STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999 9:00 A.M. Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS: 2 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER 3 JOHN W. BROWN, COHEARING OFFICER MARY JANE FORSTER 4 ARTHUR BAGGET, JR. 5 STAFF MEMBERS: 6 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT 7 THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 8 COUNSEL: 9 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL BARBARA LEIDIGH 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 134 West Sycamore Street 4 Willows, California 95988 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 5 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 6 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 7 P.O. BOX 1679 Oroville, California 95965 8 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 and JON ROBIN, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GARY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 2480 Union Street 4 San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 7 Sacramento, California 95825 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 8 and JAMES TURNER, ESQ. 9 10 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 11 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 12 Sacramento, California 95814 13 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 14 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 17 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 18 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 19 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 20 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 21 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 3 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 4 Visalia, California 93291 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 5 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 6 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 7 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 8 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 10 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 11 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 12 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 13 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 14 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 15 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 16 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 17 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 18 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 19 UREMOVIC & FELGER 20 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 21 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 22 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 23 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 24 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 3 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90075 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 5 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 7 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 8 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 9 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 10 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 13 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 14 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 16 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 17 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 18 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 19 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 21 Sacramento, California 95814 22 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 23 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 24 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 3 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. and 4 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 5 Oakland, California 94618 6 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 7 SIMON GRANVILLE P.O. Box 846 8 San Andreas, California 95249 9 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 10 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY P.O. Box 1019 11 Madera, California 93639 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 12 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 13 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 14 2300 River Plaza Drive Sacramento, California 95833 15 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 16 MORRISON & FORESTER 17 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94303 18 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 19 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 20 ALAN N. HARVEY P.O. Box 777 21 Shasta Lake, California 96019 22 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 23 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 926 J Street 24 Sacramento, California 95814 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 3 GORRILL LAND COMPANY P.O. Box 427 4 Durham, California 95938 BY: DON HEFFREN 5 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 6 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 7 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 8 COUNTY OF GLENN: 9 NORMAN Y. HERRING 10 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 11 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 12 MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ESQ. 13 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 14 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 15 JULIE KELLY 16 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 17 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 18 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 19 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 20 BY: BILL KETSCHER 21 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 22 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 23 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 3 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY P.O. Box 606 4 Manton, California 96059 5 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 6 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 7 Sacramento, California 95814 8 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 9 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 1201 Civic Center Drive 10 Yuba City 95993 11 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 12 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 13 Sacramento, California 95816 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 14 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 15 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 16 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 Walnut Creek, California 94596 17 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 18 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 19 DON MARCIOCHI 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 20 Los Banos, California 93635 21 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 22 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 23 Merced, California 95344 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 3 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 4 Orland, California 95963 5 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 6 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT P.O. Box 3728 7 Sonora, California 95730 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 8 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 10 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 11 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 12 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 13 BRADLEY S. MILLER 1550 California Street, Suite 6 14 San Francisco, California 94109 15 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 17 Oroville, California 95965 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 18 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 19 DE CUIR & SOMACH 20 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 22 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 23 STEVE MORA 501 Walker Street 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 JOEL MOSKOWITZ P.O. Box 4060 4 Modesto, California 95352 5 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 6 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. P.O. Box 7442 7 San Francisco, California 94120 8 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 9 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL P.O. Box 1461 10 Stockton, California 95201 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 11 and DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 12 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 13 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 14 1100 Whitney Avenue Corcoran, California 93212 15 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 16 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 17 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 19 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 20 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 21 Chico, California 95926 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 22 SIERRA CLUB: 23 JENNA OLSEN 24 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94105 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 3 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 4 Woodland, California 95695 5 PATRICK PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES: 6 PATRICK PORGANS P.O. Box 60940 7 Sacramento, California 95860 8 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 9 DIANE RATHMANN 10 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 11 BETSY REIFSNIDER 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 12 Sacramento, California 95814 13 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS P.O. Box 2067 15 Merced, California 95344 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 16 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 17 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 18 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 Stockton, California 95202 19 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 20 JAMES F. ROBERTS 21 P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054 22 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 23 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 24 980 9th Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 4 San Francisco, California 94194 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 5 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 6 DAVID SANDINO, ESQ. 7 CATHY CROTHERS, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 4 Oroville, California 95965 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 5 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 6 DE CUIR & SOMACH 7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 8 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 4 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 5 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 6 BEST BEST & KREIGER 7 P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, California 92502 8 BY: ERIC GARNER, ESQ. 9 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 San Andreas, California 95249 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive Ione, California 95640 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 WESTLANDS ENCROACHMENT AND EXPANSION LANDOWNERS: 23 BAKER, MANOCK & JENSEN 5260 North Palm Avenue 24 Fresno, Califonria 93704 BY: CHRISTOPHER L. CAMPBELL, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT: 3 LINNEMAN, BURGES, TELLES, VANATTA & VIERRA 1820 Marguerite Street 4 Dos Palos, California 93620 BY: THOMAS J. KEENE, ESQ. 5 6 ---oOo--- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 RESUMPTION OF HEARING: 13891 4 AFTERNOON SESSION: 14000 5 POLICY STATEMENTS: 6 MR. CABRAL 13900 7 8 OPENING STATEMENTS: 9 MR. MADDOW 13904 MR. BRANDT 13907 10 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY: 11 OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 13911 12 DANIEL STEINER DIRECT EXAMINATION: 13 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 13924 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 14 BY MR. NOMELLINI 13937 BY MR. HERRICK 13962 15 BY MR. ZOLEZZI 14030 BY BOARD MEMBERS 14047 16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION: BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 14050 17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION: BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 14066 18 BY MR. HERRICK 14076 BY MR. NOMELLINI 14093 19 20 ---oOo--- 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 JUNE 9, 1999 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Morning, everyone. Nice to see you 5 all again. It's been a little while. I am going to read an 6 opening statement. 7 This is the time and place for the commencement of 8 Phase II-B of the hearing on Bay-Delta water rights. Phase 9 II-B is to receive evidence on whether the three long-term 10 petitions for change in place and purpose of use to carry 11 out the VAMP experiments and other flows for environmental 12 purposes should be approved by this Board. 13 This hearing is being held in accordance with the 14 Revised Notice of Hearing dated May 6, 1998, and the 15 Supplement issued April 20th, 1999. 16 I am Jim Stubchaer. On my right is Cohearing Officer 17 John Brown. 18 C.O. BROWN: Morning. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: To my left is Executive Director Walt 20 Pettit. Assisting the Board at the staff table re Barbara 21 Leidigh, Senior Staff Counsel; Tom Howard, Assistant 22 Division Chief, Division of Water Rights; Victoria Whitney, 23 Supervising Engineer. 24 The purpose of this phase of the hearing is to afford 25 the parties an opportunity to present relevant testimony, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13891 1 maps, charts, studies and other materials to create an 2 evidentiary record which will assist the Board in making 3 determinations on the eight hearing issues for Phase II-B 4 listed in the April 20th Supplement to the Revised Notice of 5 Public Hearing, which are as follows: 6 One: Would the petition changes unreasonably affect 7 any legal user of water or result in substantial injury to 8 any legal user of water? The petitioners initially are 9 responsible for showing that there will not be either an 10 unreasonable effect on any legal user of water or 11 substantial injury to any legal user of water. 12 If the petitioners make such a showing, however, and a 13 party objects to the petition changes based on injury to 14 existing water rights, the party claiming injury must 15 present evidence demonstrating the specific injury to the 16 existing water right that could result from approval of the 17 changes proposed by the petition. In addition, the party 18 claiming injury must present evidence that describes the 19 basis of the alleged injured party's claim of water right, 20 the date that water use began and the quantity of water used 21 during such relevant period of the year, the purpose of use 22 and the specific place of use. 23 Two: Would the petition changes unreasonably affect 24 fish, wildlife or other in-stream beneficial uses of water? 25 Petitioners initially are responsible for showing that there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13892 1 will be no unreasonable effect on fish, wildlife, or other 2 in-stream beneficial uses of water. If the petitioners make 3 such a showing, however, and a party objects to the petition 4 changes based on claims of adverse impacts to the 5 environment or the public trust values, the party must 6 present evidence supporting the claims. 7 Three: Are the purposes of petition changes to 8 preserve or enhance wetlands habitat, fish and wildlife 9 resources or recreation in or on the water? If so, will 10 these purposes be carried out if petition changes are 11 approved by this Board? 12 Four: If the Board approves the petition changes, what 13 terms and conditions will best develop, conserve and 14 utilize, in the public interest, the water proposed to be 15 used as part of the change? 16 Five: Would the petitioned changes increase the amount 17 of water each of the petitioners is entitled to use? The 18 petitioners are responsible for showing that there will be 19 no increase in the amount of water each of them are entitled 20 to use. 21 Six: Will the petitioned changes otherwise meet the 22 requirements of Division 2 of the Water Code? Division 2 23 contains many of the statutory provisions governing water 24 rights in California. Section 1707, which is within 25 Division 2, authorizes water right changes for the purposes CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13893 1 of preserving or enhancing environmental uses of water. 2 Seven: Would efforts to facilitate petitioned changes 3 or mitigate the water supply effects of the petitioned 4 changes result in changes in groundwater pumping rates and 5 quantities, implementation of water conservation measures, 6 operation of reservoirs and deliveries of water? If so, 7 what changes would occur? 8 The petitioners are requested to provide evidence 9 during this phase demonstrating that the water to be 10 supplied under the petitioned changes represents a reduction 11 in water use by the petitioners and their customers, or is 12 an increase in water supply yield through improved 13 operations or new facilities, or some other way is real 14 water. 15 Eight: What are the projected amounts of water to be 16 transferred and times of transfers by each of the 17 petitioners during each potential year type during the 18 proposed long-term change? 19 Two changes have occurred regarding the change 20 petitions. First, by letter dated May 3rd, Mr. Sexton 21 withdrew the petition for change filed by the San Joaquin 22 River Exchange Contractors and its members. The Exchange 23 Contractors propose to contribute water that they will 24 receive from the Bureau of Reclamation. There are no 25 proposed changes in the Exchange Contractors' own rights. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13894 1 Second, by letter dated May 6th, Mr. O'Laughlin 2 clarified that, except for OID, the petitioners do not 3 intend to transfer water pursuant to their change petitions, 4 but mean only to add a place of use and purpose of use of 5 the water to be released on the tributaries to meet the 6 Vernalis flow objective under the Vernalis Adaptive 7 Management Plan. This clarification does not affect the 8 issues that this Board must consider or the findings it must 9 consider making with respect to the petitions that remain to 10 be considered since the Board's role is to decide whether or 11 not to approve the petitioned changes in water rights. 12 Regarding the order of proceeding. First, take any new 13 appearances of parties. Then receive general, that is 14 applicable to all or several of the hearing phases, 15 nonevidentiary oral policy statements from those who wish to 16 present only a policy statement. We also accept written 17 policy statements. 18 A policy statement is subject to limitations listed in 19 the hearing notice. Presenters of a policy statement should 20 fill out a speaker card, a blue card, at the table and give 21 it to the staff at the table. 22 After the general policy statements we will hear policy 23 statements specific to Phase II-B and then hear any opening 24 statements from parties who do not plan to present a case in 25 chief in Phase II-B. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13895 1 After that we will hear the case in chief from the 2 parties presenting evidence in Phase II-B. Each case in 3 chief may be commenced with an opening statement. After 4 opening statements we will hear testimony from the witnesses 5 called by the party presenting a case in chief, followed by 6 cross-examination by other parties, Board staff and Board 7 Members. This procedure will be followed for each party 8 presenting a case in chief. Redirect testimony and 9 recross-examination limited to the scope of the redirect 10 testimony will be permitted. 11 The San Joaquin Group will be called to present the 12 first case in chief. After all the cases in chief are 13 completed the parties may present rebuttal evidence 14 addressing specified evidence presented by adversary 15 parties. 16 We encourage everyone to be efficient in presenting 17 their cases and their cross-examination. Except where we 18 approve a variation, we will follow the procedures set forth 19 in the Board's regulations and in the attachment to the 20 notice titled "Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing Information 21 Concerning Appearances by Parties." 22 We will use a timer to keep track of time. As usual, 23 the timer will be stopped during objections, procedural 24 points and other interruptions. All requests to the hearing 25 officer on behalf of a party should be made at the lectern CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13896 1 by the party's representative. Also, parties are requested 2 to switch off cell phone ringers while in the hearing room. 3 Regarding cross-examination: each party will be allowed 4 up to one hour to cross-examine a witness or panel of 5 witnesses. At the end of the hour the cross-examiner will 6 be given an opportunity to make an offer of proof as to the 7 additional matters which the cross-examiner wishes to cover 8 and to make an estimate of the time needed to complete the 9 cross-examination. If the additional cross-examination is 10 allowed after an offer of proof, the examiner may be 11 requested to stipulate to the amount of additional time 12 needed to complete the cross-examination. 13 In the interest of fairness we will assign the order of 14 cross-examination in a random manner. In order to prevent 15 late requests to cross-examine, parties not sure if they 16 wish to cross-examine should identify themselves when the 17 Hearing Officer asks "Who wishes to cross-examine a panel?" 18 They could then be included in the order of 19 cross-examination. If they later determine it is not 20 necessary to cross-examine a panel, they can so state when 21 called. 22 Unless announced otherwise, we will schedule each day 23 of the hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:00 24 p.m., with one hour for lunch and two 12-minute breaks 25 during the day. We will try to announce any changes in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13897 1 schedule at least a day in advance. We will call for each 2 party's testimony and related cross-examination in the 3 following order: 4 First, the San Joaquin River Group Authority. 5 Second, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 6 Third, Stockton East Water District. 7 Fourth, Department of Fish and Game. 8 Fifth, South Delta Water Agency; and 9 Sixth, Central Delta parties. 10 I would now like to invite any new appearances by 11 parties who have filed notices of intent to appear that have 12 not previously appeared at this hearing. 13 Are there any? 14 I think you've all appeared before. Okay. 15 The Court Reporter is present to prepare a transcript 16 of the proceedings. Parties wishing to have copies of the 17 transcript must make their own arrangements with the Court 18 Reporter. 19 At this time I will ask Ms. Leidigh to introduce staff 20 exhibits. 21 Ms. Leidigh. 22 MS. LEIDIGH: Thank you. 23 I will offer in evidence by reference documents that 24 are listed in the addendum to staff exhibits that was dated 25 May 24th, 1999, and it was mailed to parties on that date as CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13898 1 well. 2 The staff exhibits are numbered 3Q, 65A, 73A, 78J, 3 120A, 176A and 184 through 199. These are the additional 4 staff exhibits in addition to those that were offered last 5 year. 6 Additional copies of the list of staff exhibits can be 7 made available by the staff. If no party has an objection I 8 will dispense with reading the list of staff exhibits into 9 the hearing record. 10 Are there any objections? 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Does anyone have any objections to the 12 staff exhibits? 13 Seeing none, you may proceed. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: I will make sure that the Court Reporter 15 has a copy of the list of staff exhibits. At this time, 16 then, I will offer into evidence by reference the documents 17 that are listed in the addendum to staff exhibits. 18 Are they accepted? 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Without objection they are accepted 20 into the record. 21 MS. LEIDIGH: Thank you. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Ms. Leidigh. 23 We will now administer the oath or affirmation for any 24 party to have not previously been sworn planning to testify 25 during this phase of the hearing. Will you please stand. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13899 1 (Oath administered by Chairman Stubchaer.) 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will now move on. 3 Are there any general policy statements not related to 4 Phase II-B? I have a letter -- 5 Mr. Cabral, is that related to just Phase II-B? 6 MR. CABRAL: Yes, sir. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: I have no blue card, so I guess we 8 have no request for general policy statements. All right. 9 Mr. Cabral, Morning. 10 MR. CABRAL: Good morning. I am Robert J. Cabral, 11 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin County, 12 and I thank you for this opportunity to present a policy 13 statement on behalf of San Joaquin County in connection with 14 Phase II-B of the Bay-Delta hearings. This matter is of 15 great concern to our county. 16 The record in this proceeding already contains a 17 description of San Joaquin County's serious water needs and 18 problems. In particular, I refer you to the testimony of 19 John Pulver in Phase I, Exhibit 2, and in Phase V, Exhibit 20 13. 21 I will not repeat what has been said before, but to 22 make my statement complete I will briefly summarize the 23 early testimony. The eastern portion of San Joaquin County 24 has an insufficient water supply. This has resulted and 25 continues to result in a falling groundwater level and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13900 1 saline intrusion of ancient marine brine. These conditions 2 continue in spite of years of effort to obtain additional 3 needed supplies. 4 Our second major problem is the sad deteriorated 5 condition of the San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River, 6 as it enters our county, carries a high load of salts, boron 7 and other contaminants which results in low dissolved oxygen 8 levels. This in turn results in poor quality of water for 9 our farmers along the Lower San Joaquin River and in the 10 South Delta, and also increases the cost and difficulty of 11 disposing of effluent generated by our cities. 12 These conditions are frustrating to us since they are 13 not of our own making nor can they be solved by our own 14 actions. 15 Turning to the matter now before you, we recognize the 16 value of the concept behind the Vernalis Adaptive Management 17 Plan, and we compliment those who have devised the plan. We 18 do, however, believe that any changes in the San Joaquin 19 River flows and flows into the river should only come as a 20 part of a comprehensive plan addressing the problems of the 21 San Joaquin River. A piecemeal approach, such as the one 22 now before you, risks doing far more harm than good. 23 Specifically, it is the position of San Joaquin County 24 that no change in flows in the San Joaquin River should be 25 made without addressing not only the fish flows in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13901 1 approximately one month of the year, but also water quality 2 in the San Joaquin as well as meeting the needs of the 3 protected areas of origin such as the area supplied by New 4 Melones contractors. In any event, we are very opposed to 5 making piecemeal changes in an already critical situation. 6 We are greatly concerned that adjusting flows in the 7 San Joaquin River, as is proposed, will be the cause of 8 still further harm to our county. The proposed adjustment 9 of flows, while intentioned to address experimentally 10 certain fish issues, we believe in turn will have harmful 11 consequences, making a bad situation worse. 12 We are concerned that the proposed flows will further 13 decrease the quality of water available to the New Melones 14 contractors located within our seriously overdrafted 15 groundwater basin. We are also concerned that the changes 16 in flows which are proposed by the applicant will result in 17 making the critical summer and fall months worse for those 18 who use water in the Lower San Joaquin agriculturally and 19 for cities who have legitimate needs to dispose of 20 wastewater. 21 You will be receiving testimony from agencies within 22 San Joaquin County as to the potential harm of the proposed 23 water right changes under consideration. We respectively 24 ask that you consider the testimony very carefully. In view 25 of the water shortage and waste disposal concerns of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13902 1 people of our county, no change of water right terms should 2 be permitted which in any way further harm water supply and 3 waste discharge needs of those agencies. 4 On the positive side, we also see conditions coming 5 together which will permit the development of urgently 6 needed, comprehensive San Joaquin River solutions. We are 7 particularly concerned that as a result of the VAMP 8 piecemeal solution the involved parties will be relieved of 9 their appropriate obligations to participate in the 10 comprehensive solution which we believe can and must be 11 developed. 12 As we understand it, if the petitions now under 13 consideration are granted, the parties involved in the San 14 Joaquin River Agreement will be considered to have satisfied 15 their respective obligations to meet the San Joaquin River 16 water quality standard and thus would not be a part of the 17 comprehensive solution. This aspect of the pending petition 18 is not acceptable to us and should not be acceptable to 19 you. 20 In conclusion, we respectfully ask that the present 21 petitions be held in abeyance until a comprehensive solution 22 for the entire river is developed and implemented. 23 Thank you. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Cabral. 25 Are there any other policy statements for Phase II-B? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13903 1 Seeing none, are there any opening statements from 2 parties who do not plan to present a case in chief in this 3 phase? 4 Mr. Maddow, please come forward. 5 MR. MADDOW: Morning, Mr. Stubchaer, Members of the 6 Board. I am Robert Maddow appearing today on behalf of the 7 Contra Costa Water District to speak very briefly about 8 matters we have raised previously in regard to Phases II and 9 II-A. 10 Contra Costa has been very cognizant of what is going 11 on with regard to the proposed San Joaquin River Agreement 12 and the VAMP and, in particular, we have looked carefully at 13 these petitions. The district has not spoken in opposition 14 to the VAMP experiment or to the San Joaquin River 15 Agreement. The district recognizes the potential benefits 16 of the VAMP experiment, particularly in the context of the 17 various searches for collaborative solutions to some of the 18 many problems that are being faced by the interests of 19 parties interested in Delta matters. 20 But the benefits of the VAMP proposal and the San 21 Joaquin River Agreement and these petitions do come with 22 some limitations. Supervisor Cabral reflected in his 23 comments just a moment ago about some of the limitations in 24 what is being proposed. 25 Contra Costa has said before and wants to remind the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13904 1 Board here at the commencement of Phase II-B that we believe 2 that what is before you really only addresses one element of 3 1995 plans flow-dependent objectives, and that limitation 4 needs to be kept in mind in any decision that is made on 5 these petitions. 6 The so-called backstopping of the San Joaquin River 7 parties' efforts does have the potential for committing some 8 of the water supply from the federal government which does 9 have the potential for having adverse impact on other CVP 10 contractors. We have been through all that before, and we 11 just want to make sure that that is kept in mind as these 12 petitions are considered. We are concerned that these 13 petitioners, if their petitions are granted, not be given 14 permanent relief from their allocated share responsibility 15 for meeting Water Quality Control Plan objectives, that the 16 relief be limited to be consistent with the temporary period 17 for which these petitions have sought the right to make 18 changes, et cetera. The rights that are granted to the 19 extent the petitions are granted need to be as limited as 20 the request that was made. 21 The responsibilities that would otherwise be borne by 22 the San Joaquin River Group Authority members should not be 23 transferred to other water right holders. There are, as we 24 have said before, potential water quality implications of 25 any activity like the VAMP test and matters that are related CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13905 1 to it. The VAMP doesn't stand alone, by any means. And 2 Contra Costa's position has been and remains in Phase II-B 3 that the water quality implications of carrying out the VAMP 4 experiment must be fully analyzed, the impact, in 5 particular, on M&I water quality which is Contra Costa's 6 concerns needs to be fully understood. The carrying out of 7 that kind of analysis should be required as a term of 8 condition of any order that is approved by the Board in 9 response to these petitions. Adverse impacts related to 10 water quality need to be mitigated. 11 Finally, we'll say again as we have said before that 12 the San Joaquin River Agreement, of course, which underlies 13 the VAMP experiment, can be terminated in a number of ways. 14 We are not predicting that that will happen. It is just 15 that we want to reflect on the fact that if you read the 16 terms of the agreement that we went through in earlier 17 phases there is a bit of a concern that can arise if, in 18 fact, some of the possibilities that have been given voice 19 before come to pass, that the agreement could, in fact, 20 terminate before the 12-year experiment is completed. 21 Contra Costa is concerned about what happens to the 22 terms and conditions that might have been created by this 23 Board for the purpose of protecting beneficial uses for 24 which the '95 plan was put in effect, what happens if the 25 VAMP expert terminates early because the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13906 1 Agreement terminates early. And our concern is that any 2 order that you issue in response to the petition should 3 anticipate the reasonable range of contingencies which can 4 occur in light of the terms and conditions of that agreement 5 and seek to assure that the objectives of the plan will 6 continue to be met even if the experiment should end before 7 the 12 years are up. 8 Those are the types of observations we have made 9 before. We wanted to be sure that we made them at the 10 commencement of Phase II-B. That concludes my statement. I 11 would be happy to take any questions. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Maddow. 13 Any questions of Mr. Maddow? 14 Thank you. 15 Next will be the case in chief of the San Joaquin River 16 Group Authority. 17 MR. BRANDT: I thought there was opening statements or 18 are those not -- 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: That was an opening statement for 20 parties not presenting a case in chief in this phase. 21 MR. BRANDT: Can I be one, too? 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, you may. I didn't see your hand 23 previously. 24 MR. BRANDT: I'm sorry. I heard policy statements. I 25 thought that is what that was. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13907 1 Good morning. Thank you. Alf Brandt, United States 2 Department of the Interior. This should be short. 3 We, again, continue to support the San Joaquin River 4 Agreement. We see it as a resolution of conflicts and 5 potential conflicts, a way of also establishing procedure 6 for us to resolve conflicts and to operate with some 7 precision the San Joaquin River, particularly during the 8 pulse flow period. 9 It helps Reclamation achieve the pulse flow as well it 10 helps Reclamation provide for protection of standards at 11 other times of year by allowing for purchases, by reducing 12 the demand on New Melones during the pulse flow so there is 13 water for water quality at other times of year. It is an 14 important combination as well of measures for fish. It is 15 all those pieces. It is not just these flows that are in 16 the petitions today. It is about the Head of Old River 17 Barrier. It also about the export reductions. It is all 18 those things together. That is why we continue to support 19 it. That is no surprise. You have heard that before. 20 Let me say, we have provided evidence on some of these 21 issues, and that is why we do not see any need for us in 22 this phase to provide any further evidence. This phase, as 23 you identified this morning, Chairman Stubchaer, this phase 24 is about these petitions, about the issues arising out of 25 those petitions. These petitions are by parties other than CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13908 1 the Department of the Interior. So that is why we have 2 chosen not to provide any evidence in this phase, but we 3 will be, as we have been, consistently supportive of 4 parties who want to present evidence from Department of 5 Interior or federal witnesses, generally. That is why I 6 want to take just a moment, perhaps a little housekeeping, 7 but just sort of to let you know what we are doing in 8 response to requests from parties. 