STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999 9:00 A.M. Reported by: MARY GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES 2 ---oOo--- 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 JAMES STUBCHAER, CO-HEARING OFFICER 5 JOHN W. BROWN, CO-HEARING OFFICER MARC DEL PIERO 6 MARY JANE FORSTER 7 STAFF MEMBERS: 8 THOMAS HOWARD - Supervising Engineer 9 VICTORIA A. WHITNEY - Senior Engineer 10 COUNSEL: 11 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER - Chief Counsel 12 WALTER PETTIT - Executive Director BARBARA LEIDIGH - Senior Staff Counsel 13 14 ---oOo--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12170 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 4 134 West Sycamore STreet Willows, California 95988 5 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 6 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER, III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 11 P.O. Box 357 Quincy, California 95971 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 14 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 17 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. AMELIA MINABERRIGARAI, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GRAY 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 12171 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 4 2480 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 7 2800 Cottage Way, Roon E1712 Sacramento, California 95825 8 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 10 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 13 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 19 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 20 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 23 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 24 Visalia, California 93191 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12172 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 4 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 7 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 8 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 10 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 11 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 14 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 17 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 18 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 19 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 21 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 24 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California 90075 25 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12173 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 5 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 6 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 8 Sacramento, California 95814 9 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 10 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 11 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFIN, MASUDA & GODWIN 14 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 15 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 17 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 18 Sacramento, California 95814 19 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 Oakland, California 94618 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12174 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE 4 P.O. Box 846 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 7 P.O. Box 1019 Madera, California 93639 8 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 10 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 2300 River Plaza Drive 11 Sacramento, California 95833 12 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 13 MORRISON & FORESTER 755 Page Mill Road 14 Palo Alto, California 94303 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 17 P.O. Box 777 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 20 926 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 23 P.O. Box 427 Durham, California 95938 24 BY: DON HEFFREN 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12175 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 4 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 7 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 10 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY 13 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 17 BY: BILL KETSCHER 18 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 20 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 23 P.O. Box 606 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12176 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 4 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 7 1201 Civic Center Drive Yuba City, California 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGTAION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKIEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 10 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95816 11 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 14 Walnut Creek, California 94596 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 17 22759 South Mercey Springs Road Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 20 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 Merced, California 95344 21 BY: MIICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 22 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 23 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12177 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 3728 Sonora, California 95730 5 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 6 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER. 11 1550 California Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 15 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 16 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 17 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 18 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 21 501 Walker Street Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 24 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12178 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 4 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 7 P.O. Box 1461 Stockton, California 95201 8 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. and 9 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 10 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 11 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 1100 Whitney Avenue 12 Corcoran, California 93212 13 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 14 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 18 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B Chico, California 95926 19 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 20 SIERRA CLUB: 21 JENNA OLSEN 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 24 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 25 Woodland, California 95695 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12179 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGENS & ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGENS 4 P.O. Box 60940 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 P.O. Box 156 Dos Palos, California 93620 8 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 9 BETSY REIFSNIDER 10 128 J Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 11 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 13 P.O. Box 2067 Merced, California 95344 14 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 15 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 16 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 17 Stockton, California 95202 18 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 19 JAMES F. ROBERTS P.O. Box 54153 20 Los Angeles, California 90054 21 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 22 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 23 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12180 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 4 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94194 5 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 7 DAVID A. SANDINO, 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 Captiol 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 12181 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 4 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 5 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 6 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 7 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 8 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC.: 11 209 South Locust Street Visalia, California 93279 12 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 13 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 15 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 18 1213 Market Street Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 21 P.O. Box 156 Hayfork, California 96041 22 BY: TOM STOKELY 23 CITY OF REDDING: 24 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 25 Redding, California 96001 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12182 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHEMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 2 Sutter Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 5 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 6 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 7 BEST BEST & KREIGER P.O. Box 1028 8 Riverside, California 92502 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 9 COUTNY OF TEHEMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHEMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11 P.O. Box 250 Red Bluff, California 96080 12 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 13 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 14 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS P.O. Box 667 15 San Andreas, California 95249 16 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 HENRY WILLY 6755 Lake Amador Drive 18 Ione, California 95640 19 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 2291 West March Lane, S.B. 100 21 Stockton, California 95207 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12183 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 12185 6 END OF PROCEEDINGS 12277 7 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 8 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 9 MR. TURNER 12195 10 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 11 MR. HERRICK 12200 12 MR. JACKSON 12203 BY STAFF 12211 13 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 14 MR. HASENCAMP 12217 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 16 MR. TURNER 12224 17 MR. GARNER 12228 MR. JACKSON 12230 18 MR. SEXTON 12235 MR. HERRICK 12242 19 MR. NOMELLINI 12258 BY BOARD MEMBERS 12266 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 21 MR. HASENCAMP 12268 22 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 23 MR. JACKSON 12273 24 MR. GARNER 12274 BY BOARD 12275 25 ---oOo--- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12184 1 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999, 9:00 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning. We'll reconvene the 5 Bay-Delta Hearing. We have an objection pending. 6 Mr. Jackson. 7 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Over the evening I've had a 8 chance to review the U.S. District Court case that I 9 understand has been proposed for -- or has been entered 10 into the record by stipulation in regard to the Interior's 11 final administrative proposal. 12 The motion would be to keep Exhibit 12-C of 13 Mr. Kjelson's testimony out of the record on the grounds 14 that its potential relevance, at this point, is seriously 15 in question. And it has a very great likelihood of 16 confusing the record and of causing undue use of time as 17 it is referred to in the future. 18 It seems that it is not a critical part of his 19 testimony. And that, in my opinion, its relevance is out 20 weighted by its ability to confuse this proceedings and 21 put us in a situation where we are dependent upon the 22 Court's ruling to determine what it actually means. 23 So I have no objection to any of the rest of the others. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 25 Mr. Turner. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12185 1 MR. TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. I'd take 2 strong exception to Mr. Jackson's objection to the 3 introduction of Exhibit 12-C, that 1997 administrative 4 proposal. In light of the fact, that, as we pointed out 5 late yesterday, the Court order to which he is referring, 6 has already -- I've already stipulated to having that 7 admitted in the record as a Westlands' Water District 8 exhibit. So the Board will have in front of it the 9 documentation that relates to that particular 10 administrative proposal. 11 As I further pointed out, if you look at the 12 order that is now being introduced as a Westlands' 13 exhibit, it does not say in any way, shape, or form that 14 that exhibit, Exhibit 12-C, that administrative proposal 15 is hereby vacated and will not be used in any way, shape 16 and form, every single period, comma, word is retracted or 17 invalid. 18 That particular order is still -- has not been finalized 19 with respect to the actual relief that is going to be 20 afforded the parties. 21 Secondly, that that is the final order, the 22 judgment will be a District Court decision that, 23 obviously, is subject to appeal. That may not be a final 24 decision of the courts. And I don't think it's 25 appropriate to reach the conclusion that Mr. Jackson has CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12186 1 that that decision has a final effect of totally 2 invalidating the administrative proposal in full or in any 3 specific elements thereof. 4 So I think that it would be highly premature and 5 inappropriate to accept the fact that that is a final 6 decision thereby vacating any kind of relevance of that 7 administrative proposal. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. 9 MR. JACKSON: The importance of the administrative 10 proposal is that it contains large portions of the 11 justification that the Department of the Interior is 12 asking this Board to make rulings on. It contains the 13 VAMP and the VAMP's pumping limits. It contains the flow 14 schedule in the VAMP. It also affects, in substantial 15 detail, the amount of pumping that would be allowed from 16 the Delta pumps. 17 So the idea here is that we're in here relying on 18 this design by the Department of the Interior knowing full 19 well that that design is in strong question at this point. 20 And it seems to me that for the federal government to be 21 asking the Board to rely on the document as it is in at 22 least two phases of this particular hearing, is going to 23 result -- could result in a substantial waste of time by 24 the Board. And the basic evidence that the Board would 25 have relied on may be gone by the time we go forward. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12187 1 It would seem to me that if Interior wants to 2 justify their positions on these issues, they can do it 3 without relying on that particular document. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 5 Mr. Jackson, I'm going to overrule your 6 objection; however, your objection is in the record along 7 with the Court decision and your objection will be 8 considered when the Board gives weight to the evidence. 9 Now, do we have the exhibits for DOI correctly 10 identified now? 11 MS. WHITNEY: Not yet. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Not yet. All right. 13 MS. WHITNEY: Maybe the easiest thing would be for 14 me to read in the ones that I've got and then Mr. Turner 15 can verify it. 16 MR. TURNER: That would be fine. That would be 17 fine. 18 MS. WHITNEY: Okay. We have Exhibit 10, John 19 Renning's testimony with attachments 10-A through 10-YY, 20 including 10-Z which has been revised. 21 MR. TURNER: Mr. Chairman, let me add one additional 22 thing. When we're talking about Exhibit 10, the written 23 testimony of John Renning, that is the written testimony 24 as supplemented on March 15th, the supplemental testimony 25 that was submitted. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12188 1 MS. WHITNEY: That's correct. And then we have the 2 revised testimony of David Robinson which is an U.S. D.I. 3 Exhibit 11 with attachments 11-A through 11-N. 4 MR. TURNER: "N" as in Nancy, correct. 