6476 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 10, 1998 22 9:00 A.M. 22 23 23 24 24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25 6477 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 ---oOo--- 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 6478 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 6479 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 6480 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 6481 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 6482 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 6483 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 6484 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 6485 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 6486 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 6487 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 6488 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 6489 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 6490 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 6491 01 INDEX 01 02 PAGE 02 03 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 6492 03 04 STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT: 04 LOWELL PLOSS 05 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION: 05 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 6492 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 06 BY BOARD MEMBERS 6530 07 BY MR. NOMELLINI 6534 07 08 ---oOo--- 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6492 01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 02 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998 03 ---oOo--- 04 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back to the 05 Bay-Delta Water Rights proceeding. 06 We are back on our cross-examination of Mr. Ploss. 07 Good morning, Mr. Ploss, Mr. Brandt and Mr. Birmingham, 08 who was in the process of cross-examining and was 09 interrupted when we went to the presentation of Mr. 10 Delamore's direct examination. 11 Good Morning, Mr. Jackson. 12 MR. JACKSON: I apologize. I was out -- 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Do not apologize, sir. 14 MR. JACKSON: I was out of the room, and I would like 15 to be added to the cross-examination. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: You did tell that to me last night, and 17 I have added your name, Mr. Jackson. 18 Good morning, Mr. Birmingham. It's all yours, sir. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 22 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 23 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, yesterday there was a great 25 deal of controversy concerning whether you were here 6493 01 testifying as an expert. 02 Do you recall that controversy? 03 MR. PLOSS: Yes. One of many controversies. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Government, Department of the 05 Interior, has introduced or has marked for identification a 06 number of documents. I would like to show to you a document 07 which has been marked for identification as Department of 08 the Interior Exhibit 4-A. 09 Are you familiar with the Department of the Interior 10 Exhibit 4-A? 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I am. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-A 13 is a statement of qualifications and experience of Lowell 14 Ploss; is that correct? 15 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does the Department of the Interior 17 4-A summarize your academic background and your 18 qualifications? 19 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You would have to agree with me, then, 21 Mr. Ploss, that based upon your academic background and 22 qualifications, you are indeed an expert on the operation of 23 the Central Valley Project? 24 MR. PLOSS: I am embarrassed easily, so I don't claim 25 to be an expert, but I am knowledgeable, yes. 6494 01 MR. BRANDT: Can I state for the record, I would not 02 deny that Mr. Ploss is an expert. For the purposes of this 03 hearing he is not authorized to provide expert testimony. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: We understand the position you are 05 taking as a legal technicality, and I don't demean it by the 06 use of those terms, but I also understand Mr. Birmingham has 07 the right to ask those kinds of questions and get them into 08 the record for the benefit of his case. 09 MR. BRANDT: And they're factual questions, so I can't 10 really -- they are not expert opinions. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I am also recognizing your right to 12 state for the record your continuing concern, Mr. Brandt. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And I understand, Mr. Chairman, that 14 Mr. Brandt has a standing objection to any question that 15 calls for an expert opinion by Mr. Ploss, and I would also 16 stipulate that he can have that standing objection. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, the operation of the 19 Central Valley Project requires the balancing of many 20 competing demands for a limited amount of water; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That same statement applies to the 24 operation of New Melones Reservoir? 25 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 6495 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The operation of New Melones Reservoir 02 requires balancing competing demands for a limited amount of 03 water? 04 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it does. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Within the last eight years has a 06 substantial portion of CVP yield been dedicated to 07 environmental uses? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes. We would conclude that a combination 09 of factors: sort of a change in hydrology from how the 10 project was planned originally and the implementation of the 11 Central Valley Project Improvement Act has caused more water 12 to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And, in fact, in addition to the 14 implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement 15 Act, implementation of Endangered Species Act has required 16 the use of water from the Central Valley Project for 17 environmental purchases; is that correct? 18 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Has the implementation of the 20 Bay-Delta Accord required the use of CVP water for 21 environmental purposes? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it has. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: A portion of the Accord was adopted by 24 the State Water Resources Control Board as the 1995 Water 25 Quality Control Plan? 6496 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes, that's correct. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Subsequently, the Department of the 03 Interior and the Department of Water Resources petitioned 04 the State Water Resources Control Board to modify terms of 05 earlier decisions to make those decisions consistent with 06 the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes. That was an effort by Bureau of 08 Reclamation and Department of Water Resources to provide for 09 those environmental protections while these proceedings 10 could go forward. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That petition that was the joint 12 petition filed by the Department of Water Resources and the 13 Bureau of Reclamation resulted in Water Rights Decision 14 95-6? 15 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Water Rights Decision 95-6 obligates 17 the Bureau of Reclamation to operate New Melones to meet the 18 spring pulse flow requirements contained in the 1995 Water 19 Quality Control Plan? 20 MR. PLOSS: It obligated the Bureau of Reclamation to 21 achieve the flow objectives at Vernalis on the San Joaquin 22 River. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: My questions thus far have pertained 24 to the Central Valley Project. I would like to ask you 25 specifically about New Melones Reservoir. 6497 01 For the past five years has a substantial amount of New 02 Melones' yield been dedicated to environmental purposes? 03 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yesterday Ms. Zolezzi asked you a 05 number of questions concerning the Interim Operations Plan. 06 Do you recall those questions? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I do. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to follow up on some of 09 those, if I may. 10 What was it that caused the Bureau of Reclamation to 11 develop the Interim Operations Plan? 12 MR. PLOSS: There's a number of factors involved in 13 that decision. One was the experience that the Bureau of 14 Reclamation had with the operation of New Melones through 15 the drought period, which we referred to as, for that 16 purpose, 1986 through 1996. The times when we had a full 17 New Melones Reservoir, went through and extended drought 18 period and once again were able to refill New Melones 19 Reservoir. Our experiences during that period required us 20 to take extraordinary efforts in coordinating with all of 21 the interested parties in trying to operate New Melones with 22 a limited water supply. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, it was during that drought 24 period that New Melones Reservoir -- let me restate that. 25 It was during that drought period when the inflow to 6498 01 New Melones Reservoir was the lowest since the operation of 02 the project began; isn't that correct? 03 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The hydrology of the 1986 to '96 05 drought period was more adverse than the historic drought 06 period that was used for planning the New Melones project? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes, that's correct. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That historic drought period was the 09 period 1923 through 1938? 10 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, during the historic drought 12 period, is it correct that the average inflow into New 13 Melones Reservoir was 950,000 acre-feet per year? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In the most recent drought period, 16 the period from 1986 to 1996, the inflow average was 914,000 17 acre-feet per year? 18 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, I've put up on the overhead 20 a copy of a chart that was marked for identification as 21 Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-B. 22 Can you tell me, were you involved in the preparation 23 of the Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-B? 24 MR. PLOSS: I directed the preparation of this, yes. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is depicted by Department of the 6499 01 Interior Exhibit 4-B? 02 MR. PLOSS: What this shows is the annual inflow to New 03 Melones Reservoir during the period 1928 to 1938 -- 1922 to 04 1938, which is the historic drought period which was used 05 for the feasibility studies of New Melones Reservoir, then a 06 comparison with the 1986 to 1996 drought period. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: A few moments ago I asked you a series 08 of questions about the recent use of New Melones Project 09 yield for environmental purposes. Have the new demands that 10 have been placed on water from New Melones as a result of 11 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and Bay-Delta 12 Accord and the Endangered Species Act affected your ability 13 to deliver water to entities with contracts for water from 14 New Melones? 15 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it has. 16 It is our view that because of the Bay-Delta and 17 biological opinions that those commitments must be met 18 first. And to the extent that we can meet those out of New 19 Melones, we attempt to do so. We also under CVPIA have the 20 in-stream flow requirements that were imposed on the Central 21 Valley Project by Congress, and those have priority over 22 deliveries to our water service contractors. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It is the Department of the Interior's 24 view that those uses have priority over deliveries to CVP 25 contractors? 6500 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And isn't it correct that some CVP 03 contractors disagree with that interpretation of the law? 04 MR. PLOSS: That is true. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, the use of New Melones 06 project yield, which has resulted -- let me restate the 07 question. 08 The impacts on CVP contractors with a contract for 09 water from the New Melones Reservoir resulting from 10 implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Bay-Delta 11 Accord and CVPIA have been felt by other CVP contractors 12 with water supply contracts from other CVP facilities; isn't 13 that correct? 14 MR. PLOSS: That is correct. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, for CVP contractors south of 16 the Delta it's currently estimated on a long-term average 17 they will receive 65 to 70 percent of their contractual 18 entitlements; isn't that correct? 19 MR. PLOSS: That is the projection that we generally 20 used when we apply the Bay-Delta standards plus CVPIA and 21 biological opinions, yes. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The two entities with contractors for 23 water from New Melones Reservoir are Stockton East Water 24 District and Central San Joaquin Water District; is that 25 correct? 6501 01 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yesterday you were asked a series of 03 questions about those two entities. I can't recall 04 specifically who asked them. I believe that you testified 05 that most of Stockton East Water District is outside of the 06 Stanislaus River Basin as determined by the Department of 07 the Interior. 08 Do you recall saying that yesterday? 09 MR. PLOSS: Yes. I believe that is what I said. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Isn't it correct that all of Stockton 11 East Water District is outside of the Stanislaus River Basin 12 as determined by the Secretary of the Interior? 13 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: A substantial portion of Central San 15 Joaquin County Water District is outside of the Stanislaus 16 River Basin as determined by the Department of the Interior? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes. I don't know the exact split, but 18 there is a portion of it that is outside, yes. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The contract that Stockton East Water 20 District has for water from New Melones Reservoir is a 21 contract for a interim supply? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is meant by the term "interim" as 24 it applies to the Stockton East Water District water supply 25 contract? 