STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999 9:00 A.M. Reported by: MARY GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES ---oOo--- 2 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 JAMES STUBCHAER, CO-HEARING OFFICER JOHN W. BROWN, CO-HEARING OFFICER 5 MARY JANE FORSTER 6 STAFF MEMBERS: 7 THOMAS HOWARD - Supervising Engineer 8 VICTORIA A. WHITNEY - Senior Engineer 9 DAVID G. CORNELIUS - Senior Water Resources Control Engineer 10 JIM CANADAY - Environmental Specialist 11 COUNSEL: 12 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER - Chief Counsel 13 WALTER PETTIT - Executive Director BARBARA LEIDIGH - Senior Staff Counsel 14 15 ---oOo--- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16319 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 3 FROST, KRUP & ATLAS 4 134 West Sycamore STreet Willows, California 95988 5 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 6 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER, III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 11 P.O. Box 357 Quincy, California 95971 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 14 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 17 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. JOHN RUBIN, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GRAY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16320 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 4 2480 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 7 2800 Cottage Way, Roon E1712 Sacramento, California 95825 8 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 10 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 13 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 19 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 20 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 23 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 24 Visalia, California 93191 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16321 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 4 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 7 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 8 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 10 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 11 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 14 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 17 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 18 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 19 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 21 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 24 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California 90075 25 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16322 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 5 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 6 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 8 Sacramento, California 95814 9 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 10 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 11 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFIN, MASUDA & GODWIN 14 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 15 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 17 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 18 Sacramento, California 95814 19 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 Oakland, California 94618 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16323 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE 4 P.O. Box 846 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 7 P.O. Box 1019 Madera, California 93639 8 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 10 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 2300 River Plaza Drive 11 Sacramento, California 95833 12 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 13 MORRISON & FORESTER 755 Page Mill Road 14 Palo Alto, California 94303 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 17 P.O. Box 777 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 20 926 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 23 P.O. Box 427 Durham, California 95938 24 BY: DON HEFFREN 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16324 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 4 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 7 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 10 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY 13 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 17 BY: BILL KETSCHER 18 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 20 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 23 P.O. Box 606 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16325 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 4 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 7 1201 Civic Center Drive Yuba City, California 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGTAION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKIEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 10 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95816 11 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 14 Walnut Creek, California 94596 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 17 22759 South Mercey Springs Road Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 20 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 Merced, California 95344 21 BY: MIICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 22 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 23 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16326 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 3728 Sonora, California 95730 5 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 6 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER. 11 1550 California Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 15 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 16 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 17 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 18 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 21 501 Walker Street Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 24 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16327 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 4 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 7 P.O. Box 1461 Stockton, California 95201 8 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. and 9 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 10 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 11 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 1100 Whitney Avenue 12 Corcoran, California 93212 13 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 14 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 18 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B Chico, California 95926 19 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 20 SIERRA CLUB: 21 JENNA OLSEN 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 24 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 25 Woodland, California 95695 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16328 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGENS & ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGENS 4 P.O. Box 60940 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 P.O. Box 156 Dos Palos, California 93620 8 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 9 BETSY REIFSNIDER 10 128 J Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 11 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 13 P.O. Box 2067 Merced, California 95344 14 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 15 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 16 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 17 Stockton, California 95202 18 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 19 JAMES F. ROBERTS P.O. Box 54153 20 Los Angeles, California 90054 21 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 22 