WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1995, 9:00 A.M. --o0o-- MR. CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome to this workshop on proposed barriers in the South Delta. I am John Caffrey, Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board. Let the record show that a few of the Board members are accounted for. To my left if Board Member Marc Del Piero, to my right is Board Member John Brown. Usually sitting to my immediate right is James Stubchaer, who is extremely interested in this subject but is representing the State of California on a significantly important Board issue between the United States and the country of Mexico. He is our State representative, so he will be reading the record with great interest when he returns. And we do expect our Vice Chair, Mary Jane Forster, to join us later in the day. Let me also introduce to the audience the people who are at the table in front: Immediately in front of me is our stalwart and very dependable court reporter, Alice Book; and then at the table to our left is Board Senior Counsel, Barbara Leidigh. Around the table from Ms. Leidigh is Supervising Engineer and head of the Delta Unit, Tom Howard; and I probably gave him a new title from the look on his face; and next to Mr. Howard is Vicky Whitney, our very able Engineer in this proceeding; and next to Vicky is our esteemed Executive Director, Walt Pettit. With that then, I will follow our usual procedure and read a statement into the record. This is the time and place for the State Water Resources Control Board to receive analysis, information and comments regarding the need for construction of proposed barriers in the southern part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We also have an ongoing request to the parties to provide updates on their negotiations of agreements to allocate long-term responsibility for implementing the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan. The Board encourages the parties to reach agreement and to propose joint recommendations to the Board for its consideration. This workshop is one in a series of workshops that the Board is holding in connection with its water right proceeding to allocate long-term responsibility for implementing the requirements in the 1995 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. This workshop is being held in accordance with the Notice of Public Workshop dated October 13, 1995. If you intend to speak today, please fill out a blue speaker card and give it to our staff at the front table, such as the one I am holding up here. As is specified in the workshop notice, the Board is seeking comments and recommendations on the following issues: 1. Will the proposed Southern Delta barriers provide salinity conditions adequate to protect agriculture in the Southern Delta? 2. Will the proposed Southern Delta barriers provide water levels in the Southern Delta adequate to protect agricultural operations? 3. Will the Old River barrier improve dissolved oxygen levels in the San Joaquin River during the fall? 4. Will the Old River barrier improve salmon smolt migration in the San Joaquin River during the spring? 5. What concerns should be evaluated regarding the effect of the Southern Delta barriers on beneficial uses in the Southern and Central Delta? 6. Should the State Water Resources Control Board either require the installation of any or all of the proposed barriers or place conditions on their operation as a result of its water right proceedings? The Board wishes to receive as much input from the parties as possible before commencing a formal water right hearing. The next group of workshops will address the alternatives to be analyzed in the environmental documentation for a water right decision. The Board will schedule additional workshops after March, 1996, as necessary to receive information and analysis. The Board's staff has prepared a letter notifying the parties of the dates of the workshops. You should receive a copy in the mail in the near future. Additional copies are available at the back table. The parties are encouraged to give the Board's staff newly developed information at any time. Any information provided to the staff also should be mailed to the other workshop participants on the staff's mailing list for that review and consideration. Significant new information also should be presented at the next Board workshop, even if it is not related to a key issue. Conduct of the workshop: Today's procedures are described in the Notice of Public Workshop. Additional copies of the notice are available from staff. In this workshop I will call each party who has submitted a card requesting an opportunity to provide oral comments and recommendations. There will be no sworn testimony or cross-examination of the parties, but the Board members and the staff may ask clarifying questions. Each speaker will have 20 minutes for an oral presentation. A party may be represented by one or several speakers. If a speaker needs additional time, the speaker may request additional time at the beginning of the presentation. Please explain why additional time is necessary. If we are not able to provide you all the time you think you need, we encourage you to submit your presentation in writing. In the interest of time, we ask that parties avoid repeating details already presented by other parties whenever possible, and simply indicate agreement. Alternatively, parties with the same interests are welcomed and encouraged to make joint presentations. We will also accept, and we encourage, written comments. You need to provide the Board and its 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 want a copy of the transcript, you must make arrangements with the court reporter. The order for calling the parties which we will follow today is: l. Elected officials for the State and Federal governments; 2. Representatives of State and Federal agencies; 3. All others in the order that your speaker cards were submitted to staff, unless you have special time constraints which you have noted on your speaker card. For today's workshop, we will proceed as follows: After hearing from any State and Federal elected officials, we will accommodate some special requests, and we do this because we think that the information that these parties will provide to us is pertinent to all of us, and you may want -- and I think definitely we all want to hear this first before the rest of us comment because I think it is very helpful. In keeping with my earlier comment regarding our ongoing interest in the status of negotiations, we will, first, hear from the Sacramento River negotiating group, and I think that will be led by Mr. Golb, and then we will hear from the San Joaquin group, and I am not sure of who will necessarily be the lead of that panel, but you can certainly identify yourselves when you are called up. After that, we will hear from the Department of Water Resources and then from Mr. Alex Hildebrand for the South Delta Water Agency because, again as I mentioned, I think this is very pertinent information for all of us to be aware of up front in the workshop. We hope that all parties will use these proceedings as an opportunity to help the Board develop a water right decision that will achieve workable methods of allocating the responsibility to meet the Bay-Delta requirements, rather than using the workshop solely to assert positions of advocacy. That concludes the statement. Is there anything that any of the other Board members would like to add at this time? Any comments or questions? All right. Anything from staff at this point in terms of recap or a presentation, or I guess we have all been at this long enough that we are pretty well versed in what's going on. Mr. Pettit, do you have any statements before we look to the Sacramento group? MR. PETTIT: No, not at this time. MR. CAFFREY: Mr. Golb, would you like to come forward with your group, if you have a group? MR. GOLB: We do have a group. Tom Clark has some folks as well, and we may need to add some chairs to this table. MR. STUBCHAER: So, am I to understand that you are making a joint presentation for both the Sacramento and the San Joaquin? Is that what you are doing? MR. GOLB: Tom Clark is representing the CUWA-Ag group and Tom and I will make a joint presentation. MR. CAFFREY: Good morning, gentlemen. Please come forward. As you know, Mr. Golb, we are developing a transcript, so if you can either introduce everybody by name or have them introduce themselves and who they represent, it would be helpful for the record. MR. GOLB: Mr. Chairman and members, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments today. My name is Richard Golb. I am the Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association. We have with us from the Sacramento Valley group Don Bransford, who is the President of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District; Mike Hardesty, Manager of Reclamation District 2067; and Donn Wilson, Manager of the Yuba County Water Agency. Tom Clark has some introductions as well. MR. CLARK: What we did, for the purpose of negotiations between the Northern California group and CUWA/Ag, we selected five negotiators on a side, appointed a head person for each group. The one that got appointed to the head was the one that happened to be absent at that particular meeting, but actually, what we were doing so that you know, we were dividing resources between the Sacramento River negotiations on the one hand and the San Joaquin on the other, so you will be hearing from the San Joaquin group. So, I was selected to lead the CUWA/Ag group on the Sacramento River. And with us today we have two of our negotiators, one is Steve Ottemoeller with Westlands Water District, and then we also have Steve Arakawa from the Metropolitan Water District. Other negotiators include Dan Nelson, whom I think you all know; Walt Wadlow with Santa Clara and Dave Orth, who is with Westlands who is the new Manager. So we talked it over as to how to present this to you today. I know that you wanted an update, particularly the staff desired it, because this is one of the few forums where we really have an opportunity to talk to the Board, so we don't have really a polished presentation for you here, but we are going to try to give you the best deal we feel we can as to how things are going. And we thought we would start with Rich. We will go over with you a statement titled Purpose of Settlement Negotiations Between the Sacramento Valley Upstream Group and the CUWA/Ag Group, so we will start with Rich and he will take care of that. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Clark. MR. GOLB: I always get a little nervous when Tom has me go first. Actually, our discussions have gone fairly well. We have a one-page statement and we made copies available to staff. There's probably another hundred copies outside and if there are people that would like additional copies, they can contact Tom or me and we would be happy to make those available. After the December 15 agreement was reached, a group of Sacramento Valley water users, primarily from our organization and others, began discussions about how we feel about the next phase, the water rights phase. As you know, how the Bay-Delta obligation is allocated is a matter that has been in dispute and currently is in dispute. Entities who export water from the Delta and others generally believe that all water users should meet a portion of the Bay-Delta obligation. Alternatively, senior water-right holders and upstream interests and others believe that the obligation should be borne wholly by those who export water from the Delta. Both sides feel very strongly, as you all know, about the issue and are willing to litigate it before the State Board and/or in court. The litigation of this matter would require a great deal of time, effort and expense, and will create continued uncertainty with respect to water supplies and all water users. Moreover, litigation will deflect the parties from focusing upon other significant issues that should be mutually addressed. As an alternative to litigation, the parties have agreed to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. The purpose of the settlement is to resolve the dispute in an agreed-upon manner with neither side, and no individual participant, waiving any right or rights, or conceding any of their underlying positions. Any agreement reached in these negotiations, therefore, shall be treated only as a settlement of a dispute with no side, and no individual participant, waiving any right that it may otherwise have. Our intent in this process is that the parties in this agreement would then take that agreement, it would be validated or hopefully adopted by the State Water Board or a court, and if the State Water Board would then not enter into any additional hearings or enter any decision or water rights order with respect to the allocation of the obligation to meet the Bay- Delta standards that was not consistent with this settlement agreement. The parties in these settlement discussions intend that any agreement for allocation of the obligations to meet the plan, the Bay-Delta Plan, will also be part of a long- term agreement for allocation of Bay-Delta obligations. That, basically, is the purpose of the discussions that we have agreed on. This is the document that we are operating off. Tom has some additional statements that may further clarify some of the information. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Golb. MR. CLARK: I will try to make this part brief, but so far the majority of our time has been really basically trying to find common ground as to how can we pull this off as far as the agreement. I realize there has been discussion in the past, and one thing that we are considering as part of this process is a process by which the exporters, those that are providing outflow and meeting the standards on an interim basis, would work out a program with the upstream interests to acquire water to meet the upstream interests' share of what we view as Delta obligations. We realize that there are strong differences of opinion on what that obligation is and what the final outcome would be. One thing that we are all agreed with is that if this issue gets in front of the Board in a contested way among the parties, it's going to be very bloody in the sense that water-right holders, whether they are in the form of upstream interests or in the form of exporters, when you get into whether it is a quasi-judicial or judicial process, there is no room for compromise in that kind of process. So, we have been encouraged to sit down together and really see what we can work out, and the basis upon which we are negotiating really is to try to avoid the process with the State Board that, frankly, would take a heck of a long time, cost us all money and it would create hardship between the exporters and the upstream interests, and we feel now is the time to come together, not split apart. So, when we first met, we agreed to a schedule to kind of come up with principles of agreement, knowing that we weren't going to be able to get an all-encompassing agreement right out of a box, but our objective is to try to have principles of agreement by December 15, so we are a month away. We realize that that is an ambitious schedule. We set that schedule, I believe, in early or mid-October, and we knew at the time that it was ambitious, but we haven't concluded yet that we won't meet it. We are working on some pretty exciting things right now, some new concepts. Frankly, this kind of negotiation is somewhat unique in that it is not like a typical water market; if you will remember what we went through in '91 where we were negotiating price on every last molecule of water, the question is it real water or not, all kinds of questions come up and realistically we are trying to take our process to a simpler approach. It may not be quite as exact, but clearly if this thing becomes too complicated, it's just going to collapse on its own weight. So, that's the deadline that we set for ourselves. Hopefully, we will make it. Now, one thing we have discussed among us, what is the process, assuming that this group can come together with principles of agreement, what is the process thereafter, and clearly, we are within the forum of the Board. It is your water right hearing process that we are attempting to settle, and we would anticipate that there would be a public process by which the principles of agreement are taken in front of the Board and through a process with the Board and the public in terms of what do these things really mean and how do they operate. Clearly, it is going to require the cooperation and support of the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau. Any time we are dealing with upstream issues, we get involved in the two major projects and project operations, not to say the water rights. Water rights are held by the major State and Federal agencies. We will be meeting soon with both the Bureau and the State to brief them on the progress of our discussions and try to flush out possible problem areas, that type of thing, but we fully intend to keep them informed of our process and ask for their input and insight. So, that kind of gives you an idea of where we are going. I don't have any specific issues of substance for you today. Hopefully, as we get into December, we may have more that we can report to you and we would be happy as a group that as we go down this path together to make periodic reports to the Board so that you are fully aware of what we are doing. MR. CAFFREY: We appreciate that very much, Mr. Clark. As you know, I announced that our next proceeding would be January 30, our next public workshop, but I certainly encourage you to feel comfortable if you reach an historic benchmark in your negotiations, if you have the time and the resources and want to submit them in writing to the Board, that would be very very useful. Do any of the other gentlemen wish to speak? MR. CLARK: I would like to ask if any of the others would like to add anything. MR. WILSON: From my perspective, I think Richard and Tom have summarized very nicely what we are trying to do, and we are all very dedicated to this effort and want to make it work if there's any way to do it. MR. CAFFREY: I can say on behalf of myself, and I feel pretty comfortable in saying on behalf of the other Board members, that we certainly commend you and encourage the kind of process that you are about, and to the extent that you can at the appropriate times throughout the scope of your effort to include and accommodate everybody that might identify themselves as a party, that then you are dealing with the potential of adversity and hopefully in an effective way, because, as you expressed your great interest, Mr. Clark, in trying to avoid protracted proceedings in front of the Board or in a courtroom, that certainly is also, in my opinion, a less desirable way of solving this as long as all the parties are on board and happy with what you come up with. We certainly have to have some kind of public proceeding, as you recognized, once you are comfortable with your product, and we will learn as we go along, too, and we will consider what the design of that ought to be to accommodate everybody when the appropriate time comes, so I know our staff is very interested in working with you to the extent that the law allows us to do that in protection of all the parties, and again, we commend you for your efforts. Thank you for taking the time to be here today and give us the status report, both you, Mr. Clark and Mr. Golb and your group. We appreciate it. I'm sorry, before you go, I neglected to defer to my fellow Board members. Let the record show that Ms. Forster has joined us, our Vice Chair, and I believe she has a question. MS. FORSTER: I don't have a question. I would add onto what Chairman Caffrey said. I spent yesterday in a session with futuristic thinkers from all over the United States and they were talking about what's going to work in the 21st century, and you are an example of it. The only way we are going to solve our problems is with collaborative planning, and they had many many examples of how it is working around the United States, and it's really comforting to see that you have embraced that and are trying to prove that it's the win-win-win situation. So, good for you. MR. GOLB: Thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Anything else from the Board members? All right, thank you again, gentlemen. I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. Are there representatives here from the San Joaquin group that now can make a presentation update? Mr. Short then, are you here, sir? MR. SHORT: I am here. MR. CAFFREY: Welcome. Do you have others with you who would like to join you, sir? MR. SHORT: Yes, I do. Wiley Horne would like to join me. MR. CAFFREY: Good morning, gentlemen, welcome. MR. SHORT: Good morning and thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the State Water Resources Control Board, we are very happy to be here today to make a joint presentation on two items and, really, to update you on our negotiations which we will not do as elaborately as our counterparts on the Sacramento side, but simply to say that we have on the San Joaquin side found some common ground with the CUWA/Ag folks. The San Joaquin side has put a proposal on the table that has been reviewed by the CUWA/Ag folks and they have responded to us in a very favorable and positive light, and we have found through that process that we have a lot of common ground, and quite frankly, see a positive future in being able to come to resolution, and hopefully, we will be able to do that before the Sacramento side comes to a resolution. Evidently there is a pool out there and folks are taking squares and dates on who will finish first. I think, in frankness, it's a very enlightened environment that we are now in and I think has set a foundation, as Mary Jane just said, a collaborative process, and again, we have found a lot of common ground between the CUWA/Ag folks and the San Joaquin folks that looks very bright for us, not only to solve the problems on the San Joaquin side for the short term, but also, for the long term as well, and in developing long-term relationships which we think will be very beneficial. And really, that is all I have to say in terms of updating you on the negotiations other than the final point I guess I will make, and that is that we have set out a very aggressive schedule, somewhat like the Sacramento side. We are meeting every two weeks, and even through the holidays folks are wanting to get together and keep our process going, so I think it is very positive. MR. CAFFREY: Dr. Horne. MR. HORNE: I want to echo what Allen just said. The urban negotiators to this process are solidly committed to a negotiated outcome and our board, for example, just recently set down principles that will really assist that process to go forward. We are committed and are working very hard. My colleague, Dr. Quinn at Metropolitan, is working with Allen to meet every two weeks, and we expect a favorable negotiated outcome. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Dr. Horne. Anything else from you two gentlemen? Mr. Brown has a question. MR. BROWN: Mr. Short or Mr. Horne, are you aware of any groups or individuals that are being left out of the process here that want to be part of it? MR. SHORT: We have had some inquiries from Stockton East Water District and the South Delta Water Agencies, and we have from the San Joaquin side met with both of those entities to try to find some common ground, if you will, on how they can be interjected into our process, and frankly, we have not found that common ground yet for interjection. We also realize other agencies as we get closer to a negotiated settlement will have to be included into that process and that, for example, the Bureau of Reclamation will need to be lateralled in at some point sometime, so I think from that perspective we are still working that out. We have met with them but they are not in the process yet. MR. CAFFREY: Ms. Forster. MS. FORSTER: Would you explain why you haven't been able to find a common ground? I don't understand. MR. SHORT: Well, let me take a shot at it. None of the questions are easy and over the last few days we have had enough of them, so let me see if I can answer this. From the Stockton East Side, at least several of our members of the San Joaquin Tributary Association are concerned that even if, in fact, Stockton East pulls water out of New Melones, that will be water that may not go down to Melones, which means that the other tributaries would have to make up that water. So, we have got to find common ground on a position that we can support and that Stockton East can support. We have a dual process going on right now from that perspective and that is the CVPIA reform where there has been language introduced to, if you will, legislate water rights through that legislative bill, and certainly, a number of us who have senior water rights have a concern for that. So, until we can work our way through that, we have not been able to find that common ground. On the Delta agencies, we find that there's more common ground there than maybe with Stockton East at this point in time and the key with that is to work with Alex, and again, we have met with him to find out how we can interject him and put a package together that he can support as well. We think from the barrier discussion that we had today, if you include the whole barrier package, and you will hear from Alex later, we are hoping that he could support that because we are very strong and favorable towards the Old River barrier. That would be one step in moving toward that consensus-building process. MR. CAFFREY: Any other questions? MR. SHORT: If it is okay, Mr. Chairman, we do have a very brief presentation from a policy perspective on the Old River barrier. Would that be appropriate? MR. CAFFREY: Certainly. Please go ahead. MR. SHORT: We will give you the policy overview at least from the CUWA/Ag in the San Joaquin Tributaries Association side and that will be followed later by a technical presentation. Let me just say very briefly that we as a group subscribe to the four key policy issues. We do have handouts. We think we have given those to you and distributed them to the audience, and I would like to highlight those four. One is the joint water rights and the SJTA support the construction and operation of the Old River barrier to improve smolt survival. Second, the Old River barrier should be installed as part of a program which includes focused studies to determine how the barrier should be operated to maximize its benefits to salmon and to measure what, if any, impacts such operations may have on resident fish. Third, the Old River barrier should be constructed as part of a more comprehensive barrier program. And fourth, the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project contractors support immediate construction of the completed barrier program recognizing that the focused studies may affect the manner in which it is ultimately operated, and I think we have also sent to you and which is also part of our attachment, a letter that a number of water users throughout California, including Met had signed in support of the Old River barrier. We think this is very key, again, in the first step in building a full consensus package on the San Joaquin, that we were able to get these many folks, high-level folks, supportive of moving ahead on an Old River barrier, and we are supportive of a barrier package. And with that, I would like to turn back to Wiley, who will articulate it better than I. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Short. MR. HORNE: Thank you very much, Allen. Last December when we all signed that accord, the water users, the other stakeholders and the regulators, we committed ourselves to reducing the competing uses of the Delta. The accord carried the message, let's reduce conflicts among purposes and between the regions of the State, and, of course, the Old River barrier was part of that accord. The water users see the Department's ISDP having one central principal and that is that the best way to reduce conflicts among these purposes, among the environmental purposes, economic uses of the Delta, and to improve the water quality, the best way to reconcile those uses is to provide more operating flexibility. The hydraulic controls and vision by the ISDP will provide immediate relief for out-migrating salmon from the San Joaquin River, will directly improve water quality for both fish and farm in the South Delta area. We think, though, most importantly that the proposal establishes a basis for making real-time operating decisions based upon real information about fish movements and real data coming in from the field on water quality. Your Board will be weighing conflicting opinions about what should be done in the South Delta and many conflicting opinions will be offered. We believe that the interests involved here should get together, form a focused scope of study to resolve as much as can be resolved prior to operation, use that information for design, and we think that those studies can be implemented through the IEP very effectively. Ultimately, though, the success in the Delta is going to depend upon adaptive management based upon real good science, and the way to do the adaptive management is we need to act, install these facilities, operate them flexibly through time, and that is where the final solution is going to lie to resolving the different purposes that we have. That is what we are committed to. Thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Dr. Horne. Any other questions from Board members? I will say to you gentlemen the same thing I have said to the panel that was here previously, we certainly commend your efforts. The collaborative approach is certainly one for which the Board holds out great hope, and we will do everything, as I said before, that we can, that our legal and lawful process allows, to accommodate all the parties in all of your efforts. So, we appreciate your being here very much. Point of clarification, if I may, you still have a card further back in the group. Do you want -- MR. SHORT: We have made our presentation in maximizing our time. MR. CAFFREY: All right. We appreciate it very much. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. MR. SHORT: Thank you very much. MR. CAFFREY: Let me read the order of the cards as I have them so you can have some sense of where you are. I will first hear from Ed Huntley, Department of Water Resources, and then Alex Hildebrand from the South Delta Water Agency. Alex, I think you had your hand up a little while ago. MR. HILDEBRAND: I was merely going to comment that you had commented on the importance of seeing that all parties were involved in these agreements, and we are clearly not involved, and it is not clear to us why these other people who admit they have big differences get together and talk, but don't want to talk to us unless their interests are already resolved. There is no representation in any of these processes of the interests along the San Joaquin River north of the Merced River and in the South Delta. And some of the solutions that would be good for all of the other parties would be bad for those interests. There are many common interests as well, but the failure to include us in the discussions as we have requested both orally and in writing, seems to us to be a rather exclusionary point of view. We don't understand it. We think it is deplorable, and as I say, it is not for lack of effort on our part to be included. We don't need to be a member of these organizations. We just want to talk with them. I did meet with Allen Short and his group and had a long discussion with Dave Schuster at his instigation, but we are not included in these processes and we are very much affected by them. MR. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Hildebrand, your concern is duly and properly noted, and I would just point out that that's why I said earlier and you did the same way on that, the Board has only one alternative and that is to protect the rights and due process of all who identify themselves as parties in this proceeding. So, I can only tell you that you certainly need to engage in as much dialogue as you can with those folks because as Mr. Clark pointed out himself, eventually there will be some form of public proceeding to consider and analyze the agreements that have been developed. So, I think it would certainly behoove the parties to those agreements to see that all other identified parties are reasonably satisfied. So, with that, I will say no more. I understand your concern and I do understand some of the very basic underlying issues and common ground, and whatever other words you want to use to describe them, but the Board is still hopeful that somehow those things would be able to be worked out. I have just been told by staff there's a couple of scheduling problems, so I am going to start over in the order. With a couple of minor adjustments, we will start with the Department of Water Resources, Ed Huntley, then go to Dave Schuster, then to Alex Hildebrand and Chet Bowling, Frank Wernette, Chris Hayashi, Glen Birdzell. We have heard from Allen Short and Wiley Horne, then Bill Johnston, Richard Denton and Tom Zuckerman. Have I failed to call someone's name who thinks they have filled out a card and I don't have it? All right, that will be the order. Mr. Huntley, Department of Water Resources, welcome. MR. HUNTLEY: Good morning, Chairman Caffrey and members of the Board. For the record, I am Ed Huntley, Chief of the Division of Operation and Maintenance at the Department of Water Resources. I am going to make introductory comments in introduction to this process, and then Mike Ford, who is the Chief of our Delta Branch in the Division of Planning, will be doing the bulk of the presentation. Back in August when you had the first workshop, we appeared at that time and requested that you have a subsequent workshop to deal with the hydraulics of the South Delta, and also, to talk about the South Delta barrier program. MR. CAFFREY: Let me apologize in advance. I neglected to point something out. You have asked for an hour of presentation time and I forgot that I did not mention that, and for the benefit of all the others, can you give me a showing as to why you need that much time? MR. HUNTLEY: Yes. We figure we are going to form the basis for a lot of the discussion that's going on today. We have done the bulk of the operation studies and we want to go over some of that detail. The Bureau is putting in a very short statement today, so I think we are going to be using some of their time, so I thought it was in the form of a basis and we kind of timed it out and it took about an hour. MR. CAFFREY: It's important for the record that we have your explanation before I make any decision with regard to it, and as you say, there is a lot of information you are going to present this morning which, hopefully, is very pertinent to all the other parties on how they may want to comment later on today, so without objection by any of the Board members, I would certainly be willing to grant that extra hour of time, but I see Mr. Del Piero with that smile on his face. MR. DEL PIERO: You promise it is going to be real exciting, as it always is. MR. HUNTLEY: Well, it is to us engineers. MR. CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Huntley, please proceed and we will certainly grant you an hour, and if you can do it in less time than that, I am sure all would appreciate it, but we don't want to stifle you, so please proceed. MR. HUNTLEY: And the second reason we wanted this was to talk about the barrier program that's been proposed by us and the Bureau of Reclamation and the South Delta Water Agency to address the problems of water circulation, water quality and water levels in the South Delta area as it relates to agricultural uses. We asked for this workshop for two specific reasons. The first was that we think that when the Board looks at how to implement the Water Quality Control Plan, that you need to have some more background into the unique hydrodynamics that occur in the South Delta area and how they relate to the water quality in that area; and secondly, quite candidly, we want you to accept and recognize the South Delta barrier program that we put forward as the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project's contribution to the implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan as it relates to the water quality objectives in the interior South Delta. We recognize that there's interests beyond this in the barrier program and it is kind of reflected in your notice which went into several areas beyond what will be the emphasis of our presentation. And while the purpose of our presentation is primarily to explain the solution to agricultural water quality needs, we recognize the interrelationship to these other barrier issues. In fact, in the context of our Delta planning we have been proposing the Old River head barrier as a fisheries mitigation part of our interim South Delta program, which includes the agricultural barriers, too. But perhaps more importantly is the fact that you can turn the whole thing around. There are folks that are primarily interested in proposing the head of Old River barrier. If you put the head of Old River barrier in first, you turn the process around and you need the agricultural barriers to act as a mitigation to the water quality problems that would arise if you had that barrier by itself. So, I think the whole point is that they are very interrelated and you really need to look at all the barriers down there as a package deal. Now, what do we mean by the statement that the South Delta hydrodynamics are unique? I think a lot of us maybe from experience in looking at the Sacramento River side of the Delta and maybe other systems, have come to the general belief that to cure water quality problems you need to increase flow or decrease diversions. Well, that isn't always true in other places, and it certainly isn't true in the South Delta. In the South Delta the mere increase of flow at Vernalis will not cure some of the water problems we have in that area. In fact, in August when we made our statement we talked about two significant truths for the South Delta water quality control. The first of them is that water quality problems in the interior South Delta cannot be corrected by more flows at Vernalis alone. And as we will be discussing, there are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that at times the water quality problems in certain areas of the South Delta become one of managing land-derived salts rather than ocean-derived salts, and it becomes one of regulating the circulation or the flow patterns rather than inflow into the area. Local diversions in the South Delta can and do affect the pattern of water circulation in the small narrow channels in the South Delta so that at times local discharges, return flows from the agricultural land, do not have a chance to move downstream and out of the area, and instead, become trapped and concentrated in what we call null zones in some of these small channels in the South Delta. This, in turn, results in water quality degradation regardless of how fresh the inflow at Vernalis may be, or the inflow that is created by drawing water across the Delta from the Sacramento River. We are also going to be discussing the second significant truth of South Delta water quality control, and that is that even with the most reasonable and practical solution to water quality and water elevation problems, and we believe that is the installation and operation of barriers at selected locations, that uncontrollable factors make continual attainment of the specified water quality parameters at the traditional monitoring locations in the interior South Delta impossible. And that's to say that numerical standards cannot always be met in the South Delta at those South Delta locations. The implication of this second truth is that numerical standards are not appropriate and, in fact, since they are unachievable, they would be obviously unreasonable. With that introduction, I am going to turn it over to Mike, who will go through a presentation in more detail on some of these factors. MR. CAFFREY: Good morning, Mr. Ford, and welcome. MR. FORD: Good morning, Mr. Caffrey and Board members. I am pleased to meet with you today to talk about the South Delta barrier program and I promise to try to make my portion of the presentation as quick and exciting as possible. To begin with, I would like to briefly summarize some of the past history of this program and the reasons that the Department, along with the Bureau of Reclamation and the South Delta Water Agency, are involved. May I have the first figure? This shows the location of the South Delta area which is generally comprised of the lands and channels in the Delta both to the west and south of the City of Stockton. Actually on this graph the main emphasis is the boundaries of the South Delta Water Agency. In Decision 1485, the State Board did not set agricultural standards for the interior South Delta, but instead, deferred those to ongoing negotiations between the South Delta Water Agency, the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation. In 1982, the South Delta Water Agency filed a lawsuit against the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project alleging that the joint project operations detrimentally affected both the quantities and the quality of the water supply available to the South Delta Water Agency service area. Specifically, the South Delta Water Agency complained that at various times and locations water users in the Agency suffered from poor water quality and diminished water levels. Further negotiations produced a constructive dialogue and a productive approach to addressing the concerns of the South Delta Water Agency. Beginning in 1985, a series of immediate actions were undertaken in response to complaints about water levels in the South Delta Water Agency. The Department of Water Resources dredged parts of Tom Paine Slough, a particularly shallow area in the South Delta area, and installed three temporary pumps to transport water from Old River into Tom Paine Slough for agricultural diversion. In addition, the Department modified its existing operations of the Clifton Court Forebay gates to minimize the potential for operational effects on water levels in the South Delta area. Further actions included additional interim releases from New Melones Reservoir by the Bureau to improve water quality at Vernalis and the construction of four large siphons to provide a permanent supply of Old River water into Tom Paine Slough. In 1986, the Department of Water Resources, South Delta Water Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation entered into a framework agreement to work together to develop mutually acceptable long-term solutions to South Delta Water Agency's water problems. Based on a series of modeling runs conducted by the Department and a South Delta Water Agency consultant, a three-agency work plan was developed in 1987 which identified several flow structures that could be constructed in the South Delta to significantly enhance water levels and circulation. I will be discussing these later in more detail, but I would like to identify them now for purposes of identification and general orientation of them, and these will be referred to by several folks as ag-flow structures. These were identified at the following locations, Middle River southeast of North Canal, Old River northeast of Tracy pumping plant and Grantline Canal east of Old River. These were identified to solve the agricultural problems in the South Delta Water Agency. As Ed mentioned a few minutes ago, an additional structure at the head of Old River was later added to provide benefits to anadromous fish. At this point, I would like to discuss the existing hydraulic and water-quality setting in the South Delta in more detail to explain why the three agencies have concluded that the barriers are the appropriate solution for the water supply problems that have historically existed in the South Delta Water Agency. I would like to note the South Delta has a long history of water supply and water quality problems. Even when Delta conveyance alternatives were being studied back in the early 1970s, it was recognized that additional facilities would be needed to address the specific concerns in the South Delta. A principal concern for water supply in the South Delta area is low water levels. Moderate water levels in the area insure that agricultural diversion facilities have adequate draft. When water levels are low, cavitation to diversion intakes can occur, resulting in higher pumping costs and increased wear on intake pumps. Pump machinery can subsequently fail, resulting in temporary losses of irrigation water for crops and increased cost to agricultural users in the area to replace the failed machinery. Water levels in the area are affected by a multitude of factors: Low river flows entering the Southern Delta at Vernalis, local channel depletions by agricultural diversions, natural tidal variations and especially periods of extreme low tides, fluctuations in barometric pressure, and local wind direction and velocity exacerbate low water-level conditions, limited channel capacities -- many of the channels in the South Delta area are very shallow with depths of six to ten feet being fairly common, and diversions at project export facilities. The water quality of irrigation water in the South Delta is obviously important both to crop variety and yield. Water quality in the area is affected by the following factors: The incoming water quality of the San Joaquin River, saltwater intrusion from the Bay, local agricultural drainage returns, the circulation of water in the channels of the South Delta and the factors that influence that circulation, and SWP/CVP exports which generally provide significant improvements to water quality by improving circulation and drawing better quality water into the area. Water from Georgiana Slough, the Delta Cross Channel and the Mokelumne River is usually better quality water than that at Vernalis. During periods of high project exports and peak irrigation in the South Delta area, this water is drawn into the South Delta where it commingles with and improves the quality of San Joaquin flow. For both water quality and water levels in the interior South Delta, the factors affecting circulation are the main focus of our discussion. In major channels that carry large flows, local diversions and the discharges generally exert only moderate influence upon water flow and quality. But in shallow, low-capacity channels, diversions from the channel can begin to equal or exceed the flows entering the channel at the upstream end. When this happens, water can cease flowing completely through the channel or even begin to flow into it from both its downstream and upstream ends. What this means is that there is no flow out of the channel, creating what we call a null zone. In this situation there is no way to carry away the saline return flows that continue to accumulate and concentrate along the channel. The purpose of this figure is to indicate basically when you look at all the sources in the channel, sources of water, and you look at the demands, the demands exceed it and, therefore, there is no net flow taking place within that channel, so that patch there is meant to illustrate the null zone area. If there are any returns coming into that area, they are likely not to go anywhere. Factors affecting circulation can also cause water level problems for South Delta diverters. If high rates of local diversion occur within a fairly concentrated area during peak irrigation periods, water levels in the area will be drawn down accordingly because of the low carrying capacity of the channels. Another factor is the decrease in water levels at low tide caused by diversions at the export facilities. I wish to note that the CVP facility at Tracy normally must pump 24 hours a day to meet its demands and is not, therefore, having operational flexibility to curtail pumping during low-tide conditions. The State Water Project's diversions into Clifton Court Forebay, while generally higher than the diversions at Tracy, can be taken during high-tide periods with accompanying curtailments during low-tide periods, since diversions into Clifton Court are controlled by radial gates at the intake to the forebay. So there's operational changes at the State Water Project already adopted to try to assist with water-level problems in the South Delta area. The modeling studies that we referred to previously were conducted by the Department and the South Delta Water Agency, as we have said earlier, clearly demonstrated that the three proposed flow-control structures would provide substantial improvements to water levels and water quality in the South Delta region when compared to the conditions historically occurring in the South Delta. Physically, what these flow-control structures do is allow water downstream of the structures to flow upstream into the channels behind the structures during the flood portion of the tide. When the tide reverses and ebbs, the flow-control structures close, trapping that water behind them for use by agricultural diversions in that channel. The net effect of these barriers is to increase water levels by keeping flood tidewaters in the area and enhance water circulation by causing net flow and the alleviation of null zones in the problem area channels. As mentioned previously, these no-flow zones can entrap and concentrate local drainage returns. However, it should be noted that the model results also indicate that specific water quality objectives in the South Delta area cannot be guaranteed even with the barriers operating, because they do not eliminate the effects of other factors which contribute to and, at time, can be dominant influences on South Delta water quality. While improved circulation is generally expected to result in better water quality, the attainment of specific water quality objectives cannot be guaranteed by the barriers. In connection with our barriers project, we have been installing and testing temporary barriers at the specified locations. Except for Grantline Canal, we have been successful in installing temporary structures in each of the three locations at different times. The temporary structures are essentially piles of rock placed across the channel at the identified locations with several culverts placed through the rock near the low-water levels. Each of the culverts is open at the downstream end but covered with a flapgate at the upstream end. The flapgates will open when water levels at the downstream end are higher than those in the upstream end due to the hydrostatic pressure difference, but when the tide reverses causing water levels in the upstream reach to be higher than those in the downstream reach, the pressure differential will shift, causing the flapgates to close. The proposed permanent flow control structures that we are proposing through the interim South Delta program would be much more elaborate and possess greater operational flexibility than the temporary barriers. These permanent structures will be radial-gated structures similar in nature to the Montezuma Slough control structure in the Suisun Marsh. The gates will be open during the flood tide to permit water to flow upstream, but the gates will be closed during the ebb tide to restrict flow during this portion of the daily tide. Two of the three control structures, Middle River and Old River near Tracy are proposed for operation throughout the irrigation season from April through September of each year. The remaining flow-control structure on Grantline Canal would only be operated from June through September. At this point, I would like to briefly explain some specific examples of how the barriers actually improve water levels, water circulation and water quality in the South Delta area. I will be referring to a number of figures which are based both on Delta modeling results, and also, actual field data. Figure 7 illustrates the net flow patterns in the South Delta region under typical conditions during July of a critical year type. The figure shows the levels of Sacramento River flow, San Joaquin River flow, CVP and SWP exports, Delta depletion and Delta outflow used for this example. You will note at the top of the figure the areas which are highlighted. Those, basically, are showing a situation without barriers. In that instance under this hydrology you can observe that no-flow zone existing in Old and Middle Rivers. When the barriers are in place, however, no null-zone patterns exist and the net through or one-way flow patterns exist in both channels, which indicates that the circulation in the channels improves with the barriers. Figure 8 shows predicted minimum water levels in the South Delta area for the same hydrologic conditions, both with and without the barriers. These are the minimum water levels during the low low tide. The top portion there without the barriers, the low portion without the barriers, is very easy to see. There's dramatic difference in terms of the increase that you see there with the barriers. The minimum water levels increase from one to two feet in the entire area when the barriers are in place and operating. Figure 9 shows the resultant water quality in the South Delta, again for this typical July hydrology. This figure illustrates some interesting things. Water quality in the area in general improves with barrier operation. However, some limitations apply. By increasing water levels in the South Delta area, which you saw in the previous figure, essentially we create a hydraulic barrier at the confluence of Old River and the San Joaquin River which causes more of the San Joaquin River flow to remain in the San Joaquin River instead of entering into Old River. The water quality of the increased low is generally associated with Vernalis water quality, which is generally poor during July of drier water year types. As you can see from the graph, Vernalis water quality in this instance is 520 parts per million TDS. As you can also see from this water quality -- MR. HUNTLEY: I think it is 501. MR. FORD: As you can also see from this, the water quality in the San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge gets worse with the barriers because it gets more of that Vernalis flow. So that's the portion you see there, the final reading goes from 305 to 518. MR. DEL PIERO: What month is this? MR. FORD: July. So this increased low flows up towards the confluence of the San Joaquin River at Turner Cut, and at this point, the barriers cause a portion of this water to be recirculated toward the South Delta area by drawing some of that water from the Central Delta. Note that the water at Turner Cut gets slightly worse with the barrier operation because, again, it is more influenced with the barriers by the Vernalis water quality than it is without the barriers. MR. DEL PIERO: Can I ask a question? Where is the intake for the City of Stockton? MR. HUNTLEY: Buckley Cove somebody said. MR. FORD: Turning to the interior stations in the South Delta -- MR. DEL PIERO: Just a moment, I want to make sure I understand. With the barriers the water quality goes down in that area; is that true? MR. HUNTLEY: These are still acceptable water qualities. MR. FORD: Water quality in that area is going down slightly because more of that water is there because the hydraulic barrier has created more of Vernalis flow continuing down the San Joaquin River instead of going into Old River and going towards the pumps where it would normally go. Turning to the interior stations in the South Delta, you can see from this example the water quality is dramatically improved with the barriers because of the improved circulation that we illustrated in the previous two graphs before this, the elimination of the null zones. So, you can see the station right there, 511 improved to 278. The water quality of 204 in Middle River is improved to 189. Essentially, 486 near Tracy is improved to 252 TDS. We have also collected some field data in the South Delta area which show the effects which the temporary barriers have on the water level elevations in the vicinity of the barriers to show that they are generally performing as our model indicates. This figure shows the stage just upstream of the temporary barrier in Middle River before, after and during the installation and you can see the dramatic improvement in water levels upstream of the barriers, about a two-foot increase roughly. And this is a similar graph a little further down Middle River, further away from the barriers, so the predicted increase is not quite as dramatic in this case, basically the confluence of Middle and Old Rivers, but you can still see that there's a fairly significant improvement with the barrier in operation. At the outset of our presentation we noted the water quality in the South Delta is extremely variable. We showed you various factors which combined to cause that variation. To briefly illustrate this point, I would like to refer you ti Figures 12 through 14, which are time-series plots of actual water quality data in the South Delta. This is at Vernalis. You can see here for the two or three years the dramatic variations in water quality. This is showing Old River at Highway 4 during the same time period. I'm not sure what's happening there. The salinity meters, I guess, must have been out in some portions to account for those gaps, but again, you can see the dramatic fluctuations that occur in the salinity conditions in the South Delta area at Old River near Highway 4. And this, again, just shows -- this is Middle River near Highway 4, and again it shows that it varies significantly. MR. BROWN: Don't those curves indicate an influx of some source of supply like from tile or tailwater? MR. FORD: Yes, I think they indicate both. I think what you are seeing there is a large portion of Old and Middle Rivers in the South Delta fluctuate largely in accordance with Vernalis, but certainly, the agricultural drainage returns in the area are affecting it. I'm sure