5 MS. WHITNEY: We have U.S.D.I. Exhibit 12 which is 6 the revised testimony of Martin Kjelson with attachments 7 12-A Replacement, 12-AA Replacement, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, 8 12-D. 9 MR. TURNER: That's correct. And, again, in 10 connection with Mr. Kjelson's testimony, the original 11 Exhibit 12 was supplemented on March 15th. And there was 12 further -- and that supplement was revised by the 13 transmittal letter that was submitted on March 18th along 14 with 12-A Replacement; 12-BB Replacement, changing the P 15 figure that was included in the supplemental testimony. 16 MS. WHITNEY: No. That's 12-AA Replacement, right, 17 not 12-BB Replacement? 18 MR. TURNER: I'm sorry, yes, 12-A and 12-AA 19 Replacement, correct. 20 MS. WHITNEY: And the last one is U.S.D.I. Exhibit 21 17 which is the testimony of Mike Thabault. 22 MR. TURNER: Correct. I think that was an accurate 23 description of the testimony and exhibits. And I would 24 move that those particular exhibits be admitted. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are there any other objections? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12189 1 Mr. Nomellini. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: I noticed when I was going through 3 my files I didn't have exactly every one of these 4 documents. I wondered if as a condition of the entry that 5 the Department of the Interior might be willing to send 6 out a packet of the exhibits actually entered so that we 7 all have exactly what it is that is -- like 12 was 8 supplemented on March something or other. And then it was 9 subsequently revised. 10 I mean that would be my request just so that we 11 have an accurate copy of it, because I, frankly, got lost 12 on part of it, but maybe nobody else did. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Turner. 14 MR. TURNER: I would be more than willing to make 15 any of these final documents, the final exhibits available 16 to any of the parties that feel that they are suffering 17 the same problem as Mr. Nomellini, but I have a serious 18 concern with having to distribute another packet to all of 19 the parties in the proceeding because of the time and 20 paper. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Whitney. 22 MS. WHITNEY: We have the exhibit list posted on the 23 Internet. We update that regularly. Perhaps, parties who 24 wants copies can check the Internet to see which has been 25 accepted and then check through their copies and make CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12190 1 individual requests. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: That's a good suggestion. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: That's fine. Thank you. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 5 MR. HERRICK: It may be just my confusion, but I 6 recall questions covering 12-A, 12-A Revised and 12-AA 7 Replacement. Are all three of those being put in the 8 record since they were discussed with witnesses? I 9 just -- 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, I know we received the 12-A 11 Revised and the 12-A Replacement. I don't know about AA. 12 Mr. Turner. 13 MR. TURNER: I was simply proposing to have the 12-A 14 Replacement and 12-AA Replacement admitted to the record, 15 but if the Board would prefer to have the previous 16 documents there as well, we can do it. I don't know that 17 it would necessarily serve any useful purpose since it was 18 the replacement versions that were actually discussed. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, the revised version was also 20 discussed during the cross-examination to my recollection, 21 Mr. Turner, because of the comparison, the difference. 22 Ms. Whitney. 23 MS. WHITNEY: It was discussed, but I don't know 24 that the Board would rely on it in coming to any 25 conclusions. So I don't think it's imperative that it be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12191 1 in the record since we have the replaced version. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: That might -- Mr. Herrick. 3 MR. HERRICK: I'm not trying to make too big of a 4 deal of this, but it was discussed how the witnesses got 5 from one to another. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, it was. 7 MR. HERRICK: It should be available for future 8 reference. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: No, I think it should be in the 10 record. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: I think it should be. 12 MR. TURNER: Okay. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are you coming up for the Fish and 14 Game? 15 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. 16 C.O. STSUBCHAER: Well, just a minute, we'll dispose 17 of this. 18 Anything else on the DOI exhibits? All right, 19 they are accepted with Mr. Jackson's objection noted as 20 previously stated. 21 All right. Mr. Campbell. 22 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 Department of Fish and Game requests that the 24 State Water Resources Control Board enter the following 25 exhibits into the record of this proceeding: CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12192 1 DFG Exhibit 8, DFG Exhibit 27, DFG Exhibit 28 and 2 DFG Exhibit 29. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? 4 Ms. Whitney, do you agree with those numbers? 5 MS. WHITNEY: Yes, do I. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Very well. Hearing no objections, 7 they are accepted. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. 8 Mr. Herrick. 9 MR. HERRICK: South Delta had a cross-examination 10 piece of evidence introduced, Number 57 -- John Herrick 11 for South Delta Water Agency. I would move that South 12 Delta 57 be accepted into evidence. It was introduced 13 earlier in DOI, or the joint panel's presentation. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? Seeing none, it is 15 accepted. 16 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any others? 18 Yes, Ms. Crothers. Good morning. 19 MS. CROTHERS: Good morning. I'm Cathy Crothers, 20 staff counsel for the Department of Water Resources. 21 David Sandino couldn't be here this morning, so I'm here 22 to ask that the following DWR exhibits be entered into the 23 record: 24 It would be DWR Exhibit Number 4, which is the 25 qualifications of Steve Ford; DWR Exhibit Number 6, the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12193 1 qualifications of Larry Gage; DWR Exhibit 35, the written 2 testimony of Larry Gage; and DWR Exhibit 36, written 3 testimony of Steve Ford. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Whitney, do you agree? 5 MS. WHITNEY: I concur with that. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? Seeing none they 7 are accepted. Thank you. 8 MS. CROTHERS: Thank you. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any others? Good morning. 10 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: Good morning. Mr. Sexton asked 11 that move for the admission of Exchange Contractors 6. 12 It was introduced on the cross of the Westlands and San 13 Luis panel. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? Seeing none, that 15 exhibit is accepted. Anything else? Seeing none then we 16 will move on to rebuttal. 17 Is this going to be joint, also, Mr. Turner? 18 MR. TURNER: Excuse me? 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is your rebuttal testimony also 20 going to be joint with the Department of Water Resources 21 and Department of Fish and Game, or are you going to put 22 on rebuttal? 23 MR. TURNER: Yes, we will. I will be recalling 24 Mr. Renning to present some short rebuttal testimony. 25 That would be on behalf of the Department of the Interior. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12194 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. By -- alone not -- 2 MR. TURNER: Correct. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Mr. Renning, is he 4 here? 5 MR. TURNER: Yes, he is here. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning, Mr. Renning. All 7 right, we're ready to proceed with that. 8 ---oOo--- 9 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 11 OF JOHN RENNING 12 BY MR. TURNER 13 MR. TURNER: I'm hereby recalling John Renning from 14 the Bureau of Reclamation on behalf of the Department of 15 the Interior. 16 During the presentation, the direct testimony 17 that was submitted by the County of Trinity, there were 18 some allegations made with respect to the failure of the 19 DEIR that was prepared in connection with this joint point 20 of diversion issue to address the impacts that the Board's 21 approval of the joint point of diversion would have on the 22 operations of the Trinity River division of the Central 23 Valley Project. And I am recalling Mr. Renning to present 24 some rebuttal testimony on that precise issue. 25 So, Mr. Renning, you have appeared in this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12195 1 proceeding before, correct? 2 MR. RENNING: Yes. 3 MR. TURNER: And you are currently sworn? 4 MR. RENNING: Yes, I am. 5 MR. TURNER: And your resume was previously 6 submitted to this Board? 7 MR. RENNING: Yes, it was. 8 MR. TURNER: Would you, please, present your 9 discussion as to the erroneous nature of the County of 10 Trinity's arguments with respect to the impact of the 11 Board's approval of the joint point of diversion on the 12 operations of the Trinity River Division of the CVP. 13 MR. JACKSON: I'd like to object to the question on 14 the grounds that it's argumentative, characterize his 15 testimony. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: This is rebuttal, Mr. Jackson, and 17 I'm going to permit it. On cross-examination that might 18 be a proper objection. 19 Please, proceed, Mr. Turner. 20 MR. TURNER: Mr. Renning, would you go ahead and 21 explain -- present your rebuttal testimony to the Board. 22 MR. RENNING: The testimony of the witness for 23 Trinity County on March 16th stating, paraphrasing, that 24 in the Draft EIR the chapter covering the joint point of 25 diversion, no information had been presented regarding the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12196 1 impact of the various alternatives for the joint point of 2 diversion on Trinity Reservoir or the Trinity River and 3 that it has not been possible for them to determine what 4 those impacts are. 5 We have no reason to doubt that their witnesses 6 were unable to make that determination, but that 7 information exists and is readily available to anyone. 8 The Draft EIR has not described impacts to this area for 9 the simple reason that the alternatives do not create any 10 impacts to this area. 11 All of the alternatives for the joint point of 12 diversion have the same assumptions for the operation of 13 Trinity Reservoir, the diversions to the Sacramento Valley 14 and the flows in the Trinity River below Lewiston Dam. 15 These values are shown on the attached tables. 16 MR. TURNER: Let me interrupt here for a second. 17 When you're -- we have available copies of the written 18 version of the rebuttal testimony and the tables to which 19 Mr. Renning will be referring to, but I'd like to have him 20 clarify at this point: 21 Where did you locate -- these are not tables that 22 you prepared, are they? 23 MR. RENNING: No, they are not tables that I 24 prepared. 25 MR. TURNER: And where did you locate these tables? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12197 1 MR. RENNING: These tables -- well, the tables that 2 I looked at were on DWR's web page, but these tables are 3 part of the staff exhibits that are in the Board's record. 4 They are -- the particular ones that I used are Staff 5 Exhibit 75-P, which are the operations studies associated 6 with Alternative 8 of the joint point of diversion 7 alternatives. 8 MR. TURNER: Okay. If you would go on. Thank you. 9 MR. RENNING: These tables -- 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Excuse me. 11 Mr. Herrick. 12 MR. HERRICK: Without being presumptuous, if there 13 are some charts or written material it would be nice to 14 have it now rather than later. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. Are you prepared to 16 distribute? 17 MR. TURNER: Yes, I certainly am. We have copies 18 here. 19 MS. WHITNEY: 20. 20 MR. RENNING: Half of them, there's 40 there. 21 MS. WHITNEY: Estimate. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Let's just wait -- pause a moment, 23 please, Mr. Turner. 24 C.O. BROWN: Does it have an exhibit number? 25 MS. WHITNEY: Not yet. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12198 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: She's working on it. 2 MS. WHITNEY: It would be 107, Department of the 3 Interior Exhibit 107. 4 MR. TURNER: We would identify this as Department of 5 the Interior Exhibit 107. And that would consist of the 6 one page of testimony and the six pages of tables that are 7 attached thereto. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Please, proceed. 9 MR. RENNING: These tables are available on DWR's 10 web page for all the joint points of diversion 11 alternatives and for all the flow alternatives as well. 12 In the studies that modeled these alternatives 13 they show the operation of the joint point of diversion 14 will not affect the operation of the Trinity system of the 15 CVP. In fact, the opposite will probably happen. 16 Presuming that the State Board approves the joint 17 point of diversion and that the operation of the Trinity 18 system is changed, the operation of the joint point of 19 diversion will be affected to some degree. However, as 20 stated before, the alternatives cover a wide range of 21 operation of the joint point of diversion. And any 22 changes in the operation of the Trinity system resulting 23 with a change in the joint point of diversion, operation 24 will fall within the range shown in the alternatives. 25 That concludes my testimony. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12199 1 MR. TURNER: And that would conclude the rebuttal 2 testimony that the Department of the Interior would 3 propose to present in this stage of the hearing. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Turner, Mr. Renning. 5 Who wishes to recross-examine? Mr. Jackson, 6 Mr. Herrick. Anyone else? 7 All right. Mr. Herrick. 8 ---oOo--- 9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 11 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 12 BY MR. HERRICK 13 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, 14 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency, Members of the 15 Board. 16 Mr. Renning, I don't -- let me see if I can 17 quickly ask a few clarifying questions. Is it your 18 testimony that these charts that you provided are on the 19 Department of Water Resources' web page? 20 MR. RENNING: Yes, they are. 21 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And did you say whether or not 22 they're part of the Draft EIR? 23 MR. RENNING: They are staff exhibits to this 24 hearing. They are on the list of staff exhibits. 25 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And my question is -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12200 1 MR. RENNING: Let me clarify. The studies that 2 contain these particular tables are staff exhibits and 3 these are information extracted from that particular 4 exhibit. 5 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Would you agree that the 6 Chapter 13 of the DEIR does not mention the Trinity River 7 or the Trinity Reservoir? 8 MR. RENNING: That's right, it doesn't. 9 MR. HERRICK: Okay. In your testimony you say, 10 (Reading): 11 "Presuming the SWRC approves the joint point of 12 diversion and that the operation of the Trinity 13 system is changed, the operation of the joint 14 point of diversion will be affected to some 15 degree. However, as stated before, the 16 alternatives cover a wide range of operation of 17 the joint point of diversion and any changes to 18 the operation of the Trinity system resulting 19 in changes from the joint point will fall 20 within the ranges." 21 Is that your testimony? 22 MR. RENNING: Well, what you just said there, you 23 didn't read my testimony correctly. 24 MR. HERRICK: Okay. I'm sorry. Let me try again 25 then. In the third paragraph of your testimony it says CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12201 1 that, paraphrasing, presuming one of the things that the 2 operation of the Trinity system is changed, you're 3 concluding that's within the alternatives, the range of 4 alternatives shown in the DEIR; is that correct? 