4757 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 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1998 22 9:00 A.M. 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 4758 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 4759 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 4760 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 4761 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 4762 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 4763 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 4764 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 4765 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 4766 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 4767 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 4768 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 4769 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 4770 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 4771 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 4772 01 INDEX 01 02 PAGE 02 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 4773 03 03 AFTERNOON SESSION 4855 04 04 STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 05 OPENING STATEMENT 05 BY JEANNE ZOLEZZI 4774 06 PANEL: 06 RUDY SCHNAGL 07 LES GROBER 07 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 08 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 4778 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 09 BY MS. CAHILL 4856 09 BY MR. SEXTON 4871 10 BY MR. HERRICK 4887 10 11 ---oOo--- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4773 01 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 02 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning. Welcome. 05 This is the continuation of the Delta water rights 06 proceedings. When we completed yesterday, we had a bit of a 07 rearrangement of the schedule, and we agreed to it, and just 08 by way of reiteration, our understanding is that we will 09 hear part of Stockton East Water District case in chief 10 today and then Tuesday morning we will resume with the 11 cross-examination of Mr. Jackson's witnesses. 12 Then the remaining cases in chief will be in the 13 following order: Department of the Interior, San Luis and 14 Delta-Mendota Authority Water Authority and then resumption 15 of the completion of the Stockton East Water District case 16 in chief, then San Joaquin River Group Authority and then 17 San Joaquin County. That is our understanding. 18 Tell us now if it is not yours. Looks like everybody 19 is in agreement. With that, we can begin the Stockton East 20 Water District case. 21 Good morning, Ms. Zolezzi and Ms. Harrigfeld. 22 MS. ZOLEZZI: Good morning. I have a brief opening 23 statement. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: If I may ask, by way of interrupting you 25 already, have your witnesses been sworn in 4774 01 MS. ZOLEZZI: No, these two have not. 02 (Oath administered by C.O. Caffrey.) 03 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 04 ---oOo-- 05 STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 06 BY MS. ZOLEZZI 07 MS. ZOLEZZI: Jeanne Zolezzi representing the Stockton 08 East Water District, and I am accompanied today by 09 cocounsel, Karna Harrigfeld. 10 The purpose of Phase V is to receive testimony and 11 other evidence regarding the assignment of responsibility 12 among water right holders to implement the dissolved oxygen 13 and Southern Delta salinity standard. We are going to focus 14 on the Southern Delta salinity standard this morning. 15 One of the key issues identified by the Board is how 16 should the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR in 17 Chapter 8 for implementing those objectives be modified to 18 meet the five criteria that is set forth by the Board, that 19 they meet the reasonableness requirement of the 20 Constitution, that they're feasible, that they protect water 21 rights, fish and wildlife and public trust, that they meet 22 the county of origin and watershed origin statutory 23 provision and that they meet all other applicable provisions 24 of law. 25 And it is our position that with regard to the Southern 4775 01 Delta salinity standards, the alternative in the Draft EIR 02 is insufficient. The evaluation is of at least eight 03 alternatives that could be pursued in the EIR. But, in 04 essence, the Draft EIR boils those down to only one and 05 rejects most of them. 06 The only one considered in three different variations 07 is could the timing of the drainage be controlled in order 08 to reduce dilution water requirements from New Melones 09 Reservoir. And this alternative assumes that the continued 10 discharge of drainage and assumes the continuation of 11 dilution flows from New Melones. And we think that CEQA 12 requires more than this. 13 It requires a reasonable range of alternatives and, 14 particularly, it requires more than an analysis of one 15 alternative, which we do not believe is legal, and certainly 16 doesn't meet the five criteria set forth by the Board 17 itself. 18 The first criteria is meeting the reasonableness 19 requirements of the Constitution. And it is our position 20 that it is not reasonable to use water available for 21 consumptive use to dilute pollution in the San Joaquin 22 River. 23 The second criteria is feasibility. And clearly, as is 24 shown by the Board itself in its analysis of the eight 25 alternatives that were rejected, there are other feasible 4776 01 alternatives. We believe that there are other feasible 02 alternatives that weren't looked at, such as any one 03 alternative that would not require the continued release of 04 dilution from New Melones. 05 The third criteria is that the alternative 06 appropriately protects water rights, fish and wildlife and 07 public trust, and continued of New Melones water to dilute 08 pollution does not appropriately protect water rights or 09 public trust uses. 10 In our opinion, one must invoke the rule of reason, the 11 rule of equity, that those who have created the problem 12 should fix it and not pass that burden on to others. 13 Finally, the criteria that it means the county of 14 origin and watershed origin statute provisions, without a 15 doubt, the alternative set forth does not meet the watershed 16 of origin statutory provision and other provisions of the 17 Clean Water Act that prohibit the continued dilution of 18 pollution. 19 So we will attempt to show this this morning through 20 our various witnesses and, hopefully, we will get through 21 everything today. But if we don't, as mentioned, we will be 22 back with our other panels. We will show that the burden of 23 meeting the Southern Delta salinity standard was placed on 24 New Melones Reservoir initially based on the presumption 25 that it could be done with a limited amount of water and 4777 01 without interfering with other allocated uses of the water 02 supply. We'll show the conditions have changed 03 substantially and significantly and that extraordinary 04 amounts of water are required to be released from New 05 Melones in order to dilute pollution. 06 We will show that the regulatory agencies in charge, 07 both the Regional Board and this Board, can do something to 08 eliminate or reduce the discharge. And we will show that to 09 the extent that the discharges are allowed to continue, it 10 is feasible to provide dilution flows from other sources and 11 particularly from sources directly responsible for creating 12 the salinity problem. 13 And, finally, ask you to remove the burden of meeting 14 the South Delta salinity standards from New Melones 15 Reservoir and to take action to reduce the need for dilution 16 flows. 17 With that, I will turn it over to Ms. Harrigfeld who 18 will elicit testimony from the first panel of witnesses. 19 And I would just remind the Board that these are not our 20 witnesses. So they weren't able to provide written 21 statements. The testimony will be directly from questions. 22 Thank you. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me remind the witnesses, I know Ms. 24 Harrigfeld and Ms. Zolezzi know this, while they are very 25 diligent, I want to let the witnesses know if they haven't 4778 01 been to this hearing, participated in this proceeding 02 earlier, that we have a 20-minute limitation for each 03 witness on direct, and that includes any form of direct 04 testimony that involves questioning. The reason for that is 05 because the direct testimony is a -- 06 Well, maybe -- does that not apply in this situation? 07 It doesn't. It finally dawned on me. Sorry. 08 All right. I do have a new battery, but maybe the 09 comment that was made the other day was appropriate. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: We will try to keep it short. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: The car battery is okay. 12 This is an interesting way to get around the 20 13 minutes. All right. 14 All right. Good Morning, Ms. Harrigfeld. 15 ---oOo-- 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 17 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Members of the Board, once again, my 19 name is Karna Harrigfeld appearing for Stockton East Water 20 District. 21 Our first panel this morning are two representatives 22 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I am going 23 to walk through a series of questions with both of those 24 witnesses. They may provide kind of a tag team. We will 25 introduce and get their statement of qualifications on board 4779 01 right away. 02 I will start with you, Mr. Grober. Could you please 03 state your full name for the record. 04 MR. GROBER: Leslie Franklin Grober. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: What is your current position and 06 title at the Regional Board? 07 MR. GROBER: Associate land and water use analyst. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you briefly describe for us 09 your educational background and experience. 10 MR. GROBER: I have a Bachelor of Science degree from 11 State University, City of Birmingham, a BS degree in 12 geology. I have a Master of Science degree from U.C. Davis 13 in hydrologic science. I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in 14 hydrologic science from U.C. Davis. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: How long have you been with the 16 Regional Board? 17 MR. GROBER: I have been with the Regional Board for 18 four, five years. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: How long have you been looking at 20 salinity issues in the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. GROBER: I have been looking at salinity issues on 22 the San Joaquin River for about ten years. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you, Mr. Grober. 24 Mr. Schnagl: Mr. Schnagl, could you please state your 25 full name. 4780 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Rudy James Schnagl. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: What is your current occupation and 03 title at the Regional Board? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I am a senior land and water use analyst, 05 chief of the agricultural regulatory and planning unit. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you please describe your 07 educational background and some of your experience. 08 MR. SCHNAGL: I have a Bachelor of Science degree from 09 the University of California, Davis, in soil and water 10 science, a Master of Science degree from the University of 11 California at Davis in water science. 12 I have been with the Regional Board since 1977, working 13 at the Colorado River Basin Regional Board for four years 14 before transferring to the Central Valley Board here in 15 Sacramento in 1981. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: How many years have you been involved 17 with the salinity issues on the San Joaquin? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: I was involved in '84, '85 when the 19 program was just getting started and went into a different 20 unit for a number of years and returned in 1995. So, about 21 three years since returning to the program. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober, I am going to start with 23 you. Could you please briefly describe the special 24 hydrogeology of the San Joaquin Valley that contributes to 25 the salt problem? 4781 01 MR. GROBER: It is an arid basin with soils derived 02 from the coast range which are rocks of marine origin. A 03 lot of those saline soils, have rocks in the soils that 04 then, given the arid environment with the application of 05 water, leaches some of those naturally occurring salts and 06 can be discharged at the San Joaquin River, that in 07 conjunction with times reduction in flows in the San Joaquin 08 River. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: When did the salinity problem begin in 10 the basin? 11 MR. GROBER: That is an open-ended question. You can 12 look at it from a geological perspective in terms of you 13 have the naturally occurring rocks and soils. But with the 14 advent of irrigated agriculture, salinity problems were 15 exacerbated. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: The salinity problem, therefore, 17 existed pre-San Luis unit? 18 MR. GROBER: To some extent. As soon as you apply 19 water to some of these more saline soils, you will have 20 leaching of some salt. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: How did -- historically, how did water 22 users within the San Joaquin River Basin plan to address the 23 drainage problem? 24 MR. GROBER: I am sorry, I don't know if I am in a 25 position to say broadly how that was -- really, you're 4782 01 talking about all entities? Could you rephrase the 02 question? 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. 04 From a historical perspective, I think you testified 05 that the geology and the nature of the basin, people who 06 were applying water realized that there was a salt problem 07 created from the drainage return flows. 08 Did they plan to install tile drains or how did they 09 envision that the drainage problem would be solved from a 10 kind of historical perspective? 11 MR. GROBER: Historical perspective. As you say, 12 through installation of tile drains, management practices 13 that would reduce the leaching of salts and removal of 14 salts. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you explain for us a little bit 16 how the problem intensified after the San Luis unit was 17 built and the importation of the DMC water? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to the question 19 on the grounds it is vague and ambiguous. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me apologize. I didn't hear the 21 question because I was conferring momentarily with Mr. 22 Stubchaer who is now passing that commentary on to Ms. 23 Leidigh. So, could someone repeat the question? 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just wanted Mr. Grober to explain 25 how the problem of salts has intensified with the 4783 01 importation of water through the DMC. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Birmingham. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I don't believe that was the question. 04 If I may, I would like to ask the Court Reporter to read 05 back the question that was actually asked. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Or perhaps as a time saving alternative 07 we could ask Ms. Harrigfeld to try another question. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Her question related to the 09 exacerbation of the drainage problem resulting from 10 construction of the San Luis unit and the importation of 11 water via the DMC. The San Luis unit and the DMC serve 12 different areas. And to the extent the question related to 13 the DMC and San Luis Unit, it is vague and ambiguous. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Was that in your estimation, Ms. 15 Harrigfeld, was Mr. Birmingham's characterization of your 16 question a fair one? 17 You seem to be nodding in the affirmative. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is correct. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you clarify your question, perhaps 20 divide it into two questions? 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is not a problem at all. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Did the salt problem in the San 24 Joaquin Valley intensify after construction of San Luis unit? 25 MR. GROBER: The San Luis unit? 4784 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 02 MR. GROBER: In general, as far as there was greater 03 importation of water and salt into the Valley, there was 04 increasing salt load. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: How about after the deliveries began 06 through the Delta-Mendota Canal? 07 MR. GROBER: Also just as a function of increasing 08 imports, there would be associated salts with those imports 09 and increasing salt load. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: When water is applied that has been 11 imported from the Delta-Mendota Canal onto ag land, where do 12 the salts go? 13 MR. GROBER: That is, of course, a complicated 14 question. There is both immediate processes and longer-term 15 processes. In general, you can have some tailwater returns 16 from any water that is applied. They can directly flow 17 into, for example, the San Joaquin River, or you can have an 18 accumulation of salts in shallow or deeper water groundwater 19 or in the soils. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you conclude that the salt 21 problem has gotten worse over time? 22 MR. GROBER: That's a fairly broad question when you 23 say "salt problem." 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: From the '60s forward. 25 MR. GROBER: I would say that -- when you say "salt 4785 01 problem," in what area? 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: The west side of the valley. 03 MR. GROBER: In the west side in the soils or in the 04 river? 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the soils, groundwater, drainage, 06 return flow. 07 MR. GROBER: I don't know if I could answer what has 08 been happening in the soils to any great extent, but in 09 general in the San Joaquin River I think there's generally 10 been a slight increase in salt load and concentrations in 11 the San Joaquin. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could we have overhead Number 1. 13 This is Stockton East Water District Exhibit Number 28, 14 which is an excerpt from the State Water Resources Control 15 Board Exhibit 1-A, which is the Draft EIR. This is a table 16 that the State Board prepared using information that you 17 provided to them. 18 Could you briefly explain to us this table. 19 MR. GROBER: This is just looking at the mean annual 20 load for the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, based on 21 historical data. And looking at the mean for the three 22 decades that are shown there, for the '60s, '70s and '80s. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: How much has the salt load increased 24 over time? 25 MR. GROBER: As this table indicates, you can see an 4786 01 increase in each of the decades. But I would qualify it 02 that you have to take into account some of the hydrology for 03 the years in each of these decades. That the '80s includes 04 some extremely wet years which, of course, increases some of 05 the salt loading. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Have salt concentrations shown a 07 similar increase? 08 MR. GROBER: Yes. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Can you explain to us real briefly 10 what the difference between salt load and any salt 11 concentration is. 12 MR. GROBER: Salt load is simply quantification of the 13 total mass of salt in a volume of water compared to 14 concentration which is a quantity of salt per unit of water, 15 so that you they don't necessarily coincide. You can have a 16 high load in water at a low concentration or you can have 17 low loads in water at high concentration, relatively lower 18 loads if it is a concentrated source, but just a very low 19 volume of water. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: What factors do you think have 21 contributed to increase in salt concentrations in salt load 22 in the San Joaquin Valley? 23 MR. GROBER: In the San Joaquin River? 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the San Joaquin River. 25 MR. GROBER: In the San Joaquin River, in general, that 4787 01 has been increasing salt load for a variety of sources and 02 in general decreasing dilution flows. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: When deliveries of water were 04 initiated to the San Luis unit, how did state and federal 05 agencies plan to deal with the drainage problem? 06 MR. GROBER: I don't know if I am the best person to 07 speculate on what all state and federal agencies planned to 08 do. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Was it your understanding that the 10 Regional Board was under the impression that the 11 out-of-valley drain would be built, a San Luis interceptor 12 or out-of-valley drain? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: The Regional Board anticipated the a 15 drain would be built? 16 MR. GROBER: I don't know -- I wouldn't want to 17 speculate on what the Regional Board anticipated, but it was 18 their understanding that that was a possible scenario. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has the out-of-valley drain been 20 built? 21 MR. GROBER: No. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has the lack of the out-of-valley 23 drain impacted the salt problem in the San Joaquin River? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would have to object to the 25 question. It lacks foundation. I think before the witness 4788 01 can answer the question, Ms. Harrigfeld needs to ask him a 02 series of questions concerning size of the drain, what lands 03 are going to be served by the drain, whether or not those 04 lands drain into the San Joaquin River. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I think I would agree with that a little 06 bit, some foundation, to develop that question is 07 appropriate. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the concept of 09 the San Luis drain? 10 MR. GROBER: General concept, yes. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you aware of the volume that was 12 anticipated to be taken out of -- the volume of water taken 13 out of, through the drain? 14 MR. GROBER: No. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with what areas would 16 be served by the San Luis drain which in particular -- we 17 can put a map up if you would like. 18 MR. GROBER: I could estimate some areas. I couldn't 19 delineate all areas that would be served, no, by the drain. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: You could show us some areas. 21 Jeanne, could you put up G-3. This Stockton East Water 22 District Exhibit Number 29, which exhibit is taken from the 23 State Water Resources Control Board's Draft EIR, this is 24 Figure 8-3, the drainage problem area, including extending 25 the tile drain area in the San Joaquin River Basin. 4789 01 Could you briefly highlight -- 02 MR. GROBER: Again, I don't know the specific areas 03 since that is not something in terms of drain designs I 04 would be involved with. But it would be the areas south of 05 Merced in the San Joaquin Basin, southern basin. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: In your professional opinion, do you 07 believe that the lack of construction of a drain to take the 08 salt out of the San Joaquin Valley has increased the salt 09 problem with the San Joaquin River? 10 MR. GROBER: In general terms, that would depend on 11 what areas are drained. But just in general terms, in terms 12 of salt import/export, yes. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with any other 14 alternative that the Federal government has proposed in 15 light of the fact that the out-of-valley drain has not been 16 built? Are you familiar with the Federal government's 17 providing alternative solutions? 18 MR. GROBER: For example, what is commonly known as the 19 Rainbow Report, things such as source control, recycling, 20 land retirement, or other methods. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could we have Exhibit 2. This is 22 Stockton East Water District Number 7, which is the lower 23 San Joaquin River salt load by zone. 24 Is this the most current version of the chart? 25 MR. GROBER: No, it is not. 4790 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you put up -- 02 Could you explain the difference between the first one 03 and second one? 04 MR. GROBER: There was a change -- 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Could I object on the grounds that the 06 question is vague and ambiguous. I don't know what is meant 07 by "the first one and second one." 08 C.O. CAFFREY: If you could give us a little more 09 description, just for the written record. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly, not a problem. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize but our PA, mike system, 12 whatever you call it here, is less than stellar. So I am 13 not sure if everybody can hear your questions. If you could 14 maybe turn, if you could bring the cord around the side. 15 There, that helps. That will keep it. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Jeanne, is the first two up? 18 MS. ZOLEZZI: II-A. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: The first one that we are putting up 20 is Stockton East Water District Exhibit Number 7. In this 21 there is a depiction on the bottom of a pie chart which 22 shows --- 23 You prepared this, so could you explain for everyone 24 here what this chart shows, specifically the pie chart. 25 MR. GROBER: Specifically the pie chart is showing a 4791 01 summary of the information contained above, that that is the 02 mean annual salt loading by geographic area for a variety of 03 sources, looking at six zones in the San Joaquin River. 04 The first zone which is the San Joaquin River upstream 05 of the Grassland Watershed upstream of Mud and Salt Slough. 06 Zone 2 Grassland Watershed, Mud and Salt Slough. 07 Zone 3 is the northwest side of the San Joaquin River 08 downstream of the Grassland Watershed on the west side of 09 the San Joaquin River. 10 Zones 4, 5 and 6 are the Merced, Tuolumne and 11 Stanislaus River. And this is showing the mean annual salt 12 loading from each of those sources, based on the historical 13 data. 14 To extend this data from '77 through '97 required 15 making some assumption to the early period of record for 16 which a full set of data is not available. Ultimately, what 17 this is showing is the percentage contribution from each of 18 those sources. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: So beginning first with the San 20 Joaquin River upstream, is that represented by the 21 20-percent figure? 22 MR. GROBER: That is represented by the 20-percent 23 figure. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: The northwest side, which is Number 3, 25 that is represented by the 27-percent figure? 4792 01 MR. GROBER: That is correct. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you put up the next. 03 Now, different -- this is dated 9/1/98. There are 04 different values associated with the San Joaquin River 05 upstream and the northwest side. 06 Could you explain why the two charts are different? 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Pardon me. I may be the only one in the 08 room -- is this under the same exhibit number? 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes, it is 7-A. There was a revision 10 made to it, so I included it. 11 MS. ZOLEZZI: We do have copies of the exhibits which 12 include the 7A. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Zolezzi. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: We need to make sure the Board gets 15 copies of those. 16 MS. ZOLEZZI: We will, obviously, distribute them to 17 the mailing list, but we did bring copies. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you explain to us how the values 19 are different? 20 MR. GROBER: The main difference between those two 21 exhibits is that the contribution from the San Joaquin River 22 upstream, Zone 1, here is 9 percent, where the previous 23 percentage was in the order of 20 percent. The northwest 24 side has increased to 35 percent. 25 The reason for that change is adjustment in some of the 4793 01 assumptions and raw data that was used to compute some of 02 the inputs for San Joaquin River upstream portion in the 03 late '70s and early '80s. 04 Typically, an area that I have concentrated most on is 05 1985 through the present, for which better data exists. 06 This is extending the range back a little bit more and some 07 of the data because problematical. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you then walk through the 09 percentage allocation and identify for us on the map where 10 those zones are located? 11 Jeanne, can you put up the map and we will walk 12 through. 13 So, for instance, looking at the San Joaquin River 14 upstream. 15 MR. GROBER: San Joaquin River upstream would be the 16 San Joaquin River upstream of the Grassland Watershed, which 17 is around this area. That is looking at particularly this 18 one point on the San Joaquin River, the San Joaquin River at 19 Lander Avenue. The Grassland Watershed, then, would be this 20 area. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Grober, when you are describing the 22 exhibit, for purpose of the written record, and some day 23 perhaps a judge reading it in the future, when you say "this 24 area," we don't know what that is, so you have to give us 25 more of a verbal description. 4794 01 MR. GROBER: So I will start again from Zone 1. It is 02 the area on the San Joaquin River upstream of the Grassland 03 Watershed which starts approximately 10 miles, 15 miles 04 upstream of the confluence with the Merced. The Grassland 05 Watershed, which is drained by Mud and Salt Slough, also 06 upstream of Merced, those are -- that is Zone 1 and 2, I 07 believe. 08 The northwest side are all areas on the west side, 09 downstream of Mud and Salt Slough, on the west side of the 10 San Joaquin River from a little bit upstream of the Merced 11 to Airport Way. And the other zones are each of the east 12 side tributary watersheds: the Merced, Tuolumne and the 13 Stanislaus. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is it accurate to conclude, based on 15 the exhibit, that the east side tributaries contribute minor 16 amounts for the salt loading? 17 MR. GROBER: That is true. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: What conclusions can you draw about 19 the amount of salt loading that has occurred over time? 20 MR. GROBER: Based on this exhibit? 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 22 MR. GROBER: On loading, that the loads, though they 23 are somewhat variable, depending on water year type, the 24 general trends are fairly clear, in that you see the most 25 significant loading from the Grassland Watershed and 4795 01 followed by the northwest side. 02 But I would like to add, just further clarification, 03 here again in terms of the data source. There is no 04 explicit, single input for the northwest side; that is 05 pretty much solved in this example by difference from San 06 Joaquin. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Example here being? 08 MR. GROBER: The northwest side zone, the loading is 09 solved by difference between the load to the San Joaquin 10 River at Vernalis and subtracting out the other sources. So 11 it is not as clear a geographic source. 12 I might also add that each of those areas are roughly a 13 geographic source. They include contribution of salt load 14 from a variety of different types of sources: natural 15 accretions, agricultural sources, groundwater. 