STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1998 9:00 A.M. Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS: 2 JOHN CAFFREY, COHEARING OFFICER 3 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER JOHN W. BROWN 4 MARY JANE FORSTER MARC DEL PIERO 5 STAFF MEMBERS: 6 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7 VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 8 COUNSEL: 9 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL 10 BARBARA LEIDIGH 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 134 West Sycamore Street 4 Willows, California 95988 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 5 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 6 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 7 P.O. BOX 1679 Oroville, California 95965 8 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 and AMELIA MINABERRIGARAI, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GARY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 2480 Union Street 4 San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 7 Sacramento, California 95825 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 8 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 9 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 10 Sacramento, California 95814 11 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 12 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 13 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 15 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 17 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 18 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 19 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 20 San Francisco, California 94105 21 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 22 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 23 Visalia, California 93291 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 6201 S Street 4 Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor 7 Stockton, California 95202 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 8 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 9 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 10 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, California 94623 11 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 14 Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER P.O. Box 5654 17 Fresno, California 93755 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 18 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 19 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 20 P.O. Box 2365 Flournoy, California 96029 21 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 24 Los Angeles, California 90075 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94102 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 5 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 7 926 J Street, Suite 505 Sacramento, California 95814 8 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 9 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 10 101 West Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91103 11 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 517 East Olive Street 14 Turlock, California 95381 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 16 RICHARD GOLB 17 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 Sacramento, California 95814 18 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 20 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. and 24 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 25 Oakland, California 94618 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE P.O. Box 846 4 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY P.O. Box 1019 7 Madera, California 93639 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 8 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 9 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 10 2300 River Plaza Drive Sacramento, California 95833 11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 12 MORRISON & FORESTER 13 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94303 14 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY P.O. Box 777 17 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 926 J Street 20 Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY P.O. Box 427 23 Durham, California 95938 BY: DON HEFFREN 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East 4 Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 525 West Sycamore Street 7 Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ESQ. 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 10 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY P.O. Box 307 13 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT P.O. Box 4060 16 Modesto, California 95352 BY: BILL KETSCHER 17 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 18 SAVE THE BAY 19 1736 Franklin Street Oakland, California 94612 20 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY P.O. Box 606 23 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 4 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 1201 Civic Center Drive 7 Yuba City 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 10 Sacramento, California 95816 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 11 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 13 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 Walnut Creek, California 94596 14 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 17 Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 20 Merced, California 95344 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 21 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 22 R.W. MCCOMAS 23 4150 County Road K Orland, California 95963 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT P.O. Box 3728 4 Sonora, California 95730 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 5 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 7 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 8 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER 1550 California Street, Suite 6 11 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95965 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 15 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 16 DE CUIR & SOMACH 17 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 501 Walker Street 21 Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ P.O. Box 4060 24 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. P.O. Box 7442 4 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL P.O. Box 1461 7 Stockton, California 95201 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 8 and DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 9 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 10 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 11 1100 Whitney Avenue Corcoran, California 93212 12 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 13 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 14 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 15 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 18 Chico, California 95926 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 19 SIERRA CLUB: 20 JENNA OLSEN 21 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94105 22 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 23 LYNNEL POLLOCK 24 625 Court Street Woodland, California 95695 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGANS P.O. Box 60940 4 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 8 BETSY REIFSNIDER 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 9 Sacramento, California 95814 10 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 11 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS P.O. Box 2067 12 Merced, California 95344 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 13 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 14 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 15 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 Stockton, California 95202 16 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 17 JAMES F. ROBERTS 18 P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054 19 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 21 980 9th Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 22 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 4 San Francisco, California 94194 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 5 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 6 DAVID SANDINO, ESQ. 7 CATHY CROTHERS, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 4 Oroville, California 95965 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 5 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 6 DE CUIR & SOMACH 7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 8 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 4 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 5 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 6 BEST BEST & KREIGER 7 P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, California 92502 8 BY: ERIC GARNER, ESQ. 9 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 San Andreas, California 95249 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive Ione, California 95640 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 4 AFTERNOON SESSION 5 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: STEVEN J. DEVEREL: 6 CHRISTOPHER L. WHITE: CROSS-EXAMINATION: 7 BY MR. NOMELLINI 8 9 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 DECEMBER 10, 1998 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: We are on the record. 5 I want to start out by announcing it's Mr. Brandt's 6 24th birthday; that is why we have the cake here. 7 Let's start out today's proceedings by thanking Esther 8 very, very much for the wonderful refreshments that we all 9 have and need. We have our share up here, thank you so 10 much, Esther. It was very nice. For anybody reviewing this 11 record in the future, hopefully, they'll make something of 12 it other than a party. 13 Good morning to all. Here we are, hopefully, close to 14 the conclusion of Phase V. We have a little change in the 15 order. Mr. Nomellini will cross-examine first, then Ms. 16 Cahill. Mr. Birmingham also asked for a change, so I will 17 read the order: Nomellini, Cahill, Herrick, Brandt, 18 Harrigfeld and Birmingham. 19 Anybody else want to be added for cross-examination? 20 Let me also say that we are going to wind up around 21 11:30 this morning. It's a half-day session, and certainly 22 no later than 20 to 12. Try not to interrupt at an 23 important phase if we can avoid that, but we have to go a 24 little early today. 25 With that, and without wasting any more time, we will CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7721 1 proceed with Mr. Nomellini. 2 Good morning, sir, welcome. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 4 Board. 5 ---oOo--- 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 7 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 8 BY MR. NOMELLINI 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta 10 plaintiffs. 11 The -- you are right, parties. I've been thinking 12 about the plaintiff aspect. Perhaps my misuse of the 13 verbiage indicates things to come. 14 Mr. Deverel, I would like to start, first, with you, if 15 I could, and I would like to go through your work experience 16 if I could. 17 DR. DEVEREL: Sure. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Particularly, your -- I would like to 19 start with your work in the San Joaquin Valley with regard 20 to the soils and transmissivity of the various soils in the 21 area. 22 Starting with 1979, did you do any work in the San 23 Joaquin Valley related to water or soils prior to receiving 24 your Bachelor of Science degree in December of 1979? 25 DR. DEVEREL: No, I did not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7722 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Subsequent to December of 1979, when 2 was the first time that you did any work related to water or 3 soils in the valley? 4 DR. DEVEREL: 1984. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: What was that? 6 DR. DEVEREL: I started work on the Geological Survey 7 in the spring of 1984 and immediately began work on trying 8 to understand the factors influencing water quality and 9 drainage water, primarily, in western San Joaquin Valley. 10 The thrust of that work was related to understanding 11 selenium water quality problems. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: What area of the valley was that work 13 in in 1984? 14 DR. DEVEREL: We started out with groundwater sampling 15 throughout the western San Joaquin Valley, actually starting 16 south of Tracy and extending all the way down to Five 17 Points. It included a large area, initially. Well, that 18 area defined by those northern and southern points. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And what was the next task, in general 20 terms, that you were involved with in soil or water dealing 21 with the valley? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Well, there were three main activities 23 that I was involved in subsequent to that initial sampling 24 and analysis of data. We proceeded on to conduct field 25 studies to look at flow to drains as well as mobility of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7723 1 constituents in soils. This was done primarily at the 2 agricultural field scale. 3 We looked at a number of fields and tried to understand 4 what was causing the selenium and salinity concentrations in 5 the groundwater and drain water. We also -- or I did work 6 along with others at the regional scale in which we tried to 7 evaluate groundwater quality data, soils data and other 8 geologic and geomorphic data, trying to figure out what the 9 regional processes were that affected the mobility and 10 distribution of selenium and salinity and other 11 constituents. 12 That pretty much covers it. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the first phase of your 14 work experience involving the soil and water in the valley, 15 was the sampling of groundwater from Tracy to Five Points 16 then you started working with field studies regarding 17 selenium in drainage? 18 DR. DEVEREL: Correct. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Was there an area in the valley that 20 you focused in on? