they need water 23 that's most suitable quantity and quality. And what I 24 meant in terms of saying that the barriers could help 25 achieve that is that the barriers could help improve both CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3796 1 of those factors. 2 By improving water levels that ensures that they 3 are able to acquire it when they need it. And the 4 barriers, as we said before, also improve circulation and 5 can help improve the water quality of that irrigation 6 water. 7 MEMBER BROWN: Does it improve yield? 8 MR. FORD: That would be a good question. I mean, I 9 don't know how you would define the "yield" in terms of 10 South Delta Water Agency, because they're not being served 11 out of a State Water Project like yield. I have a little 12 tougher definition, because, essentially, depending on what 13 crops are growing, what the -- 14 MEMBER BROWN: No. I mean water yield, not crop 15 yield. 16 MR. FORD: No, I know. 17 MEMBER BROWN: Does it increase the water supply 18 itself? I think you're talking about it increases the 19 water level so they can extract and pump more. But the 20 question is: Does it increase the supply of water? 21 MR. FORD: No. It just makes sure that the supply is 22 always available to them. 23 MEMBER BROWN: Next question, Mr. Chairman: Do you 24 have an idea of what the tailwater quality is as it drains 25 in the fields, what the increment in salinity may be? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3797 1 MR. FORD: I'm sorry I don't, Mr. Brown. But maybe 2 Mr. Hildebrand, when he comes up and testifies, would be 3 more qualified to answer those questions. I don't know. 4 MEMBER BROWN: Is there any tailwater in the area 5 that you're contending with? 6 MR. FORD: I don't know. 7 MEMBER BROWN: But the model does include an increase 8 in salinity for the tailwater? 9 MR. FORD: As I understand it, yes. The model in -- 10 the Delta model has both agricultural diversions in amounts 11 in locations and it also has return amounts in locations as 12 part of the input. 13 MEMBER BROWN: So it would have to have the salinity? 14 MR. FORD: Oh, yeah, it would have to have the 15 salinity. 16 MEMBER BROWN: The question is: You don't know what 17 it is? 18 MR. FORD: I don't know what it is. 19 MEMBER BROWN: And does it include anything, I'm 20 sorry if this is repetitive, but does it include -- does 21 the model include anything for tidal water, subsurface 22 drainage? 23 MR. FORD: I don't know. 24 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You aren't contemplating an additional CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3798 1 answer? 2 MR. FORD: No. I'm sorry, Mr. Caffrey. I'm showing 3 my ignorance with regard to drainage systems in the South 4 Delta. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: You're doing fine. You're not 6 required to know every answer. You're just required to say 7 whether you know it or not. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Don't guess. 9 MEMBER FORSTER: Don't guess, yeah. Mr. Del Piero 10 had a question. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Del Piero, you had a question, 12 sir? 13 MEMBER DEL PIERO: No. I have a request of staff. 14 In regards to the relationship of the sewage plant outflow 15 to the flow in the channel, is it possible for us to get 16 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board what salinity 17 content of the discharge is in relationship to the salinity 18 content of the water in the channel? 19 MS. WHITNEY: That kind of information is generally 20 required by the monitoring conditions in the NPDES permit. 21 So I assume that there's no trouble getting that. 22 MEMBER DEL PIERO: I'm sure there isn't. But I'd 23 like to see how that matches up with the model calculations 24 in terms of salt and TDS that's being estimated based on 25 the charts that we've had in front of us in the past. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3799 1 MS. WHITNEY: You want that only for Tracy, or do you 2 want it for Stockton as well? 3 MEMBER DEL PIERO: I'd be happy to get it for both of 4 them, but Tracy is the one I'm probably more concerned 5 about, because I think Stockton has already been 6 incorporated in. Although, it may just be the DO and the 7 ammonia in Stockton. And it may be nobody is looking at 8 salt context under either circumstance. So I'm more 9 concerned about salt than I am about the DO and the 10 ammonia, because I think everybody pretty much knows what 11 those problems are. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you suggesting, Mr. Del Piero, 13 that we put this in record as a motion from a Board Member 14 and provide copies to everybody? I think that would be 15 appropriate. 16 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Sure. It is a public record. 17 MS. WHITNEY: We can add it to the list of staff 18 exhibits, although, you'll have to accept it and then 19 provide it to everybody, or -- 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Sounds like we probably ought to do 21 that since it's now been mentioned in the record by 22 Mr. Del Piero and requested by staff. 23 MS. WHITNEY: It would be by reference. And if 24 anyone wants a copy, they can request for us to send it to 25 them. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3800 1 MEMBER DEL PIERO: The reason I ask, Mr. Chairman, is 2 sewage plant discharges can significantly contribute to the 3 increase in salt content in receiving waters. And in as 4 much as the Department, apparently, has done that analysis, 5 the information is available. And I'd like to know how it 6 matches up in terms of the modeling that's been done, 7 whether or not the numbers that are being produced out of 8 the model are true, and whether or not that is an element 9 that may or may not have been incorporated into the 10 modeling. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We'll have the staff 12 provide that information to all the parties and incorporate 13 it by reference, or by some other appropriate means when we 14 get the information and decide how we're going to do that. 15 MS. WHITNEY: We'll provide it upon request. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Sandino, do you have 17 any redirect? 18 MR. SANDINO: I don't think we do, but can we have a 19 30-second conference? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure, we'll go off the record for a 21 minute or so. 22 (Off the record from 2:28 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.) 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Back on the record. Mr. Sandino. 24 MR. SANDINO: Mr. Chairman, we don't have any 25 redirect. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3801 1 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. There will be no redirect. 2 Do you wish to offer your exhibits into the evidentiary 3 record now, Mr. Sandino? 4 MR. SANDINO: Yes, we do. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 6 MR. SANDINO: We would like to offer the DWR Exhibit 7 5, which is the qualifications of Mike Ford; and DWR 8 Exhibit 37, which is our written testimony for Phase V. 9 MS. WHITNEY: That agrees with our records. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: That agrees with our records. Is 11 there any objection to receiving into the record, accepting 12 into the record the two exhibits as identified by 13 Mr. Sandino? Hearing and seeing no objection, they are 14 accepted into the record. That completes the case in chief 15 for the Department of Water Resources. 16 Mr. Birmingham rises. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Attached to DWR Exhibit 37 were a 18 number of documents that were not specifically identified 19 as either appendices or exhibits. I wonder if those are 20 also being admitted. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Sandino, is it your intention to 22 include those attachments as part of the exhibit? 23 MR. SANDINO: I believe all those are being offered, 24 too. Those are figures. Those are also the agreement -- 25 draft agreement between South Delta Water Agency and the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3802 1 Bureau and DWR. And those were referenced, I believe, in 2 our written testimony. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Are they sufficiently identifiable -- 4 I'm asking the staff -- 5 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. They are. 7 MS. WHITNEY: We also have, in addition to that, 8 Figure 8-B which they provided today. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that reminder. Yes. We 10 did modify one of your exhibits -- actually not modify it, 11 it's actually a separate exhibit by virtue of modification. 12 What was the reference again? I know it's 8 -- 13 MS. WHITNEY: Figure 8-B of Exhibit 37. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection to accepting that into 15 the record as well? Hearing and seeing no objection, it 16 also is included in the record. 17 And did you want to say something, Mr. Sandino? 18 MR. SANDINO: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Let's take a break and 20 then we'll be back for the case in chief for the South 21 Delta Water Agency. Let's take about -- yes, Mr. Simmons? 22 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one 23 procedural question before we break, and then I'll make a 24 phone call? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, sir. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3803 1 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, I'm 2 handling the DO issue for Stockton; virginia Cahill is 3 handling the other issues. We do have witnesses that we're 4 going to put on for DO and witnesses we're going to put on 5 for salinity. 6 Jeanne had to be away for a couple of weeks. I'm 7 not sure if she gets back tomorrow or tomorrow night. 8 We're ready to go with the DO whenever you get to it, but 9 if the Board wants Stockton to do its entire Phase V 10 together, we might want to move to the end. It's not your 11 problem, it's our problem. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: If you keep us posted, we'll do 13 everything we can do to accommodate you. We can move you 14 back as long as others are ready to step in in your place, 15 if that's what you're suggesting. We try to accommodate 16 everybody when there are witness problems. 17 Unfortunately, we can't tell you, as I told 18 others, exactly when we're going to get to your case, or 19 what have you, because we don't know how long 20 cross-examination is going to take. That's the one thing 21 we have less control over. 22 MR. SIMMONS: The other alternative is we can do the 23 DO witnesses, it's kind of self-contained, whenever you get 24 to us. And that's the same with the salinity witnesses. 25 Whichever way you want to do it. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3804 1 C.O. CAFFREY: That's another option. We appreciate 2 that, Mr. Simmons. Let's just kind of play it by ear and 3 see where it takes us. It's possible we won't get to you 4 in any case until Ms. Cahill gets back anyway, if I 5 understood you correctly. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Thank you. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: You're expecting her back in the next 8 day or so; is that correct? 9 MR. SIMMONS: I think she gets back tomorrow night, 10 I'm not certain. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll accommodate you. We'll figure 12 out a way to do it. Thank you. 13 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Let's take a 12-minute 15 break and be back at a quarter to 2:00. Thank you. 16 (Recess taken from 2:33 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.) 17 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. Mr. Birmingham? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, I have to leave the 19 hearing -- 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Hang on just a minute. Please, take 21 your conversations outside or find a seat. Thank you. 22 I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Birmingham. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Caffrey. I have to 24 leave this afternoon to attend another meeting. I've 25 spoken with Mr. Herrick about my cross-examination of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3805 1 Mr. Hildebrand. I do have some questions for him. And Mr. 2 Herrick has consented to my asking those questions 3 tomorrow. Apparently, Mr. Hildebrand will not be here in 4 the morning. So I would do that tomorrow afternoon. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Hildebrand will not be here in the 6 morning? 7 MR. HERRICK: Last week when I said it's fine if we 8 go second, I didn't know Mr. Hildebrand has a slight 9 conflict. If it's possible he can be here in the early 10 morning, but then he has to be gone from, say, quarter to 11 10 or 10 to 12. He can come back afterwards. I'm hoping 12 we can adjust to that. If it's absolutely necessary, he 13 can stay here through the morning. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: As an option, I'm not suggesting we do 15 it, I'm just asking the question. Would it be easier to go 16 with Trinity County first and then go with you folks? 17 MR. HERRICK: That has no effect on me. That's fine. 18 We can start now, I'm all ready, it doesn't matter. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe Contra Costa would be next 20 after South Delta. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry, it would be. I was looking 22 at the wrong thing here. Yes, Contra Costa. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are they ready to go? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you ready to go, Mr. Maddow? 25 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Let's bottle up that enthusiasm. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3806 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Does this create any kind of a problem 2 for you if this takes -- if we go with Mr. Maddow now and 3 it takes the better part of a couple of days? I mean, I 4 don't expect it to, is Mr. Hildebrand available, say, after 5 tomorrow? 6 MR. HERRICK: Yes -- 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. No. Thursday is a bad day for 8 me. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thursday is a bad day for you. Maybe 10 we ought to stay with the current schedule, then. And 11 we've accommodated in the past when we had to do things a 12 little bit in bits and pieces. So let's get started with 13 South Delta and just -- because we don't even know how much 14 cross-examination we're going to have. So let's just see 15 where it takes us. And we'll accommodate you tomorrow -- 16 you'll be here -- let's see, Mr. Hildebrand will be here 17 first thing in the morning, but has to leave. What time 18 did you say? 19 MR. HERRICK: He'll be gone approximately quarter to 20 10 until the lunch break. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll get it all worked out. 22 Mr. Birmingham? 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I hate to complicate things further, 24 but I have to be in U.S. District Court tomorrow morning. 25 And so if I could do it tomorrow afternoon that would be -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3807 1 C.O. CAFFREY: That's fine, because it sounds like 2 Mr. Hildebrand will be coming back in the afternoon anyway. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: So we'll get it done. All right. 5 MEMBER DEL PIERO: See, my 8 o'clock would be better. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Del Piero was suggesting that we 7 make him Hearing Officer for the rest of the proceedings so 8 we could go until midnight every night. 9 MEMBER DEL PIERO: No laugh out of Tom. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: He has a slightly different style than 11 I do. 12 MEMBER BROWN: A lot of enthusiasm for that. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Right. Mr. Sandino, did you have a 14 question? 15 MR. SANDINO: Yes. Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, there 16 was a question after lunch about DWR supplying some more 17 modeling information. I told you I'd get back to you as 18 soon as I can. I've spoken to some of the DWR staff, and 19 we'll provide that information by Thursday. This is the 20 modeling information about some of the flow and salinity 21 data for some of the Delta channels. We'll provide that to 22 the Board staff on the CD and also to Mr. Jackson. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay. I think I lost track of that. 24 MR. SANDINO: There was one this morning, we took 25 care of that. And then there was another request that came CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3808 1 out. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: This was, yet, another request. 3 MR. SANDINO: Yes. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: I guess I should have just followed 5 Mr. Stubchaer's advice. He told me "Just say 'thank you.'" 6 I guess I'm the only one in the room that doesn't 7 understand. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sandino. We'll 8 make a note of that, it's in the record. 9 All right, Mr. Herrick. Good afternoon, sir. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CASE IN CHIEF FOR SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 12 BY JOHN HERRICK 13 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. 14 John Herrick, again, for South Delta Water Agency. I'll 15 have a very brief opening statement. As we said before and 16 as we said we would say each time, we believe that a 17 necessary prerequisite to proceeding in these matters is 18 that the federal government submit to the jurisdiction of 19 the California courts. I don't belabor that point. 20 However, as I have said before, it makes the proceeding 21 potentially unfair if there is no review of the decision. 22 South Delta has been very consistent, we believe, 23 in its presentation over the years that the San Joaquin 24 River and Delta salinity problems are extremely important 25 and of clear origin. Mr. Hildebrand's testimony today will CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3809 1 reaffirm what's been said many times before and that is as 2 evidenced in the 1980 report, which is -- will be an 3 exhibit. 4 The Bureau and South Delta went through an 5 investigation and determined where and how the salt problem 6 in the South Delta was being created. We don't think that 7 is in dispute. And we wonder why that conclusion is 8 constantly questioned over time. We're aware of no 9 contrary evidence suggesting that the problem has any other 10 origin than the importation of salt from the Delta through 11 the CVP. And then the subsequent drainage waters flowing 12 into, either directly or indirectly, into the San Joaquin 13 River system. 14 I believe the Board has recognized that when the 15 permits for New Melones were issued. The Bureau of 16 Reclamation was given the obligation of maintaining the 17 salinity standard as measured at Vernalis. That was not 18 because it was convenient, or somebody's wild idea. That 19 was because of the drainage problem issuing -- or resulting 20 from CVP operations. 21 Now, that effect, putting the burden on New 22 Melones, has caused other problems, and that will be dealt 23 with in this and other phases of these proceedings. We 24 have an existing standard at Vernalis and it's not always 25 met. We're now told that the projected operations under, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3810 1 at least, one of the alternatives that may be implemented 2 will assure continued violations of the water quality 3 standard. 4 We believe that shows that there's no downside -- 5 or if adopted, we believe that would show that there's no 6 downside to a permit holder violating their permit 7 conditions. And one of the things we are stressing in our 8 presentation and we ask the Board to seriously consider is 9 to make sure that their actions force the appropriate 10 changes in the Bureau of Reclamation's operations. Now, 11 that does not mean we're asking the Board to micromanage 12 the Bureau operations. 13 But if the Bureau can choose operations of New 14 Melones such as it does not believe it will meet its permit 15 standards, then the permit standards are virtually 16 meaningless. And the Board's action is the same. 17 Mr. Hildebrand's testimony will confirm all this. 18 We will be referencing prior testimony as far back 19 as -- well, generally back in the hearings that resulted in 20 D-1485. And at that time, as Mr. Hildebrand will testify, 21 there was various input, testimony, evidence, 22 cross-examination to determine that depending on the 23 starting level of salinity, or the TDS, as you go past a 24 point in increase you have a corresponding decrease in crop 25 yield. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3811 1 Now, we're not here to argue whether or not the 2 standards should have been lowered, which we argued at the 3 time, or how much that harm is. The Board should recognize 4 that by adopting the agricultural water quality standard, 5 including especially the ones in the South Delta which 6 haven't been implemented yet, it recognized that once you 7 get past a certain point in the salinity, you harm 8 agricultural interests. That's why we're here, to protect 9 beneficial interests. 10 We also believe that it's clear that the South 11 Delta salinity issues are attributable to the operation of 12 the State and Federal pumps. Now, we are very supportive 13 and want to stay on the good side of the state project, 14 because they're working so diligently with us to address 15 these problems. But we do have slight general 16 disagreements with them. We understand their position, but 17 we believe it's also clear that the operation of the pumps 18 by changing the circulation in the Delta and dropping the 19 water levels also contribute to the water quality program. 20 We believe that in the last 10, maybe 15 years, 21 I'll say 10 years the efforts of DWR, South Delta, and the 22 Bureau, to a certain extent, have determined the best way 23 of addressing these South Delta problems including the 24 salinity. And those efforts, well before the time I became 25 involved, looked at all the possibilities. And the barrier CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3812 1 program is the one that works. I believe in later phases 2 we'll get into alternatives looked at rather than the 3 barriers. But we believe it's -- the barrier program is a 4 necessary prerequisite to implementing the water quality 5 control objectives. 6 The interior South Delta objectives cannot be met, 7 though, if you allow the Vernalis standard not to be met. 8 Two standards are directly related to each other, 9 completely intertwined. It doesn't make -- you can't make 10 any progress or any meaningful decision on whether or not 11 to implement the interior Delta standards if you allow the 12 Vernalis standard to be violated. 