the export pumping is also affecting the water quality in that area to some degree, too, in terms of drawing the better quality water, so I don't think there is any clear correlation there, but probably the predominating effect you are seeing is Vernalis water quality. MR. HUNTLEY: And usually you get large spikes when you have the first big rainfall of the year. You get a lot of runoff from the whole San Joaquin valley, a lot of salts come in that first rainfall, and that is usually when we see the big spikes. MR. FORD: I would like to give another example of the proposed barriers using typical conditions during May of a critical water year. During May, the Grantline Canal barrier is not proposed for operation. However, the barrier at the head of Old River, designed to provide additional fish protection is assumed to be operational, consistent with the provisions of the Bay-Delta Accord and the Water Control Board's 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. We will discuss the barrier at the head of Old River in more detail shortly. But Figure 15 here is showing the resultant net-flow patterns given the hydrologic conditions shown. Again, in this condition we don't have a null zone in Old River but we do have one in Middle River without the barriers. With the barrier the null zone is removed again in Middle River and again we have net one-way flow patterns existing in each channel. The next figure illustrates the predicted minimum water levels with and without the barriers. The minimum water levels in the reach of Old River from Tracy pumping plant to the confluence with Middle River and in the reach of Middle River from North Canal to the confluence with Old River are significantly improved with the barriers. However, because the Old River at Head barrier blocks San Joaquin flow from entering Old River at its confluence with the upper San Joaquin River and because the Grantline Canal barrier is not operating during May, minimum water levels between Old River at Head, Old River at the confluence with Grantline Canal and Grantline Canal itself do experience a small decline in minimum water levels. However, water levels in this area are still thought to be adequate for South Delta irrigation needs. The next figure, again, shows predicted water quality conditions in the South Delta during that May hydrology. Similar to the previous example during typical conditions for July, water quality at Middle River at Howard Road, Old River near Middle River, Old River at Tracy Road Bridge and Old River near the Delta-Mendota Canal experience significant improvements in water quality with the barriers, from 369 TDS to 313 TDS, from 370 TDS to 331 TDS, from 387 to 321 TDS, and from 408 TDS to 282 TDS for these locations respectively. San Joaquin River flow which is prevented from entering Old River now flows further down the San Joaquin River where a portion of that flow enters the South Delta area via Turner and Columbia cuts. Because the water quality of this flow is largely equivalent to Vernalis water quality, and you see at Brandt Bridge the water quality -- at Brandt Bridge, at 379 is now 370 -- that's essentially a push, but the water at Turner Cut and Columbia Cut is getting slightly worse. You have 327 going to 366, and 123 to 217. The water quality at Clifton Court is slightly worse, going from 187 to 225. So, this situation here again points out the variability in the South Delta water quality that is inherent because of the other factors which affect it. The barriers, while solving some of the problems, cannot remove the effects of the other factors. Now, I would like to briefly discuss the barrier at the head of Old River. That barrier at the head of Old River is designed to prevent flow between the San Joaquin River and Old River in either direction to insure that water flowing at Vernalis continues to flow toward Stockton. In the absence of that barrier, much of the water flowing at Vernalis enters Old River at its confluence with the San Joaquin River, and only a portion of the Vernalis flow continues down the San Joaquin River towards the City of Stockton. This barrier at the head of Old River provides two likely separate seasonal benefits for migrating fish. During the fall of years when flows at Vernalis are low, the San Joaquin River experiences low dissolved oxygen levels near the Port of Stockton. Low dissolved oxygen conditions in the fall can impede the upstream migration of San Joaquin River salmon during the spawning season. By increasing the flow which remains in the San Joaquin River, circulation in and around Stockton is improved, which assists in relieving low dissolved oxygen conditions and improves the passage of migrating adult fall San Joaquin salmon. The Department, at the request of Fish and Game, has been installing a barrier at the head of Old River in the fall of most years for more than a 20-year period. For some time, the State and Federal fishery agencies have been discussing the possibility of also installing the Old River barrier from April through mid-May to improve San Joaquin system salmon smolt survival through the Delta. During the spring, young salmon smolts from the tributaries to the San Joaquin River begin their out- migration towards the ocean. Having a barrier during this period can help improve the survival of salmon smolts by preventing them from entering Old River where they become more susceptible to entrainment at agricultural diversions and project export facilities. The proposed permanent barrier would consist of a series of flashboards which can be installed or removed by a movable gantry crane. This barrier would be operated during October and November in the fall and April and May in the spring as flow conditions allow. The Department believes that the installation and operation of the proposed fish barrier is the most efficient and effective way to provide more protection for San Joaquin River anadromous fish. The likely benefits of the Old River at head barrier have been widely recognized through several important and recent actions such as the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Bay-Delta Accord and the Board's June, 1995, Water Quality Control Plan. While smolt survival through the South Delta appears to be poor whichever the route the fish take, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies suggest that those which migrate down the mainstem past Stockton may survive at a significantly higher rate than those which go down Old River. There are currently several issues being addressed by fisheries and other agencies regarding possible impacts of the Old River barrier. One concern is that the spring barrier could worsen existing water level and water quality problems in the South Delta for agricultural diverters and resident fish. A second concern is that since the barrier keeps San Joaquin River water from moving into Old River, it would cause more State Water Project and Central Valley Project export water to be drawn from the Central Delta. The fishery agencies are concerned that this would increase entrainment and indirect mortality of fish such as Delta smelt and winter chinook salmon from the Central Delta. The concern is greatest for winter chinook in April and early May when the smolts may still be moving down the Sacramento River, and for Delta smelt in April through June of dry years when the larvae of Delta smelt and other estuarine fish are more likely to be in the Central Delta and subject to entrainment. When the agricultural and fish barriers are used together, they partly mitigate each other's adverse effects. The fish barrier prevents San Joaquin salmon from being trapped behind the agricultural barriers, while the agricultural barriers prevent the fish barrier from adversely affecting water levels and water quality for Delta farmers and resident fish in that area. Because of the concerns which have been expressed, some interests have advocated that the barriers construction and operation should continue only on a temporary basis with the construction of permanent structures deferred until it can be conclusively and irrefutably demonstrated that there will not be any incremental adverse impacts to Delta fisheries. We do not, the Department does not oppose more study and testing. In fact, we support it. However, we also feel that it is now time to proceed with the construction and operation of permanent, operable flow-control structures in conjunction with the fish barrier. The key word for all of the proposed facilities is operable. As alluded to by previous speakers, operational flexibility will allow all of the facilities to be operated in the most efficient manner for local water supply and fish benefits. As we learn more and more about the effects that the barriers have, the operation of the permanent facilities can be refined to optimize mutual benefits. The Department feels it is essential that the agricultural and fish-protective barriers be considered together as a package and we would like to show you why we feel that way. This figure, our last one, illustrates the same typical hydrologic conditions during May of a critical year type which we have used in the previous Figures 15 to 17. However, this example assumes that only the Old River at head fish-protective barrier is in place. The agricultural flow-control structures are not operating. Note the dramatic reduction in minimum water levels in the area. This can be expected since the normal flows entering into the South Delta service area from Vernalis have been blocked through operation of the Old River at head barrier, yet no relief is afforded to the situation by the proposed agricultural flow structures. Comparing the minimum water levels in this example with those shown in Figure 16, it can be seen that virtually all of the water levels in the South Delta area are significantly lower than the no-barrier case. They are not only lower for the previous example for the with-barrier case, but even in the absence of the barriers they are lower than that. Areas in Grantline and lower portions of Old River there, the 2.1, the 2.2, the 2.4, have now dropped to 1.7 and 1.6. You have basically lost between a half to eight-tenths of a foot in that area for the without-barriers case. MR. DEL PIERO: Before you go on, I am looking at water levels and I am equally interested in the average TDS. Can you put those up? I'm looking for it but I don't see the TDS. MR. FORD: I believe it is Figure 17 and Figure 18. What you can see in this case with the barrier at Old River head only, actually South Delta area water quality is generally predicted to be slightly better than the no- barrier case. There is one area which shows a dramatic reduction in water quality, Old River at Tracy Road Bridge, which is going from 387 TDS in the no-barrier to 574 TDS for the Old River head barrier only. But it is important to note that the situation improves with the installation of the agricultural barriers. That's a comparison of Figure 18 with Figures 16 and 17 has demonstrated. I would like to again emphasize that the combination of all the proposed structures can improve water levels and circulation and provide additional fish protection in a practical and efficient manner. The structures provide general improvements to water quality in the area, but they are not a cure-all for all the concerns in the area because they do not and cannot address all the other factors which include local water quality. Rather, we would like to think of the barriers as tools which can best be used to manage water quality in the area given the uncontrollability of the other factors which affect water quality in the area. The Department is currently considering the construction and operation of the proposed permanent barriers through implementation of the joint Department and Bureau of Reclamation interim South Delta program. Other elements of this program are designed to allow the State Water Project to use the full pumping capability of Banks pumping plant. At this point, we expect to release a draft EIR/EIS for public review and comment in early 1996, and a final EIR/EIS for release in the summer of 1996. Assuming that a decision will be made to proceed with the permanent barriers, the actual construction of the barriers would probably not begin until the middle of 1998, since the final design is expected to take about a year and a half. Construction is expected to last from about two and a half to three years. Based on this schedule, the structures at Old River at head and Middle River would be fully operable by 2001. The structure at Old River Tracy pumping plant operable by 2002, and the structure at Grantline Canal operable by 2003. In the interim, the Department plans to pursue the continued installation of the temporary barriers to provide interim water supply protection in the South Delta area. That concludes my presentation and at this point we would be happy to try to entertain any questions. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Ford and Mr. Huntley. Are there questions from Board members? MR. DEL PIERO: As part of your alternatives analysis in the preparation of the staff Environmental Impact Report, have you quantified the water necessary to meet the State Board's adopted Water Quality Plan? MR. FORD: No. MR. HUNTLEY: I think one of the points we are trying to make today is it is impossible to do it with water alone. Simply the physics down there don't allow it. MR. DEL PIERO: So there has been an alternative analysis indicating various flow alternatives in the draft document being prepared to show that? MR. HUNTLEY: I don't know that we have that in the draft document. MR. FORD: Early on we did one study where it was suggested if we increase flow at Vernalis in conjunction with project export curtailments, that maybe we could look at how that affects the water levels and circulation in the South Delta area. And basically what we did, we looked at 2500 cfs for the whole irrigation season, April through September, and curtailing exports to minimum demands, I think it was on the order of about 1500 cfs for joint project pumping, and even then we basically -- MR. DEL PIERO: What does that work out to in terms of annual appropriation? MR. FORD: The water supply impact was tremendous, as you would expect. MR. DEL PIERO: You didn't analyze it? MR. FORD: We looked at what would be the effect on the water quality in the South Delta area and what effect it would have on the water levels, and what we saw is basically improvement in water levels given those Draconian measures were about two-tenths of a foot combined with its increase you saw at the barriers earlier, and actually, in some areas the South Delta actually saw an improvement by the curtailment in pumping, but in some areas you saw worsening. We talked earlier about the fact that project exports actually provided a benefit in the water quality in the South Delta area. So, we essentially couldn't meet the standards without the barriers, or with or without different flow and export curtailments. MR. DEL PIERO: In terms of that EIR, and I understand it is not complete yet, the statement that you made in regard to the presence of the project improving the interior Delta water quality, was that evaluated in relationship to the reductions in the appropriations by the two projects so a comparative analysis could be done in relationship to a reduced method of appropriation in relationship to sustaining the current level of appropriations and how that relates to inflow into the Central Delta from these alternative water supplies? I'm not making myself clear. The Calaveras and Cosumnes flows are being sucked into the Central Delta because of the two projects. Is there being anticipated in the document a comparative analysis to determine the relative relationship between the statement that you made that somehow the Central Delta water quality is being improved because of the operation of the projects in relationship to the status of water quality in the Central Delta should there be a reduction in operation of the projects, thereby allowing more water from those streams that are currently being diverted to flow through natural courses? MR. FORD: Yes, we did that. We did one scenario where we assume that, we show what the water quality and the water levels are for that scenario. MR. DEL PIERO: And what is that? MR. FORD: It was the scenario I described where we just assume that somehow you are getting 2500 cfs out of the San Joaquin system for the entire irrigation season and project exports were curtailed to, like, 1500 cfs. MR. DEL PIERO: Forgive me, what were the criteria used to establish that as the alternative? MR. FORD: It was just basically our choice. Fifteen hundred was identified as the minimum demand which the projects would need assuming you had unlimited supply in San Luis Reservoir. Essentially what we were meeting with the State Water Project was Del Valle demands and the Bureau is meeting the demands that have to be met right out of the Delta. The problem on the San Joaquin side is basically from the project's perspective, we don't have the ability to basically regulate the flow there so we kind of took a stab at it and said, let's take 2500 and we knew that would have tremendous water supply impacts. The reason we looked at such a draconian scenario was if we couldn't show water quality improvement and water level improvement with that, it wasn't even worth looking at any other options. The water supply impacts with those scenarios were between a million and two million. MR. DEL PIERO: That alternative was demand driven; is that correct? MR. FORD: It's just the scenario I described, the 1500 project exports during the irrigation season and 2500 at Vernalis, which is coming from somewhere, the magic water, and we talked about what the water supply would be and looked at the water level improvements and the water quality resulting from that -- minimum improvement in water levels, basically water quality in some areas improved and in some areas worse, and given the tremendous water supply impacts, we didn't pursue that alternative much further. MR. DEL PIERO: As part of the draft environmental document, has the Department analyzed the long-term impacts on water supply for both Stockton East and the City of Stockton in terms of their proposed diversion? MR. FORD: No, our scenario is assuming that the Board's June, 1995 -- what we are assuming at this point, because obviously we haven't gone through a water right process, basically our analysis is predicated on the project meeting the Board's water quality criteria for the next three years, and we just look at that and that is basically the no-action scenario, if you will. MR. DEL PIERO: The reason I ask that is in terms of the alternatives you are showing a decline in water quality and that was not anticipated as part of the Board's Water Quality Plan, so that's why I am asking the question. MR. HUNTLEY: These proposals do not change the salt load that is coming in from the San Joaquin, so any redistribution of the flow patterns in the Delta, of course, will restrict the salt, too, so we have the same load of salt; and yes, there will be a slight increase in the area of Stockton. It won't be as large as the one that you saw at Brandt Bridge because at Brandt Bridge you are still in a very small channel in the San Joaquin there. Once you hit the San Joaquin basin there where the deep water channel is, then you have got a much larger body of water, and there will be a large dilution there, and there will be some other problems that are associated with that turning basin, but you will get a fairly large dilution in the salt content, so it would be more likely to be the kind of increases that we showed at the Turner Cut location in those diagrams. We also have the data for that point closure, Buckley Cove. MR. DEL PIERO: Have they been advised of that because they are in the process of doing planning now? MR. HUNTLEY: I don't think they have advised us exactly where they are in their planning, and as far as I know, we haven't talked to Stockton about their specific plans. MR. DEL PIERO: One last question in terms of the relative increase in the water quality or the total dissolved solids level in the various alternatives that were shown in the main channel of the San Joaquin, and I think you answered this, but I want to ask you to make sure I got it straight in my mind -- did the Fish and Wildlife Service, in doing their analysis of the anadromous fisheries in the San Joaquin, when they did their analysis, did they assume an increase in the TDS levels from the operation of the barriers in the Old River? Is that an assumption that is built into the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the allocation to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in all the rest of the support agencies that were done? MR. HUNTLEY: You are getting the question broader than I can answer. All I can say is that the data has been made available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. MR. DEL PIERO: Was it made available before or after they indicated support for the barrier? MR. HUNTLEY: I was waiting for today to find out if they were going to indicate support. MR. DEL PIERO: I thought it was indicated they supported the concept of that as part of the agreement last December? MR. FORD: They did sign the Bay-Delta Accord. MR. DEL PIERO: And did that not reference the barrier? MR. FORD: Yes, it did, the Old River head barrier. MR. DEL PIERO: Was there water quality information made available to them prior to their signing on to this issue? MR. FORD: I am not aware if it was made available. I'm not sure they requested it. Certainly we would make it available to them if they requested it. MR. CAFFREY: We don't have a card from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but we do have one from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation for Club FED. I don't know whether Mr. Bowling can answer those questions. MR. DEL PIERO: Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. HUNTLEY: I want to clarify this a little bit. The Fish and Wildlife Service still has some of these concerns we alluded to and -- MR. DEL PIERO: I heard what you were saying. I guess the one question I had was whether or not when they acknowledged support for the concept of the barrier, whether they understood that the main channel of the San Joaquin was going to experience, at least it appears it will experience an increase in the TDS. MR. HUNTLEY: We have had an interagency group that has been meeting periodically related to the Delta planning in general and the South Delta planning in particular for some time. I think, to my recollection, it precedes the Accord and throughout that process we have been running studies, so they have been privy to studies along the way that would indicate that there is a change in the circulation pattern and the salt content. Now, they did not specifically ask for a run for the Accord in preparation for the Accord, and we did not provide one. MR. DEL PIERO: They are on vacation. MR. CAFFREY: It just dawned on me, Mr. Del Piero, they are on furlough, something that some of us are not unaccustomed to around early July. Mr. Brown has a question. MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on your questions, Mr. Del Piero, those spikes that you were showing us, the causes of those spikes appear particularly in October when there's relatively limited runoff water, could probably be the cause of inflow from drainage water? MR. CAFFREY: This is the quality spikes? MR. BROWN: The TDS. MR. HUNTLEY: We will have to look at them again. MR. BROWN: While you are looking for those, the question is, has the Department done any studies to determine the causes of those spikes and maybe some improved management practices that might reduce them? MR. FORD: You are talking about October? MR. BROWN: Well, the one you had up there was in October. MR. DEL PIERO: I don't have a guess as to what is driving those spikes. MR. HUNTLEY: The larger spikes are not October, they appear to be in the early spring when you get that runoff, and that's what I was talking about. MR. DEL PIERO: I saw the spikes in terms of October that Mr. Brown is referring to, and my immediate reaction was that's got to be wrong, but for October? Everything has been harvested or is close to being harvested by October, so where is the irrigation coming from? I don't know. MR. BROWN: That's the question. MR. HILDEBRAND: I'll tell you about that. MR. BROWN: And a follow-up question on it would be the source. Is there something that can be done to control the source to where that doesn't come into conflict with the barriers? MR. HUNTLEY: No, we haven't pinpointed that source. MR. BROWN: A follow-up question on the DO problem you are alluding to; is that in Stockton? Is that the result of the 40,000 acre-feet or so that the City of Stockton treats and puts into the river there? MR. HUNTLEY: I don't know the exact source of the BOD load. It's probably not a singular source, and some of it, I think, has been there for many many years that is sitting in the bottom of the turning basin in Stockton and I would hate to blame anybody today for something that has been there for some time. MR. BROWN: Last question. Do your pumps actually cavitate the water suction presently? MR. FORD: Ours don't but some of the local ones have, but we have corrected that. MR. DEL PIERO: That is the most certain answer we have gotten in a long time. MR. BROWN: That was quick, too. MR. CAFFREY: Any other questions from Board members? Questions from staff? Mr. Howard. MR. HOWARD: First, I am interested in the DO issue, a couple of questions on that. As part of the EIR, have you been looking at any ways to try to quantitatively determine what the effect of the Old River barrier would be on the DO levels in the area in which the Board has DO water quality objectives? Specifically, I am curious as to whether operation of the Old River barrier alone, in your opinion, is adequate to meet the DO water quality objectives, and if not, how bad is it, minus the objectives? MR. FORD: We haven't modeled it because essentially I don't think we have a DO model per se. I think what we would find basically is we don't think you can always meet the DO water quality standard that is proposed even if you do have the barriers in there. MR. HOWARD: I notice the City of Stockton has prepared a DO model and I believe has given that to the Department of Water Resources. Are you going to be evaluating that to see whether or not you will be using it in your work? MR. FORD: We don't have any specific plans at this point, but I guess our perspective would be that you definitely are going to help the DO problem with the Old River barrier. Whether that is adequate or not to meet the DO standard is not something that the Department would have any jurisdiction over in terms of what options would be available. It seems that would possibly be available to the Board to regulate discharges or increasing flows, however it would be done, but we weren't looking at that at all. We are assuming basically that you are meeting the standards that are being met right now, not the ones that are proposed and are being looked at for implementation during the water rights process. MR. HUNTLEY: Mike was speaking specifically for the EIR they are working on now. We are also doing some cooperative work with the City of Stockton and I don't know -- one of our modelers want to talk about whether we are going to use that model or not? MR. CHUNG: We did have a couple meetings with those people and we did have an opportunity to look at some of the assumptions and the results, and our plan is to continue that cooperative process. MR. HOWARD: Is it your intention to operate the Old River barrier for the purpose of trying to improve DO levels in the San Joaquin River? MR. HUNTLEY: The purpose of the Old River barrier in the fall has been for the purpose of helping migrating upstream salmon, which includes trying to assist in breaking up that DO thing. MR. HOWARD: I notice that you indicated you were going to be operating the Old River barrier in October and November, so that's the period in which the salmon are up- migrating -- our objectives are in the September-through- November period, and it sounds as though your focus is on direct protection of the salmon and not necessarily specifically the DO issue. MR. FORD: As part of the program we proposed basically what has been done historically, which is during October and November. This program has been going forward for five years or so, and the Board's actions in terms of Water Quality Control Plan have been fairly recent, but again, the operational flexibility you have with this barrier would permit it to be operated in September also. MR. HUNTLEY: That's true, but September is the tail- end of Alex's operations, too, so you have to make sure you don't create some problems for water quality in the interior when you put the barrier in earlier in September. MR. HOWARD: Why are you proposing to operate the Grantline barrier differently than the other agricultural barriers? You said you were going to be operating them at different periods than the other