4322 01 02 03 04 05 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 06 07 08 09 10 PUBLIC HEARING 11 12 13 13 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING 14 15 16 17 HELD AT: 18 BONDERSON BUILDING 18 901 P STREET 19 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 19 20 20 21 21 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998 22 9:00 A.M. 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 4323 01 APPEARANCES 01 BOARD MEMBERS: 02 02 JOHN CAFFREY, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JOHN W. BROWN 04 MARY JANE FORSTER 04 MARC DEL PIERO 05 05 STAFF MEMBERS: 06 06 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 07 VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT 07 THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 08 08 COUNSEL: 09 09 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL 10 BARBARA LEIDIGH 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 4324 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 02 03 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 03 134 West Sycamore Street 04 Willows, California 95988 04 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 05 05 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 07 P.O. BOX 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 08 09 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 09 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 10 P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 11 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 13 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 14 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 16 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 and 18 AMELIA THOMAS, ESQ. 19 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 20 GARY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 21 San Rafael, California 94901 22 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 24 San Francisco, California 94109 25 25 4325 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 02 03 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 03 2480 Union Street 04 San Francisco, California 94123 04 05 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 05 06 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 06 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 07 Sacramento, California 95825 07 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 08 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 08 09 BYRON M. BUCK 09 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 11 12 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 12 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 13 Sacramento, California 95814 13 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 14 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 15 15 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 16 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 17 18 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 18 19 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 19 71 Stevenson Street 20 San Francisco, California 94105 20 21 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 21 22 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 22 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 23 Visalia, California 93291 23 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 24 24 25 25 4326 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 02 03 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 03 6201 S Street 04 Sacramento, California 95817 04 05 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 06 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor 07 Stockton, California 95202 07 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 08 08 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 09 09 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 10 375 Eleventh Street 10 Oakland, California 94623 11 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 11 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 12 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 13 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 14 Berkeley, California 94702 14 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 15 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 16 P.O. Box 5654 17 Fresno, California 93755 17 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 18 18 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 19 19 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 20 P.O. Box 2365 20 Flournoy, California 96029 21 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 21 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 22 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 23 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 24 Los Angeles, California 90075 24 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 25 25 4327 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 02 03 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 03 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 04 San Francisco, California 94102 04 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 05 05 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 07 926 J Street, Suite 505 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 08 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 09 09 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 10 101 West Walnut Street 10 Pasadena, California 91103 11 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 11 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 12 13 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 13 517 East Olive Street 14 Turlock, California 95381 14 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 15 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 16 16 RICHARD GOLB 17 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 18 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 20 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 20 Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 21 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 22 23 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. 23 and 24 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 25 Oakland, California 94618 25 4328 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 02 03 SIMON GRANVILLE 03 P.O. Box 846 04 San Andreas, California 95249 04 05 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 06 P.O. Box 1019 07 Madera, California 93639 07 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 08 08 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 09 09 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 10 2300 River Plaza Drive 10 Sacramento, California 95833 11 11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 MORRISON & FORESTER 13 755 Page Mill Road 13 Palo Alto, California 94303 14 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 14 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 15 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 16 P.O. Box 777 17 Shasta Lake, California 96019 17 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 18 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 19 926 J Street 20 Sacramento, California 95814 20 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 21 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 22 P.O. Box 427 23 Durham, California 95938 23 BY: DON HEFFREN 24 24 25 25 4329 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 02 03 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 03 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East 04 Stockton, California 95267 04 05 COUNTY OF GLENN: 05 06 NORMAN Y. HERRING 06 525 West Sycamore Street 07 Willows, California 95988 07 08 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 08 09 MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ESQ. 09 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 11 12 JULIE KELLY 12 P.O. Box 307 13 Vina, California 96092 13 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 14 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 15 P.O. Box 4060 16 Modesto, California 95352 16 BY: BILL KETSCHER 17 17 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 18 18 SAVE THE BAY 19 1736 Franklin Street 19 Oakland, California 94612 20 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 20 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 21 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 22 P.O. Box 606 23 Manton, California 96059 23 24 24 25 25 4330 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 02 03 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 03 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 04 Sacramento, California 95814 04 05 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 05 06 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 06 1201 Civic Center Drive 07 Yuba City 95993 07 08 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 08 09 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 09 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 10 Sacramento, California 95816 10 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 11 11 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 13 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 13 Walnut Creek, California 94596 14 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 14 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 DON MARCIOCHI 16 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 17 Los Banos, California 93635 17 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 18 19 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 19 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 20 Merced, California 95344 20 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 21 21 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 22 22 R.W. MCCOMAS 23 4150 County Road K 23 Orland, California 95963 24 24 25 25 4331 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 02 03 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 03 P.O. Box 3728 04 Sonora, California 95730 04 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 05 05 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 07 P.O. Box 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 08 09 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 09 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER 10 1550 California Street, Suite 6 11 San Francisco, California 94109 11 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 12 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 13 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95965 14 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 15 15 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 16 16 DE CUIR & SOMACH 17 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 18 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 19 20 STEVE MORA 20 501 Walker Street 21 Orland, California 95963 21 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 22 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 23 P.O. Box 4060 24 Modesto, California 95352 24 25 25 4332 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 02 03 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 03 P.O. Box 7442 04 San Francisco, California 94120 04 05 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 05 06 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 06 P.O. Box 1461 07 Stockton, California 95201 07 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 08 and 08 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 09 09 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 10 10 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 11 1100 Whitney Avenue 11 Corcoran, California 93212 12 12 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 13 13 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 14 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 15 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 15 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 17 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 18 Chico, California 95926 18 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 19 19 SIERRA CLUB: 20 20 JENNA OLSEN 21 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 22 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 23 23 LYNNEL POLLOCK 24 625 Court Street 24 Woodland, California 95695 25 25 4333 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PATRICK PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES: 02 03 PATRICK PORGANS 03 P.O. Box 60940 04 Sacramento, California 95860 04 05 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 DIANE RATHMANN 06 07 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 07 08 BETSY REIFSNIDER 08 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 09 Sacramento, California 95814 09 10 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 10 11 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 11 P.O. Box 2067 12 Merced, California 95344 12 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 13 13 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 14 14 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 15 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 15 Stockton, California 95202 16 16 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 17 17 JAMES F. ROBERTS 18 P.O. Box 54153 18 Los Angeles, California 90054 19 19 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 20 20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 21 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 22 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 4334 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 02 03 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 03 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 04 San Francisco, California 94194 04 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 05 05 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 06 06 DAVID SANDINO, ESQ. 07 CATHY CROTHERS, ESQ. 07 P.O. Box 942836 08 Sacramento, California 94236 08 09 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 09 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 10 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 11 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 12 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 13 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 14 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 17 P.O. Box 1679 17 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 18 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 19 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE 20 P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 21 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 24 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. 25 4335 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 02 03 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 03 P.O. Box 1679 04 Oroville, California 95965 04 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 05 05 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 06 06 DE CUIR & SOMACH 07 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 08 09 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 09 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 10 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 11 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 15 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 16 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 17 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 18 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 19 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 20 P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 21 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 24 Redding, California 96001 25 25 4336 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 02 03 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 03 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 04 Red Bluff, California 96080 04 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 05 05 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 06 06 BEST BEST & KREIGER 07 P.O. Box 1028 07 Riverside, California 92502 08 BY: ERIC GARNER, ESQ. 08 09 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 09 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 10 P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 11 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 14 San Andreas, California 95249 15 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive 17 Ione, California 95640 18 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 20 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 21 22 ---oOo--- 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 4337 01 INDEX 01 PAGE 02 02 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 4338 03 AFTERNOON SESSION 4433 03 CITY OF STOCKTON (DO): 04 GARY INGRAHAM 04 SUSAN STUTZ-MCDONALD 05 RUSSELL BROWN 05 CARL CHEN 06 DONALD DODGE 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 07 BY MR. MINASIAN 4340 07 BY MR. MADDOW 4357 08 BY MR. JACKSON 4363 08 BY MR. HERRICK 4368 09 BY MR. NOMELLINI 4372 09 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 4377 10 BY STAFF 4370 10 BY BOARD MEMBERS 4386 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION: 11 BY MR. SIMMONS 4393 12 12 CITY OF STOCKTON (SALINITY): 13 RUSSELL BROWN 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 14 BY MS. CAHILL 4398 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 15 BY MR. HERRICK 4408 15 BY MR. JACKSON 4421 16 BY MS. THOMAS 4433 16 BY MR. SEXTON 4439 17 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 4460 17 BY MR. NOMELINNI 4467 18 BY MR. MINASIAN 4474 18 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 4482 19 BY BOARD MEMBERS 4508 19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION: 20 BY MS. CAHILL 4515 20 21 ---oOo--- 22 23 24 25 4338 01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 02 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back. 05 When last we met, we were in Phase V and we were about 06 to cross-examine the City of Stockton panel, represented by 07 Mr. Simmons. We had dismissed, excused, if you will, Mr. 08 Allen who was not able to join us again today. So, we will 09 now cross-examine again the panel. 10 Could we have a showing all at once, if possible, as to 11 the parties that wish to cross-examine the panel. Let's 12 see. I can't see -- that is Mr. Minasian, Mr. Maddow, Mr. 13 Jackson, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Sexton, Ms. 14 Harrigfeld. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Am I correct that this 16 cross-examination will only relate to the testimony 17 pertaining to the DO standard? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, I didn't hear you, Mr. 19 Birmingham. Could you repeat yourself. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Am I correct that this 21 cross-examination only relates to the testimony pertaining 22 to the dissolved oxygen standard? 23 Dr. Brown has two sets of testimony, one related to 24 water quality standards at Vernalis and the other related to 25 dissolved oxygen. 4339 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe I am failing to understand the 02 significance of the question. Is this pertaining to him 03 appearing twice, perhaps? 04 MR. SIMMONS: You may recall, Mr. Chairman, we had 05 asked if we would be able to go ahead, put on the panel of 06 witnesses for the dissolved oxygen issue, have them crossed, 07 and then have the testimony on salinity. Even though they 08 are both Phase V topics, they are fairly distinct. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: You are going to present a second panel 10 or at least that witness a second time? 11 MR. SIMMONS: Right. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for raising that question, Mr. 13 Birmingham. This will be just for the one subject, then we 14 will go back to the other. Obviously, to the extent there 15 is relationship, cross-examination can go beyond direct 16 testimony if that is where you are headed, Mr. 17 Birmingham. I understand. 18 All right. Did I get everybody during the showing of 19 hands? 20 Let me read the names again: Mr. Minasian, Mr. Maddow, 21 Mr. Jackson, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Sexton and Ms. 22 Harrigfeld. 23 Did you wish to bring the panel up, Mr. Simmons? 24 MR. SIMMONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, on 25 the end is Mr. Ingraham -- 4340 01 C.O. CAFFREY: I will just say somebody mentioned, 02 "Please use the mike." The sound system has its limitations 03 in here. Please be mindful, try to keep that mike as close 04 to your mouth when speaking, both to the witnesses and the 05 cross-examiners. 06 MR. SIMMONS: I was simply reintroducing the panel. On 07 the far end is Mr. Ingraham. To his left is Ms. 08 Stutz-McDonald. To her left is Dr. Brown, and to his left 09 is Dr. Chen. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Morning panel, welcome back. 11 Mr. Minasian, are you ready to cross-examine, sir? 12 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could we have 13 the screen, please. 14 ---oOo-- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 16 BY THE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 17 BY MR. MINASIAN 18 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Ingraham, could we start with you. 19 The domestic water service in the greater Stockton area is a 20 bit of a Bosnian solution, is it not? Who provides domestic 21 water? 22 MR. INGRAHAM: As part of the clean water grants that 23 the City received in the late 1970's, one of the 24 requirements was to have a regional wastewater treatment 25 plant and close out -- 4341 01 MR. MINASIAN: I am referring to water, domestic water, 02 consumable water. 03 MR. INGRAHAM: You will have to describe the Bosnian 04 situation. 05 MR. MINASIAN: Does Cal Water supply part of the water? 06 MR. INGRAHAM: Yes. 07 MR. MINASIAN: Where is their service area? 08 MR. INGRAHAM: Typically, the south to central area. 09 They serve -- they have more City accounts, or customers, 10 than the City of Stockton does. They serve about 38,000 11 accounts in incorporated limits. We serve around 31- or 12 32,000. 13 MR. MINASIAN: Is there also domestic water provided by 14 Stockton East Water District? 15 MR. INGRAHAM: To the extent that they have wastewater 16 -- they have the water treatment plant. They provide the 17 surface water which usually, in a normal water year, equals 18 about two-thirds of the total consumed water in the urban 19 area, which is about 63,000 acre-feet. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Are there also several mutual water 21 companies and other purveyors that have developed in the 22 outlying areas to the east of Stockton? 23 MR. INGRAHAM: There are several other water districts, 24 if that is your question. 25 MR. MINASIAN: The City of Stockton contemplates a 4342 01 population growth, do they not? 02 MR. INGRAHAM: That is correct. 03 MR. MINASIAN: Is Exhibit 7, which will be presented by 04 another panel, basically, a line showing the projection of 05 growth? Let me show it to you. 06 MR. INGRAHAM: I don't believe I recognize that 07 exhibit. 08 MR. MINASIAN: Very intelligent of you not to recognize 09 that. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Having a sense of humor is allowed in 11 the hearing room. 12 MR. MINASIAN: Until the decision is announced. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Touche, Mr. Minasian, and whoever wants 14 to identify themselves in that batch. We won't know until 15 we have a decision, will we? 16 MR. MINASIAN: Does that appear to be Exhibit 7? 17 MR. INGRAHAM: I don't have any knowledge of that 18 exhibit. But I will say this for the record, we have 19 revised our general plan, based on some annexations that 20 were held or taken in and, the general plan amendment was 21 1990, and I have seen our tests anticipated consumption for 22 domestic water will be in excess of 100,000 acre-feet at the 23 full development of the existing City Council general plan, 24 which is probably well beyond 2020. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Does this urban growth, which is 4343 01 envisioned by the planners and political figures in the City 02 of Stockton, also translate into an expansion of the 03 wastewater treatment capacity at either the existing 04 location or some other location? 05 MR. INGRAHAM: Of course, as citizens connect, as you 06 have additional houses come on line, and we have an average 07 of a thousand to 1100 dwelling units a year, plus equivalent 08 for industrial or commercial units, 300 per year, you have 09 to have the ability to treat that wastewater. So we would 10 anticipate an expansion in that area as well. That is the 11 reason we have done a master plan in that area. It is 12 mandated by state law when you adopt your master plan. You 13 adopt certain population end growth, you also have to have 14 an element of the general plan to have utilities to serve 15 that growth. We have done just exactly that. 16 MR. MINASIAN: Would it be best to ask you or Ms. 17 Stutz-McDonald in regards to the 1991 Carollo Study which 18 envisions certain expansion of the treatment plant capacity? 19 MR. INGRAHAM: I would be happy to yield to Ms. 20 McDonald. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Ms. McDonald, would you be aware of the 22 contents of staff Exhibit 30, which is a supplemental report 23 of the wastewater master plan of the City of Stockton? 24 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, could we simply have this 25 document identified a little more clearly, as to what it is. 4344 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Minasian. 02 MR. MINASIAN: I will be happy to do that. 03 As we all know, there are a series of staff exhibits. 04 One of those is Exhibit 30, and it bears the title 05 Supplement Report to the Wastewater Master Plan, John 06 Carollo Engineers, March 16, 1992. 07 And the questions that I will be asking are in regard 08 to the schedule which I believe to be Table 4.2. They will 09 will be very brief. 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I am aware that our firm did this 11 report. I was not involved with the report. The report was 12 done to supplement the earlier master plan that the City had 13 specifically for a specific growth area. That, to my 14 knowledge, has never occurred. 15 MR. MINASIAN: I misspoke myself; it was Table 4.1. 16 When we talk about the DO problem that the City of 17 Stockton wastewater plant is creating, do we, in your 18 opinion, need to also deal with the potential that 19 wastewater treatment plant capacities within the area of 20 the City of Stockton will be expanded in the near future? 21 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That is correct. 22 MR. MINASIAN: And is -- Mr. Ingraham, in 1992 did the 23 City do various projections of cost and expansion capacities 24 as part of a general study of the alternatives available to 25 the City? 4345 01 MR. INGRAHAM: Yes, that is correct. And Parsons 02 Engineering did that work. 03 MR. MINASIAN: What we have before us is a Carollo 04 study, and it has various costs for expanding the plant 05 capacity, either at the existing location or creating 06 another plant at another location and combining it with the 07 existing plant, going from 45 mgd to 85 mgd, as an example, 08 in the first column. 09 Do you see that? 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. 11 MR. INGRAHAM: Yes. 12 MR. MINASIAN: Do the totals down at the bottom 13 basically represent increments in millions of dollars which 14 would be spent upon these treatment plant capacity 15 expansions? 16 MR. INGRAHAM: They would have to. But this does not 17 include compliance or nitrification. These are preliminary 18 figures based on a preliminary reconnaissance. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Would it be correct to say, Mr. 20 Ingraham, that the City of Stockton and Environs is going to 21 spend a good deal of money in expanding treatment plant 22 capacity in some way above 48 mgd? 23 MR. INGRAHAM: One thing I would like to point on 24 regarding this exhibit, we have no intentions of increasing 25 the plant size anywhere close to that. 4346 01 MR. MINASIAN: What is the most recent plan in regard 02 to the City of Stockton regional wastewater capacity? 03 MR. INGRAHAM: We are currently in expansion mode, not 04 compliance, for up to 48 mgd. However, that is under 05 question at this time because, we believe, Del Monte is 06 going to pull out two more canning years. That might even 07 not go that high. 08 Our current flows are just -- this season reached just 09 under 40 mgd with our canning flows in the summer. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Has the City of Stockton or the County 11 of San Joaquin planning authorities put in any growth 12 limitations, based upon the problems with wastewater 13 capacity and the problem with salinization of the 14 groundwater sources? 15 MR. INGRAHAM: I can speak for City of Stockton. Not 16 currently. 17 MR. MINASIAN: I would like to show you Stockton 18 Exhibit 6, which is a chloride concentration front line, 19 Ms. Stutz-McDonald. 20 Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to not get into the 21 salinity issue terribly, but relate it to the DO. This will 22 be preliminary. 23 Do you recognize these lines, Ms. Stutz-McDonald, in 24 this exhibit? It's exhibit -- 25 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, I will object for lack of 4347 01 foundation. It hasn't been established that the witness has 02 ever seen this before. This is not an exhibit that 03 accompanied her testimony. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: In a sense he is asking her if -- 05 perhaps, this question should have been does she recognize 06 the document. I don't know. Let's see where this takes us, 07 because cross-examination is allowed to go somewhat beyond 08 the expanse of the direct. 09 MR. MINASIAN: I am showing you Stockton Exhibit 6, Ms. 10 Stutz-McDonald. Do you recognize that? 11 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Can you tell me what report that 12 is from? 13 MR. MINASIAN: It's an exhibit in this proceeding, and 14 I can't. 15 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No, I do not. 16 MR. MINASIAN: Let me ask you generically. Are you 17 aware of a problem of salinization of the groundwater in the 18 area of the City of Stockton? 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I have not done any work on that 20 particular issue. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Anyone else in the panel aware of the 22 problem of the encroaching chloride line in the area of the 23 City of Stockton? 24 When we look at the issue of the wastewater at the 25 plant of the City of Stockton which is being discharged into 4348 01 the San Joaquin River, is the source of the water from the 02 underground pumping that is available to Cal Water and the 03 City of Stockton relevant in terms of determining the saline 04 concentration in that water being discharged? 05 Can anybody on the panel answer this? 06 Is it better to deal with this at the salinity level, 07 Mr. Simmons? 08 MR. SIMMONS: Well, just to say -- I don't want to play 09 games. Mr. Allen was on the panel. He is the Director of 10 Municipal Utilities. He is the one with responsibility for 11 wastewater and drinking water, water source issues. 12 You have primarily engineers, including wastewater 13 engineers, and a finance expert on the panel right now. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Let me go at it in a different way. 15 Ms. Stutz-McDonald, you were involved in the study of 16 the reclaiming of water sources and expenses, were you not? 17 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: My firm did that study. