STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, SPETEMBER 24, 1998 9:00 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 4103 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 4104 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 4105 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 4106 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 4107 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 4108 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 4109 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 4110 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 4111 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 4112 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 4113 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 4114 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 4115 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 4116 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 4119 6 AFTERNOON SESSION 4216 7 END OF PROCEEDINGS 4320 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 9 PAUL MINASIAN 4126 10 PAUL S. SIMMONS 4155 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 4176 11 TIM O'LAUGHLIN 4182 MICHAEL JACKSON 4204 12 THOMAS BIRMINGHAM 4216 BY STAFF 4230 13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION: 14 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 4234 15 CASE IN CHIEF: 16 THE CITY OF STOCKTON 4241 17 THE PANEL: 18 DR. CARL CHEN 19 RUSSELL T. BROWN MORRIS L. ALLEN 20 SUSAN STUTZ-MCDONALD GARY INGRAHAM 21 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4117 1 INDEX (Cont'd) 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON: 4 DAVID SANDINO 4300 PAUL MINASIAN 4302 5 MICHAEL SEXTON 4304 DANIEL GALLERY 4312 6 BY STAFF 4315 7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON: 8 MORRIS ALLEN 4316 9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON: 10 MICHAEL SEXTON 4317 11 ---oOo--- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4118 1 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998, 9:00 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning. Welcome back. We are 5 now back on the Contra Costa case in chief. And I believe 6 have we not finished your cross, Mr. Sexton? My notes 7 aren't that clear. 8 MR. SEXTON: I have, Mr. Caffrey. I was wondering if 9 we could take up a procedural matter real quickly before we 10 get started with the Contra Costa matter. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. 12 MR. SEXTON: Yesterday afternoon Mr. Del Piero seemed 13 to be suggesting -- and I'm not sure if it was formalized 14 in the form of a motion, or if it was a directive. But 15 anyway, he seemed to be suggesting that as part of the EIR 16 on the alternatives that we ought to expand the EIR to 17 consider permitting regarding a San Luis drain, an 18 out-of-valley drain, whatever we would like to call it. 19 That option is not currently in the EIR. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: That's correct. 21 MR. SEXTON: And it seems to be very applicable to 22 this phase of the proceeding. So I am wondering if the 23 Chair would entertain that as a motion. And if you would, 24 whether you would give us a week to, essentially, reopen 25 direct testimony, submit some information on direct and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4119 1 then, perhaps, give us a half a day to put on two or three 2 witnesses to lay the foundation for the admission of the 3 evidence relating to the efficacy of a drain, the 4 availability of treatment options and the sizing. The 5 things Mr. Del Piero brought up yesterday in his 6 questioning. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: I appreciate your motion. And I want 8 to talk to Counsel a little bit about it. And we will take 9 a minute or two to do that right now. I have my thoughts 10 on it and I want to make sure that we're all on the same 11 page and in concert on this. Thank you. Let's take a 12 moment. 13 (Off the record from 9:05 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.) 14 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We're back. Thank you. 15 In response to Mr. Sexton's motion, we are not going to 16 expand the scope of this hearing. We are going to stay 17 within the scope as originally noticed. There was some 18 discussion of the subject that Mr. Sexton brings up this 19 morning. It was, perhaps, tangential to what we're doing 20 here, not within the scope of the noticed hearing. 21 There is another proceeding underway for that 22 subject. And so we are going to stay within the scope as 23 announced for this hearing. Again, it goes to the Board 24 Members to give the weight of evidence to make that 25 recognition. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4120 1 Mr. Pettit, do you wish to add anything or, 2 Ms. Leidigh? First Mr. Pettit. 3 MR. PETTIT: I guess I would just point out, 4 Mr. Chairman, Westlands submitted yesterday some testimony 5 that they had presented at a workshop where the Board 6 considered the drainage issue some time ago. To the best 7 of my knowledge, that issue is still in Federal Court. And 8 I think the Board had established the process. 9 In fact, I've discussed it with some of the 10 parties pursuant to the Board's direction under which if 11 the Bureau is directed to proceed with dealing the 12 drainage, or drainage issues as a result of Federal Court 13 proceedings, then the Board has directed that the Bureau 14 should prepare an EIR on that. And the Board would use the 15 EIR process to evaluate the project. 16 So I guess that doesn't add much to what you've 17 said. It's just an expansion on what you said which is 18 that there is a process in place that we find a means of 19 dealing with the drainage issues. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. 21 Ms. Leidigh, did you want to add anything? 22 MS. LEIDIGH: Not at this time. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 24 Mr. Birmingham? 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, if I may expand on what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4121 1 Mr. Pettit said? 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Board did previously adopt a 4 resolution directing Mr. Pettit to negotiate a Memorandum 5 of Understanding with the Department of the Interior and 6 Westlands Water District to -- to assign responsibility for 7 costs in connection with the preparation of an 8 Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact 9 Statement for applications to permit the drain. We have 10 negotiated that. 11 I believe that the Department of the Interior has 12 recently presented some information to Westlands concerning 13 the Department of Interior's potential direct and indirect 14 costs. And we are -- we, Westlands, are prepared to sign 15 the MOU. We've been working with Ms. Vassey (phonetic) of 16 the State Board's legal staff to negotiate that document 17 and with Mr. Turner, from the Department of the Interior. 18 And I think within a very short period of time we will be 19 going forward with that process. And so I think we are on 20 the verge of initiating the environmental studies required 21 to consider permits to construct the drain. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, we appreciate your bringing us 23 up-to-date on that, Mr. Birmingham. I presume that you are 24 telling us that as a courtesy, not necessarily as any kind 25 of emotion. And -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4122 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That's correct. I just wanted all 2 of the parties here as well to be aware of that process and 3 where we are in that process. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: And we appreciate that. And, of 5 course, this motion is without prejudice to any process, 6 tangential or otherwise. It's merely to keep us within the 7 scope of what we are about. And yesterday's situation was 8 one that is not always within the control of the Chair. 9 There are wide discretions allowed by the Board 10 Members. And it was of something of interest to one 11 particular Board Member. Again, though, there is an 12 appropriate and defined venue for that consideration of 13 that issue. 14 Mr. Jackson? Excuse me, Mr. Maddow. 15 MR. MADDOW: Yes, sir. 16 MR. JACKSON: For the record, I would like to support 17 the motion that was made. I do believe that it is clear 18 from the evidence in this record and produced at this point 19 in this hearing that the drain is a potential alternative 20 that it fits within the requirements of CEQA to examine all 21 possible alternatives in an environmental document. And 22 that to exclude it after receiving this evidence will give 23 you a document that is truly inadequate in terms of its 24 range of alternatives. And for the record, I would like to 25 make that point and ask that you reconsider your ruling. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4123 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Your position 2 on that has been made clear. It was made pretty clear 3 yesterday. 4 Mr. Nomellini. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for Central 6 Delta Parties. I join in the position that Mr. Jackson has 7 stated. I think the salinity of the San Joaquin River 8 cannot be isolated from the question, legitimately. How we 9 dovetail them, I can understand you've got another 10 proceeding going. 11 But before this proceeding is concluded, I believe 12 it's legally necessary that the two be meshed in some 13 fashion. So I would join in that motion, not trying to 14 derail us, but I think technically that's a position that 15 we would probably feel is correct and would probably urge 16 at a later time as well. Thank you. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: To be completely fair -- and thank 18 you, Mr. Nomellini, I can't sit here today in the present 19 and tell you that such a thing is impossible, some kind of 20 meeting and joining, we just have to see where that process 21 and this one takes us. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: I understand. I just wanted to be on 23 the record because we may fight later. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Maddow. 25 MR. MADDOW: Robert Maddow for the Contra Costa Water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4124 1 District. I really have a question that goes to something 2 that Mr. Nomellini just said, and that's the relationship 3 between the two proceedings. 4 Yesterday's colloquy went eventually in the 5 direction of the possibility of a treatment plant 6 alternative. And is it fair for the parties to assume, 7 Mr. Chairman, that to the extent that issue was discussed 8 yesterday, that your ruling is an indication that you 9 believe that any response to that issue, any further 10 discussion of that treatment plant issue would belong in 11 that other proceeding; and would, therefore, be outside the 12 notice, outside the scope of this particular proceeding? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I think -- well, I have an 14 answer but, Ms. Leidigh, do you have some thoughts? 15 MS. LEIDIGH: Well, basically, it is a separate but 16 related proceeding and somewhat tangential to this 17 proceeding. But small amounts of information that help tie 18 things together are not necessarily irrelevant. And I 19 think the Board will have to rule as the evidence comes 20 along. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it's a question of relevancy. 22 There's no doubt that Mr. Del Piero brought it up yesterday 23 and he cross-examined on that basis. And it is in the 24 record. We would strongly and clearly prefer that it be 25 kept within its appropriate venue. However, as Ms. Leidigh CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4125 1 says, if it is tangential and if there are relevant reasons 2 to touch on it from time to time in presentations, we'll 3 have to make judgments as we go along. 4 All right. Anything else on that subject? All 5 right. Mr. Maddow, would you like to proceed -- I mean did 6 you -- 7 MR. MADDOW: The Contra Costa panel is in place and 8 prepared to undergo cross-examination, Mr. Chairman. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. We had 10 completed Mr. Sexton's cross-examination. And next we had 11 Mr. Minasian. And I'll read the order we have here. After 12 Mr. Minasian we have Mr. Simmons, Mr. Nomellini, 13 Mr. O'Laughlin. 14 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Caffrey, I was outside of the 15 hearing at the time, but I would like to be added to the 16 list. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We'll add you after 18 Mr. O'Laughlin, Mr. Jackson. 19 ---oOo--- 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 21 BY THE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 22 BY PAUL R. MINASIAN 23 MR. MINASIAN: Dr. Shum, my name is Paul Minasian and 24 I'm representing the Exchange Contractors today. Could we 25 take a look at Figure 7. The dark line at the bottom is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4126 1 the baseline that you've used in terms of the source of 2 water to Rock Slough, Exhibit 2, Contra Costa County, 3 Figure 7. 4 DR. SHUM: Yes. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. And the jagged line is 6 basically the projection using the Fischer Model of the 7 percentage of San Joaquin water that would enter the Rock 8 Slough pumps, providing the South Delta agricultural flow 9 barriers were in place and did not have a function of 10 passing water through the barriers. 11 DR. SHUM: Not passing water from the east to west 12 direction, but from west to east it is allowed. 13 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. The model that you used is 14 basically the Fischer Delta Model simulation? 15 DR. SHUM: It is. 16 MR. MINASIAN: What changes did you make in the 17 Fischer Delta Model in order to accommodate a calculation 18 or estimation of the San Joaquin water that would be 19 effectively diverted to Rock Slough as a result of 20 agricultural barriers? 21 DR. SHUM: I put in three barriers at the three 22 locations. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Did you make any other changes in the 24 Fischer Model? 25 DR. SHUM: By "changes" are you referring to -- are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4127 1 you referring to the version, or -- 2 MR. MINASIAN: Yes that's a good way to approach it. 3 Thank you, Dr. Denton. There's various versions of the 4 Fischer Model, are there not? 5 DR. SHUM: Yes. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Which version did you use? 7 DR. SHUM: It's for the flow simulation I used 8 Version 10. 9 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. And did you make any 10 alterations or additions to that model to accommodate in 11 Delta agricultural use, or in-delta drainage discharge to 12 particular channels? 13 DR. SHUM: No -- may I clarify? 14 MR. MINASIAN: Absolutely. 15 DR. SHUM: The hydrology I used is the historical 16 hydrology of August -- August 1998. So all the simulations 17 repetition of the 25 days from August 26th to August 30th 18 repeated it over four type -- four spring cycles. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Would you take the Board 20 Members and myself through Version 10 in regard to what it 21 includes and what it does not include. And let me ask you 22 a series of questions designed to do that. 23 Does Version 10 of the Fischer Model assume 24 certain agricultural diversions are taking place on certain 25 interior channels in the Central Delta? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4128 1 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 2 MR. MINASIAN: And does it assume that certain 3 agricultural drain discharges are occurring on those same 4 channels at the same time? 5 DR. SHUM: Yeah, but slightly different location. 6 MR. MINASIAN: And does it assume those in constant 7 terms, in terms of the 30 days? 8 DR. SHUM: Yes, it does. 9 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. It does not take into account 10 patterns that may change because of weather, or 11 concentrations because of particular crop patterns, does 12 it? 13 DR. SHUM: Not within the simulation period. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Now, you heard the testimony of 15 Mr. Ford of the Department of Water Resources? 16 DR. SHUM: You have to be more specific. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Yes, I do. Assuming for a moment that 18 the Department of Water Resources used its model run and 19 came to the conclusion that they could not determine a 20 significant difference at Rock Slough, did your model run 21 involve any different assumptions to come to the 22 conclusions shown on Figure 7? 23 DR. SHUM: By "significant" are you referring to a 24 number different from what I have here for the same 25 hydrology simulation, or -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4129 1 MR. MINASIAN: Let's start with your question. I 2 don't believe that the DWR came up with a number, did they? 3 DR. SHUM: Not the same way I did. 4 MR. MINASIAN: Right. They came up with a conclusion 5 that they could not find a significant correlation using 6 the model between increased San Joaquin River flows at Rock 7 Slough with the agricultural barriers in place, did they? 8 Would you like me to rephrase it? It may be an awkward 9 question. 10 DR. SHUM: It may help if you have specific -- 11 MR. MINASIAN: What's the difference between you and 12 DWR reflected in your Figure 7? 13 DR. SHUM: Yeah. I think as we have discussed in the 14 last two days, we have some changes in the barrier 15 operations. And in this particular simulation I'm assuming 16 that there are no flow at all through the barriers from the 17 east to west direction. So that may be one possible 18 difference between the two simulations. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Would that difference overstate the 20 potential impact at Rock Slough of San Joaquin River water? 21 DR. SHUM: By "overstate" you are referring to 22 compared with the eco future operations, or -- 23 MR. MINASIAN: Let me withdraw the question. If the 24 assumptions that Grant Line was operated, as the DWR has 25 most lately indicated, were included in your model run of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4130 1 Version 10, would the line have been below the mean of 3 2 percent on Figure 7? 3 DR. SHUM: I believe so. 4 MR. MINASIAN: How much below? 5 DR. SHUM: We would have to have the exact details on 6 how the barriers is operated. For example, one version 7 I've seen is the barrier left opened even when the tide is 8 falling up to two or three hours before the low tide. And 9 that would make some difference in the circulation pattern. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Now, when -- when in the 11 testimony of yourself and Mr. Hasencamp it's talked about 12 "mitigate." 13 DR. SHUM: Yes. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Are you suggesting that the Fischer 15 Model be utilized as a way of developing an operating 16 criteria so that the barriers would be operated in a 17 particular fashion to protect Contra Costa's diversion at 18 Rock Slough and Los Vaqueros? 19 DR. SHUM: I believe that Contra Costa Water District 20 would support this approach. 21 MR. MINASIAN: And doing that, the perfection of the 22 mitigation measures is determined by the ability of humans 23 to quantify and predict what the changes are going to be, 24 isn't it? 25 DR. SHUM: To the best of my knowledge. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4131 1 MR. MINASIAN: The Hugo Fischer Model is not a model 2 that can predict with accuracy the water quality at a 3 particular point on the Delta, is it? 4 DR. SHUM: This is -- if you are referring to model 5 and certainty, this can be a very long answer. So I don't 6 know exactly. There are model uncertainty. And those 7 uncertainties have been examined in very much detail 8 throughout the calibration and verification process. 9 So in terms of comparing model output to what is 10 actually measured, sometimes there's difference. But the 11 difference could be due to a number of factors. For 12 example, the model input as -- as generally known in 13 in-delta version and return flows have not been very well 14 documented. So those are one of the potential 15 uncertainties in the model results. 16 MR. MINASIAN: Now, one of the famous games of 17 everybody, including attorneys, is to say, "Well, you can't 18 get accurate, so you can't really mitigate." 19 Let's just take this for a moment and ask 20 ourselves how we would calibrate the Hugo Fischer Model, 21 Version 10, to do what you are suggesting be done in regard 22 to the agricultural barriers, not you, but CCWD. 23 Look over on the left-hand side, you see some 24 scribbling 3 percent of 200 csf is equal to 6 csf. Do you 25 recognize 200 csf as the average amount pumped at Rock CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4132 1 Slough on the previous Figure 6? 2 DR. SHUM: I think that's about correct. 3 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. So we're dealing with about 6 4 cubic feet per second of San Joaquin River water that, 5 together with some other water, somehow gets into the Rock 6 Slough pumps, aren't we? 7 DR. SHUM: That's right. 8 MR. MINASIAN: All right. And we know that 6 csf is 9 about the amount of water that would be used on a 250-acre 10 alfalfa field, isn't it, about 1 csf per 40 acres? 11 DR. SHUM: I have no knowledge of that. 12 MR. MINASIAN: All right. Do you think that we could 13 ever calibrate this model -- Dr. Denton, go ahead. 14 DR. SHUM: Go ahead. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Do you think we could have 16 calibrated this model to get an acuity that we could adjust 17 the agricultural barrier operations, taking into account 18 the farmer diversion, his drain water going back, all of 19 the meanders of this channel to be able to keep that 6 csf 20 out of your pumps? 21 DR. SHUM: I think this is a misinterpretation of the 22 model uncertainty. If you allow me to elaborate on this. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Please. 24 DR. SHUM: We are looking at a diversion of 200 csf, 25 for model simulation we are likely to get salinity to go CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4133 1 with that -- that flow. By "uncertainty," for example, we 2 are talking about, just for the sake of argument, 5 3 percent. 5-percent uncertainties of 200 csf would be 10 4 csf. But we are talking about the 10 csf uncertainty on 5 this 200 csf. So if we apply the same percentage to that 6 6 csf, we are talking about 0.6 -- or 0.3 csf uncertainty. 7 MR. MINASIAN: So isn't a summary of your statement 8 that basically the model uncertainty would indicate that, 9 in fact, you can use the uncertainty for purposes of 10 predicting the results at Rock Creek from the particular 11 change in agricultural diversions barrier? How does the 12 uncertainty work in terms of mitigation measure? 13 DR. SHUM: For example, if we come to the conclusion 14 based on the model results that the salinities impact is, 15 say, 5 milligrams per liter chloride. And we recognize 16 that from the verification in calibration runs, that the 17 salinity simulation would have, for sake of argument, a 18 10-percent error, then this 5 milligram per liter impact 19 would be likely to be within 10 percent either way of that. 20 So it would be between 4.5 to 5.5. 21 MR. MINASIAN: So to get the 3-percent change in 22 water quality from the San Joaquin River water, what it 23 means is that the model could be telling us that we either 24 could get the same change at 6.6 csf or at 16 csf; is that 25 right? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4134 1 DR. SHUM: No, that's not right. How do you come to 2 that conclusion? 3 MR. MINASIAN: Well -- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: You want to take the oath? 5 MR. MINASIAN: No. Okay. You disagree with my 6 statement? 7 DR. SHUM: Yes. 8 MR. MINASIAN: Tell us why you disagree, if you know. 9 DR. SHUM: I'm not sure how you get from .6 csf to 10 16 csf. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. My question to you is: With 12 the model -- the variances within the model and all of the 13 factors that you know, is it, in fact, true that your 14 predictions from the model runs that there would be a 15 3-percent increase in the amount of San Joaquin River water 16 at Rock Slough, are based upon a model that does not take 17 into account temperable changes in agricultural diversions 18 and drain water returns and has the normal sort of 19 variances in a model of this nature; is that true? 20 DR. SHUM: Yeah, that's correct. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Now, does -- in your opinion, 22 based upon water operations, does that mean that we 23 shouldn't have agricultural barriers? 24 DR. SHUM: I think I'm not clear on why you say that 25 there should not be -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4135 1 MR. MINASIAN: Let me rephrase it in a different way. 2 As a scientist, you work with models all the time, don't 3 you? 4 DR. SHUM: Frequently. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Yeah. There's just a way for human 6 beings to think about what might happen if something is 7 done in the human world, right? 8 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 9 MR. MINASIAN: And we're dealing with a really 10 uncertain world out here in the Delta, aren't we? 11 DR. SHUM: I'll take your word for it. 12 MR. MINASIAN: We're dealing with a swamp that people 13 are trying to run water through -- 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Hey, wait a minute. I love that 15 swamp. 16 MR. MINASIAN: I apologize. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't think we're allowed to use 18 that word anymore. I think it's politically incorrect. 19 MR. MINASIAN: All right. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: At least in California. 21 MR. MINASIAN: We're dealing with complex and 22 labyrinth channels and interests that we're trying to run 23 water through. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: It's a complicated water estuary, 25 Paul. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4136 1 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. All right. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Now, in this particular case as a 3 scientist, do you think it's possible to allow the 4 agricultural barriers to be installed and operate them in a 5 fashion that there would be a minimum impact upon Contra 6 Costa? 7 DR. SHUM: I don't want to be picky, but minimum 8 is -- 9 MR. MINASIAN: Right. 10 DR. SHUM: -- is a subjective term. But in terms of 11 reducing the impacts from what is proposed in the Draft 12 EIR -- ISDP Draft EIR operations of the barriers, I think 13 the impacts could be reduced. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. So the results of the model run 15 in your opinion and the results of this figure do not 16 result in a position that these facilities should not be 17 built and installed? 18 DR. SHUM: As we discussed in detail in the exhibit, 19 Exhibit Number 2, we believe that the alternatives in 20 accomplishing the same objectives and if these barriers 21 objectives are chosen, adopted, there are the impacts, if 22 any, need to be fully mitigated. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. 24 DR. SHUM: Dr. Denton also testified yesterday in 25 response to a question that the District does not oppose CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4137 1 the installation of the barriers, per se. 2 MR. MINASIAN: The terms of operation of the barriers 3 versus operation of the agricultural diversions and drain 4 discharges, which do you think would be the most suitable 5 in terms of trying to protect the water quality at Contra 6 Costa's intake at Rock Slough? 7 MR. MADDOW: I'm going to object, Mr. Chairman, on 8 the grounds of vagueness. I think the question could be 9 improved -- 10 MR. MINASIAN: Let me withdraw it. You're absolutely 11 right, Bob. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, gentlemen. 13 MR. MINASIAN: In terms of the tools available for 14 managing the water quality at Contra Costa's Rock Slough 15 intake, would you indicate to us which of the tools, either 16 operating the agricultural barriers or attempting to help 17 the farmers time their irrigation diversions and drain 18 water discharges into the channels leading to Rock Slough 19 would give the greatest reduction in the amounts of San 20 Joaquin River water reaching Rock Slough? 21 DR. SHUM: You would have to quantify the flexibility 22 we have. Like how much withholding, or changes in timing 23 we can accomplish. And if you give me that information, we 24 can go into some analytical analysis to try to get some 25 estimates on that. But at this point, I can't answer it. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4138 1 MR. MINASIAN: Would it be in rough proportion to the 2 amounts of water and the amounts of salinity that are being 3 discharged into the Central Delta either through the main 4 stem of the river, or through the farmer's activity? 5 DR. SHUM: Are you referring to in-Delta discharge? 6 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 7 DR. SHUM: This particular result, this particular 8 graph does not specifically give the model results for 9 in-delta discharge. And in my examination of the model 10 results, the amounts of in-delta drainage reaching the 11 intakes under the existing and under the with-barrier 12 scenario are not much different. Both are -- the 13 difference is within 1 percent. So in terms of water 14 quality impacts on Rock Slough it is minimal. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Did I understand from your answer that 16 Version 10 that you utilized showed no differences in terms 17 of agricultural diversions and discharges in the Central 18 Delta? 19 DR. SHUM: Are you referring to model input, or model 20 output? 21 MR. MINASIAN: Model output. 22 DR. SHUM: The difference is very small. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. So you would guess that 24 regulating, or -- or controlling the amounts of water 25 applied to the fields and put back on the fields in August CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4139 1 of 1988 would have very little impact upon the 6 csf that 2 would reach Rock Slough? 3 DR. SHUM: It would be -- if you look at the actual 4 model input, the in-delta simulation, or in-delta diversion 5 is around 4,000 csf, if I remember correctly. And the ag 6 return flow was around 1,000 csf, and that is distributed 7 all over the Delta. 8 If you compared that amount to the San Joaquin 9 River flow, which was 1500 csf that was assumed, the 10 magnitudes are comparable, but because of the range of 11 variability that you can modify the drainage may not be 12 that much. The impact might not be very significant. You 13 follow? 14 MR. MINASIAN: I ask the questions here, Dr. Shum. 15 Let me -- let me deal with you at lunch about that. 16 Dr. Shum, do the principles we just described also apply if 17 one uses the Hugo Fischer Model and other versions in 18 regard to the affects of building the San Luis drain and 19 discharging the water in the Delta? 20 That is, is it possible to use a model as a 21 predictive device and to manage a facility of that nature 22 in a fashion that the intake at Rock Slough would not end 23 up with greater chlorides? 24 DR. SHUM: Are you asking -- if you have specific 25 operation of valley drain, so that you can tell me what the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4140 1 salinity coming into the San Joaquin River, which is 2 different from the existing conditions, how that would 3 affect the salinity at Rock Slough and when the Fischer 4 Delta Model could be used for that purpose? 5 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 6 DR. SHUM: It can. 7 MR. MINASIAN: There are some projects that we know 8 from model runs and predictive abilities from models cannot 9 be built without having certain inevitable impacts, aren't 10 there? 11 DR. SHUM: If by that you refer to it will change the 12 conditions, yes. 13 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. The San Luis drain and 14 discharge of water into the Delta at various points has 15 been modeled and looked at over the years by Contra Costa, 16 has it not? 17 DR. SHUM: Not that I'm aware of. 18 MR. MINASIAN: So you haven't done that work? 19 DR. SHUM: I haven't done it personally. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Dr. Denton, have you done that work? 21 DR. DENTON: Mainly we depend on other people's work, 22 like DWR and some consultants. We've looked at it in a 23 preliminary sense, but nothing in detail. 24 MR. MINASIAN: So in terms of using a model it's 25 possible, in your view, to use the Hugo Fischer Model to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4141 1 build a San Luis drain and to have a reasonable 2 predictability to operate that drain so that there will be 3 no impact at rock drain -- Rock Slough? 4 MR. MADDOW: Do you understand the question, 5 Dr. Shum? Let me approach it this way: Mr. Chairman, I'm 6 going to object. At the very least, that's a compound 7 question. I'm particularly interested in the part about 8 using the Fischer Model to build the San Luis drain. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can you rephrase the question, 10 Mr. Minasian? 11 MR. MINASIAN: Yeah. I think if Dr. Denton is saying 12 they haven't run that, let me withdraw it. It would be 13 unfair to try to go any further. Are there any principles 14 that apply in using the -- a model, Doctor, that would be 15 different in regard to the San Luis drain than the use of 16 the Fischer Model in regard to predicting water quality 17 changes in chlorides at Rock Slough? 