6502 01 MR. PLOSS: In the case of Stockton East Water 02 District, it recognized that as in-basin uses for New 03 Melones water increased or there was in-basin development, 04 that our ability to deliver that water outside the basin 05 would be diminished and would be contracted for in-basin 06 uses. Therefore, we provided to Stockton East what was 07 termed an interim -- actually a water service contract for 08 interim supply recognizing that that supply would diminish 09 over time. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have put up on the overhead a chart 11 or graph that has been marked for identification as 12 Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-C. And you were asked 13 a number of questions about Department of the Interior 14 Exhibit 4-C yesterday by Ms. Zolezzi. 15 Do you recall those questions, Mr. Ploss? 16 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to explore this Exhibit a 18 little further. 19 Can you please explain to me what is represented by the 20 color bars over each one of the years depicted on Department 21 of the Interior 4-C. 22 MR. PLOSS: This is an illustration of the actual water 23 that was released from New Melones Reservoir for the various 24 purposes. This is out of our operation records for the 25 period 1991 through 1997, showing how we, for lack of a 6503 01 better term, allocated or released the water for the 02 purposes described in the footnotes at the bottom of the 03 graph. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the footnotes at the bottom of 05 the graph show that -- indicate different colors for 06 different uses of New Melones water; is that correct? 07 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: For the period 1995, 1996 and 1997, 09 there is a portion of the right-hand bar for each one of 10 those years that is depicted in black; is that correct? 11 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That black indicates deliveries to CVP 13 contractors? 14 MR. PLOSS: That is correct, yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the CVP contractors to which you 16 are referring in the Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-C 17 are Stockton East Water District and Central San Joaquin 18 County Water District? 19 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have heard allegations in the past 21 that the Bureau of Reclamation has made releases from New 22 Melones Reservoir for use by exporters. 23 Have you heard similar allegations, Mr. Ploss? 24 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I've heard that. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does the Bureau of Reclamation make 6504 01 releases from New Melones Reservoir for the purpose of 02 serving CVP contractors outside of Stanislaus and San 03 Joaquin Counties? 04 MR. PLOSS: No, we do not. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, a few moments ago I asked you 06 about the effects of implementation of CVPIA, ESA and the 07 1995 Water Quality Control Plan on the Bureau's ability to 08 supply Stockton East Water District and Central San Joaquin 09 County Water District. 10 Isn't it correct, Mr. Ploss, that the Bureau's analysis 11 has indicated that the new water demands placed upon New 12 Melones under a repeat of the 1986-96 hydrological 13 conditions will significantly affect its ability to serve 14 Stockton East and Central San Joaquin? 15 MR. PLOSS: It will if we are not able to balance the 16 resource. That is correct. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Isn't it correct, Mr. Ploss, that, 18 indeed, in some years, based upon the analysis that has been 19 performed by the Bureau of Reclamation, in some years 20 deliveries to Stockton East and Central San Joaquin will be 21 zero? 22 MR. PLOSS: That is what is indicated by a long-term 23 analysis that we did, yes. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That long-term analysis was what, in 25 part, led to the development of the Interim Operations Plan? 6505 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. We did an analysis looking at the new 02 requirements imposed on the New Melones Project and, in 03 fact, determined in a number of years we would not have the 04 ability to meet several of the demands: fish and wildlife or 05 water quality or delivery to contractors. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yesterday, during your answers to a 07 number of questions concerning the process that resulted in 08 the New Melones Interim Operations Plan, you referred to the 09 term "stakeholder." 10 What did you mean by the term "stakeholder"? 11 MR. PLOSS: During the drought period, we met with a 12 group of stakeholders and, in that case, it was the parties 13 that had a direct involvement in New Melones, whether they 14 were the water right contractors, the CVP contractors, Fish 15 and Game, Fish and Wildlife and South Delta Water Agency. 16 The group had a direct interest in the operation of New 17 Melones during the drought period and would be directly 18 impacted by our decisions. 19 We met with them during those period of years to try 20 and coordinate our operations to try and balance meeting 21 their demands with the limited resource. When we started on 22 the new process of developing an operations plan for New 23 Melones, we opened it up to anyone that really had an 24 interest in New Melones. And so we had representatives from 25 the cities, the counties, the environmental organizations, 6506 01 that all attended; and we didn't restrict any attendance. 02 If anyone felt they had an interest in the operation of New 03 Melones, they were welcome to attend. We even had some 04 export parties. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, in the development of this 06 Interim Operations Plan you, the Department of the Interior, 07 labeled this group of stakeholders "The Stanislaus River 08 Stakeholders Group"; is that correct? 09 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The purpose of the group was to 11 develop, through consensus, some criteria that could be 12 incorporated into the long-term operations plan? 13 MR. PLOSS: What we were trying to do is knowing that 14 we could not meet all of the demands during adverse 15 conditions, we wanted to come together with the stakeholder 16 group and see if we couldn't develop some operating criteria 17 for the reservoir that would allow us to balance the use of 18 resource for as many interests as possible. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the stakeholder group -- Oakdale 20 Irrigation District was a member of the stakeholder group? 21 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: South San Joaquin Irrigation District 23 was a member of the group? 24 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Stockton East Water District was a 6507 01 member of the group? 02 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: South Delta Water Agency was a member 04 of the group? 05 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: California Department of Fish and Game 07 was a member of the group? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The County of San Joaquin was a member 10 of the group? 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Stanislaus County was a member of the 13 group? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Tuolumne County was a member of the 16 group? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The City of Stockton was a member of 19 the group? 20 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Environmental Defense Fund was a 22 member of the group? 23 MR. PLOSS: Correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Western Power Administration, 25 which is part of Department of the Interior, was a member of 6508 01 the group? 02 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Department of Water Resources was 04 a member of the group? 05 MR. PLOSS: Correct. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Friant Water Users Authority was a 07 member of the group? 08 MR. PLOSS: They attended, yes. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Westlands Water District was a member 10 of the group? 11 MR. PLOSS: They attended, yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 13 Authority was a member of the group? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And Central San Joaquin County Water 16 District was a member of the group? 17 MR. PLOSS: Correct. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, the Department of the Interior 19 took the input of members of this group to develop the 20 Interim Operations Plan? 21 MR. PLOSS: We used the group to, first, develop 22 concepts and ideas on how we could move forward in 23 developing a long-term operating plan. And then because of 24 the urgent need for 1997, 1998, we focused our effort on an 25 interim operation plan, using input from the group, 6509 01 discussions; used that as a forum and sounding board to try 02 to put together an operating plan that everyone could come 03 together with that and would allow us to get through those 04 two years. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, one moment, Mr. Ploss. 06 I am handing to you a document that has been marked as 07 Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-D for identification. 08 Is Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-D a copy of the 09 Interim Operations Plan that resulted from the stakeholder 10 group you just described? 11 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. This was the plan which 12 incorporated our forecasted operations for 1997 and 1998. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The interim plan established criteria 14 for allocating water supply to meet various demands from New 15 Melones; is that correct? 16 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now on Page 2 of the Interim Plan, 18 there is a table; is that correct? 19 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, I have just placed on the 21 overhead a copy of a document that has been marked for 22 identification as Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-E. 23 Were you involved in the preparation of Department of 24 the Interior Exhibit 4-E? 25 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 6510 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is Department of the Interior 4-E 02 taken from the table contained on Page 2 of Department of 03 the Interior Exhibit 4-D? 04 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it was. 05 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is contained in the table that is 06 depicted on Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-E? 07 MR. PLOSS: What this is, based on long-term studies 08 that we did using our hydrologic modeling, we developed a 09 water budget for New Melones Reservoir, which relates the 10 water supply or what we call the New Melones storage plus 11 inflow, which is shown on the two far left columns, related 12 the storage plus inflow to an effort or a criteria for 13 budgeting water for the various purposes, whether fishery, 14 water quality, Bay-Delta requirements or CVP contractors. 15 As I said, this was done through long-term modeling that we 16 did, using our 70-year hydrologic record. Then, from that, 17 put out the criteria. This is a criteria that we used in 18 guiding us through the Interim Operations Plan. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, if I understand your description 20 of the criteria that are contained in Table 2 on Exhibit 21 4-E, they are the criteria that will be used for the 22 allocation of water for fishery purposes, water quality 23 purposes, Bay-Delta purposes and allocations to CVP 24 contractors? 25 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 6511 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That brings me to a point that I 02 wanted to clarify from some of your testimony yesterday, Mr. 03 Ploss. I believed yesterday you testified releases are made 04 from New Melones Reservoir for purposes of meeting X2. 05 Do you recall stating that? 06 MR. PLOSS: That is what I stated, yes. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is that accurate? 08 MR. PLOSS: No. That was -- I misspoke yesterday. On 09 an earlier overhead that you showed with the bar graphs, 10 there was a column on there indicated for Bay-Delta in 11 yellow. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That was Exhibit 4-C. 13 MR. PLOSS: That was 4-C. 14 In the bar graphs there is no yellow on the bar graphs. 15 So by our historic operations beginning in 1995, we have not 16 released water for Bay-Delta purposes. And, in fact, what I 17 stated yesterday is we said we would release water out of 18 New Melones after all other requirements are met. 19 This table would show that we could release water for 20 Bay-Delta requirements at Vernalis. In the wettest 21 conditions there would be water remaining. 22 But the way we operate for X2, traditionally, in the 23 last three years has been not to release water to support 24 X2. We view X2 as an outflow requirement in the Delta. The 25 best way to manage that is through adjustment of our export 6512 01 pumps. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to go back to Table 2, 03 which is marked for identification as Department of the 04 Interior 4-E to make sure that I understand it. 05 Am I correct, Mr. Ploss, as an example, if New Melones 06 storage plus inflow is 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 acre-feet, 07 allocations for fishery purposes would range from 125,000 08 acre-feet to 300,000 acre-feet; is that correct? 09 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Allocations of water from New Melones 11 to meet Vernalis water quality standards would range from 12 80,000 acre-feet to 175,000 acre-feet? 13 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The allocations for Bay-Delta flow 15 requirements at Vernalis in circumstances where New Melones 16 storage plus in-flows is 2,000,000 to 2.5 million acre-feet 17 would be zero? 18 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And allocations to CVP contractors in 20 those circumstances would be zero to 59,000 acre-feet? 21 MR. PLOSS: Correct. And each of those would be on a 22 sliding scale based on the inflow plus storage. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, there is a bullet point on Table 24 2. It states that the -- it is the third bullet point from 25 the table. It states that: 6513 01 In years when Vernalis water quality standard 02 cannot be met every day, Reclamation will 03 consult with South Delta Irrigation District 04 to determine the monthly and daily release 05 patterns. (Reading.) 06 Could you please tell me what is meant by that bullet. 