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Would it be safe to say that the 19 resistivity to the use of reclaimed water from the 20 wastewater plant in Stockton was tepid? 21 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That is correct. 22 MR. MINASIAN: And in your testimony have you provided 23 us with various estimates of the cost of alternatives which, 24 in your view, still remain feasible? That is on Page 3. 25 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Well, can you clarify "still 4349 01 remain feasible"? Feasible in what way? 02 MR. MINASIAN: That is that they are financially and 03 physically implementable. 04 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: In what time frame? 05 MR. MINASIAN: In a ten-year time frame. 06 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That depends upon the market for 07 these uses. Like you said earlier, the use of -- there were 08 no agencies that came forward and wanted the recycled 09 water. So it depends on the market. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Let's take the one of using the water to 11 replace groundwater being pumped in the Central San Joaquin 12 Water Conservation District. 13 You worked on that project, did you not? 14 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I personally did not work on the 15 project. I am aware of the study. 16 MR. MINASIAN: The estimated cost of that project is 17 about $60,000,000 for 50,000 acre-feet of annual recharges 18 or reuse at this current City of Stockton wastewater 19 discharge level; is it not? 20 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That is correct. That is 1995 21 dollars; it did not include any storage. 22 MR. MINASIAN: If we spend $60,000,000 denitrifying the 23 water and taking care of the ammonia problem, instead of 24 spending $60,000,000 to reclaim the water and use it within 25 the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, do you 4350 01 have an opinion as to whether or not we have wasted money? 02 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Well, in some respects that is a 03 hypothetical. The Central San Joaquin Water Conservation 04 District was not interested in taking the water. 05 MR. MINASIAN: That is a district where the growers 06 primarily pump groundwater; is it not? 07 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. 08 MR. MINASIAN: They pump groundwater on 40,000 acres 09 and grow crops with that groundwater; is that correct? 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. 11 MR. MINASIAN: As a result of that pumping, the 12 chloride line moves in and pollutes the wells that are being 13 used by the City of Stockton and Cal Water; is it not? 14 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: In general, groundwater pumping or 15 overdrafting will cause a salinity problem in most areas of 16 the state. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Is that happening in the area of the 18 City of Stockton? 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I did not work on the groundwater 20 issues for the City of Stockton. 21 MR. MINASIAN: One other alternative is a more 22 expensive alternative, Number 1, which is to build a 23 pipeline and attempt to use the water as part of industrial 24 or urban growth as a substitute supply for existing users or 25 as a condition of development; is it not? 4351 01 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Are you referring to Alternative 02 Number 1? 03 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 04 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That would be to market the water 05 to several of the industries that are close to the plant, 06 also use of the water on certain parks and golf courses. 07 MR. MINASIAN: We are getting a water cost in the 08 range, including operation and maintenance cost, which 09 aren't included on this chart, of about 200 to $300 an 10 acre-feet delivered to the property, are we not? 11 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I don't have those numbers in 12 front of me. 13 MR. MINASIAN: You do have the capital figure? 14 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I do have the capital figure. 15 Again, that is for a flow rate of approximately 13 mgd 16 during part of the summer months. So, that would not be a 17 zero discharge alternative. 18 MR. MINASIAN: But during the nonsummer months, we do 19 not have as intense an oxidization problem and ammonia 20 problem in the Delta, do we? 21 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. The DO problem in 22 the Delta is primarily in the late summer and early fall. 23 MR. MINASIAN: If we translate 13 mgd, instead of 48 24 mgd, which is the current approximate output of the plant, 25 into 360 days, do we end up with around 15,000 acre-feet a 4352 01 year? 02 MR. SIMMONS: Object to that. That question assumes 03 facts not in evidence with respect to the current discharge 04 from the plant. 05 MR. MINASIAN: Let me rephrase. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 07 MR. MINASIAN: What is the current discharge from the 08 plants on an average mgd basis, taking out the infiltration 09 during rain storms? 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: In August it was just under 40 11 mgd, but that includes a heavy canning load. During the 12 springtime, it's in the low 30 mgd. 13 MR. MINASIAN: When you did the study, did you think it 14 reasonable to use a figure of 13 mgd as the amount that 15 could be used on an average; that is, November to February, 16 it would be lower and in the summer months it would be 17 higher? 18 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That is correct. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Just so we laymen can deal with a -- how 20 much water are we going to be able to either recharge or 21 reuse? Could you approximate that for us in annual 22 acre-feet? 23 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Well, I don't have those numbers 24 in here. What we have said, it would range anywhere from a 25 minimum of 6 mgd to a maximum in July of 23 mgd. So it 4353 01 would be an average of up to, say, 13 mgd out of the total 02 discharge that the City discharges. 03 MR. MINASIAN: The third alternative is at the bottom 04 of the page, is it not? 05 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. 06 MR. MINASIAN: That is called Groundwater Recharge. 07 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. 08 MR. MINASIAN: This is an alternative to provide for 09 the water to be placed in natural channels and sloughs or 10 upon acquired ground to directly recharge the water to the 11 underground? 12 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. It would be acquired land 13 that would percolate the water. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Is there a project capital cost 15 estimate of about $117,000,000 for approximately 50,000 16 acre-feet at current levels of recharge? 17 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. 18 MR. MINASIAN: When we look at the total water system 19 of the City of Stockton area, and its desire to grow, to 20 have more people connect, did you detect any mechanism that 21 would cause the political authorities in Stockton to move 22 towards groundwater recharge? 23 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Can you restate that question. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Let me try to complete that question for 25 you. 4354 01 You worked on this project for several years. Did you 02 not? 03 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I did not work on the water market 04 evaluation which these three alternatives are taken from. I 05 have worked on the recent wastewater master plan. 06 MR. MINASIAN: Was it frustrating to try to get the 07 political forces to agree that although there is a policy in 08 favor of water reclamation to actually implement water 09 implementation of the wastewater? 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I believe that the issue is cost 11 to the ratepayers. 12 MR. MINASIAN: You're aware that the City of Stockton, 13 Stockton East Water District and others have attempted to 14 get more water out of New Melones Reservoir, are you not? 15 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I am aware of that. 16 MR. MINASIAN: This water, if properly treated and 17 handled, is as good as New Melones water; is it not? 18 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That depends on who you ask. 19 MR. MINASIAN: It's a perception problem; isn't it? 20 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Recycled water is a perception 21 problem. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Based upon your experience in an attempt 23 to provide for mobilization of the policy adopted by the 24 City of Stockton to use reclaimed water, is there force that 25 is going to cause reclamation of wastewater in the City of 4355 01 Stockton? 02 MR. INGRAHAM: Mr. Minasian, it is the City is 03 grappling with the whole issue of looking for the most 04 cost-effective manner in which to expand the wastewater 05 treatment plant. And some of these other carry a very high 06 price tag, and they are very detrimental to your economic 07 well-being as well as our connection fees, as well as to our 08 ratepayers. 09 We have been sued by the BIA, and we have already lost 10 that suit. The BIA doesn't want to pay for it. The home 11 buyers don't want to pay for it. It comes down to who wants 12 to pay for it. 13 I already testified, based on even the expanded -- the 14 compliance project, what our connection fees will have done 15 over the last 20 period, what our rates will have done over 16 the last 20 period. And you have already heard testimony 17 that economic development is just going to be a thing of the 18 past. That is the -- it comes down to an economic issue, 19 and these are huge costs. The farmers don't want to pay 20 this. You know that and I know that. 21 So who pays for it? Very expensive projects. We will 22 become a waste land. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you for your very candid response. 24 Now, let's deal with alternatives. If we spend 25 $60,000,000 for denitrification and for ammonia removal and 4356 01 to take care of the DO problem, we don't have $60,000,000 to 02 spend on recycling and reclaiming water, do we? 03 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. 04 MR. INGRAHAM: Same ratepayer; that's correct. 05 MR. MINASIAN: The chart before, if we expand the 06 treatment plant at this particular location, build more 07 capacity, let more people connect, we are investing money 08 and pounding a problem of DO, are we not 09 MR. INGRAHAM: I prefer an engineer answer that 10 question. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Is it true that if we adopted a policy, 12 that there will be no urban expansion of use of groundwater 13 in this area except if, for every acre-foot of water used 14 from the underground, new water used from the underground, 15 there is an acre-feet reclaimed, that there may be, in fact, 16 a political solution to this problem? 17 MR. INGRAHAM: I don't know -- 18 MR. SIMMONS: Objection. That question calls for 19 speculation. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, it does. 21 MR. SIMMONS: Political speculation at that. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: But if Mr. Ingraham knows the answer, 23 he can answer. He doesn't have to answer. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Were you going to answer the question? 4357 01 MR. INGRAHAM: Certain questions are left for the 02 policy makers. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We recognize that. Thank you. 04 Something else, Mr. Minasian? 05 MR. MINASIAN: No. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Maddow. 07 ---oOo-- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 09 BY CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 10 BY MR. MADDOW 11 MR. MADDOW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 12 the Board. I am Bob Maddow. I am appearing on behalf of 13 Contra Costa Water District. I have just a few questions 14 for Ms. Stutz-McDonald. 15 Mr. Minasian has been talking to you about Stockton 16 Exhibit 12 over primarily on Page 3. I want to ask you a 17 couple questions on the same exhibit, but focusing for just 18 a moment on Page 2. 19 In your discussion of the status of the master plan 20 update, in developing the alternatives for ammonia removal, 21 is it correct that you evaluated two approaches to the 22 nitrification issues, overland flow wetlands and activated 23 and sludge basins? 24 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No. Actually, we had a number of 25 -- we had up to 80 alternatives that we came up with and 4358 01 worked with and screened from there down to 20. And then 02 those were screened down to these six. And Alternatives 03 Number 4, 5 and 6 are the ones that remained which would 04 provide nitrification at the plant. 05 MR. MADDOW: As I understand it, Alternative 4 includes 06 overland flow wetlands for dealing with ammonia; is that 07 correct? 08 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That's correct. 09 MR. MADDOW: What about Alternatives 5 and 6? 10 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Both of those would be a 11 nitrifying activated sludge system. It is just a matter of 12 what are the components which would be matched to that 13 system. 14 MR. MADDOW: In looking at the 80 alternatives from 15 which you screened down to these two, were there other 16 treatment processes that were eliminated from the City's 17 consideration? 18 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. 19 MR. MADDOW: Can you very briefly summarize the types 20 of things you were looking at. I am not looking for an 21 enormous amount of detail. Could you give us some idea what 22 some of the other processes were that you eliminated. 23 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: For nitrification? 24 MR. MADDOW: Yes. 25 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: We had looked at nitrifying 4359 01 trickling filters, and that process was eliminated. We had 02 looked at a number of other overland flow types of systems, 03 algae turf scrubbers, other esoteric types of systems. 04 MR. MADDOW: In eliminating these more esoteric types 05 of systems and the trickling filter approach, was 06 elimination due to cost considerations? 07 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: There were a number of criteria 08 that we used to screen and develop the alternatives. Cost 09 was one of the criteria. 10 MR. MADDOW: Is that information in this record? 11 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I don't believe it is. We are not 12 -- we don't have a final master plan at this point. We are 13 in the process of finalizing the master plan. 14 MR. MADDOW: Is it possible that some of those more 15 esoteric treatment processes may surface again during the 16 finalization process, in your opinion? 17 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No. The council has selected 18 these six alternatives to move forward in the EIR prose. As 19 soon as we wrap up our master plan, we will begin the EIR 20 process, and that would include looking at these six 21 alternatives. It will, of course, address the other 22 alternatives that were screened out. And you will have some 23 discussion as to why they were screened out in that EIR 24 document and also in the master plan document. 25 MR. MADDOW: Just focusing on ammonia removal, Ms. 4360 01 Stutz-McDonald, is it then your testimony that there will be 02 no further look at the capital or operation and maintenance 03 costs of any of the other alternative treatment techniques 04 that were evaluated? 05 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: That is correct. 06 MR. MADDOW: And in the screening process which you 07 have described has there been any evaluation of the cost and 08 benefits of the ammonia removal treatment techniques as 09 compared to the costs and benefits related to other -- 10 strike that. 11 Let me start again. I started to go down three avenues 12 at once. 13 Was any comparison done between the cost and benefits 14 of the denitrification techniques that the City has been 15 looking at and any of the other alternatives that are before 16 this Board with regard to dealing with the dissolved oxygen 17 problem that is the subject of Phase V? 18 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Well, Alternatives Number 1 and 2 19 are two that are before the Board. Number 1 is to solve the 20 dissolved oxygen problem by aerating the river. And the 21 second alternative is a river management -- what we are 22 calling a river management alternative to solve the 23 dissolved oxygen problem in the river. 24 MR. MADDOW: Did you look at the costs of any of those 25 river management techniques, for example, and their 4361 01 potential benefits to the City and others in relation to the 02 cost of nitrification facilities? 03 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes, we did. 04 MR. MADDOW: Did you look at those in comparison to any 05 of the more esoteric nitrification processes, or was your -- 06 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: We had very playing level budgets 07 for those more esoteric ones, as well. Again, those were 08 screened out. 09 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. 10 I have nothing further. 11 I do have a question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 13 MR. MADDOW: Two weeks ago the parties received a copy 14 of a letter to Mr. Simmons from Ms. Whitney, which included 15 a request for additional dissolved oxygen modeling. My 16 request is that at sometime before we finish this phase we 17 get an understanding of what is actually going to happen 18 with that modeling, whether the parties will have an 19 opportunity to see it, what we can anticipate with regard to 20 any questions which may arise. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 22 Did you want to comment, Mr. Simmons? 23 MR. SIMMONS: I'd be happy to. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, sir. 25 MR. SIMMONS: We did receive a letter from Ms. Whitney 4362 01 asking for additional modeling. We are happy to do it. As 02 soon as Dr. Chen can get his staff lined up to do it, we 03 will just do it and submit it. 04 It hasn't been included in our testimony, of course. 05 As a practical matter, we have about a million simulations 06 of different scenarios. We will be happy to give the Board 07 that particular one that is requested and include it in the 08 record. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 10 Anything from the staff? Wish to comment? 11 Thank you, appreciate that. 12 You will keep us posted and let us know? 13 MR. SIMMONS: We haven't actually talked directly about 14 when he can get to it. I don't think it takes very long, as 15 as soon as he clears some staff time. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: I will interpret that as meaning it will 17 be forthcoming in a relatively short period of time, 18 perhaps. We will at least get a status report from you by 19 the end of this phase? 20 MR. SIMMONS: How about right after the break? 21 C.O. CAFFREY: That is even better. 22 MR. SIMMONS: I can talk to him at the break. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 24 Mr. Jackson, good morning, sir. 25 ---oOo-- 4363 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 02 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 03 BY MR. JACKSON 04 MR. JACKSON: Good morning. Michael Jackson for the 05 Regional Council of Rural Counties. 06 These questions will be for anybody who feels that they 07 need to answer them. 08 The first question is: What is the relationship -- 09 according to your studies, what is the relationship of flow 10 at Stockton entering the ship channel to the DO? 11 DR. BROWN: I will try to answer that. What we found 12 from a combination of looking at the available historic data 13 in the ship channel, as well as from the comparative model 14 studies that we have done, is that an increased net river 15 flow in addition to the tidal mixing that occurs under any 16 river flow, causes all of the natural aeration processes 17 across the air water interface to increase. It reduces the 18 travel time of water moving through the Lower San Joaquin 19 and ship channel reach of the river. 20 Therefore, the decay of all the natural organics, the 21 effects of the bottom sediment on the dissolved oxygen in 22 the water becomes less. And, in general, the flow results 23 in higher dissolved oxygen throughout this reach. 24 MR. JACKSON: What is the result of temperature on the 25 dissolved oxygen in that reach? 4364 01 DR. BROWN: Well, the effects of temperature are fairly 02 direct and dramatic. The higher the temperature, the lower 03 the saturated or maximum oxygen concentration in the water 04 is. So that on a seasonal basis there is less opportunity 05 for oxygen concentration or there are lower oxygen 06 concentrations in the warmer portions of the year. 07 MR. JACKSON: Would additional flow in the warmer 08 portions of the year have a tendency to lower the 09 temperature and, therefore, allow the water to gain more 10 oxygen? 11 DR. BROWN: I would say, generally, no. The San 12 Joaquin River is basically as warm as it is going to get in 13 a given season as it crosses Vernalis or Mossdale into this 14 reach. So the effects of flow changing the travel time 15 through this reach do not provide any opportunity for 16 cooling or reduce the warming. Water is already as warm as 17 it is going to be. 18 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to the 19 concentrations of biological oxygen demand and algae 20 production upstream, does algae production entering the ship 21 channel from the area of Mossdale and Vernalis cause an 22 increase or cause a decrease in available oxygen in the ship 23 channel? 24 DR. BROWN: The general effect of the algae or other 25 organic materials coming down the river from upstream of 4365 01 Mossdale is to exert oxygen demand and, therefore, lower the 02 oxygen concentration in the upstream river portion where the 03 algae is growing and actively photosynthesizing, it actually 04 is creating oxygen, increasing the concentration in the 05 water. As it enters the ship channel, because of the depth 06 and moderate light visibility in the water, the net effect 07 of this algae load together with the other organic materials 08 entering from the river are to reduce the oxygen 09 concentrations. 10 MR. JACKSON: What organic compounds are you talking 11 about that enter the river and reduce the oxygen? 12 DR. BROWN: Well, the general measurement that is made 13 in the water is called volatile suspended solids. It's 14 simply done by drying and then burning the material that is 15 found in the water. So the nature of what this is is just 16 all the detritus, all of the dead algae, just organic 17 material that is in the water, particulates, leaves from 18 upstream, any of the material as it decays will exert an 19 oxygen demand or take dissolved oxygen out of the water. 20 MR. JACKSON: There has been a discussion of a water 21 management approach. Would that water management approach 22 require TMDLs on the San Joaquin River, in your opinion? 23 DR. BROWN: Well, the approach that the City of 24 Stockton is recommending includes both an upstream awareness 25 of where the sources of this organic material or the 4366 01 nutrients that cause the algae to grow, together with the 02 opportunity to manage the flow with the Head of Old River 03 Barrier. So the City of Stockton is really recommending 04 that both of those approaches be used in the future along 05 with the wastewater treatment that presently occurs at the 06 City discharge to be combined into the future dissolved 07 oxygen management plan for this reach. 08 MR. JACKSON: Would the proposed dissolved oxygen 09 management plan focus on any particular constituents, for 10 instance nitrogen an phosphorus? 11 DR. BROWN: Well, as part of the TMDL, that is just our 12 little acronym for awareness of all of the sources of 13 materials upstream which have some sort of a link or 14 connection to the dissolved oxygen problem in the ship 15 channel. 16 To the extent that that includes nutrients from 17 upstream that cause algae to grow, which subsequently 18 settles and dies and decays in the ship channel, then 19 nutrients are one of the possible constituents that might be 20 controlled under a TMDL analysis to improve the dissolved 21 oxygen. But we have not -- City of Stockton has not done 22 such A TMDL, and so I do not know what efficiency or 23 effectiveness of nutrient controls, in particular, will do. 24 But it is very likely that nutrient control in the upstream 25 watersheds would be an effective approach to improving 4367 01 dissolved oxygen in the ship channel region. 02 MR. JACKSON: And the City of Stockton is suggesting as 03 part of their management plan approach that such 04 investigations be done by the State Board. Is that, 05 basically, what you are suggesting? 06 DR. BROWN: That is right. The TMDL investigation, as 07 a general responsibility, are -- they are the responsibility 08 of the Regional Board. So we are recommending that they 09 take that responsibility seriously and begin with this TMDL 10 that would be focused on the dissolved oxygen. 11 You can do a TMDL for any water quality parameter that 12 is reducing the beneficial uses in a region. So one could 13 be done for salt. We are recommending that one be done for 14 the dissolved oxygen problem. 15 MR. JACKSON: Other than salt and dissolved oxygen 16 would there be any other constituents affecting DO at 17 Stockton that would suggest that the Regional Board and the 18 State Board approve? 19 DR. BROWN: Well, dissolved oxygen is certainly the 20 primary problem identified in this reach, and that is the 21 major TMDL that the City is recommending, one aimed at 22 dissolved oxygen effects. 23 MR. JACKSON: Would it be important to also monitor 24 salinity? 25 DR. BROWN: Well, certainly many other parties are 4368 01 interested in salinity, and the Regional Board may well want 02 to do one on salinity. But the City of Stockton -- the City 03 of Stockton doesn't have a connection between salinity and 04 dissolved oxygen. 05 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 07 Mr. Herrick. 08 ---oOo-- 09 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 11 BY MR. HERRICK 12 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick for the South Delta Water 13 Agency. 14 I just have a couple questions. Basically, they are 15 for Drs. Chen and Russell. 16 Is it correct that part of your recommendation to the 17 Board includes the operation of Head of Old River Barrier? 18 DR. BROWN: Yes. The operation of Head of Old River 19 Barrier we feel is one of the most effective means at 20 improving dissolved oxygen in the vicinity of Stockton, and 21 this should be emphasized or highly recommended by the Board 22 to the resource agencies that are underway in planning such 23 a facility. And the City of Stockton does very much 24 recommend that this facility be constructed and operated. 25 MR. HERRICK: In developing your recommendation, have 4369 01 you done any investigation regarding effects of Head of Old 02 River Barrier downstream on Old River and Middle River? 03 DR. BROWN: No. The City has not at this time 04 completed any independent studies of the effects of that 05 barrier on the downstream. We are relying on the previous 06 studies by the Department of Water Resources and Reclamation 07 and the studies of the temporary barriers which have been 08 operating for several years in that vicinity, and we have 09 not done any special studies of those effects. 10 MR. HERRICK: But you are recommending a, I'll say, 11 potentially expanded use of the Head of Old River Barrier 12 beyond the time frame in which it is operated now? 13 DR. BROWN: That is right. Because once an operable of 14 Head of Old River Barrier is installed, which would be 15 similar to the tidal gates to the Montezuma Slough, then 16 this gate is available for operations every day of the year 17 depending on the multiple benefits and the monitoring 18 results. So this would then consider not only the dissolved 19 oxygen conditions near Stockton, but the salinity conditions 20 in the other portions of the South Delta, the presence or 21 absence of fish, both down the San Joaquin or in Old River 22 or Grant Line. 23 So that depending on those environmental conditions, 24 this gate could be operated in this adaptive management 25 framework any time of the year when further opening or 4370 01 further closing would have a beneficial effect on one of 02 these uses. 03 MR. HERRICK: Do the environmental considerations that 04 you recommend be considered, sorry for being redundant, do 05 they include the levels and quantity of water downstream of 06 the barrier on Middle and Old River? 07 DR. BROWN: Certainly. The tidal elevations and the 08 flows in those channels, the Old River Channel and Grant 09 Line, are certainly one of the considerations that would 10 guide the operation of the Head of Old River tidal gates. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you suggesting that -- do you have an 12 opinion on the relative merits you should ascribe to these 13 conditions in that if the Head of Old River Barrier 14 decreases the amount of water downstream, do you think that 15 should be a controlling factor in whether or not the 16 barriers should be operated? 17 DR. BROWN: What I am suggesting is that it wouldn't 18 just be what I think this morning should be the operation. 19 The operation would depend on the real effects of opening or 20 closing that barrier on these tidal elevations, flow, 21 salinity and fisheries conditions. So it would be linked to 22 what we are calling real time or near real time monitoring. 23 And the real effects of opening and closing the barrier on 24 tidal elevations would be known, and that those real effects 25 on those conditions is what would govern the operation of 4371 01 the gate. 02 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that you may not have an 03 opinion and the City of Stockton may not have a position, 04 but I would like to explore that just a little bit. 05 If downstream diverters, I will say, on Old River and 06 Middle River -- if downstream diverters don't have such 07 quantity or level to exercise their riparian rights, do you 08 think that should be the controlling factor in the operation 09 of the Head of Old River Barrier? In other words, do you 10 think the Board should weigh the relative merits or is there 11 some sort of priority of uses that would control? 12 DR. BROWN: I am not going to give you the rules for 13 operating the Head of Old River barrier. But I will 14 emphasize again, if, truly, opening the Head of Old River 15 Barrier more fully or completely during that period would 16 relieve a tidal elevation problem and there is really 17 nothing else that could be done for the tidal elevation 18 problem in that time, then I would think that the Head of 19 Old River Barrier operation would be, basically, aimed at 20 that single problem during those periods, and that they 21 would very likely be fully open to relieve these very low 22 tidal elevations. 23 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 24 No further questions. 25 DR. CHEN: I would like to add that under the 4372 01 circumstances dissolved oxygen in the Lower San Joaquin 02 River definitely will suffer. So it is a balancing act we 03 are talking about. 04 MR. HERRICK: Under some conditions they may suffer. 05 DR. CHEN: That is right. 06 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 07 I have no further questions. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 09 Mr. Nomellini. 