STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 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 7814 4 AFTERNOON SESSION 7907 5 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: STEVEN J. DEVEREL: 6 CHRISTOPHER L. WHITE: CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION: 7 BY MR. NOMELLINI 7814 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 8 BY MS. CAHILL 7829 BY MR. BRANDT 7858 9 BY MR. HERRICK 7862 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 7895 10 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 7911 BY STAFF 7929 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER WHITE: BY MR. MINASIAN 7930 12 RECROSS-EXAMINATION: BY STAFF 7933 13 BY BOARD MEMBERS 7934 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STEVEN DEVEREL: 14 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 7974 15 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ALEX HILDEBRAND: 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY MR. HERRICK 7937 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION: BY MR. BRANDT 7959 18 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 7961 BY MR. SEXTON 7963 19 20 21 ---oOo--- 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 DECEMBER 15, 1998 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back to the 5 blooming conclusion of Phase V. 6 Mr. Nomellini was cross-examining Mr. Deverel and Mr. 7 White. 8 Good morning, Mr. Nomellini. 9 Before we start, let me just say that this morning we 10 will go to about a quarter to 12. We will come back at 11 1:30. We will see how much progress we make. And then, at 12 the 4:00 hour approaches, we will decide whether we are 13 going to go beyond 4:00 today. We had mentioned the 14 possibility of going later both days, if need be, because we 15 are going to really try to finish Phase V by tomorrow. Just 16 remind everybody to do the best you can, to be brief and 17 crisp. 18 And I know I am holding you up, Mr. Nomellini, so I 19 will stop talking and let you have it. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 22 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 23 BY MR. NOMELLINI 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 25 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties, not yet CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7814 1 plaintiffs. 2 Mr. White, in your testimony at Page 4 you raised a 3 series of questions as to who it is that has control over 4 the quality of the water that ends up in the surface 5 drainage. And I presume you are talking about the surface 6 drainage for lands that are down near the trough of the 7 valley; is that correct? 8 MR. WHITE: Near the trough of the valley and within 9 the Camp 13 area. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: So, you are talking particularly about 11 clients of your district or people in your district? 12 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: And you addressed the TMDL suggestion, 14 and as come out in testimony from other parties, and it is 15 your belief, is it not, that establishment of a TMDL would 16 put the burden on the wrong party. Is that what your 17 testimony is saying? 18 MR. WHITE: I think we testified that TMDLs would have 19 consequences because of placing the burden directly on the 20 farmer, what would happen in the field. The pressure is at 21 that point, once you apply a TMDL, to turn off that 22 particular sump. And there is impacts locally at the 23 district level to the neighbors from doing just that. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: And your testimony is that some of the 25 problem is due to the upland or upslope landowners, and they CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7815 1 would not be touched by such a TMDL approach? 2 MR. WHITE: I believe that to be correct. Also, to the 3 extent that the drainage problem area is a regional problem, 4 it is not just the downslope guy and it is not the upslope 5 farmer, but it is certainly a regional problem which 6 requires a regional solution. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: If we focus on the upslope landowner or 8 farmer, that person doesn't have a drainage system, does 9 he? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: I will change --- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to allow the question. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you understand what I was asking? 14 MR. WHITE: I understand the question. But upslope of 15 a particular farmer? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: You talk about upslope landowners here 17 on Page 4. You ask a question on Page 4 of your testimony, 18 Line 32: 19 Is it the upslope landowners who may be 20 participants in the Bypass Project who are 21 directed to maintain salinity and salts in 22 the soil profile in order to manage 23 selenium? (Reading.) 24 Lets deal with those upslope landowners. Do they have 25 tile drains? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7816 1 MR. WHITE: A portion of them do. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: So the ones that do would be subject to 3 some type of a TMDL -- 4 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: -- requirement? 6 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Your concern is that some of them 8 don't, and they would not be subject to such a TMDL 9 restriction? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Could you break the question down a 12 little bit? Rephrase it, Mr. Nomellini. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: I will. 14 In your testimony on Page 4, Line 32, again, is your 15 concern with the upslope landowners who do not have a 16 drainage system that would be subject to a TMDL? 17 MR. WHITE: Yes. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have a recommendation as to how 19 a restriction would be imposed on the upslope landowners who 20 do not have drains? 21 MR. WHITE: We don't have a specific recommendation in 22 regards to that. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: You're aware of Mr. Deverel's testimony 24 indicating that a reduction in water supply or water use 25 would be one approach to the drainage problems in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7817 1 valley? 2 MR. WHITE: Yes. I am aware of the recommendation of 3 certain management practices which would alleviate the 4 situation on the short term, until such time as an 5 out-of-valley drain or some way of disposing of drainage 6 water is made available. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Does that include reduction in water 8 use? 9 MR. WHITE: It could be a reduction in water use, 10 depending on the situation. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you disagree with Mr. Deverel's 12 hypothesis for resolving the drainage problem in the absence 13 of a master drain? 14 MR. WHITE: No, I don't disagree. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of reduction in water use, who 16 is going to reduce the water use and by how much? 17 MR. WHITE: I'm not sure what you're asking me. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: In your testimony, in these questions 19 that you raise at Page 4 and 5, you end up with an "or" on 20 top of Page 5 that says: 21 Is it the Bureau of Reclamation that did not 22 complete the master drain and, therefore, 23 made it inevitable that the poor quality 24 groundwater condition would exist? 25 (Reading.) CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7818 1 Let's assume that the Bureau of Reclamation is 2 responsible, and let's assume that they cannot in the 3 foreseeable future construct a master drain. Now, you have 4 indicated that you agree somewhat with Mr. Deverel, that 5 reduction in water use would help address the drainage 6 problem. 7 Do you agree with that? 8 MR. WHITE: No, I think I agreed that under certain 9 circumstances that reduction in applied water could reduce 10 the drainage problem. However, the -- our contention here 11 or our point to be made here is that with the TMDLs that are 12 set up and in place, there is no opportunity to manage the 13 system. We are held to a strict standard during the entire 14 year, no matter what the flow in the year is, no matter 15 assimilative capacity is. 16 It may be that you want to, during times when there is 17 assimilative capacity, apply more water to get some of the 18 poorer quality water out, so that during times when the 19 river does not have this assimilative capacity that strict 20 TMDLs can be held to during those periods of time. But it 21 gives the local guy or the local farmer an opportunity to 22 manage and survive. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: So you would recommend a TMDL in the 24 form of a concentration limit on water quality in the river 25 that would allow for higher discharges of salts when CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7819 1 dilution capacity existed in the river? Is that what you 2 were saying? 3 MR. WHITE: I think that is what I said. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Other than that, are you recommending 5 any -- putting aside the drain, assuming that is a long ways 6 down the road, putting aside TMDLs that would be focused on 7 load limits -- we would have TMDLs that focus on 8 concentrations -- are there any other recommendations that 9 you have with regard to managing the drainage problem in the 10 San Joaquin Valley? 11 MR. WHITE: I don't have any further recommendations 12 other than the growers within this area, and I just want to 13 reiterate that this is 6,000 acres within CCID which is a 14 150,000-acre district, a very small proportion of our area. 15 However, the growers within this area are held to a strict 16 discharge standard, and they are doing a very good job. The 17 farmers in our area are creative people. They will find a 18 way to survive. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 20 MR. WHITE: The things that they are doing, such as 21 tiered water pricing, such as management of tile sumps. In 22 some of the area there is a tiered water pricing, depending 23 on the time of year, whether preirrigation or some of them 24 are crop-specific. 25 These are the things that they are doing to reduce CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7820 1 drainage water, which are quite effective. But, again, we 2 are to the point where we are having to store some of the 3 materials or some of the groundwater in the local basin, and 4 we are concerned about the spread into other areas within 5 the district. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: So, without a master drain the problem 7 is going to get worse; is that what you just said? 8 MR. WHITE: Yes. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: This worsening of the problem in terms 10 of a drainage problem for your district, does that in turn 11 mean we can expect greater problems for salinity in the San 12 Joaquin River? 13 MR. WHITE: It could mean that. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Deverel, one last -- couple of 15 questions for you. 16 I spent most of my time in questioning you related to 17 the hypothesis with regard to the reduction in application 18 of water. But one area that I wasn't clear on in your 19 testimony, and that was the significance of the selenium 20 that exists in different rates in soils in the valley. 21 And we had previously in testimony by other witnesses 22 seen an exhibit that showed certain hot spots, areas that 23 have today measured selenium in the soil higher than other 24 areas. 25 Are those -- are soils with higher levels of selenium CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7821 1 than adjacent soils more likely to produce selenium when 2 irrigated or farmed in the future? 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 4 the direct examination on rebuttal. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Not true. His written testimony deals 6 with this subject. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Nomellini. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you understand my question? 9 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead and explain. I just want to 11 deal with the objection. If you can guide us to the place 12 in the direct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 1 of Mr. Deverel's testimony, 14 Lines 14 through 22 he says: 15 In the western San Joaquin Valley the salts 16 come from the dissolution of soil minerals 17 and application of irrigation water. The 18 salts dissolved from soil minerals are stored 19 in the groundwater and continue to flow out 20 the drains. These soils minerals are the 21 primary source of selenium. (Reading.) 22 So it is related to that testimony. I want to find out 23 whether or not that is still a problem, in his eyes, with 24 regard to these concentrations. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham, you had something else. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7822 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think this goes back to one of the 2 problems that we were discussing last week. Dr. Deverel 3 made a very general statement that only reiterates what is 4 stated in the record many, many times. If that general 5 statement opens up an area where they are going to get into 6 very specific testimony, then we are going to significantly 7 expand the scope of the rebuttal case. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: I must confess I am not quite sure I 9 completely understand where Mr. Nomellini is headed. Mr. 10 Birmingham does accurately reiterate the concerns of the 11 Board, that we not use these general testimonial statements 12 as a gateway to get into broader areas that can be handled 13 in rebuttal cases. 14 So, I probably have to hear that question over again. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. On Page 1 of your 16 testimony, Mr. Deverel, at Line 16 you indicate that: 17 These soils minerals are the primary source 18 of selenium. (Reading.) 19 Is there a difference in soils on the west side of the 20 San Joaquin Valley as to the concentrations of selenium in 21 the soil? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I think I will allow that question. 23 Let's see where we go. 24 DR. DEVEREL: There are differences in soil selenium 25 concentrations. The primary source of selenium, as I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7823 1 stated, was soil minerals that were present prior to 2 irrigation of the soils in the western San Joaquin Valley. 3 These are very soluble minerals. Things like sodium sulfate 4 and magnesium sulfate salts, in which the selenium was 5 incorporated over geologic time. 6 Once these soils were irrigated, most of the selenium 7 that was present in those soluble forms was leached out into 8 the groundwater. The groundwater selenium is the main 9 source of selenium to drains today, main source of selenium 10 that moves in the groundwater. 11 There are selenium concentrations in the soil today 12 that are primarily associated with the organic matter and 13 other more insoluble minerals in the soil. Those are not, 14 in general, a source of high selenium to the groundwater. 15 The primary source of selenium in the groundwater and in the 16 drainage system is this mass, this large mass of selenium 17 that is stored in the groundwater today which is a result of 18 irrigation of the soils when the soils were first irrigated 19 back in the '30s, '40s, '50s. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Can continued farming and irrigation of 21 soils that contain selenium lead to additional leaching of 22 selenium from the soil? 23 DR. DEVEREL: There can be continued mobilization of 24 selenium by application of irrigation water. The 25 concentrations are generally lower than what one would find CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7824 1 in the groundwater today. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: So we could have a continuing problem 3 in some areas? 4 DR. DEVEREL: That's true. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Would that be related -- 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini, before you go any 7 further, Mr. Brown has something he would like to ask. 8 Go ahead, Mr. Brown. 9 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 A clarification of your answer of the selenium in the 11 soil profile. 12 If I understand right, you believe there is little 13 selenium left in the soil profile. Now, what selenium gets 14 into the drain water is from the perched water table? 15 DR. DEVEREL: There is a fair amount of selenium in the 16 soil. What I meant to say was that that selenium is tied up 17 in relatively insoluble and immobile forms, such as soil 18 organic matter and calcium carbohydrate minerals and other 19 more insoluble minerals. 20 And, yes, the primary source of selenium to the drain 21 water is the shallow groundwater. 22 MEMBER BROWN: You let me ask another question, Mr. 23 Nomellini? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Anytime. Mr. Chairman is not on you 25 like he was on me. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7825 1 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: I got to be nice to these guys. 3 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Brown. 5 MEMBER BROWN: If you put an acid to some of these 6 compounds and release the carbonates or bicarbonates, do we 7 reclaim some of the alkali in the soils? Do these -- does 8 the selenium then become free for solution? 9 DR. DEVEREL: It could. It would take a lot of acid. 10 There's a lot of calcium carbonate in those soils, and they 11 are very well buffered. It would take a lot of strong acid 12 to dissolve these minerals that contain selenium. 13 The data I have seen indicates that the primary source 14 of additional selenium, this is selenium that hasn't already 15 been leached out of the soil, is soil organic matter. So, 16 you could theoretically attack that, dissolve it. 17 MEMBER BROWN: Most of the reclamation has been done, 18 the soil reclamation? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. Most of the soluble salts 20 in the soil root zone have been leached out. 21 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: You're welcome, Mr. Brown. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: One last question. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Nomellini. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: What happens when we take big tractors CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7826 1 and big plows and smash these soil particles by ripping and 2 plowing cultivation with regard to the ability of the 3 application of water to dissolve selenium that is in the 4 soil? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Well, one effect of that is to oxidize or 6 promote oxidation of the organic matter that is present in 7 the soil. As I just mentioned, that is one source of 8 selenium. That work that was done during the San Joaquin 9 Valley Drainage Project showed that concentrations in soil 10 solution were the result of that oxidation or liberation of 11 selenium from the organic matter. 12 So, those concentrations, as I mentioned, are generally 13 lower than the groundwater. But what you say is true, that 14 over time you will continue to move selenium out of its 15 mobilized form out of the soil. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 17 Board. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: You're welcome, Mr. Nomellini. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, witnesses. Mr. Minasian, 20 good job on the overheads. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 22 Let me read the order of the remaining cross-examiners: 23 Ms. Cahill, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Brandt, Ms. Harrigfeld, Mr. 24 Birmingham. 25 Ms. Cahill. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7827 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As I understood it from discussions 4 last week, Mr. White had to leave. Were we going to 5 cross-examine Mr. White now in that order and return to Dr. 6 Deverel? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: You know, I am sure that that was what 8 we discussed last week, although I am having trouble 9 remembering. 10 MR. MINASIAN: That was, and I appreciate Mr. 11 Birmingham bringing it up. Perhaps we could be optimistic 12 and assume we can get through these witnesses. But anybody 13 that comes up in that order who has extensive questions for 14 Mr. Deverel, if they would tell us, go to Mr. White, finish 15 with Mr. White, then you could recall them. I would greatly 16 appreciate that. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a good idea. What time does Mr. 18 White have to leave? 19 MR. MINASIAN: Not till midnight tonight. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: What's the hurry? 21 MR. WHITE: 8:00 tomorrow morning. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: It's getting better. 23 Did everybody hear Mr. Minasian? If you have extensive 24 questions, we will go with Mr. White first, and then can 25 come back to you if you have extensive questions for Mr. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7828 1 Deverel. 2 Good morning, Ms. Cahill. 3 MS. CAHILL: Good morning, Chairman Caffrey, Members 4 of the Board. I have more questions for Mr. Deverel, but I 5 think the total is still short enough that given the limited 6 number of questioners we can probably do it in that order 7 and still get through. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Go right ahead. 9 ---oOo--- 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 11 BY THE CITY OF STOCKTON 12 BY MS. CAHILL 13 MS. CAHILL: Good morning, Mr. Deverel, Mr. White. I 14 am Virginia Cahill, representing the City of Stockton. 15 Mr. Deverel, are you aware that the water quality of 16 the San Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis is impaired with 17 regard to selenium? 18 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I am. 19 MS. CAHILL: Mr. White, are you also aware of that? 20 MR. WHITE: Is "impaired" a legal term or -- 21 MS. CAHILL: Yes, it means that at least at some times 22 of the year it is not adequate quality to protect all 23 beneficial uses. 24 MR. WHITE: Yes. 25 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, are you aware that water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7829 1 quality of the San Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis is 2 impaired with regard to salinity? 3 DR. DEVEREL: I am aware that it is considered to be 4 impaired. 5 MS. CAHILL: Mr. White, do you agree with that also? 6 MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. 7 MS. CAHILL: To your knowledge, and this is for either 8 of you, to your knowledge, do the exchange contractors 9 oppose the establishment of water quality standards for 10 salinity between Vernalis and Mendota? 11 MR. MINASIAN: I am going to object to the question. 12 Mr. White is here as the manager of the Central California 13 Irrigation District. He is not a representative of the 14 exchange contractors. 15 MS. CAHILL: I asked it, "to your knowledge question," 16 so if he doesn't know he can tell me he doesn't know. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I agree. I am going to allow him to 18 answer the question based on whatever his knowledge may be. 19 MR. WHITE: I am aware of the exchange contractors' 20 position in regards to standards between those two points, 21 specifically. 22 MS. CAHILL: Or anywhere between those two points? 23 MR. WHITE: I guess our position is what I stated 24 earlier in regards to TMDLs, in earlier testimony. 25 MS. CAHILL: There are two steps. First you set CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7830 1 standards and then you set TMDLs to enforce the standards. 2 You seem to be giving testimony against TMDLs. What I am 3 trying to explore is: Do you know if you have a position on 4 even setting the standards to protect beneficial uses in 5 that part of the river? 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Compound. 7 MS. CAHILL: No. The question is: To your knowledge, 8 do the exchange contractors oppose setting standards to 9 protect beneficial uses at any point between Vernalis and 10 Mendota? 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would request that the Board strike 12 Ms. Cahill's testimony or Ms. Cahill's statements concerning 13 a process which is followed in order to establish TMDLs. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: I think the Board Members know the 15 process to establish TMDLs, and I don't think it is 16 necessary to strike that statement. I think the question is 17 now clear as it has been repeated by Ms. Cahill. 18 Do you understand the question, Mr. White? 19 MR. WHITE: Yes. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: You may answer it, sir. 21 MR. WHITE: There is no opposition to setting 22 standards, in general. 23 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 24 Mr. Deverel, do you have any knowledge on this matter? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I do not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7831 1 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, was the Vernalis standards 2 set to protect agriculture? 3 DR. DEVEREL: That is my understanding based on 4 testimony in these proceedings. 5 MS. CAHILL: Would a similar standard be reasonable to 6 protect agriculture on the stretch of river between Vernalis 7 and Mud Slough? 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. The question is ambiguous 9 and goes beyond the scope of this witness' expertise. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: I apologize to Mr. Birmingham and Ms. 11 Cahill. I was conferring with Mr. Stubchaer at the moment 12 of that question. I would like to hear it again, please. 13 MS. CAHILL: The question is: Would these same 14 standards, that is, the Vernalis levels, be reasonable to 15 protect agriculture on the stretch of river from Vernalis to 16 Mud Slough? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: The basis of your objection, again, Mr. 18 Birmingham? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The basis of my objection is that Ms. 20 Cahill has clarified one of the objections that I have. The 21 fact or my concern that the question is ambiguous. But I 22 still believe that this questions goes beyond the scope of 23 this witness' expertise. 24 He is a soils scientist. What Ms. Cahill is asking him 25 about is what is required from a water quality perspective CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7832 1 to protect beneficial uses related to agriculture. And I 2 don't believe he is qualified to answer that question. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you agree with Mr. Birmingham's 4 characterization of your expertise, Mr. White? 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe the question was to Mr. 6 Deverel. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: To Mr. Deverel. 8 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, then I am going to sustain 10 the objection. 11 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, you have testified that 12 absent a drain, the solution to salinity is a regional 13 approach; is that correct? 14 DR. DEVEREL: No. I believe my testimony was that 15 whether there is a drain or not, there needs to be a 16 regional approach to the problem. 17 MS. CAHILL: If we can refer to Page 24 of your 18 testimony, you testified that: 19 In the absence of a salt outlet, a regional 20 solution will consist of six components to 21 meet TMDLs in the short term that reflect the 22 current salinity objectives. (Reading.) 23 Do you believe that in the absence of a salt outlet, 24 land retirement will be part of a regional solution? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I think it can be. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7833 1 MS. CAHILL: Do you believe that reduction in surface 2 deliveries is part of a regional solution? 3 DR. DEVEREL: It could be. Depends on how it is 4 implemented. 5 MS. CAHILL: What about groundwater pumping? 6 DR. DEVEREL: It could be. 7 MS. CAHILL: And water conservation? 8 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 9 MS. CAHILL: Management of the timing of discharges? 10 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 11 MS. CAHILL: And realtime monitoring of San Joaquin 12 River water quality? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 14 MS. CAHILL: Do you consider these to be measures that 15 could be implemented in the short term? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right; and the long term. 17 MS. CAHILL: Even in the presence of a drain, would 18 some of these management practices be desirable? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 20 MS. CAHILL: Is the problem of elevated salinity in the 21 San Joaquin River between Vernalis and Mud Slough of 22 long-standing duration? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Could you define "long-standing"? 24 MS. CAHILL: More than 20 years. 25 DR. DEVEREL: The data I have seen indicates that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7834 1 concentrations in the river have increased over the last 40 2 to 50 years. 3 MS. CAHILL: Has there been ample time to develop a 4 regional approach? 5 MR. MINASIAN: Objection. The question is 6 argumentative. 7 MS. CAHILL: No. 8 DR. DEVEREL: I am not familiar with the history of the 9 problem to the extent to be able to answer that. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, he answered it. Sorry, 11 counselor. 12 MS. CAHILL: To date, has a regional approach been 13 developed that will actually resolve the high salinity 14 problem in the San Joaquin River between Vernalis and Mud 15 Slough? 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you mark this question, please. 17 DR. DEVEREL: You're asking if a regional approach has 18 been developed in an attempt to -- 19 MS. CAHILL: Not to attempt. To actually resolve the 20 high salinity problem in the river. 21 DR. DEVEREL: When you say "high salinity problem in 22 the river," could you define that, please. 23 MS. CAHILL: I mean existence of levels of salinity at 24 some time of the year that would impair beneficial uses. 25 DR. DEVEREL: I would answer it that a regional CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7835 1 solution -- if there are attempts at a regional solution, 2 there hasn't been a solution implemented that has solved 3 that problem. 