07 MR. PLOSS: This is the approach that we used during 08 the drought period of consulting with the interested 09 parties, in this case on water quality in the South Delta 10 Irrigation District to look at, if we have a limited supply 11 for water quality purposes at Vernalis, what would be the 12 most desirable months to release that water to support water 13 quality purposes. And South Delta -- actually, South Delta 14 Water Agency was very cooperative with us during the drought 15 period of advising us when it would be the best pattern 16 throughout the year to try to support water quality, knowing 17 that we had a limited supply; and that would be the case 18 here. That if, in drier conditions, it appears that we are 19 not able to -- may not be able to meet all their water 20 quality needs, we've worked closely with them on what would 21 be the best pattern to support them. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Isn't it correct, Mr. Ploss, that the 23 Department of the Interior would consult with all of the 24 stakeholders to determine on how water quality allocations 25 would be used if the allocations for water quality were 6514 01 inadequate to meet the standards for an entire year? 02 MR. PLOSS: That's true. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Your consultation with interested 04 parties would not be limited to South Delta Irrigation 05 District? 06 MR. PLOSS: That is true. Because in those 07 circumstances, we probably have a limited supply for all of 08 the subjectives. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, it's correct, isn't it, Mr. 10 Ploss, that the analysis that the Department of the Interior 11 has prepared to establish the allocation criteria in Table 2 12 shows that, even with strict adherence to the criteria in 13 the Interim Plan, New Melones cannot sustain all purposes at 14 desired levels through an extended drought? 15 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. And I would point out on 16 the top line of this, where we show 0 to 1,400,000 as the 17 storage plus inflow that is in italics, because we have not 18 been able to work through the stakeholder process and 19 develop criteria for a drought period. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: A few moments ago you said the interim 21 plan of operation, Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-D, 22 had been developed for the 1996-97 water year; is that 23 correct? 24 MR. PLOSS: '97-98. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, the interim plan of operation will 6515 01 be used for 1997 and 1998? 02 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it was. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It was. In its use for 1997 and 1998, 04 didn't the stakeholder group agree to at least two 05 modifications to the plan of operation? 06 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The first was that the Department of 08 the Interior would purchase up to 50,000 acre-feet of water 09 per year from Oakdale Irrigation District? 10 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The use of that purchased water would 12 be to assist meeting the Stanislaus River in-stream flow 13 requirements? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the second modification to the 16 Interim Operations Plan was that the CVP New Melones 17 contractors agreed to a total fixed allocation for each year 18 of 50,000 acre-feet? 19 MR. PLOSS: Yes, that's correct. It appears, like, in 20 our forecast that we could provide a greater amount in water 21 year '97 with a likelihood of a lesser amount in 1998, not 22 knowing the certainties of the hydrology. 23 Through our stockholder process, Stockton East Water 24 District agreed that they would accept 50,000 acre-feet in 25 each year. 6516 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is the Department of the Interior 02 working on a long-term operations plan for New Melones? 03 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you familiar with the November 20, 05 1997, final administrative proposal for management of water 06 under Section 3406 (b)(2) of the Central Valley Project 07 Improvement Act? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I am. Painfully so, yes. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that that document is a 10 document that deals with the implementation of sections 11 (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Central Valley Project 12 Improvement Act? 13 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it does. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That document, the final 15 administrative proposal for management of water under 16 Section 3406 (b)(2) of the CVPIA, contains a description of 17 recommended in-stream flows for the Stanislaus River? 18 MR. PLOSS: Yes. And let me correct, the November 20th 19 document focuses on the (b)(2) section. It does include 20 flow objectives for the Stanislaus River, yes. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And it's correct, isn't it, Mr. Ploss, 22 that the November 20, 1997, final administrative proposal 23 for management of section 3406 (b)(2) water discusses the 24 coordinated implementation of Sections (b)(1), (b)(2) and 25 (b)(3)? 6517 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 02 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, a few moments ago we talked 03 about the acquisition of water from Oakdale Irrigation 04 District on the 1997? 05 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And that acquisition was made by the 07 Department of the Interior under authority granted it by 08 Section 3406 (b)(3)? 09 MR. PLOSS: That's correct, yes. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does Interior expect to work with the 11 Stanislaus River stakeholder group to develop the long-term 12 operations plan? 13 MR. PLOSS: Yes. What we have done, just recently the 14 stakeholder group adopted the interim plan that we have been 15 discussing here for the 1999 water year. So we have agreed 16 to extend it one more year. That is in an effort to 17 continue with at least a stable operation for New Melones as 18 we proceed with the long-term planning process. Reclamation 19 has initiated a long-term planning process this year. It's 20 been funded out of federal appropriations. 21 We are also closely involved with Department of Fish 22 and Game and the stakeholders in doing temperature studies 23 on the Stanislaus River, as well as some habitat studies on 24 the Stanislaus River, as part of that long-term plan. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does the long-term plan include 6518 01 developing new in-stream flow requirements for the 02 Stanislaus River? 03 MR. PLOSS: It is not certain at this time what will 04 come out of the long-term plan, but I would expect that that 05 will be part of it, yes. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And you mentioned a few moments ago a 07 temperature study for the lower Stanislaus River that has 08 been undertaken by Interior in the preparation of the 09 long-term plan. Is Interior also involved in an analysis of 10 the conjunctive use potential within the service area of the 11 New Melones Project? 12 MR. PLOSS: That will be part of our long-term studies 13 for the operation plan. To what extent we'll carry out 14 conjunctive use studies is uncertain, but, yes, we were 15 participating in those efforts. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: While the efforts are being made to 17 develop the long-term plan, is it Interior's intent to 18 continue to operate New Melones pursuant to the Interim 19 Plan? 20 MR. PLOSS: We have agreed with the stakeholders to 21 continue the Interim Plan through 1999. It was agreed that 22 in about June of 1999 we will revisit that and determine if 23 it's feasible to extend that beyond 1999. So we are 24 continuing to revisit that, and it is sort of an evolving 25 process. 6519 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you familiar with the San Joaquin 02 River Agreement? 03 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I am. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does the San Joaquin River Agreement 05 contemplate that its implementation will be integrated with 06 implementation of the Interim Operations Plan? 07 MR. PLOSS: The San Joaquin River Agreement uses the 08 New Melones Interim Operations Plan as the base assumption 09 for the Stanislaus River. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does the San Joaquin River Agreement 11 contemplate that the San Joaquin -- the Interim Operations 12 Plan for New Melones be modified? 13 MR. PLOSS: Yes. There is language in that agreement 14 that provides for that, that it may be modified. And 15 parties to the San Joaquin River Agreement, then, would 16 revisit the agreement to determine if that is a significant 17 enough change to make any further adjustments. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It is correct, isn't it, Mr. Ploss, 19 that the San Joaquin River Agreement will not effect either 20 Stockton East Water District or Central San Joaquin County 21 Water District? 22 MR. PLOSS: That is true. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, the allocations to Stockton 24 East and Central San Joaquin are established by the Interim 25 Operations Plan? 6520 01 MR. PLOSS: They will be established by the Interim 02 Operations Plan or the adoption of a long-term plan, yes. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The agreement will not affect, the San 04 Joaquin River Agreement will not affect, allocations to 05 either one of those two agencies? 06 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The San Joaquin River Agreement was 08 developed in order to implement an experimental program? 09 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That program is referred to as the 11 Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan? 12 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That is a 12-year plan? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it is. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: At the conclusion of a 12-year plan is 16 it contemplated that the State Board would review the data 17 developed through the experiments to determine how to best 18 implement then existing Bay-Delta standards? 19 MR. PLOSS: It is contemplated that the findings of the 20 Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan will be used to provide a 21 proposal to the State Board for consideration. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, Interior expects that the 23 State Board will exercise its reserved jurisdiction to order 24 Reclamation to fulfill its obligation with respect to the 25 1995 Water Quality Control Plan or the then existing 6521 01 standards? 02 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, what would happen in the 04 event that the San Joaquin River Agreement is terminated 05 prior to the conclusion of the 12-year experiment? 06 MR. PLOSS: We have provided language in the agreement 07 that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water 08 Resources will continue to meet the Vernalis objectives 09 during the period of time it takes the State Board to 10 implement how they might meet those standards. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, I have just placed on the 12 overhead a copy of a graph that has been marked for 13 identification as Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-F. 14 Were you involved in the preparation of Department of 15 the Interior Exhibit 4-F? 16 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you please explain to the Board 18 what is depicted by Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-F, 19 which is entitled, "New Melones Interim Plan of Operation 20 Water Allocation Table." 21 MR. PLOSS: When we were discussing Exhibit 4-E, which 22 was the table which described the allocation of water for 23 various objectives for New Melones, relating that allocation 24 to the storage plus inflow criteria for New Melones, I 25 commented that within each of those ranges it would be a 6522 01 sliding scale. And that is what this graph here 02 illustrates, is that it is not purely a step function, that 03 we go from one inflow condition to another. But it is 04 actually a sliding scale where it is prorated as the inflow 05 increases. 06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: At the bottom of the graph there is a 07 area that is depicted in red; is that correct? 08 MR. PLOSS: That is correct. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On Department of the Interior Exhibit 10 4-F, what is represented by the area depicted in red? 11 MR. PLOSS: That is the water that would be budgeted 12 for fishery purposes, and that ranges from 0 up to 467,000 13 acre-feet. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And there is an area on Exhibit 4-F 15 that is immediately above the area depicted in red and below 16 the area depicted in blue. And it is a color that I 17 wouldn't begin to describe. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Let the record show Mr. Stubchaer 19 identified that as a mustard. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Well, in fact, Mr. Brandt, prior to 21 the hearing this morning, showed to me pictures of his new 22 infant. That color reminded me of -- 23 MR. BRANDT: Let's not go there. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: We know that color as well, those of us 25 with children and grandchildren. 6523 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, what is depicted by the 02 area of the mustard color area between the red and blue area 03 on Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-F? 04 MR. PLOSS: That is a small amount of water that in the 05 wetter hydrology would be available for meeting Vernalis 06 flow objectives. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Then with respect to the blue area on 08 Department of Interior 4-F, what is depicted by the blue 09 area? 10 MR. PLOSS: Is the quantity of water under the 11 different storage plus inflow conditions that in our 12 analysis we budgeted to water quality at Vernalis, both 13 water quality at Vernalis -- yeah, just water quality at 14 Vernalis. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Then there is another what appears to 16 be a slightly different shade of mustard above the blue area 17 depicted on Exhibit 4-F. 18 What is represented by that mustard-colored area? 19 MR. PLOSS: That would be the allocation to our CVP 20 contractors. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Finally, what is depicted by the white 22 area on the graph on 4-F? 23 MR. PLOSS: In the lower hydrologic conditions up to 24 about 2,000,000 acre-feet, there would be a need to budget 25 water for meeting dissolved oxygen in the Stanislaus River. 6524 01 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 03 C.O. STUBCHAER: I would like to ask a question while 04 this graph is up. At what point during the water year is 05 the inflow measured and storage measured? 