STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 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 FOR MR. HOWARD AND MR. JOHNS: 11 DANIEL, FRINK, ESQ. 12 ---oOo--- 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 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 PAGE 2 RESUMPTION OF HEARING: 16115 3 AFTERNOON SESSION: 16220 4 5 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: OPENING STATEMENT: 6 BY MR. ROBBINS 16116 DIRECT EXAMINATION: 7 BY MR. ROBBINS MARC VAN CAMP 16118 8 STEVAN STROUD 16122 TED WAY 16129 9 EDWARD SELB 16151 CROSS-EXAMINATION: 10 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 16158 BY MR. HERRICK 16168 11 BY MR. NOMELLINI 16201 BY MR O'LAUGHLIN 16233 12 BY STAFF 16249 13 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 OPENING STATEMENT: BY MR. EMRICK 16251 15 BARRETT KEHL RICK MARTIN 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY MR. EMRICK 16253 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION: BY MR. NOMELLINI 16278 18 ---oOo--- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 JUNE 28, 1999 3 ---oOo--- 4 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Morning everyone. Welcome back. 5 Mr. O'Laughlin. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, we will now continue 7 with the San Joaquin River Group Authority case in chief. 8 Just to do a little scheduling, the first party that will be 9 testifying today will be Merced Irrigation District, 10 followed by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and 11 then the Oakdale Irrigation District. 12 We don't know how long those three will go, and we have 13 no other witnesses after that time period. And my 14 understanding, and somebody can correct me if I am wrong, 15 after those three parties are done presenting their cases in 16 chief, the cases in chief for Phase II-B will be completed. 17 And I, then, saw that on the webpage a notice had been sent 18 out by the State Board that we come back on the following 19 week and start rebuttal. 20 Sometime in the next day or two we should figure out 21 who is doing rebuttal and do a drawing or whatever we've 22 done in the past to figure out the order on that. 23 With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Ken Robbins from 24 Merced Irrigation District. 25 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Morning. Mr. Robbins, have all CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16115 1 your witnesses taken the oath? 2 MR. ROBBINS: In fact, I think they have not. If those 3 three will rise for the oath. 4 (Oath administered by Chairman Stubchaer.) 5 ---oOo--- 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 7 BY MR. ROBBINS 8 MR. ROBBINS: Kenneth Robbins appearing on behalf of 9 Merced Irrigation District, which we will refer to in our 10 testimony simply as Merced, except for the context of Mr. 11 Stroud's testimony indicates the City of Merced. 12 Merced is a signatory to the San Joaquin River 13 Agreement which contains the VAMP. Over half of the water 14 on a long-term basis supplied by the San Joaquin River Group 15 Authority for the Agreement is provided by Merced. Indeed, 16 in many years all of the water is provided by Merced. So to 17 that end our testimony will concentrate upon the supply of 18 that water and the impacts to Merced. 19 Mr. Van Camp will testify this morning how Merced will 20 make that water available. He will describe the bypass 21 storage, actual storage releases, what Merced will do to 22 make up that water on a very brief summary, and he will also 23 describe for you the risk assumptions that the Merced 24 Irrigation District Board of Directors undertook in their 25 consideration to enter into this agreement. In fact, we CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16116 1 discussed that very briefly last week, the risks that are 2 associated with reoperating reservoirs. 3 Next Mr. Stevan Stroud, the City engineer for the city 4 of Merced will testify about urban water demands, growth in 5 the eastern part of Merced County, which essentially 6 encompasses Merced water basin, and the anticipated demands 7 for new water in the basin. 8 Following Mr. Stroud, Mr. Ted Way of CH2MHill will 9 testify about a few of the critical conclusions reached in a 10 document that we are presenting known as the Merced water 11 supply plan. He will describe to you some groundwater in 12 the Merced groundwater basin, plans for intentional recharge 13 of groundwater and the impacts that may occur to the Merced 14 groundwater basin in the absence of doing mitigation 15 projects as necessary. 16 He will also describe for you the changes in 17 assumptions that were made in the groundwater plan and 18 conclude for you that, as a result of the implementation of 19 the San Joaquin River Agreement and Merced's contributions 20 thereto, there should be no significant impact to the Merced 21 groundwater basin through the year 2010. 22 Lastly, Mr. Ted Selb, the Assistant General Manager for 23 Merced Irrigation District for water resources will testify. 24 He will give you a very brief background concerning the 25 Merced, its water commitments, both upstream, downstream, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16117 1 in-stream. He will discuss a little bit about the 2 conveyance system so we can provide the setting for the 3 description of both groundwater management plans and for 4 what we refer to as SUGWOP, or Surface Groundwater 5 Optimization Plan, which is an acronym Merced uses for its 6 conjunctive use program; and he will describe the projects 7 that are planned, some that have been completed, some that 8 are underway, some still to be implemented in order to make 9 the irrigation district more water tight, as it were, able 10 to do more with its water supply. 11 Taken together, we believe the evidence will show that 12 Merced and its forbearers have operated efficiently over a 13 hundred years, is wisely planning for changes that may occur 14 in the next century. We will show that the Merced can meet 15 the current and future demands of water and its obligations 16 under the San Joaquin River Agreement through 2010 without 17 significant impacts to others or to its groundwater supplies 18 during that term. 19 Our first witness this morning is Mr. Marc Van Camp. 20 Mr. Van Camp, your statement of qualification has been 21 previously entered as San Joaquin River Group Exhibit 7, I 22 believe; is that correct? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: That is. 24 MR. ROBBINS: That is a true and correct statement of 25 your calcifications? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16118 1 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it is. 2 MR. ROBBINS: I would now invite your attention to 3 what has been marked for identification as San Joaquin River 4 Group Exhibit 108. Did you prepare that testimony? 5 MR. VAN CAMP: I did. 6 MR. ROBBINS: For the Board's edification, during the 7 process of Merced's preparation of testimony several of the 8 witnesses were out and about California and the nation. We 9 were unable to gather original signatures. So, as we go 10 through each witness this morning, I will have them certify 11 under their current oath that the testimony contained as 12 submitted this morning is, in fact, true and correct. 13 Mr. Van Camp, in that light, you prepared Exhibit 108? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I did. 15 MR. ROBBINS: To the best of your information and 16 belief, that testimony is true and correct? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: It is. 18 MR. ROBBINS: I wonder if you could then very briefly 19 summarize your testimony for the Board. 20 MR. VAN CAMP: I will be very brief. 21 As Mr. Robbins indicated, Merced is going to be the 22 major contributor of water to meet the target flows 23 identified in the San Joaquin River Agreement, in VAMP. 24 Those will be additional releases out of Merced's project, 25 New Exchequer Reservoir. I have characterized those CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16119 1 additional releases as reoperation water and bypass of water 2 that would have otherwise been stored or released of stored 3 water. 4 The reoperation water is such that the reservoir, end 5 of year reservoir storage on October 31st, which is required 6 through flood control requirements, would be the same absent 7 VAMP or without VAMP. That is why we simply call it 8 reoperation, using the project facilities to put the water 9 into the spring months where we understand it is being 10 requested. 11 That would entail moving discretionary releases that 12 Merced has to get down to its flood control requirements 13 into the spring months from months that were normally in 14 later months than the spring. As you might suspect this 15 type of reoperation water has no water supply impact on 16 Merced during that given year or in subsequent years. 17 The second type of water, this additional release, is 18 the release of water that would be bypass of water that 19 would have been stored or actual storage release. In this 20 case the reservoir would end up at a lower level at the end 21 of the season, October 31st, such that that water was either 22 not stored or released from storage. 23 This water could be made up, as indicated in previous 24 testimony, in subsequent wet years. Refill that gap in 25 storage, or it could result in a water supply impact as also CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16120 1 identified in previous testimony. Of course, that depends 2 on the future hydrology. 3 The water supply impacts from that storage water were 4 discussed by Mr. Steiner and are very infrequent throughout 5 the history of hydrology. He labeled them as reductions in 6 surface diversions. And that would be assuming no projects 7 within Merced and no additional groundwater pumping by 8 Merced. And you'll hear testimony after mine that discusses 9 those projects to help minimize the risk to Merced water 10 users from providing additional spring pulse flows to offset 11 those potential water impacts. 12 Mr. Steiner's testimony indicated that the water supply 13 impacts to Merced, or the reduction in diversions, that 14 we're trying to avoid, Merced, through projects occurred in 15 five out of 71 years of his study. In the short term, if 16 the projects, more of the water management projects versus 17 the conjunctive use projects, aren't on line in the short 18 term, the district does has capabilities to pump additional 19 groundwater than what they do on a normal basis. 20 The risk that Mr. Robbins indicated the Merced Board 21 had to evaluate the San Joaquin River Agreement, providing 22 water under that agreement, or other alternatives, any other 23 alternative, in which the district was asked to provide 24 additional spring water and assured that it doesn't short 25 its customers within its service area. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16121 1 The other alternatives, for example, State Board 2 Alternative 3 and 4, would put a new demand on the reservoir 3 in the spring months. It would bypass water. Now, 4 Alternatives 3 and 4 are only bypass of inflow. They are 5 not release of previously stored water, as I understand it. 6 So, the types of projects that you will hear about will 7 occur. Some have already in the absence of VAMP in the San 8 Joaquin River Agreement. With the Agreement more of them 9 will occur and hopefully on a more rapid basis. 10 So, in conclusion, the VAMP and the potential impacts 11 of projects within Merced will be very similar to the 12 potential impacts, or alleged impacts from other 13 alternatives to provide spring pulse flows. 14 And that is all I have, Ken. 15 MR. ROBBINS: Thank you. 16 Testifying next this morning is Mr. Stevan Stroud. 17 Mr. Stroud, would you state your full name and spell 18 your last name for the record. 19 MR. STROUD: Stevan Stroud, S-t-r-o-u-d. 20 MR. ROBBINS: Where are you employed? 21 MR. STROUD: With the City of Merced. 22 MR. ROBBINS: Your position there? 23 MR. STROUD: City engineer. 24 MR. ROBBINS: Inviting your attention to what has been 25 marked as San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 110A, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16122 1 which purports to be a statement of your qualifications, are 2 you familiar with that exhibit? 3 MR. STROUD: Yes. 4 MR. ROBBINS: Did you prepare it? 5 MR. STROUD: Yes. 6 MR. ROBBINS: Does it accurately set forth your 7 qualifications? 8 MR. STROUD: It does. 9 MR. ROBBINS: Also inviting your attention to what has 10 been marked for identification as San Joaquin River Group 11 Authority Exhibit 110, which purports to be your testimony, 12 did you prepare that exhibit? 13 MR. STROUD: I did. 14 MR. ROBBINS: Understanding you are now under oath, 15 sir, do you certify that the information contained in that 16 testimony is true and correct to the best of your 17 understanding? 18 MR. STROUD: Yes, I do. 19 MR. ROBBINS: I wonder, then, if you could spend a few 20 moments summarizing your testimony. 21 MR. STROUD: Of course. 22 The City of Merced, after a seven-year project to 23 modernize its treatment plant ending in 1980, concluded that 24 a typical ten-year planning horizon for a general plan was 25 inadequate to officially identify and meet infrastructure CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16123 1 needs. By 1985 the staff had begun to examine various 2 growth shapes of the city in an effort to determine the 3 lowest infrastructure cost consistent with the city's vision 4 of the future. That future vision includes a compact urban 5 form, preservation of environmental and agriculturally 6 significant resources, a diverse and balanced economy, 7 efficient and effective public services and quality of 8 life. 9 Planning efforts culminated in what came to be known as 10 the Merced 2030: How Shall We Grow? During development of 11 the growth study, drought took its toll. Statewide water 12 shortages and falling groundwater received considerable 13 media attention. With the heavy publicity and the adoption 14 of local landscape irrigation restrictions, water use in 15 Merced was significantly reduced; between '87 and '89 peak 16 demands was reduced about 40 percent. 17 Between 1987 and '91 the average daily per capita 18 consumption was reduced nearly 15 percent. Despite a system 19 that at that time and still is predominantly unmetered, even 20 wastewater volumes were reduced by 10 percent. 21 In 1992, with the University of California looking for 22 a site for its tenth campus, the City of Merced and Merced 23 Irrigation District entered into a memorandum of 24 understanding for the joint study and planning of our water 25 resources. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16124 1 The first significant result of the MOU was the 1992 2 Merced River Water Supply Reconnaissance Study. The study 3 revealed surface water supplies are adequate to reliably 4 meet local and regional needs except in dry years. We 5 identified the need to expand Merced Irrigation District's 6 conjunctive use capability. 7 In 1993 the city and the irrigation district 8 commissioned a study to identify and develop an economically 9 sound implementable plan that assures a safe, reliable water 10 supply for the continued growth and prosperity of eastern 11 Merced County. That study came to be the known as the 12 Merced Water Supply Plan. You will hear more about that 13 from Mr. Way. 14 Community involvement was considered essential to 15 develop an implementable plan. So a public participation 16 program was created to assure multiple participation 17 opportunities throughout the process. A technical advisory 18 committee was created and assigned to review the technical 19 aspects of the project and to offer guidance on the 20 direction of the study. Tech membership included 21 representatives from: the California Department of Fish and 22 Game; Department of Water Resources; Regional Water Quality 23 Control Board; Castle Air Force Base; the cities of Atwater, 24 Livingston and Merced; the County of Merced; Foster Farms 25 and Ven den Bergh Foods, two private companies that use CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16125 1 significant amounts of water; Meadowbrook Water Company, a 2 small private water company; Merced Irrigation District and 3 its advisory committee; the County Farm Bureau; the Merced 4 County Association of Governments; the U.S. Bureau of 5 Reclamation; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 Focused interviews were conducted with key stakeholders 7 and community leaders early in the planning process. Their 8 comments were helpful in guiding the study. Public 9 participation sessions were held in each phase of the 10 project to solicit comments and advice. Sections were 11 widely advertised in local media and three newsletters were 12 printed and distributed in the media. 13 To expand out each activity and improve the consensus 14 building process, a speaker's bureau was created. 15 Presentations on issues, opportunities and alternative 16 methods of providing reliable water supply were made to 17 several interested groups, including the Building Industry 18 Association, the Association of Realtors, the Chamber of 19 Commerce, the Farm Bureau, Rotary Club, Sierra Club, 20 University of California, California Women for agriculture 21 and California Family Farmers Association. With such 22 broad-based participation, the study title easily became 23 Merced Water Supply Plan: A Cooperative Regional Effort. 24 By volume agricultural needs will remain greater than 25 all others that are likely to increase somewhat as CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16126 1 conservation improves and cropping patterns change. Urban, 2 in-stream and environmental needs will rise dramatically to 3 population growth and continued environmental reform. U.C. 4 Merced, the tenth U.C. campus to be located in the study 5 area, will require as much as 20,000 acre-feet of water 6 annually by 2030. Also, by 2030 urban needs are projected 7 to require 120,000 acre-feet of water per year. 8 As the city, we are concerned that Merced Irrigation 9 District users have been shifting from surface water to 10 groundwater to withstand drought and improve the convenience 11 of water service, resulting in less applied water and more 12 groundwater demand. In fact, district operations directly 13 influenced groundwater levels. In fact, one of the most 14 significant findings of the water supply plan is about 95 15 percent of the recharge of the Merced basin comes from an 16 exfiltration from MID canals and deep percolation of applied 17 agricultural water. 18 Water is vital to the Merced area and central to the 19 agriculturally based economy. Population growth, 20 vulnerability to drought and an increasing use of 21 groundwater threatens the region's delicate water balance. 22 Managing the water balance is an essential ingredient in 23 providing stable economy, jobs, attractive living conditions 24 and a healthy environment. 25 Water Supply Plan's conjunctive use option was selected CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16127 1 as the preferred alternative since it achieves all the 2 study's goals in a cost-effective manner and is 3 environmentally sound. The key features of the plan include 4 groundwater being stabilized at 1990 levels, with recharge 5 basins being constructed on a pay-as-you-go basis to avoid 6 large up-front capital expenditures. 7 Cities will continue to use groundwater based systems 8 for reliable high quality supplies. Merced Irrigation 9 District's surface water deliveries will be increased where 10 feasible to improve groundwater recharge as a secondary 11 benefit, and consensus will be maintained by involving 12 stakeholders in the ongoing decision making processes. 13 Groundwater is certainly the key to the city's future. 14 The region is and will continue to grow, especially with 15 U.C. Merced scheduled to open its door in 2005. 16 Consequently, during 1997 water purveyors within the Merced 17 basin and Merced County officials joined to create Merced 18 Regional Groundwater Management Plan. For the city, 19 Regional Plan was an opportunity and a challenge to 20 implement the water supply plan. 21 The Merced Groundwater Basin Management Plan was 22 approved by individual agencies united by the Merced Area 23 Groundwater Pool Interests, or MAGPI. Fourteen agencies are 24 represented, including the County of Merced, Merced 25 Irrigation LeGrand-Athlone, Stevinson, and Turner Island CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16128 1 Water Districts, the cities of Merced, Atwater and 2 Livingston, Winton Water and Sanitary District, Merquin 3 County Water District, LeGrand and Planada Community 4 Services Districts and Black Rascal and Meadowbrook Water 5 Companies. 6 Although the 1998 annual groundwater management report 7 is incomplete, several trends are emerging. The report will 8 indicate increased water conservation education will be very 9 beneficial. It will indicate that Merced Irrigation 10 District efforts to improve service levels have been 11 effective in shifting some agricultural use of groundwater 12 back to surface water, and that the wet winter of 1997-98 13 had a positive effect on groundwater levels. 14 The City of Merced fully supports the vision of the 15 Merced Water Supply Plan and will continue to be active in 16 the Merced Regional Groundwater Management Plan Activities. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. ROBBINS: Next this morning testifying is Mr. Ted 19 Way with CH2MHill. 20 Mr. Way, would you state your full name for the record, 21 spelling your last name, please. 22 MR. WAY: My name is Charles T. Way, W-a-y. 23 MR. ROBBINS: Your place of employment and position. 24 MR. WAY: I am at CH2MHill, a consulting firm, and my 25 job is as Director of Water and Water Resources. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16129 1 MR. ROBBINS: Calling your attention to what has been 2 marked for identified as Exhibit 109A, which purports to be 3 a statement of qualifications for you, are you familiar with 4 that document? 5 MR. WAY: Yes, I am. 6 MR. ROBBINS: Did you prepare it? 7 MR. WAY: Yes, I did. 8 MR. ROBBINS: Does it accurately set forth your 9 qualifications? 10 MR. WAY: It does. 11 MR. ROBBINS: Now calling your attention to what has 12 been marked for identification San Joaquin River Group 13 Authority Exhibit 109, is that your testimony this morning? 14 MR. WAY: That is my testimony. 15 MR. ROBBINS: I believe there is a correction to the 16 testimony to be made, though, is there not? 17 MR. WAY: There is one correction, Counsel, on Page 8, 18 Paragraph 9.2, where I discuss what I was informed about the 19 Vernalis Agreement. In the last sentence, there needs to be 20 two editorial changes. Where it reads "the actual average 21 annual water supply impact," that should be changed to 22 "average annual water supply contribution" to Merced 23 Irrigation District is less than 30,000. That should be 24 "37." So, there are two changes: the word "impact" to 25 "contribution" and change "30" to "37 5." I think I mixed CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16130 1 up impact and contribution. 2 MR. ROBBINS: This testimony was being drafted and 3 faxed and E-mailed between St. Louis and Merced, I believe, 4 was it not? 5 MR. WAY: That is correct. 6 MR. ROBBINS: With respect to the testimony as it has 7 been corrected, to the best of your knowledge and 8 understanding, is it true and correct? 9 MR. WAY: It is. 10 MR. ROBBINS: Calling your attention now to what has 11 been marked for identification as San Joaquin River Group 12 Authority 109B, which purports to be a copy of Merced Water 13 supply plan, are you familiar with that document? 14 MR. WAY: I am. 15 MR. ROBBINS: Did you assist in preparing that 16 document? 17 MR. WAY: That's correct. I was the project manager 18 during the preparation of the document. 19 MR. ROBBINS: Is it a true and correct copy of that 20 document? 21 MR. WAY: That is correct. 22 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Way, would you summarize your 23 testimony for the Board, please. 24 MR. WAY: Mr. Stroud outlined the beginning steps on 25 the preparation of the Merced Water Supply Plan. I would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16131 1 like to go into a little bit more detail on some of the 2 technical underpinnings under that plan. 3 As Mr. Stroud indicated, it is a joint plan of the City 4 of Merced and the Merced Irrigation District to deal with 5 long-term supply issues. And unlike a lot of plans have 6 done, this one goes through the time period 2030 to provide 7 for the long-term planning figures needed in these sorts of 8 studies. Short-term plans are not nearly as informative in 9 the long run as we needed here. The general objective of 10 the plan was to preserve and enhance the agricultural base 11 which is so important for economic vitality of eastern 12 Merced County, both direct agriculture and all the 13 industries that are related to that. It's a viable part of 14 that economy. 15 The challenges our clients were facing, as Mr. Stroud 16 indicated, were rapid population growth, but I need to 17 emphasize, too, the increasing preference by many of the 18 users in the study area for groundwater, both urban 19 groundwater as well as for agricultural purposes. 20 The study area, as is described in the plan, includes a 21 roughly 500,000 acre area, bounded on the north by the 22 Merced River, the west by the San Joaquin River, to the 23 south nearly to Chowchilla River. Then in the eastern 24 foothills the groundwater basin boundaries in the eastern 25 portion of the district in the Sierra Foothills. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16132 1 This area, as I mentioned, is predominantly 2 agricultural based. In 1994 the total crop value in the 3 county was $1.3 billion of which about 45 percent was in 4 this service area. It is a very major economic factor in 5 that part of the Central Valley. The principal crops that 6 are grown include dairy activities, poultry and almonds, 7 being the principal crops in the area. 8 As Mr. Stroud indicated, the study was conducted in 9 three phases over a two-and-a-half-year period from 1992 to 10 the summer of 1995. This study was issued in the summer of 11 1995. It is really important to emphasize the number of 12 groups and organizations that participated in this plan. It 13 has been my experience in projects of this type often that 14 is the step overlooked. You end up with nonimplementable 15 plans, and it is a credit, I think, to the clients here that 16 they have attempted to develop a consensus for their 17 efforts. 18 Talk a little bit about the project issues that we 19 faced. First, on the water supply front, the Merced River, 20 the principal water supply source for the service area, 21 produces about 960,000 acre-feet of average annual runoff. 22 But as Board Members are experienced with, I am sure, this 23 is a highly variable stream. The minimum flows in the 24 period we looked at were roughly 276,000 in 1977, and they 25 rose to nearly 2.8 million acre-feet in '83, following that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16133 1 extremely wet period there. So, you have a wide range of 2 river flows which sets up some of the challenges we face and 3 frankly some of the opportunities for the district and for 4 the city. 5 Just to put in perspective some of the supply numbers 6 for you, and I will reference Table 3-1, which is on Page 7 3-1 on Exhibit 309B. As I mentioned, the Merced River flow 8 is about 960,000 acre-feet. The district's average 9 diversion during the period of time we looked at the record, 10 which was from 1970 to '92, was nine 522,000 acre-feet of 11 diversions. You might ask why that period of record? '92 12 was sort of a completion of the analytical portion of our 13 study efforts. 1970 was the first we had full operating 14 records from the system after New Exchequer had been built 15 in the late '60s. That is sort of the period of time we 16 chose. 17 Pumping within Merced Irrigation District as a feature 18 of demand had been averaging about 70,000 acre-feet during 19 the early portions of the study period, but decreasing as 20 the study period went on as Merced used more surface water 21 to meet needs. Private agricultural pumping in the entire 22 study area not served by MID was a more difficult to arrive 23 at figure, somewhere in the range of 510,000 acre-feet on 24 average. You will appreciate the difficulty of calculating 25 that. We used cropping patterns and things like that to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16134 1 make calculations. 2 Urban demands in the overall scheme of things are much 3 smaller in average. They're about 23- to 25,000 acre-feet, 4 and as you will see in a minute they are one of the largest 5 sectors of growth that we see. At that time they were about 6 20,000. Again, then two-thirds of the total demand comes 7 from applied ag, the water that goes out to diversions for 8 Merced. 9 Now let's talk a little bit about water demand; that is 10 on the supply side. That is shown in Table 3-2. Without 11 going into all the numbers for you right at this point in 12 time, about two-thirds of the total water demand in the 13 study area are for agriculture. By the way, that is 14 projected to drop during the course of this study at this 15 time period as we went out because of urbanization of land 16 as well as increasing trends in some areas of more 17 groundwater use. 18 Urban demands that I mentioned early on were projected 19 to be in the 20- to 40,000 acre-feet, would rise nearly 20 threefold during the course of this study period. 21 Principally driven by U.C. Merced and all the other 22 urbanization that comes along with a major campus of that 23 type, we also had two other demands that were more difficult 24 to estimate, but that we provided some brackets on for the 25 analytical models we used in the study. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16135 1 The first of those were the in-stream flows for fishery 2 releases on the Merced River. Historically, the district 3 had released something on the order of 76,000 acre-feet; and 4 through consultation with both the Bureau and many of the 5 fishery's management agencies, that was projected to grow 6 nearly threefold during the course. Several hundred 7 thousand acre-feet of water for in-stream flow purposes that 8 we had to take into account in our study. 9 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Way, when you say it was projected to 10 grow, you mean we wanted to model the impact of that demand? 11 MR. WAY: That is correct. It was difficult to pin 12 down on the fishery's need precisely, so we bracketed those 13 in the model that was to come with our own estimates of what 14 the in-stream flows would be so as to provide the clients 15 with some appreciation of the results from that. 16 The final figure that we used were how much would be 17 used for transport outside of the study area to meet 18 environmental and other downstream uses. Historically, 19 those had been about 15,000 acre-feet, and again to bracket 20 the analysis in the water supply plan those could have 21 increased to over a hundred thousand acre-feet. 22 One of the things I would really like to emphasize as 23 we go into this analysis are observations that we made as a 24 study team, and that is not only the consultant, but all the 25 participants, about what would happen if we continued to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16136 1 operate a water supply system under the conditions that were 2 present in 1990. And on -- the key there was to describe 3 what would happen if those trends would continue, to set a 4 bracket around the future. 5 On Page 3-8 of our report we have a simple little chart 6 that describes the impacts of the dominant trends, of 7 increased pumping by urban and other agriculture uses and 8 reductions of surface water applied by Merced to its 9 cropping, to its farmers and for cropping purposes. If you 10 take the twin factors of increased pumping and decreased 11 surface water percolation you end up with a major drop in 12 groundwater levels that could occur should the service area 13 not deal -- the study area not deal with the issue of water 14 supply. 15 C.O. BROWN: Is that occurring right now? 16 MR. WAY: It is not significantly occurring right now 17 from my belief because we have some pretty wet conditions 18 here and the groundwater has not dropped as extensively as 19 might be projected, should you carry those increased trends 20 out to 2030. 21 What we tried to do, Mr. Brown, was portray the 2030 22 conditions under the 1990 management scenarios, management 23 practices, and see what would happen if you continued on 24 into the future as you are now. The groundwater would drop 25 significantly under those conditions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16137 1 C.O. BROWN: Thank you. 2 MR. WAY: Those possible futures, I believe, are the 3 major driving forces that the communities recognize as a 4 call to take advantage of the Merced River and use that to 5 meet the area's need in an environmentally and economically 6 sensible way. That was the real driver when we got there. 