5 MR. RENNING: No. What I'm saying is that if there 6 is a change to the Trinity system, that any changes that 7 that causes -- any changes that are caused to the joint 8 point of diversion operations by changes in the Trinity 9 system operation are captured in the range of alternatives 10 covered in the Draft EIR. 11 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And you're talking about if 12 there are changes in the Trinity system that those changes 13 as they affect the joint point are included in the DEIR? 14 MR. RENNING: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Okay. What about the effects of the 16 changes in the Trinity River operations? 17 MR. RENNING: That's beyond the scope of the Draft 18 EIR. 19 MR. HERRICK: Okay. So it's your testimony that the 20 Draft EIR does not examine potential effects to the 21 Trinity River or surrounding areas? 22 MR. RENNING: No. 23 MR. HERRICK: Okay. I have no further questions. 24 Thank you. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12202 1 ---oOo--- 2 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 4 BY COUNCIL FOR RURAL COUNTIES 5 BY MR. JACKSON 6 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Renning, I'm going to call your 7 attention to three of your conclusions in your testimony. 8 The first one is that the -- the last sentence in your 9 first paragraph, "The Draft EIR has not described impacts 10 to this area." And you've just indicated to Mr. Herrick 11 that that's true. 12 For the simple reason that the alternatives do 13 not create any impacts to this area, what is your -- did 14 you talk to anyone else before writing this testimony in 15 regard to impacts in the Trinity area? 16 MR. RENNING: I talked with various people that had 17 worked on the Draft EIR. 18 MR. JACKSON: All right. What impacts to the 19 Trinity area are you referring to, or did you consider in 20 coming to this conclusion? 21 MR. RENNING: Well, as I stated in my testimony, 22 there aren't any impacts, because the assumptions 23 regarding the operation of the Trinity system is exactly 24 the same in every one of the alternatives. 25 MR. JACKSON: So there is no range in these CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12203 1 alternatives, in your opinion, everything is precisely the 2 same in all of the alternatives as it relates to the 3 Trinity River? 4 MR. RENNING: Yes. 5 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Now, calling your 6 attention to the second paragraph where you say that, 7 (Reading): 8 "All alternatives for the joint point of 9 diversion have the same assumptions for the 10 operation of Trinity Reservoir." 11 What are those assumptions, sir? 12 MR. RENNING: Well, the principle assumption is that 13 a minimum flow of 340,000 acre-feet per year will be met 14 on the lower Trinity system. 15 MR. JACKSON: All right. Have you compared all of 16 the alternatives to see whether or not that 340,000 17 acre-foot constant number is the only alternative in the 18 Trinity Draft EIR/EIS? 19 MR. RENNING: Well, the operations of the Trinity 20 system are not alternatives that are being examined in the 21 context of this EIR. And the assumption was made for the 22 purposes of this EIR in looking at, in this case, the 23 operations of the joint point of diversion that the 24 Trinity system would be operated exactly the same in every 25 one of the alternatives. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12204 1 MR. JACKSON: So, again, there is no range of 2 alternatives at all in regard to the Trinity system's 3 affect upon the joint point of diversion, we agree with 4 that? 5 MR. RENNING: Yes. 6 MR. JACKSON: Now, if, in fact, all of the water 7 went down the Trinity River and there were no diversions 8 to the Sacramento Valley, would that have an effect on 9 water available for the joint point of diversion? 10 MR. TURNER: I object. He just turned the issue 11 totally around. We're now talking about what impacts will 12 the operation of Trinity have on joint point. And the 13 issue is exactly the opposite: What impacts does joint 14 point have the operation of Trinity? 15 MR. JACKSON: No, sir, I do not believe that is the 16 issue. I think the issue is whether they examined for the 17 joint point, whether or not there will be water available 18 from the Trinity system that would allow us to expand the 19 use of the joint point. That was the testimony of the 20 Trinity folks that there may not be water available. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Answer the question, if you can. 22 MR. RENNING: Well, as I stated here in my 23 testimony, the alternatives that we looked at cover the 24 complete range of the operations of the joint point of 25 diversion from no use to a very high use. Therefore, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12205 1 anything that happens on the Trinity system, for instance, 2 that would result in no use of the joint point of 3 diversion is covered by the Draft EIR. 4 MR. JACKSON: Let's step back here. These two 5 things are physically connected, correct? I mean the 6 pumps take water out of the Trinity River? 7 MR. RENNING: No. 8 MR. JACKSON: The pumps take water that relies on 9 Trinity River diversions from Trinity to Sacramento? 10 MR. RENNING: To the extent that there are 11 diversions that come into the Sacramento Valley, those are 12 at times utilized by the Central Valley Project. 13 MR. JACKSON: And if the -- and that's approximately 14 a million acre-feet a year? 15 MR. RENNING: It's an average of 892,000 acre-feet 16 per year. 17 MR. JACKSON: If this 892,000 acre-feet per year was 18 not available for diversion from the Trinity system into 19 the Sacramento system, would there still be water 20 available to expand the joint point of diversion? 21 MR. RENNING: There could be, but we have not done 22 such a study. 23 MR. JACKSON: And the Draft Environmental Impact 24 Report does not look at that possibility in any of its 25 alternatives on the joint point of diversion; is that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12206 1 true? 2 MR. RENNING: Well, in examining the use of the 3 joint point of diversion, Alternative 2 contains no use of 4 the joint point of diversion. And, therefore, to the 5 extent that there are any impacts associated with no use 6 of the joint point of diversion we have covered that. 7 Now, if you're talking about other factors that 8 are out there that are not at issue in this Draft EIR, 9 such as different operations of the Trinity River system, 10 they are not covered by this EIR. 11 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now -- but there would be 12 impact on -- if there was no water diverted from the 13 Trinity system, there would be an impact on the use by 14 Interior of the joint point of diversion; is that right? 15 MR. RENNING: Yes -- 16 MR. TURNER: Mr. Renning just testified that that 17 has not been analyzed. 18 MR. JACKSON: That's the point. 19 MR. RENNING: I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson. My testimony 20 clearly says that. Would you like me to read -- 21 MR. JACKSON: No. Let's try it this way so we're 22 very clear. If, in fact, Alternative 8 were pre-approved 23 by the Board for some sort of operational program by 24 CalFed's Ops Group -- I want you to assume that -- you 25 would be exporting a substantial amount of water more out CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12207 1 of the Delta, correct? 2 MR. RENNING: Yes. 3 MR. JACKSON: And if at the same time the Bureau of 4 Reclamation determined that there was no surplus water 5 available over the needs of the Trinity system for 6 diversion to the Sacramento River, would there be the 7 water available to operate the unlimited -- or up to the 8 maximum amount of the pumps of the joint point without the 9 Trinity water? 10 MR. RENNING: There would not be the quantity of 11 water that -- in Alternative 8, if there is a different 12 operation of the Trinity system there will be an effect to 13 the joint point of diversion, which is what my testimony 14 is. 15 MR. JACKSON: Okay. Now, I was going to get to that 16 part. Do you know how big the effect will be? 17 MR. RENNING: No, it has not been examined. 18 MR. JACKSON: Do you know whether or not any 19 alternative for the joint point, except Alternative 2, 20 would be possible if the Trinity water were not diverted 21 to the Sacramento system? 22 MR. RENNING: Well, yes. I think any of the 23 alternatives would be possible, because there are other 24 times -- there are other sources of water that make water 25 available to the joint point of diversion at various times CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12208 1 during these 71 years that we looked at. 2 MR. JACKSON: And that presumes none of the water 3 from the Trinity diversion? 4 MR. RENNING: Well, you're asking me a hypothetical 5 question here -- 6 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, I am. 7 MR. RENNING: -- and, yes, if there were no 8 diversions from the Trinity system there would still be 9 water available for use of the joint point of diversion. 10 MR. JACKSON: And where would that water come from? 11 MR. RENNING: It would come from surplus flows in 12 the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 13 MR. JACKSON: How much surplus flow is there in the 14 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta without the Trinity flow? 15 MR. RENNING: That study has not been done. It was 16 beyond the copy scope of this Draft EIR. 17 MR. JACKSON: Then, how can the Board determine 18 whether or not to use the joint point of diversion without 19 that study being done? 20 MR. RENNING: I think that they can make that 21 determination because the Draft EIR covers a full range of 22 use of the joint point of diversion. 23 MR. JACKSON: All right. Calling your attention to 24 your statement that, 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12209 1 (Reading): 2 "Presuming the State Board approves the joint 3 point of diversion and the operation of the 4 Trinity system is changed, the operation of the 5 joint point will be affected to some degree." 6 To what degree? 7 MR. RENNING: We do not know. 8 MR. JACKSON: In what ways will the operation of the 9 joint point of diversion be affected? 10 MR. RENNING: I cannot say at this time, because it 11 has not been studied. 12 MR. JACKSON: What part of the alternatives -- of 13 the alternative analysis in the present Draft 14 Environmental Impact Report are you relying on to address 15 the effect of such an secession of diversion on the 16 Trinity River on the joint point of diversion? 17 MR. TURNER: That's already been asked and answered 18 two or three times. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. 20 MR. JACKSON: Thanks. No further questions. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 22 All right you wish to offer 107? 23 MR. TURNER: I would now move to have -- 24 MS. WHITNEY: Excuse me, I have one question. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Excuse me. I forgot about the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12210 1 staff and the Board. 2 Please, go ahead, Ms. Whitney. 3 ---oOo--- 4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 6 BY STAFF 7 MS. WHITNEY: Since your testimony is that there are 8 no impacts from the use of the joint point on the Trinity 9 River, would you also anticipate that there would be no 10 effect of the joint point on the ability to meet the 11 Trinity -- the ability of the Bureau or the project 12 operators to meet the Trinity River temperature standards, 13 temperature objectives? 14 MR. RENNING: Any operations that we would undertake 15 to meet requirements on the Trinity River would take 16 precedence over our operations of the joint point of 17 diversion. 18 MS. WHITNEY: Thank you. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any others? 20 MS. WHITNEY: That's it. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board, questions? 22 C.O. BROWN: No, sir. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. That does conclude the 24 recross-examination. 25 Mr. Turner. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12211 1 MR. TURNER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that 2 Department of the Interior's Exhibit 107 be admitted into 3 the record. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections? Seeing none, it is 5 accepted. Thank you. 6 MR. TURNER: Thank you. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: And before we go on, I'd like to 8 have an identification of who intends to present rebuttal 9 testimony. Please, raise your hands. 10 South Delta, Contra Costa -- let's see -- 11 C.O. BROWN: Mr. Hasencamp. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. 13 C.O. BROWN: Who was the other one? 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Minaberrigarai. Okay. So next 15 in order then is Westlands I believe. 16 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: Mr. Chairman, we found out 17 about something this morning and it's a DWR witness that 18 we will be calling who is not going to be here until 19 10:15. Cathy Crothers has spoken to her and she's on her 20 way. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 22 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: Thank you. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, is your witness 24 present? 25 MR. HERRICK: No. I hope we can work through that, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12212 1 but as I told the Board yesterday, Mr. Hildebrand is not 2 available today. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: That's right. Who was the other 4 one? 5 C.O. BROWN: Mr. Hasencamp. Oh, I just got a note, 6 after 1:00? 7 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, our witness is here, but our 8 attorney is not here. He was planning on being here at 9 1:00. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: I thought you acted in his absence 11 several times in the past. 12 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, I tried but those are awful 13 big shoes to fill. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: So, Ms. Minaberrigarai, you said 15 about 10:10, didn't you say? 16 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: 10:15 is when she's supposed to 17 be here. And then I'm going to talk to her and see -- we 18 may not have rebuttal. We may, but I need to speak to her 19 first. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Is there anything we 21 can do with our time for the next half hour that would be 22 productive? Anyone? Should we just -- Mr. Turner, you 23 look like you're about to speak. 24 MR. TURNER: No. What I was just concerned about 25 is I'm sitting here trying to figure out when I ought to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12213 1 try and get my witnesses for Phase VII down here. So I 2 was trying to figure out what we're looking at by way of 3 time for direct and cross and additional rebuttal. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: I suppose we could just say that we 5 won't start Phase VII until tomorrow. I think we can all 6 use a little time to go through our mail and stuff like 7 that. Anyway, if there's no objections. 8 MR. TURNER: I wouldn't have any problem with that 9 at all. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Does anyone have any problem with 11 that, deferring Phase VII until tomorrow? Yes. 12 MR. ATLAS: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with 13 deferring it until tomorrow, but is that a date certain? 14 There are people I understand wanting to give policy 15 statements, obviously, you know that. And then we have 16 the Interior witnesses. I have a panel of four witnesses 17 and I'd like to at least minimize the number of times they 18 have to travel down here before they have an opportunity 19 to testify. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: I understand, Mr. Atlas. Let me 21 get out the order of appearances for Phase VII here. I 22 think we can state with clear certainty that we will start 23 Phase VII tomorrow. It does depend on the recross 24 examination of the rebuttal witnesses, but it looks like 25 we have limited rebuttal. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12214 1 And do you have a copy of the Phase VII 2 appearances? 3 MR. ATLAS: I've seen it, I don't have it right in 4 front of me. I believe that we're about number three on 5 the list. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, I'll read it. It's the 7 Department of the Interior, Fish and Game, County of 8 Trinity, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Santa Clara Valley 9 Water District, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, 10 El Dorado County Water Agency, San Luis Water District and 11 Del Puerto Water District combined with the Arvin-Edison 12 Water Storage District, Westlands Water District and 13 Westlands Encroachment Landowners. 14 That's the order. Beyond that I can't estimate 15 how much time will be taken by each of the parties, 16 because, as you know, the cross-examination determines 17 that. 18 MR. ATLAS: I understand. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. So let's take a recess 20 until 10:10 then. 21 (Recess taken from 9:49 a.m. to 10:13 a.m.) 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: We'll reconvene the hearing. I'd 23 like to know the status of the rebuttal cases for 24 Westlands. 25 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: Before the break it was my CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12215 1 understanding that Ms. Green was going to be produced 2 voluntarily, but I was informed during the break that we 3 need to subpoena her. So we are in the process of 4 preparing that subpoena and we'll get it over here as soon 5 as possible. And I have, yet, to even speak to her to 6 determine whether or not we're going to call her as a 7 rebuttal witness. She's not here yet. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Mr. Herrick, you 9 mentioned that Mr. Hildebrand can't be here either today 10 or tomorrow; is that correct? 11 MR. HERRICK: Yeah. Mr. Hildebrand is at the BDAC 12 meeting in Bakersfield and is unavailable. If we could 13 somehow carry it over and put him on. If that's not 14 convenient, then we would not put on any cross, but we 15 would like to. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: I understand, but it's probable 17 that we will conclude Phase VI, then, without his rebuttal 18 testimony. 19 MR. HERRICK: We would not object to that. We're 20 trying to work with you, too. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 22 And, Mr. Hasencamp. 23 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes. We're willing to go now. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Very good. Give you a couple 25 points, extra points here. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12216 1 MR. JACKSON: They would take 200,000 acre-feet. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is that what a point is, 100,000 3 acre-feet? 4 MR. JACKSON: Yeah, 100,000 acre-feet. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning, Mr. Hasencamp. 6 ---oOo--- 7 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 8 BY DR. DAVID BRIGGS 9 MR. HASENCAMP 10 MR. HASENCAMP: Good morning. We will do our best 11 and hopefully there will be some leniency in the 12 objections. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Hasencamp, has the witness 14 taken the oath? 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, he has. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 17 MR. HASENCAMP: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Member 18 of the Board, during the opening statements made by Contra 19 Costa Water District's legal counsel the State Board asked 20 CCWD some questions about the position of X2 relative to 21 where CCWD's intakes are. Additionally, Department of 22 Interior Exhibit 10 and Department of Water Resources 23 Exhibit 35 describe operations of the joint point of 24 diversion that could injury CCWD as a legal user of water. 25 Specifically, the testimony of John Renning, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12217 1 paraphrasing, states that the joint point of diversion 2 could allow the CVP to recover some of its lost water. 3 Without protection, the CVP and State Water Project could 4 benefit at the potential expense of CCWD. So with that 5 I'd like to call David A. Briggs as our only rebuttal 6 witness for this phase. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning, Mr. Briggs. 8 DR. BRIGGS: Good morning. Thank you, 9 Mr. Hasencamp. I guess I'm waiving my right to be 10 questioned without my attorney present. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: You want a court-appointed 12 attorney? Mr. Nomellini will volunteer. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: No way. I've got a fight with him, 14 too. 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Dr. Briggs, one of the rules about 16 being a witness is to wait until you're asked a question 17 before you make a statement. 18 Dr. Briggs, I'm handing you a copy of CCWD 19 Exhibit 1-F. Is that a true and accurate statement of 20 your qualifications? 21 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, it is. 22 MR. HASENCAMP: Thank you. We had planned on having 23 an exhibit to accompany Dr. Briggs' testimony this 24 morning, but -- actually we planned on it this afternoon, 25 but because we're going this morning we don't have such an CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12218 1 exhibit. However, Dr. Briggs can summarize his exhibit 2 without the written exhibit. 3 DR. BRIGGS: Thank you. I'll answer the questions 4 that Mr. Hasencamp alluded to in his opening statement. 5 I'm David Briggs. I work for the Contra Costa Water 6 District as an associate water resources specialist. I 7 have a Ph.D. in hydrodynamics. And I have worked 8 extensively with hydrology and hydrodynamics of the 9 Bay-Delta system. And I'm very familiar with CCWD's 10 operations and water supply and water quality operations. 11 I currently participate in many Bay-Delta 12 technical forums. These forums include the CalFed No Name 13 Group, which the Board is aware of is a technical 14 stakeholder forum where project operations are discussed. 15 I participate in the DEFT No Name Group coordination team, 16 which is currently developing rules for the environmental 17 water account. Actually, it's been going on all this week 18 and later this afternoon. 19 Recently the No Name Group has been discussing 20 joint point of diversion petitions that the Bureau has 21 made for water year 1999 and I've been involved in many of 22 those meetings as well. So without further ado, I'll 23 basically summarize how the petitioned -- or the requested 24 use of joint point of diversion could impact the Contra 25 Costa Water District. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12219 1 In general terms, joint point of diversion would 2 increase pumping capacity during specific times of the 3 year under certain conditions. That, as has been 4 described in DWR Exhibit 35 and revised Department of the 5 Interior Exhibit 10, to briefly summarize how those 6 proposed operations could impact the district, there are 7 three ways where that could occur. 8 The first and probably the most significant is 9 that surplus water could be -- the opportunities and the 10 availability of surplus water in the Delta could be 11 reduced. CCWD relies on surplus water to exercise its 12 senior water rights to refill Los Vaqueros Reservoir, 13 which was recently completed and filled. These water 14 rights are associated with the Los Vaqueros Project and 15 can only be utilized when the Delta is in a surplus 16 condition. 17 June is a particularly sensitive month for refill 18 operations for the Contra Costa Water District, because in 19 June this reservoir will likely be drawn down, because 20 Contra Costa will rely on this reservoir as its sole 21 source of supply in the spring when we do not pump in the 22 Delta at all for fish reasons, for the protection of 23 fisheries -- sensitive fisheries. 24 So access to surplus water in June will be a very 25 critical condition for the Contra Costa Water District as CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12220 1 well as other months, but it's particularly sensitive in 2 June. So the first impact would be access to surplus 3 water which could be affected by increased pumping as a 4 result of the petitioned use for joint point of diversion. 5 The second possible impact is related to the 6 first and that's basically, again, if increased pumping 7 results in less surplus water there could be reduced Delta 8 outflow, as some of the evidence that I've seen in the 9 testimony has appeared. If Delta outflow is reduced, 10 seawater intrusion could increase and that would, 11 obviously, increase the TDS and the salinity and bromide 12 at Contra Costa Water District's intakes along Old River 13 and on Rock Slough. 14 The third and last possible impact is related to 15 the operation of the Los Vaqueros Project, in particular, 16 refilling of the reservoir. Refilling operations of the 17 reservoir are dependent on the position of X2. And if 18 joint point of diversion changes or alters the position of 19 X2 it could affect our refilling capability. 20 Let me briefly summarize what those are: 21 Restrictions on our operations to refill the reservoir as 22 they are spelled out in our biological opinion, which was 23 given to us by the Fish and Wildlife Service. And let me 24 access the map while I do this. 25 This map has already been submitted as Staff CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12221 1 Exhibit 63. I believe it's from the Delta Atlas. 2 Basically there are several features to this map which I'd 3 like the Board to be aware of. There are the two -- two 4 of the three compliance locations for the X2 estuary 5 salinity standards are shown, Chipps Island, which Mr. 6 Hasencamp is pointing to right now right by Pittsburg. 7 MR. HASENCAMP: Excuse me, Dr. Briggs, you'll need 8 to describe where that is for the record, please. 9 MS. WHITNEY: Also, do you know what page in the 10 Delta Atlas this is? 11 DR. BRIGGS: I do not. I believe it's Staff Exhibit 12 63. 13 MR. HASENCAMP: There's a 6 at the bottom, could it 14 be Page 6? 15 DR. BRIGGS: Yeah. As Mr. Hasencamp has said it is 16 probably Page 6 of the Delta Atlas, although all the maps 17 in the Delta Atlas look very similar to this, so probably 18 any one of them would probably do. 19 Chipps Island is located near the City of 20 Pittsburg, just north of it. Collinsville is the second 21 of two, X2 compliance locations. It's located in the 22 confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River. 23 Briefly, filling of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in 24 operation of the Contra Costa Water District would be 25 restricted based on the position of X2 in the months CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12222 1 February through May inclusive. If X2 is east of Chipps 2 Island Contra Costa Water District would not be able to 3 fill Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 4 Also, in the months of January, June and August 5 if X2 is east of Collinsville CCWD would also be 6 restricted from filling. In the month of December, if 7 Delta smelt are present at the Old River intake which is 8 located very close to the intersection of Highway 4 and 9 Old River, which is our second and newly constructed 10 intake on Old River, the first being Rock Slough which is 11 located near Hotchkiss and Veale Tract along Old River, 12 in December, if the Delta smelt adults are present at the 13 Old River intake then filling at the Los Vaqueros 14 Reservoir will be restricted if X2 is east of Collinsville 15 in that month. 16 In summary, the proposed operation of the joint 17 point of diversion has the potential to impact Contra 18 Costa Water District by affecting CCWD's senior water 19 rights which permit CCWD to divert surplus water to 20 storage by reducing the availability of high quality water 21 to CCWD and by affecting the operation of the Los Vaqueros 22 Project by altering the position of X2. This summarizes 23 my testimony. 24 MR. HASENCAMP: Thank you, Dr. Briggs. 25 That concludes Contra Costa's rebuttal testimony. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12223 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. Who wishes to 2 cross-examine this witness? Herrick, Nomellini, Garner 3 and Sexton. 4 MS. WHITNEY: Would you repeat that, please? 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: It was -- just a moment, read the 6 names back. 7 C.O. BROWN: All right. Turner, Nomellini, Garner, 8 Sexton. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: And Jackson. 10 C.O. BROWN: And Jackson. 11 MR. TURNER: Are we going in that order? 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. We'll determine the order. 13 Sorry for the silence. 14 MR. TURNER: All right. 15 C.O. BROWN: Unless there's a volunteer to go first. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. The order of 17 cross-examination will be: Mr. Turner, Mr. Garner, 18 Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Herrick and Mr. Nomellini. 19 Mr. Turner. 20 ---oOo--- 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 22 BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 23 BY MR. TURNER 24 MR. TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Turner on 25 behalf of the Department of the Interior. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12224 1 I just had a few questions for you, Dr. Briggs. 2 I heard during your testimony that you were making 3 reference to the concern with the exercise of the joint 4 point of diversion having a detrimental impact on Contra 5 Costa's ability to exercise its senior water rights. 6 Could you explain to me what you mean by "senior" 7 and senior to whom? 8 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. The water rights that I was 9 referring to specifically refer to the Los Vaqueros -- the 10 water rights that were granted with respect to the Los 11 Vaqueros Project. 12 MR. TURNER: And when were those water rights 13 granted? Those were just a few years ago, wasn't it? 14 DR. BRIGGS: Yeah. Basically, I'm going to limit 15 the scope of my responses to the technical issues, those 16 water rights were granted a few years ago in the State 17 Board Decision 1629, are associated with that State Board 18 decision. Whether or not a proposed permit change to an 19 existing water right would be senior or junior to that 20 water right that was granted a few years ago is really not 21 my place to answer. 22 MR. TURNER: Okay. So you're, essentially, saying 23 what you're concerned about is that the -- 24 DR. BRIGGS: The existing water right. 25 MR. TURNER: That there may be some kind of impact CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12225 1 on the water rights that are held by Contra Costa Water 2 District for Los Vaqueros. But you're not addressing 3 whether that would or would not be in accordance with the 4 priorities under California Water Law, just that there may 5 be an impact? 6 DR. BRIGGS: I will testify to the potential impact 7 of the proposed operation of joint point. And the 8 seniority and the priority of water rights is beyond the 9 scope. 10 MR. TURNER: Okay. Thank you. Have you examined 11 Chapter 13 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report that 12 was put together in connection with the joint point of 13 diversion proposal? 14 DR. BRIGGS: That is the chapter on joint point? 15 MR. TURNER: Yes. 16 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I've examined it. 17 MR. TURNER: And have you reviewed the tables that 18 were incorporated into that particular chapter that were 19 addressing the changes in X2 that would result from the 20 various alternatives? 21 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I have. 22 MR. TURNER: And do you feel that those tables do 23 not specifically analyze that question and present the 24 appropriate data? I mean are you taking exception to the 25 figures in there or just highlighting the issue that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12226 1 should be further considered or -- I'm not sure why you're 2 raising it. 3 DR. BRIGGS: The tables that are in the draft are, I 4 believe -- I haven't looked at them in a while and I don't 5 have them in front of me, but I believe that they are 6 average X2 -- changes to X2 position by month. There 7 could be circumstances under the proposed use of joint 8 point of operations under many of the alternatives which 9 could, in a specific month in a specific circumstance 10 affect the change of X2 which could impact our ability to 11 operate our projection because we have stipulations on 12 positions in X2 when we fill Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 13 MR. TURNER: All right, I see. So are you saying 14 that the tables that were prepared, or the analysis that 15 was done in the DEIR is just not detailed enough to 16 provide the information you wanted, or -- 17 DR. BRIGGS: I don't think I could read the 18 information in that chapter and answer all the questions 19 that I have on the potential for these alternatives to 20 impact the Contra Costa Water District. 