13 And I'm not talking about, you know, some 14 statement by the Board that say, it's okay to not meet your 15 standard. But if you adopt an implementation program for 16 the water quality objectives on the San Joaquin River and 17 the modeling expects it to be violated, then you know that 18 you're not going to be able to meet the central -- the 19 interior Delta standards. 20 The barrier program which addresses, we believe, 21 the major issues, it certainly has effects. Any project 22 has effects. However, we believe the process is continuing 23 at an acceptable rate in addressing those other effects 24 through the appropriate channels. We may not agree with 25 Fish and Wildlife, or, perhaps, the Department of Fish and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3813 1 Game on their consultation or their conclusions, but DWR 2 has been extremely diligent in addressing those concerns so 3 that the barrier program can go forward. 4 We strongly recommend that the Bureau 5 appropriate -- excuse me. We strongly recommend the Board 6 take appropriate actions to ensure that there is compliance 7 with both the Vernalis standard and the interior Delta 8 standard. And we will never go on record as agreeing to 9 violations of the standard. In times of drought, the past 10 history shows that all parties have -- most parties have 11 gotten together and agreed how the minimum amount of water 12 will be divided up and used to the maximum benefit. 13 However, the Board should not acknowledge those 14 worse-case scenarios in developing its standard; rather, 15 the Board should implement methods for ensuring that the 16 standards are met. And there needs to be an understood 17 sanction for not doing that. Mr. Hildebrand's testimony 18 includes recommendations. And they are just 19 recommendations on how permits might be changed, or 20 conditions added to them so that not to ensure punishment 21 if standards aren't met, but to force the incentive to find 22 the appropriate methods so that the standards are met and 23 not violated. 24 With that I'll move on to our direct testimony. 25 Everybody knows Mr. Hildebrand. He's already been sworn. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3814 1 His qualifications were offered and accepted in an earlier 2 phase. I'll mention the number of them in a minute, let me 3 find it. 4 Mr. Hildebrand, for the record, would you just 5 identify yourself. 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: My name is Alexander Hildebrand. 7 MR. HERRICK: And you have in front of you exhibit -- 8 SDW Exhibit 39? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: And that is your written testimony 11 regarding Phase V of these proceeding? 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: That's right. 13 MR. HERRICK: And would you just confirm that Exhibit 14 39 is a true and correct copy of your written testimony. 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: It is. 16 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand will be summarizing his 17 testimony. I will be interrupting him periodically, no 18 offense to him, just to identify the various exhibits that 19 are referenced or that we're submitting. As I said before, 20 there are a number of exhibits that we're referencing as 21 the information used by the Board in developing the 22 original water quality objectives. And those were done in 23 the hearings that resulted in D-1485. With that I will ask 24 Mr. Hildebrand to summarize his testimony. 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: Mr. Caffrey, Members of the Board, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3815 1 as Mr. Herrick just said, the causes of inadequate 2 dissolved oxygen, high salinity and deficient flow problem 3 are interrelated. And the measures that can mitigate those 4 problems are also interrelated. 5 The root cause of the salinity problem is almost 6 entirely to the operations of the CVP. In the absence of 7 the CVP we did not have and would not now have a salinity 8 problem. Our testimony has shown that the salt load which 9 enters the San Joaquin River from the CVP's west side 10 service area is the cause of high salinity in the river 11 whenever flows from the east side tributaries are 12 insufficient to dilute that salt load. 13 We have shown that the salt load in the river 14 during low flows derives primarily from the import of salt 15 from the Delta via the Delta-Mendota Canal. The 16 substantial natural salt load, which derives from 17 weathering of soils, enters the river largely at times of 18 high flow so it does not cause a salinity problem. Other 19 sources of salt load, including cities, would be unlikely 20 at this time to exceed the dilution capacity of flows from 21 the east side tributaries in the absence of CVP operations. 22 Our testimony is also shown that the CVP exports 23 from Friant cause a major reduction in Vernalis -- the 24 Vernalis flow, which would otherwise be available to dilute 25 that salt. These specified causes of the salinity problem CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3816 1 are not in doubt. SDWA has provided the relevant 2 information documenting this cause of relationships many 3 times. Our written testimony lists our relevant exhibits. 4 The availability of water to dilute the CVP salt 5 load to meet salinity objectives is further reduced when 6 the Department of Interior pays tributary water managers to 7 shift releases from other months to spring and fall flows, 8 before, and to a larger extent, after the adoption of the 9 CVPIA the USBR has sought to make purchases of water on 10 tributaries of the San Joaquin River. 11 Indeed, the testimony in Phase II confirmed that 12 that the Bureau will continue to seek these acquisitions. 13 The purposes of these purchases is to secure additional 14 water to improve instream fishery flows at Vernalis and on 15 the tributaries. This is so in spite of the testimony of 16 the biologists in Phase II that little, if any, correlation 17 exists between flows and salmon smolt survival. 18 The problems with these purchases is that absent a 19 decrease in consumptive use by the seller, which is not 20 what they contemplate, the sale of water is merely every 21 operation. The seller changes the time of use of water so 22 that it adds to spring or October flows. As SDWA has 23 stated numerous times, this necessarily results in a 24 decrease at other times. That decrease is generally during 25 times when quantity and quality are most often at risk in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3817 1 the South Delta. 2 Therefore, these actions to increase fishery flows 3 cause a corresponding harm to water quality and channel 4 depletion needs. SDWA believes that existing legal 5 principals require that the Bureau mitigate these adverse 6 impacts caused by its purchases of water. We have water 7 quality objectives to protect beneficial uses. Nearly 20 8 years ago the Board developed and implemented a water 9 quality plan through D-1485. At those hearings witnesses 10 on behalf of SDWA presented evidence on the harm caused by 11 high salinity in the San Joaquin River. 12 Although, SDWA argued for standards lower than 13 those currently in place, particularly in March and 14 September, the evidence clearly showed that salinity 15 concentrations above the current April and August standard 16 had a detrimental effect on crop production and contributed 17 to an increase in salt buildup in Delta soils. 18 That testimony also indicated that as salinity 19 increased, there was a corresponding increase in harm to 20 agriculture. Our written testimony refers too many SDWA 21 exhibits in that regard. 22 To address salinity considerations the CVP can 23 take advantage of the tributary flows released for other 24 purposes to dilute CVP salt load. But they diminish this 25 available dilution when they pay tributary managers to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3818 1 shift releases to times when dilution is not needed. The 2 CVP is almost entirely responsible for the drainage salt 3 loads in the river that are not indigenous salts and that 4 enter the river at concentrations above the salinity 5 standards. 6 The drawdown of water levels and the low Vernalis 7 flows often cause a reverse flow in the river from Stockton 8 Ship Channel up to Old River. That was indicated in this 9 morning's testimony. This reversal is a major contributor 10 to low DO in that reach. The other area of DO concern is 11 in the vicinity of the Tracy sewer outfall. That was also 12 discussed this morning. And that area is also influenced 13 by shallow water depth and low flows which occur in that 14 area. 15 Nutrient loads derived from numerous sources, not 16 all of which in the South Delta origin contrary to what was 17 stated this morning, most of which are now being addressed 18 per the Clean Water Act. These sources include increasing 19 urban discharges. Every time we have an increase in urban 20 discharge, we have an increase in the salt load that's put 21 into the system. 22 In the absence of water diversions in the South 23 Delta, the inflow of the San Joaquin River flows downstream 24 in all channels. Into this system the state and federal 25 governments introduced their perspective export pumps. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3819 1 When operating, these pumps draw water towards them causing 2 lower water levels as well as reversing flows in some 3 channels. These flows reverse because the pull of the 4 pumps cause water levels lower than exist in the lower 5 downstream channel. The export pumps actually lower the 6 water levels throughout the entire South Delta in order to 7 bring the Sacramento River water across the Delta only 8 comes across if it's downhill. 9 As a means of mitigating these changes, the tidal 10 barriers take advantage of the tremendous tidal flows 11 experienced twice daily in the Delta; as the tidal flow 12 moves upstream it fills the channel and raises the water 13 levels. The barriers then trap these flows to hold the 14 high levels so that local diversions can be satisfied 15 during low tides. As you heard, we can, at times, actually 16 go dry in the absence of that. 17 By manipulating when and how the barriers operate, 18 flow directions can be controlled to avoid stagnant 19 reaches. Areas of low DO can be flushed and outmigrating 20 smolts can be redirected down to the Central Delta. The 21 head of Old River barrier only functions to redirect fish. 22 Its largest shortcoming is the fact that it harms 23 downstream diverters by cutting off flow. 24 Therefore, the head of Old River barrier cannot be 25 operated without the three tidal barriers, or serious harm CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3820 1 results to downstream beneficial uses. And we -- it was 2 discussed this morning that we don't have to operate the 3 Grant Line barrier when the head of Old River barrier is 4 functioning. That is true as it regards -- operating as a 5 fully functional barrier. However, we do need it to act as 6 a weir or flow restricter sufficient to keep the water 7 level in Grant Line and in the channels that flow into 8 Grant Line from dropping all the way down to the low-flow 9 level. So we have to hold it up a foot or so. 10 As the Board knows, the Bureau is supposed to make 11 releases from New Melones sufficient to maintain the 12 Vernalis salinity standard. That obligation was not only a 13 condition of the project's authorization, it is a condition 14 of each of its permits. SDWA 40 shows a correspondence in 15 the Board's own files, since 1990, evidencing the Bureau's 16 failure to abide by its own conditions and, therefore, 17 violations of the Vernalis water quality standard. 