7 As Mr. Stroud mentioned, the leadership then really 8 identified five major goals for this effort. Those are 9 shown on Page 4-2 of our report. The five goals were to 10 manage the local groundwater basin so as to take appropriate 11 actions to manage that appropriately. 12 Secondly, to provide high quality, reliable supply for 13 city's drinking supply, principally, to recognize, protect 14 and enhance the economic base afforded by agriculture and 15 agricultural-related business in the study area. The fourth 16 major goal was protect the major water rights held by Merced 17 Irrigation District from the Merced River which was an 18 important engine to keep the water supply program going. 19 And finally, but not an insignificant factor in today's 20 California water scene, to maintain some consensus locally 21 on the development of the water supply activities needed to 22 implement the plan. Often those sorts of things are pretty 23 divisive, and the cooperative nature of this program was 24 paramount. 25 I am prepared to talk about all five of the goals. I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16138 1 did want to highlight just a little bit about the technical 2 underpinnings on the groundwater goal of managing our 3 groundwater resources, and put that a bit in perspective. 4 As I mentioned a minute ago, well over 50 percent of 5 deliveries to agriculture and urban uses is pumped from the 6 ground. The agriculture is largely pumped by private 7 farming operations outside of Merced Irrigation District and 8 urban by the communities in the study area. 9 Therefore, we concluded that groundwater management was 10 a critical activity, and three strategies were examined in 11 our report, again, to put some bookends on the issue. The 12 first of the strategies we looked at is maintaining 13 groundwater levels at about the 1992 level, which was a 14 level that had been stabilized after a number of years. The 15 second strategy we looked at was increasing the groundwater 16 levels to perhaps something that was in the 90 -- or excuse 17 me, something like what was following the '83 wet period. 18 In other words, to recharge the groundwater above what it 19 was during the early '90s. And finally was to examine what 20 happens if we had no controls at all on the groundwater. We 21 just let it go where it would go, based upon pumping and 22 other losses from the groundwater basin. 23 This basin I should put in perspective for you. It's a 24 sand and gravel, silt deposit basin, feather edges on the 25 east in the Sierra. It goes down to at its deepest point CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16139 1 about down under the San Joaquin River. It's been estimated 2 that it is probably 12,000 feet deep under the San Joaquin. 3 Of course, not much of that is usable because of poor 4 quality water at the bottom. But it is roughly about a 5 thousand feet effective depth throughout the study area, if 6 you wanted to kind of average it out. The usable volume has 7 been estimated by our geologist to be about 30,000,000 8 acre-feet, about 30,000,000 acre-feet. 9 We did a water budget through the project and continued 10 to integrate that with the groundwater models. Showed, that 11 water budget showed about 600,000 acre-feet of annual 12 discharges from the basin each year, and that those 13 discharges were generally replenished by the recharge from 14 two major components. The basin has about a third of its 15 total recharge coming from the leakage from canals that 16 provide surface water to Merced Irrigation District's 17 customers. And then two-thirds of basin replenishment comes 18 from the deep percolation associated with irrigated 19 agriculture or from the district. 20 But you will see right in just those two numbers the 21 importance of surface water and agriculture practices. 22 Other sources of groundwater recharge, such as 23 precipitation, seepage to and from the rivers and subsurface 24 inflow from the Sierra were relatively small factors in this 25 analysis. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16140 1 For use of the groundwater, about 80 percent was used 2 for private, agricultural pumping by the farmers that were 3 outside of the Merced Irrigation District. Pumping from 4 Merced Irrigation District for Merced Irrigation customers 5 within their service area was another 10 or 15 percent, 6 depends on the year. And urban pumping was in the study, 7 early parts of the study period, about 5 percent. Of 8 course, that was a factor that was growing on, pretty much. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Brown has a question. 10 C.O. BROWN: Mr. Robbins, if I may. 11 Make sure, Mr. Way, I have this understanding right. 12 Of the groundwater recharge, you are saying one-third comes 13 from canal leakage? 14 MR. WAY: Correct. 15 C.O. BROWN: Two-thirds from irrigating agriculture, 16 deep percolation past the root zone? 17 MR. WAY: Yes. 18 C.O. BROWN: And that the pumping of the district is 19 about 70,000 acre-feet per year? 20 MR. WAY: It had been early, historically. It was less 21 than that during most of the modeling period we calculated. 22 C.O. BROWN: The total private pumping is about 510,000 23 acre-feet a year? 24 MR. WAY: Mr. Brown, let me go back to the table of 25 actual specifics here. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16141 1 We found during our study that the private pumping was 2 on average about 510,000 acre-feet. But had ranged from 421 3 to 637. I am referring to Table 3-1 on Page 3-1. 4 MR. BROWN: The clarification question is the one-third 5 recharge from canal leakage and two-thirds from agricultural 6 leakage for recharge of the groundwater basin, are you 7 speaking about the 70,000 acre-feet of the district or 8 510,000 acre-feet average or private pumping or the combined? 9 MR. WAY: I am talking about the combined. The 10 recharge comes from the combined activity, both within and 11 outside. 12 C.O. BROWN: So, we are looking at almost 600,000 13 acre-feet and the recharge comes from two-thirds of the 14 agriculture -- 15 MR. WAY: Correct. 16 C.O. BROWN: -- irrigation? 17 MR. WAY: Yes. Remember, you have the surface water 18 application to Merced Irrigation District customers, to add 19 into that equation. 20 C.O. BROWN: It seems like an awful lot from an 21 irrigation deficiency, losses? 22 MR. WAY: Excuse me, Mr. Brown? 23 C.O. BROWN: It seems like a lot of water that is lost 24 from irrigation efficiency losses. If you are looking at 25 two-thirds of -- if I understand the figures right, we are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16142 1 looking at about 600,000 acre-feet. So two-thirds of that 2 would be 400,000 acre-feet that is supplied by over 3 irrigation? 4 MR. WAY: No. Let me break it up. It is a little bit 5 -- this is one of the things that drove us crazy 6 occasionally, too. The sources of percolation, of ag water, 7 is provided both by -- surface water provided by Merced 8 Irrigation District as well as groundwater pumping by the 9 private pumpers. So if you take those -- nearly those two 10 demands alone are over a million acre-feet, not 600,000. 11 C.O. BROWN: You have about a million acre-feet? 12 MR. WAY: If you took the total demand within the 13 service area. 14 C.O. BROWN: But then the total pumpage is around 15 600,000, right? 16 MR. WAY: Correct. 17 C.O. BROWN: If it is 600,000 and two-thirds is made up 18 from ag, that is 400,000 acre-feet? 19 MR. WAY: Let's go back to the -- we have applied ag 20 water from both MID and from the private pumpers. We 21 projected in 1990 conditions of 891,000 acre-feet. Let's 22 just say 900,000 for now. Of that water about two-thirds of 23 it is used to recharge the groundwater basin in round 24 numbers. 25 MR. ROBBINS: When Mr. Selb testifies, I think the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16143 1 distinction between the uses in the basin versus the uses in 2 MID will become a little more clear. 3 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Robbins. 4 Thank you, Mr. Way. 5 MR. WAY: The District commissioned the preparation of 6 a groundwater model for the 500,000 acre study area to be 7 able to determine groundwater elevation changes throughout 8 the district and the service area as well as the study 9 area. 4,000, roughly, nodes were created in the model, and 10 within each node the geohydrologist kept track of the total 11 groundwater recharge in that, roughly a hundred acre area, 12 the discharge, the properties of, the aquifer, the cropping 13 patterns, et cetera, and they made groundwater contour 14 condition calculations for the study area, calibrated the 15 model for the conditions that we saw. And that model was 16 what was used to calculate groundwater elevation changes as 17 well as storage changes during the course of the study. It 18 was more of an analytical tool for us during that job. 19 I want to highlight for you just one of the examples of 20 the literally hundreds of runs that were done. This one is 21 shown on Page 5-4, beginning on Page 5-4 of the study 22 report, where it starts out "Testing the Strategies." In 23 this example, which is clearly just an example, we pegged 24 the deliveries of the applied water by Merced Irrigation 25 District to farmers at 300,000 acre-feet, realizing the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16144 1 diversions would be much higher because of the canal 2 losses. We pegged 120,000 acre-feet of urban pumping that 3 was currently projected to be around 40, so that was our 4 major increase. We had to make an estimate of how much 5 water would be applied by private pumpers outside of the 6 irrigation district, and that was set at 460,000 7 acre-feet. 8 I describe some of the fishery's issues associated with 9 the downstream portions of Merced River. We had a wide 10 range of assumptions to make there. We used, basically, 11 165,000 acre-feet of fishery releases, realizing that on 12 average the prior amount by Merced had been 75,000. And we 13 included a factor for water transporting outside the study 14 area for ag or environmental purposes. We did not put any 15 intentional recharge in this particular example, but I will 16 show you in a minute how that would factor in. 17 The results of that testing, they are shown on Pages 18 5-5, 5-6 in our report, show a gradual decline in 19 groundwater level, as you might expect, during the study 20 period with the particular important significance of being 21 more pronounced in the south and westerly portions of the 22 study area where the district did not apply surface water 23 for ag purposes. 24 We also found, and the reason I want to bring up the 25 example, if we kept those same very conservative assumptions CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16145 1 in place, that recharging intentionally 100,000 acre-feet of 2 water a year would restore the groundwater levels to the 3 balanced positions. So, we found that even with those very 4 strong drawdowns of the groundwater basin, if we can run a 5 system that would intentionally recharge, using surface 6 recharge mechanisms, 100,000 acre-feet a year, we would 7 balance the groundwater basin. And that is what sort of set 8 the bracket for us on this analysis. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Brown. 10 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 Did you run a water balance of total supplies versus 12 demand existing and projected? 13 MR. WAY: Yes, we did. 14 C.O. BROWN: How did that come out? 15 MR. WAY: Total supply existing and projected -- 16 C.O. BROWN: Using safe yield determinations for your 17 supply as well as long-term average yield out of Exchequer. 18 MR. WAY: We did that and let me show you. I am going 19 to -- on Page 8-1, -2 and -3 we got into the issue of water 20 right and supply's reliability. And on Page 8-3 -- excuse 21 me, 8-3 are a set of curves that describe the availability 22 of water from the Merced system as a function of annual 23 runoff and climate conditions. It shows you the typical 24 pattern where, for many of the years, there is not much 25 change in the diversion rights, but the demands are in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16146 1 lower percentile year. You can't take as much off the 2 system. That was put into the model that was used to drive 3 the groundwater -- the surface water model that was used to 4 drive the groundwater element. We had that annual 5 variation in the program, put in that way. 6 We took into account the seasonal nature and the 7 cyclical nature of the river operations. 8 C.O. BROWN: Have you determined safe yield of the 9 basin area? 10 MR. WAY: I don't recall making safe yield calculation. 11 Perhaps Mr. Selb will make a calculation or provide that in 12 his testimony. I don't think we really thought about safe 13 yield in the traditional sense of this model. Because we 14 were using annual cycles based on historic record. The safe 15 yield is sort of a yield in the most severe of those. You 16 can probably deduce one from what I have here, but I didn't 17 do one in that production. 18 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Robbins. 19 MR. WAY: Just finally to hit on the Alternatives and 20 what we concluded out of this without going into more 21 detail. We looked at literally hundreds of strategies in 22 the workshops with the concerned citizens to look at the 23 play if you let the groundwater decline here's the economic 24 impact of more pumps, deeper wells and all that, and traded 25 it back and forth. We formulated the various actions CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16147 1 available to the communities in the service area, and 2 concluded cooperatively that the final five elements of the 3 recommendation for the study. 4 First recommendation was that the participants should 5 stabilize groundwater levels to preserve surface water 6 irrigation, irrigated agriculture, and construct potential 7 recharge basins to begin that long-term recovery. In all 8 the cases we examined, in every one of the runs, the costs 9 to stabilize the groundwater were substantially less than 10 the cost associated with groundwater decline, due to both 11 the economic costs of pumping as well as the lost resource 12 value of the groundwater. Should not be a revolutionary 13 figure, but an important building block. 14 Perhaps a little more unexpected was that the continued 15 use of groundwater based systems to serve the cities was the 16 preferred urban supply option. Because the cities had all 17 grown up with groundwater systems and wells, to construct a 18 surface system to deliver water from the east with large 19 pipes and all that was just -- did not pan out economically 20 in the overall scheme of things. 21 What really was a fundamental finding of the study and 22 led to this recommendation was the importance of good water 23 system of delivery from Merced Irrigation District to its 24 customers because of the importance of surface water 25 provided to ags so they don't pump the groundwater as well CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16148 1 as the deep application of applied water as well as canal 2 leakage, that was an important factor to maintain. 3 C.O. BROWN: One minute remaining. 4 MR. WAY: Finally, we protected the area's water rights 5 by bolting together on the system. It's my conclusion and 6 opinion I believe that the amount of water to be contributed 7 by Merced under the proposed program of pulse flows is well 8 within the possible range of scenarios we looked at in our 9 planning work and would not have significant long-term 10 impacts on the ground basins for three principal reasons: 11 urban growth has not occurred as fast as possible as Mr. 12 Stroud indicated; the contributions expected of Merced for 13 the VAMP are much lower than what we assumed in our modeling 14 runs for fisheries and environmental needs; and, thirdly, 15 the district and the City have began implementation of the 16 water supply strategies that we recommended which will 17 further protect the water supply for the study area. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, I have just about 30 20 seconds of follow-up questions. We will deduct it from Mr. 21 Way's testimony should that be necessary -- I mean, from Mr. 22 Selb's testimony. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: We don't allow time trading, but go 24 ahead. It's not necessary to deduct. If we did that, there 25 would be all sorts of games played. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16149 1 Do you want to do it now or on redirect? 2 MR. ROBBINS: I think it is important to draw out this 3 question at this point. I think we are still on the 4 direct. 5 Mr. Way, I just wanted to emphasize the point with you 6 that is, as I understand it, the modeling that you, that 7 CH2MHill, did show impact to the groundwater assumed an 8 increase to urban pumping to 120,000 feet from 40; is that 9 correct? 10 MR. WAY: That's correct. 11 MR. ROBBINS: And it assumed a doubling of fishery 12 flows; is that correct? 13 MR. WAY: That's correct. 14 MR. ROBBINS: And it also assumed a decrease in surface 15 water deliveries following the trend of Merced; is that 16 correct? 17 MR. WAY: That's correct. 18 MR. ROBBINS: And none of those things have occurred at 19 the level predicted in the study because growth has been 20 slowed down significantly? 21 MR. WAY: That is correct. 22 MR. ROBBINS: It is your conclusion that through the 23 year 2010 the contributions of Merced, as you understand, to 24 the VAMP will not affect over time significantly the 25 groundwater basin? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16150 1 MR. WAY: That's correct. 2 MR. ROBBINS: Next this morning is Mr. Selb. 3 Mr. Selb, would you state your full name for the record 4 and spell your last name, please. 5 MR. SELB: Certainly. Edward C. Selb, S-e-l-b, the 6 III, with a nickname of Ted. 7 MR. ROBBINS: Ted, your occupation, please. 8 MR. SELB: I'm the Assistant General Manager for Water 9 Resources for the Merced Irrigation District. 10 MR. ROBBINS: How long have you been employed by 11 Merced? 12 MR. SELB: Over 27 years. 13 MR. ROBBINS: Calling your attention to what has been 14 marked for identification as San Joaquin River Group Exhibit 15 111E, which purports to be a statement of your 16 qualifications, are you familiar with that document? 17 MR. SELB: Yes. 18 MR. ROBBINS: Does it accurately set forth your 19 qualifications? 20 MR. SELB: Yes, it does. 21 MR. ROBBINS: Also calling your attention to what has 22 been marked for identification as the San Joaquin River 23 Group Authority Exhibit 111, which purports to be your 24 testimony, did you prepare that testimony? 25 MR. SELB: Yes, I did. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16151 1 MR. ROBBINS: Understanding that you are under oath, to 2 the best of your understanding and knowledge, that testimony 3 is correct? 4 MR. SELB: Yes, sir. 5 MR. ROBBINS: Let's do a couple housekeeping items so 6 we don't run afoul of the clock. Let me have you identify 7 the exhibits that you are going to be using this morning. 8 With respect to San Joaquin River Group Authority 111A 9 for identification, which purports to be a schematic of the 10 major surface water facility of Merced Irrigation District, 11 is that a true and correct representation of those 12 facilities? 13 MR. SELB: Yes, it is. 14 MR. ROBBINS: And 111B for identification, which 15 purports to be a copy of the Merced Irrigation District 16 AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan, is that a correct copy 17 of that plan? 18 MR. SELB: Yes. 19 MR. ROBBINS: The figures that the plan refers to have 20 been omitted, have they not? 21 MR. SELB: Yes, because the regional plan superseded 22 that. 23 MR. ROBBINS: So, let us go to the regional plan, 111C 24 for identification. Is that a true and correct copy of the 25 Regional Groundwater AB3030 Plan? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16152 1 MR. SELB: Yes, it is. 2 MR. ROBBINS: Did you help prepare that plan? 3 MR. SELB: Yes, I did. 4 MR. ROBBINS: Finally, for identification, San Joaquin 5 River Group Authority 111D, which purports to be a copy of 6 the Merced Irrigation District Business Plan for the years 7 1998 through 2004, are you familiar with that document? 8 MR. SELB: Yes, I am. 9 MR. ROBBINS: Did you help prepare it? 10 MR. SELB: Yes, I did. 11 MR. ROBBINS: And is it a true and correct 12 representation of that agreement? 13 MR. SELB: Yes, it is. 14 MR. ROBBINS: Of that document. 15 I wonder if you could very briefly give us a little 16 summary of the history of Merced Irrigation District and the 17 Exchequer Project. 18 MR. SELB: Certainly. The district and its 19 predecessors have had a presence on the Merced River since 20 the late 19th century. The district completed construction 21 of original Exchequer dam in 1926 and later constructed New 22 Exchequer dam in 1967. 23 MR. ROBBINS: Could you tell us what the water 24 commitments of the irrigation district are outside of its 25 own boundaries. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16153 1 MR. SELB: We have various categories of water 2 commitments. The first category is upstream water 3 commitments, and there are several. Lake Don Pedro 4 Community Services District, located adjacent to Lake 5 McClure, pumps raw water from Lake McClure for both domestic 6 and irrigation purposes. That diversion is capped at 5,000 7 acre-feet annually. 8 The second is Mariposa County Public Utilities 9 District, pumps water directly from the Merced River 10 upstream of Lake McClure, and that diversion cap is 5,000 11 acre-feet annually. 12 Finally, the Merced Irrigation District pumps water 13 from both Lake McSwain and Lake McClure for domestic 14 purposes associated with the operation of their campground 15 facilities. 16 MR. ROBBINS: And the downstream commitments. 17 MR. SELB: The downstream commitments, there are 18 several. Two settlements, that is two settlement 19 agreements, were reached with riparian interests to mitigate 20 the downstream water rights associated with the construction 21 of the original Exchequer Dam. 22 MID's FERC license calls for MID to provide water for 23 both in-stream fishery enhancement and to meet the water 24 needs of the Merced National Wildlife Refuge. 25 And, finally, the Davis-Grunsky Agreement with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16154 1 State of California provides for in-stream fisheries 2 enhancement releases between November 1 and March 31 of each 3 one. 4 MR. ROBBINS: Diversions to the Cal agreement diverters 5 are actually in the river itself; they are riparian to the 6 river? 7 MR. SELB: That's correct. 8 MR. ROBBINS: Diversions to Stevinson are actually 9 diverted through the MID system and delivered to the east 10 side canal, are they not? 11 MR. SELB: That is correct. 12 MR. ROBBINS: Can you give us a brief synopsis of the 13 conveyance system? Maybe we can put up 111A, which is the 14 schematic of the district. I think it is important we look 15 at this because of the projects that you are going to 16 describe. 17 Could you briefly describe the schematic and how the 18 district operates and we will use it later to identify 19 position projects that you are going to discuss. 20 MR. SELB: As stated, this is a general depiction of 21 the Merced Irrigation District. The Merced River shown here 22 in green, the San Joaquin River which is actually shown 23 along the west. We have two major diversions from the 24 Merced River: the North Side Canal and the Main Canal. Both 25 of those diversions are upstream of the Crocker-Huffman CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16155 1 Diversion Dam located east of -- 2 MR. ROBBINS: The direction of the schematic at the top 3 of the document is north? 4 MR. SELB: That is correct. 5 The system is utilizing -- utilizes both irrigation 6 facilities, the Main Canal, and it diverts into a number of 7 smaller canals and laterals. You can see that we also 8 utilize natural creeks, Edendale Creek and Canal Creek to 9 supply water to the Livingston Canal, and water basically to 10 the Livingston and Atwater area. 11 As water moves south in the major facilities, it passes 12 through, like, Yosemite, which is a historic regulating 13 reservoir within the system. We convey water, continuing 14 south, and utilize Bear Creek, Owens Creek and Mariposa 15 Creek as conveyance facilities. There are, what I would 16 characterize as, old collapsible dams that are located on 17 all three facilities that create ponds and then the district 18 rediverts water into further sublaterals that continue 19 westerly. 20 A key point to pay attention to is that the movement of 21 water through the district surface water is to the south and 22 west. Our district boundary here is depicted by these 23 boxes, of which there are monitoring stations. The 24 commitment to Stevinson Water District is provided by all of 25 these streams. In other words, our commitment is not by any CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16156 1 one stream, and, in fact, by all three and any combination 2 of those streams as well as numerous sublaterals that do 3 spill into Black Rascal Creek and Bear Creek. 4 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Selb, how many miles of canals are 5 contained in the system? 6 MR. SELB: We have about 785 miles of canals. About 74 7 percent of those canals are unlined and provide a 8 groundwater recharge benefit. As well as by nature of using 9 the natural streams within the district, that also provides 10 a groundwater benefit. 11 MR. ROBBINS: What is the crop diversity in the 12 district? 13 MR. SELB: As Mr. Way testified, we have very diverse 14 crops within the district, including alfalfa, corn, cotton, 15 and current pasture and almonds are the major crops. 16 MR. ROBBINS: So, there is a lot of permanent cropping? 17 MR. SELB: Yes, that is correct. 18 MR. ROBBINS: With respect to groundwater, can you give 19 us a very brief synopsis concerning Merced's use of 20 groundwater? 21 MR. SELB: Certainly. MID operates and maintains 22 approximately 210 deep wells within the irrigation 23 district. They are generally clustered in this area with a 24 few located southerly of the city of Merced. 25 MR. ROBBINS: This area was south of the Livingston CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16157 1 Canal and west of Canal Creek? 2 MR. SELB: Thank you. That is correct. 3 Those wells are operated primarily during drought and 4 are not operated during normal irrigation seasons. There 5 are a number of wells that provide irrigation service to 6 high grounds, and those wells are also located in the same 7 general vicinity as I have indicated. 8 MR. ROBBINS: What is the most amount of groundwater 9 the district has historically pumped, to the best of your 10 acknowledge? 11 MR. SELB: I believe in the period 1976 we pumped 12 upwards of 180,000 acre-feet. 13 MR. ROBBINS: Prior to the drought or -- actually, 14 maybe you can give us a synopsis of what our average annual 15 groundwater pumping is, what Merced's average is? 16 MR. SELB: The long-term average, which would be '72 to 17 '98, is about 52,000 acre-feet. Most recently, beginning in 18 1993, where we had an education seminar, if you will, for 19 our ditch tenders, we encouraged the ditch tenders not to 20 use our wells strictly as fill-in when they cannot meet the 21 hour-to-hour demand of the growers, but to encourage surface 22 water deliveries. Through that education process our 23 average pumping dropped from 27,000 acre-feet annually in an 24 average year to only 9,300 acre-feet most recently. 25 MR. ROBBINS: So, when you say the average dropped from CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16158 1 27-, you previously indicated it was in the neighborhood of 2 50-, the district had already brought the average down to 3 about 27-? 4 MR. SELB: That's correct. 5 MR. ROBBINS: So, it further reduced it, and it is 6 currently about 9,300 feet? 7 MR. SELB: That is correct, and that is mostly to high 8 grounds. 9 MR. ROBBINS: With respect to groundwater, has Merced 10 adopted a groundwater management plan? 11 MR. SELB: Yes, it has. 12 MR. ROBBINS: And that is depicted in Exhibit 111B? 13 MR. SELB: That's correct. 14 MR. ROBBINS: The regional plan was also adopted, was 15 it not? 16 MR. SELB: Yes, it was. 17 MR. ROBBINS: Can you describe the need for two plans 18 for us? 19 MR. SELB: The Merced Irrigation District plan only 20 covered the district boundary proper and excluded the 21 jurisdictions of the cities and other small communities, 22 service districts, within Merced Irrigation District. It 23 was critical to have a groundwater management plan to 24 address not only the entire area of Merced Irrigation 25 District, but consistent with the water supply plan to cover CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16159 1 the entire sphere of influence of the Merced Irrigation 2 District, which is approximately 460,000 acres. 3 MR. ROBBINS: Can you give us, very briefly -- I guess 4 Mr. Stroud has already testified that the participants in 5 the regional plan are more than MID and its enclosed cities; 6 is that correct? 7 MR. SELB: That's correct. 8 MR. ROBBINS: So it is other water agencies in the 9 whole basin? 10 MR. SELB: I believe it is 14 agencies total. 11 MR. ROBBINS: The Merced Water Supply Plan that we have 12 been discussing this morning recommended that the district 13 undertake the construction or implementation of operational 14 or construction projects; is that correct? 15 MR. SELB: That's correct. 16 MR. ROBBINS: We have identified that this morning as 17 something referred to as SUGWOP? 18 MR. SELB: That's correct. 19 MR. ROBBINS: What is SUGWOP? 20 MR. SELB: It is the Surface Groundwater Optimization 21 Program, or SUGWOP. It has two parts, conjunctive use as 22 well as water conservation. 23 MR. ROBBINS: So with respect to the Board of 24 Director's approval of the SUGWOP in Merced, has the Board 25 moved forward with those projects? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16160 1 MR. SELB: As indicated in the business plan, by 2 adoption of that plan, the Board has committed $10.2 million 3 to be expended through the year 2004 to implement the 4 projects that are included in the business plan, which is 5 SUGWOP. 6 MR. ROBBINS: You anticipate additional plans beyond 7 that time frame? 8 MR. SELB: Yes, we do. 9 MR. ROBBINS: I wonder, then, if we can spend the rest 10 of our time here, I wonder if you can describe for the Board 11 the classifications of the projects, using a few examples, 12 perhaps locating where they might be relative to SUGWOP. 13 MR. SELB: Thank you. Just to touch briefly on the 14 history of SUGWOP, SUGWOP was developed in 1966 -- I am 15 sorry, 1996-97 time period and has its origins in the Merced 16 water supply plan, which has already been testified to, and 17 was developed as a result of numerous factors that predate 18 VAMP. I would like to list those: 19 The 1987 to '92 drought with declining surface water 20 supplies to the district, declining groundwater aquifers 21 within the district, declining water sales revenues to the 22 district, MID surface water users, in essence, leaving the 23 district, not technically but leaving surface water service 24 and installing their own wells, and, in addition, outside of 25 our neighborhood, if you will, water quality problems, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16161 1 Bay-Delta endangered species, fall-run chinook salmon 2 declines on the Lower Merced River, statewide water shortage 3 and the opposition to new on-stream storage facilities. 4 So going through this time period as well as going 5 through the Merced Water Supply Plan, this was a major 6 wake-up call to the district's Board of Directors and senior 7 staff. At that time and in particular following the Merced 8 Water Supply Plan, these projects were developed. 9 The goal of SUGWOP is to optimize water delivery 10 service and flexibility through improved water management, 11 resulting in greater and improved reliability during drier 12 years to offset potential impacts from changing delivery 13 demands within the district and increased water supplies 14 provided for fishery enhancement. 15 So, you are going to hear me talk about on one side or 16 one hand water conservation projects and on the other hand 17 increasing the capacity of conveyance facilities. This is a 18 classic conjunctive use. When surface water is available, 19 we want to maximize surface water application as well as 20 minimize groundwater use. And during dry periods, and more 21 importantly during sequential dry periods, draw a lot more 22 heavily on water conservation projects, maximize groundwater 23 use and minimize surface water. 24 The plan objective includes increased system 25 efficiency, as Mr. Way has testified, to stabilize the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16162 1 groundwater aquifer, to reduce the dependency on groundwater 2 in normal years and allow for adequate groundwater supplies 3 in dry years. 4 Now to go into the projects. The first category is 5 in-lieu recharge. And the first set of projects in that 6 broad category is low-head boosters replacing deep wells. 