06 MR. PLOSS: For using this in our forecasting, we 07 measure the inflow at the end of -- or we measure the 08 storage at the end of February and then we add to that the 09 March through September projected inflow, and that is what 10 we use for the purposes of this chart. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, I have placed on the 13 overhead a table which has been marked for identification as 14 Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-G. 15 Were you involved in the preparation of the Department 16 of the Interior Exhibit 4-G? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is contained in Department of the 19 Interior Exhibit 4-G? 20 MR. PLOSS: This is a summary of information that was 21 taken from our long-term modeling studies. As I said, we 22 looked at, or we used our long-term modeling studies to 23 develop the criteria for the Interim Plan. This is a 24 summary of the results of that long-term study. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, do I understand that Department of 6525 01 the Interior Exhibit 4-G, which is entitled "General 02 Information Table," contains the conclusions from the 03 analysis that resulted from the preparation of the Interim 04 Operations Plan? 05 MR. PLOSS: Yes. This is a summary we provided. 06 Anyone that looks at the results of the long-term study 07 could come up with the different set of information, but 08 this is what we thought was useful to us in our analysis. 09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: For instance, under in-stream fish 10 release from Goodwin Dam to the Stanislaus River, there is a 11 statement, "Number of years greater than or equal to 90,000 12 acre-feet," and in the right-hand column adjacent to that 13 statement on Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-G it 14 states 66. 15 Does that indicate that, based upon your modeling, 16 Department of the Interior estimates that during the 17 historic period this would be 66 years when the in-stream 18 fish release from the Goodwin Dam to the Stanislaus River 19 would be greater than or equal to 90,000 acre-feet? 20 MR. PLOSS: This is as a result of the assumptions that 21 we used, applying the criteria back to the model study. 22 That out of the, I believe, 70 years of analysis of historic 23 record, the model produced for us that in 66 of those years 24 the flow would be equal to or greater than 90,000 25 acre-feet. 6526 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In 45 years the flows would be greater 02 than or equal to 155,000 acre-feet? 03 MR. PLOSS: That is correct. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That is based upon your modeling? 05 MR. PLOSS: Yes, based on the modeling and assumptions 06 we used. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Under the title on Exhibit 4-G, 08 "Vernalis Water Quality Standards," it states: 09 September through March target (ppm). 10 (Reading.) 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And adjacent to that there is the 13 number 650; is that correct? 14 MR. PLOSS: That is correct. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is represented by that figure? 16 MR. PLOSS: This is the water quality standard at 17 Vernalis under the new Water Quality Control Plan requires 18 that between September and March the water quality should be 19 650 parts per million. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, that is one of the assumptions 21 that went into the modeling? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. In this case, rather than being am 23 assumption, this is the standard under the new Water Quality 24 Control Plan. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: How was that standard used in your 6527 01 analysis? 02 MR. PLOSS: What we do in our analysis is a little more 03 complicated than I described. Actually, there is a series 04 of model studies we run for the Central Valley Project. The 05 result being an estimation of what the water quality will be 06 at Vernalis during the study period, during each month of 07 the study period. And then we used that information then as 08 an input to our operation for New Melones Reservoir to 09 determine what quantity of additional water would have to be 10 added to meet the standard. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Ploss, I am handing to you a table 12 which has been marked for identification as Department of 13 the Interior Exhibit 4-H, entitled "Historical Releases from 14 New Melones Reservoir in Thousand Acre-Feet." 15 Were you involved in the preparation of Department of 16 the Interior Exhibit 4-H? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is depicted in Department of the 19 Interior Exhibit 4-H? 20 MR. PLOSS: This describes for the calendar years 1991 21 through 1997 the quantities of water that were released from 22 New Melones Reservoir for the various objectives, whether 23 they be Fish and Wildlife objectives, water quality 24 objectives or releases from contractors, et cetera. 25 MR. BRANDT: Just for the record. 4-H is one of the 6528 01 ones that was corrected to change the numbers and that has 02 been -- the corrected one has been served both on the Board 03 and the parties. 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 05 Mr. Ploss, I am handing to you a document that has been 06 marked for identification as Government Exhibit 4-I. 07 Can you please tell me what is contained in -- first, 08 let me ask you: Were you involved in the preparation of 09 Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-I? 10 MR. PLOSS: This was under my direction, yes. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Prepared under your direction? 12 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is contained in Department of the 14 Interior Exhibit 4-I? 15 MR. PLOSS: This is the summary of the computer output, 16 which I described a few minutes ago, from our modeling for 17 the period 1922 through 1992. It shows the resulting water 18 that would be released in thousands of acre-feet during the 19 months of the year, whether that be for Fish and Wildlife, 20 biological opinions, water quality, et cetera. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to go back and ask you 22 again an additional question about Department of the 23 Interior Exhibit 4-E, which is Table 2 taken from the 24 Interim Operations Plan. Is that correct? 25 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 6529 01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The releases that are contained in 02 Table 2, Department of the Interior Exhibit 4-E, are those 03 releases additive? In other words, can the releases that 04 are depicted in Table 2, Exhibit 4-E, be used for multiple 05 purposes? 06 MR. PLOSS: Yes, they can. 07 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yesterday during his examination of 08 you, Mr. Minasian asked you a few questions about Exchange 09 Contractors Exhibit 2 for identification. 10 Do you recall those questions? 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that Mr. Minasian asked you 13 if you had reviewed that document, entitled "New Melones 14 Lake Stanislaus River Supplement to the Final Environmental 15 Impact Statement Exchange Contractors," Exhibit 2, and you 16 said you had not? 17 MR. PLOSS: I have not. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Have you seen a copy of Exchange 19 Contractors Exhibit 2 before? 20 MR. PLOSS: No. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: No further questions. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Birmingham. 23 The remaining cross-examiners that I have, just to 24 refresh your memories, is Mr. Nomellini, Mr. O'Laughlin, Mr. 25 Gallery, Mr. Hasencamp and Mr. Jackson, in that order. 6530 01 So, Mr. Nomellini, sir, good morning. 02 Mr. Brown, has a question. 03 MEMBER BROWN: Would you mind, Mr. Nomellini, if I 04 asked a couple of questions? 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 06 ---oOo--- 07 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 08 BY BOARD MEMBERS 09 MEMBER BROWN: Do you know if Stockton East, do they 10 serve agricultural water? 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 12 MEMBER BROWN: And do you know if OID is negotiating 13 with Stockton East Water District to market water? 14 MR. PLOSS: I believe there are discussions underway. 15 I don't know any information or details about those 16 discussions. 17 MEMBER BROWN: Would that be competing interest with 18 you, or would you support that endeavor? 19 MR. PLOSS: Until we know more about it, we don't have 20 a position on it. We do know Oakdale Irrigation District 21 has a prior right to water on the Stanislaus River. We 22 recognize that right in our operation of New Melones. We 23 have a settlement contract with them that identifies the 24 quantity of water that they are entitled to out of New 25 Melones in recognition of their prior water right. We 6531 01 haven't had discussion with them on any type of a temporary 02 or permanent transfer to other or sale to other water 03 districts. So at this point really we don't have a position 04 on it till we know more about it. 05 MEMBER BROWN: What is the water rights settlement for 06 out of New Melones for South San Joaquin and Oakdale? Is it 07 around 300,000 acre-feet each? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it is. 09 MEMBER BROWN: Did you give them carryover storage 10 capabilities a few years ago? 11 MR. PLOSS: About ten years ago, I don't know the exact 12 date, we did negotiate a supplemental agreement with them, 13 recognizing what we call a conservation account in New 14 Melones, which would allow for them to conserve water and 15 store it in New Melones as carryover. Yet, if New Melones 16 would fill up, then their water spilled out. 17 MEMBER BROWN: The conservation account fills out first? 18 MR. PLOSS: Yes, it does. 19 MEMBER BROWN: I notice in the chart you had up there, 20 Chart 4-C, a bar graph, it just looked to me like the 21 average water diverted from Stockton, from South San Joaquin 22 and Oakdale, is about 400,000, 450-, maybe, on the average? 23 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. 24 MEMBER BROWN: What happens to the rest of their 25 allocated water? If they have about 600 allocated, what's 6532 01 been going on there? 02 MR. PLOSS: You will see on this bar chart in three 03 years, 1994, '95 and '97, there is a blue bar on there. 04 Those were water acquisitions under CVPIA (b)(3), and that 05 was water that we purchased from those districts. So they 06 did conserve water and sell it to the Department of the 07 Interior. They were also, I believe, in those years storing 08 some water in their water conservation account. So there 09 was water that was conserved and placed in their water 10 conservation account in New Melones for carryover. 11 MEMBER BROWN: If you didn't purchase that water, what 12 would happen to it? 13 MR. PLOSS: If we do not purchase that water? That 14 water would either be conserved or it would be used for 15 irrigation purposes by those districts. 16 MEMBER BROWN: The districts don't use what they have? 17 MR. PLOSS: You are asking me some questions that 18 probably should be directed to those districts. 19 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that, appreciate that. 20 MR. PLOSS: Again, they did conserve water in those 21 years for future use. And I believe recently, last year in 22 our operations, of course, we filled New Melones. So they 23 did lose the water in their conservation account. 24 MEMBER BROWN: Your interim water, do you allow that to 25 be used for domestic purposes, or does it make any 6533 01 difference? 02 MR. PLOSS: The interim supplies that we have with the 03 two CVP contractors, I think there are provisions in their 04 contracts that water can be used for urban use. I don't 05 know the quantities in the contracts of how much water is 06 for urban use now. But there is also provisions in the 07 contracts that ag water could be converted for urban use. 08 MEMBER BROWN: Is South San Joaquin going into domestic 09 water service? Do you know? 10 MR. PLOSS: I believe they are in discussions of 11 providing some of their water to municipalities in that area. 12 MEMBER BROWN: Would you have any objections to that? 13 MR. PLOSS: Again, that is probably a matter for a 14 future proceeding, and we will have to evaluate it at that 15 time. 16 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, thank you, Mr. Brown. 18 We have turned up the mikes I guess. Did you hear me 19 thinking? 20 Mr. Nomellini, sir, thank you for your patience. You 21 may proceed. 22 ---oOo--- 23 // 24 // 25 // 6534 01 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 02 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 03 BY MR. NOMELLINI 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 05 Dante John Nomellini on behalf of Central Delta parties. 06 Mr. Ploss, how long have you been employed by the 07 Bureau of Reclamation? 08 MR. PLOSS: Twenty-nine and a half years. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Out of the 29 and a half years, how 10 many years have you been employed with the Bureau in 11 California? 12 MR. PLOSS: About 12 years; 12 years. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, starting with the time that you 14 were employed by the Bureau in California, what was your 15 original role with the Bureau of Reclamation? 16 MR. PLOSS: Originally, I was the Project 17 Superintendent for the Bureau in the Sacramento Valley in 18 the Willows office, responsible for the oversight of the 19 operation of the maintenance of the water contracting in the 20 Sacramento Valley. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Then what was your next task? Again, I 22 am starting with your role in California for the Bureau. 23 MR. PLOSS: There was a brief period there of about two 24 years where I continued my role as the Project 25 Superintendent out of the Willows office, overseeing the 6535 01 operation of the maintenance there. But also served as the 02 construction engineer when the Bureau went through a 03 reorganization and established a construction office in 04 California, and I was involved in establishing that office. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: After that two-year period, and I guess 06 that would be, like, 1988? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes. Then in 1993 I became the manager of 08 the Central Valley Operations Office, overseeing all the 09 operations of the Central Valley Project for water and 10 power. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Your involvement with the decisions and 12 operations of New Melones commenced in about 1993; is that 13 correct? 14 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, as a manager of Central Valley 16 operations, what are your duties? 