STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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 PAGE 2 RESUMPTION OF HEARING 7341 3 AFTERNOON SESSION 7419 4 5 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT REBUTTAL: 6 WILLIAM R. JOHNSTON: CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION: 7 BY MR JACKSON 7341 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 8 BY MR. NOMELLINI 7368 BY MR. HERRICK 7419 9 BY MR. SEXTON 7462 BY MR. MINASIAN 7467 10 11 ---oOo--- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 DECEMBER 8, 1998 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back. 5 This is the Bay-Delta Water Rights hearings; and when 6 last we met, Mr. Jackson was cross-examining Mr. Bill 7 Johnston for Phase V, direct rebuttal. 8 Good morning, Mr. Jackson. How are you, sir? 9 MR. JACKSON: Morning, Mr. Caffrey. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 12 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 13 BY MR. JACKSON 14 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Johnston, I believe when we left we 15 were talking about the groundwater in the area of Westlands, 16 and you indicated that there was a groundwater divide that 17 divides some of the land or that exists in the northern part 18 of the -- northern and western part of the Westlands. 19 Is that correct, that there is such a divide? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: There is such a divide. 21 I think the last thing that we talked about was that 22 you asked me if I agreed with the conclusions in the Rainbow 23 Report, and I said no. And then I was not able to expand on 24 my answer because of an objection that I had reviewed the 25 Rainbow Report and Mr. Birmingham asked you to provide a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7341 1 copy for me to look at. 2 I would like to say one more thing, add one thing to my 3 answer, and that is that there are certain conclusions that 4 I think are not appropriate, certain things in the 5 recommendations that are meaningless and certain other 6 things that probably would be helpful. So, I just wanted to 7 expand on my answer. 8 MR. JACKSON: Now, at the time that you worked for the 9 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, was the 10 salinity problem in the San Joaquin River something that you 11 spent time with him on? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Misstates the evidence. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: In what respect, Mr. Birmingham? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I don't think that there is any 15 evidence that Mr. Johnston ever worked for Regional Water 16 Quality Control Board. I believe he was the chair of the 17 Board. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that clarification. 19 MR. JACKSON: That is correct. 20 At the time you were Chair of Central Valley Regional 21 Water Quality Control Board, was salinity in the San Joaquin 22 River something that the Board worked on? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: No. Salinity in the San Joaquin River 24 was covered by NPDES permits and nonpoint discharges were 25 exempt, so we did not deal with salinity in the river, per CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7342 1 se. 2 MR. JACKSON: Have you in the experience in the San 3 Joaquin River ever dealt with salinity in the river, per 4 se? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: What do you mean by "Have I ever dealt 6 with it"? 7 MR. JACKSON: Have you done any personal investigation 8 of salinity levels in the San Joaquin River? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 10 MR. JACKSON: Have you been part of any study that 11 dealt with salinity problems in the San Joaquin River? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think I have reviewed studies and been 13 aware of other work that the Bureau and the Regional Board 14 have done in regard to salinity in the San Joaquin River. 15 MR. JACKSON: From you review of work done by others, 16 is there a problem with elevated salinity levels in the San 17 Joaquin River? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 19 MR. JACKSON: Where does that salinity come from? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: In general, the salinity comes from the 21 west side of the San Joaquin Basin. 22 MR. JACKSON: What parts of the west side of the San 23 Joaquin Basin, if you know? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Generally, the salinity comes from the 25 soils on the west side between Mendota and the Delta. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7343 1 MR. JACKSON: Is some of that land within the Westlands 2 Water District? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I should say that there is a 4 potential that a small, very small, amount of land in 5 Westlands could, over a long period of time, contribute a 6 minor amount to that salinity load in the river. But, in 7 general, the San Joaquin River is dry or has very little 8 flow between Mendota and Firebaugh. So anything that might 9 originate in Westlands Water District does not contribute to 10 the salinity problem that is occurring in the San Joaquin 11 River between the Merced River and the Delta. 12 MR. JACKSON: Does part of the Westlands Water District 13 drain toward the Fresno Slough? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 15 MR. JACKSON: Is the Fresno Slough hydrologically 16 connected to the Delta? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. When I say that it drains toward 18 the -- the direction of the groundwater table gradient from 19 the land in Westlands to the Fresno Slough is from the 20 district to the slough. However, in the area where 21 Westlands is upslope of the Fresno Slough, none of the 22 groundwater from Westlands ever reaches the Fresno Slough. 23 There is a substantial block of soil that is impermeable. 24 And the perched water table stops about the edge of 25 Westlands Water District. In the area of Fresno Slough the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7344 1 groundwater is rather good quality. 2 MR. JACKSON: Do you remember your being cross-examined 3 during Phase I about drainage in some subsurface flow by Mr. 4 Nomellini? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 6 MR. JACKSON: Do you remember testifying that there is 7 surface flow that may enter the San Joaquin River during 8 extremely wet periods when creeks flow across Cantua and 9 Panoche Creeks? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. The question is in this 11 context ambiguous. Is Mr. Jackson asking about storm runoff 12 in these creeks? 13 MR. JACKSON: I am now, yes. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: That is your clarification, Mr. 15 Jackson? 16 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: I do recall testifying, and I think I 19 said that Cantua Creek is not connected to -- that no water 20 from Cantua Creek reaches the Fresno Slough, and that some 21 water from Panoche Creek reaches the San Joaquin River. 22 However, that water flows several directions; some of it 23 gets into the Fresno Slough near Mendota. But most of it 24 flows north through the Broadview and Firebaugh Districts 25 and enters the river substantially north of the Westlands CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7345 1 Water District. 2 MR. JACKSON: In your opinion, why doesn't Cantua Creek 3 reach the slough? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Because the aqueduct blocks the flow of 5 water. 6 MR. JACKSON: Does Cantua Creek then discharge into the 7 aqueduct and continue south? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Only in times of extreme flooding. 9 Water has entered from Cantua Creek into the California 10 Aqueduct. 11 MR. JACKSON: At times at which the water level is not 12 high enough to reach into the aqueduct, where does the water 13 from Cantua Creek go? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Most of the time Cantua Creek is dry. 15 MR. JACKSON: So, anytime it is flowing it essentially 16 discharges to the California Aqueduct? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 18 MR. JACKSON: Where does it go when it does not? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Ponds adjacent to the aqueduct and seeps 20 into the ground. 21 MR. JACKSON: In that case, enters the aquifer? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. But not the -- generally, not the 23 perched water table because the water table is -- wouldn't 24 be classified as a perched water table at that location. 25 MR. JACKSON: You've talked a little about the Corcoran CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7346 1 clay that divides the semi-confined aquifer or the perched 2 aquifer that you are talking about? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 4 MR. JACKSON: There's three? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: There are several. 6 MR. JACKSON: Would you describe them. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: The Corcoran clay is a clay layer that 8 separates what is called the semi-confined aquifer and the 9 confined aquifer. The confined aquifer being below the 10 Corcoran clay. 11 At one time the Corcoran clay was called the E clay, 12 indicating that there were at least four other clay layers 13 above the Corcoran clay. 14 The A clay layer is the clay layer in which the perched 15 water table sits on. And then there are several other clay 16 layers, the B, C and D clay layers, as they were originally 17 named, which are not continuous throughout the area. 18 The A clay layer is generally continuous under the area 19 with the perched water table. The ground is saturated from 20 the perched water table all the way down to the Corcoran 21 clay. And so -- and these other clay layers are not 22 continuous throughout the areas. So, what you get is, as 23 water moves down through the ground, it moves down and it 24 sits on one of these clay layers until there is sufficient 25 head to drive the water through that clay layer, and then it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7347 1 starts moving down further. So you might get several water 2 bodies in the semi-confined area. 3 MR. JACKSON: Is this a seasonal variation? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 5 MR. JACKSON: This works the same no matter what time 6 of year, no matter how much rainfall? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: If you get sufficient rainfall or there 8 is sufficient irrigation water applied, then the water table 9 builds up above the A clay layer into the crop root zone. 10 This is the area where you have the drainage problem. In 11 regard to the water moving down through the soil profile, it 12 reacts the same. 13 Now, in areas where groundwater pumping is taking 14 place, you get -- the pumping would influence the level of 15 groundwater above the Corcoran clay as well as the pressure 16 on the confined aquifer below the Corcoran clay, depending 17 on where the wells are perforated and how much water is 18 being pumped. 19 MR. JACKSON: In fact, there are a number of places 20 where the Corcoran clay does not separate the confined 21 aquifer at the lower levels from the upper aquifer; is that 22 correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that is a true 24 statement. I don't understand what you meant by -- if the 25 Corcoran clay exists, it separates the two. If the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7348 1 Corcoran clay is nonexistent, then there is no separation. 2 MR. JACKSON: Now, are the -- you have indicated that 3 you do not believe there is a seasonal variation in the 4 semi-confined aquifer in terms of water levels? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I said that the groundwater pumping 6 will influence the levels. In drought years there is a 7 substantial lowering of the water table above the Corcoran 8 clay due to groundwater pumping. 9 However, there is little impact on the perched water 10 table from that groundwater pumping. 11 MR. JACKSON: Is the perched water table stable at this 12 point, or does it raise and lower depending on application 13 of applied water? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: When you use the term "stable," over 15 what period of time are you talking about? 16 MR. JACKSON: Since, for instance, 1984. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: The perched water table will vary in 18 depth, depending on irrigation applications and crop water 19 use. In long periods of time between irrigations there is 20 always a downward movement through the A layer. 21 So, in some places there is a seasonal change. There 22 is always a change when irrigation takes place. 23 But, now, are you asking about anything beyond that? 24 MR. JACKSON: No, I am not at this point, but I will. 25 In this perched aquifer, is there a difference in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7349 1 water levels dependent on whether you are in the tile drain 2 portions of Westlands compared to the non-tile drain 3 portions? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Misstates the evidence. I 5 believe the evidence is there are no tile drain sections of 6 Westlands. Mr. Jackson is referring to the area previously 7 served by the subsurface collector drainage system, maybe he 8 can clarify the question based on that. 9 C.O. CAFFREY: I believe we have testimony, as 10 described by Mr. Birmingham, if my memory serves. 11 Would you care to restate the question, Mr. Jackson? 12 MR. JACKSON: Sure. 13 Part of the Westlands used to be tile drained, did they 14 not? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: We have to discuss whether we are 16 talking about the district's collector drainage system or 17 on-farm drains. The district drainage, collector drainage 18 system, has been taken out of service and does not drain any 19 longer. 20 Most of the on-farm drains have also been taken out of 21 commission. There may be a few on-farm drains that still 22 function with the farmer trying to deal with the drainage 23 water that is produced by those drainage systems. I don't 24 know for sure. 25 MR. JACKSON: And the collector system, the on-farm CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7350 1 collector system, was closed in 1985? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: No. The district's drainage collector 3 system was closed in 1985. 4 MR. JACKSON: Since that time, has there been any 5 change in the water levels on those farms? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. As irrigations take place, the 7 water table builds up. The depth to water table becomes 8 less. As the crop uses the water, on account of the crop 9 root zone, the water table will drop, and also it will drop 10 due to downward movement through the soil profile. 11 MR. JACKSON: Is there -- since 1995 and the closure of 12 the collector system, has there been any permanent increase 13 in the levels of water in the perched water table? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: There has been an increase in the area 15 where the water table is less than 20 feet below ground 16 surface and a small increase in area where the water table 17 is less than ten feet. The area between zero and -- the 18 area covered or the extent of the area where the water table 19 is zero to five feet, has stayed about the same. Probably 20 for the last 15 years. 21 Because that is an area where the drainage, the 22 physical drainage problem, occurs, and the problem is that 23 the water will not drain out of the crop root zone 24 sufficiently to allow good crop production. It fluctuates 25 as irrigation takes place, but it generally stays somewhere CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7351 1 around five feet below ground surface. 2 MR. JACKSON: Now, the area where the water is ten feet 3 down, you indicated that there was a small increase. How do 4 you measure "small"? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I don't have the numbers before 6 me. But this is based on contours that are drawn on a map, 7 based on monthly groundwater level measurements that are 8 taken by the district. And the district plots the contour, 9 and the area within the contours, zero to five, five to ten, 10 or ten to twenty feet are calculated each time these 11 measurements are taken. Sometimes monthly and sometimes 12 quarterly. 13 MR. JACKSON: Does that area fluctuate by season? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: A little, not much. 15 MR. JACKSON: Does the groundwater divide that you've 16 talked about move or shift during the late fall, winter and 17 spring months? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Very little. Yes, it will shift some 19 depending on where the contours are drawn. But, basically, 20 no. It is in the same general area most of the time -- all 21 the time, I should say. 22 MR. JACKSON: Are there places in the Westlands where 23 irrigation water reaches the confined aquifer? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: There is an interchange between the 25 water above and below the Corcoran clay through well casings CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7352 1 where the wells are perforated above and below the Corcoran 2 clay. Beyond that, I couldn't speculate as to what water is 3 being interchanged. 4 MR. JACKSON: Does the water quality of the confined 5 aquifer change over time? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Not very much. It's -- these kind of 7 questions over a 600,000-acre area are difficult to give a 8 positive answer to, I mean, definite answer. Because you 9 might sample a well over a ten-year period and get readings 10 that vary plus or minus 10 percent. 11 So to answer you, it is not changing would not be 12 correct. But, in general, the long-term water quality 13 measurements of the confined aquifer have been the same. 14 MR. JACKSON: Is the downward component of flow that 15 you described with your exhibits increasing or decreasing 16 over time? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Is the downward gradient increasing or 18 decreasing? 19 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: It's probably not changing. It's based 21 on the head of the water table and the permeability of the 22 soil. So, as the head on the water table increases, you get 23 a slight increase in the downward flow. But it's probably 24 close to being the same most of the time because the 25 gradient is not shifting. The water table is not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7353 1 increasing. 2 MR. JACKSON: This groundwater divide, has it always 3 been there? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: At some point, yes. I mean at some 5 location as the water table builds up and moves and the 6 depth gets shallower, further and further upslope, while the 7 divide shifts with that buildup in the water table. 8 However, the gradient on the water table hasn't changed at 9 all. 10 MR. JACKSON: Now, are there other -- does the 11 groundwater divide move dependent on what the soil is 12 underneath it? I mean, does it move around the alluvial 13 fans? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I just said it doesn't shift very much 15 at all. It moves based on the location of the maximum 16 elevation of the water table in the shallow perched water 17 table. 18 MR. JACKSON: In terms of the areas where the 19 groundwater divide turns to run east and west, for instance, 20 at the northern part of the Westlands, is that because it is 21 going around the fan? Is it the elevation of the coast 22 range sediments that is causing it to turn? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: There is probably a change in the soil 24 texture or the permeability of the soil in that area that 25 causes the water table to be higher at that point than it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7354 1 further south or west. 2 MR. JACKSON: In the Los Gatos Creek area, for 3 instance, does the Corcoran clay member exist? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I can't answer that without looking at a 5 map of the Corcoran clay. 6 MR. JACKSON: In the Cantua Creek area does it exist? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe it does. 8 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to the groundwater 9 divide again, the groundwater divide, how close does it come 10 to the surface at its maximum extent? Is that the five feet 11 you were talking about? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: No. The five-foot depth doesn't have 13 anything to do with where the divide might be. 14 If we look at Figure 4 in Staff Exhibit 147, why, we 15 find the groundwater divide is in the range of 5 to 20 feet, 16 according to that schematic diagram. But it could be 17 shallower or deeper depending on the elevation of the ground 18 in relation to the divide on the water table. 19 MR. JACKSON: How much of the Westlands' district 20 approximately is in the area of the five foot to the perched 21 water table from the surface? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Of the entire Westlands Water District? 23 MR. JACKSON: Yes. Is that the 42,000 acres? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I don't remember the number. It 25 could be somewhere in the 50,000-acre range, but I am not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7355 1 sure at this point in time. 2 MR. JACKSON: You talked about what you characterized 3 as the salinity problem on the farm. Is that correct? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Would you reask the question, please. 5 MR. JACKSON: You talked about the salinity problem -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. JACKSON: -- that was growth rights on the farmers' 8 lands? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I talked about the impact of salinity on 10 the potential to grow certain crops, yes. 11 MR. JACKSON: In the areas in which the groundwater 12 table is at five feet, are there losses in agricultural crop 13 on those acres? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: There is a potential for loss on those 15 acres, depending on the salinity in the soil and the 16 management of irrigation water and drainage water. 17 MR. JACKSON: Is there a water level that would 18 indicate to you that that land was no longer appropriate for 19 farming? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: A water level? 21 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: If the water level rose to a point where 23 there was not sufficient salt-free -- where the salinity 24 levels in the soil couldn't be maintained within an 25 allowable root zone for the particular crop that the farmer CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7356 1 wanted to grow, then I would say that the answer to that 2 question is yes. But you can't just select a water level or 3 a salinity level. 4 Obviously, there are -- if the water table rose to the 5 ground surface and the salt content was sufficient that you 6 couldn't grow any crops, then the answer is, yes, that land 7 would be out of production. But you have to be more 8 specific about the rooting depth of the crop, the salinity 9 in the crop root zone and the water table depth. 10 In many cases, during preirrigation, the water table 11 will rise into the crop root zone within a foot or two of 12 the ground surface. But because the -- in areas where 13 drainage is provided, the water table then lowers because 14 drainage is available and the crop during preirrigation only 15 needs a few inches for rooting depth. Then as the crop -- 16 as the water table lowers, the crop root grows down into the 17 water table and utilizes the water that is stored in the 18 soil. Therefore, you might have a very shallow water table 19 at some times of the year, but you could still have a very 20 productive piece of land. 21 MR. JACKSON: Now, the applied water for Westlands 22 comes out of the Delta-Mendota system, correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: For Westlands Water District? 24 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: No. Some of the -- two laterals in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7357 1 Westlands Water District can be served from water from the 2 Delta-Mendota Canal, but most of the water delivered by 3 Westlands comes from the California Aqueduct, San Luis 4 Canal. 5 MR. JACKSON: Are the farmers in Westlands -- let me 6 step back. 7 You have indicated that, in your opinion, there is not 8 a substantial amount of either subsurface water or tailwater 9 reaching the San Joaquin River from the Westlands Water 10 District? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I think I indicated there wasn't any. 12 MR. JACKSON: The water is, essentially, after it is 13 applied, completely used on the farm, correct? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The applied water in Westlands is 15 generally -- let me answer the question differently. 16 The water allocation that Westlands' farmers get is 17 just about the amount needed for the average consumptive use 18 of crops that are grown in the district. So, the amount of 19 water that is in excess of crop water needs is very small, 20 if any. The district has a policy that all farmers must 21 contain their tailwater on their own farms. 22 So, all of the farmers have tailwater return systems 23 that recycle or store their tailwater on their farms. In 24 regards to drainage effluent, subsurface drainage effluent, 25 there are very few, if any, on-farm drains in Westlands; and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7358 1 those farmers that do have on-farm drains recycle or apply 2 their drainage water in some way to dispose of it in a safe 3 manner. 4 MR. JACKSON: Is there a buildup in salt taking place 5 on the farms? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: In some cases the answer to that is 7 yes. In other cases, there is sufficient leaching and 8 sufficient space above the water table where whatever salt 9 is being leached goes down into the soil below the crop root 10 zone. 11 MR. JACKSON: At some point, maybe, into the confined 12 aquifer? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Probably not into the confined aquifer, 14 but into the aquifer above the Corcoran clay. 15 MR. JACKSON: So, it goes from the perched aquifer, the 16 salt goes to the semi-confined aquifer? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 18 MR. JACKSON: Above the Corcoran clay? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: But all of Westlands is not -- all of 20 the area in Westlands does not have a perched water table. 21 So, when you use the term "Westlands," you're going to have 22 to answer it in a broad, general way that covers all of the 23 area that you are asking about. 24 MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about the northern hundred 25 thousand acres for a moment. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7359 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Even there, the northern 100,000 acres 2 has substantially different conditions as you go from the 3 eastern boundary to the western boundary. 4 MR. JACKSON: And what are the conditions? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: The area that was formerly drained has a 6 perched water table within ten feet of the ground surface. 7 As you move west, the water table is deeper. The perched 8 water table is deeper. You get to an area where you hit the 9 point where the divide occurs that we have been talking 10 about. And as you move further west, then the perched water 11 disappears. And as you go further west there is a no, 12 quote, land with a drainage problem. There is no perched 13 water table. And if you get far enough west, you get in an 14 area where there is basically no groundwater available for 15 use. So, those landowners have to rely entirely on surface 16 water. 17 MR. JACKSON: Where does -- go back just a minute. 18 On the land that was previously drained on the east 19 side of the groundwater divide, there is a perched water 20 table; is that correct? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 22 MR. JACKSON: And the salt is leached out of the root 23 zone into that perched water table, right? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Any leaching that takes place moves the 25 salt from the crop root zone into the water table. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7360 1 MR. JACKSON: Where does the salt -- the salt just sits 2 at the bottom of the perched table? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: It just accumulates in the water table. 4 MR. JACKSON: And has that accumulation of salt to this 5 point caused a loss of ability to raise crops above it? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: In some areas it has. Where the 7 drainage problem is most severe and where the water table 8 stays up within three or four feet of the ground surface, 9 there is capillary rise when there is no irrigation taking 10 place, and the salt moves back up into the crop root 11 zone. And these soils in these areas are becoming more 12 saline as time goes on. 13 This is one of the problems of taking land out of 14 production or retiring land. In areas where there is a 15 shallow water table, the land can then become salt flats 16 instead of productive land. Whereas, if you keep 17 irrigating the land, you can at least make an attempt to 18 clean up the top three or four feet of soil and keep 19 producing crops. But you have to keep putting irrigation 20 water on the top of the soil in order to move those salts 21 down in the water table. 22 MR. JACKSON: Doesn't that at some point end up 23 building up salts until they reach the root zone? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: The salts will continue to build up in 25 the shallow water table, yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7361 1 MR. JACKSON: Since none of the applied water escapes, 2 in your opinion, by subsurface flow or tailwater flow, this 3 process will continue until it is impossible to grow crops 4 on that land? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 6 MR. JACKSON: Is it requiring more water for the acres 7 that we have been talking about each year to move the salt 8 downward out of the root zone? 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you understand the question, Mr. 11 Johnston? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 13 C.O. CAFFREY: You may answer it, sir. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: No, it doesn't. 15 MR. JACKSON: So the situation is relatively stable in 16 terms of the relationship between the applied water and the 17 salt? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: The fact that Westlands has a very 19 limited water supply is helping the drainage problem. 20 MR. JACKSON: So, one of the ways to help the drainage 21 problem is to lower the Westlands water supply? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: No. Because they have insufficient 23 water supply at the present time. So you would end up with 24 areas that would become salt flats if they can't be 25 irrigated. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7362 1 MR. JACKSON: Weren't some of the areas salt flats 2 before? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Before what? 4 MR. JACKSON: Before people started farming in the 5 area? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know that I could say yes or no 7 about that. That was before my time. But I have seen other 8 areas of the valley that have been reclaimed with the use of 9 groundwater. As far as Westlands, the area was 94 percent 10 irrigated before project water was delivered. So, my 11 experience out there is that all of the land has been farmed 12 for since the 1930s. 13 MR. JACKSON: But you have no knowledge of what the 14 land was prior to 1930? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 16 MR. JACKSON: Now, go back through it one more time. 17 In the area of the perched water table, the applied 18 water takes the salt downward out of the root zone, and it 19 sits on top of the clay layer, correct? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 21 MR. JACKSON: Where does the salt go as it leaches down? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It goes into the water table. The water 23 table may be sitting on a clay layer that is, say, 50-feet 24 deep. So you might have a water table that is in the upper 25 50 feet of the ground surface, of the ground, that is four CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7363 1 or five feet deep. As you irrigate, the water table will 2 rise up to, say, two feet below ground surface. Then as the 3 crop grows and deep seepage takes place below this 50-foot 4 clay layer, the water table will drop a little bit. And the 5 application of the irrigation water leaches the salt into 6 the water table. 7 Now, the water table, being, say, 45-foot thick, gets 8 the salt. And the top of the water table will increase in 9 salt. But you get dispersion within the water table. So, I 10 do not know how the salt is dispersing in the water table, 11 but it will over time get more saline. 12 MR. JACKSON: Now, do we know the rate at which that 13 water table is becoming saline? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 15 MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, have there been any 16 studies to determine how much of an increase in salinity 17 levels of the water there is? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: As I said a little bit ago, whenever you 19 take water samples from wells or point sources out of a 20 water table, you can get substantially different readings 21 from time to time, depending on what has happened just above 22 the water table or from pumping or from application of 23 different quality waters. 24 So, the answer is that we know it is getting more 25 saline, but we don't know what rate. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7364 1 MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, there has been no 2 study to determine -- 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Specifically of that nature, no. To my 4 knowledge, I don't know of a study. 5 MR. JACKSON: Is there any way to estimate or determine 6 how long it would be before the water was saline that it 7 would keep people from growing crops on the land above it? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 9 MR. JACKSON: What then is the need for the drain? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: The need is to allow the farmers more 11 flexibility in the types of crops that they are going to be 12 able to grow. I mean, as the water table gets more saline, 13 their options for growing crops becomes more and more 14 limited. The physical problem of having the water table in 15 the crop root zone or immediately below the crop root zone 16 allows the salt to move back up into the crop root zone 17 during times between irrigation. There are several reasons 18 to have drainage. 19 MR. JACKSON: The drain would only -- let me withdraw 20 that. 21 The drain is not necessary to keep Westlands applied 22 water from escaping into the river, correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Would you restate that. 24 MR. JACKSON: Sure. You have indicated that there is 25 no drainage off Westlands to the river, either subsurface or CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7365 1 tailwater? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 3 MR. JACKSON: So the drain is not needed to protect the 4 river, in your opinion? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: From Westlands Water District? 6 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. 8 MR. JACKSON: So the drain would only be built to 9 provide flexibility for the Westlands farmers, correct? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: It would be built to provide long-term 11 productivity or protect the long-term productivity of the 12 land in Westlands that has a high water table and drainage 13 problems. However, if such a drain was built, it would 14 certainly be used by others. 15 MR. JACKSON: Well, let's talk about Westlands for a 16 moment. 17 Is there any indication in scientific research that 18 gives us a time by which Westlands would need the drain? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Depends on what you mean by 20 "need," because I think it is needed today. 21 The other thing I need to add is that the drain is not 22 only proposed or -- the original San Luis Drain was not only 23 proposed for Westlands, but also proposed for use by the 24 other districts within the San Luis unit, Panoche and San 25 Luis Water District. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7366 1 MR. JACKSON: Is it your testimony that Panoche and San 2 Luis Water District are draining to the river? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that is already in the record, 4 that the drainage effluent from the lands in the Grassland 5 Bypass service area, which includes Panoche and San Luis and 6 others, drains to the river through Mud Slough. 7 MR. JACKSON: Now the -- so, for those districts it is 8 not simply a problem of the crops, it's a problem of the 9 subsurface drainage? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: They have the same problems that 11 Westlands Water District does in terms of crop production. 12 However, their drainage systems are continuing to function. 13 So they are removing salt; whereas, the farmers in 14 Westlands Water District are accumulating salt. 15 MR. JACKSON: You, I think, indicated earlier that you 16 know of -- let me do this again. 17 Do you know whether or not the deep aquifer is 18 receiving salt? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Which deep aquifer? 20 MR. JACKSON: The aquifer under the Corcoran clay? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: I have said that through the 22 interchange of well casings that -- and wells that are 23 perforated both above and below the Corcoran clay there 24 could be some interchange in waters from above and below the 25 clay. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7367 1 MR. JACKSON: Do you know the magnitude of that 2 interchange? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I do not. 4 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not that lower 5 aquifer, the rate at which that lower aquifer is 6 accumulating salt? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know that it is accumulating 8 salt and if there is a rate of change. I do not know that 9 either. 10 MR. JACKSON: I have no further questions. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 12 Mr. Nomellini. 13 Good morning, sir. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 16 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 17 BY MR. NOMELLINI 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 19 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 20 I have a couple of overheads I would like to work 21 with. If you bear with me a moment. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Absolutely. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: I will attempt to get them over 24 there. 25 Bill, starting with your expertise on drainage problems CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7368 1 within the valley, you heard Mr. Birmingham outline your 2 particular status as an expert in that regard. And, I 3 believe, he said you were the foremost expert on drainage in 4 the San Joaquin Valley. 5 Recognizing that you are an expert in this area, how 6 would you rate your expertise? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: On a scale of what? 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you consider yourself the foremost 9 expert on this subject? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I don't know about that. But I 11 think that I have been involved in the drainage work that 12 has gone on in the valley for long enough that I know quite 13 a bit about it. Whether I know as much as anybody else, we 14 can wait and see about that. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know of anybody else that you 16 would consider to be a person with equal expertise to yours 17 in this regard? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: I have sort of a unique background in 19 that I have been involved in the research as well as the 20 political aspect, and there are people that probably are 21 more knowledgeable in the research area than I am, more 22 knowledgeable in the politics of the situation than I. 23 But combined I may have the best overall knowledge. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: So you know about the real world 25 aspects of the drainage problem as well as the technical; is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7369 1 that correct? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: I think so. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. With regard to the real 4 world problem of drainage in the valley, in your rebuttal 5 testimony you defined the drainage problem as -- and this is 6 my recollection, and I want you to verify it, as farmland 7 having groundwater within five feet of the surface. 8 Is that the definition of drainage problem? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Of physical problem with a water table 10 within five feet or less of the ground surface. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: That would apply to areas within the 12 Westlands Water District, would it not? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: And it would apply as well in 15 neighboring farmed areas, would it not? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: In response to questions from Mr. 18 Jackson you acknowledged a salinity problem in the San 19 Joaquin River; is that correct? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you consider the salinity problem in 22 the San Joaquin River to be related to drainage problems as 23 we have defined them for farmland? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. In the San Joaquin Valley, I do. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, what is that relationship between CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7370 1 the salinity problem in the San Joaquin River and the 2 drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, some of the lands in the San 4 Joaquin Valley that have a drainage problem also have a 5 salinity problem in that the water table that causes the 6 drainage problem is saline because the soils in the valley 7 were laid down from the marine sediments and contain salts 8 of various kinds. And the fact that whenever you irrigate 9 lands you are also applying some salts in the irrigation 10 water. 11 So, in order to -- when you install drainage systems to 12 lower the water table and the water table is saline, you 13 create a disposal problem in that the water that you drain 14 off of the land is more saline than can be used for 15 irrigation of crops. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: So when that water gets into the river, 17 the San Joaquin River, then that is how the relationship 18 occurs; is that correct? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: It can get into the river through 21 direct drainage, through some kind of system; is that 22 correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: What do you mean by "direct drainage"? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, let's say a farmer had a ditch 25 that runs into Mud Slough and then through Mud Slough into CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7371 1 the river, and he put his drainage water in that ditch, that 2 is one way? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: That is one way. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Another way might be through accretions 5 to the river, would it not? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Those accretions could be from perched 8 groundwater; is that correct? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, adjacent to the river. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Could they also be from some up welling 11 of some kind of deeper groundwaters? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: That is possible, but probably not 13 prevalent in the San Joaquin. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the San Joaquin River 15 north of Mendota, do you know how the salinity physically 16 gets into the San Joaquin River? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I know some ways that the river becomes 18 more saline. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you tell us those ways. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I think you just described one of them; 21 that is, that the drainage, subsurface drainage, water from 22 buried drainage systems gets discharged into open drains, 23 and the drains also contain probably tailwater and other 24 surface runoff, and these drains eventually make their way 25 into the river. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7372 1 Another way is the accumulation of water on wetlands 2 and the drain of these wetlands after water has ponded and 3 become more saline over the year during time which the wet 4 lands are ponded and that water is released and discharged 5 into the river. 6 And from the groundwater accretions directly from the 7 water table into the river is another way. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any surface drainage of salts 9 into the river? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, that would be another way. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: In other words -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Flood waters that contain salts from 13 running off of the coastal range, flowing directly into the 14 river. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: In your use of the term "flood waters," 16 would that include sheet flow across the tops of fields? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be flooding, yes. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to your work experience in 19 the field of drainage problems, you indicated that you've 20 been active in this regard for about 40 years; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And you pointed out, I think, in 1959 24 to 1964 you were doing research with regard to subsurface 25 drainage in the grasslands area; is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7373 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, partially there. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not the salinity 3 of the San Joaquin River north of Mendota increased or 4 decreased during that period of time? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to 1965 to 1975, I believe 7 you testified that you were working with Westlands Water 8 District as the drainage engineer and -- I can't read my own 9 writing. You were involved in irrigation? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Supervisor of water management. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: During that period, do you know whether 12 or not the salinity of the San Joaquin River north of 13 Mendota increased or decreased? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: During the period of 1975 and 1976, you 16 directed the San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage 17 Program; is that correct? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: During those two years, do you know 20 whether or not the salinity of the San Joaquin River north 21 of Mendota increased or decreased? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I might save you time, because I 23 don't know whether it increased or decreased in any specific 24 period of time. However, it does fluctuate substantially 25 during the year. So -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7374 1 MR. NOMELLINI: In general, though, putting aside the 2 fluctuations during the year and looking at the salinity of 3 the San Joaquin River as an average, would you say that 4 during the period of 1959 through 1976 that the average 5 salinity increased? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: In 1976 you returned to Westlands as 8 Assistant General Manager; is that correct? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: And then I kind of lost it here. In 11 1987 you retired from Westlands and became an independent 12 consultant; is that correct? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: At some period you served as Chairman 15 of Regional Water Quality Control Board, did you not? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: What period was that? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: I am going to have to look at my resume 19 again. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you do that. Could you look at 21 that. Must have been a real important period of your life. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: There was a lot going on. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I have a moment, Mr. Chairman? 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Certainly. 25 Sometimes when you serve on these Boards, the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7375 1 aftermath, you try to forget it. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm just kidding. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: I'm speaking from experience. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I can tell you I served for six years, 5 and the last two years I was Chair of the Board. We are 6 finding out what the years are. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: While we are trying to nail those years 8 down, was that during the period you were working for 9 Westlands? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: The same time you served on the Board, 12 your primary job was working for Westlands Water District? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. And I resigned from the 14 Board when I became Director of the San Joaquin Drainage 15 Program. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: So it was prior to '76? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, '76. It was probably about '69 to 18 '76 that I served. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Tom, Mr. Birmingham, that is close 20 enough for what I wanted. Thank you very much for looking 21 for that. 22 Now, you had indicated in answer to other questions 23 that during your tenure with the Regional Water Quality 24 Control Board, that the Regional Board was not concerned 25 with salinity in the San Joaquin River. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7376 1 Is that a correct statement of your testimony? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I don't think I said there was no 3 concern. I said I didn't deal with that issue, because it 4 was generally a nonpoint source control problem, and we were 5 dealing with point source problems. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say "we," you are talking 7 about the Board, itself? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: The Board, itself. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: And the staff would be dealing with 10 point source discharge requirements that did not involve 11 Board action; is that your testimony? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: No. They required -- the point source 13 discharge requirements required Board action. The nonpoint 14 source discharges were not particularly concerned at that 15 point in the Board's history. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, let's take the point source 17 discharges and the Board's involvement with those. During 18 your tenure with the Board, was the Regional Board involved 19 in setting waste discharge requirements for point source 20 discharges into the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: A few. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to those few, was 23 there a salinity requirement associated with the point 24 source discharge requirement that the Board dealt with while 25 you were there? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7377 1 MR. JOHNSTON: The one that I can remember specifically 2 was for the City of Modesto wastewater discharge into the 3 river, and I do not know, do not remember specifics about 4 the discharge requirement. But I would guess that there was 5 a salinity control, a salinity objective in the 6 requirements. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: If there was a salinity parameter 8 associated with that, then you would agree that the Regional 9 Board, during your tenure, did deal with salinity in the San 10 Joaquin River? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: In that respect, yes. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: During your tenure with the Regional 13 Water Quality Control Board, was there any concern about, 14 with regard to protecting beneficial uses in the San Joaquin 15 River with regard to salinity impacts? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to this line of 18 questioning on the grounds that it goes beyond the scope of 19 the rebuttal case. Mr. Johnston testified that he was -- 20 part of his qualifications referred to the fact that he was 21 a member of the Board, a chairman of the Board for a period. 22 But the rebuttal case did not go into in any detail what the 23 Regional Board did with respect to establishing salinity 24 standards for the San Joaquin River. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Nomellini. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7378 1 MR. NOMELLINI: I wasn't going to spend a lot of time 2 with it. The relevance that I see in the tie in, in the 3 rebuttal case they defined the drainage problem as solely 4 the groundwater within five feet of the surface of the 5 farmland. Then in some of the other questioning it got into 6 the San Joaquin River problem. 7 The subject of this phase is dealing with the San 8 Joaquin River salinity. And I wanted to attempt to pursue 9 the tie, the two with regard to Mr. Johnston's experience 10 and his understanding in that area. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Johnston was, I believe, very 13 specific when he was defining the drainage problem in 14 Westlands. And maybe Mr. Johnston could be asked that, 15 clarify that. But I do recall that in defining the drainage 16 problem he was specific as to the drainage problem in 17 Westlands. 18 What Mr. Nomellini is attempting to do is ask about 19 what the Regional Board did historically. I know when the 20 Regional Board witnesses were here, he asked similar 21 questions of them. How is it relevant? I don't know. And 22 it may be. But my objection is not based on relevance, but 23 it is based on scope of the rebuttal case that we 24 presented. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Ms. Leidigh, you pulled the microphone CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7379 1 forward. You're wishing to comment publicly or privately? 2 MS. LEIDIGH: I can comment publicly. 3 I think what we are looking at here is we're working on 4 rebuttal now, instead of cases in chief. And if we were in 5 cases in chief, then it is okay to go beyond the scope of 6 the direct examination. But the purpose of rebuttal is to 7 rebut specific things that were said in the cases in chief. 8 And rebuttal is kept narrow for that reason. If the parties 9 had something that they wanted to put on the way of evidence 10 during case in chief, new information, it could have been 11 provided then, if there was a witness -- 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Or it could be provided in their own 13 rebuttal case. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: -- or their own rebuttal case. 15 But it shouldn't be provided in the form of 16 cross-examination of a witness who is just testifying to 17 rebut a particular set of points. So, my recommendation is 18 that the cross-examination be kept to the scope of Mr. 19 Johnston's testimony on rebuttal. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Leidigh. 21 Mr. Jackson, do you wish to go on the record, sir? 22 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I would like to go on the 23 record. I made an objection originally to the redefinition 24 of the salinity problem to deal with Westlands' crops in 25 rebuttal. That objection was overruled on the grounds that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7380 1 it was somehow linked to the salinity problem in the San 2 Joaquin River, which was the purpose of this phase of the 3 hearing. 