STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1998 9:00 A.M. Reported by: MARY GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES ---oOo--- 2 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 JOHN CAFFREY, CO-HEARING OFFICER JAMES STUBCHAER, CO-HEARING OFFICER 5 MARC DEL PIERO MARY JANE FORSTER 6 JOHN W. BROWN 7 STAFF MEMBERS: 8 THOMAS HOWARD - Supervising Engineer 9 VICTORIA A. WHITNEY - Senior Engineer 10 COUNSEL: 11 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER - Chief Counsel 12 WALTER PETTIT - Executive Director BARBARA LEIDIGH - Senior Staff Counsel 13 14 ---oOo--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5863 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 4 134 West Sycamore STreet Willows, California 95988 5 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 6 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER, III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 11 P.O. Box 357 Quincy, California 95971 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 14 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 17 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. AMILIA THOMAS, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GRAY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5864 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 4 2480 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 7 2800 Cottage Way, Roon E1712 Sacramento, California 95825 8 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 10 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 13 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 19 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 20 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 23 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 24 Visalia, California 93191 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5865 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 4 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 7 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 8 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 10 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 11 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 14 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 17 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 18 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 19 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 21 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 24 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California 90075 25 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5866 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 5 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 6 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 8 Sacramento, California 95814 9 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 10 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 11 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFIN, MASUDA & GODWIN 14 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 15 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 17 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 18 Sacramento, California 95814 19 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 Oakland, California 94618 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5867 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE 4 P.O. Box 846 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 7 P.O. Box 1019 Madera, California 93639 8 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 10 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 2300 River Plaza Drive 11 Sacramento, California 95833 12 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 13 MORRISON & FORESTER 755 Page Mill Road 14 Palo Alto, California 94303 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 17 P.O. Box 777 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 20 926 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 23 P.O. Box 427 Durham, California 95938 24 BY: DON HEFFREN 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5868 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 4 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 7 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 10 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY 13 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 17 BY: BILL KETSCHER 18 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 20 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 23 P.O. Box 606 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5869 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 4 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 7 1201 Civic Center Drive Yuba City, California 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGTAION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKIEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 10 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95816 11 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 14 Walnut Creek, California 94596 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 17 22759 South Mercey Springs Road Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 20 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 Merced, California 95344 21 BY: MIICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 22 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 23 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5870 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 3728 Sonora, California 95730 5 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 6 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER. 11 1550 California Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 15 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 16 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 17 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 18 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 21 501 Walker Street Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 24 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5871 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 4 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 7 P.O. Box 1461 Stockton, California 95201 8 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. and 9 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 10 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 11 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 1100 Whitney Avenue 12 Corcoran, California 93212 13 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 14 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 18 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B Chico, California 95926 19 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 20 SIERRA CLUB: 21 JENNA OLSEN 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 24 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 25 Woodland, California 95695 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5872 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGENS & ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGENS 4 P.O. Box 60940 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 P.O. Box 156 Dos Palos, California 93620 8 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 9 BETSY REIFSNIDER 10 128 J Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 11 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 13 P.O. Box 2067 Merced, California 95344 14 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 15 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 16 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 17 Stockton, California 95202 18 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 19 JAMES F. ROBERTS P.O. Box 54153 20 Los Angeles, California 90054 21 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 22 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 23 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5873 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 4 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94194 5 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 7 DAVID A. SANDINO, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Captiol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5874 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 4 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 5 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 6 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 7 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 8 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC.: 11 209 South Locust Street Visalia, California 93279 12 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 13 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 15 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 18 1213 Market Street Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 21 P.O. Box 156 Hayfork, California 96041 22 BY: TOM STOKELY 23 CITY OF REDDING: 24 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 25 Redding, California 96001 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5875 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHEMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 2 Sutter Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 5 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 6 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 7 BEST BEST & KREIGER P.O. Box 1028 8 Riverside, California 92502 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 9 COUTNY OF TEHEMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHEMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11 P.O. Box 250 Red Bluff, California 96080 12 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 13 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 14 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS P.O. Box 667 15 San Andreas, California 95249 16 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 HENRY WILLY 6755 Lake Amador Drive 18 Ione, California 95640 19 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 2291 West March Lane, S.B. 100 21 Stockton, California 95207 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5876 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 5878 6 AFTERNOON SESSION 5999 7 END OF PROCEEDINGS 6064 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION REGIONAL WATER QUALITY RESOURCES CONTROL 9 BOARD: 10 PATRICK PORGANS 5878 BY STAFF 6005 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD: 12 KARNA HARRIGFELD 6011 13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 14 BOARD: 15 JOHN HERRICK 6038 MICHAEL SEXTON 6047 16 BY STAFF 6054 17 ---oOo--- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5877 1 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1998, 9:00 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll go on the record and begin this 5 morning's proceeding. We are -- we have Mr. Grober and 6 Mr. Schnagl for cross-examination. And I believe 7 Mr. Porgans was up next. 8 Good morning, sir, and welcome. 9 ---oOo--- 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL 11 WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 12 BY PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES 13 BY PATRICK PORGANS 14 MR. PORGANS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of 15 the Board. My name is Patrick Porgans. I'm with Porgans 16 and Associates, the de facto public trustee. 17 Good morning, Mr. Grober and Mr. Schnagl. 18 MR. GROBER: Good morning. 19 MR. SCHNAGL: Good morning. 20 MR. PORGANS: I have a series of questions I'm going 21 to be asking you today relevant to the historical 22 background of drainage in the San Joaquin Valley basin. 23 And I'll also be asking you questions about issues relative 24 to the Grasslands Bypass Project and issues relevant to the 25 basin plan amendments since 1988. And all of that would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5878 1 within both of your purview; is that correct, in a general 2 sense? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: In a general sense, yeah. 4 MR. PORGANS: First of all, I would like to ask each 5 of you, individually, your background. Mr. Grober, with 6 the state -- with the Regional Water Quality Control Board 7 and the years you have been there, your functions at the 8 Regional Board, job description and that sort of thing. 9 MR. GROBER: I'm an associate land and water-use 10 analyst working with the Regional Board for about four 11 years working in the agricultural unit on salinity issues 12 and agricultural issues. 13 MR. PORGANS: And, Mr. Schnagl? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: I'm a senior land and water-use 15 analyst. I've been with the Central Valley Board since 16 1981. I've been with the agricultural unit ever since that 17 time. In 1986 the ag unit split up. I was in charge of an 18 ag regulatory unit from 1986 to 1995. And since 1995, I've 19 been in charge with -- of a combined agricultural unit 20 dealing with the ag drainage program. 21 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Mr. Schnagl, do you have a 22 general understanding of the historical issues relevant to 23 drainage and drainage-related problems in the San Joaquin 24 Valley? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: I've got a general background, yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5879 1 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea as to when this 2 salinity problem in the valley was first acknowledged as 3 being a problem? 4 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I can't give you a date. 5 MR. PORGANS: Would 1870 to 1915, would that -- 6 MR. SCHNAGL: I wouldn't want to venture a guess. 7 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Would it interest you to know 8 that in the -- would you be surprised to know that in the 9 draft problematic EIS for the Central Valley Project 10 Improvement Act it states that the first problems were 11 encountered between 19 -- 1870 and 1915 with a rapid 12 increase in irrigated agriculture coinciding with 13 increasing poor drainage and elevated salinity levels in 14 the western and southern portions of the San Joaquin 15 Valley, would that surprise you? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I haven't read that document, but 17 it wouldn't surprise me. 18 MR. PORGANS: In reference to -- we're moving now 19 into about the mid '40s, 1950s. Are you familiar with the 20 types of agricultural practices that were in place in the 21 1940's on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, in 22 particular, in the Grasslands area? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: No, not in detail. 24 MR. PORGANS: Would it surprise you to know that dry 25 farming practices were replaced with irrigated agriculture CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5880 1 on the west side in the 1940's, which led to the advent of 2 drainage problems on the west side of the valley and near 3 the valley trough in the 1950s? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm going to object on the grounds 5 of relevance. Whether or not a particular thing would 6 surprise this witness is not relevant to any of the issues 7 that are currently before the Board. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me comment. Mr. Porgans, I, 9 certainly, want to afford you every opportunity to 10 cross-examine. Some of your questioning has, at least in 11 terms of the qualifications of these gentlemen is 12 repetitious and that, I suppose, is all right, because you 13 weren't here for a lot of proceedings. What we're really 14 about here -- in fact, let me read it. 15 (Reading): 16 "The purpose of Phase V is to assess the 17 responsibilities for meeting the dissolved 18 oxygen and southern Delta salinity objectives." 19 And in a sense, when you ask the questions: Would 20 you be surprised, that followed along that sentence, 21 basically that's the form -- I view that, as the Hearing 22 Officer, as a form of testimony. Because he is telling you 23 that he doesn't know the answer to that. And then you're 24 following up with a lengthy statement telling him and 25 asking him if he'd be surprised. Now, I'm concerned about CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5881 1 the relevance of that. I don't know how my fellow Board 2 Members feel about that, but do you wish to comment, 3 gentlemen, at all? 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: I concur. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, can you aid us with this? 6 I don't want to stifle Mr. Porgans in terms of his ability 7 to answer relevant questions, but if I'm wrong, give me 8 some guidance. 9 MS. LEIDIGH: Yeah. I agree that asking somebody if 10 they're surprised about something after they've said they 11 don't know anything about it really does not add to the 12 record. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me for interrupting you, but 14 let me throw in another thing so you can give me an answer 15 on this. Isn't there also a question of foundation? 16 MS. LEIDIGH: There is, yes. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Because I'm not sure where 18 Mr. Porgans's is quoting from. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: That's true. There is no foundation 20 for those statements. It's as if Mr. Porgans was 21 testifying. And the appropriate way, of course, for 22 Mr. Porgans to testify is if he files the appropriate 23 papers and indicates that he will testify in this hearing 24 as a witness and is sworn and then produces the papers and 25 the explanation under his own knowledge. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5882 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask you another question in 2 trying to help Mr. Porgans here, at this late date would 3 there be any procedural impediment to allowing Mr. Porgans 4 to put on a case in chief in Phase V if he wanted to? 5 MS. LEIDIGH: I think that so far as filing papers is 6 concerned that time has past. And if other parties have 7 objections to that, I think that would be a problem. We 8 have not, yet, completed sending out notices for all of the 9 phases. There is still Phase VIII. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: There's still other phases where he 11 could put on a case in chief? 12 MS. LEIDIGH: Right. The other thing that he can do 13 if there is evidence presented that is contrary to what he 14 believes is true, he can present rebuttal at the end of 15 Phase V. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Rebuttal that is pertinent to any 17 testimony that he has heard -- 18 MS. LEIDIGH: Correct. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: -- or after he's had an opportunity to 20 review the record of the proceeding up to that point, then 21 he can offer rebuttal witnesses, or what have you, in the 22 form of rebuttal? 23 MS. LEIDIGH: Right. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Birmingham, I'm sorry, 25 you were going to say something? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5883 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have nothing to add. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. Mr. Porgans, would 3 you like to comment on my concerns? 4 MR. PORGANS: I think I'll take the opportunity to do 5 that, Mr. Chairperson. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 7 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. I sat through the hearing 8 yesterday. And I heard a lot of questions relevant to, you 9 know, when irrigation practices began that certain 10 irrigation practices, or discharges of certain materials 11 had ceased in various areas, like in the Westlands Water 12 District and on and on. We can pick the record up and go 13 back. 14 So I appreciate the fact, you know, that what 15 you're saying is what this particular phase of the hearing 16 is about, but there's been latitude on all sides. Now, I'm 17 trying to establish the fact that, you know, I'm trying to 18 bring us up to how we got where we are in relationship to 19 the extent of the problem. 20 These two gentlemen here have already testified 21 that they are somewhat familiar with the background history 22 of the drainage and drainage related problems in the 23 valley. So what I'm trying to get to is: Is this 24 something new? Is it something that's been ongoing? How 25 extensive is the problem? And get their input on, you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5884 1 know, in terms of where we are with the problem and how we 2 can proceed. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Perhaps, procedurally, Mr. Porgans, it 4 would help if you would identify the document that 5 you're -- when you ask them, "Would they be surprised to 6 know," perhaps, if you could identify where that 7 information is from and offer it as a cross-examination 8 exhibit, then -- in other words, this is more of a 9 procedural concern than anything else, because I want to be 10 fair to the other parties. I want to be fair to all of 11 you. 12 So if you would, say, offer the exhibit and then 13 show it to the witnesses and either ask them to read the 14 section, or read it into the record, we've done that a 15 great deal here in this proceeding. 16 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Ms. Leidigh? 18 MS. LEIDIGH: I'd like to point out one additional 19 thing, that is the form of questions. It's really not 20 appropriate to ask somebody if they're surprised to know 21 something. It's better to show them the document and ask 22 them questions about the document if they identify that 23 document as being something that they're familiar with, or 24 that they're familiar with the substance that's stated in 25 that document. Asking if they're surprised to know CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5885 1 something doesn't really tell us anything about their 2 testifying. 3 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: And I'll add one more thing, 5 Mr. Porgans, to that. And also I would say it strengthens 6 your evidence when you are offering exhibits and then 7 asking the witnesses to comment on them, rather than the 8 only thing in the record is you're making some kind of 9 statement and asking if they know it. But there's no 10 foundation, or proof of where you got that information, or 11 what the weight of it is. 12 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 14 MR. PORGANS: Have either one of you had that 15 opportunity to review either the draft or the final 16 problematic EIS for the Central Valley Improvement Project? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: I have not. 18 MR. GROBER: I've looked at portions of it. 19 MR. PORGANS: I'm going to show you -- I'm offering 20 this as an exhibit. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me also tell you that you don't, 22 necessarily, have to offer an exhibit if it's already in 23 the record, or is part of an exhibit that is -- has been 24 taken into the record, or already has been submitted for 25 eventual taking into the record by any of the other CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5886 1 parties, you do not have to resubmit it or identify it. 2 So if you have a document that, say, is already in 3 the record as submitted by the State Board staff or one of 4 the other parties, you need only refer to that, 5 Mr. Porgans, and you don't have to reintroduce it. 6 MR. PORGANS: I'm not sure if the Draft EIS -- 7 C.O. CAFFREY: If you tell us what the document is we 8 can help you and tell you whether or not it's in the record 9 already. 10 MR. PORGANS: Okay. It's the draft problematic EIS 11 for the Central Valley Improvement Act. 12 MS. WHITNEY: It's in there. I'll have to look up 13 the number. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: It appears that it is in the record 15 and we'll get the number. Ms. Whitney will state the 16 number of the exhibit so it will be on the record and then 17 you can ask questions without having to submit it, sir. 18 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 MS. WHITNEY: The CVPIA is Number 32, Staff Exhibit 20 Number 32. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Staff Exhibit Number 32. 22 MS. WHITNEY: And I'm still looking for the DEIS. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, if we can't find it, in the 24 interest of time, maybe we can give it another number under 25 Mr. Porgans' coding. And it doesn't do violence if it's in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5887 1 twice. 2 MS. WHITNEY: That would be fine. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: It would be nice if we can find it, 4 but I understand. 5 MS. WHITNEY: Why don't we continue and I'll let you 6 know what the number is? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Why don't you proceed, 8 Mr. Porgans, and tell us what the documents are and we'll 9 try to find them here. 10 MR. SEXTON: Hey, Vicky, look at Number 167. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. I just heard a 12 voice coming from somewhere behind Mr. Porgans, but I 13 didn't see who it was. 14 MS. WHITNEY: Staff Exhibit 167. Thanks. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Staff Exhibit Number 167. 16 And are there two numbers for the two exhibits? 17 MS. WHITNEY: No. One is the log and the other is 18 the environmental documentation. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. Go ahead, 20 Mr. Porgans. Sorry about all that. 21 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. In staff 22 Exhibit 167 I'm going to show you a page here out of the 23 Draft DEIS, page Roman numeral 2-9. And it's dealing with 24 soil and geology in the San Joaquin Valley. I'd like you 25 to read the one highlighted paragraph here. I'm going to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5888 1 ask you a question. 2 MR. GROBER: Shall I read that outloud? 3 MR. PORGANS: You can read that to yourself. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection to having him read it 5 outloud, so that we can all hear it and have a point of 6 reference, since we all don't have that document? 7 MR. PORGANS: Not at all. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: If you don't mind, Mr. Grober, if you 9 would read it outloud. 10 MR. GROBER: Sure. 11 (Reading): 12 "Soil salinity has been recognized as a problem 13 in the San Joaquin Valley since the 1800's. The 14 first problems were encountered between 1870 and 15 1915, when a rapid increase in irrigated acreage 16 coincided with increasingly poor drainage and 17 elevated salinity levels in the western and 18 southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley. 19 Between 1915 and the 1930's, an agricultural 20 boom and formation of irrigation districts 21 increased drainage and salinity problems to a 22 community level. 23 It was not until the 1920's that deep-well 24 pumping lowered the water table below the root 25 cell of plants on the east side of the valley. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5889 1 Dry farming practices were replaced with 2 irrigated agriculture on the west side in the 3 1940's leading to the advent of drainage 4 problems of the west side of the valley and near 5 the valley trough in the 1950s." 6 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Did you want to look at 7 that, Mr. Schnagl? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I was scanning it. 9 MR. PORGANS: Did you want to look at it? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I'm fine. 11 MR. PORGANS: Do either of one of you have a similar 12 understanding to the context of this paragraph stated in 13 State Board Exhibit 167? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: During our first day of testimony we 15 were encouraged to expand on our answers as necessary to 16 explain the basis for those answers. And on my part I have 17 not read much in the way of the history of the drainage 18 problem for preparation related to this hearing. In fact, 19 I haven't read specifically on the drainage program history 20 for several years. 21 So my recollection of any details is basically to 22 a point where I couldn't testify at today's hearing. And, 23 you know, you presented some material from a document I've 24 never read before. And I have nothing that I personally 25 know that would conflict with what you presented to us. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5890 1 But on the other hand, I haven't been evaluating or 2 studying this history at all. 3 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 4 MR. GROBER: I wouldn't want to comment even on an 5 entire paragraph taken out of context from a quite massive 6 document. 7 MR. PORGANS: What do you mean "taken out of 8 context"? It's in context. 9 MR. GROBER: Well, without knowing what preceded it 10 and what follows. 11 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Do either one of you have any 12 idea as to when the Delta-Mendota Canal began delivering 13 water to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: I do not know the specific year, no. 15 MR. PORGANS: Do you have a ballpark? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: I'd rather not give a ballpark. 17 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea what date, when 18 water delivery started to commence? 19 MR. GROBER: I, unfortunately, don't keep a lot of 20 dates rattling around in my head that I'm not prepared to 21 speak on. 22 MR. PORGANS: Okay. From your experience at the 23 Regional Water Quality Control Board, does irrigated 24 agriculture contribute to the drainage problem in the San 25 Joaquin basin? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5891 1 MR. GROBER: I guess if you'd define the -- you'd 2 need to define the problem, specifically what you're 3 referring to. 4 MR. PORGANS: Does the importation of surface water 5 from the Delta via the Delta-Mendota Canal and/or the San 6 Luis Canal contribute to the agricultural drainage problems 7 in the San Joaquin Valley? 8 MR. GROBER: I guess I'm just looking for further 9 context when you say that. When you're referring to 10 agricultural problems, it's fairly broad. 11 MR. PORGANS: Drainage problems, loads, you know, 12 salinity loads, TDS, whatever. 13 MR. GROBER: The importation via the DMC and the San 14 Luis Canal lead to the importation of salt into the San 15 Joaquin Valley. 16 MR. PORGANS: And how does that affect salt loads in 17 the valley? 18 MR. GROBER: It leads to the importation of salts. 19 MR. PORGANS: Okay. And where do the salts go? 20 MR. GROBER: And that's a complicated question, 21 because it goes a variety of places. 22 MR. PORGANS: Okay. I'm going to refer to State 23 Water Resources Exhibit 97. And this is an article -- a 24 paper that was put together by Mr. Grober. It's entitled 25 "Sources and Circulation of Salt in the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5892 1 Basin." And I'm going to put up the text of this paper on 2 the overhead, Mr. Chairperson. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: All right; sir. 4 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 5 Mr. Grober, do you recognize this document, or 6 this paper? 7 MR. GROBER: Yes. 8 MR. PORGANS: You wrote this paper? 9 MR. GROBER: Yes. 10 MR. PORGANS: And what did you write the paper for? 11 For what purpose was the paper written? 12 MR. GROBER: To present information at a conference. 13 MR. PORGANS: And in a general sense can you give us 14 a synopsis of what that paper is about? 15 MR. GROBER: This paper -- well, as described here in 16 the abstract, I took historical data and data from a water 17 quality model to quantify the sources of salt, boron and 18 salinity in the lower San Joaquin River. 19 MR. PORGANS: Okay. And in this -- the information 20 in this model that you had, who developed this model, the 21 San Joaquin River -- San Joaquin River Input/Output Model? 22 MR. GROBER: That was a model that was originally 23 developed by staff of the State Board, Charlie Kratzer and 24 the University of California researchers. 25 MR. PORGANS: And can you -- has that model ever been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5893 1 peer reviewed to your knowledge? 