10 ---oOo-- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 12 BY CENTRAL DELTA WATER PARTIES 13 BY MR. NOMELLINI 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 15 Board. Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Water 16 parties. 17 Mr. Brown, in your report, I think Exhibit 34, you 18 indicated that the Corps of Engineers was operating some 19 type of aeration system in connection with deepening of the 20 ship channel; is that correct? 21 DR. BROWN: That's right. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you made any evaluation of the 23 effectiveness of that aeration system on dissolved oxygen in 24 that reach? 25 DR. BROWN: No. I have not. And as the exhibit 4373 01 reports, there has not been any direct measurement of its 02 effectiveness beyond its design capability and the fact that 03 it is operating and it produces quite a large jet of water 04 and bubbles. It looks like it is working. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: So the studies that you have done have 06 not taken into account any impact of the Corps' aeration 07 system; is that correct? 08 DR. BROWN: No, that is not correct. We are aware of 09 that source of dissolved oxygen in the fall. It's generally 10 been operated in the September-October-November period. And 11 we do have aerators such as that one included in the 12 dissolved oxygen model. The design effect of that aerator 13 out of a thousand cfs is reportedly an increase in the 14 oxygen of .2 milligrams, and that is, indeed, what the 15 simulated aerator does in the model. So during periods when 16 it is operated, September, October, November, that is 17 included in our analysis of the Stockton DO. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: In connection with the Corps' deepening 19 of the ship channel, was this aeration system designed to 20 account for problems associated only with the deepening of 21 the channel rather than the channel itself? 22 DR. BROWN: That is right. This is considered to be 23 mitigation for the specific environmental effect caused by 24 the deepening, I believe, of approximately five feet of the 25 ship channel and using a similar model as what the City of 4374 01 Stockton now uses. They determined that under these 02 conditions that deeper water allows more of the algae to 03 settle and die and has the slight effect of at a thousand 04 cfs, approximately .2 milligrams per liter. So this 05 mitigation device was built and operated to compensate for 06 that simulated effect of their project. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: If we focused on the ship channel 08 itself rather than the deepening, has there been any 09 analysis of what the impact of the ship channel itself is 10 aside from the extra five feet of deepening on the dissolved 11 oxygen problem in this reach of the river? 12 DR. BROWN: No. We have not simulated some kind of 13 natural or early 1800 river conditions. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Not going back all the way to the early 15 1800s, you have not simulated the condition immediately 16 prior to the construction of the ship channel, as well; is 17 that correct? 18 DR. BROWN: That is correct; we have not simulated 19 that. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know the depth of the ship 21 channel? 22 DR. BROWN: I believe that the ship channel itself is 23 -- no. I guess -- 24 MR. NOMELLINI: 35 feet, does that sound right? 25 DR. BROWN: Yes. 4375 01 MR. NOMELLINI: If five feet caused the incremental 02 addition of DO problem, is there some type of relationship 03 that could be carried through to calculate what the impact 04 would be of 35 feet versus 5 feet? 05 DR. BROWN: There is such a method that is called The 06 Model. There is not going to be a nice multiply by seven; 07 that is not going to work. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: That analysis has not been done by this 09 panel; is that correct? 10 DR. BROWN: No. We are not sure that the river was 11 five feet deep. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Last couple of questions. 13 I think maybe this relates to Ms. McDonald. 14 With regard to the recycling program, which I 15 understand you are aware of but didn't conduct the study, 16 could you tell me what the TDS of the City of Stockton's 17 effluent is in general magnitude? 18 Anybody on the panel. 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: About 700. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what the TDS of New Melones 21 water is? 22 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No, I don't. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Much less than 700, isn't it? 24 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Russ. 4376 01 DR. BROWN: We could say 70. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: What about the groundwater in the area 03 of Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, do you 04 know what that TDS is? 05 DR. BROWN: I don't. 06 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Not off the top of my head. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: It would be much less salt than the 08 discharge from the City of Stockton, would it not? 09 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes, yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Has there been a salt balance done in 11 connection with any of the alternatives for recycling the 12 City of Stockton water, if you know? 13 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: The salt balance done on what? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: On the groundwater basin. 15 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: For which alternative? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: For the alternative that would take 17 City of Stockton up in the Central San Joaquin Water 18 Conservation District. 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: We have not conducted extensive 20 modeling of that alternative yet. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. That is all I have. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 23 Mr. Sexton. 24 MR. SEXTON: Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 4377 01 Ms. Harrigfeld. Good morning. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Good morning. 03 ---oOo-- 04 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 05 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 06 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just have a couple questions. The 08 first question is for Mr. Ingraham. 09 In the policy statement by the Mayor Podesto, he talked 10 about being willing to commit financial resources to the 11 watershed approach. 12 Was he talking about the specifically supplying funds 13 to further the watershed approach? 14 MR. INGRAHAM: Yes, he was. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Dr. Brown, in your written testimony 16 you talk about this same management approach. Can you 17 clarify whether your proposal would have any affect on the 18 water supply or potential available water supply. 19 DR. BROWN: When the City of Stockton recommended or 20 recommends this river management approach, the City of 21 Stockton is not calling for any additional flows at 22 Vernalis. And in that regard, it is not asking that 23 anyone's water supply or operations upstream of Vernalis be 24 affected. 25 We are suggesting that simply by operating the Head of 4378 01 Old River and managing the flow pathway of the water 02 reaching the Delta in the South Delta and putting more of it 03 past Stockton in times when the oxygen is low, that this 04 would be the river management being recommended by the City 05 and would not have the direct affect on anyone's upstream 06 water supply. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 08 You just testified as to the concept of aeration. Do 09 you think that that is a feasible alternative? 10 DR. BROWN: Yes. Our preliminary investigation of the 11 aeration potential of the devices similar to what the Corps 12 of Engineers is already operating, that is, just thinking of 13 more of those stations placed at strategic locations along 14 the San Joaquin in the ship channel, that this is a very 15 feasible alternative that should be investigated and is 16 included in one of the alternatives being fully evaluated in 17 the Master Plan EIR. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Dr. Chen, I have a couple questions 19 for you. Could you put up Exhibit 32. I just want to make 20 sure that I understand this. 21 This is two simulations of dissolved oxygen at 22 measuring point R4, correct? 23 DR. CHEN: That is correct. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: The hydrology is the same in the two 25 simulations, and that is run for 69A? 4379 01 DR. CHEN: Yes. That was the flow condition given to 02 me by the State. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you explain what the changed 04 assumption between the two simulations is. 05 DR. CHEN: Yes. Let me explain. 06 The blue line is the dissolved oxygen response under 07 current waste discharge conditions; that is the 1996 waste 08 discharge condition. The red line is assuming that the City 09 of Stockton went ahead to build a treatment plant and 10 release the treated effluent with 2 milligram per liter 11 ammonia in it. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 13 In part of the year the current condition has higher DO 14 than the simulation, which assumes that the effluent 15 standard that the Regional Board wanted to impose. Why is 16 that? 17 DR. CHEN: Well, under current condition, there is an 18 algae pond at the end of the treatment train. And just the 19 algae pond, even though it was not designed to do it, as Mr. 20 Allen has said, it did remove the ammonia concentration way, 21 way below 2 milligrams, almost to zero. And, therefore, 22 during that period of time you are going to get to see a 23 slight improvement on DO even with the current condition. 24 Unfortunately, in late -- in early fall algae was not 25 doing its -- what it's supposed to do to remove ammonia. So 4380 01 the ammonia concentration in the treated effluent went 02 up, and that is how the dissolved oxygen was worsened than 03 if we have 2 milligrams per liter limitation on it. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 05 That is all I have. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 07 Do the staff have questions? 08 Mr. Howard. 09 ---oOo-- 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 11 BY STAFF 12 MR. HOWARD: I am not sure who these questions are 13 directed to, so feel free to jump in. 14 On Stockton Exhibit Number 10, Page 8, the comment is 15 made that the City now finds itself potentially facing tens 16 of millions of dollars of expense to construct facilities to 17 meet effluent limits driven by this objective. In this case 18 you are referring to the 6.0 milligram per liter objective 19 that the Board adopted and it applies between September and 20 November. 21 Has the City taken a look at what the expense would be, 22 if any, to meet the 5 milligrams per liter limit, DO limit, 23 that has been in place for quite a while through the Central 24 Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan and 25 that that applies on a year-round basis? 4381 01 I guess my question fundamentally is, is the expense 02 going to be incurred just to meet the 5 milligram per liter 03 limit, would these types of treatment levels be required if 04 we are going to ask the City to try to consistently meet 05 those limits or effluent limits to meet those objectives? 06 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Dr. Chen's modeling shows that 07 meeting a 6 milligrams per liter in September is just about 08 impossible during all water types, all water year types. I 09 believe he can clarify that, even if we do not discharge 10 from Stockton. 11 So the 6 milligram per liter number is a problem. Like 12 I said, even if Stockton does not discharge, even if zero 13 discharge from Stockton. The 5 milligram per liter number 14 is a easier number to meet. And if you exam Dr. Chen's 15 graphs on that, you will see that at a river flow of 1000 16 cfs past Stockton, the 5 milligram per liter number is met 17 more consistently than the 6. And also at other flows past 18 Stockton 5 milligrams per liter is easier to achieve in the 19 September time frame. 20 With respect to what treatment would Stockton need to 21 have, Stockton is not trying to meet this DO number. They 22 are trying to meet a Regional Board permit number of 2 23 milligrams per liter of ammonia, at least that is what we 24 are studying, how we would meet that 2 milligrams per liter 25 of ammonia. 4382 01 So the treatment for that, the cost for that, are the 02 costs, regardless of whether the DO in the river -- the DO 03 limit in the river is five or six. 04 MR. HOWARD: By that I take it that you are not certain 05 whether the Regional Board would require the reduction of 06 ammonia to 2 milligrams per liter even if the 6 milligrams 07 per liter objective was not in place and the 5 milligram per 08 liter objective was the one that was trying to be met? 09 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: I don't know if we've had 10 discussion with Regional Board along those specific lines of 11 questioning. 12 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 13 In Stockton Exhibit Number 13, Page 2, the statement is 14 made that the sediment oxygen demand decreases DO by up to 15 2.5 milligrams per liter. Just thinking about how to model 16 a sediment DO oxygen, a sediment DO level, or sediment 17 oxygen demand, rather, strikes me as being quite 18 problematic. 19 How did the model calculate the sediment oxygen demand? 20 DR. CHEN: I need to first qualify, the sediment 21 oxygen demand actually includes all the background oxygen 22 demand. And it was a problem twice as many milligrams of 23 oxygen per square meter of the sediment per day. And that 24 is an input parameter. That way we adjust up and down 25 depending on the temperature of the water because we do know 4383 01 the oxidation rate of the sediment oxygen demand also 02 depends on temperature. And those coefficient was adjusted 03 so that the model can simulate the observed dissolved 04 oxygen in the river water. 05 MR. HOWARD: So, it wasn't something that was 06 calculated from fundamental principles; it was basically 07 used as a parameter that was used to set the models to meet 08 historical conditions? 09 DR. CHEN: That is not totally true, either. The City 10 of Stockton have gone out and collected sediment samples 11 from the river and measured their oxygen consumption rate. 12 And that was also used to estimate that parameter. So -- 13 MR. HOWARD: Okay. On Stockton Exhibit Number 14, Page 14 6, the statement is made increasing flows at Stockton 15 through operation of a barrier at the Head of Old River 16 would be more cost-effective and more feasible in attempting 17 to eliminate the wastewater discharge. 18 Mr. Herrick alluded to some of the feasibility concerns 19 associated with South Delta Water Agency. Has anyone 20 discussed feasibility associated with this type of operation 21 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the biological 22 opinion that they have issued for Delta smelt? In this 23 respect what I am referring to is operating that barrier 24 throughout the summer in order to improve flows past the 25 City of Stockton? 4384 01 DR. BROWN: The City has had no direct sort of 02 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, but we are 03 certainly aware of their -- or the issues that they have 04 described in different reports concerning the South Delta 05 barrier program, in general. 06 And I just would reemphasize that if we are all aware 07 that the Head of Old River that is being planned is very 08 different from the temporary barrier structures that have 09 been put in for the past 25 years, which is, once you've 10 dumped it in, it is pretty hard to drag it out until you are 11 totally done. These Head of Old River Barrier tidal gates 12 will be radial dates that literally with a button will come 13 out or go into the water, which leads to the possibility of 14 multi-purpose management for all of the South Delta resource 15 issues, including the presence of fish behind the gate or 16 coming down the river. 17 So that the traditional ideas of closing the gate when 18 chinook or splittail are coming down the river, as well as 19 the idea of opening the gate on certain periods of the tide 20 to allow upmigrating chinook past the gate or to allow Delta 21 smelt, who may be trapped in that channel, out into the main 22 San Joaquin where they can go on their way downstream, all 23 of those are feasible with this tidal barrier gate 24 operation. 25 MR. HOWARD: On the next page you make the comment that 4385 01 -- or the City of Stockton made the comment that the most 02 promising cost-effective alternatives for achieving the 6 03 milligram per liter objective, and they list several things 04 including managing flow, reaeration devices and controlling 05 nonpoint sources of nutrient and organic loading. 06 Has the City done even a rudimentary cost analysis of 07 the effect of trying to eliminate or control some of the 08 upstream nonpoint sources that would be used to meet this 09 objective? 10 DR. BROWN: No. The City has not yet done those 11 studies. And if that was one of my sentences, I would 12 insert potentially cost-effective. These look like they 13 should be investigated as part of the overall dissolved 14 oxygen management, but these sentences should not imply that 15 these studies have actually been done by the City. 16 MR. HOWARD: Dr. Brown, you also mentioned in reply to 17 a question by Ms. Harrigfeld there is someone taking a look 18 at reaeration. I am just curious if, as a matter of 19 clarification, that is being looked at for the entire reach 20 in which the 6 milligrams per liter objective applies from 21 Turner Cut to the City of Stockton? 22 DR. BROWN: The consideration of aeration would affect 23 dissolved oxygen in that entire reach. So that the oxygen 24 concentrations through that reach are the net result of 25 everything that's happened upstream. So, regardless of 4386 01 where the aerators are located, once they have increased the 02 oxygen in the river, let's say they were all located in the 03 vicinity of the turning basin, so they are all at the 04 upstream end, that DO increase will persist somewhat 05 downstream, and it sort of -- the net effect of that 06 aeration device, added to all the other things that go on, 07 both the sources and size of the oxygen that will affect 08 dissolved oxygen as far downstream as Turner Cut. 09 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 10 That was all my questions. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything else from the staff? 12 Thank you, Mr. Howard. 13 Questions from the Board Members? 14 Mr. Brown. 15 ---oOo-- 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 17 BY BOARD MEMBERS 18 MEMBER BROWN: I came in a little late on Mr. 19 Minasian's questions. Did I understand that the growers in 20 the community were objecting to the reclaimed water because 21 of the salinity? 22 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: There was several issues that -- 23 they were generally not embracing the use of reclaimed water 24 for a number of perceived reasons: one potential pathogen, 25 the other being the salinity issue and other issues. 4387 01 MEMBER BROWN: What is the TDS of the freshwater for 02 domestic purposes, the blended source, approximately? I 03 know New Melones is about 70, but -- 04 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Mr. Dodge says approximately 250. 05 MEMBER BROWN: So, your reclaimed water is about 700? 06 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Correct. 07 MEMBER BROWN: That's a fairly substantial rise in 08 salinity for reclamation. Have you checked to see if you 09 have chlorides or other inflow in the collection system that 10 is contributing to the increase in salinity? Or do you know 11 why it is higher than what you would normally expect? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you presenting Mr. Dodge as a 13 witness? 14 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Dodge wasn't sworn. I think he would 15 be willing to take the oath and answer Mr. Brown's 16 questions, certainly. 17 MEMBER BROWN: For me, Mr. Dodge does not have to be 18 sworn, but perhaps for the others. 19 MR. SIMMONS: So we can have it in the record. 20 MEMBER BROWN: I understand. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Since this is a question of importance 22 to the Board and Board Member, per se, Mr. Dodge, if you 23 would come forward. You can stand at the podium, and I will 24 swear you in. 25 (Oath administered by C.O. Caffrey.) 4388 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Now you may answer Mr. Brown's 02 question. 03 MR. DODGE: That is the total number of 700. It goes 04 down to 600 and up to about 750. It is not used as a salt 05 load. It is chlorides and everything else in the water. If 06 you separate that out, I am sure that the salts would be 07 down around 500 or probably below that. 08 Also, our drinking water in the south part of city, and 09 as you go west, approaches 400. So when you mix that up, 10 you are closer to 300 and something as a balance instead of 11 around 250. But our upper level water is 250. 12 MEMBER BROWN: And you do suspect some inflow of 13 chlorides from the collection system could be isolated if 14 you had the opportunity to? 15 MR. DODGE: That's correct. 16 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Dodge. 17 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Dodge. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: For the benefit of the Court Reporter, 20 could you please state your full name. 21 MR. DODGE: Donald M. Dodge, Assistant Director of 22 Municipal Utilities for the City of Stockton. 23 MEMBER BROWN: Have any of the other witnesses worked 24 on any other reclamation programs within the country, 25 reclaimed water reuse for irrigation purposes? 4389 01 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Yes. Our firm does quite a bit of 02 that. 03 MEMBER BROWN: Do you know of any program that you have 04 worked on where the growers haven't initially complained of 05 increase in salinity and unsuitability of the water prior to 06 the adoption of the program? 07 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No. 08 MEMBER BROWN: Is there something to be done to address 09 that issue socially and politically within the community to 10 determine proper suitability and economic feasibility of a 11 reclamation program with the growers? 12 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: There is a number of public 13 awareness programs going on throughout the state that is 14 attempting to address that, a number of different groups, 15 including a water reuse group in California and a number of 16 others. 17 MEMBER BROWN: Does this mean that you are still 18 looking at a reclamation program? 19 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: Within the City of Stockton? 20 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. 21 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: One of the alternatives that we 22 are looking at is groundwater recharge. Marketing the water 23 to Central San Joaquin was deleted. That alternative was 24 deleted from the short list of alternatives. 25 MEMBER BROWN: Do you have seasonal storage capability? 4390 01 MS. STUTZ-MCDONALD: No. 02 MEMBER BROWN: Is the groundwater continuing to decline 03 in the area? 04 MR. INGRAHAM: I can speak basically for the City's 05 wells. We have over -- about two dozen wells that are in 06 production. Cal Water has closer to three dozen. We are 07 generally within our safe yield area throughout that well 08 field, and the reason is that we are currently using about 09 40,000 acre-feet a year of surface water that comes through 10 the treatment plant. We believe maybe with the exception of 11 one or two wells, and I think they are in the Cal Water 12 service area, we are within what we call safe yield. 13 There has been improvement in the underground water 14 since -- in the last 10 to 12 years. And not being -- that 15 not being my area, I believe that the improvement has been 16 about 20 feet, water table has increased. We do have a 17 specialist in the audience if you want to get into that 18 subject matter. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: We do not want to start calling more 20 witnesses that have not submitted exhibits. And, as a 21 matter of fact, I am going to ask the other parties if they 22 wish to cross-examine Mr. Dodge, just so everybody 23 understands that witnesses are, generally as part of our 24 rules here, presented as part of a predetermined panel by 25 determination of the direct presenting party who, with 4391 01 exhibits, is presented in advance. 02 So, I allowed this as a courtesy to a Board Member who 03 was following a line of questioning which is perfectly 04 appropriate. I wanted everybody to understand in total 05 fairness I will ask if there are those that wish to 06 cross-examine Mr. Dodge when we are done here. 07 MEMBER BROWN: As the Chairman has suggested several 08 times, if you don't know the answer to a question, "I don't 09 know" is suitable. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: That is absolutely correct, Mr. Brown. 11 Thank you, sir. 12 Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. 13 Are their questions from the other Board Members? 14 Let me then ask if any of the parties wish to 15 cross-examine Mr. Dodge who was presented here a few moments 16 ago as a new witness? 17 MR. MINASIAN: I am Paul Minasian. 18 Could I inquire if the City is going to put on any 19 testimony at all about the chloride line, other than Mr. 20 Allen? 21 MS. CAHILL: Just Mr. Allen. 22 MR. MINASIAN: May I, then, ask Mr. Dodge a few 23 questions? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, you may, sir. 25 Anybody else besides Mr. Minasian? 4392 01 MS. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask just that -- 02 Mr. Dodge was made available for the purposes of a question 03 from Mr. Brown. If the cross-examination could be limited 04 to the scope of Mr. Brown's questioning. Mr. Dodge -- we 05 had Mr. Allen here last time with prepared testimony. 06 MS. CAHILL: We will have him in another phase on that 07 chart that was part of his testimony for another phase. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 09 You will have Mr. Allen in another phase? 10 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Allen will be back in Phase II-A. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't want this to get too sticky. 12 One thing I am concerned about, Mr. Minasian, of course, is 13 that you always get due process along with everybody else. 14 I didn't want the appearance of Mr. Dodge to start a whole 15 other line of expansive questioning, which really -- 16 Maybe I am bending over too far backwards to be fair to 17 everybody. I don't want it to get into an area where he 18 hasn't presented any exhibits. Hopefully, if I understand 19 Ms. Cahill correctly, there will be an opportunity for you 20 to go in that line of questioning later. 21 Is that your plan, Ms. Cahill. 22 MS. CAHILL: That is correct. 23 MR. MINASIAN: There is never a question about the 24 Chair offering due process to the parties here. You have 25 been very accommodating. Let me await a further opportunity 4393 01 to try to close this cycle that Mr. Brown's questions were 02 aimed at. These are all interrelated. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 04 All right, then. Let me ask Mr. Simmons if he has any 05 redirect. 06 MR. SIMMONS: Just two questions. Maybe one of them 07 has a few parts. 08 ---oOo-- 09 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY MR. SIMMONS 11 MR. SIMMONS: Dr. Brown, to follow up on Ms. 12 Harrigfeld's questions regarding how the Old River Barrier 13 would be operated, is it your testimony that in the 14 operation of an operable Old River Barrier, flexible 15 operation of a barrier, you consider a number of factors in 16 that operation? 17 DR. BROWN: Yes. 18 MR. SIMMONS: Would it include, for example, tides? 19 DR. BROWN: Tides, yes. 20 MR. SIMMONS: Flows at Vernalis? 21 DR. BROWN: Right. 22 MR. SIMMONS: Upstream water quality? 23 DR. BROWN: Yes. 24 MR. SIMMONS: Downstream water quality? 25 DR. BROWN: Right. 4394 01 MR. SIMMONS: South Delta water levels? 02 DR. BROWN: Yes. 03 MR. SIMMONS: Municipal water suppliers within the 04 Delta? 05 DR. BROWN: Right. 06 MR. SIMMONS: Perhaps even the timing of the City's 07 discharge in connection with the incoming and outgoing tide 08 and the operation of the barrier? 09 DR. BROWN: Yes. There is even some possibility for 10 that more tightly controlling the City's effluent as to 11 tidal conditions. 12 MR. SIMMONS: In conjunction with DWR and with other 13 interested parties, the idea would be to maximize the 14 benefits of the barrier without unnecessary injury to any 15 affected parties; is that right? 16 DR. BROWN: That is right. 17 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Before we take a break, can we have, by 19 a showing of hands, if any of the parties wish to 20 recross-examine the panel? 21 All right. Nobody responding, then, when we come back 22 we will go to Mr. Simmons' next witnesses, I believe. 23 Mr. Brandt. 24 MR. BRANDT: Mr. Chair, if I could clarify before the 25 break so I can take care of it. The planning for who comes 4395 01 next and who goes on, so I can plan for witnesses, that sort 02 of thing. I know Stockton has the salinity case, and then 03 what comes after, because I heard that there has been some 04 switching? 05 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a good question. Let me in 06 front of everybody go over with Ms. Leidigh, or whoever it 07 is appropriate to do that. 08 I have County of Trinity next. 09 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: And then the United States Department of 11 the Interior, then Stockton East Water District, and then 12 San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, and then San 13 Joaquin River Group Authority, and than San Joaquin County. 14 Is that the same order you have? 15 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Not another fire drill. This may be a 17 longer than 12-minute break. 18 Lets come back when we can. 19 Thank you. 20 (Break taken.) 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 22 Mr. Sexton. 23 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could raise a 24 procedural matter, please, before we get started? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. 4396 01 MR. SEXTON: I am hearing from some of the staff people 02 that the Board is considering a hearing schedule in December 03 right now, and some of the dates being proposed include 04 December the 1st, 2nd and 3rd. 05 I just wanted to point out to the Chair that the week 06 of December 1st is the ACWA Conference in Palm Springs, and 07 many of the parties to this proceeding already have 08 reservations for that and have meetings scheduled down there 09 for a variety of reasons. And I wonder if the Board could 10 not set hearings during that particular week. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, those are announced hearing dates. 12 And I guess my reaction to it is while I know the Aqua 13 Conference is important to a lot of people, so is this, and 14 there are probably a number of individuals that have other 15 important conferences that they go to that perhaps does not 16 get the notoriety that the ACWA Conference does. I guess, 17 personally, I am a little reluctant to change the schedule. 