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 23 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16329 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 4 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94194 5 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 7 DAVID A. SANDINO, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Captiol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16330 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 95965 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 16331 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHEMA 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 COUTNY OF TEHEMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHEMA 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, California 93704 BY: CHRISTOPHER L. CAMPBELL, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16332 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT: 3 LINNEMAN, BURGES, TELLES, VAN ATTA 1820 Marguerite Street 4 Dos Palos, California 93620 BY: THOMAS J. KEENE, ESQ. 5 6 ---oOo--- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16333 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 16335 6 END OF PROCEEDINGS 16376 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 8 PANEL: 16336 9 SALLY DAVIS 10 BARRETT KEHL 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 MR. NOMELLINI 16342 MR. HERRICK 16353 13 14 ---oOo--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16334 1 TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999 9:00 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning. We will resume the 5 Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing. 6 Good morning, Mr. O'Laughlin. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good morning, Chairman. Before we 8 get started today I wanted to address a procedural issue, 9 if I may. We had a conference of the San Joaquin River 10 Group Authority attorneys last night to discuss a rebuttal 11 case. And this is to inform the Board and the parties 12 that we will not be putting on a rebuttal case for Phase 13 II-B. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Today on behalf of Oakdale 16 Irrigation District we have brought Mr. Barry Kehl back 17 for testimony. Mr. Kehl was formally the general manager 18 of Oakdale Irrigation District. Also we have brought from 19 our engineering department Sally Davis to testify. 20 You will notice in the presentation of our 21 written material to the State Board, we focused 22 specifically on hearing issue number seven. We believe 23 the other issues have been addressed adequately through 24 the other testimony submitted by the San Joaquin River 25 Group Authority. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16335 1 So I think what we need to do right now, I 2 believe Ms. Davis has not been sworn in, so we need to 3 have her sworn in and then we can commence with our 4 testimony. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please, stand. Raise your right 6 hand. Do you promise to tell the truth in this 7 proceeding? 8 MS. DAVIS: Yes, I do. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. You may be seated. 10 ---oOo--- 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12 TESTIMONY OF SALLY DAVIS AND BARRETT KEHL 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Kehl, an exhibit has been 14 marked San Joaquin River Group Authority 106, testimony of 15 Barry E. Kehl on behalf of Oakdale Irrigation District. 16 Is that a true and correct copy of your 17 testimony? 18 MR. KEHL: Yes, it is. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And you signed that document; is 20 that correct? 21 MR. KEHL: Yes, it is. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And you prepared that document; is 23 that correct? 24 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And also attached is San Joaquin CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16336 1 River Group Authority 106-A which is a resume of 2 Barry E. Kehl. Is that a true and correct copy of your 3 resume, Mr. Kehl? 4 MR. KEHL: Yes, it is. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you briefly summarize for the 6 Board your testimony on behalf of Oakdale Irrigation 7 District? 8 MR. KEHL: Yes. As general manager for the Oakdale 9 Irrigation District I was responsible for initiating, 10 proposing and finishing two of the following projects. 11 The first is the Oakdale Irrigation District Integrated 12 Water Resources Management Plan, dated May 1995, completed 13 by Montgomery Watson. And that study has been attached as 14 Exhibit 106-B of my testimony. 15 The second project was the Oakdale Irrigation 16 District Groundwater Management Plan. And a copy of the 17 Groundwater Management Plan is attached as SJRGA 106-C to 18 my testimony. The Oakdale Board of Directors adopted the 19 Groundwater Management Plan on November 21, 1995. And a 20 copy of the resolution adopting the Groundwater Management 21 Plan is attached as Exhibit D to my testimony. 22 In addition, I participated in the negotiation of 23 the contract which Stockton East Water District. And that 24 contract has been attached as Exhibit 105-J to my 25 testimony -- excuse me, San Joaquin River Group Authority CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16337 1 Exhibit 105-J. 2 The Irrigation District entered into the water 3 supply agreement with Stockton East to receive money to 4 implement the 1995 Integrated Water Resources Management 5 Plan. The contract was a win win for Stockton East and 6 for the Oakdale Irrigation District. Oakdale Irrigation 7 District saved money to repair, replace, maintain and 8 enhance its irrigation systems and operations to better 9 service landowners. Stockton East received water. 10 Since I left the district, I believe that it has 11 continued to implement the 1995 Plan. And Ms. Sally Davis 12 will discuss these projects. Based on my understanding of 13 the 1995 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan and 14 the 1995 Groundwater Management Water Plan and current 15 district policies, rules and regulations, it is my belief 16 that Oakdale Irrigation District will use a wide variety 17 of actions to make the San Joaquin River Agreement water 18 available. 19 The actions taken will depend on hydrology, 20 climatology, cropping, construction, revenue, et cetera, 21 which we evaluated on a year-to-year basis. These actions 22 we take in keeping the District's goals in mind in meeting 23 landowners with a long-term supply of groundwater. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Kehl. 25 Ms. Davis, attached as San Joaquin River Group CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16338 1 Authority 113 is the testimony of Sally Davis on behalf of 2 Oakdale Irrigation District. 3 Is that your testimony, Ms. Davis? 4 MS. DAVIS: Yes, it is. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Also, attached is San Joaquin River 6 Group Authority 113-A which is the resume of Sally Davis. 7 Is that a true and correct copy of your resume? 8 MS. DAVIS: Yes, it is. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Finally, attached as San Joaquin 10 River Group Authority 113-B, Projects Presently Pending 11 on the Integrated Groundwater/Surface Water Management 12 Plan. 13 Did you prepare that exhibit, Ms. Davis? 14 MS. DAVIS: Yes, I did. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Could you briefly summarize for the 16 Board your testimony? 17 MS. DAVIS: Yes. My name is Sally Davis and I work 18 for the Oakdale Irrigation District as an engineering 19 technician. My responsibilities include the District's 20 SCADA system, seek and review parcel maps and subdivision 21 maps, system improvement and evaluations and water 22 measurements. 