6066 01 02 03 04 05 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 06 07 08 09 10 PUBLIC HEARING 11 12 13 13 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING 14 15 16 17 HELD AT: 18 BONDERSON BUILDING 18 901 P STREET 19 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 19 20 20 21 21 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998 22 9:00 A.M. 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 6067 01 APPEARANCES 01 BOARD MEMBERS: 02 02 JOHN CAFFREY, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER 03 JOHN W. BROWN 04 MARY JANE FORSTER 04 MARC DEL PIERO 05 05 STAFF MEMBERS: 06 06 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 07 VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT 07 THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 08 08 COUNSEL: 09 09 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL 10 BARBARA LEIDIGH 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 6068 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 02 03 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 03 134 West Sycamore Street 04 Willows, California 95988 04 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 05 05 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 07 P.O. BOX 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 08 09 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 09 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 10 P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 11 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 13 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 14 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 16 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 and 18 AMELIA THOMAS, ESQ. 19 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 20 GARY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 21 San Rafael, California 94901 22 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 24 San Francisco, California 94109 25 25 6069 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 02 03 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 03 2480 Union Street 04 San Francisco, California 94123 04 05 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 05 06 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 06 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 07 Sacramento, California 95825 07 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 08 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 08 09 BYRON M. BUCK 09 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 11 12 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 12 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 13 Sacramento, California 95814 13 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 14 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 15 15 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 16 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 17 18 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 18 19 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 19 71 Stevenson Street 20 San Francisco, California 94105 20 21 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 21 22 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 22 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 23 Visalia, California 93291 23 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 24 24 25 25 6070 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 02 03 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 03 6201 S Street 04 Sacramento, California 95817 04 05 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 06 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor 07 Stockton, California 95202 07 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 08 08 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 09 09 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 10 375 Eleventh Street 10 Oakland, California 94623 11 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 11 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 12 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 13 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 14 Berkeley, California 94702 14 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 15 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 16 P.O. Box 5654 17 Fresno, California 93755 17 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 18 18 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 19 19 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 20 P.O. Box 2365 20 Flournoy, California 96029 21 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 21 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 22 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 23 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 24 Los Angeles, California 90075 24 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 25 25 6071 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 02 03 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 03 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 04 San Francisco, California 94102 04 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 05 05 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 07 926 J Street, Suite 505 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 08 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 09 09 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 10 101 West Walnut Street 10 Pasadena, California 91103 11 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 11 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 12 13 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 13 517 East Olive Street 14 Turlock, California 95381 14 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 15 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 16 16 RICHARD GOLB 17 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 18 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 20 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 20 Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 21 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 22 23 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. 23 and 24 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 25 Oakland, California 94618 25 6072 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 02 03 SIMON GRANVILLE 03 P.O. Box 846 04 San Andreas, California 95249 04 05 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 06 P.O. Box 1019 07 Madera, California 93639 07 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 08 08 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 09 09 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 10 2300 River Plaza Drive 10 Sacramento, California 95833 11 11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 MORRISON & FORESTER 13 755 Page Mill Road 13 Palo Alto, California 94303 14 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 14 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 15 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 16 P.O. Box 777 17 Shasta Lake, California 96019 17 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 18 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 19 926 J Street 20 Sacramento, California 95814 20 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 21 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 22 P.O. Box 427 23 Durham, California 95938 23 BY: DON HEFFREN 24 24 25 25 6073 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 02 03 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 03 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East 04 Stockton, California 95267 04 05 COUNTY OF GLENN: 05 06 NORMAN Y. HERRING 06 525 West Sycamore Street 07 Willows, California 95988 07 08 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 08 09 MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ESQ. 09 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 10 Sacramento, California 95814 10 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 11 12 JULIE KELLY 12 P.O. Box 307 13 Vina, California 96092 13 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 14 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 15 P.O. Box 4060 16 Modesto, California 95352 16 BY: BILL KETSCHER 17 17 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 18 18 SAVE THE BAY 19 1736 Franklin Street 19 Oakland, California 94612 20 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 20 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 21 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 22 P.O. Box 606 23 Manton, California 96059 23 24 24 25 25 6074 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 02 03 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 03 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 04 Sacramento, California 95814 04 05 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 05 06 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 06 1201 Civic Center Drive 07 Yuba City 95993 07 08 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 08 09 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 09 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 10 Sacramento, California 95816 10 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 11 11 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 12 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 13 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 13 Walnut Creek, California 94596 14 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 14 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 15 16 DON MARCIOCHI 16 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 17 Los Banos, California 93635 17 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 18 19 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 19 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 20 Merced, California 95344 20 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 21 21 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 22 22 R.W. MCCOMAS 23 4150 County Road K 23 Orland, California 95963 24 24 25 25 6075 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 02 03 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 03 P.O. Box 3728 04 Sonora, California 95730 04 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 05 05 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 06 06 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 07 P.O. Box 1679 07 Oroville, California 95965 08 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 08 09 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 09 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER 10 1550 California Street, Suite 6 11 San Francisco, California 94109 11 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 12 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 13 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95965 14 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 15 15 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 16 16 DE CUIR & SOMACH 17 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 18 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 19 20 STEVE MORA 20 501 Walker Street 21 Orland, California 95963 21 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 22 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 23 P.O. Box 4060 24 Modesto, California 95352 24 25 25 6076 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 02 03 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 03 P.O. Box 7442 04 San Francisco, California 94120 04 05 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 05 06 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 06 P.O. Box 1461 07 Stockton, California 95201 07 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 08 and 08 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 09 09 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 10 10 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 11 1100 Whitney Avenue 11 Corcoran, California 93212 12 12 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 13 13 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 14 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 15 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 15 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 17 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 18 Chico, California 95926 18 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 19 19 SIERRA CLUB: 20 20 JENNA OLSEN 21 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 22 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 23 23 LYNNEL POLLOCK 24 625 Court Street 24 Woodland, California 95695 25 25 6077 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 PATRICK PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES: 02 03 PATRICK PORGANS 03 P.O. Box 60940 04 Sacramento, California 95860 04 05 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 05 06 DIANE RATHMANN 06 07 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 07 08 BETSY REIFSNIDER 08 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 09 Sacramento, California 95814 09 10 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 10 11 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 11 P.O. Box 2067 12 Merced, California 95344 12 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 13 13 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 14 14 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 15 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 15 Stockton, California 95202 16 16 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 17 17 JAMES F. ROBERTS 18 P.O. Box 54153 18 Los Angeles, California 90054 19 19 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 20 20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 21 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 22 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 6078 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 02 03 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 03 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 04 San Francisco, California 94194 04 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 05 05 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 06 06 DAVID SANDINO, ESQ. 07 CATHY CROTHERS, ESQ. 07 P.O. Box 942836 08 Sacramento, California 94236 08 09 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 09 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 10 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 11 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 12 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 13 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 14 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 17 P.O. Box 1679 17 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 18 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 19 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE 20 P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 21 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 24 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. 25 6079 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 02 03 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 03 P.O. Box 1679 04 Oroville, California 95965 04 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 05 05 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 06 06 DE CUIR & SOMACH 07 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 07 Sacramento, California 95814 08 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 08 09 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 09 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 10 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 11 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 15 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 16 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 17 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 18 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 19 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 20 P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 21 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 24 Redding, California 96001 25 25 6080 01 REPRESENTATIVES 01 02 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 02 03 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 03 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 04 Red Bluff, California 96080 04 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 05 05 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 06 06 BEST BEST & KREIGER 07 P.O. Box 1028 07 Riverside, California 92502 08 BY: ERIC GARNER, ESQ. 08 09 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 09 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 10 P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 11 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 14 San Andreas, California 95249 15 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive 17 Ione, California 95640 18 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 20 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 21 22 ---oOo--- 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 6081 01 01 INDEX 02 PAGE 02 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 6082 03 03 AFTERNOON SESSION 6188 04 04 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 05 05 RICHARD OLTMANN 06 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 6103 06 BY MR. BRANDT 07 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 07 BY MR. HERRICK 6118 08 BY MR. MINASIAN 6139 08 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 6149 09 BY MR. JACKSON 6188 09 10 10 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP: 11 11 SUSAN PAULSEN 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 12 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 6212 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 13 BY MR. MADDOW 6227 14 BY MR. JACKSON 6231 14 BY MR. HERRICK 6240 15 16 ---oOo--- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6082 01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 02 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning, and welcome back. This is 05 the continuation of the Delta Water Rights proceeding. 06 When last we met, Mr. Stubchaer was presiding and I 07 believe finished the Stockton East panel. I understand from 08 Mr. Brandt earlier this morning that you have talked, sir, 09 with Ms. Zolezzi, and you are going to bring on a panel 10 now. We still have two cases in chief open, both the 11 Department of the Interior and Stockton East. We are kind 12 of working on those in kind of a zigzag format. It is fine 13 with us if it accommodates the parties. 14 Do you wish to begin now, Mr. Brandt? 15 MR. BRANDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Welcome. 17 MR. BRANDT: Morning. Department of the Interior would 18 like to call Richard Oltmann. He is with the U.S. 19 Geological Survey. As he walks up here, I just want to 20 clarify again, we are presenting this witness as 21 informational. He doesn't -- Survey does not take a 22 position on what should be done or something along those 23 lines, but it is for your information because we think the 24 information he has from some recent studies on flows would 25 be helpful for your Southern Delta implementation. 6083 01 C.O. CAFFREY: You are not making that distinction to 02 be so significant, that it is not to say, that this isn't 03 testimony; this is testimony? 04 MR. BRANDT: That's right; this is correct. This item 05 because there is a great deal of factual evidence that he 06 has in his written testimony. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Has Mr. Oltmann taken the oath? 08 MR. BRANDT: No, he has not. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: When he is ready, then we will do that. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you withdrawing your opening 11 statement now that you are just providing information only? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: That is why I raised the question, Mr. 13 Nomellini. 14 MR. BRANDT: As I explained in my opening statement, we 15 do have different pieces here. This one is one that is 16 information. So along those lines -- 17 C.O. CAFFREY: But he is subject to cross-examination 18 because it is testimony, if that was your concern, Mr. 19 Nomellini. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: My concern was broader. What I heard 21 in the opening statement was an advocacy position, and now 22 it's simply an information-only thing without position, so I 23 thought that as inconsistent. 24 MR. BRANDT: While the Department of the Interior may 25 take a policy position and it did present one witness that 6084 01 had more of a policy perspective and something along those 02 lines, for the Geological Survey, the Geological Survey does 03 not generally take something. So, in this case there is one 04 piece that does take an advocacy position and you had great 05 opportunity to cross-examine that witness. 06 This case, and Geological Survey, they are not taking a 07 position. You will have an opportunity to cross-examine him 08 and ask the same questions that you would. But they are not 09 part of our advocacy position. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: You're welcome, Mr. Nomellini. 12 I think it's a distinction that may have some bearing 13 in any future proceeding, but I am not sure that we see a 14 distinction here in this room. The individual is to be 15 treated like any other witness, as far as cross-examination 16 goes. I hope I haven't missed the point. 17 Have I, Ms. Leidigh? 18 MS. LEIDIGH: I think we are just treating this witness 19 like any witness. He is going to be testifying under oath, 20 and he'll be cross-examined. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 22 Mr. O'Laughlin. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Before we get started today so we 24 don't have to interrupt the testimony, could Mr. Brandt give 25 us an update, then, on the scheduling so we can kind of look 6085 01 at our calendars, since he talked to Stockton East, where we 02 are going to go and how we are going to do that? 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Absolutely. Let's do that. 04 MR. BRANDT: Let's do that before we get started. 05 As I understand it, they've asked for Mr. Delamore and 06 Mr. Ploss, who work for the Department of the Interior but 07 are their witnesses, to appear next Monday. Mr. Delamore, 08 though, cannot be here on the next Tuesday. So, he will 09 need to get done as best he can. Hopefully, we will get 10 those two done on Monday. 11 Then we've got San Joaquin County, which is also up. 12 So, they will be up Monday or Tuesday next week. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Do we have a day and a half next week? 14 MR. BRANDT: Day and a half next week. That is my 15 understanding. Then we go to rebuttal. I understand there 16 are a number of parties that have rebuttal. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Does that mean that after Mr. Oltmann, 18 if we still have a lot of time left today, what happens then? 19 MR. BRANDT: I'm sorry. There is also Dr. Paulsen 20 today. I think the San Joaquin River Group is presenting 21 Dr. Paulsen. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We are going to put on our direct case 23 for Phase V with Dr. Paulsen today. We would expect to 24 finish that today. With this schedule, I am assuming next 25 week we will finish up Stockton East. 6086 01 In addition to the two DOI witnesses, we have the 02 manager of Stockton East Water District, Mr. Ed Steffani. 03 So, those three will take almost all day Monday, probably 04 slop into Tuesday. If he can finish San Joaquin County on 05 Tuesday, great. If not, we will have to skip to the 06 following Tuesday and then start rebuttal. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: So, we will have three cases in chief 08 open at the same time, which is fine. I just want to make 09 sure. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can I ask one other question? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: At some time are we going to inquire 13 as to how many parties have rebuttal cases? Because I am 14 sitting here today trying to figure out when Phase II-A 15 might start so we can start letting my witnesses know about 16 timing. I have a fairly good idea when the direct case for 17 Phase V is going to end. I don't know how many parties are 18 thinking about putting on rebuttal cases in Phase V. Given 19 the extent of the testimony to date, I am assuming there are 20 some. We may then go well into December before I have to 21 start letting my witnesses line up for II-A. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I was under the impression from comment 23 made by you earlier and a couple of other folks that there 24 might be a number of rebuttal cases to be made. Why don't 25 we ask the question now, just -- we are not going to hold 6087 01 anybody to it. There may be people that make up their minds 02 later. 03 By a showing of hands, could we just see how many 04 individuals are intending to present rebuttal cases? 05 So it is -- looks like at least six and that could be 06 growing, depending on how the remaining testimony, 07 cross-examination goes with the remaining cases in chief. 08 I don't know if that helps, Mr. O'Laughlin, your 09 situation. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can I ask one other further clarifying 11 question? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Sure, go ahead. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Another procedural one. Since Ms. 14 Leidigh is here this morning, she can maybe help clear this 15 up before we actually, truly get into full-blown rebuttal 16 cases with six additional parties. 17 Is cross-examination on rebuttal limited to the scope 18 of the direct rebuttal cases? 19 MS. LEIDIGH: That is my understanding. It is limited 20 to the scope of the rebuttal case, and scope of rebuttal is 21 limited to the being responsive to a case in chief that is 22 identifiable. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: For all who are here, and you are all 24 skilled officers of the Court, please bear with me because I 25 am not an officer of the Court. I am just the Hearing 6088 01 Officer. I am the court, minor though it may be. 02 It helps the Board as you do -- since we are on the 03 subject of rebuttal. It will help the Board when you come 04 up and make your rebuttal cases, and you have been doing 05 this, you have been doing it very well in the past, and we 06 appreciate your continuing it. We do appreciate it and it 07 does help us when you come up and offer your rebuttal 08 testimony by referencing "so and so said such and such," and 09 that really does help us because it gives us a frame of 10 reference. You have been doing the same thing in the 11 limited situations where we have had recross, and we thank 12 you for that. It helps us a great deal. 13 Anything else? 14 Mr. Nomellini. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Rebuttal case involving the direct, as 16 I understand, the cross-examination of the direct and 17 whatever is in that cross is subject to rebuttal, as well. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: That's been my understanding. Is that 19 not the case? 20 Ms. Leidigh is nodding in the affirmative. 21 MS. LEIDIGH: That is correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Redirect and recross are also subject to 24 rebuttal. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Parts of rebuttal. 6089 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Parts of it. 02 Anything else on that subject while we are here? 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: One last one. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. O'Laughlin. 05 We are not really trying to torture you, Mr. Brandt. 06 This is important. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to that, there has been -- 08 in Phase I is the extension of 95-06. The hearing has been 09 done. The briefs have been filed. Is the State Water 10 Resources Control Board going to be noticing a hearing date 11 for an order on 95-06 or is it -- are we going to see an 12 order shortly? Or is there a process in place that the 13 parties have to know, should know about, in how we are going 14 to get from 95-06 to the final order? 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me give you my brief overview, and 16 then I will ask Ms. Whitney to give particulars. I think 17 what is going to happen in the relatively very near future, 18 we will issue a draft order, and then we will hold a Board 19 meeting to adopt that draft order in which we will allow 20 people an opportunity to comment orally. I don't know what 21 the plan was with regard to any written commentary, who 22 should comment on that, Ms. Whitney or Ms. Leidigh. 23 Go ahead, Ms. Leidigh. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: When the Board -- this is, of course, 25 standard process. When the Board holds a Board meeting to 6090 01 consider adopting a water right decision or order after a 02 hearing has been held, the parties are not able to present 03 any additional evidence because the evidentiary record has 04 been closed. The Board does normally accept very brief 05 comments, which can be limited in time, on the document. 06 But it's not a matter of either presenting new legal 07 argument or new evidence at that time. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: With that understanding, that was what 09 I thought would happen. Is the Board planning on one of the 10 hearing days that we have previously scheduled in for this 11 process to take that up? Or is that going to be taken up 12 separately at a State Water Resources Control Board meeting? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I think what we are talking about is to 14 accommodate all, to do it within one of the already 15 scheduled hearing days, so you all will be here and do it 16 within that time frame. 17 Is that not correct, Ms. Whitney? 18 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Caffrey. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Whitney. 20 MS. WHITNEY: The staff has already sent the language 21 for the agenda notice for the closed session workshop. The 22 plan is that, first, the Board will meet with the staff in 23 closed session to discuss the draft order; and then after 24 the Board approves the draft order, it will be released to 25 parties. 6091 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Normal practice. 02 MS. WHITNEY: I expect that an agenda notice will go 03 out in a week or so. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: We could have the notice out in a week 05 or so? 06 MS. WHITNEY: The agenda notice is just a one-liner. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Off the record. 08 (Discussion held off the record.) 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Back on the record. 10 I want to make sure we don't have a misunderstanding. 11 Was it the intention -- was I correct when I said it was the 12 intention to hold the adoption meeting on one of the same 13 days as a water rights Delta hearing is scheduled? 