18 We are short of days; we have a problem. We are trying to 19 get done, get out the extension of 95-6 before the end of 20 this year. And we are also trying to close as many phases 21 as we can and get the rest of the decision completed early 22 enough in the next calendar year as we can. 23 I certainly would like to hear from any of the other 24 Board Members if they have any heartburn about having the 25 proceedings continued during the ACWA Conference. 4397 01 Mr. Stubchaer. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have heartburn, 03 but I think you are absolutely right pointing out how close 04 we are getting to the end of the year and, considering the 05 uncertainty about what is going to happen in November, the 06 need to finish these hearings and get out a decision. We 07 need to schedule all the available hearing days that we 08 can. And I am in favor of holding the hearings during the 09 week in question. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: We have heard from our co-chair. 11 Any of the other Board Members wish to comment? 12 Anybody else on the matter? 13 We appreciate your concern, Mr. Sexton. We are going 14 to ask you all to do the best you can to accommodate this 15 Board and our schedule. We will not be cancelling those 16 scheduled hearing dates. 17 With that, then, Mr. Simmons. 18 MR. SIMMONS: Maybe I should say I am willing to help. 19 I am expected to be done with my part by December. If any 20 of the other parties have hotel rooms already reserved and 21 paid for in Palm Springs, I can fill that void. I would be 22 happy to do it. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you offering your services to the 24 other attorneys? 25 MR. SIMMONS: I most certainly am. 4398 01 I just came up to deal with the question of when we 02 complete the additional studies that were requested. I 03 talked with Dr. Chen at the break, and he thinks by the end 04 of the month should be no problem. We will do those and 05 serve everybody with copy. 06 That is it for me. Ms. Cahill is handling the salinity 07 part of the City's Phase V testimony. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Simmons. 09 Ms. Cahill, good morning and welcome to you. 10 ---oOo-- 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 12 BY MS. CAHILL 13 MS. CAHILL: Virginia Cahill representing the City of 14 Stockton. We have just one witness on the salinity aspect 15 of Phase V, and I would bring back Dr. Brown. He has 16 already been sworn, and so we will jump right in. 17 Dr. Brown, do you have Stockton Exhibit 35? 18 DR. BROWN: Yes. 19 MS. CAHILL: Is that your testimony with regard to San 20 Joaquin River Salinity Management? 21 DR. BROWN: Yes, it is. 22 MS. CAHILL: Would you please summarize that 23 testimony. 24 DR. BROWN: The purpose of this testimony is to review 25 the salinity management of the San Joaquin River. I will 4399 01 demonstrate the large amounts of water are required to meet 02 the Vernalis salinity standards if salinity is managed by 03 dilution flows alone. To do this I will use available 04 measurements from the U.S. Geological Survey collected in 05 water years 1986, '7, '8 and '9, so a four-year period. I 06 will evaluate the daily salinity loads that were in the San 07 Joaquin upstream of Stanislaus River and then the amount of 08 water that was supplied from the Stanislaus in order to 09 bring the salinity of the San Joaquin River into compliance 10 with the Vernalis standard that was in effect in those four 11 years. 12 By looking at these four particular years and looking 13 at the real data associated with these years, I hope to 14 provide a good understanding of how the current salinity 15 management of the San Joaquin River is accomplished. 16 Just a little bit on the method that I will be using. 17 We will go ahead and look at Figure 1, please. 18 MS. CAHILL: This is Stockton Exhibit 35, Figure 1. 19 DR. BROWN: Yes, it is. 20 This just shows for the four years the daily 21 measurements of electroconductivity, which is our measure of 22 salinity on the Stanislaus River and the range of flows on 23 the X Axis on the bottom. This diagram goes from 0 to 2500 24 cfs. And the range of electroconductivity on the Stanislaus 25 River goes from 0 to approximately 200 EC microsiemens per 4400 01 centimeter. So the electroconductivity on each day, 02 associated with a certain flow, is shown on this diagram. 03 Now, the salt load that we will be talking about is 04 simply the salinity times the amount of water times the 05 conversion factor. So the load of salinity is the product 06 of the flow and the concentration, or in this case the 07 electroconductivity value. 08 And just while we are looking at this diagram, we were 09 just talking about the Stanislaus River salinity in the 10 questioning period at the end. We see that a majority of 11 the measurements on the Stanislaus have an 12 electroconductivity of less than a hundred, which would 13 correspond to a TDS in the 70 range. 14 And this is the water that is being used currently to 15 provide dilution to the load, the salt load, that is coming 16 down on the San Joaquin that is measured in the four years 17 at a location called Maze just upstream of where the 18 Stanislaus joins the San Joaquin. 19 The general factors, historically, that have led to the 20 current salinity problem are well described in the Draft 21 EIR, Chapter 8. And for our purposes we just need to be 22 aware that there are sort of two things going on at once. 23 There is the reduced flows in the Stanislaus -- in the San 24 Joaquin River associated with all the upstream water 25 developments and uses. And then there is, historically, an 4401 01 increase in the amount of salt brought into the basin, some 02 of which is ending up in the river. 03 If we look at the Figure 2, this is always from 04 Stockton Exhibit 35, we see a similar diagram where we are 05 showing the flow in the San Joaquin River at Maze. And for 06 the range of flows in these four years, going from about 0 07 to 5,000 cfs and the corresponding salinity shown here in 08 units of electroconductivity, and note that the scale on 09 this diagram for electroconductivity is ten times what was 10 needed to show the Stanislaus salinity. 11 Electroconductivity values on the San Joaquin at Maze 12 are often above the thousand, which is the wintertime 13 standard at Vernalis, and very often above the 700 line, 14 which is the irrigation season standard at Vernalis. 15 This diagram just in one chart shows the problem. 16 Anytime the salinity recorded at Maze is higher than the 17 applicable standard at Vernalis, water must be supplied 18 under the current management practice from the Stanislaus to 19 bring that salinity down, either to the thousand or to the 20 700, depending on the season. 21 Now, the amount of water that must be supplied in order 22 to achieve the Vernalis objective is the product of two 23 things: how far above the standard is the Maze salinity 24 before the dilution is provided and how much flow is 25 occurring at Maze with that high salinity. The higher the 4402 01 flow, the more dilution has to be provided. The higher 02 salinity above the standard, the more dilution water that 03 has to be provided. 04 So, the dilution water is simply the product of those 05 two things: the flow that needs to be diluted times the 06 increment above the standard recorded at Maze. So this then 07 is the day-to-day dilution management that has been 08 historically used to meet the Vernalis standard. 09 Now I want to show Figure 3 and just show an example of 10 estimating the amount of water that would have been required 11 for 1988, one of the four years that I am showing to you. 12 And this will just take a second. Don't be afraid of all 13 those lines. 14 We will start with the two snakes that sort of wiggle 15 across the page. The yellow one is the 30-day moving 16 average salinity at Maze. And this is sort of our 17 indication of how much dilution water is required. Because 18 as it goes above the solid yellow line that is placed at an 19 EC of about 800 -- sorry to digress. The historic standard 20 is a TDS of 500, and that corresponds to an EC of 21 approximately 800. In the historic year of 1988, they were 22 attempting to meet that 800 line every day of the year. 23 The yellow, the little boxes that snake across show, 24 during the year from October through September, how far 25 above the applicable standard the Maze EC was. And the blue 4403 01 triangles that are generally above that yellow line show the 02 total flow as recorded at Vernalis. That is just to remind 03 us that, when there is quite a lot of flow in the San 04 Joaquin River, more dilution water will be needed. And if 05 that yellow line is high above the target line, more 06 dilution flow will be required. 07 And by simply calculating those two things, we arrive 08 at the pink line or pink shape across the chart. The pink 09 represents the amount of water from the Stanislaus that 10 would have been required to lower the yellow Maze that you 11 see down to the applicable standard of 800. 12 So this range from a value of around 350 to 400 in the 13 fall months into the February, March, April and May when 14 under these ideal conditions in my computer up to 1500 cfs 15 would much be required from the Stanislaus to actually 16 satisfy the objective; and then through the summer period 17 where a value of from 500 to 1000 cfs would have been 18 required to perfectly obtain the salinity objective. 19 The red snake going through is the 30-day moving 20 average of the historic Vernalis salinity. 21 We can see in this that the historic operations met the 22 objective in the first month of the year and then met the 23 objectives beginning in about April, and pretty much 24 satisfied the applicable limit all through the irrigation 25 season. The historic operation was not able or there was 4404 01 not enough water in the historic period to actually satisfy 02 the Vernalis objective, and it climbed and reached a peak of 03 almost 1400 units EC in this nonirrigation period. This 04 was, as far as I have been able to determine, a reasoned 05 judgment between the South Delta Water Agency and 06 reclamation. Realizing that was not sufficient water to 07 maintain the objective, they chose to operate at a variance 08 in this period because the beneficial uses that would have 09 been compromised in that period were smaller than what will 10 occur in the irrigation season. 11 So the pink again is a theoretical analysis of how much 12 water would have been needed to use this historic management 13 practice of providing dilution water. And there is some 14 triangles that are sort of hard to read on this chart. This 15 was the historic release, the actual release of water 16 passing Ripon on the Stanislaus. This indicates that in 17 January, February into March not quite enough water was 18 released to satisfy the objective. But that during the 19 irrigation season from April on through September, the 20 historic releases were relatively close to this pink 21 theoretical and just indicating that, indeed, salinity 22 management was the driving factor for controlling the amount 23 of water released down the Stanislaus in this year. 24 So, sorry for that kind of involved example. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Dr. Brown. We are going to 4405 01 interrupt you and stop the clock. Ms. Forster has a 02 question. We will do this on our time. 03 Let me also remind you while I have the opportunity 04 that please be mindful that there is a 20-minute limitation 05 on your direct testimony presentation. It is a summary. 06 DR. BROWN: Thank you. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 08 MEMBER FORSTER: I just wanted you to clarify what type 09 of year was '88? 10 DR. BROWN: '88 was a very dry year. And, indeed, I 11 have lost it, but it may have been critical in the San 12 Joaquin index categorizing. 13 Then, to summarize the results from this particular 14 year where I just wanted you to understand the method that I 15 used in sort of evaluating with real data, the current 16 salinity management strategy and what that results in. 17 For the year of 1988, the total water that would have 18 been required, shown by the pink area, to satisfy the D-1422 19 salinity objectives, would have just a little above 550,000 20 acre-feet. 21 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Brown, you are referring to Table 1 on 22 Page 4 of your testimony, Stockton Exhibit 35? 23 DR. BROWN: Yes, I am. Thank you. 24 Table 1 summarizes, then, the results of this analysis 25 done for these four study years or example years, and it 4406 01 demonstrates the amount of water required for salinity 02 control and compares that to the actual releases from Ripon 03 and the total flow at Vernalis. 04 In this particular year the historic releases down the 05 Stanislaus River, shown by these hard to recognize 06 triangles, was about 435,000 acre-feet. Remember there was 07 this period of a couple months where the full flows needed 08 were, by agreement among the parties at that time, chosen 09 not to be used, but as substantial amount of water released 10 for salinity control. 11 Just to finish this sort of technical part of how the 12 analysis was done, for 1989, which was another dry or 13 critical year, a very similar total flow at Vernalis and, 14 indeed, a similar amount of water, 530,000 acre-feet would 15 have been required, ideally, to meet the 800 microsiemens 16 objective throughout the whole year. And similar to in 17 1988, approximately 450,000, slightly less than would have 18 been required, was actually released, again, because the 19 Stanislaus and New Melones Reservoir was relatively, or we 20 might say, very low in water supplies. 21 In the two years, '86 and '87, which were much wetter, 22 in one year, '86, only 50,000, or about one-fifth of this 23 water would have been needed for salinity control. So in 24 wet years, there is much less required from the Stanislaus. 25 1987, sort of transition year, 300,000 acre-feet would 4407 01 have been needed to meet the objective all year long. So, 02 by just looking in specific at these four years, this is not 03 meant to be a long-term average of how much water is needed, 04 but the order of magnitude of the amount required for the 05 current management of salinity on the San Joaquin River is 06 very large compared to the sorts of numbers or caps that 07 have been used in several of the decisions applied to the 08 New Melones water operations; and the purpose was to show 09 that in some years much more water than is currently talked 10 about in the modeling studies is actually needed on a 11 day-by-day basis to operate in compliance with these 12 objectives. 13 The City, then, is basically recommending that the 14 salinity balance, which is established with this strategy at 15 Vernalis, should really be established much further 16 upstream. And so, the City is suggesting that the Board 17 again direct the Regional Board or encourage the Regional 18 Board to establish the salinity objectives much further 19 upstream than the Vernalis so that this balance between 20 salt and water would be established further up river, 21 relieving the burden of establishing that balance just here 22 at Vernalis. 23 I believe that summarizes my written testimony. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. 25 By a showing of hands from the other parties, who 4408 01 wishes to cross-examine Dr. Brown on the salinity issue? 02 We have Mr. Herrick, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sexton, Ms. 03 Thomas. Welcome, Ms. Thomas. 04 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Harrigfeld, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. 06 Minasian. 07 Have I missed anybody? 08 We have in this order: Herrick, Jackson, Sexton, 09 Thomas, Harrigfeld, Nomellini and Minasian. 10 Mr. Herrick. 11 ---oOo-- 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 13 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 14 BY MR. HERRICK 15 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 16 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 17 Dr. Brown, I notice from your testimony you made a 18 point that upstream conservation actually can exacerbate the 19 salt problem. 20 Could you explain that a little bit. 21 DR. BROWN: All right. The amount of salt that is 22 applied to land is the amount of salt that is in the 23 irrigation water that is applied to that land. If the water 24 conservation that is used results in a lower drainage 25 volume, then the salts in that applied water must be 4409 01 transported out of the agricultural district or area in that 02 reduced drainage volume, and so in that case the salinity of 03 the drainage can actually be higher, which in this issue 04 would raise the salinity of the river and actually cause an 05 increased problem. 06 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the contribution 07 from the east side of the valley to the salt load comes down 08 at times of high flows on that east side; is that correct, 09 generally? 10 DR. BROWN: Well, generally, the major load of salt is 11 coming off of rainfall events and runoff. But as the 12 diagram, Figure 1, showed, during periods of low flow in the 13 Stanislaus in this example, but this would apply to the 14 Tuolumne or Merced, at that time the irrigation drainage 15 from those districts in a relatively low river flow will 16 give the highest concentration of salt in the river. So, in 17 terms of the amount of salt, it is true that those come down 18 at rainfall periods. But in terms of when you would see the 19 highest concentration in those rivers, that might occur 20 under the low summer flow conditions. 21 MR. HERRICK: But I think your figure showed that the 22 highest amount under the low flows for the Stanislaus was 23 somewhere around 200 TDS; isn't that correct? 24 DR. BROWN: That is very true. So that the mixing of 25 the irrigation return flows or the groundwater return flows 4410 01 from the irrigated areas have a much less affect on the 02 magnitude of the salinity on the east side streams because 03 they begin with such low salinity applied water. 04 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Brown, you mentioned in your written 05 testimony that one of the causes of the salts in the San 06 Joaquin River is the importation of water through the 07 Delta-Mendota canal; is that correct? 08 DR. BROWN: Right. That is, certainly, one of the 09 major sources of salt. 10 MR. HERRICK: I believe you also said that or 11 confirmed, which other testimony has alluded to, there is 12 actually a net increase in the salt on the west side of the 13 San Joaquin Valley due to the importation of the salt 14 through the Delta-Mendota Canal? 15 DR. BROWN: I am not sure increase compared to water 16 from what? 17 MR. HERRICK: The amount of salt being imported from 18 the Delta-Mendota Canal is greater than the amount of salt 19 running out through drainage into the San Joaquin River? 20 DR. BROWN: That does seem to be true at the present 21 time, so that the amount of salt that we measure in the San 22 Joaquin River compared to the amount of salt that you can 23 measure in the DMC canal do not balance at this point. 24 What is more difficult to establish is where does all 25 the DMC water go, how much of it is trying to return to the 4411 01 San Joaquin River. 02 MR. HERRICK: Can we put up Figure 3, again, please. 03 This is Figure 3 of Exhibit 35 of Stockton's Exhibit 04 35? 05 DR. BROWN: Yes. 06 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Brown, I'm just trying to make sure I 07 understand this. You measured the flow and EC at Maze, 08 correct? 09 DR. BROWN: That's right. Maze just upstream of the 10 Stanislaus River. 11 MR. HERRICK: Then you calculated how much of a 12 certain quality of Stanislaus River water would be needed to 13 bring that measurement at Maze down to the previous 14 standards of 500 TDS; is that correct? 15 DR. BROWN: That's right. 16 MR. HERRICK: I notice that on the chart from -- I am 17 going from approximately March through sometime in May, that 18 -- there is another one, but that is one of the major times 19 when more water is needed to provide dilution. Is that 20 correct? 21 DR. BROWN: That is right. 22 MR. HERRICK: In your calculations or model runs did 23 you take into account the amount of water being released for 24 fishery purposes at that time, if any? 25 DR. BROWN: No. So this is just the total amount of 4412 01 water from the Stanislaus that is required to meet the 02 salinity objective, and I am not trying to allocate that 03 water as to whose or under what release requirement that 04 might have already been coming. So the fish requirement, 05 which in 1988 is basically 125 cfs for the entire year, is 06 down in this range and is pretty much, in a sense, the first 07 hundred thousand of this 550,000, might have been allocated 08 to this fish release. 09 MR. HERRICK: Again, I am sorry. That is under 1988, 10 I'll say, criteria standards; is that correct? 11 DR. BROWN: That is right. 12 MR. HERRICK: You understand in these proceedings we 13 are determining how to provide additional water flows for 14 fisheries during sometime around that April/May time period; 15 is that correct? 16 DR. BROWN: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: If the Board order resulted in water 18 coming from New Melones to contribute to those increased 19 fishery flows, that water would help provide the needed 20 dilution water in times such as in Figure 3; is that 21 correct? 22 DR. BROWN: Well, you could consider it that way. My 23 analysis is not trying to determine how the water needed 24 for salinity might be allocated to other multiple benefits. 25 But simply reporting on the amount of water physically 4413 01 required to meet the salinity objectives with our current 02 management strategy. 03 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any sort of calculation as 04 to that total amount of water for other water quality plan 05 requirements? 06 DR. BROWN: No. I've only looked at meeting the 07 Vernalis salinity objective. 08 MR. HERRICK: So, your number for -- your numbers for 09 this critical drought period would be lower if other water 10 was being provided for other purposes during the relevant 11 time periods, correct? 12 DR. BROWN: No. Because I am not trying to think of 13 just the water that is not required for some other 14 purposes. I am simply demonstrating the magnitude of the 15 salinity load as it approaches the Stanislaus River, 16 basically, what the salinity at Vernalis would have been 17 without the dilution strategy. 18 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that, Doctor. You also say 19 this is unreasonable, having to use that much water for 20 water quality; is that correct? 21 DR. BROWN: I consider it to be unreasonable. 22 MR. HERRICK: If the amount of water needed for water 23 quality was lessened because water was being released for 24 other purposes and providing some dual benefit, would that 25 change your opinion as to whether 500,000 acre-feet is 4414 01 reasonable or not? 02 DR. BROWN: I don't believe it would because what I 03 find unreasonable is that at the Stanislaus River mouth at 04 Maze the salt and water budget of the San Joaquin River are 05 not in budget. They are not in balance. And so, in order 06 to establish that balance, which is needed for beneficial 07 uses from Vernalis down, this large amount of water from the 08 one tributary is required. 09 What the City is recommending, my opinion, is that this 10 balance between water and salt should be established much 11 further upstream and not simply brought into balance at this 12 downstream location. There are diverters all along the San 13 Joaquin River, some for agricultural use, and their 14 beneficial use is certainly not being protected under this 15 unbalanced situation. 16 MR. HERRICK: Do you have the same opinion with regard 17 to other water needs other than the salinity standard? By 18 that I mean, does the City of Stockton have a position on 19 whether or not certain flows out of New Melones for fishery 20 purposes unfairly shift the burden to that watershed as 21 opposed to farther upstream? 22 DR. BROWN: I have not looked at those issues of fish 23 flows, and I don't know what the City's position would be. 24 MR. HERRICK: Is the City of Stockton recommending that 25 the burden on Vernalis -- the burden on New Melones be 4415 01 removed pending these other management practices, or would 02 it be their position that the burden would decrease as other 03 activities address the salt problem? 04 DR. BROWN: My understanding of the City's position is 05 that this more comprehensive watershedwide balance, not that 06 there would be no responsibility or this current strategy is 07 unrealistic in any form, but that it should not be the 08 single tool used for salinity management on the San Joaquin 09 River. 10 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion as to what amount 11 of water on the San Joaquin is a reasonable burden for water 12 quality at Vernalis? 13 DR. BROWN: No. I don't have a value in that regard. 14 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you recommend as part of 15 this overall water management program examining the 16 potential of wastewater treatment to the agricultural return 17 flow treatment; is that correct? 18 DR. BROWN: I just have trouble with the word 19 "treatment." What do you mean by "treatment"? We are 20 recommending that waste discharge requirements be considered 21 for agricultural discharges. That is not necessarily 22 treatment, but it is just control or management of the 23 amount of salt coming from each identified discharge 24 location. 25 MR. HERRICK: The bottom -- second to the bottom 4416 01 paragraph on Page 5 of your testimony, in discussing the, I 02 guess, potential programs under CalFed, you state: 03 Suggested methods include improved source 04 irrigation water quality in subsurface 05 drainage areas through treatment processes 06 and also include treatment of agricultural 07 drainage through various methods. 08 (Reading.) 09 Do you see that down near the bottom? 10 DR. BROWN: I do. This is quoting from the CalFed 11 water quality program document. And they apparently are 12 recommending possible treatment options. That may not be 13 for salinity. But are our right, that is what this says. 14 MR. HERRICK: I just want to clarify. You haven't done 15 any analysis of the problems involved or costs associated 16 with treatment of agricultural drainage water with regards 17 to the salinity problem? 18 DR. BROWN: No, I have not. 19 MR. HERRICK: I believe you mentioned in your direct 20 testimony here today, but not in the written testimony, that 21 certain caps applied to the New Melones obligation appeared. 22 In light of your analysis, appeared to be unrealistic. 23 What caps are those that you are referring to? 24 DR. BROWN: The cap that I am referring to is generally 25 described in the Draft EIR, Chapter 8, and it is referring 4417 01 to the planning studies leading up to the decision, 1422, 02 governing the, at that time, planned New Melones Reservoir 03 and the results from these planning studies was a number 04 that has been referred to of 70,000 acre-feet. 05 This apparently was the amount of water that 06 reclamation considered at that time would be needed under 07 this water quality control allocation. And my testimony 08 simply shows that in these two of the four years that I 09 examined, that number is very low compared to what has 10 actually been required to satisfy the salinity objective at 11 Vernalis. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with Decision 1422 13 which included the permits for the New Melones project? 14 DR. BROWN: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that decision 16 specifically did not put a cap on water quality on amounts 17 of water to be used for water quality on the Bureau? 18 DR. BROWN: That is true. The order itself at the end 19 of the document does not include the cap. But the 20 discussion leading up to the decision in the beginning of 21 the document does, again, refer to this sort of presumed or 22 described potential amount of water. So I am not -- that is 23 my understanding of where this cap is. 24 MR. HERRICK: You're familiar with WR 95-6 making 25 certain changes to the Bureau's permits for New Melones; is 4418 01 that correct? 02 DR. BROWN: Only in general, yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: Finally, I just want to clarify. If we 04 are to address the problem of salt upstream, which is a good 05 idea, if that is the comment, and we recognize that there is 06 a salt buildup on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, 07 do you have any position on whether or not the solution of 08 the salt problem should be withholding the salt in that 09 area? 10 DR. BROWN: Well, it is my understanding, and it's been 11 other's testimony, that that will work for a year or maybe a 12 few years. But unless you're intending to take your land 13 out of production, you cannot store salt on your land. So 14 the City is not recommending that that is a solution to the 15 salinity problem. 16 MR. HERRICK: So, if you can't store it, you've got to 17 remove it through the existing waterways or some other 18 method; is that correct? 19 DR. BROWN: That's right. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any disagreement with 21 removing it through the existing waterways if there is 22 sufficient flows to dilute to it to some sort of acceptable 23 level? 24 DR. BROWN: It is a situation that we are faced with. 25 And the City's position is simply that establishing this 4419 01 balance between salt and water way downstream at the mouth 02 of the Stanislaus is way too late, that this balance should 03 be established much further upstream. 04 And it's not the City's position to tell the 05 appropriate agencies how that balance could be established, 06 but simply that it should be done upstream of Vernalis. 07 MR. HERRICK: If it comes down the river, then it would 08 be discharged along with sufficient dilution water? 09 DR. BROWN: That is right. That is what we have to do 10 at the present time. Because there is not a valley drain, 11 we are forced to use the river as our drainage channel as 12 well as the river channel. So that is the basis for 13 requiring reasonable salinity objectives all the way along 14 this dual purpose facility, which serves both as the water 15 supply and as a drainage conveyance. 16 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. Just, finally, I want to 17 confirm your examinations which are included in Figures 3 18 and 4, those are two critical years in a string of critical 19 years; is that correct? 20 DR. BROWN: That is right. These are very relatively 21 low flow years. 22 MR. HERRICK: So the Board should not use these extreme 23 measures necessarily as an indication of -- as a general 24 indication of the problem; is that correct? 25 DR. BROWN: Yes. These are not meant to be the 4420 01 long-term average water supply need. On the other hand, 02 because a strategy for management of salt and water needs to 03 work in every set of future conditions, it's good to be 04 aware that under dry conditions this strategy has the types 05 of water demands that I am illustrating. 06 MR. HERRICK: So, you would agree that the Board should 07 implement some sort of overall program that assures 08 compliance even in critical years; is that correct? 09 DR. BROWN: No. I am actually not testifying to that. 10 So that the possibility that there would need to be 11 variances or setting of the yellow line, what should be the 12 salinity objective. I am not saying that this one salinity 13 line should apply every day of every year. That would be 14 the purpose of the Regional Board's investigation of 15 appropriate objectives. But once those objectives are 16 decided on, they should cover more of the river than simply 17 Vernalis. 