16 MS. WHITNEY: Would you identity this exhibit for 17 record. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. It is Stockton East Number 19 7-A, flagged on the bottom. 20 What concentrations of salt are contained in the 21 discharges by zone? You can start with the grasslands. 22 MR. GROBER: This is a very rough sense because this 23 is a long-term average for this period of record, and these 24 are rough figures off the top of my head. It is in the 25 order of, for the Grassland Watershed, about 13- to 1500 4796 01 milligrams per liter in a mean sense. 02 For the northwest side on something less, on the order 03 of 800 milligrams per liter. 04 For the San Joaquin River upstream, on the order of 05 500, and significantly lower for the east side tributaries. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: How are the -- could you explain to us 07 what the concentration levels would be from the tile 08 drainage in the Grasslands area? That is represented by a 09 higher figure? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. That is a very concentrated source 11 that contributes to the Grassland Watershed, and there would 12 be quite a range there. But a mean value, perhaps, in the 13 order of 4- to 5,000. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: What does the Draft EIR assume the 15 concentrations are from the discharges at Mud and Salt 16 Slough? 17 MR. GROBER: For the mean discharge? 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Right. 19 MR. GROBER: I would have to check that, what the mean 20 concentration is. I don't recall off the top of my head. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: There has been some new exhibits here 23 that the Board Members do not have copies of. And I really 24 wish we'd get copies of those so we can follow along and 25 make notations on. The Board does not have a file copy 4797 01 either. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Referring to the map. 03 MS. ZOLEZZI: We can make some more at the break. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: Not only the map, Mr. Chairman, but 05 the one that is up there, we do not have, 7-A, I believe. 06 MS. ZOLEZZI: That is correct, because it is revised. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you going to make some more copies 08 at the break? 09 MS. ZOLEZZI: Yes. I apologize. 10 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, I am going to object to the 11 introduction of these exhibits. We have a time frame for 12 submitting written exhibits and written testimony prior to 13 the hearing date. 14 I can understand how Stockton East couldn't submit 15 written testimony since they subpoenaed witnesses. They 16 certainly could have submitted written exhibits ahead of 17 time so we had a chance to review them prior to today's 18 testimony. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: If I might respond. None of these, with 20 the exception of 7-A, which was just distributed, they were 21 all included. Some of them are excerpts, and we will be 22 pulling out the table from the EIR. We have done similar to 23 what other parties have done. We have taken out the 24 language in a particular exhibit that we are focusing on. 25 But there are no new documents in this exhibit package, 4798 01 other than 7-A, which was just provided to us. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Zolezzi. 03 Mr. Sexton. 04 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Caffrey, that begs the question. The 05 issue is, there are a lot of documents on file in this 06 proceeding. In order to prepare for Stockton East's 07 presentation, we'd appreciate getting copies of what they 08 intend to rely upon, rather than having to read the entire 09 record, cover to cover, and then try to estimate what they 10 are going to do or guess. That is not the point at all. 11 MS. ZOLEZZI: We simply followed the procedures that 12 other parties had followed. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Your objection is in the record, Mr. 14 Sexton. We do not rule, as a matter of our procedure, on 15 acceptance of exhibits until we get to the end of a 16 particular case in chief. Although as a precursor, I will 17 say that I am inclined to agree with Ms. Zolezzi, but also 18 to recognize that we may have a situation such as we do 19 today, without testimonial exhibits, per se. It is a little 20 bit more difficult on the other parties. But that is, 21 nevertheless, an acceptable procedure, requiring the other 22 parties to rely more on their cross-examination. As Mr. 23 Sexton has pointed out, a more thorough review of the record 24 in the aftermath. 25 So, having said that, we will proceed, but before we do 4799 01 that we are going to hear from Mr. Stubchaer. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman, if we do that, out of 03 fairness to the other parties, perhaps we ought to offer to 04 open up, reopen the cross-examination to this panel after. 05 The parties just received these exhibits and had the 06 opportunity to review them. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: We can do that. We can even -- if 08 anybody wants to make that proposal, that would be one thing 09 we can do. We can take a break between the direct and the 10 cross-examination and give people that opportunity, if they 11 feel the need. 12 Ms. Forster. 13 MEMBER FORSTER: Could we have staff copy these? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: We are going to do that. 15 MEMBER FORSTER: Copy this now and then they can pay 16 for the cost of the copy so at the break everybody would 17 have it, and they would have an opportunity to do whatever. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: We can do that. I guess that is more in 19 my mind that that is something that I put the burden on the 20 parties, the other parties to point that out, that that is a 21 special need. 22 Does anybody feel the need to have those copies 23 immediately? 24 Ms. Leidigh. 25 MS. LEIDIGH: I was just going to point out that Ms. 4800 01 Zolezzi and Ms. Harrigfeld did hand out copies to the 02 parties just now. It was just that they didn't have enough 03 copies for the Board Members. 04 MS. WHITNEY: And staff. 05 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman, in response to the 06 previous discussion, the issue, I think, is the time to 07 review, not just have them in hand and then beginning 08 cross-examination right away. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: And I acceeded and acknowledged your 10 statement, Mr. Stubchaer, by saying that we probably will 11 take at least a break after the direct testimony and give 12 people maybe an extended break. If people feel the need, 13 they can tell us. 14 MS. ZOLEZZI: Chairman Caffrey, if I just might add, 15 that is what was done in another instance when exhibits were 16 handed out. They were given a break. My only concern, I 17 don't have a problem with bringing them back for 18 cross-examination after a chance to review the exhibits. My 19 concern is that that would also be asked to be done with the 20 previous panel where exhibits were passed out, such as East 21 Bay MUD and others, and parties didn't have the opportunity 22 to take a few days' break and come back. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I am not talking about a few days. I am 24 talking 15, 20 minutes, half an hour maximum. It is not -- 25 I won't comment any further. 4801 01 Please proceed, Ms. Harrigfeld. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober, I would like to ask you 03 several questions about how the salt loading statistics 04 correlate to salt concentrations. 05 Is it possible that a reduction in salt load can 06 actually increase the salinity concentration of that 07 discharge? 08 MR. GROBER: You mean, for example, some activity that 09 were to reduce -- 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: For instance, if water is recycled and 11 reused, the volume of water is reduced. Isn't it true that 12 the water that would eventually be discharged may have a 13 higher concentration of salinity? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you try the question again. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: I was just providing him with an 17 example, where if you have an example that you would like to 18 use. If you have water that you recycle and reuse, would 19 the net product be higher concentrations of salinity? 20 MR. GROBER: In general terms, yes. For example, if 21 you are to limit -- on the short-term if you were to limit, 22 say, an agricultural area the amount of tailwater combined 23 with tile drainage, you could perhaps on the short-term 24 reduce salt loading, but increase the concentration of the 25 discharge. 4802 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 02 What mechanisms account for reductions in salt loads? 03 How are salt loads reduced? 04 MR. GROBER: Say, in a discharge? 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 06 MR. GROBER: You could limit the amount of salt that is 07 mobilized to begin with or limit the amount of -- I guess 08 that is the general answer to the question. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: When there is a reduction in salt 10 load, where does the salt go if it is not being discharged 11 in the tailwater? Does it remain in the groundwater? Stay 12 in the soil? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to the question 14 on the ground it lacks foundation. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Ms. Harrigfeld. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: We have talked about the application 17 of irrigation water to ag land. My question is: If there 18 is reduction in salt load coming out of a particular 19 discharge which results from the application of your 20 irrigation district water -- of irrigation water onto a 21 piece of ag land, where does the salt go if you are reducing 22 the load that is being discharged into the river? It has to 23 go somewhere. Is it treated? Do the microbes eat it? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The way Ms. Harrigfeld phrased the 25 question, I think it lays the appropriate foundation, 4803 01 because she stated the assumptions upon which she was basing 02 the question. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I agree with Mr. Birmingham. 04 Mr. Grober, do you understand the question? 05 MR. GROBER: Yes, I believe so. But I would also ask, 06 the assumption is there that the salt has been mobilized to 07 begin with because, of course, some of the salt reduction 08 might occur because some salt is not mobilized to begin 09 with. But assuming that it had, you can have an increase in 10 salt in soils or in groundwaters, perhaps. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with Stockton East 12 Water District Number 9, which is the status report for 13 drainage management in the San Joaquin Valley? It's 14 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation 15 Program, dated February 1998. I am putting an excerpt from 16 Page 5 on the overhead. 17 MS. ZOLEZZI: This is Stockton East Water District 9-A. 18 It is on the bottom. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: We heard discussions in this phase of 20 source reduction achieved through the implementation of the 21 Grassland Bypass Project. This report makes a conclusion 22 that source control results in increase salt and selenium 23 concentrations and that condition warrants continued 24 monitoring. 25 Do you agree with this statement in this report, that 4804 01 source control results in increased salt and selenium 02 concentrations? 03 MR. GROBER: Yes. I would just, I guess, qualify 04 source control can result in increased salt and selenium 05 concentrations. It doesn't have to be absolute. In certain 06 situations, yes. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you agree that the source control 08 that has been implemented through the Grassland Bypass 09 Project has increased the salinity concentrations coming out 10 at the discharge point at Mud Slough? 11 MR. GROBER: I would say, in general, yes. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 13 A salinity standard for the South Delta has been 14 established for many years, has it not? 15 MR. GROBER: Yes. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: What is the standard historically and 17 what is it today? 18 MR. GROBER: The standard at Vernalis, at Airport Way, 19 I believe currently it's an objective that set for 20 irrigation season, roughly the irrigation season, of 700 21 microsiemens per liter from April through August, and a 22 thousand for the balance of the year, September through 23 March. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has the standard historically been met? 25 MR. GROBER: No, it has not. 4805 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is it exceeded frequently and in what 02 months and what months receive the most exceedance? 03 MR. GROBER: It is exceeded with some frequency mostly 04 in the, roughly, irrigation season, April through August 05 period. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am placing on the overhead a figure 07 from Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR. This is marked Stockton 08 East Water District Exhibit Number 30. This figure 09 indicates that for the years '86 to '95 the Vernalis water 10 quality objective was exceeded 62 percent of the time during 11 the irrigation season and 16 percent of the time during 12 nonirrigation season. 13 Is this an accurate reflection of the percentage of 14 days that the 30-day running average for EC water quality 15 has been exceeded at Vernalis? 16 MR. GROBER: Yes. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with solution options 18 that would decrease th amount of salt being discharged into 19 the San Joaquin River? 20 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: What options are available to improve 22 water quality in the San Joaquin River in order to meet the 23 water quality objective at Vernalis? 24 MR. GROBER: General methods such as -- well, though, 25 again, there is complexity in terms of longer versus 4806 01 short-term. Other accretions to the river, but over the 02 short term things like source control, recycling, land 03 retirement. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: What about water conservation? 05 MR. GROBER: Water conservation, improvement of water 06 supply, water quality. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are there other institutional-type 08 solutions that are available? For instance, adoption of 09 water quality objectives upstream of Vernalis? 10 MR. GROBER: Those would be, I guess, institutional 11 remedies that would provide the impetus for implementing 12 other technical solutions. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: If water quality objectives were 14 established upstream, would you implement or would you try 15 to achieve those objectives through the adoption of waste 16 discharge requirements? 17 MR. GROBER: Would I? Well, I -- 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would the Regional Board? 19 MR. GROBER: We are currently involved in a process, a 20 salinity Basin Plan amendment process to answer some of 21 these questions. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Have you reviewed Chapter 8 of the 23 Draft EIR prepared for this proceeding, which discusses the 24 alternatives for implementation of the salinity control 25 measures? 4807 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: We are putting up on the overhead a 03 summary of the alternatives that were looked at in the EIR. 04 Does the Draft EIR fail to fully analyze some of the 05 solution options that you just summarized? You can take a 06 minute to look at that. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you identify this exhibit. 08 MS. ZOLEZZI: 31. It's on the bottom. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: It's Stockton East Water District 31. 10 It's an excerpt from the State Water Resources Control Board 11 EIR, which is State Board Exhibit 1-A. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 13 MR. GROBER: I believe these are the primary 14 alternatives that were explicitly studied as part of this 15 Draft EIR. But I also believe there was mention of a 16 discussion of other alternatives. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: But they weren't analyzed? They were 18 mentioned and -- 19 MR. GROBER: As far as I know, no. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Wouldn't you agree that there are 21 other available options for meeting the salinity water 22 quality objectives other than releases from New Melones 23 Reservoir? 24 MR. GROBER: Other -- implying these do require 25 releases from New Melones? 4808 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: That's correct. Aren't there other 02 options available to this State Board that would not require 03 releases from New Melones, like source reduction, land 04 retirement? Are those all available options? 05 MR. GROBER: I imagine so. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the State 07 Board's order, Water Quality Order 85-1, which is the State 08 Board Exhibit 8? Are you familiar with -- 09 MR. GROBER: Roughly. Not the specific order, 10 necessarily. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you aware that that order ordered 12 the formation of a technical committee to study salinity 13 issues? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me. Mr. Sexton first and then 15 Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Sexton was up first. 16 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Caffrey, I have to again object to the 17 use of these exhibits. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 19 MR. SEXTON: The notification that we received from 20 Stockton East regarding the case that they will be putting 21 on in Phase V list Stockton East Exhibits 7 through 27. The 22 exhibits that have just been handed out this morning include 23 at least to 31, I think, and something else. We have not 24 had the opportunity to consider these exhibits or the nature 25 of the testimony to be rendered today. I object to the 4809 01 manner that the proceeding is being allowed to be conducted. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: I understand your objection, Mr. Sexton. 03 Go ahead, Mr. Birmingham. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I was going to address a similar point 05 and suggest would it be appropriate if we took a recess now 06 so that -- I have noticed that Ms. Whitney is having trouble 07 following the exhibits, or she is discussing the exhibits 08 with Ms. Zolezzi, I presume. 09 I am having problems. Could we take a recess now so we 10 can go through the exhibits and compare them to the list 11 that we received from Stockton East? And then after we have 12 had a few minutes to look at what has been passed out, then 13 resume the direct examination so that we would have an 14 opportunity to better follow what is being presented. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for your statement, Mr. 16 Birmingham. 17 Let's hear from Ms. Zolezzi. 18 MS. ZOLEZZI: I have no objection to the break. I have 19 to express my frustration, however, because Stockton East 20 Water District is following the procedure that every other 21 party that used overheads has followed in this proceeding. 22 We have numbered the overheads that we are using today, as 23 other parties have. As overheads were put up, they were 24 given numbers. Perhaps we made the mistake of putting the 25 numbers on before we got here. They have not been 4810 01 distributed to the parties. As I mentioned earlier, they 02 are all excerpts from the exhibits that the parties have 03 received, which is the procedure that every other party has 04 followed. I handed Ms. Whitney an updated exhibit list 05 that will be distributed to all the parties, which is 06 exactly what other parties have done. I don't know what 07 else can be asked for. 08 MS. WHITNEY: Can I add something? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: No. 10 Let me immediately state that this Chair and this Board 11 has great respect for Ms. Whitney and the staff, but I have 12 already made up my mind. 13 And I will let you add something, Ms. Whitney. 14 I just wanted -- I was ready to make a statement. I 15 can't keep it under my hat for much longer. 16 I think both sides are making very notable and 17 important remarks. And what is unique about this situation 18 is that there was no submission of direct testimony with 19 regard to these witnesses. Yet, at the same time, it is a 20 perfectly appropriate procedure on the part of Ms. Zolezzi 21 to do. What she says is correct. But, also, in the 22 interest of fairness, it is very important to the other 23 parties, that they have some time. 24 What I was leaning towards, after some discussion with 25 Mr. Stubchaer, was perhaps after we were through with the 4811 01 direct to take some appropriate amount of time, even if it 02 is a couple of hours, if you all need it to prepare for your 03 cross-examination. I was going to try to avoid having Ms. 04 Zolezzi have to come back. I am hopeful, very hopeful, that 05 that is not necessary. 06 However, if it is the feeling of the parties, that to 07 take a break now, before the direct is over, we could do 08 that as well. I would like to hear some commentary on that, 09 just to see what your druthers are. That seems agreeable to 10 the other Board Members, as well. 11 Ms. Zolezzi. 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: We have no preference. One of the 13 options we could do would be to put all of our subpoenaed 14 witnesses up and then have them back for cross-examination 15 on the 28th, which would give parties time. Or if they feel 16 that just an extended break would be sufficient, we have no 17 problem with giving them an opportunity to review the 18 overheads that were already in the documents. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Ms. Zolezzi. 20 Let me ask Mr. Sexton or Mr. Birmingham if you have a 21 preference with regard to how to proceed here. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: My preference would be to take a 23 recess now, perhaps a recess of a half hour so we can look 24 at what has been presented. I agree with Ms. Zolezzi. What 25 she has presented to us appears to be documents that are in 4812 01 the record. But as you have pointed out, Chairman Caffrey, 02 we had not an opportunity to examine written direct 03 examination and anticipate that these documents would be 04 used. 05 If we were to take a short recess now, I think we would 06 be able to review them, and we would have a better 07 opportunity to follow the direct examination, and then it is 08 likely we could go forward with the cross-examination when 09 they are done and conclude this today, so that these 10 witnesses and Ms. Zolezzi do not have to come back. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I want to reiterate for the record that 12 the distinction -- maybe I was clearer before. But the 13 distinction that I see here, because Ms. Zolezzi is making a 14 comparison of past practices with other witnesses, in those 15 instances there was direct testimony, there was the 16 opportunity for direct testimony exhibits, that there was 17 the opportunity to review. And at least in those 18 divergences there was some context provided, so that is why 19 we are inclined to give some extra time. 20 Now I want to apologize to Ms. Whitney and let her 21 speak for as long as she wishes. 22 MS. WHITNEY: I want to say this case is a little 23 different from the previous cases. The staff still doesn't 24 have any copies of the exhibits and Jeanne just provided me 25 a copy of the exhibit list, which I had in the past. I need 4813 01 to take a break so that I can have a copy made by my staff 02 so that we have something that we can track. Otherwise the 03 integrity of the record is going to be compromised because I 04 can't keep track of all this stuff. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: That very astute and important 06 observation. Without Ms. Whitney's ability to do that, we 07 wouldn't have much of a hearing. So, based on that, we will 08 now take a half-hour break and then come back and hear from 09 the parties to see if that is sufficient. 10 We will be back at 25 to 11. 11 Thank you. 12 (Break taken.) 13 C.O. CAFFREY: We will resume. 14 But before we continue with the direct, I believe Mr. 15 Stubchaer has a question. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 This procedure of having subpoenaed witnesses and no 18 direct testimony is kind of new to me. I know it is 19 permitted by regulation. I had a couple questions. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, sir. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Were the witnesses -- did you meet 22 with the witnesses before today to go over their testimony? 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: I supplied the -- the witnesses need 24 to know which areas that we are going to cover, so I 25 provided the witnesses with a list of questions and, yes, we 4814 01 did discuss -- I did not meet with them. I discussed the 02 series of questions that we would be going over via 03 conference call. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: Were the questions provided to the 05 other parties? 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: No, they were not. 07 C.O. STUBCHAER: Do the witnesses -- did you spend a 08 lot of time preparing to answer the questions that you knew 09 were coming or did you just pass the questions on to your 10 management? 11 MR. GROBER: No. 12 MR. SCHNAGL: No. We made a point of not spending time 13 preparing for this presentation. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 16 Ms. Harrigfeld, you may continue. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: We will go back to the Water Quality 18 Order 85-1. 19 Are you familiar with the Board's Order, Water Quality 20 85-1, that dealt with the Kesterson Reservoir? 21 MR. GROBER: Generally, yes. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you aware that the order required 23 the formation of a technical committee to study drainage 24 issues? 25 MR. GROBER: Yes. 4815 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the technical 02 committee's report back to the State Board, which is 03 Appendix A to the final report? 04 MR. GROBER: Portions of it, yes. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that the technical 06 committee evaluated the possibility of releases of water to 07 the San Joaquin River at Newman Wasteway or an area further 08 upstream to meet the selenium water quality objectives? 09 MR. GROBER: I am not certain. I believe so. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you like me to hand you the 11 section where they discuss that? 12 MR. GROBER: Sure. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: To refresh your recollection, this is 14 State Water Resources Control Board Exhibit 8, which is a 15 final report and a number of appendixes. I have copied 16 Pages 721 and 722 which discuss achieving selenium objective 17 through dilution flows. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe I am a little confused. You have 19 asked him to familiarize himself with the document? 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is correct. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: You haven't directed -- 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. He has reviewed. It is two 23 short pages. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 25 MR. GROBER: Should I be reading this out loud? 4816 01 C.O. CAFFREY: That is why I was asking. I wasn't 02 quite sure what Ms. Harrigfeld wanted you to do. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just wanted him to refresh his 04 recollection that they, in fact, in this technical committee 05 report, reviewed the option of providing dilution flows to 06 meet the selenium water quality objective. 07 MS. LEIDIGH: Could you repeat what exhibit this is 08 again. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: It is State Water Resources Control 10 Board Exhibit 8, which is the final report back to the 11 State Board from the technical committee. 12 Could you put up overhead Number 7. 13 Isn't it true that the technical committee rejected 14 this option? I will quote: 15 Because water in California is a scarce 16 resource, the technical committee believes 17 that dedicating water supplies or canal 18 capacity to dilute man-induced pollutants 19 should be considered only after all 20 reasonable source control or methods have 21 been exhausted. (Reading.) 22 MR. GROBER: Your question is? 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that they made that 24 statement? 25 MR. GROBER: Yeah. That is in the -- what you just 4817 01 handed me. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you believe that all reasonable 03 source control and treatment methods have been implemented 04 in order to meet the Vernalis water quality objective? 05 MR. GROBER: I am sorry, do I believe? 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you believe all reasonable source 07 control and treatment methods have been implemented to meet 08 the Vernalis water quality objective? 09 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. The 10 question is not referring to a specific area. It is not 11 referring to objectives for selenium versus salt. This 12 technical report was strictly on selenium control, nothing 13 whatsoever to do with salt. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is correct, the technical report 15 made the conclusion that you shouldn't use dilution flows to 16 dilute man-induced pollutants. So what I am just asking 17 him, have all reasonable source control methods and 18 treatment options been implemented to meet the Vernalis 19 water quality objective. 20 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, that begs the question. Ms 21 Harrigfeld is referring to man-induced pollutants, which 22 this report may make reference to. But the report itself 23 and what was before the technical committee at the time was 24 control of selenium. It had nothing to do with salt and 25 wasn't even considered. If she wants -- 4818 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: My question is addressed strictly to 02 salinity which is the matter that the Board is taking up in 03 Phase V. And I'll just ask -- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Sexton is contending that this 05 report dealt specifically with selenium. Is that your point? 06 MR. SEXTON: Yes, that is correct. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is an incorrect conclusion. The 08 report did address a number of other issues, including the 09 establishment of water quality objectives for salinity. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, I am going to object to 11 the question on the grounds that it lacks foundation. There 12 is no evidence in the record that this witness knows what 13 every discharger is doing in terms of reducing or 14 implementing reasonable measures for source control. And 15 until that foundation is laid, I don't think that it is 16 appropriate for the question on the ultimate issue to be 17 asked. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go off the record for just a 19 minute. 20 (Discussion held off the record.) 