4 Now, we are being told that we can't link them. So, I 5 guess I am back to my original objection, which is that what 6 were they rebutting? What is the relevance of all of Mr. 7 Johnston's rebuttal testimony, since it evidently has 8 nothing to do with salinity into the San Joaquin River? 9 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: As I argued at the time, Mr. 11 Johnston's testimony is being offered to rebut the specific 12 allegation made by Trinity County concerning waste and 13 unreasonable use in Westlands. Again, if they want to 14 withdraw it, we can take all this stuff out of the record. 15 They refused to do that. 16 What I am objecting to with respect to Mr. Nomellini's 17 line of questioning at this point is that it does not relate 18 to anything that we brought out on direct examination 19 through our rebuttal testimony. And so the objection that 20 Mr. Nomellini made with respect to the relevance or the 21 issue that we were rebutting with respect to Mr. Johnston's 22 direct rebuttal testimony is completely unrelated to the 23 objection that I am now making. 24 C.O. CAFFREY: I will certainly let you speak, Mr. 25 Nomellini. I want to see if Ms. Leidigh has anything to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7381 1 add. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: I just want to be second to last, 3 recognizing you've got the last word, Mr. Chairman. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 5 Ms. Leidigh, did you want to comment further? 6 MS. LEIDIGH: I don't think that I have anything that I 7 can really add to what I said before. My recommendation 8 still is that the cross-examination of the rebuttal witness 9 be kept to the scope of the rebuttal witness' testimony. 10 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you. 11 Mr. Nomellini. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Birmingham misspoke by saying I 13 objected to the relevance of his rebuttal testimony. I did 14 not. Mr. Jackson did. Just for the record. 15 But in any event, I view myself as cross-examining this 16 witness. The rebuttal case, I agree, has to be within the 17 scope of the direct. But it is a question of how much 18 leeway do I have in rebuttal, in cross-examining 19 rebuttal. I may want to impeach this witness, get him to 20 confess to 16 felonies and so on and so forth. It is a 21 question of where you go with it, not that I am headed in 22 that area. But I just point that out as the scope of 23 cross-examination. 24 We are entitled to get the credibility as well as these 25 factual matters. And testing the recollection of the party CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7382 1 and those kind of things are all, as I see, relevant 2 cross-examination. I would agree that there has to be some 3 outside limits. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: The question here is whether it is 5 relevant in cross-examination of rebuttal versus relevant in 6 cross-examination of, say, direct. But let me go off the 7 record for a moment. I want to discuss one aspect with Ms. 8 Leidigh and Mr. Stubchaer. We will go off the record for 9 just a moment. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would it be appropriate at this time 11 to take your morning break, Mr. Caffrey? 12 C.O. CAFFREY: We can do that. It's a good idea. I 13 didn't realize that it was almost 25 after. Let's take our 14 12-minute break. We will be back. 15 (Break taken.) 16 C.O. CAFFREY: All right. We are back from our break. 17 We have had some consultation during the break and 18 here's the ruling: I am going to sustain Mr. Birmingham's 19 objection and accept the consultation and advice of Ms. 20 Leidigh as our attorney. 21 I fear that if we were to go beyond the scope of the 22 direct rebuttal, we would perhaps be repeating Phase V all 23 over again. However, it appears as though, and in deference 24 to Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Birmingham did say 25 he wasn't objecting on the basis of relevancy. He was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7383 1 objecting on the basis of the technicality that it is within 2 the scope of direct rebuttal. 3 I believe that it is not within the scope of direct 4 rebuttal. I believe it may well be relevant, and Mr. 5 Nomellini can raise this line of questions if he wishes, I 6 am sure, in a rebuttal case of his own in which he can call 7 witnesses to the extent that he so desires. 8 That is the ruling. The objection is sustained. 9 Please proceed, Mr. Nomellini. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Johnston, with regard to the 11 Fresno Slough, and its connection to the San Joaquin River, 12 and referring now to Westlands Exhibit 95 -- and I apologize 13 that I put it in handwriting on the bottom but it ended up 14 on the little margin thing -- could you show us where Fresno 15 Slough on Westlands Exhibit 95 -- 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Nomellini. 17 Mr. Chairman, I believe that, actually, the map to 18 which Mr. Nomellini is referring is Exhibit A to Westlands 19 Exhibit 95. 95 is a document, and this map is an exhibit to 20 that document. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. 22 Birmingham. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to Exhibit A to Westlands 24 95, Mr. Johnston, can you show us where Fresno Slough is 25 located on the map. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7384 1 MR. JOHNSTON: As the map is laying, north is along 2 this direction, so -- 3 MR. NOMELLINI: North is roughly to the left and down 4 to -- 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Cattywompus. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Record should reflect, cattywompus. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: To the left and to the upper end of -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I am going to start at the Mendota Pool, 9 which is just northeast of the town of Mendota. Fresno 10 Slough runs in a southeasterly direction near Tranquility. 11 It divides and goes -- there is a James Bypass in the Fresno 12 Slough, and they come together again down around Five Points 13 and proceed in a southeasterly direction down to the Kings 14 River, towards southern end of Westlands, east of Lemoore 15 Naval Station. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated in answer to 17 questions by Mr. Jackson that Fresno Slough contained little 18 or no flow; is that correct? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I indicated that there was no 20 drainage water from Westlands Water District getting into 21 Fresno Slough. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the flow in Fresno 23 Slough, is there a summertime flow in Fresno Slough? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: There is flow from the Mendota Pool 25 south to the Tranquility and James Irrigation Districts, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7385 1 which is basically CVP water delivered through the 2 Delta-Mendota Canal into the Mendota Pool. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: So, the water backs up from Mendota 4 Pool into Fresno Slough during the summer. Is that your 5 testimony? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. For the water supply for James and 7 Tranquility Irrigation Districts. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying on the flow in Fresno Slough, 9 is there ever a time when Fresno Slough flows to the 10 northwest? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, there is. When the Kings River 12 floods, water can spill from the Kings River north to the 13 Mendota Pool. In the summertime the Kings River does serve 14 a couple little districts just east of Westlands and between 15 the town of Five Points and Lemoore. I am not acquainted 16 with the service area in that area, but I do know that Kings 17 River water is supplied to the -- irrigates lands in that 18 area. 19 During floods, the Kings River also spills into the 20 Tulare Lake Basin as well as at times flowing north to 21 Mendota Pool. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any flood water flows from 23 Westlands that flow into Fresno Slough? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That's possible, but I do not know of 25 specific flows. They would -- any water that would flow CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7386 1 from Westlands would be surface runoff down in the area of 2 Lemoore Naval Station or further south. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to your testimony, you 4 mentioned there are no drains from Westlands into Fresno 5 Slough; is that correct? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: You mean by that no surface or 8 subsurface drains into the slough? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: To my knowledge, that is a correct 10 statement, yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony that the 12 groundwater beneath Westlands does not accrete in any way to 13 Fresno Slough? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there -- talking about the area now 16 between the -- 17 First of all, could you tell us what the Westlands' 18 boundary is on Exhibit A to Westlands 95? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Which boundary? 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's try the easterly boundary. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: The easterly boundary is the edge of the 22 cross-hatched area shown on the map on the eastern side of 23 the district. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard -- and there is an area 25 between the cross-hatched areas and Fresno Slough that is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7387 1 not within Westlands Water District; is that correct? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Is any of that area farmed? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Most of it is farmed. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Does any of that drain to Fresno Slough? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Most of that area does not have a 7 shallow water table. So, my best judgment is that the area 8 does not drain other than possibly tailwater runoff could 9 get to the Fresno Slough. I have no direct knowledge about 10 what happens to surface runoff in that area. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the lack of a perched 12 water table, are you talking about the entire area shown on 13 Exhibit A of Westlands 95 that is between the easterly 14 boundary of Westlands and Fresno Slough? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if I can say exactly that 16 there is no perched water table in this area any place. 17 But, in general, the area that would be most close to the 18 Fresno Slough does not have a perched water table, the area 19 where the Westlands' boundary was most close to the Fresno 20 Slough. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's take the town of Mendota and the 22 area immediately to the southeast of Mendota between Fresno 23 Slough and the Westlands' boundary. 24 Is it your testimony there is no perched water table 25 problem in that area? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7388 1 MR. JOHNSTON: There is certainly not a perched water 2 table within the top 10, 20 feet of soil surface, below the 3 soil surface. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to your testimony and 5 in answer to questions by Mr. Jackson, you said that there 6 was an area, I think you said a small part of Westlands, 7 that could potentially contribute salinity to the San 8 Joaquin River. 9 Do you remember that testimony? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you show us on the map, if it is 12 on the map, Exhibit A of 95, the small part of Westlands 13 that you were referring to. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The small part of Westlands that I was 15 referring to was the boundary between Westlands Water 16 District and the Firebaugh Canal Water District which I am 17 highlighting right now. There is about three or four miles 18 in which there is a boundary between the two districts; and, 19 as I said the other day, we made a calculation of the 20 potential for water to flow across that boundary would be 21 somewhere between 15 and 20 acre-feet per year, at the 22 most. 23 As you can see, we are still probably four to five 24 miles from the San Joaquin River, and there would be a 25 substantial, like hundreds of years, to get from Westlands CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7389 1 to the San Joaquin River in that top 20 feet of soil. And 2 you have to keep in mind that all of this land is being 3 irrigated and most of it has subsurface drainage systems; 4 that is the entire area between Westlands and the river. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's stay right with the area between 6 Westlands and the river, I am going to say north -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Northeast. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: -- northeast of Mendota. 9 Is that the area we are talking about? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: No. Northwest of Mendota, northeast of 11 Westlands. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: That particular area you indicated has 13 subsurface drains; is that correct? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: In the Firebaugh Canal Water District. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do those drains drain to the San 16 Joaquin River? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, does the water elevation in the 19 perched groundwater table beneath Westlands affect in any 20 way the flow from the area to the northeast of the Westlands 21 boundary -- again, we're talking north and west of Mendota 22 -- into the San Joaquin River? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: In my opinion, the irrigation in 24 Westlands does not affect the production of the drain in the 25 area that we are talking about. You will get -- you can get CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7390 1 a difference of opinion because there has been litigation 2 filed about that issue. 3 But I have measured the flow in these drains over a 4 four-, five-year period, when there was irrigation taking 5 place in Westlands, and the flow in these drains occurred 6 almost exclusively during the time that the fields in which 7 the drains were installed were irrigated. So I conclude 8 that the irrigation in Westlands does not impact the flow in 9 the drains in that area. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's stay with that and let's dissect 11 it a little bit. You would agree, would you not, that if 12 the water table was raised in the Westlands area, that such 13 a raise in the water table could increase the gradient of 14 the groundwater towards the San Joaquin River in the 15 adjoining area, would you not? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: No. The gradient on the water table 17 between Westlands and the area in Firebaugh Canal Water 18 District has been stable for the last 40 years. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Going back to my question: If the 20 water table was raised underneath Westlands near the 21 boundary of the area we are talking about, would not such a 22 raise result in an increased gradient towards the San 23 Joaquin River in the area immediately to the northeast of 24 that boundary? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Hypothetically, you are saying that -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7391 1 you have to keep in mind that the water table in this area 2 is less than five feet already. And the water table in this 3 area is between five and ten feet. During irrigation it is 4 less. 5 So, it would be very improbable that you would get a 6 raise in the water table that would cause an increase in the 7 gradient because the slope of the land is about the same as 8 the slope of the water table. And as the water table 9 becomes more shallow and you move upstream, the gradient on 10 the water table stays the same. 11 Theoretically, what you asked me is if you raise the 12 water table you increase the gradient. The answer to that 13 question is, yes, you do. But I am saying it is very 14 improbable that that is ever going to happen because the 15 water table has been stable along this boundary for the last 16 40 years. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So with regard to the question that I 18 asked and the hypothetical, you would agree that an increase 19 in the water table underneath the Westlands area would 20 increase the gradient towards the San Joaquin River in the 21 adjoining area, but you are saying that such a raise has not 22 occurred as you know in the past 40 years? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: There has been no change in the gradient 24 on the water table in the past 40 years. I agree 25 hypothetically that if you raise the water table in one area CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7392 1 and you don't in another, the gradient changes. That is a 2 potential for flow; that doesn't necessarily mean there is 3 flow. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: I appreciate that. I thought we were 5 going to debate whether or not water goes downhill, but we 6 are not going to have that debate. 7 Let me put another exhibit up. 8 Calling your attention to what I think is Westlands 13, 9 could you show us where on Westlands 13 the little area that 10 we were talking about on Westlands that has the potential to 11 contribute to salinity to the San Joaquin River. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: The area you are describing is just 13 north and west of the town of Mendota, approximately along 14 this contour labeled "175." 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what those contours show on 16 Westlands 13? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: The explanation on the map shows that 18 the water table contour is the altitude of the water table, 19 in other words, the elevation above sea level. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that for the area to 21 the northwest of Mendota that there is a gradient in the 22 water table contour running towards the San Joaquin River? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. I didn't ever say there was no 24 gradient. I said that the gradient hasn't changed. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: So the gradient flows to the river, but CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7393 1 you're contending that it has never been raised in the 40 2 years on the Westlands Water District side of that boundary 3 that we talked about? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I am contending that the gradient hasn't 5 changed over that period of time in a way that it would 6 influence any change in the rate of water movement, 7 subsurface groundwater movement, outside or beyond the 8 boundary of Westlands Water District. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's take surface flood flows from 10 Westlands and focusing in on the same area to the northwest 11 of Mendota on Westlands 13. 12 Could any of those surface flood flows pass outside 13 Westlands Water District towards the river onto the 14 adjoining farmland? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Could they move salts at the same time 17 that they pass onto the adjoining farm? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. The question 19 is unspecific as to the source of the salt that would be 20 potentially moved. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: So what? 22 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to allow the question. You 23 may answer the question, Mr. Johnston. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: The water, the flood waters, the runoff 25 from the coast range would probably contain salts that are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7394 1 picked up from the soils that it traverses across, yes. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: So those flood waters could pick up 3 salt from soils within Westlands, correct? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Possibly, not likely as much as would be 5 in the water as it runs out of the foothills. But running 6 -- water running across the farmland will not pick up much 7 salt. Water running out of the coast range contains 8 substantial amounts of salt. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Assuming that it is a little amount of 10 salt, it's possible that a little amount of salt could move 11 with the flood waters from the Westlands Water District area 12 over onto the adjoining farmland in the specific area we are 13 talking about northwest of Mendota? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The water generally doesn't run across 15 the farmland. It will run down and bank up against the 16 Firebaugh Canal. And it will spill into the Firebaugh Canal 17 and then run north. Or else it will run along Belmont 18 Avenue and down into the Fresno Slough directly. Those are 19 the two routes that most of the flood water takes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: So you are telling me if there is flood 21 flow across Westlands that picks up some salt from the 22 Westlands soil, that it would enter the San Joaquin River 23 under that circumstance by way of Fresno Slough rather than 24 across the adjoining farmland? Is that your testimony? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Fresno Slough and through the Firebaugh CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7395 1 Canal system where it runs north. And then how it is dealt 2 with could be a number of ways as it works its way north. 3 It could flood onto the grasslands area, the wetlands or 4 discharge into the river, or it could be dispersed across 5 other farmlands. I don't know how it is managed once it 6 gets into the Firebaugh Canal. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Let me change exhibits. 8 Could you show us on Exhibit A to Westlands 95, which I 9 now have on the screen, where the Firebaugh Canal is located. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: The Firebaugh Canal is the boundary 11 between Westlands and the Firebaugh Canal Water District. 12 The third lift of the Firebaugh Canal system, they have a 13 series of three lifts that lift water out of the Mendota 14 Pool. Called Lift 1, Lift 2 and Lift 3 is the boundary 15 between Westlands and Firebaugh Canal Water District. 16 When flood waters flow from Panoche Creek, they flow 17 down the channel over the aqueduct. There is a siphon in 18 the California Aqueduct where the water flows in a 19 northeasterly direction, and then it flows and hits Belmont 20 Avenue, which is the street on the south side of Mendota. 21 It flows across Belmont, hits the -- flows north to the 22 Firebaugh Canal and then, if sufficient water is running, it 23 spills into the canal. 24 And the other alternate route is easterly, past the 25 town of Mendota into the Fresno Slough. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7396 1 MR. NOMELLINI: And you have indicated you don't know 2 how the Firebaugh Canal water is actually handled under 3 those circumstances, do you? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know the ultimate fate of the 5 water that is spilled into the Firebaugh Canal. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that some of it gets 7 into the San Joaquin River? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I am not sure. It could get into the 9 San Joaquin River is all I said. But I don't know that it 10 does. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying with this Exhibit A to 12 Westlands 95, you are aware that this is the exhibit to the 13 settlement agreement between the United States Department of 14 the Interior and Westlands Water District dated July 23rd, 15 1997, are you not? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with the settlement 18 agreement? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I have -- I am to a degree. I haven't 20 read it for a long time. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to Exhibit A on Westlands 22 95, are you aware of the agreement terms that Westlands 23 shall discontinue the use of irrigation water on all the 24 lands it acquires north off Elkhorn Avenue, which comprise 25 parcels of at least 5,000 acres? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7397 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Misstates the evidence. 2 Perhaps Mr. Nomellini can specifically read the provision of 3 the agreement to which he is referring. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: I was trying to do that, Tom. Let me 5 try again. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe you can read it into the record, 7 Mr. Nomellini. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: The language says: 9 Westlands shall discontinue the use of 10 irrigation water on all the lands it acquires 11 north of Elkhorn Avenue which comprise 12 parcels of at least 5,000 continguous acres 13 during the period Westlands manages such 14 lands. (Reading.) 15 MR. JOHNSTON: What is your question? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with that language? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know why there is a division at 19 Elkhorn Avenue? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't recall why Elkhorn was selected 21 as a divide. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you show us on Exhibit A to 23 Westlands 95 where Elkhorn Avenue is located. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it is a mile south of Cantua 25 Creek, running in a east-west direction across the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7398 1 district. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: You don't know why there is a 3 recognition of a limitation of irrigation water at Elkhorn 4 Avenue. Is that your testimony? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't recall whether Elkhorn Avenue 6 was selected as a division, no. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know why there is a limitation 8 on the use of irrigation water in the settlement agreement? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the intent of that paragraph is to 10 take land out of production and to have the land become part 11 of wildlife areas. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it in any way related to the 13 drainage problem for the farmland? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that the people that developed 15 that language believed that it would do something in regard 16 to helping the valley drainage problem. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: But you don't agree that it would? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: It depends on what land would be taken 19 out of production. It depends on a number of factors in 20 regard to whether or not it would help alleviate any of the 21 problems we have been talking about. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's look at the area to the northwest 23 of Elkhorn. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That is almost half of the district. 25 And as I explained earlier, there are a lot of different CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7399 1 circumstances in that piece of the district north of Elkhorn 2 Avenue. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you name me one where you think 4 that withdrawal of the irrigation water would help the San 5 Joaquin River salinity problem? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 7 Within that area that we just described? 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I can't. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Can you describe one situation within 11 that area that would help -- where the withdrawal of 12 irrigation water would help the groundwater problem on 13 adjoining farmland? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: In most cases the withdrawal of 15 irrigation water will help only those people, only the land 16 where the irrigation water is withdrawn, because the 17 gradient on the water table is downward. 18 In the area where there is less than a five-foot water 19 table, the horizontal permeability of that soil is very, 20 very low. So if land continues to be irrigated around any 21 piece of land that is taken out of production, the land that 22 is continued to be irrigated will continue to have a 23 drainage problem. 24 What will happen on the lands that are withdrawn is it 25 probably will become a salt flat because the water table is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7400 1 shallow enough that the water table -- that the salt will 2 tend to move back into the crop root zone and eventually 3 onto the soil surface. If you retire land that doesn't have 4 a water table, it isn't going to make any difference one way 5 or another. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony that -- let's go 7 back a minute. 8 Do you know what the cross-hatched area is on Exhibit A 9 to Westlands 95? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: What is that? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: That is the original 300,000-acre area 13 that the district and the Bureau of Reclamation planned to 14 ultimately drain or provide drainage for if and when the San 15 Luis Drain was constructed, and with an outlet. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know why it is cross-hatched in 17 the exhibit to the settlement agreement? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: So you distinguish it from the other 19 area, I think, from the rest of the district. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a plan that that area be 21 acquired? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Not that I am aware of. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a plan to acquire some of 24 that area? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, you just read a paragraph that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7401 1 indicates there is a plan to do something. One acre would 2 be some of that area. So, probably there is a plan to 3 acquire some of that. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony that with regard 5 to the settlement agreement that there is no specific plan 6 to acquire 5,000-acre blocks within that area? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Would you ask that again, please. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony that there is no 9 plan in the settlement agreement that 5,000-acre blocks be 10 acquired within that cross-hatched area? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that paragraph you read into the 12 record indicates there is a plan of some type to acquire 13 land in 5,000-acre blocks. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony you don't remember 15 what the plan was? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I indicated that the plan was to 17 take the land out of production and convert the areas to 18 wildlife areas. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: How much of the cross-hatched area is 20 it planned to take out of production and convert to wildlife 21 areas? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I do not know that. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated that in your 24 testimony that withdrawal of the irrigation water from lands 25 within the cross-hatched area would help the person from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7402 1 whom the land -- I mean, the water, from whom the water was 2 withdrawn. Is that what you are saying? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think "help." If you take his 4 land -- take the water away and he doesn't farm the land, I 5 don't know if that is help or not. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Your testimony is that it might help 7 the drainage problem? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: It would probably lead to somewhat 9 lowering of the water table as long as the area around it 10 doesn't continue to be farmed and hold up the water table. 11 You're asking general questions and asking for 12 specific answers. So, I don't think that I can give you a 13 general answer about what is going to happen to a specific 14 piece of land unless you know what is going to happen around 15 that piece of land or where the specific piece of land is 16 going to be located. 17 I tried to explain the difference between the areas in 18 Westlands would be affected differently, depending on what 19 circumstances are in regard to both irrigation and the water 20 table and the salinity of the water table. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying with the definition of drainage 22 problem as accumulation of water within five feet of the 23 surface of the land, would withdrawal of water from the CVP 24 to the Westlands Water District help or hurt the groundwater 25 problem? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7403 1 MR. JOHNSTON: It will depend on what other 2 restrictions are placed on the conditions of withdrawal. If 3 you continue to irrigate the land with groundwater, it would 4 probably be detrimental because the groundwater in the area 5 contains more salt than the CVP water. If the areas that 6 have a very shallow water table and you discontinue all 7 water supply to the land, the salts will accumulate on the 8 ground surface and you'll create a salt flat. If the water 9 table is more than five-feet deep and you discontinue CVP 10 water deliveries, you probably end up with just tumbleweeds 11 on your land. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go back to my question. My 13 question related to the drainage problem, which by 14 definition was groundwater accumulation within five feet of 15 the surface. There were no parameters on quality. Just 16 groundwater accumulation within five feet of the surface. 17 Limiting your testimony to the impact on the 18 groundwater problem as I have defined it, is it not true 19 that withdrawal of water deliveries from the CVP to the 20 Westlands Water District would help the drainage problem as 21 I've defined it? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it would be -- if you restricted 23 the land -- if you restricted or imposed the condition that 24 the land could no longer be irrigated, within some areas you 25 would create a salt flat, and in some areas you would see CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7404 1 the water table drop. How much? I don't know. 2 If you allowed continued irrigation with groundwater, 3 which is probably something that you couldn't prohibit, it 4 would be detrimental because they would be using water that 5 is higher in salinity for irrigation, and you would have a 6 continued presence of water in the five-foot crop root 7 zone. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree, would you not, that 9 for much of the area within Westlands, the withdrawal of 10 deliveries of CVP water would result in a lowering of the 11 groundwater elevation, would you not? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I would agree that if you discontinue 13 delivering water to Westlands Water District, that there 14 would be a substantial reduction in the amount of water that 15 would be going into the water table. Now where the changes 16 in elevation would occur, would depend a lot on how 17 irrigation continued and where the water supply for such 18 irrigation came from. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: If we assume that there will be a 20 reduction of water into the water table, that simple 21 assumption, would you not agree that the water table would 22 go down? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: In some places it would go down. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, if the water was made up, the 25 irrigation water was made up by pumping from the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7405 1 groundwater, the groundwater elevation would go down even 2 farther, would it not? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Not the perched water table, and this is 4 one of the erroneous facts, factors, in the Rainbow Report. 5 The water table -- pumping the groundwater table does not 6 necessarily lower the perched water table. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: This perched water table, how deep does 8 it extend in the Westlands area that we see up in Exhibit A? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: It varies from one end of the district 10 to another. In the area we have been discussing, in the 11 area that was formerly drained, it's 50- to 60-feet deep. 12 The A clay layer is somewhere in that range. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the A clay layer extensive 14 throughout the Westlands Water District area? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: No. It's extensive where there is a 16 less than five-foot water table. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you show us on the map where you 18 think the clay layer A would be? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I wouldn't want to try that. I know 20 where, generally, the five-foot water table is. I wouldn't 21 say that is exactly the boundary of the A clay layer. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know roughly how much the 23 acreage within Westlands Water District has A clay layer? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Roughly, any approximation? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7406 1 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree there are areas within 3 the Westlands Water District that do not have the A clay 4 layer? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: For those areas, if CVP water was 7 withdrawn and the farmer switched to groundwater pumping, 8 would you agree that the groundwater level would go down in 9 those areas? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: For which areas? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Areas that don't have the A clay layer. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that the groundwater in the 13 unconfined areas would drop substantially and you would 14 reinitiate subsidence if the CVP water supply was 15 discontinued and the farmers tried to continue crop 16 reduction with groundwater. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the groundwater level go down or 18 up? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: It would go down. I just said it would 20 drop substantially. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to change the exhibit, if I 22 can. 23 I believe this was Westlands 13. It shows the 24 groundwater divide, does it not? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: This shows the elevation of the water, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7407 1 of the perched water table, and the groundwater divide as we 2 discussed it in relation to the perched water table. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: If we withdrew the CVP water from the 4 Westlands Water District and the farmers switched to 5 groundwater pumping in the areas that did not have the A 6 clay layer, would we not simply just move the groundwater 7 divide farther to the northeast? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: The groundwater divide would shift a 9 little to the northeast, but probably not very much because 10 groundwater pumping wouldn't affect the elevations of the 11 perched water table shown on this map substantially. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated in answer to 13 questions with regard to the need for the drain that in 14 order to sustain agriculture within the Westlands Water 15 District for an extended period of time, that you thought 16 the drain would be required. Is that your testimony? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. Someday. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Someday. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: The drain is needed now. Agriculture 20 can go on for some time. Sort of like a cancer, and it 21 grows very slowly. But at some point the productivity of 22 the land will be severely impacted if drainage isn't 23 provided. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Will that problem start in the areas 25 that have the groundwater problem already? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7408 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: And it will move out from there; is 3 that what you'd expect? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: You indicated there was no subsurface 6 drainage system operated by the Westlands Water District; is 7 that correct? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Today. That is correct. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Today, and I think extending since 10 1985? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, since the drains were closed. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: You also indicated that there are a few 13 on-farm subsurface drainage systems? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe there are a few on-farm drains 15 that the farmers are continuing to try to operate. I have 16 not discussed this with anyone for several years, so they 17 may have discontinued that operation by now. I don't know 18 the situation. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: You have been in this hearing room since 20 that time and you couldn't have seen for yourself whether or 21 not it changed, right? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to evaporation ponds with 24 tile drainage collector systems, are there any such systems 25 within the Westlands Water District? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7409 1 MR. JOHNSTON: There were. I am aware of one that has 2 been shut down. There may be a couple small ones. But I 3 have no details on their operation. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Does Westlands Water District have a 5 plan with regard to addressing the drainage problem for the 6 farmland during an interim period, whatever it might be, 7 until a drain is constructed? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I am not sure what you mean by "a 9 plan." There is little Westlands can do, other than to 10 provide information on irrigation, water management and 11 policies that keep one farmer from impacting another, which 12 they try to do with the control of tailwater. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: How long do you think it will be before 14 substantial, and I will define that as over 50,000 acres, 15 substantial acreage of farmland will suffer reductions in 16 production because of the drainage problem in Westlands? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I would say there are probably 50,000 18 acres that are being substantially impacted today because of 19 a drainage problem. The impact that it is having is that 20 the farmers that have this drainage problem are limited as 21 to the crops that they can grow on that particular land. 22 So, when you limit the choice of crops to more and more 23 salt-tolerant crops, you are impacting the production of 24 that land. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you expect that to grow as time goes CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7410 1 on? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any estimate as to when 4 another 50,000 acres would suffer production losses due to 5 the drainage problem? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: No estimate at all? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: No. It is a continuous process. It 9 would depend on a number of factors and on how the farmers 10 irrigate and what water supplies are used, whether or not 11 they try to recycle subsurface drainage water, type of 12 soil. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Recycling tile drainage water could be 14 one of the alternatives that a farmer would consider, could 15 it not? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Recycling to do what? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Taking the tile drainage water and 18 adding it to irrigation water and applying it to the crops. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: In my opinion, that is not a very good 20 choice. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: That is slow death, in your opinion? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: And it is sure death, isn't it? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Over a long period of time it definitely 25 is. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7411 1 MR. NOMELLINI: I think you indicated in your testimony 2 that the construction of a drain or the lack of a drain 3 would have no impact on the salinity of the San Joaquin 4 River as it pertains to Westlands water contract; is that 5 correct? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: That is based on your testimony that 8 Westlands makes no significant contribution to the salinity 9 problem in the San Joaquin River? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to areas -- you indicated 12 that there were irrelevant areas that did drain to the San 13 Joaquin River. And for those areas would your testimony be 14 different as to the impact of a drain on the salinity of the 15 San Joaquin River? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Certainly, if those areas were required 17 or volunteered to put their subsurface drainage water and 18 tile drainage water into the drain or the drain was 19 discharged someplace other than the San Joaquin River, the 20 answer is yes. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me change exhibits, if I may. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I want to clarify one thing for the 23 record. We keep using the term "tile water" and "subsurface 24 drainage water" interchangeably. We are talking about the 25 same water; we are not talking about two different waters. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7412 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying with that clarification, the 2 term "subsurface drainage water," in your mind, would not 3 include perched groundwater; is that what you are saying? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: It includes -- it's perched water table 5 that is removed through a drainage system. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: So, by definition, then, subsurface 7 drainage water would not include perched water unless it was 8 removed through a drainage system? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. We are talking about water that 10 is transported out of the area through a drain. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Calling your attention to Westlands 96, 12 which I have on the overhead on the screen, could you point 13 out to us where the city of Mendota is? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Just south of the Firebaugh Canal Water 15 District and just east of Westlands. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: The city of Firebaugh? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Is north of the city of Mendota, about 18 ten miles. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: You answered in response to questions 20 from others that a number of districts today drain to the 21 San Joaquin River and, therefore, contribute to the salinity 22 of the San Joaquin River; is that correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. These were the areas that were 24 described by Mr. McGahan when he testified. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to your understanding, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7413 1 could you show us which of the districts on Westlands 96 2 drain to the San Joaquin River? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: It would be the areas that are -- that 4 contain on-farm drainage systems within the Central 5 California Irrigation District, the Broadview Water 6 District, the Panoche Water District and Firebaugh Canal 7 Water District. This map doesn't cover all of the area that 8 is included in the Grassland Bypass service area. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: You indicated in your testimony that 10 drainage from wetlands also flows into the San Joaquin 11 River; is that correct? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Are any wetland areas shown within the 14 area on Westlands 96? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: They would be farther to the northwest? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: If I could have just a couple minutes 19 to check my notes, I think I am near the end. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: That would be fine, Mr. Nomellini. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Do the gradients that we have been 22 talking about, shown on Westlands 96, which is up on the 23 screen, reflect the gradients for the groundwater as they 24 exist today? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be shallow perched water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7414 1 table. And as far as I know, they are approximate to what 2 would exist today. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the change in the 4 groundwater gradient that we talked about for the boundary 5 between the Westlands Water District and the Firebaugh Canal 6 Water District, would that be also true, that today's 7 situation is not substantially different than what existed 8 in the past 40 years? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Do subsurface drainage systems, which 11 run in a direction perpendicular to the river, accelerate or 12 decelerate the flow of salts to the river that come from the 13 irrigated land? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I am not sure I know how to interpret 15 that question. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's break that down a little bit. 17 Let's say a farmer has a tile drainage system running 18 through a field that is approximately -- 19 Am I doing something wrong? When you come near the 20 microphone I know I am in trouble. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: I am having a minor discussion with Mr. 22 Stubchaer, but all the time paying close attention to what 23 you are saying. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. I like that. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wouldn't bother. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7415 1 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mainly point of view. 3 Go ahead, Mr. Nomellini. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: If we had a farmer who had a field that 5 was a thousand feet long and he had tile drainage installed 6 in that field, running from the upper end to the lower end, 7 and that was perpendicular to the river, would that tile 8 drainage system result in a more rapid movement of salts to 9 the river from the perched groundwater? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 11 his direct examination. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: I think it does. That might be a 13 subject for your rebuttal case. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Perfect case. All right, forget the 15 question. 16 Last one. 17 Calling your attention to Westlands 97, do those arrows 18 on that drawing move around depending upon groundwater 19 pumping in the area? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think the arrows on that map 21 move at all. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Let's assume the arrows on that 23 map -- 24 C.O. CAFFREY: Is that a real literal answer? 25 MR. NOMELLINI: That is a legitimate response. I have CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7416 1 no objection to that. That is a very, very -- 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Let the record show we are not watching 3 a movie. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: -- accurate response. 5 Assuming that the arrows on the map, Westlands 97, 6 represent the direction of perched groundwater flow, would 7 the direction of the perched groundwater flow change in any 8 way depending upon groundwater pumping? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: First, we have to keep in mind the 10 arrows represent the direction of water movement if there 11 was any water movement. It doesn't represent that there is 12 water movement or the rate or the amount. I don't think 13 that the direction of the arrows would change much, if any, 14 from groundwater pumping of the unconfined aquifer below the 15 A clay. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Going back to your favorite example of 17 withdrawal of CVP water from the Westlands Water District 18 and groundwater pumping to make up for the loss of that 19 water, would you expect the direction of the arrows, as 20 shown on Westlands 97, to change from what is represented 21 there? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: If what happens? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: If there was no water deliveries from 24 the CVP to Westlands and the farmers instead pumped from the 25 groundwater. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7417 1 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I wouldn't expect the direction of 2 the arrows to change. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: That is all I have. 4 Thanks. 5 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 6 Since it is just about ten minutes to twelve, why don't 7 we break for lunch and come back about ten after, and we 8 will resume with your cross-examination, Mr. Herrick. 9 Just for everybody's information, the names and order 10 we have them, if it bears repeating since last time we met, 11 is Mr. Herrick, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Minasian, Ms. Cahill, Ms. 12 Harrigfeld. That is the names I have at the moment. 13 See you about ten after one. 14 (Luncheon break taken.) 15 ---oOo--- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7418 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 ---oOo--- 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Welcome back. 4 We are cross-examining Mr. Johnston, and it's Mr. 5 Herrick's turn. 6 Good afternoon, Mr. Herrick. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 9 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 10 BY MR. HERRICK 11 MR. HERRICK: John Herrick for the South Delta Water 12 Agency. 13 Good afternoon, Mr. Johnston. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Afternoon. 15 MR. HERRICK: Sorry for how long you are here. 16 Mr. Johnston, I believe your testimony was generally 17 along the lines that drainage from Westlands does not escape 18 the Westlands' boundaries; is that correct? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: Let me just focus in on one part. I have 21 on the overhead, I believe that was, Westlands 96, and that 22 is a cross-section and an aerial view of a few of the areas, 23 including the north part of the grasslands -- of the 24 Westlands Water District? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Of the north part of Westlands, yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7419 1 MR. HERRICK: We can see on the map, excuse me I'm 2 color blind, but over there to the right, somewhere to the 3 yellow end of the spectrum coloring, the city of Mendota is 4 located? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 6 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to nail you down. 7 Approximately how far is the city of Mendota from the edge 8 of the Westlands Water District boundary? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe the city boundary is the 10 boundary of Westlands Water District. 11 MR. HERRICK: The dot that is shown on Westlands 96, 12 say, the center of the city; it actually extends toward the 13 boundary? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Approximately. 15 MR. HERRICK: Missing from this map is Fresno Slough; 16 is that correct? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. It is not missing from the map; 18 it's just -- the Fresno Slough is not in a location that it 19 would be accurate to put it on this map. 20 MR. HERRICK: Could you tell us where Fresno Slough 21 would be in relation to the city of Mendota on this map? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It would be south and east. The slough 23 discharges into the San Joaquin River approximately on the 24 edge of the map. 25 MR. HERRICK: Could you tell us approximately how far CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7420 1 is the city of Mendota from, first, the San Joaquin River? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Three or four miles. 3 MR. HERRICK: How far is the city of Mendota from the 4 closest -- from Fresno Slough? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Would probably be another mile, maybe. 6 MR. HERRICK: The right-hand portion of Westlands 96, I 7 believe your testimony was that that shows a groundwater 8 depression towards which subsurface water flows; is that 9 correct? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: I said that there is a groundwater 11 depression for which there is a gradient from the west to 12 that depression. Whether the water is flowing there or not, 13 I don't know. 14 MR. HERRICK: It is my understanding that the city of 15 Mendota has municipal wells, both private and as part of the 16 municipal system; is that correct? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I am aware that they have some city 18 wells, yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't you agree that the city of 20 Mendota is experiencing elevated salt levels in those 21 wells? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I have heard that contention. I do not 23 know for a fact what the salinity in their wells is, nor do 24 I know how deep they're pumping. 25 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware if anybody disputes that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7421 1 the city of Mendota has a salinity problem with their well 2 water? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if anybody disputes the 4 city's contention about the salinity in their wells. 5 Whether it is a problem or not, I am not willing to testify 6 about that either. 7 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any idea of how long this 8 problem has existed for the city of Mendota? 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Assumes fact not in 10 evidence. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Sustain that. You might want to work on 12 that a little bit, Mr. Herrick, assuming a series of 13 questions are going on to something else. 14 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Johnston, are you aware of whether or 15 not the city of Mendota's municipal wells are affecting the 16 groundwater levels immediately to the west of the city? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 18 MR. HERRICK: If those wells are -- at what levels 19 would those wells have to be to decrease, excuse me if I use 20 the wrong word, the hydrostatic pressure of the subsurface 21 groundwater? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I do not believe that the pumping of 23 wells in the location of the city of Mendota, if the wells 24 are perforated below the perched water table, would impact 25 the perched water table level. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7422 1 MR. HERRICK: What reasons would there be for those 2 wells for not impacting that perched water level? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Because if they were pumping out of the 4 perched water table, they would definitely have a salinity 5 problem. And so, I believe the wells that would be serving 6 the city of Mendota would not be coming out of the perched 7 water table. They would have to be pumping out of the lower 8 aquifer, which would -- is not connected to the perched 9 water table. Therefore, it wouldn't have any impact on the 10 level of water in the perched water table. 11 MR. HERRICK: What is -- if you can give us the number, 12 what is the salinity of that perched water table near the 13 city of Mendota? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The perched water table in the Westlands 15 Water District area would range somewhere between 5- and 16 7,000 parts per million total dissolved solids. 17 MR. HERRICK: Now, on the overhead is, I believe it 18 was, State Water Resources Control Board Exhibit 147, is the 19 cross-section -- 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Is Figure 4. 21 MR. HERRICK: You were responsible for preparing this 22 or directing the preparation of this? That is not correct, 23 is it? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That is not correct. 25 MR. HERRICK: What is the depth of that perched water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7423 1 table at the city of Mendota, if you know? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Since this is a schematic, the blue line 3 representing the perched water table, and the map shows that 4 is zero to five feet. But I do not believe that it is quite 5 accurately drawn under the city of Mendota. I think that 6 the perched water table may not extend under the city of 7 Mendota as represented on that map. 8 But the map does show that if any wells that the city 9 of Mendota would be pumping from would be in the Sierra 10 Nevada sediment or below the Corcoran clay, that the quality 11 of the water in the Sierra Nevada sediments is substantially 12 better than the perched water table. 13 MR. HERRICK: What factors would result in that perched 14 groundwater table not being as indicated on Figure 4? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: The fact that the coast range alluvium 16 pinches off and that the surface sediments are very fine 17 clays, and that causes the perched water table to stay west 18 of the area where the alluvium of the Sierra Nevada 19 sediments move or get closer to the ground surface. 20 I am not saying that there is no movement of water from 21 the west. Because in the previous figure, Westlands 97, 97 22 or 96, shows that -- 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: 96. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Westlands 96 shows that the gradient on 25 the water table is from the west to the east under the city CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7424 1 and under the San Joaquin River, towards the pumping 2 depression east of the river. 3 MR. HERRICK: Do you know what the soil types are under 4 the city of Mendota? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Not specifically, no. 6 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the Sierra 7 Nevada sediments reach the surface there? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: No. They probably do not, but I don't 9 know that for a fact. 10 MR. HERRICK: But it is your, I'll say, estimation that 11 the perched groundwater table does not extend to the city of 12 Mendota? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: It extends to the city of Mendota. I'm 14 contending that it becomes less prevalent as you get close 15 to the river. 16 MR. HERRICK: We can also see on Westlands 96 those 17 arrows in the cross-section that, I believe, indicate the 18 water flow; is that correct? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be the direction of the 20 gradient, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: Now, the arrows that are under the 22 42,000-acre drainage arrow, which is, I believe, 23 highlighted by the color yellow? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: The gradient arrow shows the water going CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7425 1 down first and then, I don't want to overstate this, but 2 then turning sharply east; is that correct? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: That sharp turn is in the Sierra Nevada 5 sediment? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. HERRICK: On this map it's labeled Sierra alluvium? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. Keep in mind the difference in the 9 scale from the horizontal to the vertical. 10 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any opinion as to whether or 11 not the wells in the city of Mendota are drawing on salts 12 that originated from the Westlands Water District? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 14 MR. HERRICK: Can you tell us why you don't have an 15 opinion? Has that not been studied or lack of data, some 16 other things? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: As I said, the perched water table has 18 been in this area for over 40 years. And the amount of time 19 that it takes for a particle of water to move laterally 20 through some of these soils is decades. And so, whether or 21 not the particular salt that is occurring in any city of 22 Mendota well or any other well out there today, and for me 23 to estimate where that particle of salt originated, would be 24 speculation. 25 MR. HERRICK: Let's examine that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7426 1 You said that the lateral movements were extremely 2 slow; is that correct? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: What is the vertical movement? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: That is also slow. 6 MR. HERRICK: What is the, I will say, the width, the 7 depth, of perched groundwater table? On the various 8 representations we have seen it's just a thin line. Is that 9 indicative of the true state or is it 20-feet deep or 10 30-feet deep? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I estimated when I was being 12 cross-examined by Mr. Nomellini that it would be somewhere 13 around 50-feet thick. The A clay layer would be somewhere 14 between 30 and 50 feet, and the perched water table would be 15 on top of that. 16 MR. HERRICK: I am just a little confused as to how the 17 application of large amounts of irrigation water maintain 18 the level of perched groundwater at, say, around five feet 19 in that area, but that there is very slow, downward movement 20 past that point. Is that a distinction that should not be 21 made? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the first assumption you just 23 stated about large amounts of irrigation water are erroneous 24 compared to the consumptive use of the crops that are being 25 grown in that area and the amount of water that is being CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7427 1 applied. 2 MR. HERRICK: Let me back up. 3 What rate of -- I will say what rate of flow is in that 4 area down? Can you put a number on that? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Through the A clay layer is that -- 6 MR. HERRICK: Just down to where the perched 7 groundwater table is maintained. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, are you asking me for the 9 permeability of the soil above the water table? 10 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be somewhere in about, 12 probably, .1 to .2 to .4 feet per day, if I recall correctly 13 from my analysis of the hydraulic conductivity of that 14 soil. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, excuse me. Mr. Brown has a 16 question. 17 MEMBER BROWN: I need clarification on that. I think 18 your question to me, how much water is going to perc down 19 past the root zone, like a leaching factor. Is that what 20 you meant? 21 MR. HERRICK: Yes. Only not how much, what rate. 22 MEMBER BROWN: Not the applied water necessarily, but 23 you are concerned about the water that goes down past the 24 root zone is not consumptively used? 25 MR. HERRICK: Right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7428 1 And, in fact, as water is applied to these lands, that 2 is the intent of the farmers is to move that water past the 3 root zone; is that correct? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: The intent to put just enough water on 5 to move the salt out of the root zone. 6 When we are talking about quantities of water, the 7 application of water is just slightly more than the 8 consumptive use of that water by the crops. So, we don't 9 want to confuse rate of movement with volume. Volume of 10 water is quite -- percolates below the root zone, is quite 11 small. 12 MR. HERRICK: The intent of the irrigator is to take 13 all of the salt from the delivered water and move it past 14 that crop zone, correct? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be the goal. 16 MR. HERRICK: I believe you said that the farmers 17 attempt to maintain that perched groundwater table at that 18 approximate five-foot-or-more level because that is past 19 that zone; is that correct? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: If they can maintain a five-foot water 21 table depth, that would be much better than having it raise 22 into the crop root zone, yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: The efforts to leach the salts past the 24 root zone, those aren't done at one time in the season; they 25 are done as irrigation is applied. Is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7429 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Most of the leaching probably takes 2 place during preirrigation and then later irrigations. The 3 amount of water that is applied generally meets the 4 consumptive use of the crop. 5 MR. HERRICK: During the irrigation system, the salt, 6 if any, from the delivered water is not intentionally, but 7 ends up being stored somewhere in the shallow surface of the 8 soil, shallow depths of the soil, and then preirrigation at 9 the beginning of the season attempts to push that out. Is 10 that correct? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any calculations about the 13 amount of salt delivered in any particular year to these 14 areas? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 16 MR. HERRICK: But that calculation is fairly simple, if 17 we know the TDS of the delivered water, you can calculate 18 the amount per acre-foot; is that correct? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: You can calculate the accumulation of 20 salt in the soil or groundwater, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: Let's go through a couple of real quick 22 calculations. I believe it is just over two pounds of salt 23 for every one part per million TDS; is that correct? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: No. What parts per million means is 25 there is one part of salt per each million parts of water. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7430 1 MR. HERRICK: Correct. But -- 2 MR. JOHNSTON: What are you asking me? 3 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to do a quick calculation 4 here. Isn't it true for each part per million of TDS we 5 have 2.7 pounds of TDS per acre-foot of water? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure. 7 MR. HERRICK: I'm just trying to refresh the witness' 8 memory. I am not introducing -- this is a calculation 9 supplied to me by Dr. Orlob. Maybe you can look at that 10 real quickly and see if you agree or disagree with his 11 calculation. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object. If he is asking 13 the witness to agree or disagree with the calculation, that 14 calculation ought to be entered as an exhibit. If he wants 15 to refresh Mr. Johnston's recollection, I think the 16 appropriate procedure is for him to ask Mr. Johnston to look 17 at this document and then ask Mr. Johnston if his 18 recollection has been refreshed. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: I agree. Will you make copies 20 available for the other parties so they can check Mr. 21 Orlob's calculation? 22 MR. HERRICK: I'm just trying to refresh Mr. Johnston's 23 memory. If he doesn't think that is the right number, that 24 is the end of it. I am not trying to introduce anything, 25 except to see if he recalls the pounds of salt per acre-foot CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7431 1 of water given a certain TDS, or he said he did. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: He said he didn't know. 3 Mr. Birmingham. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think the appropriate questioning, 5 if Mr. Herrick is trying to refresh Mr. Johnston's 6 recollection by examination of this document, is to ask Mr. 7 Johnston to look at the document. After he's had an 8 opportunity to look at it, then ask if his recollection has 9 been refreshed. 10 Whether he agrees or disagrees with Dr. Orlob's 11 calculations is irrelevant, as to whether or not his 12 recollection is being refreshed. 13 MR. HERRICK: There isn't any argument here because he 14 hasn't finished reviewing it, so I can't ask if his memory 15 has been refreshed. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Off the record for a minute. 17 (Discussion held off the record.) 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Back on the record. 19 Mr. Johnston, have you had a chance to review that 20 document, and do you have an opinion on how many pounds of 21 salt per acre-foot that represents? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I have looked at the document. It is 23 not something to refresh my memory because I have never seen 24 it before. What Dr. Orlob has done is taken the -- 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. At this point I am going CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7432 1 to interpose an objection. The question asked by Mr. 2 Herrick was related to his recollection. If his 3 recollection hasn't been refreshed, that would be the end of 4 the inquiry. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is your recollection refreshed? Did 6 you ever have such a recollection to refresh? 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe refreshed, but not on this 8 subject. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I have not previously made a 10 calculation as Dr. Orlob has done on that piece of paper. 11 MEMBER FORSTER: That is refreshing. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Move on, Mr. Herrick. 13 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Johnston, have you done any sort of 14 calculations to determine the amounts of salt that are 15 reaching the perched ground water table? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 17 MR. HERRICK: Is there some reason you haven't done 18 that? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I just haven't done it. 20 MR. HERRICK: Going back to Westlands 96, the Corcoran 21 clay layer or level goes to a low point on this 22 cross-section; is that correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Do you mean is there an elevation shown 24 on this that appears to be the lowest point in the surface 25 of the Corcoran clay? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7433 1 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, there is that point. 3 MR. HERRICK: I believe your testimony yesterday was 4 that the poor quality subsurface water was, I don't know 5 which adjective you used, slowly collecting above that clay 6 level; is that correct? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: Now, how long does it take for the 9 surface water to start collecting down there? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: The water that is applied, that has been 11 applied, since irrigation started back in the 1930s, has 12 been collecting. So, I am not sure I can answer the 13 question that you just asked, other than to say that it has 14 been collecting there since irrigation started. 15 MR. HERRICK: Is that collecting immediately above that 16 Corcoran clay layer, or is it -- in other words, is there 17 poor quality water immediately above the Corcoran clay? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: The quality of the water immediately 19 above the Corcoran clay is somewhat poorer quality than the 20 quality of water in the confined aquifer below the Corcoran 21 clay. But it is better quality than the water that is in 22 the perched water table. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is that poor quality a result of the 24 salts originating from or near the surface, moving down 25 towards that Corcoran clay? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7434 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know where the salts that are in 2 that water immediately above the Corcoran clay originated. 3 The salts -- the soils that were laid down from the coast 4 range all contain large quantities of different kinds of 5 salts, and as the water has -- as the water table has 6 developed on the west side, I am sure that much of the salt 7 in that water comes from the native salts. 8 MR. HERRICK: But is some of that -- do you believe 9 some of the salts in that layer immediately above the 10 Corcoran clay originated from the surface application of 11 irrigation water? 12 MR. HERRICK: It may have, but I don't know that. 13 MR. HERRICK: Does your answer, "it may have," does 14 that correspond to your opinion on how fast the water 15 travels through that soil vertically? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: There are substantial areas of the west 17 side where there is not a perched water table, and the water 18 can move freely down to the semiconfined water table. 19 MR. HERRICK: Let's go farther east, then. Isn't it 20 correct that the irrigators are each year trying to push the 21 salt past that perched water table; isn't that correct? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: No. They are trying to leach the salt 23 from the crop root zone. They do not care whether the water 24 in the perched water table moves, as long as they can keep 25 the salts out of the crop root zone and the water out of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7435 1 crop root zone. 2 MR. HERRICK: Is the maintenance of the perched water 3 just a lucky coincidence of the amount of water that is 4 being applied by irrigation or is there some sort of active 5 maintenance of that level? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: There is no artificial drainage 7 provided. It is just occurring that way by managing the 8 applied water. 9 MR. HERRICK: Let's go farther east on that diagram we 10 are talking about. Has any of the applied -- has any of the 11 salt in the irrigation water applied to the yellow area, has 12 that reached the Sierra Nevada sediment? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think you can say never, none or 14 always or all. There is a certain possibility that some 15 salt from the perched water table in this area has seeped 16 into the Sierra alluvium. 17 MR. HERRICK: You haven't done any investigation or 18 calculations to determine how much or when that might have 19 occurred? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: No. The only investigation I can think 21 of that relates to that is the investigation Westlands did 22 for some potential evaporation ponds that they contemplated 23 constructing when the drain was closed and the drainage 24 collector system was taken out of commission. And the 25 permeability tests that were done in the soils along the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7436 1 edge of Westlands Water District showed there was basically 2 no seepage through those surface clays into the 3 groundwater. 4 MR. HERRICK: If salt is applied through surface 5 irrigation water have reached the Sierra Nevada sediments, 6 does that comply with your understanding of the travel time 7 that it would take for that water applied to the surface to 8 go that deep? 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I ask that that question be read 10 back. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Restate it please, Mr. Herrick, if you 12 don't mind, sir. 13 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Johnston, you said that it was 14 possible that some salts from applied irrigation water had 15 traveled to a depth such that they would reach the Sierra 16 Nevada sediments; is that correct? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. As you can see from this diagram, 18 which is very simplified, that the perched water table is 19 pinched off at the edge of Westlands there, and some of this 20 land has been irrigated for 30 years, and so there is a very 21 short distance between the ground surface and the Sierra 22 alluvium there on the edge of the district. The clay layer 23 and the low permeable soils thicken as they get out further 24 west. So, you know, since this land has been irrigated for 25 30 or more years, the possibility of a particle of water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7437 1 that has been applied there reaching this Sierra alluvium is 2 there. Can I say for sure it has? No. I can't say that it 3 hasn't, either. 4 MR. HERRICK: Do you know what the direction is -- do 5 you know what the rate, if any, of flow in the Sierra Nevada 6 sediments is? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't. All I know is the gradient 8 that is shown on this map is that direction. 9 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't we need to know the rate of flow 10 to determine whether or not salts originating from wetlands 11 might be passing out of the district? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Westlands; you said wetlands. 13 We would need to know if water is moving in order to 14 make that calculation. 15 MR. HERRICK: I have put Figure 4 back up on the 16 overhead. 17 This is a cross-section of -- well, generally a 18 cross-section of a portion of Westlands Water District; is 19 that correct? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: This is -- without being judgmental, 22 this is a very basic representation, correct? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. It's very diagrammatic. 24 MR. HERRICK: Although the one part of it is labeled 25 coast range alluvium, you indicated that the closer you get CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7438 1 to Mendota, the more the soil changes to, I believe you 2 said, a clay; is that correct? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: A heavier clay. 4 MR. HERRICK: Can you make any general statements about 5 the conformity of soils in this area? By "this area" I mean 6 the northern half of Westlands Water District. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, could you clarify a 9 little. 10 MR. HERRICK: Are the soils in the northern half of 11 Westlands Water District consistent? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Consistent with what? 13 MR. HERRICK: Well, do the soils change as you move 14 about the area? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: As per my original question, can you make 17 any general statement? Are there lines you can draw where 18 the soil becomes more clay-like, or different changes like 19 that? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I can refer you to Westlands Exhibit 21 27, Figure 3, which shows a map of the soils in Westlands 22 Water District. And on that map are listed seven different 23 general soil types, as classified by the Soil Conservation 24 Service. 25 MR. HERRICK: Those soil-types are delineated on that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7439 1 exhibit, correct? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: They are delineated on Figure 3 in 3 Westlands 27. 4 MR. HERRICK: I am just trying to explore the ability 5 for us to know the subsurface conditions. 6 Does this area have other dry streambeds running 7 through it that have been mentioned up to date? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, if there is a perched water table 9 there, I probably wouldn't call it a dry streambed. There 10 may be sand lenses or stratifications, minor stratifications 11 throughout the area. These are all alluvial soils, so they 12 are not uniform. 13 MR. HERRICK: That was my next question. Are there 14 things like sand lenses through this area or in parts of 15 these areas? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: The sand lenses would be more upstream 17 of the -- I shouldn't say upstream, but upslope from the 18 eastern edge of Westlands. As you get further up the 19 alluvial fan, you tend to have more stratification than down 20 at the bottom where the basin soils, as they call them, are 21 located. 