14 MS. LEIDIGH: That is what we have been thinking of 15 doing. But before that adoption meeting there would be -- 16 we do plan to have a closed session with the Board members. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: With the Chair's and the Board's 18 indulgence I have two other procedural questions I would 19 like to raise at this time. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's do it. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sorry, Mr. Brandt. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: This is important procedurally, so that 23 we know where we are going. We have very few meeting days 24 left between now and the end of the year. And I will just 25 say that it has already been announced at least, I don't 6092 01 know how officially, that the Accord has been extended for 02 another year. And that it is certainly this Board's 03 intention to adopt or take a vote on, if that is more 04 legally precise language, take a vote on some version of the 05 current 95-6 to extend the protections of the Delta, along 06 with that Accord having been extended. Whether or not the 07 Accord will be extended, we would be doing that anyway. It 08 seems to fold together to some degree. So that has always 09 been our intent with regard to the water rights, and that is 10 what we plan to do before this year is out. That is what we 11 said we are going to do. 12 Go ahead, Mr. O'Laughlin. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to that, talking about 14 orders. We have been wrestling with how to bring this back 15 up in front of the State Water Resources Control Board and 16 staff, our concern about how -- and we identified this 17 previously in the April workshop and again when we started 18 Phase II -- how the State Water Resources Control Board and 19 staff envisions moving forward from phasing to implementable 20 orders. 21 Remember, there was discussion about whether or not we 22 should have a workshop on that. Do we need to make motions 23 on that? Does there need to be further briefing on that? 24 Are we going to have a hearing day set aside to do something 25 on that? 6093 01 I think it would be helpful for the participants if we 02 had some idea of which way the Board and staff envisioned us 03 moving forward on that process. It's been there. It's 04 still there. And at some point in time we need to begin the 05 process to address that, or maybe the Board and staff has 06 already addressed it. But we are unaware of what that 07 result is or how the process will unfold. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have -- I know at one point you 09 and others had suggested the possibility of a workshop. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Correct. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: You just mentioned it a moment ago 12 again. I don't know if we need to decide that this morning. 13 We can take it under advisement. We do appreciate your 14 raising it, Mr. O'Laughlin. This is a question that -- the 15 Board has a couple of options. 16 The Board could do just whatever it wants to do, and 17 come up with an order or series of orders and everybody can 18 let the chips fall where they may. Frankly, I think we all 19 up here rather have a process where we are all working 20 together and understand what the rules are and something 21 that we can all agree on procedurally. Maybe a workshop. I 22 don't want to prejudice; maybe a workshop or something like 23 that makes a great deal of sense. If not a set of written, 24 or else a set of written instructions that you can comment 25 back on, but something that we can interact on 6094 01 procedurally. 02 So we will take that under advisement and get back to 03 you. 04 Mr. Jackson. 05 MR. JACKSON: So that I understand this, the Board then 06 is going to issue a final order on Phase I that would then 07 start the clock on the petition for reconsideration and 08 judicial review. Is that what we have in mind here? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: I guess any order that we issue starts 10 the clock on that. 11 MR. JACKSON: We are now going to segment the order. 12 In other words, Phase I will be litigated first, then Phase 13 II, and Phase III. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: No, that is not what we said. I can 15 also I don't want to -- we don't have to work the whole 16 thing out here. Let me envision another concept for you. 17 The Board adopted under emergency regulation, I guess, 18 95-6 for the reasons that it did. 19 It was not an emergency regulation? Refresh me. 20 MS. LEIDIGH: It was an order after hearing. It was a 21 fairly quickly held hearing, but it was an order after 22 hearing on petition that was filed jointly by the Department 23 of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: The point is that 95-6 was adopted. 25 Those that were ordered to meet the requirements of the 6095 01 order did. And we are operating or the State of California 02 is operating under that order as we speak. Correct? 03 That order expires at the end of December, as you know, 04 Mr. Jackson. I could envision the following situation, 05 which is, if I can envision it, it is probably close to 06 something we are going to do. To adopt an extension of 95-6 07 is an accommodation to protect the Delta until the Board 08 finishes this process. 09 That is not to be interpreted, necessarily, as a signal 10 that the Board is going to come out with a series of phased 11 decisions. It may or it may not. We don't know. As Mr. 12 O'Laughlin has pointed out, we still have to go through some 13 kind of an exercise to determine what is the best way to 14 proceed legally after that. We are still garnering the 15 record. It is conceivable that the Board could do it in one 16 last order, say, by the spring. Say, mid to late spring the 17 Board comes out with an order that places the extension of 18 95-6, which is the new order. 19 I see the 95-6 extension as a very temporary thing 20 until we finish the totality of the work that we are about 21 here. 22 Anybody want to comment on that? 23 Ms. Leidigh, is that fair from your legal opinion? 24 MS. LEIDIGH: Yeah, I guess so. I don't think I can 25 add anything really to that. I think we need to take a look 6096 01 at how the process goes and stuff. But it is necessary for 02 the Board to start doing phased decisions, just it makes a 03 determination on the extension of one order that is already 04 out there, if that is indeed what the Board does. 05 It could take several phases and make a decision, and 06 it could make a decision on all the other phases at once. 07 It has that flexibility. The notice that the Board put out 08 indicated that the Board could do that; it could stop at any 09 time and issue an order on phases that it had already gone 10 through, or it could wait until the end. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Leidigh. 12 If people are worried about timing, I don't want you to 13 go too far, at least in the sense of committing us to 14 anything. Just as a practicality, here we are on November 15 3rd with the holiday season quickly approaching, which is 16 something we do in this country, and it is something that 17 the legal system recognizes. So, it is very hard for me to 18 envision that we could possibly come out with any other 19 decision other than the extension of 95-6, whatever number 20 it will have, by the end of this year. This is a process 21 that we said all along that would extend into the spring, 22 and I hope not the early summer, but extend to the early 23 spring. In my mind, Mr. O'Laughlin, I will tell all of you, 24 I see whatever the Board decides to do with the totality of 25 the record is something that will happen after January 1st 6097 01 of 1999. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Chairman Caffrey. 03 My only question was what the process will be. I think 04 you've laid that out, that the State Board's going to 05 address that, let the parties know what process it envisions 06 going forward with and notify us, and we will move forward 07 from there. I just wanted to know where we were 08 procedurally with that. 09 I thank the Board for its indulgence in taking up this 10 time procedurally at the beginning of the case and to DOI to 11 for letting me jump in here and ask these questions. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: That is very fine, Mr. O'Laughlin. You 13 actually provided me a segue. This is not all on your time, 14 I know I went beyond that. 15 I want to talk a little bit conceptually because I know 16 there are questions and concerns out there that go a little 17 bit beyond procedure and go more to what are we really doing 18 here. And as Mr. Nomellini has raised, then we are going to 19 take the time this morning to try to -- 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Procedural aspect in response to Tim's 21 question as to whether or not we should address future 22 phasing, or what have you, by motion or work it out in a 23 workshop. We are contemplating filing a motion that would 24 ask the Board to revisit the Water Quality Control Plan in 25 not necessarily a full triennial review. 6098 01 We view the San Joaquin River Agreement as including 02 specific changes in the Water Quality Control Plan as well 03 as Suisun Marsh request that the lead deal with the 04 monitoring points. More importantly, more difficult is 05 trying to address the narrative standard for salmon without 06 specific idea of flows or water quality. So, we are 07 contemplating a motion in that regard, and, further, we have 08 had a different view of the procedure of how we approach the 09 decision from what the Board has. 10 If we look at each of the tributaries and all the 11 contributions, somebody has to analyze each tributary in 12 order to make a decision as to what part of the Delta is 13 there. We have pending decisions on the Mokelumne and the 14 Yuba that haven't been rendered. 15 We think those have to be rendered plus all other major 16 stream systems that would have to be brought in. So, we 17 were contemplating the filing of motions to get at those 18 issues, not knowing what the outcome is going to be, 19 reacting to what we see as the staff and Board didn't view 20 of how we approach the decision in this record. 21 So, that is what we were going to do. If we are going 22 to do a workshop, we can lay it out, just alert everybody 23 else in the room here, what is going through our head. That 24 is what we are contemplating. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for informing us of that, Mr. 6099 01 Nomellini. We will take that under advisement as important 02 information when we sit down and try to figure out how we 03 are going to deal with the design of a process. I can't say 04 that it will be a workshop; it may well be. It may be a 05 series of communications in writing back and forth, 06 whatever works best, and we will get back to you in the 07 very near future on a procedure. 08 Thank you for raising this, Mr. O'Laughlin. I don't 09 mean to cut you off, if you have more. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: One last one. I was reminded of this 11 by Mr. Birmingham. There are -- a change may be coming to 12 the State Water Resources Control Board in early next year, 13 maybe, maybe not. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe earlier. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We won't prejudge anything, what that 16 looks like. I think it would be helpful to the parties to 17 receive some reassurance in a memorandum form, or whatever, 18 about what the process will look like if one or more members 19 of the State Water Resources Control Board who would have 20 been in this hearing are no longer in this hearing and how 21 the State Board envisions its authority to move forward in 22 regards to the hearing process, whatever that will be. I am 23 not saying we need it right now or tomorrow or anything 24 else, but it may be possible that two Board Members may be 25 gone by next year before we get a final order. 6100 01 C.O. CAFFREY: I am chained to this chair. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think this discussion is 12 hours 03 premature. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Very wise. Actually, I don't know if we 05 should have this discussion on the record. We are on the 06 record. You tell me to go off the record if you think we 07 should. I want to comment on that because I can understand 08 how there can be concern. And I don't know that the State 09 Water Board has ever been in a proceeding quite as important 10 as this ever before. We have been on this subject before. 11 And I certainly don't think that, having said that, we have 12 had a looming change of administration facing the Board. 13 I am -- my own -- the two people that Mr. O'Laughlin 14 speaks of are myself and Mr. Del Piero. Am I making you 15 nervous, Ms. Leidigh? 16 MS. LEIDIGH: I am trying to count. I am counting 17 years. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I do not know who is going to win the 19 election. I can tell you this, and I discussed it with -- 20 some of you have been very kind and have come up and asked 21 me about it during the breaks. There is no guarantee that 22 even a change of governor within the same party means that 23 anybody gets reappointed. As a matter of fact, if you look 24 at a change of administration within the same party, most 25 people do get replaced. 6101 01 I have been on this Board for two terms. I am in a 02 third term, first year unconfirmed. I am done January 15th, 03 legally, and that is the outside date. Mr. Del Piero is 04 finishing his second term. He gets a 60-day grace period 05 because he hasn't been confirmed. He could conceivably stay 06 until March 15th. I am sorry -- I must have used the word 07 "confirmed." He has not been reappointed. That is a little 08 bit different situation. He has a grace period. 09 If the truth be known, as I told some of you, the 10 reason that I set this up for a cohearing officership was 11 for this very reason, among other practical reasons, so that 12 there would be continuity with this. I can honestly tell 13 you I have never been asked or told by any administration, 14 and I have been on their Board for two of them, as how to 15 proceed or what to decide. So I would not envision a new 16 governor from either party telling this Board what to do. 17 It would be a first, and it would have some legal 18 implications of its own, I am sure. 19 Therefore, it is the intention of this Board, with or 20 without me, to do everything it can to proceed with this 21 process as we have designed it. 22 Now, if two brand new people come on this Board, they 23 will obviously have some influence and we don't know what 24 that will be. So, I guess enough said about that. That is 25 just where we are. As Mr. Stubchaer rightly said a moment 6102 01 ago, we might have an ability to guess a little more 02 accurately in 12 hours. It will still be guessing. 03 Okay. Anything else on this or any other subject while 04 we are here? 05 We will get back to you in the very near future on a 06 process for the decision making. 07 Ms. Leidigh, did you have one thing? 08 MS. LEIDIGH: I just wanted to point out that we do 09 have past experience with Board hearings going through 10 different administrations and with having different Board 11 Members on the Board at the time the decision was made, 12 than when the case was being heard. It does work. It is 13 possible to reach a decision without going back and holding 14 another hearing. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: As I observed to Mr. Jackson a few 16 months back, it's a little bit like making sausage without 17 the casing, a slight handicap. 18 With that, then, we will get back to our regular 19 schedule, such as it is. 20 Good morning, Mr. Brandt, and we should swear in your 21 witness. 22 (Oath administered by C.O. Caffrey.) 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // 6103 01 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 02 BY MR. BRANDT 03 MR. BRANDT: Mr. Oltmann, could you please state your 04 name for the record and spell your last name. 05 MR. OLTMANN: Richard Oltmann, O-l-t-m-a-n-n. 06 MR. BRANDT: Mr. Oltmann, I am going to hand you a 07 Department of Interior Exhibit Number 15, and if I could 08 draw your attention to Exhibit 15-A. 09 Is Exhibit 15-A an accurate reflection of your 10 qualifications? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it is. 12 MR. BRANDT: Now drawing your attention to the entire 13 package of Exhibit 15, which includes 15-A and 15-B, is 15 14 an accurate reflection of your testimony here today? 15 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it is. 16 MR. BRANDT: Would you please summarize that 17 testimony. 18 MR. OLTMANN: Can people hear me all right? 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Slide the mike up. Grab the mike at the 20 top. 21 MR. OLTMANN: This is the cover of the report that I 22 prepared containing my written testimony for this hearing, 23 and this is Exhibit 15-B, I think, as Mr. Brandt pointed 24 out. I will be presenting measured flow information for the 25 Delta that shows the effects on the hydrodynamics of the 6104 01 Delta resulting from man's manipulation of the system. 02 This is Figure 1 from that report. Note the 03 manipulations that I was speaking about include the 04 exportation of water from the southern part of the Delta by 05 the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project and 06 the installation of a temporary barrier at the Head of Old 07 River to prevent outmigrating salmon smolts from entering 08 Old River and a generation of a 30-day pulse flow to help 09 push the salmon to the north and through the Delta. 10 Over the last several years, with funding help from 11 several agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey have developed 12 a network of continuous tidal flow measuring sites within 13 the Delta, using ultrasonic velocity measures, or UVMs. 14 Each red mark here or dot on this map show the location of 15 one of those UVMs. Until this network was established, 16 there were no measured tidal flow information within the 17 Delta that could be used. We have learned an awful lot 18 about the hydrodynamics of the Delta from these, data from 19 the UVMs; and the data are now the primary data source which 20 is used to calibrate the 1-D models that are presently being 21 used for the Delta. 22 During the spring of 1997 and 1998, the USGS was able 23 to augment the data from the UVMs by using acoustic Doppler 24 current profilers, or ADCPs, which were deployed at the 25 sites shown here by yellow triangles. 6105 01 This is Figure 2 from the report, which shows 02 three-month long tidal flow hydrographs for the ADCP sites 03 for the spring of 1997. And there are two things that I 04 would like to point out from these hydrographs. One is that 05 the flows within the South Delta are all extremely dynamic. 06 The green are the tidal flows which look pretty much at this 07 high scale as one big, wide swath across the hydrographs. 08 That is because in the case here of the San Joaquin flows, 09 we have flows of 20,000 cfs going in one direction and six 10 hours later we have around 20,000 flowing in the other 11 direction. So, in every six to seven hours the flows are 12 going back and forth to zero. 13 Here in the case of Turner Cut, for example, we have 14 around 5,000 flowing in one direction and we get to around 15 5- or 6,000 in the other direction. Again, six, seven 16 hours. 17 The second thing I wanted to point out here is the red 18 lines, which is the result of tidal -- averaging these tidal 19 flows to get to a net flow. Notice in the case here of the 20 San Joaquin we have the 20,000 flows going back and forth 21 and the net is this red line which is then around 2,000. So 22 we have quite a difference there. 23 These net flow hydrographs, in other words, the red 24 ones, are the ones that I will be using to show a little bit 25 about the hydrodynamics of the Delta. 6106 01 C.O. STUBCHAER: Question. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can you put that overhead back up, 04 please. 05 Where you have a negative net hydrograph, does that 06 mean more water is coming in that particular channel than is 07 leaving -- than is flowing back out that particular channel 08 in the same path it came in? 09 MR. OLTMANN: No. It just means the flow direction 10 within the channel, and I will be talking about that as we 11 go along. Just a sign convention, in essence. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: One other question. I guess he is 13 going to explain it more later. 14 Could you define anthropogenic for me. 15 MR. OLTMANN: I certainly can. Man effects on the 16 system. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 18 MR. OLTMANN: Here, again, is Figure 1 from the report. 19 And before I present some data for 1996, I want to point out 20 one thing, and that is that the normal draw of water by the 21 export facilities is to pull water from the north through 22 Old River and Middle River and over from the east through 23 the San Joaquin River through Old and Grant Line Canal. Now 24 if the export rate remains the same and the Head of Old 25 River Barrier is installed, you're going to see an increase 6107 01 in net flow from the north; and some of the plots that I 02 will present in a few minutes will demonstrate that. 03 Now I am going to show some information for Vernalis, 04 the export facilities and from the UVMs at Stockton on the 05 San Joaquin, Old River and Dutch Slough. 06 This is Figure 3 from the report. This shows 07 hydrographs for a five-month period during the spring of 08 1996. The bottom three plots are, again, the tidally 09 averaged hydrographs that I spoke about. At the beginning 10 of this period you can see that the San Joaquin flow at 11 Vernalis is relatively high, around 15,000 cfs. The export 12 rate is low, which results in net flow of Old River, at the 13 Old River UVM site, to be positive, which implies that that 14 is flow heading to the north or away from the export 15 facilities. 16 At the Dutch Slough site, again, it shows that the 17 flows are positive, which means flowing to the west or 18 towards the Bay. As the San Joaquin flow drops off and the 19 export rate increases, the effect is that it is either a 20 positive flow or the Old River UVM decreases, goes through 21 zero and actually becomes negative. Now that the net flow 22 is toward the export facilities or toward the south, the 23 Dutch Slough site, the net flows are reduced in magnitude 24 and approach zero. 25 Here at the first line is when the export rate is 6108 01 reduced by around 8,000 cfs, down to a magnitude of about 02 1700 cfs, and remains steady for around a 30-day period. As 03 a result of this, the net flows at the Old River UVM are now 04 to the north. The Dutch Slough net flows have increased in 05 magnitude toward the west. 06 The second vertical line here, the brown line, is the 07 point when the Head of Old River Barrier is installed at Old 08 River. And what you can see here is that, of course, the 09 barrier forces more flow down the San Joaquin River to this 10 site and that is what the hydrograph shows. It also shows 11 that at the Old River site that now the net flow is turned 12 around and is now heading toward the export facilities, 13 which is back to the point that I was making before. The 14 Dutch Slough also decreases and approaches zero. 15 The third line here is when the Head of Old River 16 Barrier is breached. You can see that there is a decrease 17 in the San Joaquin River at Stockton flow, and the exports 18 are still low but the San Joaquin flow has increased, which 19 results in the net flow at Old River to become positive and 20 the positive flow at Dutch Slough also increases, until the 21 export rates increase, the San Joaquin Vernalis flow 22 decreases which results in the net flow at the Old River 23 site to now be negative or towards the export facilities, 24 and the Dutch Slough site the net flow is actually negative, 25 meaning it is from the Bay into the Delta. 6109 01 C.O. STUBCHAER: Question, Mr. Chairman. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is the Vernalis hydrograph tidally 04 averaged or is that not subject to tidal action at all? 05 MR. OLTMANN: It is not subject to tidal action. 06 This again is Figure 1 from the report. And what I'd 07 like to do before I show you the 1997 ADCP flow data, is to 08 show you some information, some tidal flow information from 09 the Stockton UVM to kind of set the tone for the flow 10 conditions. 11 This is Figure 4 from the report, which shows 12 approximately two months of tidal flow information for the 13 Stockton UVM starting on April 1st which is the period when 14 the ADCPs were deployed in the South Delta. 15 At the start of the period you can see that, again, 16 here is our zero flow line. You can see this very dynamic 17 tidal flow that are taking place, going from around 4,000 to 18 a negative 2,000. At this point right here the first 19 vertical line on April 8th or so is the installation of Head 20 of Old River Barrier, which, as we mentioned, of course, 21 forces more flow down the San Joaquin. And you can actually 22 see that it actually eliminated the flood flows or the 23 negative flows at this location. 24 Then on the 15th we have the pulse flow that was 25 generated, and you can see that the hold magnitude of the 6110 01 hydrograph now is moved further up in magnitude. But you 02 can still see the tidal influence. It is still pulsating, 03 but it is unidirectional flow. Until, on the 15th, the Head 04 of Old River Barrier is breached and the pulse flow is 05 terminated, the flow is subsiding and become again 06 bidirectional flows. 07 Back on Figure 1, again. Before I show -- I will show 08 you some 1997 data now for the ADCP sites down here at Grant 09 Line Canal and at Victoria Canal along with export rate 10 information. 11 This is Figure 5 from the report. This is the 12 three-month hydrographs. In green here we have the combined 13 exports of the CVP and SWP, along with the two, again, 14 tidally averaged hydrographs for Grant Line Canal and 15 Victoria Canal. At the start of this period the export rate 16 is up around 7,000 cfs. The net flow at Grant Line Canal 17 and Victoria, as you can see, are both around 2,000 cfs. 18 The negative here implies toward the export facilities. 19 After this point here where the vertical line is, the 20 first vertical line is when the Head of Old River Barrier is 21 installed. 22 With the Grant Line net flow, you can see it decreases 23 to zero which makes sense as the flow is no longer able to 24 come over from the San Joaquin side. 25 So it reduces to zero and you can see that now at 6111 01 Victoria, the net flow has increased towards the export 02 facilities. Until at this point, the second line, vertical 03 line when the exports are reduced by around 5,000 cfs, that 04 reduces the net flow in the Victoria, but it is still 05 towards the export facilities. Then we get to, at this 06 point, the third vertical line when the Head of Old River is 07 breached and you can see that the net flow now is towards 08 the export facilities as reduced at Victoria. And during 09 this time, here, when the export rate actually drops to 10 around 800 cfs, the net flow at Victoria actually turns 11 around and is flowing now toward the northeast, away from 12 the export facilities, until this fourth vertical line which 13 is when the export rate increases again and the net flow, 14 again, is towards the export facilities. 15 Here again is Figure 1, and now I will show you for 16 the same three-month period. I will show in 1997, I will 17 show tidal flow information for the ADCPs here in the 18 northern part of the Delta; and that is Turner Cut, San 19 Joaquin River and Middle River. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Oltmann, I don't know if your 21 attorney told you, but we have a 20-minute limit on direct 22 testimony. I don't know if you are -- you have quite a 23 stack of transparencies. 24 MR. OLTMANN: No. I cut it down to about 20 minutes. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You still have more than seven minutes. 6112 01 I don't know if you have been informed. No problem. 02 MR. OLTMANN: I am aware. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is net time. When I ask you a 04 question, it is -- 05 MR. OLTMANN: That doesn't count. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: At this time the clock is stopped. 07 MR. OLTMANN: Appreciate it. I should be right around 08 20 minutes. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Go ahead. 10 MR. OLTMANN: This is Figure 7 from the report. This 11 again shows -- here again is the green hydrograph which 12 shows the combined exports for the CVP and SWP along with 13 this blue plot for the San Joaquin site. The positive here 14 meaning flowing to the north. And what you can see here is 15 an increase around 3,000 cfs that takes place over this 16 period of time, and that coincides to the flow, pulse flow 17 period. 18 The bottom two are, again, tidally averaging 19 hydrographs for Turner Cut and for Middle River, and both 20 are negative, which is indicating flow towards the export 21 facilities. When the Head of Old River Barrier goes in, you 22 can see the net flow increases towards the export facilities 23 until the export rate is reduced. And then when the Head of 24 Old River Barrier is breached, you can see that the net flow 25 is further -- the net flow towards the export facilities is 6113 01 further reduced until the export rate increases, and then 02 the magnitude also increases towards the export facilities. 03 On April 28 of 1997, and again we did in 1998, the USGS 04 has conducted -- and this is a photo that is not in the 05 report. This just shows the release of dye. We did a 06 tracer dye study in conjunction with the release of coded 07 wire tagged salmon smolts that were released by Fish and 08 Wildlife Service and California Fish and Game at Mossdale on 09 the San Joaquin River. This is another photo that is not in 10 the report. 11 The purpose of the study was to track the water mass 12 that the fish were released into. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Oltmann. Our timing. 14 Are you going to identify those as -- 15 MR. BRANDT: We would be happy to add those two, and we 16 will identify the first photo as 15-C and the second photo 17 as 15-D. And we, of course, will send those out to 18 everybody. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 20 Go ahead, Mr. Oltmann. 21 MR. OLTMANN: So the dye was released here at Mossdale, 22 and then the movement of the dye was tracked by having 23 automatic water samplers installed at all of the locations 24 shown here, the nine locations shown here by the green 25 circles. 