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 22 Ms. Harrigfeld, I believe that Mr. Sexton's concerns 23 with regard to this particular report are accurate; and 24 while not passing any judgment on the exhibit, except for 25 this particular question, I don't feel that you need or 4819 01 should be using this exhibit as the foundation for the kind 02 of question you may be attempting to ask. If you could just 03 not refer to the exhibit and be a little more specific in 04 your questioning, you may be able to get to where you are 05 trying to go. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober, is it part of your job to 07 be familiar with source control methods to address the 08 salinity problem in the San Joaquin River? 09 MR. GROBER: To some extent, yes. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Of the source control methods that you 11 are aware of, have all of those been implemented? 12 MR. GROBER: I don't know that I can answer that. I 13 don't know. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: For instance, the concept of reuse of 15 water, has that traditionally been used on the west side? 16 MR. GROBER: To some extent, yes. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: How about agriforestry? 18 MR. GROBER: When you say the west, in some areas. 19 Depends on which areas. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: But not in all areas? 21 MR. GROBER: I am not completely familiar with where 22 exactly it has been used. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Schnagl, I am going to move on to 24 you. 25 Are you familiar with Stockton East Water District 4820 01 Exhibit Number 12, which is the Regional Board staff report 02 on the Grassland Bypass Project? It is your staff report 03 on the bypass project. 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I am familiar with the staff report, but 05 I am not sure whether that is your Exhibit 12. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you briefly describe for us the 07 Grassland Bypass Project. 08 MR. SCHNAGL: The Grassland Bypass Project is a project 09 being operated by San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 10 Authority, using a facility, the San Luis Drain which is 11 owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. It basically 12 consolidates agricultural drainage from the 97,000-acre area 13 in the Grassland Watershed, moves that drainage water 14 through the lower 28 miles of the San Louis Drain and 15 discharges it into Mud Slough. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is the intention of the Grassland 17 Bypass Project to implement reduction in selenium into the 18 San Joaquin River? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: That is one of the components of the 20 project, yes. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has a reduction in selenium been 22 accomplished? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: The project went into operation in 24 September 1996. A review of water year '97 data appears to 25 indicate that there was a selenium reduction as a result of 4821 01 their management practices, yes. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: How specifically has that been 03 accomplished? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: A number of steps have been taken by the 05 farmers and district operations folks within the service 06 area of the project. They've been conducting educational 07 efforts. They adopted tiered water pricing and other 08 pricing features that encourage water conservation. But the 09 primary steps that have been taken to reduce selenium 10 discharges is to recycle drainage and reduce application of 11 irrigation water. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that the Grassland 13 Bypass Project had to pay an incentive fee in 1997 for gross 14 violations of the selenium load? 15 MR. SEXTON: Objection to the use of the term "gross" 16 on direct examination. That is an argument and that is not 17 eliciting testimony. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Rephrase the question. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. 20 Isn't it true the Grassland Bypass Project had to pay 21 an incentive fee for violating the selenium load discharges 22 into the San Joaquin River? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, there was a fee paid. It had 24 nothing to do with the Regional Board. There was an 25 arrangement between the Bureau of Reclamation and San Luis 4822 01 and Delta-Mendota Water Authority on the use of the drain. 02 And it set up an incentive fee process, and conditions in 03 water year '97 required the payment of a fee. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: How much was that fee? 05 MR. SCHNAGL: Approximately $60,000. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 07 Do the waste discharge requirements adopted by the 08 Regional Board for the Grassland Bypass Project require a 09 reduction in the salinity load? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that the Grassland 12 Bypass Project does not address the problem of salinity at 13 all in the San Joaquin River? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: The Grassland Bypass Project was designed 15 to deal with the selenium discharge, not salt. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: The first overhead. 17 This is Finding Number 29. It is marked as Stockton 18 East Water District 12-A. This is a finding from your staff 19 report, which states that: 20 Numerical water quality objectives for 21 salinity in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis 22 are violated frequently. The discharge from 23 the project is high in salts, and one of the 24 use agreement conditions is that corrective 25 action be taken if the discharge of salt 4823 01 increases during any month, March through 02 October, as a result of the project. 03 (Reading.) 04 Are you aware of any time in which the discharge of 05 salt has increased during the months of March through 06 October as a result of the project? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I am not. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do the monthly monitoring reports 09 produced for this project contain a section which would 10 identify such an increase in salt? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: The monitoring for the project includes 12 assessment of salt that is leaving the Grassland Bypass, 13 but there isn't a monthly assessment of this particular 14 determination of whether -- 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, from the monthly monitoring report 16 it would be impossible for you to tell whether there was an 17 increase? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: That would have to be done by a separate 19 assessment, yes. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: The next overhead is Stockton East 21 Water District 12-B, which is from the same staff report of 22 the Regional Board. It states that: 23 The prior focus of the project has been on 24 control of selenium, but the discharge is 25 also causing or contributing to the 4824 01 violations of water quality objectives for 02 other constituents in Mud Slough and the San 03 Joaquin River. (Reading.) 04 The other part on this overhead is taken from the 05 Regional Water Quality Control Board, your Basin Plan for 06 the San Joaquin River at Stockton East -- State Water 07 Resources Control Board Exhibit 7-B at Page 426. In that 08 statement is: 09 As a Regional Water Board prohibition states 10 activities that increase the discharge of 11 poor quality agricultural subsurface drainage 12 are prohibited. (Reading.) 13 How can these two statements be reconciled? Your 14 finding that these discharges are causing or contributing to 15 violations of water quality objectives downstream and this 16 prohibition that says activities that increase the 17 discharges are prohibited? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: The Basin Plan prohibition applies to 19 discharges of new sources of poor quality water. The 20 Grassland Bypass Project is not a new source. It is, 21 basically, just the rerouting of a drainage water that used 22 to reach the San Joaquin River via other channels. 23 Basically, the policy doesn't apply to the Grassland Bypass. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, the policy only applies to new and 25 not existing poor quality water drainage? 4825 01 MR. SCHNAGL: That is how we interpret it. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would the Regional Board interpret an 03 increase in salinity concentrations in a discharge as 04 increasing poor water quality? 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for speculation. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I guess my question would be: 07 When you say "the Regional Board," are you taking about the 08 Board as an institution or are you talking about the 09 recommendations that these very capable staff, folks, might 10 make to the Board? Maybe you need to be a little more 11 clear. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. 13 In your opinion, do you believe that increases in 14 concentrations would constitute increases in poor quality 15 water if the concentration increases is an increase in poor 16 quality water? 17 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 18 Concentration of what? Where? 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I think that question is a little 20 vague. I think you need to zero in a little tighter on the 21 question. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: We have heard from Mr. Grober that 23 discharges from the Grassland Bypass Project at Mud Slough 24 have shown increases in salt concentrations. Do you believe 25 that those increases -- that that increase in salt 4826 01 concentration is an increase in the discharge of poor 02 quality water? 03 MR. MINASIAN: Objection. Mr. Chairman, the question 04 has to compare increases over what. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: He has just testified that this 06 Regional Board prohibition only applies to new and not 07 existing. So, what I am trying to establish is that while 08 the rerouting of the Grassland Bypass Project may be an 09 existing use, if it is increasing the amount of salt 10 concentrations that are being discharged into the San 11 Joaquin River, that, in fact, should be prohibited under 12 this policy. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question, Mr. 14 Schnagl? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: I understand the question now that we 16 have gone through it three or four times. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: We will consider her explanation a 18 clarification of the question, of course. 19 Before you answer the question, Mr. Brown. 20 MEMBER BROWN: I have a clarifying question. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Of the witness or of -- 22 MEMBER BROWN: Of the question. I want to make sure I 23 understand the question. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, go ahead. 25 MEMBER BROWN: Increased concentrations, are you taking 4827 01 into consideration the total quantity of salts or just the 02 -- you could have an increase in concentration, but a less 03 total drainage quantity of water coming off the field, which 04 means less total salts going into the San Joaquin River, but 05 the concentrations of the remaining stream in tile water 06 might be high but the total entering San Joaquin could be 07 less? 08 Could you clarify what you mean on that, please. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: I agree with what you are saying. My 10 question to him is: Is that increase -- there could be -- 11 you're exactly right. The decrease in the load that is 12 entering the San Joaquin River, but is it his opinion that 13 an increase in the salinity concentration, which would 14 require potentially more dilution flows from New Melones to 15 get that high concentration down to the water quality 16 objective required at Vernalis. 17 My question is: Is that increase of concentration an 18 increase in poor quality water? 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me go back -- Mr. Sexton. 20 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might make a 21 suggestion to the Board Members. The San Luis and 22 Delta-Mendota Water Authority have with them Joseph McGahan 23 who is a civil engineer and serves as the Grassland Bypass 24 Project Drainage Coordinator. We intended to put on 25 testimony relating to the use agreement between the Bypass 4828 01 Project and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 02 the Bureau of Reclamation, a discussion of the oversight 03 committee and a discussion of the matters that Ms. 04 Harrigfeld is trying to elicit testimony from the Regional 05 Board. 06 I am wondering if we are getting the cart before the 07 horse. I would be prepared to put on that testimony first 08 if Ms. Zolezzi and Ms. Harrigfeld would agree and the Board 09 would like that. It seems like that would at least give the 10 Board Members an overview of the project itself before you 11 get into what appears to be more in the nature of 12 cross-examination than direct testimony. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you suggesting, Mr. Sexton, either 14 of the following two: that you put that witness on now as a 15 sort of a piece of your case in chief or that they wait 16 until such time as you present your case in chief and put 17 that witness on as the first part of that? 18 MR. SEXTON: I would be prepared to put that witness on 19 now and then yield to Stockton East to continue with their 20 case. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: The Regional Water Quality Control 22 Board just adopted waste discharge requirements. I think 23 that Mr. Schnagl is intimately familiar with the nature of 24 the Grassland Bypass Project and the requirements that they 25 imposed on that project. I am just trying to elicit from 4829 01 him what the Regional Board has done. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: One last, Mr. Sexton. 03 MR. SEXTON: The problem with the way that the 04 questions are coming out, Mr. Chairman, is, for example, 05 Finding Number 30 on the overhead, Stockton East Exhibit 12 06 makes reference to violations of water quality in Mud 07 Slough. The testimony has not yet been delivered to the 08 Board, and I make an offer of proof that the testimony will 09 be delivered, that Mud Slough essentially is part of the 10 Bypass Project. The game plan was to increase 11 concentrations in the slough -- 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: I would object. He is testifying. 13 MR. SEXTON: -- and reducing concentrations. 14 C.O. CAFFREY REPORTER: I can only take one at a time. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: One at a time. 16 Continue, Mr. Sexton. 17 MR. SEXTON: That the Bypass Project was designed to 18 increase concentrations in Mud Slough and reduce 19 concentrations in Salt Slough. That is by way of an offer 20 of proof we would be prepared to put on Mr. McGahan to 21 testify about the goals and the management activities of the 22 Grassland Bypass Project. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I understand the objection of Ms. 24 Zolezzi. I do not view Mr. Sexton in this particular 25 instance as testifying because he is trying to clarify his 4830 01 objection. 02 Ms. Zolezzi, did you have something? 03 MS. ZOLEZZI: I would respectfully disagree. Mr. 04 Sexton was giving his opinion of what his witness will 05 testify to, and I would request that it be stricken from the 06 record. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 08 Mr. Nomellini. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: I have two points. One, I would like 10 to swear in Mr. Sexton and Mr. Birmingham so we can 11 cross-examine them when they make these broad statements of 12 fact. I think that would only be fair if they are going to 13 continue with this process, the way they are going, give us 14 an opportunity to cross-examine them to their direct 15 testimony. 16 But on the procedural aspects, all parties have the 17 opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and present 18 rebuttal cases, as well as their own cases in chief. I 19 don't think it is fair to interrupt somebody else's case in 20 chief to this extent. 21 We would like to use the same tactic if you start it. 22 We may use it later on when we don't like the continuity of 23 somebody's case. We present our case in-between, or ask to 24 do it. I think it would be a terrible precedent to start 25 this unless it is agreeable to the parties presenting the 4831 01 case, to engage in this to a greater extent that we have 02 done so far. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 04 Anybody else? 05 Here is the ruling: With great respect to the opinions 06 of counsel, I do not rule that Mr. Sexton was testifying. 07 Therefore, we won't swear him in at the moment. But I am 08 also going to rule that, while appreciative of Mr. Sexton's 09 offer, we are not going to interrupt this case in chief, so 10 to speak, and present his witness now. He may certainly 11 choose to present that witness as the very first part of his 12 case in chief. 13 We will continue here, and I will also observe that 14 while within the Board's interpretation of our rules, this 15 particular presentation of this case in chief is allowed. 16 We will have some discussion after we hear all the direct 17 testimony, we'll have some discussion with the parties about 18 how much, if any, time may be needed for preparation of 19 cross-examination. So we will raise that question. 20 Mr. Nomellini. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I have one additional question. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, sir. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: When we call adverse witnesses as part 24 of our direct case in chief, if we were to do that in a 25 court of law, we would be able to lead the witnesses and 4832 01 treat them as if we had them under cross-examination. We 02 are getting a mix here. 03 From the tenor of the objections, we are trying to 04 treat -- it seems to me that the objectors are trying to 05 treat these as if they were friendly witnesses, and in 06 contrast to being adverse witnesses. I think there should 07 be some clarification, if possible, for the attitude of the 08 Chair in that regard as to whether or not we can lead when 09 we have adverse witnesses. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Interesting question, Mr. Nomellini. 11 Although I would have observed that this is not a court and 12 a lot of our rules differ substantially from what goes on in 13 court, and I am going to in a moment defer to Ms. Leidigh to 14 respond, but I see that Mr. Birmingham is on his feet. 15 Mr. Birmingham. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to observe that I don't 17 think I've heard a single objection on the grounds that the 18 questions have been leading. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: One. Yours. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If I objected to a question on the 21 ground it was leading, I will withdraw that objection. I am 22 sure it was overruled. I agree with Mr. Nomellini, she 23 should be able to lead the witnesses. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Your memory is better than mine, Mr. 25 Birmingham. When you don't remember something, that makes 4833 01 me nervous. 02 Ms. Leidigh, why don't you comment on this for us. 03 MS. LEIDIGH: The comment is really very brief. Since 04 these witnesses were subpoenaed and are basically witnesses 05 who are associated with an adverse party, they can be 06 examined as if under cross-examination, even though this is 07 their first examination. That means that the witnesses can 08 be led and the types of questions that are asked on 09 cross-examination can be asked. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 11 Please proceed, Ms. Harrigfeld. Where were we? 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: There is a question on the table. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. And you had said, Mr. Schnagl, 14 that you had understood the question. Please answer it. 15 MR. SCHNAGL: The Grassland Bypass Project took 16 preexisting drainage flows and rerouted them to Mud Slough. 17 We do not consider them a new source, and the concentration 18 changes within that drainage would not be considered solely 19 as a determination of whether there is a new source 20 involved. So, the concentration load is not the only 21 determination of whether there is a new source of irrigation 22 drainage. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just want to confirm for the Board 24 that the salt concentrations being discharged from Mud 25 Slough have, in fact, increased? 4834 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. The discharge from the Grassland 02 Bypass Project did increase during the first year. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has there been reduction in salt loads 04 from implementation of the project? 05 MR. SCHNAGL: We've evaluated the salt loads coming 06 from the Grassland Bypass Project service area in water year 07 '96, which is the year before the project went into effect, 08 and compared them with the loads in water year '97, and 09 those two years are just a snapshot in time, but there was a 10 decrease between '96 and '97. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you consider this to be a 12 short-term or long-term trends? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I can't speculate on that. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: If there has been a reduction in the 15 salt load that is being discharged to the San Joaquin River, 16 has the salt been retained in the soil? The groundwater? 17 How was the salt load reduction achieved? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: We are looking at the discharge at the 19 end of the system and not where the salt has gone within the 20 drainage area, so I can't answer. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, it is still remaining in the 22 drainage area somewhere? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, we haven't taken a look at how much 24 salt went into the drainage area in those two water years or 25 where it is stored or released. We are just looking at the 4835 01 bottom end of the system and measuring the salt coming out. 02 So, I -- 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, you don't know? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I don't know. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: How has the fact that the past two 06 years have been wet influenced the salt loading? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: The wetter years have made it more 08 difficult for the drainers to control their drainage. 09 Beyond that, I don't think I can give you an answer as to 10 specific impacts on salt load or salt discharges at this 11 point. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with State Water 13 Resources Control Board Exhibit 97, which is a paper that 14 Mr. Grober wrote on Sources and Circulation of Salt in the 15 San Joaquin River Basin? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: Only slightly. I would like to have Les 17 answer questions on that issue. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober, this paper concluded that 19 the long-term water quality improvement in the San Joaquin 20 River will not be obtained by simply reducing short-term 21 salt loading to the river, correct? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes, I believe that is right. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: You also state in your paper that, and 24 I will quote for you: 25 Efforts must be made to reduce basinwide salt 4836 01 loading or increase salt exports from the 02 basin to promote long-term improvements to 03 the San Joaquin River quality. (Reading.) 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you consider the Grassland 06 Bypass Project a short-term plan for reducing salts to the 07 San Joaquin River? 08 MR. GROBER: I think as Rudy has said, it really was 09 not a plan put in place to deal with salts, so I would have 10 to say no. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: In your statement in your paper when 12 you discussed "efforts must be made to reduce basinwide salt 13 loading," what did you contemplate would be those, quote, 14 efforts? 15 MR. GROBER: Well, it just -- it is a fairly simple and 16 general statement in that you are either having to limit 17 salt generation or imports to the basin or increase 18 exports. So, it's either through reducing what is brought 19 into the basin or minimizing mobilization of salts. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you repeat that last -- mobile. 21 MR. GROBER: Mobilization of in-basin salts, reducing 22 salt imports or increasing salt exports. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Rudy, I am going to move on to a 24 couple of the Regional Board policies and actions that 25 you've undertaken over the course of the past few years. 4837 01 Isn't it true that the current version of the Basin 02 Plan provides a brief history of past Regional Board 03 actions? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, it does. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that the Basin Plan's 06 summary details the fact that the Regional Board's plan in 07 1975, 1975 Basin Plan, for the San Joaquin River officially 08 recognized the serious degradation of the water quality in 09 the San Joaquin River? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: It may, but I would have to look at that 11 section. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: I will give you a copy. 13 MR. SCHNAGL: Reading from the implementation chapter 14 of the Central Valley Regional Board's Basin Plan for the 15 Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins, there is a section 16 here describing some of the background dealing with salinity 17 problems in the San Joaquin Basin. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: That section basically states that in 19 1975 the Regional Board officially recognized the serious 20 degradation of water quality in the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: In the lower San Joaquin River, that's 22 correct. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Doesn't it also state that the 75 24 Basin Plan declared the portion of the river from Lander to 25 Vernalis a water quality limited segment due to excess 4838 01 salinity? 02 MR. SCHNAGL: It indicates the Lower San Joaquin River 03 was classified as a water quality limited segment. This 04 section doesn't indicate which portion of the river was 05 identified as that limited segment, not that I am reading at 06 least. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the designation 08 of the water quality limited segments that it does go from 09 Lander to Vernalis with the 303 (d) listing? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: That is approximately correct. I don't 11 know the exact milestone, but it's a lengthy section of the 12 lower river. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: After the declaration of the water 14 quality limited segment, did the Regional Board establish 15 water quality objectives for salinity on that portion of the 16 San Joaquin River? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: Not yet. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Did the Regional Board establish load 19 allocations or total maximum daily load requirements for 20 discharges into the river along the impaired segment? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Aren't these actions required by the 23 Clean Water Act? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: As I understand it, that is one of the 25 requirements for water quality limited segments, yes. 4839 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Can you explain to us why this hasn't 02 been done? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I can't. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the order that 05 the Board adopted in February 1985 referred to Water Quality 06 85-1? 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Which Board are you referring to? 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: The State Water Resources Control 09 Board Water Quality Order 85-1. 10 Are you familiar with that? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: I am aware of it, but I am not familiar 12 with the order, no. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that Water Quality Order 14 85-1 required the Regional Board -- the State Board 15 concluded that a process must be instituted, and I will 16 quote from that section in Water Quality Order 85-1, which 17 states that: 18 A process must be instituted which will 19 result in the development of specific water 20 quality objectives for the San Joaquin River 21 Basin. The adoption of appropriate Basin 22 Plan amendments by Central Valley Regional 23 Board and the development of a program to 24 regulate agricultural discharges in the 25 basin. (Reading.) 4840 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Lacks foundation. This 02 witness has testified that he is aware of the order, but is 03 not familiar with it. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: And you were reading -- 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am reading from the State Water 06 Resources Control Board Exhibit Number 5-L. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Which is the document that he says he is 08 not familiar with. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: I can provide him with a copy of the 10 section that I am reading. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you show it to him and ask 12 your specific question. 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I received something identified as Water 14 Quality Order 85-1. It basically has a highlighted section 15 that reads as you've indicated. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the intervening 13 years since 17 adoption of Water Quality Order Number 85-1, has the 18 Regional Board amended the San Joaquin Basin Plan to address 19 the development of specific water quality objectives for the 20 San Joaquin River? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, it has. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: What have been those specific 23 amendments? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: There was a 1988 amendment that addressed 25 subsurface drainage and another amendment in 1996 that also 4841 01 addressed subsurface drainage issues in the San Joaquin 02 Basin. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: There have been no amendments to 04 include a salinity water quality objective above Vernalis? 05 MR. SCHNAGL: No. The amendments primarily addressed 06 selenium and other trace elements. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has the Regional Board developed a 08 plan to regulate agricultural irrigation discharges in the 09 San Joaquin River Basin? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Only with respect to selenium. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: And only with respect to the 12 grasslands area? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, the only program developed 15 occurred in the 1996 year and applies to grasslands and does 16 not address salt? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you aware that Water Quality Order 19 85-1 ordered the formation of a technical committee to study 20 drainage issues? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: I am not familiar with the details, no. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Less, you are familiar with technical 23 committee that was formed as part -- 24 MR. GROBER: I am aware that a technical committee was 25 formed, yes. 4842 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: At page -- this is State Water 02 Resources Control Board Exhibit Number 8, which is Page 821 03 of the report. It recommends that water quality objectives 04 for salinity be implemented for the San Joaquin River 05 Basin. 06 Have those water quality objectives been implemented? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: No. There are no water quality 08 objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River except for the 09 Vernalis standard. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you aware that the Draft Executive 11 Summary of the technical committee report had put in a date 12 of October 1993 as the date in which the water quality 13 objectives for salinity should be established from Lander 14 downstream? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I'm not. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: The final report included a 17 recommended adoption of an implementation date and it, 18 quotes, to be determined. Do you know why the specific date 19 of October 1993 was excluded from the final report? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I do not. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you think that the technical 22 committee envisioned 11 years would pass without the 23 establishment of water quality objectives for salinity? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: I have no idea what the technical 25 committee was envisioning. 4843 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with Resolution 02 88-195 of the Regional Board, which was the 1988 Basin Plan 03 amendment adopted by the Regional Board? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I am aware of it, but I haven't read it 05 for a long time. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: I have a copy here. This Stockton 07 East Water District Exhibit Number 25, which is your 08 resolution. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment, please. 10 (Discussion held off record.) 11 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. I am sorry. 12 Go ahead, Ms. Harrigfeld. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that this resolution 14 required the parties discharging or contributing to the 15 generation of agricultural subsurface drainage to submit 16 drainage operation plans? Going to be the flagged section. 17 MR. SCHNAGL: This resolution is the order, or the 18 resolution, adopted by the Regional Board in adopting the 19 1998 amendments to the Regional Board -- excuse me, 1988 20 amendments. It has an attachment which includes all the 21 amendments to our Basin Plan. 22 So, basically, the requirement to prepare the drainage 23 operation plans is part of the basin amendment that was 24 adopted that year. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: Did all the parties discharging to the 4844 01 San Joaquin River submit drainage operation plans to the 02 Regional Board? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: We have received drainage operation plans 04 from numerous parties. But I can't say whether or not all 05 parties have submitted such plans. 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you know why all the parties didn't 07 comply? 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Lacks foundation. He just 09 testified he doesn't know if all of them have or haven't. 10 So this question has no foundation. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Harrigfeld. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: I think you answered you are not aware 13 -- you are familiar with a number of drainage operation 14 plans that had been submitted? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: Right. I am aware that we have received 16 numerous operation plans, but I am not sure all parties have 17 submitted such plans. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry. Mr. Nomellini, was your 20 situation rectified or did you have something else? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Straightened itself out. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Something things do. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: In cross-examination, the questioner 24 should be allowed to go to those lack of foundational areas 25 to some extent to get to the credibility of the witness on a 4845 01 particular question and what have you. 02 I think the objection would be appropriate on direct, 03 but not appropriate on cross. I apologize for taking more 04 of your time than I should. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 06 Now that I allowed you to do that, did you want to say 07 something, Mr. Birmingham? 08 Thank you, sir. 09 I agree that it did kind of rectify itself, so please 10 continue. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with State Water 12 Resources Control Board Resolution 89-88 which approved the 13 Regional Board Basin Plan amendments? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I am not. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am handing you Stockton East Water 16 District Number 24, which is that resolution that I just 17 referred to. 18 MR. SCHNAGL: I have a copy of it. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that resolution 89-88 20 directed the Central Valley Regional Board to issue waste 21 discharge requirements if the drainage operation plans were 22 not submitted in a timely fashion? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: That is correct. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Have any waste discharge requirements 25 been issued for those dischargers who failed to submit a 4846 01 drainage operation plan? 02 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: Why has the Regional Board not pursued 04 those noncompliant dischargers as directed by that 05 resolution? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: I have no idea. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with Stockton East 08 Water District Exhibit Number 16, which is a memorandum 09 dated April 11th, 1995, from State Board Chairman Caffrey? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: In this memo did the State Board once 12 again direct the Regional Board to timely incorporate 13 salinity control measures into the Basin Plan? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: In this memo did the State Board place 16 emphasis on the Regional Board strategy for adoption of 17 water quality objectives for total dissolved and/or 18 electroconductivity for the San Joaquin River compliant 19 schedules for achievement of water objectives and plans for 20 implementation to achieve the water quality objectives? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the intervening three and a half 23 years since the April 1995 direction from the State Board to 24 the Regional Board to incorporate salinity control measures 25 in the Basin Plan, has that been accomplished? 4847 01 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with Stockton East 03 Water District Exhibit Number 17 entitled, "Workplan for San 04 Joaquin River Basin Plan Amendment Addressing Salinity and 05 Boron dated June 1997"? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. That is a Regional Board workplan 07 for the Basin Planning project that is underway right now. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Could you please describe for us what 09 is -- how the process is defined and where you are at in 10 your Basin Plan amendment schedule. 11 MR. SCHNAGL: The workplan describes several phases 12 that we intend to follow in conducting a Basin Planning 13 program to prepare a proposed amendment for the Regional 14 Board consideration. The amendment will address water 15 quality objectives in the Lower San Joaquin River from 16 Mendota Dam to Vernalis and propose an implementation plan 17 to meet those objectives. 18 At this point in time we are approximately one year 19 behind in getting the technical reports out in the street 20 for public review. We are falling behind in some of the 21 interim deadlines, but we feel that we can still meet the 22 December 1999 deadline for getting this amendment to our 23 Board. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 25 I would like to walk through a couple of Regional Board 4848 01 policies that are contained in State Water Resources Control 02 Board Exhibit Number 7-B, which is your Basin Plan. 03 Could you put up overhead 4. 04 On the overhead is Policy 3, which is found at Page 05 4-15. This policy states -- 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there an exhibit number? 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: This is Stockton East Water District 08 Exhibit Number 33. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: This policy states, Controllable 11 Factors Policy. 12 Controllable water quality factors are not 13 allowed to cause further degradation of water 14 quality in instances where other factors have 15 already resulted in water quality objectives 16 being exceeded. Controllable water quality 17 factors are those actions, conditions or 18 circumstances resulting from human activities 19 that may influence the quality of the waters 20 of the state that are subject to the 21 authority of the State Water Board or 22 Regional Board and that may be reasonably 23 controlled. (Reading.) 24 Isn't a controllable factor agricultural surface and 25 subsurface drainage? 4849 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Our Board has taken the position that 02 those are controllable factors and issued waste discharge 03 requirements for that type of discharge. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't the other factor water 05 development on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: The issue of what the other factors are 07 is a legal issue and a Board decision-type issue that I 08 can't address. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Doesn't the -- because we have -- Mr. 10 Grober has testified the real problem -- the salinity 11 problem on the San Joaquin River has principally been caused 12 by two sources, importation of water and the water 13 development that has occurred on the tributaries to the San 14 Joaquin River. 15 Doesn't this policy necessitate some sort of action 16 that would control drainage because we can't really tear 17 down the dams that have been constructed? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, I'd rather not address the dams 19 part of that question, but part of our Basin Planning 20 program is to assess what options the Board has in obtaining 21 compliance with water quality objectives. And that is what 22 we're proceeding to do right now and trying to comply with 23 this policy. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Can you put up exhibit Stockton East 25 Exhibit Number 34, which is taken from the same Basin Plan 4850 01 at Page 15. This overhead is Policy 6.d and it states: 02 Of the two major options for disposal of 03 salts produced by agricultural irrigation, 04 export out of the basin had less potential 05 for environmental impacts and, therefore, is 06 the favored option. The San Joaquin River 07 may continue to be used to remove salts from 08 the basin so long as water quality objectives 09 are met. (Reading.) 10 How can this policy be reconciled with the fact that 11 the Vernalis water quality objective is continually 12 violated? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: We have a policy and we have to develop 14 a program to meet that policy. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Wouldn't this policy require the -- if 16 you look at the bottom sentence, "The San Joaquin River may 17 continue to be used to remove salts from the basin so long 18 as water quality objectives are met." 19 Doesn't this policy necessitate the ceasing to use the 20 San Joaquin River as a mechanism to remove salts in light of 21 the fact that the water quality objectives are not being met 22 at Vernalis? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: Only in as much as we have to reduce the 24 load so that the objectives are met. This doesn't have a 25 flat prohibition of discharge associated with it. It just 4851 01 says we have to meet the water quality objectives. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: And those water quality objectives are 03 continually violated. We saw it earlier this morning, the 04 chart at 62 percent of the time during irrigation season and 05 16 percent during nonirrigation season. 06 Thank you. 07 The next overhead is Stockton East Water District 08 Exhibit Number 35, which is a Policy 6.e of the Regional 09 Board. This policy states: 10 A valleywide drain to carry the salts 11 generated by agricultural irrigation out of 12 the valley remains the best technical 13 solution to the water quality problems of the 14 San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Basin. The 15 Regional Board at this time feels that any 16 valleywide drain will be the only feasible 17 long-range solution for achieving a salt 18 balance in the Central Valley. (Reading.) 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I've noted 20 that the Court Reporter is having difficulty keeping up with 21 Ms. Harrigfeld while she is reading the exhibits. I wonder 22 if she could be asked to slow down. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for looking out for the Court 24 Reporter, Mr. Birmingham. I saw that you were gesturing a 25 moment ago, but I missed the reasoning for it. 4852 01 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Did you take it for another gesture? 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Usually that is the gesture that Esther 03 gives me when we are really getting carried away. 04 I think that's always a good caution for all of us, to 05 try to be somewhat measured in the speed we use when we 06 speak. So when reading these, try to do it at the same pace 07 that all of us -- this is an admonition for all of us, not 08 just you, Ms. Harrigfeld. If we read at a pace at which we 09 talk, it makes it easier for the Court Reporter. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is this the current opinion of the 11 Regional Board? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: This is part of the Regional Board's 13 Basin Plan. So, it's part of the Board's water quality 14 control program. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: The last exhibit that we want to put 16 up is Stockton East Water District Exhibit Number 36. This 17 prohibition states, which is found at Page 426, that: 18 Activities that increase the discharge of 19 poor quality agricultural subsurface drainage 20 are prohibited. (Reading.) 21 Does the Regional Board enforce this policy? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, we do. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: But only as to new and not to 24 existing? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: This applies to new drainage, an increase 4853 01 in discharge. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 03 That is all I have. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: That completes all the direct, then, for 05 these witnesses? 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: That completes the direct for these 07 two witnesses. We do have two other adverse witnesses that 08 we are calling from the Bureau of Reclamation and one other 09 witness, as well. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: We have agreed to coordinate the 11 schedules with those witnesses. We would subject these 12 witnesses to cross now. We are open to any schedule, but 13 some parties had asked for that. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: That is what we normally do. 15 Thank you, Ms. Zolezzi. 16 Let me ask if any of the parties need more time. We 17 said we'd have this discussion later. Do any parties need 18 more time to prepare for cross-examination of these 19 witnesses? 20 Mr. Birmingham. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I don't need more time to prepare for 22 cross-examination of the witnesses, but I do need a few 23 minutes to have an exhibit copied, which I will use during 24 my cross-examination. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: We will certainly allow you that time. 4854 01 Anybody else? 02 Maybe we ought to just take a lunch break now and come 03 back at 1:00; that will give everybody a little time to put 04 their thoughts together, make copies that they need to make 05 and we'll start with the cross-examination of these 06 witnesses. And at this time I ask for a showing of hands of 07 those who wish to cross-examine. 08 So, we will come back at 1:00. 09 Thank you very much. 10 (Luncheon break taken.) 11 ---oOo--- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4855 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 ---oOo--- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon. 04 We will resume the hearing. 05 By a showing of hands, hopefully all at once, how many 06 parties wish to cross-examine this panel? 07 We have Ms. Cahill, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Herrick, Mr. 08 Nomellini, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Minasian. 09 In this order: Ms. Cahill, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Herrick, 10 Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Minasian. 11 Have we missed anybody? 12 Before we go to Ms. Cahill, let me make an announcement 13 and then Ms. Whitney can correct me, but we have the latest 14 notice on the back table, or is it out front? 15 MS. WHITNEY: It is outside that door, and it will be 16 there for the afternoon break. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: It will be there after the break? 18 MS. WHITNEY: For the afternoon break. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: After the afternoon break we will have 20 the latest schedule and hearing days for the months, 21 officially added, for November and December. Some of you 22 probably are privy to those already, but they will be out 23 there, and there will be a mailed notification as well. 24 Thank you. 25 Mr. Johnston. 4856 01 MR. JOHNSTON: Are these the same as what is on the 02 Internet? 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 04 No surprises, hopefully. 05 Thank you. 06 Ms. Cahill. 07 ---oOo--- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 09 BY THE CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY MS. CAHILL 11 MS. CAHILL: Good afternoon, Members of the Board and 12 distinguished panel. I am Virginia Cahill, representing the 13 City of Stockton. 14 Mr. Grober, let me start with a few questions for 15 you. I believe I heard you reply in response to a question 16 from Ms. Harrigfeld that there had been a slight increase in 17 salinity in the San Joaquin River. 18 Would you characterize the increase in salinity since 19 approximately 1960 as slight? 20 MR. GROBER: Increase, you are asking from 1960 through 21 the present? 22 MS. CAHILL: Through the present. 23 MR. GROBER: General terms, I would say slight 24 increase. I don't know the exact number off the top of my 25 head. It is also difficult to make a clear answer because 4857 01 we are looking at long-term averages. 02 MS. CAHILL: Would you consider a 20 percent-increase 03 to be slight? 04 MR. GROBER: No. I guess 20 percent is perhaps more 05 borderline, higher than slight, but I don't know. It is 20 06 percent. 07 MS. CAHILL: If there were -- and also in response to a 08 question you indicated that the increased salt loads in the 09 San Joaquin River came from a number of factors. But you 10 didn't specify what those factors were. 11 Could you tell us what factors had caused the increase 12 in the San Joaquin River? 13 MR. GROBER: Increased salt loads, I believe, in 14 general are from drainage from ag lands, the surface and 15 subsurface return flows, wetland discharges groundwater 16 accretions. 17 MS. CAHILL: Can you think of any others? 18 MR. GROBER: Also naturally occurring loading is highly 19 sensitive to all sorts of salt which can dilute sources. 20 MS. CAHILL: Of those that you named, which are the 21 most significant? 22 MR. GROBER: Significant in terms of single -- 23 MS. CAHILL: Making the greatest contribution. 24 MR. GROBER: Highest contributions would be from tile 25 drainage, generally; also groundwater accretions are not 4858 01 small. They are closely following, based on time periods 02 that I have looked at. 03 MS. CAHILL: This next series of questions is for 04 either of you, whoever feels best able to answer. 05 Are there beneficial uses in the San Joaquin River 06 upstream from Vernalis? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, there are. 08 MS. CAHILL: Would one of those beneficial uses be 09 agriculture? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: I expect it is, yes. 11 MS. CAHILL: Would one of the beneficial uses be fish 12 and wildlife habitat? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe so. 14 MS. CAHILL: What other beneficial uses would there be 15 upstream of Vernalis? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: I know that drinking water, municipal 17 water supply, is a potential beneficial use. I would rather 18 not try to list the others that are probably listed for the 19 river. That is all available in our Basin Plan. 20 MS. CAHILL: Would those beneficial uses be affected by 21 high salinity levels? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Potentially, yes. 23 MS. CAHILL: In other words, would the establishment of 24 water quality objectives upstream of Vernalis protect 25 beneficial uses? 4859 01 MR. SCHNAGL: That would be the intent of setting an 02 objective for that stretch of the river, yes. 03 MS. CAHILL: If there were salinity standard equal to 04 the Vernalis standard set upstream, let's say at Crows 05 Landing, for example, and if that standard were met at that 06 point, would less water be required from New Melones for 07 dilution to meet the Vernalis standard? 08 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 09 MS. CAHILL: How much of the San Joaquin River is 10 listed on the Water Board's Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) 11 for salinity? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: I would have to refer to that list. 13 There are a specific number of miles that are listed in that 14 list, but I can't remember off the top of my head. 15 MS. CAHILL: If I suggested 130 miles, would that 16 refresh your recollection? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: I would rather not estimate. 18 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Grober, do you know? 19 MR. GROBER: I don't know that. 20 MS. CAHILL: Is either one of you able to tell me on a 21 map what stretch of the San Joaquin River is considered to 22 be water quality impaired for salinity? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: The water quality impaired list is 24 handled by a different section in our office, so neither Les 25 or I are involved in that, and probably shouldn't try to 4860 01 give you a specific stretch of the river. 02 MS. CAHILL: Does either of you -- does the job of 03 either of you involve meeting water quality standards on the 04 San Joaquin River, generally, or is it more specific than 05 that for each of you? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: Our unit's responsible for dealing with 07 irrigation return flows, primarily. So we are responsible 08 for dealing with salt, boron and selenium at the river at 09 this point. We are not only looking at irrigation return 10 flows, but other sources for those constituents. We cover a 11 pretty narrow range of discharges, primarily. 12 MS. CAHILL: Are you involved in the Basin Plan update? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: We are working on the salt and boron 14 Basin Plan amendment that is being prepared for the Board 15 dealing with salt and boron levels in the river. 16 MS. CAHILL: Do you think for that Basin Plan amendment 17 it would be important to know what stretch of the river is 18 considered water quality impaired? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: Certainly. And I understand which 20 section of the river is impaired in general. I just don't 21 have that specific information I want to present on the 22 record. That is available in our 303 (d) list at the 23 Regional Board. 24 MS. CAHILL: I am not trying to be unfair. If you 25 don't know the specific point, but you can tell us 4861 01 generally, please tell us as much as you know. Is it 02 upstream of Merced? Is it as far as the Mendota Pool? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: It extends upstream of the Vernalis 04 compliance point for the salinity water quality objective 05 that State Board set. 06 MS. CAHILL: But you don't know how far upstream? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: I'd rather not estimate. 08 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Grober, you don't know either? 09 MR. GROBER: Covers the Lower San Joaquin. Again, I 10 don't want to get specific. 11 MS. CAHILL: How do you define "Lower San Joaquin"? 12 MR. GROBER: Lower San Joaquin area is certainly 13 covered San Joaquin downstream of Lander Avenue to Vernalis. 14 Some of that above is also considered water quality limited. 15 MS. CAHILL: Where is Lander Avenue? Perhaps we might 16 put the map back up that Stockton East used as an exhibit. 17 This is Stockton East Exhibit 11-A. 18 MR. GROBER: Equivalent on this map to the San Joaquin 19 River near Stevenson and upstream. 20 MS. CAHILL: So, it would be upstream of the confluence 21 with Salt Slough and Mud Slough? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes. 23 MS. CAHILL: And upstream of the Merced River? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MS. CAHILL: But downstream of Mendota Pool? 4862 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MS. CAHILL: And somewhere in that area, at least that 03 high, but possibly higher? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. 05 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 06 Could one of you explain to me what a TMDL is. 07 MR. SCHNAGL: I will take a crack at that. TMDL is 08 total maximum daily load. It is a load limit that is placed 09 on the amount of constituents that can enter a water body on 10 a daily basis and still maintain the water body at or below 11 water quality objectives for that constituent. 12 MS. CAHILL: So if you had a TMDL that allocated to a 13 particular discharger a particular load, do you set that 14 TMDL in terms of the assimilative capacity of the receiving 15 water at the point of discharge? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: It's set on the capacity at the receiving 17 water based on the objective of the receiving water at that 18 point, yes. 19 MS. CAHILL: So if you had a source of dilution that 20 was a considerable distance downstream, does the TMDL 21 allocate the assimilative capacity where that discharge is 22 being made or at some point downstream where there might be 23 dilution flows? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: It would depend on the water quality 25 objective at the point of discharge. 4863 01 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 02 Are Salt and Mud Sloughs listed on the Section 303 (d) 03 list for salinity? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe they are. 05 MS. CAHILL: And, again, this is for either of you. 06 What are some of the methods by which the actual salt 07 load discharged in the San Joaquin River could be reduced? 08 MR. GROBER: That would be limiting some dissolution 09 salts, the importation of salts, source control. 10 MS. CAHILL: Again, what do you mean by "source 11 control"? 12 MR. GROBER: Source control practices that would limit 13 the amount of salt that can be discharged, source control in 14 terms of best management practices on field, scale, things 15 of that nature. 16 MS. CAHILL: Those best management practices, do they 17 actually take salt out of the system or do they, perhaps, 18 delay its entry into the river? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. That is a complicated question and 20 has a complicated answer. That depends on a lot of 21 different variables. 22 MS. CAHILL: One way to reduce salt load is to actually 23 bring in and apply less salt in the water? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MS. CAHILL: Are there any specific measures, for 4864 01 example, a valley drain would reduce your salt load in the 02 river? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, the valley drain keeps salt from 04 entering the river in the first place, yes. 05 MS. CAHILL: Would land retirement result in actual 06 reduction in salt load? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: It could, yes. 08 MS. CAHILL: Application of less irrigation water might 09 have that affect? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 11 MS. CAHILL: Do you believe -- would you characterize 12 the Grassland Bypass Project as a source reduction project 13 for salinity? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: That project was basically designed to 15 route drainage water around the wetland area and to reduce 16 selenium discharges. I don't believe salt was intended to 17 focus on any of the design of the project. 18 MS. CAHILL: Is the answer no? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: As far as I know, it is no. 20 MS. CAHILL: Is the Grassland Bypass Project a 21 solution, then, to the salinity problems of the San Joaquin 22 River? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: In and of itself, I don't believe so. 24 MS. CAHILL: Does either of you know the proximate 25 distance from Mud Slough to Vernalis? 4865 01 MR. GROBER: No. How close, approximate? 02 MS. CAHILL: Within ten miles. 03 MR. GROBER: Perhaps 50 miles. 04 MS. CAHILL: Approximately 50 miles. 05 If the salinity standard is not being met at Vernalis, 06 is it a pretty good bet that it is not being met all the way 07 up to the confluence with Salt and Mud Slough? 08 MR. SCHNAGL: Are you referring to the Vernalis 09 standard? 10 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 11 MR. SCHNAGL: That standard is at Vernalis. Are you 12 asking us if the concentration exceeds that standard all the 13 way up the river? 14 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 15 MR. GROBER: I would say yes. 16 MS. CAHILL: So the quality of the water in the San 17 Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis would be likely to have 18 -- to also exceed the Vernalis -- that level if the Vernalis 19 standard is a being exceeded at Vernalis? 20 MR. GROBER: Yes. 21 MS. CAHILL: When you place waste discharge 22 requirements on a discharger into Salt or Mud Slough or San 23 Joaquin River, on whom do you place those waste discharge 24 requirements? Let clarify what I mean. 25 Do you put them on the Central Valley Project? Do you 4866 01 put them on irrigation districts? Individuals? The actual 02 dischargers? Who is going to be the people named in the 03 waste discharge requirements? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: You have a specific type of discharge in 05 mind? 06 MS. CAHILL: If, for example, there were to be a water 07 quality objective set upstream on the San Joaquin River and 08 you were going to implement it by means of waste discharge 09 requirements, what types of entities would you place those 10 waste discharge requirements on? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Waste discharge requirements are 12 typically issued to the owners and operators of the project 13 that is discharging waste. 