9 We have gotten a couple requests. We are providing a 10 representative of Fish and Wildlife Services. Probably 11 going to be Wayne White, who is the field supervisor, to 12 talk about the process on endangered species consultation on 13 this issue. We also have from the Bureau of Reclamation 14 John Burke who you've heard from before. He is going to be 15 talking about what happened this year. To some extent we 16 worked with the San Joaquin River Group to get -- consistent 17 with your one-year approval for some of these changes -- to 18 get the waters flowing in Vernalis and dealing with some 19 other issues. He will be talking about how the San Joaquin 20 River was operated this year. 21 We also have requests from Stockton East for Lowell 22 Ploss to talk about New Melones supplies. We are -- we 23 still need to talk. It is not clear whether that is exactly 24 on point of these petitions. But if you decide that that 25 makes sense, then we will do our best to provide him. We CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13909 1 hope it will be focused on the issues in this phase so we 2 don't have him up here for another five days as we had in 3 Phase V, being asked some of the same questions that sounds 4 like want to be asked now. 5 The last witness is someone that is not one of our 6 witnesses, technically. He is with the National Marine 7 Fishery Service. He is Jim Lecky. He is someone who has 8 agreed. We coordinated, worked with NMFS. We do that on a 9 regular basis. We worked with him. He is willing to do 10 it. He will fly up from Long Beach to present his 11 testimony here, to just talk about their comments and 12 whatever else on the San Joaquin River Agreement and their 13 endangered species consultation. That is the focus, kind of 14 the focus of what they have done on endangered species for 15 the San Joaquin River Agreement. 16 With that, I think that's about it. I just sort of -- 17 I would encourage you. I hope we can count you to focus 18 these particular witnesses. Sometimes we can go on for days 19 and days and be asked the same questions three or four 20 times. And I hope you will be able to get these witnesses 21 in and out. It is a challenge, particularly for Mr. Lecky 22 who is flying up here. We need to get him -- he has a lot 23 of other things as well up here. So I sort -- I said I 24 would do my best to make sure he got in and out, and I will 25 be working with other counsel to make sure we are very CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13910 1 focused and get the information out and move on. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: I imagine we will have a lot of 3 assistance to keeping witnesses focused. 4 MR. BRANDT: I certainly hope so. I look forward to 5 the cooperation of my colleagues here, and I am sure we will 6 work together to try to be focused, and we are going to 7 really count on you to do the job that you do all the time 8 on trying to keep things moving. 9 Thanks. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 11 Any questions for Mr. Brandt? 12 Seeing none -- are there any other policy statements 13 from parties not presenting a case in chief? 14 Seeing none, Mr. O'Laughlin. 15 ---oOo--- 16 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 17 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Morning. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Morning. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Tim O'Laughlin, representing the San 21 Joaquin River Group Authority, and also in this phase I will 22 be representing individually Oakdale Irrigation District. 23 Before launching into an opening statement as we have 24 done previously, I would like to get some housekeeping 25 things done. I have submitted a letter to the State Water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13911 1 Resources Control Board on the order of appearance and have 2 talked to your staff previously about the order of 3 appearance. It is our desire, if it is agreeable to the 4 parties and to the Board, to have the San Joaquin River 5 Exchange Contractors present their testimony within our case 6 in chief. 7 Realizing that the petitions by the Exchange 8 Contractors, as you alluded to earlier, have been withdrawn, 9 their testimony, however, in regard to hearing issue Number 10 7 is very similar along the lines of the other testimony 11 that will be presented by the other districts who will be 12 making requests for the change petitions. If we could, we 13 would request of the Chair that they be included within our 14 case in chief. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are there any objections by anyone of 16 having the Exchange Contractors' testimony within the San 17 Joaquin River Authority? 18 Seeing none, that request is granted. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much. 20 The next problem we have on a housekeeping basis is it 21 is my understanding that a subpoena has been issued to an 22 employee of the California Department of Fish and Game. I 23 have been in contact with Mr. Campbell, who represents the 24 California Department of Fish and Game. My understanding is 25 this witness is not available in July and definitely has to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13912 1 appear and testify in June. We would like to cooperate with 2 the California Department of Fish and Game as well as 3 Central Delta Water Agency which has requested the subpoena 4 and served it, to have that witness appear and testify 5 during our case in chief. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Campbell. 7 MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to confirm what Mr. 8 O'Laughlin just said. Mr. McEwan, the Department of Fish 9 and Game employee, has been subpoenaed by Central Delta 10 Parties. We will comply with a subpoena. We are working 11 with Central Delta Parties and with the San Joaquin River 12 Group Authority to make that witness available. He will not 13 be available in July. He has longstanding family vacation 14 plans, going to Australia. So we really would need to get 15 him in on one of the June hearing dates. The Department of 16 Fish and Game would agree with the statements of Mr. 17 O'Laughlin and request that he be made available, that he 18 testify on June 23, I believe is the date that was laid out 19 in Mr. O'Laughlin's schedule. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sometime during the week of June 22nd, 22 23rd, 24th; and I will tell you why on that question in a 23 minute. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: We are agreeable, and my agreement with 25 Mr. Campbell is that we would not disturb his vacation plans CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13913 1 in any way. So whatever is convenient to the parties, that 2 is when we'd take him up. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is there anyone who doesn't agree? 4 Seeing none, we will accommodate that request. 5 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will probably look at it on the 7 22nd. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 22nd, 23rd or 24th. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: The earlier we do, the more time there 10 is at the end in case it goes long. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The problem that's occurring is that 12 we have -- as Mr. Brandt has alluded to, we have subpoenaed 13 -- or we didn't subpoena, excuse me. We requested from the 14 Department of the Interior certain witnesses to appear. We 15 are working on trying to get their schedules to coincide 16 with our scheduling of witnesses and hearing dates. The 17 week of June 22nd, 23rd, 24th is fairly fluid right now, 18 trying to firm up the dates for Mr. White and Mr. Lecky as 19 well as we will endeavor to insure that every hearing date 20 is a full hearing date with testimony. 21 And if we are going to run into witness problems, we 22 will try to give the Chairman and the Board ample 23 notification of that ahead of time, if we are running into a 24 problem on witnesses. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is the subpoenaed witness available CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13914 1 any of those dates, the 22nd through the 24th? 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: My understanding is yes. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. We'll work it in. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Also, we have filed two motions. I 5 don't believe that those have to be heard today, but can be 6 heard some time as we move forward in the hearing process, 7 and those motions have been served on the other parties as 8 well. 9 Let me check one further thing on procedural matters. 10 That is it for procedural matters. 11 It is a pleasure once again to appear in front of 12 you. I notice that there is a new name on the dais. I am 13 assuming that the Chairman's already sent Mr. Bagget to 14 other endeavors across the state. We look forward to Mr. 15 Bagget joining us here in this process as we move forward to 16 resolution of Bay-Delta issues. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Bagget's son graduated from high 18 school last night down in Mariposa. He will be here midday 19 today, so you can all meet him this afternoon. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Phase II-B, unlike some of the prior 21 noticed phases, is a very narrow issue. It is an issue 22 regarding changed petitions pursuant to Water Code Section 23 1707, 1735 for water made available at Vernalis to meet the 24 VAMP flow objectives as set forth in the San Joaquin River 25 Agreement. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13915 1 Previously, the State Water Resources Control Board in 2 1999 approved a one-year temporary change petition pursuant 3 to 1707 and 1725 to make water that was moving down the 4 Merced and the Tuolumne Rivers down the San Joaquin River to 5 Vernalis protected under Water Code Section 1707. 6 The Board's notice for II-B sets forth eight specific 7 hearing issues regarding this phase. These hearing issues 8 elicit the information that is necessary to fulfill the 9 requirement under Water Code Section 1707 and 1735. They're 10 very specific issues. 11 We hope, as Mr. Brandt alluded to earlier, that the 12 very narrow focus of this hearing is confined to the hearing 13 notice and confined to the issues that have been raised. We 14 do not want to reopen Phases II, V and II-A again. That 15 testimony has been previously submitted and heard. Pursuant 16 to the hearing notice parties who wish to rely on previously 17 submitted testimony were required to cite to that as part of 18 their submittal. We have done that. We are not going to 19 reread that testimony again or revisit that testimony. 20 The testimony that the San Joaquin River Group 21 Authority and its members are submitting for the change 22 petitions go specifically to the issues raised in the 23 hearing notice. 24 The petitioners under the change petition are Oakdale 25 Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13916 1 District, Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation 2 District and Merced Irrigation District. As you talked 3 about earlier, the Exchange Contractors have withdrawn their 4 petition. You have received Mr. Sexton's letter in that 5 regard. The Exchange Contractors will be presenting their 6 testimony as part of the San Joaquin River Group Authority 7 in order to respond to Issue Number 7 of the hearing 8 notice. 9 Each district that is a member of the San Joaquin River 10 Group Authority that is requesting the change petition will, 11 through their own witnesses and their own attorneys, present 12 evidence regarding Issue Number 7. We have worked very hard 13 -- I know you've received a great deal of paper in regards 14 to Phase II-B -- to coordinate our testimony among the 15 various districts in the San Joaquin River Group Authority. 16 On joint issues the San Joaquin River Group Authority will 17 present the witnesses. We have strived to present evidence 18 that is succinct and sufficient to meet the hearing notice 19 issues. 20 The first witness that you will hear from is Mr. Dan 21 Steiner. Mr. Steiner has previously appeared in front of 22 the Board in Phases II and II-A. He has modeled the San 23 Joaquin River Agreement in the VAMP. His modeling is the 24 basis of the San Joaquin Group Authority and United States 25 Bureau of Reclamation EIR/EIS which has been submitted in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13917 1 Phase II-B testimony. His testimony will address hearing 2 Issues 1, 5, 6 and 8. He has modeled the hydrology of the 3 San Joaquin River and its tributaries. His testimony will 4 show no impact to any legal user of water due to the change 5 petition. 6 The next group of witnesses you will hear from are from 7 the districts who have petitioned the State Water Resources 8 Control Board for the change petitions as well as the San 9 Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 10 Mr. Steiner's planning models show how water moves 11 through the reservoirs and down the tributaries to arrive at 12 Vernalis. His testimony will address the issues of 13 carryover, refill, reoperations and other issues. 14 However, Mr. Steiner's testimony does not address 15 hearing Issue Number 7. The individual districts will 16 complete the answer to hearing Issue Number 7 by explaining 17 to the Board how individual districts plan on making water 18 available for the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan and 19 meeting the needs of the customers within their service 20 areas. 21 The State Water Resources Control Board, as part of the 22 Phase II-B, received extensive documentation from the 23 districts on how they are making water available for the San 24 Joaquin River Agreement as well as meeting the needs of 25 their customers. Rather than go through each individual CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13918 1 district and the witnesses that will testify, they have been 2 set forth in our submittals. We believe that these 3 witnesses will highlight for the Board and for the parties 4 how individual districts are working and endeavoring to make 5 water available for the San Joaquin River Agreement. 6 Unfortunately, due to scheduling problems, that 7 testimony is going to be somewhat disjointed. You will 8 probably hear the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, 9 Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District 10 early on in our case. At the end of our case you will be 11 hearing from Oakdale Irrigation District, South San Joaquin 12 Irrigation District and Merced Irrigation District. That is 13 unfortunate to some degree, but was part of a scheduling 14 conflict with witnesses' availability. So, we will have to 15 keep that in mind as we move through the process. 16 We have requested witnesses from the United States to 17 address the fishery issues of the proposed changes. These 18 witnesses were requested to address hearing Issues Number 2 19 and 3. These witnesses, as part of their testimony, will 20 address also the Endangered Species Act issues. I believe 21 we will have, and Mr. Brandt has confirmed it, Mr. James 22 Lecky from National Marine Fisheries and Mr. Wayne White 23 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They will talk 24 about the San Joaquin River Agreement and the consultation 25 and coordination that occurred under the Endangered Species CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13919 1 Act between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and NMFS 2 and the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. 3 Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 You will notice that the California Department of Fish 5 and Game has submitted no testimony for Phase II-B. It is 6 our understanding that they support the agreement pursuant 7 to their prior testimony, which we referenced in our 8 response to the hearing notice. That was Mr. Bill 9 Laudermilk in Phase II and support the change petition 10 pursuant to the prior testimony that they have submitted. 11 The next witnesses that we will call will be Mr. Tom 12 Howard and Mr. Jerry Johns. They are staff members of the 13 State Water Resources Control Board. They will testify 14 regarding the Draft EIR, the State Water Resources Control 15 Board Draft EIR. The purpose of the testimony from Mr. 16 Howard and Mr. Johns is to answer hearing Issues 1, 2, 3 and 17 7. Specifically, in regards to Mr. Howard and Mr. Johns, 18 how the State Water Resources Control Board, through their 19 Draft EIR, addressed the question of real water in regards 20 to implementing the alternatives set forth in the Draft 21 EIR. 22 Mr. Fults will testify -- Dan Fults from the Friant 23 Water Users Authority will testify very briefly regarding 24 the San Joaquin River Agreement and the United States Bureau 25 of Reclamation EIR/EIS. The scope of his testimony is very CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13920 1 narrow. It will focus on the adoption and certification of 2 the EIR/EIS. The EIR/EIS was presented as an exhibit 3 attachment to Mr. Steiner's testimony, because Mr. Steiner's 4 modeling was the basis for the EIR/EIS. We felt it more 5 appropriate to put that testimony in in that place. 6 Mr. Burke will then testify from the United States 7 Bureau of Reclamation regarding the operations on the San 8 Joaquin River in 1999 regarding flow. As you know, the 9 State Water Resources Control Board approved a one-year 10 petition pursuant to 1707 and 1725 for one year. The 11 parties to the San Joaquin River Agreement tried to 12 implement the flow side of the agreement in 1999. His 13 testimony will show how the parties worked together to meet 14 the flow objectives for VAMP, flow objectives for 1999. His 15 testimony will show in real time, unlike Mr. Steiner's which 16 is a planning model, where the water came from, where the 17 water went and how it arrived at Vernalis. His testimony 18 will address key hearing Issues Number 1 and 7. 19 Our goal in this process is to move as expeditiously as 20 possible. This component of the 1707 and 1735 change 21 petition is a key component of the San Joaquin River 22 Agreement. We appreciate the Board moving up this process 23 from the regularly noticed protesting process and moving 24 directly to a hearing on this. We need to move this process 25 forward in an expeditious fashion. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13921 1 We are looking forward to implementing the San Joaquin 2 River Agreement in April of the year 2000. We are currently 3 in the process of getting signatures on the actual 4 agreement, and we need implementable orders from the State 5 Water Resources Control Board in order to start that process 6 next year. 7 In that regards, I don't want to dwell on this point 8 too long. But we filed several motions regarding the 9 testimony of South Delta Water Agency and the participation 10 of South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency 11 in this hearing phase. We don't want those motions to take 12 up a lot of time. Our concern, as I expressed previously, 13 is we do not want to revisit and retry Phases II, V and V-A 14 in this proceeding. This is a narrow hearing on a narrow 15 issue. In fact, most of this hearing will probably be 16 focused on key hearing Issues Number 1 and Number 7. We 17 hope that we can keep to those key hearing issues and not 18 stray off those hearing issues into other areas that have 19 already previously been addressed. 20 With that, we would like to now call our first witness, 21 Mr. Dan Steiner. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin, before you do, I would 23 like to ask some questions. 24 How do you envision the cross-examination of these 25 various witnesses occurring? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13922 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. I think that what will occur 2 is that Mr. Steiner will occur as an individual witness. 3 When the districts present their witnesses, they will be 4 presenting them as panels. As you will note in the 5 submittals, the districts have anywhere from two to three 6 witnesses. They will present that testimony as a group and 7 then subject the panels to cross-examination as a group, and 8 then we will be done with those panels and then move on to 9 the next. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: All the panels as one group for cross 11 or individually? 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Individually as districts. We will 13 have -- if we get done with Steiner, we will have MID and 14 TID or the Exchange Contractors next. If we get done with 15 MID and TID, then we will go to the Exchange Contractors, 16 finish up their panel, then we are done and move on to the 17 next panel. The only problem, we were trying to get the 18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife and NMFS as a panel; the scheduling 19 doesn't look like that is going to occur. They will have to 20 be called individually and subjected to individual 21 cross-examination. But the districts will be taken as a 22 panel. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 24 Morning, Mr. Steiner. 25 MR. STEINER: Good morning. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13923 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you hear me okay? 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, you have previously been 4 sworn as a part of these proceedings; is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You have previously testified as part 7 of these proceedings; is that correct? 8 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And previously your statement of 10 qualifications were submitted and accepted by the State 11 Water Resources Control Board as San Joaquin River Group 12 Authority Exhibit Number 10; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, you have prepared 15 testimony for II-B; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you please for the Board briefly 18 summarize within the 20-minute time period allowed by the 19 Board, if possible, your testimony that you have submitted. 20 MR. STEINER: Yes. I will endeavor to get it completed 21 within 20 minutes. 22 I have previously submitted testimony to this hearing 23 process as SJRGA 11. And in that testimony I presented the 24 hydrologic effects, results of some studies I performed 25 regarding the hydrologic effects of implementing the San CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13924 1 Joaquin River Agreement, including the VAMP portion of that 2 agreement. That testimony presented and relied on some 3 computer studies performed by me, and are in the record as 4 San Joaquin River Group Authority 11.7, and those studies 5 are available on the State Water Resources Control Board 6 website. For today's testimony I again rely on those 7 computer studies in my presentation. 8 These studies, as Mr. O'Laughlin stated, are also the 9 hydrologic basis that were used for the final EIR/EIS of the 10 San Joaquin River Agreement implementation. That was Bureau 11 of Reclamation and San Joaquin River Authority document, 12 CEQA and NEPA document. My written testimony briefly 13 summarized the workings of the SJRA, including the VAMP. 14 The SJRA, in summary again, is comprised of four flow 15 components. The first being the VAMP water which was up to 16 110,000 acre-feet of water provided by the entities. There 17 is also a component of additional VAMP water should they 18 need additional water to meet the VAMP target flows. There 19 is a third component of flow which is the Merced water which 20 is 12,000 acre-feet -- 12,500 acre-feet, excuse me, during 21 the months of October. And then there is a fourth 22 component, OID water, which comprises 15,000 acre-feet of 23 return water back to the Bureau of Reclamation in New 24 Melones for its reallocation and also OID provides any water 25 that is not required of it under the VAMP formula, it is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13925 1 also returned to the Bureau of Reclamation. This is just 2 setting up part of the vocabulary that I will be discussing 3 as I am going through these operations. 4 The VAMP water itself is divided among the parties by 5 the division agreement, which we spoke about in Phase II. 6 That water is split among Merced ID, OID, South San Joaquin 7 ID -- I said Merced -- Turlock and Modesto Irrigation 8 District and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 9 The results of that I described during my Phase II 10 testimony was generally global in nature, with the focus 11 mainly being on the effects at Vernalis in terms of water 12 quality and water flow. 13 Refreshing that testimony, what we have on the overhead 14 is Figure 1a and 1b from Page 23 of the SJRGA Exhibit 103 15 which is today's testimony. This is also the same 16 information that was presented in my Phase II testimony as 17 Exhibit 11. 18 What is shown here is the type of information that is 19 presented during that period, and what you see on the screen 20 is by month, by year type, the general effects of the San 21 Joaquin River Agreement as it affects flows at Vernalis. 22 The whitish bar represents the preagreement condition, 23 essentially the existing or current condition. The darker 24 bar represents after implementation of the San Joaquin River 25 Agreement. What we have is essentially all the year types CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13926 1 that fell within the year type, such as critical years. It 2 is the average that is happening across all those year 3 types, to give you a general flavor of where the water 4 occurs. 5 What you will see on this graphic in the drier types of 6 years, such as critical years or dry years, you will see a 7 supplemental flow during the pulse flow period which I 8 modeled during May, which is represented by the "M" on the 9 graphic. You will see a supplemental flow appearing in the 10 post agreement period along with a supplement flow occurring 11 in October. That is again because that is a primary focus 12 of the San Joaquin River Agreement pulse flow in May or the 13 October supplemental flow from Merced. 14 What we have on the screen now is Figure 1c and 1d out 15 of my testimony of Exhibit 103. Again, this is the same 16 information presented during Phase II. Just that water is 17 provided during the drier types of years when the system is 18 normally under control, where does that water come from? 19 Well, when it comes through reservoir operations, it is 20 going to have to be made up, refilled, during other types of 21 years, normally the wetter types of years. This can be seen 22 in Figure 1d. You will see a general lessening of flows 23 occurring there in December, February, March. And those are 24 associated with as the reservoirs put water out in the dry 25 types of years, they will try to recapture and refill that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13927 1 storage that they forwent in the winter years during 2 conditions when there is water to essentially pick up off 3 the system that is in excess of needs. 4 Today's testimony is focused around, stepping beyond 5 this generalization of water coming from wet years to be put 6 in dry years and moving into an illustration of phenomenon 7 of how this happens across year-to-year operations. 8 I have selected four different sequences from my 9 studies to illustrate where the water comes from to meet the 10 obligations of the SJRA. These sequences are shown in Table 11 1 of Exhibit 103. Again, what I have done is run a 71-year 12 hydrologic sequence from 1922 to 1992 in the planning 13 studies. What I am doing here is taking select periods out 14 of that sequential hydrology to illustrate how the SJRA 15 performs across one year to the next and the next and the 16 next. 17 These four-year sequences that I have selected span the 18 1965 to 1968 or '67 period. It is a unique combination of 19 wet year going to a below normal year going to a wet year, 20 as you go from a wet full system in a dry period and then 21 come back out to a full system again. So you can see the 22 carryover or reoperation effects. 23 I have also selected the 1975 to 1978 period, the 1983 24 to 1986 period and the 1986 to 1992 period. Each of those 25 periods have unique characteristics as far as how SJRA CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13928 1 operates and affects the parties' operations. Not only does 2 the sequence of going from wet to below normal, above normal 3 to dry make it unique, but actually how the water is divided 4 among the parties makes each one of the sequences unique in 5 terms of carrying on hydrologic effects throughout the 6 period. I would like to direct you to Table 2 of SJRA 7 103, which illustrates how that water that is provided by 8 SJRA is divided among the folks in these studies. Again, 9 each particular sequence or year is unique in its character 10 in terms of how the water occurs from each of the parties. 11 As an illustration, on the previous table we identified 1965 12 that the VAMP water was 69,000 acre-foot of requirements. 13 That would, under the division agreement, be split among 14 Merced, 37,000 acre-feet; 15,000 going to OID, South San 15 Joaquin; 7 from the Exchange Contractors; 11 from MID/TID. 16 Along with the other elements of the SJRA, 12 and half 17 thousand acre-feet would come from Merced in October and 18 18 and half thousand acre-feet under the OID return water goes 19 back to Reclamation. 20 All of this information is incorporated into the 21 SANJASM and STANMOD models that I discussed during Phase 22 II. It works through the process that the models provide an 23 operation which then provides a depiction of what the San 24 Joaquin River looks like after you put this information in 25 and make it happen as required. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13929 1 I am going to take you through one of the sequences. 2 This is the part of the testimony here to illustrate how 3 this operation occurs. The sequence I have elected is the 4 1983 to 1986 period. It is one of the simpler ones to get 5 through. It illustrates a couple of points that we have 6 been discussing previously regarding reoperation. 7 Keep in mind that the 1983 to 1986 fundamentals of the 8 SJRA shows that in 1983, which was a very wet year, that 9 there was no VAMP water required. The antecedant conditions 10 had, I believe, over 10,000 cfs occurring at Vernalis all by 11 itself. There are no requirements other than the Merced 12 water and the OID water occurring in 1983. In 1984 the VAMP 13 requirement actually requires over 110,000 acre-feet. These 14 modeling studies limit the investigation up to the 110,000 15 acre-foot. Actually, 1984 is looking very much -- and in 16 1984 is looking very much like what we are in right now, 17 which is last year was a wet/dry and this year was a VAMP 18 requirement of about 140,000 acre-feet. So it is right on 19 track to something real recent as history, right now. 20 In 1985 of the historical hydrology, VAMP only required 21 10,000 acre-feet, and all that water would come from Merced 22 under the division agreement. Again, the return water is 23 over in the right-hand column. 24 Then 1986 becomes one of the wetter years, again, of 25 our history. It was a year in where there was no CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13930 1 requirement for VAMP, but you will see the effects of 2 carryover from the previous VAMP effects carried into 1986. 3 I beg your indulgence to now go through the techy 4 information. There is a lot of information put up on this 5 screen. How to address the illustration here is that we 6 move from the general requirements of the San Joaquin River 7 Agreement, which are the Vernalis requirements, into now a 8 stream-by-stream operation depiction. And what I start with 9 here is the Tuolumne River during this hydrologic period, 10 1983 to 1986 -- see that along the bottom. What you have on 11 the upper part of this graph, and this is Exhibit 103, 12 Figure 4a. Going through the cyclic operation of Tuolumne, 13 on the upper graphic you will see the reservoir storage. 14 That is with and without the San Joaquin River 15 implementation. The solid line is the post condition. The 16 dashed line, which is in this particular case almost right 17 on top of the dark line, is the precondition. 18 In the lower graphic what you are going to see is water 19 to the river below the drainage reservoir which is 20 essentially the control point to the Tuolumne River which is 21 where we calculate the water going down towards Vernalis, as 22 far as incremental amount due to the San Joaquin River 23 Agreement. The lower graph is in cubic feet per second on 24 an average monthly basis. The lighter bar is the 25 representation of the post condition. The darker bar is the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13931 1 precondition. 2 As we go through the Tuolumne operation, you see, and I 3 have capped because of graphical representation here, the 4 flows of 3,000 cfs. You notice in 1983 in the lower graphic 5 there is a lot of flows that seem to go off of the graph 6 because it stopped at 3,000 cfs. Actually, those flows are 7 in the tens of thousands of cfs because of a very wet year. 8 The operation of the Tuolumne River during 1983 is not 9 affected by the San Joaquin River Agreement because there 10 was no VAMP water required, so the precondition and the post 11 condition will look very much the same. 12 What we do is move into 1984 when the VAMP requirement 13 required 22,000 acre-feet from the Tuolumne River and 22,000 14 acre-feet from the Stanislaus River. In this particular 15 year -- when we get to the Stanislaus picture, I will have 16 to explain the story a little more -- the Stanislaus water 17 cannot fit into the Stanislaus River because of the 1,500 18 cfs limitation that we discussed before, in this particular 19 instance we move that water over to the Tuolumne River. In 20 what we see here at this particular month right here is May 21 of 1984. That is the booster water that is due to the VAMP 22 operation for the Tuolumne River in combination with 23 providing the water for the Stanislaus River also. 24 That bar right there is incremental change due to the 25 VAMP supplemental flow in 1984 from the Stanislaus and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13932 1 Tuolumne River participants. That amounts to 44,000 2 acre-feet of water. I am going to have to do this along for 3 the entire sequence. We can come back and revisit each one 4 of the rivers this way. For the rest of the year, the 5 Tuolumne River operates to minimum river levels under their 6 FERC agreement. Therefore, there is no change in operation 7 because we cannot bust the minimum flow requirements that 8 are required. 9 We move into 1985. This little bump here in May 10 happens to be the FERC pulse requirement. In 1985, as we 11 discussed before, there is no requirement of VAMP from the 12 parties other than Merced. So there is still no change in 13 terms of operation due to the VAMP in 1985 on the Stanislaus 14 or the Tuolumne River. 15 Again, 1985 was a dry year. The project is still 16 operating to minimum release levels according to their FERC 17 requirements. 18 As we move on into 1986, I don't remember exactly when 19 it started raining real well in 1986, but we knew February 20 was a very much bumper year. If you can see the top of this 21 graphic you would see in February of 1986 is when this 22 22,000 acre-feet from the Tuolumne River is actually 23 recaptured by a lower bar in February of 1986 during high 24 flow periods. Essentially they recapture the storage that 25 they forwent from the two years before. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13933 1 This phenomenon will show up better on the Merced chart 2 as we go on. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: For your information, you have a 4 little over three minutes. 5 MR. STEINER: The Merced chart, again, similar. In 6 1983 there was nothing going on. There is a bumper year. 7 We move into 1994. There is the VAMP period during May. We 8 have Merced putting out 55,000 acre-feet of supplemental 9 water. They go to minimum reservoir operations again or 10 minimum river operations for the rest of the period. In 11 October they boost the flow due to their October water under 12 the SJRA. The following year in May, again, Merced 13 supplements the flow to the river above minimum 14 requirements; that is the 10,000 acre-feet of VAMP water. 15 October again is followed up by the 12 and a half thousand 16 acre-feet. 17 This is the illustration of where that effect finally 18 manifests itself. Previous operations here come out of 19 reservoir foregone storage, to where it is then made up by 20 the first bumper month comes along. In February of 1986 21 Merced makes up their water with reduction in excess flow 22 releases. Excuse me, that was Exhibit Figure 4b from 23 Exhibit 103. 24 The Stanislaus River operation is shown in 4c of 25 Exhibit 103. These supplemental flows are happening here CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13934 1 and the post condition are a result of the extra water 2 coming back from Oakdale, and it actually makes more water 3 released out of the river. If they didn't convert it, then 4 has to go down the river, especially in these full reservoir 5 conditions. 6 During 1984, even though the VAMP water, the district 7 would still be diverting its water, moving over to the 8 Modesto area in order for them to release it down the 9 Tuolumne River. Essentially you are seeing no change in the 10 operation of Stanislaus River under this particular 11 sequence. 12 To bring it all home, we finally get to Vernalis. The 13 combination of the three tributary operations. That exhibit 14 is 4d of Exhibit 103. This is just summarizing all the 15 information from the individual tributaries to see what made 16 a change at Vernalis. You will see we have the VAMP 17 releases in May or the San Joaquin River Agreement releases 18 in October. Those are the changes that you see in the flows 19 portion of this graphic. 20 In the lower portion of the graphic you see the water 21 quality results at Vernalis. What you will see is, of 22 course, during the Octobers or the Mays you will see a 23 slight improvement in water quality better than the standard 24 because what you have is additional incidental dilution 25 flows occurring to Vernalis. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13935 1 During the refill periods in February '86, there is 2 where the hydrology of Vernalis was actually lessened due to 3 the refill operation. In that case you will see a slight 4 lowering of quality because there is less incidental 5 dilution still within the standard or the objective in that 6 particular month. 7 The other sequences, although they have not been 8 presented because of time limitation, have different 9 uniqueness showing about them. This particularly 10 highlighted how the water is made back up through reservoir 11 refills in a subsequent or a couple subsequent later years. 12 The other sequences would illustrate periods when there may 13 be a reoperation within a year. That is if you release 14 water in May, it may just decrease the amount you spill in 15 June. That illustrated in one of the sequences. You will 16 also potentially find in those sequences times when, if 17 there was a change by the Merced or the Tuolumne Rivers in 18 terms of a reoperation or a refill, that it triggered 19 additional release from New Melones to meet its obligations 20 down at Vernalis for water quality flows. That could also 21 occur within the sequences. 22 That is the end of my testimony. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Steiner. 24 Ready for cross? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, we are. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13936 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes to cross-examine Mr. 2 Steiner? 3 Nomellini, Herrick, Zolezzi. 4 Anyone else? 5 The order will be Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Herrick and Ms. 6 Zolezzi. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 9 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 10 BY MR. NOMELLINI 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 12 Board. Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 13 Mr. Steiner, kind of organized my questions in the 14 order of the testimony. I may jump around a little bit. 15 First, starting on Page 3 of your testimony, you 16 indicate that the water is needed to support the Vernalis 17 Adaptive Management Plan during the pulse flow period and 18 assist Interior in meeting the Anadromous Fish Restoration 19 Plan, Bay-Delta flow objectives and the U.S. Fish and 20 Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Delta Smelt. 21 Do you see that? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes, I do. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you attempted to analyze what the 24 biological opinion consequences are of this water use? 25 MR. STEINER: I have not investigated the biological CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13937 1 consequences. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: So, this is basically it is your 3 understanding based on testimony of others? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes. A lot of awareness. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the -- again, on Page 3 6 you talk about 110,000 acre-feet, or up to 110,000 acre-feet 7 would be applied towards meeting the VAMP flow target during 8 the pulse flow period of 31 days. 9 Do you see that? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your testimony that taking 12 110,000 or up to 110,000 acre-feet of water and releasing 13 during this pulse flow period when it would not otherwise be 14 released, does not deprive the flow in the various river 15 systems during other months of the year except, for example, 16 during February or periods of very high water use or water 17 availability? 18 MR. STEINER: Under the assumptions that I have run 19 here, it does not deprive the other months. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: What you are saying is this is kind of 21 an ability to release this water and then make up for it by 22 taking advantage of available storage space that would have 23 been evacuated by releasing this water during the pulse flow 24 period? 25 MR. STEINER: The water is made up during other surplus CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13938 1 periods. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: We will get into that a little more. 3 Let's go to Page 4 and have you made any analysis to 4 determine whether or not the water being made available by 5 the San Joaquin River Group Authority members is within the 6 scope of their individual water rights? 7 MR. STEINER: I have not done, no individual 8 analysis. I have made an assumption it is. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to Page 5, your studies are based 10 on a comparison of a pre-SJRA setting versus, I believe, a 11 post-SJRA setting as you describe it; is that correct? 12 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Now the pre-SJRA setting is based on 14 the New Melones Interim Plan of Operations, is it not? 15 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you made any comparison to the 17 historical conditions for water quality on the San Joaquin 18 River or flow on the San Joaquin River that would be 19 unaffected by the Interim Plan of Operations for New 20 Melones? 21 MR. STEINER: I guess I don't understand your 22 question. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: You know when the Interim Plan of 24 Operations for New Melones commenced? 25 MR. STEINER: Early -- I am afraid of dates at this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13939 1 point. This has gone on now -- it's been a couple of years 2 now. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree, would you not, that 4 the Interim Plan of Operations for New Melones was not in 5 effect prior to the beginning, which we will assume is a 6 couple years ago? 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Ambiguous. 8 MR. STEINER: Exactly what part of the -- 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It can't be in existence before it 10 starts? Or can it? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's try again. We are going to try 12 again. 13 Do you agree that the pre-SJRA setting does not 14 represent historical conditions for the San Joaquin River 15 water quality and flow at Vernalis? 16 MR. STEINER: For a very long period prior to, say, 17 1997, that is correct. The Interim Operations Plan did not 18 exist for a long period. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: And you have not made an analysis 20 versus historical conditions as against your post-San 21 Joaquin -- SJRA model? 22 MR. STEINER: I believe I probably have along the lines 23 somewhere because very early on in the formulation of this 24 we were trying to make certain that we were improving 25 conditions, but not necessarily for water quality but for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13940 1 release flows. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Where is that analysis today? 3 MR. STEINER: Somewhere in my records. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to Page 7 of your testimony, you 5 talk about water originating from Merced is assumed to occur 6 as increased stream releases occurring below Merced's points 7 of diversions and points of minimum in-stream 8 responsibility. 9 Do you see that? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you made any determination as to 12 what the source of the Merced water that is incrementally 13 put into the model as referred to here actually is? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes. In almost all the instances it is a 15 matter of foregoing storage capture, or it is coming out of 16 storage releases from Merced. And in a couple of instances 17 I needed to reduce surface water diversions to make water 18 available. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: That is down on the bottom of Page 7 20 where you talk about in certain sequential, critical years 21 surface water diversions by Merced are reduced to 22 accommodate the additional stream releases? 23 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: In that situation you assumed that 25 diversions to the water users by Merced would be reduced; is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13941 1 that correct? 2 MR. STEINER: The surface water diversion from the 3 river, correct. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: You had to do that in order to meet the 5 commitment of Merced to the San Joaquin River Agreement 6 flows; is that correct? 7 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, when you reduced the surface water 9 diversions by Merced, did your modeling reflect reductions 10 in return flows to the river? 11 MR. STEINER: The modeling itself did not recognize if 12 there would be or if there wouldn't be a change in the rest 13 of the hydrologic balance in those few instances. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So the modeling did not take that into 15 account? 16 MR. STEINER: It took it into account and said it had 17 no change. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: So, any change in return flow would 19 have been ignored by the modeling; is that correct? 20 MR. STEINER: It was made to not make a change. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: So you don't like my use of the word 22 "ignored"? 23 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: So the results will not reflect -- the 25 results of the modeling will not reflect the consequences of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13942 1 any reduction in return flow related to the reduction of 2 surface water diversions by Merced? 3 MR. STEINER: That makes a presumption that there would 4 have been an effect. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: If there was an effect, it would be -- 6 it would not be reflected? 7 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, is the same true with regard to 9 accretions to the river? 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What 11 river? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's start with the Tuolumne. 13 MR. STEINER: Excuse me. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Any change in accretions to the 15 Tuolumne. Would this modeling reflect any changes in 16 accretions to the Tuolumne resulting from the reduction of 17 the diversions by Merced Irrigation District? 18 MR. STEINER: Thank you for the explanation. 19 There was no change in accretions on the Tuolumne due 20 to the Merced operation in my modeling. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that because the model was 22 instructed not to reflect that? 23 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the same be true with regard to 25 accretions to the Merced River? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13943 1 MR. STEINER: That would be correct. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: The same would be true with regard to 3 accretions to the San Joaquin River? 4 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the modeling reflect changes to 6 the amount of water stored in the underground within the 7 area of the Merced Irrigation District resulting from the 8 reduction in surface water diversions referred to on Page 7 9 of your testimony? 10 MR. STEINER: These models do not account for 11 groundwater. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, you testified that the water, 13 again talking about the water from Merced, would be provided 14 with the exception of this reduction in surface water 15 diversions would be provided from storage or foregone 16 storage; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, when we talk about foregone 19 storage, are we talking about releases that would otherwise 20 be held for power production? 21 MR. STEINER: Could have been one of its purposes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there an effect reflected in the 23 modeling on the changes of the released for power purposes 24 versus the release for the VAMP flow? 25 MR. STEINER: I didn't quite -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13944 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the model reflect the impact of a 2 change in flow in the river resulting from foregone 3 storage? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: So we would see, for example, if power 6 releases would have been made in, let's say in July, the 7 model would reflect the reduction in July if that water, in 8 fact, was allowed to flow out during the pulse flow period? 9 MR. STEINER: Yes. But take into consideration that 10 those models are running power incidental to water 11 operations. And so, yes, you could draw conclusions 12 regarding the effects of power operations from these 13 studies, but the modifications as I describe up there, as 14 for moving water from one month to another, is a matter of 15 models operating for water objectives. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I am not sure I understood the answer. 17 MR. STEINER: You expressed that: Can you see the 18 change in power operations here from my study results? 19 MR. NOMELLINI: I wanted to know if they are reflected 20 in the results. Have we accounted for it or because of 21 modeling peculiarity it is not accountable in this? 22 MR. STEINER: I don't believe you will find in the 23 studies that I run specific operations for power 24 operations. The models are being driven by rules for water 25 operations. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13945 1 MR. NOMELLINI: The assumptions, in order to get a 2 comparison in that example I gave, the model would have to 3 be reflecting assumed power operations which it does not, as 4 I understand? 5 MR. STEINER: It could, but I do not do that. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: These results that we have seen in your 7 exhibits, then, would not reflect that power variation in 8 flow? 9 MR. STEINER: That -- it would not because I am not 10 trying to create rules for power operations. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: We are going to take a break now? 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: When is a good time, Mr. Nomellini? 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Now is fine. It is all right with me. 14 I have a bunch more questions. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No? 16 (Break taken.) 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Back on the record. 18 Resuming cross-examination, Mr. Nomellini. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Steiner, we are now on Page 8 of 20 your testimony. And at the top of the page you have 21 indicated that the modeling reflects water originating from 22 MID and TID as additional stream releases; is that correct? 23 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what the source of the 25 water is for the releases by MID and TID? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13946 1 MR. STEINER: Flows through New Don Pedro Reservoir. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Would those be bypasses of inflow? 3 MR. STEINER: Yes. I am not certain if there is an 4 instance of storage involved, but it would be either of 5 those. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Would those bypasses of in-flow be 7 associated with power production? 8 MR. STEINER: Power production would have been 9 incidental to those releases. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Had those releases not been made or, 11 excuse me, had those flows not been bypassed, then would 12 they have been used for power generation at a different time 13 of the year? 14 MR. STEINER: There could have been that possibility. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Again, your modeling does not address 16 the impact on the flow associated with a plan of operation 17 for power? 18 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. With regard to the OID and 20 South San Joaquin Irrigation District releases, you have 21 indicated that the modeling reflects the water available in 22 two different ways. One would be increases in releases 23 below Goodwin and the other, as I understand it, would be 24 water remaining in storage at New Melones? 25 MR. STEINER: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13947 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Tell me the sources of water, as you 2 understand them, for OID in your modeling, as you have 3 incorporated them in your modeling. 4 MR. STEINER: I am not certain where you want to put 5 the two different ways, but there was a matter of how the 6 Stanislaus parties would provide water towards Vernalis. 7 The two different instances there are when the river could 8 accommodate additional releases, and the other condition was 9 when the river could not accommodate the additional 10 releases. That hovers around the 1,500 cfs flow cap 11 objective. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: The model would show an increase of 13 release below Goodwin if the 1500 cubic foot per second was 14 not exceeded? 15 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: If it was exceeded, it would reflect an 17 additional flow in the Tuolumne River? 18 MR. STEINER: Yes, through an exchange with -- it is 19 not moving Stanislaus River molecules into the Tuolumne 20 River, but that flows would be provided to offset the 21 demands of Modesto whereby Modesto would have additional 22 water then to put in the Tuolumne River. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you made any analysis as to what 24 the source of water would be provided by Modesto to the 25 Tuolumne River to meet the OID contribution when flows in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13948 1 the Stanislaus would exceed 1,500 cubic feet per second 2 below Goodwin? 3 MR. STEINER: In effect that it didn't arrive at the 4 same time from OID to Modesto it would involve some 5 regulation in New Don Pedro Reservoir, but essentially it is 6 the same sources of water, which it is either bypassed 7 in-flow or storage released from New Don Pedro. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: So the modeling would reflect that 9 water as sourcing from bypass flow or stored water release 10 on the Tuolumne? 11 MR. STEINER: That is correct. In essence, though, 12 what you have is that you are able to reduce Modesto's 13 diversion from the Tuolumne River in the amount that is 14 exchanged from the Stanislaus River. Instead of having 15 water going down the canal, it was able to go down the 16 river. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: And is it true, then, that the modeling 18 would not reflect the impact on return flows and accretions 19 and groundwater similar to the situation with Turlock? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection, Vague and ambiguous. Where? 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: I thought he said similar to the 22 situation in Turlock? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Turlock Irrigation District. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just define it a little bit more. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Maybe I added too many words to add to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13949 1 the confusion. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: I am adding what you are reading up 3 here. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: I am trying to look somewhere to pull 5 my thoughts together. That is my favorite spot. 6 The modeling does not reflect the impact of the bypass 7 of flow and release of storage by Modesto Irrigation 8 District in connection with providing the OID share of the 9 VAMP flow that cannot be provided directly to the Stanislaus 10 River with regard to return flow accretions to the river and 11 the amount of water stored underground? 12 MR. STEINER: I do not see there would be any effect. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: You did not say there would be any 15 effect but the model will not -- 16 MR. STEINER: No. I will say, "Forget the model." 17 There will not be an effect from what you just described. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Then, is that because Modesto would not 19 -- Modesto Irrigation District would not reduce its water 20 use? 21 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: So, any effect on those would be 23 reflected in any reduction of use associated with Oakdale 24 Irrigation District? 25 MR. STEINER: I don't understand the construct of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13950 1 question. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go at it a different way. 3 Do you know what the source of water is for the OID 4 share of the pulse flow? 5 MR. STEINER: In my modeling I assumed it is a 6 reduction in their surface water diversion deliveries. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the OID reduction in 8 surface water deliveries, would you agree that there would 9 be a reduction in return flow to the river system? 10 MR. STEINER: I would not agree or disagree. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that there is 12 associated with a reduction in surface water deliveries by 13 OID a reduction in accretions to the river system? 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in 15 evidence, that there is a reduction for any given particular 16 year type. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't limit it to year type. I 18 asked a general question. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think the question can be answered. 20 MR. STEINER: I will not agree or disagree. That is a 21 type of question, I believe, best directed to the OID panel. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your panel you don't know whether 23 or not there is a change in accretions to the river 24 resulting from a reduction in surface water deliveries by 25 OID? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13951 1 MR. STEINER: I do not have an analysis, so, therefore, 2 I do not know. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to South San Joaquin 4 Irrigation District's share of the VAMP flows referred to on 5 Page 8, you indicated that the input to the model was 6 similar for that contribution as it was for OID; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what the source of the 10 South San Joaquin Irrigation District water is? 11 MR. STEINER: I have modeled it as a reduction in 12 surface water diversion. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say you "have modeled it as a 14 surface reduction in surface water diversion," does that 15 mean that you don't know what the source of their 16 contribution is? 17 MR. STEINER: In my parameters of modeling the source 18 is that amount. As far as how they react to that reduction 19 in surface water diversion reduction, I do not know. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that true with regard to your 21 testimony in general, that you do not know what the actual 22 source of the water is going to be for the contributions by 23 the various districts? 24 MR. STEINER: That would apply to Oakdale, South San 25 Joaquin, the Exchangers and those require instances in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13952 1 Merced when it applied, not overall global, no, because I do 2 not believe that happens in the Tuolumne River situation or 3 most of the years on the Merced River. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the impact, if any, to 5 return flow accretions to the river and storage underground, 6 would your testimony with regard to South San Joaquin 7 Irrigation District's reduction in diversions be the same as 8 your testimony with regard to OID's reduction in delivery? 9 MR. STEINER: I am sorry, I lost track of the 10 question. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the modeling reflect impacts on 12 return flow to the river system resulting from a reduction 13 in deliveries by South San Joaquin Irrigation District? 14 MR. STEINER: The modeling would show no change in 15 return flows before or after the reduction in diversions. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: That would be similar to what would 17 occur in the modeling with regard to the OID reduction in 18 delivery? 19 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Would your testimony be the same with 21 regard to accretions to the river system? 22 MR. STEINER: It would be true for the Stanislaus, if 23 we are still focusing on that. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Would it be different with regard to 25 the San Joaquin? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13953 1 MR. STEINER: As individual hydrologic element beyond 2 the Stanislaus River? 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go back to South San Joaquin 4 Irrigation District. Does the modeling that you have 5 presented reflect any reduction in return flows to the San 6 Joaquin River as a result of the assumption that South San 7 Joaquin Irrigation District would reduce water deliveries to 8 provide the flows into the Stanislaus River? 9 MR. STEINER: If there was an effect, it did not. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: And that, again, is the model does not 11 reflect those effects? 12 MR. STEINER: If there was an effect, this modeling did 13 not reflect it. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the modeling reflect such an 15 effect if, in fact, one would occur? 16 MR. STEINER: You could adjust the model to make it 17 reflect it. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: But you did not attempt to make the 19 model reflect impacts on return flows? 20 MR. STEINER: I did not adjust the model to address 21 that. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the same true with regard to any 23 accretions to the river system related to South San Joaquin 24 Irrigation District reduction in diversions? 25 MR. STEINER: It is true the model did not reflect any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13954 1 change, if there was one. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the same true with regard to the 3 amount of water stored underground? 4 MR. STEINER: That is correct, the model does not 5 capture that balance. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to water originating from 7 the Exchange Contractors, you have indicated that the 8 modeling reflects that contribution as an incremental 9 additional accretion to the San Joaquin River near the mouth 10 of the Merced River; is that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: That is on Page 8, a little below the 13 middle of the page. 14 Now, what quality would that water be inputted into the 15 model? 16 MR. STEINER: As a matter of the SANJASM model, and it 17 comes in as the -- let's say if you could designate the 18 SANJASM as two components of water, one cleaner quality 19 component and one less cleaner quality component, this comes 20 in as the cleaner component of water. But it is the entire 21 flow salinity relationship equation that occurs upstream of 22 Vernalis. It is not a source of water in these analyses 23 like the Stanislaus River is treated. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it your understanding that the San 25 Joaquin River Agreement requires that water to meet the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13955 1 cleaner category to qualify for contribution? 2 MR. STEINER: I don't think the San Joaquin River 3 Agreement addressed it, but it was a presumption that it was 4 a water delivery quality. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's assume that the contribution by 6 the Exchange Contractors was a less clean water, how would 7 that affect the results of your modeling? 8 MR. STEINER: Not very significantly. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Even in low flow periods it would not 10 have a significant impact on the resulting water quality in 11 your modeling? 12 MR. STEINER: No. If you were to look at the amount of 13 water provided by Exchange Contractors, it is relatively 14 small. It is going to occur during the VAMP period when 15 water quality is very, very good. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to Page 9, near the top, the 17 assumption is made in the modeling that the reductions to 18 the OID diversions would be made during the months of March, 19 April, September and October. 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. STEINER: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Why would the reductions be assumed to 23 be in those months rather than spread through the entire 24 irrigation season? 25 MR. STEINER: This falls back to consistency with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13956 1 other studies developed by Reclamation and the districts 2 before concerning how they planned to operate or make the 3 water available under the previous arrangements for return 4 water. And this discussion would best be directed towards 5 the districts. This is what I have been led to understand 6 as far as the months in which they would be exercising other 7 resource options. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: So, this was input given to you by your 9 client rather than produced by you? 10 MR. STEINER: It is an assumption, but I had to 11 incorporate in and somewhat understand it, yes. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you believe that it realistically 13 represents what is likely to occur? 14 MR. STEINER: The word "likely" may not be the right 15 word. It is what I understand can happen, yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Going to Page 10 and your supplemental 17 illustration of results, you pick the water years for one 18 grouping as '86 through '92. Is there any reason why an '87 19 through '92 period was not picked to reflect critical year 20 impact on the model? 21 MR. STEINER: I need -- are you asking why I put '86 22 among this crowd? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. Why did you pick '86 for the 24 beginning of that period? 25 MR. STEINER: I was trying to represent a full cycle, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13957 1 from full to full. On my sequences '86 was coming out of a 2 wet condition, so I could start with a full condition. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: If, in fact, the sequence was started 4 with a less than full condition, then the results would be 5 significantly different, would they not? 6 MR. STEINER: Significantly, I don't know. You have to 7 define -- 8 MR. NOMELLINI: How about a year like '92? Let's 9 assume for the sequence, the hydraulic sequence that you 10 have as '86 through '92, if '86 was a dry year would the 11 impact be significantly different in terms of water quality 12 in the San Joaquin River? 13 MR. STEINER: That is an abstract condition. I mean, 14 it is asking -- this is the sequences of years that we have 15 modeled, and to change one of those years could change the 16 results of the entire modeling process. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you done any modeling to evaluate 18 the impact of the proposed operations under your post San 19 Joaquin River Agreement sequence during the course of the 20 1987 through '92 dry period? 21 MR. STEINER: Yes, I've done that modeling. It was one 22 of the sequences that occurs in the long-term study. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: But it is reflected, you would agree, 24 in this sequence that starts with an '86? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes. That is the nature of these CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13958 1 studies. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me see if I can get at it a little 3 better. 4 Let's compare Figure 1a -- maybe we can use Bill's help 5 here. Figure "a" shows for the month of May in critical 6 years a substantial increase in average flow, does it not? 7 MR. STEINER: That's correct. But do recall that that 8 particular, if you're looking at absolute numbers, is only 9 reflective of the entire San Joaquin River Agreement 10 provisions, including dry year relaxations. So, this is, 11 again, the average of all critical years, whether there was 12 VAMP water being provided or not because of relaxations. If 13 you are to implement other provisions of the San Joaquin 14 River Agreement, the change in that bar could be even 15 greater. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's take that Figure 1a and let's go 17 over to Table 1. If we can impose on Bill to put Table 1 18 up. 19 If we look at critical years like 1989, 1990, '91 and 20 '92, there is, in fact, no VAMP contribution? 21 MR. STEINER: Under this premise of these studies, 22 which was to recognize the dry year relaxations does not 23 require specific water from these entities, that is 24 correct. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, are you telling me that Figure 1a, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13959 1 that average up there, which looks like it is about a 2 thousand cubic feet per second for May, which would be 3 roughly 62,000 acre-feet, represents the average of all of 4 these critical years? Because if you look at Table 1, the 5 maximum critical year flow in any one of those years 6 provided by VAMP is 61,000 acre-feet? 7 MR. STEINER: First, I don't see an increment of a 8 thousand cfs in May. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Tell me what you think the black line 10 for May on Figure 1a amounts to in cubic feet per second. 11 MR. STEINER: It looks like an increment of change of 12 about 500 cfs. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. All right. So that would 14 translate to roughly 32,000 acre-feet, and it should be an 15 average, you say, of all of these things? 16 MR. STEINER: Of all the critical years in the entire 17 hydrologic set, which is not just Table 1. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: We would expect that the VAMP 19 contribution in years like the critical years like '89, '91 20 '92 to be zero; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: That occurs from the sequential 22 occurrence of critical years. But, like, 1924 is the first 23 year among -- is a critical year all among itself to where 24 you would see some VAMP water there. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: So, this is a product of, if history CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13960 1 repeats itself, '86 through '92, then there would be four 2 critical years, '89 through '92, in which there would be no 3 contribution to pulse flow under the San Joaquin River 4 Agreement? 5 MR. STEINER: No. There is the opportunity that there 6 would be flow under the willing-seller-willing-buyer 7 provisions of the San Joaquin River Agreement. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: It wouldn't be mandated? 9 MR. STEINER: It would not be mandated. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: If we can go back to Figure 1a again, 11 Bill. Thank you very much for your help. 12 If we look at the May pulse flow graph for dry years, 13 and we see the black bar very high in May, where on the 14 chart is the source of that water reflected, if at all? 15 MR. STEINER: Which chart? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's go right to the bottom part of 17 that, which is a dry year May pulse flow, Figure 1b. If we 18 looked at the flow, the increased flow in May, resulting 19 from the post SJRA condition, and we looked across those 20 bars to the left, where do we find the white bar increment 21 of water that would be used to make up the black bar in 22 May? 23 MR. STEINER: As a matter of the sequence from which 24 that water came out of, if you move on to Figures 1c and 1d, 25 you will start to see where that water came from. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13961 1 MR. NOMELLINI: So, it takes a broader period to find 2 where the water would reflect itself in terms of additional 3 water to that? 4 MR. STEINER: Where the water came from, if it came 5 from reservoir operations, yes. 6 Bill, if you'll put up 1c and 1d. 7 1c, again when you group all these averages in below 8 normal years, it still shows a gainer on average for the 9 sequence. What you will see in 1c and 1d, the recapture of 10 the flows off of the white bars, which is what made up the 11 water in the drier types of years. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: That is all I have. Thank you very 13 much. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 15 Mr. Herrick. 16 Morning. 17 ---oOo--- 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 19 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 20 BY MR. HERRICK 21 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 23 Morning, Mr. Steiner. How are you? 24 MR. STEINER: Fine. 25 MR. HERRCIK: Really, I mean that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13962 1 Mr. Nomellini certainly covered many of the areas I 2 would cover. That may interfere with the flow here. Excuse 3 me. 4 Mr. Steiner, just picking up on Mr. Nomellini's last 5 question, sir, you suggested that according to Figures 1a 6 through 1d, the increases for pulse flows are made up or 7 recaptured from future wet year flows. Is that what you are 8 saying? 9 MR. STEINER: In many times there are instances where 10 there may be a reoperation within a year, for instance 11 moving the water from a June spill to a May release. There 12 are instances of those also. That would also have to be 13 associated with a wetter type of year for there to be a 14 spill in a subsequent month. 15 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you gave in earlier 16 phases you supplied charts that have average flows over the 17 year, over the full year for different year types. 18 Do you recall that? 19 MR. STEINER: That is what these graphics, 1a through 20 1e actually represent. 21 MR. HERRICK: I am referring to your Figure 3, which is 22 part of your Exhibit 11 and Figure 3 has five pages. Just 23 trying to -- 24 MR. STEINER. Yes. Actually the depictions of 1a 25 through 1e of today's testimony are recreations of Figure 3 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13963 1 of the May analysis. 