From dianne@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca Sun Mar 31 00:10:09 1996 Received: by sandelman.ocunix.on.ca id AA05790 sender dianne@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2); Sat, 30 Mar 96 23:47:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 23:47:46 -0500 From: Dianne Murray Message-Id: <9603310447.AA05790@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca> X-Within-Url: http://www.water.ca.gov/swrcb/bdhear/bd005pm To: dianne@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca Subject: bd005pm Status: RO 92 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: If we can get your attention 4 we will resume our afternoon session. 5 I understand there is a little bit of rebuttal 6 testimony coming up later and can't get it all in today. 7 We will do the examination of the last witness Mr. 8 Mortensen. Let me go down my list who are -- after a 9 while I will ask everybody to show of hands who wants to 10 question Mr. Mortensen. 11 Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Turner? 12 MR. TURNER: Yes. I have a couple of questions. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right, sir. 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION 15 Q. BY MR. TURNER: Mr. Mortensen, I was looking at 16 Exhibit 3. Your report of water quality and 17 hydrodynamics. And I draw attention to page three of that 18 particular report. And I note in there that in connection 19 with the errata sheet that was distributed this morning 20 that I believe you added a couple of footnotes to that 21 particular paragraph ending on the top of that page. And 22 those were precisely the statements that I had some 23 questions about and I don't think the errata sheet helped 24 me too much. I think you can give me a further 25 explanation. 93 1 To begin with I wanted to make sure that I 2 understood from page two of this report that you based 3 this report and the conclusions that you stated in here 4 simply upon your review and analysis of reports that have 5 been prepared by others as a result of their analysis of 6 data of water flow and water quality conditions; is that 7 accurate? 8 MR. MORTENSEN: That is correct. 9 Q. Now with respect to the paragraph ending at the 10 top of page three, I note that you are mentioning in there 11 that they were utilizing this STORET statistical analysis 12 system and you say to retrieve statistical summaries of 13 all water quality data at all monitoring points in the 14 Delta and the Bay. 15 And then you go on to say this date was 16 inspected in selected water quality stations were chosen. 17 Now the foot note you added after the term 18 selected water quality stations as I understand it provide 19 that only data from station in DIA ecological data base 20 were utilized in this analysis. 21 Now could you explain to me, first of all, when 22 it says that selected water quality stations were chosen, 23 chosen by whom? Was that a selection you made? 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I don't think you mike is on. 25 MR. MORTENSEN: On now? 94 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Here we go again. It's on 2 and off. 3 MR. MORTENSEN: It's on and off. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We had the electricians in 5 here this morning, as I repeat, it apparently always 6 worked when they were here. 7 MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. Referring again to page 8 three first paragraph up at the top you will note the 9 second sentence says: "Selected water quality stations." 10 The STORET water quality data base, it involves 11 somewhere like 300 stations, I believe it is on Sacramento 12 the San Joaquin and all of San Francisco Bay. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse me a minute. I don't 14 mean to interrupt you. Let's use one of our mikes over 15 there. 16 MR. WALSH: Why don't you take that one 17 permanently out of service so you don't have to screw 18 around with it. 19 MR. TURNER: We can trade microphones. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Why don't take the other one 21 off the table. Put it down somewhere so you won't be 22 grabbing it. Sorry. 23 MR. MORTENSEN: Testing. This works fine. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Go ahead. 25 MR. SANGER: Maybe we ought to get a repeat of 95 1 the question, a short part of the question. 2 Q. BY MR. TURNER: To repeat the question. The 3 question was: How were the quote "selected water quality 4 stations" end quote selected and by whom? 5 MR. MORTENSEN: The STORET water quality system 6 has stations collected by all different agencies 7 throughout the Sacramento, the San Joaquin, the Delta and 8 San Francisco Bay. Since this part of the testimony is 9 limited to the Delta, I concentrated on those stations 10 that were included in the Delta. 11 Now in reviewing the data it turns out, as we 12 have seen from previous speakers, the most important thing 13 is verifying the data set. And lots of agencies have 14 access to the STORET water quality data system and not all 15 of the data that is entered into it has been verified and 16 edited and checked. 17 So consequently in reviewing the STORET water 18 quality system we found that the work done by the 19 Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of 20 Reclamation from 1968 through 1981, that data set is 21 included in what is referred to as the DIA 22 ecological data base. And for those stations that the 23 Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of 24 Reclamation have spent lots of time editing and verifying 25 that the data that is in the STORET water quality system 96 1 for those stations is as accurate as possible. So for 2 that reason those stations were used because for those 3 stations a verified data study exists and it is those 4 stations that are confined in the area of interest. 5 MR. TURNER: I would have no further questions. 6 Thank you very much. 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. 8 Marcie Steinberg. 9 MS. STEINBERG: No questions. 10 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: No questions. 11 Mr. Whitridge, South Delta Water Agency? 12 MR. WHITRIDGE: No questions. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I go down this far. How many 14 would like to cross-examine? Hey, you are lucky. 15 MR. SANGER: You're lucky, Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You have to answer the 17 questions. I am trying to keep you on schedule so I guess 18 I am lucky too. Thank you very much. 19 Mr. Sanger. 20 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman, if I may I would just 21 now ask that Bay Institute of San Francisco, Exhibit 1 22 through 34 be admitted. 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Any objection? Oh, wait a 24 minute, wait a minute. Before I start asking, I moved too 25 fast and I forgot our good people down back here. There 97 1 are some questions here by staff. 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3 Q. BY MR. STEWART: My name is Doug Stewart. I 4 only have one question. 5 On page 19 there is a sentence that you read 6 from the Division of Water Resources 1931 report. On 7 salinity intrusion into the lower end of the Delta? 8 MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. 9 Q. Yet on page 27 figure 9 you show for 1931 that 10 same year salinity intrusion to the eastern edge of the 11 Delta. 12 A. What is shown there in the 1931 report refers to 13 on page 19. That was the conclusion of the scientists and 14 engineers, and I believe the State Water Resources Control 15 Board or their equivalent at that time on that natural 16 condition, as it were, when you jump up to page 27, we are 17 talking about existing conditions in 1930, '31 when saline 18 intrusion had reached to the eastern Delta. 19 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Is that all the staff 21 questions? 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION 23 Q. BY BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: I just have one real 24 quick question. 25 I notice you graduated at Ann Arbor from 98 1 University of Michigan. Are you registered in the State 2 of California? 3 MR. MORTENSEN: Let me correct that. If you 4 look carefully, it doesn't say I graduated. I was in 5 civil engineering. 6 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: You were there for four 7 years? 8 MR. MORTENSEN: I was there four years. And 9 then I hesitated in effect of changing majors to 10 mathematics. That is just when the Vietnam War came up, 11 that hesitation. 12 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: The purpose of my 13 question, are you registered in the State of California? 14 MR. MORTENSEN: No, I am not. I am not an 15 engineer. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I think, Mr. Schulz, first, 17 Miss Steinberg, had a comment about the receipt of these 18 exhibits into evidence. 19 Did you want to comment on that or tend to it? 20 MR. SCHULZ: Yes. I want to deal with the 21 exhibits by reference, which as I understand are exhibits 22 four through 34. And we would object to the admission 23 into evidence of any of those that don't meet the 24 standards set forth in the work plan; namely, 25 well-recognized governmental reports I believe is the 99 1 phrasiology that is used in the work plan. I even have 2 some objection to that. 3 But I think clearly the references for one 4 through ten, which are -- some appear to be articles in 5 journals, other appear to be reports done by private 6 consultants do not meet the standards set forth for 7 referenced exhibits by the Board in their rules. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let me just interrupt you. 9 Do you wish to have those included in the record 10 as exhibits? 11 MR. SANGER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have in 12 accordance with what we agree is the proper interpretation 13 of the notice to the Board rules, asked that Exhibits 4 14 through 34 be accepted by reference. I think if Mr. 15 Schulz has objection he needs to specify one by one, the 16 ones to which he objects. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I wasn't sure whether you 18 were offering all of them or not at this time. 19 MR. SANGER: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Go ahead, Mr. Schulz. Sorry 21 for the interruption. 22 MR. SCHULZ: No problem. I am objecting to 23 items 4 through ten. 11 through 19 appear to be 24 governmental reports. Objecting to 20, 21, 22. 23 25 appears to be a governmental report, as do 24 and 25. And 100 1 I am objecting to 26, 27. This will be a good one. I 2 would object to 30, which is written by B. J. Miller on 3 behalf of the State Water Contractors. I am objecting to 4 31. 5 MR. WALSH: Anything else, Cliff? 6 MR. SCHULZ: No, that is it. 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Marcie, before we go back. 8 Did you want to object or what? 9 MS. STEINBERG: I recognize you recognized Mr. 10 Schulz before recognizing me. You basically took my 11 objection, it's been objected. Same objection. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Same publication? 13 MS. STEINBERG: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Zuckerman? 15 MR. ZUCKERMAN: I am not quite sure what the 16 rationale of the staff or the criteria was on government 17 reports. I notice that several of the items that were 18 objected to are articles by people who have appeared in 19 previous hearings before this Board on the same suggests. 20 And have been -- their qualifications have been submitted 21 to the Board they have been objected to cross-examination 22 and so forth. 23 I notice Mr. Crone, Dr. Goldberg and I just 24 wonder why those publications are any different than 25 well-recognized governmental reports? 101 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, part of it is 2 availability of him. 3 Mr. Schulz, did you want to elaborate? 4 MR. SCHULZ: Availability is one issue, 5 Mr. Chairman, but it's not the only one. 6 The Board, while it doesn't go by strict rules 7 of evidence, is required to make a decision on substantial 8 evidence in the record. And by placing these in the 9 record without the opportunity to confront the authors and 10 to cross-examine, places the parties under a severe 11 disadvantage. 12 I assume they are going in for the truth of the 13 matter stated within the four walls of those documents, 14 not to show they exist and somebody had published. 15 There is a favorite case of mine called Beckly 16 versus the Reclamation Board which involves the issue 17 where the Court finds that to assume the accuracy of the 18 statement within such a report would advocate the role of 19 the Court for a fee out of engineers. Probably making 20 this wrong, but it just seems proper and it's not good 21 evidence to allow documents of this type to come in for 22 the truth of matter stated therein without producing a 23 sponsoring witness. 24 Plus it's, plus it's a violation of the work 25 plan specifically in terms of the work plan and these 102 1 documents are not readily available to the parties. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Could I ask our attorney 3 Barbara Leidigh to comment. 4 MR. LEIDIGH: Yes. The Notice of Hearings that 5 went out specifically says with regard to referenced 6 exhibits, public records of the Board and bulletins and 7 reports which have been widely published if otherwise 8 admissible may in the discretion of the Board be received 9 into evidence by reference without the necessity of 10 supplying copies, provided the original or a copy is in 11 possession of the Board. Each such document shall be 12 identified an designated by number for the record and so 13 on. 14 The way I read this, it doesn't exclude 15 non-governmental publications per se. The primary 16 criteria is that they have been widely published so that 17 they are available to people readily. 18 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: You said in possession of 19 the Board too? 20 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. They are a public record of 21 the Board in bulletins which have been widely published. 22 A copy does have to be in possession of the Board. 23 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. 25 MR. SANGER: I read the rules in the same way 103 1 that Miss Leidigh has read them, and we have so read them. 2 In the event that any of these publications and we have so 3 informed the court and staff, they are not available and 4 in the Board's library and we would be happy to furnish 5 copies. 6 Some of these publications have been far more 7 widely published than any of the governmental publications 8 referred to. Particularly those articles in the science 9 magazine, published primarily in Sacramento and California 10 but throughout the world. 11 Also as has been pointed out, many of them are 12 by authors who are in the governmental agencies and have 13 published the results of their own studies, for instance, 14 U.S.G.S. in other forums. 15 The purpose of these hearings as I see it is to 16 bring before the Board all of the evidence that may be 17 pertinent. If the Board wishes to exercise some surrogate 18 or try to exercise some surrogate of subpoena power, we 19 would be delighted to bring the authors of these articles 20 to appear before you. We have no power to bring them here 21 and we believe that the materials are highly pertinent and 22 should be admitted. 23 BOARD MEMBER SAMANIEGO: Mr. Chairman. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. Mr. Samaniego. 25 BOARD MEMBER SAMANIEGO: Item No. 24, which is 104 1 John's Regulation Act for San Joaquin Valley as to water 2 quality, the draft, the technical draft report and still 3 as of this date is not in final form. How wide is the 4 peer group? 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I will have to ask the 6 witness there. 7 MR. SANGER: I could not hear. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Item 24. 9 BOARD MEMBER SAMANIEGO: Since that has not been 10 formally finalized, nor yet reviewed by this Board, that 11 it should not appear here technically. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: That is really true. This 13 particular report, counsel, has been prepared in draft 14 form by a task force which has held hearings that the 15 Board hasn't decided whether it's an acceptable report to 16 give to the Regional Board yet, therefore, I definitely 17 agree with Mr. Sanger we will exclude that. 18 MR. SANGER: It is a properly cited agency draft 19 and the author is not shown to be the Board. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I appreciate that. But if we 21 put in all draft reports or memorandum prepared by various 22 people, you could get a longer list than that. I really 23 don't think that we want to include drafts. 24 MR. SANGER: Mr. Maughan, with all due respect, 25 if I may paraphrase the comment you made at the first 105 1 session of this hearing, the Board has the ability to 2 weigh the evidence. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Right. That is correct. 4 MR. SANGER: The question is before -- it's 5 before the Board. 6 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, I am glad you threw it 7 back at me because I really belief in that. I really 8 don't like to get into arguments over the admissibility of 9 almost anything that you just mentioned and I think the 10 Board with good judgment and we will be using it. So when 11 it gets right down to it, it is argument of somewhat 12 futility in my mind. Yes. 13 MR. LITTLEWORTH: State Board Contractors. I 14 take it that Barbara Leidigh was saying that there has 15 been some didn't of -- she is reading some kind of a 16 change in the notice that went out. 17 Let me read you from the work plan which we 18 thought was -- 19 MS. LEIDIGH: Straight from the notice. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You are reading from the 21 notice. He is reading from the work plan. 22 MR. LITTLEWORTH: Let me read you from the work 23 plan on page 30 section 4.2. 24 "An exhibit being offered in 25 evidence should be substantiated by 106 1 testimony unless it is a well-known 2 recognized reliable publication of a 3 governmental agency or stipulated to 4 by all the parties." 5 I think that is the rule. The rule is the only 6 documents that are coming in without testimony are those 7 which are well-known reliable and by governmental 8 agencies. I am not aware that has been changed. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I know Marcie wants to 10 comment. Let Marcie talk and make her comment while we 11 are thinking about it. 12 MS. STEINBERG: The only point I want to 13 re-emphasize and I think that the keynote that we object 14 to the information coming in at all, we object to just 15 references documents and then we don't know how they are 16 ever going to be used and there is no witness who is 17 responsible for the original, the document, and I think 18 that is the key. We object because mainly there is in 19 addition to the failure to all procedures and problems 20 provided but there is no witness. There is no responsible 21 witness who we can turn to and say okay, what does this 22 mean? Turning it over to the Board for other purposes 23 that we object to. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I understand that but we are 25 allowing some by reference because it makes good sense. 107 1 You don't want to have somebody from U.S.G.S. here to 2 testify on stream flow records or some of the other kinds 3 of things that are really fundamental in terms of being 4 used. But where do you draw the line? 5 MS. STEINBERG: That is fullness. 6 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I appreciate that. 7 MR. SANGER: Mr. Maughan, I spoke with 8 Ms. Leidigh, it was quite clear the notice went out giving 9 the rules, the work plan was a preliminary issuance. The 10 public notice of the meeting set forth the ground rules 11 and I believe we followed it. Granted it is in the 12 discretion of the Board as to what it can accept by 13 reference according to the published rules and notice of 14 hearing. 15 However, it is clearly suggestive that given 16 relevance and given the availability of copies to the 17 Board that materials would be accepted, I would suggest 18 that there would be no basis to only accept by reference 19 the offering of governmental publications. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Miss Leidigh. 21 MS. LEIDIGH: First of all, I think that the 22 Board be well advised to observe probably the more liberal 23 of the two in this case which is in the notice of hearing. 24 But also I would point out and this maybe more to the key 25 to the whole problem. The Boards regulations in Section 108 1 761-D with regard to handling of evidence by the Board 2 refers in the third sentence to hearsay evidence. And I 3 would think that unless these come under some exceptions 4 to the hearsay rule, it would be considered to be hearsay. 5 The rest of part reference exhibit. 6 MR. SANGER: I will so stipulate. 7 MS. LEIDIGH: They are hearsay evidence. 8 Hearsay evidence the regulation said maybe used for 9 supplementing or explaining any direct evidence but shall 10 not be sufficient by itself to support a finding unless it 11 would be admissible over objection in civil actions. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: But we don't know most of 13 this reference does substantiate the testimony of 14 Mr. Mortensen. 15 MS. LEIDIGH: What I am saying is the material 16 in the reference has to be substantiated by a person's 17 testimony. To the extent that his testimony substantiates 18 it. Then it can be used. But to the extent that there is 19 no relationship, nothing. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: How do I know whether there 21 is any relationship to it? 22 MR. SANGER: Could I comment? 23 MS. LEIDIGH: Process of going through the 24 information. 25 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I know some of these, a lot 109 1 of them I don't. 2 MR. SANGER: With all due respect, I believe 3 that the statement in the Board's rule was merely a 4 restatement of the case law to the effect that decision by 5 the Board may not be supported wholey by hearsay evidence. 6 I am sure the Board is confident that once it 7 completes three years of hearings it will be more than 8 hearsay evidence on which to base any decisions. So the 9 issue you have is not whether or not we produce a witness 10 to substantiate the reference material. But whether or 11 not in combination with direct testimony and qualified 12 exhibits presented to you you will have the basis for a 13 decision. And I don't believe anyone here could argue 14 that won't be the case. 15 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let me make one comment and 16 then ask one further question and then I will rule. 17 This is the comment I want to make is I am very 18 liberal because I do think we are capable of weighing the 19 evidence. But I am also concerned that we don't receive 20 evidence, that long list of reference material from a 21 whole bunch of people which if I rule too leniently, that 22 is easily the end result of it. And I think that 23 discounts the value of the evidence that is received in 24 other fashion. So I think the reference introduction of 25 testimony ought to be used sparingly and with great care. 110 1 This is my own view. 2 But my question is at one time maybe show some 3 of my legal ignorance here. You can't put something in 4 quote in the file without actually receiving it into 5 evidence. Is that still part of our rule or part of the 6 procedures under which we operate? 7 MS. LEIDIGH: Well, if you mean -- 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: It's a legality different 9 than being actually received in evidence. But still is 10 there, everybody knows that it is there. Our attention 11 has been called to it. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: There are some things in the file 13 that are not in the Board's general files that are not 14 specified. 15 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, but these would be 16 specified to be in place of the Board's file. 17 MS. LEIDIGH: These will be put in the exhibit 18 files for the record of hearing. 19 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Not as accepted exhibits 20 there has been an exhibit somewhere in my vast history. 21 MR. WALSH: You can do that by order of the 22 chair. 23 MS. LEIDIGH: They have been stuck in the file 24 and not used by the Board. 25 MR. WALSH: You can do then on your own order. 111 1 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: Can I ask? 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Sure. 3 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: What is the difference if 4 you accepted a report, a report that is presented in 5 evidence which has a reference of four sheets of reference 6 on the back of it and you accepted the back of it although 7 reference in the evidence? 8 MS. LEIDIGH: I had no -- they are not in 9 evidence. The report is. 10 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: Used as references. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Talked about but not in. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, obviously, I am an 13 attorney. I am really not inclined to to -- 14 MR. SANGER: Mr. Maughan, if I could just 15 comment on one statement that Miss Leidigh made. 16 I will give my own opinion as a legal matter 17 that it is not in the interests of the Board to exclude 18 any evidence that is offered in this proceeding. 19 MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Walsh. 21 BOARD MEMBER WALSH: Just very briefly, I 22 suggest you don't put yourself through this at this time, 23 take it under submission and rule at the end of the day 24 and give yourself some time to think about it. 25 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, since I am an attorney 112 1 let me do it that way. I am still concerned and I may 2 repeat some of it if I am too liberal in this. Anybody in 3 any phase can add documents and then seek to make 4 reference to them somewhere in the future in an improper 5 place and so I am just a little bit cautious. 6 MR. SANGER: We only request if anything be 7 excluded from the transcript it be specifically stated for 8 their exclusion. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: That's right. Let's accept 10 all of them except the reference documents right now and 11 then I will hold that under submission and rule before the 12 end of the day on the referenced items. 13 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Samaniego. 15 BOARD MEMBER SAMANIEGO: I am curious as to the 16 offer made by counsel that they be submitted as hearsay. 17 Does that mean that they would be submitted not 18 necessarily true or not necessarily so? 19 MR. SANGER: Mr. Samaniego, if I may clarify the 20 term hearsay, it has a specialized meaning in law. And it 21 only means that they have not been -- here is more 22 jargon -- properly qualified before you essentially and 23 are by reference as opposed to someone here to testify. 24 BOARD MEMBER SAMANIEGO: I suppose that leads us 25 into argument if they are not properly qualified by our 113 1 work plan and other than that they should be excluded. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I will leave it. 3 MR. SANGER: Qualify under the rules of 4 evidence. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Only legal argument, sir. 6 MR. HEDGEPATCH: I admitted 1200 pages on marine 7 ecology and I am somewhat familiar with the process. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Give your name. 9 MR. HEDGEPATCH: My name name is Joe W. 10 Hedgepatch. Simply commenting as an editor. 11 I would like to know how many publications under 12 the division of Water Resourced and State Water Board have 13 gone through the kind of editorial scrutiny that most of 14 these references have before they are printed. Most of 15 the journals involved are non-governmental journals. They 16 submit their publication by tradition and quite often by 17 rule to people who go through them very carefully and help 18 the authors aggregate material and make the papers more 19 substantial contributions. And I detect in the thing a 20 rather bizarre attempt to get rid of things, perhaps not a 21 feeling to those who protest. And I think that whole 22 thing strikes me a bit bizarre. 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, let's go on. 24 Mr. Finster has a comment. 25 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: I would like to make 114 1 reference, I know the report bears an exhibit number, I 2 assume Exhibit Number 3 by the party. The same reference 3 attached to the report itself. So it's already in the 4 record, these references, everyone of them. They just cut 5 off at four, cut the top three off and started with four. 6 Right exactly identical document in back of report 7 Exhibit No. 3. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All those reports have been 9 made reference to in the Exhibit 3. 10 MS. LEIDIGH: I don't mean they are exhibits. 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: No. 12 BOARD MEMBER FINSTER: No. I know it, it's 13 there for a purpose. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I will rule later on that. 15 Let's go on to the Tiburon Center for 16 Environmental Studies. 17 DR. JOSSELYN: Mr. Chairman, Michael Josselyn, 18 representing Tiburon Center. 19 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Representing yourself? You 20 are the witness? 21 DR. JOSSELYN: Right. 22 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Have you been sworn? 23 DR. JOSSELYN: No, I haven't. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Raise your right hand, 25 please. You promise to tell the truth in today's hearing? 115 1 DR. JOSSELYN: I do. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Thank you. 3 MICHAEL JOSSELYN, Ph.D. 4 called as a witness on behalf of Romberg Tiburon Center, 5 having been duely sworn, testified as follows: 6 DR. JOSSELYN: Mr. Chairman, and Board members. 7 My name is Michael Josselyn. I am director of the Romberg 8 Tiburon Center and am a professor of biology at San 9 Francisco State University where I am an employee. 10 The Center is an organized research unit of 11 San Francisco State University. And was founded in 1978 12 with the purpose of providing a focus for the study of 13 San Francisco Bay and the near shore coastal marine 14 environment. 15 At present the center is the only university 16 level facility in the Bay region devoted specifically to 17 the study of estuarine problems. And it's program spans 18 the field of hydrology and ecology estuaries and is funded 19 by a variety of federal, state and private sources. 20 The work which will be described today by 21 Dr. Rozengurt, and in addition by Dr. Philip Williams in 22 later testimony who's part of an ongoing study on the 23 analysis of fresh-water inflow to the San Francisco Bay 24 estuary and is funded by the San Francisco Foundation and 25 the Marine Community Foundation. 116 1 Dr. Rozengurt, Dr. Herz, Michael Herz and myself 2 are the co-principal investigators of that study. And the 3 studies that will be described to you by Dr. Rozengurt and 4 have been submitted as Exhibit 1, have been underway since 5 1983 and represent the culmination of our efforts in that 6 the regard. 7 Our primary purpose has been to objectively 8 determine the level of diversions occurring within the 9 drainage system of the San Francisco Bay estuarine system 10 and to examine the impacts of that level of diversions on 11 selected physical chemical and biological resources. And 12 we have accomplished this task through avocation of 13 statistical analyses to the available hydrologic 14 information. 15 Our conclusions that we will receive today are 16 further supported by comparisons to other estuarine 17 systems throughout the world using similar analyses. 18 And finally, we have sought and actively 19 received reviews of this work from scientists throughout 20 California and the United States and have utilized these 21 comments in the further refinment of other methodolgy and 22 interpretation. 23 The Romberg Tiburon Center as part of the 24 California State Water System is a neutral party in these 25 hearings and is participating in order to provide the 117 1 Board with significant scientific information that we 2 anticipate will be essential in reaching a decision on 3 reasonable and beneficial uses of fresh-water inflow of 4 the San Francisco Bay. 5 And today Dr. Rozengurt will be speaking as 6 senior scientist associated with the Center. 7 In addition, Dr. Philip Williams will also be 8 speaking later on as the witness for the Environmental 9 Defense Fund. 10 I do want to make two comments before the 11 introduction of Dr. Rozengurt. And the first is that all 12 of our analyses have been based on data supplied to us by 13 the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of 14 Reclamation as indicated in our Exhibit 1. 15 Also, the data that has been analyzed using 16 standard hydrologic statistical techniques represented by 17 American and foreign scientists and the details of these 18 statistical analyses have been provided in our exhibit. 19 Second, I wish to state that the views expressed 20 in this exhibit and the testimony today are not 21 necessarily those of San Francisco State University or the 22 Marine Community Foundation. 23 And what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, if 24 that is all right with you, is I don't anticipate 25 cross-examination, but I would like to introduce 118 1 Dr. Rozengurt and perhaps if there is cross-examination, 2 it could you be done with both of us together. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, even if you don't mind 4 like the other person who is testifying on behalf of EDF 5 maybe testify and then have you all examined st the same 6 time. Is there any objection on your part? 7 DR. JOSSELYN: No. 8 MR. CRAFT: John Craft for Environmental Defense 9 Fund. I think the testimony of two witnesses can create 10 enough confusion, probably be more useful to have 11 cross-examination take place separately. 12 Dr. Rozengurt will be presenting historical 13 changes tht have taken place. Dr. Williams will be 14 looking at development to be adopted by the Department of 15 Water Resources and will compare those to unimpaired 16 flows. And the nature of the testimony is different. I 17 think it probably would be better to proceed with 18 cross-examination separately. Probable keep those two 19 subjects more separate. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Josselyn, sort of ties 21 them together is why I brought it up. At least he made 22 reference to all the testimony. All right. I will 23 concede on that. We will do it separately. 24 DR. JOSSELYN: Very good. I would like to now 25 introduce Dr. Michael Rozengurt a research scientist at 119 1 Romberg Tiburon Center. 2 He has been employed by San Francisco State 3 University since 1983. He received his Master's of 4 Science Degree in civil engineering at Moscow University 5 and his Ph.D. degree in Vernhen Engineering Science and 6 Oceanography and Hydrology at the Oceanographic Institute 7 in Moscow in 1970. 8 From 1957 to 1977 Dr. Rozengurt worked at the 9 Academy of Science of the Soviet Union Institute of Marine 10 Biology at the Southern Seas reaching a rank of senior 11 scientist. He was also principal investigator in one of 12 the largest water transfer projects in the Soviet Union, 13 that is the Danube River where he was involved in analysis 14 of environmental impacts of that project. 15 Since immigrating to the United States in 1977 16 Dr. Rozengurt has been employed at the Los Angeles 17 Sanitation District, the University of Southern 18 California, and as I stated, is now senior scientist at 19 the Romberg Tiburon Center. 20 He has published over a hundred articles and 21 seven books in the field of hydrology and estuarine 22 oceanography and is a recognized expert on the effect to 23 have freshwater diversions on coastal systems. 24 And I would like now to ask Dr. Rozengurt to 25 appear. 120 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Dr. Rozengurt, have you been 2 sworn? 3 DR. Rozengurt: I have not been. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Please raise your right hand. 5 Promise to tell the truth today at these hearings? 6 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes, I promise to tell the truth 7 at these hearings. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Thank you. 9 MICHAEL ROZENGURT, Ph.D. 10 called as a witness by Dr. Josselyn, sworn, testified as 11 follows: 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 DR. ROZENGURT: I have -- I want to ask your 14 permission to use some posters which have not been 15 introduced in our report, simply for overall conceptual 16 explanation. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We are keeping a record so we 18 need to identify them so that it is clear that when 19 somebody reviews the transcript what we are referring to. 20 You may use them, we have allowed other people, but then 21 you will have to give them some sort of a number so they 22 can be identified and they will have to be left with us. 23 MR. WALSH: Can you bring them forward so the 24 Board can see them? 25 DR. ROZENGURT: Pardon me? 121 1 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Mr. Chairman, could the 2 volume be turned up? 3 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: The volume be increased for 4 the microphone? 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Tap the mike and see if it 6 alive. 7 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes, it's alive. 8 This coupled with these posters, and we have 9 some conceptual transparencies which I would like to 10 distribute among the members of the Board and the 11 audience, so they will understand what I will be talking 12 about. 13 Is it possible? 