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. We focused in on areas that are 22 currently part of the Grassland Bypass and Westlands Water 23 District within the 42,000 acres that were drained up to 24 about 1985. Those were the two main areas that we focused 25 on. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7724 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Perhaps I can impose on Walt for the 2 screen. 3 This is Westlands 97. 4 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you show us on the map, if it is 6 on the map, what the area is that you're addressing in your 7 studies of selenium drainage. 8 DR. DEVEREL: I will start with field studies. We 9 conducted field studies in Panoche Water District, Broadview 10 Water District and Westlands Water District to the south 11 here. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: You're indicating that your studies 13 with regard to Westlands actually extend farther to the 14 south than what is shown on this exhibit? 15 DR. DEVEREL: No, that is not true. We were just 16 south, about ten miles south of the city of Mendota. I 17 guess that puts us right about there. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So, it is within the area that is 19 indicated on Westlands 97 as having a drainage system at one 20 time or another? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to your efforts in this 23 regard, extending to the northwest, could you point on 24 Westlands 97 where that boundary might be. 25 DR. DEVEREL: I am sorry, which studies are you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7725 1 referring to? 2 MR. NOMELLINI: I am talking about the field studies 3 related to selenium. 4 DR. DEVEREL: That is what I was just pointing to. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Give us kind of the northern 6 northwestern edge of the area you worked in, if you could. 7 DR. DEVEREL: Well, the field studies extended into 8 Panoche Water District, which is this area here. The other 9 field studies that I described in which -- 10 MR. NOMELLINI: The "area here" is near the Merced and 11 Fresno County line? 12 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 13 I was going to go on to say that some of the more 14 extensive regional studies that we conducted extended to 15 past the northern boundary of this map up into Tracy. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: The groundwater sampling extended all 17 the way to Tracy, and the regional studies did as well? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, the next area of study that you 20 were involved with with regard to water and soils in the 21 valley was a more detailed study of geomorphic conditions 22 and things of that type? 23 DR. DEVEREL: That is part of the regional study. We 24 looked at regional data and tried to figure out what -- on 25 the regional scale what were the processes that had CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7726 1 influenced selenium concentrations and groundwaters and 2 drain waters, and that included that area I described. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: So that regional scale would extend 4 from roughly the southerly boundary, which was within 5 Westlands Water District, all the way northwest to Tracy? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: When you talk about geomorphic 8 conditions, what did that entail? 9 DR. DEVEREL: We tried to look at a number of different 10 factors. This was described in some of the reports we 11 wrote. There are geologic factors that influence the 12 distribution of salinity and selenium in the groundwater 13 over time. A key factor is the distribution of the alluvial 14 fans and movement of materials from the coast range. 15 So we tried to look at that in relation to the 16 distribution of constituents. We also tried to look at 17 factors that were more recent in time, such as the 18 application of irrigation water, what lands had been 19 irrigated over time, and that had changed over time, and how 20 that influenced the distribution of constituents in 21 groundwater. 22 We also looked at various chemical constituents in the 23 groundwater and sorted that out in terms of processes such 24 as evaporation from shallow groundwater and that kind of 25 thing, to try to figure out what processes were causing the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7727 1 high selenium concentrations. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Over what period of time did that 3 latter activity extend? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Well, the sampling was conducted from 5 1984 to about 1987, and the analysis took place during that 6 time. I think we published a report that described most of 7 what I just talked about in 1989. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Subsequent to the completion of the 9 study which led to your report, what work in the valley did 10 you engage in related to water and soils, in general terms? 11 DR. DEVEREL: After that? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: After 1989. 13 DR. DEVEREL: Before publication of that report, we had 14 put more emphasis on the field studies. These activities 15 were going on simultaneously to a certain extent. We 16 started with the regional scale and focused in on the field 17 scale later on in that period of time at USGS. 18 So, in 1991 we published information about the field 19 scale, published part of it. That was activity that was 20 going on from 1988 to 1990. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: And the field scale level studies, 22 where were they conducted? 23 DR. DEVEREL: The ones that I pointed to earlier in 24 Panoche, Broadview, Westlands Water District. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: After 1991 up to the present, any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7728 1 particular field-related work? 2 DR. DEVEREL: Not any field-related work after 1991. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, changing regions a bit and going 4 back, starting in 1979 again. Prior to 1979, did you have 5 any field experience in the Delta area? 6 DR. DEVEREL: No. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Subsequent to 1979, generally, would 8 you tell us what your field experience has been related to 9 the Delta. And I am talking the legally defined Delta, 10 which extends from Vernalis to Sacramento to Antioch. 11 DR. DEVEREL: In 1980 I began work as a research 12 associate at the university. I was also a graduate student 13 at the time. I began work on a project called the Delta 14 Salinity Project under the supervision of UC Extension. I 15 worked for three years on that project. 16 We did field work and data analysis on field-collected 17 data. The main islands we worked on were Rindge, Bouldin 18 Island. We did some work on Empire Tract, Terminus Island, 19 mainly in the central Delta where there are peat soils. 20 Then after beginning work at the Geological Survey in 21 1989, as I was finishing up work on the San Joaquin Valley, 22 I began work on the Delta subsidence project, in which I 23 worked from 1989 to 1992. During that time, we conducted 24 field work and other activities related to trying to better 25 understand the processes that causes subsidence in organic CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7729 1 soils in San Joaquin, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Again, 2 primarily on this case, on Western Delta and Central Delta. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: When you define Central Delta, you used 4 the term "once in a while," do you relate that in any way to 5 the boundaries of the Central Delta Water Agency? 6 DR. DEVEREL: No, not necessarily. I have in my mind 7 an idea of what the Central Delta is. It is more 8 geographically than conforming to boundaries. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: The same would be any references to 10 South Delta? 11 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Going back now to your study of 13 geomorphic conditions in the valley, did you study soil 14 composition information? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I studied soil chemical composition. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: How about in terms of structural 17 composition such as would relate to the transmissivity or 18 permeability of the soil? 19 DR. DEVEREL: We conducted hydraulic conductivity tests 20 in those fields that I mentioned earlier, fields in Panoche 21 Water District, Broadview and Westlands Water District. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: In the course of that study did you 23 utilize borings which reflected soil composition? 24 DR. DEVEREL: The focus of our work was to determine 25 the hydraulic -- primarily the horizontal hydraulic CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7730 1 conductivity of subsurface materials, materials below the 2 water table. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: I gather from your testimony that you 4 would agree that the soils reflected in the area on 5 Westlands 97 where those arrows are drawn are not 6 impermeable? 7 DR. DEVEREL: Define impermeable. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Impermeable would be something that 9 would not allow the passage of water. 10 DR. DEVEREL: No, they are not impermeable in the sense 11 that water does move through them. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree, and I believe your 13 testimony was, that there is variability in the permeability 14 of these soils in the area in Westlands 97 both vertically 15 and horizontally? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to the boundary 18 between the Westlands Water District and the Firebaugh Canal 19 Water District, is it not correct that you testified that 20 you had calculated what you thought to be the flux of or 21 flow of water from the Westlands side into the Firebaugh 22 Canal Water District side to reflect a quantity of about 980 23 acre-feet per year? 24 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: And that was based on four miles of 245 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7731 1 acre-feet per mile? 2 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: In performing that calculation, did you 4 have information with regard to the permeability of the 5 soils in that area? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. In performing that calculation, 7 which was done through the use of a groundwater flow model, 8 I incorporated into that flow model what was developed 9 during the studies by the USGS in terms of subsurface 10 hydraulic conductivity. 11 So, in brief, I extracted from what was used at the 12 regional scale and regional model, in terms of hydraulic 13 conductivity based on analysis that was done of well logs, 14 and used that data in my calculations. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you believe that that data that you 16 used is reflective of the conditions at the boundary between 17 the Westlands Water District and Firebaugh Canal Water 18 District for which you did the calculation? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that condition -- perhaps you could 21 describe the condition. Is it sandy? Clay? I realize 22 those may not be the right terms. What does that soil 23 profile basically look like? 24 DR. DEVEREL: The subsurface texture of the materials 25 along that boundary, to my recollection, consist of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7732 1 somewhere between 20 to 30 feet of primarily fine-grained 2 material. There are lenses of coarse grained material. It 3 is primarily fine-grained, near the surface. And then once 4 you get below 30 feet, there are lenses. The primary 5 texture is coarse grained, coarse-grained strata that range 6 from 30 to 50 feet. Depending on where you are, the 7 boundary is highly heterogeneous even along that 12-mile 8 boundary. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the strata below 30 feet 10 that contains coarse-grained material, can water from that 11 strata come up to the surface of the ground in that area? 12 DR. DEVEREL: It could through a drain system. Drain 13 systems can -- water from those deeper strata can flow into 14 drainage systems. And if they do, then that water could end 15 up in the sand and into the surface collector line, 16 collector ditch. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So it would have to flow up through the 18 fine-grained material in order to get into the drain, would 19 it not? 20 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: And what about the -- are there wells 22 in that area that are -- that could conduct water in an 23 upward -- 24 DR. DEVEREL: There are wells, but they are not being 25 used, to my understanding, or they are used rarely. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7733 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know -- Minasian probably knows. 2 Do you know whether or not the well casings are perforated 3 below these zones or above these zones? 4 DR. DEVEREL: The well casings in that area are 5 generally perforated in the Sierra sands, which are 6 somewhere around 200 feet below land surface. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Can these flows that we talked about 8 that go across the boundary of Westlands into the Firebaugh 9 Canal Water District find their way to the San Joaquin 10 River? 11 DR. DEVEREL: No. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: What happens to those flows, and why is 13 it that they do not get to the river? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Well, the primary reason is that the 15 hydraulics gradients are such that flow shifts tend to flow 16 downward once you get past or somewhere in Firebaugh Canal 17 Water District. So, somewhat of a complicated hydraulic or 18 hydrologic situation. 19 At the boundary of Firebaugh and Westlands and into 20 Firebaugh you have upward flow at some depth to the surface 21 to drainage laterals. But there is a point in Firebaugh and 22 beyond Firebaugh where, as you move closer to the river, 23 water starts flowing downward and to the east. Flows in a 24 manner that goes underneath the river. There is not 25 accretion; at least the data I have seen does not indicate CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7734 1 that there is accretion of groundwater to river in that 2 area. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you show us on Westlands 97 where 4 that area is. 5 DR. DEVEREL: One would look at this area here that we 6 just talked about. This is the four-mile boundary of 7 Firebaugh with Westlands. 8 As you can see, water can flow across that boundary. 9 But, in general, it does not flow to the river here. 10 Because of pumping that takes place on the east side of the 11 river, groundwater flows downward and towards the pumping 12 trough that tends to exist over here. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: So there is a gradient that would take 14 the water to the low point of that pumping trough or hole, 15 and that is below the flow line to the river? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that representative of conditions on 18 both the upstream and downstream sides of that area? 19 DR. DEVEREL: What do you mean by "upstream and 20 downstream"? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's start with the area that you 22 described as right above the word "Mendota" on Westlands 97, 23 is it not? 24 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: If we go farther down river, which I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7735 1 think is northwest, do conditions change such that the 2 groundwater flows do accrete to the river? 3 DR. DEVEREL: The data that I have, that I have looked 4 at in terms of accretion to the river, indicates that the 5 river becomes a gaining stream due to groundwater around 6 Newman, so -- 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Where is Newman on that map? 8 DR. DEVEREL: It is actually north of this map. 9 It is not? 10 MR. NOMELLINI: It is off the map to the northwest. 11 MR. WHITE: Newman is right about here. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: It is near the dot that is identified 13 as Central California Irrigation District? 14 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I should say the dot that leads to the 16 title "Central California Irrigation." 17 Accretions to the river from groundwater, in your 18 opinion, kind of start downstream from that particular 19 point? 20 DR. DEVEREL: That is what the data indicates that was 21 collected by the U.S. Geological Survey. 22 MS. LEIDIGH: There are two Central California 23 Irrigation Districts labeled -- three on that map. 24 It is the northern most one that you were talking 25 about; is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7736 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Good eyes, Ms. Leidigh. 2 MR. WHITE: The city of Newman is about 15 miles south 3 of the extreme north boundary of the Central California 4 Irrigation District. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Somebody has to have a broad vision of 6 this rather than this narrow myopic vision. 7 So, if the groundwater is going to get into the river, 8 we are talking about from Mendota to Newman, on the west 9 side, it has to enter some type of drainage system? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right, for the most part. There 11 is one small part of the river near Dos Palos that appear to 12 have some accretion part of the time. But most of the data 13 shows the river was a losing stream between Mendota and 14 Newman. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: If we focus in on the area from Mendota 16 to Newman, are there any historic streams that have 17 deposited coarse materials that extend all the way to the 18 river? 19 DR. DEVEREL: You're asking if there are subsurface 20 strata or surface strata? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Surface or subsurface. 22 DR. DEVEREL: That may extend -- 23 MR. NOMELLINI: From the coastal range to the San 24 Joaquin River. 25 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7737 1 MR. NOMELLINI: You want to take a break? 2 DR. DEVEREL: No. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: You can have another doughnut. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: You just want one for yourself. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: I might go with him. 6 As far as you know -- 7 DR. DEVEREL: I haven't been able to identify any 8 strata that extend all the way from the coast range to the 9 river. That doesn't mean they are not there, but the data 10 doesn't indicate that. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Focusing in on Mendota upstream, and 12 particularly going along Fresno Slough to the southeast, 13 what are the soil conditions along there, as you know them? 14 DR. DEVEREL: So you would be talking about this area 15 here? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Start at Mendota where we left off and 17 then proceed upstream, which is -- you agree that is 18 upstream to the right on Westlands 97? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That would be upstream on Fresno Slough, 20 if that is what you mean. We are talking about this area 21 here. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Correct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May the record reflect that Dr. 24 Deverel is pointing to an area on Westlands Exhibit 97 from 25 the town of Mendota south along the Fresno Slough in an area CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7738 1 approximately the length of the 42,000 acres previously 2 served by the subsurface Westlands drainage system as 3 indicated on the exhibit? 4 MR. NOMELLINI: We can start there. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: It shall so reflect. That is one of the 6 succinct descriptions since we started this hearing. 7 Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: I don't know if we can rely on it. He 9 is not sworn. 10 Starting with that particular area, do you know what 11 the soil conditions are along the Fresno Slough area 12 described by Mr. Birmingham? 13 DR. DEVEREL: There is actually a great deal of 14 heterogeneity in that area, is my understanding. And I am 15 not intimately familiar. I know that the delineation of the 16 A clay extends somewhere close to Fresno Slough but doesn't 17 extend much beyond that, is my understanding, and things 18 become less fine-grained as you move to the west. 19 In general, things south of Mendota and to the east are 20 becoming more and more fine-grained and are large depths of 21 fine-grained materials that are relatively impermeable. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the boundary along 23 Fresno Slough that was described, do I understand your 24 testimony to reflect that it would allow the passage of 25 groundwater into the slough? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7739 1 DR. DEVEREL: I can't say. I haven't looked at the 2 groundwater conditions in detail in that area. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you aware of a relatively 4 impervious Sierra deposit in that area? 5 DR. DEVEREL: No, I am not. There is a Sierra deposit 6 underlying the clay that I just described, which is the A 7 clay, which would be the Sierra sand. But those are 8 generally permeable. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Why don't we have a drink of water. 10 So the alluvium that is on top -- is it alluvium that 11 is on top? 12 DR. DEVEREL: That's correct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: The Sierra deposit. That alluvium is 14 fine-grained material? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Its permeability is less than the 17 Sierra deposit? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: In this particular area that we are 20 talking about, from the city of Mendota extending to the 21 southeast, do you know what the depth is of that alluvium? 22 DR. DEVEREL: The data that I have looked at in Kroft's 23 USGS report describes the subsurface condition south of 24 Mendota, indicates that this relatively impermeable clay 25 extends to about 60 feet below ground surface. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7740 1 MR. NOMELLINI: I want to show you Page 17 of 2 Westlands Exhibit 98. I don't have an overhead, but this is 3 a document that Tom gave us yesterday, copies of. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Westlands 98. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Correct. Page 17. 6 In that you see a Sierra sand designation? 7 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: It is Figure 2, and it says, 9 "Generalized -- " 10 DR. DEVEREL: "Geohydrologic section of the 11 semiconfined zone perpendicular to the axis of the San 12 Joaquin Valley." 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what area would be 14 represented by that particular figure? 15 DR. DEVEREL: To my understanding, this represents the 16 cross-section that extends from the coast range in the 17 eastward direction toward the city of Mendota. So it would 18 represent approximately a cross-section across this area of 19 the valley, extending from about here, near the aqueduct, to 20 the city of Mendota, here. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell from that figure roughly 22 what the depth of the alluvium is that is shown on that 23 above the Sierra sand? 24 DR. DEVEREL: It is difficult to tell because of the 25 scale of this map. The crosshatches are about 200 feet CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7741 1 each. So, I think one could say on this map it appears to 2 be about 50 feet. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: So that would be the representative of 4 conditions that you were describing for the area between the 5 city of Mendota extending to the southeast? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to the northwest, at what point 8 in time would you feel that that figure would not reflect 9 the general conditions of the soil? 10 DR. DEVEREL: To the northwest? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Downstream, where it is moving. 12 DR. DEVEREL: Are we moving along the San Joaquin River 13 at this point? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 15 DR. DEVEREL: Here we are at the city of Mendota. The 16 San Joaquin River is over here. I would say that at least 17 to this point, here, those conditions would probably be 18 pretty close to being accurate. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: This point here? 20 DR. DEVEREL: This point here being -- 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Middle of the word "Mendota"? 22 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Roughly under the word "legend"? 24 DR. DEVEREL: Under the word legend, yes, that is 25 right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7742 1 MR. NOMELLINI: And then how would it change? 2 DR. DEVEREL: Well, things would tend to be more coarse 3 grained as one moved to the north. But things change 4 substantially as you become more heterogeneous as you move 5 northward. I probably should say that this cross-section, 6 in general, reflects the general nature of the deposits out 7 there. If we move along the San Joaquin River, there are 8 always these flood basin deposits, which actually are a 9 mixture of coast range and Sierra Nevada-derived sediments. 10 There are these materials all along the river. They 11 aren't all as fine-grained as they have been mapped south of 12 the city of Mendota. They tend to be more coarse grained as 13 one moves to the north, in my opinion. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Paul, do you have your Exhibit 5-M 15 overhead? 16 Thank you. 17 Now, I understood your general hypothesis to be that 18 less water means less drainage? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. Less drainage water. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: And from that, and I am talking very 21 generally now, from that you concluded that less drainage 22 means less load to the San Joaquin River. 23 Is that a step that you have made in your hypothesis? 24 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. I would say that if you apply less 25 water, there is less drainage water. There is a lower CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7743 1 volume of drainage water that ultimately ends up in the San 2 Joaquin River. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have a part of that hypothesis 4 that would conclude that less drainage water to the San 5 Joaquin River means less concentration of salts in the 6 drainage water? 7 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking if you apply less water 8 and the volume is lower then the concentration would be 9 lower? 10 MR. NOMELLINI: I am taking your general hypothesis, as 11 I understood it, in a general conceptual approach, and 12 seeing how it relates to water quality in the San Joaquin 13 River. And I was focusing in on what your view is of the 14 concentration of salts in a reduced drainage volume that 15 might reach the San Joaquin River, resulting from less 16 application of water. 17 DR. DEVEREL: It is not clearly uniform in all 18 cases. I was trying to make the point that, as you increase 19 drainage volume, you increase the load of salt in that 20 drainage volume, in drainage volumes. Concentrations 21 sometimes stay the same. Sometimes it decreases. Sometimes 22 it increases. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: If we focused in on the task of 24 maintaining water quality standard, salinity standard at 25 Vernalis, do you have any opinion as to what the impact CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7744 1 would be of application of the general hypothesis that you 2 put forth with regard to less water? We are going to focus 3 in and get a better understanding of that. 4 But, in general, do you expect to see improvement in 5 the water quality at Vernalis from such an application of 6 such a hypothesis? 7 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking about drainage water that 8 would reach the river somehow all the way from Mendota to 9 Vernalis and what influence -- 10 MR. NOMELLINI: In any form. Thinking that we are 11 myopically interested in Vernalis water quality. What can 12 we expect when we buy into the Deverel hypothesis? 13 DR. DEVEREL: The data I have looked at and my 14 hypothesis indicates that as you decrease drainage volumes 15 as a result of decreased application rates, you increase the 16 load of salt that comes from drainage discharges. If that 17 were to be practiced throughout the western San Joaquin 18 Valley, wherever there are drainage loads, I believe that 19 would decrease concentrations in the river. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: You have a time frame in mind? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Let's just say instantaneously. In other 22 words, as you apply less water -- instantaneous isn't 23 probably a good word. Over a short period of time, in other 24 words, if from one year to the next, given similar 25 hydrologic conditions, if you applied less water, there was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7745 1 less drainage volume produced, the load would be less to the 2 river, all things being equal, all other things being equal. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with the Grassland 4 Drainage Project? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Does that project implement what you 7 consider to be a reduction of water? I'm staying away from 8 the term "applied water." I am talking reduction in water. 9 We are going to get to applied versus -- 10 DR. DEVEREL: Perhaps you should explain what you mean 11 by "reduction in water." Are you talking drainage water? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the Grassland Bypass Project doing 13 what you are suggesting in terms of putting into practice 14 the hypothesis that you set forth? 15 DR. DEVEREL: They are, I would say. They are trying 16 to reduce the drainage volume, which in turn reduces the 17 drainage load. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: When would you expect that we would see 19 that reflected in improved water quality in the San Joaquin? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I think we have seen some effect of 21 that. My recollection of Joe McGahan's testimony indicates, 22 says -- my recollection of Joe McGahan's testimony was that 23 the salt load, the salt load had been, but the concentration 24 in the discharges -- let me say that again. 25 The total salt load to the river had been decreased CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7746 1 during the time frame that the bypass was in operation. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: When you recollect that, are you 3 recalling that the total loading is reduced or simply the 4 loading from the tile drainage? 5 DR. DEVEREL: My recollection was that the load from 6 Mud Slough had been reduced. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. 8 Does water applied to the soil from rainfall have any 9 impact on load to the river? 10 DR. DEVEREL: In general, it has a minimal impact. 11 When the rainfall is excessive, as it was, as I understand, 12 in recent years, there can be an effect. If you begin to 13 have rainfall that begins to approach the similar volume in 14 terms as what is applied as irrigation water, that can have 15 an effect. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And, in fact, it is true, is it not, a 17 lot of leaching of soil occurs due to rainfall? 18 DR. DEVEREL: In western San Joaquin Valley in a normal 19 year you only get ten inches of rainfall. A typical storm 20 might be, at the most, half an inch of water. So there 21 isn't a lot of leaching, in general, that takes place due to 22 rainfall in th western valley. That is why they 23 preirrigate, to leach out the salts. In a normal year when 24 there is excessive rainfall, that is not necessary. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in terms of the theory, hypothesis CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7747 1 of less water, have you made any distinction between water 2 applied intentionally to the soil and water that occurs by 3 reason of the rainfall, flow from upgradient lands to low 4 gradient lands or whatever source? 5 DR. DEVEREL: We haven't made an analysis of how much 6 water is contributed to drain flow, groundwater flow, from 7 rainfall in the studies I have conducted. We have actually 8 assumed, and this is perhaps due to the time that we did the 9 studies, that rainfall was generally negligible in terms of 10 groundwater recharge and flow to drains, groundwater flow to 11 drains. 12 I described yesterday a little bit about what we have 13 done in terms of looking at upslope flows. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Calling your attention to Exhibit 5-M. 15 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Does this exhibit reflect the findings 17 of a particular study that you were participating in? 18 DR. DEVEREL: This is a study that I conducted along 19 with other USGS personnel in 1987 to 1989 in Broadview Water 20 District. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: The data that is reflected on Exhibit 22 5-M, is that -- let's take for example the 6,340 milligrams 23 per liter up in the top left-hand corner. 24 DR. DEVEREL: This number in the top graph? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. Is that instantaneous measurement CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7748 1 of the salts, or is that an average for the study period, or 2 what is that? 3 DR. DEVEREL: We collected groundwater samples in wells 4 that were installed at various depths and various locations 5 in this particular field. This concentration of salts was 6 reflective of -- was actually an average concentration of 7 wells installed above this depth, which was about 25 feet, 8 within 25 feet of land surface. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: So that is an average of how many 10 measurements, roughly? 11 DR. DEVEREL: Within this 27-acre field we had four 12 well clusters. So, that would have been the average of four 13 wells. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: At what depths in that 25 feet did you 15 take samples? 16 DR. DEVEREL: There were wells placed at ten feet and 17 20 feet, as I recall. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Basically two depths? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Four wells? 21 DR. DEVEREL: I should correct that. We had four well 22 clusters, and each one of those clusters had three to four 23 wells. There were actually, in that case, eight wells. 24 This represents the average of eight wells at 10 and 20 25 feet. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7749 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Eight wells at 10 and 20 feet. That 2 would be eight at each, eight at 10 feet and eight at 20? 3 DR. DEVEREL: No, eight total. So, that would be four 4 at 10 and four at 20. That is my recollection. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: How many samples? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That was representative of two samples 7 during that sampling period, during that time from 1987 to 8 1989. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Were other samples taken during that 10 period of time? 11 DR. DEVEREL: Not from the wells. There were a number 12 of samples taken from the drainage laterals, probably 13 hundreds of samples from the drainage laterals. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: In order to put together this 15 representation, and I am referring to Exhibit 5-M, you only 16 utilized two samplings to produce this information over the 17 1987 to 1989 period? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, is that true with regard to the 20 5,600 milligrams per liter as well? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That is true. That represents a few more 22 wells because we had wells installed all the way down to 90 23 feet. There were wells installed at 30 feet, 40 feet and 50 24 feet. And, again, it was four-well clusters. So it would 25 have been reflectable of, probably, about 12 wells. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7750 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Again, two samplings? 2 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: If you look in the lower right-hand 4 portion of Exhibit 5-M, you see 5,980 and 5,830? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Are those two figures derived in the 7 same way with basically two samples from clusters of wells? 8 DR. DEVEREL: No. Those were derived from a number of 9 samples from the drainage laterals. We sampled these two 10 drainage laterals, which are six feet and nine feet. I am 11 pointing to the circles on the bottom graph right now which 12 represent drainage laterals. Those were sampled over the 13 two-year period, I want to say, about a hundred times each. 14 So it was reflective of a lot more samples. We tried to 15 sample those at varying intervals, to look at what was going 16 on during irrigation events and inbetween irrigation 17 events. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Going up now on the right-hand side of 19 5-M, the concentration of 6,040 and 5,900 milligrams per 20 liter respectively, were those samples gathered in the same 21 way as the 5,980 and 5, 830? 22 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. I should correct to say 23 that these two sets of numbers are reflective of 24 approximately 100 samples. This would be samples that were 25 collected during the irrigated period, and these would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7751 1 reflective of samples that were collected during the 2 nonirrigated period. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: If we compare the 5,980 to the 6,040, 4 would you agree that the difference between those two 5 numbers is fairly small in terms of percentage of the total 6 milligrams per liter? 7 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. It's a small difference. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: The same would be true with regard to a 9 comparison of the 5,830 milligram per liter and the 5,900? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, as a scientist, do you view that 12 small difference to be something that can be relied on in 13 terms of a project of this number of replications and degree 14 of measurement? 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: I think a little ambiguous. Relied on 17 for what, for instance? 18 MR. NOMELLINI: How about for the State Water Resources 19 Control Board proceedings? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: That is less ambiguous. But you want to 21 -- is that your question? 22 MR. NOMELLINI: If he understands it. I mean -- 23 C.O. CAFFREY: With that refinement? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: I don't know. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: With that refinement I think it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7752 1 still ambiguous. Maybe a question might be whether or not 2 in his view as a scientist are these differences 3 statistically significant. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: We all have our method of 5 cross-examination. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I certainly know that, Mr. Nomellini, 7 and yours is sui generis. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: I didn't hear the critique. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't understand it. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Was it French? 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Latin. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: The only Latin I know is the entire 13 mass. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: If we have to use a different language, 15 it must have been a derogatory comment. 16 As a scientist, do you view these differences as being 17 significant? And I am talking about the differences in the 18 two sets of numbers. 19 DR. DEVEREL: I haven't done a statistical analysis on 20 this to evaluate the -- to evaluate the entire population of 21 samples. And I don't know if they are statistically 22 different. 23 I would say, given that these were based on electrical 24 conductivity measurement, electrical conductivity 25 measurement error is about 5 percent. I know we were doing CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7753 1 that well in the field. My initial reaction would be that 2 they are significant. 3 It might be helpful to point out the main reason for 4 presenting this data is not so much the changes in 5 concentration, but the changes in load that result from 6 these two regimes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: I was going to get to that. So the 8 error in the electrical conductivity measurements you think 9 is about 5 percent? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any other errors that enter 12 into this sampling process that you know of? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Maybe you could be a little more 14 specific. What kind of errors are you thinking of? 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Are all the samples taken at the same 16 time? 17 DR. DEVEREL: The drainage lateral concentrations were 18 taken, as I mentioned, at different time intervals. So, 19 certainly, there would be variability there. Perhaps I have 20 to sort out the error in this case. 21 There is a measurement error and variability due to 22 just changing hydrologic conditions. I would say the 23 measurement error is within 5 percent. The numbers here 24 will vary, depending on what time of the year we took the 25 sample or whether it was during an irrigation event or not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7754 1 MR. NOMELLINI: The timing in terms of the chronology 2 of the sampling is what I was referencing. Were they taken 3 on the same day, both the bottom part as well as the top 4 part? 5 DR. DEVEREL: No. They were taken during two different 6 time periods. You might remember from yesterday we had data 7 collected from 1987 through 1989. During water year 1988, 8 is when -- these averages are reflected of that time 9 period. These two numbers are reflective of an irrigated 10 period, which was before and after 1988. 11 So, the answer to your question is, no, they weren't 12 collected during the same time period. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the bottom part, I think 14 that is a zero recharge test? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And where, in general, is the location 17 of that particular site? 18 DR. DEVEREL: This site is in Broadview Water District 19 just south of the boundary with Firebaugh Canal Water 20 District, just along the third lift canal. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Exhibit 4-G. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you point out where on 4-G? Is 23 that Exchange Contractor Exhibit or -- 24 MR. MINASIAN: Yes, Exchange Contractor 4-G. 25 DR. DEVEREL: I am pointing to this area. That is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7755 1 where our field was right there. Just south of the third 2 lift canal, which is this line, here which delineates the 3 boundary of Firebaugh Canal Water District from Broadview 4 Water District. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you read the section number. 6 DR. DEVEREL: No, I can't. Section 25, I believe. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: 25 within the Firebaugh Canal Water 8 District? 9 DR. DEVEREL: No. Section 25 within Broadview Water 10 District right in this corner. 11 MR. WHITE: Section 35. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: 35? 13 Right above the word -- above "d" in Broadview. 14 MR. WHITE: Section 35, Township 12, South Range 14 15 East. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Not bad, huh, Tom? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Can't do better than that. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Wait a minute. What about the top 19 experiment, Exhibit 5-M? The 5-M would be the recharge 20 experiment. Let's go back to the map, if we could. 21 Paul, I know you are going to punish me for all this 22 good service. 23 Let's go back to the map. 24 With regard to the recharge part of the experiment, 25 where was that conducted? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7756 1 DR. DEVEREL: It was the same field. Both of these 2 cross-sections are from that experiment, the same experiment 3 in that same field. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: That is in Section 35? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the top experiment, 7 which is called the recharge experiment, could you describe 8 what was actually taking place on the property during the 9 course of that experiment? 10 DR. DEVEREL: During the 1987 period and 1989 period, 11 the property was being irrigated. So that was considered 12 our recharge portion of that time period in which we -- I 13 should say irrigated portion of the time period that we 14 observed the field. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: How big of a field was it? 16 DR. DEVEREL: Twenty-seven acres. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what crop was planted on 18 the field? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Cotton. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: That was for two years, crop years, 21 involved in this study period? 22 DR. DEVEREL: There are the entire -- 23 MR. MINASIAN: 5-R. 24 DR. DEVEREL: This is Exhibit 5-R. So, we started the 25 experiment in January of 1987. During this period, it was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7757 1 irrigated crop to cotton. Then we continued it on in 1988. 2 There was no crop grown during this water year. Then in 3 1989 cotton was again planted, although not until here. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Not until May of '89? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Right. So, basically, what we had here 6 was two preirrigations, and then we just continued the 7 measurements in June of 1989. So, basically, we had one 8 crop year that we observed. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Again, site one is the recharge 10 experiment shown on Exhibit 5-M; is that correct? 11 DR. DEVEREL: I am sorry, say that again. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Site one is reflected on Exhibit 5-R, 13 is representative of the experiment listed as recharge on 14 Exhibit 5-M? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Yeah. The time period on 5-M would be 16 representative of samples collected during this time period 17 in 1987, as well as this time period during 1989. The 18 cross-section that delineates no recharge would be 19 reflective of this period of time. Both these sites are 20 from the same field. They just illustrate hydrologic 21 conditions at different points in the field. This happens 22 to be a site next to the nine-foot lateral. This happens to 23 be a site just at the edge of the field. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: So the numbers that we saw on Exhibit 25 5-M average the two sites as well as the various samplings? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7758 1 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. They average these two 2 sites plus two others that we had in the field. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: You a statistician? 4 DR. DEVEREL: I wouldn't classify myself as a 5 statistician. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to site four, was a crop 7 planted at site four during the period of the experiment, 8 1987 to '89? 9 DR. DEVEREL: There was a cotton crop planted during 10 this period, from May through September at site four. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Of '87? 12 DR. DEVEREL: 1987. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: No crop in '88? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Right. And then there was a crop planted 15 here in May of 1989. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: So, site one and site four were planted 17 in the same way? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: These other two sites that you don't 20 show on an exhibit, those were used in the averages 21 reflected on Exhibit 5-M? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Where were they? 24 DR. DEVEREL: They were at other locations in the 25 field. It was this site next to the drain and in-between CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7759 1 the drains which would be within about 30 feet of this site 2 with another site. And we had a fourth site that was also 3 in-between two of the drains. I would have to get a site 4 map to tell you exactly where those sites are. Probably, 5 suffice it to say, all the sites were within about 500 feet 6 of each other. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go back to Exhibit 5-M, if we 8 could. Let's take a look at the loads reflected on that 9 exhibit, and let's compare the load at the nine-foot 10 lateral. It's 307 for the recharge test and 268 for the 11 zero recharge. Is that correct? 12 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you view those differences, the 14 difference in that loading, as significant? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the loading at the 17 six-foot lateral, and we compare the 60 kilograms per year 18 per meter -- is that what that is? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right; 60 kilograms per year per 20 meter of drain. So we divided the -- because this is a 21 cross-sectional model, we just normalized it per meter of 22 drain. So the drain lateral is about, as I recall, about 23 1200 feet long. So to get the entire load coming off the 24 drain, you would have to multiply that number by the length 25 of the drain lateral. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7760 1 MR. NOMELLINI: That is in comparison to 24 kilograms 2 per year per -- 3 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: -- meter? 5 Do you view that difference as significant? 6 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, given that we are going to take 8 all the water away from Westlands Water District based on 9 this experiment, are there any other experiments that you 10 think we ought to conduct before we reach this conclusion? 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Define "we." 13 MR. NOMELLINI: It's a hypothetical. In fact, I will 14 change that. Assuming that we take all the water away from 15 the San Luis unit, based on this evidence because they were 16 supposed to have a drain, are there any other studies that 17 should be conducted to verify this relationship between 18 water and discharge load? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: On what ground, Mr. Birmingham? 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On the grounds that the question is an 22 improper hypothetical. It states a legal conclusion. And I 23 suppose if Mr. Nomellini wants to ask Dr. Deverel a 24 hypothetical question about what would happen in particular 25 circumstances, he is free to do that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7761 1 I also think he needs to state a few more particulars 2 with respect to the hypothetical in order for it to be 3 answerable. I will object to it on the grounds that it is 4 based upon a legal conclusion and that it is ambiguous and 5 incomplete. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Deverel, do you have the ability to 7 answer the question, or do you agree with the objection? 8 DR. DEVEREL: Let me possibly rephrase it as I 9 understand it. If he is asking me, I think, what other 10 evidence there might be to support this hypothesis? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that what you are asking? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Not really. I was trying to impart the 13 seriousness -- 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Then let the record show that the Chair 15 accepts the answer of the witness being he didn't understand 16 the question. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's rephrase the hypothetical. 18 Assuming that very serious consequences would lead from the 19 general hypothesis, which you have put forth, and assuming 20 that that general hypothesis is in some way based upon the 21 experimentation reflected in Exhibit 5-M, as a scientist and 22 an expert, are there any other experiments that you think 23 should be conducted with regard to this hypothesis prior to 24 rendering serious decision making, based on such a 25 hypothesis? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7762 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 2 Maybe Dr. Deverel has some understanding of what Mr. 3 Nomellini means. I, sitting here, have no clue as to what 4 he means by "serious consequences." What other experiments 5 would be required for what purpose? The question is 6 ambiguous. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: I tend to think that the question also 8 is ambiguous. Mr. Deverel, do you -- 9 DR. DEVEREL: That would have been my question, what 10 are the serious consequences that he is -- 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you break it down a little more? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's assume that taking the water away 13 from the San Luis unit would be a serious consequence. 14 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Now with regard to that, is there any 16 other experiment that you would like to see conducted before 17 decision making was made at that level of seriousness? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for a conclusion 19 which this expert is not qualified to make. Mr. Nomellini 20 is asking him a question that is premised on legal theories 21 which Dr. Deverel is not qualified to express an opinion 22 on. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Dr. Deverel, I need to inform you that 24 there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you do 25 not have the expertise to answer a particular question. You CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7763 1 do not have to attempt to improve the question or assist the 2 questioner. And it is a perfectly appropriate answer for 3 you to state that it is beyond your level of expertise. I 4 would just give you a guidance at this point with that 5 objection on the record. So, feel free, sir, to answer 6 whichever way you feel is best. 7 DR. DEVEREL: Yeah. I have a tough time answering that 8 question. I don't feel like I'm qualified to answer the way 9 it is phrased. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: As a scientist and with establishing 11 support for the hypothesis that less water will result in 12 less load of salts, are there any other experiments that you 13 think you would like to see conducted with regard to 14 verification of this hypothesis? 15 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking if, from a scientific 16 standpoint -- I am just trying to make sure I understand the 17 question. From a scientific standpoint if there are other 18 experiments that ought to be done to try to verify the 19 hypothesis that I put forward here? 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Correct. 21 DR. DEVEREL: I think that from a scientific standpoint 22 more data is always better. There are other experiments in 23 other fields. This is one field. Certainly, extending this 24 type of analysis to other fields would be beneficial in 25 either verifying or not verifying what I have stated. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7764 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Does it make any difference to you how 2 the water enters the field in reaching the conclusions for 3 this hypothesis? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Could you specify, make that -- 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Should we focus on water applied by the 6 farmer? 7 DR. DEVEREL: In terms of -- what do you mean "focus 8 on"? Relative to what? 9 MR. NOMELLINI: As I understand your testimony, it has 10 put forth a general hypothesis that water, I am going to use 11 the words, "applied to land," if reduced, would help resolve 12 the drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley as well as 13 the salinity problem in the San Joaquin River. Is that a 14 fair statement of your hypothesis? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That is a fair statement over the short 16 term. That's right. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Now -- 18 MEMBER BROWN: Clarification, Mr. Chairman. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 20 MEMBER BROWN: Water, reduction of water you are 21 speaking to. I am asking about the question. Reduction of 22 water that you are addressing is the water that is applied 23 for irrigation purposes? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: That is what I wanted to separate. 25 Water comes from rain. It is on the soil. Water comes from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7765 1 seepage from adjoining land. I think the record is fairly 2 clear, upslope or downslope. And I wanted to know whether 3 it made any difference in this hypothesis. 