5181 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 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1998 22 9:00 A.M. 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 5182 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 5183 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 5184 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 5185 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 5186 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 5187 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 5188 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 5189 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 5190 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 5191 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 5192 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 5193 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 5194 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 5195 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 5196 01 INDEX 01 02 PAGE 03 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 5197 04 AFTERNOON SESSION 5291 05 SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY: 06 PANEL: 06 JOHN MCGAHAN 07 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION: 07 BY MR. NOMELLINI 5200 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 08 BY MS. CAHILL 5243 09 BY MR. GALLERY 5269 09 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 5291 10 BY MR. PORGANS 5320 10 BY STAFF 5423 11 BY BOARD MEMBERS 5432 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 5197 01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 02 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning, all. We are back on the 05 the record for the Delta water rights hearing. 06 Mr. O'Laughlin is at the podium. 07 Good morning, sir. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good morning, Chairman Caffrey. If I 09 could, I would like to raise one issue for the Board in 10 heads up. We've been working with other parties on 11 scheduling of witnesses and trying to accommodate schedules 12 of various parties. 13 We thought that this testimony would go a little 14 further than it did, based on some understanding that we had 15 about the scope and extent of cross-examinations. That has 16 not occurred. 17 The problem is that our witness or witnesses for Phase 18 V, we think that given the schedule and the way it is going 19 on now, they could come on sometime later next week. They 20 are both unavailable. Their depositions have been set for 21 the last four months in a Federal District Court multi-party 22 action in Virginia. They will be unavailable next week. We 23 will work with the other parties to get the scheduling 24 worked out. But the earliest they would be available would 25 be the first hearing date in November. So, we will try our 5198 01 best to fill in with the other parties. Realizing there 02 might be some delays, I just wanted everybody to know they 03 are just unavailable next week. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: We appreciate your bringing that to our 05 attention at this early date, Mr. O'Laughlin. As we have 06 done in the past, we always try to accommodate the parties 07 and appreciate your telling us that you are trying to work 08 this out with the other parties and arrange an order. 09 If we get to a point where we have to start something 10 else and keep a small part of it open for a day or two so we 11 get your witnesses in here, we will figure out a way to do 12 that, too. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. Based on the scheduling 14 and everything that has to happen, we are hoping that -- 15 well, we are not hoping. We think the rest of the other 16 parties will be done sometime next Thursday. If that 17 occurs, that will work out perfectly. Then our witness will 18 come on the following day. If we finish early on Thursday, 19 I won't have a witness available for Thursday afternoon. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that. 21 Anybody wish to comment or have any thoughts or 22 concerns? 23 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. 24 In the event that all of the other parties' cases are 25 completed and Mr. O'Laughlin is not prepared to go forward, 5199 01 would the Chair commence, then, with rebuttal or hold 02 rebuttal over until after the San Joaquin River Group has 03 put on its case in chief? 04 C.O. CAFFREY: To the extent that some people might be 05 handicapped in trying to offer rebuttal, but not having 06 heard the one case in chief or the one group of witnesses, 07 we might have to extend it. Let me check with Ms. Leidigh. 08 MS. LEIDIGH: I was going to point out for Mr. Sexton, 09 I think we would have to wait for rebuttal until after all 10 of the cases in chief were complete. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: By the way, I would say that this 12 doesn't sound -- I may be wrong. This doesn't sound like 13 too big of a management problem. We are already -- what's 14 today, the 21st of October? 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You have three hearing dates next 16 week. We still have DOI, Stockton East, County of San 17 Joaquin still to finish up, not including what is left here 18 with San Luis and Delta-Mendota. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: As you observed, Mr. O'Laughlin, we are 20 not moving along quite as briskly as we thought we might, 21 although that usually is bad luck to say it. We probably 22 will get to Phase VII this afternoon. Kidding, of course. 23 Appreciate your latest notice. Why don't you go ahead 24 and try to work it out with the other parties. Bring us 25 back a schedule in the next couple days, see how we are 5200 01 doing. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We were in the middle of Mr. 04 Nomellini's cross-examination. 05 ---oOo--- 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 07 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 08 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 09 BY MR. NOMELLINI 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta 11 parties. 12 I would like to go to Exhibit 10, Figure 2, again. I 13 think Mr. Sexton positioned the overhead. He is so kind to 14 do that. 15 MR. SEXTON: Anything for you, Dan. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I appreciate that. 17 Mr. McGahan, yesterday we spent some talking about the 18 underground or groundwater ridge that exists in portions of 19 the area upstream of your grasslands drainage area. 20 Do you recall that? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I do. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: We established, I believe, that the 23 ridge would simply be depicted by differences in groundwater 24 elevations; is that correct? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 5201 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a name that you people 02 attribute to this ridge? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: It is actually not my -- I didn't develop 04 a name for the ridge. It is addressed in the San Joaquin 05 Valley Drainage Program Report. I think it is a groundwater 06 divide in there. As I mentioned yesterday, it doesn't 07 always, necessarily, exist. I have some data that shows 08 that recently it doesn't exist because of the wet years. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: So groundwater divide would probably be 10 a better way to describe it than what I was starting to do 11 and calling it the Johnson ridge; is that correct? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know about Johnson. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the groundwater divide, 14 in answers to my questions you explained that it was not 15 groundwater pumping on the west side of the divide that 16 created the grading; is that correct? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, is it a rise in the groundwater 19 table in the vicinity of the aqueduct as well as application 20 of water on lands on the west side of the aqueduct -- well, 21 east side, excuse me, that probably creates the ridge? Or 22 do you know how the ridge is created? 23 Let's go back. Do you know how the ridge is created? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure I can describe it in 25 detail. It's a complicated, hydrogeologic system. 5202 01 MR. NOMELLINI: It's just the groundwater is higher in 02 that one particular area; is that correct? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: It can be at times. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: When it is higher, when there is a 05 ridge, do you know what contributes to that being higher? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: It's up-slope contributions from the 07 foothills, I believe. Plus it is irrigation on an area 08 easterly of the ridge, combination of the two as they work 09 together and the geology of the ground. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Would it also be leakage from the canal 11 contributing to that ridge? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: It could be. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: When the ridge exists, is it 14 continuous? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: From where to where? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: From Little Panoche Creek to Panoche 17 Creek. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: My understanding of the ridge is based on 19 reports I've read. I haven't developed the information for 20 the ridge itself. But, generally, as the reports I've read, 21 it extends from a point around Nees Avenue, which goes 22 westerly to easterly through the center of our drainage area 23 and goes around and extends partway to Mendota. So, it goes 24 southeasterly and then easterly towards Mendota and then 25 kind of stops over there. 5203 01 MR. NOMELLINI: The ridge does not exist in the Panoche 02 Creek area, just in the Little Panoche Creek area; is that 03 correct? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: That could be one way to say it, yes. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: When we talk about the groundwater 06 ridge, it's really not, as far as you understand it, 07 relevant to a discussion of areas in the vicinity of Panoche 08 Creek, correct? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the movement of water 11 from one side of the ridge to the other, you pointed out at 12 times the ridge does not exist. And in answers to my 13 questions you explained that the groundwater does at times 14 move from west to east through the ridge area? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And you indicated you did not have 17 calculations as to salts that would move with the 18 groundwater when it moves from west to east; is that 19 correct? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your opinion that salts would not 22 move with the groundwater when it moves from west to east 23 through the ridge area? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe salts could move with the 25 groundwater. 5204 01 MR. NOMELLINI: You just don't know how much? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: I asked you some questions about 04 whether or not salts that came from applied water on the 05 lands west of the ridge area, whether or not those salts 06 could contribute to the salt in the groundwater which then 07 would move from west to east. Do you recall those 08 questions? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Irrigation on lands west of the ridge? 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Right. And I think I asked you, but I 11 would like to go through it one more time, if I could. Is 12 it your opinion that salts from the application of 13 irrigation water west of the ridge do not get into the 14 groundwater and move with the groundwater from west to east? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe, when the ridge doesn't exist, 16 then waters could flow from those areas westerly to 17 easterly. There is not a lot of lands westerly of this 18 ridge that are irrigated. There is not a lot of irrigated 19 lands westerly of the ridge, but there are some. When the 20 ridge doesn't exist, those groundwaters could move easterly. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree that the salt applied 22 to the lands could get into the groundwater through the 23 irrigation? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: That salt that moves below the root zone 25 into that water table, yes. 5205 01 MR. NOMELLINI: So, you would agree that salts from 02 applied water at times could move into the groundwater and 03 then move from west to east in the ridge area? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: We talked a little bit about perched 06 water table. Is that water, groundwater, that is above the 07 Corcoran clay in your area? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, it is. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the elevation of that 10 groundwater, perched groundwater table, have a gradient that 11 runs generally from west to east, except for the ridge 12 condition? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: I would say generally from southwesterly 14 to northeasterly. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Because of that gradient, would you 16 agree that this perched groundwater moves in a direction of 17 the fall of the gradient towards the San Joaquin River? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And does that perched water table exist 20 underneath any portion of the Westlands Water District? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: So portions of the perched water table 23 under the Westlands District would move, generally, from 24 southwest to northeast, and, if we look at Exhibit 10, 25 Figure 2, which is on the screen, would move from Westlands 5206 01 Water District areas into the drainage area that you have 02 responsibility for. Is that correct? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: It certainly could. Again, depending on 04 the characteristic of this ridge, et cetera. But it 05 certainly could. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: When the ridge is not there, it could 07 move? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you think it does move salt in your 10 area? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: At times, yes. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with Fresno Slough? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the map on the screen, 15 where, roughly, is Fresno Slough? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: In the lower right-hand part of the map 17 shows the city of Mendota. The Fresno Slough runs 18 southeasterly from Mendota. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that at times water flows 20 through Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree at times water from the 23 Tulare Lake Basin is pumped into the San Joaquin River? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Could you be more specific? Tulare Lake 25 Basin is a huge area. 5207 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Does any water from the Tulare Lake 02 Basin make its way into the San Joaquin River, to your 03 knowledge? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I know the Kings River, when it is in 05 flood conditions, can be diverted northerly to the Fresno 06 Slough to the San Joaquin River. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: And it is, on occasion, so diverted? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with the pumping plan 10 in Fresno Slough? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: I would like to go to Exhibit 11, which 13 is the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Canal Authority exhibit. 14 Did you prepare that chart? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I did. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell us -- well, first of 17 all, is the chart based on measured salt discharges? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: It is based on measured flow rates and 19 salt concentrations to determine the tons of salt. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Looking at the Column with 95, water 21 year '95, and the part that, I guess, is yellow on the 22 screen, blank on the copy, talks about drain area. 23 What measurements are reflected in that column? Column 24 looks like it goes up to about 240,000 tons, correct? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 5208 01 MR. NOMELLINI: How did you calculate the 240,000 tons? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: That is measured at several discharge 03 points from the drainage area at the northerly boundaries of 04 the drainage area. Prior to the Grassland Bypass Project, 05 there were four discharge points that discharged the 06 drainage water from the drainage area into the grassland, as 07 I mentioned, and so it would be measurements at those four 08 points for '95 and '96. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell us what those four 10 points are? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Our nomenclature is measuring points 12 FC-5, PE-14, PO-1 and CH-1. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you make a continuous measurement 14 of the salinity of the water for the entire water year at 15 each of those points? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: We -- the quality is based on grabbed 17 samples. When I think of continuous, it would be an 18 automatic sampling device. These concentrations, except for 19 the PE-14 site which is continuous monitoring, the other 20 ones are grab samples. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the grab samples, how 22 often were the grab samples taken and when generally were 23 they taken? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: It varied. Some taken weekly. Some 25 would be monthly. Generally no greater than monthly. 5209 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you take a grab sample in every 02 month for each of those stations where there was not 03 continuous monitoring? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe we did. It is possible there 05 could have been some exceptions to that, but generally 06 yes. I might also point out that we collected and 07 calculated this data. The data is also reported by the 08 Regional Board. So, I have -- we have checked the data with 09 data published by the Regional Board, also. They also 10 measured quality and reported the salt load at these sites. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Were their measurements independent of 12 yours? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Sometimes yes. They relied on some of 14 our information, mainly the flow information from us. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying with the water quality 16 measurement, who took the grab samples? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Representatives of the water agencies 18 whose discharge went through the sites. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Did the Regional Board take independent 20 samples? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, they did at times. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "at times," does that mean 23 they did not take one every month? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't answer that. I know they did do 25 duplicate samples -- not duplicate. They did their own 5210 01 sampling at time. I can't give you the history at each 02 site. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a record available that has 04 those measurements? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly. The Regional Board has 06 published the information. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the monthly grab sample 08 I gather it was assumed that the monthly sample reflected 09 the concentration of salinity for the entire flow for that 10 particular calendar month. Is that the way you approached 11 it? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. And weekly would be for 13 the week. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to the flow at each of 15 these points, how was the flow measured? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: The flow is all measured with 17 continuous-type recorders. They could either be flow meters 18 that have totalizers on them so they would constantly be 19 adding up the flow. Or it could be -- it was across weirs. 20 It would have continuous stage measurements. There would be 21 continuous flow measurements at each site. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: So, with the weir situation there would 23 be a continuous monitor of the elevation of the water at the 24 weir; is that what you are telling us? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 5211 01 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the other condition 02 where there was no weir and there was a flow meter, what 03 measurement was recorded there? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: It's a mechanical propeller flow meter. 05 So, as the water goes past the propeller, it turns and it 06 mechanically adds up and records on a totalizer on the 07 meter. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: So the totalizer measures the velocity 09 of the flow at the point at which the propeller is located 10 on the flow meter? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Yeah, that is correct. And it is 12 calibrated for the diameter of the pipe, et cetera. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Are these all pipes that we're talking 14 about, these four discharge points? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: No. Two of them have propeller meters 16 and would be pipes. The other two are weir measurements. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Those weirs, are they completely fixed 18 or are they dependent on soil banks? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: They are actually structures that have a 20 fixed crest. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: So, they are reasonably accurate, in 22 your opinion, for the measurements taken? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. One of the sites, the PE-14 site, 24 is actually -- there is a subcontractor with the Department 25 of Water Resources that maintains the site, calibrates it. 5212 01 MR. NOMELLINI: During the -- we were talking about 02 '95, and if I think back, like, in spring of '95, it was 03 kind of wet. There was quite a bit of rain? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Does any water flow over the top of 06 those pipes or by these pipes that gets by them without 07 being measured at these four locations? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any other channels that allow 10 the water to pass from your drainage area, I am talking 11 about surface channels, without being measured? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Not any significant ones. There 13 certainly could be ones, but there are not any significant 14 other discharges. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "not significant other 16 discharges," what are you talking about? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't really even know of any. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you in any way attempt to measure 19 accretions to the -- well, accretions -- Strike that. 20 Did you make any attempt to measure movement of salt 21 out of the drainage area by way of the movement of the 22 groundwater, the perched groundwater? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: At what location? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: At the boundary of your drain area. 25 MR. MCGAHAN: No, we have not. 5213 01 MR. NOMELLINI: It would be fair to state that Exhibit 02 11 does not reflect the discharge of salt loading from the 03 grasslands drain area that moved by way of groundwater 04 movement out of the area? 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Assumes facts not in 06 evidence. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: I think we established salts move with 08 the groundwater. And the only question would be: Do you 09 agree that groundwater moves out of your area? 10 Let's go back. I will rephrase, start again. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. That is one way of handling 12 the objection. If you are willing to do that, Mr. 13 Nomellini, that is one way of handling the objection. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: If Tom will tell me what he didn't like 15 about it, I will try to do better. We'll find out. 16 Would you agree that the perched groundwater table 17 under the grassland drain area in 1995 at times had a 18 gradient moving from southwest to northeast? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: I Assume you are talking in the northerly 20 edge of our drainage area? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Any part of your drain area. 22 MR. MCGAHAN: You can't answer any part. You have to 23 tell me where you want it answered. In the northerly part 24 of our drainage area I don't have any groundwater 25 information, but it is my understanding the gradient is very 5214 01 flat in that area. I never heard of anyone saying that 02 there was significant groundwater movement off the northerly 03 boundary of our area. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: That takes care of northerly. Where do 05 we go next? Easterly? What about the easterly portion? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: I categorize northeasterly the entire 07 northeasterly boundary. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there groundwater movement there? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. My judgment is that it is 10 very minimal because the gradient is very flat. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's assume the gradient is very 12 flat. Are you saying it is flat, or are you saying there is 13 a slight gradient to the northeast? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: In any event, there was no attempt to 16 measure flow of -- movement of salt load by way of movement 17 of perched groundwater; is that correct? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the perched groundwater table rise 20 and fall with the hydrologic condition of any particular 21 year in your drain area? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: It certainly does. One thing, the 23 perched water table, where we have subsurface drainage 24 systems, is artificially maintained as a level below the 25 root zone. So when those drains are operating, their 5215 01 purpose is to maintain the water level at a certain 02 elevation, and it generally stays at that elevation. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Generally, you would admit that under 04 extreme rainfall periods or hydrologic events that the 05 system would not have the capability of draining all that 06 water, would you not? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, they can drain almost all the 08 water that is applied. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: You say "almost." 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Not perfect. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: In some cases. Would those cases be 12 extreme hydrological events? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: They could be. They could be extreme 14 irrigation events. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: At times the gradient could be 16 increased by reason of the hydrologic events, gradient in 17 the perched groundwater? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: When that gradient increases, it 20 increases the rate of flow in the direction of the gradient 21 for the perched groundwater, does it not? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: If the gradient increases, generally, the 23 groundwater flow would increase. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know why -- let's go back a 25 minute. 5216 01 Going to the blue column on Exhibit 11, which is the 02 Salt Slough and Mud Slough column on the exhibit, did you 03 use measurements to put the 500 -- to get the 500,000 ton 04 figure that is reflected on the chart for water year '95? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I used information that is reported by 06 the Regional Board. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: What information was that? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: It's the measurement of the flow at Mud 09 and Salt Slough and salt concentrations to determine load. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Your people didn't take those 11 measurements? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know who made the measurements? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Were they measurements of salinity that 16 were continuous? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. I don't have firsthand 18 knowledge. I would have to look at the reports; is in the 19 reports. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: You used the report; you actually 21 didn't do the calculation? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to this Exhibit 11, are 24 there any changes in the salt load drain from your drain 25 area that are the result of improved water quality in the 5217 01 applied water? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: That is a very complicated question. We 03 don't really know the answer to that. In my judgment, as I 04 testified yesterday, I feel there is a perched water body 05 there and the forces that are created to push that out push 06 older water out. So you are not getting out the drainage 07 system the water that is applied, for example, in any given 08 year. It takes a long time for that actual water to come 09 out the drains. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: So, the result of better quality water 11 being applied would be reflected in a later measurement 12 rather than in the year in which the water was applied? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, that is my understanding, yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree, though, that changes 15 in applied water, sometime prior to '95, '96 and '97, could 16 be the cause of the difference or parts of the difference 17 that we see on this particular Exhibit 11? 18 MR. SEXTON: Is your question changes in quality? 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Can you repeat the question? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I think so. 22 Would you agree that changes in applied water quality a 23 number of years prior to the '95, '96 and '97 period could 24 be the reason why some of the differences exist in the salt 25 load that is draining out and that is reflected on this 5218 01 Exhibit 11? 02 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Assumes facts not in 03 evidence. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: I will try to get at it a little better. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: You agree, do you not, that the quality 08 of the applied water is relevant to the examination of 09 changes in salt load being discharged in the grassland drain 10 area? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, it is relevant. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Does figure -- does Exhibit 11 take 13 into consideration changes in the quality of the applied 14 water? 15 MR. SEXTON: Assumes facts not in evidence. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I am just asking. 17 You would agree with the quality of applied water 18 changes, would you not? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Now let's go back to that question. 21 You would agree that Exhibit 11 does not take into 22 consideration changes in the quality of applied water to the 23 grassland's drain area, would you not? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Does not take into account? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: You didn't take it into account when 5219 01 you prepared Exhibit 11, did you? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Exhibit 11 is simply a calculation of 03 flows and concentrations of loads at given locations. So 04 you would not take it into account to prepare this graph. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: I gather from your testimony that 06 Exhibit 11 was produced to show the beneficial impact in 07 terms of reduction of salt load coming from the grassland 08 drainage area over the period of water year '95 through 09 water year '97? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: The graph does show that, that the salt 11 load has been reduced for that period of time. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you attempting to give us this 13 information to show that the measures being taken within the 14 grassland's drain area are being, at least on the short 15 term, successful? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: We feel our project has been real 17 successful, and that is why we are here today and yesterday, 18 to say that this area of the San Joaquin Valley and this 19 grassland drainage area we feel we are being very 20 progressive. And it is also that the farmers understand 21 that they need to control their drainage, and that they are 22 doing that, and that we are making significant improvements 23 both in selenium and, as is shown by this graph, for 24 salinity. 25 It is not that that is any minor cost. Our estimates 5220 01 of the cost to do this is about $11,000,000 a year to our 02 grassland drainage area. It is a significant cost that we 03 have expended to get to this point. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 05 Now, in terms of evaluating the effects of this great 06 effort and expenditure of dollars, you have looked at the 07 salt load moving out of certain drains from your grassland 08 drain area, correct? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Correct. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in terms of evaluating the 11 effectiveness of these measures, would you agree that it 12 would be appropriate to look at the affect of changes in the 13 quality of the applied water? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: As I stated, the quality of applied water 15 does not come into account. It impacts the results of these 16 figures, but it is -- these figures are simply measurements 17 at given points. So, any impact of improved quality would 18 be taken into account in these measurements. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: If, for example, we had a situation 20 where the applied water quality differences were sufficient 21 to account for the changes that had occurred in water year 22 '95, '96 and '97 in the measurements of the drainage from 23 your area, you would agree that under that hypothetical that 24 the drainage measures didn't have a beneficial effect, based 25 on this chart? 5221 01 MR. MCGAHAN: I know that the actions we took had an 02 impact on this reduction. So, yes, absent anything we have 03 done, which we have testified that we have done everything 04 possible to meet water quality objectives and to reduce salt 05 and selenium, but absent all of that, yes, you are right. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: In answer to questions, I believe by 07 Mr. Herrick, with regard to water year 1997, I believe he 08 asked you if that was a wet year, and your answer was it was 09 an above normal year. 10 Do you remember that? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: I remember the discussion. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Where were you in January of 1997? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: I was probably out in the drainage area. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you not agree that 1997 was a wet 15 year? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: What I'm characterizing as -- what I was 17 characterizing was a classification of the San Joaquin River 18 hydrologic type, and there is no such thing as a wet 19 classification. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay, all right. That is the point. 21 It's got to be in the wetter, poor time, would it not? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe the classification was -- I 23 don't recall what it was. It was certainly wet. But it was 24 certainly wet through January. On the day of the Super Bowl 25 in January we had the highest rainfall out there all year. 5222 01 But the next day it quit. And it didn't rain the rest of 02 the year. So that affects what happens in the system. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: In your opinion, was it as wet as any 04 other, '95 or '96? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Wasn't near as wet as '95, but it was 06 wetter than '96. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to selenium -- I am off of 08 salinity, I am on selenium now for a moment. You indicated 09 that selenium moves from the foothills and the coastal area 10 down through Panoche Creek. 11 Do you recall that? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: You kind of said there was a lot of 14 selenium coming down Panoche Creek? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: It probably all came from there. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: "All" meaning over geologic time? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Geologic times. All the selenium 18 probably came through that creek. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You pointed out that it was erosion of 20 the hills and the movement of sediment. Is that what your 21 testimony was? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Now the sediment geologically deposited 24 in this region; is that what you are saying? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 5223 01 MR. NOMELLINI: And the sediment has selenium in it? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there still sediment today, in these 04 current years, '95, '96, '97, moving from the foothills into 05 the west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, there is during wet periods. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, the selenium in these sediments 08 gets mobilized in some fashion, does it not? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: How does it get mobilized? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Mainly through the movement of water. As 12 water moves through the sediment, it can mobilize the 13 selenium into the water. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So, applied irrigation water could 15 mobilize selenium to move from the sediment into the water; 16 is that correct? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Can you repeat the question? 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So, application of irrigation water on 19 soils with selenium could cause the selenium to be mobilized 20 into the groundwater? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that what we call soluble selenium? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe the selenium is soluble, yes. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: If a piece of land has a greater 25 contribution of selenium than another piece of land and both 5224 01 are irrigated, is the one with the greater concentration of 02 selenium in the soil a larger problem with regard to 03 mobilizing selenium than the one with the lesser quantity? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Again, as I testified, the majority of 05 the selenium that comes out of the drainage system is 06 already soluble and in the perched water table. As you 07 cause hydrologically those waters to go out of the drains, 08 it is that water that goes out the drain. I think the 09 contribution from actual percolation through the ground is 10 minimal compared to that contribution from the water body 11 that is already there. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: You are saying that once you have 13 mobilized the selenium from a body of soil, it's done and, 14 basically, what you are doing is managing the mobilized 15 selenium rather than worry about the selenium in the soil; 16 is that correct? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there differences in the selenium 19 content in the soils in the area that we have been talking 20 about between Little Panoche Creek and Panoche Creek? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, there is. And the way we see that 22 is different concentrations coming out of individual field 23 tile systems. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Were you here when we dealt with -- 25 people characterized it, I did not. I will use it -- 5225 01 radioactive red area on a particular map and then Mr. Sexton 02 characterized the next color as some kind of pink. 03 Do you remember those maps? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the higher 06 concentrated concentration areas on those maps are a greater 07 problem with mobilizing selenium than the lesser 08 concentration areas? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: In my judgment they are not. It goes 10 back to my point that the water -- our problem water is 11 primarily the water that is already in the perched water 12 table, and we are not getting huge contributions from 13 additional leaching out of those soils. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there an explanation as to how one 15 particular soil could retain more selenium than another 16 particular soil? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: The selenium in the soils was washed out 18 on the foothills. As it was deposited, those areas that had 19 higher concentrations are higher. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: As we apply water, you testified 21 previously, we mobilize selenium from the soil into the 22 groundwater. Am I correct? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. But the question is, 24 how did this selenium in the perched water body get there? 25 Could have been from many processes, including rainfall over 5226 01 a long period of time and irrigation on those lands that had 02 selenium in it. It's a long process that had, I believe, 03 many factors. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: So your testimony is that if you have 05 selenium in soil, application of irrigation water to that 06 soil will not continue to mobilize selenium from the soil? 07 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Misstates his testimony. He 08 testified only with respect to the drainage area. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that correct? 10 MR. SEXTON: The question is broader. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree, you're only saying that 12 with regards to the drainage area? 13 MR. SEXTON: I have an objection on the record. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you try the question again and 15 make it a little more specific, Mr. Nomellini? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. In terms of selenium in the 17 soil, I am speaking in general now, think in terms of the 18 area from Little Panoche Creek to Panoche Creek, both within 19 and outside the grassland drainage area or project area, 20 would you agree that application of the irrigation water to 21 soil with selenium in it mobilizes the selenium into the 22 groundwater? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly, it can do that. But as I also 24 testified, I don't think that is a big contribution 25 currently to the selenium that is being discharged from our 5227 01 area. It is primarily this perched water body. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Will it, in your opinion, and "it" 03 means that contribution, will it continue, in your opinion? 04 Even though I heard what you said that you don't think it is 05 a major component? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't answer. It would be some sort of 07 chemical process. Whether that will continue always, I 08 don't know. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: In your opinion, is it possible for 10 some soil to retain a higher selenium content than other 11 soil regardless of the amount of applied irrigation water? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. 13 I would like to correct one thing, if I might. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 15 MR. MCGAHAN: You asked me about these water year 16 types. There is a wet water type. There is a dry, 17 critical, below normal, above normal and wet. These are all 18 wet years. I correct my testimony. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You make me feel better, anyway. 20 You indicated in testimony that groundwater from -- I 21 guess you were talking about the grasslands drainage area -- 22 was only used during drought periods; is that correct? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Repeat it, please. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it correct that you testified that 25 groundwater was only used during drought periods in the 5228 01 grasslands drain area? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, yes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "generally"? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: The wells are owned by individuals, so 05 certainly there could be some use at all times. If an 06 individual wanted to use his wells, there is no prohibition 07 from him doing that. But, generally, in years when they 08 received a normal surface supply, they don't need 09 groundwater. Groundwater is of poor quality, so there would 10 be no reason to use the groundwater, except in times when 11 their water supply is deficient. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: So in terms of evaluating changes in 13 the salt load leaving the area, it would be appropriate in 14 some years to look at whether or not groundwater was used to 15 replace surface water in irrigation in the drainage, would 16 it not? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Significant in what way? 18 MR. NOMELLINI: You agree that the groundwater that is 19 used in the area is saltier than the canal water? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: And if the objective is to reduce the 22 loading coming from the drain area, would you not agree that 23 it is important not to increase the application of 24 groundwater within the drain area? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't think the discharge, the amount 5229 01 of salt that is discharged is directly related to the 02 groundwater pumping or the quality of water. Certainly the 03 quality of the water has an impact on it. 04 We went through this yesterday. As long as you 05 maintain a proper leaching fraction, it is not the water 06 that you apply that comes out that given year. It happens 07 over a long period of time. And over a long period of time, 08 certainly, it is the desire to use the applied water with 09 the lowest concentration of salt. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: You agree, do you not, that salts in 11 the applied water in part end up as salt load in the perched 12 groundwater? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Over time, yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you saying now that there is no 15 relationship between the salinity of the perched groundwater 16 and the applied water? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: There is a relationship. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Why is it not important to make sure 19 that there is not a switch within this project area from 20 canal water to groundwater pumping? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not heard of anyone proposing that 22 occur, so I don't understand the question. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with the -- let's back 24 up. 25 Are any of the exchange contractors in your grasslands 5230 01 drain area? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with any agreements 04 between the exchange contractors and the Bureau of 05 Reclamation for transfer of water? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: You are talking about the exchange 07 contractors? 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I am roughly familiar with it, yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it not true that with regard to such 11 a transfer that it was contemplated that the transferred 12 water could be made up from groundwater pumping? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not familiar enough with that. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 3 of Exhibit 9, bottom of the 15 page, you state that: 16 The Grassland Bypass Project is an innovative 17 program developed to improve water quality in 18 the channels used to deliver water to wetland 19 area. (Reading.) 20 Is that correct? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: I noticed that you did not mention 23 improvement of water quality in the natural channels, such 24 as Mud Slough, Salt Slough or the San Joaquin River. Was 25 that intentionally done? 5231 01 MR. MCGAHAN: No. Salt Slough is included in the -- 02 was intended to be included in the statement that it 03 improves water quality in Salt Slough, which is a channel 04 that I use to deliver water to wetland areas. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the San Joaquin River, 06 that would not be included in this statement, would it? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: No. San Joaquin River does not deliver 08 water to wetland area. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: This project is not innovative, in your 10 opinion, with improving water quality in the San Joaquin 11 River? 12 MR. SEXTON: Misstates his testimony. He just 13 testified that the San Joaquin doesn't deliver water to the 14 refuges, that is the purpose of the statement he is using 15 for the bases of his questions. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Any comment, Mr. Nomellini? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: I will try another question. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the Grassland 20 Bypass Project is not an innovative program developed to 21 improve water quality in the San Joaquin River? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: The Grassland Bypass Project is an 23 innovative program, and another of the main goals, not 24 mentioned in this sentence, is to meet water quality 25 objectives in the San Joaquin River. 5232 01 MR. NOMELLINI: What water quality objective in the San 02 Joaquin River is the Grassland Bypass Project developed to 03 meet? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: The Grassland Bypass Project and the 05 implementation activities in the drainage area, as a result 06 of the bypass project, which are the regulations of the use 07 agreement, the waste discharge requirements we have now from 08 the Regional Board are a tool that we will use in the 09 future, along with other tools to meet all the water quality 10 objectives in the San Joaquin River. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the Grassland Bypass 12 Project, are you familiar with the San Luis Drainage Canal? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Not by that name. The San Luis Drain? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: What do you call it? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: San Luis Drain. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes, I am familiar with it. 17 When it was constructed, it terminated in Kesterson 18 Reservoir; is that correct? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Terminates just on the north boundary of 20 Kesterson Reservoir. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the purpose of 22 that canal, when it was constructed, was to keep the 23 drainage flowing in the San Luis Canal from getting into the 24 San Joaquin River? 25 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Ambiguous. 5233 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question, Mr. 02 McGahan? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: He used the term "San Luis Canal." I 04 don't know what you mean. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the San Luis 06 Drain, as originally constructed, was intended to keep the 07 drainage water that flows in the drain from getting into the 08 San Joaquin River? 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Lacks foundation. I don't 10 think that Mr. Nomellini has asked the questions required to 11 establish the original purpose for constructing the San Luis 12 Drain. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Cross-examination. I am allowed to 14 lead a little bit. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: He can lead. That is not my 16 objection. He can lead. He could lead by saying: "Isn't it 17 correct that the San Luis Drain was originally intended to 18 drain the San Luis unit to an outlet to the Delta?" That 19 would be a perfectly appropriate question. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Not that we are trying to conduct a 21 clinic in cross-examination because both gentlemen, Mr. 22 Nomellini and Mr. Birmingham, are quite skilled. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May the record reflect that Mr. 24 Nomellini has found a good use for Westlands Exhibit 90. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Let the record show that Mr. Nomellini 5234 01 has donned a hat, but the Chair will refrain from commenting 02 whether or not it is appropriate. 03 Perhaps you can get us all out of this if you back up 04 one step and try a little bit of foundation on that, Mr. 05 Nomellini. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that the San Luis Drain 07 was constructed to keep the drainage water that flowed in it 08 from getting into the San Joaquin River? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Would you repeat the question? 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that the San Luis Drain 11 was constructed for the purpose of keeping the drainage 12 water that flowed into it from getting into the San Joaquin 13 River? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I am aware that the San Luis Drain was 15 not completed. I am aware the original intent was to go 16 from Kern County and take drainage water from Kern County to 17 the Delta. And I am aware it wasn't completed. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's start with that. 19 Assuming it was completed, the drainage water that 20 would have flowed in that would not have gotten into the San 21 Joaquin River until it got to Antioch, right? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Speaking about the stretch of the San 24 Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis, would you agree that the 25 San Luis Drain was constructed for the purpose of keeping 5235 01 the drainage water that flowed in it from getting into the 02 San Joaquin River up stream of Vernalis? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: There are some details of that I am not 04 familiar with. I am not sure all of the land, even in our 05 drainage area, was intended to be served by the San Luis 06 Drain. It may have been. I am not that familiar with it. 07 You said it was constructed. It wasn't constructed. 08 So, I guess, if it had been constructed, the answer to your 09 question would be yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: For the portions that were constructed, 11 would you agree that those portions were constructed with 12 the purpose of the drainage water that flows in the San Luis 13 Drain not getting into the San Joaquin River? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: First time I saw the end of the San Luis 15 Drain it had a pipe to Mud Slough, and that goes to the San 16 Joaquin River. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Was the pipe open or closed? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: I have seen it both ways. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree that the Grassland 20 Bypass Project has now created the situation where the San 21 Luis Drain does take the drainage water that flows in it and 22 discharges it into Mud Slough and in turn directly into the 23 San Joaquin River? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you view that portion of the 5236 01 Grassland Bypass Project as being part of the innovative 02 program developed to improve water quality in the San 03 Joaquin River? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I think it is, along with all of the 05 other activities that I mentioned in my testimony that we 06 have done in our area to be responsible for our drainage and 07 to reduce the amount of drainage and to ultimately help us 08 to meet water quality objectives in the San Joaquin River. 09 It is innovative because of the nonpoint source character of 10 drainage water. There has not been these kind of projects 11 implemented, and I think this is one of the most innovative 12 in the United States. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the San Luis Drain, can 14 you describe the drain in terms of whether or not it is a 15 lined drain or an earthen bank drain? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: The San Luis Drain? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Concrete lined. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it concrete lined for its entire 20 length? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Does water, groundwater, accrete into 23 the drain? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: It can. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Does water seep from the drain? 5237 01 MR. MCGAHAN: The drain is designed with weep valves in 02 the bottom of it. It is an engineering feature. Because if 03 you dewatered the drain and there was water on the outside, 04 it would collapse the lining in. So it was designed for 05 water to go into the drain, so that the water level in the 06 drain was maintained as the same level as the water on the 07 outside of the drain. It was not designed for water to 08 seep out. However, there are cracks in the drain, so, 09 certainly, it is possibly that the water can seep out of the 10 drain. But it wasn't designed for that. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard -- I'm nearing the end, 12 just in case you are getting nervous. With regard to Page 5 13 on Exhibit 9 -- 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Excuse me for just a minute, if you 15 wouldn't mind. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 17 Any change to any answer you want to make or any 18 clarification? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: The clarification is my familiarity with 20 the specifics with the drain is within the Grassland Bypass 21 Project reach. The San Luis Drain extends to Five Points, 22 and I don't have firsthand knowledge of it. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether it is lined down 24 there or not? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I do know it is lined because I drive 5238 01 across it when I drive up. I don't know if it's got -- I 02 don't know how it is operated down there. It's not part of 03 our project. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 5 of your Exhibit 9, at the 05 bottom you state that your experience as a Regional Drainage 06 Coordinator to the grasslands area farmers leads me to 07 conclude that regulation of salinity through Basin Plan 08 amendments, developed by the Regional Board, is appropriate 09 and that the Regional Board should be given the opportunity 10 to develop a full range of salinity control approaches 11 applicable to the full range of dischargers. 12 Do you see that, Page 5? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that I read it correctly? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in your opinion, should the 17 Regional Board set a salinity objective for the San Joaquin 18 River upstream of the Merced? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: I'm not Regional Board. I'm not going to 20 set the objectives. They're going to come up with the 21 plan. I don't think it is up to me to say how the plan is 22 going to be developed or where the objectives are going to 23 be set. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you support the setting of a 25 salinity objective for the San Joaquin River upstream of 5239 01 Merced? 02 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Mr. McGahan is a consultant 03 for a specific client. Is the question is he personally? 04 That is a different question than perhaps his testimony on 05 behalf of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: I think -- I am not sure that is an 07 appropriate question to ask him in the capacity in which he 08 is here. On a personal basis or -- 09 MR. NOMELLINI: I will follow up with a question on 10 that. 11 On Page 5 of your statement, in the portion that I 12 read, and that is Exhibit 9, is that a personal statement or 13 is that a conclusion of your client's? 14 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Obviously, the testimony is 15 rendered on behalf of the specific client, and the client is 16 making the statement through the testimony of Mr. McGahan. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree with Mr. Sexton's 18 characterization of your testimony? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the San Luis and Delta-Mendota 21 Water Authority have any objection to the Regional Board 22 setting a salinity objective for the San Joaquin River 23 upstream of the Merced? 24 MR. SEXTON: I am going to object, again. Mr. 25 Nomellini is asking the witness questions that depend on the 5240 01 policy adopted by the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 02 Authority. I don't believe the witness can answer those 03 questions. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you agree with your counsel? Let me 05 ask you if you agree with that. Do you have difficult with 06 these questions? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Then you merely need to so state that, 09 and I won't require you to answer it. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: In all due respect, the difficulty with 11 the question I don't think is the legitimate issue. It is 12 whether or not he knows if they have such a position. I 13 think that is a legitimate question. If he doesn't know, 14 that's fine. But I don't think it is -- 15 C.O. CAFFREY: You are asking him -- you are asking him 16 if he knows if there is a policy position? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: I can change it to that. Do you know 18 whether or not the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Canal 19 Authority opposes the Regional Board setting a salinity 20 objective for the San Joaquin River upstream of the Merced? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: They have not taken a position on that, 22 as far as I know. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any -- in your opinion, how 24 long will it be before the San Joaquin River water quality 25 upstream of the Merced is restored to a condition of 500 5241 01 parts per million TDS? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know the answer to that. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the grassland's drainage 04 project, you indicated in prior responses to questions that 05 the leaching fraction would not have to be increased to 06 accommodate the introduction of tailwater and tile drainage 07 water into the applied water because previously the leaching 08 fraction was ample or more than ample. 09 Do you recall that testimony? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: The Grassland Bypass Project 12 anticipates further reductions in the discharges of selenium 13 from the grassland drainage project area, does it not? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Looking forward, do you believe that 16 you could accommodate an increasing reduction of loads of 17 salt without increasing the leaching fraction? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: As I stated in my opinion and you 19 restated it, in past years our leaching fraction has been 20 more than needed. And to reduce our drainage I feel we can 21 continue to maintain proper leaching fraction while 22 decreasing from previous years. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: My question is: In your view, is that 24 an indefinite capability that extends into the future? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: It has to be watched very closely. As I 5242 01 stated, in our recycling system we have to watch very 02 closely so we don't increase the salinity in the soil. 03 Because our objective there is to maintain agricultural 04 production and a salt balance. So, it is not something that 05 I will say happens automatically. It will take a lot of 06 work to do it. 07 We feel over the long term we can maintain the salt 08 concentration in the soils through many factors. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: My question to you is: How long into 10 the future can you go progressively reducing the salt load 11 that is discharged from your drainage area? And your 12 statement indicates that that is indefinite. Is that what 13 you are telling me? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. I can't give you a number 15 of years. At the present time we feel we certainly have the 16 possibility of sustaining it, yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 18 That is all I have. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 20 Before we take a break, let me just read the order of 21 the remaining cross-examiners. We have Ms. Cahill, Mr. 22 Gallery. 23 And, Ms. Harrigfeld, are you here for cross? 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes, I am. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Harrigfeld and Mr. Porgans. 5243 01 Let's take about a 12-minute break. 02 (Break taken.) 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 04 Good morning, Ms. Cahill. It's your turn. 05 Cross-examine. 06 ---oOo--- 07 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 08 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 09 BY THE CITY OF STOCKTON 10 BY MS. CAHILL 11 MS. CAHILL: Good morning, Chairman Caffrey and Members 12 of the Board. 13 Mr. McGahan, I am Virginia Cahill representing the City 14 of Stockton. 15 Is it your understanding that its Vernalis salinity 16 standard was established to protect agriculture? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I really have no -- that is the way I 18 understand, but I am not intimately familiar with it. 19 MS. CAHILL: Could you tell us roughly what level of 20 TDS would be necessary to protect agriculture in your 21 region? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: We are using a criteria in our recycled 23 water of 600, 800 parts per million TDS. We feel that is 24 protective for the most part for crops in our area. 25 MS. CAHILL: Is it fair to say that something similar 5244 01 to that in the San Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis might 02 be protective of agriculture in that reach of the San 03 Joaquin River? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know what crops are grown, so it 05 would be -- it would depend on the crops grown. 06 MS. CAHILL: What crops are grown in your area that you 07 are protecting with the 600 to 800 TDS? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Vegetable crops, tomatoes, cantaloupe, 09 cotton. 10 MS. CAHILL: Do you know wether there are agricultural 11 diverters on the San Joaquin River between Vernalis and the 12 entry of Mud Slough? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: I am sure there are, but I have no direct 14 knowledge. 15 MS. CAHILL: Have you ever known of any warnings being 16 issued not to eat fish caught in the San Joaquin River 17 downstream of Mud Slough? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not specifically aware of any. 19 MS. CAHILL: I would like to go back where Mr. 20 Nomellini ended on Page 5 of your testimony where you state: 21 The Regional Board should be given the 22 opportunity to develop a full range of 23 salinity control approaches applicable to the 24 full range of dischargers. (Reading.) 25 Is that your testimony? 5245 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 02 MS. CAHILL: As one of the things that the Regional 03 Board could do would be to establish a water quality 04 objective at, for example, Crows Landing? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I am sure they could do a wide range of 06 things. 07 MS. CAHILL: They could do that? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 09 MS. CAHILL: And they could set a water objective at 10 Lander Avenue, could they not? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 12 MS. CAHILL: And they could set a water quality 13 objective as far upstream as Mendota; is that correct? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I assume so. 15 MS. CAHILL: Have they had the opportunity to do that? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. 17 MS. CAHILL: Could they have done it in their last 18 Basin Plan amendment? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: You are asking me specific questions on 20 what the Regional Board can or cannot do, and I am not a 21 Regional Board member. They don't ask me what they should 22 do, so I have no -- they could do a lot of things. I don't 23 know legally what they could do. 24 MS. CAHILL: Let me ask you: Have they set water 25 quality standards for salinity anywhere upstream of 5246 01 Vernalis, to your knowledge? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Not to my knowledge. 03 MS. CAHILL: When you talk about the full range of 04 salinity control approaches. One of those salinity control 05 approaches would be the establishment of waste discharge 06 requirements on dischargers, right? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: As I testified, we have waste discharge 08 requirements on the Grassland Bypass Project. 09 MS. CAHILL: Generally, is this one of the full range 10 of salinity control approaches that the Regional Board 11 could implement on other people in addition to Grasslands? 12 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion 13 from the witness. As the questioner knows, the 14 establishment of waste discharge requirements on 15 agricultural entities is subject to some interpretation. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe it was Mr. McGahan's testimony 17 that a full range of opportunities or alternatives were 18 available to the Regional Board. 19 Is that not correct? Isn't that the basis of your 20 questioning, Ms. Cahill? 21 MS. CAHILL: Yes, it is. 22 His testimony is that the full range should be at -- 23 they should have that opportunity. I am trying to explore 24 what that full range is. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I will allow the question. 5247 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Repeat the question. 02 MS. CAHILL: Would one of the range of salinity control 03 approaches that the Regional Board could use, would it be to 04 apply waste discharge requirements for salinity to 05 dischargers whose discharge ends up in the San Joaquin 06 River? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, it is. Since this sentence has come 08 up a lot, I would like to clarify a couple things. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 10 MR. MCGAHAN: The real point of this is that especially 11 in the grassland drainage area, we have implemented many 12 things as I discussed, some institution and some physical, 13 to manage our drainage. For example, Panoche Drainage 14 District just completed a $5,000,000 project to recycle 15 drainage water. Obviously, that is a loan from -- a SRF 16 loan from the state. The farmers are repaying that loan. 17 And the process that we are going down is the Regional Board 18 process for the Basin Plan amendments through the waste 19 discharge requirements they have given to us. And we are 20 doing many things. We are spending money, we need some 21 assurances that's the project -- that's the road we are 22 going down. 23 If the rules are changed a couple years from now, we, 24 for some reason, can't recycle, you can imagine the 25 repercussions of spending that kind of money. We are going 5248 01 down the road assuming the Basin Plan and waste discharge 02 requirements will be the means that will be regulated. That 03 is quite a bit what this sentence is getting to. Plus 04 everybody who discharges salt ought to be a part of the 05 process. 06 MS. CAHILL: You actually talk about the full range of 07 dischargers. Did you mean only in your own district? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: I mean all the dischargers to Vernalis. 09 MS. CAHILL: All right. 10 Isn't the establishment of waste discharge requirements 11 on other dischargers in addition to your own, one of the 12 methods the Regional Board could use as a salinity control 13 approach? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I assume they could if it is legal. 15 MS. CAHILL: In your own district isn't it true that 16 your waste discharge requirements address selenium, but do 17 not address salinity? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: They do address salinity. Actually, 19 there is no objective for salinity. But there is discussion 20 and actually reports required from us on salinity. 21 MS. CAHILL: There are no salinity limits specified? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 23 MS. CAHILL: Is one of the other approaches available 24 to the Regional Board the establishment of total maximum 25 daily loads in the San Joaquin River? 5249 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I am sure it is. To expand on that 02 a little bit, our Grassland Bypass Project has load limits 03 for selenium. They are somewhat based on a TMDL, total 04 maximum daily load, model or what's been done is a total 05 maximum load model. So, the regulations we are under now 06 with monthly load limits is a form of that. 07 MS. CAHILL: So the Regional Board could, in fact, in 08 your district do the same thing for salinity, couldn't it? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MS. CAHILL: And it could do that for other dischargers 11 to the San Joaquin River? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 13 MS. CAHILL: To your knowledge, has it done that in any 14 instance other than your own -- for salinity has it been 15 done at all? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Has what been done? 17 MS. CAHILL: Establishment of total maximum daily load 18 for salinity? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Not that I am aware of. 20 MS. CAHILL: To your knowledge, would the grasslands 21 area, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, oppose the 22 establishment of TMDLs for salinity in the San Joaquin River 23 upstream of Vernalis? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: The total maximum monthly loads that have 25 been proposed by the Regional Board are very restrictive. 5250 01 They are much more restrictive than our 02 current loads for selenium. They will be very difficult to 03 meet. It's likely we could not meet those total maximum 04 monthly loads, especially. They vary in dry and critical 05 years. They are much lower. 06 MS. CAHILL: I am talking specifically about salinity. 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Repeat the question. 08 MS. CAHILL: Don't remember what it was. 09 Esther, could you read that back? 10 (Record read as requested.) 11 MR. MCGAHAN: We don't know what they are. So it's 12 difficult to answer that question without knowing what those 13 total maximum daily loads are. We feel that the long-term 14 solution will not be best suited by total maximum daily 15 loads. We feel some, what we call real time regulation, 16 where we meet water quality objectives will be appropriate. 17 For example, in this year of '98 when we exceeded our 18 load because of wet year conditions, the concentrations have 19 been very low. Just meeting loads in a wet year condition 20 does not seem totally appropriate to us. We would like to 21 see some real time in an assimilative capacity in parts of 22 the regulation. 23 MS. CAHILL: On Page 3 of your testimony, you state 24 that selenium load reductions are the means for regulating 25 selenium discharges. 5251 01 Is that your testimony? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: I was quoting from the May '96 Regional 03 Water Quality Control Board control plan. 04 MS. CAHILL: Would that be your own opinion, as well? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: For the same reasons I stated for 06 salinity. As I was getting to, this gets to the question I 07 was answering. As far as current load limits for selenium, 08 the total maximum monthly load limits that have been 09 established -- that have been calculated in a report by the 10 Regional Board for selenium are very restrictive. 11 We are not sure we could meet those low limits. That 12 is not saying we are not committed to meeting water quality 13 objectives in the San Joaquin River. Those TMDLs are overly 14 conservative. So that if you meet the load numbers in any 15 given year type, you would meet objectives. But for the 16 vast majority of the time you would be way below the 17 objectives. 18 MS. CAHILL: Let's talk a bit about salt load. 19 Isn't it true that salt load is calculated by 20 multiplying a constant by the flow and by the concentration 21 of the salt in the water? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. Quantity of it I would use more 23 than -- 24 MS. CAHILL: The quantity and the concentration? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 5252 01 MS. CAHILL: If you reduce discharge by 50 percent, but 02 you increase concentration by 100 percent, in other words, 03 if you have the discharge but double the concentration, 04 don't you, in fact, still have the same load? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 06 MS. CAHILL: So reducing discharge alone does not 07 necessarily reduce load? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: It depends on the concentration. 09 MS. CAHILL: Right. But -- okay. 10 Have any of the measures that you listed in your 11 testimony reduced the amount of water brought into the 12 service area? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: They reduce the application of water 14 through many of the irrigation practices. Irrigation 15 systems such as sprinkler, drip irrigation, yes, have 16 reduced the application of water. 17 MS. CAHILL: That is exactly what I want to explore. 18 You indicate there is now greater use of sprinklers for 19 preirrigation. Does that mean less water is applied? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, that is certainly -- the 21 purpose of spending the money for a sprinkler irrigation 22 system is to apply less water more uniformly to apply that 23 water. 24 MS. CAHILL: When less water is applied to one field 25 because of one of these measures, does the water saved -- do 5253 01 you not bring it in, which means you bring in less salt 02 load? Or does that water actually go to other land and 03 still require the same amount of water coming into the 04 district? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: That is a complicated question. The 06 water supplies, of course, go to irrigate lands within 07 districts. From year to year the crop acreages change. So 08 it certainly could mean that you -- that though you are more 09 efficient on one field, the total amount of water coming 10 into the district was the same. 11 But, generally, the understanding would be that as you 12 improve irrigation practices, less water would come into the 13 district. 14 MS. CAHILL: So, at this point in time, can you 15 conclude that you are still bringing in as much water and 16 salt as you were before this project started? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Varies from year to year depending on how 18 much is brought in and the concentration of that water. 19 MS. CAHILL: If there is an actual reduction in load 20 discharged to the San Joaquin River, if the same amount of 21 water is coming in and there is less load being discharged 22 to the river, then does that mean that the additional salt 23 that is being brought in and not discharged is being stored 24 in either groundwater or soils? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Depends on if there is still maintain a 5254 01 salt balance. You need to know how much salt is brought in 02 compared to how much is leaving. 03 MS. CAHILL: Let's say you are bringing in a consistent 04 amount, let's assume consistent amount coming in and 05 reduction in the amount going out. What is happening to the 06 difference? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Depends what the two numbers are. Is 08 what is going out more or less than what is coming in? 09 MS. CAHILL: Let's try both of those. If what is going 10 out is more than what is coming in, what is happening? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: You are not storing salt in the area. 12 MS. CAHILL: You are also not achieving the goal of 13 reducing salt load to the river? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Could result in a reduction. It depends 15 on the numbers. 16 MS. CAHILL: If you have less leaving than coming in, 17 what is happening to the difference? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: It would be salt would be building up 19 somewhere in the area. 20 MS. CAHILL: Do you see this Grassland Bypass Project 21 as a long-term solution? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't think there are any long-term 23 solutions. The Grassland Bypass Project itself is a 24 five-year project. We are two years into it. Actually, the 25 decision has to be made this fall whether to extend it for 5255 01 another three years. That is the term of the project. 02 Beyond that, we are in the process of developing a 03 plan, and some parts of the plan could continue to use the 04 existing Grassland Bypass Project. So, I guess the answer 05 to the question is, yes, certainly parts of it. Especially 06 the institutional and on farm parts, certainly, would be 07 part of the long term. 08 MS. CAHILL: You certainly don't see this project alone 09 as being the solution to the problems of salinity in the San 10 Joaquin River, do you? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: It's part of it; it's not the sole 12 solution. As I mentioned in my testimony, also long-term we 13 feel the treatment of the drainage waters to remove the 14 salts and get it out of the San Joaquin River is an obvious 15 option. An out-of-valley disposal, very controversial 16 getting salt out of the river. But that also is a viable, 17 long-term option for getting salt out of the river. 18 MS. CAHILL: Mr. McGahan, you have gone exactly where I 19 was going to go next. 20 1 On Page 3 of your testimony or on Page 5 -- on Page 5, 21 you state that: 22 It is very clear that an out-of-valley 23 drainage discharge or treatment of subsurface 24 drainage water for reuse is essential to 25 significantly reduce San Joaquin salinity 5256 01 other than through dilution flows. (Reading.) 02 Are you aware of anyone who is actually treating 03 subsurface drainage water for reuse? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: For years in our area we have been 05 conducting pilot studies for this very purpose, to find a 06 feasible alternative for treatment of drainage. We don't 07 have any full-scale plants, but there is continuing research 08 going on. That would be something that somebody needs to 09 pick up. Probably our area cannot afford to do the R&D for 10 that. But it is a valleywide necessity, and some state or 11 federal agencies would be a good nominee to participate with 12 that research. 13 MS. CAHILL: One other way might be, in fact, to reduce 14 the amount of water brought in; is that right? Isn't one 15 other way for reducing San Joaquin salinity to reduce the 16 amount of water coming into areas from the Delta-Mendota 17 Canal? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Not as simple as that, but generally your 19 statement would be true. If you bring in less water, your 20 drainage could reduce. But it is a very complicated 21 problem. 22 A lot of the drainage problems on the west side we 23 don't feel are irrigation induced. Certainly in years like 24 this year there would be significant discharge to the river 25 whether there was irrigation or not. Panoche Silver Creek, 5257 01 local rainfall from the fact of a steeply sloping drain in 02 the drainage area; there are many other factors that go into 03 it than just irrigation. 04 MS. CAHILL: The Draft EIR prepared by the State Board 05 for these hearings uses in its modeling a concentration of 06 drain discharge through Mud Slough of 4,754 milligrams per 07 liter of TDS, based on a flow-weighted average of tile 08 drainage concentration, TDS concentrations. Does that 09 number sound about right to you? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Sounds high for Mud Slough. I don't know 11 if that is where that is intended to be measured. 12 MS. CAHILL: What are the current TDS concentrations in 13 Mud Slough? You gave a salt load figure, but I don't know 14 that I have seen any figure that indicates what the 15 concentrations are now. 16 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have those numbers in front of 17 me. 18 MS. CAHILL: Have you made any comparison of 19 concentrations in salinity in Mud Slough between 1996 and 20 1997? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: I certainly have compared the data. 22 MS. CAHILL: What do they show? I understand you have 23 said you think Salt Slough now is perhaps a better water 24 quality; is that right? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 5258 01 MS. CAHILL: What about Mud Slough? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: As I described the Grassland Bypass 03 Project, historically, prior to water year '97, so prior to 04 October of '96, the drainage waters primarily were 05 discharged through Salt Slough. At times they went through 06 Mud Slough. So Mud Slough had water at times of higher 07 concentrations of salinity and selenium, and at times they 08 had lower concentrations. 09 With the implementation of the bypass project, the 10 drainage water was removed from the Salt Slough, the 11 concentration of selenium, for example, from Salt Slough has 12 gone from the 50 parts per billion range for the most part 13 less than 2 parts per billion. Salinity has significantly 14 decreased. But in Mud Slough now the drainage water goes 15 through there all the time. What's increased is the 16 duration of high salinity. There was high salinity before, 17 but not all the time, which it is now. 18 MS. CAHILL: Would that same thing be true for 19 salinity? Were you talking about salinity? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Both salinity and selenium. 21 MS. CAHILL: Do you have a concentration estimate for 22 us, roughly what it is now? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I imagine it is 2,500 parts per million 24 at Mud Slough. 25 MS. CAHILL: Do you know what the Vernalis standard was 5259 01 when it was expressed in terms of TDS? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, yes. 03 MS. CAHILL: Roughly? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: 700 micromhos would be about 450 parts 05 per million TDS. 06 MS. CAHILL: Is it accurate to say the water being 07 discharged from Mud Slough into the San Joaquin River has 08 salinity many times what the Vernalis standard is? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MS. CAHILL: Isn't it also true if that is several 11 times the concentration of the Vernalis standard, it would 12 take several units of water to dilute it down to that 13 standard? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Depends, of course, on the concentration 15 of your dilution water. 16 MS. CAHILL: Right. 17 Let's say high quality dilution water; TDS would be 18 less? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. Again, this drainage water has 20 always gone to the San Joaquin River. It is not a new 21 discharge. This drainage water from our grassland drain 22 area did not go into Kesterson, did not use the San Luis 23 Drain, but it traveled through the wetland channels to the 24 river. So, it has historically gone to the river. 25 MS. CAHILL: Have you done any calculations on the 5260 01 amount of salt that could be released into the San Joaquin 02 River from Mud Slough without impairing beneficial uses in 03 that stretch of the river? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I haven't. 05 MS. CAHILL: Could you put back up, please, Exhibit 06 11. 07 This shows that in water year 1995 there were 500,000 08 tons of salt coming, what, out of Salt and Mud Slough 09 combined into the San Joaquin River? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 11 MS. CAHILL: If we did the calculation, every ton is 12 2,000 pounds; is that right? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 14 MS. CAHILL: So, we are talking about a billion pounds 15 of salt? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Sounds right. 17 MS. CAHILL: Now, in '97 this shows still 450,000 tons; 18 is that correct? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. One thing that I tried to clarify 20 all along is that the grassland drainage area is only a part 21 of the water that goes through Mud and Salt Slough. Our 22 Grassland Bypass Project, the area that has the regional 23 drainage in it, that I am coordinator for, is the 24 100,000-acre drainage area which is reflected by the drain 25 area. 5261 01 The area that discharges into Mud and Salt Sloughs from 02 the Grassland Watershed, about a 400,000 acre area that 03 includes many other discharges to which I am not responsible 04 for. 05 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Sexton, could you put back up your 06 Exhibit 10, please, Figure 2, right there on top. 07 Mr. McGahan, could you basically indicate to us the 08 area that does -- that is shown on this map that is perhaps 09 not colored that drains either into the San Joaquin River or 10 into the Salt and Mud Slough? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: The grassland watershed goes from the 12 area -- from Mendota on the south, northerly to an area 13 approximately to Highway 140 on the north, where Mud Slough 14 discharges to the river about a mile upstream of where the 15 San Joaquin River crosses Highway 140 and Salt Slough about 16 six miles upstream of where the San Joaquin River crosses 17 140. It is bounded on the east by the San Joaquin River and 18 on the west by Interstate 5. 19 MS. CAHILL: So, in fact, there are a number of other 20 dischargers in addition to the grassland farmers who are 21 discharging into the San Joaquin River in this area? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 23 MS. CAHILL: To your knowledge, do any of those other 24 dischargers have waste discharge requirements for salinity 25 imposed on them? 5262 01 MR. MCGAHAN: No, not to my knowledge. 02 MS. CAHILL: You have indicated that you believe that 03 your service area has been very progressive in attempting to 04 solve the problem. Have all the measures that you are 05 implementing been implemented in other areas that discharge 06 in other parts of the Grassland watershed? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have firsthand knowledge of all 08 those areas. You would need to ask those areas. 09 MS. CAHILL: Do you have some knowledge from general 10 area meetings or discussions of drainage, or Rainbow Report 11 or other information that is available to you? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly I keep up-to-date on what is 13 going on. 14 MS. CAHILL: You said you are very progressive. That 15 implies that, in fact, you are doing more than others. Do 16 you mean you are doing more than others? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I said we feel our project is an 18 innovative project that's unparalleled in the whole United 19 States. 20 MS. CAHILL: Can you name any other districts in there 21 that are doing all of the things that you are doing? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Not to my knowledge. 23 MS. CAHILL: I am sorry, Mr. Sexton, could we put back 24 the bar chart one last time. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Off the record for just a moment, 5263 01 please. 02 (Discussion held off the record.) 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 04 We are back on the record. 05 MS. CAHILL: This chart shows that even now there is a 06 discharge from the grassland watershed of 450,000 tons of 07 salt in 1997? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 09 MS. CAHILL: That would be 900,000,000 pounds? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 11 MS. CAHILL: And do you assume that when there is a 12 load of 900,000,000 pounds of salt, that the assimilative 13 capacity of the river is exceeded sometimes for salinity? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Depends on the flow of the river. I 15 don't think it is in '98. 16 MS. CAHILL: Let me ask a bit about these. You said 17 '98; do you mean '98 or '97? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: '98. 19 MS. CAHILL: Which is not on your bar chart? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 21 MS. CAHILL: Was it probably exceeded in '97? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure. I don't recall the data. 23 MEMBER BROWN: There are only three years on here, and 24 one of them the project was in operation. Is that correct? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 5264 01 MS. CAHILL: You mentioned 1998 data, have you yourself 02 prepared something similar to this to see what the '98 data 03 looks like? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not yet. 05 MS. CAHILL: Is the data available to you already? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: No, because we are at October the 20th, 07 and the year ended September the 30th. All the data is not 08 available yet. 09 MS. CAHILL: You don't maintain, do you, that these 10 three years are representative of a long-term hydrology? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly not. The San Joaquin River is 12 an arid stream, and it flows very greatly. It is -- there 13 are a significant series of years. The first year being 14 operation of the Grassland Bypass Project and two years 15 previously and when the irrigation supplies were fairly 16 normal, although they were classified as wet years, so you 17 have to take that into account when looking at the data. 18 MS. CAHILL: If you compared dry years, you might get 19 different results? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly. 21 MS. CAHILL: In fact, all we have to go on for the 22 success of the project is the single year at this point? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: All I presented is one year. 24 MS. CAHILL: Did you meet your selenium objectives in 25 1998? 5265 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Meaning our load, our load limits? 02 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 03 MR. MCGAHAN: No, we did not. That is mainly due to 04 the wet year. Water year 1998 was not like water year 1997, 05 in which we had a heavy rain and it stopped raining. It 06 never started raining in 1998 until June 15th, when we had 07 an inch and a half of rain. 08 MS. CAHILL: In your testimony you indicated that you 09 had applied to a committee for a finding that this was an 10 extraordinary circumstance or something. 11 Was a finding made? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: It was. 13 MS. CAHILL: What was it? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Water year '98 was declared unforeseeable 15 and uncontrollable. 16 MS. CAHILL: How much did you exceed the load by in 17 1998? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: All the numbers, again, for the selenium 19 values are not in yet. Takes about a month. 20 MS. CAHILL: You had enough in along the way to know 21 that you were going to be over? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. We were significantly over. 23 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: There is a process going on to determine 25 what amount was unforeseeable and uncontrollable. That's 5266 01 not yet been completed. 02 MS. CAHILL: Do you agree as a general principle that 03 the parties causing pollution of the waterway should be 04 responsible for solving that pollution problem? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: All I can say to answer that is that our 06 drainage area is being responsible. So, obviously, we do 07 feel we do have a responsibility. 08 MS. CAHILL: Generally, not just your area, but, 09 generally, do you believe that those who are actually 10 discharging pollutants should bear the primary 11 responsibility for addressing water quality impacts of those 12 discharges? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: That is a very complicated question, and 14 I don't feel comfortable just answering that. If I answered 15 it for our areas, it really wouldn't affect it. You're 16 asking me to answer for all areas. I can't answer for them. 17 In our area we are stepping up to the table and taking 18 responsibility for our discharge. And I think that is as 19 far as my responsibility goes. 20 MS. CAHILL: You haven't actually done any salinity 21 calculations that would indicate what your share of the 22 assimilative capacity of the San Joaquin River is? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Not per se, no. 24 MS. CAHILL: Let me just briefly look here through your 25 testimony. I'm almost finished. 5267 01 C.O. CAFFREY: You want to take a moment and go off the 02 record, Ms. Cahill? We can do that if you like. 03 MS. CAHILL: Hopefully, I won't slow us down that 04 much. I think we have been through this already. But let 05 me briefly check again. 06 On Page 2 of Exhibit 10, where you are talking about 07 irrigation system improvement loans, it sounds like some of 08 these measures are designed to reduce drain water volume; is 09 that correct? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 11 MS. CAHILL: But it is also certainly possible that at 12 the same time they are increasing drain water 13 concentrations; isn't that right? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: That is not a given. 15 MS. CAHILL: It is a possibility? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: It's a possibility. 17 MS. CAHILL: In fact, is it a probability? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: No. Depends on the situation. The kind 19 of reductions we are talking about do not necessarily 20 increase either selenium or salt concentrations. If you 21 were to have that amount of drainage, then it would have a 22 greater impact and lesser reductions. 23 MS. CAHILL: I am not sure I understood that. But I 24 think we will go on. 25 You make a reference on Page 4 at the bottom to the 5268 01 Pacheco Water District adopting a policy requiring complete 02 elimination of surface runoff, discharges. In fact, in 03 April 1998, was this implemented? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 05 MS. CAHILL: So that district is now making no surface 06 discharges to the San Joaquin River? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. 08 MS. CAHILL: Or to Salt or Mud Slough? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 10 MS. CAHILL: Just for information, on Exhibit 10, 11 Figure 3, can you tell us where site B is? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Site B is San Luis Drain near its 13 discharge point. So near about a mile upstream of where it 14 discharges into Mud Slough. And the current bypass project 15 -- since implementation of the bypass project all drainage 16 water from our drain project area goes through that site, 17 except amounts that occur in extremely wet conditions. And 18 this chart includes those other discharges. So it includes 19 all discharges from our drainage area. 20 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 21 On Figure 5, we have this reduced flow. Do you know in 22 1997 how the applied water compared to the other years shown 23 on the chart? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Very similar. 25 MS. CAHILL: Do you have load numbers for these 5269 01 discharges? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, we do. This chart was a one-day 03 chart, showing the amount of drainage water that was 04 discharged. It was simply meant to be an example as to one 05 day as to impact of the recirculation project. 06 Yes, we have calculations from each district of their 07 total discharge. 08 MS. CAHILL: This is just a one-day? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MS. CAHILL: I believe that is all. 11 Thank you very much. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 13 Mr. Gallery. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 16 SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 17 BY TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 18 BY MR. GALLERY 19 MR. GALLERY: Mr. McGahan, I am Dan Gallery. I 20 represent Tuolumne Utilities District, Tuolumne County. 21 We are trying to get a water contract out of New 22 Melones. We are interested in any use of that water to 23 dilute downstream water with the salinity concentrations in 24 it. So my questions are coming from that standpoint. 25 I guess, Mike, if maybe you could put Exhibit 10, the 5270 01 map, up, that might be the best place to start. 02 Mr. McGahan, looking at San Luis Exhibit 10, Figure 2, 03 up on the screen, what do the green areas designate on that 04 projection? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Basically, refuge lands, the Grassland 06 Water District, which is basically a group of hunting and 07 duck clubs, also state and federal wildlife areas. 08 MR. GALLERY: Is the Grasslands Water District in the 09 northern portion of the body of green or in both green 10 areas? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: A part of it is in both. 12 MR. GALLERY: So, it is not a contiguous district; it 13 covers different areas? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 15 MR. GALLERY: You testified that your grassland 16 drainage project is under the umbrella of the San Luis and 17 Delta-Mendota Water Authority? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 19 MR. GALLERY: Could you tell us where the -- does the 20 authority have boundaries that can be illustrated on the 21 projected map? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Well, no. This is a very small portion 23 of the actual San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 24 MR. GALLERY: Can you tell us what the scope of area of 25 the Authority is? 5271 01 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know all the districts. It goes 02 way north, almost to the Delta. That includes Westlands 03 Water District to the south. It includes Santa Clara Water 04 District to the west. 05 MR. GALLERY: Does the Authority consist of all 06 entities which are taking water out of the Delta-Mendota 07 Canal and the San Luis from all of the entities that are 08 taking water from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not 100 percent sure of that. 10 MR. GALLERY: Does the Authority include some entities 11 that are taking water from the San Luis Project? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 13 MR. GALLERY: What portion of your drainage project 14 area gets water from the Delta-Mendota Canal and what 15 portion gets it from the San Luis Project? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: The lands within the drainage you can get 17 water from both the DMC and the San Luis canal. As far as 18 those legal definitions, I am not -- I don't know exactly, 19 but I know where they get the water. Some of them from the 20 Delta-Mendota Canal and some from the San Luis Canal. 21 MR. GALLERY: How does the water salinity -- how does 22 the salinity in the water compare between the San Luis water 23 -- water from the San Luis canal and the Delta-Mendota 24 Canal? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: My recollection is that it is similar, 5272 01 but it is slightly different at times. 02 MR. GALLERY: What is the salinity level in the water 03 from those two sources? I understand it may vary, but what 04 brackets are we talking about, in your experience? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: 250 parts per million to over 400. 06 MR. GALLERY: So, when you talk about applying to your 07 lands, your land can tolerate -- did you say 600 parts to 08 800 parts, something in that range? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: What that is, that is our criteria for 10 operating of our recycling systems. When they are operating 11 we are very careful not to go over what criteria is in 12 effect at that time. When not operating, it is not 13 something that happens all year long. That criteria is for 14 the recycling system, so it only happens when those systems 15 are operating. 16 MR. GALLERY: That level of 600 to 800 is in the 17 recycled water, not in the receiving water after recycled 18 water is put into it? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: It's after the water is commingled. So 20 it is a mix of recycled drainage water and surface supplied 21 water. After it is mixed together, it would be 22 concentration. 23 MR. GALLERY: After the mix, right? So what you are 24 trying to do, not let the water you apply to your crop 25 exceed 800 or that max? 5273 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 02 MR. GALLERY: In putting together the Grassland Bypass 03 Project, what defined the boundaries of your -- that you 04 show up there on the map showing your drainage area 05 boundary? What brought about those boundaries? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Generally, it's areas that have high 07 selenium in the subsurface drainage waters. The selenium is 08 not totally limited to this drainage area. There are some 09 lands out of it that probably have selenium, too. This is 10 an area of which most of the selenium that historically gets 11 discharged into the grasslands and went to the San Joaquin 12 River, come from this area. So, it is basically a high -- 13 lands with high selenium in the subsurface drainage water. 14 MR. GALLERY: Did those entities that comprise your 15 drainage project, do they just agree to become a part? Or 16 was there something that mandated their being included in 17 your drainage project? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: They're organized under what we call an 19 activity agreement under the umbrella of San Luis and 20 Delta-Mendota Water Authority. They are all members of the 21 Authority. They entered into this activity agreement 22 voluntarily. 23 MR. GALLERY: Most of the area within your drainage 24 boundaries are comprised of districts; is that correct? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Most of it. 5274 01 MR. GALLERY: Those districts, are they -- do they 02 function both to distribute the irrigation water and to 03 provide drainage to the lands within their boundaries? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: There is a combination. There are two 05 drainage districts within our area that the sole purpose is 06 to manage drainage water. 07 And there are other districts, then, that manage their 08 water supply. And some of the districts -- three of the 09 districts do both. And there are some lands that are not 10 incorporated, that don't have any overlying district for 11 either purpose, and their management of drainage comes under 12 our umbrella. 13 MR. GALLERY: Then these districts that do provide 14 drainage, were they providing drainage before this problem 15 -- the necessity arose to form this drainage area boundary? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, they were. 17 MR. GALLERY: Historically, provided drainage? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. There is one area that is in the 19 process of forming a drainage district for -- so that has 20 occurred since, the formation of this, our drainage area. 21 MR. GALLERY: When would you say your project, the 22 inception of your project, was it a problem that began 23 around 1990 or early '90s? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Our Grassland Bypass Project, the problem 25 initiated in the mid '80s when selenium was discovered at 5275 01 Kesterson. This drainage water was tested and found to be 02 high in selenium. The problem started then. Our 03 negotiations for the bypass project began in the late '90s 04 [verbatim], and culminated in the initiation of the project 05 in October, late September of '96. 06 MR. GALLERY: Before the Kesterson problem arose, were 07 these districts within your drainage area boundary, were 08 they in the drainage business before? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MR. GALLERY: They were. 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly. 12 MR. GALLERY: Their function then was to try to keep 13 water levels or salinity down, or what were they doing? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: The farmers are generally responsible for 15 their own farm systems. Those systems are designed to keep 16 the water levels out of the root zone. The district's 17 purpose was to convey that water and discharge it. 18 Prior to the discovery of selenium, as I mentioned, it 19 was used within the wetland areas, the green areas. In 20 fact, they wanted the water. They didn't have CVPIA 21 supplies. They needed water. In fact, they paid for the 22 water at times. 23 MR. GALLERY: The districts, then, before the selenium 24 problem, they were discharging the drainage to the wetland 25 areas in how many discharge points? Was it the four that 5276 01 you mentioned? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, generally. 03 MR. GALLERY: You said that you're doing pilot studies 04 in your area. Let's see, let me back up a minute. 05 Your firm is a consultant to the Authority, to the San 06 Luis Authority? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 08 MR. GALLERY: And as so, you do other work for the 09 Authority besides this; you monitor for this drainage 10 project? 11 M.R MCGAHAN: We are engineer consultants. We do many 12 other things for the Authority. 13 MR. GALLERY: For your firm, are you the primary guy to 14 do the work for the drainage area boundary? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yeah, and I have the title of Drainage 16 Coordinator. 17 MR. GALLERY: How much of your time, you as an 18 engineer, is spent working for San Luis and Delta-Mendota 19 Water Authority? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Probably a quarter and a half time. 21 MR. GALLERY: How much of that time -- how much of your 22 time is spent taking care of the drainage area, monitoring 23 and coordinating? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: That would be it. 25 MR. GALLERY: That would be it? 5277 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yeah. 02 MR. GALLERY: Is there someone else in your firm that 03 helps you with that? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I have people that -- 05 MR. GALLERY: Staff that work with you? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 07 MR. GALLERY: You testified that you were doing pilot 08 studies in our area, and I wasn't clear. Was that for the 09 Authority or is that as the coordinator for the drainage 10 project, the bypass project? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Specifically what is happening is 12 districts are doing pilot studies. Likely what happens, 13 someone who thinks they have a process will contact us, 14 oftentimes through me, and say, "We would like to test our 15 process on the drainage waters." 16 We make arrangements. Oftentimes what I do then is 17 put them in contact with the district who have people on 18 site all the time, and they have personnel that can assist 19 them. Even in one case there has been a building 20 constructed to house these types of projects by the 21 district. So, the districts will generally operate it 22 day-to-day. There is a CalFed grant to operate one of the 23 systems with Panoche Drainage District, so one of the member 24 districts of the drainage area. 25 MR. GALLERY: When you say "the districts," are you 5278 01 just talking about the districts within your drainage bypass 02 project? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, that is what I was talking about, 04 the pilot studies within our area. 05 MR. GALLERY: And you testified that you believe that 06 treatment of the drainage discharge is one of the viable 07 options for solving this problem? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. I say that because the 09 drainage water is a water supply. The problem with it is 10 that it has high selenium concentrations, not useful for 11 environmental purposes. It has high salt, so it is not 12 useful for agricultural purposes. If those constituents, 13 and any others that we might come up with, would be removed, 14 we would have a water supply in an area where we need water, 15 and that wouldn't have to be transported through the Delta. 16 So, it is a very valuable commodity if we could take these 17 constituents out. 18 MR. GALLERY: These pilots, the studies, are they 19 primarily for selenium or for salinity, or addressing both, 20 the pilot studies? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Primarily for selenium. 22 MR. GALLERY: You testified that the development of the 23 treatment process was too big for your districts, that it 24 needs to be taken on by somebody else. 25 Did I understand you correctly? 5279 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. To come up with a viable solution, 02 that is going to be expensive. It will need assistance, 03 financially from some other source. It probably would not 04 be feasible for this area to develop and install those kinds 05 of systems which would be very expensive. 06 MR. GALLERY: When you say "this area," you mean your 07 drainage bypass project? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 09 MR. GALLERY: How about the whole 400,000 acres that 10 are draining into the river? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: That would make it less. 12 MR. GALLERY: So, you feel somebody else ought to pay 13 for this -- what is really driving you to make these test 14 studies, pilot studies, is so that you can reuse the water. 15 Is that what is the incentive? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Depends on what you remove. If you 17 remove selenium, which has been the primary concern since 18 1985, one of the primary concerns, you could minimize the 19 selenium problem. And if you can find a process that also 20 removes salt, that's an added benefit. 21 It is not unprecedented for state or federal agencies 22 to do this kind of research. There was a drainage removal 23 plan installed by the Department of Water Resources near Los 24 Banos, a reverse osmosis plant. It was not completed or 25 operated for various reasons. Information was gathered from 5280 01 that. So I am not proposing something that is out of the 02 ordinary or unprecedented. CalFed is funding a project 03 right now, which is very useful. 04 MR. GALLERY: Does the -- what do you call your group? 05 The Grassland Bypass Project group, does the entity have a 06 name? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: We like to call ourselves the Grassland 08 Area Farmers. 09 MR. GALLERY: Is there any entity or board have the 10 authority to levy assessments on the Grassland Area Farmers 11 other than the district themselves? Is there any parent 12 group that would have the authority to do that? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure of that, if the Authority 14 has that, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority has 15 that ability or not. I am not sure. 16 MR. GALLERY: The funding that you had so far to go 17 ahead with this project has come from the individual 18 district participants? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 20 MR. GALLERY: By agreement, they each are obliged to 21 contribute on some percentage basis? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 23 MR. GALLERY: I want to direct your attention to Page 4 24 of your testimony, which is your Exhibit 9. Bottom 25 paragraph, you express the concern of the Grassland Area 5281 01 Farmers about holding the subsurface drainage water in tile 02 lines and their fields throughout the summer season. 03 I take it from your comments that that is an 04 unacceptable solution to the grassland drainage area farmers? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Physically, don't think it would work. 06 The quantity of water, as I testified, is underestimated 07 that needs to be stored during that period of time. There 08 simply is no place to store it. 09 In the EIR the suggestion was just shut off the tile 10 sumps and let the water rise in the ground. Again, our tile 11 lines are six to seven feet deep. Our calculation is that 12 you would have to -- the water has to rise over three feet 13 to store that amount of water, assuming that you had a table 14 top area, that all of the land was the same area. 15 Unfortunately, the ground slopes 200 feet difference in 16 elevation from one end to the other. 17 What is going to happen if you shut the tile drainage 18 off is that the lower part of the system will flood out. 19 Those lands in the lower part will flood out. I don't think 20 that the alternative of storing the water in the ground at 21 those quantities for that period of time, which is the 22 period of time when we are trying to -- I mean it is totally 23 against the design of the drainage systems. That is the 24 period of time when we are trying to keep the water table 25 out of the root zone or raising it into the root zone. It 5282 01 doesn't really make a lot sense. 02 MR. GALLERY: When you say "that period of time," could 03 you bracket those periods? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: The summer months, which would be the 05 growing season for the crops. 06 MR. GALLERY: What about storing it during the earlier 07 part of the year? Would it be feasible to do some storage 08 during, say, the preirrigation period just before the pulse 09 flow? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: That is part of our long-term plan to 11 regulate discharges. The proposal for months at a time and 12 our experience is not possible. We get sumps, surfacing 13 water and sumps coming out the tops of the sumps after they 14 have been shut off for weeks. 15 MR. GALLERY: I understand. My question is: For a 16 limited period of time earlier in the season could be 17 feasible? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: The same restrictions, the same problems 19 occur in that period of time. When you shut the pumps off 20 for long periods of time, you immediately waterlog the lower 21 end of the fields. 22 MR. GALLERY: I am talking about, when I say 23 preirrigation period, for six to eight weeks before the 24 pulse flow period. 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I am talking about that period, too. 5283 01 MR. GALLERY: Is the movement of the water in 02 underground that quick, that rapid so that for a six-week 03 period, holding it in the upper area would flood or waterlog 04 the lower areas? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: The tile systems are in fields, 06 oftentimes 300-acre fields. The difference in elevation in 07 one field could be on the order of five or six feet. These 08 subsurface tiles lines are pipes in the ground. The water 09 runs down the pipes from the upper side, and, yes, it can 10 occur very quickly. 11 MR. GALLERY: You referred to your long-term plan. 12 Tell me about the plan that you are working on and that your 13 group is working on. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: As part of the use agreement, we are 15 required -- as part of the use agreement and as part of the 16 recent waste discharge requirements, a long-term plan is to 17 be developed, which we have done and submitted to the proper 18 agencies. 19 MR. GALLERY: So you have a long-term plan that is 20 completed and has been submitted? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MR. GALLERY: What is the name of that plan? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure of the exact name, 24 Long-Term Drainage Management Plan, I believe 25 MR. GALLERY: Something that you are author of? 5284 01 MR. MCGAHAN: I assisted. Other people also 02 participated. 03 MR. GALLERY: What does that plan propose to do? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Basically, sets out a time schedule that 05 takes into account both the time period for the Grassland 06 Bypass Project, which has another three years to go, as I 07 mentioned, if it is extended this fall. 08 So what happens during that time period and the time 09 schedule is to be determined what happens in the future. I 10 realize the question is what are you going to do in the 11 future. What the long-term plan basically does, it set out 12 a schedule to figure that out and to look at some options 13 to look at. 14 MR. GALLERY: Does the plan address the selenium or 15 both selenium and salinity? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: The plan will address both. 17 MR. GALLERY: The plan does address both? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. The plan is a schedule, so the 19 schedule will address both. 20 MR. GALLERY: So, the plan doesn't contain any 21 solutions to the salinity problem now, but it says that it 22 will develop solutions to the salinity problem? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Right, certainly. And what we have asked 24 for is to proceed with the process that is in place, the 25 Basin Planning process that is in place of the Board to get 5285 01 to that point. 02 MR. GALLERY: Is it -- doesn't your drainage project 03 centralize and take over control of the drainage from your 04 drainage area more than existed before you formed the 05 farmers drainage group? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly, in the form of coordination, 07 so the answer is yes. 08 MR. GALLERY: Does your group handle the discharge of 09 the drainage into the drain that goes north to the grassland 10 area? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. We operate -- there is a four-mile 12 earth-lined channel. 13 MR. GALLERY: "We" being the farmers drain ground? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Grasslands Area Farmers. We, for the 15 most part, employ people that also work for districts. When 16 they are doing that particular job, they are funded out of 17 our project funds. 18 MR. GALLERY: What about providing some storage that is 19 not underground storage but surface storage for some 20 temporary detention of these discharges? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Certainly, something that we intend to 22 look at on the long-term. There are some that exist out 23 there now, small storage facilities. There are concerns of 24 getting permitted facilities, large permitted facilities, 25 because there is selenium in the water and there is concerns 5286 01 with ponded systems that contain those constituents. 02 MR. GALLERY: Where are those storage facilities that 03 you mentioned? You said there are some sites out there. 04 MR. MCGAHAN: There is a site in the Pacheco Water 05 District. 06 MR. GALLERY: I am sorry? In Pacheco Water District? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Pacheco Water District and a site in 08 Panoche Drainage District. 09 MR. GALLERY: Are there any other sites? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 11 MR. GALLERY: Are you just looking at sites within the 12 boundaries of your drainage group? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Not necessarily. 14 MR. GALLERY: Have you investigated the availability of 15 storage sites? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: No, not specifically. That would be part 17 of the -- 18 MR. GALLERY: Part of the plan? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 20 MR. GALLERY: You mentioned that Panoche had spent 21 $5,000,000 for drainage? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: For a recycling system; that's correct. 23 MR. GALLERY: When did they do that? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: It was constructed last winter, so from 25 November to May, and it was completed in May of 1998. 5287 01 MR. GALLERY: You also mentioned an $11,000,000 02 figure. 03 MR. MCGAHAN: That is the estimate of what this entire 04 area is spending annually for drainage control activities. 05 The biggest part of that would be irrigation system 06 improvements, which can be used for other purposes, also. 07 But, certainly, one of the main reasons for the irrigation 08 systems improvements is drainage control. 09 MR. GALLERY: Does that money provide the drainage 10 service to these lands that they would want, anyway, 11 independent of the selenium problem? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: It does include the drainage costs. 13 MR. GALLERY: These figures, the 11,000,000 and 14 5,000,000, were not mentioned in your testimony. The only 15 thing you mentioned in your testimony was that the Grassland 16 Bypass Project funding was 200,000 per year provided by the 17 participants, and also you mentioned 135,000 per year? 18 Page 3 of your testimony, Exhibit 9. 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Those are the costs of the monitoring 20 that is being funded by this area for the Grassland Bypass 21 Project. So, this area as a part of the 11,000,000 a year, 22 is also funding $335,000 per year monitoring for this 23 project. 24 MR. GALLERY: That -- what is the per acre cost to 25 these farmers for that 335,000 per year? 5288 01 MR. MCGAHAN: It is approximately 100,000 acres. So of 02 the 335,000, it would be $3.35 an acre. But of the 03 $11,000,000, that would be significantly more than that, 04 approaching $110 an acre, if I have my math right. 05 MR. GALLERY: That is not just for the bypass project? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Neither is the 335. The cost of the 07 bypass project itself is more than the 335,000. This is 08 simply the monitoring costs. 09 MR. GALLERY: You are familiar with the Draft 10 Environmental Impact Report of the State Water Board, which 11 I believe is staff Exhibit 2 or 1, are you not? 12 MS. WHITNEY: Exhibit 1. 13 MR. MCGAHAN: A portion of it. 14 MR. GALLERY: Exhibit 1. Thank you. 15 On page -- Chapter 8, Page 23, I will show you a copy 16 of it, Mr. McGahan, and I highlighted a sentence in there. 17 Could you read that sentence that I have highlighted. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: It says: 19 Many more acres will need tile drainage to 20 remain productive in the future. (Reading.) 21 MR. GALLERY: The Environmental Impact Report is 22 saying subsurface tile drainage systems have been installed 23 in many areas on the west side of the San Joaquin River 24 Basin to lower the water table and allow leaching. Many 25 more areas will need tile drains to remain productive in 5289 01 the future. 02 I would understand that to apply to the whole Grassland 03 Watershed, would you also? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I think it is a much bigger area than 05 that. 06 MR. GALLERY: Are these -- because they're having the 07 same problem that your farmers are having, the high water 08 table is going to require tile drainage? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: That is a very general statement, 10 talking about the whole west side of the San Joaquin 11 Valley. I can talk about our grassland drainage area. 12 Outside of that, you need to ask somebody else. 13 MR. GALLERY: Do you know, have any information, 14 knowledge, about whether other -- to what extent other areas 15 are undertaking to install tile drainage and that need to do 16 that? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I certainly have a general knowledge of 18 it, but specifics I don't know. 19 MR. GALLERY: Well, it is an opportunity that you are 20 here. Just what is your general knowledge of it? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: There are other areas that need drainage, 22 and those areas will likely increase over time. 23 MR. GALLERY: The areas you are talking about are the 24 whole west side area of the San Joaquin Valley? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. It goes into Kern County, too. 5290 01 MR. GALLERY: "Over time," can you bracket that for us, 02 when you think this is -- 03 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I can't. 04 MR. GALLERY: Can you tell us -- you have identified 05 the grassland watershed areas as being 400,000 acres total 06 and your 100,000 acres of that? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 08 MR. GALLERY: Can you tell us anything more what that 09 400,000 acres is doing outside of your area about tile 10 drainage? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: As I mentioned, there are many different 12 areas within that 400,000 acres. There are other areas that 13 have tile drainage systems, as I mentioned, generally 14 without the selenium problems. And I specifically -- what 15 they are doing, if anything, I am not sure. 16 MR. GALLERY: Thank you. 17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Gallery. 19 Let's take our lunch break now and come back at 1:00. 20 Thank you. 21 (Break taken.) 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 5291 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 ---oOo--- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 04 Good afternoon, Ms. Harrigfeld. Your turn to 05 cross-examine. 06 ---oOo-- 07 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 08 SAN LUIS & DELAT-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 09 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 10 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Good afternoon, Chairman and Members 12 of the Board. 13 Mr. McGahan, my name is Karna Harrigfeld. I am here on 14 behalf of Stockton East Water District. I won't take up 15 much of your time; many of the questions I had planned have 16 been asked and answered. I wouldn't want to waste this 17 Board's valuable time. Just a couple clarifications. 18 Does the use agreement that was entered into between 19 San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority and the Bureau, 20 does it require a reduction in salt loads? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: It does not directly. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do the waste discharge requirements 23 adopted for the project require a reduction in salt loads? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: They don't directly. They do deal with 25 salt, in that they require some reports to be written. That 5292 01 is a process of their setting the salinity objectives. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: There isn't any requirement to have a 03 reduction in salt load? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: No. There is -- in the use agreement 05 there is a statement that there will not be increases in 06 salt discharge to the river as a result of the project. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: I think you referenced that in San 08 Luis Exhibit Number 9. At Page 3 you state: 09 An additional requirement was that salt 10 loading to the San Joaquin River not be 11 increased due to the bypass project. 12 (Reading.) 13 So, that is the only restriction, you can't increase 14 the salt load discharge, but there is no corresponding 15 requirement to decrease? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: How about salt concentrations? Does 18 the use agreement require any reduction in salt 19 concentrations? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: How about the waste discharge 22 requirements for the Grassland Bypass Project? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: You talked -- actually, I would like 25 you to take a look at San Luis Exhibit Number 10. The very 5293 01 first sentence I'll read for you. 02 Irrigation and drainage districts have been 03 working aggressively to achieve the water 04 quality objectives for the San Joaquin River. 05 (Reading.) 06 What water quality objectives are you referring to in 07 that statement? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Primarily the selenium objectives. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Have you been working aggressively to 10 achieve the water quality objectives at Vernalis for 11 salinity? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: As I've stated in my statement and my 13 testimony, we -- let me back up a little bit. 14 There are objectives for boron, selenium, molybdenum, 15 so other constituents. Those that are set, we are 16 aggressively working for. And the salt objective, the salt 17 discharge has decreased because of our efforts to decrease 18 selenium. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Just one question on that. When you 20 say salt has decreased, do you mean the salt load has 21 decreased? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I do. We have not been operating 23 directly to meet the Vernalis objectives. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: When -- the same sentence goes on to 25 ask about Mud and Salt Slough. Do Mud and Salt Slough have 5294 01 water quality objectives for salinity? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: You haven't been working aggressively 04 to meet the water quality objective for salinity in Mud and 05 Salt Slough because one hasn't been established? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Kind of a fine point. Because what we 07 have been working aggressively to do is reduce drainage, and 08 what goes along with that is salinity, also. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: I have a couple questions on that, as 10 well. You had made mention earlier in answering 11 cross-examination that for the 1998 water year you 12 discharged in excess of the selenium loads that you were 13 required to under the 1998. And then you said there has 14 been a finding that it was an uncontrollable and 15 unforeseeable event. 16 So what happens? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: The oversight committee -- there is an 18 oversight committee, comprised of the Bureau of Reclamation, 19 Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, 20 Fish and Game, the Regional Board, who oversee the project. 21 They have declared '98 as an unforeseeable and 22 uncontrollable year. 23 What that means, there is a -- they can exclude some of 24 the loads that were discharged in '98 and not make us 25 responsible for those. If we are responsible for them, then 5295 01 -- the loads we are responsible for there is exceedance fees 02 that need to be paid, et cetera. 03 MS. HARRIGFELD: For instance, let's take water year 04 1997, did you have discharges in excess of the selenium load 05 targets for 1997? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, we did. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Did the oversight committee conclude 08 that this was an unforeseeable and uncontrollable event? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: No, they did not. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: What was the incentive fee that you 11 paid for those exceedances? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Little over $60,000. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Who paid that? The drainers or -- 14 MR. MCGAHAN: The grassland area farmers paid it. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, I can kind of surmise from your 16 testimony that in 1997 the selenium load targets that were 17 instituted as part of the project were exceeded; isn't that 18 correct? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Also, in 1998, the second year of the 21 project, the selenium load targets were also exceeded? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. Of course, the use 23 agreement allows for that. And there is a process that 24 allows for that to occur, plus -- the loads for the use 25 agreement were based on a nine-year average from 1986 to 5296 01 1994. And in that period of time there were six critically 02 dry years. And we are not objecting to that, we're 03 accepting the loads that were calculated. But when you 04 compare that to extremely wet years, and every year from '95 05 on has been a wet year, as we testified, there are different 06 conditions which presents a certain amount of -- it's hard 07 to deal with. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you conclude that the Grassland 09 Bypass Project has been successful in meeting the load 10 target as set forth in the use agreement in the project, 11 based on the two years that you have seen? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Sure. In 1997, if you recall the history 13 of the project, once we realized that loads were going to be 14 exceeded, and we had a high exceedance in one month, we 15 implemented immediate measures to reduce the loads, and did 16 so for the rest of the year. 17 We did exceed it some months of the year. We feel at 18 the end of the year we were very successful in meeting our 19 targets. That started in 1998. The first three months of 20 1998, we were very successful in meeting targets. Then 21 we've had one of the highest rainfall years of record. So, 22 it is really yet to be determined the final outcome of '98 23 until this issue of the loads that will be excluded from our 24 responsibility will be determined. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: But you will confirm that both in '97 5297 01 and '98 you exceeded the target? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: That is actually yet to be determined in 03 '98. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with, and I think you 05 testified that you are familiar, with the Vernalis water 06 quality objective? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has that standard historically been 09 met? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: I understand it has not. I have not 11 looked at data, but I am aware it has not many times. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do discharges from the Grassland 13 Bypass Project exceed the Vernalis water quality objective 14 for salinity? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Measured how? 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: In EC. Are the concentration levels 17 that are discharged from Mud Slough higher in concentration 18 than that Vernalis water quality water standard? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, they are. But, of course, the 20 Vernalis water standard is not -- that is not the 21 determination point in Mud Slough. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Right, that is correct. But that is 23 the only water quality objective established on the San 24 Joaquin River? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I assume so, as far as I know. 5298 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: You have testified earlier today that 02 there has been a reduction in the salt load. 03 Could you put that graph up, the purple/yellow? 04 C.O. CAFFREY: If somebody would identify it. 05 MR. SEXTON: Exhibit 11. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: You stated this morning you prepared 08 this exhibit? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: You prepared this exhibit based on 11 information that you obtained from the drainers and also 12 information that you obtained from the Regional Board? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: What specific actions do you believe 15 account for the reduction in the salt load as evidenced 16 here? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: For our drainage area? 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, that is where it is showing a 19 30-percent reduction in salt load. 20 MR. MCGAHAN: The subtle difference is that we have two 21 different discharges shown here. One is from the Grassland 22 Watershed which is from Mud and Salt Slough, and one is from 23 the grassland drainage area which is the area that is part 24 of the Grassland Bypass Project. 25 The reason those have been reduced are manyfold. As I 5299 01 stated in my testimony, and I can go through them again, if 02 you like, these would be recommendations from the San 03 Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, that if you reduce the 04 percolation from an area of around .7 acre-feet to .38 05 acre-feet, that you achieve a significant reduction in the 06 quantity and load of drainage. 07 We have done that. We have formed a regional drainage 08 entity, which simply is an institutional measure that 09 provides a direction to both districts and farmers on how to 10 operate to reduce drainage. We have improved our irrigation 11 systems in the area through loans and purchases of sprinkler 12 systems, drip irrigation systems, so it is a better applied 13 water. We have in process an economic incentives program 14 which includes tiered water pricing and tradable loads 15 program, which is a new concept -- not a new concept, but we 16 are -- partly being implemented. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Did you say that there is a tradable 18 loads concept? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: One of the parts of an economic 20 incentives program -- one part of our economic incentives 21 program is tradable loads. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Tradable loads of selenium or 23 salinity? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Selenium. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: So that wouldn't apply, too; that 5300 01 action wouldn't impact this demonstrated reduction in salt 02 load? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: You can't separate selenium and salt. 04 It's not so convenient that you say that one action that 05 reduces drainage and reduces selenium, you can't say that 06 doesn't reduce salt. When you reduce one, it is almost 07 guaranteed you are going to reduce the other. Yes, it 08 does. 09 MS. HARRIGFELD: Let me ask a follow-up question on 10 that particular point. Ms. Cahill earlier today gave you a 11 hypothetical. She said if you bring in -- it was a load 12 concentration-type hypothetical. If you bring in drainage 13 that -- or if you import 100,000 tons of salt and you reduce 14 your drainage by one-half, but the concentration is doubled, 15 do you achieve a reduction in salt load? 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I noticed 17 before Mr. McGahan had an opportunity to conclude his last 18 answer Ms. Harrigfeld had begun to ask him the next 19 question. I wonder if the witness could be permitted to 20 finish the answer to her questions before she begins the 21 next question. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: I can respond really briefly. I 23 apologize for interrupting. I understand that he's been 24 through this a number of times, so when he hit the one-time 25 question, I wanted to follow up. That was for me. I 5301 01 apologize. 02 If you'd like to finish going through your written 03 testimony -- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: No need to apologize. I also observed 05 what Mr. Birmingham observed. Not using you as the sole 06 individual that does this, Ms. Harrigfeld. It happens now 07 and then. 08 Let me remind everybody that for purposes of the 09 record, only one person can be talking at a time. Witness 10 shouldn't be interrupting attorneys and vice versa. 11 If you have another question or statement, you need to 12 wait until the other person has completed their statement. 13 With that, please continue. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: I think I had a question on the 15 table. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: You want it read back, you want to 17 repeat it yourself? Or does the witness remember the 18 question? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know where we are at. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't remember myself, excuse me. 21 Esther, can you read that last question back, if my 22 statement wasn't too long to go off the screen? 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: I think I will start another line. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: That will be fine, Ms. Harrigfeld. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: You testified there has been a 5302 01 reduction in the salt load. Did that salt load reduction 02 have a corresponding increase or decrease in salinity? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: Salinity measured as how? 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: EC. 05 MR. MCGAHAN: It does not necessarily result in, and I 06 don't think it has resulted in, increase in EC in the 07 drainage discharge from the drainage discharge area. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with South Delta 09 Water Agency Exhibit 55, which is a summary report prepared 10 by the Regional Board? It was introduced in the 11 cross-examination of the two Regional Board witnesses, that 12 Stockton East Water District presented in their case in 13 chief. This is probably the report you used to prepare this 14 report. Are you familiar with this? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with this? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 18 MR. SEXTON: Excuse me, just a second. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Sexton. 20 MR. SEXTON: Excuse me. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, gentlemen. 22 Please proceed, Ms. Harrigfeld. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: On Pages 2 and 3 there is a discussion 24 of a decrease in salt loads from the drainage project area. 25 It states: 5303 01 Annual salt loads from -- for the DPA dropped 02 30 percent from just under 200,000 in 1996 to 03 140,000 in 1997. (Reading.) 04 I think this is probably accurately reflected on this 05 exhibit. 06 It goes on to state that: 07 However, the annual salt load for the 08 watershed was similar for both years, 09 dropping from just over 475 tons to just 10 under 450 tons. (Reading.) 11 Which is also represented by that chart. 12 It concludes that: 13 Generally lower loads of all constituents in 14 1996 and 1997 was likely due to the lower 15 residual salt loads in the Grasslands 16 Watershed following the two wet years. 17 (Reading.) 18 Do you agree with that statement? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I don't. As I testified yesterday, 20 that limits and basically describes the reduction solely on 21 the issue of the wet years followed by dry years. And as 22 Drainage Coordinator, I know for a fact that our reductions 23 in drainage have been caused by much more than that, 24 including this long list of activities which, you know, 25 people find boring to go through. But the truth of the 5304 01 matter is that there are many phases and many things we are 02 implementing to reduce drainage. I do not agree with that 03 statement. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: There is also a statement in here 05 relating to salt concentrations, and I will read that for 06 you. It says: 07 During water year 1997, all subsurface ag 08 drainage from the DPA was removed from the 09 internal wetlands by canals and Salt Slough 10 and rerouted in Mud Slough. (Reading.) 11 It states: 12 A corresponding increase in constituent 13 concentrations was noted in Mud Slough, 14 reflecting discharge from the San Luis Drain, 15 which reached concentrations of 5,460 16 micromhos. (Reading.) 17 Do you agree with that statement that we saw that 18 dramatic increase in salt concentrations in Mud Slough? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I do. But that doesn't get to the 20 line of questioning you are asking. The reason that the 21 concentrations increased in Mud Slough in prior times, prior 22 to '97, for most of the time the drainage water was not in 23 Mud Slough. 24 So, it's simply a physical change that occurred that 25 put the water in Mud Slough, and, obviously, has increased 5305 01 in concentrations significantly. The line of questioning, 02 though, had more to deal with. 03 When you reduce water application, does the 04 concentration of drainage water increase? And you don't 05 measure that; that is not a correct way to measure that. 06 You measure that at the discharge from our drainage area, 07 which is a like kind of water. 08 My response was that I don't see a significant increase 09 in -- significant change in concentrations because of our 10 reduction of drainage at the location, which is a correct 11 point to measure impacts at. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: What is that location? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: At the discharge from the drainage area. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, how does the discharge at the 15 drainage area relate to the discharge point at Mud and Salt 16 Slough? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: The report states that the concentrations 18 have increased in Mud Slough. The reason they have 19 increased is because the drainage water was not in Mud 20 Slough previously. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't the -- 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Everybody is talking at once. Please 23 let Mr. McGahan finish his answer. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: That is not answering the question you 25 are asking. You can't measure at Mud Slough because 5306 01 previously the drainage water was not there all the time. 02 MS. HARRIGFELD: What do you constitute to be the end 03 drainage point of the Grassland Bypass Channel Project? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Currently it is measured at Site B, which 05 is a point about a mile upstream of the end of the San Luis 06 Drain 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you saying that there is 08 additional discharges in-between that point that you just 09 stated and Mud and Salt Slough? Are there additional 10 discharges which are, therefore, impacting the concentration 11 levels of Mud and Salt Slough? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: We're really confused. I am going to 13 need to put up a map to answer the question. 14 Could you put up Figure 2? 15 This is Figure 2 of San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 16 Authority Exhibit 10. 17 I need to explain how the drainage water flowed prior 18 to the Grassland Bypass project. There were four discharge 19 points from the drainage area, which is shown on the map, 20 that discharge into channels within the Grassland Water 21 District. The drainage water was conveyed in those channels 22 through Grassland Water District to either Salt Slough, 23 which discharged to the San Joaquin River, or to Mud Slough, 24 which discharged to the San Joaquin River, did not go 25 through the same channel all the time. It was varied. 5307 01 But the measurement of the water that left the 02 drainage area in these four locations, that is a measurement 03 of the quantity of water, subsurface drainage, water that 04 was generated within the drainage area. You can put 05 concentrations of selenium with that and concentrations of 06 salt and get corresponding loads. 07 So, as we're talking about Mud Slough and 08 concentrations in Mud Slough and as the wording in the 09 Regional Board report, they are saying that the 10 concentrations increased after the project. After the 11 project, the drainage from our grassland drainage area was 12 discharged through a four-mile earthen-lined channel and 13 connected to the San Luis Drain, discharged into the San 14 Luis Drain, to the terminus of the San Luis Drain, and then 15 six miles in Mud Slough and the San Joaquin River. 16 After then, the implementation of the project in the 17 fall of '96, all of the drainage water went in Mud Slough. 18 Naturally, the concentrations increased over what they had 19 been in Mud Slough. And, of course, there was a significant 20 decrease in Salt Slough. 21 But the question, does reduced water conservation 22 practiced within the drainage area, does that increase 23 concentrations? You would measure that at the discharge 24 from the drainage area, which, prior to 1996, was the four 25 discharge points currently that go -- they are combined into 5308 01 one discharge point, our Grassland Bypass. So, after the 02 fall of '96, you could measure that at Site B, which is a 03 point about a mile from the terminus of the San Luis Drain 04 My testimony and my opinion is that the concentrations 05 have not increased significantly in the discharge from the 06 drainage area as a result of our water conservation 07 practices. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the status 09 report from the drainage management in the San Joaquin 10 Valley, the supplement to the Rainbow Report that is dated 11 February 1998? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I have a copy. I haven't read it in 13 detail. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: On Page 5 of that report it states 15 that: 16 Source control results in increased salt and 17 selenium concentrations and conditions 18 warrants continued monitoring. (Reading.) 19 Do you agree that source reduction has the 20 corresponding effect of increasing salt and selenium 21 concentrations? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Where was it measuring those 23 concentrations in that report? I don't know where it was 24 measuring those. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: It was talking about the general 5309 01 principle of source control. It wasn't applied to any 02 particular project, in particular. It was just the 03 statement that source control -- and I can read it for you 04 again. 05 Source control results in increased salt and 06 selenium concentrations and the condition 07 warrants continued monitoring. (Reading.) 08 Just a proposition; do you agree or disagree with that 09 statement? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: It is a general statement, and I just 11 said in principle I disagree generally with that. The 12 experience in our area is that, as we reduce flows, we have 13 not experienced increases in concentrations. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: In your statement -- I won't belabor 15 this because the last couple of people have hit on this. I 16 just have a couple questions. This would be your written 17 testimony, Page 5, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 18 Authority, Exhibit 9. 19 You talk about your: 20 Experience as Regional Drainage Coordinator 21 of the Grassland Area Farmers leads me to 22 conclude the regulation of salinity through 23 Basin Plan amendments developed by the 24 Regional Board is appropriate, and that the 25 Regional Board should be given the 5310 01 opportunity to develop a full range of 02 salinity control approaches. (Reading.) 03 Have you on behalf of San Luis submitted any comments 04 on the Basin Plan that was just noticed back in August? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Which Basin Plan? 06 MS. HARRIGFELD: The Basin Plan amendment for salinity 07 that is the subject of the Regional Board workshop this 08 afternoon? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not aware of any workshop on 10 salinity this afternoon. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: There is a notice of public workshop 12 that was issued on August 15th. The workshop notice went 13 through a number of -- it is for the triennial review and 14 adoption of water quality objectives for salinity and, I 15 believe -- I know it is for salinity. 16 They had asked for participants to supply comments on a 17 listed number of issues. I was just wondering on behalf of 18 the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority if you had 19 submitted your comments or your recommendations to the 20 Regional Board on methods to or on the triennial review 21 process? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: Your question suggested there was a 23 workshop on salinity, on the salinity modification of the 24 Basin Plan. This is simply a triennial review. It is a 25 standard three-year review of the Basin Plan, and they asked 5311 01 for input from individuals on what should be included in 02 their triennial review. And, yes, we have submitted 03 comments. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: What were the nature of those 05 comments? Did you recommend that water quality objectives 06 be established for salinity upstream of the Merced River? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: No, we did not. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: What were the nature of the comments 09 that you submitted? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Very similar to these comments: that we 11 have implemented measures in the grassland drainage area to 12 reduce drainage. These measures have resulted in a 13 significant financial commitment by the folks and that we 14 ought to let the existing process go forward; that being the 15 process that the Regional Board is on to develop salinity 16 water quality objectives and other water quality objectives 17 and all of the issues outlined in the waste discharge 18 requirements that we have been issued. That is, don't 19 change the process because we have committed financial 20 resources based on that process. So don't change the 21 process on us now. We would like to see that process 22 continue. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: And part of that process, according to 24 the Regional Board workplan, is outlining what they are 25 going to do to address salinity and boron was to establish 5312 01 water quality objectives on the lower San Joaquin River. 02 So, you're saying that you support that process of 03 establishing water quality objectives for salinity upstream 04 of Vernalis? 05 MR. SEXTON: Objection. The question is ambiguous. 06 The questioner has used the term "Lower San Joaquin" on one 07 hand and then is talking about upstream of Vernalis on the 08 other hand. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Try the question again, Ms. Harrigfeld, 10 please. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. I was just trying to find the 12 appropriate -- they didn't define what the Lower San Joaquin 13 River Basin was, so can I just have a second? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Want to go off the record for a moment? 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Please. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go off the record for just a 17 minute or so. 18 (Break taken.) 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Back on the record. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: It says: 21 The purpose of the Basin Plan amendment 22 process is to define, quantify, the extent 23 of the problem and establish a program to 24 improve salinity and boron quality in the 25 Lower San Joaquin River at Vernalis and 5313 01 upstream reaches. By improving salinity and 02 boron levels in the Lower San Joaquin River, 03 water quality in the Delta should improve. 04 We anticipate that the Basin Plan amendment 05 will establish water quality objectives for 06 salt and boron upstream of Vernalis. The 07 geographic scope of this amendment to the 08 Basin Plan is the Lower San Joaquin River 09 below Mendota Pool. Included in this area 10 are the lower reaches of the major east side 11 tributaries upstream of their confluence with 12 the San Joaquin River ... (Reading.) 13 Yayda, yayda. Seinfeld term. I apologize. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: We won't consider this a literal reading 15 in the nature of exactness. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Then it goes on to state: 17 Also included are the west side tributaries, 18 including the Grasslands Watershed which 19 includes Mud and Salt Slough. (Reading.) 20 So the scope in which the Regional Board is looking at 21 encompasses the Lower San Joaquin from the Mendota Pool down 22 to Vernalis. So when you say that you support the Regional 23 Board planning process and the establishment of water 24 quality objectives, you would tend to agree that you're 25 supporting this process of establishing water quality 5314 01 objectives on what they call the Lower San Joaquin? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: We are certainly committed to working 03 with the Regional Board as they go through the process. It, 04 obviously, is a give-and-take situation. We make comments 05 if we don't think what they are proposing is appropriate, 06 and I am sure we will take the opportunity to do that, as 07 will others. 08 MS. HARRIGFELD: I think I am about done here. 09 Someone gave me a summary of your testimony yesterday 10 that I found a little intriguing and want to have you 11 highlight. It is my understanding that you testified 12 yesterday that the Grassland Bypass Project is, in quotes, 13 salt balance. 14 Did you testify to that effect yesterday? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. I said my preliminary calculations 16 indicate that we are achieving a salt balance. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: What do you mean by "salt balance"? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Simply that the amount of salt being 19 discharged from the area is equal to the amount of salt 20 coming in with the irrigation water supply. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: What is the relevance of salt balance? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: One of the major goals of our Grassland 23 Bypass Project is to maintain agricultural productivity in 24 the area. Salt builds up in the soil. It is detrimental to 25 the growing of crops, and you cannot maintain productivity. 5315 01 So in order to maintain long-term productivity in any 02 agricultural area, you have to maintain a salt balance in 03 the root zone; that is, do not increase the salt 04 concentrations continually over time in the root zone. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is your contention that providing that 06 you are not disrupting the salt balance, meaning you are 07 importing and exporting the same amount of salt, that you -- 08 that the Grassland Bypass farmers don't have an obligation 09 to reduce or mitigate the salt that is being contributed 10 into the San Joaquin River? 11 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I had a little trouble following it 13 myself. Would you try it again, Ms. Harrigfeld? 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. 15 You just stated that you're in salt balance, meaning 16 you are applying as much salt as is being exported -- being 17 discharged; isn't that correct? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: So is it your contention, then, that 20 maintaining that balance is all that you, as a drainer, need 21 to do? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I think our testimony is clear. That our 23 efforts to reduce drainage go far beyond that. And the 24 things we have implemented, both institutional and physical, 25 go far beyond a simple statement such as that. We are 5316 01 serious. We have stepped up to the table to manage our 02 drainage, to reduce the drainage, and we will continue to do 03 that as long as it is economically feasible. 04 One of those parts of being economically feasible is a 05 salt balance. If everything comes down and we can't 06 maintain a salt balance, we will have to take a look at it 07 at that time. That is not the only criteria that we are 08 using. And I think our actions demonstrate that we are 09 doing much to control our drainage. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: You talked about the pilot projects 11 that are being instituted that, quote, treat water. How is 12 this treatment accomplished? With reverse osmosis or with 13 one of treatment methods? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: We have about 20 out there. They vary 15 from iron filings of filtration, to other processes, 16 electrokinetic process in which you charge water in the 17 soil, and it supposedly changes the chemical nature of the 18 soils, a digestion process, a distillation process which you 19 go through a process to distill water. There is many other 20 innovative processes that people are trying to come up with 21 to work. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: The purpose of that is to remove salt 23 from the discharge water? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Most of them have to deal with the 25 removal of selenium. Very few of them are able to take out 5317 01 salt. The work we have done primarily has dealt with 02 removal of selenium. The distillation process is one that 03 would remove salt. 04 MS. HARRIGFELD: I just have a couple more real quick 05 questions. On Page 4 of your written testimony, which is 06 Number 9, you state: 07 The draft EIR -- (Reading.) 08 In the third full paragraph, fifth line: 09 The Draft EIR at Page VIII-7 attributes about 10 44 percent of salinity as coming from Mud and 11 Salt Slough. (Reading.) 12 Do you see that sentence? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you agree or disagree that 44 15 percent of the salinity is coming from Mud and Salt Slough? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: I am sure it is correct for the period 17 of time it took into account. The San Joaquin River is an 18 arid stream. It varies greatly. But I am sure it is 19 correct for the period of time it is analyzed. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: On the following page in the first 21 full paragraph you state that the salinity control proposals 22 contain many factual errors. The analysis is based on total 23 discharge of 19,145 acre-feet. And you said that in reality 24 it is really 36,000 acre-feet per year. 25 Does that impact that 44-percent number at all, that 5318 01 inaccuracy that you have identified? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: The 44 percent I would assume is actual 03 measurements, so it would not. In effect, it was the 36,000 04 acre-feet that was used to come up with the 44 percent. It 05 was actual discharges, so I am sure that was used for the 44 06 percent. 07 MS. HARRIGFELD: I was a little confused by your 08 testimony. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Again, I need to point out 44 percent is 10 Mud and Salt Slough. That is the discharge as shown on our 11 map, which is Figure 2 of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota 12 Water Authority Number 10, which extends from Mendota on the 13 south to Highway 140 on the north, and the San Joaquin River 14 on the east, I-5 on the west, a 405,000-acre area. 15 The paragraph also goes on to talk about the discharge 16 from the Grassland Area Farmers has been reduced by 29 17 percent over 1996 conditions. And the 44 percent includes a 18 much larger area than the grassland drainage area. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: I guess, the bottom line on at least 20 the State Board's analysis was looking at the entire 21 grasslands area and not taking into account the specific 22 achievements that were resulting from the implementation of 23 the project? 24 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for speculation. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you agree with your attorney's 5319 01 observation? Would you have to speculate? You don't have 02 to answer. 03 MR. MCGAHAN: If you clarify, redo the question. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's try again, Ms. Harrigfeld. 05 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am just a little confused, not 06 really. But the 44 percent that is allocated to discharge 07 from Mud and Salt Slough, that is what is taken into 08 consideration in the Draft EIR and that is what has to be 09 diluted downstream, correct? 10 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for speculation. 11 Misstates the testimony and is vague and ambiguous. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask the witness if he understands 13 the question. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I think I can respond to the question. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Please do, sir. 16 MR. MCGAHAN: The 44 percent, being is actual data, 17 certainly is used, I would imagine, to analyze downstream 18 actions. However, the 19,000 and 36,000 acre-feet, my -- 19 when I say discrepancy is from the drainage area itself, not 20 from Mud and Salt Sloughs. We are talking apples and 21 oranges. We need to talk about which area we are talking 22 about to answer the questions. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: All of the drainage project area 24 eventually comes out at Mud Slough? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 5320 01 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. That is all I have. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 03 We will go to Mr. Porgans. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Why does that scare me, Mr. Porgans? 05 MR. PORGANS: If you're scared, think how I feel. 06 Patrick Porgans for Porgans and Associates. 07 Mr. Chairperson. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Good afternoon. Mr. Porgans. 09 MR. PORGANS: I am here as a de facto representative of 10 the public. 11 I will be taping this proceeding, my part of the 12 proceeding, so I make sure everything I said, I have it 13 down. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 16 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 17 BY PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES 18 BY MR. PORGANS 19 MR. PORGANS: Afternoon, Mr. McGahan. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This is a 21 quasi judicial proceeding and -- 22 C.O. CAFFREY: That it is. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Typically, proceedings of this type 24 are not recorded. We have a Court Reporter who is making a 25 record of the proceeding. And it is my understanding that 5321 01 generally these types of hearings are not recorded. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: I think your observation is a correct 03 one, Mr. Birmingham, although I am not familiar with how 04 this may be impacted by any regulations, with regard to the 05 subject of additional recording by people participating in 06 the hearing or members of the audience. 07 Ms. Leidigh, is there restriction against this? 08 MS. LEIDIGH: I am not aware of any specific rule, 09 either Administrative Procedures Act or in our regulations 10 that would preclude Mr. Porgans also making himself a tape 11 recording. 12 But I would point out that the official record of this 13 proceeding is the record that the Court Reporter is 14 making, and that if there is any kind of discrepancy, that 15 we would rely on the Court Reporter's recording. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: I appreciate your observation, Ms. 17 Leidigh. It is in the record, and I hope Mr. Porgans did 18 hear that. 19 I am assuming that you are recording this, Mr. Porgans, 20 for your own memory, for use later on. I will treat it just 21 the same as if somebody came in here and wanted to take a 22 snapshot or something like that. 23 Go ahead. The official record is with the Court 24 Reporter who is preparing it. 25 Please proceed. I will allow you to record. 5322 01 MR. PORGANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. 02 To begin with, some of the questions I may ask you will 03 be redundant, and I have to apologize for that. I am trying 04 to keep some level of continuity with my questions. 05 I would like to begin with your statement of 06 qualifications here. It is your San Luis Exhibit 8, Page 07 1. Could you tell me specifically what a civil engineer is? 08 I mean, I appreciate there is differences, but can you tell 09 me what your background as a civil engineer, the learning 10 process through school, what civil engineer represents? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: As it states, I've spent 27 years working 12 in the field of water resources engineering. To get a 13 professional registration, civil engineering, you have a 14 qualification to do that, which includes -- can include 15 education, can include experience, and then you have to pass 16 an examination. 17 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Now, during the course of your 18 education, did you have any classes in geology? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't recall specifically. 20 MR. PORGANS: Did you have any courses in biology? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I don't believe so. 22 MR. PORGANS: I know I got one for you. Hydrology? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 24 MR. PORGANS: How extensive was your education, 25 learning, in hydrology? 5323 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Evidently, extensive enough to qualify to 02 the take the civil engineering test. 03 MR. PORGANS: Can you be more specific? That doesn't 04 then mean anything to me. 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't remember, Mr. Porgans. It was 06 almost 27 years ago. 07 MR. PORGANS: So, did you get a degree in hydrology? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 09 MR. PORGANS: Did you get a degree in geology? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 11 MR. PORGANS: In your testimony you state that you have 12 this 27 years of working in the field, and you make 13 reference to this in California and Arizona. How many of 14 that 27 years have been in the San Joaquin Valley? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Timewise, all of it. 16 MR. PORGANS: So, therefore, you should be -- do you 17 consider yourself to be somewhat familiar with this issue of 18 selenium and selenium-related problems as it pertains to 19 drainage? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: Would you consider yourself an expert in 22 selenium? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: As related to agricultural drainage and 24 the associated impacts, I probably more so than anybody -- I 25 want to be or anybody else. 5324 01 MR. PORGANS: Well, I don't know if that answers my 02 question. I think we should strike the last part of the 03 answer. I am asking you, not what anybody else does, you 04 personally. I am asking you if you are an expert, in your 05 mind, with relationship to the selenium? 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask you, are you making a motion 07 that something be stricken? 08 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I am. I don't need his last part to 09 that question. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: With great respect, I am going to leave 11 it in the record. 12 MR. PORGANS: No problem. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: You may go on and reask the question or 14 hone in on the answer, so to speak. 15 MR. PORGANS: So, I'll ask you the question. 16 Based on -- are you, in your mind, an expert in 17 selenium and selenium-related issues as it pertains to the 18 drainage here in the San Joaquin Valley? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I believe so. 20 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 21 Now, in your testimony -- I would like you to put up 22 your exhibit, the one that illustrates the drainage 23 boundaries. No, it's up. Excuse me. 24 You say there are 97,000 acres that is involved in this 25 Grassland Channel Bypass Project. 5325 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. In the drainage are a boundary, 02 within the boundary there is 97,000 acres. 03 MR. PORGANS: Let me get your testimony here so I can 04 -- on Page 2 of your testimony it states: 05 The entity, the Grassland Channel Bypass 06 Project or the Grasslands Area Farmers, the 07 entity includes approximately 97,000 acres of 08 irrigated farmland on the west side of the 09 San Joaquin Valley and was organized for the 10 purpose of implementing the Grassland Bypass 11 Project. (Reading.) 12 It says 97,000 acres of irrigated farmlands. Do you 13 have 97,000 acres in there? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: There is 97,000 gross acres within the 15 drainage area. The -- of that there is significant acreage 16 that is roads, ditches and other right-of-ways that also. 17 MR. PORGANS: You don't have 97,000 acres of irrigated 18 agriculture in that area, do you? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: It is intended to be a general statement, 20 but you are correct. Specifically, you are correct. It is 21 not that much of land that is irrigated. 22 MR. PORGANS: Would it be minus 10 or 15 percent, 23 including roads or -- 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. It would be more like 80,000 25 acres actually of fields that are irrigated. 5326 01 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 02 This 80,000 acres, you mentioned earlier the 03 boundaries were drawn up -- the boundaries were drawn up 04 based upon lands that have high selenium in the subsurface 05 waters? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 07 MR. PORGANS: How long has it been since this 08 particular area began receiving surface waters from the 09 Delta-Mendota Canal? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure of the exact date. 11 MR. PORGANS: Does somewhere around 1951 or '52 or '53 12 sound about right to you? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Could be. 14 MR. PORGANS: Prior to that time do you have any idea 15 of how many acres were in production? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 17 MR. PORGANS: At that time, prior to the delivery of 18 this Delta-Mendota water, where did they get the water from 19 to irrigate whatever lands they were irrigating? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure I know. 21 MR. PORGANS: Is the area now relatively dependent or 22 can you give me a percentage of what dependency they have on 23 water that is imported from the Delta? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: There are -- the districts in this area 25 have contracts for water and so, to the extent of those 5327 01 contracts, they are dependent on that water. 02 MR. PORGANS: My question is: How dependent are they 03 on the water? Are they totally dependent on imported water 04 or are they 90 percent dependent upon this imported water? 05 80 percent? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: In a normal year they can receive all of 07 the water requirements for -- all their water requirements 08 can be delivered from the surface supplies. 09 MR. PORGANS: The imported water? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 11 MR. PORGANS: Off the record. You want to know why I 12 have all this? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Off the record. 14 (Discussion held off the record.) 15 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 16 Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. 17 MR. PORGANS: Mr. McGahan wants to clarify something. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 19 MR. MCGAHAN: The water supplies to this area are both 20 districts that have federal contracts and also exchange 21 contractors. At times some of the water from this area is 22 diverted from the San Joaquin River. I don't know if you 23 would call that an imported supply or not. Just wanted to 24 clarify. 25 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate the clarification. That 5328 01 leads me to my next question. 02 How much of the water that would normally come in would 03 be from contractors as opposed to exchange contractors? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know off the top of my head the 05 -- that number. 06 MR. PORGANS: During your 27 years of employment here 07 in the valley, have you had the opportunity to work with the 08 staffs of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 09 Board and the State Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, 10 USGS, USBR, EPA and DWR and DFG? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 12 MR. PORGANS: Did you have the opportunity to review 13 reports and other published literature disseminated by those 14 agencies pertaining to agricultural drainage in general? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MR. PORGANS: And you have had the opportunity to 17 discuss drainage issues with Joe Karkoski, Dennis Westcot, 18 Les Grober, Rudy Schnagl and Jeanne Chilcott from the 19 Regional Board? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: Are you familiar with the San Joaquin 22 River Input/Output Model for the salts, salt loading? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I know one exists. I am not familiar 24 with the model, never operated the model. 25 MR. PORGANS: Have you ever read any information 5329 01 pertaining to data that the model has put in? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: I have seen some results, yes. 03 MR. PORGANS: On that question, have you ever developed 04 a model for salt balance in your area? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I've made calculations on salt balance, 06 which for all practical purposes is a model, yes. 07 MR. PORGANS: Has that model been available for peer 08 review? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: It is not real complicated. A person can 10 take the flow and concentrations available to them to 11 calculate it. So the answer is no. 12 MR. PORGANS: And is this model that you are speaking 13 of readily available to the general public? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: The information that is used to calculate 15 salt balance is readily available. 16 MR. PORGANS: Your particular model and the parameters 17 and variables you put into the model, do we have those in 18 some sort of descriptive form? Do you have them in some 19 sort of descriptive form that I can get, or anyone, for that 20 matter? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not distributed those. 22 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 23 Mr. Les Grober from the Regional Board published a 24 paper. It's called "DMC Supplies -- " Excuse me. It is 25 the -- excuse me, strike that. 5330 01 It is entitled "The Sources and Circulation of Salts 02 in the San Joaquin River Basin." I believe it is State 03 Board Exhibit 97. 04 Is that correct, Ms. Leidigh? Victoria? 05 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 06 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 07 You know Mr. Grober is an associated land and water 08 use analyst with the Regional Water Quality Control Board? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MR. PORGANS: That Mr. Grober is involved in developing 11 and being involved in various models that do these kind of 12 calculations? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: You are starting to get a little detail 14 on what he does. I don't know everything he does. 15 MR. PORGANS: I don't want you to answer a question you 16 don't know. 17 I am going to digress for a minute, and I will get back 18 to the model in a minute. 19 This water that is coming through the DMC is water 20 coming from where? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Delta-Mendota Canal gets its water at the 22 Tracy pumping plant in the Delta. 23 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware that the model, San Joaquin 24 River Input/Output Model, was used to determine discharge 25 and TDS, boron, selenium loading to the San Joaquin and 5331 01 based on a full set of flow and water quality data and 02 compiled that information from water years '85 through '94? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: You say the model was used to calculate 04 those loads? Why wouldn't you use actual information 05 available from that time period? 06 MR. PORGANS: It says it used the full set of flow and 07 water quality data, and they put that information into the 08 model, and they came up with loads. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't understand the question. 10 MR. PORGANS: Let's see if I can rephrase it. 11 Do you know what the net discharge of salts out of the 12 basin was in the -- excuse me. 13 Do you know what the annual salt load in the Lower San 14 Joaquin River was in tons per year between the end of 1985 15 and 1984 [verbatim]? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Not off the top of my head. 17 MR. PORGANS: Would it surprise you to know it was 18 925,000 tons? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: What was? 20 MR. PORGANS: The annual salt load added to the San 21 Joaquin River. 22 MR. SEXTON: From what area? 23 MR. PORGANS: From the -- that is a good question. 24 Thank you. 25 That would be from the total San Joaquin River Basin. 5332 01 MR. MCGAHAN: The entire basin? 02 MR. PORGANS: Basin, yes. 03 MR. MCGAHAN: Measured where? 04 MR. PORGANS: Probably at Vernalis. 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Is that an average for that period of 06 time? 07 MR. PORGANS: Yes, an average over that period of time, 08 '85 through '94. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have firsthand knowledge of 10 that. That sounds a little low to me, but that could be 11 into as many critical years in that period of time. 12 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea what contribution of 13 the total salt load into the San Joaquin River from all 14 sources in the basin, what contribution the grasslands area 15 contributes to the total salt load? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: I have an exhibit that shows what the 17 salt load from the grassland drainage area was for the years 18 '95, '96 and '97. 19 MR. PORGANS: Would that information tell us what 20 percentage that is in relationship to the total load? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: I did not submit the total load. 22 MR. PORGANS: Do you know what the total loads are? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have that in front of me. 24 MR. PORGANS: Do you know what the total net discharge 25 of salts are out of the San Joaquin Basin -- excuse me, out 5333 01 of the San Joaquin Basin via the San Joaquin River near 02 Vernalis in tons per year was, or is, on average? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 04 MR. PORGANS: Would it surprise you to know it was 05 700,000 tons per year? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: What period of time? 07 MR. PORGANS: The same period of time as I mentioned 08 before. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I thought you said 900,000 tons. 10 MR. PORGANS: No. That was coming in, and this is 11 going out. There is in and out. 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I asked you if the 900,000 was measured 13 at Vernalis, and you said yes. It has to be out. 14 MR. PORGANS: If I said that, then I stand corrected. 15 There is salt load coming in and there is a salt 16 loading go out. We will talk about what is going out and 17 then we will come back to what is going in. 18 Would it surprise you to know that there is 700,000 19 tons per year of salts on average between 1985 and 1994, 20 700,000 pounds -- 700,000 tons? Does that number -- 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Of what? 22 MR. PORGANS: Salts. 23 MR. MCGAHAN: Would it surprise me that 700,000 tons of 24 salt what? 25 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. I stated the question before, 5334 01 but I will restate it. 02 According to the report that Mr. Grober produced, 03 claims that the mean annual salt load added to the Lower San 04 Joaquin River of water years 1995 [verbatim] through '94 was 05 approximately 845 metric tons per year. The net discharge 06 of salt out of the basin, via the San Joaquin River as 07 measured at Vernalis, was 700,000 tons per year. 08 Does that number sound like it is in the ballpark to 09 you? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: I am still not understanding the 11 question. 12 MR. PORGANS: Does it surprise you? Are you aware 13 that, according to Mr. Grober's report, based on the 14 information that was run through the model, they estimate 15 that on average between 1985 and 1994, 700,000 tons of salt 16 was discharged into the San Joaquin River as measured at 17 Vernalis? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: I thought we had just talked about a 19 900,000 ton -- 20 MR. PORGANS: We are talking about out now. Let's not 21 get too confusing. This is out. 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I thought we were talking out. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Maybe Mr. McGahan can be given an 24 opportunity to review the report for a moment that Mr. 25 Porgans is referring to. 5335 01 C.O. CAFFREY: That might be helpful, Mr. Porgans. Do 02 you have a copy? We can give Mr. McGahan a few minutes to 03 took at it. 04 MR. PORGANS: Sure. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: We will go off the record for a moment. 06 (Break taken.) 07 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 08 Mr. Sexton. 09 MR. SEXTON: What Mr. McGahan has been asked to review 10 is what appears to be five pages, perhaps an extract, 11 although I am not totally sure at this time, of a very 12 technical document. He is doing his best to work his way 13 through it, but it is not something that can be assimilated 14 in a short period of time. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me respond to that, Mr. Sexton, by 16 saying to both you and Mr. McGahan if you do not feel that 17 you're able to answer the questions based on that document, 18 that is acceptable to the hearing officer. 19 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you still like some time off the 21 record to continue to review the document? 22 MR. SEXTON: Yes, please, Mr. Caffrey. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back off the record. 24 (Discussion held off the record.) 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go back on the record for just a 5336 01 moment. I do that merely to state that since this is taking 02 a little time, and I want you to have the time you need, 03 let's take our break now, if that is agreeable, and come 04 back in 12 to 15 minutes. I will give Mr. McGahan some time 05 to look at that. 06 I might also point out that Ms. Leidigh and Ms. Whitney 07 have called for the full document, just in case we need it. 08 Did you get it? 09 MR. SEXTON: Just got it, Mr. Caffrey. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Assuming you need more time, we will 11 take a break now. 12 MR. SEXTON: Thank you. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 14 (Break taken.) 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. If everybody will find their 16 seats, we will go back on the record. 17 And, Mr. McGahan, I trust you have had some time to 18 review the document, and I can't recall whether there was a 19 question on the table, per se, or do you want to start 20 questioning now, Mr. Porgans? 21 MR. PORGANS: Given the fact that he had the 22 opportunity to review it, I can ask him questions. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Before we do that, Mr. 24 McGahan, you had a question or you had a statement? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: The report is on the entire Delta-Mendota 5337 01 Canal service area. There is one term in this determination 02 of loads that I don't even understand. I do not feel like I 03 can comment on this document. It has numbers in here which 04 I do understand, and one of the terms I don't. 05 It certainly is a much bigger area than our grassland 06 drainage area, which is a very small part of this entire 07 report. So, I don't feel qualified to respond to this 08 report. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: So that I understand, your statement is 10 that pertains to all possible questions, and you choose not 11 to be questioned on that because of your lack of knowledge 12 or understanding of the report. I am sorry, I didn't mean 13 to put words in your mouth. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I can try to respond to questions, but 15 the point is, it is a much larger area that I am not 16 directly familiar with, and I do not understand one of the 17 terms that it talks about when it accounts for salt load. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe the best way to proceed in 19 fairness to Mr. Porgans is to let him ask a question or two 20 and see if it is anything in the realm in which you feel 21 comfortable answering. If you can't, you can simply state 22 on the record that you don't. 23 I appreciate your statement as a preamble to perhaps 24 give some guidance to Mr. Porgans. 25 Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. 5338 01 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 02 On Page 1 of the Exhibit 97 -- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Porgans. I apologize for 04 interrupting you. I was just reminded by Mr. Stubchaer 05 that, depending on the reasoning for your line of 06 questioning, the author of the report is available for 07 cross-examination in the next couple of meeting days that we 08 are going to have. If the nature of your questions is to 09 simply understand the record, he would be available to 10 answer your questions, obviously. But if your questions are 11 in the nature of some other relativity, rather than just 12 understanding the report, per se, but perhaps trying to find 13 out Mr. McGahan's interpretation, that is another thing. I 14 want you to be aware of that information. 15 MR. PORGANS: I do appreciate that, Mr. Chairperson, 16 and I will be here to cross-examine Mr. Grober at that 17 time. But this gentleman, he qualified himself as an expert 18 on certain issues. That is what he did. So, I am going to 19 be asking him about issues that are relevant to his area of, 20 quote-unquote, expertise. If the man is an expert, he 21 shouldn't have a problem answering specific questions 22 relative to his area. 23 And I am going on record, I have qualifications about 24 whether he is an expert or not. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I was not requiring you at this point, 5339 01 Mr. Porgans, to give us a showing of proof, that you should 02 have the right to question him. You do have the right. I 03 was just letting you know that the author, himself, would be 04 here later in case you didn't. 05 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 06 We established the fact that you do -- your -- the 07 people that you represent in the grasslands drainage area 08 receive water from the Delta-Mendota Canal; is that correct? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: The hundred thousand grassland drainage 10 area receives some of their water from the Delta-Mendota 11 Canal. 12 MR. PORGANS: And you don't know what the percentage 13 is? Or does it vary? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know the percentage. 15 MR. PORGANS: But they are dependent upon that source 16 of water? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 18 MR. SEXTON: Except as previously clarified in the 19 witness' statement. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize to Mr. Sexton and to all. I 21 was conferring with Mr. Stubchaer, and I did not hear your 22 statement, Mr. Sexton. Please repeat it. 23 MR. SEXTON: I was just reiterating that the witness 24 has already clarified that some of the entities in the 25 Grassland Bypass Project receive some of their water 5340 01 directly from the San Joaquin River. So I was just 02 clarifying the witness' comment. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 04 MR. SEXTON: It's been previously testified to. 05 MR. PORGANS: On that note, how much water do you use 06 annually up there to irrigate that approximately 80,000 07 acres? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: A little over two acre-feet per acre. 09 MR. PORGANS: So, it is conceivable, then -- is it 10 conceivable, then, that a hundred thousand acre-feet of 11 water could possibly come from the DMC or more or less? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know the exact number. 13 MR. PORGANS: You have never seen the number? Or have 14 you ever seen the number? Excuse me. 15 MR. MCGAHAN: I imagine I have. I don't remember it. 16 MR. PORGANS: On Page 1 of this Exhibit 97, it states 17 here that, quote: 18 Salt dissolved in the DMC water import is 19 the primary source of salt circulating in the 20 lower San Joaquin Basin. (Reading.) 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me. I just have to say for the 22 record, maybe it's getting late in the day, but do we have 23 to report the sneeze? 24 THE COURT REPORTER: I don't. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans -- 5341 01 MR. PORGANS: I will try to refrain. Just my bringing 02 up. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, being a little facetious. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Want to borrow my hat? 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, we are having a light moment 06 here, Mr. Porgans. 07 MR. PORGANS: That's okay. Well deserved, no doubt. I 08 have a handkerchief here. It's clean. 09 It says here on Page 1, and I will reiterate the 10 question. It's a statement, quote: 11 Salt dissolved in the DMC water imports is 12 the primary source of salt circulating in the 13 lower San Joaquin River Basin. (Reading.) 14 Are you in agreement with that statement, Mr. McGahan? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: It's a general statement, very 16 general. I don't know if I can agree with it or not. 17 MR. PORGANS: Can you tell me, in your own mind, what's 18 so general about that statement? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: What's the extent of the Lower San 20 Joaquin River Basin, would be a question. 21 MR. PORGANS: You are familiar with the basin reports 22 that are put out and describe the hydrological areas of the 23 various basins: the San Joaquin Basin, the Sacramento River 24 Basin? Are you familiar with those designations? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I am. 5342 01 MR. PORGANS: Have you ever seen the boundary that is 02 contained with the San Joaquin River Basin? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 04 MR. PORGANS: That is the basin we are talking about. 05 MR. MCGAHAN: It says "Lower San Joaquin River Basin." 06 So there is a specific area. 07 MR. SEXTON: I am going to object to the question, 08 Mr. Chairman. Mr. McGahan has had a short period of time to 09 review this report. As I mentioned previously, it is a 10 technical report. I imagine somewhere in the report there 11 is a definition of the basin as described in the abstract 12 paragraph that Mr. Porgans is referring to. But the witness 13 hasn't had an opportunity to study the report in any detail, 14 so I think it is unfair to ask him to respond to detailed 15 questions on the report. 16 As the Chair's already pointed out, Mr. Grober has 17 already been a witness in this proceeding, and, as I 18 understand, will come back. And Mr. Porgans can ask these 19 questions of the author of the report. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have a comment, Mr. Porgans? 21 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I do. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 23 MR. PORGANS: On Page 3 of the report, it actually 24 shows you where the Lower San Joaquin River study area is 25 located. And it's the northern boundary, looks like to the 5343 01 Tulare River and the lower boundary is just west of the 02 Mendota Pool, which would include Mud and Salt Sloughs and 03 the area -- 04 MR. SEXTON: Did you mean the Tuolumne River? 05 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, the Tuolumne River. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, now, I am sorry. Were you 07 clarifying the question or responding to the objection? 08 MR. PORGANS: I was responding to the question that was 09 raised by Mr. McGahan in relationship to where the 10 boundaries are. I am giving him the boundaries. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: In the interest of fairness to both Mr. 12 Morgan and to the witness, let me give the following 13 instruction to Mr. McGahan. 14 First of all, Mr. McGahan, I appreciate your diligence 15 in being truthful and honest and disclosing in your 16 answers. But based on the situation here where you have had 17 very little time to review what is, obviously, a technical 18 document, I am instructing you to, along the lines of which 19 your attorney has just objected to, to simply say if you are 20 not comfortable with not being able to answer, you may 21 simply say you haven't had enough time to review the 22 document and then it goes to Mr. Porgans. It becomes his 23 responsibility, in my mind, to cite some other level of 24 specificity in the same report which could clarify the 25 question for you. If you don't feel that you have enough 5344 01 information, simply say so. 02 Please proceed, Mr. Porgans. 03 MR. PORGANS: There is a map on Page 3 that delineates 04 the boundaries referred to in this report. 05 Is the area the Grassland Bypass Project is taking 06 place contained within the boundaries delineated on Page 3? 07 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what 08 Mr. Porgans said is absolutely correct. The words that he 09 read from the abstract of the report make reference to the 10 Lower San Joaquin River Basin. The map that he has just 11 shown to the witness is the Lower San Joaquin River study 12 area. 13 I don't know if there is a difference. I don't think 14 the witness knows if there is a difference at this point. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: It is difficult for me, frankly, to make 16 any judgment because I don't have the document in front of 17 me either. So, again, I would simply say that if the 18 witness, for lack of a better term, agrees with the 19 observations of his attorney, he needs to simply state that 20 and we will go on to the next question. 