2 MR. GROBER: Portions of it have been peer reviewed 3 I believe in various contexts. I'm not sure if its had a 4 formal peer review. 5 MR. PORGANS: And can you provide me with a 6 description of what the model does and its purpose? 7 MR. GROBER: The purpose of the model is to take flow 8 and water quality inputs and outputs along the San Joaquin 9 River from the Lander Avenue upstream of the grassland 10 watershed to Vernalis and San Joaquin River at Vernalis, 11 approximately a 60-mile reach of the San Joaquin River. It 12 looks at inputs and outputs from various sources for flow, 13 TDS, boron, selenium and it quantifies those loads at the 14 various points in the river. 15 MR. PORGANS: And how accurate would you say the 16 model is? What percentage of confidence would you have in 17 that model? 18 MR. GROBER: That model can be run in various 19 different forms. And depending on what form it's run in, 20 you can have a high degree of confidence, because it can be 21 run in a calibration mode when you're actually matching 22 known conditions along the river. 23 MR. PORGANS: Are you relatively confident of the 24 model? 25 MR. GROBER: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5894 1 MR. PORGANS: And you're relatively confident of the 2 information that you presented in the paper? 3 MR. GROBER: Yes. 4 MR. PORGANS: And was this paper peer reviewed? 5 MR. GROBER: It was submitted to the American Society 6 of Civil Engineers. 7 MR. PORGANS: And what's the process they have for 8 reviewing? 9 MR. GROBER: I believe it is reviewed by a couple of 10 reviewers, but I don't recall. 11 MR. PORGANS: And you stand by your statement that 12 the model shows that agricultural drainage discharges are 13 the primary source of dissolved salts, boron and selenium 14 to the San Joaquin River? 15 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, say that again. 16 MR. PORGANS: You stand behind that statement that 17 you made there that the, quote, 18 (Reading): 19 "Model results show that agricultural drainage 20 discharges are the primary source of dissolved 21 salt, boron and selenium to the San Joaquin 22 River." 23 Is that correct? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: And also do you stand behind the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5895 1 statement that salt dissolved in the DMC water imports are 2 the primary source of salts circulating in the lower San 3 Joaquin River basin and the in situ dissolution of salts 4 and pumping from the underlying confined aquifers are 5 imported secondary sources? Is that a fact? 6 MR. GROBER: That's what I say in the article, yes. 7 MR. PORGANS: And you also say that -- is it also 8 true that salts, quote: 9 (Reading): 10 "Salts are moved out of the basin only in the 11 San Joaquin River, but some salt is also -- some 12 salt is confined -- excuse me, let me restate 13 that. 14 Also says that: 15 (Reading): 16 "Salts are moved out of the basin only in the 17 San Joaquin River, but some salt is also moved 18 out of the unconfined aquifer of the basin into 19 long-term storage in the confined aquifer 20 beneath the basin." 21 Is that a fact? 22 MR. GROBER: That's what I say in the article. 23 MR. PORGANS: Is it a fact? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Argumentative. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Yeah, that's argumentative, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5896 1 Mr. Porgans. 2 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairperson? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: He said that's what he said in the 4 article, he's under oath. 5 MR. PORGANS: Okay. I will assume it's a fact. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: As will I. 7 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 8 Now, this area that you examined, or the area that 9 you reviewed you refer to as the lower San Joaquin River 10 study area. 11 Could we put up Page 3, there, please, 12 Ms. Harrigfeld? The one with the map on it. That's it. 13 There you go. 14 You recognize that page that's up there on the 15 screen, Mr. Grober? 16 MR. GROBER: Yes. 17 MR. PORGANS: And when -- in Figure 1 it shows the 18 lower San Joaquin River study area -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry, Mr. Porgans. Did we 20 identify that document? 21 MR. PORGANS: We're still on the same exhibit. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. 23 MR. PORGANS: It's the same one, 97. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: You gave a page number? 25 MR. PORGANS: And I said Page 3. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5897 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 2 MR. PORGANS: You're welcome. 3 This Figure 1, the lower San Joaquin River study 4 area, there's an area delineated, shaded area on that 5 exhibit that shows the DMC service area. Mud Slough and 6 Salt Slough would be inclusive in that; is that correct? 7 MR. GROBER: Yes -- 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. I'm going to object on 9 the grounds that the question lacks foundation. I don't 10 believe that there's been any evidence to the effect that 11 the shaded area represents the San Joaquin or the 12 Delta-Mendota service area. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, if you will describe what you 14 see there. This is part of his document, right? 15 MR. PORGANS: That is correct. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Ask him to describe it, ask if it is 17 correct and then you'll establish your foundation. 18 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. And I beg 19 the pardon of the Chair for my lack of procedural 20 understanding here. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: It's all right, Mr. Porgans. 22 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. You're working with me. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Not all of us are attorneys. Go head, 24 sir. 25 MR. PORGANS: Thank God. Mr. Grober, on the map that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5898 1 is there, it has an area that's shaded and is it says "DMC 2 Service Area." Is that correct? 3 MR. GROBER: That's what the map shows. But for a 4 point of clarification, this is a schematic. So that is 5 not an absolute representation of the outline of the DMC 6 service area. It's shown for the purpose of a mass-balance 7 accounting. It's just showing, in a general sense, where 8 that area is in relation to the San Joaquin River. 9 MR. PORGANS: And is it fair to say that a portion of 10 that area is within the DMC service area that's delineated 11 on the map? 12 MR. GROBER: Well, as I said, I don't know that 13 that's necessarily important. But, certainly, the intent 14 of this graphic is to just show that what was considered 15 within the salt balance was that DMC service area as 16 explained in the article. And this is not an actual 17 representation of that area on the map, but it's just 18 showing its general locations with regard to the San 19 Joaquin River and other features discussed in the article. 20 MR. PORGANS: Recognizing that fact, I'm asking 21 you -- so am I to understand, then, that that area there 22 although it doesn't delineate the specific boundaries of 23 the DMC, it does include areas within the DMC? 24 MR. GROBER: Again, I'm not exactly sure what your 25 question is, but the shaded area is just showing the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5899 1 relative location of the DMC with regard to the San Joaquin 2 River. I wouldn't want to say with any deal of precision 3 that any single point that is shaded there is precisely 4 within the DMC service area. 5 MR. PORGANS: Now, I think we got through that. I'm 6 asking you -- the question that I have is: That area is 7 serviced by the DMC, water from the Delta-Mendota Canal; is 8 that correct? 9 MR. GROBER: As I already identified it here and for 10 the purposes of the salt balance data that I present in the 11 article, I'm referring to the DMC service area, yes. 12 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Grober. I want to talk 13 briefly about this -- I'm going to digress for a moment and 14 I want to talk briefly about the San Joaquin River salt 15 load, loads that you make reference to in your article, 16 which is on the lower portion of that exhibit. 17 Could we bring it back? Thank you, 18 Ms. Harrigfeld. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: The other way. 20 MR. PORGANS: When you talk about the San Joaquin 21 River salt loads in that paragraph, are you talking lower 22 San Joaquin River, or are you talking the entire San 23 Joaquin River? 24 MR. GROBER: This is at that final paragraph starting 25 at with the mean annual salt load, that is looking at the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5900 1 lower San Joaquin River downstream of Lander Avenue and 2 upstream of Vernalis. 3 MR. PORGANS: And you're saying there that the mean 4 annual salt load added to the lower San Joaquin River for 5 water years 1985 through 1994 were approximately 845,000 6 metric tons per year. And the net discharge of salt out of 7 the basin, via the San Joaquin River near Vernalis, was 8 700,000 tons per year. Is that accurate? 9 MR. GROBER: That is what I say there in the article, 10 yes. 11 MR. PORGANS: And what's the difference between the 12 salt load added as opposed to the net discharge of salts 13 out of the basin in tons per year? 14 MR. GROBER: As is explained, then, I think in the 15 following sentences, the difference of 145,000 tons per 16 year between loading and discharge is mostly attributable 17 to the lost of salts in the lower San Joaquin River due to 18 agricultural diversions. 19 The figure for the salt loading at Vernalis is 20 based entirely on historical data for the San Joaquin River 21 near Vernalis. What is contributed to the San Joaquin 22 River upstream of Vernalis between Lander Avenue and 23 Vernalis is based on a combination of historical and 24 modeled data, as is that figure for what is removed from 25 the San Joaquin River; although, the model data itself is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5901 1 based on historical data. 2 MR. PORGANS: And when you say "historical data," 3 give us a point of reference. Are we talking 1985, '84 to 4 '94? What years are we talking about in terms of 5 historical data? 6 MR. GROBER: As the first sentence states, it's 7 looking at data for water years '85 through '94. 8 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. And most of those years 9 were -- do you know what types of years they were in terms 10 of precip and runoff in the San Joaquin River? 11 MR. GROBER: Those were mostly dry years. 12 MR. PORGANS: Do you have an idea how many dry years 13 there were out of the total between '85 and '94? 14 MR. GROBER: I don't know off the top of my head. 15 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. I want to take that one 16 down for a moment, Ms. Harrigfeld, please. I want to put 17 up this -- the next one, which is -- sorry, about that, 18 Ms. Harrigfeld. Can you put up the next -- this one here? 19 I can do it. 20 This would be -- I have to -- this is I think 21 State Board Exhibit Number 147. It's the San Joaquin 22 drainage program of the, quote, unquote, "Rainbow Report," 23 Page 19. 24 Is that correct, Ms. Whitney, 147? 25 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5902 1 MR. PORGANS: That is correct? 2 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 3 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Do you recognize the area 4 that's depicted on the map as the San Joaquin Valley, 5 Mr. Grober? 6 MR. GROBER: And surrounding areas. 7 MR. PORGANS: And the area in blue, you can't see the 8 legend on the bottom corner there, but the blue depicts the 9 CVP Delta-Mendota Canal service area. 10 Does that coincide with your understanding of 11 where the Delta-Mendota service area is located, in 12 general? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. PORGANS: And looking at it for the moment, I'm 15 going to go back to your paper on Page 3 in a moment and 16 I'm going to ask you to give me a general idea as to 17 whether we're in the "ballpark," quote, unquote, of the 18 area delineated on your Page 3, which would have been State 19 Board Exhibit 97. 20 Before I do that, I have a general question 21 relevant to those service areas as a whole. The area in 22 red is the CVP San Luis unit service area. Do either one 23 of you know where the surface water comes from -- excuse 24 me. 25 Do either of you know where the water comes from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5903 1 to service that area in red? It's the San Luis service 2 area, but -- okay, do you know where the water comes from 3 that's -- 4 MR. GROBER: I'm not an expert in these matters. 5 It's not something that I've written about. 6 MR. SCHNAGL: I think that's a question for the 7 Bureau of Reclamation or somebody else. It's not -- the 8 Regional Board works with wastewater not the supplies. 9 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Do either one of you know where 10 the Westlands Water District is in reference to that area 11 in red? 12 MR. GROBER: It's also not something that I've worked 13 on directly. 14 MR. SCHNAGL: I have a general understanding of where 15 the Westlands Water District is, but I do not know how it 16 relates to the red area as shown on the map. 17 MR. PORGANS: Okay. The area in orange is the State 18 Water Project service area. Do you know if any water from 19 the State Water Project service area makes its way back 20 into the San Joaquin River once it's delivered to those 21 areas? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: I'll just say that the areas shown in 23 orange is in the Tulare Lake basin. And, in general, the 24 drainage from the Tulare Lake basin does not leave that 25 basin and flow north to the San Joaquin River. There are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5904 1 occasions during heavy flood years where flows do go north, 2 but -- 3 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 4 MR. SCHNAGL: -- that's the extent of what I know. 5 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Schnagl. Could we put 6 back Page 3, Ms. Harrigfeld, the one with the map. 7 Now, looking at Figure 1 does that general shaded 8 area coincide with what was illustrated on State Board 9 Exhibit 147 as it relates to the Delta-Mendota Canal -- the 10 Delta-Mendota Canal service area? 11 MR. GROBER: I think the prior map was a more 12 accurate depiction of the DMC service area. But it was my 13 intent in presenting this graphic to simply represent the 14 DMC service area in a schematic form. 15 MR. PORGANS: Can we go to the next page, please, 16 Ms. Harrigfeld. It would be Page 4. There's a bar graph 17 on it. Thank you. 18 Looking at Page 4 of Exhibit 97, on the second 19 paragraph it states that: 20 (Reading): 21 "The east side tributaries account for most of 22 the flow in the San Joaquin River, but Mud and 23 Salt Slough contribute the greatest TDS, boron 24 and selenium loads." 25 And it goes on to say: CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5905 1 (Reading): 2 "The slough contributes to disproportionately 3 high selenium loads relative to TDS and boron." 4 Is that accurate, Mr. Grober? 5 MR. GROBER: Yes. 6 MR. PORGANS: Moving down to the bottom of that page 7 it says: 8 (Reading): 9 "The Delta-Mendota service area salt budget 10 states that the major source of imported salt 11 to the lower San Joaquin basin and DMC service 12 area is the DMC." 13 Is that correct, Mr. Grober? 14 MR. GROBER: That's -- that's what it says. 15 MR. PORGANS: The last sentence in that paragraph it 16 states: 17 (Reading): 18 "Accounting for losses to the State Water 19 Project at O'Neil the approximate -- 20 Could we put the next page up, please, 21 Ms. Harrigfeld? 22 "That the mean annual delivery to the DMC 23 service area for water years '85 through '94 was 24 16-billion cubic meters. And that the mean 25 annual salt load was 545,000 tons." CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5906 1 Is that correct, Mr. Grober? 2 MR. GROBER: I don't see that there. Is that on the 3 top of the page? 4 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, I'm sorry about that, 5 Mr. Grober. It says: 6 (Reading): 7 "The mean annual delivery to the DMC service 8 area for the water years 1985 through 1994 was 9 16 billion cubic meters. And the mean annual 10 salt load was 545,000 tons." 11 MR. GROBER: That's what it says, yes. 12 MR. PORGANS: Okay. When you say "the mean annual 13 salt load was 545,000 tons," can you explain that to me? 14 MR. GROBER: That is just a computation based on the 15 mean annual delivery. And the -- using a flow-weighted 16 average monthly TDS concentration of 330 milligrams per 17 liter -- actually, no. That 330 milligrams per liter is a 18 flow-weighted average based on the individual monthly flows 19 and concentrations in the DMC. 20 MR. PORGANS: And is this the most accurate way that 21 you can come up with these numbers, or is there other ways 22 to come up with a similar set of numbers? 23 MR. GROBER: When you say "a similar set of numbers," 24 a set of numbers that reflect what the imports are? 25 MR. PORGANS: Yes. And also the mean annual salt CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5907 1 loads, or is this the accepted way of coming up with those 2 numbers? 3 MR. GROBER: I'm not sure what you mean by "accepted 4 way," but there are a variety of ways in which you can 5 calculate loads and concentrations. 6 MR. PORGANS: For the sake of discussion, is this a 7 very accurate way of coming up with that information? 8 MR. GROBER: I think in this case it was sufficiently 9 accurate to represent what is -- what was coming in through 10 the DMC over this time period. 11 MR. PORGANS: And is there a margin of error one way 12 or the other, plus or minus on those loads? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes, although, that's not a figure that 14 I have today. 15 MR. PORGANS: And, therefore, you wouldn't know what 16 the difference would be one way or the other at this point? 17 MR. GROBER: I couldn't give you a numeric 18 difference, no. But, of course, there is an uncertainty 19 with regard to any flow estimates and what quality and 20 concentrations and calculations. 21 MR. PORGANS: You do go on to say here that -- in 22 that last sentence in the first paragraph that this 545,000 23 tons annual salt load -- 24 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, Mr. Porgans, you're going 25 to have to slow down. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5908 1 MR. PORGANS: I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: We read faster than we talk for some 3 reason, Mr. Porgans. So -- 4 MR. PORGANS: Well, my wife is sort of a Court 5 Reporter and I should be mindful. 6 The last sentence of that paragraph it states: 7 (Reading): 8 "This 545,000 ton annual salt loading is in 9 agreement with previous estimates made by the 10 San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program in their 11 report on the San Joaquin Valley salt budget." 12 And that was the 1988 report; is that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. PORGANS: Moving down to paragraph three, the 15 third sentence it states: 16 (Reading): 17 "The data presented here shows there is a mean 18 annual salt inflow of 545,000 tons into the DMC 19 service area from the DMC." 20 Now, my question before I complete the sentence 21 is: This 545,000 tons of salt is coming from water 22 imported? What's the source of the water that's coming 23 into the DMC? Where does it come from, do you know? 24 MR. GROBER: The DMC, the intake pumps in the Delta. 25 MR. PORGANS: And those are the Tracy pumps? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5909 1 MR. GROBER: Yes. 2 MR. PORGANS: So the Tracy pumps are taking and 3 pumping water out of the Delta and they're bringing in 4 545,000 tons of salts into the DMC service area, is that 5 what that says? 6 MR. GROBER: Yes. And those are metric tons. 7 MR. PORGANS: The question I have is that without 8 those imports, would that -- would it be safe to say that 9 545,000 tons of salt would not come into the DMC service 10 area? 11 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, could you restate the 12 question? 13 MR. PORGANS: Yes. Is it safe to say that without 14 the water being imported from the Delta via the Tracy 15 pumps, vis-a-vis the DMC, would the 545,000 tons of salt be 16 imported if the water was not delivered to the DMC service 17 area? 18 MR. GROBER: I don't know. Maybe I'm being too 19 cautious, but that seems -- that's a fairly big question. 20 Again, I imagine that's one possibility, but there might be 21 other -- other things in a what-if situation. 22 MR. PORGANS: Let me simplify the question for you, 23 Mr. Grober. In the absence of the deliveries of water 24 through the DMC, would the 545,000 tons of salt be 25 delivered to the DMC service area? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5910 1 MR. STUBCHAER: Excuse me? 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Porgans, does your question 4 assume that there's no other source of water such as the 5 San Joaquin River, which is used to irrigate lands in this 6 service area? 7 MR. PORGANS: Not at all, Mr. Stubchaer. As a matter 8 of fact, I'm going to be getting to the San Joaquin River 9 shortly. I'm going to work my way up. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: I can understand the difficulty in 11 answering the question, because it's not complete. In 12 other words, it doesn't say under what conditions you're 13 asking the questions. Are there other -- "are there other 14 irrigation waters delivered?" I mean it kind of goes 15 together, I think. 16 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 17 MR. GROBER: Thank you. 18 MR. PORGANS: This statement acknowledges that with 19 the DMC in place as one source of water for the area being 20 served, in the absence of that water from that source, 21 would the 545,000 tons of salts be present, or be a factor? 22 MR. GROBER: Just to answer, perhaps, in a 23 hypothetical, if not the DMC I guess my problem with 24 answering the question is that there could be in that time 25 period when we're talking about some hypothetical CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5911 1 situation, some alternate source importing an other set of 2 salts. And that's why I guess I'm hesitant to answer what 3 appears to be a simple question. 4 MR. PORGANS: I appreciate that. 5 MR. GROBER: Because it's not possible for me to know 6 everything else that might have occurred in a hypothetical 7 situation. 8 MR. PORGANS: I'm not a hypothetical person, but I'm 9 going to ask the question again, try to make it simple for 10 you, Mr. Grober. 11 You've acknowledged the fact that the DMC brings 12 water into the Delta to irrigate lands in the DMC service 13 area; is that correct? 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. 15 MR. PORGANS: I'm asking you a simple question: If 16 the water did not -- if the DMC was not there and those 17 lands that are presently being irrigated with this water 18 didn't have this water and those lands weren't irrigated, 19 would we have the 545,000 tons of salt coming into the -- 20 into the basin from an outside source? 21 MR. GROBER: And then just to give an answer I'll 22 just append then the question to even add that: And no 23 other changes had occurred? 24 MR. PORGANS: Correct. 25 MR. GROBER: Then, no, then those 545,000 tons would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5912 1 not be imported. 2 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Grober. It goes on to 3 say in that sentence that: 4 (Reading): 5 "145,000 tons are recirculated from the San 6 Joaquin River diversions." 7 Can you explain that to me, Mr. Grober, what that 8 means? 9 MR. GROBER: That is a number that I referred to 10 previously. And that's a quantity of salt that is brought 11 onto the west side of the San Joaquin River through 12 diversions along the San Joaquin River from Lander Avenue 13 to Vernalis. 14 MR. PORGANS: And what is the -- can you tell us, or 15 help us out and give us an indication as to where that 16 recirculated salt comes from, acknowledging it could be 17 coming from several different sources? Does any of it come 18 from the DMC water that's initially delivered? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. PORGANS: Do you have a percentage on how much 21 that is? 22 MR. GROBER: No. 23 MR. PORGANS: And where would the other sources be, 24 Mr. Grober, relevant to that 145 -- 145,000 tons? 25 MR. GROBER: Dissolution of naturally occurring salts CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5913 1 from the east side, the Stanislaus, the Merced, the 2 Tuolumne, upper San Joaquin River. Dissolution of salts on 3 the west side, the grassland watershed along the west side 4 of the San Joaquin downstream of the grassland watershed, 5 municipal and industrial inputs. 6 MR. PORGANS: You go on to say here that there's also 7 227,000 tons from salt dissolution for a total of 917,000 8 tons per year. Now, is that -- can you give me some 9 indication as to what that means? Is that 917,000, is 10 that -- is that total into the basin, or is it -- can you 11 help me out on that one? What does that mean? 12 MR. GROBER: That would be a combination of total in 13 and/or mobilized, but just looking aerially what is brought 14 into that oval of the big thing showing the DMC service 15 area. 16 MR. PORGANS: And would you be able to tell us what 17 percentage of that 917,000 is imported salts? 18 MR. GROBER: I'm not particularly good with math, but 19 you'd have to do the division of 545,000 over the 917. 20 MR. PORGANS: You said that part of the 145 also 21 comes from the 545 coming in, that's what I thought you 22 said. 23 MR. GROBER: So it gets even more complicated. 24 MR. PORGANS: But you do not know, or do you know, 25 excuse me? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5914 1 MR. GROBER: The exact breakdown of that 145, no. As 2 I said, I don't know. 3 MR. PORGANS: Do you know what the breakdown would be 4 in total percentage of imported salt in relationship to the 5 917,000 tons per year? 6 MR. GROBER: Well, as you pointed out it wouldn't be 7 a simple matter of that division, but you'd have to make 8 some consideration as to what other short-circuiting is 9 occurring in the budget as to what is diverted through the 10 San Joaquin. 11 MR. PORGANS: But at this point you don't know the 12 answer to that question; is that correct, Mr. Grober? 13 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 14 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. You go on to say there: 15 (Reading): 16 "That the mean annual salt discharge for the San 17 Joaquin River near Vernalis is 700,000 tons, 18 which includes 135,000 tons from the east side 19 tributaries." 20 Is that correct, Mr. Grober? 21 MR. GROBER: Yes. 22 MR. PORGANS: When you say that the net basin 23 discharge of salt from the DMC service area is 565,000 tons 24 per year, this suggesting a net gain of 352,000 tons per 25 year in the DMC service area. Could you help me out, could CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5915 1 you expand on that, Mr. Grober, that 352,000 net gain? 2 MR. GROBER: That's then just taking the sum -- first 3 taking the 145, the 545 plus the 227 for a sum of total of 4 917. And that's the total end. 5 And then looking to the San Joaquin River at 6 Vernalis and what's going out, that I've adjusted that 7 figure for what's going out based on what's coming in on 8 the east side tributaries is 700,000 minus 135, that's 565. 9 It's 917 minus 565, it's 352. 10 MR. PORGANS: Then you go on to say that if one 11 considers the confined aquifer and includes 245,000 tons 12 per year gained from pumping and 390,000 tons per year lost 13 to leakage, then the annual net gain for the DMC service 14 area is 207,000 tons per year with a net loss of 145,000 15 tons per year to the confined aquifer; is that correct, 16 Mr. Grober? 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. PORGANS: So when you talk about this "net gain," 19 where is this net gain going? Where does this 207,000 20 tons -- where is that going? 21 MR. GROBER: As I'm showing here that's just a net 22 gain within the service area, within the unconfined 23 aquiferal surface. 24 MR. PORGANS: So is this net gain based on this 25 average period, the period of record 1985 to '94, the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5916 1 207,000 are you saying that's tons per year, is that 2 cumulative over time using the 1985/1994 data? 3 MR. GROBER: Well, as you pointed out earlier that is 4 a period over which there were many dry years. 5 MR. PORGANS: But for -- the question is: For the 6 '85 through '94 period, would that 207,000 tons per year, 7 is that the average for that period? 8 MR. GROBER: That's what these numbers are based on 9 is that time period. 10 MR. PORGANS: So this 207,000 tons of salts per year, 11 which according to the data, portions of it's coming in 12 from outside, an unknown portion of it is coming from 13 waters imported into the basin; is that correct? 14 MR. GROBER: A portion of it is imported via the DMC. 15 MR. PORGANS: Correct. So if you had a five-year 16 period of time based on the '85 through '94 period, is it 17 plausible under those type of conditions with the type of 18 irrigation practices that were prevalent during that period 19 that this 207,000 could be cumulative over years for that 20 same period? 21 MR. GROBER: This is just speaking to the time period 22 that is introduced in the article? 23 MR. PORGANS: Absolutely. Is that correct? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: So if we took a five-year period times CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5917 1 207,000 we'd have a million tons of net gain of salt; is 2 that possible? 3 MR. GROBER: Possible in what sense? That's what 4 these numbers suggest. 5 MR. PORGANS: Okay. So the numbers suggest that over 6 a five-year period of time we can increase the net gain in 7 the load by an amount equal to the total coming in for a 8 one-year period using your 917,000 figure? 9 MR. GROBER: Yeah, approximately. 10 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Grober. Now, you say in 11 this -- in your article in paragraph one -- paragraph two 12 of Page 5 of Exhibit 97 that states, 13 (Reading): 14 "The San Joaquin River discharge into the 15 Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta is the only 16 outlet for salt in the basin." 17 Is that correct? 18 MR. GROBER: That's what it says, yes. 19 MR. PORGANS: The movement of -- it goes on to state, 20 quote, 21 (Reading): 22 "The movement of salt to deep groundwater, or 23 confined aquifers is sometimes referred to as a 24 loss." 25 And then you have in parens, "SJVDP," which is the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5918 1 San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 1998 report. It also 2 goes on to state: 3 (Reading): 4 "This should be considered a short-term loss 5 because the salt still resides in the basin and 6 will eventually be discharged through surface 7 waters through natural groundwater secretions, 8 or groundwater pumping." 9 Is that correct, Mr. Grober? 10 MR. GROBER: That's what it says. 11 MR. PORGANS: So looking at that statement what we 12 are saying, then, is that although this salt that's coming 13 in, the difference between what's coming in and what's 14 going out, there is no loss of salt. It's someplace 15 somewhere at sometime. Is that correct? 16 MR. GROBER: The only point to that discussion there 17 was to make the distinction between -- define "loss." It 18 depends on how you're looking at the balance. If you're 19 looking at it aerially, looking at it from the surface 20 looking down and things going in and out, or if you also 21 incorporate a spatial component and then you're also 22 concerned with what's going up or down. 23 MR. PORGANS: I'm looking at it in its entirety. In 24 essence, is there any real loss of salt based on that 25 statement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5919 1 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, based -- is there a loss of 2 salt where? Do you mean to -- 3 MR. PORGANS: Is the salt really ever lost, or is it 4 just displaced someplace? 