4 MEMBER BROWN: Are you separating the two, rainwater, 5 flood water, surface runoff as opposed to -- 6 MR. NOMELLINI: As opposed to applied water from the 7 farm. 8 MEMBER BROWN: Applied water. So the reduction in 9 applied water improves -- the question is it improves the 10 water quality of the San Joaquin? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: I wanted to know whether it was 12 important to him. 13 MEMBER BROWN: That is the question, though? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Where the water came from. 15 MEMBER BROWN: I want to know if you're talking about 16 water applied to the farm or water in general. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: That is what I want to know. 18 MEMBER BROWN: I want to know the question. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: I think, if I may clarify, I think this 20 is a semantical problem. You are about to ask that 21 question. If I understand it, it is a little confusing. 22 You are going to ask him which of those various sources of 23 water might make a difference to him? Is that what we are 24 about? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: I want to know -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7766 1 C.O. CAFFREY: If any of them do. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: If any of them do, right. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: While we all contemplate that, ruminate 4 on it, why don't we take a break and eat some cake and come 5 back in about 12 minutes. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: And Mr. Stubchaer can ask the perfect 7 question when we come back. 8 (Break taken.) 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's try about another hour, if we 10 can. 11 I want to announce that approaching the goodies table 12 is not only allowed during this proceeding, but it is 13 recommended. And also, Mr. Johnston remarked -- I hope 14 maybe I wasn't going to steal Mr. Birmingham's thunder. Mr. 15 Johnston remarked during the break to me that we ought to 16 mark that cake as an exhibit, is the best handout we have 17 had since this proceeding started. That was a very astute 18 observation. The only problem is that sometime in the 19 future it will not exist. 20 Anyway, Mr. Birmingham, did you have something you 21 wanted to add? 22 Mr. Nomellini, please proceed, sir. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. We were at the point where 24 I was trying to phrase an appropriate question with regard 25 to water that enters the soil profile. And maybe the best CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7767 1 way to do it is to ask you, Mr. Deverel, first to describe 2 your understanding of the ways in which water could enter 3 the soil profile. 4 DR. DEVEREL: There is really only two ways. Either 5 water is applied as irrigation water or -- well, you can 6 enter from the top by applied irrigation water or rainfall 7 or you can enter from the bottom as a rising water table. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me try and dissect a little bit. 9 One way that water can enter the soil profile would be by 10 water applied for irrigation purposes; is that correct? 11 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: And we established or we would agree, 13 or you would agree, wouldn't you, that rainfall could also 14 fall on the soil and enter the soil? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Certainly, could be flood flows that 16 could wash over a field, infiltrate into the soil, also. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Then there could be seepage from 18 adjoining farmland? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Well, then you have to define the soil 20 profile. My definition it would be the unsaturated zone 21 where the crop is grown. Typically, you don't have lateral 22 movement in the unsaturated zone. So that would not be 23 water typically that would enter the soil profile and would 24 move in the saturated zone or groundwater across 25 boundaries. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7768 1 MR. NOMELLINI: So, when we talk about your hypothesis 2 of water in the soil profile, it is your testimony that the 3 focus is on the unsaturated zone; is that correct? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Focus of what? 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Of the hypothesis, assuming we were 6 going to apply the hypothesis in some way. Shouldn't we 7 look at the various sources of water that enter into the 8 area of this hypothesis? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Certainly, all those sources are 10 important to some extent. And we try to look at those in 11 the experiments that we have done or at least what we 12 consider to be the major sources; that is, applied 13 irrigation water and there are upslope pressures that result 14 from regional flows. Try to examine those, too. Those 15 aren't unsaturated flows. Those are saturated flows. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do those flows, the flows from upslope 17 sources, enter into the areas of your hypothesis such that 18 there should be concern with regard to the amount of such 19 flow? 20 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, they do. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: And you didn't like my characterization 22 as seepage, correct? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Well, I don't know if I like it; it's not 24 right. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: We'll see how right that is when we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7769 1 start talking about the Delta in a few minutes. But with 2 regard to the Broadview Water District test area, seepage is 3 not the right term. That is your testimony? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Well, seepage -- I will define seepage 5 the way I interpret it. That is it is water flowing in the 6 saturated zone. That can be to a drain. It can be 7 underneath a structure. Seepage is just groundwater flow, 8 the way I understand it. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. We have gone through applied 10 water for irrigation, rain water and flood flows with some 11 degree of comfort. 12 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of other contributions of 14 water to the soil profile that your hypothesis is concerned 15 about, what other sources can you identify? 16 DR. DEVEREL: Of water to the soil profile, this is the 17 unsaturated zone. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: You want to stay with the unsaturated 19 zone with regard to your theory? 20 DR. DEVEREL: That is what you said; you said "soil 21 profile," which means unsaturated zone. The actual focus of 22 my work was primarily the saturated zone. We looked at what 23 was coming through the unsaturated zone in terms of trying 24 to calculate a recharge rate and what water was reaching the 25 groundwater table. The focus was looking at saturated flow CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7770 1 to drains. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of your hypothesis, then, we 3 should look at both the unsaturated zone and the saturated 4 zone to the extent that they could contribute the flow to 5 drains? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: What I want to do is see if we can 8 identify the sources of water that contribute to water in 9 that zone. And I would like to pick the term that we can 10 work with as definition. Soil profile isn't accurate. 11 Unsaturated zone isn't accurate. Saturated is not 12 accurate. And how about hypothesis area? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. Hypothesis zone. Make it three 14 dimensional. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Hypothesis zone. If I say it more than 16 twice, I won't be able to repeat it because my tongue will 17 swell. 18 With regard to sources of water to the hypothesis zone, 19 we have identified applied water for irrigation; is that 20 correct? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Uh-huh. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Rain water? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Flood flows? 25 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7771 1 MR. NOMELLINI: And I think we have identified flows 2 from upslope areas; is that correct? 3 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any other that you would like 5 to identify? 6 DR. DEVEREL: I can't think of any. 7 MR. WHITE: Mr. Nomellini, there would be other 8 contributions from -- it would be rainfall-related, but it 9 would be from natural streams such as the creeks and such in 10 the area. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: You want to use the term "seepage"? 12 MR. WHITE: Not sure about the term "seepage" as it 13 relates to that. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Contributions from stream flow? 15 MR. WHITE: Recharge from streams. The larger channels 16 that are identified on several of the maps. Some of the 17 other creeks that flow that aren't named, but tend to flow 18 during heavy rainfall events or heavy rainfall years. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Deverel, are you willing to accept 20 your compatriot's addition? 21 DR. DEVEREL: I am. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: What about artesian flows? You know, 23 either one of the two of you used the word "artesian" 24 somewhere along the road. Are those different than what we 25 have categorized so far? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7772 1 DR. DEVEREL: They would come under the same 2 classification as flows that are the result of upslope 3 pressures. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Unless there is a great giant beneath 5 the surface of the earth that is pushing water upward from 6 some lower source? 7 DR. DEVEREL: I didn't get that in my hydrology class. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: No metaphysics allowed. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: We have been working on that for quite 10 a while. 11 Would you agree that the artesian effects can't be 12 controlled? 13 DR. DEVEREL: By whom? 14 MR. NOMELLINI: By the farm manager. 15 DR. DEVEREL: I would agree that on an individual piece 16 of land those cannot be managed by the farmer. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Without extraordinary means? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: In your hypothesis you're suggesting 20 the possibility of some management effort, are you? 21 DR. DEVEREL: My hypothesis -- well, that's true, that 22 what we are saying is that if you reduce drain flows you 23 reduce loads. That implies that if you -- well, that is as 24 far as I'll go. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you or are you not suggesting some CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7773 1 type of management action to implement the hypothesis? 2 DR. DEVEREL: I'm really not. I haven't talked about 3 management. I tried to lay out the data and what it shows, 4 and it shows that reducing flows, reducing loads. I am not 5 really advocating any management division. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: As a scientist, you are putting this 7 information out to this group so we can fight over it, see 8 what we should do with it? 9 I think you answered that. That's good enough, unless 10 you want to add to it. 11 DR. DEVEREL: No, I don't. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of manageable aspects of the 13 water contribution to the hypothesis zone, we would strike 14 out artesian as one that is not reasonably manageable? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the contribution from 17 stream flow, would you find that to fit within reasonably 18 manageable? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Not by an individual grower, no. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: How about if the grower was 21 Birmingham's client? 22 DR. DEVEREL: No, I don't think so. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: How about flows from upslope areas? 24 Are there steps that can be taken to manage those flows, in 25 your opinion? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7774 1 DR. DEVEREL: In general, no. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me give you a test on that. 3 How about if the upstream flow comes from the 4 overapplication of water by a farmer on land upslope to the 5 particular land we are concerned with? Using 6 overapplication as implying some excessive use of water. 7 DR. DEVEREL: My understanding of your question was 8 that we were talking about an individual field that was 9 influenced by upslope irrigation, and you were referring to 10 the management options that were available to that 11 particular grower. 12 He wouldn't necessarily have control over excessive 13 application that was going on upslope of his field, unless 14 he was the same owner. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to a more regional approach 16 to this, would you agree that the flow from upslope areas 17 into the hypothesis zone on a particular farm could, over a 18 reasonably long period of time, be subject to some 19 management? 20 DR. DEVEREL: On a regional scale it could be subject 21 to some management. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree if such management was 23 not done on a regional scale, then the farmer on the low end 24 of the system gets the opportunity to do all this special 25 management to implement the hypothesis that you have put CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7775 1 forth? 2 DR. DEVEREL: I am unclear about what you are asking. 3 Would you rephrase the question? 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's come back to that question. 5 Let's go to flood flows. 6 Do such flood flow contributions to the hypothesis zone 7 fall in the category that you think can be managed? 8 DR. DEVEREL: No. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: What about with regard to rainwater 10 DR. DEVEREL: No. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: And what about applied water for 12 irrigation? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: We have one strong yes and one fuzzy 15 no. Let's go back to the fuzzy no. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Argumentative. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I certainly agree with that. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: I retract the word "fuzzy." 19 C.O. CAFFREY: We don't need judgments to the firmness 20 or quality of the answer. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: How about one unclear no? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: No. You can go back to the question 23 without making judgment as to the sincerity. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: I wasn't questioning the sincerity. I 25 was questioning the clarity of it. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7776 1 The area that I am speaking of is whether or not the 2 flows from upslope areas fall in the category of manageable 3 on a regional area. I didn't think we got -- I wasn't 4 really trying to characterize. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it would have been perfectly 6 appropriate for you to have said, Mr. Nomellini, "I didn't 7 completely understand your answer on such a such and let me 8 ask for more detail," or something like that. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: I will adopt the Chairman's lead into 10 this particular question because I think it best reflects 11 what I was trying to get across. 12 With regard to the flow contribution from upslope areas 13 and whether or not they could be managed on a regional basis 14 over a reasonable period of time, with regard to the 15 hypothesis zone, is it your testimony that they do not fall 16 within the category of being subject to reasonable 17 management? 18 DR. DEVEREL: It is my testimony that they wouldn't be 19 subject to reasonable management by the owner of a 20 particular piece of land that was downslope of the upslope 21 areas that you are referring to. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that because he doesn't control that 23 particular practice? 24 DR. DEVEREL: That would be assuming that he had no 25 control over what was going on upslope. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7777 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's assume that the flows from 2 upslope areas fall in the category of not to be managed. 3 Would you agree, then, that the result of the hypothesis 4 that you have put forth will fall, if there is any 5 management associated with it, will fall upon the 6 low-landowner? 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Did you understand the question, Mr. 9 Deverel? 10 DR. DEVEREL: No. I was going to ask you to rephrase 11 it. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Will you rephrase. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Low-land farmer? 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I was talking over you. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I said low-land farmer instead of 16 low-landowner. Whether that helps clarify it or not. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't know if that was the point of 18 ambiguity. 19 Does that clarify it at all for you, Mr. Deverel? 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The point of my objection, he talks 21 about the result of the hypothesis. I am not sure that we 22 have identified any result of any hypothesis. So, to that 23 extent, it is ambiguous and assumes a fact which I don't 24 believe is in evidence. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: I tried to add to it, management with CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7778 1 regard to the hypothesis. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Why don't you try and restate the 3 question, taking into mind the objection and also taking 4 into mind the fact that the witness said he was having 5 trouble understanding it. Maybe we can get something he can 6 answer. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Assuming some management effort would 8 follow the application of your hypothesis, do you have any 9 opinion as to who that burden would fall upon? I am 10 assuming the management is the burden. 11 DR. DEVEREL: Given that we've narrowed the possibility 12 for management at the individual field level to management 13 of irrigation water, the hypothesis that I stated, which is 14 that flows, increasing flows, increase loads; the less 15 irrigation water that is applied, the lower the load would 16 be coming off the field, in general. There is some -- 17 I will stop there. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that it is the low-land 19 applier of water who is the only one that falls within the 20 category of being reasonably able to manage the water that 21 enters into the hypothesis zone? 22 DR. DEVEREL: No. I would say that the grower himself 23 could implement certain things to reduce the application of 24 irrigation water that would reduce recharge to the saturated 25 zone, which would, in turn, reduce drain loads. But there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7779 1 is a component of flow, as we have talked about, that is not 2 manageable by that grower that influences flows and loads to 3 the drain that he has no control over. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Forster has a question. 5 MEMBER FORSTER: Who has control? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Of what? 7 MEMBER FORSTER: You just said -- you are just giving 8 an example. You just said that what a farmer can and cannot 9 do. You said there are some flows that are under his 10 control. Whose control is it under? 11 DR. DEVEREL: I don't think there is any one particular 12 entity that you can ascribe that control to. Certainly, the 13 activities that go on up gradient of this particular field, 14 this hypothetical field, are in some form responsible for 15 those flows that enter that field and the drain flow that 16 results from that field. It is a regional issue. You 17 couldn't pinpoint one management entity at this point, I 18 don't think, given the hypothetical nature of the question. 19 MEMBER FORSTER: I got lost in the hypothetical. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: I will defer to you any day. 21 I have put up on the screen a map which, if Mr. 22 Minasian can tell me -- 23 MR. MINASIAN: 4-F. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: 4-F. With regard to that, Exhibit 4-F, 25 Mr. Deverel, do you have any opinion as to which lands shown CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7780 1 on 4-F management of the water to the hypothesis zone would 2 be reasonable? 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. I believe that this is 4 Exhibit 4-G, as opposed to 4-F. 5 MR. MINASIAN: You're correct. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Minasian was probably referring to 8 Mr. Nomellini's draft classification during the war. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: You don't know mine. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Now, gentlemen. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: I did serve in the military. 12 Unfortunately, I was not 4-F. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: We won't ask which war he is referring 14 to. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I am not suggesting I went to war. I 16 just am telling you I served. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Go ahead. 18 DR. DEVEREL: So, your question is, or you're asking 19 me, to point out lands where there are management options by 20 owners of those parcels of land; is that your question? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm going to give you a hypothetical 22 again. 23 Let's assume that we take the hypothesis, and we want 24 to implement some management with regard to this 25 hypothesis. I had erroneously concluded, I think, that your CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7781 1 testimony led to the management burden falling only on the 2 low-land farmer or irrigator. And what I am hoping for is 3 clarification by asking you to go to the Exhibit 4-G and 4 show us, since you've done studies in this area, the aerial 5 extent, if you can, in which management of applied water 6 would affect the water in the hypothesis zone? 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do I understand Mr. Nomellini's 8 question to refer to the hypothesis zone as being that 9 portion of Section 35 in which Dr. Deverel conducted his 10 studies? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: No. Hypothesis zone was defined as 12 that area of saturated and unsaturated soils that 13 contributes to drainage through the drainage system. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that your understanding of what is 15 meant by hypothesis zone or -- 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's my understanding. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: -- which was later modified to be the 18 hypothesis zone? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's my understanding. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to that definition and that 21 question, can you show us on 4-G what areas would fall into 22 the aerial extent of management opportunities? 23 DR. DEVEREL: To define -- let me define two areas. 24 There is a general definition of areas that are subject or 25 have drainage systems on this map, and that includes CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7782 1 approximately 26 percent of Firebaugh Canal Water District. 2 It is my understanding that most of Broadview Water District 3 has a drainage system. Part of Panoche Water District has 4 drainage systems. Camp 13 has some drainage systems; 20 5 percent of Camp 13 has drainage systems. 6 So that would represent areas where there are drainage 7 systems. So areas upslope of those areas, principally in 8 these areas here, pointing out Panoche Water District and 9 parts of Westlands Water District, are part of this same 10 region whereby there are potentials for or there are upslope 11 pressures on downslope drainage systems and also contribute 12 to the need for drainage in downslope areas. Thus 13 representing, also, part of the region that would be 14 possibly manageable in terms of trying to reduce drain flows 15 in downslope areas. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini, excuse me, I am going to 17 interrupt you for some general discussion about scheduling. 18 Let me, first, ask you how much more time you feel you 19 are going to need for cross-examination. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Depends on what Birmingham does, but 21 possibly an hour. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me tell you what Mr. Stubchaer's and 23 my intentions are. We have only two days -- we have 20 24 minutes left today and we have two days left this year. It 25 is our hope and intention to finish Phase V next week. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7783 1 So, with that in mind, I want to ask all the parties to 2 be crisp in their questioning and the witnesses to be crisp 3 in their answers. We will go into night sessions if we have 4 to. We just like the symmetry of finishing Phase V in this 5 calendar year, for one thing, and the symmetry of making the 6 change of Hearing Officers commensurate with the change of 7 phases. So, we think that is important. 8 Just want to let you all know that. So anything you 9 can all do -- we don't want to stifle anybody. Anything you 10 can do to streamline your questioning and your answering, 11 this goes to all the parties, will be appreciated by the 12 Board and also by all of you, so you don't hopefully have to 13 be sitting here through a couple long evening sessions. 14 And the other thing that is important to announce is we 15 also have no intention of beginning II-A, Phase II-A, 16 obviously, in this calendar year. For those of you that may 17 be wondering and have to do a lot of planning around other 18 cases and other activities, we thought that it would be 19 courteous of us, at least, to tell you that. So, Phase II-A 20 will probably begin on -- 21 Is it January 7th? 22 MS. LEIDIGH: 11th. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: January 11th is the first hearing day 24 scheduled in 1999. That is when we would, if all goes well, 25 according to Mr. Stubchaer's and my plans, that is when we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7784 1 -- shouldn't say we -- when you all will be starting Phase 2 II-A. 3 With that little interruption, you can go back to your 4 cross-examination, Mr. Nomellini, unless anybody has any 5 questions with regard to that little interlude we just had. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for leave of 7 everybody. Mr. White needs to be at a meeting Wednesday. 8 So could you prepare over the weekend to ask Mr. White 9 whatever questions you have on Tuesday and perhaps we will 10 find a block of time and rapidly go through him with all the 11 cross-examiners. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. Your request is on the 13 record. 14 Thank you, sir. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I haven't examined the whole record, 16 but my paranoia leads me to believe that every time you give 17 one of those speeches it happens to be when I am in the 18 middle of cross-examining. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Let me just say that I do not believe 20 that you hold the record for the shortest 21 cross-examination. Having said that, there was no prejudice 22 intended towards your past performance. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: I couldn't tell where you were looking. 24 I thought you were probably looking at me, but you were 25 probably looking at Birmingham. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7785 1 C.O. CAFFREY: No. But at the same time, if you can 2 streamline your questioning, Mr. Nomellini, that is 3 helpful. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Streamlining the question, Mr. Deverel, 5 would you agree that your testimony with regard to 6 identifying the areas that would be subject to management 7 with regard to water in the hypothesis zone in response to 8 the last question now include what we'd call upslope areas? 9 DR. DEVEREL: I would agree with that. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, let's go to some of your testimony 11 pertaining to the Delta. 