TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994, 10:00 A.M.
--o0o--
	MR. CAFFREY:  Good morning and welcome to this 
third workshop on Bay-Delta standards.
	My name is John Caffrey, Chairman of the State 
Water Resources Control Board. 
	Let the record show that we have a full Board 
present.  
	By way of introduction at the dias in the front of 
the room, to your far right is our Executive Director, Mr. 
Walt Pettit.  Then, to Mr. Pettit's right is our Board 
member Marc Del Piero; next to Mr. Del Piero is Board 
member Mary Jane Forster.  To my right, your left, is 
Board Vice Chairman James Stubchaer, and next to Mr. 
Stubchaer is Board member John Brown.
	Welcome to you all.
	We have two very important staff members with us at 
the table in front of the dias, Mr. Tom Howard, our Senior 
Engineer on the Delta; and Barbara Leidigh, who is our 
Counsel for this matter.
	Also, on the front row is Gail Linck, who is here 
to assist us.
	I hope that all those wishing to speak have 
submitted your blue cards.  I know in the past people do 
tend to come up when they hear something they want to 
comment on.  I guess that certainly is allowable, but if 
you think you want to speak and you are holding back now, 
we would appreciate the submission of a card because there 
are a lot of people wishing to speak today on a very 
important subject, and we want to make sure we have a 
fairly good idea of the amount of time we are going to be 
taking today to accommodate everybody.
	A lot of people have flight arrangements that they 
have to keep, so with that, let me read the following 
statement.
	This is the third of four scheduled workshops of 
the State Water Resources Control Board to hear comments 
and recommendations regarding the water quality standards 
for the Bay-Delta estuary.  
	If you intend to speak today, please fill out a 
blue card and give it to our staff at the front table.
	As you know, the comments and recommendations 
received during this series of workshops will be used to 
prepare a draft water quality control plan.  We expect to 
release a draft in December of 1994.  About two months 
after the draft is released, we will hold a hearing on the 
draft.  	After the hearing, we will make whatever changes 
are needed and provide copies of the revised draft to the 
interested parties, and then, hold a Board meeting to 
considerer it for adoption.
	The procedures for today's workshop are described 
in the notice for today.  Additional copies of the notice 
are available from staff.
	This workshop and the workshop in July will be 
informal and today we want to hear from the parties on the 
key issues specified for this workshop.  Each party will 
have 20 minutes for an oral presentation.  A party may be 
represented by one or several speakers.  If a party needs 
additional time, the party's representative may request 
additional time at the beginning of the presentation.
	Please explain why the additional time is 
necessary.  
	If we are not able to provide you all the time that 
you think you need, we encourage you to submit your 
presentation in writing.  We would only limit you out of 
respect for the needs of other participants.
	In the interest of time, we ask that parties avoid 
reiterating details already presented by other parties 
whenever possible and simply indicate agreement.  
Alternatively, parties with the same interests are welcome 
and encouraged to make joint presentations.
	We will also accept and we encourage written 
comments.  You need to provide the Board and staff 20 
copies of any written comments and recommendations, and 
make copies available to the other parties who are here 
today.
	A court reporter is present and will prepare a 
transcript.  If you desire a copy of the transcript, you 
must make arrangements with the court reporter.
	There will be no sworn testimony or cross-
examination of the parties, but the Board members and 
staff may ask clarifying questions.
	I do have a number of cards today.  When I finish 
the statement, I will read off the order that they are in 
so you can get an idea of when you might be called upon to 
speak. 
	We also have other days scheduled, including 
tomorrow.  We will have to see how things proceed today.  
We also have this evening available.  I am not sure I am 
inclined to go into the evening if we have a number of 
speakers yet to go by today's end, and we might just go 
over to tomorrow.
	In any event, we will keep you apprised as we 
proceed through the day as to what the schedule looks like 
in terms of the progress we are making.  We will try to 
accommodate you in every way we can.
	Key issues today:
	A.  What factors, excluding diversions, 
contribute to the decline of fish and wildlife 
resources dependent on the Bay-Delta estuary?
	B.  What modifications have the State Water 
Project and the Central Valley Project made to 
their operations to protect endangered species 
and other species of concern?
	C.  What effect do upstream water projects, 
other than the Central Valley Project and 
State Water Project, have on the fish and 
wildlife resources of the Bay-Delta estuary?
	D.  What are the status and trends of 
biological resources in the Bay-Delta estuary?
	Other key issues will be discussed at the final 
workshop in July.  Today's notice listed the subjects we 
plan to discuss in July.
	With regard to the order in which we will call the 
parties, we will first call elected officials of State, 
Federal and local governments; and secondly, 
representatives of State, Federal and local agencies; and 
third, all others in the order that your speaker card was 
submitted to staff, unless you have special time 
constraints which you have noted on your speaker card.
	We do have a few that have time constraints and we 
will do what we can to accommodate you as the day goes on.
	I do want to say again that the Board very much 
encourages the parties to work together to try and build 
whatever consensus they can.  
	I have repeated this now in the other two workshops 
and I do want to say that we do hear that several of you 
are working together to try and develop alternatives for 
the Board to consider, and that has been somewhat obvious 
in your presentations and we appreciate that very much.
	That completes today's statement.  
	Do any of the Board members wish to add anything to 
what I have said?
	Mr. Howard, I believe you were going to give us a 
synopsis like you gave us last time, which was very 
helpful in our workshop. 
	Good morning, sir.
	MR. HOWARD:  Good morning.  My name is Tom Howard.  
I am an engineer in the Delta program, and as Chairman 
Caffrey said, I would like to briefly synthesize what I 
heard anyway at the last workshop.
	On May 16, the Board held its second workshop to 
review the Bay-Delta standards.  The workshop identified 
three key issues for discussion.  The first key issue 
requested comments on the principal ESA issues that the 
Board should consider during this review.  
	Based on the oral comments received at the 
workshop, there was consensus among the participants that 
the Board should take a multispecies approach to adopting 
fish and wildlife standards for the estuary.  Some of the 
participants expressed the opinion that such an approach 
should be comprehensive and should consider the 
requirements of the biological opinions for winter-run 
chinook salmon and Delta smelt.  Other participants stated 
that the Board should not adopt the requirements of the 
biological opinions as State water quality standards 
because this would eliminate what flexibility the projects 
presently have to negotiate changes in the Endangered 
Species Act requirements.
	Of course, even if the requirements in the 
biological opinions are not included in the draft plan, a 
true multispecies approach would provide some protection 
for the endangered species.
	Lastly, it was suggested that the Board carefully 
consider the water supply impacts of the Endangered 
Species Act requirements when developing new draft 
standards.
	The second issue requested input on the effects of 
diversions throughout the Bay-Delta estuary.  Comments by 
the workshop participants generally fell into two 
categories.  
	First, some participants believe that the impacts 
associated with diversions are largely attributable to the 
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.  
Therefore, they believed the Board should focus its 
attention on these two projects.
	The second group of participants believed that 
there's a great deal of uncertainty about the relative 
effects of the project and non-project diversions and the 
Board should consider non-project diversions during this 
review.
	Of particular concern is the large number of 
unscreened and inadequately screened diversions throughout 
the watershed.
	Lastly, some participants expressed concern about 
the relative impacts of diversions in comparison to other 
factors such as introduced species, fishing pressure and 
pollutant loads.  That's actually a subject of discussion 
for this workshop and we would hope that we will hear some 
more about that issue.
	The third key issue solicited comments on what 
methods the Board should use to analyze the water supply 
environmental effects of alternative standards.  Workship 
participants suggested the use of numerous models, 
including operation models such as DWRSIM and PROSIM, 
Delta SOS, Daily SOS and EBMUDSIM model for the Mokelumne 
River.
	Fisheries models that were recommended included a 
couple of models from the Department of Fish and Game -- 
its striped bass model and a range of estuarine fisheries 
models that they have developed.
	Also recommended were the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's salmon smolt survival model and the California 
chinook salmon population model.
	Lastly, a recommendation was made that the Board 
should analyze the hydro-power effects of alternative 
standards.
	I would like to point out that two of the 
participants, the Northern California Power Agency and the 
Department of Water Resources, have offered to run their 
respective operations and power models for the Board in 
this analysis of the potential standards, and staff has 
begun  discussions with these people to take advantage of 
these offers.
	The last comment I would like to make is that some 
of the participants suggested that meetings be held to 
help the parties formulate their recommendations on 
alternative standards and perhaps develop consensus among 
the interest groups.
	I would like to inform the Board that staff has 
been attending meetings on these issues and staff will 
continue to be available upon the request of participants 
to provide any help that we can.
	This concludes my comments regarding the May 
workshop.  Are there any questions from the Board?
	MR. CAFFREY:   Thank you very much, Mr. Howard.
	Are there questions from Board members of Mr. 
Howard at this time?
	MR. STUBCHAER:   A good summary.
	MR. CAFFREY:  A good summary, thank you very much.
	Mr. Pettit, did you wish to make any comments?
	MR. PETTIT:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I would just 
emphasize the last comment that Mr. Howard made.  
	As you recall at the last workshop, several of the 
parties requested that the Board take a more proactive 
role in attempting to forge a consensus between the 
various parties, and I think at this point a Board-
mandated task force or committee would probably not only 
be untimely, but probably would not necessarily be 
productive, so we are not proposing to set up any formal 
process like that.
	However, given the Board's instruction, we are 
certainly willing to meet with the parties and help 
facilitate agreements as much as we possibly can.
	We are going to have to try and walk the line, I 
think, between helping and getting in the way, and 
sometimes that seems to be a fairly fine line.  So, we 
would offer help if any of the parties have any specific 
ways in which they think we can assist facilitating 
agreements and providing information, and we would 
certainly appreciate hearing from you.
	You could contact anyone of the staff or Board 
members and we will attempt to follow up.
	I think the only caveat I would put on that is bear 
in mind Mr. Howard is running on a pretty low budget 
operation at this time.  
	That's all, Mr. Chairman.
	MR. CAFFREY:  I appreciate your comments, Mr. 
Pettit.
	I want to reiterate what you said.  We, as Board 
members, since we are presiding in this matter, it's not 
advisable for us to be meeting and discussing the details 
of any kind of a consensus agreement, but I heard Mr. 
Pettit say that he is available, he and his staff are 
available if you wish to contact him, and presumably, you 
would be contacting him hopefully as groups of individuals 
that may be in the process of building consensus.
	So, we appreciate that and we will see what that 
brings us.
	I am now going to quickly read the list of the 
stack of cards I have to give you an idea of where you are 
in the list, so to speak.  This is the order that we will 
take people unless we get some kind of emergency situation 
where somebody has to request that they be put someplace 
else in the order:
	Perry Hergesell, Dave Anderson, Roger Patterson, 
Jim Feider, Fred Schneiter, Richard Ferreira, Dave 
Whitridge, and then we will have a coordinated or joint 
presentation from the following:  Lyle Hoag, Tom Berliner, 
Laura King, Steve Arakawa -- that would be the group.  
Then, we have Cliff Schulz, Sandra Dunn, Chris Horsley, 
Richard Golb, Jim Chatigny, David Guy and Dr. Russell 
Brown.
	If you submitted a card and I didn't read it, 
please let us know right away.
	Anything else from the Board members before we 
begin with the cards?  
	All right.  Perry Hergesell.  Good to see you 
again, sir.
	MR. HERGESELL:  Good morning, Mr. Caffrey and Board 
and staff.
	For the record, my name is Perry Hergesell.  I am 
Chief of the Bay-Delta Special Water Projects Division in 
Stockton.  
	Today Dick Daniel from our Environmental Services 
Division is also here. 
	I will make a presentation and he will be available 
with me to respond to any questions you may have on 
various aspects of our presentation.
	In that process I plan to take just a few minutes 
today to summarize our comments regarding the four issues 
of interest that were noticed for today's workshop, and 
that is because we provided you with a fairly lengthy 
written response and you can refer to that for the needed 
details that might be there.
	MR. CAFFREY:  For the record, Mr. Hergesell, just 
for the record, I don't believe you mentioned you are with 
the Department of Fish and Game.  I think you mentioned 
everything else, and for those in the audience that may 
not know you, I wanted them to know that.
	Please, as you come up, identify yourselves and the 
organization that you are serving.
	Go ahead.
	MR. HERGESELL:  I am with the Department of Fish 
and Game.
	The first issue deals with, as you have noticed, 
what factors other than diversions, contribute to the 
decline of fish and wildlife resources in the estuary, and 
in our submittal we suggested there are probably at least 
five factors that are sometimes considered important, or 
at least contributing to the declines or possibly 
inhibiting recovery of those resources.
	And the first of those is the introduced species 
which you heard some reference to in Tom's presentation 
earlier on.  
	Our assessment is simply stated, and that is that 
introductions have caused some major changes in the fish 
fauna of the estuary, particularly in the freshwater 
portions of the system.  The most obvious effects have 
occurred due to introductions in the 19th century, 
probably from 1850 on, and those were associated with 
introduction of oysters and other species that were 
brought in from the East Coast.
	The introductions since 1950, however, have caused 
substantial changes in the aquatic invertebrates and have 
established large populations of several species of 
smaller fish, but in looking at the data they have not 
coincided with the principal declines in other fish 
populations.  	Hence, the bottom line from our perspective 
is that there is not a strong empirical case for recent 
introductions being a principal cause of decline in 
species such as striped bass and Delta smelt.
	But, on the other hand, there is some uncertainty 
both as to the effects these introductions may have had on 
some species and as to whether the introductions may make 
recovery of previously abundant species more difficult.
	The second factor which we talk about in our 
presentation is food limitation.  While many biologists 
suggest or suspect that food limitations may have played 
some role in the decline of fish populations, particularly 
striped bass, our position is that while some degree of 
limitation probably exists, there is no direct evidence of 
starvation that has been found.  There have been some 
studies funded by the University of California to look 
into that, but as of today there is no evidence that shows 
starvation is an issue.
	The third factor is toxicity.  We believe there is 
some clear evidence of some harm from toxics and this fact 
warrants more effective management, but we feel that the 
overall consequences of this harm cannot be estimated.
	Further, given the major pollutant abatement action 
that your Board has been involved in during the last 20 
years and some evidence of lessening effect of pollution, 
we find it difficult to believe that pollutants are a 
principal cause of the widespread decline in fishery 
resources which has occurred in the last 20 or so years.
	A fourth factor is legal harvest.  Undoubtedly, 
legal harvest decreases the number of spawning adults and 
the average age of those adults, but the real question is 
whether harvest inhibits the population's ability to 
maintain itself or, in fact, is responsible for observed 
changes in abundance.
	In every case where harvest rates have been 
measured for fish populations that inhabit the Bay and 
Delta system, no evidence was found indicating that the 
rates were either excessive or were primarily responsible 
for recent declines in fish stocks.
	And just for some anecdotal information, you can 
look at other species that are not harvested in the system 
and see if they declined substantially at the same time.  
Look at the Delta smelt, splittail and longfin smelt.  
They are not necessarily harvested in any way and they 
have certainly declined coincidentally with the other 
species that are harvested.
	The fifth factor we will mention today before 
moving on is illegal harvest.  We have investigated the 
principal questions of illegal take in the Delta of salmon 
and striped bass and have concluded, at least for salmon, 
illegal take does not have a significant effect on 
resources as a whole.
	However, the data indicates that the illegal take 
of striped bass very likely reduces the population of 
adult fish.  It seems unlikely, however, that a legal 
harvest of sublegal bass in itself is the dominant factor 
causing the decline in adult bass abundance since 1969.
	The second issue we have no comment on today 
regarding the water project effects and the biological 
opinions.  The water people can address those issues for 
you.
	The next issue that is of concern to us on today's 
agenda is issue 3, the effects of upstream water projects.  
	First of all, we want to make the point that 
fisheries habitat in the tributaries to the Delta is of 
vital importance to the efforts to restore the health of 
the Bay and the Delta, or the estuary itself, and that 
over time water development on these tributaries has 
affected the fishery habitat in a number of ways.
	First of all, it has resulted in modifications to 
flows, it has resulted in the loss of upstream holding, 
spawning and rearing habitat.  It has increased water 
temperatures to lethal levels in some cases, and it has 
increased mortality at the diversion structures due to 
entrainment through unscreened or poorly screened 
diversions.
	And as a result of all this, actions to improve 
fishery habitat, including increased instream flows in the 
tributaries, are an essential part of the overall 
restoration of the estuary.
	In recognition of this, our Department has prepared 
an action plan which includes today's recommendations for 
habitat restoration measures, and we have provided that as 
part of our testimony today.
	The most important recommendations are the proposed 
increases in instream flow and the temperature criteria 
for different rivers.  
	Our exhibit also provides some graphic 
presentations of these needs for various streams and river 
courses, and I would ask you to look at those.  They are 
very nice, three dimensional depictions of present-day 
standards, and what we would propose to have for those 
streams.
	A basic premise for our position is that in order 
to restore the ecosystem to some semblance of its former 
productivity, we need to look at the system as a whole, 
and in our opinion, part of this look would require you or 
your Board or your staff to develop a methodology to 
require diverters, other than the State Water Project and 
the Central Valley Project, to provide a fair-share 
portion of Delta outflow.  
	We have provided some suggestions regarding such 
methods in previous testimony and these methods include 
the designation of a volume of storage in each reservoir 
over a certain size for use in meeting Delta standards, 
and it includes the development of models to determine if 
and when additional flows are needed to protect the Bay-
Delta estuary, and then, from those models we feel one 
would be able to assign additional outflow requirements 
for the various tributaries based on the ratio of 
unimpaired flows in the various watersheds.
	That's a very quick description of that and there's 
more detail in there, and we can certainly respond to that 
at the end of my presentation if you are interested.
	Finally, issue 4, status and trends of biological 
resources of the estuary.  This provides most of our 
written presentation.  
	In previous phases of these proceedings we have 
provided updates and status and trends of organisms.  In 
today's submission we again provide approximately 40 pages 
of text and figures that update that information.
	All I will say about that information is that taken 
as a whole it seems to show that the ability of the 
estuary to maintain consistent levels of abundant species 
has been altered over the years.  Our treatment deals with 
organisms spanning different phytoplankton to salmon, and 
the preponderance of the data show a downward trend in 
abundance of these organisms during the last ten to 
fifteen years.
	For specifics, I encourage you to look at our 
submission.  Even if you can only scan the figures that we 
provided, I think that alone will give you a sense of 
conditions in the estuary.
	That's, really, all I wanted to say.  We want to be 
very brief, and as I say, Dick is here to answer any 
questions you have on upriver issues and I can answer 
questions on the other issues.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Hergesell.
	Do the Board members have any questions at this 
time?  Staff?
	Thank you, sir.  We appreciate your being here.
	David Anderson.  Good morning.
	MR. ANDERSON:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
members of the Board.
	My name is David Anderson and I am with the 
Department of Water Resources.
	Our presentation today will be in two parts.  I 
will present the first part in summary fashion which 
addresses basically issues 1 and 3, and Ed Winkler will 
provide some comments on issue No. 2.  This may take 
longer than 20 minutes, so I hope the Board will find that 
to be okay.  
We will try not to take too much longer.  Ed has some 
interesting and important things to say on No. 2.
	MR. CAFFREY:  We will be the judge of that, Mr. 
Anderson.
	MR. ANDERSON:  I'm sure you will.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Let me say, having risked being a 
little too facetious, unless there is objection from 
fellow Board members, I would be inclined to give you 30 
minutes because you are making a two-person presentation, 
and we are interested in what the project, as well as 
others have to say, so please try to keep it within the 30 
minutes.
	MR. ANDERSON:  Thanks very much.
	As to issue No. 4, we aren't going to be presenting 
any specific information.  We haven't seen what the 
Department of Fish and Game has provided you, but 
otherwise, we know that the Bay-Delta Oversight Council is 
putting out some information on the status and trends of 
biological resources in the estuary, and also, we will be 
commending to you later on the work we did in 1992 and 
submitted to the Board as DWR Exhibit No. 30 for the 
interim hearing that was part of the D-1630 process.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Mr. Anderson, is that all in our 
records of the D-1630 hearings?
	MR. ANDERSON:  Yes, it is.
	We think it is very appropriate, obviously, that 
the Board is looking at other factors other than Delta 
diversions.  We think it is also appropriate for the Board 
to be looking at Delta diversions as one of the primary 
things that is both controllable and under Board 
jurisdiction.
	Nonetheless, these other factors are extremely 
important in the Board's planning program.  Whether they 
are ultimately the subject of direct Board regulation or 
not, they do serve to define in great measure the 
reasonableness of the objectives in terms of conditions 
that the Board will, in fact, be establishing in the 
process for water use, including Delta diversions.
	Water 1(a) says that if dramatically curbing water 
usage yields only a small benefit or small increase in 
abundance because other factors that are not under the 
Board's jurisdiction are controlling, then we may be 
concluding that severe regulation is not reasonable, or 
that if these other factors are themselves controllable by 
others and are more cost effective from an economic, 
environmental and social point of view, then perhaps it is 
best to do those than to regulate or add an increment of 
water regulation.
	In addition, the comprehensive view which I think 
the Board is forming here is very important in forming the 
basis for some comprehensive plan for the State that puts 
all planning, management and regulatory options on the 
table.
	At a minimum, the role of water use regulation may 
be more clearly seen in the context of a broader policy 
program for the Delta.
	The Board's first issue asked specifically about 
all the other factors, factors other than diversions in 
the estuary that affect fish and wildlife.  
	As I said just a few moments ago, we do offer to 
the Board and commend to it rereading the WRINT DWR 30 
that was prepared by Dr. Brown in the summer of 1992 and 
presented to the Board.  It contains a thorough summary of 
both project related impacts and impacts of other factors 
such as introduced species, changes in food chain, 
pollutants, unscreened diversions, and adverse upstream 
and downstrewam conditions.
	I think it is important to see project impacts, 
including diversions, in the context of other factors that 
may be affecting Delta biological resources. 
	For purposes of brevity, I am only going to go 
through the list of these other factors and make a few 
brief comments.  I assume that others, as Fish and Game 
has,  others will be commenting in more detail upon these 
non-diversion factors.
	The first point is introduced species.  It is a 
truism that the Delta is a highly modified biological 
system.  In March of 1992, we presented information to the 
Board at a hearing held, and I will preface this by saying 
that probably the best sampler in the Delta was by the 
fish salvage facilities at the State and Federal export 
pumps, and in 1992 we reported to the Board that our 1991 
composition of species showed that of the species that 
were sampled that were salvaged there at the State 
facilities, 96 percent were specimens from introduced 
species.  Only 4 percent were native species, and 98 
percent at the Federal facilities.
	We are talking about a system which has undergone, 
as Perry was indicating, substantial modification over the 
years, and it is this system, this species composition 
with this pervasive influence of exotic species that is 
the system that the Board is looking at to protect through 
its mechanisms, and properly so.
	The other point that Perry also talked about was 
that species composition may affect the efficacy of the 
measures the Board may be looking at in terms of recovery.
	So, we think introduced species is a very important 
topic.
	Further modification has occurred in the system in 
terms of nutrient loading at the bottom of the food chain.
	The past hundred years of building dams, levees, 
diking and filling wetlands has reduced the loading of 
land derived detritus which is thought to be an important 
source of nutrients, a primary nutrient source for the 
estuary.