barriers. MR. FORD: Basically at Grantline it could be operated during the period when the Old River head barrier is installed because you get such a large draw with that barrier, and basically what you do is you just trap the salts in that area and they have nowhere to go, so they tend to build up. When you have the Grantline not operating in that period, the Old and Middle River barriers are operating and they are permitting the flow to move through those channels, but then it combines with the project exports and that flow is taken through to Grantline, so there's a net circulation or removal of the salts in that scenario. If you put Grantline in there, you basically would be building everything up to the east and it has nowhere to go because the Old River head barrier is in there. MR. HOWARD: On the wildlife concerns that you noted, I see in your comments that you stated that the concern expressed by wildlife agencies was that there could be increased draw from the Central Delta and that might have some concerns for the winter-run chinook salmon and Delta smelt. How are you going about evaluating those concerns or is it your opinion that they can only be evaluated after the barriers are constructed and operated? MR. FORD: We are basically trying to evaluate it in the EIR/EIS through the operation studies we conducted, the Delta modeling looking at net flows, part of the tracking kind of evaluations, and think basically there may not be agreement on specific methodologies that each agency could agree on whether there is an impact or not. Basically what we are planning for the document is laying out the net flow patterns that you get, the various water quality results from particle tracking, and letting people make their own judgment on this. MR. HOWARD: The Department doesn't have any preliminary conclusions on those studies? MR. FORD: Based on our conclusions to date, there's a potential for impact but we don't believe it is clear whether there is an impact or not, and so, you know, we basically propose the additional testing and programs that will be developed through the IEP and gain additional knowledge in terms of how the areas could be operated as mitigation. MR. HOWARD: I just had one more sort of half- question and half-comment. It has to do with your statement that I guess you made in your submittal to us and made orally on page 2 of your written statement. It says that modeling indicates that numeric standards cannot always be met. The implication of this truth is that numeric salinity standards are not appropriate, in fact, being unachievable, they obviously would be unreasonable. Look at Figure 9 of your submittal which has the locations of various stations plus the salinity that we expect to achieve with and without agricultural barriers. We have salinity objectives on those maps at locations 1, 2, 3 and 4, South Delta agricultural salinity objectives for the stations for which those objectives have been established, and looking at the bottom table I see that the salinities -- and really, it seems to me probably within the limits of your modeling -- are very similar, the projected salinities at Vernalis and at the two other stations, the San Joaquin River at Brandt Bridge and Old River at Middle Bridge. It seems what I am getting from this is that the statement seems a little strong, when, in fact, it is pretty clear that these barriers can't achieve the objectives. In fact, the modeling seems to imply to me to a certain extent that if we can meet the Vernalis objective, which is another issue altogether, it is quite possible that the other objectives would be met as well. Is that a reasonable conclusion on your part or on my part, or is there more to this modeling than would be indicated by the figures in this table? MR. HUNTLEY: Well, to begin with, you said it is close. We don't feel comfortable in saying that we can meet those, believing the model to the nth degree at a particular station. We have seen too much evidence in the past in some of these areas where the salts can really build up down there, and as we have said and you have said, it is really driven by Vernalis, so are we going to control Vernalis or not? MR. HOWARD: Vernalis is sort of a separate issue. Do we meet the interior Delta when planning to meet Vernalis, and that's what I believe the objective of the South Delta barrier is in part. MR. HUNTLEY: We have used for these model runs things like average tide, we have no wind in the model, we have no changes in barometric pressure in the model. We have some pretty average numbers for depletions and returns that are built into the model. That, combined with looking at how the model predicts the without-barrier conditions, which is current, and what we see in actual variations out there, although it does a fairly good job in averages, I would not want to say that it absolutely predicts the current conditions, and we see too much of this variation out there to feel comfortable with saying that it can be met. MR. HOWARD: These figures, in your opinion, represent average results of the model and not the worst case? MR. HUNTLEY: It's an average -- given these conditions it averages everything out. MR. HOWARD: These are monthly averages, and the standards, of course, are monthly averages as well. Anyway, I just wanted to make that point, so thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Any other questions from staff? All right, thank you very much, gentlemen, for your analysis and your candor. We appreciate it and we will certainly look forward to your CEQA documentation in the two time periods in 1996 that you told us about. So, again, we appreciate your input and your candor. Thank you very much. We will take about a ten-minute break right now and we will come back and have Mr. Schuster and Mr. Hildebrand. (Recess) MR. CAFFREY: Is Mr. Schuster in the room? He is not here, so we will then take him up when he is here. Mr. Hildebrand, welcome. MR. HILDEBRAND: DWR, Ed Huntley and Mike Ford have given you a very good rundown on how the system works, so I don't have to explain any of that. I can try to build on it a little bit and reinforce it a little bit, and in a couple of respects maybe qualify it slightly. But first, I would like to say that we have had excellent relations between the South Delta and the Department of Water Resources for a number of years now, and our agency has been privy to all of this monitoring. We have assisted in it at times and they have consulted with us on the inputs and so forth, so that we feel very comfortable in endorsing the model that has been done, that is being done very well, and they have borne out by the test data with the temporary barriers that it, indeed, is quite reliable. So, we urge that people have confidence in what has been modeled as being very good. Now, it is true as Ed said there are so many conditions that can arise that you can't model every single possible condition, but I think we have done a pretty wide range of conditions. Back on Tom's question, I don't see from all this modeling why the Department of Water Resources is so jittery about having these downstream water quality points because it seems to me that in the interior channels, as Old River and Middle River, Grantline, that if you do have the barriers, you just don't have the water quality problem, and so, I'm not sure why they are so uncomfortable about it. I do agree it would be extremely difficult to meet any water quality condition without the barriers. You've got to have barriers or we are not going to have any predictable and controllable water quality. They are absolutely essential for that. As to the water quality in the mainstem of the river at Vernalis on down to Stockton and Turner Cut, it is true that if you keep the salt load out of those other channels, it goes down that way, but to the best of my knowledge, the fish people aren't worried about the levels of salinity that we have. It is the flows they want and I would concur in the comments that you can't entirely and reliably solve the DO problem just with flows. On the other hand, I don't think there is much question that the flows help solve it. In the absence of barriers you get a reverse flow a great deal of the time from Stockton back up to Old River and sewage effluent and everything else comes back up in that direction, whereas, if you have a downstream flow, the oxygen content is usually not bad further upstream, so you do tend to sweep it the other direction. It may not be a total solution but I think that clearly is an aspect of the solution that is important, but you have to have the barriers to do it. Another question that you raised, Tom, was the question of operating the fish barrier in September. The acceptability of the fish barrier from the point of view of the water quality, circulation of water, levels in the Old River, Middle River and Grantline is dependent on its only being operated at times when our local diversions are not high because if our local diversions are high, they themselves create a drawdown which is superimposed on the drawdown of the export pumps, so you have to mitigate the drawdown that results from the fish barrier whenever it is in, and we don't know how to mitigate it adequately if it is in at times when our diversions are high, so in the spring we can get by if we have the Middle and Old River at Tracy barriers even though the fish barrier is there, but we could not do that in the spring. It just won't work. You can't have the fish barrier then. And in September it's a little iffy because in the past the fall barrier that's been put in for fish has had a notch in it and it was a pretty leaky barrier, so there was quite a bit of water that still came through from the San Joaquin into the Old River. It was the fall fish barrier. Now, there's been some talk lately of putting a tight barrier in in the fall. We have had no experience with trying to operate the irrigation which we still have in September with a tight barrier rather than a leaky barrier. I'm very dubious that we could get through that time without the barrier, but I don't know. All this comes back to perhaps the importance of getting on with the permanent barriers which are operable, and then when you have a problem, you can operate the barrier to mitigate for it one way or another. If you found you wanted the barrier in but you had difficulty at certain times, low tide and so forth, you could open it partially and let some water through. Similarly in the spring, if you have operable barriers and it turns out that you have, say, an extraordinarily dry year so you have a very high irrigation load in May above what you would normally have, then we wouldn't be able to tolerate a full fish barrier in May, but another operability opportunity which we have is that if you have the three agricultural barriers without the fish barrier, you can still create a hydraulic barrier which would do most of what the fish barrier would do. This can be important either because the fish barrier would dewater or because they want to put the fish barrier in at a time when the Vernalis flows are so high they cause local flooding. But under that situation, if you put in the other three barriers and spill a little water over the Grantline barrier during the high tide so you don't get quite as high a peak level, then you can create an almost complete hydraulic barrier which keeps the fish out and keeps them running down the river. So, the opportunity to work these barriers as a system is an important thing and I would reiterate what Ed Huntley said, that you should look on these as a group. There's four barriers that function different ways at different times, have interrelations and you just can't simply talk about putting in one of them without the others. They have to be together. Another thing that hasn't been discussed yet, except that we did bring it before you in some of the hearings in the past, is that part of the solution to the overall problem is to solve the salt load coming down the San Joaquin River at times of low flow particularly. It's too much at any time, but it's got to be controlled. Now, one of the things the barrier would do is that if you have either the fish barrier and the two Middle River and the Tracy Old River barrier, or the three agricultural barriers alone in this, then the salt comes down the river from the Central Valley Project service area on the west side, most of it comes into the river through Mud and Salt Sloughs, and that salt is shunted on down to the Central Delta. It's then greatly dispersed by the high tidal flows down there and the modeling indicates that less than half of the salt then would end up back at the export pumps where at the present time at low-flow conditions the entire salt load comes down the San Joaquin River, goes over to the federal pumps and is pumped right back down the valley. We are running 200,000 tons a year of salt round and round the merry-go-round and that keeps the salinity high in the whole system. So, one aspect, it's not a total aspect but one aspect of solving this problem of salt load in the river is to put the barriers in so you don't recirculate a whole lot of it. Now, beyond that, we have this problem; that is, we don't time the salt, entry of the salt load from that service area to coincide with the big fish flows and other high flows, it ends up coming in predominantly during the peak of the irrigation season when the flows are very low, and so, you create a big salinity problem in the summer. Another time the salinity problem occurs has to do with these peaks you were talking about. Those peaks tend to occur at two times. One is you accumulate salt down there and there isn't much water to flush it out, and then you get a storm and it comes down at a great rate, and we don't meet the Vernalis standard and we have a big peak of salinity. The other time is that along in March and the first half of April, as I have discussed with you before, they drain the grasslands in addition to the mobilization of the salt by preirrigation of the agricultural land and we have water coming in out of Salt and Mud Sloughs into the river at salinities all the way from about 3,000 parts per million to 5,000 parts per million, and at those times the volume is so great that the amount of dilution available is usually inadequate. We usually then don't meet the Vernalis standard. They don't release enough water out of New Melones to do it, sometimes because they won't and a lot of times because they can't, and we have to see that those releases are controlled as to the time of entry. Now, if you do those two things, put the barriers in and you control the time of entry of that salt, you are going to largely solve this salinity problem in the river, and then use the barriers to stop the circulation of that salt and to keep it out of the other channels of the South Delta. So, these things are all interrelated. Now, you had a list of questions here. I don't know whether you want to go down through them all. We have probably largely covered them already. As I say, in my judgment from looking at all this modeling, we won't have a salinity problem in Middle River, Old River and Grantline Canal if we put the barriers in and operate them properly. If you don't, we will. But that doesn't take care of the problem on the mainstem of the river. You have to do these other things. You will help it on the other river by cutting down the circulation of the barrier, but that alone won't resolve the problem. Similarly, the barriers will help the other problem, but I don't think you can rely on it being a total solution to the DO problem, but it certainly will help it. As to the water levels, I don't think there's any question from both the modeling and the testing so far that the tidal barriers do correct the water levels, and the only problem there is to not operate the fish barrier without the tidal barriers in the spring and fall, or during irrigation when the local diversions are high. We have talked about the dissolved oxygen thing, whether it will improve the salmon smolt migration, and I am simply not an expert on this but everything I have seen leads me to believe it would greatly improve that, so I don't think there's much doubt about it. And the ag barriers, as I have said, could serve to achieve that objective at times when you want to have very high flows at Vernalis and would get local flooding if you put in the fish barrier. We need to get on with these temporary barriers to be sure there are no problems we haven't foreseen, or anything in the modeling that doesn't work right. I think myself that there has been far too much caution in permitting us to go ahead with the temporary barriers to just find out how good they are. You can always tear them out in a couple of days if they turn out to cause a problem. I don't know why you should be sure that nobody can think of any possible objections to them before you put them in. You ought to get them in and find out how well they work. The ones we have put in have worked very well. Furthermore, the temporary barriers can be made somewhat operable by fixing them so you can open and close the flapgates on them. Now that we are doing more and more of the fish monitoring, if you run into a special situation where you have a normal number of fish in the area or something of that kind, the permanent barriers would be entirely operable, and even with the temporary barriers, you can open the flapgates on them when there's a situation like that. Those situations aren't likely to prevail very long and you just meet them by the operability of the system. I think that's about all I had to comment on, but if there's any questions you have, I would certainly try to answer them. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Alex. We appreciate your very knowledgeable input as always. We do have a question from Ms. Forster. MS. FORSTER: Alex, you were wrapping up on an overview of the positive effects of the barriers and I still didn't understand fully your comment on another issue, the timing of some flows, and you said if we don't do anything about that, it is still not going -- MR. HILDEBRAND: The timing of the drainage flows from the Central Valley Project service area into the river through Salt and Mud Sloughs. They come in now at inopportune times when there isn't enough dilution for them. If you control those flows, there are two ways you can do it; you can store it subsurface or store it above surface just in temporary ponding and hold up, for example, the drainage that now comes in in March and early April and let it in during the big fish flows that come right after that, and then they come down the river without a salinity problem, and you wouldn't release a lot of water out of New Melones, or fail to release it and have high salinity, which happens most of the time. So, it is not an enormous problem to provide some short-term control on the time that that salt load enters the river. If you have l30 cfs of water coming in at 4 or 5 thousand parts per million, it takes a lot of water to dilute that down, and if you let it out when you have already got that water because of all the spring fish flows, then you don't have to dilute it, so it is far more efficient in the overall use of water if you can control the timing and make your fish water do double duty. MR. CAFFREY: Mr. Brown has a follow-up question. MR. BROWN: Thank you. Alex, with the grasslands getting the fresh water now for their uses, don't you expect the quality of that new-use water to improve considerably? MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't know, John, because the whole thrust down there is to segregate the good water from the bad water, and put the bad water right in the river and reuse the good, and put it back in after you have made it bad. That doesn't help us very much. MR. DEL PIERO: You know, the wetlands people, they're just farmers, too. They are farming for the benefit of the ducks instead of the people, and they do the same thing to the water. The duck crop takes up the water and evaporates it as the necessity of growth, and also, it sits around in those ponds and evaporates, and then when they drain into the river, it's high salinity. It isn't quite as high as some of the worst salinity off the agricultural land but it is the same idea, and it comes off at maybe 3,000 parts per million. The other may come off at 5,000 but there's a lot of it, and as long as those people are encouraged to reuse and reuse their water before they drain it into the river, you just keep making the salinity of the drainage higher and higher and higher, and you need more and more dilution for it. MR. BROWN: Thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Mr. Del Piero. MR. DEL PIERO: I want to go back in time for a variety of reasons. MR. HILDEBRAND: I can do that. MR. DEL PIERO: Given the way the situation was before the order to shut down Kesterson, how big a problem was there when the San Luis Drain was operating, or at least was discharging; was it for water quality in the Delta? MR. HILDEBRAND: We have had a water quality problem ever since the Friant unit went into operation, because what happens there is they take the pure mountain water and ship it down the Tulare basin and then they replace it with water from the Delta, which was still pretty good water but it contains about seven times as much salt, so we import about a million tons of salt a year into the portion of the west side of the valley that drains into the river. That doesn't count what goes further south, so if you look at the history of the water quality in the river, you would find that starting in about 1950 when the DMC went into operation, the salt load began to climb. Now, a lot of the salts accumulated down there and they're still accumulating, I mean it isn't all getting into the river, and we have accumulated roughly 30 million tons of salt in the soils of the west side of the valley so far in that drainage basin. But as time goes on, it's in solution, it's uphill, and it gets into the river. Some of it comes into the tile drains and is pumped into the river. Some of it comes in by subsurface accretion and some of it by surface flow, but it ends up coming into the river so the salinity of the river with a given unimpaired flow reaching the river keeps getting worse. Now, of course, the amount of dilution has gotten worse, and the very same trade resulted -- MR. DEL PIERO: You mean taking water -- MR. HILDEBRAND: Taking water out and replacing it with imported water -- if you look at the report between the Bureau and the South Delta Water Agency, which we have referred to in talking to you before, that indicated that the net result of that CVP thing is to reduce the flow in the river from what it otherwise would be by about a third, and so now, you know, you are talking about having other people restore the flow in the river, but if you go on the principle that people should mitigate their own impacts to the extent they depleted the flow, they would take care of that. And similarly, if you look at the water quality problem, we never had any water quality problem all the way down past Mossdale before the Central Valley Project went into operation, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and it's just this salt load. And we can live with quite a bit of salt load, something approaching the amount we've got now if it is carefully controlled and comes down only when there is enough dilution. But we can't live with all the salt load and those people have got to be kept in business down there if their children are going to eat, so you have to restore a salt balance in that area and you can only partially do that by timing the amount of the salt load coming into the river but you can partially do it that way, and the rest of it is eventually going to have to get to the ocean. That's where nature put it previously, but the natural salt load is substantial but it went to the ocean, always came down when there were high flows so there was no high salinity even though the load was there. MR. DEL PIERO: If the barriers that we have been talking about all morning are not built and the proposal to reopen the San Luis Drain goes forward, what would be the consequences to water quality in the Central Delta? MR. HILDEBRAND: It would just get worse and worse. This wetland bypass proposal has got us very much concerned because it is our understanding that based on an earlier environmental assessment made by the Bureau, as well as our own assessment, that it will increase the salinity in the river because it is going to enable them to recycle more water and make it bad before it goes in the river, and they have sort of kind of skirted around that by saying they won't increase the load, but if the same load comes in with less water, the salinity goes up, so it is kind of a backdoor way of not admitting what's going to happen. MR. CAFFREY: Anything else from the Board members? Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Are you suggesting that the salt limitations at Vernalis could be different at different times of the year? MR. HILDEBRAND: I am not sure I understand your question. MR. BROWN: Criteria. MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, not that the salinity objective be changed, but that the salt load that arrives at Vernalis at different seasons should be changed so that it only arrives at Vernalis when there's enough dilution water to take care of it without making extra water quality releases out of New Melones. If you take advantage of releases for fish flows, for example, you know, we have way more water than we need for quality control in the spring during the fish flow in April and May, and you ought to take advantage of that extra dilution availability to get rid of some of this salt, and then you don't have to have it come out in the summer. MR. BROWN: I thought I heard you say what Fish and Game really care about is flow, more than salinity at certain times of the year, that they need capacity in the river, but salinity is not the problem. MR. HILDEBRAND: The salinity is the problem, but it is created by high salt load in the absence of flow. MR. BROWN: One other question then. Your idea that you proposed to this Board sometime ago about recirculating freshwater; has that gone anywhere? MR. HILDEBRAND: I hope so. The discussions with the Bureau, of which we have had several, did lead to their agreeing that they should investigate that. I have an appointment with them for next Monday, and I understand the budget impacts didn't put them out of business, so I guess we will still meet for the purpose of discussing the analysis they have made. I did have a conversation recently with Dan Fultz in the Bureau and Bob Potter, and they were both positive about it. One of the things that some people in the Bureau brought up early in the game was they didn't have the capacity to do the extra pumping. I said I never did think they could, but that the data that has been discussed in the Cal-Fed Ops Group show that during that period of time when you have the high fish flows, the State has extra pumping capacity and they can wheel it for them, and Bob didn't seem to think there was any problem with that. And then, they had some deal that half of the water that came down the San Joaquin River belonged to the Bureau and half belonged to the State, and if it is recirculated water, certainly there is no problem to straighten that out. And there may be some opportunities also in order not to interfere with any deliveries during that period of time, to put water into San Luis and take it back out again so that your circulation may have a time delay put into it. So, these are all things that have to be investigated. But from what I know, it seems to me that there is no question that this can be done to some degree, and the question is really how much and at what cost, and I can't help but believe that the cost will be much less than buying water. The cost of circulating an acre-foot is not much compared to buying it. So, I am very hopeful, in answer to your question, that this will turn out to be something that the people will accept. MR. BROWN: Thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Mr. Del Piero. MR. DEL PIERO: Alex and I tend to agree on a lot of things, but on one thing you said today, Mr. Hildebrand, I don't think we do. The Almighty caused the water from the San Joaquin just like the water from the Sacramento valley to go to the Delta, and as far as I know, he didn't have anything to do with the salt build-up from transporting water from the Delta down there and reconcentrating it into the river so the necessity of getting it to the ocean without getting it into the Delta first is something that I am not necessarily convinced of. But that's because I got a perspective from living on the ocean as opposed to living along the river. MR. HILDEBRAND: I don't see any way you are going to restore the salt balance and go on feeding the people of this state without a separate conveyance to the ocean. MR. DEL PIERO: And we aren't going to get into the argument about whether it is tomatoes or fish. MR. HILDEBRAND: I agree it shouldn't go into Butte Canyon and Monterey Bay. I agree with that. I think Bill has something he would like to ask about here. This is Bill Johnston. MR. CAFFREY: Mr. Johnston, are you appearing as -- MR. HILDEBRAND: He is a consultant. MR. CAFFREY: And you have a separate presentation? MR. JOHNSTON: I do, and I will get to that later. I want to comment on the question Mr. Del Piero asked, and that is what's the difference between what's going in the river now than when the Kesterson situation came about? I think that's somewhat close -- MR. DEL PIERO: Actually, I was asking about before Kesterson. MR. JOHNSTON: What is going into the river now is almost the same as what was going into the river when Kesterson happened. None of the water that went into Kesterson went into the river, so the area that's draining into the river now is the same area that was draining into the river at that time. MR. DEL PIERO: That's not entirely true because there's a lot of impoundments now that are capturing runoff that didn't go to Kesterson either. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think that most of those are in areas that weren't going into the river then either. The other thing, when you use the term reopen the San Luis Drain, it infers that the same water that was going into the San Luis Drain then will now be going into the river, and that's not the case. All they are doing is rerouting what is going into the river now through -- MR. DEL PIERO: If I implied that, that's not what I meant. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Johnston, for that clarification. Any other questions of Mr. Hildebrand? Staff. Mr. Howard. MR. HOWARD: I just had one quick question, Alex. You have been involved in the San Joaquin River management program and the recently released report. Was the issue of detaining the flows from upstream salinity sources evaluated as part of the San Joaquin management program, and if so, was there evaluation of the physical feasibility of retaining those flows? MR. HILDEBRAND: I would say the evaluation of the physical feasibility was somewhat limited, but there was a strong conviction that it was something that had to be done and it was conceptually feasible to do it, and there was a lot put in the report about the monitoring system that has to be associated with doing it or to do it properly. I think what's known about the mechanisms for doing it is perhaps best depicted in the report by Bill Johnston and Jerry Orlob about the feasibility of doing it from a subsurface point of view, which is a little expensive but is entirely doable, but you have to realign all of the tile drains in order to do it that way. The other way to do it is just put up dikes and use temporary ponding, particularly to solve this problem in the spring where you could take what they now drain into the river during March and early April and just pond it for six weeks or less and then drain it into the river during the fish flows, and from an engineering standpoint, that's a rather simple thing. It may be institutionally complicated, and the Westlands people aren't eager to give up even for six weeks some of their crop land, duck crop land, to hold the drainage on a small portion of their land, hold it for a few weeks and then drain it in, but it is entirely doable. Construction-wise you could do it within a year if you had the mind to do it. It doesn't mean that institutionally and financially you get it done that fast. MR. DEL PIERO: Alex, you mean the duck farmers aren't any different from the cotton farmers? MR. HILDEBRAND: They do the same thing with the water, put it on the land, they raise their crops and evaporate the water and the salt is still there. MR. DEL PIERO: And they are reluctant to work cooperatively -- MR. HILDEBRAND: Very similar. They're farmers. MR. HOWARD: Have cost estimates of a proposal of this nature been made? MR. HILDEBRAND: Very crude. MR. HOWARD: Do you have any recollection of what they are or should we leave that to Bill Johnston? MR. HILDEBRAND: Bill Johnston could give you a guesstimate of the subsurface method. I think the other method, you really have to get those people to agree to where they put the ponds and so forth in order to do it, in order to make any reasonable estimate, and until somebody tells them they've got to do it, they are not going to do that. So, the regulatory agencies are going to have to give them some time scale in which to do it, and then they will do it. It is doable. It is not outlandish in cost and it is absolutely essential to solve these problems. MR. HOWARD: Thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Anything else from staff? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, just to get the answer on the record at the right place in the record, I think the cost for controlling the subsurface drainage is somewhere around a thousand dollars an acre, if I recall. MR. BROWN: You have to put in a new tile system. MR. JOHNSTON: Right. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you for that clarification and for putting it in the record at the appropriate time. With that, Mr. Hildebrand, we thank you very much and we always are benefited by your expertise and appreciate it very much. Maybe this is as good a time as any to break for lunch and come back at one o'clock sharp, and then we have got about half a dozen more cards, and you all know who you are, so we will hopefully get out of here at a reasonable hour. We will see you at one o'clock. (Noon recess) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1995, 1:00 P.M. --o0o-- MR. CAFFREY: Good afternoon, and welcome back to our workshop on barriers for the South Delta. Has Mr. Schuster arrived? We have a request from Mr. Schuster. He has a scheduling problem and he hasn't arrived yet, so, Mr. Bowling, you are here from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. Good afternoon, sir, and welcome. MR. BOWLING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Chet Bowling. I am Chief of the Water Operations Division in the Central Valley Project Operations Office of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am speaking for Club FED today. As you may or may not know, Reclamation's appropriation bill was signed so we are all at work, but actually, I would rather be home doing a little brick project work than being here. MR. CAFFREY: You are here doing it. MR. BOWLING: You got it. For better or worse, we do have a brief statement that was put together with the help of the other Club FED agencies even though they can't be here. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources are undertaking the interim South Delta program to resolve litigation with the South Delta Water Agency. Some aspects of Reclamation's participation is authorized by Section 3406(c)15 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Many technical aspects have been covered by the Department of Water Resources and we don't plan to provide anything at this time today. There has been and will continue to be substantial involvement from the Club FED agencies concerning all aspects through the environmental review process and subsequent evaluations. This program is going through the NEPA-CEQA process in which the benefits and impacts will be identified, and through this process we will evaluate a full range of alternatives addressing South Delta flow and water quality issues. We expect many of the comments that are made today will be redirected in that process, and so basically, we are here to listen. I guess I am here to listen. I might add one other thing that was brought up earlier, the subject of the recirculation project and the Bureau of Reclamation has looked into that. We have done what I would consider an appraisal-level study of recirculating water, you know, from the Delta-Mendota Canal through the San Joaquin River and back through Tracy, so we have looked at it. As Alex pointed out, we will be meeting him next Monday to go through the efforts that we have had so far. Obviously, at some point fairly soon we will decide whether we are going to proceed to a higher level study of that alternative. And with that, I will try and answer any questions. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Bowling. We appreciate your explanation and your leaving yourself available, and you are obviously so important they wouldn't furlough you. Let me see if there are questions from Board members. Anything at this point? Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: When you are looking at the recirculation alternative, I know Alex at one time was talking about maybe using other facilities to help accommodate that. Are you including that or just taking the capacity out of the -- MR. BOWLING: At this point, it's strictly just taking capacity. It's pure recirculation. It is not a delayed recirculation and if I remember right, what they have looked at so far is recirculating the water during the pulse-flow period and not at other times. MR. BROWN: Okay, thank you. MR. CAFFREY: Anything from staff? Mr. Howard. MR. HOWARD: Perhaps I should have asked the Department this, but do you have and does the Department have a preliminary schedule for when you anticipate having the interim South Delta program completed? MR. BOWLING: I did have Al Candlish (phonetic) here this morning but he had to leave for another meeting, and I would have asked him that question. So, I'm not -- MR. HOWARD: Does the Department perhaps have a schedule in mind yet? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. HOWARD: Is there a proposed scheduling for completion of the interim South Delta program at this point? MR. FORD: Yes, as I indicated, basically we expect a draft EIS to be released for public review and comment probably in January or February of 1996 and a final document tentatively scheduled for about July of 1996. MR. HOWARD: And construction? MR. FORD: Construction would be -- well, we have about a year and a half of final design after the decision is made to proceed, which would put you into 1997, about two years after that, so we are talking about barriers being operational by 2001, 2002 and 2003. I believe the operational -- it's in our testimony, the statement we submitted to the Board. MR. HOWARD: All right, thank you. MR. FORD: It's in the very last section when the barriers will be in operation. MR. CAFFREY: Any other questions from staff? Thank you, Mr. Bowling, for your continuing input. Frank Wernette, California Department of Fish and Game. Good afternoon, welcome. Please identify yourselves for the record. MR. WERNETTE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I am Frank Wernette. I am a Senior Biologist with our Bay-Delta Special Water Projects Division in Stockton with the Department of Fish and Game. With me today is Jim White. He is an Environmental Specialist with the Environmental Services Division of the Department here in Sacramento. MR. CAFFREY: Welcome. MR. WERNETTE: I thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon so that we can share the Department's perspective regarding the questions raised in your workshop on this and with respect to the questions raised in your workshop notice with respect to the physical barriers in the Delta. Jim is here today so that between him and me we hope we will be able to answer any follow-up technical questions that may come up with respect to the things we say in our statement. I will try to refer only to the highlights in our statement rather than reading the whole thing, as you have that in front of you and if there is something that doesn't seem clear, feel free to ask in follow-up questions. The Board has framed the issues with respect to the agricultural areas in the South Delta around the two key questions that have been discussed all morning, and those are adequate quality and water elevation. Between Ed Huntley and Mike Ford they did a terrific job of going through what the results of the former barrier program indicated. And from their testimony and presentation, it has obviously performed well. In anticipation of a Grantline barrier, I think there's good expectation that will simply add that kind of improvement to additional areas of the South Delta. The barriers work, at least in part, by excluding the higher salinity water flowing down the San Joaquin River from the Southern Delta and allowing the fresher water, principally from the Sacramento River, to be drawn from the Central Delta into the Southern Delta. This barrier-induced water circulation pattern forms the basis for much of the Department's concern about the potential adverse impacts to fishery resources from the agricultural barriers. Water supplies provided mainly from the Central Delta rather than San Joaquin River through Old River risks increased entrainment of fish from the Central Delta and the Sacramento River system into the Southern Delta. The two assessments that the Department of Water Resources prepared in 1992 and 1995 for the South Delta temporary barriers project alludes to the potential for those effects and emphasizes that those effects are of particular concern for the younger life stages of fish, egg and larval and juvenile of things like striped bass and Delta smelt. The hydrodynamic changes and increased water levels facilitated by the agricultural barriers have also raised concerns with respect to important habitat in the South Delta that are provided by berm islands and tidal emergent wetlands along the channel edges. We have expressed these concerns to the Department of Water Resources and are currently discussing an alternative approach to meet the needs of agriculture in the South Delta which will avoid or diminish the potential for these impacts and we are hoping and expecting that an alternative approach at least will be analyzed and assessed in the draft EIR/EIS for the interim South Delta program that is currently in preparation for the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau. We are aware, I think it is real clear in the testimony and the presentations of Alex and the Department of Water Resources, that there's a tremendous linkage between the installation of the spring head of Old River barrier and water circulation and level issues that were raised by the South Delta Water Agency through Alex. While some may argue that the agricultural barriers must be in place in order to install the spring head of Old River barrier, we believe that because it is still being analyzed as part of the EIR/EIS, that that conclusion may be premature and that through the environmental documentation process and analysis of different alternatives, it is possible that an alternative will be selected that won't result in that conclusion being absolutely a necessity. The Department, through the environmental review and permitting process, will work to insure that if the head of Old River barrier is installed, that the agricultural beneficial uses are addressed in a manner that also protects fish and wildlife resources in the Delta. San Joaquin fall-run salmon of all life stages face a variety of challenges to their survival, particularly during their residence in and migration through the Delta, including dissolved oxygen levels less than six milligrams per liter in the San Joaquin River from the turning basin to Turner Cut. In that reach dissolved oxygen levels as low as 1.5 milligrams per liter have been measured and in some cases at the turning basin even zero milligrams per liter. Water quality, specifically dissolved oxygen levels, in the San Joaquin River typically begins to deteriorate in the fall when inflow to the river is low, water diversion rates are high, water temperature is high, and discharges from upstream sources such as the Stockton sewage treatment plant increase the biochemical oxygen demand. The fall head of Old River barrier, which has been installed most years since 1968, is typically installed in September-November to increase the flow in the San Joaquin River past Stockton. This is done in an effort to increase DO levels in this reach and assist the upstream migration of adult San Joaquin chinook salmon. An additional objective of the fall head of Old River barrier is to improve the survival of yearling chinook salmon that are releases from the Merced River hatchery. That doesn't occur every year, but in those years where yearlings are produced they would benefit from having the fall barrier installed. DWR staff, working through the Interagency Ecological Program, have done a tremendous job of recording and assessing the DO levels in the San Joaquin River, and the documenting of the installation of the fall barrier has helped improve the DO levels in the San Joaquin River from the turning basin west to Turner Cut. In years with low San Joaquin River flows the fall head of Old River barrier has usually improved DO concentrations, even though the rate of improvement has varied between years. The current fall design can only be installed when the San Joaquin River flows measured at Vernalis are less than 2500 cfs. We really don't know what flow is necessary to achieve the DO objectives in the absence of a barrier, or whether it even can be. The Department believes that a fall barrier designed to withstand higher flows could be used to improve DO levels in many more years and could accommodate the flow objectives in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. DWR, this last year, because we did have flows in excess of 2500 cfs, offered to design and construct a temporary barrier similar to the spring temporary barrier design, which is a larger taller barrier which could withstand flows up to 7500 cfs. Unfortunately, that offer came fairly late and the details were not able to be worked out in sufficient time to actually implement its installation. While the fall head of Old River barrier directly influences the percentage of San Joaquin River flow remaining in the mainstem past Stockton, high flows in the San Joaquin River and discharge source control are major factors necessary to increase DO levels and improve water quality for migrating fish. Thus, the flow objectives in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan represent the minimum needed, so that with the barrier installed those flows will reach Stockton. Other actions such as export modifications, improvements to the operation of the Stockton sewage treatment plant and use of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers bubbler, should act synergistically to improve DO levels and help meet the Water Quality Control Plan's DO objective. Even though constructing a permanent operable head of Old River barrier would allow for more flexibility in managing DO levels and dealing with river flows, the Department does have some remaining concerns with respect to a permanent barrier. Those include the potential for delays of adult salmon migrating up the San Joaquin, increased predation associated with that permanent structure. Those are the two principal concerns that we have with that permanent structure, and we expect that these concerns will be addressed and discussed in the forthcoming environmental documentation for the ISDP. The 1995 Water Quality Control Plan includes a narrative objective to double natural production of chinook salmon from the average production of 1967 to 1991. Efforts to restore San Joaquin basin salmon runs have focused on providing better conditions in the tributaries and on improving survival during downstream migration to the ocean. Poor survival of young salmon during their emigration through the Delta is one of the factors constraining the abundance of chinook salmon in the San Joaquin basin. This poor survival is attributable to low San Joaquin River flow, high water temperature, losses at upstream diversions, losses at the State and Federal water project diversions, as well as other causes. The spring head of Old River barrier has been promoted as an important and viable tool for the management, protection and recovery of San Joaquin fall-run chinook salmon. The barrier is specifically described in a number of documents and a number of programs. A lot of them were mentioned this morning, including the Board's own Water Quality Control Plan, the EPA's review of that plan mentioned it again as a keystone part of their assessment of the Water Quality Control Plan. It's in the CVPIA, as mentioned already. It's in the interim South Delta program, specifically mentioned in the Governor's Water Policy in 1992. During the recent Board workshops, numerous partici- pants strongly recommended that the Board facilitate or require completion of a permanent head of Old River barrier. Department endorsement, however, has been more reserved because the investigation of the spring head of Old River barrier as a means of protecting San Joaquin fall-run salmon has been inclusive. Fish and Wildlife agency biologists charged with managing San Joaquin chinook salmon populations have concentrated on actions to increase salmon production in San Joaquin tributaries and improve the survival of emigrating smolts. Improving survival was a principal motivation for evaluating the differential mortality of coded-wire-tagged salmon smolts released into the upper Old River compared to releases made in the San Joaquin River approximately two miles downstream of the head of Old River at Dos Reis Park. And those data were the principal motivation in terms of what the agencies, fish and wildlife agencies, used to justify their initial support of the barrier. Those coded-wire-tag studies were principally completed between 1985 and 1990 by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results indicated that when smolts that were tagged were released into a part of the San Joaquin River two miles downstream at Dos Reis that they survived at greater rates than those fish that were released into the upper parts of Old River, and the data range between a minus five percent up to three hundred percent in the number of fish that actually survived and were captured at Chipps Island. The average turned out to be approximately 120 percent, so a little over double on an average basis. In 1991, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service did a special evaluation releasing coded-wire-tagged salmon at five locations of the San Joaquin starting at Dos Reis ending up at Jersey Point, doing the same evaluation for those in trying to capture at Chipps Island. The results of that 1991 study indicated that the survival indices for those releases made further west in the Delta, in other words, as you move sequentially further west and made those releases, that they survived better relative to positions and locations further east, and this suggested that once the salmon smolts had moved past Old River and continued down the river, that they continued to improve as they moved westward. So, the combination of these two sources of data, I think, lead to a very optimistic view of the benefits of what a barrier would provide for San Joaquin smolts. The pre-barrier evaluations, however, of the smolt survival, were not influenced by altered hydrodynamic conditions which can result from a physical installation of the head of Old River barrier, and as part of the temporary barriers project in the 1992-through-1995 period, there were two opportunities, two years in there, in '92 and '94, where the Fish and Wildlife Service were able to conduct a duplicate of these coded-wire-tag surveys with the spring barrier in place. In 1992, releases that were made at Mossdale prior to and after the barrier installation, the survival index to Chipps Island without the barrier ranged from .12 to .17; and after the barrier was installed, the survival was .01 to .08. It was actually less. The raw data indicated that the fish survived at a lower rate once the barrier was installed. These results, therefore, on the surface did not support earlier studies without physically having the barrier placed that indicated that a barrier might be beneficial. Fewer coded-wire-tagged fish were recovered at the export facilities when the barrier was in place, and this suggested that lower recoveries of salmon at Chipps Island with the barrier in place was due to factors other than losses at the export facilities. High-water temperatures at the time the experimental fish were released probably affected the survival of the coded-wire-tagged salmon. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service used a relationship between temperature and salmon mortality to estimate that the barrier might have improved survival of smolts if the water temperature had been 63 degrees instead of about 70 degrees when the test was actually conducted. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not clear how well the study contributed to our understanding of barrier effects in that 1992 study. These coded-wire-tag studies were also conducted in 1994, both prior to and after barrier installation. The results indicated that without the barrier, survival was zero at Chipps. After the barrier installation, the survival index ranged from 0 to 0.04. However, since the actual numbers of fish recovered were so low, 0 without the barrier and 3 fish with the barrier, the true differences between groups cannot be determined, in our view. It is difficult to make a valid assessment of the barriers' effect on smolt survival when survival of marked fish has been so low. Experimental designs and new techniques should be evaluated and used to determine if the barrier benefits salmon, and if not, what the mortality factors are that prevent salmon survival from increasing. A conclusion that the head of Old River barrier provides a benefit for survival of juvenile chinook salmon emigrating from the San Joaquin River, cannot yet be supported by experimental studies. A permanent, operable barrier would provide operational flexibility and should be opened to reduce adverse hydrodynamic changes that affect flows from the Central Delta, but we again have several concerns with respect to a permanent structure. Two of them are the same as the other fall barrier, increased predation associated with the permanent structure, having that structure delay adult salmon migration, and again, the potential that the hydrodynamic effects of the Central Delta could affect the younger life stages of fish, including striped bass. These concerns are related also to some of the particle mass transport evaluations that DWR conducted which showed the projections made particles in their model, and the hydrodynamic model indicated that those altered flows actually increased the number of particles that get entrained at in-Delta diversions, and the State Water Project and CVP facilities, and that data, modeling data, could explain some of the results of the coded-wire- tag studies where very few smolts that were released at Mossdale were actually captured at Chipps Island and didn't show up at the Federal and State fish facilities either. Although perhaps not all of the above concerns could be addressed by conducting follow-up evaluations of a temporary barrier, a revised evaluation protocol for the temporary barriers monitoring program should be developed. Such evaluations, using appropriate techniques and study designs, would provide a clearer picture of the barriers' consequences and determine what operating criteria produce the best results for San Joaquin salmon without unacceptable effects on other species. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has circulated a proposal with alternatives for evaluating salmon smolt survival in relation to the barrier and exports in the spring of 1996 using coded-wire-tagged salmon. The risk that the agricultural barriers, particularly the Old River at Tracy and Grantline barriers, posed for fishery and wetland resources, may exceed the risks associated with a legitimate alternative that could be implemented to protect agricultural beneficial uses without harming other beneficial uses. The Department would not object to the continued installation and operation of the Middle River barrier, and is currently working with DWR and the other fish and wildlife agencies to describe an alternative to the other barriers that can attain the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan objectives and serve agricultural beneficial uses. The alternative that has been discussed with DWR includes completing a permanent operable Middle River barrier in combination with several other non-barrier actions. We are recommending for the draft EIR/EIS for the interim South Delta program that it include an evaluation of this alternative, or something like it, in combination with a couple of different export levels. The Department can be prepared to discuss this and other suggested alternatives for achieving Southern Delta salinity and dissolved oxygen objectives at the Board workshop presently scheduled for February, 1996. Because of the uncertainty described above, the Department does not at this time favor the Board requiring installation of any of the agricultural barriers or the fall or spring head of Old River barrier. That is not to say, however, that should the additional evaluations described prove the spring head of Old River barrier to be beneficial, that it couldn't be installed as a permanent structure following completion of the current CEQA/NEPA process for the interim South Delta program. Should the Board require the head of Old River barrier, the Department would strongly urge consideration of specific operational criteria and barrier design specifications to address the concerns we have described today. In conclusion, the State and Federal agencies, the San Joaquin water-right holders, the Board, and the public are banking on the head of Old River barrier to be an effective mitigation tool for San Joaquin fall-run chinook salmon. However, we need to increase the level of certainty that the spring head of Old River barrier will significantly benefit San Joaquin salmon. Furthermore, the Department remains concerned that potential indirect impacts could lead to detrimental effects on other species within the Delta. The Board has asked if the head of Old River barrier, in combination with other objectives in the Bay-Delta Plan, is likely to double natural salmon production in the San Joaquin basin. We have observed that in very wet years the factors which limit salmon production are overcome and strong-year classes of salmon are produced. Salmon escapement estimates are correlated with spring flow and exports during the out- migration period two and a half years earlier, indicating the importance of Delta conditions. The Bay-Delta Plan will improve flows into the Delta from the lower San Joaquin in some years and depending on how the Vernalis flow objective is implemented, will also improve winter and spring flows in some or all tributaries. This has a potential to increase young salmon survival during rearing and out-migration. The Delta is clearly a bottleneck for salmon production. The April-May pulse flow may increase the survival of smolts migrating downstream through the Delta in that time frame. Limiting exports during this period will be an improvement over recent historic conditions when exports commonly exceed San Joaquin inflow to the Delta. Unfortunately, very poor survival of out-migrating salmon in the Delta has been observed when exports were about equal to the San Joaquin flow into the Delta. Higher San Joaquin inflow to export ratios may ultimately prove to be necessary. Delta conditions will not be improved substantially for smolts that migrate outside the pulse-flow period or for young salmon that would use the Delta as rearing habitat before migrating to the ocean. Many are hopeful that the Old River barrier can assist in improving salmon smolt survival through the Delta, however, as we have indicated earlier, direct evidence of benefits is weak. Particularly disturbing is the persistence of very low salmon survival during migration through the Delta under all conditions examined recently, with the barrier or without. As you know, there are a number of other activities under way in the tributary watersheds, some closely related to implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan. These include actions pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, four pumps mitigation projects, Category 3, our own Department and the Federal unscreened diversion programs, hydropower project relicensing, San Joaquin River management program and others. Overall, we are optimistic that the aggregate effect of all these actions, including the Bay-Delta Plan, will be a substantial increase in natural salmon production in the basin. Only time will tell how much can be accomplished through the actions which are now being contemplated. Progress will be closely monitored. The Department will continue to explore measures through its participation in the Cal-Fed Ops Group with respect to enhancing flows and modifying exports to achieve the doubling goal. The Department recognizes that other parties have a clearer view of the benefit of the spring head of Old River barrier. You have heard some of those today. The Board in the past has received analyses from the San Joaquin tributary agencies which suggested that San Joaquin chinook salmon escapement under selected pulse-flow alternatives would increase with the barrier at the head of Old River. We are anxious to hear how other contributors have evaluated existing data and concluded that these data demonstrate the effectiveness of the spring head of Old River barrier and allays concerns about the level of secondary impacts. That concludes the Department's comments and both Jim and I would be happy to respond to any specific questions you might have. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Wernette. Are there questions from Board members? No questions from the Board members at this time. Anything from staff? MR. HOWARD: No. MR. CAFFREY: Very enlightening and very complete. We appreciate your being here, gentlemen, and we look forward to your continuing input and assistance in this matter. Thank you very much. Chris Hayashi from the Public Utilities Commission, and while she is approaching, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize and welcome the Chair of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Marion Otsea. Good afternoon. MS. HAYASHI: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I am also here representing the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission today. My name is Chris Hayashi. MR. DEL PIERO: Be careful, your boss is watching. MS. HAYASHI: San Francisco has submitted written comments to the Board today, but I will briefly present some of the highlights of those comments for you. San Francisco joins in the statement of the Joint Water Users and the San Joaquin Tributaries Association, and supports the policies that are outlined in that document. In particular, San Francisco supports the construction of a permanent Old River barrier with operable gates in the near term, with its operation to be based upon adaptive response to evaluation of its effects on beneficial uses in the Southern Delta. To emphasize the answer to one of Mr. Del Piero's questions, the installation of the Old River barrier is part of the December 15, 1994, Accord. This is one of the reasons the decision is so important. The installation of the Old River barrier was an assumption on the parties signing that agreement, and without it some of the benefits of that agreement would disappear. As key issue No. 1, the Board has asked about the need for agricultural water quality benefits of the barrier. San Francisco has no technical information to offer to the discussion at this time. However, San Francisco has seen evidence that the fishery elements of the Old River barrier are needed for protection of the San Joaquin River fall-run chinook salmon. Any other environmentally responsible actions that may be necessary to implement that measure in a manner consistent with the other beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta should be evaluated and implemented if that is what is required to allow installation of the fishery barrier. San Francisco supports the construction of operable barriers in the Southern Delta as a means to efficiently protect beneficial uses of water both within and outside the Delta. However, the Board must not lose sight of the fact that the San Joaquin River salinity is primarily influenced by discharges of salty agricultural return flows. Source control of saline agricultural waste discharges should remain a focus of the Board's effort to improve San Joaquin River salinity. As to key issue No. 4, the Board has asked whether the barrier will improve salmon smolt migration in the San Joaquin River during the spring. Based on the data currently available regarding the survival of smolt from the San Joaquin River, the Old River barrier will improve San Joaquin River salmon smolt migration. The Board should consider the information developed and submitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service during the testimony leading up to Draft Decision 1630, which supports the management of a barrier to prevent fish from entering Old River. Smolts which enter the Southwestern and Central Delta system are subject to longer migration paths, increased predation, direct exposure to entrainment at the export pumps, and additional diversion risk. A statement of quantifiable improvement to salmon smolt survival caused by the interplay of barrier operation, flow augmentation and export constraint has been and continued to be debatable. An equation developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the underlying data which consists of a limited set of coded-wire-tag data suggests that smolt which migrate through the lower San Joaquin River downstream of the bifurcation with Old River have a greater survival than smolts which enter the Central Delta through the Old River system. Additional monitoring and testing of smolt survival is required to define alternative combinations of barrier, flow and export to efficiently manage water and biological resources. However, we conclude that the Old River barrier can and will provide opportunities to protect salmon smolt. Simple intuition tells us that salvage of smolt at the export pumps is not the best method to protect the species when the smolts could be shunted away from the pumps with an Old River barrier. San Francisco also is concerned with the second part of the Board's question which specifically asks is the operation of the Old River barrier in combination with other objectives in the Bay-Delta Plan likely to double natural salmon production in the San Joaquin River basin. By making this statement, the Board appears to be suggesting that one purpose of the Bay-Delta Plan implementation program will be to achieve the doubling goal of State and Federal programs. However, the Bay-Delta Plan alone cannot be regarded as the determining factor of the outcome of the State and Federal fish-doubling objectives. The tools available within the Bay-Delta Plan such as barriers, flow augmentation and export constraints, are but a few of the measures that will affect the ability to double salmon production. Other additional actions are taking place outside the Bay-Delta process such as increased flows ordered by FERC and habitat improvements on tributary streams that will contribute to an improvement to salmon production. Therefore, the question would be more appropriately phrased as to whether or not the actions within the Bay-Delta Plan are consistent with the doubling program, and whether significant improvements to salmon production would be accomplished through the management measures within the control of the Bay-Delta Plan. In key issue No. 5, the Board asked what concerns should be evaluated. San Francisco appreciates the opportunity presented by this workshop to hear the concerns of the resource agencies about the operation of the Old River barrier so that these concerns can be re-evaluated and addressed. It's very regrettable that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not able to be here today for reasons beyond their control, but nevertheless, we hope that at some point they will take the opportunity to present their concerns to the Board and to the parties involved in this process so that there will be an ability to identify and respond to those concerns. The resource agencies need to identify their concerns and then work with the scientific community in developing specific questions to be answered by the monitoring and the monitoring and testing analysis that will answer those questions. It is our belief that the issues that require attention such as the effect of flow alterations on fishery resources should not be the reason to delay implementation of a permanent operable barrier. It is not the facilities themselves which need to be questioned, but rather, the operation of the facilities. The effects of the operation of facilities upon beneficial uses within the Delta may only become explainable through data that can only be acquired through actual operation of the facilities. Subsequent adaptive modifications of operations based on the findings of additional monitoring and analysis should be the standard operating procedure for these facilities. In key issue No. 6, the Board asks whether to require installation of any or all of the proposed barriers. San Francisco emphatically encourages the Board to use all the means within its power to advance the construction and operation of the barriers in the Southern Delta for the purpose of meeting the objectives of the Water Quality Control Plan. Anything short of implementation of an Old River barrier for the benefit of migrating salmon and potentially the agricultural barriers for water quality and water level improvements in the Southern Delta, may prevent full compliance with the Water Quality Control Plan's standards in a manner consistent with the principles for agreement, and would likely lead to water supply consequences that have not been evaluated. Without the barrier at Old River, enhanced flow at Vernalis would have limited effectiveness on smolt survival due to the natural and induced propensity for smolts to travel through the Old River system where they experience higher mortality. There was some recitation earlier of some of the State and Federal programs that have supported the installation of a fishery barrier by a previous speaker, and I wanted to add to that list the San Joaquin River management program created by State legislation to identify management opportunities to serve the various needs associated with the San Joaquin River. I had the privilege of participating in the fisheries subcommittee of that program, and I recall that the Old River barrier was chosen in that committee as one of the most promising, in fact, the most promising measure for the San Joaquin fisheries. Although the ranking of measures was not translated into the final shrimp report that was distributed to the public, I do recall being very impressed with the overwhelming support for the Old River barrier in that fisheries subcommittee. In sum, the installation of the fisheries barrier at Old River has the advantage of being a near-term action with the likelihood or providing a significant benefit to San Joaquin salmon runs while preserving the flexibility to learn and adapt the knowledge that can only be attained through experimental operation of the barrier. As indicated by the Joint Water Users and the San Joaquin Tributaries Association, construction and proper operation of the barriers in South Delta are inextricably related to the magnitude and timing of the flows needed on the San Joaquin River to protect fall-run salmon stocks. This element of implementation is, therefore, critical to the basis for agreement to the parties in the December 15, 1994, Accord. And that concludes my presentation. I would be happy to take any questions. MR. CAFFREY: Thanks very much, Ms. Hayashi. Are there questions from Board members? Nothing at this time. Anything from staff? Thank you very much for being here and providing us with your input. We appreciate it. Dave Schuster, representing Kern County Water Agency. Good afternoon, sir, and welcome. MR. SCHUSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. For the record, I am Dave Schuster and I am here today representing Kern County Water Agency. The purpose of my statement, and I will read what I wrote down here as notes, is to support the testimony that was made this morning by Allen Short and Dr. Horne. I guess an added purpose I have is just based on a feeling throughout the proceedings so far today, I think that testimony was really just great and I want to try to make that point more clear from my perspective and Kern County's perspective. One thing to look at in that statement is who is involved. We've got CUWA/Ag people that are not just the exporters, but contractors, Federal and State contractor exporters, but we also have people like East Bay MUD and others. We have got discussions going with the San Joaquin Tributaries Association, which Allen represented this morning, which was all the water users on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and the Merced. In addition, which the footnote says, the Friant water users are involved and the exchange contractors in the Los Banos area who take roughly 140,000 acre-feet a year are involved. I've been doing this for 30 years and this is the first time in my career that those types of people have ever sat down and talked to each other. I wanted to support or reinforce what Allen Short said this morning, put it in perspective. At this point in my career, it seems like all I do is negotiation with somebody about something so you get some sense of negotiations in terms of our chance of success. Although we have got some differences definitely that the parties have to resolve, we have some problems we jointly share technically knowing what we are talking about doing is possible or will result in what we want, but the thing that Allen says is real important and is interesting to watch as a participant is the attitude of all the participants on both sides, which I think is going to lead to some kind of a solution in that effort. Also, the Board will be involved in that process. We will probably end up coming to the Board with a package of actions including flows, of course, and a recommendation relative to not only what the Vernalis flows should be but how they can be met, which is probably one of the most important things we are dealing with. But the Board will have to involve implementation obviously, but also, there is going to be some uncertainty, I think, that we are going to have to address together in terms of where we go from here and what is the next step. Anyway, I am impressed. There were some questions this morning relative to who is not involved. One entity that is not involved yet, and I stress that, that must be involved is the Bureau of Reclamation, who has been talked about a lot probably because they have not been as noisy as Alex and Stockton East. In the sense that they operate New Melones Reservoir, have control, if you will, of the Stanislaus River, they are a player equal to those of us involved in the process and they will be brought into the process eventually and into that effort. As far as others, I don't want to get into a lot of detail, but I think -- and I wasn't here when Allen talked, but as I understand, what he said was basically the timing is not quite right, which I agree with. The people we are dealing with now are upstream of Vernalis. We've got to get our own act together, and getting our own act together does not mean a final solution which we cannot do without others being involved, especially South Delta Water Agency represented by Alex. Our meeting with Alex, I guess he mentioned that this morning. We have known each other for a long time so there is that exclusion as far as Stockton East is concerned, although I know he would disagree with this, most of their major issues are with the Bureau of Reclamation. Their issues have to be dealt with once you bring the Bureau in. So, we will not cut a deal in isolation and be cutting other people out, and I will explain why as I go through this, especially with respect to the South Delta Water Agency. I am doing this aloud because we have absolutely no contact, any of us in this room, have contact with the Board members outside of these workshops, and so I sort of want to take advantage of sharing with you to give you a feeling for what's happening outside this room. One of the things that is sort of interesting, and you heard joking this morning, I think Allen did it, in terms of the competition between the CUWA/Ag people in terms of who is going to get done first. A lot of things can be attributed to the December 15 agreement. I think one of the most important ones is that the agricultural community and the urban community, at least with respect to the Federal contractors and the State contractors are working well together. The differences that we have today are logical differences, you know, ability-to- pay type issues, those types of things that should be dealt with, but as far as at the policy level, we are working very well together and that is an aside just to give you some sense of that. One of the things we said in the testimony this morning was that we support the Old River barrier. Of course, that's no big surprise. It was part of the CUWA/Ag proposal which became part of the December 15 agreement as far as the Old River barrier, whether it should be built permanent and operational. I think what is really important, and which was not stressed that high this morning although it was very adequately dealt with by the Department, is that we want to understand the Old River barrier is for the purpose of protecting fall-run salmon primarily and survival of that species, which is good, but it must be dealt with in concert with a solution relative to the South Delta agricultural issues. The two must be tied together some way. The Department recommended building barriers to save time, and they know more about it than I do and I respect their argument, but at least the issues must be dealt with in a way that is satisfactory to the South Delta Water Agency and the Board in terms of meeting their objectives relative to the agriculture in that area and the fish objectives for the barrier. Of course, another reason, which I am just going to hit very lightly because it's really too early, is we will be bringing you a package sometime next year when appropriate, in which we will consider a solution to the San Joaquin River issue. That package will include flows and it will also include other actions like the Old River barrier and will be very important, in our opinion, both the San Joaquin Tributaries people and ourselves, in terms of solving some of the fishery issues relative to the San Joaquin. But, you know, that statement basically said we want to solve the South Delta problems at the same time we solve the salmon problem on the San Joaquin side. The initial reaction from the San Joaquin people, which are understandable, is we don't want to bring the South Delta in. It makes it more complicated, makes it less likely we will get the Old River barrier built, but this morning you had a joint statement from both basically making that statement, a very flat one-sentence statement which took about three weeks to get agreement on. Why do we from the State Water Project people side, Kern County and probably the other contractors, I can say with some confidence, why do we feel any allegiance to the South Delta in solving that problem? If we wanted to play political games, which some of us are good at, we could allow the process that's going on right now which is relative to the environmental protections, we could allow that momentum to ride over the South Delta. We did not do that, we made a condition of our support with the San Joaquin people of solving Alex's problem in some kind of reasonable way. I think we know respectively where we both are. We have a commitment. There is a history for the Board members, you know, after the Peripheral Canal loss in '82, after the efforts to build the through-Delta canal, which clearly went down which we all remember, there was an effort led by Dave Kennedy to say there were a number of issues in the Delta that were complicating, if you will, those kinds of legislative efforts that could be solved now without the key issue, which is a canal or whatever the mystical facility is going to be in the Delta. The Suisun Marsh was one of them. How you could split the obligation to meet Delta standards between the Federal Project and the State Project was another one, and South Delta Water Agency agricultural needs. There are impacts, specifically the water levels and possibly quality. I don't feel like an expert in terms of water quality. Why don't we try to solve those problems in the interim before another effort which is now occurring toward solving the Delta fish, and there was a major effort supported by the State and Congress to solve some problems. We came to agreement, you know, we meaning DWR, and the Bureau and the South Delta Water Agency, on a physical way to solve their agricultural problems, both level and quality, which is placing these barriers. We have a limit to meet those agreements, we, the State Water Contractors, are fully behind and actually involved in the negotiations that led to them, so we are not walking away from that commitment. And that problem needs to be solved as well as the fishery issues, which is equally legitimate. I don't mean to minimize the fishery issues. I am just saying both have to be done at the same time, so we are concerned about South Delta agriculture and that needs to be addressed. One of the things that is the most important thing that was said in there pertains to what the Department of Fish and Game said today, and I am going to be focusing on them because they are the only fishery agency that made the effort to make a substantive statement to this Board today. We committed to finance facilities and we include the State Water Project Contractors and the Central Valley Project Contractors, both the Old River barrier for fisheries and the South Delta barriers for agricultural purposes, which is probably around a 30 million dollar commitment, using DWR's estimates, rough estimates, and we committed that with the condition we are willing to build those permanent facilities, put them in place, and we are willing to basically use them as test facilities as opposed to what the Department of Fish and Game recommended, which is what we have been doing for the last ten years, which is basically temporary barriers, and get real-time data, if you will, in terms of how to answer the concerns raised by the Fish and Game, and they are not the only ones. They just happen to be the only one that spoke to you today. That's significant. That was not an easy decision to make. I have less feel for the Federal side than I do for the State side. Every one of us on the State side, and I believe this occurred on the Federal contractors' side, we didn't do that flippantly. We did that with full support. We did that with a lot of discussion; are we really willing to take that risk? And that's what that risk is, that we build these facilities which we believe will work and that is one of the reasons we are willing to take the risk. And if the biological data to be collected after that proves they shouldn't be operated, that would be the worst- case scenario because they harm the fisheries, and therefore, would not be operated, and we have wasted the 30 million dollars. Both from our standpoint and the South Delta people's standpoint, and to some extent the fish, do we want to take that risk? The answer came back, yes, not in one day by the way. There was a lot of discussion and there's again, a one-sentence flat statement in that testimony that says that. That is a big deal. In recognition of that, which I find interesting, not just because I'm involved in it, but also the policy people, is the learning process that occurred during the negotiations of the December 15 agreement relative to the biological, firmness of it, which is usually used by water people in the negative, but also positive, you know, things you can learn, becoming more comfortable in the fact it's never going to be absolutely firm. Science doesn't allow that, which is a reality, and they were willing to take that risk. And to some extent, we are saying that, and I don't mean this harshly at all and I don't want to come across that way, but Fish and Game raised a lot of concerns that they have relative to how these barriers, both the South Delta and Old River barrier may affect the fisheries. Our sense is that the biological data is not adequate on that side of the Delta to justify those concerns. However, the converse is also true. Biology indicates it is not firm enough for us to prove conclusively those barriers will work and their concerns are not valid. The only way we are going to be able to find out together would be to build the barriers, develop a good sound monitoring program to answer questions that are being raised and operate the facilities accordingly. And to develop the bottom line would be to develop an operational scenario that would be beneficial to fish and meet the objectives relative to South Delta agriculture. That's what we will be trying to do together with the fishery agencies. I am hoping I am coming clear. I have never seen that occur before either in terms of risk taking and also the trust that we are capable of doing it, not only with ourselves, but also, Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service and others. There's a condition. I'm sorry, one thing I want to say before I go to the condition is we don't want to do what Fish and Game says, the temporary barrier program, just throw a bunch or rocks in there and take them out, very little flexibility in terms of a scientific study. We want to build these facilities which will give you a lot more flexibility. A very easy example and I don't want to be misleading because some of the other issues Fish and Game raised are not going to be this easily addressed. For example, they were concerned about the Old River barrier that upstream migrating adults might be trapped behind that closed facility. Well, today, there is not much you can do about that other than take the barrier out, which