12 Do you consider yourself an expert on soil -- salinity 13 in the Delta? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you consider yourself an expert in 16 regard to the quality of drainage water in the Delta? 17 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in your testimony you showed some 19 data on Exhibit 5-G. On the screen is Exhibit 5-G of the 20 Exchange Contractors. Now, did you prepare the data 21 representations as reflected on 5-G? 22 DR. DEVEREL: I did. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Focusing on the data in the upper 24 left-hand corner, which is titled, "Orwood Tract Loads and 25 Flows, 1990 to 1991, 18 A Field" -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7786 1 DR. DEVEREL: 18 Acre field. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell me what -- let's take 3 the first dot at the lower left-hand corner of that chart. 4 What information is represented by that particular point on 5 the graph? 6 DR. DEVEREL: It represents a point in time where we 7 measured drain flow coming off this field and also measured 8 the electrical conductivity of that drain flow at the same 9 time. As you can see, where low flow added a low salt load, 10 also. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that an instantaneous measurement on 12 a particular day? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, instantaneous measurement. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: It represents one sample? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not the field 17 was -- Strike that. 18 Do you know what time of the year that was? 19 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know offhand. It was -- no, I 20 don't. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a data set associated with 22 these graphs that you did not include that could be provided 23 to us? 24 DR. DEVEREL: That could be provided. This was part of 25 a data set that I collected with other USGS personnel during CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7787 1 this time frame. It hasn't -- part of it hasn't been 2 published; not all of it has been published. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: This is streamlined, Mr. Chairman. You 4 may not see it as streamlined. 5 So, you don't know offhand what type of year that that 6 particular sample was taken in? 7 DR. DEVEREL: These -- that particular sample, no, I 8 don't. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying on that same graph and going to 10 the next point -- 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I am sorry, Mr. Nomellini. I have to 12 admit I am still -- the reason I am smiling up here and 13 having trouble, I am still having some difficulty recovering 14 from the 4-F remark. That just struck me as very funny. 15 My compliments to Mr. Birmingham. One of the more 16 humorous remarks during the proceeding. 17 I am sorry, go ahead. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: That is quite all right. 19 The second dot. 20 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. I would have to go back 21 and look at my records to know what the dates of those 22 samplings were. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the same be true of all the 24 particular dots on all the charts on these four graphs shown 25 on Exhibit 5-G? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7788 1 DR. DEVEREL: The exact dates of each one of these 2 points? 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Not the exact dates, the general time 4 of the year. 5 DR. DEVEREL: Well, the general time of the year for 6 the Sherman and Orwood data encompassed all four seasons. 7 So those data were collected at different points of time in 8 the year when we found drain flow that we could measure out 9 there, when we were out there in the field. We were out 10 there almost every month. That represents the different 11 seasons. 12 The Twitchell Island data represents, primarily, fall 13 and winter flows. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that most of the salts 15 move out of the fields and through the drains on Orwood 16 Tract and Twitchell Island during periods of relatively high 17 rainfall? 18 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I would agree that the highest loads 19 are during the wettest months of the year. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that they are the 21 result of the increased water entering the hypothesis zone 22 from rainfall? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Not necessarily. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you explain that. 25 DR. DEVEREL: There is a lot of water that enters what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7789 1 we're calling the hypothesis zone, which has now moved into 2 the Delta from irrigation water, certainly more than has 3 moved into the hypothesis zone by rainfall in the Delta, for 4 the most part. At least that is my understanding. 5 So, the load that we see in the drain is a result of 6 those two factors. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that once the soil 8 profile becomes saturated, then it is the rainfall that 9 generally releases or removes the salts from the fields? 10 DR. DEVEREL: I can't answer that, just exactly how the 11 salts are released from the soils in the Delta. I would say 12 that there is also release during irrigation periods. The 13 actual proportion of those two sources of water in terms of 14 releasing salts, I haven't calculated. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to some statements in your 16 testimony about salts from oxidation of peat soils, do you 17 recall that? 18 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you recall also concluding that 20 drainage water is more salty in the south -- let me read you 21 the line. 22 In the Central Delta the quality of the 23 drainage water is generally better than in 24 the South Delta area. (Reading.) 25 Do you agree with that statement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7790 1 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you also agree that there is more 3 peat soil in the Central Delta than there is in the South 4 Delta? 5 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you had concluded at some point in 7 your testimony, did you not, that for the Delta the water 8 beneath the ground is saltier as you go down with depth; is 9 that your testimony? 10 DR. DEVEREL: I didn't generalize that to the entire 11 Delta. As a matter of fact, when I did testify to that 12 fact, my main point was that there are a number of locations 13 where measurements have been taken where there is upward 14 flow to drain ditches in the Delta. The quality can 15 increase or decrease with that. Both those situations have 16 been observed. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So, in some cases the water quality is 18 better? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: As you go down? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: So that any upwalling of water would be 23 an improvement in terms of drainage load rather than a 24 detriment? 25 DR. DEVEREL: It depends on how things flow through the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7791 1 drain and what portion of that subsurface water flows 2 through the drain, but the quality -- I will say that. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's assume that some of this 4 upflowing of good quality water from the ground enters the 5 drain, and you would agree there are some circumstances 6 where that is the case in the Delta? 7 DR. DEVEREL: That is universally the case. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: It is more the case than the contrary? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, assuming that is the case, would 11 it not be true that increasing the water entering the 12 hypothesis zone would improve the situation with regard to 13 salt loading coming from the drains? 14 DR. DEVEREL: That doesn't follow from one point to the 15 other, in what you are saying. Again, it depends on how 16 that water flows to the drain and in what proportions. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You agree that we can -- I'm meditating 18 to get the right question, Mr. Stubchaer. I was looking at 19 the fifth slat from the edge. 20 You would agree, would you not, that increasing the 21 amount of distilled water in a vial which contains a quart 22 of 500 parts per million TDS water would, in fact, dilute 23 the concentration of the salt, would it not? 24 DR. DEVEREL: I agree with that. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: And if we had salts of, let's say, 200 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7792 1 parts per million in the dilution water, and we had the same 2 vial with the same amount of 500 parts per million TDS 3 water, that the more dilution water we added the less the 4 concentration of salt would be in the result? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go back to the drainage situation 7 in the Delta where the good water quality comes up and 8 enters into the drain. 9 Can you explain your reservation as to why you would 10 not conclude that as more of that water came up and entered 11 the drain it would not improve the concentration of the 12 drainage water. 13 DR. DEVEREL: I didn't understand your question to be 14 expressed that way when you formerly stated it. If more, 15 better quality water entering the drain from the subsurface 16 relative to possibly more saline water entering from other 17 sources, yes, that would serve as a source of dilution and 18 would reduce the concentration. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the Delta and focusing 20 in now on the hypothesis zone as we have defined it, you 21 would agree that applied water for irrigation is one of the 22 sources? 23 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Rainwater is another? 25 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7793 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Sometimes flood flows? 2 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: How about flows from upslope areas? 4 DR. DEVEREL: That's -- if you consider the San Joaquin 5 River a source of pressure from upslope areas, yes. There 6 are changes in slope and hydraulic gradient. Of course, 7 yes, you could have upslope flow. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: How about the term "seepage," are you 9 willing to buy that for the Delta? 10 DR. DEVEREL: Maybe you should define "seepage" as you 11 understand it. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: What about the water that comes in from 13 the river into the area of the soil profile below the 14 surface within the island? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I would define that as seepage in the 16 Delta. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: That is kind of like an upslope 18 contribution? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Because the head of the river, in most 21 cases, is greater than the level of the water -- 22 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: -- within the soil? 24 What about artesian? You mentioned something about 25 artesian, I think. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7794 1 DR. DEVEREL: There appear to be data that supports the 2 idea that there could be artesian flows in the Delta. I am 3 not sure of the source of those. I have just seen the data 4 that were collected when I was working at the University of 5 California. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Would that be different than the 7 so-called upslope contribution from the channels? 8 DR. DEVEREL: It could be. There could be a artesian 9 source of groundwater in the Delta. That is my recollection 10 of some work we did in Bouldin and Empire Tract. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: So there could be an upstream or 12 upslope property some distance away on which water, either 13 snowmelt or rainfall or whatever, making some kind of 14 contribution? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I wouldn't say as far away as snowmelt. 16 There could be artesian pressures that result in upward 17 groundwater flow. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to those contributions to 19 the water in the hypothesis zone, which of those do you 20 characterize as manageable? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Manageable by the grower managing any 22 particular piece of land; is that what you are asking? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 24 DR. DEVEREL: Just the irrigation water. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to switch to Mr. White for a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7795 1 moment. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: I think this is probably as good a time 3 as any to break and adjourn for today. 4 Let me ask the question, maybe I should be asking Mr. 5 Minasian, who, I think, did take some lead in this, and we 6 appreciate it. 7 Has anybody heard if Mr. Simmons, for the City of 8 Stockton, is going to put on a rebuttal case? 9 Ms. Cahill. 10 MS. CAHILL: I don't believe we will. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: So, it doesn't look like he is going to 12 do that. We won't take away his right if he changes his 13 mind. We are trying to see what we've got. 14 If everything holds, after we are through with this 15 rebuttal case, then we still have South Delta Water Agency, 16 and I believe that is it, which, of course, doesn't mean 17 that it is not formidable or won't take time. That is what 18 we show here, and that is still holding. 19 Mr. Minasian? 20 MR. MINASIAN: Yes, it is. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We will be back here Tuesday at 9:00 22 a.m. Have a nice weekend, everybody. 23 (Hearing adjourned at 11:31 a.m.) 24 ---oOo--- 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7796 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 6 7 8 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 9 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 7721 through 14 7798 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 14th day of December 19 1998. 20 21 22 23 24 ______________________________ ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7797