	In addition, over the past 40 years reduced 
floating organic waste through waste treatment have also 
taken away what might have been an important nutrient 
source at the base of the estuary's food chain.
	Reports that have been recently done for Chesapeake 
Bay, but studies have not been done here yet, suggest that 
detritus in sewage outfall is being considered as a 
possible source of the cause of the striped bass declines 
on the East Coast.
	On upstream conditions, I will simply say that the 
things upstream that are obviously influencing species 
most in the estuary influence anadromous fish, salmon and 
steelhead. Other than that, it is the reduction or the 
depletion of flows, the development that has occurred over 
the last 40 years upstream, both in terms of direct 
diversion and storage projects.
	We reported on that, introduced some evidence to 
the Environmental Protection Agency in our comments on 
this proposed rule, and we made that evidence available to 
the Board also.
	Climatic conditions:  The two major climatic 
conditions that affect the estuary are drought and flood.  
Particularly important when we look back upon the decade 
of the eighties, we had one of the most severe droughts in 
our history, I guess the most severe, fluctuated by two 
years of extreme high water, flood events, 1983 and 1986.  
1983 was the wettest year on record; 1986, in terms of 
flood control, taxed the system in February more than any 
event in history.
	When we later on considered the issue of declines, 
what constitutes decline, simply responding to climatic 
events, I think we cannot forget we have had a very unique 
experience over the last 10 or 12 years of a very dry 
period with a couple of extreme floods, following what is 
generally considered to be one of the wettest periods of 
record and probably beneficial for the Bay-Delta biota.
	Then, there's levee systems, there's harvests that 
Perry spoke of, too, both legal and illegal, and we think 
there's some evidence that the illegal take is quite 
substantial, although, as we point out in our remarks, 
it's the kind of thing that is not really susceptible to 
any sort of precise quantification.
	As to the legal harvest of fish, I think we have to 
note that the harvest rate tends to have a greater and 
greater impact on fish and game species as population 
increases and other sources of biological stress on 
species increase. 
	A high percentage of harvest may be tolerable when 
other factors influencing biological resources are not at 
reduced levels.  But over time that's going to change with 
increasing population growth and development and greater 
demand placed upon resources.
	What may have been a perfectly healthy harvest rate 
when there were 10 million Californians may not be the 
same when now there are 30 million Californians, and the 
pressures that that kind of population brings to bear upon 
the resources of the estuary.
	Pollutants is our last item and, of course, the 
first thing we notice, as Perry did, is that the control 
of pollutants is one of the Board's primary functions 
under its various authorities to regulate waste discharge.
	During the 1630 hearings the toxicity of urban and 
agricultural runoff and toxicity in agricultural drains 
was newly raised and studies done, I believe, under both 
the Board and the Regional Board auspices, and in 
particular, I am given to understand that the pesticide 
Diazinon has been implicated as having acute effects on 
organisms practically everwhere in the rivers and the 
estuaries.
	What we would like to do since this is a matter of 
direct Board interest and authority, is to request that 
the Board staff report on these things in this forum, not 
necessarily today but perhaps at the next hearing, or at 
some workshop convened for that purpose to tell us what 
the latest news is on the effect of toxics in the estuary 
and in the river system.
	Having noted these several categories of factors 
that affect Bay-Delta biological resources, I note that we 
have rephrased the issue from factors that cause the 
decline of Bay-Delta resources and we have done that on 
purpose.  We do think that when people talk about 
declines, it does serve to focus people's attention and 
spur them to action and take note of serious important 
problems, and that's good, but in terms of predicting 
structuring the manner in which we are going to go about 
addressing these problems, we think it is an unfortunate 
formulation.
	To begin with, I think it starts to suggest there 
is some sort of uniform or homogeneous decline that has 
been occurring from a common starting point and having a 
common contour, and I don't think that's true; and the 
second thing and the main point, is that it misdirects our 
attention from asking what today is affecting those 
resources, biological resources in the estuary, and what 
today may be done to afford reasonable protection for 
them.  That may or may not have something to do with what 
may have caused them to decline at some point in the past.
	We talked about the lack of homogeneity of the 
decline.  What we were asking the Board to do is look at 
the individual species and see how they have behaved and 
not to indulge in some sort of general over-arching view 
on this until it has looked at these things.
	Some say the decline has occurred since the late 
60s to the early 1970s.  That's one of the rationales that 
the EPA has used for picking that period.
	I note in my comments that adult striped bass did 
not decline until after 1977.  I think that ought to be 
modified to say Fish and Game has presented evidence that 
there was a first-level decline starting about 1969.  I 
think, again, Perry Hergesell referred to that and we 
would accept it.
	Certainly, there was another blip in the decline 
after 1977.  We think the population has been relatively 
stable for the last dozen years.
	But now, the Delta smelt didn't decline until 1982.  
Is this the same decline as we have observed for striped 
bass?  On Delta smelt some say the period since 1982 has 
been one of general smelt decline while others look at the 
same abundance indices and say, no, the smelt have been 
increasing since 1985, and yet, others will take a look at 
it and note the extreme variability in smelt populations 
and say there is no trend.  I think there is a lot of 
judgment in the formulation of this concept of decline.
	I think what is important for the Board to do is to 
be looking at what is beneficial in the biological 
resources in the estuary, take a look at the things that 
are affecting them and influencing them today and 
determine what may reasonably be done to better that 
situation.
	The second problem with asking about the causes of 
decline is that we don't think it is necessarily relevant.  
What is relevant, as I have just said, is what is today 
adversely affecting the viability of fish and wildlife 
populations.  What today limits the population may have 
nothing to do with what might have caused it to decline.
	Moreover, there may exist many options for 
addressing a problem irrespective of what caused that 
problem and they all should be investigated.
	People talk about, using the metaphor, you enter a 
room by one door does not mean that you have to leave it 
by the same door.  There may be various other ways of 
approaching the problem, especially when you consider that 
this thing is moving, that the estuary is constantly 
changing.
	The last point I would make is focusing on the 
decline has a further drawback.  Declines which have 
several material causes may not be evidence or may not 
occur until the last cause has been applied, has matured.  
It may then seem like the last cause was the only cause, 
whereas, in reality it is merely the one that sparks the 
decline.  I think this seems fairly common sense in an 
estuary in which we have many factors at play.  One would 
suspect when change occurs many factors are responsible.
	More importantly, we think this viewpoint, harking 
back to what I think is the central issue for the Board, 
it does not help us to make the one important decision we 
have to make, which is irrespective of chronology, which 
happened first or which happened second, how do we choose 
as a matter of public policy among the several factors 
that may together affect the estuary's biological 
resources even as we balance the control of these factors 
against the need for greater protection of instream uses.
	That ends my comments.  I would like to turn the 
mike over to Ed Winkler.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
	Good morning, Mr. Winkler.
	MR. WINKLER:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Board 
members.  
	I am Ed Winkler.  I am with the Department of Water 
Resources, Division of Operation and Maintenance.
	I am here today to discuss question 2, which is, 
what modifications has the State Water Project and Central 
Valley Project made to their operations to protect 
endangered species and other species of concern.
	As I am sure you are all aware, there have been a 
host of new federal regulations put in place the last two 
years to protect the endangered winter-run chinook salmon 
and the threatened Delta smelt.  I will briefly describe 
these regulations from the two key biological opinions; 
that would be the National Marine Fisheries Service 
biological opinion to protect winter-run salmon and the U. 
S. Fish and Wildlife Service opinion for Delta smelt.
	I will then discuss the major operational ramifi-
cations experienced over the last two years, and I will 
then present the water supply impacts that the projects 
have experienced.
	Now, starting with the first slide, I will go over 
what the criteria are currently.  I will start with 1994, 
since that's what we are dealing with currently.  This is 
Figure 2 in your handout package and this is the colored 
version.
	Let me, first, just describe the graphics.  Across 
the top are the months of the year and on the left side 
you will see the various criteria that we have to operate 
to, and let me just note that these are only the Delta 
criteria, the key Delta criteria.  There are other 
criteria upstream such as water temperature and the Red 
Bluff diversion dam operations, for example, that I won't 
be covering, but these are the main Delta operational 
criteria.
	You will notice there are two colored bars on the 
chart.  The red bars indicate criteria for protection of 
winter-run salmon, and the blue or purple are the measures 
to protect the Delta smelt.
	Now, starting with winter-run salmon, you will 
notice the first criteria there is really no direct export 
limitation for winter-run salmon.  I have put it in this 
category.  It is actually an indirect export limit due to 
the take limit.  The projects can take no more than one 
percent of the out-migrating population of winter-run 
smolts.  This year that number was 905 and in 1992 it was 
2700 fish, and that limit applies between the months of 
October and May.
	The next criteria for winter run would be the 
operation of the Delta cross channel.  The cross channel 
must be closed between February and April, and it can be 
closed between October and January depending on whether or 
not winter run are detected in the upper Sacramento or 
even the lower Sacramento River.
	And the final criteria on winter run would be the 
QWEST index, which is the flow index of the lower San 
Joaquin River.  That index is to be no less than zero 
between the months of February and April, and it is to be 
no less than minus 2,000 cfs between November and January.  
	And keep in mind that the zero cfs also between 
February and April is coincident with the cross channel 
closure that, in effect, is essentially an export limit in 
the way they work hydraulically.
	Going on to Delta smelt, the Delta smelt take limit 
covers all the months of the year.  It is kind of a 
complicated table to go over.  It is included in your 
package as an addendum to Figure 2.  
	I will just briefly tell you that the limit that we 
are currently operating to is 755 fish on a 14-day running 
average.  That will cover us through June and then July it 
will depend on a monitoring survey.  That's how it works 
as you go through the year.
	North Bay Aqueduct has a limit on it.  You can't 
pump more than 65 cfs when smelt are present in the 
vicinity.  There's a minimum daily Delta outflow standard 
between February and June.  It varies between 6800 and 
12,000 cfs.  A certain number of days you have to meet 
this depending on the year type.
	This year, for example, we had to meet 6800 for 40 
days and the 12,000 for 180 days.
	And lastly, there is criteria on the San Joaquin 
River at Vernalis.  It is related to the Delta outflow 
criteria.  A certain percentage of the outflow criteria 
has to be met by Vernalis flow.  And there's also an April 
and May pulse flow that's required on the San Joaquin.
	Okay, the next slide, please.
	I will just briefly mention the 1993 criteria.  I 
don't want to confuse this too much.  For winter run the 
criteria are essentially identical except for the take 
limit.  The winter run opinion is a long-term take.  That 
is the only thing that varies with the winter run.
	With Delta smelt there's several differences.  The 
key ones are, in '93 we had a QWEST criteria that covered 
May through August of '93, and the Delta smelt take 
criteria in 1993 only covered May through July, whereas 
now we have an all-year take.
	There are several other differences and I would 
refer you to the package if you want more details.
	So, what are the operational ramifications for the 
projects?  We have listed several of these points on page 
18 and I will go over them briefly, but just to start 
with, the main impact is that the projects are less 
reliable in delivering water supplies.
	The first point I would like to make is that 
carryover storage will be lower on average in the upstream 
reservoirs such as Oroville and Shasta.  This is due to 
the additional releases required for Delta outflow and 
this incurs a greater risk as we go into an extended 
drought.  This is riskier for project contractors as well 
as for meeting environmental needs.
	The second point is that deliveries to our 
contractors on average will be lower and in a minute I 
will give some specific numbers for 1993 and 1994.
	The third point is that there is less operational 
flexibility.  We now have very limited windows of 
opportunity for pumping water out of the Delta.  
Historically you could depend on the high flow months, 
December through April, to fill your southern storage 
reservoirs.  Now, due to the take problems and the take 
limits that are out there in these months, we have to 
depend on the late summer and fall much more.
	The fourth point is that because of that, there are 
now limited opportunities for water transfers.  The 
projects are having to meet their essential needs in the 
late summer and fall, and that leaves less operational 
capacity to do water transfers, as well as in the late 
summer and fall there are take limits for Delta smelt.  
So, it is a big unknown as to what we can pump.
	The fifth point is that the coordinated operation 
between the State and Federal projects is much more 
difficult.  The new rules are not covered by the existing 
coordinated operations agreement and we find situations 
where responsibilities are undefined as to who meets what 
standard.
	And lastly, our ability, the project's ability to 
meet future increased demands has been severely impacted.  
In fact, the feasibility of the future South Delta storage 
reservoirs and water-banking programs is now questionable 
because of the limited pumping opportunities.  In fact, it 
is quite difficult right now just to fill the existing 
storage.
	So, how does this all translate into water supply 
impacts?
	Let's look at the next figure, please.  This would 
be Figure 3 from your handout package.
	Talking about 1993 first of all.  We went back and 
reoperated the project as though the endangered species 
matters did not exist and assuming that only D-1485 were 
in place.  I will explain the graph first.
	Along the X axis are the months of the year, and 
you will notice it only goes through June.  That is 
because in July through December there were no impacts.  
So, that's why we have just shown the months where there 
were impacts. 
	On the Y axis are the units in thousands of acre-
feet of impact.  You will notice that there are two 
different colored bars, a purple bar and an orange bar.  
The purple would be the pumping capacity foregone.
	Let me define this term.  That would be the maximum 
potential water reallocated from project uses to Delta 
outflow.
	Now, the orange bars are the actual 1993 water 
supply impacts, or that water that would have been used by 
the State and Federal contractors or stored in the absence 
of the Endangered Species Act.
	Now, the difference between the two bars, you will 
notice, like, for example, in March there is a large 
difference.  That difference represents the lost pumping 
capacity that in future years could have been used to fill 
additional south of Delta storage or to meet additional 
future needs projects.
	Now, the 1993 total capacity foregone was about one 
million acre-feet and the total combined impact which 
would be the sum of the orange bars was about 600,000 
acre-feet, and the February through April impacts were 
mainly due to QWEST and the winter-run take limit.  In May 
through June, we were limited by Delta smelt take.
	Okay, the next overhead, please.
	This would be Figure 4 from the handout.  It covers 
the 1994 water supply impacts.  We have not yet calculated 
the actual water supply impact.  We will do that at the 
end of the year.  That is a more involved process, but we 
do have the capacity foregone calculation through May and 
that totals to 1.3 million acre-feet.  In preliminary 
calculations, it looks as though this year there will 
definitely be more than 600,000 acre-feet of actual 
impact.  We just don't know the exact number, but it will 
be more than 600,000.
	So, just to summarize, the answer to the question, 
you know, there have been many modifications imposed on 
the projects due to the Endangered Species Act.  The main 
overall impact is lower reliability of project supplies.
	As I mentioned, in 1993, the projects took about a 
600,000 acre-foot hit.  In 1994, it will be greater than 
that.  Flexibility has been reduced.  There are fewer 
windows of opportunity for pumping, limited opportunity 
for water transfers, feasibility of future South Delta 
banking projects now jeopardized, and overall a great deal 
of uncertainty.
	I was going to mention that the current situation 
at the Banks pumping plant, it's in my motes here, as of 
yesterday morning was at three percent of capacity due to 
Delta smelt take, and the Tracy pumping plant was at 15 
percent.  But, as of midnight last night we had to shut it 
down to zero at Banks due to the smelt take.
	I hope that gives you a flavor for what we are 
dealing with, not day to day but hour to hour, with the 
take limits and various criteria.  It's quite a challenge.
	I would be happy to answer any questions.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Winkler and Mr. 
Anderson.
	Are there questions by Board members?  Nothing at 
this time.  Staff?  
	Mr. Howard.
	MR. HOWARD:  During March it looks like the 
projects have been pumping at minimum capacity and right 
now I understand they are being controlled by the Delta 
smelt take limit.  
	Is there any indication that there will be any 
relief for this in the future and what would be the impact 
if the Delta smelt take continued to restrict pumping 
throughout the summer?
	MR. WINKLER:  Well, we wouldn't be able to meet our 
project needs, quite simply.  Right now we have very 
limited ability to meet the South Bay Aqueduct needs.  
They have limited storage along there. 
	So, when you say contractors, it varies along the 
way.  South Bay would be most imminently impacted if we 
have to continue to shut down.  In this process, you know, 
it's a back-and-forth thing.  We enter consultation with 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and regroup and try to 
figure out what to do, and in the last couple of weeks we 
have gone through a couple of iterations on this, and I 
would hope we could reach a reasonable solution for the 
summer as well.
	But I guess the one thing I just want to drive home 
is that it is just very difficult to plan operations and 
plan some level of deliveries given you never know when 
the fish are going to show up or whether this is just a 
bumper crop situation, and these take limits have been 
really difficult to deal with.
	MR. HOWARD:  Assuming the projects can't come back 
up in Delta pumping, will the Department of Water 
Resources be able to meet its contractual obligations this 
year south of the Delta?
	MR. WINKLER:  No, we won't be able to meet our 
approved deliveries.
	MR. HOWARD:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Other questions?
	Mr. Pettit.
	MR. PETTIT:  When you refer to the capacity of the 
Delta, the Banks plant, Mr. Winkler, were you referring to 
the capacity including the new pumps?
	MR. WINKLER:  Now the capacity foregone, that 
calculation would include -- we would back down to 
whatever D-1485 controlled at.  So, for example, in May, 
the limit at Banks is 3,000 cubic feet per second and if 
we are limited by the ESA to, say, 1,000 cfs, that 
calculation would be that there's 2,000 cfs of capacity 
foregone.  It wouldn't go all the way to the physical 
plant capacity, it would just go to the next limit of 
control.
	MR. PETTIT:  What is the present physical capacity 
of Banks?
	MR. WINKLER:  Ten thousand three hundred.
	MR. PETTIT:  That includes all four pumps?
	MR. WINKLER:  Right.
	MR. CAFFREY:  All right.  Does that conclude your 
presentation?
	MR. WINKLER:  Yes.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you both very much for being 
here.  We appreciate it.
	Next we have Roger Patterson.  Good morning, Mr. 
Patterson.
	Mr. Patterson is the Regional Director for the 
Bureau of Reclamation.  He is here this morning 
representing Club Fed.
	Good morning, sir -- oh, you have others with you.  
	Gentleman, if you would like to sit at the table 
for your presentation, there is a mike there and you are 
welcome to do that.
	MR. PATTERSON:  I decided after that last 
presentation I needed to bring up reinforcements to cover 
any questions you may have.
	Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Pettit, 
I am Roger Patterson.  I am the Regional Director of the 
Bureau of Reclamation here in Sacramento.  
	The two gentlemen I have with me; first of all, I 
think you know Mr. Patrick Wright.  Patrick Wright is with 
Region 9 in San Francisco with EPA, and Wayne White is the 
State Supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service for the 
State of California.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Welcome, gentlemen.
	MR. PATTERSON:  We are glad to be here.
	I would also point out that we have well situated 
in the audience a number of members of our staff from the 
various Club Fed agencies and I would like you to know 
that we have had people here during the previous two 
workshops.  In a fairly nondescript way, we took copious 
notes and they provided a briefing to all of us that were 
not in attendance the following Tuesday by conference 
calls, so we are very interested in what the Board is 
doing and appreciate the opportunity to be here.
	MR. CAFFREY:  We are aware that your staff people 
have been here, Mr. Patterson, and other staff people from 
the other members of Club Fed.  We do know that you are 
following what we are doing and we appreciate that, and we 
appreciate your current and future cooperation.
	MR. PATTERSON:  Okay.  Let me just make a few of 
the major points we want to make and then we will all be 
available to answer questions.
	First of all, on the first point, what factors, 
excluding diversions, contribute to the decline of fish 
and wildlife resources in the Bay-Delta estuary?  
Certainly, we believe there are a number of factors and 
what I would like to do is mention a few of those that we 
believe are most important.
	First, I would mention water quality and habitat 
modification, which is definitely a factor that has a 
potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources 
in the estuary.  We point out that contaminants derived 
from both natural sources and domestic activities have had 
adverse impacts to the biological resources in a number of 
locations, including the estuary.
	These natural sources include soils that are 
naturally laden with relatively high levels of elements 
such as copper, zinc, selenium, and boron, to name a few.  
	Also, domestic activities will have detrimental 
effects which would include untreated urban runoff that 
contain hydrocarbons, treatment plant effluent, industrial 
discharges, and agricultural drainage containing elevated 
levels of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
	It was mentioned by the Department of Fish and Game 
and others, we believe, that exotic species that have been 
introduced, both knowingly and accidentally, have had 
adverse impacts on species food chain and habitat.  We 
know that several of those exotic species are known to 
prey upon the native fishery.
	Also, exotics such as the Asiatic clam are known 
for their capability to strip the biomass out of a water 
column in short order.
	I also would like to point out habitat 
modifications related to various construction activities 
may also have adverse effects on estuarine species.  These 
would include things such as levee construction and 
dredging that have a potential to modify habitat 
complexity and diversity through loss of shallow water 
habitat, vegetation, and reduced riparian-shaded aquatic 
habitat.
	The second major issue that was raised was what 
modifications have the State Water Project and the Central 
Valley Project made to their operations to protect 
endangered species and other species of concern?  We would 
note that the three issues specifically identified were 
operational changes, water supply impacts and effect on 
target species.
	I think you just had a very good explanation of 
some of the major changes in operation that the two 
projects are making to protect the two principal species, 
which is the winter-run chinook salmon, and also, the 
Delta smelt.
	It was mentioned that there are a couple of other 
things not talked about in the Delta.  Let me just 
summarize quickly that the major changes are in the area 
of storage limitations, which is critical for temperature 
control, particularly for our operation below Shasta and 
Keswick Dams on the Sacramento River.  Transport and 
habitat flows, as you saw, are part of these operational 
changes.  
	Also, changes in the way the Bureau of Reclamation 
is operating Red Bluff diversion dam, which is operated in 
a way to improve passage of migrating fish on the 
Sacramento River by leaving the gates out of the water for 
much longer periods of time during the year.
	I would point out the change in the operation of 
the Delta cross channel gates, which you saw.  Export 
curtailments are a part of the operation now as well as 
take limits, which you heard were specifically identified 
for both of these species.
	Both the Central Valley Project and the State Water 
Project supply south of the Delta have experienced 
reductions in supply due in part to these operational 
constraints.
	We do believe that several of the measures required 
by the biological opinions have been beneficial to the 
targeted species through improved habitat conditions and 
reduced levels of entrainment.  However, to better 
understand the effects on targeted species, we continue to 
explore improvements to monitoring techniques and 
alternative methods to minimize adverse impacts on all 
beneficial uses.
	I would point out that the specifics of the 
operation of both projects to meet endangered species are 
contained in biological assessments and biological 
opinions which have been issued by both the National 
Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.  I believe we have made copies of all of those 
documents available to the staff.  If not, you are welcome 
to have additional copies.  They are fairly large and 
fairly extensive in their explanation.
	The next point is, what effect do upstream water 
projects other than the Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project have on the fish and wildlife resources of 
the Bay-Delta estuary?  There are a number of points we 
would like to make there. 
	First of all, even though the magnitude may vary, 
we believe it is safe to say that upstream water projects 
do have an effect on the biological resources that have to 
be somewhat analogous to those of the Central Valley 
Project and the State Water Project.  These would include 
things such as entrainment and flow reductions that result 
in habitat modification.