2 MR. HERRICK: I believe in cross-examining you on those 3 Figure 3s from Exhibit 11 that you concluded that over the 4 whole spectrum of year types there was a net total increase 5 in outflow resulting from the San Joaquin River Agreement. 6 Do you recall that? 7 MR. STEINER: I don't recall it actually, Mr. Herrick. 8 MR. HERRICK: Do you agree with that statement? 9 MR. STEINER: I am trying to know in my mind if that 10 would be a correct statement. 11 And given the assumptions of -- as far as the modeling 12 results, would have to say yes to that because of the fact 13 that I know that I have reduced surface water diversions in 14 these modeling results. In some circumstances that would 15 end up with more water getting to Vernalis. 16 MR. HERRICK: So, you agree, then, that your modeling 17 indicates that under the San Joaquin River Agreement there 18 is a net increase in total outflow as measured at Vernalis? 19 MR. STEINER: From the numbers generated, yes, there 20 would be. 21 MR. HERRICK: How does the reoperation of upstream dams 22 and the diversions therefrom result in a net increase of 23 outflow? 24 MR. STEINER: From the reservoir side of it, if -- and 25 it may be just because of the window of modeling to where I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13964 1 stopped the modeling in 1992, you would find in the 2 reservoirs a lower ending storage at the end of the drought 3 period in '92 in the post SJRA situation than in the 4 precondition; and that alone will provide a greater amount 5 of outflow to the system. 6 MR. HERRICK: That would explain over a one or a 7 short-term period. But over the long-term it is still the 8 same amount of water upstream, isn't it? 9 MR. STEINER: If we would have had recovery years after 10 1992 and the window of the modeling refilled those storages, 11 then you would have through reservoir operations been in the 12 same spot as far as outflow. 13 MR. HERRICK: In order for your modeling results to be 14 indicative of what will actually happen, you have to assume 15 that there is a wet year or two wet years or some number of 16 wet years coming up? 17 MR. STEINER: It's a matter of circumstance that it 18 happens. 19 MR. HERRICK: I agree it has happened over the 71-year 20 history, correct? 21 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 22 MR. HERRICK: We are examining a 12-year program. So 23 the question is: In order for your modeling results to be 24 an indication of what will happen, we have to assume that 25 there will be wet years that supply enough refill water over CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13965 1 this next 12-year period; is that correct? 2 MR. STEINER: To provide that there is no change in 3 overall outflow, yes, you would have to assume that. 4 MR. HERRICK: If we don't assume that what happens? 5 MR. STEINER: Then there may be more outflow within 6 that isolated period because you have drawn from storage of 7 the reservoirs that has not been recaptured yet. 8 MR. HERRICK: The more outflow that you have would come 9 down when, though? 10 MR. STEINER: It would come down the period you desire 11 it, the VAMP period or October period. 12 MR. HERRICK: Unless you have a wet year or unless you 13 have some number of wet years or volumes of water from a wet 14 year, we don't know what the effects on those other months' 15 flows in water quality will be; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: In terms of -- you leaped from years to 17 months now. In terms of months we are still trying to 18 depict how it would occur. If they are operating at minimum 19 reservoir releases, it is going to be coming out of storage. 20 It would be ending that period, that 12-year period at 21 lesser storage. 22 MR. HERRICK: Now, just as a general proposition, you 23 would agree that if your assumptions -- if the assumptions 24 that went into your modeling change, that could potentially 25 change the results of your modeling; is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13966 1 MR. STEINER: Of course, it could. 2 MR. HERRICK: I believe you stated to Mr. Nomellini as 3 you do in your testimony that you assumed for your modeling 4 purposes that the OID, SSJID contribution is assumed as a 5 reduction to the districts' diversion during the months of 6 March, April, September and October; is that correct? 7 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 8 MR. HERRICK: Have you reviewed the testimony proposed 9 to be given by other witnesses from the San Joaquin River 10 Group Authority for this phase? 11 MR. STEINER: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that, just as an example, 13 Mr. Barrett Kehl's testimony, which we haven't gotten to, 14 talks about how much water that district currently uses or 15 may use in the future? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What testimony? 17 MR. HERRICK: Barrett Kehl is talking about South San 18 Joaquin Irrigation District. 19 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am aware of that. 20 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the testimony, which 21 hasn't been given yet, before the drought South San Joaquin 22 generally requires between 250,000 acre-feet and 275,000 23 acre-feet? 24 MR. STEINER: I recall reading that. 25 MR. HERRICK: Later on in his testimony he states that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13967 1 an additional 30,000 acre-feet of decrease of need may or 2 will or has resulted from other activities the district has 3 taken? 4 MR. STEINER: I don't remember the absolute numbers, 5 but I do recall -- 6 MR. HERRICK: You remember him talking about additional 7 decrease in their need? 8 MR. STEINER: Not that familiar with it. 9 MR. HERRICK: In your assumptions for your modeling you 10 assumed that both OID and SSJID took their full 300,000 11 acre-feet amount each year, did you not? 12 MR. STEINER: The modeling I had embedded in both the 13 pre and post condition. 14 MR. HERRICK: Do you remember me asking you questions 15 about this issue almost a year ago last July? 16 MR. STEINER: I don't recall now. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Oh, geez. 18 MR. HERRICK: You don't recall? 19 Have you gone back and done any changes or redone any 20 modeling to reflect the fact that SSJID and/or OID may not 21 take 300,000 acre-feet each year? 22 MR. STEINER: I have done none of those changes. 23 However, as I just pointed out, if you were to do such a 24 change you would want to incorporate that in both the base 25 condition and the post condition. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13968 1 MR. HERRICK: If, in fact, those two districts don't 2 take the full 600,000 acre-feet under their contract from 3 the Bureau, does that -- would you conclude, then, that your 4 current modeling results do not accurately reflect the 5 actual conditions? 6 MR. STEINER: It would change the actual condition. 7 What I was trying to capture in my modeling was the 8 incremental differences due to the pre and post condition. 9 To the extent that you change both conditions equally, you 10 may not have a difference in the incremental effect. You 11 may just have a different playing field that you are working 12 off of. 13 MR. HERRICK: That is a possibility that you may have 14 an incremental change that does have an affect; isn't that 15 true? 16 MR. STEINER: Other than I think that it would be very 17 much similar to the -- as far as would that change the 18 conclusions? I highly doubt it. 19 MR. HERRICK: Let's explore that. If the districts 20 don't take all of their 600,000 acre-feet, what happens to 21 that water they do not take? 22 MR. STEINER: In the modeling world, if I incorporated 23 in the baseline, it will show up as leftover water under the 24 IOP as additional storage in New Melones to be reallocated 25 under the IOP out to all the entities again. That would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13969 1 lead to probably a -- if water quality were the parameter 2 that is not being met at Vernalis, it would probably improve 3 the existing condition. 4 MR. HERRICK: You just explained what your model would 5 do with that water. I am asking what actually happens with 6 that water. Let me see if I can refresh your memory a 7 little bit. 8 Are you familiar with OID and SSJID's agreement with 9 the Bureau to provide their contractual water? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the provision of 12 that agreement that provides a conservation account? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 14 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the conservation 15 account is that water they didn't use stored over a period 16 of time, if it can be stored? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes. Again, I believe constitutionally 18 it may be credited that way. It will play into the IOP. 19 Whether it is counted as conservation or not, it is real 20 water in the reservoir. 21 MR. HERRICK: Understand. I thought you just said when 22 you were talking what your model does with it, that water is 23 reallocated for different purposes. 24 Did you say that? 25 MR. STEINER: Under IOP it would be. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13970 1 MR. HERRICK: If it is in their conservation account, 2 is allocated to other purposes other than use by OID and 3 SSJID? 4 MR. STEINER: As far as I know, it is. 5 MR. HERRICK: So, what is the purpose of the 6 conservation account, to your knowledge, if the districts 7 aren't entitled to that water in future years? 8 MR. STEINER: I have no opinion on that. You should 9 ask the districts. 10 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that, but I am asking you. 11 MR. STEINER: It appears to be a paper account to me. 12 MR. HERRICK: That is based on what? Past practice? 13 Specifics of the IOP? Information you have gleaned from 14 other people? How do you conclude that? 15 MR. STEINER: If I recall from history at this point, 16 the account had at the end of 1992 a volume credited to the 17 districts greater than the amount of storage that was left 18 over in New Melones Reservoir. 19 MR. HERRICK: So you're taking the actual occurrences 20 from the most recent drought period to make that conclusion; 21 is that correct? 22 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is that necessarily so, in your opinion, 24 that that would happen again? 25 MR. STEINER: I have nothing to lead me to a different CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13971 1 conclusion. 2 MR. HERRICK: You said you are familiar with the 3 contract between SSJID and the Bureau, did you not? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes, I did. 5 MR. HERRICK: Doesn't that contract provide for the 6 circumstances under which those districts may use any water 7 that is in the conservation account? 8 MR. STEINER: I am not that familiar with the 9 contract. 10 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't you agree that that is the 11 purpose of the conservation account, to carry over water for 12 potential future use by those two entities? 13 MR. STEINER: That's correct, within any drought 14 sequence. 15 MR. HERRICK: But in your modeling you discounted that 16 possibility; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: I don't think it enters into the fact 18 that I do not capture an increase in a dry year supply 19 allocation to the districts other than what they get under 20 their normal formula, which would be an indication that they 21 would be able to draw more than the formula amount. That is 22 not within this model. 23 MR. HERRICK: That was a choice by you as an assumption 24 for the modeling? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes. It is consistent with how systems CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13972 1 are modeled by Reclamation also. 2 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that is not 3 consistent with the terms of the agreement between SSJID and 4 the Bureau? 5 MR. STEINER: It appears to not implement a provision 6 of the agreement. Why it is not decided, I do not know. 7 Whether that would make a change at the end of the sequence 8 in terms of storage in New Melones, I would have to run out 9 the numbers. 10 MR. HERRICK: Let's go to the other end of the 11 equation. You are assuming that the districts take 600,000 12 each year; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: To your knowledge, do they take 600,000 15 acre-feet each year? 16 MR. STEINER: Well, exactly 600,000, absolutely not. 17 It would be highly unlikely that they would be able to 18 exactly match 600,000. Our recollection of the historical 19 record is there are many instances where they take less than 20 600,000 acre-feet in a year. 21 MR. HERRICK: Your model assumes they do; is that 22 correct? 23 MR. STEINER: As a planning assumption to run the 24 model, yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: So that model makes assumptions with CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13973 1 regard to downstream quality effects based on that 600,000 2 acre-feet being delivered to the two districts; is that 3 correct? 4 MR. STEINER: Not certain if there is a real linkage 5 between the diversion and these modelings and the 6 downstream water quality. The downstream water quality 7 would be affected by what was allocated to the river. 8 MR. HERRICK: I don't want to test your knowledge of 9 agricultural. Is it your understanding that in the years 10 that the districts might take the total 600,000 acre-feet 11 that they would consume more than they take in years that 12 they don't get 600,000 acre-feet? 13 MR. STEINER: I think it is a matter of meterology and 14 agriculture, yes, so there could be consumptive requirements 15 greater in one year than another. 16 MR. HERRICK: Was that taken into account in your 17 modeling? 18 MR. STEINER: No. It is fixed at 600,000 acre-feet a 19 year. 20 MR. HERRICK: Would you expect in reality to be -- that 21 consumptive use is fixed every year? 22 MR. STEINER: In reality, absolutely not. 23 MR. HERRICK: Did you make may provisions to adjust 24 your modeling to take accounts of reality as opposed to an 25 assumption? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13974 1 MR. STEINER: In this level of modeling, no, it does 2 not take that into consideration. 3 MR. HERRICK: You would agree, won't you, that if the 4 districts took more than 600,000 acre-feet each year, there 5 is a potential effect to downstream water quality resulting 6 from that? 7 MR. STEINER: I couldn't agree, no. 8 MR. HERRICK: There is not that potential? 9 MR. STEINER: There could be a potential, yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Let's just build a hypothetical. Let's 11 say in a year that 600,000 acre-feet is offered -- excuse 12 me, 600,000 acre-feet is offered to the districts. Using 13 numbers given by Mr. Kehl in his testimony, let's say they 14 only need 250,000 acre-feet to satisfy their needs. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. He 16 has jumped from two districts to one district. 17 MR. HERRICK: I didn't get to finish the hypothetical. 18 Using Mr. Kehl's to be presented testimony a need of 19 250,000 acre-feet, let's just assume for purposes of this 20 hypothetical OID similar reduction in need. So they're also 21 taking -- needing 250,000 acre-feet even though their 22 allotment is 300. 23 Do you understand the hypothetical so far? 24 MR. STEINER: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: If 600,000 is delivered to them, but they CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13975 1 are only using 500,000 we would assume that the other 2 100,000 goes somewhere else. Would that be a realistic 3 assumption? 4 MR. STEINER: If they diverted 600 and they only had a 5 need for 500, yes, that would be a valid assumption, the 6 other 50 had to go somewhere. 7 MR. HERRICK: Your modeling assumed that they took the 8 whole 600? 9 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: So an extra 100,000 acre-feet of 11 Stanislaus River water -- if a portion of the extra 100,000 12 acre-feet of Stanislaus River water makes it to the San 13 Joaquin River would you expect that to have an affect on 14 salinity of the San Joaquin River? 15 MR. STEINER: As opposed to not arriving in the river, 16 yes, I would expect that to happen. That would happen in 17 the base case or the SJRA case. 18 MR. HERRICK: Then I go back to my question before the 19 hypothetical. I believe you said, "I would not expect that 20 to result in any change in Vernalis water quality." Can you 21 explain those two? 22 MR. STEINER: It might have been because how you laid 23 out the hypothetical. 24 MR. HERRICK: Do you change your prior answer? Is 25 there a potential affect from the districts not using the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13976 1 full 600,000 acre-feet? 2 MR. STEINER: There will be an effect to the world from 3 them not using the full 600,000 acre-feet. That would apply 4 under both the base case and the SJRA case. 5 MR. HERRICK: In your modeling of the base case did you 6 take into account any requirements that may or may not exist 7 on the Bureau regarding its operation of New Melones? 8 MR. STEINER: Yes. I incorporated the Interim 9 Operations Plan. 10 MR. HERRICK: Let me just label that a self-imposed 11 requirement of the Bureau. I am talking about outside 12 requirements. Did you do any analysis of whether or not the 13 allocation of water under the Interim Operation Plan is in 14 compliance with any other sort of regulatory directive to 15 the Bureau? 16 MR. STEINER: Part of -- I guess I am a little 17 concerned with what you include in the IOP. The IOP 18 includes meeting objectives for the Bay-Delta standards. 19 Is that what you are referring to? 20 MR. HERRICK: No. I am asking you if before you 21 developed your base case if you did any investigation to see 22 whether or not the Interim Operation Plan was in compliance 23 with any other existing regulatory requirement. 24 MR. STEINER: I did not do that analysis. I accepted 25 the Interim Operation Plan for what it is. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13977 1 MR. HERRICK: Just for clarification, you're describing 2 today in your direct testimony and in cross-examination 3 previously done modeling results; is that correct, you 4 haven't done any new results for this Phase II-B? 5 MR. STEINER: No. This is the same modeling that was 6 done for Phase II. 7 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony maybe a year ago, then, 8 you mentioned that the assumptions you made for your 9 modeling followed the division agreements' provisions for 10 where the water could come from in supplying the VAMP flows; 11 is that correct? 12 MR. STEINER: That is correct as far as the entity we 13 were responsible for. 14 MR. HERRICK: I believe in that prior cross-examination 15 you also agreed with the proposition that the parties had 16 the ability under that agreement to change those allocations 17 amongst themselves? 18 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: So, would it be safe to assume that if 20 the parties changed those allocations, the result of your 21 modeling results would also be changed? 22 MR. STEINER: If that were to lead to the trickle out 23 of that if there are different parties responsible for 24 different portions and that party is going to provide it out 25 of their resources, then that would change the modeling CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13978 1 results, yes. 2 MR. HERRICK: Let's just take a hypothetical. If 3 Merced Irrigation District doesn't want to decrease surface 4 diversions, but the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors 5 are willing to supply Merced's portion, that could have an 6 affect on downstream water quality; is that correct? 7 MR. STEINER: In the modeling it would show up as the 8 same result because it would treat the Merced releases and 9 the Exchange Contractor releases in the same pigeon hole of 10 the water quality equation. In reality, it could be a 11 little different if the Exchange Contractors provided the 12 water instead of Merced. 13 MR. HERRICK: I didn't understand that from your 14 answers to Mr. Nomellini. Excuse me, let me clarify that. 15 Is it your testimony that your modeling treats flows 16 supplied by Merced as being the same water quality as flows 17 supplied by San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors? 18 MR. STEINER: The modeling equation does. 19 MR. HERRICK: In fact, is the water that would come out 20 of the Merced River under the VAMP program of the same 21 quality as the water that would come out of the San Joaquin 22 River Exchange Contractors? 23 MR. STEINER: From my review of historical records it 24 is not of the same quality. 25 MR. HERRICK: Is there some reason why you didn't try CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13979 1 to analyze what you believe to be historically correct as 2 opposed to modeling assumptions -- as opposed to existing 3 modeling assumptions? 4 MR. STEINER: It is accepting the relationships that 5 are built into these models rather than trying to raise that 6 modeling effort to another level. Right now the salinity 7 equation in the SANJASM and STANMOD would result in a lot of 8 work. And the -- there was just no time, no need nor effort 9 put into whether that should be advanced within this 10 modeling effort. 11 MR. HERRICK: Again, I apologize if I misunderstood 12 your answers to Mr. Nomellini's questions. I don't mean to 13 be repetitive. 14 Is it your understanding -- do you have an 15 understanding as to whether or not the water that would be 16 supplied by the Exchange Contractors would be returned flow 17 or drainage water or perhaps would it be a direct flow from 18 the Delta-Mendota Canal through connective waters? 19 MR. STEINER: My understanding is it is not a direct 20 flow, at least experienced by this year's operation, Mr. 21 Burke will get to. It came from the water supply canals. 22 MR. HERRICK: Came from the water supply canals? 23 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not those water 25 supply canals are connected to drainage canals in any area? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13980 1 MR. STEINER: Of the canal that provided the flows 2 this year, I cannot speak with assurity exactly where with 3 respect to sources. That would be a question better 4 directed to the Exchange Contractors. 5 MR. HERRICK: Your modeling results indicated the water 6 coming out of the Exchange Contractors' area is a met 7 increase in the water that would have come out in the 8 absence of VAMP? 9 MR. STEINER: It would have been an accretion to the 10 river, right, that was not otherwise there in the 11 precondition. So it would add to the volume at Vernalis. 12 MR. HERRICK: What happened in the pre-VAMP situation 13 to that water? 14 MR. STEINER: You will direct that question, please, to 15 the Exchange Contractors. 16 MR. HERRICK: Don't tell me. 17 MR. STEINER: I cannot answer your question. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: He said please. 19 MR. HERRICK: He did say please. Sorry. 20 You made modeling assumptions that it was a net 21 increase; is that correct? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes, as a simple accretion to the river. 23 MR. HERRICK: What did you base your assumptions for 24 the base case on as to the amount of water exiting the San 25 Joaquin River Exchange Contractors' area? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13981 1 MR. STEINER: That is built into the base line study of 2 SANJASM, which is provided by Bureau of Reclamation. 3 MR. HERRICK: In your development of the, I will say, 4 modeling result, you used other models, correct; you didn't 5 create the models? 6 MR. STEINER: That's right. 7 MR. HERRICK: Did you ask yourself that question? In 8 other words, where is the water coming from if I am assuming 9 additional water is coming from some area? 10 MR. STEINER: Did I ask myself that question? 11 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 12 MR. STEINER: What was the answer for the San Joaquin 13 River Exchange Contractors? 14 It came from water that went elsewhere in the base 15 condition, but did not reach the river. 16 MR. HERRICK: That is what I am trying to explore. If 17 you don't know, that is fine. You're assuming it went 18 elsewhere. I am trying to find out if you investigated 19 and/or what you determined elsewhere was. 20 MR. STEINER: No, I did not determine what that 21 elsewhere was. 22 MR. HERRICK: If there is no elsewhere and that water 23 came out into the San Joaquin River, either through 24 accretions or a direct discharge or something like that, 25 would your modeling results then be incorrect? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13982 1 MR. STEINER: If it did have an effect for other 2 periods of the year, it was just rearrangement of flow. It 3 would have some affect, maybe very minuscule in 4 consideration of the numbers that show up in the table, such 5 as Table 2, to where the maximum supplemental water supplied 6 by the Exchange Contractors, in this case 11,000 acre-feet. 7 And depending on your assumption of where it came from, if 8 it was hydraulically connected to the river in the 9 precondition, you start to have to consider how you spread 10 11,000 acre-feet over a year in terms of the effect. It may 11 be very minuscule and not noticeable in the model. 12 MR. HERRICK: You're assuming 11,000 is the maximum 13 they will provide; is that correct? 14 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 15 MR. HERRICK: We established earlier that, according to 16 the division agreement, they may reallocate amounts among 17 themselves; is that correct? 18 MR. STEINER: Anything is possible. 19 MR. HERRICK: Even meeting water quality. 20 Mr. Steiner, in your analysis what sort of assumptions 21 did you make with regards to potential different hydrologic 22 situations on the different tributaries in any one 23 particular year? 24 MR. STEINER: I think it is inherent in the model. 25 When we categorized the year types for the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13983 1 Basin, that is incorporating what is happening on the 2 tributaries. 3 MR. HERRICK: So we can have the year where the Merced 4 tributary is dry, but the Stanislaus tributary is above 5 normal; is that correct? 6 MR. STEINER: I don't remember if I have seen that 7 great a disparity. It could happen. I have not gone into 8 that detail of analysis. 9 MR. HERRICK: Over the 71 years modeled, did you look 10 to see if that potential disparity -- let me start over. 11 Does the modeling reflect all the possible different 12 disparities amongst the tributaries? 13 MR. STEINER: As have occurred with historical nature, 14 yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: So, is that taken into consideration in 16 your allocation of amounts provided by the different 17 tributaries toward the VAMP flows? 18 MR. STEINER: The VAMP and San Joaquin River Agreement 19 obligations are driven by the basin's hydrologic condition 20 at large. It gets filtered back to each of the 21 tributaries. The analysis was run and shown to the 22 tributaries, and they are aware of what could happen. 23 MR. HERRICK: Does your modeling take into 24 consideration, say, if the hydrology in the Stanislaus River 25 watershed is significantly greater than that of the Merced, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13984 1 does that affect the allocation of VAMP flows under your 2 modeling? 3 MR. STEINER: It neither affects under the division 4 agreement or modeling. 5 MR. HERRICK: Under the division agreement that might 6 be a reason for them to reallocate their responsibilities, 7 wouldn't it? 8 MR. STEINER: I guess it could be. 9 MR. HERRICK: You talk about the assumptions for how 10 the OID and SSJID VAMP flows are provided. It's dependent 11 upon whether or not a limit of 1,500 cfs flow in the 12 Stanislaus River exists; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 14 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with the Bureau 15 Anadromous Fish Restoration Program or the proposed one? 16 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 17 MR. HERRICK: Can you tell us in what years they're 18 proposing to release less than 1,500 cfs for the pulse flow 19 period? 20 MR. STEINER: I would have to look at the table that 21 was made for the Stanislaus River. But if I remember, 22 generally, it'd have to be the drier years. 23 MR. HERRICK: Aren't they typically releasing 1,500 cfs 24 in every year? 25 MR. STEINER: I don't think every year would be the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13985 1 right coining. 2 MR. HERRICK: What determined under your modeling 3 whether or not 1,500 was already -- that 1,500 limit had 4 been reached or not? 5 MR. STEINER: It was the allocation under the IOP that 6 determined how much water was allocated to the fish. 7 MR. HERRICK: Did your modeling take into account any 8 additional releases from New Melones beyond the 31-day pulse 9 flow for fishery purposes? 10 MR. STEINER: The fishery schedule speaks for itself in 11 the IOP. Ask me the question again. 12 MR. HERRICK: Let me put it another way. 13 You state in your testimony that a couple times -- I 14 will run into it here. I'm sorry -- that one of the 15 increases in flows or potential benefits to water quality is 16 the OID transfer or allocation back into the Bureau New 17 Melones Reservoir; is that correct? 18 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 19 MR. HERRICK: How did you determine how the Bureau 20 would decide to release that water? 21 MR. STEINER: In this modeling effort that water 22 remained back into storage and to some extent was 23 reallocated under the current rules of the IOP. Given the 24 nature of the slope of the curve of those allocations, an 25 acre-foot in from the OID exchange doesn't necessarily mean CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13986 1 an acre-foot back out, because the slope of the curves are 2 pretty shallow. So a lot of water ends up remaining as 3 carryover storage or eventually spilled. Wasn't reallocated 4 out. 5 MR. HERRICK: The IOP doesn't take into consideration 6 -- the modeling for IOP done by the Bureau, that was done 7 before the VAMP proposal, the San Joaquin proposal was 8 developed; is that correct? 9 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 10 MR. HERRICK: The modeling for IOP doesn't take into 11 consideration any of those amounts from Oakdale that might 12 be left in storage or purchased; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: That is correct. That would be evident 14 in one of my graphics for the '86 through '92 period. You 15 will see New Melones' storage carries over into 1993 at a 16 large amount greater than the base case. 17 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you mentioned, as I 18 said a couple times, you mentioned a couple times that 19 potentially this carryover might have a beneficial impact on 20 other users or other uses; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: If it were allocated for one purpose or 22 another, yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the Bureau 24 will carry that water over or decide to make additional 25 releases for above what the IOP states they will do? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13987 1 MR. STEINER: I do not know what the Bureau will do 2 that with water. 3 MR. HERRICK: If they decide to release it every year 4 for fish, does that change your modeling results? 5 MR. STEINER: Of course, it would change. Right now I 6 have it retained in storage to a large degree. If they were 7 to actually change IOP operation, of course, the hydrology 8 study would change. 9 MR. HERRICK: They can still operate under the IOP and 10 release this additional water in each year that they have 11 the water? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes, they could. 13 MR. HERRICK: Has any analysis been done to the effects 14 of that in that scenario of what I just described? 15 MR. STEINER: Of what option they would choose to 16 embark upon? 17 MR. HERRICK: An analysis of the effects if they 18 release every year for fish instead of carrying it over? 19 MR. STEINER: The study has not been done. 20 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any analysis of South 21 Delta's, I believe it was, Exhibit 50 where South Delta 22 analyzed the difference between use of the OID water 23 resulting from the return flows or its allocation back into 24 the New Melones pot, let's say? 25 MR. STEINER: Ask me if I am familiar with your Exhibit CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13988 1 50. 2 MR. HERRICK: That was the calculation of the 3 difference between putting the water back into the New 4 Melones Reservoir or it generating approximately 20 to 30 5 percent return flow? 6 MR. STEINER: I have to refamiliarize myself with your 7 exhibit. 8 MR. HERRICK: That is fine. 9 Mr. Steiner, your analysis for your modeling for the 10 various potential occurrences under the VAMP agreement or 11 San Joaquin agreement, did that include any assumptions 12 regarding barrier operations? By that I mean the barriers 13 in the Delta. 14 MR. STEINER: The barrier operation would not affect 15 these studies. 16 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not the water 17 exported by the federal pumps could directly go down to the 18 Exchange Contractors and then through their system and back 19 into the San Joaquin River under the VAMP proposal? 20 MR. STEINER: I guess you have to find directly knowing 21 that the Exchange Contractors supplies from the 22 Delta-Mendota Canal. And I said that it was from their 23 supply canals coming that -- directly or indirectly, yes, it 24 could end up in the river. 25 MR. HERRICK: Their water could be -- at least CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13989 1 Delta-Mendota Canal water or could be water that came out of 2 San Luis; is that correct? 3 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: I'm just speculating here. 5 Is it your testimony that there is no affect on 6 Delta-Mendota Canal water quality if the barriers are 7 operating in the South Delta? 8 MR. STEINER: I didn't testify to that. 9 MR. HERRICK: You just said that barrier operations 10 would have no affect on the water quality coming out of the 11 San Joaquin Exchange Contractors coming out of VAMP, and I 12 am exploring that with you. 13 MR. STEINER: In the modeling tools that I used, you 14 would not be capturing any effect of the change of source 15 water tracing. 16 MR. HERRICK: If the change in source water does have 17 an affect, would that be relevant to these proceedings? 18 MR. STEINER: Yes. As far as being significant, would 19 be a question of if the Exchange Contractors are only 20 providing up to 11,000 acre-foot. Is worth chasing after. 21 MR. HERRICK: Or if providing more because they 22 mutually agreed under the division agreement to change that? 23 MR. STEINER: If you create that circumstance. 24 MR. HERRICK: I apologize for jumping around, but I am 25 trying to follow your testimony, keep getting off track. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13990 1 Again, you stated that you assumed that the OID and 2 SSJID reductions were resulting from reductions in the 3 months of March -- delivery reductions in March, April, 4 September and October; is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 6 MR. HERRICK: Did you do any investigation as to 7 historic reductions during those months? 8 MR. STEINER: No. 9 MR. HERRICK: On what did you base your base case with 10 regard to reductions during those months -- excuse me, with 11 regard to diversions during those months? 12 MR. STEINER: Assumptions provided in previous analysis 13 of Oakdale and South San Joaquin providing water to the 14 Bureau of Reclamation, through this form of mechanism. 15 MR. HERRICK: Did you do any analysis to see whether or 16 not the amount of water used by those -- the amount of water 17 consumed by those districts in those months is different 18 between your base case and your VAMP case? 19 MR. STEINER: It would be different. If I deduct my 20 base case as an assumed diversion in those months and if I 21 then debited from those months the amount of water they are 22 providing under these arrangements, yes, I have that 23 analysis and I have implemented it. 24 MR. HERRICK: You just said you assumed diversions. I 25 asked you about consumptive use. I asked you: Did you do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13991 1 any investigations to see whether the amount of water 2 consumed by those districts in those months is different 3 when you compare the base case to the VAMP case, not the 4 diversion? 5 MR. STEINER: I work off of the base case which I 6 assume has a basis of consumptive use, and I did not deduct 7 water from those months in excess of what they were taking 8 under the base case. 9 MR. HERRICK: Does your model for the Vamp case assume, 10 then, they are consuming less water because they are getting 11 less water? 12 MR. STEINER: I don't make an assumption that they are 13 diverting less water. 14 MR. HERRICK: You keep going back to diverting. I am 15 asking consumptive use questions, and you may not be able to 16 answer that. I am asking consumptive use. 17 MR. STEINER: I did not follow the analysis all the way 18 through consumption. 19 MR. HERRICK: Your testimony talks about benefits to 20 water quality resulting in the month of October; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 23 MR. HERRICK: I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, 24 that you used that as part of your conclusion that water 25 quality overall is better under VAMP than under the base CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13992 1 case? 2 MR. STEINER: You could form that conclusion. I was 3 looking for at least neutrality. 4 MR. HERRICK: Did you do any investigation to see what 5 potential benefit to the people who reply on water quality, 6 what potential benefit is realized by them from the 7 improvement in the October water quality? 8 MR. STEINER: I did not follow the analysis that far. 9 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't that be necessary to know before 10 you make a conclusion whether or not that improvement is 11 actually a betterment? 