18 Under its current and proposed operations the 19 Bureau estimates that it will continue to violate the 20 Vernalis water quality standard in approximately 40 percent 21 of historic year types. That's actually an increase over 22 the violations that we've had in the past. This frequency 23 of violation will be further increased by water purchases 24 that shift summer flow, spring flow. 25 Some parties have already argued that making CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3821 1 releases from New Melones to meet San Joaquin River 2 salinity is an unreasonable use of water. This cannot be 3 true. The Board will recall that the CVP has decreased San 4 Joaquin River flows annually, approximately 345,000 5 acre-feet per year, during April through September. 6 The Board could have, or could now allow, less 7 diversion to storage from Friant in order to maintain 8 sufficient San Joaquin flow so that these releases would 9 not be needed. Such a decision is not an unreasonable use 10 of water. It is merely a recognition of whether or not 11 there is sufficient surplus to the needs of higher priority 12 beneficial uses. To put it another way, the decision of 13 how much water to allow to flow downstream depends on the 14 satisfaction of various beneficial uses. Therefore, using 15 an alternate supply for the same flow cannot be considered 16 unreasonable. 17 A different question is whether area of origin 18 rights determine whether such flows should and should not 19 arise. SDWA has and continues to believe that solving the 20 San Joaquin River salinity problem should be accomplished 21 in a manner that would free up more tributary water 22 supplies for tributary needs. However, pending that cure, 23 the Bureau's obligation to mitigate harm must continue. 24 The CVP should bear the entire responsibility for 25 meeting the Vernalis salinity standard. It causes the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3822 1 salinity problem. It has inferior water rights. And it 2 has pursued measures which exacerbate rather than to 3 mitigate the problem. When it complies with the Vernalis 4 salinity objective, it is still not fully restoring the 5 water quality that existed preceding CVP and which now 6 exist in the absence of the CVP. 7 The CVP failed to build the authorized valley 8 drain. It has done nothing to restore dilution water 9 except for inconsistent water quality releases at New 10 Melones. It has exercised little leadership toward 11 managing the salt load in west side drainage waters to 12 optimize the use of dilution water available from flows 13 released for other purposes. 14 It has been unwilling to provide dilution by 15 recirculating DMC water when excess pump and capacity is 16 available. It has made water purchases that reduce the 17 availability of water when it is needed for dilution. It 18 has not made purchases from export water users to restore 19 river flow. It is aware that the salt load imported by the 20 DMC could be significantly reduced by the operations of the 21 three tidal south barriers. Yet, the Department of 22 Interior has been a major obstacle to obtaining permission 23 to install and operate those barriers on an as-needed 24 basis. 25 The salinity objectives in the South Delta CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3823 1 downstream of Vernalis on the San Joaquin River cannot be 2 met unless the Vernalis standard is also met with some 3 margin and an adequate flow provided. Diverters downstream 4 of Vernalis do not add a significant salt load. They're 5 merely concentrating the salt load that's in the water that 6 comes down the river from the CVP service area, which is 7 necessarily then converted on their lands and concentrated 8 by the crops. There's a big distinction between adding 9 salt load and concentrating the load as we inevitably must 10 when you use the water for agricultural purposes. 11 These agricultural diverters must be able to 12 divert the CVP salt load that's in their diversions from 13 the river, return that salt load into the river without 14 causing a violation of the downstream objective. Meeting 15 this objective is, therefore, also a CVP responsibility. 16 If the three tidal South Delta barriers were 17 operated on an as-needed basis, there would be no problem 18 in meeting the interior salinity objectives in Middle 19 River, Old River and Grant Line Canal. In the absence of 20 these barriers, these objectives cannot be met. 21 The salinity standard at the old Brandt Bridge 22 location cannot be met with the barriers in operation 23 unless the Vernalis standard is more than met and Vernalis 24 flow exceeds flow of canal depletion. In the absence of 25 barriers, this objective could sometimes be met due to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3824 1 reverse flows as you saw in the testimony this morning. 2 However, the salinity in the other channels cannot be 3 controlled without barriers unless exports are greatly 4 curtailed. 5 Measures and responsibilities for meeting the 6 internal South Delta salinity objectives, or meeting the DO 7 objectives and for meeting the flow dependent objectives 8 are all interrelated, particularly if the three South Delta 9 barriers are not available for operation on an as-needed 10 basis. 11 Absent functioning barriers, the reverse flow 12 between Old River and Stockton is caused by the projects -- 13 the reversal is caused by Vernalis flow depletion combined 14 with drawdown of export pumping. The projects must, 15 therefore, correct the DO problem insofar as it results in 16 reverse flow, but we concur with DWR that that is not the 17 sole cause of the DO problem. And, therefore, correcting 18 reverse flow will not entirely correct the problem. 19 The DO problem near the junction of Old River and 20 Grant Line Canal, aside from any appropriate control of 21 nutrients, is, again, a flow problem. The problem will 22 increase as new cities and sewer expansions are allowed to 23 discharge in or near Old River, the flows and in-canal 24 water volumes needed to disburse sewage and other 25 discharges affecting DO. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3825 1 The DO are affected by Vernalis flow, by export 2 pumping, by the schedule of pumping in relation to tides 3 and seasons, by joint point pumping and by the effective 4 ambient temperature on the canal water temperature. 5 Operable barriers can be manipulated to provide this 6 disbursal. And in the absence of barriers it would not 7 always be possible to achieve disbursal without substantial 8 export curtailment and Vernalis flow restoration. And we 9 are not advocating the export restraint. We think we 10 should have solutions that do not -- that still comply with 11 the no-net loss. 12 If the downstream superior water rights are 13 required to be met at all times, then responsibilities and 14 measures with compliance with salinity and DO objectives 15 can be determined from a better fine base. Furthermore, it 16 will be necessary to define what protective measures must 17 be taken either with or without the three tidal barriers 18 and the head of Old River fish barrier since no permanent 19 or adequate permits have, yet, been issued for any of these 20 barriers. 21 As part of the Board's decision implementing the 22 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, SDWA recommends the USBR's 23 export permits be amended as proposed in our written 24 testimony. We don't have time to go into that orally. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You have about three minutes left, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3826 1 Mr. Hildebrand. 2 MR. HILDEBRAND: Okay. Well, I'll tell you. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: You must have been closer to the end 4 than I thought. 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: USBR's ability to export water at 6 Tracy Pumping Plant, or from SWP Banks Pumping Plant, is 7 conditioned upon, first, the existence of sufficient water 8 depth from South Delta channels to support local 9 diversions; and, two, the existence of sufficient water 10 quantity in South Delta channels to support local 11 diversions in canal depletions. In the absence of either 12 of these conditions, the USB exports shall decrease until 13 the condition, or conditions are met. If the conditions 14 are not met, there is no surplus water available for export 15 as per Water Code 12200. A similar condition could be put 16 on the State Water Project permit. 17 The USBR's New Melones permits as well as its 18 export permits should also be amended as proposed in our 19 written testimony, which I now give as follows: 20 USBR's ability to store water in, or directly 21 divert water from, New Melones and its ability to export 22 water from the Tracy Pumping Plant, or SWP Banks pumping 23 plant, are conditioned on the maintenance of the 1995 Water 24 Quality Control Plan water quality objectives for 25 agricultural beneficial uses in the Southern Delta. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3827 1 If the CVP's operational projections anticipate 2 violations of the objective, CVP shall cease diverting 3 water to storage and/or decrease exports until such 4 projections include compliance. At any time violations of 5 the objectives occur, export operations will cease and all 6 of the natural flow in the Stanislaus River shall be passed 7 through New Melones. 8 All projects which divert water to storage 9 upstream of Vernalis on the San Joaquin and its tributaries 10 include the following condition: At any time that the flow 11 of Vernalis is less than the channel depletion requirements 12 of South Delta, all natural flow shall be passed through or 13 by the permittee. 14 SDWA believes these permits conditions are clearly 15 acquired by existing law and will result in an adequate 16 incentive for the project to fully comply with the 1995 17 Water Quality Control Plan objectives and to address the 18 San Joaquin River salinity problems. 19 In Phase II-A SDWA will propose an alternative 20 that will address watershed measures that will result in 21 compliance with all control plan objectives in the San 22 Joaquin watershed including the South Delta. A proposal 23 will comply with existing laws, will minimize impacts on 24 any party, will minimize the cost of compliance and will 25 make the most sufficient and, hence, most reasonable use of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3828 1 water. Thank you. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Hildebrand. Very 3 nicely done, finished with 19 seconds to go. And we didn't 4 charge you when we interrupted you. All right. 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like 6 to identify the exhibits that are referenced in 7 Mr. Hildebrand's testimony just in case somebody wants to 8 refer to them so we have the correct numbers. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. Please, 10 go ahead. 