	Project operations, both upstream and within the 
estuary, need to contribute an equitable share to resolve 
Delta problems in some kind of balanced and reasonable 
manner.
	The last point we would make on item No. 4, what  
are the status and trends of biological resources in the 
Bay-Delta estuary, and we have really not had an 
opportunity to look at the information that was provided 
to you by Fish and Game, but I think we would agree that 
the general trend for native anadromous species and 
resident native fish has been declining.
	We would also agree that trends for some of the 
exotic species such as the Asiatic clam have actually been 
proliferating.
	In summary, the federal agencies that make up Club 
Fed are certainly supportive of the Board's efforts in the 
proceedings, and we appreciate the fact that the Board is 
considering factors beyond the fresh flows and diversions 
such as drainage and exotic species that require special 
management strategies necessary for the restoration of the 
Bay-Delta resources.
	We believe that standards that recognize the CVP 
and SWP limitations and incorporate flexible options are a 
necessity to maximizing benefits to competing needs.
	Project operations and practices, both upstream and 
within the Delta, need to contribute their equitable share 
to resolve Delta problems in a balanced and reasonable 
manner.
	The Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
identified several non-flow measures to improve conditions 
for fishery resources.  These include things such as the 
Shasta temperature control device, spawning gravel 
replenishment and strategically located barriers which 
should be considered in the Board's deliberations.  We 
believe that these should also be taken into account in 
any deliberations.
	Finally, we would like to point out that we believe 
that the development and implementation of a comprehensive 
ecosystem plan is required to address long-standing Bay-
Delta issues.
	With that, we would be happy to address any 
questions that you may have.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Stubchaer.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Are any members of Club Fed 
studying the effects of the exotic species that you 
mentioned to try and quantify the impacts?
	MR. WHITE:  Only in a general sense.  There are no 
specific studies that I am aware of.  I think the 
Department of Water Resources pointed out there's a lot of 
exotics and that is part of our problem.  We have problems 
of exotics in numerous places of aquatic ecosystems and 
finding the right tool to take care of a very specific 
introduced species is a difficult task.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Will you have any advice to give 
to this Board on how we could address these exotic species 
problems other than throwing water at the desirable 
species?
	MR. WHITE:  Mr. Stubchaer, that's a very good 
question.  You can ask us to look very closely at it and 
develop a specific tool that will take care of some of the 
key problems.
	MR. WRIGHT:  I do think there is a section in the 
San Francisco estuary project about a conservation 
management plan on exotic species.  I can't recall the 
details.  Perhaps some other members of the audience can 
in future presentations.  I believe there is a general 
blueprint there that the Board members and staff might 
want to take a look at.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Anything else from other Board 
members?  Mr. Brown?
	MR. BROWN:  The Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act, in their list of options for water diverted to 
environmental needs, is looking at options to replace 
those quantities of water back into the Central Valley 
Project; are they not?
	MR. PATTERSON:  Yes, that is correct, Mr. Brown.
	And part of being able to do that, to replace the 
water that's been dedicated principally for fish and 
wildlife means that we have to take an intermediate step 
and then actually quantify what additional water needs we 
are going to have for fish and wildlife beyond what has 
been dedicated in the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act.
	That process is under way.  It is kind of part and 
parcel of a plan that is being developed by the Department 
of the Interior, and then all of that becomes a subject of 
where do we find the water and how do we replace it.
	MR. CAFFREY:  I don't know to whom to direct this 
question, and I will precede it by saying you can correct 
me if I misconstrue what I heard you say, Mr. Patterson.
	You seemed to be expressing a concern earlier in 
your presentation about what I call the potential pitting 
of one species against another.  You were talking about 
the effect on your ability to recapture storage because, 
if I heard correctly, the Delta smelt requirements 
therefore affecting temperature, and perhaps I am reading 
a lot into what you said, but perhaps the ability then to 
be of assistance to the winter-run salmon when you require 
cold water to be released; do you think that Club Fed is 
going to be able to develop a -- and I am going back to 
the term shelf life -- ecosystem approach that will take a 
broader look at the Delta and all the species so we are 
not running the risk of pitting one species against 
another.
	This is something that concerns me very greatly.  
We try to develop these standards with some assurance that 
we can do something together that allows this broader 
approach to work.  
	Maybe I answered my own question.  
	Forgive me, but would you care to comment on that?  
It bothers me a lot?
	MR. PATTERSON:  It is an important issue and it's 
one that we have talked about a lot among the federal 
agencies, and I think to answer your question, can it be 
done; I think, yes, it can be done.
	We have managed so far, I think, to be able to meet 
the needs of the various species which, as you point out 
particularly during very dry times, the need for 
temperature control, which takes a certain amount of 
storage retained upstream, could be pulled out on the 
other end by the need for outflow requirements 
specifically required for smelt.
	We have managed to make those work together even in 
a year like this, which is one of the driest years that we 
have had, but fortunately, we had some storage coming into 
the year and we benefited by that.
	We know that this is something that is essential to 
any long-term solution that we are going to have and we 
think it can be done, and as EPA deliberates on how to 
handle the standards that they are working on under the 
Clean Water Act, this is something that we have on the 
table for discussion, and I don't know if anyone wants to 
add anything, but we are well aware of it.
	We know that's key to having success.  And I 
believe we can make it fit, I believe, as long as we 
understand that in certain years we may have to go into 
adaptive management, which is essentially what we have 
done this year to manage to meet all the needs at the same 
time.
	But it is important and there is good reason to be 
concerned about it.
	MR. CAFFREY:  It is so essential to reliability.  
There's that word reliability, that maybe we didn't hear 
that word too much the first couple of years I was on this 
Board, but the next year it was the predominant word and I 
think, again, the buzz word that we are using, shelf life, 
is so critical to reliability.
	Whatever plan that we are able to jointly develop 
with EPA, it is going to be for naught if we don't figure 
out a way to interpret the ESA with a broad ecosystem 
approach that doesn't pit species against each other.
	I appreciate your effort in that area.  I know you 
are trying to solve that problem.  We certainly endorse 
your efforts and wait with great anticipation for the 
answer.
	Ms. Forster has a question.
	MS. FORSTER:  Roger, would you explain again what 
you mean by adaptive management?
	MR. PATTERSON:  Adaptive management is sort of make 
it up as you go.  Actually, the concept is embodied in 
these biological opinions I talked about and it's 
essentially to recognize up front that we don't know 
everything and cannot specify out for years ahead exactly 
how things are going to work and provide for conditions 
when we have essentially not enough water to go around, to 
pull together all of the right people from the various 
agencies, and that's what we are doing, the State and 
Federal agencies, and decide what kind of fine tuning 
needs to be made to meet those conditions.
	That's what we have done this year for the winter 
run.  That's what we are doing right now for the Delta 
smelt, and it is making the decisions current on the best 
data that you have, which I think is essential that that 
is a part of any plan.
	We all want reliability and to have a shelf life, 
but I believe any plan we have is going to have to provide 
for this kind of situation when you are going to have to 
get the right people together and make decisions as to how 
to navigate through those sort of difficult times.
	Otherwise, what you do is you leave resources on 
the table that aren't going to be best utilized under 
those conditions.
	MS. FORSTER:  Do you see any trend when you do this 
kind of exercise?  How are people going to plan if you 
make it up as you go?  I mean, do you have ranges?  I know 
the past couple of years you have been developing how to 
do these better, but do you think by the time we get ready 
to do standards and you get ready to do standards, that we 
will have a formula that people can understand for water 
planning, I mean for farmers to plan, for cities to know a 
little firmer?
	MR. PATTERSON:  I think we can and I think what 
this amounts to is we can get to the point where we can 
have a reliable expectation of what's going to happen, and 
then, when we get into these crunch times, it's getting 
together to make sure we can navigate through this and 
meet that reliability that we put out there as opposed to 
having sort of an automatic pilot and we find out people 
cannot rely on that.
	That's where I think we need to strive to get.  
Yes, you can rely on it but it is still going to take some 
management.  We can't just turn it on and let it run.
	MR. WHITE:  I think a very good example of adaptive 
management, which just happened in the last couple of 
weeks, is working together between the agencies.  Where 
one facility has the higher degree of take than the other, 
we simply flip-flop the pumping from one to the other, so 
it is, as Mr. Winkler points out, a day to day and hour to 
hour, on how the operations of the projects are going.
	MR. WRIGHT:  I would just add, too, the shelf life 
issue has obviously been one that has been a key one for 
EPA trying to put together a set of standards that we 
think would be meaningful for the foreseeable future.
	The way that we have chosen to try to do that is to 
focus on a multiple-species approach to habitat 
protection, so the evidence seems to suggest that 
protecting habitat conditions is necessary to protecting 
the species.
	What we don't know is whether or not that will be 
sufficient to restore these species, but hopefully, we 
will know after the standards are implemented about a 
reasonable period of time the extent to which those 
habitat measures need to be supplemented by other 
measures, either through the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act, through Board action, whatever.
	But certainly, if that does happen, it should give 
water users more certainty to the extent that they should 
know for the foreseeable future that increased flows 
shouldn't be necessary even if, say, additional declines 
are to occur, that we have taken care of habitat 
conditions, at least to the best of our knowledge in this 
phase, and we could move on to a long-range planning 
effort to deal with the other factors, both in the short 
term through CPIA and in the long term through this joint 
State/Federal process we are trying to develop.
	That's the goal.  Whether or not we can pull that 
off is going to be challenged, obviously.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Mr. Wright, if we don't know the 
effect of the exotic species, how do we know that habitat 
restoration is even a possible goal?  How do you know it 
is even possible to do?
	MR. WRIGHT:  That's a good question.  Certainly, 
the evidence suggests, for instance, that the location of 
the two parts per thousand salinity line and/or increased 
flows explains a significant amount of variability in the 
species of the estuary.  Even in the face of all the 
exotic species that have come in during the past decade, 
it's been the conclusion of a wide range of groups that 
focusing on the measures that will improve habitat 
conditions in Suisun Bay will help.
	All that data is based on the past.  One never 
knows in the future whether or not there will be new 
exotics, new conditions out there, and that's why you need 
to have an adaptive management program, why you need to 
have a triennial review process in your standards so that 
they are flexible so you can make changes.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   I was focusing on the difference 
between restore and improve on the habitat.  I think you 
used the word restore earlier and now you said 
improvement.  We can improve.  Whether we can restore is 
an open question.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Any other questions of the gentlemen?  
	Mr. Howard.
	MR. HOWARD:  I have a question for Mr. White.  The 
fact that the Delta smelt take limit is curtailing pumping 
right now, it implies to me that there is a substantial 
population of Delta smelt in the Central Delta.  It also 
appears that the pumps won't be able to operate until 
those Delta smelt move away from the pumps.
	Is there any reason to believe that they will, in 
fact, move, and if they don't, does the U. S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service have any idea how this all might shake 
out in the long run?
	MR. WHITE:  This a several part question.  The 
ecological studies program is currently doing their trawl 
studies.  We are trying to get that information so we can 
get several things; one, abundance; and two, distribution. 
	If, in fact, we have high abundance and 
distribution away from the pumps, then we can look at the 
opportunities in the reinitiation of consultation to 
modify the level of take.
	The problem associated with that is, as you pointed 
out, are Delta smelt starting to move down?  We thought 
they were starting to move down.  One of the unknown 
factors of this is the other diversions within the Delta.  
How much water is being drawn out the Delta to stop any 
flow through the Delta to move them away from the 
influence of the pumps down to the confluence of the two 
river?   
	That's the objective in that biological opinion.  
That's what we were trying to do.  
	We have another management team meeting after we 
get the results from the distribution study and a report 
from the technical team to see if there is opportunity to 
modify the incidental take approach that we have in the 
biological opinion today, we are dealing with those 
questions and trying to get to the answer and do it 
quickly because we will have fresh data in the next few 
weeks.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Are there other questions, Tom?
	MR. HOWARD:  No, that was all.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Patterson, Mr. White and Mr. 
Wright, thank you very much.  We appreciate your 
continuing attendance and perseverance.
	Mr. Feider, Area Manager for the Western Area Power 
Administration.
	MR. FEIDER:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
members, my name is Jim Feider, Area Manager for the 
Western Area Power Administration.
	The Western Area Power Administration was 
established in December, 1977, as part of the Department 
of Energy Organization Act.  Western's mission is to repay 
the federal power investment by marketing the Central 
Valley Project power at the lowest possible rates 
consistent with sound business principles.
	Sacramento area markets approximately 1,480 
megawatts of firm federal power to 77 wholesale customers 
in Northern and Central California.  Western's preference 
customers include irrigation districts, utility districts, 
municipalities, cooperatives, military and federal 
research installations, and the State of California penal 
and educational institutions.
	The Central Valley Project power system has a 
maximum installed capacity of approximately 2 million 
kilowatts.  Average annual generation is approximately 4.7 
billion kilowatt hours.  Average annual power sales to 
Western's customers is over 200 million dollars.
	At the May 16, 1994, workshop, Western emphasized 
the need to consider all impacts of the Bay-Delta 
decisions, including those impacting hydroelectric power 
generation of the Central Valley Project.
	This morning I would like to comment on issue No. 
2, which is, what modifications have the State Water 
Project and the Central Valley Project made to their 
operations to protect endangered species and other species 
of concern?
	The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has operational 
control of the Central Valley Project reservoirs.  
Western, through Reclamation, has realized impacts to 
power generation at the Shasta Dam due to cold water 
bypasses of the penstocks of Shasta Dam for protection of 
the winter-run chinook salmon.  Because of this action, 
Western has had to purchase power from other sources to 
make up for the loss of generation due to the Shasta Dam 
bypasses.
	The Shasta bypass releases are designed to provide 
cooler water temperatures to help protect salmon eggs and 
emerging fry in a 28-mile stretch of the river below 
Keswick Dam where salmon spawn.  
	If air temperatures rise, releases of cold water 
are required.  Most of the bypasses relate to the winter 
run, but some of the October, November and December 
bypasses benefit the fall-run chinook salmon.
	The replacement energies due to the Shasta bypasses 
have cost over 31 million dollars starting in 1987 through 
September of 1993.  Replacement power not only has 
resulted in additional cost but has required power 
generation to be increased from other sources, primarily 
fossil-fuel generation.
	I am providing a table of those costs for the 
record in my written comments, but I would also add that 
if we added to this year's bypasses as forecasted by the 
Bureau, we are talking about in the ten-to-fifteen million 
dollars, which brings the total costs to date well over 40 
million dollars.
	Western looks forward to the start of construction 
of the Shasta temperature control device later this year 
so that the bypasses can be eliminated by the fall of 
1996.
	Also, as part of temperature control, Reclamation 
has initiated the Trinity Dam bypasses.  The Trinity 
bypasses cause cold water to be diverted through the low 
level outlets at Trinity Dam instead of through the 
penstocks bypassing power generation.  These bypasses are 
used for temperature control of Lewiston Lake and the 
Trinity River below Lewiston Lake.
	In addition to the bypasses at Shasta and Trinity, 
Reclamation has made operational changes to Central Valley 
Project reservoirs in part to maximize their ability to 
control water temperature for endangered species 
protection.  These changes have shifted Central Valley 
Project generation patterns and consequently have changed 
western's requirements for firming energy.
	Western would like to see these operational changes 
made on a more predictable basis.  I might also note that 
based on earlier comments that any reduced operational 
flexibility of the reservoirs and any associated reduced 
carryover storage also impacts reliability of the power 
supply and our ability to meet our customers' contractual 
needs.
	As I have indicated to you today, the Western Area 
Power Administration and its preference power customers 
have been impacted by the modifications to Central Valley 
Project operations to protect endangered species, both in 
the Sacramento River and the Trinity River basin through 
added costs to purchase power.  Western is very interested 
in these proceedings and believes the total power impact 
of the proposed alternatives needs to be studied.
	Western supports the need for standards to protect 
endangered species in the San Francisco/San Joaquin-
Sacramento River Delta and upstream rivers and 
tributaries.  
At the same time, Western hopes whatever standards the 
Board adopts through this process will be based on sound 
biological science that leads to the most cost effective 
approach to a solution.
	We agree with many here today that a balanced 
approach be taken for determining a long-term plan for the 
Delta.
	Thank you, I would be happy to answer any 
questions.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Feider.
	Any questions from Board members of Mr. Feider?
	Mr. Brown.
	MR. BROWN:  The 31 million dollars of power from 
Shasta that you have to purchase, where did you buy that 
power?
	MR. FEIDER:  Well, it is primarily out of the 
Pacific Northwest.
	MR. BROWN:  From Montana or someplace else?
	MR. FEIDER:  We buy power from about six different 
utilities on a long-term basis and several of the other 
utilities that are buying power right now from Pacific 
Power and Light, has a large coal-based generation 
resource for buying power from other utilities.
	We occasionally buy power from Montana Power 
Company, occasionally from B. C. Hydro out of Canada.  Any 
that we can't get in from the northwest, we make up from 
our accounting procedures we have with Pacific Gas & 
Electric Company, so some of it also comes from them.
	MR. BROWN:  What percentage of that would be fossil 
fuel power?
	MR. FEIDER:  A little over 50 percent, I think 
about 56 percent of our purchased power comes from fossil 
fuel.  It is hard to tie it directly to the bypasses 
themselves, but I would have to speculate that a larger 
percentage would be fossil fuel, probably more like 80 to 
90 percent.
	MR. BROWN:  On the Trinity Dam bypass, how much 
power have you lost?
	MR. FEIDER:  It's about a little under 4 million 
dollars worth.  Those were incurred in 1991, '92 and '93.
	MR. BROWN:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Stubchaer.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   You seem to have been working with 
the Bureau of Reclamation in ways to fund the variable 
intakes for the hydro station so you don't have to bypass 
water below Keswick?
	MR. FEIDER:  We have spent a considerable amount of 
effort trying to work with the Bureau and their funding 
process through the Congress to facilitate the 
construction of that project, and Western and its 
customers are very supportive of moving forward with the 
temperature control device.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Is there any discussion of having 
a surcharge on the power to pay for the costs of the 
needed facilities?
	MR. FEIDER:  Well, right now the Bureau is picking 
up part of the costs through the restoration fund that in 
part will go towards the temperature control device.  But 
at this point, there are no active discussions on any 
further surcharges.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   It seems to me from the figures 
you have given us it wouldn't take very long and you could 
avoid purchasing power and you could pay for the control 
devices.
	MR. FEIDER:  That's true.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  You indicated you lost 4 million 
dollars on the Trinity bypass.
	MR. FEIDER:  That is correct.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  How much of that cost did you pass 
on to your consumers when you had increments of purchased 
price added onto the kilowatt hours when you sold it?
	MR. FEIDER:  The costs for Trinity does get passed 
on to the power consumers.  The costs for Shasta at this 
point in time are not being passed on.  They are being 
written off as taxpayer expense from the United States 
taxpayers.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Let me suggest to you when 
operating utilities everything is a taxpayer expense.  In 
fact, when power is available, would it not be possible to 
add the increment that would normally be passed on to the 
consumer if you were out on the open market purchasing 
power to generate the money necessary to do the 
temperature control?
	MR. FEIDER:  Well, I am not sure I understand your 
question.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  You sell purchased power for more 
than you sell power generated at Trinity; is that not 
correct?
	MR. FEIDER:  What we do is we blend our purchase 
power cost with the other Central Valley Project 
generation costs and we sell basically at one price.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  So there is no impact in terms of 
the 4 million dollars lost that you are talking about 
then?
	MR. FEIDER:  We have to take that increased expense 
and we blend it in with our power rates on a year-to-year 
basis.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  What is that impact in terms of 
kilowatt hour cost actually?
	MR. FEIDER:  In our rate base it amounts to about 
half a mill per kilowatt hour.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Half a mill.
	One last question -- given the fact a significant 
portion of the problem that presents itself in terms of 
the State water system is a result of declining species 
currently listed under the ESA, wouldn't it seem 
appropriate that the federal agency that might have some 
contribution to the decline might do something to 
construct facilities that would alleviate a portion of 
that problem?
	I am not picking on you.  I think I am picking on 
your boss's boss -- in your opinion.
	MR. FEIDER:  Well, if you were implying that the 
power operation has contributed to the decline of the 
species, I don't believe that to be the case.  There are a 
lot of factors that are influencing what has gone on and 
what we are suggesting here is that by having the 
facilities in place to prevent those bypasses; in other 
words, construct a temperature control device, we believe 
that power can be generated and still achieve the 
temperature regimes that are desirable.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I don't want to get into an 
argument as to how much spawning gravel was lost when the 
power projects were installed.  We will talk about that at 
some other time.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   I just had a comment on the same 
issue.  During our deliberations on D-1630, we were asked 
to think about having a surcharge on water diversions to 
help pay for the cost of facilities, one of which was the 
temperature control device at Shasta.
	It appears that it would be far more equitable to 
put that on the power costs.  It is such a huge amount of 
money and such a low percentage of the cost that that 
would be fairer than putting it on the water diverters.  
	That's just a comment.  You don't have to respond.
	MR. CAFFREY:  It was Mr. Stubchaer that I think at 
our last workshop asked one of your -- I presume one of 
your staff, whether or not you had been invited or, in 
fact, requested to become a member of Club Fed.  The 
answer was they had not been invited, but I think it might 
be a good idea for you and your agency to consider joining 
that group in their deliberations as to how to solve the 
problem.  I think you have input they should be aware of.
	MR. FEIDER:  I appreciate that and we do desire to 
joint the Club Fed group.
	MR. CAFFREY:  We will put in a good word for you.
	Mr. Howard, do you have any questions?
	MR. HOWARD:  No.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Brown has been patiently waiting.  
I apologize.
	MR. BROWN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I understood that WAPA developed about 200 million 
dollars a year in energy?
	MR. FEIDER:  Our annual revenues are a little over 
200 million dollars a year, yes.
	MR. BROWN:  How much do you sell your power for?
	MR. FEIDER:  It's approximately three cents per 
kilowatt hour.
	MR. BROWN:  And who are the main purchasers of the 
power?
	MR. FEIDER:  The municipal utilities of Northern 
California that I mentioned, some of which are here to 
testify this morning.  For example, Sacramento Municipal 
Utility District is our largest customer.  Some of the 
other larger communities include Palo Alto, City of 
Redding, Santa Clara, City of Roseville; and then, on the 
irrigation district side our biggest irrigation district 
is Arvin-Edison.  The second one would be Westlands and 
the third would be Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. 
	On the federal side we serve power to the Air Force 
bases like McClellan and Travis.   We serve power to Navy 
installations like Mare Island, NASA-Ames down in the Bay 
Area as well as the Department of Energy labs at 
Livermore-Berkeley.
	MR. BROWN:  If I figured this right, the power went 
up half a mill approximately.
	MR. FEIDER:  Because of the Trinity bypasses.
	MR. BROWN:  So, you are up from three cents to --
	MR. FEIDER:  Our current rate is about three cents.  
What we do is we take those increased operating expenses 
and the next year they are blended in.
	MR. BROWN:  So that would make it 3.5 cents?
	MR. FEIDER:  Not 3-1/2 cents, 3.05 cents.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you.  
	Anything from staff?
	MR. HOWARD:  No.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Feider, thank you very much.  We 
appreciate your being here.