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Sure. 15 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 16 I have today I would say a special day because 17 exactly the same time 15 years ago I participated in 18 hearings, on the past, present and future of Russian 19 estuaries which was organized by federal government in 20 Sveldom, City, which was attended, was about 400 21 scientists and politicians from all over the Soviet Union. 22 And the question was raised to be or not to be Russian 23 estuaries because of excessive water diversions which took 24 place the previous 20 years. 25 The major conclusion of this meeting was, there 122 1 is no question that any statement about discharge, fresh 2 water discharge of the estuary to the sea can be 3 considered as a waste of freshwater. 4 It was found that this type of statement is 5 inconsistent and does not recognize the achievements of 6 all by science in hydrology, oceanography, it cannot be 7 used for any statement or document. 8 The survey was found that 50 percent, if you 9 have 50 percent diversion, there is no chance, any chance 10 ever to restore historical level of any Russian estuaries. 11 And I wanted to add, that not only Russian estuaries at 12 this time were discussed but a lot of southern Europe, 13 United States, San Francisco Bay, by the way, and 14 southwestern Africa and Australia. 15 It was the same found that you would have this 16 amount of water left, I mean, 50 percent less per year and 17 about 40-85 percent less per spring that we can expect on 18 the living resources which can be adjusted on this amount 19 of water discharged to the system. 20 And the fourth and last finding was that if 21 hatcheries can be considered as a whole that we should use 22 as much as possible to improve this conditions for the 23 national, at that time Russian Rivers. 24 Ten years later was the second such kind of 25 gathering. At this time I was living here already. But 123 1 it was a lot of publications about conditions that 2 happened after 1972. And in national literature which was 3 translated in the United States, France, Western Germany, 4 Australia, and many other countries, appeared such kind of 5 bad words like destruction of the nature in Soviet Union. 6 It was published in the United States of America in 1980, 7 which in some details described what happened with the 8 major Russian estuaries and the most productive seas all 9 over the world because of very strong impaired demand 10 activity in their basin. It was a lot of published not 11 only distruction or demise of the Delta, distortion, 12 irrevocable conditionS and so on. I am not going to use 13 emotional words in my presentation, simply I want to share 14 this information which is available in English. American 15 Geophysical Union translated a lot of publications in this 16 regard. And so the question right now is because despite 17 the differences in geographical location, all estuaries 18 have one thing in common, their past, present and future 19 depends on the amount of water discharged of their basin. 20 And because each river has very strong limitations, as the 21 limitation originate from the area's watershed from 22 precipitation, so what that means as implied is that if, 23 for example, the Sacramento, San Joaquin River cannot be 24 ever considered like or look like Mississippi or Volga. 25 The Mississippi can never look like Amazon. So each river 124 1 has very strong geographical and geomorphological and 2 hydrological limitations. With their all cyclicity runoff 3 of fluxuations which dispite differences of their origin 4 have many similarities and I will try to show and then we 5 can find the answer, have we reached the same kind of 6 conditions of development like we can observe right now 7 abroad? 8 To do so I will operate with material which was 9 obtained from government and the federal and state 10 publications by the Department of Water Resources 11 Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 12 Public Works, up until 1931. And it's very important to 13 notice that on this information, on this hydrological 14 information, about water availability the major water 15 facilities where planned and implemented. So we have full 16 confidence in this type of information. We will not even 17 try to analyze the exact precision and take it how it is 18 and how it is published. 19 I would like to show or to illustrate some very 20 interesting developments which may have taken place 21 already in some estuaries in regard to the reduction of 22 water supply to estuaries. Why runoff is so important? 23 First of all, runoff provides millions of tons 24 of organic and inorganic matter. Publication of this 25 information you can find from Geological Survey or any 125 1 sort of agencies. Runoff from the river provide an 2 infinite supply of flushing activities in the Delta and 3 the Bay much higher than any tide. One million acrefeet 4 of fresh-water is responsible for carrying out to the sea 5 ten or 100 times more drain water, it depends on what 6 period of the year and the size of the estuary. 7 MR. WALSH: I am sorry, Doctor. I missed those 8 last couple of points. Could you back up an give it to me 9 again? 10 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. 11 MR. WALSH: I am sorry. It is not going to help 12 you if we don't understand what you say. 13 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. My point is to underline 14 why the runoff from the rivers to the estuary is 15 important. And I want to simply enumerate: Number one, 16 runoff in Delta produces 70 percent of organic and 17 inorganic matter which is responsible for formation of 18 necessary bridging zone named the entrapment zone in the 19 San Francisco Bay, or any bay. 20 Runoff is responsible for flushing the Delta and 21 Bay of natural and man-derived pollutants. One million 22 acrefeet is Number two. 23 Number three, one million acrefeet of 24 fresh-water is responsible for the specific entraining 25 affect and mixing to carry out to the sea about ten times 126 1 higher volume than runoff itself. This was verified and 2 published in United States since 1942 in many monographs 3 and textbooks and publications by several outstanding 4 American scientists, some of them were my teachers and 5 teachers of the generation of oceanographers of my age, 6 even today the same. 7 And the last one: Runoff provides the sediment 8 which is very important to maintain the equilibrium of not 9 only the Delta levees and Delta area but even Ocean Beach. 10 So let's see what may happen like some 11 conceptual idea when we have runoff reduced to the levels 12 which have not been observed under natural conditions. 13 And for this reason I want to use this picture. 14 What you see here, this is the block diagram in 15 three-dimension which illustrates how under natural 16 conditions the mixture between runoff and sea water coming 17 from the ocean but doing very specific water masses, very 18 specific circulation. Each estuary -- 19 MR. WALSH: I am sorry, I missed that last 20 statement. If you hold it out in front of you a little. 21 Yes, right about there. 22 DR. ROZENGURT: Any special training, okay. 23 This block diagram illustrates the nature of 24 conditions which can be observed in any estuary. You have 25 four zones. 127 1 One, the Delta is the strongest. One right here 2 Susuin Bay, entrapment zone Bay, Central Bay and the one 3 closest to the Golden Gate which is the predominant water 4 supply from the ocean. Each of the zones has very strong 5 chemical and physical characteristics, chemical and 6 physical characteristics which illustrate which can be 7 observed and calculated? I mean, the circulation 8 patterns, the intensity of mixing processes, the vertical 9 density, the oxygen content, the temperature, the pH, 10 everything conceivable which is so important for the 11 living resources. When you have a normal distribution of 12 runoff supply to the system, the system is able to 13 maintain dynamic equilibrium, the amount of water which is 14 coming from the sea will meet very strong repelling affect 15 from the runoff of the river. And runoff will push out to 16 the sea expansive salt intrusion and so that estuary is 17 able to maintain average salinity and average tolerance, 18 tolerance level for living resources, fish and wildlife 19 require a very narrow range of salinity fluctuation to 20 survive, especially in the very early stages of their 21 development. And at that time, when you have such normal 22 inversion you see that runoff is able through the mixing 23 processes, to carry this water to the sea, and to do so we 24 have about an average amount of water coming from the 25 estuary to the sea. As I calculated and published in 128 1 1983, was calculated before me many years ago by Sverdrup, 2 Munk and Fleming at about (148 Km/3) cubed per year out of 3 the estuary and about (110 Km/3) into the estuary. So 4 altogether (250 Km/3) cubed of water which participates 5 water in water-exchange. When we don't have this normal 6 runoff condition, we have that what we have here in this 7 area (Delta-San Franciso Bay) which the entrapment zone 8 shrinks beyond recognition. We have very strong 9 competition here for the food, and any marine biologist 10 can talk about that better than I. And we have very 11 strong salt intrusion to the Delta. The amount of 12 increased area which is covered with salty water from the 13 ocean water, the mixing process is much less, the 14 circulation process much less, intensity residence time 15 increases several times, and that may be responsible for 16 process of deterioration of the estuary. That exactly 17 what is happening in many estuaries right now in many 18 parts of the world. And it's very difficult to get rid of 19 such kinds of salinization. 20 What is a very interesting fact which is 21 observed here in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that the 22 more water you pump from the Delta, the more you increase 23 the entraining effect inside the Delta. And instead of 24 water pushing salty water out of the Delta to the south of 25 the Golden Gate, we have right now the increase of sucking 129 1 in of salty water to the Delta. And that implies the more 2 we have pumping through the Delta, the more intensity of 3 reverse current and salinization of the Delta and nothing 4 can prevent such kinds of development and it is very easy 5 to show many, many examples. 6 So a current look, I want in addition to this 7 picture, I want to show how it looks if from the point of 8 view of American oceanography. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse me, are these 10 exhibits? 11 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. They are exhibits page 113 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Would you please make 13 reference so that we can tell in the record where they 14 come from? 15 DR. ROZENGURT: I will try. Thank you very 16 much. 17 MS. LIEDIGH: Is this Exhibit 1? 18 DR. ROZENGURT: No. Exhibit B -- it is an 19 equation that is put on page 113. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Of Exhibit 1? 21 MS. LIEDIGH: Exhibit 1. 22 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. 23 MS. LIEDIGH: Exhibit 1, page 113. 24 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. What is illustrated is the 25 following. This is how any estuary and any ocean, any sea 130 1 which has free connection to the state water. 2 On the left side is a description in the text. 3 On the left side of this very simplified 4 equation you have "S", which is amount of water which is 5 entering into the ocean from the San Francisco Bay. S-1 6 is average salinity concentration of estuarian water which 7 is coming to the ocean. 8 W-2 is that amount of water coming from the 9 ocean to the estuary, and S-2 the salinity of the ocean. 10 This fundamental of law conservation of mass and energy 11 and the law of continuity on which all of us can survive, 12 the whole universe. That means that nature cannot stand 13 with any niche. So let's see on the expression of what it 14 means, W-1 which equals precipitations runoff from 15 Sacramento-San Joaquin River, evaporation from San 16 Francisco Bay, plus an amount of water coming from the 17 ocean in average per year for example. What it means if 18 Q, because precipitation and evaporation is a very small 19 amount of water in comparison with runoff, 27 million 20 acrefeet, a total for a normal year. So if Q would be 50 21 percent or very close to zero or close to the differences 22 between precipitation and evaporation that means that this 23 element which is water coming from the estuary is reduced, 24 and that means the repelling effect of salt intrusion will 25 be reduced immediately. 131 1 But to maintain dynamic equilibrium, S-1, the 2 salinity of the estuary, has increased to have both sides 3 of this equation equal. That starts the process of 4 salinization of the estuary and the Delta. 5 As a result of that, for example, in earlier 6 like in some Texas lagoons and Russia, the government in 7 Russia was forced to transfer water intake facilities 8 hundreds of kilometers above the Delta and this could cost 9 hundreds of millions of dollars and losses of all intakes 10 for municipal, industrial and agricultural in the Deltas 11 like Dniester, Dnieper Rivers, Danube and Volga and some 12 other rivers. But that is not the end of the process. 13 You have the continuation of this process when you look on 14 salinity because the process took place step by step, very 15 gradually. It takes five, seven, ten it depends on that 16 year. You have new salinity of estuary which has 17 increment. This increment plus or minus depends on the 18 amount of runoff. The less runoff the highest increment 19 from year to year. If this process takes place greater 20 until the system will not be able to reach again the 21 dynamic equilibrium and new runoff conditions and as usual 22 this salinity number one S-1 participates in salt-water 23 exchange and salinity S-E with salinity, average salinity 24 of the estuary itself increases, and this increase takes 25 not very, not long period of time to be observed. 132 1 And we have here in the lot of publication right 2 now that discuss the San Francisco Bay is suffering from 3 the salt intrusion and salinization of the basin. 4 Although unfortunately we don't have in details salt 5 balance of the Delta and Bay. But I hope we can obtain 6 very soon such kind of information. 7 This picture illustrates the process of salt 8 intrusion taken from U. S. Geology Survey during the wet 9 year. Then we have the large area of Susuin Bay which 10 practically filled up with freshwater. With the dry year 11 we have very strong increase of salinity close to the 12 Delta; and could you lift that up? 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Could we have that 14 identified? 15 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. No. 2, that is an 16 additional exhibit which we are on right now. 17 One of the additions put it in right now. 18 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We ought to clarify. These 19 are the things you just presented today? 20 DR. ROZENGURT: Number 3. This was the first 21 one, page 114. Then page 114. And this additional which 22 right now we presented as illustration of this process 23 which I was talking about. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: For clarification. This is not in 25 any of the exhibits that you have supplied? 133 1 DR. ROZENGURT: This is not in the report, no, 2 it is not. It discusses about the development of the 3 process but this is an illustration of the process. 4 MS. LEIDIGH: You would be adding this then as 5 an exhibit? 6 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. This with additional for 7 our discussion. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: So you will understand 9 though, Dr. Rozengurt, you have not been her earlier. We 10 asked for all these to be submitted many days in advance 11 so everyone would have a chance to examine them. And we 12 have had one or two other instances where people have 13 brought in exhibits that -- they were challenged because 14 they were not available 60 days in advance. And that is 15 our rule here. 16 DR. ROZENGURT: This picture was published 17 over-night at -- monograph by the Geological Survey. 18 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: It still doesn't help. You 19 can make reference to it, but it is not going to be an 20 exhibit today. 21 DR. ROZENGURT: But could I simply illustrate it 22 or not? 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: For limited value. 24 DR. ROZENGURT: For me it is simply important to 25 show how in practice, the reality of this type of process 134 1 develops. 2 This is critical dry year, historical dry year 3 1977 and what you can see practically the area the most 4 important part of near the Delta, the Delta intake fill up 5 with the brackish and salty and relatively fresh, if 6 possible to say, two grams per liter of water, which water 7 is not suitable for any use. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Grams per liter? 9 DR. ROZENGURT: Grams per liter. 10 DR. ROZENGURT: So this -- 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Just a minute. 12 Yes, Mr. Schulz. 13 MR. SCHULZ: With some trepidation I rise to 14 suggest that unless that is marked, the transcript will be 15 totally meaningless. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We are trying to make it 17 meaningfull without upsetting this whole thing quite a 18 ways. I agree, we have real trouble. I know 19 Dr. Rozengurt is just trying to say this is helpful, but 20 in terms of keeping track in the record and whether it 21 means anything in the transcript presents a major problem 22 to us. 23 MR. SCHULZ: I would recommend it be marked as 24 some sort of an exhibit at least for identification right 25 now with some referral of ruling, so at least we have 135 1 something in the transcript to refer to. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We had a couple sketches 3 marked but even that is going to present some problems of 4 how to do this. 5 Does somebody have some suggestions? I am 100 6 percent for it. 7 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. 9 MR. SANGER: I second Mr. Schulz' suggestion 10 that you admit it as an exhibit, subject to a later 11 ruling. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Then don't admit it, we will 13 just identify it right now. 14 MR. SANGER: No. I am suggesting you actually 15 admit -- I am sorry -- accept it subject to a ruling on 16 admission. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. It's identified. 18 MR. SANGER: I am willing to also suggest that 19 later you admit it subject to a right of cross-examination 20 60 days. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Then I am worried about what 22 process, we apparently got a lot of these to identify and 23 we have time problems always if we are going to take a lot 24 of time to identify each and every one of these as they 25 come along. 136 1 Somebody have some suggestions in assigning and 2 giving them numbers. 3 MR. SANGER: I suggest giving them a number. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: But if we are going to have 5 to stop and explain it each time. It is easy enough just 6 to say give them numbers but who is going to give them 7 numbers? He does not have any help there. 8 MR. WALSH: Why don't we make all of these that 9 are not exhibits starting with the letter A for each group 10 and go A.A. one, two, three and -- 11 MR. SIMPSON: Approximately how many do you 12 have? 13 DR. ROZENGURT: We have nine. But it is some 14 very strong discussion that we can avoid to use them. 15 Simply I decided to clarify the text and to show how looks 16 like because not all of us informed enough in this regard. 17 So it's up to the Board. We can name them A, B, C. 18 MR. WALSH: That way with the letter you can 19 identify them as something other than an exhibit. 20 DR. ROZENGURT: 1-A, 1-B. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: No. They can't be 1-A and 22 1-B. 23 MR. WALSH: A-1. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Have to be A. 25 MR. WALSH: A-1 for this section and somebody 137 1 else got something marked B. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes, Mr. Walsh. 5 MR. WALSH: Wouldn't it be easier if in each of 6 these cases where something has not been submitted 7 previously to start with the letter and hold all of those 8 till the end of either a session or the hearing itself, 9 and they can make a general ruling on those. At least 10 they are excluded from the numerical order that you have 11 established with regard to the exhibits. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Somebody needs to identify 13 and place them in the record as we go along what these 14 letters are and I want somebody to do that. 15 I don't want to do it. 16 So somebody, either the -- 17 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Chairman, the way that we 18 ordinarily number the exhibits, they are numbered in the 19 order as they come in. And there are two columns. One is 20 for date introduced, which we would set down today's date 21 on each of those and the other column is for date 22 accepted. And in that column -- 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: But, Barbara, who is going to 24 do it? 25 MS. LEIDIGH: -- we enter a date only if -- 138 1 well, Mr. Winternitz is keeping track. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, will he identify it so 3 everybody else can keep tract as well? 4 MS. LEIDIGH: We would do that then. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: I will make an announcement on 7 those as we go along. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. Doctor, as you go 9 along you will identify what number you have given to it 10 and announce it for everybody's use and it will be in the 11 record. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Okay. Let's go. 14 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 15 Now I want to start -- 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: What number? 17 DR. ROZENGURT: Exhibit figure number 110, 18 number 110. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: The last one that you have would 20 be the first one in order after the regular order, so that 21 would be Number 7. That would be this one. 22 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. That was introduced in the 23 report. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: This will be -- 25 MR. WALSH: They are going to give you the 139 1 numbers. 2 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. Okay, Number 7. 3 (Exhibit 7, was then marked for identification.) 4 5 DR. ROZENGURT: This Exhibit No. 110, which has 6 been introduced -- 7 MS. LEIDIGH: This is -- 8 MR. WALSH: Doctor, they are going to give you 9 the numbers and then it will be easier that way. Is that 10 it? 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Out of this report? 12 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. It is that report. 13 MS. LEIDIGH: And that is Exhibit 1, then? 14 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. If you give such number on 15 this transparency directly originating from the report. 16 MR. WALSH: What page? 17 DR. ROZENGURT: 110. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: The figure 110. 19 DR. ROZENGURT: Figure 110. 20 MS. LEIDIGH: If I give a slide that is out of 21 this report, or out of your other report, identify it as 22 for this report Exhibit 1 and then the figure number or 23 page number. 24 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. This figure -- the number, 25 figure and page. 140 1 MR. WALSH: Barbara, just a second. 2 Wouldn't it be easier, Dr. Josselyn, if Barbara 3 communicated the numbers to you? 4 DR. JOSSELYN: Yes, I would be willing to. 5 MR. WALSH: So that you know what is going on. 6 And then Dr. Rozengurt doesn't have to worry about it. 7 DR. JOSSELYN: I would be glad to do that. 8 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you very much. 9 (Laughter.) 10 DR. NAKAGAWA: Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. 12 DR. NAKAGAWA: Just so that I can be clear on 13 this point. 14 THE REPORTER: Your name? 15 DR. NAKAGAWA: Dr. Nakagawa. Contra Costa 16 County Water Agency. 17 If I understood Dr. Rozengurt's statement 18 earlier, he does have certain select new exhibits 19 available today and I assume he has copies for everybody? 20 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes, that is right, we have. 21 DR. NAKAGAWA: I understood you to say, Doctor, 22 that you have approximately nine such new exhibits? 23 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes, seven. Spread them out, 24 please. 25 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Taking so much time going 141 1 through the process of coming down to the point of having 2 Barbara mark the exhibits, can't we get them distributed 3 and get them numbered in sequence and then we will all 4 have them in order to review when we take this up? 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let's ask the first question. 6 How many of them are in the report? This one is in the 7 report, for example, out of the nine. 8 DR. JOSSELYN: That is correct. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: How many are in the report? 10 DR. JOSSELYN: All but nine, except for this 11 nine are in the report. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I agree with everybody with 13 everything that is said just that if somebody will 14 organize it. I don't want want to do it. 15 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Chairman, it appears that 16 there are nine exhibits that are not in Exhibit 1. And we 17 will number those seven through whatever. 18 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: 16. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: Seven through 16. 20 (Exhibit 7-16, were then marked for identification.) 21 22 DR. ROZENGURT: Maybe to make it a lot easier, 23 assuming that all of you are well-informed about what is 24 going on we simply not to show what confuse the people and 25 try, I will try simply to explain on fingers what I mean, 142 1 that is all. What you think about that? 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I tell what, I don't want to 3 do it, but I got to do it. Let's take ten minutes and 4 let's get these all marked and we will identify them and 5 hand them out so you know where they are. 6 I am really unhappy, let me tell you, we got 7 lots of problems. 8 (Short recess.) 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let's go ahead and get 10 started. Our ten minutes has gone into much longer. 11 If I understand it correctly, all the 12 transparencies have been marked with a new exhibit number. 13 They are not received in evidence yet, they are just 14 marked for identification. Each of you will get 15 transparencies and you will have to mark your own. So 16 that you will know which one we are talking about and the 17 transcript will be clear anyway. And if that is a fact 18 let's get going. 19 It might add that, Mr. Sanger, it takes a lot 20 more time to do these things when you manually do them. 21 MR. SANGER: I well volunteer any assistance in 22 the spirit. 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We sure need it. It is not 24 in accordance with the procedures that we announced 25 earlier. We have done it a little differently, but I 143 1 think they are all ready to flow along. 2 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Mr. Chairman. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. 4 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: I would just ask that the 5 exhibits be distributed before the testimony so they won't 6 interrupt continually, have one interruption. 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I am willing to do it, we got 8 to get going. I mean it. 9 If somebody can come up and help distribute them 10 I am real happy. 11 MR. WALSH: Leo, you guys can help the doctor 12 distribute, two or three of you, let's get started. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: They wanted them all to be 14 handed out now so that they could get to them. 15 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. I want to ask apology of 16 the Board and audience because of this mess. But maybe 17 better we have mess in this room than mess in the river. 18 So let's start to discuss about the river. 19 We use in our investigation two sets of the 20 data, natural river inflow and impaired runoff to the 21 Delta and out of the Delta and regulated river inflow, 22 that means everything was left after upstream diversion. 23 And regulated Delta outflow, that is everything that was 24 left after upstream diversions and Delta diversions. 25 The period of information is 1921-1978. And 144 1 this information was processed in the acceptable method of 2 descriptive statictical analysis. What was found, what 3 was the major finding in this regard? 4 First of all, analyses were divided into two 5 groups. One is that project period 1921-1943. And the 6 second 1944-1978 with some additional information for the 7 last period of time. As you know, each hydrologist starts 8 to analyze the data about runoff distribution. 9 First of all, he has to underline what period of 10 time he has to use. What is the average or normal runoff? 11 And that is very important to underline the year 12 classification. 13 Decision 1485 was based on year type 14 classification of the Four River Index and we found that 15 this type of classification cannot be used in any case if 16 we discuss about the Delta-San Francisco Bay. 17 It was found that for any probability of 18 exceedence and for any recurrence interval this Four River 19 Index of runoff distribution is about 40 percent less than 20 total runoff from the entire watershed of the 21 Sacramento-San Joaquin River. 22 Therefore, in any kind of modeling, salt 23 predition, water salt exchange which is based on the Four 24 River Index will reach very erroneous conclusions about 25 the wetness of the year. 145 1 For example, if you have residual runoff 2 about -- 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Don't talk too fast. 4 DR. ROZENGURT: I am surprised that my English 5 is so much improved. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: On the Four River record, we were 7 just looking at figure 1.16 in Exhibit 1. 8 DR. ROZENGURT: What was found in comparison 9 between Four River Index year -- type classification and 10 Total Runoff discharge classification. It was found the 11 major point which I want to again underline, that for each 12 probability of exceedence, one percent, five percent, ten, 13 25, normal. When you have runoff for the (total runoff), 14 much higher (10-15 million acrefeet) than runoff that 15 relies on the Four River Index. What it means? If you 16 have runoff, residual runoff, let's say, 20 million 17 acrefeet from the Delta to the Bay according to the Four 18 River Index, this runoff would be considered like a wet 19 year. But I may say wait a minute. If you compare with 20 the normal runoff for the whole period of time which 21 equals, under unimpaired condition 27.2 million acrefeet, 22 the 20 million would be only a subnormal year. 23 Therefore, each time when biologists or water 24 planners discuss about year type classification, as 25 recommended by American literature and by literature 146 1 published by UNESCO, we should operate with the runoff 2 which originates from the whole watershed, not with a part 3 of it. The Four River Index represents only 67 percent of 4 runoff to the Bay and we should all of us remember that 5 the Bay and any estuary was born under the impact of total 6 runoff but not on Four River discharges. 7 That is why in our investigation we use water 8 year-type classification based on total runoff of the 9 Sacramento-San Joaquin River for 58 years to the system. 10 The second part of our investigation is very 11 important to evaluate cyclicity in runoff because in 12 planning of water development based on year to year basis. 13 MS. LEIDIGH: This is Exhibit 1 figure 1.16. 14 DR. ROZENGURT: Based on year to year basis. It 15 may release again with exhaustion on not or 16 overconservative water development. So it was very 17 important to underline cyclicity of river runoff 18 fluctuation and compare what kind of -- do we have the 19 same kind of phenomena in other rivers. 20 To do so we use material on the Susquahana, 21 James, Potomac, Delaware Rivers as well for many, for 22 several Russian rivers, major rivers in the far east which 23 discharge to the Pacific Ocean. 24 What response? Regardless of years of wettness 25 each -- this we have shown the cycle. Each cycle has 147 1 duration about 14 years. We have phase of rise and phase 2 of fall. Phase of rise and phase of fall. And regardless 3 of years of wetness, within each cycle deviation of the 4 normal not more than 25-30 percent. The same type of 5 finding characterizes all 12 rivers in the far east 6 entering the Pacific Ocean from the Soviet side. 7 MS. LEIDIGH: This is Exhibit 1 figure 1.47. 8 DR. ROZENGURT: And the same type of cyclicity 9 of runoff characterizes all the American major rivers 10 which discharge to the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay 11 because they introduce right now some of this figures. It 12 is very interesting to underline and you see that under 13 natural conditions deviation of Potomac, Susquahana, James 14 and Deleware Rivers under natural conditions deviation 15 from the average is only 25-30 percent for all rivers. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Still not getting them 17 identified. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: What page is this on in your 19 Exhibit 1? 20 DR. ROZENGURT: What page? 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I am very sorry, but it is 22 really time consuming. The transcript, I don't know what 23 we are going to do to get this thing reasonable so it is 24 fair to the presentation. Right now it is mangled. 25 If those who are presenting the testimony want 148 1 to go ahead and leave it obscure, we will just have to go 2 ahead. 3 MS. LEIDIGH: I understand this is supposed to 4 be Exhibit 1 figure 311 through 14. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: That doesn't make sense. 6 MS. LEIDIGH: It doesn't make any sense to me. 7 MR. WINTERNITZ: What page is it on the exhibit? 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I think it will be the last 9 time that I will request to stop, like I say, if the 10 testimony is obscure, I am very sorry, but we have to 11 leave it to the people who are introducing these things to 12 make it clear. I just don't think we can afford to be 13 stopping. 14 DR. ROZENGURT: It's not an important part of 15 this presentation. Simply the major portion is the 16 transparency. 17 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes, Mr. Sanger. 19 MR. SANGER: The last point that was raised, as 20 I understand it the figure 311 through 14, in other words, 21 four pages in the report have been mounted on one 22 transparency. 23 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All they need to do is have 24 somebody identify them so it will make sense in the 25 transcript. 149 1 MR. SANGER: I heard it identified and I heard 2 somebody say it makes no sense. 3 MS. LEIDIGH: This comes immediately after page 4 Roman Numeral III.5. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: This is a big jump forward in 6 this report. 7 MR. SANGER: Perhaps the Chair could ask the 8 speaker to speak a little more slowly. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, we did just a minute 10 ago for the reporter. 11 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. I want to just only to 12 say that this type of regularity in which deviation 25-30 13 percent from the natural, characterized all rivers 14 including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers. This is very 15 important to underline that if you look on the first dot 16 curve which introduce the figure 5-A, figure 5-B, and 17 figure 5-C, and 5-D page. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: Okay. These are on pages Roman 19 III.41 and Roman III.51, 52 and 53. I am sorry, these are 20 figure numbers not page numbers. 21 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay, you found. 22 What this illustrate, this is a development of 23 natural process of water supply to the San Francisco Bay. 24 As you can see the annual water fluctuations for each of 25 five years never reached the average point. If natural 150 1 fluctuation was within the frame 20-25 percent the 2 regulated deviation from the average was within 25-45 3 percent. 4 The most drastic changes took place for April, 5 May and June. This is a natural development of the 6 process 25-30 percent prevailing range of fluctuation. 7 And here we have prevailing range of fluctuation, 35-85 8 percent. And that illustrates a huge loss in water supply 9 to the system. 10 The same is observed for May when deviation from 11 the average process, prevailing range between 45-85 12 percent, almost the same percent from the June and the 13 same for spring. That means the system lost a huge amount 14 of water each year and per each season. And now we can 15 introduce this figure which illustrates the amount of 16 water losses which were calculated from 1956 up to 1978. 17 It was found that San Francisco Bay has not 18 received 240 million acrefeet for the 23 years and that is 19 about 60 times, 60 times the volume of the San Francisco 20 Bay itself. And Delta itself have not received 80 million 21 acrefeet, almost 44 times this volume itself. I can 22 illustrate this with three lines. The line, the blue 23 line. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: This is figure 2-74 in Exhibit 1. 25 DR. ROZENGURT: This losses which Delta 151 1 sustained for 23 years, about 80 million acrefeet. After 2 diversions it is about 160 million acrefeet. And total 3 water losses from the San Francisco Bay for 23 years, 240 4 million acrefeet. 