23 In May of 1995 the Oakdale Irrigation District 24 adopted an Integrated Water Resources Management Plan. 25 The Integrated Water Resources Management Plan was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16339 1 prepared by Montgomery Watson under the direction of 2 Mr. Barrett Kehl. 3 The basic elements of the plan include, one, 4 implement distribution system improvements to improve 5 system operations and increase delivery flexibility in 6 terms of frequency, rate and durations of individual water 7 deliveries; two, develop and adopt an appropriate 8 groundwater management plan; three, intimate water 9 transfers and/or aggregations of additional lands; four 10 increase groundwater capacity south of the Stanislaus 11 River to maximize production and plan for dry years; five, 12 continue and expand cost-effective wastewater Reclamation 13 Programs; and six, develop and adopt appropriate 14 restrictions on water surface parcels resulting from the 15 subdivision of lands to parcels of five acres or less. 16 To date the District has implemented many of the 17 elements of the Integrated Water Resources Management 18 Plan. Distribution system improvements done to date 19 include: Lining canals in areas that have been 20 identified with significant water loss, installing a 21 supervisory control and data acquisition system, to 22 improve communications between ditch tenders to conserve 23 water, pipe lining sections of canals, construction of 24 long-crested weirs, the construction and repair of water 25 measurement structures and rehabilitating the clearable CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16340 1 lateral, alone, at the cost of 1.6 million dollars. 2 Distribution system improvements currently in 3 progress include two regulating reservoirs and revamping 4 the current SCADA system to add additional realtime water 5 measurement sites. 6 In this year the District plans to identify 7 potential sites for deep wells south of the Stanislaus 8 River to maximize production and prepare for water-short 9 years. 10 The District has also implemented other elements 11 of the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan by 12 adopting a Groundwater Management Plan. As a further 13 plan, the District collects ensured data with members of 14 the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Basin 15 Association. 16 That means four times a year to share technical 17 data and discuss the management of the groundwater basin 18 in accordance with AB 3030. The District has -- also has 19 an ongoing program to evaluate its wastewater Reclamation 20 Program by conducting efficiency tests on Reclamation 21 pumps and rebuilding or replacing pumps identified as 22 inefficient before the next irrigation season. 23 And, lastly, the District actively seeks water 24 transfers as a source of revenue for improvements and 25 repairs to the District's aging distribution systems. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16341 1 We actually haven't quantified the amount of water 2 conserved from our improvements. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And that concludes the testimony of 4 Mr. Kehl and Ms. Davis. They're prepared for 5 cross-examination based on the oral presentation and 6 documentation that was previously submitted to the State 7 Board. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Who wishes to cross-examine 9 this Board? Mr. Nomellini and Mr. Herrick. Anyone else? 10 Do you have a choice as to who goes first? 11 MR. HERRICK: I don't. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: I'll go first. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay, Mr. Nomellini. 14 ---oOo--- 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 BY CENTRAL SOUTH DELTA PARTIES 17 BY MR. NOMELLINI 18 MR. NOMELLINI: This is a concession to 19 Mr. Birmingham. He wanted no cross, but we will just make 20 it short, go halfway. Dante John Nomellini for the 21 Central South Delta Parties. 22 This is to the panel: Do you know what the 23 specific source of the water is that is going to provide 24 the Oakdale Irrigation District's share of the San Joaquin 25 River Agreement flows? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16342 1 MS. DAVIS: Yes. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You have to respond into the mic. 4 Don't talk to him. 5 MS. DAVIS: Yes, we're going to conserve water. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. You're going to conserve 7 water? 8 MS. DAVIS: Yes. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: And what specific actions are going 10 to be taken to conserve water? 11 MS. DAVIS: We can conserve water by the items 12 listed above in our -- as I talked about through water 13 measurement -- active water measurement and pipe lining of 14 the canals and lining of the areas identified with 15 excessive leakage. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Do you expect there to 17 be any reduction in consumptive use of water within the 18 Oakdale Irrigation District? 19 MS. DAVIS: We expect some due to urbanization and 20 the provision of lands, but it probably won't be that 21 significant. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. So that in terms of reduction 23 in consumptive use, when land is urbanized, is it your 24 testimony that it will no longer be served by Oakdale? 25 MS. DAVIS: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16343 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You've got to speak up. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Pull the mic closer. 3 MR. KEHL: It kind of depends on what kind of 4 subdivision it is. Some smaller subdivisions don't 5 receive water. And if they are willing to put 6 improvements in, they will receive water, but all in all 7 it is mostly groundwater or city water. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Do you expect, Mr. Kehl, a 9 reduction in consumptive use within Oakdale Irrigation 10 District to provide the water under the San Joaquin River 11 Agreement? 12 MR. KEHL: We're not looking at that as to make up 13 the water. It's going to be that minor we feel. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So basically it's more efficient 15 utilization of your surface water -- 16 MR. KEHL: And develop -- 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: One at a time, please. 18 MR. KEHL: Caught myself. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: It's your testimony that it would be 20 more efficient utilization of the surface water by 21 Oakdale? 22 MR. KEHL: And development of the conjuntive use 23 operations could potentially that we have in the area. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. With regard to 25 conjunctive use operation, what additional development do CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16344 1 you contemplate there? 2 MR. KEHL: It is pointed out in exhibit SJRGA 3 Exhibit 106-B, that's the Integrated Water Resources 4 Management Plan. And as attachments to that plan are 5 several memorandums. In about the third one in -- give me 6 a second here to find it. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Take your time. 8 MR. KEHL: Memorandum dated May 8th, 1995. And it's 9 the subject, "Conjunctive Use Plan." And, basically, 10 it -- over on Page 2, about the second to the last page 11 they figure something on the order of 30,000 acre-feet 12 could -- consumptively could be pumped to current pump 13 volumes without adversely impacting the existing 14 groundwater users. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Is that -- is there a plan to 16 bring more water into that area during the flood flow 17 period to store that in the underground and then take it 18 out? 19 MR. KEHL: No. At the time this was done the 20 Modesto groundwater basin was determined to be imbalance 21 by about 2,000 acre-feet out of balance, which given all 22 the huge numbers that go in and out, it's basically my 23 interpretation of being in balance. 24 At the same time the City of Modesto was looking 25 at developing and has developed a water treatment plant. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16345 1 And so they're going off of groundwater water. It was 2 freeing up of that water that makes it additional water 3 that would be available to OID. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. So it wouldn't be 5 developing more storage, it would be utilizing water that 6 was formally utilized by the City of Modesto? 7 MR. KEHL: And which we percolated to the ground. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. And where is the City of 9 Modesto getting its water if it doesn't take it from the 10 underground? 11 MR. KEHL: Modesto Irrigation District. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: So it would come out of surface 13 flows? 14 MR. KEHL: It's my understanding. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Has there been a water 16 balance done to determine whether or not there will be a 17 net increase in water available by way of this 30,000 18 additional acre-feet taken from the underground by 19 Oakdale? 20 MR. KEHL: Shorten up the question, would you? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Do we gain water out of 22 that process? If we're looking at the lower part of the 23 San Joaquin River, do we gain water by this conjunctive 24 use of this groundwater -- 25 MR. KEHL: Oakdale Irrigation District does, yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16346 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Oakdale does, but I mean is there a 2 net gain to the system? 3 MR. KEHL: I guess you would have to say, yeah, 4 because we're able to stretch our available water 5 supplies. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: But if we take it from Modesto, 7 aren't we just moving water from one place to another? 8 MR. KEHL: They're not using it in -- the 9 groundwater maps would indicate that if we don't continue 10 to pump it it will all end up in Stockton East anyway. So 11 we're getting our supplies before -- 12 MR. NOMELLINI: So the water will come away from the 13 Stockton East supply? 14 MR. KEHL: I would not say it's their supply. It's 15 just heading in that direction. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 17 MR. KEHL: We're the ones supplying it to the ground 18 surface and we have a right -- 19 MR. NOMELLINI: So the water balance for Stockton 20 East at some stage will reflect a reduction of that 21 30,000? 22 MR. KEHL: I don't think so, no, because it was 23 being pumped at the time by the City of Modesto. So 24 they're going to stop and we're going to pick it up. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16347 1 MR. KEHL: So the net balance of actual groundwater 2 removal in the Modesto basin is zero. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. So the difference, if 4 any, will be in terms of the impact on surface flows by 5 reason of Modesto switching from groundwater to surface 6 water; is that correct? 7 MR. KEHL: Repeat it one more time. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Do you agree that the 9 difference will be in surface supply, because Modesto is 10 switching from a groundwater to a surface source? 11 MR. KEHL: In the Modesto basin, yes. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. All right. Are you 13 familiar with San Joaquin River Agreement Exhibit 104-D? 14 Barry, I think you were there at the time. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Which one is that? 16 MR. KEHL: Dan, can you put a name on it? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah, it's the 1988 agreement and 18 stipulation for which is attached a resolution of the 19 Board of Directors of Oakdale Irrigation District. 20 MR. KEHL: Yes, I'm familiar with it. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, I want you to take a look at 22 the resolution, because I have a couple of questions on 23 it. 24 MR. KEHL: You realize, Dan, that this was done 25 while I was not there. This is Oakdale -- Gene Bergeron's CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16348 1 tenure. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Are you familiar with this 3 action of the Oakdale Irrigation District? 4 MR. KEHL: I've seen it as part of this document. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 6 MR. KEHL: I do know this was South San Joaquin and 7 we did a motion. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. If you look at the first 9 paragraph on Page 2 of the resolution the -- that's 10 paragraph "A," it says, 11 (Reading): 12 "Unless water can be provided the 13 approximately 116,014 acres irrigated within 14 the districts will be without water supply 15 unless the lands have alternative on-site water 16 supplies available to them." 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. KEHL: I see it. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And you were with South 20 San Joaquin at the time? 21 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: And the reference to "districts" 23 here is both to Oakdale and South San Joaquin? 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Calls for speculation. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know whether the reference to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16349 1 "districts" here is to both Oakdale Irrigation District 2 and South San Joaquin Irrigation District? 3 MR. KEHL: I could assume, and you heard what they 4 say about assuming things. But the acreage looks 5 approximate for both of our acreages in a way, maybe 6 that's the irrigated acres. Normally, when we write 7 references we always use our gross acres. I can't say 8 what Gene was thinking when he did it. I wasn't there. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. All right. For South San 10 Joaquin Irrigation District, do you recall in 1988 that 11 the District was without a water supply unless the lands 12 had alternative on-site water supplies available to them? 13 MR. KEHL: As I recall this agreement was signed so 14 late in the year we actually didn't use any of the extra 15 water that we would have been entitled to. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. In 1988, was there a 17 problem with the water supply for OID that you know of? 18 MR. KEHL: We both had the same water supplies. We 19 were better prepared. I think that was the year that we 20 went out and rented pumps from farmers and paid farmers 21 not to use our water. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 23 MR. KEHL: Spent several million dollars. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: So it is correct, is it not, that 25 OID had a water shortage in 1988? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16350 1 MR. KEHL: They had a perceived water shortage I 2 would imagine, yes. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. And since 1988 OID has 4 embarked on a course of action involving the transfer of 5 some of its water supplies; is that correct? 6 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: Your testimony indicated a transfer 8 to Stockton East Water District -- 9 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: -- is that correct? And there is a 11 transfer of water involved in the San Joaquin River 12 Agreement, is there not? 13 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, assuming that we have hydrology 15 such as what led up to 1988, is it expected that OID will 16 have a greater water shortage given the transfers than it 17 had in 1988? 18 MR. KEHL: Well, right now Oakdale -- in my opinion, 19 Oakdale is gambling a little bit. They're in hopes that 20 there won't be a drought while they utilize the money from 21 the transfers to build the facilities identified in the 22 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan. 23 Once those facilities are in place, Montgomery 24 Watson's studies show that through irrigation and 25 operational improvements they should be able to conserve CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16351 1 an additional 50,000 acre-feet of water. 