12 MR. STEINER: If I were labeled as having made that 13 conclusion, I hope that my context I could speak to 14 Vernalis, the water quality was improved. As far as the end 15 disposition of that betterment, I did not address. 16 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't you agree that that would be 17 relevant to making a decision in this phase whether or not 18 the benefit, what you labeled a benefit and improvement in 19 water quality, is a benefit to the people who rely on water 20 quality? 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Irrelevant. Calls for a 22 legal conclusion. What he's asked, he's asked whether or 23 not of the witness, whether or not the betterment for water 24 quality is a component of the petitions as set forth under 25 the Water Code Section 1707 and 1735. If you look at the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13993 1 hearing notice, you don't have to talk about betterments; it 2 is whether or not there is an injury to a legal user of 3 water. 4 So whether or not there is a betterment in October to 5 water quality in South Delta and whether or not that is a 6 betterment to any individual within South Delta is 7 irrelevant to this proceeding. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 9 MR. HERRICK: In presenting this testimony the San 10 Joaquin River Group Authority is stating that there is no 11 adverse effect or harm to other legal users. In support of 12 that they have a witness who is saying water quality gets 13 better in October. Depending on whether or not this 14 improvement in the TDS number, EC number, actually inures to 15 the benefit of the users of the water is completely and 16 directly relevant to whether or not there is harm or 17 adverse effects. That is inherent. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: The question can be answered. 19 MR. STEINER: I don't know how to answer that 20 question. I don't want to present my results beyond what 21 they are; that is, I measured water quality at Vernalis in 22 terms of TDS. And from this operation, the TDS went down. 23 It got better, and that was the extent of my testimony. 24 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, in your previous testimony 25 you referred to the many, many runs of different models that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13994 1 have been done; is that correct? 2 MR. STEINER: Excuse me. 3 MR. HERRICK: In your previous testimony you referred 4 to the many, many other modeled runs you had done in the 5 development of your work for the San Joaquin River Group 6 Authority; is that correct? 7 MR. STEINER: Yes. Ongoing for maybe three or four 8 years now. 9 MR. HERRICK: Those runs have been made exhibits; is 10 that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: All of the runs have not been provided, 12 no. 13 MR. HERRICK: I am sorry, you didn't provide them here, 14 but they were referenced in your oral testimony and they 15 have been submitted electronically so everybody could review 16 them? 17 MR. STEINER: Oh, yes. The number of runs that I am 18 talking about is that today's testimony has been focused 19 pretty much around the May analysis. There is a 20 complimentary set which you assume the VAMP occurs in 21 April. 22 MR. HERRICK: In those various runs, you included or 23 the results show that depending on the year type and 24 depending on whether or not VAMP is in operation, there are 25 some increases and some decreases in TDS as measured at CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13995 1 Vernalis; is that correct? 2 MR. STEINER: As part of the testimony in Phase II I 3 illustrated the table that showed both the water changes and 4 the TDS tables, and I also think I presented tables that had 5 different calculations between one run versus the other. 6 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that, but the question was 7 some of those model runs show that, depending on the year 8 type, there are incremental increases in TDS and sometimes 9 incremental decreases in TDS; is that correct? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. There are periods when the 11 increases in TDS are normally associated with a refill 12 year. 13 MR. HERRICK: You've concluded, based on some sort of 14 average of those increases and decreases, that the net 15 result is a benefit to water quality; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: I never went that far, as far as 17 averaging. I let the numbers speak for themselves as pluses 18 or minuses, and you have to take them at whole. 19 MR. HERRICK: Have you made any conclusion with regard 20 to water quality during the months of June, July, August and 21 September with regard to the affects of the VAMP program? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes, I have. 23 MR. HERRICK: And that conclusion was? 24 MR. STEINER: The conclusion is that for the June 25 through September period, other than during the years in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13996 1 which there would be a reoperation in a reservoir, there was 2 no degradation of water quality. 3 MR. HERRICK: What happens in those years of reop? 4 MR. STEINER: You would potentially see a change. This 5 would be, for instance, a wetter-type year when you see a 6 July release or June release being moved into May for the 7 VAMP. And at that point the incidental dilution from that 8 June release is decreased and the water quality would 9 increase slightly within the objective. If it did increase 10 -- if it increased to a point above the objective, it would 11 have been counteractive by an IOP release from New Melones. 12 MR. HERRICK: My question to you is: Some years -- 13 some months under some year types there is an increase in 14 TDS at Vernalis and in some months in some year types there 15 is a decrease, correct? 16 MR. STEINER: For any particular period or across the 17 year? 18 MR. HERRICK: As a result of your modeling run? 19 MR. STEINER: There will be some increases and there 20 will be some decreases. 21 MR. HERRICK: But you have concluded -- is it true that 22 you've concluded the net result is water quality is better 23 during summer months? 24 MR. STEINER: During the summer months it is 25 essentially neutral. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13997 1 MR. HERRICK: When you say "neutral," that means that 2 you've looked at the increases and combined them somehow and 3 said there is no net affect? Or did you say that in every 4 summer month it doesn't change up or down? 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I am 6 assuming this line of questioning is going to take a while 7 longer and go for a period of time. It is a little bit 8 after 12. The witness has been here on the stand for two 9 and a half hours. 10 Can we take our lunch break? 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: I didn't want to interrupt this 12 particular stream of questions. So we will break after a 13 logical point. 14 MR. HERRICK: I had no idea it was 12. I apologize. I 15 will wrap this up. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: I was going to interrupt when I 17 thought it would be an appropriate time to do so. Go ahead. 18 MR. STEINER: The June through September period, other 19 than a month where you would have a reop in it, there was no 20 change in salinity. 21 MR. HERRICK: You are saying your chart shows no change 22 in salinity during summer months? 23 MR. STEINER: That is correct. My charts do not. And 24 I need to illustrate this point. 25 MR. HERRICK: We will get to those. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13998 1 That is a good place to break, Mr. Chairman. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will take a lunch break till 1:00 3 p.m. 4 (Luncheon break taken.) 5 ---oOo--- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 13999 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 ---oOo--- 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Come back to order. 4 Mr. Herrick. 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 Mr. Steiner, again, I am just picking up where we left 7 off. I see we have -- what he have, Table 1 back up there. 8 Is that possible, Mr. Johnson? 9 Mr. Steiner, in response to one of my earlier questions 10 you referred to the '87 to '92 drought and you referenced 11 that there wasn't any water left in that conservation 12 account, anyway. 13 Is that a fair statement? 14 MR. STEINER: I didn't go that far in my testimony. 15 Here, in the modeling base of '87 through '92, the IOP 16 studies, I guess you say, ignore the conservation account. 17 What it does is allocate, according to IOP, to the districts 18 under the formula and delivers that water out each and every 19 year, according to the formula. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that in one of the years of 21 that drought that New Melones storage got down to something 22 like 80,000 acre-feet? 23 MR. STEINER: I do recall that. 24 MR. HERRICK: Something terribly low like that. 25 Do you know what allocations were made to OID and SSJID CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14000 1 in that year when that storage was so low? 2 MR. STEINER: No, I don't have a recollection of that. 3 MR. HERRICK: Would you expect in a year when New 4 Melones is at 80,000 acre-feet, going by your Table 1, that 5 OID would have an extra 26,000 acre-feet each year? 6 MR. STEINER: I can't respond to that, whether they 7 have that or not. 8 MR. HERRICK: According to your Table 1, is that true, 9 that you modeled OID supplying 24- or 26,000 acre-feet -- 10 excuse me, there is 21,000. In the years '87 through '92 11 you modeled OID supplying anywhere from 21- to 26,000 12 acre-feet each year; is that correct? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes. I was working off that 600,000 14 acre-feet diversion. 15 MR. HERRICK: Let me explore that. You said that that 16 is working off of 600,000. Is it your testimony -- do you 17 know whether or not those two districts had 600,000 of water 18 offered to them in that drought period each year? 19 MR. STEINER: The modeling, it would not have. I would 20 have to look in my studies. But if I remember right, there 21 are some years they are not allocated 600,000 acre-feet. 22 So, actually, I will retract what I just said. It is 23 26,000, 21- to 26,000 acre-feet off of what their allocation 24 was. Some years it was 600,000. As I recall correctly, 25 there was a couple of years where it was not 600,000. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14001 1 MR. HERRICK: Did you do any investigation to compare 2 how much would be available to either one of the districts, 3 by that I mean OID and SSJID, given what the model assumed 4 for what was available to them and that it was also assumed 5 anywhere from 21- to 26,000 acre-feet was transferred, I 6 will say? 7 MR. STEINER: I could find in the model what they were 8 allocated in each one of those years, yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: Have you done that? 10 MR. STEINER: It is a matter of the study. 11 MR. HERRICK: By that I mean, we have seen in prior 12 phases questions dealing with you were in a model and then 13 you look at it to see what came out makes sense. You may 14 have to go back and see if there was a faulty assumption. 15 Have you done that in this case to see whether or not a 16 district, such as OID, would be able to supply an extra 17 26,000 acre-feet in any particular drought year in this 18 period? 19 MR. STEINER: I did not chase it out to the district 20 level. 21 MR. HERRICK: According to your modeling assumptions, 22 just using what is on Table 1, in every critical year OID 23 has at least 21,000 acre-feet of water it will not need for 24 consumptive uses? 25 MR. STEINER: I can't take it that far, what the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14002 1 assumption of the modeling is. There is that amount of 2 water available from their surface water diversion. 3 MR. HERRICK: If you assume they have 600,000 acre-feet? 4 MR. STEINER: That goes with the study, yes. 5 MR. HERRICK: If we go to Table 2, and, Mr. Johnston, 6 if you would, please, I would appreciate that. 7 And, briefly, Mr. Steiner, the same sort of questions. 8 Is it correct to say that it is more than 21,000 acre-feet 9 that OID would be able to provide in some critical years? 10 In other words, in some years they actually provide their 11 VAMP flow, not just the supplemental flow? 12 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 13 MR. HERRICK: You have made no analysis to determine 14 whether those amounts -- how those amounts compare to what 15 their consumptive use needs may be? 16 MR. STEINER: I have not performed that analysis. 17 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Nomellini asked you some questions 18 about comparing the historical data with your modeling 19 results. 20 Do you recall those questions? 21 MR. STEINER: I guess I wouldn't have framed those type 22 of questions, so no. 23 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any analysis to compare, 24 say, what you label the base case with the actual water 25 quality violations from that period, say '86 to '92? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14003 1 MR. STEINER: I have not specifically looked at the 2 water violations that have occurred in history. 3 MR. HERRICK: I will say the same question just for the 4 record. 5 Have you compared your SJRA results, modeling result, 6 with those actual historic water quality violations for the 7 period, say, '86 to '92? 8 MR. STEINER: I don't believe I have, not of the water 9 quality specifically. 10 MR. HERRICK: Is it your understanding that the -- do 11 you have an understanding whether or not the Board's EIR 12 makes that sort of comparison? In other words, their base 13 case is a different base case than yours? 14 MR. STEINER: I believe their base case is different 15 than my base case, yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: When you were developing your base case, 17 did you have any discussions with the Board about what they 18 were analyzing? 19 MR. STEINER: I don't think I had a specific 20 discussion. They are working off a different platform. 21 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain to us why, if you know 22 -- excuse me, let me start over. 23 Could you explain why you chose your base case as 24 opposed to a base case of pre-Interim Operation Plan 25 operations? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14004 1 MR. STEINER: We were focusing our studies on 2 CEQA/NEPA-type of standpoint for our actions specifically, 3 which is the SJRA, and the determination was our base case 4 needed to be "current" conditions which had the IOP in it. 5 MR. HERRICK: In your opinion, is the Board's analysis 6 incorrect if given that they don't have the same base case 7 as you? 8 MR. STEINER: They provided several platforms to look 9 upon, however you wish to compare the results. But the 10 context of their CEQA documentation is different than ours. 11 MR. HERRICK: I was asking you whether or not you 12 thought theirs was appropriate. 13 MR. STEINER: You asked me if it was inappropriate. If 14 it is appropriate for their purposes, I believe it is. 15 MR. HERRICK: I am not trying to be argumentative. You 16 are offered as an expert witness, and we have two analyses 17 of the same issue with different base cases. I think it is 18 appropriate to see if you have an opinion on which is the 19 better analysis. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Argumentative, and it goes 21 to ask a legal conclusion of the witness as to whether or 22 not it is appropriate under CEQA. The witness is not 23 offered as an expert on CEQA. The witness is offered as an 24 expert on hydrologic models. So I think the question is 25 inappropriate of the witness. It calls for a legal CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14005 1 conclusion and it is argumentative. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 3 MR. HERRICK: I think he answered it. I don't believe 4 it is argumentative. I was not asking for a legal 5 conclusion. Again, this is an expert who has done a 6 different analysis than Board staff has. And I think it is 7 perfectly appropriate to determine whether or not he has any 8 explanation or reasons or opinion as to which is the more 9 appropriate analysis. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Since you think he has answered it, 11 why don't we move on. 12 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 13 Mr. Steiner, in the development of your modeling, what 14 sources did you use to gather data and/or exam modeling 15 assumptions? 16 MR. STEINER: Pretty broad question. Basically, I am 17 using existing models. For instance, the SANJASM model has 18 evolved over many years as far as the data sets that are in 19 them. Some of the data sets were provided by myself. Some 20 of them have just been the evolution of the Bureau and State 21 modeling of the basin. 22 MR. HERRICK: You were here for other phases. Do you 23 recall Alex Hildebrand's testimony regarding the modeling he 24 was involved in that looked at the recirculation proposal? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14006 1 MR. HERRICK: You recall that he said in order to do 2 that they took existing models and then got representatives 3 from various entities who had an understanding of modeling 4 or hydrology and went over the assumptions of the model they 5 were going to use, and that group decided on what changes 6 needed to be made or should be made or were recommended to 7 be made? 8 Do you recall that? 9 MR. STEINER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: My question to you is: Did you go 11 through any sort of process like that, seeking out 12 information or expert advice from people who are involved in 13 the various areas of this river system? 14 MR. STEINER: I did in conjunction with the Bureau of 15 Reclamation. 16 MR. HERRICK: Who is it from other entities besides the 17 Bureau that you discussed these matters with? 18 MR. STEINER: As far as individual assumptions that I 19 brought to the table were from the districts themselves, of 20 the SJRA. 21 MR. HERRICK: I am looking for who you talked to. 22 MR. STEINER: Regarding Merced, I discussed the matters 23 with Mark Van Camp, their consulting engineer. On the 24 Tuolumne River being numerous folks I myself have dealings 25 with on the Tuolumne River. That would be Walt Ward, Bill CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14007 1 Johnston, on the Turlock side. But, again, operators of the 2 river. 3 On the Stanislaus River I did much consult with, 4 essentially, Mr. O'Laughlin. 5 MR. HERRICK: Did you consult with any representative 6 of South Delta Water Agency? 7 MR. STEINER: Not at all. 8 MR. HERRICK: Is there any reason why you didn't? 9 MR. STEINER: For the modeling I was doing, I didn't see 10 a need. 11 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with South Delta's 12 concerns and criticisms of the process that led to the San 13 Joaquin River Agreement? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Why did you think there was not a need to 16 consult with them? 17 MR. STEINER: When it came to modeling matters, I think 18 I was consulting with experts that had sufficient knowledge 19 to get me through the effort. 20 MR. HERRICK: Did you go through questions like Mr. 21 Nomellini and I have asked, such as what should we assume 22 the water quality of the San Joaquin River Exchange 23 Contractors' water is? 24 MR. STEINER: Given that is an input to the existing 25 model, there was no discussion of changing the existing CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14008 1 procedures of that calculation. 2 MR. HERRICK: That is why I went back to the example of 3 Alex Hildebrand's modeling for the recirculation, where 4 according to his testimony, various interests got together 5 to analyze and critique the assumptions before you do the 6 model. That is what I am looking for. 7 Did that sort of critique or analysis of assumptions go 8 into your work of developing the model? 9 MR. STEINER: Among the Bureau of Reclamation and 10 myself, yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: How about questions like whether or not 12 we should model 600,000 acre-feet being delivered to OID or 13 SSJID? Was that sort of issue discussed? 14 MR. STEINER: Along with the entities on the river and 15 the Bureau, yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: In that discussion did you look at 17 historic diversions, historic deliveries to those agencies? 18 MR. STEINER: We all had a concept of what those 19 numbers said. Inherent in that discussion was a knowledge 20 of those numbers. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, your hour is concluded. 22 Can you tell me how much more time you will need and why you 23 need it? 24 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that much, 25 but I probably have at least a half hour. What I would like CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14009 1 to do, not exactly an offer of proof, there are further 2 statements in Mr. Steiner's written testimony that deal 3 specifically with the year types he has gone over. I 4 believe there is some inconsistencies there that I would 5 like to explore. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Will you stipulate to the half hour? 7 MR. HERRICK: Yes, I will. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: You may proceed. 9 MR. HERRICK: Thank you very much. 10 Mr. Steiner, again I believe you have been here for 11 most of the prior testimony; is that right? Maybe that is 12 incorrect. 13 MR. STEINER: Regarding Phase II and Phase II-A, yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Did you hear the Fish and Wildlife 15 representative express concerns that recirculation water 16 might present some problem to imprinting for fisheries in 17 the San Joaquin River? 18 MR. STEINER: I don't recall the fishery expert having 19 said that. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation said that at 20 one point. 21 MR. HERRICK: That is correct. I believe Ms. Manza for 22 the Bureau? 23 MR. STEINER: Yes. 24 MR. HERRICK: She referenced that fish interests have 25 expressed that; is that right? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14010 1 MR. STEINER: That was my understanding of her 2 testimony. 3 MR. HERRICK: Did any sort of analysis like that occur 4 in your development of this modeling information in light of 5 the fact that San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors' water 6 is part of the VAMP flows? 7 MR. STEINER: Not in my modeling efforts. 8 MR. HERRICK: Do you know if anybody has done that 9 analysis? 10 MR. STEINER: No, I do not. 11 MR. HERRICK: On Page 14 of your testimony, you talk 12 about at the times when reservoir refill operation occurred 13 water quality at Vernalis slightly decreased, but never 14 caused an exceedance of the water quality objective. Do you 15 see where that -- right in the middle? 16 MR. STEINER: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: Again, we kind of touched on this 18 earlier. Do you have any information to indicate that a 19 decrease in water quality below the standard does or does 20 not have any effect on a user of that water? 21 MR. STEINER: I do not perform that analysis. 22 MR. HERRICK: Do you know if anybody has done that 23 analysis? 24 MR. STEINER: No, I do not. 25 MR. HERRICK: In Mr. Nomellini's line of questioning CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14011 1 talking about, I believe it was, Merced, you referenced that 2 the increased flows during the pulse time, pulse period, 3 were either foregoing storage or releasing storage and that 4 at some later month that was recovered; is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: In some instances that occurred, yes. 6 MR. HERRICK: In some instances is it not recovered? 7 MR. STEINER: In some instances it was not made by the 8 foregoing or release of stored water. Sometimes, on rare 9 occasion, it was met by reduced surface water diversions. 10 MR. HERRICK: It depends on hydrology. In some years 11 would it be reasonable to assume that there was a higher 12 flow coming down or in the Merced prior to the pulse flow so 13 that the water released for pulse flow was actually stored 14 water? Does that occur under your modeling? 15 MR. STEINER: I don't understand that constructive. 16 MR. HERRCIK: If you're foregoing storage in order to 17 provide the pulse flow, that means the water is coming down 18 the river then, you are just not storing that water; you are 19 letting it pass through? 20 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: Perhaps in some instances the flow is 22 lower. But you have already made that storage; you have 23 already stored water. So you are going to release it to 24 meet that pulse flow? 25 MR. STEINER: That could happen. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14012 1 MR. HERRICK: After the pulse flow, if water is 2 available, the operator will try to recoup that previously 3 released water; is that correct? 4 MR. STEINER: In certain circumstances, yes. 5 MR. HERRICK: Everybody's storage permit allows them to 6 store a certain amount of water every year. Is that 7 something you generally understand to be true? 8 MR. STEINER: Yes, I understand that. 9 MR. HERRICK: Did you do any analysis of whether or not 10 a dam operator can store an amount of water earlier in its 11 storage season, release it and then store that same amount 12 later in the season? 13 MR. STEINER: I didn't know traditional water rights 14 analysis to find out the cause of the affect of this 15 reoperation upon their water rights. 16 MR. HERRICK: Is it important to your analysis whether 17 or not such a situation is legally -- is allowed legally? 18 MR. STEINER: It could be important if you wanted to 19 best mimic an allowed operation. 20 MR. HERRICK: Were you part of any discussion that 21 examined that issue? 22 MR. STEINER: No, I was not. 23 MR. HERRICK: You would like to go to -- let's start 24 with 3d-D, if we may, Figure 3d. 25 Now, I think I have this right, Mr. Steiner. Now I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14013 1 have asked that Figure 3d from your testimony be placed on 2 the overhead. And that shows two bar charts, bar graphs, 3 bar charts. One has flows at Vernalis and one has water 4 quality as measured in TDS at Vernalis; is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 6 MR. HERRICK: The bottom chart there is the one with 7 water quality, and you have placed on that chart dashed 8 lines that correspond to the differing water quality 9 standards pursuant to the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan; 10 is that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: Yes. That is the TDS conversion assumed 12 between EC and TDS by season. 13 MR. HERRICK: That is a good point. This is TDS and 14 that has converted EC to TDS. That is because most of the 15 model runs produce a TDS result; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony on Page 16, talking 18 about this time frame, which is '75 through '78, you say 19 that: 20 The implementation of the SJRA did not affect 21 the number of exceedances of the objectives, 22 and when there was an affect on water quality 23 there was an improvement. (Reading.) 24 Do you see where you say that in your testimony on Page 25 16? Right in the middle. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14014 1 MR. STEINER: Yes. I am reading it to see if that is 2 what I said. 3 MR. HERRICK: I'm sorry. 4 MR. STEINER: That is what I said. 5 MR. HERRICK: Would you look at the bar chart, the 6 bottom bar chart, for September of 1977. You see that? 7 MR. STEINER: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: That shows, does it not, that the San 9 Joaquin River Agreement results in a worsening of water 10 quality, does it not? 11 MR. STEINER: That is what the bar chart would show. 12 MR. HERRICK: Again, I am not trying to be picky here 13 and I am not trying to put a number on that difference. 14 Your statement that when there was an affect on water 15 quality there was an improvement, that is not correct, is it? 16 MR. STEINER: Actually, it is correct. I believe if I 17 look at data that supports this, I will find that that 18 salinity difference there is not a change in hydrology but 19 of modeling noise within the models that I use. 20 MR. HERRICK: Would that be true for the time when the 21 reverse is true? 22 MR. STEINER: That could be the same case in some of 23 these months. 24 MR. HERRICK: How can we make any conclusion if we 25 don't know improvements or decreases are just noise in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14015 1 modeling? 2 MR. STEINER: If you go and analyze the data very 3 carefully, you will find which months are causing changes to 4 salinity due to hydrology cause and effect as opposed to 5 just modeling noise. And the statements I make are in 6 reference to situations such as the VAMP months which 7 definitely have improvement in water quality the October 8 months, where there is additional flow and knowing how the 9 model operates, whether or not if it is change in hydrology 10 or noise in the model generates the TDS results. 11 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that, but the question is: 12 How do we interpret your data now? Do you want us to, no 13 offense, take your opinion that in the instances when the 14 bar charts conflict with your statement that we should 15 assume those are wrong? 16 MR. STEINER: You have to be very careful in analyzing 17 the display of information. I have some illustrations here 18 that show this point exactly. 19 MR. HERRICK: You are saying that would be true also 20 for September of 1976? 21 MR. STEINER: Yes, that is correct. I would expect no 22 hydrologic change in 1975. Purely modeling noise. 23 MR. HERRICK: How about when it is better, like in 24 October of 1975, is that noise? 25 MR. STEINER: No. Because I know there is Merced water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14016 1 coming as incidental dilution. That would be a real gain in 2 water quality. 3 MR. HERRICK: How about July of 1978? Is just -- is 4 that noise or is that hydrology? 5 MR. STEINER: I will have to look at the results. I do 6 have that illustration. 7 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, you are familiar with -- are 8 you familiar with DOI exhibits which Peggy Manza presented 9 to these proceedings in the last phase? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall that attached to 105 -- I 12 am sorry, we just got faxed copies handed out. We didn't 13 get any in the mail. They have pages that are -- I don't 14 know how to identify it except by the title. Attached to 15 her -- let me give you the pages I have. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: The clock has stopped, Mr. Herrick. 17 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. I have plenty of time. 18 Perfect. I am looking at the title of the two I am 19 looking for, the two attachments. You may have one of them. 20 One says, "The Amount of TDS by which Vernalis Standard is 21 Exceeded by the Interim Operations Plan"; and one says, 22 "Amount of TDS Exceeded by the SJRA Plan. 23 Do you have those pages? 24 MR. STEINER: Yes, I do. 25 MR. HERRICK: I am looking at the one that says CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14017 1 contract year, just as an example. Let me ask you a 2 question: Is the modeling or the modeling results here that 3 say they are from the SJRA May Plan, are those modeling runs 4 that you did or is these ones that they did or something 5 else? 6 MR. STEINER: They are modeling results of the SJRA 7 that I did, but they are not the same study that I am 8 showing here. 9 MR. HERRICK: Is there something -- what is the 10 difference between the two? Should we not rely on one of 11 them? 12 MR. STEINER: The SJRA study is very close to the study 13 results. It's just another iteration of the study. As far 14 as the study regarding the IOP, absolutely not. It is an 15 apple among the oranges of these studies. 16 MR. HERRICK: Why is that different? 17 MR. STEINER: I had a conversation with Ms. Manza to 18 find out why the results here are different from the results 19 I would have generated in a similar type of comparison, and 20 I found that she had cited her original negotiation IOP 21 studies, which are vintaged older than my baseline They are 22 the studies actually used during the negotiations rather 23 than being refined and updated to the baseline that we are 24 now using. 25 MR. HERRICK: Maybe we will have to call her back to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14018 1 explain her earlier testimony if you say it is incorrect. 2 Your point is well-taken and I appreciate that. I do 3 want to note the differences that these show, though. And 4 her two runs show that -- 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if Mr. Herrick could limit 6 his remarks to questions as opposed to arguing. He 7 certainly is free to question this witness, but the 8 commentary that he is making about, whether or not Ms. 9 Manza's testimony is incorrect, we may have to call her back 10 to explain it, he is free to do. He doesn't need to argue 11 about it now. 12 MR. HERRICK: I will try not to say things like that, 13 although it escapes me how that is adverse or affects these 14 proceedings. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: This is intended to be an examination, 16 not an opportunity for Mr. Herrick to comment on the 17 testimony or the evidence that has come in before and 18 testimony that is coming in now. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Time-out. 20 (Discussion held off record.) 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: The objection is sustained. 22 Mr. Herrick, please try to stick with the questions and 23 try to avoid -- 24 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 25 MR. STEINER: Mr. Chairman, if I could possibly make a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14019 1 statement. The direction I believe Mr. Herrick was going to 2 have me draw conclusions from, there is fundamentally a 3 problem of comparing studies that he is about to compare 4 because it is apples compared to oranges. I have refined 5 the analysis that he is attempting to rely on to be 6 comparable to the studies we are providing and have that 7 available. It would relate to a totally different 8 conclusion than where he has drawn a conclusion at this 9 point. It is only because of the wrong use of noncomparable 10 studies. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I think what we can do at this time, 12 Mr. Chairman, I know that I was speaking to Mr. Herrick, if 13 you don't mind, is that I know that he only has a couple 14 more minutes left on this cross-examination. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Seventeen. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Given the scope of it, we were 17 prepared to bring this in as rebuttal testimony at a later 18 date. But since this issue is unclear right now, we have 19 prepared testimony. I think it would expedite the 20 questioning by Mr. Herrick and the understanding of the 21 parties about the differences between what our analysis is 22 versus Ms. Manza's analysis. 23 If we want, we have -- I think we have appropriate 24 copies present. We can have that marked and Mr. Herrick 25 could then look at that and start asking questions. It CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14020 1 would probably be simpler. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: You want to do that as redirect? 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is fine, too, if we want to do it 4 that way. I will make my offer. I don't care which way the 5 Chair would like to go on that. I can bring it back as 6 redirect and we can have recross. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think it is cleaner to do it as 8 recross. Mr. Herrick then has the assurance and the ability 9 it will be presented on redirect and he will have an 10 opportunity to recross. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, do you have a 13 preference? 14 MR. HERRICK: You know, a document that we haven't had 15 an opportunity to look at, I don't think should be 16 introduced during cross-examination. 17 Mr. Steiner, your statement, notwithstanding, Ms. Manza 18 shows that there is an increase in July TDS resulting from 19 the San Joaquin River Agreement Plan over the Interim 20 Operations Plan; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: That is correct, but that is a result of 22 comparing noncomparable studies. 23 MR. HERRICK: Again, I am trying to follow through on 24 Page 16 of your testimony. You talk about, here in the next 25 set of years, this is 1983 through '86, during '84 VAMP CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14021 1 requires supplemental flows in excess of the 110,000 2 acre-feet. Total requirement being 132,000. It says: 3 This hydrologic modeling evaluates 110,000 4 acre-feet of supplement VAMP flow but the 5 results can be extrapolated to express the 6 additional water if it was provided. 7 (Reading.) 8 Do you see where it says that? 9 MR. STEINER: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason -- first of all, would 11 you explain why additional flows above 110,000 acre-feet are 12 needed? Or what is your basis for saying they need more 13 than 110,000? 14 MR. STEINER: When you go to the computation process of 15 determining the amount of supplemental water to acquire -- 16 to achieve the VAMP target flows, such as the 7,000 and the 17 5,700 cfs, at times the existing conditions -- the gap 18 between the existing flow out there and the VAMP target is 19 greater than 110,000 acre-feet. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is there a reason why you didn't attempt 21 to do any modeling to cover the effects of including that 22 additional water purchase? 