22 MR. HERRICK: Do these different types of soils have 23 different rates by which the water can pass through? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. Except if any lens dead-ends into 25 a heavy clay soil, the heavy clay soil is the limiting CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7440 1 factor at the rate at which water can move, not the fact 2 that there is a more permeable lens occurring. 3 MR. HERRICK: I believe you said, you correct me if I 4 am wrong, you took your numbers for the rate at which water 5 can move through some of these soils from a USGS document or 6 study; is that correct? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I took them from my memory of doing 8 hydraulic conductivity tests on the soils 35 years ago. 9 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with -- at the bottom of 10 Figure 4 it says adopted from -- see if I pronounce this 11 correctly -- Belitz 1988. Are you familiar with that study 12 from which this was taken? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I've probably seen it. I don't know 14 that -- the USGS has produced a number of reports on the 15 west side, so I am not exactly sure which one of those 16 reports that diagram came from. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, Ms. Forster has a 18 question. 19 MEMBER FORSTER: I had a copy recently of a USGS study 20 that was just finished on the San Joaquin River. Have you 21 seen that study? I passed it around, and I've lost it. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. 23 MEMBER FORSTER: It is one of those -- I don't know if 24 I will pronounce it right - NGS [phonetic], part of the 25 National Groundwater Study. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7441 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I am familiar with the study, but I am 2 not sure I have seen the report you are referring to. 3 MEMBER FORSTER: Has our staff seen the report? 4 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 5 MEMBER FORSTER: Do you have a copy of it? 6 MR. HOWARD: I can get one. 7 MEMBER FORSTER: It seemed to have a lot of information 8 that you are all relating to, and I just wanted to see -- 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If the purpose of Board Member 10 Forster's question is to obtain a copy of that report, we 11 can have a copy delivered this afternoon. 12 MEMBER FORSTER: If he hasn't seen it, I can't ask him 13 any questions about it. Since staff has it, don't worry 14 about it. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: We'd all like copies. 17 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Herrick. 18 MR. HERRICK: I have Westlands 96 back on the overhead, 19 Mr. Johnston. The cross-section we were discussing on 20 Figure 4, again, was approximately from I-5 in an easterly 21 direction toward the city of Mendota. I would like to go 22 over with you any changes in soils as we move north from 23 that line. 24 Do you know where the Sierra Nevada sediments reach 25 their closest point to the surface as we move north from the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7442 1 city of Mendota? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Are you talking about an area within the 3 Firebaugh Canal Water District? 4 MR. HERRICK: Generally the area that is on Exhibit 96. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't. I wouldn't want to testify 6 about the soil types beyond knowing a little bit about the 7 SCS soil classifications within the Firebaugh Canal Water 8 District. And the soil classifications by the Soil 9 Conservation Service are generally limited to the top five 10 feet of soil. 11 I would venture to say that the Sierra alluvium does 12 not reach within the top five feet of soil within the area 13 of the Firebaugh Canal Water District that I have ever 14 worked in. 15 MR. HERRICK: You just said that the USGS designation 16 of soil -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, Soil Conservation Service. 18 MR. HERRICK: You just said that the Soil Conservation 19 Service designation of soil types generally deals with the 20 first five feet of soil; is that correct? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Their soil classifications, yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: Did you also just say you are not aware 23 of the soil types below those designations? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: In the Firebaugh Canal Water District. 25 You asked me to testify about changes in the soils north of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7443 1 the city of Mendota, which get into the Firebaugh Canal 2 Water District and the Central California Irrigation 3 District. 4 MR. HERRICK: There is a disagreement with your 5 position about the rate of lateral movement of water, isn't 6 there? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: There may be. 8 MR. HERRICK: Hasn't there been at least one lawsuit by 9 neighbors of Westlands over that very issue, that deal with 10 wastewater, that very issue? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Could you tell us what the neighbor's 13 position was in those lawsuits? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The neighbor's position is that the 15 application of CVP water in Westlands Water District was the 16 cause of the drainage problem within the lower-lying 17 districts. 18 MR. HERRICK: Was that factual issue determined by any 19 judge or jury? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 21 MR. HERRICK: Was the -- excuse me for not knowing the 22 document number -- the settlement agreement that Mr. 23 Nomellini talked to you about, did that deal with one of the 24 cases? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't believe that was. No, it was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7444 1 internal Westlands litigation that that document dealt 2 with. 3 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to explore that. That 4 document that Mr. Nomellini referenced, what was the number 5 of that? I am sorry. It is Westlands 95. 6 That document contemplated the removal of certain lands 7 -- well, let me ask you. Did that document contemplate the 8 purchase of land so that the applied irrigation water could 9 be held from them? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. It was a settlement for internal 11 litigation, and it was contemplated to purchase water from 12 the plaintiffs in litigation to resolve the litigation, 13 basically. 14 MR. HERRICK: Was one of the issues where the 15 plaintiffs drain water migrated? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 17 MR. HERRICK: You said in that document that certain 18 areas that would be purchased would become, I believe you 19 said, habitat lands. Is that correct? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: You also said if water is applied in 22 areas around those such areas that the water to which waters 23 no longer applied may become a salt flat. Is that what you 24 said? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I said if they continue to irrigate the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7445 1 areas surrounding the land that was taken out of production, 2 that the water table, the shallow water table, stayed close 3 to the ground surface, then the area could become a salt 4 flat as water moved by capillaries out of the groundwater 5 table and to the soil surface. The water would evaporate 6 and the salt would remain on the soil surface. 7 MR. HERRICK: Are those areas contemplated to be taken 8 out of production, do they coincide with the yellow area on 9 the overhead? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. That is where the plaintiffs' to 11 the litigation land is, is in the 42,000-acre area. It was 12 originally served by the drainage collector system, most of 13 the land I should say. 14 MR. HERRICK: Would the areas that might become salty 15 on the surface, would those necessarily have to be close to 16 the areas on which water is continued to be applied in order 17 for that to occur? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think you can make a general 19 statement, other than probably. 20 MR. HERRICK: That is what I am exploring. If you are 21 still irrigating areas to the west of that yellow area, 22 would you expect the groundwater table on the eastern part 23 of that yellow area to rise? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 25 MR. HERRICK: If we could just briefly go south now. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7446 1 Tried to go north on the Exhibit 96. Let's go south a 2 little bit. 3 Is your testimony the same with regard to the lack of 4 any drainage water leaving Westlands if we move south from 5 the area indicated on the overhead? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. HERRICK: Does that -- does Westlands border Fresno 8 Slough at any point? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 10 MR. HERRICK: Does the existence of -- let me start 11 over. 12 Should we make a distinction between the rate of 13 lateral movement of water in the perched groundwater table 14 as opposed to the deeper groundwater levels? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: What do you mean, "should we make a 16 distinction between the two"? 17 MR. HERRICK: You have given us generally a rate of 18 travel. Should we use that rate of travel for both -- for 19 any area of water subsurface? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: The rate at which water will travel 21 through any given soil is limited by the most limiting soil 22 constraint, the constraint of the most limiting aquifer or 23 aquitard. The potential for movement in sand is higher than 24 it is in clay. If the water can't get into the sand, then 25 it is not going to move through that sand any faster than CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7447 1 the gradient caused by something like the pumping depression 2 out here on the east side. 3 MR. HERRICK: That is where my questions were trying to 4 go. Let's say we have a shallow groundwater well. Does 5 that effect the rate of lateral flow in the perched 6 groundwater table? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: What do you mean by "a shallow 8 groundwater well"? 9 MR. HERRICK: A well that draws water from the perched 10 groundwater table. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Will if affect the rate of movement? 12 MR. HERRICK: Let's put the well on the east side of 13 Westlands Water District. Does that affect water west of 14 that point, the flow of water? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Where do you want to put a well? 16 MR. HERRICK: Well, let's put a well right there with 17 the city of Mendota as it abuts Westlands Water District. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: You want to put a shallow well there? 19 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: How deep? 21 MR. HERRICK: Such that it draws water from the perched 22 groundwater table. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that a well that is less 24 than 20 feet deep would impact the water table more than 25 probably 30 to 50 feet away from the well in the shallow CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7448 1 water table. 2 MR. HERRICK: What I am trying to get you to explain, 3 isn't there an issue of -- excuse me again if I have the 4 wrong term. Isn't there an issue over hydrostatic pressure 5 if you remove water from one end of the gradient, does that 6 affect the flow? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: If you change the gradient, it is going 8 to affect the flow, yes. That is a different question than 9 if you put a well in east of Westlands, 20 feet deep, will 10 it affect the water table in Westlands Water District? I 11 think the answer is no. 12 MR. HERRICK: Does that change if the -- let's go 13 deeper -- if the well goes down to the water which is not 14 considered part of the perched groundwater level, but is at 15 a lower water level -- at a well at that level, too, any 16 difference? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: If you put a pumping well in the Sierra 18 alluvium, you are going to affect the water table in that 19 Sierra alluvium. You might draw water from the Sierra 20 alluvium, but the water that seeps into the Sierra alluvium 21 from the clay will not change. The rate at which the water 22 goes into the Sierra alluvium will not change because of 23 that well, because the limiting factor is the rate at which 24 it moves through the clay. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Herrick, Mr. Brown, I believe, has a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7449 1 question. 2 MEMBER BROWN: We are trying to follow this, Mr. 3 Herrick, where you might be leading here, and I have not 4 been able to do that. I think Mr. Stubchaer is having a 5 similar concern. 6 Would you enlighten us where you are going? 7 MR. HERRICK: I am just examining the expert's opinion 8 on the lack of water leaving Westlands Water District. I 9 thought that was the purpose of cross-examination of 10 experts. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just some of the specific questions, 13 how the drawdown of a well and things like that seems to be 14 getting into awfully fine detail. That is getting beyond 15 the overall picture of water moving, salt carrying water 16 moving in the San Joaquin River, in our mind. And it is not 17 just true of your questioning, Mr. Herrick, we have similar 18 questions about previous questions. 19 What is the relevance of it to the issue before us that 20 goes on and on? It would be nice -- I thought if the 21 cross-examiners could tell the Board what they are trying to 22 prove before they begin the questions, which might enable 23 us, help us follow the line of questioning. And then I 24 would just say focus, trying to keep the questions crisp and 25 concise. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7450 1 MEMBER BROWN: Mr. Chairman. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown. 3 MEMBER BROWN: We don't want that to stifle you, Mr. 4 Herrick. Please continue. We thought we'd share with you 5 the difficulty we are having here, and that might help you 6 or at least it would certainly enlighten you as to the 7 concerns that we have and maybe help you in your endeavor. 8 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that. But on a 9 cross-examination I can't necessarily tell you where it is 10 going. But on expert witnesses, it's -- I mean, I thought 11 the purpose was to examine his conclusions. 12 MEMBER BROWN: That is fine. Please proceed as you see 13 fit. We just shared with you some concerns. It is your 14 show. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can we ask for a brief -- 16 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment, Mr. Birmingham. I will 17 be back to you in a minute. 18 (Discussion held off record.) 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Gentlemen, I was giving you a little 20 time for colloquy. 21 Do you have something you want to add, Mr. Birmingham? 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: No. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: You have just heard the admonishment of 24 two of the Board Members. I am going to repeat what I said 25 a number of times. While it may not be possible, but it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7451 1 very helpful to the Board when you start your questions, 2 when examining, if you would say during your direct rebuttal 3 you said such and such, in relation to that when you ask 4 your question. 5 As you said Mr. Herrick, it is not always possible to 6 do just that. Sometimes an answer will take you someplace. 7 You may be laying a foundation that is only revealed after 8 three or four questions. But you heard the Board Members. 9 They are having some difficulty following where we are. 10 Please heed that and do the best you can. 11 Mr. Brown. 12 MEMBER BROWN: At least, Mr. Herrick, we are paying 13 full attention to you. 14 C.O. CAFFREY: There is no doubt Mr. Brown is always 15 paying attention. 16 MR. HERRICK: I can take a hint. That is fine. I 17 understand the point. I was just trying to explore the 18 conclusions reached by the expert since he is the expert. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Maybe that is the explanation for some 20 of the questions. As long as they continue to be relevant. 21 I don't hear anybody objecting at the moment. 22 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to testify, but in 23 relation in response to some of my questions, previous 24 questions, the witness has said that some of the neighbors 25 disagree with his conclusion, and I am analyzing how he CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7452 1 reached his conclusions. I thought I would perhaps 2 highlight that. I guess not. I will move on. 3 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 4 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Johnston, let's go back to the 5 subject of this phase, salinity. 6 Do you have any expectation that the Regional Board 7 would take any action in the near further to address the 8 salinity problem in the near future? 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 10 direct examination. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Johnston, do you feel that goes 12 beyond the scope of your direct testimony? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Of whether the Regional Board might take 14 action? Yeah, I didn't testify on that. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: I didn't think you did, sir. Calls for 16 speculation and I think does go outside the scope of the 17 rebuttal direct. 18 Go ahead with perhaps something else, Mr. Herrick. 19 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 20 Mr. Johnston, let's identify the areas that do 21 contribute salinity to the San Joaquin River. Perhaps if I 22 put the other one up. 23 Mr. Johnston, I have Westlands 97 on the overhead. Are 24 you generally familiar with the various irrigation districts 25 from Westlands north or northwest, or whatever it is? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7453 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Shown on this map? 2 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: Could you identify -- let me back up. 5 Would you agree for purposes of Phase V it would be 6 better to define drainage problem as high salinity reaching 7 the San Joaquin River? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it is necessary to change 9 the definition of drainage problem in order to discuss the 10 salinity problem in the river. 11 MR. HERRICK: I believe you answered a question from 12 Mr. Nomellini that the source of the San Joaquin River 13 salinity was drainage from your irrigation districts? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I said potential source, one of 15 several. 16 MR. HERRICK: Why do you say "potential"? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: It is one of several sources. I 18 probably shouldn't use "potential," because it has been 19 testified to that drainage water collected from some of 20 these areas does flow into the San Joaquin River. 21 MR. HERRICK: What are the other sources of salt 22 entering the San Joaquin River? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Flood flows, drainage from the wetlands, 24 subsurface accretions, the east side tributaries, M&I, 25 discharges. All contribute some salt to the river. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7454 1 MR. HERRICK: In your opinion, does flood flow water 2 ever deliver a concentration of salt that affects the 3 meeting of the Vernalis standards? 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 5 direct examination. 6 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman, the witness answered 7 questions already regarding the San Joaquin River flows 8 being affected by the deliveries of salt. This is Phase V, 9 after all. If an expert cannot be cross-examined on Phase V 10 topics, I am not sure here where we are going here. 11 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a minute. 12 (Discussion held off the record.) 13 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to allow the question. 14 There has been -- throughout the cross-examination we have 15 touched on this subject. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey, may I speak to this, 17 please? 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Yes, go ahead. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You just identified the problem. It's 20 been throughout the cross-examination. I have sat here, 21 trying to sit here very patiently, not raise these 22 objections, because this is obviously something the Board is 23 interested in. The Board Members, themselves, have asked 24 some questions on some related topics, but it's all been 25 cross-examination. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7455 1 What Mr. Herrick is trying to do now is cumulative of 2 what Mr. Nomellini did, which was cumulative of what Mr. 3 Jackson was trying to do. Mr. Johnston is going to be the 4 last witness you ever hear as a Board Member if every 5 single lawyer that walks up here asks precisely the same 6 questions. 7 I did not go into this on my direct examination. Under 8 the suggestion, the advice that Ms. Leidigh provided to you 9 earlier, if we are going to adhere to that rule, I think 10 this line of questioning should be excluded. If Mr. Herrick 11 wants to bring in a witness to testify about this in a 12 rebuttal case that he wants to put on, I have no objection. 13 But Mr. Johnston did not testify to this on his direct 14 examination. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Birmingham, and 16 we do appreciate your patience. 17 Ms. Leidigh. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: I think in this instance I have to agree 19 with Mr. Birmingham. The question is not whether or not 20 this is relevant to Phase V. The question is whether or not 21 this is within the scope of the direct rebuttal testimony of 22 Mr. Johnston. And if it is within the scope of his direct 23 rebuttal testimony, then the question could be asked. If it 24 is not and there is an objection, then it should be 25 disallowed. That is my advice. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7456 1 C.O. CAFFREY: I think to be consistent with our 2 previous rulings I have to agree with Mr. Birmingham 3 because, Mr. Herrick, you have the opportunity and the right 4 to bring forward these questions to the extent that they are 5 relevant in your own rebuttal case with your own witnesses. 6 So I am going to limit it. I am going to say it again. 7 It is not always easy to determine what is exactly with 8 the scope of the direct rebuttal. I am going to rule this 9 beyond the scope of the direct rebuttal and ask if you feel 10 it is relevant to bring it forward in your own rebuttal 11 case. 12 Please proceed. 13 MR. HERRICK: Am I to understand that the ruling is 14 that this expert witness on whether or not Westlands 15 drainage affects the San Joaquin River precludes questioning 16 on San Joaquin River salinity causes? 17 C.O. CAFFREY: The ruling is that you can question him 18 within the scope of his direct rebuttal testimony. That 19 doesn't mean that the ruling is that you can't ask him 20 questions in some other phase of the proceeding or some 21 other phase of this phase. It is just that our regulations 22 and the recommendation that I have accepted from my counsel 23 is that we should be limiting the scope of this questioning 24 to the precise as we can define it, the scope of the 25 rebuttal testimony. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7457 1 Otherwise, as Mr. Birmingham has pointed out, he 2 virtually quoted me in a sense, anyway, that we will be here 3 going through Phase V all over again. Or to use Mr. 4 Birmingham's words, this may be the last witness that we 5 ever talk to. 6 I am not always in the habit of agreeing with Mr. 7 Birmingham. I think he makes a good point. I would never 8 foreclose your right to question this witness. You may want 9 to bring Mr. Johnston back as your own rebuttal witness and 10 ask him relevant questions about the broader scope of the 11 phase, but not the scope of the direct rebuttal. 12 Go ahead, Mr. Herrick. 13 MR. HERRICK: If the Board will indulge me for a 14 minute. Let me skip ahead. 15 C.O. CAFFREY: Absolutely. Give you a little extra 16 time. Go ahead. 17 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Johnston, does the Westlands Water 18 District make purchases of water from neighboring entities? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe they do sometimes. 20 MR. HERRICK: Does it make sales of water to 21 neighboring entities? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't believe so. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the purpose of 24 water from neighboring entities decreases the amount of 25 water applied within those agencies? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7458 1 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't, because I don't know the 2 agencies from which the water was purchased. 3 MR. HERRICK: Lets build a hypothetical. If the 4 neighboring agency is more efficient in its use of water, 5 thus allowing it to sell some water to Westlands Water 6 District, does that affect the drainage coming out of that 7 selling agency? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: It might. 9 MR. HERRICK: Could one of those effects be that it 10 actually concentrated the salts more than it would have 11 without the sale? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think I can answer that. 13 MR. HERRICK: Let's go through that, please. We have 14 heard that various agencies tried to reuse their water as 15 much as they can and limit their drainage. 16 Do you recall that? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I recall a general statement like 18 that. I think Mr. McGahan made that point. 19 MR. HERRICK: Isn't it true that if you take such 20 actions, you could be, whether you are or not, you could be 21 concentrating the salts in your drainage water? 22 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Outside the scope of direct. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. I am not trying to be 24 obstreperous. But what Mr. Herrick is going into goes 25 beyond the scope of Mr. Johnston's direct testimony. And if CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7459 1 Mr. Herrick wants to call Mr. Johnston, as the chairman 2 suggested, I am quite confident that Mr. Johnston would make 3 himself available for that purpose. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: I am going to sustain the objection on 5 the -- 6 MR. HERRICK: May I be heard on it first, Mr. 7 Chairman? 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead. I withdraw my ruling. 9 MR. HERRICK: That is not very encouraging to my 10 objection. The expert is testifying that Westlands does not 11 cause drainage outside of its area. Its water does not 12 drain out of its area. I would think it is perfectly 13 appropriate to see if other actions it is taking are 14 affecting neighbors' drainage outside of its area. I think 15 that is directly related to his testimony. That is the 16 issue. 17 If I can't explore Westlands' expert on how Westlands 18 affects things outside its area, which may affect the river, 19 there is no purpose to this end. 20 C.O. CAFFREY: This isn't a question of your right to 21 ask questions or the relevancy of this material to the phase 22 in general. It is a question of are we going beyond the 23 scope of what Mr. Johnston's direct rebuttal testimony 24 was. 25 And I will allow you to ask this one question and see CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7460 1 where it takes us. I don't want to get into an expanded 2 exploration that goes beyond the scope of his testimony 3 when it can be handled in your own rebuttal case. 4 MR. HERRICK: Let me try a different line of 5 questioning. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Go ahead, Mr. Herrick. 