5 MR. GROBER: Depends on what the picture is. If you 6 draw a big enough picture of the salt balance, it's 7 conserved everywhere. It just moves around. 8 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. In your, quote, unquote, 9 opinion, Mr. Grober, do we have a salt balance looking at 10 those figures there in the DMC service area? 11 MR. GROBER: It would depend on how you define "salt 12 balance." It would also depend on what time period you're 13 speaking of. This article was discussing a fixed time 14 period. And you would have to ask me, specifically, "What 15 do you mean by salt balance?" 16 MR. PORGANS: Well, what's your understanding of a 17 salt balance, Mr. Grober? 18 MR. GROBER: As we've been discussing, the salt 19 balance depends very much on where you're drawing the lines 20 both aerially and vertically. 21 MR. PORGANS: Let's draw them around the DMC service 22 area as depicted on Figure -- 23 MR. GROBER: That was one of the conclusions of this 24 article, looking at it simply aerially, looking at the mean 25 average for the time period shown here there was a net CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5920 1 increase, a net annual increase. 2 MR. PORGANS: Okay. So does that mean there's an 3 imbalance? 4 MR. GROBER: Yes. 5 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Grober. Now, in 1995 6 can you tell us was there an increase in the total tons of 7 salt that were measured at Vernalis on the San Joaquin 8 River near Vernalis? 9 MR. GROBER: I don't recall. I would need to look at 10 some figures. 11 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, are you aware -- do you 12 know if there was a net increase in salt discharged out of 13 the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, 1995? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I'd have to refer to the 15 information at our office for that. 16 MR. PORGANS: I have information -- I've read 17 information in your -- in the Central Valley Regional 18 Quality Control Board reports that indicate that the figure 19 is at about 1.4 million tons for 1995. Does that sound 20 familiar to either of you? 21 MR. GROBER: Unless I don't have a number in front of 22 me, I really don't want to guess what the figures were. 23 MR. PORGANS: I'm looking at an excerpt from a 24 Regional Water Quality Control Board staff report entitled, 25 "Loads of Salt, Boron and Selenium in the Grasslands CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5921 1 Watershed in Lower San Joaquin River," October '85 to 2 September 1995, Volume I, load locations dated February 3 1988, Page 35. 4 Does that report sound familiar to, Mr. Grober? 5 MR. GROBER: Yes. 6 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, does that report sound 7 familiar to you? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 9 MR. PORGANS: Were you involved in reviewing that 10 report? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: I reviewed the report. 12 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Now, I'm going to show you 13 this, I don't know if I'm out of order, but if the Chair 14 can help me out. I'm going to let them look at this 15 document which they produced. This is an excerpt here, and 16 would you, please, read the last paragraph there on the 17 page? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Is it an evidentiary exhibit? 19 MR. PORGANS: I don't know. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: It's Stockton East Water District 21 Exhibit Number 11. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 23 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't know that it necessarily has 25 to be if you identified it. Since it is, that's good to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5922 1 know. 2 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. Stockton 3 East Exhibit Number 11. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Porgans, what page is that? 5 MR. PORGANS: Page 35. 6 MS. HARRIGFELD: I believe that's Stockton East Water 7 District Exhibit 10. 8 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. It's, for the record, 9 Stockton East Exhibit 10. Okay. That looks like it. You 10 might want to keep that in front of you. 11 Have you had an opportunity to read Stockton East 12 Exhibit 10, page 35, of Volume I, load calculations? 13 Mr. Grober, have you had a chance to review that? 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. 15 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, did you have a chance to 16 review it? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, sir. 18 MR. PORGANS: Could you read that last paragraph for 19 us, either one of the two of you, for the record? 20 MR. GROBER: 21 (Reading): 22 "Discharge for the San Joaquin River near 23 Vernalis was less than 2 million acre-feet 24 annually for water years 1987 through 1994. 25 The highest annual discharge from the drainage CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5923 1 project area, approximately 75,000 acre-feet 2 occurred in water year 1987, a critically dry 3 year that followed the wet water year of 1986. 4 The third highest discharge occurred in 1988, 5 another critically dry year. 6 The second of four highest discharges for the 7 drainage project area occurred in the wet water 8 years in 1986 and 1985, respectfully. 9 This suggests that discharges from the drainage 10 project area are related to an antecedent 11 conditions in the San Joaquin River." 12 MR. PORGANS: Could you explain that to us, 13 Mr. Grober, what that means is that the suggested discharge 14 from the DPA, meaning the Drainage Problem Area, which 15 would be that area, that's part of the Grasslands Channel 16 Bypass Project, is that the same area? 17 MR. GROBER: Yeah, just I guess a point of 18 clarification, it's shown here as DPA, which refers to the 19 Drainage Project Area, which is the tidal drainage area in 20 the grassland watershed. 21 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Can you explain to us, 22 quote, 23 (Reading): 24 "This suggests that discharges from DPA are 25 related to antecedent conditions in the San CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5924 1 Joaquin River"? 2 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Misleading as to time and 3 relevance to this proceeding. We already received 4 testimony that for the years referenced in this report 5 there have been changed conditions resulting from the 6 Grasslands Bypass Project. So the relevance to this is 7 misstated. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you want to explain the relevance, 9 Mr. Porgans? 10 MR. PORGANS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson. I'm trying to 11 get at the net gain of salts in the basin. And I'm going 12 to explore the relationship between the net gain and the 13 antecedent precipitation in the basin whether it's the 14 period of 1985 through '94, or '85 through 1998. It's very 15 relevant. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I'll be the judge of that -- 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: -- Mr. Porgans, if you don't mind. 19 I'm going to let you proceed with the questions. 20 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: How much time do you think we're going 22 to need, Mr. Porgans? I only ask because we're approaching 23 the time to take a break. 24 MR. PORGANS: According to go my sundial, 25 Mr. Chairperson, I've been working on this project for 30 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5925 1 years, I would suggest that you take the break, because I'm 2 going to be here for a while today. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: How much more time do you think you 4 need? 5 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairperson. I would 6 say probably, depending on how they answer the questions, 7 another hour. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. Let's take a break 9 now and come back in 12 minutes -- let's make it 15 minutes 10 in case anybody wants to go to the bake sale. 11 (Recess taken from 10:25 a.m. to 10:44 a.m.) 12 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. We're back on 13 the record. Mr. Porgans, you may proceed, sir. 14 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I want to 15 go back and refer to that last paragraph on that page. 16 Will you push that up, please, so we get the text. And the 17 last sentence on the paragraph -- and this is Stockton East 18 Exhibit 10, page 35. It says there, quote, 19 (Reading): 20 "This suggests that discharges from the DPA are 21 related to antecedent conditions in the San 22 Joaquin River." 23 Could you explain that to us, Mr. Grober, please? 24 MR. GROBER: I guess just to clarify, it should 25 really say, "conditions in the San Joaquin River basin." CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5926 1 What it is saying is that conditions in any one year aren't 2 just a function of what's going on in that year, but also a 3 function of what's happened in previous years. 4 So this is saying, and I think it's more fully 5 explained on the next page, that years following a wet year 6 may have some characteristic based on the previous wet 7 year. 8 MR. PORGANS: Now, looking at a compilation of 9 numbers in Table 19 of the annual loads and flow-rated 10 concentrations in the San Joaquin River near Vernalis 11 depicts water years 1986 through '95. 12 Is this what you're referring to in terms of the 13 antecedent precipitation conditions in the San Joaquin 14 River basin? 15 MR. GROBER: Well, yeah. Although, in this paragraph 16 on Page 35 I sort of suggested discharges from the drainage 17 project area are related to antecedent conditions meaning 18 that if it was a wet year in the San Joaquin River basin, 19 as this shows in '86, discharge was over 5 million 20 acre-feet compared to '87 which was under 2 million 21 acre-feet, that discharges in the drainage project area are 22 a function, to some extent, in 1987 to generally wetter 23 conditions in 1986. 24 MR. PORGANS: So looking at Table 19 it seems as you 25 said it implies that more water, generally speaking were CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5927 1 going to increase the total TDS, you know, in each 2 particular water year depending upon the precipitation. Is 3 that accurate? 4 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, could you restate the 5 question? 6 MR. PORGANS: Yes. Based on the information that's 7 provided to us in Table 19 it would then indicate that 8 there is some relationship between the amount of water that 9 naturally occurs vis-a-vis precipitation in runoff and the 10 total TDS coming out of the basin, correct? 11 MR. GROBER: I guess just to clarify when you say 12 "total TDS coming out of the basin" are you talking about 13 concentration or load? 14 MR. PORGANS: Weighted -- load-weighted 15 concentration, annual loads and flow-weighted concentration 16 at the San Joaquin River near Vernalis. 17 MR. GROBER: I guess I'm not following where you're 18 going, because we seem to be drawing some other conclusions 19 from the data, if you're looking at concentration. What 20 previously we were reading we were talking about discharges 21 from the drainage project area are related to antecedent 22 conditions. And now you seem to be asking a question about 23 concentrations in the San Joaquin River. 24 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Let me go back and clarify that. 25 Going back to the -- data suggested discharges from the DPA CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5928 1 are related to the antecedent conditions in the San Joaquin 2 River basin. Could you elaborate on that once more so I 3 keep some continuity to my thought? 4 MR. GROBER: I guess for that, for further 5 clarification, I don't know if you have a copy of that, but 6 it would be the prior page, Page 34, that shows a table of 7 discharges for the drainage project area. 8 MR. PORGANS: I have that. Thank you. Is that the 9 information you're referring to, Mr. Grober? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. So as we had seen previously, 1986 11 was a very wet year in the basin. And what this shows for 12 discharge in Table 16 from the drainage project area for 13 1987 was, actually, higher than 1986. 14 So this statement was referring to the fact that 15 although discharge in the San Joaquin basin was lower than 16 in '87 than it was 1986, it was, in fact, higher from the 17 drainage project area suggesting that it is a function of 18 antecedent conditions in the San Joaquin River basin. 19 MR. PORGANS: And is that increase in the amount of 20 load coming out attributable to the antecedent conditions? 21 Do you have any idea where that additional load would 22 originate that's being discharged under those high flood 23 flow conditions out of the DPA? 24 MR. GROBER: Okay, we've been discussing discharge so 25 far. So I'm just looking at the load numbers. The load CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5929 1 numbers are also higher in '87 than in 1986. And you're 2 asking? 3 MR. PORGANS: Why would that difference occur? Why 4 do you believe that difference occurred between '86 and 5 '87? 6 MR. GROBER: That may occur for a number of reasons. 7 MR. PORGANS: Would you explain them to us? 8 MR. GROBER: It would depend a lot on practices 9 within the drainage project area, what other things that 10 are going on. 11 MR. PORGANS: What kind of practices are we speaking 12 of? 13 MR. GROBER: Just in terms of agriculture practices, 14 how water is applied, timing, things of that nature, the 15 quality of water. It also suggests with antecedent 16 conditions that there could be discharge of accumulated 17 salts. 18 MR. PORGANS: There could be accumulated salts in the 19 soils there within the DPA, is that what you're saying? 20 MR. GROBER: From a dry year, yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: So this salt deposition could be, as we 22 referred to earlier, cumulative within this DPA area? 23 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. I don't understand the 24 question. 25 MR. PORGANS: Earlier we were talking about the net CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5930 1 gain in salts within the DMC area, 207,000 tons. And I'm 2 asking: Did I understand you to say that based upon the 3 antecedent conditions, which would include irrigation 4 practices, would net gain in salts be a part of that -- 5 could that be a part of that load? 6 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. Are you now referring to 7 this drainage project area, or -- 8 MR. PORGANS: I'm just referring to the DPA for this 9 point, because that's what you made reference to in your 10 comment. You said the suggested discharges from the DPA 11 are related to antecedent conditions in the San Joaquin 12 River basin. 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. And, then, looking at this Table 14 16, looking not only at discharge but the fact that that 15 increased from '86 to '87 from 214,000 tons to 241,000 tons 16 that there's some increase in load. And that, also, 17 perhaps, could be as a result of the facts because of 18 antecedent conditions to the dry year following a wet year, 19 which is following a wet year. 20 MR. PORGANS: That's a good answer. Thank you. In 21 looking at '86 through '95 that period of time, it's my 22 understanding that a great deal of effort has been 23 undertaken within the DPA, you know, either the DOP's, or 24 the BMP's and water conservation practices, sprinklers, 25 installation of tile drainage, et cetera. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5931 1 Is it your understanding that great effort has 2 been undertaken within that area to reduce loads from that 3 period of '86 through '95? 4 MR. GROBER: I haven't been involved with a lot of 5 what has been going on over that time period. 6 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, I thought you said you 7 were somewhat involved in the Grassland Channel Bypass 8 Project yesterday. Are you somewhat familiar with the 9 Grassland Channel Bypass Project? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, sir. 11 MR. PORGANS: The question I have is between the 12 period of 1986 to 1995, is it your understanding that a 13 great deal of effort has been undertaken within the DPA 14 area in terms of the DOP's, the BMP's, water conservation, 15 installation of additional tile drains, et cetera, for that 16 area, sprinklers, is that your understanding? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: The Regional Board's basin plan that 18 was amended -- that was adopted in 1988 sought the use of 19 best management practices, improved irrigation measures and 20 so forth, within that area as a means of reducing selenium 21 loads being discharged from this area to the San Joaquin 22 River. 23 We worked with the districts in that area and 24 promoted use of better management of irrigation water. I'm 25 not able to quantify that, but there was an effort underway CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5932 1 within that area to improve irrigation efficiency. And so 2 that was part of our program. 3 MR. PORGANS: Yes. And in that '88 plan they said 4 they would do the drainage operation plans first and then 5 go best-management practices. And then if we couldn't 6 reduce the loads to a satisfactory level we would get into 7 establishing waste discharge requirements, or something to 8 that affect. Does that sound about right to you? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: Yeah. The drainage operation plans 10 were intended to provide an annual report to the Regional 11 Board on activities at a district level, sort of an 12 overview of what's -- what the water management was like in 13 that area. 14 And you, generally, described what the intent was 15 is to use best management practices, assess progress 16 through the drainage operation plan. And the plan did call 17 for waste use discharge requirements as a possible 18 approach. It said -- it said the Board may use WDR's. 19 MR. PORGANS: So is it fair to say, then, that there 20 has been an improvement in terms of reducing load within 21 the area by those that are partaking in the Grassland 22 Channel Bypass Project? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: There was an effort to improve 24 irrigation efficiency, yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: And in the base, in that Grassland CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5933 1 Channel Bypass Project they came up with a target load. 2 Was that target load 6,660 pounds for selenium? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: Just a second. I thought I had 4 something that could verify that. I don't believe I 5 brought it this morning, but that's the number that I 6 recollect, yes. 7 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. And looking at the -- do we 8 have information there that shows us what's going on within 9 the grasslands water -- Grassland Channel Bypass Project in 10 terms of total selenium load? Is it anywhere on there? I 11 know that the project -- excuse me, the project became 12 operable in '96, but are any of those figures 13 representative of loads, selenium load coming out of the 14 DPA area? 15 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. You seemed to ask -- first 16 you said "Grassland Bypass Project," and then you said the 17 "DPA." 18 MR. PORGANS: These predate, this is '86 through '95. 19 So the Grasslands Channel Bypass Project wasn't in effect 20 at that time. 21 MR. GROBER: So the Table 16 indicates that thoseare 22 annual loads of flow-weighted concentration from drainage 23 problem area, or project area. 24 MR. PORGANS: And is that the one at the top there? 25 MR. GROBER: That's the top table, Table Number 16 on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5934 1 Page 34. 2 MR. PORGANS: So it shows us that in 1986, for 3 example, which was a wet year, we had 9,524 pounds of 4 selenium? 5 MR. GROBER: Yes, that's what it shows. 6 MR. PORGANS: And then after several years of 7 implementing various types of programs to effectively 8 reduce selenium load, minus the Grassland Channel Bypass 9 Project, that the loads actually seem to increase in '95; 10 is that what the data shows? 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I ask that the question be read 12 back? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's wait until they're finished with 14 their consultation. We're going to read back the question 15 at the request of Mr. Birmingham. Go ahead, Mary. 16 (Whereupon the question was read back by the Reporter.) 17 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Vague as to location. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And I'm going to object on the 19 grounds that it misstates the evidence in as much as the 20 evidence establishes that the Grassland Bypass Project was 21 not implemented until 1996. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans? 23 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I said 24 excluding the Grassland Channel Bypass. I can rephrase the 25 question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5935 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you do that, Mr. Porgans, try it 2 again? 3 MR. PORGANS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 4 Looking at that table 1986 through 1995, 5 recognizing this is -- excuse me, is that the drainage 6 problem area or the drainage project area? 7 MR. GROBER: Table 16 shows the data for the drainage 8 problem area, or drainage project area. 9 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. And to your knowledge, 10 either you or to Mr. Schnagl, is that drainage problem area 11 representative to a large extent to what is now the 12 Grasslands Channel Bypass area? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. That's including the same general 14 area, yes. 15 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Now, looking at the 16 information and the data says between -- in 1986 we had 17 67,000 acre-feet of flow and we had 9,524 pounds of 18 selenium; is that correct, Mr. Grober? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes, it is. 20 MR. PORGANS: And then you know as discussed with 21 Mr. Schnagl, there was in 1988 the Basin Plan Amendment 22 which made recommendation to provide means to better manage 23 the selenium and salt related problems in that area. 24 Can you explain to us why in 1995 there appears to 25 be reduction in flow, but an increase in the amount of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5936 1 selenium? It states there's 11,875 pounds, can you explain 2 why that happened? 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm going to object to the question 4 on the grounds that it's compound. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Who was the question directed to, 6 Mr. Porgans? 7 MR. PORGANS: To Mr. Grober. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Grober, do you understand the 9 question? 10 MR. GROBER: Well, I was just going to ask to be even 11 more clear, again. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 13 MR. GROBER: Comparing what years to what years and 14 what to what? 15 C.O. CAFFREY: The witness is having some difficulty. 16 Please, try to break it down a little bit, Mr. Porgans. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. In 1986, which was a wet 18 year, that table shows there was 67,000 acre-feet of flow 19 and 9,524 pounds of selenium; is that correct, Mr. Grober? 20 MR. GROBER: Yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: 1995 was also a wet year. And it shows 22 that there were 57,574 acre-feet of water with an 11,875 23 pounds of selenium; is that correct, Mr. Grober? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. PORGANS: Could you explain to me why we had that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5937 1 increase in the load after certain measures had been taken 2 to reduce the load? 3 MR. GROBER: Again, that's -- that seems a compound 4 question. You're saying: Can I explain the load, but then 5 you're adding "after measures have been taken to reduce -- 6 MR. PORGANS: Strike "after the measures." Can you 7 tell me why -- can you explain to us why there is an 8 increase in load? 9 MR. GROBER: There could be, I imagine, many things 10 that could account for the increase in load, there's a lot 11 of information we do not have here and I'm not aware of. 12 But one possible reason for an increase in load is 13 some of the suggestion and discussion of the antecedent 14 conditions -- I'm sorry not the antecedent conditions, but 15 the fact that you have a wet year, or a wetter year 16 following a drier -- a series of drier years. 17 MR. PORGANS: Okay. I'm going to get back to that in 18 a minute, but I want to introduce an exhibit, 19 Mr. Chairperson. I believe it would be Porgans's Number 5. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: So this is a new exhibit, 21 Mr. Porgans? 22 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: It's not in the record? 24 MR. PORGANS: I had to talk to one of my associates 25 about it, but -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5938 1 C.O. CAFFREY: You know you have to make a gazillion 2 copies now, don't you as opposed to something that's in the 3 record. 4 MR. PORGANS: It's not in the record -- excuse me, 5 could you check to see if it's in the record? 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you identify it for us and 7 we'll see. 8 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a 9 report, it's a staff report from the Regional Water Quality 10 Control Board Central Valley Region, "Water Quality of the 11 Lower San Joaquin River Landers Avenue to Vernalis," 12 October 1995 through September 1997, water years '96 and 13 '97 dated September 1998. 14 MS. WHITNEY: I think it may be in the record. I 15 think one of the other parties might have introduced it. 16 MR. HARRIGFELD: South Delta had introduced the one 17 that was applicable to the grasslands area. This was 18 another report that was distributed at the same time, but 19 it applies to the Lander to Vernalis. 20 So I have not introduced that. And I'm not aware 21 that anyone else has, because it came out in September of 22 '98. And it is a draft document. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. Mr. Herrick -- thank you, 24 Ms. Harrigfeld -- go ahead. 25 MR. HERRICK: Yeah. I introduced the other report CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5939 1 Ms. Harrigfeld is referring to, but I didn't introduce 2 this. So it's not part of South Delta exhibits. 3 MR. PORGANS: Did you want to introduce it? 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe he has a bigger budget than you, 5 Mr. Porgans. 6 MR. PORGANS: Probably does. 7 MR. HERRICK: Not necessarily. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Now, what's the rule on this? 9 If I understand it, Ms. Leidigh, if this is not -- even 10 though it's a public document, if it's not in our record as 11 an evidentiary exhibit then he can't just do it by 12 reference, he has to provide copies? 13 MS. LEIDIGH: That's correct, he does need to provide 14 copies to the parties if it's a document that is not in the 15 Board's files someplace. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Okay, Mr. Porgans, sorry 17 it's not in the record. Go ahead. 18 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm going 19 to show you this Porgans's Exhibit 5 which was just 20 referenced and give you the opportunity to read it. 21 First of all, were either one of you involved in 22 composing the information contained in that report? 23 MR. GROBER: I was. 24 MR. PORGANS: Were you, Mr. Schnagl? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I reviewed the report. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5940 1 MR. PORGANS: So you're both aware of report? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 3 MR. PORGANS: I'm showing you now Page 3 of Porgans's 4 Exhibit 5. 5 MR. GROBER: Okay. Shall I read that? 6 MR. PORGANS: Yes, please. 7 MR. GROBER: 8 (Reading): 9 "When compared to annual records since water 10 year 1986 and those during wet water years 1996 11 and 1997 were similar to loads for water year 12 1986, but lower than loads during wet water year 13 1995 even though annual discharge for water year 14 1997 was the highest on record. 15 Water year 1995 followed several years of dry 16 and critically dry years. High loads of all 17 constituents in 1995 likely resulted from the 18 leaching of salts that had accumulated in the 19 basin during previous years. 20 Generally, lower loads of all constituents in 21 1996 and 1997 was likely due to lower residual 22 salt loads from the grassland watershed 23 following a series of wet years." 24 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me, Mr. Porgans. Do you know 25 what page that is from? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5941 1 MR. PORGANS: Page 3. Looking at that sentence 2 there, "High loads of all constituents in '95 likely 3 resulted from the leaching of salts that accumulated in the 4 basin during previous years," could you explain that to me, 5 Mr. Grober? 6 MR. GROBER: That's just suggesting that it was an 7 accumulation of salts during dryer years that were then 8 leached with the increased water, rainfall during a wet 9 year. 10 MR. PORGANS: Accumulating where? 11 MR. GROBER: I would have to check the report and see 12 the context. 13 MR. PORGANS: Is it accumulating in the drainage 14 problem area? Is it accumulating in the DMC area? 15 MR. GROBER: I would say, in general, that would 16 apply it to all areas. 17 MR. PORGANS: And would that also apply to lands that 18 are irrigated? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. PORGANS: And would that also possibly include 21 some of the net gain in salt that comes into the basin from 22 water inputs? 23 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, account for in what way? 24 MR. PORGANS: Could that be -- 25 MR. GROBER: Can you restate the question? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5942 1 MR. PORGANS: Could that accumulated salt be derived 2 from imported waters also into the basin deposited upon 3 those soils that were just referred to? 4 MR. GROBER: Yes. 5 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea what percentage 6 that would involve? 7 MR. GROBER: What do you mean by "percentage"? 8 MR. PORGANS: Of the load in relationship to the 9 accumulated salt. 10 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, I still don't understand 11 which load and accumulated -- 12 MR. PORGANS: Well, you're saying the high loads of 13 all constituents in 1995 likely resulted from the leaching 14 of salts that accumulated in the basin during previous 15 years. 16 So what I'm asking you is: Do we have any idea 17 what percentage of that load is attributable to importation 18 and net gain in salts? 19 MR. GROBER: No. 20 MR. PORGANS: Does anyone, to your knowledge, have 21 that? 22 MR. GROBER: I don't know. 23 MR. PORGANS: What would it take to get that 24 information, Mr. Grober? 25 MR. GROBER: That's not a simple question to answer. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5943 1 And I'm not sure that I can tell you. 2 MR. PORGANS: Is it something that the Regional Board 3 ever discussed to your knowledge? 4 MR. GROBER: I don't -- I'm not party to discusses of 5 the Regional Board. 6 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, do you have any idea if 7 this particular issue has ever been discussed before the 8 Regional Board? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: Could you restate the issue, please? 10 MR. PORGANS: I was asking the question about whether 11 we have any -- has anyone ever asked the question as to 12 what the net gain in salt is in relationship to the 13 increase in loads during high water years within the area 14 in question? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: We have no project focusing in on that 16 issue. This statement is from the data report that 17 basically presents the results of monitoring conducted by 18 our office. With respect to that question, the report 19 doesn't answer it. And we have plans to try to calculate 20 that at this point. 21 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Schnagl. I'm going to 22 refer to Page 37 of Porgans' Exhibit 5. Put it up there, 23 please. 24 Are you familiar with that Figure 12 that's 25 displayed there on the overhead, Mr. Grober? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5944 1 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. The Figure 13? 2 MR. PORGANS: No, 12. 3 MR. GROBER: Oh, I'm sorry. 12, yes. 4 MR. PORGANS: If you don't see it, I apologize. 5 MR. GROBER: Yes. 6 MR. PORGANS: Okay. In looking at Figure 12 from 7 Page 37 of Porgans' Exhibit 5, looking at water year '95, 8 was that a wet year? 9 MR. GROBER: It was a relatively wet year, yes. I'm 10 not sure of the classification, I'd have to check that. 11 MR. PORGANS: And '96, to your recollection, was that 12 a wet year? 13 MR. GROBER: I'd also have to check. As you can see 14 here it's a relatively wet year compared to the other years 15 shown '87 through '94. 16 MR. PORGANS: And it looks higher than '86; is that 17 correct? Excuse me, strike that. Was '97 a wet year? 18 MR. GROBER: Yes. 19 MR. PORGANS: Was '98 a wet year? 20 MR. GROBER: I think, again, it was a relatively wet 21 year, yes. 22 MR. PORGANS: Now, going back to South Delta Water 23 Exhibit Number 55, do you want me to put it back up there 24 for you, or do you want me to read it to you? Whatever is 25 best for you. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5945 1 MR. GROBER: Perhaps, put it back up. 2 MR. PORGANS: Going back to that paragraph there on 3 the bottom of the page it states, quote, 4 (Reading): 5 "High loads of all constituents in '95 likely 6 resulted from the leaching of salts that had 7 accumulated in the basin during previous years." 8 Is that correct? 9 MR. GROBER: That's what it says. 10 MR. PORGANS: Going back to Porgans' Exhibit 5, 11 Figure 12, we had -- apparently based on your statement 12 '95, '96, and '97 were wet years, or appear to be wet 13 years. But there also appears to be -- does there appear 14 to be an increase -- excuse me. Sorry. 15 Looking at Figure 13 of Porgans' Exhibit 5, do you 16 recognize that figure, Mr. Grober? 17 MR. GROBER: Yes. 18 MR. PORGANS: And it states: 19 (Reading): 20 "Annual salt loads from the drainage project 21 area grasslands watershed in the San Joaquin 22 River at Crows Landing and Vernalis for water 23 years '86 through '97." 24 Does it appear that '95 and '96 and '97, the 25 annual salt loads were consistently high as opposed to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5946 1 previous years? 2 MR. GROBER: For which area are you asking? 3 MR. PORGANS: For the area at the San Joaquin River 4 near Vernalis. 5 MR. GROBER: Yes. '95 and '97 were the highest for 6 the entire period. And '96 was only lower than '86. 7 MR. PORGANS: But they were higher -- with the 8 exception of '86, they were higher than all the years prior 9 to that time; is that correct? 10 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 11 MR. PORGANS: And you did say that it had something 12 to do with antecedent conditions and -- et cetera, 13 precipitation, runoff? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Misstates the testimony. 15 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Excuse me, I'll restate the 16 question. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 18 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. In your -- in South Delta 19 Water Exhibit 55, which I just had up there on Page 3, you 20 said: 21 (Reading): 22 "High loads of all constituents in 1995 resulted 23 from the leaching of salts that accumulated in 24 the basin during previous years." 25 MR. GROBER: It was something like that. I'd have to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5947 1 look at it again, but that sounds about correct. 2 MR. PORGANS: Would you like to look at it? 3 MR. GROBER: Sure. 4 (Reading): 5 "Water year 1995 followed several years of dry 6 and critically dry years. High loads of all 7 constituents in 1995 likely resulted in the 8 leaching of salts that had accumulated in the 9 basin during previous years." 10 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Grober. So now we 11 have -- excuse me. Do you know what the 1998 loads are, 12 are they higher than 1997 at Vernalis? 13 MR. GROBER: I don't recall. I haven't worked up 14 that data. 15 MR. PORGANS: Well, looking at the data that's 16 presented in Figure 13 it looks like we had three wet years 17 in a row. So based on your statement here you're saying 18 that the high load of all constituents in '95 likely 19 resulted from the leaching of salts that had accumulated in 20 the basin during previous years. How does -- 21 MR. GROBER: Yeah. Maybe just for a point of 22 clarification, if we just want to look at some of the data, 23 or some of the conclusions, or simple conclusions, that I 24 might draw from that. If you look high in the watershed 25 and in the drainage project area, in fact, you see from '95 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5948 1 through '97 a decrease in salt loading in each year. Even 2 though as we saw previously, '97 was a much wetter year 3 than '96 we had lower salt loads from the drainage project 4 area. Similarly, from the grassland watershed there was 5 also generally the same or lower loads from '95 to '96 and 6 '96 to '97. 7 MR. PORGANS: But we're talking in terms of total 8 loading at the San Joaquin River near Vernalis. 9 MR. GROBER: Okay. When we're looking at the San 10 Joaquin River near Vernalis, we're looking at many 11 different sources -- 12 MR. PORGANS: I understand that. 13 MR. GROBER: -- and the area is highly dependent upon 14 salt loading from east side tributaries. 15 MR. PORGANS: And what contribution does the east 16 side, generally on average, contribute to the salt loads in 17 the -- 18 MR. GROBER: Though I don't want to guess at a number 19 on average, what we're discussing here are some wet years 20 in which case they may make a higher contribution to the 21 salt load in wet years. 22 MR. PORGANS: Let's say on average between, say, '85 23 and '94. 24 MR. GROBER: Again, I've got too many numbers I deal 25 with, I don't want to guess at a figure. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5949 1 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl, do you have any idea, is 2 it 15 percent from the east side tributaries? Is it 20 3 percent, or do you know? 4 MR. SCHNAGL: No. We've had some figures that we've 5 looked at during the hearing here that provided that 6 information, but I can't remember the number. 7 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Oh, you have a number there? 8 MR. GROBER: That provides some of the numbers. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Stockton East Water Exhibit 7-A. 10 MR. PORGANS: What is that, South -- 11 MS.HARRIGFELD: Stockton East Water District's 12 Exhibit 7-A. 13 MR. GROBER: That lower pie chart shows the mean 14 contribution from various sources. And that's the mean 15 from 1977 through '97. And the numbers that you would be 16 most interested in are starting at 12:00 o'clock on the pie 17 chart, 9 percent. And 1:00 o'clock is for the San Joaquin 18 River upstream of the grassland watershed. And then the 19 three other percentages, the 4, 9, and 6 percent from 10:00 20 to 12:00 are from the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus. So 21 for a total there of 38 percent. 22 MR. PORGANS: So it's your understanding that 38 23 percent of the salt load is coming from the east side? 24 MR. GROBER: On a mean annual basis for 1977 through 25 1997 and with some further assumptions about the 1977 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5950 1 through '85 period, because there was not much data 2 available. 3 MR. PORGANS: And the remaining 62 percent is coming 4 from where? 5 MR. GROBER: It's coming from -- looking at this pie 6 area from the Area 2, 37 percent from the grassland 7 watershed. And the balance 35 percent from the north west 8 side of the San Joaquin River downstream of the grassland 9 watershed and upstream of Vernalis. 10 MR. PORGANS: So for the most part that's the west 11 side? 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. Although, that number is also 13 solved by difference. 14 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Schnagl -- 15 MR. GROBER: If I might, perhaps, just for extra 16 clarification, if you wouldn't mind on lowering that a 17 little bit, since we were concentrating on some recent 18 years. And you can see -- perhaps, you can see for '95, 19 '96 and '97, the last three years, the lower two bands 20 which are the -- I'm sorry. 21 MR. PORGANS: Did you want to point to them? 22 MR. GROBER: Thank you. Pointing to the lower two 23 bands of this area chart and that is showing the northwest 24 side and the grassland watershed with some higher than 25 intervening dry periods coming from the east side CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5951 1 tributaries and the San Joaquin River upstream. 2 MR. PORGANS: Yesterday there was a question raised, 3 or a statement made relevant to the Westlands Water 4 District. I think there's about 500,000 acres in the 5 Westlands Water District. To your knowledge there's -- 6 there's no discharge, surface-water discharge coming off 7 the Westlands Water District contributing to these loads, 8 is there? Either one of the two of you can answer that. 9 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, our program hasn't been 10 evaluating discharges from the Westlands Water District. 11 We've been working on the section of the San Joaquin River 12 basically from Lander Avenue downstream. 13 MR. PORGANS: Well, you're familiar with water 14 quality, State Board Water Rights Decision 85-1 relative to 15 Kesterson? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: I've heard of it, yes. 17 MR. PORGANS: Well, subsequent to the issuance of 18 that order, it's my understanding -- or do you know that 19 the Westlands Water District has a no-discharge policy in 20 effect? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: I'm not familiar with Westlands' 22 policies, no. 23 MR. PORGANS: Do you know of any -- do either one of 24 the two of you know of any water -- agricultural drainage 25 water, either surface or subsurface, that's being CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5952 1 discharged from the Westlands Water District that may be 2 contributing to this load? 3 MR. GROBER: I'm not aware of it. 4 MR. PORGANS: Do either one of the two of you have 5 any idea what the selenium load would be in the 6 grassland -- excuse me, the Westlands Water District area 7 on an annual basis? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 9 MR. GROBER: No. 10 MR. PORGANS: Either one of the two of you familiar 11 with the Kesterson wildlife refuge disaster -- or excuse 12 me, fiasco? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I'm familiar with Kesterson Reservoir 14 and wildlife refuge area, yes. 15 MR. PORGANS: Do you know -- are you aware of the -- 16 do you know when they started discharging agricultural 17 drainage water from Westlands Water District into the 18 Kesterson wildlife area? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm going to object on the grounds 20 of relevance. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: You want to give us a little 22 information, Mr. Porgans, as to what the relevance is here? 23 MR. PORGANS: Yeah. What I'm trying to do, 24 Mr. Chairman, is help Mr. Birmingham out. I'm trying to 25 establish the fact that the Westlands is not loading in to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5953 1 the system, so that load is more or less stored as a stored 2 load. 3 And I'm trying to get at, you know, what that 4 means if Westlands sometime in the future gets to the 5 position where they can release water again into the basin 6 vis-a-vis the San Joaquin drain. And there's one last 7 point, Mr. Chairperson, I want to establish the fact that 8 between 1981 and 1985 there were 17,500 pounds of selenium 9 that was dumped into the Kesterson Reservoir. And I'm 10 trying to find out where that selenium is now. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If Mr. Porgans is trying to 13 establish what Westlands might do in the future in terms of 14 discharges, I think the question lacks foundation. These 15 witnesses have testified that they're not familiar with the 16 situation in the Westlands Water District. 17 Moreover, in terms of what happened historically, 18 the State Board has a record of what happened in Kesterson. 19 The basis of 1985 water -- I believe it was a water quality 20 decision by this Board. And there's a subsequent history 21 that the Board has in its files related to the cleanup of 22 Kesterson by the Bureau of Reclamation. And so I don't 23 know that these witnesses can answer these questions, but I 24 still don't see the relevance. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I'm having a little difficulty CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5954 1 with the relevance, too, Mr. Porgans, because what we're 2 trying to do here is establish who is responsible through 3 their water rights for meeting the dissolved oxygen and 4 Southern Delta salinity objectives in the '95 plan. 5 So these are, perhaps, arguments that you might be 6 able to make at the end of the entire proceeding in a 7 closing argument of some kind, a written closing argument. 8 But, again, I would just say that had you 9 presented a case in chief it might be a little bit easier. 10 But I really, number one, there are some gray areas about 11 relevance, we all know that, but this one seems to be 12 pushing the envelope. And, secondly, there seems to be 13 some real question as to the knowledge of these witnesses 14 and the appropriateness of them to be the ones that are 15 questioned. So if you wouldn't mind, sir, let's go on to 16 something else. 17 MR. PORGANS: Sure. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 19 MR. PORGANS: I will make that comment when I close 20 for Mr. Birmingham in his files. Looking at Porgans 21 Exhibit 5, and this would be page -- looks like page 38, 22 Figure 15. 23 Do either one of you recognize that chart? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes. 25 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5955 1 MR. PORGANS: Now, looking at Figure 15 it says: 2 (Reading): 3 "Annual selenium loads from the drainage project 4 area, grasslands watershed and San Joaquin River 5 at Crows Landing at Vernalis for water years '86 6 through '97." 7 Is that what it depicts there? 8 MR. GROBER: Yes. 9 MR. PORGANS: And looking at the drainage problem 10 area and looking at the selenium loads in 1986, the 11 selenium load was at about -- what is that figure there, 12 Mr. Grober? 13 MR. GROBER: Well, it's difficult to see from the 14 chart, but approximately 9500 pounds. 15 MR. PORGANS: And in '87 it was what? 16 MR. GROBER: It looks like about 11,000 pounds. 17 MR. PORGANS: And between 1988 through 1994, which as 18 stated earlier were relatively dry years, the selenium load 19 was lower than what it was in '87; is that correct? 20 MR. GROBER: Yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: But in 1995 it shows that the selenium 22 load is up, again. What's the figure there? 23 MR. GROBER: Looks like it's just under 12,000 24 pounds. 25 MR. PORGANS: And, Mr. Schnagl, when did the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5956 1 Grassland Channel Bypass Project become operable? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: September 1996. 3 MR. PORGANS: And can you tell us -- we talked 4 earlier about the target load of 6,660 pounds. And the 5 first year that we would consider the project to be 6 operable would have been 1997; is that correct? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 8 MR. PORGANS: And what is the -- is the selenium 9 load -- what's the selenium load there for the grassland -- 10 for the drainage project area? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: That's difficult to read off of this 12 graph, but it's roughly 7,000 pounds. 13 MR. PORGANS: And is that 7,000 pounds in excess of 14 the target load? 15 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Cumulative. Mr. McGahan 16 testified to all of these facts when he was being 17 questioned the other day, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, 18 offered an explanation as to why in 1997 the selenium load 19 exceeded the target load for the Grassland Channel Bypass 20 Project area. This testimony has all been talked about 21 before. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment. It is true that this 23 is an asked-and-answered situation. What additional 24 information do you want besides what's already been put in 25 the record by Mr. McGahan, Mr. Porgans? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5957 1 MR. PORGANS: Well, there's two things going on here. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Let him answer and then I'll go to 4 you, Mr. Nomellini. 5 MR. PORGANS: There's two things going on here. 6 Mr. McGahan represents the clients down in the drainage 7 project area. This gentleman represents the people of the 8 State of California. He may be able to give me some 9 additional insight on something that Mr. McGahan wasn't 10 able to provide. And as I noted, I took exception to 11 Mr. McGahan as an expert witness. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Porgans. 13 Mr. Nomellini? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: I would merely add this is 15 cross-examination of these witnesses not Mr. McGahan. And 16 so whether a question was asked of Mr. McGahan should not 17 detract from Mr. Porgans' ability to cross-examine these 18 witnesses. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 20 Ms. Zolezzi? 21 MS. ZOLEZZI: Asked and answered in my view applies 22 to the same witness, not a different witness. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. Anything else, 24 Mr. Porgans, you were going to say anything else, or do you 25 want to leave it there? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5958 1 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Objection overruled. You 3 may go ahead with the question. 4 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 5 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the 6 record, my objection was based on the cumulative nature of 7 the evidence presented not on the asked-and-answered 8 objection that Ms. Zolezzi and Mr. Nomellini referred to. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that classification, 10 Mr. Sexton. 11 Mr. Nomellini? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Makes no difference. This is 13 cross-examination of these particular witnesses. As long 14 as we continue to have witnesses with different opinions 15 and different testimony, the same type of evidence may be 16 rehashed again under cross-examination. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. My ruling still stands. 18 I'm going to let the -- appreciate the clarification and 19 the opinions from the gentlemen. I'm going to let 20 Mr. Porgans ask the question, let the witness answer it. 21 Go ahead. 22 MR. PORGANS: I'd like to get out of here by 12:00 if 23 it's possible, Mr. Chairperson. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: You seem to be the person in charge of 25 that, Mr. Porgans. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5959 1 MR. PORGANS: I keep getting objections, but anyway 2 the question I have is: 3 In 1998 what was the selenium load for the 4 Grassland Channel Bypass Project, the estimated load, 5 Mr. Schnagl? 6 MR. SCHNAGL: As far as I know I have not seen any 7 estimated load for water year 1998 for the bypass project. 8 MR. PORGANS: Mr. Grober, I had -- I questioned this 9 gentleman, Mr. McGahan, and he mentioned that the load -- 10 he agreed that the load was about 8900 pounds, or 11 thereabouts in selenium. Does that ring a bell to you? 12 MR. GROBER: I haven't reviewed the '98 loads yet. 13 MR. PORGANS: So you haven't seen any of the 14 preliminary numbers? 15 MR. GROBER: I've seen some preliminary numbers, but 16 I just don't recall what the totals were. 17 MR. PORGANS: And that 8900 pounds doesn't ring a 18 bell to you over there, Mr. Schnagl? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: At this point we don't have all the 20 selenium analyses in for the full water year. So any 21 estimate is clearly just that. Mr. McGahan may have come 22 up with an estimate, but we have not. 23 MR. PORGANS: But you do -- there are measurements, 24 monthly measurements that tell us what the loads are within 25 the -- within the Grasslands Channel Bypass Project area, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5960 1 are there not? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, there are. And I haven't seen the 3 monthly load numbers for the last several months of the 4 water year. 5 MR. PORGANS: For the sake of discussion, let's say 6 that Mr. McGahan's number -- we'll use Mr. McGahan's number 7 because he's obviously working out there and you can weigh 8 the validity of his number. 9 But let's say 8900 pounds was the number. Would 10 that be in excess of the target load? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, it would. 12 MR. PORGANS: And don't we have a prohibition, an 13 8,000-pound prohibition for selenium discharge, is that in 14 the basin plan, or is that part of the use agreement, do 15 you know? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: Maybe this requires some clarification. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 18 MR. SCHNAGL: The target load that you're referring 19 to is an agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and 20 the grassland area farmers as to what loads would be 21 discharged from the drain. The 8,000 pounds is a figure 22 that I'm familiar with. It is a part of our Regional Board 23 basin plan. 24 There is a prohibition of discharge for the 25 discharge of selenium in excess of 8,000 pounds from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5961 1 subsurface ag drainage in the grassland watershed through 2 the San Joaquin River. So you've got two different numbers 3 from two different sources. 4 MR. PORGANS: Okay. But the 8,000 pounds does that 5 apply to total selenium coming out of the DPA, or is that 6 total selenium from all sources into the San Joaquin River? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: It's a limit on selenium from 8 subsurface agricultural drainage within the grassland 9 bypass -- grassland watershed area to the San Joaquin 10 River. 11 MR. PORGANS: Okay. So then -- 12 MR. GROBER: To clarify, within the drainage project 13 area versus within the grassland watershed. 14 MR. SCHNAGL: Let me check the wording on that. 15 Okay, I'll just read from our basin plan. Prohibition 16 section of the implementation chapter contains the 17 following -- 18 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me, is that an exhibit of sorts 19 that's already in the record? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe our basin plan has been 21 entered into the record, the Regional Water Quality Control 22 Plan for the San Joaquin River basin. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: And I don't know that it has to be. 24 MS. WHITNEY: It's Number 10. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: If he brings it with him and chooses CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5962 1 to read from it as part of his answer, does that 2 necessarily mean it has to be an exhibit in the record, 3 this is cross-examination. Am I wrong, Ms. Leidigh? 4 MS. LEIDIGH: No, I think you're right. It does not 5 have to be if he says that this is what the requirement is 6 in the objective. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: So it does not have to be entered. 8 MS. LEIDIGH: Right. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: If you identify it in your answer, as 10 you have, Mr. Schnagl. Thank you, sir. Please, proceed. 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Thank you. I'll read it straight as it 12 comes from the basin plan. 13 (Reading): 14 "The discharge of selenium from agricultural 15 subsurface drainage systems in the grassland 16 watershed to the San Joaquin River is prohibited 17 in amounts exceeding 8,000 pounds per year in -- 18 for all water year types beginning in January 19 1997." 20 MR. PORGANS: So are there any discussions, to your 21 knowledge, underway over there at your office relevant to 22 the possible exceedance of the 8,000-pound limitation of 23 selenium? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: We're continuously monitoring the 25 Grassland Bypass Project as well as ag drainage from the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5963 1 grassland watershed area. Currently, we are working with 2 the other agencies involved in the Grassland Bypass Project 3 to assess the monitoring for the last water year. And we, 4 certainly, will be looking at the 8,000-pound limit as part 5 of that effort. 6 MR. PORGANS: We said earlier that the project has 7 been in effect now for two years. Is that fair to say? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: A little over two years, yes. 9 MR. PORGANS: And in that period of time we've 10 implemented, in addition to those DOP's, BMP's, water 11 conservation, we've also included some additional sprinkler 12 systems within that area and some other measures in that 13 two-year period, have we not? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Asked and answered by 15 this representative of this witness. 16 MR. PORGANS: I could rephrase the question, 17 Mr. Chairperson. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: You can rephrase it to be not 19 repetitive? 20 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. 22 MR. PORGANS: To your knowledge in the '90 -- in the 23 two-year period of the project, have they implemented 24 additional programs or projects to reduce the load? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, they have. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5964 1 MR. PORGANS: Can you explain to us what they are, in 2 brief? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: There's a variety of measures they've 4 taken. They've reported changes in their water pricing. 5 They've adopted policies related to tailwater discharges to 6 surface drains operated by the water agencies. 7 They've installed controls that help in 8 controlling individual drainage systems on farms, 9 subsurface drains. And there are more recycling systems in 10 place and improvements in irrigation on various fields 11 within the area. There are -- there are a number of other 12 things that have been reported to our office. I'd have to 13 refer to the full list. I could get you a copy. 14 MR. PORGANS: No. It's safe to say that they've 15 taken measures to reduce this load? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 17 MR. PORGANS: And, yet, if we look at Figure 15 and 18 we look back to water year '86, you know, we were at -- 19 what's that figure there, tell us there, again, for the 20 drainage project area in terms of selenium load? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: I think it's around 9500. 22 MR. PORGANS: And if we use Mr. McGahan's number 23 we're at about 89 -- almost where we were in '90. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: That's a question of -- 25 MR. PORGANS: Are we not almost where we were in 1986 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5965 1 if we use Mr. McGahan's number for total selenium load? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, if the numbers speak for 3 themselves then -- 4 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. I'm going to go into the 5 basin plan amendment. I'm looking at -- I'm going to be 6 talking about the 1988 and the recent plan amendment as it 7 pertains to the agricultural drainage water. And that 8 particular -- is that 1996 for the selenium? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 10 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Now, in the -- 11 MR. SCHNAGL: I was just going to add that our Board 12 adopted it in 1996, it went into affect in January of '97 13 upon final approval by theOffice of Administrative Law. 14 MR. PORGANS: Were you familiar with the 1998 basin 15 plan, Mr. Schnagl? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: I was not involved in implementing the 17 1988 plan, but I was involved in the amendment in 1996 18 which, basically, worked off of the 1988 plan and updated 19 it. 20 MR. PORGANS: So you would have been familiar with it 21 then? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 23 MR. PORGANS: Are you familiar with Figure 1 that's 24 up there on the screen right now, which is taken from the 25 1988 basin plan? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5966 1 Excuse me, is that already in the record, 2 Mr. Chairman? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't know that the basin plan is. 4 I don't know that it has to be. It depends on the nature 5 of the questions. 6 MS. WHITNEY: Exhibit 7-B is Region 5's Basin Plan, 7 3rd Edition, 1994 and all subsequent amendments. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: So it is in? 9 MS. LEIDIGH: No, it's not. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you 11 said. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: It's not. This is 1988. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I see. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: And the staff exhibit is from 1994. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Forward. 16 MS. LEIDIGH: So this is an out-of-date basin plan. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: That he's put up here. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: So if you're -- you'll have to 20 identify it as an exhibit if you're going to -- 21 MR. PORGANS: Okay. This will be Porgans' Exhibit 6. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 23 MS. WHITNEY: Are you going to enter the entire 24 exhibit, or only this page? 25 MR. PORGANS: Only this page with the supporting page CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5967 1 to show the source of the information. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I ask? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I was going to ask that Mr. Porgans 5 is representing that this comes from the 1988 basin plan? 6 C.O. CAFFREY: That's my understanding. 7 MR. PORGANS: That's correct. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if we could have an 9 opportunity to examine the document before Mr. Porgans asks 10 questions based on the document? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I think that would be correct for 12 everybody to take a look at it. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: I have no objection. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection to doing that? I have 15 none. I think that's all right. 16 Mr. Porgans, you have one copy, or what do you 17 have? 18 MR. PORGANS: That's it right up on the screen. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 20 MR. PORGANS: If we leave it up there, you can read 21 it. 22 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman? 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Sexton. 24 MR. SEXTON: I have an objection on relevance. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry, I can't hear you, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5968 1 Mr. Sexton. 2 MR. SEXTON: I have an objection based on relevance. 