18 MR. HERRICK: Correct. My question was: Since we have 19 standards set under the existing Water Quality Control Plan, 20 which we're discussing implementation in these hearings, 21 then the Board should decide on an implementation that would 22 meet those standards? 23 DR. BROWN: I do agree with that. Our strategy needs 24 to meet the established objectives over the full range of 25 potential conditions. 4421 01 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 03 Mr. Jackson. 04 ---oOo-- 05 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 06 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 07 BY MR. JACKSON 08 MR. JACKSON: Virginia, would you mind putting that 09 back up again. 10 Thank you. 11 Dr. Brown, you talked about a salt and water budget for 12 the San Joaquin Valley. Is there any reason, technically, 13 that it shouldn't cover the whole valley? 14 DR. BROWN: Well, no. I guess the salinity objectives 15 could cover the entire valley. 16 MR. JACKSON: Is there any way that you know that you 17 could divide the valley in a way where the salinity 18 objectives would apply to one part of the valley and not to 19 another part of the valley? 20 DR. BROWN: Yes. This is the basic method that we use 21 to manage water in California, is establishing a variety of 22 beneficial uses, not necessarily the same everywhere. But 23 once the beneficial uses are identified, then the 24 appropriate limits are put in place. So, indeed, various 25 waterways within the valley, some may be, for example, 4422 01 irrigation drainage channels, and perhaps a very different 02 objective would apply to those. 03 And my testimony is really on the portion of the San 04 Joaquin River that serves dual purpose of being the natural 05 waterway and water supply channel as well as this partial 06 drainage conveyance. 07 MR. JACKSON: Where, in your opinion, does the partial 08 drainage conveyance begin on the San Joaquin? 09 DR. BROWN: Well, again, I am not prepared this morning 10 to draw a map. This is part of the Regional Board's 11 determinations or, as we are referring to in short, the TMDL 12 for salinity, would be to make that determination of where 13 beneficial use demarcations are. 14 MR. JACKSON: You have indicated that at Vernalis it is 15 too late, essentially? 16 DR. BROWN: That is my opinion, that beneficial uses of 17 water supply occur all the way up to at least the mouth of 18 the Merced, and at Vernalis is too far downstream. 19 MR. JACKSON: Is it your opinion, then, that the 20 compliance station should be moved from Vernalis to the 21 mouth of the Merced? 22 DR. BROWN: No. The City's position is that additional 23 compliance locations should be established upstream. The 24 Vernalis compliance location is appropriate for protecting 25 uses in the South Delta. 4423 01 MR. JACKSON: So the Vernalis compliance station should 02 stay, and there should be one established upstream. Are you 03 recommending the mouth of the Merced? 04 DR. BROWN: I would certainly suggest that as a prime 05 candidate. The Regional Board has the Crows Landing site, 06 which is just downstream of the Merced that is applicable or 07 salinity objectives are being proposed there or are in place 08 there. 09 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to the 10 suggestion you made that there be a salt and water budget. 11 What exactly do you mean by a salt and water budget for the 12 upper areas of the San Joaquin? 13 DR. BROWN: By that I simply mean that a party 14 discharging a load of salt should be responsible for 15 providing the amount of water needed to bring that discharge 16 into compliance with whatever the established objectives 17 are, understanding there are none at this present time. 18 That is all that I mean, bringing the amount of water and 19 the amount of salt into balance at each location along the 20 river. And, again, that is what is meant by a total maximum 21 daily load. 22 MR. JACKSON: Now, you've indicated that your research 23 has indicated to you that a substantial part of the problem 24 is the salt coming from the Delta-Mendota Canal; is that 25 correct? 4424 01 DR. BROWN: Well, in a very general sense that could be 02 identified as a major source of water and salt that is being 03 applied somewhere. Some of that is then in the drainage of 04 the San Joaquin River, but not all of it. 05 MR. JACKSON: Does it matter what kind of land the 06 original applied water is applied to in terms of 07 differentiating between the salt and water balance? 08 Are there lands that produce less salt in return to San 09 Joaquin than other lands watered with the same applied 10 water? 11 DR. BROWN: There may be. I have no specific knowledge 12 on that topic. 13 MR. JACKSON: As part of this salt and water balance, 14 would it seem that a logical first step would be to identify 15 which lands were producing higher levels of salt than 16 others? 17 DR. BROWN: Yes. Again, that is the purpose of doing 18 the investigations leading to the allocation, the TMDL, 19 where those are the most likely lands for making a 20 difference in changing the water and salt management. But I 21 do not know where those are. 22 MR. JACKSON: In terms of the -- basically, is it fair 23 to say that in general there are only three ways that you 24 can affect what the salinity levels are at the Vernalis 25 station; and that is to improve the applied water coming out 4425 01 of the Delta-Mendota Canal, to decrease the amount of salt 02 leaving land or to increase dilution flows? Is that what we 03 have to work with? 04 DR. BROWN: That is maybe what we have to work with 05 right now. We could, of course, add to that list and build 06 a drain for the salt. 07 MR. JACKSON: So the fourth option would be to build a 08 drain for the salt? 09 DR. BROWN: Yes. 10 MR. JACKSON: Within those four options, is your water 11 management plan idea that we would attempt to provide a 12 balance between those four options? 13 DR. BROWN: That is right. The City is certainly 14 recommending that all possible methods of ever establishing 15 and maintaining this balance be used. 16 MR. JACKSON: Now, let's call the attention to the 17 Stanislaus flow situation. The applied water on the 18 Stanislaus is pretty good, isn't it? 19 DR. BROWN: It is very good. We show that the EC is 20 less than a hundred almost all the time. 21 MR. JACKSON: And then after it is applied to the land, 22 does the EC go up as it returns as return flow into the 23 rivers? 24 DR. BROWN: Yes. We know that any agricultural 25 drainage water will have higher salt concentration that was 4426 01 applied. 02 MR. JACKSON: On the west side, by the time it returns 03 to the stream it's still pretty good, isn't it? 04 MS. CAHILL: Do you mean on the east side? 05 MR. JACKSON: Excuse me, on the east side by the time 06 it returns to the river it's generally within the standards? 07 DR. BROWN: Yes. The concentrations would still be 08 well within the standards, even the actual drainage water 09 itself if you can find a channel containing drainage water. 10 MR. JACKSON: Probably this water returning to the 11 river does not need a lot of dilution flow on the east side; 12 is that correct? 13 DR. BROWN: It does not need very much dilution flow to 14 meet the salinity objectives. 15 MR. JACKSON: So, water coming off the east side 16 improves water quality down to Vernalis, simply the east 17 side water. Is that correct? 18 DR. BROWN: In general the tributary salinity is lower 19 than the San Joaquin salinity. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Thomas. 21 Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. 22 MR. JACKSON: They must have been good questions if 23 they make Amelia move. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Again a subjective judgment on your 25 part. 4427 01 MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Now, we woke up Mr. Birmingham. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The point is she had to stand up to 04 stay awake. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Should I give Mr. Jackson one shot. 06 MR. JACKSON: Absolutely not. Mr. Jackson doesn't 07 need a shot. He is a receiver, not a pitcher. 08 When the water is taken from the Delta-Mendota Canal 09 and applied to the west side, is the water quality that 10 returns to the river off the west side higher in pollutant 11 than the water on the east side? 12 DR. BROWN: Yes. The drainage from -- in the area that 13 is irrigated with DMC water, is generally higher than what 14 would be coming off the east side because the east side 15 source water is much lower in salinity. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 17 MEMBER BROWN: Clarifying question, if I may, Mr. 18 Jackson. 19 Is the increment higher? 20 DR. BROWN: The increment is also higher, because at 21 some fraction of the applied water that is drained, that 22 drain water must carry the entire salt load. So we often 23 talk of the leaching fraction. 24 And to continue with the sort of answer, on the east 25 side I am not exactly sure that the drainage flow is a 4428 01 fraction of the applied water. The increment, since that is 02 only carrying the applied salt load, is much less than the 03 increment that would be observed on the west side compared 04 from the DMC to the drainage water, because it is more like 05 a factor. It is three or four or five times higher than the 06 applied water. 07 MEMBER BROWN: One more clarifying, Mr. Jackson. 08 MR. JACKSON: Certainly. 09 MEMBER BROWN: Excluding tile water, is the increment 10 higher on the tailwater on the east side than it is on the 11 west side or the other way around, excluding drainage water, 12 tile water? 13 DR. BROWN: Again, the increment would be higher. The 14 factor might be similar. So, let's just assume the 15 tailwater is maybe 10 percent of the applied water. Then 16 that tailwater, if it is carrying all the salt, would be ten 17 times the initial concentration. And the ten times with an 18 initial of a hundred is a thousand, would be the increment. 19 On the west side, ten times the applied water that 20 might be in the 400 EC range would be an EC of 4,000. And 21 so it is that multiplying factor which is the ratio of 22 drainage water to applied water that really leads to the 23 much higher salinity on the west side. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 25 MEMBER BROWN: One more clarifying question. 4429 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Please. 02 MEMBER BROWN: The increment of salt that is picked up, 03 correct? 04 DR. BROWN: No. 05 MEMBER BROWN: The increment is the salt that is not in 06 the applied water, but the salt picked up off the land and 07 applied to the tailwater? That is the increment I am 08 speaking of. 09 DR. BROWN: In that case, we have to change our answers 10 a little bit. The increment that is picked up from the soil 11 itself is some unknown, but after irrigation has been used 12 for a number of use on land, a relatively small fraction of 13 the salt load. Most of the salt load is simply removing all 14 of the salt in the applied irrigation water. And that is 15 how my questions were being addressed. 16 The increment between the applied salinity and the 17 drain salinity is this factor. It is carrying the salt of 18 all the evapotranspirated water out of the agricultural 19 area. You are right; there may then be this increment of 20 salt that comes from the land as it is initially put into 21 product; or in the case we now have where very high loads of 22 salt had been stored temporarily in the shallow groundwater, 23 whenever that is released, you will have a much higher 24 increment of the type you are referring to, picked up from 25 the land or the shallow groundwater below the land. 4430 01 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 02 MR. JACKSON: That you, sir. 03 So, if you take water out of the DMC and apply it to 04 land and you were very efficient with the use, let's say you 05 have some sort of 90 percent efficiency, the tailwater will 06 be carrying all of the salt with 10 percent of the amount of 07 water; is that right? 08 DR. BROWN: Well, not specific tailwater. We are 09 saying that the total drainage water off the agricultural 10 land needs to be carrying all of the salt that is applied if 11 you are planning to farm for any number of years. 12 MR. JACKSON: And so, this lessening of the amount of 13 water running off the land, but the same amount of salt 14 leaving the land, is what is causing the process that you 15 are talking about where conservation being actually, in a 16 drought circumstance, cause worse water quality? 17 DR. BROWN: That is what I am referring to. In my 18 opinion we are managing the San Joaquin River as though we 19 had built the drain when, in fact, we have not built the 20 drain. 21 So a strategy of trying to reduce the drainage flow and 22 have it carrying a larger fraction of greater multiple of 23 salt load leads to the types of drainage that are coming out 24 of Mud Slough under present conditions, where the EC is in 25 the 4,000 to 5,000 range. That discharge belongs in a 4431 01 drain; and it is our opinion it does not belong in a river. 02 MR. JACKSON: So one of the -- one of the solutions 03 would be to extend the drain? 04 DR. BROWN: Yes. 05 MR. JACKSON: One of the solutions would be to apply 06 less water, to export less from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 07 DR. BROWN: That is a possibility, but not necessary 08 condition. 09 MR. JACKSON: But it will do it? I mean, essentially 10 if you apply less water, you have less salt runoff? 11 DR. BROWN: You would have less salt runoff. That 12 would not necessarily change the concentration of the 13 discharges from those lands still being irrigated. 14 MR. JACKSON: But it would reduce by a percentage of 15 the lands out of production the amount of water -- the 16 amount of salt returning to the San Joaquin River? 17 DR. BROWN: That would. 18 MR. JACKSON: Now, you've indicated that you do know 19 the EC of the water coming down Mud Slough; is that correct? 20 DR. BROWN: Yes. By just reviewing the Regional 21 Board's recent report on those measurements. 22 MR. JACKSON: Have you also looked at Salt Slough? 23 DR. BROWN: In general, yes. 24 MR. JACKSON: Is most of the salt that is presently 25 running down the natural canal, I guess, of the San Joaquin 4432 01 River, coming from areas drained by Salt and Mud Slough? 02 DR. BROWN: Without saying "most," there is a large 03 fraction of the load that is measured in Salt and Mud 04 Slough. In the draft EIR, Chapter 8, it refers to a general 05 value of 45 percent coming from those two waterways. 06 MR. JACKSON: In other words, 45 percent of the salt 07 load is coming from those two waterways, and does the EIR 08 also reflect the amount of the San Joaquin that is drained 09 by those two waterways? 10 DR. BROWN: No. There is no clear delineation of the 11 land acreage that drain into Salt and Mud Slough. 12 MR. JACKSON: But, clearly, if the land drainage was, 13 for instance, 10 percent of the San Joaquin and the amount 14 of salt was 45 percent, it would lead one to that area, 15 would it not, if one wanted to cure the problem? 16 DR. BROWN: Potentially. But I do not have direct 17 information on those source areas. 18 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 19 No further questions. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 21 Let's take our lunch break and come back at 1:15. We 22 will resume cross-examination with Mr. Sexton, Ms. Thomas, 23 Ms. Harrigfeld, Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Minasian. 24 (Luncheon break.) 25 ---oOo--- 4433 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 ---oOo--- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon. Welcome back. 04 We completed Mr. Jackson's cross-examination. We will 05 resume with the following order: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Sexton, 06 Ms. Harrigfeld, Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Minasian. 07 Ms. Thomas, good afternoon, welcome. 08 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 09 ---oOo-- 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 11 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 12 BY MS. THOMAS 13 MS. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Chairman Caffrey, Members 14 of the Board. My name is Amelia Thomas appearing on behalf 15 of Westlands Water District. 16 Dr. Brown, of the four years you studied in Stockton 17 Exhibit 35 one was an extremely wet year and the remaining 18 three were dry years. So, those years are not 19 representative of historic hydrology, are they? 20 DR. BROWN: Well, yes, they are very representative of 21 historic hydrology. These dry years seem to keep 22 happening. 23 MS. THOMAS: Now, Dr. Brown, on Page 3 of your written 24 testimony you state: 25 The needed Stanislaus River flow could vary 4434 01 between 285 cfs and 570 cfs. (Reading.) 02 Isn't that correct? 03 DR. BROWN: Right. I am giving an example to explain 04 the methodology. And depending on the flow in the San 05 Joaquin River, the higher the flow, the more dilution water 06 will be needed. Those are the numbers from the example that 07 I am describing. 08 MS. THOMAS: Now, those are the flows that the Bureau 09 of Reclamation would need to release from New Melones 10 Reservoir in order to meet water quality objectives at 11 Vernalis; is that correct? 12 DR. BROWN: Right. Perhaps we should give the whole 13 example. For upstream flow with a certain salinity there is 14 some required flow from the Stanislaus that would be needed 15 to satisfy the objective under the way that we are currently 16 managing the objective. 17 MS. THOMAS: Now, on average how much water in 18 acre-feet would the Bureau have to release annually to meet 19 these water quality objectives? 20 DR. BROWN: Well, I have only done the calculation for 21 these four years. I can report that for these four years it 22 was as low as 50,000 acre-feet and as high as over 500,000 23 acre-feet. 24 MS. THOMAS: So you don't know an average number that 25 would need to be released annually? 4435 01 DR. BROWN: I don't have that average number, but I 02 suspect it is much higher than the numbers generally 03 reported out on the monthly models that we used. 04 MS. THOMAS: Dr. Brown, wouldn't you agree that you 05 cannot state that releases to meet water quality objectives 06 at Vernalis using unreasonable volume of water without 07 knowing the specific amount or volumes that need to be 08 released to meet those water quality objectives? 09 DR. BROWN: I would agree. It is on the basis of how 10 much water is required to meet the objectives that one would 11 decide whether it is reasonable or unreasonable; that is, in 12 relation to how much water there is in Stanislaus and how 13 much is required for other beneficial uses, you come to an 14 opinion of whether the current use is reasonable or not. 15 MS. THOMAS: You do not know the average amount that 16 would be required to be released from New Melones Reservoir 17 annually? 18 DR. BROWN: That is true, I do not know that number. 19 MS. THOMAS: You stated previously that you were 20 familiar with Decision 1422? 21 DR. BROWN: I am generally. 22 MS. THOMAS: Now, in response to, I believe it was, Mr. 23 Herrick's question, you stated that 70,000 acre-feet was a 24 cap that the Bureau of Reclamation would need to release in 25 New Melones Reservoir; is that correct? 4436 01 DR. BROWN: I stated that it was discussed in those 02 early documents as an estimate of the amount of water that 03 might be needed. And I am simply reporting that the amount 04 of water that was needed in two of the years I studied far 05 exceeded that 70,000 estimate. 06 MS. THOMAS: Isn't it also true that in Decision 1422 07 the State Board noted the uncertainty inherent in the 08 problem of proper releases to protect water quality? 09 DR. BROWN: Yes. 10 MS. THOMAS: Isn't it true, then, that the State Board 11 did not put a figure on the amount of releases to release 12 for water quality from New Melones Reservoir? 13 DR. BROWN: That is right. In the order there is no 14 upper amount. 15 MS. THOMAS: Wouldn't it then be correct, Dr. Brown, 16 that if the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to provide 70,000 17 acre-feet for water quality and the State Board found that 18 releases for water quality could be in excess of that 70,000 19 acre-feet and the State Board concluded that releases in 20 excess -- then the State Board concluded that releases in 21 excess of that 70,000 acre-feet would not be an unreasonable 22 use of water? 23 DR. BROWN: But I think my testimony is that the State 24 Board may never have been told how much water actually was 25 required; and that is, in a sense, the purpose of my 4437 01 testimony, to make it known how much water is required under 02 present conditions to meet the Vernalis objective using the 03 Stanislaus as the only source of the dilution water. But I 04 do not know what the State Board considers reasonable or 05 unreasonable. 06 MS. THOMAS: But in Decision 1422 the State Board noted 07 the inherent uncertainty in figuring out the proper releases 08 for water quality, correct? 09 DR. BROWN: Right, they noted that. 10 MS. THOMAS: Dr. Brown, isn't it correct that 11 mitigation of the impacts of the Friant division of the 12 Central Valley Project was included among the purposes 13 authorized by Congress for the construction of the New 14 Melones Project? 15 DR. BROWN: That may have been. 16 MS. THOMAS: Isn't it also correct that Congress 17 authorized construction of the New Melones Project in order 18 to meet water quality objectives at Vernalis? 19 DR. BROWN: Right. That was one of the purposes for 20 the project. 21 MS. THOMAS: And, Dr. Brown, Board Member Brown asked 22 you questions comparing the drainage water of the east and 23 west sides of the San Joaquin Valley and whether your 24 opinion of the salinity concentrations would change if you 25 excluded subsurface drainage or tidal water? 4438 01 Do you remember those questions? 02 DR. BROWN: Yes. 03 MS. THOMAS: Isn't it correct that the concentration of 04 salinity in the water on the west side is essentially the 05 same as the water that is in the Delta-Mendota Canal? 06 DR. BROWN: Water used on the west side? Right? 07 MS. THOMAS: The tailwater. 08 DR. BROWN: Well, I don't have any specific 09 measurements of the tailwater, and probably now mixed up in 10 terms. Perhaps I was not answering the question that you 11 had, Mr. Brown. 12 The tailwater, which is the water that simply gets to 13 the end of the field and spills over, in some sense, itself 14 may not have picked up very much salt. So a field on the 15 west side, if you went and measured its tailwater, might be 16 similar to the salt on the east side, from an east side 17 field. 18 Whereas, I was trying to explain that ultimately there 19 needs to be some flow of water, whether it is the tile 20 drainage or just other drainage without tiles. That removes 21 the applied salt. In that situation the amount of salt that 22 you will have to be removing, because you are irrigating 23 with much saltier water on the west side, has to be 24 higher. I will clarify that if it just the tailwater and 25 just this incidental over irrigation, that water will have a 4439 01 similar salinity as the applied water. So we would be 02 measuring 400 on the west side and perhaps only a hundred on 03 the east side. 04 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 05 I have no further questions. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Thomas. 07 Mr. Sexton. 08 ---oOo-- 09 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 11 BY MR. SEXTON 12 MR. SEXTON: Afternoon, Dr. Brown. I am Michael 13 Sexton for this phase. I am appearing on behalf of the San 14 Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 15 Dr. Brown, you gave some testimony, and during your 16 testimony you suggested that one of the ways of meeting the 17 requirements to remove salt from the San Joaquin Valley was 18 to construct an out-of-valley drain. 19 You stand by that testimony, correct? 20 DR. BROWN: Yes. 21 MR. SEXTON: Now, the issue of salt removal, whether 22 we're dealing with agricultural uses that result in salt or 23 we are dealing with just human habitation, is not a new 24 problem, correct? 25 DR. BROWN: That is right. 4440 01 MR. SEXTON: In fact, salt as a byproduct of 02 agriculture is probably as old as irrigated agriculture. 03 Wouldn't you agree? 04 DR. BROWN: I agree. 05 MR. SEXTON: If dealing with the salinity problems in 06 the San Joaquin Valley was an easy task, that task probably 07 would have been resolved 30 years ago. Would you agree with 08 that? 09 DR. BROWN: I agree. 10 MR. SEXTON: Now, I'm a little concerned at the 11 hydrology that you chose as being representative for your 12 testimony today. Now, from your former testimony and 13 questions on cross-examination it is clear that the data you 14 used was ten-year old data, correct? 15 DR. BROWN: That's right. 16 MR. SEXTON: And you picked four years that were not 17 representative of the average. Now you responded to Ms. 18 Thomas that we have a lot of dry years, so maybe it is 19 representative. But, all in all, the four years that you 20 chose are not representative of average hydrology on the San 21 Joaquin River; isn't that true? 22 DR. BROWN: Well, again as a hydrologist, there is no 23 average. And I am saying that by examining dry years where 24 the problem is very difficult to resolve and wet years, you 25 have the range of dilution water required. But this is not 4441 01 an average of the full range or the full-time series of 02 hydrology. So that part of your inquiry is correct. 03 MR. SEXTON: Wouldn't you agree that had you selected 04 data that presented, rather than four dry years, a range of 05 dry, wet, normal, above normal and perhaps even critically 06 dry years, if you had selected data from all the year types 07 over perhaps a 40-year span, that data might be more 08 representative and more helpful to this Board in 09 understanding the points that you were going to make? 10 DR. BROWN: I would not disagree that that analysis 11 would be helpful. It turns out that there are only these 12 four years of available data in the sort of public USGS 13 database. And I would further say that when the dry years 14 occur in that four-year record, conditions very similar to 15 what I analyzed for '89 and '88 would recur. 16 My point is simply that whatever water and salt 17 management strategy we employ, it needs to be able to handle 18 both the wet and dry conditions. 19 MR. SEXTON: I think I agree with the statement you 20 just made, but the point I was trying to make is that the 21 data that you presented is not really representative of the 22 hydrology of the San Joaquin River. I don't want to belabor 23 the point, I just want to make sure that is very clear. 24 DR. BROWN: I think we still disagree on that 25 statement. Analyzing just the average condition would not 4442 01 be that helpful because it will not point out when it will 02 be most difficult to achieve this saltwater budget or 03 balance. 04 MR. SEXTON: I don't expect you to agree with me. I 05 just wanted to make the point. 06 Thank you, sir. 07 In your testimony on Page 2, under the segment marked 08 San Joaquin River Salinity Management, you make the 09 statement, and this has been questioned of you previously, 10 that the historical salinity management practice has used an 11 unreasonable volume of Stanislaus River water. 12 Do you see that testimony? 13 DR. BROWN: Right. 14 MR. SEXTON: You were questioned about that previously 15 by Mr. Jackson and also by Ms. Thomas, correct? 16 DR. BROWN: Right. 17 MR. SEXTON: When you say "an unreasonable quantity of 18 water," you are testifying from the perspective of an 19 engineer, correct? 20 DR. BROWN: That's right. 21 MR. SEXTON: Are you suggesting to this Board that the 22 constitutional requirement of reasonable versus unreasonable 23 use should take on your view regarding the unreasonable 24 quantity of Stanislaus River water? 25 DR. BROWN: No. I am simply representing the position 4443 01 of a hydrologist or water quality engineer. 02 MR. SEXTON: You testified that, in your view, it is 03 your testimony that the Stanislaus River water, that there 04 is too high a volume of Stanislaus River water being used 05 for water quality water dilution, correct? 06 DR. BROWN: Yes. 07 MR. SEXTON: And you based that on the fact that in the 08 four dry years that were representative in your chart that 09 there was a large quantity of water that was required for 10 dilution, correct? 11 DR. BROWN: That is right. Three of the four that I 12 analyzed were relatively dry. One was quite wet. 13 MR. SEXTON: Looking at your chart, I am not sure that 14 I totally understand the snakes and which snake was going 15 where and where the pink lines were and everything that you 16 testified. But it occurs to me that I am not clear and 17 perhaps you could make clear how much of the water that you 18 say was being released for water quality was, in fact, being 19 used for water quality rather than for other beneficial uses 20 such as fishery flows and so on. 21 DR. BROWN: Well, I think I already stated that I was 22 not doing that separation. I was simply evaluating how much 23 water would be required to achieve the dilution necessary to 24 meet the objective. And whether other beneficial uses were 25 occurring with those same releases, I am not testifying. 4444 01 MR. SEXTON: So, as I understand what you have just 02 said, then, you are not saying that all of the water that 03 needed to be released from the Stanislaus River was as a 04 result of agricultural practices on the west side of the 05 valley? 06 DR. BROWN: That was a leap. Maybe you could break 07 that up for me. 08 MR. SEXTON: I am trying to understand your testimony. 09 It seems that you were drawing from agricultural discharges 10 on the west side and then claiming that, as a result of 11 those discharges, we were using the San Joaquin Valley, 12 essentially, as a drain; and that as a result of the 13 drainage flows that got into the river, all of the water 14 from the New Melones, not all the water, but the water that 15 was demonstrated in your chart was needed to meet those 16 water quality enhancements? 17 DR. BROWN: That is correct. I was evaluating how 18 much water is needed to dilute all of the upstream loads of 19 salt, somewhere upstream of Maze, in order to meet the 20 Vernalis objective. To the extent that you know how much 21 salt comes from your particular district, then that would be 22 the fraction of that water that was needed for your 23 discharges. 24 But I do not have specific information of where all the 25 upstream loads of salt originate. And for that I am relying 4445 01 just on the Draft EIR, Chapter 8, general allocation of 02 where the salt load is coming from. 03 MR. SEXTON: Getting back to your testimony that you 04 believe that there has been -- there is an unreasonable 05 quantity or unreasonable volume of water being released from 06 New Melones. You're basing that unreasonable -- my question 07 is: Unreasonable compared to what? 08 DR. BROWN: Unreasonable compared to the earlier 09 estimates of how much might be needed under this purpose for 10 New Melones. I don't say that the 70,000 is the only 11 estimate, but it was order of magnitude quite a bit less 12 than what was actually required for these two historic 13 years. 14 I also mean unreasonable compared to the entire natural 15 runoff of the Stanislaus River, which is compared in these 16 cases. And the requirement for dilution flows in these two 17 particular years, referring to Table 1 in my testimony -- I 18 don't have it in, sorry. 