	We are going to break for lunch as close to noon as 
we can.  Let's hear from Mr. Schneiter, Mayor of the City 
of Ukiah.  Good to see you again, sir.
	MAYOR SCHNEITER:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
Board members, I am Fred Schneiter, currently the chair of 
the Northern California Power Agency.
	I am pleased, once again, to have the opportunity 
to present comments to the Board's third workshop on Bay-
Delta water quality standards.  
	My comments are presented on behalf of Northern 
California Power Agency.  In preparing them, we have 
worked closely with Western Area Power Administration and 
other municipal electric utilities, including Sacramento 
Municipal Utility District.
	NCPA, the organization I represent, is a nonprofit, 
California joint action agency whose membership consists 
of 11 municipal electric utilities, Plumas-Sierra Rural 
Electric Cooperative, Turlock Irrigation District and 
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District.  
NCPA's members collectively supply electric power 
to over 600,000 residential and business consumers 
throughout Northern California.
The largest share of this power is produced by the 
Federal Central Valley Project and marketed by Western Area 
Power Administration to NCPA members and other preferential 
customers in Northern California.  In addition, several 
NCPA members own and operate hydroelectric facilities 
located elsewhere in and surrounding the Central Valley.
	As I noted at the Board's last workshop on May 16, 
hydroelectric generation is an extremely valuable resource 
that makes important contributions to the economy and 
environment of Northern California.  Clean, renewable 
hydroelectric energy is the third largest source of 
electricity in Northern California, behind only natural gas 
and nuclear power generation.
	The Central Valley Project produced 3.5 billion 
kilowatt hours of hydroelectric power in fiscal year 1993, 
equivalent to the annual energy consumption of 450,000 
Northern California homes.
	Central Valley Project power users make a major 
contribution to the Federal Government.  In addition to 
annual O&M costs, Central Valley Project power customers 
are responsible for repaying 560 million dollars of Central 
Valley Project construction costs, roughly 20 percent of 
the total cost of constructing Central Valley Project 
project facilities.  These facilities provide multifaceted 
benefits to the California economy.
	In addition, Central Valley Project users will 
contribute nearly 8 million dollars toward the fish and 
wildlife restoration measures authorized by the Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act in fiscal year 1994. 
	These funds support environmental measures that 
will provide important benefits to the aquatic resources of 
the Bay-Delta.  Restoration fund surcharges on Central 
Valley Project power users will be temporarily doubled in 
fiscal year 1995 to make up for expected deficiencies in 
payments by water users and permit other vital fish and 
wildlife improvement work to begin.
	Preserving the economic and environmental benefits 
of Central Valley Project hydroelectric power is critical 
to the continued vitality of Northern California.  
Therefore, we strongly believe that the Board should adopt 
an integrated approach that balances the many uses of this 
key watershed, including its use for power generation.
	Within this context, I would like to comment on the 
first three questions posed in the Board's notice for this 
workshop.  
	First, what are the factors that have contributed 
to the decline of the fish and wildlife resources of the 
Bay-Delta?
	The consensus of the experts is that many factors, 
both within the Bay-Delta and in upstream areas, have 
contributed to the decline of fish and wildlife resources.  
These factors include flows into and out of the Bay-Delta 
system, deterioration of fish-rearing habitats and food 
resources, thermal and chemical pollution and predation and 
competition from stocked fishes and introduced species.
	The drought conditions experienced in six of the 
last seven years, including the present critically dry 
year, have exacerbated the effects of these factors on the 
aquatic resources of the Bay-Delta.
	NCPA's members support the efforts of the Board to 
develop water quality standards that address the fish and 
wildlife problems of the Bay-Delta, and are willing to 
participate in the development of these standards.  We 
recognize that the standards may require changes in 
hydropower operations.  These changes, however, should be 
part of an integrated, balanced approach that preserves the 
value of Central Valley Project hydroelectric power 
generation to the maximum extent possible.
	The Board's second question is:  How have CVP 
operations been changed to improve fisheries in the Bay-
Delta and protect endangered species?
	As pointed out in the comments by Western Area 
Power Administration, significant changes have been made in 
Central Valley Project operations to enhance fish and 
wildlife resources and protect endangered species.  These 
changes have been costly to the CVP and SWP power 
customers.
	Since 1987, for example, the Bureau of Reclamation 
has been bypassing the power generation facilities at 
Shasta Dam in an effort to protect winter-run chinook 
salmon, a federally endangered species.
	These releases are intended to provide the 
necessary flows and water temperatures during critical 
spawning and migration periods.  In the last seven years 
the releases have reduced hydropower generation at Shasta 
by 1.2 billion kilowatt hours.
	While we leave it to the experts to assess the 
benefit of the bypass at the Shasta facilities, we know for 
sure that the cost impact of this mode of operation has 
been 30 million dollars.
	Restrictions have also been placed on diversions 
from the Trinity River into the Sacramento River to meet 
temperature requirements, significantly reducing power 
generation from the Judge Carr, Spring Creek and Keswick 
power plants, and imposing further revenue losses on 
Western.
	These examples indicate the impacts Central Valley 
Project power users have already experienced in support of 
measures to enhance fish and wildlife resources in the 
Central Valley and the Bay-Delta.
	Other projects may have contributed to problems 
with the fisheries, as has the factors that I mentioned 
earlier, including pollution and outflows from thermal 
power plants being operated in the Bay-Delta.  The Board 
needs to understand, assess and address all of these 
factors in shaping a solution to environmental problems in 
the Bay-Delta.
	In summary, NCPA encourages the Board to address 
the full range of factors that have affected the aquatic 
resources of the Bay-Delta estuary.  Protection of these 
resources requires an integrated approach that balances the 
needs of all users of this vital watershed, including 
purchasers of Central Valley Project hydroelectric 
generation.
	The Board should also provide project operators 
maximum flexibility in implementing the adopted water 
quality standards.  Central Valley Project power users plan 
to meet with other parties in the hope of contributing to a 
consensus on an integrated approach to the problems of the 
Bay-Delta.  We hope to have something positive to report 
from these efforts at the Board's next workshop in July.
	That concludes my prepared statement.  
	Are there any questions?
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mayor Schneiter.
	Any questions from Board members?  Staff?
	Thank you, sir.  Good to see you again.
	MAYOR SCHNEITER:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  We will hear now from Mr. Ferreira 
from Sacramento Municipal Utility District.  
	Good morning, sir.
	MR. FERREIRA:  Good morning, Chairman Caffrey and 
members of the Board.
	My name is Richard Ferreira and I am Assistant 
General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Sacramento 
Municipal Utility District, commonly referred to as SMUD.
	I know it is the wishes that I conclude by noon, so 
I will try to keep my remarks in that time frame.
	I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 
provide some input as you consider future possible standard 
changes for the Delta.
	I think a few comments about SMUD, and then, I 
would like to address the issue of upstream water projects.
	SMUD is a California municipal utility district 
which was established in 1923.  It is the fifth largest 
publicly owned system in the United States.  It serves over 
450,000 customers throughout the Sacramento County with a 
population of 1.2 million residents.
	About one-third of our load here in Sacramento is 
met by our native hydroelectric generation on the American 
River, which you are familiar with, 660 megawatts.  The 
project was built in 1971.  It captures the winter and 
spring runoff, holds the water in storage to meet the 
summer peaks here in Sacramento, principally to meet the 
summer air conditioning load as you are all familiar with.
	Another significant portion which Jim Feider 
addressed this morning is that in the Central Valley 
Project SMUD is the single largest customer of the Central 
Valley Project currently purchasing 460 megawatts of 
hydroelectric capability from the Central Valley Project.
	Therefore, if you add both our hydroelectric 
generation and our share of the Central Valley Project, the 
hydro resources supplies about 50 percent of the peaking 
capacity for Sacramento County.
	Today I would like to focus my comments on the 
issue of what effect do upstream water projects other than 
the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project have 
on the fish and wildlife resources of the Bay-Delta 
estuary.
	As I mentioned, SMUD is a peaking utility primarily 
during the June through September months.  The impacts of 
our release pattern on the Delta are modified by 
reregulation provided by the Folsom Reservoir.  Power 
operations do not divert any water for consumptive purposes 
or prevent water from reaching the Delta.
	The ability to use this resource, however, may be 
constrained by standards which the Board is presently 
contemplating.  
	The District must carry over enough water during 
the summer months each year to meet our load.  You 
mentioned reliability of the water system.  I am sure you 
are familiar with the reliability of trying to meet the 
electric system here in Sacramento.  Enough water has to be 
stored each spring in order to meet the summer peak loads, 
plus being able to meet the following year's load.
	The planning cycle of a utility is at least a two-
to three-year planning standard that we must meet.
	Increasing spring reservoir releases would reduce 
summer storage levels and have a significant impact on 
SMUD's hydroelectric power production.
	Without adequate water storage in our reservoirs, 
SMUD could not meet its utility obligation to match 
generation to load or would incur significant financial 
costs in maintaining electrical service during peak load 
periods, assuming adequate or suitable replacement 
generation, in fact, could be developed.
	Because of the unique and critical role that the 
upper American River project plays in terms of SMUD's 
dependable capacity, system reliability and system 
regulation, upper American River power generalation, in my 
view, cannot be replaced by simply going out and buying 
replacement power whether it is in the Northwest, as Mr. 
Feider indicated, to supplement generation or even here in 
Sacramento County in order to get the necessary approval to 
build replacement generation whether it's gas fired -- 
whether it is gas powered or co-generation.  We simply 
don't have enough room in the air basin in Sacramento 
County to continue to build any more power plants.
	SMUD is succeeding in creating one of the most 
clean and diverse resources mix, and relying on 
hydroelectric generation is really the key in the success 
of being able to develop a more sustainable energy future.
	A clean and more diverse power supply system will 
meet the electric needs of Sacramento County well into the 
21st century.  The cornerstone of SMUD's aggressive 
resource plan is an energy efficiency and advanced and 
renewable resource program which reduces inefficiency and 
overall consumption of energy in our service area.
	In order to be able to build renewable resources 
such as wind, which has a variability, in order to be able 
to go forward with biomass resources, whether it goes 
forward with solar resources, again, because of the 
variability, the hydro resource is what really firms it up.  
It wraps around and allows us to meet our goal minute by 
minute.
	Energy efficiency, which is our resource of first 
option, we are investing more than any utility in the 
United States in energy efficiency.  We are currently 
investing 8 percent of our revenues in energy efficiency.  
This amounts to about 60 million dollars a year.
	But it makes sense for us to go out and invest in 
saving kilowatt hours in one residence and use that energy 
to supply the next residence that moves into the County, 
than it is to go out and build another gas-fired generation 
plant.  So, it makes business sense, it makes economic 
sense, and, in fact, it does a lot to clear up the air here 
in Sacramento County and provides the jobs which we all 
know is very critical in today's market.
	Our goal is to save 650 megawatts by the end of the 
decade in energy efficiency and renewable resources.
	In 1991, the SMUD Board decided to develop 350 to 
400 megawatts of advanced and renewable capacity to come on 
line by the year 2000.  The capacity will be made possible 
through improvements in renewable and other advanced 
generation technologies, and improvements in energy 
efficiency and energy management technologies.
	In order to have the widest array of possible 
resource options, our advanced and renewable resource 
development plan continues to develop and continues to 
depend upon the long-term certainty of hydroelectric 
resources on the American River.
	New power plants that I mentioned that are being 
developed here in Sacramento County will provide some 
relief.  We are able to proceed with this resource plan, 
however, in large measure because of the regulating 
capacity that exists in hydro facilities.  Constraints on 
the American River operation may jeopardize our ability to 
aggressively pursue this plan.
	In addition, there will be substantial 
environmental costs from burning fossil fuels or using 
other air-polluting technologies to generate the 
replacement electricity compared to the existing 
hydroelectric plants that emit no air pollutants.
	It would also jeopardize our commitment to the 
President's goal on climate control to reduce greenhouse 
emissions by the year 2000.
	Because the upper American River project is 
upstream of Folsom Reservoir, as I mentioned, it is highly 
speculative at this point to predict the impact of 
modifying our operation, water releases on downstream water 
users.  Flows downstream from the upper American River 
project are significantly modified by Folsom Reservoir and 
other downstream users over which the District has no 
control.
	Consequently, before any conclusions could be drawn 
about the costs and benefits of modifying water releases, a 
comprehensive study of the costs and benefits of such a 
modification would need to be looked at carefully, 
separating out the impacts of hydro operations on the Delta 
from the impacts of Folsom Dam.
	In conclusion, SMUD shares the objectives of the 
State Water Resources Control Board in trying to preserve 
and enhance the water supply and water quality of the Bay-
Delta estuary.  We are, however, concerned that policies 
this Board adopts may have significant adverse impacts on 
SMUD's ability to perform its utility responsibilities, as 
well as severe economic, energy and environmental impacts 
on SMUD and the entire Sacramento valley region.
	I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 
appear here today.  
	I would like to make a comment on a couple of 
questions that were raised earlier and some comments by Mr. 
Jim Feider in terms of whether or not the power users can 
continue to absorb additional cost.
	There's about 50 million dollars a year that will 
be dedicated for the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
enhancement.  Thirty million dollars of that will be paid 
for by the water and power beneficiaries.  Power 
beneficiaries such as SMUD will be picking up about 30 
million dollars of that.  SMUD will be paying 7 million 
dollars each year for the improvements.
	The cost of power, as Mr. Feider indicated, is 
about three cents per kilowatt hour.  There is, however, an 
upper limit to the ability of being able to pay for such a 
resource.  Today you can go out in the marketplace and 
build gas-fired cogeneration in the three-cent or three-
and-a-half-cent range. 
	So, to continue to add costs on the power side, the 
ability to economically be able to use that resource 
becomes questionable.
	Also, currently the President of the CPUC has 
proposed restructuring the electric utility industry in 
terms of performance-based pricing and promoting a more 
competitive environment.  In my view, this is going to 
result in more competition and reduce the price even 
further to the extent that energy prices are going to get 
down to three cents and possibly even lower in the near 
future.
	This is a concern that we have.  Again, we support 
the efforts.  In fact, we modified their operation in the 
past for major recreational benefits and fishery program we 
have on our system, and we support the Board in taking a 
look at reasonable standards that will provide greater 
benefits to the Bay-Delta system.
	So, with those remarks, I would be happy to answer 
any questions if the Board has any.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Ferreira.
	Are there questions by Board members?  
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Could you provide information to 
our staff on the economic effects of shifting the power 
generation from the peak months to the non-peak months so 
that could be considered by our economic staff in 
evaluating the cost of potential measures we might take?
	MR. FERREIRA:  I would be happy to provide that 
information.
	Let me make a comment.  By shifting the generation 
from the summer months to non-summer months means that; 
number one, the power has to be replaced.  There's two 
things in terms of hydroelectric power.  One is 
hydroelectric power can be changed instantaneously to meet 
the change in load, and if you go to a gas-fired generation 
and other forms of generation, it doesn't respond as 
quickly.
	So, you are not changing a like resource for a like 
resource. 
	The other comment I would make, as I commented 
earlier, if you try to permit and license power plants in 
Sacramento valley, you are familiar with the air basin.  
Sacramento is the dirtiest city in the United States in 
terms of emissions.  A great part of that comes from the 
tailpipe emissions, but in order to get approvals to build 
new gas-fired generation in Sacramento County, you have to 
go out and get offsets, air emission offsets.  Offsets are 
really drying up.
	We have acquired a number of offsets, but we 
believe there needs to be enough room in the air basin to 
provide growth.  If we use all the offsets available for 
growth for power plant emissions, we simply don't have 
enough room for new businesses to move here to Sacramento 
County.
	So, we can go out and attempt to sight new power 
plants, but quite frankly, it's going to be difficult to 
obtain those emission offsets.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   That really wasn't my question.  
The question was the economic information that you could 
supply would include all those factors that you mention, 
and that's not to say what this Board may or may not do 
wouldn't necessarily affect your power generation 
capability during the summer months, but it could be a 
factor in determining whether or not we would do it if we 
knew what the economic effects would be.
	MR. FERREIRA:  We can provide that information.  
The caveat is we could provide that information, but it is 
on a hypothetical basis, assuming we get the necessary 
approval to build additional generation.  We would be happy 
to supply that information.
	MR. CAFFREY:  You can qualify it in any way you 
feel appropriate.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   The other comment had to do with 
the remarks on your earlier statement about adding to the 
power cost.  
	If you are already paying 30 million dollars for 
replacement power from Shasta, somebody is paying it.  
Maybe the taxpayer is paying it, which doesn't sound quite 
fair, but anyway, if that's being paid, then it wouldn't be 
an increase in cost to put that money into a temperature 
device so that you can use peaking power at Shasta, which 
would have the benefits of hydro power that you mentioned.
	MR. FERREIRA:  Absolutely, and I agree with you 
wholeheartedly, and we support that.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Is it reasonable to assume in the 
event you ended up being shorted in terms of power because 
of additional water releases, that you would go out and 
build a cogeneration plant?  Is it more realistic in terms 
of the grid that services the Western or Northwestern 
United States?  Would you go out and buy on-the-spot 
market?
	One of the things I used to do, we used to run a 
power plant and I don't think everybody else on the Board 
has done that, but the representation that is being left 
with people who don't know much about power systems, if you 
don't have power from your current sources, you are going 
to have to go out and build cogeneration plants.  
	That's not true.  I don't think you mean to leave 
the representation with the Board; do you?
	MR. FERREIRA:  In the short run, you go out in the 
marketplace and try to replace the power.  In the long run, 
from a planning basis, you don't want to rely on the 
uncertainty in the market place to supply electricity.  
	In fact, what we are planning to do in 1996 is to 
go out in the market and issue requests for proposals to 
supply SMUD 150 megawatts of renewable resources from any 
category.
	We went out with a competitive process in 1988 in 
order to develop the gas-fired generation that is being 
built here in Sacramento County today.
	We want to plan on building and owning our own 
generation as much as possible in order to fix in the cost 
and provide certainty.  There would still be an amount that 
you would still rely on the market for, but it would depend 
upon what we think the availability is of the long-term 
availability for future changes between the Northwest and 
California in the Southwest.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Do you buy contract power now on 
the spot market?
	MR. FERREIRA:  Yes, we do.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Do you have long-term contracts for 
the purchase of power not generated within your basin?
	MR. FERREIRA:  The longest term contract we have is 
to the year 1999.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  What was the term in that contract?
	MR. FERREIRA:   Ten years.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  So, in terms of realistic 
expectations, I mean contracts you purchase for out-of-area 
power are not something that gets turned on or off on a 
daily or weekly, or for that matter, yearly basis?  
	They are long-term contracts within the planning 
cycle that is used by your utility for guaranteeing power 
delivery to your long-term customers?
	MR. FERREIRA:  Well, yes and no.
	From the standpoint of the short-term contracts, it 
was because of the closure of the nuclear power plant SMUD 
had to replace 50 percent of its resources.  Because of the 
oversupply in the excess capacity within the market, it 
made sense for us to go shopping and buy power for ten 
years to allow us time to get a resource plan and replace 
it with more efficient gas-powered generation.
	The power we are buying today is being supplied by 
utilities I would call old tea pots, which are very 
inefficient.
	We are building some of the cleanest, more 
efficient plants, and it makes sense on the long-term basis 
of 20 years to build that type of facility and not to rely 
upon the short-term market, and continue to buy coal-fired 
generation or old, inefficient gas-powered generation.
	We are interested in building the cleanest reliable 
resource mix for Sacramento County.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I don't doubt that for a moment.  
That is not the point I am making.
	The point I am making in terms of what we are 
talking about here are the monthly variations in terms of 
releases of water.  What you are talking about is 20-year 
resource planning for a public utility.  The two issues are 
decidedly different and that's the point I am getting to 
here.
	We had a very long conversation with Mr. Patterson 
from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation talking about how he 
is making it up as he goes along, literally modifying their 
operation on a daily basis in attempting to deal with the 
issues that we have to deal with that are literally daily, 
weekly issues, not five or even ten or twenty-year issues.
	The point that I am making, and I would hope that 
you would not leave this Board with that impression, that 
daily or weekly, or even monthly modifications of releases 
from reservoirs may, in fact, have temporary impacts on 
your power supply, are not going to do significant long-
term damage to your ability to deliver service to your 
customers.
	Long-term modifications of water releases may, in 
fact, do that, but at this point, no one is capable of 
guaranteeing releases on a weekly basis, let alone over 
five or ten years.  
	That's what the Chairman keeps talking about in 
terms of shelf life.
	MR. FERREIRA:  As a matter of fact, we carry a 
prudent amount of reserves within our system to cover some 
short-term fluctuations.  That is the reason why we are 
interested in building additional transmission access so 
that we can interconnect with other utilities in order to 
be able to adjust short-term uncertainties that we have to 
deal with on an annual operating plan.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Are you currently negotiating any 
contracts to replace that power being lost by 1999?
	MR. FERREIRA:  Our plan is to replace it by 
building four gas-fired generation power plants here in 
Sacramento County.  One is Campbell Soup and Proctor & 
Gamble and so forth.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Have you got a contract for the 
natural gas?
	MR. FERREIRA:  We have a contract for some pipeline 
capacity to Canada.  We don't have any contract for buying 
gas reserves because it makes more sense to stay in the 
short-term market right now than it is to go on to contract 
for long-term gas supplies.
	But we have a portfolio that includes reserves, 
some exploration development and some slot market 
purchases, but the next block in terms of replacing those 
contracts is the Northwest power, and as I mentioned, which 
is critical from the standpoint of this discussion here 
today, is to start building some renewable resources which 
are wind and solar.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Brown.
	MR. BROWN:  My question has been answered.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Anything from staff?
	All right, thank you very much, Mr. Ferreira.  It 
has been very interesting, and let me just say that when we 
return at 1:30, we will hear first from Mr. Dave Whitridge.
	Thank you all very much.
	(Noon recess)
	














	

	
		
	TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994, 1:30 P.M.
--o0o--	
	MR. CAFFREY:  Please take your seats and we will 
resume the workshop.
	We will start with Dave Whitridge. 
	Before 	Mr. Whitridge begins his presentation, let 
me say I have one request from somebody that has a flight 
to catch, Michael Jackson, representing California 
Sportfishing Protection Alliance.  I will get him in for 
the seven minutes he has requested before three o'clock.  
That's the time he has to leave, so we will keep an eye on 
that situation.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Whitridge.
	MR. WHITRIDGE:  Good afternoon.  I am David 
Whitridge and I am here today on behalf of the South Delta 
Water Agency.  
	Probably as the first speaker in the afternoon, I 
should tell some sort of water joke to make sure everybody 
is awake, but I have been told if you tell them before the 
wrong audience, they are likely to come true, so I pass on 
that.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  The Chairman keeps a proprietary 
interest in all jokes.
	MR. WHITRIDGE:  What I have done, I have passed out 
20 copies of our statement and what I have done for this 
particular workshop is to copy some representative exhibits 
which we have submitted during the Bay-Delta proceedings, 
and I don't intend today to go through those in detail with 
the limited nature of this hearing and nonevidentiary 
hearing, but I just included them and I will refer to some 
of them to show the Board they are a sampling of what we 
have submitted in the past on the effects of the upstream 
diversions.