3 I think I heard Staff Board Counsel just mention a few 4 moments ago state that this was an outdated basin plan. 5 Therefore, I have a question on the relevance of referring 6 to this during this proceeding. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, that's an interesting question. 8 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman? 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Campbell. 10 MR. CAMPBELL: I'd like to join in that objection. 11 If that basin plan has been superseded by the current basin 12 plan, it has no force and effect of the law. And, 13 therefore, no relevance. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me ask a question of -- well, 15 Mr. Porgans, do you wish to tell us what the relevance is 16 of an outdated basin plan? 17 MR. PORGANS: Most certainly. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, sir. 19 MR. PORGANS: I'm trying to establish the -- what do 20 you call it, the foundation for selenium in terms of 21 compliance points and periods adopted by the Board. And, 22 then, how the Board turned around and reamended the plan to 23 extend those selenium points out beyond the year 2020 -- 24 excuse me, 2010. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: And the relevance of that is? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5969 1 MR. PORGANS: To show that we have an ongoing 2 selenium problem here that's going to continue from the 3 same source. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: But, Ms. Leidigh, isn't that within 5 the authority of Board I mean that we have to make a 6 judgment whether they were wrong the first time, or right 7 the first time and wrong after the amendment, or right 8 after the amendment? Is that not a problem with the 9 relevancy? 10 MS. LEIDIGH: I don't see what making that judgment 11 has to do with deciding who is responsible for meeting the 12 objectives in the Southern Delta for salinity and dissolved 13 oxygen. We're looking at now to the future on who's 14 responsible, not whether or not the time schedules have 15 been changed. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. Mr. Nomellini. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, part of the case of some of the 18 parties has been that the Board should allow the Regional 19 Board process to deal with the selenium problems in the San 20 Joaquin River. And, therefore, the solution to the 21 salinity problems should be left there. 22 Part of the case presented by other parties is the 23 Board itself should take some action. So to me it is 24 relevant to get into whether or not the Regional Board's 25 actions are likely to lead to a solution. And, therefore, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5970 1 Mr. Porgans' line of questioning, I think, is very 2 relevant. 3 And I forget whose case it was, but I think it was 4 Sexton's case with Mr. McGahan that emphasized that the 5 efforts underway, leaving it with the Regional Board, was 6 the right approach. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, how much -- maybe this is 8 an irrelevant question from the Chair, but how much more 9 time do you need, sir? 10 MR. PORGANS: I'm almost getting down to the last 11 part of this, Mr. Chairperson. It would probably -- to be 12 honest with you, probably 30 to 45 minutes. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: 30 to 45 minutes. 14 MR. PORGANS: Could I add something else, the 15 gentleman from the Department of the Interior said that he 16 has a witness. And he was asking if I was going to be done 17 by noon. And I was told him I was going to do everything I 18 can, as a matter of fact, I told him I thought I would be. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, that's between you and the 20 gentleman from the Department of the Interior. I mean I'm 21 not a party to that. 22 MR. PORGANS: But anyway, to answer your question, 45 23 minutes. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We're going to go off the 25 record for a couple minutes here. Ms. Leidigh. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5971 1 (Off the record from 11:54 a.m. to 11:56 a.m.) 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, we're going to try 3 something a little unusual, but it's within the prerogative 4 of the Chair and within our regulations. I think if you 5 read the regulations it's referred to judges in the court, 6 this is allowed. 7 Mr. Porgans, because you are not an attorney and 8 for other reasons, I'm going to ask Ms. Leidigh to question 9 these witnesses in the area of your concern. Recognizing 10 Mr. Nomellini's observation that there are parties that 11 wish this matter to stay with the Regional Board, there are 12 parties that wish this matter to be usurped by the State 13 Board. 14 And so what I'm going to do, in the interest of, 15 perhaps, speeding things along I'm going to allow 16 Ms. Leidigh to go through a series of questions. And then 17 you can tell me if you feel that the adequate information 18 is in the record. And we'll see if we have more questions 19 to ask and whether or not you or Ms. Leidigh should ask 20 them. 21 Is that -- do you understand what I'm telling you, 22 sir? 23 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. And you have 24 to understand that I would have to in good faith, object to 25 your decision only because Ms. Leidigh doesn't know what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5972 1 questions I'm asking, but I do realize it's within your 2 purview. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I want you to understand the 4 last part of what I said. When Ms. Leidigh gets done then 5 I'll ask you if you thought that that was adequate and if 6 it satisfies you. 7 MR. PORGANS: And if it doesn't? 8 C.O. CAFFREY: If it doesn't you can give me a 9 demonstration, or a showing of why it isn't and what wasn't 10 covered and why you would like to ask more questions. 11 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: But I want to stay in the area of 13 relevancy here. And I think that the area of relevancy is 14 the one that Mr. Nomellini raises. So let's see where this 15 takes us and see if it keeps us -- keeps it in some scope 16 that we can feel comfortable with. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Ms. Leidigh. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: Thank you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: She's asking these questions on behalf 21 of the Board. 22 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. 23 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: Now, as Mr. Nomellini pointed out there 25 is some relevance here because of the basin plan having CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5973 1 been amended and there having been a time extension on 2 the -- on meeting the objectives. Is that correct? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, there was an -- 4 MS. LEIDIGH: That there was time extensions? 5 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: Okay. And what was the original date 7 that the objectives needed to be met, Mr. Schnagl, can you 8 answer that? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: I'll have to refer to something. I'll 10 give you some information. First of all, I'm not referring 11 to the figure that was put on the screen a few minutes ago. 12 I'm not familiar with that. So -- 13 MS. LEIDIGH: That's fine. 14 MR. SCHNAGL: What I'm looking at is a copy of the 15 changes that were made to the basin plan in 1996. And it 16 has a cross-out underline type of format showing me what 17 was removed and what was added in the 1996 amendment. 18 And the indication I have is that in 1996 the -- 19 there were some changes where we expected the selenium in 20 the water supply tail from the Grassland Water District to 21 meet the Board's objectives in October of 1989. We changed 22 that to, essentially, be effective in -- upon final 23 adoption of the 1996 amendment. And so that was one 24 change. 25 There was an October 1991 timetable for meeting CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5974 1 selenium and boron objections in the San Joaquin River for 2 the Merced River to Vernalis. And we have a timetable that 3 now extends out to the year 2010 for full compliance during 4 some water years. There are other examples, if you'd like 5 I can go on. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: When is the soonest date that these 7 objectives would have to be met on any of the various 8 objectives for selenium, boron and TDS? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: The only timetable we have in the basin 10 plan with respect to those three constituents that I'm 11 aware of is for selenium. The earliest timetable was for 12 full compliance of the objective for selenium in Salt 13 Slough and in the wetland water supply channels within the 14 grassland watershed. 15 And that compliance date was the effective date of 16 the basin plan amendment, which was January 10th, 1997. 17 Again, what we have in here is a compliance timetable 18 applying to various water bodies within the San Joaquin 19 basin. 20 MS. LEIDIGH: Okay. Are there any proposals 21 currently before the Regional Board to extend any of these 22 time schedules? 23 MR. SCHNAGL: Not for the selenium program, no. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: For any of the others? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: Other than the fact that we are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5975 1 developing a basin plan amendment addressing boron and 2 salts, and I expect that they -- that amendment will have 3 objectives and timetables in it, I'm not aware of anything 4 else. 5 MS. LEIDIGH: Okay. I'm not sure what else there is 6 that is really relevant here. I think we've gone through 7 the discussion of what was in the '88 plan in the way of 8 time schedules and that they have been extended and where 9 they've been extended to. 10 Mr. Porgans, were there other areas you were going 11 to cover? 12 MR. PORGANS: I just want to ask a question for 13 clarification. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. 15 MR. PORGANS: Relevant to the questions that you 16 asked. Is that okay? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. Go ahead, sir. 18 MR. PORGANS: Did you say, then, that the selenium 19 standard has been extended out to 2010? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: For some water bodies the Board has 21 given until October 1st, 2010, for full compliance with the 22 water quality objective, yes. 23 MR. PORGANS: Okay. That pretty much answers those 24 questions. Am I allowed to proceed, Mr. Chairperson? And 25 I appreciate the assistance from the -- from Counsel. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5976 1 C.O. CAFFREY: You're allowed to proceed, 2 Mr. Porgans -- 3 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: -- as long as you have questions that 5 are relevant. 6 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: How much more time are you going to 8 take, Mr. Porgans? I don't know how much time that took 9 from your 40-minute request. 10 MR. PORGANS: I'm staying with the 40 minutes. I 11 don't care if I'm done or not, I'm going to leave, because 12 I've got to go make a living. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: When you made your last statement, you 14 had a lot more than 40 minutes, but you were just going to 15 leave within 40 minutes? 16 MR. PORGANS: I'm going to leave, because there's no 17 sense -- I think we're going to get to the bottom of this 18 anyway. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: The reason I'm asking you the question 20 is I'm trying to figure whether to take the lunch break. 21 If you have more, then we ought to take it now and come 22 back at 1:15, it's 5 after 12:00. 23 MR. PORGANS: Why don't we go until 12:30 and end it. 24 Would that be okay with the Chair? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Will you stipulate that at 12:30 -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5977 1 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I will stipulate. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: No matter what the circumstances. 3 MR. PORGANS: Whatever. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: I would request that we take our 5 lunch break and come back so we do not have to fight this 6 time deal. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: You're objecting to Mr. Porgans' 8 request? 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. I'm going to allow 11 you to go to 12:30, Mr. Porgans, based on your stipulation 12 that you'll be done at 12:30 no matter what. 13 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 15 MR. PORGANS: Now, are you familiar with -- 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Which by the way doesn't mean that you 17 cannot go to lunch right now, Mr. Nomellini. I just want 18 to make it -- 19 MR. NOMELLINI: I had two cookies, I'm okay. 20 MR. PORGANS: Notice he threw the cookies in, right? 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize, Mr. Porgans, I took a 22 couple seconds from you. Go ahead. 23 MR. PORGANS: To your knowledge between 19 -- are you 24 aware of the fact that the five-parts per billion selenium 25 standard promulgated by the EPA for the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5978 1 have been violated 82 percent of time from 1988 through 2 1992, Mr. Schnagl? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I can't testify to that. 4 MR. PORGANS: Are you aware of the fact that between 5 1993 and '94 the salinity standard was violated 11 out of 6 12 months? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I'd have to refer to the data to 8 answer that. 9 MR. PORGANS: Is the selenium that's being discharged 10 into the San Joaquin River from the drainage problem area 11 higher than five-parts per billion now on average? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: At what point are you referring to as 13 the discharge point? 14 MR. PORGANS: Let's go right at the terminus of the 15 drain first. 16 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. That exceeds five parts per 17 billion. 18 MR. PORGANS: Do you have a number for us? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: It varies widely. 20 MR. PORGANS: Can you give us an average of what it 21 varies, or the variation? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Again, rather than make any estimates 23 during these proceedings, that data is readily available. 24 MR. PORGANS: What about in the San Joaquin River, is 25 the objective being met at all times, or is it exceeded, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5979 1 the five parts? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: It is being exceeded at some points in 3 the San Joaquin River. 4 MR. PORGANS: Do you have any idea of the percentage 5 in terms of an average for the year as to how much the 6 exceedance is? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: No, I can't give you that right now. 8 MR. PORGANS: I have to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, 9 if this document is in the record as of yet. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 11 MR. PORGANS: It's Grassland Channel Bypass Project 12 annual report October 1, '96, through December '97 13 published May 1998. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Does anybody know? 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: No. 16 MS. WHITNEY: It's not in the record. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: It's not in the record? 18 MS. WHITNEY: It's too new. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you want to introduce it as an 20 exhibit, Mr. Porgans? 21 MR. PORGANS: May I go off the record for a minute, 22 Mr. Chairperson? 23 C.O. CAFFREY: It's on your time, sir. 24 MR. PORGANS: It's on my time, all right. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: We're off the record. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5980 1 (Off the record.) 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Are we back on the record now? 3 MR. PORGANS: We're back on the record. I'm sorry, 4 Mr. Chairman. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: You mean we were off the record for 6 just the one comment? 7 MR. PORGANS: Yeah, I don't want that in the record. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, stranger things than that 9 are in the record, but go ahead, sir. 10 MR. PORGANS: I just didn't want her to read that. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Some of them I've said myself. 12 Go ahead. 13 MR. PORGANS: Okay. This is going to have to be 14 Exhibit -- Porgans' Exhibit 7, I believe. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 16 MR. PORGANS: And I'm just going to be providing the 17 cover sheet and the Table C-11 from that document as part 18 of my exhibit. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, sir. 20 MR. PORGANS: Would you like the full name of the 21 exhibit? 22 MS. WHITNEY: Yes, please. 23 MR. PORGANS: It's Grassland Bypass Project Annual 24 Report, October 1, '96 through September 30th, 1997, 25 prepared for the Grassland Bypass Project Oversight CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5981 1 Committee, May 19 -- May 1998, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and 3 Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, California 4 Department of Fish and Game and the San Luis and 5 Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Just by way of instruction to you, 7 Mr. Porgans, these are cross-examination exhibits. And we 8 take them into the record, or consider taking them into the 9 record along with all the other exhibits at the end of the 10 particular case in chief. 11 So if you're not going to be here for the end of 12 this case in chief, it might be wise to have one of your 13 contemporaries or cohorts just be aware of that to remind 14 us to take it in. I have notes here, but I think it's more 15 appropriate for one of the other parties to bring it up. 16 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Because you may not be here. 18 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Nomellini has just volunteered. 20 MR. PORGANS: Is he still here? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I'll do it. 22 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. Get 24 Mr. Nomellini a sandwich. Go ahead. 25 MR. PORGANS: I'll take him out to lunch. This is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5982 1 Table C-11 of Porgans' Exhibit 7. And are either one of 2 you familiar with this Table C-11? 3 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, I am. 4 MR. PORGANS: Okay. And it says in there that: 5 (Reading): 6 "Selenium water quality objectives exceedances 7 at Grassland Bypass monitoring stations." 8 It looks at Mud Slough north upstream of the 9 drainage area and south downstream of the drainage area. 10 What does that indicate there on that C-11 to you, 11 Mr. Schnagl? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: Could you be more specific? 13 MR. PORGANS: Yeah, I'll move it over. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans, if you push the projector 15 closer to the screen, you'll be able to get more of that 16 in. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 18 MEMBER BROWN: Push it up to the top. 19 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: There you go. 21 MR. PORGANS: Can you see that now, Mr. Schnagl? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, sir. Could you restate the 23 question? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. 24 MR. PORGANS: That's okay. In the -- in -- it shows 25 the site identification there in the column to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5983 1 extreme -- to our extreme left at Mud Slough north 2 downstream of the drainage discharge, what is that? Is 3 that shaded area showing the water quality objective 4 exceedances, is that what that depicts? 5 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. The shaded areas indicate sites 6 where the water quality objective was exceeded by month. 7 MR. PORGANS: And this is with the Grassland Bypass 8 Project in place, correct? 9 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 10 MR. PORGANS: So from November '96 through August of 11 '97 there were exceedances; is that correct? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: In Mud Slough north just downstream of 13 the discharge, yes. 14 MR. PORGANS: Yes. And then looking down at "N" in 15 that site i.d., San Joaquin at Crows Landing, does it also 16 show exceedances? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: During some months, yes. 18 MR. PORGANS: And on site N, does it also show 19 exceedances in certain months? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: Which listing for site N? 21 MR. PORGANS: San Joaquin River at Crows Landing, 22 "daily samples and water quality exceedances." 23 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. It shows exceedances during some 24 months. 25 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. Now, one of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5984 1 prerequisites to the Grassland Channel Bypass Project was 2 to take the load out of the 90-some-odd miles of channel 3 and then funnel it into the drain vis-a-vis the bypass; is 4 that correct? 5 MR. SCHNAGL: That was one of the goals of the 6 project, yes. 7 MR. PORGANS: And was one of the other goals of the 8 project to reduce, in those wetland channels within the 9 area, was it to reduce the selenium load below 2 parts per 10 billion? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: That is the goal of the bypass project 12 and that 2 parts per billion is the Regional Board Water 13 Quality objective for those water bodies. 14 MR. PORGANS: To your knowledge, or do you know if 15 those -- if the 2 parts per billion has been exceeded in 16 some of the wetland channel. 17 MR. SCHNAGL: It has been exceeded, yes. Can you 18 give me a time frame that you're referring to? 19 MR. PORGANS: Yes, I can in one moment, please. 20 Let's use October '96 through April '98. On salt load, do 21 you know if the 2 parts per billion were exceeded? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: In Salt Slough? 23 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 24 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe there was a short-term 25 exceedance, yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5985 1 MR. PORGANS: And what about on the San Luis Canal? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: There have been several detections 3 exceeding 2 parts per billion on the San Luis Canal during 4 that time period. 5 MR. PORGANS: Does 71 percent of the time sound like 6 a number that you can relate to? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: No. I can't testify to that, no. 8 MR. PORGANS: Porgans' Exhibit 8. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Which is, sir? 10 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. This is a statement -- this 11 is going to be a graph that I received from the U.S. Fish 12 and Wildlife Service area via a fax transmission which 13 Mr. Rudy Schnagl also received on September 10th, 1998, 14 which shows selenium concentrations in the refuge water 15 supply channel since the annual Grassland Channel Bypass 16 Project. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. 18 MR. PORGANS: Too fast? 19 C.O. CAFFREY: You got it, Mary? 20 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 21 MR. PORGANS: Good. Thank you, Mary. So this is 22 Exhibit 7. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: You going to put it on the -- 24 MR. PORGANS: Yes. 25 MS. WHITNEY: 8. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5986 1 MR. PORGANS: 8? 2 C.O. CAFFREY: This is Number 8, yes. 3 MR. PORGANS: Excuse me. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you maybe move that up a little 5 higher. 6 MR. PORGANS: Is that better? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. Thank you. 8 MR. PORGANS: You're welcome. Does this -- does this 9 data look familiar to you at all, Mr. Schnagl? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, as you pointed out, I think I 11 received a copy of this graph from the Fish and Wildlife 12 Service. 13 MR. PORGANS: Do you know the source of this 14 information, Mr. Schnagl? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe it's water quality data 16 developed through the Regional Water Quality Control 17 Board's Surface Water Monitoring Program in the grassland 18 watershed area. 19 MR. PORGANS: So looking at that it does look like 20 the exceedances have been significant in terms of 21 percentage for that period of time, does it not? Not 22 significant in over 2 parts per billion, but in terms of 23 the period in question. 24 MR. SCHNAGL: There are several exceedances shown, 25 yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5987 1 MR. PORGANS: And this is after the project has been 2 in effect for two years, correct? 3 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Mr. Chairman, the problem 4 I'm having with this testimony is I'm not going to get an 5 opportunity to cross-examine this panel again, 6 Mr. Porgans is asking questions which by their very nature 7 are misleading this Board. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Actually, you are going to get to 9 cross-examine them again. And maybe this is as good a time 10 as any to tell you what I'm going to do. As soon as the 11 cross-examination is complete, I'm going to give these 12 gentlemen an opportunity to make any kind of statement they 13 wish, because they are here as adversarial witnesses and 14 they are without counsel. 15 I'm assuming -- well, assuming that they do avail 16 themselves of that opportunity, and I offered last night, 17 are you gentlemen going to make any kind of statement after 18 cross-examination for any clarification whatsoever, any 19 point you want to make, you are -- although you are not 20 parties in the proceeding, the Regional Board has an 21 interest in this proceeding? 22 MR. GROBER: I don't believe so, but I will think 23 about it over lunch. 24 MR. SCHNAGL: Excuse me? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Then, I may stand corrected. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5988 1 Although, I'm going to offer Ms. Zolezzi and Ms. Harrigfeld 2 an opportunity to redirect, are you going to? 3 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes, we have a few questions. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Still I haven't gotten to your problem 5 yet, have we, Mr. Sexton, because that depends on the scope 6 of the redirect? 7 Ms. Leidigh and, then, Mr. Nomellini. 8 MS. LEIDIGH: Perhaps, the best way to approach the 9 problem that Mr. Sexton is raising is to suggest that he 10 could provide rebuttal evidence. He could bring in 11 Mr. McGahan, for example, and have him testify to deal with 12 some of these issues. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: This is something that came up the 14 other day when Mr. O'Laughlin wanted to cross-examine after 15 having waived. And this is not a situation, of course, 16 where Mr. Sexton has waived, but he does have the rebuttal 17 opportunity. 18 If this particular situation now with the 19 possibility of redirect and recross, doesn't scope out 20 enough to allow him to answer his questions, you still have 21 that availability, sir. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman? 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Stubchaer. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Could Mr. Sexton or anyone else 25 subpoena these witnesses for rebuttal? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5989 1 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes, they could. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: He's smiling. I don't know if it's a 3 happy smile, but that is your recourse. 4 Mr. Nomellini? 5 MR. NOMELLINI: This was my point, Mr. Chairman, both 6 points were raised, rebuttal would be appropriate for 7 Mr. Sexton to address this and could bring these parties in 8 as adverse witnesses as well if he thought it appropriate. 9 And I also have no objection to your idea of reopening 10 cross-examination either. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: That's going to be controlled by the 12 two witnesses and the two fine attorneys representing 13 Stockton East. 14 So with that I will go to Mr. Birmingham. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There's an issue that I'd like to 16 address and maybe we can do it after lunch so we don't take 17 anymore of Mr. Porgans' time before 12:30. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I understand. I may give him a couple 19 more minutes if he has time -- do you have another issue 20 that you'd like to raise? 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd like to come back to this issue, 22 but I'd like to do it after the lunch recess, if I may. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: That's fine, raise it after lunch, 24 Mr. Birmingham. 25 Go ahead, Mr. Porgans. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5990 1 MR. PORGANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you -- 2 have the -- are you aware of the fact that according to the 3 information that was sent to you by the U.S. Fish and 4 Wildlife Service in the September 10th fax transmission 5 that the 2 parts per billion on Agatha Slough was also 6 exceeded 31 percent of the time? 7 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, I'm aware of the data from Agatha 8 Canal, but I don't know what percentage. The monitoring 9 showed with up 2 parts per billion or better. 10 MR. PORGANS: To your knowledge, was the 2 parts per 11 billion also exceeded on the Santa Fe Canal? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: It has been exceeded on the Santa Fe 13 Canal, yes. 14 MR. PORGANS: And you don't have the percentage, 15 correct? 16 MR. SCHNAGL: No. 17 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Both of you, are you familiar 18 with the Rainbow Report, I asked you earlier? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. Before we leave this point, I'd 20 like to enter into the record that we at the Regional Board 21 are aware of the 2 parts per billion exceedance. And staff 22 is conducting a special study to identify the sources of 23 that 2 part per billion exceedance. And we intend on 24 taking whatever regulatory action is necessary, or at least 25 propose that our Board take that action. So this issue is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5991 1 one that we are addressing. 2 MR. PORGANS: That's good you brought that up, but 3 now would you elaborate in just about 2 minutes what the 4 actual enforcement procedure would be? I mean isn't there 5 some sort of a -- excuse me, let me rephrase the question. 6 Who has the first option to go into the 7 enforcement -- to correct the infraction for the 8 exceedance, who does that first according to the use 9 agreement? 10 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, I'm referring to the Regional 11 Board's Regulatory Program, not the use agreement. 12 Basically, we're taking a look at a variety of sources 13 including the water supply for that entire region to see 14 what the selenium levels are. 15 And the basin plan contains prohibition of 16 discharge with respect to subsurface drains that enter the 17 90 miles of wetlands channels if that results in exceedance 18 of the 2-part-per-billion objective. So we may trigger a 19 prohibition of discharge against some particular 20 dischargers. 