14 MS. CAHILL: By projects or owners or operators, in the 15 event of farms to which Central Valley Project water is 16 delivered, is it the individual farm or districts who get 17 the waste discharge requirements, or do you put them on the 18 Central Valley Project? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: We have issued one set of waste discharge 20 requirements for irrigation return flows such as the 21 Grassland Bypass Project; that is issued to the Bureau of 22 Reclamation and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 23 Authority, and we have no other examples in place. And the 24 parties that any future waste discharge requirements would 25 name would depend on the circumstance. 4867 01 MS. CAHILL: Is there any reason why you didn't put 02 waste discharge requirements for salinity on those entities 03 involved in the Grassland Bypass Project when you did place 04 WDRs for selenium? 05 MR. SCHNAGL: The waste discharge requirements were 06 issued as part of our selenium control program. And the 07 primary purpose was to achieve some control of the selenium 08 discharge from the Grasslands Basin. 09 MS. CAHILL: I would like an answer to this question 10 from both of you. 11 Do you believe that dedicating water supplies to dilute 12 man-induced pollution should be considered only after all 13 reasonable source control and treatment methods have been 14 exhausted? Mr. Grober. 15 MR. GROBER: In my opinion, you are asking? 16 MS. CAHILL: Yes. I am asking for your professional 17 opinion. 18 MR. GROBER: I am not -- I think that would depend on 19 the specific situation. That would depend on the specific 20 situation, unless you are asking a philosophical question. 21 MS. CAHILL: Let me ask you. If that is a Regional 22 Water Board policy, are you in disagreement with that 23 policy? 24 MR. GROBER: I do what I am required to do as part of 25 my employment to the Regional Board, but I thought you were 4868 01 asking my opinion. 02 MS. CAHILL: I was first. 03 MR. GROBER: I will do as directed by my Board. 04 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Schnagl, what is your answer to the 05 first question: Do you believe that dedicating water 06 supplies to dilution should be considered only after 07 reasonable source control and treatment methods have been 08 exhausted? 09 MR. SCHNAGL: Personally, I agree with that general 10 sense. You have to take a look at the individual 11 circumstances of the situation, though. 12 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Grober, it might be fair to let you 13 expand. You said it depended on. Do you want to tell us 14 what it would depend on? 15 MR. GROBER: I just -- on the specific circumstances in 16 which what is being diluted, where it is being diluted from 17 and what other measures have been taken. 18 MS. CAHILL: Is it accurate to say that several feet of 19 Stanislaus River water would be required to dilute one 20 acre-feet of tile drainage discharge from Mud Slough? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: Diluted to what? 22 MS. CAHILL: Diluted to the Vernalis standard 23 concentration of salinity. 24 MR. GROBER: Your question is you mean several 25 acre-feet in both? Could you restate the question? 4869 01 MS. CAHILL: Let me start: Is it accurate to say that 02 the salinity concentration of the discharge from the 03 grasslands area through Mud Slough is approximately 4,000 04 milligrams per liter? 05 MR. GROBER: Which discharge from the grasslands? 06 MS. CAHILL: Well, earlier today there was testimony of 07 4,000. 08 MR. GROBER: If you are referring to tile drainage? 09 MS. CAHILL: Yes, the question was in terms of tile 10 drainage. 11 MR. GROBER: The full question was, it was some -- 12 MS. CAHILL: First of all, is it accurate that at least 13 at sometimes the concentrations in the tile drainage is 14 approximately 4,000 milligrams per liter? 15 MR. GROBER: Yes. 16 MS. CAHILL: If the -- at that time, then, would it 17 take several acre-feet of water, similar of quality similar 18 to the Stanislaus River, to dilute one acre-feet of that 19 tile drainage? 20 MR. GROBER: When you say, I am sorry, but similar 21 quality would take a much higher quality, much lower TDS 22 water quality. Yes, it would take several acre-feet to meet 23 the Vernalis objective. 24 MS. CAHILL: I am sorry, I interrupted you. 25 Do you know what the salinity in the Stanislaus River 4870 01 is? 02 MR. GROBER: It's variable, but it's significantly 03 lower than tile drainage. 04 MS. CAHILL: Would it take several acre-feet of that 05 water to dilute down to the Vernalis standard one acre-foot 06 of grasslands tile drainage? 07 MR. GROBER: Yes. 08 MS. CAHILL: Is one of the things you would consider in 09 determining whether dilution is a good solution to pollution 10 who's doing the polluting and who is doing the diluting? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: I don't think that is a question that we 12 can answer. 13 MS. CAHILL: Does irrigating an acre of land in the 14 drainage impaired area require the use not only of the water 15 applied to the land, but water used to dilute the drainage 16 from that land? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: Could you repeat that again. 18 MS. CAHILL: Does agriculture that results in tile 19 drainage in effect require not only the water applied to the 20 land but a certain increment of other water to dilute the 21 drainage that is coming into the San Joaquin River? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: That would depend on how the drainage is 23 handled from that ag land. 24 MS. CAHILL: If it is put in the San Joaquin River 25 upstream of Vernalis, with the existing Vernalis standard, 4871 01 at some point is some other water required to dilute it so 02 that the standard is met at Vernalis? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 04 MS. CAHILL: I think those are all my questions. 05 Thank you both very much. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 07 Mr. Sexton. 08 ---oOo--- 09 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 10 BY THE SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 11 BY MR. SEXTON 12 MR. SEXTON: Afternoon, Mr. Grober, Mr. Schnagl. My 13 name is Michael Sexton. I am here today on behalf the San 14 Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 15 Karna, could you put up Stockton East Exhibit 28, 16 please. 17 Mr. Grober, my recollection is during your testimony 18 with Ms. Harrigfeld doing the questioning, that respect to 19 the column 1980 to 1989, I thought you said that those 20 figures were somewhat misleading due to the fact that there 21 were three, I believe, wet years included in those 22 computations; is that correct? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 MS. ZOLEZZI: Objection. I don't believe he used the 25 word misleading. You can check the record or rephrase the 4872 01 question, perhaps. 02 MR. SEXTON: My recollection is the word was 03 "misleading." That is the best I can do. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: I remember the series of questions or 05 the question, per se. I don't remember whether that word 06 was used. I don't know if we want to go back and check 07 that. I imagine that -- I will note Ms. Zolezzi's concern. 08 Why don't we say the question is basically that you observed 09 that the cause of the greater TDS was because of a couple 10 wet years; is that correct, sir? 11 MR. GROBER: That's correct, yes. 12 MR. SEXTON: Was there any attempt to quantify the 13 increase in tonnage of TDS load at Vernalis as a result of 14 the wet years? 15 MR. GROBER: Yes. 16 MR. SEXTON: Do you have those computations with you, 17 by any chance? 18 MR. GROBER: I believe I might. 19 MR. SEXTON: Before you go hunting for them, can you 20 kind of give us an estimate of what the annual increase of 21 component would have been as a result of the wet years 22 during the period 1980 to 1989? 23 MR. GROBER: I am sorry, the additional component from? 24 MR. SEXTON: Let me refer to it a different way. 25 When Ms. Cahill questioned you a few minutes ago, she 4873 01 asked you the question whether a 20-percent increase in salt 02 load was higher than slight. I think you answered, yes, it 03 would be slightly higher than -- it would be higher than a 04 slight increase. 05 I am trying to determine now what component of that 06 increase is as a result of wet years that occurred between 07 1980 an 1989. In other words, the implication is that this 08 is as a result of something that agricultural discharges are 09 doing. I want to separate out, if I can, what component of 10 it is from natural occurrences, wet years, for example. 11 MR. GROBER: That intent of taking out of wet years 12 from the 1983-89 to come up with the loading because, as you 13 say, loading is also a function of dilute sources from east 14 side tributaries, for example. So if I were to take that 15 out, the mean tonnage out, take out the wet years, it would 16 be a lower figure. 17 MR. SEXTON: Now, the table there, Stockton East 18 Exhibit 28, it has the average TDS in tonnage at Vernalis 19 and demonstrates an increase in tonnage, a load increase in 20 tonnage. 21 Do you know if over the same period of time there was a 22 exceedance in the concentration at Vernalis? 23 MR. GROBER: An exceedance of concentration? 24 MR. SEXTON: Yes. Excuse me, I misspoke. An increase 25 in concentration at Vernalis. I understand the load is 4874 01 increased, and there is also an increase in concentration? 02 MR. GROBER: In general, in analyses that I have done 03 and looked at, there has been a slight increase in TDS 04 concentration over this time period. 05 MR. SEXTON: There was some questions posed to you a 06 little while ago regarding water quality impairment on the 07 San Joaquin River in the location of that impairment. 08 Isn't it true that the water quality impairment is 09 based on selenium and not on other constituents at this 10 time? The designation "water quality impaired" is a 11 selenium impairment designation? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I believe salts for TDS or EC. 13 MR. SEXTON: Included with selenium and other 14 constituents? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 16 MR. SEXTON: Karna, could you put up Stockton East 17 Exhibit 7-A, please. 18 If you look at the pie graph, pie chart, down in the 19 lower left corner, I have a recollection of seeing something 20 like this before. But it was also accompanied by a 21 different or additional chart which broke down the other -- 22 broke down the components shown in the pie chart. 23 Was that something that you prepared, Mr. Grober? Do 24 you recall that? 25 MR. GROBER: I have prepared charts such as that. 4875 01 MR. SEXTON: If you look, for example, at the 02 37-percent number from the grassland area, what makes up 03 that 37 percent? In other words, what components are 04 included there? 05 MR. GROBER: That includes all sources, which would 06 include agricultural drainage, both surface and subsurface, 07 natural flood flows, hydrology, groundwater accretions, 08 wetland discharges. 09 MR. SEXTON: The point is that the 37 percent shown on 10 the pie chart is not all from agricultural drainage? 11 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 12 MR. SEXTON: You were asked some questions related to 13 the Grassland Bypass Project. I think you were asked 14 whether the Grassland Bypass Project had increased the 15 concentrations of salt in Mud Slough. 16 Do you recall those questions? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. I think I answered that. 18 MR. SEXTON: Your answer was that the Grassland Bypass 19 Project itself had increased the salt concentrations in Mud 20 Slough, correct? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: I was referring to the concentrations in 22 the discharge from the bypass and referring specifically to 23 the first year of operation, where, during the first six 24 months of operation, they had one level of salt in 25 discharge, and then starting around May of the first year of 4876 01 operation and through the summer months, the salt increased, 02 the salt concentration increased. And I understand that 03 that is a result of water conservation efforts and other 04 programs instituted by the drainers. So it was in reference 05 to the discharge itself, not Mud Slough. 06 MR. SEXTON: So you say the concentration increased in 07 Mud Slough? 08 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I said the concentration in the 09 bypass discharge, the water leaving the bypass, 10 increased. I personally can't recollect the Mud Slough data 11 that clearly. 12 MR. SEXTON: You're aware that the bypass project 13 removed subsurface agriculture drainage from Salt Slough, 14 correct? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 16 MR. SEXTON: It also removed drainage from about 90 17 miles of grassland channels? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 19 MR. SEXTON: You are familiar with the fact that within 20 Salt Slough selenium has been reduced from about 50 parts 21 per billion to less than two parts per billion as a result 22 of the Grassland Bypass Channel Project? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 24 MR. SEXTON: Isn't it true that, although the Grassland 25 Bypass Project was not specifically designed to reduce salt 4877 01 in salt discharges, the fact that the bypass project has 02 resulted in a decrease in selenium discharges has also meant 03 that there has been a decrease in salt from the project 04 areas? 05 MR. SCHNAGL: There has been a decrease in salt between 06 the year prior to the operation of the bypass and the first 07 year of the bypass operation, yes. From water year '96 to 08 water year '97 our assessment shows a decrease in salt 09 coming from the areas served by the bypass. 10 MR. SEXTON: In addition to a decreased selenium? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 12 MR. SEXTON: There was some questions posed to you 13 about source control and whether source control resulted in, 14 well, on what effect source control had on load 15 concentration. 16 Isn't it true that source control results in a decrease 17 in flows, right? Decrease in water flows? 18 MR. GROBER: Yes. 19 MR. SEXTON: And discharges. Now a decrease in flow 20 from a discharge point would also result in a decrease in 21 the load from that discharge point; isn't that correct? 22 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 23 MR. SEXTON: Karna, could you put up Stockton East 24 Exhibit 30, please. 25 Gentlemen, the figure before you, Stockton East Exhibit 4878 01 30, is an extract from the State Board EIR. You will notice 02 that the year selected by Stockton East for its testimony 03 were the water years from 1986 to 1995. You're aware that 04 of that entire period, nine of those years were critically 05 dry on the San Joaquin River; isn't that correct? 06 MR. GROBER: I couldn't tell you the exact number, but 07 it is a large proportion of critical dry years. 08 MR. SEXTON: If I were to say nine of the twelve years 09 depicted by the chart were critically dry, in your view 10 would that be representative of what has occurred on the 11 Vernalis overall, in all water year types? 12 MR. GROBER: I'd first like to correct that this is 13 only for ten years, so the nine might be a little bit high 14 in there. Again, I am not certain of the exact numbers. 15 But it is not necessarily representative of a longer 16 hydrology. 17 MR. SEXTON: We know that '86 was a wet year. Probably 18 '93 and, I think, '95 would be characterized. So probably 19 seven of the ten years, then. 20 MR. GROBER: All right. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: You were responding in the affirmative? 22 MR. GROBER: That sounds about correct, yes. 23 MR. SEXTON: If you look at the left-hand pie graph, it 24 indicates a 700 micromho objective being exceed 62 percent 25 of the time. That is a measurement of EC, 4879 01 electroconductivity? 02 MR. GROBER: Yes. 03 MR. SEXTON: Just measurement of EC is subject to a 04 5-percent error; isn't that correct? 05 MR. GROBER: This is not -- this is based on sensors in 06 the rivers, so it is not a laboratory assessment involved 07 here. But it is a probe that is used for this information. 08 MR. SEXTON: But he measurement information is so? 09 MR. GROBER: The measurement would be susceptible to 10 some margin of error. 11 MR. SEXTON: That margin or error could be up to 5 12 percent? 13 MR. GROBER: I couldn't tell you what it exactly is, 14 but some number like that sounds perhaps reasonable. 15 MR. SEXTON: Karna, could you put up Stockton East 16 Exhibit 12-B, please. 17 Could you pull that down just a little bit? I want to 18 see the heading at the top. 19 Thank you. 20 I don't expect you, gentlemen, to remember what is 21 included in every part of your findings in the staff report 22 on the Grassland Bypass Channel Project. I would like you 23 to focus on Finding 30. 24 Is it your recollection -- maybe I should address this 25 to Mr. Schnagl. You were involved heavily in the drafting 4880 01 of the findings in the staff report; isn't that correct, 02 sir? 03 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 04 MR. SEXTON: Is it your recollection that Finding 05 Number 30, as depicted on Stockton East 12-B, is a true 06 representation of what your finding actually says? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe it is. 08 MR. SEXTON: If I were to suggest to you, sir, that the 09 quotation up there is not complete, and at the end of that 10 quotation it includes some language that says, essentially, 11 that the objective for the other constituents in Mud Slough 12 and San Joaquin River will be dealt with through water 13 quality objectives in a Basin Plan; isn't that more 14 representative of what the finding actually said? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: I have a copy of waste discharge 16 requirements with me. There is additional language beyond 17 what you have on the screen. 18 MR. SEXTON: I am referring to the staff report, not 19 just to the waste discharge requirements, the finding on the 20 staff report itself. 21 MR. SCHNAGL: The finding -- the quote on the screen is 22 from the waste discharge requirements and the findings in 23 front of the requirements. 24 MR. SEXTON: Could I see what you are looking at? 25 Apparently, you are not looking at the same thing I'm 4881 01 looking at. 02 MR. SCHNAGL: Item 30. 03 MR. SEXTON: The point, Mr. Schnagl, is the exhibit is 04 saying it is an excerpt from a staff report. Isn't there a 05 separate staff report that is in addition to the order, 06 which reflects the waste discharge requirements? 07 MR. SCHNAGL: There is a staff report. I don't have 08 that, and I can remember what would follow this sentence in 09 the staff report. I was just looking at what I had with me. 10 And if you could repeat that sentence so that I can try to 11 respond to it. 12 MR. SEXTON: The staff report, this Finding Number 30 13 is -- 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, I wonder if the witness 15 could be provided by Stockton East Water District with a 16 copy of the staff report which they excerpted this quotation 17 from. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have a copy present? 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: I could look for one. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Zolezzi. 21 Let's take a moment while -- unless you have other 22 questions and you want to come back to that. It may not be 23 opportune for you to go out of order, Mr. Sexton. We can 24 pause, if you wish. 25 MR. SEXTON: That's okay. 4882 01 Karna, could can you put up the next, Stockton East 02 Exhibit Number 11-A. Stockton East Exhibit 11-A seems to be 03 depicting the Lower San Joaquin monitoring network. That 04 network of monitoring, at least for your activities, stops 05 at Vernalis; is that correct? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: That is correct. 07 MR. SEXTON: The Water Quality Control Plan that is 08 being considered by the State Board has as its purpose to 09 increase water quality for beneficial uses within the Delta; 10 isn't that correct? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: I think I'd rather have somebody else 12 answer that question. 13 MR. SEXTON: Let's assume for the sake of argument that 14 that is correct. My question to you is: Is there a reason 15 why there isn't a monitoring network that is downstream of 16 Vernalis that would pick up water quality discharges, 17 measurement of discharges, below Vernalis? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Our river program is always focused 19 strictly on the San Joaquin River and not the Delta area, so 20 I can't give you a reason behind not going into the Delta 21 and monitoring that part of the basin. 22 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Grober, are you aware of any reason 23 why there would not be monitoring within the Delta to pick 24 up measurements of discharges from in-Delta users, like, 25 for example, South Delta and other areas? 4883 01 MR. GROBER: Just technically, based on my familiarity 02 with the hydrology, is that Vernalis is upstream of Delta 03 influences, tidal influences, so easy monitoring point. 04 MR. SEXTON: Would you agree that in order to get a 05 overall feel of water quality discharges of all discharges, 06 it would be necessary to monitor downstream of Vernalis? 07 MR. GROBER: That depends on what the intent is and 08 what you are after. 09 MR. SEXTON: If you are looking to determine which, if 10 any, entities are contributing to water quality problems on 11 San Joaquin all the way down and into the Delta. 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. 13 MR. SEXTON: Gentlemen, let me show what -- I guess 14 this has already been marked as Stockton East Exhibit 12. I 15 am referring to what appears to be Page 10 and Paragraph 30. 16 Could I have you take a look at that. 17 Karna, could you put up Stockton East 12-B again, 18 please. 19 Now, the paragraph that I just referred to, that number 20 30, that is somewhat different than what is on the overhead; 21 isn't it correct, sir? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Just to clarify what I am looking at, I 23 have the agenda packet for the Regional Board consideration 24 of waste discharge requirements for the Grassland Bypass 25 Project, and Item 30 is actually Finding Number 30 within 4884 01 the waste discharge requirements. 02 MR. SEXTON: Would you read Finding Number 30 as it is 03 set forth in that document, please. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would that document be Exhibit 12 from 05 Stockton East? 06 MR. SEXTON: Yes. 07 MR. SCHNAGL: Item 30 reads: 08 The project is part of a long-term effort to 09 improve the management of agricultural 10 subsurface drainage discharges in the 11 Grassland Watershed. The primary focus of 12 the project has to be control, be the 13 control of the selenium, but the discharge is 14 also causing or contributing to the 15 violations of water quality objectives for 16 other constituents in Mud Slough North and 17 San Joaquin River. Since the project 18 involves consolidation and rerouting of 19 drainage, rather than a new discharge, this 20 order will address the situation through the 21 development and implementation of short and 22 long-term drainage management plans. 23 (Reading.) 24 That is the end of the finding. 25 MR. SEXTON: Thank you. 4885 01 Karna, could you put up Stockton East 33, please. 02 Again, drop down a little bit so we can see what it is 03 from. 04 Thank you. 05 The control action considerations of the Regional Board 06 that are referred to on Stockton East Exhibit 33, are these 07 related to the Grassland Bypass Project in any way that you 08 are aware of? 09 MR. SCHNAGL: No. This is a general policy statement 10 that would apply to more than any one particular 11 discharger. 12 MR. SEXTON: Let me refer you to the policy itself, the 13 controllable factors policy. About the middle there it 14 says, reads, "controllable water quality factors." Then it 15 ends up with "that may be reasonably controlled." 16 Are you aware of the considerations that the Regional 17 Board evaluates in determining whether water quality factors 18 are controllable and may be reasonably controlled? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: In developing a control program the Board 20 has to consider technical feasibility, economic situations 21 and so forth. So, they have a number of issues they have to 22 consider in each particular case. 23 MR. SEXTON: So, the Board would consider economic 24 feasibility, financial feasibility and issues such as that? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 4886 01 MR. SEXTON: Would the Board, for example, dealing with 02 the Grassland Bypass Project, would it consider the fact 03 that the Grassland Bypass Project discharges are not 04 themselves always controllable as a result of natural 05 conditions, such as storm events? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: Storm events and other factors are 07 considered when evaluating controllability of a discharge. 08 And if there is a violation caused by that sort of factor 09 during any enforcement action. 10 MR. SEXTON: So the Board does consider those factors? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Right. 12 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, sir. 13 The Regional Board doesn't normally issue waste 14 discharge requirements in connection with the discharge of 15 agricultural drainage, does it? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: No. It has a waiver program for 17 irrigation return flows, in general. 18 MR. SEXTON: Isn't it true the only reason that waste 19 discharge requirements are in place for the Grassland Bypass 20 Project is because the proponents of that project came to 21 the Regional Board and others in a cooperative, proactive, 22 if you will, effort to achieve some reductions in selenium 23 in the grassland channel? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: That was certainly a factor in developing 25 the control program that is in place today. 4887 01 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, sir. 02 Nothing else, Mr. Caffrey. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 04 Mr. Herrick. 05 ---oOo--- 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 07 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 08 BY MR. HERRICK 09 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. 10 Good afternoon, John Herrick for South Delta Water 11 Agency. 12 My questions will be addressed to both the panel, 13 unless I specify otherwise. So, if you feel you are 14 qualified to answer, please do. 15 Are you gentlemen familiar with the 1980 report 16 authored by the Bureau and South Delta Agency regarding the 17 effects of CVP upon the San Joaquin River and Southern Delta? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: I am not. 19 MR. GROBER: I am somewhat familiar with it, yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: I believe I supplied it to you in various 21 other communications or projects; is that correct? 22 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me, is this an exhibit and could 23 you identify it, please? 24 MR. HERRICK: Right now we have South Delta Water 25 Agency Exhibit 14, previously entered into evidence. What 4888 01 it is, one of the pages of the 1980 report, which itself has 02 been entered in evidence as SDWA 48. 03 Mr. Grober, I am not trying to belabor the point, our 04 agency has provided you with the 1980 report from which this 05 is derived; isn't that correct? 06 MR. GROBER: Yes, I believe so. 07 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that one of the causes of 08 the salinity problem on the San Joaquin River is the overall 09 reduction of outflow on the river? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Within your job duties is one of the 12 things you are trying to address as a method of -- let me 13 start over. That was horrible. 14 Is one of the things you are considering to address the 15 salt problem in the San Joaquin River increased flows in 16 other places, from other sources? 17 MR. GROBER: At this time since we are in the middle of 18 a salinity Basin Plan amendment, we are considering all 19 possibilities. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any reason to dispute the 21 numbers given down there at the bottom, which are circled, 22 which is that the development of the Friant Project has 23 resulted in an average decrease in flows in the San Joaquin 24 River of 345,000 acre-feet from the April through September 25 period? 4889 01 MR. GROBER: I haven't worked through these numbers by 02 myself, but I understand there is some reduction, so I can't 03 tell you how reasonable these are. 04 MR. HERRICK: Is there any reason why flows from the 05 Friant Project would not assist in addressing the salinity 06 problems in the San Joaquin River? 07 MR. GROBER: Would not assist? 08 MR. HERRICK: Is there any reason why they wouldn't 09 help? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: What would those reasons be? 12 MR. GROBER: Any releases from Friant would have to 13 make their way through the San Joaquin River where it is 14 going to provide dilution flow. 15 MR. HERRICK: Assuming those flows reach, I will say, 16 the area around the confluence of Salt and Mud Slough, 17 assuming flows reach that, wouldn't those flows from Friant 18 assist in meeting the salinity issue? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: I know we have heard your general 21 descriptions of your current jobs. I wonder if each of you 22 would tell me what projects you are specifically working on 23 now as much as you can recall each one. 24 MR. GROBER: Currently working on a real time 25 monitoring and modeling project of the San Joaquin River. 4890 01 Been involved with activities related to CalFed and what 02 are some solution options for salinity selenium control, the 03 salinity Basin Plan amendment process. 04 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Schnagl. 05 MR. SCHNAGL: I am working on the salinity Basin Plan 06 program, the Selenium Control Program, the Rice Pesticide 07 Program in the Sacramento Basin. We are involved in site 08 compliance inspections of fertilizer and pesticide 09 facilities, site assessment cleanup related to soil and 10 groundwater contamination. And Les mentioned we have a real 11 time monitoring program that is getting underway. And those 12 are probably the primary projects at the moment. 13 MR. HERRICK: Am I correct in that neither of you are 14 working on the development of the TMDL standards with 15 regards to the 303 (d) listing? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: For which water body constituent? 17 MR. HERRICK: For the San Joaquin River. 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Which constituent? 19 MR. HERRICK: Salt. Actually, it is measured as EC, 20 but salinity. 21 MR. SCHNAGL: There is nobody in our office working on 22 TMDL for that constituent. 23 MR. HERRICK: So, the Regional Board actually has two 24 processes going on. One of them is generally you two 25 gentlemen developing possible water control standards on the 4891 01 San Joaquin River, which will include, among other things, 02 salinity issues. And there is also a process to develop a 03 TMDL program or numbers for that same water body? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: The development of a TMDL will follow the 05 setting of objectives, more than likely we would receive 06 that assignment. It would just be continuation of the salt 07 control process. 08 MR. HERRICK: You are going to first develop possible 09 standards and then the TMDL numbers will be developed? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Right. 