19 But I did make the determination of unreasonable based 20 on the Stanislaus River flow, which in these two years was 21 less than the water required for the dilution. And we could 22 compare other sorts of quantities of water. But the bottom 23 line for me was 500,000 acre-feet in the San Joaquin River 24 does seem to be a large quantity and, in my determination, 25 unreasonable. 4446 01 MR. SEXTON: Unreasonable based on the flow that -- the 02 unimpaired flow of the Stanislaus River, correct? 03 DR. BROWN: Yes. That is one of the comparisons that I 04 was thinking of. 05 MR. SEXTON: Now, when you say releases from the 06 Stanislaus River, really what we are talking about are 07 releases from New Melones, correct? 08 DR. BROWN: For the most part, that is correct. 09 MR. SEXTON: New Melones is a federal facility? 10 DR. BROWN: That is right. 11 MR. SEXTON: It is a facility of the Central Valley 12 Project? 13 DR. BROWN: Yes. 14 MR. SEXTON: The Central Valley Project is operated as 15 an integrated unit, wouldn't you agree? 16 DR. BROWN: They try to do that. 17 MR. SEXTON: What you are suggesting, then, is we 18 analyze one component of an integrated unit and we determine 19 that the use of water from that one component, when you look 20 at only the unimpaired flow of that river system is 21 unreasonable; that is what you are telling the Board? 22 DR. BROWN: That is what I am telling the Board. In 23 relation to all the other flows in the water management and 24 salt management of the San Joaquin, this aspect of it, of 25 only coming into a balance of salt and water at Vernalis 4447 01 seems to be unbalanced and, in my view, unreasonable. 02 MR. SEXTON: Let's say for the sake of argument that 03 the Board buys your determination of unreasonableness and 04 that, as a result of that, one of the Board Members asks 05 you, "Dr. Brown, where do you suppose the additional water 06 could come from in order to substitute for Stanislaus River 07 flows?" What would be your answer? 08 DR. BROWN: Well, in the event that Board Members asked 09 such a thing, what I would answer is this: I like some of 10 the recirculation ideas put forth by other parties, and I am 11 -- but I am fully aware that we may be at a limit of how 12 much water we can export from the Delta because of all the 13 other multiple benefits we are attempting to achieve. 14 In which regard I would say that, then, the current 15 irrigation users from those exports may have to consider or, 16 my view, they should consider a higher drainage fraction 17 that is not an attempt to reduce drainage flows to the 18 minimum which necessarily gives the highest salt 19 concentration, but be willing to put a higher leaching 20 fraction through their lands, therefore, perhaps being able 21 to irrigate slightly less land in order to achieve closer to 22 a reasonable balance between the salt load and water and 23 achieve much lower concentrations near the point of their 24 discharges. 25 MR. SEXTON: Should one of the State Board Members have 4448 01 asked you that question, you would also follow up in your 02 response by saying, of course, that you would be willing to 03 before the Regional Water Quality Control Board and have 04 them modify the standards that they impose on agricultural 05 discharges to the San Joaquin River. Correct? 06 DR. BROWN: Well, again, I am not going to -- I am not 07 saying either what those limits should be nor what the river 08 limit should be. They may well be different than what we 09 have established at Vernalis. But, yes, that process, we 10 are suggesting, needs to continue at a faster rate so that 11 this balance between salt and water, because it is 12 discharging into natural bodies, natural water bodies, which 13 have other beneficial uses requiring a lower salinity, that 14 this be enhanced and quickened. That is what I would be 15 suggesting. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Sexton, I didn't want to 17 interrupt that question. 18 Mr. Porgens, you rose with your hand up. 19 MR. PORGENS: I object to that line of questioning. He 20 is getting so hypothetical, I don't know where we are, the 21 Regional Board or the State Board. Asking him a question 22 what a Board Member would ask him and how would he 23 respond, I have to object. I don't know where he is going. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Your objection is noted, Mr. Porgens. 25 He is -- Mr. Sexton is referring, I believe, to a colloquy 4449 01 that went on earlier in the day between the Brothers Brown, 02 so to speak, or Cousins Brown, meaning no disrespect to 03 either, only heaping accolades. 04 Let me say that your objection, again, is duly noted on 05 the record. It goes to the Board Members in their 06 determination of the evidence to give the weight of it 07 received. With that, I will allow Mr. Sexton to continue. 08 Go ahead, sir. 09 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 In the response you just gave me, Dr. Brown, I think 11 one of your suggestions was that the districts on the west 12 side would then irrigate less land in order to have 13 additional water that could be released as tailwater or 14 flows to the San Joaquin River. 15 Did I hear that correctly? 16 DR. BROWN: That is correct. That is just one 17 suggestion in trying to understand what I mean by bringing 18 the salt load. That may be coming from ag land in balance. 19 It would require more of a dilution flow at point of 20 discharge. 21 There is other sources of water. The Grasslands 22 wetlands has a much higher water supply than it has 23 historically. The flow from the wetlands and the ag 24 discharges, blending those, bringing those together at the 25 same time, that also has potential for establishing this 4450 01 balance much further upstream on the San Joaquin River. 02 MR. SEXTON: While you are on the Grassland flows, the 03 additional water that is being delivered now to the 04 Grasslands is a result of an act of Congress, correct? 05 DR. BROWN: That's right. 06 MR. SEXTON: And is it your testimony that the 07 additional water that is now being delivered to the 08 Grasslands is also contributing to salt loads in the San 09 Joaquin River? 10 DR. BROWN: It does contribute salt loads; that is 11 right. Because those ponds or for however long it is 12 flooded are evaporating, and salt is concentrating, even in 13 wetlands. 14 MR. SEXTON: Have you done any economic analysis of the 15 impacts to the State's agricultural gross product, if you 16 will, if the districts on the west side of the San Joaquin 17 Valley start irrigating less land and producing fewer crops? 18 DR. BROWN: No, I have not done those studies. 19 MR. SEXTON: You are testifying today on behalf of the 20 City of Stockton, right? 21 DR. BROWN: I'm trying. 22 MR. SEXTON: Have you or any of the panel that you are 23 aware of that represented the City of Stockton, have they 24 sent anything around to the their constituent in the City of 25 Stockton and asked them what they would think about not 4451 01 having their morning melons and cantaloupes to eat with 02 their breakfast as a result of some of the suggestions that 03 you are making? 04 DR. BROWN: I even like cantaloupe myself, so -- there 05 has not been that question. 06 MR. SEXTON: We don't want to reduce water that 07 irrigation of it results in cantaloupe being decreased, 08 right? 09 You testified that in your view the salt balance 10 computations needed to be moved upstream from Vernalis. 11 Do you recall that? 12 DR. BROWN: Yes. 13 MR. SEXTON: The Water Quality Control Plan adopted by 14 this Board is, in large part, to protect in-Delta 15 beneficial uses? 16 DR. BROWN: That is the region that this plan covers. 17 MR. SEXTON: Isn't it true that the City of Stockton, 18 and for that matter the South Delta Water Agency and perhaps 19 others, discharge waters which also increase the TDS load in 20 the San Joaquin River downstream of Vernalis? 21 DR. BROWN: That is right. 22 MR. SEXTON: So, it doesn't also follow, then, that 23 compliance monitoring ought to be moved downstream from 24 Vernalis, as well as upstream from Vernalis? 25 DR. BROWN: Yes. I would say that is true. We have 4452 01 those downstream compliance points which are under 02 consideration in this hearing. 03 MR. SEXTON: Now, you have testified, I believe, that 04 the City of Stockton does discharge water from its treatment 05 plant that, and I think one of the members of your panel 06 said that that water was something in the range of 700 TDS. 07 Does that sound right? 08 DR. BROWN: That sounds right. 09 MR. SEXTON: You would agree, then, that the quality of 10 that water is probably roughly equivalent to the quality of 11 agricultural tailwater that is discharged from the west 12 side? 13 DR. BROWN: Well, I think we are getting -- the 14 tailwater which is the least salty of the possible 15 agricultural drainages may still be under 700. 16 MR. SEXTON: So you would agree, then, the tailwater 17 releases from agriculture on the west side is probably no 18 greater in TDS than the discharges of the City of Stockton 19 wastewater treatment plant TDSs? 20 DR. BROWN: That may be true, although I don't have 21 tailwater data, specifically. 22 MR. SEXTON: How does your suggestion to move the salt 23 balance monitoring equation further upstream, how does that 24 in any way benefit the City of Stockton's water quality? In 25 other words, you have a point right now that is at 4453 01 Vernalis? 02 DR. BROWN: Yes. 03 MR. SEXTON: If we move that point upstream somewhere, 04 say for the sake of argument, to the mouth of the Merced, 05 how does that increase or enhance water quality in the City 06 of Stockton's receiving water? 07 DR. BROWN: That may not change the water quality if 08 the City of Stockton has interests that go beyond water 09 quality, which are indirectly connected to that suggestion. 10 MR. SEXTON: Like, for example, providing additional 11 water from the Stanislaus River to the Stockton East Water 12 District. 13 DR. BROWN: That is of interest to the City, right. 14 MR. SEXTON: In your testimony on Page 5, under the 15 segment marked Salinity Management, in the second paragraph 16 of that segment, you make the suggestion that waste 17 discharge requirements for maximum allowed selenium and salt 18 loads be issued for discharges to Mud and Salt Sloughs. 19 Do you recall when your testimony was actually 20 prepared, what month of this year? 21 DR. BROWN: Shortly before it was required, which may 22 have been August. 23 MR. SEXTON: The question I have: Are you now aware 24 that the Regional Water Quality Control Board established 25 waste discharge requirements at least for the segment of the 4454 01 west side agricultural entities referred to that are in what 02 we call the Grassland Bypass Project? 03 DR. BROWN: Yes. 04 MR. SEXTON: So, you would agree, then, that your 05 recommendation has -- then you would agree that your 06 suggestion regarding establishing waste discharge 07 requirements for selenium loads has been addressed in the 08 waste discharge requirements by the Regional Board? 09 DR. BROWN: Right. But as you just mentioned, it is 10 only for selenium that they have considered the allocation, 11 and there has not been a determination of what the 12 allowable salt load or salinity concentration should be. 13 MR. SEXTON: Isn't that because the Regional Board 14 hasn't even established standards for salinity in the river, 15 at least at this point? 16 DR. BROWN: That may well be. The standards for 17 protecting beneficial uses in each reach needs to come first 18 and then a determination of how much loading each of those 19 segments can assimilate from each of the dischargers, and 20 then the waste discharge limits are applied. 21 MR. SEXTON: The Board has established waste discharge 22 requirements for selenium and is currently working on 23 establishing standards or objectives for salinity, which you 24 would agree would have to take place before establishing 25 waste discharge requirements? 4455 01 DR. BROWN: Yes. I hope that they are proceeding. 02 MR. SEXTON: I think that is all of our hopes. 03 At the bottom of Page 5 of your testimony, you make a 04 statement that: 05 Voluntary land retirement in agricultural 06 areas with high selenium would directly 07 reduce the salt load discharged to the San 08 Joaquin River. (Reading.) 09 What do you mean by that? On one hand you are talking 10 about selenium, and on the other hand you are talking about 11 salt load discharges. What do you mean? 12 DR. BROWN: Well, I simply mean that agricultural lands 13 discharging salt, which also discharge selenium, may because 14 of the selenium toxicity issues be prime suspects in where 15 to reduce the amount of irrigated land and, therefore, 16 reduce the salt load. I am simply saying reduction of 17 selenium land drainage would be reducing salt load coming 18 from those lands. 19 MR. SEXTON: You're familiar with the Central Valley 20 Project Improvement Act, I take it? 21 DR. BROWN: Yes. 22 MR. SEXTON: And your're familiar that that act also 23 establishes a voluntary land retirement program to be 24 administered by the Bureau of Reclamation? 25 DR. BROWN: Yes. 4456 01 MR. SEXTON: And you're familiar with the fact that the 02 Bureau of Reclamation now has personnel assigned to the land 03 retirement program? 04 DR. BROWN: I don't know the actual status of the 05 program, but it may well be. 06 MR. SEXTON: If I were to tell you that the Bureau of 07 Reclamation did, in fact, have staff that were working on 08 voluntarily land requirement programs, then you would agree 09 that they have, at least in part, agreed with the fact that 10 perhaps some land retirement would be helpful? 11 DR. BROWN: Yes. In fact, these suggestions are merely 12 putting in one place the various programs and suggestions 13 that I am aware of. So, we would agree this is a good 14 thing. 15 MR. SEXTON: When you talk about land retirement, if 16 you retire an acre of land from production, in other words, 17 you don't put any water on that acre of land, does that in 18 and of itself mean that there is going to be a reduction in 19 discharges of salts that ultimately get to the river? 20 DR. BROWN: In general, yes. In general, yes. 21 MR. SEXTON: Are you talking only about the discharge 22 of salts that would be associated with the tailwater runoff 23 increment? 24 DR. BROWN: No. I am back to talking simply about the 25 salt that would have to be drained off if the land was 4457 01 irrigated to maintain the soil salinity as needed for 02 crops. If we stop applying that salt load, that salt load 03 no longer has to drain to the river or be drained to the 04 river. 05 MR. SEXTON: What happens to the water that is in the 06 subsurface? 07 DR. BROWN: Hopefully, it will just sit there. 08 MR. SEXTON: Do you know for a fact that it will sit 09 there, or is that your hope? 10 DR. BROWN: I don't know. I don't have detailed 11 knowledge of these interactions between the shallow 12 groundwater and the fact that we may have stored a large 13 quantity of salt from previous irrigation in the shallow 14 groundwater. That would also need to be taken care of. So 15 that it does either just sit there or be flushed out. 16 MR. SEXTON: You don't have the expertise as you sit 17 here today to testify on that subject? 18 DR. BROWN: No, I don't. 19 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, sir. 20 You testified on what my notes indicate was a subject 21 of dilution water. It seemed to me you were suggesting a 22 reduction in pumping at the project plants in the South 23 Delta. In other words, if you reduced the quantity of water 24 that was available for agricultural irrigation, that this 25 would reduce the salt concentration in tailwater. 4458 01 Is that what you said? 02 DR. BROWN: Well, I hope that the question was on the 03 entire salt budget for the San Joaquin. And, indeed, if we 04 were to reduce the export of water from the Delta to those 05 lands which then must be drained to the San Joaquin, we 06 would reduce the loading to the San Joaquin. And I believe 07 I mentioned for those lands, still being irrigated, their 08 concentrations might be the same, but because the acreage of 09 irrigated lands would be reduced, the total drainage load 10 and, therefore, the total load in the San Joaquin would be 11 reduced. I was not however suggesting that as the solution, 12 but it would have that effect. 13 MR. SEXTON: So, your view, then, is that the reduction 14 in the water which then is moved into the west side of the 15 San Joaquin Valley down the Delta-Mendota Canal, reduction 16 in the availability of that water would, in and of itself, 17 reduce the salt load that could possibly be delivered to 18 those lands? 19 DR. BROWN: Yes. If we are saying that the lands would 20 be taken out of production, yeah. So far -- 21 MR. SEXTON: And you say that that is not a 22 recommendation of yours because, again, you haven't done the 23 economic analysis of what recommendation would result in? 24 DR. BROWN: That is right. We are simply recommending 25 the range of things should be under consideration that would 4459 01 reestablish this saltwater balance. 02 MR. SEXTON: Do you -- are you familiar with what is 03 normally referred to as the Rainbow Report? 04 DR. BROWN: I guess I'm not, no. 05 MR. SEXTON: The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 06 Report? 07 DR. BROWN: Okay. That one rings more of a bell. 08 MR. SEXTON: Are you familiar with areas that are on 09 the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that, at least 10 according to the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program Report, 11 do not result in the discharge of selenium to the San 12 Joaquin River? 13 DR. BROWN: Yes. 14 MR. SEXTON: So not all areas on the west side 15 discharge selenium to the San Joaquin River? 16 DR. BROWN: No. That is right; not all areas. 17 MR. SEXTON: That is all I have. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, may I have a moment? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Birmingham. 21 Go off the record for just a moment while they 22 confirm. 23 (Discussion held off record.) 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Back on the record. 25 Nothing else then, gentlemen? 4460 01 Ms. Harrigfeld, good afternoon. 02 ---oOo-- 03 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 04 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 05 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Karna Harrigfeld for Stockton East 07 Water District. 08 Dr. Brown, I have a few questions for you. 09 What are the concentrations of salt coming from Salt 10 and Mud Slough, coming out of, or what did the Draft EIR 11 report? 12 DR. BROWN: The Draft EIR is -- I have just lost the 13 number. It is approaching 4,000 milligrams per liter of 14 salt, and this is what they were using as their average 15 coming off of the drained areas. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: It was roughly 4500 for Mud Slough and 17 1600 for Salt Slough, as you recall? 18 DR. BROWN: That may have been those two numbers; one 19 may be less than the other. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: How do these numbers compare with the 21 values at Crows Landing, the EC values at Crows Landing? 22 DR. BROWN: Well, Crows Landing is just downstream of 23 the Merced River. So by the time that these discharges are 24 mixed with other discharges from the grasslands area and 25 combined with the Merced River, the concentrations at Crows 4461 01 Landing are often in the range of 2,000. So they're quite a 02 bit reduced from Mud and Salt Slough, but still quite high 03 when compared to the Vernalis objective. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is it accurate to say that every unit 05 of drainage -- every drainage unit from Salt and Mud Slough 06 requires several units of dilution water from the Stanislaus 07 River? 08 DR. BROWN: It's accurate to say that drainage water 09 requires dilution from somewhere, not necessarily the 10 Stanislaus River water. And just on those numbers that we 11 were just describing, if the drainage salt were to be, say, 12 4,000 units EC -- this will be an easy example -- and the 13 standard is 1000, then that drainage water will require 14 three units of fresh water in order to bring the 15 concentration down to the objective. So, I think my answer 16 was yes. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, basically, what you are saying, 18 when you irrigate an acre of land, at least in portions of 19 the west side of the valley, not only do you have to provide 20 that acre-foot of water, you have to provide the dilution 21 flow? 22 DR. BROWN: I am suggesting that that is what should be 23 done. And that is not what is done know. They irrigate and 24 release as small a quantity of drainage water as possible, 25 and then someone else or some other source of water is being 4462 01 used for dilution. I am suggesting that more of that 02 dilution could be done by the individual irrigation 03 districts. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you describe for us how the salt 05 load has increased since the 1970's. 06 DR. BROWN: Well, I would just defer, again, to the 07 State Board Draft EIR, Chapter 8, which has the general 08 summaries of each of the decades, and it has been in -- the 09 numbers they are using going up perhaps 15 percent each 10 decade. They just have the values summarized for that. 11 That is my understanding of the gradual increase over time. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has the concentrations of salt seen a 13 corresponding increase as well? 14 DR. BROWN: Yes. The concentrations have gone up over 15 time as well. That one is more difficult to sort of 16 identify because the amount of water in the river has been 17 generally going down. Concentrations, as well as the loads, 18 are generally slowly increasing with time, or have been 19 slowly increasing with time. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the 1970's did people anticipate 21 that an out-of-valley drain would be constructed? 22 DR. BROWN: That is my understanding. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Now we have heard testimony today that 24 an out-of-valley drain has not been constructed. 25 DR. BROWN: Right. 4463 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you conclude in light of the 02 increased salt concentration and salt loads and the lack of 03 a drain, that when the burden was placed on New Melones, 04 they had no idea that it would take more than the 70,000 05 that the Bureau had agreed to provide? 06 DR. BROWN: Well, I can't be sure of everything they 07 may have known before the project was built. So my 08 testimony is simply to report that the quantities that have 09 been recently used are much higher than that estimate that 10 does appear in those documents. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: In Table 1 of your written testimony 12 you show the required water quality releases for 1988 and 13 '89. Were Stockton East Water District and Central San 14 Joaquin District ready and able to take New Melones water in 15 '88 or '89? 16 DR. BROWN: No. I don't believe they had facilities 17 that would be required to take water. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: In '88 an '89 when that water was 19 released for water quality purposes, it didn't impact the 20 districts? 21 DR. BROWN: That's right. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Today are you familiar that Stockton 23 East and Central both have water facilities or facility that 24 can take water from the Stanislaus for both ag and M&I 25 purposes? 4464 01 DR. BROWN: Yes. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: You have discussed briefly this 03 afternoon approaches other than New Melones releases to meet 04 the salinity water quality standard? 05 DR. BROWN: Yes. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you advocate that the Regional 07 Board set salinity standards upstream of Vernalis? 08 DR. BROWN: That is what the City of Stockton is 09 recommending. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would those salinity standards be or 11 could they be enforced through waste discharge 12 requirements? 13 DR. BROWN: Right. That is one of mechanisms after 14 sort of the understanding of the watershed is obtained 15 through investigations, then the next step we have already 16 mentioned was to establish beneficial uses in each reach; 17 and based on the necessary salinity objectives for 18 protecting those beneficial uses, allow discharges of a 19 certain quality into the reach, and that would be the waste 20 discharge requirements specified at that point. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: If a salinity standard was established 22 upstream of Vernalis, for example at Crows Landing, and that 23 standard was met, is it your opinion that less water would 24 be required to be released from New Melones? 25 DR. BROWN: Right. And that is because if the upstream 4465 01 water and salt budgets are more in balance, then the 02 salinity at Maze, right above on the Stanislaus would be 03 closer to the objective at Vernalis and less water will be 04 required to lower it to the objective. So, any time that 05 the upstream objectives are established and satisfied, that 06 will reduce the amount of water needed from the Stanislaus 07 to meet the Vernalis objective. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Switching gears a little bit, how much 09 of the San Joaquin River is listed on the Clean Water Act 10 303 (d) list? 11 DR. BROWN: It is my understanding they report 130 12 miles of the San Joaquin River. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are Salt and Mud Sloughs also listed 14 on the 303 (d) list? 15 DR. BROWN: I believe they are. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it your opinion that the 17 Regional Board is required to adopt TMDLs to meet -- 18 actually to implement the 303 (d) listing? Don't they have 19 to do something while they listed it as a water course with 20 problems? Aren't they required to affirmatively take some 21 act? 22 DR. BROWN: That is my understanding of what they are 23 responsible to do after listing of water bodies impaired on 24 that list. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is it your opinion that the Regional 4466 01 Board establish TMDLs to allocate the assimilative capacity 02 of the San Joaquin River without requiring the releases from 03 New Melones? 04 DR. BROWN: No. I don't think the City is recommending 05 the last part. Some dilution from New Melones may well be a 06 part of the overall TMDL determination, but the TMDL 07 requires that the entire watershed or drainage area be 08 considered at one time and that an allocation of where the 09 water and the salt is allowed is determined. That may 10 include still some release of New Melones for dilution. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: There should be some assimilative 12 capacity provided upstream? 13 DR. BROWN: Right. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just want to touch on the Grassland 15 Bypass Project. You are familiar with the Grassland Bypass 16 Project? 17 DR. BROWN: I am generally, yes. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you believe that it has or will 19 reduce salt loads? 20 DR. BROWN: No. I am not aware of any element of the 21 Grassland Bypass Project that actually attempts to reduce 22 the salt loads from that combined area. My understanding is 23 that it's simply separating the source of water going to the 24 Grasslands from the drainage water coming off the 25 agricultural lands and discharging both, then, to the San 4467 01 Joaquin River. There's no salt reduction or salt control 02 measure in the project that I am aware of. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 04 That is all I have. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 06 Mr. Nomellini. 07 ---oOo-- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 09 BY CENTRAL DELTA WATER PARTIES 10 BY MR. NOMELLINI 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 13 Could you put up Figure 3 from Stockton Exhibit 35, 14 please. 15 Thank you, Virginia. 16 Mr. Brown, I am somewhat troubled with the apple and 17 oranges comparison which I think is occurring with regard to 18 the 70,000 acre-feet that you referred to in D-1422 as the 19 contemplation for releases from New Melones for salinity 20 control purposes. 21 Now, is it your understanding that the 70,000 acre-feet 22 which is not in the order, but it was discussed in the 23 decision, talked about the release of stored water? I will 24 put quotes around "stored water." 25 DR. BROWN: I don't specifically know. It may have 4468 01 been just stored water. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go back at it. 03 Your calculation for Figure 3, the pink area, was the 04 total amount that you quantified as water required from the 05 Stanislaus to dilute salts arriving at Vernalis; is that 06 correct? 07 DR. BROWN: That is right. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: That number was what for Figure 3? 09 DR. BROWN: A little over 550,000 acre-feet. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, for 1988 you would agree, would 11 you not, that there would be some water flowing down the 12 Stanislaus naturally or otherwise that would help dilute 13 salts other than releases of stored water? 14 DR. BROWN: Well, not the way you stated it. There is 15 not a drop of water coming down the Stanislaus River that 16 makes it past New Melones Dam unless they decide to let it 17 pass. They are releasing it from storage. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any accretions to the 19 Stanislaus River below Goodwin Dam? 20 DR. BROWN: Not that would show up on our plot. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: What is the flow of Stanislaus River 22 that shows up on your plot? Is that just releases from New 23 Melones Reservoir? 24 DR. BROWN: Yes. I am showing the recorded flow at 25 Ripon which is near the mouth. But I am saying that that is 4469 01 substantially the same as the release from Goodwin Dam 02 which is released from Tulloch which is released from New 03 Melones. It is pretty much released water plus a dribble 04 from the irrigated areas. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Rather than belabor that point, if we 06 assume there are accretions to the river below Goodwin, but 07 upstream from Ripon, then your answer to my previous 08 question would be changed, would it not? 09 DR. BROWN: That is right. The releases -- the total 10 flow minus whatever came into the river between Goodwin and 11 Ripon would be the amount required from New Melones. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: If we assume that the 70,000 acre-feet 13 discussed in D-1422 was stored water, would you agree that 14 your comparison is, in fact, apples and oranges? 15 DR. BROWN: I don't believe so. Because I think in 16 1973 they realized that all New Melones water would be 17 stored and then later released for beneficial uses, first to 18 supply the irrigators who had prior rights to an exchange 19 agreement and then what would happen to the additional yield 20 from that project, now with the larger reservoir, and so the 21 70,000, whether it is specifically to come out of storage or 22 to be incremented by accretions to the river, is still 23 substantially the same idea: how much of the available water 24 resource on the Stanislaus should be reasonably assigned to 25 this water quality purpose which was but one of the purposes 4470 01 of the New Melones Project. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: So how do you define "stored water"? 03 DR. BROWN: I basically define it as it came out of a 04 reservoir penstock. There are more technical definitions 05 available. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you ever heard the term 07 "unimpaired flow"? 