6114 01 The results of the study provided valuable data for 02 calibration of transport models within the Delta. Also 03 showed that the Delta is highly dispersive. I will next 04 show the dye concentration hydrograph for the site here, the 05 Stockton UVM and Turner Cut and Middle River and then on the 06 San Joaquin. 07 This is Figure 9 from the report, which is the first 08 monitoring site of the dye and the Stockton UVM. The dye 09 was released at this point, and approximately ten hours 10 later the dye arrived or traveled that 13 miles down to this 11 location which equates to a velocity of around two feet per 12 second. The maximum concentration at this point was around 13 ten micrograms per liter. 14 You can see that the dye pretty much completely passed 15 this site in a matter of about three to four hours. Here is 16 the hydrograph, the flow hydrograph, at this location. You 17 can see the pulsation by the flow. It is still 18 unidirectional. This was during the pulse flow period. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can you put that last grid back up. 22 Figure 9 that I have does not have the time dots on it. 23 Are those times? 24 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, they are. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: So, it does make it possible from this 6115 01 exhibit to determine the -- 02 MR. OLTMANN: The scale should still be there, the time 03 scale down at the bottom. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. It doesn't show the hour. 05 Okay. 06 Thank you. 07 MR. OLTMANN: Sorry about that. 08 This is Figure 10 from the report, which shows the next 09 sampling site downstream. This is ten miles downstream of 10 the Stockton UVM, and it took 25 hours for the dye to move 11 to this location, which equates to a mean velocity of 12 six-tenths of a foot per second. That, comparing it to 13 around the two foot per second, the reason there is once you 14 get into the Port of Stockton and further down into the 15 system, the flows again become unidirectional. The dye is 16 slashing back and forth with this bidirectional flow 17 compared to what we saw down at Stockton. 18 Notice here, also, that the net or the peak 19 concentration is now down to eight-tenths of a microgram per 20 liter compared to the ten micrograms that we saw at 21 Stockton. The time for the dye to pass the site takes 22 around three to four days. 23 Here is the hydrograph, the tidal hydrograph, at this 24 location. And you can see that the dye first arrived here 25 on this negative flow, which, again, is sign convention 6116 01 meaning that this flow from the San Joaquin into Turner Cut, 02 but that most of the dye showed up on this pulse coming in 03 from the San Joaquin. Then this dye just sort of sloshes 04 back and forth with the tidal action and finally moves on 05 out of site. 06 This is a Figure 11, and my last overhead. In green 07 here, again, we show the Turner Cut hydrograph from the 08 previous slide, just as a point of reference. We can see as 09 we go seven miles further downstream, we get to the San 10 Joaquin site and you can see that the peak has dissipated 11 down to two-tenths of a microgram per liter and is a very 12 wide bases for dispersing, going back and forth with the 13 tide. And at the Middle River site it is even lower and, 14 again, a very broad base. 15 So what this shows is that the Delta is extremely 16 dispersive because of its very dynamic flows and inflows in 17 the Delta. 18 And that is all I have. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Oltmann. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: I know we orderly wait till last, but 23 I would like to do it in close time. 24 Have you been in touch with the modelers who are 25 working on these phenomena? 6117 01 MR. OLTMANN: Very much so. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: These are actual measurements? 03 MR. OLTMANN: These are actual measurements. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: How do the models reproduce your 05 measurements? 06 MR. OLTMANN: They are getting better. 07 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 09 Anything else on this direct? 10 Mr. Brandt. 11 MR. BRANDT: We are ready for cross. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: By a showing of hands, which of the 13 parties' representatives desire to cross-examine Mr. 14 Oltmann? 15 We have Mr. Herrick. 16 Anybody else? 17 Mr. Minasian, Mr. O'Laughlin. 18 Did I miss anybody? 19 I have Mr. Herrick, Mr. Minasian and Mr. O'Laughlin. 20 We will take them in that order. 21 Mr. Herrick, would you like to go first, sir? 22 Good morning, Mr. Herrick. 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // 6118 01 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 02 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 03 BY MR. HERRICK 04 MR. HERRICK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Board 05 Members. John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 06 Mr. Oltmann, Phase V deals with the interior Delta 07 standards and the San Joaquin River salinity issue. I was 08 wondering how your testimony relates to those topics. 09 MR. OLTMANN: Just shows basically the movement of 10 water, which obviously would also carry salts around with 11 it. 12 MR. HERRICK: Has anybody, or including you, done any 13 comparison with your information and the transportation of 14 salts? 15 MR. OLTMANN: I have not. The Department of Water 16 Resources possibly has. 17 MR. HERRICK: Your data indicates that you looked at 18 years 1996 and '97; is that correct? 19 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion as to how those 21 years related to other water years, and by that I mean the 22 flows coming down Vernalis? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. The flows in the San Joaquin were 24 relatively high compared to some data I had looked at 25 previous to that. 6119 01 MR. HERRICK: Can you make any conclusions as to how 02 your high flow data may compare to low flow years? 03 MR. OLTMANN: I think you would see some different 04 magnitudes of flow, yes. 05 MR. HERRICK: I see on your Figure 3, that is 1996 and 06 it does have the Vernalis flows listed in 3-A, does one of 07 your charts show the Vernalis flows for '97? 08 MR. OLTMANN: I don't think that I have that one. No, 09 I don't believe I do. 10 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the three tidal 11 barriers of the Interim South Delta Program? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I am. 13 MR. HERRICK: Does any of your data examine time 14 periods when those barriers were operational? 15 MR. OLTMANN: No. 16 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason why you -- let me start 17 over. 18 Is there a reason why that data was not developed by 19 you? 20 MR. OLTMANN: No. There was no reason. It was just 21 that we were looking mainly -- we were doing a lot of the 22 work in conjunction with VAMP flows, which dealt with -- the 23 VAMP study, which dealt primarily with the Head of Old River 24 Barrier. 25 MR. HERRICK: I see from your testimony that one of the 6120 01 reasons you were doing this study is to see how the Head of 02 Old River Barrier may affect flows and, thus, salmon 03 outmigrating smolt; is that correct? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 05 MR. HERRICK: Were you here when we had testimony that 06 put a number on salmon outmigrating smolts that occur 07 outside of the 31-day pulse period? 08 MR. OLTMANN: No, I was not. 09 MR. HERRICK: You were not asked to gather any data as 10 to effects on those other salmon that are not coming down 11 the stream during the pulse flow period? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 13 MR. HERRICK: Without getting too, too picky here, I 14 see that -- you talked about having three UVMs in the South 15 Delta. That is on the report on Page 3. 16 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: I see from your Figure 1 that all of the 18 UVMs are in Central or North Delta. Is that just a 19 description, a mistake? 20 MR. OLTMANN: I guess it depends on what you define as 21 South Delta. I am speaking of these three right here as 22 being the South Delta. 23 MR. HERRICK: The same thing with regards to the 24 Doppler measuring stations, I guess. 25 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. These I would classify as being 6121 01 the South Delta, These could be more the Central Delta. 02 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 03 Have you reviewed the testimony of the other Department 04 of Interior witness, Mr. Vandenberg, from Fish and Wildlife 05 Service? 06 MR. OLTMANN: No, I haven't. 07 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any information whether or 08 not your data with regard to flows in Turner Cut agrees with 09 his or disagrees with his? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Haven't seen his data, so I couldn't 11 say. 12 MR. HERRICK: Excuse me while I have some things out of 13 order here. 14 Could you put up your Figure Number 2, please. 15 MR. OLTMANN: Okay. 16 MR. HERRICK: Is it correct to say on that Turner Cut, 17 Middle River south of Columbia Cut, Victoria Canal and Old 18 River Clifton Court Forebay you indicate that the net flow 19 is negative? 20 MR. OLTMANN: That is correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: When you say it is negative, negative as 22 compared to what? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Negative is just a sign convention. 24 Turner Cut would imply that that is negative, that the net 25 flow is heading to the southwest. 6122 01 The negative at Middle River would be showing that that 02 is negative flows to the south. 03 Victoria would show negative, and implies net flow 04 heading to the southwest. 05 And Old River Clifton Court Forebay would show that 06 that is negative, is heading to the south. 07 MR. HERRICK: And that is an indication of CVP and/or 08 SWP export pumping? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Just to follow up on that. It appears 11 from your graphs here that the amount of flow in and the 12 amount of flow out on each tidal cycle is roughly the same? 13 MR. OLTMANN: By just looking at the tidal flows? 14 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 15 MR. OLTMANN: Pretty close, yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: The export projects then siphon off some 17 after it's flowed in by shifting that net flow figure down? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: Could you look at Page 6 of your report; 20 I want to go over some of that testimony with you. 21 MR. OLTMANN: Okay. 22 MR. HERRICK: In the very middle there, it's kind of 23 all one paragraph, but let me just read it. It says: 24 "However, when the export rate was reduced by 25 about 8,000 cubic feet per second at the 6123 01 start of the reduced export period -- 02 (Reading.) 03 And it gives the day as 106. 04 The direction of net flow again was northward 05 at Old River. (Reading.) 06 Could you tell us what point of North River you are 07 talking about so there is no confusion? I am sorry, Old 08 River. 09 MR. OLTMANN: This is the Old River UVM at this 10 location right alongside Bacon Island. 11 MS. WHITNEY: You need to identify that for the 12 record. 13 MR. OLTMANN: Figure 1. 14 MS. WHITNEY: Identify which dot it is. 15 MR. OLTMANN: I thought I did. Old River near Bacon 16 Island. 17 MR. HERRICK: Would that flow be any different in a 18 year that did not have this volume of water flowing at 19 Vernalis? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Would you repeat the question. 21 MR. HERRICK: If the decrease of export results in 22 there becoming a net positive flow at that point, does that 23 change depending on the water coming down the San Joaquin 24 River? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Very much so. 6124 01 MR. HERRICK: Your data does not indicate what that 02 flow may be in other years, other than '96 and '97? 03 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 04 MR. HERRICK: Later on, just a few lines lower, you 05 state: 06 When the barrier was breached -- (Reading.) 07 By that I assume you meant the Head of Old River 08 Barrier? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: -- the net flow increased at the 11 Stockton site. (Reading.) 12 MR. OLTMANN: No. It shouldn't have said increased; it 13 should have said decreased. 14 MR. HERRICK: That was my question. Your testimony 15 there, right in the middle, it says: 16 When the barrier was breached, the net flow 17 increased at the Stockton UVM site. 18 (Reading.) 19 That should say decreased, shouldn't it? 20 MR. OLTMANN: You're right. 21 MR. HERRICK: If you breach the Head of Old River 22 Barrier, more water flows through Old and Middle River and 23 less goes down the main channel? 24 MR. OLTMANN: Right. 25 No, hold it. That says the breach of the temporary 6125 01 barrier and increased flow of the San Joaquin River, 02 meaning at Vernalis. There was increase flow. If you look 03 after the third line in Figure 3, the San Joaquin flow at 04 Vernalis increases. 05 MR. HERRICK: I am dealing with that clause right above 06 that sentence you were referring to. The increase of flow 07 at Stockton is not a function of the removal of the barrier; 08 it is a function of the increase in San Joaquin River flows? 09 MR. OLTMANN: (Witness nods head.) 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May the record reflect that the 11 witness answered that question affirmatively? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. He nodded in the affirmative, and 13 that means yes. 14 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Could you put up your Figure 4, please. 16 MR. OLTMANN: Okay. 17 MR. HERRICK: I understand this to be 1997 data? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: With regards to flows at Stockton on the 20 San Joaquin River, both before, during and after the 21 installation of Head of Old River Barrier; is that correct? 22 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is there data for this same place and 24 time frame, but for 1996? 25 MR. OLTMANN: No. The Stockton UVM, if I recall, was 6126 01 not installed until about August of 1996. 02 MR. HERRICK: In your line number four, which is the 03 far right vertical -- excuse me, I'm color blind -- that 04 line indicates the removal of the Head of Old River Barrier? 05 MR. OLTMANN: And the termination of the pulse flow. 06 MR. HERRICK: Let's just stay with removal of Head of 07 Old River Barrier. That is approximately May 15th? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 09 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that from May 15th sometime 10 through mid-June of that year, 1997, the three tidal 11 barriers were not allowed to be operated? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Weren't the barriers installed, but the 13 flap gate tied open? 14 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Would your data for post line number 16 four have been different if those barriers had been 17 operating? 18 MR. OLTMANN: That would be speculation. Couldn't 19 say. 20 MR. HERRICK: You say as of May 15th the pulse flow 21 terminated; is that correct? 22 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: Let me hand you South Delta Exhibit 24 Number 24, please. For the record, South Delta 24 is a 25 cover letter from the Bureau of Reclamation plus the 6127 01 attached flows at Vernalis and their source for the year 02 1997. 03 Mr. Oltmann, can you confirm that that is 1997 data, 04 according to that page, anyway? 05 MR. OLTMANN: According to the left column, it shows 06 1997. 07 MR. HERRICK: If you go down to May 15th, would you 08 agree that the -- for the Stanislaus River, anyway, there is 09 a 1500 cfs flow, approximately, coming out of the 10 Stanislaus? 11 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Are you asking him to read the 12 record or are you asking him to authenticate that those are 13 the actual flows? 14 MR. HERRICK: Yes, just read the document. I will 15 certainly ask him -- 16 MR. BRANDT: Only what the document says. 17 MR. OLTMANN: Where are the Stanislaus flows here? 18 MR. HERRICK: If the Chair will let me, I will get 19 another copy. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Herrick. 21 MR. OLTMANN: Is this the Goodwin release? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes. Just to confirm, since I wasn't 23 looking at a copy when I was asking the question. The 24 attached numbers, Page 3 of that document, show the river 25 release from New Melones. And as you can see from the 6128 01 various totals there, we've got approximately 1500 cfs at 02 May 15; is that right, the third column over? 03 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 04 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that those flows continue 05 through 1500 a number of days past the 15th? 06 MR. OLTMANN: That is what these data show. Also, down 07 in the 1100 range. 08 MR. HERRICK: That contribution of the Stanislaus River 09 flows continued past May 15th? 10 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague, just based -- you are 11 just saying Stanislaus, just Stanislaus flow not the old 12 pulse flow? 13 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 14 MR. BRANDT: Excuse me, I just wanted to clarify, sure 15 I heard that right. 16 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. This shows the Stanislaus. I don't 17 know what the other tributaries are doing at this point. 18 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any information that shows 19 that the other tributary flows that contribute to the 20 Vernalis flow for this time period stayed the same or 21 increased or decreased? 22 MR. OLTMANN: No, I don't. I do recall, though, from 23 information from the Vernalis gauge, it did show the pulse 24 flow, if that is what you are asking. 25 MR. HERRICK: My question is getting towards -- your 6129 01 data shows the pulse flow ended on May 15th? 02 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 03 MR. HERRICK: Does your data show the magnitude of the 04 decrease when it ended, in other words, the flows went from 05 what to what? 06 MR. OLTMANN: At Vernalis? 07 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 08 MR. OLTMANN: No, I don't have that. You can see by 09 the ADCP data, looking at Figure 7, you can see the affect 10 of the pulse flow at the San Joaquin station down by Turner 11 Cut. 12 MR. HERRICK: Did you check your data as compared to 13 the actual flows at Vernalis, if we don't have that 14 information? 15 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I have seen that, but I don't have 16 that in this report. 17 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall what the change in the flow 18 at Vernalis was, I'll say, the day after the pulse flow 19 supposedly ended? 20 MR. OLTMANN: No. I don't have that number off the top 21 of my head. 22 MR. HERRICK: You talk about there being two culverts 23 installed in the Head of Old River Barrier in 1997; is that 24 correct? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 6130 01 MR. HERRICK: You say they can allow about 300 cubic 02 feet per second to pass through? 03 MR. OLTMANN: That is what I was told. 04 MR. HERRICK: Do we know how much flow passed through 05 in 1997 during the pulse flow period? 06 MR. OLTMANN: No, I do not. 07 MR. HERRICK: Is it your understanding that there were 08 any culverts in the Head of Old River Barrier during spring? 09 MR. OLTMANN: I don't believe so. 10 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that the Department of Fish 11 and Game opposes -- are you aware that the Fish and Wildlife 12 Services opposes the installation of those culverts? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I am. 14 MR. HERRICK: Could you put up your Figure Number 5, 15 please. 16 I didn't quite understand how Grant Line Canal starts 17 off with a negative flow prior to the installation and 18 operation of the Head of Old River Barrier. Isn't the flow 19 in Grant Line continuously being drawn westward in the 20 absence of the barriers? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Correct, and that is what this shows. 22 Negative implies here flow to the west or towards the export 23 facilities. 24 MR. HERRICK: That is what I don't understand. I 25 understand how channels north of the export facilities 6131 01 would be negative flow when they travel south toward them. 02 In the absence of the export pumps wouldn't the flow through 03 Old River and Grant Line Canal be towards the west, anyway? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah, until there is a barrier at the 05 Head of Old River. 06 MR. HERRICK: Again, I don't know, understand, why 07 normal flow in the regular direction, which is west, is 08 labeled as negative flow. 09 MR. OLTMANN: Just a sign convention. 10 MR. HERRICK: Excuse my lack of -- 11 MR. OLTMANN: I could turn that around and say that is 12 positive flow. It is whatever I want to say is the 13 direction. 14 MR. HERRICK: But the other flows we are talking about 15 as negative are the opposite direction of the flows in the 16 absence of the export pumps; is that correct? 17 MR. OLTMANN: In most cases, correct. 18 MR. HERRICK: Isn't it only in Grant Line Canal where 19 it is the opposite of that? 20 MR. OLTMANN: True. 21 MR. HERRICK: Does your Figure 5 take into 22 consideration any other barrier operations during that year? 23 MR. OLTMANN: No, it does not. 24 MR. HERRICK: Again, just to confirm an earlier answer. 25 Your data does not indicate any effects from the three South 6132 01 Delta tidal barriers, does it? 02 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. You mean 03 this figure? 04 MR. HERRICK: Your data, your report that you are 05 presenting here today. 06 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. Unfortunately, as you can see 07 by the Grant line Canal record, that ADCP was knocked over 08 17 days into deployment or we would have had a very nice dye 09 tidal record, that we might be able to answer some questions 10 about the interior barriers. 11 MR. HERRICK: Again, excuse my ignorance. The Doppler 12 measuring stations, you say that works by measuring the 13 change in return time from the sound wave, or whatever it 14 shoots out there, based on its reflection off of the 15 inorganic/organic materials in the water? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: Is that affected by flood flows which may 18 increase the constituents in the water? 19 MR. OLTMANN: No. Just gives it something stronger to 20 reflect the acoustic pulse back to the transducer. 21 MR. HERRICK: Or if there is less particles in the 22 water, wouldn't more of the sound wave -- wouldn't the sound 23 wave go farther than if it was extremely murky? 24 MR. OLTMANN: No. I don't know how much we want to get 25 into the ADCP here. But you can time gate this return 6133 01 information so you can get velocity information in quarter 02 meter intervals throughout the water column above the ADCP. 03 It doesn't really matter if there is a whole bunch of stuff 04 in the water column or -- I can't say if there is very 05 little, then the system is not going to work. It is not the 06 case in the Delta. We are never going to run into that 07 situation. 08 MR. HERRICK: It is measuring the vertical, not the 09 horizontal? 10 MR. OLTMANN: The UVM measures the horizontal, and the 11 ADCP does the vertical. 12 MR. HERRICK: On Page 10 of your testimony, the report 13 that you have included as your testimony, you make a 14 statement there at the very bottom of the text. It says: 15 It is unknown how the 3,000 cubic feet per 16 second increase in net flows affects the 17 movement of salmon smolts northward, relative 18 to the 20- to 23,000 cubic foot tidal flows. 19 (Reading.) 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 22 MR. HERRICK: What is the -- is the purpose of that 23 statement to say that it is unknown how the pulse flow 24 functions in light of the large tidal flows? 25 MR. OLTMANN: That is kind of food for thought, yeah. 6134 01 When you look at these large tidal flows, if you are a fish, 02 does that 3,000 additional pulse flow -- what affect does 03 that have on the fish? I am just asking that question. 04 That seems like something that somebody ought to 05 investigate. 06 MR. HERRICK: The 3,000 cubic foot, cfs, flow, that is 07 for that 1997 year, correct? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 09 MR. HERRICK: In other years that pulse flow 10 incremental increase could be smaller than that, couldn't it? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it could. Could be larger, also. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are the -- does the 20,000 or 23,000 13 cubic feet, is that -- where is that measured? What area 14 are you referring to when you say that is that circle? 15 MR. OLTMANN: This is referring to the ADCP location 16 here on the San Joaquin River between Turner Cut and 17 Columbia Cut. 18 MR. HERRICK: That is the area where the pulse flows 19 are directed when the Head of Old River Barrier is 20 installed; is that correct? 21 MR. OLTMANN: There directed down the San Joaquin, 22 yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Does that 20- to 23,000 cubic feet, does 24 that change as per different year types or is that pretty 25 much a constant of tides fairly constant in volume there? 6135 01 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. I think that you're still going to 02 see 20- to 23,000. You might see -- on the ebb flows you 03 might see a little increase and on the flood flows you might 04 see a little decrease. I could probably answer that 05 question when we look at the '98 data, considering there was 06 25,000 cfs coming down the San Joaquin at Vernalis. I 07 haven't looked at those data yet. 08 MR. HERRICK: Do you have data which indicates the 09 affect of, let's just say, a 3,000 cfs increase at Vernalis, 10 what affect that has on water passing through the Central 11 Delta? 12 MR. OLTMANN: See if I understand what you are asking. 13 If we increase the flow at Vernalis by 3,000, what effect 14 would we see throughout the Delta? 15 MR. HERRICK: Correct. Let me build a hypothetical 16 there. If you are trying to push smolts out, and you 17 redirect the flows, but you increase the flow in the San 18 Joaquin River, are you getting more push out of the Central 19 Delta or is it the same net push? 20 MR. BRANDT: I think that is compound. Are we 21 answering the hypothetical question now? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: You're objecting to the compound? 24 MR. BRANDT: I am not objecting as long as it is clear 25 that we are answering the hypothetical and not the previous 6136 01 question. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 03 MR. OLTMANN: I think this is pretty much what this 04 data set is showing us. This is a pulse flow at least at 05 this location. We are seeing about a net increase of around 06 3,000 cfs. What that -- what affect that has on the 07 fisheries, I do not know. 08 MR. HERRICK: Could you put up your Figure 7, please. 09 On the bottom part there you have Turner Cut and Middle 10 River south of Columbia Cut. Without overstating it, is 11 this showing that the operation of Head of Old River Barrier 12 has a minor effect on the flows in Turner and Middle River 13 south of Columbia Cut? 14 MR. OLTMANN: It implies it does have an effect, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: That is what you state on Page 11 of your 16 report, is that true? When you say: 17 The San Joaquin River pulse flow does not 18 seem to have affected the net flows of Middle 19 River or Turner Cut. (Reading.) 20 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. Based on the information that we 21 have here. I didn't -- I am looking at the record. I 22 couldn't really see there was an affect at those two sites. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 24 aware of this data? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Oh, yes. 6137 01 MR. HERRICK: Moving on to your dye experiments, do you 02 know how much of the dye that reached Clifton Court was dye 03 that leaked through the Head of Old River Barrier? 04 MR. OLTMANN: No, I don't. 05 MR. HERRICK: Do you know how much of the dye that 06 reached Stockton later arrived at Clifton Court Forebay? 07 MR. OLTMANN: No, I don't. 08 MR. HERRICK: Do you know how long it took that dye to 09 reach -- the dye that was originally released to reach 10 Clifton Court Forebay? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah, and I can't recall off the top of 12 my head. 13 MR. HERRICK: I didn't see it. Is it on one of your -- 14 MR. OLTMANN: No, I don't believe it is. Because I 15 could not tell that the dye that we did monitor in that 16 vicinity came from the north, meaning it went through Turner 17 and on down, or if it did leak through the barrier and 18 through the culverts and was drawn over. 19 MR. HERRICK: Is there any dye data for '96 when there 20 weren't any culverts in the Head of Old River Barrier? 21 MR. OLTMANN: No. 22 MR. HERRICK: In order to make a conclusion about the 23 source of the dye reaching -- in order to reach conclusions 24 about the path of the dye that reached Clifton Court and the 25 time it took, wouldn't you need more data than just 1997? 6138 01 MR. OLTMANN: Correct, and that is why we did '98, 02 also. Just getting back to the question about calibration 03 and models. There isn't a lot of data out there with which 04 to calibrate these models. We at USGS, we are trying to 05 collect enough information so that maybe we can calibrate 06 these models and then ask such questions as you are asking 07 of those models. 08 MR. HERRICK: Are there ongoing data collection efforts 09 going on? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Well, the UVM network is still in 11 operation. The placement of these ADCPs, they can only go 12 out there because of memory and battery limitations. Can 13 only be out there for three months at a time. 14 Whether we are going to continue that again this coming 15 spring hasn't been determined yet. But the UVMs continue in 16 operation. 17 MR. HERRICK: Did you say that there were dye releases 18 for '98? 19 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: Did those releases correspond -- you 21 didn't put the barriers in. Is there any plan to do dye 22 releases that correspond to the operation of the tidal 23 barriers as opposed to just the Head of Old River Barrier? 24 MR. OLTMANN: There isn't any plans at this point. 25 MR. HERRICK: Why is that, if you know? 6139 01 MR. OLTMANN: Nobody's asked us or nobody has come 02 along with a checkbook to ask us. The dye that we put in 03 this last spring, we put in 155 liters because the flow was 04 quite a bit higher, that cost around 6- or $7,000 for that 05 dye alone. 06 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. 07 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 09 Before we go to Mr. Minasian and then Mr. O'Laughlin, 10 we will take our 12-minute break and be back at a quarter to 11 11. 12 Thank you. 13 (Break taken.) 