21 If there's 2 parts per billion in the water 22 supply, we'll have to take other approaches. But we are 23 evaluating where the selenium is coming from and we'll have 24 to respond to what we find. 25 MR. PORGANS: When they exceed the target load over CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5992 1 there in the Grassland Bypass Project -- 2 MR. SEXTON: Objection, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porgans is 3 misleading this Board. Mr. McGahan has testified that 4 there is no discharges from the bypass project going into 5 these canals to the grassland project service area. He's 6 mixing up his questions in such a way where that is what 7 the implication is that's being presented. If he has any 8 evidence he needs to present it in a direct case. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Porgans? 10 MR. PORGANS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, for the benefit 11 of Mr. Sexton, I'll -- I was switching gears there. And if 12 for whatever reason Mr. Sexton is now perplexed about that, 13 I apologize for that. I'll rephrase the question. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you try that? 15 MR. PORGANS: Thank you. This has to do with the 16 Grasslands Bypass Project in terms of the target loads, it 17 has nothing to do with the water supply channel. 18 When the 6,660-pound target load is exceeded as it 19 was in 1997, what happened then? Was there was a fine of 20 some sort that was levied against the -- what's the 21 procedure there? 22 MR. SCHNAGL: During the water year 1997 the Regional 23 Board did not issue waste discharge requirements for this 24 project. And there were no Regional Board fines or actions 25 of any kind. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5993 1 There was, under the terms of the use agreement 2 between the Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis and 3 Delta-Mendota Water Authority, something called a "drainage 4 incentive fee." And the amount of selenium discharged from 5 the project that water year triggered a fee. 6 MR. PORGANS: Do you know how much that fee was, off 7 hand? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: Around $60,000. 9 MR. PORGANS: Where does the money go when the fee is 10 assessed? 11 MR. SCHNAGL: It is set into an account that's 12 managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. 13 MR. PORGANS: And what is the money to be used for? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: That has not been determined yet. 15 There's an oversight committee that is -- has been formed. 16 And it's up to that committee to decide where that money is 17 spent. 18 MR. PORGANS: Is it fair to say that it would be used 19 within the Grassland Channel Bypass Project area? 20 MR. SCHNAGL: That's one option. 21 MR. PORGANS: Okay. Now, there also is something 22 about a 15-percent load reduction in selenium for the 23 latter three years of the project. Does that ring a bell 24 to you? 25 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, there's a reduction. I don't know CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5994 1 if it's 15 percent, but it's a step-down process over time. 2 MR. PORGANS: Five percent a year, that's what I 3 thought the figure was. 4 MR. SCHNAGL: You want me to try to find a reference 5 to that, or -- 6 MR. PORGANS: Well, does 5 percent a year for the 7 last three years of the project sound familiar to you? 8 MR. SCHNAGL: Yeah, referring to the Regional Board's 9 waste discharge requirements it does say in the findings 10 that the goal of the monthly-low limits is to obtain a 11 15-percent reduction in the amount of selenium discharged 12 by the 5th year of operation as compared to the mean of the 13 9 years prior to the consensus letter, which was sent to 14 the Board in 1995. 15 MR. PORGANS: Okay. So we're two years into the 16 project and we are still not meeting the target loads? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: I can only refer to water year 1997. 18 Water year 1998 data is not compiled yet. So as we 19 mentioned earlier, in water year 1997 there was an 20 exceedance of the target. 21 MR. PORGANS: Okay. So -- and taking into account 22 everything that's been mentioned earlier that's been done 23 to help to reduce the load, what other options are they 24 going to have when the load seems to be relatively as high 25 as it was in '86? How are they going to get that 15 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5995 1 percent down in the next 3 years? 2 MR. SCHNAGL: That's a management decision that's up 3 to the grassland area farmers who are operating the system. 4 MR. PORGANS: Now, you said you were familiar with 5 the Rainbow Report, both of you. Were you also familiar 6 with the status report that came out recently on the 7 agreement management in the San Joaquin Valley? That was 8 Manucher and his group. 9 MR. GROBER: Yes, I have seen it. 10 MR. SCHNAGL: I've seen it, too. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Stockton East Water District's 12 Exhibit Number 9. 13 MR. PORGANS: I'll tell you, it's really good to have 14 Stockton East here. 15 MS. ZOLEZZI: I wish everyone felt that way. 16 MR. PORGANS: They will when they get to know you. 17 That's Stockton East what? 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Exhibit Number 9. 19 MR. PORGANS: Exhibit Number 9, on Page 1, I'm just 20 reading this for reference now, Mr. Chairperson. In 21 paragraph one it states that: 22 (Reading): 23 "Salt imported by water deliveries accumulation 24 of natural salts and soils and groundwater from 25 irrigation and lack of viable long-term salt CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5996 1 management plan threatens to sustain 2 agriculture in the valley." 3 Do you have a comment on that, Mr. Schnagl? 4 MR. SCHNAGL: I'd rather not comment, no. 5 MR. PORGANS: Do you think that the statement is 6 accurate? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: I'll let him finish the answer, 8 Mr. Porgans, in that regard I'm giving you a couple of 9 minutes, because we interrupted you a little bit by about 2 10 minutes, but that was your last question. 11 MR. SCHNAGL: Well, my comment is: That is what this 12 report states, but I haven't read the report. I'm not the 13 author. And I'd rather not go any further on comments. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have anything, Mr. Grober? 15 MR. GROBER: No. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Porgans. 17 MR. PORGANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Grober and 18 Mr. Schnagl and Mr. Chairman. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: You're welcome, sir. Before we break 20 for lunch let me ask the staff if they plan on having any 21 questions when we come back from lunch. 22 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Staff will have questions, perhaps, 24 the Board Members and then we'll go to Mr. Birmingham after 25 that for his observation, or if need be, we can do it even CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5997 1 before you ask questions. We'll see when we come back. 2 We'll come back here, to be absolutely precise, at 3 25 minutes to 2:00. That's a little over an hour for 4 lunch. Thank you. 5 (Luncheon recess.) 6 ---oOo--- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5998 1 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1998, 1:40 P.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, we're back on the record. 5 And Mr. O'Laughlin is at the podium to address us with some 6 scheduling matters. 7 Go ahead, Mr. O'Laughlin. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Chairman Caffrey. As you 9 know the parties have been trying to coordinate the 10 scheduling of witnesses. I have a schedule in hand, 11 realizing as we say this that some parties may take longer 12 than others to do and may go for several days. 13 But leaving that as it is, what we've agreed upon 14 is that if the Regional Water Quality Control Board's 15 witnesses finish this afternoon, that San Joaquin would try 16 to put on their direct case this afternoon and finish. 17 Then, coming back on November 3rd, the United 18 States Bureau -- I mean, excuse me, the Department of 19 Interior would put on Mr. Oltmann in the morning. We would 20 try to finish Mr. Oltmann in the morning. Then the San 21 Joaquin River Group Authority would put on Dr. Paulsen in 22 the afternoon. That would finish that week. 23 We would then go to the 9th at which time 24 Mr. Delamore, Mr. Ploss and Mr. Steffani would come back. 25 If they were not able to finish on the 9th, they would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 5999 1 finished by the 10th. I would expect based on the 2 scheduling of the direct cases that the direct part of 3 Phase V would end on the 10th, which is a half day. And 4 at, hopefully the worse, would go to the 17th. 5 There are, just for the information of the State 6 Board staff and for the Members of the State Board, going 7 to be rebuttal cases in Phase V. I would not expect Phase 8 II-A to start until maybe the hearing dates of the 8th, 9th 9 or 10th. But depending on the scope of the rebuttal, Phase 10 II-A may not start until the 15th or 16th. 11 I will try to keep the State Board and Staff as 12 well as other parties advised of the scheduling as best we 13 can. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: We appreciate your taking the time to 15 work with the other parties and to update us, 16 Mr. O'Laughlin. 17 Any comments from the Board Members? 18 MEMBER BROWN: No. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham? 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I did have an opportunity to confer 21 a few minutes ago with Mr. O'Laughlin regarding his 22 proposed change. It was my understanding that we were 23 going to go forward this afternoon with the Stockton East 24 Water District's case. Quite frankly, I did not come 25 prepared to cross-examine the County of San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6000 1 parties' witnesses. 2 I have no objection to going forward with the 3 County of San Joaquin's witnesses so long as the Board 4 understands that the preparation for the cross may not be 5 what it otherwise would have been and would give us some 6 latitude in terms of the time. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, let me add some further 8 confusion -- or not confusion, but officiation which may be 9 the same as confusion, I have to leave today as 3:30 for an 10 unavoidable personal appointment, which is kind of rare, I 11 always try to avoid those to be here. 12 So if we are to continue beyond 3:30, 13 Mr. Stubchaer, of course the Cohearing Officer will 14 complete the day to some reasonable point. Are you 15 suggesting Mr. Birmingham that, perhaps, we should -- 16 because we're willing to do this. We try to be fair to 17 everybody here. 18 And I'm not sure I fully understood the schedule, 19 or whether or not Ms. Zolezzi and Ms. Harrigfeld were going 20 to continue with the rest of their panels after this one. 21 I didn't know one way or the other. I think I probably 22 assumed to some degree that they will. Is that the 23 understanding among the other parties? Mr. Minasian is 24 nodding. 25 So do you need more time? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6001 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: No, I don't think I do. And I don't 2 want the County of San Joaquin to have to sit here any 3 longer than they've already been here. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: They're heroes in every definition. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: They've been very patient. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Gluttons for pain. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I only made those comments, because 8 I may ask the Board for some latitude in the kind of 9 questions that I ask on cross-examination because I did not 10 prepare. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, duly noted, Mr. Birmingham. 12 And we'll try to accommodate all as best we can as I hope 13 we are perceived to have done as time has moved on through 14 this process. 15 Mr. Minasian, were you rising to ask for the same 16 thing? 17 MR. MINASIAN: I'm in the same boat as 18 Mr. Birmingham. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll give that consideration to any 20 attorney who asks for it, whatever that consideration turns 21 out to be when we get there. Is that okay, 22 Mr. Nomellini? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, I never heard people make 24 excuses about their cross-examination. We've all been here 25 in the same predicament all along. We've had the direct CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6002 1 testimony from these people for some time. And I would 2 hope there wouldn't be any change in latitude. Although, I 3 think I've always opted in favor of a broad approach to 4 cross-examination, but I can't imagine what the request is 5 for broader latitude. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Nor can I, Mr. Nomellini. That's why 7 I said when we get to that point, we'll review it at that 8 time. So we'll try to be as fair as we always do. 9 Where does that leave us now? We've completed 10 Mr. Porgans' cross-examination of these gentlemen. And the 11 staff has questions -- unless, Mr. Birmingham, you had 12 wanted to address the Board on a procedural matter. Did 13 you want to do that now or after we finish the cross? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd be happy to do it now. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you. Go ahead. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Sexton -- 17 MR. SEXTON: Don't bring me into it. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Sexton quite correctly observed 19 that Mr. Porgans' examination of this panel raised some 20 issues that are of concern to members of the San Luis and 21 Delta-Mendota Water Authority. It was suggested that one 22 way to deal with that issue was to subpoena these witnesses 23 and bring them back for purposes of rebuttal. 24 If the amount of time that is going to be taken by 25 reopening cross-examination is significantly less than the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6003 1 time to subpoena the witnesses and put on a rebuttal case 2 through these witnesses, I wonder if we wouldn't all be 3 better served by allowing a limited reopening of the 4 cross-examination by parties who are interested and can 5 make a showing that they do have some relevant questions 6 which came up as a result of cross-examination that 7 occurred after theirs. It would save the witnesses time, 8 it would save the Board time and it would save the parties 9 time. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm not sure how we manage the scope 11 of that to be honest with you, Mr. Birmingham. 12 Mr. Jackson? 13 MR. JACKSON: I was just going to say I just got here 14 and if you've going to reopen cross, I have a number of 15 questions. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: The dilemma in cross-examination 17 always is -- I'm sorry, I spoke over you. What I was going 18 to say is the dilemma in cross-examination always is that 19 if you don't go last, you know, you may not have had the 20 same opportunities in some people's minds then the person 21 that went very last. 22 Ms. Zolezzi? 23 MS. ZOLEZZI: That's precisely what I was going to 24 say. I mean I understand the scheduling problems, but 25 reopening cross would be giving special treatment in this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6004 1 phase to San Luis and Westlands. Other parties weren't 2 privy to the same special treatment. The burden is to put 3 on a rebuttal case, if it's that important then that should 4 be the procedure that we maintain. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay. Anybody else? All right. I 6 thank Mr. Birmingham for his suggestion. I take it in the 7 spirit of an attempt to accommodate these witnesses as well 8 as his case, but we will use the rebuttal opportunity as 9 the process for you to deal with these witnesses if you 10 wish to call them back at that time. Thank you very much. 11 Now, we will go to cross-examination questions 12 from our staff. Mr. Howard, is that you, sir? 13 MR. HOWARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 16 BY STAFF 17 MR. HOWARD: I think most of my questions are 18 directed to Mr. Grober, but -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize for interrupting you, but 20 let the record show that Mr. Grober and Mr. Schnagl are 21 now, for whatever reason at this late date, represented by 22 counsel, Ms. Lori Senitte from the State Water Resources 23 Control Board. 24 Did you wish to say anything beyond that, 25 Ms. Senitte? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6005 1 MS. SENITTE: No, Mr. Chairman. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you. Go ahead, 3 Mr. Howard. 4 MR. HOWARD: I think most of my comments -- most of 5 my questions are directed to Mr. Grober, but if Mr. Schnagl 6 feels he has something to add, I welcome his jumping in. 7 Mr. Grober, are you familiar with Chapter 8 of the 8 Draft EIR for this proceeding? I believe it's State Water 9 Resources Control Board Exhibit Number 1. 10 MR. GROBER: Yes, I am. 11 MR. HOWARD: Did you conduct the San Joaquin River 12 input/output modeling work discussed in this chapter? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HOWARD: On Table 8-4 in Chapter 8 of the Draft 15 EIR, there is the table that gives the tile drain 16 discharges via Mud and Salt Sloughs. And it lists the 17 total discharge. Average discharge is 19,145 acre-feet. 18 Was that a figure that was provided by you? 19 MR. GROBER: Yes. 20 MR. HOWARD: How did you derive at that figure? 21 MR. GROBER: Using the historical data from the 22 drainage project area over the years that I had looked at 23 here. And I believe it was years '89, '90 and '93. 24 There's no discreet assignment to the total drainage from 25 the drainage project area for tile drainage and tailwater. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6006 1 So I used the spreadsheet analysis to make an 2 estimate of the tile drainage component based on selenium, 3 assumed mean selenium concentrations. 4 MR. HOWARD: Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR discusses an 5 alternative in which agricultural drainage -- tile drainage 6 water is retained in the subsurface of the fields of 7 farmers in the drainage project area. 8 Have you discussed an alternative like this with 9 any members of the agricultural community in this area? 10 MR. GROBER: Yes. It's been a general topic that's 11 come up on occasion. 12 MR. HOWARD: Has there been any indication from the 13 agricultural community that such an alternative or such an 14 approach is feasible? 15 MR. GROBER: From my understanding of the discussions 16 it's something that's potentially feasible, but not 17 necessary as the drains are currently designed. 18 MR. HOWARD: Another alternative that's discussed in 19 Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR is retention of water from a -- 20 retention of wetland discharges. Have you had an 21 opportunity to discuss the feasibility of such an 22 alternative with grassland/wetland operators? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 MR. HOWARD: And have they given any indication to 25 you as to the feasibility of projects of this nature? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6007 1 MR. GROBER: Again, there's a some feasibility to do 2 some changes in timing and operations, but specifics, it's 3 not clear exactly what can be accomplished and when, 4 because of the many variables that would have to be 5 considered. But what is proposed here is a more likely a 6 scenario as what was discussed in Chapter 8 than later 7 storage and release. 8 MR. HOWARD: In your operations of the SJRIO Model, 9 have you ever undertaken a model study in which you 10 completely eliminated discharges from Mud and Salt Slough 11 to the San Joaquin River? 12 MR. GROBER: Yes. 13 MR. HOWARD: After -- and the -- did the results of 14 that study indicate that the Vernalis salinity objective 15 would be met if those discharges were eliminated? 16 MR. GROBER: It would be met more frequently, but it 17 would not result in the complete elimination of the 18 exceedances of the Vernalis objective based on the modeling 19 study. 20 MR. HOWARD: Is a principal problem associated with 21 trying to meet those Vernalis objectives after elimination 22 of all the discharges from Mud and Salt Slough the 23 groundwater input to the model? 24 MR. GROBER: That, then, becomes the remaining, most 25 concentrated source of salt in the San Joaquin River that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6008 1 during dry years can be significant. 2 MR. HOWARD: Do you believe there's any feasible 3 alternatives, other than dilution, for achieving the 4 Vernalis objectives in the short-term? By the "short-term" 5 I'd say in the next five years. 6 MR. GROBER: Management and reoperation of dilution 7 flows and saline discharges through some sort of realtime 8 management, or other management of these discharges can 9 help met the water quality objectives. 10 MR. HOWARD: Would they consistently result in the 11 achievement of the objectives? 12 MR. GROBER: No. 13 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything else from the staff? 15 MR. HOWARD: That's all. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Howard. Anything from 17 the Board Members? 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Let me ask the gentlemen 20 who are here called in an adversarial capacity: Do you 21 have any statements that you would like to make as part of 22 your direct testimony for clarification, or in response to 23 the cross-examination, gentlemen? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, I would, please. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Schnagl. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6009 1 MR. SCHNAGL: We have been subpoenaed witnesses and I 2 just wanted to clarify our role as staff members at the 3 Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4 We are involved in the agricultural regulatory 5 drainage program dealing with selenium and salt discharges 6 to the San Joaquin River. Our primary role is to develop 7 technical information and make recommendations to our 8 Regional Board for their consideration. 9 A number of questions we received during this 10 procedure involved our being asked about Regional Board 11 policies and statements from the various reports. And I 12 just want to make it clear that at the staff level, we may 13 work with Regional Board policies, State Board policies, 14 laws and regulations, but we are only at, basically, the 15 working level. 16 And with respect to the interpretation of the 17 policies and final adoption of those policies and so forth, 18 if there's any argument, that decision is made by the 19 Regional Board itself. So I want to make it clear for 20 anybody who's not familiar with the Regional Board's system 21 as to what our role in the process is. And that was the 22 only clarifying point that I'd like to add at this point. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Schnagl. 24 Mr. Grober, did you want to add anything? 25 MR. GROBER: No, I have nothing to add. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6010 1 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you very much, 2 gentlemen. Your statement, as I had mentioned earlier, 3 will be included in the scope of any recross examination, I 4 guess, if there is to be any redirect. 5 And I understand it you do have some redirect, 6 Ms. Harrigfeld? 7 MS. HARRIGFELD: Just a few questions. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, proceed. 9 MS. ZOLEZZI: If we may have just one minute off the 10 record? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. Go right ahead. We'll go off 12 the record for just a moment. 13 (Off the record from 1:56 p.m. to 1:57 p.m.) 14 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We're back on the record. 15 Please, proceed. 16 ---oOo--- 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 18 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 19 KARNA HARRIGFELD 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Good afternoon. We're almost done 21 here. Mr. Grober, you testified in response to questions 22 from Mr. Sexton that you could not quantify how much of the 23 increase shown in years 1980 to '89 resulted from what you 24 referred to as "natural occurrences." You also testified 25 that the results shown in the years 1980 through 1989 may CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6011 1 be misleading. 2 How can you conclude that the years 1980 through 3 '89 are misleading if you can't quantify how much of the 4 increase was from natural occurrences? 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. There were 6 three questions that Ms. Harrigfeld just asked. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Who's that question directed to, 8 either of the witnesses? 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Grober, do you understand the 11 question. It is compound. Do you understand it? 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: I was just restating some of his 13 previous testimony just to get him on board. I'd be happy 14 to try to rephrase the question if he didn't understand. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: That would be helpful. Thank you. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. How can you conclude that the 17 years 1980 through '89 are misleading if you can't quantify 18 how much of the increase was from natural occurrences? 19 MR. GROBER: When I say I cannot say how much is 20 attributable to natural occurrences, and I'm not going to 21 get into a definition there, the general conclusion I would 22 draw looking at '80 through '89 is that there were some 23 very wet years in that period. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: We're now referring to the exhibit on 25 the wall. Would somebody, please, identify it? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6012 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. That's Stockton East 2 Water District's Exhibit 28, which is Table 8-2 from the 3 State Water Resources Control Board 1997 Draft EIR. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 5 MR. GROBER: If one were to look at the annual data 6 from which this decade-long data is derived, they would see 7 some very high years in the 1980's that are not seen in the 8 previous decades. So, therefore, it's fairly easy for me 9 to draw the conclusion and attribute that to the wet years 10 and some of the loads as previously discussed from some of 11 the east side tributaries. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. The chart shows that from -- 13 that there was an increase from the '60s and '70s of 14 approximately 10 percent, correct? 15 MR. GROBER: You mean from the 1960's -- 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Right. 17 MR. GROBER: -- to the 1970's? It seems to be 18 somewhat less than 10. It depends on what you're looking 19 at. If you're looking at the annual, it's something less 20 than 10 percent. It goes from 846,000 to 897,000. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you assume that the increase 22 from the 1970's to the 1980's might be the same without the 23 natural occurrences, meaning roughly 8, 9, 10 percent? 24 MR. GROBER: I don't think I can assume or conclude 25 that from the data. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6013 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. Let's assume for a minute 2 that the total increase from 1980 to '89 was for natural 3 occurrences. Isn't this nevertheless an increase in load? 4 MR. GROBER: As I think the data plainly shows based 5 on how it is stated here using the monthly average daily EC 6 or TDS, the monthly average daily flow at Vernalis from 7 1960 to 1989, making that simple calculation, you can see 8 that there is an increase in load. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Doesn't the table reflect actual 10 measurements that have been taken? 11 MR. GROBER: Yes, this is -- this is based on actual 12 measurements for the San Joaquin River near Vernalis. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: So if this is an actual fact, how 14 can that fact be misleading in light of the fact that you 15 just stated that there is an increase in load? 16 MR. GROBER: I believe if I said misleading it was in 17 the context of increasing some sort of a trend of 18 increasing load, because here we're faced, as we so often 19 are with data looking at a limited data set. And limited 20 data sets have some outliers that might cause one to, 21 perhaps, draw some false conclusions. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. How do salts get in the 23 ground from the natural occurrences? 24 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. Could you -- that seems like 25 a little bit of a vague question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6014 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: You talked about the -- during the 2 high flood -- or the high-flow high-wet years the salt load 3 increased from natural occurrences, correct -- or I guess 4 let me back up. 5 How are salt loads -- or salt in the ground 6 flushed out during natural occurrences? 7 MR. GROBER: I assume you're asking a general 8 question? 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 10 MR. GROBER: It's not necessarily related to this. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 12 MR. GROBER: And it's also a general question that 13 we're not talking about any specific soil, but just in the 14 general sense if you have salts present in a soil they can 15 tend to be mobilized when you have -- when more water is 16 applied to that soil. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. You testified that the 18 majority of the salt that was imported -- that the majority 19 of the salt within the San Joaquin River basin was imported 20 and that there was also a net accretion of salt on the west 21 side of the valley, correct? 22 MR. GROBER: I believe you're referring to a paper 23 that I had written? 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Right. 25 MR. GROBER: In the paper that I'd written in looking CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6015 1 at a salt balance for the DMC service area or west side of 2 the San Joaquin Valley, the conclusions with respect to 3 that paper was a limited time period show that there was 4 accretion of salt. 5 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. Could we have Exhibit 7-A. 6 This is the chart that you prepared. It's the revised 7 chart dated September 1st, 1998. You testified that there 8 are numerous components that contribute to the 37 percent 9 of salt load allocated to the grasslands area, which 10 included agriculture, natural flows, groundwater and 11 wetlands; is that correct? 12 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is there any distinction drawn at 14 Vernalis between the source of the salt? 15 MR. GROBER: Distinction drawn by whom? 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Distinction drawn by the State Water 17 Resources Control Board as to who would -- as to -- does it 18 matter where it comes from? Doesn't it just have to be 19 diluted? 20 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Vague. 21 MS. SENITTE: I'm going to have to object. I think 22 that sounds like something that should be directed to the 23 State Board. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, I'm going to ask you to, 25 without -- first of all, I'm going to honor the objection CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6016 1 of Mr. Sexton and ask you to be more clear. And then when 2 I hear it in clarity, you can decide who it should be asked 3 of. Go ahead. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: I guess my point is the 37 percent 5 that is made up in the grasslands area comes from -- you 6 stated the agriculture subsurface and surface return flow, 7 it comes from the wetlands, it comes from groundwater 8 accretions into the river. 9 And I guess my question goes to at Vernalis, does 10 it matter where the salt comes from if it's -- 11 MR. GROBER: I guess -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Before -- do you know the answer to 13 the question before I deal with the objection of 14 Ms. Senitte? 