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Who's up? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Your turn. 23 MR. MCGAHAN: What is the question? 24 Really, I do. This report is a very detailed report. 25 I think we are going to have a problem answering every 5345 01 question. The map does not -- it's not clear what all it 02 includes. 03 And I will be happy to try to answer all the questions, 04 but I -- it's really not fair to -- a six-page technical 05 report to ask me to respond to detailed questions on it. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: I hope I was clear before, Mr. McGahan. 07 Your -- this Board does accept you as an expert witness, 08 based on your credentials. And the fact that you're not 09 able to answer certain questions because of the very short 10 time you've had to review this particular report is not a 11 reflection on your expertise, in my mind, if that is what 12 you are worried about. 13 What I want to do is get through the questions. So, 14 again, there is nothing wrong -- I mean, the answer is the 15 answer. That's -- and if your answer is what you just gave 16 me, and if that is your answer for many, many questions in a 17 row and that is the truth, that is all you need say. 18 So, again, I want Mr. Porgans to be able to ask his 19 questions as long as they are relevant. 20 And so let's proceed along those lines. Mr. Porgans, 21 try your next question. 22 MR. PORGANS: Did you ever conduct any research or did 23 you run a model on the amount of or tons of salt that are 24 coming into the area from the Delta-Mendota Canal water 25 supply? 5346 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Entire Delta-Mendota service area? 02 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 03 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 04 MR. PORGANS: Have you ever determined the tons of 05 salt that are coming into the area from water received from 06 the Delta-Mendota Canal applied to those lands within the 07 project area? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I have. And it's more than just the 09 Delta-Mendota Canal. They also receive water from the San 10 Luis Canal and, at times, from the San Joaquin River. 11 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 12 When you conducted your research on how many tons of 13 salt are coming in from the water supplied from the DMC, 14 what numbers did you come up with? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have those with me. 16 MR. PORGANS: Would it surprise you to know that, 17 according to government sources, the Regional Water Quality 18 Control Board, they estimate about 545,000 tons of salt are 19 being brought in from water that is delivered through the 20 DMC on an annual basis from the period of 1985 through 1996? 21 MR. SEXTON: Objection. To what service area? 22 MR. PORGANS: To all service areas that are served by 23 the Delta-Mendota Canal. Very clear. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not done a calculation on that. I 25 have no firsthand knowledge on that. 5347 01 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea of how much water is 02 moved on average through the Delta-Mendota Canal from Tracy 03 for the water years from 1986 through water year 1998? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I do not have that on the top of my 05 head. 06 MR. PORGANS: Would it interest you to know that it 07 works out to about 2. -- would it surprise you to know that 08 it works out to about 2.5, 2.4 million acre-feet per year? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Have no way to verify that. 10 MR. PORGANS: Do you know how many tons of salt are 11 recirculated from the San Joaquin River diversions in the 12 San Joaquin River Basin? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I do not. 14 MR. PORGANS: In your testimony earlier, you made 15 reference to the fact that you believe or you think or it is 16 your opinion that you're in salt balance? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 18 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any documents to substantiate 19 -- did you provide this Board or anybody involved in this 20 process with data that would enable us to confirm and verify 21 your position that you're in salt balance? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I have not. 23 MR. PORGANS: Why didn't you do that? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: It's my opinion, based on some limited 25 calculations I've done, that we are in salt balance. 5348 01 MR. PORGANS: That doesn't answer the question. Why -- 02 if -- 03 MR. SEXTON: Objection, he is badgering the witness. 04 The witness testified in response to questions on 05 cross-examination. He had no opportunity to provide that 06 information, excuse me. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Sexton, for talking over 08 you. 09 Objection sustained. 10 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Excuse me. Didn't mean to 11 badger the witness if that is what I was doing. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. 13 MR. PORGANS: According to the information that the 14 Regional Water Quality Control Board has put out and 15 information that's been published by Mr. Grober and based 16 upon data that we all can read and have access to, it shows 17 that there is about a net gain of 200,000 tons of salt 18 deposited in the DMC service area. 19 Does that number mean anything to you? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: I have no basis for knowing whether that 21 is right or wrong. 22 MR. PORGANS: You've been working on the Grassland 23 Bypass Project for how many years now? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: The bypass project was originally 25 conceived around 1995, and so ever since that time, we have 5349 01 been trying to develop the Grassland Bypass Project. 02 MR. PORGANS: Were you working in that area prior to 03 1995? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, since the mid '80s. 05 MR. PORGANS: And you were working on -- did you assist 06 in the compiling of information on the amount of acreage 07 that was in production, the amount of loads that were -- 08 selenium loads that were occurring on an annual basis? 09 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Compound. Besides being 10 compound, the area is a totally different -- acreage versus 11 loads are hardly related. 12 MR. PORGANS: I will rephrase the question. 13 MR. SEXTON: Excuse me, acreage irrigated versus loads. 14 MR. PORGANS: I will rephrase the question. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Please do, Mr. Porgans. 16 MR. PORGANS: Are you familiar with the report that was 17 done by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in August 18 of 1995 which was a staff report on the water quality 19 objectives and implementation plan to be used for the 20 regulation of agricultural subsurface drainage water in the 21 San Joaquin River Basin? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I'm sure I've seen it. I don't recall it 23 directly. 24 MR. PORGANS: Could I refresh the witness' memory, Mr. 25 Chairperson? 5350 01 C.O. CAFFREY: If you have something to show him, you 02 may. 03 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I do. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: If you could describe for us, Mr. 05 Porgans, what that document is so the record will contain -- 06 MR. PORGANS: It's Table B-4 out of that report. And 07 it lists the acreage that they were looking at at the time 08 to try to come up with the numbers for selenium loads, which 09 are part of, I believe, a part of the target loads that were 10 established in the Grassland Bypass Project. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. MCGAHAN: I have seen this table before. I can't 13 recall that I have seen the actual report. 14 MR. PORGANS: There is a report, Mr. Chairperson. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Is it in evidence, the booklet? 16 MS. WHITNEY: What is the name of the report? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Or is it at least an exhibit somewhere, 18 either in the record or potentially to go into the record? 19 I guess I am just curious, not that it necessarily has to 20 be. 21 MS. WHITNEY: Want to enter it? 22 MR. PORGANS: Okay. We will enter this into the 23 record. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: You wish to mark that? 25 MR. PORGANS: I don't have copies of it right now for 5351 01 everybody, so I can't do that right now, Mr. Chairperson. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: You can identify it now and submit it 03 later. But you will be required to make copies for all the 04 parties. And what we do is at the end of the case in chief 05 we would consider taking into the record all of the 06 exhibits. 07 MR. PORGANS: Then in that case, I will submit this as 08 what exhibit? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: We will number it for you. 10 MS. LEIDIGH: We'll give it a number. 11 MS. WHITNEY: It is not a staff exhibit. I am not sure 12 whether anybody else submitted it or not. 13 We will make it Porgans -- 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, if we duplicate the record because 15 it exists as another exhibit, I don't know how violent -- 16 MS. LEIDIGH: Not a big problem. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: -- how big a situation that ends up 18 being. I think it's all right. 19 MS. WHITNEY: It will be Patrick Porgans and 20 Associate's Number 4. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 22 MR. PORGANS: Can I put this up now, Mr. Chairperson? 23 C.O. CAFFREY: You may, sir. 24 MR. PORGANS: Looking at exhibit -- Table B-4, Mr. 25 McGahan, do you have any recollection of seeing or having 5352 01 reviewed the information contained therein? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: I have seen this table, yes. 03 MR. PORGANS: Are you familiar with any of the numbers 04 that are up there in relationship to the table itself? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 06 MR. PORGANS: Can you give me some insight on what -- 07 where do you think those numbers came from or what they 08 represent? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: It doesn't say where the selenium load is 10 from. I could speculate because the numbers look like a 11 number that I am familiar with. It doesn't say, though. 12 MR. PORGANS: It doesn't say on the table. I will 13 submit the source as being the grasslands area, prior to the 14 establishment of the Grassland Bypass Channel project. 15 MR. MCGAHAN: I would say the selenium load is the load 16 discharge from the grassland drainage area, which is our 17 97,000-acre area. The land in production would be simply 18 that within that area. The total drainage would be the 19 quantity of acre-feet off of the area. The total drainage 20 selenium would be the -- probably the annual average 21 concentration of selenium. The tile drainage would be 22 simply that, the drainage from subsurface tile systems as 23 compared to the total drainage. The total drainage would 24 include tailwater. The acre -- the acre-feet for irrigated 25 drained acres is total, including tailwater and then the 5353 01 subsurface tile systems alone. And the percentile looks 02 like based on the acre-feet based on the acre-feet for 03 irrigated acres, and the percent that is from the subsurface 04 tile systems. 05 MR. PORGANS: So, this information is something you are 06 familiar with and is information that, from your testimony, 07 was compiled in the grassland area or for the grassland area 08 or within the grassland area, excuse me? 09 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for speculation. The 10 witness can't testify what the reason the Regional Board put 11 this together. He can speculate. He can't testify. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe that the witness' testimony 13 was along the lines of a -- I am grappling for words. Your 14 best guess, based on the limited information you have, what 15 it looks like to you? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: That is correct. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. PORGANS: Were you involved in compiling any of 19 these numbers at all? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I was not. 21 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea where these numbers 22 came from in terms of the Regional Board, where they got the 23 information from? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: I'm sure they get it from many different 25 sources. And I probably should restate some of the volume 5354 01 numbers at this point are information provided to them by 02 districts in the area, would include information that I have 03 worked on. 04 MR. PORGANS: Portions of that information came from -- 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I would think so, yes. 06 MR. PORGANS: Do you know if this information up there, 07 from your knowledge, had anything to do with coming up with 08 the target loads for the Grassland Channel Bypass Project, 09 Table B-4? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: It was used to determine the selenium 11 load target. It was the average discharge from Mud and Salt 12 Slough for the period 1986 through 1994. And that column of 13 selenium load impounds does not say where that -- if that is 14 Mud or Salt Slough or from the drainage area. It appears to 15 me to be from the drainage area. Therefore, those are not 16 the numbers that were used for the load averages. It would 17 have been the Mud and Salt Slough numbers, which don't 18 appear to be on that table. 19 MR. PORGANS: Are you suggesting that there would be an 20 additional load to the numbers that are there? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Actually, the Mud and Salt Slough numbers 22 for selenium are lower than the amount discharged from the 23 drainage area at the time. 24 MR. PORGANS: In terms of total from the drainage area 25 and Mud and Salt Slough into the river, would the numbers be 5355 01 lower or higher? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Mud and Salt Slough numbers would be 03 lower than these numbers. 04 MR. PORGANS: This is -- this would then appear to be 05 possibly total loading. 06 MR. MCGAHAN: This appears to be loading from the 07 grassland drainage area as opposed to discharge from the 08 Mud and Salt Slough, which -- and the Mud and Salt Slough 09 numbers were the ones used in the averaging to determine the 10 loads limits. 11 MR. PORGANS: You didn't submit those exhibits, did 12 you, the total loading for the period of time? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I did not. 14 MR. PORGANS: Looking at this table B-4, during this 15 period of time were you aware of any measures that were 16 implemented by the various districts to implement, like, 17 best management practices, water conservation, water 18 reduction, those sorts of things? Are you aware of anything 19 like that that may have happened during that period? 20 MR. SEXTON: Clarification question. Are you 21 referring to the period '86 to '94 or the period of the 22 bypass project? 23 MR. PORGANS: From '86 to '94. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Later in that period of time there would 25 have been more water conservation practices. I am aware of 5356 01 those, especially by Broadview Water District later in that 02 period of time implementing water conservation measures to 03 reduce application of water. Basically, in response to the 04 recommendation in the San Joaquin Drainage Implementation 05 Report. 06 MR. PORGANS: Looking at that information and assuming 07 that the Regional Board's numbers are accurate in this area 08 that we are talking about, the grasslands area, does it 09 appear that there was an increase acreage from '86 through 10 '94? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: There is more acres in 1994 than in 1986, 12 yes. 13 MR. PORGANS: About 14,500 acres? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 15 MR. PORGANS: And from 1986 through 1994 total drainage 16 per acre-foot, does it look like there was a reduction 17 there? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Total drainage in acre-feet from 29,800 19 in 1996 to 25,800 in '94, there is reduction. Of course, 20 there is some variability in that period of time. It went 21 up in some years and went down in others. 22 MR. PORGANS: What about the total drainage per 23 acre-foot in column four, 70,086 through 37,094? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, there is a significant reduction there. 25 I believe that column includes tailwater as well as 5357 01 subsurface drainage water. 02 MR. PORGANS: So what does that imply? Does it imply 03 less water being applied to the land there? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: That is a measure of drainage. I think 05 it is a combination of surface -- tailwater and subsurface 06 tile drainage from the area. 07 MR. PORGANS: Would those numbers give you any 08 indication that there was less water being applied to the 09 acreage that was? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: They don't really address the 11 application. 12 MR. PORGANS: What about that column five where it says 13 "Total Drainage in Selenium"? It is showing us we have 14 70,000 acre-feet in column four, 70,100 in column four, and 15 we went from 51 to 82 in the period of '86 to '94, what does 16 that tell us? Is there increasing concentration there or 17 what? What's going on? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Increasing concentration in column four 19 is tailwater. That is the kind of thing you would expect if 20 tailwater was removed. The surface tailwater generally 21 doesn't have any selenium in it. If you removed water 22 without selenium, your concentrations would increase in this 23 case. 24 MR. PORGANS: Now, it says up there the concentration 25 of selenium in tailwater is 2 milligrams per liter. Does 5358 01 that sound about right to you for that area? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 03 MR. PORGANS: Do you know where that number came from? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 05 MR. PORGANS: Would it surprise you to know that Mr. 06 Karkoski said, after being questioned, that that number is 07 representative of surface water coming in as supply and not 08 tailwater? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: The tailwater would generally correspond 10 to the surface supply water. And at times the surface 11 supply water has varied out of the Delta-Mendota Canal; and 12 it has been at two, less than two, sometimes higher than 13 two. 14 MR. PORGANS: Just for the record, do you know that -- 15 would you be surprised to know that that was a measured 16 value, according to Mr. Karkoski? That is speculation, 17 excuse me. 18 In today's terms, in 1998, you are saying we have about 19 80,000 acres in? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 21 MR. PORGANS: Do we have any information in terms of 22 what the total selenium load is now coming off of those 23 irrigating lands in your area, in the project area? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: In 1997 what was the selenium load? 5359 01 MR. MCGAHAN: We can get Figure 6 of the San Luis and 02 Delta-Mendota Water Authority Number 10. 03 Actually, Figure 7 shows three years in case we get to 04 that. 05 This is Figure 7 of San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 06 Authority Number 10. The information for water year 1997 07 indicates approximately 7,000 pounds of selenium were 08 discharged in that year. 09 MR. PORGANS: The target load is 6,660 pounds? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 11 MR. PORGANS: So, you were over by -- 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Six percent. 13 MR. PORGANS: Up until this time, you had implemented 14 in the first or second year since 1995 -- have we 15 implemented other practices to reduce the amount of water 16 applied and the amount of load being moved out of the 17 system? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: We have a whole list of things that we 19 have implemented in the area to manage our drainage. 20 MR. PORGANS: How much of that area that you have up 21 there is tile drained now? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: About half of it. 23 MR. PORGANS: The other half is not tile drained? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Right. 25 MR. PORGANS: Looking into this issue of how much you 5360 01 have done thus far, we would see -- would you expect to have 02 improvements in total loading? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: We have seen reductions in total loading 04 of selenium. 05 MR. PORGANS: Is that total loading reduction, is it a 06 relative thing, total loading reductions from when? If we 07 looked at that last -- if we looked at the historical level 08 of total loading, it shows that there is a wide variation in 09 loading, correct? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. Which those years were 11 extreme drought years, which you have to take into account. 12 MR. PORGANS: According to the Porgans Exhibit 4, it 13 shows us that more land has gone into production, more land 14 in production up there during that period of time, the 15 drought years. The drought began in '87. '88 was a drought 16 year. '89 was a little -- it was below normal. '90 was a 17 drought year. So, we had more land in production up there. 18 We had -- it looks like -- does it look like to you that 19 less water is being applied? Does it look like the same 20 amount of water is being applied per acre there? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Can we get one question at a time? 22 MR. PORGANS: Sure. 23 Does it look like there was an increase in acreage in 24 that particular area during that time, '86 through '94? You 25 said yes. My question is: They were drought years? 5361 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Some were drought years. '90, '91 and 02 '92 were the most severe. 03 MR. PORGANS: '87 and '89 -- '87 and '88 were drought 04 years. '89 was just below normal. '90 and '91, I believe, 05 were drought years. I can give you that information if you 06 need it. Most -- 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Wait a minute, Mr. Porgans. I think 08 you're on the verge of testifying. You have to be asking 09 questions. 10 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 12 MR. PORGANS: At least seven of those years were either 13 classified as critical, critically dry or below normal, out 14 of those; is that your understanding. 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MR. PORGANS: So looking at those salt loads there and 17 looking at the amount of acreage in production, more acreage 18 was in production as we moved into the drought than when the 19 drought began; is that what that shows us there? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. There is a 4 or 5,000 acre 21 difference, but it does show that. 22 MR. PORGANS: I have to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Want to ask me a question? 24 MR. PORGANS: Yeah. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 5362 01 MR. PORGANS: I have a report here, the September '98 02 draft report on water quality of the Lower San Joaquin River 03 at Landers [verbatim] Avenue to Vernalis, showing the 04 October '95 through '97 Regional Board report. 05 Has this been introduced as an exhibit? 06 C.O. CAFFREY: We can check it for you, Mr. Porgans. 07 Mr. Herrick. 08 MR. HERRICK: That was the companion report of the one 09 I introduced, but I didn't introduce that one. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 11 It may well not be in the record, but we can work it, 12 and we can mark it as an exhibit, and Mr. Porgans can offer 13 it as an exhibit, if he wishes to ask questions about it. 14 As soon as we find out whether -- 15 MS. WHITNEY: It has not been introduced. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: It has not been introduced. 17 Did you wish to number it, Mr. Porgans, and propose it 18 as an exhibit? 19 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I will have to do that. I don't 20 have to give them the whole report? 21 MS. WHITNEY: If you can specify which part of it you 22 were relying on. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: You can specify or put in the whole 24 report. It's hard for me to judge at this point. 25 MR. PORGANS: I am going to specify a specific page in 5363 01 this report. Should I go back to the title of the report? 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you going to ask the witness to take 03 a look at one page? 04 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: And ask him a question about a 06 paragraph? 07 MR. PORGANS: One paragraph. That's correct. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: I am not sure you necessarily have to 09 identify it as an exhibit if you just identify it in the 10 record and it is a relevant question about a general 11 document. 12 Ms. Leidigh, should it be an exhibit, or should we just 13 see where he takes us with the question? 14 MS. LEIDIGH: Well, if he wants to read the paragraph 15 into the record, it seems to me that then he could ask a 16 question about the paragraph without dealing with the 17 document. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Without necessarily making it an 19 exhibit, correct? 20 You can try it that way, Mr. Porgans, of if you can 21 tell us what -- you've already described the document, then 22 you can say, "On page so-and-so the following paragraph 23 states or reads," and then ask your question. 24 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 This document on Page 3, Paragraph 1, it states: 5364 01 When compared to annual records since water 02 year 1986 loads, during wet water years '96 03 and '97, were similar to loads for wet water 04 year 1996 but lower than loads during wet 05 water year '95, even though annual discharge 06 for water 1997 is the highest on record. 07 Water year 1995 followed several years of dry 08 and critically dry years. High loads of all 09 constituents in 1995 likely resulted from 10 the leaching of salts that accumulated in the 11 basin during previous years. (Reading.) 12 MS. WHITNEY: Before you answer, could you read the 13 title, or when you're done reading the paragraph, could you 14 read the title of the report. 15 MR. PORGANS: Last sentence. 16 Generally, lower loads of all constituents 17 in 1996 and 1997 were likely due to lower 18 residual salt loads from the Grasslands 19 Watershed following a series of wet years. 20 (Reading.) 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. McGahan, would you like to have the 22 paragraph in front of you before -- I know he hasn't asked a 23 question yet. That was a rather lengthy paragraph; would 24 you like to see it? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I think it is one we have looked at 5365 01 several times before. When he asks me the question, if I 02 can ask him to show it to me. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. 04 Ms. Whitney, you needed the title of the report to be 05 read. While you have it in your hand, would you read the 06 title. 07 MR. MCGAHAN: It is a Regional Board, Central Valley 08 Regional Board report. "Water Quality of the Lower San 09 Joaquin River, Lander Avenue to Vernalis, October 1995 10 through September 1997, Draft, September 1998." 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. SEXTON: What is the question, Mr. Porgans? 13 MR. PORGANS: Do you have -- have you submitted any 14 information or provided any documentation to -- that would 15 refute this statement here? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. In our testimony as to what we have 17 done to reduce drainage in our area, had a list of many 18 items, institutional, including recycling. And I have 19 stated that I don't agree with that statement. My 20 experience as drainage coordinator shows we have physically 21 done things to reduce drainage, which are not even mentioned 22 in that report, which are of more significance than the 23 series of wet and dry years. 24 MR. PORGANS: Just for the record, I have had the 25 opportunity to review your comments, and I just -- do you 5366 01 know that I have the opportunity to review all those 02 alternatives that you put into the record? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: I was not aware of that. 04 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate the fact -- maybe this is a 05 question, Mr. Chairman. I asked you once before and I am 06 going to ask you again. Have you conducted a salt loading 07 model run that deals specifically with whether or not there 08 is an actual net gain of salt in your basin, that's both 09 subsurface, surface and water on soils? Have you done that, 10 specifically? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: I've testified that I've done a 12 preliminary analysis that indicates we are achieving a salt 13 balance within the grassland drainage area. 14 MR. PORGANS: But you haven't provided that 15 documentation to substantiate your position? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 18 In 1977, this is going back to the Grassland Bypass 19 Project, you exceeded the loads by 6 percent. 20 MR. SEXTON: In 1997? 21 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. Thank you very much, Mr. 22 Sexton. 23 In 1997 you exceeded the load by 6 percent; that is the 24 selenium target load? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: The annual load, yes. 5367 01 MR. PORGANS: Do you have a figure right now on what 02 the annual selenium load was for '98? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: Don't have the final numbers. It is 04 going to be a little over 9,000 pounds. As we've testified 05 earlier, the oversight committee for the project had 06 declared 1998 an unforeseeable and uncontrollable year. So, 07 they are in the process of determining what part of that 08 9,100 pounds are basically not the responsibility of the 09 drainers, and could be excluded. 10 MR. PORGANS: That's an area that I would like to 11 explore with you, Mr. McGahan. In 1997 you also tried to 12 invoke that part of the contract on the unforeseeable and 13 uncontrollable event? 14 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Misstates the testimony. The 15 grassland drainers did, in fact, request relief under that 16 portion of the agreement. 17 MR. PORGANS: And were they denied under the 18 unforeseeable and uncontrollable event clause? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: The oversight committee denied that for 20 water year 1997. 21 MR. PORGANS: Did anyone determine at that time how 22 much of the load that would have been, quote-unquote, 23 uncontrollable/unforeseeable, did anybody quantify what that 24 load was outside of the hearing? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Repeat the question. 5368 01 MR. PORGANS: During the course of the request for 02 relief, did the Grassland Bypass Project provide evidence to 03 substantiate or to quantify where this additional selenium 04 was coming from? 05 MR. SEXTON: In which year? 06 MR. PORGANS: 1997. 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. We did. 08 MR. PORGANS: And do you remember the number? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Approximately 120 pounds. 10 MR. PORGANS: Where would that have come from? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: From Panoche Silver Creek, primarily. 12 MR. PORGANS: Where is that in relationship to the 13 Grassland Bypass Project? Could you put that exhibit up, 14 please? 15 Thank you. 16 Is that Exhibit 10, Figure 2? 17 MR. SEXTON: Yes, it is. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Our grassland drainage area is shown on 19 this map. Interstate 5 runs down the center of the map. 20 Panoche Silver Creek crosses Interstate 5 just below the 21 detail of the map. It is identified coming out of the 22 center of the map and discharges into the southerly and 23 easterly part of the drainage area. 24 MR. PORGANS: Then it is -- isn't that south -- I don't 25 see an arrow on the map. Is that south of the bypass 5369 01 project area? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 03 MR. PORGANS: So that a hundred and -- did you say 15 04 pounds, I am sorry? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: 120. 06 MR. PORGANS: For 120 pounds that is what you estimated 07 as a contribution that was unforeseeable, uncontrollable? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 09 MR. PORGANS: You would have asked to have that taken 10 off the total load for 1997? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 12 MR. PORGANS: Has anybody quantified what the total 13 load of selenium that would be coming out of that particular 14 Panoche Silver Creek area, have we come up with a figure on 15 that? 16 MR. SEXTON: For what year? 17 MR. PORGANS: Say, '98. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: We have come up with a quantity of 19 approximately 500 pounds. 20 MR. PORGANS: 500 pounds? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: In that one source. 22 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Are there other sources that you 23 would try to get credited for in relationship to the 8- or 24 9,000 pounds of selenium overshare? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: There are other sources that cause those 5370 01 loads to be exceeded, including the significant rainfall. 02 MR. PORGANS: Where would this additional load come 03 from that you are speaking of? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: The load that is discharged primarily out 05 of the tile -- subsurface tile systems? 06 MR. PORGANS: Where are they located? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: We have the grassland drainage area. The 08 line that is tiled is approximately half of the area, 09 approximately the northerly half. 10 MR. PORGANS: So, is it in an area within the Grassland 11 Bypass Project? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: It's in the grassland drainage area. 13 MR. PORGANS: The question is: Is it within the 80,000 14 acres that are irrigated? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Is what within the 80,000 acres? 16 MR. PORGANS: The selenium load that we are talking 17 about that came as a result of the excessive precipitation. 18 MR. MCGAHAN: The excessive precipitation caused 19 subsurface tile drains to run more than they would without 20 that excessive precipitation. 21 MR. PORGANS: Where are those tile drains? The 22 question is: Is it in your area? That is all I'm asking. 23 MR. MCGAHAN: The tile drains are in our area. 24 MR. PORGANS: Absent the 500 pounds that we were 25 talking about from Panoche Silver Creek, that takes us down 5371 01 to about 8,500 pounds of selenium for water year '98. Is 02 that a ballpark for you? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: What is the question? 04 MR. PORGANS: We had 9,000 pounds, you said, of 05 selenium this year, in water year '98? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 07 MR. PORGANS: 500 pounds we are saying is coming from 08 Panoche Silver? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 10 MR. PORGANS: That leaves us with the 8500 pounds of 11 selenium? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 13 MR. PORGANS: If I understood your testimony correctly, 14 you are saying because of this unforeseeable, uncontrollable 15 event, this water saturated the soil within the project area 16 and accelerated or increased the amount of selenium load? 17 Is that what you are saying? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 19 MR. PORGANS: Where did this load come from to begin 20 with? Whose load is it? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: The drainage water is water that is in a 22 perched water body below the drainage area, below the tile 23 lines. As you create hydraulic head on a system, it forces 24 the water out the tile systems. 25 MR. PORGANS: Precisely. So it is there. It got 5372 01 there. Who put in there? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: Who put what where? 03 MR. PORGANS: The tile drains were put in the soil to 04 irrigate the lands to take off this salt and? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: The tile drains do not irrigate land. 06 MR. PORGANS: No. It takes off -- 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Can I finish my answer? 08 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. 09 MR. MCGAHAN: The tile drains are put in there to keep 10 the perched water table from encroaching into the root zone. 11 That's what tile drains are there for. 12 MR. PORGANS: I understand that. What I am asking you 13 is this buildup of salt, okay, that the tile drains collect, 14 is that a byproduct of irrigation? 15 MR. SEXTON: Objection. The question is now switching 16 gears to a discussion about salt. The previous questions 17 have been regarding selenium load. I would ask that the 18 question be clarified. 19 MR. PORGANS: Selenium loads. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: The question is now about selenium. 21 MR. PORGANS: The question is selenium and it is 22 relative -- you understand the question? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I would like you to repeat it, please. 24 MR. PORGANS: The buildup of selenium in those areas 25 where you have your tile drain receptors, is that the 5373 01 byproduct of your irrigation? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: No, not totally. 03 MR. PORGANS: What portion of it is the result of 04 irrigation? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't answer that. The selenium has 06 been -- was deposited on the west side of the valley through 07 -- from the coastal mountains over time, and as those -- the 08 selenium was in the sediment. That sediment, as I 09 understand it, has been leached over time through 10 irrigation. We are talking many years, and through 11 precipitation. So it's been -- there has also been natural 12 causes that have created that perched water body. 13 MR. PORGANS: You don't have a percentage? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 15 MR. PORGANS: Does irrigation help to mobilize the 16 selenium that has been deposited there over geological time? 17 MR. SEXTON: Deposited where? 18 MR. PORGANS: In the soil, Mr. Sexton, where he is 19 irrigating. 20 MR. SEXTON: The question has been regarding soils on 21 the one hand regarding selenium that is in the perched 22 groundwater table on the other hand, and I am just asking 23 for the question to be clarified. 24 MR. PORGANS: I will clarify for you, Mr. Sexton. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, clarify the question, Mr. 5374 01 Porgans. 02 MR. PORGANS: The selenium that is not naturally 03 deposited in those soils, is it mobilized in those soils as 04 a result of irrigation? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: My opinion is that the perched water body 06 beneath the tile drainage system is there. For the most 07 part, the selenium has been leached out already out of the 08 soil. As we create hydraulic head or raise that perched 09 water table with the selenium already in it, it runs out the 10 drains and is discharged. 11 I don't feel a lot of it comes at the present time from 12 leaching of the selenium in the soils. 13 MR. PORGANS: But you are not a soil chemist? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 15 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the Love Report that was 16 done in 1949 by the U.S. Geological Survey which identified 17 those areas as having seleniferous soils or, quote-unquote, 18 poisonous rocks? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 20 MR. PORGANS: If we weren't irrigating up there, Mr. 21 McGahan, would we have this volume of selenium loads moving 22 through the system? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: There would not be as much selenium 24 discharged if there was no irrigation. As I testified 25 previously, there would be discharge of drainage from 5375 01 natural causes, like occurred in 1988 from Panoche Silver 02 Creek. Because of the sloping soil, there would be water 03 moving through the soil, through precipitation. But there 04 would not be as much load if there was no irrigation. 