5 I want to remind you that these losses we should 6 keep in mind characterizes a million tons of losses of 7 organic and inorganic matter, changes in circulation 8 processes and reduction of velocity, increased retention 9 time in the Delta and San Francisco Bay. And overall 10 reduction of biological productivity and water quality in 11 the Delta. 12 The same kind of development; it is interesting 13 to note, took place in many of the European rivers. At 14 the same time we have overall reduction which practically 15 characterized springtime, the most important period of the 16 year in any estuary. In the summertime we have -- show 17 this. In the summertime we have -- for the springtime we 18 have an additional picture to illustrate, which 19 illustrates cumulative Delta losses of water due to 20 diversions and withdrawals from 1956 for each of the major 21 months of the spring March, April, May and June. 22 MS. LEIDIGH: For the record, this is figure 23 Roman II.67. 24 DR. ROZENGURT: This illustrates the trend which 25 only needs to increase from year-to-year cumulative loses 152 1 for the system which is very difficult to evaluate because 2 fish don't recognize such kind of changes. The same was 3 observed for the cumulative river losses and because of 4 the -- 5 MS. LEIDIGH: Exhibit 566. 6 DR. ROZENGURT: Because upstream diversions 7 which reached the point about 50 million for each month if 8 you can accumulate all the stuff it would be about 140 9 million acrefeet for the 23-year period. 10 And the last one which illustrates for the same 11 most important period of the year. 12 MS. LEIDIGH: This is figure 2.68 of Exhibit 1. 13 DR. ROZENGURT: Cumulative cross-Delta losses of 14 fresh water due to diversions and withdrawal which 15 illustrate overall reduction of runoff from 1945 until 16 1983, 335 million acrefeet or average 11 million acrefeet 17 was taken from the system. Practically what we have for 18 the last, for the -- since 1967: 19 We have, for example, number one, about 50 20 percent of the years, the runoff during spring is equal to 21 runoff which was observed under historical conditions 22 during July, August, September because of additional 23 waters releases. 24 Second: that probability of occurrence of low 25 wetness of the runoff which is observed for the spring and 153 1 for the year, which have earlier under -- would be 2 natural, unimpaired, conditions probability one time for 3 20, 40, 50 years, at this very moment began on the 4 year-to-year basis. Practically from 1967 we have the 5 conditions which would be observed under an impaired 6 runoff only one time for 20-40 years. Right now we have 7 from year-to-year basis and spring-to-spring basis except 8 couple years when we have very serious, very strong 9 discharges. 10 The next one if we compare 25 years -- five 11 years water supply to the system for annual five years for 12 last 20 years, the runoff reduction reach about annual 13 five period 60 percent of water supply. And during this 14 wintertime up to 30 percent water supply. Practically the 15 system has not received huge amount of water for the -- 16 during the -- since December up 'til June. Compared on 17 year-to-year basis and on spring-to-spring basis. The 18 runoff water supply the water decreased during the spring 19 months up to 40-85 percent and what runoff we have right 20 now during the spring is current point to the nature would 21 be probability which would be observed one time per 40, 50 22 or 100 years and right now we have runoff which 23 practically observed on year-to-year basis during the 24 spring. 25 As to annual runoff which we have the last 154 1 period of time. As usual this runoff corresponds because 2 of very strong diversion up to 35-60 percent per year, the 3 runoff which residual which is left to be discharged to 4 the system corresponds to the runoff under natural 5 conditions not at least one time per 20-30 years. That 6 practically what we have right now we have only left 7 geographical name of Sacramento-San Joaquin River. The 8 river which we have right now discharges, the seasonal 9 distribution, doesn't have anything in common with river 10 which would be under unimpaired conditions. And that's 11 why we shouldn't be surprised that a lot of changes which 12 we have witnessed in the last 20 years maybe blamed on 13 runoff reduction. And it's -- I would like to summarize. 14 MS. LEIDIGH: Exhibit 9 is up on the screen 15 right now. 16 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. Summarize this finding 17 that if we look at runoff distribution on year-to-year 18 basis for 58 years of observation and compare the trend of 19 water diversions which took place from 1921-20 up to 1983, 20 we can observe the following redistribution per year of 21 normal for natural conditions. And that is -- 22 MS. LEIDIGH: Exhibit 10 is up. 23 DR. ROZENGURT: And then we have increased water 24 supply during August, September almost 5-7 times and 25 reduction during spring about four times. And of course 155 1 this replacement cannot substitute the losses which river 2 systems sustained during the spring. Especially because 3 of migration and spawning activity and because the spring 4 runoff is the most responsible for flushing the Bay, for 5 maintaining the average salinity, for reduction of 6 salinity intrusion for months to come. Therefore, we 7 cannot say that increase of runoff, and because of 8 returning waters which have a lot of pollutants, can 9 improve the conditions of the San Francisco Bay. 10 I would say that the conditions in San Francisco 11 Bay right now are deteriorated and we are reaching the 12 point which we observe in other parts of the world when 13 after reduction, 50 percent of annual runoff and 40-85 14 percent of spring runoff, the system deteriorated so much 15 that practically we can witness development of irrevocable 16 conditions. 17 I would like to finish, I would like to finish 18 that in Decision 1485 that the recommendation related to 19 the amount of water to be left discharged, five million 20 acrefeet per year, do not correspond in any case to even 21 one time per 100 years under would-be natural conditions 22 (unimpaired). That very much it may surprise very much 23 anybody, any hydrologist, how it is possible to recommend 24 this amount of water can be discharged and maintain water 25 quality. 156 1 Five million acrefeet, under impaired 2 conditions, has not been observed for 83 years, even 3 taking into consideration even runoff which observed 4 beginning from 1878. The same I would like to emphasize 5 that recommendations are enough to be discharged per month 6 for during the spring or winter you are not able to find 7 any correspondence under natural conditions such kind of 8 runoff 300, 500, 1000 acrefeet have never been observed 9 even under very critical period. And the probability of 10 exceedence or year recurrence interval would be natural 11 conditions maybe one time per 200 years. And this level 12 of water diversion was recommended for Decision 1485; 13 that's inconceivable and incomplicatable from the point of 14 American hydrology. 15 The same I would say that in the interrelations 16 which was found and recommended between runoff and 17 salinity which the major data based on collection on the 18 surface was a very rare observation, not in compliance 19 with the federal regulation and oceanographic observation 20 for the Bay cannot be considered for a standard or 21 criteria. And because of that, we have this meeting and 22 we have this problem, and I don't want to see that my new 23 country, who gave me shelter, followed the Soviet Union 24 steps and destroy entirely this National Treasure. The 25 San Francisco Bay does not belong to the north or the 157 1 south, it belongs to this United States of America. 2 Thank you for for your attention. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let me ask a question before 4 you get through, Doctor. I am sorry I had real difficulty 5 following you because of the quickness in jumping from one 6 exhibit to another. But I gather in what you are saying 7 you feel that the depletion of any flow into the Bay Delta 8 estuary is wrong. Is there any level of depletion that 9 you find acceptable from the ecology of the Bay? 10 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. It was found that because 11 of cumulative nature of any estuary including 12 San Francisco Bay, it would be desirable to have mean 13 spring runoff at least 2.5 million acrefeet which 14 correspond about the frequency of current one time per 15 five years. And annual runoff of three preceding years 16 about 17 million acrefeet. This type of finding is 17 correlated with the commercial fish catch and was 18 introduced and presented at NOAA [Estuary of the Month 19 seminar] and will be later presented for the hearing for 20 the next hearing for the Board in Washington a year ago. 21 So there is, what I want -- 22 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Even in dry years do you feel 23 there ought to be that much? 24 DR. ROZENGURT: In dry years we recommend not 25 less than 14, 15 million acrefeet if you want to maintain. 158 1 The reason we want to maintain it is not only because of 2 stripped bass or salmon, but water quality in the Delta, 3 fresh-water intake. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: But have you studied what 5 would be the possibility and what it would entail? 6 DR. ROZENGURT: The possibility may only exist 7 if the new rescheduling of water discharge will take 8 place, number one. 9 Number two, if the water development would be 10 based on cyclicity of changes of wetness which was 11 observed, the same it doesn't matter, Russian and American 12 rivers, and the European rivers, not on year-to-year 13 basis. 14 So it shouldn't be entitlement for the water 15 discharge, the water diversion. The water diversion 16 should be based on limitation which river can provide. 17 And by the way, department MWD report, they underline that 18 the weakness of Department of Water Resources that water 19 diversions are based on entitlement, on contractual 20 obligation but not on the wetness. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I only trying to look at your 22 point of view from what you felt was needed in the 23 Bay-Delta estuary. Is that all covered in your report 24 that is your Exhibit No. 1, your point of view? 25 DR. ROZENGURT: Pardon me? 159 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I say, are the things you 2 just described to me very briefly covered in your Exhibit 3 No. 1, the report that you are co-author of? 4 DR. ROZENGURT: Exactly. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. That is what I 6 wanted to know. If it is all in there I will have a 7 chance to read it and study it because I did have 8 difficulty with the way it was presented here in terms of 9 the exhibits and so on. 10 DR. ROZENGURT: It is all detailed month by 11 month period from 1921 up to 1983, for all years we were 12 able to find the variation, water diversions up and down 13 from the system, amount of water left, how to correspond 14 to the probability of occurence, and do we observe 15 residual flow which we have today under would-be natural 16 conditions and recommendations regarding what amount of 17 water should be left for the system. 18 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Thank you. 19 We are ready then for cross-examination but we 20 may want to take another break. 21 Yes, Mr. Sanger. 22 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman, there are, I believe, 23 five additional, six additional handouts yet to be 24 numbered or introduced. 25 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, as I saw from 160 1 Dr. Rozengurt, he indicated to his aid that he did not 2 want to put it up. So again I don't know how to -- 3 MR. SANGER: They are not being introduced? 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I don't know. He didn't show 5 them. 6 DR. ROZENGURT: The reason because of time 7 limitation and because I want -- excuse me -- underline 8 the major finding related to water distribution changes, 9 so we simply skip to show all the stuff because it takes 10 too much time. 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I would say they are not in, 12 they are not to be recognized. 13 Thank you, Doctor. 14 How many indicate that they would like to 15 cross-examine Dr. Rozengurt? 16 Marcie, Jim Turner, Mr. Sanger, Mr. Schulz. 17 I hate to let you all go, I still despite 18 putting too much pressure on our reporter though. 19 Let's at least have Mr. Turner, who is always 20 first, ask some questions and then see how long that 21 takes. 22 I would like to go to at least until about 3:10 23 or so. 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION 25 Q. BY MR. TURNER. I am James E. Turner, attorney 161 1 for the Department of the Interior. 2 Now, Mr. Rozengurt, I heard in your oral 3 testimony, as well as your summary of your testimony, that 4 you had filed previously that you were talking about the 5 existence of cycles in the river hydrologies or runoff; 6 that is correct? 7 A. Yes, that is correct. 8 Q. Now you mentioned you made reference to 14-year 9 cycles, I believe, is that correct? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Now when we are talking about 14-year cycle, you 12 are talking about a seven year dry, seven year wet or 14 13 dry, 14 wet? I wasn't quite clear how that works. 14 A. No. The cycle, okay. When I discussed about 15 the cycles, 14 years' duration, by the way, was supported 16 by the finding of MWD on, based on precipitation 17 fluctuations. You have alteration of years of different 18 wetness during the cycle and during the phase. So you may 19 observe during the phase very high flow and very low flow. 20 But in average flow during each phase would be less in the 21 case of fall. Then average flow of the period of time 22 during observation, let's say, 58 years. So divided the 23 cycle on the phases. There is special method which 24 introduced in the report, if you normalize the count of 25 changes of runoff of months of runoff and you operate with 162 1 different years of wetness, let's say, ten million 2 acrefeet and 75 million acrefeet can be during the phase. 3 When I find the average for this period you compare this 4 average to the cumulative addition of this years with the 5 average of all period of duration. It's a very simplified 6 explanation method of work. 7 And then you would be able to find through the 8 deviation of runoff which you observe for each of the 9 years, find the place of rise or fall. So each phase may 10 consist of years of very high flow, couple years, and four 11 years as in the case of Sacramento-San Joaquin River 12 subnormal or dry years. That's how it works. 13 Then fluctuations, 14 years' duration of all 14 cycles with five-seven years rise, five-seven years fall. 15 This type of phenomena was observed from any American 16 rivers which we introduced and if you can find the report 17 and was for many European rivers and even for rivers in 18 Southern Africa, the Nile River. 19 Q. Now with respect to these other rivers, are we 20 still talking about a 14-year cycle or just the fact that 21 some cycle did exist but it may be of a different 22 duration? 23 A. No. We have inspected other rivers as well the 24 Sacramento-San Joaquin. There is very strong cycle about 25 14 years and that is why water development and planning 163 1 has to be based on cyclicity, but not on demand. 2 MR. WALSH: Doctor, pull that microphone out 3 about ten inches. 4 DR. ROZENGURT: My voice is very difficult to 5 follow. 6 Q. BY MR. TURNER: Now, I believe in summary of 7 your testimony there was some discussion and I presume 8 it's also in Exhibit 1, a discussion about utilizing 9 five-year moving averages to make some kind of 10 determinations or computation; is that correct? 11 A. Yes. The five-year moving average is a widely 12 used method taken from methodology and recommended in the 13 Bible of American hydrology, [Handbook of] Applied 14 Hydrology written by Chow in 1964, as well as UNESCO, 15 recommendation for hydrology the world over after 16 geophysical year 1974. Because it was found that in 17 northern hemisphere that precipitation has such kind of 18 five years of fluctuation, which by the way, has a 19 boundary about 14 year cycle and the phase five, six years 20 fluctuation up and down. So that because runoff, any 21 runoff originates from the precipitation, so the cycle 22 which, I mean, the Phase I which is acceptable for 23 meteorology 5 running years were transferred by 24 hydrologists on evaluation of runoff changes. 25 Q. So what I am hearing is then we are talk -- you 164 1 are using these, this five-year moving average in how 2 should shall put it, in concert with a 14-year cycle? 3 That they are consistent, we are not talking a seven year 4 moving average, or a 28-year moving average, it's a five 5 year? 6 A. Five years was used in the report for two 7 reasons. 8 First, number one, to show what kind of changes 9 were brought about by man's activities. If you compared 10 five years water supply fluctuation to the Bay under 11 impaired and unimpaired condition. Number one. 12 Number two. It was used five running years to 13 show what the level of deviation took place for the last 14 60 years because of pre-project and post-project 15 development. So this type of technique gives you 16 opportunity immediately to underline that you have under 17 natural conditions 25-30 percent deviations for many 18 rivers. I investigate hundreds of them, and when you have 19 diversion, any kind of diversion, then you immediately 20 have the trend which deviates very sharply from the 21 natural process. This deviation, the five running years 22 give exact opportunity to evaluate and to examine this 23 deviation. 24 Q. Now I am obviously not a statistician, it's my 25 understanding that you can develop moving averages to 165 1 establish any kind of relationship for variation that you 2 want to. Is that accurate? 3 A. Certainly correct. You can use five, seven, 11. 4 The cycle that related to sun spot activities which we use 5 in our report simply as examples and shows very good 6 correlation between runoff fluctuation and sun spot 7 activities. 8 You can use 22 years. It depends what the task 9 you have, what the length of the database you have. So 10 that in our case, five running years, we use, because 11 first of all, it is recommended to use world-wide 12 literature for evaluation of water supply in connection 13 with precipitation. 14 Q. You use five years? 15 A. Yes. MWD uses six years running. Almost 16 without any strong changes. If you use five or six would 17 be the same. Then that is why we use in the report very 18 good findings of MWD, in which they analyze runoff 19 fluctuations of Sacramento-American River, Feather River, 20 Yuba River. What else? Four River Index and with 21 precipitations over their watershed. It is very good 22 work. 23 Q. Now if I am not mistaken, you had done your 24 computations in developing the 14-year cycle and 25 development as well as I believe five year moving average 166 1 based upon a period from 1921 through 1978? 