7 MR. HERRICK: I can take a hint, again. 8 Mr. Johnston, do the actions of -- can the actions of 9 one irrigation district affect their neighbor? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: That is a very broad question and, 11 obviously, the answer could be yes, and it could be no. 12 MR. HERRICK: To narrow it down: Are the irrigation 13 practices of one district -- can the irrigation practices 14 of one district affect their neighbors? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: The irrigation practices of Westlands I 16 do not believe affect any neighbor. Can the irrigation 17 practices of any district in general affect some other 18 district, in general? Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Is your answer limited to the application 20 of water? Does that also deal with sales and purchases of 21 water? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it probably deals with the sales 23 and purchases of water, not knowing any more specific than I 24 know at this point in time. 25 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7461 1 Thank you. 2 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 3 Mr. Sexton, before we get to you, let's take a 4 break. I apparently need one. 5 (Break taken.) 6 C.O. CAFFREY: We are back on the record. 7 Mr. Sexton, it is your turn to cross-examine. 8 ---oOo--- 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION Of WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 10 BY SAN LOUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 11 BY MR. SEXTON 12 MR. SEXTON: Good afternoon, Mr. Caffrey. 13 I would like to follow up on a few questions that Mr. 14 Birmingham posed on rebuttal regarding the feasibility of a 15 San Luis Drain. 16 Do you recall that line of testimony? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 18 MR. SEXTON: You testified that the drain was 19 originally planned to commence at Kettleman City; is that 20 right? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 22 MR. SEXTON: The outlet was talked about back in those 23 days, which as I understand was the '60s, with a terminus 24 somewhere in the Delta area; is that right? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Near the Antioch Bridge. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7462 1 MR. SEXTON: At some point the discussion of the 2 terminus at Antioch just kind of went away. People stopped 3 talking about it. 4 Can you kind of give me an idea of what was going on 5 back then? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: The drain was being constructed, and the 7 Bureau, in all its wisdom, started the drain in the middle 8 instead of the outlet, where it should have started. 9 MR. SEXTON: So, they didn't even start at Kettleman 10 City? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: They would be the upper end. They 12 should have started in the Delta and worked their way 13 upstream. But they started in the middle and the discussion 14 went on about location of the outlet. And then at one point 15 in time the Congress added a rider to the appropriations 16 bill -- 17 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to object to this question 18 and the answer. I don't remember questions that related to 19 the discharge point of the drain as part of the rebuttal 20 case. And I think this is examination that goes beyond the 21 scope of rebuttal in terms of the Chair's previous ruling of 22 narrowing the scope. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Can you tell us, Mr. Sexton, how this is 24 pertinent to the scope of the rebuttal direct? 25 MR. SEXTON: Yes, Mr. Caffrey. In the rebuttal direct CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7463 1 Mr. Johnston was asked by Mr. Birmingham relating to the 2 portion of the San Luis Drain that was conducted, and he 3 testified about the construction from Five Points up to the 4 area of the Delta. 5 And I was just examining the witness on what occurred 6 where the construction didn't actually take place as 7 planned, and I was going to get into some questions with the 8 witness about how drainage was actually funneled through the 9 drain when it ended at Kesterson versus the way that the 10 drain was actually planned. That was the extent of my 11 testimony. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I did ask Mr. Johnston a series of 14 questions on direct examination concerning the original 15 design of the San Luis Drain as contemplated by the San Luis 16 Act and a number of questions about its actual construction 17 and its discharge into Kesterson Reservoir. 18 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 19 Mr. Nomellini. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: The discharge into Kesterson and the 21 drain that terminated in Kesterson I think was covered in 22 the rebuttal. But reasons as to why the drain was not 23 constructed further, the impact on the water at Antioch or 24 whatever, that clearly was not covered. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: Mr. Stubchaer and Mr. Brown are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7464 1 reminding themselves and me that it was. I am going to 2 allow the questions. 3 Go ahead, Mr. Sexton. 4 MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Mr. Caffrey. 5 Mr. Johnston, do you remember the pending question? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Basically, I think the question pending, 7 why wasn't the drain completed north of Kesterson. And I 8 was saying that at one point in time the Congress attached a 9 rider to the appropriations bill that said there should be 10 some agreement between the State of California and the 11 federal government as to the location and the discharge 12 requirements for the drainage effluent. 13 That led to a lot of discussion, and at one point, 14 then, there was a debate as to whether or not there would be 15 needed some sort of regulation reservoir, reservoir along 16 the route of the drain to regulate the drainage effluent in 17 case some problem occurred at the discharge. 18 MR. SEXTON: Was a regulating reservoir ultimately 19 constructed? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. The Kesterson Reservoir was 21 constructed as a regulating reservoir for the San Luis 22 Drain, and with the idea that that would be used only when 23 there would be a need to stop or regulate the flow of 24 drainage water into the Delta, wherever the discharge might 25 have ultimately been selected. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7465 1 The Fish and Wildlife Service then said, "Well, this is 2 a wonderful opportunity to develop a wildlife area, a 3 wetland area using drainage effluent." And not knowing 4 anything about selenium at that point in time, everyone 5 agreed that that would be something that would be 6 beneficial, would be to use drainage water to flood the 7 wetlands. 8 MR. SEXTON: The original plan for the drain, as I 9 understand, did not contemplate the water would be ponded 10 for any substantial length of time along its route; is that 11 correct? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. The original planning 13 for the drain did not include a regulating reservoir of any 14 type. 15 MR. SEXTON: When you talk about the feasibility of the 16 drain and treatment of a drain, in your view would the drain 17 then not include an area such as Kesterson where water was 18 ponded? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: If the drain -- the proposal that 20 Westlands has made to the Court and to this Board is that 21 the drainage water would be controlled on the farm, and that 22 a drainage system would be constructed so that all of the 23 drainage water could be stopped from flowing from the farm 24 into the drainage collector system and subsequently into the 25 -- through a treatment plan and on down to the discharge CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7466 1 point. 2 So that you would not need to have a regulating 3 reservoir. If some emergency occurred, the facility, the 4 entire facility, would be constructed so you could start a 5 -- discontinued putting water into the facility and check it 6 so that you could almost immediately stop the flow of 7 water. 8 MR. SEXTON: There would be no reason that you are 9 aware of, would there, that the treatment facility or 10 facilities, to the extent that they were found necessary, 11 couldn't be placed at some regionally significant location 12 rather than on each farm? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. They could be a 14 regional treatment plan rather than a farm-by-farm 15 treatment. 16 MR. SEXTON: Also, I think you testified that -- I will 17 strike that. 18 Thank you, Mr. Caffrey. 19 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Sexton. 20 Mr. Minasian. 21 --oOo--- 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 23 BY THE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 24 BY MR. MINASIAN 25 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Johnston, let me see if I understand CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7467 1 the thesis that you presented. If the Regional Board 2 develops some method of regulating salinity flows into the 3 San Joaquin River, is it your thesis that the Regional Board 4 should not come within the boundaries of Westlands Water 5 District because Westlands Water District lands do not 6 provide salinity to the San Joaquin River? 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to the question 8 on the grounds that it goes beyond the scope of the 9 cross-examination. If Mr. Minasian -- excuse me, the direct 10 examination. I don't think that Mr. Johnston testified to 11 what the Regional Board should or should not do. And it 12 would be Westlands' position that this hearing does not 13 relate to what the Regional Board should or should not do. 14 Any question about what the Regional Board should or should 15 not do depends on the adoption of the standards and 16 circumstances that existed at the time the standards were 17 adopted. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Let me rephrase the question, if I 19 could, rather than -- 20 C.O. CAFFREY: Do you want to respond to the objection? 21 MR. MINASIAN: No. Let me withdraw and rephrase it. 22 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Johnston, is it your view that 24 because no particle of water applied to the lands within the 25 Westlands Water District arrives in the San Joaquin River, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7468 1 that, therefore, the Westlands Water District lands do not 2 participate in or contribute to the salinity conditions in 3 the San Joaquin River? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: You made an assumption in order to ask 5 that question, being that no particle of water gets from 6 Westlands Water District to the river. I don't think I ever 7 said that. 8 MR. MINASIAN: Okay. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: But in response to the question, I do 10 believe that the Regional Board has no reason to regulate 11 the flow from Westlands unless it has something to do with 12 flood flows that are above and beyond the control of 13 Westlands that might get into the river. 14 MR. MINASIAN: May we agree that we will talk about 15 irrigation applied water today and not flood flows? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. MINASIAN: It is correct to correct me in regard to 18 the particle analogy. 19 Mr. Johnston, you were educated as an irrigation 20 engineer, an agricultural engineer, were you not? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: An agricultural engineer, yes. 22 MR. MINASIAN: In your years of loyal service to 23 Westlands Water District you gained experience in regard to 24 groundwater and how groundwater reacts and acts, did you 25 not? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7469 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 2 MR. MINASIAN: As a result of that experience you feel 3 that you're able to offer certain opinions and observations 4 about the geologic conditions and the way the groundwater 5 behaves in this area? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. MINASIAN: Have you ever had any professional 8 training in regard to groundwater hydrology? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. I have taken courses in that, and 10 I attended the week-long Department of Water Resources 11 groundwater school. 12 MR. MINASIAN: You have also attended conferences and 13 you have read articles, have you not? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 15 MR. MINASIAN: The relationship between agricultural 16 engineering and the subset of drainage and groundwater is 17 dependent upon what exists under the ground in a geological 18 form, is it not? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I am not sure the tie-in between your 20 use of the term "agricultural engineering" and geology and 21 water movement. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Let's just start -- 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Could you clarify the question? 24 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. Let's just take the category or 25 the label of a perched water table. When you have used that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7470 1 phrase today in answering questions of Mr. Birmingham and 2 the other examiners, what have you meant by that in 3 relationship to the conditions near the boundary between the 4 Firebaugh Water District and the Westlands Water District? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: The definition of perched water table is 6 a water table near the groundwater -- near the ground 7 surface that has an unsaturated zone somewhere below that 8 perched water table. 9 MR. MINASIAN: Usually a perched water table has a 10 different hydrostatic pressure than aquifers that may be 11 located below what we call the perched water table, doesn't 12 it? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: The pressure of the water table is 14 basically the bottom of that water table. So if there is a 15 separation between the perched water table and a lower-lying 16 water table, they would have different pressures on the 17 bottom of the water table, yes. 18 MR. MINASIAN: That is one of the ways a groundwater 19 hydrologist identifies something as perched water table as 20 opposed to a saturated zone, isn't it? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 22 MR. MINASIAN: A perched water table to a groundwater 23 hydrologist also tends to have a containment factor, doesn't 24 it? That is, if you imagine a clay boat, basically there is 25 a dish full of water? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7471 1 MR. JOHNSTON: That may be shaped like a dish. 2 MR. MINASIAN: You are not using it in the dish 3 analysis sense here, are you? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: To a certain degree, I am. I am not 5 saying that the A clay layer is the shape of a dish, though. 6 It is more like a plane. 7 MR. MINASIAN: When you have talked about a perched 8 water table today, you are basically talking about the fact 9 that there is groundwater at a shallow elevation under 10 certain lanes? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 12 MR. MINASIAN: And that has an affect upon the way the 13 crop is irrigated and the way you manage irrigated water? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 15 MR. MINASIAN: You gave us an estimate. I think you 16 said the maximum amount of water that can be moving from 17 the Westlands Water District service area to the Firebaugh 18 Canal Water District in the top 25 feet is between 10 and 19 15, and actually I heard 25, so 10 to 25 acre-feet a year. 20 How did you calculate that? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: I looked at the four-mile stretch of 22 canal -- of the boundary between Firebaugh and Westlands, 23 and I looked at the top 20 -- I don't remember, 20, 25 feet 24 of soil and hydraulic conductivity of that soil and used the 25 Darcy's equation to -- and I looked at the gradient on the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7472 1 water table and used the Darcy equation to determine the 2 rate of movement. 3 MR. MINASIAN: What did you use as the transmissivity 4 figure? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't remember. This has been a long 6 time since we made that calculation. 7 MR. MINASIAN: You did that calculation in the late 8 1950s or early 1960s? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Around 1965. And David Debruyn of the 10 Bureau of Reclamation made a similar calculation some 20 11 years later and came up with approximately the same number. 12 MR. MINASIAN: Is that a published report? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think so. 14 MR. MINASIAN: So you don't remember the transmissivity 15 figure, but you do remember the result being 10 to 25 16 acre-feet a year? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Somewhere in that range, yes. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Have you updated that calculation based 19 upon the new water elevations in the area? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: No. As I said, the gradient on the 21 water table hasn't changed. It is extended westward, but 22 the gradient has not changed, but the calculation of the 23 rate of flow won't change. 24 MR. MINASIAN: The USGS is an organization that studies 25 groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley, do they not? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7473 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 2 MR. MINASIAN: USGS has studied the groundwater 3 elevations in the area near the Firebaugh Canal third lift 4 station and reported those over a number of years, have they 5 not? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe they made some calculations 7 and observations out there, yes. 8 MR. MINASIAN: Do you remember whether or not those 9 calculations show, in fact, a rise in the water levels on 10 the Westlands' side of the boundaries, groundwater levels? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Near the third lift? 12 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't recall that they have shown 14 anything different from the records that Westlands keeps. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Do you have an understanding since the 16 1960s, when you studied this, in regard to what has 17 happened in what you refer to as the perched groundwater 18 levels in the area of the boundary between Westlands and 19 Firebaugh in terms of have they gone up together? Have they 20 gone down? Has one gone up and one gone down? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think they have changed much 22 over the last 30 years. 23 MR. MINASIAN: So, if they had increased on the 24 Westlands' side or increased on both sides of the line, 25 would that change your opinion in regard to the amounts of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7474 1 water that may actually be particle by particle migrating 2 across the boundary? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: No. My opinion is based on the gradient 4 on the water table upslope from the Firebaugh third lift, 5 has nothing to do with what has happened on the Firebaugh 6 side. 7 MR. MINASIAN: You have to know the Firebaugh side in 8 order to know whether or not water could migrate, don't you? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Right, right. I don't think that the -- 10 since all of the land on the Firebaugh side of the canal is 11 drained with subsurface drains and those drains continue to 12 produce effluent, that the water table in those soils could 13 have changed very much over that period of time because the 14 drains have been installed throughout that period. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Let's be real clear about this. Not 16 every acre in the Firebaugh Canal Water District has 17 installed tile drainage, does it? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 19 MR. MINASIAN: About 15 percent of the total land in 20 Firebaugh Canal? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: All I am discussing is the land that is 22 adjacent to the Westlands Water District boundary. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Since the time you did your work in the 24 late 1950s, early 1960s, has the USGS also, besides keeping 25 water level measurements, have they also mapped the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7475 1 underground conditions by taking well logs and basically 2 showing the porosity of the soils in those areas? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: The USGS has done a lot of work out 4 there, yes. 5 MR. MINASIAN: And the most recent report is 1991 by 6 Belitz and Loudon? I shouldn't say most recent, but a 7 published report is by Belitz and Loudon, Julie Loudon who 8 now works for the State Board? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. I take your word for that. I am 10 not sure I have seen that report. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Have you seen that they have graphically 12 shown a porosity and transmissivity which varies by the foot 13 of elevation under the ground? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I have seen some of their reports. I 15 don't know if I have seen the report to which you are 16 referring. 17 MR. MINASIAN: You've offered your opinion that water 18 basically anywhere from the groundwater divide to the San 19 Joaquin River in the Westlands Water District will move at 20 less than a snail's pace, basically 350 years to get there? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, somewhere in there. 22 MR. MINASIAN: You can't see it if it was on the 23 surface of the ground, can you? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Have you checked to see whether or not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7476 1 your assumptions in regard to the travel time, the 2 transmissivity of the water, are borne out by what Belitz 3 and Loudon have reported in regard to the actual well logs 4 and the actual soil borings? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know that I have seen the report 6 you are referring to. I have seen some of the other work 7 that John Fio and Steve Deverel did that show 35 to 50 8 years' travel time within a given drained field. We are 9 talking about 300 feet to go 35 -- take 35 years to go 10 300-and-some feet in a tile drain field. 11 Obviously, the different soils and different conditions 12 transmit water at different rates. 13 MR. MINASIAN: So, you would think that Mr. Deverel and 14 Mr. Flio [verbatim] would have studied this subject more 15 recently than you have and would have something to say about 16 this transmission speed? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I am sure that they do. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Let's just try to put your opinion on 19 it. What makes you think that the transmissivity, the rate 20 at which water travels on a horizontal basis in the area of 21 the divide between Westlands and Firebaugh Canal or 22 Westlands and CCID, Camp 13 area, is 350 years to go a 23 mile? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I think I said a particle from the 25 divide to get to the river. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7477 1 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you. It is more than one mile? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: You bet. 3 MR. MINASIAN: But it is extremely slow? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 5 MR. MINASIAN: What is the fact that led you to that 6 conclusion in the 1960s and lead you to that conclusion 7 today? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: The facts are that the soils are very 9 tight and the gradient is very flat. 10 MR. MINASIAN: So, in theory there really isn't any 11 way, if you have transmissivity of that sort of rate, to 12 have an unirrigated field slow the affects of upslope or 13 irrigation in a different area, is there? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know what you mean by have an 15 unirrigated field. 16 MR. MINASIAN: You have referred to Deverel and Flio. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Fio, F-i-o. 18 MR. MINASIAN: I show you Exchange Contractors 5-R. 19 This will be put into evidence tomorrow. 20 Do you recognize that as a diagram out of Steve Deverel 21 and John Fio's report? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't. I don't recall that 23 diagram. 24 MR. MINASIAN: If I told you that that diagram, 25 basically, depicted the conditions of groundwater levels in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7478 1 a nonirrigated field in the Broadview Water District, would 2 it refresh your recollection? If it doesn't, tell me. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: If I haven't seen it before, I haven't 4 seen it before. 5 MR. MINASIAN: You notice the months of the year along 6 the bottom? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 8 MR. MINASIAN: You notice that the water seems to be 9 going up about a foot and half to two feet in the middle of 10 the irrigation season despite the fact there is no 11 irrigation? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I see what is on that diagram, yes. 13 MR. MINASIAN: Now, you talked to us, Bill, about the 14 groundwater divide. Could you tell us what the groundwater 15 divide as shown on Westlands Exhibit, and I believe that to 16 be -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: 97. 18 MR. MINASIAN: -- 97. Thank you. What does that tell 19 you as a professional engineer and person that has worked 20 their life in regard to drainage in regard to salinity in 21 the San Joaquin River? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't tell me about salinity in the 23 San Joaquin River. 24 MR. MINASIAN: Does it tell you, basically, that 25 certain lands are causing salinity or not causing salinity? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7479 1 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Does it just tell you what on a given 3 date the elevation of the water was at a particular vicinity 4 of the Westlands Water District? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 6 MR. MINASIAN: What do the arrows tell you? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: The arrows tell me the direction of the 8 gradient of the groundwater, if, in fact, the groundwater 9 was to move. 10 MR. MINASIAN: That is if a particle of groundwater 11 kind of moved down through the soil in a vertical fashion, 12 it tells you when it got to the bottom, to the saturated 13 zone, if it was going to move, which way it would move, 14 doesn't it? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. The arrows are generally 16 perpendicular to the contours of the groundwater. 17 MR. MINASIAN: This is a geomatrix diagram, is it not? 18 I believe that is 95, isn't it? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: It says January '91. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Strike that. 21 It is Exhibit -- 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Exhibit 96. 23 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you, sir. 24 Now, it basically tells us where the information came 25 from to draw the groundwater divide, does it not? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7480 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Do you see the label right below the 3 pink, "Adapted from Belitz 1988, Figures 23 and 24, and 4 California Department of Water Resources 1987, Fall of '85 5 Unconfined Water Level Map"? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. MINASIAN: Do you remember that Belitz report was 8 published in '88 but included '84 data? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't recall that. 10 MR. MINASIAN: The divide and contours that are shown 11 here, are they vintage 1984, 1985? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I can't give you any more specific 13 information about the source of this, the data, on this than 14 what is written here on the map. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you. 16 Have you had opportunity to check the groundwater 17 monitoring water levels kept by the USGS which are known as 18 the F-1 series in regard to what has happened to the 19 elevation in that area? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Recently? 21 MR. MINASIAN: Within the last five years. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 23 MR. MINASIAN: If I looked at the dotted line, I 24 basically have an area which was elevated in terms of 25 saturation in some year, perhaps 1984, 1985, and does that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7481 1 tell us anything in regard to the way in which water is 2 traveling in the area of Broadview Water District, 3 Firebaugh Canal and the Westlands Water District? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: It doesn't tell us anything about water 5 traveling. What it tells us is the gradient on the water 6 table, water table -- with the contours on the elevation of 7 the top of the water table are shown on this map, and the 8 arrows on the Westlands Exhibit 97 would be drawn 9 perpendicular to the contours on this map with the arrows 10 going both directions from the groundwater divide. 11 Doesn't tell you anything about volume. Doesn't tell 12 you anything about rate of movement, if there is such 13 movement. 14 MR. MINASIAN: In terms of trying to solve this problem 15 of salinity in the San Joaquin River, does the location of 16 that groundwater divide help us at all in identifying how to 17 reduce the salinity in the San Joaquin River? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Now, look at the elevation of the 20 divide. Do you agree that it is about 212 feet mean sea 21 level? 22 MR. MINASIAN: That would be a reasonable 23 approximation. It goes straight through the 225 foot 24 contour, though. It could be. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Do you see that the elevation going CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7482 1 right through the center of Firebaugh Canal Water District 2 of the groundwater is estimated at 175 mean sea level? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. MINASIAN: Does that indicate that you have about 5 37 feet of pressure between those two points? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: It means that the gradient on the water 7 table between those two contours is 37 and a half feet. 8 MR. MINASIAN: I believe you've testified that -- is it 9 a correct statement that you have testified that you think 10 largely within the Westlands Water District that the geology 11 is such that basically water is applied by the farmers? It 12 goes straight down, and it basically accumulates at that 13 point and doesn't move laterally or horizontally very much 14 or very fast? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 16 MR. MINASIAN: But pressure is transmitted much more 17 rapidly than a particle of water moves, isn't it? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Pressure radiates in all directions 20 unless there is a geologic obstruction, doesn't it? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 22 MR. MINASIAN: And so I want you to visualize now a 23 column of water 37 and a half feet high, and I want you to 24 imagine tile drain over at the edge of this room. What is 25 the affect of that pressure going to be on tile drain at CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7483 1 floor level at the corner of this room? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Assuming there is a barrier below, 3 assuming the floor is a barrier, it is going to cause water 4 to move to the drain. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Up? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Depending on the permeability of the 7 soil between the bottom of the column of the water and the 8 drain. 9 MR. MINASIAN: So, the permeability or the porosity of 10 the soil determines how much of the pressure will be lost by 11 friction, doesn't it? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 13 MR. MINASIAN: The distance, basically, tells us that 14 there will be more opportunity to lose pressure over 15 distance, won't there? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 17 MR. MINASIAN: But the tile drain is vacant; it is a 18 space just waiting to be filled, isn't it? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: A void, yes. 20 MR. MINASIAN: So, pressure can be transmitted directly 21 through the saturated zone miles, even though a particle of 22 water may not move one inch? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct, but -- 24 MR. MINASIAN: Is that happening here? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Friction could -- the friction through CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7484 1 the soil could be so much that there would be no flow into 2 the drain. 3 MR. MINASIAN: Good. That is that we could dissipate 4 that friction totally if the -- dissipate the pressure if we 5 had enough friction, right? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 7 MR. MINASIAN: And we'd have enough friction if we had 8 really tight soils? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 10 MR. MINASIAN: One of the ways that we determine that 11 soils are tight is how fast the water goes from the surface 12 to the underground, isn't it? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be the infiltration rate. 14 MR. MINASIAN: The infiltration rate tends to be an 15 order of magnitude slower than the way in which water will 16 move laterally through the same type of soils, isn't it? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Not necessarily. 18 MR. MINASIAN: What is your opinion in regard to the 19 soils out here? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: You have to be more specific. 21 MR. MINASIAN: Let me be fair to you. If we looked at 22 Station F-1 of the USGS, and you saw that the water 23 elevation in the area to the west of the divide had 24 increased about 15 feet over a matter of seven years or 25 eight years, would that tell you that the rate at which CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7485 1 water is being applied and getting into the underground is 2 fairly fast? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Where is F-1? 4 MR. MINASIAN: F-1 is about -- let's leave it at this: 5 It is basically to the west of the boundary line shown on 6 Exhibit 96. It's not very far west. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Which boundary line? 8 MR. MINASIAN: The groundwater boundary dots. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: The groundwater divide? West of the 10 divide? 11 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: In which district? 13 MR. MINASIAN: I believe it to be in the Westlands 14 Water District. Bill, let me make it a hypothetical so you 15 don't have to deal with it. 16 If water is applied to the surface and it ends up in 17 the underground approximately 400 feet below the surface of 18 the ground -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Are we talking like there? 20 MR. MINASIAN: Yes, approximately that location. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 22 MR. MINASIAN: And groundwater levels are raising in 23 the last 15 years in this area, 15 feet I would say, doesn't 24 that indicate to you that there is fairly fast infiltration 25 rate? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7486 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Before he answers the question, may 2 the record reflect the "here" to which both Mr. Johnston and 3 Mr. Minasian were referring was the north edge of the 4 200-foot gradient immediately to the west of the groundwater 5 divide as it is depicted on Westlands Exhibit 96. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. That is so stipulated. 7 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 8 MR. MINASIAN: I didn't want to make this a test. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: One of the things you said, you said 10 that the water arrived at 200 feet or some -- 11 MR. MINASIAN: 400 feet below the ground? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, at the point we are talking about 13 on this map, in Westlands it shows that the groundwater 14 level is -- elevation is 200 feet, and that is probably 15 somewhere around 20 to 30 feet below the ground surface. So 16 I'm not following how you're getting the water from the 17 ground surface to 400 feet, and then telling me the water 18 table can go up. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Let me take that out of it. I don't 20 mean to confusion you, and my question may have done that. 21 Let's just imagine for a moment that we are dealing 22 with soils that transmit water on a lateral basis or 23 horizontal really slow, really slow. Can't even see them. 24 Generally, isn't the rate at which the water comes from the 25 surface down to the saturated zone a mere fraction of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7487 1 rate that water moves horizontally? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: There are conditions that could meet 3 your assumptions. In this case the horizontal and vertical 4 permeability of the soil will vary, and it will vary with 5 depth. 6 MR. MINASIAN: And that is one of the reasons why there 7 is A through E clay layer variability within the Westlands 8 Water District, isn't it? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Not just with Westlands, but in other 10 areas also, yes. 11 MR. MINASIAN: If a particle of water -- if we wanted 12 to predict how fast a particle of water will move, we need 13 to know what kind of clay barriers or what kind of geology 14 it is going to encounter, don't we? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 16 MR. MINASIAN: You made an assumption in 1963 as to 17 whether or not actually particles applied in the Westlands 18 Water District would move horizontally or laterally into the 19 areas of Firebaugh, CCID, Broadview, Panoche, did you not? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Only into Firebaugh. 21 MR. MINASIAN: That is your calculation with just as to 22 the Firebaugh geologic condition? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. Because that is where the 24 gradient perpendicular to the contours on the water table 25 indicate that the direction of flow would be if there was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7488 1 flow. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Darcy's formulas remained the same since 3 you made your calculation? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe so. 5 MR. MINASIAN: But we know a lot more about the geology 6 since you made your calculation, don't we? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: We probably do. 8 MR. MINASIAN: So, have you made any updates of the 9 Darcy formula applied, assuming the further knowledge that 10 we have about the diversity of the geologic deposits in the 11 area of the Westlands Water District? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I have made no additional estimates as 13 to what may or may not be happening there. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Do you have an opinion as to whether or 15 not the pressure caused by water being at a higher elevation 16 under the ground in Westlands Water District may, in fact, 17 in some locations be pushing poor quality saline water up 18 into surface drains and tile drains in Firebaugh, Camp 13, 19 Broadview or Panoche? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I have made no further estimates about 21 that. I have seen some of the data that are -- that have 22 been published by the Bureau -- pardon me, by the USGS. 23 They have indicated that there are some deeper flow lines 24 that might be carrying water from upslope lands into the 25 drains in Panoche and Broadview. But when you look at the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7489 1 groundwater divide and the location of the groundwater 2 divide, and it may shift half a mile one way or another, 3 depending on local conditions, there is basically a gradient 4 away from the groundwater divide into Westlands and into the 5 other districts. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Let me ask you a series of questions 7 which are designed to see the significance of that. I am 8 going to total up the acreage that you have shown up on this 9 map. 10 Is it correct that there is a hundred thousand acres of 11 Westlands Water District north of the line in Exhibit 96? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: North of which line? 13 MR. MINASIAN: Do you see the line that is the 14 cross-section that has the P-1, P-4, P-6? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: North of the boundary that is -- the 16 total land in Westlands that is shown on this map? Well, 17 the yellow area is probably half of the 42,000. That may be 18 about 20. Somewhere between 60 and 80,000, maybe. 19 MR. MINASIAN: We know that the Grassland Bypass area 20 came in and testified, and they said that they have about 21 106,000 acres participating, don't they? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 23 MR. MINASIAN: So, on its face it would look like that 24 about a hundred thousand acres, 106,000 acres. But you tell 25 us to disregard the lands that are on the west side of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7490 1 divide, don't you? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 3 MR. MINASIAN: But those lands, some of those lands 4 have a higher head or elevation of water than lands in the 5 lower areas, don't they? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. MINASIAN: Can we disregard the pressure from the 8 lands that are not colored yellow within the Westlands Water 9 District in terms of trying to examine the sources of 10 salinity and the sources of pressure? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: If the groundwater divide is the highest 12 point in the water table, one would assume that the pressure 13 from that highest point would be transmitted as you 14 explained in all directions. 15 MR. MINASIAN: Right. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: So if the divide is the highest point, 17 then the pressure from the highest point would cause water 18 to the direction of the gradient to be away from the 19 divide. 20 MR. MINASIAN: Look at the 200-foot contour to the west 21 of the divide. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I understand that. 23 MR. MINASIAN: That creates pressure, too, doesn't it? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Certainly. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Firebaugh, CCID at 150, they are just CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7491 1 dead meat, aren't they, in terms of pressure? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: If you are going to try to get me to 3 admit that the 200 is higher than 175, I will be happy to do 4 that. And 150 is higher than 120. 5 MR. MINASIAN: Do you think that pressure ought to 6 enter into the determination of how we are going to take 7 care of the salinity problem? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Do I think that pressure ought to enter 9 into how we are going to take care of the salinity problem? 10 I think that is more complicated than I can answer with a 11 yes or no answer. 12 MR. MINASIAN: Let me try to break it down for you. 13 Imagine for a moment -- there has been talk about TMDLs, 14 hasn't there? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 16 MR. MINASIAN: TMDLs are usually like a permit, they 17 are given to somebody who is doing something and they are 18 told you can't do more than this, aren't they? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: The TMDL means total maximum daily 20 load. If it is expressed that way in terms of a regulation, 21 yes. 22 MR. MINASIAN: The Westlands Water District landowners 23 and the administration have adapted to the drainage 24 situation that they have, have they not? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know about that, individual CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7492 1 landowners. Certainly Westlands has adopted to what it has 2 been forced to. 3 MR. MINASIAN: You were good enough to sit through the 4 testimony of Mr. McGahan and you've worked with people, so 5 you are acquainted of how the landowners within the bypass 6 drainage area have tried to adapt, have you not? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 8 MR. MINASIAN: They have tried to adapt by basically 9 putting the tile drainage water back into the receiving 10 water of either the landowner or the district, have they 11 not? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think in some cases they have done 13 that. 14 MR. MINASIAN: The Westlands Water District does not 15 allow landowners to put the tile drainage or subsurface 16 water back into the district's delivery system, do they? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think anybody has ever proposed 18 doing that. 19 MR. MINASIAN: Do you recall that it was proposed that 20 it was unreasonable if the Westlands Water District didn't 21 do that in certain litigation between the CCID, Firebaugh 22 and Westlands Water District? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Others may have proposed that. 24 MR. MINASIAN: This is a side issue, Mr. Johnston. 25 The Grassland Bypass area also basically tries to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7493 1 continue the operation of the tile drainage systems of the 2 individual landowners, do they not? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. MINASIAN: But the Westlands landowners have 5 adapted to their situation by basically not using the tile 6 drains system, have they not? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 8 MR. MINASIAN: And the Grassland Bypass area has 9 basically tried to adapt by putting the load into the San 10 Joaquin River in a managed fashion, have they not? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: What they are trying to manage is 12 selenium. 13 MR. MINASIAN: Incidentally, selenium accompanies salt, 14 usually? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Or visa versa, yes. 16 MR. MINASIAN: The Westlands Water District doesn't 17 have an outlet on the surface to the San Joaquin River, do 18 they? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think they have an outlet in the 20 subsurface, either. 21 MR. MINASIAN: So, basically, what we've got is two 22 different approaches to management of salinity; is that 23 correct? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, in one case you have a potential 25 management and other case we don't have much to manage. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7494 1 MR. MINASIAN: Usually, we equate a lack of management 2 with a dumm kopf routine. They don't know what they are 3 doing. But you guys are managing that water, aren't you? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: The landowners in Westlands are doing 5 the best they can. 6 MR. MINASIAN: The water basically, according to your 7 testimony, is piling up in a column underneath the 8 particular landowner's property and every ounce or inch of 9 water that leaches by the root zone is piling up down there, 10 isn't it? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think I can ever say that there 12 is absolutely no movement beyond the boundary of each 13 property owner. 14 MR. MINASIAN: There's got to be a little bit of 15 dissipation? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 17 MR. MINASIAN: And there is evaporation; is that 18 right? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Evaporation takes place through 20 transpiration of plants. Evaporation during irrigation. 21 But as long as there is irrigation taking place and water 22 moving down through the profile, there is not much upward 23 movement. 24 MR. MINASIAN: So, this column of water, if it's at 25 approximately five feet below the soil zone, that is where CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7495 1 the roots and the evaporation process concentrates the 2 salts, isn't it? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 4 MR. MINASIAN: Is this management scenario, what is 5 going in the Westlands Water District, is it sustainable for 6 any period of time longer than a decade or two decades? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: That is a real $64 question because I 8 don't know how long they can manage that way. They can 9 manage that way probably for one or two decades, and maybe 10 some good managers can go longer, maybe not. I don't know. 11 MR. MINASIAN: And that theoretical column of water is 12 asserting pressure in a radiating, concentric circle, if 13 there is no geologic barrier out from around the property 14 owner's property, is there? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: The entire area with less than a 16 five-foot water table is doing that, and it has been doing 17 that for, you know, 30 years. 18 MR. MINASIAN: Who's the discharger if a column of 19 water creates pressure and poor quality water shows up in a 20 drain a mile away? Is it the person that owns the drain or 21 is it the person that has a column of water that creates the 22 pressure? 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object on the grounds it 24 calls for a legal conclusion. 25 C.O. CAFFREY: You have to answer to the question, Mr. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7496 1 Johnston? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: I am afraid I don't know the answer to 3 the question. 4 C.O. CAFFREY: Then we will move on to another one. 5 MR. MINASIAN: You talked about idling of land and a 6 scenario which is very popular right now. Oh, we will just 7 take this land out of production. 8 You don't believe that to be much of a solution to the 9 salinity problem in the San Joaquin River, do you? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't. 11 MR. MINASIAN: Is there a criteria that you would 12 suggest be applied in which idling of land would be 13 beneficial to the San Joaquin River salinity, if you have an 14 opinion? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Are you asking me if there is some way 16 you idle the land and still continue production, 17 agriculture production? 18 MR. MINASIAN: No. I am asking you whether or not all 19 of the land retirement schemes have various project features 20 to them: location, types of land, what we will do after we 21 retire it. Is there a scenario or set of conditions that 22 meet your criteria for something that would improve salinity 23 in the San Joaquin River and involves land retirement? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: There would have to be a massive land 25 retirement, in my opinion, to really improve the conditions CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7497 1 substantially. 2 MR. MINASIAN: So the location -- have you focused on a 3 particular location? Do you have somebody in mind to 4 basically put out of their misery? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: No. I don't have anybody in mind to 6 put out of their misery. Most of the people that are trying 7 to farm in the areas we have been talking about are doing so 8 because that is their livelihood and that is what they would 9 like to do. So I wouldn't classify it as misery. Some of 10 the problems they have may not be so great, in their 11 opinion. There would have to be a real substantial land 12 retirement program in order to take care of salinity 13 problem. And based on estimates by the Regional Board, only 14 about a third of the salinity in the San Joaquin River comes 15 from drainage from agricultural lands. 16 MR. MINASIAN: You are speaking about on an annual load 17 basis, are you not? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 19 MR. MINASIAN: We were going to talk from salinity from 20 irrigation practices, were we not? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. That is what I am talking about. 22 MR. MINASIAN: So your belief is that only about a 23 third of the salinity in the San Joaquin River arising from 24 irrigation practices comes from irrigated agriculture? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: That is what the Regional Board data has CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7498 1 shown. 2 MR. MINASIAN: In terms of the leadership of building a 3 master drain, if we looked at the Westlands landowners' 4 experience, they don't need a master drain, do they? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they need a drain. 6 MR. MINASIAN: Is it just a convenience? Is it a 7 pickup with three doors instead of two or something, you 8 know, life or death? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Eventually, it will be life or death. 10 Right now it is a matter of continuing the productivity of 11 the land. There are impacts already in substantial areas of 12 Westlands where the crop selection and crop production is 13 impacted. So, it is the beginning of the long end. 14 MR. MINASIAN: Let me give you the alternatives. I 15 give you a billion dollars to build a master drain or I give 16 you a billion dollars to retire land or a billion dollars to 17 patch over this thing with management for the next 50 years. 18 Which combination of those alternatives do you choose as an 19 irrigation engineer? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I would choose construction of a drain 21 and good management together. 22 MR. MINASIAN: Nothing further. 23 C.O. CAFFREY: Just a moment before we go further. 24 Thank you, Mr. Minasian. 25 We are going to adjourn for today, and we will back CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7499 1 tomorrow morning for cross-examination by Ms. Cahill and Ms. 2 Harrigfeld, and then we will see if there is any direct by 3 Mr. Birmingham. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am unable to be here in the morning. 5 I have to meet with some members of the Legislature on 6 Porter-Cologne issue. I have spoken with Mr. Sandino, and 7 he would be prepared to put on his witness in the morning. 8 If that concludes, then, so that we don't waste the Board's 9 time, Mr. Johnston will be available for further 10 cross-examination for defense by Ms. Minaberrigarai, if all 11 of this meets with your approval. 12 C.O. CAFFREY: Is there any objection to the procedure 13 that Mr. Birmingham has asked us to follow? He is going to 14 be detained in the morning, wants to know if we could have 15 Mr. Sandino present his witness. If he is still not back 16 after that, Ms. Minaberrigarai would take care of the 17 remaining cross for Mr. Johnston. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Or until I return. I would like to 19 observe that Ms. Minaberrigarai has been studying all the 20 objections. If I am tough, she is going to be even tougher. 21 C.O. CAFFREY: We will look forward to that. All 22 right. Any objection to proceed along those lines? Does 23 that do violent to anybody's concerns or schedules? 24 Mr. Minasian. 25 MR. MINASIAN: Mr. Chairman, that actually fits, I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7500 1 think, with what we are all planning. There is testimony of 2 exhibits from two witnesses that will be called, although it 3 is not required. We put it in writing, if people want to 4 pick them up, pick one from each column. There are 20 5 copies for the Board, next to Tom. 6 C.O. CAFFREY: Rebuttal exhibits? 7 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 8 C.O. CAFFREY: Thank you for making those available, 9 Mr. Minasian. As you say, it is not required, but a fine 10 courtesy on your part. Appreciate it on behalf of all the 11 parties. 12 Thank you, sir. 13 With that, then, we will adjourn and be back at 9:00 14 a.m. on the schedule as described by Mr. Birmingham. 15 Thank you. 16 (Hearing adjourned at 3:42 p.m.) 17 ---oOo--- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7501 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 7341 through 14 7501 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 14th day of December 19 1998. 20 21 22 23 24 ______________________________ ESTHER F. WIATRE 25 CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 7502