4 MS. CAHILL: Your testimony was, I believe, that no 5 TMDLs should be instituted until after a regional solution 6 has been developed. Is that your testimony? 7 DR. DEVEREL: My testimony is that to implement TMDLs, 8 without wherewithal to meet those TMDLs, will result in 9 actions that may be of detriment to growers in the western 10 San Joaquin Valley. 11 MS. CAHILL: Is it possible that the imposition of 12 TMDLs would actually provide the incentive for reaching a 13 regional solution? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for speculation. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: I am not sure that the question calls 16 for speculation. This doesn't particularly bother me or any 17 of the other Board Members. If the witness feels 18 comfortable answering, I will allow it. If you don't, you 19 don't have to. 20 DR. DEVEREL: Would you repeat the question? 21 MS. CAHILL: Is it possible that imposition of TMDLs 22 would actually provide the incentive for a regional solution? 23 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know that that is true. 24 MS. CAHILL: You don't know either way? 25 DR. DEVEREL: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7836 1 MS. CAHILL: Have you done any calculations on the 2 amount of salt that could be released into the San Joaquin 3 River from Mud Slough without impairing beneficial uses? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 5 this witness' direct testimony rebuttal. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment. 7 Ms. Cahill, can you cite in the rebuttal direct 8 testimony where you are referring to? 9 MS. CAHILL: Yes. Mr. Deverel had considerable 10 testimony with regard to loads of salt in the San Joaquin 11 River and what different levels of flow -- how they are 12 impacted, how they impacted different loads. 13 I was just asking if he knew what the levels would be 14 -- the loads would be that would, in fact, impair the uses. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There is no testimony -- 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Herrick stood. I 17 will go to him first, then I will go to you. 18 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Deverel's testimony clearly 19 calculated salt loads or addressed that issue in the South 20 Delta, and his overall testimony described controlling loads 21 within the San Joaquin River. I think it would be unfair 22 not to see if he has any knowledge on the loads upstream of 23 the point he discussed. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 25 Mr. Birmingham. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7837 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have actually two bases for this 2 objection. First is that is goes beyond the scope of direct 3 examination on rebuttal, and I will address that point in a 4 moment. The second is that, again, this question goes 5 beyond the scope of this witness' expertise. 6 Mr. Cahill is correct. There is direct testimony that 7 talks about loads of salt in the San Joaquin River and 8 concentrations of salt in the San Joaquin River. But there 9 is no testimony that relates those concentrations or loads 10 to an affect on beneficial uses of the water. 11 MS. CAHILL: On Page, 24, for example, it says: 12 In the absence of a salt outlet, a regional 13 solution will consist of six components to 14 meet TMDLs in the short-term that reflect the 15 current salinity objectives. (Reading.) 16 So, I believe he has some knowledge of salinity 17 objectives. I think that thrust of the testimony is that 18 there is a problem with salinity in the San Joaquin River, 19 and he discusses various measures that might address it. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think we'll all stipulate that there 21 are salinity problems in the San Joaquin River. But, again, 22 Dr. Deverel has not testified on how water -- how different 23 levels of water quality affect beneficial uses of the water. 24 And, again, going back to my earlier objection, I don't 25 believe Dr. Deverel is a soil scientist, is qualified to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7838 1 express opinions on that question. 2 If Ms. Cahill wants to introduce evidence of this kind 3 in a rebuttal case, she, in addition to the evidence that 4 she submitted in her case in chief, then she can call a 5 water quality engineer who is qualified to express these 6 opinions. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 8 Anything else, Ms. Cahill, before I -- 9 MS. CAHILL: No. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 11 Dr. Deverel, do you agree that this question goes 12 beyond your level of expertise? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I am going to have to ask to hear the 14 question again. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's try the question one more time. 16 MS. CAHILL: Have you done any calculations on the 17 amount of salt that can be released into the San Joaquin 18 River from Mud Slough without impairing its beneficial 19 uses? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Does that question go beyond your level 21 of expertise, sir? 22 DR. DEVEREL: No. And I haven't done any calculation. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: All right, then, that settles the matter 24 without having to go any further. In some people's mind you 25 gave the correct answer, sir. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7839 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The truth is always the correct 2 answer. 3 MS. CAHILL: Is it true that the salinity problem in 4 the San Joaquin River and above Vernalis has been caused in 5 large part by delivery of surface water from the Delta to 6 the west side of the San Joaquin Valley? 7 DR. DEVEREL: I am going to ask you to define what 8 "large part." Can you quantify that, please? 9 MS. CAHILL: Yes. Is it perhaps the single most 10 important factor? 11 DR. DEVEREL: I would say no. 12 MS. CAHILL: What would you say is? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Movement of groundwater to drainage 14 systems. 15 MS. CAHILL: What has caused the movement of the 16 water? 17 DR. DEVEREL: There is a number of factors that cause 18 it. One of those factors is application of irrigation 19 water. 20 MS. CAHILL: So, in effect, application of irrigation 21 water is a major factor in causing the salinity problem in 22 the San Joaquin River? 23 DR. DEVEREL: It causes movement to drain systems which 24 in turn discharge to conveyance systems which in turn 25 discharge to the San Joaquin River. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7840 1 MS. CAHILL: If, as your evidence seems to show, salt 2 load increases with flow, then would applying less water be 3 part of the solution in the absence of a drain? 4 DR. DEVEREL: In the absence and in the presence of a 5 drain. 6 MS. CAHILL: On Page 25 you indicate that the 7 groundwater levels will continue to increase in the future, 8 leading to an increase in the need for drainage and larger 9 drainage volumes of load, and this is true even in the 10 presence of a drain. Is that true? 11 DR. DEVEREL: That is my opinion. 12 MS. CAHILL: When you say "conservation," do you mean 13 less applied water? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. In general. 15 MS. CAHILL: When you say that conservation is part of 16 the solution, do you mean an actual reduction in the water 17 use in the area, in other words, not just conserving on one 18 farm and using the conserved water on another farm in the 19 area? Do you mean reduction in the whole area that might 20 have a drainage problem? 21 DR. DEVEREL: When I refer to "conservation," it means 22 reduction in total water applied. 23 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 24 Mr. Johnston was asked if land retirement would make a 25 difference if water was used elsewhere in the district. Let CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7841 1 me ask you the same question. 2 Will land retirement help reduce the salt loads in the 3 San Joaquin River if the water formerly used on retired 4 lands is used elsewhere in an area that contributes to the 5 salt load? 6 MR. MINASIAN: Objection. The question is unclear 7 unless we do it by hypothetical and talk about particular 8 geographical areas. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you break it down a little bit, Ms. 10 Cahill? 11 MS. CAHILL: I would like, first, to see if the 12 witness could give me an answer as a general principle. As 13 a general principle, will land retirement help if the water 14 is used elsewhere? Maybe you can't. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: You are asking Dr. Deverel? 16 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Are you including the exchange 18 contractors that have been irrigated since the 1880s in the 19 area? 20 MS. CAHILL: Yes. I am including the area that 21 contributes to the salt load to the river, whatever that 22 area might be. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have a conceptual, for lack of a 24 better term, Dr. Deverel? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I can answer that question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7842 1 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 3 MEMBER BROWN: Would you clarify elsewhere? Do you 4 mean in the same district or Southern California or -- 5 MS. CAHILL: I mean in the area that contributes to the 6 load. So that area that causes drainage to go to the 7 river. 8 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Thank you. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Dr. Deverel. 10 DR. DEVEREL: In general, it is hard to make statements 11 about how land retirement will affect drainage salt 12 loads. And one would have to actually introduce a specific 13 case, a specific parcel of land being retired and how that 14 water is applied elsewhere and how it affects surrounding 15 hydrology. It is really very difficult to answer how 16 retired specific plots of land will affect drainage load 17 without introducing a specific case. 18 MS. CAHILL: Assume that land is retired without 19 keeping the water in the area. In other words, less -- it 20 results in less water being applied in the area that 21 contributes salt to the river. Would that help reduce the 22 salt load in the river? 23 DR. DEVEREL: It could. Again, it's a case-by-case 24 basis that really needs to be looked at in terms of specific 25 parcels of land. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7843 1 MS. CAHILL: Now, assume that land is retired without 2 keeping the water in the area of contributing salt to the 3 river, directly or indirectly. Would that help reduce -- I 4 think that is the question I just asked. I am sorry. Let 5 me go to the next one. 6 If land is retired and the water formerly used on that 7 land is instead used to dilute the flows entering the river, 8 could that help reduce the concentrations in the river? 9 DR. DEVEREL: It could. 10 MS. CAHILL: Hypothetically, if the Bureau of 11 Reclamation delivered less water to some land because less 12 water was needed because of conservation or land retirement, 13 the water that the Bureau didn't deliver to that land was 14 instead either added to the drain or discharged at some 15 point into the river, it could dilute the concentrations in 16 the river? 17 DR. DEVEREL: It could. 18 MS. CAHILL: You testified that in the long term -- 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Ms. Cahill. Ms. Forster has 20 a question. 21 MEMBER FORSTER: In a hypothetical situation that 22 builds on what Ms. Cahill just asked you, where would that 23 happen? How could that happen? Where would you add the 24 water? What system is there? How would you do that? 25 DR. DEVEREL: Hypothetically, you could take the water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7844 1 and put it in the river somewhere downstream of Mud Slough 2 or immediately downstream -- with the water at Mud Slough. 3 That would dilute that load, that concentration going to the 4 river. 5 MEMBER FORSTER: I have to look at a map to understand 6 the system, the system that would allow that. Somebody will 7 help me understand it. 8 DR. DEVEREL: Again, it is a hypothetical, and the 9 system isn't in place to do that. 10 MEMBER FORSTER: That is what I was wondering, where 11 does that happen. 12 DR. DEVEREL: Infrastructure isn't, my understanding, 13 there to do that. It is a hypothetical. 14 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, for example, could water be 15 discharged through the Newman Wasteway and reach the San 16 Joaquin River? 17 DR. DEVEREL: Possibly. I am not aware of the 18 hydraulics of that system. 19 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. White, are you familiar with the 20 Newman Wasteway? 21 MR. WHITE: Sure am. 22 MS. CAHILL: Could water be discharged through the 23 Newman Wasteway and reach the San Joaquin River to dilute 24 drainage flows? 25 MR. WHITE: From where? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7845 1 MS. CAHILL: From Mud Slough. 2 MR. WHITE: No. I meant water released from where. 3 MS. CAHILL: You tell me. Does the Newman Wasteway 4 come off the Delta-Mendota Canal? 5 MR. WHITE: Yes. 6 MS. CAHILL: Could water be released down the 7 Delta-Mendota Canal through the Newman Wasteway to reach the 8 San Joaquin River to dilute high concentrations of salinity 9 and drainage flows? 10 MR. WHITE: Yeah. Water could be released down the 11 wasteway, but I am not sure that that -- whether the overall 12 balance, whether you net anything. If you are rerouting 13 conserved water, you still need to look at the lands where 14 you remove water. Is there a net decrease in load to the 15 surrounding grounds? You take the water away and you apply 16 a discharge limit, you are still back to the point where you 17 are trying to store this material in the ground. It really 18 needs to be looked at closely. 19 MS. CAHILL: I think we were talking a bit of apples 20 and oranges. I am talking in the river. The drainage 21 discharges to the river have a TDS of what? Approximately 22 5,000 TDS, parts per million? 23 MR. MINASIAN: Objection. Question is unclear. Do you 24 want to talk at the outlet of Mud Slough discharged from the 25 San Luis Drain? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7846 1 MS. CAHILL: Yes. Let's talk about the outlet to Mud 2 Slough. What is the TDS of the discharge there? 3 MR. WHITE: I am not certain as to what the TDS is. 4 DR. DEVEREL: It is about 3,000. 5 MS. CAHILL: What is the TDS in Delta-Mendota Canal 6 water? 7 MR. WHITE: Three to 500 TDS. 8 MS. CAHILL: If you discharge Delta-Mendota Canal water 9 into the San Joaquin River, could it assist in diluting the 10 drainage discharge? 11 MR. WHITE: Yes. 12 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, you testified that, in the 13 long term, management -- I am sorry. In the long term 14 management could stabilize salinity in the San Joaquin 15 River; is that correct? 16 DR. DEVEREL: I don't think so. 17 MS. CAHILL: I had that in my notes in response to a 18 question you were asked. Let me ask you: Do you believe 19 that, in the long term, management could stabilize salinity 20 in the San Joaquin River? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Depends on what that management is. 22 MS. CAHILL: Can you think of management practices that 23 would stabilize salinity in the river? 24 DR. DEVEREL: When you say "stabilize," what do you 25 mean by that? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7847 1 MS. CAHILL: I thought this was your term, in fact, so 2 I thought you knew what it meant. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Argumentative. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't think it is argumentative. I 5 think it perhaps is a little frustration. Ms. Cahill is 6 looking through her notes to see if she can find that 7 reference. We will give you a little time. 8 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 9 I don't think I will take the time to go down that. 10 Is the Grasslands Bypass Project a complete solution to 11 the salinity in the San Joaquin River? 12 DR. DEVEREL: What do you mean by "complete solution"? 13 MS. CAHILL: Is it a solution that leads to the water 14 quality in the San Joaquin River always being of sufficient 15 quality to protection beneficial uses? 16 DR. DEVEREL: The Grasslands Bypass Project in itself 17 is not, no. 18 MS. CAHILL: Mr. White, would you agree with that? 19 MR. WHITE: It is my understanding that the objective 20 of the Bypass Project is to reduce the selenium 21 concentrations. 22 MS. CAHILL: So, by itself it is not the only solution 23 or the complete solution to salinity? 24 MR. WHITE: I would agree with that. 25 MS. CAHILL: Is the Camp 13 area eligible for land CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7848 1 retirement under CVPIA? 2 MR. WHITE: I am not certain. 3 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, do you happen to know? 4 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. 5 MS. CAHILL: Mr. Deverel, you testified that even with 6 the drain the groundwater levels on the west side of the San 7 Joaquin Valley would continue to rise. Why is that? 8 DR. DEVEREL: It's generally a hydrologic balance 9 problem. In other words, more water in general is being 10 applied to that area then is discharged through various 11 sources, so groundwater storage increases which causes water 12 levels to rise, groundwater levels to rise. 13 MS. CAHILL: What is the solution or is there a 14 solution to this? 15 DR. DEVEREL: To this, what? The rising groundwater 16 levels? 17 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 18 DR. DEVEREL: I am not sure there is one. 19 MS. CAHILL: Could you suggest to the Board some 20 management techniques that would at least help? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Well, as I mentioned, it is a hydrologic 22 balance problem. So, either you have to apply or deliver 23 less water to the system, or you have to have an additional 24 outlet for that water. The problem in western San Joaquin 25 Valley, you always have to have a certain amount of water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7849 1 leaching below the root zone to keep the root zone as saline 2 as is acceptable for crop production. So there is always 3 going to be some water that percolates past the root zone 4 that makes its way into the groundwater. That contributes 5 to this groundwater level rise that I described. 6 Groundwater pumping, to a certain extent, could help the 7 problem except that we know the groundwater pumping in the 8 western San Joaquin Valley causes subsidence. So that is 9 not really a long-term solution. It also causes poor 10 quality water to move downward toward well streams. It 11 really doesn't serve as a long-term solution. In the short 12 term it might be a solution. 13 MS. CAHILL: Would application of less water be a part 14 of a solution? 15 DR. DEVEREL: It could be. 16 MS. CAHILL: I would like to look at Exchange 17 Contractors Exhibit 5(M). 18 Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 19 When this land is irrigated, which I believe is the top 20 graph, what was the concentration of salt in the drainage 21 water? 22 DR. DEVEREL: There were two points where we monitored 23 concentrations in the drainage water. They range -- they 24 were about 6,000 milligrams per liter TDS in both drainage 25 laterals. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7850 1 MS. CAHILL: Do you know what the Vernalis standard was 2 when it was in TDS? 3 DR. DEVEREL: I can't remember right now. 4 MS. CAHILL: Mr. White, do you know what the Vernalis 5 standard is in TDS approximately? 6 MR. WHITE: I thought it was 500 TDS. 7 MS. CAHILL: Is this drainage water more than ten times 8 the concentration of the Vernalis salinity standard? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it is. 10 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. 11 Mr. White had stated that TMDLs will tend to focus on 12 the drainage tile, on the tile drain sumps. Let me ask both 13 of you, you first Mr. Deverel, is there anything in the TMDL 14 program that would require the Board to look at tile drain 15 sumps only? 16 DR. DEVEREL: Not that I know of. I am not really 17 familiar with the TMDL program. 18 MS. CAHILL: Mr. White, is there anything in the TMDL 19 program that would require the Regional Board to focus on, 20 to look at tile drain sumps only? 21 MR. WHITE: There may or may not be. But what we are 22 talking about is the result of the program, who actually has 23 to meet the standard? Is it the discharger? He's the 24 person that will have to reduce his drainage and its 25 impact. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7851 1 MS. CAHILL: Do you believe that the TMDL program also 2 offers the flexibility to take a variety of approaches, 3 including management practices? 4 MR. WHITE: Could you repeat that? 5 MS. CAHILL: Do you agree that the TMDL program has 6 flexibility for a variety of approaches which could include 7 management practices? 8 MR. WHITE: I don't disagree or agree. I don't know. 9 MS. CAHILL: How familiar are you with the TMDL 10 program? 11 MR. WHITE: Which TMDL program are you talking about? 12 MS. CAHILL: I am talking about The Clean Water Act, 13 Section 303 (d) process. 14 MR. WHITE: I am familiar to the extent that if you 15 have a load standard to the river, that our testimony is 16 that it will affect the person who has the discharge, and 17 that is the tile discharger. He is the person that gets 18 affected first. And the focus then does come upon that tile 19 discharger. 20 MS. CAHILL: But this is actually an assumption you are 21 making. You haven't been informed by the Regional Board 22 that it will be the tile drain discharger's first or only? 23 MR. WHITE: We haven't been informed, no. 24 MS. CAHILL: I have just a few questions for you, Mr. 25 White. I guess I just did have some. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7852 1 On Page 4 of your testimony you ask a series of 2 questions about who is responsible for the water quality in 3 the surface drains in CCID. And is that correct, was your 4 testimony intended to focus on CCID surface drains only? 5 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 6 MS. CAHILL: You violated the first rule of a witness, 7 you asked questions, instead of giving the answers. 8 So now I am going to ask you those questions or some 9 variation of them. Let me find my notes. 10 You posed some questions about who has control over 11 water quality in the surface drains at a particular location 12 in CCID to meet the Vernalis standard or some other TMDL 13 loads or concentration or standards. 14 This is on Page 4 of your testimony. 15 Does the adjacent farmer who has only a small 16 contribution to the groundwater level and quality make some 17 contribution to the salt loads in those drains? 18 MR. WHITE: I believe we characterize it as a small 19 contribution. 20 MS. CAHILL: Does the district that supplies the 21 irrigation water to the area but not to a substantial area 22 upslope, is it responsible in some way, even small, for the 23 salt load in those drains? 24 MR. WHITE: It could be. 25 MS. CAHILL: Are the upslope landowners who may be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7853 1 participants in the Bypass Project responsible in some way 2 for the salt load in those drains? 3 MR. WHITE: Yes. 4 MS. CAHILL: And do you believe that the Bureau of 5 Reclamation, which did not complete the master drain, is 6 also responsible in some way for salt load in those drains? 7 MR. WHITE: Yes. 8 MS. CAHILL: Are the Stockton East Water District and 9 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District responsible 10 for the water quality in these drains? 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Again, we are going well 12 beyond the scope of the direct examination that was part of 13 the rebuttal. 14 Ms. Cahill, again, can make these points. They have 15 been made. She can make them again through her own 16 rebuttal. 17 MS. CAHILL: On the contrary, I believe on Page 4 this 18 witness asked a series of questions about who is 19 responsible. I think one more question about whether some 20 other parties are responsible or not is a reasonable 21 extension of what the testimony was. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I will allow the question. Go ahead. 23 MR. WHITE: Could you repeat it? I am sorry. 24 MS. CAHILL: Yes. Are the Stockton East Water 25 District and the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7854 1 District responsible for the water quality in the drains? 2 MR. WHITE: Again, the question is specifically towards 3 these drains? 4 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 5 MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. 6 MS. CAHILL: Are they responsible for the water quality 7 in any drains leading to Mud Slough? 8 MR. WHITE: I don't know. 9 MS. CAHILL: You don't know? 10 MR. WHITE: Leading to Mud Slough? 11 MS. CAHILL: Yes. 12 MR. WHITE: I am not familiar with every drain. 13 MS. CAHILL: Aren't you familiar with Stockton East and 14 Central San Joaquin being on the east side of the valley? 15 MR. WHITE: Sure. 16 MS. CAHILL: Does any of their drainage reach the west 17 side of the valley? 18 MR. WHITE: No. 19 MS. CAHILL: Assume the completion of the San Luis 20 Drain or a similar drain is not feasible for environmental 21 reasons. Let's assume it can't be built. Could the United 22 States physically take a portion of the water that it's 23 presently delivering to the contractors on the west side of 24 the San Joaquin Valley -- we have been over this -- and use 25 it to dilute discharges of drain water? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7855 1 Actually, I will object myself. It's been asked and 2 answered. Got to it earlier than expected. 3 Let me take just one minute to see if I can find that 4 quote about stabilizing. 5 I think that is it. 6 Thank you very much. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill. 8 Mr. Herrick, morning, sir. 9 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. 10 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 11 I will just ask a few questions of Mr. White and then 12 sit down, as we proposed, although I don't think my 13 questioning of Mr. Deverel will be that long. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: How long do you think you need in total, 15 assuming that we have the usual high-speed answers? 16 MR. HERRICK: And terse questions. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a little hint, folks. 18 MR. HERRICK: It could be an hour. I want to be 19 convenient for the witness. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: We will go with Mr. White. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Perhaps we could ask the remaining 24 parties who are going to cross-examine how much time they 25 think they will require, and see how time flies. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7856 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Good idea. 2 You think you need an hour in total? 3 MR. HERRICK: At the outermost. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Questions and answers. 5 Mr. Brandt, how long do you think you will need having 6 listened to the length of answers? 7 MR. BRANDT: Ten minutes. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Harrigfeld? 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Twenty minutes. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham, you were going to wait. 11 In case you do have, any idea after listening to some of 12 this? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: An hour to an hour and a half. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brandt. 15 MR. BRANDT: If we are going to go ahead with him, 16 could I ask the indulgence of getting my ten minutes? I 17 need to go back across the street, if possible. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Would you mind, Mr. Herrick. 19 MR. HERRICK: Not in the least. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection? 21 Why don't you come forward, Mr. Brandt. 22 Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 23 We will take you, Mr. Brandt. 24 With regard to the other questions. It seems to me we 25 don't have to, if you agree, Mr. Stubchaer, I don't think we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7857 1 have to do this split. We can just -- all come up and ask 2 both of the witnesses the questions you have because I think 3 we are going to be all right. 4 Go ahead, Mr. Brandt. 5 ---oOo--- 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 7 BY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 8 BY MR. BRANDT 9 MR. BRANDT: Mr. Deverel, you testified about the San 10 Joaquin River being a losing stream. Do you recall that 11 testimony? 12 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 13 MR. BRANDT: Can you tell me where? Was there a 14 particular area of the San Joaquin River that you were 15 referring to? 16 DR. DEVEREL: In general, upstream of Newman the river 17 tends to be a losing stream. 18 MR. BRANDT: Is that upstream all the way back to 19 Friant? 20 DR. DEVEREL: All the way back to Mendota. 21 MR. BRANDT: What about above Mendota Pool? 22 DR. DEVEREL: I can't recall right now. I tend to 23 think it is a losing stream, but I have to go back and look 24 at the data. 25 MR. BRANDT: Let me ask you about that section, and to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7858 1 the extent that if you don't know, you can just tell me 2 that. 3 Do you have anything further, basically, from the 4 section above Mendota as to whether that is a losing stream? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Do I have anything further to add to 6 that? 7 MR. BRANDT: Yes. 8 DR. DEVEREL: Just that that is based on river flows 9 and measurements that were taken from 1961 to 1977. And 10 there is a portion of the river near Dos Palos that on the 11 average during that period was -- the San Joaquin River was 12 a gaining stream. There was an interval there of about 20 13 miles that is a gaining stream, but the rest of the river, 14 in general, during that time period was a losing stream, 15 lost water to the groundwater. 16 MR. BRANDT: You just testified that to take care of 17 the rising groundwater levels you have to apply less water 18 or take more out? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. BRANDT: Let me ask you a more general question, 21 not just about that one. Let me ask you a broader 22 question. If you had the options, only two options, of 23 either curtailing irrigation or creating -- constructing and 24 operating a master drain, which would be the best from your 25 perspective, which would be the best option? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7859 1 MR. MINASIAN: Objection. It would be an incomplete 2 hypothetical unless Mr. Brandt can tell us which area we 3 would reduce the irrigation in. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you do that, please? 5 MR. BRANDT: Let's break it into two pieces, then. 6 First in the areas where the exchange contractors are in. 7 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking what would be the best 8 solution to provide a drain for the exchange contractors' 9 area or reduce their irrigation water supply? 10 MR. BRANDT: Correct. 11 DR. DEVEREL: Given only those two options, I would 12 have to stay to construct the drain would be the best 13 solution. 14 MR. BRANDT: The other question is outside of the 15 exchange contractors, but still within the area that is 16 contributing to the San Joaquin River, which would be the 17 best option? 18 DR. DEVEREL: When you say "contributing to the San 19 Joaquin River" -- 20 MR. BRANDT: Contributing drainage to the San Joaquin 21 River. 22 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking for a choice again between 23 reducing application to those lands versus building a drain? 24 MR. BRANDT: Correct. 25 DR. DEVEREL: Again, I would have to say that if one CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7860 1 were to invest energy for a long-term solution, allow 2 sustainability of agriculture in the valley, in the western 3 valley, one would have to invest in building a drain. 4 MR. BRANDT: The next question is a question for both 5 of you. Is it your position that the Bureau of Reclamation 6 has a legal obligation to correct the drainage problems in 7 the exchange contractors' service area? 8 DR. DEVEREL: This is for both of us? 9 MR. BRANDT: Both of you. 10 DR. DEVEREL: That requires a legal conclusion. I am 11 not qualified to answer that. 12 MR. BRANDT: Mr. White? 13 MR. WHITE: I am probably not qualified, but it is my 14 opinion that that is the case. 15 MR. BRANDT: That would require, basically, a legal 16 analysis; is that what you are telling me? 17 MR. WHITE: Yes. 18 MR. BRANDT: Neither of you are lawyers, correct? 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You asked the question, Mr. Brandt. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: They may be lawyers, but they are not 21 attorneys. 22 MR. MINASIAN: You may ask morally. 23 MR. BRANDT: Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 25 Mr. Herrick, thank you, sir, for allowing Mr. Brandt to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7861 1 go first. Welcome back. 2 ---oOo--- 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 4 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 5 BY MR. HERRICK 6 MR. HERRICK: Once again, John Herrick for South Delta 7 Water Agency. 8 Mr. White, on the last page of your testimony, second 9 to last page, you talk about a better approach being to not 10 know focus on salt loads necessarily, but to focus on when 11 the river can assimilate different loading into that river; 12 is that correct? 13 MR. WHITE: That is correct. I don't know if it is on 14 that. 15 MR. HERRICK: It is, I believe, on Page 6 of your 16 testimony. 17 I understand Dr. Deverel's testimony to be that part of 18 the solution is the control of the loads going into the 19 river. Is there any -- do you have any disagreement with 20 that or is it just two parts of the whole, your opinion and 21 his opinion? 22 MR. WHITE: I think it is two parts of a whole. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion as to what should 24 happen to the load during those times of the year when the 25 river doesn't have that assimilative capacity? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7862 1 MR. WHITE: I don't think it is shown that it is the 2 time of the year situation such as this year. It may be 3 certain times of certain years. 4 MR. HERRICK: Let's focus in on those times, whatever 5 those times may be. I take it as an assumption or 6 underlying assumption of your position that sometimes it's 7 better to put higher loads in the river than other times? 8 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 9 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to focus on those times when 10 it is not better to but higher loads in. Do you have an 11 opinion as to what should be done, if anything? 12 MR. WHITE: Could you focus that a little bit down 13 there? 14 MR. HERRICK: Let's just say it is summer, a below 15 normal year and the drainage coming into Mud Slough is 5,000 16 parts per million. Do you have any recommendation on 17 whether or not anything should occur to address that? 18 MR. WHITE: Are you speaking towards the Camp 13 area? 19 MR. HERRICK: I believe the question was drainage going 20 into Mud Slough. 21 MR. WHITE: Well, there is other contributors besides 22 the Camp 13 area. There is wildlife areas. There's other 23 portions of irrigated lands that go into that area. The 24 Grassland Bypass area folks go into that. 25 MR. HERRICK: Let me try again. If sometimes it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7863 1 better to put out loads, does that mean that sometimes it is 2 not better? 3 MR. WHITE: Relative to -- as we state, or as I stated 4 in the testimony, protection of beneficial uses. 5 MR. HERRICK: I believe the purpose here is to -- 6 MR. WHITE: That is correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any recommendation on how to 8 control the loads entering the river during those times of 9 concern? 10 MR. WHITE: I think -- in looking at the overall 11 picture, one of the reasons it makes sense to discharge more 12 load or take advantage of the assimilative capacity of the 13 river when there is more water flowing, such as what 14 occurred during this last year, is that there may be some 15 opportunity to evacuate a little bit of storage in some of 16 these areas in order to meet a standard or meet a TMDL and 17 protect a beneficial use during an extremely dry period. 18 MR. HERRICK: Is the other side of that, then, at times 19 that salt load should be stored somewhere in some manner? 20 MR. WHITE: The salt load may have to be stored at some 21 time. 22 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that it -- rather than 23 the load -- based on your opinion that at sometimes you can 24 put larger loads into the river because it has assimilative 25 capacity, would you agree it is a question of concentration CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7864 1 of the flow as it enters the river? 2 MR. WHITE: I don't necessarily agree with that. 3 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Deverel, in reading your written 4 testimony, it seemed that you were suggesting that the South 5 Delta is part of the problem for San Joaquin River 6 salinity. But then in your, I believe it was, direct 7 examination it was my impression, anyway, that you backed 8 off that a little bit and said, "Well, I have Central Delta 9 data, but I believe that the issues involving the South 10 Delta warrant further investigation. 11 Did I misunderstood those two? 12 DR. DEVEREL: I thought the two were consistent, but 13 possibly they weren't. 14 My intention really is to present data that might 15 indicate that further looking at salt loading in the Delta 16 is part of the solution. 17 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Deverel, your testimony examined -- 18 your written testimony referenced data from Sherman Island, 19 Twitchell Island, and what was it -- 20 DR. DEVEREL: Orwood Tract. 21 MR. HERRICK: Could you point out the locations of 22 those islands for us on the overhead. I have put on South 23 Delta 56, which is generally just a map of the Delta. 24 DR. DEVEREL: Sherman Island is located here. 25 MR. HERRICK: You will have to describe where you are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7865 1 pointing when you say that, please. 2 DR. DEVEREL: Sherman Island is located on the western 3 edge of the map, maybe near the confluence of -- adjacent to 4 the Sacramento River. 5 MR. HERRICK: And where is Twitchell Island? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Twitchell Island is to the northeast of 7 Sherman Island. 8 MR. HERRICK: Where is Orwood Tract? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Orwood Tract is in the south Central 10 Delta, just north of Highway 4. 11 MR. HERRICK: Now, on questioning from Mr. Nomellini, 12 you said that when you referred to the South Delta you are 13 just referring to a region, not necessarily the political 14 designation; is that correct? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you specifically 17 mentioned South Delta Water Agency and loads discharged from 18 that area; isn't that true? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. HERRICK: It's true, isn't it, that Sherman Island, 21 Twitchell Island, Orwood Tract are not in the political 22 boundaries of South Delta? 23 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 24 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that their drainage has 25 nothing to do with the San Joaqin salinity issues before the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7866 1 Board right now? 2 DR. DEVEREL: It has nothing to do with the Vernalis 3 standard. 4 MR. HERRICK: Does it have anything to do with anything 5 upstream of Vernalis? 6 DR. DEVEREL: No, it doesn't. 7 MR. HERRICK: Just for the record, the interior Delta 8 standards which are also part of this phase -- let's point 9 those out on the map, too. The San Joaquin River at Brandt 10 Bridge is one of the proposed interior standards. Could you 11 highlight where that is on the map for us. 12 DR. DEVEREL: No, I probably can't. 13 MR. HERRICK: Would you -- would it jar your memory if 14 I said it is somewhere between the -- it is on the San 15 Joaquin River somewhere between where Old River breaks off 16 and the city of Stockton? 17 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: The other interior Delta standard is Old 19 River near Middle River. Could you highlight that for us on 20 the map. 21 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know exactly where that standard 22 is set, no. 23 MR. HERRICK: How about the Old River at Tracy Road? 24 DR. DEVEREL: Again, I don't know exactly where that 25 standard is set. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7867 1 MR. HERRICK: Any data from Orwood Tract, Sherman 2 Island and Twitchell Island would not -- well, would any 3 drainage from Sherman Island, Twitchell Island or Orwood 4 Tract have any affect on the interior Delta standards that 5 you listed? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Not that I could see, no. 7 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, in your testimony you try to 8 put a number on the salt load added by areas within the 9 South Delta Water Agency; is that correct? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. HERRICK: That testimony is on Page 10, and then 12 there is some exhibits and it goes over to Page 17; is that 13 correct? 14 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 15 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, how do you define load to 16 the river? Is that any contribution of salt or is it a net 17 contribution of salt or some other thing? 18 DR. DEVEREL: It is any contribution of salt to the 19 river, to the channels. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason you don't make a 21 distinction between net contribution and any contribution? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Primarily because I really wasn't in a 23 position to calculate the net contribution. I didn't have 24 numbers in terms of salt being applied. 25 MR. HERRICK: Well, hypothetically, if somebody CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7868 1 contributes an amount of salt to the river, but that is a 2 net zero of salt to the river, wouldn't that make a 3 difference in your analysis? 4 DR. DEVEREL: It could. Then, could you specify a 5 little bit? 6 MR. HERRICK: Let's take some South Delta islands. As 7 I recall, none of the data you have for those three areas 8 were in the South Delta? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. HERRICK: You conclude that there is approximately 11 an average of 126 tons per year contributed by the SDWA to, 12 I guess, the channels of the Delta; is that correct, 126 13 tons per year of salt? 14 DR. DEVEREL: That is the estimate that goes into the 15 Delta simulation model. 16 MR. HERRICK: Then you point out that in 1994 that 17 number was 271,000 tons; is that correct? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. HERRICK: Then two sentences later you say, "Of 20 course, in 1995 SDWA removed 191,600 tons of salt from the 21 Delta channels"; is that correct? 22 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any information that could 24 tell us what the net contribution of salt from Delta islands 25 is in the average years? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7869 1 DR. DEVEREL: No, I don't. Those are approximate 2 numbers. The primary reason for looking at those was just 3 to point in a direction where more data is needed, more than 4 anything else. 5 MR. HERRICK: I apologize if I am being argumentative. 6 I am not trying to be. It seems that your testimony adds 7 South Delta as part of the problem for the San Joaquin 8 salinity issues. 9 DR. DEVEREL: I don't think it says that. 10 MR. HERRICK: I just want to make sure. 11 Was this testimony written by you? 12 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it was. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Forster has a question, Mr. 14 Herrick. 15 MEMBER FORSTER: The question Mr. Herrick just asked 16 you, that is a little confusing. Because your testimony 17 does lead one to believe that that is what you were trying 18 to say. 19 DR. DEVEREL: I believe what I stated in my testimony 20 was that there are there -- there could be benefits from 21 conserving or reducing salt loads from the Delta islands to 22 Delta channels, and it merits further look in terms of 23 possibly ameliorating the water quality in the channel. 24 My intention and testimony, I don't think I have stated 25 that I try to point fingers. Basically this is the data and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7870 1 it indicates that it merits further looking into. 2 MR. HERRICK: Hypothetically, Dr. Deverel, if the South 3 Delta isn't contributing any net salt load to the channels, 4 do you think there should be some sort of management 5 practices imposed on that area? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Again, I think it is worth a closer 7 look. If there are management practices that could at times 8 reduce loads to the channels, which would in turn reduce 9 concentrations to the channel, which would provide the 10 benefit in terms of beneficial uses, I think that is worth 11 looking more closely at. 12 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any information that 13 indicates that salt load from South Delta areas is impairing 14 any beneficial uses? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I don't. 16 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, do you have any estimate as 17 to the number of studies that have been done in the past 30 18 years in regards to the salinity problem in the San Joaquin 19 River? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I don't. 21 MR. HERRICK: But you are aware that there have been 22 quite a few; would that be generally true? 23 DR. DEVEREL: There has been a number of studies done. 24 MR. HERRICK: Do you know if any of the studies done 25 point to the South Delta as a contributor to the salinity CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7871 1 problems in the San Joaquin River? 2 DR. DEVEREL: I am not aware of those. 3 MR. HERRICK: On your Exhibit 5(P), if you have that 4 with you, I'd appreciate that. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Sure. 6 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, this overhead, which is 5(P) 7 from your testimony, that shows generally a levee in the 8 channel of water and the land below the water level; is that 9 correct? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you used this to show 12 why subsurface waters may be mobilized and transport salt; 13 is that correct? 14 DR. DEVEREL: No. I really use it to illustrate the 15 hydrologic situation in the Delta in terms of how the water 16 level in the channel is higher than the water level on the 17 island where hydraulic gradients that cause seepage and 18 drain flows on Delta islands. 19 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, what portions of the South 20 Delta do you believe are below mean sea level? 21 DR. DEVEREL: I think it is just Union Island below sea 22 level, possibly parts of Fabian Tract. But I am not sure. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any data on that? 24 DR. DEVEREL: Data on below sea level? 25 MR. HERRICK: I believe we heard -- you weren't here, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7872 1 and you can certainly disagree with me. I believe we heard 2 in Phase I and II from Alex Hildebrand that the South Delta 3 lands are not below sea level. 4 DR. DEVEREL: I think we can check. 5 MR. HERRICK: While you are doing that, identify what 6 you are looking at. 7 DR. DEVEREL: This is the Delta Atlas, Sacramento-San 8 Joaquin Delta Atlas. I believe parts of Union Island are 9 below sea level. Maybe I'm wrong. 10 This shows -- this shows on Page 28 that parts of Union 11 Island are sea level to minus ten feet. 12 MR. HERRICK: Without introducing a new exhibit and 13 making me make copies of that, let's just discuss the basis 14 of your knowledge there. 15 Can you generally describe the portions of Union Island 16 which this report leads you to conclude that there are 17 portions below sea level? 18 DR. DEVEREL: This is just generally based on this 19 report, but it would actually include parts of Fabian Tract 20 and extend up to about here. It's delineated on this map. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. When Dr. Deverel says on 22 this point here, maybe, for the record, he can describe that 23 in a little greater detail? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 25 For future individuals reading the record, we need to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7873 1 remind ourselves to describe. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is this Delta Atlas in the record? Is 5 it a staff exhibit? 6 MS. LEIDIGH: Just a moment. See if we can find out. 7 MR. HOWARD: No. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: It is not in? 9 MR. MINASIAN: If you would like to have it in, this 10 particular page, we can could mark it as exchange 11 contractors, and I would be glad to serve it on everybody. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: That is very good of you, Mr. Minasian. 13 Mr. Stubchaer, do you think that would be to your 14 liking? 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I thought it would just simplify the 16 discussion. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: I don't know how many copies of that are 18 available around the world. So, it might help. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Xerox it. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: We are just talking about the particular 21 page or pages in question. That would be helpful. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. MINASIAN: That would be 5(S). 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would it be appropriate for the Atlas CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7874 1 to be marked as a Board Staff Exhibit and then ask that it 2 be introduced by reference, because, obviously, it is in the 3 files of the State Water Resources Control Board? As I 4 understand it, it is a publication of the Department of 5 Water Resources, and, therefore, it would be appropriate for 6 introduction by reference. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good 8 suggestion, because, otherwise, I'd have to disclose that I 9 would be looking at something that isn't in the record. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: That is a very good suggestion. 11 Do you see any problem with that at all, Ms. Leidigh? 12 MS. LEIDIGH: I don't see any problem with doing that. 13 We will have to figure out what the next in order is for 14 staff exhibits. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Remind me at the appropriate time and we 16 will accept it into evidence. Can I do it now and assign a 17 number? 18 MS. LEIDIGH: I think we ought to assign a number. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would this be the appropriate time to 20 take our mid-morning break and then assign a number during 21 the recess? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: It would be an excellent time. Let's do 23 that. 24 Thank you. 25 (Break taken.) CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7875 1 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 2 Mr. Herrick. 3 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 MR. HOWARD: Excuse me. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: We are going to -- I am sorry, Mr. 6 Herrick. We were going to assign a number. 7 MR. HOWARD: It turns out the Delta Atlas is in the 8 record as State Water Resources Control Board Exhibit Number 9 63. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Number 63. Thank you, sir. 11 All right, Mr. Herrick. 12 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 13 Dr. Deverel, before the break we were talking about 14 lands within the South Delta that might be below sea level. 15 You had referred to Page 28 of the Delta Atlas, and for the 16 record, it has just been identified as SWRCB Exhibit 63. 17 Have you done any sort of corroboration of the 18 information in the Delta Atlas? 19 DR. DEVEREL: I have. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the parts of 21 the South Delta that are listed as being below sea level -- 22 do you know whether or not or how much they may be below sea 23 level? 24 DR. DEVEREL: My recollection is that there are 25 elevations below sea level up to ten feet below sea level. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7876 1 MR. HERRICK: And that is based upon the Delta Atlas, 2 correct? 3 DR. DEVEREL: Well, actually, that is based upon the 4 Delta Atlas as well as topographic maps that were produced 5 during the 1970's, which is where this data came from. 6 MR. HERRICK: And that would depend, would it not, on 7 -- does it depend on whether or not high tide or low tides 8 be in existence? 9 DR. DEVEREL: The land surface elevation would be 10 influenced slightly by changes in water levels on the 11 island, but in general it wouldn't be influenced by high 12 tide or low tide. 13 MR. HERRICK: I understand the thrust of your testimony 14 to be that the pressure of the water in the channel is a 15 contributing factor towards mobilization of subsurface 16 salts. Is that true? 17 DR. DEVEREL: The pressure generated along a pressure 18 gradient from the channels to the center of the island can 19 move groundwater and salts with groundwater to drainage 20 ditches on islands where they are below sea level. 21 MR. HERRICK: That sort of process would be affected by 22 whether or not there is an incoming tide or outgoing tide or 23 high tide or -- 24 DR. DEVEREL: It could. But, in general, the water 25 level in the channel is always above the water level on -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7877 1 the groundwater level on islands where the surface elevation 2 is below sea level. 3 MR. HERRICK: The mean level of sea level, is that 4 affected -- do you know whether that is affected by the 5 export pumps of the state or federal projects? 6 DR. DEVEREL: I believe it is. That is out of my 7 expertise. 8 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, do you have any information 9 regarding the quality of subsurface water on any lands 10 within the South Delta Water Agency? 11 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. 12 MR. HERRICK: Would it be true to say we don't know 13 whether or not any South Delta lands that may be below sea 14 level actually have the problem you referred to, which is 15 the movement of subsurface water with salts? 16 DR. DEVEREL: I should clarify. In those areas where 17 there are lands below sea level, I do not have information 18 about the subsurface quality of water. In areas where the 19 land is at sea level or above sea level, there is some 20 information that I looked at that indicated the quality of 21 the water. 22 MR. HERRICK: I am sorry, did you say there is 23 information regarding South Delta lands? 24 DR. DEVEREL: There is some data about drainage water 25 on South Delta lands for those areas that are above sea CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7878 1 level. 2 MR. HERRICK: Where is that information? 3 DR. DEVEREL: There is some of that data reported in 4 USGS report published in 1984. 5 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony on Page 17 you say, 6 "What does the data show about sources of salt in the 7 Delta?" And I am trying to focus in on Delta lands. If it 8 doesn't apply to that, please tell us. 9 The first one you say is groundwater. Do you know of 10 any uses of groundwater by South Delta farmers? 11 DR. DEVEREL: Uses of ground water by farmers in the 12 South Delta? 13 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 14 DR. DEVEREL: I am not aware. 15 MR. HERRICK: Of course, South Delta farmers that apply 16 water are concentrating salts; is that correct? 17 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: That is the same thing as -- would that 19 be the same thing of virtually any use of water out of the 20 channel that would concentrate the salts? 21 DR. DEVEREL: For agriculture? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 23 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, that's true. 24 MR. HERRICK: You mentioned peat soils in your report 25 and also oxidation of peat soils as one of the methods of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7879 1 salt contributions. 2 Dr. Deverel, are you aware of what lands within the 3 South Delta have peat soils on them? Do you know? 4 DR. DEVEREL: They tend to follow those lands that we 5 just discussed, where the elevation is below sea level. 6 Yes, below sea level. 7 MR. HERRICK: Was is the basis for you, for your 8 opinion on that? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Well, we have recently generated a map 10 that delineates peat soils, and that information is also in 11 the Delta Atlas. 12 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any sort of calculations 13 which quantifies any salt contribution of lands in the South 14 Delta? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Beyond what is in my testimony? 16 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 17 DR. DEVEREL: No. 18 MR. HERRICK: Your testimony, my understanding, is that 19 it gives an example and calculates what that salt would be 20 from that example; is that correct? 21 DR. DEVEREL: It gives -- it estimates the salt load 22 based on 1995 data for flow and concentrations of drain 23 water from one drainage pump in the South Delta. 24 MR. HERRICK: The fourth source of salt in the Delta 25 you list is this dissolution of soil salts. Do you have any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7880 1 information regarding the soil salts of South Delta lands? 2 DR. DEVEREL: Well, that information that I referred to 3 earlier, which gives some water quality data for subsurface 4 drainage water in South Delta, indicates that there has been 5 some dissolution of selenium containing minerals in the 6 South Delta. 7 MR. HERRICK: When you talk about the data that has 8 been presented, are you talking about the New Jerusalem 9 District that is mentioned in your report? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. HERRICK: Does New Jerusalem get its water 12 exclusively from the river or does it get it somewhere else? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. 14 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not it gets any 15 water from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 16 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know. 17 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the 18 Delta-Mendota Canal is contributing to seepage in the area? 19 DR. DEVEREL: Seepage from the canal in the area? 20 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 21 DR. DEVEREL: I am not aware of that. 22 MR. HERRICK: Is it possible that the salts that you've 23 identified as coming from New Jerusalem originated in the 24 Delta-Mendota Canal rather than the soil? 25 DR. DEVEREL: The fact that there is selenium in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7881 1 drainage water leads me to believe that they are not seepage 2 related; they are actually salts that come from the soils 3 themselves. 4 MR. HERRICK: Does the selenium that comes down the 5 river -- doesn't selenium coming down the river get sucked 6 back into the pumps and put into the DMC? 7 DR. DEVEREL: Generally not. It wouldn't be present in 8 that high concentration in the drainage water. 9 MR. HERRICK: But you haven't done any -- have you done 10 any analysis? 11 DR. DEVEREL: I have not done any hydrologic analysis 12 to determine that. 13 MR. HERRICK: On your Exhibit 5(Q) -- you don't 14 necessarily have to put it up, Mr. Minasian -- one of the 15 portions of 5(Q) has a ground quality chart/graph? 16 DR. DEVEREL: I am familiar with that. 17 MR. HERRICK: That information, is that drawn from any 18 lands that are in the South Delta? 19 DR. DEVEREL: No, it is not. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you know where the boundaries of South 21 Delta Agency are? 22 DR. DEVEREL: I am generally familiar with the 23 boundaries. 