2 A. In there? Yes. 3 Q. Now again statistically, is that what we are 4 talking, a 57-year period? Is that a significantly long 5 enough period of time in which to develop a 14-year cycle 6 and five year moving averages, I mean, is that really 7 reflective of more long-term or is that a short-term 8 analysis? 9 A. Very good question. The best period which is 10 recommended by -- I can't say exactly the literature. 11 It's important to underline what rule is said that you can 12 use the period of observation which has not at least two 13 full cycles, in our case three cycles, and the length of 14 period of the observation not less than 50-60 years. So 15 in this end there is very strong evaluation what error, 16 the limits of errors, for this kind of calculation. 17 58-year period the error which is acceptable is five 18 percent of the average. And in this case that fit 19 afterward. 20 MR. WALSH: So you did run verification tests? 21 DR. ROZENGURT: Oh, yes. 22 MR. WALSH: Small test on it? 23 DR. ROZENGURT: In the report, and I forgot what 24 the page, you have a table which is taken from UNESCO, 25 recommendation for hydrologists which directly depict 167 1 period of time, amount of years and what errors you can 2 arrive at. So in our case we have the best achievement. 3 Q. BY MR. TURNER: Now I noticed in your report you 4 are citing some various authorities which I presume are 5 authorities on hydrology. You have got, I believe, it's 6 Haan of Ohio State, Lindsey of Standford, Chow of 7 Illinois. And L'vovich, I can't even pronounce that. 8 A. L'vovich. 9 Q. Of Colorado State, whatever the name. 10 A. The most outstanding American scientists in the 11 field of hydrology, authors of a lot of monographs. 12 Q. I am wondering if any or all of those particular 13 experts would be experts that would concur with the 14 statement that you had made just recently and also stated 15 in the your report that this, either the 14-year cycle or 16 the five year running average is a universal aspect of 17 estuarine environment. And it is the universal aspect of 18 hydrological analysis. I wonder have they been involved 19 in those kind of analyses or were you citing them for some 20 other reasons? 21 A. No. I was citing them because of in their 22 monographs and their texbooks of American hydrology they 23 recommend the use of this type of methods for evaluation 24 of riverine characteristics, not necessarily riverine, 25 because we are talking about right now about runoff, not 168 1 about the estuary. 2 Q. Now if we recognize that the cycles do exist and 3 we have these moving averages, I am presuming then that it 4 would be your position that that type of information, that 5 type of analysis should be taken into account in 6 determining how a reservoir or impoundment or diversion 7 project should be operated? 8 A. Absolutely correct. 9 Q. Now the problem I have is how do you apply that 10 kind of analysis to a two-project operations recognizing 11 to operate the project you need to be operating on some 12 kind of estimates, some kind of presumptions, some kind of 13 computations of future climatic conditions, correct? 14 A. Exactly. 15 Q. How do we do that? Is there a way where you can 16 recognize this 14-year cycle and maybe nearing the peak as 17 a result of the five year average and so some time what, a 18 year or two in advance are you supposed to presume that 19 yes, that will be the water condition in water year 1990 20 and operate in 1988 with that assumption? 21 A. Good question. Sounds like Academy of Sciences. 22 The recommendation in this regard which was 23 published in International literature and here that if you 24 have four years' runoff information, the procedure, let's 25 say, today we have 1987. You have four years preceding 169 1 1987 information about average runoff per spring, let's 2 say from December, November till May 1st. So you have 3 average water supply for four years. 4 Then Department of Water Resources collects 5 information in advance about snow pack, and they may say 6 what amount of water they expect for this year, that is 7 how they produce. So you have five year running and you 8 have average four years preceding and the year which got 9 the information. So you may say, okay, this average year 10 for the period would correspond to normal or subnormal 11 year of wetness. Okay. 12 Q. Right. 13 A. I may recommend that if we have not normal or 14 less, subnormal, we may divert without deterioration of 15 system let's say seven, ten, 11 million acrefeet. If you 16 have above normal wetness you can say we can use 17 additional capacity divert 15-20 million acrefeet like was 18 done in 1978 was diverted almost 21 million acrefeet. So 19 based on this you have flexibility to recommend the amount 20 of water which it is possible to divert with or without 21 deterioration of conditions and destruction of the system. 22 Q. How does that, I guess I didn't understand from 23 your explanation how the four or five years of background 24 data would be utilized to support or to assist you in 25 making the decision any different than would if you were 170 1 just going on an annual basis? You always got the 2 background information. How does this 14 cycle or five 3 year moving average give you any more practical 4 information than you have than you go out and look at the 5 show pack of your inflow and say, all right, here is what 6 I think is what I am going to get this year. I know where 7 my carryover storage was from last year. Now here is the 8 amount I think I will operate that way this year. Now you 9 are saying no, you can't do that. We got to look at this 10 broader picture. I am trying to figure out how do we look 11 at this broader picture and incorporate this into the 12 decision. 13 A. This is very easy. That is exactly what the 14 last five, seven years, you can read a lot of literature 15 in that regard of that. Because the water diversion on 16 year-to-year basis, at least the one year you grabbed 17 70-65 percent of spring runoff and another year you only 18 grab the 5-10 percent of runoff. You cannot explain your 19 actions to fish, how to behave or how to spawn or so on. 20 So the five year approach gives you some flexibility and 21 to divert amount of water which would make some changes, 22 but changes that the system can stand. How do you do 23 that? 24 Let's say you have observation four years. 25 10-20, 10-15 million acrefeet, okay. The average would be 171 1 at 17. So you have data for the last year, it would -- 2 they expect, if I am not mistaken, this year 11 million 3 acrefeet. So if you put that five years at 11, it would 4 be 15 million acrefeet. So you got subnormal year of 5 wetness, okay. So if you have subnormal year of wetness 6 for long period of time, and you have the problem during 7 this period of time, you may say because for all this last 8 five years we have subnormal period of wetness, and all 9 the years within have very low wetness, after all, that we 10 can divert not 11 or 13 million acrefeet and to leave 11 residual Delta outflow which doesn't have any 12 correspondence for the probability under natural 13 conditions, but we can divert only seven million acrefeet. 14 At least 50 percent residual flow to be discharged, not 15 like it was in 1977, when in an absolutely critical year 16 nobody paid attention and grabbed almost 73 percent water 17 from the system and what was left to discharge to the Bay 18 was equal the difference between precipitation and 19 evaporation. And that means zero water balance. 20 Q. Let me take the other side of the coin though. 21 Let's assume as I think you were presenting in your 22 hypothetical that you had -- 23 A. No. It is not a hypothetical. It's based on 24 good American work and Russian, French and Germany. 25 Q. What I am talking about is the situation where 172 1 the project operator has already experienced four below 2 normal water years. Now then from the estimated inflow 3 the runoffs that are intended to -- expected to occur in 4 this particular year, it is going to be assumed that there 5 is going to be a fifth below normal year back-to-back. 6 Would that support, using this 14-year cycle and this five 7 year moving average, would that support the assumption by 8 the operator that, well, since I have had five below 9 normal years in a row and since we have these cycles that 10 I am now familiar with, that it is reasonable for me to 11 presume that next year it is certainly going to be at 12 least normal, maybe even above normal, so that we still 13 continue to have this cyclical fluctuations, thereby 14 justifying release of more than the inflow in that 15 particular year or does it only work on the other side, 16 that you can release less but you can never release more? 17 A. You are right. There is not any model the world 18 over which can predict with assurance at least 60 percent, 19 what year of wetness you may expect in 1988. You know 20 that weather prediction could be correct 90 percent for 21 the first 24 hours, 65 percent next 48 hours, and 50 22 percent 72 hours. And then everything else is darkness, 23 that is a guess based on experience. So there is no -- 24 there is long-term prediction right now done by American 25 scientists, climatologists and in Europe that showed that 173 1 wetness of rivers in the northern hemisphere, within 2 moderate climate, decreased about 10-25 percent, and this 3 trend will continue to the end of the century. 4 Q. So we got another factor there as well then? 5 A. There is, of course, a factor which is 6 overlooked which is decrease of wetness. In some areas 7 decrease and some areas increase. 8 For the western part of the United States there 9 is information about ten percent would be -- can increase 10 wetness. Operator, I mean not operator, man, engineer 11 operator, but top level officials and top level 12 specialists in Bureau of Reclamation and Department of 13 Water Resources, has to be responsible for evaluation of 14 this type of changes. How they can influence the 15 operation of major water project facilities. 16 Q. Doctor, would you happen to know any specific 17 projects, either here in the United States or overseas, 18 that are in fact operated based upon estimated or 19 calculated cycles -- 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. -- water cycles? 22 A. There is two huge projects which operate 23 recently, I mean, recently because of changes of political 24 situation now in Russia and they started from 1975, that's 25 seven power station on Dnieper River. Dnieper River has 174 1 about 54 kilometers cubed [54 km/3] per year, how many, 2 it's about 50 million acrefeet of runoff. 3 And Volga River which has 280 kilometer cubed 4 [280 km/3] -- 250 million acrefeet runoff have 12 power 5 stations. They started to operate, to take into 6 consideration, the previous wetness of years of previous 7 period and they, they scheduled, they discharged during 8 the springtime because they reached the point of entire 9 destruction what I showed in the book. 10 Q. Are you talking -- you said both of these 11 projects, both of these projects in Russia, both power 12 projects or they are projects for water supply for 13 irrigation? 14 A. Multipurpose, multipurpose. They provide 15 irrigation, if I am not mistaken, right now but I cannot 16 find it, about ten million hectares -- what hectares means 17 in United States. Ten million hectares is a huge amount 18 of land. 19 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: 2.74 acres. 20 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. 21 Q. BY MR. TURNER: Are you aware of any other 22 projects in any other are countries that are operated on 23 the cyclical calculations? 24 A. No. It was discussed in Egyptian literature by 25 Egyptian, French and British especially that of the Nile. 175 1 If they want to have the Nile Delta to to be destroyed to 2 the end as a fishery in the eastern Mediterranean Sea it 3 has to be operated on the year, on the understanding of 4 year of different wetness of the Nile. That is 5 discussion. And they increase right now the discharge to 6 the Mediterranean Sea from five million acrefeet to 11. 7 And there are some positive changes, not very much, but 8 much better than it was when they have only three million 9 acrefeet discharged for the Mediterranean Sea since 1954, 10 it is published. 11 Q. Doctor, the last question I would have for you 12 in the summary of testimony in any event there is a 13 comparison of the runoff conditions in, I presume its 14 water year 1936, '37 and the water year '61, '62. 15 A. 1936? 16 Q. Yes. '36,' 37, 1961 and '62. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse me. How long are you 18 going to be? 19 MR. TURNER: Probably just about another five 20 minutes. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, now can our reporter 22 survive another five minutes? 23 THE REPORTER: Another five, okay. 24 DR. ROZENGURT: How lucky I am, okay. 25 MR. TURNER: Let me just scratch that. 176 1 DR. ROZENGURT: The page is 227 my 2 understanding. 1937 year. Seasonal fluctuation. 3 MR. WALSH: I would go along with let's scratch 4 it. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. TURNER: I just decided I don't think this 7 is that important, so we will just -- I will just retract 8 the question. 9 MR. WALSH: Thank you. 10 MR. TURNER: That would all that I would have. 11 MR. WALSH: God bless you. 12 (Laughter.) 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Still have other people 14 examining, but let's take 15 minutes and go 25 minutes to 15 4:00. 16 (Recess taken.) 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Everybody ready we can go 18 ahead. 19 Ms. Steinberg. 20 MS. STEINBERG: Thank you. I am Marcie 21 Steinberg and I represent the Department of Water 22 Resources. 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 Q. BY MS. STEINBERG: Dr. Rozengurt, you have 25 mentioned repeatedly about the impact of fresh-water 177 1 outflow on the San Francisco Bay. Are there any other 2 factors beside fresh-water inflow which can affect the 3 Bay? 4 A. Oh, yes. As a matter of fact there may be 5 man-derived pollutants but what I read for the reports of 6 State Water Resources Control Board that monitors and 7 watches that condition in San Francisco Bay improve very 8 significantly for the last ten years because of what was 9 spent, almost $2.4 billion, on water quality improvement. 10 So in this regard I consider that runoff was the most 11 important factor. 12 Q. Do you mean runoff out of the Delta or do you 13 mean urban run into the Bay? 14 A. No. Runoff out in the Delta. 15 Q. What about the effect of filling the bay in 16 years past, would that have an impact? 17 A. It may have impact on the range of, let's say, 18 tidal prism but not on impact which originates from runoff 19 and discharges to the system. 20 Q. You mentioned the tidal prism. Let's turn to 21 that issue. 22 I am now looking at your Exhibit 1 page I.3, 23 Roman Numeral I.3. Okay. Page one of three. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. I am a little actually concerned about one of 178 1 your conclusions here and I guess I would like to go 2 through it and see how it really fits. It's towards the 3 bottom at the end of the last full paragraph that starts 4 "This implies." And I will read that. 5 "This implies that only one tenth or even 6 less of a tidal prism participates in the 7 renewal of the Bay water, while the role of 8 runoff on recycling estuarine water masses is 9 two orders of magnitude higher." 10 I would like to go over these an how you got 11 there. Let me go through your calculations that my staff 12 had has made. 13 In fact, I would like to turn that calculation 14 at this point over to Ed Winkler and have him explain to 15 you the question we have with that particular calculation. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Please identify yourself. 17 MR. WINKLER: Edward D. Winkler. 18 MR. WALSH: Will you explain the premise again? 19 MR. WINKLER: Dr. Rozengurt has -- 20 MS. STEINBERG: The issue is the relative impact 21 of fresh-water outflow versus the tidal prism. That is 22 what we are trying to figure out. I figure maybe I could 23 explain it in lay person's terms better. 24 MR. WALSH: I don't know what they would do 25 without you, Marcie. 179 1 MR. WINKLER: First of all, the Department of 2 Water Resources has testified that the tidal prism has 3 approximately 1.1 million acrefeet; do you agree with 4 that? 5 DR. ROZENGURT: Correct. 6 MR. WALSH: Give me the definition of tidal 7 prism. 8 MR. WINKLER: It's that block of water needed, 9 the difference between the high and low tide, the volume 10 of water that enters the Bay, that volume between high and 11 low tide. It can be defined as maximum level. 12 MR. WALSH: Okay. 13 MR. WINKLER: One tenth of the tidal prism is 14 110,000 acrefeet. That volume of water moves into or out 15 of the Bay four times in a tidal cycle, on the average 16 flow on ebb and flow. That means 110,000 acrefeet move 17 into or out of the Bay every 6.2 hours. Which is 18 equivalent to a flow rate of 215,000 cfs through the 19 Golden Gate four times a day. 20 Dr. Rozengurt's estimate of the average Delta -- 21 the average fresh-water outflow is 23,400 cfs. The tidal 22 flow is ten times the average Delta outflow. That is the 23 point. 24 MS. STEINBERG: In view of the fact that the -- 25 as Mr. Winkler has explained -- how can you say that the 180 1 Delta outflow itself is two times greater. Two orders 2 what we call orders of magnitude I don't know what means. 3 Two orders of magnitude greater than the influence of the 4 tide. 5 DR. ROZENGURT: First of all, the tidal prism, 6 it is incorrect to calculate tidal prism based on range of 7 tides in the Golden Gate does not -- that is incorrect. 8 And the Berkeley University -- 9 MR. WALSH: I am sorry. Will you repeat that? 10 DR. ROZENGURT: If we rely on evaluation of 11 volume of water coming from the ocean through the Golden 12 Gate, there is tidal prism for entire San Francisco Bay, 13 that is not correct. The reason is because we have the 14 lag time between -- when during the rise and fall and the 15 time when you have flood at the Golden Gate, you have ebb 16 in the area of Suisun Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin-Delta 17 area. 18 So according to the work which was performed in 19 1976 at Berkeley University under supervision at that 20 time, if I am not mistaken of Professor Johnson and many 21 other specilists. They recommended how to calculate tidal 22 prism for different size of the San Francisco Bay. And 23 their finding was that tidal prism would be much less than 24 if you simply multiplied the range of tide near the Golden 25 Gate on area of the San Francisco Bay. Number one. 181 1 Number two. If tidal prism is 1.2 million 2 acrefeet had the impact on San Francisco Bay of flushing 3 its natural and man-derived pollutants, that after eight 4 cycles we have the salinity, if we assumed that 5 1.2 million acrefeet entirely mixed with the waters in the 6 estuary. 7 MS. STEINBERG: But that is not the assumption. 8 You are taking it to an extreme. 