7 As I have previously testified, the district operates a 8 number of wells that provide water to high ground. Many of 9 those areas are adjacent to cities. We have -- 10 MR. ROBBINS: Excuse me, Mr. Selb. 11 Mr. Stubchaer, could we get a time estimate, please? 12 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Four minutes. 13 MR. ROBBINS: Four minutes remaining? 14 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Right. 15 MR. SELB: This particular project is designed to relax 16 the use of those wells, to install lift pumps to divert 17 water from adjacent surface facility to those lands while 18 keeping those wells connected so that in dry years they can 19 be utilized. 20 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Selb, with respect to the conjunctive 21 use program, the goal of the district is to construct a 22 series of projects that would increase the capacity of the 23 district for conservation; is that correct? 24 MR. SELB: That's correct. 25 MR. ROBBINS: By increasing the capacity does that mean CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16163 1 that in all years we will actually use all of those 2 conservation projects? 3 MR. SELB: Not necessarily. 4 MR. ROBBINS: We do so in dry years? 5 MR. SELB: That's correct. 6 MR. ROBBINS: Without discussing in too much detail, 7 you've indicated that we've got incentive programs; is that 8 correct? 9 MR. SELB: That's correct. 10 MR. ROBBINS: Those incentive programs involve payment 11 to farmers on a repayment cycle to do certain projects on 12 the farm? 13 MR. SELB: That's right. 14 MR. ROBBINS: One of those is to hook up low-flow 15 systems to surface water that were previously groundwater? 16 MR. SELB: That's correct. 17 MR. ROBBINS: In effect, recharging by getting them off 18 of groundwater? 19 MR. SELB: In-lieu recharge, that's correct. 20 MR. ROBBINS: Another project was what we call -- the 21 lift pumps that you were describing, high areas of the 22 district traditionally served with district groundwater are 23 now attempting to serve with -- 24 MR. SELB: Surface water. 25 MR. ROBBINS: -- district surface water? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16164 1 Distribution improvements, I wonder if you could spend 2 a couple of minutes on distribution improvements. 3 MR. SELB: Actually, there are two main features on 4 improvements for Merced. Regulating basins is a major 5 player in our plan. In fact, we have most of those 6 regulating basins in place. If I could describe some of 7 those: 8 The Livingston Canal, which is shown here, is a rather 9 large canal. It's actually -- over a period of maintenance 10 it is currently oversized. We have table topped that canal. 11 We've automated portions of the canal to create in-system 12 reservoir using that canal. That canal intercepts other 13 laterals that are flowing from the north to the south. And 14 the laterals that come out from the south now, we have 15 installed lift pumps so that we can now exercise this canal 16 as a small reservoir, picking up spills, rediverting them 17 downstream, with a whole point of not going to Lake McClure 18 as frequently to make these types of operational changes. 19 Another example, as I previously testified, we have a 20 number of old collapsible dams in-system. We have now put 21 in elevation monitoring systems as well as lift pumps from 22 the laterals that flow southerly out of those facilities. 23 So, we are now able to exercise a small amount of storage 24 within each one of these creeks, again, to exercise 25 flexibility in operation and not having to go to Lake CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16165 1 McClure for subtle changes in system demands. 2 MR. ROBBINS: Several parts of the system are being 3 automated, are they not? 4 MR. SELB: That's correct. 5 MR. ROBBINS: And the are being controlled on a 6 24-hour, seven-day basis at Merced headquarters? 7 MR. SELB: We have installed a SCADA system now that is 8 in place, and we do have a control room that monitors all 9 operations of 18 sites 24 hours a day. 10 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Selb, based upon all the projects 11 that we have been discussing, and we haven't -- your 12 testimony contains them all, but you haven't been able to 13 express them this morning. Based upon current 14 implementations of those projects, do you have an estimate 15 of how much yield those projects have created? 16 MR. SELB: At the current time we don't have a complete 17 picture. But we did take a look at the performance this 18 year compared to 1996. We selected 1996 because it most 19 closely mimics 1999. And to no surprise there were no 20 increased applied water. Applied water for 1999 was the 21 same for 1996. But the amount of water that we've released 22 from New Exchequer has been reduced. 23 MR. ROBBINS: So you are delivering the same with 24 reduced diversions? 25 MR. SELB: Correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16166 1 MR. ROBBINS: One final question. Merced's water 2 supply program predates the San Joaquin River Agreement? 3 MR. SELB: That's correct. 4 MR. ROBBINS: And SUGWOP would be performed, albeit 5 stretched out over time, it would be performed with or 6 without the San Joaquin River Agreement? 7 MR. SELB: That's correct. 8 MR. ROBBINS: No further questions. The panel is 9 prepared for cross-examination. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Brown. 11 C.O. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this is most 12 encouraging, that the reoperation of Exchequer from a high 13 of 180,000 feet, I guess, in 1976 down to a long-term 14 average of 27,000 acre-feet, and now you're reducing it to 15 9,300 and you are still working on, that would appear to me 16 more obvious yield out of your other systems as we have 17 discussed here before, would probably be classified as real 18 water. 19 So, have you worked on those figures? Do you have -- I 20 heard Mr. Robbins ask you a question towards the end. Do 21 you have those? 22 MR. SELB: Not at this time, Mr. Brown. 23 MR. ROBBINS: Is that process currently underway? 24 MR. SELB: Absolutely. 25 C.O. BROWN: Thank you. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16167 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes to cross-examine this 2 panel? 3 Mr. Godwin, Birmingham, O'Laughlin, Nomellini, Herrick. 4 Anyone else? 5 Ms. Whitney is getting the cards. 6 The order will be Mr. Godwin, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. 7 Herrick, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. O'Laughlin. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Godwin. 9 MR. GODWIN: I think I'm going to pass. 10 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. 11 ---oOo--- 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 13 BY WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT AND 14 SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 15 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Good morning. For you, gentlemen, who 17 have not met me before, I am Tom Birmingham, and I am an 18 attorney that represents Westlands Water District and San 19 Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 20 I think my initial questions are going to be directed 21 primarily at Mr. Van Camp, but if any member of the panel 22 feels that they would like to add to anything that Mr. Van 23 Camp says or feels that they are better qualified than Mr. 24 Van Camp to answer the question, I encourage you to jump 25 in. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16168 1 Mr. Van Camp, your testimony, San Joaquin River Group 2 Authority Exhibit 108, describes two potential methods by 3 which Merced Irrigation District will release additional 4 water from New Exchequer Reservoir in order to generate 5 pulse flow under the San Joaquin River Agreement; is that 6 correct? 7 MR. VAN CAMP: I would not describe them as methods. I 8 characterize the water that is being released from Exchequer 9 two different ways. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Those are reoperation and the release 11 of water from storage? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Could you clarify for me, please, 14 Paragraph 3 of your testimony talks about the reoperation 15 that would bypass inflow occurring during the pulse flow 16 period, but otherwise would have been stored. And 17 Paragraph 4 talks about water being released during the 18 spring pulse flow period or alternatively a release from 19 inflows that otherwise would have been stored. 20 What is the difference between the reoperations that 21 you have described in Paragraph 3 and the release of inflow 22 that otherwise would have been stored in Paragraph 4? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: The intent there was the reoperation 24 water would be such that Merced would end up at the same 25 storage level at the end of the season, October 31st, in a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16169 1 reoperation mode. The release of water from storage or 2 bypass of storage water would result in a lower storage at 3 the end of the season. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The difference between the 5 reoperation described in Paragraph 3 and the release of 6 previously stored water or bypass of water described in 7 Paragraph 4, is that under the reoperation described in 8 Paragraph 3 you would end the water year with the same level 9 of storage in New Exchequer, under Paragraph 3? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. But note I use October 31st as the 11 end of the year. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Why did you select October 31st as the 13 end of the year? 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That is the requirement pursuant to 15 the flood control requirements of the Corps of Engineers on 16 the district. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Does Merced Irrigation District have 18 any criteria to determine when it would reoperate New 19 Exchequer as described in Paragraph 3 or make releases as 20 described in Paragraph 4 of your testimony? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Can you reask the question? 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Sure. Does Merced Irrigation District 23 -- has it established any criteria that it would use to 24 determine under which circumstances it will reoperate the 25 project as described in Paragraph 3 as opposed to releasing CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16170 1 water as described in Paragraph 4? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: The decision to reoperate versus release 3 water from storage is based on hydrology and the current 4 storage, past year, storage levels in the reservoir. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let's focus on Paragraph 3 for a 6 moment. In Paragraph 3 you talk about bypassing inflow that 7 otherwise would have been stored in the absence of the 8 agreement, and that presumably that bypass inflow would be 9 captured sometime later in the year; is that correct? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would the capture of the water later 12 in the year have any affect on downstream water users? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: Let me try to explain, the 14 reoperation. Merced has the ability to release at a 15 discretionary level, depending on when water is, not 16 depending on, but has the decision making process to release 17 water through the summer, if it desires to reoperate that 18 water. The reoperation mode would be to move that 19 discretionary release, which is discretionary pursuant to 20 the district. To the spring months. 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would the exercise of that discretion 22 potentially affect downstream water users? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Not to my understanding, no. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What is the basis of your 25 understanding? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16171 1 MR. VAN CAMP: Well, testimony provided by Mr. 2 Steiner. The releases that are being made during the spring 3 are always available to water users. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to talk about the release 5 of water under Paragraph 4 of your testimony. 6 You have indicated that the release of water from 7 storage or the bypass of inflows that otherwise would have 8 been stored result in end of the season storage being less 9 than the U.S. Corps of Engineers' required flood control 10 level and storage level which would have occurred in the 11 absence of the agreement; is that correct? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. Excuse me, can we go back a step? 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Sure. 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Because the redistribution of water 15 released out of Merced could have an impact on downstream 16 flows on a monthly basis. Whether that has an impact on a 17 water user, I am not certain. 18 Now I am ready to move to Paragraph 4. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let's explore that a little bit, your 20 elaboration on one of my earlier questions relating to 21 Paragraph 3. 22 If flows are rescheduled from, say, the month of July 23 or August, when Merced has the discretion to release those 24 flows, to the month of April or May, wouldn't that have the 25 potential impact of depriving downstream water users of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16172 1 water on which they relied in July or August? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: It has that potential, but keep in mind 3 the releases are discretionary by Merced. 4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In your mind, whether or not it's 5 injuring any legal user of water depends on whether or not 6 the water user has a legal right to use the water? 7 MR. VAN CAMP: In my mind, yes. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If Merced has the discretion under its 9 water rights permits to make that release in July or August, 10 it could make a decision to release the water in April or 11 May for the benefit of fish below New Exchequer? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. Similar -- just as though you 13 would do it under any other requirement or alternative to 14 increase spring pulse flows. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Moving on to Paragraph 4, you state 16 that the water will be released from storage or from inflows 17 that would otherwise have been stored, and that would have 18 the effect of decreasing the storage level at the end of the 19 season, October 31? 20 MR. ROBBINS: Some of the water, sometimes. That is 21 what that paragraph testified. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Let's work through the Hearing 23 Officer, please. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe Mr. -- 25 MR. ROBBINS: The objection is ambiguous. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16173 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will restate the question. 2 Under Paragraph 4, Mr. Van Camp, you have stated that 3 in some circumstances water will be released from storage or 4 flows will be bypassed that otherwise would have been 5 stored, and the result of either one of those alternatives 6 will be that water stored in New Exchequer will be lower or 7 reduced than the amount of water in storage than otherwise 8 would have occurred on October 31? 9 MR. VAN CAMP: That is one of the possibilities. 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: You then state that subsequent years 11 inflows may recover the loss of stored water due to this 12 additional release prior to water supply impacts occurring 13 within Merced. Now, does Merced contemplate that subsequent 14 years' inflows that will be captured to replace the water 15 that was released pursuant to the agreement, will be water 16 that is in excess of the needs of downstream users at the 17 time it is recaptured? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: I can't answer the question, whether 19 it's been contemplated. Certainly it would be captured 20 during the storage season pursuant to its water rights, 21 which is during the winter period. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me see if I can explain the basis 23 of my question. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham, how much time do you 25 think? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16174 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Twenty minutes. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Can we take our break now? 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Take our morning break. 5 (Break taken.) 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Back in session. 7 Before you resume, Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Brown asked me 8 to pass his regrets that he can't be here for the next half 9 of the morning. He has a dental appointment. Rather urgent 10 that he gets to a dentist. He will be here this afternoon. 11 Mr. Birmingham. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Van Camp, I would like to go back 13 to our discussion before the morning recess concerning the 14 potential impacts to reoperation of New Exchequer will have 15 on downstream water users. 16 Does Merced Irrigation District have some obligation to 17 meet minimum -- to make minimum releases from New Exchequer 18 Reservoir? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, it does. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What are those obligations? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: I would not be the best person to cite 22 those, but they are minimum in-stream flow requirements. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is any member of the panel familiar 24 with in-stream flow requirements for Merced's operation of 25 New Exchequer? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16175 1 MR. SELB: Yes. We have two categories. As I 2 testified earlier, releases as required by our FERC license, 3 and that is a year-round requirement for flows depending on 4 the time of year as well as Davis-Grunsky contract, 5 in-stream flow requirements which goes from December 31st to 6 March 31st each year. 7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it correct that if Merced 8 Irrigation District's application for petition to change the 9 purpose of use and place of use, which is currently being 10 considered by the Board, is granted that the minimum 11 releases required under the FERC license and Davis-Grunsky 12 contract will still be made? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And in reaching your conclusion that 15 the reoperation of the reservoirs described in Paragraph 3 16 of your testimony will not have an impact on downstream 17 users of water, did you base your opinion on the fact that 18 these minimum releases will be made? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: That is part of the consideration, yes. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would like to go back and follow up 21 a little bit on my questions related to Paragraph 4 and the 22 recovery releases in subsequent years from in-flows during 23 subsequent years. 24 Does the -- excuse me, does the operation that you have 25 described in Paragraph 4 have the potential of increasing CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16176 1 the delivery capability of New Exchequer Reservoir, Mr. Van 2 Camp? 3 MR. VAN CAMP: By continuing to provide the water to 4 its customers and additional in-stream flow demand by 5 recapturing that water during the wetter periods in 6 subsequent years, that would be an increase in the average 7 annual yield. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no further questions. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 13 BY MR. HERRICK 14 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 16 Mr. Van Camp, if I may follow up on that last line of 17 questioning. 18 I believe your belief, your last answer was by 19 recapturing the water released for increased stream flows 20 resulted in increase in yield. Is that what you said? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: What happens -- is there any increase in 23 yield if there are not excess flood flows to make that 24 refill? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Question, Mr. Herrick. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16177 1 Are you talking about yield for a specific year or 2 long-term average annual yield? 3 MR. HERRICK: That is what I was getting to. 4 Would you like me to rephrase the question? 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: To me the question was incomplete. It 6 is not up to me to say that. I think it needs to be 7 defined. 8 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Van Camp, let's just build a 9 hypothetical to get to the question. Let's say you go 10 through five years of VAMP and there have been sufficient 11 flows to recoup the water for downstream fisheries flows. 12 Do you understand that? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Let's just say the last seven years of 15 VAMP are drought. Okay? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Okay. 17 MR. HERRICK: During that 12-year period, do you 18 conclude that the yield of the system has been increased or 19 decreased or something else? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: I think it is difficult with the general 21 statements you have there to determine that yield. The 22 additional yield is coming by recapturing the excess winter 23 flows, when it is assumed does not have then an impact on 24 other users. 25 MR. HERRICK: Are there times when capturing excess CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16178 1 winter flows will have impacts on other users? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: Within the information, I am not aware 3 of those. 4 MR. HERRICK: So, your testimony is that potential 5 decrease of downstream flows in the wintertime would not 6 have any potential affect on other users of water? 7 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe the use of water during those 8 winter periods is very low and it would be my belief that 9 that would have little to no impact on downstream users 10 during the storage season under Merced water rights. 11 MR. HERRICK: What do you define as the wintertime 12 period? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: It would be the peak runoff period, and 14 I would see that as the December through March period as the 15 peak, roughly. 16 MR. HERRICK: Is there some sort of set of operating 17 plans or restriction in agreement that would force Merced to 18 recover these excess flows during the time frame you just 19 mentioned? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Merced would capture the water pursuant 21 to its water rights. And those seasons are outside that 22 peak runoff period or peak inflow to the reservoir. 23 MR. HERRICK: I'm sorry I didn't understand. What 24 seasons are outside of what? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: I gave you a period when I believed was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16179 1 the peak period of recapturing of water. The storage season 2 under the water rights of Merced are longer or a bigger 3 period than that peak period that I just described. 4 MR. HERRICK: So, again my original question was: Is 5 there anything that limits Merced from recouping that -- 6 recapturing that water only during the most you mentioned 7 which was December -- I forgot what you said, sorry. 8 MR. VAN CAMP: No. It would not. Merced would not be 9 required to limit its recapture to the peak period. It 10 would be pursuant to the water availability and pursuant to 11 its water rights. 12 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware that there are other 13 obligations or objectives contained in the 1995 Water 14 Quality Control Plan other than the pulse flow in the 15 spring? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: I am aware of them, yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that one of those would 18 be they have measures of Delta outflow? Do you recall that? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I do recall that. 20 MR. HERRICK: And they have one that deals with X2 21 which is some measurement of saltwater mixing or something; 22 is that a general statement? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: I am aware of the other requirements 24 within the plan. 25 MR. HERRICK: Is a potentiality of Merced's recapture CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16180 1 of these excess flows will affect outflow of the Delta? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: By Merced recapturing that water during 3 the winter, it could reduce the water flowing to the 4 Delta. I have not analyzed whether that has an impact to 5 the requirements you have defined. 6 MR. HERRICK: Again for any other 1995 Water Quality 7 Control Plan objective have you done any analysis to see 8 whether or not recapturing those excess flows, as you call 9 it, might affect those other objectives? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: I have not. 11 MR. HERRICK: Real briefly, the distinction between 12 your Paragraphs 3 and 4 about bypassing inflow, when the 13 label of whether or not it is the reoperation or release 14 from storage is determined after the pulse; is that 15 correct? In other words at the end of the summer you 16 actually determine whether or not, okay, we did recoup or we 17 didn't recoup it; that's when you figure out whether or not 18 you will probably have decreased storage or not. Is that 19 true? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: It is after the pulse, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: It is a label put on it after that 22 determines whether or not water was available to replace the 23 released water; is that correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: That is true. Working with forecasts 25 certainly aren't perfect. You have to allow the water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16181 1 season and runoff season to unfold to make those final 2 determinations. 3 MR. HERRICK: Your Paragraph 8, which is Page 2 of your 4 testimony, it talks about recouping -- it talks about 5 recharging the groundwater over a five-year period based on 6 some modeling that Mr. Steiner had done; is that correct? 7 MR. VAN CAMP: The reference to Mr. Steiner's analysis 8 is relative to 120,000 acre-feet which is, I believe in his 9 testimony, is the potential water supply impact if Merced 10 was not to undertake various projects or additional 11 groundwater pumping. 12 MR. HERRICK: It talks about in his modeling -- correct 13 me if I am wrong. It talks about his modeling concluding 14 that that 120,000 acre-feet of groundwater was recharged 15 over a five-year period; is that correct? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: I don't believe so. That is 17 incorrect. I am not referencing the recharge over five 18 years to Mr. Steiner's analysis. But -- 19 MR. HERRICK: The third sentence of that Paragraph 8 20 says: 21 Recharge of the groundwater pumping that 22 occurred in the 1996 through '97 drought took 23 place within three to five years. 24 (Reading.) 25 To what are you referring when you make that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16182 1 statement? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: I have made that statement based on my 3 review of the hydrographs of groundwater wells in the area. 4 MR. HERRICK: Now, in the absence of that -- and this 5 is under the modeling that Mr. Steiner did. In the absence 6 of that decrease of 120,000 acre-feet of groundwater, do you 7 know what would have happened to the water that, in fact, 8 recharged that groundwater? 9 MR. VAN CAMP: I am not clear on the question, I am 10 sorry. 11 MR. HERRICK: If your investigation shows that the 12 groundwater recovered after the 1976-77 drought, I am asking 13 you where that water that refilled the groundwater basin 14 would have gone in the absence of that refill. 15 MR. ROBBINS: I think I have to object on the basis of 16 vagueness. I am not sure I understand the question at all. 17 MR. HERRICK: I will restate it. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Van Camp, do you -- 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I'm still not clear. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please try again. 21 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Van Camp, I am reading your testimony 22 to say that over a five-year period the affect on 23 groundwater was recovered or recouped; is that correct? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: My question to you is -- let me back up CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16183 1 again. 2 Water to make the groundwater levels recover would have 3 gone somewhere else in the absence of recharging the 4 groundwater. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in 6 evidence. 7 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 8 MR. HERRICK: Trying to restate the question. 9 Mr. Van Camp, what was the source of the water that 10 recharged the groundwater over that five-year period? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: The purpose of this paragraph was simply 12 to give you a broad or a general idea of the order of 13 magnitude of recharge to the basin, of the potential 14 groundwater pumping that Merced would have to do to offset 15 water supply impact. I believe Mr. Way indicated that the 16 recharge would be coming from the application of surface. 17 MR. HERRICK: In the absence of the recharging of that 18 basin, what would the water that did recharge be used for? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Again, it was -- I don't believe that 20 the recharge in this case was additional diversions in 21 subsequent years specific for recharge. It was the normal 22 recharge as described by Mr. Way's testimony. 23 MR. HERRICK: We are not getting to the same point. I 24 apologize if my questions aren't clear. 25 If it wasn't recharge over that time frame, where would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16184 1 that water have gone in the absence of the recharge? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: It would likely be available to the 3 system, held in storage or elsewhere. 4 MR. HERRICK: In Paragraph 9 you talk about the target 5 flows in the San Joaquin River Agreement being more reliable 6 than those in the water quality control plan. 7 Do you see that? 8 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: Could you explain to me your 10 understanding of why you think the target flows are more 11 reliable than that water quality control plan flows? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: My basis for that statement is -- one 13 basis is that the San Joaquin River Agreement and the 14 members to that agreement are committed to making that water 15 available whether it be bypass of storage or release of 16 previously stored water. The other alternatives are only 17 bypassing inflow, not release of previously stored water in 18 my understanding. Therefore, by supplying release of stored 19 water, if necessary, I came to the conclusion they are more 20 reliable. 21 MR. HERRICK: In your Paragraph 12 you state that: 22 Under Alternatives 3 and 4 Merced would 23 likely react from a water management 24 standpoint in the same manner as under the 25 agreement. (Reading.) CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16185 1 Do you see that? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 3 MR. HERRICK: I took the previous answer to say if 4 Alternatives 3 or 4 were instituted, the water would be 5 provided only through bypass flows. I take your statement 6 in 12 to say both bypass or release from storage would be 7 used. 8 Is there any difference in what you are saying there? 9 MR. VAN CAMP: I am speaking to water management; that 10 is, they would improve water management to decrease losses 11 and possibly the conjunctive use project. To offset any 12 potential water supply impacts that would occur from 13 bypassing inflows under Alternative 3 or 4. 14 MR. HERRICK: Wouldn't Merced -- do you think that 15 Merced would take the same approach in maximizing the amount 16 of water available to it, whether or not it proceeded under 17 the San Joaquin River Agreement or under Alternatives 3 and 18 4? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Merced Irrigation District is going to 20 attempt to make full deliveries to its customers. 21 MR. HERRICK: You talk about Alternative 3 and 4; I 22 notice you don't talk about other alternatives that are 23 being considered by the Board. Is there a reason for that? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Simply from a risk analysis perspective, 25 Alternatives 3 and 4 are the largest and most critical CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16186 1 impacts, potential impacts, to Merced compared to the other 2 alternatives. 