08 DR. BROWN: Yes. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you aware of any requirement for 10 reservoirs to bypass unimpaired flow for the purpose of 11 meeting downstream water right requirements? 12 DR. BROWN: I am aware that that condition is sometimes 13 used. In this situation we, irrigators, who have also a 14 call on that unimpaired flow. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Those irrigators you are thinking about 16 are Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin 17 Irrigation, correct? 18 DR. BROWN: Those are the ones that I am aware of that 19 use Stanislaus water. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: In you wildest imagination can you 21 imagine that an irrigator in the Delta might claim a right 22 to unimpaired flow from the Stanislaus River because that 23 irrigator was riparian to the San Joaquin and the Stanislaus 24 as a tributary to the San Joaquin? 25 DR. BROWN: They would also have some call on that 4471 01 riparian water. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: And you have not adjusted for any of 03 that in any of your calculations? 04 DR. BROWN: No, I have not. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: If you were to define stored water as 06 water that is otherwise captured from flows available to 07 create an additional project yield, would your calculation 08 be different than what you've done here today? What you 09 talked about today, excuse me. 10 DR. BROWN: I don't believe so because all that I am 11 attempting to show here is with the real salt loads measured 12 at Maze, blended with San Joaquin River, how much was 13 required to meet either the historic or current standards. 14 Similar to the fish flows, I am not, then, determining 15 how much of this water might have been released for 16 downstream riparian right holders or for fish flow 17 requirements. This is simply a demonstration of how much 18 water is needed to meet the salinity objectives under our 19 current management practice. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: One last detail. Let's assume there 21 was no water quality standard at Vernalis and there was no 22 requirement for water quality flow from New Melones, what 23 would the flow look like in the Stanislaus River under 24 Figure 3? 25 DR. BROWN: Then I believe it would have looked like 4472 01 pretty much a flat 125 cfs every day of the year, from 02 October through September, which was the historic agreement 03 with Fish and Game for their 98,000 acre-feet of water, that 04 would -- underneath it, I assume have been included the 05 riparian allocation for downstream users, would have been 06 covered under that 125. But that is what becomes more 07 difficult to say who is covering who. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: So your calculation of the water above 09 that line would still be 500,000 acre-feet? 10 DR. BROWN: This year it would have been 450,000 11 acre-feet in addition to the roughly 100,000 required for 12 fish in 1988 in order to meet the salinity. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to Page 4 of your testimony, do 14 you happen to have an overhead of Table 1? 15 DR. BROWN: I don't; I'm sorry. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: The last two columns in Table 1 on Page 17 4 are entitled "Ripon Flow for D-1422" and then "Ripon Flow 18 for 1995 Water Quality Control Plan"; is that correct? 19 DR. BROWN: That's right. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: You show for 1986 that the flow 21 required for the D-1422 requirements at 47. Is that cfs? 22 DR. BROWN: That is thousand acre-feet. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And 16 for the 1995 Water Quality 24 Control Plan? 25 DR. BROWN: That's right. 4473 01 MR. NOMELLINI: So, less water required to meet the 02 1995 Water Quality Control Plan than is required to meet the 03 D-1422; is that correct? 04 DR. BROWN: In most of the years that is true. In all 05 of these years that is true. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: True for all four of your examples? 07 DR. BROWN: Yes. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that the difference between the 500 09 part TDS and the .7 and 1.0 EC standard? 10 DR. BROWN: That is right. The more stringent 700, 11 that is applicable under Water Quality Control Plan, is in 12 the irrigation months, many of which have lower flows. So 13 when those salinities are in trouble, less water is usually 14 required. And the 1000 limit, which is higher than the 15 historic approximate 800, allows slightly higher salinities 16 during the winter period, and both of these generally end up 17 with a slightly different, although I am reporting that the 18 requirements are fairly comparable. These two objectives, 19 these two sets of objectives, have a very similar 20 requirement for dilution flow. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: How representative are these years, 22 1986, '87, '88 and '89, in your opinion? I heard your 23 previous testimony about recurrence in dry years in terms of 24 the historical average. Are they fairly representative, in 25 your opinion? 4474 01 DR. BROWN: I just have not done that calculation of 02 whether these four flows at Vernalis are near the long-term 03 average. I just don't know. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you very much. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 06 Mr. Minasian. 07 ---oOo-- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 09 BY THE EXCHANGE WATER CONTRACTORS 10 BY MR. MINASIAN 11 MR. MINASIAN: Dr. Brown, I'll try to concentrate on 12 several areas that haven't been touched upon. 13 DR. BROWN: Thank you. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Do I understand that you were professor 15 at the University of Tennessee? 16 DR. BROWN: I was for a period of time. 17 MR. MINASIAN: When did you leave there? 18 DR. BROWN: In '89 when I came back to 19 California. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Have you been involved in any drainage 21 studies on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 22 DR. BROWN: No. My familiarity with drainage is from 23 reading other's reports. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Would you be able to tell us today if 25 there were any particular area of ground that more water was 4475 01 applied to under your theory that a greater leaching factor 02 would result in better quality drainage water? Would you be 03 able to tell us whether or not that ground would either have 04 a high groundwater table or not have a high groundwater 05 table? 06 DR. BROWN: Well, I am agreeing that there may be 07 portions of districts where applying more water would not 08 make sense. In that case I would suggest piping it around 09 to the discharge location. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Would you also agree there are areas 11 where refusing to apply water or drawing up the ground would 12 effectively have no impact upon the drainage because there 13 is a high groundwater table, the water simply migrating down 14 slope? 15 DR. BROWN: That may well be true, also. For those 16 lands this extra water should be piped to the discharge. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Would you agree that the Grassland 18 Bypass Project, in fact, does have a water quality 19 improvement function in terms that it is an attempt to 20 manage drainage so the drainage rises when there are higher 21 natural flows in the San Joaquin River? 22 DR. BROWN: To the extent you are able to control the 23 arrival of drainage, that is an excellent idea. But I am 24 not aware of specifically anything that is being done under 25 the bypass, but you may know more than I. 4476 01 MR. MINASIAN: So, as you've answered these areas, are 02 you speaking generally theoretically and not after a 03 detailed examination of particular conditions on the west 04 side? 05 DR. BROWN: Certainly, that is right. These are 06 general ideas that seem like they might establish the 07 balance between salt and water near the agricultural 08 discharge locations. And I have not investigated these 09 ideas in particular. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Could I take you for a moment to Mr. 11 Nomellini's questions and just one follow-up question. 12 You're aware that the federal government authorized New 13 Melones? 14 DR. BROWN: Yes. 15 MR. MINASIAN: You realize that one of the purposes of 16 New Melones was flood control? 17 DR. BROWN: Yes. 18 MR. MINASIAN: As a civil engineer, you realize that 19 flood control projects tend to release water to free up 20 storage in the fall of the year, August, September, October, 21 and tends to release it at times in which there are heavy 22 flows in order to preserve that flood control curve? 23 DR. BROWN: Right. In general that's how flood 24 control, multi-purpose reservoirs are operated. 25 MR. MINASIAN: So, when you use a figure, it required 4477 01 545,000 acre-feet of water to meet water quality standards, 02 some part of 545 was releases for flood control that would 03 have been made anyway, wasn't it? 04 DR. BROWN: Not in 1988 or in 1989 because New Melones 05 has such a large storage capacity, relative to the runoff, 06 that you could hardly see the top of the dam sitting on a 07 boat, and they didn't need to release any flood control. 08 MR. MINASIAN: But I think you were using the full 09 calendar year of '88, were you not? 10 DR. BROWN: Yes, the full water year of '88. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Are you telling us today that you 12 extracted flood control releases, releases that were made 13 specifically to meet flood control curves from your '88 14 total? 15 DR. BROWN: I am suggesting many years in New Melones 16 there is no requirement for flood releases because that 17 flood conservation pool is a hundred feet above where the 18 water surface is. In both '88 and '89 there were no flood 19 releases. So, the lonely releases being made from the 20 project was to serve the irrigators or the fish flow and for 21 the water quality control. 22 MR. MINASIAN: I think Mr. Nomellini dealt with the 23 unimpaired flow issue with you. Let me just turn, for a 24 moment, to reasonable. 25 Focus for a minute upon that farmer down in the San 4478 01 Joaquin Valley that you suggested apply another acre-foot 02 for a moment to his acre of ground to increase the leaching 03 fraction. 04 You have that farmer in mind? 05 DR. BROWN: Yes. But I am not suggesting that he needs 06 to apply an extra acre. I am suggesting that he needs to 07 raise the volume of his drainage, which might be as low as 08 10 percent now. So some additional water I am suggesting is 09 needed from those discharges. 10 MR. MINASIAN: In theory the farmer or the district 11 would acquire that water, more water would be applied, more 12 drainage would go off, which would be less concentrated. Is 13 that correct? 14 DR. BROWN: Yes. That is the idea. 15 MR. MINASIAN: The Central Valley Project is paying 16 back the cost of New Melones Reservoir in part; is it not? 17 DR. BROWN: You're saying the contractors? 18 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 19 DR. BROWN: Some amount of the contractor's payment is 20 paying back New Melones. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Will you tell us what the difference is 22 buying a tenth of an acre-foot of water from the DMC and 23 putting it on the ground and buying a tenth of an acre-foot 24 from New Melones and putting down river for salinity control 25 is? 4479 01 DR. BROWN: I don't have those cost numbers. 02 MR. MINASIAN: One is reasonable and one is 03 unreasonable, isn't it? 04 DR. BROWN: In my view, because under the current 05 practices the salt in the water are out of balance for most 06 of the San Joaquin. I am simply suggesting a more 07 reasonable comanagement of our salt and water would be to 08 reestablish that balance at each of the major salt discharge 09 locations. 10 MR. MINASIAN: We talked about alternatives to improve 11 this situation. Am I correct that if the water that is 12 transported down the DMC was reduced from an average of 400 13 TDS to an average of 100 TDS, that would improve the salt 14 balance in the San Joaquin River, would it not? 15 DR. BROWN: That is very hypothetical, but that would 16 be a very good improvement. 17 MR. MINASIAN: There is a project called a canal that 18 peripheries the Delta which I believe the City of Stockton 19 opposes. Would -- in your opinion, forgetting for a moment 20 the political issues, as a civil engineer, is it more 21 reasonable to put better quality water down the DMC than to 22 attempt to manage salt by dilution flows? 23 DR. BROWN: Well, I am agreeing that a reduced source 24 water in the DMC would be greatly beneficial to the 25 irrigators. 4480 01 MR. MINASIAN: So, is what makes this unreasonable that 02 the City of Stockton wants to get 70,000 acre-feet out of 03 New Melones so it can expand its population? 04 DR. BROWN: I went through the things which cause me to 05 call it unreasonable. We were saying that that is not the 06 legal or water right use of unreasonable. And I am agreeing 07 that the City of Stockton does have interest in the other 08 beneficial uses that could be made of the New Melones yield, 09 and it is not saying that water quality is not itself a 10 reasonable use. Because there are more reasonable uses 11 competing for that resource, the ability that the Board has 12 here to rethink and reallocate how the water and salt is 13 managed on the San Joaquin is Stockton's position, that this 14 should be re-examined. 15 MR. MINASIAN: I just want to take you through a 16 hypothetical. I want you to imagine for a moment that the 17 Board has bought everything you testified to, and now there 18 is a certain amount of water in New Melones. 19 What should happen to that water? 20 DR. BROWN: Well, in general it should be used for as 21 many beneficial uses as are possible. This is a 22 multi-people reservoir. It should be operated that way. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Could you just briefly name to us the 24 purposes for which that water that has now been saved from 25 unreasonable use should be used? 4481 01 Let me suggest one. Should it be put down the river so 02 the City of Stockton can perfect its appropriation from the 03 river below the wastewater treatment plant? 04 DR. BROWN: It could go to other CVP contractors in the 05 service area of New Melones. 06 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Do the staff have questions for 08 cross-examination? 09 Just a moment. 10 Mr. O'Laughlin. You did speak to me, and I forgot 11 about that. You may come up and cross-examine if you wish 12 to do so. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you want to take your break? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you going to be saying more than 15 seven or eight minutes? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's take a break now and come back in 18 12 minutes. 19 (Break taken.) 20 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 21 Mr. O'Laughlin, punctual as always. Ready to go. 22 ---oOo-- 23 // 24 // 25 // 4482 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 02 BY SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP & OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 03 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 05 for allowing to add my name to the list. 06 Tim O'Laughlin representing the San Joaquin River Group 07 and also Oakdale Irrigation District. 08 I would like to get some background data first about 09 how you arrived at the data that you used. 10 On Page 1 of your exhibit, Dr. Brown, Exhibit 35, it 11 states that the USGS EC measurements at Maze and at Ripon 12 were only available for four years; is that correct? 13 DR. BROWN: That's right. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have those gauges operated for EC 15 measurements at any other times other than 1986 through 16 1989? 17 DR. BROWN: They may have been, but they are not on the 18 USGS database. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you look to see from the USGS 20 whether or not if it was not on the USGS database, whether 21 that information was available for other years? 22 DR. BROWN: I decided these four years would be -- 23 would serve the purpose of illustrating the current 24 practices. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When were you hired by Stockton East 4483 01 to perform this analysis -- I mean the City of Stockton. 02 When were you hired to perform the analysis for the City of 03 Stockton? 04 DR. BROWN: Well, Jones & Stokes have been working for 05 the City of Stockton for over a year in preliminary work for 06 the master plan/EIR that was described as now underway. And 07 I did the salinity work this past summer. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Who requested from the City of 09 Stockton that you perform this work? 10 MS. CAHILL: Objection. Relevance. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Just want to find out the background 12 of how he arrived at this data set. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you repeat the question. I am 14 sorry, I was distracted when the door was open. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. 16 Who at the City of Stockton asked you to perform this 17 assignment? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I will allow the question. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 20 DR. BROWN: Their attorney, Ms. Cahill. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did she give you an assignment when 22 she asked you to do this work, what to look at and what you 23 should and shouldn't be looking at? 24 DR. BROWN: Well, the assignment was to prepare 25 testimony for the City of Stockton and describe the current 4484 01 management practices for salinity control. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you say "current management 03 practices," did she define for you what she meant by 04 "current management practices"? 05 DR. BROWN: No. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So what you are saying, then, is based 07 on the evidence that you've submitted under Stockton Exhibit 08 35, is that this would represent to you the current 09 management practices in the San Joaquin River Basin and in 10 the Stanislaus River Basin; is that correct? 11 DR. BROWN: In regards to compliance with the Vernalis 12 water quality objectives, yes. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What -- were you given a budget to 14 perform this work, yes or no? 15 DR. BROWN: No. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You had basically, as far as you knew 17 when you sat down to do this, you had an unlimited budget to 18 perform this analysis; is that correct? 19 DR. BROWN: I guess it is. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: How much time did you spend reviewing 21 documents in preparation for your testimony that set forth 22 in Exhibit 35? 23 DR. BROWN: Well, fortunately, I have been reading 24 documents from the San Joaquin salinity since the period 25 that I have been back in California, so for nine years. 4485 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And, specifically for this assignment, 02 did you have to go back and review any documents in 03 preparation of Exhibit 35? 04 DR. BROWN: Yes. I certainly looked at State Board EIR 05 and some of their primary documents, which are those coming 06 out of the technical committees studying the drainage 07 program in the San Joaquin Drainage Program Report. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: How much do you charge an hour, Dr. 09 Brown? 10 MS. CAHILL: Objection. Relevance. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I am trying to link it up to how much 12 time Dr. Brown has spent on this assignment and his 13 involvement in this assignment in particular with the amount 14 of work that he has done in regards to Exhibit 35. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a minute. 16 (Discussion held off record.) 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to sustain the objection. I 18 also have objection from at least two Board Members. I 19 don't think we want to hear what people make per hour, 20 either engineer or attorney. It might be a disincentive for 21 us to serve on the Board. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to the assignment that you 23 prepared that is set forth in Exhibit 35, did you -- how 24 many hours did you charge to this project? 25 DR. BROWN: Isn't this the same line of reasoning? 4486 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Chairman Caffrey, I rephrased the 02 question in order to comply with the objection, and I would 03 prefer the witness answer the question rather than with a 04 question back. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it is a different question. 06 He's asking how much -- really a budgetary question, even 07 though it's been testified here there was no budget. He 08 wants to know what your total amount spent was. 09 I'll allow the question. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Not amount spent. Hours charged. How 11 many hours did you work on this project? 12 DR. BROWN: I don't actually know how much on this. I 13 would just stipulate it was less than a month of my time to 14 prepare this testimony. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, in what we see as Stockton 16 Exhibit 35, is this the -- did you have any drafts of this 17 testimony prior to submitting it? 18 DR. BROWN: Yes. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did anyone review those drafts? 20 DR. BROWN: Yes. City of Stockton did. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Who in the City of Stockton reviewed 22 your testimony? 23 DR. BROWN: I gave it to Ms. Cahill. I don't know who 24 else besides her looked at it. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Were there changes made to the 4487 01 document as set forth as Stockton Exhibit 35 that you 02 received back from your counsel? 03 MS. CAHILL: I would object to anything that impinges 04 on the attorney-client privilege. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: There is no attorney-client privilege 06 that could be asserted here. This witness is being offered 07 as an expert. And if she has made any comments on his 08 testimony, there is no privilege, and it has been waived as 09 his being offered as an expert. 10 MS. CAHILL: No. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 12 So, in regards to -- let me finish, just briefly. In 13 regards to anything that has been said by her client to the 14 witness, that has also been waived as well because that goes 15 to the underlying basis of his testimony. So, the privilege 16 has been waived and cannot be asserted. 17 MS. CAHILL: I don't believe the fact that he is an 18 expert waives the privilege. He has submitted this 19 testimony. He stands by it. He has said it is his 20 testimony. How it got to be in this form I don't think is. 21 Especially, to the extent that there were conversations 22 between the attorney and the expert, I do believe those are 23 protected by the privilege. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 25 Mr. Gallery, very briefly. 4488 01 MR. GALLERY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to second Ms. 02 Cahill's point that attorneys always discuss the testimony 03 with the witnesses and perhaps some revision is made. But 04 beyond that, I think it would be poor policy for the Board 05 to get involved in drafting of testimony and changes which 06 were made to it and who was responsible for making those 07 changes. I think it just wastes a lot of Board's time. 08 And, perhaps, if this were a different kind of proceeding, 09 it might be valid. I think it'd just be poor practice and 10 procedure and policy to get into this kind of examination of 11 the witnesses here. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Gallery. 13 Mr. Birmingham. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think the objection 15 that was stated is the wrong objection. The objection. 16 There is no attorney-client relationship that existed 17 between this witness and Ms. Cahill. The only possible 18 objection would be attorney work product. 19 But Mr. O'Laughlin is absolutely correct. When an 20 attorney hires a consultant and communication between that 21 attorney and the consultant, so long as the attorney is 22 controlling the work, is protected. But when the attorney 23 offers that consultant as an expert, any communication that 24 relates to the work done by the consultant is waived. 25 And Mr. O'Laughlin is entitled to question the witness 4489 01 in this regard to determine the basis of his testimony and 02 to impeach his opinion as an expert. And any privilege that 03 might have existed, based on attorney work product, is 04 waived the instant the consultant is offered as an expert. 05 And I would suspect that every lawyer in this room is aware 06 of that and understands the risks that exist when the 07 attorney works with the consultant in developing testimony. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 09 Anybody else? 10 All right. My attorney wants to speak to me, so we are 11 going off the record for a minute. 12 (Discussion held off the record.) 13 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 14 Mr. O'Laughlin, can you give us or would you please 15 give us offer of proof of somewhere you are headed with this 16 line of questioning? I am a little concerned about the 17 relevancy, and after you do that we may huddle again. 18 Take a few moments, if you will, and give us a 19 foundation. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The foundation for the question is 21 based on the assignment that was given from the attorney to 22 Mr. Brown, and Mr. Brown's response that the draft did go 23 back to the attorney. I didn't get to the next question, 24 which I am assuming there were changes to the document 25 made. What I want to know is, based on the exhibit that is 4490 01 being offered here today, what is the written portion coming 02 from the attorney/client and what is coming from Mr. Brown. 03 That is basically the question. 04 This is a standard question that is asked of all 05 experts in almost every civil procedure case I've ever been 06 involved in to ascertain what exactly is the scope and 07 extent of the expert's work product. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh. Off the record again. 09 Do you wish to add something, Ms. Cahill? 10 MS. CAHILL: Only that the entire document is offered 11 as the expert's opinion. And that we have not, in fact, on 12 any other expert in this proceeding gone into this type of 13 inquiry. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am and 15 sir. 16 (Discussion held off record.) 17 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 18 Ms. Cahill's objection is duly noted in the record, 19 not taken lightly. I am going to allow Mr. O'Laughlin to 20 proceed with his line of questioning with the understanding 21 to the Chair and Board Members that your purpose in doing 22 this is to establish whether or not Dr. Brown's expert 23 testimony was compromised in any way. 24 With that, please proceed with your questions, but 25 please be careful, Mr. O'Laughlin. I don't want to get off 4491 01 in a lengthy colloquy or dissertation on this subject area. 02 Please be crisp. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 04 In regards -- Dr. Brown, back to the question. Did you 05 receive changes back from your attorney in regards to the 06 testimony that you prepared for Exhibit Number 35? 07 DR. BROWN: As you might expect, Mr. O'Laughlin, there 08 were suggestions made from the client, who is, of course, 09 representing a particular party and hoping to make specific 10 arguments relative to their interests in the case. 11 However, the changes that were made subsequent to 12 receiving those suggestions were at my discretion, and so 13 the entire document represents my expert opinion in this 14 case on this issue. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In that regards, did your client or 16 your attorney write back and tell you to choose the water 17 years 1986, '87, '88 or 89 for your analysis? 18 DR. BROWN: No. As described in the testimony, these 19 were the four years readily available from reliable USGS 20 measurements at the three locations needed to do this 21 evaluation. And so those years were chosen by myself for 22 that reason. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards -- 1987 was a critically 24 dry year on the San Joaquin River index; is that correct? 25 DR. BROWN: That may be. I have lost track of the 4492 01 index in years at this point. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you -- is this a reason why you 03 didn't denote on your Exhibit 35 what the water year types 04 were for 1986, '87, '88 and '89? 05 DR. BROWN: Well, the main reason is I don't go for 06 year types as the basis for my analysis. Because even 07 within the year type classifications, the timing of when the 08 storms may have occurred are quite different. 09 So, in my view, the amount of water and the sequence in 10 which the water came down and the salt load that it carried 11 are the relevant factors and not the classification. It may 12 have been assigned to the unimpaired runoff coming into the 13 reservoir, of which very little is in the San Joaquin River. 14 And, therefore, the classification for the main stem San 15 Joaquin River is pretty much lost in that translation. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 1988 was a critically dry year; is 17 that correct, in the San Joaquin River Basin index? 18 DR. BROWN: I will take your word for it. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know? 20 DR. BROWN: Again, I just -- I am agreeing that most 21 likely it was a very dry year. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, looking at the Vernalis flow in 23 thousands of acre-feet, it appears to be abnormally low; 24 isn't that correct? 25 DR. BROWN: It was about a million acre-feet. That 4493 01 occurs quite often on the San Joaquin River. It is at the 02 low end of the range of flows at Vernalis. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you put any years in where there 04 was 2- or 3- or 4,000 acre-feet of flow -- million acre-feet 05 of flow at Vernalis on the San Joaquin River in your 06 analysis? 07 DR. BROWN: Yes. You can look at the table. In 1986 08 there was 5,000,000 acre-feet. In 1987 there was 09 approximately 2,000,000. Then we had two years each with 10 about a million. These four years cover a large fraction of 11 the range of conditions observed at Vernalis. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, we would all agree that they cover 13 a range of alternatives, but they probably do not depict a 14 normal; is that correct? 15 DR. BROWN: Right. As I have already described, having 16 a salt and water management that works on a normal year is 17 not that helpful because we are going to run into these dry 18 years. What we need to all agree on is a salt and 19 management strategy for the basin that will work in these 20 dry years since they continue to occur. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Looking at Table 1, which is 22 unfortunately not an overhead, 1988, the flow at Ripon in 23 thousands of acre-feet, 435; is that correct? 24 DR. BROWN: That's right. The actual flows measured at 25 Ripon were 435,000 acre-feet. 4494 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, if I understand your testimony 02 previously, that is all the water that is released from New 03 Melones plus any accretions from Goodwin to Ripon which show 04 up in that number; is that correct? 