	And certainly, if any more detail were desired on 
any of these, the staff could refer to the transcript where 
those particular exhibits were introduced and they are 
discussed in detail.
	As I say, my main focus today will be on the effect 
of other upstream diversions and in regard to the South 
Delta that relates to the San Joaquin system, which is an 
historic water supply for the South Delta.
	Since about 1950, the inflow of the San Joaquin 
River to the Delta has been, and still is being greatly 
reduced.  There are long periods when there is no net 
outflow from the river to the Central Delta and I have 
given you a copy of exhibits in regard to that.  
	This causes stagnant water reaches with loss of 
salinity control and inadequate dissolved oxygen for fish 
as well.
	Another problem is the over-appropriation of the 
stream system.  Upstream appropriative rights granted by 
the State Board often exceed the total yield of the river 
system.  This is particularly true in dry years when it is 
most detrimental.  Also, direct diversion rights are based 
on diversion amounts rather than on consumptive uses and 
appropriators, therefore, are able to keep increasing their 
consumptive use of the water they divert with the 
consequent reduction in return flows, which is very 
important for downstream users now at certain times when we 
become largely dependent on return flows as part of our 
inflow.
	Some upstream appropriators may feel that by saving 
consumed water they can transfer this water without any 
analysis of its effect on reducing the flow downstream, but 
we are having considerable problems as a result of 
conservation and consumptive use.
	Exports from the Tuolumne River to the Bay Area 
have increased substantially over the last 40 years.  We 
have included one exhibit which shows the effect of just 
routing a very small part of these diversions through the 
Delta in a dry year such as 1977.
	Appropriators on the tributaries with junior water 
rights have not been required to bypass sufficient 
unimpaired flows to protect senior water rights and natural 
channel depletions in the San Joaquin River and Southern 
Delta.
	We are attempting to get the Board to address this 
problem and we hope they will look at it some more.  We 
have submitted a petition in that regard.
	The net effect of the Central Valley Project 
operations alone is to reduce river flow upstream of 
Vernalis by about 130,000 acre-feet in dry years and 
560,000 acre-feet in below normal years.  I have attached 
some exhibits to that and these derive largely from the 
June 1990 joint reports done by the South Delta Water 
Agency and the CVP on the effects of the Central Valley 
Project upon the Southern Delta water supply.
	The substantial increase in river salinity is 
caused primarily by CVP operations as opposed to reductions 
in flow.  
	The June 1980 report indicated that the average 
increase in salt load at Vernalis attributable to the CVP 
during the period examined in the report was 102,000 tons 
in 
dry years and 129,000 tons in normal years.  Later updated 
studies have indicated that a very large majority of the 
more recent level of salt load in the spring and summer 
months is attributable to the CVP, and that the CVP service 
area introduces about 30,000 tons of salt per month into 
the river in those months when flows are typically low.
	This salt load which drains from the portion of the 
CVP service area that lies within the San Joaquin watershed 
results from the importation of salt in the water imported 
via the Delta-Mendota Canal and the application of that 
water to Westside lands.
	I have also attached an exhibit which shows that 
that amount of input of salt load is now over one million 
tons a year through the DMC and into the valley.
	Although the CVP has contributed substantially to 
flow reduction in the San Joaquin River, it's not clearly 
the only cause of that reduction and it is not an 
increasing cause as some of the other upstream diversions 
are at this point.
	The CVP salt load has impacted agriculture along 
the main stem in the South Delta, but it is not clear what 
effect it has had on each of the various aspects of the 
ecology in and along the river.  We don't know whether the 
impact of reduced flows on the resident fishery is as great 
as the impact of the recent proliferation of non-native 
aquatic plants, for example.  Higher flows would help 
somewhat to control these plants, but not in oxbows and 
other backwaters.  Massive hyacinth growths have impeded 
migration to and from salmon spawning beds.
	It is also not clear to what extent increased 
salinity and any increase in toxicities would be a problem 
to the fishery if the flow were not reduced.  The lack of 
flow might be less serious for some species if there were a 
channel maintenance program.  There is no such program, and 
the elevation of the river bottom from Vernalis to Paradise 
Cut has been raised by sedimentation during recent decades 
from below low tide levels to above low tide level.
	In summary, there has been a major deterioration in 
the flow and quality of the San Joaquin River during the 
last 40 years.  The deterioration in flow is continuing due 
to increasing consumptive use of water by other diverters, 
but the CVP impact is remaining fairly constant and the SWP 
is not a significant cause.
	Introduced aquatic plants and fish have multiplied 
rapidly.  
	We are also concerned that any proposed shift in 
the season of releases of flows to save migrant species may 
further exacerbate the inadequate flow and quality of the 
river's Delta inflow in summer months, and may foster even 
more pervasive growth of non-native aquatic plants.
	In regard to the question on the issue of effect of 
non-native species, we discussed that somewhat in the April 
workshop and I won't repeat all of that.
	What I have done here is basically given you a copy 
of a draft briefing paper of May, 1994, by the Bay-Delta 
Oversight Council on the effect of introduced fish and 
wildlife and plants in the Bay and estuary.  I think it is 
a pretty good summary.  It's a draft and it is now out for 
public review and I think it should be useful for the Board 
just in listing and enumerating the various non-native 
species in the Delta and their effect on fish and so forth.
	I have also attached a memorandum by Alex 
Hildebrand and Stan Barnes that was not done for any 
particular organization, just done by those two as 
individuals, but Alex could not be here today and asked me 
to provide it to the Board.
	It basically looks at policy approaches, things 
that should be addressed before attempting to impose new 
Delta standards such as the overcommitted water yield, the 
introduction of non-native species and so on.
	So, that's all I have.  I would be glad to answer 
any questions the Board might have.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you very much, Mr. Whitridge.
	Any questions from Board members?  Mr. Stubchaer.
	MR. STUBCHAER:  I believe you are the first speaker 
that's really mentioned non-native plants as opposed to 
fish and other types of animals.
	And just looking at the paper you presented from 
BDOC, they mentioned water hyacinths.  Are there others 
that you are aware of?
	MR. WHITRIDGE:  I believe hydrilla is another one.  
I am not an expert on non-native plants, but I believe that 
was the other one that is mentioned as well.  That's on 
page 10.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   In the BDOC document?
	MR. WHITRIDGE:  In the BDOC document, right.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   And then, parrot feather and water 
primrose, whatever those are.
	MR. WHITRIDGE:  But those cause significant 
problems for agricultural diverters.  They are pretty thick 
and I think they cause problems for migrating fish as well.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Any other questions?  Staff?
	Thank you very much, Dave.
	I am going to take one presenter out of turn right 
now.  I apologize to Mr. Hoag and his group. 
	Michael Jackson has a plane to catch and I think 
now is as good a time as any.  Mr. Jackson, good afternoon, 
sir.
	MR. JACKSON:  Good afternoon, sir.  Thank you very 
much for helping me with my schedule.  I will try to be 
brief.
	The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has 
submitted a proposal for dealing with the water problems in 
dry and critically dry years.  What it does, we think, is 
fairly allocate the burden between all upstream water 
users.  It indicates by lake, by reservoir and by 
diversion, which diversions would pay the price.  What it 
does is, it will generate somewhere around three million 
acre-feet of water in critically dry years and additional 
inflow into the Delta.
	Now, we are not indicating that's going to be 
necessary, but we wanted to use a number large enough that 
dealt with DWR's projections as to what their problems were 
going to be under Club Fed standards.  We support the 
standards.
	We believe we ought to not be nonsensical and go 
back through this again and again while industry and 
agriculture and municipal users and the environment itself 
suffer from lack of action.
	So, we are assuming the following things:  That the 
DWR is correct and that they need at least two million 
acre-feet of water in additional water in critically dry 
years, and that Club Fed is correct in what the standards 
need to be.
	Assuming those things, we would propose that in 
critically dry years all water storage reservoirs release 
an additional ten percent of flow for Delta inflow.  We 
believe that in dry years five percent should be released.  
These numbers generate easily the amount of water in 
additional inflow that is necessary for complete and whole 
diversions out of the Delta in dry and critically dry years 
if you assume that Club Fed is correct in the standards and 
that DWR is correct in the water costs.
	We think everybody in the state should pay it.  We 
believe that you should take a fisheries look at the 
delivery schedule.  It would be very important to us that 
you deliver the water from the upper reservoirs after Labor 
Day because that would then take into account the 
recreation uses in the Sierra and other upland areas.
	The delivery from the lower reservoirs, the 
regulating reservoir on each tributary to the Delta, could 
be handled on the daily basis that Club Fed was talking 
about in terms of when to call the water down.
	What it does is it gives a certain amount of 
certainty to upstream water users because they know that 
they will not lose more than ten percent of storage or 
diversion in any critically dry year.  In dry years their 
hit will be limited to five percent.
	Some of that water should be paid for by the State 
Water Project and the Central Valley Project users as 
transfer water, but it would be part of the main pumping 
water.
	It simply could be done in order to transfer the 
cost of the drought year water contribution to the urban 
water users, who have more money than water.
	The farmers probably and the environment, if we did 
every technical fix we could do, we might well have as much 
water as we need, but we need money to pay for the fix, the 
screens.  
	That was one of the best parts of D-1630, I 
thought, was that the urban water users acknowledged the 
fact that they had money for the problem.  
	I thought, Mr. Stubchaer, you did a wonderful job 
of pointing out the cost on the hydro bill.  The water and 
power bill is where to pay for the fixes that we need in 
the delivery system to take care of fish.
	It seems to us that you can design a much more 
correct way of doing it than we have.  We are very limited 
in terms of having no computer skills, we just have a 
couple of guys sitting in a room with pencils and an old-
fashioned way of doing it.
	But it does show, I think that we don't need 
peripheral canals, we don't need to require DWR to go 
further in debt.  We don't need to balance the problem -- 
the law is that if you followed it theoretically, the State 
Water Project would be kicked out of the Delta, and that's 
relatively unacceptable.
	We have to find some way to make the 800 billion 
dollar economy in California more certain and if water can 
play a role, then we need to do that.
	So, this is a proposal that can be modified.  It 
can be balanced between inflow and export, but in reality 
if you read the legal basis for what we are saying, which I 
find in MWD's legal analysis, since they are much better 
lawyers than I am, you have the authority to do this.  
Judge Racanelli told you to do this.  We have been fiddling 
around for ten years not doing this.  Let's do this.  Let's 
take Club Fed's standards and DWR's water projections and 
find a way to all contribute and then let's have the urban 
water users, and the urban power users and people like me, 
pay it on our bills.
	Thank you very much.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
	Any questions from the Board members?
	You stunned us.  
	Mr. Brown.
	MR. BROWN:  Mr. Jackson, the 35 million acre-feet 
of water used annually within the state, you are suggesting 
that we taken ten percent of that and divert it toward the 
additional environmental needs in the Delta?
	MR. JACKSON:  Yes, I think in the long run that's 
the only way that we are going to be able to set up an 
economic system that works over enough years.  We can 
haggle back and forth about whether or not these 
environmental laws are right or wrong, but we do need to 
meet them.
	To me, it is simply sort of a law and order issue, 
and that if we once surrender to the law and decide to obey 
it, that what we will get out of that is that people can 
make economic investments based upon the fact that we are 
going to follow it.
	One of the problems with D-1485 is that it never 
was enforced and there's a lot of us who believe that it is 
hard to enter into any kind of good-faith agreement process 
to all work in the interest of the State when the laws 
don't mean much.
	So, I guess what I am saying is that we do have a 
little more risk in the water storage and the carryover, 
but we have a lot less risk in the standards shifting and 
changing and being talked around, and I think we have got 
to do something about making the investments in the non-
agricultural portion of the economy more certain.
	I mean, after all, agriculture is very important 
but it is only 17 billion dollars.  The whole economy is 
800 billion dollars, and it seems to me that we need to 
take some steps to make at least the urban part of the 
State Water Project and the Central Valley Project certain.
	MR. BROWN:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Pettit has a question, Mr. 
Jackson.
	MR. PETTIT:  One clarification just for my benefit.  
Are you suggesting that we apply operational rules 
throughout the basin as a substitute for the numerical 
targets in the Delta itself?
	MR. JACKSON:  Yes, sir, that's essentially how I am 
suggesting it.  I mean, you are going to be guided by the 
biological reality of meeting all of the standards that 
Club Fed and DWR pointed out that they are meeting now.
	MR. PETTIT:  I guess that gets to the point, will 
there still be numerical standards in the Delta that 
somebody would have to meet?
	MR. JACKSON:  Yes, I believe there would be.
	MR. PETTIT:  If we followed your suggestion and 
there were numerical standards in the Delta, whether it be 
EPA's 2,000 parts or whatever it be, and the operators 
upstream made the releases in accordance with your 
suggestion and some modification, and we still didn't meet 
the numbers in the Delta, who would be on the hook?
	MR. JACKSON:  Well, I presume we would still all be 
on the hook.  The idea is we need to spread the hook.  I 
need to be caught in this hook and so do the rest of the 
people in California, not just the Central Valley Project 
and the State Water Project.
	MR. PETTIT:  So, does the Board then issue an 
enforcement order against everybody?
	MR. JACKSON:  Under Article X, Section 2, the 
public trust and the wonderful legal analysis of MWD, I 
think you can do that.
	MR. PETTIT:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Anything else of Mr. Jackson?
	Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
	MR. JACKSON:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Hoag, good afternoon.
	MR. HOAG:  Good afternoon.
	MR. CAFFREY:  I have a number of cards that were 
submitted.  I am not clear whether it is in sequence or a 
joint presentation.  I have you and Dudley Riser and Tom 
Berliner, Laura King, Steve Arakawa on one card, and Tom 
Berliner on another and Laura King on another.
	MR. HOAG:  Let me explain.
	MR. CAFFREY:  You are representing different 
groups, I take it?
	MR. HOAG:  That is correct.  I am the first of four 
presentations from the urban interests.  We thought it 
would be of most value to you if we went in sequence, and 
so we made that request.
	So, each of us will take our time.  I assume that 
doesn't mean each of us have five minutes since there are 
four of us.  Each of us will make a different presentation.  
We have coordinated this enough to avoid a lot of overrun.
	MR. CAFFREY:  The time requests are modest except 
for your opening, which is 20 minutes.  The rest are around 
half that much time, so we will just treat it in that 
fashion as a sequential presentation.  We will take them in 
the order I read this.
	Why don't you begin, Mr. Hoag.  It is nice to see 
you.
	MR. HOAG:  Thank you.  I represent the California 
Urban Water Agency.  CUWA is an organization of the 11 
largest urban water purveyors in California.  Our members 
serve about two-thirds of the State's 32 million 
population.  This group has joined to work on water policy 
issues that are of common concern to all the major urban 
water providers.
	Number one on that list of interests and concerns 
of this group is water supply reliability.  There is the R 
word again.  It comes up and it truly is the paramount 
concern of these folks.
	In working on that issue, we believe that the long-
term solution to Delta issues is the single largest factor 
influencing state-wide urban water supply reliability.  So, 
we give it a lot of our concern and resources and energy.
	I would like to, together with Dr. Dudley Riser, 
who is the consulting biologist to the California Urban 
Water Agencies, to address key issues Nos. 1 and 4 in the 
invitation that you sent out.
	I would like to start by just making a comment, 
kind of an overview comment on issue No. 1, the other 
factors that contribute, and then pass the baton to Dr. 
Riser to summarize some of the additional results of a 
recent four-month intensive survey, a review that we did 
mainly on the EPA standards proposal in the December-
through-March period, and much of that work is, of course, 
directly applicable to this proceeding, and we are pleased 
to be able to bring the value of that plus additional 
ongoing work to this proceeding.
	That was the body of work, you probably have seen 
the pile of reports, some 800 pages, that resulted in what 
has been called the urban alternative, which essentially is 
the statement of support for much of what EPA proposed with 
some significant proposed modifications and refinements, 
most of which have been well received by the large majority 
of the interest groups concerned with this proceeding as 
well as the EPA proceeding, and we feel good about the 
contribution that we were able to make in that form, and we 
continue to work on that.
	As a matter of fact, we now have an  ongoing review 
of much of that work jointly with several of the 
environmental organizations, so we are trying, as you 
asked, to get out there and try to reach consensus on 
either total parts of this package or individual issues as 
we see the importance to do so.
	Let me go to this issue No. 1, the question of 
other factors.  We found, first of all, that the abundance 
of estuarine species is positively correlated with 
salinity, with the so-called X2 location, the two parts per 
thousand salinity. 
	In brief, that correlation is strong enough to 
justify support of a salinity-based standard which, of 
course, means outflow-based standard because X2 and outflow 
are very closely correlated.
	But the other thing we found in that work was that 
the correlation with X2 is very strong and does not explain 
all of the variations that are going on.  In other words, 
it demonstrates that the other factors out there in the 
estuary are collectively very very important.
	We were able to demonstrate a somewhat weaker 
correlation of abundance with X2 than came out of the 
original San Francisco estuary report upon which the X2 
standard was abased.
	Nonetheless, the strength of that correlation is 
there and it is strong enough to lead us to support the 
basic EPA approach, but also, to conclude that the 
importance of the other factors is demonstrable, and what 
is not clear at this point, and I think you have found that 
from all the testimony that has occurred, is that nobody 
has been able to sort of separate out all those other 
factors.  You have heard virtually the same list of factors 
from everyone that has testified, and to ascribe relative 
importance to each and every one of those it is a very 
difficult job.
	We started to do some of that kind of work in our 
earlier review and we simply didn't have the time or 
resource to do it.  As a result, the California Urban Water 
Agencies Board has just approved an extension, sort of a 
phase 2 of that scientific work with a budget of somewhere 
around three-quarters of a million dollars devoted solely 
to this question, trying to do a better job of sorting out 
the impact or the relative importance of those other 
factors.
	This work is just getting under way.  Some of it 
will be done, some of it will be providing results during 
the remainder of this year, but much of it will not.  It is 
not an easy problem.  It is not going to come to resolution 
in a short period of time.  We don't expect to have easy 
pat answers to all these questions during that period.
	We also did during that work some correlations with 
other factors, food supply, et cetera, and found strengths 
of those correlations that led us to the same conclusion 
and that is that although salinity is important, the other 
factors are very important and require further work.
	The results of the work done earlier led us to some 
recommendations to your Board and they are mainly that we 
recommend that as you put together the standard, that that 
standard explicitly recognize the importance of these other 
factors.  
	You will not have precise or clear-cut results on 
each of them, but they must be recognized and there must a 
program on how to continue the further definition of their 
importance and how to deal with them to remedy the effects 
that they cause.
	We believe that the State Board and the Regional 
Board have the power to deal with many of those other 
factors, the pollutant toxics issue, entrainment, nutrient, 
et cetera, going down the list.  Some of them you do not 
have and we urge you to use your strong influence with the 
other State and Federal agencies to achieve early and 
aggressive progress on those other factors whether it be 
fishing or dredging, or whatever it is.
	We will continue to be a part of this process.  We 
will continue our scientific work on these issues.  We will 
be pleased to come back when we have additional findings 
and report to you, and what I would like to do with the 
remaining time here is to ask Dr. Dudley Riser to give you 
just a little further overview of some of the technical 
results from our first effort.
	Dr. Riser.
	DR. RISER:  Good afternoon.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Good afternoon, Dr. Riser.
	DR. RISER:  I do have a few overheads I may be able 
to use during my presentation.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Go right ahead.
	DR. RISER:  As Lyle has mentioned, my name is 
Dudley Riser and I am a fishery scientist and a technical 
consultant to the California Urban Water Agencies.
	For the past four months I have been involved with 
a number of other technical representatives taking a very 
close look and review of the proposed EPA salinity 
standards.  We reviewed this in the context of two 
different components; one of them being the specifics 
behind the standards themselves, as well as the biological 
basis behind the standards.  That's very important from a 
fisheries and aquatic ecosystem perspective.  
	That is, we asked the simple question, do the 
statistics that were used in the analysis or in the 
development of the standards, do they support the same 
conclusions that the EPA came up with.  That was question 
No. 1.
	Question No. 2 was, do we believe that the 
standards as proposed will achieve the desired effects that 
the EPA is putting forward, that being the restoration of 
much of the ecosystem.  
	Those were the two fundamental questions that we 
were addressing.
	As Lyle mentioned, the results of our efforts were 
synthesized into a series of 12 volumes that stood about 
this high which we did make available to the State Board 
and to other interested parties.
	We have continued from the technical perspective 
the ongoing dialogue with various State and Federal 
agencies as a continuation of the technical discussions and 
as a continuation of the work that we started four months 
ago.
	The results of the analysis that we conducted have 
led us to the conclusion that from a technical side, the 
standards with some modification are a very important step 
in the overall return of the estuary back to historical or 
some time frame element.
	However, the analysis also led us to conclude that 
the likelihood of a single parameter for a single standard 
focused on salinity is very unlikely of achieving that goal 
given the myriad of other factors that we know are 
operating in the system.
	Despite the fact that we have heard some discussion 
today that other researchers have put forward, the other 
factor as being secondary impacts or having somewhat of a 
relationship to abundance, for the most part the work that 
we have reviewed to date has been largely qualitative in 
nature, not a quantitative analysis has been completed, and 
I would say a lot of it is based upon professional 
judgment.
	One of the California Urban Water Agencies' 
technical document that we put forward actually addressed, 
and I have it here today, it's reference No. 6 of the 12 
documents -- this document was a synthesis of what we 
identified as being the major factors and what other 
researchers have been putting forward as being other 
factors that are influencing the ecosystem, which is why I 
am here today.
	I would like to briefly summarize what the major 
conclusions were based upon this analysis.
	If I could have the first overhead.
	We have heard today a number of other discussion 
points dealing with the other factors, and it goes without 
saying that the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta is very complex.  
There's many different factors that are influencing the 
system.  I won't go through each one of these.  Some of 
these are common, in fact, the majority of these are common 
to other presenters here today, things such as land 
reclamation, food production, overharvest, exploitation, 
and the one that's come up several times, species 
introductions, introduced species, exotics.
	It is fundamental in any ecosystem that these 
particular factors, what we might call limiting factors, be 
identified, and to the extent possible, quantified so that 
you can then develop realistic management plans and 
remediation or restoration plans so that the entire system 
can be restored to some level.
	In the interest of time, however, I would like to 
just refer you to the written statement that we have put 
forward instead of going through each and every one of 
these issues.
	I would like to go to the second, the major 
conclusions, and I think that you have heard this 
articulated today several times, the other factors we 
believe strongly are influencing the Bay-Delta ecosystem.  
It's not to say that outflow, diversions, et cetera, are 
not a factor.
	We agree with that, as Lyle has mentioned, but we 
also know that these other factors are operating and we 
feel strongly from a technical side that these must be 
addressed in parallel with the water quality standards and, 
in fact, as I mentioned earlier, it is very likely that the 
standards alone will not restore the ecosystem to the 
desired levels.
	I think there are too many unknowns or 
uncertainties with respect, if you take introduced species 
alone, to predict how the system is going to respond to one 
particular parameter.
	May I have the next overhead.
	Lyle touched briefly on the evidence that we have 
put forward, that leads us to this conclusion.  I would 
say, first of all, it is the results of our analysis, the 
results of the four months and summarization that we put 
forward in reference No. 6, the actual work that we 
developed.