2 With the construction of the new groundwater 3 wells they should be able to supply an additional 30,000 4 acre-feet of water. With the 1988 agreement stipulation, 5 with the water in the carryover storage account, Oakdale 6 will probably be in a much better situation even with the 7 transfers. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And how long would it 9 take to put in the various physical improvements to 10 accomplish those objectives that you referred to? 11 MR. KEHL: I'm not there. Sorry. That's a 12 construction schedule their boys are going to have to work 13 out. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Do you know if a 15 schedule exists to complete that work within the time 16 frame of the San Joaquin River Agreement? 17 MR. KEHL: I don't know. I'm not in contact with 18 them on a daily basis. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. All right. That's all I 20 have. Thank you very much. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 22 Mr. Herrick. 23 // 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16352 1 ---oOo--- 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 3 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 4 BY MR. HERRICK 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board 6 Members. John Herrick for the South Delta Water Agency. 7 Mr. Kehl, do you have a copy of Exhibit SJRGA 8 106-B in front of you? It was just mentioned in the 9 prior -- this one. 10 MR. KEHL: Yes. 11 MR. HERRICK: Thank you. Are you familiar with this 12 document? 13 MR. KEHL: Somewhat. 14 MR. HERRICK: Just going through it briefly, on Page 15 3 it begins with sort of a chart with water budget 16 components, that has supply, 1970 through 1992 average. 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. KEHL: No. 19 MR. HERRICK: Page 3. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Page 3. Right up there at the top. 21 MR. HERRICK: Right in the middle. 22 MR. KEHL: Okay. Water budget, thank you. 23 MR. HERRICK: It says "Surface Water, 275,000 24 acre-feet," do you see that? 25 MR. KEHL: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16353 1 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that that's an average 2 amount of water? 3 MR. KEHL: That's what it says on the line above it, 4 it's 1970 through 1992 average. 5 MR. HERRICK: And then on the next page, Page 4 -- 6 ignoring the chart there which is not a numbered page -- 7 at the bottom of the next page it says, "Net Deep 8 Percolation of 730,000;" is that correct? 9 MR. KEHL: That's what it states. 10 MR. HERRICK: In your experience, is that 11 approximately correct as to the amount of water from the 12 OID's water budget that goes into deep percolation? 13 MR. KEHL: Well, from what I learned in my brief 14 stay at Oakdale, I think that's probably a little bit shy. 15 I think it's a little bit larger. I think the spill in 16 the other area should be smaller. 17 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And if it's easier I will go 18 back to the chart that you're looking at, but could we go 19 to Page 5 first. And the first item on Page 5 under that 20 water budget component is surface runoff. Do you see 21 that? 22 MR. KEHL: Yes, I do. 23 MR. HERRICK: And would you agree that the amount 24 stated there of 74,300 acre-feet is, in your experience, 25 approximately the correct amount of surface water runoff CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16354 1 from Oakdale Irrigation District? 2 MR. KEHL: I'm not sure what it's referring it. I'm 3 not sure if -- surface water runoff to me includes storm 4 water. I just don't recall the calculations on that. 5 MR. HERRICK: Do you know whether or not this 6 document explains what that surface runoff is? 7 MR. KEHL: Actually, I don't recall. 8 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And, then, down a little 9 farther on that same page it says "Return Flows to SSJID, 10 MID of 12,000 acre-feet." Do you see that? 11 MR. KEHL: Yes, I do. 12 MR. HERRICK: And in your experience is that an 13 approximately correct amount as to the amount of return 14 flow water that leaves OID and goes to the two districts 15 mentioned? 16 MR. KEHL: Again, they're talking averages. And a 17 lot of that came from reporter charts that I later learned 18 had been manipulated by -- not -- the charts themselves 19 were not manipulated by landowners, but the structures 20 themselves were manipulated by landowners, which makes the 21 charts and the records invalid, which is why I think that 22 figure is high. 23 MR. HERRICK: And do you take that to mean that the 24 return flows -- are those flows going through OID 25 facilities, surface transport facilities, or something CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16355 1 else? 2 MR. KEHL: They'll go through the irrigation 3 distribution system, or they'll go through the drain where 4 we have our Reclamation facilities. 5 MR. HERRICK: Okay. 6 MR. KEHL: Again, that figure, generally a lot of it 7 is derived from the drains where the Reclamation 8 facilities are. And at our Reclamation facilities we have 9 structures that we back the water up so that we can pump 10 it out of the drain. And that's where the farmers play 11 with the board and back the water up higher; and yet our 12 chart will show it as going above the weir, maybe two feet 13 high, when, in fact, it's being pumped out and returned to 14 the system. 15 MR. HERRICK: Okay. The point of my question was: 16 Those are OID facilities that we're talking about for this 17 number, not any individual user facilities that may 18 transport water out of the district, or do you know? 19 MR. KEHL: I can't firmly say that there's not some 20 private facilities out there. My experience at Oakdale is 21 there's no such thing as a "private facility." They can 22 take ownership of everything. Sorry. 23 MR. HERRICK: Is it a correct statement with regard 24 to this Integrated Water Resources Management Plan that 25 the plan proposes that Oakdale takes certain measures to CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16356 1 prevent the escape of waters from its district so that it 2 can use those waters; is that a fair statement? 3 MR. KEHL: It's part of the program, yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: And part of that program is wells that 5 may take groundwater that in the absence of those wells 6 might migrate out from under the district; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 9 MR. HERRICK: And I think -- is it correct that the 10 study also mentions that -- well, excuse me. 11 Is part of the plan to also intercept surface 12 water flows of any type in order to, perhaps, put them to 13 use within the district rather than let them escape the 14 district? 15 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 16 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Okay. If you'd turn to those 17 memorandums attached to that exhibit. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Any one in particular? 19 MR. HERRICK: Yeah. I just wanted to start with the 20 first one which is dated March 31, 1995. Do you see that? 21 MR. KEHL: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: Now, these are not addressed to you; 23 is that correct? 24 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 25 MR. HERRICK: And, in fact, in 1995 you were not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16357 1 with Oakdale; is that correct? 2 MR. KEHL: No, I was there. 3 MR. HERRICK: In '95 you were there? 4 MR. KEHL: Yes. Rick Barzan was my engineer chief 5 of operations. 6 MR. HERRICK: Are you familiar with these memos, 7 have you seen them before today? 8 MR. KEHL: Yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: Just briefly, the first memo talks 10 about a few things, but one of them is that it mentions 11 that -- and I'm reading from Page 2 -- it says, 12 (Reading): 13 "Implementation of these measures could make 14 some water available for increased carryover 15 storage to firm up OID's dry-year water 16 supplies to serve additional lands." 