05 DR. BROWN: That is not quite right. Most of the flow 06 released from New Melones goes to the irrigation districts 07 that you represent. Of the water released to the river, it 08 is predominantly the source of the flow here at Ripon. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, whether it's drainage return, 10 surface water runoff, accretions from the river or releases 11 from New Melones Dam for downstream compliance, that is all 12 included within the 435? 13 DR. BROWN: That is right. That is the full measured 14 flow at Ripon. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Turning to Table Number 1, in 1988 16 Ripon flow for 1995 Water Quality Control Plan and the 17 number is 474,000 acre-feet; is that correct? 18 DR. BROWN: That's right. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, if I understand your testimony 20 correctly, then, is that you would need an additional 39,000 21 acre-feet of water from New Melones in 1988 to fully meet 22 all the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan requirements set 23 forth for Vernalis; is that correct? 24 DR. BROWN: That is right. If we are just looking at 25 annual volumes in addition to what historically was 4495 01 released, there would still be water needed, which 02 translates to mean sometime during that year the objectives 03 would not have been fully met. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have the same question, then, for 05 1989. It appears that the total flow for Ripon in thousands 06 of acre-feet was 449,000 acre-feet. Correct? 07 DR. BROWN: That's right. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The Ripon flow for 1995 Water Quality 09 Control Plan for 1989 was 465,000 acre-feet; is that correct? 10 DR. BROWN: That's right. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So then, in 1989 an additional 16,000 12 acre-feet of water would have had to come down the 13 Stanislaus River and arrive at Ripon, granted it would have 14 to meet a certain pattern, in order to meet all the 15 requirements of the Water Quality Control Plan; is that 16 correct? 17 DR. BROWN: To meet the Vernalis objectives of the 18 Water Quality Control Plan, that is right. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is much better stated, Dr. 20 Brown. 21 In regards to 1986, the flow at Ripon in 1986 was 22 967,000 acre-feet. That was a fairly wet year, I am 23 assuming. 24 DR. BROWN: I would assume so. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you done any comparison to how 4496 01 that would compare to 1998? 02 DR. BROWN: No. But they were order of magnitude, the 03 amount of flow might be similar. It was a very wet year. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you compared it to 1987? 05 DR. BROWN: That also was a wet year. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I am a little bit confused about how 07 we would look at this chart. 1988 and '89 were pretty easy 08 because it appears that there is a difference between the 09 two, and you can arrive at a number. I'm perplexed with 10 1986, though. It says there is 967,000 acre-feet of water 11 that came down at Ripon. Is it still that the additional 12 water needed for 1995 Water Quality Control Plan is 16,000 13 acre-feet over the 967? 14 DR. BROWN: No. It is that during 1986, because of the 15 high flows on the San Joaquin River itself, the water 16 quality at Maze was nearly itself in compliance with the 17 Vernalis. And only an additional 16,000 from the Stanislaus 18 would have been required to fully meet the Vernalis 19 objective. 20 It's safe to assume that since 967 came down during the 21 year, that the water quality was substantially below the 22 objectives at Vernalis during that year. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. That would be my understanding 24 as well. So if we had in 1997 water year, which would be 25 similar to 1986, we would gather from that that little or no 4497 01 water would be needed from New Melones -- additional water 02 would be needed from New Melones to meet the 1995 Water 03 Quality Control Plan? 04 DR. BROWN: I wouldn't want to jump to the 05 conclusions. Part of the purpose of putting up real 06 hydrology and the real water quality is to realize that what 07 may occur in a portion of the year, say the fall before the 08 nice heavy rains occur, may well have required some water 09 quality releases, even in a year which was subsequently 10 quite wet. And you would need to look in the same way that 11 I did for these years at each year of interest to determine 12 how much water was needed in each of those years to meet the 13 Vernalis objective with this practice of using Stanislaus 14 water. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you been participating in the 16 Stanislaus stakeholders process as an observer? 17 DR. BROWN: Yes. I have been to several of the 18 meetings of that group. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you understand what the flows in 20 the Stanislaus River are presently? 21 DR. BROWN: I have a general understanding of what they 22 are, yes. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you say that those flows that 24 are being released down the Stanislaus, as we stand here 25 today, are releases for water quality or are releases for 4498 01 flood control? 02 DR. BROWN: Well, my understanding is that there are 03 increased releases being made to evacuate the flood control 04 storage space. So we might assign the current releases to 05 flood control purpose. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: But they would also -- even if they 07 were assigned to flood control purposes, they would still 08 have the dual benefit of providing water quality benefits at 09 Vernalis; is that correct? 10 DR. BROWN: Well, I am suggesting that we really should 11 be looking at what the water quality is at Maze and ask the 12 question even today: Was any water needed from the 13 Stanislaus to provide compliance? And it may well be that 14 the Maze EC is already in compliance with the Vernalis. In 15 which case we can assign the entire release, perhaps, to a 16 combination now of fish purposes and flood control 17 purposes. 18 I am agreeing that separating out the release into 19 designated use categories is more difficult than what I did, 20 which was simply to determine how much water would have been 21 needed at a minimum to meet the water quality objectives 22 which are the subject of this phase. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you were given your assignment to 24 look at the current management practices, did you 25 incorporate the New Melones Interim Operation Plan into your 4499 01 analysis as you set forth in Exhibit 35? 02 DR. BROWN: No. This is simply looking at the historic 03 years as they occurred for the single am purpose of water 04 quality control. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you agree that the New Melones 06 Interim Operation Plan may have different flow requirements 07 on the Stanislaus River than what is set -- than what has 08 been set forth historically by the water years 1986 through 09 1989? 10 DR. BROWN: Yes. The flow requirements are quite 11 different. However, that does not change the amount of 12 water needed within those full set of flows for this water 13 quality purpose; that could still be calculated in the same 14 way. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to Figure Number 1, Exhibit 16 35, is there a -- it says for water years 1986 through 1989. 17 Did you try to plot those years on a calendar basis? I 18 notice you've got cfs on one axis and EC on another. Can we 19 tell if we picked any of these points what day of the year 20 it would be? 21 DR. BROWN: If I had my computer, I can tell you which 22 day each of those points are. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: As you sit here today, you cannot; is 24 that correct? 25 DR. BROWN: No, that is right. I don't remember them. 4500 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You stated earlier in your testimony 02 that it was your opinion that low summer flows were in high 03 EC in the Stanislaus River and was attributable to ag 04 drainage. 05 Do you remember that earlier this afternoon? 06 DR. BROWN: That is right. I am describing the general 07 shape of this curve, which at very low flows, has the 08 highest observed EC. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Why don't you define for me more 10 particularly what you mean by "low flow" on this graph, 11 Figure Number 1. 12 DR. BROWN: We will put that up. 13 From this diagram, which was simply -- we can call it a 14 scatter plot in my just general description -- you see that 15 for flows, let's say, of greater than 500 cfs, the EC is 16 generally between 50 and 100. And although there is this 17 loop that is high, generally it requires a low flow. So I 18 would define low flow of the flow at which point the EC 19 begins to deviate from this general hundred. 20 So in this data we would say that at flows less than 21 500 cfs, there is a good chance that the EC will be greater 22 than a hundred. But it only gets up to 175. Remember, in 23 comparisons to the values, the objective at Vernalis, which 24 is either 700 or 1,000, all of this water is of excellent 25 quality, including these low flows that do have a slightly 4501 01 higher salinity. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to focus more particularly on 03 the nexus that you draw between ag drainage and elevated ECs 04 in the Stanislaus River. 05 What information do you have that ag drainage is 06 causing the elevated ECs in the Stanislaus River when flows 07 are less than 500 cfs? 08 DR. BROWN: I don't have any specific information. 09 That is just a reasonable, possible source of those elevated 10 ECs, slightly elevated EC. There is, of course, ag drainage 11 occurring continuously from the irrigated acreage within the 12 Stanislaus River. This does get to the river at some point. 13 It is likely showing up during these low flow periods as a 14 slightly elevated EC. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you tell me in 1988 what the flow 16 releases down below Goodwin were in the months of September, 17 October and November? 18 DR. BROWN: Yes. That is on Diagram 3. Do you want to 19 see those again? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I can't tell. The only reason I asked 21 the question is it goes from 0. It is very difficult to 22 tell how much water is flowing down the river. 23 DR. BROWN: It is. Those got lost. 24 What were the months that you asked for specifically? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's just go October and November 4502 01 since that is on the left-hand side, flow. 02 DR. BROWN: This perhaps is the hardest of the symbols 03 to detect on your black and white, or even on this color. 04 These open triangles are the recorded flow at Ripon. So 05 it is just roughly 200 cfs most of the fall. There is a 300 06 during the month of November, it looks like pretty much. 07 Then the flows climb dramatically during March from 08 approximately 200 or up to, perhaps, 1250 cfs for a month. 09 Then come back and fluctuate, but generally follow my 10 calculated requirement and indicate that, indeed, the 11 operations during '88 were largely to comply with the 12 Vernalis objective. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well let's focus in -- it's kind of 14 hard to pick out these on Figure Number 1 the Ripon daily 15 EC. But going with what you testified to that, when the 16 flows are less than 500 cfs, the elevated TDS seemed to be 17 applicable to ag drainage. 18 Can you tell me what ag drainage you are aware of 19 occurring out of either Oakdale or South San Joaquin 20 Irrigation Districts in the months of October, November, 21 December, January or February of 1988? 22 DR. BROWN: Well, as you must be aware, the ag drainage 23 coming off the east side does not come out of specific 24 drainage ditches most of the time, but it is sort of 25 transported through the shallow groundwater to the river. 4503 01 And I don't have the specific information on the time 02 delays, but just, in general, we are allowing that that 03 could occur. 04 I am not stating that the low flow ECs were caused by 05 agricultural drainage. I do not have that specific 06 information. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If a different EC was ultimately 08 adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board or the 09 Regional Water Quality Control Board that raised the EC 10 requirement, would less water be required from New Melones? 11 DR. BROWN: Yes. The amount of water required to meet 12 the objective is definitely changed if that standard or 13 objective is raised or lowered. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What was the -- what was the New 15 Melones -- let me rephrase that. 16 What was the preproject estimation of the yield from 17 the New Melones project? 18 DR. BROWN: I don't know. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know what water years that was 20 based on, the preproject estimate of yield for New Melones? 21 DR. BROWN: No, I do not. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know since New Melones has been 23 built if there has been a post project yield developed for 24 New Melones? 25 DR. BROWN: I don't know that either. 4504 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is there a gauge, a Stevenson gauge, 02 to measure water quality on the San Joaquin River? Is there 03 a Stevenson gauge? 04 DR. BROWN: There is a gauge location at Stevenson. 05 And help me out, is that a little upstream of Merced? 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: One of my questions is: Is there a 07 reason why you didn't try to incorporate the Tuolumne or 08 Merced Rivers into your analysis of what water quality looks 09 like coming down the river at the various locations on those 10 rivers and in the San Joaquin River? 11 DR. BROWN: I don't -- I am only -- 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let me rephrase that. 13 Why did you limit your testimony only to look at water 14 impacts at New Melones? 15 DR. BROWN: Because under our current salt management 16 that is the facility that provides this dilution water. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: As you sit here today, you are not 18 advocating that the Tuolumne or Merced Rivers release more 19 water for water quality, are you? 20 DR. BROWN: No. I am not testifying what any of the 21 upstream either water sources or salt discharges should do 22 beyond these general recommendations that the whole basin 23 should be brought into balance and not just the compliance 24 location at Vernalis be used. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you worked with the City of 4505 01 Stockton on its filing for an application to appropriate 02 water from the San Joaquin River? 03 DR. BROWN: No. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you aware of the contractual 05 arrangements between th City of Stockton and Stockton East 06 Water District to receive water from the New Melones Project? 07 DR. BROWN: Just in general, yes. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you familiar with STANMOD? 09 DR. BROWN: Yes, I am. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you run STANMOD previously? 11 DR. BROWN: Yes, I have. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Isn't it true that the values and 13 numbers you get for the water requirements coming out of New 14 Melones can also be generated by STANMOD? 15 DR. BROWN: STANMOD will generate monthly estimates of 16 the water that might be required for dilution. 17 However, the problem with using a monthly model like 18 that is that it is assuming a constant, fixed relationship 19 between the flow and salinity at Maze. 20 I guess we need to put up Figure 2, if you would 21 please. STANMOD does not actually know what the Maze EC or 22 flow will be in any given month. It estimates the flow 23 based on upstream uses and unimpaired flows and reservoir 24 operations. Here arises the problem. At a flow of, say, 25 2,000 cfs at Maze, the real measurements indicate that the 4506 01 EC might be as low as 500, in which case no dilution water 02 would be needed; or it might be as high as 1200 or a little 03 above a thousand, in which some dilution water would be 04 needed. Any monthly models will just put a single curve 05 through this actual scatter of salinity, and give as a 06 result very optimistic, that is, quite low estimates of 07 dilution water actually needed to meet the 30-day moving 08 average on an actual operating basis. 09 But you're right, the STANMOD does have estimates, and 10 I testified that these are quite low compared to the numbers 11 that I have come up with using real daily measurements. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you try to compare, and I don't 13 see it in Exhibit 35, maybe you have it someplace else, the 14 actual STANMOD numbers and what your numbers were? 15 DR. BROWN: No, I didn't do that comparison. 16 STANMOD is stacking the water requirements sequentially 17 so it would take fish flows and not count that as a part of 18 its water quality release. So the specific water quality 19 release coming out that have monthly models, it needs to be 20 the full release. It would be hard, but you could do a 21 comparison, and I would guess the STANMOD would estimate 22 much lower requirements for salinity control. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if STANMOD was used in the 24 modeling done for the Draft EIR for this process? 25 DR. BROWN: I have lost where it might have fit into 4507 01 the loop. I don't think it was used, no. Because the 02 DWRSIM model includes the Stanislaus Basin and has its own 03 algorithms and gives a set of slightly different estimates 04 for the dilutions. 05 And the SJRIO, which is a monthly model that the 06 Regional Board has developed, it has a third set of 07 estimates of what might be required on a monthly basis. 08 What I wanted to try to get us back to was the reality 09 of day-to-day operations with real measurements, and that is 10 what my testimony presents. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Just two real quick ones. When you 12 were talking about -- and I am a little bit confused about 13 this. When you were talking about Crows Landing in the 14 concentrations that you'd see at Crows Landing of about 15 2,000 ppm TDS, I think it was. 16 DR. BROWN: Yes. And that is just sort of off my 17 head. Remembering looking at that data. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that something we'd see every day, 19 pretty much on average, or is that on the high end or low 20 end? Where does -- is that an abnormal occurrence or pretty 21 normal? 22 DR. BROWN: I don't know. We really need to look at 23 the real measurements from Crows Landing and then agree on 24 what they tell us. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. 4508 01 Thank you, Members of the Board. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 03 Any questions from the staff? 04 MR. HOWARD: No. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Howard. 06 Anything from the Board members? 07 Mr. Brown. 08 ---oOo-- 09 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD 11 MEMBER BROWN: The east side growers, are you familiar 12 with how they manage their salts in the soil profile? 13 DR. BROWN: Not very specifically. So, just a general 14 understanding. 15 MEMBER BROWN: What is that? 16 DR. BROWN: Well, my general understanding is that they 17 are applying sufficient water in addition to the crop 18 evapotranspiration to provide a fairly high leaching 19 fraction, some of which may end up in ditches. Although 20 drainage ditches are not as common on the east side as on 21 the west side. The more common is for that water to make 22 its way into the shallow groundwater and either actually go 23 down back into their groundwater or some of it makes its way 24 out to the river. 25 MEMBER BROWN: Is the soil more permeable, would you 4509 01 say, on the east side than on the west side? 02 DR. BROWN: I don't have specific knowledge of that. 03 MEMBER BROWN: Are you familiar what calcium carbonate? 04 DR. BROWN: Yes. 05 MEMBER BROWN: The problems with impermeability 06 associated with it? 07 DR. BROWN: Yes. 08 MEMBER BROWN: The traditional way the growers normally 09 manage their salts is by leaching, did I hear you say? 10 DR. BROWN: That is my understanding. So on the east 11 side that would be the practice. 12 MEMBER BROWN: On the west side, do they leach on the 13 west side? 14 DR. BROWN: On the west side, especially in certain 15 lands that I am not able to give you the map of, because of 16 this impermeable problem, then there is the presence of the 17 shallow groundwater immediately below the root zone. And 18 for that situation, the application of this additional water 19 that might be the standard practice on the east side, is 20 problematic in that it provides too much shallow groundwater 21 that interferes with cropping. So that is an additional 22 constraint on some of the lands at least on the west side. 23 MEMBER BROWN: This backs into the question that, I 24 think, Mr. Minasian asked you relative to the conservation 25 in water quality. And if I understood that right, that you 4510 01 indicated that conservation practices could worsen the water 02 quality? 03 DR. BROWN: Yes. I did mention that in the case where 04 there is this perched groundwater or shallow groundwater, 05 the practice has been to try to reduce the applied water and 06 make it as efficient as possible so that very little 07 additional water makes its way into that groundwater. 08 However, because the same salt load from the applied 09 irrigation water is being carried by this very small 10 leaching fraction, the concentration coming out of the tile 11 drains, for example, is very high, and on purpose; and it is 12 a consequence of not being able to provide very much 13 leaching water in these particular soil areas. 14 MEMBER BROWN: The growers over in the Panoche and 15 Broadview area, converting to sprinkler systems 16 considerably, considerable number of them, and the sprinkler 17 system as opposed to furrow irrigation, does that improve 18 the irrigation efficiency? 19 DR. BROWN: It is my understanding that that does 20 improve the irrigation efficiency. 21 MEMBER BROWN: If you improve the irrigation efficiency 22 and the evapotranspiration remains the same and the 23 evaporation rate remains the same, then there is less water 24 to go through the soil profile? 25 DR. BROWN: That is right. 4511 01 MEMBER BROWN: If you have less water going through the 02 soil profile, would you have the ability to export, then, 03 less salts? 04 DR. BROWN: Not in my understanding. Well, there would 05 be slightly less load. Maybe we'll try some numbers. Say 06 that their irrigation efficiency goes up by 10 percent, so 07 they only have to apply 90 units where they have been 08 applying a hundred. You would have 10 percent less salt 09 load to deal with. 10 But what could occur is that 10 percent less applied 11 water results in, let's say, 5 percent of the applied water 12 less drainage. Maybe the drainage was 15 percent of the 13 water, and now it is reduced to 10 percent. In which case 14 that reduction in the drainage flow requires that the 15 salinity concentration to go up considerably. I am just 16 trying to establish the basic idea that there is a balance 17 even on the field between how much is applied, the salt load 18 that needs to be draining off and the drainage flow that is 19 accompanying that drainage. I am suggesting that even up at 20 the field level, that that balance between salt and water be 21 considered in our management of the basin. 22 MEMBER BROWN: If you convert from a furrow system to a 23 sprinkler system, then the overapplication at the upper end 24 of the field is reduced; is that correct? 25 DR. BROWN: That is right. 4512 01 MEMBER BROWN: Then the need at the upper -- the need 02 for tile drainage would be reduced with those conversions; 03 is that correct? 04 DR. BROWN: It might be. We probably need to know more 05 specifically about the field. That could be a benefit of 06 the conversion. 07 MEMBER BROWN: The concentration of salts could go up, 08 but the total quantity of salts put in the San Joaquin would 09 go down? 10 DR. BROWN: I'm agreeing that that's right. 11 MEMBER BROWN: I wasn't sure I heard that. 12 I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 14 Anything else from any of the other Board Members? 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: I will ask the question that I was 18 sure Mr. Brown was going to ask. That has to do with the 19 tie between the recirculation alternative and the salinity 20 problems that you briefly touched on. 21 DR. BROWN: You would like me to just describe that a 22 little better? 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Assumed a Board Member asked you a 24 question. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: As a matter of fact, last time I 4513 01 checked, a Board member just did. 02 DR. BROWN: The recirculation idea, as was examined as 03 one of the alternatives in the draft and as generally can be 04 described, is the idea that during periods when the salt 05 discharge is high, but the river flows are low, relative to 06 that loading that is needed to be applied, the possibility 07 is that you could pump more from the Delta, put it down -- I 08 was saying pipe it to the drainage location, maybe using 09 some of the existing Newman Wasteway or other conveyances 10 between the DMC and the San Joaquin River. In that regard 11 you would be establishing that balance between the salt load 12 and the flow with this additional pumping that we are 13 calling recirculation of the San Joaquin water. So, I think 14 that is a very promising management technique for this 15 interim where we are stuck for however long this may be 16 without a drain, which as engineers, is the way to 17 ultimately solve it. 18 Thinking of recycling, thinking of matching the 19 grasslands to the drainage discharge, as was mentioned 20 underway or one of the things considered, all of these are 21 on a common theme of considering not only the salt load but 22 also the salt concentration which implies how much water is 23 being conveyed with the salt. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are you going to be providing 25 testimony on alternative six in that regard? 4514 01 DR. BROWN: Not that I am aware of. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: Have you done any numeric calculations 03 on how the recirculation alternative would work? 04 DR. BROWN: Not beyond reviewing what was done for the 05 EIR. 06 C.O.STUBCHAER: Thank you. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown, you had another question? 08 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. I knew there was another question 09 there, Mr. Chairman. 10 I thought I heard you say that salt in Mud Slough was 11 running about 4,000 parts per million TDS? 12 DR. BROWN: Yes. That is my understanding of what 13 those run. One is less than the other. We try to combine 14 them. And with the bypass project, the predominant load 15 used to come from Salt Slough and now it is going to come 16 out of Mud Slough. Thinking of them combined, with an 17 average concentration of around 4,000. 18 MEMBER BROWN: Does grasslands drain into those two 19 sloughs? 20 DR. BROWN: There may be some points of connection 21 between the grasslands and the slough and also other points 22 of connection between Grasslands and the San Joaquin between 23 the two, and I do not have specific knowledge of all of 24 those discharge locations. 25 MEMBER BROWN: The upstream water districts that drain 4515 01 into Salt and Mud Slough, are they putting tile water and 02 tailwater, one or both, in the drain water? 03 DR. BROWN: That is my understanding, that it is a 04 combination of some tile drain pumped out and some 05 tailwaters and at times those streams in the area even run, 06 as they have in the last two years, and all three of those 07 water sources are commingled in these discharges. 08 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. 09 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 11 That completes the Board Members questioning. 12 Do you have any redirect to offer from this? 13 MS. CAHILL: Just one question. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, Ms. Cahill. 15 ---oOo-- 16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CITY OF STOCKTON 17 BY MS. CAHILL 18 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Brown, Ms. Thomas asked you whether 19 one of the purposes of New Melones was to mitigate the 20 impacts of the Friant Project. 21 Do you, in fact, know whether that is or isn't a New 22 Melones purpose? 23 DR. BROWN: I do not know specifically. 24 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 4516 01 By a showing of hands, do any of the other parties wish 02 to recross this witness in that very narrow area? 03 All right. Thank you very much. 04 We are near the completion of this case in chief with 05 the exception of offering of exhibits. 06 Ms. Cahill and Mr. Simmons, do you wish to offer your 07 exhibits? 08 MR. SIMMONS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I could I will 09 just go ahead and offer all of the Stockton Phase V 10 exhibits. I think I will refer to them by number because 11 there are some 50 of them. Rather than give the name of 12 each one, I will give the numbers. 13 And this updated list of exhibits, I think, was 14 provided to the Board and served on all the parties on 15 September 25th or 28th. So that is the list I am referring 16 to. 17 We would offer Stockton Exhibits 10 through 31, 32-A 18 through 32-H, 33 through 43, 43-A and 43-B, 44-A and 44-B, 19 45-A through 45-C, 46, 47-A through 47-C, 48 through 55 and 20 56-A and 56-B. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 22 Does that work for you? 23 MS. WHITNEY: That agrees with what I have. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 25 Is there any objection to receiving into the record the 4517 01 exhibits iterated by Mr. Simmons? 02 Seeing and hearing no objection, they are accepted into 03 the record. 04 Ms. Cahill. 05 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Simmons covered all of them. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Then unless I have missed 07 anything, that completes the case in chief for the City of 08 Stockton. 09 We are going to stop here today and resume tomorrow 10 morning at 9:00 in this room with the case in chief for 11 Trinity County. Can somebody remind me who the attorney is 12 for Trinity County? 13 MR. JACKSON: Michael Jackson appearing specially for 14 Trinity County for the purpose of the hearing tomorrow. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Jackson, we will see you tomorrow at 16 9:00. 17 Thanks to all. Back in this room at 9:00 a.m. 18 (Hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m.) 19 ---oOo--- 20 (NO PAGES FROM PAGE 4519 THROUGH PAGE 4546.) 21 22 23 24 25 4518 01 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 02 03 04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 04 ) ss. 05 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 05 06 06 07 08 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 09 official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 10 and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand 11 writing those proceedings; 12 That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be 13 reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 4337 through 14 4516 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 25th day of October 1998. 19 20 21 22 22 23 ______________________________ 23 ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 24 25