11 MR. HERRICK: Can you gentlemen tell me -- do you know 12 how long we have had a water quality objective for 13 agricultural beneficial uses at Vernalis? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: I don't think either one of us would know 15 when that was first established. 16 MR. HERRICK: Well, would you understand that it is at 17 least before the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan of which 18 these hearings are subject? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. SCHNAGL: Oh, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to tax your memory. 22 Do you know if there was a standard created before 23 D-1485? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: What was that year? 25 MR. HERRICK: I am not sure. 4892 01 Do you recall or are you generally familiar with D-1422 02 which resulted in permits for the Bureau for New Melones, 03 would you agree that decision had a water quality standard 04 at Vernalis for agricultural purposes? 05 MR. GROBER: I wouldn't speculate. As I recall, I 06 believe so, yes. 07 MR. HERRICK: Ms. Harrigfeld went through a number of 08 questions that dealt with the Basin Plan, Basin Plan 09 amendments, communication with the -- from the State Board, 10 various I, will say, State Board/Regional Board directions 11 and requirements to develop water quality standards upstream 12 of Vernalis? 13 Is that a fair summary? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be 16 argumentative. My question is: Can you point to factors 17 that have prevented this from being done? Is it a question 18 of -- and you can give me different answers. Is it a 19 question of time? Funding? Is somebody telling you not to? 20 Is somebody telling you to delay it? Are you making 21 discretionary calls? Can you explain how the Regional Board 22 has not come up with standards before this point? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: It is my understanding that the priority 24 was placed on selenium since that was a toxic element, 25 toxic constituent getting into the San Joaquin River. And 4893 01 we wanted to focus on that prior to going into a control 02 program on salt. 03 MR. HERRICK: When you say it is your understanding, 04 could you explain that? Is this a staff discussion? Is 05 this a direction from the Regional Board? Can you be more 06 specific. 07 MR. SCHNAGL: This is the information I received when I 08 took over the ag drainage program in 1995. I will add to 09 that a little bit. At that time the staff was just 10 completing the work of getting an amendment to our Board in 11 early 1996, and that was the selenium Basin Plan amendment. 12 That updated our control program for that constituent. And 13 I was advised that after that was completed my next 14 assignment would be salt. 15 MR. HERRICK: I understand that -- excuse me for going 16 back in time too far. 17 I understand that the selenium problem was most 18 markedly evidenced by the Kesterson, I will say, issue. 19 Generally speaking, I think it is completely speaking, 20 generally speaking, the discharges into Kesterson of high 21 selenium waters has been halted; is that correct? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: And whether that same selenium or the 24 selenium in the valley there is going into the San Joaquin 25 River or not, it is going to other places than Kesterson? 4894 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Correct. 02 MR. HERRICK: Is there some sort of information or data 03 or study that shows adverse effects of the selenium, of any 04 selenium, being transported down the San Joaquin River 05 through the Delta and eventually out in the ocean? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: We have a water quality criteria 07 established by EPA and adopted by our Regional Board of five 08 parts per billion, and the river commonly exceeds that 09 level. 10 MR. HERRICK: But is there something that shows a harm 11 to a beneficial use resulting from the current amount of 12 selenium coming down the San Joaquin River? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I am unaware of any specific biological 14 testing or other testing that can directly link the selenium 15 levels with impact to beneficial uses. 16 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to trick you. I am not 17 aware of any study that shows an impact on fish or wildlife 18 currently, resulting from the current selenium traveling 19 down the San Joaquin River; is that correct? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: Not that I recollect at this point within 21 the river itself. 22 MR. HERRICK: Turning to the Vernalis standard, is it 23 both of your understandings that that is an agricultural 24 beneficial use standard currently under the 1995 plan, and 25 it is for agricultural purposes? 4895 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: Were any of you involved in any of the 04 hearings that developed these water quality standards for 05 agricultural uses? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 07 MR. HERRICK: Let me ask you, and the answer may be no, 08 if you have an understanding as to the purpose of an 09 agricultural water quality standard? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: What would that understanding be? 12 MR. GROBER: Just to set a level that is protective of 13 agricultural beneficial uses. 14 MR. HERRICK: I assume that means that at some point 15 the decision has been made that there is harm to 16 agricultural uses above that point? 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: The current standard at Vernalis under 19 the '95 plan, anyway, is .7 EC during what has been called 20 agricultural time, April through August, and then 1.0 EC 21 during the remainder of the year; is that correct? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that exceedances of that 24 standard are by definition, then, harm or potential harm to 25 agricultural uses? 4896 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MR. HERRICK: So my question is -- well, one more 03 thing. I believe we heard from the testimony in the 04 evidence that periodically, I will say, the Vernalis 05 standard is exceeded; is that correct? 06 MR. GROBER: Yes. 07 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 08 MR. HERRICK: So, again, I am going back to the process 09 of the State Board's decisions. But if we don't have 10 anything showing harm to beneficial uses due to the selenium 11 going down the river, but we do know that the salinity 12 standard at Vernalis is violated at least regularly, how is 13 the decision made to give selenium a higher priority than 14 salinity? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Object to the question on the ground 16 it goes to the deliberative process of the Regional Board. 17 MR. HERRICK: I will certainly limit my question to 18 staff's actions on these issues. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I don't believe that the staff -- I 20 believe that the staff's actions on these issues are also 21 protected by the deliberative process privilege. 22 Ms. Leidigh would probably be the better person to 23 address that issue. 24 MS. ZOLEZZI: It is my understanding that the Regional 25 Board itself would have to claim that privilege. I am not 4897 01 certain it can be claimed by a third party. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think it could be claimed by the 03 State Board. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, since your name has been 05 mentioned, would you like to break the silence which you 06 maintained for a couple of hours. 07 MS. LEIDIGH: There is such a thing as a deliberative 08 process, and it does apply to the deliberative actions of 09 both the State Board and of the Regional Board. 10 But it seems to me that the proper party to claim that 11 privilege is the Regional Board staff, and that they can 12 claim the deliberative process privilege so far as 13 deliberations that are involved with the Regional Board in 14 internal discussions that have gone on that feed into the 15 Regional Board's decision making. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick. 17 MR. HERRICK: I would like to comment that somebody 18 else suggesting a method of preventing evidence from coming 19 forth is certainly novel. And I believe an earlier question 20 I had was whether or not staff's communication with the 21 Regional Board itself dealt with these sort of things. And 22 I would say it a little late to claiming this privilege at 23 this point. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would have to confess I am like 25 President Clinton: I was paying more attention to my own 4898 01 notes than what Mr. Herrick was doing when he asked that 02 question, or I am sure I would have raised it. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Depends what you mean by is. 04 MS. ZOLEZZI: And, again, no one has claimed a 05 privilege at this point. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: I just want to observe as a Board Member 07 sitting on a board where a legal question in a court case 08 was raised as to what our thinking processes are, that I 09 interpreted your question to pretty much go to, when you 10 asked, I think you said something, how in the world could. 11 If I understood the question, you were really getting down 12 to asking him how could the Board, as a Board rather than an 13 institution, be thinking? 14 Is that the intent of your question, Mr. Herrick? 15 MR. HERRICK: That was not the intent of my question. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe you should try the question 17 again. 18 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to ask these witnesses to 19 explain the Board's position. But I am trying to discern 20 how you decide which projects or which things get priority. 21 Let me try the question again. 22 Based on these earlier set of questions and answers we 23 just went through, I am trying to find out how you would 24 decide to give priority to selenium discharges on the San 25 Joaquin River in the absence of evidence of harm to 4899 01 beneficial uses when you have direct evidence of harm to 02 beneficial uses based on the exceedances of the salinity 03 standard. 04 MR. SCHNAGL: I would like to point out that the 05 selenium program deals with more than just the San Joaquin 06 River. And beyond that, I don't believe either Les or I 07 were involved in the decision making that you are referring 08 to. So, I'm afraid we can't answer that. 09 MR. HERRICK: As we have seen, you have various 10 responsibilities in your jobs, that include various topics 11 and various, I'll say, protections, say, of water quality; 12 is that correct? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Are you making any decisions on your own 16 based on time constraints, lack of staff, lack of funding? 17 Do those factor in to your decisions on what projects you 18 deal with at any specific time? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: I think that is part of organizing and 20 conducting work at a unit level by anybody at the Regional 21 Board. And, yes, we do take a look at the assignments. We 22 have juggled staff and resources and try to meet the 23 deadlines and goals as best we can. So, that applies to not 24 only this project, but any project that we deal with. 25 MR. HERRICK: Would you say that, generally speaking, 4900 01 if you are making such discretionary decisions, that it 02 would be better to address a water quality issue that has 03 evidence of harm rather than one that doesn't? 04 MR. SCHNAGL: That would weigh into the decision, yes. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I would like to go off the record for a 06 moment. Excuse me for interrupting your questioning, Mr. 07 Herrick. We will be right back. 08 (Discussion held off the record.) 09 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 10 Mr. Herrick, the reason I asked for consultation up 11 here from our counsel is because I was getting a little 12 concerned about the line of questioning in the sense that 13 there really isn't any, at least for my mind, any foundation 14 established as to the delegated relationship that these 15 gentlemen have with the Board, and I was a little concerned 16 by asking them particular questions about their affirmative 17 actions to do things within projects, it doesn't really get 18 to what they're delegated to do, whether they are doing that 19 arbitrarily, any kind of thing. 20 And so maybe you could or we could have somebody at 21 least create that context for us. And also observe since 22 they are not here with counsel of their own, somebody should 23 afford them that opportunity. 24 And I don't know if the witnesses have been instructed 25 as to what our procedures are. But you are certainly 4901 01 allowed to qualify your answers, even at some length, if you 02 need to. We allow that discretion. And I have noticed 03 also, and maybe it is a little late to be telling you, that 04 perhaps maybe Mr. Grober might have labored under an attempt 05 to be very, very precise. We respect that and we honor your 06 attempt to be very, very truthful, sir. Do not hesitate to 07 explain your answers. 08 And I would like to hear, as Mr. Herrick asks these 09 questions, he may not be the one that is supposed to pose 10 the question in terms of all that context, that I am talking 11 about as you answer these questions, please feel free to 12 explain your answers in the context of what you're 13 delegated to do and what your relationship is with the Board 14 as an institution. 15 Continue Mr. Herrick. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Could I, Mr. Chairman? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Please. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: I sat in as a victim of several 19 depositions. The advice I have obtained, has been told by 20 attorneys, don't guess. I don't think they should feel 21 compelled to give an answer when they don't know the answer; 22 they have not been doing that. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: It may be, and that is a very important 24 point. If you don't know the answer, the answer is "I don't 25 know." That is perfectly all right. 4902 01 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. There 02 is no intent here to surprise the witnesses. South Delta 03 works with these gentlemen all the time. We want to 04 continue our relationship. But it is an opportunity which 05 is not regularly forthcoming to find out how the process 06 works. So perhaps we can nudge the process to our, you 07 know, purposes. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: And to use one of your terms, I didn't 09 think you were trying to trick them. I think that for the 10 purpose of the record and for the purposes of these 11 gentlemen's due process rights, they should have the right 12 to explain themselves. So, please, do that gentlemen. 13 MR. HERRICK: Let me just finish that line of 14 questioning with saying: Would you gentlemen like to tell 15 us, generally speaking, how your job descriptions are passed 16 on and whether you receive priority directions as those 17 projects reach you? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: I'll take a crack at that, just to lay 19 the framework of where we sit in the organization. There is 20 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 21 They appoint an Executive Officer. We work for the 22 Executive Officer. For the most part -- entirely, the Board 23 sets the policy and makes final decisions with respect to 24 adoption of waste discharge requirements and other orders 25 that implement that policy. 4903 01 Within our office the Executive Officer directs staff, 02 and he takes his direction from the Board, has 03 responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Regional 04 Board on a day-to-day basis on a wide variety of programs. 05 Les and I are in the agricultural regulatory and planning 06 unit which is a part of a section of the office that 07 includes planning and nonpoint source-type operations, and I 08 receive instructions from a supervising level person, 09 Environmental Program Manager I, who lays out general 10 direction and provides me with an indication of what kind of 11 resources I have to work with. 12 And from there, I direct staff on a day-to-day basis to 13 develop workplans and complete the tasks involved. 14 You asked about how we prioritize our work. And, yes, 15 on a day-to-day basis, if I have two different issues where 16 one involves a clear threat of some kind versus one that is 17 not such a clear threat, that weighs into the decision as to 18 which way staff resources are allocated. 19 But as far as priorities and so forth and which 20 programs that I am directed to conduct work on, that is 21 generally a decision of the Regional Board and passed down 22 through the Executive Officer and my supervisor. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is it reasonable to assume that input 24 from the public and/or the State Board could result in a 25 realignment of priorities? 4904 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 02 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, in your testimony you were 03 talking about, early on, the salt problem of the western 04 side of San Joaquin Valley. You discussed the -- my 05 impression was that you put emphasis on the indigenous salt 06 in the soil as being the major source of the problem. 07 Did I misunderstand that a little bit? 08 MR. GROBER: If I did, I didn't mean so. I don't know 09 if I would put any emphasis on any single source. But there 10 is salt imports and there are in situ salts. 11 MR. HERRICK: You may have a disagreement with 12 information South Delta has supplied. Let me just pose sort 13 of a long question. I apologize. 14 It is South Delta's position that the indigenous salt 15 in -- 16 C.O. CAFFREY: This is an exhibit that we need to 17 identify. 18 MR. HERRICK: This is South Delta Water Agency 18. 19 The number at the bottom right is from earlier years. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Preceding years; we have seen some of 21 these before. Ms. Harrigfeld slipped it down. 22 Did we get it straight, what the number is? 23 MR. HERRICK: This is South Delta Water Agency 18. I 24 believe it has already been accepted into evidence. 25 The question is: It is South Delta's understanding, I 4905 01 will say, that the indigenous salts, after a period of time 02 through irrigation, get leached out, but the major problem 03 dealing with the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is 04 continued importation of salt through the Delta-Mendota 05 Canal. 06 Would you disagree with that? 07 MR. GROBER: No, that is true. There is a continuum. 08 MR. HERRICK: There is salts in most soils, would you 09 agree with that? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: The salts that come down from the east 12 side of the San Joaquin Valley are generally leached out 13 during, or significant amounts are generally leached out 14 during, say, flood events or high flow events; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. GROBER: On the east side? 17 MR. HERRICK: East side. 18 MR. GROBER: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Again, generally speaking, those salts 20 travel out the San Joaquin River at a lower concentration 21 because they are in those high flood times; is that correct? 22 MR. GROBER: That is also because there are different 23 soils on the east versus the west side. The west side has 24 more -- generally more saline soils because of the rocks, 25 the source rocks. 4906 01 MR. HERRICK: I should have laid that foundation. Is 02 it correct to say, then, that the salts leaching down from 03 the east side of the valley generally don't have any 04 significant affect on the Vernalis water quality standard 05 because the are present during high flow times? 06 MR. GROBER: In terms of load, that is correct. If you 07 are talking about affect, of course, it can act as dilution 08 flows. 09 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree, though, that the 10 concentration during high flow times is generally pretty low? 11 MR. GROBER: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: The load does fluctuate back and forth; 13 is that correct, depending on the water year? 14 MR. GROBER: It is quite a function. It is almost 15 entirely a function of the volume of discharge, since they 16 are very low concentrations. 17 MR. HERRICK: Let me move over to the west side now, 18 and I'm speaking of deliveries from the Delta-Mendota Canal 19 more generally than deliveries from CVP. I'll say 20 improvement. 21 On the overhead is South Delta Number 18. This is a 22 document we presented numerous times. This just shows the 23 annual accretion of salt load through the Delta-Mendota 24 Canal. 25 Have you seen this chart before, by chance? 4907 01 MR. GROBER: Yes, I have. 02 MR. HERRICK: Again, our agency has provided it to you 03 one or two times in the past; that would be where you have 04 seen it from? 05 MR. GROBER: I think a variety of sources. 06 MR. HERRICK: Excuse my labored sentence. 07 So this tells how much salt comes in every year, would 08 you agree with that, from that source? 09 MR. GROBER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Now, would it be correct to say that 11 based on the many years of agriculture on the west side of 12 the valley that the salt that is mobilized and eventually 13 discharged now is salt that was imported at some earlier 14 point from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 15 MR. GROBER: I think that is a very complicated 16 question and would have a pretty complicated answer that I 17 could only answer in general terms. Yes, there is 18 frequently some time lag. You don't see a one-to-one 19 correlation in terms of water that is imported. The salt 20 that is imported with that water, you don't necessarily see 21 that immediately discharged. 22 MR. HERRICK: Of course, there has to be some salt that 23 is continually leached out of the indigenous soils from rain 24 and agriculture itself. Wouldn't that probably be correct? 25 MR. GROBER: Yes. 4908 01 MR. HERRICK: But again, without belaboring that, I 02 just want to make the point -- would you agree that, 03 generally, the vast majority of salt is now a result of this 04 importation? 05 MR. GROBER: I don't know. I will stick with the 06 majority of the salt. 07 MR. HERRICK: Up now on the overhead is South Delta 08 Number 17. I will get to that in a second. 09 Earlier, Mr. Grober, we heard discussions and based on 10 one of Stockton East exhibits that there were certain 11 ten-year time frames and the amount of salt, salt load 12 getting discharged out of the system was -- that was never 13 put on it, correct? 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: South Delta 17 up here now, that shows 16 the net accretion in the San Joaquin Basin. And would you 17 agree that, generally speaking, that the discharge of salts 18 out through the San Joaquin River is less than the salts 19 being delivered to the area through the Delta-Mendota Canal? 20 MR. GROBER: No. But I believe that is perhaps the way 21 you are phrasing the question is because there is 22 significant export out of the San Joaquin. There is 23 generally higher export from the San Joaquin than the San 24 Joaquin River at Vernalis than there are imports. But there 25 are also other sources of salt that are contributing to the 4909 01 salt load at Vernalis. 02 MR. HERRICK: That is actually my point. Let me 03 rephrase that. 04 If you took out salt load going down on the San Joaquin 05 River from areas not being serviced by the Delta-Mendota 06 Canal, would you agree that there is a net accretion of salt 07 in the San Joaquin Valley? 08 MR. GROBER: Based on displays -- based on salt 09 calculations that I have made, yes, I would agree that there 10 is a net accretion of salt. 11 MR. HERRICK: We heard discussions of the possibility 12 of TMDLs being set, or, I guess, the expected probability of 13 it. 14 I am a little confused if the assimilative capacity of 15 the river at any one time depends on the amount of water in 16 it and the amount of constituents in that water; is that 17 correct? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: So any one discharger's contribution to 20 that, if his discharge includes water, is only of concern 21 depending on the concentration? In other words, it doesn't 22 matter how much he is putting in loadwise; it depends on the 23 concentration of what he is putting into that water body. 24 Isn't that correct? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: No. It is more complex than that. 4910 01 MR. HERRICK: Let's say we have a TDS in the San 02 Joaquin River of 200. If a discharger's putting in 4,000 03 TDS, it only matters -- the TDS of the river only increases, 04 excuse me. It doesn't matter what load he is putting in, it 05 is the concentration that affects; isn't that correct? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: No. It would be a matter of the flow in 07 the river and the volume of the discharge. 08 MR. HERRICK: What I am saying is if you are going to 09 regulate load, that would apply if somebody dumping a sack 10 of salt in, how many pounds can you put in. If he is 11 dumping in a solution, doesn't it matter what the 12 concentration he is putting in, not what load he is putting 13 in? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: When TMDLs are developed, it will be on a 15 load basis. The allocation will be pounds of salt per day 16 per discharger. The concentrations will be protected in the 17 river through a calculation that shows that the river will 18 meet its water quality objective by keeping the load below 19 certain levels. 20 MR. HERRICK: Couldn't he put his load in the river 21 many different ways? And depending on which way he does, 22 it affects the river's salinity. In other words, if he puts 23 it in as dry salt, that is one thing with regard to how it 24 affects the river salinity. But if he puts his loads in at 25 a concentration of .1, that is another affect. 4911 01 So I am trying to figure out how regulating his load 02 delivery will necessarily address the salinity problem in 03 the river. 04 MR. GROBER: I don't know if this is an answer to your 05 question. For TMDL, for almost any of these problems, you 06 need to consider both load and concentration. 07 MR. HERRICK: Then, beyond that, you have to consider 08 -- you may want to consider when that is coming in the 09 river. That may be part of the TMDL process. But if 10 somebody puts in 4,000 TDS in the middle of a flood event, 11 it probably doesn't meet the salinity standard at Vernalis 12 or it may not affect? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Herrick, for breaking 14 your train of thought. We need to break here momentarily. 15 How much more time do you think you need for your cross? 16 MR. HERRICK: I have quite a bit more. If you want to 17 take a break, we should probably do it now. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's do that, then, and come back in 19 about 12 minutes. 20 (Break taken.) 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 22 Mr. Herrick, let me just say that we still have -- we 23 have one more name on the list, Mr. O'Laughlin. And we 24 still have after Mr. Herrick, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Birmingham, 25 and Mr. Minasian, as well as Mr. O'Laughlin. 4912 01 I guess the one point, I was somewhat hopeful we could 02 be finished with this panel this afternoon. I don't know if 03 that is going to be possible now. I'm willing to go a 04 little extra past 4:00 if that facilitates getting finished, 05 and I don't know if there is going to be any redirect. That 06 will also add time and with the possibility of recross. So 07 just pointing out that we may have to bring this panel back 08 again for cross, redirect and recross. 09 Please proceed, Mr. Herrick. 10 MR. HERRICK: I will try to be as prompt as I can, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 Mr. Grober, the Court Reporter told me that your last 13 was a nod instead of verbal. She wasn't quite sure if it is 14 in the record. 15 I think the question was: Doesn't the regulation of 16 discharges in order to meet downstream water quality also 17 depend on the timing of the year that those discharges occur? 18 MR. GROBER: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Not sure that was a question, but it is 20 now. 21 Mr. Grober, are you familiar at all with historic water 22 quality measurements at Vernalis? By that I actually do 23 mean pretty far back, prior to 1970. 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that, prior to the 4913 01 operation of the CVP, there were very little, if any, 02 instances when the TDS at Vernalis wasn't in excess of 500 03 TDS? 04 MR. GROBER: The first part of your question you asked 05 going back to 1970, but CVP, you are talking -- that is 06 going back further than that. 07 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I was trying to start with it. CVP 08 is late '50s, early '60s, so I am trying to determine what 09 your knowledge is of the TDS measurement prior to CVP. 10 MR. GROBER: I don't know them off the top of my head. 11 They were lower than currently. 12 MR. HERRICK: I want to make the point, again, although 13 we've been talking about various discussions dealing with 14 the Grassland Bypass Project or control of drainage, a lot 15 of things have different effects on the salt load, perhaps, 16 entering at San Joaquin River. But that the standard at 17 Vernalis is a concentration measurement; isn't that true? 18 MR. GROBER: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: This is with regards to a question that 20 Board Member Brown asked earlier in the direct examination. 21 I would like to go through this issue of how a decrease in 22 load may or may not relate to a concentration change. Let's 23 go through one of the instances you talked about as a method 24 of addressing the salinity problem, and that is source 25 control. 4914 01 It is my understanding that one of the practices being 02 done by some of the districts upstream involves their reuse 03 of their drainage water; is that correct? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes, that is done. 05 MR. HERRICK: By that, when the water drains off the 06 field, when it is collected and stored temporarily or not, 07 they either mix that with something or reuse that water as 08 best they can; is that correct? 09 MR. GROBER: Yes. That is part of recycling. 10 MR. HERRICK: The initial water they used had a certain 11 amount of salt in it, or just generally? 12 MR. GROBER: Yeah, in general all waters have some 13 concentration of salt. 14 MR. HERRICK: Then through the agricultural process 15 water is consumed or lost but the salt stays in whatever is 16 left; is that correct? 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: The plants don't take up the salt; they 19 take up water? 20 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: Some of the water may evaporate, but the 22 salt doesn't evaporate? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 MR. HERRICK: But, of course, some of the water goes to 25 subsurface water and that water would take some salt with 4915 01 it, perhaps? 02 MR. GROBER: Yes. 03 MR. HERRICK: After they've done, I'll say, one 04 irrigation use of this water, it creates a drainage water. 05 Then they bring that water back and reuse it whether it is 06 blended or not. When they reuse it, that process would 07 further concentrate that salt, would it not? 08 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 09 MR. HERRICK: If they had blended it, then they 10 actually added more salt before the reconcentration process, 11 correct? 