is physically a difficult thing to do. You don't want to put it back in because it is too expensive pulling those rocks out of there. Here we have a permanent barrier and we can open it and let those fish go through if that concern becomes valid, and whether it is a valid concern or not, it needs to be answered, and then close them again for other purposes, so they provide the operational flexibility to basically answer the concerns they have through a scientific study program, and also, be able to react to answers to those studies to find out these concerns are valid. I can't speak for Alex, and I don't mean that in any way other than what I just said. My understanding from Alex, and he and I have been talking as part of this process of making sure that people do not feel they are cut out of the process and Alex is not surprised where we are going. I can learn and I have, and I continue to learn a lot from Alex in terms of the issues we must look at as we move forward in this process. And Alex, I think, is willing to build the South Delta barriers with the same kind of commitment that we are making, scientifically operating them to find out what the answers really are in terms of impacts on the fisheries, and taking that risk from his perspective, although I don't think there is much risk and neither does Alex, that they don't work. Maybe all the concerns raised by the fisheries are right and we can't operate them so we have wasted 30 million dollars. Of course, Alex isn't wasting any money. It's a little easier for him, but it is important to him in the sense he is representing the South Delta people and has been doing it for years and cares, and so that outcome is that we can't operate those barriers, and the solution he and the DWR and others, the Bureau of Reclamation and the rest of us, came up with don't work, then he is stuck back where he was before, negatively impacted in terms of water levels by the project pumping and no real solution to this quality problem, so it is a risk to Alex. I want to express one other thing in terms of our commitment to finance these facilities, to test these facilities to see whether they work primarily from a fishery standpoint, but also, from the standpoint whether they provide the benefits we are looking for from an agricultural standpoint, which we are pretty sure it is, but it is conditional; that is, not conditional with the Board but conditional with the folks that we are dealing with, and many of them are here in the room. We are not going to do that without knowing, first of all, how they are going to be studied. We have spent a lot of money on the temporary barriers, especially for South Delta, and we have learned very very little. We have the same biological questions that we had going into it, and we have some additional ones that are legitimate. So, our condition is basically that we will build those or we will support DWR and the Bureau. We are not the ones building them, we will support financing through those two entities. We want to have something up front that is very very firm. We include all regulatory agencies and all those that we need to respond to, the questions that are valuable that need to be answered, and any scientific study that we choose that is really well thought out. We won't be the ones doing it but we will have input into it, and how that scientific study would be implemented after the barriers are built. We are not willing to go into this hoping it will be done correctly. One thing I have to make sure that is not only clear to you folks but the fishery people -- I understand and I think we understand that any scientific study that we would have as we are going into this will have to be changed as we learn through the process, and I am certainly not mandating in any way that wouldn't happen and we will take that risk. We want to have a clear idea of what we are doing as we go into this process. Finally, I found something that the Board had in their announcement to this process interesting. You asked the question whether the Board should mandate construction of failures. I think it was pertaining to the South Delta, and you know, the question related to the Board's authority of mandating anything physically has been around for years; and of course, our response is, again, traditionally and it's still the same, is no, you don't have that kind of authority to mandate anything in terms of forcing, and there's a lot of different arguments for that whether I am speaking for the Bureau, or I am speaking for the State Contractors and for the South Delta, you are sort of stuck with the standpoint, which is where we have been for 15 or 20 years we have been working on this problem. You can mandate standards, which I think the Department did a good job of explaining. Fine, we can't meet them, so it is really not that relevant to us and the only thing we can do is put in the barriers and I think there's still uncertainty which the Department shared with you. But you added something to this statement, what if the barriers were built through this other mechanism, then does the Board have the authority -- I'm not sure how you said it, but does the Board have some say in terms of how those barriers are operated after they are built? MR. DEL PIERO: Or order their removal in the event they don't work. MR. SCHUSTER: It wouldn't be removal, just open the gates up. MS. FORSTER: Place conditions on. MR. DEL PIERO: Interesting legal argument. MR. SCHUSTER: Yes. I don't want to get into this. MR. DEL PIERO: You and Barbara can argue about it. MR. SCHUSTER: This is just me talking. This is not Kern County Water Agency as a whole talking about it. In essence, if you look at it in the real simple sense, it's what we are doing now. We built the reservoirs, you are having impacts on how they are operating, not just this Board but the Board's historically, and just the way I think about it, you have to figure out some way to provide the environmental or agricultural, drinking water quality, the beneficial uses you are trying to maintain, but you have to figure out an economic way of doing that. There is a balancing argument you have to do with the existing facilities. If the facilities change because somebody builds something, now you have a new system and you redo that. My sense is you probably do have the authority. I'm not sure you want to, but I think you probably do then have authority. The only reason I raise that is that there is some assurance if we bring this process back to you both in terms of the South Delta and the fisheries, the Board is not being cut out. I want to make it clear that we are not here today for the purpose of asking the Board to mandate it. It's a chance which the Board provides us, and we appreciate it, to talk about these issues in a workshop forum and share what's going on here with others. We, the water users, both the tributary people and the Federal and State Contractors, have felt a little bit cut out of the process that was being done between the regulatory agencies, and we have learned a lot coming into this process, so I appreciate the forum. I want to make sure it is clear we are not asking you to solve this problem. It's basically an informational standpoint. But I do find your idea whether you have control and I'm not sure what the right word is to use -- MR. DEL PIERO: Since the barriers propose to raise the water level in the channel, does that necessitate a water rights since the raising of the water allows for appropriation of water that might not otherwise be there? MR. SCHUSTER: I understand the question. I am not sure I am the right one to answer it. MR. DEL PIERO: I don't want you to answer. I'm sitting here thinking about it. MR. SCHUSTER: I actually got some reaction to it, not necessarily negative. MR. DEL PIERO: The Department is having some fits over there. MR. SCHUSTER: I will take your statement and not answer the question. That's basically it. Hopefully I got everything I wanted to get done. I really think what we said in connection with what the Department said in terms of a technical background, which we could not have done, was very important, especially given the broadness of the players that we are talking to through Allen and Wiley, and should be seriously considered. I think we have a shot at solving this problem, hopefully back to you with a much broader package than just the Old River barrier. MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. Your comments about, and I will use the words historic aspect or specter of who is talking to each, and they are having these discussions, and apparently the willingness to cooperate that we hear about has certainly not gone unnoticed by this Board, and we had a discussion with Mr. Clark this morning and I think you might have been here for some of that, and we are very impressed on the Board and really appreciate that effort, and you know our charge in the law is to make sure that all people who identify themselves as part of these proceedings are satisfied to the extent that this umbrella of agreement that seems to be ever-expanding that you are working on, to the extent that you could include all those parties, that sounds like you will be close to a solution with the possibility of not a lot of input from this Board. That is a possibility that we will have to see as we go along where this takes us, and as I told Mr. Clark and others this morning, we are certainly going to do everything we can to accommodate this process as best we can, and we will not compromise anybody's rights or due process, and that is certainly our charge, so we really appreciate the efforts and are very impressed with what we hear. Thank you and all the others. Are there questions from Board members? MR. SCHUSTER: Could I respond to that a little bit? One is, I guess we understand that you are praying for us. Making a distinction a little bit again only for the purpose of providing information to the members, San Joaquin and Sacramento are somewhat different in the context of your point. I agree with you, of course, that all those who have been involved that can be impacted by any kind of decision have to be in agreement with that or at least bring some conflict to the Board that you will have to resolve. Pertinent to that and something I didn't mention, we can solve, for example, the fishery issues in terms of flows at Vernalis, which is in your plan. In terms of a solution, a logical response from the water users upstream would be to reduce flows to Vernalis in July and August, which is the action they would take in terms of use of groundwater and water conservation stuff, which would reduce return flows which is a major portion in some years of the flow at Vernalis in July and August, which Alex enjoys. That would hurt quality and would hurt Alex. It also would reduce flows to use for pumping south, so those things all have to be dealt with, so I want to stress, if I didn't make it clear before, people like Alex -- and as far as that goes, people like Stockton East, will be dealt with. They have to be dealt with. Sacramento is even harder. San Joaquin is a little easier because you've got many many fewer players and at least among themselves they have a history of working together, and some of the people on the other side of the table, like Friant water users, we have been working together for years, so it is a smaller group. The Sacramento side is difficult and I am speaking for Rich Golb now and I am not speaking in criticism. There's a lot of people, and that is foremost on both sides' attitude in terms of trying to solve this in a way that when we bring it to you it doesn't blow up in your face and ours at the same time. MR. CAFFREY: I think you put it succinctly, we are praying for you. MR. SCHUSTER: I am praying for me, too. MR. CAFFREY: Are there other questions of Mr. Schuster? Anything from staff? Thank you very much, Mr. Schuster, I appreciate your input and help. I am going to have to work for a moment with Mr. Pettit on administrative matters, so I will have to excuse myself for a short while, hopefully a short while, and the proceedings will continue with Vice Chair Forster presiding, so with that, I will excuse myself and I apologize. I will be back as quickly as I can. MS. FORSTER: I am going to give everybody a two- minute stretch. (Short recess) Now that everybody is all refreshed, I have a card here from Glen Birdzell, Deputy Director, Municipal Utilities for Stockton. MR. BIRDZELL: Madam Vice Chair, Board members, my name is Glen Birdzell, Deputy Director, Municipal Utilities in the City of Stockton. I do not represent Stockton East and I know Alex Hildebrand as a friend and associate in the area. I don't know if that makes me politically correct, but possibly politically acceptable. You have heard numerous references to the City of Stockton and its involvement with South Delta, and if nothing else, I think it is very apparent that the City of Stockton is a major stakeholder on water quality issues in the South Delta. We are very happy to be here today to discuss the water quality issues of the barriers and dissolved oxygen, and we are also very interested in any water quality issue, including salinity, but today I will limit my lengthy five minutes of discussion to just the dissolved oxygen. We are very happy that on the dissolved oxygen you are going to have a focused workshop in February. We feel that issue has taken kind of a back seat in the Bay-Delta proceedings, and that by bringing it forward in a focused group, we will be able to make a very thorough presentation in February. We are evaluating currently numerous alternatives dealing with the issue of dissolved oxygen, such as the use of Bay-Delta Accord flows to predict dissolved oxygen scenarios. I say that we are predicting these and we are doing this through the use of a fairly sophisticated San Joaquin River water quality model that the City of Stockton has developed, and we are mentioning that at this time because we are offering it to the State Board staff in a cooperative and collaborative effort to evaluate scenarios and alternatives concerning the dissolved oxygen issue. We see it as the best tool available in the area that this model describes, currently available, and we have had this developed by Dr. Carl Chen. It was delivered to the City of Stockton in 1993. At that particular time, it's the only model we were aware of that could evaluate by directional flow and has been calibrated extensively. We have a couple of exhibits to show you the extent of the area that it covers as far as what we would be able to evaluate. And you will see that it is a link model. It actually starts at the lower portion of the overhead there at Old River where the Old River rock barrier went in and then goes on up to the mainstem of San Joaquin River past Turner Cut. I mention these locations, one, because the barrier is an issue today, and from Turner Cut to Stockton is a water quality objective of six during part of the year and five during the rest of the year, so this appears to be a critical point in this Delta region because of the variance in the dissolved oxygen water quality objectives that are in the basin plans. We are able to evaluate this. We have evaluated it. The model has been calibrated. This overhead shows the sampling locations that we have been collecting data in for several years. We will be showing you later some information on two of the locations on this -- or three locations, which is the settling basin which happens to be a point in the San Joaquin River where the river transitions from a fairly shallow narrow flowing body of water into the Stockton Ship Channel, and we have some information to share at that point. This model has been verified and we will be using a year's worth of information showing the verification. This is one chart at the R-3 location. The dots show the actual concentration of dissolved oxygen and the solid line is the computer simulation of dissolved oxygen at that site. The model, as you can see, is fairly accurate. There are some inconsistencies, but it is well within the reason of any modeling person we have been able to discuss this with, the accuracy that this model will be able to predict. We have provided documentation to this model to the DWR staff, the modelers of the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation. It's a document that we will provide at cost to anyone that's interested in seeing the documentation and the validation of the model. We have also provided documentation of this model to Mr. Howard. Again, we bring this up because we do wish to work cooperatively and to develop various scenarios on the effects of the barrier, or no barrier or any other possible scenario in the dissolved oxygen at South Stockton. At this point, I would like to mention that we are basically here to talk about the flow regime, or about the barrier and its effect on oxygen in the San Joaquin by Stockton. And whether or not there is an effect, I believe it was your question 3, and we are here to say quite simply and very directly, yes, and then to show the charts that we feel demonstrate this point. Again, we are going to that station R-3 and I would like to take a few moments to explain this chart. The information tracing across the top is based on the actual flows at Vernalis, and the flows you are seeing charted there are flows that are calculated at Stockton from actual flows at Vernalis. The top dotted line is an indication of the flows that would be going past Stockton if a barrier was in place, and the solid is an indication of the flow that would be going past Stockton if the barrier was not in place. The period of time, as you can see, is from July, 1990, to June, 1991. The actual flows in the San Joaquin River at that period of time were calculated flows at Stockton and would basically be represented for the majority of the years by the solid line. When the barrier was in, then we would have switched to the dotted line. We are not definitely positive or certain exactly when the barrier went in in 1990 or when it was taken out. We have conflicting information on that, so we were unable to really indicate it to you. However, if you will notice in September when normally the barrier was in and where we had information the barrier went in, the dissolved oxygen went up from basically 4-1/2, 4.9, well up into the 6's, and this is an indication that the barrier did have an effect. The other thing that's important, the bottom tracing is the actual dissolved oxygen in little circles, and then the tracings are the predictions of the barrier in and with no barrier in. The other thing that we can see is when there is a negative flow in the San Joaquin River, it's quite apparent there is a depression in the dissolved oxygen fairly quickly. So, these are the things that we are able to predict with this model. We feel that the various scenarios for the barrier would indicate that a barrier year round would possibly be advisable. We feel that there's a need for more study. We feel with the Bay-Delta Accord and with the concerns of the fishery industry, the concerns of agriculture, there are many scenarios that we could place in this model and come up with some prediction of what could be expected, and we wish to offer this as a tool to the State Board for their evaluation. We wish to recommend the barrier be installed. We feel it has to be an operational barrier. We feel that the barrier will have significant beneficial effects on the dissolved oxygen levels in the San Joaquin River in the area of Stockton. Or if the barrier is not installed, then there must be some equivalent measures taken to increase the flows at the City of Stockton. We are not saying that the barriers are the entire or the only solution, but we think they are probably part of the solution to correct the water quality objectives of the dissolved oxygen in and near Stockton. With that, I think I have concluded the substance or part of any comments I have had in trying to keep it short and not reiterate what I think you have heard several times, the agreement that the barriers are a very viable thing from various departments of the State. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. MS. FORSTER: Staff? MR. HOWARD: Just for clarification purposes, the dots are the observed dissolved oxygen, the lines is no- barrier model run with the hydrology that was actually in place in 1991? MR. BIRDZELL: With the hydrology, the dotted line, the hydrology on the top, the dotted line, compared to the concentration -- the hydrology was compared to the DO concentration on the dotted line. Those are directly comparative, yes. MR. HOWARD: Have you been able to do any model runs under the conditions as proposed under the new Water Quality Control Plan? MR. BIRDZELL: We are currently preparing those, and they will be prepared in February to discuss those at some length. MR. HOWARD: Thank you. MS. FORSTER: Okay, thanks very much. William Johnston, San Joaquin Tributaries Association. MR. JOHNSTON: Madam Chair and Board members, my name is William R. Johnston and today I am representing the San Joaquin Tributaries Association and its member agencies, Merced, Modesto, Oakdale, South San Joaquin and Turlock Irrigation Districts. And these comments have also been prepared in cooperation with the Friant Water Users Authority and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. You have a copy of our written comments and you have heard a lot of the things that we have said previously today, so I will try and summarize our comments. In regard to key issue 1, the San Joaquin Tributaries Association believes that in many instances the barriers will not protect the Delta agriculture from salinity that moves downstream to the Delta in the San Joaquin River. The salinity is in most parts due to saline agricultural drainage discharges that originate on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in the Central Valley Project service area, and we believe the only way to eliminate this problem is to export the saline drainage water from the valley through an isolated facility. I wanted to make sure you got that point. In regard to key issue 2, we believe that the parties to this proceeding that reside in the Delta region have the best information about the effect of the barriers on agricultural operations in the Delta, and you have heard comments on that today from Mr. Hildebrand and others. In regard to key issue No. 3 in regard to the improved DO levels, you have just heard from the City of Stockton. We believe that a barrier has to help that, improve the dissolved oxygen levels in the river below the split of Old River and San Joaquin River. In regard to key issue 4, will the Old River barrier improve salmon smolt migration in the San Joaquin River during the spring? The prevailing expert opinion is that a permanent operable Old River barrier that is closed during the time out-migrating San Joaquin basin salmon smolt are passing the San Joaquin River-Old River split will significantly improve salmon smolt survival during the spring out-migration. You have heard extensively the reasons for this. I have with me Dr. Emil Morhardt from E. A. Science and Technology and I would like to have him present some expert comments on the importance of the Old River barrier and the survival of San Joaquin basin salmon. After Dr. Morhardt speaks, I will come back and talk about key issues 5 and 6. MR. MORHARDT: Thank you very much, Bill. Members of the Board, what I would like to do this afternoon is briefly summarize all of the information that we think is pertinent on the effect that an operable barrier at the head of Old River would have on the success of the downstream migration of San Joaquin River chinook salmon smolts. I would like to begin with a little diagram that summarizes all the things I am going to talk about, and fundamentally, most of these things have been talked about today, so I will try to do it fairly rapidly. The basis of our logic is, with the existing situation with no barrier, smolt survival is much better in the San Joaquin River than in the South Delta. The Fish and Game Department talked about that today. There are two pieces of independent data which speak to that question. One is the smolt survival study Fish and Game released, both at the head of Old River and in the San Joaquin River downstream from the head of Old River. These are, in our opinion, by far the best studies that have been done looking at differential mortality because they are fully scientifically controlled, unlike the subsequent studies that have been done in which fish were released and then subsequently a barrier was put in and entirely different conditions occurred when fish were later released. The other piece of information is smolt survival studies done just in the San Joaquin River, which were also referred to by Fish and Game earlier, and what they show is that the farther downstream in the San Joaquin River the salmon smolts are released, the better they survive, and what I will show is that is probably due to the fact they have less chance of getting into the South Delta the farther downstream they are released. The second point is that most of the water goes down Old River right now, and this is based on both 1986 net-flow equations prepared by DWR and also by this year's simulation runs by DWR, and I will have a graph showing the results of that. Would a barrier help? We know a barrier would block the direct route to the South Delta, and to the export pumps for that matter. So, I haven't addressed that much. Clearly that would be a benefit. We have taken the data that B. J. Miller used from the Flow Science particle tracking model and used it to illustrate that a barrier greatly decreases the chances of particles ending up in the South Delta over about a two-week period, actually for longer than that. The next point is that we have also presented some data on smolt releases by the Interagency Ecological Program showing that 75 percent of the smolts out-migrate in about two weeks, in fact, 90 percent out-migrate in about 20 days, so they are moving fairly rapidly through the Delta. Finally, in order to convert these things to what the real question is, how would all this affect escapement? We have taken the Fish and Wildlife Service smolt survival model looking at the differential mortality in Old River and the San Joaquin River, and then run it through each population simulation model, which allows us to estimate escapement resulting from a particular set of smolts being released, and what that model shows is that a barrier greatly increases the Delta escapement. We would agree, of course, there are lots of other things other than a barrier that can be done and probably should be done to increase escapement, but interestingly, in these model runs, the barrier itself with no other changes did an extremely good job. Let me start with the first point. These are all in the handout I gave you, and I realize the words aren't legible, but what this figure shows, and this is from the release studies, shows the differential survival of smolts going down the San Joaquin River at Old River, over in the box on the left at six separate releases done between 1986 and 1990. Each of these data points represent one release, and these are 95 percent confidence intervals about the releases. These data appear in Table 13 of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1991 Annual Progress Report, but we had to go back to the original sources of the data in order to calculate confidence intervals and we used both ocean recapture data and 12 data from Chipps Island. The 100-percent level shown by the dotted lines means that the survival was identical in the San Joaquin River and in Old River; 200 pct means they were twice as good in the San Joaquin River, et cetera. Notice that for all the releases except one there was significantly better survival in the San Joaquin River, and in one case it was 450 percent better. In one case there it was impossible to distinguish between the two possibilities. We simply took the means of all these, averaged them together and put a confidence interval around those showing that there's about 229 percent better overall survival in the San Joaquin River, so it is clearly not good to get down into the South Delta for salmon smolts. This is another piece of independent information which points to the same question. These are also smolt releases. These are all in the San Joaquin River and downstream from the head of Old River, and the top graph is the probability of smolts arriving at Chipps Island, the probability of survival at Chipps Island and, in fact, it's actually the recapture of fish at Chipps Island. And it shows that over the span of river from Dos Reis to the release point of about 15 miles downstream from Dos Reis, there isn't much increase in survival, which suggests, in fact, that it's not mortality in the San Joaquin River that's causing the problem, at least not in this reach; that as one gets past some of the channels through which smolts could get into the South Delta, the survival at Chipps Island goes up until finally it reaches this level. Now, the concept that what is going on is that these fish are going