14 Good morning, Mr. Minasian. 15 Again, before you start, I want to announce that we 16 have added one other cross-examiner, Mr. Jackson. After Mr. 17 Minasian, Mr. O'Laughlin and Mr. Jackson. 18 Good morning, sir, welcome. 19 ---oOo--- 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 21 BY EXCHANGE WATER CONTRACTORS 22 BY MR. MINASIAN 23 MR. MINASIAN: Could you help us understand the 24 relationship between the dye experiments that you have 25 testified to and the dispersion of salt in the water at the 6140 01 same points? Let's imagine a load of salt coming down the 02 San Joaquin River at the point where the dye was 03 discharged. 04 Is the salt mixed in the water in the same way that the 05 dye was mixed? 06 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. I would think so. 07 MR. MINASIAN: There is another source of salt in the 08 Delta, is there not, which is the discharges of agricultural 09 drain water from the farming activities within the South 10 Delta and Central Delta areas? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, that is correct. 12 MR. MINASIAN: There is a third source which is the 13 ocean salt that may come in with the very high tide, is 14 there not? 15 MR. OLTMANN: Third source? I don't understand the 16 third. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Is there any ocean salts which basically 18 come in through the ebb and flow of the tide at any point in 19 the South Delta or Central Delta? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. But my question is talking about 21 the third source of salt. You mentioned the islands and you 22 mentioned the ocean. What is the third? 23 MR. MINASIAN: I am sorry. That is the difference 24 between lawyers and scientists; you can count. 25 The San Joaquin River load of salt was the first, 6141 01 agricultural discharges within the Delta itself and the 02 third is ocean salt. 03 MR. OLTMANN: Okay, I understand. Yes. 04 MR. MINASIAN: Salt in water, if from three sources, if 05 it did not mix, would have different densities of the water 06 carrying the solid form, would it not? 07 MR. OLTMANN: Repeat. 08 MR. MINASIAN: That is the ocean water, generally, is 09 heavier than fresh water, is it not? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 11 MS. MINASIAN: And agricultural water that has salts 12 mixed in it would have a certain density, would it not? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Agricultural drainage that had a 15 different salt load would have a different density still, 16 would it not? 17 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Is it your conclusion from the tests 19 that you have run and documentation you have given that 20 there is perfect mixing of the salt sources within the 21 various points being measured by your Doppler stations? 22 MR. OLTMANN: Dopplers do not measure water quality. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Let me exclude the reference to 24 Doppler. What is your knowledge in regard to the mixing 25 that goes on of these different types of salt sources? 6142 01 MR. OLTMANN: When dispersion is caused -- if this is 02 what you are asking. Dispersion is caused by numerous 03 different things, mainly velocity sheer. In other words, 04 the water in a channel doesn't all move down the channel at 05 the same rate. The flow on the sides usually go a slower 06 rate than what it does down the middle. The upper part of 07 the water column, it moves faster than what it does at the 08 lower part of the water column. It is my memory that the 09 tidal action is going back and forth every six to seven 10 hours. 11 So, you have velocity sheer that is mixing things up. 12 When you talk about the Delta, you are talking about 13 numerous channels coming in from all kinds of different 14 directions. The flow on the left side of the channel maybe 15 goes down this particular channel, the rest of it goes down 16 this particular channel. The tide changes, the flow comes 17 back at a different rate, maybe, than it did this channel. 18 So, it is all types of ways of mixing of this water. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Did the experiments in regard to the 20 dye discharge basically result in the dispersal of the dye 21 in a uniform fashion through the water that it was dispersed 22 in? 23 MR. OLTMANN: So you are saying that was 24 cross-sectionally used? 25 MR. MINASIAN: Uniform. 6143 01 MR. OLTMANN: We would assume so, yes. By the time we 02 released the dye at Mossdale, it goes down and it makes a 03 couple of bends in the river, by the time it got to the Head 04 of Old River I observed it and it was from bank to bank. 05 MR. MINASIAN: I want to give you a hypothetical. All 06 in this room are trying to figure out what happens to salts 07 from various sources that arrive in the Delta. You have 08 described to us a dye experiment; and we are all visualizing 09 that the salt is dispersed in the same way that the dye 10 experiment dispersed it; that is, it is uniform throughout 11 the water and it is sloshing back and forth. 12 Is that a correct assumption on our part? 13 MR. OLTMANN: I would say so, yes. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Is there any doubt or question in your 15 mind in regard to that? Are there any further experiments 16 that you would want to do to confirm that? 17 MR. OLTMANN: No. I guess we are just talking about 18 the discharge point. If these salts are being added to a 19 channel near one shore, then how far downstream it would go 20 or whatever before it would be thoroughly mixed would be a 21 question that would be answered. 22 MR. MINASIAN: That sort of question would be 23 applicable to Delta discharges of agricultural uses which 24 discharge into a channel near an intake of another 25 agricultural user, would it not? 6144 01 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 02 MR. MINASIAN: Would it also be applicable to the City 03 of Stockton's sewer or water discharge, which we heard was 04 in the range of 700 TDS? 05 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 06 MR. MINASIAN: You show in your graph ebb and flow past 07 Stockton in the ship channel. Does that ebb and flow and 08 the dye concentration test basically tell us that that salt 09 from the City of Stockton wastewater plant may go either 10 upstream or downstream? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. From the information that I showed 12 here today, it was pretty much unidirectional flow. Now, 13 this UVM is upstream of the Port of Stockton; that is what I 14 was trying to make the point with regard to the dye travel 15 time. Is that during the pulse flow when we release the dye 16 down to the City of Stockton where the UVM is, the channel 17 is quite narrow and you had unidirectional flow. Unless you 18 get into the Port of Stockton, which is only a couple of 19 miles downstream of this UVM, the river becomes much wider 20 and much deeper. You get back into the large tidal action. 21 MR. MINASIAN: I want to give you a hypothetical. 22 Assume for a moment that the Bureau of Reclamation and the 23 Department of Water Resources have built a master drain for 24 agricultural drainage from the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare 25 Lake Basin, and that drain discharged those salts in the 6145 01 area of Antioch or Pittsburg. 02 Would that, in your opinion, based upon your test, be a 03 better way of managing salts through the Delta from 04 agricultural sources? 05 MR. OLTMANN: I would have to think about that. I 06 don't think I want to answer that. 07 MR. MINASIAN: Let me ask you a couple more questions, 08 and I will bring you back to that. See if you have any 09 comments for us. 10 Let's imagine for a moment a hypothetical in which we 11 are trying to manage salts in the Delta, and someone 12 suggests to that we ought to manage it by curtailing CVP or 13 Bureau pumping at the Tracy pumps. Does your data confirm 14 that that is a very, very inopportune and ineffective 15 management tool for salt quality through the South Delta? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Can you restate that, please. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Let's imagine that the state and federal 18 pumps were lowered down to 1700 cfs through a substantial 19 part of your test period. Did that change the ebb and flow 20 of the salt that was in the river at the monitoring point? 21 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 22 which monitoring point. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Would you like to pick a monitoring 24 point near Turner Cut, for example? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Assuming that we are looking at the dye, 6146 01 as kind of a surrogate for the salt, I think it showed that 02 when the export rate was decreased, the net flow through 03 Turner Cut towards the export facilities was also decreased. 04 So, assuming that the salt would go with flow, the net flow 05 towards the export facilities would also be reduced. 06 MR. MINASIAN: The net flow of salt through a 07 particular point in the Delta towards the export pumps, 08 basically, results, if we have more flow going towards the 09 pump through that point, we have more salt going toward the 10 pumps, do we not? 11 MR. OLTMANN: I would say that is probably true. 12 MR. MINASIAN: If we curtailed the pumping, drop it 13 from 8,000 to 1700 cfs we reduce the amount of salt going 14 towards the pumps from that particular point, do we not? 15 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on the point. 16 MR. MINASIAN: But the total amount of salt in the 17 water in the interior Delta, South Delta and Central Delta, 18 remains the same because of this ebb and flow and tidal 19 action, does it not? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on what is the input of salt, 21 also. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Your dyes disperse themselves in between 23 eight and ten days, based upon the Figure 11, I believe. It 24 showed the peaking and then a dispersal, did it not? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on the site. 6147 01 MR. MINASIAN: Is it your view that that would be an 02 approximation of the dispersal of a load of salt coming in 03 water at that same point over time? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, depending on the site. This was 05 released at Mossdale. 06 MR. MINASIAN: Is there any way that we can operate the 07 state or federal pumps to improve the water quality within 08 the South Delta downstream of Vernalis and in the Central 09 Delta? 10 MR. BRANDT: As to salt? 11 MR. MINASIAN: As to salt. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. OLTMANN: I haven't studied that. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Could I take you back to the master 15 drain for a moment. I know it is unfair to ask you to offer 16 an opinion, but perhaps you can offer the Board and we some 17 comments. 18 Isn't it a better way to manage the salts, to keep the 19 salts out of the water entering the South Delta from the 20 agricultural areas? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on what part of the Delta you are 22 standing and are interested in. If you are down where this 23 is discharging at Antioch or whatever, those people might 24 think that is, obviously, very detrimental. 25 If you are in the south part of the Delta, then I would 6148 01 think that water quality might, I don't know, improve. But 02 it depends on the export rate, then in the drawing of those 03 salts possibly from Antioch back to the southern part of the 04 Delta. A lot of variables involved. 05 MR. MINASIAN: The Old River Barrier, the CVP and state 06 pumps were the variables with which you worked with in doing 07 your tests in addition to the natural variables, were they 08 not? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Are there any other variables that you 11 would like to study in order to develop a full understanding 12 of what man could do, those anthropogenic efforts that could 13 be made, to reduce salt entering the Delta and harming 14 beneficial interests from agricultural sources? 15 MR. OLTMANN: Are there any additional studies -- 16 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 17 MR. OLTMANN: -- that we could do? 18 Yeah. I would say that I would like to do a repeat of 19 some of the dye studies at the Lower San Joaquin inflow. 20 MR. MINASIAN: How would that help you? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Just so we would see a -- get a better 22 handle on the movement of the water in that portion of the 23 Delta. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Nothing further. 25 Thank you. 6149 01 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 02 Mr. O'Laughlin. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We are going to be a while. If you 04 want to take a seat, you can do either way you want. We are 05 going to be putting up overheads. 06 MR. OLTMANN: I will sit right here. 07 ---oOo--- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 09 BY SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 10 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Oltmann, my name is Tim 12 O'Laughlin. I am representing the San Joaquin River Group 13 Authority in these proceedings. 14 I would like to go back and go through your statement 15 of qualifications briefly. 16 How long have you been working in the Delta? 17 MR. OLTMANN: I started probably about '75, I believe. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you describe, and you don't have 19 to go through every one, can you describe briefly for us or 20 in a summary of what is your work in the Delta been and what 21 your interest has been and what your focus has been in the 22 Delta in the work that you have done. 23 MR. OLTMANN: I started out applying some 1-D models to 24 the Upper Sacramento River area. Then we got into the 25 application of this acoustic technology to try to measure 6150 01 flows within the Delta. Since we are all here, we know that 02 this is a pretty critical location within the state which 03 didn't have a lot of flow information. 04 So we have been moving forth with this acoustic 05 technology, trying to collect flow information so that we 06 can try to instruct people what the hydrodynamics of the 07 Delta are and to provide flow information so that we can 08 calibrate the various models that are currently being used. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you say that you're probably one 10 of the most knowledgeable people about the flow of water in 11 the Delta, both from a hydrology and hydrodynamic 12 standpoint? 13 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know anybody else who has more 15 experience than you in collecting field data in the Delta in 16 regard to the flow? 17 MR. OLTMANN: There are a lot of people from DWR, 18 Department of Water Resources, who have been out there over 19 the years making a lot of tidal cycle measurements, as they 20 call them. Yeah, I can think of a few people who have been 21 out there a lot. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you coordinated your work with 23 DWR? 24 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. We have directly with them from the 25 standpoint of collecting a lot of this information for 6151 01 calibration. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Was the study that you did for 1996 03 and 1997 in cooperation with DWR? 04 MR. OLTMANN: '96 was not a special study. That was 05 just taking some of the information. '97 and '98 were in 06 cooperation -- well, let me back up. 07 The UVMs, that work is in cooperation with the 08 Department of Water Resources along with the Bureau of 09 Reclamation and several other people. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you gathered this material, is 11 the material that you gather put on any web page or made 12 available to the public, generally? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it is. The data, once we process 14 the flow information, is put on the IEP, which is the 15 Interagency Ecological Program, which is made up of about 16 nine agencies. It is put on their file server and it is the 17 primary database with which models are calibrated. The data 18 are also available through telenet connection with our 19 computer, and we are hoping to get to a web page where this 20 data will be more timely -- made available more timely. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: For 1998 my understanding is that a 22 dye study was done; is that correct? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is the data preliminarily available? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I would say so. 6152 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that at the same IEP source? 02 MR. OLTMANN: No. It is not available through them at 03 this point. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I am going to assume that at some 05 point in time that data will be collated, analyzed and put 06 into report form again. Is that correct? 07 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, that is correct. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you the person responsible for 09 doing that? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is there any time estimate that you 12 could give us as to when you expect your 1998 data to be 13 made available to the public, generally? 14 MR. OLTMANN: I am in the process right now of 15 calibrating flow sites. I have some preliminary plots from 16 the dye concentration information right now. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: For '99, do you plan on doing a dye 18 study for 1999? 19 MR. OLTMANN: That has not been determined yet. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is there a determination that is going 21 to be based on funding for you or is that a policy 22 consideration? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Funding. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, you're looking for funds in order 25 to continue the study for 1999; is that correct? 6153 01 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: To go back a little bit, it appears, 03 and based on some of the questions -- 04 MR. OLTMANN: Can I interject a point here? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Absolutely. Go right ahead. 06 MR. OLTMANN: We will probably be doing some additional 07 flow monitoring that we do have some funding to do that type 08 of work for '99. With regard to the dye study, that is 09 where we do not have the funding at this point. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, it would be safe to say that 1998 11 was a fairly high flow year; is that correct? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Very much so. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And we appear to have somewhat of an 14 intermediate year, which we might call 1997, which is flows 15 of around 6,000 cfs? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What your desire is, hopefully, to 18 continue to have lots of water, but if 1999 turns out to be 19 a drier year, it would be nice to see what the affects of 20 how dye moves in a Delta during a dry period; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. OLTMANN: Exactly. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Then you would have a fairly good 24 bracket, granted there are a lots of holes within a bracket, 25 you would have from a low flow to medium to high flow events 6154 01 bracketed; is that correct? 02 MR. OLTMANN: That would be optimum, yes. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to -- I am going to try, as 04 best as possible, to work through your report from the first 05 page to the back and go in sequential fashion. 06 My understanding on Page 1 is that the studies, when 07 they were done, were done only with the Head of Old River 08 Barrier installed for 1997; is that correct? 09 MR. OLTMANN: I can't remember, to tell you the truth, 10 exactly what time the ag barriers went in. But as I was 11 asked previously about the flap gates being tied open, I 12 thought that all took place after the pulse flow. But I am 13 not certain of that. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The three variables that you looked at 15 in the study were exports, the amount of water coming down 16 the San Joaquin River and the installation of the Head of 17 Old River Barrier; is that correct? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Those were the primary things I was 19 looking at. 20 Let me back up for one thing. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. 22 MR. OLTMANN: The barrier on Grant Line did go in 23 during that period that we were monitoring. But as I 24 showed, the ADCP at Grant Line was knocked over. So we were 25 not able to get any velocity information there. That might 6155 01 have provided some interesting data with regard to that 02 barrier. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Looking at Page 1 of your report, the 04 third paragraph on that page, you talk about: 05 The channel flows of the Delta are constantly 06 changing, primarily because of the effects of 07 the ocean tides. (Reading.) 08 Can you briefly describe for us how the ocean tides 09 influence the Delta and impact the Delta. 10 MR. OLTMANN: I am sure we are all aware that out in 11 the ocean we have these tides which are generated by the 12 relationship of the sun and the moon as it revolves with 13 regard to the earth. And those tides propagate up through 14 the Bay and through the Delta. The effects are, as I have 15 shown, that you have very dynamic flows, where you have the 16 flows flowing; six hours later you have the flows flowing 17 back out. So they have quite an effect. 18 Do I want to get into -- there are other processes. As 19 a result of that, there is a spring neap tidal cycle. That 20 is when you get into the maximum tides and seven days later 21 you get into minimum tides, back to maximum tides. As a 22 part of that spring neap cycle, there is a filling and 23 draining of the Delta that takes place. That is another 24 processing. I didn't talk about that at all. That is 25 another processing that the tides do then effect what is 6156 01 going in the Delta. 02 There is also wind, atmospheric pressure effects that 03 can effect what is going on hydrodynamically within the 04 Delta. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you're looking at the Delta, it 06 would be safe to say that flow in the San Joaquin River, 07 while being a portion of the equation for the Delta, may not 08 be the primary factor influencing hydrodynamics in the 09 Delta; is that correct? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah, maybe in the western Delta you 11 could possibly say that. In the southern Delta, I am not 12 sure. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Depend on location? 14 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Turning to Page 3 of your report, can 16 you briefly describe for me, I caught most of it, what 17 exactly a UVM is and how it operates. 18 MR. BRANDT: I think we would like to -- it might be 19 helpful -- we actually have an overhead that was not 20 presented. But since it is being asked in cross, we'd be 21 happy to put it up for the Board's -- so the Board can 22 understand the technology and actually everybody else can. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: It is a non-exhibit? 24 MR. BRANDT: It is a non-exhibit. We will mark it as 25 15-E and F. 6157 01 We are going to show both types so people can 02 understand how this works. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: The question is whose exhibit is this, 04 yours or Mr. O'Laughlin's. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: This will be DOI's. 06 MR. BRANDT: Ours. We anticipated there might be 07 questions: What is ADCP and UVM? What does that mean? How 08 does that work? 09 C.O. CAFFREY: We appreciate having it available. 10 We need to give it a number, Ms. Whitney, or did 11 somebody do that when I wasn't -- 12 MS. WHITNEY: This one is 15-E, UVM diagram. 13 MR. OLTMANN: The top panel here is a top view of a 14 typical river channel. And what we have is we have piles 15 that are driven near to shore on opposite sides of the 16 channel. There are transducers mounted on each pile. There 17 is an acoustic pulse that is transmitted from the transducer 18 on A to B, and then a return pulse is sent from B to A. The 19 exact travel time of that acoustic pulse is measured. The 20 difference in the travel time tells the UVM what direction 21 the flow is in. 22 So, in other words, if it takes less time to go from A 23 to B than from B to A, we know that the flow is in this 24 direction. What that does -- these are pulsing every -- 25 couple times every second. What that provides is not a mean 6158 01 cross-sectional velocity. It provides an index velocity 02 that it is called. 03 Here is a cross-section of the channel. Hear are 04 piles. Here are transducers. What this provides is an 05 index velocity, a measure of the average velocity across the 06 channel at the depth of the transducers. 07 Now, we go in with a downward acoustic Doppler current 08 profiler system where we make numerous flow measurements 09 over the tidal cycle to relate that index velocity to mean 10 cross-sectional velocity. Then we take water surface 11 elevation and we measure at this location. We convert that 12 to cross-sectional area. We multiply the area times your 13 average cross-sectional velocity, and you come away with a 14 tidal flow information on the record. 15 Now, what we have done with the ADCP -- 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I got that watered. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin, are you sorry you asked 18 that? 19 MR. OLTMANN: Just to show the difference here. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Going back to Geometry 101. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can we mark this next exhibit? 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 15-F. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you referring to the one on the 24 bottom? 25 MR. OLTMANN: This is a new chart to show the 6159 01 difference. 02 So what we have done here is we have taken acoustic 03 Doppler profiler that sits on the channel bottom and 04 measures the water velocity as it passes this particular 05 location, and this becomes our index velocity, the same as 06 we have done with the UVM. Then, we still go out and make 07 our flow measurements to calibrate that index velocity. We 08 still record the stage so that we can come up with our 09 cross-sectional area. That is the difference between the 10 two methods that we have used to measure flow. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you responsible for calibrating 12 either one of those? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I am. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: How do you go about calibrating those 15 to insure they are accurate? 16 MR. OLTMANN: We make, as I mentioned, numerous 17 measurements over the tidal cycle with a downward acoustic 18 Doppler current profiler system. This is a system because 19 the flows are varying so rapidly, you have to be able to get 20 one side of the channel to the other side of the channel and 21 measure the flow in a matter of minutes. So we make many, 22 many flow measurements, and then we are able, from that, to 23 determine cross-sectional velocity, which we then relate to 24 the index velocity to come out with our calibration curve 25 with which to calibrate the flows. 6160 01 With regard to -- are you asking the accuracy of one of 02 those flows? 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You are going where I was, so we might 04 as well get there. What do you believe is the accuracy of 05 these devices that you are using? 06 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on the site. On some of the 07 smaller channels, say, Stockton, you can get into curvature 08 of channel. There is all kinds of things that make one site 09 more difficult to measure than another. 10 We have developed an error analysis for the individual 11 measurements that we have made with the downward ADCP, which 12 is a part, of course, of the calibration of these sites. We 13 have shown that the individual measurements, again depending 14 upon conditions, are in the 1 to 2 percent range in 15 accuracy. 16 The UVM is probably -- and we have a study going on 17 right now of developing an error analysis for all of these 18 UVMs that is being conducted by one of my colleagues at the 19 USGS along with a professor from San Francisco State, Roger 20 Bland. And from what they are seeing so far, the UVM or the 21 index velocity is probably around 1 percent, maybe less. 22 Then it comes down to the calibration, and that becomes -- 23 depends upon the site. Some sites are more, you want to 24 say, textbook than others. 25 So, what the actual error is, I can't say. We are in 6161 01 the process of trying to evaluate that a little bit better, 02 but it is dependent upon sites. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are the UVMs that you are using 04 accepted within the field in which you do your work, 05 scientifically? 06 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The same with the ADCPs? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are these pretty much state of the art 10 measuring devices? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. ADCPs -- well -- yeah. ADCPs have 12 been around for -- well, our first ADCP, I guess, we got in 13 about '88. So that was pretty much state of the art. They 14 have improved quite a bit since then. 15 The use of ultrasonic velocity meters have been around 16 for some time. They were primarily used for pipe flow. The 17 survey took that technology and then tried to get it out in 18 the open channel flow environment. 19 And we tried, meaning Survey, we tried to install one 20 of these down at Chipps Island, tried to get that Delta 21 outflow back in the early '80s. Because of the wide channel 22 and gravitation of salinity variance and whatever else, we 23 had a problem with. 24 Since then some of the technology has improved, and 25 that is what we have been trying to do within the Delta. 6162 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Another one -- 02 He's doing a great job. 03 MR. BRANDT: Just encouraged him to answer the 04 question. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Doing a fantastic job. 06 A couple questions in regards to the materials that is 07 used. When you did your dye release, did you account for 08 the decay of the dye over the time period, factor that in 09 the analysis? 10 MR. OLTMANN: No. Because we were not doing any type 11 of a mass balance of the dye. In other words, we weren't 12 trying to say that X amount of it went to this channel, X 13 amount went to this. All we were looking at was time of 14 travel, is what we were looking on it. So you could go into 15 a model and say within the model, "I am going to release 16 trackers at this particular location. Do they arrive at 17 point A at the same time as the actual dye did?" 