3 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Stroud, in your testimony you talk 4 about a 1992 River Water Supply Reconnaissance Study; is 5 that correct? 6 MR. STROUD: Yes. 7 MR. HERRICK: You conclude that: 8 The study revealed that water supplies are 9 adequate to reliably meet local/regional 10 needs except in dry years. (Reading.) 11 Is that correct? 12 MR. STROUD: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: Does the study talk about what the 14 shortfall is in those dry years? 15 MR. STROUD: I don't recall. 16 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any analysis to see whether 17 or not -- does the 1992 analysis contain any amounts for 18 in-stream flows on the Merced River? 19 MR. STROUD: I don't recall. 20 MR. HERRICK: Do you know if it had any assumptions 21 with regard to flows on the San Joaquin River? 22 MR. STROUD: My recollection is limited to the material 23 that I have put in my testimony. 24 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any separate analysis of 25 whether or not in those dry years there could be an effect CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16187 1 on legal users of water resulting from implementation of the 2 San Joaquin River Agreement? 3 MR. STROUD: No, I have not. 4 MR. HERRICK: Your testimony on Page 5 talks about -- 5 it says right in the middle: 6 By volume agricultural needs will remain 7 greater than all others, but are likely to 8 decrease slightly as conservation improves 9 and cropping patterns change. (Reading.) 10 Is there some -- do you anticipate that cropping 11 patterns will change such that water use either decreases or 12 increases? 13 MR. STROUD: I am the best one to address water use 14 characteristics in agriculture. I believe Mr. Way or Mr. 15 Selb would be better able to address that subject. 16 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Way or Mr. Selb, same question. Is 17 there some information that suggests that cropping patterns 18 will result in decreased use of water in the, I'll say, the 19 greater Merced area? 20 MR. SELB: Well, I will respond to your question. One 21 particular example occurring within the Merced Irrigation 22 District, as opposed to the study area of the water supply 23 plan, historically, we have had up to 10,000 acres of rice 24 planted in the Merced Irrigation District with an average 25 consumption of about six to seven acre-feet per acre. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16188 1 Currently we have under 3,000 acres of rice, which would 2 give you an indication of a current cropping pattern shift 3 which would decrease water application. 4 MR. HERRICK: In that, in your answer -- 5 MR. VAN CAMP: Excuse me, can I -- just one 6 clarification for Mr. Selb because I deal with a lot of rice 7 farmers. I don't believe that the consumption of rice is 8 five to six acre-feet. 9 MR. HERRICK: That was diversions. 10 MR. SELB: Thank you for that clarification. 11 MR. HERRICK: That was my next question. Your answer 12 included consumption and application. Did you mean to say 13 that the application rate for rice was somewhat over six 14 acre-feet per acre? 15 MR. SELB: Yes, I did. Thank you for the 16 clarification. 17 MR. HERRICK: And you assume or do you know that the 18 acreage that used to be in rice is no longer in rice and now 19 has a different application rate? 20 MR. SELB: Yes, it does. 21 MR. HERRICK: Do you know what that difference is, just 22 very general, approximate? 23 MR. SELB: It would probably be in the range of three 24 acre-feet per acre. 25 MR. HERRICK: And the difference in that water, three CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16189 1 acre-feet, do you know where that water ended up when it was 2 being applied to the rice fields? 3 MR. SELB: Pre or post? Are we talking about the 4 historic rice or after or during the time in which rice 5 reduced -- 6 MR. HERRICK: When the larger acreage of rice was being 7 grown, they applied six acre-feet approximately. Do you 8 know how much the plants consumed of that six acre-feet? 9 MR. SELB: I am working off of recollection, but I 10 believe it is in the range of four to eight feet per acre. 11 MR. HERRICK: What I am getting to is when the larger 12 acreage of rice was being cultivated, you said earlier that 13 approximately three acre-feet is the difference between the 14 rice acreage and the acreage that is no longer in rice, the 15 application; is that correct? 16 MR. SELB: Partially correct. I might also add that 17 currently in the area that is farmed in rice we find double 18 cropping that now takes place in those areas. 19 MR. HERRICK: Does that mean that there is or isn't a 20 net decrease in the applied water for that acreage now? 21 MR. SELB: There may not be a decrease. 22 MR. HERRICK: Let's assume that there is a decrease. 23 Do you know where the additional applied water that was 24 applied to the rice crop went after the rice crop consumed 25 its amount of water? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16190 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Is irrelevant question and 3 it misstates the testimony. The witness has already 4 testified in regards to rice that he doesn't know whether or 5 not the consumptive use or applications changed even with 6 the change in the cropping of approximately 7,000 acres of 7 rice. So, to assume that it would have gone someplace is an 8 assumption without a basis in reality. So, I don't think 9 the question can be answered. 10 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Well, Mr. Herrick. 11 MR. HERRICK: That is not quite right. Regardless of 12 what assumption I am asking him to make, if new cropping 13 patterns or double farming or something, they may be having 14 the same application rate. That doesn't change the fact 15 that when rice was there a certain amount was applied, 16 certain amount consumed and the rest of it went somewhere. 17 That is the purpose of my question. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: You started off with a 19 hypothetical, and then you said where the water went. If 20 you change "went" to "would go," that might address the 21 issue. 22 Mr. O'Laughlin. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That last question by Mr. Herrick that 24 he posed was perfectly correct. Because it assumes that we 25 go back to the base case with rice historically: How much CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16191 1 water was applied to the rice? How much was actually 2 consumed and where did the difference between the applied 3 water and consumed water go, that is a perfectly fine 4 question, and it isn't even a hypothetical question. It is 5 based on historical information. If the percipient witness 6 has knowledge, he can respond. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, I think we are close to 8 proceeding. 9 MR. HERRICK: I will just rephrase the question. Thank 10 you. 11 Mr. Stroud, do you know where the difference between 12 the applied water and consumed water that went to the rice 13 crops ended up? 14 MR. STROUD: No. 15 MR. SELB: I am Mr. Selb. 16 MR. HERRICK: I am sorry, same question, Mr. Selb. 17 MR. SELB: I hate to be redundant. But if we are 18 talking about the rice that used to be grown and where the 19 water might have gone, is that what you are asking? 20 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 21 MR. SELB: We do not have a flow-through system for 22 rice. The rice water actually can be captured and reused 23 downstream of the discharges of rice. And in any case, 24 should any tailwater reach natural creeks, that water has 25 the ability to be rediverted by water users outside of our CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16192 1 district now. 2 MR. HERRICK: It didn't go to some groundwater or 3 surface area that was unusable to other users? 4 MR. SELB: It could have. 5 MR. HERRICK: Are there such areas in the greater 6 Merced area? 7 MR. SELB: Really none that I am aware of. 8 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Way, I believe in answer to a 9 question by Board Member Brown, you stated that the various 10 programs undertaken by Merced Irrigation District did or had 11 the potential of actually increasing the yield of the 12 system. 13 Is that a fair statement of what you said? 14 MR. WAY: Counsel, I don't recall making that precise 15 statement. 16 MR. HERRICK: Was it one of the other panel members? 17 Is that you, Mr. Van Camp? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: We did discuss just prior to this with 19 Mr. Birmingham the yield of the reservoir. Are you speaking 20 to the groundwater basin in questions by Mr. Brown to Mr. 21 Way? 22 MR. HERRICK: Yes, that is why I was directing it to 23 Mr. Way. If I misspoke about what area he was talking about 24 having increased yield, I apologize. 25 MR. WAY: As I recall Board Member Brown's questions, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16193 1 they related to whether we had made a safe yield calculation 2 on the system. And my answer in short was no, but I showed 3 him how we did take into the seasonal nature of the 4 hydrology in Chapter 8 and showing several curves in that 5 chapter. 6 MR. HERRICK: In Chapter 8, I believe you in answer to 7 your attorney's question confirmed that three of the 8 assumptions that went into that modeling, by that modeling I 9 mean Chapter 8, were overstated. 10 Is that the right way to say it? You had assumed a 11 doubling of fish and wildlife flows, increase of urban use 12 and then a third one; is that correct? 13 MR. WAY: The reference and exchange I had with Mr. 14 Robbins was pertaining to the assumptions underlying the 15 groundwater model which was in Chapter 5, not Chapter 16 8. There were two prominent -- really three prominent 17 assumptions that we used in projecting 2030 conditions, 18 which have not yet materialized. Threefold increase in 19 early pumping from the groundwater basin. Perhaps as much 20 as three or four times increase in flows due to in-stream 21 flow needs for fisheries and, finally, the downstream out of 22 basin releases from the Merced system to meet other area or 23 environmental needs. 24 MR. HERRICK: In Chapter 8 it talks about the documents 25 -- Chapter 8 of San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16194 1 109B. On Page 8-2, it says: 2 All three curves illustrate the Merced water 3 managers must factor in the uncertainty with 4 river runoff. In some years there will not 5 be enough water to meet in-stream and full 6 urban and agricultural needs. For the Merced 7 system a significant shortfall, say, 30 8 percent or greater should be expected in one 9 out of four years. (Reading.) 10 Again, that is talking about the amount of water 11 available from river runoff; is that correct? 12 MR. WAY: I believe you are referring to the first 13 major paragraph on 8-2, which ties to the charts on Page 14 8-3. 15 And your question then specifically was? 16 MR. HERRICK: I just want to make sure I don't confuse 17 the basin from -- the groundwater basin with river runoff 18 This is talking about the amount of water available from 19 river runoff; is that correct? 20 MR. WAY: That is correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: In those years when there is a 30 percent 22 or greater shortfall, that is being made up by the 23 groundwater basin; is that correct? 24 MR. WAY: This chapter does not presume where the 25 shortage is being made up. It says that that is the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16195 1 statistical shortage that would occur in the surface water 2 operation, and it could be made up or not made up, as the 3 managers chose. 4 MR. HERRICK: In practice -- are you the right person 5 to answer that? In practice the other source of water for 6 the shortfall is generally from the groundwater basin; is 7 that correct? 8 MR. WAY: Mr. Selb may wish to elaborate. Either you 9 make it up with groundwater or your other source or you have 10 your customers take deficiencies. 11 MR. HERRICK: Chapter 5 deals with the groundwater 12 basin; is that correct? 13 MR. WAY: That describes the groundwater modeling that 14 was done. 15 MR. HERRICK: For purposes of my question, there is 16 two sets of charts, figures. There is Figure 2-A through 17 Figure 2-B. There is figures -- I am sorry, 5-2A through 18 5-2D, and then the second set is 5-5A through 5-5D; is that 19 correct? 20 MR. WAY: There are those two sets of figures, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: The first set, 5-2A through 5-2D, show 22 varying effects on groundwater levels if, according to the 23 study, existing practices were maintained; is that correct? 24 MR. WAY: No, that is not the case. 25 MR. HERRICK: Please explain what is the case. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16196 1 MR. WAY: Again, out of the many runs that were done, 2 these are two to illustrate -- principally to illustrate the 3 difference you get in the groundwater behavior by 4 intentional recharge. 5 So figure -- the series Figure 5-2A through D is 6 projected 2030 condition, assuming Merced Irrigation 7 District would deliver 300,000 acre-feet of applied water, 8 that the groundwater supply for urban uses would be fully 9 developed at 120,000 acre-feet. In other words that U.C. 10 Berkeley -- U.C. Merced and others are fully in place. That 11 fish flows would have been nearly -- well, would have been 12 more than doubled from 75-, round numbers, to a 160,000 for 13 intermediate fish flows, and that another 50,000 acre-feet 14 of water would be released from the system or pass through 15 the system for outside purposes, either environmental or 16 water sales. That is 5-2A. 17 5-5A is comparable series; is the same set of 18 conditions I just described but with a hundred thousand 19 acre-feet of recharge when the recharge water was available 20 from the river per its hydrologic cycle. 21 MR. HERRICK: The extra hundred thousand feet of water 22 comes, as you just said, from the river; is that correct? 23 MR. WAY: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: What assumptions were made as to what 25 years that extra hundred thousand acre-feet would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16197 1 available? 2 MR. WAY: The model took into account the time, the 3 real-time observations made over the last 20 years or so on 4 the system from the hydrology of that system. We were just 5 in Chapter 8 a minute ago, and that was the foundational 6 material from water rights side -- water supply side that 7 was used in the analyses in Chapter 5. 8 So, actually Chapter 5 used surface water calculations 9 that aren't reported until Chapter 8. That is just more for 10 a reporting purpose than how it was done in the study. 11 MR. HERRICK: Periodically an extra hundred thousand 12 acre-feet is put in to the groundwater system for either 13 maintenance or recharge; is that correct? 14 MR. WAY: The model basically assumed that if there was 15 water available from the river and we could recharge it and 16 it was within the Merced Irrigation District's water rights, 17 it was used for recharge, up to the hundred thousand cap. 18 MR. HERRICK: You say within Merced's water rights. 19 Does that mean it is within the allowable amounts pursuant 20 to existing permits to either directly divert or to store? 21 MR. WAY: That's correct. 22 MR. HERRICK: But is that a hundred thousand acre-feet 23 over some year types above the water that would have been 24 directly diverted or stored in the absence of this program 25 to recharge? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16198 1 MR. WAY: Let me see if I've got your question. Are 2 you asking me whether that hundred thousand would be in 3 addition to other withdrawals the district might make from 4 the river for applied agricultural purposes and other things 5 like that? 6 MR. HERRICK: Correct. 7 MR. WAY: If that is what you are asking me, the answer 8 is yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: Is there, excuse my ignorance about the 10 Merced's permits, but has that been divided amongst direct 11 diversion or stored rights? Excuse me, the additional 12 hundred thousand acre-feet in this analysis, is that extra 13 direct diversion or storage or both? Or has that been 14 determined prior to the study? 15 MR. WAY: Counsel, this work was done five years ago. 16 I don't remember the division where the hundred thousand 17 came from, various categories of use. 18 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 19 Mr. Selb, in your testimony you talk about upstream 20 water commitments and downstream water commitments, this is 21 my phrase, that affect the operations or deliveries of 22 Merced Irrigation District; is that correct? 23 MR. SELB: That is correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: Under downstream water commitments you 25 mention Stevinson Corporation, I don't want to misstate CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16199 1 that, and a couple other agreements in there; is that 2 correct? 3 MR. SELB: That is correct. 4 MR. ROBBINS: Something needs to be clarified. It is 5 not Stevinson Corporation. 6 MR. SELB: Yes, it is Stevinson Water District. 7 MR. HERRICK: I was just reading the Stevinson 8 Corporation agreements. 9 MR. SELB: Historically, it is J.J. Stevinson 10 Corporation was the entity, the private corporation, if you 11 will, that filed claim against the district. 12 MR. HERRICK: I don't want to mischaracterize them, so 13 thank you. 14 Mr. Selb, has the district done any analysis of 15 potential obligations for other downstream riparian uses? 16 MR. SELB: No, it has not. 17 MR. HERRICK: Is the district aware of any times when 18 other downstream users are not, do not have a sufficient 19 amount to supply their riparian needs? 20 MR. SELB: No, I'm not aware personally of that. 21 MR. HERRICK: I just have one last question. On Page 22 7, Mr. Selb, the very bottom paragraph, what is a 23 broad-crested Replogle measurement? 24 MR. SELB: It is a concrete weir that is used for 25 measurement purposes. It is constructed at the head works CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16200 1 of the main canal to allow us to obtain accurate flow 2 measurements to plus or minus 30 percent of flows down the 3 main canal. 4 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. 5 No further questions. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 10 BY MR. NOMELLINI 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Dante John Nomellini for 12 Central Delta Parties. 13 Mr. Van Camp, I have a number of questions for you. I 14 am going in order of presentation. You had indicated in 15 your testimony and also in answers to questions by others 16 that part of the water to be provided by Merced Irrigation 17 District for VAMP purposes was the reoperation and another 18 part would be release of previously stored water or 19 potentially stored water. 20 Now with regard to the reoperation water, do you know 21 how much in quantity or percentage of the VAMP water is 22 intended to be provided by reoperation? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: No. I do not know the intent. Again, 24 that is based on the storage level going into the specific 25 season and the specific hydrology that occurs during that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16201 1 year. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Anybody else on the panel have an 3 estimate of percentage or quantity that would be expected to 4 be provided for VAMP purposes from reoperation? 5 No. All right. 6 Mr. Van Camp, with regard to those conditions that you 7 cited that would determine whether or not reoperation water 8 would be available, what specific considerations are those? 9 You said hydrology of a given year? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. And the beginning storage level. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: How would the hydrology of a given year 12 and beginning storage level affect the divisions as to 13 whether or not water from reoperation would be provided for 14 VAMP as opposed to previously stored water or potentially 15 stored water? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: As I indicated, this actual 17 determination of the reoperation versus release of stored 18 water is determined after the fact. In some years it can be 19 a combination of both water, the reop and the release of 20 previously stored water. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: It is a calculation after the fact; is 22 that what your testimony is? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: It is determined after the fact. It can 24 be estimated using forecasts and storage levels prior to the 25 runoff season. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16202 1 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated in testimony that 2 reoperation water was, I think you used the term, 3 "discretionary flow"? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: I did. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: What is the basis for the discretion 6 that you are referring to? 7 Don't understand the question? Let's try again. 8 MR. VAN CAMP: I do not understand the question. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Are reoperation flows essentially 10 power flows? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: It's water available to the district 12 that they can release at its decision through the season, 13 based on forecasts. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So that if it was expected that the 15 reservoir would refill at a later time in a given year, then 16 you would consider the district as having the right to make 17 a release earlier in the year because it would be refilled 18 -- the reservoir would be refilled later? Is that one 19 example? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: In the reoperation case, which is what 21 we are discussing -- 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 23 MR. VAN CAMP: -- Merced would understand it would 24 likely be at the flood control requirement storage on 25 October 31st. Prior to the agreement or VAMP or any other CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16203 1 alternative to release required spring additional releases, 2 Merced would likely spread that additional release above its 3 demands throughout the summer. 4 With VAMP that additional release would be released 5 during the spring pulse flow. I should say with VAMP or any 6 other spring requirement, the water would be released during 7 the spring rather than later months, and we would end up at 8 the flood control requirement on October 31st. So thus, we 9 are calling it reoperation water. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it correct to state that reoperation 11 water would not result in any loss of water to the Merced 12 Irrigation District? 13 MR. VAN CAMP: You will find that in my testimony, 14 yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: And historically, you have indicated -- 16 well, let me ask it. Historically, has the Merced 17 Irrigation District spread the discretionary release over 18 the irrigation season? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe that is correct. I would like 20 to request verification from Mr. Selb. 21 MR. SELB: That is correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Has any estimate been made as to 23 whether or not the Merced Irrigation District would be able 24 to meet all its requirements and the VAMP flows without the 25 use of the reoperation water? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16204 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Can that question be reread? 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Would you please reread the question? 3 (Record read as requested.) 4 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe there is -- the answer is, 5 no, I don't believe there is any reason to expect that 6 Merced would need to continue those discretionary releases 7 when an additional spring release was placed on it. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's 9 assume that the Merced Irrigation District was for some 10 reason prohibited from changing the discretionary releases 11 from what the historical practice has been, and Merced 12 Irrigation District still elects to provide the water under 13 the VAMP agreement. 14 What additional water cost would there be to the Merced 15 Irrigation District under that hypothetical? 16 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. It is asked and answered. 17 Even though hypothetical, the witness has already indicated 18 that no such analysis has been completed. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Even without an analysis, a witness 21 could have an opinion as to what that might be in terms of 22 brackets. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for speculation. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Godwin. 25 MR. GODWIN: It is also an incomplete hypothetical. He CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16205 1 asked him about the historical discretionary releases, and 2 those change from year to year. 3 Are you talking average historical discretionary 4 releases or what? I think that needs to be defined as 5 well. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Based on the answer provided by the 8 witness, it calls for speculation because he says that no 9 analysis has been done. And based on that, the question 10 calls for speculation from the witness. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: This is cross-examination, and we got a 13 panel up here. And if they're incapable of answering, they 14 can say that. And I should be given some leeway to probe 15 the state of knowledge. Just because somebody hasn't 16 performed an analysis in a typical engineering fashion or 17 what have you, doesn't mean they have some kind of feel for 18 this. 19 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Objection overruled. 20 MR. VAN CAMP: As indicated earlier, I have not made 21 the analysis. I would not hazard a guess on the additional 22 water supply impact. The discretionary releases that would 23 be moved to the spring under VAMP are the same as that would 24 occur under other alternatives. So there was no reason for 25 me to do additional analysis. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16206 1 MR. NOMELLINI: The rest of the panel agree with that? 2 Mr. Selb? 3 MR. SELB: Yes, I would agree with my consultant. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there a minimum -- this is, again, 5 Mr. Van Camp. Is there a minimum stream flow requirement 6 for the Merced that was utilized as the basis of your 7 analysis? 8 MR. VAN CAMP: When you refer to my analysis -- 9 MR. NOMELLINI: You made a determination as to -- first 10 of all, did you do any analysis as a basis for your 11 testimony which is San Joaquin River Group Authority 108? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: I referred to Mr. Steiner's analysis in 13 my testimony. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So you made no independent analysis, 15 then; is that correct? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: We have on behalf of Merced done some 17 minor analysis relative to the various alternatives, of 18 Alternative 3, 4 and VAMP. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Under the alternative for the Merced ID 20 VAMP contribution, did you perform any analysis for that, 21 calling your attention to Page 3 of your testimony? 22 MR. VAN CAMP: Those contributions are simply the 23 division agreement flows. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Is there any assumption as to minimum 25 in-stream flow requirements in the Merced that was used as a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16207 1 part of the analysis shown on Page 3? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: This analysis Page 3 simply compares the 3 contribution under Alternatives 3, 4 and VAMP and does not 4 get to the specifics of in-stream flows. 5 The analysis done by Mr. Steiner does include the 6 minimum in-stream flows, to my knowledge. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the Merced ID VAMP 8 contribution is water over and above what they have to allow 9 for minimum in-stream flow? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Those would be volumes of water over and 11 above what have been in absence of VAMP, which at least, at 12 a minimum, be the minimum in-stream flows. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: In the absence of VAMP do you know what 14 the minimum in-stream flow is on the Merced? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: I think Mr. Selb testified to that 16 earlier to other cross-examination questions. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So, you don't know? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Offhand, no. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Selb, do you know what the minimum 20 in-stream flow -- 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Asked and answered. 22 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Sustained. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't ask it. 24 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: I thought it was asked and 25 answered. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16208 1 MR. NOMELLINI: This is my cross-examination. That is 2 somebody else. I didn't ask that question. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: But there is no sense in repeating a 4 question that has already been asked very well by Mr. 5 Herrick. To go back and reask it again and try to get a 6 completely conflicting answer on a question that has already 7 been asked. That is the whole purpose. 8 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Ms. Leidigh. 9 MS. LEIDIGH: My understanding of it is that if a 10 question has been asked and answered by anybody, that it's 11 been asked and answered and repetitive testimony can be 12 excluded. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: The objection is sustained. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Van Camp, in your comparison of 15 Alternatives 3 and 4, the Merced ID VAMP contribution 16 alternative, did you make any analysis of the impact on 17 temperature of water in the Merced below Exchequer? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I did not. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: I believe in answer to one of the 20 previous questions it was indicated that there would be 21 possible increase in yield of the reservoir due to removal 22 of water from storage or bypass of water that could have 23 potentially been stored. 24 Was that you, Mr. Van Camp, that answered that 25 question? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16209 1 MR. VAN CAMP: I answered that question. I don't know 2 that you summarized the answer terribly well. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it expected that there would be an 4 increase in the yield of New Exchequer Reservoir due to the 5 VAMP agreement? 6 MR. VAN CAMP: Keep in mind that the definition of 7 yield does mean different things to other people. However, 8 by maintaining deliveries to its customers, providing 9 additional spring pulse flows and possibly recapturing that 10 water during the winter period, when it is excess to the 11 system, so you are having higher fluctuations in reservoir 12 storage would result in additional yield. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Is that hydrology-dependent? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: If the hydrology was particularly dry, 16 would you expect -- again, particularly dry, say, with a 17 hypothetical 1987 to '92 reoccurrence of hydrology, would 18 you expect a yield increase? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Now you are picking a period that is 20 very specific. You have picked a dry year period such that 21 it is possible that those excess flows were not available to 22 recapture in order to increase the yield. That is why it is 23 critical to understand the period with which you define your 24 yield. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you expect there to be an CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16210 1 increase in yield due to the additional storage resulting 2 from VAMP flows if we had a reoccurrence of the 1987 through 3 '92 dry period? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: With that definition of the period, it's 5 possible you would not see a yield but simply a decrease in 6 diversions to Merced. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Way, you indicated that the 8 projections through the year 2030 indicate that more water 9 would be available than what your study had indicated due to 10 reduced actual growth and utilization. Is that correct? 11 MR. WAY: Mr. Nomellini, I am not sure that is what I 12 suggested. Perhaps you can break it into pieces. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Your studies contemplated twice as much 14 quantity for fish flows than what are actually irrigated. 