24 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, moving upstream, with regard 25 to your testimony, it is my understanding that you mentioned CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7882 1 once -- I recall you mentioning in your testimony that the 2 focus should not be on the importation of salts, but the 3 control of the subsurface drainage? 4 DR. DEVEREL: That's true. 5 MR. HERRICK: Let's do a hypothetical. Let's go back 6 further. 7 Was there a groundwater gradient similar to the one 8 today prior to irrigation of the Central Valley? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, there was -- there wasn't a 10 groundwater towards the San Joaquin River. It wasn't of the 11 same magnitude that it is today. 12 MR. HERRICK: Before any substantial irrigation in that 13 area, wasn't there actually artesian areas along the San 14 Joaquin River? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. HERRICK: Were those artesian areas an indication 17 of the groundwater gradient? 18 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Then we move into times of irrigation. 20 The first thing that happened was subsurface pumping; is 21 that correct? 22 DR. DEVEREL: That is true. 23 MR. HERRICK: That decreased the groundwater level; is 24 that correct? 25 DR. DEVEREL: That's true. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7883 1 MR. HERRICK: Did that also decrease the gradient? 2 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it did. 3 MR. HERRICK: Up to that point, by that I mean before 4 CVP began operation, was there any -- are you aware of any 5 sort of problem with salts in the San Joaquin River? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Can you define that, please, in terms of 7 what you mean by "problems in the San Joaquin River"? 8 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of any impairments to 9 beneficial uses or complaints or anything that would 10 indicate that somebody is unhappy with the quality of the 11 San Joaquin River? 12 DR. DEVEREL: No, I can't. 13 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the issue of salt in 14 the San Joaquin River arose after the operation of the CVP? 15 DR. DEVEREL: As we defined it here today, yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: Let's just -- excuse me. Then if we move 17 forward in time, the delivery of water to large areas of the 18 Central San Joaquin Valley then reestablished the 19 groundwater gradient. Is that a fair statement? 20 DR. DEVEREL: The groundwater gradient, hydraulic 21 gradient, increased as pumping decreased in the San Joaquin 22 Valley. 23 MR. HERRICK: Of course, the water supplied to that 24 was, as we have heard, between two and five -- three and 25 five TDS? Delivered water was of that quality, also? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7884 1 DR. DEVEREL: In general. 2 MR. HERRICK: Generally, that was a better quality than 3 what was coming down the San Joaquin River before that? 4 DR. DEVEREL: I can't say that. 5 MR. HERRICK: Let's do a hypothetical. Let's say the 6 CVP has been delivering distilled water for all these 7 years. Would we have the same problem to which you are 8 referring, which is subsurface high salt which ends up in 9 drainage? 10 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, we would. 11 MR. HERRICK: The source of that salt would be what? 12 DR. DEVEREL: The source of those salts are leaching 13 soil salts that were present prior to irrigation. 14 MEMBER BROWN: Clarification, Mr. Chairman. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Brown. Clarification. 16 MEMBER BROWN: Clarification on the last answer. 17 You're delivering distilled water, and you have 18 exportation of salts. Wouldn't you at some point in time 19 reach in the equilibrium or where would you be exporting -- 20 wouldn't the soils eventually clear up? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Eventually it would. But the question 22 was would we have the problem today, at least that was my 23 understanding. And I believe if we applied distilled water, 24 those salts would have been leached out in the same way. We 25 would still have essentially the same mass of groundwater CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7885 1 salt or something similar to it that would be moving towards 2 drains as they are today. 3 MEMBER BROWN: Perhaps, Mr. Herrick, you could clear up 4 the question. Were you talking about eventually the problem 5 would decrease or -- that is what I understood your question 6 to mean, but you got the answer to that, it was kind of 7 instantaneous. 8 MR. HERRICK: That was the beginning of the point I am 9 trying to make, so I think I am getting to that. 10 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. 11 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, have you done any 13 calculations as to what in, say, 30 years of applying 14 distilled water would have done to the concentration of the 15 subsurface groundwater? 16 DR. DEVEREL: No, I haven't. 17 MR. HERRICK: On the overhead is South Delta Water 18 Agency Exhibit 13. That has been introduced earlier. Have 19 you done any investigation with regard to the amounts of 20 salts imported via the DMC to the western part of the San 21 Joaquin Valley? 22 DR. DEVEREL: No, I have not. 23 MR. HERRICK: You can see, as per SDWA 17, that through 24 the year 1990 we have a yearly amount of somewhere over 25 2,000,000 tons. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7886 1 Would you agree with that? 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Object to the question on the ground 3 it is ambiguous. Is Mr. Herrick asking the witness does he 4 agree with what this exhibit shows, or does he agree with 5 the conclusion that is stated in the exhibit? 6 MR. HERRICK: I will rephrase that. 7 Dr. Deverel, first of all, do you read this chart the 8 way I do which shows -- excuse me, I said two. 9 Approximately 24,000,000 tons of salt going in there in the 10 year 1990? Excuse me, this is the net accumulation. 11 DR. DEVEREL: This is -- I am a little bit confused by 12 this graph. This is -- perhaps you can walk me through it 13 and show me exactly what it is saying. 14 MR. HERRICK: This is, according to earlier testimony, 15 a representation of the amounts of salt that are 16 accumulating in the area that we have been talking about, 17 pursuant to deliveries of DMC water. The farthest right 18 point, data point, on the chart is 1989. I guess 1990. And 19 the text shows that that accretion amount is somewhere 20 around 24,000,000 tons. 21 DR. DEVEREL: That is the amount that accreted in 1989, 22 or that is total accumulative accretion? 23 MR. HERRICK: That is the total net. In other words, 24 the testimony showed that there was calculations of how much 25 went in, how much went out and what is left. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7887 1 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Has that been offered as testimony? 4 C.O. CAFFREY: It has. 5 Ms. Leidigh. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: Could you tell us what exhibit number 7 this is or what exhibit it is? 8 MR. HERRICK: This is South Delta 17. 9 MS. LEIDIGH: Thank you. 10 MR. HERRICK: I can't tell you what day. It was 11 discussed with Mr. Hildebrand, but I can next year. 12 Dr. Deverel, I am not asking you to dispute this or 13 agree with it. Have you done any sort of investigation of 14 this area of salt accumulation in the valley? 15 DR. DEVEREL: If you are asking if I've made 16 calculations that would be similar to this, no. 17 MR. HERRICK: When you say that the application of 18 distilled water over an approximate 30-year period wouldn't 19 affect the problem of subsurface water, would information 20 like this change your opinion? 21 DR. DEVEREL: If you define the problem as salinity 22 coming from subsurface drainage, I would still maintain that 23 the large majority of the problem would still be there. 24 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any calculations on the 25 amount of salt in this subsurface drainage that was there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7888 1 that was not imported from the Delta-Mendota Canal? 2 DR. DEVEREL: No, I have not. 3 MR. HERRICK: On what basis do you then compare, 4 conclude, that the importation of somewhere over 24,000,000 5 tons would not affect your conclusion? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Basically, it's going back to the data 7 we've collected during the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 8 Program. Everywhere we look, in terms of flow and drainage 9 sumps, based on geochemical data, isotopic data and other 10 sources of data, the majority of the salts are coming from 11 dissolution of salts in the soil profile. 12 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, I have now put up SDWA 18. 13 Again, introduced earlier in these proceedings. And that is 14 a yearly amount. 15 And Dr. Deverel, just so we are on the same track, 16 South Delta 18 shows annual accretions of salt from the 17 Delta-Mendota Canal, and the last data point is 1989. It 18 is somewhere over 1,100,000 tons. 19 Do you see that on that overhead? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 21 MR. HERRICK: Again, just to kind of make a final point 22 on this, Dr. Deverel. You are not concerned, then, with the 23 importation of these kind of quantities of salt in your area 24 management proposal before the Board? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I don't think I said I wasn't concerned. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7889 1 But I think what I am saying is that the focus should be on 2 the subsurface salts that have been the result of leaching 3 salts from the soils and evapoconcentration of shallow 4 groundwater that is mainly the result of salts that were in 5 place when irrigation first began. I believe that should be 6 the focus of manager practices in terms of reducing loads 7 and drainage systems. 8 MR. HERRICK: Following up on Board Member Brown's 9 question, do you have any estimate as to whether or not the 10 groundwater would have improved if we had 30 years of 11 distilled water application instead of a million tons a year 12 of saltwater application? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I think it would probably be better than 14 it is today. But, again, I think we would still have a 15 salinity problem. 16 MR. HERRICK: But you haven't done any calculations to 17 show how the imported salt amounts compared to existing salt 18 amounts? 19 DR. DEVEREL: No, I haven't. 20 MR. HERRICK: I believe I am almost done, Mr. Chairman, 21 if you'll just bear with me for a moment to make sure that I 22 haven't missed anything that I want to bring up. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: That is all right, Mr. Herrick. 24 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Deverel, in your testimony, I don't 25 remember cross or direct, you did state that decreasing the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7890 1 application of water could result in an increased 2 concentration or perhaps no affect or perhaps a decreased 3 concentration. Did you say that at one point, I believe? 4 DR. DEVEREL: I believe I said that increased flows can 5 result in little change or a decrease in concentration. 6 MR. HERRICK: I believe you said that in your written 7 testimony. I think in response to a question you did say 8 that, well, you'd have to examine each particular situation 9 to see if a decrease in application, what the affect is on 10 the concentration of the drainage. 11 Do you agree with that? 12 DR. DEVEREL: I referred to a specific case in the 13 Delta, for example, where do you see increases in 14 concentration with an increase in volumes, in some cases. 15 MR. HERRICK: Now, on your Exhibit 5(M) -- 16 Thank you, Mr. Minasian, appreciate that. 17 -- if we are trying to address the salinity of the San 18 Joaquin River, don't we need to know more than what is 19 presented on this exhibit? 20 DR. DEVEREL: Surely. 21 MR. HERRICK: This exhibit shows that with the 22 application of water, as compared to the nonapplication? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 24 MR. HERRICK: That the load is higher, and I believe 25 the upper chart shows a load of 60 kilograms per year and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7891 1 307 and the bottom one shows 24 and 268? 2 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 3 MR. HERRICK: That is actually a higher load, correct, 4 the upper one, which is the application of water? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. HERRICK: According to the language at the right, 7 the concentration is actually higher also; we have 6,000, 8 5,900, and 5,900 and 5,800? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. HERRICK: In order for this to help us, I'll say, 11 decrease the salinity of the San Joaquin River, don't we 12 need to know when this water might be reaching the river? 13 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 14 MR. HERRICK: We'd need to know how much water is in 15 the river? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. HERRICK: We need to know what the existing salt 18 concentration in the river is? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. HERRICK: Because the way the system works, we also 21 need to know, perhaps, what downstream dilutions may be 22 available in the calculation, too? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Could be. 24 MR. HERRICK: So let's just do a hypothetical here. If 25 we decrease the water put on a piece of land which generates CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7892 1 drainage, but the concentration is higher than before, would 2 you agree that that may or may not help the San Joaquin 3 River salinity? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Again, it depends on the situation in the 5 river itself, as per those factors you just mentioned. 6 MR. HERRICK: So in order for us to -- we'd have to go 7 farther than just a management of applied water; we would 8 have to examine the receiving waters; is that right? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. HERRICK: Sometimes when you apply less water it 11 might help the river, but sometimes it might hurt the river; 12 is that correct? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I don't know how it would hurt the 14 river. 15 MR. HERRICK: Let's continue the hypothetical. If the 16 concentration goes up, you need something to dilute that. 17 And if the flows in the San Joaquin River are stable under 18 the hypothetical, same before and after, don't you need more 19 dilution for that higher concentration? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I am not following why the concentrations 21 go up if you reduce the load to the river. 22 MR. HERRICK: Let's go into the difference between load 23 and concentration. If you have a load that is diluted down 24 to five parts per million, that is not a problem for the 25 river, is it? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7893 1 DR. DEVEREL: Probably not. 2 MR. HERRICK: If you have the same load and that's at 3 5,000 parts per million, that is a problem for the river, 4 right? 5 DR. DEVEREL: You have just described two different 6 concentrations. 7 MR. HERRICK: Correct. But I kept the load the same. 8 That is what I am going through here in the hypothetical. 9 DR. DEVEREL: Okay. 10 MR. HERRICK: If we increase the concentration, it's 11 possible, then, that the river has a harder time 12 assimilating that, correct? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I am not following it. My calculations 14 indicate that if you reduce the load to the river in 15 general, you would reduce the concentration. 16 MR. HERRICK: Just a couple more questions on that. 17 You don't accept the fact that a reduction in load can 18 result in a higher concentration? 19 DR. DEVEREL: In general, no, I don't. 20 MR. HERRICK: That is all the questions I have. 21 Thank you. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 23 Ms. Harrigfeld. 24 ---oOo--- 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7894 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 2 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 3 BY MS. HARRIGFELD 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Good morning. My name is Karna 5 Harrigfeld. I represent Stockton East Water District. 6 Dr. Deverel, in your written statement on Page 1 you 7 state that one of the methods to solve the agricultural 8 drainage problem is to focus on concentrated salts in 9 shallow and deep groundwater. 10 How would you approach reducing the salts in shallow 11 and deep groundwater? Lines 19 through 22. 12 DR. DEVEREL: There is really only one way to reduce 13 the concentrations in the shallow groundwater, and that is 14 continue to allow that water to flow out of the drainage 15 systems. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, continue to allow it to flow 17 through the subsurface drainage, tile drainage? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MS. HARRIGFELD: If less surface water was applied, 20 meaning only what is necessary for the crops and necessarily 21 the amount to leach out the salts required in the root zone, 22 would you stabilize -- would this stabilize the groundwater 23 levels and decrease the flow out of the existing drainage 24 facilities? 25 DR. DEVEREL: If you apply just enough water for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7895 1 consumptive use? 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: Yes. 3 DR. DEVEREL: In general, that is true. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: On Page 4 of your written testimony 5 you state that the groundwater table will continue to rise 6 whether or not there is a drain. Is this statement true if 7 less surface water was applied? 8 DR. DEVEREL: Depends on how much less was applied. If 9 we continue management practices the way they exist today, 10 groundwater levels will continue to rise. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: If there was a reduction in the 12 application of surface water, you just testified that if you 13 reduce the application of surface water, groundwater levels 14 would stabilize? 15 DR. DEVEREL: I stated that if you reduce surface water 16 application to the extent that they were just applied to 17 meet consumptive use, that would be the case. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: You have -- Mr. Herrick just asked you 19 a series of questions of this whole kind of flow load 20 concentration. In your testimony, in your written 21 testimony, you state that decreases of the volume of return 22 flow will decrease the salt load. 23 What methods do you propose to reduce the return flow 24 entering the river? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I'm not proposing methods, per se. I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7896 1 merely stated the fact that salt loads, in general, decrease 2 with volume of flow. 3 MS. HARRIGFELD: How would you reduce the volume of 4 return flow entering the river? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Well, we have outlined one here this 6 morning in my testimony, that if you reduce the application 7 of irrigation water in general, it will reduce the volume of 8 flow. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are there other methods besides the 10 reduction of applied surface water? 11 DR. DEVEREL: One could plug the drain, for example, 12 and not allow the drain flow to flow out. That would reduce 13 the flow. 14 In general, one could reduce hydraulic pressures 15 throughout the region, and that might also contribute to 16 that. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, in response to questions from Mr. 18 Herrick, and in your written testimony, you state that there 19 will be a corresponding reduction in salinity, with salinity 20 concentrations, when there is a reduction in load? 21 DR. DEVEREL: Not necessarily. The load reduces with 22 flow, but the concentration may stay the same. It may 23 decrease or increase. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: On Page 21, Lines 19 through 21, you 25 state: CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7897 1 Decreasing loads of salt in drainage water 2 discharging to receiving waters will cause 3 the concentrations in the receiving waters to 4 decrease. (Reading.) 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MS. HARRIGFELD: As a general principle, a decrease in 7 salt loads means a decrease in concentrations? 8 DR. DEVEREL: In general, yes. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. Minasian, could you put up Exhibit 10 5(F). 11 MR. MINASIAN: Absolutely. 12 MS. HARRIGFELD: Looking at the bottom table, could you 13 explain this to me. The way I read it is with a flow of 14 80,000 acre-feet a year your concentration level is 15 approximately 22-, 2300 TDS. 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: With a reduction in the flow by 18 one-half, we see concentration levels at 3100 TDS? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: So an increase from 2200 to 3100 TDS 21 is not a significant change? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Well, again I go back to the other 23 diagram that shows as you increase flows, drainage flows, 24 you increase the load. And it's that load really that is 25 critical in determining the concentration in the river. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7898 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: Dr. Deverel, are there load targets on 2 the San Joaquin River for salinity? 3 DR. DEVEREL: Not that I know of. 4 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is the only objective on the San 5 Joaquin River the Vernalis water quality objective for 6 salinity? 7 DR. DEVEREL: That is my understanding. 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, load, at least with respect to 9 this phase of the hearing, whether it is increased or 10 decreased, does not necessarily matter; we have to hit the 11 concentration target? 12 DR. DEVEREL: I would disagree with that. It does 13 matter. The load in the river is going to determine what 14 the concentration of the river is. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, from this chart it seems to me 16 that the reduction in load from or the reduction in flow, 17 which you have stated reduces load, increases the 18 concentration levels? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That is right. 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: So if it increases the concentration 21 levels in the river -- 22 DR. DEVEREL: This isn't river data. This is a drain 23 flow data. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: If you have a drainage coming from Mud 25 Slough at 3,000 TDS, what sort of dilution flows would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7899 1 required to meet the 500 TDS standard? 2 DR. DEVEREL: I haven't made those calculations. 3 MS. HARRIGFELD: Okay. You don't know. 4 There has been considerable discussion about water 5 conservation. When we are talking about in the realm of the 6 exchange contractors, when you conserve water, are you 7 saving an amount of water; that is, not applying it to the 8 surface, not applying it? 9 DR. DEVEREL: In general, yes. 10 MS. HARRIGFELD: What sort of number are we talking 11 about for conserved water that we have seen within the San 12 Joaquin exchange contractors service area? 13 MR. MINASIAN: I am going to object to the question. 14 It is unclear unless it focuses on Camp 13, the 6,000 acres 15 versus the 140,000 where they have groundwater recharge. 16 You want to make it to Camp 13. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: If you can specify. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, sure. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Camp 13? 20 MS. HARRIGFELD: In the Camp 13 area has there been a 21 water conservation effort employed? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Chris would probably be better to talk 23 about that than I am. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. White? 25 MR. WHITE: Within the Camp 13 area there have been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7900 1 certain water conservation practices employed. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: How much water has been saved by the 3 employment of those water conservation practices? 4 MR. WHITE: There hasn't been a number calculated for 5 Camp 13. 6 MS. HARRIGFELD: Water conservation as a principle, has 7 it been employed in the other 140,000 acres? 8 MR. WHITE: Yes, it has. 9 MS. HARRIGFELD: Has that number been quantified, how 10 much water has been saved by implementation of the water 11 conservation practices? 12 MR. WHITE: There is one thing to kind of clarify 13 here. There is various types of water conservation. I 14 think you may be talking about conservation practices that 15 lead to less deep percolation. 16 Is that what you are talking about? 17 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am just talking water conservation 18 practices that yield some sort of water savings of applied 19 water. 20 MR. WHITE: Maybe you need to define what "water 21 savings" mean. 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: Well, if you apply -- normally applied 23 to a certain tract of land 100,000 acre-feet, and you employ 24 water conservation measures as they are discussed in your 25 testimony -- not your testimony, but in Dr. Deverel's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7901 1 testimony, and it ends up that only 50,000 acre-feet of 2 water is applied, are we achieving a 50,000 acre-feet water 3 savings, freed up? 4 MR. WHITE: You might. There are circumstances where 5 that is not the case. We talk about the rest of the 140,000 6 acres in the exchange contractor -- within CCID, make that 7 clear. We are a conjunctive use district. We have a viable 8 aquifer system, which relies significantly on recharge from 9 irrigation, from creek flows, from river flows. And so to 10 an extent, if you look at the groundwater basin and if you 11 see that over the long term groundwater levels are 12 declining, then those types of conservation efforts are not 13 beneficial at all. 14 MS. HARRIGFELD: In general, is the principle of water 15 conservation to apply less water? 16 MR. MINASIAN: Do I understand your question, you want 17 to focus on Camp 13, a drainage area? 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: I am interested in finding out if the 19 concept of water conservation means that you are freeing up 20 or saving water. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: As a general -- 22 MS. HARRIGFELD: As a general principle. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you answer that, Mr. White? 24 MR. WHITE: As a general principle, water conservation, 25 that does reduce applied water. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7902 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: Dr. Deverel, in your testimony you 3 discuss land retirement as a part of the regional solution 4 to employ to solve the agricultural drainage problem. This 5 is a similar question. 6 Is water saved by land retirement? 7 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: Is there any sort of quantification in 9 your regional solution? When we are talking about land 10 retirement, are we talking about a specific number of acres 11 in a specific number of water that would be conserved or not 12 applied with regards to land retirement? 13 DR. DEVEREL: Those -- some of those calculations have 14 been done. I have not referred to those in my testimony. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: But in your testimony you list six 16 components that you believe comprise a regional solution? 17 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 18 MS. HARRIGFELD: If you employed those -- let me back 19 up. 20 The water that is saved through a land retirement 21 program and some of your water conservation efforts, would 22 that water be used by other farmers in the area? 23 DR. DEVEREL: It could be. 24 MS. HARRIGFELD: Would that water be used on, let's 25 say, wildlife refuges? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7903 1 DR. DEVEREL: There is a multitude of uses for it. 2 MS. HARRIGFELD: So, if that water that is conserved 3 through land retirement or water conservation is used on 4 those other farms and/or wildlife refuges, would the water 5 that comes off those lands go into the San Joaquin River? 6 DR. DEVEREL: Water that comes off those lands through 7 what mechanism? How would it enter the San Joaquin River? 8 MS. HARRIGFELD: That is my question. If it is applied 9 to other areas? 10 DR. DEVEREL: It depends on where it is applied. If it 11 is applied in the basin, some part of it might enter the San 12 Joaquin River. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: How about the wildlife refuges? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Some of it could, yes. 15 MS. HARRIGFELD: The six components of your regional 16 solution, if those were implemented, could a salinity 17 standard of 500 TDS above Merced be met with implementation 18 of those six? 19 DR. DEVEREL: It depends on the specifics of it, and 20 yearly or what year we're talking about. I think over the 21 short term -- in general, over the short term one could 22 approach or begin to meet the standard. Over the long term 23 it is going to be difficult to meet, given those, 24 implementation of those. It depends on what scale they are 25 implemented at. There are a lot of details there. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7904 1 MS. HARRIGFELD: You talked throughout your testimony 2 about timing of releases and assimilative capacity. Where 3 are the releases coming from? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Could you specify where? 5 MS. HARRIGFELD: Sure. On Page 21, Lines 20 and 21. 6 On Page 25. Lines 5 and 7. 7 DR. DEVEREL: Well, what I am referring to there is 8 evaluating the timing of the release of drainage water in 9 terms of assimilative capacity of the river. So, you are 10 referring to, in general, any place but primarily Mud Slough 11 or other places where drainage water is released to the 12 river. 13 MS. HARRIGFELD: On Page 25 you talk about assimilative 14 capacity? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Right. 16 MS. HARRIGFELD: Where is that assimilative capacity? 