	Number two, Lyle mentioned also, although the X2 
versus the abundance relationship do explain some of the 
variability, there is a large portion that remains 
unexplained, again suggesting that there may be other 
factors.
	And then, kind of in an exploratory fashion, as 
Lyle mentioned, we did not have a lot of time to complete 
our analysis, but we did do some exploratory statistical 
work and we did come up with direct correlations of certain 
factors versus abundance that were as strong in some cases 
as what X2 is, again suggesting these other factors are 
influencing.
	Then, finally, we heard reference to several 
discussions today, the BDOC documents on introduced 
species, there has been some recent publications by Jassby, 
et al., that have also pointed out the fact that we must 
consider every component in the system in order to allow 
the restoration of the ecosystem.
	If I could have the next overhead --
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Could I have a question on this?
	MR. CAFFREY:  Yes.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Was the data that you analyzed the 
same data which EPA analyzed or which the estuary project 
analyzed?
	DR. RISER:  Yes, it was.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Was there a difference in the 
method of analysis?
	DR. RISER:  We used a Pearson correlation 
coefficient and we made some comparisons between different 
parameters.  We did find some species responding to the X2 
relationship similar to EPA.  We extended a little further 
and looked at some other factors in making correlations and 
found some very strong correlations, and particularly those 
related to food production.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   You used a different distribution 
than they used?
	DR. RISER:  We used different parameters in 
comparing.  We didn't limit it to just looking at X2.  We 
started to compile other parameters and then run 
correlations between the same data sets, the same abundance 
information from the fisheries or invertebrates 
perspective, but looking at other parameters to see what 
relative correlations we could find.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   And what was the correlation 
coefficient or the R squared so-called in terms of item 2, 
or what range did you have?
	DR. RISER:  In terms of item 2?
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Yes.  The variance or the 
unexplained variance between X2 and the abundance 
relationships.
	DR. RISER:  As I recall, and I don't recall all of 
the correlations, but it seems to be in the range of .3.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   .3?
	DR. RISER:  Right.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Just for the record, one is 
perfect and zero is no correlation?
	DR. RISER:  Correct.  So, as to the correlations, 
there's a great deal of unexplained variance that remains 
in the X2 versus abundance relationships, and again, part 
of the analysis that Lyle mentioned, too, with respect to 
the further analysis that we want to do, is attempting to 
seek out more of the cause/effect relationships between 
these other factors that are operating in the system and 
the abundance of various parameters.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Please proceed.
	DR. RISER:  The work plan that we have for 
proceeding with this type of analysis, Lyle mentioned that 
we are looking at a budget, that CUWA is looking at a 
budget of around three-quarters of a million dollars.  This 
is very conceptual at this point in time, but in essence, 
what we intend to do from a technical perspective is to 
compile and review data. 
	We know that there's a tremendous number of data 
bases that exist that contain valuable information that 
just has not been looked at in any sort of quantitative 
fashion in attempting to gather all of these other factors 
together.
	We want to attempt to determine the relative 
impacts of these factors so that we can begin to possibly 
actually assigning a percent contribution determining what 
relative impact we have relative to pollution or introduced 
species or land reclamation -- what sort of contribution do 
these factors make.
	And then, of course, the most important component 
that will come out of this will be the prioritization of 
the impacts relative to the restoration plans.
	MS. FORSTER:  May I ask a question?  Lyle said this 
wouldn't be done by the end of the year.  How long do you 
anticipate it is going to take you to do that study that 
you just had on the screen?
	DR. RISER:  We are looking at probably 
realistically, from my perspective, a couple of years worth 
of time that is going to be required in order to really get 
an understanding of all these different components.  It is 
not something you can do in a two-month period, two- or 
three-month period.  It is going to take a longer time 
frame and it is going to take a cooperative effort, and 
that's what is very instrumental to this whole process.  
This can't be done by any single entity.  It has to be a 
joint effort and it has to bring together both the State 
and Federal agencies personnel and other entities that have 
been involved in the system to more or less endorse this 
effort that's going to be put forward.
	MS. FORSTER:  I don't want to interrupt your flow, 
but you might want to think about this.  When you are done, 
either you or Lyle, or one of the team, may give us a 
presentation.  I need to know a little more clearly what 
your expectations are from the State Board staff.
	I mean, if you can't do it in two or three months, 
but you want it to be considered in the plan that the State 
Board develops, how do you think it is supposed to look?
	You know, I am sitting here thinking how are we 
going to be able to do it, and you are admitting it is so 
hard to do, and you are putting all these resources into 
it.  It will be helpful to know your expectations or how 
you would 
-- I don't want to repeat myself -- your vision of how it 
would appear in our document.
	DR. RISER:  I think what we are talking about right 
now is from the technical side of things.  I am speaking as 
a fisheries biologist now.  In looking at the problems that 
we have identified and reviewed in the Bay system, what we 
are saying is that flow-outflow, yes, that is a concern.  
Salinity is a concern.  We are saying that that is one of 
the problems, one of the factors, and what we are saying is 
that's not the only problem.
	And recognizing that the time constraints that the 
Board has may not flow directly in with the time frame that 
the scientific community might be able to answer or address 
those types of questions, is a problem.  There is no 
question about that.
	I think, however, that the message, at least that I 
am conveying, that I would like to convey, is that we need 
to proceed and that the Board should consider that this is 
not just a single standard, but should be viewed in the 
context of, you know, three months time from now, but let's 
look at it more wholistically, and even if we have to 
implement some measures that you know are going to down the 
pathway of two years or a year and a half when we get more 
answers, be receptive to the results of those measures or 
the results of that analysis at that time.
	Perhaps if I can move along to the next two slides 
or the next two overheads, there are a few recommendations 
that we do have that might give a little better perspective 
on this.  If I can shift over to status and trends, this is 
issue No. 4, just briefly:  The results of the CUWA 
analysis generally concur with those that were done in the 
ISP that came out of the ISP documents in the San Francisco 
estuary project; that is, we believe there are long-term 
declines in certain species abundance.
	However, I would say that the degree of certainty 
that we attribute to any particular factor probably differs 
somewhat than that which has been communicated in other 
reports.  That is, we are uncertain in a lot of cases what 
is really causing these declines.  Outflow, again, is a 
contributor, but it is not the only contributor.  We would 
be recommending that these causes for declines do need to 
be addressed.  They include not only water quality 
standards, but other factors.
	Then, the last overhead, specific to the status and 
trends review that was completed, we did find and wish to 
make some recommendations, technical recommendations, 
regarding our conclusions.
	No. 1 pertains to the refinement of existing survey 
programs.  Some of the species, individual species that are 
being reviewed and evaluated, the sampling programs or 
survey programs that are presently in place, are not 
sufficient, in our opinion, to sample those particular 
species, and we would urge some consideration be given to 
refining those programs to more appropriately sample and 
accurately portray the species abundance.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  The methodology currently being 
used is the best that current wisdom seems to think is 
possible.  How does one achieve what your goal is?
	DR. RISER:  What you need to do is evaluate; in 
other words, from a fishery perspective, certain species 
are going to be more vulnerable to given year types than 
other species are.  Some fish are schooling fish, other 
fish are not schooling fish, and the results of the detail 
or the technical analysis that we completed leads us to the 
conclusion that some species, and the case in point might 
be the Sacramento splittail which inhabits shallow water 
habitat, under the existing survey program you are simply 
missing those species because you are not sampling that 
particular type of habitat, at least for certain programs 
that are under way.
	So, we are simply pointing to the need to 
reconsider and re-evaluate some of these survey programs so 
that we can more accurately depict the species abundance.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Is that going to be forwarded to 
the Fish and Game people?
	DR. RISER:  Yes, it is.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Because the same thing is done by 
the Department of Fish and Game.
	DR. RISER:  We have had some technical discussions 
with the California Department of Fish and Game.
	Another recommendation I think that is fundamental 
that I have not heard yet communicated here today is the 
development of a monitoring program.  We need to have 
almost a continuous feedback because of all the 
uncertainties that we do have in implementing any standard 
and allowing any sort of restoration or recovery option 
that we might implement.
	We need to have very tightly developed monitoring 
programs, statistically valid monitoring programs, programs 
that, in my opinion, are based specific, Bay-Delta specific 
and not what I would call agency specific, so I think 
that's very critical.
	And finally, a program of development, and I did 
hear this alluded to in earlier testimony, the development 
of a multispecies ecosystem management program.
	This particular program goes directly to the 
complexity of the system.  It goes to the fact that we are 
dealing with multispecies, multilocations, multiple 
problems and the complexity of the whole system has to be 
approached in a wholistic fashion, and the California Urban 
Water Agencies and the tentative work that we have done 
today strongly supports that type of approach be conducted.
	With that, I will open it up for questions.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Ms. Forster.
	MS. FORSTER:  I have two questions.  Do we have a 
copy of what you had up there in our handout?
	DR. RISER:  No, you do not.  We can make that 
available.
	MS. FORSTER:  I believe we should each receive one.  
	And the second question I have follows up on your 
last comment.  Some of the things that you are recommending 
sound wonderful.  Do you have prototypes, do you have a 
sample of what you think would make a good multispecies 
management program?
	DR. RISER:  There are other HCPs, habitat 
conservation plans, multispecies conservation plans that 
have been developed.  They are relatively new.  I would say 
relatively new in the sense of being the last three to four 
years.  But there are some prototypes that can be put 
forward, yes.
	MR. HOAG:  As a timely answer to Ms. Forster's 
question, there is a working group for ad hoc who right now 
is in the process of preparing an outline of what is an HCP 
in this case, what will it do, what are the goals, what are 
the components and how do you implement such a plan, and it 
is just coming together for internal review and very 
shortly it will be out and we will be pleased to contribute 
it to you as well.
	May I jump back and be sure Ms. Forster's earlier 
question is answered because I think we have a fairly 
focused and clear answer to the question of what do you do 
given the complexity and time required to deal with some of 
these.
	It is true that you will not have all the answers 
on the other factors thing between now and December.  We do 
not want you to slow down in your standard-setting process.  
You have a schedule, it's the right one, you need to stay 
on it.
	We believe that you can proceed with water quality 
standards, and in the broader context of those standards 
include the components of the comprehensive plans which 
include other factors, include time tables for that work, 
include how they will come back into the standards process, 
for example, in your triennial review process, and we don't 
believe it is appropriate or necessary for you to alter the 
water quality standard process simply because there are 
pieces of the puzzle like this one that are not going to be 
resolved between now and December.
	Now, there's a parallel comment to that and it goes 
to the question of how do you set salinity or outflow 
standards without having all the pieces of the puzzle 
worked out.  
	We do not believe that the setting of a level of 
protection for purposes of this standard is a product of a 
total balancing process simply because you cannot do a 
total balancing while, indeed, some of these components of 
a comprehensive habitat conservation plan are being worked 
out, and that's why in the Urban alternative we support the 
level of protection based on an historic benchmark.  
	Essentially it goes to the antidegradation approach 
which, of course, since the time you first deliberated and 
since we came out with that, the Supreme Court of the 
United States has also further endorsed and supported, so 
you cannot include all of the so-called other factors 
solution in your December standard setting, except in a 
non-numerical way, and that's what we are recommending. 
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Hoag and Dr. Riser.
	Other questions from members?  Nothing from staff?
	MR. BROWN:  I really like your approach on this.  I 
think that while we have some targets set for the end of 
the year, nevertheless, your approach and this information 
will be very helpful in the dynamics of this problem as we 
progress throughout.  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Now, we will have a joint 
presentation from Tom Berliner, Laura King and Steve 
Arakawa, representing the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition.
	Good afternoon.  I see Tom Berliner is not with 
you.
	Please identify yourselves for the record.
	MS. KING:  I am Laura King with East Bay Municipal 
Utility District.
	MR. ARAKAWA:  I am Steve Arakawa from Metropolitan 
Water District.
	MR. BUCK:  I am Byron Buck from the San Diego 
County Water Authority.
	MS. KING:  We would like to start our panel with a 
statement on behalf of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition and I 
am going to read that statement.  You should all have 
copies and I would like to just say by way of explanation, 
that the organization here, Mr. Chairman, as you alluded 
to, that we are sort of in the process of trying to get 
these groups to all come together, and it is an unwieldy 
process.
	This statement we had hoped to be delivered 
formally by CUWA, but because it is a new position, we 
weren't able to do that. 
	The Urban Coalition is sort of a shifting 
organization.  From one workshop to the next you will see 
different members listed at the bottom, and that reflects 
availability of people to review drafts as much as 
particular policy stances by different districts.  I hope 
you won't read too much into who is on the list and who 
isn't on the list at this point.
	Today's statement is being presented on behalf of 
the Alameda County Water District, Central Coast Water 
Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, East Bay MUD, 
Municipal Water District of Orange County, Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California, Public Utilities 
Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, San 
Diego County Water Authority and Santa Clara Valley Water 
District.
	And as we mentioned in the footnote, this position 
does not necessarily reflect all of the views of all of 
those different districts.
	So, with that introduction, I would like to read 
this statement: 
	For this hearing, the State Water Resources Control 
Board has requested comments concerning the impact of 
upstream diversions on the Delta.  Specifically, the Water 
Board asks:  What effect do upstream water projects, other 
than the CVP and SWP, have on the fish and wildlife 
resources of the Bay-Delta estuary?
	The Urban Coalition offers the following 
observations:  
	The State Water Project and the Central Valley 
Project together have been the subject of studies to 
understand their impacts on the Delta and upstream 
environments.  These studies, costing tens of millions of 
dollars, have not resulted in a precise quantification of 
the relative impacts of the projects.
	Diversions and related actions by the projects are 
among the sources of human impacts on the Delta.  
Operations by other diverters, both large and small, have 
also affected the Delta system.  Further, activities such 
as urban and agricultural development, fishing, pollution 
and others have also had adverse effects.  Projects and 
non-project upstream storage facilities have offsetting 
positive impacts on the Delta and its tributaries as well.  
	During times of low flow, particularly during 
droughts, the flow releases from upstream reservoirs 
provide water for a multiplicity of beneficial uses in the 
Delta and on its tributary rivers.
	To date, the studies of the impacts of the non-
project water users have focused primarily on localized 
impacts or on the effect of pollutant discharges on fish 
and wildlife.  The impacts of non-project diversions and 
other activities on the Delta have been described 
conceptually, but there has not yet been any effort to 
quantify the impacts.  It is our understanding that Mr. 
Arakawa will be undertaking an effort to develop a 
quantification of those impacts as part of this research 
effort that Mr. Hoag was referring to.
	The quantification of impacts on the Delta by all 
diversions will be complex and time consuming.  However, 
the Water Board should not wait until there is scientific 
quantification of each water diverter's or water user's 
effect on the system before it issues a decision regarding 
levels of protection and allocation of responsibility for 
the health of the Delta's ecosystem.
	Rather, the Water Board should adopt an allocation 
method that reasonably and rationally allocates 
responsibilities with due regard to existing scientific 
analysis, public policy and legal principles.
	The Water Board's decision should include an 
allocation that recognizes that diversions, entrainment, 
return flows and all other activities that result from the 
use of water have some impact, at least incrementally, on 
the Delta and fish and wildlife that rely on it for their 
habitat.
	The decision should also give due regard to 
fundamental issues such as water rights seniority, type and 
relative benefit of use, and other factors to determine an 
allocation plan that will best protect the public's 
interest in making the fullest beneficial use of the 
State's water.
	In addition to the allocation of responsibility for 
Delta protection, the Water Board must include reasonable 
and practicable means for diverters to meet their responsi-
bilities through alternative means.  To this end, the Urban 
Coalition endorses and supports the development of a 
program of mitigation credits to allow responsible parties 
to meet their obligations either directly as assigned by 
the Water Board, or indirectly by substituting a mitigation 
credit in lieu of their assigned responsibility.
	Mitigation credits may take many forms, including 
the payment of money to a fund that would purchase water 
from willing sellers, or the foregoing of a release of 
water from the responsible party's system in exchange for 
the release of water from other sources.
	As knowledge increases about the relationship of 
non-water activities to the protection of fish and 
wildlife, non-water related alternatives, such as physical 
habitat restoration, should be available as mitigation 
credits.  The concept of mitigation credits and the 
inclusion of non-water alternatives to promote fish and 
wildlife restoration is integral to any overall, 
comprehensive plan to provide Delta protection.
	And that concludes the statement of the Urban 
Coalition on this matter.  I don't know if Mr. Berliner has 
joined us yet or not.
	MR. CAFFREY:  I haven't seen him.  No, he is not in 
the audience.
	MS. KING:  What I would like to do is make some 
additional comments on behalf of East Bay MUD on that 
issue, and also, the first issue in the workshop notice.  
The first question was the question of other factors 
besides flows or lack of flows that are contributing to the 
decline of the estuary, and I would just like to begin by 
commenting that clearly other factors besides diversions 
are contributing to the decline.
	I think we have heard a number of people say that 
today and I think one thing that is really different today 
than it has been in the past is that there is more of a 
consensus that while there are other factors that are 
causing problems, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be 
addressing the flow issue now.
	And I think what you are hearing, at least from the 
urban communities, is that we would like to see you do what 
you can to address those other factors in a timely fashion 
as well as dealing with the flows, and I hope that we will 
be able to come back with some more specific ideas 
regarding which of those factors might be addressed in the 
water standards to be proposed in December.
	We wanted to contribute some information on two 
other factors that we have looked at on the East Bay 
Municipal Utility District system on the Mokelumne River, 
specifically predation by introduced species and poaching.
	I was interested to hear this morning's speaker say 
that he did not think that predation by striped bass was a 
real problem for salmon population as a whole.  We did have 
an experience last year in May of 1993 where we received 
reports of striped bass sightings in the lower Mokelumne 
and cooperated with a study with the Department of Fish and 
Game to look at striped bass predation on out-migrating 
juvenile salmon, and the results from that study suggest 
that striped bass predation losses ranged from 11 to 51 
percent of the total in-river smolt production.
	So, in that particular time, there was a fairly 
significant impact.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Excuse me.  How do you have a 
finding that it ranges from 11 to 51 percent?  What 
criteria do you use that would result in a conclusion like 
that?
	MS. KING:  The range reflected -- part of it was 
based on what they actually counted in the striped bass 
that they opened up and part of it was projected based on 
how many striped bass they thought were in the area, and 
that explains the range.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  What is the value of that estimate 
if you have got a 40 percent point spread as to what you 
think the impact is?
	MS. KING:  I think that the value is it is a one-
time sample, and so I don't want to try to make too much 
out of this.  The value is to show that at this particular 
time there was significant, even if it was just 11 percent, 
there was significant striped bass predation going on of 
the salmon smolts.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  How many smolts came down the river 
at this time.
	MS. KING:  How many smolts came down the river in 
1994?  
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Yes.  What is your estimate of the 
number of the smolt population that came down the Mokelumne 
during the presence of the striped bass?
	MS. KING:  In 1993, the number was 20,000 to 90,000 
fish.  That is the range.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  The reason I am asking is I am 
trying to figure out based on the percentage what the 
impact of 11 percent is.
	MS. KING:  I'm sorry, I don't have the figure 
before me of what the total was.  The 51 percent, I have 
the number of fish that that percentage represents, which 
was 20,000 to 90,000 fish, so that would mean -- 180,000.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  That's a big range.
	MS. KING:  It is a big range.  I don't dispute 
that.  The more detailed information about how that range 
was developed is in the back of our comments that you have 
there.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Okay.  
	MS. KING:  Poaching has also taken a significant 
toll on the Mokelumne River salmon in dry years.  As much 
as 50 percent of the salmon migrating into the Mokelumne to 
spawn are lost to poaching in dry years.
	We would also like to make some comments on the 
third issue, the role of upstream non-project diversions.  
I had hoped to piggy-back on what Mr. Berliner was going to 
say about that because I think he's got some very 
interesting ideas.  They are more specific than what I have 
to offer and I think it makes more sense to let him go 
next, so I will yield.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Good afternoon.  Welcome, Mr. 
Berliner.
	MR. BERLINER:  I am appearing today on behalf of 
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.  San Francisco, 
as the Board is well aware, is a member of the California 
Urban Water Agencies and has joins in the previous 
statement submitted by CUWA as well as statements by the 
Bay-Delta Urban Coalition, and we support both of their 
statements today.
	In supporting those statements, I do want to make 
it clear that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 
has not enacted a formal endorsement of any particular 
method for resolving Bay-Delta problems but we are 
supportive of working towards solutions and of San 
Francisco being part of that effort.
	Also, I want to make it clear I am going to propose 
a conceptual solution today, but in proposing it, it is no 
more than a proposal.  It is not something that San 
Francisco is willing to sign on the dotted line because 
this proposal is far from ready for that.  It's an 
invitation for exploration and discussion.  We are not 
waiving any of our legal rights which we have set before 
the Board in prior proceedings and which have been the 
subject of some further briefing today by various parties.
	Specific reference to San Francisco's legal 
position would be the legal brief of the Public Utilities 
Commission in the interim water rights proceeding.
	A comment about the upstream diversions of San 
Francisco:  As the Board well knows, we are one of the 
older diverters in the state.  Our facilities predate most 
of the large reservoirs that have been built in either the 
San Joaquin or Sacramento basins.  
	There has yet to be any specific linkage between 
San Francisco's operations and problems in the Delta.  
Nevertheless, we are very sensitive to the fact that the 
Delta is in need of an immediate fix and that San Francisco 
can play a role in that fix.
	In looking to projects beyond the State and Federal 
projects, which we think the Board must do and eventually 
will do, the Board is going to have to keep in mind that 
there are significant differences in the effects of 
upstream operations and those are going to have to be taken 
into account in any Delta solution.
	Any decision by the Board which seeks to allocate 
responsibility for water quality objectives and flow 
requirements, is going to have to give due regard to 
factors such as water rights, seniority, priority of use, 
benefits and detriments associated with each water user's 
activities, et cetera.
	They are also going to have to recognize positive 
impacts that come from various projects, particularly the 
use of carryover storage to meet flow requirements during 
times of low flow.
	The proposal that we are offering today is one that 
has been discussed briefly in the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition 
submittal to the Board.  It is briefed rather fully in San 
Francisco's testimony and I won't repeat all of it here 
today.  
	What we are proposing is a three-tiered approach.  
The first two tiers are inextricably linked.  The third 
tier, which we call mitigation credits, is a concept that 
could be applied no matter what decision the Board makes in 
eventually allocating responsibility to meet Delta 
requirements.
	In the first tier we propose that the Board 
establish a benchmark against which to measure parties' 
responsibility for Delta protection.  The Board will have 
to figure out a way to do that.  There are a number of 
concepts that can be used and I will get into those in a 
minute.
	The second tier will require the Board to adjust 
the benchmark consistent with factors related to the water 
users' seniority, priority, and a number of other factors 
which are listed in our testimony.
	In the first tier, the benchmark must be adjusted 
by the factors in the second tier in order to legally 
allocate responsibility.  The Board cannot ignore the well 
established criteria of California water law and the long 
line of cases that discuss at great length the issues that 
I have already mentioned.
	The Board cannot simply allocate based on an 
across-the-board formula, but must adjust each user's 
responsibility in relation to their legal rights and the 
identified factors.