18 DR. DENTON: I think there's a lot of examples. I 19 could give you some examples where it wouldn't be helpful 20 to you, and that would be the Fischer Model is a 21 one-dimensional model. So it doesn't deal with, for 22 instance, if there was a discharge in the area of Chipps 23 Island, it wouldn't be looking at what would be happening 24 at the near shore. It wouldn't be looking at bio 25 cumulation of selenium, things like that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4142 1 You wouldn't be able to get -- the fact that there 2 would be the build up of selenium in the muds on one side 3 of Chipps Island or something like that. Those are details 4 that you just couldn't do with the Fischer Delta Model. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. You remember the good old days, 6 we refer to those in water sometime? 7 DR. DENTON: 1948. 8 MR. MINASIAN: 1948. Mr. Hasencamp -- I'd like to 9 offer for identification the 1948 water supervision study 10 of the Department of Water Resources. I believe it would 11 be the Exchange Contractors Number 1. 12 Bill, I don't expect you to have remembered this. 13 Do you see on the slide page 158 of that report which 14 purports to be a chloride reading at Rock Slough intake in 15 the year 1948 on various dates? 16 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Now, from your background in 18 water resources you know in 1948 that Shasta existed and 19 operated? 20 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 21 MR. MINASIAN: And that Friant existed and operated? 22 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 23 MR. MINASIAN: But the Delta-Mendota Canal did not 24 exist and operate? 25 MR. HASENCAMP: I don't know that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4143 1 MR. MINASIAN: Is anybody on the panel, including 2 Mr. Maddow, able to testify about this? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: No. 4 MR. MINASIAN: All right. 5 DR. DENTON: We do know that it was prior to the 6 State Water Project. 7 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. Thank you. For the moment just 8 assume that the Delta-Mendota Canal began deliveries in 9 1951. Do you see that the chloride readings on those 10 various dates, except for some of the summer and fall 11 months, were above the 65 target set by the Board? 12 MR. HASENCAMP: I see that they are above 65 13 milligrams per liter concentration, yes. 14 MR. MINASIAN: And in 1948, is there a reason that 15 the readings are above 65, if you know, in light of the 16 existence of Shasta, the deliveries of water from Shasta 17 and the operations of the Contra Costa intake? 18 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, the major factor affecting 19 salinity, of course, is the hydrology. And in dry years 20 the salinity is much higher. In wet years it tends to be 21 much lower. So -- 22 MR. MINASIAN: I have a page that might help you on 23 that. If -- here's 20 copies -- it's 24. 24 DR. DENTON: It would also be helpful if we had the 25 data from Old River, which is at our other intake. We CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4144 1 would also be taking water from Edmund Creek. It would be 2 helpful to have that information. 3 MR. MINASIAN: I don't have that with me. How would 4 that help, Dr. Denton? 5 DR. DENTON: One of the benefits of the Los Vaqueros 6 Project, it also gives us the opportunity to take water 7 from Old River intake, which is much farther away from the 8 ocean. So in terms of sea water intrusion it's always 9 better water quality than the Rock Slough intake. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Is it a correct -- if you look at page 11 24, here are 20 copies of that, do you see that -- 12 MR. MADDOW: Excuse me, Mr. Minasian. Could we 13 identify this a little more clearly, page 24, of what? 14 What are we looking at? 15 MR. MINASIAN: The 1948 water supervision report. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Is this the second page of Exchange 17 Contractor Number 1 -- 18 MR. MINASIAN: Yeah, it is. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: -- or is this Exchange Contractor 20 Number 2? 21 MS. WHITNEY: What is it? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: It's part of Exchange Contractor 1, 23 page 2. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Let's set the scene. Do you see that 25 the San Joaquin River at Vernalis in terms of 50-year CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4145 1 normal flows was at 68 percent in that year? 2 MR. HASENCAMP: According to what you just handed me, 3 yes, I see that. 4 MR. MINASIAN: And do you see that the ten-day low 5 flow in 1948 in August was basically 606 second feet at 6 Vernalis? 7 MR. HASENCAMP: I see two figures. 8 MR. MINASIAN: Right. The figure above is 357 -- 357 9 second feet? 10 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 11 MR. MINASIAN: That's a ten-day flow in March of 12 1948? 13 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 14 MR. MINASIAN: And does the second figure seem to be 15 606 csf for a flow in August of 1948? 16 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 17 MR. MINASIAN: By the way, you work with hydrology 18 figures regularly, do you not? 19 MR. HASENCAMP: I have, yes. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Do you have a professional 21 opinion about whether or not you could irrigate 122,000 22 acres of ground with 606 csf in the South Delta Water 23 Agency? 24 MR. HASENCAMP: No. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Let's go back, Dr. Denton, if CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4146 1 we could to the chart. 2 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me, could I ask a clarifying 3 question? 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Whitney. 5 MS. WHITNEY: Was that: No, you have opinion -- 6 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, no opinion. 7 MS. WHITNEY: -- or, no, you couldn't irrigate? 8 MR. HASENCAMP: That was no to the no opinion. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. Good point. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. So in the good old days, 1948 11 major features of the CVP are built and they're operating 12 and you're pumping water at Rock Creek -- at Rock Slough 13 were above 65, the target, in a significant number of 14 months but we're not above in the summer months, are we? 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, keeping in mind that these are 16 evidently one-day samples, it's -- you could conclude that 17 probably in between the samples we were not above. But, 18 again, they are just one-day samples. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Now, at some later time the 20 State -- did you wish to expand, Bill? 21 MR. HASENCAMP: No. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. At some later date the State 23 and the Feds come along and build these pumps and start 24 pumping, don't they? 25 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4147 1 MR. MINASIAN: And that improves the chlorides at 2 Rock Slough, does it not? 3 MR. HASENCAMP: As far as Delta hydrodynamics, I 4 would defer to my three colleagues who are much more 5 enlightened on that section than I am. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Dr. Denton, would you like to take 7 that? 8 DR. DENTON: It depends on whether you're talking 9 about 1948, or in general. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Let's take a subnormal year, something 11 that is a critical or dry year. 12 DR. DENTON: Uh-huh. So in some senses the 13 operations of the State and Federal projects would make 14 things worse, because you would reduce Delta outflows and 15 there would be more salinity intrusion. 16 MR. MINASIAN: You've got a model run attached to the 17 testimony that was submitted for the critical years 1926 18 through '34, I believe. And it shows the predicted 19 chloride at Rock Slough in each case. I don't expect you 20 to compare those readings, but would you say, generally, 21 those readings would indicate that the chlorides would be 22 less in the base case situation without the agricultural 23 barriers but with the pumps operating? 24 DR. DENTON: Which one are you referring to in the 25 exhibits so we could just refresh our memory as to what the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4148 1 results are? 2 MR. MINASIAN: I'd be happy to. It's CCWD Exhibit 3 3 and there are 14 -- 14 pages of it -- 15 pages of it. 4 MR. MADDOW: Mr. Minasian, there are several pages in 5 Exhibit 3 that could conceivably be the pages that you are 6 referring to. Could you -- 7 MR. MINASIAN: I'd be happy. 8 MR. MADDOW: Could you get a little more specific? 9 It would help the witness. 10 MR. MINASIAN: I'd be happy to. Yes. We started at 11 page 9 and went through page 14. And in each case there's 12 an October chloride reading with the title "RS," which I 13 would take to be Rock Slough. 14 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, that's right. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. And those readings are a 16 computer run based upon an attempt to predict the salinity? 17 DR. SHUM: We need to clarify at this point. Bill, 18 would you -- these model runs are not simulations of 19 historical conditions. This is based on the existing level 20 of the amount, or -- is that correct? 21 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 22 DR. SHUM: So they are not attempting to say what 23 happened in the past. What it's saying is under the 24 current operations conditions of, say, the export projects 25 and various conditions in the Delta as it exists now, if we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4149 1 have the same historical hydrology in terms of unimpaired 2 flow what would the chloride have been? 3 So we are rewinding the project, not to start in 4 1950 or 1960's, but all the way back to 1922, the beginning 5 of the simulation. So there may be some confusion there on 6 comparing the model results we had in Exhibit 3 and what 7 you have up here. 8 MR. MINASIAN: All right. Okay. We started on this 9 by asking the question: Didn't the projects, by their 10 pumping activities, bring more Shasta or Sacramento River 11 water to Rock Slough that existed prior to the pumping 12 plant's operations? 13 Are you able to answer that question looking at 14 the model and the runs on page 8 through 14? 15 DR. DENTON: These runs don't look at before and 16 after project operations, of course. But there is the 17 situation that one benefit, I guess you call it, of the 18 project would be the ability of the Tracy pumps to remove 19 agricultural drainage from the South Delta. And maybe that 20 is an improvement. And so in removing it would also be at 21 times some replacement with Shasta water. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. But the pumps also draw 23 Sacramento River water towards Rock Slough and Los 24 Vaqueros, do they not? 25 DR. DENTON: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4150 1 MR. MINASIAN: So when we use the phase "base case" 2 either in CEQA, or in your testimony today, are we 3 correctly referring -- are we really referring to a 4 circumstance which is created by the historical development 5 of water projects that's allowed you to get water at this 6 location at an improved quality over and above what would 7 have been there had the projects not developed their 8 pumping plants? 9 DR. DENTON: Certainly, that is the existing 10 condition that you'd be looking at in this CEQA and various 11 things. And we would have a reasonable expectation that 12 that should be maintained and not degraded. 13 MR. MINASIAN: And the reasonable expectation is that 14 you should be permitted to continue to get your water 15 through this ecologically correct labyrinth of channels. 16 Is that -- that's the understanding that you've approached 17 this with; is that correct? 18 DR. DENTON: That -- I think there's a lot of water 19 rights issues involved there, the right to do whatever we 20 do. 21 MR. MINASIAN: All right. Let me withdraw the 22 question. Your brother or sister district, East Bay MUD, 23 built a pipeline, did it not? 24 DR. DENTON: Yes, it did. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. And you did not? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4151 1 DR. DENTON: No, we didn't. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Which base case should we use 3 1948, or some later date after the pump started operating? 4 DR. DENTON: Base case for what analysis? 5 MR. MINASIAN: In terms of trying to determine what 6 quality of water you should receive at Rock Slough which 7 would be unaffected by the agricultural barriers. 8 DR. DENTON: We should deal with existing conditions 9 before the barriers go in. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Nothing further. Thank you. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Minasian. We have 12 your -- 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Stubchaer. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I wasn't clear on that last answer. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Oh, go ahead. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Minasian, you said the base case 18 was before the barriers went in, but I wasn't clear if that 19 was before the export pumps went in or after the export 20 pumps went in. 21 DR. DENTON: Sorry. Yes, I meant the existing 22 condition as it is now or maybe in the next couple years 23 while they're still designing and improving the barriers. 24 And at that point we would be looking at what the impacts 25 of the barriers are on the existing condition at this time. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4152 1 MR. MINASIAN: I tried this once before and I didn't 2 get what you were after. Let me try it, again. Base case 3 can be a scientific term, can't it? 4 DR. DENTON: Yes. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Or it can be an ethical, moral, or 6 legal term? 7 DR. DENTON: Perhaps. 8 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Let's just talk about from the 9 physical point of view. In these circumstances, is it 10 CCWD's position that it should be guaranteed the water 11 quality at Rock Slough and Los Vaqueros, that it would have 12 had these two pumping stations continued to operate in some 13 fashion -- 14 DR. DENTON: Which two pumping stations? 15 MR. MINASIAN: The CVP and the State Water Project. 16 DR. DENTON: Could you repeat the question? 17 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. Take a hypothetical, assume for 18 a moment that the water quality in September/October is 19 improved at Rock Slough, because the State and Federal 20 pumps are pumping water and bringing Sacramento River water 21 towards your intakes. Have that hypo in mind? 22 DR. DENTON: Okay. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. The water quality that results 24 from that is now affected under our hypothetical by the 25 agricultural barriers, more San Joaquin River water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4153 1 approaches Rock Slough and is drawn into the pumps. 2 Okay. In judging whether you're harmed, should we 3 look at the situation where the pumps are operating, the 4 Federal and State pumps, or should we look back at 1948 5 before the pumps were in place? 6 DR. DENTON: We should -- we should take into account 7 as the pumps are operating at the moment, taking into 8 account that there's not always the benefit that you seem 9 to be hinting at. There is this concept that during 10 periods of time where there's heavy pumping before you will 11 get sea water intrusion. It's not just a matter of 12 Sacramento River water coming down, there is sea water 13 intrusion as well. So the operations of the pump is not 14 always beneficial relative to 1948. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. And there are other human 16 changes that have resulted in improvements to Contra Costa 17 water quality at Rock Slough and Los Vaqueros intakes, 18 aren't there? 19 DR. DENTON: If you could -- as to specifically what 20 those would be? 21 MR. MINASIAN: Well, let's just imagine that the 22 alfalfa or rice market are terrible for a year, that would 23 be an improvement to your water quality, wouldn't it? 24 DR. DENTON: If there was a reduction in pesticides 25 and drainage, probably. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4154 1 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. The question is: To what 2 degree should we be guaranteeing you water quality based 3 upon other people's changes in the environment which have 4 occurred over the years? Let me withdraw. 5 DR. DENTON: I'm not sure. 6 MR. MINASIAN: I think it's a policy area. Thank 7 you. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 9 We have your Exhibit 1 identified in the record and we'll 10 consider it at the end of this case in chief. 11 Mr. Simmons. Good morning, sir. 12 ---oOo--- 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 14 BY THE CITY OF STOCKTON 15 BY PAUL SIMMONS 16 MR. SIMMONS: Good morning Mr. Chairman. For the 17 record, my name is Paul Simmons for the City of Stockton. 18 Mr. Hasencamp, I wanted to ask you a few more 19 questions to help clarify what you did with your testimony 20 regarding the model. Now, as I understand it, the purpose 21 of your testimony was to help illustrate the kinds of 22 impacts of Los Vaqueros' performance that can occur due to 23 changes in salinity. Is that fair? 24 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 25 MR. SIMMONS: And in order to do that you developed a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4155 1 spreadsheet model to look at the kinds of changes that 2 might happen? 3 MR. HASENCAMP: Right. 4 MR. SIMMONS: And the spreadsheet model more or less 5 then operates the reservoir, the intakes and the discharge 6 based on the goals that the District has for operation of 7 the reservoir? 8 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, along with biological opinion 9 requirements and other operation requirements -- 10 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. 11 MR. HASENCAMP: -- in the project. 12 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Just to understand how the model 13 would work in one scenario, as I understand it you have a 14 goal that you would not put water in the reservoir unless 15 it's 50 milligrams of chloride or less; is that right? 16 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 17 MR. SIMMONS: And is that a goal that the model 18 operates on? 19 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 20 MR. SIMMONS: So in a scenario, I want -- if you can 21 just assume some facts, I want you to tell me what the 22 model would do with these facts. And the facts are that 23 there's a two-month period at a time when you would like to 24 be filling the reservoir, you would like to be filling it 25 for storage purposes, for fisheries to get later fishery CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4156 1 benefits, for recreation, and you have every reason in the 2 world to want to fill it for that two-month period. 3 And in the first month the chlorides at the intake 4 are 40 parts chloride. And in the second month the 5 chloride at the intake is 51. Now, does the model that you 6 used here take that water at 51? 7 MR. HASENCAMP: No. 8 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. In the testimony you say that 9 the simulated operations are based on given intake 10 salinities. I'm wondering what the word "given" means in 11 there. Is that current, or some representation of current? 12 MR. HASENCAMP: Given from the model simulation done 13 outside the spreadsheet model that was representative of 14 the current conditions -- the current level of development 15 and the current conditions with the order in place, or the 16 1995 Water Quality Control Plan in place. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. I just wanted to understand that 18 term. Then, you have a second condition for which you 19 arbitrarily assume a 5-milligram per liter increase at both 20 intakes in the dry and critical years; is that right? 21 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 22 MR. SIMMONS: And then you compare the results from 23 the model in one scenario versus the results of the model 24 in the other scenario; is that right? 25 MR. HASENCAMP: That's true. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4157 1 MR. SIMMONS: And the assumption that you used of the 2 5-milligram change, is that a year-round change in the 3 assumptions in the model? 4 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 5 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. And that assumption of a 6 5-milligram change year-round in the dry and critical 7 years, that leads to roughly a 2-milligram per liter change 8 in the long term; is that right, taking into account all 9 the year types? 10 MR. HASENCAMP: Long-term average, that's right. 11 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Based on the testimony there's 12 just one point that -- just get it out there, I'm sort of 13 struggling with. It seems improbable that the districts 14 would spend all of this money on a project that would just 15 be blown up if there were a 2-milligram per liter long-term 16 change in chloride, build a new project that would be 17 derailed by that change. Is that your testimony that 18 that's what would happen? 19 MR. HASENCAMP: I don't see the word "blown up" 20 anywhere in the testimony, or derailed. No. My testimony 21 is that even relatively small increases in chlorides can 22 significantly affect the operation of the project. And 23 yes, the project would still have benefits, but 24 significantly less benefits. And we believe that those 25 impacts should be mitigated. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4158 1 MR. SIMMONS: Including the 2-milligram per liter 2 long-term hypothetical change? 3 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 4 MR. SIMMONS: But getting back to what would happen, 5 in the real world do you anticipate the District will 6 operate the reservoir taking into consideration some 7 balancing of storage, fisheries and water quality? 8 MR. HASENCAMP: Each year the operators will -- 9 will -- again, as I said yesterday, they will try to use 10 the information that they have. But it's impossible to 11 know what the chlorides will be in the upcoming 12 to -- 12 months to -- or more. So they will try to operate to meet 13 a 65 goal. But if it becomes obvious that they're going to 14 run out of water, then they might adjust operations. But 15 there's no way of knowing in advance what the chlorides 16 will be at each intake. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Do you anticipate, or is it your 18 opinion, that it will be operated within the rules in the 19 spreadsheet? 20 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, like any model, you put in some 21 assumptions in operations that you try to simulate 22 operations, just as DWRSIM does for the State and Federal 23 projects. You don't operate realtime with that model, 24 because, yes, for each year, you operate on what you have 25 and what you think you know. So the model assumes that if CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4159 1 you operate it a certain way, here's the impacts. 2 MR. SIMMONS: Would the answer for my question be: 3 No, then, with some explanation? Do you have an answer? 4 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, the answer is, of course, it's 5 impossible to operate to a strict set of rules that change 6 on the 1st of every month. 7 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Shum, I have a 8 few questions about Exhibit 4. You have a copy with you? 9 I'm going to refer to the actual text a couple of times. 10 You have it? 11 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 12 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Good. At least, in part of this 13 exhibit you discuss the factors that affect dissolved 14 oxygen in the San Joaquin River. Is that right? 15 DR. SHUM: Not as much in detail as the particular 16 source from municipality wastewater treatment plants for 17 San Joaquin and Stockton. 18 MR. SIMMONS: Can you just describe for me the 19 documents, the data, the technical information that you 20 relied upon while you were preparing that testimony? 21 DR. SHUM: Yeah. I've been involved in a number of 22 processes, in the public comments process of municipal 23 wastewater dischargers. The data I relied on mostly are 24 the estimate of the biochemical oxygen demand in this 25 wastewater. And for this exhibit, in particular, I'm CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4160 1 referring to the discharge from -- at present from Stockton 2 from Tracy and the ones going to be coming on line at 3 Mountain House and, perhaps, Gold Rush City and maybe in 4 the longer term from Lathrop and other accumulative affects 5 of all of these discharges. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Can you tell me of the source of 7 estimates that you're talking about? 8 DR. SHUM: The "source" meaning? 9 MR. SIMMONS: Where you obtained the estimates that 10 you used to sum up? 11 DR. SHUM: From the -- either be the environment -- 12 environmental impacts studies in process. For example, the 13 ones for Mountain House and the other ones I read in the 14 newspaper like Gold Rush City and Lathrop. 15 MR. SIMMONS: Do you know what the concentration of 16 BOD in the discharge for the City of Stockton is during the 17 summer months? 18 DR. SHUM: I believe it's in the 10's, but I'm not 19 sure of that, 10's of milligrams per liter. 20 MR. SIMMONS: And you talked about growth is it your 21 opinion, or do you believe, that there will be -- can you 22 tell me what the total increase in the volume of BOD 23 discharge that the City of Stockton might be in the next 24 ten years? 25 DR. SHUM: I haven't looked at the NPDES permit CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4161 1 and -- and environmental impact reports. My guess would be 2 of the order of 10 to 30 percent. 3 MR. SIMMONS: That's your guess? 4 DR. SHUM: I'm sorry? 5 MR. SIMMONS: That is your guess? 6 DR. SHUM: That's my guess. 7 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. I want to talk about the 8 salinity issue a little bit. You talked about potential 9 changes in your intake water quality related to both the 10 ISDP and, separately, head of Old River barrier operations; 11 is that right? 12 DR. SHUM: Yes. 13 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Could you look at your testimony 14 page 1, the second paragraph, the second sentence, this is 15 Exhibit 4. It says: 16 (Reading): 17 "The operation of the head of Old River barrier 18 in September, October and November could 19 significantly degrade water quality at CCWD's 20 intakes." 21 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 22 MR. SIMMONS: And then in the final sentence, if I 23 could just shorten it a little bit. Basically, you say 24 that any such water quality impacts on CCWD should be fully 25 analyzed and all adverse impacts should be fully mitigated; CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4162 1 is that right? 2 DR. SHUM: Yes. 3 MR. SIMMONS: Is it your understanding that the head 4 of Old River barrier has been operated since about 1962? 5 DR. SHUM: On and off. 6 MR. SIMMONS: At least, in the October/November 7 period and even sometimes it's a little bit in September; 8 is that right? 9 DR. SHUM: Yes. 10 MR. SIMMONS: And if that were to continue, who do 11 you believe should mitigate those impacts on Contra Costa 12 Water District, that condition that has existed for 35 13 years? 14 DR. SHUM: Are you referring to the permanent 15 operation for the head of Old River barriers in those three 16 months? 17 MR. SIMMONS: My first question is: If the head of 18 Old River barrier -- if the Board ordered that the head of 19 Old River barrier be operated in the same manner that it's 20 been operated historically, I take it it's your view that 21 those impacts on Contra Costa Water District should be 22 mitigated? 23 DR. SHUM: As far as I understand, the operations in 24 the fall are on a temporary basis. For example, in case of 25 temporary barriers projects, we have submitted extensive CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4163 1 comments to discuss our concerns on water quality impacts. 2 MR. SIMMONS: Right. 3 DR. SHUM: So just because it's been going on and the 4 issue has not been addressed, does not mean that we are not 5 concerned about that. 6 MR. SIMMONS: All right. And your answer talked 7 about the temporary barriers program. I'm asking you about 8 fall head of Old River barrier program that's been operated 9 for over 35 years. And what I want to know is: If that 10 program were operated in the same manner that it's been 11 operated historically, who does Contra Costa believe should 12 mitigate those impacts on the Contra Costa? 13 MR. MADDOW: Objection, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. 14 Simmons' question calls for the witnesses to speculate in 15 an area that's within the purview of the Board. I think it 16 goes beyond the scope of the cross-examination. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Does the witness have an opinion? 18 DR. SHUM: I'm sorry. I missed -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: There was an objection to the 20 question, Dr. Shum. 21 MR. MADDOW: The objection is on the basis that it's 22 calling for you to speculate in an area that is within the 23 responsibility of the Board. And, therefore, it goes 24 beyond the scope of your testimony. And, therefore, it's 25 impermissible cross-examination. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4164 1 DR. SHUM: I'm not prepared to answer the 2 policy-level questions. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: There's your answer, Mr. Simmons. 4 MR. SIMMONS: I'll ask the Board. Dr. Shum, wasn't 5 the Los Vaqueros Project designed and approved with full 6 knowledge of the historic operation of the fall at Old 7 River barrier? 8 DR. DENTON: Well, I think what we were doing was 9 just operating -- trying as best we could to include all 10 existing conditions in our modeling runs. I think what 11 we're trying to do here is address a new project that would 12 put a permanent barrier at the head of Old River under the 13 ISDP project. And that's primarily what we discussed in 14 our testimony. 15 MR. SIMMONS: My question was simply: Was the Los 16 Vaqueros Project designed and approved with full knowledge 17 of the historic operation of the fall of Old River barrier? 18 DR. DENTON: What we've been doing in the Los 19 Vaqueros -- in the modeling runs that we do do using the 20 Fischer Delta Model, in recent times has been including 21 barrier operations as part of the existing condition. But 22 I'm not sure on the time when the runs were done for Los 23 Vaqueros area whether we had the head of Old River barrier 24 in place. So we don't have an answer for that at this 25 point. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4165 1 MR. SIMMONS: Was the Los Vaqueros Project designed 2 and approved with knowledge of the proposal to construct 3 the barriers in the South Delta to improve circulation for 4 South Delta Water Agency? 5 DR. DENTON: We did -- we did our modeling and so -- 6 in the existing condition, future condition. And we did 7 take into account cumulative impacts as well, which would 8 have been the installation of permanent barriers. 9 MR. SIMMONS: You did the Delta project knowing that 10 the permanent program might be -- 11 DR. DENTON: Right. And Los Banos Grande and a lot 12 of other projects in the Delta Wetlands, taken all those 13 into account as part of our development of our project. 14 MR. SIMMONS: So -- could we put back Figure 7. 15 This is, Dr. Shum, Figure 7 from Exhibit 2. And this is a 16 way that you've illustrated the change in the percentage of 17 San Joaquin River water on this exhibit that would be at 18 Rock Slough if there were South Delta ag barriers; is that 19 right? 20 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 21 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. And, now, you used this to 22 conclude that there could be a 2-milligram per liter 23 increase in chlorides under this scenario; is that right? 24 DR. SHUM: There would be two to three milligrams per 25 liter chloride increase at the Rock Slough intake. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4166 1 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Your written testimony says two, 2 but is it two to three? 3 DR. SHUM: I thought it said three. I'm referring to 4 page -- page 9 of CCWD Exhibit 2, the first line. 5 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. I don't have that. I'm 6 referring to page 2 of CCWD Exhibit 4. It's two or three? 7 DR. SHUM: Yeah, two or three. 8 MR. SIMMONS: Two or three milligrams of chloride 9 change? 10 DR. SHUM: Yeah, either one. Oh, here. 11 MR. SIMMONS: Now, maybe you've been asked this in 12 many ways, but if this change, if it occurs, say, in 1 13 month, month of September, or even if it occurred in 12 14 months at this location, is that a significant impact in 15 your view? 16 DR. SHUM: Once, again, I think the term 17 "significant" is subjective. And I don't want to qualify 18 it that way. 19 MR. SIMMONS: Would this change in 1 month or in 12 20 months be more than a 5-percent change in base conditions? 21 DR. SHUM: The average salinity at Rock Slough in the 22 past, I believe, was -- I should have the number, but I 23 don't have it off the top of my head. I think it's around 24 100 chloride. So we'll be talking about a 2-percent 25 change. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4167 1 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. 2 DR. SHUM: There are two additional points I want to 3 make. One is the impact at Los Vaqueros is much higher. 4 The other is the cumulative impacts, not just from the 5 barrier's operations, but from the other projects that will 6 be coming on line would all add up. 7 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, I have an exhibit that I 8 would like to have marked as City of Stockton Number 57. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 10 MR. SIMMONS: And I, actually, have -- you need 20 11 right now? 12 MS. WHITNEY: Uh-huh. 13 MR. SIMMONS: I apologize, but I don't think I have 14 enough for the crowd. You do need three? 15 MR. MADDOW: Yes. 16 MR. SIMMONS: I'm marking it as 57, because we have 17 some pre-numbered exhibits we want to use this afternoon to 18 illustrate -- excuse me? 19 MS. WHITNEY: Isn't it 27? 20 MR. SIMMONS: 57. 21 MS. LEIDIGH: He said 57. 22 MR. SIMMONS: Exhibit 57 is the cover page and pages 23 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, and 5-11 of the final Environmental Impact 24 Report, Environmental Impact Statement for the Los Vaqueros 25 Project. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Board to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4168 1 take official notice of the contents of the EIR/EIS for the 2 Los Vaqueros. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Leidigh? 4 MS. LEIDIGH: Perhaps, the request for official 5 notice should be made after we've heard about it, rather 6 than before we've heard about it. It's pretty much the 7 same as accepting an exhibit into evidence. This document 8 is a document that could be officially noticed, though. 9 MR. SIMMONS: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking that 10 you officially notice the contents of the document. I'm 11 not going to rely on any given proposition stated in the 12 document. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm not sure I appreciate the 14 distinction of that versus presenting these pages as a 15 potential exhibit. 16 MS. LEIDIGH: There's really not very much 17 difference. 18 MR. SIMMONS: All right. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: But in any event, we have marked your 20 exhibit, Mr. Simmons, and we will consider it for adoption 21 into the record at the end of this particular case in chief 22 as we do with all cross-examination exhibits. 23 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me -- while we're at a break, in 25 view of the time, how much time do you think you're going CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4169 1 to need, Mr. Simmons? 2 MR. SIMMONS: 10 or 15. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay. Let's just go ahead, and then 4 we'll take the break after that. 5 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Dr. Shum, on the -- on page 5-8 6 do you see that there's a heading entitled "Delta Water 7 Quality Impact Assessment Methodology"? 8 DR. SHUM: Yes. 9 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. And if you could look at page 10 5-9, there's a subheading called "Impact Analysis Initial 11 Screening Procedure"? 12 DR. SHUM: Yes. 13 MR. SIMMONS: And I want to direct your attention to 14 the last sentence on this page, which says that: 15 (Reading): 16 "Salinity increases or decreases of less than 17 5 percent of base conditions are insignificant, 18 because changes of this magnitude are clearly 19 smaller than the uncertainty in the field 20 measurements and the modeling methods." 21 And there's a good deal of discussion in these 22 pages about objective criteria and subjective criteria for 23 evaluating significance, and I acknowledge that. 24 But my question is: In evaluating the 25 significance of the impacts of projects other than the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4170 1 District's project, does the District use these 2 significance criteria, or other significance criteria? 3 DR. DENTON: I could answer that just because I 4 worked on the Los Vaqueros Project before Dr. Shum arrived 5 at the District. Basically, in determining significance we 6 do often rely back to these significance criteria here to 7 say that, because of modeling uncertainty and uncertainties 8 on the data that's actually going into the models, it is 9 difficult to draw detailed conclusions on something that's 10 less than a 5-percent change. 11 But at the same time all things being equal going 12 into your model, if you have a before and after situation 13 where the only thing that's changed is someone's project 14 and you see a persistent positive impact, or positive 15 increase in salinity, then that draws your attention that 16 there may be a problem towards the water quality impact. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Would it be fair to apply these 18 criteria in any given project as far as you're concerned as 19 a determined significance of modeled water quality changes? 20 DR. DENTON: Yes. 21 MR. SIMMONS: Dr. Shum, could you look at page 11 of 22 Exhibit 2? 23 DR. SHUM: Yes. 24 MR. SIMMONS: I'd like you to look at the first full 25 paragraph, please. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4171 1 DR. SHUM: Yes. 2 MR. SIMMONS: And particularly the last two 3 sentences. The last two sentences say: 4 (Reading): 5 "Generalization of any conclusion from 6 short-term simulation of barrier operations 7 could be misleading. CCWD believes that a 8 comprehensive study requires a simulation of the 9 full range of the hydrologic conditions in the 10 Delta EG from 1992 to present." 11 And if you could just put back Exhibit 7 on the 12 overhead. 13 DR. SHUM: You mean Figure 7? 14 MR. SIMMONS: Figure 7 from Exhibit 2. And, 15 Dr. Shum, you would agree that this Figure 7 does not 16 represent a comprehensive study, or the simulation of the 17 full range of the hydrologic conditions in the Delta? 18 DR. SHUM: It definitely does not. 19 MR. SIMMONS: And Figure 8 does not represent a 20 simulation of the full range of the hydrologic conditions 21 in the Delta; is that correct? 22 DR. SHUM: It does not. 23 MR. SIMMONS: You just took August 1988 and repeated 24 it four times? 25 DR. SHUM: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4172 1 MR. SIMMONS: All right. Assuming that head of Old 2 River barrier could have an affect on water quality at 3 either of CCWD intakes, would that -- would the magnitude 4 of that affect depend on when and how that barrier was 5 operated? 6 DR. SHUM: Yes, it would. 7 MR. SIMMONS: Would it vary whether the barrier was 8 completely closed versus partly closed? 9 DR. SHUM: Yes. 10 MR. SIMMONS: Would it vary if the barrier were 11 operated, for example, on a tidal type of cycle? 12 DR. SHUM: If you mean the specific operating 13 conditions, yes. 14 MR. SIMMONS: You've read the Draft Environmental 15 Impact Report for these hearings, right? 16 DR. SHUM: Only sections of it. And that was quite a 17 while back. 18 MR. SIMMONS: Have you read Chapter 10 on the 19 alternatives to achieve the dissolved oxygen objective? 20 DR. SHUM: Yes. 21 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Do you disagree with the 22 statement in the EIR that slack water or reverse flows 23 contribute significantly to the DO problem in the Stockton 24 ship channel? 25 DR. SHUM: I believe that would be an important CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4173 1 factor. 2 MR. SIMMONS: Would you agree with that statement? 3 DR. SHUM: If you can refer me specifically -- 4 MR. SIMMONS: Unfortunately, I didn't write -- do you 5 agree with that proposition? 6 DR. SHUM: Yes. 7 MR. SIMMONS: And would you agree with the 8 proposition that nonpoint sources, nutrients, and algal 9 blooms all significantly contribute to the DO problems in 10 the Stockton ship channel? 11 DR. SHUM: Those could be factors. But, personally, 12 I have not looked at the reasons leading to the DO problem 13 in a lot of detail. So I cannot qualify which one is the 14 most important factor. 15 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Assuming all of those things are 16 factors, which do you believe should be ignored, or not 17 addressed as part of the solution, or part of an effort to 18 achieve dissolved oxygen objectives? 19 DR. SHUM: My personal belief is we need to do as 20 much as we can. And if there are factors that we can 21 control or mitigate for, we need to look at the 22 feasibility. And I would not, quote, unquote, 23 "intentionally ignore any specific factors." 24 MR. SIMMONS: Now, if you could just look at page 4 25 of Exhibit 4 -- well, really -- yeah, page 4 of Exhibit 4. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4174 1 In the first full paragraph you say that: 2 (Reading): 3 "The following measures should be considered in 4 the planning process for every new wastewater 5 treatment plant and expansion of existing 6 wastewater treatment plants." 7 And then it goes on and then you have a list of 8 several items, several measures that should be considered. 9 And this relates to DO and water quality, in general. Do 10 you agree with me that several of these measures are 11 currently being implemented by the City of Stockton? 12 DR. SHUM: From what I read in the testimony -- in 13 the written testimony, yes. 14 MR. SIMMONS: And out of those that are not currently 15 being implemented by the City of Stockton, have you 16 evaluated any for the feasibility or effectiveness? 17 DR. SHUM: No, I did not. If I may clarify. These 18 measures are not specific -- or are not only addressed to 19 the City of Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is for 20 the -- as the sentence said, "For every new and expansion 21 of existing wastewater treatment plants." 22 MR. SIMMONS: I understand. City of Stockton is my 23 client. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Simmons. 25 Let's see, let's take our usual 12-minute break and come CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4175 1 back a little after a quarter to 11:00. 2 (Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.) 3 C.O. CAFFREY: We're back. Mr. Nomellini, are you 4 ready, sir? 5 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm ready. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Birmingham. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if I could add my name to 9 the list of people cross-examining this panel. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, you may. 11 Good morning, Mr. Nomellini. 12 ---oOo--- 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 14 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 15 BY DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 17 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. I have 18 just a few questions. Starting with Exhibit 2, Contra 19 Costa Water District Exhibit 2, page 12, the testimony of 20 Dr. Shum sets forth potential alternatives. And in the 21 first paragraph of the -- well, it's the second full 22 paragraph, talks about installation of weirs instead of 23 flow barriers. 24 And then there's some language about one-way 25 agricultural flow barrier in Middle River near Trapper CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4176 1 Slough. Now, am I correct that your position is not one of 2 opposition to the South Delta barriers, but one of concern 3 with regard to the operation of such barriers? 4 DR. SHUM: Ultimately, to water quality impacts, yes. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And if we focus in on the 6 Middle River barrier that was proposed in the South Delta 7 barrier program -- or, I guess, we should refer to the 8 Interim South Delta Program with DWR, that you have no 9 problem with that barrier being an unit directional barrier 10 in terms of flow; is that correct? 11 DR. SHUM: Given that the other two barriers are not 12 there? 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. Just take the Middle River 14 barrier by itself, your statement indicates that the 15 operation of only one-way agricultural flow barrier on 16 Middle River near Trapper Slough should be considered. 17 I gather that was an indication that you wouldn't 18 have any problem with that barrier having unit-directional 19 flow; is that true? 20 DR. SHUM: I believe the water quality impacts on the 21 District would be much less. And that's why I think it 22 would significantly reduce the impacts on us. So, the 23 answer is, yes. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, let's go to the Old 25 River barrier. And let's leave the Grant Line barrier out. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4177 1 You did not mention in your statement any indication of 2 acceptability of a unit-directional flow in an Old River 3 barrier. And, again, with Grant Line not being dealt with, 4 do you have problems with the concept of unit-directional 5 flow in the Old River barrier? 6 DR. SHUM: I think the bottom line is how much that 7 would affect the water quality at water outtakes. And as 8 long as significant impact of the San Joaquin inflow that 9 have not gone to Central Delta unless existing conditions 10 remain that way, we would not oppose. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. So, then, whether or not it's 12 a weir or a gated barrier, the significant concern would be 13 making sure that there's no significant increase in San 14 Joaquin River flow down into the San Joaquin -- or into the 15 Delta versus the operation without the barriers? 16 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, with regard to 18 source control of salts, in your statement onExhibit 2, 19 page 12, you talk about source control of salts. And there 20 was some interchange with regard to the Grassland Bypass 21 Project. What I'd like to do is get a better understanding 22 of what you think "source control of salts" involves. 23 And is it true that you don't view the bypass 24 channel involved in the Grassland's Bypass Project as 25 source control? You would agree, would you not -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4178 1 DR. DENTON: That is not so. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: -- that just bypassing the flow 3 around the Grasslands area and putting it directly into the 4 San Luis drain and then back into Mud Slough is not source 5 control? 6 DR. DENTON: We were thinking about taking some sort 7 of agricultural practices, or changes in agricultural 8 practices, for improving the quality of the water delivered 9 to the -- or applied to the lands in such a way that the 10 source of salts going -- leaving the irrigation districts 11 would be reduced, or the amount of salt leaving the 12 irrigation districts would be reduced. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: So you're talking about improving the 14 water quality delivered to the farms, is that what you're 15 saying? 16 DR. DENTON: I think the focus is more on the quality 17 of the amount of salt leaving the farms than, obviously, 18 improving the water quality going to the farms would help 19 that. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. There was a lot of discussion 21 about the drain and things of that type. Have you given 22 any consideration to a drain that would go to the ocean, 23 like Alex was talking about, into the Japanese current? 24 Would your agency have a particular problem with that type 25 of a drain for the valley? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4179 1 DR. DENTON: I think the District, in principle, is 2 opposed to an out-of-valley drain. And we really -- our 3 task is to track other people's proposals for drains, but 4 we don't make any of our own proposals. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: So basically your agency is opposed 6 to any out-of-valley drain? 7 DR. DENTON: I think that we're opposed to 8 out-of-valley drains as has been proposed so far. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Which has a discharge -- 10 DR. DENTON: Into the islands. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: -- at Chipps islands? 12 DR. DENTON: Definitely. We have a drinking water 13 intake right at that location. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to other 15 out-of-valley drains, assuming there could be one, do you 16 have a policy against those? 17 DR. DENTON: That's something we haven't taken to our 18 Board. We haven't had a proposal to take to our Board for 19 that sort of a decision. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Last question, and this 21 is on Exhibit 4, page 4. You -- in your list of items to 22 be considered with regard to wastewater treatment plants, 23 you mention "membrane filtration." 24 Now, with regard to drinking water treatment and 25 the need to remove chlorides, or bromides, is it not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4180 1 possible to use membrane filtration to take some type of -- 2 or some amount of salts out of the water? 3 DR. SHUM: My understanding is it has been practiced 4 at a small scale. Yes, it is possible. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: So -- but -- 6 DR. SHUM: But, it's also -- 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 8 DR. SHUM: But it's also expensive and there's also 9 the problem of reject water, which leads to a disposal 10 problem. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. But the disposal problem 12 of the salt that comes from the membrane would be no worse 13 than it would be for the treatment plant, would it, the 14 wastewater treatment plant, same type of problem? 15 DR. SHUM: You mean -- 16 DR. DENTON: That would be a similar set of problems. 17 One of the examples we're using here for membrane 18 infiltration is, I guess, in this case it's removal of BOD 19 and ammonia and not necessarily salt. But there may be 20 other contaminants that you could remove using the 21 membrane. It wouldn't necessarily create a lot of brine or 22 salty water that then needs to be disposed. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: But technologically assuming that 24 impact on your District was 5 parts per million of 25 chloride, a membrane filtration process could be used to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4181 1 remove that concentration of salt, could it not? 2 DR. DENTON: Technically, yes. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. 4 DR. DENTON: Then it would be our responsibility to 5 dispose of it. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, regardless of who pays for it, 7 assuming the right person and metaphysical environment and 8 fairness to all of that type of thing -- 9 DR. DENTON: Hypothetically. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: -- we could do it? 11 DR. DENTON: Of course in the realities of water 12 rights. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Thank you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 15 Mr. O'Laughlin, good morning, sir. 16 ---oOo--- 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 18 BY SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER DISTRICT 19 BY TIM O'LAUGHLIN 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board 21 Members and staff, Contra Costa Water District and the 22 witnesses. I would like to start today with Dr. Shum, if I 23 could, in regards to the testimony that you prepared. 24 In regards to the testimony you prepared, did you 25 look at the operation of the head of Old River barrier CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4182 1 during the April/May time period? 2 DR. SHUM: I did not do any numerical simulation on 3 that one, but I have looked at the various factors 4 involved. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If the San Joaquin River Agreement 6 is adopted and flows in the San Joaquin River are increased 7 and the head of Old River barrier is installed and exports 8 are reduced, what, if any, impact would that have at the 9 intakes at Los Vaqueros on water quality? 10 DR. SHUM: That, naturally, would depend on the 11 salinity of the inflow from San Joaquin under that 12 circumstances. But as, in general, the impact, would, I 13 believe, considerably be smaller than the case of higher 14 exports and higher San Joaquin flow salinity in the summer. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did -- did you run the Fischer Delta 16 Model to look at that impact? 17 DR. SHUM: For the head of Old River? 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Barrier, yes? 19 DR. SHUM: No. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's step back for just a second 21 and ask Mr. Hasencamp some questions in regards to the 22 operations of the Contra Costa Water District intakes. 23 Is Los Vaqueros -- can you describe -- briefly we 24 went through this yesterday, Mr. Hasencamp. Can you 25 briefly describe the fish limitations that you have in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4183 1 regards to operations during the April/May time period 2 again, when you reduce your reductions or stop them 3 completely? 4 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. If storage in Los Vaqueros 5 reservoir is above emergency storage, which is defined as 6 70,000 acre-feet in normal years and 44,000 in dry and 7 critical years, if the reservoir storage is above emergency 8 storage, then CCWD is to stop all diversions for 30 days 9 from either Rock Slough or Old River and rely instead on 10 Los Vaqueros for its water supply. 11 Now, not only the 30 days in April, but that can 12 be adjusted by the fisheries agencies either sooner or 13 later, but 30 days in the spring, true. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Corresponding to whenever the 15 fisheries can see the greatest outflow of salmon smolt; is 16 that probably correct? 17 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, whatever fishery concerns they 18 see that could, certainly, be a factor. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, if the supply in Los Vaqueros 20 reservoir is less than 70,000 acre-feet, what are the 21 limitations on your diversions during the springtime 22 period? 23 MR. HASENCAMP: There are no limitations as far as 24 direct diversions to the service area for meeting our own 25 District demands other than we are to use the Old River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4184 1 intake in lieu of Rock Slough as much as possible. If fish 2 monitoring shows that either intake is impacting fish more 3 than the other, then we are to use whichever intake has 4 less impact on the fish, but in the absences of any 5 defining data then we'll use Old River. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Has Contra Costa Water District 7 looked at analyzing the increasing flow in the San Joaquin 8 River, the operation of head of Old River barrier, the 9 decrease in export pumping during -- as proposed by the San 10 Joaquin River Agreement and looked at it in connection with 11 your proposed simulations over the 70-year time period to 12 see what, if any, impacts it would have in water quality? 13 DR. DENTON: We really haven't done the serious 14 studies of that. We rely on the -- initially, the 15 proponents of various projects to provide those such data. 16 Then we can do some follow-up runs, if necessary, if we 17 don't believe those data, or we're concerned about the 18 aspects of those data. It is very hard with some of these 19 projects to know exactly how barriers are going to be 20 operated, and what exports are going to be, there's been a 21 lot of changes in export limitations, for instance. So we 22 really haven't done or spent a lot of time doing those 23 export runs. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Dr. Shum, if you could turn to page 25 6 of 23, in regards to your exhibit. If I understand CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4185 1 correctly, when you did this simulation in regards to the 2 tables that follow, you were looking at a 250-csf diversion 3 during that time period; is that correct? The second 4 paragraph under Table 1. 5 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So, basically, when you ran 7 the simulation, you ran it 250 csf on average and you ran 8 it for 25 days; is that correct? 9 DR. SHUM: And then repeated it three more times. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And then repeated it three more 11 times. Is that correct? 12 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So if 250 csf is run during the day, 14 I want to try to get a numeric number in acre-feet, I'd 15 rather work in acre-feet, so would that be roughly around 16 500 acre-feet per day? 17 DR. SHUM: Yeah, I think that's correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Ballpark, approximately? 19 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. If we have 500 acre-feet a 21 day, then in your model simulation for the 25-day period, 22 how much acre-feet would the model simulate that you would 23 be diverting? 25 times 500 would be about -- 24 DR. SHUM: That would be about 5,000. Is that right? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 12,500. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4186 1 DR. SHUM: (Witness nods.) 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Great. You don't need a 3 model for this. Okay. This is pretty simple? 4 DR. SHUM: I'm used to -- 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I know. 6 DR. SHUM: I'm used to a calculator. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Well, let's turn to Table 2, 8 then, I want to try to get a handle on this in acre-feet. 9 When we look at the South Delta barrier operations in place 10 at the CCC diversion, you saw a 3-percent increase in San 11 Joaquin River water; is that correct? 12 DR. SHUM: Yes. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, is it possible based on 14 looking at the 3 percent, then, that we could apply that to 15 the 12,500 acre-feet of total diversions? 16 DR. SHUM: That would depend on whether we are 17 diverting from the canal or diverting from Old River. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Well, let's just look at this 19 one, it says "the canal," the Contra Costa Canal, doesn't 20 it, Contra Costa Canal? 21 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So on Table 2 you looked at 23 that, you saw a 3-percent impact of San Joaquin River water 24 coming to that facility; correct? 25 DR. SHUM: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4187 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So what's 3 percent of 12,500 2 acre-feet? Take your time, you can write it down and 3 figure it out and -- 4 DR. SHUM: 400 csf. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. We're in acre-feet? 6 DR. SHUM: Acre-feet, yes. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Ballpark 400 acre-feet. 8 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So that would be the impact, if we 10 looked at Table 2, during that 25-day period; is that 11 correct? 12 DR. DENTON: Perhaps, if I could? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Either one. 14 DR. DENTON: Yeah. I think a lot of the questioning 15 so far has been related back to csf's and various things 16 like that, and thousand acre-feet. But the impact we keep 17 coming back to is the water quality impact. What I'm 18 concerned about is it has a loss of water supply in this 19 sense versus water quality. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. That's an explanation from 21 your side, I'm interested in quantity. So I'm trying to 22 get a handle. I understand your arguments in regard to 23 quality. I'm trying to get a handle on the amount of water 24 that this is going to be impacting in total acre-feet. So 25 we've got about 400 -- would it be -- in response to that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4188 1 question, would that be 400 acre-feet over the 25-day 2 period under Table 2 for the CCC diversion? 3 DR. DENTON: Mathematically that's the number you 4 could come up with, but that's not the total amount of 5 water that's impacted. The amount of water that's impacted 6 is 250 csf. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Don't worry, we'll get to that. 8 We'll get to that in a little bit. Okay. Now, the next 9 one is under Table 2, you have the Los Vaqueros diversion, 10 which is a 11 percent, which is an increase of basically 10 11 percent. So 10 percent of 12,500 acre-feet is what? 12 DR. SHUM: 1200. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, roughly 1250 acre-feet in the 14 25-day period. Now, Mr. Hasencamp, what is Contra Costa 15 Water District's water right and contractual amount of 16 entitlement to divert water in a given year? 17 MR. HASENCAMP: It has a CVP contract for 195,000 18 acre-feet. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And, historically, has Contra Costa 20 Water District diverted 195,000 acre-feet? 21 MR. HASENCAMP: No. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What amount of water has Contra 23 Costa Water District historically diverted? 24 MR. HASENCAMP: Ranges to -- depending on if it's a 25 wet year or dry year, but in the neighborhood of 130,000 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4189 1 acre-feet. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And Los Vaqueros has a capacity of 3 100,000 acre-feet? 4 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Well, let's go back and look 6 at these numbers, then, that you put through on Table 2. 7 Basically, if you take the CCC diversion at a 3-percent 8 increase of San Joaquin River water, and that's roughly 400 9 acre-feet, and you multiply that by 4, you got 1600 10 acre-feet of additional San Joaquin water coming in with 11 the TD -- with the chloride above where you'd want it; is 12 that correct? 13 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. All right. Now, we go to the 15 Los Vaqueros side, and at 10 percent it's 1250 acre-feet 16 times 4 months, which is roughly 5,000 acre-feet; is that 17 correct? 18 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, let's say, 20 hypothetically, you took all this bad water and you dumped 21 it up in Los Vaqueros reservoir. And Los Vaqueros 22 reservoir had 70,000 acre-feet in it. Can anybody on this 23 panel describe to me what impact Contra Costa Water 24 District would suffer from that hypothetical either in 25 dollars, operations, maintenance, or anything else? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4190 1 MR. HASENCAMP: If there was water that was higher 2 salinity put in Los Vaqueros reservoir? 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, based on this Table 2 and the 4 numbers we just ran through. You roughly have increased it 5 by 5,000 acre-feet. And you've increased it by about 6 16,000 acre-feet. So a total 6,600 acre-feet of, quote, 7 "bad water," chlorides above 65 go into Los Vaqueros 8 reservoir with the reservoir at 70,000 acre-feet, can you 9 describe for me what impact CCWD has suffered? 10 MR. HASENCAMP: Quantitative, or -- 11 DR. SHUM: Apparently, that depends on a number of 12 factors on what the original salinity, in the stored water 13 is. For example, if you have -- you have salinity of, say, 14 40-milligrams per liter and because of this you increase it 15 to 45 -- 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 17 DR. SHUM: -- milligrams per liter. Then later on 18 when the water quality in the Delta is above our chloride 19 goal of 65, then we'll have to use water 45 milligrams per 20 liter instead of 40 milligrams per liter to blend, to meet 21 our water quality objectives. So what that means is it 22 will trend down to Los Vaqueros much faster than -- than 23 the baseline condition. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So that would be an 25 operational decision that you would make based on that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4191 1 But let's take that where the rate goes from 40 to 45 2 chloride in the reservoir based on the hypothetical, what 3 is the cost to Contra Costa Water District in treatment? 4 What's the increase in cost, if there is any? 5 DR. SHUM: By cost you are referring to disinfection, 6 or pumping cost? 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Disinfection, pumping cost, you name 8 it. 9 DR. SHUM: For pumping cost, apparently, it depends 10 on what the quality later on is on how much difference in 11 the amount of water needed to -- for blending. At present 12 I think for every acre-foot coming up to the reservoir it 13 would cost -- Bill, is that 10 or $20 per acre foot. 14 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, but what's -- what's the -- 16 DR. SHUM: So -- 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Has your staff evaluated the 18 economic impacts on the sliding scale of looking at what 19 the impact to Contra Costa would be economically from going 20 from 40 to 45 to 50 to 55 chlorides? 21 DR. DENTON: I think your specific question was with 22 the drinking water treatment phase of the operations. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Any phase you want, whether it's 24 pumping or anything else. What's that impact if we take 25 that 6600 acre-feet of water -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4192 1 DR. DENTON: Right. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: -- dump it into a reservoir with 3 70,000 acre-feet of storage in it, what is the impact to 4 Contra Costa Water District? 5 DR. DENTON: I think a lot of those points we haven't 6 quantified them, necessarily, in as much detail as you 7 might want, but we've discussed them in the sense that, 8 as Dr. Shum said more, there would be more -- water would 9 be released from the reservoir. Therefore, we'd have to 10 replace that water and buy that water from the Bureau, pump 11 it all the way out there as replacement water and there is 12 a cost associated with that. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So there would be a pumping cost of 14 10 to $20 per acre-foot? 15 DR. DENTON: Right. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You'd have to quantify the amount of 17 acre-feet; is that correct? 18 DR. DENTON: No, we're going from a -- we can. And 19 that was part of the Exhibit Number 3 as looking at that in 20 the general terms, saying that a small increment in 21 salinity change produces a large increment in loss of 22 storage, replacement of storage, things like that to 23 illustrate that amplification of that affect. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. Have you taken anything from 25 Table 3, though, including economic or operating costs on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4193 1 Bryant? 2 DR. DENTON: That is something we could have done, 3 but we haven't done in this case. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Hasencamp, in your testimony on 5 Exhibit Number 3 you set forth the benefits of the Los 6 Vaqueros Project; is that correct? 7 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And those are listed starting 9 on page 2 of 14; is that correct? 10 MR. HASENCAMP: That's correct. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And on the last page you say 12 that, in summary: 13 (Reading): 14 "Even small salinity increases in dry years can 15 significantly impair the operation of Los 16 Vaqueros Project and impair the projects's 17 benefits." 18 Well, let's go back and look at how some of those 19 impairments would work. How is it that increasing the 20 chloride level 5 milligrams would have an impact on 21 recreational activities and wildlife benefits? 22 MR. HASENCAMP: The reservoir would be, on average, 23 3,000 acre-feet lower in the simulation than with the 24 increased chlorides than it would be in the base case. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4194 1 MR. HASENCAMP: So, in general, when the reservoir is 2 lower there's less opportunities. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. What about operational 4 benefits to the Central Valley Project, how would the 5 5-milliliter increase impact the operational benefits to 6 the Central Valley Project? 7 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, the more time that Los Vaqueros 8 reservoir is at or below emergency storage then the more 9 often we have to go back to the pre-project ways and divert 10 from the Delta at all times. One of the benefits of the 11 project, incidental benefits to the CVP is that we will 12 tend to increase our diversions in the wintertimes and fill 13 the reservoir and then decrease our diversions in the dryer 14 times. But if there's no water in the reservoir for 15 blending, then in the sense Los Vaqueros reservoir is taken 16 out of the picture, then we're completely relying on the 17 Delta directive. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. What about increased 19 operational flexibility to benefit Delta fisheries -- 20 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, say that one more 21 time. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sorry about that. Increased 23 operational flexibility to benefit Delta fisheries, how 24 would the 5-milligram chloride impact that? 25 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, in general, the fishery CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4195 1 benefits of the project are that in April there's a 30-day 2 no-diversion period. And that, of course, diversion period 3 can be moved within the springtime at the input of the 4 fisheries agency. And as Los Vaqueros reservoir is an 5 emergency storage, then, again, that benefit wouldn't 6 occur. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to your table that you 8 provided in your exhibit, that only happened in 1933; is 9 that correct, even with the 5-milligram increase in 10 chloride? 11 MR. HASENCAMP: Years I've shown, yes, it happened in 12 1933. But it happened many more times than that in the 13 historic simulation. 14 DR. DENTON: If I may add one other thing? 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Please, go right ahead. 16 DR. DENTON: In terms of having to refill, if you say 17 that the water levels are less and, therefore, there would 18 be a period of time where you have to refill the reservoir 19 that you wouldn't otherwise have done, what impact that 20 would have is that it would be a situation where we 21 couldn't do all our pumping at Old River, because some of 22 that pumping at Old River would be used to fill the 23 reservoir. We would then have to move to increase our 24 pumping at Rock Slough, and that may have a detrimental 25 affect relative to the baseline. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4196 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Dr. Shum, I'd like to focus briefly 2 on the October time period. If water quality is improved 3 at Vernalis during the October time period what, if any, 4 impact or benefit would you expect to see with the barriers 5 at your intakes at either Rock Slough or Los Vaqueros -- 6 Rock Creek or Los Vaqueros, excuse me? 7 DR. SHUM: You are referring to water quality 8 improvement? 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah. 10 DR. SHUM: In the San Joaquin? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah. Let's say water quality 12 improves in October over what has been historically 13 occurring, barriers are in, what would you see as an affect 14 at either Rock Slough or Los Vaqueros? 15 DR. SHUM: What I showed in Exhibit 2 is that the 16 salinity impacts depends on the difference between the San 17 Joaquin inflow salinity and the Sacramento inflows 18 salinities. So as long as the San Joaquin inflows salinity 19 is higher, there will be an impact. If that salinity is 20 lower than, say, otherwise would have been, the impact 21 would be smaller, but there would still be an impact. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Did you run your simulations 23 in regards to your exhibit looking at trying to meet the 24 Vernalis standard at -- for water quality in running the 25 simulations looking at the difference between the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4197 1 Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River? 2 In other words, assuming that the water quality 3 was met in all years at Vernalis under all conditions, what 4 the impact would be at your intakes, vis-a-vis, the 5 comparison with the Sacramento River? 6 DR. SHUM: If you are referring -- if you are 7 referring to -- if you are referring to Figure 4, I believe 8 I showed in my presentation yesterday some of those 9 salinity at Vernalis with regard to the San Joaquin flow. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 11 DR. SHUM: I believe exceeds the objective of -- at 12 that time it would be 1,000 microhms per centimeter. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: My question is much more basic than 14 that. It's: Did you when you were doing your analysis 15 plug into any modeling, assuming that the Vernalis flow 16 standards for water quality were being met in all year 17 types under all conditions and then run something similar 18 to Figure 4? 19 DR. SHUM: No -- no. My simulation is looking at the 20 incremental impact. I did not look at individual 21 situations. I do not -- I have not done the comparison. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: All right. Have you analyzed if the 23 Water Quality Control Plan objectives for water quality at 24 Vernalis are met, what the impacts would be at either Los 25 Vaqueros or Rock Slough? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4198 1 DR. SHUM: Compared with existing conditions? 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Compared with existing conditions. 3 DR. SHUM: No. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On page 11 of 23 of your testimony, 5 Dr. Shum, you put down potential mitigation measures. Did 6 you put these mitigation -- potential mitigation measures 7 down in order of priority, or are they solely listed here? 8 DR. SHUM: No, they are not in order of priority. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What, if anything, have you 10 quantified in regards to number three, "Reduce or eliminate 11 agricultural drainage from other Delta islands near the 12 CCWD intakes"? 13 DR. SHUM: We are doing a study, as we speak, on the 14 impact of the nearby ag drain into Rock Slough. And, 15 historically, we have seen much higher salinity from time 16 to time in -- near our pumping plant as compared to the 17 salinity at the junction with Old River. And those we 18 believe are due to ag drainage. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 20 DR. SHUM: And the magnitude of those impacts could 21 be of the order of up to 100 milligrams per liter chloride. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If water quality -- I've got another 23 one for you. If water quality is improved in October over 24 what the existing conditions are now in the San Joaquin 25 River, and the ag barriers are not in in October, what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4199 1 impacts would you see at all at either Los Vaqueros or Rock 2 Slough diversions? 3 DR. SHUM: Would the head of Old River barrier be -- 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It would be out. All the barriers 5 would be out. 6 DR. SHUM: I think there may be a small improvement. 7 The reason is the export would probably be much higher than 8 the San Joaquin flow. So on that base condition -- of the 9 San Joaquin inflow would reach outtakes. So salinity of 10 that flow would have just minor changes at the outtakes. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Denton, in regards to the base 12 case you answered numerous questions from Mr. Minasian in 13 regards to what the base case should be in existing 14 conditions. For purposes of your analysis, do you include 15 the operation of the head of Old River barrier in the 16 October time period in your base case, or out of your base 17 case? 18 DR. DENTON: With respect to which exhibit? Are you 19 talking about my analysis? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Your analysis, yes. 21 DR. DENTON: As it appears in which exhibit? 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: CCWD's analysis of the impacts at 23 either Los Vaqueros or Rock Slough with the head of Old 24 River barrier in or out during the October time period. 25 DR. DENTON: Yeah. There's -- I'm not sure how to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4200 1 answer that question, because -- 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Here's what -- 3 DR. DENTON: -- in terms of Phase V, we haven't done 4 any -- of the runs that are entered into our testimony 5 here, those are the runs that are operated with the ISDP in 6 place or not in place. So the head of Old River barrier is 7 in place. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What I was struck by sitting in the 9 back of the room is that it appears that CCWD wants the 10 pumping plants and all the conditions in for the base case, 11 but with the operation of head of Old River barrier, which 12 has been in place in October on a temporary basis for 35 13 years, you don't want that included in the base case. And 14 you want to look at it with a, quote, "permanent barrier 15 in." 16 What's the distinction? 17 DR. DENTON: Okay. I think if the project proponents 18 are doing a modeling study, then they should do it with the 19 existing condition. And if there's an existing condition 20 with the head of Old River in there, they can include that 21 in the base case and then compare it against the new 22 project which might include a permanent operable head of 23 Old River barrier. That would be something that we would 24 consider would be reasonable. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So then -- I think that makes CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4201 1 perfect sense, then. In other words, if we're going to 2 look at this from a CEQA analysis, we should look at the 3 difference between a temporary head of Old River barrier in 4 October vis-a-vis a permanent operable barrier in October? 5 DR. DENTON: Maybe if I could clarify that. Maybe 6 not in the sense that -- remember you did use the word 7 "temporary." It is going to come up at times for 8 re-authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers. And if 9 there have been problems identified, such as siltation and 10 other things, then the Army Corps is reasonably allowed to 11 deny an extension of that temporary permit. In which case 12 that would not then be the existing condition going into 13 authorization of a permanent barriers program. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Couple questions about modeling and 15 then I will -- I should be finished. Speaking of 16 siltation, have you taken into account -- you probably have 17 been here listening to the testimony of Mr. Hildebrand and 18 others, about the increase channel siltation in the South 19 Delta. Did you take that into account in your modeling? 20 DR. DENTON: No, we did not. The geometry is fixed. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you done anything with 22 your Fischer Delta Model runs to calibrate those with 23 existing conditions in the Delta as we speak today? 24 DR. DENTON: No, we haven't. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. In the Fischer Delta Model CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4202 1 that you're relying on is 1988; is that correct, ballpark? 2 DR. DENTON: Dr. Shum will answer more about the 3 calibration. 4 DR. SHUM: The simulation is for 1988. The 5 calibration has been going on continuously. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. When was the last calibration 7 of Fischer Delta Model Number 10? 8 DR. SHUM: The last ones I did was in 1995. And I 9 did a little bit the following year. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you talked to 11 Dr. List lately with the problems of the running of the 12 Fischer Delta Model in the situations that he has, 13 vis-a-vis, the calibration problems that he's having? 14 DR. SHUM: Not recently. 15 DR. DENTON: We are aware of his earlier testimony, I 16 think in Phase II maybe, that there are -- some of the 17 changes that he sees, or the differences between measured 18 data and his simulated data could be due to siltation and 19 changes in the channel geometry. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What if -- Dr. Shum, back to you, if 21 I may. What, if any, impact on your analysis that you set 22 forth in your exhibit would siltation in the South Delta 23 have on the numbers that you have arrived at? If the 24 channel cross sections have changed dramatically, what 25 impact would that have on your analysis? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4203 1 DR. SHUM: You are referring to decrease in the 2 channel cross-section, I suppose? 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, with siltation. The channel 4 cross-section has become constricted. What impact would 5 that have on your analysis that you have done in your 6 testimony here today? 7 DR. SHUM: For the particular hydrology there are 8 simulated, which the project exports, which totalled around 9 8 to 9,000 csf, is much higher than the San Joaquin flow, 10 which is around 1500 csf. The changes would be pretty 11 small. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you have a number that you 13 could quantify that at, or look at that? 14 DR. SHUM: No. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. I have no further questions. 16 Thank you, Chairman Caffrey. And thank you to the panel 17 from Contra Costa Water District. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. Let's see, 19 Mr. Jackson. Good morning, sir. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 22 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 23 BY MICHAEL B. JACKSON 24 MR. JACKSON: Good morning. I just have a few 25 questions for Dr. Shum. Dr. Shum, calling your attention CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4204 1 to Table 2 on page 7 of your 23-page testimony, Exhibit 2. 2 DR. SHUM: Yes. 3 MR. JACKSON: The results of the modeling that you've 4 explained earlier at length is, essentially, that the South 5 Delta barrier operations, as you modeled them, will 6 increase the percentage of the water in your -- in your 7 intakes of San Joaquin water from 0 to 3 percent at Rock 8 Slough? 9 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 10 MR. JACKSON: And the next figure is that it will 11 increase by 10 percent from 1 to 11 -- 12 DR. SHUM: Yes. 13 MR. JACKSON: -- at Los Vaqueros? Why are those 14 figures different, sir? 15 DR. SHUM: The reason is Rock Slough is further 16 north. And when you look at the inflow from San Joaquin 17 going down to the reach past Turner Cut, past Columbia Cut 18 as the flow -- it mixes with the water as it goes down. 19 And so part of those inflow would go down Turner 20 Cut, Columbia Cut and eventually to the export pumps. And 21 those portions of the flow would not pass by the Rock 22 Slough junction of Old River. So the impact would be 23 smaller at Contra Costa Canal intake. 24 MR. JACKSON: Now, is that different route indicated 25 to you in the fact that in the last column the number at CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4205 1 Clifton Court Forebay goes higher, is that where the salt 2 is going? 3 DR. SHUM: Yes. The impact at Los Vaqueros intake 4 and at Clifton Court Forebay are pretty much the same. 5 MR. JACKSON: The impact is the same, but that the -- 6 essentially, the difference between your two locations of 7 your diversions, you are explaining by the fact that part 8 of the San Joaquin River that doesn't reach the Rock Slough 9 diversion is probably being picked up, according to these 10 runs, by the Clifton Court -- the pumps at Clifton Court 11 Forebay? 12 DR. SHUM: Or Tracy. 13 MR. JACKSON: But the number for Tracy is going down 14 with the barrier? 15 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 16 MR. JACKSON: So it's clearly Clifton Court that's 17 picking it up? 18 DR. SHUM: If you want to look at it that way. 19 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, did you run any of 20 this for bromides? 21 DR. SHUM: No. 22 MR. JACKSON: Why not, sir? 23 DR. SHUM: This is the -- you can call it a tracer 24 studying. Meaning, you consider the portion of water at 25 each intake that comes from different sources. You can CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4206 1 infer the bromides variable using this kind of modeling 2 results by assigning certain bromide varies in at certain 3 inflows, but I haven't taken that step. 4 MR. JACKSON: Are bromides important in terms of your 5 water quality? 6 DR. SHUM: Yes, it is. 7 MR. JACKSON: And why is that, sir? 8 DR. SHUM: Because of its potential to cause bromate 9 after ozination in the water treatment process. And 10 bromate is a suspected carcinogen and would be regulated in 11 the State drinking water law -- Safe Drinking Regulation. 12 MR. JACKSON: Is it likely that the increase in the 13 chloride as reflected at Los Vaqueros and Clifton Court 14 Forebay would also include an increase in bromides at these 15 two locations? 16 DR. SHUM: Yes. 17 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to Table 3, 18 it seems to indicate that the amount of water from the 19 Sacramento River that reaches your pumps at Los Vaqueros is 20 about 9 percent less than it would be without the barriers? 21 DR. SHUM: Yes. 22 MR. JACKSON: And that same 9 percent is reflected at 23 Clifton Court Forebay, as well, by your models, correct? 24 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 25 MR. JACKSON: And does that, generally, mean that the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4207 1 water quality would be less -- would be harder to treat at 2 Los Vaqueros because it's less Sacramento River water? 3 DR. SHUM: Because of the higher bromide. 4 MR. JACKSON: Right. 5 DR. SHUM: And higher chloride. 6 MR. JACKSON: And the same thing would be true at the 7 Clifton Court Forebay? 8 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 9 MR. JACKSON: All right. But you haven't done any of 10 the modeling in regard to bromides? 11 DR. SHUM: No, I haven't. 12 MR. JACKSON: Did you see any of the modeling done by 13 the State Board's EIR in regard to bromides? 14 DR. SHUM: I haven't read the EIR extensively, but I 15 have seen it in the sections that I read. 16 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to page 9 17 of 23, in the section that you -- you indicate is a need 18 for comprehensive study, why do you believe there's a 19 comprehensive study necessary? 20 DR. SHUM: To accurately disclose the potential water 21 quality impacts on CCWD. 22 MR. JACKSON: Do you believe that that's been 23 adequately done at the present time? 24 DR. SHUM: I don't believe so. 25 MR. JACKSON: Do you believe -- did you find anything CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4208 1 indicating the affects of this changed operation on the 2 Clifton Court Forebay pumps? 3 DR. SHUM: Change of -- 4 MR. JACKSON: Yeah, the -- essentially, we looked at 5 table -- we looked at Table 2. And the increase in the 6 percentage of San Joaquin River water increased about the 7 same amount at Los Vaqueros and Clifton Court Forebay, 8 right? 9 DR. SHUM: Yes. 10 MR. JACKSON: And the percentage of Sacramento River 11 dropped about the same at Los Vaqueros and Clifton Court 12 Forebay? 13 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 14 MR. JACKSON: So would you expect, then, that the 15 need for the comprehensive study would be the same at Los 16 Vaqueros and Clifton Court Forebay? 17 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 18 MR. JACKSON: And you've seen it in neither place in 19 the present State Board EIR? 20 DR. SHUM: No, I haven't seen them. 21 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, you indicate in this 22 request for a comprehensive study that there are three 23 parameters which you think need to be studied; is that 24 correct, the barrier design and operation, the Delta 25 hydrology and the salinity in the San Joaquin inflow? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4209 1 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 2 MR. JACKSON: Is that a relatively complete list, in 3 your opinion, of things that would need to be studied? 4 DR. SHUM: Those would be the major factors. 5 MR. JACKSON: All right. Why are -- why is the 6 barrier design and operation a major factor? 7 DR. SHUM: Because it determines the percentage of 8 San Joaquin inflow that would go to the export pumps and to 9 Los Vaqueros. 10 MR. JACKSON: Either Los Vaqueros or Clifton Court 11 Forebay? 12 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 13 MR. JACKSON: All right. Why is the Delta hydrology 14 important in determining water quality impacts either for 15 Contra Costa Water District or Clifton Court Forebay? 16 DR. SHUM: Because the amount of San Joaquin inflow 17 that would go to Central Delta depends on the water of that 18 inflow and also on the export pumping. 19 MR. JACKSON: Now, how does the export pumping affect 20 the amount of chloride that comes to the Los Vaqueros 21 intake? 22 DR. SHUM: If you have a high export pumping, 23 especially at Tracy, relative to the San Joaquin inflow, 24 most of that inflow would be diverted through Tracy and 25 very little of it would go to Los Vaqueros. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4210 1 MR. JACKSON: So the bad water -- I mean to use 2 Mr. O'Laughlin's words, gets sucked up by the Delta-Mendota 3 pumps? 4 DR. SHUM: Yes. 5 MR. JACKSON: And leaving, therefore, then more good 6 water? 7 DR. SHUM: That's one way of looking at it. 8 MR. JACKSON: Okay. And if you build -- if you build 9 the barriers the bad water just gets redistributed? 10 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 11 MR. JACKSON: And the tables reflect that? 12 DR. SHUM: Yes. 13 MR. JACKSON: They get redistributed to your Los 14 Vaqueros pump site and to the State pumps at Clifton Court 15 Forebay? 16 DR. SHUM: That's correct. 17 MR. JACKSON: It doesn't lessen the amount of bad 18 water anywhere, does it? 19 DR. SHUM: It doesn't. 20 MR. JACKSON: It just redistributes it? 21 DR. SHUM: Yes. 22 MR. JACKSON: Okay. Now, is that why, then, the 23 importance of the San Joaquin inflow salinity to all of 24 this process, because that is the only way to deal with 25 lowering the amount of bad water, to use Mr. O'Laughlin's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4211 1 terms? 2 DR. SHUM: I'm not sure I get the question. 3 MR. JACKSON: Well, why is San Joaquin inflow 4 salinity important to the water quality impacts? 5 DR. SHUM: The net salinity increase caused by 6 this -- with this distribution depends also on the 7 difference in salinity between Sacramento River and San 8 Joaquin River. Because, basically, it's replacing a 9 certain amount of Sacramento River water that would have, 10 otherwise, gone -- reached our intakes under the baseline 11 condition by the San Joaquin inflow. So the difference in 12 that salinity would determine the magnitude of the water 13 quality impacts. 14 MR. JACKSON: All right. So there would be two ways 15 to deal with the problem. One would be more Sacramento 16 River water at your pumps, or cleaner San Joaquin water? 17 DR. SHUM: Yeah. 18 MR. JACKSON: And those are the only two ways that 19 you know of that would change the inflow salinity? 20 DR. SHUM: Directly related to the ISDP, yes. But, 21 obviously, there are other factors that affect salinity. 22 MR. JACKSON: What are they? 23 DR. SHUM: The San Joaquin ag discharge near our 24 intakes, the discharges into Rock Slough that I mentioned 25 earlier. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4212 1 MR. JACKSON: Local impacts? 2 DR. SHUM: Yes. 3 MR. JACKSON: Right. But in terms of Delta impacts 4 as a whole, essentially, it's either Sacramento River 5 water, or cleaned up San Joaquin River water is about the 6 only way to improve water quality in the intake water? 7 DR. SHUM: Yeah -- I don't want to get into a lot of 8 other details, but other factors like sea water intrusion 9 and so on. But I would say what you suggested are two of 10 the major factors. 11 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, let's talk about sea 12 water intrusion; is there a correlation between the amount 13 of export pumping and the amount of sea water that's drawn 14 to your pumps? 15 DR. SHUM: The Delta outflow is a major factor 16 affecting -- affecting sea water intrusion. So -- so 17 increase in exports, by itself given every other -- all the 18 other conditions are the same, would increase sea water 19 intrusion. 20 MR. JACKSON: All right. So the three ways that 21 there are to improve your water quality are to decrease 22 exports, to clean up the San Joaquin water, or to just 23 supply more Sacramento River water to your intake; is that 24 right? 25 DR. SHUM: In a real general sense, yes, but I can CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4213 1 always get into specific situations in which you will come 2 to a different conclusion. 3 MR. JACKSON: I'm sure that there will be many 4 specific situations in the rest of this hearing, but in 5 general -- 6 DR. SHUM: In general -- 7 MR. JACKSON: -- those are the three parameters, to 8 lower exports from the State and Federal pumps, because 9 they, in low export periods, they draw less sea water, 10 correct? 11 DR. SHUM: Given the same Sacramento inflow. 12 MR. JACKSON: Cleaning up the San Joaquin water so 13 there's not such a difference between San Joaquin and 14 Sacramento water? 15 DR. SHUM: Yes. 16 MR. JACKSON: Or simply throwing Sacramento River 17 water at the problem? 18 DR. SHUM: Yes. 19 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 20 DR. SHUM: Or -- 21 MR. JACKSON: No further questions. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, thank you, Mr. Jackson. 23 It's almost now 5 minutes to 12, why don't we break for 24 lunch. We still have to hear from Mr. Birmingham and staff 25 and the Board Members with regard to cross-examination. So CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4214 1 we'll do that when we come back at 1:15. Thank you. 2 (Luncheon recess.) 3 ---oOo--- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4215 1 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998, 1:18 P.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon. We're back to 5 complete cross-examination on the Contra Costa case in 6 chief. And next was Mr. Birmingham. 7 Good afternoon, sir. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank 9 you. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 12 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 13 BY THOMAS BIRMINGHAM 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Shum, my name is Tom Birmingham. 15 I represent Westlands Water District. 16 DR. SHUM: Good afternoon. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have a couple of questions for 18 you. At the conclusion of his cross-examination of you, 19 Mr. Jackson asked you a series of questions about three 20 methods by which Contra Costa Water District's water 21 quality could be improved. 22 Do you recall those questions? 23 DR. SHUM: Yes. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And among the means by which water 25 quality to Contra Costa could be improved, Mr. Jackson CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4216 1 asked you about decreasing exports. Do you recall that 2 question? 3 DR. SHUM: Yes, I do. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And you indicated in your response 5 to that question that if Sacramento River inflow remains 6 constant, reducing exports could improve water quality for 7 Contra Costa; is that correct? 8 DR. SHUM: Yes, to a certain extent. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, isn't it correct, Dr. Shum, 10 that under some circumstances operation of the exports 11 pumps will improve water quality for Contra Costa Water 12 District? 13 DR. SHUM: Under certain circumstances, yes. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So you would agree with me, wouldn't 15 you, Dr. Shum, that simply identifying the three means that 16 Mr. Jackson identified as generally improving water quality 17 for Contra Costa is a gross oversimplification? 18 DR. SHUM: I agree that it can be misleading at 19 times. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. Now, I don't know who 21 this question should be directed to. I believe it should 22 be you, Dr. Shum, but if not, any member of the panel is 23 welcome to answer it. 24 Has Contra Costa -- Contra Costa Water District's 25 goal of 65 milligrams per liter of chloride been exceeded CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4217 1 in the water year 1998? 2 DR. DENTON: The -- no. The reason is that the goal 3 is the goal for the Los Vaqueros Project. And the Los 4 Vaqueros Project has begun in the sense that we're using 5 some of the facilities and we're filling the reservoir. 6 But in terms of blending operations, they were not, 7 essentially, to begin until we got the reservoir full. So 8 we haven't used it for blending yet. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: During water year 1998 have you been 10 measuring the concentrations of chloride in the water 11 diverted for storage in Los Vaqueros? 12 DR. DENTON: Yes. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Has it, any time during the 1998 14 water year, the concentration of chloride in the water 15 diverted for storage at Los Vaqueros exceeded 65 milligrams 16 per liter? 17 DR. DENTON: Sorry, diverted for? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Storage -- 19 DR. DENTON: Storage -- 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: -- at Los Vaqueros? 21 DR. DENTON: Not 65. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, again, I believe, Dr. Shum, 23 this would be a question directed at you. Under a 24 hypothetical question that was asked of you by 25 Mr. O'Laughlin about the quantity of water, using his term, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4218 1 "bad water" appropriated for storage in Los Vaqueros, I 2 believe his hypothetical involved a situation where there 3 was 70,000 acre-feet of water in storage at Los Vaqueros. 4 And approximately 7,000 acre-feet of water was with 5 concentrations exceeding 65 milligrams per liter of 6 chloride were diverted into storage. Do you recall those 7 questions? 8 DR. SHUM: Yes. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that if there are 10 70,000 -- if there is 70,000 acre-feet of water in storage 11 in Los Vaqueros and the concentration of chloride in that 12 water is 40 milligrams per liter and 7,000 acre-feet of 13 water with concentrations of 70 milligrams per liter is 14 added to that water, that the resulting 77,000 acre-feet of 15 water would have a concentration of 43 milligrams per liter 16 of chloride? 17 DR. SHUM: No, 42.5. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: 42.5. Dr. Denton, I believe that 19 the rest of my questions are questions directed at you, 20 but, again, any member of the panel is welcome to answer 21 them. 22 During his examination of you, Mr. Minasian asked 23 you a question about the -- or a series of questions about 24 the Fischer Delta Model. Do you recall those questions? 25 DR. DENTON: I do. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4219 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And among the questions that 2 Mr. Minasian asked you was the -- was a question concerning 3 the use of the Fischer Delta Model to evaluate potential 4 impacts of constructing the San Luis drain. Do you recall 5 that question? 6 DR. DENTON: I do. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And I believe you testified that it 8 would be -- you could think of examples where it would not 9 be helpful to use the Fischer Delta Model to analyze the 10 impacts of constructing the San Luis drain, because the 11 Delta Fischer Model is, I think you used the term, a 12 one-dimensional model. Do you recall saying that? 13 DR. DENTON: I do. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd like to follow-up with you on 15 that opinion and explore the basis of that opinion. 16 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Caffrey, I'd like to just object to 17 this line of questions on the ground you've already ruled 18 it to be outside the scope of this hearing. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me hear the -- let me hear the 20 question again, or the last couple of questions maybe. 21 Certainly, the last one. 22 You want to repeat, Mr. Birmingham, or do you want 23 to have it read? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that after the Board's 25 ruling on Mr. Sexton's motion, Mr. Minasian asked this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4220 1 witness a question about the use of the Delta Fischer Model 2 as a means of evaluating the impacts of the -- of 3 constructing the San Luis drain. And this witness 4 expressed an opinion, I would like to cross-examine this 5 witness to go into the basis of that statement. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Hang on just a minute. 7 MS. LEIDIGH: What was the question? 8 (Off the record from 1:21 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.) 9 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm going to allow the question. Go 10 ahead, Mr. Birmingham. We're back on the record. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. Dr. Denton, the Delta 12 Fischer Model is a computer model that simulates the 13 operation of the channels that constitute the Delta; is 14 that correct? 15 DR. DENTON: That's correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the model has two primary 17 modules; is that correct? 18 DR. DENTON: That's correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: One of the modules is a hydrodynamic 20 module; is that correct? 21 DR. DENTON: Yes. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The other module is a solutes 23 transport module; is that correct? 24 DR. DENTON: Yes. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The hydrodynamic module of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4221 1 Fischer Delta Model is used to describe the water surface 2 elevation and flow velocities in all of the Delta's 3 channels; is that correct? 4 DR. DENTON: Yes. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the output from the hydrodynamic 6 module is used in the solutes transport module to describe 7 the movement of solutes; is that correct? 8 DR. DENTON: Yes. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And among the solutes is salt; is 10 that correct? 11 DR. DENTON: Yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And any other kind of tracer 13 material and solution that could be in the Delta; is that 14 correct? 15 DR. DENTON: Yes. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The solutes tracer module actually 17 carries tracers along with the water; is that right? 18 DR. DENTON: Not necessarily. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the solutes tracer model models 20 turbulent mixing that occurs in each of the channels after 21 interceptions; is that correct? 22 DR. DENTON: Yes. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the model of the Fischer 24 Delta -- or the version of the Fischer Delta Model that 25 you've used in comparing the analysis presented here by CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4222 1 Contra Costa was Version 10. Is my understanding correct? 2 DR. DENTON: Yes. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And in its simplest term the model 4 is used to describe how liquids are transported in the 5 Delta's channels; is that correct? 6 DR. DENTON: Liquids and tracers and solutes. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The inputs required for the model 8 are geometry of the Delta, river flows into the Delta, 9 agricultural and export diversions from the Delta, Delta 10 evaporation and tidal elevation; is that correct? 11 DR. DENTON: Yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the model computes water surface 13 elevations and flows within all of the Delta's channels as 14 a function of time? 15 DR. DENTON: Yes. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Fischer Delta Model is used to 17 predict or make predictions about how flows in the South 18 Delta will behave under changing conditions of river flow 19 and tidal conditions; is that correct? 20 DR. DENTON: Yes. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And with any model it's essential 22 that the model be calibrated? 23 DR. DENTON: Yes. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And that means that it's necessary 25 to choose a parameter representing the channel so that it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4223 1 gives the closest agreement between what the model will 2 predict in a given set of circumstances and what actually 3 happens in the Delta; is that correct? 4 DR. DENTON: That is correct. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the primary variable for 6 calibration in the Fischer Delta Model is the friction the 7 water has to the sides and bottom of the channel; is that 8 correct? 9 DR. DENTON: Sorry. Would you repeat the question? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes, I can. The primary variable or 11 parameter of the calibration of the Fischer Delta Model is 12 the friction the water has with the sides and bottom of the 13 channel? 14 DR. DENTON: I would say that's one of the 15 calibrations. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And to perform a calibration one 17 would take, for example, the year 1968 and attempt to 18 simulate what happened in that year with the computer model 19 and then compare that to the actual river data for the 20 period obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps 21 of Engineers, the Department of Water Resources and the 22 geological survey. Is that correct? 23 DR. DENTON: That would be a good way to do it. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And then the friction factors in the 25 channels would be adjusted to create a best fit with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4224 1 actual data; is that correct? 2 DR. DENTON: Are you asking with respect to all the 3 capabilities of the model, or just the hydrodynamic part of 4 it? 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The hydrodynamic part of it. 6 DR. DENTON: Okay. Yes. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And you would agree with me, 8 wouldn't you, that the calibration verification process has 9 shown that historically the Fischer Delta Model is an 10 accurate tool for predicting both flow rates and water 11 surface elevations in the Delta channels? 12 DR. DENTON: It's as accurate as we can get it with 13 the data that we have available. And from time to time it 14 needs to be upgraded. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the solutes transport model 16 tracks salt of any -- any other tracers that might be 17 introduced into the Delta; is that correct, Dr. Denton? 18 DR. DENTON: Yes. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And it then follows the water 20 particle through the Delta? 21 DR. DENTON: It follows the solutes particle through 22 the Delta. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. And an example of one 24 solutes would be lithium chloride; is that correct? 25 DR. DENTON: I guess so. We haven't modeled that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4225 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: But the Fischer Delta Model would 2 enable a person to find what concentration -- if they were 3 modeling lithium, what concentration of lithium would be at 4 any of the nodal points within the Delta; is that correct? 5 DR. DENTON: In a cross-section, in an average sense, 6 assuming that you've modeled everything, you haven't lost 7 any of the material to the sediments and things like that. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, is it correct that the Delta 9 Fischer Model takes into account both the tidal flows in 10 the Delta, the channel flow divisions and turbulent mixing 11 within the channels which all contribute to the dispersion 12 of tracers within the Delta? 13 DR. DENTON: Yes. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that the Fischer Delta 15 Model can be operated in, at least, two different ways? 16 DR. DENTON: Could you say what those different two 17 ways are? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Well, one way to operate the model 19 would be in a transient flow state where one represents the 20 actual flow that comes from the San Joaquin River, on the 21 southeast, the east side streams and the Sacramento River. 22 DR. DENTON: Okay. Yes. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And another way of operating the 24 Fischer Delta Model would be to fix the river flows at a 25 steady state and then adjust -- let me ask the question CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4226 1 differently. 2 Another way to operate the model would be to fix 3 the river flows at a steady state. And then investigate 4 the flow tracer material that is introduced by the 5 steady-state river flow and the action of the tides; is 6 that correct? 7 DR. DENTON: How long would that steady state exist? 8 Are you talking about just for the whole simulation? 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. 10 DR. DENTON: You could do it that way. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Denton, I'd like to hand you a 12 document which has been marked for identification as Delta 13 Westlands' Exhibits 27. Have you ever seen Westlands' 14 Exhibits 27 before? 15 DR. DENTON: Yes, I have. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Were you present at the State Board 17 workshop that was conducted on April 4, 1996, concerning 18 the application by the United States Bureau of Reclamation 19 for a discharge permit for the San Luis drain? 20 DR. DENTON: Yes, I was present. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And is it correct that Westlands 22 Water District's Exhibits 27 was distributed by Westlands 23 Water District's representative at that workshop? 24 DR. DENTON: It looks like it's the same exhibit, 25 yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4227 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd ask you to turn to tab three in 2 Westlands Water District's Exhibits 27. And in particular 3 turn to page 11 of tab 3. I'd ask you to take a few 4 moments and read the -- starting with the second paragraph 5 on page 11 and read the next few paragraphs on pages 11, 12 6 and on to 13 from tab 3 of Westlands Water District's 7 Exhibits 27. And after you've completed reading those, 8 will you, please, let me know. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: While he's doing that, Mr. Birmingham, 10 for refreshment of my memory, is this the document that you 11 identified the other day? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It is, yes. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Could you give me 14 that reference again, Mr. Birmingham? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. Starting on page 11 of tab 3 16 in Westlands Water District's Exhibits 27 for 17 identification. 18 DR. DENTON: What was the final page? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Just going on to pages 12 and 13. 20 DR. DENTON: Okay. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Have you had an opportunity -- 22 DR. DENTON: Okay. Okay. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: -- to read the text on pages 11, 12 24 and 13 from tab 3 from Westlands Water District's Exhibits 25 27 for identification? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4228 1 DR. DENTON: I have. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, is it your understanding that 3 the text that you've just read is a text prepared by 4 a Dr. John List? 5 DR. DENTON: Yes. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. John List is someone that you 7 know? 8 DR. DENTON: I know him very well. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And Dr. List is a former professor 10 of environmental engineering sciences at Cal Tech; is that 11 correct? 12 DR. DENTON: Yes. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And Dr. List is an expert in the 14 fields of mechanics of fluids and hydraulic engineering; 15 isn't that correct? 16 DR. DENTON: Yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Denton, 18 that the text from tab 3 of Westlands Water District's 19 Exhibits 27 starting on page 11 and going forward, is it a 20 description of an analysis performed by Dr. List using the 21 Fischer Delta Model of the potential affects of an 22 agricultural drain discharging in the Delta? 23 DR. DENTON: Yes. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, Dr. List used the Fischer 25 Delta Model to analyze an agricultural drain discharging CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4229 1 into the Delta in the same way that the Contra Costa's 2 witnesses that have appeared here today analyzed the 3 potential affects of operating the tidal barriers; isn't 4 that correct? 5 DR. DENTON: Yes. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no further questions. Thank 7 you very much. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 9 Do the staff have questions? 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 12 BY STAFF 13 MR. HOWARD: I have a couple. I have one question 14 for Dr. Shum. On page 6 of your testimony you indicate 15 that the analysis that you did represents that the analysis 16 is not -- that the situation that occurs in your analysis 17 is not uncommon during the summer months and other 18 hydrologic year types. And the impacts estimated in the 19 study could be typical. 20 The period that you selected for your analysis, 21 August 1988, was the second year in I think a critically 22 dry year. And my recollection is export pumping was pretty 23 high that year, maybe even higher than historical. I see 24 you gave the numbers there. 25 My question is: Would the results, in your CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4230 1 opinion, be a lower percentage of San Joaquin River water 2 under wetter hydrologic conditions? 3 DR. SHUM: You're referring to with barriers? 4 MR. HOWARD: Yes, the analysis that you did 5 specifically. 6 DR. SHUM: The results depends on the -- among other 7 things, on the ratio of the exports to the San Joaquin 8 flow. And my understanding is those numbers are fairly 9 typical so -- even for wet years. So the magnitude of the 10 impact would be comparable. 11 MR. HOWARD: Mr. Hasencamp in his analysis -- this 12 is, again, a question for Dr. Shum, assumed a 5 part per 13 million chloride addition in dry and critically dry years 14 and then no change in chloride in other year types, as I 15 understand. So you would think that that type of analysis 16 would not be appropriate based on your -- 17 DR. SHUM: I think -- I think there are couple of 18 issues that we need to look at. First of all, CCWD 19 Exhibit 3 is for general exposition on the impacts of any 20 water quality change on the CCWD. So one of the 21 approach -- or the approach we have taken is to avoid very 22 detailed specification. 23 And as far as assuming a 5 milligrams per liter, 24 only in dry and critical years is kind of an average impact 25 we think may be useful for the level of accuracy we are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4231 1 dealing with here on the barrier operations only for a 2 number of months in the year. So by assuming the increase 3 throughout the 12 months it is, in a sense, increasing the 4 magnitude of impacts. On the other hand, the impacts in 5 the below normal, above normal and wet years are simulated. 6 So that, in turn, brings down the estimate. So we think 7 for illustration purposes, this is close and sufficient 8 simulation. 9 MR. HOWARD: Well, you sort of got to my next 10 question to Dr. Hasencamp. And that has to do with the 11 question of: In your analysis you assumed year-round 12 increases in chloride concentrations of 5 parts per million 13 in dry and critically dry years, as I understand it; is 14 that correct? 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. 16 MR. HOWARD: The testimony from Dr. Shum earlier had 17 indicated that the ISDP would be operating the barriers in 18 June through September. Have you looked at an analysis in 19 which you would only consider the June through September 20 period for increases in chloride concentrations? 21 MR. HASENCAMP: As Dr. Shum had said, this was 22 illustrative purposes, which in general, impacts tend to be 23 in drier years and less in wetter years. And so we could 24 have done a number of things, could have used 9 milligrams 25 per liter impact at one intake and 3 at another, but the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4232 1 purpose was to show that there can be impacts in the range 2 of what we're talking about. And once a more thorough 3 analysis is done, then we could complete a more thorough 4 impact analysis on CCWD, but we don't expect it to be -- I 5 mean this is in the range of what we would expect. 6 MR. HOWARD: In general in your modeling have you 7 found that you would be operating to fill Los Vaqueros very 8 often in the June through September period? 9 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. That's -- tends to be the 10 months with the best water quality. So those are typically 11 the months that we would fill the most. We also have a 12 75-day no-fill period between March 15th and the end of 13 May. So June is the first opportunity we get to fill after 14 the 75-day period, so that is the month that we fill more 15 than any other month. 16 MR. HOWARD: Dr. Denton, when I asked Mike Ford a 17 question during the Department of Water Resources' 18 testimony, and I had asked him regarding whether or not it 19 would be advisable for the Board to specify the operation 20 of the barriers as part of a water right decision he seemed 21 to think that the -- the increase flexibility was an 22 important factor for the Department. 23 Am I correct in assuming that the Contra Costa 24 Water District's position is that a water right decision 25 that incorporates the barriers should specify the operation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4233 1 of the barriers? 2 DR. DENTON: Yes. Although, I can't specify in 3 detail on what the legal aspects of that are, whether the 4 Board has the right or not to. 5 MR. HOWARD: Okay. Thank you. That was all. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Howard. 7 Any other questions from the other staff members? All 8 right. Anything from the Board Members? 9 All right. Do you have any redirect, Mr. Maddow? 10 MR. MADDOW: I think just one question, Mr. Chairman. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 12 ---oOo--- 13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 14 BY ROBERT MADDOW 15 MR. MADDOW: And in some respects it's related to the 16 question asked of Dr. Denton by Mr. Howard a moment ago, 17 and this is also a question for Dr. Denton. 18 Dr. Denton, in your opinion, are any of the 19 mitigation measures related to the proposed flow barriers, 20 the mitigation measures that appear on page 11 of CCWD 21 Exhibit 2, are any of those measures particularly worthy of 22 the Board's consideration for immediate implementation 23 should a decision be made permitting the flow barriers? 24 DR. DENTON: Yes. On page 11 of Contra Costa Exhibit 25 2 there's discussion of potential mitigation measures. And CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4234 1 the one that's listed first is: 2 (Reading): 3 "Reduce or eliminate by treatment, land use, 4 management, or relocation the salinity increases 5 caused by the Veal Track agricultural drain 6 that discharges directly into Rock Slough east 7 of the Delta Road Bridge." 8 That is an example of a local problem that would 9 be relatively easy to fix. We have talked with the DWR 10 about this as something we might partner with them on. 11 It's also been considered by CalFed as part of its water 12 quality program. We've already sent them a proposal for a 13 feasibility study to study how we could reduce or eliminate 14 that drainage without redirecting it to somebody else. And 15 I think that is something that could be -- is very feasible 16 could be done very simply and would be something that the 17 Board should consider. 18 MR. MADDOW: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank 19 you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 21 Any of the parties wish to cross-examine -- I should say 22 recross-examine on that one question? All right. No one 23 responding. Staff? Board Members? 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Maddow, do you wish to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4235 1 offer your exhibits? 2 MR. MADDOW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Contra 3 Costa Water District offers the three statements of 4 qualifications. Those would be Contra Costa Exhibit 1-C 5 for Dr. Denton, 1-E for Dr. Shum, 1-F for Dr. David Briggs 6 and Contra Costa Exhibits 2, 3 and 4. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you agree with that numbering, 8 Ms. Whitney? 9 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Any objection from any of 11 the other parties on accepting the exhibits as enumerated 12 by Mr. Maddow into the record? Hearing and seeing no 13 objection, they are accepted. Let us now go to the 14 exhibits that are identified by the cross-examiners. 15 First, Mr. Minasian. 16 MR. MINASIAN: I'd offer State Exchange 17 Contractor's 1. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection to accepting Exchange 19 Contractor's 1? Mr. O'Laughlin? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No objection, but could that be sent 21 out like we've done previously with other exhibits that 22 have been offered at the time of the hearing to all the 23 parties by mail and then served upon them? 24 MR. MINASIAN: I was planning to do that. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: All right. No objection. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4236 1 C.O. CAFFREY: That will be done, Mr. O'Laughlin. 2 Let's see, Mr. -- let me back up one half a step. Anybody 3 else on that? There was no objection. All right. 4 Mr. Minasian's exhibit is accepted. 5 Now, Mr. Simmons, City of Stockton Number 57. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Correct. And I will send copies on 7 everybody on the service list. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Any objection to 9 accepting into the record City of Stockton Exhibit Number 10 57? Seeing and hearing no objection, it also is accepted 11 into the record with copies to be sent to all. 12 Mr. Birmingham, did you wish to offer Westlands' 13 27? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes, sir. I move for the admission 15 of Westlands Water District 27 previously marked for 16 identification. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Any objection to 18 accepting -- 19 MR. JACKSON: Yes. For the record, the Regional 20 Council of Rural Counties and Trinity County objects to the 21 introduction of that document on the grounds that it's 22 outside the scope of the hearing notice and deals solely 23 for items for which there was no notice prior to the 24 beginning of this phase of this hearing. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4237 1 understand your objection. Ms. Leidigh, do you want to 2 come up here and talk to me for a moment. 3 MS. LEIDIGH: Sure. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. We'll go off the record 5 for just a second. 6 (Off the record from 1:51 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.) 7 C.O. CAFFREY: We're back on the record. Here's the 8 ruling: We are going to accept the exhibit. The use of 9 the exhibit by Mr. Birmingham was within the scope of the 10 hearing as we have defined it. There may be portions of 11 the exhibit that go beyond that, but that's not how it was 12 used. Therefore, we will accept the exhibit. 13 Any other objections to Westlands' 27? It is 14 accepted into the record. Thank you very much. I believe 15 that completes your case in chief, Mr. Maddow. 16 MR. MADDOW: It does, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, and thanks to the panel. 18 Appreciate it, gentlemen. That will now take us to 19 Mr. Simmons and the case in chief for the City of Stockton. 20 Good afternoon, Mr. Simmons. Do you need a little 21 time to set up with your panel? 22 MR. SIMMONS: I may, but if I could just address the 23 Chair about how we're going to do this procedurally. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Please. 25 MR. SIMMONS: Earlier in the week we talked about CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4238 1 potentially putting on our panel of witnesses on the DO 2 and letting them then be crossed and then putting on our 3 witnesses on salinity following that, or subsequent to 4 that. We realize that they're both Phase V topics, but 5 they're fairly self-contained packages and distinct issues. 6 And if we could do the DO, it's not outside the 7 question that we could get the people on and off today. 8 We'll do all of it within our time frame for Phase V. And 9 one of the panel is not available for cross in the next 10 week. So if we just could take the DO panel, do that and 11 then later do the witness on salinity. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: So you have a DO witness that's not 13 available next week, is that what you're saying? 14 MR. SIMMONS: Correct. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Is there any objection to 16 proceeding in the fashion that Mr. Simmons has suggested, 17 dividing the question between dissolved oxygen and 18 salinity? 19 MR. JACKSON: No objection, sir. We're not here next 20 week, are we? 21 MR. SIMMONS: I'm talking about the next week of 22 hearings. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I should have said. 24 MR. JACKSON: October 13th. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You're absolutely right. We're always CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4239 1 here, but "next time" is what I should have said. I take 2 it from that you're not going to come to our workshop and 3 Board meeting. 4 MR. JACKSON: I hope not. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay, Mr. Jackson. I apologize, I did 6 misspeak. We're not back here until the 13th of October. 7 So as you explained, then, your witnesses for dissolved 8 oxygen is not available for the next time we meet. 9 MR. SIMMONS: One of the witnesses is not available 10 during that week. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Well, I heard and saw no 12 objection to proceeding as you have suggested, Mr. Simmons, 13 so we will do that. So you'll have two panels, then. 14 MR. SIMMONS: Yes. Thank you very much. The way 15 we'd like to proceed in terms of putting on the DO issue is 16 there will be a brief policy statement by Mr. Podesto. 17 Then I'll make an opening statement, and then we'll go with 18 the witness. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: That will be fine. You ready to 20 proceed now, then? 21 MR. SIMMONS: Ready to go. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't know if you've instructed your 23 presenters, but for Mr. Podesto there is a five-minute 24 limit on policy statements. I don't know if you know that, 25 sir, but we are adhering to our time schedule. So if you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4240 1 can confine your statement to within five minutes. 2 MR. PODESTO: I certainly will. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon and 4 welcome. 5 ---oOo--- 6 CASE IN CHIEF OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 7 BY PAUL SIMMONS 8 MR. PODESTO: Good afternoon, Chairman Caffrey and 9 Board Members. As Mr. Simmons stated, my name is Gary 10 Podesto. And I'm the Mayor of the City of Stockton. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Welcome, Mr. Mayor. 12 MR. PODESTO: Thank you. As Mayor I've been 13 following the proceedings of your Board in this matter with 14 a great deal of interest since the outcome of these 15 proceedings will have a very significant impact on the 16 citizens and the economy that I represent. 17 But to go beyond the community that I serve, I'm 18 also concerned as a Californian about the bigger picture 19 that affects the environment as far west as the San 20 Francisco Bay. And the flow and the volume of the water 21 are critical to any solution to the Delta problems all the 22 way to the Bay. 23 You may wonder why, as Mayor of the City of 24 Stockton, I'm here addressing you today in water rights 25 proceedings, since the City of Stockton does not have any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4241 1 water rights that are going to be affected by the outcome. 2 The reason I'm here relates to the discharge of 3 our treated wastewater under a NPDES permit issued by the 4 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, our 5 city's regional wastewater control facility. Others 6 testifying for the City of Stockton later will provide you 7 with the technical details regarding the affect of this 8 discharge and what it may -- pardon me, regarding the 9 affect those discharges may have on dissolved oxygen levels 10 in the San Joaquin River. 11 I would like during my brief comments to provide 12 you with some of the thoughts on the issue from the policy 13 perspective. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality 14 Control Board has a responsibility to protect all of the 15 beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River. Before the City 16 of Stockton can discharge treated effluent into the river, 17 we must obtain a NPDES permit, as you're well aware, from 18 the Regional Board. 19 Your Board is conducting these current proceedings 20 because the river has a dissolved oxygen problem that has 21 not been addressed to date. This problem is not new to the 22 City of Stockton. It was recognized before the Regional 23 Board issued Stockton a cease and desist order in the early 24 1970's requiring the City to upgrade its wastewater 25 treatment facility. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4242 1 In order to address the dissolved oxygen problem 2 the City obtained federal and State grants to upgrade its 3 wastewater treatment facility to the tertiary level. That 4 system, which cost the taxpayer over 50 million dollars, 5 has been operating successfully since 1980. But did that 6 solve the problem? Clearly not. Dissolved oxygen still is 7 a serious concern. The theme of Stockton's presentation to 8 you and the theme of my statement is that the dissolved 9 oxygen issue is a Delta problem and requires a Delta 10 solution. 11 We, in Stockton, live on the San Joaquin River and 12 are trying to bring back our riverfront. We want aquatic 13 resources to flourish, but we cannot stand by idly and 14 acquiesce in more and more stringent regulations with 15 increasingly marginal benefits, while all of the other 16 factors affecting DO, for the most part, go ignored. This 17 is the time and place for the State Board to take a step 18 back and work with us to fix the problem. 19 When Stockton applied in 1992 for renewal of its 20 NPDES permit, the Regional Board indicated that because the 21 dissolved oxygen problem had not been resolved, Stockton 22 would have to upgrade its treatment even more to remove 23 ammonia. That ammonia removal order became effective 24 immediately requiring our City to file an appeal to your 25 Board, or face possible fines for noncompliance. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4243 1 I'm grateful that your Board eventually approved 2 Stockton's appeal and the order to remove ammonia was 3 stayed while Stockton's permit was remanded to the Regional 4 Board pending the outcome of these proceedings and actions 5 pending by other entities such as CalFed. 6 That brings me to the connection between these 7 clean water proceedings and Stockton's NPDES permit. As 8 Stockton's testimony will show, even complete removal of 9 Stockton's wastewater effluent from the San Joaquin River 10 will not solve the dissolved oxygen problem. Tightening up 11 on Stockton's NPDES permit requirements, which are already 12 so stringent that fish could live on a hundred percent of 13 the system's effluent, still would not allow the river to 14 meet the dissolved oxygen standard. 15 Stockton's discharge is only a very small piece of 16 this giant puzzle that you're dealing with. The final 17 resolution to this problem must incorporate a comprehensive 18 approach. This means that all users of water from the San 19 Joaquin watershed, including cities, industry and 20 agriculture must bear a share of the burden to correct this 21 long-standing problem. 22 Low dissolved oxygen results from upstream 23 diversions starting at Friant Dam, agricultural return 24 flows, wastewater discharges, export pumping and storm 25 runoff. You, as a Board, must require better and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4244 1 coordinated management to the San Joaquin River. 2 This should include the timing of upstream 3 reservoir releases, control of agricultural drainage, 4 installation of operable gates at Old River to ensure 5 positive flow of the San Joaquin River at Stockton in a 6 manner as not to disrupt other necessary flows. As a 7 policy matter, I urge your Board to consider the phased 8 total maximum daily flow, TMDL, approach to establish 9 responsibility for the resolution of this problem. 10 It makes very little sense to me as a community 11 leader for the regulatory agencies to set erroneous 12 standards on our City's discharge, which will cost our 13 citizens another 70-million-plus dollars, which we do not 14 have by the way, and which will not solve -- and would 15 totally mitigate the problem while ignoring the conditions 16 in the watershed which cause a majority of the problems. 17 Stockton realizes that the TMDL on a watershed as vast as 18 the San Joaquin will be costly. 