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Now, I'll say, second drainage is 14 released to the river. It would be a further concentration 15 of the salt as opposed to if the initial drainage was 16 released to the river; is that correct? 17 MR. GROBER: Would you restate the question? 18 MR. HERRICK: The drainage of going into the river 19 after that second use would have a higher concentration of 20 salt than the first use, correct? 21 MR. GROBER: Yes, in general. It also depends on how 22 you blended it. 23 MR. HERRICK: But the salt load is not disappearing, 24 correct? 25 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 4916 01 MR. HERRICK: Whether it is stored short-term, 02 long-term or not stored, there is the same amount of salt, 03 correct? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. It is conservative in that, as you 05 said, it can be in the shallow groundwater or the soils, 06 deeper groundwater or discharged. 07 MR. HERRICK: The more efforts you use to conserve that 08 water, by that I mean the reuse and the blending, the less 09 drainage water you are ending up with; is that correct? 10 MR. GROBER: In general, yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: It is possible to decrease the salt load 12 going into the river by withholding some of that salt in 13 some manner; is that correct? 14 MR. GROBER: You mean on the short-term to not 15 discharge it? 16 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 17 Is that one of the practices being done now? 18 MR. GROBER: You are asking in general? 19 MR. HERRICK: Yes, general. 20 MR. GROBER: Is it being stored, you are saying? 21 MR. HERRICK: Withhold from drainage water. 22 MR. GROBER: I am sorry, withheld from? 23 MR. HERRICK: From the drainage water that enters the 24 river. 25 MR. GROBER: So you are saying is it being stored 4917 01 someplace? 02 MR. HERRICK: Whether storage in a pond or storage 03 subsurface. 04 MR. GROBER: I believe in some areas, yes, there is 05 some storage that is going on. 06 MR. HERRICK: I don't want to make this point too 07 badly. I want to get to the point that you can actually 08 decrease the load going into the river and you can actually 09 decrease the discharge going into the river, the amount of 10 water, but you can actually exacerbate the water's problem 11 because you have very high concentration reaching the river; 12 is that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: Well, that is -- I am sorry, it becomes a 14 more complicated question again. If you're talking in the 15 short-term, and that would, if it has a lower load, you can 16 improve conditions in the river instantaneously because you 17 have contributed lower load. Perhaps it had a relatively 18 insignificant decrease in the discharge such that you would 19 have a higher water quality, more improved water quality in 20 the river. 21 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. By the same token it can be 22 the other way. In other words, you may actually help the 23 river by what you do, but you actually hurt the river by 24 what you do because you are putting in a much higher 25 concentrated drainage; is that correct? 4918 01 MR. GROBER: Well, in the scenario that we just went 02 through, you might have a more -- a lot of this depends on 03 the timing, and that is not to be cagey or argumentative. 04 It depends completely on the timing, complexity of how it is 05 being managed. But simplistically, if you have the source 06 reduction and you have reduced the volume of drainage, 07 though you have increased the concentration, you will likely 08 have decreased that instantaneous loading. 09 MR. HERRICK: Depending on the flow in the river? That 10 was my next area of questions. 11 MR. GROBER: Well, we are assuming, I guess now we are 12 going to be getting into mass balance exercises. It depends 13 on what condition you have in the river, whether or not you 14 will be at a certain concentration, how it is being 15 diluted. 16 MR. HERRICK: I am just trying to explore with you the 17 risks involved in addressing the salt problem. If you 18 address the load problem, it is possible to exacerbate the 19 concentration problem, correct? 20 MR. GROBER: To exacerbate the concentration problem in 21 the river? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 23 MR. GROBER: Perhaps what you're alluding is that other 24 processes that are going on are not instantaneous. If you 25 are on the short-term storing salts in groundwater, that 4919 01 might then be discharged over the river over a longer period 02 of time, you might perhaps be exacerbating conditions 03 because of an increased loading from an additional source. 04 MR. HERRICK: That was one of the concerns expressed by 05 South Delta to the Grassland Bypass Project, wasn't it? 06 MR. GROBER: That there would be additional loading 07 from groundwater? 08 MR. HERRICK: That there would be a possible threat to 09 the concentration, whether or not the load has been 10 addressed. 11 MR. GROBER: But not in the scenario that I had just 12 given. As I understand, some of their concerns were related 13 to increased loading with the Grassland Bypass Project. 14 MR. HERRICK: The Grassland Bypass Project is 15 addressing the loading of selenium, not the loading of salt? 16 MR. GROBER: Yes. That was the intent of the Grassland 17 Bypass Project, was for selenium control. 18 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, I apologize for jumping back 19 and forth here. 20 I have here, and it is not marked as an exhibit, and I 21 am going to mark it, please, South Delta Water Agency Number 22 54. 52 and 53 I have marked for a different 23 cross-examination. We will get to those. 24 Mr. Grober, I will hand you a copy, and I have some 25 copies here, and I will certainly provide everybody a copy 4920 01 in the mail. But I don't have a hundred copies right now. 02 Could you tell me if you recognize -- 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if we can see this before 04 Mr. Herrick examines the witness on the exhibit? 05 MR. HERRICK: I don't have 50 copies, but I am not 06 trying to spring anything on them. But, generally speaking, 07 unfortunately cross-examination documents are not provided 08 ahead of time. No intent on my part, but we prepare as we 09 can. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: This is -- I'm sorry, I missed part of 11 that. This is something new or not already in evidence? 12 MR. HERRICK: This is not in the record, a document, I 13 believe, authored by Mr. Grober that I am going to ask him 14 questions on for the purposes of the cross-examination. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have some copies of it? Is that 16 what is being passed out now? 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is the number? 18 MR. HERRICK: South Delta 54. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: We will be provided copies in the very 21 near future for the rest of the parties. 22 MS. WHITNEY: The Board needs 20 additional copies. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: If you want to pass some copies around, 24 I would be willing to offer mine. I don't know if we need 25 them, all the Board members want them up here, but I can 4921 01 share mine with the audience. 02 Mr. Del Piero is offering his as soon as he has a 03 chance to look at it. 04 MR. HERRICK: Let me lay some foundation. Let's move 05 to the Grassland Bypass Project. Correct me if I am wrong. 06 I am going to save time here. 07 The Grassland Bypass Project originally anticipated, 08 and eventually did, reroute poor quality agricultural 09 drainage so that more and higher quality water could be 10 supplied to the grasslands wetlands area; is that correct? 11 MR. GROBER: That -- yes, that was part of the 12 project. 13 MR. HERRICK: They use part of the San Louis Drain for 14 that transportation. I will say more of the poor quality 15 drainage is going into Mud Slough; is that correct? And 16 less into Salt Slough; is that correct? 17 MR. GROBER: I mean perhaps an explanation of the 18 Grassland Bypass Project would be in order. In summary, 19 drainage that had previously gone down in a flip-flop 20 fashion between Mud and Salt Slough and series of wetland 21 channels, was now being discharged to the San Luis Drain and 22 an all of the lower reaches of Mud Slough. 23 MR. HERRICK: Part of that was in order to ensure 24 better quality of water to those wetlands; is that correct? 25 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 4922 01 MR. HERRICK: Wasn't one of the original reasons for 02 this project developing, that EPA was upset of the level of 03 selenium being allowed to be delivered to those wetlands? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: But earlier questions suggested that it 06 was the good faith efforts of the drainers to address the 07 selenium problem in the river. 08 In your understanding was that the impetus toward this 09 project? 10 MR. GROBER: I was not involved with a lot of the 11 original impetus of the project. That is before I came on 12 board. 13 MR. HERRICK: I am not testing your knowledge of the 14 environmental documents, but this Grassland Project went 15 through environmental review. In that discussion -- in that 16 review, the issue was raised that the practice of rerouting 17 the water withholding the selenium might have an effect on 18 the San Joaquin River's salt concentration; is that correct? 19 MR. GROBER: I understand there was some concerns, 20 yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: Because of those concerns South Delta 22 Water Agency was in communications with both you and other 23 entities involved in this project; is that correct? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Now, South Delta Water Agency 54, which I 4923 01 supplied to you and which you looked over, this is a letter 02 after the project has been done, after the project has been 03 approved, wherein you address an issue raised by the South 04 Delta Water Agency; is that correct? 05 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 06 MR. HERRICK: Page 2 of that exhibit is a model run or 07 results of a model run; is that correct? 08 MR. GROBER: Yeah, the results of a model run and 09 summary results. 10 MR. HERRICK: I don't want to misstate this. Depending 11 on the input or on assumptions, any model run will change; 12 isn't that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, could you restate that? 14 MR. HERRICK: I don't want to say that this is gospel. 15 Any model run depends on what assumptions and data are fed 16 into it, correct? 17 MR. GROBER: Yeah. I think I'd put some significant 18 disclaimers on the assumption portion. 19 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to say this is it. The 20 model runs done were an attempt to predict possible effects 21 on the TDS in the San Joaquin River resulting from the 22 Grassland Bypass Project; is that correct? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that, based on Page 2 and 25 as described on Page 1, the Grassland Bypass Project might 4924 01 result, according to this model run, in an increase of the 02 salinity in the San Joaquin River sometimes and decreases at 03 other times? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: We can see from Page 2 that the increases 06 occur in March -- excuse me, I should say what year this run 07 was done as an example -- using the 1988 hydrology? Using 08 that hydrology the model run resulted in a prediction of an 09 increase of TDS of Vernalis during March, April, May, June, 10 July. Is that correct? 11 MR. GROBER: I think I underlined the ones that shows 12 increase, without forcing you into an answer. 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. Just a clarification, you said this 14 was based on a 1988 hydrology. Just to clarify, this is 15 actually based on 71 years of generated hydrology. 16 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 17 MR. GROBER: But using the bypass data for a single 18 year. 19 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. I misspoke on that. 20 The purpose of this is to show that when you attempt to 21 address the selenium water quality issue by withholding, or 22 attempting to withhold, on the selenium going into the 23 river, one of the results of that could be the increase in 24 salinity concentrations. 25 Would you agree with that statement? 4925 01 MR. GROBER: I guess I am a bit confused. We are not 02 really speaking from this any longer. You're talking about 03 some future control or operation. 04 Could you restate the question, please? 05 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. I am talking as a general 06 principle, the fact that you are trying to, not you, one is 07 trying to control selenium entering the river through this 08 project, might result in an increase in salinity in the 09 river, depending on the circumstances? 10 MR. GROBER: I think that is a fairly broad statement. 11 I don't think I could agree with that. 12 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain why you couldn't agree 13 with that? 14 MR. GROBER: If I understand you correctly, you are 15 suggesting that activities that are attempting to control 16 selenium discharge would result in increased salt discharges 17 to the river. Is that what you are saying, that you were 18 suggesting would occur? 19 MR. HERRICK: I am suggesting that based on the model 20 run data -- 21 MR. GROBER: And you are saying this model run? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes, certainly. That this model run, an 23 effort to control the selenium entering the San Joaquin 24 River can, under certain circumstances, have an adverse 25 effect on the concentration of salinity, of salt? 4926 01 MR. GROBER: That's what led to my confusion. This 02 model run didn't really attempt to look at any kind of 03 selenium control. It was taking a certain particular water 04 year, for example, water year 1988, and just rerunning the 05 hydrology of the system attempting to see what impact would 06 this rerouted hydrology have on water quality in the San 07 Joaquin River. And it would result within the limits of 08 model error here, a slight increase in concentration of the 09 river in some months and decrease in other months. 10 MR. HERRICK: So, depending on actions of the attempts 11 to -- depending on what is actually done to control the 12 selenium entering the river, this increase in salinity May 13 or may not occur? 14 MR. GROBER: I guess that is where I have some problem 15 with the question, because this doesn't speak at all to 16 controlling selenium in the river in this model exercise, 17 doesn't say anything about -- none of the results have 18 anything to do with selenium controls, what impacts those 19 would have on salinity. 20 MR. HERRICK: If we hold, in the example, we hold those 21 criteria steady, then we say the Grassland Bypass Project, 22 by rerouting it, is supposed to allow a method of addressing 23 selenium. If the method they use doesn't change this, we 24 might have a salinity increase. If it does, it might affect 25 either way. Is that correct? 4927 01 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. He said 02 three times already he disagrees with the proposition that 03 is being put forth. 04 MR. HERRICK: I think it is perfectly appropriate for 05 me to explore his answer with other questions. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question? Do you 07 think it is different from -- 08 MR. GROBER: I think if -- I will just state it as an 09 observation, then. If everything else being equal and based 10 on the results of this analysis where we see a slight 11 increase some months, a slight decrease other months, but in 12 the mean sense a general decrease, which I don't know if it 13 is necessarily significant, because it is such a small -- I 14 think that the final conclusion to draw from this is that 15 project really has, in and of itself, no impact on salt 16 loads in the San Joaquin. 17 If you were then to layer on top of that something else 18 that would potentially increase salt loads, well, then, yes, 19 this would suggest that it would increase. But this model 20 exercise itself doesn't speak to how salt loads could be 21 affected in the river. 22 MR. HERRICK: Earlier in your testimony you talked 23 about the actual data subsequent to the three years of the 24 Grassland Bypass Project operation -- is it two years? 25 Three years? 4928 01 MR. GROBER: Going on two years now. 02 MR. HERRICK: I believe you stated that there was a 03 slight increase in San Joaquin River salinity resulting from 04 that. Was that your testimony? 05 MR. GROBER: I don't believe so. Increase in San 06 Joaquin River salinity in the last two years? If I had said 07 that, I misspoke. 08 MR. HERRICK: Karna, would you mind putting up your 09 exhibit with the pie chart? 10 Mr. Grober, or Mr. Schnagl, too, as part of your work 11 involved with San Joaquin River salinity issues, are you 12 determining the locations -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you identify the exhibit again for 14 purposes of the transcript? 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Stockton East Water District Exhibit 16 7-A. 17 MR. HERRICK: As part of your duties involved in the 18 San Joaquin River salinity issues, are you, indeed, 19 determining more specifically where the drainage water is 20 coming -- out of where the drainage water is coming, rather 21 than just the general categories? 22 MR. GROBER: You mean specific sources within each of 23 these zones? 24 MR. HERRICK: Let's start with San Joaquin River 25 upstream, which is one of the categories in the chart. 4929 01 Could you tell us what discharging entities that includes. 02 MR. GROBER: That would include a variety of sources: 03 naturally occurring flows, flood flows, agricultural return 04 flows. 05 MR. HERRICK: Do you what know agricultural districts 06 that include? 07 MR. GROBER: I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. 08 MR. HERRICK: And the grasslands, does that include the 09 wetlands as well as the districts within the grasslands 10 area, as it is called? 11 MR. GROBER: Yeah. Includes both the wetlands, 12 federal, state, private, what was done on the drainage 13 project area, problem area. 14 MR. HERRICK: That drainage project area is defined in 15 the project and the subsequent documents about the 16 information developed there? 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: How about the northwest side? I am not 19 sure what entities that includes. 20 MR. GROBER: The northwest side includes areas 21 downstream of the -- along the San Joaquin River on the west 22 side downstream of the Grassland Watershed. 23 MR. HERRICK: Can you give us examples of the entities 24 involved in that? 25 MR. GROBER: Several larger water districts such as 4930 01 Patterson Water District, West Side Irrigation District, and 02 others. 03 It covers a fairly large area, approximately 40 river 04 miles on the San Joaquin. 05 MR. HERRICK: In your work are you developing -- are 06 you trying to determine whether or not an area that doesn't 07 directly discharge into the San Joaquin River, whether that 08 area subsurface drainage eventually reaches the river? 09 MR. GROBER: When you say "subsurface drainage," are 10 you referring to tile drains? 11 MR. HERRICK: Sometimes it is tile drains, sometimes 12 not, but the subsurface water resulting from the application 13 of water to surface crops. 14 MR. GROBER: You mean groundwater recharge and 15 accretions to the river, am I attempting to quantify that? 16 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: Can you provide us with any indication of 19 areas such as that whose water reaching the river, but they 20 don't directly discharge on the surface to the river? 21 MR. GROBER: There are groundwater accretions to pretty 22 much all of these areas. 23 MR. HERRICK: What sort of methods of addressing that, 24 those types of discharges are you considering? 25 MR. GROBER: Unfortunately, one of the primary methods 4931 01 of trying to quantify it is often by difference, looking at 02 other sources in inputs in particular areas. There are some 03 limited literature that discusses what accretions are to the 04 river at different points. 05 MR. HERRICK: We do have data from -- excuse me, one 06 second. 07 We do have data, and I'll pass this out in just a 08 moment, if the Board will be patient for a second. I am 09 going to introduce in a second -- the Regional Board has 10 produced draft reports dealing with the San Joaquin, dealing 11 with the watersheds of the San Joaquin River. 12 Are you familiar with the Regional Board's Agricultural 13 Contribution to Water Quality in the Grassland Watershed of 14 Western Merced County? 15 MR. GROBER: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: It is dated August 1988. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: 1998. 18 MR. HERRICK: I have pages of part of that document and 19 will be labeling that South Delta Water Agency Number 55. 20 Here are some copies. I will supply everybody with copies, 21 certainly, as soon as possible, in a couple of days. 22 Mr. Grober, do you recognize this document? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: You are going to number this and make it 25 an exhibit? 4932 01 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: As opposed just to something for them to 03 refer in terms of the question? 04 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I have given copies of a few pages 05 of the document, including the cover sheet, to Mr. Grober 06 and Ms. Whitney. I will make the entire document, which is 07 a government document, part of the record. It is a 08 government publication. So, I guess I will be making 20 09 copies of the entire document for staff and the public has 10 the opportunity to get it from the Regional Board. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham, were you standing to get 12 a copy or do you have something you wish to -- 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I was just standing to ask if we could 14 review it before the witnesses are examined on the 15 document. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you like to take a few moments and 17 do that? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: No, I have a copy. 19 MR. MINASIAN: We would like to have an offer of proof. 20 Paul Minasian for the Exchange Contractors. 21 It is labeled draft. Usually drafts aren't 22 governmental documents for the purpose of admission until 23 they're finalized. 24 Could we have an offer of proof? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. Will you deal with that, Mr. 4933 01 Herrick, as you develop this line of questioning. 02 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I am just trying to get some -- 03 obviously, it is a draft. So it can be changed. I was 04 going to go into that. I am trying to get information from 05 Mr. Grober based on what he knows now. We can certainly 06 deal with that if you don't want to accept it because it is 07 a draft. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: This document is currently not 09 finalized; it is still in draft form? 10 MR. HERRICK: Correct. The time period for submitting 11 comments to it recently expired, but that there is not a 12 final document released yet. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, please. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: I just want to comment that if a draft 15 has been published and is out there for the general public 16 to look at, that it can be accepted in evidence although the 17 Board has to recognized that it might be changed at a later 18 time. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Has this been published in the sense 20 that it -- I believe you just alluded to the fact it is out 21 for public review; is that correct, Mr. Herrick? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes. The Regional Board recently 23 released two draft documents. One deals with the quality of 24 water on the San Joaquin River from Lander Avenue to 25 Vernalis. The other one is this one and deals with the 4934 01 Grassland Watershed. The Regional Board released them for 02 public review and published them themselves. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: For purposes of the line of questioning 04 you are trying to develop here, we will recognize this 05 document. You are going to mark it and number it, and then 06 we will deal with its acceptability as an exhibit as we do 07 at the end of the case in chief. 08 Ms. Leidigh. 09 MS. LEIDIGH: I think it will be beneficial to ask Mr. 10 Schnagl or Mr. Grober whether the statements that Mr. 11 Herrick just made about this document are true since they 12 are the witnesses. 13 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, this is a staff report to the 14 Regional Board, and it has been sent out to about a hundred 15 parties for their review and comment. We will review the 16 comments, prepare a final copy for Board consideration and 17 approval at a later date. So it is subject to change, but 18 it is out for public consideration. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I inquire as to the exhibit 20 number? 21 MR. HERRICK: South Delta 55. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: For the record, the Board recognizes 23 that this, as stated by Mr. Schnagl, that this document is 24 subject to change, and we would, for purposes of this 25 question, we take it in with that understanding. And then 4935 01 for purposes of bringing it into the record at a later date, 02 we will recognize it at that time as well. 03 Thank you, sir. Please proceed. 04 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, you are one of the authors of 05 this draft report; is that correct? 06 MR. GROBER: Yes. 07 MR. HERRICK: It is dated August 1998; is that correct? 08 MR. GROBER: Yes. 09 MR. HERRICK: And sometime after the 1st of August it 10 was released to the public and sent to people on the mailing 11 list; is that correct? 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Could you briefly tell us generally what 14 this document purports to say? 15 MR. GROBER: The entire document, it's a summary of the 16 water quality data that is collected by the Regional Board 17 in the Grassland Watershed for water years '96 and '97. 18 Because it is for '96, '97, there is some ability to compare 19 the two years because one is a pre-Grassland Bypass and one 20 is post. So, it is a summary of various water quality 21 parameters at several sites. 22 MR. HERRICK: Is this document supposed to give some 23 sort of examination of the effects of the Grassland Bypass 24 Project? 25 MR. GROBER: No. That is not its purpose. 4936 01 MR. HERRICK: It is just giving water quality data 02 during the time frame before and the first of the Grassland 03 Bypass; is that correct? 04 MR. GROBER: It just so happens to give data for those 05 time periods and incidentally mentions and summarizes some 06 of the data. 07 MR. HERRICK: So, the years '96, '97 are just because 08 it is a two-year document, not because that necessarily 09 corresponds with the Grassland Bypass Project? 10 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 11 MR. HERRICK: On Page 2 of the document, which is the 12 second page of the executive summary, down there, at the 13 bottom talks about salt loads entering the river. And just 14 to expedite here, it says the annual discharge from the 15 drainage project area dropped 30 percent between '96 and 16 '97, and then it gives the acre-feet which that corresponds 17 to. Then it talks about the annual salt load dropped 18 roughly that same percentage. 19 Is that generally correct, my summary there? 20 MR. GROBER: That is what the report says, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: On the top of the next page, Page 3 of 22 the executive summary of that document, it says that the 23 annual discharge from the watershed was similar in both 24 years. But then it does describe it as 270,000 acre-feet in 25 '96 and 290,000 acre-feet in '97. Is that correct? 4937 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MR. HERRICK: So, actually, the overall amount of 03 discharge from the grasslands watershed increased; is that 04 correct? 05 MR. GROBER: Yes. 06 MR. HERRICK: Does the grasslands watershed include the 07 drainage project area? 08 MR. GROBER: Yes. 09 MR. HERRICK: So, although the drainage project area 10 discharges decreased approximately -- just under 20,000 11 acre-feet, the overall watershed's discharge increased 12 approximately 20,000 acre-feet; is that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Now, at the bottom of Page 3, the second 15 to last paragraph, the last sentence says: 16 Generally, lower salt loads of all 17 constituents in '96, '97 was likely due to 18 lower residual salt loads in the grasslands 19 watershed following a series of wet years. 20 (Reading.) 21 Is that correct? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Would you explain to us how the 24 difference between wet years and dry years can affect the 25 salt being discharged from any area? 4938 01 MR. GROBER: It appears from data that I have seen, 02 when you have, for example, a wet year that is followed by a 03 series of dry years, you have a tendency, even though you 04 have significant volume of discharge, there can be leaching 05 of accumulated salts that occurs. 06 In this particular instance when it is talking about a 07 serious of wet years, you can have some generally lower 08 loads because some of that leaching has already gone on. 09 MR. HERRICK: Just to follow-up on that, if you have a 10 number of dry years, there is less water removing salt from 11 the area; is that correct? 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. In general that -- 13 MR. HERRICK: And that can result in accumulation of 14 salts in that area as opposed to if there had been higher 15 flows? 16 MR. GROBER: Everything else being equal, in general, 17 yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: I am just trying to explain this 19 principle. You can certainly disagree. 20 If we had -- let's go back to the last year of the 21 drought. Would you expect that, the most recent drought, 22 would you expect that after a few years of drought, you 23 would have accumulated salt in the soils? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Then once we have a wet year after that, 4939 01 that wet year would start transporting or would have 02 transported some of those salts out; is that correct? 03 MR. GROBER: Yes. 04 MR. HERRICK: Was it likely that the wet year 05 transported more salt out than the prior drought year did? 06 MR. GROBER: Yes. You are saying a wet year following 07 a dry year? 08 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 09 MR. GROBER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: If you have a couple of wet years in a 11 row, would you have expected this situation to change in 12 that the later wet years would be transporting less salt 13 because less has been accumulated? 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. You reached some steady state. 15 MR. HERRICK: That is the purpose of the sentence in 16 there that the generally lower salt loads was likely due to 17 the lower residual loads following a series of wet years, 18 correct? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: Can we make any conclusion regarding the 21 Grassland Bypass Project based on this data? 22 MR. GROBER: That is perhaps a leap. You say you are 23 looking for what conclusions could be drawn from -- 24 MR. HERRICK: You may not have a conclusion, but what I 25 am asking is -- 4940 01 MR. SCHNAGL: Can you be more specific and rephrase 02 that, please? 03 MR. HERRICK: Sure. 04 In your opinion, any decrease in salt from the drainage 05 protection area is most likely attributable to the series of 06 wet years rather than the activities involved in the 07 project? 