	Concerning the first tier, the creation of the 
base, the first step to develop an equitable division of 
responsibility for compliance with water quality standards 
is the identification of the one or more physical 
parameters that best relate to the specific water quality 
standards.  For instance, regarding the provision of 
outflow for compliance with an X2 water quality 
requirement, the base parameter would be streamflow and the 
factors that affect Delta outflow.
	Another example would be water quality objectives 
for the San Joaquin River.  In this instance, the cause of 
the parameter is agricultural drainage.  Therefore, 
drainage discharges should be the parameter used to 
establish responsibility.
	Once the base parameter has been identified, the 
appropriate community of water users that have an effect on 
the meeting of the water quality standards must be 
identified.
	In the instance of X2, for example, all water users 
that affect outflow may be required to share 
responsibility.
	Net depletion from the Bay-Delta watershed of each 
user may be the appropriate parameter to initially base a 
user's responsibility for X2 outflow.  The community of 
water users that deplete the water resources should be 
responsible.  This would include surface water diverters 
that are tributary to the Bay-Delta watershed, in-Delta 
water users and groundwater users that tap aguifers that 
are hydraulically connected to the surface waters of the 
Bay-Delta watershed.
	This community of water users also includes 
entities that deplete Bay-Delta outflow by evaporation 
losses from reservoirs, such as power utilities.
	The second tier is where the Board must adjust the 
base amount consistent with legal, physical and public 
interest allocation factors.  The allocation factors are 
conceptual in nature at this time.  A relative impact 
assessment or multiplier formula would be attached to each 
of the factors in creating the equation for Delta 
responsibility.  Further, it is likely that the Board would 
have to exercise its judgment in the application of certain 
of these factors to further the public interest.
	The factors are numerous.  I will mention a few:  
Seniority of right, priority of use, area of origin, timing 
of diversions, storage releases for public trust uses, 
conservation, drought management, rationing, reclamation 
and reuse.
	On the flip side, there are issues such as 
entrainment, reverse flows, pollution, timing of 
diversions, the nexus between upstream action and impact on 
Delta fish and wildlife, impact on upstream biological 
resources with significance to the Delta, impact of 
drinking water quality, impact on disinfection by-products, 
temperature increases, destruction of wetlands, destruction 
of riparian habitat, et cetera.
	The third tier involves the establishment of 
mitigation credits.  As I said before, the concept of 
mitigation credits can apply in any Delta solution.  That 
was discussed briefly by CUWA in its comments to D-1630.
	This important component of the allocation factors 
equation is the reality that under certain circumstances it 
will be unreasonable to require a water user to directly 
meet all or a portion of its responsibility for Delta 
protection with actions such as the release of water, 
cessation of diversion or groundwater pumping, and yet, the 
Delta will be in no less need of protection.
	Mitigation credits are proposed which will allow a 
water user to meet its responsibility for Delta protection 
by providing that protection through alternative means in 
lieu of the requirement otherwise imposed.
	Generally, mitigation credits should be available 
to any type of water user.  Urban water users and 
agricultural water users could avail themselves of the 
mitigation credits program to meet their obligations, 
provided credits are available and the appropriate 
regulatory authority deems it reasonable to allow the user 
to substitute a mitigation credit.
	It is imperative, therefore, that any program that 
is established provide clear guidance so that the parties 
understand how the mitigation credits will apply and can 
plan accordingly.
	The mitigation credits program should be consistent 
with an overall multispecies protection plan developed for 
the Bay-Delta watershed.  Some examples would include:
	Provision of water from another source in 
lieu of a required reservoir release; 
	Cessation of pumping in one location in 
exchange for pumping elsewhere;
	The payment of money to a fund for the 
purchase of water;
	The creation of wetlands or other 
environmentally beneficial projects in 
exchange for the otherwise mandated action; 
again based upon a finding of equivalent 
benefit to fish and wildlife.
	This implementation proposal has been designed as a 
conceptual framework for allocating responsibility to meet 
Delta protection requirements.  We look forward to working 
with the Board and other water users to refine this 
proposal during the weeks and months ahead.  
	We think that through discussion perhaps a program 
can be developed which will provide ultimately the solution 
to the Bay-Delta, and we invite discussion and conference.
	Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Berliner.
	Does Mr. Arakawa have a presentation?  We will 
probably wait until the end to ask questions.
	MS. KING:  I would just like to add a couple of 
specific comments to Mr. Berliner's presentation.
	As I said, I think what he has proposed here is 
very worthy of consideration and East Bay MUD and San 
Francisco have consultants talking about this and trying to 
figure out how you would work the devil out of the detail, 
and so I hope that this is something that we can come back 
to you again with more detailed approaches on.
	There are two points that I wanted to call to your 
attention in our written comments that are related to this. 
The first is the importance of bringing in all of the non-
project diverters and not just focusing on, for example, 
the reservoirs or the big diverters.
	In the case of East Bay MUD, we did some analysis 
for the Mokelumne River management hearings and in that 
case even if we doubled our instream flows in the 
Mokelumne, which would have a very severe supply impact for 
us to do that, that would make less than a one percent 
increase in the Delta inflows.
	So, we are not saying, don't touch us, but we are 
saying that you have to touch everybody and I think that 
this kind of approach is really the only way that we are 
going to get to where we need to be with all of this.
	The second point that I would just like to 
emphasize, one of the factors that Tom mentioned is 
efficiency of 
use --
	MR. CAFFREY:  Ms. King, Mr. Brown has a question.
	MR. BROWN:  You made a statement that you touched 
everybody, everybody meaning people who have access to and 
through the Delta, or everybody throughout the state?
	MS. KING:  To and through the Delta.
	MR. BROWN:  Okay.  
	MS. KING:  The second point that I just wanted to 
emphasize is the need to look very hard at the efficiency 
of water use.  East Bay MUD, like many of the other urban 
districts, has a very strong conservation/reclamation 
program and to the extent that we have already developed 
that program or have plans to further develop it, we are 
essentially squeezing the most out of the system that we 
possibly can, and that is going to affect our ability to 
make a contribution, and I think that you are going to need 
to look at everybody's programs in this area and make some 
comparisons of their relative efforts, and with that, I 
will turn it over to the rest of the panel.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Arakawa.
	MR. ARAKAWA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
	My name is Steve Arakawa and I work for the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
	We are here today to express complete support for 
the comments that were provided to you from the California 
Urban Water Agencies on issues Nos. 1 and 4 of your agenda 
today. 
	We also fully support the comments of the Urban 
Coalition that were just presented and described to you on 
issue No. 3.
	The purpose of our brief comments today is intended 
to support these comments, and also, to provide some 
further elaboration with regard to issue No. 3.  
	We do not have any comments to provide to you on 
issue No. 2.
	Regarding issue No. 3, the impact of upstream water 
projects, our first point is that we believe that all uses 
of water in the Bay-Delta watershed affect the ecosystem in 
some way, in some manner.  This includes diversion of flow 
from upstream tributaries and rivers, it includes 
entrainment of fish, it includes polluted return flows and 
discharges, temperature impacts, loss of riparian habitat 
and wetlands, and alteration of the natural Delta 
environment.
	The magnitude of the impacts caused by specific 
water users obviously will vary, but each has at least an 
incremental impact on the environment as well as a 
cumulative impact on the ecosystem as a whole.
	For this reason, it is not equitable nor sound 
policy, we believe, to require only the State and Federal 
water projects to bear the entire burden of protecting the 
Bay-Delta's resources.
	The second point that we would like to make is that 
the State Board has broad expansive authority to regulate 
water uses to protect the environment.  These authorities 
are contained in California's Water Code and the State 
Constitution.  A broad exercise of that authority is 
particularly appropriate and required in the Bay-Delta 
context because of its critical importance to the State and 
the people and the economy.
	In exercising its authority, the State Board should 
identify the localized impacts of upstream water users and 
require mitigation of those impacts.  Further, the State 
Board must identify and allocate an equitable share of 
mitigating the more generalized impacts of diversion and 
use of water.
	This would include participation in achieving an 
estuarine habitat standard.  It is one that was described 
to you by the Urban Coalition in previous workshops.  The 
above point should not be interpreted to mean that the 
water rights priority system should be disregarded.  
Metropolitan does believe, however, that the administration 
of water rights must occur within the context of 
fundamental, constitutional and statutory public policies.
	This means that all the water users may be 
regulated to insure that the water resources of the state 
be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent capable in 
the interest of the people and public welfare, and it must 
determine whether it would be reasonable to condition uses 
to meet competing beneficial uses and needs within the 
state.
	Finally, Metropolitan believes that the concept 
outlined by the Urban Coalition for establishing mitigation 
responsibilities deserves serious consideration by the 
State Water Resources Control Board.
	Such an approach would provide a basis for 
allocating responsibility until more precise quantification 
and allocation is available.
	That concludes my prepared remarks.  I did want to 
add at least one other remark.  
	In earlier discussions Mr. Stubchaer had referred 
to the exotic species issue and posed the question if we 
don't know the effects of exotic species, then how do we 
know whether habitat restoration can be attained, and I 
think that those types of questions as they relate to 
exotic species and toxics, and other types of factors, are 
things that many of us out here are struggling with.
	How do we determine whether we are at what we are 
aiming at, whether we are at the targets that we are 
establishing, and I don't know if I have the complete 
answer to your question, but what I would say is I think 
what we are talking about is an approach whereby the 
impacts of exotic species are quantified to the extent they 
can be.
	The California Urban Water Agencies studies would 
provide a way of getting at some of that information, and 
there is a need to look at not only that, but impacts of 
other factors such as pollution, toxics, urban runoff, in 
order to determine whether we are achieving the goals or 
the objectives that we have set out.
	What that means is that any comprehensive approach 
has got to include consideration of these other factors and 
that the estuarine habitat standard or the water quality 
standards and flow requirements that are before this Board 
are one part of the comprehensive plan, but would need to 
include some of these other factors such as exotic species, 
and to the degree possible determine what kinds of impacts 
they are having on fisheries.
	And that concludes my remarks.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Stubchaer.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   Thank you for your comments.  
	I think we all recognize that this plan is not 
going to be a static document.  It is going to be dynamic 
and the studies you are referring to are not going to be 
completed in time for the December goal, that we will 
consider them when they become available, and when we have 
the triennial review if nothing else.
	So, it will have to be a living document.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  That's what they said about D-1485.
	MR. STUBCHAER:   But we are a different Board now.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Did Mr. Buck have a presentation?
	MR. BUCK:  No, we don't have an independent 
statement.  We are here in support of CUWA and the 
Coalition.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you.
	Other questions by Board members of the panel? 
	Anything from staff?
	Thank you all very much.  We appreciate your input.  
We will take to heart what you have told us and look 
forward to your further input.
	Next is Mr. Schulz.  While Mr. Schulz is on the way 
up, I would say that we are going to adjourn for the day at 
four o'clock and then we will resume tomorrow in our own 
hearing room across the street in the Water Resources 
Control Board building at 9:30.  Those that we did not get 
to today will be first tomorrow morning and anybody else 
that may sign up for tomorrow.
	All right, Mr. Schulz.
	MR. SCHULZ:  Good afternoon.  I am Cliff Schulz and 
I am here today by myself representing Kern County Water 
Agency.  Mr. Schuster wasn't able to make it this afternoon 
and a member in the audience, therefore, asked me to speak 
twice as fast, but Alice bribed me so I won't.
	I want to address --
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Can you?
	MR. SCHULZ:  I want to address key issues 1 and 3 
briefly this afternoon, if I may.  
	Our presentation will be a lot shorter than that of 
the urban agencies because we propose to present most of 
the detailed information on this topic in July.
	So, considering how we should respond to this key 
issue, we decided we should not at this workshop provide 
you with specific terms, conditions or recommendations for 
what we define as non-flow and diversion-related measures 
that the Board should consider as part of its overall plan.
	Our specific recommendations in this area will be 
provided in July as part of a total package so that the 
flow and non-flow elements can be seen in the context of 
our entire proposal.
	For this workshop, I would like to briefly outline 
the approach we believe the Board should take to the non-
flow and diversion issues.
	MS. FORSTER:  Excuse me, do we have a handout from 
you?
	MR. SCHULZ:  No, I have something that I wrote last 
night on my computer at home and I have marked the heck out 
of it.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  We will get a finished copy later 
on then?
	MR. SCHULZ:  Yes, right.  One never knows what they 
are going to say until they get up here.
	Your notice asked for comments relating to factors 
excluding diversions that have contributed to the decline 
in species, and we know that you, therefore, intentionally 
phrased it to exclude at this workshop consideration of 
nonflow related actions that may be needed to mitigate the 
impact of water diversions that take place in the Delta.
	We have a general reaction to the way the issue is 
structured.  First, while knowing the cause of the decline 
may be relevant to your process, knowing the historical 
cause may not provide you with the data needed to find out 
how to cure the problem.  This is a little bit similar to 
what Mr. Anderson said about going in one door of a room 
does not mean necessarily that you have to go out the same 
door.
	So, we are looking now at 1994 and we think that 
the primary focus of this Board should not necessarily be 
on historical causes but on the current best cure.  
	Therefore, in Kern's consideration of Delta fishery 
issues and what we have been trying to get ready for July, 
we intend to focus on potential actions that you can take 
to protect the fishery resources and to divide those 
actions into two categories, those that reduce the yield to 
the various water supply projects which we define as flow 
and diversion related actions, and those that might be 
taken to improve the fishery resources while avoiding 
adverse impacts on water supplies.
	The first category or action, such as increased 
outflow, pumping on occasions, cross channel gate closure, 
et cetera, all those actions cost water and given 
California's extreme water shortage should be minimized to 
the extent possible.
	In the second category or action, such as screening 
barrier programs, fishing regulations, toxic controls and 
similar actions, to the extent they can raise the level of 
the fishery population, will enhance the level of 
protection that can be provided by reasonable flow and 
diversion controls alone.
	So, Kern's primary response to this key issue is 
that the Board should focus its attention, both on flows 
and diversion and on actions that it can directly take or 
recommend to other appropriate agencies.
	I was very happy to see in your notice that you are 
going to consider items that are beyond your authority and 
that you could make recommendations to other agencies.  We 
think that's very important.  We think the Board has a lot 
of power in this area to influence others, and it should.
	We recognize that flow and diversion regulations 
will be critical to the solution of the Delta problems, and 
our statement should not be viewed as a retreat from that 
position, but we do believe that to the extent that some of 
the fishery problems can be solved without impacting water 
supplies, all Californians will be better off.
	Kern, in July and we hope joined by others and the 
coalitions that everybody has been talking about, will be 
presenting a 158
package of nonflow and diversion actions which may include 
recommendations for screening, barriers, predation 
reduction, improvement in fish handling at the State and 
Federal pumping plants, increased poaching controls, 
modified angling regulations, dredging restrictions, 
improved toxic controls, improvement of shallow area 
habitat, exotic species control and similar suggestions.
	These will be provided in conjunction with our flow 
and diversion recommendations and at that time we will end 
up explaining the biological situation of each proposed 
action.
	I suspect that next month 20 minutes is probably 
not going to be adequate for a lot of people and I bet you 
we go more than the number of days we have been going to 
date.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  You know, this is not like we have 
not been through this before.  I understand that next 
month's issues are going to be pretty significant.  
	Everyone understands also that we have given 
everyone, I think, at least 60 days' advanced notice.  The 
vast majority of the comments appropriate to be made to the 
Board, I am sure, can be reduced to writing so the Board 
members can have the benefit of seeing them somewhat in 
advance, since I think all of us anticipate some lively 
discussions next month.
	It might be a tad more accommodating to receive the 
briefs two or three days in advance rather than receiving 
them on the day of the hearing, and then be obliged to try 
and thumb through them during the course of the 
presentations.
	MR. SCHULZ:  That is a point well taken.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  The purpose of the hearings is to 
have some modicum of order so the decision makers 
ultimately can assimilate the information in an equally 
orderly fashion, and a free for all is not something the 
Board is particularly interested in realizing.
	MR. SCHULZ:  I agree with that completely.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I'm sure you do.
	MR. SCHULZ:  By the way, with respect to the toxic 
control which is on my list of items, Dave Anderson this 
morning suggested a possible workshop maybe after all these 
are done where we talk a little bit about toxics, and I 
want to emphasize that again because, for example, your 
Central Valley Water Quality Control Board, I believe, has 
been doing a lot of work on the toxics effects on fish of 
certain things that are going on in the rivers, the 
Diazinon question and things like that, the rice 
herbicides, et cetera.
	And I do think that that is a topic that warrants 
possible further consideration in a workshop session.  So, 
I would like to second what Mr. Anderson said this morning 
in this respect.
	With respect also to this first key issue, I would 
like to talk a little bit about something that Perry 
Hergesell of the Department of Fish and Game said at the 
last workshop.  This is a quote from Alice's good 
transcript.  He said at the May proceeding:  All things 
considered, we feel that it is not really reasonable to 
conclude that these additional diversions have caused the 
decline in the estuary, and he was talking about non-State 
and Federal project diversions.
	As I heard him this morning, I think what he said 
last time is still applicable to these nonflow and 
diversion related measures.
	You notice I said 'caused,' not 'contributed,' but 
they have not caused the declines in the estuary since the 
mid-1960s, and we feel in light of that the focus should be 
on the recovery and maintenance of the estuary's fisheries 
and that needs to be on the water project operations.
	I don't know if this actually represents Fish and 
Game's official policy, but Kern would be disappointed if 
it did, for in the context of this key issue it seems to be 
saying that it is not necessary to focus on poaching, or 
harvest regulations or screening Delta diversions for they 
are not State and Federal project related, and these, and 
in his opinion, do not cause the recent declines in the 
fisheries.
	Kern urges you to ignore this advice and focus on 
all actions that can improve fishery resources.
	The advice is bad policy and we also think it would 
be bad law.  The fact that poaching or under-regulated 
fishing or unscreened diversions did not noticeably impact 
fish populations 35 years ago does not mean those same 
practices and regulations are reasonable and should be 
allowed to continue when California's population has 
doubled and the resulting competition for water has 
dramatically increased.
	Judicial decision after judicial decision in 
California has ruled that a particular water use practice 
that may have been reasonable in the past may become 
unreasonable when times change and the demand for water 
increases.  You have the Joslin case, the Forni case, any 
number of other significant cases in which this Board has 
been involved.
	It is not a violation of a water user's water 
rights priority to demand his diversion and use practice be 
improved to make water available for the State as a whole.
	As Tom Clark stated at the April workshop, Kern 
continues to support the area of origin laws and water 
rights priority that those laws provide.
	Kern does not support the continuance of archaic 
water use practices or fishing regulations, or whatever 
that do not reflect the needs of society in 1994.
	Therefore, Kern's July workshop recommendations 
will include actions that are not just focused on the State 
and Federal projects, but include a broad group of actions 
which are needed to fully protect fish and to protect the 
State's water supplies.
	Before moving on to key issue No. 3, I want to 
bring up a side bar on the fact that we have been talking a 
lot today about these nondiversion related actions that 
might be taken.  There's another group out there that's 
working on these, and that's a group that was formed as 
part of the Endangered Species Act Delta smelt process.  
There is a native fish recovery team and in the recovery 
process on the Delta smelt they decided to go beyond the 
smelt and take a look at, I believe, seven native species 
and that group, although they haven't finished yet, the 
information I have is that there is now an internal draft 
that lists a whole series of actions of both flow related 
and nonflow related, structural and nonstructural, dredging 
and poaching and fishing regulations, and everything else, 
and they are rated, you know, from how effective they are 
for each of the species and how easy they would be 
implemented.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Is this a group?
	MR. SCHULZ:  Yes, and it has representatives of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA and the Department of 
Water Resources, and I think there are about a dozen 
biologists, or something like that.  They spent a great 
deal of time.  I know they are not done, but they are 
getting close to where they are making a rather 
comprehensive list of things that they feel could be done, 
how easy they would be to accomplish and what impacts they 
would have on various species.
	I think getting information from them would be 
helpful.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I think I know what this group is.  
Is this the group that was put together to try and stem the 
tide of future listings?
	MR. SCHULZ:  In part.  It is also the Delta smelt 
recovery program under ESA, but they have also stated as to 
that one of their goals is to attempt to avoid future 
listings, but they have spent a fair amount of time trying 
to come up with a list of potential actions, and they may 
be a source of information to this Board.
	Briefly, on key issue No. 3, Kern knows that 
upstream water projects also have impacts on fish species 
that use the Bay-Delta system and in general they can be 
categorized in two areas; impacts on migratory species and 
impacts on Delta resident species.
	For migratory species, many of these projects have 
great impacts.  Locally constructed dams and diversion 
works have isolated salmon from their historical spawning 
areas, forcing them downstream where water temperatures are 
a much greater problem.
	Further, entrainment in numerous river diversions 
do occur.  Levees and channelization have eliminated 
shallow areas, shallow water edge habitat which is 
important to young salmon, and also, to other species.
	But some of these upstream problems could be 
addressed, increased populations of adult salmon might be 
capable of being sustained without significant impacts on 
water supplies by trying to cure all of the problems just 
in the Delta.
	For resident fish the impact of upstream projects 
is their effect on flow in and out of the Delta as has been 
stated previously.
	Again, with the area of origin laws in mind, those 
laws do not protect upstream water users from having to 
share in providing necessary Bay-Delta flows at times when 
the CVP and SWP are not impacting natural flows in the 
system.
	I am not asking that upstream water users mitigate 
for the effect of diversion activities, but if the State 
and Federal projects are not storing natural flow, if they 
are not diverting natural flow in a particular summer month 
and there still is not enough outflow to protect the Delta 
species, then I think there is a direct impact of these 
other upstream diversions, which it would be appropriate to 
handle without violating priority or area of origin laws.
	So, we do believe that they have an obligation to 
mitigate their direct impacts.  We continue to believe that 
and we think that's fully consistent with the area of 
origin and other priority concepts that we have talked 
about today.
	That concludes my presentation.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Schulz.
	Before I go to the possibility of questions from 
the Board members, let me say I certainly agree with Mr. 
Del Piero about the value to the Board members and our 
staff to get copies of your presentation, or your comments, 
or background paper in advance of the workshop.  That is 
helpful.  I know it is difficult with the schedule that we 
are on, but to the extent you can do that, we appreciate 
it.
	With regard to the two concerns you have expressed, 
I have been inclined as the Chair to be flexible when 
people ask for additional time.  We are dealing with some 
very complicated subjects, and certainly, next probably in 
some ways will be more complicated than some of the others 
we have dealt with.
	So, I would be inclined to give more time, as I 
have, with people that make that request.  We will look at 
that next month.  We probably have our notice out or about 
to go out, the July notice.  Even though it says 20 
minutes, it does not mean that we are going to stifle you.  
We have four days scheduled for that proceeding in July, 
and to the extent that we have to use any portion or all of 
those four days, we will use them to get the information we 
need.
	I want you to be assured that we will be that 
flexible.  
	Furthermore, with regard to the question of 
additional workshops, we only have the four scheduled.  I 
am not going to close off the possibility of the need for 
an additional workshop, if that situation presents itself 
and proves to be a significant need.
	One thing we are concerned about is that our time 
is very limited.  We are going to produce our plan in 
December.  We are going to stay on that schedule, and at 
some point in time we have to close off the proceedings so 
that we can physically produce that document, but I am not 
going to close off the possibility of additional workshops 
if we do have to do that.