11 MR. HERRICK: Number 40 was the written testimony 12 itself -- excuse me, Number 39. Number 40 are the 13 correspondence from 1990 to '94 from the Bureau to the 14 State Board regarding expected or ongoing violations of the 15 Vernalis standard. 41 through 46 -- excuse me, and 47, is 16 documentary evidence or transcripts from prior proceedings 17 wherein the salinity standards were developed. Some of 18 them are referenced in the transcript. And those 19 transcripts are Mr. Hildebrand's testimony from those 20 hearings. 21 Number 48 is the 1980 report, which we've provided 22 numerous times to the Board, but the 1980 report authored 23 by the Department of -- excuse me, it's the Bureau of 24 Reclamation. At that time they were known as the Water and 25 Power Resources Service. It's authored by that federal CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3829 1 agency and the South Delta. And I believe Mr. Hildebrand 2 was one of the participants in drafting that. 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: Right. 4 MR. HERRICK: Anyway, those are the exhibits. That's 5 all we have. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hildebrand. 7 And thank you, Mr. Herrick, for identifying those for all 8 of us. 9 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Do any of the parties, I should say, 11 would like to cross-examine this witness? Mr. Campbell, 12 Mr. Maddow. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Did Mr. Jackson raise his hand -- oh, 15 Mr. Jackson, thank you, sir. Mr. Sexton. Miss anybody? 16 Mr. O'Laughlin, of course, we have Mr. Birmingham for 17 tomorrow. 18 MEMBER DEL PIERO: In the back. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Who in the back? I'm sorry, ma'am, 20 give me your name again. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Karna Harrigfeld. Jeanne Zolezzi 22 has a couple questions for Alex, but she couldn't be here 23 today. So I would like her to go after Tom tomorrow. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. We will accommodate Jeanne 25 Zolezzi. Anyone else? Mr. Gallery. You're all CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3830 1 positioning yourselves the way you want to, I guess. All 2 right. Anybody else? Is that a question, or are you 3 signing up, Mr. Simmons? 4 MR. SIMMONS: I'll sign up. I may have a question, 5 one. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Simmons. Anyone else? All right. 7 We'll go in reverse order this time: Mr. Simmons, 8 Mr. Gallery, Mr. O'Laughlin -- 9 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Gotcha. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: We like a crisp and quick raising of 11 hands. We'll take them in this order: Mr. Simmons, 12 Mr. Gallery, Mr. O'Laughlin, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Jackson, 13 Mr. Maddow, Mr. Campbell. And we'll take Mr. Birmingham 14 and Ms. Zolezzi tomorrow. And maybe some others of you 15 tomorrow, probably a lot of you tomorrow, because we're not 16 going to go beyond 4 o'clock as I've stated a number of 17 times. So we'll start, then, with Mr. Simmons. 18 ---oOo--- 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 20 BY CITY OF STOCKTON 21 BY PAUL SIMMONS 22 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Simmons 23 for the City of Stockton. I was only going to ask, if 24 needed, I do have one question that I've prepared in 25 advance. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3831 1 Mr. Hildebrand, did you hear my questions this 2 morning for Mr. Ford about flexible operations of the 3 permanent Old River barrier? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: I did. 5 MR. SIMMONS: And my question to you is that assuming 6 that your interests are adequately taken into 7 consideration, do you have any objections to the pursuit of 8 an effort to maximize the benefits of the Old River barrier 9 as part of a comprehensive program to address DO? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: We think that it's desirable, both 11 for you and for us, to maintain downstream flow in the main 12 stem of the San Joaquin River. And as I said before, that 13 is an important component of the solution of the DO 14 problem. And I recognize that since you didn't cause a 15 reverse flow, you shouldn't get hammered by having a 16 reversed flow. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 19 Mr. Gallery. Good afternoon, sir. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 22 BY TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 23 BY DANIEL GALLERY 24 MR. GALLERY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I was 25 planning on talking to Mr. Hildebrand tonight before I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3832 1 questioned him to be sure I could get the right answer. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: I suppose you could write it out like 3 somebody else did. 4 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Did he do that? 5 MR. GALLERY: Dan Gallery representing Tuolumne 6 Utilities District up on the Stanislaus River in Tuolumne 7 County. 8 Mr. Hildebrand, you testified that the South Delta 9 Water Agency continues to believe that solving the San 10 Joaquin River salinity problem should be accomplished in a 11 manner that would free up more tributary water supplies for 12 tributary needs. I think you're probably aware that 13 Tuolumne Utilities District is in the county of origin of 14 the water in the river and within the basin of origin. 15 Can we rest assured that South Delta Water Agency 16 acknowledges that TUD requires a long-needed 9,000 17 acre-feet of water out of the reservoir and that you concur 18 that we should have a right to get that water in the 19 reservoir before it's used downstream? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't think we would want to be 21 that specific about just how much you're entitled to and 22 that sort of thing. Furthermore, the subject of this phase 23 is the: Who's responsible for the salinity problem 24 downstream? 25 But as I testified, I think that the salinity CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3833 1 problem can and should be solved without taking water away 2 from those in the areas of origin who should have priority 3 for that water. And, presumably, that includes your 4 interests, but I am not familiar with the detail. 5 MR. GALLERY: Okay. That's about as good as I hoped 6 for, so I'll stop there. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Gallery. Thank you, 8 sir. 9 Mr. O'Laughlin. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Chairman Caffrey, can I ask to pass 11 until tomorrow so I can talk with my clients about the 12 cross-examination of Mr. Hildebrand? I think my 13 cross-examination will, hopefully, be more succinct 14 tomorrow than today. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: I would be hard pressed to deny you 16 that since I've allowed the same for Mr. Birmingham and for 17 Ms. Zolezzi. So if you wish to go tomorrow, I will allow 18 it, Mr. O'Laughlin. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Did I penalize you there, Mr. Gallery? 21 MR. GALLERY: No. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. Mr. Sexton. 23 MR. SEXTON: I'd like to object, I think the Chairman 24 is having way too much fun in this proceeding. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it's called masochism, I'm not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3834 1 sure. 2 ---oOo--- 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 4 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 5 BY MICHAEL SEXTON 6 MR. SEXTON: I was hoping to go after 7 Mr. Birmingham, because I know how long-winded he is. And 8 he normally takes a lot of the questions that we would 9 otherwise ask. 10 In any event, Mr. Hildebrand, my name is Michael 11 Sexton. I have a couple of questions relating to follow-up 12 of testimony that we heard from DWR this morning. 13 Mr. Hildebrand, approximately how many acres are within the 14 South Delta service area? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: South Delta is about 150,000 acres 16 of which 125, or something of that order, is land mass. 17 They're on the waterways. And with the agricultural land 18 and urban lands are of the order of 125,000. I could be 19 off a little bit. 20 MR. SEXTON: Approximately, of the 150,000 roughly 21 how much land is irrigated? Maybe you answered that 22 already. 23 MR. HILDEBRAND: I think about 122,000. I can't say 24 precisely, but that's approximately correct. 25 MR. SEXTON: And is it fair to say that South Delta CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3835 1 diverts approximately 450,000 acre-feet in any year? 2 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 3 MR. SEXTON: So on 122,000, if my math is correct, I 4 admit I didn't go to Stanford, maybe it was Santa Clara, 5 I'm not sure where the math people went. Anyway, that's 6 somewhere in the excess of three acre-feet an acre; is that 7 correct, sir? 8 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. The reason for that is there's 9 no great advantage in our area to having a high application 10 efficiency since the overapplied water ends up right back 11 in the channel anyway. 12 MR. SEXTON: If I understand your testimony 13 correctly, South Delta doesn't dispute the fact that its 14 irrigation practices results in concentration of salts 15 which are then discharged into the Delta, but rather you 16 claim a right to do that, because of the salts that are in 17 your receiving water; is that correct? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: Basically, that's correct. We feel 19 that if you don't give agricultural water users a right to 20 concentrate the salts that are in their irrigation water, 21 then they'd all have to shut down. So that must be an 22 inherent right. The problem only arises when there's a 23 salt load introduced into the source supply by other 24 parties and not the farmer. 25 And then the salt load in the south -- that's in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3836 1 the channels of South Delta derive from upstream doesn't -- 2 there's very little salt load added to the stream system 3 within the 75 miles of channel in the South Delta. It's 4 salt that comes down the river and a little bit comes from 5 the Bay. And we can't -- we'd have to quit farming. We 6 couldn't concentrate that, just as people up the valley 7 would have to quit farming if they couldn't do that. 8 MR. SEXTON: So who should quit farming first, then, 9 South Delta or the people up the valley? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: The people who are using imported 11 salt I think ought to go first, but I'm not advocating 12 that. 13 MR. SEXTON: Isn't South Delta also using imported 14 salt, then? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: We didn't import the salt. Somebody 16 else imported it and then dumped it down on us. The 17 Delta-Mendota Canal, as we discussed before, imports a 18 about a million tons a year of salt in portions of the west 19 side service area that drain into the San Joaquin River. 20 And they concentrate that delivered salt, which 21 they receive at a pretty good quality, but they concentrate 22 it to where it comes into the river at salinities up to 23 5,000 parts per million. And then that takes a lot of 24 dilution. And some it, of course, is hanging up there and 25 solemnizing the ground waters and the soils of the area, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3837 1 which eventually is going to put them out of production. 