9 DR. ROZENGURT: That is the assumption which 10 originates from the definition of the tidal prism in the 11 oceanographic literature. 12 It assumes that mixing would be taking place 13 from the surface of the bottom. So after eight cycles at 14 least, you have salinity near the Delta would be equal 15 almost the salinity of the Pacific Ocean and that is 16 absurd. 17 Therefore, it was found in 1942, as published in 18 the Monographs named "Oceans" by Sverdrup, Fleming and 19 Munk, that for the San Francisco Bay on the fraction of 20 tidal prism participate in water salt exchange, and there 21 is no comparison of the impact of runoff for, let's say, 22 calculate annual water balance on flushing activities in 23 the Bay in comparison with the tidal prism. And that was 24 proved by observations provided by NOAA, and several 25 articles published by outstanding American oceanographer 182 1 Ketchum between 1951-1953. 2 Outstanding American oceanographers known the 3 world over Ketchum, and others, Strommell, Sverdrip, 4 Johnson, Flemming, Robinson, and others who stated that 5 only a fraction of the tidal prism participates within the 6 tidal excursion, and for San Francisco Bay is not more 7 than ten kilometers as was determined in the work "The 8 Urbanized Estuary," edited by John Conomos. 9 Therefore, tidal fluctuation provides vertical 10 mixing in very limited areas and the energy of the tidal 11 prism dissipates immediately beyond the Golden Gate 12 towards San Francisco Bay. 13 While runoff as it affects water density, which 14 provide advection, causes mixing on the way to the ocean 15 the estuarine water masses. This occurs not only for the 16 San Francisco Bay, but for any estuary. That is why an 17 estuary is able to maintain an average salinity much less 18 than the salinity of the adjacent sea or the ocean. 19 MS. STEINBERG: I would like you to turn to your 20 page Roman I.13. And I have just have a quick question 21 there as to whether your formula for inflow to the Delta 22 includes local inflow from local streams into the Bay or 23 is that just Delta inflow? 24 DR. ROZENGURT: Oh, Delta, of course. 25 Q. BY MS. STEINBERG: It does not include the 183 1 inflow from local streams. 2 A. That is so imperceptible that it is within the 3 precision of calculation of Delta outflow. 4 Q. Is ten percent imperceptible? 5 A. It's not ten percent, but based on data from the 6 Department of Water Resources, it's only five percent. 7 Q. And five percent is imperceptible? 8 A. Yes. That is how the methods of calculation of 9 water balance for estuaries which was published in 1974 by 10 group of American and Russian scientists Chapman and 11 Sokolof and you have citation in this regard in the 12 report. 13 Q. On page Roman IV.6 of your summary of testimony 14 I believe -- 15 A. Roman IV.6. Okay. 16 Q. On number 14 you are discussing the August and 17 September Delta outflows. And then you compare them to 18 natural Delta outflow. 19 I would like to first ask you if -- have you 20 been listening to the testimony previously regarding the 21 difference between natural and unimpaired? 22 A. No. I just -- I wasn't here at the time. But 23 there is not only testimony but hundreds of articles 24 published that compared natural and unimpaired versus 25 impaired runoff. So that is an axiom tht nobody discusses 184 1 any more. 2 Unimpaired runoff is runoff which was formed in 3 the river basin without any human intervention. 4 Q. Would that also mean that there would be no 5 dikes, levees, et cetera in the lower basin on the rivers 6 in the Delta? 7 A. Dikes, levees and anything don't have an impact 8 on runoff because runoff originates from watershed. 9 Q. And -- 10 A. Precipitation on area of watershed. 11 Q. And there would be no effect from the difference 12 between the natural Delta in its unleveed state and the 13 Delta as it is now? 14 And also the river channel tributaries to the 15 Delta in their unleveed state versus what they are now? 16 A. You mix two different characteristics. The 17 Delta channels and levees, that is hydraulics, that's not 18 hydrology. Of course, any type of deepening of channels, 19 additional channels would change the circulation patterns 20 in the Delta. But they are not -- they have not -- they 21 never changed the amount of water which was discharged 22 through the Delta. If you have 27 million acrefeet and it 23 doesn't matter whether they have one channel or a dozen 24 channels, it goes down to the sea. 25 Q. There is no change in, for example, 185 1 evapotranspiration for native vegetation? 2 A. Oh, I assume that the Delta was like a swamp, it 3 was even higher, maybe. Natural consumptive use inside 4 the Delta than you have today a bald Delta, without any 5 vegetation, I mean, natural. 6 Q. Would you also have a change in the timing of 7 the outflow? 8 A. No. The Delta, the changes in the Delta 9 hydraulics and morphometric characteristics of the Delta 10 don't have any impact on timing, because timing of outflow 11 depends upon climatologic characteristics, like the 12 temperature of the air, time of the rainy season and snow 13 melt. 14 Q. Okay. 15 MR. WALSH: Aren't you glad you got started down 16 that line of questioning? 17 MS. STEINBURG: I believe there is a witness to 18 read back when it comes to now the first day or two of the 19 hearing. 20 Back on page Roman IV.6 on 14 you discussed, as 21 I said, August and September in Delta outflow. 22 And you say that the maximum positive deviation 23 talking about that and presuming this deviation is a 24 result of recurrent flows. Isn't it more likely that 25 those deviations would be from storage releases? 186 1 A. It may be from storage release and returning 2 flow. Information about returning flow I simply pick up 3 from different State Water Resources Control Board reports 4 and from the Department of Water Resources reports of the 5 latest period when there was discussion about the 6 peripheral Canal, for example. So it may be that the 7 drainage network discharges in addition to releases from 8 storage facilities. But in any case, in American science 9 says if you have drainage of natural water discharges, 10 that means bad water, filled with a different kind of 11 agricultural pollutants, they require as much as eight up 12 to 30 times the volume of fresh-water to be diluted. So I 13 am not sure that what increase you have can be considered 14 as a positive element for the Delta. And we didn't hear 15 during this day's testimony that the Delta has very good 16 water quality. 17 Q. What is the source of the value that you used in 18 your Exhibit 1 for natural flow? 19 A. The source is the Department of Water Resources. 20 Q. Was that the Department of Water Resources 21 unimpaired flow study? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So you use in your Exhibit 1 what you are 24 calling natural, is really what the Department used for 25 unimpaired flow? 187 1 A. I don't see very strong difference. 2 MS. STEINBURG: Thank you. That is all the 3 questions I have. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. 5 South Delta Water Agency, Mr. Woodridge? 6 MR. WOODRIDGE: No questions. 7 No questions. 8 MS. STEINBERG: May I? 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. 10 MS. STEINBERG: May I ask one other? 11 DR. ROZENGURT: The last is the most important 12 question. 13 MS. STEINBERG: It has nothing to do with this 14 witness. 15 DR. ROZENGURT: Okay. 16 MR. WALSH: Be careful. 17 MS. STEINBERG: I would like to announce that we 18 have submitted some items that were requested of us in our 19 cross-examination and those include the Salt II Results 20 for the additional stations other than Collinsville. The 21 Fissure Results for our DWR 51 exhibit and the Salt II, 22 verification including the reverification of Fisher Model 23 using Salt II found to go in? 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. Is that what you had in 25 mind, Barbara? 188 1 MS. LEIDIGH: Yes. And also that we received 2 from Dr. Orlob some copies of the Fisher Delta Model 3 verification materials. And we have seven extra copies 4 that can be obtained from staff. They are at the staff 5 table. 6 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Seven extra for those who are 7 vitally interested in that. 8 MS. LEIDIGH: He says that they came from DWR; I 9 thought they came from Dr. Orlob. 10 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: DWR. Yes. 11 MS. LEIDIGH: The others are available, too, 12 from Miss Steinberg. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Contra Costa Water District 14 want to take time for a few questions? 15 MR. NELSON: Hopefully a few. 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION 17 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Carl Nelson for Contra Costa 18 Water District, Oakley Water District and City of Antioch. 19 Is it Mr. Rozengurt or Dr. Rozengurt? 20 A. As you wish. 21 Q. Okay. First, I just want to -- 22 MR. WALSH: It's Doctor. 23 MR. NELSON: Dr. Rozengurt, first of all, I 24 wanted to clarify that last response. Your analysis is 25 based upon a technical comparison between present 189 1 conditions in terms of outflow to the -- into the 2 Bay-Delta Estuary and what you called natural runoff 3 conditions; is that correct? 4 A. Yes. Well, the Department of Water Resource's 5 name unimpaired flow. 6 Q. So the comparison is between unimpaired flow and 7 impaired -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. I have a couple questions about 10 Exhibit 1. 11 First of all, if you could turn to page IV.8, 12 the fourth full paragraph appearing on that page. And in 13 particular, the last sentence you refer to, you suggest 14 that a more balanced distribution of water which can meet 15 some of the needs of agriculture and other municipal and 16 industrial users should be the scenario the Board should 17 adopt. 18 I was wondering what happens with the other 19 agricultural users? The other municipal users if you are 20 only meeting some of these needs? 21 A. I assume that I discussed about what should be 22 the balanced water economy which must take into 23 consideration the requirements of different water users 24 for water supply but this requirement should be based on 25 natural limitations in the water supply. 190 1 Q. So you are suggesting that everyone should be 2 cut back equally in order to accommodate the outflow 3 requirements you are talking about? 4 A. I would say to be honest it should be done so. 5 Q. Have you done any evaluation of the extent or 6 the amount that water reductions that would be required 7 to -- 8 A. It was done only in regard to the fishery 9 because the fish are first indicator of deterioration of 10 the system. That is the world-wide method which is used 11 by people. So we found that in regard to the salmon, 12 striped bass, shad, that it should be at least 13 2.5 million acrefeet average per spring, average, not sum. 14 And about 17 million acrefeet average per year for three 15 preceding years or three preceding springs, respectively. 16 Q. Are you suggesting then that if under the 17 conditions of water supply that's available in a 18 particular year, that the amount should necessarily be a 19 reduction in that amount of water users that draw their 20 sources of supply from the Delta? 21 A. Yes. It should be maintained this level. There 22 are several ways to do so, maybe some of them are to 23 enlarge existing ponds, to build a retarding basin out of 24 the Delta or to enlarge existing facilities and use them 25 only for accumulation during very abnormal wet years of 191 1 water supply and then discharge the water supply for years 2 to come, for example, 1986 and 1980. For 1983, if such 3 kind of facilities existed, it would be no problem for 4 water supply for north and south for the next 10-15 years. 5 Q. Your suggestions were such facilities could be 6 constructed? 7 A. I sent my proposal (regarding out-of-Delta 8 Reservoir) for the Department of Water Resources about 9 four years ago, in this regard. Here I can only describe 10 the example which exists in another part of the world. 11 You have a dry creek, for example, which is not 12 in use during the summertime, therefore one may simply 13 separate a creek from the major river and accumulate water 14 during winter or springtime within its natural boundaries 15 then discharge gradually to the Delta and maintain very 16 good water quality and water supply in the Delta during 17 the time when deficit in water supply is pronounced. 18 There are some dry creeks in the vicinity of the Delta 19 which can be used for this purpose. 20 Q. Have you estimated the capacity of these creeks 21 for storage potential? 22 A. I have not but simply acquired in discussion, I 23 reported it is possible to accumulate about 500,000 to 24 1 million acrefeet per year in this kind of 25 semi-artificial storage without any damage for the fishery 192 1 or anything else. 2 There is such kind of construction, not here, 3 which accumulate some water excess, not surplus and then 4 discharge to the bottom during the time when everybody 5 needs. 6 Q. So in other words, you have not made any 7 calculations as to whether -- how this could be 8 accomplished in the spring? 9 A. Not for this river. For the Don River I 10 participated in this calculation. The Don River 11 discharges water into the Azov Sea in the Soviet Union. 12 Q. I would like to turn to page IV.9 of Exhibit 1. 13 It says suggestion identified as "C" under "Passive 14 measures," about half the way down the page. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. The suggestion is "To return to conditions of 17 seasonal distribution of runoff more closely resembling 18 natural patterns which are now distorted by reduction of 19 spring flows and artificial increases in late summer and 20 fall flows." 21 I take it you would suggest increasing spring 22 flows and reducing summer and and fall flows; is that 23 correct? 24 A. Almost correct. What we have right now since, 25 if I am not mistaken, 1968 up to 1983, in more than 50 193 1 percent cases, the flow during the late summer and autumn, 2 it has the same value as the spring, that is abnormal, I 3 would say, at least. So my point is that is not a normal 4 distribution. So there should be increased discharge 5 during the springtime. And it may decrease or increase in 6 summertime, it doesn't matter. At that time no one fish 7 species needs to have this amount of water in the system. 8 Q. So you are not suggesting that less water be 9 released and less water flow into the Delta in summer 10 months? 11 A. No. I am only suggest spring flow has to be 12 higher than summer flow. That is how nature said. 13 MR. NELSON: Okay. No further questions. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. 15 Thank you Mr. Nelson. 16 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Bay Institute, Mr. Sanger. 18 MR. SANGER: Yes. 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION 20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: My name is John Sanger appearing 21 for Bay Institute of San Francisco. 22 Dr. Rozengurt, I would like to return again to 23 the subject that seems to be a favorite of both mine and 24 of Miss Steinberg's. Just a moment. Regarding the 25 relative influences of tidal flow and fresh-water inflow 194 1 into the Delta and the Bay. 2 Would you explain briefly what the nature of or 3 significance of advection or entrainment. I understand 4 the terms to mean the same, if I am wrong. Would you 5 explain the meaning and significance of those terms in 6 terms of hydrological or oceanographic analysis? 7 A. Yes. In the American and other oceanography 8 there is such kind of terminology the "dragging in" or 9 entrainment of estuarine water by runoff. That implies 10 because runoff has less, much less density than water 11 coming from the sea, it's floating over the sea water and 12 on the way to the sea it provides vertical mixing and 13 drags in estuarine water, mixes water and drags it into 14 the open ocean. 15 That's the major factor of salt-water balance in 16 any estuary and without such dragging in effect you have 17 salinization of basin and stagnation of the basin. That 18 is why small tidal inlets suffer from the lack of oxygen 19 during the summertime. Right now we have in Texas 20 estuaries stagnation and anoxia, that is lack of oxygen. 21 You have lack of oxygen in the Nile Delta. You 22 have lack of oxygen in the Azov Sea, and in the western 23 part of the Black Sea because of the diminished impact, 24 the impact of runoff on flushing intensity of estuary and 25 coastal zone. That's exactly how it works. 195 1 Q. Do I understand correctly that -- let's take the 2 assumption that there is virtually no or very low 3 fresh-water inflow. Then is there any mixing to take 4 place as a result of tidal movement? 5 A. It would be a very, very small mixing and 6 sluggish circulation controlled by wind and tide, but it 7 would not have the same intensity of flushing the estuary 8 by runoff. And especially when an estuary experiences a 9 long period of very low runoff, it may result in 10 increase, what is known in the American literature as the 11 vertical stability and density of estuarine waters. And 12 even if high floods takes place, the major part of it, 13 like it was in 1986, discharged to the ocean out to the 14 Farallon Islands without appropriate mixing in the estuary 15 because as sharp layer of discontinuity has been formed as 16 a result of chronic deficit in fresh water supply to the 17 San Francisco Bay for many preceding years. 18 Q. Then do I understand that it is the quantity of 19 fresh-water flowing out to the Bay to -- I guess the Delta 20 to the Bay, that if I understood what I believe to be your 21 Exhibit 7, effects different salinity levels in different 22 portions of the estuary? 23 A. Yes. There is a very strong relationship 24 between the runoff and average salinity of the waters for 25 estuaries of any different size. 196 1 It was first found in 1960's by British, 2 American and Russian scientists and published between 3 1962-1967 and then was confirmed by many other 4 specialists, based on which you can predict in advance 5 what salinity to expect over such and such a period of 6 time if you have runnoff reduction. 7 Q. Is it your understanding that the tidal prism 8 itself, that the flow into and out of the Bay, and the 9 volume of which has come to be called the tidal prism, and 10 as you have modified it to explain that the size of the 11 tidal prism may vary, presently involves the incursion or 12 the movement into the Bay during each cycle a substantial 13 amount of what could be called new ocean water. In other 14 words, ocean water that has not previously been inside the 15 Bay? 16 A. I haven't able to find any such description. 