15 MR. GROBER: Well, I don't completely understand the 16 question at least in terms of "does it matter?" 17 MS. SENITTE: Does it matter "to whom" is my 18 question. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: We need further clarification. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: If you're required to make dilution 21 flows from New Melones Reservoir, does it matter where the 22 source of the salt comes from? Whether it is from 23 agricultural or wetlands, is there any distinction drawn, 24 or is salt salt and you need to dilute it? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Does anybody know the answer to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6017 1 question? 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm going to object to the question 3 on the grounds that it's vague and ambiguous. Does it 4 matter to whom for what purpose? 5 MS. HARRIGFELD: For the purpose of making releases 6 for dilution flows from New Melones Reservoir, does it 7 matter where the source of the salt comes from? 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can I ask a question? 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure. Mr. Stubchaer wants to ask for 11 some clarification. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: For meeting the water quality 13 standard at Vernalis, or what? 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yeah. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: That was implied, but it hasn't been 16 explicitly stated. For that reason I could see why -- 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it was at one version, but we 18 never had one complete question all at once. 19 So try it, again. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. In order to meet the 21 Vernalis water quality standard for salinity, is there any 22 distinction drawn from where the salt comes from, the 23 source? 24 MR. GROBER: The Regional Board isn't responsible for 25 those releases made from New Melones. But, perhaps, it's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6018 1 just a partial answer to your question, without some other 2 significant sources of data and a lot more analysis one, 3 technically, would not be able to determine what -- you 4 know, one salt particle, or one milligram of salt what that 5 source of milligram is at Vernalis. 6 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. Does the Vernalis water 7 quality standard have to be met regardless of the source of 8 the salt? 9 MR. GROBER: I'm -- again, I'm not involved in 10 what -- in the meeting of the standard at Vernalis, so I'm 11 not the person to ask that. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. You testified that reuse 13 decreases flows and flow decreases load. Isn't it true 14 that concentrations could increase as a result of the 15 decreased flow? 16 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, could you restate the 17 question? 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Certainly. You testified previously 19 that the reuse of agricultural return flow water has -- in 20 some instances, the reduction in flow would reduce the salt 21 loading into the river. 22 My question is: Isn't it true that concentrations 23 could increase as a result of the decreased flow? 24 MR. GROBER: Yes, in general that is true. 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: If concentrations increase, doesn't CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6019 1 the timing of releases become very critical? 2 MR. GROBER: Critical with regard to -- 3 MS. HARRIGFELD: It's important if there's high 4 concentrations coming down the river, it is important to 5 time the releases of dilution flows, isn't that correct? 6 MS. SENITTE: Objection. Important to do what, for 7 dilution? 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: Correct, in order to meet the 9 standard. If you've got high-concentration water coming 10 down, it's important to time the releases for dilution 11 purposes. 12 MR. SEXTON: Releases from New Melones? Releases of 13 dilution flows from the west side? I think it's still a 14 vague question. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: The question is vague. It is. Could 16 you clarify it, please? 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: I'm not aware of any west side 18 dilution flows that are being released at this time. So I 19 apologize, it would be dilution flows from New Melones. 20 MR. GROBER: Just -- perhaps, I won't answer your 21 question directly, not in terms of how much dilution flows, 22 but if you have a more concentrated source of discharge 23 with a lower load, it doesn't necessarily involve any 24 differences in what other source of water would be required 25 to bring it up to a certain concentration, because it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6020 1 wouldn't change the volume of water discharged with the 2 original saline source to such a great extent that it would 3 affect any further dilution. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, if you've got -- I guess I 5 didn't fully understand your answer. 6 MR. GROBER: I guess the short answer is: It 7 doesn't. If you have a more concentrated source, what is 8 of more critical importance is the load. Just because you 9 have a more concentrated source, I don't think it would 10 affect any other issues with regard to dilution in the 11 receiving water, because the concentration in the saline 12 discharge isn't the result of a drastic reduction in the 13 dilution of flow in that actual discharge. It's still 14 pretty convoluted, isn't it? 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, I guess my question gets more 16 to the dilution flows that are required to be released as 17 opposed to the dilution flows within the body of the river 18 itself. So if you've got a body of water, an amount of 19 water flowing down the San Joaquin River that is in a 20 concentration that is higher than normal, or high, isn't it 21 critical to time the releases from New Melones 22 appropriately in order to hit -- to meet the Vernalis water 23 quality standard? 24 If you've got higher concentrations coming down a 25 river, isn't it important to time dilution flows, releases CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6021 1 from New Melones? 2 MR. SEXTON: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I have to 3 rise again. To me the question is completely vague and 4 abstract. We're talking about concentration and using 5 terms such as "high." You would need to know, I think, 6 high compared to what? Whether we're dealing with the 7 standard, high compared to the standard, or whether it's 8 something else that's being asked. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Also, concentrations can vary as they 10 move down the river. So I'm not sure -- 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: They vary with time, but you haven't 12 stated it. If the concentrations vary with time that would 13 add more substance to your question. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's allow them to their consultation 15 and then I'll ask you to try to be more succinct, or maybe 16 break the question up, or try to be more detailed in the 17 question. 18 MR. GROBER: I might just add then, I won't speak 19 directly to New Melones, specifically, but I can't speak to 20 that in terms of what needs to be released from New Melones 21 and why and when. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Before you just answered the question, 23 I just ruled that it was not appropriate. So maybe what 24 you ought to do is have the question -- try to restate it 25 and see if that helps. All right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6022 1 Go ahead, Ms. Harrigfeld. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: If you've got flows coming down a 3 river with high concentrations, is it an important factor 4 to time dilution flow releases in order to meet a standard 5 that is below what the concentration is coming down the 6 river? I mean, from a timing perspective, isn't it 7 important to know what the concentration flow is and to 8 time it appropriately so there can be effective dilution? 9 MR. GROBER: Yes, but it is also important to know 10 the load. Concentration by itself isn't sufficient. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: You testified that through reuse and 12 recycling you can decrease load. But you also said that 13 there could be an increase in salt in the soil and 14 groundwater; is that correct? 15 MR. GROBER: I believe I said something to that 16 affect, yes. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it then likely that this salt 18 that has been increased in the soil and groundwater as a 19 result of the reuse will travel into the San Joaquin River 20 by natural occurrences? 21 MR. SEXTON: Objection. From what area? 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: I'm just speaking to: In general 23 when you reuse and recycle water, what's going to happen to 24 the salt that has been placed into the groundwater and into 25 the soil? Is it going to come out eventually? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6023 1 C.O. CAFFREY: But that does depend on a lot of 2 factors. So -- you had something to say Ms. Senitte? 3 MS. SENITTE: No. 4 MR. GROBER: Can we switch chairs for a while? 5 MS. SENITTE: I think Mr. Grober was going to talk to 6 that, speak to that. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Why don't you -- this is 8 going to be, I assume, in the nature of an objection spoken 9 by the witness in a sense. Go ahead. 10 MR. GROBER: It does depend on many factors in terms 11 if whether a salt that is found in the soil or the 12 groundwater reaches the river. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would it be flushed out in a high -- 14 in a wet year? 15 MR. GROBER: It would be a function of the hydrology 16 of the basin. If it's a wet year, it's also a function of 17 what types of pumping of groundwater is going on in the 18 area. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would it, at some point in time, 20 reach the San Joaquin River, eventually? 21 MR. GROBER: That also depends on other management 22 things that go on, but that is one possible outcome over 23 the long-term, yes. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. Could we put -- this is 25 Stockton East's Exhibit Number 30, which is a -- which is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6024 1 Figure 8-9 from the State Water Resources Control Board 2 Draft EIR, which is State Board Exhibit 1-A. This is, as I 3 said, Stockton East's Exhibit Number 30. 4 In response to some questions by Mr. Sexton you 5 indicated that the years 1986 through 1995, 7 out of the 10 6 years were critically dry years; is that true? 7 MR. GROBER: I don't recall specifically, but that 8 sounds approximately correct. I'd have to check the 9 records. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. So let's just assume that 11 it's true for a moment, are you aware of any waiver of the 12 salinity water quality standard at Vernalis in critically 13 dry years? 14 MR. GROBER: No. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is there a waiver of the salinity 16 water quality control standard at Vernalis in any year 17 type? 18 MR. GROBER: I am not aware of any waivers. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: So the standard still has to be met 20 regardless of what the year type is? 21 MR. GROBER: I'm not aware of any waivers. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would any less water have to be 23 released from New Melones Reservoir in a critically dry 24 year? 25 MR. SEXTON: Objection. In order to do what? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6025 1 C.O. CAFFREY: And, perhaps, "less than what?" I'm 2 not trying to give you a hard time, Ms. Harrigfeld. I'm a 3 little confused by the question myself. Maybe they -- 4 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. Could you restate the 5 question? 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe you could restate it with a 7 little more detail. 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would any less water have to be 11 released from New Melones Reservoir in order to meet the 12 Vernalis water quality standard in a critically dry year? 13 MR. GROBER: Less than what? 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, I guess my point is that 15 irregardless of the water year type, the standard has to be 16 met; isn't that correct? So the fact that years '86 17 through '95 there were 7 out of 10 critically dry years, 18 the water quality standard is still required to be met; 19 isn't that correct? 20 MR. GROBER: I think that seems to be something 21 within the purview of the State Board. And I'm not 22 directly involved in the meeting of those standards at 23 Vernalis. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: But you testified to the fact that 25 62 percent of the times during the irrigation season that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6026 1 objective is violated. So you are aware that the standard 2 is imposed on a year-round basis? 3 MR. GROBER: Yes. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Irrespective of what year type? 5 MR. GROBER: This is showing the rate at which the 6 established water quality standard is exceeded -- 7 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. 8 MR. GROBER: -- during this time period. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: You also testified that there was a 10 5-percent error in the measurement of EC in response to 11 questions by Mr. Sexton. Do you recall that? 12 MR. GROBER: I don't specifically, but that sounds 13 about right. I'd have to check some records for the 14 station at Vernalis. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is there a 5-percent margin of error 16 granted in the New Melones' permits for meeting the 17 Vernalis water quality standard for salinity? 18 MR. GROBER: I don't know. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: So even if the measuring device for 20 EC is measuring 5-percent high, New Melones would still 21 have to release water in order to meet the water quality 22 standard at Vernalis, correct? 23 MR. GROBER: Again, I'm not involved with decisions 24 that are made for the release of water from New Melones for 25 meeting the water quality. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6027 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. Jeanne, could I have 2 Exhibit 12-B. 3 You were asked to read from the staff report. 4 This is Stockton East Water District's Exhibit Number 12-B, 5 which is an excerpt from the staff report on the San Luis 6 Delta-Mendota Water Authority Grasslands Bypass Channel 7 Project. 8 You were asked to read -- this is just an excerpt. 9 There was I believe a sentence before and a sentence after 10 this excerpt. In the entire context -- in the context of 11 the entire paragraph is the statement still true that the 12 Grasslands Bypass Project is causing, or contributing to 13 violations of the water quality objectives in Mud Slough in 14 the San Joaquin River? 15 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe I read that statement. And I 16 believe the statement is correct. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: So is it accurate that the 18 Grasslands Bypass Project is contributing to violations of 19 water quality objectives in Mud Slough and the San Joaquin 20 River? 21 MR. SCHNAGL: I believe so, yes. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: The next sentence confirms that the 23 Grassland Bypass Project is an ongoing release as opposed 24 to a new release. Wasn't this intended to reconcile with 25 the policy that no new discharges occur? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6028 1 MR. SCHNAGL: Following the statement -- the 2 statement following what's up on the overhead is a further 3 description of the project, just trying to explain the fact 4 that it is not a new discharge. It's basically for 5 description purposes only. 6 And it leads to a statement that the order will 7 address the situation of violating water quality objectives 8 downstream through the development of -- development and 9 implementation of short- and long-term drainage management 10 plans. I don't see any reference to the Board policy 11 regarding new drainage or new discharges. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Right. But I had asked you a series 13 of questions regarding that policy. 14 MR. SCHNAGL: That's correct. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: And the Grasslands Bypass Project, 16 if it created new discharges it would be prohibited under 17 your original Board policy; isn't that correct? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: The basin plan has a policy that 19 prohibits new discharges of poor-quality subsurface ag 20 drainage, yes. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Grober, I can't recall precisely 22 if these questions were asked to you, but I believe they 23 were. There was a series of questions -- or you were asked 24 whether or not you would have to measure Delta discharges 25 in order to determine who was contributing to salinity CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6029 1 increases all the way through the Delta. And you answered 2 affirmatively. Do you recall that? 3 MR. GROBER: No, I don't. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. Would any Delta discharges 5 affect water quality at Vernalis? 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I ask that the question be read 7 back? 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you read the question back, Mary, 9 for Mr. Birmingham? 10 THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. 11 (Whereupon the question was read back by the Reporter.) 12 MR. GROBER: Not directly to Vernalis, but, yes, in 13 the sense that any salts discharged in the Delta then could 14 be re-imported via the DMC and make its way back to the San 15 Joaquin. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: So Delta discharges of agricultural 17 drainage could end up in the DMC is what you're saying and 18 recirculated and applied in the -- 19 MR. GROBER: That's in a general hydrologic sense, 20 though I'm not an expert on Delta dynamics. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. But Delta discharges, 22 themselves, would not affect water quality at Vernalis? 23 MR. SEXTON: Asked and answered. 24 MS. SENITTE: I'm sorry, Delta discharges where? 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: I said direct Delta discharges from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6030 1 the agricultural users within the Delta would not affect 2 the Vernalis -- 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that the exact same question that's 4 just been asked and answered, Ms. Harrigfeld? I believe it 5 is. 6 MR. GROBER: I believe so. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. You need to ask another 8 question. He already answered it. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would you agree that agricultural 10 drainage from the Delta below Vernalis would not have an 11 impact on the Vernalis salinity standards, which is the 12 subject of this hearing? 13 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Asked and answered. It's 14 rewording of exactly the same question. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: I agree. Sustained. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: There were -- you just recently in 17 the last few minutes answered a series of questions from 18 Mr. Howard. I just have a couple follow-up questions from 19 those questions. 20 He asked you if you'd ever done a model run, the 21 SJRIO run eliminating the discharge from Mud and Salt 22 Slough. And you stated that if you eliminated the total 23 discharge from Mud and Salt Slough that there would be a 24 reduction of the number of violations of the Vernalis water 25 quality standard; isn't that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6031 1 MR. GROBER: That's correct. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you know -- do you know how much, 3 how -- I guess, how much of a reduction in the violations 4 of the water quality standards would be produced by such 5 a -- 6 MR. GROBER: Not off the top of my head. I'd have to 7 refer to a report. 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: Do you have any idea of the 9 reduction in the water quality releases from New Melones 10 that would be achieved through the reduction or elimination 11 of discharges from Mud and Salt Slough? 12 MR. GROBER: Just in the context of the modeling 13 exercise I had done for the State Board, it resulted in a 14 decrease in the amount of discharges that would be required 15 to meet the Vernalis objective. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Can you quantify that amount? 17 MR. GROBER: I don't recall the numbers off the top 18 of my head. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: There was also a question regarding 20 whether, in the short-term, there were any other reasonable 21 methods besides dilution flows that could be used in order 22 to meet the water quality standard. Do you remember that 23 question? 24 MR. GROBER: That -- that Mr. Howard just asked? 25 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6032 1 MR. GROBER: Yes. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: Isn't it true that setting water 3 quality objectives upstream of Vernalis and also 4 implementing waste discharge requirements upstream of 5 Vernalis for the agricultural subsurface and surface 6 discharges would also be an alternative to assist in 7 meeting the Vernalis water quality control standard? 8 MR. GROBER: I was speaking only to technical 9 solutions, not institutional incentives. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. But could those institutional 11 objectives -- or what did you say, institutional methods be 12 utilized? 13 MR. GROBER: Are you saying could they be utilized? 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: Correct. Would they be considered a 15 reasonable alternative to assist in meeting the Vernalis 16 water quality salinity objective? 17 MR. GROBER: The Regional Board is currently involved 18 in a basin plan and then a process to look at various 19 implementation measures that could be used to -- 20 technically to reduce salt loading in the San Joaquin 21 River in helping meet the objectives, but they will also be 22 considering institutional methods for providing the 23 incentive. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: If a water quality objective was 25 established upstream at Vernalis, let's say at Crows CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6033 1 Landing and how long -- do you have any estimation of how 2 long it would take for implementation of that objective? 3 MR. GROBER: No. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: So if you set a standard next year 5 it could be 1, 2, 10, 20 years before that objective is 6 actually met? 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Asked and answered. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm sorry, I lost track. Has it been 9 asked and answered, Ms. Leidigh? 10 MS. LEIDIGH: She asked him if he had any idea how 11 long it would take and he said "no." And then she asked 12 him if it would be 10 or 20 years -- 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: Or are we talking about short-term 14 or long-term? 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Yeah, you can ask him about a range. 16 I think it's a little bit different. You can ask him if he 17 knows. 18 MR. GROBER: I wouldn't want to guess at the range, 19 but a process would have to go through the basin plan and 20 it would have to go through the Regional Board. 21 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. That's all I have. Jeanne, 22 do you have anything? 23 MS. ZOLEZZI: No. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 25 By a showing of hands, who wishes to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6034 1 recross-examine the witnesses? We have Mr. Sexton, 2 Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Herrick, anybody else? In the interest 3 of continuity, we'll take our break now. And then I will 4 keep my afternoon appointment. And Mr. Stubchaer will -- 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Puzzle through. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Will do very well, as always, for the 7 rest of the afternoon. I apologize for not being able to 8 be here for the rest of the afternoon. Let's come back at 9 about a quarter to 3:00. Thank you. 10 (Recess taken from 2:30 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.) 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. We're back in session. And 12 before we proceed with the recross-examination, I want to 13 discuss the order of proceeding. Let's see, is 14 Mr. Shephard -- 15 MR. NOMELLINI: He stepped out. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: He stepped out. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You want him back? 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, he made a request to 19 Mr. Caffrey that I was going to respond to. So we'll wait 20 a minute. Okay. 21 Mr. Shephard. 22 MR. SHEPHARD: Yes. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Caffrey tells me you have a 24 blessed event expected in your family. 25 MR. SHEPHARD: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6035 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: And that you would like to -- 2 MR. SHEPHARD: I would like to go to Walnut Creek 3 fairly early. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. 5 MR. SHEPHARD: Literally the birth is taking place as 6 we speak. And I also have concerns -- I really appreciate 7 the effort of a number of parties to not have us continue 8 sitting here, but there is going to be cross-examination of 9 our witness, I know that. Several people have told me. 10 And I think if we start late in the day, I think it would 11 be most inefficient. I cannot be here next Tuesday. So it 12 will have to go over. We can go back to our original 13 position at the end of the line. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Without objection that's what we 15 will do. And today we will try and complete the 16 recross-examination of this panel and then we'll adjourn 17 for the day. 18 MR. SHEPHARD: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: You're welcome. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Congratulations. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Sexton, are you ready to 22 recross-examine this panel? 23 MEMBER BROWN: Take that as a no? 24 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Birmingham was suggesting that, 25 perhaps, it might be better if Mr. Herrick goes first, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6036 1 since there seems to be, I guess, a community of interest 2 between Mr. Herrick and the Stockton East parties and then 3 we would cross after that. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, Mr. Sexton, if the three 5 persons that wish to cross-examine can agree on an order, 6 we will use that order. Otherwise, it's the order that I 7 have down here. 8 MR. SEXTON: John, would you like to go? 9 MR. HERRICK: I'll go first. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: John, you're too nice. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Harrigfeld, I couldn't hear you. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: She just observed Mr. Herrick is an 13 awfully nice fellow, and that is a statement in which we 14 concur. 15 MR. HERRICK: That appears to be new. Make sure 16 that's on the record. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Stockton East doesn't approve of that 18 behavior. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Before you do your 20 recross-examination, I'd just like to remind everybody that 21 the recross is to be limited in scope to the that of the 22 redirect. And I'd like Ms. Senitte to listen closely to 23 see if she wants to object to the recross-examination going 24 beyond the scope of the redirect. I see your eyebrows 25 raised, but anyhow -- and anyone else, too. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6037 1 Okay. Please, proceed, Mr. Herrick. 2 ---oOo--- 3 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 4 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCIES 5 BY JOHN HERRICK 6 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Herrick 7 for South Delta Water Agency, again. Mr. Grober, on some 8 of the redirect questions they touched upon questions that 9 Mr. Howard had asked, but they dealt with that you 10 apparently have done model runs to determine the affects on 11 the Vernalis standard if all discharges from Salt and Mud 12 Slough are removed; is that correct? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: What assumptions did you use in those 15 model runs with regard to releases from New Melones? 16 MR. GROBER: That assumptions with regard to releases 17 from New Melones, this is not making any releases from New 18 Melones for water quality. All of these model runs, what 19 they entailed is an artificial hydrology based on DWRSIM, 20 which is DWR's operations model that can be used for the 21 San Joaquin River. So there was no component. There were 22 no explicit releases from New Melones for meeting water 23 quality. 24 MR. HERRICK: So the model runs showed that without 25 any dilution flows there would be some sort -- that some CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6038 1 result of those discharges were removed from the 2 calculation; is that correct? 3 MR. GROBER: Yes, without releases made expressly for 4 meeting water quality. 5 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Do those model runs allow you to 6 estimate the number of subsurface secretions to the San 7 Joaquin River of water from the west side of the valley? 8 MR. GROBER: Could you define from what area? From 9 the San Joaquin River on the west side of the valley 10 exclusive of the grassland watershed? 11 MR. HERRICK: Actually, I wanted to be broader than 12 that, but I'm not sure where to draw the line there. But 13 let's say subsurface accretions, let's start with the 14 Grasslands Bypass Project -- let's start with the 15 grasslands watershed. 16 MR. GROBER: Now, you said subsurface accretions? 17 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 18 MR. GROBER: And you mean subsurface tile drainage, 19 or subsurface groundwater accretions? 20 MR. HERRICK: Uncontrolled accretions, so I assume 21 that's not tile drainage, but groundwater accretions. 22 MR. GROBER: Groundwater accretions. The model does 23 consider groundwater accretions to the San Joaquin River, 24 yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Can you, I know it's difficult to put a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6039 1 number on it, can you give us any idea how those subsurface 2 groundwater accretions compare with the tile drainage from 3 the area? 4 MR. GROBER: Comparing in what sense? 5 MR. HERRICK: Volume wise. 6 MR. GROBER: I couldn't tell you off the top of my 7 head. 8 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And I am just trying to jog your 9 memory, if the model runs allow you to remove one thing, 10 which is the tile drainage and then come up with a result 11 at Vernalis, somewhere in there does the model run put a 12 number then on the amount of those groundwater accretions? 13 MR. GROBER: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: But you can't remember what that is? 15 MR. GROBER: No. 16 MR. HERRICK: Can you remember how those subsurface 17 groundwater accretions compare to the tile drainage with 18 regards to concentration, salinity concentration? 