17 And it goes on to some other things. In 1995 was 18 it a concern of OID to firm up its dry-year water supply? 19 MR. KEHL: Well, any responsible water manager would 20 want to do that, yes. 21 MR. HERRICK: And is that still one of OID's goals? 22 MR. KEHL: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Now, in the middle of that same 24 page, Page 2 of that March 31, 1995, memo which is 25 attached to SJRGA 106-B it says, in talking about CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16358 1 groundwater, it says, 2 (Reading): 3 "These rates do not appear to threaten the 4 long-term viability of the groundwater system 5 as a water source particularly since OID 6 presently appears to support significant 7 outflows of groundwater to neighboring areas." 8 In 1995, would you agree that, using the language 9 of this memo, there are significant outflows of 10 groundwater from OID to other areas? 11 MR. KEHL: To other areas, yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: And is that still the case today? 13 MR. KEHL: I actually haven't seen a groundwater 14 map. The most recent one I looked at is 1994, which I 15 believe is part of this. 16 MS. DAVIS: The most recent groundwater map I've 17 seen of the Modesto basin is of one- to two-foot increase 18 in water levels in the Modesto groundwater basin. 19 MR. HERRICK: And I take that to mean you're saying 20 that that supports the idea that water is flowing out of 21 Oakdale, or am I taking that wrong? 22 MS. DAVIS: Yes, because groundwater generally 23 travels in that direction. 24 MR. HERRICK: Has Oakdale instituted any of the 25 pumping measures discussed in the Integrated Water CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16359 1 Management Plan to intercept or decrease the amount of 2 that water leaving Oakdale's district? 3 MS. DAVIS: Currently that's a project that we're 4 going to begin this year, identifying potential well 5 sites. 6 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Now, again, Mr. Barzan, the 7 next memo is an April 13 -- 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: He's not Mr. Barzan. 9 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Kehl. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's an insult. 11 MR. HERRICK: Please, don't take it that way. Just 12 so I don't appear extremely stupid, the memo is addressed 13 to Mr. Barzan. 14 Are you familiar with that next memo, too, dated 15 April 13, 1995? 16 MR. KEHL: Is its subject the water budget -- 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 18 MR. KEHL: -- on the right-hand side? 19 MR. HERRICK: Yes. I'm sorry. 20 MR. KEHL: Yes, I am. 21 MR. HERRICK: And that memo, it has four bullets 22 there, kind of in the middle of the lower bottom of the 23 page. The first one says, 24 (Reading): 25 "The groundwater budget suggest the following CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16360 1 conclusions: Canal seepage and deep 2 percolation of applied groundwater from OID 3 generally leaves OID as subsurface flow." 4 Do see that? 5 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 6 MR. HERRICK: In 1995 would you say that that was 7 generally true, that statement? 8 MR. KEHL: Yes. 9 MR. HERRICK: And do you know whether or not that 10 statement would be true today, perhaps, Ms. Davis? 11 MS. DAVIS: I'm sorry? 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, go ahead and ask it again. 13 MR. HERRICK: I'm looking at the first bullet on the 14 April 13th, 1995, memo and it says, 15 (Reading): 16 "Canal seepage and deep percolation of applied 17 groundwater from OID generally leaves OID as 18 subsurface flow." 19 Is that generally true today? 20 MS. DAVIS: I would say so. 21 MR. HERRICK: And on the next page on that memo it 22 lists -- this is the water budget, the first one is OID 23 north of Stanislaus. And under "water uses" in the middle 24 there it says, 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16361 1 (Reading): 2 "Canal seepage, 13,000 acre-feet." 3 Ms. Davis, would you say that that's -- well, 4 excuse me, Mr. Kehl, would you agree that's an approximate 5 correct amount for the year 1995, the seepage amount of 6 13,000 acre-feet? 7 MR. KEHL: Well, I didn't do the engineering of it, 8 but it's probably fair enough. I just accepted the 9 report. I didn't try to recheck all his numbers. 10 MR. HERRICK: If you don't know, that's fine. Do 11 you have any reason to disbelieve that? 12 MR. KEHL: It's probably short, based again on what 13 I learned at the district. 14 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Ms. Davis, would you -- do you 15 have an opinion as to whether or not that 13,000 acre-feet 16 of canal seepage would be an accurate statement today, in 17 this year? 18 MS. DAVIS: I don't know of any reason of why it 19 would have changed. So -- 20 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Mr. Kehl, the next one says 21 surface runoff of 33,000 acre-feet. 22 MR. KEHL: Yes. 23 MR. HERRICK: Does that amount look approximately 24 correct for the year 1995? 25 MR. KEHL: Am I understanding, you want to take this CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16362 1 data that was generated from 1970 to '92 and apply it to 2 '95, or at the time of the report? 3 MR. HERRICK: No. Sorry. The original report is 4 dated May '95. 5 MR. KEHL: Right. 6 MR. HERRICK: And this memo is '95. 7 MR. KEHL: But it's for the years 1970 to '92. 8 MR. HERRICK: To '92. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: They're averages. 10 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Let me back up then. Do you 11 think that the 33,000 acre-foot average for surface runoff 12 that we're looking at on the second page of the April 13, 13 1995, memo is an accurate statement? 14 MR. KEHL: Well, let me just read what it says here. 15 (Reading): 16 "This period appears to best represent the 17 current conditions in OID under a broad range 18 of hydrologic conditions." 19 And it's an average over a period of time. 20 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Ms. Davis, same question, I'm 21 trying to see if you think that that average of 33,000 22 acre-feet per year for surface runoff for OID north of the 23 Stanislaus River would be approximately correct for this 24 year? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you know. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16363 1 MS. DAVIS: I don't know. 2 MR. HERRICK: And, Mr. Kehl, let's just briefly go 3 to the next page. The next page shows the water budget 4 for OID south of the Stanislaus River. And, again, it 5 lists canal seepage, surface runoff, also return flows to 6 MID. Do you have any reason to believe that those numbers 7 put in that report are correct or inaccurate? 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Correct -- well -- 9 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any reason to believe that 10 they're inaccurate? 11 MR. KEHL: Again, the biggest one that I could hang 12 my hat on would be the return flows at the MID canal 13 system. A lot of that was probably based on reported 14 charts influenced by the operations of the local 15 landowners. 16 MR. HERRICK: Ms. Davis, do you know of any 17 activities that are taken by OID that would result in 18 those averages having decreased since 1995? 19 MS. DAVIS: Yes. We have done some major canal 20 lining projects that have conserved significant amounts of 21 water. I don't know -- I haven't quantified how much. 22 MR. HERRICK: Okay. And by "conserve," you mean you 23 stopped the seepage into the groundwater? 24 MS. DAVIS: Some of it, yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: And also stopped that and, therefore, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16364 1 decreased the amount of groundwater flowing out of the 2 District? 3 MS. DAVIS: Some of it is groundwater. Some of it 4 runs off and returns to the Stanislaus River. 