17 MR. PLOSS: On a daily and long-term basis, I am 18 involved in the oversight direction of the operations 19 planning for the Central Valley Project. That involves 20 developing our annual forecasting of operations each year. 21 Those are updated on a monthly basis. I have an opportunity 22 to interact with the staff as developing those operations 23 forecasts. I have an opportunity to review those before 24 they are made final. 25 I am also involved in a similar manner in the planning 6536 01 of our operations for power production. All of these tasks 02 involve interaction with all of the interested parties of 03 the CVP. What we come to term the "stakeholders," whether 04 they be the water users, local interests, the environmental 05 interests, also the regulatory agencies in how we plan our 06 operations. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: As a manager of the Central Valley 08 Project operations, is the ultimate decision on how the 09 project will be operated yours? 10 MR. PLOSS: I would say that the ultimate decision lies 11 with our regional director, with advice from myself and the 12 operations staff that I direct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Does your operations staff directly 14 relate to the regional manage without going through you? 15 MR. PLOSS: On occasions, yes. When he needs 16 information or advice on various matters involving 17 operations of the project he will contact me or, in my 18 absence, my staff. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Going back to 1993, and the decisions 20 with regard to operations of the Central Valley Project, and 21 in particular New Melones, what involvement did the 22 stakeholders have in the decisions and operations in 1993? 23 MR. PLOSS: In 1993 the involvement with the 24 stakeholders primarily evolved around implementation of the 25 Central Valley Project Improvement Act for providing Fish 6537 01 and Wildlife benefits on the Stanislaus River. It was not a 02 broad stakeholder process that we have been discussing this 03 morning for the Stanislaus this morning, but somewhat 04 limited to the contractors, the resource agencies and 05 probably some of the other directly involved parties on the 06 Stanislaus. But it was somewhat limited. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: So it was a limited number of 08 stakeholders involved in that decision for operation, in 09 decisions for operations in 1993; is that correct? 10 MR. PLOSS: Right. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the stakeholders who 12 participated, do you recall who they were, what entities? 13 MR. PLOSS: I know we had the resource agencies, which 14 would be Fish and Wildlife, Department of Fish and Game, 15 Stockton East Water District, I believe we may have had 16 involvement with Oakdale and South San Joaquin. I am not 17 certain to what extent any of the Delta agencies may have 18 been involved. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, and I am talking about 1993, in 20 terms of the input from the stakeholders, how did that input 21 go to you as the manager of the Central Valley operations? 22 MR. PLOSS: Well, 1993 was the first full year of 23 implementing the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. We 24 were involved in a number of meetings, workshops through 25 that year in developing the provisions of CVPIA. I attended 6538 01 many of those workshops that took place along with our 02 counterparts with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And 03 together, then, with Fish and Wildlife Service we made those 04 decisions on the operations for New Melones with respect to 05 meeting requirements of CVPIA. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: In reality, in 1993 the decisions on 07 operations in terms of stakeholder involvement were with the 08 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Is that what your testimony 09 is? 10 MR. PLOSS: Decisions were made with the Fish and 11 Wildlife Service with respect to CVPIA actions, following a 12 series of workshops and meetings that took place with a 13 large number of stakeholders. Some of those -- or most of 14 those being outside the Stanislaus River. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Did Stockton East Water District in 16 1993 agree to your operations? 17 MR. PLOSS: I don't know if "agree" is the right term. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: How about "strongly disagree" with your 19 operations? Would that be a better way to describe their 20 position? 21 MR. PLOSS: I guess I would say they disagreed with the 22 decisions on how we implemented CVPIA, yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And in 1994, what was the stakeholder 24 involvement in the decision making in 1994? 25 MR. PLOSS: I believe 1994 was similar to 1993, a 6539 01 similar process, more concentrated around the implementation 02 of CVPIA provisions rather than the other aspects of our 03 operations. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: And other than U.S. Fish and Wildlife 05 Service, any stakeholder involvement in that decision 06 making? 07 MR. PLOSS: Well, that involvement in both years, 08 again, was through a series of workshops and public meetings 09 that took place which involved water user organizations, 10 environmental organizations and other state and federal 11 resource agencies. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you cite any change in operation in 13 1994 that was due to stakeholder input other than U.S. Fish 14 and Wildlife Service? 15 MR. PLOSS: Possibly the one change we made in 1994 was 16 the first year under CVPIA that we acquired water on the 17 Stanislaus River, which was used to support some of our fish 18 flows. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you receive any objections to the 20 acquisition of that water -- 21 MR. PLOSS: I believe so. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: -- in 1994? 23 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you recall which stakeholders may 25 have objected to that? 6540 01 MR. PLOSS: I believe objections from South Delta Water 02 Agency. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: How about Central Delta Water Agency? 04 MR. PLOSS: Probably. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you recall a litany of stakeholder 06 entities put forth by Mr. Birmingham to which you agreed was 07 the list of stakeholders? 08 MR. PLOSS: That was the list of stakeholders that we 09 were using, through what became known as the Stanislaus 10 River Stakeholder Group. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: What year did that start? 12 MR. PLOSS: I believe that started in 1995 or late 13 1994. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you remember whether or not the 15 Central Delta Water Agency was a stakeholder participating 16 in that process? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes, they were. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: And Mr. Birmingham didn't list Central 19 Delta Water Agency, did he? 20 MR. PLOSS: I don't believe he did. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, it might be a good time to take 22 our morning break. I have a lot more. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: This is as good a time as any, Mr. 24 Nomellini. I would have interrupted you in the ten, fifteen 25 minutes. 6541 01 MR. NOMELLINI: That is fine. 02 C.O. CAFFREY: We'll take our break now. 03 (Break taken.) 04 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 05 Mr. Nomellini. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me announce to remind everybody that 08 -- excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Nomellini. This is 09 scheduled for a half day because of other commitments on the 10 the part of Board Members. 11 It's very, very doubtful, probably pretty clear, that 12 we won't be finished with Mr. Ploss today. So he will be 13 back to complete his cross-examination on Tuesday, unless 14 something happens where everybody just takes about ten 15 minutes for cross-examination. I don't think that is 16 likely. I know that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Nomellini are going 17 to take a good amount of time. This will undoubtedly go to 18 next Tuesday. 19 Go ahead, Mr. Nomellini. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Going back to DOI Exhibit 4-C, which we 21 have on the screen, and the year 1995, what was the 22 stakeholder input to you as manager of Central Valley 23 operations for the New Melones Project for that year? 24 MR. PLOSS: I believe in '95 our stakeholder process 25 was starting to evolve a little bit more to where we were 6542 01 interacting more with the Stanislaus River interests at that 02 point. And we were spending a little more time under the 03 CVPIA process with stakeholder groups on the various aspects 04 of that act. 05 So I think there was a little more involvement then. I 06 can't recall specifically who all were involved. I know 07 there were some frequent meetings in the area in '95 as we 08 were developing our annual plans, annual operation plans. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: In answers to questions from Mr. 10 Birmingham you had indicated that there was stakeholder 11 agreement with operations in a number of years. In 1995 is 12 it your testimony that there was stakeholder agreement with 13 your operations for New Melones? 14 MR. PLOSS: I don't believe through any of these years 15 we would characterize it as total stakeholder agreement. We 16 tried to get an understanding from the other parties of what 17 their interests and concerns were, but ultimately the 18 Department of the Interior had to make a decision on the 19 operations. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: In fact, during the period of 1993 to 21 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation never did have total 22 stakeholder agreement in their operations of New Melones; is 23 that correct? 24 MR. PLOSS: I would say that is correct. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Characterizing the stakeholder process 6543 01 since 1995, is there a voting procedure associated with that 02 process? 03 MR. PLOSS: No. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a consensus procedure 05 associated with that process? 06 MR. PLOSS: The effort in the stakeholder process that 07 we have now is to try to achieve consensus. That is 08 something difficult to define. So it's -- we try to reach 09 as general an agreement as we can with the parties. Because 10 we are working yet on an Interim Operations Plan, I would 11 believe that the stakeholders that have been involved are 12 more willing to agree to an interim plan than a long-term, 13 permanent plan. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: In fact, it is just another way for 15 you, as the manager of the Central Valley operations, to 16 receive input from interested parties, is it not? 17 MR. PLOSS: Well, truly, with the stakeholder process 18 we have -- now there are many more parties that come to the 19 table that have interest, either presently or potentially 20 future interest in New Melones, and we have been able to 21 receive their input. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that it is just another 23 way for receiving public input to your operations process? 24 MR. PLOSS: It is, yes. And the reason we call it 25 stakeholders is that we try to achieve that input from those 6544 01 parties that do have an interest in that particular project, 02 as opposed to, say, the general public that just wants to 03 hear what the government is doing. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to that, I believe you 05 testified that anyone could attend the stakeholder meetings 06 and process? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: So, any member of the public, whether 09 or not they have a particular stake in the project, could 10 attend that process and express his or her particular view; 11 is that correct? 12 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: They would be considered a stakeholder, 14 would they not? 15 MR. PLOSS: If they attend the meeting, we assume they 16 are a stakeholder. We have not closed the meeting to 17 anyone. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: In fact, they get a free lunch if the 19 meeting is held at Stockton East Water District. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: No such thing. 21 MR. PLOSS: I don't know if there is such a thing. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the operations for 1996 23 and '97, do you recall whether or not it was requested that 24 water be obtained from other sources to meet the Vernalis 25 water quality requirements rather than use New Melones 6545 01 water? 02 MR. PLOSS: Not only in those years, but I believe in 03 '95 as well when the new standards were put in place. There 04 was a commitment by the Bureau of Reclamation, to the extent 05 we could, we would meet the flows at Vernalis; and that did 06 involve acquiring water from other sources outside the 07 Stanislaus River. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Was there any request from any 09 stakeholders with regard to the operations from '95 through 10 1997 that water be obtained from the Delta-Mendota Canal to 11 maintain the Vernalis water quality objectives? 12 MR. PLOSS: Those were suggestions that were put forth 13 in the meeting that we held, the stakeholders meetings, that 14 we should look at other sources of water, including releases 15 from the Delta-Mendota Canal, yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And that same type of request was made 17 in each of the years, 1995, '96 and '97, was it not? 18 MR. PLOSS: I believe so. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And do you recall whether or not 20 requests were made for utilization of water through a 21 recirculation process, rather than through releases from New 22 Melones, for water quality purposes? 23 MR. PLOSS: There was a proposal introduced for what 24 has been called a recirculation. I don't know the precise 25 year, whether it was '95 or '96 when that was first 6546 01 introduced. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: What happened to -- strike that. 03 What did the Bureau do with the request for 04 recirculation? 05 MR. PLOSS: We did a feasibility or reconnaissance 06 level analysis of how recirculation might work, how we could 07 pump water at Tracy and release it back. That was done by 08 some of our contractors that were working for us under 09 CVPIA. So we did do a preliminarily analysis of that. 10 Because of our ability to acquire water from other 11 sources on the San Joaquin, we chose at the time not to 12 implement a recirculation. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "ability to acquire water 14 from other parties on the San Joaquin," who are those 15 parties that you are referring to in that statement? 16 MR. PLOSS: We have been purchasing water from Oakdale 17 Irrigation District on the Stanislaus to help the support 18 flows on the Stanislaus. We have also purchased water from 19 Merced Irrigation District to help support the flow 20 objectives at Vernalis. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Any others? I am talking about 1995 22 through '97. 23 MR. PLOSS: I don't recall that we purchased water from 24 other sources, but I believe there were some. But I don't 25 know the specifics. 6547 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any reason why you did not 02 attempt to purchase water from sources farther upstream on 03 the San Joaquin, such as the Friant? 04 MR. PLOSS: It's been our view in operation of the 05 project that acquiring water further up on the San Joaquin 06 from the Friant unit would be impractical because of the 07 conveyance losses that we perceive on the upper portion of 08 the San Joaquin River. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any estimate of what the 10 conveyance loss would be on the upper portion of the San 11 Joaquin? 12 MR. PLOSS: It's our belief that in some hydrologic 13 conditions, between Friant Dam and Vernalis, losses could be 14 as much as 50 percent. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a limit in terms of quantity 16 that would be applicable to the 50 percent loss? Do you 17 understand my question? 18 MR. PLOSS: No. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: What happens to the water that is lost 20 in the upper San Joaquin? 21 MR. PLOSS: Some of that water would be lost to 22 groundwater because of the conveyance in the San Joaquin 23 River. There would be a losing stream in portions. Some 24 water would be diverted by other water right holders along 25 the stream unless it was protected in some other means. 6548 01 MR. NOMELLINI: We have identified two factors: 02 percolation into the groundwater and uncontrolled diversion 03 by others? 04 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there an estimate -- you said 50 06 percent of the flow. Is there an estimate as to what the 07 total number of acre-feet that could be lost under the worst 08 circumstance, assuming 50 percent of the flow percolated or 09 was taken by other diverters? 10 MR. PLOSS: No. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you believe there would be some 12 point at which the groundwater basin would fill to the 13 bottom of the river such that the 50 percent would not be 14 lost to percolation and diversion by others? 15 MR. PLOSS: There has been conditions in recent years 16 because of wet hydrology that we, in fact, have spilled 17 water out of Friant or released water from Friant to avoid 18 flood spills there, and some of that water, I believe, has 19 reached Vernalis in those conditions. Once percolation 20 limits have been reached and it is during a period of time 21 because of flood events that people aren't taking water, 22 that water served Mendota Pool must be bypassed on 23 downstream. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any effort to determine what 25 that quantity would be that you know of? 6549 01 MR. PLOSS: Not that I know of. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a reason why there is no 03 effort to determine what that quantity would be? 04 MR. PLOSS: I would assume the reason would be that we 05 haven't looked at it because of the practicality of 06 releasing water from Friant to meet Vernalis flow 07 objectives, as opposed to our ability to acquire water on 08 other tributaries closer. We have chosen to use the water 09 acquisition process. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the -- Strike that. 11 Did the action by Congress with regard to the budget 12 bill pertaining to the San Joaquin River Study have anything 13 to do with the Bureau's decision not to determine the 14 quantity of water that would be lost from flows from Friant? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Assumes fact not in 16 evidence. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: I could go through a lot of 19 foundational questions. I think the witness understands 20 what my question is. If you want me to go through it, I'll 21 go through it. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question, Mr. 23 Ploss? 24 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. Answer it. 6550 01 MR. PLOSS: I am not aware of any discussions that 02 involved Congressional actions relating to the San Joaquin 03 Studies that related our decision not to release water from 04 Friant. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: So, basically, to confirm your 06 testimony that there is ample water available to be 07 purchased from others and there is no necessity to look 08 further at Friant? 09 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to use of water from San 11 Luis reservoir for meeting water quality at Vernalis, has 12 the Bureau evaluated that possibility? 13 MR. PLOSS: Not that I am aware of in my involvement of 14 the operations of the project. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Were you ever requested to look at 16 water from San Luis for use to meet the Vernalis water 17 quality? 18 MR. PLOSS: Requested by who? 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Stakeholders, in particular, Central 20 Delta Water Agency. 21 MR. PLOSS: I believe that was a suggestion made at one 22 of our stakeholders meetings that that be a source that we 23 look at, yes. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: What did the Bureau do with that 25 request, if anything? 6551 01 MR. PLOSS: We did not look at that as, say, a 02 reasonable alternative, to release water from San Luis to 03 meet water quality. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: Can we conclude from that that the 05 Bureau determined that it was unreasonable to use water from 06 San Luis to meet Vernalis water quality? 07 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell us the basis for the 09 conclusion that it is unreasonable to use water from San 10 Luis to meet the Vernalis water quality? 11 MR. PLOSS: It was our view that when looking at the 12 reasonable means of meeting water quality at Vernalis, 13 first, as a condition of New Melones water permits to meet 14 that water quality, not a condition of our San Luis permits. 15 Again, the release of water from San Luis for water quality 16 would mean that, first, we are pumping water out of the 17 Delta, conveying it to San Luis Reservoir pumping it into 18 San Luis Reservoir, and then in turn releasing it back 19 through canals and channels to the San Joaquin River, 20 absorbing losses throughout the system, to have that water 21 flow back downstream again to Vernalis. 22 A similar situation as we looked at with the 23 recirculation project. If there was other sources available 24 for meeting water quality, they appeared to be more 25 practical and more reasonable than using San Luis. 6552 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Did the Bureau make any calculations as 02 to what the losses would be in releasing water from San Luis 03 to the San Joaquin River for meeting water quality at 04 Vernalis? 05 MR. PLOSS: None that I am aware of. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there similar concerns for 07 percolation and wrongful diversions as with the release of 08 water from Friant? 09 MR. PLOSS: Certainly, I think for wrongful diversion, 10 percolation may not be as much of a concern. There would 11 still be some. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the Bureau has not 13 met the Vernalis water quality requirement at times during 14 the period of 1991 through 1997? 15 MR. PLOSS: There are months that we did not meet it. 16 We notified the State Board of that fact. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated in previous testimony 18 that the reason you didn't pursue further Friant water, San 19 Luis water, involved the conclusions that you were able to 20 get sufficient water from other sources to meet the Vernalis 21 water quality requirement; is that correct? 22 MR. PLOSS: That would be correct. In these most 23 recent years in the period prior to 1996 through the 24 drought, while I was not involved, it would appear that 25 because of drought conditions throughout the Central Valley 6553 01 the likelihood was there was not water to acquire, water 02 quality in every month. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it the plan of the Bureau to acquire 04 sufficient water from third parties so as to continuously 05 meet the Vernalis water quality requirement in the future? 06 MR. PLOSS: It is the plan of the Bureau to meet the 07 water quality standard in the future, whether that is 08 through water acquisition or other means it is hard to 09 project today what means that might be. It's our intent to 10 meet water quality standards. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: You're somewhat familiar with the San 12 Joaquin River Agreement, are you not? 13 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: You would admit that the San Joaquin 15 River Agreement coupled with the interim operation of New 16 Melones does not provide sufficient water to meet the 17 Vernalis water quality requirements at certain times? Would 18 you agree with that? 19 MR. PLOSS: What is portrayed in the analysis that has 20 been done for the San Joaquin River Agreement is there is 21 some instances that we do not meet water quality standards 22 beyond those that the modeling would indicate that it would 23 not have been met in the past. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: If that is a question to me, I agree 25 that is what it shows. Let's go back to you. 6554 01 You would agree, would you not, that the water quality 02 standards at Vernalis will not be met with the interim 03 operation of the New Melones coupled with the San Joaquin 04 River Agreement, based on the modeling studies that have 05 been produced for this particular hearing? 06 MR. PLOSS: If you assume the future to be identical to 07 the past, my answer is yes. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Now that we are there, where are we 09 going to get the rest of the water if the future is somewhat 10 similar to the past? 11 MR. PLOSS: As I already answered, our intent is to 12 meet water quality. It is difficult to project today by 13 what means we will meet that in the future. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it possible that the Bureau would 15 look to recirculation as a mechanism to assist in meeting 16 the Vernalis water quality requirement in the future? 17 MR. PLOSS: That's possible. I believe recirculation 18 needs further evaluation, but it is possible, yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it possible for the Bureau to look 20 towards use of San Luis Reservoir water to meet the 21 Vernalis water quality requirements in the future? 22 MR. PLOSS: It's possible, yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it possible for the Bureau to look 24 to purchases of water from the Friant service area to help 25 meet Vernalis water quality requirements in the future? 6555 01 MR. PLOSS: I believe that is possible, too. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Going over to Exhibit 4-C, again, and 03 looking particularly at the fish '87 agreement, was that 04 agreement negotiated with any stakeholder input? 05 MR. PLOSS: I am not certain what involvement there was 06 with other stakeholders in negotiating that agreement. 07 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not the 1987 08 fish agreement has a limitation as to maximum flow in the 09 river in cubic feet per second? 10 MR. PLOSS: I believe it does recognize a maximum of, I 11 believe, 1500 cfs. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it not true that the Fish and Game 13 agreement has a maximum of 1250 cfs? 14 MR. PLOSS: That would be true, the release from 15 Goodwin, yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: So, the 1987 fish agreement has a 17 limitation on the release from Goodwin of 1250 cubic feet 18 per second? 19 MR. PLOSS: Yes, yes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Where would the 1500 cubic feet per 21 second limitation -- 22 MR. PLOSS: That is the target of the flow at Ripon, 23 which by some analysis was done back in the early '80s. The 24 1500 at Ripon relates to the 1250 at Goodwin. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Because of accretions to the river? 6556 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the fish 1997 agreement, 03 as listed on DOI Exhibit 4-C, what priority in operations 04 does the requirement of that agreement or does that 05 agreement give? 06 MR. PLOSS: It is our view that that agreement, because 07 it is a requirement of in-stream flow immediately below 08 Goodwin, would have the first priority for water being 09 released. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: And is it true that no part of that 11 flow requirement pertaining to the fish '87 agreement could 12 be met with releases from parties who are not on the 13 Stanislaus River? 14 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: So, recirculation, San Luis and Friant 16 would not be potential sources of water to meet the 17 requirements of that agreement; is that true? 18 MR. PLOSS: That's true. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Purchases from Oakdale and South San 20 Joaquin could be used to meet the requirements of that 21 agreement, correct? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of priority, and again looking 24 at 4-C, what is the next highest priority for flow in New 25 Melones? 6557 01 MR. PLOSS: Again, because it is an in-stream flow 02 objective, we would look at the CVPIA (b)(2) flows, 03 sometimes called AFRP, but in this case I refer to them as 04 just the (b)(2) flows on the Stanislaus River. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: I can't tell what that color is up 06 there, so it would be the (b)(2). What about (b)(1)? You 07 have them combined on that exhibit. Are they treated 08 differently? 09 MR. PLOSS: Somewhat differently in that (b)(1) is 10 water that would simply be provided for in-stream flow for 11 reoperation of the project. Otherwise, just a rescheduling 12 of our releases. 13 The (b)(2) is allocation of Central Valley Project 14 yield for the purposes of in-stream flow. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the (b)(2) what we would -- we, 16 WAGS, would normally refer to is at the 800,000 acre-feet? 17 MR. PLOSS: That's what it is, yes. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Now with regard to New Melones, the 19 CVPIA (b)(1) and (b)(2) requirements, is it your testimony 20 that all of that water is required for in-stream uses on the 21 Stanislaus? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: None of it is released for any purpose 24 outside the Stanislaus; is that correct? 25 MR. PLOSS: It is not released for purposes outside the 6558 01 Stanislaus, but, once the water leaves the Stanislaus, it 02 certainly provides benefit for other purposes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: Lets hit that subject. 04 Now, with regard to all the releases from New Melones 05 that are shown on Exhibit 4-C, is it true that the water 06 that results from those releases adds to water in the Delta 07 and is, therefore, available for export? 08 MR. PLOSS: All of the water that is released from New 09 Melones, in the case of this bar chart, is the water on the 10 left-hand bar. All that water released down the river 11 enters the Delta and is available for beneficial uses or 12 diversions in the Delta, yes. One of those could be 13 exports. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it true, then, that the more water 15 that is released from New Melones, the more water there is 16 that can be exported? 17 MR. PLOSS: Not necessary, depending on what other -- 18 referring to the exports of the Central Valley Project, the 19 more water released does not necessarily mean more water we 20 can export, depending on what other standards or criteria 21 within the Delta we are operating to. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it true that the Central Valley 23 Project operates with a minimum of 1500 cubic feet per 24 second export pumping? 25 MR. PLOSS: The two projects, the CVP and the State 6559 01 Project, under some conditions in the spring period would 02 operate to a minimum of 1500, yes. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: When the two projects are operating to 04 the minimum of 1500 cubic feet per second export, where does 05 the water go in terms of -- does it go to the CVP or the 06 State Water Project? 07 MR. PLOSS: It varies because of the difference in the 08 two pumping plants; it is not always a 50/50 split. We 09 will, typically, during that type of operation, run one pump 10 at Tracy which would allow us to pump 750 cfs and the 11 balance would be pumped at the state facility. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a minimum requirement that the 13 CVP has for exports from the Delta? 14 MR. PLOSS: There is no minimum requirement, no. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: So you could go to zero? 16 MR. PLOSS: We could go to zero. That would certainly 17 mean trying up the Delta-Mendota Canal. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that something you'd do? 19 MR. PLOSS: No, because that would interfere with 20 irrigation deliveries. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: What is the minimum practical limit for 22 CVP pumping from the Delta that you think would be prudent? 23 MR. PLOSS: Because of the operation of the 24 Delta-Mendota Canal and the Tracy pumping plant, our minimum 25 operation has always been one pump, which is around 750 6560 01 cfs. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what the minimum 03 requirement of the State Water Project is? 04 MR. PLOSS: I don't know precisely what their minimum 05 requirement would be. I believe it is less than ours. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you give me a range? 07 MR. PLOSS: I think they could go down as low as 350. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: The lowest practical would be 1100 09 cubic feet per second? 10 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Back on Exhibit 4-C. We've established 12 that the first priority is the fish '87 agreement. The 13 second priority was the (b)(2) component of the CVPIA 14 operation. 15 What would the third priority be? 16 MR. PLOSS: The third priority would be water quality 17 at Vernalis. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to water quality at 19 Vernalis, you would agree, would you not, that that 20 requirement could be met with water from sources such as San 21 Luis or Friant? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the next priority, 24 which would be the fourth priority. 25 MR. PLOSS: Yes. We would look at dissolved oxygen 6561 01 requirements on the Stanislaus River. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it true that the dissolved oxygen 03 requirements could not be met with water other than water 04 from the Stanislaus? 05 MR. PLOSS: That is true. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: That is simply because of the location 07 on the river where the dissolved oxygen must be provided? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes. That is at Ripon. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the next priority, which 10 I have as the fifth priority. Again, I am referring to 11 Exhibit 4-C in the operations of New Melones. 12 MR. PLOSS: We have the requirements here to provide 13 the water for the Oakdale Irrigation District and South San 14 Joaquin Irrigation District that hold prior rights to the 15 water. And their water, in fact, while we were talking 16 about in-stream flows, their rights are diverted out and 17 would have a senior priority to the operation of New 18 Melones. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: They are not really fifth; they ever 20 first? 21 MR. PLOSS: They could be termed first. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: They would come first over in-stream 23 flow requirements as well as dissolved oxygen requirements, 24 as well as Vernalis water quality requirements, correct? 25 MR. PLOSS: I believe so. I've never had to get to the 6562 01 point where I had to decide who gets the water first. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, you do make decisions as to who 03 gets the water first when you're dealing with Vernalis water 04 quality requirements, do you not? 05 MR. PLOSS: We do when we go through operations, we do 06 take out the Oakdale and South San Joaquin water first in 07 our planning, yes. 08 MR. NOMELLINI: So, you make that decision -- 09 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: -- internally? 11 MR. PLOSS: Yes. Fortunately the river's never gotten 12 low enough. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to put them up first, just 14 in my notes. 15 What is next in terms of priority. We were down to the 16 fifth, then we went back to first, but I think we are still 17 looking for -- we are looking for the sixth priority. The 18 next highest priority on the river after DO at Ripon. 19 MR. PLOSS: At this point the remaining water would be 20 the water that we would allocate for our contractors. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it correct that the contracts to the 22 New Melones contractors would be met prior to any water 23 being released for what you have termed Bay-Delta? 24 MR. PLOSS: Yes, I believe it would. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: When you talk about the Bay-Delta being 6563 01 last, does that include provision of salinity control in the 02 Delta? 03 MR. PLOSS: In this case, what we have identified as 04 Bay-Delta, I believe in our analysis we were looking at any 05 water that might be required for meeting full objectives at 06 Vernalis. Under the standards we did not look at, in our 07 analysis or even in our Interim Operations Plan, releasing 08 any water from New Melones for salinity control in the 09 Delta. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Does that mean that salinity control is 11 the last priority? Or does that mean that is otherwise 12 being met and water from New Melones has not been required? 13 MR. PLOSS: We would meet salinity objectives in the 14 Delta through other means. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to these priorities that we 16 talked about in Exhibit 4-C, and let's start with the first 17 one, Oakdale and South San Joaquin, would you characterize 18 that priority as being a legal requirement? 19 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. They have a contract 20 with them. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Both a -- 22 MR. PLOSS: And they have a prior water right. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Their priority as, at least as you've 24 recorded them in the operations at New Melones, is based on 25 an interpretation of what their water right would be; is 6564 01 that correct? 02 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: And also the agreement that you would 04 recognize as a first priority right; is that correct? 05 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the second priority, 07 which would be the 1987 fish agreement, how would you 08 characterize that priority obligation? Contractual? 09 MR. PLOSS: I would interpret that as being a condition 10 of our permits. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: So the interpretation of your permit is 12 that for the 1987 fish agreement there would be flow 13 requirements up to 457,000 acre-feet in a particular year, 14 assume the year type? 15 MR. PLOSS: I believe the '87 agreement is for a 16 maximum of 302,000 acre-feet. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. There was an exhibit of yours 18 that I don't have an overhead on, that Mr. Birmingham had. 19 Excuse me for a minute, I will try to borrow the right 20 one. We have it. 21 Thank you, Tom. 22 I think I said 457,000, Table 2 of -- 23 MR. BRANDT: Exhibit 4-E. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: -- Page 2 of DOI 4-E shows 467,000 25 under fishery, and I don't see the 305, but -- 6565 01 MR. PLOSS: This is the combination of water under the 02 '87 agreement with Fish and Game and the flow requirements 03 under CVPIA. 04 MR. NOMELLINI: That would be the (b)(2)? 05 MR. PLOSS: Yes. '87 agreement and (b)(2). 06 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of priority, I think I left 07 out (b)(1) water. 08 Where does (b)(1) fall into this? 09 MR. PLOSS: (b)(1) water would be a priority similar to 10 (b)(2), as a requirement to try to reoperate the project for 11 fish and wildlife benefits. But (b)(1) water is not 12 intended to reduce the yield of the Central Valley Project. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "reduce the yield of the 14 Central Valley Project," does that mean you could reduce the 15 deliveries to the New Melones contractors? 16 MR. PLOSS: Under the provisions of (b)(1), no, we 17 cannot. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So, you consider a reduction of 19 delivery to the New Melones contractors as a reduction in 20 yield of the project? 21 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: If the water that would have gone to 23 the Stockton East -- Strike that. 24 If the water which would have gone to the New Melones 25 contractors is instead released down the river and is 6566 01 exported, would there be a loss in yield to the CVP? 02 MR. PLOSS: What we have done in our analysis of the 03 (b)(2) water, we operate the Central Valley Project and we 04 add the total loss to diversions, and we considered that to 05 be a measurement of the yield for the purposes of meeting 06 the intent of CVPIA. Water that is released from one 07 tributary, in this case the Stanislaus River, while 08 reduction in deliveries there, if there is ability to 09 redivert that water and calculate in the total losses of 10 the CVP, that is measured against the 800,000, yes. 11 So I would agree with your question, that while it may 12 be a loss on the Stanislaus, it is not a loss to the CVP. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Not a real loss in yield to the total 14 CVP project, but it won't count against the 800,000 15 acre-feet -- 16 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: -- in the (b)(2) water? 18 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Back on the 4-C. With regard to the 20 (b)(2) water, that requirement is by way of a Congressional 21 act, is it not? 22 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And with regard to the water quality at 24 Vernalis, that is by way of State Water Resources Control 25 Board orders; is that correct? 6567 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. Condition of our permits. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to meeting the Vernalis 03 water quality requirement, I gather from your testimony that 04 the Bureau views its obligation to meet that requirement as 05 one which requires acquisition of water from whatever 06 sources are reasonably available; is that correct? 07 MR. PLOSS: If that is determined to be the most 08 reasonable means, yes. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the dissolved oxygen 10 requirement at Ripon or water quality at Ripon, what is the 11 basis for that priority? 12 MR. PLOSS: That is a condition of our permits. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any reason that that condition 14 of the permit is not higher in priority than the '87 fish 15 agreement requirements? 16 MR. PLOSS: In our operation of the project and in our 17 analysis of the historic hydrology, it's been our experience 18 that the '87 fish agreement plus water that has been 19 released downstream to meet water quality at Vernalis has 20 been sufficient to meet the dissolved oxygen at Ripon in all 21 but the driest years and in some cases the driest months, 22 and then we would augment flows to meet the dissolved 23 oxygen. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: If we look at the 1987 fish agreement 25 requirements, the dissolved oxygen requirement at Ripon and 6568 01 the water quality at Vernalis, you would agree, would you 02 not, that all three of those, at least in part, are 03 requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board 04 orders? 05 MR. PLOSS: That is correct. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your opinion and the Bureau's 07 that the State Water Resources Control Board order provided 08 a first priority for the fish flows as among those three? 09 MR. PLOSS: I am not certain if that was provided in 10 the permits. It is the way we have been interpreting it. 11 We are trying to meet the uppermost requirement on the 12 stream first. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the Bureau have an obligation to 14 protect the public trust? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for legal 16 conclusion. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: As we ruled yesterday, I will allow Mr. 18 Ploss to answer that question to the best of his ability. 19 MR. PLOSS: That I'll have to defer to the State 20 Board. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you view the Bureau as having a 22 responsibility to protect the public trust? 