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, then it would be, when we look at 19 figures and the actual concentrations that occur in the 20 figures, while that is of note, the thrust of the study was 21 to look at the travel time and not the actual mass balance 22 of the dyes and where they were located in the Delta? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 6163 01 C.O. STUBCHAER: Does the dye decay? 02 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it does. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: What is the half life? 04 MR. OLTMANN: I can't remember now. I don't recall. 05 C.O. STUBCHAER: Weeks or days? 06 MR. OLTMANN: Now, this is just kind of off the top. 07 As I recall, it would deteriorate by 1 or 2 percent, maybe, 08 per couple days, which, looking at the travel time, we 09 didn't think that was a major problem. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 3 of your report you talked 12 about the materials that you have gathered are used for 13 calibration of several hydrodynamic models presently being 14 applied to the Delta. 15 Do you know what those models are? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. There are several versions of the 17 Fischer Delta Model, which is a 1-D model, that presently is 18 out there. They are operated by Department of Water 19 Resources, has two versions. Contra Costa Water District 20 has a version. I believe Flow Science has a version. And 21 UVM flow data were used to recalibrate all of those. 22 There is also the latest model that has come on board 23 is by the Department of Water Resources, called DSM-2 and 24 that is also in the process -- there has been a calibration 25 already, but there is further calibrations going on of that 6164 01 model with the UVM flow information. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Does USGS then provide this 03 information to the people who are using the models? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Very much so. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you actually go in and look at the 06 model results to see if they calibrate to the information 07 that you have or is that something that is being done by the 08 people who have the models and are running them? 09 MR. OLTMANN: We don't operate the model at this 10 point. We have the model in hand. And we are going to be 11 doing that. We work through this IEP group that I 12 mentioned. We are working to recalibrate the model, using 13 UVM information with the DWR, along with various other 14 entities. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you say you have the model in 16 hand, do you have the DSM-2 model in hand? 17 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You are going to look at calibrating 19 that model; is that correct? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Along with several other people, yes, as 21 a part of this IEP group. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Other than providing information in 23 the past to the people who have models, have you ever 24 commented on any of the models or the way the models have 25 been set up in the past? 6165 01 MR. OLTMANN: The way they have been set up? 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. The logic that went into them, 03 the various nodes and points that they are measuring. Have 04 you done any of that, commented on any of that for the 05 models? 06 MR. OLTMANN: I have commented, yes. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What comments have you made and to 08 whom? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Well, when we first started getting some 10 of this UVM information, which I mentioned there wasn't any 11 time series of flow information available, I was asked to do 12 some comparison of model results as to measured flow 13 information. So I did some comparisons, and I presented 14 some of those results. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that in a report? 16 MR. OLTMANN: No, it is not. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Who did you do that work for? 18 MR. OLTMANN: The Bureau of Reclamation asked me to 19 look at some of them. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that in a memo form or letter form 21 to the Bureau? 22 MR. OLTMANN: No. I just presented the information and 23 then subsequently reported the information also to members 24 of DWR and CalFed people. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know when you made that report 6166 01 to the Bureau of Reclamation? 02 MR. OLTMANN: At least two years ago. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: How well, based on your -- I know you 04 don't have that report in front of you right now. Based on 05 the work that you had done with the UVMs and the model 06 results, how well did the models shape up to your actual 07 field measurements? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Depends on location, again. And some 09 locations not too bad. In some cases not too good. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you give us an idea, as we sit 11 here, what were the good ones and what were the bad ones, 12 generally? 13 MR. BRANDT: If you recall. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you recall. The Chairman would 15 tell you the same way. If you don't remember or don't 16 recall, just say you don't remember or don't recall. That 17 is a perfectly fine answer. We are not here to test how 18 much you have memorized in the 30 years you have been 19 working. Don't worry about that. This isn't a test. 20 MR. OLTMANN: The other problem that goes along with 21 that is that a question that we are addressing all the time, 22 and that is: What is your definition of it being calibrated 23 and what is my definition of it being calibrated? 24 So, we in the IEP work team are trying to come up with 25 a criteria to be able to say this is what we should expect 6167 01 of the tool that we have. How close can we get it to 02 calibration? What are the limits? We haven't exactly come 03 down to that level at this point. So I wouldn't want to 04 speculate any further to say it is within a percentage or 05 whatever, because we are talking also about -- are you 06 talking with tidal flows or talking about in net flow? 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So the IEP group will be working over 08 the next several months or so or years with your USGS on 09 trying to get a model calibrated, get people to agree on the 10 calibration and use that model with input from your field 11 data to try to let us know what may happen in the Delta 12 under various flow conditions? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. The Department of Water 14 Resources Planning Division has already done a preliminary 15 calibration of a DSM-2 model. We, as the IEP group, working 16 along with DWR, are trying to take it to the next level. 17 One of the biggest problems within the models at this point 18 is we do not have bathymetry information, the channel 19 cross-sectional information to represent the real world to 20 the model. It's pretty expensive to go out there and do 21 cross-sections of all 700 miles of a channel within the 22 Delta. 23 This is still, along with the flow information that we 24 have been collecting, there is still a major shortcoming of 25 the models presently. DWR has been going out and collecting 6168 01 some additional cross-sectional information, and there has 02 been fairly recent cross-sectional information at various 03 locations within the Delta as part of other studies. There 04 are still some areas where the cross-sectional information 05 that is being used was collected by NOAH in the 1930s. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, based on the Exhibits 15-E and -F 07 that you put up, an important component of figuring out the 08 equation is the cross-section of the channel? 09 MR. OLTMANN: We collect cross-sectional information to 10 develop this rating at this location. 11 Within a model you've got a lot of channels out there, 12 that you are somewhat guessing what the cross-sectional 13 information may be because you don't have a lot of 14 information to work with. So, if you are looking at 15 computing flow area, discharge equals velocity times area. 16 If your area is significantly off, your discharge is 17 going to be significantly off. 18 When I presented some of the information of comparing 19 models versus some of this measured information, I tried to 20 make that point very clear, that that was a major 21 shortcoming of the models, is the lack of accurate 22 bathymetry. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 3, you had, when you did your 24 reports for '96 and '97 within this document, you had the 25 information for the pulse flows at Vernalis, did you not? 6169 01 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You also had, when you did the 03 reports, the export pumping rates for 1996 and '97 during 04 the time period of the studies; is that correct? 05 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You've probably been through this, but 07 can you explain to me on Page 4 what is meant by the mean 08 cross-sectional velocity? You kind of went through that a 09 little bit here, the mean cross-sectional velocity. 10 MR. OLTMANN: Back to this figure that is up here, 11 which is -- I forgot what number. 12 MR. BRANDT: 18-F. 13 MR. OLTMANN: The UVM measures this index velocity 14 across the channel. That is not a mean cross-sectional 15 velocity. What you need to get to discharge is you need 16 cross-sectional area times mean cross-sectional velocity. 17 This does not provide this. You have to make numerous flow 18 measurements, and from that you determine what the 19 cross-sectional area is. You take that discharge that you 20 measured, divide it by the area, and that would then give 21 you mean cross-sectional velocity. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What, in your opinion -- you use net 23 flow on your Figure 2. What do you think the importance of 24 showing net flow is? 25 MR. OLTMANN: I would say most people, if they look at 6170 01 all the tidal hydrographs, can't see a thing, except that 02 hopefully they do see how dynamic the flows are. You can 03 see the magnitude of it. With regard to trying to 04 demonstrate the effects of barriers, and whatever, those 05 tidal flows probably are not going to show most people what 06 is going on. 07 And, two, you won't until you low pass filter the 08 information, which is mainly how these are created doing 09 tidal averaging. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you put up on the overhead for me 11 Figure Number 2 from your report. 12 I just want to go through some nuts and bolts things 13 here. First of all, my understanding when looking at the 14 cross-sections on each one of these, I know the two at the 15 bottom are listed. For every chart is it safe to say that 16 there are days since January 1st of 1997? 17 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, when we are 90 days out we are on 19 or about the first part of April? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The other thing is, is there a reason 22 why -- let me put it this way: 23 The scales on these charts are different; is that 24 correct? 25 MR. OLTMANN: The Y axis scale? 6171 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 02 MR. OLTMANN: No, the X is not. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Excuse me, the Y, sorry. 04 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, the Y is. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And that is just to show -- to put it 06 in a presentation format to show the difference and present 07 it on one sheet of paper; is that correct? In other words, 08 you couldn't show on a scale the fluctuations in flow in 09 minus 25,000 cfs to plus 25,000 cfs the same way you would 10 show the differences at Victoria Canal; is that correct? 11 MR. OLTMANN: No. I could have made the Y axis be the 12 same, say, 25 to minus 25,000 for all of them. And then 13 what you would see, that Victoria or some of the smaller 14 flows would be quite small. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you are presenting this data, in 16 looking at the first part of the San Joaquin River between 17 Turner and Columbia Cuts, how far down the river is that 18 site from the Port of Stockton site? 19 MR. OLTMANN: Well, I would say let's get a map here. 20 Figure 1, which I believe should have a scale, which it 21 does. The Port of Stockton being about here, and you are 22 talking about San Joaquin site here, I take it? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. Between Turner and Columbia Cut. 24 MR. OLTMANN: Estimated seven to eight miles. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is in addition to being 6172 01 downstream from Mossdale, as well; is that correct? 02 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now when you are at the San Joaquin 04 River between Turner and Columbia Cuts, would it be safe to 05 say that the tidal influence is greater there than it is at 06 Vernalis on the San Joaquin River? 07 MR. OLTMANN: Very much so. There is no tidal effect 08 at Vernalis. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, basically, Vernalis, if we were to 10 look at it, is purely San Joaquin River flow by the time we 11 get to Turner and Columbia Cuts on the San Joaquin River, we 12 have a major influence from the tidal action? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And there is some continuum between 15 there of tidal action and river influence. In other words, 16 at Stockton you have tidal flows of 9,000 plus or minus 17 cfs? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. As I tried to show, you would still 19 have tidal effect, but you would have unidirectional flow. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What is unidirectional flow? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Just means if you are a little particle 22 out there in the water, you are always going to be going in 23 one direction but you are going to be going faster at one 24 part of the tide, slower at part of the tide, faster. So, 25 you are always going in the same direction but sort of 6173 01 pulsating down. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would it be safe to say that on a 03 bidirectional flow that you would move downstream at one end 04 and upstream at the other end of the tidal cycle? 05 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When we are looking at the San Joaquin 07 River between Turner and Columbia Cuts on Figure 2, if you 08 can throw that back up on the screen, this is for water year 09 1997. It appears then that, based on the timing of things, 10 that on or about sometime in April that a pulse flow starts 11 when the Head of Old River is installed, there appears to be 12 at the San Joaquin River between Turner and Columbia Cut a 13 net increase in outflow; is that correct? 14 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The one that is -- looking at Turner 16 Cut, Turner Cut, and you can see this also in your Figure 17 Number 7, would it be safe to say, based on the evidence 18 that was presented, that the decline in pumping rates at the 19 export pumps plus the installation of Head of Old River 20 Barrier and the increase in pulse flow basically appears to 21 have little or no effect at Turner Cut over the time 22 period? You might turn to Figure Number 7; it might show it 23 a little easier for you. 24 MR. OLTMANN: No. I think it still showed the effect 25 of -- not the pulse flow. I couldn't see that anything 6174 01 demonstrated that the pulse flow had any affect on what was 02 going on in Turner Cut. But I still think that you 03 definitely see the magnitude of the export rate and the 04 installation and breaching of the Head of Old River 05 Barrier. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you got to the breaching side on 07 that is -- you have marked it on your exhibit "OR at H 08 breached." At that point in time it seems you see an 09 increase at Turner Cut in the positive flow; is that 10 correct? 11 MR. OLTMANN: No. You see a decrease in the negative 12 flow. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Decrease in the negative flow. 14 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me, in the submitted exhibit that 15 "OR at H breached" is not indicated and it is not indicated 16 and by line number two. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You're correct. Line number two. 18 MR. OLTMANN: Some of these overheads are not the exact 19 ones that are in there? 20 MR. BRANDT: The same information is indicated in the 21 description of Figure 2 at the bottom, so the exact same 22 information. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have an explanation as to or an 24 understanding as to why the flow, looking at the chart, 25 exports get reduced somewhat substantially, the San Joaquin 6175 01 River between Turner and Columbia Cut, which is the blue 02 line, increases and the Head of Old River Barrier is 03 installed, but Turner Cut during that 30-day time period 04 basically stays the same? 05 Do you have an explanation for that? 06 MR. OLTMANN: I noted or noticed that myself, and I 07 think I mentioned, if I recall, in the written text. The 08 only explanation that I could come up with possibly, and I 09 will put Figure 1 up here in a minute, is that right here is 10 a slough, a dead-end slough, that is four miles long, called 11 Whiskey Slough. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's identify that again. That is 13 looking at Figure Number 1 from your report? 14 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. I'm thinking that somehow it 15 might have to do with the filling and draining of Whiskey 16 Slough kind of operating as a reservoir. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You have a site at Turner Cut, which 18 you pointed out on your Figure 1 and immediately to the 19 south and west of it is Whiskey Slough. And your 20 understanding is that maybe when Whiskey Slough is filling 21 or draining, it has an ameliorating affect on the flow at 22 that site; is that correct? 23 MR. OLTMANN: It could. I don't know that for a fact. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you point out on the map that you 25 have on the overhead right now where Middle River south of 6176 01 Columbia Cut site is. 02 MR. OLTMANN: Right here. This is Columbia Cut coming 03 off the San Joaquin, and this is Middle River going further 04 to the north up to the San Joaquin. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have any understanding or 06 information that would lead you to believe that what you are 07 seeing at Middle River south of Columbia Cut is different 08 than what you would see at Columbia Cut on the San Joaquin 09 River? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. You would -- in my judgment, would 11 you not see the same magnitudes of flow going through 12 Columbia, because this is what we measured here collectively 13 the flow that would come through Columbia and Middle River 14 from the San Joaquin, or to the San Joaquin, whichever case 15 it may be. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Then, in effect, you might see, if you 17 had a location on Columbia Cut just east of -- just west of 18 the San Joaquin River, you might see less flow? 19 MR. OLTMANN: I would think so, yes. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have any understanding if that 21 site was installed as to whether or not it would be a 22 negative flow or a positive flow on the site on Columbia Cut 23 just west of the San Joaquin River? 24 MR. BRANDT: Negative net flow -- 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Negative net flow or negative positive 6177 01 flow. 02 MR. OLTMANN: It would depend on the export rate and 03 the San Joaquin River Vernalis flows. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would it be -- looking at Figure 05 Number 2, again, the Turner Cut, given that during the 06 30-day pulse flow the time stays the same -- I mean the net 07 flow basically remains the same, would it be safe to say 08 over that 30-day time period that the velocity in the 09 channel, meaning cross-sectional velocity in that channel, 10 did not change dramatically? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Could you repeat that, please. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In other words, I am looking up at the 13 Turner Cut one, and the line that remains the same. What I 14 am wondering, if the line remains the same, does that mean 15 -- 16 MR. OLTMANN: The red line? 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The red line remains the same, that 18 the net flow line remains the same? Does that mean that the 19 mean cross-sectional velocity over that time period would 20 remain the same as well? 21 MR. OLTMANN: No, not necessarily. Because you have 22 the spring and neap tide cycle that I was talking about. 23 The tides are a lot more energetic in spring tides versus 24 neap tides. So, I would say, no, it would not interfere. 25 As to what the velocity -- the tidal flow showed, there is 6178 01 some variation throughout that time frame. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What I am trying to understand is that 03 a variable based on time or a variable based on the amount 04 of water coming down the San Joaquin River and going to 05 Turner Cut? 06 MR. OLTMANN: What particular variance are we talking 07 about? 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What I am trying to get at is, I want 09 to know if water is pushed down through the pulse flow 10 period, down the San Joaquin River, and arrives at Turner 11 Cut, is that water going to increase the going down Turner 12 Cut towards the pumps or does the velocity mainly remain the 13 same based largely in fact on the tidal cycle? 14 MR. OLTMANN: Well, that is what I was trying to get 15 at. This period here, which is during the pulse flow 16 period, I don't see anything that jumps out at you saying 17 that the pulse flow has an affect on what is going on in 18 Turner Cut. That is just based on the information that I 19 see here. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you make that same statement in 21 regards to Columbia Cut on the Middle River south of 22 Columbia Cut? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Didn't have any flow information there, 24 so I couldn't say. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to follow up briefly on a 6179 01 couple questions that Mr. Herrick asked. 02 When the culverts were installed to take the 300 cfs, 03 did you do any monitoring of that flow to look at how much 04 water was, in fact, moving through the culverts? 05 MR. OLTMANN: No, I did not. 06 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if anybody did? 07 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. I believe Cal Fish and Game did 08 some work trying to monitor some of that flow. I know they 09 at least monitored what fish moved through the culvert. I 10 think they did something hydrodynamically also. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Looking at Page 8, looking at Figure 12 Number 5, you state in that paragraph that prior to the 13 installation of the barrier at Grant Line Canal net flow was 14 2,000 second feet westward. 15 Where is that water being drawn from when it comes down 16 the Grant Line Canal? Is it coming from the San Joaquin 17 River or the Sacramento River, or do you know? 18 MR. OLTMANN: If I had to bet, I would sure say San 19 Joaquin. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On the next page, Page 9, you talk 21 about the increased net flow through Victoria Canal resulted 22 from the reduced flows in the San Joaquin River through the 23 Grant Line Canal to the exports. 24 I am assuming that is due to the Head of Old River 25 Barrier being installed; is that correct? 6180 01 MR. OLTMANN: Could you repeat that. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. I am on the third line down. 03 You say: 04 The increased net flow through Victoria Canal 05 resulted from the reduced flow from San 06 Joaquin River through Grant Line Canal to the 07 export facilities. (Reading.) 08 MR. OLTMANN: Okay. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that due to the affect of the 10 installation of Head of Old River Barrier? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have an understanding of where 13 that water is coming from to get into the export pumps 14 during that time period, during that 30-day pulse flow? 15 MR. OLTMANN: When the Head of Old River Barrier is 16 installed -- 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's correct. 18 MR. OLTMANN: -- where does the export water come from, 19 is your question? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 21 MR. OLTMANN: As I tried to explain, the draw of water 22 comes from the north, from Old River and through Middle 23 River to the export facilities. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Looking at -- do you have Figure 25 Number 7? 6181 01 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, I do. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The question that came up in my mind 03 is based -- this might go -- would you like to know, looking 04 at the export reductions, as to where the difference in 05 reductions in exports may have been differences in flow at 06 various other points in the Delta rather than this large 07 decrease of about 5,000 cfs, as a scientist? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Could you repeat that. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What I am trying to get at, and that 10 wasn't very well stated. What I am trying to get at is that 11 there is a large reduction when you look at the export 12 pumping on the screen; is that correct? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Going back to some of the work that 15 you talked about that you would like to see in the future, 16 would you also like to see different ranges of export 17 reductions so that you could better analyze the impacts of 18 those reductions on exports at other places in the Delta to 19 help refine your study? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. That would just mean that we have 21 additional flow information with which we can calibrate 22 models and learn more about the hydrodynamics of the Delta, 23 in general. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have any background as a 25 geomorphologist? 6182 01 MR. OLTMANN: No. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That saved you about five minutes. 03 MR. OLTMANN: Good. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you planning to do further work 05 about the dampening affect of Whiskey Slough, ascertaining 06 whether or not Whiskey Slough may have a dampening affect on 07 Turner Cut? 08 MR. OLTMANN: I don't have any plans at this point. 09 One thing, we did deploy an ADCP there in '98, this 10 last spring. Unfortunately, we were able to retrieve no 11 data from that piece of equipment, so that might have been a 12 little more enlightening with regard to high flows. 13 Unfortunately, we didn't get any information. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Bear with me. I have questions on 15 every page. I am trying not to be redundant, trying to 16 check them off as I go down the list. 17 Turning to Page 11 of your report, when we talk about 18 the peak dye concentrations at Turner Cut, at that site, 19 point eight; is that correct? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You weren't trying to find out, 22 granted you had other measuring sites, as you stated 23 earlier, you weren't trying to do a mass balance of the dye 24 in the Delta; is that correct? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 6183 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It would be safe to say that as dye 02 moved down from Mossdale past Stockton, that once it hit 03 Turner, it was getting pretty well diluted; is that correct? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if between the points that 06 you measured on dumping the dye at Mossdale and measuring it 07 at Turner Cut, if there is any other tributary in-source to 08 the San Joaquin River between those two points? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. The Calaveras that comes in at 10 Port of Stockton. Am I correct? At that time -- I don't 11 know what the flow is, but it would be fairly small, I 12 think. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 15, you say about, it's about 14 halfway down: 15 Dye was detected at the Old and Middle River 16 UVM sites, but at concentrations slightly 17 above background concentrations. (Reading.) 18 Are you really talking about background concentrations, 19 or are you talking about detection limits? 20 MR. OLTMANN: From what I recall, this was -- well, if 21 you look at some of the hydrographs that I showed, you would 22 have .04 before the dye arrives. So that was more 23 background; that was not detection. 24 So it seems like there was some type of fluorescent in 25 the water, and that was the background. 6184 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You truly -- whatever was out there 02 appeared to have been some type of background, whatever it 03 was, that was very close in composition to the dye, whatever 04 it was, of about .04? 05 MR. OLTMANN: Well, it caused, when you passed it 06 through a fluorometer, there was a fluorescence to it. My 07 understanding, you can get into various types of algal 08 communities that can cause some of that. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Real quickly, if you will bear with me 10 two more minutes, I believe I will be done. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: That is fine. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Throw Figure 10 up real quick, 13 please. 14 Real briefly, on your exhibit you had an extra line. 15 On the one that we have we have two lines. Line one, the 16 dye first arrives and, two, the peak concentrations. 17 Why did you draw the third line on this diagram? 18 MR. OLTMANN: In previous talks, as all I have tried to 19 show here is, that you have this dye cloud that goes by our 20 sampling site, which, of course, is fixed. So the dye goes 21 by on the ebb, if you want to call it that flow direction, 22 the ebb, and then the dye moves back with the flood tide. 23 The sampler is still collecting and monitoring dye at that 24 location, which is basically monitoring the dye that already 25 went by and now it comes back. 6185 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: This shows -- actually, there is 02 actually a nice correspondence between the peaks you see in 03 the ebb tides; is that right? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Looking at -- the last one I would 06 like to look at is Figure Number 11. 