2 The rest of it comes back in the river, comes down the 3 river and we have to irrigate with that stuff. And we 4 didn't have that before the CVP went into operation. And 5 we wouldn't have it now if the CVP wasn't there. 6 MR. SEXTON: Yeah, I would not dispute what you've 7 just said, sir. But you're irrigating with 5,000 TDS 8 water, aren't you? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: No, because it's diluted 10 substantially before it gets down. However, there was 11 discussion this morning of the fact that we do get stagnant 12 areas, particularly in Middle River and Old River, where 13 there's no circulation. Waters are flowing in from both 14 sides, so we can't get rid of the salt that comes in. And 15 salinities in those areas can get up over 1500 parts per 16 million, and that's far too much. 17 MR. SEXTON: Yeah, but the testimony this morning 18 from the DWR representative also attributed some of the 19 stagnant areas to South Delta's own irrigation practices 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't know how you come to that 21 conclusion. 22 MR. SEXTON: I'm just going by what the gentleman 23 said this morning. 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, I'm not sure what he meant by 25 that statement, because it's true that in the state of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3838 1 nature if we have no projects, we would still be diverting 2 water and concentrating what salt was in it. But we 3 wouldn't have a continuing downstream flow most of the 4 time. And we wouldn't be accumulating salt and never did 5 accumulate salt up to these kind of concentrations before 6 the CVP went into operation. 7 The best data that I can find shows that we never 8 got over 400 parts at Mossdale. And the only time we had 9 high salinity in the South Delta was in September of 1931 10 when the flow was so low that the bay water got up into the 11 northern canals of the South Delta. And it never got up to 12 Mossdale, or anywhere very close to there. 13 MR. SEXTON: Maybe we ought to deal in realtime 14 rather than in what used to be. I mean, if -- unless we're 15 going to take on what I think Secretary Babbot said by, 16 let's start by blowing up some really big dam. I think we 17 have to kind of deal with where we are. 18 Now, if we take for a given the fact that South 19 Delta's receiving waters are somewhere in the neighborhood 20 of 450 or so TDS, then wouldn't you agree that your 21 receiving waters are probably approximately the same as the 22 receiving waters of those folks who are getting 23 agricultural water from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: It doesn't turn out that way. They 25 haven't met the Vernalis standard a good deal of the time. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3839 1 If you're going to deal with the real world, you have to 2 look at what we're actually getting. 3 MR. SEXTON: Okay. What are you getting, then, an 4 average? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, I don't know that I can give you 6 an average figure. And furthermore, if you can average it 7 with flood flows, it does not mean anything. 8 MR. SEXTON: I don't want to average it with flood 9 flows. Let's talk about just average during the time when 10 you're normally irrigating. 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: In what kind of a year. 12 MR. SEXTON: A normal year? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: Normal years are not usually our 14 biggest problem. But in a below normal year, for example, 15 that follows a couple critical years, we can have terrible 16 salinity, because we can get 1200 parts at Vernalis. 17 Because you hang up some salt during that drought period 18 and then you get just enough water to flush it down and not 19 enough to dilute it. And it can be one of the major 20 problems. 21 And this is one of the problems we have with the 22 Bureau in that they will not carry over water for dilution 23 purposes from a wet year to a below normal year. And in a 24 critical year there's flows low enough it doesn't take a 25 lot of water to sweeten it up. But then you have flows of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3840 1 the kind that you get in a below normal year and you have 2 the salt loads that you can get in that kind of year, then 3 you need a great deal of water out of New Melones to dilute 4 it if you don't correct it some other way. And they 5 refuse to budget enough water to do that. 6 MR. SEXTON: Who is "they"? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: Bureau. 8 MR. SEXTON: Is it a fair statement that South Delta 9 discharges a concentration of approximately 140,000 tons of 10 salt into the Delta each year from its irrigation practice? 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: We don't discharge any salt to speak 12 of that didn't come to us from elsewhere. We don't derive 13 any salt. 14 MR. SEXTON: I'm not asking you what you obtain 15 through your receiving water. I'm just asking you: Isn't 16 it a fair statement that through South Delta's discharges 17 you discharge approximately 140,000 tons of salt each year 18 into the Delta? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, I haven't examined that kind 20 of a number. And you'd have to relate it to what kind of 21 salinities and salt load is coming down through Vernalis at 22 any given time. But, obviously, we do have to regurgitate 23 the salt that is fed to us just as the people in the CVP 24 service area have to regurgitate the million tons of salt 25 that's delivered to them; it has to go someplace. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3841 1 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Speaking of those in the CVP 2 service area, are you familiar with some of the efforts to 3 manage the discharges of salt and selenium in the Grassland 4 bypass service area? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 6 MR. SEXTON: Is South Delta undertaking any 7 activities anywhere remotely similar to those activities 8 which are occurring in the Grassland Bypass Project service 9 area. 10 MR. HERRICK: I would just like to object to the 11 original question refers to the Grassland Bypass Project as 12 efforts to manage the salt and selenium loads entering the 13 river. It's my understanding that the Grasslands Bypass 14 Project seeks to manage the selenium loads entering the 15 river and hopes that salt will be taken care of, too, but 16 contains no specific requirements or actions to limit the 17 salt -- 18 MR. SEXTON: Is Mr. Herrick putting an objection on 19 the record? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Right, I was going to ask. That 21 wasn't in the form of an objection. It seemed more like a 22 clarification. 23 MR. HERRICK: I believe I started saying "I object," 24 because the question misstated the facts. Mr. Sexton may 25 disagree with that, but my objection is that the question CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3842 1 assumed facts that are not true, much less not in evidence. 2 MR. SEXTON: The last time I checked, on 3 cross-examination we were allowed to ask questions and if 4 the witness wanted to take issue, then the witness could 5 take so, not his attorney. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: That's generally been the ruling. I'm 7 going to allow Mr. Hildebrand to -- note Mr. Herrick's 8 objection. And allow Mr. Hildebrand to answer the 9 question, because there is some affect on the salinity. I 10 think even Mr. Herrick has stated that. 11 Go ahead, Mr. Hildebrand. 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: The people in the service area there 13 are doing the best they can with the tools that they have 14 available to them, but they don't have the tools available 15 to correct the problem. So what they're trying to do is 16 Band-Aid the thing, live a little bit longer by burying 17 more of the incoming salt in their own soils and their own 18 groundwaters. 19 And they are addressing a selenium problem rather 20 than a salinity problem. In fact, the Grasslands bypass 21 proposal, in our judgment, is more likely going to increase 22 the salinity problem in the river than vise versa. In 23 fact, we even brought suit against them, but later dropped 24 it because it seemed to be far less than correcting the 25 problem by a broader measure like the recirculation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3843 1 proposal. And they assured us they would cooperate with us 2 in that regard. 3 MR. SEXTON: My question, Mr. Hildebrand, was: What 4 efforts has South Delta undertaken to address any of the 5 salinity discharges that South Delta is causing to the 6 Delta service area? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: We have been working with the Bureau 8 and the Department of Water Resources for years to correct 9 the problem by avoiding the salt load in the channels which 10 we are then forced to divert. We spent a great deal of 11 money and years and years of effort to try and correct the 12 problem. Our problem was very different from following up 13 the service area. So just because we don't pursue the 14 solution doesn't mean we aren't pursuing a solution. 15 MR. SEXTON: You're telling me that you worked for 16 years to control the discharges, or to work on a solution, 17 but you haven't told me what kind of work you're doing. 18 And that's my question. 19 Can you describe for me in particularity what kind 20 of work, what efforts has South Delta taken to control the 21 discharge of salts to the Delta service area? 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: We can control the discharge of 23 salts by installing the barriers which keep the salt loads 24 out of our channels so that we don't then discharge salts. 25 That's the basic solution. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3844 1 MR. SEXTON: And that is something the South Delta is 2 doing in and of itself? 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: We're doing in collaboration with 4 the DWR and the Bureau, although the Bureau hasn't been 5 nearly as helpful on it as the DWR. 6 MR. SEXTON: Is South Delta doing anything to limit 7 the application of surface water in order to limit the 8 discharge of salts that run off that surface water -- 9 excuse me, off of the lands within your service area? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: When you put water on a crop plant, 11 the plant has to consume a rather fixed amount of water in 12 order to grow by the biomass. So if you're going to grow a 13 given crop, a given yield, you're going to consume a 14 certain amount of water. It's that consumption of water 15 which concentrates the salt that's in the system. 16 Now, if you -- there's not much you can do about 17 that. The osmotic root system of a plant leaves the salt 18 behind and takes the water up, along with certain nutrients 19 in order to grow. And what's left behind is a leachate, 20 which contains whatever amount of salt that was in the 21 irrigation supply that you were permitted to have. And if 22 you don't have a lot of salt in the irrigation supply, you 23 don't have a problem with the high salinity in the 24 leachate. 