21 MR. TURNER: But you feel it is possible to put that 22 kind of analysis together on this kind of a study? 23 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I do. 24 MR. TURNER: So -- okay. I would have no further 25 questions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12227 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Turner. 2 Mr. Garner. 3 ---oOo--- 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 5 BY THE STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 6 BY MR. GARNER 7 MR. GARNER: Good morning, Eric Garner on behalf of 8 the State Water Contractors. I see Mr. Turner took care 9 of my water law questions. 10 Just a question or two, Dr. Briggs. You say that 11 a decrease in surplus water could lead to reduced Delta 12 outflow which could, in turn, lead to seawater intrusion; 13 is that correct? 14 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 15 MR. GARNER: Are you familiar with the 1995 Water 16 Quality Control Plan? 17 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 18 MR. GARNER: And are you familiar with the standards 19 in that Water Quality Control Plan? 20 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I am. 21 MR. GARNER: Okay. And you understand that the 22 purpose of this proceeding is to allocate the 23 responsibility for meeting those standards? 24 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 25 MR. GARNER: And that all the joint point of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12228 1 diversion proposals currently being considered by the 2 Board would met the standards set in the 1995 Water 3 Quality Control Plan? 4 DR. BRIGGS: It's my understanding that they meet 5 the minimum salinity standards for interior positions in 6 the Delta. And that they meet the minimum standards at 7 Rock Slough, that would be included in that. 8 But they -- my point, the impact that I was 9 trying to address was that those are minimum standards 10 that don't necessarily reflect a level of protection for 11 urban water agencies. And that within -- underneath those 12 minimum standards there could be relative degradation. 13 MR. GARNER: So you think the standards set in the 14 1995 Water Quality Control Plan might be inadequate then, 15 is that, essentially, what you're saying? 16 DR. BRIGGS: Those standards represent a minimum 17 level of protection. 18 MR. GARNER: Okay. And you understand, then, the 19 purpose of this proceeding is to meet that minimum level 20 of protection set in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 21 DR. BRIGGS: I understand that and I'm not going to 22 get into the legal arguments of whether you could get into 23 injuring a party in the process of implementing that plan, 24 but that is correct. 25 MR. GARNER: Okay. Thank you very much. I have no CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12229 1 further questions. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. 3 ---oOo--- 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 5 BY THE COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 6 BY MR. JACKSON 7 MR. JACKSON: Dr. Briggs, in your review of the 8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the joint point of 9 diversion were you able to determine whether any of the 10 alternatives were superior from the point of Contra 11 Costa's ability to fill Los Vaqueros? 12 DR. BRIGGS: No. 13 MR. JACKSON: Did you -- what potential impacts do 14 you see in the use the joint point of diversion that might 15 be present that would not be present in Alternative 2, no 16 joint use, were adopted by the Board? 17 DR. BRIGGS: Sorry, can you rephrase that? 18 MR. JACKSON: Sure. If Alternative 2, no joint 19 point of diversion were the Board's -- was the Board's 20 decision, would there be any of the potential impacts to 21 Contra Costa that might be present with the use of one of 22 the other joint point alternatives? 23 DR. BRIGGS: You're comparing alternative -- the 24 potential impacts to the Contra Costa Water District of 25 Alternative 2 relative -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12230 1 MR. JACKSON: To the others. 2 DR. BRIGGS: -- to the others? Yes, I have examined 3 that. And there are instances where South Delta outflow 4 could be reduced in the fall. Delta outflow could be 5 reduced in June, surplus water could be reduced and the 6 position of X2 could be affected. 7 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, let's deal with those 8 four issues at once. How could the position of X2 be 9 affected by the choice of an alternative for the joint 10 point of diversion other than Alternative 2? 11 DR. BRIGGS: I'm not sure I understand your 12 question. 13 MR. JACKSON: You indicated that there could be 14 effects on X2 to one of the active alternatives in regard 15 to joint point. 16 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 17 MR. JACKSON: How would that happen? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Outflow would be reduced which would 19 affect the position of X2. Outflow is going to be 20 different depending on which alternative you're looking at 21 of these nine. When outflow changes it will have a very 22 direct effect on the position of X2. 23 MR. JACKSON: When outflow changes and, therefore, 24 there is a direct effect on X2, what potential impacts 25 does that cause Contra Costa Water District at their CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12231 1 diversion points? 2 DR. BRIGGS: We have stipulations in our biological 3 opinion to fill Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which are related 4 to the position of X2 which are different than the X2 5 requirements which are spelled out in the Water Quality 6 Control Plan. Sometimes -- oftentimes, they can be more 7 strict. 8 So that you could be operating in compliance with 9 the '95 Water Quality Control Plan X2 requirement, but 10 there is additional -- for Contra Costa Water District 11 there are additional X2 requirements beyond that that 12 could be impacted by this operation of joint point of 13 diversion. 14 MR. JACKSON: All right. So the operation of the 15 joint point of diversion coupled with the biological 16 opinions could lessen the number of days in which you are 17 able to divert? 18 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 19 MR. JACKSON: What would happen to Contra Costa's 20 operation if there were less days in which they were able 21 to divert? 22 DR. BRIGGS: Well, generally speaking, if it were 23 harder for us to refill the reservoir -- the planned use 24 of the reservoir it's a high-quality source of water that 25 is prefilled during conditions in the Delta when there's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12232 1 high-quality water available. If reliance -- if reliance 2 on that reservoir -- strike that. 3 When we eventually use the reservoir, and during 4 periods when the water in the reservoir is used for 5 blending purposes or as a sole source of water when we do 6 not divert from the Delta, we need to replenish the water 7 to get ready for the next operation, or for the next 8 occurrence when we need that high-quality source. 9 If the windows of opportunity shrink for 10 refilling that reservoir, we would -- our delivered water 11 quality would be impaired, the average for the delivered 12 chloride in TDS concentration would potentially go up, our 13 pumping costs could go up, our water costs could go up and 14 I'll stop there. 15 MR. JACKSON: Now, you indicated -- and I'm sorry 16 that I don't have it in writing so it's a little hard to 17 follow -- you indicated four potential effects. 18 DR. BRIGGS: I trust you. 19 MR. JACKSON: There are a lot of people here that 20 would tell you that's not a good idea. 21 Basically, you talked about X2. What were the 22 other effects that you potentially saw? 23 DR. BRIGGS: First was -- actually, the third was X2 24 related. The first was a reduced opportunity to pump 25 surplus water and to exercise our water rights associated CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12233 1 with the Los Vaqueros Project. 2 MR. JACKSON: And that's the closed window that we 3 were talking about earlier in terms of lack -- 4 DR. BRIGGS: It's related to that, yes. 5 MR. JACKSON: All right. Are there other things 6 related other than the window closing? 7 DR. BRIGGS: Well, the third point which I was 8 getting to was if outflow is reduced in the summer or in 9 the fall this would increase seawater intrusion. And if 10 outflow was reduced in the fall as a result of the joint 11 point of diversion this would increase seawater intrusion 12 and, obviously, increase the salinity at the locations in 13 the Delta where we divert water. 14 MR. JACKSON: Now, seawater intrusion, does that 15 have detrimental effects on your water quality? 16 DR. BRIGGS: To the extent that it raises the 17 concentration of TDS and chloride and sodium and bromide 18 to our drinking water customers it does. 19 MR. JACKSON: And what is the effect, for instance, 20 of increased levels of bromide on your ability to deliver 21 water to your customers? 22 DR. BRIGGS: It doesn't affect necessarily the 23 quantity of water, but, obviously, if bromide 24 concentrations go up, depending on what sort of 25 disinfection processes are occurring in the treatment CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12234 1 plant, there can be some detrimental effects of having 2 elevated levels of bromide in your source water for urban 3 water districts. 4 MR. JACKSON: Does elevated bromide cause you to 5 increase your costs in terms of treating water? 6 DR. BRIGGS: I'm not an expert on water treatment, 7 but if you want my opinion, I do not believe that we 8 directly treat for bromide. 9 MR. JACKSON: All right. 10 DR. BRIGGS: It's a manifestation of what happens 11 when you have bromide in your source water after 12 disinfection that becomes the problem. 13 MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, other than outflow 14 and seawater intrusion and the reduced opportunity to 15 divert, what other potential problems do you see with the 16 joint point of diversion? 17 DR. BRIGGS: None beyond the three that I outlined 18 earlier. 19 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 21 Mr. Sexton. 22 ---oOo--- 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 24 BY THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS 25 BY MR. SEXTON CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12235 1 MR. SEXTON: Good morning, Dr. Briggs. 2 DR. BRIGGS: Good morning. 3 MR. SEXTON: My name is Michael Sexton. I represent 4 the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 5 As I understand your testimony you're concerned 6 about your access to surface water as causing loss of 7 opportunities to fill Contra Costa's reservoir. 8 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. I believe you meant 9 surplus not surface. 10 MR. SEXTON: Excuse me, surplus. 11 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 12 MR. SEXTON: To what extent does your -- does Contra 13 Costa's water right give you priority, if at all, to the 14 use of that surplus water over other users? 15 MR. JACKSON: I'm going to object to the question on 16 the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion from a 17 witness who has indicated he doesn't have that expertise. 18 He doesn't have a lawyer here and it just seems to me -- 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. Mr. Briggs, answer the 20 question if you can. If you can't answer it, you can so 21 state. 22 DR. BRIGGS: I do not wish to answer that question. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: No, it's not a matter of wishing. 24 You have to answer if you can, but if you can't -- 25 DR. BRIGGS: I cannot answer that question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12236 1 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Would you agree, then, 2 Dr. Briggs, that all of your references in your testimony 3 then to senior water rights should, in fact, substitute 4 the term "existing water rights"? 5 DR. BRIGGS: From my prospective that is an adequate 6 substitution. 7 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Now, did you hear the testimony 8 of the Department of the Interior, Department of Fish and 9 Game panel that testified on the benefits associated with 10 the use of the joint point of diversion? 11 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I did. 12 MR. SEXTON: And as I remember that testimony they 13 talked about benefits to pumping opportunities which could 14 increase water supplies to water surplus contractors south 15 of the Delta, do you remember that? 16 DR. BRIGGS: I certainly understand that is one 17 benefit of teh joint point of diversion. 18 MR. SEXTON: Okay. And there were benefits that 19 were expressed to fish resources? 20 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 21 MR. SEXTON: Okay. As I understand your testimony 22 you're talking about impacts on water quality at Contra 23 Costa's intakes; is that right? 24 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 25 MR. SEXTON: Does Contra Costa have the ability to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12237 1 move its intake? 2 DR. BRIGGS: To what extent? 3 MR. SEXTON: You're the expert, move its intake so 4 as to minimize water quality impacts. 5 MR. JACKSON: I'm going to object to the question 6 again because moving an intake requires a petition for 7 change in place of the point of diversion. And I don't 8 think this gentleman can answer the legal question about 9 whether or not they have the ability to get the Board to 10 give them a new point of diversion. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Campbell. 12 MR. CAMPBELL: I'd like to point out that there's a 13 factual question that underlies the legal question. I 14 believe that's what Mr. Sexton is inquiring into. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Briggs, answer if you can. 16 DR. BRIGGS: Can you, please, clarify the factual 17 issue underlying that question? I cannot answer the legal 18 one. 19 MR. SEXTON: You've been talking about water quality 20 impacts that joint point of diversion could cause on 21 Contra Costa's water supplies. My question is: 22 Can Contra Costa move its intakes in order to 23 minimize, mitigate, whichever words you would like to use, 24 water quality impacts from joint point? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are you talking about physically CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12238 1 move it assuming that the water rights were available? 2 MR. SEXTON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's 3 correct. That's what I'm saying. 4 DR. BRIGGS: Before I answer that, we do have three 5 intakes. So there is some ability to -- very limited, 6 literally, because of the conveyance and plumbing 7 constraints as to what we can use those intakes for. So 8 within the three we have right now, there is very limited 9 opportunity to operate around any water quality impact 10 which is likely going to affect all three anyway. 11 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Is it possible for Contra Costa 12 to move one of its intakes to Clifton Court? 13 DR. BRIGGS: I do not know the answer for that. 14 MR. SEXTON: Is it possible for the water quality 15 concerns that you expressed to be mitigated through water 16 treatment? 17 DR. BRIGGS: It is possible. 18 MR. SEXTON: Okay. Let me put it another way: Is 19 it likely that by increased costs associated with water 20 treatment that you could mitigate any water -- reduce the 21 water quality impact? 22 DR. BRIGGS: Any -- well, not any. There are many 23 water quality degradation issues which could be addressed 24 with enhanced forms of treatment. How inexpensive or 25 expensive those forms of treatment are become a very CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12239 1 significant issue when you're talking about constituents 2 in source water which are very small, like dissolved 3 constituents as in bromide and chloride. 