07 The San Joaquin River at Middle River is below Turner 08 Cut; is that correct, or further west? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Is downstream or to the north of Turner, 10 yes. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Based on looking at this chart, would 12 you agree that little or no water that is passed through the 13 pulse flow period that goes into the San Joaquin River 14 passed the Head of Old River Barrier, actually shows up in 15 the San Joaquin River at Middle River or Middle River south 16 of Columbia Cut, based on this dye chart? 17 MR. OLTMANN: Could you repeat that. I lost you. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What I am getting at is, it seems to 19 me that the essence of this pulse flow that we see moving 20 down the San Joaquin River is that while it moves past 21 Stockton in mass, by the time it gets out into the Delta, 22 the San Joaquin River at Middle River or Middle River south 23 of Columbia Cut, we see very little of that pulse flow 24 entering those areas; is that correct? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Well, this whole time frame we have the 6186 01 pulse flow going on, throughout this whole thing. 02 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's correct. 03 So, the impacts of the pulse flow at the San Joaquin 04 River at -- you actually changed this. Mine says at Middle 05 River; yours says at Mandeville Reach. 06 Are those the same? 07 MR. OLTMANN: They are the same. 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I didn't notice that. That very 09 little San Joaquin River water is making it to the San 10 Joaquin River at Middle River or the Middle River south of 11 Columbia Cut? 12 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know what percentage of the San 13 Joaquin flow is getting to Middle River at this particular 14 location. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If the portion of dye in the San 16 Joaquin River remained the same, you would expect to see it 17 end up at Middle River south of Columbia cut; is that 18 correct, if it was going around the bend and coming down 19 towards the exports? 20 MR. OLTMANN: You are saying what is the origin of the 21 water that the dye was -- that transported the dye to this 22 location? Yes, I would say that that dye came from the San 23 Joaquin, just based on the net flows that we saw for this 24 particular location, which was negative, meaning that it was 25 flowing to the south, to Middle River. 6187 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Oltmann. 02 I have no further questions. 03 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board Members. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 05 We will take our lunch break now and come back at 1:15 06 for questions from Mr. Jackson. 07 Thank you. 08 (Luncheon break.) 09 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6188 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 ---oOo--- 03 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 04 Good afternoon, and it's Mr. Jackson's turn to 05 cross-examine Mr. Oltmann. 06 Good afternoon, gentlemen. 07 ---oOo--- 08 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 09 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 10 BY MR. JACKSON 11 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Oltmann, could you put up Figure 5 12 for a moment. 13 Thank you, sir. 14 Calling your attention to the green line, that is the 15 combined exports of the State Water Project and the Central 16 Valley Project? 17 MR. OLTMANN: That's correct. 18 MR. JACKSON: Does it make any difference for -- did 19 you try to disaggregate which different facility was 20 exporting at any different rate or did you just combine them? 21 MR. OLTMANN: I combined them. Not in this particular 22 overhead. I did in one figure that was in -- 23 MR. JACKSON: Figure 6? 24 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. Which I did not show as part of my 25 presentation. 6189 01 MR. JACKSON: So I'll go from Figure 5 to Figure 6, as 02 we go. 03 MR. OLTMANN: I do have Figure 6 if you want to look at 04 that. 05 MR. JACKSON: I will in a moment. 06 Now, is it fair to say that what Figure 6 shows is that 07 as the combined exports dropped at -- on approximately April 08 5th, that the reverse flows in the Victoria Canal lessened; 09 is that right? 10 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. As a result of the exports 11 decreasing the net flows towards the export facility 12 decreased, yes. 13 MR. JACKSON: That is reflected all the way through the 14 Victoria Canal figure, in particular as the combined exports 15 on approximately day 140 began to reach underneath 1000 16 cubic feet per second, that the water in the Victoria Canal 17 began to move toward the Bay; is that right? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. The net flow was in a northeast 19 direction. 20 MR. JACKSON: So the number from about April 5th to 21 sometime in the middle of May, the combined pumping, a 22 little over 2,000 cubic feet per second, did not result, was 23 not enough of a decline to result in water in the Victoria 24 Canal beginning to move in a positive direction toward the 25 Bay. Is that how you interpret that? 6190 01 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 02 MR. JACKSON: But that the 800 number was enough to 03 restore positive flow in the Victoria Canal? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah. There is one other ingredient 05 here, though. It depends on what the flow magnitude would 06 be of the San Joaquin River, also. 07 MR. JACKSON: On this particular chart we don't have 08 that, right? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 10 MR. JACKSON: This just compares the combined exports 11 of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project 12 and the water direction in Victoria Canal? 13 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 14 MR. JACKSON: From these two comparisons alone we would 15 find that in order to have positive flow to the -- in the 16 direction of the Bay, we would need to drop the exports 17 below the 2,000 number to approximately 800. Is that what 18 it says? 19 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague. You mean just as to 20 Victoria Canal? 21 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 22 MR. OLTMANN: Under the flow conditions that existed at 23 the San Joaquin River, also. 24 MR. JACKSON: I think you said that there were only 25 three variables in your study. One was the export level. 6191 01 One was flow in the San Joaquin, and the other was either 02 the barrier was in and closed or open in some fashion. Is 03 that right? 04 MR. OLTMANN: I guess you could say that there is other 05 things going on in the Delta at the same time, but those 06 were the three things we are looking at, yeah. 07 MR. JACKSON: So, you were trying to "isolate the 08 effects of each of those three in this program? 09 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know if you'd say "solate." Just 10 try to show what we can see from the data with regard to the 11 scenarios. 12 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 13 Calling your attention to Figure 6 at this point, I 14 would like you to look, first, at the situation before the 15 Head of Old River Barrier is established, and the 16 combination of the CVP pumping and the State Water Project 17 pumping, the CVP pumping on Figure 6, being in a sort of 18 pink and State Water Project pumping being in a dashed green 19 line, is this sort of a disaggregation of the two pumps that 20 you put together to make up the last figure that we looked 21 at? 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 23 MR. JACKSON: In regard to the period before the 24 installation of the Head of Old River Barrier, are these two 25 figures, the Central Valley pumping and the State Water 6192 01 Project pumping additive on this figure? 02 MR. OLTMANN: Additive? 03 MR. JACKSON: Are they disaggregated from each other? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Yeah, the two export rates are. 05 MR. JACKSON: There seems to be -- as you take a look 06 at the situation before the number one or the establishment 07 of the Head of Old River Barrier and the second line, there 08 seems to be a situation in which reversed flows are 09 increasing between the beginning of putting the Head of Old 10 River Barrier in and the time that it's closed? 11 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 12 MR. JACKSON: What is happening there? 13 MR. OLTMANN: If you recall from the figure back to 14 Figure 5 -- 15 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 16 MR. OLTMANN: -- at the first vertical line the Head of 17 Old River Barrier went in, we were not able to draw water 18 over from the San Joaquin, and the Grant Line flow decreased 19 from around 2,000 to about zero. 20 Now, here the Head of Old River Barrier went in, and 21 remember where this site is located. I didn't talk about 22 this. 23 MR. JACKSON: This is Old River at Clifton Court 24 Forebay? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Between the intake channel to the State 6193 01 Water Project and the CVP intake. 02 MR. JACKSON: It would be affected by exports at both 03 places, but flows would be different? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Well, this primarily -- you can see that 05 the CVP is pumping at around 45,000 -- excuse me, 4,500. At 06 this point right here, the Head of Old River Barrier goes 07 into effect which stops the flow of San Joaquin water from 08 the east. The export rate is the same at the CVP. It picks 09 up an additional 2,000, now pulling it from the north, 10 which is basically the 2,000 that we lost coming down Grant 11 Line Canal. 12 So that was kind of the purpose of showing this. The 13 other is to show that -- you see these two little blips here 14 in the CVP export rate, and I just wanted to show this 15 methodology of using ADCPs to produce a record is following 16 quite well to show those. 17 MR. JACKSON: In other words, when the CVP pumping went 18 up, it increased the reverse flows by approximately the same 19 magnitude as the increased pumping? 20 MR. OLTMANN: Just to show the -- 21 MR. JACKSON: A one-to-one relationship, would you say? 22 MR. OLTMANN: It is showing the responsiveness of when 23 the CVP -- this, again, is getting back to showing -- trying 24 to, you might say, validate the information that we are 25 collecting using this methodology. 6194 01 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 02 MR. OLTMANN: That is basically what this is. 03 MR. JACKSON: It seems to work? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Seems to work fine. 05 MR. JACKSON: It shows that as the CVP pumping 06 increased, the reverse flows also increased in approximately 07 the same ratio? 08 MR. OLTMANN: The flow to the south increased, yes. 09 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 10 Calling your attention to the situation as we get to 11 line number three, where you begin to breach the Head of Old 12 River Barrier, at this point with the breach and the 13 particular pumping that is going on at the state and federal 14 pumps, that Old River at Clifton Court Forebay begin to flow 15 toward the Bay; is that right? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 17 MR. JACKSON: And so -- why is that, sir? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Well, if you've seen a picture of the 19 Head of Old River Barrier, there is a quite a head 20 difference between the San Joaquin side and the downstream 21 side of the barrier. So when you pull this barrier out, 22 there is quite a bit of water there that will come down 23 through Old River, through Grant Line, down to this 24 location. The CVP was pumping barely a small amount at that 25 point. So you would have some excess water due to the 6195 01 storage that was taking place behind the barrier, which came 02 down, and, therefore, some of it went to the CVP to match 03 this demand, and then the rest of it flowed to the north. 04 MR. JACKSON: How long would that flow, if you know, 05 how long would that flow continue if the pumping did not 06 increase at line number four? 07 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know. I haven't looked at that. 08 MR. JACKSON: There has been no attempt to find out? 09 MR. OLTMANN: No. 10 MR. JACKSON: At line number four -- I guess that is 11 the expiration of the reduced pumping; is that correct? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 13 MR. JACKSON: And we go back to the pumping schedule, 14 and you find that reverse flows at Clifton Court Forebay 15 sort of follow the same graph except they go -- there is 16 more reverse flow outside the time period, right? 17 MR. OLTMANN: There is more draw now to the south. 18 MR. JACKSON: Have you looked at -- you indicated that 19 the dye simply floats in the water; is that right? It is 20 not moved; it doesn't move itself? 21 MR. OLTMANN: It is not really floating. 22 MR. JACKSON: It is dissolved? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 24 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not the dye acts 25 the same way, for instance, a striped bass larva might act? 6196 01 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Beyond the expertise of this 02 witness. 03 MR. JACKSON: I just asked him if he knew. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you know the answer to the question, 05 sir? 06 MR. OLTMANN: I am not a biologist, so I don't know for 07 a fact; but I would think that it could react differently. 08 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether it does? 09 Let me ask a different question. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: No is an okay answer. Yes is an okay 11 answer, and I don't know is an okay answer. 12 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know. 13 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not phytoplankton 14 would act the same way the dye does? 15 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know. 16 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether chlorophyll A would 17 act the same way that the dye does? 18 MR. OLTMANN: Don't know. 19 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention now to Figure 7, 20 we have talked a little about this figure in some other 21 questions, so I won't go over them all. But is it fair to 22 say from looking at this graph that at Turner Cut flow down 23 the San Joaquin River doesn't seem to make much difference 24 in terms of reverse flows at Turner Cut? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Yes, it appears that way. 6197 01 MR. JACKSON: Now, calling your attention to Middle 02 River south of Columbia Cut, there does seem to be a 03 relationship, maybe not during the flow period. Do you see 04 any relationship during the flow period, between flow on the 05 San Joaquin River between Turner and Columbia Cuts and the 06 reverse flow situation at Middle River south of Columbia 07 Cut? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Would you repeat that, please. 09 MR. JACKSON: The section between the two dark lines I 10 take it is the pulse flow section, right? And you can see 11 it on the dashed blue line, the pulse flow? 12 MR. OLTMANN: Yes. 13 MR. JACKSON: The flow goes up and the exports go down, 14 but nothing much happens, does it, in the graph at Middle 15 River south of Columbia Cut? 16 MR. OLTMANN: Well, there is a little bit different 17 relationship if you compared the two. You can see that the 18 net flow through Middle River seems to decrease in negative 19 flow magnitude. I am not speculating that that has to do 20 with the pulse flow or not. 21 MR. JACKSON: You don't know? 22 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know that. 23 MR. JACKSON: I want you to go -- after the Head of Old 24 River Barrier is breached, and I want to look at the 25 material in the right-hand side. Okay? 6198 01 MR. OLTMANN: Okay. 02 MR. JACKSON: Day 135 to 175. Clearly, there is 03 increased flow on Middle River south of Columbia Cut as the 04 combined exports go up? 05 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 06 MR. JACKSON: And it seems that during that period of 07 time the flow is going down; is that right? 08 MR. OLTMANN: Which flow? 09 MR. JACKSON: The flow on the San Joaquin River from 10 day 135 to day 175. 11 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know if I would say that. You 12 are talking about this period right here? 13 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 14 MR. OLTMANN: I would say on the average it's probably 15 not varying. 16 MR. JACKSON: Then would you say that the variance that 17 we see as it begins to slide down toward the 170 number, day 18 170, and close to now minus 5,000 cfs, is related solely to 19 the combined exports of the State Water Project and the 20 Central Valley Project? 21 MR. OLTMANN: No, I would not say that. 22 MR. JACKSON: What else is it related to? 23 MR. OLTMANN: Filling and draining of the Delta with 24 regard to the spring cycle is one possibility. 25 MR. JACKSON: We would know that if we took this cycle 6199 01 on out through the year, wouldn't we? We don't have days 1 02 to 89 or 175 to 365 on this chart? 03 MR. OLTMANN: No, we don't. We did not collect any 04 flow information at these sites beyond that point. 05 MR. JACKSON: So, if we did collect the flow 06 information, we might be able to tell in terms of variables 07 whether it is the rising export level that is causing the 08 reverse flows to increase or the declining flow in the San 09 Joaquin? 10 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Calls for speculation. 11 MR. JACKSON: Wouldn't we need the rest of the data to 12 know that? 13 MR. OLTMANN: We might learn a lot of things if we had 14 more data. I can't tell you what it's going to be beyond 15 that point without seeing the data. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: You are not going to speculate? 17 MR. OLTMANN: No. 18 MR. JACKSON: At this point we have a window in the 19 yearly cycle and that is all we are looking at? 20 MR. OLTMANN: That is all the data we have at this 21 point, yes. 22 MR. JACKSON: But it is clear that as the combined 23 exports -- we do have a little bit of a window on either 24 side, don't we, before and after? And in both cases reverse 25 flows are worse when the combined export is higher? 6200 01 MR. OLTMANN: I don't know about the use of the word 02 "worse." 03 MR. JACKSON: Greater. 04 MR. OLTMANN: The negative flow is greater if the 05 export rate is higher, yes. 06 MR. JACKSON: Does that lead you to believe that, 07 therefore, reverse flows are a product of the export rate at 08 this location? 09 MR. OLTMANN: No. Because, again, it depends on what 10 the San Joaquin River is also doing. 11 MR. JACKSON: If you had the San Joaquin River data 12 that showed that in March there were very high flows and the 13 data that showed in July there were very low flows, you 14 would be able to determine whether or not it was the flows 15 that were causing the reverse flows to be up on both sides 16 of your window here? 17 MR. OLTMANN: That would certainly help, yes. 18 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 19 Now, you indicated that you thought that salt sort of 20 operated the same way that dye does? 21 MR. OLTMANN: Correct. 22 MR. JACKSON: What is your expertise regarding the 23 effects of salts in water? 24 MR. OLTMANN: From what standpoint? 25 MR. JACKSON: Have you had any training in regard to 6201 01 the effects of salt in water on aquatic species? 02 MR. BRANDT: Objection. That is not related. Those 03 are two totally separate topics. 04 MR. JACKSON: I don't know that they are. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: I am not sure that study of salt is a 06 separate science of any kind. I am not sure what we are 07 getting at here. 08 MR. BRANDT: Especially compared biology, effects on 09 fish. 10 MR. JACKSON: I can do that in two parts. 11 Do you have any training regarding salt in water? 12 MR. OLTMANN: I have not taken a class, per se. I have 13 read things and have been at various lectures discussing the 14 subject, yes. 15 MR. JACKSON: And how many classes, sir? 16 MR. OLTMANN: I said I have not attended classes. 17 MR. JACKSON: What training did you have in that 18 regard? 19 MR. OLTMANN: I have colleagues that I work with that 20 their kind of sole purpose is looking at salt transported 21 into Suisun Bay. 22 MR. JACKSON: Do they know more about it than you do? 23 MR. OLTMANN: About salt transport? 24 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 25 MR. OLTMANN: I would say yes. 6202 01 MR. JACKSON: Who are they, sir? 02 MR. OLTMANN: John Bureau comes to mind. Pete Smith 03 comes to mind. 04 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not Delta ag 05 discharges add salts to the Delta channels? 06 MR. OLTMANN: Just from what I have read. 07 MR. JACKSON: What have you read, sir, that would tell 08 you one way or another? 09 MR. OLTMANN: Just showing that the water that is 10 coming from the islands has a high concentration of salts. 11 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether the salts are coming 12 from the islands or from the channels as they divert the 13 water onto the islands? 14 MR. OLTMANN: My impression is it is coming from the 15 islands. 16 MR. JACKSON: What data do you rely on for that 17 conclusion? 18 MR. OLTMANN: I can't quote you anything off the top of 19 my head. 20 MR. JACKSON: Don't know any particular study or any 21 particular book? 22 MR. OLTMANN: I know there have been things, again, 23 from a modeling standpoint that there is a -- to model the 24 Delta you must have this component within your model. The 25 Department has looked into this to try to add the salt input 6203 01 to the channels so that when you are doing a transport model 02 you account for all the sources. 03 MR. JACKSON: Who do you mean by the Department? 04 MR. OLTMANN: Department of Water Resources. 05 MR. JACKSON: So, you are relying on the Department of 06 Water Resources and their experts for this? 07 MR. OLTMANN: I don't think that they are the only ones 08 that come to that conclusion. 09 MR. JACKSON: I am asking are you relying on that? 10 MR. OLTMANN: I guess I will say yes. 11 MR. JACKSON: Did you hear their testimony? 12 MR. OLTMANN: No, I didn't. 13 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not they testified 14 that there was no additional salt added by the channels or 15 by the land? 16 MR. OLTMANN: I wasn't aware of that. 17 MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed any of the studies 18 dealing with the sources of salt in the San Joaquin? 19 MR. OLTMANN: Sources of salt. Well, I was down here 20 two, three weeks ago and heard some testimony that talked 21 about the inputs to the San Joaquin from the grasslands 22 area. 23 MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed any studies dealing 24 with the sources of salt in the South Delta channels? 25 MR. OLTMANN: Not that comes to mind. 6204 01 MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed any of the studies 02 dealing with the sources of salt on the South Delta islands? 03 MR. OLTMANN: Vaguely, yes. 04 MR. JACKSON: Which studies? 05 MR. OLTMANN: The Geological Survey is doing some work 06 on Twitchell Island with regard to organic carbon. 07 MR. JACKSON: Is that finished? 08 MR. OLTMANN: No, it's in progress. 09 MR. JACKSON: What does it say? 10 MR. OLTMANN: I have not heard the bottom line at this 11 point. 12 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 13 I have no further questions. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 15 I believe that completes the -- I should go to staff 16 first and see if any of the Board Members have any 17 questions. Mr. Howard, anything? 18 MR. HOWARD: No. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer, anything? 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: No questions. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, anything? 22 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Any redirect, Mr. Brandt? 24 MR. BRANDT: Not at this time, no. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Then I presume that that completes this 6205 01 panel's work. Mr. Oltmann. 02 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: I'd just like to thank Mr. Oltmann for 05 his appearance here and providing the information. It is 06 very interesting and helps us understand the hydrodynamics 07 of the Delta better. 08 Thank you. 09 MR. OLTMANN: Thank you. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me refresh my memory, what happens 11 next? Are you bringing -- 12 MR. BRANDT: That completes -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: When did I lose control? 14 MR. BRANDT: That completes the case in chief of the 15 Department of the Interior. This might be an appropriate 16 time for us to introduce our exhibits. And I would like to 17 request that the Board take into evidence U.S. Department of 18 the Interior Exhibits 15 and 16, including all the 19 attachments, and that includes the attachment that we 20 identified today, which will be sent out in the next few 21 days. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe Mr. Herrick had some 23 cross-examination exhibits. Were they -- did you take care 24 of those with the departure of Mr. Vandenberg? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: That was on Stockton East. 6206 01 C.O. CAFFREY: This is the end -- been a while since we 02 had the end of a case in chief. 03 So, I believe, also, Mr. Herrick, you had 56, 52 and 04 53; is that correct? 05 MR. HERRICK: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. On today's 06 cross-examination I referred to South Delta 24. 07 Victoria Whitney reminded me that was not placed into 08 evidence due to the fact that we originally had Phase II 09 testimony which is now Phase II and II-A, and that part was 10 going to be introduced in II-A. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: 24, as well? 12 MR. HERRICK: We are not asking at this point. I think 13 it is more appropriate in II-A. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: You did base a question on it? 15 MR. HERRICK: I did. If the Board will accept it, I'll 16 offer it. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Probably ought to be offered, don't you 18 think, Ms. Leidigh? 19 MS. LEIDIGH: I would think so, just to make the record 20 complete. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If possible, I would like to hold off 23 on offering that evidence into -- that exhibit into 24 evidence. We have questions about that exhibit, and we may 25 move to ask that document not be admitted into evidence 6207 01 until we have had a chance to cross-examine on it. So I 02 would prefer, identify it, and Mr. Herrick, when we get 03 done, can come back in and say, "Now I would like to offer 04 this exhibit." Then we can take care of it both for this 05 matter and for II-A. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: We can certainly do that without any 07 prejudice, if that meets with your approval, Mr. Herrick. 08 MR. HERRICK: That is fine. That is how I originally 09 anticipated doing it. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: At this time we have an objection to 12 South Delta Water Agency Exhibit 53. We've never been 13 provided a copy of it, so I don't know even know what it is. 14 Until we have an opportunity to review it, I think it is 15 inappropriate for the Board to accept it into evidence. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick. 17 MR. HERRICK: 52 was the 1992 study done by DWR and 53 18 was the 1993 through '95 study. Both of those exhibits, as 19 in other exhibits, are in the process of being copied and 20 distributed. I think that is how we handled it in the past, 21 is that on the condition that it does -- if a proof of 22 service is provided to the Board, then it is accepted into 23 evidence. We discussed it. There were copies available 24 that day which were passed out. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Unfortunately, there were not copies 6208 01 that day. Mr. Herrick had some copies of 52 and some copies 02 of 53, but he did not have enough copies to distribute to 03 everyone that was interested in looking at it. 04 Again, until we have an opportunity to look at the 05 document, I am not saying we will have an objection to it, 06 but I think that we ought to be afforded the opportunity to 07 review it before it is admitted into evidence. 08 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, do you have copies of 09 these documents? 10 Let me ask first, does anybody else have any problem 11 with Mr. Herrick's examination exhibits besides Mr. 12 Birmingham? 13 Mr. Herrick, do you have a copy of -- was it 52, Mr. 14 Birmingham? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I received a copy of 52. I have no 16 objection to its admission. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: 53 you were citing? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have a copy of 53 nearby, Mr. 20 Herrick, that we can have Mr. Birmingham take a look at? 21 MR. HERRICK: I don't think I do. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Chairman Caffrey, in that regard, 23 since you asked, we don't have an objection to admitting it, 24 but we still haven't received the document. So, I have no 25 basis upon which to object or not. 6209 01 C.O. CAFFREY: I understand. That is the problem. 02 Somebody's getting a copy of 53. 03 MS. WHITNEY: I gave him one. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: While he is taking a look at that, I 05 digressed. Let's go back to Mr. Brandt's exhibit. 06 Did you complete your iteration of all of those, Mr. 07 Brandt? 08 MR. BRANDT: Yes. 09 C.O. CAFFREY: Are we in synchronization on the 10 numbering? 11 MS. WHITNEY: I would like to add that the attachments 12 are 15-A, -B, -C, -D, -E and -F, and 16-A and -B. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Repeat that into the microphone. 14 MS. WHITNEY: 15-A through -F, and 16-A and -B. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Those are additions. 16 MS. WHITNEY: Those are the attachments. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any objection to receiving into 18 the record the exhibits of the Department of the Interior 19 for their case in chief? 20 Seeing and hearing no objection, the exhibits are 21 accepted, Mr. Brandt. 22 Now we will go back to the exhibits, 56, 52 and 53; 24 23 is being handled at a later date, so to speak, just 24 referenced for now. 25 Mr. Birmingham. 6210 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Ms. Whitney did provide me with a 02 copy of Exhibit 53, South Delta Water Agency 53. Having had 03 an opportunity to review it, I will withdraw my objection, 04 subject to it being served on all parties. 05 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 06 What I think we will do then, we will accept -- before 07 I do that which of the three exhibits, 52, 53 and 56, have 08 not been served on all the parties? 