15 Is that what part of your testimony was? 16 MR. WAY: Our studies indicated that the rage of agency 17 request to be almost four times what the district was 18 currently releasing at the time we did the study. The two 19 analyses that we looked in the groundwater examples in 20 Chapter 5 used a twofold factor instead of a fourfold 21 factor. But they were higher. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Where the twofold factor was used, what 23 was the average annum acre-feet committed to fish in that 24 example? 25 MR. WAY: That is the intermediate fish flow case which CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16211 1 -- let me give you precise. It is difficult to get my hands 2 on this. But as I recall, the current release of 75,000 in 3 round numbers would increase to nearly 169,000 or 70,000 in 4 round numbers. I can find the precise one if I took a 5 minute. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: That is okay. With regard to your 7 testimony as to what the expected demand was, I thought it 8 was urban areas or urban use. What was your testimony 9 there? 10 MR. WAY: The water supply management plan projected 11 that the then current urban water demand met by groundwater 12 pumping would increase from 40 to 120,000 acre-feet at the 13 end of 2030, which would be a threefold increase. And, 14 again, I said that was largely driven or a significant 15 driver of that was University of California at Merced campus 16 expansion, which we assumed in our model because we had no 17 other basis, would be linear. In other words, it would 18 start at day zero and continue through the whole course of 19 the study period. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it fair to state that for an interim 21 period prior to the year 2030 that Merced Irrigation 22 District has some extra water? 23 MR. WAY: We didn't make that conclusion. I think the 24 answer, however, if you asked me now would be no. It has no 25 extra water. It needs the water to serve its customers and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16212 1 accomplish other objectives that it has under its -- 2 understood to serve its customers, from the application of 3 water to their agricultural customers. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it expected that the provision of 5 the VAMP flows will not reduce deliveries by the Merced 6 Irrigation District to any of its water users? 7 MR. WAY: I am not familiar with -- 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Asked and answered. That 9 question has been asked three times already this morning. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, that's true. Sustained. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Calling your attention to Page 4 of 12 your testimony, Mr. Way, particularly to Paragraph 7.4.4. 13 You see that? 14 MR. WAY: Yes. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: You state: 16 In the very fine areas where the groundwater 17 table is below the river level, water from 18 the Merced River may move into the basin. 19 However, at the time of the study 20 (immediately following six-year drought) most 21 of the areas along the river had groundwater 22 levels above the river. (Reading.) 23 Do you know what area, what portion of the river, 24 experienced conditions where it was below the river level? 25 MR. WAY: I do not recall the specifics of which reach CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16213 1 of the stream was in a receiving or yielding mode. That was 2 the work that we did five years ago, and I just don't recall 3 the details of that. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know what the accretions are 5 that would contribute to the flow of the San Joaquin River 6 at Vernalis that would come from the Merced water use? 7 MR. WAY: No. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Does your modeling indicate what the 9 accretions to the river that would reach Vernalis are as to 10 the water use from the Merced Irrigation District? 11 MR. WAY: The river model that we developed took into 12 account the accretions and depletions from all the streams 13 of significance in the study area. I don't remember the 14 specific mathematics on any particular reach from that 15 modeling work. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether or not it includes 17 the segment of the San Joaquin River between the Merced and 18 the Tuolumne? 19 MR. WAY: I do not know precisely. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 6 of your testimony, there is a 21 reference about two-thirds of the way down the page that SOI 22 West. Where is that area located? 23 MR. WAY: The reference in that second major -- second 24 complete paragraph on that page, I believe is to Figure 25 5-2C. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16214 1 MR. NOMELLINI: That is the large area west and south 2 of the Merced Irrigation District between the district and 3 San Joaquin River. Is that still on the east side of the 4 San Joaquin? 5 MR. WAY: It is on the east side of the San Joaquin, 6 yes. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Your study did not include any area 8 within Merced County on the west side of the San Joaquin, I 9 gather? 10 MR. WAY: That is correct. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 7 of your testimony you have 12 indicated that, that is in that Paragraph 8: 13 In most years Merced Irrigation District can 14 provide water for such recharge from existing 15 rights. However, the Merced River does have 16 additional yield in wet years and many above 17 normal years when the Delta is in balance, 18 which could be partly captured for this 19 purpose as well. (Reading.) 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. WAY: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the contemplation of that statement 23 that the Merced Irrigation District would acquire some 24 additional rights? 25 MR. WAY: The contemplation of that statement is that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16215 1 Merced has within its existing water rights the ability to 2 meet the obligations that we're discussing. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to "additional yield of the 4 river in wet years and many above normal years," was your 5 reference that that could be captured for a groundwater 6 recharge project? 7 MR. WAY: That's correct. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the water for that 9 particular groundwater recharge project, is it your 10 testimony that the existing water rights of Merced 11 Irrigation District would be sufficient for that purpose? 12 MR. WAY: That is my belief. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Your determination in that paragraph is 14 as long as Delta is in balance then Merced could take the 15 water. Is that what you are saying? 16 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. I believe that 17 mischaracterizes the testimony egregiously. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, perhaps you can explain to me, 20 Mr. Way -- I will rephrase, Mr. Chairman. 21 On Page 7, the reference here when the Delta is in 22 balance. Do you see that in that Paragraph 8, fifth line 23 from the bottom? 24 MR. WAY: I see it, yes. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: What did you mean there? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16216 1 MR. WAY: What I meant was that the water the district 2 could provide under this agreement would not have otherwise 3 been called for by other purposes and should be available to 4 satisfy the VAMP. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: When you say required for other 6 purposes does that include -- 7 MR. WAY: That is the Delta in balance reference. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: That wouldn't include the needs of 9 water users served by the State Water Project and Central 10 Valley Project south of Delta; is that correct? 11 MR. WAY: I think we are getting into a whole level of 12 technicality I did not mean here. What I meant was when the 13 water was not called for for other water quality purposes 14 downstream, that it would be available for this purpose. 15 whole interaction of the State Water Project I did not 16 contemplate here. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 9 of your testimony, Mr. Way, 18 at the end you indicate that: 19 Consequently, material charges resulting from 20 the River Agreement to the exchange of water 21 between the Merced River and the Merced 22 groundwater basin should not occur in 23 significant amounts during its term which 24 expires in 2010. (Reading.) 25 Do you see that? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16217 1 MR. WAY: I see that sentence, yes. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: What is there after 2010 that you 3 expect will occur that would change this statement? 4 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. Relevance. We are here this 5 morning discussing the notice of hearing, which has to do 6 with the petition changes and the implementations thereto 7 which clearly expire the year 2010. What happens beyond is 8 irrelevant. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Cross-examination. Probing what the 11 factors are that affect this determination, as to whether or 12 not the groundwater basin is, in fact, subject to being 13 impacted significantly. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Objection sustained. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to that same last statement 16 is that conclusion that you draw based on the average demand 17 of the VAMP flows or on the most extreme occurrences? 18 MR. WAY: I drew this conclusion based on what I had 19 been informed of as the average contribution that Merced 20 would make to the VAMP. So it is under that condition. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, how much more will you 22 have? 23 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm going to need another 10 or 15 24 minutes. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Let's take our lunch break now, then. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16218 1 Come back at 1:00 p.m. 2 (Luncheon break taken.) 3 ---oOo--- 4 jection. Vagueness. I would expect 10 that a particular period of time should be inserted into 11 this question. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: It is a general question. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Selb, do you understand the 15 question? 16 MR. SELB: I was about to refer the question to Mr. Van 17 Camp. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Do you understand the question? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: Can I have it repeated so I can answer 20 that question. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree that under the San Joaquin 22 River Agreement it is expected that the flows from the 23 Merced River reaching the San Joaquin River are in some 24 circumstances, depending on hydrology, reduced? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: During some portions of the year and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16225 1 increased in others. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: So the answer is yes? 3 MR. VAN CAMP: During some portions of the year. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Focusing in on the months of July and 5 August, would you agree that those months would reflect a 6 reduction under the San Joaquin River Agreement, Merced 7 River, again? 8 MR. VAN CAMP: You are being quite vague in your 9 description here. The years that occurred that was 10 described by Mr. Steiner in his analysis was a reoperation 11 from June. And as we have testified earlier, it is 12 reoperated water, shifted from the entire summer months, 13 including July and August, to the spring pulse flow. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So the answer would be yes? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: With my clarification. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any knowledge about the 17 flows in these other channels that are shown on Exhibit 111A 18 as having been natural channels? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: I have not looked at the natural flow in 20 those channels. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Does anybody know whether San Joaquin 22 River Agreement will result in reduced flows in any of the 23 other channels shown on Exhibit 111A as natural channels 24 during the months of July or August? 25 MR. ROBBINS: I think, again, an objection based on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16226 1 vagueness. Are you referring to natural flow or are you 2 referring to surface water diverted by the district? 3 MR. NOMELLINI: I am referring to the impact of the San 4 Joaquin River Agreement on the flows in those channels shown 5 on 111A as natural channels. 6 MR. VAN CAMP: When you refer to the agreement, Ted has 7 testified to the projects that will be undertaken. And as 8 he indicated, those natural channels are used as part of 9 their system. If they in some years tighten up their 10 system, that could reduce the flow in those channels. 11 Whether that flow was natural is questionable. Those -- 12 probably a large portion of the water in those channels was 13 water originally diverted by Merced. It is tailwater from 14 other users or water that was simply put there by Merced for 15 downstream use. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 17 Regardless of source, it would be expected that the 18 flow in those natural channels leaving the MID boundary 19 would be reduced by the San Joaquin River Agreement 20 measures? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: I think, as I indicated, some of those 22 projects, a large portion of them, could be taken place 23 absent the agreement. The agreement would allow them to 24 expedite the projects. So, to say they are being done 25 solely for the agreement is not a correct characterization. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16227 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's use the word "expedite." Then, I 2 guess -- would you agree that the San Joaquin River 3 Agreement will result in a number of those projects being 4 expedited? 5 MR. SELB: Yes. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: And is it true, then, that the 7 reduction in flow leaving the boundary of the MID in the 8 natural channels shown on 111A, other than the Merced River, 9 would also be expedited? 10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Relevance. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: The relevance is to determine the 13 impact of MID's coast contribution under the San Joaquin 14 River Agreement. We have evidence that is focused on the 15 reduction and flow in the Merced. What I was trying to find 16 out is whether these other channels have a similar impact 17 that may not be encompassed within the reduction in the 18 Merced and may have been overlooked or whatever. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Objection overruled. 20 Do you remember the question? 21 MR. SELB: Could you repeat the question? 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that the reduction in 23 flow leaving the boundary of MID in the natural channels 24 shown on Exhibit 111A, other than the Merced River, would be 25 expedited by reason of the San Joaquin River Agreement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16228 1 MR. SELB: It would depend upon whether or not the 2 district chose to exercise its water conservation measures 3 in a given water year type or under a given condition. 4 I would also add that, again, the flows that leave the 5 district have the opportunity to be rediverted by others or 6 diverted to other irrigation districts for use. So, the net 7 effect on the San Joaquin River would be negligible. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: My question wasn't with regard to the 9 effect on the San Joaquin River, but with regard to the 10 water leaving MID boundary. 11 Do you understand that? 12 MR. SELB: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Would you agree that to the extent the 14 utilization efforts are expedited within the Merced 15 Irrigation District by the San Joaquin River Agreement that 16 the reduction in flow leaving the boundary, other than the 17 Merced, would be expedited as well? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Misstates the testimony. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: I am cross-examining. I am trying to 21 get back to that question just to make it clear what I was 22 asking. The witness didn't answer my question. He went 23 over and he referred to the impact on the San Joaquin River 24 which he concluded was negligible, but he didn't answer my 25 question. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16229 1 What I would like an answer to is whether or not the 2 reduction in flow in these natural channels resulting from 3 the water utilization efforts would be expedited. The 4 testimony has been that the water utilization efforts -- you 5 want to call them conservation efforts -- has been expedited 6 or would be expedited by reason of the San Joaquin River 7 Agreement. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: I sustain the objection -- overrule 9 the objection regarding relevance. I was thinking the 10 effect on the San Joaquin River, which is the ultimate -- 11 MR. NOMELLINI: I was going to take it in steps. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I think Mr. Nomellini's question 14 assumes that the expedited implementation of conservation 15 efforts about which this panel has testified will result in 16 a reduction in flows, and I don't believe that is the 17 testimony. I think the testimony is that it may or may not 18 depending on a number of factors. So the question, as it is 19 posed by Mr. Nomellini, mischaracterizes the testimony. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: The testimony by Mr. Van Camp, without 21 going back to the transcript, was that within the months of 22 July and August that there was a reduction in flow. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That was the Merced River. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, we -- 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Wait a minute. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16230 1 Mr. O'Laughlin. 2 Your turn. Go ahead. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: That same question I asked with regard 4 to the other channels, the natural channels, on the screen, 5 and I believe I got affirmative with regard to that. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That wasn't the question in regards to 8 the other channels. Specifically, the witness has testified 9 that the other channels have no continuity to the San 10 Joaquin River. Based on that testimony, any other inquiry 11 is irrelevant, because what we are talking about is impacts 12 to the downstream users, unless Mr. Nomellini wants to 13 specifically address the people in the Stevinson Water 14 District. And he didn't address it to the time period 15 July/August, so it was a general statement. 16 The witness has previously testified that in wet years 17 there may be plenty of water going down there, but that has 18 to do with rainfall and hydrologic events. I think the 19 question misstates the testimony and is vague and ambiguous 20 and is compound. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: As I recall the question, it did not 22 pertain to a particular time frame, so I will sustain the 23 objection, and you can start again. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: I am going to ask you a series of 25 questions about flows in July and August of the year. Do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16231 1 you expect, Mr. Selb, that the measures to be undertaken by 2 the Merced Irrigation District and better utilizing its 3 water will reduce the amount of water leaving the MID 4 boundary at any of the points shown on Exhibit 111A? 5 MR. SELB: In July and August? 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 7 MR. SELB: I would say in some years. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Would that be true with regard to the 9 Livingston Canal? 10 MR. SELB: Yes, that would be true. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: And Bear Creek, MID west boundary? 12 MR. SELB: Yes. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: And Owens Creek, MID west boundary? 14 MR. SELB: Yes. But I hate to repeat myself -- 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I have one more to go, and then we 16 will go back to the San Joaquin River. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: You can finish the answer. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Go ahead. 19 MR. SELB: To repeat my testimony, those flows at those 20 specific locations may be reduced in some years. But the 21 net downstream affect of those reductions from MID would 22 necessarily be absorbed by other water users without further 23 downstream impacts. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: We have established that there would be 25 a reduction in some years in July and August at the MID CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16232 1 boundary on Livingston Canal, the Bear Creek MID west 2 boundary, and would that also be true with regard to the 3 Owens Creek MID west boundary? 4 MR. SELB: Yes. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: And Duck Slough MID west boundary? 6 MR. SELB: Correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: What analysis have you made to 8 determine how much of the flow leaving the MID boundary, 9 other than through the Merced River, does not reach the San 10 Joaquin River? 11 MR. SELB: We have not analyzed that. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you have any measurements of the 13 flow downstream of the MID boundary other than in the Merced 14 River at various locations? 15 MR. SELB: No, we do not. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: That is all I have. 17 Thank you very much. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 19 ---oOo--- 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 21 BY OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 22 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, Tim 24 O'Laughlin representing Oakdale Irrigation District. 25 Some follow-up questions for the panel. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16233 1 Mr. Selb, did I hear you right earlier this morning 2 when you said that the water applications in 1999, which are 3 similar to the year 1996, are occurring at the same rate but 4 less water is being drawn out of Exchequer to make those 5 applications in your district? 6 MR. SELB: Yes, that is correct. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you tried to quantify how much 8 less water is being drawn out of Exchequer in 1999 as 9 opposed to 1996 in order to make the same applications? 10 MR. SELB: Yes. We did look at the comparison of 11 diversions from Lake McClure in those two years. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have a number for that? 13 MR. SELB: Yes. Through June 18th, again with the same 14 water applications, we have diverted 27,000 acre-foot less 15 water through June 18th. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, are you going to continue to 17 monitor that throughout the year? 18 MR. SELB: Certainly. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you attribute any of that 27,000 20 acre-feet less drawdown on Exchequer to any particular 21 project within your district? 22 MR. SELB: Yes. Mainly the completion of the SCADA 23 facilities and the implementation of the control room, of 24 24-hour monitoring as well as completion of several of the 25 regulating basins that I testified to earlier. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16234 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to go back to some questions 2 that have been asked in regards to water leaving your system 3 and where it goes and how it goes to other places. 4 How long have you been employed by the Merced 5 Irrigation District? 6 MR. SELB: In excess of 27 years. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you say it is safe to say that 8 you fairly know the Merced Irrigation District and the 9 surrounding areas in regards to their water applications and 10 uses and diversions? 11 MR. SELB: Yes. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So in regards to a question asked by 13 Mr. Nomellini when he asked if any analysis has been done in 14 regards to what happens to that water when it leaves your 15 system, your answer was you had not done an analysis; is 16 that correct? 17 MR. SELB: That is correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is the reason why you haven't done an 19 analysis, based on your background, expertise, experience 20 and percipient knowledge, that you know that water doesn't 21 reach the San Joaquin River? 22 MR. SELB: That is correct. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Furthermore, some questions were asked 24 in regards to expediting projects. Is it safe to say that 25 in regards to the projects that you have identified in your CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16235 1 testimony, that if Merced Irrigation District receives money 2 to complete those projects, that it makes it more probable 3 than not that those projects will be completed? 4 MR. SELB: That's correct. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to focus on this reop question, 6 Mr. Selb. Does the district operate its facilities 7 primarily for recreation? 8 MR. SELB: It is actually a multipurpose facility. I 9 would have to say that irrigation is its primary purpose 10 but, certainly recreation is a large element in the 11 district's water plans in operation of the facility. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is power also one of the multipurposes 13 of the project? 14 MR. SELB: Yes, power and flood control. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to this reoperation of 16 water, and the water being shifted around, would it be 17 possible, based on your understanding of how Merced 18 Irrigation District operates, that -- let's say the people 19 in the Delta wanted all that reopt water in the month of 20 July and they had the ability to get that water from your 21 facilities, and you dumped that water out of the -- down the 22 Merced River to the San Joaquin River. 23 What would happen to recreation at your facilities? 24 MR. SELB: Well, it would be adversely affected, and I 25 am sure our Board would be visited by recreators with CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16236 1 complaints. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are there a few houseboats on the lake? 3 MR. SELB: There are 240 houseboats on the lake. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And you have concessions up on the 5 lake; is that correct? 6 MR. SELB: Yes. We have two concessions. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to this reoperation of 8 water and power, do you have a contract with PG&E? 9 MR. SELB: Yes, we do. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: How much money do you receive on a 11 yearly basis from PG&E for power production? 12 MR. SELB: The money that is received from power 13 production goes directly to retire the bonds. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It is a fixed payment to retire bonds, 15 is it? 16 MR. SELB: Yes. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you produce way more power in one 18 year and a lot less the next year, you are still going to 19 receive the same payment every year from PG&E; is that 20 correct? 21 MR. SELB: Yes, that is correct. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So when this water is being released 23 in the summertime and it is spread out over a time period, 24 the turbines are spinning and more power is being generated, 25 Merced Irrigation District doesn't receive one penny of that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16237 1 extra generation; is that correct? 2 MR. SELB: That is correct. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you are looking at doing the 4 operation and you realize in a time period such as maybe 5 late May or early June that, based on inflow, storage, 6 demands on the system, that you are not going to reach your 7 flood control criteria of October 31st, you start working 8 out a schedule to get the water evacuated from the system; 9 is that right? 10 MR. SELB: Yes, sir. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In doing so, you take into account the 12 competing demands being put on your system by power, 13 recreation and irrigation; is that correct? 14 MR. SELB: That is correct. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Van Camp, some follow-up questions 16 here in regards to the lovely questions of yield. 17 Can you define for me what your understanding is of 18 firm yield? 19 MR. VAN CAMP: In my mind the definition of firm yield 20 would be that water that a project could deliver for 21 beneficial use during a critical drought period. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's assume that for the Merced River 23 and for the Merced Irrigation District facilities on that 24 river, that the critical time period would be 1987 through 25 1992. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16238 1 Do you understand that? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If, in fact, water had been released 4 from the Merced River and made available for the change 5 petitions and now there was less water in storage, would 6 that increase the firm yield of the project during the time 7 period 1987 through 1992? 8 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, in regards to average yield, do 10 you understand what average yield means? 11 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Over the time period of 71 years of 13 hydrology, would you expect that the average yield of the 14 projects on the Merced River would increase due to the 15 releases made for the change petitions? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. The studies done by Mr. Steiner 17 showed that the recapture of that water during the wetter 18 periods and, therefore, we're realizing a greater yield on 19 average. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, Mr. Nomellini asked you some 21 questions, Mr. Van Camp, about the decrease in water being 22 made available to the San Joaquin River from the Merced 23 River due to these reoperations from summer flows to making 24 water available for the change petitions. 25 Do you remember that? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16239 1 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you remember you referred him to 3 Mr. Steiner's testimony? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's take one of those years. Mr. 6 Steiner's testimony has been marked as San Joaquin River 7 Group Authority 103C. Let's take a year. I would like you 8 to look at June of 1967. I believe it is Page 2 of 2, the 9 last page. 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Okay. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: June of 1967, and looking at this 12 chart shows that it says that cause of salinity change and 13 it says within objective Merced reoperation. 14 Do you see that? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So it is your understanding, then, 17 that Merced is reoperating by taking water from other months 18 such as June and moving it into the April/May pulse flow 19 period? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: That is my understanding. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In this regard it notes that the 22 change is that on the Merced River that the flows went from 23 1735 cfs to 1454 cfs, a change of minus 281 cfs. 24 Do you see that? 25 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16240 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, looking over on the chart in June 2 of 1967 under Vernalis flows, do you see that? 3 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It states in there that the Vernalis 5 flows in June of 1967 were 11,433 under the current 6 conditions and with the reduction, including the Merced 7 reduction, that the flows would be 11,147 cfs. 8 Do you see that? 9 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now in regards to the question by Mr. 11 Nomellini, can you opine for us whether or not, based on 12 that reduction due to reoperate there would be an impact to 13 the either water quality or to any legal user of water 14 downstream in that year. 15 MR. VAN CAMP: Since the testimony by Mr. Steiner 16 relative to the water quality, I would not be the best 17 person to speak to water quality. But due to an impact of 18 water use by a downstream water user, with that type of flow 19 in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, I would not anticipate 20 any adverse impact from water use. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let's go back to another year as well, 22 1958, June of 1958. There was a reduction of 62 cfs done by 23 reopt Merced. And the flows in that year are 10,489 cfs 24 under the current Vernalis conditions and with the reduction 25 caused by Merced reopt, the flows are 10,441 cfs. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16241 1 Would you then opine, as well, that there would be no 2 impact to a legal user of water downstream in that 3 situation? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I would. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Finally, in 1935. In 1935, based on 6 this exhibit, it appears to be the year in which there is 7 the greatest reduction in cfs by Merced reopt. 8 Do you see that? 9 MR. VAN CAMP: I do. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The number there is 768 cfs. 11 Do you see that, Mr. Van Camp? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to use an approximation, so, 14 hopefully, it will make the math somewhat easier. Rather 15 than 768 cfs, assume a reduction of 750 cfs. 16 Do you have that? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Okay. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You're an engineer and you deal in 19 water matters? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you feel comfortable converting cfs 22 to acre-feet and acre-feet to cfs? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: I certainly do. I feel somebody will 24 correct me if I make any mistakes. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We have 750 cfs reduction in the month CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16242 1 of June in 1935. Convert that in a day to how many 2 acre-feet that would be in a day. 3 MR. VAN CAMP: That would be -- give us approximately 4 1,500 acre-feet. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Take 1,500 acre-feet and multiply that 6 by 30 days. What do you come up with? 7 MR. VAN CAMP: 45,000 acre-feet. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In that year, 1935, ballparkish, 9 approximately, we would have a reoperation of 45,000 10 acre-feet. Now let's assume for purposes of our discussion 11 that that water would have been spread out over the five 12 irrigation months. 13 Do you have that in your mind? 14 MR. VAN CAMP: Okay. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: We would now make that water available 16 in May, June, July, August and September. So multiply 5 by 17 30 and we'll come up with 150 days; is that correct? 18 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. You've indicated makes the water 19 available in those months? 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. In other words, rather than 21 having it be reoperated from the June to April time period, 22 it is now going to be spread out so that it would be made 23 available in all those months. 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Okay. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is 150 days? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16243 1 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now divide 45,000 acre-feet by 150 3 days. Can you do that? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: We'll come up with 300 acre-feet per 5 day. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Divide that by two, approximately; is 7 that correct? 8 MR. VAN CAMP: Approximately. To arrive at 150 cfs. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If we spread that out over time, what 10 we would expect to see is a reduction in flow from Merced of 11 150 cfs spread out over time; is that correct? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you assume that if water is 14 released from the Merced River, that there would be some 15 losses in that water from the Merced River release to the 16 downstream point at Vernalis? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You have not tried to quantify that 19 amount; is that correct? 20 MR. VAN CAMP: No, I have not. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would it be safe to assume if a 22 release of 150 cfs was made by Merced that there would be 23 some reduction of that water before it reached Vernalis? 24 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Earlier in your testimony you talked CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16244 1 about that in certain years -- in almost every year that you 2 would have to determine whether reopt water was made 3 available or stored water was made available. 4 Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Van Camp? 5 MR. VAN CAMP: I remember, yes. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is it correct that in some years you 7 can determine prior to going into the year that stored water 8 is actually being made available for the change in 9 petitions; is that correct? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct. As I indicated, the 11 reopt water is defined by the fact that we are at the same 12 required storage level on October 31st, and in some years, 13 in fact, we can start out below that storage level such that 14 we would know it was from stored releases. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Some other questions here, cleaning up 16 some things. 17 On reliability, you were asked questions about the 18 target flows being more reliable based on the fact that they 19 were made available from both storage and bypass. Whereas 20 the alternatives that we looked at from the State Water 21 Control Board only had bypass flows. 22 Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Van Camp? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Isn't it true that another reason that 25 the target flows under the San Joaquin River Agreement are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16245 1 more reliable is that there is, in fact, an implementation 2 methodology in place presently to get flows from the various 3 tributaries to the Vernalis system, whereas the State Water 4 Resources Control Board objectives do not have such an 5 implementation methodology? 6 MR. VAN CAMP: That is true. The methodology -- from 7 my understanding of the methodology proposed by the State 8 Board relative to the issuance of a form of term of 91 as 9 compared to the operating group and reporting, as I think 10 testified last week by Mr. Burke. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: As far as you know, do you know what 12 methodology has been put in place by the State Water 13 Resources Control Board in order to send out term 91 letters 14 for any of the other alternatives? 15 MR. VAN CAMP: No. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In regards to some questions regarding 17 recharge, during the five-year period to make up for the 18 '76-77 drought period, in your description I did not hear a 19 discussion that there would be decrease groundwater pumping 20 during the five-year period. 21 Would that, in fact, help make up for increased 22 recharge and allow the groundwater tables to recover? 23 MR. VAN CAMP: Certainly, it would, as testified to by 24 Mr. Way. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, in that five-year period you are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16246 1 seeing the groundwater table come back, one of the 2 components would be an in-lieu recharge program, i.e., 3 people stop pumping? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: Correct. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Van Camp, did you review the 6 testimony of Mr. Steiner that showed, under the San Joaquin 7 River Group Authority Exhibit 103, that showed that most of 8 the water that was recaptured for refill occurred in the 9 January-February time period? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I did, briefly. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Based on your understanding, and that 12 is set forth in Mr. Steiner's San Joaquin River Group 13 Authority Exhibit 103, that is Figure 1E, that shows that 14 refill is occurring in wet years under the May pulse flow 15 criteria mainly in January and February. You were asked 16 some questions earlier by Mr. Herrick, I believe, in regards 17 to other water quality objectives. 18 What other water quality objectives are you aware of 19 under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan during the time 20 periods of January and February? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: As I indicated earlier, I am the best on 22 water quality. I believe the Vernalis water quality 23 requirement that Mr. Steiner has addressed in his 24 testimony. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: What other requirements are there in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16247 1 January or February? 2 MR. VAN CAMP: The Delta outflow that was identified in 3 earlier testimony, I believe. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sorry about that, Chairman Stubchaer. 5 Now, if there is a decrease in Delta outflow in the 6 months of January and February, due to the refill, isn't it 7 correct that pursuant to the San Joaquin River Agreement 8 that the United States Bureau of Reclamation has agreed to 9 make up that deficiency if it should occur? 10 MR. VAN CAMP: Yes. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Isn't it true that there is an impact 12 in January or February due to the refill of the reservoir of 13 Exchequer on water quality in those months that the U.S. 14 Bureau of Reclamation has agreed to make up that 15 deficiency? 16 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe that is correct. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Isn't it correct, as far as you know, 18 Mr. Van Camp, that the impacts to the Delta outflow, X2 and 19 water quality were addressed in San Joaquin River Agreement 20 EIR/EIS? 21 MR. VAN CAMP: They were. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, can I review 23 my notes for one second and see if I have any further 24 questions? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16248 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 Thank you, panel members. 3 I have no further questions. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 5 Staff have any questions for these witnesses? 6 Mr. Howard. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MERCED WATER DISTRICT 9 BY STAFF 10 MR. HOWARD: Mr. Van Camp, I don't mean to beat a dead 11 horse here, but I would like to ask a couple of questions 12 about reoperation. 13 Are you familiar with Mr. Steiner's testimony, San 14 Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 103, in which he 15 detailed his modeling efforts under the San Joaquin River 16 Agreement? 17 MR. VAN CAMP: I am familiar with it, but not in 18 detail. 19 MR. HOWARD: In this modeling and in the table that was 20 used to accompany it the only reoperation I see, with one 21 exception, is for the month of June. And in Mr. Steiner's 22 testimony on Page 13 he states that: 23 During June the release to the Lower Merced 24 River is less since water that otherwise 25 would have spilled from Lake McClure in June CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16249 1 is prereleased during May for VAMP. 2 (Reading.) 3 Is that your understanding? 4 MR. VAN CAMP: I think what you are getting into here 5 is the modeling assumptions. I believe the model 6 assumptions that Dan used in the STANMOD and in the other 7 models had the releases going out in June rather than 8 throughout the summer at the discretion of the district. 9 MR. HOWARD: So when he characterized those as spills, 10 you think those spills could have been spread over 11 additional months at Merced Irrigation District discretion? 12 MR. VAN CAMP: I believe, yes. 13 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Anything else from staff? 15 That concludes cross-examination. Do you have any 16 redirect? 17 MR. ROBBINS: Mr. O'Laughlin asked all but one of my 18 questions. I don't know, may be worthwhile. Don't want to 19 expose them. Get out of Dodge. We will pass on redirect. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are these exhibits going to be held 21 until all of San Joaquin River Group exhibits? 22 MR. ROBBINS: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: South San Joaquin next? 24 ---oOo--- 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16250 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 2 BY MR. EMRICK 3 MR. EMRICK: Steven Emrick, counsel for South San 4 Joaquin Irrigation District. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good afternoon. 6 MR. EMRICK: With the Chair's consent, I would like to 7 make a brief opening statement. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: You want to do the witness swearing 9 first, if necessary? 10 MR. EMRICK: Mr. Kehl would have to be sworn. 11 Mr. Martin has been previously sworn. 12 (Oath administered by Chairman Stubchaer.) 13 MR. EMRICK: South San Joaquin Irrigation District, as 14 you know, is a member of the San Joaquin River Group 15 Authority and a party to the San Joaquin River Agreement. 16 It is committed to supplying water for the San Joaquin River 17 Agreement and pending before the Board in this petition are 18 changes, water storage permits for the purposes set forth in 19 the San Joaquin River Agreement. 20 Its two witnesses are two persons who have served as 21 its general manager for most of the time period from 1986 to 22 the present. In addition, the current General Manager, Rick 23 Martin, previously served as the district's chief engineer. 24 We believe by bringing in the two individuals it will best 25 illustrate the district's water conservation practices. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16251 1 In response to Issue 7 of the Board's hearing notice 2 for this phase, the focus of the testimony today will be on 3 physical and operational improvements to the district's 4 irrigation delivery system. These improvements provide more 5 efficient service to water users and conserve water. 6 Unfortunately, I also feel a little bit like the caller 7 into a sport talk show who is ready to answer a question 8 which the previous caller just answered. You will hear the 9 same thing about automation, here about SCADA control 10 system. You will also hear about some additional 11 improvements that, I think, will be new testimony. You will 12 here why the several projects that South San Joaquin has 13 completed, how they save water. New facilities now in the 14 planning process will further improve irrigation deliveries 15 and also conserving of water will also be described. 16 These conservation efforts have enabled South San 17 Joaquin to address unmet needs in its district and in 18 surrounding areas. The written testimony includes a brief 19 background of South San Joaquin's water rights and its 1988 20 agreement and stipulation with the U.S. Bureau of 21 Reclamation to which the Oakdale Irrigation District is also 22 a party. 23 I think the Board is aware that the majority of South 24 San Joaquin's water rights are shared with Oakdale 25 Irrigation District. The 1972 Agreement, which has been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16252 1 superseded by the 1988 Agreement settled the two districts' 2 protests to the New Melones Project. As a result of the New 3 Melones project South San Joaquin's ability to store water 4 in its storage reservoirs has been impacted. Pursuant to 5 this agreement the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to make 6 available to the two districts a quantity of water based on 7 inflow to New Melones Reservoir. The agreement also 8 established a conservation account at New Melones Reservoir. 9 South San Joaquin storage has conserved water in that 10 account for future years. But in the event of flood 11 releases from the reservoir, it is the first water that is 12 spilled. 13 One of the impacts of the San Joaquin River Agreement 14 is that South San Joaquin will reduce its storage in that 15 conservation account. 16 At this point in time I would like to call Barry Kehl, 17 South San Joaquin's first witness. 18 Mr. Kehl, would you spell your last name for the record. 19 MR. KEHL: K-e-h-l. 20 MR. EMRICK: Your first name is Barrett. 21 MR. KEHL: Barrett, B-a-r-r-e-t-t. 22 MR. EMRICK: By whom are you currently employed? 23 MR. KEHL: Chino Basin Water Conservation District in 24 Southern California. 25 MR. EMRICK: You have seen the exhibit which is labeled CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16253 1 San Joaquin River Group Authority Number 104 which contains 2 your signature and purports to be your written testimony in 3 this matter? 4 MR. KEHL: That is correct. 5 MR. EMRICK: Is that a true statement of your 6 testimony? 7 MR. KEHL: It is, with one correction. 8 MR. EMRICK: The correction that we have talked about 9 appears on Page 3. If you would like to read that 10 correction into the record, maybe we can make that 11 correction now. 12 MR. KEHL: Actually on Page 5, Page 5 about the sixth 13 line down. 14 This is just a typo error, really. Says: 15 South San Joaquin River Group Authority main 16 distribution. (Reading.) 17 And that should be Exhibit 104F. 18 MR. EMRICK: In referring to your testimony, summarize 19 that for the Board. Proceed. 20 MR. KEHL: My educational background is that I was 21 educated at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, and 22 my degree was in construction engineering. I have over 25 23 years of irrigation experience in Arizona and in 24 California. And I was the General Manager for South San 25 Joaquin from 1986 through 1993. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16254 1 SSJID asked me to provide information at this 2 proceeding concerning the actions that were undertaken 3 relative to water conservation during my tenure with them. 4 While General Manager for SSJID, I was responsible for 5 the delivery of irrigation water to approximately 61,000 6 acres of land that was paying for water service from the 7 district. In my first year at the district we had several 8 problems. One of them was the apparent inefficiencies of 9 irrigation supplies and delivery at the lower ends of the 10 district and at certain other areas over in the eastern end 11 where we had crops that were having a difficult time 12 receiving water they needed. 13 So, they asked me to look at the system and see what we 14 could do to streamline their operation and increase the 15 irrigation efficiency. One of the other reasons they wanted 16 me to look at their system was because they were interested 17 in supplying waters to the cities. They saw a need to 18 overdraft the groundwater table in the eastern San Joaquin 19 Basin and that the city would someday probably need water 20 and they didn't want the farmers fighting with the cities. 21 So under my direction we began improvements, a program 22 of improvements to the system. Again, it was to resolve 23 irrigation delivery concerns and conserve water supplies to 24 help meet our future needs of both farming and city 25 interests. The initial program involved improvements to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16255 1 structures along our main distribution canal. It involved 2 automation of control structures, design of a SCADA systems; 3 that is supervisor control and data acquisition system, and 4 construction of a conservation regulating reservoir near the 5 end of our canal. 6 Before going into the details of the project, let me 7 explain that while I was manager I read various documents 8 concerning the history of the district and, in particular, 9 its water rights. These water rights include or shared with 10 Oakdale and include an adjudicated pre-1914 direct diversion 11 right of 1,816.6 cfs from the natural flow of the Stanislaus 12 River during the irrigation season. It also includes 13 additional storage rights for consumption and power in Old 14 Melones, Donnells, Beardsley and Tulloch Reservoirs. SSJID 15 owns separately Woodward Reservoir, an off-stream storage 16 reservoir and the rights that go along with that, 36,000 17 acre-feet reservoir. 18 The district's exercise of its water rights have been 19 affected by the construction and operation of New Melones. 20 We are subject to agreements between Oakdale and South San 21 Joaquin and the Bureau. The first agreement was signed in 22 1972. The minute after I came to work for South San Joaquin 23 I found out that there is a lot of misinterpretations and 24 disagreement on that agreement. 25 So while I was General Manager, we participated and met CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16256 1 with the Bureau of Reclamation and renegotiated the 1972 2 Agreement to clarify its terms. Those negotiations 3 culminated in the 1988 Agreement and Stipulation which is 4 often referred to as the '88 Agreement. The 1988 Agreement 5 completely superseded the 1972 Agreement. 6 As part of the 1988 Agreement, the districts reduced 7 their entitlements from 654,000 acre-feet annually to 8 600,000 acre-feet. The 1988 agreement provides that the 9 Bureau will deliver to the two districts at Goodwin Dam a 10 quantity of water measured by the following formula: inflow 11 plus 600,000 minus inflow divided by three, limited to 12 600,000 acre-feet in each water year. The Agreement also 13 established a conservation account at New Melones, in which 14 water that is not used by the two districts in any water 15 years stored in New Melones for use at a later year. 16 Up to 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water can be 17 stored by the districts for use in years of shortage. As a 18 result of conservation programs, which I will describe 19 below, we have been able to store water in the conservation 20 account. 21 SSJID actually includes more than 70,000 acres of land, 22 approximately 61,000 are irrigated agriculture. More than 23 50 percent of the irrigated agriculture consists of almonds 24 and other permanent crops. A 1989 report on water supply in 25 the SSJID was prepared for the district by UMA Engineering CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16257 1 under my direction as General Manager. The report 2 summarizes the district's land area, its cropping patterns, 3 delivery system, its history of water use and its water 4 operations. That report is SJRGA 104E. And if I can put up 5 page -- Figure 5.1 up, I will briefly explain that. There 6 were several tables in the report, but I thought this was of 7 interest. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: You need to push it a little closer 9 to the screen. 10 MR. KEHL: In my testimony, my written testimony, I 11 reported that somewhere between 250- and 272,000 acre-feet 12 was typically delivered to the district prior to the 13 conservation program, and this is just a schematic to show 14 where does the water go, its average year estimates. And 15 whatever average means you can decide that yourself. We 16 always used to say that average is when you go out deer 17 hunting and you shot all around the deer, and the average is 18 that you got the deer in the heart; now go pick him up even 19 though you never hit a one. 20 Average is probably really bad. So this is an 21 estimate. Approximately 272,000 acre-feet of water was 22 diverted out of the Stanislaus into Woodward Reservoir. We 23 have evaporation losses. We have deep percolation at 24 Woodward Reservoir. We have precip that comes into the 25 channel. Woodward Reservoir is built on Simons Creek, so it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16258 1 does pick up a little bit of local rainfall. 2 Once it comes into the MDC, the main distribution 3 canal, approximately a thousand acre-feet of canal 4 evaporation. And we have around 10,000 acre-feet of deep 5 percolation coming out of the canal. That brings about 6 245,000 acre-feet of actually reaching the farms in our 7 areas. Just a crop evapotranspiration, approximately 8 172,000 acre-feet. The estimates at this time is probably 9 around 40,000 acre-feet of deep percolation. I personally 10 feel that that's off. I think it should be much greater 11 than that. This was done in 1989 and after that time I 12 learned quite a bit more about the operations of the ditch 13 tenders in our area. 14 This covers an entire year. Here we are showing precip 15 coming down in the area. We have some winter runoff. A lot 16 of the precip does stay. We have a lot of flat land. So, 17 about 23,000 acre-feet of winter runoff. This one again, 18 now knowing what I know now of the irrigation operations, I 19 believe this figure is somewhat high. It shows around 20 30,000 acre-feet of irrigation spills. This point there is 21 a deep percolation from the precip, around 57,000 real 22 water. Down the bottom, net groundwater outflow is 78,000, 23 which is just the addition of all these numbers here. 24 That report accurately identifies SSJID's already 25 started implementing water conservation programs. Before CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16259 1 the drought which began in 1987, SSJID generally, as I 2 mentioned, acquired between 250- to 275,000 acre-feet of 3 water during the irrigation season. That report indicates 4 times we use well over 300,000 acre-feet. But as a result 5 of our conservation project, it appears that our uses have 6 decreased by about 30,000 acre-feet per year. This decrease 7 is directly due to the efficient delivery of irrigation 8 water, one of the chief purposes for performing the project. 9 To meet changing irrigation needs and to achieve more 10 uniform water delivery and to prepare for the needs of the 11 growing cities, we instituted, actually, a number of water 12 conservation programs. The main project was a control and 13 measurement structure replacement along main distribution 14 canal. To plan for the construction improvement needs of 15 the main distribution canal, the Board of Directors 16 commissioned Boyle Engineering Corporation to perform a 17 study for determining the actual improvements necessary to 18 remedy the identified problems that are our concerns and to 19 address our water conservation needs. The completed 20 projected implemented the recommendations of Boyle 21 Engineering Phase I of the report, with the exception of the 22 concrete lining, and if I could show that, SJRGA Exhibit 23 104F. 24 MR. EMRICK: Page 88. 25 MR. KEHL: Page 88. Thank you. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16260 1 MR. EMRICK: The '88 doesn't show in the slide. This is 2 from Page 88 of that document. 3 MR. KEHL: Obviously, we had at least two alternatives. 4 We had an Alternative A and an Alternative B. Boyle 5 Engineering recommended that we select B. We did that. 6 Alternative B did include concrete lining in the canal from 7 Valley Home to the terminus. That is approximately 16 miles 8 of canals concrete lining. We chose not to concrete line 9 because that would require use to go through the CEQA 10 process; whereas, replacing our structures and automating 11 them did not require us to go through the CEQA process. 12 We did, however, line certain portions where it would 13 cause us operational concerns where the soils were sandy and 14 the lands adjacent to it were greatly different in 15 elevations. We determined the canal gate type. We were 16 looking at radial gates. We ended up selecting a leaf-drop 17 gate which was originally designed up in Canada, and it 18 worked well for our type of operation. The leaf-drop gate 19 actually allows for accurate water measurement at each 20 structure and it maintains a constant water elevation in 21 front of it the way we wanted to. It really smoothed out 22 the operation as opposed to what the radial gates would do. 23 We actually got the radial station, and that was to 24 operate the SCADA system. We began with Phase II 25 engineering services, which was to design the project. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16261 1 I believe there is one other page on that. 2 Let me go through a little greater detail so you can 3 get a better picture of some of the processes that went on. 4 We dropped the first part, which is the concrete lining 5 at fourteen miles. We had additional earthwork between 6 reach's six and seven. Reaches are different drop 7 structures that we had. What we did was we created storage 8 within our canal system, and that allowed us to, when the 9 wind came up and our farmers called up and said, "We can't 10 use the water, our trees are going to blow over if we 11 irrigate. What do we do with the water?" Well, we put it 12 in storage that we created by doing extra earth work. 13 We replaced check structures one through five and seven 14 through 13 with leaf gate structures. We eliminated six 15 tidewater gates. Basically, we were able to get rid of this 16 structure here by raising the gate at drop eight, and so 17 just got rid of that. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: This structure here is -- 19 MR. KEHL: Excuse me. Tidewater gates is our railroad 20 crossing. 21 We eliminated check structure six by creating storage 22 space and by raising the check structures set in elevation 23 slightly. There wasn't much drop between them. We 24 constructed a new check structure downstream of Escalon 25 spillway. Escalon Spillway is an old structure that has CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16262 1 been in place since the turn of the century. It spills 2 towards the Stanislaus River. We constructed measuring 3 weirs downstream of checks three and nine. These were, we 4 felt, critical places in determining what was happening to 5 our water, where it was going. 6 As I mentioned earlier, each check structure has the 7 weir capability of measuring water. These were in case our 8 readings were off, just as a backup check. 9 We replaced the major channel structures and Ripon 10 spill. Ripon spill was a huge structure, never got use, so 11 we reduced it down considerably. Since the outer MDC, I 12 don't think we've ever used it. We replaced pipe ladder on 13 MDC turnouts. We did a lot of that, telemetry and 14 instrumentation, of course, electrical goes a long way. 15 Very extensive project that in my testimony pointed out that 16 saved considerable volumes of water for the district and 17 helps provide much better service to our farmers. 18 The construction of that project was actually completed 19 in two phases. We divided it up. First phase were the 20 upper check structures, about seven check structures in the 21 upper half of the canal system. Then the second phase was 22 completed in 1988-89 and called for the replacement of the 23 control structures located in the lower one-half. 24 Total construction costs for replacement of the control 25 structures was approximately $5.5 million. The design and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16263 1 installation of the SCADA and automation systems was 2 necessary to maximize water conservation and enhance 3 irrigation delivery reliability aspect, and that cost 4 approximately another $650,000. 5 In most instances the new structures are designed to 6 operate in an upstream -- maintaining a constant upstream 7 elevation. That allows you to keep constant head pressure 8 on the side gates by doing that. Fluctuations mean that you 9 are going to have 30-second feet going through a pipe at one 10 time. If it lowers, you may have 25. If it raises too 11 much, you may have 50. Gate opening versus the head 12 pressure. By maintaining a constant head pressure on it we 13 knew how much water was going towards the farmers and, 14 therefore, our deliveries were equalized. 15 When I first went to South San Joaquin, the problem we 16 had in the western end were just horrible; it's hard to 17 explain. Farmers would start to irrigate and then lose -- 18 They lose head pressure, you can see the water backing up 19 across their field. It wasn't the going down towards the 20 end; it was stopped. So what should be a four-hour 21 irrigation, ended up being about a 16- or 18-hour 22 irrigation. The constant water elevation really helped 23 resolve those problems. 24 Then in order to accommodate adverse and unexpected 25 weather conditions, which frequently result in crop damage, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16264 1 to allow corresponding, timely on-farm irrigation delivery 2 stoppages two of the new structures were initially 3 programmed to operate in the flow-control mode. In that 4 manner we know the people downstream are getting the water. 5 If our irrigation inflow was coming in and it didn't match 6 our outflow, the people on the lower end of our main 7 distribution canal system were robbed of water. By 8 maintaining the flow-control modes on some of the structures 9 we knew that people down below were going to get the water 10 that they were ordering and that is where the in-stream 11 reservoirs came into play. 12 During 1991, following completion of the Phase II 13 construction, the operators of our canal voiced a concern 14 that irrigation deliveries would be even more improved and 15 more water would be saved if we built another instream 16 reservoir located down near the end of the MDC. We did that 17 in 1991. Staff actually was directed to design the site and 18 construct the regulating reservoir. During the 1992 19 irrigation season, after we completed the regulating 20 reservoir, all control and measurement structures upstream 21 of that point were on elevation control. And downstream, 22 then, at that particular reservoir we put it in a flow rate 23 control system and, then, they were also guaranteed of 24 getting flow rates down at the lower end and that really 25 helped to regulate the flows and reduced their rate CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16265 1 reductions, and we were able to accommodate weather changes 2 rapidly without causing any problems or hardships to our 3 regulators. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just to help you, you have a minute 5 and a half left. 6 MR. KEHL: Talk real fast. 7 In our exhibits, if you check, there are several 8 recommendations. We have actually implemented just about 9 every recommendation that was made to us under the UMA 10 reports and the Boyle Engineering reports, Exhibits 104F and 11 E. We were able to start a project which involved the 12 delivery of water to the cities. 13 When I left, that is where Rick was able to pick up. 14 So I guess I will conclude there. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Brown. 16 C.O. BROWN: If I may. Did I hear you say that the 17 Ripon spill has not been used since you installed the 18 compensating head? 19 MR. KEHL: We never used it after we got the system 20 going. 21 C.O. BROWN: Can you estimate how much water was 22 spilled there prior to the improvement? 23 MR. KEHL: Mr. Brown, I can tell you there was a 24 lawsuit, probably back in the '30s, over the Escalon 25 Spillway. The spillway itself was designed for 5- or 600 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16266 1 second feet. 2 MR. EMRICK: You mean Ripon? 3 MR. KEHL: The Ripon Spillway. 4 That lawsuit limited us to, I think, 75-second feet 5 during four hours of flow. During my tenure there, I never 6 saw it happen. I know once the automation it never got that 7 way. We never used it. 8 Again, as we learned what our ditch tenders were doing 9 through time and where our water is going, that is why I 10 said I don't think we had operational spills because our 11 ditch tenders had sandy soil parcels of land that they would 12 give the water to, let the people hold the water so the 13 spills weren't occurring. 14 C.O. BROWN: That sounds like a lot of water that was 15 being released unregulated at that time before you put in 16 the improvements? 17 MR. KEHL: Yes. What I found out was our biggest 18 problem was, not to point fingers at Turlock Irrigation, 19 once we had Woodward Reservoir in place -- and some of it 20 was our own problem. There is measuring structure just 21 downstream of Woodward. Turlock's gauging was one foot off 22 on the measuring, so we never had what we wanted. Pretty 23 soon the operators were getting mad, ordering way more water 24 than they wanted, and they were just constantly fighting the 25 system trying to keep it regulated. That and our own weed CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16267 1 control operation -- if you don't keep the weeds down 2 properly, it is going to cause the water to back up and foul 3 up the measuring station. 4 MR. EMRICK: If I can ask a follow-up question on your 5 question? 6 Wasn't one of the difficulties with Ripon Spillway was 7 basically unregulated spillway, that the district had a lot 8 of trouble controlling and it was arguing, finding problems, 9 and you found other ways to regulate that water -- 10 MR. KEHL: Yes. What is really interesting about this 11 project is that everybody got involved, the operators. 12 Everybody was interested in it. They have all through 13 history been trying to find ways to help keep from impacting 14 anybody out of Ripon. 15 C.O. BROWN: The point we are interested in here is the 16 water that is saved for regulation as opposed to letting it 17 run down the creek unregulated. There is a value in the 18 difference between the two. 19 MR. KEHL: Again, my opinion, I never saw the Ripon 20 Spillway used. 21 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 MR. KEHL: Just a waste, actually. 23 MR. EMRICK: At this point I would like to have Mr. 24 Martin begin his testimony. 25 To introduce that, Mr. Martin, you are currently the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16268 1 General Manager of South San Joaquin; is that correct? 2 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 3 MR. EMRICK: When did you first become the General 4 Manager? 5 MR. MARTIN: 1993. 6 MR. EMRICK: Prior to that you were the district's 7 chief engineer; is that correct? 8 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 9 MR. EMRICK: Most of your time was when Mr. Kehl was 10 the General Manager of South San Joaquin? 11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 12 MR. EMRICK: So, many of these projects, and in 13 particular the automation of the main canal and SCADA 14 project were conceived and designed and constructed while 15 you were chief engineer? 16 MR. MARTIN: That's correct. 17 MR. EMRICK: You are a Registered Professional 18 Engineer? 19 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 20 MR. EMRICK: And you have a degree in civil 21 engineering? 22 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 23 MR. EMRICK: Exhibit 105 purports to be your written 24 testimony in this matter. Are you familiar with that 25 testimony? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16269 1 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 2 MR. EMRICK: Is that a true and correct copy of your 3 testimony? 4 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 5 MR. EMRICK: As Mr. Kehl has done, and maybe a little 6 shorter than he was able to don, if you could summarize your 7 testimony it would be great. 8 MR. MARTIN: If I may, I would like to briefly 9 summarize and hit some points in my testimony. And I would 10 particularly like to point out, and I think briefly I would 11 like to describe the district -- and, Steve, if I could ask 12 you to put up the transparency. I believe this came from 13 Exhibit 105 K, Figure 3-1. 14 This particular map shows the proximity of South San 15 Joaquin Irrigation District in relationship to its 16 neighboring districts to the north. It is, of course, 17 bounded to the south by the Stanislaus River. South of the 18 Stanislaus River is Modesto Irrigation District. To the 19 east, Oakdale Irrigation District. To the north, Central 20 San Joaquin Water Conservation District. A little bit 21 further to the north is Stockton East Water District. We 22 are bounded on the east approximately by the -- on the west 23 by the San Joaquin River. 24 I did want to note and point out to you that the 25 overdrafting of the groundwater that is occurring primarily CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16270 1 in the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District as 2 well as the Stockton East Water District, I will point out a 3 few -- discuss that briefly a little bit later in my 4 testimony. 5 If I could have the next transparency. That would be 6 from, I believe, Exhibit 104E, Figure 3-1. 7 This is a map that shows some of the upstream 8 reservoirs that are jointly owned by Oakdale Irrigation 9 District and South San Joaquin. We do get all of our water 10 from the Stanislaus River. Further upstream is the Donnells 11 Reservoir. Down below that is Beardsley Reservoir. Further 12 on down is Melones Reservoir which is currently under New 13 Melones, and I'll talk about that in a second, Tulloch 14 Reservoir and the Goodwin Diversion Dam where the two 15 districts as well as Stockton East take their water. 16 Further on downstream of Goodwin is Woodward Reservoir and 17 then the delivery system through our main canal and to the 18 South San Joaquin. 19 With the construction of New Melones I mentioned that 20 the Old Melones was inundated. That precipitated the '72 21 and subsequent '88 Stipulation and Agreement with the Bureau 22 of Reclamation. Essentially what that reservoir did was 23 take away the storage capacities or the ability to release 24 water and claim it for irrigation down below of New 25 Melones. Tulloch Reservoir also operated as a forebay to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16271 1 New Melones Reservoir by agreement. As part of the 2 stipulation agreement we have to maintain that at certain 3 levels in order to take out the pulses that are coming out 4 of New Melones. 5 Effectively, New Melones had a tremendous impact on the 6 district. It gave some storage, but it took a lot of 7 storage and ability for South San Joaquin to operate its 8 facilities. 9 If I could have the next schematic, please. 10 This is a map of South San Joaquin Irrigation 11 District. Manteca to the extreme west end of the district. 12 Ripon down to the southern part of the district and Escalon 13 to the east. As I mentioned, Oakdale Irrigation District 14 borders us on the east and Central Water Conservation 15 District to the north of us. 16 Our main canal deliveries come down here, follow this 17 line, essentially this dark line. If you can see that, that 18 is our main canal. You will notice the laterals that come 19 off of that line, off that main canal and how far they 20 travel. You can trace those things out. They go clear to 21 the end. So, once water is turned from the main canal into 22 these laterals, and by and large they are in concrete 23 pipelines. There are some open ditches. But essentially at 24 that point we lose control. 25 And so the conservation measures that were instituted CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16272 1 as part of the main canal modifications that Mr. Kehl has 2 described and the installation of over SCADA sites 3 throughout the district were able to maintain control and 4 make better water deliveries throughout the district. 5 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Can we get the exhibit number for 6 this overhead? 7 MR. MARTIN: I think that is -- 8 MR. EMRICK: That is Exhibit 104E, SJRGA 103, Figure 9 3.2. 10 MS. WHITNEY: Mr. Stubchaer, could we have him trace 11 the laterals on there with a pen and then confiscate that 12 because the discussion, the description that he just gave 13 won't show up in the record? 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Trace with what, a laser? 15 MS. WHITNEY: A pen on the transparency. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just a general rule, everyone, not 17 just these folks. It is nice to take a blue transparency 18 marking pen sometimes, just highlight what we are talking 19 about. Make it more understandable. 20 Do you have such a pen? 21 MR. EMRICK: For every lateral. That would take 22 forever. 23 MS. WHITNEY: Just the line that he referred to. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have nontoxic -- 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham volunteers. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16273 1 MR. MARTIN: The main canal, essentially, comes down 2 from this area, and it is represented by the dark line here. 3 This is, essentially, our main canal. You can notice, as I 4 was pointing out, some of the length of some of these 5 laterals and how long they go. Because once you turn water 6 in from the main canal, they do travel clear through the 7 district and, really, exit out on the extreme western 8 portion of the district. I wasn't trying to point out any 9 particular lateral, just a general statement about the 10 rather long length that the typical laterals have in South 11 San Joaquin Irrigation District. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. We didn't charge you for 13 that dark line. 14 MR. MARTIN: If I can, I would just like to make a few 15 statements about the groundwater underneath South San 16 Joaquin Irrigation District. 17 We are part of the eastern San Joaquin groundwater 18 basin. We created or caused a groundwater management plan 19 to be developed in 1994. The groundwater management plan, 20 of course, identified that the eastern San Joaquin 21 groundwater basin is being overdrafted about 270,000 22 acre-feet annually. In South San Joaquin, as Mr. Kehl has 23 pointed out in his testimony, we, are, in fact, recharging 24 to a larger extent. I just wanted to point that out to you, 25 that that was the case. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16274 1 There are a couple of conclusions that are on Page 2.2 2 of the groundwater management plan which is our Exhibit 3 105B. In particular, it points out that the developing of a 4 cone of depression under the City of Manteca and also the 5 saltwater intrusion that is being experienced by Lathrop. 6 All of the three cities in the district, as well as Lathrop, 7 are totally on groundwater and pumping; and the pumping in 8 Lathrop and Manteca is causing some saltwater intrusion as 9 well as causing a cone depression. 10 The tremendous amount of water in the overdrafting that 11 is occurring to the north of us is also causing some major 12 shift in groundwater contours and has over the last ten 13 years, causing some problems to our farmers to the north of 14 us, on our northern edge border. 15 Just briefly, on our South San Joaquin has a standing 16 policy of delivering water to every 40-acre parcel. 17 Generally, our irrigation season is from mid March to mid 18 October. Of course, that depends greatly on the amount of 19 water and hydraulic year. We generally deliver water on a 20 fixed rotation basis. The rotation is about 10 days 21 although during years it may be extended to as much as 20, 22 to conserve water, and we have done that. 23 I would like to kind of outline a couple of projects, 24 new projects, that South San Joaquin has undertaken as Mr. 25 Kehl has testified, the water has been available. We have CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16275 1 spent a lot of time and a lot of money conserving water and 2 the projects that we have identified that we are proceeding 3 on is the water treatment plant project. That water 4 treatment plant project, with Manteca, Escalon, Lathrop and 5 Tracy. As I mentioned, three of those cities currently get 6 all their water from the groundwater. Tracy gets some also 7 from the Delta-Mendota Canal. The project would supply 8 30,000 acre-feet to them in the initial phase and 50 9 acre-feet to them in the second phase. 10 Their future growth would indicate that that would be 11 -- it would be supplying that much water of surface water 12 rather than them taking it out of groundwater, creating 13 saltwater intrusion and increasing the cone depression. 14 Also, we have another project, a transfer. In Mr. 15 Kehl's testimony he mentioned the transfer to Stockton East 16 Water District and he mentioned there is 270,000 acre-feet 17 overdraft in that groundwater basin. We are making 18 available 30,000 acre-feet under that transfer to them, or 19 up to that amount on an annual basis. 20 I did want to also state that we have another project. 21 We have some problems in our farmers want to go to drip and 22 sprinkler irrigation. Our laterals are rather long as I 23 mentioned. They are steep, very difficult to control. We 24 have had developed a preliminary plan for installation of an 25 interceptor, enlarging a regulating reservoir with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16276 1 appropriate pumping to provide our upstream users and to a 2 little bit lesser extent our downstream users an on-demand 3 system. 4 We estimate or we anticipate that that will also 5 conserve a great deal of water and at the same time meet the 6 needs of our constituents and provide better deliveries. 7 With that, I will conclude. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Emrick, ready for cross. 9 MR. EMRICK: We will rest at that point. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is a good idea. Right after our 11 break we will have cross-examination. But before we take 12 the break, could the potential cross-examiners please 13 identify themselves? 14 Mr. Nomellini, Mr. O'Laughlin and Mr. Herrick. 15 Anyone else? 16 All right. Twelve-minute break. 17 ---oOo--- 18 (Break taken.) 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Come back to order. 20 The order of cross-examination, by the luck of the 21 draw, Mr. O'Laughlin followed by Mr. Nomellini, followed by 22 Mr. Herrick. 23 Mr. O'Laughlin. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have no questions. The Chair had 25 requested that we put our name in in case we have questions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16277 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is correct, and thank you for 2 doing that. That is what I requested. 3 Mr. Nomellini. 4 ---oOo--- 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 6 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 7 BY MR. NOMELLINI 8 MR. NOMELLINI: I do appreciate that because nobody can 9 say the question has been asked and answered. 10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board. 11 Dante John Nomellini for the Central Delta Parties. 12 Amazingly, I have a very brief cross-examination. 13 For the panel, either one can answer. What is the 14 anticipated source of the water that will be provided by the 15 South San Joaquin Irrigation District under the San Joaquin 16 River Agreement? 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. 18 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Vague and ambiguous as to source of 20 water. We've been through this with other entities. Is he 21 talking made up from groundwater or surface water or 22 conserved water? Is it going to be exchanged from the other 23 districts? We need to have some specification in regards to 24 source of water. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Do the witnesses understand the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16278 1 questions? 2 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: You may go ahead and answer. 4 MR. MARTIN: You know, as I indicated, the source of 5 water for our irrigation district is out of Stanislaus 6 River. That is the basic source of it. We mentioned the 7 conserved water that we have developed, through our various 8 conservation projects, and that is -- would be the source of 9 water for that. 10 In terms of how we get it there may be a different -- 11 several alternatives to that. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: So, the water that was previously saved 13 through conservation measures would be made available for 14 the VAMP flows of the San Joaquin River Agreement; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: And were it not for the San Joaquin 18 River Agreement what would have been the disposition of that 19 conserved water? 20 MR. MARTIN: It could have been held in a conservation 21 account at New Melones. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Does that mean that it gets spilled 23 periodically from New Melones? 24 MR. MARTIN: Yes, it would, depending on the water 25 year. The other use of that water may well have to be to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16279 1 transfer to Stockton East for replenishment of the 2 groundwater, the overdrafting that is occurring in the 3 groundwater basin there. So, there is several alternatives 4 for the use of water. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: This conservation account in New 6 Melones, is that an account that requires an annual spill? 7 Can you carryover from one year to the next in the 8 conservation account in New Melones? 9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it indefinite as to how long you can 11 carry it over? 12 MR. MARTIN: It is the first water spilled, so 13 in-between spills it can be accumulated. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there any new conservation measures 15 anticipated that would create more conserved water? 16 MR. MARTIN: Yes, and I briefly described those in my 17 summary of testimony before. 18 MR. EMRICK: Maybe you could call attention to the 19 exhibit number so he would know what you are talking about. 20 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Exhibit 105D. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: What quantity of additional 22 conservation is anticipated? 23 MR. MARTIN: That has not been fully determined. The 24 plans are very preliminary at this point. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of these prior conservation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16280 1 measures, did any of those reduce flow of water into the 2 underground basin? 3 MR. EMRICK: You mean ever? I guess I have to object 4 on the basis of timing and place and use. That sounds like 5 an innocent question, but it would be very difficult to 6 answer accurately. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: It could be qualified. I was talking 8 about the conserved water which is going to be the source 9 for the San Joaquin River Group Agreement flows. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: In any year? Anytime? 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, let's find out what this 12 conserved water is that is going to be made available for 13 the San Joaquin River Agreement. 14 What makes up the -- let's do it this way. 15 Is any part of the conserved water that will be 16 provided under the San Joaquin River Agreement water that 17 would have otherwise flowed into the underground? 18 MR. MARTIN: A portion of that may have been. It's 19 difficult to know where that water was going, totally: 20 whether it be spill, whether it be into the groundwater. I 21 can only give my best judgment that a portion of that may 22 have been going into the groundwater. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Again, speaking about the conserved 24 water that would be utilized to provide the South San 25 Joaquin Irrigation District share of the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16281 1 Agreement VAMP flows, was any of that water formerly water 2 which entered into the San Joaquin River? 3 MR. MARTIN: A portion of that may have. Again, I am 4 not totally familiar with the operations that were occurring 5 at this time and where the water was actually going. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Barry, do you have a -- 7 MR. KEHL: I don't have, no. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it correct that at one point in time 9 some of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District water 10 entered into Little Johns Creek? Either one of you. 11 MR. EMRICK: Again, I have to object to that. If he is 12 talking about time of year or a year back in the distant 13 past; I think you need to clarify what the question is. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: That is fair enough. Any of the 15 conserved water that will be the source of water for the San 16 Joaquin River Agreement result from a reduction in return 17 flows or spills to the Little Johns Creek? 18 MR. KEHL: I don't believe so. That is too far north 19 of us, anyway. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you familiar with U2 Ranch? 21 MR. KEHL: Yes. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: You don't remember a contract? 23 MR. KEHL: San Guinetti. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Where did that go? 25 MR. KEHL: Any water we have left over at the U2 Ranch CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16282 1 goes on downstream and San Guinetti picks that up. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: That is Little Johns Creek? 3 MR. KEHL: To my knowledge, our water doesn't make it 4 that far to the San Joaquin River system. That is the 5 agreement we have to supply water if we have water left over 6 at U2 Ranch. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Have either of you made a 8 determination as to whether or not the conserved water that 9 will be provided under the San Joaquin River Agreement has 10 reduced accretions to the San Joaquin River? 11 MR. KEHL: There are no accretions to the -- San 12 Joaquin River? 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Yes. 14 MR. KEHL: I can't speak to that; it is not next to us. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Rick, any opinion? 16 MR. MARTIN: No. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know of any study of what the 18 accretions to the San Joaquin River might be from water put 19 to use by South San Joaquin Irrigation District? 20 MR. MARTIN: No. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 22 That is all I have. 23 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 24 Are you going to follow the role model set by your 25 compatriot? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16283 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 2 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 3 BY MR. HERRICK 4 MR. HERRICK: I will be as brief as possible; it will 5 not be that long. 6 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. Again, I 7 will be quick. 8 Mr. Kehl, you talked about other projects which seek to 9 deliver water to the cities in the area within the 10 boundaries of South San Joaquin Irrigation District; is that 11 correct? 12 MR. EMRICK: I have to object to that. Is this in his 13 written testimony or his oral testimony? I am not certain 14 -- if it is a summary, I have no objection. I just wish he 15 would identify his source. 16 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 17 MR. HERRICK: Identify the source of the reference? 18 MR. EMRICK: Yes. Are you reading from his written 19 testimony or are you summarizing what he said a few minutes 20 ago? 21 MR. HERRICK: I don't understand the objection. You 22 want me to identify where he said it? 23 MR. EMRICK: Yes. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: You want the question reread? 25 MR. HERRICK: I am fine. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16284 1 Mr. Kehl, in your testimony on Page 1 of San Joaquin 2 River Group Authority Exhibit 104, it says near the bottom: 3 My first year at SSJID the Board of Directors 4 raised concerns over the apparent 5 inefficiencies in furnishing irrigation water 6 to various areas within the lateral system 7 of the SSJID and future need to supply 8 surface water to the cities located within 9 its boundaries. (Reading.) 10 Do you see that? 11 MR. KEHL: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: Is a proposed project of SSJID to sell 13 water to the cities within its boundaries? 14 MR. KEHL: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: What would the source of that water be? 16 MR. KEHL: The water we conserved from the Stanislaus 17 River water. Rick is more familiar with the project. He 18 helped design it. He was there as engineer and he came back 19 as manager. 20 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, is the source of the water 21 for the cities, has it been identified as to from what water 22 right South San Joaquin Irrigation District may have? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Irrelevant. What water 24 right South San Joaquin Irrigation District has used to make 25 water available to the cities is not a subject of this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16285 1 change petition and is no way calculated to lead to the 2 discovery of admissible evidence. I object on relevance. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 4 MR. HERRICK: I think it certainly may get to relevance 5 since the districts, according to their testimony, have two 6 sets of rights. One is permitted rights for storage at 7 various reservoirs. One is a pre-1914 direct diversion 8 right. Each has various limitations. So, the source of 9 one way may affect or preclude the source of the water going 10 to something else. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Objection is overruled. 12 MR. MARTIN: Could you restate the question? 13 MR. HERRICK: What I am looking for is does the 14 district have a position on whether or not the source of 15 water for the project, which is the sale of water to cities, 16 does the district have a position on whether or not that is 17 water from their storage permits or from their diversion 18 rights? 19 MR. MARTIN: That is currently being reviewed by 20 separate counsel. Very likely there will be a request for a 21 petition to amend water rights before this Board for that 22 project. I believe that would probably be in the order of a 23 storage right that would be petitioned for amendment. 24 MR. HERRICK: The same question for the subject of this 25 petition, which is the source of the water for the VAMP CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16286 1 agreement, on the San Joaquin River Agreement. 2 MR. EMRICK: That question has been asked and answered, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Yes. 5 Mr. Herrick. 6 MR. HERRICK: By me? 7 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: By Mr. Nomellini. 8 MR. EMRICK: Sorry, John. You are being so nice, I 9 couldn't help myself. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. 11 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, what are the -- if you 12 recall, generally, what is the amount of storage South San 13 Joaquin holds in conjunction with Oakdale pursuant to its 14 licenses? 15 MR. MARTIN: I don't know the exact total for storage. 16 It would be the sum total of Melones, Tulloch, Beardsley, 17 Donnells. 18 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you reference there is 19 a table in the Draft EIR for this proceeding, and I assume 20 you agree with the numbers on that table? 21 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: The pre-1914 right held jointly with OID 23 also is for 1,816.6 cfs; is that correct? 24 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Generally speaking, does the flow of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16287 1 river, the Stanislaus River ever exceed that during the time 2 frame under the pre-1914 rights? 3 MR. EMRICK: I have to object to the question on the 4 basis of timing, also what he means by flow. Flow in 5 regards to a direct diversion is a term of art. It requires 6 you to read the adjudication in this case. I think he needs 7 to clarify the question, Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Please clarify, Mr. Herrick. 9 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, what is the time frame during 10 which OID and SSJID can divert 1,816.6 cfs from the flow of 11 the Stanislaus? 12 MR. MARTIN: I believe March through October. 13 MR. HERRCIK: And is there a point at which that flow 14 is measured from which the district can exercise that 15 right? 16 MR. KEHL: Goodwin Dam. 17 MR. HERRICK: Goodwin Dam? 18 MR. KEHL: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: March to October is approximately eight 20 months; is that correct, Mr. Martin? 21 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: If we do 1,816.6 times, make it two for 23 even sake, times 30 days a month, times 40. That would be 24 in excess of a thousand acre-feet being delivered to the 25 district by the Bureau; is that correct, if that amount is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16288 1 available? 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. We are mixing apples and 3 oranges. He is talking about a pre-1914 right of 1,816.6. 4 Now he's switched over to the Bureau's contractual right 5 under the 1988 stipulation of 600,000. So the question 6 doesn't follow and it misstates the testimony. 7 MR. HERRICK: I was comparing the two. I asked if the 8 eight months of potential diversion of that cfs amount 9 exceeded the 600,000 of the contract. I wasn't trying to 10 confuse; I was trying to compare. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That assumes facts not in evidence. 12 There is no determination whether or not the 1,816.6 cfs 13 will always be in the river or subject to appropriation for 14 direct diversion. 15 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: Why don't you break it down, first 16 get the acre-feet and go to the next part? 17 MR. HERRCIK: Mr. Martin, I am sorry for the 18 calculation here. If we multiply 1,816.6 times two, I come 19 up with 3,633.2. That would be acre-feet per day? Would 20 you agree with that? 21 MR. MARTIN: I don't have a calculator in front of me 22 like you do. 23 MR. HERRICK: I will give it to you. 24 MR. MARTIN: All right. 25 MR. HERRCIK: First, I want to measure -- to calculate CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16289 1 the 1.816.6 times, I will just use two instead of 1.98. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, while he is doing that 3 calculation, does this mean that before 1914 that they could 4 measure water to five significant digits? 5 MR. HERRICK: That will be the subject of rebuttal. 6 That is approximately 3,600 acre-feet per day; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: The time frame you said was from March to 10 October? 11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: That is eight months, including March and 13 October? 14 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: If we do 30 days per month times eight, 16 that is 240 days; is that correct? 