19 If your Board is willing to proceed with phase 20 TMDL approach, Stockton is willing to step to the plate by 21 committing funds to assist in this process. In fact, the 22 Stockton City Council has formally adopted a resolution 23 making this commitment. Stockton is more than willing to 24 do and pay its fair share toward resolution of this very 25 critical water quality problem. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4245 1 In the interim, and until the phase TMDL is 2 completed, we will encourage, in fact, request your Board 3 to direct the Central Valley Regional Board to hold in 4 abeyance any further regulations of Stockton's wastewater 5 discharge, while we all resolve to work together to direct 6 monies towards the broader cause and a better long-term 7 solution to the San Joaquin and the entire Delta and even 8 the San Francisco Bay. 9 I thank you for the opportunity to address this 10 Board on behalf of the citizens in Stockton on such an 11 important issue for all of California. Thank you. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 13 Appreciate you taking the time out of, I'm sure, a very 14 busy schedule to come here and address the Board 15 personally. Also, my compliments to your city for holding 16 the Wings Over Stockton event, which I've been following 17 with interest. 18 MR. PODESTO: Thank you. Hope to have you down 19 there. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Hope to be there. Thank you, sir. 21 All right, Mr. Simmons. 22 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the 23 record, Paul Simmons for the City of Stockton. I think 24 this is the first time I've spoken after the Mayor. I 25 think another point from the Mayor's remarks is it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4246 1 pretty lonely being an NPDES permittee in these 2 proceedings. We are such an easy unglamorous target that 3 we feel like we need to watch our back at all times. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: I'll let you know if they stand up and 5 start throwing things at you. 6 MEMBER FORSTER: You're also pretty lonely in asking 7 for a TMDL. 8 MR. SIMMONS: We're willing to help as you heard it. 9 So it really is necessary for us to start by asking the 10 Board to take a step back and deal with this issue the same 11 way that you deal with any other Delta issue. I suppose it 12 would be possible for us to come in and take our shots at 13 the dairies, take our shots at the nonpoint sources, take 14 our shots at all the people that are causing the reverse 15 flows. 16 We don't think that that's, necessarily, the right 17 approach. We think you need to use a management approach, 18 not necessarily a regulatory approach, to deal with this 19 problem. The kind of approach that we're talking about is 20 a management approach where you diagnosis the problem, you 21 figure out -- you prescribe the right solutions based on 22 what is really going on in the watershed with the DO 23 issues. And that's really what our testimony is going to 24 emphasize. 25 When I examined Mr. Ford I asked him, "Well, do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4247 1 you think anyone has really made a good effort so far to 2 try to figure out what you could do?" And he said, "no." 3 And that's our sense, too. 4 And because we're sort of lonely in this regard, 5 we need to get into that type of process to be able to work 6 through some of these things in the same way other 7 Bay-Delta problems are worked out. So I mean the Mayor 8 covered most of what I wanted to cover. And I'll just let 9 you know who's going to be testifying and give you a couple 10 other quick remarks. 11 We have five witnesses that will be talking on the 12 DO issues: Mr. Morris Allen, who's the director of 13 utilities for the City, he will both open and close the 14 testimony; Susan Stutz-McDonald, an engineer with Carollo 15 Engineers will be testifying; Mr. Gary Ingraham, who is the 16 assistant City Manager will be third; Dr. Carl Chen who is 17 the president of Systech Engineers will be next; followed 18 by Dr. Russ Brown, with Jones and Stokes Associates. And 19 all of these people are extremely qualified, maybe uniquely 20 qualified to talk about the things that they'll be talking 21 about. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: You are, Mr. Simmons, not going to 23 present them as a panel but as individuals? 24 MR. SIMMONS: As a panel, but the estimated time is 25 about 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 20, or something like that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4248 1 So the whole panel, they'll just go in sequence and the 2 whole thing should take about a hour. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 4 MR. SIMMONS: That's our estimate. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: That's fine. 6 MR. SIMMONS: The testimony will confirm what the 7 Mayor said about the City and the fact that we've sort of 8 been here before. We've had enforcement orders. We did 9 what we thought was our fair share toward the problem. 10 And, in fact, this Board in the 1991 plan when it adopted 11 the DO objective, significantly talked about Stockton 12 improving the DO condition in the Stockton ship channel. 13 So we're going to go through that a little bit. 14 We're going to talk about the factors that do affect DO, 15 whether it's water temperature, the problem with the 16 configuration with the ship channel, flow issue, nutrients. 17 That's just one we've learned a lot about lately, nutrients 18 and algal blooms. They can just more or less overwhelm the 19 system if there isn't some management for those. So those 20 witnesses will cover those topics and hopefully help lead 21 the Board to what we think is, necessarily, the solution 22 that has to be pursued to deal with that. 23 And when we talk about all those factors, some are 24 harder to control than others. There's no question about 25 that. We think, though, that none of it can be ignored. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4249 1 We're very concerned about the attitude that says, well, 2 you know, that's all well and good, but we do have a point 3 source here. And it's awful handy and awful easy to 4 regulate you. 5 We think that that approach would do a very 6 expensive disservice to the City of Stockton. And it 7 wouldn't address the problem either. And just to 8 illustrate the point, I want to show you one exhibit that 9 you'll see later. John, it's the one I marked with a 3. 10 We did do some water quality modeling for Board staff for 11 use in the EIR. It's Exhibit 32-B -- or 32-D. 12 We have this water quality model. We did some 13 modeling at Board staff's request. And a lot of the model 14 simulations that we did were sensitivity analysis. In 15 other words, we show the sensitivity of DO to flow, 16 sensitivity of DO to temperature, sensitivity of DO to 17 algal blooms, sensitivity of DO to Stockton waste load. 18 We were criticized -- in the sensitive for the 19 Stockton waste load, we showed current discharge of DO, 20 versus zero discharge, complete elimination of the 21 discharge, which is not something that can happen. And 22 we're going to talk about that. But we were criticized a 23 little bit for implicitly in the DEIR. And it sort of 24 says, well, that's okay, but what we would really like to 25 know is what are -- what are the consequences of you, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4250 1 Stockton, have to meet the stringent ammonia limit that the 2 Regional Board wanted to impose very recently, the stayed 3 ammonia limit? 4 What are the consequences or what's the benefit 5 for DO if you do that, if you have very, very stringent 6 ammonia limits? And so we did that for the hearings here. 7 We used the model to simulate those two conditions. You 8 can see this is dissolved oxygen on the left vertical axis 9 over it -- one water year. 10 The flows that were assumed -- and these are flows 11 from the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan and they will talk 12 about that more in a minute. But the blue line is what's 13 called the base condition. This is the City of Stockton's 14 discharge at basically its current level. The red line 15 is -- shows the change in the dissolved oxygen if the City 16 were required to guarantee the 2-milligram ammonia limit 17 that was proposed by the Regional Board and subsequently 18 stayed. 19 And so if I could point -- we're coming back to 20 this. But this is, basically, the difference between the 21 current discharge and the -- and the quality, or the DO 22 that would result in the river if we were required to meet 23 the 2 milligrams. And when we come to this, I hope the 24 Board will envision right in this little space the number 25 78 million dollars. Right there, because -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4251 1 C.O. CAFFREY: It's quite a scale on that. 2 MR. SIMMONS: Yeah, we can't fit it in there. 3 Because that is the cost of nitrification facilities. And 4 it would take nitrification facilities in order to 5 guarantee that 2-milligram ammonia in the effluent. So 6 this exhibit is about cost benefit. 7 Now, to be completely candid, I have to say that 8 this exhibit also -- the hydrology here assumes that the 9 Old River barrier was closed in September, which isn't 10 necessary historic operation. This is just one we were 11 given to use for the many simulations, so to make sure 12 we're not hiding the ball on anything, you need to know 13 that. It does show you the benefits of the Old River 14 barrier in September. And we're, certainly, not saying 15 this is the definitive final answer, we're just using this 16 to illustrate the kinds of things that go on. 17 MEMBER FORSTER: I have a question. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Forster? 19 MEMBER FORSTER: Is somebody going to explain how you 20 modeled that, what kind of data you used? 21 MR. SIMMONS: Yeah. Our final recommendations to the 22 Board will have several elements that Mr. Allen will cover. 23 There is one thing in our written testimony that he's not 24 going to cover that I'm going to talk about right now a 25 little bit. And that is we think as part of this you're CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4252 1 really going to have a hard look at the 6-milligram 2 objective, at least in the month of September during the 3 part of this time. 4 We don't raise that lightly. We think it's going 5 to have to happen either now or as part, perhaps, of this 6 management approach that we're talking about. All of the 7 factors that affect dissolved oxygen just sort of conspire 8 in September, the water is hot. There's no flow. And 9 meeting anything is difficult. The number used to be 5 10 milligrams per liter in the basin plan. It was raised to 6 11 in the 1991 Water Quality Control Plan adopted by the 12 Board. 13 We've been saying, you know, how in the heck did 14 that get in there? And we did a little digging and we've 15 done a little digging and as best we can tell, it's there 16 because of one of the many stacks of documents that were 17 entered in the record in 1987. There is a paragraph in a 18 Fish and Wildlife Service report that says, well, it may be 19 good for the chinook salmon if you had a 6.0 objective from 20 September through November. As far as we can tell there 21 wasn't any further analysis of that issue. 22 And that is a little tough, as I said. And we're 23 asking: Are there really chinook salmon in the San Joaquin 24 River on September 1st? Isn't the water maybe a little 25 hot? Are the conditions hospitable? We think that's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4253 1 something that's going to have to be looked at, just 2 because of the feasibility issue. 3 Putting that aside, our approach will still 4 maximize DO to the maximum extent that you can, we just 5 think it needs to be looked at part of the process. One 6 sort of corollary recommendation we have with that is that, 7 perhaps -- let's say the river is hot. Perhaps, you would 8 say, this objective is conditional. For example, this 6.0 9 objective is conditional, it applies when the river is 68 10 degrees or lower. So that the conditions would, otherwise, 11 be relatively better for salmon than you would say maybe 12 the DO objective applies then. Something we hope that you 13 will consider. 14 The Mayor talked about this and Mr. Allen will 15 talk about this, the approach that we are recommending that 16 you do adopt and pursue phase TMDL and have a number of 17 elements in it including consideration of a flexible 18 operation of the Old River barrier, including other 19 elements. And the way that we see this approach, this 20 management approach both in its operation and in its 21 analysis, is somewhat of an iterative one, in which you 22 would early on identify the things that are really cost 23 effective, the things that really yield benefits. And you 24 shrink the problem a little bit. 25 Next layer of analysis, others things that will CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4254 1 provide benefits, shrink the problem a little bit and see 2 how small we can get. Maybe you would get to the point of 3 maybe saying, now, we're going to require one agency to 4 spend another 78 million dollars, but we think that's way 5 premature. And with that, we'll call our panel. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 7 MEMBER FORSTER: I've one more question. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Forster. 9 MEMBER FORSTER: On the TMDL, are you talking about 10 the TMDL for the whole San Joaquin River, or a certain 11 reach? 12 MR. SIMMONS: Talking about TMDL for DO, basically, I 13 would say in the Stockton ship channel. The rivers on the 14 303 list for DO, there's no question it should be on the 15 303 list. It's really a matter of priority like everything 16 else. And we're asking you make it a priority, because 17 there's some circumstances to doing that. 18 MEMBER FORSTER: For the Stockton ship channel? 19 MR. SIMMONS: Stockton ship channel, I would say the 20 reach that has the DO problem. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Simmons, have all of your 22 witnesses taken the oath? 23 MR. SIMMONS: No, Mr. Chairman. I was going to bring 24 that up. I think we have two that need to be sworn. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Those of you who have not taken the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4255 1 oath, please, stand. You promise to tell the truth in 2 these proceedings? 3 PANEL MEMBERS: Yes. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. Please, be 5 seated. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Just one evidentiary matter, 7 Mr. Chairman, for this presentation we're going to use 8 several overheads. We're going to cover a certain amount 9 of ground. We made some sort of some bullet-type 10 overheads. In other words, just summarizing the same 11 things that the witnesses are saying. We've numbered 12 those -- gave them numbers for exhibits. They're new 13 exhibits. It's not new information, but we have all of 14 those in hard copy and we will put them in the record. And 15 we will serve all parties with that little package that 16 we're using on the overhead. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: We appreciate your providing us with 18 that, Mr. Simmons, because it helps us to avoid going 19 through that question. 20 MR. SIMMONS: Right. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: So that's very helpful. We thank you. 22 And I assume as we go, you'll identify the exhibits for the 23 transcript as we're going through this, or your witnesses 24 will. 25 MR. SIMMONS: I hope they will. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4256 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, right. Now, are you going to be 2 providing these copies as each one comes up, or -- 3 MR. SIMMONS: We can do it either way. We have the 4 package. You can have it with you, or you can follow 5 along. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have an entire package to give 7 out now -- 8 MR. SIMMONS: Yes. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: -- for everyone? That would give them 10 a little bit of an opportunity to see what it is. That 11 would be perfectly appropriate. 12 MR. SIMMONS: The majority of these are in the 13 presubmitted material, it's just narrow bullet-type of 14 material. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Right. We understand that these are 16 just different formats, summations of what you've already 17 submitted with your exhibits. Does everybody have a copy 18 who needs a copy? Mr. Gallery awaits. 19 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to 20 ask each witness to summarize their testimony in turn. 21 They're going to identify where their qualifications are 22 and the number of the written testimony and I'll hand it 23 over to them. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: That's fine, Mr. Simmons. Thank you, 25 sir. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4257 1 MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Chairman Caffrey, Members 2 of the Board. I'm Morris Allen. I'm the director of 3 utilities for the City of Stockton. My written testimony 4 is Stockton Exhibit 10. And my qualifications are shown as 5 a portion of Exhibit 33. 6 Just to summarize that real briefly, I'm a 7 licensed civil engineer in California. I obtained my 8 Bachelor's and Master's degree in civil and sanitary 9 engineering. I have 36 years' professional experience as a 10 civil engineer. I have been the director of utilities for 11 the City of Stockton for the past 12 years. 12 First I'd like to show you, for purposes of 13 orientation, I know you've seen a lot of Delta maps before 14 and we brought one of our own for our own purposes, but 15 this shows you the location of the various features of the 16 Delta in respect to the City's sampling stations. And if 17 you look kind of at the southeast station you'll see the 18 Vernalis flow and water quality station -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Allen, let me interrupt 20 you. Perhaps, you were getting to it, but what we need for 21 purposes of the transcript, since in the future people may 22 only be reading the transcribed document, we need you to 23 start with the identification of the exhibit as it will be 24 identified in the record. 25 MR. ALLEN: My apologies, Mr. Chairman. This is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4258 1 Stockton Exhibit 15. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 3 MR. ALLEN: We're sitting north on the diagram. 4 We've also showed the location of the head of Old River 5 barrier, also, the Central Valley and State Water Project 6 intakes, the pumping stations. The City of Stockton's 7 monitoring stations are shown with the circles identified 8 as R0A, R0B, R1, R2 and so forth as you go north. 9 The Stockton's discharge point is shown next to 10 station R2. Also shown is the turning basin, station R3, 11 the deep water channel, the dissolved oxygen monitoring 12 station, Corps of Engineers and their station R5 and then 13 proceeding on north as far as station R8. We've also 14 indicated on the map the location of the Contra Costa Water 15 District's Rock Slough pumping plant. 16 Other presenters will be discussing the 17 significance of those sampling stations and indicating the 18 data that has been obtained from them. I just want to 19 provide you a little bit of background. This is Stockton's 20 Exhibit 43-A that is up there now. As the Mayor mentioned, 21 the City of Stockton has an advanced tertiary treatment 22 facility known as the Regional Wastewater Control 23 Facilities for the City of Stockton. 24 This facility contains a number of processes. 25 It's basically a biological treatment plant. One thing CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4259 1 that I want to point out about the facility is that it does 2 have 630 acres of oxidation ponds as a part of its 3 secondary process. And we will be discussing the 4 significance of the ponds as we go through the 5 presentation. 6 The Regional Wastewater Control Facilities was 7 regionalized in the 1970's. As the Mayor mentioned, the 8 City received a cease and desist order for its discharge 9 into the San Joaquin River, and at that point in time put 10 together a plan with the assistant of the State and Federal 11 government to upgrade and modernize the facility and 12 provide tertiary treatment. 13 Between the City, the State and the Federal 14 government over 50 million dollars was expended to 15 consolidate various plants in the Stockton region and 16 construct these new facilities. The tertiary treatment 17 facility was placed in operation in 1980 and it's been in 18 continuous use since that date. The overall project -- the 19 purpose of this project was to comply with the Regional 20 Water Quality Control Board order, which was mainly focused 21 on dissolved oxygen in the river at that time, and that the 22 main purpose of the plant was to reduce the BOD discharges. 23 We have up Stockton Exhibit 43-B. Tertiary 24 facility operates seasonally to produce a very high-quality 25 effluent. Normally the plant is in service during the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4260 1 summertime period to reduce the BOD that is discharged to 2 the river and also the total suspended solids. We do 3 produce a very high-quality effluent when the tertiary 4 facility is in operation. 5 Main items affecting river dissolved oxygen has 6 been noted here for your Board, is BOD, biological oxygen 7 demand oxygen and ammonia. Our plant produces a 8 high-quality effluent with a biological oxygen demand for 9 the June and September period of much less than 10 10 milligrams per liter. The ammonia that's discharged is 11 also very, very low, characteristically, close to zero or 12 less than one in the early spring through the middle of the 13 summer. 14 The ammonia in our discharge rises in late summer 15 due to the natural respiration of biological activity which 16 takes place in these ponds. During the early part of the 17 year the ponds work very, very effectively to remove 18 ammonia. But during the later part of the year the natural 19 die-off of algae and other biological conditions cause 20 ammonia to rise and they discharge from the ponds. 21 Therefore, any new facility that the City would be 22 required to install to remove ammonia, or reduce ammonia 23 discharge, would only need to be operated during August 24 through October. Stockton Exhibit 44-A, as I mentioned in 25 the 1970's the cease and desist order that was imposed on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4261 1 the City of Stockton required extensive treatment 2 modifications to address the DO problem. 3 At that time the Regional Water Quality Control 4 Board order in 1978 established a 10-10 standard. That's 5 10 milligrams per liter BOD; 10 milligrams per liter total 6 suspended solids. And this is during the period of the 7 year when dissolved oxygen is a concern in the river. The 8 10-10 standard was carried forward. And later renewals of 9 the City of Stockton's NPDES permit of 1980 and 1986 and 10 the orders also acknowledged that other factors than the 11 Stockton's discharge affected dissolved oxygen. This was 12 made even more pointed in the 1994 permit that was issued. 13 Stockton's history of continuing to upgrade its 14 treatment facilities since the 1970's indicates that urban 15 growth does not need to increase the discharge of the 16 pollutants to the waterways. Stockton has continued to 17 reduce the amount of total suspended solids and BOD 18 discharge to the river despite the additional population, 19 is served by the wastewater facility. 20 The Stockton Exhibit 44-B continues our regulatory 21 history. I mentioned the 1994 Regional Water Quality 22 Control Board order. This order included a 2-milligram per 23 liter ammonia limit in the period of April 1st to November 24 30th, which was lower than what the Stockton facility had 25 anticipated receiving from the Regional Board. The CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4262 1 regional wastewater control facilities plant was designed 2 to meet a 10-10 standard, but is not designed to remove 3 ammonia from the discharge. Therefore, the City was in a 4 position to appeal this 2-milligrams per liter ammonia 5 limit to your Board. And as the Mayor mentioned, we are 6 thankful that the Board agreed with the City of Stockton 7 and has stayed this portion of the requirements. 8 The City has engaged -- this is Stockton Exhibit 9 45-A, in facilities planning for many, many years to 10 address water quality concerns. We live on the San Joaquin 11 River. We are concerned about the quality of the river and 12 our environment. For that reason the City commissioned 13 Metcalf and Eddy to prepare a master plan for the 14 wastewater facilities. And later on to implement certain 15 recommendations in that plan, approved a six-stage program 16 of upgrade and renovation of the facility. This was 17 approved by the City Council in 1993. And the Stages 1 and 18 2 renovations are expected to cost a total of 73 million 19 dollars. And we are well underway at completing all the 20 recommendations in that Stage 1 and 2 program. 21 We are proceeding with master planning for later 22 stages of our facilities, which would include additional 23 capacity. And Ms. McDonald will talk about some of the 24 details involved in that. However, there -- we did have an 25 extensive stakeholder process where the entire community CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4263 1 was involved in that master planning and to determine the 2 capacity, the addition at capacity that would be provided 3 and the treatment methodologies to be used. 4 At the current time we are in the process of 5 preparing an environmental impact report for those 6 improvements considering six alternative ways of addressing 7 all the requirements of the master plan, including two 8 river management alternatives which, again, will be 9 discussed by Ms. McDonald. 10 This Board has expressed considerable interest in 11 recycling and reuse of wastewater. And the City of 12 Stockton is also very much interested in this. For that 13 reason the City of Stockton's City Council commissioned the 14 firm of Carollo Engineers to conduct a recycled water 15 market evaluation study for the City. This took two years 16 to complete. It was completed in 1996. 17 The study evaluated 13 conceptual alternatives for 18 the reuse of the City's wastewater effluent. All but three 19 of those alternatives were found, for various reasons, to 20 be infeasible. But the three that were considered to be 21 feasible and which were evaluated further in that study 22 included community-based uses, supply to the San Joaquin 23 Water Conservation District for irrigation purposes and 24 groundwater recharge to assist in the correction of the 25 groundwater overdraft in northern and eastern San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4264 1 County. 2 The evaluation included as the economics an offset 3 of costs for the cost of continued river discharge. In 4 other words, there would be improvements necessary to our 5 facility to continue to discharge to the river. And the 6 cost for that were included in the evaluation. That 7 program also had a public participation element. The 8 objectives of which were to build public acceptance by 9 education and consultation of the use of recycled 10 wastewater and also to effectively incorporate all of the 11 concerns that were brought out through the process. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Allen, could you identify this 13 slide. 14 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry, I apologize. This is Stockton 15 Exhibit 45-C for the record. The public participation 16 techniques included the establishment of a technical 17 advisory committee to screen and select alternatives and 18 undertaking focus group meetings consisting of all 19 concerned parties so that all the concerns could be 20 identified and incorporated into the evaluation. 21 What was determined as a result of this process 22 was that we found an excess of concern raised by the 23 potential agricultural users of recycled wastewater. The 24 concerns were that the products grown with recycled 25 wastewater could not be marketed. And, also, after CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4265 1 concluding the study, the Delta Protection Act was passed 2 which restricts the use of recycled effluent in the primary 3 zone, one of the largest market areas approximate to the 4 City of Stockton. 5 After consideration of all of the input received 6 by the City Council, the Council accepted the study and 7 included reuse as an alternative as one of the alternatives 8 in the master planning process, which I've described. In 9 conclusion to that particular study, the Council found that 10 the barriers to be overcome in San Joaquin County to gain 11 acceptance of recycled wastewater are very formidable. 12 In addition, if the City is required to install 13 nitrification facilities to address dissolved oxygen in its 14 wastewater discharge, the funding available for wastewater 15 recycling will be very, very difficult to obtain. 16 Stockton Exhibit 46 describes the City of 17 Stockton's master plan update alternatives. And I'll turn 18 the presentation over to Ms. McDonald to continue. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Before we start with Ms. McDonald, 20 this would be a good time to take our afternoon break. So 21 let's take about a ten-minute break and come back and begin 22 with Ms. McDonald. Thank you. 23 (Recess taken from 2:37 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.) 24 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. Good afternoon, 25 Ms. McDonald. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4266 1 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Good afternoon. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: You may proceed. 3 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Thank you. My name is Susan 4 Stutz-McDonald. I'm a principal of Carollo Engineers 5 representing the City of Stockton on this issue. My 6 written testimony is included as Stockton Exhibit 12. My 7 resume is included as Stockton Exhibit 33. 8 Carollo Engineers is a consulting firm 9 specializing in water and wastewater treatment planning and 10 design. We are currently project managers for the City of 11 Stockton's wastewater control plan/master plan update. As 12 such, we are evaluating alternatives for the expansion and 13 upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant to both meet 14 growth and NPDES compliance requirements. 15 We have Stockton Exhibit Number 46, which is an 16 overview of the master plan update. The objectives of the 17 master plan are to provide treatment for projected flows 18 throughout the general plan buildout. We will be 19 conducting a project EIR, which will provide for a 20 first-phase expansion project up to 48 million gallons per 21 day. This project will include enhanced BOD removal which, 22 by its nature, will also enhance the ammonia treatment 23 capacity of the ponds. 24 The project will ensure compliance with regulatory 25 requirements. We've been going through an extensive CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4267 1 stakeholder involvement program; over 40 citizens 2 representing numerous organizations have been involved in 3 the stakeholders program. We've identified and described 4 over 80 alternatives for expanding the wastewater treatment 5 facilities. We've gone through an extensive screening 6 process to screen those alternatives down to six, 7 alternatives that will be carried forward in the EIR. 8 Of the six alternatives, the first two 9 alternatives address the dissolved oxygen problem in the 10 San Joaquin River. Alternative Number 1 is a river 11 aeration alternative. This would have aeration stations to 12 the river to improve the dissolved oxygen. 13 Alternative number two is improved river 14 management alternative. This alternative would help to 15 meet the San Joaquin River dissolved oxygen levels through 16 a comprehensive river management plan. This will be talked 17 about more in detail by Dr. Russ Brown. This river 18 management alternative would include adaptive operation of 19 the barrier at the head of Old River and also would manage 20 nonpoint source discharges. Mr. Allen referred to 21 developing TMDL's for this area. 22 Now, we go to Stockton Exhibit 47-B. The third 23 alternative that will be carried forward in our master plan 24 is one of the recycled water alternatives Mr. Allen spoke 25 of, and that is groundwater recharge. This alternative CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4268 1 would remove the effluent from the river. It would be a 2 zero-discharge alternative where treated wastewater 3 effluent would be pumped to groundwater basins for 4 percolation into the groundwater. This alternative happens 5 to be one of the most expensive alternatives that we're 6 carrying. 7 The last three alternatives that will be carried 8 forward in the EIR include alternatives that would address 9 the stayed ammonia limit. We're now looking at Stockton 10 Exhibit 47-C. These three alternatives would address the 11 stayed ammonia limit in the City's NPDES permit and would 12 provide nitrification at the treatment plant. These 13 alternatives include a wetlands treatment alternative, 14 which would provide the ammonia removal. 15 We have an alternative that would add activated 16 sludge to the treatment plant, which would provide the 17 nitrification. And the last alternative would also be an 18 activated sludge alternative; however, it would abandon the 19 use of the existing oxidation ponds. 20 The cost for including nitrification at the 21 wastewater treatment plant for further ammonia reduction to 22 meet a 23 2-milligrams per liter of ammonia would be a project cost 24 of 61 million dollars. And that is for the first phase 25 expansion to 48 mgd. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4269 1 MS. LEIDIGH: Is it 48? 2 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Excuse me, this is Stockton 3 Exhibit 48 that I'm reading from. However, the 4 nitrification facility would only need to be operated a few 5 months per year for purposes of meeting the DO in the 6 late-summer early-fall period. The 61 mgd that I'm 7 referring to does not include finance cost. Mr. Ingraham 8 will be discussing that, nor does it include additional 9 operation -- annual operation or maintenance costs that 10 would be necessary for operating the facility. 11 That concludes my testimony. And I will turn the 12 presentation over to Mr. Ingraham. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 14 MR. INGRAHAM: Chairman Caffrey and Members of the 15 Board, good afternoon. It's my pleasure to be here. My 16 name is Gary Ingraham. I'm the assistant city manager for 17 the City of Stockton. I have 32 years' experience in city 18 government. I'm speaking from my qualifications and 19 experience that exist in Exhibit Number 33. My testimony 20 was submitted as Exhibit Number 11. And it's all been 21 submitted to the Board and it's on file. 22 I'd like to summarize certain key elements. I 23 realize time is important and I won't take more than five 24 or six minutes. Mr. Allen has reviewed the City's plan for 25 enhancement to the existing plant to meet water quality CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4270 1 objectives as well as develop additional capacity for the 2 buildout of the City's general plan. 3 Ms. Stutz-McDonald has just testified to the cost 4 of improvements that would be needed to meet the ammonia 5 limit at 2 milligrams per liter. It's been estimated that 6 construction cost is 61 million dollars. However, we would 7 have to issue approximately 78 million dollars in bonds in 8 order to finance that. The reason for the additional 9 amount is that you capitalize interest for the construction 10 period. So that would be capitalized interest for a two- 11 to three-year period. You also have debt reserves that you 12 build in there so you have at least an investment-grade 13 rating, or that you can ensure to triple A rating and you 14 have the cost of issuance. 15 Dr. Chen and Dr. Brown will discuss the water 16 quality affects of spending this amount of money after I am 17 through. And, of course, Mr. Simmons pointed out that 18 little tiny gap there between the two lines is a 19 78-million-dollar bill for the City of Stockton. 20 And I would like to kind of make a few 21 correlations here what that means to the City of Stockton. 22 We are a city of 240,000 people. If the City were to issue 23 78 million dollars in bonds for our population of 240,000, 24 it's equivalent to the State of California issuing a 25 10-billion-dollar bond issue. That 10.3, if you assume 32 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4271 1 million people in the State of California, 10 billion 2 dollars, and that 10 billion dollars would have a very 3 marginal effect on improving the environment. And really 4 that's our whole point here. 5 From a little different perspective, let me review 6 a few statistics regarding the City of Stockton. We are in 7 a low-medium income household level. We have high 8 unemployment. And you heard a little bit about that 9 yesterday. But, for example, in February our unemployment 10 was 13.2 percent, this year when the State's unemployment 11 rate has been running between 5 to 6 percent and the nation 12 has been running 1 percent less than that as an average 13 over the last 6 to 12 months. 14 Now, I would like to speak as to the amount of 15 household in Stockton that are in some form of public 16 assistance. 1990 census data is my basis. And this is 17 going to be rather earth shaking, I believe. There are 18 31,000 households in Stockton that have some form of public 19 assistance. That's 14,700 on public assistance, 16,700 on 20 social security. Therefore, out of the 69,000 households 21 in Stockton per the 1990 census, 45 percent are on some 22 form of public assistance. 23 And I realize we could get argument of what public 24 assistance is and whether social security is included, I 25 won't deal in definition of words here as we've heard a lot CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4272 1 about in recent times, but in order to remove the ammonia 2 it would be our best estimate, based on the calculation of 3 the compliance project, that our wastewater rates will go 4 down in excess of 500 percent in the last 20 years. 5 And, then, our public facility fees, which is near 6 and dear to our heart from an economic development 7 standpoint and which is the only tool we have or one of the 8 few tools we have in which to reduce unemployment, will 9 have gone up in excess of 1500 percent. Our public 10 facility fees were $500 per connection in 1978, they were 11 currently $6100 in our north area, north of Calaveras, and 12 they are projected to go up to $7700 if we have to do the 13 compliance project for ammonia removal. 14 And this is, assuming a split between rate base 15 and new development, a 60-percent rate base and 40-percent 16 new development, because whenever we assess an impact fee 17 you have to go through an AB 1600 report, which is the 18 impact fee per the State of California. And you have to -- 19 there's a nexus between what you can charge for new 20 development and rate base. 21 Our council has made the decision that new 22 connections are going to pay their fair share. And, of 23 course, that was a question that one Board Member spoke to 24 yesterday a little bit when Mr. Locke was here. So we 25 assess an amount to new connection. And in the case of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4273 1 industrial/commercial users, there are occasions where they 2 might have the equivalent loadings of several thousand 3 houses. And that's why that particular fee was so high. 4 Mr. Allen has the details as to the loadings, and we're 5 prepared to discuss that a little bit further if you wish. 6 And I guess in concluding, Chairman Caffrey and 7 Board Members, the Stockton community simply cannot afford 8 to undertake such an expensive project as the one described 9 by Ms. Stutz-McDonald. In all likelihood, or it might well 10 be when you considered the 70-some million that Mr. Allen 11 referred to before, plus whatever compliance project we 12 have to come up with, we did some modeling. And one of our 13 models indicated that we will have spent 170 million 14 dollars in 10 years. 15 Now, 170 million dollars for our population base 16 is equivalent of 23 billion for the State's 32 million 17 other people. Now, that is an expensive bill that throws 18 us out of the ball game. We cannot attract new industry. 19 We can't attract new employers. And it puts us at a real 20 disadvantage. And the Stockton economic committee, and the 21 committee in general, need all the help we can get. 22 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And following 23 myself are Dr. Brown and Dr. Chen. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Before we go to, is it Dr. Brown -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4274 1 Dr. Chen, Ms. Forster, do you have a clarifying question? 2 I understand you have a question. 3 MEMBER FORSTER: Yes. You mentioned my question 4 yesterday from the testimony of the San Joaquin partnership 5 group. And I just thought it was hard to understand why a 6 connection fee for one company was stated as 17 million 7 dollars. 8 MR. INGRAHAM: Yes. I believe Mr. Allen has the 9 details on that. We called our economic development 10 department last night and we had them fax up to us the 11 information for that. 12 MEMBER FORSTER: Okay. 13 MR. ALLEN: Board Member Forster, the particular 14 industry that was considering locating in Stockton at that 15 time was a VC Paper Company. And the VC Paper Company was 16 projecting a wastewater flow of 950,000 gallons per day at 17 a BOD level of 3,000 parts per million and a TDS level of 18 200 parts per million. 19 And if you want to compare that with the number of 20 homes in terms of loading, it's somewhere equivalent to 21 30,000 homes. That is the reason why the fee was as high 22 as it was. That's -- that is a very unusual request of the 23 City to connect someone with that much flow and that much 24 loading, but that was calculated based upon the incremental 25 cost of providing new capacity at the wastewater facility CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4275 1 for that particular discharger. 2 MEMBER FORSTER: That's the Kikoman Corporation. 3 MR. ALLEN: That particular one. I have also that 4 one was a flow of 33,000 gallons per day with a wastewater 5 loading of 19,212 parts per million BOD and a TSS loading 6 of 1,260. I didn't calculate the equivalent number of 7 homes, but the total fee on that would have been 8 $5,568,000. That would probably be equivalent to maybe 9 10,000 homes, something like that. 10 MEMBER FORSTER: Thanks for helping me understand how 11 you did that. 12 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to submit 13 that material. 14 MEMBER FORSTER: That's okay. I was just -- 15 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Allen has a conflict of interest, 16 because he has to have these business people beat on him 17 all the time for those connection fees. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I think procedurally we had described 19 this, Ms. Forster was asking a question of this witness 20 with regard to statements that were made yesterday. And I 21 think it wasn't a policy statement. What am I trying to 22 say? 23 MS. LEIDIGH: Yeah. 24 MEMBER FORSTER: Yeah. 25 MS. LEIDIGH: It was a policy statement. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4276 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Was it a policy statement? 2 MS. LEIDIGH: Yeah. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay. Thank you. It was a policy 4 statement. It's in the record, so I think that suffices. 5 All right. Let's go back to the presentation. Is Dr. Chen 6 going to go next? 7 DR. CHEN: Yes. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon, sir. Welcome. 9 DR. CHEN: Thank you. My name is Carl Chen. And my 10 background and experience is in Stockton Exhibit 33. My 11 written statement is in Stockton Exhibit 13. Several years 12 ago the City of Stockton asked me to develop a water 13 quality model of the San Joaquin River. The purpose of the 14 model was to integrate all physical, chemical and the 15 biological factors that affect dissolved oxygen in the 16 river. 17 MR. ALLEN: Stockton Exhibit 49. 18 DR. CHEN: And purpose of that model will be used to 19 evaluate a different kind of a management option that can 20 be implemented to improve dissolved oxygen. 21 Now, let's get to Exhibit 49 that summarized the 22 model development and the calibration. I developed the 23 Link-Node Model, which basically cut the river into about 24 50 sections, or segments. And the river flow from Mossdale 25 can enter the most upstream segment. And the tidal water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4277 1 can move up and down the river through the most downstream 2 segment. 3 With this kind of model we can do water budget, 4 mass balance of various chemical components. So that the 5 model will simulate the temperature dissolved oxygen, BOD, 6 sediment, oxygen demand, ammonia, algae, et cetera. 7 The model was subjected to a very rigorous 8 calibration and verification process. It was calibrated as 9 1991 data, '93 and then 1996. So we have done it, you 10 know, one year after the other. We can make many model 11 applications with it. It was literally impossible to run 12 infinite numbers of scenarios. And I can show you here's a 13 big, thick report containing the model documentation and 14 all of the kind of simulations that we made for the staff. 15 You can run quite a number. Some of these results were, 16 actually, used by the State Board in their EIR. 17 Now, let's get to Exhibit 28 which will show you 18 how well the model is tracking the temperature at the 19 station R5. The upper figure shows the freshwater inflow 20 coming down from Mossdale. And the observed data is a red 21 dot. And the simulated is the blue line. 22 Exhibit 29 shows how well the model is tracking 23 dissolved oxygen at -- exhibit -- 24 MR. ALLEN: Exhibit 29. 25 DR. CHEN: Exhibit 29. So you can see the model is, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4278 1 actually, tracking the observed data throughout the year 2 very well. I believe the model is very accurate and it is 3 very useful to compare alternative to see what you can gain 4 if you were to do this or did that. 5 Exhibit 50 summarizes the kind of model 6 application we have made. As I said earlier, the model 7 integrates all factors affecting DO. Many of these factors 8 will be discussed later by Dr. Russ Brown. We performed 9 quite a lot of simulation for the DO alternative at the 10 request of the Board staff. We performed sensitivity 11 analysis of DO with respect to the flow, SO -- sediment 12 oxygen demand, waste discharge, algae, et cetera. 13 We also used the model to evaluate the feasibility 14 of a size stream aeration and instream aeration. Exhibit 15 51 shows these sensitivity analyses we have performed for 16 the Board. We analyzed the sensitivity of DO to flow to 17 temperature to sediment oxygen demands, to algal bloom at 18 Mossdale to waste load discharge to flow diversion to Old 19 River and so on. And this analyses show us how we can best 20 solve the dissolved oxygen problem in the river. 21 We learned from this analysis if algal bloom occur 22 at Mossdale, which incidentally occur quite often in the 23 summer, it just overwhelmed everything. Normally what you 24 do, the dissolved oxygen in the river would be dropped down 25 to 2-milligrams per liter. And Dr. Brown will explain that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4279 1 a little bit more why that happen, later. 2 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me. 3 DR. CHEN: Yes. 4 MS. LEIDIGH: I think it's here. 5 DR. CHEN: Yes. 6 MS. WHITNEY: Never mind. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Everything okay? 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: It is Exhibit 40. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Yeah, he did identify the exhibit. Go 10 ahead, Dr. Chen. 11 DR. CHEN: We have presubmitted preanalysis to the 12 Board, but I think the Board only used the information 13 about sensitivity of Stockton discharge and DO. 14 So next page is taken from the State Board's 15 Exhibit 40, which shows an example of sensitive analysis 16 with respect to flow. This figure shows the affect of 17 river flow and DO at the Station R2. The red line is for 18 zero flow and clearly indicates that stagnant water is the 19 worse condition for the river, it's low. 20 Even a negative flow, which is minus 500 csf, is 21 better than zero flow. And because of the tidal situation, 22 when we say "zero flow" we, actually, mean somewhere from 0 23 to 300 csf. Because of the tidal excursion, if we have 24 300 csf, it's still zero flow as far as the river is 25 concerned. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4280 1 At plus 500, I mean a positive flow of 500 csf or 2 more will improve the dissolved oxygen greatly. That led 3 me to think that this kind of flow, the minimum flow 4 requirement is probably manageable through the operation of 5 the control -- controller barrier at the head of the Old 6 River. Of course, if we got 2,000 csf, the dissolved 7 oxygen would be much, much higher, but as you can see the 8 progression, they're not linear. And -- but the whole 9 thing is, a positive flow is very, very important. 10 I think this hearing is about water rights. And I 11 can say for certainty keeping water in San Joaquin River 12 will have a very large positive effect on the dissolved 13 oxygen in the river. 14 Exhibit 32-B, this has been used by Paul a little 15 bit earlier. It shows the impact of ammonia effluent 16 indication. The Regional Board proposed to impose an 17 ammonia limit of 2-milligrams per liter from April to 18 October. We run the model to evaluate the potential 19 benefit of such limitation. The flow condition as 20 indicated there was based on run 489 as specified by the 21 Board staff. It is a dry-year scenario, you know, it's 22 dry-year scenario. This figure shows that the benefits is 23 a small -- 24 MR. HOWARD: Excuse me, just for clarification that 25 was run 469, not 489. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4281 1 DR. CHEN: I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Howard. 3 DR. CHEN: Thank you. 32-C is the -- shows the gain 4 at the Station R3 is also very small. Exhibit 32-D has the 5 same conclusion for a different station, In this case R4. 6 MEMBER FORSTER: Can we ask a clarifying question? 7 DR. CHEN: So one can ask the question: With so 8 little gain, the City was asked to spend 70-some million 9 dollars. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Dr. Chen, Ms. Forster has a question. 11 DR. CHEN: Yes. 12 MEMBER FORSTER: When this was first put on -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Is your mic on? 14 MEMBER FORSTER: No. When this was first presented 15 in the introduction of your case in chief, I asked for a 16 little more explanation how you do this. The base 17 conditions, is it correct for me to understand that you 18 have data on all those months and all that time that shows 19 the base, and then you take your own data from your 20 effluent and you put it up there and that's how you get 21 that? 22 DR. CHEN: Yes. The base case is a 1996 discharge 23 condition, that is actual. The flow was specified as a 24 469A as specified by State Board for a dry year. So the 25 river flow condition was given to me by the State Board. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4282 1 The waste discharge -- the base condition is with the waste 2 discharge condition of 1996. And 2-milligrams per liter 3 ammonia effluent is limitation from April to October 5, was 4 according to the specification the Regional Board wanted. 5 Is that clear? So you run a model two times. 6 MEMBER FORSTER: Am I to understand what it doesn't 7 mean is that that's how much ammonia is in the river anyway 8 and here's what we have and we only make that little bleep? 9 DR. CHEN: That is the dissolved oxygen. 10 MR. ALLEN: Dissolved oxygen. 11 MEMBER FORSTER: I meant dissolved oxygen, sorry. 12 DR. CHEN: Yeah, we're talking about dissolved 13 oxygen. And as you know, 1 milligram of ammonia, when they 14 get oxidized to nitrate will consume 4.6 or 4.7 milligrams 15 of undissolved oxygen from the river. It's going to take 16 away that much. So we run a model to see what that 17 2-milligrams per liter effluent indication, that's why. 18 MEMBER FORSTER: All right. Thank you. I 19 understand. Thank you for taking the time. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Please continue, Dr. Chen. 21 DR. CHEN: Okay. I work on watershed and TMDL for a 22 river in North Carolina and the South Carolina and recently 23 for the Truckee River in Nevada. And I think the San 24 Joaquin River is a classical case where watershed approach 25 is needed. There's so many things that contribute to low CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4283 1 DO in San Joaquin River. And we have to look at all 2 different -- combination of different options to solve this 3 dissolved oxygen problem. 4 I have also worked on the realtime water quality 5 management of the San Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis 6 and think this same concept of adaptive management can be 7 extended downstream to the lower San Joaquin River. That 8 concludes my testimony. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Dr. Chen. Dr. Brown, good 10 afternoon, sir. 11 DR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of the 12 Board. My name is Russ Brown, and I am a senior 13 environmental scientist with Jones and Stokes Associates. 14 And my written testimony is an exhibit, Stockton Exhibit 15 33 -- I'm sorry, that's the qualifications is in Exhibit 16 33. And my written testimony is Stockton Exhibit 14. 17 My oral testimony today will be summarizing the 18 material that is presented in a report that Jones and 19 Stokes has prepared for Stockton. It is presented as 20 Stockton Exhibit 34. This report is, in one sense, an 21 adaptive management evaluation. And the title is 22 "Potential Solutions for Achieving the San Joaquin River 23 Dissolved Oxygen Objective." 24 Stockton Exhibit 52, being shown on the overhead, 25 is a list similar to what other people have put up of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4284 1 factors that are affecting dissolved oxygen in the lower 2 San Joaquin River. We've -- and I will be going over each 3 of these factors and trying to explain through a 4 combination of the field data that's been collected on the 5 San Joaquin River over the past 10 or 15 years, in 6 combination with the model that was developed for the 7 Stockton -- we call the Stockton Water Quality Model. 8 And the third ingredient of adaptive management 9 would be the management actions that are possible. And the 10 goal of this report and the theme of my testimony is to try 11 to tie these factors together. What is known about the 12 environmental conditions, what the cause/effect 13 relationships between various management actions and those 14 environmental conditions and leading to the third part of 15 adaptive management, which is, actually, selection of the 16 next best thing to do. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Dr. Brown, excuse me for interrupting 18 you. Let me ask Mr. Simmons a question. Which of your 19 witnesses cannot return? 20 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Allen. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: It's Mr. Allen that can't come back on 22 the 13th? 23 MR. SIMMONS: Right. Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: If it's possible we'll try to get your 25 panel finished today, but it's, obviously, going to depend CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4285 1 on how many parties wish to cross-examine. If need be, 2 we'll probably have to put Mr. Allen up separately for 3 cross-examination then come back to your entire panel on 4 the 13th. That would be the way we would have to do it. 5 MR. SIMMONS: Any way you care to handle it is fine. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Do any of the parties wish to 7 cross-examine Dr. Allen? Mr. Sexton. 8 MR. SEXTON: It will be very short, though, 9 Mr. Chairman. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. All right. 11 MS. WHITNEY: Sandino. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: We've got a number, I won't take the 13 names now, but that just illustrates that we may have to do 14 that separately. I want to also remind the witnesses, 15 although everybody has been doing it very well, there is a 16 20-minute limit on direct testimony per witness. So -- 17 MR. SIMMONS: We'll be done. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. Go ahead, Dr. Brown. 19 Sorry about the interruption. 20 DR. BROWN: Very fine. So continuing with the list 21 of important factors affecting dissolved oxygen on the 22 lower San Joaquin, in addition to temperature, which 23 reduces the saturation concentration, which is the highest 24 concentration that can be maintained in the water, we have 25 the channel geometry. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4286 1 In the case of Stockton, we'll be explaining that 2 the deep water ship channel, which creates a relatively 3 deep channel, has a major affect on oxygen. Then as 4 there's been -- as has been pointed out by others, this is 5 a tidal reach. And the tidal flows are quite large near 6 Stockton. And then the San Joaquin River flow, bringing 7 the upstream water into the reach and the head of Old River 8 channel split, affect the flow coming into the reach. 9 We're going to explain -- I'm going to explain the 10 surface re-aeration, which is the movement of oxygen from 11 the atmosphere into the water. And, then, the sediment 12 oxygen demand, which is the demand or consumption of oxygen 13 from the water by the material that settle onto the bottom 14 of the channel. And then we've previously algal 15 photosynthesis and respiration and the point sources of BOD 16 and ammonia that enter the reach. 17 Rather than list the processes, I'd rather show 18 with the diagram which is Figure 9 from Stockton Exhibit 19 34. And this is simply a diagram that attempts to 20 represent that all of these processes are going on 21 throughout the reach at the same time. 22 Although we can measure the dissolved oxygen level 23 that results from the simultaneous occurrence of all of 24 these processes, it requires a combination of measurements 25 and model analysis to determine the relative importance of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4287 1 each of these factors, which is likely to be changing as we 2 move the location, or as we move through time. So it's a 3 very dynamic situation that I'm trying to explain as simply 4 as I can. 5 If we look at the individual processes, then, that 6 have a large affect on oxygen, we'll look at Stockton 7 Exhibit 31 -- sorry, Stockton Exhibit 30, which is simply a 8 review of how the saturation, or maximum sustained 9 dissolved oxygen level, changes with temperature. And as 10 temperatures approach the 80-degree Fahrenheit summertime 11 temperature for Stockton, the maximum achievable dissolved 12 oxygen is down around 8 milligrams per liter. This is only 13 a couple milligrams higher than the current DO standard of 14 6. 15 And this is one of the reasons that achieving the 16 dissolved oxygen objective in September is more difficult 17 than achieving that same objective in October or November. 18 We look at Figure 8 also from exhibit -- sorry, yes, from 19 Stockton Exhibit 34. We have a schematic representation of 20 the geometry in this portion of the Delta. This is a tidal 21 portion of the Delta, and the tidal fluctuations of the 22 surface elevation are normally approximately 4 feet. So 23 the whole surface elevation of this entire reach is going 24 up and down by about 4 feet, generally, twice a day. 25 Moving from the head of Old River down to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4288 1 Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, the river channel is 2 approximately 8 to 10 feet deep. So it's moderately deep. 3 There's 13 miles in this reach. And the volume of water in 4 this reach is something like 2,500 acre-feet. The Turning 5 Basin, which is the upstream end of the Deepwater Ship 6 Channel and is right at downtown Stockton is sort of to the 7 right of the channel. 8 The main channel is turning left and going down 9 past Rough and Ready Island. And this portion of the 10 channel is deepened for ship traffic and has a depth of -- 11 an average depth of about 20 or 25 feet. There is a 12 sedimentation basin maintained by the Corps of Engineers 13 right at that confluence, right where the San Joaquin joins 14 the deep ship channel. 15 Now, the affects of the geometry are simply that 16 the deeper the water, then the more difficult it is for the 17 surface source of oxygen, the aeration from the atmosphere, 18 to replenish the oxygen in that volume. Okay. Moving on 19 to -- well, one last -- sorry, idea on this one, still on 20 this figure. 21 Just using the geometry of this reach, we can get 22 an idea of how long it takes water as it moves down the 23 channel to make it through this reach. And if we just, for 24 as an example, assume that a thousand csf is moving down 25 this channel, then that's approximately 2,000 acre-feet of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4289 1 water each day. And we see that for this upper reach, from 2 the head of Old River to the confluence with the ship 3 channel there is a volume of about that same amount. So 4 there's about a one-day travel time. 5 But as the water turns into the deep ship channel, 6 between there and Turner Cut, is approximately 15,000 7 acre-feet of water. So that same flow of a thousand csf is 8 going to take approximately seven days, on average, to make 9 it out of the ship channel. And so this is a major affect 10 of the geometry. The travel time for a given flow is quite 11 prolonged in this deepened wide section of the Delta. 12 Figure 12-G, which also appears as the Executive 13 Summary Figure 2, both of these in Exhibit Stockton 34, is 14 a representation that I'll go through slowly of one year of 15 record from the two dissolved oxygen monitors maintained by 16 the Department of Water Resources. 17 One is located at Mossdale and records dissolved 18 oxygen each hour. One is located at the downstream end of 19 Rough and Ready Island, which corresponds to river station 20 five in the Stockton monitoring network. And this is meant 21 to compare the dissolved oxygen measured at these two 22 locations during 1991, which was a very dry year and was 23 the year used for the model calibration, initially. 24 We begin with the light blue line that's labeled 25 "saturation." We see that beginning in January saturation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4290 1 is about 12 milligrams. And as we move seasonally into the 2 summer period, the saturated DO declines, has some 3 variation in it, and approaches between 8 and 9 in the 4 summer periods. And then rises again in the fall back to 5 12. This is the maximum dissolved oxygen that water will 6 contain under the re-aeration process. And the dotted sort 7 of blue lines are the maximum and minimum recorded at 8 Mossdale. 9 And what this figure is showing us is that there 10 is super saturation of oxygen. And the only known cause 11 for that in a natural system is algal photosynthesis. And 12 so this is just from one of the years of record an example 13 of very high algal activity photosynthesis occurring in the 14 revering reach of the San Joaquin River here recorded at 15 Mossdale. 16 In contrast, the dissolved oxygen measured at the 17 Rough and Ready station in the deep ship channel is 18 indicated by the red line. The high for the day and the 19 minimum day are the two lines. And in the spring and 20 summer period of 1991, the dissolved oxygen at this 21 recording station was between 5, sometimes a little less -- 22 between 5 and 6 milligrams. But in the September/October 23 period the recorded oxygen at this station dropped very 24 low, much below the 5 objective -- 5-milligram objective. 25 And this, we believe, is an indication of a very CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4291 1 high affect of algae, which you can see at -- the 2 corresponding period at the Mossdale station was very super 3 saturated. And the chlorophyll measurements, which are not 4 obtained each day but obtained approximately weekly, 5 confirmed that there was very high algae in the river at 6 that point. 7 So putting that together with the geometry, the 8 indication is that there are, at times, very high upstream 9 loadings of organic material, in this case algae, that come 10 into the reach, settle out into this deep and on the bottom 11 of the channel exert an oxygen demand in the water column 12 that can substantially reduce the dissolved oxygen level. 13 Remember that the oxygen is a balancing of several 14 processes occurring at once. It is a little more 15 complicated to think about than salinity, which is just an 16 addition of salt loads, or the removal of salt loads as you 17 move down. And so in this case we fine that the balance 18 between the processes adding oxygen and the processes 19 consuming oxygen are sort of out of balance for this 20 two-month period. 21 This is Stockton Exhibit 53. It is simply a 22 summary of the second part of the report. The report, as I 23 mentioned, is a combination of the available measurements 24 indicating the factors affecting oxygen combined with 25 comparative model simulations of these individual factors. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4292 1 And, then, of what potential management actions would do to 2 the dissolved oxygen levels. And there is a series of 3 simulation results shown in the report and describe, which 4 have the following basic characteristics. 5 We are using the historic 1996 San Joaquin River 6 conditions for the inflow temperature and the upstream 7 water quality. We are using the historic 1996 discharge 8 from the reach -- from the regional wastewater control 9 facility for the BOD and ammonia concentrations to the 10 river. And as a comparison, we are going to completely 11 eliminate that historic discharge load and see what effect 12 that would have on oxygen. But most of the runs are 13 made -- most of the simulations are using the 1996 14 discharge flow and load. 15 Now, because flow is such an important factor in 16 dissolved oxygen, and we're trying to display as simply as 17 we can the affects of other things in addition to flow, we 18 have assumed that the flow moving past Stockton is constant 19 throughout the whole year. And we have used different flow 20 levels. One that we'll use is zero csf, where there is the 21 tidal flow, back and forth at Stockton, but there's no net 22 river flow. 23 And another one that we'll be showing is a 24 thousand csf. And one of the reasons for including the 25 thousand csf is that both the historic flows at Vernalis CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4293 1 and the flow required to obtain the salinity objectives at 2 Vernalis are both above a thousand csf almost all of the 3 time for the summer and fall period that's of concern to 4 oxygen. So showing what a flow of a thousand csf is within 5 the realm of likely future flows at Vernalis. 6 And our emphasis will be on the late summer 7 period, as we mentioned, the September conditions because 8 temperatures there are the highest and the dissolved oxygen 9 level, the saturation level is the lowest. 