09 MR. HERRICK: I believe 52 and 53 have not been served. 10 I believe 56 was, but I don't have the proof of service with 11 me. I am not sure of that. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Any disagreement with that? 13 Here is what I will do: I am going to accept 56. I am 14 going to accept 52 and 53 provisionally. In the event that 15 people get their copies and they have any heartburn, they 16 should raise it in the course of the proceeding the moment 17 they know that. We will reopen the matter, if need be. 18 That is the ruling on the exhibits. 19 Thank you very much, Mr. Brandt, wherever he went. 20 MR. BRANDT: Right here. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Oltmann. 22 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Caffrey. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Whitney. 24 MS. WHITNEY: I would like to remind Mr. Herrick that 25 he still needs to serve 54 and 55 on the parties, also. 6211 01 They were also provisionally accepted based on service to 02 the parties. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: 54 and 55, Mr. Herrick. 04 MR. HERRICK: If that is not in everybody's possession, 05 it is in the mail. That went out last week. That was the 06 condition. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: They were accepted provisionally, as 08 well? 09 MR. HERRICK: Stockton East case is not completed 10 yet. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Those should be in receipt shortly. If 12 anybody has a problem, they need to raise it with the 13 Hearing Officer at their earliest convenience. 14 Thank you, all. 15 Do we now go to Mr. O'Laughlin's case in chief? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: He is at the table already. 18 Good afternoon, sir, welcome. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Has your witness been sworn in? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. If you'd like to do that first, 22 we can get that out of the way. 23 (Oath administered by C.O. Caffrey.) 24 ---oOo--- 25 // 6212 01 TESTIMONY OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 02 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: By way of introduction, rather than 04 opening statement, the San Joaquin River Group Authority 05 will forego making an opening statement in regards to the 06 Phase V of the proceedings. What we'd like to do by way of 07 introduction, however, very briefly, if the Chair will let 08 me speak for several seconds on this: 09 Originally, when the San Joaquin River Group Authority 10 was looking at the San Joaquin River Agreement and what it 11 may or may not do in the Delta, we hired Flow Science, 12 Incorporated, to do some work for us. That work was not 13 submitted in Phase II. It won't be submitted in II-A. 14 However, we thought of interest to the Board and the 15 parties, maybe some of the work that was done by Dr. Paulsen 16 in regards to the Fischer Delta Model and some of the work 17 we asked them to do in regards to looking at various flows 18 in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers and where those 19 flows go in the Delta. So that is going to be the scope and 20 extent of her testimony today. 21 There is one procedural thing I would like to clear 22 up. When we originally numbered these exhibits, which was 23 way back when, some of you may have received on the exhibit, 24 it is entitled "Determination of the Sources of Water 25 Arriving at Clifton Court Forebay and Bethel Island Task I 6213 01 of Delta Flow Determination Project." The exhibit number 02 was numbered Exhibit 4 that went out to the parties. On our 03 exhibit list it is identified as Exhibit 23. We will be 04 sending a revised exhibit cover sheet for Exhibit Number 23 05 for the phase. And I am sorry about that typographical 06 error. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. 08 O'Laughlin. We will look for the revision. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Very briefly, then, let's get started. 10 Dr. Paulsen, is your Curriculum Vitae set forth in San 11 Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 13? 12 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, it is. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You authored the study, "Determination 14 of the Sources of Water Arriving at Clifton Court Forebay 15 and Bethel Island Task I of Delta Flow Determination 16 Project"; is that correct? 17 DR. PAULSEN: That's correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you briefly summarize for the 19 State Water Resources Control Board, staff and parties both 20 your experience and expertise in the Delta as well as a 21 summary of your testimony set forth as Exhibit 23. And I 22 would remind you, according to the Board's standards, you 23 have 20 minutes in which to present your summary. 24 DR. PAULSEN: Thank you. 25 I first started becoming familiar with issues related 6214 01 to the Delta when I was doing my undergraduate work at 02 Stanford. After that, became involved with various 03 workshops and meetings related to the Delta while I was 04 working as a consulting engineer in San Francisco and 05 Oakland for firm called Dames & Moore. 06 Subsequent to that, I began my graduate work at the 07 California Institute of Technology, known as Cal Tech, and 08 conducted most of the work related to my graduate research 09 in the Delta. 10 I have spent hundreds of hours in the Delta collecting 11 samples and doing field work, including collecting samples 12 from the shore and various channels in the Delta, collecting 13 samples at the confluences of freshwater rivers that later 14 flow into the Delta, collecting samples throughout parts of 15 the northern part of San Francisco Bay and sharing samples 16 with the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, 17 sort of piggybacking with their collection program. 18 In addition, I have conducted an extensive field study 19 of elemental concentrations down the lengths of the 20 Sacramento River, beginning at Keswick and throughout the 21 Delta, and in part of the San Joaquin River as part of that 22 same study. 23 Finally, as part of the testimony that I am presenting 24 today, I maintained five auto samplers at five different 25 locations within the Delta and serviced those samplers and 6215 01 collected samples roughly every two weeks for a period of 02 over a year. 03 Also, while at Cal Tech and subsequently while at Flow 04 Science, I have worked as a consultant on several projects 05 related to the Delta, including a study of tidal flushing in 06 and adjacent to the Napa River Estuary. And I designed and 07 conducted a field study to implement a plan which involved 08 two field sampling events in the South Delta for the City of 09 Tracy. I am currently continuing with some ongoing work for 10 Contra Costa Water District, and at Flow Science we are 11 continuing work using the Fischer Delta Model to try to 12 understand mixing patterns and dilution within the Delta. 13 I should also mention that I am a member of the 14 Bay-Delta Modeling Forum, and I participated in various 15 events and workshops and conferences over, roughly, the past 16 five to ten years. 17 The testimony that I am presenting today began 18 initially as my graduate research at Cal Tech, and began 19 roughly as an idea when Cal Tech acquired an analytical 20 instrument called an ICPMA, or inductively coupled plasma 21 mass spectrometer, which is an analytical instrument that 22 measures the concentrations of over 70 elements in water 23 samples. 24 We figured with that capability we ought to be able to 25 find a handful of those 70 elements that could serve as 6216 01 tracers within the Delta. We conducted a number of field 02 and laboratory tests to determine which elements we could 03 use as tracers, and we set three conditions for tracers to 04 be used in the Delta study. Those three conditions were: 05 First of all, that a fingerprint or a source signature 06 of any one of the sources of water that we were considering 07 in our study had to be distinct from the fingerprint of any 08 other source so that we could tell those sources apart based 09 upon their natural chemistry. 10 The second condition is that those fingerprints had to 11 be maintained on time scales that were longer than the time 12 scales of mixing. So that when we measured a concentration, 13 the concentrations of the elements that made up the 14 fingerprint, those stayed constant enough that we knew when 15 we collected a sample in the interior of the Delta that 16 those fingerprints would still apply; in other words, that 17 those fingerprints applied over a time scale longer than the 18 time of travel from where we measured that sample at the 19 source and when it would have arrived at a receptor 20 location. 21 And finally, in order to be used as a tracer an element 22 has to behave conservatively or very nearly conservatively. 23 If we can have the first figure. 24 As part of the testimony that I am presenting today, we 25 used samples collected at five different locations within 6217 01 the Delta. I am going to adopt for the purpose of this 02 testimony some of the terminology that was originally used 03 in air pollution studies, where I define a source as a point 04 of origin of the water flowing into the system. 05 I define three different source locations as part of 06 the study. I should attribute this figure. This is from 07 Mr. Oltmann's testimony. Thank you very much. Figure 1 08 from his testimony. 09 The first source location that we defined was the 10 Sacramento River. We had a sampling location at the 11 boathouse at Locke, and that served as the sample endpoint 12 or source location for Sacramento River water flowing into 13 the Delta. 14 The second source location was at Mossdale Landing, 15 right down here on the San Joaquin River. 16 And the third source location, actually, isn't shown on 17 this map. It is off to the left-hand side, in Carquinez 18 Strait at Martinez. 19 We also installed two auto sampling devices at two 20 interior locations; and for the purpose of this study I will 21 call those receptor locations because they receive water 22 from each of the three sources. The receptor locations that 23 we defined were Bethel Island. There is a sampling location 24 roughly here at the edge of Franks Tract and at the entrance 25 to Clifton Court Forebay. Our sampling location was 6218 01 actually outside of the forebay, just immediately adjacent 02 to the gates. 03 I should also thank the Department of Water Resources 04 for their assistance in this. We did piggyback on with them 05 in using some of their sampling stations. Those would be 06 the ones at Martinez, which is off the figure, at Clifton 07 Court Forebay and at Mossdale Landing. 08 The other sampling locations were associated with docks 09 in the Sacramento River at Locke and in Bethel Island. 10 As a result of the laboratory and field studies we were 11 able to identify four elements that could be used as tracers 12 and for which the fingerprints from each of the water 13 sources were distinct. Those elements were sodium, calcium, 14 magnesium and strontium. And the results that I am going to 15 present to you as part of my testimony today are derived 16 from the measured concentrations of those four elements at 17 each of the five sampling locations I have just described. 18 Next figure, please. 19 We have just placed in front of you Figure A-1 from my 20 testimony, Exhibit 23. This figure shows the source 21 fractions that were computed at Bethel Island using the 22 measured concentrations of sodium, calcium, magnesium and 23 strontium. Also shown at the top of the figure is the time 24 when the Delta Cross-Channel was opened, the Head of Old 25 River Barrier was in and the three barriers in the Central 6219 01 Delta was operational. 02 The time period shown here is from mid-April 1996 03 through roughly mid-December 1996. You will notice there 04 are some dates for which there are no data, such as toward 05 the end of April, toward the end of May and a few dates also 06 in both September and October. There are two reasons why 07 there appear no data for these dates. 08 Either the auto samplers failed, and we have no 09 concentration data for those dates, or a statistical 10 analysis showed that the source fingerprints, when compared 11 to the receptor fingerprint or chemical composition, were 12 not statistically distinct. 13 For the time periods for which we do have data, 14 however, we were able to determine the fraction of water 15 arriving from each of the three major sources to, in this 16 case, Bethel Island. 17 For example, at the end of April we see, roughly, on 18 average 60 percent of the water at Bethel Island has 19 originated in the Sacramento River, and the remaining 40 20 percent, almost 40 percent, originated in the San Joaquin 21 River. 22 The fraction in the Bay is quite small. I will show a 23 little bit more detail in the next figure. 24 Toward the middle of May we only have five days for 25 which we had valid, usable data. The data from those days 6220 01 show that most of the water arrive at Bethel Island 02 originated at the San Joaquin River. 03 As we continue, roughly, from the beginning of June 04 through, roughly, at the middle of September, we see that 05 between, roughly, 80 and nearly 100 percent of the water at 06 Bethel Island originated in the Sacramento River with the 07 remainder, roughly a few percent to 20 percent, originating 08 in the San Joaquin River. 09 And then, finally, little bit difficult to see here, 10 but you can see that after the removal of the Central Delta 11 barriers, there is the movement of a slug of San Joaquin 12 water past Bethel Island. That was water that was impounded 13 behind the barriers that then moved out of the system when 14 the barriers were removed. 15 Finally, again a little hard to see at the edge here, 16 we see toward the end of the study period, the end of 17 November and the beginning of December, that the fraction of 18 San Joaquin River water arriving at Bethel Island increases, 19 as does the fraction of water from the Bay, as characterized 20 in Martinez. 21 If we can see the next figure, Figure A-2 from my 22 testimony. 23 This shows in greater detail the fraction of water that 24 arrived at Bethel Island from the Bay as characterized as 25 Martinez. It is important to recognize that the water that 6221 01 is at Martinez is actually a mixture of salty bay water and 02 of the freshwater flowing out of the system. That is 03 important to remember in interpreting these results. 04 What this figure shows is that almost no water as 05 determined at Bethel Island has originated from the Bay. 06 From the beginning of the period for which we have data, 07 which is roughly mid-April through around the beginning of 08 August, after that time period the fraction of water at 09 Bethel Island that originated in the Bay, as characterized 10 at Martinez, increases steadily, but remains below 3 11 percent. 12 In other words, for the entire study period for which 13 we have data, less than 3 percent of the water at Bethel 14 Island originated from the Bay, as characterized in 15 Martinez. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Question. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: How could you get a negative value? 19 DR. PAULSEN: Well, that is sort of a mathematical 20 quirk, if you will. We use two different methods to 21 calculate the source fractions based upon the measured 22 concentrations of the four tracer elements in the water 23 samples. And then we used two different mathematical 24 algorithms to calculate the source fractions, which is what 25 I am presenting here. And this is a very slightly negative 6222 01 number, indicating that -- the source fractions, as computed 02 here, slightly overestimate the concentrations of most of 03 these elements in water samples at that time period. 04 C.O. STUBCHAER: Physically, it couldn't be negative? 05 DR. PAULSEN: No, of course not. 06 This is Figure A-3 from my testimony. And what this 07 shows, the left-hand axis here is the concentration in 08 parts per billion, and this graph shows both the measured 09 and computed concentrations of sodium arriving from each of 10 the source locations. 11 The black bar-looking figures are the measured 12 concentrations of sodium in water samples collected at 13 Bethel Island. 14 The blue bars represent the contribution of sodium from 15 the Sacramento River. 16 The pink bars represent the contribution of sodium from 17 the San Joaquin River. 18 And the green bars represent the contribution of sodium 19 from the Bay, as characterized at Martinez. Again, all 20 in-water samples collected at Bethel Island. 21 What we see here is that the contribution of sodium 22 remains relatively steady at roughly 10,000 parts per 23 billion, which is equivalent to 10 parts per million 24 throughout the entire study period. 25 Even though the Sacramento River makes up a large 6223 01 fraction of the water that is present at Bethel Island, it 02 contributes a relatively small fraction of sodium that 03 arrives at Bethel Island. What you also see is that as the 04 contribution of the bay water increases at Bethel Island, 05 its contribution to the total sodium concentration also 06 increases. 07 Sodium is a pretty good surrogate for seawater 08 salinity, because it is the major cat ion, positively 09 charged cat ion, present in seawater. Looking at computed 10 measured sodium concentration is a very good surrogate for 11 where the salinity at this location has actually 12 originated. 13 We performed the same analysis for water collected at 14 Clifton Court Forebay. Figure B-1 from your testimony, 15 shown here, is our computed source fractions at Clifton 16 Court Forebay. Again, the Delta Cross-Channel and barriers 17 are shown across the top and the computed source fractions 18 are shown in the graph below. 19 What we see is that the data really starts toward the 20 middle or end of June, continue through the beginning of 21 August, followed by a two-week gap in the data, and then a 22 near continuous record through the end of the study period, 23 the middle or end of December. We see, again, the 24 Sacramento River contributes most of the water arriving at 25 Clifton Court Forebay, although the contribution of the San 6224 01 Joaquin River is greater than it is at Bethel Island. 02 Through the first part of the study period from, 03 roughly, the end of June through the beginning of August, 04 the Sacramento River contributes between about 60 and about 05 85 percent of the water collected at Clifton Court Forebay, 06 with the San Joaquin River making up the remainder. 07 Again, after the Central Delta barriers are removed, 08 toward the end of September and the beginning of October, we 09 see a slug of San Joaquin River water moving through the 10 system. This is water impounded behind the Central Delta 11 barriers and flushes out of the system after they are 12 removed. 13 The next figure, Figure B-2, shows the contribution of 14 Bay water as characterized at Martinez, to water samples 15 collected at Clifton Court Forebay. Here the scale ranges 16 from, actually, negative 1 percent in order to show the 17 error bars to 2 percent. And we see the contribution of 18 Bay water to water samples collected at Clifton Court 19 Forebay is significantly lower than the contribution of Bay 20 water to water samples collected at Bethel Island at all 21 times remaining below 1 percent of the total amount of water 22 collected there. 23 Figure B-3 shows the measured concentrations of sodium 24 at Clifton Court Forebay, again, shown as the black bars, 25 and the computed concentrations of sodium from each of the 6225 01 three water sources characterized in the study to water 02 samples collected at Clifton Court Forebay. Again, even 03 though the Sacramento River provides a majority of the water 04 collected at Clifton Court Forebay, it provides a relatively 05 small fraction of the sodium used as a surrogate for 06 salinity in water samples collected at Clifton Court 07 Forebay. 08 The San Joaquin River water provides a majority of the 09 sodium through the mid summer months and, again, a large 10 fraction of the sodium collected throughout the fall. Even 11 though the contribution of bay water is relatively small at 12 Clifton Court Forebay, comprising less than 1 percent of all 13 the water collected there, it does contribute a significant 14 amount of sodium or salinity to the water collected at 15 Clifton Court Forebay. 16 We see that contribution of salinity or sodium from the 17 San Joaquin River remains relatively steady through most of 18 the study period, and the contribution from the Bay 19 increasing slightly toward the end of the study period. 20 This concludes my summary of my testimony. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Dr. Paulsen. 22 Does that complete the direct? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I just have one question for Dr. 24 Paulsen. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. O'Laughlin. 6226 01 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Dr. Paulsen, looking at Figure B-1, 02 can you explain to the State Board and the parties why there 03 is no information shown in Figure B-1 from April 14th until 04 approximately sometime in late May? 05 DR. PAULSEN: There are two reasons for that. The 06 first is auto sampler failure. The sampler at Clifton Court 07 Forebay unfortunately was less reliable than the samplers at 08 the other locations in the Delta. So, for a large part of 09 that period we have no water samples were collected at 10 Clifton Court Forebay. For a fraction of that period, for 11 which no data appears in Figure B-1, the sources and the 12 receptor concentrations or fingerprints were not distinct 13 enough, as determined statistically, to allow us to evaluate 14 the source of water collected at Clifton Court Forebay. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Two other quick questions. 16 Did you have an opportunity to hear Mr. Oltmann testify 17 this morning? 18 DR. PAULSEN: I did. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you have a chance to review his 20 testimony? 21 DR. PAULSEN: I did. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you agree with the testimony 23 presented by Mr. Oltmann in his written fashion? 24 DR. PAULSEN: I do. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you have any critique of his 6227 01 statement in regards to the oral testimony he presented here 02 today? 03 DR. PAULSEN: No, I do not. 04 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 05 That completes the direct, and Dr. Paulsen is available 06 for cross-examination. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Laughlin, 08 Dr. Paulsen. 09 By a showing of hands all at once, which of the parties 10 would like to cross-examine Dr. Paulsen? 11 We have Mr. Maddow, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Herrick. 12 Anybody else? 13 You can put your hands down. 14 Minasian. I am sorry, the microphone is directly in 15 front of your arm. Okay. 16 That is four. We have Maddow, Jackson, Herrick, 17 Minasian in that order. 18 We will start with Mr. Maddow. 19 Good afternoon, sir. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 22 BY CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 23 BY MR. MADDOW 24 MR. MADDOW: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members 25 of the Board. I am Robert Maddow, appearing on behalf of 6228 01 the Contra Costa Water District. 02 Dr. Paulsen, I have just a couple questions. I want to 03 be sure I understand a couple of things about the way in 04 which this testimony went together. 05 First, could you put up the overhead of your Figure B-1 06 again, please. 07 I picked this one just so we could use it by way of 08 illustration, because I want to try and understand something 09 about the data that we are seeing, Dr. Paulsen. 10 Directing your attention over to the period of time 11 shown as mid-November of 1996. As I understand the chart, 12 your testimony is that approximately 80 percent or slightly 13 less than 80 percent of the source fraction of water at 14 Clifton Court Forebay is from the Sacramento River; is that 15 correct? 16 DR. PAULSEN: Right. I'd eyeball it at 60 to 80 17 percent on average. 18 MR. MADDOW: Just focusing on that period for a moment, 19 could you give us an idea of the level of confidence you 20 have in the prediction of that 60 to 80 percent range? Is 21 it for any given data point on there is -- for example, 22 you're at the 80 percent level on the chart, would the range 23 actually be between 81 and 79 percent, or would you think it 24 is between 70 percent or 90 percent? Can you give an idea 25 of level of confidence? 6229 01 DR. PAULSEN: Sure. The period we are talking about, 02 if I understand your question, is the period beginning 03 roughly the middle of November and extending through the end 04 of the data. We did conduct a statistical analysis to 05 assign error bars, or an estimate of error, to each of the 06 source fractions shown here. And as I remember the error 07 bars for that time period were, roughly, plus or minus 5 to 08 10 percent. 09 MR. MADDOW: Dr. Paulsen, would that range of error bar 10 be consistent throughout the period of time that is depicted 11 on your Figure B-1? 12 DR. PAULSEN: For this figure, yes. The only exception 13 would be the bars that are shown to be on the left-hand side 14 of the data that are presented here. Which would be data 15 before mid-June, and there were only four or five bars. For 16 those dates the error was slightly larger, on the order of 17 20, 25 percent. 18 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. 19 To be sure I fully understand the report as it has been 20 presented, your Figure B-2, Figures A-2 and B-2, depict the 21 computed source fraction at Clifton Court Forebay of water 22 from the Bay; is that correct? 23 DR. PAULSEN: Figure A-2 would show the computed source 24 fraction from the Bay at Bethel Island and B-2 would show at 25 Clifton Court; that's correct. 6230 01 MR. MADDOW: Thank you. I apologize for misstating 02 it. 03 However, you have not produced comparable date sets 04 with regard to the computed source fraction of water at 05 either the Clifton Court location or the Bethel Island 06 location for water from the San Joaquin River, water from 07 the Sacramento River; is that correct? 08 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, that is correct. 09 MR. MADDOW: Finally, just again to understand how this 10 fits with regard to other data we have heard in other 11 portions of this hearing, it is my understanding that your 12 testimony is entirely based upon extrapolations from the 13 fingerprint of the various tracer elements which you 14 described; is that correct? 15 DR. PAULSEN: I don't think I would use the word 16 "extrapolations." These are directly computed source 17 fractions. So these are direct observations. 18 MR. MADDOW: Taken during what period, Dr. Paulsen? 19 DR. PAULSEN: The results that I am presenting in this 20 figure, for example, are for the period from mid-April 1996 21 through, roughly, mid-December 1996. 22 MR. MADDOW: In hydrologic terms would you characterize 23 that period as a dry period or an average period or wet 24 period, Dr. Paulsen? Could you tell us? 25 DR. PAULSEN: As my memory serves, that is roughly an 6231 01 average period. Maybe slightly higher than average flows 02 through the summer and fall period. 03 MR. MADDOW: Would you anticipate, Dr. Paulsen, that 04 the data which you have shown would have much variability in 05 relationship to the variability of hydrologic conditions at 06 the measuring points that you have used? 07 DR. PAULSEN: As I understand your question, what you 08 are asking me is if the hydrologic conditions during my 09 study period had been different, would I have expected my 10 results to be different? 11 MR. MADDOW: Yes. 12 DR. PAULSEN: Is that the question? 13 MR. MADDOW: Yes. 14 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, the results would certainly be 15 different. 16 MR. MADDOW: Thank you very much, Dr. Paulsen. 17 DR. PAULSEN: Thank you. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 19 Mr. Jackson. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 22 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 23 BY MR. JACKSON 24 MR. JACKSON: Could you put up the figure for Bethel 25 Island, please. 6232 01 Dr. Paulsen, this seems to indicate that starting, I 02 guess, from approximately mid-June, a great majority, 80 to 03 90 percent, of the water is from the Sacramento River at 04 Bethel Island? 05 DR. PAULSEN: Right, through mid-October, that is 06 correct. 07 MR. JACKSON: There is a very, very small fraction of 08 that water which comes from the Bay? 09 DR. PAULSEN: That's correct. 10 MR. JACKSON: Given the testimony you heard earlier 11 today about the very large tidal flows that take place all 12 the way back up to Turner Cut and Columbia Cut, which are 13 upstream on the San Joaquin from Bethel Island, what water 14 is moving in the tidal flows? 15 DR. PAULSEN: The way I interpret your question is to 16 ask whether or not tidal flows indicated the presence of 17 water from the Bay? 18 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 19 DR. PAULSEN: My answer to that is, no, they do not 20 necessarily indicate the presence of bay water. 21 MR. JACKSON: So, the tides are operating on the 22 freshwater in general? 23 DR. PAULSEN: The way I would put it is tides have an 24 influence over the entire system, including the freshwater 25 component. 6233 01 MR. JACKSON: Now, would increased pumping at the 02 southern part of the Delta have a tendency to bring more bay 03 water? 04 DR. PAULSEN: That is a very difficult question to 05 answer. It depends upon a number of factors, including the 06 flows from each of the rivers, the configuration of the 07 gates, barriers and, of course, the pumping schedule. All 08 of which I have no information on. 09 MR. JACKSON: Let's try to see if we can deal with them 10 at one point. 11 When the cross-channel gate is closed, does that 12 decrease the fraction of Sacramento River water at Bethel 13 Island? 14 DR. PAULSEN: I have no direct evidence to either 15 support or refute that assumption. 16 MR. JACKSON: You just didn't look into it? 17 DR. PAULSEN: There are a number of factors that go 18 into the information that you see here, and I feel that it 19 is impossible to tease out the role of solely the 20 Delta Cross-Channel in the information that I presented in 21 my testimony. 22 MR. JACKSON: So that the bar about when the 23 cross-channel gate is open and when it is closed really 24 doesn't tell us anything? 25 DR. PAULSEN: It tells you when the Delta Cross-Channel 6234 01 was open and when it was closed. 02 MR. JACKSON: Doesn't tell us anything about the 03 results that you can tease out? Doesn't change the results 04 one way or the other? 