	MR. SCHULZ:  If you have heard screams in the 
night, it has been our consultants that we have been 
putting under tremendous pressure to try and get a product 
by July.  All of them have said that in July this is going 
to be a living, breathing document that we will be changing 
almost on a monthly basis. 
	We strongly suspect we will have better data, more 
definitive recommendations, you know, as the summer and 
fall move along, so I think that's something we can deal 
with in July probably in a little more detail, but it would 
not surprise me if all of us wanted to say we should have 
another one at some time a couple of months after July 
while you are working on the document.
	MR. CAFFREY:  I am going to look at my attorney, 
Barbara Leidigh, when I say that next thing, but the 
process we are using now, which is quasi-legislative and is 
more open than the adjudicatory process, and I think that 
when July comes and goes, in that period following July 
there will be ample opportunity for you to provide 
additional information or updated information, certainly on 
a daily basis to the staff, and while there may not be more 
workshops or many more workshops after that, that door will 
not slam shut on you, so it is a living, breathing, ongoing 
process and we recognize that it will continue to be after 
we come forward with our draft plan, too, so as has been 
iterated a number of times here today, we appreciate your 
concern. 
	We are not insensitive to it, but we do have to 
meet our deadline.  We will be as flexible as we possibly 
can.
	MR. SCHULZ:  We want you to meet your deadline.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Are there questions from the Board 
members?  
	Anything from staff?
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Only one comment.  Have you read 
the Department of Water Resources presentation for today?
	MR. SCHULZ:  I read it this morning.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  You saw the reference to the Kern 
water bank?
	MR. SCHULZ:  Yes.  We are very concerned about 
things such as the Kern water bank and the limitations on 
pumping windows, and things of that type.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Schulz.
	Sandra Dunn.
	MS. DUNN:  I am Sandra Dunn.  I am appearing here 
today on behalf of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
	Before I begin my remarks, I would just like to 
support Cliff's statement in terms of perhaps the Board 
needing another workshop.  I think the people who have been 
participating in these workshops have all taken the 
Chairman's remarks very seriously, that we should try to 
develop coalitions, and I think on any given day there's 
probably three more coalitions that have formed and 
developed, and there has been a lot of coordination --
	MR. DEL PIERO:  How many have fallen apart?
	MS. DUNN:  They are still trying to all blend 
together, and so as a consequence, I think it's been 
somewhat difficult for any group to come before the Board 
up to this point in time and say that they have a solution 
to the Delta problems.
	And I think those coalitions are going to continue 
to have to work through some of the differences of opinion, 
and so, I would encourage the Board to perhaps agree to 
have additional workshops after the July workshop.
	Most of the matters that the Board had included on 
their workshop have been addressed by other parties, but I 
do want to address one issue that is of critical concern to 
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and that is the issue of 
effects of upstream developments on the fish and wildlife 
resources of the Bay-Delta estuary.
	We are not exactly clear, really, what that means 
and what the extent of the Board's inquiry is with regard 
to this question, and perhaps my following comments will 
make it clear.
	I think Perry Hergesell today said and talked about 
the importance of the tributaries to the fishery resources 
of the Delta.
	Everybody knows that the upstream areas are where 
most of the anadromous fish start their life cycle, so as a 
consequence of that, the upstream projects no doubt have an 
effect on the fish and wildlife resources of the Delta.
	That is somewhat different, however, than saying 
that they affect beneficial uses of Delta waters, and as a 
consequence of that maybe somewhat esoteric difference, I 
am not sure that the Board's notice has listed some of the 
evidence that needs to be presented in terms of upstream 
projects.  Depending on whether or not the focus of the 
Board's analytical work is really crucial in terms of 
whether or not we are going to provide into the record the 
direct effects of GCID's diversions on salmon, or whether 
or not it is a flow issue, and I think that so far the 
evidence has been somewhat sketchy on what the actual 
upstream effects are.
	We don't want people to go away from this 
proceeding and think that those upstream impacts have been 
ignored by the State and Federal regulatory authorities.  
GCID's diversions, for one, have gotten a great deal of 
attention by the fishery agencies and we would be glad to 
provide the State Water Resources Control Board with 
mountains of information with regard to what GCID is doing 
in terms of their direct impact on the fishery resources.
	Assuming, however, that the State Board's question 
is really focused that it should be on the effect of 
upstream projects on beneficial uses of Delta waters, there 
really hasn't been very much evidence presented that these 
upstream diversions resulted in adverse impacts.  Most of 
the Sacramento Valley diversions, like GCID's diversions, 
are direct diversions.  There is no storage related 
component involved in that.
	How these diversions affect flow within the Delta 
really hasn't been demonstrated.  In fact, there is a 
substantial amount of return flow as a result of GCID's 
operations that actually contribute to Delta outflow.
	When all of these things are looked at and 
reviewed, we don't believe that there is a net adverse 
effect on the Delta than beneficial uses.  If there is a 
problem with respect to Delta outflow, then we think that 
the State of California has a system of laws that should be 
put into place to determine whose responsibility it is to 
meet that Delta outflow.
	In the case of GCID water entitlements are based on 
pre-1914 water rights and as a consequence, we don't 
believe that GCID's diversions by legal right can be 
causing an adverse effect on the Delta until all junior 
diverters have been stopped and the injury is still 
occurring.
	In addition, the State Board has to take into 
consideration the area of origin statutes.  All of these 
statutes have a direct and significant relevance to the 
implementation of whatever standards the State Board 
decides to adopt.
	The State law provides that only water that is 
surplus to the needs of the area of origin may be exported.  
As a consequence, to the extent water is needed for Delta 
outflow, it must first be taken from water surplus to the 
needs of the area of origin.
	Finally, in looking at upstream projects in the 
context of Bay-Delta issues, there is an implication that 
beneficial uses in the Bay-Delta are to be provided with 
some kind of priority over beneficial uses of Sacramento 
River water.
	We would like to point out that in GCID there are 
three wildlife refuges that exist and that water is 
provided for from GCID.  In addition, there is a great deal 
of private land that has been used for wetland and for 
wildlife purposes, and we think that those wildlife and 
beneficial uses have to be balanced against the beneficial 
uses within the Delta.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Dunn.
	Are there questions from Board members?  Staff?
	Thank you very much.
	Richard Golb.
	MR. GOLB:  Mr. Chairman, I, too, admit I am guilty 
of not providing in advance a copy of my testimony.  I have 
made a number of changes today and I will get that to you 
soon.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you very much.
	I should point out it is not a requirement, but it 
certainly helps us a great deal if you do give us copies.
	MR. GOLB:  I will.  I want you to be able to read 
it as well, so I will remember.
	My name is Richard Golb, and I am the Executive 
Director of the Northern California Water Association.  We 
represent approximately 45 agricultural water districts, 
water companies and landowners in the Sacramento Valley 
encompassing over 600,000 acres of farmland.
	In the interest of time, I will summarize my 
remarks, and again, then provide a full copy of my 
statement to staff and Board members.
	What I would like to do this afternoon is focus my 
remarks on the third question posed in the workshop notice:  
What effect do upstream water projects have on the fish and 
wildlife resources of the Bay-Delta estuary?
	Since all anadromous fish species begin their life 
upstream of the Delta, it's obviously likely and quite 
possible that upstream projects and diversions may have 
some effect upon the fish and wildlife resources in the 
Delta.
	And clearly, there have been some upstream projects 
that have had negative effects upon species which pass 
through the Delta such as the winter-run salmon.
	The project that has had possibly the single 
greatest impact and negative effect would be the Red Bluff 
diversion dam located in Redding, California.
	As the Board members may well know, several years 
ago the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that up 
to 50 percent of the juvenile winter run that were out-
migrating through the Red Bluff diversion dam were lost to 
predation by squawfish.
	This problem is now being addressed.  Actions to 
remedy the situation include leaving the dam's gates open 
from November to May of each year as well as structural 
improvements to the dam itself.
	But aside from Red Bluff, we believe overall that 
upstream agricultural diversions are now or have had in the 
past not necessarily a significant impact on the fish and 
wildlife resources that live in or pass through the Bay-
Delta.  Many of the agricultural diverters in Northern 
California have been diverting water from the Sacramento 
River and its tributaries since the early 1900s.  Some of 
these diversions date back, as Sandra just said a moment 
ago, to the 1800s in the case of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
District..
	Again, there are cases where specific diversions 
have problems with certain fish species such as the winter 
run, but we would argue these are unique and, in fact, 
isolated cases that have received a great deal of attention 
by both State and Federal agencies, particularly those 
species under the Endangered Species Act.
	One other point, diverting from my notes, several 
years ago Congress addressed this issue in a different 
context and many of the concerns that were raised today 
about temperature, flow and other problems, loss of habitat 
on the Sacramento River and in the Bay-Delta were somewhat 
addressed.
	As you all know, the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act includes a 50 million dollar restoration 
fund, includes a number of measures, I believe over 15 or 
20, to address some of the very concerns that were raised 
today, including 800,000 acre-feet of outflow for the 
Delta.
	Some of those who testified earlier today indicated 
that Northern California agricultural diversions have had 
adverse effects on the resources of the Bay-Delta, and I 
would like to respond to some of those issues.
	While there are over 300 unscreened diversions in 
the Sacramento, and I believe 1800 in the Delta, it is not 
known what the cumulative or individual effect, if any, 
these diversions have had on the fishery.
	The National Marine Fisheries Service, in the 
February 12, 1993 biological opinion for the operation of 
the Federal Central Valley Project and the State Water 
Project, stated that unscreened diversions are only 
suspected to be a significant cumulative impact.
	Even assuming that there is a problem, there is 
still no reliable empirical data that clearly identify 
which of the diversions are significantly harming the 
fishery.  Despite this uncertainty, there are now five 
different State and Federal fish-screening programs 
directed at diversions on the Sacramento River.
	Each of these programs operates independently from 
one another and in all likelihood are not in the best 
possible interests of the water users or the fishery.
	Also, today in both written and verbal comments 
which were submitted, there was concern expressed regarding 
pesticide residues in the Delta.
	From the Northern perspective the predominant crop, 
of course, is rice, and although many continue to criticize 
the runoff from this particular commodity, these comments 
are outdated.  Rice-field runoff was, in fact, a serious 
problem in the 1970s and early 1980s.  
	In response to the problem, the Central Valley 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the rice industry, 
and others developed a rice pesticide control program.  
This program has been characterized by William Crooks, 
Executive Officer of the Regional Board, as one of the most 
successful water quality control programs in the United 
States.  The results of the program are impressive.
	In 1982, the total pesticide load to the Sacramento 
River attributable directly to rice-field runoff was 
roughly 40,000 pounds.  By 1992, that number had fallen to 
178 pounds, a reduction of over 99 percent.
	Stated another way, in 1982, monitoring showed rice 
pesticide residues at Rio Vista as high as 12 parts per 
billion.  During the 1993 monitoring, ten years later, rice 
pesticide residues were virtually undetectable at all 
locations down river of the I Street Bridge.
	We believe that the virtual elimination of rice 
pesticide residues in the Delta has effectively eliminated 
the potential adverse effects for Delta fisheries from 
pesticide residues.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Excuse me.  Am I correct in 
assuming that you don't think a comprehensive analysis of 
the pesticide impact on anadromous species is appropriate?
	MR. GOLB:  Quite the contrary.  I think it is quite 
appropriate.  I just believe reading the comments that were 
submitted and given verbally today was that there was 
criticism and concern about rice pesticides, and based on 
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's 
own results, they ain't there.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Do you have an opinion about 
Diazinon?
	MR. GOLB:  That, I believe, is not used by the rice 
industry.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  What I am asking is, do you have a 
particular opinion about Diazinon?
	MR. GOLB:  I don't know enough about it.  I would 
be happy to get one to you.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Thank you.
	MR. GOLB:  Mr. Chairman, earlier today you 
indicated your concern about one of the potential 
unfortunate effects that could come out of this process in 
terms of pitting one species against another.
	We agree with you wholeheartedly.  In fact, we 
would go a step further -- we are greatly concerned about 
pitting one ecosystem against another ecosystem, in this 
case the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta against other areas of 
the state, particularly the Sacramento Valley.
	Upstream diversions do provide significant benefit 
to wildlife species.  As you well know, the rice habitat 
program has been very successful in providing habitat for 
migratory waterfowl, and over 100 different wildlife 
species, including 21 which are listed as threatened or 
endangered, or are a special status species of the United 
States and the State of California.
	In addition, in a June 6 press release by Ducks 
Unlimited, they stated that during the spring of 1983, the 
Point Reyes Bird Observatory biologists counted over 
400,000 birds in the Sacramento Valley, including 41 
percent of these birds on rice fields.
	In November of last year, still in this press 
release, rice fields held nearly 70 percent of the shore 
birds and 85 percent of one particular species.  This is 
just one example of the beneficial use of water and the 
benefits in wildlife habitat and species in the Sacramento 
Valley.
	Finally, in terms of recommendations for the Board, 
I would encourage the Board to consider all potential 
causes of the decline of certain species in the Bay-Delta.  
	I agree with the comments expressed earlier this 
morning by the Department of Water Resources that the Board 
should consider a comprehensive plan.
	The problem you are struggling with is not a simple 
one and the solutions won't be either.  As part of the 
comprehensive plan, I would urge the Board to consider the 
following:
	Regarding fish screens in the Sacramento River, the 
Board should support a proposal we submitted to the 
National Marine Fisheries Service earlier this year, that 
the government agencies should implement a single fish 
screen program which screens only those diversions shown to 
be significantly harming the fishery.
	This would allow all governmental agencies, State 
and Federal, to combine their technological expertise, to 
consolidate the resources and bring those all to bear to 
better protect the fishery.  In other words, let's focus 
all the State and Federal resources on those diversions 
that are having an effect.  Let's target those and let's 
focus on that.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  In terms of financing, do you want 
to get on the record what your recommendation is in terms 
of financing the fish screens?
	MR. GOLB:  Well, early this morning, I believe 
Roger Patterson from the Bureau made a comment to the 
effect that diversions upstream maybe a bigger problem if 
they were downstream.  If that is the case, and I don't 
know that it is, I have yet to see any scientific data 
supporting that, and I will be talking to Roger about that 
soon.
	We would like to see equal commitment.  If the 
regulatory zeal is there, there should be a matching 
financial equivalent.  I believe right now in terms of 
Federal programs, both for fiscal '95 and '96, there is 
only about a million dollars that's been allocated for fish 
screens.
	These fish screens can run as high as $10,000 per 
cfs.  It is very costly and if the fishery is suffering 
because of inappropriate screens or lack of screens, and it 
is going to be addressed, then there should be a financial 
commitment.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  The next question:  Are your 
members prepared to allow access to their diversions to 
determine whether or not they are contributing to the 
problem?
	MR. GOLB:  I believe if there is one program and 
the goals and objectives are articulated clearly, and there 
was faith and trust, yes; but there is a real concern 
today, Mr. Del Piero, and the concern is that government 
touches everything in our country and it harms everything 
it touches.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I understand that completely.  I 
guess the point is you indicated to us that the issue we 
are addressing is very complex.
	MR. GOLB:  Yes.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Let me suggest to you no one knows 
that more definitively than the five members of this Board, 
and the answers to my last two questions just indicate 
exactly how complex it is.
	We oftentimes, all of us, collectively, regardless 
of our respective positions, can recognize what the 
potential solutions are.  It's the path to those solutions 
that's oftentimes obscured.
	MR. GOLB:  I appreciate that.  I think if you look 
at the history of the Sacramento Valley agriculture, the 
responsibility they have taken to eliminate pesticide 
residues, to conserve water, to create habitat for 
wildlife, those measures are very costly.  The rice 
pesticide reduction program has been calculated to cost up 
to $15 per acre by the Regional Board, which is 7.5 million 
dollars annually.
	So, you know, Sacramento Valley interests have gone 
to extreme lengths both in terms of effect and financial -- 
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Please understand I am not 
criticizing.  I'm pointing out what a number of people have 
been telling us over the last three or four days of public 
hearings since the process started, that our job is very 
complex and the issues that are confronting us oftentimes 
would cause us not necessarily to be in agreement with all 
the people that are making presentations.
	It's a very difficult situation for us to find 
ourselves in, and please understand this Board holds the 
rice industry for their efforts in terms of eliminating 
pesticides in very high regard at this point because they 
have made a tremendous effort, and that is echoed by a 
great many people around the state.
	The point is that in terms of effectively dealing 
with the issue, a degree of cooperation is necessary, more 
than simply an identification of the solution.  The course 
by which one achieves that or gets to that solution has to 
also be identified.
	MR. GOLB:  I think the people in the Sacramento 
Valley would willingly be cooperative as long as they 
understood the process.
	May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
	MR. CAFFREY:  Certainly.
	MR. GOLB:  Along the line of recommendation, the 
Board should also recognize and provide credit for the 
tremendous restoration efforts and habitat values provided 
for and undertaken in the Sacramento Valley.
	I told you a moment ago about the significant costs 
that are borne to achieve the pesticide residue reductions 
in the Sacramento River and others.
	Finally, I would like to close with this:  We are 
seriously concerned about the lack of hard and sound 
science that seems to be guiding many of the proposals that 
have come forward today.  This lack of biological science, 
also about what is happening in the Delta, concerns us 
regarding what the true goals and objectives are regarding 
water quality standards.
	I wish some of the folks that testified earlier 
were still here today because I am still trying to figure 
out what biological reality is or what adaptive management 
is.  I haven't heard those phrases before and it seems to 
me what is happening in this instance is that some of these 
ideas are not coming forward and we don't know what they 
mean.
	This is probably best, to follow up on what Sandra 
said a moment ago, this is best felt in terms of the 
concerns about the area of origin protections, and those 
State statutes and those laws that deal with counties and 
watersheds of origin.
	As you well know, prior to building both the State 
and Federal projects, the U. S. Government and the State of 
California made an oft-repeated promise to the communities 
of the north.  That promise basically, which was subse-
quently incorporated into State law, was a concession to 
the north in exchange for support for the project.  The 
area of origin laws really were the cornerstone necessary 
to achieve consensus to build the State and Federal 
projects.
	I was heartened to hear Cliff Schulz say that Kern 
County does support the area of origin laws.  I am hopeful 
more people will and I would simply encourage the Board to 
consider the intent and relevance of these laws as they 
work to develop water quality standards for the Bay-Delta.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Thank you very much.  
	Before you go, Mr. Brown has a question.
	MR. BROWN:  Mr. Golb, if I understand your concern 
-- let me state it back to you to see if we are in 
agreement here.  The rice industry certainly has done 
considerable in recent years to make improvements in their 
operations and to improve the environmental habitat within 
your area.
	Your concern, as I heard it, is that you have made 
these efforts and you are wondering if there is going to be 
credit for these prior efforts when it comes time for 
everybody to make a contribution.  
	I was wondering how those who have made such 
credits might relate to those who haven't.
	MR. GOLB:  Mr. Brown, I think that is partially it.  
	One of the concerns is that, as I understand it, 
this process and this workshop today is to determine 
whether or not on the third question upstream diversions 
have had a biological negative effect upon the biological 
resources of the Bay-Delta, and we believe that in a 
cumulative overall framework they have not in an overall 
sense.
	We also believe that, yes -- the simple answer is 
yes.  Those folks that have gone to tremendous financial 
cost and effort to basically clean up their own act should 
receive credit for this process; because they are not part 
of the problem in a cumulative sense, we don't believe they 
should be held accountable.
	MR. CAFFREY:   Mr. Del Piero.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  Mr. Brown, it's sort of like when 
there is a drought, some responsible people cut back on 
their consumptive water use, and then government comes in 
and implements a water conservation plan and cuts back on 
the amount of water that they are currently using as 
opposed to what they were using historically, so that they 
get penalized for being good stewards.
	MR. BROWN:  This is a very important issue Mr. Golb 
bring up.
	MR. DEL PIERO:  I have an appreciation for it, 
having operated under a similar type situation in the 
county.  That's a quite well made valid point.
	MR. GOLB:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  Any other questions of Mr. Golb?
	MR. BROWN:  Do you have suggestions on how to 
determine which diversions from the river are unscreened -- 
how that issue should be addressed?  How would you 
determine which ones should be screened?
	MR. GOLB:  We are looking for the path, too.  We 
have submitted detailed comments to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, which is the agency through the 
Department of Commerce, which has come out with the latest 
requirement to require all diversions to be screened; and 
the basic approach that we have set forth, Mr. Brown, is 
that there ought to be one program.  We ought to find 
through scientific empirical testing which of those 
diversions are taking fish, significant amounts of fish.
	From that point we should then bring all the focus 
to bear from all, both State and Federal agencies, on those 
diversions and allow the landowners' assistance to screen 
their diversions so they are no longer part of the problem.
	MR. BROWN:  Is this something that maybe your 
industry could police and recommend like they did in the 
pesticides and herbicides?
	MR. GOLB:  I think they would, with the appropriate 
support from the State and Federal agencies, welcome that.  
And I will be happy to get a copy of our comments to you 
and the other Board members.
	MR. BROWN:  Thank you.
	MR. CAFFREY:  All right, thank you, Mr. Golb.  It 
was good to see you and congratulations on your recent 
appointment as Director.
	I think that we will adjourn now, and let me just 
announce who we will have tomorrow.  We are pretty close to 
four o'clock and we will start at 9:30 in our own hearing 
room across the street.  We will start with Dr. Russ Brown, 
followed by Jim Chatigny, David Guy, Kevin O'Brien, Alan 
Lilly, and then any new sign-ups will follow the names I 
have read in that order.
	Thank you all very much for attending.  We will see 
you tomorrow morning at 9:30.
	(Evening recess)



	

	












I N D E X
											Page
Introductory statement - John Caffrey, Chairman		1
Key issues									4
Summary of Workshop - May 16, 1994, Tom Howard		6
Statements:
	PERRY HERGESELL, Chief, Bay-Delta Special 
		Water Projects Division, Stockton, 
		Department of Fish and Game					12
	DAVID ANDERSON, Department of Water Resources	19
	ED WINKLER, Department of Water Resources,
	Division of Operation and Maintenance			30
	ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director,
		Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento			42
	JIM FEIDER, Area Manager, Western Area
		Power Administration						58
	FRED SCHNEITER, Northern California Power Agency  70
	RICHARD FERREIRA, Assistant General Manager/
		Chief Engineer, Sacramento Municipal 
		Utility District							76
	DAVID WHITRIDGE, South Delta Water Agency		91
	MICHAEL JACKSON, California Sportfishing 
		Protection Alliance 						98
	LYLE HOAG, California Urban Water Agency		106
	
INDEX continued                                       Page
	DR. DUDLEY RISER, Fishery Scientist/Technical	
		Consultant, California Urban Water Agencies	110
	LAURA KING, East Bay Municipal Utility District	126
	TOM BERLINER, San Francisco Public 
		Utilities Commission						134
	STEVE ARAKAWA, Metropolitan Water District
		of Southern California.					144
	CLIFF SCHULZ, Kern County Water Agency			149
	SANDRA DUNN, Glenn-Colusa District				163
	RICHARD GOLB, Executive Director, Northern 
		California Water Association				167


187