4 MR. SEXTON: Well, joint point won't actually reduce 5 the water supplies to Contra Costa; isn't that right, 6 the quantity of water that you will have available for 7 your users? 8 DR. BRIGGS: I do not think that it would affect our 9 CVP contract supplies adversely. 10 MR. SEXTON: Okay. 11 DR. BRIGGS: It could affect our access to surplus 12 water. And whether or not you want to label that, access 13 to surplus water, which we would pump to prefill Los 14 Vaqueros when that water is of high quality, whether you 15 want to call that supply or quality water is a matter of 16 labeling. 17 MR. SEXTON: Yeah, but you've already expressed your 18 desire not to answer any questions pertaining to your 19 legal rights to take that water, so let's focus on the CVP 20 contract supply. 21 The use of joint point would not impact the 22 quantity of water that Contra Costa would get under its 23 CVP contract? 24 DR. BRIGGS: I don't believe joint point of 25 diversion would adversely affect Contra Costa's allocation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12240 1 of CVP water. 2 MR. SEXTON: Okay. And we know that the water 3 service contractors south of the Delta have had water 4 contract reductions as a result of a variety of things 5 that have been testified to in Bay-Delta, do you have an 6 understanding of that? 7 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I do. 8 MR. SEXTON: So really what we're talking about is 9 this is not going to affect Contra Costa's quantity of 10 water, it may cost it more to treat the water; isn't that 11 correct? 12 DR. BRIGGS: We would not likely invoke the advanced 13 forms of treatment to counteract degradation associated 14 with this potential use, it would be too costly. 15 MR. SEXTON: And so long as the standards that were 16 within the Water Quality Control Plan were met, then, you 17 really don't have any complaint? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Any proposed operation relative to 19 existing conditions which have the potential to degrade 20 water quality at our intakes is something that we're 21 concerned about. 22 MR. SEXTON: To the exclusion of all other water 23 users in the state? 24 DR. BRIGGS: My prior statement stands. 25 MR. SEXTON: Thank you. I have no further CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12241 1 questions. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 3 ---oOo--- 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 5 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 6 BY MR. HERRICK 7 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board 8 Members. John Herrick South Delta Water Agency. 9 Mr. Briggs, I'm one of the good guys. 10 MR. SEXTON: Objection, assumes facts not in 11 evidence. 12 MR. HERRICK: So stipulated. 13 Mr. Briggs, do you have a copy of the relevant 14 portions of Chapter 13 available to you? 15 DR. BRIGGS: Not immediately. 16 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Let me give you a -- let me 17 give you the -- thank you. 18 MR. TURNER: Here you go. 19 MR. HERRICK: I will make sure it's returned. 20 Mr. Turner has provided a copy. I've opened Chapter 13 to 21 Page 20 for you. 22 Do you see that? 23 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 24 MR. HERRICK: And is it your understanding that that 25 table shows relative changes to X2 resulting from the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12242 1 various joint point alternatives when compared to 2 Alternative 1? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: And just for the record, you'll note 5 that there is no comparison of the alternatives to 6 Alternative 2 as is done for some of the other 7 examinations or analyses in the chapter? 8 DR. BRIGGS: There's no comparison to Alternative 2, 9 but it can be inferred pretty easily. 10 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Now, you discussed that Contra 11 Costa had limitations on when it can fill Los Vaqueros 12 Reservoir; is that correct? 13 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: And would you agree that Table 13-14 15 shows positive numbers indicating westward movement of X2 16 and the negative numbers show an eastward move of X2 or a 17 negative change; is that correct? 18 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: Now, you can see from that table that 20 there are various months and various alternatives which 21 show negative effects on X2; is that correct? 22 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: And that means X2 moves upstream; is 24 that correct? 25 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12243 1 MR. HERRICK: Now, from that table or from Chapter 2 13, can you tell whether or not any of these changes reach 3 the point where it adversely affects Contra Costa's 4 ability to exercise its permit to fill Los Vaqueros? 5 DR. BRIGGS: Relative to Alternative 2, and in some 6 cases relative to Alternative 1, yes, there are cases in 7 this table where there indicates relative eastward move of 8 X2 in months which could have a sensitivity to our 9 operations. 10 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that Chapter 13 does 11 not describe or examine those potential effects to Contra 12 Costa? 13 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: Now, again, we see that the table 15 contains averages; is that correct? 16 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: And so we have various months where we 18 have a number, but we do not know what the highs and lows 19 are; is that correct? 20 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: And, of course, in any month the 22 average could result from a wide range of numbers; is that 23 correct? 24 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: And so if we have an average of, say, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12244 1 0.9, is it possible that the numbers that go into that 2 calculation include negative numbers? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Absolutely. 4 MR. HERRICK: And would you agree that we cannot 5 tell what those negative numbers are from Chapter 13? 6 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: But it is possible that those negative 8 numbers in those months that have an average positive 9 number during those negative number times there may be an 10 adverse effect on Contra Costa? 11 DR. BRIGGS: Could you restate that? I'm sorry. 12 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the low end of 13 the range on any particular average, which it could be a 14 negative number, might affect Contra Costa? 15 DR. BRIGGS: I would agree with that. 16 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Briggs, does the movement of X2 17 affect the normal -- not normal, other than the Los 18 Vaqueros pumping of Contra Costa? 19 DR. BRIGGS: To the extent that it affects -- X2 is 20 basically a surrogate for seawater intrusion. X2 21 requirements are spelled out in our Biological Opinion for 22 our filling Los Vaqueros Reservoir. So formally there 23 are, in terms of restriction and impacts to our operation, 24 what you said is correct. 25 X2 only affects our filling operations of Los CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12245 1 Vaqueros Reservoir and does not affect any other aspect of 2 our operation. To the extent that X2 represents seawater 3 intrusion, you can see indirectly how it would. 4 MR. HERRICK: Now, the X2 itself, depending on its 5 location, is a limitation for your pumping to fill Los 6 Vaqueros; is that correct? 7 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: Can the X2 have an affect on the 9 location of fish species? 10 DR. BRIGGS: I am not an expert on that. 11 MR. HERRICK: Let's just hypothetically state one 12 and if you do not feel comfortable answering it, that's 13 fine. Let's say, hypothetically, X2 affects the location 14 of Delta smelt, a listed species. 15 DR. BRIGGS: Okay. 16 MR. HERRICK: Does your pumping operation have some 17 sort of limitation for takes of endangered species? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, it does. 19 MR. HERRICK: So if the movement of X2 also affected 20 the location of a certain endangered species, that could 21 conceivably affect your ability to fill Los Vaqueros also; 22 is that correct? 23 DR. BRIGGS: That's true. 24 MR. HERRICK: Can you turn to Page 13-24, please. 25 Now, Dr. Briggs, on Page 13-24 through 13-25 we have CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12246 1 figures 13-12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 all dealing with chloride 2 concentrations at the Contra Costa Canal pumping plant; is 3 that correct? 4 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 5 MR. HERRICK: And actually it's pumping plant number 6 one. And those tables -- excuse me, those figures show 7 different chloride levels depending on year types; is that 8 correct? 9 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: Now, each of those tables has a line 11 across it that says, "Maximum Mean Daily Chloride Value of 12 250 Milligrams Per Liter of Chloride." Is that correct? 13 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: What is the significance of that 250 15 milligrams per liter level? 16 DR. BRIGGS: That's the upper limit of the salinity 17 standard as stipulated in the '95 Water Quality Control 18 Plan. The other one being the 150 milligrams per liter 19 standard which also applies, depending on year type, at 20 pumping plant one. 21 MR. HERRICK: And is the purpose -- do you know 22 whether or not the purpose of that 250 milligram state 23 water quality standard is to protect beneficial users 24 including Contra Costa? 25 DR. BRIGGS: That's its intention. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12247 1 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Now, if we go through those 2 various figures and let's take Figure 13-13, we can see 3 under December that every alternative for joint point 4 pumping, excepting Alternative 1, is either at or above 5 that 250 milligram chloride level; is that correct? 6 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: And in your opinion is that damaging 8 to Contra Costa to have a joint point operation resulting 9 in a chloride level elevated up above the 250 milligrams 10 per liter? 11 DR. BRIGGS: That would be a source of concern. 12 MR. HERRICK: And does the chloride level affect 13 your ability or desirability to fill Los Vaqueros? 14 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. And it also, in this particular 15 month with chloride levels in the Delta that high, we 16 obviously would not be filling Los Vaqueros Reservoir. We 17 would be drawing upon it. So the effect -- the impact 18 that I think that you're -- it's more accurate to state is 19 that we would be drawing on more water from the reservoir 20 and depleting its storage. 21 MR. HERRICK: And if you deplete that storage that 22 has effects other than at that time? In other words, the 23 effects of that are transposed to a later date; is that 24 correct? 25 DR. BRIGGS: Certainly. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12248 1 MR. HERRICK: You're familiar with Chapter 13, 2 aren't you? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: And do you recall reading in there 5 that it says that it's assumed that the Water Quality 6 Control Plan is fully implemented? Isn't that an 7 underlying assumption for all these alternatives? 8 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. Yes. Those are the standards in 9 all the models and all the models are operated to those 10 standards. 11 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Do you have any explanation for 12 how we can have water quality violations according to 13 these figures if we're assuming that the water quality 14 plan is implemented and complied with? 15 DR. BRIGGS: I have an explanation, I did not do the 16 modeling for this particular table. I believe it was done 17 by the Department of Water Resources using their DSM 2 18 Model, which uses input from DWRSIM which contains all of 19 the standards which are spelled out in the '95 Water 20 Quality Control Plan. 21 I suspect that the reason why those stipulations 22 are in the models and yet we do get a violation in some 23 months in December is a manifestation of the calibration 24 or other numerical problems with the DSM 2 Model. 25 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Or it might indicate a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12249 1 violation of the standard in reality? 2 DR. BRIGGS: It could. 3 MR. HERRICK: Now, would you agree that at least two 4 of the alternatives for implementing the plan, not the 5 joint point alternatives, but two of the alternatives for 6 implementing the plan assume that all of the water quality 7 standards are not met? 8 DR. BRIGGS: I understand that to be true. 9 MR. HERRICK: And those would be, I believe, the 10 alternative that deals with the Letter of Intent and then 11 the alternative that deals with the San Joaquin River 12 Agreement; is that correct? 13 DR. BRIGGS: Yeah, I understand that. 14 MR. HERRICK: So if an underlying assumption is that 15 the water quality standards are being met for these 16 modeling purposes in Chapter 13 and we actually implement 17 a plan that doesn't meet the water quality standards, 18 would you agree then that we can't rely on this analysis 19 to indicate the effects of joint point pumping? 20 DR. BRIGGS: I can attest to the application of 21 these models to the Contra Costa intakes and the standards 22 which are applicable at those locations. I do not want to 23 comment on the Vernalis water quality standards. 24 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that. Let me see if I 25 can attack this another way. In phase -- I don't CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12250 1 remember. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: I remember that one. 3 MEMBER DEL PIERO: They're all starting to look 4 alike, aren't they? 5 MR. HERRICK: I've reached a plateau. In an earlier 6 phase I believe Contra Costa commented that implementation 7 of the South Delta Barrier Program might affect the 8 salinity at the Contra Costa intake; is that correct? 9 DR. BRIGGS: It is possible. 10 MR. HERRICK: And part of that effect would depend 11 upon the incoming -- the flow -- the salinity of the flow 12 entering the South Delta through the San Joaquin River; is 13 that correct? 14 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. The impacts of the South Delta 15 barriers to the intakes in the Contra Costa Water District 16 along Old River are dependent on which flows are coming 17 from Vernalis, the quality of those flows, the specific 18 operation and location of the barriers, the amount of 19 exports that the state and federal projects are doing, 20 it's dependent upon many factors. 21 MR. HERRICK: So would your concerns for the 22 potential effects of joint point pumping on Contra Costa 23 take into consideration whether or not joint point also 24 causes adverse effects on water quality in the South 25 Delta? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12251 1 DR. BRIGGS: Some of the concerns that I've spelled 2 out that would affect the Contra Costa Water District 3 would also apply to the South Delta particularly if 4 outflow was reduced in the fall when it was already low. 5 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, since Mr. Briggs isn't 7 represented by an attorney, it appears that you may be 8 going outside the scope of his rebuttal testimony. And 9 the recross examination is supposed to be limited to the 10 scope of the rebuttal. 11 MR. HERRICK: I will defer to the Chairman, 12 obviously I'm not quite sure how that is outside the 13 scope, but I will proceed. 14 Dr. Briggs, we also can look at Figure 13-14 and 15 see that it, too, under certain alternatives it has a 16 violation of the 250 milligram water quality standard in 17 December; is that correct? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: And if we go to Figure 13-15 we can 20 see that the same is true in December for that figure 21 also; is that correct? 22 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: Similarly, on Figure 13-16, again, in 24 December; is that correct? 25 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12252 1 MR. HERRICK: Now, again, the levels of chloride 2 that are shown in these figures, again, are averages; is 3 that correct? 