23 MR. STEINER: Because the San Joaquin River Agreement 24 treats -- the construct of the San Joaquin River Agreement 25 addressing specifically where or which party will provide CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14022 1 their portion of the 110,000 acre-feet. Any water required 2 above the 110- acre-feet is left to the provision of the 3 willing-seller/willing-buyer. 4 Instead of speculating within this documentation effort 5 of where that water might come from or whom it may come 6 from, it was limited to the 110,000 acre-foot analysis. 7 MR. HERRICK: Were you asked to do any modeling to 8 simulate the effects of different potential purchases of 9 that additional water? 10 MR. STEINER: Not specifically for this study. But, 11 for instance, the one-year implementation that we have done 12 this year, I was requested and I did perform that type of 13 analysis. 14 MR. HERRICK: In fact, based on what you said, this 15 year the VAMP process attempted to purchase additional 16 water; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes. The total VAMP water this year, I 18 think, falls out to be 140,000 acre-feet that was provided. 19 MR. HERRCIK: Did you do analysis -- over what time 20 frame did you do an analysis including that additional 21 purchase? 22 MR. STEINER: It was a different type of analysis. It 23 didn't rely on this long-term hydrologic model. It started 24 with existing conditions as we had this year. We factored 25 in a range of hydrologic conditions that could happen this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14023 1 year, with up to 157,000 acre-feet purchased, and it 2 followed on with a normal year following that, as far as the 3 construct of the hydrology period that we evaluated this 4 year. 5 MR. HERRICK: One of the possible scenarios if the San 6 Joaquin River Agreement is implemented is that in any number 7 of years there could be additional purchases sought; is that 8 correct? 9 MR. STEINER: That is correct. The San Joaquin River 10 Agreement limits it to be towards the VAMP target flows. 11 MR. HERRICK: Thank you for that. 12 Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the Board 13 should do an analysis to cover those potential -- the 14 effects of those potential purchases? 15 MR. STEINER: I don't have an opinion. If they feel 16 obliged to do it for their purposes. We did what we did 17 based on the policy direction of how far we constructed the 18 environmental documentation. 19 MR. HERRICK: Do you think your analysis is sufficient 20 in light of the fact that additional purchases could be 21 required in each of the 12 VAMP years? 22 MR. STEINER: I don't believe it would cover all the 23 gamut of what would be needed to extend the purchase beyond 24 the 110,000 acre-feet. 25 MR. HERRICK: As Mr. Nomellini pointed out, the year CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14024 1 types you picked to include in your -- the groupings of 2 years that you picked to include in your testimony all start 3 with a wet year, don't they? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes. That is what I decided would be a 5 very appropriate depiction. 6 MR. HERRICK: All but the last one end with a wet year; 7 is that correct? 8 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 9 MR. HERRICK: In any particular situation if you don't 10 have a wet year at the end of any grouping of drier years, 11 I'll say, you may not be able to recover or refill the gaps 12 in the storage that have occurred resulting from the San 13 Joaquin River Agreement; is that correct? 14 MR. STEINER: If the world were to stop at some point 15 in time, yes, you would be left with a deficit in the 16 reservoir. 17 MR. HERRICK: Even if it doesn't stop, if you have dry 18 years, but the world keeps going on -- 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I don't want to object. Can you 20 rephrase the question? 21 MR. HERRICK: In analyzing any group of years -- in 22 analyzing the groups of years that you provided, you include 23 a wet year, either at the beginning or at the end? 24 MR. STEINER: Yes. And the purpose behind that was 25 because I wanted to get to a complete wet-to-wet cycle so CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14025 1 you can see how or demonstrate how the effects of providing 2 water under SJRA one year may manifest in a following year 3 or a following year after that. But ultimately Mother 4 Nature does recover a lot of these effects. 5 MR. HERRICK: If the next 12 years doesn't include a 6 wet-to-wet year cycle, do you believe that your analysis 7 gives us some sort of indication of what the affect on 8 storage would be? 9 MR. STEINER: You would have to give me the years that 10 you would construct to run that. I have right now depicted 11 everything that Mother Nature has dealt us in the past. 12 MR. HERRICK: A follow-up to Mr. Nomellini's questions. 13 You said to him that some of the assumptions that you used 14 did not -- excuse me, ascribe zero to the effects on return 15 flows from some of the operations under the plan; is that 16 correct? 17 MR. STEINER: Under my modeling I did not assume an 18 affect to return flows. Therefore, it ends up as a no 19 change in the modeling. 20 MR. HERRICK: Why did you assume no affect on return 21 flows? 22 MR. STEINER: Because I had nothing to lead me to 23 believe there was. 24 MR. HERRICK: Who did you consult with, if anybody, as 25 to whether or not a change in upstream diversions would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14026 1 affect return flows? 2 MR. STEINER: The assumptions were discussed with each 3 of the operating agencies. 4 MR. HERRICK: Are you saying that the operating 5 agencies told you that no matter what their divisions are 6 there is no change in return flows? 7 MR. STEINER: No. They said go with the assumption 8 that had been historically assumed, which is no change. 9 MR. HERRICK: How close am I, Mr. Chairman? 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: You have eight minutes, seven and a 11 half. 12 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 13 Excuse me for trying to skip over stuff already 14 covered. 15 You don't have to put it on the overhead. Your Figure 16 1a, again, is a bar chart with critical years and dry years 17 for the May pulse flow? 18 MR. STEINER: 1a would be critical years and 1b dry 19 years. 20 MR. HERRICK: You show increases -- you show 21 improvements or no change in water quality. Is that 22 generally a correct statement for these charts? 23 MR. STEINER: These charts are flow only. 24 MR. HERRICK: You show an improvement or no change in 25 most of the bars; is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14027 1 MR. STEINER: In most of the bars. 2 MR. HERRICK: The ones that show a decrease in flow, is 3 that modeling noise or is that an actual decrease in flow? 4 MR. STEINER: I would have to look at specifically the 5 year type. If you're saying, for instance, November, I 6 could envision a change because of the way we staked years 7 by water year, that November could have been a reoperation 8 year in one of the critical years. 9 MR. HERRICK: These are averages; is that correct? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Do those averages include sometimes 12 increase, sometimes decrease, or are all of the years -- do 13 all of the years show no change in flow or an increase? 14 MR. STEINER: I would say I would be more confident 15 saying in the critical years that it is definitely a neutral 16 or improvement with no decreases other than, for instance, 17 in November that we see there. Just because I know that 18 within the modeling critical years this system is pretty 19 well operating to minimum in-stream flow requirements. 20 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, do you have any -- did you 21 investigate whether or not the high flows that would have 22 occurred in some months, absent the refill under the San 23 Joaquin River Agreement, did you do any investigation to see 24 whether those high flows provided some benefit to anybody 25 downstream? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14028 1 MR. STEINER: I did not do an investigation regarding 2 benefits. I limited my analysis to the cubic foot per 3 second change. 4 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not any of those 5 high flows that may be decreased due to refill under the San 6 Joaquin River Agreement were being used by downstream 7 parties to leach soil, something like that? 8 MR. STEINER: They could have been. But the amount of 9 water that was already there -- if we are talking about the 10 incremental difference, I don't know if that would make a 11 change. 12 MR. HERRICK: Did you not investigate to see whether or 13 not the change would be significant or relevant? 14 MR. STEINER: To in-use, no. 15 MR. HERRICK: One last set of questions, if I may. 16 Did your modeling take into account whether or not any 17 dam might have to pass through the natural flow in years 18 when the downstream riparians may not be getting enough 19 water? 20 MR. STEINER: I do not have anything to recognize that 21 requirement in my modeling. 22 MR. HERRICK: If that event occurred, that dam 23 operators had to pass through natural flow because 24 downstream riparians did not receive -- were not receiving 25 an adequate amount of water, would that change your modeling CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14029 1 results? 2 MR. STEINER: Like many other changes and assumptions 3 that were mentioned before, that, too, would lead to a 4 difference in results, maybe. 5 MR. HERRICK: Do you think that should be modeled if 6 indeed that is the case? 7 MR. STEINER: If I were given the requirement, then I 8 would be modeling it. 9 MR. HERRICK: Can I give you that requirement? Just 10 kidding. 11 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 13 Ms. Zolezzi. 14 (Reporter changes paper.) 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good afternoon. 16 ---oOo--- 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 18 BY STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT 19 BY MS. ZOLEZZI 20 MS. ZOLEZZI: Jeanne Zolezzi representing Stockton East 21 Water District. 22 Good afternoon. How are you, Mr. Steiner? 23 MR. STEINER: Just fine. 24 MS. ZOLEZZI: Just a couple of questions, first, about 25 the Interim Plan of Operations that you mentioned in your CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14030 1 testimony. You testified today that for the estimation of 2 existing flow under your model, that New Melones is assumed 3 to operate consistent with the Interim Plan of Operations; 4 is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 6 MS. ZOLEZZI: Does that mean that for each year type 7 allocations are made within the parameters listed under the 8 two and from amounts for each category of water that is 9 allocated for New Melones? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes, of the final allocation plan that 11 was sent out by the Bureau of Reclamation. 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 13 You also testified today that you modeled the provision 14 of an additional 15,000 acre-feet of water annually to 15 Reclamation from Oakdale Irrigation District; is that 16 correct? 17 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 18 MS. ZOLEZZI: When modeling this water I believe your 19 testimony assumed that the Bureau would retain this water in 20 storage to be allocated in the next year in accordance with 21 the Interim Operations Plan? 22 MR. STEINER: Sometimes it would remain in storage. 23 For instance, when it was provided back in a very wet year 24 like 1983, 1982, again under the assumptions that backing 25 off of diversions occurred in March, April, September, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14031 1 October, sometimes it wouldn't necessarily remain in 2 storage. It would be spilled out of the system. 3 MS. ZOLEZZI: So except for spills you assumed it was 4 retained and allocated the Inter Ops Plan for the next year? 5 MR. STEINER: I also said not necessarily all get 6 reallocated. It would be reallocated out the next year 7 according to the existing rules of the IOP. It would not 8 necessarily mean the 10 acre-feet in and 10 acre-feet out. 9 MS. ZOLEZZI: Exactly. 10 Why did you model it in that manner to retain in 11 storage and then allocated under the Interim Ops Plan? 12 MR. STEINER: I did not want to modify the model, and 13 that we had no guidance from Reclamation how they would 14 allocate water. 15 MS. ZOLEZZI: To reiterate that, the Bureau has not 16 committed to use that 15,000 acre-feet of water in that 17 manner? 18 MR. STEINER: Not that I am aware of. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: You are familiar with the San Joaquin 20 River Agreement itself? 21 MR. STEINER: Yes, very. 22 MS. ZOLEZZI: Under Section 8.5 of that agreement it 23 does provide that the Bureau may use that 15,000 acre-feet 24 of water for any authorized purpose of the New Melones 25 Project? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14032 1 MR. STEINER: I recall that language. 2 MS. ZOLEZZI: As a result, the Bureau could release 3 that additional water every year for any project purpose, 4 which includes fishery purposes, thus contributing nothing 5 to carryover storage; is that correct? 6 MR. STEINER: I should not be speaking for the Bureau 7 of Reclamation. 8 MS. ZOLEZZI: Under your understanding of the San 9 Joaquin River Agreement? 10 MR. STEINER: Yes, under my understanding. 11 MS. ZOLEZZI: And that would affect your model? 12 MR. STEINER: If someone were to give me the rules to 13 use that water for it, than I could change the model. And, 14 yes, a changed assumption would lead to potentially changing 15 results. 16 MS. ZOLEZZI: If I can ask you to speculate, if you 17 were to change your model to show that in each and every 18 year that 15,000 acre-feet was released in June and not 19 retained in storage, you could estimate that that would 20 result in reduced storage annually for New Melones Reservoir 21 provided there were no spills or other contributing 22 factors? 23 MR. STEINER: If it would be released out, it would 24 likely land you in the same spot in storage that you were in 25 precondition. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14033 1 MS. ZOLEZZI: I am assuming that the other allocations 2 under the plan would still be made, that the 15,000 were 3 released on top of all other allocations. 4 MR. STEINER: The home or the nature of the 15,000 was 5 from an assumed diversion under the IOP. The 15,000 was 6 provided by a reduction in how the water allocated out to 7 Oakdale. Therefore, if you assume that they did not take 8 that 15,000, it would end up in storage. And then you are 9 saying release it back out. You would end up in the same 10 spot. 11 MS. ZOLEZZI: I am not assuming that you compare the 12 modeling run that I am giving you with the pre-San Joaquin 13 River Agreement scenario. I am asking you to compare the 14 scenario I am giving you to your post San Joaquin River 15 Agreement scenario. 16 MR. STEINER: If it were allocated out, you would end 17 up lower than my post analysis shows. 18 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 19 On Page 9 of your testimony you make the statement 20 that: 21 Additional flow also occasionally occurs at 22 Vernalis during summer months and early 23 winter months as the result of additional 24 water becoming allocated from New Melones for 25 water quality and fishery releases. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14034 1 (Reading.) 2 You will have to forgive me because of the passive 3 nature of that sentence it is hard to see what is actually 4 happening. 5 Does this mean that additional water is being released 6 from New Melones for water quality due to VAMP operations? 7 MR. STEINER: Not due to the VAMP operations. The 8 additional water being released in that paragraph reference 9 was due to the fact that the Oakdale return water ends up 10 in New Melones storage in the study and automatically 11 triggers a higher allocation under the IOP to follow the 12 different uses. Those may be a very small amount, but it 13 was an incremental additional allocation. MS. 14 ZOLEZZI: If the 15,000 acre-feet of Oakdale return water is 15 a result of VAMP operation? 16 MR. STEINER: San Joaquin River Agreement operations. 17 MS. ZOLEZZI: Forgive me. Thank you. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Zolezzi, if I could interrupt you 19 for a moment. I would like to introduce our new Board 20 Member, Arthur Bagget from Mariposa County. 21 Do you wish to say anything? 22 MEMBER BAGGETT: Good to be here. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Glad to have you. 24 Thank you, Miss Zolezzi. 25 MS. ZOLEZZI: Also at Page 9 of your testimony you CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14035 1 state that: 2 During June of some above normal and wet 3 years, flows may be reduced due to 4 reoperation management of reservoir spills 5 from June into the pulse flow period. 6 (Reading.) 7 Can you explain to me what that means? What reservoirs 8 are we talking about? 9 MR. STEINER: That would show up at Merced River. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: During June of some above normal and wet 11 years, flows in the Merced River may be reduced due to 12 reoperation of reservoir spills from June in the pulse flow 13 period? 14 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 15 MS. ZOLEZZI: And that would result in reduced flows 16 also in the San Joaquin River if everything else is -- 17 MR. STEINER: Sometimes it will and on occasion it may 18 not. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: When would that occur, when it would not 20 result? 21 MR. STEINER: If there was a controlling parameter at 22 Vernalis such as water quality or Vernalis objective, that 23 if the reoperation on the Merced River were to lead to a 24 deficit to a controlling condition at Vernalis, if the 25 condition was right on the Stanislaus which had water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14036 1 allocated to but not used for that purpose, New Melones may 2 react to such reoperation, put the water right back out on 3 the river and Vernalis will remain the same. 4 MS. ZOLEZZI: Is it safe to assume there would be two 5 possible results, then, from that statement? The first is 6 that there could be reduced flows in the San Joaquin River 7 from the Merced to Vernalis? 8 MR. STEINER: Correct. 9 MS. ZOLEZZI: And there could be no difference in flows 10 at Vernalis because the Stanislaus River would release 11 additional flows? 12 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 13 MS. ZOLEZZI: At Page 13 of your testimony you state 14 that: 15 During June of 1965 the release to the Lower 16 Merced River is less since the water that 17 otherwise would have spilled from Lake 18 McClure in June is prereleased during May for 19 VAMP. (Reading.) 20 Then you state: 21 The New Melones operation reacts to this 22 reduction in flow from Merced with an 23 increase in release from the Stanislaus to 24 achieve the Vernalis flow objective of 3,420 25 cfs during June. (Reading.) CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14037 1 Does this language indicate that additional releases 2 above non San Joaquin River Agreement operations are needed 3 for New Melones not only to meet Vernalis water quality but 4 at times also to meet other Bay-Delta objectives such as X2? 5 MR. STEINER: On occasion, yes. 6 MS. ZOLEZZI: On Page 13 of your testimony you also 7 reached the conclusion following that: 8 The additional release made from the 9 Stanislaus River to counter the reduction in 10 Merced River flows during June did not 11 adversely affect carryover storage in New 12 Melones Reservoir since the carryforward of 13 additional storage from pre-1965 San Joaquin 14 River Agreement operations exceeded the 15 amount of the 1965 release. (Reading.) 16 Could you please interpret that for me? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes. Maybe it'd be best to put that 18 hydrograph up on the Board. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: That would be fine. Is that 2a? 20 MR. STEINER: 2c. This is Exhibit 103, Figure 2c on 21 Page 28 of my testimony. That passage that was just read 22 refers to the 1965 through 1967 operation. And why I 23 conclude that the overall effect on New Melones storage is 24 not just a factor of what you do within that specific period 25 but what were the carryover impacts from previous San CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14038 1 Joaquin River operations, River Agreement operations. 2 And if we look on the upper graph, you will see the 3 hydrograph for the storage at New Melones. And starting 4 there in October 1965, you will see that the post condition, 5 the solid line, is greater than the existing condition at 6 New Melones in terms of carryover storage. 7 You would have to delve back into the pre-1965 8 operations to see that the gain in carryover storage in this 9 period was due to this Oakdale return water. That, again, 10 was because I did not allocate all that water out, some of 11 it continued to remain in storage through this period, up 12 into this period. In this particular period Melones is one 13 of those for storages that do not come in full, and so we 14 didn't start with a spill condition. We were able to 15 capture the pre-1965 carryover effect. 16 When we finally get to the lower graph, you will see 17 that under July, I believe, of 1965, here is that additional 18 release made from New Melones in reaction to the Merced 19 reoperation. This was to meet the Bay-Delta objective at 20 Vernalis. And that additional water dug into that carryover 21 storage from the previous period, but it didn't dig into it 22 far enough to have flipped the conclusion of whether you are 23 worse or better off in New Melones after this condition. 24 MS. ZOLEZZI: Your assumption, then, that you are not 25 affecting carryover storage because the carryforward of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14039 1 water from pre-'65 exceeded the amount released is based 2 upon your assumption that the 1,500 acre-feet would be 3 retained by the Bureau as your model assumes? 4 MR. STEINER: That is correct. It also points out the 5 caution advice of trying to look at isolated periods and 6 draw conclusions from them. The San Joaquin River Agreement 7 is being viewed from the long-term standpoint. 8 MS. ZOLEZZI: At Pages 19 and 20 of your testimony you 9 indicate again, similarly, that due to the reallocation of 10 Oakdale water New Melones Reservoir ends the 1992 period 11 115,000 acre-feet higher in carryover storage. And then you 12 conclude with: 13 The higher carryover condition indicates a 14 potential to enhance Stanislaus River 15 operation if Reclamation chose to do so. 16 (Reading.) 17 You have previously testified that you have no idea 18 whether or not Reclamation will choose to do that? 19 MR. STEINER: I do not know what they will do with it. 20 MS. ZOLEZZI: Your model would not have shown this 21 higher carryover storage if the United States released all 22 of that purchased water? 23 MR. STEINER: That is correct. Let me illustrate, 24 though, with a depiction of that. This is that sequence 25 that you just mentioned in the top. This is, again, Figure CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14040 1 5c from Exhibit 103. It is on Page 40. 2 And the upper graph shows this is the 115,000 acre-feet 3 difference that occurs in carryover storage. The dashed 4 line is the precondition which, essentially, is a modeling 5 of the IOP without the San Joaquin River Agreement. The IOP 6 was pretty much designed around the drought period. This is 7 essentially minimum storage in New Melones with return water 8 from Oakdale. We end at 115,000 acre-feet higher. At the 9 end of the period if the Bureau chose to change IOP to 10 allocate some of this water out, you will dry this upper 11 condition to the precondition. 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 13 Continuing to look at that chart, is that Figure 2c? 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 5c. 15 MS. ZOLEZZI: Could we have 2c, please? 16 Thank you. 17 Many of the charts show similar results, but I did just 18 want to confirm that this Figure 2c shows increased releases 19 from New Melones in -- starting with, is that April, the 20 additional fish releases? 21 MR. STEINER: Actually, this release is a function of 22 just the straight allocation out of the IOP due to increased 23 storage due to the 15,000 acre-feet. 24 MS. ZOLEZZI: Again, as a result of the San Joaquin 25 River Agreement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14041 1 MR. STEINER: Yes. 2 MS. ZOLEZZI: As well as June additional releases as a 3 result of San Joaquin River Agreement operation? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes. That is due to reoperation of 5 Merced. 6 MS. ZOLEZZI: Again, all the way through that period? 7 MR. STEINER: This is just the slope of the line for 8 those allocations. 9 MS. ZOLEZZI: Those additional fish releases due to San 10 Joaquin River Agreement? 11 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: Now, moving on to another subject, did 13 you participate in a conference call of the No Name Group on 14 March 18, 1999? 15 MR. STEINER: These are the conference calls regarding 16 1999 operations, yes, I was. 17 MS. ZOLEZZI: Was one of the topics of that conference 18 call to discuss implementation of San Joaquin River 19 Agreement flows and exports for water year 1999? 20 MR. STEINER: Yes, it was. 21 MS. ZOLEZZI: Did you state on that conference call 22 that in the median forecast, 50 percent this year, median 23 next year, New Melones may release 40,000 acre-feet for 24 water quality control to offset a reduction in discretionary 25 summer releases by the tributaries? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14042 1 MR. STEINER: Yes. 2 MS. ZOLEZZI: Was that conclusion based upon a draft 3 model of yours entitled "Effects on Vernalis Flow and 4 Quality by Implementing the San Joaquin River Agreement 5 During 1999," which is Stockton East Water District Exhibit 6 41? 7 MR. STEINER: Yes, it was. 8 MS. ZOLEZZI: If we could look at Table 3 from that 9 exhibit. So this is an excerpt from Stockton East Water 10 District 41 and it is Table 3. 11 That table shows a reduction in New Melones storage for 12 the end of the February 2000 under the 50 percent forecast, 13 which is in the far right, of 24,700 acre-feet; is that 14 correct? 15 MR. STEINER: That is the difference between those last 16 two? 17 MS. ZOLEZZI: No, the end of February. So you would 18 have to go up to the 1954. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 1954, .6 in 1959. 20 MS. ZOLEZZI: End of February storage. My calculations 21 are 24,700 acre-feet. Is that your recollection? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes. 23 MS. ZOLEZZI: Is the 15,000 acre-feet of Oakdale 24 purchased water included in that end of your storage? 25 MR. STEINER: I don't believe so. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14043 1 MS. ZOLEZZI: Why would your model be different for 2 that? 3 MR. STEINER: Challenge my memory of the studies. I 4 believe when I ran this study, I did incorporate the 5 reduction and diversion of the Oakdale return water. I 6 handled that in my mind outside of the study itself. 7 MS. ZOLEZZI: So the 15,000 acre-feet in water is not 8 included in this modeling at all? 9 MR. STEINER: Excuse me, let me refer back to my 10 study. 11 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 12 MR. STEINER: My recollection is I did incorporate, and 13 that would then start to coalesce the reconciliation, that 14 there was a statement by me that it was 40,000 acre-feet in 15 this release. If you subtract the 15,000 from turn-back 16 water, you would end up as a change in storage at about 17 25,000 acre-feet. So, that would reconcile correctly. 18 MS. ZOLEZZI: So, that is my follow-up question. If 19 the Bureau released that 15,000 acre-feet for project 20 purposes in both 1999 and 2000 in a manner that did not 21 contribute to summer water quality, would there be a greater 22 than 24,700 acre-foot reduction in New Melones storage? 23 MR. STEINER: I think I missed the line. In this study 24 it is a release of additional water for water quality, 25 which was equated to that 40,000 acre-foot value you gave CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14044 1 me. It only resulted in 15,000 -- 25,000 acre-foot 2 difference because included there was a turn-back of 15,000 3 acre-feet. 4 MS. ZOLEZZI: If that 15,000 were released and did not 5 contribute to reduced water quality releases, you would have 6 a proportionally greater decrease in storage? 7 MR. STEINER: If they would have been counted at 15,000 8 acre-feet for some other release, yes, it would have 9 increased the difference between storage. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: You're familiar with the March 30th, 11 1999, document entitled "Draft Additional Water Acquisition 12 for Meeting VAMP Flow Objectives 1999 Environmental 13 Assessment and Initial Study," which is Stockton East Water 14 District Exhibit 43? 15 MR. STEINER: I believe I am. I prepared the 16 hydrologic analysis for that. 17 MS. ZOLEZZI: You are listed in the document as being 18 an individual who was involved directly in the preparation. 19 I am assuming you are familiar with it? 20 MR. STEINER: Yes, I am. 21 MS. ZOLEZZI: Is it true that this document, Stockton 22 East Water District 43, evidences that in 1999 VAMP 23 operations would require an additional 43,500 acre-feet to 24 be released from New Melones Reservoir? 25 MR. STEINER: I believe that would be akin to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14045 1 previous study we spoke of. 2 MS. ZOLEZZI: I am looking specifically at Page 316, 3 which states that the quantities of water needed in 1999 for 4 water quality releases, beyond the extra 15,000 acre-feet in 5 the San Joaquin River Agreement from Oakdale, are not 6 significant, only 28,500. And I am adding 28,500 to the 15; 7 is that correct, for the additional releases? 8 MR. STEINER: Yes. It is about the same accounting 9 that you cited on the analysis subsequently. The difference 10 between the environmental documentation and the No Name call 11 analysis is just an update of the forecasts. 12 MS. ZOLEZZI: I won't repeat the questions because they 13 would be the same if you assumed the 15,000 were released, 14 then the result in that document, Stockton East Water 15 District Exhibit 43, which shows roughly a 28,000 acre-foot 16 reduction in storage, could be increased? 17 MR. STEINER: The conclusions reached should be similar 18 for both studies. 19 MS. ZOLEZZI: Is it accurate to say, as we have gone 20 through these slides, that the impact to New Melones 21 carryover storage depends upon both the hydrologic condition 22 of the previous year, of the hydrologic condition of the 23 following year? 24 MR. STEINER: It could extend beyond the previous. It 25 could be the previous several years and post several years. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14046 1 MS. ZOLEZZI: Even though you testified today that in 2 the long run, that any impact that you have seen on storage 3 reservoirs from the San Joaquin River Agreement operations 4 would be made up during later, wetter periods. You 5 acknowledge that in the short term there may be annual 6 reductions in storage, particularly to New Melones 7 Reservoir, as a result of San Joaquin River Agreement 8 operations? 9 MR. STEINER: On circumstance it could. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: Thank you. 11 I have no further questions. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Ms. Zolezzi. 13 Does staff have any questions? 14 MR. HOWARD: No questions. 15 MS. LEIDIGH: No questions. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members. 17 Mr. Brown. 18 ---oOo--- 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 20 BY BOARD MEMBERS 21 C.O. BROWN: Mr. Steiner, if you did not change any 22 cropping pattern or irrigation efficiency of the applied 23 water, would you normally expect any change in the runoff 24 water? 25 MR. STEINER: Excuse me, Mr. Brown. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14047 1 C.O. BROWN: The question was asked several times about 2 the change in the runoff water into the streams. Tailwater 3 I presume we are talking about. There was no mention of any 4 change in cropping pattern or changes in irrigation 5 efficiency. 6 Therefore, from that basis would you normally expect 7 there would be any change in runoff water? 8 MR. STEINER: Due to simply a change in consumptive 9 use, it would not necessarily change the tailwater, for 10 instance. That is a matter of district operation. 11 C.O. BROWN: I didn't hear anybody saying about 12 changing cropping patterns. Therefore, the consumptive use 13 would not change, would it, unless you change cropping 14 patterns? 15 MR. STEINER: I have not heard any mention of changing 16 cropping pattern. 17 MR. BROWN: The question that was asked of you several 18 times: If you would expect any changes in runoff. Unless 19 one or two of those changes occurred in the circumstances, 20 would you normally expect there be any changes? 21 MR. STEINER: Any change in? 22 C.O. BROWN: Runoff, tailwater. 23 MR. STEINER: I have nothing to say why there would be 24 a change in tailwater. 25 I guess I am not sort of following the line of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14048 1 question, Mr. Brown. 2 C.O. BROWN: There were several questions that was 3 asked of you, if you would expect there would be any change 4 in the runoff into the receiving waters. 5 MR. STEINER: Can you follow, due to what? Due to 6 reduction in the surface water diversions? 7 C.O. BROWN: Due to anything. So my question to you 8 is, unless you change the cropping patterns or change the 9 irrigation efficiency, would you normally expect there would 10 be any? 11 MR. STEINER: If nothing changed, I would not expect a 12 change in the tailwater. 13 C.O. BROWN: Thank you. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Anything else, Mr. Brown? 15 C.O. BROWN: No. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. That concludes the 17 cross-examination of this witness. You want to do the 18 redirect now or later? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I think if you can give us -- if we 20 can take an early afternoon break, we can get organized and 21 have our redirect ready and prepared to go in five or ten 22 minutes? 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Let's do that. Let's take our 24 afternoon break of 12 minutes now. We will reconvene at 24 25 after. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14049 1 (Break taken.) 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Come back to order. 3 Mr. O'Laughlin, redirect testimony from Mr. Steiner. 4 ---oOo--- 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 6 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 8 We alluded to this when Mr. Herrick was asking 9 questions. We have prepared and we put it on the table 10 here. The first exhibit is a San Joaquin River Group 11 Authority analysis juxtapose of Ms. Manza's analysis. We 12 marked that San Joaquin River Group Authority 103B. 13 The next one that we have on redirect that goes to the 14 questions raised by Mr. Herrick and Mr. Nomellini are the 51 15 instances of worse salinity at Vernalis for the April 16 analysis as summarized by Mr. Steiner. That is on the 17 table. It's been marked as Exhibit 103, San Joaquin River 18 Group Authority Exhibit 103C. 19 Actually we had prepared this testimony for our 20 rebuttal case. But since we've gone over this in the 21 cross-examination, we think it is worthwhile to do it here 22 presently while Mr. Steiner is present rather than calling 23 him back to see if we can deal with the flow and water 24 quality issues hopefully in one day. 25 Mr. Steiner, turning your attention to San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14050 1 River Group Authority 103B, did you prepare that analysis? 2 MR. STEINER: Yes, I did. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you briefly explain to the Board 4 why you prepared this analysis, what triggered the reason 5 for the analysis. 6 MR. STEINER: Actually, it came about by my review of 7 South Delta's proposed direct testimony in which I found 8 some instances of citations to some work that was based on 9 my studies prepared by Ms. Manza during Phase II-A, I 10 believe. They were a summary of the underlying studies that 11 I have performed. 12 The conclusions I found regarding interpretation of Ms. 13 Manza's interpretation and of my work, which I believe was 14 my work at the time, was inconsistent with what I thought 15 would fall out of that. But I had not spent time back in 16 II-A to look at that interpretation. Therefore, I thought I 17 better do my homework and find out why someone else's belief 18 is a little different than my belief. That is the genesis 19 of this document. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you explain to us, then, what are 21 the differences in the San Joaquin River Group analysis and 22 Manza analysis in the write-up you gave under 103B. 23 MR. STEINER: Yes, I will. In quick summary, the 24 reason why people could interpret different things from the 25 different analysis is because they were not all based on the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14051 1 same studies. And basically that is the bottom line. 2 What I have put on the screen right now is the first 3 page of Exhibit 103B, which tries to summarize what was 4 presented, what is presented today. I don't want to say 5 right or wrong. Again, Ms. Manza did nothing wrong except 6 that the context of the studies that she relied upon was not 7 understood, or it was not appropriate for the use that it 8 was ultimately used for. 9 I would like you to direct your attention to the screen 10 and the analysis that Ms. Manza explained is in the 11 right-hand block of the table. And, again, to refresh our 12 memory a little bit, within your package of 103B are all the 13 backup materials for the calculations she used to arrive at 14 these. Rather than going through those in detail, I will 15 try to summarize what those sheets bring forward here. 16 What was attempted to be provided was that, based on 17 Vernalis flow and quality studies, Ms. Manza provided 18 information regarding under the Interim Operations Plan 19 there are certain months in which the salinity objectives at 20 Vernalis were exceeded. She brought forward the values of 21 those exceedances, only the exceedance itself. 