through these cuts into the South Delta, is supported by the second graph which looks at the probability of smolts arriving at the State's Water Project export pumps which were used simply because there is data there that's a sampling mechanism for which there are data on smolts. Notice that on that same 15-mile stretch of river there's essentially no increase in the chance of those fish getting into the pumps, but as we go downstream past these cuts, the farther downstream we get, the lower the probability there is of the fish getting into the South Delta and getting picked up at the export pumps. Finally, an identical graph right below it for the CVP project shows a result which is kind of radically different, but we believe it is an artifact. The order of magnitude of this point is much higher in absolute terms than the order of magnitude of the point at the SWP pumps. It appears then in this release in which we are looking at the recoveries of the Central Valley Project salvage pumps, there must have been reverse flows in Dos Reis and many of these fish must have been swept back into Old River. We don't see the same effect for the same release at the SWP pumps, probably because when the fish go down Old River, the first place they encounter is the Central Valley Project pumps, but after that notice the same effect of decreasing chances of arrival at the pumps. The second basic point we want to make is that more flow naturally goes down Old River. There's sort of a feeling which has been around, I think, for a long time with people working in the system that if it were possible to put a lot of water down the San Joaquin River, somehow or other that would prevent any water from going down Old River, which would shoot the fish out of the San Joaquin River and protect them. The reality is, based on DWR's net-flow equations, under all conditions at least 59 percent of the water goes down Old River, 59 percent of the water coming down the San Joaquin River, and it can get a lot higher. This shows the percentage as a function of flows at Vernalis and the export rates, and it shows that, in fact, you can get 100 percent of Vernalis flow going down Old River without a barrier if you have sufficiently low flow in the San Joaquin River and high export rates. Now, that is all well and good for net-flow equations, but what would have happened under real circumstances, fortunately DWR did some simulations earlier this year looking at the past seven years at the percentage of water that would have gone down Old River had the Water Quality Control Plan rules on exports and flows been in effect and had the barriers been in place. These dark vertical bars are barriers in place in the model, and the narrow ones are barriers in place at the time of the spring smolt out-migration, and you can see that during spring out- migration somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the water would have been going down Old River during the last seven years had the current Water Quality Control Plan flows and export rules been in effect. So, it is not good for smolts to get down to the South Delta. Since at least 70 percent of the water is going down there, in fact, the smolts wouldn't be going down there, at least 70 percent of them. Now, there aren't any data that show directly what would have happened to these smolts if there had been a barrier in place. It seems to us that the best way to simulate that is to look at the particle tracking model which are neutrally buoyant particles, in fact, salt particles that are in the model at Vernalis and this is the probability that they show up at the export pumps with and without a barrier as a function of Vernalis flows, flows in the San Joaquin River and export rates. These are based on B. J. Miller's 1994 study which is based on runs made by Flow Science. These show that without the barrier for seven days, they are seven-day runs, we have seven days and fourteen days, the chances of particles arriving at the export pumps are something like around 30 percent at fairly low exports and go up to around almost 50 percent at moderate exports, 6,000 cfs; and notice that, in fact, changes of Vernalis flows has no effect whatever, in fact, it's an opposite counterintuitive effect there. You actually increase the chances of reaching the export pumps by increasing the Vernalis flows. But with the barrier, which is the lower diagram, there's effectively a substantially diminished chance of particles reaching the pumps. In fact, it's essentially zero over most of the flows shown. Now, we also show the results for 14 days. They are essentially identical except that there is a small effect of Vernalis flows and, in fact, again there is a very substantial decrease in the chances of particles reaching the pumps over the 14-day period. The reason that these are important is to answer the question of whether or not somehow or other, because of the water flowing up Turner Cut and other cuts that would be flowing more because of the barrier, whether or not somehow all of the fish anyway would just end up in the South Delta. Well, the particles won't, evidently, at least over a 14-day period, so it seems pretty likely that the fish wouldn't automatically do that either. But, of course, the question is how fast do the fish normally get out of the system, and this is another set of smolt-release studies done by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This is a compilation of all of the data on smolts released in the mouth of Merced, the Stanislaus and the Tuolumne Rivers in 1988, 1986, 1987 and 1990. That's not in chronological order, I know. And what it shows is the time it takes for smolts after they have been released in the mouths of these rivers to get to Chipps Island. So, it includes the passage time from the mouth of the rivers down to the head of Old River and beyond. And this graph with the hatched marks on it is a cumulative frequency diagram, and what it shows is that the first fish arrive at Chipps Island after about five days, 50 percent of them arrive about 11 days later, 90 percent of them arrive 20 days later, and 100 percent of the ones that were captured arrived about 26 days later. The probability density function here shows that the most probable time of arrival is about ten days. So the fish are swimming out of the system quite rapidly and it seems as though the 14-day particle tracking model is giving a reasonably good view of what might happen on average. Finally, what would happen to the adult population as a result of putting a barrier in? Well, we don't really know but we have two things we can do to sort of make a guess at it. We can use the Fish and Wildlife Service smolt survival model to get the differential mortality going down Old River or going down the San Joaquin River, and we can use the DWR net-flow equations to determine where the water would have gone with or without the barrier, and then we can do some model runs using Each population simulation model. This is what we have done. The top photograph is without the barrier, the bottom graph is with the barrier. The solid line is the modeled population for a real period of time, 1973 through 1991 without the barrier and with the existing flows. And the lines with little symbols on them are what the model says would have happened to the population had a variety of different flow regimes been tried, and probably the important one is the open triangles -- I guess that's new exports. The closed triangles are behind the open triangles on the top, which would be the Water Quality Control Plan flows. And you can see that under all these conditions some of the time you are getting a doubling of population, but not all the time, which reinforces what we think is true, that it is necessary to do things other than just manipulate flows in order to increase the salmon population. You probably have to do things in the rivers, but interestingly enough, just by putting the barrier in you get a very substantial increase in the size of the escapement if you believe the way this model works, and it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which one of the flow regimes you use. In all cases you are getting well over a doubling of the salmon population. So, if Fish and Wildlife survival model is correct and if the Each model is simulating correctly, it looks like this may have a very profound effect on the escapement of the salmon in the San Joaquin system. Thank you. MS. FORSTER: Member Brown has a question. MR. BROWN: Has this data been discussed with the CVPIA people? MR. MORHARDT: Most of the data -- I don't know the answer to that. Do you want to answer that? MR. JOHNSTON: The data all came from the State Board records and Fish and Wildlife records and is just a rehash of that, and we have not discussed the reformation and the material that we have just presented here specifically as it is presented. MR. BROWN: They have done a programmatic EIR on that right now and it would be interesting to know their comments or discuss it with them. MR. JOHNSTON: We will do that. MR. MORHARDT: I think most of the points that we are making here were made earlier today actually by people in the Agency. MR. HOWARD: Could I ask a question? MS. FORSTER: Sure. MR. HOWARD: Could you give us a little more detail on why you believe the paired studies are more valuable than subsequent studies that were done in '92 through '95 when the temporary barrier was actually in place? MR. MORHARDT: The reason is these are completely controlled, the fish were released at the same time so water temperatures were the same, flow rates were the same, everything that could be the same was. In the subsequent studies without the barrier, the fish were released before the barrier was in place, then it was put in and some time later when the temperatures were different and flows were different, and God knows what else was different, and this is a very difficult kind of study to do anyway. If operable barriers were in place, it might be possible to devise some kind of experimental regime which would allow you to randomly select when you made which releases and how you made them. It might allow you to make a number of releases during the same year and at least factor out the effect of temperature. But when you are doing studies one after another and you are only doing two studies, and you really can't control any of the other things that are going on in the system, it is very hard to get clean data. MR. HOWARD: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: In finishing our comments in regard to key issue 5, prior to today the only concerns we were aware of were the water level and salinity issues which we and others have addressed, and the use of San Joaquin River water to push Delta smelt away from the export pumps. In regard to using San Joaquin River water to push the smelt away from the pumps, Dr. Peter Moyle, a Delta smelt expert from U. C. Davis, has commented that, during times of high abundance Delta smelt were widely distributed throughout the Delta, but even then the numbers were usually low on the San Joaquin side. He further stated, this phenomenon was recognized in the Delta native fisheries recovery plan which includes distributional criteria as a way of evaluating recovery of the smelt. The portion of the Delta important to Delta smelt was divided into three zones; Sacramento River, Suisun Bay and North Central Delta. The South Delta was not included because catches of smelt in trawls have been too infrequent to be meaningful. Now, in addition, the March, 1995, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Delta smelt and the smelt critical habitat and the Sacramento splittail stated, it is our biological and conference opinion that the proposed long-term combined CVP and SWP operations as modified by the winter-run Biological Opinion, the Principles of Agreement and the Draft Water Quality Control Plan, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Delta smelt and the proposed threatened Sacramento splittail, or adversely modify the critical habitat for the Delta smelt. If you recall, the Old River barrier has been a recommendation of all the documents referred to in that opinion. Now, in regard to key issue 6, should the State Board either require the installation of any or all of the proposed barriers, or place conditions on their operation as the result of its water right proceedings? Not taking into consideration whether or not you have the authority to do that, we believe the State Board should both require the installation of permanent operable barriers as soon as possible along with specific operating criteria for the barriers in order to protect both Delta water quality for all beneficial uses and to protect the out- migrating San Joaquin basin salmon smolt to the fullest extent possible. We believe that the issues that have been discussed here demonstrate fully that the barrier will be beneficial, not only to the San Joaquin out-migrating smolts but to the other issues that are facing us in the Delta. And that concludes our comments and we would be happy to answer any questions if there are any. MS. FORSTER: Any questions? Thanks very much. The next card I have is Richard Denton from Contra Costa Water District. We have three more cards. MR. DENTON: Madam Vice Chair and members of the Board, I am Dr. Richard Denton. I am the Water Resource Manager of the Contra Costa Water District, and the District appreciates this opportunity to comment today on the need for physical barriers in the Southern Delta to protect beneficial uses of water. We have submitted written comments to you today and I will try and summarize some of those comments. The District supplies municipal and industrial water to about 400,000 customers in the Central and Eastern portions of Contra Costa County. At the moment, our main existing drinking water intake is Rock Slough, and we also have under construction at this point as part of our Los Vaqueros project, an intake on Old River at Highway 4, and both of these intakes are in the region that is likely to be impacted by the proposed barriers, the head of Old River barrier and the Southern Delta agricultural barriers. With respect to key issues No. 1 and No. 2 regarding the proposed South Delta barriers and their effect on salinity conditions and water levels in the Southern Delta, at this time or prior to this meeting, we did not have sufficient information on the designs and operations of the South Delta barriers to comment in any detail. However, there is the possibility with any barriers, as we have heard a number of times today, that if you improve the salinity conditions in one area, you may shift the impact to another area, and we are requesting that that be looked into in great detail in DWR's Draft EIR/EIS for the South Delta management plan, and we will be reviewing that in detail when it does become available. Some of the graphs we did see today didn't actually show the locations, the Rock Slough and Old River at Highway 5 locations, didn't show the salinity at those locations with and without the barriers. However, Figure 17, for instance, would suggest there may be an increase with the agricultural barriers. If there was a set of agricultural barriers in place, there would be an increase at Old River and at Rock Slough. We also have in our written comments a discussion of the effective agricultural drainage that's being talked about a lot today, and the fact that under existing conditions there is a large re-export of that drainage at the Tracy pumping plant. Again, if you block off the Old River barrier, then that agricultural drainage may go somewhere else, and there's also a lot of local drainage in that area as well, and so, we would recommend that drainage reductions in the valley should be considered as mitigation measures to insure that any new circulation pattern due to barriers does not result in increases in salinity at other locations. With respect to the DO problem in the San Joaquin River during the fall, we have no specific recommendations. However, in the September workshop we stated that we believe that those interests responsible for creating low dissolved oxygen conditions should be primarily responsible for actions needed to prevent or mitigate such problems. With respect to the Old River barrier, key issue No. 4, whether it improves salmon smolt migration in the San Joaquin River during the spring, we believe that the one- month closure with the fish barrier at the head of Old River during the April 15-through-May 15 period will likely help direct salmon smolt migration during the spring. We also want to add that the associated limiting of Delta exports under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan to the magnitude of San Joaquin inflow at Vernalis will also improve overall conditions for fisheries in the Delta, and we have heard a lot on that today as well. As part of our comments we did have a couple of overheads just to review briefly with you. There was a concern expressed by the fisheries agencies and I guess DWR raised that again today, that there would be a sucking effect if you closed off the head of Old River, so that there might be a sucking effect drawing the Delta smelt and other fish species down toward the pumps. This example is really just looking at the prepulse- flow period, for instance, March, and in this case we were looking at historical conditions in 1988. So, this would be March prior to the April 15th closure, and under those conditions, the exports would be 35 percent of the inflow, and the San Joaquin flow at that time was something around 2100. The flow split turns out in this case, and we have seen previously that there is quite a variation in the flows, but about 70 percent of the flow coming past Vernalis heads down Old River toward the export pumps in this particular example. However, when you move into the post-flow period essentially three things happen. The barrier would be put in place, the San Joaquin flows would increase because of the post-flow requirement, and we have just used the critical year requirement, and under those conditions you end up with a flow that is being drawn down, the combined flow in Old and Middle Rivers is of the same magnitude in terms of net flows as what you had in the pre-post flow period, so that the closure of the barrier, as long as it is accompanied by a reduction in exports, which is taken into account by the '95 Water Quality Control Plan, will not necessarily set up any sucking effect in that particular area. And if I could have the next figure, which is Figure 2, this is just to really remind you again that when you are dealing with tidally-average flows or net flows, you have to remember there's tidal variations in those areas and they are of a large enough magnitude and they need to be taken into account as well. It is not just a net-flow problem and if you compare the two, the dotted line and the solid line in those two cases, and these correspond to Figure 1-A and Figure 1-B, it's very hard to see the difference in flows with and without the barrier because of this corresponding reduction in exports. With respect to key issue No. 5, what concerns should be evaluated regarding the effect of the Southern Delta barriers on beneficial uses in the Southern and Central Delta? One of our concerns would be the possible effect of any South Delta barriers on the performance of the Los Vaqueros project, and on the water quality at the intakes in particular. The USBR and DWR need to model these salinity impacts and other impacts over a wide range of hydrological conditions to see what the effect would be on salinity outside of the study area. Mr. Del Piero has already talked about the changes, the potential increases around the Stockton area, and we would also like to see a review of the potential increase around the Old River area at our two intakes. We would also be concerned about any impacts on levee stability in and around the Old River intake which is presently under construction. From what we have heard earlier from Mr. Ford, this construction process for the South Delta barriers may not occur until the end of 1997, at which stage our Los Vaqueros project should be on line. However, there are other aspects that we want considered in the Draft EIR/EIS. For instance, there might be potential flooding if dredging operations in Old River hit a sand lens or something like that, there may be a potential for flooding on some of the islands around that area. We would also like to tell you the cumulative impacts of the South Delta barrier along with the proposed joint points of diversion for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, and any resulting increases in State Water Project pumping that may result from that joint point of diversion, or, in fact, from installation of the South Delta barriers. And again, these studies need to show details over a wide range of hydrologic conditions. After all, the figures that I had up there, Figure 1-A and Figure 1-B, were for one snapshot in time. There's a whole series of possibilities in terms of various flow conditions. The District looks forward to receiving these draft environmental documents early next year to review them. And in terms of key issue No. 6, our only statement is that as part of the CUWA/Ag users, we support again the fish barrier at the head of Old River for the protection of migrating smolts during the April 15-through-May 15 period. However, any installation of a barrier should be accompanied by a detailed environmental review, and the same applies to any proposal for other South Delta barriers, that they would require extensive review and analysis of the environmental impacts, consideration of alternatives, and mitigation would be needed to be provided for any adverse impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments, and I will be happy to respond to any questions. MS. FORSTER: Any questions? Thank you. Tom Zuckerman, co-counsel for Central Delta Water Agency. MR. ZUCKERMAN: Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. My comments today will be largely informal. We work closely with the South Delta Water Agency on matters of common concern and fully support their efforts. I would say that I am pleased with the attention that the Board is at last, I would say, replying to Delta agricultural issues. We speak for the Central Delta Water Agency. We have been urging consideration for missing pieces of the water quality standards to protect Delta agriculture on a year- round basis for some period of time, and probably this is the first time any of you as Board members have ever really had a Delta agricultural issue actually come before you. I mean, it's been a long time we have been urging a more complete look at these issues and this is the first effort that you have made, and I appreciate it probably happens because of the interconnection with the fishery issue on the Old River Barrier, but nevertheless, we are pleased with the attention that you are at last focusing on at least one of the critical issues, which is the one that relates to the effect that the projects have had on the water quality in the San Joaquin River and on the water levels affected by the export pumping. We hope that you won't wait an equal period of time before you address the issues that we continually urge you to respond to with regard to necessary water quality standards to protect agricultural uses outside of the period for which you presently have established water quality standards. It is also important in the context of what you hear about all these negotiations and so forth that are going on, that the people who are involved in those discussions, which does not include us, that they have an understanding that the Board has not yet addressed all of the issues to protect beneficial uses in the Delta that it has promised that it will some day address and that it needs to address, so that as they make these grand treaties and so forth, that they are not unaware of the fact that there are additional issues that they may need to deal with as the Board completes its task in addressing the water quality standards for the Delta, and for Delta agriculture in particular. I would like just to stress what DWR and the South Delta Water Agency and others have said about the importance of looking at the barriers as a complete package because if you simply take the barrier at the head of Old River and don't deal with the other suggestions that are in the plan that has been presented to you by DWR and by South Delta, you exacerbate the problems rather than solve the agricultural problems, so it is important that you look at the whole package. As I said earlier, we have been watching the development of these solutions that you have heard today over a period of years, and we believe they are credible solutions and they are ones that the Board should embrace to the extent that it has the power to do so at the earliest opportunity. But at the same time, it is not a complete solution to the problem. While it does address the water level issue that is caused in the vicinity of the pumps, the export pumps in the South Delta channels, and it does create some circulation patterns in the South Delta, it doesn't really resolve the water quality problem that's being created by the San Joaquin River drainage. In this case, what it really does is just relocate it into another part of the Delta which happens to be in the Central Delta Water Agency. You do need to solve the water quality problem of the drainage flows entering the San Joaquin Delta at Vernalis, or at some point downstream from the mouth of the Merced. This does not avoid that necessity. It is something you need to do quickly because otherwise it threatens to just relocate the problem into another area where it will also need to be addressed. We made a comment on the environmental report that was issued in conjunction with the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan about, have you studied the impacts that the plan might have on water quality in the Central Delta, particularly if you assume the operation of the Old River barrier, and even at the same time or at some close near-by time, the closure of the Delta Cross Channel and I am not sure that that work has been completed yet. We would urge you to do it or to make sure it is done in the preparation of the environmental document that has been talked about today in conjunction with the South Delta barriers. I think you need to look as well at what the combined impact might be of various scenarios of ordering closure of the Delta Cross Channel and further restricting the movement of freshwater into the Central Delta. That, basically, covers the points that I wanted to make today, and again, we are happy that not only the Board and the staff, but other water contractors and export agencies are beginning to focus in on these problems which are critical and long overdue in receiving the attention that they deserve. I don't imagine anybody would have any questions. I didn't even present any charts, but if you do, I would be happy to try to answer them. You were out of the room incidentally when Mr. Johnston talked about the importance of having a valley drain, so I just wanted to point that out to you. MR. DEL PIERO: I was aware of it. MS. FORSTER: If there are no questions, thank you, Mr. Zuckerman. Thank you for your comments. The last card is Tom Boardman, a Resource Engineer from the Westlands Water District. MR. BOARDMAN: Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and members of the Board. I just had a quick comment to make regarding the idea of supplementing San Joaquin River flows using Delta exports as was discussed earlier today. The Westside Agricultural Service Contractors are very concerned about the impacts to their water supply if export pumping capacity is used to augment flows in the San Joaquin River. We are currently performing our own analysis of this proposed operation with respect to water supply impacts and to its overall reasonableness. Thank you. MS. FORSTER: Okay. Anyone have any questions? Well, there are no more cards today, and does staff want to make any closing comments? MR. HOWARD: No. MS. FORSTER: All right, thank you all for coming today. We learned a lot and appreciate all your input. (Proceedings completed) REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE ---o0o--- This is to certify that I, ALICE BOOK, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, was present during the Public Hearings of the WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, held in Sacramento, California, on November 15, 1995; That as such I recorded in stenographic writing the proceedings held in the matter of Need for Physical Barriers in the Southern Delta of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Estuary to Protect Beneficial Uses of Water. That I thereafter caused my said stenographic writing to be transcribed into longhand typewriting and that the preceding 185 pages, constitute said transcription; That the same is a true and correct transcription of my said stenographic writing for the date and subject matter hereinabove described. Dated: November 27, 1995 ___________________________________ ALICE BOOK 187