10 We look at, now, just a series of these modeled 11 results indicating -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Just so that you'll know, Dr. Brown, 13 you have just a little over two minutes left. 14 DR. BROWN: Okay. I'm in trouble. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I just -- this is on my time, 16 not yours as I explained. We've -- 17 DR. BROWN: Yes. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: We've been through this a number of 19 times throughout the proceeding, there is a 20-minute 20 limitation for direct testimony, which we have to adhere to 21 because it's a summation of the exhibits that you've 22 already presented. So I can't make an exception for you, 23 because I've denied exceptions for others. 24 DR. BROWN: I understand. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: What you don't cover, perhaps, can be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4294 1 brought out in cross-examination. 2 DR. BROWN: Very good. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: But in any event, it is in the record. 4 Thank you, sir. 5 DR. BROWN: Thank you. So this is one of the example 6 results showing the -- 7 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, let me just ask one 8 question for Dr. Brown to conclude if he has a short period 9 of time. And that is: 10 Dr. Brown, you've already talked about the flows, 11 the temperatures, the various sources of loading. Could 12 you talk, specifically, and this is going to be one element 13 of the proposal, just talk specifically about the potential 14 for the flexible operation of the Old River barrier as part 15 of the solution for the DO level. 16 DR. BROWN: Thank you. This slide does illustrate 17 that. As we examine the various factors affecting DO, the 18 result of our analysis is that flows moving past Stockton 19 are the largest single controllable factor affecting DO. 20 And this indicates the change in the dissolved oxygen 21 simulations for September at three assumed constant flows. 22 That is flow of zero csf, there is a substantial reduction 23 of DO, below the 5-milligram or the 6-milligram objective 24 level. 25 At a flow of 500 csf moving past Stockton, there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4295 1 is still some stations with a DO below the 5, but they're 2 substantially improved from the zero flow condition. And 3 at a net flow of a thousand csf the conditions in 4 September, which is the toughest month to control, are 5 approaching the 6-milligram objective. 6 Translated into an adaptive management 7 recommendation, we find that the possibility of having 8 control of the flow split at the head of Old River, using 9 an operable tidal gate installed at that location, which 10 will be serving a number of purposes as we've heard earlier 11 in this phase, for salinity management as well as fish 12 management, the additional benefits that will be achieved 13 for dissolved oxygen in the Stockton deep-part ship channel 14 are illustrated by this diagram. We find that the 15 potential for controlling flows with an operable gate has a 16 very substantial benefit at a very low cost. The last 17 management objective, I think I'm skipping this -- I'm 18 done. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Actually, you're out of time. 20 DR. BROWN: Am I out of time? 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 22 DR. BROWN: I just finished. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Sorry to cut you off like that, but in 24 fairness to everybody it's the only way we can do it. I do 25 understand that Mr. Allen is going to summarize; is that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4296 1 correct? 2 MR. SIMMONS: Yes. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: He has five minutes left according to 4 a very, very accurate timekeeper, Mr. Stubchaer. 5 MR. SIMMONS: Absolutely. 6 MR. ALLEN: It won't take me that long, 7 Chairman Caffrey. 8 MR. SIMMONS: Russ is too interested in this stuff. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 10 MR. ALLEN: Just to summarize Stockton's testimony, 11 our recommendations to the Board are that you evaluate and 12 confirm that the 1995 salinity plan dissolved objective of 13 6 milligrams per liter is appropriate. What we're 14 referring to there is, perhaps, this objective might vary 15 with temperature, or it might be applied only when fish are 16 present. 17 Also, you might consider establishing a 18 conditional DO objective with other conditions attached to 19 it. As other speakers have mentioned, we recommend that 20 you direct and supervise a development of a phase TMDL for 21 the San Joaquin River, which should be comprehensive 22 involving other agencies addressing all flow factors which 23 affect DO. And Stockton is not requesting any additional 24 flow be allocated at Vernalis, only better flow management. 25 Allow the City to use adaptive management techniques to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4297 1 maximize environmental benefits of the regional wastewater 2 control facility operation. 3 MS. LEIDIGH: For the record, we've been looking at 4 Stockton Exhibit 56-A and then 56-B. 5 MR. ALLEN: 56-B is up now. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Leidigh. 7 MR. ALLEN: The recommended TMDL program elements 8 would achieve installation of a permanent operable gate at 9 the head of Old River, which will achieve positive flow in 10 the Stockton Ship Channel and provide realtime adaptive 11 management. Continuous monitoring and measurement and 12 reporting of flow, salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen 13 and pH in the river. 14 Assess and determine and implement effective 15 controls for all sources that contribute to dissolved 16 oxygen deficit, including nonpoint sources including BOD 17 and nutrients. Determine the potential benefits of 18 aeration devices and cooperatively implement feasible 19 alternatives. This is the type of activity that could fit 20 into the CalFed program. And also the aeration was 21 mentioned in the 1991 salinities plan. That completes my 22 testimony. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you very much, 24 Mr. Allen. 25 Mr. Simmons, did you have anything else, or did CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4298 1 you want to present the panel for cross-examination at this 2 time? 3 MR. SIMMONS: They're ready to go. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. I think 5 what we'll do is cross-examine Mr. Allen first, due to the 6 lateness of the day; although, we can go past 4:00 if we 7 need to in order to accommodate Mr. Allen since he cannot 8 come back in mid October. 9 By a showing of hands, again -- and I'd like to 10 have everybody's hands up and not have hands popping up 11 later on. In the interest of getting out of here, let's 12 see who wants to cross-examine. We'll start with 13 Mr. Sandino. 14 MR. HERRICK: Is this cross-examine of only 15 Mr. Allen? 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, just Mr. Allen. And then we'll 17 go back to the rest of the panel. If there's time today, 18 we'll continue with that and we will resume on October 19 13th. Mr. Minasian, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Gallery. Did I get 20 everybody? All right. Okay. Mr. Sandino, Mr. Minasian, 21 Mr. Sexton and Mr. Gallery. 22 Mr. Sandino, good afternoon, sir. 23 // 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4299 1 ---oOo--- 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 3 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 4 BY DAVID SANDINO 5 MR. SANDINO: Good afternoon. I only have a couple 6 of questions and I'm not sure if they're more appropriate 7 for Mr. Brown or Mr. Allen. I think, perhaps, 8 Mr. Allen, but if not, they can tell me and I'll defer 9 later. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Or if they have relatively short 11 answers, we can just get the answer out so you don't have 12 to come back. 13 MR. SANDINO: Okay. Thank you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Sandino. 15 MR. SANDINO: As I understand the City of Stockton's 16 testimony, one of its principal recommendations to address 17 the DO issue is the installation of a permanent barrier at 18 the head of Old River; is that correct? 19 MR. ALLEN: That's one of the elements. That's 20 correct. 21 MR. SANDINO: Is there a reason why the City is 22 recommending a temporary barrier rather than a permanent 23 barrier? 24 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 25 MR. SANDINO: Could you tell us what those reasons CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4300 1 are? 2 MR. ALLEN: The reasons are that this would allow for 3 an adaptive management program to be undertaken. A 4 permanent barrier, obviously, is permanent -- or I mean 5 temporary barrier is temporary. A permanent one can be 6 operated at various times of the seasons to produce various 7 effects. 8 MR. SANDINO: Thanks. Are you generally familiar 9 with DWR's Interim South Delta Program? 10 MR. ALLEN: No, I'm not. 11 MR. SANDINO: Are you familiar with it, Mr. Brown? 12 MR. BROWN: Yes. 13 MR. SANDINO: Are you aware that DWR's Interim South 14 Delta Program proposes to install other barriers in the 15 south Delta besides the head of the Old River barrier? 16 MR. BROWN: Yes. 17 MR. SANDINO: Does the City of Stockton have any 18 option to any of the elements of DWR's Interim South Delta 19 Program? 20 MR. SIMMONS: You should let Mr. Allen answer that. 21 MR. ALLEN: If you're referring to the agricultural 22 barriers, we have no objection to those. 23 MR. SANDINO: All right. Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sandino. 25 MEMBER FORSTER: That was very quick. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4301 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: We're admiring your haircut. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: I should say Ms. Forster was admiring 4 your haircut. She got one, too, so she's biased. Hers 5 looks nice, too. 6 MR. SANDINO: We probably didn't go to the same 7 stylist. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm done with this one. Okay. 9 Mr. Minasian, sir. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 12 BY THE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 13 BY PAUL MINASIAN 14 MR. MINASIAN: I may be able to cut this short. 15 Ms. McDonald, could you speak in place of 16 Mr. Allen to the questions regarding the interrelationship 17 with the Stockton East Water District, Goodwin Tunnel 18 Project and water supply systems? 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Allen, there was a project called 21 the Luton Tunnel Authority and Goodwin Tunnel Project of 22 the Stockton East leadership. Are you aware of that? 23 MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. 24 MR. MINASIAN: And is that a project that was 25 constructed between 1990 and 1993 at a cost of about 60 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4302 1 million dollars to bring water from New Melones? 2 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. 3 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. How, in your opinion, is there 4 groundwater overdraft in the City of Stockton and in the 5 environs, which are located within the county and various 6 special districts which are developing? 7 MR. ALLEN: Just to clarify that, there is an 8 overdraft in the Eastern San Joaquin County basin of which 9 the City of Stockton is a part. 10 MR. MINASIAN: And there is also a salt water 11 intrusion problem? 12 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. 13 MR. MINASIAN: We'll hear from other witnesses about 14 that. But, generally, is there an interrelationship, in 15 your view, and what position should this Board take on that 16 interrelationship in terms of not spending money to solve a 17 DO problem and ignoring a groundwater recharge problem, 18 which has been addressed by a project that has an 19 insufficient source of water in New Melones? 20 Do you understand the question? 21 MR. ALLEN: I really don't. That's a little too 22 complex for me. 23 MR. MINASIAN: All right. Is there an 24 interrelationship, as you view it, between spending money 25 for DO and the groundwater recharge needs of eastern San CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4303 1 Joaquin County? 2 MR. ALLEN: If you're referring to spending money on 3 the Stockton wastewater plant is that -- 4 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I would say that there is an 6 interrelationship there. As Ms. McDonald mentioned, one of 7 the alternatives is a groundwater recharge alternative. 8 And if we were required to meet the dissolved oxygen 9 requirement, that would leave no funding available for 10 groundwater recharge using reclaimed wastewater. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Good. Thank you. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 13 Mr. Sexton. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 16 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA AUTHORITY 17 BY MICHAEL SEXTON 18 MR. SEXTON: Good afternoon, Mr. McDonald. You would 19 agree that the discharge of treated effluent of the San 20 Joaquin River from the City of Stockton is a result of 21 human habitation, wouldn't you? 22 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: You mean Mr. Allen? 23 MR. SEXTON: I said Mr. Allen. 24 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Okay. 25 MR. SEXTON: Who did I say? I'm sorry, Mr. Allen. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4304 1 MR. ALLEN: Would you repeat the question, please? 2 MR. SEXTON: You would agree that the discharge by 3 the City of Stockton of treated effluent to the San Joaquin 4 River is a result of human habitation within the City? 5 MR. ALLEN: Partly so, yes. 6 MR. SEXTON: All right. And I think your testimony 7 is that you should not have to expend unreasonable sums of 8 money to achieve limited water quality benefits. 9 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. 10 MR. SEXTON: The City has applied for a permit before 11 this Board to appropriate approximately 125,000 acre-feet 12 of water. Are you familiar with that? 13 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I am. 14 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Part of the permit that you're 15 seeking is in exchange for some water that the City 16 currently discharges treated, I believe, to, perhaps, 17 tertiary water quality standards; is that correct? 18 MR. ALLEN: A portion of it, yes. 19 MR. SEXTON: You recall at the beginning of the 20 testimony today your attorney mentioned that the City's 21 testimony was not going to be a criticism of others in the 22 watershed; rather you were going to urge the Board to adopt 23 a regional approach to problem solving. Do you recall 24 that? 25 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I do. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4305 1 MR. SEXTON: All right. Do you recall, sir, that in 2 the City's Exhibit 16, which was submitted for this 3 Phase V, Exhibit 16 is a letter that was sent to this Board 4 with comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. And 5 that's been submitted under your signature. Do you recall 6 that, sir? 7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I do. 8 MR. SEXTON: On the second page of those comments, 9 the City takes the position in connection with D-1422 10 requirements that there should be a discharge of water from 11 New Melones to assist in water quality enhancement in the 12 river. That is no longer reasonable, if it ever was. 13 Do you see that, sir? 14 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I see what you're referring to. 15 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Well, since the City is -- is now 16 urging a regional approach to water quality enhancement in 17 the San Joaquin River and since your position is now that 18 you're not going to criticize others; and also since your 19 position is that you should be able to discharge treated 20 effluent to the San Joaquin River, would you agree that you 21 would strike that portion of your letter to the Water 22 Board? 23 In other words, that it is not reasonable to use 24 New Melones' water to achieve some benefits in the San 25 Joaquin from agricultural discharges. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4306 1 MR. SIMMONS: I object. It mischaracterizes the 2 testimony. There's testimony concerning the dissolved 3 oxygen objective. There's testimony concerning the 4 releases from New Melones. You're trying to blend them 5 together. What is the question? 6 MR. SEXTON: My question is on the record. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Did you understand the question? 8 MR. ALLEN: No. I would appreciate it if -- 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Allen, you did not understand it? 10 MR. ALLEN: No, I really didn't. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Can we read the question 12 back, Mary? 13 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: You were probably afraid I was going 15 to ask that. Can we get a mic for Mary, also. Thank you, 16 Ms. Leidigh. 17 (Whereupon the question was read back.) 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm going to allow the witness to 19 answer the question. 20 THE COURT REPORTER: One second, I need to get the 21 paper back in the tray. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. 23 MR. SIMMONS: I'd just also -- 24 THE COURT REPORTER: Wait. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Wait a minute. We have to get this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4307 1 transcribed here. Are you ready to start again? 2 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm ready. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. I was about to rule on the 4 objection, but I will allow you to go ahead, Mr. Simmons, 5 you had something else. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Having heard it, again, I'll further 7 object that the question is vague and interminably long. 8 MEMBER FORSTER: It did break it up. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Since the question actually begins at 10 a point after the reading began -- 11 MR. SEXTON: That's why they told us to use commas 12 when we were in high school so that we could get beyond 13 that eighth-grade level. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm going to allow the question. And, 15 Mr. Allen, if you understand the question and you have an 16 answer, please, answer it. 17 MR. ALLEN: My understanding is he's asking if I 18 would be willing to strike that paragraph from the letter 19 as a recommendation to the Board. And my answer would be 20 no. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 22 MR. SEXTON: Since you would not be willing to strike 23 it, sir, can you reconcile the positions that you're taking 24 today? In other words, on the one hand you appear to be 25 saying that the City of Stockton should be allowed to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4308 1 obtain the benefit of some blending in the river, but 2 agricultural discharges should not? 3 MR. ALLEN: That mischaracterizes my position and 4 testimony. 5 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Would you explain to me where I'm 6 going wrong, then, sir. 7 MR. ALLEN: I'm not advocating what you're saying, 8 that's where you're going wrong. 9 MR. SEXTON: When you say that the City should not 10 have to expend 70 million dollars to obtain some small 11 incremental benefit of water quality in the river -- is 12 that your testimony? 13 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 14 MR. SEXTON: Then, I repeat, again. I guess I'm not 15 understanding the difference between what I'm asking you 16 and what your stating. Perhaps, you can help me. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Is that a question? 18 MR. SEXTON: Yes, it is. 19 MR. SIMMONS: Question is: Perhaps, you can help me? 20 MR. SEXTON: The question is: In view of the 21 questions that I've just asked you, leading up to the 22 question that I just asked you, can you help explain where 23 it appears that I'm going wrong with understanding the 24 position of the City. 25 MR. ALLEN: I really don't think that I can -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4309 1 MR. SIMMONS: Objection. Calls for speculation -- 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We've 3 got two people talking at once. One at a time. 4 MR. ALLEN: My answer was: I don't believe I can 5 answer your question, because I really don't know what 6 you're really asking. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you want to try the question, 8 again, Mr. Sexton? 9 MR. SEXTON: Yes. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you try it, again. 11 MR. SEXTON: If the City does not have to treat its 12 effluent as you have described, or has been urged to you at 13 a cost of 70 million dollars, will there be adverse impacts 14 caused to the San Joaquin River, at least, in the view of 15 the Regional Water Quality Control Board? 16 MR. SIMMONS: Objection. Calls for speculation. 17 MR. ALLEN: I don't know what the Regional Water 18 Quality Control Board's attitude is. 19 MR. SEXTON: Hasn't the Regional Board told you that 20 you have to treat your effluent to a specific standard? 21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 22 MR. SEXTON: And aren't you urging that you should 23 not have to meet those standards? 24 MR. ALLEN: One portion of the standard, yes. 25 MR. SEXTON: So if you don't treat the water to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4310 1 portion of the standard that you're speaking of, then 2 according to the Regional Board, which has established that 3 standard, there's going to be some adverse impacts in the 4 river; isn't that right? 5 MR. ALLEN: That's their opinion, yes. 6 MR. SEXTON: And your opinion, then, is that you 7 should not have to treat the waters to that standard? 8 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 9 MR. SEXTON: And your opinion is also that 10 agricultural discharges should not be allowed to take 11 advantage of the blending provided by New Melones? 12 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 13 MR. SEXTON: Your position is clear. Thank you, sir. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. Mr. Gallery. 15 MR. GALLERY: Am I the last one, Mr. Chairman? 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, you are, sir. 17 MR. GODWIN: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey, just briefly -- 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Godwin. 19 MR. GODWIN: Just briefly, for the record, did Mr. 20 Minasian and Mr. Sexton identify who they're representing? 21 MR. MINASIAN: Yes, the Exchange Contractors. 22 MR. SEXTON: I was speaking on behalf of the San Luis 23 and Delta-Mendota Authority for purposes of Phase V. 24 MR. GODWIN: Thank you. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, gentlemen. That is in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4311 1 record. 2 Mr. Gallery, go ahead. 3 ---oOo--- 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 5 BY TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 6 BY DANIEL GALLERY 7 MR. GALLERY: I'm sure I'll be done by 4:00 and 8 possibly before. Mr. Allen, I was just interested in your 9 discussion of the ways that you've explored in trying to 10 dispose of your wastewater from the Stockton plant. Can 11 you tell me how many acre-feet per year does your plant 12 generate under roughly present-day conditions? 13 MR. ALLEN: Under present-day conditions, roughly 14 35,000 acre-feet per year. 15 MR. GALLERY: And you're projecting out to the future 16 in these plans that you have to what kind of an increase? 17 MR. ALLEN: I would have to speak from memory, but as 18 I recall the maximum in our planning period, was 19 approximately 65,000 acre-feet. 20 MR. GALLERY: Then, in looking at possible land 21 disposal of the wastewater to agricultural areas, I got it 22 that you didn't get much -- you didn't get a very positive 23 reception from the agricultural interest in taking the 24 water, did I get that correct? 25 MR. ALLEN: That's correct, sir. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4312 1 MR. GALLERY: And do you -- do you have areas in the 2 county to the east of the city that are in need of 3 additional irrigation water? 4 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 5 MR. GALLERY: Generally, what would those areas 6 consist of? 7 MR. ALLEN: Those areas would consist of irrigation 8 districts that are located generally east of Stockton 9 within San Joaquin County. 10 MR. GALLERY: And the irrigation district, would that 11 include Central San Joaquin, I assume? 12 MR. ALLEN: It would include Central San Joaquin. We 13 also evaluated the needs of north San Joaquin and 14 Woodbridge Irrigation District. 15 MR. GALLERY: Now, you indicated that some of the 16 farmers were reluctant to consider your water because it 17 might make their crops less marketable, which I can 18 understand. Do you have areas where the wastewater could 19 be taken to irrigated pasture where the water is cycled to 20 the animal before it goes to Pardee? 21 MR. ALLEN: I'm not a real expert by the type of 22 acreage irrigated by each of the districts. But I do know, 23 as a matter of fact, that there is a lot of irrigated 24 pasture in the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation 25 District. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4313 1 MR. GALLERY: Was there more of this activity to the 2 water in central than where they're growing orchard and 3 food-type crops? 4 MR. ALLEN: Central also has orchard crops as well. 5 And, initially, the District seems to be very favorable 6 toward the idea, but as more and more opposition in the 7 agricultural community developed, the District decided to 8 withdraw its interest. 9 MR. GALLERY: And, then, in talking to them about 10 delivering the water, where you're talking about piping it 11 to them and delivering it to them for nothing, or what kind 12 of terms did you present the possibility to them? 13 MR. ALLEN: We were talking with them about piping 14 the water to their distribution point where they have 15 aqueducts. And we hadn't gotten as far as determining a 16 cost for that water. However, the current cost for water 17 in that District is around $20 per acre-foot. 18 MR. GALLERY: I believe that's all I have, 19 Mr. Chairman. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: I didn't mean to limit you to 21 4 o'clock, Mr. Gallery. Did you get a chance to complete 22 all your questions? 23 MR. GALLERY: That's it. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. All 25 right. Do you have -- first of all, do let me ask staff. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4314 1 Do you have questions from the staff, of Mr. Allen that is? 2 ---oOo--- 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 4 BY STAFF 5 MR. HOWARD: Just one quick question. As I 6 understand it, you had indicated that the existing 7 renovations were -- that are already in the works for the 8 wastewater treatment plant were to cost approximately 9 73 million dollars? 10 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. 11 MR. HOWARD: Could you break down how much of that is 12 for the purpose of expanding capacity and how much for 13 enhancing treatment? I understand in your testimony that 14 you said that both of those activities were going to be 15 part of the cost of this 73 million. 16 MR. ALLEN: There have been quite a few such 17 breakdowns, but I did not bring any with me today. So I 18 really would not be able to tell you of that 73 million 19 dollars how much is for expansion. 20 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Could that information be provided by 22 one of the other panel members when next they appear? 23 MR. SIMMONS: That would be no problem. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. Any 25 questions -- I'm sorry. Anything else from the other CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4315 1 staff? 2 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Anything from the Board 4 Members? Any redirect, Mr. Simmons? 5 MR. SIMMONS: I do have a little redirect. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: For Mr. Allen. 7 MR. SIMMONS: For Mr. Allen. May I just speak with 8 him for one second? 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Certainly, go ahead. 10 ---oOo--- 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 12 BY PAUL SIMMONS 13 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Allen, I want to follow up on 14 Mr. Sexton's questions. Does the City advocate reasonable 15 source control for water quality? 16 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Does it advocate reasonable water 18 management? 19 MR. ALLEN: Absolutely. 20 MR. SIMMONS: Does it advocate that view with respect 21 to dissolved oxygen? 22 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 23 MR. SIMMONS: Does it advocate that view with respect 24 to salinity? 25 MR. ALLEN: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4316 1 MR. SIMMONS: With respect to your DO 2 recommendations, do you advocate any actions that would 3 adversely affect the water supply available, or potentially 4 available to other users? 5 MR. ALLEN: No. 6 MR. SIMMONS: Okay. Thank you. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Any recross of Mr. Allen? 8 MR. SEXTON: I'm afraid so. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: It's certainly within your right, 10 Mr. Sexton. Please come forward, sir. 11 ---oOo--- 12 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON 13 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA AUTHORITY 14 BY MICHAEL SEXTON 15 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Allen, you just testified that you 16 support reasonable source control. Do I understand your 17 response to be directed at source control in agricultural 18 areas on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 19 MR. ALLEN: It would not be limited to that, but, 20 yes. 21 MR. SEXTON: It would include that area? 22 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 23 MR. SEXTON: Are you familiar with the agencies on 24 the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that are involved 25 in the Grasslands Bypass Project? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4317 1 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I am. 2 MR. SEXTON: And are you aware that as part of the 3 Grasslands Bypass Project those agencies have now submitted 4 themselves to waste discharge requirements as established 5 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board? 6 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 7 MR. SEXTON: Are you aware, sir, that as part of what 8 those agencies have been doing for the last two years or 9 so, they have been practicing source control and pretty 10 intensive irrigation water management on the 90,000 plus 11 acres within the service area? 12 MR. ALLEN: I'm not familiar with those details, but 13 in general, yes. 14 MR. SEXTON: You are familiar, then, in general, that 15 the agricultural entities have been practicing some 16 enhanced level of water management including source 17 control? 18 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 19 MR. SEXTON: Given what you have just testified to 20 then, sir, is it your testimony that the use of any portion 21 of New Melones' yield for water quality enhancement at 22 Vernalis under D-1422 is an unreasonable use of water? 23 MR. ALLEN: Would you ask that, again? 24 MR. SEXTON: Given the testimony that you've just 25 rendered regarding the source control activities by the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4318 1 entities that we just referred to on the west side of the 2 San Joaquin valley, is it still your testimony, as set 3 forth in Exhibit 16, that the use of any portion of New 4 Melones' yield with D-1422 water quality enhancement is an 5 unreasonable waste of water under Article 1062 of the 6 Constitution? 7 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 8 MR. SEXTON: Could you explain that? 9 MR. ALLEN: I don't advocate dilution of pollution of 10 using freshwater. 11 MR. SEXTON: Define "pollution," please. 12 MR. ALLEN: Pollution consists of anything that 13 degrades water quality to the point where it affects 14 beneficial uses. 15 MR. SEXTON: Including discharges from the City's 16 wastewater treatment plant? 17 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 18 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, sir. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sexton. Do 20 the staff have recross? 21 MR. HOWARD: No questions. 22 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. Board Members, 24 any recross? 25 MEMBER FORSTER: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4319 1 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We can, then, excuse 2 Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir. We always try to accommodate 3 within reason. 4 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Which may create hardship for the rest 6 of the panel who, therefore, must return on October 13th. 7 Is that correct, Ms. Leidigh? 8 MS. LEIDIGH: That's correct. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: At 9:00 a.m. in this room. That's a 10 Tuesday, I believe. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. It is. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We'll see you then, folks. 13 And we will cross-examine this panel. Thank you very much. 14 (The proceedings concluded at 4:04 p.m.) 15 ---oOo--- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4320 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 4102 through 4321 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 6th day of 14 October, 1998. 15 16 17 18 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 4321