17 Are we talking about releases from the Tuolumne, the Merced, 18 the Stanislaus, or just a combination of all? 19 DR. DEVEREL: A combination of all those. What I am 20 referring to here is an evaluation of the assimilative 21 capacity ongoing basis and adjusting drain flows accordingly 22 to take advantage of assimilative drain capacity. 23 MS. HARRIGFELD: Let me just check my notes. 24 Just one final question. 25 Are either of you familiar with the San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7905 1 Exchange Contractors entering into a contract with the 2 Bureau of Reclamation for conserved water to apply to the 3 San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges? 4 DR. DEVEREL: I am not familiar with it. 5 MS. HARRIGFELD: Mr. White, are you familiar with that? 6 MR. WHITE: I am not familiar with the contract. 7 MS. HARRIGFELD: Are you familiar with the practice 8 that the exchange contractors have conserved water and are 9 transferring it to the wildlife refuges? 10 MR. WHITE: In general. 11 MS. HARRIGFELD: Thank you. 12 That is all I have. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Harrigfeld. 14 Just a moment while Mr. Stubchaer and I confer. 15 (Discussion held off record.) 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Rather than start Mr. Birmingham's 17 cross-examination and have to leave in about ten minutes -- 18 while I know it breaks your heart -- 19 MR. NOMELLINI: He can finish in ten minutes. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: If you will stipulate to that, we will 21 stay. 22 Let's break now, and we will be back at 1:30 and resume 23 with Mr. Birmingham. 24 (Luncheon break.) 25 ---oOo-- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7906 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 ---oOo--- 3 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 4 Mr. O'Laughlin, do you have something for the good of 5 the cause? 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I don't know if it is for the good of 7 the cause. I have a question. 8 There appears to be some confusion in the general 9 public about the notice that was sent out talking about the 10 tentative dates. Realizing that the word "tentative" may 11 have meant that if and when the Board finishes this process 12 earlier than March, you wouldn't have had to use the dates 13 in March. Some parties took it to mean those are tentative 14 dates for January, February or March and are not firmed up. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: This came up recently. Somebody else 16 was mentioning this the other day. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I've gotten about two or three phone 18 calls in the last several days about this. I was wondering 19 if it would be possible for the Board just to post on its 20 web page that those are firm dates, and if the hearing, of 21 course, finishes before, then you don't need those hearing 22 dates. 23 The other thing that might be worthwhile as well -- I 24 have been getting a lot of calls lately when II-A might 25 start, given that it appears that we will finish Phase V CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7907 1 tomorrow. It might be nice to inform parties that have not 2 been present here that II-A will start on, not saying that 3 it will start, January 11th, but it appears it will start on 4 January 11th, and let the parties know that. I don't mind 5 fielding the phone calls, but I can't speak for you or the 6 Board. I've just given my best estimation. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. O'Laughlin, I think those are very 8 good suggestions. We can do that on our web site. 9 MS. LEIDIGH: We certainly can. We can say that 10 these are firm dates on the web site, if you want to. But, 11 quite frankly, if you are looking at the letter, I don't see 12 where the confusion is, because it says that these are dates 13 that are set aside for continuation, and then it says the 14 SWRCB may cancel some or all of these dates. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: What did you say, Mr. Nomellini? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I just said all these girls like to 17 talk to Mr. O'Laughlin. It has nothing to do with this. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Oh, my God, is that on the record? 19 Is this about draft status, Mr. Birmingham? 20 Go ahead, you have a question. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am waiting to cross-examine. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Let's go back to where we were. Be that 23 as it may, Ms. Leidigh, I think it is probably -- if there 24 is confusion out there, we probably ought to state clearly 25 that these are firm dates and that we may not need to use CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7908 1 all of them, but in the event we need them all, we will use 2 them all. And also, it is probably -- if luck stays with 3 us, it is probably fair to put on the web site in the 4 relatively near future that the first January date will be 5 when we start Phase II-A. We will know that in about 48 6 hours. 7 MS. LEIDIGH: Normally the staff has been keeping the 8 web site up. They do point out when things are going to 9 start and when briefs are due and so on like that. So all 10 of that information should show up on the web site shortly 11 after tomorrow. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. 13 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Russell, who is very helpful, points 14 out -- he printed out a copy of the web site, and he says 15 that it is already on there. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: What is already on there? 17 MS. LEIDIGH: The order of appearance for II-A is on 18 the web site, and the schedule for next year's hearing dates 19 is on the web site. And there is a sentence on here that 20 does not appear on the letter that was sent out. It says: 21 These dates are tentaive and subject to 22 change if conflicts arise with Board Members' 23 schedule. 24 (Reading.) 25 C.O. CAFFREY: That is probably boilerplate. I find it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7909 1 somewhat unfortunate because nothing is going to be changed 2 because of Board Members' schedule. That is why the thing 3 is set the way it is. 4 MEMBER FORSTER: You can't say that. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: I am here now. As long as Mr. Stubchaer 6 is in charge, the Hearing Officer will always be here for 7 those dates. So I think it is perhaps a well-meaning choice 8 of words, but probably did create some confusion. 9 Those dates are firm to the extent that we need them 10 all. 11 Is that a fair way of saying it? 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: With one possible exception. 13 MEMBER FORSTER: Just teasing. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Your birthday is coming up? 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I seriously will do that. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: We are going to -- 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: I am on the Good Neighbor 18 Environmental Board, and they are meeting in El Paso on 19 February 11th, which is a noticed Bay-Delta hearing date. 20 So that -- 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We should be done. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Astute observation. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: I would just put a question mark by 24 February 11th. Otherwise, all the dates are in conformance 25 with our schedule dates. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7910 1 MR. HOWARD: We will just note that. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: We will clarify all this on the web 3 site. As an old supervisor of mine used to say at the 4 Department of Finance, "We are burning daylight," so let's 5 go, Mr. Birmingham. And it was no fault of yours, sir. Go 6 ahead. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 9 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 10 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. White, Dr. Deverel, I am Tom 12 Birmingham. I am an attorney that represents Westlands 13 Water District. 14 Mr. White -- and before I conduct my examination, 15 Chairman Caffrey, apparently Mr. Hildebrand, who is going to 16 be presented by South Delta, would like to finish today, and 17 what Mr. Minasian, Mr. Herrick and I have agreed to do is I 18 will cross-examine Mr. White and then suspend my 19 cross-examination of this panel so that South Delta can call 20 Dr. Hildebrand, and then I will resume my cross-examination 21 if that meets with your approval. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Certainly meets with my approval. 23 Is there any objection from the audience to proceed 24 that way to accommodate Mr. Hildebrand? We certainly would 25 like to do that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7911 1 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Is Mr. Hildebrand going to be here 2 tomorrow? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Including cross. 4 MR. HERRICK: For informational purposes, the direct is 5 not very much, I think. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: We will certainly accommodate you, 7 Alex. MR. HILDEBRAND: Thank you. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. Go ahead. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: During your testimony, Mr. White, in 10 response to questions by Mr. Minasian, you referred to 11 several cases, litigation, that were filed by Central 12 California Irrigation District against the United States 13 related to drainage; is that correct? 14 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: One of the cases to which you referred 16 was a case that was filed in 1988. 17 MR. WHITE: Yes. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That case is Firebaugh Canal Water 19 District and Central California Irrigation District versus 20 the United States? 21 MR. WHITE: Yes. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have a document that I would like to 23 have marked Westlands next in order, which I believe is 24 Westlands 99, and it is a document entitled "Agreement to 25 Petition the District Court to Permit Dismissal Without CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7912 1 Prejudice and Approved Settlement," and there are copies of 2 the document here for the parties as well. I have handed 3 to Mr. Howard 20 copies of the document identified as 4 Westlands Exhibit 99. 5 Mr. White, do you have a copy of Westlands Exhibit 99 6 with you? 7 MR. WHITE: Yes. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you please describe for the 9 Board what is Westlands Exhibit 99. 10 MR. WHITE: Would you like me to read the entitlement 11 or title of the document? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me ask you, Mr. White, Westlands 13 Water District Exhibit 99 is a settlement agreement that was 14 recently executed by certain parties in an effort to resolve 15 the 1998 [verbatim] litigation, which we just talked about 16 that; is that correct? 17 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The parties to the agreement are 19 Central California Irrigation District, Firebaugh Canal 20 Water District, Broadview Water District, Panoche Water 21 District, Westlands Water District and the San Joaquin River 22 Exchange Contractors Water Authority? 23 MR. WHITE: Yes, that is correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Were you involved, Mr. White, in the 25 negotiations which resulted in Westlands Water District CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7913 1 Exhibit number 99? 2 MR. WHITE: Yes, I was. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you please describe when those 4 negotiations began. 5 MR. WHITE: I believe that in early to mid 1997 is when 6 we started talking about this particular document. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Were the negotiations, which resulted 8 in Westlands Water District Exhibit 99, related to the 9 proceedings that are now ongoing before the Water Resources 10 Control Board? 11 MR. WHITE: Repeat the question. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The document, which has been marked 13 for identification as Westlands Exhibit 99, was unrelated to 14 the Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing; is that correct? 15 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It was, as you testified, effort to 17 resolve the 1988 litigation? 18 MR. WHITE: Correct. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. White, the goal of the parties to 20 the agreement, marked as Westlands Exhibit 99, is stated at 21 the bottom of Page 3 of the agreement; is that correct? 22 MR. WHITE: That is correct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It states that the goal of the parties 24 to this agreement is to substitute the data gathering, data 25 management and project development activities described CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7914 1 herein for the Firebaugh and CCID second phase trial 2 proceedings? 3 MR. WHITE: Yes. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can you please describe what is meant 5 by the "Second Phase trial proceedings." 6 MR. WHITE: This is the phase of the trial, as I 7 understand it, in my point of view, in which CCID and 8 Firebaugh were required to bring other parties into the 9 lawsuit. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Those other parties were Broadview 11 Water District and Panoche Water District? 12 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Among the purposes of the agreement 14 which has been marked for identification as Westlands 99, is 15 for the parties to work cooperatively to develop, refine and 16 implement water management practices aimed at reducing deep 17 percolation and the production of shallow groundwater 18 drainage? 19 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the agreement provides that the 21 parties will create a technical committee and a management 22 committee? 23 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The technical committee will collect 25 data and make recommendations on programs to reduce drainage CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7915 1 impacts? 2 MR. WHITE: That was one of the elements of the duties 3 of the technical committee. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the technical committee will also 5 work to identify lands, retirement of which would reduce 6 drainage impacts? 7 MR. WHITE: One of the identified duties is to identify 8 lands and active management programs, including, but not 9 limited to, land retirement. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If you look at Page 6 of Westlands 11 Water District Exhibit 99, under Paragraph 6.1.3, it states 12 in coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation, the 13 technical committee will identify lands and active 14 management programs, including but not limited to land 15 retirement, which could be implemented on those lands in 16 order to reduce drainage impacts to downslope lands? 17 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Before I go on, Mr. White, have the 19 parties that we have identified as -- let me restate the 20 question. 21 Have the parties that we identified as parties to 22 Westlands Water District Exhibit 99 approved the agreement? 23 MR. WHITE: Yes. It's been approved and the agreement 24 has been signed by the parties. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On what date was the agreement signed CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7916 1 by the parties? 2 MR. WHITE: It was executed on December 7th. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Of what year? 4 MR. WHITE: 1998. Just the other day 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would have been approximately a week 6 ago? 7 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can you identify some of the other 9 programs which the technical committee will exam with the 10 hope that the programs will reduce drainage impacts? 11 MR. WHITE: Certainly. Let me find my spot here in the 12 agreement. The technical committee is basically charged 13 with the work of developing, number one, a monitoring 14 program in this area. There was thought or a proposal that 15 was approved to install a series of multi-completion wells 16 on three transects in the area. We wanted to look at what 17 the depth of the groundwater, the shallow groundwater is; 18 what is the aquifer characteristics; what is the flow that 19 we -- and from what direction and how much. Those sorts of 20 issues. What is the water quality in the different zones? 21 We want to look at groundwater quality maps at various 22 depths, not just the shallow aquifer, but the deeper, which 23 are very sketchy at this point. 24 MEMBER FORSTER: There is some mapping done by the DWR, 25 but it is more on a regional scale, not on a focus scale. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7917 1 That would need to be done in management-type activity. 2 Quantifying movement of subsurface drainage water is 3 another element. Determine changes in the drainage flow 4 paths. These management practices, as they are occurring, 5 what is the effect on the shallow groundwater and how does 6 it change the flow rates, if it does at all? 7 There is some other -- establish a groundwater budget. 8 We think this is very important, also. We have inputs and 9 outputs in the system, getting those adequately identified. 10 One of the things we talked about earlier in some of the 11 testimony is there is various elements of input into the 12 system; some things that we don't understand. 13 For instance, in the Broadview area they are doing a 14 very good job on their inputs. In fact, they are doing the 15 best job that they have, and yet their drainage volumes have 16 increased. Is it a background level because of stream flows 17 that are recharging the areas? Is it upslope? What is 18 going on there? We want to study that and determine what is 19 causing that, and what other practices could be undertaken. 20 Look at water quality and water level hydrographs so we 21 can look at the trends over time and the result of the 22 aquifer test. 23 The other activities that is passed to that group is 24 also to develop possible pilot projects in dealing with 25 drainage flow. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7918 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. White, during your examination by 2 Mr. Minasian and cross-examination by parties for other 3 witnesses, there has been a discussion, general discussion, 4 of management programs to reduce drainage. 5 Do you recall questions related to that subject? 6 MR. WHITE: Yes. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, the programs that you just 8 identified that will be developed by the management 9 committee created by the settlement agreement, Westlands 10 Water District Exhibit 99, are those the kinds of programs 11 which you were talking about in response to the questions 12 about management activities? 13 MR. WHITE: Yes. I would agree; that's correct. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, you're familiar with the 15 Grasslands Drainage Bypass Project? 16 MR. WHITE: Certainly. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: CCID participates as one of the 18 parties to that project; is that correct? 19 MR. WHITE: Yes. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me restate the question. 21 Camp 13 within CCID is an area that is served by the 22 Grasslands Drainage Bypass Project? 23 MR. WHITE: That is correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The Bypass Project is also 25 implementing activities intended to reduce the quantity of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7919 1 subsurface drainage water? 2 MR. WHITE: That is actually a by-product of their 3 activities. They are trying to reduce selenium discharges. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The objective of the project is to 5 reduce selenium loads discharged into the river? 6 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As a result of programs intended to 8 have the affect of reducing selenium loads, the quantity of 9 drainage water which is being produced is being reduced? 10 MR. WHITE: Yes. As Mr. McGahan testified several days 11 ago, maybe weeks ago, the reduction nets a reduction in load 12 and quantity of drainage water. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. White, I want to make sure that I 14 understand the point of your testimony. Is it CCID's view 15 that drainage is a regional issue? 16 MR. WHITE: Yes. It's our position that drainage is a 17 regional issue to the extent that if -- number one thing, if 18 you are going to focus on tile discharges, that is only a 19 portion of the drainage problem area. In fact, it is 20 downslope area, and it doesn't necessarily focus on the 21 entire solution. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Therefore, to the extent that the 23 discharge of drainage impacts salinity in the San Joaquin 24 River, programs developed to ameliorate the impacts should 25 consider the regional nature of the drainage issue? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7920 1 MR. WHITE: That's absolutely correct. That is the 2 reason we entered this agreement. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: When you say "this agreement," you are 4 referring to Westlands Exhibit 99? 5 MR. WHITE: Yes. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it CCID's position that the 7 management of drainage water requires some flexibility? 8 MR. WHITE: Yes. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And programs that are intended to 10 ameliorate the impacts of drainage being discharged into the 11 San Joaquin River need to be flexible with respect to when 12 drainage can be discharged to the San Joaquin River? 13 MR. WHITE: Timing is a significant issue, which would 14 allow flexibility. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: With respect to TMDLs, is it CCID's 16 view that TMDLs should be implemented in a manner -- let me 17 restate the question. 18 With respect to TMDLs, is it CCID's view that TMDLs 19 should not be implemented in a manner that would deprive 20 dischargers of agricultural drainage of the flexibility 21 required to manage the discharge of salts? 22 MR. WHITE: That is correct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On Page 3 of your testimony that has 24 been marked as San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors 25 Exhibit 4(A), it states: CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7921 1 The further point is that TMDLs and the idea 2 of limiting the sources of pollution to a 3 natural river and of treating agricultural 4 users as dischargers has a questionable 5 utility. (Reading.) 6 Is that correct? 7 MR. WHITE: That's correct. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The concern that you have about, you 9 being CCID, have about TMDLs having questionable utility is 10 that if they deprive dischargers of the flexibility required 11 to properly manage drainage, it could exacerbate drainage 12 problems within your service area? 13 MR. WHITE: That's a possible result, yeah. 14 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 16 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Birmingham, I have heard you used 17 the word "manage" several times now, manage salts. By 18 manage you mean to hold the drain water for a period of 19 time? What do you mean by "manage"? 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So that we can make sure that the 21 record is clear, let me ask the question of Mr. White. 22 Mr. White, you heard me use the term "manage drain 23 water"? 24 MR. WHITE: Yes. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: With respect to manage drain water, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7922 1 that means conducting activities within your service area 2 that would affect when subsurface drainage would be 3 discharged? 4 MR. WHITE: That could mean -- I agree with that. It 5 could -- 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What else could it mean? 7 MR. WHITE: Thank you. It could mean within our 8 service area. It could mean within the upslope service 9 area. But a regional approach to the management situation 10 of affecting the timing from when a drainage water could 11 reach the river by a drainage discharge or a tile 12 discharge. 13 MEMBER BROWN: Follow-up, Mr. Chairman. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Brown. 15 MEMBER BROWN: You mean you have the capacity in those 16 areas to hold it either in evaporation ponds or in the 17 field? 18 MR. WHITE: Certainly within the lower lying areas, 19 Mr. Brown. There is not significant amount of storage that 20 is available presently. The main reason for that is that 21 for the past two or three years the Grassland Bypass 22 dischargers have been held to a very strict standard. 23 They're already occupying all the storage that is 24 available. So presently, as starting from today as a 25 starting point, there is not any storage available in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7923 1 system. 2 MEMBER BROWN: Which begs the question. 3 MR. WHITE: If we were given the flexibility to operate 4 the drainage such that when there was capacity in the river, 5 perhaps we could evacuate some storage in these areas. That 6 is why flexibility is needed. 7 If we could evacuate some storage, then obviously 8 during times when there is assimilative capacity, then, yes. 9 We could operate during a time in the river when flows were 10 less and it was to protect other beneficial uses that these 11 restrictions need to be in place. But now these 12 restrictions are in place every year within this area, 13 regardless of the river flow type. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 15 MEMBER BROWN: You no doubt have explained this to the 16 Regional Board several times. What is the response? 17 MR. WHITE: You will have to repeat the question, I am 18 sorry. 19 MEMBER BROWN: The Regional Board is setting the 20 standards for the drainage? 21 MR. WHITE: Right. 22 MEMBER BROWN: And I presume that you presented this 23 same plea or request to the Regional Board at their 24 hearings, at public hearings? 25 MR. WHITE: As I understand it, Camp 13 people and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7924 1 Grassland Bypass people have submitted that. As to their 2 response, I don't know how to gauge that. 3 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Perfectly all right, Mr. Brown. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The point you have just been making 6 with Board Member Brown is addressed on Page 6 of your 7 written testimony where you state: 8 A much better approach than focusing on 9 yearly salt loads is to recognize that at 10 certain times of the year beneficial uses of 11 the San Joaquin River by consumers of water 12 or fish and wildlife may permit higher loads 13 so that long as concentrations levels do 14 exceed a certain amount. (Reading.) 15 MR. WHITE: That is correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So in a water year like 1998, when 17 there is substantial high flows in the San Joaquin River, it 18 may be more reasonable to discharge higher levels of higher 19 concentrations or loads of salts into the San Joaquin 20 River? 21 MR. WHITE: Yes. We certainly think that would be part 22 of the management program. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Going back to the basic position of 24 CCID with respect to the testimony that you have presented 25 here today, or over the course of the last few days, is it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7925 1 CCID's position that the State Water Resources Control Board 2 should impose an order that would direct that surface water 3 deliveries to certain lands be terminated? 4 MR. WHITE: That is not our position. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it CCID's position that the State 6 Water Resources Control Board should impose an order as a 7 result of these proceedings that direct that certain lands 8 be retired or taken out of agricultural production? 9 MR. WHITE: That is not our position presently. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no further questions. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: You completed your cross-examination of 12 Mr. White? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Birmingham. 15 Before you go away, Mr. Forster has a question. 16 MEMBER FORSTER: In the past 15 minutes you have been 17 questioned a bit on TMDLs and I have just reread your 18 comments foray. Have you had a lot of discussions on what a 19 TMDL would look like with the Regional Board? I mean, some 20 regions have watershed groups going and looking at these 21 things. 22 Do you have watershed groups going and analyzing what a 23 TMDL would be? 24 MR. WHITE: I must confess that my experience with 25 these loads, really TMDLs and loads, center around this load CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7926 1 requirement for the Grassland Bypass Project in which -- in 2 that particular instance there are specific loads that have 3 to be met monthly, regardless of what the condition in the 4 river is. A TMDL could be devised where these loads could 5 be considered, based on the assimilative capacity. That is 6 why concentrations is really an easy way to think about 7 discharge to the river, in my opinion, discharges to the 8 river. 9 Because in a year like 1998 where there are large flows 10 and lower concentrations, there is more assimilative 11 capacity. We, the Camp 13 area, could discharge significant 12 amounts more, and I doubt that there would be a detection 13 that it would even be detected at Vernalis at certain 14 times. 15 MEMBER FORSTER: I heard you say that earlier. 16 Thank you. I just wondered. I knew there wasn't a 17 TMDL yet. 18 MR. WHITE: No. 19 MEMBER FORSTER: I just wondered why you talk about it 20 so much and the Regional Board hasn't. I thought maybe you 21 were ahead of the -- 22 MR. WHITE: Well, it just had been discussed at some of 23 the early -- under some of the early direct cases in this 24 Phase V, so it was rebuttal in regards to that. 25 MEMBER FORSTER: I thought that was Stockton, City of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7927 1 Stockton. 2 MR. WHITE: Yes. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Forster. 4 Mr. Brown. 