25 But if on the other hand, you have this enormous CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3845 1 salt load, hundreds of thousands of tons of salt coming 2 down the river entering our 75 miles of channel, which is 3 the only place we can get water, we have to use it. So we 4 don't add anything but salt load. We necessarily have to 5 do that. There's nothing we can do about it other than get 6 the salt out of the system. And we have diligently pursued 7 methods of accomplishing that. 8 MR. SEXTON: So it sounds to me like you're 9 suggesting that this Board ought to say that the 122,000 10 irrigated acres of the South Delta service area can 11 continue to irrigate. We need to blow up Friant Dam -- 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: No, I'm not saying that at all. 13 MR. HERRICK: Objection. Mr. Chairman, that's 14 obviously argumentative and inappropriate. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustained. Sustained. 16 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Hildebrand, it sounds like what 17 you're saying is that everybody else that receives water 18 that has a salinity load in it needs to do more and South 19 Delta needs to do nothing but cooperate with DWR in the 20 Delta barriers program? 21 MR. HILDEBRAND: That's a very poor characterization. 22 If you look at the question of the impacts on the salinity 23 in the overall river system, if you are using water out of 24 the channel and you return back to the channel back what 25 you took out of it, and you haven't added to it, haven't CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3846 1 added load to it, you're not causing a problem to people 2 downstream. 3 But if you're adding to it, then you are a 4 contributing problem. And you may not get hooked, because 5 you're still within the salinity standard. The guy 6 downstream, then, can't use the water without concentrating 7 it above the salinity standard and, yet, he's not the one 8 that put the salt in. So the upstream people have an 9 obligation not to add salt load such that the downstream 10 people can't use the water. 11 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Does South Delta have a tidal 12 drainage system in its service area? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: There are a very small number. 14 There's one or two walnut groves, that I'm aware of, that 15 have a drainage dial. Up on the -- further up the river, 16 not down there, there are some, yes. But it's a very small 17 percentage of the total acreage, it's rather insignificant. 18 And it still doesn't alter what I just said. 19 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Hildebrand. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 21 Mr. Jackson. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3847 1 ---oOo--- 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 3 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 4 BY MICHAEL JACKSON 5 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Hildebrand, how long have you been 6 aware of the salt problem on the San Joaquin River? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: Ever since it started. 8 MR. JACKSON: And when did it start, sir? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: It started when the CVP went into 10 operation. Of course, it didn't happen overnight, it built 11 up over time. As soon as they began to deliver water from 12 the Delta to the service area in lieu of the Friant water, 13 which they previously used, they were putting in -- using 14 water that had about seven times as much salt as the water 15 that was taken from Friant and delivered south. 16 As they continued to do that, the salt load began 17 to build. They were accumulating the salt, as I said, at a 18 rate of roughly a million tons a year during the periods of 19 full delivery, which they mostly added in those days. And 20 the -- they have accumulated, by our calculations, 21 somewhere between 30 and 40 million tons of salt in that 22 service area in their soils and, particularly, in their 23 groundwaters. 24 But it's uphill. It's in solution. And it does 25 come in the river primarily via the tidal drainage CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3848 1 discharges into the river through salt and mud sloughs. 2 Although, there's also a significant contribution from the 3 drainage from the grassland areas, which comes in a slug, 4 has in the past at least, because they're discharging it 5 all at once. So that we get a particularly severe load in 6 the spring at the time when the grasslands and -- at the 7 same time they are pre-irrigating their crop lands, which 8 then mobilize as the subsurface water and pushes it on into 9 the river. So that's the worst time of year. 10 MR. JACKSON: Now, is -- let's start sort of at the 11 beginning in the state of nature. To your knowledge, how 12 long have you been farming your lands? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: I've owned it since 1944 when I got 14 back from the war. And I've lived on it and operated it 15 since '62. 16 MR. JACKSON: Has the salt -- has the salt problem 17 increased since 1944? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: Drastically. 19 MR. JACKSON: Has it increased since 1962? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't know whether it's reached 21 equilibrium, yet, but it's gradually reaching an 22 equilibrium. I could not say whether the salt load -- 23 you'd have to get into the year types and average it over 24 some period of time; that would be a complicated question 25 to answer precisely. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3849 1 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, is there a difference 2 in the salt load of the water originating on the east side 3 of the San Joaquin Valley from the water originating on the 4 west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. It's different today in 6 chemical composition and it's very different in time, 7 because that salt load is primarily by the weathering of 8 soils, which is a natural process. And that occurs 9 primarily during heavy precipitation. So that salt load 10 comes down the river at a time when it's enormously 11 diluted. Of course, this is the reason the ocean is salty, 12 because it's been going on for millions of years as soils 13 weather, release salts and they flow down to the ocean. 14 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, will you clarify which 15 source of salt you were referring to when you said -- when 16 you just described the one from weathering and high flows? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: From the east side. Well, it would 18 occur anywhere in the land mass as it happens, but 19 typically I believe the question addressed to salt load 20 coming out of the east side, so that's what I was 21 responding to. 22 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, on the west side what 23 is the source of the salt? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: The west side the soils are 25 predominantly soils derived from marine shales. So that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3850 1 they do contain quite a bit of salt. When they were 2 formed, they were formed along with the salinity and the 3 selenium, the selenium in the ocean. And so they contain 4 those things in those soils. 5 However, if you examine the salt load that goes 6 down the San Joaquin -- the Delta-Mendota Canal, which that 7 salt load derives from the bay -- if you look at that salt 8 load and look at the chemistry of it and if you look at the 9 salt load in the main stem of the San Joaquin River and 10 look at the chemistry of that, a lot of different kind of 11 ions there. And they comprise kind of a fingerprint of 12 where the salt came from. 13 So there's a very good match between -- with the 14 exception of selenium, between the imported salt load and 15 the salt load that ends up entering the river from the west 16 side. Now, there's probably some exchange there. The same 17 sulfide ion that was delivered down the DMC may not be the 18 one to get pushed down river. But the net result is that 19 the salt distribution of ions is very nearly identical. 20 And this is true where you look at bicarbon ion, 21 or sulfite ion, or chloride ion, or boron, or what have 22 you. I haven't actually made the computation for selenium, 23 but I suspect even a little of that comes from the import, 24 which then is greatly concentrated. But no doubt most of 25 that is actually leached out. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3851 1 MR. JACKSON: Now, are there areas on the west side 2 of the San Joaquin Valley in which there is proportionally 3 more salt leached out than other areas? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: There are clearly more selenium 5 leached out in some areas. I don't really know if there's 6 more salt leached out. Probably when you first start 7 irrigating a new virgin land, you are flushing out a fair 8 amount of salt. But as you've done it for years and years 9 you pretty well leach that out. So the salt load in the 10 leachate is largely what you apply rather than what was 11 there in the first place. 12 MR. JACKSON: Is there -- are there increasing levels 13 of selenium being leached out of the west side of the San 14 Joaquin? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: I'm not aware if its increasing. In 16 fact, I was under the impression that it was slightly 17 decreasing. 18 MR. JACKSON: Are there increased levels of salt 19 which is being -- which is coming from specific locations 20 on the west side of the San Joaquin? 21 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Increase compared to what? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Did not hear what the person in the 23 audience -- oh, is that you, Mr. Sexton? 24 MR. SEXTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I objected to the 25 question: Compared to what? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3852 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you clarify, Mr. Jackson. 2 MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I would. Salt slough is that the 3 source of a lot of the salt load that's coming out of the 4 San Joaquin River? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Salt and mud sloughs together, it 6 was mostly salt slough, but this change in project used to 7 use part of the old drain down there, is switching much of 8 that load in mud slough. But if you look at the two 9 combined, I'm not aware that there's any ongoing increase, 10 neither am I aware that there's any ongoing decrease. 11 MR. JACKSON: How much do those two salt and mud 12 slough contribute in terms of the salt load to the San 13 Joaquin? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: Let me put it this way: If you look 15 at the salt load that enters the river at times when 16 there's not sufficient dilution and that enters at 17 salinities above the Vernalis standard, then something like 18 85 percent of it comes through there. And the rest comes 19 in, primarily, through subsurface secretion from the west 20 side. 21 MR. JACKSON: What water districts are tributary to 22 salt and mud slough? 23 MR. HILDEBRAND: I'm not good on names, but Panache 24 is, of course, the biggest one and any of the Grassland 25 districts. Altogether there's about 90,000 acres of land CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3853 1 that drains into the river via Salt and Mud Sloughs. 