22 For example, if the standard was 650 EC, if the model 23 results was 670 EC, TDS, excuse me, she brought forward a 20 24 value, as far as the exceedance in that particular month in 25 the objective. She did that for the full 71 years of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14052 1 hydrologic analysis, ordered them by month, and found that 2 for all the Octobers that had exceedances, the exceedance 3 averaged out to be 32 TDS above the standard in October. 4 In November she found in the study that she used there 5 were zero exceedances in November, and right on down the 6 line. In particular, you can look at July she found in her 7 IOP study that when the standard was exceeded it exceeded on 8 average by 179 TDS. 9 Similarly, she went to a San Joaquin River Agreement 10 study and did the same type of calculation to find out when 11 the standard was exceeded in the post, the advent of the San 12 Joaquin River Agreement being placed in the hydrology, what 13 was the average amount of exceedance by these same months. 14 Again, for instance, in July she found under the San Joaquin 15 River Agreement study the exceedances averaged in July 198 16 TDS while under IOP it was 179. 17 Particularly, in the July result, when Wynn brought to 18 my attention, surprised me, because knowing the hydrology 19 that comes out of the study, I did not anticipate that 20 there'd be any change in salinity because the hydrology 21 would not have worked that way out in my study. So, there 22 would have been no flow reductions in July. 23 Backtracking and trying to find out the information, 24 discussions with Ms. Manza, illustrated to me why these 25 numbers differed. What I found was that for the IOP study CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14053 1 that she used was not the studies that are before us right 2 in this proceeding right now. Actually, those are results 3 of a study that are probably a year or two older than the 4 studies that we have presented here and were associated with 5 the actual negotiations of the IOP within the Stanislaus 6 group. So these are benches a year or two older than 7 anything we've presented here. 8 Inherent in those studies are different assumptions, 9 such as, I believe, there would be a slight difference in 10 Merced operations that we've incorporated in the current 11 studies we have before us. The west side factors, as far as 12 drainage flows, I know differ because we updated those 13 during the latest process of the studies, would have a 14 definite affect on salinity. Also, the model that was used 15 tried to use a split-month basis for the VAMP pulse flow 16 period so that it ranged water differently during 17 April/May. 18 All these lead to, yes, I could believe there is a 19 difference between those results of those studies and the 20 studies that we presented -- that we have in front of us 21 now. 22 The San Joaquin River Agreement study is actually a 23 different study than is indicated by the work in front of us 24 here. It is a study that went one step further than what 25 has been presented to the Board at this point. It is very, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14054 1 very close. It is just one additional iteration. We never 2 achieved closure on this as far as whether it was a true 3 depiction of where we wanted to go. Basic difference in 4 this study as opposed to this study before us is the last 5 column, which is a depiction of the Manza study, which is a 6 iteration past the San Joaquin River study, which we have 7 before us, which is the second column on this table. The 8 basic difference is the latter iteration tried to address 9 the export side of the VAMP experiment, and it had many 10 questions that could not be answered, as far as makeup water 11 for the VAMP experiment to where I would not consider this 12 as being a final answer to any particular circumstance in 13 front of us right now. 14 What I have shown on the left side are the comparison 15 between the two studies that we have before us, what we call 16 the current and the SJRA study, the pre and post condition. 17 These are using the same analysis methodology that Peggy had 18 used, which is just count the amount of exceedance over the 19 objective, average it by month and put it on a piece of 20 paper. 21 In this case you will find that particularly if you 22 look at July circumstances, that the result will lead you to 23 a completely different conclusion. And in this case, for 24 instance, the water quality is not degraded. I would 25 categorize as modeling noise, as I explained, as opposed to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14055 1 any improvement or degradation in the exceedance situation 2 at Vernalis, as opposed to if you compared the two studies 3 presented by Ms. Manza you would arrive at a totally 4 different conclusion and conclude that there was must be 5 degradation from the San Joaquin River Agreement. 6 Again, the issue here is that these two studies used by 7 Ms. Manza were not intended to be specifically analyzed on a 8 month-by-month basis in comparison. It was a different 9 situation that she was trying to compare. One was the 10 expectation of the IOP at the time it was negotiated versus 11 what is the expected -- the implication of applying the San 12 Joaquin River Agreement? As we see at this point, there are 13 two absolutely dilutes being compared improperly. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Moving on then, on San Joaquin River 15 Group Authority 103C, it's "The 52 Instances of Worse 16 Salinity at Vernalis for the April Analysis Summarized as 17 Follows." 18 Did you prepare that exhibit, Mr. Steiner? 19 MR. STEINER: Yes, I did. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: This is in response to questions by 21 Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Herrick about degradations to water 22 quality brought about by the San Joaquin River Agreement. 23 Was this preparation of this testimony in regards to 24 questions raised about the scope and extent of that 25 degradation? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14056 1 MR. STEINER: Yes. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Does this tie back in as well to the 3 Manza exhibit wherein you are looking at comparisons between 4 modeling results and trying to figure out when a result is 5 due to the modeling as opposed to a difference in salinity; 6 is that correct? 7 MR. STEINER: Yes. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you explain to us this exhibit, 9 please. 10 MR. STEINER: This was a little more difficult to get 11 through. The first two pages of Exhibit 103C, give you the 12 punch line, but I don't think you can get to the punch line 13 without looking at a little bit of the detail. 14 This came along the lines as Mr. Herrick was asking me 15 questions regarding was there degradation during the June 16 through September period. And I was a little hesitant 17 saying no, but I didn't want to say yes. You needed to look 18 at the data to really explain the answer. Because on face 19 value of the tables of which you rely that conclusion upon 20 there is some behind the scenes element that you have to 21 recognize in terms of using models and interpreting their 22 results. 23 What I would like to take you to is actually the third 24 page of the package, which is called Attachment 2A. And, 25 sorry, we are back to little numbers and a lot of them. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14057 1 This is a post process spreadsheet analysis that I have in 2 the background a calculated TDS at Vernalis for every month, 3 for every year of the entire hydrologic cycle that I have 4 modeled. I have that condition for the precondition, prior 5 to the San Joaquin River Agreement, the current condition, 6 and then I have that same type of information generated what 7 if you put the San Joaquin River Agreement in place. It 8 changes hydrology which then changes the salinity. 9 This table becomes the difference table in which case 10 you will take one minus the other and then identify where 11 there has been a change. And from there you interpret the 12 results on a general trend basis on whether it is getting 13 better, getting worse or staying indifferent. 14 The June through September period is what I have 15 highlighted here, in which case you can see in many 16 instances you will have zero. Sometimes you will find small 17 numbers. Sometimes you will find some larger numbers. In 18 the case of what do the parentheses mean, those are 19 negatives. That is the way I run my spreadsheets. Instead 20 of a minus sign, I like to see the parentheses printed out. 21 The item here is that, if you were to just go on face 22 value of is there any change, whether it be a very, very 23 small change or a big change, count up whether they are 24 positives or negatives, and try to form a conclusion. In 25 this instance, if you are to count up the changes that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14058 1 occurred with a negative connotation to it, you will find 2 that during the June through September period, down at the 3 very bottom of the table, you will see 51 instances that end 4 up on the negative side of the ledger table. 5 This confounds me because of that -- I don't expect 6 there to be that type of change to the hydrology aspects of 7 the San Joaquin River Agreement, as far as being often. It 8 took a little deeper investigation to find out why is there 9 a negative sign on any of those values. 10 What you will find on the last two pages of your 11 handout of Exhibit 103C is to check whether the one and two 12 TDS difference make any relevance to the conclusion. You 13 need to go to the water aspects of the hydrology. That is 14 what I have done for the last two pages called Attachment 3. 15 What I have done is for every instance that we found a 16 negative mark, no matter how small or large on the previous 17 page, I have gone specifically to that month of operation 18 within the study to find whether we are looking at a change 19 in TDS due to a hydrology change, such as reop, refill 20 operation, or a change in New Melones operation due to the 21 IOP, or whether all of the water looks the same. It must 22 just essentially be a rounding error of the model that you 23 are subtracting two numbers from two different study runs. 24 Things just don't round the same within the same model. 25 Essentially, I coin that as being modeling noise. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14059 1 If you look on your Attachment 3, Page 1 of two -- I 2 know this gets to be small print -- but if you look at the 3 first example of 1922 in September, you will see that the 4 TDS objective in that particular instance was 650 TDS. 5 Under column one, two and three you will find what the table 6 that I have previously showed you shows, that the quality 7 went from 526 to 538 under the VAMP condition -- excuse me, 8 the San Joaquin River condition. The change then is 12 TDS 9 to the negative side. If you look across on the hydrology 10 and try to figure out why TDS would change, you will see 11 that Vernalis changed in-flow by 50 cfs, which is column 12 six. Look across the right and you will find there is a 13 Merced reduction of 59 cfs due to the refill operation that 14 occurred in that particular month. That would explain that 15 there should be a TDS change at Vernalis. And you can label 16 the cause of that. 17 However, if you go to the next instance of August of 18 1924, you will find that this is a month in which the TDS 19 objective was 455. Under column one and two you will find 20 that there is a slight degradation. Both of them being an 21 exceedance of the objective. The water quality is 622 while 22 it is trying to be met at 425, there wasn't water available 23 to do. As you go across to see if there was any hydrologic 24 basis to that change in salinity, you will find there is no 25 change in flow. Therefore, I conclude that can only be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14060 1 modeling noise that we are comparing a very sensitive 2 equation in two separate runs, and it happens to be 3 different when we generate all the numbers of the seven TDS 4 difference. I don't call that a change one way or another. 5 That is modeling noise and not valid to be counted as 6 degradation. 7 Did that for every single month of those. That 8 indicated a negative difference. You can do the same thing 9 for all the positives if you wanted to. And you come back 10 then to the first two pages of Exhibit 103C. I have come up 11 with two different categories with trying to explain 12 different hydrologic differences for each one of those 51 13 instances. That is what I listed on the first page of 14 Exhibit 103C. 15 Those instances then are summarized in two basic 16 categories on the second page of 103C, which give you the 17 punch line, which is that of the 51 instances 44 of them are 18 what I consider to be modeling noise and should be thrown 19 out of the analysis or any conclusion. 20 That leaves only seven other instances to be then 21 discussed. Of those, within those seven instances three of 22 the three instances are due to Merced River reoperation, 23 which we talked about before, that they could lead to a 24 lesser flow at San Joaquin River at Vernalis. But these are 25 occurring when the objective is already being incidentally CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14061 1 met by the operations within the basin, and that there was 2 no affect on the Stanislaus River operation, and even if the 3 post condition, the salinity objective was still met. In 4 two other instances it was a case when the Merced River 5 changes operation due to SJRA obligations. And in this 6 case, just coincidentally, the Stanislaus River changed its 7 operation, non reaction to Merced, just because the IOP 8 changed operations because of the other elements of water 9 within the SJRA. It's only coincidence that the numbers are 10 so close. 11 In both of these instances the salinity objective was 12 approximately -- not objective, the actual salinity at 13 Vernalis was approximately 250 parts per million in the 14 first place, well within the objective. 15 The last two instances are when the difference in 16 salinity was due to a reoperation. And in that case, 17 actually coincidentally, during those instances Melones did 18 react. We still maintained the objective. However, what we 19 did was move the pre and post condition closer to the 20 objective as opposed to being a little better than the 21 objective. 22 So the point of this was just to illustrate that as we 23 are interpreting the results we need to be careful to weed 24 out the modeling noise from actually instances that could 25 lead us to some guidance on what the affects of the SJRA CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14062 1 are. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, in regards to Exhibit 3 103C, I noticed that Attachment 2A, Table 3, Page 3 of 8 has 4 a revised on it. Can you tell me why it has a revised label 5 on that. 6 MR. STEINER: Yes. During this effort of trying to 7 find out why people were coming to a different conclusion 8 than me, I had a chance to review this particular page, 9 which was an exhibit or within my exhibit of Phase II 10 testimony. And when I started to do this backtracking into 11 the actual operations, I found an inconsistency, something 12 that I could not explain within the actual summary table. I 13 have to admit Steiner makes mistakes occasionally, too. 14 This actually is a revised table that could be inserted 15 into my original testimony. The underlying studies do not 16 change. It was purely the difference table that wasn't used 17 for any conclusion of mine during Phase II. However, during 18 this escapade I did find a mistake in this calculation. I 19 have revised that table. It is here again. It is not much 20 different than the other table in my original testimony. 21 There are just a few differences, an absolute number 22 difference and a few different rearranging of where the 23 negatives occur. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On the next page to Attachment 2B to 25 this exhibit, Table 3 of Page 7 of 8, that has no revisions; CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14063 1 is that correct? 2 MR. STEINER: The only mistakes that I found were in 3 the first table, not the other table that was included in my 4 original two testimonies. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Steiner, in regards to 1999 6 operations, are you aware of the fact that a CEQA/NEPA 7 document was done for the supplement water purchased above 8 110,000 acre-feet? 9 MR. STEINER: Yes. I was part of that analysis. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Were you also aware that in the 11 original CEQA and NEPA document, attached as Exhibit 103A to 12 the testimony, that the handling of supplement water would 13 be done by an additional NEPA/CEQA document on a yearly 14 basis? 15 MR. STEINER: That was my understanding. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is it your understanding that the 17 reason that was done was that the conditions for 18 supplemental water would vary from year to year based on 19 antecedant conditions as well as the ability of any 20 individual district to make water available for that 21 supplemental purchase? 22 MR. STEINER: That is right. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When Ms. Zolezzi was asking you 24 questions about reoperations at New Melones, the modeling 25 runs that you did for 1999 assumed that Oakdale and South CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14064 1 San Joaquin Irrigation District would use 600,000 acre-feet 2 of water; is that correct? 3 MR. STEINER: That is where I started the analysis, 4 yes. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If the two districts did not use the 6 full 600,000 acre-feet of water in 1999, then the end of 7 year storage would be different than what is shown in your 8 modeling results; is that correct? 9 MR. STEINER: That would be correct. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if Oakdale and South San 11 Joaquin do not use their water if they, A, leave it in 12 storage at New Melones, or do they run it through their 13 system and then dump it back in the Stanislaus River? 14 MR. STEINER: I don't know that. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if the United States 16 Bureau of Reclamation releases water that it receives from 17 Oakdale Irrigation District as part of the San Joaquin River 18 Agreement is done -- 19 Strike that. 20 I have no further questions. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes to recross-examine? 22 Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Herrick. 23 The order will be Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Herrick -- 24 MR. NOMELLINI: He thought he was going to win the 25 Lotto today. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14065 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, it is a big one tonight. 2 -- and Mr. Nomellini. 3 ---oOo--- 4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 5 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT AND 6 SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 7 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Steiner, my name is Tom 9 Birmingham. I am an attorney that represents Westlands 10 Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 11 Authority. I have a few questions for you about Exhibits 12 103 and 10C [verbatim]. 13 In your description of Exhibits 103B and 103C a couple 14 times you used the phrase "modeling noise." Could you 15 explain what do you mean by modeling noise? 16 MR. STEINER: I hate to be too slang on it, but it is a 17 result or a difference that you get by comparing one 18 absolute number to another absolute number that is generated 19 by these models that I can't explain by the process 20 phenomenas that I'm expecting in there such as a change in 21 hydrology. It could be simply the fact that models are 22 awfully darn accurate and they run things out to the very 23 Nth degree of accuracy. And, again, when I'm counting minus 24 zeros on this piece of paper, I can't attribute that to any 25 change in hydrology. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14066 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That leads to a question that I had 2 about Attachment 2A to Exhibit 103C. Approximately halfway 3 down the June column on Attachment 2A for the year 1956, 4 there is a zero with a parenthesis around it. Can you 5 explain why would there be a zero with a parenthesis around 6 it? 7 MR. STEINER: When you subtracted one table from 8 another, and again this is rounding to the nearest TDS, 9 subtracting the absolute values of the model that might have 10 said you can actually go to the -- not here. They are the 11 absolute TDS output here. You could have found that one 12 model said it was 160.001 TDS and the other one might have 13 said 160.000. If you subtract one from the other, you could 14 find out it was .001 difference, and it would kick in a 15 negative sign. Although when you round it to the nearest 16 whole number, it is going to be zero. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: You need to point to the rounding 18 function in the tables of the ones you are taking the 19 differences of. 20 MR. STEINER: Additionally, subtract out the ones that 21 are giving a range of five or ten because the model just 22 might generate a different, again, because the TDS is a 23 result of a rounded water number which is made from a whole 24 bunch of assumptions of operations; that as you cascade this 25 down -- you could start out with the same numbers and end up CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14067 1 at a little different spot just by the number of equations 2 you are using. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It takes me to a question I had 4 comparing Attachment 4A and Attachment 4B to San Joaquin 5 River Group Authority 103B. I would like to focus, if we 6 can, on the month of August for 1929. 7 Now, in Attachment 4A -- first, Attachment 4A is your 8 analysis of the pre-San Joaquin River -- excuse me, the 9 pre-San Joaquin River Agreement condition? 10 MR. STEINER: That is correct, only of the 11 exceedances. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So based upon what you characterized 13 as the current conditions, in August of 1929 there would 14 have been an exceedance of the 455 TDS standard of 234; is 15 that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Attachment 4B to the San Joaquin River 18 Group Authority Exhibit 103B is the analysis that you 19 conducted of the post San Joaquin River Group Authority -- 20 excuse me, the post San Joaquin River Agreement condition? 21 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: For all of August of that year you 23 have TDS in excess of the objective of 239; is that correct? 24 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, is your model sensitive enough to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14068 1 accurately calculate a difference of 5 TDS? 2 MR. STEINER: The model itself is accurate enough to 3 generate that number. However, whether it is representative 4 of any real change as opposed to the propagation around 5 them, et cetera, no, it is not. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do you have an opinion as to whether 7 or not that difference of 5 TDS represents a real change? 8 MR. STEINER: I would have to see if it happened to 9 coincide with my other, and I did August of 1929 would be 10 one of the instances. 11 October [verbatim] 1929 happens to be one of the 12 specific months that was cited in the other exhibit. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: August of '29? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes. On Exhibit 103C go to the last two 15 pages, down to 1929 August. Coincidentally, happens to be 16 one I caught in this example, that, yes, it shows on face 17 value that the quality went from 676 to 680. And this 18 particular version of subtracting A from B you get minus 19 four. Your analysis is a minus .5. There is another 20 example of numbers being too close to say which one is 21 right, and neither one is relevant. 22 As you go across this example you will see that there 23 were no hydrologic changes. This, in my mind, is a modeling 24 noise of hydrology on the Tuolumne because I can vouch I did 25 not expect to see any change. But knowing the way that I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14069 1 have to load minimum in-stream requirements into these 2 models, I can expect on occasion to have a little bump like 3 this, which can manifest itself all the way through the 4 salinity calculation. And I reach a conclusion that August 5 1929, this was a modeling noise. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now in response to my question, do you 7 have an opinion as to whether or not the difference between 8 August 1929 on Attachment 4B and Attachment 4C to 103B 9 represents a real difference? Your opinion is that it does 10 not represent a real difference? 11 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to go to 103C and on the 13 first page, in the left-hand column, there are a series of 14 numbers: 15, 27, 2, 1, 2, 2 and 2? 15 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Those total 51? 17 MR. STEINER: Yes, I hope they do. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And you said that with respect to the 19 first three groups, the group of 15, 27 and 2, which total 20 44, that from your analysis you concluded that those 44 21 instances where implementation of the San Joaquin River 22 Agreement would result in degradation of water quality at 23 Vernalis, those are noise? 24 MR. STEINER: I am trying to think. The second page 25 actually said the first two and the last descriptions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14070 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me. So the first two, the 15 2 and 27 and then the two are modeling noise? 3 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And then the third paragraph, which 5 represents two states, "within objective, Merced 6 reoperation." I am looking at the third paragraph on the 7 first page of 103C, and opposite the Number 2 it says 8 "within objective, Merced reoperation"; is that correct? 9 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: When you say "within objective," what 11 do you mean? 12 MR. STEINER: That one of the filters I was trying to 13 categorize these instances by was whether the salinity at 14 Vernalis was at or better than the objective under both pre 15 and post conditions. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I want to make sure I understand the 17 analysis that you have done. From your analysis you have 18 concluded that in 7 of these 52 instances where 19 implementation of the San Joaquin River Agreement degraded 20 water quality at Vernalis, the degradation was real; it 21 wasn't modeling noise? 22 MR. STEINER: That is a change, yes, could be 23 explained. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The change in water quality resulting 25 from implementation of San Joaquin River Agreement could be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14071 1 explained and, therefore, from your -- based on your 2 analysis is a real difference as opposed to modeling noise? 3 MR. STEINER: That's correct. However, because of one 4 of the computation of this, it was a change in salinity that 5 did not result in additional exceedance of a standard. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is your understanding, Mr. Steiner, 7 that one of the principal issues that is being considered in 8 this phase of the hearing is whether or not implementation 9 of the San Joaquin River Agreement -- 10 Let me restate the question. 11 It is your understanding that one of principal issues 12 whether or not the change that has been requested by members 13 of the San Joaquin River Group Authority will injure legal 14 users of water? 15 MR. STEINER: I understand that. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to ask you to assume that 17 the water quality objective has been established as the 18 objective necessary to protect the beneficial uses of water. 19 Do you understand that assumption? 20 MR. STEINER: Yes. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In other words, if the water quality 22 objective is 455 TDS, some agency has determined that that 23 is the water quality necessary to protect the beneficial 24 uses of the water? 25 MR. STEINER: Yes, I can understand that concept. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14072 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, do you have an opinion as to 2 whether or not a change that is within the objective, would 3 injure some user of the water if the objective was 4 established to protect the beneficial uses? 5 MR. STEINER: If it is a threshold, then if you have 6 not exceeded the threshold, the use would have been 7 protected. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So there would be no injury to the 9 legal user of that water? 10 MR. STEINER: I don't want to -- I will stand by what I 11 said. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: You don't want to stand by what you 13 said? 14 MR. STEINER: No, I do want to stand by what I said. I 15 don't want to add additional definition to it. 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. O'Laughlin asked you some 17 questions on redirect examination about your analysis of 18 1999 operations of New Melones. Do you recall those 19 questions? 20 MR. STEINER: I believe so. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: He made reference to the water which 22 the Bureau of Reclamation acquires from OID under the San 23 Joaquin River Agreement. Do you recall that question? 24 MR. STEINER: I believe -- 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me ask a more direct question. In CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14073 1 1999 did the Bureau of Reclamation acquire water from OID? 2 MR. STEINER: I believe so because we've treated 1999 3 as though it was a year of implementation of SJRA. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And Ms. Zolezzi in her 5 cross-examination of you on the subject brought out the fact 6 that in some years, because your analysis assumed that the 7 water that was purchased by the Bureau of Reclamation would 8 be retained in storage and that if the Bureau did not retain 9 it in storage that could result in reduction in storage in 10 New Melones? 11 MR. STEINER: Her argument was somewhat along that 12 line. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe it wasn't an argument; it 14 was a question. You said it could result in reduction in 15 storage? 16 MR. STEINER: If they acquired the water and actually 17 disposed of it back out, depending on where you're starting 18 your basis, as opposed to holding the water, yes, you would 19 be lowering storage if you let it out. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: During the analysis that is presented 21 in your testimony here today did you review the water right 22 permits that are held by the Bureau of Reclamation for 23 operation of New Melones Reservoir? 24 MR. STEINER: Not as part of this analysis. 25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you familiar with the water right CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14074 1 permits that are held by Bureau of Reclamation for operation 2 of New Melones Reservoir? 3 MR. STEINER: At one point I was familiar. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Isn't it correct that the permits that 5 are held by the Bureau of Reclamation for the operation of 6 New Melones Reservoir authorized the use of water for fish 7 and wildlife enhancement? 8 MR. STEINER: I do not have enough -- 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Zolezzi. 10 MS. ZOLEZZI: I just have a question, whether or not 11 this relates to the redirect. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It does, but Mr. Steiner has indicated 14 that he does not have enough information to respond to my 15 question, so I am not going to carry it any further, but I 16 believe it does. Mr. O'Laughlin specifically asked him on 17 redirect about 1999 operation. But if Mr. Steiner doesn't 18 have the personal knowledge to respond to my questions, than 19 I will conclude. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 23 Mr. Herrick. 24 ---oOo--- 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14075 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 2 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 3 BY MR. HERRICK 4 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. 5 John Herrick once again for South Delta Water Agency. 6 Mr. Steiner, I noticed that in your Exhibit 103C you 7 list 51 instances of worst salinity at Vernalis; is that 8 correct? 9 MR. STEINER: That's correct. Excuse me, they're 10 instances where there is a negative sign attached to the 11 result table. 12 MR. HERRICL: I am using your terms. The 51 instances 13 of "worst" salinity at Vernalis; is that correct? 14 MR. STEINER: The worst is actually citating Mr. 15 Hildebrand's use of the term. 16 MR. HERRICK: So is this a slight? 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to ask that Mr. Herrick not 18 comment on the evidence that is being submitted, but instead 19 restrict himself to asking questions. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, please try to do that, Mr. 21 Herrick. We all have different styles. It is very hard to 22 control styles. 23 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 24 Mr. Steiner, those are the 51 instances that you 25 identified in June through September; is that correct? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14076 1 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 2 MR. HERRICK: There are plenty of instances in other 3 months; is that correct? 4 MR. STEINER: Again, ranging in magnitude from what I 5 likely find is modeling noise to an actual, explainable 6 difference. 7 MR. HERRICK: Let's go to March, if we can, on your 8 Attachment 2A to your Exhibit 103. 9 Do you recall prior testimony where South Delta 10 witnesses expressed their opinion that March was actually 11 the month that required the most dilution flows from New 12 Melones in order to meet the Vernalis water quality 13 standard? 14 MR. STEINER: I think I recall that testimony being 15 provided. 16 MR. HERRICK: Just going up and down our Attachment 2A, 17 I see months where there is -- I see instances in March 18 where there is a decrease in TDS of 18, 42. I am just 19 picking out the larger ones, 51, 11. Are those instances of 20 modeling noise or are those results of the implementation of 21 the San Joaquin River Agreement? 22 MR. STEINER: The larger ones I would count on being -- 23 for instance, the 51, 42, I'm likely to find a hydrologic 24 basis for it. Those made to be during wetter years, but I 25 would have to go to, just I did for the June through CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14077 1 September analysis, dig into the data and explaining every 2 one of them. 3 MR. HERRICK: As you sit here today, can you say 4 whether or not those instances have decreased water quality 5 in March that I just went over, whether or not or how much 6 of an affect that they may have on users of that water? 7 MR. STEINER: Since I did not carry this to the end 8 user, I can not respond. Again, those instances are likely 9 to be found during refill months in which case there must 10 have been -- the conclusion I will draw is that likely in 11 March that if there was water already flowing in the system 12 where the objective was not exceeded, that this would just 13 be a matter of making the water quality a little bit worse 14 within the objective still. 15 MR. HERRICK: You would agree with that or the opposite 16 might be true: It might be an important time period; it 17 might be a significant affect to water users? 18 MR. STEINER: Again, I didn't address the end use. 19 MR. HERRICK: I am trying to clarify your answer. You 20 answered it is probable in one way. I was asking if it is 21 probable the other way? 22 MR. STEINER: The answer I provided was that there is a 23 change in salinity noticed from the study. Whether that was 24 within or without, outside of the objective, I don't know 25 unless I dug into the data. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14078 1 It is highly likely, knowing the nature of hydrologic 2 studies, that these are all within the periods when the 3 objective was already being met. 4 MR. HERRICK: Now, again correct me if I am wrong. I 5 am trying to summarize what you said. You highlighted the 6 months of June through September on that Attachment 2A on 7 Exhibit 103C. I take your testimony and these new documents 8 to suggest that the changes, the negative changes, are to a 9 large extent, you believe, the result of modeling noise. 10 Is that a fair statement? 11 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 12 MR. HERRICK: So is it your testimony that you can't 13 tell us with any level of certainty whether or not the San 14 Joaquin River Agreement adversely affects water quality 15 during those months? 16 MR. STEINER: During the time, June through September 17 months? 18 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 19 MR. STEINER: I would say that my conclusion would be 20 that the San Joaquin River Agreement has no affect on water 21 quality based on my analysis in almost all of the months in 22 the June through September period. 23 MR. HERRICK: How do you make that conclusion if you're 24 not able to explain the differences that your modeling 25 shows? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14079 1 MR. STEINER: I thought that was the purpose of 103C. 2 That is explaining what caused any one of those negative 3 values, and that I explained away most of the instances, 4 particularly the minus zeros, as being modeling noise. 5 So, given that circumstance, I see no change in 6 hydrology. I see no change in salinity. The San Joaquin 7 River Agreement did not cause any change in water quality. 8 MR. HERRICK: Going to your Exhibit 103B, we see that 9 as a result of the implementation of San Joaquin River 10 Agreement, that is 4b to 103B, we see that the -- 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 4b of 103. 12 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 13 We see that the average violation for the month of July 14 is 194 parts per million TDS above the standard; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. STEINER: Those months in those years that there 17 was exceedance. 18 MR. HERRICK: In August that average number for those 19 months when there was exceedance is 173 parts per million 20 above the standard; is that correct? 21 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 22 MR. HERRICK: Why did you choose a base case against 23 which to measure your data that assumed violations of that 24 magnitude would occur? 25 MR. STEINER: The base case is driven by the current CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14080 1 hydrologic condition out there, which is the IOP which 2 various forms of the testimony here has recognition that 3 there will be exceedance of water quality standards under 4 certain circumstances. It is a depiction of the current 5 environment. 6 MR. HERRICK: My question to you is: As you're 7 deciding what the base case would be in order to develop 8 this data, are you assuming that the State Board would 9 allow, I will say, a no-action scenario, which I equate with 10 the base case, would you assume that the Board would allow a 11 no-action scenario that had those levels of violations? 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for speculation. 13 MR. HERRICK: I believe I asked him if he assumed that 14 in his analysis. I wouldn't think that was speculation. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I will allow the question to be 16 answered. 17 MR. STEINER: I am presented with trying to develop a 18 context from hydrologic studies. One of those contexts, one 19 of those environments is existing condition. If you draw 20 conclusions that assuming that current hydrologic condition 21 is condoning the State Board to allow exceedances to occur, 22 so be it. I am explaining what I have assumed in here for 23 my hydrologic studies. 24 MR. HERRICK: I guess the question is, as I think I 25 asked before: Did you go through any, internally, in your CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14081 1 own analysis or did you go through any analysis as to 2 whether what you are assuming for any of these modeling runs 3 should be assumed? 4 MR. STEINER: I -- the genesis of these studies was 5 CEQA/NEPA oriented, what we did these studies for. In that 6 context this seemed to be very appropriate. 7 MR. HERRICK: Now, I think in looking at your Exhibit 8 103B, just the first page, I am just picking out quotes 9 here. Excuse me if I jump along. In your bullets there you 10 say: 11 During May and February the exceedances may 12 be neutral. During June, water quality may be 13 improved. During July and August it may be 14 improved. (Reading.) 15 Those are written as "may." Does that mean that the 16 opposite may also be true, that they may be worsened? 17 MR. STEINER: No. 18 MR. HERRICK: Without being petty, counsel is nodding 19 repeatedly before the witness answers. Whether that is a 20 key or not -- 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. Please avoid coaching the 22 witness. 23 MR. STEINER: I wonder if the nod was the same way as 24 my answer. I didn't notice. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Maybe he is falling asleep or did. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14082 1 MR. HERRICK: That doesn't come out right. 2 MR. STEINER: If his nod was positive, I said no. 3 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, is that analysis -- does 4 that analysis which leads to your conclusion that I just 5 read, does that include the assumption that the Bureau will 6 carry over that additional 15,000 acre-feet of water from 7 Oakdale rather than potentially release it all in one year? 8 MR. STEINER: That is correct. Again, foundation of 9 the first two columns on 103B are the studies that I have 10 been presenting here all the way from Phase II. 11 MR. HERRICK: If you assume that that carryover does 12 not occur, that it is released for fishery during any one 13 year, does that affect your conclusions about what is and 14 what is not noise in the modeling? 15 MR. STEINER: If water were to be released in addition 16 to what we have in there already down the river, I would 17 expect that the numbers would get better as far as water 18 quality. At least they have a potential of being coincident 19 with the water quality released. 20 MR. HERRICK: That is not my question. Do you know 21 when that water would be released for fish if it were 22 released instead of carried over? 23 MR. STEINER: What is the question now? 24 MR. HERRICK: The question was, the 15,000 acre-feet of 25 water that OID transfers to the Bureau under the San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14083 1 River agreement, that is a starting point? 2 MR. STEINER: Correct. 3 MR. HERRICK: Your analysis here that you have 4 presented in 103B and C, assumed, I believe you said, that 5 the 15,000 acre-feet is carried over and then becomes 6 available for distribution under the Interim Operation Plan? 7 MR. STEINER: Part of that 15,000 doesn't get carried 8 over. A little bit does go on right now, automatically by 9 tomorrow. A majority of it right now remains in storage. 10 MR. HERRICK: If we don't assume that it remains in 11 storage, but the Bureau releases it each year for fish, do 12 you know is there some requirement when the Bureau would 13 release that? Do we have any way of knowing when they might 14 release it if they did release for fish? 15 MR. STEINER: I have no way of knowing at this point in 16 time. 17 MR. HERRICK: Then your prior answer was I assumed 18 would it be released during times when would it actually 19 help water quality. I am trying to find out why you think 20 that. 21 MR. STEINER: I try not to say that. To the extent 22 that you slot fish as being recipients of 15,000 acre-feet, 23 that additional release could be coincident with the time 24 when it was needed for water quality also. And, therefore, 25 you would see incidental improvement of water quality due to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14084 1 the fish release. 2 MR. HERRICK: The opposite is probably more likely; 3 isn't that true? 4 MR. STEINER: I don't see how that would detriment the 5 water quality side of it. It would leave water quality 6 neutral in that situation. 7 MR. HERRICK: If you released the water, say, starting 8 on May 16th through June 1st, the Bureau may believe that 9 would benefit the fish, but then you now have that much less 10 carryover and carryover determines what is detrimental for 11 water quality? 12 MR. STEINER: You started out with 15,000 acre-feet 13 more than in the base case. So all you are doing is driving 14 the system back to the same spot. 15 MR. HERRICK: Your analysis assumes additional 16 carryover, and I am asking you about the instance when that 17 does not occur. 18 MR. STEINER: I would have to treat that to not occur 19 which would allocate the water out. 20 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Steiner, you say as explanations for 21 some of the instances of changes in water quality that the 22 Bureau makes additional releases from New Melones in order 23 to bring the water quality in compliance or down to a 24 certain level; is that correct? 25 MR. STEINER: Or to not let it exceed. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14085 1 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 2 What is the effect on the carryover of the Bureau 3 making releases in excess of what they would have released 4 under the Interim Operation Plan? 5 MR. STEINER: You would have to go case by case 6 sequence by sequence which was illustrated earlier on those 7 other graphics. You are balancing on through essentially. 8 Sometimes there is already preexisting additional storage 9 from the Oakdale water that would be released out for water 10 quality. As far as the carryover affect on New Melones, it 11 is going to go up and down, maybe never worse than the 12 original case. 13 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate that. It may be worse than 14 the original case, correct? You are depicting storage below 15 what would have been there in the absence of San Joaquin 16 River Agreement; is that correct? 17 MR. STEINER: Now you are focusing on an individual 18 situation, such as 1999, which hasn't proven itself all the 19 way out. You may end up at the end of 1999. Who is to say 20 that this coming year 2000, 2001, that a similar situation 21 didn't occur, would not occur -- does not occur and that the 22 15,000 turn-back water may end up putting you better than 23 you were after two or three years. 24 MR. HERRICK: We can certainly assume something happens 25 to make up for that additional water quality release. My CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14086 1 question to you is: Isn't there potential adverse affect 2 from the additional releases that are made pursuant to the 3 San Joaquin River Agreement? 4 MR. STEINER: I don't know if it is called adverse 5 affect, but there can be a change such as was illustrated in 6 1999 where New Melones may end up lowering carryover storage 7 without the San Joaquin River Agreement. Whether that 8 balances out later, time will tell. 9 MR. HERRICK: We are -- have you done -- never mind. 10 Mr. O'Laughlin asked you some questions about yearly 11 analyses of the additional purchases that may be necessary 12 to achieve VAMP flows. 13 Do you recall that? 14 MR. STEINER: Yes. Above 110,000 acre-feet? 15 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 16 Is it your recommendation that those analyses each year 17 somehow look at a 71-year hydrology or would they be limited 18 to a smaller time frame? 19 MR. STEINER: It seems that at least the way we are 20 handling it at this point they are case-by-case basis. 21 MR. HERRICK: The question is the time frame over which 22 they would be modeled. 23 MR. STEINER: It will depend on the circumstances. At 24 this point we are modeling with a follow-on year. 25 MR. HERRICK: Is there some reason why you don't model CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14087 1 them through the 12 year -- why wouldn't you model them 2 through the 12-year period, the remainder of the 12-year 3 period? 4 MR. STEINER: If someone were to pick a 12-year period 5 for us to run, I would assume I would run it. There is 6 going to be many, many different combinations of 12-year 7 cycles to try to do that on. 8 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that it would be 9 beneficial for this Board to examine those various 10 possibilities modeled over a 12-year period? 11 MR. STEINER: I don't know if it would be useful. 12 First, you recognize that there would be not many instances 13 where above 110,000 acre-feet were needed and whether it is 14 going to give you any more insight is questionable. 15 MR. HERRICK: Did your model predict that this year 16 they would need additional purchase of 47,000 acre-feet? 17 MR. STEINER: We started out that way. Actually, it 18 was a lesser amount. But in order to -- in our 19 documentation style envelope potential, we went ahead and 20 evaluated all the way up to 157,000 acre-feet, which is the 21 maximum theoretical deficit of VAMP water needed. The 22 actual numbers came in 140. It ranged from under 110,000 up 23 to 140. We had captured all the way up to 157 to cover the 24 envelope in our computation. 25 MR. HERRICK: I am not sure that was responsive. I had CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14088 1 asked you if your modeling predicted that under this year's 2 hydrology you would need a certain level of purchase, 3 additional purchases above the 110 purchases? 4 MR. STEINER: Yes, it did. 5 MR. HERRICK: What did it predict? 6 MR. STEINER: Depending on which hydrology you assumed, 7 again these studies were started in February of this year, 8 when we didn't have Mother Nature done yet. So we ran 9 various forecasts such as Ms. Zolezzi showed: a 10 percent 10 forecast, a 50 percent forecast. They each resulted in a 11 different number. 12 If I remember my earliest studies when future hydrology 13 of this year was more unknown, more speculative, I did find 14 in a circumstance you could get 140,000 acre-feet 15 requirement. 16 MR. HERRICK: You are stating, depending on what 17 hydrology you assumed, following this year or this year? 18 MR. STEINER: Of this year itself. 19 MR. HERRICK: You might have an additional need to 20 purchase up to 147 acre-feet? 21 MR. STEINER: Actually, I can't even remember the 22 actual number. It was less than 157,000 acre-feet, which 23 was the maximum potential, but it was over 110,000 24 acre-feet. 25 MR. HERRICK: If indeed that amount was purchased in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14089 1 any of these 12 years of the San Joaquin River Agreement, 2 would that have an affect in the year of purchase on 3 carryover storage? 4 MR. STEINER: It would likely have that affect. 5 MR. HERRICK: If we assumed a number of drought years 6 beyond that, would that affect and manifest itself sometime 7 in decreases in stream flows or something like that? 8 MR. STEINER: Yes. Again, if it was from the reservoir 9 operations it would ultimately manifest itself in clipping 10 off a release in excess of minimum in-stream flows at some 11 future date. 12 MR. HERRICK: Let's just assume different scenarios. 13 Let's just assume we have a large purchase, what I will say, 14 an additional 110,000 acre-foot purpose in order to meet 15 Vamp. Let's say we have five drought years and three below 16 normal years. 17 Would you anticipate that circumstance there would be 18 an adverse affect on water quality during summer months at 19 Vernalis? 20 MR. STEINER: No, not necessarily. Because, again, 21 depending on the circumstance at -- of each one of those 22 successive years that you are hypothesizing at this point, 23 if the systems are already operating to minimum in-stream 24 flow levels throughout the summer, they are not going to be 25 changing that operation. It will manifest itself as a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14090 1 carryover refile need into some future wet month. 2 MR. HERRICK: On the Stanislaus River the amount of 3 carryover determines what is available to help meet water 4 quality; is that correct? 5 MR. STEINER: Yes. 6 MR. HERRICK: If you change the amount of carryover, 7 you can have a change in the amount available to help meet 8 the water quality? 9 MR. STEINER: I don't understand where we have changed 10 the carryover at New Melones with the context of 110,000 11 acre-feet. 12 MR. HERRICK: We just speculated in a hypothetical that 13 there were additional purchases that had that very effect, 14 decrease in carryover? 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have to object at this time as being 16 argumentative. The first questions were directed at 17 additional purchases from the other stream systems and that 18 connection has no connection to the Stanislaus River or 19 carryover storage at New Melones. We are talking two 20 different things. 21 He keeps badgering the witness about New Melones' 22 operation which have nothing to do with supplement water 23 purchases. 24 MR. HERRICK: My only comment is, you know, I don't 25 think it is argument. I think we were actually getting to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14091 1 the meat of something there. It's the Chairman's rule, 2 certainly. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: The argumentative part is a close 4 call. I am trying to tie this to the redirect 5 testimony. I'll give you time to wrap this up and move on. 6 MR. HERRICK: I will. It was dealing with Mr. 7 O'Laughlin's questions about whether or not there should be 8 yearly analyses of purchases, and I was going to the 9 converse of that, rather than doing yearly there should be 10 analysis up front. Those are the points. 11 I believe I am done. Let me check just a second if you 12 would, Mr. Chairman. 13 Mr. Steiner, I believe you said you made revisions to 14 one of the pages or two of the pages. Which page was that? 15 MR. STEINER: It would have been in the 103C 16 package. And it is called Attachment 2B of that 17 package, and actually this is just a -- 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 2-A. 19 MR. STEINER: Excuse me, 2-A of the 103C package. This 20 printed page which has a Page Number 26 at the bottom, would 21 be a replacement table to my testimony, Phase II testimony 22 package, which would be Page 26 of that package. 23 MR. HERRICK: I guess that is the question for later 24 on. 25 On Page 4A of your 103B, I notice under 1992 for the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14092 1 months of July and August you -- make sure I am right on 2 that -- you show no water quality violations; is that 3 correct? 4 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 5 MR. HERRICK: Does that suggest anything wrong with the 6 calculation to you? 7 MR. STEINER: It always perplexed me, but when I looked 8 at the hydrology in 1992, in those months, the river is in 9 such low flow level that it didn't take much to dilute the 10 water and make the objective. 11 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not we had 12 objective -- we had violations of the objective in 1992? 13 MR. STEINER: I don't have that information. 14 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. 15 Thank you. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 17 Mr. Nomellini. 18 ---oOo--- 19 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 20 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 21 BY MR. NOMELLINI 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 23 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 24 Mr. Steiner, if I heard your counsel correctly, he 25 represented that these exhibits, 103B and C, were prepared CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14093 1 in response to questions that Mr. Herrick and I had on your 2 direct testimony. It isn't true, is it, that you prepared 3 these exhibits during this afternoon break? 4 MR. STEINER: No. I think as I explained also, you 5 touched on the subjects during your cross-examination of 6 myself, that these were originally done in response to 7 testimony offered by South Delta and, again, they perplexed 8 me because of the conclusions found. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: You are talking about testimony in a 10 previous phase? 11 MR. STEINER: The testimony submitted for this phase. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: You planned to use this in rebuttal? 13 MR. STEINER: Yes. Officially, they would have been 14 rebuttal. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you very much. 16 With regard to the models used to prepare Exhibits 103B 17 and C, are they the same models that you used for your 18 direct testimony earlier today? 19 MR. STEINER: Yes. Under 103B is the first two columns 20 of that page. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: So that the modeling for 103B and 103C 22 do not reflect impacts on return flows or accretions to the 23 river system due to reduction in the diversions by any of 24 the San Joaquin River Agreement parties? 25 MR. STEINER: If there was any reduction to the return CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14094 1 flows to that phenomena, they would not have -- these 2 studies that I used do not have that. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Now calling your attention to 4 Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2, on 103C, and calling your 5 attention in particular to the year 1956, you reflect -- 6 well, your model reflects in June Merced River flow is 7 reduced by 215 cubic feet per second; is that correct? 8 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: The Goodwin flow is increased by 154 10 cubic feet per second; is that correct? 11 MR. STEINER: That is what the study shows. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it true that under the San Joaquin 13 River Agreement Merced would be paid for their releases of 14 flow -- 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. I am going to object 16 before the end of the question. There was no redirect 17 offered about payments of money to any of the parties and, 18 therefore, this is outside the scope of redirect. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would object on the grounds of 20 relevance. Whether or not some water users are going to be 21 paid is irrelevant whether other legal users are going to be 22 injured. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Unless I'm misreading it, it looks to 25 me like Merced is getting paid to damage the river system CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14095 1 and Oakdale and South San Joaquin are being paid to mitigate 2 for it. I think in cross-examination I should be able to 3 pursue whether or not that conclusion can be correctly drawn 4 from this information. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, I believe that the cost 6 or payment is beyond the scope of redirect, and recross is 7 limited to the scope of redirect. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: I will stop talking about payment. We 9 will talk about the source of these reductions. Minus 215 10 you say on this exhibit is reop by Merced? 11 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: In other words, they had to deplete the 13 flow of the river in order to provide the water that they 14 have contracted to provide under the San Joaquin River 15 Agreement; is that correct? 16 MR. STEINER: They have remanaged -- 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You want to testify to this, Timmy? 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. I am just trying to find that in 19 the testimony someplace, but go ahead. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me point it out. If you look under 21 column -- 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please direct your conversations 23 through the Board. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: I would like the witness to look at 25 column 16 on Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2 of Exhibit 103C. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14096 1 And calling your attention, again, to 1956, does that 2 not say reop by Merced? 3 MR. STEINER: Yes, it does. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that reference to reop by Merced a 5 reference to the operation by Merced in order to obtain the 6 water necessary to meet Merced's commitment under the San 7 Joaquin River Agreement? 8 MR. STEINER: It is a result of Merced putting water 9 out in May. That by provision of that water in May they 10 then decreased their flow in June to be in the same spot in 11 the reservoir. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that a proper operation as you 13 understand it under the San Joaquin River Agreement? 14 MR. STEINER: It is allowable operation. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: And when you did this planning you 16 indicated you coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation 17 modelers as to these assumptions; is that correct? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Object on the ground it 19 mischaracterizes the evidence. I don't believe there is any 20 evidence this is planning. I believe this is a modeling 21 analysis. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: He said "is that correct." That is 23 the question. So I think you may answer it, Mr. Steiner. 24 MR. STEINER: As though this was an intended outcome of 25 the modeling we had agreed on, that intended outcome, no, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14097 1 this is what will occur from the operation analysis, and 2 Reclamation is fully aware of this. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of assumptions for the 4 modeling, they include this reop option on the part of 5 Merced, do they not? 6 MR. STEINER: They allow that. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: The result is reflected on this 8 particular Attachment 3; is it not? 9 MR. STEINER: It is reflected there. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Did you coordinate with Bureau of 11 Reclamation representatives with regard to the assumption 12 used in this particular modeling with regard to reoperation 13 by the Merced Irrigation District? 14 MR. STEINER: I guess by silence and knowledge that it 15 was going to happen and that we didn't disagree that we were 16 needed and agreed upon it. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Now going to column number nine on this 18 same page, 1 of 2 of Attachment 3, and again for 1956 June, 19 the 154 cubic feet per second released from Goodwin. Do 20 you know what the source of the 154 cubic feet per second is 21 shown on that column for that year? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes. I believe that is an outcome. It 23 was in reaction to the Merced reop by the fact of the 24 carryover storage of Oakdale water led to allowable 25 additional release. So it was coincidental additional CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14098 1 release above the baseline IOP. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: You are testifying, are you not, that 3 that 154 cubic feet per second shown for 1956 in column nine 4 is, in fact, water purchased from OID or South San Joaquin 5 Irrigation District? 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of 7 redirect. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It misstates the testimony. He 9 testified that is in regard to OID water, not SSJID. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, you have a response to 11 the objection? 12 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm going to yield and I am going to 13 leave South San Joaquin out of the question. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: The objection is sustained and you are 15 going to move on. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I was going to move on, but I was going 17 to ask whether or not this was from the San Joaquin River 18 Agreement purchase from OID. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to renew my objection. It 20 goes beyond the scope of the direct. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can you point out where in the 22 redirect? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah, I think I can. 24 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Nomellini is 25 looking, if we can't ask questions about the document he CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14099 1 provided, the source and why he assumed what assumptions he 2 made to provide the data, there is no purpose in 3 cross-examining. This is the scope of redirect. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: I still want to cross-examine. 5 May I refer you to what I think is in the redirect that 6 leads us in this direction? 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please do. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: On Exhibit 103B one of the bullets, the 9 third bullet reads: 10 During June water quality may be improved due 11 to additional allocations of water under the 12 IOP resulting from the water being made 13 available under the San Joaquin River 14 Agreement at New Melones for salinity 15 control. (Reading.) 16 Now in order to get water in New Melones under the San 17 Joaquin River Agreement it has to come from OID or South San 18 Joaquin Irrigation District. I think I am -- 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: So the question could be asked without 20 using the word "purchased." Obtained from, and then I 21 understand. 22 Mr. Birmingham. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If Mr. Nomellini wants to ask 24 questions without reference to the term "purchased" as you 25 just suggested, I think you're correct. It would be within CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14100 1 the scope of redirect. But he insists on using the term. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, wait a minute. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please move on and ask your question, 4 Mr. Nomellini, but avoid reference to monetary 5 compensation. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: I will do that. But let me add one bit 7 of argument for the sake of logic here. When it references 8 the San Joaquin River Agreement, made available under the 9 San Joaquin River Agreement, that agreement involves the 10 purchase of this water. So I think it would be proper under 11 -- I am cross-examining this witness. I have to state 12 within the scope of the direct as to the brackets, but I 13 should be allowed to use the word like "purchase" with 14 regard to San Joaquin River Agreement. In any event -- 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Your statement is on the record with 16 dollar signs. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't convince you. All right. 18 Is it your testimony, Mr. Steiner, that the 154 cubic 19 feet per second shown in column nine under the year 1956 on 20 Page 1 of 2 of Exhibit 103C is water made available through 21 the San Joaquin River Agreement at New Melones from OID? 22 MR. STEINER: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, looking at the year 1958 and also 24 the month of June, would your testimony be the same with 25 regard to the 62 cubic foot per second reduction in Merced CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14101 1 flow as it was for the 250 for 1956? 2 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Staying in that same column, your 4 testimony would be the same with regard to the 170 for the 5 month of July in 1958? 6 MR. STEINER: That is correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: If we go over to column nine, if we 8 focus in on 1958 and the month of June and the 19 cubic feet 9 per second of additional Goodwin flow, would that be water 10 made available at New Melones under the San Joaquin River 11 Agreement? 12 MR. STEINER: Yes, but it was not in reaction to the 13 New Melones operation. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you explain that? 15 MR. STEINER: Well, the 19 cfs in June of 1958 is 16 merely the result of the Oakdale water being at New Melones 17 being released out under IOP. It has nothing to do with the 18 62 cfs reoperation at Merced. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that because there was no need for 20 water quality water? 21 MR. STEINER: That's right. If you look at columns 22 four and five and columns one and two, you will find the 23 situation of what the Merced reoperation is affecting. It 24 is flows of 10,000 or greater at Vernalis and water quality 25 that is pretty darn good. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14102 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Do we know why the 19 cubic feet per 2 second in column nine for June of 1958 was released? 3 MR. STEINER: It was a result of having additional 4 carryover as opposed to the base condition, as a result of 5 the Oakdale water. It was limited to 19 cfs. Because if 6 you look at column seven and eight there was only 19 cfs to 7 move before you get to 1,500 cfs cap at New Melones. It 8 might have been a larger number had the 1,500 cfs not been 9 in place. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it correct that it assumed to be for 11 fish flow purpose? 12 MR. STEINER: That is how it would have fallen out of 13 the IOP procedures, yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Looking at July of 1958 and column 15 number nine with regard to the 126 cubic feet per second, 16 is that water being made available under the San Joaquin 17 River Agreement at New Melones? 18 MR. STEINER: Not specifically, but you could paint it 19 that color. It is coming out of New Melones in reaction to 20 the Merced operation. Where you say that water came from is 21 either as unallocated water release of that year or is being 22 countered by the Oakdale water. However you wish to frame 23 that is a possibility. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Going over to the Page 2 of Attachment 25 3 and calling your attention to 1973, June. It reflects a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14103 1 reduction in flow in the Merced River of 399 cubic feet per 2 second; is that correct? 3 MR. STEINER: That's correct. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: And is that reduction a result of reop 5 by Merced related to the San Joaquin River Agreement? 6 MR. STEINER: Yes, it is. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Going over to column nine for that same 8 year, 1973, and the 248 cubic feet per second made available 9 from Goodwin, is that flow made available as a result of the 10 San Joaquin River Agreement at New Melones? 11 MR. STEINER: It's the same situation as I just 12 explained for the last month. You may be able to paint that 13 water, whether it was part of the Oakdale water or if it is 14 just that Reclamation stepped forward and said that they had 15 additional water unused but allocated under the original 16 IOP, it is in counter to the Merced operation. And I can't 17 tell you where the 248 actually comes from in the accounting 18 of Reclamation. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, with regard to the June flows from 20 Goodwin that we have made reference and those flows that 21 were attributed to releases for water quality, is there 22 anything that you could point to that confirms that the 23 Bureau of Reclamation would use such water made available at 24 New Melones under the San Joaquin River Agreement for water 25 quality purposes? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14104 1 MR. STEINER: That was way too long of a question for 2 me to figure out. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: How do we know that that water would be 4 released from New Melones for water quality purposes? 5 MR. STEINER: Which water would be released? 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Take, for example, 154 cubic feet per 7 second in column nine for the year 1956. 8 MR. STEINER: In that particular year it wasn't 9 released for water quality. That was released for fishery. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: How do we know the Bureau would release 11 it at that time? 12 MR. STEINER: We believe they will operate to the IOP. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Does the San Joaquin River Agreement 14 mandate that Bureau operate to the IOP? 15 MR. STEINER: No, it does not. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there anything that you can point to 17 that confirms that the Bureau will, in fact, operate to IOP 18 for future years? 19 MR. STEINER: It is not included in the SJRA. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to flows made available at 21 Goodwin for water quality purposes, do we -- do you know 22 whether or not there is any commitment on the part of the 23 Bureau that that water would be used for that purpose? 24 MR. STEINER: Not through the SJRA. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Last question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14105 1 You were asked questions regarding the impact of 2 salinity in excess of the Vernalis objective constituting an 3 injury to legal users of water. 4 Do you recall that questioning? 5 MR. STEINER: I remember that line of questioning. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not an increase 7 in salinity at Vernalis. Which does not exceed the 8 objective, is damaging to any legal user of water? 9 MR. STEINER: I do not know the significance of any 10 increment of change. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you very much. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 13 Staff have any questions on redirect? 14 MR. HOWARD: No. 15 MS. LEIDIGH: No questions. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Recross? 17 All right, that concludes the recross-examination, and, 18 Mr. O'Laughlin, are you going to save the exhibits to the 19 end? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: As we did in previous phases, I will 21 wait until we are done with our entire case in chief. Then 22 I will offer the exhibits at that time. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Very well. 24 Anything else before we adjourn today? 25 MR. HERRICK: I would just ask who is scheduled for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14106 1 tomorrow morning. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. I believe we will have MID and 3 TID first. When we are done with MID and TID, the San 4 Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Steiner, for your 6 participation. 7 We are adjourned until 9:00 tomorrow morning. 8 (Hearing adjourned at 4:00 p.m.) 9 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 14107 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 6 7 8 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 9 official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 10 and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand 11 writing those proceedings; 12 That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be 13 reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 13891 through 14 14107 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 17th day of June 1999. 19 20 21 22 23 ______________________________ ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 25