17 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: What do you get when you multiple 240 19 days times 3,600 acre-feet per day? 20 MR. MARTIN: 864,000. 21 MR. HERRICK: That is separate from the amounts the two 22 districts have under their licenses for storage, correct? 23 MR. EMRICK: I object to the question on the basis that 24 the storage permits speak themselves as to the adjudication 25 of 1,816.6. In comparing the two, he asked Mr. Martin to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16290 1 make a determination as to whether or not they have a direct 2 diversion right, what the interrelationship of that is with 3 the storage rights. 4 That is a very difficult question to ask. I don't know 5 that he asked it very well, excuse me. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. 7 MR. HERRICK: Maybe this will take a while. 8 Mr. Martin, the conservation account that the two 9 districts are allowed to, I will say, keep under the 1988 10 agreement goes up to approximately 200,000 acre-feet; is 11 that correct? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 13 MR. HERRICK: That means that water not requested for 14 delivery by the two districts in any year can be kept in 15 that account? 16 MR. MARTIN: That is correct. The conservation account 17 is water that the districts haven't used and it becomes -- 18 goes into the conservation account, I believe, on the 1st of 19 October. 20 MR. HERRICK: If that account has 200,000 acre-feet in 21 it when the subsequent years come, there is no more capacity 22 to store conserved water; is that correct? 23 MR. MARTIN: That's correct. 24 MR. HERRICK: Is there any sort of calculation given or 25 consideration given for things like evaporation or is it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16291 1 just held at 200,000? 2 MR. MARTIN: 200,000. 3 MR. HERRICK: In the absence of the San Joaquin River 4 Agreement, what are the potential uses by South San Joaquin 5 Irrigation District for that conservation account water? 6 MR. MARTIN: It stays there unless there is an 7 extremely dry year, critically dry year, where the district 8 can, through its formula, draw on that conserved water for 9 use during the critically dry year. 10 MR. HERRICK: One of the potential uses is request for 11 delivery for the district to put to its normal uses; is that 12 correct? 13 MR. MARTIN: That's right; and that was in 14 consideration of the loss of storage at Tulloch and upstream 15 dams. 16 MR. HERRCIK: The 1988 agreement with the Bureau put 17 the limitation on -- put the limitation of 600,000 on the 18 total delivery to the two districts, is that correct, even 19 if they are using some of the conservation account? 20 MR. MARTIN: That's correct. 21 MR. HERRICK: Now, you may not have done the analysis. 22 I want to see if perhaps you have. Is it possible that -- 23 excuse me, I am sorry. 24 Another use you mentioned, I believe, earlier of the 25 water in the conservation account is potential sales; is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16292 1 that right? 2 MR. MARTIN: No. I think the question was whether or 3 not if the 11,000 acre-feet VAMP contribution was not used, 4 where would we use it. And I believe I stated that we would 5 use that in either a sale to Stockton East or perhaps some 6 other use or put it in the conservation account. 7 MR. HERRICK: I believe I was referring -- 8 MR. MARTIN: I did not -- I don't understand -- 9 understood the question previously to refer to us taking it 10 out of the conservation account. 11 MR. HERRICK: I thought from your testimony on Page 11 12 at the very bottom, it says "interwater sales." I thought 13 that you said in there that in 1994 the district sold 15,000 14 acre-feet to the Bureau? And I took it that that was from 15 the conservation account. Is that correct? 16 MR. MARTIN: That is not where we took the water. The 17 water was conserved water, water that we had conserved as a 18 result of these projects. And during that particular water 19 year we did make a sale to the Bureau. It did not come out 20 of the conservation account. 21 MR. HERRICK: So, there was no change in the accounting 22 for that conservation account for that sale; is that what 23 you are saying? 24 MR. MARTIN: Yes, that is right. 25 MR. HERRICK: On Page 3 of your testimony, you say: CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16293 1 Before the drought, SSJID -- (Reading.) 2 At the very bottom, the very last paragraph. 3 Before the drought which began in '87 SSJID 4 generally required 250,000 to 275,000 5 acre-feet of water during the irrigation 6 season. (Reading.) 7 Do you see where it says that? 8 MR. MARTIN: My testimony? I don't see that. 9 MR. HERRICK: I am sorry, Mr. Kehl, I am on Page 3. 10 MR. KEHL: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Kehl, I am on Page 3 of your 12 testimony. Before the drought, South San Joaquin Irrigation 13 District generally required between 250,000 to 275,000 14 acre-feet of water during each year; is that correct? 15 MR. KEHL: During each irrigation season. 16 MR. HERRICK: Does that mean anywhere between 50,000 17 and 25,000 was going into the conservation account if space 18 was available in that account? 19 MR. KEHL: No. We didn't have a conservation account 20 at that time. 21 MR. HERRICK: What was done with the additional portion 22 of your 3,000 acre-foot allotment during that time? 23 MR. EMRICK: I would have to object to the question, 24 generally, on the grounds that this is 1987, and the 1988 25 agreement was signed in 1988. So, there is a fact not in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16294 1 evidence that we have to correct. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 3 MR. HERRICK: Maybe it is Monday and I am not catching 4 things. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It is Monday. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mundane or Monday? 7 MR. HERRICK: Monday. I don't think it is fact not in 8 evidence if the witness just said that the agreement wasn't 9 in existence, so, therefore, there wasn't a conservation 10 account. So I asked him what happened to water then. I 11 don't understand what is not in evidence. 12 MR. EMRICK: What is in evidence, if I can respond to 13 that, is the 300,000. The 300,000 is a figure that comes 14 from the 1988 agreement. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. 16 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Kehl, before 1988 the deliveries to 17 the two districts was 654,000 acre-feet per year; is that 18 correct? 19 MR. KEHL: Well, after 1972 that was correct. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: The mike, again, Mr. Kehl. 21 MR. KEHL: After the Bureau got involved, the 1972 22 agreement limited us to 654,000 acre-feet. 23 MR. HERRICK: Between 1972 and 1987 what happened to 24 the water -- the difference between the amount that the 25 districts used, which you have referred to as 250- to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16295 1 275,000 acre-feet and South San Joaquin's allocation under 2 the 654,000 amount? 3 MR. KEHL: It would have gone into storage at New 4 Melones. 5 MR. HERRICK: It became part of Bureau's carryover 6 storage? 7 MR. KEHL: Or operational use. I am not sure how they 8 decided to use it. 9 MR. HERRICK: It wasn't available for use by the 10 districts? 11 MR. KEHL: After the end of the water season it is not 12 available for our use or water year. 13 MR. HERRICK: In your testimony you reference there is 14 a problem in the southwestern portion of the district where 15 there is previously mentioned perched groundwater, correct? 16 MR. KEHL: That is correct. 17 MR. HERRICK: Could you describe generally the location 18 of that, more specifically? 19 MR. KEHL: West of Austin Road and south of 120 Bypass. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is that area -- is any of the area with 21 the perched groundwater contiguous with the Stanislaus River 22 or San Joaquin River? 23 MR. KEHL: Is hard to say. There is some areas to the 24 south of us and west of us not within the district 25 boundaries, and it might come close, but I don't know if it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16296 1 is actually continguous. 2 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, are there any discharge, 3 surface discharge facilities of the district that go 4 directly to the Stanislaus River? 5 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 6 MR. HERRCIK: Do those facilities discharge -- do they 7 discharge during the irrigation season into the Stanislaus 8 River? 9 MR. MARTIN: Some of them do. 10 MR. HERRICK: Does the district pick that up later, 11 farther down Stanislaus? 12 MR. MARTIN: Our diversion rights are at Goodwin Dam. 13 So that any water that comes in stays there. 14 MR. HERRICK: Those questions dealt with the district's 15 facilities. Do any of the individual users of district 16 water discharge surface waters into the Stanislaus River? 17 MR. MARTIN: They may but I don't know of any. 18 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not any have or 19 any of those individual users of district water cause 20 accretions, subsurface accretions, to the river, the 21 Stanislaus River, after they applied their water? 22 MR. MARTIN: No. 23 MR. HERRICK: I'd ask you the same questions with 24 regard to the San Joaquin River. Does the district have any 25 surface facilities that discharge into the San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16297 1 River? 2 MR. MARTIN: I believe we have one. 3 MR. HERRICK: In a year like, say, this year as an 4 example, would the district be discharging into the San 5 Joaquin River through that facility? 6 MR. MARTIN: There would be -- it is very difficult to 7 say how much. There is a certain amount of spill water, 8 but understand that is a drain in a perched water table 9 area. So consequently it is draining groundwater, the 10 perched groundwater table Mr. Kehl mentioned is draining 11 that away also. It is a combination of things that are 12 happening there. But to some extent there are certain 13 operational spills that would occur and do occur. 14 MR. HERRICK: Do you know if any of the users of 15 district water have surface facilities that discharge into 16 the San Joaquin River? 17 MR. MARTIN: I am not aware of any. 18 MR. HERRICK: Do any of you know whether or not any of 19 the users of district water cause subsurface accretions to 20 the San Joaquin River? 21 MR. MARTIN: No, I do not. 22 MR. HERRCIK: I just wanted to finish that line of 23 questioning. Let me go back to what you said about draining 24 the perched groundwater. 25 Do you know if any applications of water are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16298 1 maintaining that perched groundwater or is it decreasing or 2 where is -- what is the source of that perched groundwater? 3 MR. MARTIN: It is from irrigation and rainfall that is 4 accumulating. 5 MR. HERRICK: When you say "irrigation," irrigation 6 within the district's boundaries? 7 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: Let me ask you this, Mr. Martin, even 9 though it was in Mr. Kehl's testimony. I want to get the 10 current information. 11 Can you give us an average, annual amount that the 12 district would request and delivered to it from the Bureau? 13 MR. MARTIN: We ask that they deliver 300,000 acre-feet 14 in a normal, depending on the formula what the allocation 15 is. 16 MR. HERRCIK: Maybe I am confused. 17 MR. MARTIN: That depends on the hydraulic year. 18 MR. HERRICK: It was my understanding the district 19 used, I will say applied, less than that, and so it didn't 20 always request three 300,000; sometimes it left part of the 21 300,000 in the conservation account. 22 Am I misunderstanding? 23 MR. MARTIN: That water is allocated to South San 24 Joaquin and OID for the formula water. Then, if we do not 25 use it or have other purposes for it, then that is put in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16299 1 the conservation account on the 1st of October. So that 2 water is not requested; it is allocated per the '88 3 stipulation. 4 MR. HERRICK: Maybe I misspoke. I was trying to get an 5 average, annual amount requested for actual delivery. So it 6 is diverted downstream by the district. 7 Do you have a number to put on that? 8 MR. MARTIN: I believe the -- well, it depends, again, 9 on the water year. We call out the deliveries during the 10 course of the year and run totals on it. We don't 11 necessarily try to project for the entire irrigation season. 12 The beginning of the year we don't say, "We need this amount 13 of water." We order by the day, by the hour in Oakdale's 14 case and ours by the day. We allocate and bring that water 15 down. 16 So while there is a running total, we are not 17 projecting to see what the total will be. 18 MR. HERRICK: How, then, do you provide for a VAMP flow 19 if you are not sure if you will use all of the 300- in that 20 year? 21 MR. MARTIN: Well, through the conservation efforts 22 that we have developed that Mr. Kehl has alluded to and has 23 discussed, that water is water that previously was 24 unregulated and now is being regulated and controlled. It 25 is that water that we would put to VAMP, use for VAMP. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16300 1 MR. HERRICK: Is the VAMP water water that is captured 2 after it's been applied or is it water that would be in the 3 conservation account because you didn't need to apply as 4 much water? 5 MR. MARTIN: It's water that we have conserved through 6 use of the projects that we have undertaken. So we have 7 been able to manage that water and utilize it for that 8 purpose and allocate it for that purpose. 9 MR. HERRICK: My question is: Is that conserved water 10 somewhere else downstream of New Melones or have your 11 conservation efforts allowed you to, I will say, keep water 12 in New Melones? 13 MR. MARTIN: It stays in New Melones until we call for 14 it, yes. 15 MR. HERRICK: Again, I understand hydrologic conditions 16 change. I am looking for that average amount of delivered 17 water to the district so we can then examine the average 18 amount that might be kept in the conservation account. 19 MR. MARTIN: I think the numbers on the diversion -- I 20 believe it is one of the exhibits. Let me refer to that, 21 105C. That particular exhibit shows the main canal 22 deliveries in the Woodward Reservoir. 23 MR. HERRICK: That is just for South San Joaquin? 24 MR. MARTIN: Right. 25 MR. HERRICK: So, according to or going off of San CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16301 1 Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 105C, am I correct, 2 would I not be, to look at the third column to see what 3 those deliveries would be; is that correct? 4 MR. MARTIN: That is correct. 5 MR. HERRICK: Just running my finger down there, I have 6 1971 there being a little over 300,000 acre-feet 1975 over 7 300,000, 1983 over 300,000. And the rest of them are less 8 than 300,000; is that correct? 9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Do you recall if those years are 11 classified as dry and that is why you are taking that larger 12 allocation, or do you not know? 13 MR. MARTIN: I don't know. 14 MR. HERRICK: According to this chart, we would 15 anticipate that the actual water delivered to South San 16 Joaquin in any particular year is generally less than the 17 300,000 acre-feet? 18 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Although there may be water sales 19 and so forth that we have done during those years. 20 MR. EMRICK: He is asking you about deliveries in the 21 district for irrigation. 22 MR. HERRICK: Exhibit 104E is the 1989 document 23 entitled "Water Conservation Information Report." Should I 24 address these questions to you, Mr. Kehl? Would you be more 25 familiar with that document? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16302 1 MR. KEHL: Possibly, yes. 2 MR. HERRICK: Since 1989 has the district initiated or 3 completed any activities or projects that substantially 4 change the information in this document? 5 MR. KEHL: Well, I am not familiar with what 6 information you may be talking about substantially changed. 7 MR. HERRICK: If you could turn to Page 3.23. 8 MR. KEHL: I don't have that page. 9 MR. HERRICK: A couple of pages before that the 10 subchapter is called System Losses. 11 Do you see that? 12 MR. KEHL: Correct. 13 MR. HERRICK: Back to the Page 3.23, I am reading from 14 the middle of that middle paragraph. It says: 15 On the positive side of the ledger the water 16 that seeps into the ground aquifer from the 17 district is a major contributor to many uses 18 both within and outside the district. 19 (Reading.) 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. KEHL: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that was the case at 23 the time of this report? 24 MR. KEHL: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: Is that the case now? Do you know? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16303 1 MR. KEHL: Yes. 2 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, would you disagree with that 3 at all? 4 MR. MARTIN: No, I would not disagree with that. 5 MR. HERRICK: On Page 3.24, Mr. Kehl, just above the 6 next section or subdivision, the paragraph starts with 7 "tailwater runoff." 8 Do you see that? 9 MR. KEHL: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: The last sentence of that paragraph says: 11 Some current reuse of this water is being 12 made within the district. Of the estimated 13 20,000 to 45,000 acre-feet of surface runoff 14 from the district's irrigation activities 15 perhaps 5,000 acre-feet is attributable to 16 tailwater runoff. (Reading.) 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. KEHL: Yes. 19 MR. HERRICK: Do you believe that is still the case 20 now? 21 MR. KEHL: I don't believe so. When we estimated the 22 runoff, surface runoff, we were assuming that water was 23 reaching our drains. And our distribution booklet that the 24 district maintains, and I think has been in place since 25 1909, has stiff penalties for water runoff. Then I had CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16304 1 farmers on the lower end of the district that were 2 complaining because they weren't getting their water on 3 time, and they were getting infrequent heads, fluctuating 4 head, and yet they never complained of the drains being full 5 at that time. They just complained that they weren't having 6 head, delivery heads. That's what makes me think that the 7 operation spills are incorrect. Since then I have found out 8 what our ditch tenders were doing to the water. 9 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Martin, as the current General 10 Manager, do you have any study or information to indicate 11 what, if any, tailwater is coming out of the district? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. We have done some measurement of 13 that. By tailwater I guess what you are talking about is 14 spills and that sort of thing? 15 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I was talking about the surface 16 runoff out of the district. 17 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: What is that current number, if you 19 know? 20 MR. MARTIN: I believe it is in the -- there was some 21 of that identified in one of our exhibits, 105K, the water 22 transfer, Draft EIR. We have as part of our over 50 SCADA 23 sites we did install some at the drains, and they have been 24 operational to some extent for the last year, year and a 25 half. We do attempt to try to and measure how water is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16305 1 leaving the district by various drains. There are some that 2 are not monitored, at this point we haven't gotten around to 3 putting those sites in. We do have some numbers. I believe 4 it is in the 3-6 of that exhibit. 5 MR. HERRICK: Could you say that exhibit number for the 6 record again, please. 7 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I did say 105K. At the top of Page 8 3.6 and we have been monitoring the drains going into the 9 flows into the Stanislaus River and they were about 3,000 to 10 3,900 acre-feet annually. 11 MR. HERRICK: Do you have a number for any subsurface 12 accretions to either the Stanislaus or San Joaquin River, if 13 those may occur? 14 MR. MARTIN: No, we do not. What is of interest along 15 that regards since this conservation report was done and 16 now, is that the contours, I believe, of the groundwater 17 have indicated that some water was flowing from the district 18 towards the Stanislaus River. If you look at groundwater 19 contours produced by the county now, you will see that that 20 does not exist. That water is flowing away from the river. 21 So, if I believe the contour maps, I would have to tell you 22 that groundwater may not be entering the Stanislaus River as 23 it once did back 10 or 15 years ago due to the overdrafting 24 to the north. 25 MR. HERRICK: That change in the gradient of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16306 1 groundwater, I will say, is fairly recent; in other words, 2 you believe that change has occurred in the last 10 to 15 3 years, I believe you said? 4 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 5 MR. HERRICK: If any groundwater that follows those 6 newly identify gradients, that is going towards that same 7 groundwater basins that has been referred to earlier under 8 the eastern part of San Joaquin County? 9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 10 MR. HERRICK: Other interests or users continue to pump 11 that water, is that correct, out of the basin? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. They do ours, too. 13 MR. HERRICK: Now the only other category I didn't 14 cover was do you have any idea of any surface water that 15 drains from individual users not through district facilities 16 into the Stanislaus or San Joaquin River? Again, a 17 quantity. 18 MR. MARTIN: I don't. 19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. 20 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: It's answered. 21 MR. HERRICK: Many of these have been answered, Mr. 22 Chairman, so if you will bear with me for a moment. We are 23 close to being done. 24 I guess this is for both of you. I don't want to limit 25 too much here. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16307 1 On Page 7.10 of Exhibit 104E, the 1989 report. 2 MR. MARTIN: What page? 3 MR. HERRICK: 7.10. At the bottom there is a one and 4 two, and I am looking at number one. Says: 5 There is significant groundwater flow from 6 the district to this area. Preliminary 7 estimates put this flow in the order of a 8 hundred thousand acre-feet annually. 9 (Reading.) 10 Would it be correct to say that there continues to be 11 approximately 100,000 acre-feet of groundwater flow from the 12 district towards the groundwater basin in San Joaquin, 13 eastern San Joaquin County? 14 MR. MARTIN: I believe that number was looked at in 15 more detail in another exhibit which was the groundwater 16 management plan in 1964, Exhibit 105B. 17 MR. EMRICK: You said '64. Do you mean '84? 18 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 19 That particular groundwater management plan did 20 quantify that number to some extent. As Barry had shown on 21 the overhead, there was -- I think it showed somewhere 22 around 75,000 or so. That number, I believe, in the 23 groundwater management plan shows that number to be around 24 50,000 acre-feet or so. 25 MR. HERRCIK: Almost, finally, on Page 8.4 of that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16308 1 document -- 2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Identify the document, please. 3 MR. HERRICK: On Page 8.4 of SJRGA 104E, the document's 4 looking at where the water goes, different places. The 5 middle paragraph on that page says, "flows to unusable 6 bodies." And the last sentence says: 7 None of these flows, however, are currently 8 moving into unusable water bodies. 9 (Reading.) 10 The second to last sentence says that. Is that your 11 understanding today, also? 12 MR. MARTIN: There is some -- you know, there is no way 13 to put a quantity on this, but there is no doubt because of 14 the saltwater intrusion that is occurring by the Lathrop 15 area and that general area, it does show that there are some 16 flows there, and I am sure there is some intermixing with 17 that. Exactly how much, you know, that I wouldn't put an 18 estimate on it. But there is some of that. Of course, the 19 perched groundwater table there is some things there too. 20 MR. HERRICK: Is it correct to say that the perched 21 groundwater table is generally usable water? 22 MR. MARTIN: It is to the extent that -- perhaps from a 23 quality standpoint. I don't know. But when you look at it 24 from a farming standpoint, it is a nuance and it impedes 25 crop growth. And, you know, we have pumps in that area to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16309 1 get rid of that and drains and so forth, to help get rid of 2 that. So it is -- may very well been usable, but certainly 3 not to the farmer that is out there. 4 MR. HERRICK: Lastly, Mr. Martin, is South San Joaquin 5 Irrigation District anticipating decreasing its consumptive 6 use of water in order to supply the San Joaquin River 7 Agreement flows? 8 MR. EMRICK: Before you answer that question, I object 9 to the question on the grounds of it's vague, ambiguous and 10 it's uncertain as to timing. 11 Does he mean today? Next year? Critically dry year? 12 Wet year? It does make a reference in how he responds to 13 the question. I am not sure how the questioner wants him to 14 respond. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Do you understand the question? I 16 think I understood the question. If you don't know, have 17 him restate it, but the subject is appropriate for 18 examination. 19 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I think we can respond to that. We 20 don't anticipate making changes to our usage within the 21 district on the average. There are, of course, critically 22 dry years where we would rely on cutbacks, perhaps 23 groundwater pumping, in order to pick up supplies for that. 24 But, you know, our usage, as we have laid out, is for 25 consumptive purposes and in line with our allocation CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16310 1 approaches, what our allocation per the '88 agreement for 2 the water treatment plant, Stockton East transfers and the 3 underflows, plus our ag needs, pretty well summarizes the 4 full allocation of water. We don't anticipate a change in 5 that. 6 MR. HERRICK: Has the district examined the 7 possibilities that in some sort of drought year its regular 8 allocation, its yearly allocation from the Bureau, plus any 9 water that is available from the conservation account will 10 be needed, all of that will be needed, to meet its district 11 needs in that year? 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. As I have indicated, that the 13 district's needs are greater than the amount that we use for 14 agriculture because there are unmet needs with the cities 15 and the groundwater, depletions to the north, the sale to 16 Stockton East. 17 We do anticipate using groundwater. We can use part of 18 that conservation account under the terms of the agreement 19 and in certain years depending and we would intend to do 20 those things. 21 MR. HERRICK: Thank you very much. I have no further 22 questions. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Staff have any questions of this panel? 24 MR. HOWARD: None. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16311 1 C.O. BROWN: No. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: That concludes cross-examination. 3 Do you have any redirect? 4 MR. EMRICK: I have no redirect. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you for your participation, 6 gentlemen. 7 I believe next is case in chief of Oakdale Irrigation 8 District. 9 Mr. O'Laughlin. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have a witness unavailability 11 problem. They will be here first thing tomorrow morning. 12 We will be ready to go. Our presentation is very short, 13 Chairman. 14 Are we going to address -- since we have a couple 15 minutes, can we address the question of rebuttal testimony 16 since there is only one party left to go? Can we discuss 17 who is thinking about doing rebuttal and some order on 18 rebuttal? Because, basically, with a three-day weekend and 19 scheduling a hearing on the 6th, we are going to have less 20 than a week to prepare for rebuttal testimony that are due 21 on the sixth. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: How many -- off the record just a 23 minute. 24 (Discussion held off the record.) 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Back on the record. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16312 1 How many of the parties present intend to put on 2 rebuttal testimony? 3 Mr. Herrick, Stockton East and the San Joaquin -- 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The San Joaquin River Group Authority 5 may. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just three: South Delta and Stockton 7 East. 8 Mr. O'Laughlin, with regard to your account that this 9 is a three-day weekend, you have the rest of this week. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right on. I like that. 11 I would expect to get to that point, exactly. That is 12 the reason I brought it up. The Oakdale testimony tomorrow 13 is going to be extremely short. The direct examination will 14 probably be no more than 15 minutes. Based on the 15 cross-examination of the South San Joaquin Irrigation 16 District and considering that we have joint rights, I would 17 expect that that testimony would finish up, 18 cross-examination. So we could actually start rebuttal 19 tomorrow, if the Chair so desires. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: I thought you were just saying there 21 wasn't enough time to prepare the rebuttal. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, for those parties who are ready 23 to go forward, they should be ready to go forward by 24 tomorrow. 25 MR. HERRICK: Feel we are being maneuvered. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16313 1 CHAIRMAN STUBCHAER: From those parties who intend to 2 put on rebuttal testimony, how many would be ready to start 3 rebuttal tomorrow? 4 We will start -- we schedule all the rebuttal to start 5 on July 6th, first thing in the morning. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can we have order, then, because there 7 is three parties that have it and knowing who is going to go 8 first or not. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just a minute. We have too many 10 people talking at once. 11 What was the comment from back there? 12 MR. HERRICK: I believe the order of rebuttal cases has 13 followed the order of direct in the past. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: I believe that is correct, Mr. 15 Herrick. 16 Mr. O'Laughlin. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That is not true. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Asked and answered. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: During Phase II, we drew cards for 20 rebuttal to see who would go. Because, actually some of the 21 parties went toward the back. So, I thought it was -- we 22 are going to draw. 23 MS. LEIDIGH: You might have, but we didn't. 24 MR. HERRICK: The only change in that order was in 25 consideration of San Joaquin River Group Authority's request. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16314 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: It has been my understanding we 2 follow the order of the case in chief, and that would be San 3 Joaquin River Group Authority first, followed by Stockton 4 East and then South Delta. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, that was San Joaquin River Group 6 Authority then -- 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Stockton East. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And then? 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: South Delta. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I think it would be fair to let the 11 Chair know, and the parties, that I will be talking to the 12 other parties and will advise the Board and the other 13 parties by a letter. But they should be ready to go forward 14 on that day because we may not have testimony that day. And 15 I don't know if Stockton East will have testimony either. 16 If it is rebuttal testimony, we will have it on the 6th and 17 probably be done. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: It is scheduled for the -- calendared 19 for the 6th, and I am not going to issue any threats. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It is not a threat. I am just going 21 to let the other parties know. I will send out a letter 22 advising them. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Followed on the 7th and followed by 24 the 8th, if necessary. We may not need it. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16315 1 Anything else? 2 We are adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. 3 (Hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m.) 4 ---oOo--- 5