5 MEMBER BROWN: If I recall right, I believe Mr. 6 Hildebrand was suggesting something like that earlier in the 7 course of these hearings. Perhaps we will hear more from 8 him later. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Gentlemen, if you will bear with us. We 12 are now, I presume, going to go with Mr. Herrick and Mr. 13 Hildebrand. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if Mr. White could be excused 15 at this point. If Mr. Minasian has redirect -- 16 MR. MINASIAN: I have one redirect question. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: We haven't heard from staff and Board 18 Members, if there are questions. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if before we take Mr. 20 Hildebrand we should do that so Mr. White could be excused. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We are not doing this to you on purpose, 22 Mr. Hildebrand. 23 I suppose we could hear the redirect, if it is very 24 short, and see what we have in the way of 25 cross-examination. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7928 1 Staff, do you have questions with regard to the -- 2 MR. HOWARD: One quick question for Mr. White? 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Please, Mr. Howard. 4 ---oOo--- 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 6 BY STAFF 7 MR. HOWARD: In answer to Mr. Brown's questions you had 8 talked about the possibility of evacuating subsurface 9 storage space when assimilative capacity exists in the San 10 Joaquin River. Has your district looked at the feasibility 11 of construction of wells for that purpose, the economic and 12 physical feasibility of such an operation? 13 MR. WHITE: We sure haven't. It is a possibility. 14 This is something that we envision looking at in this 15 cooperative agreement that was just discussed earlier. But 16 to date we haven't looked at the feasibility. 17 MR. HOWARD: That is all. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Howard. 19 Questions from Board Members of Mr. White? 20 All right. 21 Redirect for same witness, Mr. Minasian. 22 Thank you, sir. 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7929 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER WHITE 2 BY MR. MINASIAN 3 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. White, you were just asked a 4 question by Mr. Howard in regard to shallow wells that would 5 pump. Is it necessary to put shallow wells down if you want 6 to try to develop space below tile drainage which is 7 generally between seven and nine feet below the surface 8 area? 9 MR. WHITE: It may be. In some of these areas, as you 10 mentioned, the tile drains are seven to nine feet. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Draw it all the way up to the ground 12 surface? 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Could we identify if this -- 14 MR. MINASIAN: This is Figure 815 from Page 834 of the 15 Board's EIR. 16 MR. WHITE: The other point to make there is that -- we 17 talked about this earlier -- that only about 20 percent of 18 the Camp 13 area has tile drainage, and 25 or so in 19 Firebaugh. 20 MR. MINASIAN: So, are Camp 13 and Firebaugh presently 21 attempting to use the storage that exists for selenium 22 retention? 23 MR. WHITE: Yes, they are, especially during the 24 irrigation season. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Anecdotally and from your own personal CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7930 1 observations in Camp 13, is that generally very limited? 2 MR. WHITE: The storage, yes. 3 MR. MINASIAN: As an example, if they shut off a drain, 4 I think you testified that in eight hours or so you would 5 see the water coming up in a surface drain adjacent to the 6 field in some cases? 7 MR. WHITE: That's correct. That was the experience of 8 some of the fields in the Firebaugh Canal Water District 9 this last year. 10 MR. MINASIAN: Let's go to Mr. Brown's question, just 11 so we have a foundation here. On the surface of the ground 12 in August is there a cotton crop with roots going four to 13 five feet down from the ground? 14 MR. WHITE: Four to five feet. 15 MR. MINASIAN: In August the crop is still growing; 16 isn't it? 17 MR. WHITE: That's right. 18 MR. MINASIAN: If the water comes up into that area, 19 there is a deoxygenation of the root zone and also a 20 salinity shock, isn't there? 21 MR. WHITE: Yes. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Tell us how, if you had a wet year 23 followed by a dry year, you can improve the management of 24 salinity and selenium by operating this system to discharge 25 waters of a high saline content in the San Joaquin River. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7931 1 MR. WHITE: If you have a wet year prior to a dry year, 2 what you would try to do is -- this is the groundwater 3 surface here. You try to lower this, the area between this 4 line which is the existing water surface and this line, 5 which is the bottom of the root zone. Presently they are 6 the same line. There is no difference. 7 However, if you can get that down, if you can get a 8 couple feet of separation, there may be an opportunity to 9 store some. It would be difficult to do during an 10 irrigation season, nonetheless. At least we have some 11 tools to start working to manage this. 12 MR. MINASIAN: If you have two or three dry years in a 13 row, however, and no assimilative capacity in the San 14 Joaquin River without a master drain, the management is 15 going to be less than perfect, isn't it? 16 MR. WHITE: It gets back to the issue that there is not 17 a lot of storage in this area. 18 MEMBER BROWN: I wouldn't think so. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you. Nothing further. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 21 Are there any of the parties that wish to 22 recross-examine Mr. White? 23 Seeing and hearing no response, then, we will -- 24 MR. HOWARD: I had a question. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Howard. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7932 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 2 BY STAFF 3 MR. HOWARD: Would you put that picture back up. 4 Are any of the subsurface drains in your district 5 presently constructed with weir settings as formulated here 6 in this? 7 MR. WHITE: There are not. As I understand it, though, 8 Firebaugh Canal Water District is going to install two of 9 these weirs here in the next season. Where they are going 10 to install it is not in the system itself, but at the very 11 end. In other words, it is a tile drain; it's at the bottom 12 of the district, the downslope end. So you are going to put 13 a weir on the upslope end of this thing because they are 14 already in this particular -- in these two particular 15 instances, they are already operating electrodes in that 16 sump such that they have the water surface as high as they 17 can get it down, and not interrupt the growth of the plant, 18 so forth. They want to try to move it up into the 19 neighboring field. 20 So there may be some utility in that instance. Again, 21 Firebaugh is starting to look at that. We don't know 22 whether it is going to be successful or not. 23 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Howard. 25 Mr. Brown. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7933 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 2 BY BOARD 3 MEMBER BROWN: I would assume on that bow stand there 4 that you would have a slide gate if you want to pull 5 through, pull the head down. You always want to have a head 6 on it, don't you? 7 MR. WHITE: There would have to be some sort of an 8 operable gate. You are correct. But, again, this is a 9 situation where we don't think it would take just one of 10 these facilities. They would be numerous throughout the 11 facility. 12 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. White. 13 MR. WHITE: Thank you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: Any other questions from the Board? 15 All right. I believe that completes the examination of 16 Mr. White. 17 MR. MINASIAN: Before he leaves, may I ask for 18 introduction of 4(A) in case I have a foundation problem 19 before I lose him? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. Let's do that. 21 MR. MINASIAN: 4(A) which is his testimony. 22 4(B) which is the citing map showing Camp 13 and 23 Firebaugh. 24 MR. HOWARD: Just a minute. See if I can find you. 25 MR. MINASIAN: We are still typing an amended list for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7934 1 you. 2 MR. HOWARD: Okay. Shoot. 3 4(A) which is his testimony. 4 4(B), the area map. 5 4(C), copy of the San Luis Act. 6 4(D), a copy of Judge Crocker's denial of the 7 injunction. 8 4(E), a copy of the 1967 complaint against the Bureau. 9 4(F), a profile showing a typical tile system from a 10 side. 11 And 4(G), which is a map showing the political 12 boundaries of districts in the area. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 14 Mr. Howard agrees with your numbering. 15 Would you like us to take those into the evidentiary 16 record before he leaves? 17 MR. MINIASIAN: Yes, please. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any objection to receiving the 19 exhibits as identified by Mr. Minasian into the record? 20 I will say it. He was going to refer to Mr. 21 Nomellini's draft status as 4-F. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I was going to pose that 4(F) be 23 referred to as the Nomellini Exhibit. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Any objection, Mr. Nomellini? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Only if Mr. Birmingham understands what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7935 1 the designation stands for. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. There has been no serious 3 objections, so those exhibits are accepted into the record. 4 Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 5 Thank you, Mr. White. 6 MEMBER FORSTER: I have one question of the exhibits. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 8 MEMBER FORSTER: I guess this is for staff, but you 9 handed out these exhibits as you did this. I don't have all 10 these exhibits. I just want staff to know. I have most of 11 them, but not all of them. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: We will see that you get copies. 13 Thank you. 14 Let's see. Mr. Deverel, we will get back to you as 15 quick as we can. 16 Mr. Birmingham. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Chairman, since I laid the 18 foundation for Westlands Water District Exhibit 99 with Mr. 19 White, I would also like to move for the admission of that 20 exhibit at this time. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any objection to receiving 22 Westlands 99 into the record? 23 Seeing and hearing no objection, it is accepted. 24 Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 25 Now, Mr. Herrick, I promise; and, Mr. Hildebrand, you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7936 1 certainly are welcome. Sorry for the couple of false 2 starts. 3 Good afternoon, gentlemen. 4 ---oOo--- 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 6 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 7 BY MR. HERRICK 8 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick again for South Delta Water 9 Agency. I will be calling at this point Alex Hildebrand, 10 and he has already been sworn. This will be rebuttal 11 testimony for Phase V. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Are you going to have other rebuttal 13 witnesses? 14 MR. HERRICK: I have one other witness, very short, 15 his presentation. If we run into tomorrow, I will have him 16 show up tomorrow morning. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: He is not here today? 18 MR. HERRICK: Not here today. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. HERRICK: Per the Chair's direction earlier, I have 21 tried to match up the questions with the original direct 22 cases which raise those issues. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: We appreciate that, sir, thank you. 24 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand has already been sworn in. 25 I don't know if I said that or not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7937 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes. 2 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, you were here for 3 testimony of Mike Ford for DWR originally early on in this 4 phase, were you not? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: That's right. 6 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that he was asked questions 7 about the draft contract between USBR, DWR and South Delta 8 Water Agency? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the provision in 11 the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan dealing with the 12 interior Delta standards which says, let me read it: 13 If a three-party contract has been 14 implemented among the DWR, USBR and SDWA, 15 that contract will be reviewed prior to 16 implementation of the above and after also 17 considering the needs of other beneficial 18 uses, revisions will be made to the 19 objectives and compliance/monitoring 20 locations noted as appropriate. (Reading.) 21 Are you familiar with that? 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, has the draft contract 24 between these three parties been executed? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. The SDWA and the Department of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7938 1 Water Resources have been prepared to sign that for years 2 now, and the Bureau has declined to ever do so, despite the 3 fact they had agreed in 199M1 I believe it was, that it 4 would be signed. 5 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, on behalf of South Delta 6 Water Agency, are you recommending that the Board revisit 7 the proposed interior Delta standards due to the status of 8 the draft contract? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: It seems to me, that since there is no 10 indication that the Bureau is about to sign it, that it is 11 necessary for the Board to consider what to do about those 12 inferior standards at this time. 13 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, in the direct 14 presentation of the Department of the Interior, they had Mr. 15 Vandenberg on. One of the issues discussed in those 16 questions and answers dealt with the flow behind the 17 barriers. 18 Are you familiar with the South Delta barrier program 19 as designed? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: Very much so. 21 MR. HERRICK: For the record, it is technically called 22 the Interim South Delta Program at this point, is it not? 23 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. That includes the barriers and 24 also some alterations to the intakes at Clifton Court. 25 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, given the designs of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7939 1 barrier portion of that program, what can you say, if 2 anything, about the flow behind the barriers? 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: You mean on the upstream side or what 4 would be upstream side in the absence of barriers? 5 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: The permanent barriers, which is what 7 I assume we are talking about here, would be operable 8 barriers. They would be open on rising tide and have no 9 affect on the water supply or elevation or anything else 10 during the rising tide. And they would close as the tide 11 ebb and retain that water in those channels on the upstream 12 side. By so doing, they capture higher quality water than 13 the water coming down the San Joaquin River for use during 14 the low tide by diverters in those channel reaches. 15 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, in those questions of Mr. 16 Vandenberg there were descriptions of the water behind the 17 barriers as being a pool of water staying there. 18 Would you agree with that description? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: No, not at all. In fact, in the 20 absence of the barriers, we have stagnant reaches due to the 21 distorted circulation pattern that is caused by the export 22 pumps. When you install a barrier, you create a 23 unidirectional flow. It's a reverse flow, admittedly, in 24 Middle River and part of Old River, but it is a 25 unidirectional flow so you do not have that stagnant CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7940 1 situation. 2 MR. HERRICK: If the barriers operate as designed, what 3 does that do to the flow in the stretch of the main stem of 4 the San Joaquin River between the portion where Old River 5 breaks off and the City of Stockton? 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: In the absence of the barriers, most 7 of the time they draw down the export pumps, creates reverse 8 flow in that reach from Stockton up to the bifurcation of 9 Old River, and that is drawn down across through Old River 10 and Grant Line Canal to the federal pumps. 11 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, are you familiar with the 12 data that has been gathered to date on the operation of the 13 temporary barriers? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Is there anything in that data that has 16 been gathered that suggests the permanent barriers would not 17 operate as designed? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: No, not all. In fact, they certainly 19 corroborate the efficacy of the barrier program, although 20 the permanent barriers would be more efficient in doing that 21 than temporary barriers. 22 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, back to the testimony of 23 Mr. Ford for DWR, there were discussions about alternatives 24 to the barriers for the South Delta. 25 Do you recall those discussions? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7941 1 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 2 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that one of the 3 alternatives discussed was the possibility of dredging in 4 South Delta channels? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 6 MR. HERRICK: With regard to water quality, do you 7 believe it is possible to do dredging in order to address 8 the water quality problems in the South Delta? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. 10 MR. HERRICK: Would you explain why. 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: If you did massive dredging, not just 12 a little massive dredging, you could resolve the water level 13 problem without barriers. But if you only do a little 14 dredging, you barely move the problem around and in no 15 event would you correct the circulation problem which is the 16 basic cause of the water quality problem. 17 What happens is that the salt load on the west side, 18 which has just been discussed, which enters the river 19 through Salt and Mud Sloughs, comes down the river and gets 20 sucked across through Old River and Grant Line Canal, and 21 goes right back into the export pumps and is reexported down 22 the valley. 23 If you don't have barriers, that is still going to 24 happen regardless whether you have some dredging done. 25 Dredging won't solve that aspect of the problem. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7942 1 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, did you participate in 2 the discussions, negotiations, whatever it may have been, 3 that resulted in the barrier program? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, definitely. 5 MR. HERRICK: During those, I will just call them 6 discussions, were other alternatives besides barriers 7 themselves discussed? 8 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, it was. 9 MR. HERRICK: Did those discussions result in any sort 10 of conclusion about whether or not anything other than the 11 barriers would be as effective? 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: The conclusion of the Bureau and DWR 13 and South Delta was that there was no other solution to 14 resolving the problem without substantially reducing 15 exports. 16 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, there was discussion on 17 the cross-examination of Mr. Ford with regard to the 18 operation of the Grant Line Barrier. 19 Are you familiar with that barrier? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: And some of those proposals being 22 considered by DWR dealing with whether or not the barrier is 23 operated as a barrier or perhaps a weir or something else or 24 nothing else, do you remember that? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7943 1 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, if the Grant Line Barrier 2 is not installed, do you have an opinion on what effects may 3 result to the barrier program? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: It will not be a success without all 5 three barriers being operated. Not at all times, but 6 substantial periods of time. If you don't have the Grant 7 Line Barrier, what happens is the water you trap in Middle 8 River and Old River barriers just flows right out of Grant 9 Line. Doesn't achieve the purpose of raising the water 10 levels. 11 Now there would be periods of time when you only needed 12 to operate the Grant Line Barrier as a flow restriction or 13 weir to avoid the drawdown during the low, low tides, and 14 you could even let it flush somewhat during the higher flows 15 or other periods. But you do have to have a barrier. And 16 if you don't have a barrier which is capable of full 17 operation, you don't help resolve this salinity problem 18 where the San Joaquin River salt gets reexported by the 19 DMC. If you have the barriers there, you substantially 20 reduce the amount of salt which comes down the river from 21 the west side service area, scoots over to the federal pumps 22 and gets reexported. 23 So, you are chasing a few hundred thousand tons of salt 24 a year around a merry-go-round. The barrier puts a stop to 25 that. So it would help to resolve the salt problem in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7944 1 San Joaquin River and also the salinity problem for the 2 people who are using DMC water until such time as we get a 3 drain. It doesn't substitute for the drain, but it moves in 4 the direction of permitting that. So it is a component 5 which can contribute substantially to making it possible to 6 manage the salt releases that were being discussed earlier 7 today and to recycle water from the DMC into the river which 8 was also mentioned today. 9 Combination of these things cannot solve the problem, 10 but can significantly diminish it. You do have to have all 11 three barriers operating a good deal of the time in order to 12 do that. 13 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, on behalf of South Delta 14 are you currently in discussion with DWR regarding different 15 operations of the Grant Line Barrier in order to address 16 concerns that have been raised by other agencies? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: We are, yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, does the draft contract 19 between the three parties which has not been signed, does 20 that place any limitation on when the barriers will be 21 operated? 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. 23 MR. HERRICK: Currently the permits for the temporary 24 barriers do limit the operation of them? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: Unfortunately, they limit rather CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7945 1 severely, and at some periods of time when they are very 2 important to have them functioning. And we are unable to 3 feel that the objections to function, having them function 4 are really valid as indicated by your cross-examination of 5 Mr. Vandenberg. 6 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, once the barriers are in 7 operation, if they are in operation, does the operation of 8 the export projects affect the barriers' efficacy? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: If we have the operable barriers and 10 can operate them on an as-needed basis, we largely divorce 11 the drawdown problems caused by the export pumps from our 12 South Delta channels, and we then don't have to worry about 13 the exports. We are not against exports so long as they are 14 accomplished in a way that don't damage us; and that is a 15 way to accomplish that. 16 There are few people who would still be downstream of 17 the barriers, but they are in an area where a little 18 dredging and perhaps providing a few pumps to people who now 19 can use siphons would resolve the problem. 20 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, two different 21 cross-examiners of Mr. Ford suggested Delta lands as a 22 source of salts to the South Delta. Are you familiar with 23 those questions and those theories? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: I am familiar with those allegations. 25 I don't think they are correct. I know of no evidence that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7946 1 there is any significant salt load coming from the 2 irrigation of our South Delta lands. Our problem is the 3 salt that comes down the river. We inevitably have to 4 concentrate that when we pump in on our crops and the crops 5 use the water and leave the salt behind which goes back, 6 drains back into the river. But we don't add any 7 significant salt load. 8 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, are you aware of any 9 studies that contradict your conclusion? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. 11 MR. HERRICK: Again in the cross-examination of Mr. 12 Ford there were questions asked about whether or not the 13 barriers will result in more Sacramento River water being 14 pulled towards the pumps. 15 Do you recall that? 16 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: Do you agree with that conclusion? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. It will not bring more Sacramento 19 River water toward the pumps. It is true that when you put 20 the barriers in, the water which -- the San Joaquin River 21 water which would otherwise flow to Old River and Grant Line 22 and back to the federal pumps, then has to go around into 23 the Central Delta before being returned toward the pumps. 24 In quantity it is true that the flow of water toward 25 the pumps from Central Delta would be increased, but it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7947 1 wouldn't bring any Sacramento River water toward the pumps. 2 And the evidence that we have holds for fish tests and 3 modeling indicates that the tidal flows in Central Delta are 4 so much larger than the net flows, that the salt load tends 5 to get on by being dispersed by the tidal flows. So that it 6 doesn't all come back. And what you do bring back is no 7 longer that high salinity. 8 Directionally as I indicated in my direct testimony, 9 you will increase the proportion of the San Joaquin River 10 salt load that ends up in the Contra Costa and state 11 pumps. There is a trade-off here between having it not go 12 back to the federal pumps versus going to the others. 13 However, if the three tidal barriers are functioning and you 14 reduce the salt load in the Delta-Mendota Canal, you then 15 reduce over a reasonable period of time the salt load that 16 enters the San Joaquin River so that those exporters will 17 get a larger proportion of a smaller load. And it is our 18 belief that it will actually, likely be a less load than 19 they now get. Certainly not more. 20 The modeling doesn't reflect that because the models 21 don't iterate the situation over time. But if you just 22 analyze the thing logically, and it would be possible to 23 make these models iterate it, then you come to that 24 conclusion. 25 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, one of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7948 1 cross-examiners of Mr. Ford as well as staff asked questions 2 about recent siltation problems in the Delta. 3 Do you recall those questions? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 5 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that there was a question 6 raised about whether or not problems for diverters in the 7 South Delta this year were a result of export pump 8 operations or the result of siltation problems? Do you 9 recall that? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, I do. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with any of the areas 12 that experienced export problems this year? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. I was not involved in actually 14 going out in the field and exploring the location of the 15 agridation. But we do have a big problem in the long term 16 because of the agridation of the South Delta channels that 17 result from the silt load, sediment load, that comes down 18 the river primarily during flood flows. 19 In a year like this one, which follows some very heavy 20 flood flows, we do have additional agridation. It moved 21 around. So the shallow spots aren't necessarily in the same 22 place. 23 Now what that means is that, as you reduce the 24 available water depth, which still permits diversions, you 25 reduce the flexibility that we have to permit drawdown by CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7949 1 export pumps before it hurts us. So, still is true that the 2 export pumps are causing the problem, but they cause it more 3 extensively, exacerbates the degree to which they cause it, 4 when you have these sediment bars. 5 Now, in order to have the barriers be a long-term 6 effective solution or in order to be any long-term effective 7 solution for South Delta, we do have to have a program of 8 maintenance dredging so we don't continually exacerbate this 9 problem with more agridation. In the short run, and at any 10 time, you can get some benefit out of some local dredging 11 out of the shallowest places, and we are working with the 12 Bureau and the Corps of Engineers and DWR, principally DWR 13 and the Corps, to see just where these worst places are. 14 And the Corps indicates that they may be able to get us 15 permits to do some local dredging that will be of some 16 assistance. It doesn't substitute for barriers, but it 17 would make them more effective. And we -- 18 It's been indicated to us that two projects might help 19 pay for this and that the permitting could be arranged 20 through the Corps and local districts to have that done. We 21 had hoped in meeting on that this month. They have put that 22 off to next month, but I am confident that will occur and 23 the Corps people sound like they like it. 24 MR. HERRICK: Has there been any approved program for 25 dredging yet? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7950 1 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. 2 MR. HERRICK: During the testimony of the City of 3 Stockton, one of the witnesses referred to the Head of Old 4 River Barrier as a tidal gate. 5 Would you agree with that? 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. That barrier does not have a 7 tidal gate. We have been urging that it be designed so we 8 can control the amount of flow through it. But it is not a 9 tidal gate. 10 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, in the presentation of 11 Stockton East Water District, they had witnesses on from the 12 Regional Board. I am not sure you were here then or not. 13 Those witnesses talked about the sources of the salt problem 14 on the San Joaquin River? 15 Are you familiar with the sources of salts that enter 16 the San Joaquin River. 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, I am. I don't think I heard that 18 testimony. 19 MR. HERRICK: Could you tell us, what are the sources 20 of salt to the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. HILDEBRAND: First, lets distinguish between soils 22 that hurt us and soils that don't hurt us. 23 MR. HERRICK: That is my next question. 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: If you have a salt load entering the 25 river and the salinity is below the Vernalis standard, that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7951 1 salt load doesn't need to be diluted. It doesn't cause a 2 problem. 3 MR. HERRICK: What sources do you believe do contribute 4 salinity below the standard so they don't need dilution 5 water? 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: Most of the east side drainage does 7 not cause a problem. So when -- I didn't hear this 8 particular testimony by the Regional Board, but I have seen 9 data they have put out which indicated that a significant 10 portion -- I don't recall just what it was -- a third, 11 perhaps, of the overall average salt load came out of the 12 east side. That does not cause the problem. It all comes 13 in high flows, almost all of it. It is coming in at a level 14 that doesn't require dilution. 15 The problem is the salt load that comes in from the DMC 16 service areas, those DMC service areas that drain to the 17 river, and they drain to the river largely through Salt and 18 Mud Sloughs. There is some surface drainage that comes in 19 the river, both upstream and downstream of that area. But 20 something of the order of 85 percent of that salt load which 21 comes in high concentrations comes in through Salt and Mud 22 Slough, the main thing that we have been discussing. 23 MR. HERRICK: The Regional Board staff on questioning 24 from both cross and direct also discussed the eventual 25 method of addressing this problem, which included the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7952 1 control of loads into the river. 2 Mr. Hildebrand, would you agree that the problems of 3 meeting the San Joaquin River standard at Vernalis deal with 4 the timing of discharges into that river? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, definitely. 6 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with efforts upstream of 7 Vernalis to reuse tailwater and decrease the amount of 8 drainage? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Is one of those area the Grasslands 11 Bypass Project area? 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, are you familiar with the 14 Grassland Bypass Project? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: In your opinion, just controlling the 17 load of salts to the river, does that address the concern of 18 meeting the Vernalis standard? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: Did you mean controlling the salt load 20 or the selenium load? The Grassland Project only aimed at 21 reducing the selenium load. 22 MR. HERRICK: Lets deal with that first. Would you 23 agree that the primary purpose of the Grassland Bypass 24 Project is to address the selenium loading to the river? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: Not directly address the salinity, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7953 1 salt load. 2 MR. HERRICK: As a result of that project, are those 3 areas that contribute drainage in that area, are they 4 trying to decrease their drainage? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. They are trying to decrease the 6 volume of drainage and the selenium load in the drainage, 7 but that doesn't necessarily decrease the salt load and the 8 dilution required to get that salt load down to the 9 concentrations of the Vernalis standard. 10 MR. HERRICK: In the development of the Grassland 11 Bypass Project, Mr. Hildebrand, did you have discussions 12 with various Bureau and Regional Board personnel on this 13 issue? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Did you examine the question of whether 16 or not the Grasslands Bypass could result in increased 17 concentration of salts whether or not the load was 18 decreased? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. We don't know that it will, it 20 could, depending on how they operate it. 21 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, is it then possible that 22 a decrease in load results in an increase in concentration 23 at some times? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: Definitely. If you achieve the 25 decrease by reusing water down there and further CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7954 1 concentrating it before it drains to the river, you may 2 somewhat decrease the load. But if you substantially 3 increase the concentration you then have more dilution 4 requirement than less. So, it depends on how that balances 5 out. And it isn't clear how it will balance out because it 6 isn't entirely clear how they will achieve this reduction. 7 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, are you saying it is 8 possible that the river would require more dilution water, 9 even if the load went down? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: To determine when that may occur or if 12 that may occur, you would have to examine various year 13 types, existing flows and things like that? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. It is a complex thing. 15 MR. HERRICK: In the presentation of Stockton East 16 there was discussions of whether or not the burden of 17 meeting the Vernalis standard should be removed from New 18 Melones. 19 Do you recall those discussions? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: What is the South Delta Water Agency 22 position on that? 23 MR. HILDEBRAND: Our opinion is that load on New 24 Melones for dilution can and should be reduced by various 25 methods, some of which has been discussed. It is caused CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7955 1 almost entirely by the operations of the Bureau in removing 2 dilution water, by cutting off Friant flow and by delivering 3 DMC water to the DMC service area without any drain. 4 But unless and until that is done, they will have to 5 mitigate their own impacts by releasing water from New 6 Melones. 7 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, were you present during 8 the testimony of Mr. McGahan on behalf of San Luis and 9 Delta-Mendota? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, I believe I was. 11 MR. HERRICK: In the direct and cross of Mr. McGahan 12 there was discussion about whether or not there were 13 benefits resulting to the river from the Grasslands Bypass 14 Project. Do you recall that? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall in those discussions or 17 cross-examination there was reference to South Delta Water 18 Agency Number 55, which is the Regional Board's drainage 19 report in the Grasslands watershed area? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: I believe they referred to that. I 21 don't remember the specifics. 22 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, do you recall that there 23 is an indication of a potential decrease in load during the 24 past, I believe it was, three years of operation to the 25 Grasslands Bypass Project? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7956 1 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. But we have to recognize the 2 last three years were not typical years. 3 MR. HERRICK: That is my next question. What do you 4 think could affect the amount of salt coming out of that 5 area through drainage? 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, we get a lot of precipitation. 7 It flushes some of that out in these wet years. And you get 8 more dilution than you had before. And it illustrates this 9 business you can even have an increase in load and have a 10 decrease in concentration. 11 So, I don't think you can draw any big conclusions from 12 it. What happened in '95, '-6 and '-7, they are not typical 13 years. Furthermore, they did have a problem due to this 14 business of talking of loads instead of concentrations. 15 They exceeded the load limit because they flushed a lot of 16 water out of those west side watersheds with all that 17 precipitation, and so then they had to allow these people to 18 have a credit for part of the load not having been derived 19 by the activities of the irrigators, which, to my mind, 20 illustrated the point that it is kind of silly to be talking 21 about load rather than concentrations. 22 They could have let out three times that much and those 23 flows wouldn't have hurt us a bit. Good time to get rid of 24 it. Yet they are talking about loads instead of 25 concentrations. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7957 1 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, would the quality of 2 water delivered to those areas affect the amount of load 3 being discharged in those years? 4 MR. HILDEBRAND: That's right. Because the years were 5 wet, they were referring better quality water. 6 MR. HERRICK: In your opinion, would receiving better 7 quality water have an impact on the quality of their 8 discharges? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hildebrand, we also heard from Mr. 11 McGahan that with regard to the San Joaquin River salinity 12 issues, that this Board should let the Regional Board handle 13 that issue. 14 Do you recall that? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: Do you agree with that recommendation? 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: I guess procedurally that is right, 18 but in practice we haven't got much out of that procedure. 19 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Your timing is perfect, Mr. Herrick. 21 Because it is a quarter to three and probably our last 22 chance to take an afternoon break if we are going to have 23 one. Let's do that and come back in a little while and we 24 will continue. 25 (Break taken.) CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7958 1 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back. 2 By a showing of hands, which of the parties would like 3 to cross-examine Mr. Hildebrand? 4 We have Mr. Brandt, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Sexton, Mr. 5 Minasian. 6 Anybody else? 7 We have Mr. Brandt, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Sexton and Mr. 8 Minasian. 9 Mr. Brandt. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 12 BY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 13 BY MR. BRANDT 14 MR. BRANDT: Good afternoon, Mr. Hildebrandt. I have 15 just a couple questions for you. 16 I understand that you testified something a long the 17 lines that the Bureau had approved the settlement agreement? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: The Bureau and SDWA and DWR signed an 19 agreement in 1991 that there was an agreement to proceed 20 with the attached contract, which had been developed but 21 which had some details still to be worked out. 22 MR. BRANDT: When you say that they agreed to proceed, 23 did they do certain actions that were contained in those 24 contracts such as -- any certain actions? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: They did some things and didn't do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7959 1 other things. 2 MR. BRANDT: When they said they agreed to proceed, did 3 that mean that they were able to sign it and agree to the 4 agreement? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: They said they would have to get the 6 approval from Washington before they could sign it, and they 7 never got it. 8 MR. BRANDT: So it wasn't actually an agreement at that 9 point; it was they agreed to go and seek to see if they 10 could find authority to sign the agreement? 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: They agreed to seek authority to do 12 it. South Delta Water Agency likewise. We went to a vote 13 of electorate, which passed by 90-some percent to give us 14 the authority to sign it. And the DWR, I think, had certain 15 things they had to do. 16 But for years now we have been ready to sign. DWR has 17 been ready to sign. Bureau has, from our perspective, 18 stonewalled us. 19 MR. BRANDT: I understand your perspective. They never 20 had authority, then, to sign the agreement, did they? 21 MR. HILDEBRAND: They were never given the authority 22 from Washington to sign it. 23 MR. BRANDT: Thank you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 25 Mr. Birmingham. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7960 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 2 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 3 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Hildebrand, did I understand your 5 testimony to be that water users in the South Delta Water 6 Agency do not contribute any salt to San Joaquin River as a 7 result of their discharge of ag drainage? 8 MR. HILDEBRAND: What I said, it was not significant. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you aware of data collected by the 10 Department of Water Resources as part of the 1995 study 11 concerning the discharge of salts by agricultural water 12 users in the Delta? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: Oh, in general I am aware of it. But 14 that only addressed what we discharged and not what we took 15 in, so my statement related to the net effect. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I just have to ask one final question, 17 Mr. Hildebrand. 18 Mr. Hildebrand, how does the horse look? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: Depends on whether you are lying on 20 the ground or whether you are standing up. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Having cross-examined you and knowing 22 your tenacity, if you had been in a fight I would ask how 23 the other person looked. Do I understand that your 24 appearance is as a result of being kicked by a horse? 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: My appearance is as a result of having CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7961 1 been kicked by a horse. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What did you do to the horse? 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: The horse wasn't damaged a bit. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Let the record show that those were 5 relevant and caring questions. We are glad to see that you 6 are recuperating nicely, Mr. Hildebrand. 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: Thank you. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: We are very grateful for that. 9 Mr. Sexton. 10 MEMBER FORSTER: I was rolled down a canyon on a horse, 11 Alex. I don't like them very much anymore, either. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have any horse stories, Mr. 13 Sexton? 14 Or are we going to cross-examine? 15 MR. SEXTON: I was actually on a horse once in my 16 life. 17 MR. HILDEBRAND: I have ridden a couple thousand 18 miles. I am not a novice. 19 MR. SEXTON: I have ridden a couple thousand miles in a 20 car. The horses can kind of do for themselves. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Cosmetic car. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Beautiful car. 23 ---oOo--- 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7962 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 2 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 3 BY MR. SEXTON 4 MR. SEXTON: Mr. Hildebrand, you testified that South 5 Delta does not add salinity to the Delta channels as a 6 result of its irrigation practices; isn't that right, sir? 7 MR. HILDEBRAND: What I said is we did not add a 8 significant quantity net salt load to the San Joaquin. 9 MR. SEXTON: Explain what you mean by that. 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: I mean that the salt load that is in 11 our discharges to channels is almost the same as the salt 12 load that was in our diversions from the channels. 13 MR. SEXTON: So if -- let's say that the Vernalis 14 standard for salinity is approximately 500 TDS; is that 15 right? 16 MR. HILDEBRAND: That was the old standard. Now it is 17 a little more complicated. 18 MR. SEXTON: Let's say for the sake of argument your 19 receiving water is 500 TDS. 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: It is at Vernalis. It isn't that good 21 that far downstream. 22 MR. SEXTON: If your receiving water is 500, what would 23 your discharge water be after irrigation? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: Depends on the ratio of applied water 25 to return flow water. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7963 1 MR. SEXTON: Why don't you give me an estimate. 2 MR. HILDEBRAND: I can give you an example, not an 3 estimate, that would be an average. 4 MR. SEXTON: Why don't you give me an example, then. 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: Let's say that 75 percent of the water 6 that is applied to the crop is consumed by the crop, and the 7 other 25 percent goes back into the channel with the same 8 salt load that was in it before because the crop plant has 9 an osmotic root system that takes up the water and leaves 10 the salt behind. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I have a moment? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. 13 MR. SEXTON: Dr. Orlob is a consultant for South Delta, 14 isn't he? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: That's right. 16 MR. SEXTON: If Dr. Orlob's testimony was that South 17 Delta discharged three to four times the salinity that it 18 received, would you disagree with that? 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: I believe the testimony you are 20 referring to was a hypothetical in which it was hypothesized 21 that there would be something like a 75 percent water use 22 deficiency, in which case, yes, the discharge would in terms 23 of concentration be about four times as much. But the salt 24 load wouldn't be changed. 25 MR. SEXTON: Wait a minute, Mr. Hildebrand. That is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7964 1 not my question. My question is: If Mr. Orlob testified 2 that South Delta discharged three or four times the salinity 3 that it received, without it being a hypothetical, would you 4 disagree with that? 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: I would agree that under the 6 circumstance where the application of efficiency was 75 7 percent, that would be correct, but that the application 8 efficiency might vary widely. 9 MR. SEXTON: You're putting conditions on my question. 10 I am asking you a question relating to strictly a 11 nonhypothetical situation. And I say if Dr. Orlob testified 12 that South Delta discharges three to four times the salinity 13 of its receiving waters, would you disagree? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't accept your hypothetical as 15 being valid. If you just want to say if it was 75 percent, 16 would that be the answer, yeah, but I don't believe Dr. 17 Orlob ever said that that was a typical figure. You're 18 alleging that he said something, which I doubt that he 19 said. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Sexton, when you ask about 22 salinity, are you talking about concentration or load in 23 your question? 24 MR. SEXTON: I don't know that it makes a difference in 25 this particular question, Mr. Stubchaer. I was referring to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7965 1 some testimony that Dr. Orlob was examined on. I am 2 assuming that he was referring to concentration because the 3 answer was given in terms of TDS rather than loads 4 standard. 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: If you were to show me a copy of the 6 testimony, I could comment perhaps differently, but I have 7 not seen any such testimony. 8 MR. SEXTON: Have you heard Mr. Deverel testify on 9 several occasions today that a decrease in load, salinity 10 load, does not result in an increase in concentration? Did 11 you hear that testimony? 12 MR. HILDEBRAND: Did he say that it did not or that it 13 would not necessarily? 14 MR. SEXTON: Well, let's say that he said it would not 15 necessarily. Do you disagree with that? 16 MR. HILDEBRAND: Under some circumstances, that could 17 be correct. I don't think it would be typically correct. 18 MR. SEXTON: What evidence -- what studies have you 19 done to take issue with Mr. Deverel's testimony? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, we can go into that in some 21 detail. But as I said earlier, the affect on the salinity 22 in the river has to do with whether the salt load -- the 23 concentration which the salt load enters. If that 24 concentration is above the standard, then it requires 25 substantial dilution. Below the standard, it doesn't. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7966 1 Now, let's say -- let me seek a little arithmetic and 2 see if we can come up with an illustration. 3 Suppose that you are discharging, let's say, 400 cfs at 4 2,000 parts per million. It will then take a certain amount 5 of dilution to get that volume of water down to the 6 standard. 7 Now if you were coming in at 4,000 parts per million, 8 but you only had 300 cfs, you would still need more dilution 9 to get that down to the standard. It was a question of 10 whether the concentration is being reduced or whether the 11 volume is being reduced to the same proportion of the 12 concentration of the flows coming in. 13 And so as I say, under some circumstances he could be 14 right; and other circumstance, he wouldn't be right. It has 15 been my experience that typically it is not that way. 16 MR. SEXTON: So, you're saying that you don't agree 17 with the testimony of Mr. Deverel in that regard? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: Lets be specific now. What testimony 19 are you referring to again? Be sure we understand. 20 MR. SEXTON: I am talking about the testimony he has 21 given three or four times today and during his -- it wasn't 22 today. During his rebuttal case and then again on 23 cross-examination. That testimony is a reduction in load 24 does not result in any increasing concentration. 25 MR. HILDEBRAND: The question is did he have the word CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7967 1 "necessarily" in there. Did he say the word "necessarily," 2 then I would agree with him. But if he did not have it in, 3 I would disagree. 4 MR. SEXTON: You mentioned about the Grassland Bypass 5 Project service area. As I understood your testimony a 6 little while ago, you said that the Grassland Bypass Project 7 was formed for the purpose of reducing salt to the San 8 Joaquin River. Was that your testimony? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: No. My testimony was it was designed 10 for the purpose of reducing selenium. I believe that is 11 what your people indicated. 12 MR. SEXTON: Your testimony is it was to reduce 13 selenium to the San Joaquin River or it was designed to 14 reduce selenium loads to the Grassland channels which would 15 otherwise be used for irrigation? 16 MR. HILDEBRAND: Both. 17 MR. SEXTON: Did you read the testimony of Mr. McGahan? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't know that I read it. I think 19 I was here when he testified. It's been some time ago now. 20 MR. SEXTON: Mr. McGahan is the coordinator for the 21 Grassland Bypass Project? 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes. I know Mr. McGahan. 23 MR. SEXTON: If Mr. McGahan testifies that the purpose 24 of the Grassland Bypass Project was to remove selenium from 25 the Grassland channels, do you have any evidence to suggest CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7968 1 that he is not telling the truth? 2 MR. HILDEBRAND: I didn't say anything contrary to 3 that. 4 MR. SEXTON: What is it you are saying that is 5 different from what he is saying? I understand you are 6 saying that the purpose of the project was to reduce 7 selenium discharges to the river. 8 MR. HILDEBRAND: My understanding of the project was to 9 do both, reduce it to the wetlands and also reduce it to the 10 river. 11 MR. SEXTON: The testimony of Mr. McGahan and the 12 evidence does demonstrate that there has been reduction in 13 selenium to the Grassland channels; isn't that correct? 14 MR. HILDEBRAND: I concur in that. 15 MR. SEXTON: There has been a reduction selenium 16 discharged to the San Joaquin River as a result of the 17 project? 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: The confusion there is that it isn't 19 clear that the reduction that occurred was due to the 20 project rather than due to the weather. You have had some 21 very unusual weather in the last three years. 22 MR. SEXTON: Did you see the data that Mr. McGahan 23 presented to the Board during his testimony? 24 MR. HILDEBRAND: I probably did. I don't recall it 25 exactly. I've also seen the data put out by the Regional CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7969 1 Board, or perhaps it was by the organization showing the 2 results. And the results indicated that, as I recall it, 3 that they actually exceeded the allowable selenium loads to 4 the river, but that they broke up the fact that this was 5 because we had a lot of precipitation that flushed out 6 selenium upstream in the hills there that -- over which the 7 project people had no control. And so -- 8 MR. SEXTON: The project oversight committee viewed 9 that event as being uncontrollable and unforeseeable. 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, and it was. 11 MR. SEXTON: You indicated that the Bypass Project load 12 standard was established by the Regional Board, didn't you? 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't know that I said that. I am 14 not clear exactly how, whether it was stipulated 15 specifically by the Board or whether it was by some 16 agreement among the parties. I couldn't address that. 17 MR. SEXTON: So if Mr. McGahan testified that the load 18 standard was a negotiated load, with input from the U.S. 19 EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of 20 Reclamation and the parties that would be the draining 21 parties within the bypass project, you wouldn't have any 22 evidence to the contrary? 23 MR. HILDEBRAND: I have no reason to contest that, no. 24 MR. SEXTON: And that the standard that was ultimately 25 adopted by the Regional Board was as a result of a consensus CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7970 1 letter that was written by those parties to the Regional 2 Board; isn't that correct, sir? 3 MR. HILDEBRAND: I have no reason to contest that. I 4 don't know it. 5 MR. SEXTON: Now, South Delta had an opportunity and 6 didn't in fact bring a lawsuit to challenge the sufficiency 7 of the environmental documentation done in connection with 8 the bypass project; isn't that right? 9 MR. HILDEBRAND: As regards salinity, that is 10 correct. I explained earlier that we believe, still 11 believe, that it could cause increase in salinity. We don't 12 know that it will, depends on how they operate it. And that 13 we dropped that lawsuit because they agreed in a separate 14 matter to pursue the recirculation which we thought was more 15 important. To just avoid bad relations, we dropped the 16 lawsuit. 17 MR. SEXTON: That is not entirely true, sir, is it? 18 The dismissal that South Delta entered in the lawsuit had 19 absolutely nothing to do with a recirculating proposal? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: In writing, no. 21 MR. SEXTON: Thank you. 22 Nothing further. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 24 Mr. Minasian. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Chairman, my questions have been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7971 1 asked. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 3 Questions from Mr. Howard or Ms. Leidigh? 4 MR. HOWARD: No questions. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Anything from the Board Members? 6 Any redirect for Mr. Hildebrand, Mr. Herrick? 7 MR. HERRICK: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have any exhibits that you want 9 to -- Mr. Hildebrand will not be here tomorrow? 10 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you have any exhibits that you want 12 to offer at this point? 13 MR. HERRICK: No. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: There were none? 15 MR. HERRICK: There were none. 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Alex. Good to see 17 you, sir. 18 MR. HILDEBRAND: Thank you for the good job you are 19 doing presiding. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. Since I guess I 21 won't see you, at least in this capacity. 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: I think not, but I look forward to 23 seeing you. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: As do I to see you, sir. Thank you 25 very, very much. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7972 1 We are going to go back to cross-examination of Mr. 2 Deverel by Mr. Birmingham. 3 Let me announce for those of you that are trying to 4 figure what your schedules are. 5 For those of you wondering what you are going to be 6 doing tonight, I think we are in pretty good shape. We have 7 to complete Mr. Birmingham's cross-examination of Mr. 8 Deverel and then I know it may be too early if you are going 9 to have any redirect. You haven't -- 10 MR. MINASIAN: It will be very brief unless Mr. 11 Birmingham throws some new bombs. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: So then we will -- we have that and then 13 we have remaining Mr. Herrick's one witness. 14 Is that right, Mr. Herrick? 15 MR. HERRICK: Yes. If we should happen to finish 16 today, I won't put that witness on and make everybody come 17 back. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe, Mr. Birmingham, you have 19 another commitment later this afternoon, around fourish? 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I do have a commitment at around 21 4:30. If we can conclude today at four, I am very confident 22 we will be able to finish with Dr. Deverel and South Delta 23 tomorrow. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: It's up to Dr. Deverel. Let's try and 25 wind up by four. And with that, you may proceed, Mr. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7973 1 Birmingham. 2 ---oOo--- 3 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 4 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 5 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, you were present during 7 the examination or at least a portion of it of Bill 8 Johnston; is that correct? 9 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, Ms. Minaberrigarai has 11 placed on the overhead projector a copy of Westlands Water 12 District Exhibit 97. 13 Are you generally familiar with the area that is 14 depicted on Westlands Water District 97? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Generally. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If you were present during the 17 testimony of Mr. Johnston, I believe you would have heard 18 him testify that the arrows, the red arrows, that are on 19 Westlands 97 generally depict the direction of lateral 20 groundwater movement, if there is such movement. 21 Do you recall him testifying to that? 22 DR. DEVEREL: I recall that. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, do you generally agree 24 that the red arrows that are depicted on Westlands Exhibit 25 97 depict the general direction of the groundwater movement, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7974 1 lateral movement, if there is such movement in the area 2 depicted on the map? 3 MR. MINASIAN: At what point in time, Tom? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Presently. 5 DR. DEVEREL: You are asking whether this represents 6 groundwater flow? If groundwater flow moves at all today, 7 as we speak? 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me ask you more specifically. 9 Westlands Water District Exhibit 97 depicts the 10 location of what has been referred to as a groundwater 11 divide line. Do you see that on Westlands Exhibit 97? 12 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Your testimony, Exchange Contractors 14 Exhibit 5(A) refers to the existence of a groundwater 15 divide? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe in your testimony, Exhibit 18 5(A), you state that the data on which the groundwater 19 divide is depicted on Westlands 97 is depicted are data 20 collected by the USGS? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That is right. This is my assumption. 22 That's right. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You were employed by the USGS for a 24 period of time? 25 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7975 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You are generally familiar with the 2 data gathering activities of the USGS in the area depicted 3 on Westlands Exhibit 97? 4 DR. DEVEREL: Generally. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As it exists today, does Westlands 6 Water District Exhibit 97 depict the general location of the 7 groundwater divide? 8 DR. DEVEREL: I would say it probably depicts the 9 general location. It could be shifted west or east a mile 10 or so, maybe more. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: But, generally, the groundwater divide 12 is in a location as depicted on Westlands Exhibit 97? 13 DR. DEVEREL: I believe that is true. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, during your examination both by 15 Mr. Minasian and a number of other attorneys we heard a 16 great deal of discussion about upslope areas. Do you recall 17 using the term "upslope area"? 18 DR. DEVEREL: I think we used upgradient area and 19 upslope areas interchangeably. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What do you mean by "upslope" or 21 "upgradient area"? 22 DR. DEVEREL: With respect to the testimony and 23 cross-examination we were generally referring to those areas 24 that can contribute hydraulically to the drain flow and 25 groundwater flow to areas downslope or to the east of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7976 1 groundwater divide, generally. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, in your testimony the groundwater 3 -- if I can state it in lay terms, Dr. Deverel, the 4 groundwater divide would be the high point of the upslope 5 area? 6 DR. DEVEREL: The high point of the groundwater table 7 of the upslope area. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Just as a general matter, the lateral 9 movement of groundwater depends upon two principal factors; 10 is that correct? 11 DR. DEVEREL: Could you name those factors, please? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that the rate of lateral 13 groundwater movement will depend on the gradient of the 14 groundwater table? 15 DR. DEVEREL: (Witness nods head.) 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You are nodding your head up and down? 17 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the rate of lateral groundwater 19 movement will depend on the permeability of the soil through 20 which the water is moving? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That's true. There is a third factor 22 which is the porosity of the material. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you define "porosity" for us, 24 please. 25 DR. DEVEREL: That is the space between mineral CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7977 1 particles or soil particles in which the water can move. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: During your cross-examination by Mr. 3 Nomellini you stated a couple of times that your work has 4 focused on the lateral movement of groundwater in the 5 saturated zone? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe you testified that, 8 generally, there is no lateral movement of groundwater in 9 the unsaturated zone? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's generally true. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That is generally true because in an 12 unsaturated zone groundwater moves vertically as opposed to 13 horizontally? 14 DR. DEVEREL: In general, yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Minasian, do you have Exhibit 16 5(M)? 17 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 19 Dr. Deverel, for purposes of the record would you again 20 identify very briefly what is depicted by Exchange 21 Contractors Exhibit 5(M). 22 DR. DEVEREL: Briefly, this is a comparison of data and 23 groundwater modeling results that illustrate the flow to 24 drainage laterals. This is the result of data collection 25 and modeling at a field in the Broadview Water District CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7978 1 located near the third lift canal. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me one moment. 3 In preparing the graphs that are depicted on Exchange 4 Contractors Exhibit 5(M) and analyzing the data that are 5 depicted on this exhibit, I believe you testified that you 6 used a groundwater flow model? 7 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is that the groundwater flow model 9 described in your publication "Calibration of a Texture 10 Based Model of Groundwater Flow System, Western San Joaquin 11 Valley, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 12 90-573? 13 DR. DEVEREL: No, it is not. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is the model that you used? 15 DR. DEVEREL: Let me -- we used the same USGS model. 16 That is not my publication is the reason I said no. We used 17 the groundwater flow model developed by the USGS, the 18 modular model. The model that we used to input data that we 19 used for model is not described in that report. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to ask Ms. Minaberrigarai 21 to put up an overhead of a chart that I would like to mark 22 next in order, which I believe would be Westlands Exhibit 23 100. I have additional copies of Westlands Exhibit 100 for 24 other parties if they are interested in it. 25 Actually, I won't put up the overhead. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7979 1 Dr. Deverel, I am handing to you, or Mr. Minasian is 2 handing to you, a copy of a chart which has been marked for 3 identification as Westlands Exhibit 100. 4 Do you recognize this chart? 5 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I do. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you please tell us or describe 7 for us the chart which has been marked for identification as 8 Westlands Exhibit 100. 9 DR. DEVEREL: This is Figure 5 from Water Resources 10 research article published by myself and John Fio in 1991. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In preparing Westlands Exhibit 100, 12 did you use the same model that was used in preparing 13 Exchange Contractors Exhibit 5(M)? 14 DR. DEVEREL: Yes. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On Westlands Exhibit 100, it appears 16 that there are lines that are very similar, if not 17 identical, to the flow lines that are depicted on the bottom 18 half of Exchange Contractors Exhibit 5(M)? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On Westlands Exhibit 100, on each side 21 of the chart there is a perimeter. On the left it is A and 22 on the right is the A prime; is that correct? 23 DR. DEVEREL: That's correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can you please briefly describe for us 25 what each one of the flow lines on Westlands Exhibit 100 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7980 1 depict. 2 DR. DEVEREL: They depict the approximate flow line of 3 water moving from the boundary marked by a boundary line 4 marked by A to the drains. The numbers on the line are the 5 number of years it takes for a particle, according to the 6 model, to move from that boundary of the cross-section 7 delineated by A to either drainage lateral one or drainage 8 lateral two. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that you testified that the 10 flow lines that are depicted on the bottom half of Exchange 11 Contractors 5(M) depict the same thing that you just 12 described for me, flow lines on Westlands Exhibit 100; is 13 that correct? 14 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Looking at the scale for Westlands 16 Exhibit 100, in the bottom right-hand corner of the chart 17 there is a scale; is that correct? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And it represents the distance of 100 20 feet; is that correct? 21 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, looking at the drain that is 23 marked drain one in the upper left-hand corner of Westlands 24 Exhibit 100, are we to conclude that for the top flow line 25 it would take approximately four years for a molecule of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7981 1 water to move the approximate 100 feet from side one to 2 drain one? 3 DR. DEVEREL: That is the model result for nonirrigated 4 conditions. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And immediately below the top flow 6 line, going into drain one from side one, it would take 7 approximately four years for water to move the approximate 8 100 feet at that depth; is that correct? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now let's go further down, if we can, 11 and look at the flow line that is approximately ten feet, 12 ten meters below the ground surface. That has a number 13 eight. Does that mean that it would take approximately 14 eight years for water to move from side one into drain two 15 following the flow line that is depicted? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Approximately what is the distance 18 between side one and drain two as depicted on Westlands 19 Exhibit 100? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I would say probably about along that 21 flow path it would probably be about 250 feet. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So, it would take approximately eight 23 years for the water to move laterally from side one to drain 24 two, which is a distance of approximately 250 feet? 25 DR. DEVEREL: Under these conditions, under CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7982 1 no-irrigated conditions. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let's talk about the conditions as 3 they are depicted on Westlands 100. Between zero and ten 4 meters there is a strata of clay which is identified as clay 5 loam; is that correct? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Below ten meters there is a strata of 8 earth that is depicted as sand; is that correct? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Generally, Dr. Deverel, would the -- 11 which strata would have greater permeability, the clay loam 12 or the sand? 13 DR. DEVEREL: The sand. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In other words, water would move in 15 the sand layer faster than it would move in the clay layer? 16 DR. DEVEREL: It would depend -- as you mentioned 17 before, there are two factors that influence how fast the 18 water particle moves, the hydraulic conductivity as well as 19 the hydraulic gradient. So, the rate that a particle moves 20 could be slower in the sand if it is lower hydraulic 21 gradient, even though there might be a higher hydraulic 22 conductivity. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Assuming that the groundwater table 24 had the same gradient for both the clay layer and the sand 25 layer, water would move horizontally in the sand layer at a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7983 1 faster rate than it would in the clay layer; is that correct? 2 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In the field where you conducted the 4 experiment in Broadview Water District, I believe Mr. White 5 said it was in Section 35? 6 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do the conditions that are depicted on 8 Westlands Exhibit 100 depict the soil conditions in that 9 field? 10 DR. DEVEREL: They depict our interpretation of those 11 soil conditions. This cross-section is somewhat 12 generalized, based on the coring that we did out there. 13 There is some heterogeneity, but in general it depicts the 14 conditions. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that you said that Westlands 16 Water District Exhibit 100 depicts the nonirrigated 17 conditions; is that correct? 18 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, I have handed you another 20 document which I have marked as Westlands Water District 21 Exhibit 101. Are you familiar with the figure which is 22 depicted in Westlands Water District Exhibit 101? 23 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I am. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would you please explain to the Board 25 what is depicted by Westlands Water District Exhibit 101. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7984 1 C.O. CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Birmingham. Ms. Forster 2 has a question. 3 MEMBER FORSTER: Your questions are so detailed, what 4 are you trying to get the Board to understand about all 5 this? 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, would you agree with me 7 that as depicted -- well, let me restate the question. 8 Would you agree, Dr. Deverel, that based upon the 9 studies that you have conducted in the Broadview Water 10 District that the rate at which water moves downgradient is 11 very slow? 12 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it is slow. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, you have the boundaries map? 14 MR. MINASIAN: Sure. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, I am placing up on the 16 overhead Exchange Contractors Exhibit 4(G). 17 DR. DEVEREL: Not 4(F)? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Not 4(F). 19 I believe you testified that the field in Broadview 20 Water District where you conducted the studies which 21 resulted in Westlands Water District Exhibit 100 and 22 Westlands Water District 101 were in Section 35. You are 23 pointing -- I am trying to point to Section 35; is that 24 correct, you have placed the laser pointer in Section 35? 25 DR. DEVEREL: Correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7985 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There are three sections of land 2 between the field where you conducted your experiments in 3 Broadview Water District and Westlands Water District; is 4 that correct? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So the distance between a field where 7 you conducted your study, which resulted in the preparation 8 of Exhibits 100 and 101, the boundary of Westlands Water 9 District is three miles; is that correct? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now going back to Westlands Water 12 District 101, we know that it takes approximately ten years 13 for water to move a distance of approximately 250 feet; is 14 that correct? 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MEMBER FORSTER: This is the longest answer to my 17 question. You didn't answer my question yet. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel -- 19 MR. MINASIAN: Slow. That is the theme, slow. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: How many feet are there in a mile, 21 Dr. Deverel? Approximately 5,280? 22 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If at a level of ten meters water move 24 250 feet in ten years, how long would it take that water to 25 move three miles? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7986 1 DR. DEVEREL: About 200 years. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: About 200 years to move three miles. 3 So, when Mr. Johnston testified that it would take 200 years 4 or several hundred years for water to move downslope from 5 Westlands Water District to an area where it could flow into 6 the San Joaquin River, you would not have any reason to 7 disagree with his opinion. Would you? 8 DR. DEVEREL: Not in general, no. It can move faster 9 than we have depicted here. But in general the rates are 10 slower. It could be faster. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The rates are slow because, as you've 12 described, the gradient on the groundwater table is -- I 13 believe you used the term there is a slow gradient? 14 DR. DEVEREL: The gradient is about .003 or about ten 15 feet per mile. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In your examination by Mr. Minasian, 17 you stated you characterized that gradient as, I will quote, 18 a slowly sloping gradient? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Minasian, I wonder if I could ask 21 you to put on the overhead projector Exchange Contractors 22 Exhibit 5(B). 23 Dr. Deverel, are you familiar with Exchange Contractors 24 Exhibit 5(B)? 25 DR. DEVEREL: I am. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7987 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is Exchange Contractors 5(B)? 2 DR. DEVEREL: This is a cross-sectional diagram that 3 shows the depiction of the water table as well as the 4 general nature of the subsurface deposits in the western San 5 Joaquin Valley, extending from the coast ranges to the 6 approximate location of that field that was just pointed out 7 on the previous exhibit. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There are two water tables that are 9 depicted on Exchange Contractors 5(B); is that correct? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. There is the 1952 water 11 table and 1984 water table. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As depicted on Exchange Contractors 13 5(B), it shows that the 1984 water table extends from the 14 boundary to the west up toward the surface of the land and 15 at a point intersects with the surface of the land; is that 16 correct? 17 DR. DEVEREL: It doesn't intersect with the land. The 18 drawing is drawn to scale such that it appears that way, 19 but the lines are indeed distinct from one another. The 20 water table is somewhere between 10 and 20 feet of land 21 surface or 5 and 20 feet of land surface. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, Exchange Contractors Exhibit 5(B) 23 is a portion of a cross-section of the valley; is that 24 correct? 25 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7988 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, I am placing on the 2 overhead projector a cross-section which I have marked for 3 purposes of identification as Westlands Water District 4 Exhibit 102. 5 Now, do you recognize Westlands Water District 102? 6 DR. DEVEREL: I do. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is Westlands Water District 8 Exhibit 102? 9 DR. DEVEREL: This also shows a cross-section of the 10 valley. It illustrates the general nature of deposits, the 11 1984 water table as well as the location of well clusters 12 that were placed along a cross-section. This cross-section 13 extends from I-5 at Panoche Road and a place near Mendota. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: P6 is near I-5 and P1, as depicted on 15 Westlands Exhibit 102, is near Mendota? 16 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: This a cross-section of -- that is 18 similar to the cross-section used by Mr. Johnston in his 19 testimony; is it correct? 20 DR. DEVEREL: I wasn't present for Mr. Johnston's 21 testimony, actually. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will put up on the overhead Figure 4 23 from the Rainbow Report which Mr. Johnston used during his 24 testimony. It's Figure 4 from Staff Exhibit 47. Are you 25 familiar with this figure? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7989 1 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, I am. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The cross-section depicted in Figure 4 3 is in the same location as the cross-section depicted on 4 Westlands Exhibit 102; is that correct? 5 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now going to Westlands Exhibit 102, it 7 depicts a water table which is a marked 1984 water table; is 8 that correct? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The level or the elevation to be more 11 accurate, the elevation of the water table, as depicted on 12 Westlands Exhibit 102, is based upon data collected by the 13 U.S. Geological Survey; is that correct, Dr. Deverel? 14 DR. DEVEREL: It would include data collected by the 15 U.S. Geological Survey, as well as other sources of data. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In the approximate location -- middle 17 of Westlands Water District Exhibit 102, there is a well 18 that is marked P4; is that correct? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The location of the well P4 on 21 Westlands Exhibit 102 is in the approximate made location of 22 the well depicted in the middle of the cross-section marked 23 Exchange Contractors 5(B); is that correct? 24 DR. DEVEREL: The cross-section depicted in this figure 25 is further to the north than this cross-section. It is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7990 1 approximately the same elevation, but not the same 2 location. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It is not the same location, but in 4 terms of the location of the well shown in -- depicted in 5 the middle of 5(B) -- let me restate the question. That 6 would have been a terrible question. 7 The location of the well in the middle of 5(B) relative 8 to the coastal range is in approximately the same location 9 as the well depicted as P4? 10 DR. DEVEREL: Approximately. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Shown on Westlands Exhibit 102? 12 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Westlands 102, as you stated, shows 14 the 1984 water table. 15 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It shows that the water table extends 17 from the coastal range side of the cross-section generally 18 upward to a point slightly to the east of P4; is that 19 correct? 20 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: At that point, slightly to the east of 22 P4, there is a point at which the groundwater gradient then 23 begins to slope to the east; is that correct? 24 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That would be the groundwater divide CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7991 1 that we have been talking about; is that correct, Dr. 2 Deverel? 3 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it would. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As shown on Westlands Exhibit 102, 5 there is a distance between the highest point of the 6 groundwater gradient and the surface of the earth or the 7 ground as opposed to the way in which the groundwater table 8 is depicted on Exchange Contractors 5(B)? 9 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Deverel, I am placing another 11 cross-section -- let me have it marked for identification as 12 Westlands Water District Exhibit 103. I'll give you a copy 13 of it. 14 Are you familiar with the cross-section that has been 15 marked as Westlands Exhibit 103? 16 DR. DEVEREL: In general, yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: There is a well that is on the west 18 side of the cross-section as identified as P6; is that right? 19 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is that the same well that is depicted 21 in Westlands Water District Exhibit 102 as well P6? 22 DR. DEVEREL: Yes, it is. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: On the east side of the cross-section 24 depicted in Westlands Exhibit 103 there is a well marked M1; 25 is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7992 1 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do you know the location of well M1? 3 DR. DEVEREL: Actually, it would be hard for me to 4 pinpoint M1 on a map. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Westlands Water District Exhibit 103 6 is taken from a USGS survey publication; is that correct? 7 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It also depicts the location of the 9 1952 water table? 10 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And the 1984 water table? 12 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Again, the cross-section that is 14 marked for identification as Westlands Exhibit 103 shows 15 that there is a groundwater divide at the approximate 16 location of a well marked M3? 17 DR. DEVEREL: That's right. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if this would be an 19 appropriate time to break, Mr. Caffrey? 20 C.O. CAFFREY: How much more cross-examination do you 21 have, Mr. Birmingham? 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I probably have about 45 more 23 minutes. I understand Mr. Minasian has some redirect, 24 although I can't imagine that I've thrown too many bombs. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Do you want us to cross these to a map CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7993 1 to show these transects? 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will produce them first thing in the 3 morning so that Dr. Deverel can explain to us where -- he's 4 identified one cross-section. I will produce a map so he 5 can identity which cross-section is which. This 6 cross-section being Westlands Exhibit 103. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Jackson. 8 MR. JACKSON: All of this is new information, which is 9 being submitted at this point. Will there be an opportunity 10 to question Mr. Deverel on the basis of these graphs? 11 C.O. CAFFREY: I am not sure. Actually, no, you will 12 have to deal with it, I guess -- in what, Ms. Leidigh, a 13 rebuttal case, if he wishes to put one on? 14 MS. LEIDIGH: This is rebuttal. 15 MR. MINASIAN: I will do sufficient redirect so that 16 they won't be violating any rule. 17 MR. JACKSON: This is actually not new information. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: Perhaps Mr. Birmingham would explain how 19 this is related to the rebuttal case. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Certainly, I can. But first Mr. 21 Jackson is wrong. This is not new information. Mr. 22 Johnston testified significantly about these very subjects. 23 Dr. Deverel, in his testimony, produced a cross-section on 24 Exchange Contractors Exhibit 5(B), which is generalized, and 25 I am trying to produce more specific information for the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7994 1 examination of these additional cross-sections taken from 2 reports that Dr. Deverel helped prepare. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: I think that is a fair characterization 4 of what they are. So there won't be an opportunity, per se, 5 to cross-examine on these particular documents, beyond Mr. 6 Minasian's election to redirect. 7 MR. JACKSON: For the record, I would like to indicate 8 that that violates due process. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Well, your concern is duly noted on the 10 record, Mr. Jackson. Perhaps your concern will be rectified 11 if the redirect affords you the opportunity to ask questions 12 tomorrow. 13 We will adjourn. Hopefully, we will get through with 14 Mr. Deverel, if you pardon the expression, within a couple 15 hours tomorrow. Then we can go to Mr. Herrick's final 16 witness, and we can close V, Phase V, with any luck. 17 See you tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. 18 (Hearing adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) 19 ---oOo--- 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7995 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 7814 through 14 7995 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 28th day of December 19 1998. 20 21 22 23 24 ______________________________ ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7996