19 MR. GROBER: I can't tell you exactly. I can just 20 give you a relative sense. In general it's somewhat lower 21 concentrations. 22 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 23 MR. GROBER: The groundwater has lower concentrations 24 than the tile drainage from the drainage project area. 25 MR. HERRICK: Does the withholding of tile drainage CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6040 1 water in that area increase the groundwater in that area? 2 MS. SENITTE: Are you still referring to the model? 3 MR. HERRICK: No. 4 MS. SENITTE: Can you re-ask the question? 5 MR. HERRICK: Sure. Let's limit it down to the 6 grasslands watershed. If actions are being taken in that 7 area to decrease the amount of tile drainage into the 8 river, in your opinion, do those actions affect the 9 groundwater in that area? 10 MS. SENITTE: I'm not sure this is something that was 11 covered in redirect. Do you recall? 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: We specifically talked about 13 groundwater accretions. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, when you say "affect the 15 groundwater in that area," I don't know if you're talking 16 about affecting the level, or the quality of the 17 concentration, or all of the above. 18 MR. HERRICK: I'll start off with saying: Does it 19 affect the level of the groundwater in the area? 20 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, then, just restate the 21 question one more time. I was just wondering if that is 22 something we covered. I know we covered discussion of the 23 model and some model results, but ask the question, again. 24 MR. HERRICK: It may be too far afield and if it is 25 the Chair can, certainly, direct me. Activities that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6041 1 decrease the tile drainage in the San Joaquin River, the 2 question is: 3 Do those affect the level of the groundwater in 4 that same area? 5 MR. GROBER: Excuse me a moment. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, would the irrigation 7 water continue to be applied, or the irrigation stopped and 8 the drainage stopped, or the -- to me it's kind of -- 9 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: -- open-ended. 11 MR. HERRICK: Sure. 12 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry, I just don't recall that we 13 covered that just before, so I'm not sure if I should be 14 answering that question. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, do you recall any 16 specific redirect testimony that you're addressing with 17 this question? 18 MR. HERRICK: The testimony I'm addressing deals with 19 Ms. Harrigfeld's questions about the modeling done for 20 that. And then she also covered the distinction between 21 reasonable methods for addressing those drainage problems. 22 I believe the answer was they were technical solutions, not 23 policy ones. 24 I am sort of combining those two, if that's beyond 25 the scope, I, certainly, will not pursue that, but I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6042 1 thought they were closely enough related to warrant further 2 questions. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: I'll allow the witnesses to answer 4 if they can. 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 The Chairman also said, while you were conferring 7 with counsel, whether or not other conditions were being 8 held constant in the question I was giving. And, 9 certainly, I was presupposing that things such as the 10 amount of groundwater and irrigation practices were 11 continuing so that the incoming water to the area is the 12 same. 13 MR. GROBER: Okay. So just one more time, sorry, so 14 I make sure I'm answering the right question. And your 15 question is? 16 MR. HERRICK: In your opinion does the -- do the 17 methods of decreasing tile drainage into the San Joaquin 18 River in the grasslands watershed raise the groundwater 19 level in that area? 20 MR. GROBER: I think the question is still somewhat 21 vague when you say "the methods," there can be -- you're 22 saying to raise the groundwater level, groundwater 23 elevation? 24 MR. HERRICK: Let's move on. That's fine. 25 MR. GROBER: I'm sorry. It just seems like a very CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6043 1 broad question. 2 MR. HERRICK: In response to questions from 3 Ms. Harrigfeld you talked about -- you clarified reasonable 4 methods of addressing the drainage in the grasslands area, 5 you had referred to technical solutions rather than -- was 6 it policy methods? 7 MR. GROBER: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: Would one technical solution that -- 9 well, let me back up. 10 Your testimony, then, was that there weren't any 11 other reasonable technical solutions for short-term 12 improvement of water quality in the San Joaquin River? 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: I'd object to that question. That 14 wasn't an accurate reflection of his testimony. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Try it again. 16 MR. HERRICK: Would technical solutions that you 17 referred to include the dischargers providing their own 18 dilution water? 19 MR. GROBER: I don't think that that's something we 20 covered earlier. It seems a hypothetical question. I 21 don't think I'm in a position to answer. 22 MR. HERRICK: Well, didn't you testify to what you 23 thought were feasible, technical solutions to addressing 24 the drainage problem? 25 MR. GROBER: I believe in responding to Tom's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6044 1 question I stated one solution that could be used to 2 immediately reduce the frequency of objectives for water 3 quality in the San Joaquin River was management of releases 4 from reservoirs and saline sources so as to optimize using 5 the similar capacity of the San Joaquin River to reduce the 6 frequency with which water quality objectives were 7 exceeded. 8 MR. HERRICK: Would another feasible method be the 9 drainers supplying additional dilution water themselves 10 rather than the water already in the channel? 11 MS. SENITTE: That seems to go beyond the redirect. 12 He testified as to the technical alternatives that he was 13 aware of. The question seems to elicit more, or different 14 alternatives that weren't identified earlier. I mean it's 15 not a question about the alternatives that he's already 16 identified, but going forward. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Howard asked this witness about 19 alternatives to dilution. Ms. Harrigfeld, then on redirect 20 asked some additional questions about alternatives other 21 than those identified by the witness in response to 22 Mr. Howard's question. And I think Mr. Herrick's question 23 clearly is within the scope of redirect. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will allow the question. Please, 25 answer. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6045 1 MR. GROBER: I imagine that is something that could 2 be used, though that's not something that I've looked at. 3 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason why you have not 4 looked at it? 5 MR. GROBER: Well, I've not looked at anything that's 6 published to date. As I said, we're currently in a mist of 7 a basin plan amendment process and we're considering all 8 possible measures that could be implemented. 9 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. I don't have any further 10 questions. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: May I ask a question of the Chair? 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Procedural question? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. Can we find out if these model 15 runs are part of the State Board exhibits? 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: We can ask the staff to research 17 that and report back and -- 18 MR. NOMELLINI: That's fine. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: You're not suggesting we stop the 20 hearing now, are you? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: No. I think they were run for 22 Mr. Howard and I was just curious as to where they were. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Ms. Whitney, can you do 24 that, it doesn't have to be this instance? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6046 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Mr. Sexton. 2 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 3 ---oOo--- 4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 5 BY SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 6 BY MICHAEL SEXTON 7 MR. SEXTON: I'll just address these questions to 8 both of you, gentlemen, if you would, and they're going to 9 focus on your understanding of the purpose of the Grassland 10 Bypass Channel Project. 11 Is it your understanding that the purpose of the 12 Grasslands Bypass Project was to remove tile water from 90 13 miles of grasslands channels? 14 MR. SCHNAGL: That is one of the primary purposes, 15 yes. 16 MR. SEXTON: Isn't it true that the Grasslands Bypass 17 Project has, in fact, removed tile water from 90-plus miles 18 of grasslands' water delivery channels? 19 MR. SCHNAGL: The bypass project serves about 97,000 20 acres. And in that 97,000 acres is where most of the 21 subsurface tile systems within the grassland watershed are 22 located. However, there are some subsurface drainage 23 systems that drain to the San Joaquin River via those 24 wetland watershed -- or wetland channels and don't go 25 through the bypass project. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6047 1 MR. SEXTON: Is it your testimony that tile drainage 2 discharges from the Grasslands Bypass Project service area 3 are still going through the grasslands' water conveyance 4 channels? 5 MR. SCHNAGL: No, excuse me. The subsurface drains 6 that I'm referring to that go through the wetland channels 7 at this point in time are outside of the bypass service 8 area. 9 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, sir. Isn't it true that it 10 was not a purpose, it was not a purpose of the Grasslands 11 Bypass Project to improve water quality in the San Joaquin 12 River? 13 MR. SCHNAGL: I don't think I can answer that 14 question. 15 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Isn't it true that as a result of 16 the bypass project there has been a reduction in selenium 17 discharges from the bypass project service area to the San 18 Joaquin River? 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: Objection. 20 MS. ZOLEZZI: Objection on relevance. We didn't talk 21 about selenium on redirect at all. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Sexton, can you point out where 23 in the redirect? 24 MR. SEXTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What I was trying to 25 clarify was the issue that I raised previously and that is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6048 1 the confusion between purposes in the nature of reducing -- 2 excuse me, of improving water quality in the San Joaquin 3 River versus the purposes of the Grassland Bypass Channel 4 Project. 5 And I believe Ms. Harrigfeld on redirect did get 6 into those purposes in general terms. So I was trying just 7 to reiterate the purposes of the Bypass Channel Project 8 versus Ms. Harrigfeld's concerns regarding water quality 9 overall in the San Joaquin River. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Leidigh, do you remember that 11 redirect? 12 MS. LEIDIGH: Not clearly enough to affirm that he's 13 right. Ms. Senitte? 14 MS. SENITTE: In my view it was beyond -- beyond the 15 redirect. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. Mr. Birmingham? 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Ms. Harrigfeld asked questions of 18 Mr. Grober and Mr. Schnagl concerning the affects of the 19 grassland drainage bypass on water quality in Mud Slough 20 and the San Joaquin River. 21 And I think when she asked those questions 22 concerning the affects of the project, she opened the door 23 for questions concerning the purposes of the project. If 24 the -- without permitting Mr. Sexton to examine the 25 purposes of the project, the answers to Ms. Harrigfeld's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6049 1 questions we will never be able to put them into context. 2 And I think that's what Mr. Sexton is trying to do 3 through these questions is to put the answers to 4 Ms. Harrigfeld's questions into the context of the purpose 5 of the project. And, again, I would argue that they are 6 within the scope of the redirect examination. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think the recross is narrower in 8 scope than our general cross-examination, which you know is 9 quite broad. And I think I'm going to sustain the 10 objection. And, then, you can bring in in your rebuttal 11 case any evidence you wish on this particular point. 12 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 Do the panel recall the questions from 14 Ms. Harrigfeld relating to the use of New Melones water for 15 meeting water quality standards in the San Joaquin River? 16 MR. GROBER: Yes. 17 MR. SEXTON: Isn't it true that there is no purpose 18 of the Grassland Bypass Channel Project to cause a 19 reduce -- cause a reduction in the quantity of water that 20 would otherwise be required through a release from New 21 Melones? 22 MR. GROBER: As far as I know that's correct. 23 MR. SEXTON: Does the panel recall questions from 24 Ms. Harrigfeld regarding increases in load, salinity load 25 in the San Joaquin River during a period, I think it began CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6050 1 back in 1970, or thereabouts? 2 MR. GROBER: Yes, from the '60s through the '80s. 3 MR. SEXTON: Is it not a purpose of the Grasslands 4 Bypass Project to reduce the application of surface water 5 in order to reduce drainage discharges from that area? 6 MR. SCHNAGL: Could you restate that, please? 7 MR. SEXTON: Let me try to clarify. Isn't it a 8 purpose of the Grasslands Bypass Channel Project to reduce 9 discharges of selenium load to the San Luis drain which 10 would otherwise -- which would then be discharged through 11 Mud Slough to the San Joaquin River? 12 MR. SCHNAGL: The purpose -- one of the purposes of 13 project is to reduce selenium discharges from the area. 14 MR. SEXTON: Okay. And one of the ways that that has 15 been accomplished is through a separation of tile and 16 tailwater; isn't that correct? 17 MR. SCHNAGL: That's one of the methods being used by 18 the grasslands area farmers, yes. 19 MR. SEXTON: And if you remove tailwater wouldn't you 20 expect that the volume of water that was referred to in 21 some of the overheads that have been on the board, the 22 volume of water would be reduced in the San Joaquin River 23 as measured at Vernalis? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: The -- that would depend on the 25 accuracy of the fall measurement at Vernalis. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6051 1 MR. SEXTON: Just going by Stockton East's Exhibit 2 28, which is an extract from the State Board's Draft EIR. 3 MR. GROBER: I don't believe that referred to flows 4 at Vernalis. That was with regard to salt loads. 5 MR. SEXTON: You're correct, sir. I was referring to 6 another exhibit, perhaps. It was during the other direct 7 testimony. 8 Do you remember Ms. Harrigfeld asking if there was 9 any waiver of the Vernalis water quality standards in any 10 year type? 11 MR. GROBER: Yes, I do. 12 MR. SEXTON: Is there anything in the Grasslands 13 Bypass Project that seeks to impose a waiver of Vernalis 14 water quality standards in any year type? 15 MR. GROBER: None that I'm aware of. 16 MR. SEXTON: Do you recall Ms. Harrigfeld's questions 17 about whether there may be a reduction in violations of the 18 Vernalis water quality standard if discharges from Mud and 19 Salt Slough were removed? 20 MR. GROBER: Yes. 21 MR. SEXTON: Is it not a purpose of the Grassland 22 Bypass Project to improve water quality in Salt Slough? 23 MR. GROBER: Yes. 24 MR. SEXTON: And isn't it also a purpose of the 25 bypass project that by improving water quality in Salt CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6052 1 Slough that there would be an overall decrease in water 2 quality in Mud Slough, because the discharges would be made 3 into Mud Slough for a longer period of time than 4 historically had been done prior to the project? 5 MR. GROBER: Discharges that have previously been 6 made back and forth between Mud and Salt Slough would now 7 be made exclusively at the terminus of the San Luis drain 8 as part of the Grassland Bypass Project in the lower 9 reaches of Mud Slough. 10 MR. SEXTON: And that's the purpose of the project? 11 MR. GROBER: Yes. 12 MR. SEXTON: So if there is a decrease in water 13 quality in Mud Slough that is by project design? 14 MR. GROBER: Yes. 15 MR. SEXTON: And isn't it also true that the Regional 16 Board has established waste discharge requirements for the 17 Grasslands Bypass Project? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. It adopted the requirement last 19 July. 20 MR. SEXTON: And so to the extent that there are 21 exceedances in discharges of selenium from the project, the 22 project proponents would deal directly with the Regional 23 Board on those issues? 24 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes, with respect to enforcement of the 25 order they would deal with the Regional Board. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6053 1 MR. SEXTON: Thank you. That's all. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 3 Mr. Birmingham? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no questions. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: No questions. That concludes the 6 cross-examination except by staff and Board Members. 7 Does staff have any questions? 8 MS. LEIDIGH: Any recross? 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any recross? 10 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 11 ---oOo--- 12 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL 13 WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 14 BY STAFF 15 MR. HOWARD: In response to the question from 16 Mr. Nomellini, we received a number of model studies from 17 Mr. Grober at our request in preparation of the Draft EIR. 18 All of the model studies that we received from Mr. Grober 19 are summarized in State Water Resources Control Board 20 Exhibit 97. Many of those studies did not get into the -- 21 excuse me, '98. Many of those studies did not get into the 22 Draft EIR, but they are available in that report from 23 Mr. Grober. 24 Just one question: Mr. Herrick asked whether or 25 not it was possible to provide dilution water to meet the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6054 1 Vernalis salinity objective, essentially, through 2 recirculation of water out of the Delta. 3 Would more water be required to achieve -- more 4 water be required to achieve that objective if the dilution 5 water source was Delta water than if the dilution water 6 source was New Melones water? 7 MR. GROBER: Yes, because you'd be applying the 8 dilution water further upstream in the San Joaquin River. 9 You would not get as much bang for your buck, or the same 10 quantity of water for a couple reasons, because the 11 dilution sources has more salt in it and also because of 12 processes that occur along the San Joaquin River upstream 13 of Vernalis and upstream of the Stanislaus confluence. 14 MR. HOWARD: Would you, in summary, tell us what 15 these processes are? 16 MR. GROBER: Of course everything is always a little 17 bit more complicated, but in general, to some extent the 18 water quality objective that is met at Vernalis in part, 19 occurs because some of the salts in the San Joaquin River 20 are diverted. 21 As we had discussed in some testimony in the last 22 few days, if you put in a dilution source further upstream 23 on the San Joaquin River you'd be putting a greater volume 24 of water that would allow more of those salts to make their 25 way up to Vernalis, where previously they might have been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6055 1 diverted via diversions along the San Joaquin. And also as 2 I said, you're dealing with, generally, a poorer quality of 3 water. 4 MR. HOWARD: That's all. Thank you. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Anyone else on the staff? 6 Mr. Brown? No questions. That concludes the testimony, 7 the cross-examination of this panel. We have some exhibits 8 to go over, I believe. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: No. We're going to wait until the 10 completion of our full case in chief to introduce all of 11 our exhibits. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. I was referring to 13 cross-examination exhibits, but I guess we hold those, too, 14 then; is that correct, Ms. Leidigh? 15 MS. LEIDIGH: Normally, we have been doing that. 16 Although, you do have discretion to deal with them now if 17 you want to. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: According to the notes I have we had 19 cross-examination exhibits from Mr. Herrick, Mr. Birmingham 20 and Mr. Porgans, which Mr. Nomellini was going to represent 21 Mr. Porgans. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Just so I don't forget, I'd move that 23 we accept those cross-examination exhibits now so I don't 24 have the responsible of remembering later. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Whitney? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6056 1 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Porgans introduced Exhibit Number 2 6, Exhibit 6 which was the 1988 basin plan; however, it was 3 not used during any of the examination. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: He made reference to Porgans' this 5 and that, I know that, but are those exhibits that had 6 already been introduced into the record? 7 MS. WHITNEY: He's got Exhibit 5, Exhibit 7 and 8 Exhibit 8, which he did introduce which have not yet been 9 accepted. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 11 MS. WHITNEY: In addition to Exhibit 6, which he 12 introduced but following some discussion it was not used. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Ms. Leidigh? 14 MS. LEIDIGH: I think that's correct. He started to 15 introduce it and with further discussion the witnesses did 16 not actually refer to that exhibit. And so I think that in 17 the interest of keeping the record as clean as possible it 18 should not be accepted. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. And, Mr. Herrick and 20 Mr. Birmingham, let's do your cross-examination exhibits 21 now. We'll just, like I say, keep the record clean. 22 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Chairman, before you do that, I 23 would object to the introduction of Porgans' Number 8. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Would staff tell me what Porgans' 8 25 was, please? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6057 1 MS. WHITNEY: That was the fax that he received from 2 the Fish and Wildlife Service that had the draft 3 information regarding selenium contributions from the San 4 Luis Canal. It was a graph that he put up on the board. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: And it was a draft. 6 MR. SEXTON: I saw nothing on that that would 7 indicate that it was from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 8 nor have we be given an opportunity to examine that 9 document. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, on this issue? 11 MR. HERRICK: Yes. It's my recollection that 12 Mr. Schnagl confirmed that he had gotten that information 13 via fax from Fish and Wildlife Service also. If that's 14 true, then, I would say it is appropriate to accept it into 15 evidence. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Schnagl, do you know what 17 document we're talking about? 18 MR. SCHNAGL: Yes. It was a graph showing 19 concentration for selenium in the San Luis Canal. And I 20 did indicate that I received a copy of that sometime ago 21 from Fish and Wildlife Service via fax. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Mr. Sexton, your 23 objection is noted on the record, but I'm going to accept 24 those exhibits. 25 Ms. Leidigh? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6058 1 MS. LEIDIGH: I would recommend that with respect to 2 the Porgans' exhibits, since he has not, yet, distributed 3 copies of them to the parties that they be accepted 4 provisionally on the parties being served with copies and 5 the Board being provided the 20 copies that the Board 6 usually receives. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini thought he was getting 8 out of this easy. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: I took limited responsible that was 10 delegated to me by Mr. Birmingham. And it did not include 11 distribution, but I have no objection to the provisional 12 acceptance which has been the practice of the Board. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. We'll do that. And, 14 Mr. Herrick? 15 MR. HERRICK: If you want to take the 16 cross-examination exhibits, then I would offer my Exhibit 17 Numbers 54 and 55. 18 MS. WHITNEY: Hold on, wait a second. Okay. 19 MR. HERRICK: South Delta would then move to have 20 Exhibits 54 and 55 taken into evidence also with the 21 provision of service. 54 was a letter from Mr. Les Grober 22 with an attached model run. And 55 was the Regional Board 23 water quality report regarding the grasslands watershed 24 area. 25 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Herrick, you also introduced 52, 53 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6059 1 and 56 on the 21st of October. 2 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 3 MS. WHITNEY: Do you want to have those -- 4 MR. HERRICK: Those were a different case in chief, 5 weren't they? 6 MS. WHITNEY: I don't believe so. I believe they 7 were for Stockton East Water District -- 8 MR. HERRICK: Those exhibits were used with regard to 9 Mr. Vandenberg with the Department of the Interior, 52 and 10 53. 11 MS. WHITNEY: You're right. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Any objections? 13 MS. WHITNEY: And they haven't introduced all their 14 exhibits yet. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do I understand that they're doing 16 54, 55 and -- 54 and 55? 17 MS. WHITNEY: Correct. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: No objections. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: No objections. All right. And, 20 Mr. Birmingham, your cross-examination exhibits. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would move to admit Westlands' 22 Exhibit 89. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? The only objection 24 so far has been on Porgans' Exhibit 8, I believe. 25 And is yours also provisional pending CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6060 1 distribution? 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mine has been distributed. And it 3 was a page from a report prepared by Mr. Grober. So I 4 believe that the foundation has been laid. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And I don't see a reason to make -- 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will accept Mr. Birmingham's 8 cross-examination exhibit and accept Mr. Porgans' and 9 Mr. Herrick's cross-examination exhibits provisionally 10 pending distribution. 11 Mr. Nomellini? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Can I confirm the one of Porgans that 13 didn't go in, Number 6, was it? 14 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Because it wasn't used. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: All the rest of them are in? 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. That's correct. Now, let's 19 have a little discussion about the order of proceeding from 20 now on. We heard Stockton say they wouldn't be here next 21 Tuesday. We're scheduled to meet Tuesday, November 3rd, 22 according my calendar. And then we start again on Monday 23 the 9th. And does staff want to go over the schedule for 24 the 3rd, or is that Mr. O'Laughlin that did that? 25 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. O'Laughlin did that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6061 1 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. O'Laughlin did that. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We can. Basically, on Tuesday 3 Mr. Oltmann appearing on behalf of DOI will be the first 4 witness in the morning. If we finish Mr. Oltmann, 5 Dr. Paulsen from the San Joaquin River Group Authority will 6 be appearing in the afternoon. 7 And then on the 9th, we will proceed with the 8 Stockton East case: Mr. Delamore, Mr. Ploss and 9 Mr. Steffani. That will probably run into Tuesday, Tuesday 10 the 10th is a half day. And then coming back the following 11 week, we'd pick up, actually, kind of where we left off 12 originally with the County of San Joaquin who was scheduled 13 to go last at the beginning anyway finishing up at the end, 14 and that's assuming no other scheduling changes. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I said Stockton, I should have said 16 County of San Joaquin. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 19 MR. BRANDT: I was just wondering, Mr. Delamore does 20 have a problem on Tuesday, the 10th, so hopefully we will 21 be able to get done with him on the 9th. Can I also be 22 indulged to find out how many people think they might be 23 cross-examining Mr. Oltmann? Would that be -- 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sure. Everybody hear the question: 25 Who plans on cross-examining Mr. Oltmann? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6062 1 MR. BRANDT: Okay. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: I may want to after I hear his 3 testimony. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: After you hear? 5 MR. NOMELLINI: After I hear his testimony. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Wait a minute. I thought you had 7 all the testimony -- 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Sometimes the testimony is not 9 exactly what's seen in the written documents. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That's Mr. Nomellini. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. All right. I hope you're 12 getting this all down. Anyway, save the day. I want to 13 thank this panel for your appearance especially under the 14 circumstances which you have appeared under. And you are 15 dismissed. And -- 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, I wonder, Mr. Stubchaer, 17 rather than putting us through the burden of subpoenaing 18 these witnesses to bring them back, if we could ask that 19 they be temporarily excused and we will notified them of 20 the date that they'll be recalled for rebuttal? They're 21 currently within the Board's jurisdiction. And if you 22 excuse them then we'll have to subpoena them. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, you would. And Ms. Leidigh? 24 MS. LEIDIGH: Well, so far except for the Bureau of 25 Reclamation's witnesses, we have excused witnesses and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6063 1 allowed them to be resubpoenaed at a later time. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. We will excuse you, 3 then, and you may be subpoenaed later. Any other 4 discussion of our procedures, or status, or anything like 5 that before we adjourn? Seeing none we are adjourned until 6 Tuesday, November 3rd, 9:00 a.m. 7 (The proceedings concluded at 3:35 p.m.) 8 ---oOo--- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6064 1 REPORTER'S_CERTIFICATE __________ ___________ 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 I, MARY R. GALLAGHER, certify that I was the 6 Official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 5878 through 6064 herein constitute a 11 complete, true and correct record of the proceedings. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 13 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 11th day of 14 November, 1998. 15 16 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 6065