05 DR. PAULSEN: The presence of the bar doesn't change 06 the graph. But, certainly, opening or closing of the Delta 07 Cross-Channel affected the distribution of the water within 08 the system. 09 MR. JACKSON: How? 10 DR. PAULSEN: That is what I cannot tell you 11 specifically. I do not know. 12 MR. JACKSON: Were you able to determine whether or not 13 the Head of Old River Barrier had a tendency to cause more 14 bay water to end up at Clifton Court Forebay when it was in 15 or when it was out? 16 DR. PAULSEN: No, I cannot tell that. 17 MR. JACKSON: Can you tell whether or not the 18 agricultural barriers had a tendency to cause more bay water 19 to end up at Clifton Court Forebay when it was in than it 20 did when they were out? 21 DR. PAULSEN: No, I cannot. 22 MR. JACKSON: Is there any difference that you can 23 determine in flow in the San Joaquin River in regard to how 24 much bay water ended up either at Bethel Island or Clifton 25 Court Forebay? 6235 01 DR. PAULSEN: Could you rephrase your question. 02 MR. JACKSON: Yes. Did you examine whether or not 03 higher flows in the San Joaquin River had a tendency to 04 result in less bay water at either Bethel Island or Clifton 05 Court Forebay? 06 DR. PAULSEN: No. 07 MR. JACKSON: Were you able to determine where the 08 Sacramento River water was coming from in the sense of 09 whether it came around Sherman Island or whether it came 10 down Georgiana Slough or whether it came through the 11 cross-channel gate? 12 DR. PAULSEN: With the information presented in this 13 testimony we cannot determine that. 14 MR. JACKSON: Were you able to determine from the 15 information in this testimony whether the Head of Old River 16 Barrier had a tendency to cause there to be less water from 17 the San Joaquin picked up at Clifton Court Forebay? 18 DR. PAULSEN: No. I think, if anything, I would 19 conclude the opposite, that the presence of the barrier at 20 the Head of Old River caused there to be more San Joaquin 21 River water at Clifton Court Forebay. 22 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 23 No further questions. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 25 Mr. Herrick. 6236 01 I just realized it is 2:30. How much time are you 02 going to need? 03 MR. HERRICK: At least 15 minutes. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's break now. 05 (Break taken.) 06 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back, and Mr. Herrick. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Chairman Caffrey, if I may. 08 Unfortunately when Dr. Paulsen was responding to a 09 question by Mr. Jackson, we had the wrong chart up. She was 10 looking at Bethel Island, rather than at Clifton Court 11 Forebay when the question was asked about impact of Head of 12 Old River Barrier. We got a mixture of right question, 13 wrong chart, wrong answer. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: It was the right question and answer; 15 they just weren't -- 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right; they weren't coordinated. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Two different questions and answers. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If Mr. Jackson -- I talked to him 19 about this, if he wouldn't mind asking the questions again, 20 we will get the right chart up on the board. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: No need to mind anything. It is on the 22 record, we are fixing what went on previously. 23 Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. 24 Sorry, Mr. Herrick. It really isn't a plot against 25 you. We will have you up in a minute. 6237 01 MR. JACKSON: Dr. Paulsen, now taking a look at the 02 source fractions at Clifton Court Forebay, does the removal 03 of the barrier increase the amount of San Joaquin River 04 water entering Clifton Court Forebay? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Jackson, you said "barrier." I 06 don't mean to be particular, but can we narrow it down to 07 the Head of Old River or the other ag barriers, please? 08 MR. JACKSON: Sure. 09 Calling your attention to the Head of Old River 10 Barrier, does the removal of the Head of Old River Barrier 11 increase or decrease the amount of San Joaquin water 12 reaching Clifton Court Forebay? 13 DR. PAULSEN: I don't think we have enough information 14 that is presented in this testimony to determine that. 15 MR. JACKSON: If I understand your -- let's step back. 16 The barrier sends the water down the San Joaquin, the 17 water on the San Joaquin River down the San Joaquin below 18 Old River? 19 DR. PAULSEN: That's correct. 20 MR. JACKSON: Does that water then turn around with 21 this large fraction of Sacramento River water that ends up 22 at Clifton Court Forebay and come back to Clifton Court 23 Forebay? 24 DR. PAULSEN: I can't answer that. I do not know. 25 MR. JACKSON: So, we don't know whether or not there is 6238 01 -- the barrier operation, either the Head of Old River 02 Barrier operation, improves or decreases the amount of San 03 Joaquin water that ultimately ends up at Clifton Court 04 Forebay? 05 DR. PAULSEN: Again, I think it is very hard to tease 06 out the cause and effect of any one particular factor within 07 the Delta. Based on the information that we have here, I 08 cannot say that. 09 MR. JACKSON: Is there a difference in the amount of 10 San Joaquin water in the fall that reaches Bethel Island in 11 comparison to the amount of San Joaquin water that reaches 12 Clifton Court Forebay? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What water reaching Clifton Court 14 Forebay? 15 MR. JACKSON: San Joaquin water reaching Clifton Court 16 Forebay. 17 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, there is a difference in the amount 18 of San Joaquin River water at Clifton Court Forebay versus 19 at Bethel Island in the fall period. 20 MR. JACKSON: In the fall period there is more San 21 Joaquin water that reaches Bethel Island than reaches 22 Clifton Court Forebay? 23 DR. PAULSEN: No. Of the water at Bethel Island, a 24 smaller proportion is from the San Joaquin River water than 25 the proportion from the San Joaquin River that appears at 6239 01 Clifton Court Forebay. 02 MR. JACKSON: So somewhere between -- even -- somewhere 03 between Vernalis and Bethel Island, San Joaquin water in the 04 fall is going to Clifton Court Forebay? 05 DR. PAULSEN: San Joaquin River water in the fall 06 certainly does go to Clifton Court Forebay. I don't have 07 any information at all on the volume of water passing either 08 location. The only information I have is the proportion of 09 water from each of the sources. 10 So I can't answer any question with regard to the mass 11 or the volume of water from the San Joaquin River passing 12 either location. 13 MR. JACKSON: Okay. When you say in your testimony on 14 Page 9 that the affects of Delta Cross-Channel and barrier 15 at the Head of Old River are clearly seen in mid-November 16 1996, when the Delta Cross-Channel is closed and the barrier 17 at the Head of Old River is removed, then you are clear that 18 a higher proportion of the San Joaquin River water is seen 19 at Clifton Court Forebay? 20 DR. PAULSEN: Again, a higher proportion rather than a 21 higher mass flow rate; that's correct. 22 MR. JACKSON: A higher proportion brings along a higher 23 proportion of salt? 24 DR. PAULSEN: As compared to? 25 MR. JACKSON: The same proportion coming from the 6240 01 Sacramento River. 02 DR. PAULSEN: Looking -- comparing Figures A-3 and 03 Figures B-3, where I showed computed measured sodium 04 concentrations at Bethel Island and Clifton Court Forebay 05 respectively, the concentration -- the total concentration 06 of sodium in water at Bethel Island is higher than at 07 Clifton Court Forebay. 08 MR. JACKSON: That is after the barrier is removed? 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you be -- objection. Ambiguous. 10 What barrier? 11 MR. JACKSON: After the Head of Old River Barrier is 12 removed. 13 DR. PAULSEN: In the fall period, that's correct. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 15 Mr. Herrick. 16 ---oOo--- 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 18 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 19 BY MR. HERRICK 20 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman and Board Members, John 21 Herrick for the South Delta Water Agency, again. 22 Dr. Paulsen, when you calculate these numbers, the 23 information that resulted in your testimony, was there any 24 subsequent analysis or determination of whether any of the 25 results were unanticipated or counterintuitive or something 6241 01 like that? 02 DR. PAULSEN: I tried to go into this research without 03 any preconceptions. Therefore, the answer is no. 04 MR. HERRICK: I notice from your testimony that you 05 said samples were collected during the period March '96 06 through March '97, but that the results only go through 07 December. 08 Is there any reason why those other months were not 09 included? 10 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, there is. No samples were collected 11 at Martinez for the period, I believe it is, March 13th 12 through mid-April because they had a power failure at DWR's 13 sampling location, which I used, so there are no data at 14 Martinez and, therefore, the computation can't be made for 15 that period. 16 After, I don't remember the date exactly, but roughly, 17 December 18th or 20th, in that span of time, there was 18 tremendous flooding in the Delta, and I was not able to 19 adequately characterize the source fingerprints for the 20 sources or to resolve the source fractions at the receptor 21 locations beyond, say, mid-December '96. 22 MR. HERRICK: When you say you were unable to 23 characterize the source fingerprints, is that because with 24 the high flows the dilution rate is so great you can't 25 distinguish them or is there some other explanation? 6242 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Understand the question, Dr. Paulsen? 03 DR. PAULSEN: I think I can tease it apart. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Whether she can tease it apart, it is 05 two questions. 06 DR. PAULSEN: Can you restate the question, please. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Doesn't necessarily make it 08 unanswerable. The fact it is compound. We will have you 09 restate the question. 10 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Paulsen, you said that you weren't 11 able to characterize some of the footprints because of the 12 flood events in '97; is that correct? 13 DR. PAULSEN: I'd say fingerprints. 14 MR. HERRICK: Fingerprints, excuse me. 15 DR. PAULSEN: And it is probably not accurate to say 16 that I couldn't characterize the fingerprints. I could 17 measure the concentrations of all the elements that I had 18 been measuring prior to the flood after the flood occurred. 19 Those source fingerprints were not distinct from one 20 another. 21 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain that, please. Was it 22 because of concentration of those fingerprints? 23 DR. PAULSEN: Well, because the concentrations make up 24 the fingerprints, certainly, the concentrations had 25 something to do with it. I do not know what the cause was. 6243 01 MR. HERRICK: The concentrations of the fingerprints 02 were measurable, but you didn't do it because what? 03 DR. PAULSEN: I did attempt to do it. Would it help if 04 I explained the process by which I gathered the data or 05 established the fingerprints? 06 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 07 DR. PAULSEN: At each of the sampling locations I 08 collected a daily composite sample for each of the days for 09 which you see data, plus a few others as you have 10 determined. Those concentrations of the four tracer 11 elements make up a vector or a set of numbers that describes 12 the fingerprint of a given source. There is a statistical 13 analysis that I then performed to determine whether or not, 14 statistically, those fingerprints were distinct from one 15 another. And for the period when the flood occurred, those 16 fingerprints were not distinct. I have a few ideas as to 17 why that is, but I do not know a single answer. 18 MR. HERRICK: The fingerprint constitutes a 19 relationship of those four tracer elements to each other; is 20 that correct? 21 DR. PAULSEN: A fingerprint is simply a set of those 22 four concentrations, just a vector, a four-dimensional 23 vector, if you will. 24 MR. HERRICK: But in determining that you have a 25 distinguishable fingerprint, are you comparing how those 6244 01 tracers relate to each other or relate to the volume of the 02 water they are in? 03 DR. PAULSEN: A concentration of a mass of an element 04 in a given volume of water. And the fingerprint is a set of 05 four of those mass per volume measurements. Now if the 06 fingerprint, for example, of all of the concentrations of 07 those four elements were identical in the Sacramento River 08 to the San Joaquin River, which they are not, let's just 09 assume that they were, then those fingerprints, clearly, 10 would not be distinct. There would be no way to tell the 11 difference between those two sources if all those 12 concentrations were identical. 13 While that did not occur, we did a statistical analysis 14 and there is a little bit of information laid out in the 15 testimony describing that analysis to show whether or not 16 you can distinguish those vectors, one from another, using 17 statistical analysis techniques. We determined for the 18 period beginning with the flood we could not make that -- we 19 could not distinguish those fingerprints. 20 MR. HERRICK: Let me ask it again. 21 Is the fingerprint the concentrations of the four 22 tracers or does it include some sort of relationship between 23 the tracers themselves? 24 DR. PAULSEN: A fingerprint is composed of the 25 concentrations of the four tracer elements. 6245 01 MR. HERRICK: What data did you base your fingerprint 02 for Mossdale? 03 DR. PAULSEN: The measured concentrations of the four 04 tracer elements as determined in the water samples collected 05 from Mossdale. 06 MR. HERRICK: What is the time period of the 07 collections of those samples? 08 DR. PAULSEN: Each sample is a daily composite sample. 09 So, it is collected over a 24-hour period. There are a 10 number of daily composite samples. At each station there 11 are sampler failures and other difficulties. The number of 12 samples collected vary. Each data point that you see on the 13 figures that we have shown, Figure A-1 and B-1, for example, 14 includes concentration of each of the four tracer elements 15 measured at Mossdale and at the other source and relevant 16 receptor locations. 17 MR. HERRICK: Was there sampling done for the time 18 periods before the data presented? 19 DR. PAULSEN: Not in the same way that those samples 20 were collected. These samples were collected beginning in 21 roughly March of '96. And prior -- in the three years prior 22 to that time period, I collected numerous samples throughout 23 the Delta and throughout the rivers. So, yes, we do have 24 samples from other periods. They are not daily composite 25 samples as such. Since they are grab samples, they are not 6246 01 directly comparable. 02 MR. HERRICK: Did you make any comparison of whatever 03 fingerprint may have existed at Mossdale for prior years and 04 then compare that to the fingerprint for the year, the 05 calendar year, that was studied? 06 DR. PAULSEN: Yes. 07 MR. HERRICK: You showed a consistent fingerprint for 08 Mossdale during the entire year or does it change year to 09 year? 10 DR. PAULSEN: It changes over the course of the year. 11 Hence, the need to make daily composite measurements. 12 MR. HERRICK: Is there some reason -- is there any 13 reason why that data was not included for other people to 14 review? 15 DR. PAULSEN: Those data were collected as grab samples 16 throughout the Delta, and I don't think that there ever was 17 a situation where for a single time period I had a sample 18 from all three of the source locations and from either one 19 of the receptor locations. So, yes, there is not a 20 comparable data set. While I have spot samples from each of 21 the locations presented in this report, I do not have 22 samples from which you could make the same calculations as 23 presented in this testimony. 24 MR. HERRICK: Do you have samples for the San Joaquin 25 River above its confluence, by that I mean upstream of its 6247 01 confluence with the Merced River? 02 DR. PAULSEN: No, I don't believe so. 03 MR. HERRICK: Does your fingerprint for Mossdale take 04 into consideration the possibility of differing 05 concentrations at different times of year flowing into the 06 San Joaquin River from various points? 07 DR. PAULSEN: The water samples at Mossdale are simply 08 a mixture of whatever flows into that river upstream of 09 Mossdale. I do not account for whether the source is the 10 Stanislaus River or any other river prior to that point. 11 MR. HERRICK: Would you expect over a year that the 12 fingerprint would change if there are differing inflows to 13 the San Joaquin River upstream of Mossdale? 14 DR. PAULSEN: It would depend upon the real source of 15 those inflows, but, yes, in general, I would expect those 16 fingerprints to change. 17 MR. HERRICK: Is there any indication -- let me start 18 over. 19 Is that information of the changes in the fingerprint 20 necessary for you to draw your conclusions in your report? 21 DR. PAULSEN: No. 22 MR. HERRICK: I noticed on A-1 and B-1 -- is it correct 23 in generalizing that basically we have very little data 24 during the pulse flow period? 25 DR. PAULSEN: Yes, that is correct. There are, 6248 01 roughly, at Bethel Island -- actually, it would depend on 02 the timing of pulse flow during that year. There are a 03 number of data toward the end of April. There are roughly 04 five days of data at Bethel Island that roughly correspond 05 to the placement of the Head of Old River Barrier which was 06 only in for a couple of days. And then the data skipped 07 roughly to the beginning of June. So the data are sparser 08 at the beginning of the study period, that's correct. 09 MR. HERRICK: On B-1, isn't it true, you don't have any 10 data during that pulse flow; is that correct? Am I 11 misstating that? 12 DR. PAULSEN: That is correct. There are a handful of 13 data points during the beginning of June, but no data during 14 the pulse flow. 15 MR. HERRICK: Do you -- in your report did you 16 determine when the pulse flow occurred in the spring of 1996? 17 DR. PAULSEN: I am not sure it is presented in this 18 report. We certainly have those data. 19 MR. HERRICK: How did you determine when the various 20 barriers were in operation? 21 DR. PAULSEN: We obtained that information from the 22 Department of Water Resources. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you -- excuse me, I am color blind, so 24 I can't differentiate, but do your different color lines 25 for the different barriers indicate the installation or 6249 01 operation of the those barriers? 02 DR. PAULSEN: As I remember it, when they were 03 operational. 04 MR. HERRICK: You say you got that data from DWR? 05 DR. PAULSEN: That's correct. 06 MR. HERRICK: Don't get me wrong; I am not trying to be 07 nasty. Is your testimony that the Middle River Barrier did 08 not operate until the first week of July? 09 DR. PAULSEN: Looks like either the first or the second 10 week of July, yes; that is the information that was 11 presented in this testimony. 12 MR. HERRICK: If that were incorrect, would that affect 13 the conclusions that you have drawn from the data? 14 DR. PAULSEN: It would in no way affect the calculated 15 source fractions. 16 MR. HERRICK: Is your testimony that Grant Line Canal 17 was operable before the Tracy Old River Barrier in 1996? 18 DR. PAULSEN: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the permit 20 conditions of the various barriers which set forth when they 21 can and cannot be operated? 22 DR. PAULSEN: Only vaguely. 23 MR. HERRICK: When were you first tasked with this job 24 to develop this data and this testimony? 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 6250 01 DR. PAULSEN: The data, the source collections -- 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment. You want to know when 03 she was asked to do this contract or -- restate the 04 question. 05 MR. HERRICK: I don't believe a question with the word 06 "and" in it is necessarily compound, but I will restate it. 07 When were you asked to perform this data gathering? 08 DR. PAULSEN: I don't think it is technically correct 09 to say that I was asked to perform the data gathering. I 10 chose to perform the data gathering as part of my graduate 11 research at Cal Tech. 12 MR. HERRICK: When were you asked to put it together in 13 some sort of testimony? 14 DR. PAULSEN: These data have all been previously 15 published in slightly different form as part of my Ph.D. 16 thesis, which is publicly available. I was not asked to 17 prepare this testimony until after the completion of that 18 thesis. So I believe I was asked to prepare this testimony, 19 I am guessing, roughly last year, December of '97, January 20 of '98. 21 MR. HERRICK: When you began gathering this data, I 22 think you said in was in your postgraduate work? 23 DR. PAULSEN: My graduate work. 24 MR. HERRICK: Did you seek out other information that 25 would have similar data in it? 6251 01 DR. PAULSEN: Computations of source fractions, you 02 mean? 03 MR. HERRICK: Other people's studies or work or 04 conclusions or information. 05 DR. PAULSEN: I reviewed a considerable amount of 06 information. I don't know of any other computations of 07 source fractions. I don't know of any other data, either 08 directly or indirectly, comparable to these data. 09 MR. HERRICK: Did you contact anybody in the South 10 Delta Water Agency to see if they had any such information? 11 DR. PAULSEN: No. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of a 1980 report authored 13 by the South Delta and the Bureau of Reclamation regarding 14 the effects of the CVP on the San Joaquin River and the 15 Delta? 16 DR. PAULSEN: If I am, it is not intimately familiar. 17 MR. HERRICK: I was then going to ask you if you are 18 familiar with it, are you aware that it does present some of 19 the same work in tracing the fingerprint of salt through the 20 system? 21 DR. PAULSEN: No. I don't know of it. 22 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the salts entering 23 the San Joaquin River in the area upstream of that river's 24 confluence with the Merced? 25 DR. PAULSEN: No, I did not do an analysis of that. 6252 01 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of the exportation of salt 02 through the state and federal projects through their export 03 pumps in the South Delta? 04 DR. PAULSEN: Insofar as salts are present in the 05 water, it is there, yes. In any more detailed fashion, 06 no. 07 MR. HERRICK: In developing the fingerprint for 08 Mossdale -- let me back up. 09 Are you aware of the reverse flows that occur in 10 certain South Delta channels at certain times? 11 DR. PAULSEN: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Does that -- do you -- let me start 13 over. 14 Are you aware of whether or not tidal flows affect the 15 water at Mossdale? 16 DR. PAULSEN: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: And during 1996 are you aware of whether 18 or not the San Joaquin River from Mossdale -- from Stockton 19 to where Old River breaks off whether or not there was any 20 reverse flow? 21 DR. PAULSEN: I do not know the answer to that. 22 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you talked about the 23 slug of San Joaquin River water passing down and then either 24 measuring at either Bethel Island or Clifton Court? 25 DR. PAULSEN: Yes. 6253 01 MR. HERRICK: What is your understanding of how the 02 three tidal barriers operate? 03 DR. PAULSEN: My understanding of how they operate in 04 this period is summarized in these diagrams, in the sense 05 that they were in place or removed. I have visited the 06 barriers on a number of occasions. 07 I am not sure what you are asking. 08 MR. HERRICK: Do you understand that the tidal barriers 09 trap incoming tidal flows? 10 DR. PAULSEN: I suppose to a certain extent that is 11 true, yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Is it your understanding that the 13 barriers are trapping behind them incoming San Joaquin River 14 water? 15 DR. PAULSEN: I don't know. 16 MR. HERRICK: Again, I don't want to misstate this. 17 When you say a slug of San Joaquin River water goes 18 downstream upon the removal of the barriers, could you put 19 up B-1 please. Now I read this chart to say that, 20 subsequent to the removal of the three tidal barriers, that 21 a greater percentage of San Joaquin River water is now 22 reaching Clifton Court Forebay; is that correct? 23 DR. PAULSEN: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: Does the low point on your chart at about 25 10/25 or something -- 6254 01 DR. PAULSEN: Roughly that date. 02 MR. HERRICK: Is it your conclusion that that is the 03 maximum amount of the slug you are describing reaching 04 Clifton Court Forebay? 05 DR. PAULSEN: It is my conclusion that that is the 06 time, the particular day, right around September 20 or 07 October 25th, excuse me, when the percentage of water at 08 Clifton Court Forebay from San Joaquin is a maximum. 09 MR. HERRICK: Did you check your data here against any 10 data that shows the time it would take water to flow from 11 the San Joaquin River through the South Delta channels to 12 Clifton Court Forebay? 13 DR. PAULSEN: No. 14 MR. HERRICK: In other words, this is a hypothetical. 15 If it only takes a day for the water to go from Old River 16 and reach Clifton Court Forebay, would that make you 17 question your results that show it taking whatever it shows 18 there? 19 DR. PAULSEN: It would not make me question the source 20 fractions. 21 MR. HERRICK: Is there any contrary data that could 22 exist that would make you question the source, the data for 23 the fingerprint? 24 DR. PAULSEN: For the fingerprint of source fractions? 25 None that I know of. No, no. 6255 01 MR. HERRICK: There is no way that the -- 02 DR. PAULSEN: You asked me if there is any data that 03 would make me question, and there are none that I know of at 04 this point. 05 MR. HERRICK: I believe the question was hypothetically 06 is there any data that would make you change your mind. 07 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for speculation. 08 MR. HERRICK: I am asking an expert to speculate, yes. 09 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: She is not going to. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: That settles that, Mr. Herrick. 11 MR. HERRICK: I guess so. I would like to mark that 12 answer. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: My answer or hers? 14 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Paulsen, I want to confirm it is your 15 testimony that -- is it your testimony that the water behind 16 the three tidal barriers comes down in a slug, reaches 17 Clifton Court Forebay and changes the percentages of San 18 Joaquin River water as measured at that point? 19 DR. PAULSEN: There could be other factors that play a 20 role here. As I stated earlier, there are a number of 21 factors that play a role from the flow rates in the river to 22 the barrier configurations, to the tidal cycle, be it spring 23 or neap. 24 It is my testimony that these are the source fractions 25 that were observed at Clifton Court Forebay. And I do 6256 01 believe that the removal of the Central Delta barriers plays 02 a role in that, in those measured source fractions. 03 MR. HERRICK: Does your data indicate -- lets build a 04 hypothetical. 05 If the water held behind the three tidal barriers came 06 from west of the barriers, not east of the barriers, would 07 you have a question as to whether or not your data is 08 correct? 09 DR. PAULSEN: No, I would not. 10 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion as to whether or 11 not as to what path the slug of water you say reaching 12 Clifton Court Forebay, do you have a position on the path 13 that water took? 14 DR. PAULSEN: No. 15 MR. HERRICK: I don't have any further questions. 16 Thank you very much. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 18 Mr. Minasian. 19 MR. MINASIAN: The questions I was going to ask have 20 been asked. 21 Thank you. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 23 Any questions from the staff? Mr. Howard? 24 MR. HOWARD: No questions. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything from the Board? Mr. Stubchaer? 6257 01 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Any redirect, Mr. O'Laughlin? 03 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No, Chairman Caffrey. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: This is one panel among others for you? 05 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. This is it. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you like to offer your exhibits at 07 this point? 08 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I would like to offer into evidence 09 Exhibit Number 3 from the San Joaquin River Group Authority 10 and Exhibit 23 with an understanding that that will be 11 provisionally accepted as soon as I mail out a cover sheet 12 with a correct exhibit number on it. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Does that synchronize with your records, 14 Ms. Whitney? 15 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any objection to accepting the 17 exhibits as described by Mr. O'Laughlin, with the provision 18 as he described it? 19 Hearing and seeing no objection, the exhibits are 20 accepted into the record with that one provision for that 21 one exhibit. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Dr. Paulsen. Appreciate your 24 being here. 25 It is 3:15 now, is this a reasonable place to stop? 6258 01 Our next step would be what? I guess we're waiting on Ms. 02 Zolezzi and Mr. Shephard, both? Mr. Shephard is not here 03 today. He is out becoming a grandfather once again. So I 04 believe that is as far as we can go today, is it not? 05 When next we meet it will be Monday. See you all then 06 in this room at 9:00. 07 Thank you very much. 08 (Hearing adjourned at 3:20 p.m.) 09 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6259 01 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 02 03 04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 04 ) ss. 05 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 05 06 06 07 08 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 09 official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 10 and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand 11 writing those proceedings; 12 That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be 13 reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 6082 through 14 6258 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 13th day of November 19 1998. 20 21 22 23 23 24 ______________________________ 24 ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25