4 DR. BRIGGS: They're averages over 70 -- 73 years, 5 I'm not sure which one, in a particular month. 6 MR. HERRICK: So any particular exceedance of the 7 250 milligram chloride standard would necessary include 8 certain years where the modeling shows a higher than 9 indicated violation; is that correct? 10 DR. BRIGGS: That is possible. 11 MR. HERRICK: And do you have an opinion on whether 12 or not those examples where it might be higher should be 13 determined significant or not? 14 DR. BRIGGS: I'd have to see the data. 15 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And let me put it this way: If 16 there were one instance where there was a year where the 17 average, or the number was significantly higher and all 18 other years it was just below it so it came out to that 19 average, is one year significant to Contra Costa with 20 regards to a water quality violation? 21 DR. BRIGGS: If that were truly how the average was 22 computed with one year being an outlyer year and the other 23 69 or 72 being below and that's how the average was 24 computed because of this outlyer year, it would depend on 25 the conditions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12253 1 MR. HERRICK: But, of course, as the number of 2 instances where the violation is higher than the average 3 increases, Contra Costa's concern would also increase; is 4 that correct? 5 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 6 MR. HERRICK: Is it your opinion that one can't 7 simply take an average and determine whether or not that 8 has an adverse effect, you have to look at the individual 9 components that determine that average; is that correct? 10 DR. BRIGGS: I think to get a full assessment of the 11 potential impacts you would need to look at that. 12 MR. HERRICK: Do you believe that that full 13 assessment is contained in Chapter 13? 14 DR. BRIGGS: There are certainly process data which 15 give you a very good impression of what is going on in 16 terms of these alternatives. Certainly, some of average 17 data is adequate. But when there are conditions where 18 Contra Costa Water District is going to be particularly 19 sensitive to an operation, that would be an instance where 20 we would want to look at the data more significantly than 21 simply an average, or if the water quality standards were 22 getting dangerously close to getting violated. 23 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. One of the other 24 underlying assumptions for the analysis which tries to 25 measure the effects of the joint point proposals is that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12254 1 either the temporary or permanent barriers have been 2 installed in South Delta. Would you agree with that? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: And do you have some sort of basic 5 understanding between the temporary and permanent barriers 6 as proposed for the South Delta Program? 7 DR. BRIGGS: I actually do not know the specifics 8 between the temporary and permanent barriers. 9 MR. HERRICK: Okay. If those barriers were in 10 operations at different times, would that affect the 11 analysis contained in Chapter 13? 12 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, it would. 13 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Briggs, if you'll turn to Page 14 13-16, please. I believe you stated one of your concerns 15 is whether or not there's surplus or water available for 16 the various pumping needs of Contra Costa; is that 17 correct? 18 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: And if we just look at the tables -- 20 well, I'm on 13-16, those two tables show the flow at 21 Vernalis either under the 70-year average or an average 22 for critical years; is that correct? 23 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: And we can see in various months that 25 there are negative numbers which indicate a decrease in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12255 1 flows at Vernalis; is that correct? 2 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 3 MR. HERRICK: And those negative numbers, actually, 4 result from implementation of the various joint point 5 alternatives; is that correct, according to the tables? 6 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: Now, are any of those months where 8 there's decreases in flows months where Contra Costa has 9 concerns about its ability to pump to Los Vaqueros? 10 DR. BRIGGS: Certainly, but it would be difficult to 11 assess without knowing, obviously, the other hydrology in 12 the Delta like Delta outflow and flow on the Sacramento 13 River. 14 MR. HERRICK: And, of course, depending on whether 15 or not the barriers are in operation the flow of the San 16 Joaquin River has an affect on the amount of water which 17 reaches the intakes of Contra Costa; is that correct? 18 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: And if we turn back a page to Page 20 13-15 we see similar tables for the Sacramento River as 21 measured at Freeport; is that correct? 22 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: And, again, would you agree that in 24 various months -- excuse me. There are negative figures 25 indicating a decrease in flow as a result of the various CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12256 1 joint point of alternatives being implemented? 2 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 3 MR. HERRICK: And, again, would you agree that the 4 flow from the Sacramento River is also one of the 5 underlying factors in whether or not water is available 6 for pumping by Contra Costa? 7 DR. BRIGGS: It's one of the factors. 8 MR. HERRICK: And, of course, I guess we should 9 clarify that the tables we just looked at are also 10 averages; are they not? 11 DR. BRIGGS: That's true. 12 MR. HERRICK: So then any average that has a 13 decrease in flow necessarily includes instances of where 14 that decrease is greater than the average; is that 15 correct? 16 DR. BRIGGS: That's the nature of an average. 17 MR. HERRICK: Okay. I guess I just have one further 18 question: 19 Dr. Briggs, do you believe that Chapter 13 20 adequately analyzes the potential impacts to Contra Costa 21 Water District? 22 DR. BRIGGS: In my technical opinion it is a large 23 first step, but it does not answer all of the questions. 24 MR. HERRICK: Thank you very much. I have no 25 further questions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12257 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 2 ---oOo--- 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 4 BY THE CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 5 BY MR. NOMELLINI 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 7 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 8 Mr. Briggs, if I understood your testimony 9 correctly you are saying that even though the 1995 Water 10 Quality Control Plan standards are met there are still 11 injurious impacts to water quality for Contra Costa Water 12 District by reason of Delta outflow reduction; is that 13 correct? 14 DR. BRIGGS: I would not use the word "injure." I'd 15 rather use the word "impact." I'm not sure of the legal 16 ramifications of the word "injure." What I'm 17 fundamentally saying is that there are differences in the 18 environment that Contra Costa would face between 19 Alternative 2 and several of the -- all of the 20 alternatives with implementation of the joint point of 21 diversion. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. One of the impacts that would 23 be increased would be as a result of increased salinity at 24 the intakes for Contra Costa Water District; is that not 25 true? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12258 1 DR. BRIGGS: That is true. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, how would an 3 increase in salinity over the 1995 Water Quality Control 4 Plan standards adversely impact Contra Costa Water 5 District? 6 MR. SEXTON: Objection. Relevance. We're not here 7 during this proceeding, that I'm aware of, of what the 8 Water Quality Control Plan standards are on trial. 9 They've already been established. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: I agree with that, but I don't think 11 that's a proper objection. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think the proper objection is: 13 Asked and answered, but -- 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, it is except I'm not the one 15 that asked the question previously. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, no. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: And I should have the opportunity to 18 proceed. I would request that I be given the opportunity 19 to proceed with further pursuit of this subject matter, 20 not to dwell on areas already covered, but to lead to 21 other areas that haven't been covered. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: I don't know the proper legal 23 procedure, but you could say that you testified earlier 24 that such-and-such and go on from there to avoid asking 25 the same questions that he answered again. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12259 1 But go ahead, you may answer the question, if you 2 can. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Maybe I can cut it a little 4 bit. Does Contra Costa Water District deliver water to 5 agriculture? 6 DR. BRIGGS: An extremely small percentage of our 7 deliveries go to agriculture. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And would you agree that 9 increased salinity in water delivered to agriculture could 10 increase the accumulation of salts in the soil? 11 DR. BRIGGS: I'm not an expert on irrigation. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Does Contra Costa Water 13 District deliver water to industry? 14 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Is salinity a concern to any of the 16 industries to which Contra Costa Water District deliveries 17 water? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And what industries are concerned 20 with salinity? 21 DR. BRIGGS: Many of the industrial customers of the 22 Contra Costa Water District are refineries. So absolute 23 levels of salinity are an issue as well as variable levels 24 of salinity. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And would the changes in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12260 1 salinity within the ranges of the alternatives set forth 2 under the joint point of diversion proposal cause an 3 adverse impact to any of those industries that you've just 4 indicated have a concern? 5 DR. BRIGGS: I do not have the numbers in front of 6 me in terms of when -- it is possible. I'll stop my 7 answer there. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. And that possible impact, I 9 believe you indicated in answer to a little different 10 question, has not been analyzed in the draft environmental 11 document? 12 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, in terms of drinking water 14 quality, Contra Costa Water District does deliver water 15 for human consumption; does it not? 16 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: And is salinity a concern in the 18 drinking water quality? 19 DR. BRIGGS: It's a concern at the absolute level as 20 well as the incremental increase in salinity or other 21 constituents of water primarily, because we do not fully 22 understand the linkage between disinfection byproducts and 23 source water. And any degradation is not heading us in 24 the right direction that we would like to go in. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: And you're talking about any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12261 1 degradation even if the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 2 standards were met; is that correct? 3 DR. BRIGGS: I stated before those are minimum 4 standards that have been established by the Board. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And in your testimony 6 you indicated that -- or maybe in the cross, to cut it 7 short, that the salinity impact to Contra Costa Water 8 District could also result in a salinity impact to water 9 in the South Delta; is that correct? 10 DR. BRIGGS: Some of the water quality degradation 11 which could potentially occur, based on the joint point of 12 diversion operations, could also impact users in the South 13 Delta. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And in your opinion, 15 would that impact to salinity in the South Delta also 16 impact the salinity of the water being exported by the 17 State Water Project and CVP? 18 DR. BRIGGS: That's possible. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And has the draft environmental 20 document analyzed those potential impacts, in your 21 opinion? 22 DR. BRIGGS: In my opinion it has not. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you talk about the ability to 24 take water and water supply impact. And you answered, 25 also in response to a question on cross, that there would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12262 1 be no reduction in the water supply provided to Contra 2 Costa Water District under its Bureau contracts, do you 3 recall that testimony? 4 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, I do. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is it true that you 6 would not expect a reduction in water supply under the 7 Bureau contract because of the joint point of diversion 8 proposal? 9 DR. BRIGGS: I would not expect implementation of 10 one of the joint point of diversion alternatives to 11 adversely affect Contra Costa's CVP allocation in and of 12 itself. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Aside from the CVP allocation 14 in and of itself, is there a water supply impact of 15 concern to Contra Costa Water District associated with the 16 joint point of diversion alternatives? 17 DR. BRIGGS: As I was saying before, access to 18 surplus water is, certainly, access to a quantity of 19 water, but that quantity of water would be used for later 20 water quality purposes. So it's a difficult question to 21 answer. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is it true that the 23 fishery constraints on your project operation come into 24 play when X2 moves eastward even if the 1995 Water Quality 25 Control Plan objectives were being met? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12263 1 DR. BRIGGS: There are instances where that could 2 occur. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And if those instances 4 occurred, is it your testimony that those restrictions 5 would prevent the filling of Los Vaqueros Reservoir 6 during that period of time? 7 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And is it your testimony 9 that if you can't fill during that period of time you may 10 miss the opportunity to fill Los Vaqueros with adequate 11 water quality and, therefore, end up shorted in supply? 12 DR. BRIGGS: We could miss an opportunity, or we 13 could face a more expensive opportunity. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. In terms of more expensive 15 opportunity, what type of factual situation would give 16 rise to a more expensive opportunity? 17 DR. BRIGGS: That gets complicated. It depends on 18 which power we're using to pump water from the Delta into 19 the reservoir, whether it's use of CVP power or whether 20 we're pumping CVP water or surplus water. 21 I do not have in front of me the exact numbers, 22 but there are times when it can make a significant 23 financial difference between accessing surplus water for 24 the district as opposed to filling Los Vaqueros Reservoir 25 with CVP water. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12264 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Is there a water level 2 problem associated with the operation of the Contra Costa 3 Water District intake on Old River that could be a result 4 of the joint point of diversion operation? 5 DR. BRIGGS: I am not aware of any actions by the 6 projects which would affect stage at our intakes to the 7 point where it would impair our operations. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. In terms of the salinity 9 impact on the customers of Contra Costa Water District who 10 are urban, would you expect that salinity impact to be 11 substantially different than the impact to customers, for 12 example, member districts of the Metropolitan Water 13 District of Southern California? 