08 MR. GROBER: I might have a number of hypotheses, but I 09 don't know if I would, certainly not in this type of 10 setting, draw any conclusions. 11 MR. HERRICK: There is not enough data to conclude one 12 way or another? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: But you do believe that the series of wet 15 years would result in a lower discharge, lower salt load 16 discharge? 17 MR. GROBER: Again, I say that, and that is in the 18 context of this report. This is a situation where I could 19 take some time with my co-authors to prepare and make such a 20 statement. 21 MR. HERRICK: If the Grassland Bypass Project did have 22 some effect on the discharge of salt, it can't be discerned 23 from these results? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Asked and answered. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm just sort of at a loss for words. 4941 01 Bear with me. I am not sure it was asked and answered. 02 Who made the observation? 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: A few moments ago Mr. Herrick asked 04 Mr. Grober if he could draw any conclusions from these data, 05 I think he actually said "this data," and Mr. Grober said, 06 no, that there was not sufficient data from which to draw 07 conclusions. 08 Now Mr. Herrick is asking him that question again. 09 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question 10 does not preclude further answers, trying to see what other 11 -- if he might be able to make some sort of conclusion. I 12 don't understand that except to disrupt the train of 13 questions. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, this witness testified it was 15 not the purpose of this report to study the effects of the 16 Grassland Bypass Project. In fact, he said it was purely 17 coincidental that the report focused on one year before the 18 implementation of the project and a year when the project 19 was being implemented. And Mr. Herrick is -- 20 notwithstanding that testimony, Mr. Herrick has continued 21 trying and asked this witness to draw conclusions about the 22 effects of the Grassland Bypass Project, and he's asked this 23 question at least once, maybe twice, and I don't think that 24 he is going to get a different answer. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 4942 01 Mr. Grober -- 02 MR. HERRICK: If I may just say, although the document 03 may not have been produced to examine the Grassland Bypass 04 Project, the document does throughout it, and Mr. Grober 05 will confirm this, it does compare the drainage project area 06 of the Grassland Bypass with a larger area. So it does 07 examine that project area. 08 Again, I think it's perfectly appropriate to further 09 explore an answer that a witness has given. I don't see how 10 this hurts the process, taints the evidence or suggests 11 indirect data. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask Mr. Grober. 13 Mr. Grober, is this a question that you feel that you 14 have already answered? Do you see some difference? 15 MR. GROBER: I could, perhaps, add some further 16 clarification just with regard to one of the statements that 17 was -- the quotes from the -- that there generally was lower 18 loads of all constituents in '96 and '97 was likely due to 19 lower residual salt loads in the Grassland watershed 20 following a series of wet years. That particular comment is 21 referring to the Grassland Watershed, and there was not 22 specific thought with regard to the Grassland Bypass Project 23 or the drainage problem area, specifically. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 25 MR. HERRICK: That's fine. 4943 01 Mr. Grober, would you turn to Page 18, 19 and 20 of 02 that document. Could you briefly tell the Board what the 03 information on these pages state? 04 MR. GROBER: These, the series of tables, Table 12, 05 continued over three pages, is looking at all of the sites 06 for which we have data, monitoring data, for the years -- 07 excuse me. This is a summary, actually, of looking at water 08 years '86 through '95, in addition to '96 and '97 for a 09 variety of sites in the Grassland Watershed. And it is 10 looking at statistics for EC, boron, selenium, both the 11 minimum, the mean and the maximum. 12 MR. HERRICK: The amounts described are the annual 13 amounts; is that correct? 14 MR. GROBER: Those are annual minimums, means and 15 maximums. 16 MR. HERRICK: The drainage sites listed, are those all 17 sites within the grasslands watershed? 18 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: Are some of the discharge sites areas 20 within the drainage project area? 21 MR. GROBER: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: Could you just briefly -- let's start on 23 the far left side, the first one on Page 18. For water year 24 '96, the Firebaugh main drain had a maximum EC of 6590; is 25 that correct? 4944 01 MR. GROBER: Yes, that's correct. 02 MR. HERRICK: Just so we are straight, 6590 is what? 03 MR. GROBER: That is the maximum electroconductivity in 04 micromhos per centimeter. 05 MR. HERRICK: What is the -- how does that compare to 06 the .7 and 1.0 EC standard at Vernalis that I talked about 07 before? I am trying to equate the numbers. 08 MR. GROBER: In the same units, that would be 700 09 versus 1000 for the objectives versus the 6,590. 10 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 11 The mean for that year for that drain? 12 MR. GROBER: 33 10. 13 MR. HERRICK: And the minimum? 14 MR. GROBER: 19 10. 15 MR. HERRICK: So the minimum EC of the drainage water 16 for the year 1996 was always above the Vernalis standard 17 downstream; is that correct? 18 MR. GROBER: The minimum was above the Vernalis 19 standard; therefore, all of the water quality readings were 20 above the standards. 21 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to put into the record the 22 magnitude of some of the problem. Let me back up and say, 23 these are minimums, means and maximums, but they don't tell 24 us when that EC of water was being discharged, does it? 25 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 4945 01 MR. HERRICK: And, of course, when it is discharged is 02 important to whether or not it is effective in meeting the 03 Vernalis standard downstream; is that correct? 04 MR. GROBER: Yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: Of course, we've had a few wet years 06 recently, haven't we? 07 MR. GROBER: Yes. 08 MR. HERRICK: To your knowledge, has the Vernalis 09 standard been violated, I'll say, in the last two years? 10 MR. GROBER: Off the top of my head, generally not. 11 MR. HERRICK: So, we can actually handle high EC of 12 discharges in wet years; is that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Let's go through a couple other ones of 15 these. What is the Panoche Drain? Give us the three drain 16 numbers for water year '96. 17 MR. GROBER: The minimum, mean and maximum? 18 MR. HERRICK: Yes, please. 19 MR. GROBER: Minimum was 34 34. The mean was 45 20, 20 and the maximum was 53 80. 21 MR. HERRICK: Those are wet year discharges, correct? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: In the absence of a wet year, it would 24 take a substantial amount of water to dilute those back down 25 to the Vernalis standard, would it not? 4946 01 MR. GROBER: Yes. 02 MR. HERRICK: Next one is the Hamburg Drain. Could you 03 give us those three numbers for that? 04 MR. GROBER: 3 83, 42 50, and 68 90. 05 MR. HERRICK: Without going through them all, could 06 you just quickly look down the list. The numbers, 07 obviously, fluctuate from drain to drain and sometimes the 08 minimum and sometimes the mean is below either 700 or 1000, 09 and sometimes it is above; is that correct? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: But the maximum is always above 1000; is 12 it not? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: So in your development of water quality 15 standards along the San Joaquin River, you're going to look 16 at these individual drains, are you not? 17 MR. GROBER: These are sites that are mostly included 18 in the Grassland Bypass Project. So it seems unlikely that 19 we would be looking at these individually. But that is -- 20 we are still in the midst of the salinity Basin Plan 21 amendment, so I don't want to give an absolute answer. But 22 that was the intent of or is part what has occurred with the 23 project, that a lot of this drainage has been combined and 24 there is now one discharge point. 25 MR. HERRICK: I was going to say, you said you might 4947 01 not look at them individually because they all drain into 02 one facility and that discharges eventually; is that correct? 03 MR. GROBER: Yes. 04 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion on whether it is 05 easier to address the problem before they enter the single 06 conveyance facility or afterwards? 07 MR. GROBER: What do you mean by -- 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm going to object to the question on 09 the grounds it is ambiguous. I am not sure what is meant by 10 the term "address the problem." 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Be a little more specific, Mr. Herrick. 12 MR. HERRICK: Yes, certainly. 13 Mr. Grober, would you agree that a discharge of 6500 14 and 90 EC needs to be addressed in a -- needs to be 15 addressed if you are trying to improve San Joaquin River 16 quality? 17 MR. GROBER: Are you asking that abstractly, outside of 18 what I am seeing here? 19 MR. HERRICK: Abstractly. 20 MR. GROBER: As part of our salinity Basin Plan 21 amendment, and we are going to be setting objectives, we 22 would be looking at any discharges that exceed those 23 objectives. 24 MR. HERRICK: Then I go back to the original question. 25 In your opinion, is it any easier, or is it better to 4948 01 address discharges in the area of 6500 before they enter a, 02 I'll say, communal drainage facility or afterwards? 03 MR. GROBER: I guess I don't really know what you mean 04 by "better." You're talking from a regulatory standpoint or 05 from a technical standpoint or number standpoint? 06 MR. HERRICK: Let's address those. Let's say 07 technical standpoint. 08 MR. GROBER: From a technical standpoint, if I have to 09 deal with just one number, in terms of looking at its impact 10 on some downstream water body, that is technically easier. 11 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, do the discharges off the 12 wetlands also contribute to the salinity problem in the San 13 Joaquin River? 14 MR. GROBER: I believe at times they do, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Can you give us a feel for whether their 16 discharges or how their discharges compare to agricultural 17 discharges? 18 MR. GROBER: In terms of qualitatively, their 19 electroconductivity is generally not as high as some of 20 these, certainly not as high as some of these maximum 21 readings we have seen here. There is different sets of 22 conditions in terms of volumes and timing and quality. 23 MR. HERRICK: Can you make a generalization about 24 whether or not those discharges are typically above the 25 Vernalis standard? 4949 01 MR. GROBER: That is a point of some debate, and I 02 would say it ranges from below to above the Vernalis 03 standard. That is both very spatially and seasonally. 04 MR. HERRICK: You're looking at that as part of your 05 investigation, too? 06 MR. GROBER: Yes. 07 MR. HERRICK: We've heard discussion earlier briefly 08 about the coordination of drainage. Could you briefly 09 describe the initial agricultural drainage that is 10 discharged into the river sometime around March normally 11 upstream of San Joaquin? 12 MR. GROBER: Could you restate the question? 13 MR. HERRICK: Would you -- let me lead you. 14 Is it true that the agricultural areas on the west side 15 of the San Joaquin Valley typically have an initial spring 16 drainage of water? 17 MR. GROBER: There can be some pre-irrigation in which 18 there is some, yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Historically, specifically March, has 20 that initial drainage been a significant contributing factor 21 towards violation of the Vernalis standard? 22 MR. GROBER: I think I would have to speculate too much 23 about that specific. In that particular case I couldn't say 24 that. 25 MR. HERRICK: Is it one of the proposals that has been 4950 01 discussed with you the coordination of that initial 02 drainage with higher flows during the fish pulse flow 03 period? 04 MR. GROBER: Are you talking from agricultural lands, 05 not wetland areas? 06 MR. HERRICK: Both, either. 07 MR. GROBER: There has been discussion trying to 08 coordinate discharge of salts from a variety of sources, be 09 that agricultural or wetlands to coincide with fish pulse 10 flows. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you considering any sort of waste 12 discharge requirement that might include that requirement? 13 MR. GROBER: I think that it is too early to speculate 14 on that. That's going to be part of our Basin Plan 15 amendment process. 16 MR. HERRICK: In earlier discussion you talked about 17 the various methods of addressing the salinity problem. You 18 stated such things as source control, recycling or land 19 retirement. 20 What do you mean "by source control"? By that I mean 21 are you talking about less water being delivered or less 22 water being discharged? 23 MR. GROBER: Less water being applied, irrigation 24 practices, shortening of furrows, drip irrigation, things 25 like that. 4951 01 MR. HERRICK: Is the application of less water on any 02 particular areas significant, or does it depend on whether 03 the entire area's application is less? 04 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Significant to what? 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you be a little more specific, Mr. 06 Herrick? 07 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, you said that one of the 08 methods of source control includes less application of 09 water. I'm trying to figure out whether you are talking 10 about any particular entity applying less water or whether 11 you are talking about the overall drainage area providing 12 less water. The purpose of that question is, if one entity 13 applies less water, the overall affect on the San Joaquin 14 River may be insignificant or nonexistent, I will say, if 15 the entire area is still applying the same amount of water. 16 MR. GROBER: You mean if water is just moved from the 17 area which is a limited water application, moved to an 18 additional area? 19 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 20 MR. GROBER: With some qualification that is probably 21 true. Depends on the specifics of where the water is moved 22 to. 23 MR. HERRICK: If somebody applies less water, sells 24 that other water to a wetland in the same drainage region, 25 there may be no net effect; is that correct? 4952 01 MR. GROBER: There may be no net effect. 02 MR. HERRICK: The discussions about the drain, does any 03 entity need to apply to you, by that I mean the Regional 04 Board, for any sort of authorization in order to get the 05 drain going? 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to the question. 07 It calls for a legal conclusion. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you know the answer to that? 09 MR. GROBER: No. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Who is being asked. 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Generally speaking, we do not -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you know the answer to the question, 13 is the first thing I need to know, sir. Maybe you were 14 answering that question. 15 MR. SCHNAGL: I was. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, it is late in the 17 afternoon. Also, the question lacks foundation. Mr. 18 Herrick's question referred to the drain. If by that he 19 meant the San Luis Drain or the master drain, then prior to 20 answering the question, he would need to identify the point 21 of discharge of the drain. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I will observe that that was a little 23 gray. Why don't you back up and try the question again, Mr. 24 Herrick. There may be the same objection. Then I will back 25 up, too, and I may need to pose my question again to the 4953 01 witness. 02 Go ahead. 03 MR. HERRICK: Early in your testimony you talked about 04 the San Louis Drain or a master drain as a method of 05 discharging salts out of the area. Do you recall that? 06 MR. GROBER: I am sorry, I thought you were taking 07 this. 08 MR. SCHNAGL: I recall some discussion on that 09 subject. 10 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of any plans to proceed 11 with such a drain? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: Regional Board staff held some 13 discussions two to three years ago with State Board staff 14 and Bureau of Reclamation staff, regarding what steps would 15 have to be taken to get a permit from State Water Resources 16 Control Board. 17 MR. HERRICK: In those discussions what entity was 18 contemplating getting the permit? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: I understood the Bureau of Reclamation 20 was exploring that. 21 MR. HERRICK: Has the Bureau of Reclamation made any 22 such permit application? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: I don't know. That application would go 24 to the State Board. 25 MR. HERRICK: Would go to the State Board and not you? 4954 01 MR. SCHNAGL: That is correct. 02 MR. HERRICK: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I think I am 03 near completed. I want to make sure I don't miss something. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: That is all right, Mr. Herrick. 05 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Grober, the Grassland Project 06 rerouted drainage into Mud Slough rather than Salt Slough. 07 I believe we covered that; is that correct? 08 MR. GROBER: Yes. Into Mud Slough north. 09 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any examination as to 10 whether the increase into Mud Slough has been offset by the 11 decrease in Salt Slough? By that I mean is there some sort 12 of correlation as to the increase and the decrease? 13 MR. GROBER: Increase or decrease of what? 14 MR. HERRICK: Of salinity going into Mud Slough? 15 MR. GROBER: No, I haven't looked at that. 16 MR. HERRICK: Have you done that with regards to 17 selenium? 18 MR. GROBER: No. 19 MR. HERRICK: Do any of the draft documents we talked 20 about, without introducing more, do any of those exams make 21 any conclusions about the effects on the San Joaquin River 22 with regard to that change in the drainage practice? 23 MR. GROBER: I don't recall. I don't believe so. I 24 don't recall. I don't recall. 25 MR. HERRICK: Again, without trying to be 4955 01 argumentative, Ms. Cahill asked you a couple of questions 02 about the increase in the salinity of the San Joaquin River 03 over the past, I think, a 30-year period based on Stockton 04 East graph of salt load. I would like to explore that just 05 a little bit because when she suggested or tried to elicit 06 your comment on what a 20-percent increase was, you said 07 that is just above slight. 08 MR. GROBER: Well, I guess, yeah, there would be some 09 clarification, and I hopefully did not misspeak. But if she 10 was asking about increases in load versus concentration, I 11 am not sure which one you are asking about now, because we 12 saw the figures in terms of load. If we are talking about 13 increases in load, off the top of my head, that exhibit we 14 had seen it was what appeared to be a significant increase 15 in load from the '70s through the '80s. Some of which, in 16 some of the prior discussions we had, can be attributed to 17 wet years. 18 MR. HERRICK: If that's -- 19 MR. GROBER: I am not sure. I was taking this 20 opportunity to further clarify that. I am not sure that is 21 the 20 percent or if it was an increase in concentrations. 22 So if you can just restate the question. 23 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that. Is your comment about 24 slight, does that deal with loads, then? 25 MR. GROBER: I think the 20 percent -- I would -- 4956 01 again, that is somewhat a subjective thing to be referring 02 to slight. 20 percent, I personally would not characterize 03 as slight. It would be on the upper end of slight. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: As a matter of fact, Mr. Grober, I do 05 recall that you used the term "borderline." 06 MR. GROBER: That is another qualification. There is 07 slight and there is slight. 08 MR. HERRICK: In light of your job, are the increases 09 in load as on Stockton East Exhibit Number 28, does that 10 concern you, ignoring for a moment the difference between 11 wet years, wet year flows? I will get to that in a minute. 12 MR. GROBER: If I were not to make an allowance for wet 13 years in looking at this, that increase from the '70s to the 14 '80s, just that we can use Les Grober's frame of reference, 15 I would not characterize that as slight. 16 MR. HERRICK: Again, the '60s to the '80s is the same 17 sort of non-slight situation, would you agree? 18 MR. GROBER: There is significant difference if we are 19 going to look at the different numbers from the '60s to the 20 '70s, I am looking at a number that increases 50,000 from 21 the '60s to the '70s as opposed to the '70s to the '80s, a 22 number that is increasing over 250,000. 23 MR. HERRICK: You said under cross-examination that the 24 number of wet years in '80 through '89 may affect your 25 position on whether or how important that increase is; is 4957 01 that correct? 02 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 03 MR. HERRICK: What would your opinion be if I told you 04 that there were three wet years in '60 to '69 and three wet 05 years from '70 to '79 and four wet years in '80 to '89, 06 would that change your opinion? I mean, doesn't each 07 ten-year group have some wet years? 08 MR. GROBER: Yes. But for my recollection of these 09 periods, the '80s had some markedly wet years. That at the 10 time that I was assembling this data, those were years that 11 stood out in terms of significant additional loading that 12 was skewed by extremely high water years. I couldn't tell 13 you off the top of my head what the difference in magnitude 14 was in those years. 15 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall the data for the '90s? 16 MR. GROBER: No. 17 MR. HERRICK: That deals with loads. Let's ask you 18 about concentrations. 19 Do you think -- do you believe there has been an 20 increase in concentration of salinity at Vernalis over that 21 same 30-year period? 22 MR. GROBER: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Would you make any distinction between 24 those ten-year periods with regards to that increase? 25 MR. GROBER: No. 4958 01 MR. HERRICK Would you describe that increase as 02 slight, to use your -- 03 MR. GROBER: I wouldn't want to speculate. It was not 04 dramatic. And from data that I have seen and as part of the 05 documentation of work putting together the salinity Basin 06 Plan amendment, you can see that there is a slight increase 07 in concentration. It is not in the order of 20 percent. 08 MR. HERRICK: Are there any activities that you know of 09 in the service area of the CVP in the San Joaquin Valley, 10 are there any activities that are -- well, let's start 11 over. 12 Is the salt load being delivered by the DMC at this 13 time either being held in the service area or discharged 14 down the river, or is there some other possibility? 15 MR. GROBER: In general, yes, one of those two. It 16 can also be as well as vertical within groundwater, saline 17 in groundwater, there could be some lateral movement. 18 MR. HERRICK: I would include that being held in the 19 service area. 20 MR. GROBER: Yes. Service area, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: It is not leaving the basin through 22 groundwater methods, is it, other than through the river? 23 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: One of the things you discussed in 25 control of the controllable factors for drainage, you said 4959 01 one of the things you look at, whether it is reasonable or 02 not, is economics; is that correct? 03 MR. GROBER: I think Rudy answered those. 04 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, that is correct. 05 MR. HERRICK: You look at whether or not it is 06 economical to control any specific kind of discharge; is 07 that what you are saying? 08 MR. SCHNAGL: The Board considers economics when 09 adopting Basin Plan amendments containing a controlled 10 program. 11 MR. HERRICK: Do you also look at the economics of not 12 controlling that drainage? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: That could be one of the factors that 14 they look at as part of their assessment. 15 MR. HERRICK: If the drainage is resulting in water 16 quality violations of an agricultural standard, I think that 17 is safe to assume that is causing some level of damage. In 18 your job as staff to the Regional Board, do you make any 19 sort of comparison as to the economic damage to the people 20 who receive the water, which is in excess of the standard 21 and the economic damage that may result controlling the 22 drainage? 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I must admit I am not sure what the 25 economic damage to those is. I am confused. I understand. 4960 01 I have a gist of where you are going. If you could 02 reformulate the question. 03 MR. HERRICK: I was trying to provide too many facts 04 for the given. 05 You said an economic review is a part of the Board's 06 analysis in determining drainage requirements; is that 07 correct? 08 MR. SCHNAGL: The Board considers economics. The 09 extent of that review is going to vary for each project. 10 MR. HERRICK: I am not asking you what the Board 11 decides or does, but you, as staff, make recommendations on 12 those very issues, don't you? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: We present a staff report with 14 recommendation, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: If you are examining whether or not to 16 control somebody's drainage upstream on the San Joaquin 17 River, and in that examination you look at economic effects 18 on the person discharging it by making the control, do you 19 compare that to the economic effects that may result if the 20 drainage is not regulated? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: That may be done on a case-by-case basis, 22 but that is not a requirement. In fact, it is not even 23 common. I don't think I have ever seen that kind of 24 comparison. 25 MR. HERRICK: Do you think such a comparison would be 4961 01 beneficial? 02 MR. SCHNAGL: That would be a matter for the Board to 03 decide. 04 MR. HERRICK: Let me ask you your opinion. If a water 05 quality violation is harming somebody else economically, 06 wouldn't you want to compare that with the economic cost of 07 regulating the drainage? 08 MR. SCHNAGL: I would welcome any economic information 09 you submitted by the party that is being impacted, sure. 10 MR. HERRICK: In our earlier discussion I thought you, 11 both of the panel, agreed that a water quality violation is 12 assumed to result in agricultural economic harm. Are you 13 asking for specific numbers as opposed to a general concept 14 that there would be a harm? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: Would you restate that? I am losing -- 16 MR. HERRICK: Do you want South Delta to give you 17 information putting a number on harm due to water quality 18 violations or does the fact that we tell you there is water 19 quality violations suffice in your economic analysis? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: We would certainly accept any information 21 you have regarding economics that you would like to have the 22 Board consider. The existing standard at Vernalis will be 23 considered by the Board when conducting its water quality 24 objectives, and we are looking at levels of salt that 25 impacted the various beneficial uses upstream at that point. 4962 01 So, we are considering levels that cause harm as well 02 as any information from the parties that have been impacted 03 by higher salts. 04 MR. HERRICK: Are you getting information on parties 05 between Vernalis and Salt and Mud Slough? 06 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, we have. 07 MR. HERRICK: Are you lacking that information on South 08 Delta diverters? 09 MR. SCHNAGL: I can't say specifically. We requested 10 information primarily on uses of the river water for 11 irrigation upstream of Vernalis, and I doubt that request 12 went to South Delta. 13 MR. HERRICK: Would you like us to provide that? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: Our project doesn't extend below 15 Vernalis. But if you have some information that you would 16 like to consider, submit it. 17 MR. HERRICK: This case is dealing with not only the 18 San Joaquin River, but the internal Delta salinity. 19 MR. SCHNAGL: Right. 20 MR. HERRICK: That is all I have. I apologize for 21 going so long. I appreciate everybody's consideration. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: That's all right, Mr. Herrick. 23 Thank you. 24 It is five after four. We have four more 25 cross-examiners. So I think the chances of finishing today 4963 01 have passed away, and we will resume at a later date. 02 Before we all hightail it out of here, let me ask some 03 questions for purposes of making sure we understand the 04 schedule. 05 I thought that when we reset the time schedule and 06 agreed this morning it was our hope or our assumption that 07 we would finish this panel. Am I to understand, Ms. Zolezzi 08 -- let me back up. 09 Tuesday, October 20th we are back. We will start with 10 -- we will finish Trinity County, have Mr. Stubchaer 11 complete that record on that case in chief, the 12 cross-examination. 13 When Mr. Jackson left at that point he said he was 14 pretty sure he wasn't going to have any redirect. I am not 15 going to hold him to that. It depends on what else is 16 asked, obviously. 17 Was it the thought of the group that then, at that 18 point after we finish Trinity County, start again with these 19 folks, or come back at the date that we already scheduled? 20 MS. ZOLEZZI: Unfortunately, the availability, again, 21 leads us to the narrow date of the 28th of October. So it 22 was our thought in discussing with the parties, that if 23 there was a willingness to continue with the list, we may 24 perhaps be again available that day. It may work into the 25 schedule. 4964 01 I hate do that to the record and to the Board, but 02 there was really nothing else for us to do. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I missed what you said. Try that on me 04 again. 05 MS. ZOLEZZI: The next date that we are available is 06 October 28th. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: That is the schedule that we talked 08 about this morning. That is perfectly all right with me. 09 Certainly we have all agreed to here. I just wanted to make 10 sure I understood it. 11 Gentlemen, thank you for your patience. We will need 12 to have you back for further cross-examination. It sounds 13 like redirect, and that would lead possibly to recross. 14 We will see you on the 28th or whatever such date after 15 the 28th that may be necessary. So we have two days next 16 week. See you all on Tuesday. 17 Thank you very much. 18 (Hearing adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) 19 ---oOo--- 20 21 22 23 24 25 4965 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 4773 through 14 4965 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 27th day of October 1998. 19 20 21 22 22 23 ______________________________ 23 ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 24 25