5 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Kehl, the final memo attached to 6 that is dated May 8th, 1995. Do you see that memo? 7 MR. HERRICK: Subject "Conjunctive Use Plan"? 8 MR. HERRICK: Yes. 9 MR. KEHL: Okay. 10 MR. HERRICK: And would it be a correct statement to 11 say one of the subjects talked about in this conjunctive 12 use plan is what we've talked about before: Taking 13 actions that would decrease waters that leave OID's 14 district in order for OID to use them; is that correct? 15 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 16 MR. HERRICK: And it also talks about upon doing 17 that, then, supplies would be freed up for potential 18 transfers or other uses; is that correct? 19 MR. KEHL: I believe so. 20 MR. HERRICK: And then on Page 2 of that memo, the 21 second paragraph from the bottom -- and without putting -- 22 do you see that paragraph starts out, "MID's Domestic 23 Water Project"? 24 MR. KEHL: That's right. 25 MR. HERRICK: And that paragraph describes, does it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16365 1 not, that MID may decrease its groundwater pumping which 2 may then allow OID to pump additional water for its use? 3 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 4 MR. HERRICK: And by "its use" I mean OID; is that 5 correct? 6 MR. KEHL: That's correct. 7 MR. HERRICK: I'm sorry, there was one last memo. 8 The last memo is dated April 13th, 1995. And it's subject 9 is "Hydrologic Impact Analysis and Potential Water 10 Transfers." Do you see that memo, Mr. Kehl? 11 MR. KEHL: Yes, I do. 12 MR. HERRICK: And would it be correct to say that 13 this memo generally outlines an analysis of impacts to 14 three levels of transfers: 10,000 acre-feet a year, 15 20,000 acre-feet a year and 30,000 acre-feet a year? 16 MR. KEHL: Yes. 17 MR. HERRICK: And on Page 2 of that memo there's a 18 chart, do you see that? 19 MR. KEHL: Yes. 20 MR. HERRICK: And that chart shows pending 21 groundwater storage pursuant to the three proposals, three 22 different possible transfers of 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 23 acre-feet? 24 MR. KEHL: Yes. 25 MR. HERRICK: And in each case it shows some sort of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16366 1 acre-feet decrease in ending groundwater storage? 2 MR. KEHL: Yes. 3 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree with that analysis 4 that those three transfers would result in approximately 5 those numbers, those amounts of decreases of groundwater 6 storage? 7 MR. KEHL: Yes. 8 MR. HERRICK: And, then, two categories down it 9 talks about subsurface outflow from the district. Do you 10 see that? 11 MR. KEHL: Yes. 12 MR. HERRICK: And, again, would you agree the chart 13 shows that depending on which of the transfers there's a 14 decrease in subsurface outflow from the district? 15 MR. KEHL: Yes. 16 MR. HERRICK: Now, the first paragraph after that 17 chart talks about an analysis of the transfers. And it 18 mentions potential effects on neighboring districts. The 19 last line of that says, 20 (Reading): 21 "This would decrease subsurface flows from OID 22 to the northwest while increasing losses from 23 the Stanislaus River to the model area." 24 Would you agree with that as a conclusion of the 25 potential impacts of the transfers by OID? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16367 1 MR. KEHL: What it's going to do is change the 2 hydraulic gradient lines slot. The study already shows 3 that the Stanislaus is an alluding river anyway. 4 MR. HERRICK: So one of the potential effects of the 5 transfers listed here might be that water would leave the 6 river that otherwise wouldn't have left the river; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. KEHL: It's already been in the river. So I 9 don't know how much it would speed it up, if any. 10 MR. HERRICK: Maybe you don't have any independent 11 knowledge, but that sentence talks about increasing losses 12 from the Stanislaus River. 13 MR. KEHL: But it doesn't show how much. 14 MR. HERRICK: What I'm trying to get at is: Do you 15 agree with the conclusion that those transfers could 16 result in an increase of losses from the Stanislaus River? 17 MR. KEHL: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: And are you aware of any analysis of 19 the amount of that increased loss? 20 MR. KEHL: No. 21 MR. HERRICK: Now, two paragraphs down it says, 22 (Reading): 23 "As indicated in the table about one third of 24 the transfer volume is reflected in increased 25 river losses." CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16368 1 Have you done any independent analysis to 2 confirm, or -- have you done an independent analysis 3 beyond what Montgomery Watson has done? 4 MR. KEHL: No. 5 MR. HERRICK: Do you have any reason to dispute 6 their putting the number of one third of a loss on that? 7 MR. KEHL: No. 8 MR. HERRICK: And do you take that to mean if the 9 transfer was up to 30,000 acre-feet, one third of the 10 transfer volume, or 10,000 acre-feet, would be an 11 increased loss to the river? 12 MR. KEHL: That's what it's saying there. 13 MR. HERRICK: And then the final paragraph on that 14 page says, the last sentence, 15 (Reading): 16 "There could also be some impact on the water 17 quality degradation situation in the Stockton 18 area depending on whether corrective measures 19 are implemented." 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. KEHL: Yes. 22 MR. HERRICK: Would you agree that the potential 23 river losses might have an affect on water quality 24 degradation in the Stockton area? 25 MR. KEHL: I have no reason to say it wouldn't, I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16369 1 guess, I couldn't confirm or deny it. 2 MR. HERRICK: Are you aware of any analysis beyond 3 this Montgomery Watson analysis that would put some sort 4 of number on what the potential water degradation is in 5 the Stockton area -- 6 MR. KEHL: No. 7 MR. HERRICK: On the third page, I guess that's the 8 final page of that April 13th -- 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, I wasn't sure that there 10 was an answer to the last question. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: It was in the mid question, it was, 12 "no." But, please, wait until he finishes the question 13 before you answer. 14 MR. HERRICK: The final paragraph on Page 3 of that 15 memo we've just been talking about, which is the 16 April 13th, 1995, memo from Montgomery Watson, the subject 17 being "Hydrologic Impact Analysis of Potential Water 18 Transfers," which is an attachment to SJRGA Exhibit 106-B, 19 just so I don't mislead you in the question, let me read 20 that part. It says, 21 (Reading): 22 "Whether transfers take place north or south of 23 the Stanislaus, or both, it may be possible to 24 mitigate some of the projected adverse 25 groundwater level impacts by implementing a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16370 1 seasonal or year-to-year groundwater recharge 2 program involving artificial, direct or inlet 3 recharge. 4 "However, it does not appear that impacts on 5 groundwater levels within and near OID and 6 impacts on instream flows would be effectively 7 mitigated by groundwater recharge programs." 8 Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Kehl? 9 MR. KEHL: I believe that happens anyway, yeah. 10 That's one way to do it. 11 MR. HERRICK: And is it correct to say that what 12 they're trying to say there is -- or what they're actually 13 saying there is it may be possible to mitigate the impacts 14 within OID resulting from a transfer, but that a 15 groundwater recharge program would not mitigate impacts 16 that might occur outside of the district resulting from a 17 transfer? 18 MR. KEHL: I don't read that there. 