05 MR. PORGANS: Just based on your own testimony, you 06 said 500 pounds would be coming out of there under the 19 07 water -- water year '98, heavy precipitation. Do you have 08 an estimate on how much would occur naturally without 09 irrigating those lands? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: 500 pounds is from one source. As I also 11 said, other sources like local precipitation that occurred 12 in the area. 13 MR. PORGANS: In relationship to the 9,000 pounds that 14 came out this year without irrigation, what in your opinion 15 would be the -- can you give us an estimate of what the load 16 would be without irrigating those lands? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I can't. 18 MR. PORGANS: Are you familiar with any of the reports 19 that have been done by the U.S. Geological Survey in 20 relationship to selenium mobilization on the eastern flank 21 of the coastal range in proximity to your area? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: I need a specific report to look at. 23 MR. PORGANS: Would it be fair to say that the natural 24 occurring movement of selenium in the basin would be 25 negligible in comparison to what is occurring now? 5376 01 MR. SEXTON: What basin? 02 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. Within the area of the 03 Panoche and the Grassland Bypass -- excuse me, the area, the 04 100,000 -- excuse me, the 97,000 acre area of your concern? 05 I can rephrase it if you want me to. 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Please. 07 MR. PORGANS: Under natural conditions, without 08 irrigating those lands, and by natural processes, would the 09 selenium load coming off the coast range be negligible? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I don't believe it would be. 11 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea of how much it 12 would be in relationship to what it is under the 13 human-reduced condition? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: It would not be negligible. I don't have 15 an exact number. 16 MR. PORGANS: Have you ever seen a number? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: I have seen reports that identified 18 up-slope contributions, but I don't recall if they had even 19 quantified a number. 20 MR. PORGANS: In the absence of this project -- excuse 21 me. In the absence of the -- in the absence of the drainage 22 -- what are we calling it, the farmers' area? Farmers' 23 drainage area? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Grassland drainage area. 25 MR. PORGANS: The grassland area, the farmers' area. 5377 01 In the absence of it, would all of that selenium that is 02 stored above the tile drains or near the tile drains in the 03 upper portion of the profile, would it be as -- would it 04 even be there? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, it would be there. 06 MR. PORGANS: In a form where it can move that readily 07 out of there under natural conditions? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: There would be soluble selenium, in my 09 estimation, beneath the grassland drainage area. 10 MR. PORGANS: Would it be -- would the extent of the 11 amount that would be soluble and mobile be as great as it is 12 now? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Without any irrigation? 14 MR. PORGANS: Without irrigation. 15 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 16 MR. PORGANS: Without tile drains? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: The tile drains make no contribution to 18 the perched water body. 19 MR. PORGANS: They just collect it? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 21 MR. PORGANS: Without the irrigation it wouldn't be 22 that much of a problem? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I didn't say that. I said it wouldn't be 24 as large as it is now without irrigation. 25 MR. PORGANS: You don't have any idea of the magnitude 5378 01 of the difference? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 03 MR. PORGANS: Now, there is an 8,000-pound limitation 04 prohibition load up there, is there not, in the Basin Plan 05 on the load? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: Use agreement has a 20-percent exceedant, 07 which in the first two years, if you add the 20 percent, is 08 about 8,000 pounds. 09 MR. PORGANS: Are you saying in your testimony that 10 none of the -- that selenium that is in the soils -- excuse 11 me, let me rephrase the question. 12 You are recycling water in that area, tailwater and the 13 tile water? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: That is one of our control measures. 15 MR. PORGANS: Are you applying more water now or less 16 water than you applied in the past per acre on average? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: We would be applying less water now than 18 in the past. 19 MR. PORGANS: What does that do to the concentration of 20 selenium in those soils? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Concentration of selenium in the soils? 22 MR. PORGANS: Let's say first of water and then the 23 soil. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: We have not seen a significant change in 25 the concentrations in the drainage being discharged from the 5379 01 drainage area. 02 MR. PORGANS: What about in the soil profile? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not -- we have not measured the 04 soil profile, selenium concentrations in the soil profile, 05 so I done know the answer to that. 06 MR. PORGANS: You don't know if it is more or less? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 08 MR. PORGANS: In light of the irrigation practices you 09 had underway in the last several years, would there be any 10 contribution to increase in the amount of selenium in those 11 soils? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: There is no source. Irrigation water has 13 negligible selenium, and there would be nothing to add to 14 the soils. There is no selenium in the source water to add 15 to the soils. 16 MR. PORGANS: Before we said it is two parts per 17 billion selenium in the source water and that that can vary 18 depending upon whether the water has been, you know, 19 recycled or recirculated. Did we say that? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yeah. 21 MR. PORGANS: How does that -- 22 MR. MCGAHAN: That's an insignificant amount and 23 insignificant source, in my opinion. 24 MR. PORGANS: Coming back to the 8,000-pound 25 prohibition issue, what would be the justification for the 5380 01 Grassland Bypass Project entity to come in and ask that this 02 be relieved in light of the fact you knew there was, 03 obviously, selenium in the soil there? You are farming in 04 an area that has a problem; is that correct? 05 MR. SEXTON: Objection to the term "prohibition." 06 Objection to the suggestion that there is something in the 07 use agreement that would prohibit them from doing exactly 08 what the witness has testified that they did, which was to 09 seek relief under the terms of the agreement. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In addition, the question is 11 argumentative. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, it was. I was going to observe 13 that. You want to try another approach, Mr. Porgans? 14 MR. PORGANS: Sure. Why not. 15 MR. SEXTON: Welcome back, Tom. 16 MR. PORGANS: The 8,000 pounds that we are talking 17 about, you are going to go in and ask for some relief or 18 apportionment of the load? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. The oversight committee 20 has already determined the 1998 was an unforeseeable and 21 uncontrollable year. 22 MR. PORGANS: Did you already make an initial 23 presentation to the oversight committee relative to your 24 relief for apportionment? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I've not made a presentation to the 5381 01 oversight committee. There's been -- we are working with 02 the technical committee. They're in the process of 03 reviewing some information right now. 04 MR. PORGANS: Did the committee have an opportunity to 05 review your draft report? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: They are reviewing it right now. 07 MR. PORGANS: Has there been any meeting since you put 08 the draft report out, either by phone or by in-person, 09 between yourself and the technical committee? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. I reviewed it with the technical 11 committee. 12 MR. PORGANS: Did they have an initial response to your 13 numbers on the total loading for apportionment of the 14 loading? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: They have asked for some revisions in the 16 report, which we are in the process of preparing. 17 MR. PORGANS: Could you elaborate on those process 18 reviews, Mr. McGahan? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: The report tries to designate between the 20 sources of a subsurface drainage in water year 1998. One 21 question is how to apportion the responsibility or the cause 22 of irrigation versus the cause of precipitation. And they 23 asked for some revisions in how that calculation is 24 performed. 25 MR. PORGANS: So, in 1998 water year you would have 5382 01 applied, roughly, 200,000 acre-feet of water to the 02 estimated 80,000 acres that you have in production up there? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: We wouldn't have applied that much. 04 There was significant rainfall. 05 MR. PORGANS: In a normal year, you would have applied, 06 roughly, 200,000 acre-feet of water to the 80,000 acres that 07 you have under irrigation? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, that is correct. 09 MR. PORGANS: Because of excessive precipitation this 10 year, you didn't have to apply as much water? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: Application or precipitation is much 12 different than application of irrigation water. 13 MR. PORGANS: I understand that. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: When it rains, it rains on the entire 15 area, including county roads, roads within the drainage 16 area, ditches, and it rains over the whole area. Not when 17 you want it or in the amounts you want it. 18 When you irrigate, you irrigate where you want it and 19 in the amount you want it. So, an acre-foot of 20 precipitation is not the same as an acre-foot of 21 irrigation. So you cannot treat them exactly -- you can't 22 add up the total of them and say, just because you have 23 this, then it is equivalent because it is not equivalent. 24 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate that clarification, Mr. 25 McGahan. 5383 01 How much water did you apply in water year 1998? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not calculated the final numbers. 03 It just ended a week ago. 04 MR. PORGANS: Can you give us an approximate number? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have it with me. 06 MR. PORGANS: You testified that you don't have 07 information about what the selenium concentrations are in 08 the soil profile. You also stated, correct me if I 09 misunderstood you, that you don't see any buildup of 10 selenium in the soils. 11 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't believe I testified that there 12 was no buildup in the soils. 13 MR. PORGANS: Let me ask you a question. Is there -- 14 do you know if there is a buildup of selenium in the soils? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: I have not tested the soils for selenium, 16 so I can't answer that. 17 MR. PORGANS: You don't have any idea of how much water 18 -- you weren't working in the grasslands area in '86, '87, 19 '88 or '89, were you? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I was. 21 MR. PORGANS: During '86 -- excuse me. During '87, do 22 you know how much water was coming in from the Delta-Mendota 23 Canal as opposed to San Joaquin River diversions? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I do not. 25 MR. PORGANS: Do you know the number for '91 or 1992, 5384 01 water year '91 or '92? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I do not. 03 MR. PORGANS: Were you aware of the fact that during 04 those years that both the Bureau and the Department of Water 05 Resources were in violation of D-1485 and D-1422 standards 06 in the Delta and at Vernalis? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: I was not aware of that. 08 MR. PORGANS: Were you aware of the fact that they, 09 according to the Board's own record, either illegally 10 exported or impounded nearly 300,000 acre-feet of water? 11 MR. SANDINO: Mr. Caffrey, no -- 12 MR. SEXTON: Objection. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me hear from Mr. Sandino first. 14 MR. SANDINO: Objection to that question. There has 15 been no foundation established by Mr. Porgans about DWR or 16 the Bureau being in violation. 17 MR. PORGANS: Can we go off the record, Mr. -- 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to observe that those -- you 19 made a very pejorative statement. I am inclined to agree 20 with Mr. Sandino that no foundation has been established 21 with regard to the statement you made or the question you 22 have asked. 23 Mr. Porgans, do you need a little more time? 24 MR. PORGANS: No. I can give you an exhibit from the 25 State Board verifying those things and enter it into the 5385 01 record. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment. 03 MR. SEXTON: I will object, based on relevance to this 04 witness' testimony, Mr. Chairman. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Then we are going to hear from Mr. 06 Birmingham and then Mr. Minasian. 07 Mr. Birmingham. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will raise a new objection not 09 heard here before, so probably won't go anywhere. 10 I will object to Mr. Porgans' line of questioning on 11 the grounds it is cumulative. All of the questions that Mr. 12 Porgans is asking are related to or are simply restating 13 what is in documents already in the record. Asking this 14 witness if he knows what is in documents that are already in 15 the record really isn't probative of anything, and if the 16 documents are in the record, as Mr. Porgans is suggesting, 17 then this testimony, even in those circumstances where the 18 witness knows and answers yes, simply is cumulative. 19 So I would move to or object to the line of questioning 20 on those grounds. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 22 Mr. Minasian. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Chairman, simply join in the 24 comments Mr. Sexton and Mr. Birmingham made. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 5386 01 Mr. Nomellini. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: I think that the cross-examination, the 03 questioning party has a right to pursue the state of 04 knowledge of the witness who professed to be an expert in 05 this area. I don't agree with the objection that it is 06 cumulative in that regard. 07 With regard to the prior objection of Mr. Sandino, I 08 think if there is a reference in the record or a document, 09 that will set the foundation for that question on the 10 violation, but that it would be appropriate since this is 11 cross-examination. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 13 Before I say anything else, let me ask Mr. Porgans, 14 without any prejudice whatsoever, just as a housekeeping 15 matter, Mr. Porgans, how much more time do you think you are 16 going to need? I only ask because we are trying to excuse 17 Mr. McGahan today. 18 MR. PORGANS: I have no idea, Mr. Chairman, I have lots 19 of questions. I've been waiting a long time to get 20 here, and I wish I could tell you. I don't know. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We are going to go off the record for 22 just a moment. 23 (Discussion held off the record.) 24 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 25 Mr. Porgans, I am having a little difficulty 5387 01 understanding the relevance of your line of questioning to 02 the matter that is before the Board right now. You are 03 asking a question of this witness about, I will use the term 04 "alleged" because they are not necessarily in the record 05 yet, alleged violations on the part of the Department of 06 Water Resources and perhaps others with regard to Delta 07 standards. 08 Could you explain to me what the relevance of all this 09 is and where you are headed because it is very 10 time-consuming. If it is relevant, I will let you consume 11 the time. I am having some difficulty understanding. 12 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. The 13 witness has conceded that the water he is getting is coming 14 from the Delta, or at least a portion of that water, from 15 the Delta-Mendota Canal. 16 Now, if the water is being taken from the Delta, and I 17 have the exhibit, the State Board exhibit, showing the 18 violations, your exhibit, not mine, which I will introduce, 19 then what's happening is water that is being applied down 20 their area is being taken at the expense of another area and 21 is violating a standard. 22 Then we are saying that he is taking water and 23 irrigating lands that for the most part wouldn't be 24 irrigated if he didn't have imported water. So this is all 25 relevant to his situation. 5388 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: I have to make a comment. I don't 03 think the witness -- I don't know that he is taking the 04 water and he is doing the irrigation; and with that 05 reference -- 06 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, Mr. Stubchaer. The district. 07 Thank you. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: My point is if what Mr. Porgans is 11 stating is in the record, and it may very well be, then Mr. 12 Porgans is absolutely free to make whatever argument he 13 wants, based on the existing record. Even if this witness 14 were to say, absolutely, that's what that document says, 15 that document is in the record. It doesn't prove anything 16 that isn't already in the Board's record. 17 Mr. Nomellini is absolutely correct. Mr. Porgans ought 18 to be able to cross-examine Mr. Porgans -- 19 C.O. Caffrey: Mr.McGahan. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me -- Mr. McGahan on his 21 knowledge. But it's gone beyond that. I don't think there 22 is any question about Mr. McGahan's qualifications as an 23 expert. But the questions that Mr. Porgans is asking are 24 not related to the basis of the opinions that have been 25 expressed by Mr. McGahan. 5389 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: One of the issues in this proceeding 03 is the reasonable beneficial use of the water or the 04 question of unreasonable use of water. So these are 05 relative to that. The cross-examination could be seeking an 06 admission on the part of this particular discharger and 07 water user as to whether or not the violations exist. There 08 is pretty broad latitude and should be allowed in 09 cross-examination. 10 I sat here for hours listening to Mr. Birmingham run a 11 field and you chose not to attempt to limit the 12 cross-examination in any way, which I think he is entitled 13 to draw. The question of the violations, I think, is 14 relevant, whether this party has anything to add to it, I 15 don't know. He didn't answer the questions. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 17 We are going off the record for another minute. 18 (Discussion held off the record.) 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me try something here. I am 20 listening very carefully. We are going to go on with Mr. 21 Porgans questioning, but I do have some -- I still have some 22 question in my mind about where relevancy ends, and I don't 23 think that a comparison of the amount of time -- but rather 24 the statement made by Mr. Nomellini is necessarily a good 25 comparison, because I saw relevance, if you will forgive me, 5390 01 Mr. Nomellini, I saw relevance in what Mr. Birmingham was 02 doing the other day, albeit, it was lengthy. Mr. Birmingham 03 has apparent paid the price for that in several of the 04 commentaries. 05 Perhaps -- I guess I want to give you some latitude, 06 Mr. Porgans, because you are not an attorney. But it might 07 help if you just simply, without attempting to lay a 08 foundation and border on testifying, on laying all this 09 information out to the witness, if you were to ask him if he 10 is aware of a particular violation. He can answer yes or 11 no, and you can go on to your next question. 12 Your job is not to debate the witness, argue with him. 13 It is simply to ask him questions and allow him to answer 14 them. The kind of thing you are trying to do might be 15 better, as I believe Mr. Birmingham may have observed 16 earlier, I am not sure I remember, the kind of thing you may 17 be trying to do is certainly available to you in your 18 closing arguments at the end of this phase. So perhaps if 19 you would deliver your questions as I have just described, 20 it might result in less objections and it might move things 21 a little more quickly. 22 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me just a moment. 24 Again, I want to remind the witness that the witness 25 does have some control, has significant control, of how long 5391 01 a period of questioning may take. The crispness of your 02 answer will also have some determination of how long this 03 goes on. 04 Mr. O'Laughlin. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you going to try to finish Mr. 06 McGahan today? 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. This is the last -- unless there 08 is redirect, this is the last cross-examiner, I should say, 09 not counting the staff and the Board members. 10 So, with some luck, perhaps we can finish today. 11 Mr. Brown just observed that we do have some control 12 over staff and Board Members. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just intimidation. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Please proceed crisply, Mr. Porgans. 15 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to 16 introduce this as an exhibit. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask. You asked the question 18 already and the witness said he didn't know about it. So is 19 there any -- what would the purpose be of introducing this 20 as an exhibit? 21 MS. LEIDIGH: At this point, I don't think there is a 22 foundation laid for introducing this as an exhibit, if the 23 witness doesn't know anything about it. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The document can be marked for 5392 01 identification and used to refresh the recollection of the 02 witness, if that is what Mr. Porgans wants to do. It can be 03 marked. Whether or not it becomes an absolute exhibit and 04 entered into the record, that is another thing. He can use 05 it to refresh the recollection of the witness. 06 C.O. STUBCHAER: We understand that. 07 Thank you, sir. 08 MR. PORGANS: The only problem, this is not an exhibit 09 right now. So, should I say mark it and have him look at it? 10 Is that what I am supposed to do? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, again, it depends on where you are 12 going with this. You already asked him if he was aware of 13 the violations. He said, no. So the purpose of your 14 introduction of it as an exhibit would be to ask him -- do 15 you have reason to believe that if you jog his memory that 16 he may know something else? Is that the idea? 17 MR. PORGANS: This had to do with the objections that 18 were raised by these gentlemen over here, that these are 19 unsubstantiated. I am putting them into the record to 20 substantiate -- 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I ruled against those objections. I 22 already ruled against those objections by telling you that 23 you are going to be allowed to go on with your questions as 24 long as they are relevant and as long as they are asked in 25 such a way as not to lay such lengthy foundations, and 5393 01 merely ask the question of the witness. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Porgans, for instance, the 05 question you asked was something like, are you aware of the 06 nature of violations. You cited some numbers that occur in 07 different years. In that regard, foundation. You could 08 just ask the witness if he knew there were violations of 09 water quality standards in the Delta in a given year. I 10 think that would be done without having to go to the 11 document. 12 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 13 Getting back now to the use agreement, one of the 14 issues relative to the use agreement was to get the water 15 supply channels at two parts per billion or less salinity; 16 is that correct? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 18 MR. PORGANS: Now, since the project has become 19 operable, are you aware that we've exceeded two parts per 20 billion in a number of those wetland channels? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any information as to the 23 level of the exceedances? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: The level of exceedances have been -- 25 they have been over two, but have been fairly minor. There 5394 01 may be some sixes and eights, but a lot of 2.3s and 2.4s. 02 Within the grassland drainage area we have sealed off all of 03 our discharges, so they are not contributing. 04 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact in the Santa Fe 05 Canal the two parts per billion salinity has been exceeded 06 55 percent of the time? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: With small numbers, like I say, 2.3, 2.4, 08 maybe some fives and sixes. We have sealed off our drainage 09 outlet, so they are not contributing. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Porgans. I apologize. 11 We are going off the record for a moment. We will be right 12 back. 13 (Discussion held off the record.) 14 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 15 Please proceed, Mr. Porgans. 16 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 17 Are you aware of the fact that Fish and Wildlife 18 Service determined that drainage water with the selenium 19 concentration exceeding two parts per billion should not be 20 used as water supply in wetlands? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I am. 22 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact that for many 23 years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not exercise 24 its right to use water that it had a right to use because of 25 the high concentration of selenium in the channels in the 5395 01 grasslands area? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: In what channel? 03 MR. PORGANS: It could have been Salt Slough or could 04 have been aquifer. 05 MR. MCGAHAN: That was one of the main reasons for the 06 project is to clean up Salt Slough, which we have done. 07 MR. PORGANS: My question. Now is there anything in 08 the use agreement that mandates the two parts per billion? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: Two parts per billion is a water quality 10 objective of the Regional Board, and I don't believe there 11 is a requirement in the use agreement, per se. But it 12 doesn't matter. We are under the obligation of the Regional 13 Board. And as I mentioned, we have sealed all the outlets 14 out for our drainage area. There is nothing from the 15 drainage area. There is nothing contributing to those. 16 They are coming from other areas. 17 MR. PORGANS: What other areas? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know. They are not coming from 19 our drainage area. 20 MR. PORGANS: You have no knowledge of where it is 21 coming from? 22 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 23 MR. PORGANS: Do you think that you will find out. Are 24 you looking into it, or where are we with that one? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I am Drainage Coordinator for the 5396 01 drainage area. You need to talk to the managers for the 02 areas -- in the areas outside of the drainage area? 03 MR. PORGANS: You are saying it is all coming from 04 outside; is that what you are saying? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 06 MR. PORGANS: On the five parts per billion of selenium 07 in Mud Slough -- excuse me, I will restate this question. 08 Are you aware of the fact that in San Luis Canal, which 09 is another wetlands channel supply, that the two parts per 10 billion had been exceeded 71 percent of the time since '96? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: I am. Several of those are 2.3s, 2.4s. 12 As a rule of law, they have exceeded 2, and as I just 13 testified, that is not coming from our drainage area that we 14 have control over. 15 MR. PORGANS: In 1988 -- are you familiar with the 1988 16 Basin Plan amendment for the San Joaquin Basin? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 18 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of when the compliance date 19 was set for selenium, the five parts and the two parts? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I am not. Is that the current Basin 21 Plan? 22 MR. PORGANS: No. I said that was the 1988 Basin 23 Plan. 24 MR. SEXTON: Objection, then. Relevance. If it is not 25 the current Basin Plan, we know there is a workshop today 5397 01 for triennial review of the current Basin Plan, it escapes 02 me what relevance with reference to that 1988 Basin Plan has 03 to this proceeding. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you explain why that is relevant, 05 Mr. Porgans? 06 MR. PORGANS: I am trying to get at when the compliance 07 -- how the compliance time for meeting the salinity standard 08 has been moved out from 1988 to year 2010. 09 MR. SEXTON: Seems that like that is a better question 10 posed to the Regional Board than posed to this witness, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I agree. Unless he is -- unless he 13 feels that he knows the answer. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: There is a new Basin -- he is not even 15 talking about the current Basin Plan. There has been 16 another one adopted since the one he's talking about. 17 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Let's go to the new one. In the 18 latest Basin Plan, what is the time scheduled for 19 compliance of the five parts per billion on the salinity 20 standard? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not sure the exact date, but it has 22 not occurred yet. 23 MR. PORGANS: Does 2005 sound reasonable? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: 2010? 5398 01 MR. MCGAHAN: Yeah. 02 MR. PORGANS: In the interim is -- to your knowledge, 03 is the five parts per billion selenium standard being 04 exceeded? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: There is no standard. It is not 06 implemented yet. 07 MR. PORGANS: Is there more than five parts per billion 08 levels being discharged into the San Joaquin River, to your 09 knowledge? 10 MR. SEXTON: Where? I mean from where, excuse me. 11 MR. PORGANS: In the lower -- below Mud Slough or in 12 proximity to the Mud Slough as it jumps into the San Joaquin 13 River. 14 MR. MCGAHAN: That is not the compliance point of the 15 Basin Plan. It's at Crows Landing. 16 MR. PORGANS: That is below the Merced? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 18 MR. PORGANS: So there is dilution water there? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 20 MR. PORGANS: Do you have knowledge as to what the 21 selenium concentration is at Mud Slough before it goes into 22 the San Joaquin River? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: It's in the 25, 30 parts per billion 24 range. 25 MR. PORGANS: 25 to what? 5399 01 MR. MCGAHAN: 30. That's an estimate. I don't have 02 the information in front of me. 03 MR. PORGANS: Where would you surmise most of that is 04 coming from? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: Being discharged from the bypass 06 project. 07 MR. PORGANS: Am I to understand that we are at 25 to 08 30 parts per billion and that is coming from the Grassland 09 Bypass Project, and it is going to be continued to be dumped 10 into the river? 11 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. The 12 witness has already testified the purpose of the Grassland 13 Bypass Project and the fact that waste discharge 14 requirements have been issued by the Regional Board as to 15 that project and has testified at length regarding 16 compliance as to those issues. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, you do seem -- again, we 18 give wide latitude here. We understand that there are 19 attorneys coming in and out of the room who may not have 20 heard some of the things, and we know some questions are 21 repeated. But you seem to be going over the same material 22 many times yourself. And maybe I'm missing something in the 23 line of questioning, but could you -- 24 Once the question has been asked and answered, you need 25 to move on to something else. If it isn't the answer you 5400 01 would have liked to have had, it is still the answer. He is 02 under oath. We live with the answers we get. 03 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 04 Would it be reasonable to assume, then, that there is 05 going to be a continued discharge of this selenium in excess 06 of five parts per billion in the Grassland Bypass Project? 07 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. The 08 witness has already testified at length regarding the timing 09 of the project, the fact that the project is currently up 10 for renewal. Those matters have already been testified to. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: It is a repetitive question, Mr. 12 Porgans. 13 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact that the waste 14 discharge permits that were issued by the Board are under -- 15 there has been a -- excuse me, a petition filed on those 16 waste discharge requirements? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I am. 18 MR. PORGANS: Is anyone in your area of the Grassland 19 Bypass Project providing any dilution water to dilute any of 20 the selenium that is being discharged there to the river? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: No. 22 MR. PORGANS: Whose responsibility should that be to 23 provide dilution water to bring the selenium down, to dilute 24 the selenium? 25 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for speculation. The 5401 01 witness has already testified about the extent of the 02 project and what the project has accomplished. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to sustain that objection, 04 Mr. Porgans. 05 MR. PORGANS: Earlier you testified that Mud Slough is 06 discharging in parts per billion. Was it about 2,500 parts 07 per billion -- 08 MR. MCGAHAN: Of what constituent? 09 MR. PORGANS: Salt. 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. Parts per million. 11 MR. PORGANS: And what did you say that the Vernalis 12 standard was? 13 MR. MCGAHAN: As I understand it, it's either 700 or a 14 thousand micromhos electroconductivity. 15 MR. PORGANS: And what is that in parts per -- 16 MR. MCGAHAN: 700 is about 450; a thousand is about 17 650. 18 MR. PORGANS: And is anybody providing water to dilute 19 that, those salts, to assist in meeting the Vernalis 20 standard? 21 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Calls for speculation and 22 asked and answered. 23 MR. PORGANS: You mentioned that the district wants to 24 be responsible for its drainage? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: Our grassland drainage area, that's 5402 01 correct; we are being responsible. 02 MR. PORGANS: And the water they are using is coming 03 from the Delta and is being discharged back into the San 04 Joaquin River? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: A portion of the water is coming from the 06 Delta. Our discharge from our drainage outlet goes to the 07 San Joaquin River. 08 MR. PORGANS: Is it the district's position that it 09 does or doesn't have responsibility to meet dilution to help 10 dilute those concentrations? 11 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. Calls for 12 speculation. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: We have gone over this, these questions 14 in one form or another, Mr. Porgans. I am not trying to 15 berate you. But let me remind you that whatever arguments 16 you may wish to make in your closing statement, you will 17 certainly have the opportunity to do that. And every piece 18 of evidence in the record is available to you to make those 19 arguments, whether or not this witness has heard of them. 20 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, this is an exhibit. I want to 22 put it up. 23 MS. LEIDIGH: What is the number? 24 MR. PORGANS: I think one or two. I would like them to 25 find it first. 5403 01 C.O. CAFFREY: This is something you've already 02 submitted; is that right? 03 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: It has been numbered. 05 MS. WHITNEY: It is in the testimony. 06 MS. WHITNEY: That would be two. 07 MR. PORGANS: This is Porgans Exhibit Number 2. 08 Have you ever seen this map, Mr. McGahan? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't think I have, no. 10 MR. PORGANS: This is Porgans Exhibit 2. It is an 11 index of watershed indicators. It is an EPA publication. 12 It was published, I believe, in 1996. It illustrates 13 various areas of the country by watershed qualifications. 14 Are you aware -- 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Looking for a pointer? 16 MR. PORGANS: Please. 17 According to the EPA, this area here in purple, which 18 is in the San Joaquin Valley area, do you see that? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 20 MR. PORGANS: It is classified -- did you know it is 21 classified as the more serious water quality problem area, 22 high vulnerability area in the country? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't identify where that area is on 24 that map, what relevance it has to the grassland drainage 25 area or where the grassland drainage area is related to 5404 01 that. 02 MR. PORGANS: Looking at the map, it looks like the 03 grasslands would be right about in here? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: I can't tell that. 05 MR. PORGANS: That's all right, Mr. Chairman. 06 Are you aware of the fact that this problem above and 07 below that area there is the result of agricultural drainage? 08 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Lack of foundation. The 09 witness has already testified that he has never seen this 10 map, has no information regarding it and has testified that 11 he can't identify the area. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't think this is an appropriate 13 line of questioning for the reasons that Mr. Sexton states. 14 The witness is not aware of the map and nor do we have any 15 -- I may also observe nor do we have any description of the 16 legend or foundation for legend to define what these terms 17 mean. 18 And also, Mr. Porgans, when you are -- again, not to 19 berate you, sir, when you are pointing something out on the 20 map, some future reviewer of the record will only have the 21 words in the record. If when you say "this area" and "that 22 area," nobody, by reading, can tell what you are referring 23 to. 24 Before we go any further, Ms. Whitney raised her hand, 25 and I am sure it's something about the exhibit. 5405 01 Go ahead. 02 MS. WHITNEY: We do have the exhibit, but we only have 03 a black and white copy. If Mr. Porgans wants to refer to 04 colors, he needs to provide us with a color copy. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: That is another important, technical 06 point. So, we will need copies with the colors if we are 07 going to be referring to the colors. 08 MR. PORGANS: I will use that in my closing argument, 09 Mr. Chairman. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: You wish to withdraw this, then? 11 MR. PORGANS: The man has never seen it. He is not 12 going to testify to it. Why leave it up? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 14 MR. PORGANS: Are you a aware of the extent or how long 15 the agricultural drainage problem has been prevalent in the 16 valley? 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Not exact numbers or exact dates. 18 MR. PORGANS: Would it interest you to know that it has 19 been recognized since 1890? 20 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not aware of that. 21 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact that there were 22 two drains that were supposed to be built to provide an 23 outlet for the drain water from the agricultural lands in 24 the San Joaquin Valley? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: I am aware of the San Luis Drain, from 5406 01 Kern County to the Delta. 02 MR. PORGANS: Did you ever hear of the San Joaquin 03 Master Drain which was authorized under Section 12934 of the 04 Water Code? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: I am not aware of those citations. 06 MR. PORGANS: It is your understanding that neither of 07 those facilities have been built or completed? One wasn't 08 built and one wasn't completed? 09 MR. MCGAHAN: The San Luis Drain hasn't been 10 completed. 11 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact the taxpayers 12 have paid over $100,000,000 for drainage and 13 drainage-related studies pertinent to agricultural drainage 14 there in that San Joaquin Valley since 1981? 15 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Speculative. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, this is -- I don't think 17 Mr. McGahan has represented himself as a political 18 scientist, or -- I am just really having difficulty with 19 where you are going with this. This really sounds more like 20 maybe opening argument or closing argument, and I am really 21 getting concerned about the nature of the questioning and 22 its relevancy. I wish you would try to explain to me where 23 you are headed. I just don't know. 24 MR. PORGANS: Well, here is what is going on: Mr. 25 McGahan has come to us, telling us he has a program going on 5407 01 now that he sees as some -- he is very excited about it, and 02 we all should sort of be excited about it. And that, you 03 know, he is coming across like as if, to me anyway, this 04 drainage problem is something new. This drainage problem is 05 not new. This has been going on a hundred years. What we 06 are trying to do is establish the fact that we know we have 07 a known drainage problem here, that his drainage problem, 08 for the most part, is self-induced by irrigating lands where 09 they had known problems with the soil, and that they are 10 discharging the water into the surface waters of the state, 11 and they are creating problems. I don't -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask you this: Mr. Porgans, why 13 are you using cross-examination rather than the presentation 14 of a case in chief to make these points? 15 MR. PORGANS: This man said he is an expert on drainage 16 issues and selenium in the valley. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: No. My understanding is that he has 18 been presented to this Board and in this proceeding as an 19 expert on the grasslands project. 20 Am I not correct? 21 MR. PORGANS: I asked the gentleman if he thought he 22 was an expert on selenium. 23 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Sexton. 25 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Porgans' statement is incorrect, sir. 5408 01 In San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority 9, Mr. 02 McGahan's testimony, on Page 1, in the middle of the page, 03 Mr. McGahan testifies that the general history of drainage 04 issues on the west side of the San Joaquin River was 05 discussed in the Board's November 1997 DEIR, Chapter 8. 06 He's not saying that the drainage problem in the area 07 is new. He is acknowledging the explanation of the drainage 08 problem set forth in the EIR. And that explanation is 09 rather comprehensive. 10 Additionally, on the last page of his testimony he 11 confirms that the Grassland Area Farmers support both the 12 Board's effort for environmental review of long-term 13 drainage solutions and the Regional Board's policy 14 concerning export of salts. The Regional Board's policy for 15 the -- at least the last several Basin Plans, has been to 16 support an out-of-valley drain. So, again, Mr. Porgans, 17 statement regarding this witness' testimony is incorrect. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I have to say that I cannot agree with 19 your characterization, Mr. Porgans, of how the witness has 20 presented himself. I am only one Board Member, but I am the 21 hearing officer, and I heard his testimony. 22 I certainly can't remember the exact words, but I heard 23 him testify that the project is not in and of itself the 24 total solution. So, I cannot agree with your 25 characterization of his testimony and how he is presenting 5409 01 himself. 02 It seems to me that for you that those kinds of 03 statements or concerns are better made in a closing argument 04 or in an opening argument or in presentation of your own 05 witnesses to testify. But you have not chosen to put on a i 06 chief, so it seems to me that closing argument is probably 07 your best vehicle. 08 Ms. Leidigh, do you have anything to add to what I am 09 saying in terms of instruction to me or to Mr. Porgans? You 10 may disagree with me at any time. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: No. I am not going to disagree. I do 12 think that I could probably add that my recollection is the 13 fact, and Mr. McGahan can verify or contradict me, is that 14 Mr. McGahan testified when asked by Mr. Porgans about his 15 expertise in selenium that it was with regard to the 16 grasslands area, the project itself, and did not go outside 17 of that area. 18 Is that correct? 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that a fair characterization of how 20 you are representing yourself in testifying? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. My experience is in the grasslands 22 area. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: For the record, my recollection, he was 24 asked whether or not he considered himself to be expert on 25 selenium, and I thought it was a general question, and he 5410 01 answered it affirmatively, in fact, added some statement 02 that he thought he was one of the people. This is my 03 recollection. The record -- for fairness in -- I thought he 04 stated that he had some real special knowledge that nobody 05 else has. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Now that you mention it, I do recall 07 something to the effect that he probably knows more than 08 perhaps he wants to. But I thought that was in relation to 09 the grasslands project. 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: It was in relation to the grasslands? 12 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go to Mr. Brown. 14 Mr. Brown, please, sir. 15 MR. BROWN: I heard the same thing Mr. Nomellini heard. 16 So perhaps, if you wish to change that, though, you can. I 17 would suspect you may have meant that or may have meant 18 something else. If there needs to be clarification on that, 19 you can do that. But I understood it the same way Mr. 20 Porgans and Mr. Nomellini did. 21 MR. MCGAHAN: If I can respond? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Please go ahead. 23 MR. MCGAHAN: The dialogue -- basically, I said it in 24 jest, that my comment was that I may know more than I want 25 to know. I certainly did not mean to represent myself that 5411 01 I know more or am the most knowledgeable person in that 02 area. 03 So, I appreciate the opportunity to correct that. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 05 Therein lies a lesson in the frailty of the English 06 language. 07 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate the clarification. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: The frailty exists among those that try 09 to interpret it. Honest, forthright interpretations on all 10 our parts. Reasonable people disagree. 11 Your clarification, Mr. McGahan, helps us. So, now we 12 know that Mr. McGahan is not representing himself as an 13 expert in selenium beyond the Grassland Project. 14 MR. PORGANS: I, like others, was under the impression 15 that was his answer, and that was why I stated I didn't 16 think that he was an expert outside of that area. That was 17 what my point was, I can't see how he would know all that. 18 I was asking the questions to verify that; that is where I 19 was going with that. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Porgans. 21 MR. PORGANS: In conclusion, in your own testimony, you 22 make the statement that there is $200,000 that is being put 23 up by the drainers annually for one part of the program, and 24 then there is another a hundred and some-odd million dollars 25 for the monitoring. 5412 01 Let me get the -- 02 MR. MCGAHAN: 200,000 plus 135,000, for a total of 335 03 for monitoring, just monitoring, not any of the other areas 04 that we are working. 05 MR. PORGANS: That works out -- I know you made some 06 reference to this, that is about $3.35 an acre for that part 07 of the program? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 09 MR. PORGANS: You said in your testimony that there is 10 about 125 -- this is the total gross from agricultural 11 production. I will get it for you. 12 The total was a hundred -- on Page 2 of your -- San 13 Luis Drain 9, it states here that Grassland Area Farmers 14 produce an estimated 113 million in annual agricultural crop 15 market value. Is that correct? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 17 MR. PORGANS: And there is 126,000,000 generated from 18 the local areas? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 20 MR. PORGANS: Which would be 239,000,000? 21 MR. MCGAHAN: That's correct. 22 MR. PORGANS: We are looking at a total of about, is 23 that 335 or -- my eyes are going right now. 365, is that 24 about right? 25 MR. SEXTON: I think 239 and a million dollars is 5413 01 cumulative. 02 MR. PORGANS: 239, cumulative. So, the 239 works out 03 to about what an acre for the annual program? 04 MR. SEXTON: Objection, Mr. Chairman. The testimony is 05 relating to economic value for local and regional economies. 06 I don't know that that is transferable readily to a per acre 07 valuation. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't have the documents in front of 09 me. Do you understand Mr. Sexton's point? 10 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I do. I will rephrase it. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. PORGANS: 113,000,000 in annual crop value. What 13 does that work out to -- is that per acre in dollars? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: Can I use my calculator? 15 MR. PORGANS: Go right ahead. 16 MR. MCGAHAN: It's late in the day and my manual math 17 -- about $1,130 an acre. 18 MR. PORGANS: And you mentioned that there is a lot of 19 other programs where the participants in the project are 20 receiving low interest loans from the state or federal 21 government. 22 Do you have any idea how much money we're talking about 23 there? 24 MR. MCGAHAN: About $11,000,000 a year is what is being 25 spent to repay the loans, plus the other -- including the 5414 01 monitoring and other costs to operate the drainage program. 02 MR. PORGANS: 11,000,000 a year being repaid? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: That is the total cost for the activities 04 in the grassland drainage area related to drainage 05 management, including the irrigation system loans, repayment 06 of irrigation system loans. 07 MR. PORGANS: These irrigation systems that they are 08 putting in, they help to benefit the farmer also, do they 09 not? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, in that they allow for more 11 efficient application of water. 12 MR. PORGANS: And for the long-term sustainability of 13 their production, would that be fair to say? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: It does improve their delivery to 15 irrigate, yes, sir. 16 MR. PORGANS: You don't have an actual figure on how 17 much money the government is putting into the grasslands 18 area for these projects, do you? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: No, I don't. 20 MR. PORGANS: Did you say earlier there was a figure 21 that you came up with that they were paying per acre to be 22 involved in this program? 23 MR. MCGAHAN: I mentioned $11,000,000 a year. That 24 calculates to about $110 an acre. 25 MR. PORGANS: Do you know -- excuse me. What is the 5415 01 major crops that you grow in your service area? Is it 02 cotton? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe so, yes. 04 MR. PORGANS: And what percentage of the land in your 05 area is in cotton? Do you know? 06 MR. MCGAHAN: I don't know exactly. 07 MR. PORGANS: You said that you have done some economic 08 studies. Have you done any economic studies in that basin 09 relative to crop support programs or anything like that? 10 MR. MCGAHAN: I haven't done any economic studies. 11 MR. PORGANS: Do you know that -- is this figure, this 12 $113,000,000, that annual figure, is that an average figure 13 in terms of crop production? 14 MR. MCGAHAN: It's an estimated annual figure. 15 MR. PORGANS: Do you know in two years' time you 16 generate more gross revenue there than has been paid back 17 for the entire Central Valley Project? 18 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Relevance. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I have no idea what that has to do with 20 in terms of the subject of this phase and certainly this 21 case in chief and this witness. 22 Again, Mr. Porgans, that may be an area that you can 23 address in closing arguments for whatever the appropriate 24 phase and for the hearing in its entirety. 25 Again, I am not trying to stifle you, berate you. I 5416 01 have responsibility to make sure that things stay relevant. 02 I want you to understand that you do have that right and 03 that access as the hearing goes on. 04 MR. PORGANS: Can I get a point of clarification on 05 relevance? 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. 07 MR. PORGANS: In order to keep a particular area 08 productive, you have to have water available at a good 09 enough quality to do it. The water comes from somewhere. 10 If the water is being subsidized by the taxpayers and 11 additional things are being subsidized by taxpayers, then we 12 have to come back into a real cost of keeping these people 13 in production and sustainability. 14 I see that as relevant in that term, and I see it 15 relevant in terms of the use of water. So, maybe my 16 understanding of relevance is different than -- you know, I 17 see it all interrelated. I don't see these things as 18 separate. 19 MR. SEXTON: Objection, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porgans is 20 trying to testify. Assumes facts not in evidence. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I will -- because Mr. Porgans is not an 22 attorney and for whatever reason, I will not deem that to 23 have been testimony since he is not sworn in and since the 24 Board Members would be disallowed from considering it as 25 testimony, in any regard. In that regard, I should say. 5417 01 I see that Ms. Leidigh has drawn the microphone 02 forward. So, Ms. Leidigh, perhaps you wish to comment in 03 terms of, I assume, Mr. Porgans' question on relevancy. 04 MS. LEIDIGH: It is. There are a number of key issues 05 that are listed in the hearing notice. And, perhaps, Mr. 06 Porgans could tell us which of the key issues or anything in 07 the hearing notice that it is relevant to. I, too, am at a 08 loss as to why it is relevant. 09 This hearing is about establishing responsibility for 10 meeting the objectives in the Delta. I am not sure what 11 these cost figures have to do with that. And if Mr. Porgans 12 can explain that, maybe we can go ahead with this. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe he has attempted to do that. 14 And I appreciate your support, if I may, Ms. Leidigh. 15 But I will certainly give you one more opportunity to 16 explain, Mr. Porgans, then we are going to move on. 17 MR. PORGANS: I don't want to beg to differ with the 18 Chair under any circumstances. But I have to say and, 19 again, establishing -- 20 MEMBER BROWN: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 22 MEMBER BROWN: Point of order. You have made no 23 decision on anything, so there is nothing to differ with 24 yet. So, it is not with the Chair that you meant to differ 25 with. 5418 01 MR. PORGANS: Whoever. 02 MEMBER BROWN: But not with the Chair. The Chair 03 remains neutral. 04 MR. PORGANS: Sir, thank you, Mr. Brown. 05 There is an issue here that I am concerned about 06 relative to unreasonable use of water, and I have been 07 trying to get at that issue, indirectly. And I did not ask 08 the witness if he thought this was unreasonable use of 09 water. I didn't do that. But I am trying to show that the 10 area would not be productive if it didn't have all of these 11 support systems to keep it in production. And I think that 12 is very legitimate. It comes down to some basic issue. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I think the question here, Mr. Porgans, 14 is how far do we take the concept of relevancy. You know, 15 by law we are required to scope this hearing, and we have 16 done that. There may be -- there is no question that there 17 are numerous questions that relate in some fashion to what 18 we are discussing today, but they go -- they are outside 19 the scope of this proceeding. 20 If we start into the area of the philosophy of the 21 federal government and the foundation of how the projects 22 are financed and all that, I think we will go so far afield 23 in the scope of this proceeding that we will never be able 24 to come up with an answer and decision. It is the nature of 25 what we do at this Board, to get at some specificity so we 5419 01 can decide. No decision that we make lasts forever. It is 02 constant, further review. Everything we do with regard to 03 our water quality plans is under federal law and are subject 04 to review every three years. 05 So, we've got to stay within the scope of this 06 proceeding. And I can appreciate your -- how heartfelt you 07 feel about these matters, and you spent a lot of time in 08 these areas. But this, here today, within the scope of what 09 we are doing, is not the place for what you are attempting 10 to do. 11 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 MEMBER BROWN: Could be put in summation. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 14 Again, we are talking about the cross-examination of 15 this witness for this case in chief. I am not talking about 16 the appropriateness of what you may wish to argue in closing 17 statement or something like that. I want you to understand 18 what your rights are. 19 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 20 I have just one or two last questions for the witness. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, go ahead. 22 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 23 Are you aware that prior to the Basin Plan amendment 24 that the five parts per billion selenium standard for the 25 San Joaquin River -- excuse me, on the San Joaquin River had 5420 01 been violated 11 out of 12 months of the year? 02 MR. SEXTON: Which Basin Plan amendment? 03 MR. PORGANS: That would have been the 1996 Basin Plan, 04 prior to that. 05 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Relevance. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you know the answer to the question, 07 Mr. McGahan? 08 MR. MCGAHAN: I believe I am aware that it was 09 exceeded, yes. 10 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 11 The last question is: You are aware of the fact that 12 the Regional Board has already designated 130 miles of the 13 San Joaquin River from Sacramento Dam to Vernalis as a water 14 quality limited segment? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 16 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 18 Thank you, Mr. Porgans. 19 Do the staff or does the staff have -- 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that the Board is aware of 23 this, but Westlands Water District is a party that has 24 signed the letter of support for the San Joaquin River 25 Agreement and, as a party to that agreement, we have 5421 01 reserved our right to, by letter to Ms. Leidigh, to put in 02 evidence which may be adverse to other parties to that 03 agreement. 04 Pursuant to our reservation, I have discussed with Mr. 05 Sexton the possibility of recalling Mr. McGahan for 06 cross-examination in Phase VIII, if that becomes necessary. 07 He's consented to that, so I would just like to reserve our 08 right, Westlands' right, to cross-examine Mr. McGahan in 09 Phase VIII, if the Board rejects the San Joaquin River 10 Agreement. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: You mean in Phase VIII with regard to 12 this testimony? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: With regard to this testimony, yes. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Just so you don't have to do two, one 15 and one. The San Joaquin River Group Authority joins in 16 that pursuant to the notice that was sent out. We are 17 signatories to the San Joaquin River Agreement, as is San 18 Luis and Delta-Mendota. We would reserve our right to 19 cross-examine Mr. McGahan in Phase VIII, if that is 20 necessary, and present a rebuttal case in regard to this 21 testimony, if necessary, in Phase VIII. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, you were going to say 23 something? 24 MS. LEIDIGH: I think the way that we have found that 25 we are doing this before, was that the party wishing to 5422 01 examine a witness would call them as their witness during 02 the phase. Now that obviously means that they could call 03 them and ask them questions as if on cross-examination. It 04 could be on this subject, as long as it is relevant. 05 But I think the Chair can still release this witness at 06 this time and allow them to call him again. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Yeah, that is my understanding of what 08 you are requesting. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is correct, Chairman Caffrey. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't see -- 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The hearing notice -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: -- only required that we inform the 14 Board that we were reserving our rights when certain 15 witnesses testified. We just wanted to make sure that we 16 informed the Board and staff that we are reserving those 17 rights in regards to this particular witness. And I don't 18 disagree with your counsel's concept of how it would work. 19 Mr. McGahan will be released from this phase. If 20 necessary, if we go to Phase VIII, and we want to call him 21 back, then we would call and get a subpoena issued from the 22 State Water Resources Control Board and subpoena Mr. McGahan 23 to reappear. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, gentlemen, both for apprising 25 us of your intention if we get to a Phase VIII. 5423 01 Back to the staff. Are there questions from the 02 staff? 03 Mr. Howard. 04 ---oOo--- 05 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 06 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 07 BY STAFF 08 MR. HOWARD: Mr. McGahan, I have some questions on, I 09 think it was your, Exhibit 9. Your Exhibit 9 on page -- 10 principally on Page 5, you have provided a critique of the 11 analysis that was in the Draft EIR relating to control tile 12 drain discharges to the San Joaquin River. 13 It wasn't clear to me in reading the overall critique 14 whether you felt this type of proposal is infeasible on the 15 face of it or whether you feel it would be worthy of 16 evaluation. 17 Do you have an opinion on that matter? 18 MR. MCGAHAN: I think worthy of evaluation as one of 19 the components of a long-term drainage management of our 20 area, including all of the other things that I listed, which 21 I won't go over again. Our objection was that it was 22 emphasized as pretty much the primary means of regulating 23 the drainage. That is what we were objecting to. 24 MR. HOWARD: On Page 5, as well, you indicate that the 25 total discharge from Mud and Salt Slough in 1997 was 36,000 5424 01 acre-feet. What are the sources of water that make up that 02 discharge of 36,000 acre-feet? 03 MR. MCGAHAN: The 36,000 acre-feet is discharged from 04 the grassland drainage area, primarily subsurface drainage 05 water. There was still some tailwater in it at that time, 06 minimal amount. It's primarily subsurface drainage water. 07 MR. HOWARD: Looking at -- I don't know if I can refer 08 to this, an exhibit that was or a proposed exhibit that was 09 put up by Mr. Porgans. He had shown that -- which was a 10 Regional Board staff report -- that from '86 to '94 the 11 drainage quantity ranged from, tile drainage quantity 12 ranged, from 15,600 acre-feet to 31,000. 13 Did the tile drainage quantity go up that much in 1997 14 that it averaged, essentially, 36,000 acre-feet? 15 MR. MCGAHAN: Not really. Those are measurements of 16 the outlet from the drainage area. They are not actual 17 measurements from the tile sumps. So, what occurred in the 18 drought year, there was considerable recycling going on just 19 to acquire the water supply. So those numbers are a 20 measurement from the outlet from the drainage area. And in 21 those drought years that quantity was reduced by recycling 22 by farmers just to obtain water. 23 MR. HOWARD: Do you know what percentage or do you have 24 an estimate of what percentage of the 36,000 was tile 25 drainage and what percentage is tailwater? 5425 01 MR. MCGAHAN: I would say 90 percent subsurface tile 02 drainage, 10 percent -- could be higher. 10 to 20 percent, 03 if you will, could be tailwater. 04 MR. HOWARD: The percentage that you list -- excuse me, 05 were there about 50,000 acres of tile drained acreage in the 06 drainage area of the project area? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: It is closer to 40,000 acres. 08 MR. HOWARD: 36,000 acre-feet of tile drainage, which 09 would be a tile drain yield of about .7, .8 acre-feet per 10 acre. Is that approximately correct? 11 MR. MCGAHAN: That is what it calculates out. 12 MR. HOWARD: The target in the, what is referred to as 13 the, Rainbow Report was .4 acre-feet per acre. So, your 14 district is substantially below that or not meeting that 15 target, then? 16 MR. MCGAHAN: There is some tailwater in the 36,000. I 17 said up to 20 percent. You could take that off. Then we 18 have a lower number. 19 MR. HOWARD: Just as a matter of clarification and also 20 for, I guess, a follow-up question. The amount that is 21 listed in the draft EIR of approximately 20,000 acre-feet is 22 exclusively tile water from the district, which was an 23 average over a number of years. But I take it from your 24 testimony that you think that, even if it is exclusively 25 tile water, still substantially an underestimate of the tile 5426 01 water? 02 MR. MCGAHAN: First of all, I don't know how you come 03 up with that number, just tile water. It must be an 04 estimate of some sort. We have open drainage systems in our 05 drainage area. They also act as collectors themselves. And 06 so what I'm saying is the problem water that we are going to 07 have to deal with, because I think the 19,000 acre-feet 08 calculation is a paper calculation, they are not truly 09 separated. It is not that you truly have a separate stream 10 of that 19,000 acre-feet. The stream of water we have to 11 deal with is more like 36,000 acre-feet. So if we are 12 talking about storage options, we need to talk about a 13 greater number. 14 MR. HOWARD: But the alternative, as characterized, 15 would only be trying to store the tile water, not the 16 tailwater, as well. So while you have a total of 36,000, 17 the proposal -- the way the alternative is characterized, it 18 would only actually be stored in the tile component of that? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: Are we trying to -- what we are trying 20 to do is manage the discharge to downstream impacts. So, if 21 you only manage a portion of the stream, only the 19,000 22 compared to the 36,000, you're only managing a portion of 23 the stream. The rest of it is still going out. It could be 24 highly saline water. Could be seeped into the open drains. 25 MR. HOWARD: I suspect the problem in part is that we 5427 01 didn't put in enough detail in the draft EIR how it was 02 modeled because the modeling included another tailwater 03 component that was not listed in the table, only the 04 tailwater component was. 05 I guess the question I am trying to get those, that 06 even with that clarification, it is your belief that 07 characterizing the pure tile water component is 08 approximately 20,000 would still be an underestimate of the 09 tile water component from the district. 10 MR. MCGAHAN: I guess my point is -- you may be right. 11 It could be right. My point is there are open drains, which 12 also collect water which is highly saline, high in selenium, 13 that also contributes to that flow. You can't separate 14 unless you put in a pipeline system and collect all the tile 15 drainage sumps, you don't have that volume separated. And 16 the -- as mentioned, the storage -- you mention you could 17 store it. You could modify the sumps and store that 20,000 18 acre-feet, if that is correct, in the ground. 19 But my point, you can't store that in the ground 20 because of the sloping nature of the ground. You would -- 21 you are wanting to store that water in the summer months. 22 We are trying to keep the water table out of the crops. We 23 are going to allow it to raise into the crops, whether it is 24 the 6,400 acre-feet or the 800 acre-feet at the lower ends 25 of the fields if we shut them off. 5428 01 MR. HOWARD: In your testimony you indicated that your 02 concern was that there was to be a 3.2 foot average rise 03 throughout the area. I am curious if you feel there is any 04 rise that would be allowable and allow the continued 05 agricultural productivity in the area, and so what that 06 figure might be. 07 MR. MCGAHAN: We -- obviously, our goal is to keep the 08 water out of the root zone. And the tile drains that are 09 put in have been put in at six or seven feet. Root zone can 10 go to four to five feet. We have proposed in our -- as I 11 mentioned, modification and operation of the sumps with 12 water levels in mind. It is more the time of the year when 13 the roots aren't deep, so earlier in the year. The answer 14 is it is some small amount. But the proposal was to shut 15 us off for four months or so. 16 MR. HOWARD: Three months. 17 MR. MCGAHAN: Very long time. Our experience is if we 18 shut them off for a week or two, you start to experience 19 problems. Those problems are water surfacing in the ground 20 at the sumps. 21 MR. HOWARD: On Page VII-35 of the EIR, we have a 22 discussion of the type of problem you are talking about. 23 The fact that in order to maintain agricultural 24 productivity, some drainage may need to be released during 25 any curtailment period, and that drainage may be recycled or 5429 01 could be discharged to the San Joaquin River. 02 We further went on to say this issue needs to be 03 evaluated by the Regional Board if they prepare a project 04 level EIR for a project of this nature. 05 Do you concur with this overall statement, shall we 06 say? 07 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I do. But in context with the 08 utilization of all the other measures that we talked about. 09 Not just that one. So they all should be evaluated. I 10 think storage, management of sumps, could be a part of the 11 overall solution. 12 MR. HOWARD: In Ms. Cahill's cross-examination she 13 mentioned the Draft EIR listed a concentration of 4,754, 14 that is parts per million, in the tile drainage water. That 15 is a figure cited in the Draft EIR. Your response was you 16 felt that was high, as well, and maybe 2,500 for Mud Slough 17 may be more appropriate. 18 Do you recall that? 19 MR. MCGAHAN: I do recall that. Of course, we need to 20 talk about where we are, trying to measure that. The 21 average of tile water coming out of sumps is around the 22 order of 5,000 micromhos, not TDS but micromhos, coming out 23 of sumps. But at Mud and Salt Slough there are other inputs 24 to that water supply. There is -- not only does our drain 25 discharge into Mud Slough, but there is other drainage out 5430 01 of the grasslands into Mud Slough. So, it tends to decrease 02 the concentration of salts. 03 So, the 2,500 parts is reasonable to Mud Slough, 04 whereas back in the drainage area coming out of sumps, a 4- 05 to 5,000 micromho number would be more reasonable. 06 MR. HOWARD: That was the further clarification that I 07 had in mind, as that figure was, again, the pure tile drain 08 water, was what was being cited in the draft EIR, not Mud 09 Slough concentrations. 10 MR. MCGAHAN: Okay, I stand corrected. 11 MR. HOWARD: Actually, it wouldn't be you. It would be 12 the characterization Ms. Cahill put on. 13 MR. MCGAHAN: Okay. 14 MR. HOWARD: You also expressed concern regarding 15 waterlogging down slope areas. Yeah, we talked about that a 16 bit. 17 Are you familiar with the conceptual observation of 18 controlled drainage, the Figure VIII-15 that was in the 19 Draft EIR? I can give you a copy if it would be helpful. 20 MR. MCGAHAN: Okay. 21 MR. HOWARD: It came out of a Bureau of Reclamation 22 publication in which they discussed a system like this, and 23 apparently they have a pilot project of a system like this. 24 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I am familiar with it. 25 MR. HOWARD: It seems to me in the steeply sloped areas 5431 01 where you expressed concern with waterlogging in the bottom 02 lands. The problem you identified could be controlled, at 03 least in part, by spacing the weirs closer together. 04 Is that true? 05 MR. MCGAHAN: That's true. One of the things we 06 proposed -- these incentive fees we talked about were paid 07 last year are to go back for drainage improvements. So, we 08 have proposed just such a thing as this to try to better 09 regulate drainage on fields. 10 The problem with them is that, as you have these 11 control devices go above the ground surface, that is, be out 12 in the field, they are problematic to farm it. So, they 13 have to be located at a point where it's reasonable to put 14 them. 15 Plus, you know, I would object to this figure showing a 16 flat ground surface. My point is it is just not flat. It 17 is up to five feet over a field. 18 MR. HOWARD: On the bottom of that page, I think it is 19 VIII-74, you have it there, the Draft EIR identifies some of 20 the cost of construction that is identified in the Bureau 21 publication, and we point out that the costs go up in areas 22 with steep slopes, because of, presumably, the additional 23 control structures required in the system like that. 24 Do you agree with that characterization? 25 MR. MCGAHAN: That the cost goes up with steeper 5432 01 slopes? Yes. 02 MR. HOWARD: Those are all my questions. 03 Thank you. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Howard. 05 Anything else from the staff? 06 Mr. Brown, do you have questions, sir? 07 ---oOo--- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 09 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 10 BY BOARD MEMBERS 11 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 12 I understand the salt balance you were talking about, 13 Mr. McGahan. I was looking at some of the subsurface 14 drainage figures that Tom was referring to. I roughly 15 calculate maybe as much as .5 to .8 eight acre-feet that was 16 going into the surface drainage, subsurface drains at one 17 time. 18 And I thought I heard you say that the applied water 19 rate was in the neighborhood of 2.1 acre-feet per acre per 20 year on the average. 21 MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. 22 MEMBER BROWN: I am wondering where the other water 23 comes from in the water balance. Consumptive use, those 24 crops in that area is around, I would guess, on the average 25 of two and a half to three acre-feet per acre per year. 5433 01 If you are applying 2.1 and .5 to .8 is going out in 02 the subsurface drain, where is the other water coming from? 03 Is it a high water table or well water or riparian or what? 04 MR. MCGAHAN: We need to talk about timing, also. The 05 .7 that has been estimated coming out of the tile drains and 06 some of the figures showed up to 1 acre-feet per acre has 07 been several years ago, and that the conservation practice 08 we are putting in, we are putting in, have reduced that. 09 I was referring to the total applied water during the 10 conserve, later in the time period. Earlier it would have 11 more, more would have been applied. 12 I think the numbers do come out closer, and I think my 13 testimony wasn't exactly 2.1. It was more than 2 acre-feet. 14 I did not recall the exact numbers, so you are certainly 15 correct. 16 MEMBER BROWN: That is fine. That is all I have, Mr. 17 Chairman. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 19 Do you have several hours of redirect, Mr. Sexton? 20 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, I have no redirect, and if 21 it please the Chair, I would like to offer San Luis and 22 Delta-Mendota Water Authority Exhibits 8 through 11 into 23 evidence. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's see if we have synchronization 25 with Ms. Whitney's records. 5434 01 MS. WHITNEY: That is what I have. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 03 Is there any objection to receiving into the record the 04 exhibits as described by Mr. Sexton? 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would it be bad form if I objected? 06 It would be bad form. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm going to give you the hat. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: You want to wear the hat when you do it? 09 Seeing and hearing no objections, the exhibits are 10 received into the record. 11 I believe, Mr. Porgans, you also had one exhibit that 12 you used that we marked for -- do you recall? 13 MR. PORGANS: Exhibit Number 4? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it was 4. 15 MS. WHITNEY: Four. 16 MR. PORGANS: Exhibit 4. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Porgans Exhibit Number 4, you're 18 offering it, sir? 19 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I will give it to you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Do we have -- was mentioned that we did 21 have to get copies, supply copies? 22 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any restriction to receiving it 24 now and supply the copies in the relatively near future? 25 MS. LEIDIGH: I think you can receive it provisionally, 5435 01 on there being copies provided to all parties. He will need 02 to send a copy to each party and make sure that the Board 03 gets 20 copies and the Board will need proof of service, 04 showing that he served all the parties copies. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: You are aware of that requirement, Mr. 06 Porgans? 07 MR. PORGANS: Just like the initial requirement. I am. 08 Thank you very much. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me see, is there any objection to 10 receiving Mr. Porgans Cross-Examination Exhibit into the 11 record? 12 Seeing and hearing no objection, Mr. Porgans your 13 exhibit is accepted. 14 That completes Mr. Sexton's case in chief. 15 Mr. McGahan, thank you for your patience and for being 16 here. I am sure it was a little bit longer than you had 17 originally planned, but we are appreciative. 18 Based on what we heard a little while ago, you may be 19 called back again. That is between you and the other 20 parties. 21 We will be back in this room Tuesday of next week. I 22 don't have the date in front of me. I am sure you all know 23 what it is. We will begin the, if my records are still 24 correct, we will start next Tuesday with the Department of 25 the Interior case in chief. 5436 01 Thank you, all. 02 Mr. Nomellini. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: You've got Ms. Zolezzi bringing back 04 Regional Board people on the 28th. You are taking them 05 after you complete the Interior's case. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: We will just see. 07 It depends on the -- we will accommodate as best we 08 can. If we have to interrupt the Interior case to do Ms. 09 Zolezzi's witnesses, we may do that. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Just testing your memory. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, all. 12 (Hearing adjourned at 5:05 p.m.) 13 ---oOo--- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5437 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 5197 through 14 5436 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 1st day of November 1998. 19 20 21 22 22 23 ______________________________ 23 ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 24 25