2 MR. JACKSON: Are those areas -- 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: And that, I think, does not include 4 the Grasslands. 5 MR. JACKSON: Are those areas part of this Central 6 Valley service area that you are blaming for the salt? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, yeah, or some of them are, the 8 Exchange Contractors. And they are a part of the service 9 area, but they're a little distinct from the others. But 10 that exchange results in their receiving water which is 11 significantly poorer quality than the water they had prior 12 to the exchange. 13 MR. JACKSON: Is it your experience and understanding 14 that if the Central Valley Project was not delivering water 15 to those areas, that the salt load in the San Joaquin River 16 would be substantially less? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, definitely. How much less 18 depends on how rapidly someone would have gone out of 19 business on well water, because their well water wasn't too 20 good. But I don't think they'd be farming anymore right 21 now if they weren't receiving it. 22 MR. JACKSON: You've indicated that you believe that 23 the Central Valley Project is primarily responsible for the 24 salt load in the San Joaquin River; is that correct? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: For the salt load that -- in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3854 1 river at times when we have low flows and the salinity 2 problem, yes. Excluding the periods of very wet weather 3 when you're leaching out the soil, weathering salts from 4 the east side. That could amount to a lot of salt, but it 5 comes out at very low salinities. 6 MR. JACKSON: Now, the periods of high salinity that 7 you're talking about, there are really only two options, 8 aren't there, to cut the amount of salt coming into the 9 river, or to increase the amount of water in the river to 10 dilute it? Are there any other solutions that you're aware 11 of at Vernalis? 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: Basically, no. However, there's 13 some subsets of the things that you mentioned. 14 MR. JACKSON: All right. Would you -- let's talk a 15 little about the dilution water. Do you believe that 16 that's also controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, yeah. They eliminated 30 18 percent of flow at Vernalis when they put in Friant Dam. 19 That would reduce the amount of dilution water available 20 substantially. 21 MR. JACKSON: Is there anyone else who could -- on 22 the river who could provide the dilution water necessary to 23 meet the Vernalis standard other than the Bureau of 24 Reclamation? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, the Bureau of Reclamation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3855 1 could buy water from contractors instead of from the 2 tributaries and, in effect, reduce the net export for other 3 purposes and put that water into the river. Or they could 4 recirculate water, and that's a multiple use of water which 5 has the same benefit as if you had that much additional 6 water. 7 MR. JACKSON: Then, in other words, essentially, the 8 Bureau of Reclamation either puts more water in the San 9 Joaquin or exports less water out of the Delta-Mendota 10 pumps; is that right? 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: Or recirculates. 12 MR. JACKSON: All right. But other than your 13 recirculation idea, the Bureau either would have to put 14 more water in the river to meet the Vernalis standard or it 15 would have to export less water from the Delta to help meet 16 the Vernalis standard? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, I don't know if it's plausible 18 for them to reduce their exports enough to make a big 19 difference. I think you have to get rid of the salt. You 20 shouldn't deplete the dilution -- available dilution water, 21 number one. And, number two, you should provide the 22 flushing of that salt in some manner that doesn't cause 23 this damage. 24 And, of course, the long-term, the way the thing 25 is going to have to be done is put in a valley drain, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3856 1 because unless and until you do that, you keep salt out of 2 the river either by shutting everything down, which isn't 3 reasonable; or you do it by accelerating the rate at which 4 you're accumulating salt in the service area. That's not a 5 good idea either. 6 MR. JACKSON: You consider that an unreasonable use? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: If we're going to have 20 more 8 million people in California in the time frame of the 9 CalFed program, we're going to have to feed all those 10 people. And we better not put that land out of production. 11 MR. JACKSON: So, in other words, in your opinion 12 it's not an unreasonable use for the Bureau to release more 13 water from whatever facility is available to dilute the 14 salts on the San Joaquin, correct? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: It's not unreasonable, but I think 16 that it can be done on a no-net loss basis. And I think 17 that's preferable. 18 MR. JACKSON: Now, how would you do it in a no-net 19 loss -- we're just about to start another topic. Do you 20 want to break now? 21 C.O. CAFFREY: How much more time? 22 MR. JACKSON: It won't be more than 45 minutes, 23 because I'm due at the Capitol tomorrow at 10:00 for a 24 press conference. So you know I will finish by 10:00 25 tomorrow. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3857 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Is the press conference going to be 2 about the Water Board? I'm only kidding, don't answer 3 that. I'm trying to decide whether to keep you here or 4 not. 5 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman, could he at least finish 6 his question? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Yeah, we're going to get to that in a 8 minute. Well, if we're going to start a whole new subject 9 area -- 10 MR. JACKSON: Yeah. This was a preliminary question 11 to the -- could you read it back. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Right. We will hear this one question 13 and then break after that and come back in the morning. 14 And, Mr. Hildebrand, as I understand it, you will 15 be here for a little while in the morning and then you have 16 to leave about 10:30; is that right? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yeah. If you start at 9:00 I'll be 18 here for three quarters of an hour. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: We will do it. Mr. Brown has a 20 Regional Board meeting he has to attend tomorrow so we do 21 want to hear the answer to this question for him, at least. 22 But we may go to Mr. Maddow, then, if we have a break in 23 the cross-examination because of Mr. Hildebrand having to 24 leave. And I don't think we'll get through it all, because 25 we have to wait for the afternoon for Mr. Birmingham as CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3858 1 well. 2 So we will interrupt this case in chief, start 3 with Mr. Maddow and then come back to this one. And we'll 4 juggle it in a way that allows. 5 All right. Go ahead with that one question you 6 just asked, Mr. Jackson. Do we need to read it back? 7 MR. JACKSON: Well, at this point I think we do to 8 make sure that Mr. Brown gets the question that he's 9 interested in. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Let's read it back and get 11 the answer. 12 (Whereupon the question was read back.) 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, we intend in our testimony in 14 Phase II-A to go into that in considerable detail. But 15 basically it amounts to providing the fish flows for 16 Vernalis, a supplemental flow is required over and above 17 what will come out of the tributaries in the absence of 18 either water purchases or recirculation. And provide that 19 with recirculation, those flows with recirculation of the 20 supplemental flow, rather than take water away from any 21 other existing use. 22 And in the process of doing that, you will then be 23 able to also control a release of salt from the CVP service 24 area into the river with measures that are entirely 25 feasible and been discussed with those people, and can do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3859 1 that without salting up the reach of the river from the 2 Merced down to the Tuolumne and the Stanislaus where you 3 get most of the pollution water. 4 If you try to control that salt load without 5 simultaneously introducing flow above the mouth of the 6 Merced, you're going to salt up that reach there. So 7 that's not a very good solution. So you have to consider 8 the recirculation as only a component of a much broader 9 program, which has to include the control of the time of 10 entry of the drainage to the river, and has to include the 11 barriers, the three tidal barriers. You can have a fish 12 barrier, too, but they're not essential to it. 13 And one of the reasons for that is the reason that 14 was mentioned earlier today, that if you put the three 15 tidal barriers in on an as-needed basis, you'll then 16 substantially reduce the salt load that's delivered to the 17 service area down the Delta-Mendota Canal, thereby reducing 18 the salt load that enters the river, and thereby reducing 19 the dilution requirement for that salt load. 20 That won't take place instantly in these models 21 that are being used, won't iterate the thing over time, so 22 that they show what the instantaneous change would be. 23 But, for example, in the case of the Contra Costa Water 24 District, it is true that putting the barriers in will, in 25 some degree, increase the percentage of the salt load in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3860 1 the Central Delta that ends up in their intake. 2 However, if you reduce the salt load in the river 3 by the means we just discussed, you then reduce the overall 4 salt load so that even if you increase the salinity 5 slightly you may even decrease the exported salt load. So 6 the plan is an integrated thing. It has to have all these 7 components to it together to make it really work right, but 8 we think it can be done on a no-net loss basis. 9 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 11 MR. JACKSON: See you in the morning. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 13 MR. JACKSON: So that I understand, Mr. Caffrey, 14 Mr. Hildebrand will be here at 9:00. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: He'll be here first thing in the 16 morning. 17 MR. JACKSON: And we will start where we are. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll start with you and he'll leave 19 mid-morning. And then we will start with Mr. Maddow for 20 Contra Costa. And then we'll go back to Mr. Hildebrand 21 when he returns. See you all at 9:00 in the morning. 22 Thank you. 23 (The proceedings concluded at 3:59 p.m.) 24 ---oOo--- 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3861 1 REPORTER'S_CERTIFICATE __________ ___________ 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 I, MARY R. GALLAGHER, certify that I was the 6 Official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 3624 through 3862 herein constitute a 11 complete, true and correct record of the proceedings. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 13 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 1st day of 14 October, 1998. 15 16 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 3862