19 MR. HERRICK: That's not what you read that to say? 20 MR. KEHL: No. 21 MR. HERRICK: Okay. Maybe you can explain what you 22 believe those two sentences say. 23 MR. KEHL: Well, it says "within and near Oakdale," 24 is what it says, impact groundwater levels within and near 25 Oakdale. So you said does it include just Oakdale or CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16371 1 outside, and to me it's the whole area. 2 MR. HERRICK: I'm sorry, maybe I misspoke then. So 3 you understand it to say that some of the impacts in 4 Oakdale, besides some of the impacts outside, may not be 5 mitigated by a groundwater program? 6 MR. KEHL: It says, "May be possible to mitigate 7 some of the potential impacts." So in the negative I 8 guess you could say some of it may not be. 9 MR. HERRICK: Okay. On the second sentence there it 10 says, 11 (Reading): 12 "However, it does not appear that impacts on 13 groundwater levels within or near and impacts 14 on instream flows would be effectively 15 mitigated." 16 Do you see that? 17 MR. KEHL: Yes. 18 MR. HERRICK: Do you agree with that sentence? 19 MR. KEHL: Yes. I think you should read the whole 20 entire paragraph. This is because the groundwater system 21 is hydrologically connected to the river limiting the 22 effectiveness of recharge and because of the prevailing 23 hydraulic gradient away from OID. 24 In other words, artificial recharge in OID will, 25 in large part, reduce the volume of water that would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16372 1 otherwise be gained from the river and will quickly flow 2 away from OID. 3 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Kehl, do you know of any analysis 4 done by OID which quantifies the potential effects -- let 5 me break this up in three steps: Potential effects to 6 Stanislaus River flows from transfers? 7 MR. KEHL: You've got me. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If you know. 9 MR. KEHL: No. 10 MR. HERRICK: And same question with regards to 11 quantifying the effects on subsurface flows out of the 12 district? 13 MR. KEHL: Just what we have here, that's all the 14 studies that I'm aware of. 15 MR. HERRICK: I have no further questions. Thank 16 you very much. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 18 Does staff have any questions? 19 MR. HOWARD: No. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members? 21 C.O. BROWN: No. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Do you have any 23 redirect? 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. That concludes CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16373 1 examination of this panel. Thank you very much for your 2 appearance. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can we take a short five-minute 4 break and I'll work with Ms. Whitney and we'll -- 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: On the exhibits? 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On the exhibits, if that's okay 7 with you. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sure we'll take a break until 10:00 9 o'clock and then after the break we'll go over the 10 exhibits and then discuss the rebuttal. All right. We're 11 in recess. 12 (Recess taken from 9:49 a.m. to 10:02 a.m.) 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Come back to order. 14 Mr. O'Laughlin. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. We would like to enter into 16 the record the following exhibits. And if I misspeak you 17 will, of course, correct me, Ms. Whitney. 18 We have 103, 103-A, B and C. We have 104, 104-A, 19 B, C, D, E, F, G and H. And just so the Board is aware, 20 yesterday a transparency was marked as San Joaquin River 21 Group Authority 104-E, Revised. 22 Actually, this was a table from 104-E. So we've 23 relabeled this as 104-I. And we would like that the Board 24 provisionally accept that exhibit with the understanding 25 that the San Joaquin River Group Authority will make 20 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16374 1 copies available to the Board and the appropriate copies 2 made available to the parties. 3 Turning, then, to 105, 105-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 4 H, I, J, K, L. And M is out, M was not produced so we're 5 not asking that that be submitted. 106, 106-A, 106-B, C, 6 and D. 107, 107-A, B, C, D, E, F. 108, 109, 109-A and B. 7 110, 110-A, 111, 111-A. 8 We would ask that Exhibit 111-A be accepted 9 provisionally. A color copy was put on the overhead, 10 black and whites were provided to the Board and the 11 parties. We will make provisional -- we will make copies 12 available, colored copies, 20 to the Board and to the 13 parties. And we would ask that that be provisionally 14 accepted as 111-A with that understanding. 15 We have 111-B, 111-C, 111-D and E. We have 112, 16 112-A, 112-B, we have 113, 113-A, 113-B. We have 114-A 17 and B. There is no 114, correct, Ms. Whitney? 18 MS. WHITNEY: That's correct. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So the parties should be aware of 20 that. C1, 114-C.1, 114-C.2, 114-D. We also have 115-A 21 and B. There is no 115, make sure of that. The other one 22 is 116. 23 We would ask -- that's another transparency that 24 was put on the board during Mr. Hildebrand's testimony. 25 We would ask that be provisionally accepted with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16375 1 understanding that 20 colored copies would be made 2 available to the Board and to the parties. 117, 118, 119 3 and 120. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are there any objections to 5 accepting these exhibits with the qualifications as stated 6 by Mr. O'Laughlin? 7 Mr. Herrick. 8 MR. HERRICK: I have an objection to one exhibit, 9 which would be SJRGA 103-D. It's my understanding that 10 was submitted in redirect with Mr. Steiner, I believe. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. 12 MR. HERRICK: My objection is it attempts to 13 contradict or dispute Ms. Peggy Manza's testimony from DOI 14 in a prior phase. On cross-examination we referred to 15 that evidence from that prior phase. 16 And I would just submit that a party should not 17 be able to dispute, or contradict that prior phase's 18 evidence once it's been taken into evidence and once the 19 phase has been closed. Rebuttal cases, during that phase 20 was the time to dispute anything that was presented. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. Any other 22 objections? Mr. Herrick, your objection is noted on the 23 record. And with that the exhibits, as qualified, are 24 accepted. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And on a procedural note, we will CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16376 1 be meeting with Stockton East Water District tomorrow. 2 And hopefully out of the outcome of that meeting we will 3 affirm to the State Water Resources Control Board and the 4 parties whether or not Stockton East will be putting on 5 rebuttal testimony on the 6th as well. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. And, Mr. Herrick, you 7 were going to put on rebuttal and that's regardless; is 8 that correct? 9 MR. HERRICK: Yes, sir. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. So we will convene next 11 Tuesday, is that July 6th, I don't have my calendar? 12 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes, it is. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: For the rebuttal cases. And were 14 there any other rebuttal cases that we didn't identify 15 yesterday? Anyone else? So we just have two pending, 16 Stockton East, possible, and South Delta. 17 All right. We're adjourned. See you next week. 18 (The proceedings concluded at 10:08 a.m.) 19 ---oOo--- 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16377 1 REPORTER'S_CERTIFICATE __________ ___________ 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 I, MARY R. GALLAGHER, certify that I was the 6 Official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 16335 through 16376 herein constitute a 11 complete, true and correct record of the proceedings. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 13 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 16th day of 14 July, 1999. 15 16 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 16378