23 MR. PLOSS: Again, if the State Board determines in 24 execution of our permits that we have an obligation to meet 25 public trust, yes. 6569 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you view the public trust needs on 02 the Stanislaus River as being greater than the public trust 03 needs on the upper San Joaquin River? 04 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will object on the grounds it calls 05 for a legal conclusion. 06 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have an answer to that question, 07 Mr. Ploss? 08 MR. PLOSS: Not a clear one. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: I will take the unclear one. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Is it an honest one? 11 MR. BRANDT: Always. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Of course, it is an honest one, always. 13 If you don't know the answer, if you don't feel comfortable 14 with the question, if it goes beyond your expertise, you 15 don't have to answer it. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think the point that's been made by 17 Mr. Ploss in response to the two earlier questions, and I 18 think it is a legally correct response, is that it is up to 19 the State Board to conduct the balancing required to 20 determine how various public trust uses are going to be 21 weighed against one another. 22 To ask this witness -- this witness is not capable of 23 answering which public trust use outweighs another public 24 trust use. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: I think this witness is quite capable of 6570 01 answering in somewhat the same fashion you just stated, Mr. 02 Birmingham. I think that is where he was headed, but I am 03 going to allow him to answer the question. 04 MR. PLOSS: We would have to look at the circumstances 05 involved and make that determination at the time. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: Other than requirements imposed on the 07 Bureau by the State Water Resources Control Board, does the 08 Bureau have any concerns for in-stream uses in the various 09 rivers that are tributary to the Delta? 10 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have a better word than 12 "concerns"? Give him a chance to think about that word 13 overnight, Mr. Nomellini. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: I will try "responsibilities." How 15 about that one? 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's see what Mr. Brandt's reaction to 17 that word is. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: By popular demand. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: You need a moment, gentlemen? 20 MR. BRANDT: Yes, could we have -- 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 22 We are back on the record. Thank you. 23 You have something? 24 MR. BRANDT: What is our status? 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini was going to substitute 6571 01 the word -- 02 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the Bureau of Reclamation have any 03 responsibilities for in-stream uses in the tributaries to 04 the Delta? 05 MR. BRANDT: Objection to the extent it calls for a 06 legal conclusion. But I think he is asking is it the 07 Bureau's understanding? 08 MR. NOMELLINI: Whatever his understanding is. 09 MR. BRANDT: That is fine. 10 MR. PLOSS: Yes, we have responsibilities for in-stream 11 flows on tributaries on which we operate. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Other than in-stream flow requirements 13 mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board orders 14 and the CVPIA, are there any responsibilities on the part of 15 the Bureau for in-stream flow requirements in the 16 tributaries to the Delta? 17 MR. PLOSS: Yes. We have some responsibilities as a 18 result of biological opinions under the federal Endangered 19 Species Act. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: You also have responsibilities under 21 NEPA, as well, do you not? 22 MR. PLOSS: I don't recall specifically what those 23 occasions may be, where we have commitments as a result of 24 the NEPA requirement. That might be the case. I am not 25 certain. 6572 01 MR. NOMELLINI: You don't know whether or not there are 02 responsibilities for mitigation of impacts to in-stream uses 03 as a result of projects carried out by the Bureau of 04 Reclamation? 05 MR. PLOSS: Not currently. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the priorities that we 07 talked about with operations of New Melones as reflected on 08 Exhibit 4-C, would you tell me what the priorities are for 09 operation of Friant? 10 MR. PLOSS: I am not specifically involved in the 11 Friant operations. It's not operated out of my office. 12 It's operated out of our Fresno office. So it would be 13 difficult for me to answer any specifics on that. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: What about with regard to priorities 15 for releases from San Luis Reservoir? 16 MR. PLOSS: The releases from San Luis Reservoir are 17 for meeting our contract commitments to our water service 18 contractors. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any other requirements for 20 releases from San Luis other than meeting your water 21 contractor requirements? 22 MR. PLOSS: No. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say water contractor 24 requirements, you are talking about the water contractors on 25 the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, are you not? 6573 01 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: That does not include water contractors 03 from New Melones? 04 MR. PLOSS: Correct. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you indicated, in response to 06 questions by other parties, that there is no operation of 07 New Melones to meet requirements of the Delta Accord; is 08 that correct? 09 MR. PLOSS: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: When we talk about Delta Accord, we are 11 talking about the principals agreement; is that what you 12 understood it to be? 13 MR. PLOSS: Yes. And what is shown on this exhibit 14 that is on the screen is that there is no releases that have 15 been made in the past to what we call Bay-Delta, which would 16 be what you are now calling the Accord. 17 MR. BRANDT: By the way, that is a reference to Exhibit 18 4-C. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Ambiguous. What is the reference to 21 4-C? 22 You mean his commitments? 23 MR. BRANDT: He mentioned something up on the screen. 24 The item up on the screen at this time is DOI Exhibit 4-C. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 6574 01 In answer to some questions with regard to the Delta 02 Accord, you stated that State Water Resources Control Board 03 95-6 mandated that the Bureau meet the requirements of the 04 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. Was that your testimony? 05 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. 06 MR. NOMELLINI: And was it your testimony also that 07 State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-6 was to 08 facilitate meeting the requirements of the Delta Accord? 09 MR. PLOSS: I don't recall saying that. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not 95-6 had 11 anything to do with the Delta Accord? 12 MR. PLOSS: I believe it had something to do with it, 13 yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: What did it have to do with it? 15 MR. PLOSS: I believe there are some provisions in 95-6 16 that are similar to provisions that may have been developed 17 through the Accord. But, specifically, the connection I am 18 not aware. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Maybe if I go over to another day I 20 will bring 95-6 with me and we will find out what 21 specifically in 95-6 mandates that the Bureau meet the '95 22 Water Quality Control Plan. 23 Do you a in mind a specific requirement in 95-6 that 24 requires the Bureau to meet the 95 Water Quality Control 25 Plan? 6575 01 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. 02 MR. NOMELLINI: I don't want legal interpretation, but 03 if he has in mind a specific provision in 95-6. 04 C.O. CAFFREY: I will allow the question. 05 MR. PLOSS: I can't give you a specific provision in 06 there, but the intent of 95-6, which we petitioned the Board 07 for, was that we would operate under the Water Quality 08 Control Plan for the period of time that the Board could 09 implement the Water Quality Control Plan. 10 The intent of 95-6 was to remove any inconsistencies 11 between the older D-1485 and the new Water Quality Control 12 Plan so that we could operate it. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it not true that with 95-6, that 14 it's the Bureau's agreement to meet the 1995 Water Quality 15 Control Plan and not the order of the Board that creates the 16 tie with 95-6 and the 95 Water Quality Control Plan? 17 MR. PLOSS: I don't know if I can give you a complete 18 answer to that. We agreed to voluntarily operate the Water 19 Quality Control Plan and petitioned the Board to remove, as 20 I said, the inconsistencies that would allow us to do that. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it true that the Bureau represented 22 to the Board that it was not willing to voluntarily meet the 23 '95 Water Quality Control Plan unless the inconsistencies, 24 as you described them, were alleviated in 95-6? 25 MR. PLOSS: I believe so, yes. 6576 01 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you recall what the elements were in 02 95-6 that were necessary to alleviate the inconsistencies 03 with the Bureau meeting the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 04 MR. PLOSS: I can't recall all of them. A few that 05 were there were the, what is referred to as, the E/O ratio, 06 the need to provide outflow to support the X2 requirement. 07 We also included in our petition the request to modify the 08 water quality standard at Vernalis. 09 MR. NOMELLINI: What about the request for a hundred 10 percent of the San Joaquin River flow or 1500 cubic feet per 11 second, whichever was greater? Do you recall that? 12 MR. PLOSS: That was one of the changes in the Water 13 Quality Control Plan from the D-1485, yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: How did that affect your ability and 15 the Bureau to meet the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 16 MR. PLOSS: I don't know if I would say that that 17 helped our ability to meet the Water Quality Control Plan. 18 That is what was written into the plan, and that is what we 19 requested that we be allowed to operate to. During that 20 period of time, under D-1485, I believe there were some 21 striped bass provisions that we operated to that had export 22 limits involved, and we replaced those with the San Joaquin 23 standard. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: The San Joaquin standard, the 25 hundred-percent part, isn't it true that, because of 6577 01 biological opinions, the Bureau couldn't operate to take 100 02 percent of the San Joaquin River flow in any event? 03 MR. PLOSS: There are further limitations because of 04 our biological opinions, correct. 05 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any reason why that hundred 06 percent should not have been conformed to the limitations of 07 the biological opinions? 08 MR. PLOSS: I don't know if there was any reason for 09 that. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any impediment to the Bureau 11 achieving, meeting, the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 12 objectives by reason of corresponding the pumping at 13 Vernalis to the limitations of the biological opinions 14 rather than the hundred percent? 15 MR. BRANDT: Objection. Vague. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, this point won't help, but I am 17 not sure I understood the question, Mr. Nomellini. Maybe 18 you should try it again. I had trouble with it myself. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you see -- can you explain how a 20 change in 95-6, which would eliminate the hundred-percent 21 pumping limitation on the San Joaquin River and replace it 22 with the restrictions of the biological opinions, would 23 affect your project operation in meeting the 1995 Water 24 Quality Control Plan? 25 MR. PLOSS: I don't believe it would change how we 6578 01 would operate because we will operate to the more stringent 02 standard, whether it is the 95-6 or the biological opinion. 03 MR. NOMELLINI: So, in fact, it wouldn't make any 04 difference if that corresponded to the biological opinion 05 restrictions, your operations would still be the same with 06 regard to the meeting the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, 07 right? 08 MR. PLOSS: Yes. The only change might be in the 09 process or procedures that we go through. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: In other words, the changes to a 11 Board's standard would require action by the Board. The 12 changes to the biological opinion would be action involving 13 consultation with the particular resource group that is 14 responsible for the biological opinion. 15 MR. PLOSS: That's correct. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: What about makeup pumping? Was it not 17 a part of the request for 95-6 that makeup pumping be 18 allowed in order for the Bureau to voluntarily meet the 1995 19 Water Quality Control Plan objectives? 20 MR. PLOSS: The request for makeup pumping was for the 21 intent of allowing flexibility or adaptive management in 22 protecting the resources. If a need arose to modify 23 operations beyond what was provided for in the Water Quality 24 Control Plan and allow for the projects within some 25 limitations or discretion to make water up, otherwise it 6579 01 would be lost. It was not intended to make up water lost to 02 the Water Quality Control Plan itself. 03 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini, excuse me for 04 interrupting your train of thought. How much more time do 05 you think you need? 06 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to need another half hour. 07 C.O. CAFFREY: That being the case, then it is noon. 08 Some of the Board Members have commitments; that is why we 09 had a half a day today. 10 Why don't we just wind it up today and have you come 11 back on Tuesday morning. 12 Tuesday we will start with Mr. Nomellini. Then we will 13 go to Mr. O'Laughlin, Mr. Gallery, Mr. Hasencamp and Mr. 14 Jackson. 15 We will see you all, then, at 9:00 a.m. 16 ---oOo--- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6580 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 6792 through 14 6879 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 16th day of November 19 1998. 20 21 22 23 23 24 ______________________________ 24 ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 25