14 DR. BRIGGS: If I understand your question 15 correctly, is the increment in salinity increase which 16 could occur from joint point of diversion operations, is 17 that increment similar to other urban -- 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, let's start with that one. 19 Would you expect that incremental difference to be the 20 same? 21 DR. BRIGGS: It's a very difficult question to 22 answer, because Contra Costa Water District is -- we get 23 100 percent of our water from the Delta, with the small 24 exception from the Kellogg Creek watershed which could 25 contribute a few percentage points. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12265 1 Unlike MWD and Santa Clara and other urban water 2 districts that utilize Delta water, that's not their sole 3 source. So computing the increment of degradation to them 4 would be a substantially more complicated matter. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. In regard to salinity 6 intrusion, that would affect Contra Costa Water District's 7 intake to a greater extent than it would affect the intake 8 to the State Water Project; would it not? 9 DR. BRIGGS: It would -- it would depend -- not 10 every location in the Delta would experience the exact 11 same increment of salinity increase. And, again, whether 12 that salinity increase at Clifton Court Forebay translated 13 into a specific incremental increase at their delivery 14 point is dependent on their other sources of water and 15 it's complicated. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. I think that's all I have, 17 Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 19 Staff have any questions? 20 MS. LEIDIGH: No questions. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members? 22 ---oOo--- 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 24 BY BOARD MEMBERS 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: I have one question, Dr. Briggs. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12266 1 Assuming that the two projects were meeting the outflow 2 standard including the location of X2, so that at least 3 the standards in the plan were not exceeded, would that 4 change your opinion of the impacts about the joint points? 5 DR. BRIGGS: If I understand, your question is: If 6 the projects were meeting the outflow standards as 7 specified in the '95 Water Quality Control Plan -- 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. 9 DR. BRIGGS: -- would that affect our operations? 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Would it affect your opinion of the 11 impact of the joint points of diversion? 12 DR. BRIGGS: I'm assuming, in my opinion, that the 13 projects are meeting the outflow standards associated with 14 X2. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: So, then, can you tell me further, 16 how the implementation of the joint points of diversion 17 would change the location of X2? 18 DR. BRIGGS: I think X2 in the Water Quality Control 19 Plan only refers to February through June references to 20 outflow. The other times of the year X2 does not apply. 21 In our Biological Opinion we have more stringent 22 requirements than the plan related to X2. 23 So to the extent that joint point of diversion 24 operations affected outflow outside, for instance, of the 25 February to June period, it could affect the position of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12267 1 X2 and still be fully in compliance with the '95 Plan but 2 it would affect our operations. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Thank you. 4 Mr. Hasencamp. 5 MR. HASENCAMP: Yes, a little redirect. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 7 ---oOo--- 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 9 BY MR. HASENCAMP 10 MR. HASENCAMP: Dr. Briggs, Mr. Sexton asked you 11 about moving an intake and whether CCWD could move its 12 intake to Clifton Court. Do you recall that? 13 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 14 MR. HASENCAMP: You don't agree that moving an 15 intake upstream is a cost-effective way of meeting 16 delivery water quality goals, do you? 17 DR. BRIGGS: Moving the intake to Clifton Court, if 18 I dismiss all of the obvious institutional and legal 19 issues associated with that, just the physical movement of 20 our intakes to Clifton Court Forebay, that doesn't -- does 21 not strike me as a very cost-effective measure considering 22 the salinity benefits of moving it two miles closer to 23 Vernalis basically. If that answers your question. The 24 short answer is "no." 25 MR. HASENCAMP: Thank you. Mr. Sexton also asked CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12268 1 you about treatment. In your opinion, is there a 2 cost-effective way to treat salt? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Salt is one constituent of source water 4 which is undesirable. It is one of the more costly ones 5 to treat, because of the size of the particles that 6 dissolve in the water. Basically, you're talking about a 7 very small filtration process, or reverse osmosis to 8 remove particles that small. Those are not inexpensive. 9 MR. HASENCAMP: So is your answer "no"? 10 DR. BRIGGS: My answer is no. 11 MR. HASENCAMP: Thank you. And do you know of any 12 Delta water users that treat for salt? 13 DR. BRIGGS: I'm not aware of any, which doesn't 14 mean that there are, but I am not aware of any. 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Mr. Sexton asked you about the 16 quantity of water that CCWD diverts from the Delta and 17 whether joint point of diversion could affect that. 18 You've done numerous modeling studies for the 19 current and future operations of the Los Vaqueros Project; 20 is that true? 21 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 22 MR. HASENCAMP: And aren't there years in which CCWD 23 would divert all of its CVP contract water in the future, 24 but would still need more water to fill Los Vaqueros 25 Reservoir? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12269 1 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, that's true. 2 MR. HASENCAMP: Isn't it true the only way to refill 3 the reservoir is with its Los Vaqueros water right? 4 DR. BRIGGS: That's correct. 5 MR. HASENCAMP: So if the joint point of diversion 6 reduced the availability of the Los Vaqueros water right, 7 CCWD would divert less water from the Delta? 8 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 9 MR. HASENCAMP: Both Mr. Sexton and Mr. Garner asked 10 about joint point of diversion in regard to meeting the 11 standards. Now, is it true that you've said that -- your 12 testimony is that the standards would be met under all of 13 the alternatives, the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 14 standards, that is? 15 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. Those are the standards that are 16 in the models, particularly DWRSIM, that the entire 17 projects are operated to conform to the standards. 18 MR. HASENCAMP: But your testimony is that the water 19 quality will get worse than it is today with the use of 20 joint point of diversion? 21 DR. BRIGGS: It could under certain circumstances in 22 specific periods. 23 MR. HASENCAMP: Are you aware of CalFed's 24 anti-degradation policy? 25 DR. BRIGGS: That is a goal of CalFed. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12270 1 MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I was going to object to that 2 question on the grounds it misstates the facts. It's not 3 CalFed's, it's EPA's. It's a federal standard. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Leidigh. 5 MS. LEIDIGH: I think we need a little further 6 clarification. There are two anti-degradation standards, 7 one is the Board's and one is the United States 8 Environmental Protection Agency's. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: The Board is 6816. 10 MS. LEIDIGH: That's correct. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 12 MR. HASENCAMP: Are you aware of the Board's 13 anti-degradation standards? 14 DR. BRIGGS: I am aware of the concept. 15 MR. HASENCAMP: And what is that concept in your 16 opinion, if you know? 17 DR. BRIGGS: I'm aware of the general principle. 18 I'm not aware of the legal ramifications in the precedent 19 or how it's been applied in the past, but -- 20 MR. HASENCAMP: Well, as a general principle, how 21 would you describe anti-degradation? 22 DR. BRIGGS: With those qualifications, I would 23 describe the principle as any proposed change in 24 operations should be examined for potential impacts to 25 legal uses of water and impacts should be mitigated. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12271 1 MR. HASENCAMP: There was a question about the use 2 of the joint point of diversion increasing the water 3 supply to CVP contractors south of the Delta. 4 Do you recall that? 5 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 6 MR. HASENCAMP: Contra Costa Water District is not 7 necessarily against the joint point of diversion; is that 8 true? 9 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. And that's a very important 10 point. It's not the purpose of my testimony to 11 categorically state that joint point of diversion is going 12 to impact the district. It's just to state that there is 13 potential for the proposed usage of joint point of 14 diversion to impact the district. 15 MR. HASENCAMP: Okay. Is it your opinion that the 16 joint point of diversion can be operated to increase the 17 water supply south of the Delta and at the same time 18 protect Contra Costa Water District? 19 DR. BRIGGS: Yes, it can be done. 20 MR. HASENCAMP: For example, if a permit term were 21 placed -- or strike that. 22 If a condition was placed on the use of the joint 23 point that would allow CCWD access to its water right, 24 even if the Delta were not in balance -- strike that, even 25 if the Delta were not in surplus condition, because of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12272 1 use of the joint point of diversion, such a condition 2 might protect CCWD and still allow for the joint point of 3 diversion? 4 DR. BRIGGS: I'd have to analytically look at that, 5 but I believe that there is certainly room for joint point 6 of diversion operations to be conducted without impacting 7 the district. 8 MR. HASENCAMP: Thank you. No further questions. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes recross on this 10 redirect? Mr. Jackson, Mr. Garner. 11 Mr. Jackson. 12 ---oOo--- 13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 14 BY COUNCIL FOR RURAL COUNTIES 15 BY MR. JACKSON 16 MR. JACKSON: Dr. Briggs, are you familiar with Term 17 91? 18 DR. BRIGGS: Yes. 19 MR. JACKSON: Are you asking for a condition on the 20 Bureau and the State's permits for the purpose of use of 21 the joint point of diversion that would excuse Contra 22 Costa Water District from the conditions of Term 91? 23 DR. BRIGGS: My testimony was primarily to point out 24 potential impacts of the joint point of diversion 25 operation. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12273 1 Mitigation or ways of conducting joint point of diversion 2 which would not impact the district are somewhat outside 3 of what I was prepared to say today, but that is a 4 possibility, to answer your question. 5 MR. JACKSON: In your review of the Draft 6 Environmental Impact Report were you able to ascertain the 7 effect of the joint point of diversion in combination with 8 Term 91 on Contra Costa's ability to divert water at their 9 three intakes? 10 DR. BRIGGS: I didn't conduct that analysis. 11 MR. JACKSON: Did you find that analysis in the 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report? 13 DR. BRIGGS: No. 14 MR. JACKSON: Thank you. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Garner. 16 ---oOo--- 17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 18 BY STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 19 BY MR. GARNER 20 MR. GARNER: Just a couple questions, Dr. Briggs. 21 In discussing the impact of joint point of diversion on 22 Contra Costa's water quality at its intake, that's not 23 just limited to the joint point is it? Let me rephrase 24 that. 25 Isn't it true that any diversion upstream of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12274 1 Contra Costa intake that reduces outflow could impact 2 water quality at the intake? 3 DR. BRIGGS: Any alteration of the hydrology in the 4 Delta has the potential to affect, either positively or 5 negatively, the quality at our intake. But I was 6 addressing -- my statement was addressing the particular 7 instances where joint point of diversion could reduce 8 Delta outflow and that would increase seawater intrusion. 9 MR. GARNER: I understand. But diversions that 10 affect Delta hydrology could include in-Delta diversions, 11 then, as well as diversions upstream of the Delta? 12 DR. BRIGGS: Certainly. 13 MR. GARNER: Okay. I have no further questions. 14 Thank you. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Staff have any recross? 16 Mr. Brown. 17 ---oOo--- 18 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 19 BY THE BOARD 20 C.O. BROWN: At Rock Slough, what's the capacity of 21 your diversion? 22 DR. BRIGGS: Currently it is about 330 cfs. 23 C.O. BROWN: Do you have vertical turbine pumps that 24 lift it out from the -- 25 DR. BRIGGS: I actually do not know the pump design. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12275 1 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any other questions? That 3 concludes the rebuttal case of Contra Costa. And you 4 don't have any exhibits -- 5 MR. HASENCAMP: No. No, we don't. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: -- to offer? All right. Thank 7 you. And we'll report to Mr. Maddow that he's really not 8 needed. You did a fine job. 9 MEMBER DEL PIERO: You're going to deliver that 10 message, right? 11 MEMBER FORSTER: Wait until he reads the current 12 transcript. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Minaberrigarai? 14 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: We do not have any rebuttal. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: You have no rebuttal. 16 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: However, Ms. Whitney advises me 17 that we have not yet moved for the admission of Exhibits 18 107 and 108. So if now is the appropriate time, I would 19 like to do so. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 21 MS. MINABERRIGARAI: Thank you. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections to the acceptance of 23 those exhibits? Everybody is worn out. Okay, without 24 objection, they are accepted. Thank you. 25 MEMBER DEL PIERO: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12276 1 point something out, you're losing your audience. We need 2 to sort of beef up this show. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think we need an afternoon off, 4 Mr. Del Piero. And it looks like we're going to get it. 5 Is there anything else that comes before Phase VI? 6 MS. LEIDIGH: Phase VII. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. We're concluding Phase VI, 8 Phase VII starts tomorrow. See, we do need an afternoon 9 off. Okay. Seeing none -- oh, Mr. Jackson. 10 MR. JACKSON: One question. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Last word. 12 MR. JACKSON: The briefs will be due, again, on 13 Phase VI after the transcript, we will be notified of the 14 timing? 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good question. 16 Ms. Leidigh. 17 MS. LEIDIGH: On the last phase we set the briefs to 18 be due 30 days after the last transcript was received by 19 the Board. We could do that again. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Thank you for raising 21 that point, Mr. Jackson. 22 With that, Phase VI is adjourned. And we will 23 open Phase VII tomorrow morning at 9:00 in this room. 24 (The proceedings concluded at 11:41 a.m.) 25 ---oOo--- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12277 1 REPORTER'S_CERTIFICATE __________ ___________ 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 I, MARY R. GALLAGHER, certify that I was the 6 Official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 12185 through 12277 herein constitute a 11 complete, true and correct record of the proceedings. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 13 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 28th day of 14 March, 1999. 15 16 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 12278