17 First of all, the first three hours during the 18 flood, if you provide good field observation, you would be 19 able to find that the water coming to the estuary has the 20 same chemical and biological characteristics as water just 21 before it left the estuary during the ebb. And that first 22 three hours of flood are responsible for comming in the 23 major volume of this water into the Bay through the Gate. 24 While the most part of the flood characterized by low 25 velocities may carry in new water which represent only a 197 1 fraction of this tidal prism. Let's say, for average 2 conditions, something about 100,000 acrefeet may come in 3 through the channel to the Bay. And the major excursion 4 of this new ocean water, it is about ten kilometers to the 5 Bay from the Golden Gate. That is all, everything else is 6 mixed water. This water movement has been analyzed and is 7 described very good in American oceanographic literature 8 since 1940's. 9 MR. WALSH: You are saying only roughly one 10 tenth -- 11 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. 12 MR. WALSH: -- of the prism? 13 DR. ROZENGURT: -- of the prism. 14 MR. WALSH: -- is new ocean water unmixed? 15 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. Unmixed, yes. 16 MR. WALSH: Thank you. 17 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Mr. Walsh, you asked the 18 question better than than I. 19 Dr. Rozengurt, Miss Steinberg asked you about a 20 subject that has been discussed frequently here and that 21 is that realtionship between what may be termed natural 22 conditions and unimpaired conditions or natural flows and 23 unimpaired flows. I am not sure I understood your answer 24 or you understood Ms. Steinberg's question. But I want to 25 clarify a couple of matters. 198 1 First, it is my understanding, I think it is 2 clear, is it not, that the data you used which you refer 3 to as natural Delta outflow, is outflow estimated under 4 so-called unimpaired outflow? 5 A. Yes. There is no strong difference in the 6 hydrological literature to say natural, that simply 7 implied the same as unimpaired, undisturbed by man's 8 activity. That is the definition you can find in any 9 textbook. 10 Q. Yes, but to clarify what the data that the 11 Department of Water Resources has made available 12 constitutes, as I understand it, unimpaired flow as 13 published by the Department of Water Resources is an 14 estimate of flows involving some man-made modifications to 15 the estuary primarily involving levees in the Delta 16 dredging of certain Delta channels and similar activity? 17 A. Only two things has an impact on runoff 18 fluctuations, practically, precipation and deforestation 19 the watershed over. 20 Q. Different what? 21 A. Deforestation. 22 Q. Deforestation? 23 A. Deforestation. I have problem with English. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse the interruption. But 25 I really think there has been an awful lot of testimony 199 1 about unimpaired and so on, unless it's really directly to 2 your point, again, I don't know that asking this witness 3 what the Department of Water Resources means by unimpaired 4 or re-describing it. Unless I -- 5 MR. SANGER: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking what 6 the Department of Water Resources -- 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You are asking whether he 8 understood it? 9 MR. SANGER: Well, I had difficulty 10 understanding his response to Miss Steinberg's question 11 and I want to make sure. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Then it gets into 13 reforestation and that is really far afield. 14 MR. SANGER: Deforestation. 15 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, deforestation is far 16 afield. 17 MR. SANGER: Due to the language problem, I 18 think there is some misunderstanding between a question of 19 what flow to the Delta is under unimpaired conditions and 20 the flow out of the Delta into the Bay. That is the 21 issue. 22 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: He said that he used the 23 department's unimpaired flow. 24 Yes. I am not being argumentative. I am just 25 trying to find out what you are going to get at. Go 200 1 ahead. 2 MR. SANGER: Okay. 3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Dr. Rozengurt, have you had any 4 occasion to consider what Delta outflows would have been 5 on the average prior to any modification of the estuary by 6 anyone? 7 A. From the data which was published, first in 1923 8 then 1927, and then 1931 by Water Division of the 9 Department of Public Works, they estimated, the average 10 runnoff from 1872 up to 1929 as equal 31, if I am not 11 mistaken, million acrefeet. That includes the Sacramento 12 and the San Joaquin Rivers. 13 The latest estimation based on data which was 14 furnished by the Department of Water Resources from 1921 15 up to 1978, the average runoff inflow into the Delta was 16 equal 28.3 MAF. So you have difference three million 17 acrefeet. But I am not considering this very essential 18 because precision of evaluation of the normal river inflow 19 to the Delta within the range of this difference. 20 Q. If I understand you, the degree of differences 21 it makes is between the two is not of any significance 22 from a hydrological standpoint? 23 A. Not at all. 24 Q. Thank you. 25 Turning to a difference topic. On page Roman 201 1 numeral II.32 of the report, your Exhibit No. 1, I want to 2 make sure I understand the second and third paragraphs. 3 And this is referred to elsewhere I believe that this is 4 one place. 5 Is it correct that your studies indicate that 6 summer flow shown to be higher, that is, the August and 7 September flows were shown to be higher under regulated 8 conditions or impaired conditions than under unimpaired 9 conditions are not believed to be, actually consist of at 10 least entirely fresh-water inflow from the rivers but 11 rather of return flows? 12 A. I assumed -- I am not assuming -- I am sure, 13 that four returning flows a major part of it belongs to 14 the drainage network. If this artificially increased 15 amount of flow which is the 5-7 times higher than would be 16 natural, would have originated from the fresh flow 17 releases, we would not have the problems in the Delta or 18 would have less problems. 19 These increments of the regulated Delta outflow 20 or the major part of them, which I had speculated, that is 21 my understanding are discharges from the drainage network. 22 Therefore, even if you have releases of 500,000 from the 23 agricultural drainage network and 500,000 from storages, 24 this volume of fresh water would be able to dilute all 25 pesticide and herbicide coming from the agricultural 202 1 business. 2 Q. Would you turn to page Roman numeral I.51. This 3 table 1.2? 4 A. I.51. 5 Q. Of Exhibit 1. 6 Q. The table which compares the number of events 7 classified as to certain water year type under the Four 8 River Index compared, as I understand it, to the number of 9 years which would be classified as being under the same 10 year type based on the total river inflow in the Delta; is 11 that correct?. That is where table comes in? 12 A. Yes, that is correct. 13 Q. I want to understand, if I may, if I understand 14 this table, it indicates quite simply that the Four River 15 Index heavily distorts the actual likelihood of 16 probability of a certain degree of wetness or dryness 17 compared to the total flow from the watershed; is that 18 what that table shows? 19 A. Unfortunately it is correct. 20 Q. And if I understand further, that indicates that 21 the Four River Index tends to overclassify, if you will, 22 the years in terms of their relative wetness by contrast 23 to their relative dryness. In other words, it appears to 24 call years wetter than they would be called based on the 25 total flow? 203 1 A. It is correct, yes. This type of 2 classification, names the management type classification 3 which is used not only in California but some other 4 basins. However, it's not recognized by the specialists, 5 especially by those who are engaged in Delta estuary salt 6 balance, evaluation of fishery sanitary conditions, water 7 quality criteria. 8 Q. Am I correct in assuming that that means that 9 the Four River Index is not a very good tool in terms of 10 assessing the impact of diversions on the estuary? 11 A. Oh, yes, that is absolutely a bad tool it gives 12 very good flexibility to increase the water diversions, 13 but very bad tool to propose or commence standard and 14 criteria for the Delta Bay ecosystem. 15 Q. Thank you. In both on this page and elsewhere 16 in the report you use the terms probability of exceedance 17 or years of recurrence for certain volumes of inflow and 18 outflow. 19 Could you explain in relatively simple terms, if 20 possible, what the meaning of those calculations are, 21 those probability of exceedance and years of recurrent 22 calculation? 23 A. The probability of exceedance and years of 24 recurrence interval for a certain amount of flow, that's 25 the major tool for hydrologists the world over. And no 204 1 one dam, reservoir and other water facilities can be built 2 if you don't have such information. What it means? If 3 you have period of observations, let's say, 60, 50 years, 4 you calculate, make statistical analysis and you can 5 arrive at a frequency curve which illustrates for you that 6 such and such runoff, let's say, 20 million acrefeet can 7 be observed under natural conditions one time per four, 8 five years. And it has probability of exceedance about 75 9 percent. So then when you have regulated runoff -- 10 Q. Wait. Would stop right there? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What does it mean to say that the probability of 13 exceedance of 75 percent? 14 A. That means that this runoff can be observed at 15 least once per each four or five years, at least once but 16 can be observed several times, I mean, two or three times. 17 For the period of time which it took into consideration, 18 let's say, 60 years' observation, the critical dry years 19 of 1924, 1977, have probability of exceedance around 95-97 20 percent. Therefore, they can be observed at least one 21 time for 40 years. 22 Q. And it's been the probability of exceedance test 23 is it become lower over time? 24 A. It's not, it's because of the reduction of 25 wetness I would say. I assume that under natural 205 1 conditions the low flow would have low frequency of 2 occurrence than it was observed for regulated conditions. 3 So you cannot say that at this very moment until the end 4 of the century we will have the low flow probability of 5 occurrence much higher than it was previous 60 years. 6 Q. But in terms of comparing the regulated flow 7 with the unimpaired flow? 8 A. Oh, it would be much higher frequency of dry, 9 critical dry years. For example, from the report you can 10 see the amount of subnormal dry years increased almost 11 five-seven times if you compare the natural runoff annual 12 or monthly with regulated. The system right now under 13 pressure of subnormal conditions of wetness. 14 Q. The previous questioner asked you regarding a 15 recommendation for being able to modify the system. You 16 made some reference to the creation of a new storage 17 facility, if I understood you correctly, in order to 18 accommodate a certain amount of water to be able to 19 release to the estuary during years of below normal 20 runoff; is that correct? That was was you were referring 21 to? 22 A. That is only one step. It is not the final 23 step. 24 Q. I just want to ask one question about that. 25 A. Yes. 206 1 Q. Would such storage facility be necessary if the 2 percentage of water diverted did not already exceed 50 3 percent on an annual average basis and even higher for 4 spring flows? 5 A. I would -- maybe I didn't clarify it. This type 6 of storage facility has to be put into operation when you 7 have abnormal years, abnormal wetness, let's say, 30, 35 8 million acrefeet. So you may accumulate one million 9 acrefeet without a damaging effect. I mean, that years of 10 high wetness can stand this accumulation without very 11 strong damage. Because after all, the idea of this 12 accumulation not to send it for any other use but only for 13 the Delta and the Bay, to improve the water quality into 14 the Delta-Bay ecosystem, provide water supply for Delta 15 intakes, and to provide water supply for the fishery. 16 That is major point. Not to accumulate and send it 17 someplace or to develop it. 18 Q. My question is a little different. My question 19 is would one need such accumulation at all if one had 20 lower levels of total withdrawals from the system? 21 A. Yes. You need to have this type of accumulation 22 can be of use when you have subnormal and critical dry 23 years. It's not necessary that you accumulate this year 24 and have good wetness to discharge this year. You may 25 discharge the water to the bottom next year when you have 207 1 like l977. 2 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Thank you Dr. Rozengurt. 4 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right, next on the list 6 is Environmental Defense Fund. 7 VOICE IN AUDIENCE: We have no questions. 8 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Central Valley Project Water 9 Association, Mr. Somach. Not here. 10 Delta Tributary Agencies Committee. 11 MR. BABER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have no 12 questions. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Anyone else besides 14 Mr. Schulz want to cross-examine? Maybe by a show of 15 hands indicate how many would like to examine. 16 You, Mr. Schulz, you are it. Possibly our staff 17 here. 18 MR. SCHULZ: Fools rush in. 19 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Where angeles fear. 20 MR. SCHULZ: You got it. 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION 22 Q. BY MR. SCHULZ: I would like to ask a couple of 23 brief questions about Exhibit 1. On page one dash 12, I 24 hope I am just correcting a typographical error here. 25 A. Yes. 208 1 Q. You see a first formula on that page 2 "P = S + U + E"? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. "P = S + U + E." 5 I hope that is a typo because it means 6 precipitation is equal to surface stream flow plus 7 underground flow in the river plus evapotranspiration. I 8 always thought that precipitation was rainfall. 9 A. Rainfall, yes. 10 Q. What is the correct formula that belongs in that 11 spot? 12 A. It's -- this formula was described the total 13 flow which consists of surface flow, underground flow into 14 the rivers, minus evaporation. That simply is an error 15 here. 16 Q. Could you give me the P plus -- 17 A. S plus U minus E. 18 Q. Equals what? 19 A. Equals Q. 20 Q. Equals Q? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Thank you. 24 MS. LEIDIGH: Point of clarification. How do 25 you define "Q"? I don't see it on your list. 209 1 DR. ROZENGURT: Pardon me? 2 MS. LEIDIGH: On the list of explanations 3 underneath the equation there is no Q? 4 A. No, no, there is no Q because error here. That 5 is why there is no Q. This equation which is not used in 6 our work. It simply describes what kind of balance 7 equation exists in the literature to evaluate runoff and 8 runoff information in the river basin. But it doesn't 9 have any use in report itself. 10 MS. LEIDIGH: Would you define Q as the flow of 11 water? 12 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. Q is like the flow of the 13 water, yes. According to international definition of 14 natural runoff. 15 MR. SCHULZ: Figure II.74 which follows 16 page II.63. This is one that you put on the wall or on 17 the board earlier? 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. I would like you -- let me walk-through my 20 explanation of this graph very quickly. I think it's line 21 three that I don't understand. I read this as being the 22 cumulative amount of water, line one is, the cumulative 23 amount of water that has been diverted from the Delta 24 between 1956 and 1978? 25 A. 1978. 210 1 Q. I read line two as being the actual historic 2 Delta inflow during that same period of time? 3 A. Yes. The losses in Delta. 4 Q. The losses? 5 A. The losses in the river basin because of the 6 upstream diversion. No. 2. 7 Q. Line two is not the river inflows to the Delta 8 then? 9 A. No, no. 10 Q. That is what it says. The caption says line two 11 the river inflow to the Delta. 12 A. Here is, well, first curve of freshwater losses 13 sustained through diversions and stored by the Delta, 14 number one, river number two, and Delta, entirely Delta 15 outflow number three. It is not inflow. Those are losses 16 from the beginning. All three curves illustrate the 17 cumulative losses, upstream, downsteam and total. 18 Q. Is line one then diversion in the Delta and uses 19 within the Delta? 20 A. Yes. Diversion and uses altogether. 21 Q. In the Delta? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And line two would be the storage reservoirs and 24 direct diversions above the Delta? 25 A. Above the Delta. 211 1 Q. And line three the sum of lines one and two? 2 A. One and two. 3 Q. Okay, thank you. 4 A. Thank you. 5 Q. I want to talk a little more about cycles. 6 A. Everybody depends on cycles. 7 Q. I believe you indicated that the concept of 8 cycles is agreed upon as a universal aspect by a widely 9 respected group of authorities, was that your testimony? 10 A. Yes, correct. 11 Q. You mentioned, as was previously Lindsey and 12 L'vovich as being two of -- 13 A. And L'vovich which was translated by American 14 Geophysical Union in 1979, world water balance, monograph 15 that size. 16 Q. I have a document, a book entitled Hydrology for 17 Engineers, McGraw-Hill series of water resources and 18 environmental engineering, co-authored by professor 19 Lindsey. I am going to read to you from page 75, 20 Section III.4. 21 "While portions of the 22 percipitation record may suggest 23 increasing or decreasing trend, there is 24 usually a tendency to return to the 25 mean. Abnormally wet periods tend to be 212 1 balanced by dry periods. The regularity 2 of these fluctuations has been 3 repeatedly investigated. More than 100 4 apparent cycles ranging in periods from 5 one to 744 years has been propounded." 6 The bibliography lists a few 7 reports on attempts to detect these 8 variations. However, with the exception 9 of diannual and seasonal variations, no 10 persistent regular cycle of any 11 appreciable magnituge have been 12 conclusively demonstrated." 13 I also have a book entitled "Stohastic 14 Processes in Hydrology" authored by Dujica, D-u-j-i-c-a, 15 Y-u-c-k-a-v-i-c-h, Water Resources Publications, Fort 16 Collins, Colorado. 17 MR. WALSH: Can you give me that title again? 18 MR. SCHULZ: Stohastic. 19 MR. WALSH: Very appealing. 20 MR. SCHULZ: "Stohastic Processes in Hydrology." 21 I recommend it for nighttime reading. 22 MR. WALSH: Thank you. 23 (Laughter.) 24 MR. SCHULZ: It says in the past the reciprocal 25 values -- I am reading page 17 example 1.8. 213 1 "In the past the reciprocal values of 2 non-commensurate frequencies known in hydrology 3 as hidden periodicities. One of the earliest 4 deterministic methods used in hydrology was the 5 application of the concept of almost periodic 6 series the various hydrologic sequences in 7 search for their hidden periodicities." 8 The hydrologic literature is full of 9 attempts to find cycles beyond the presence of 10 the known astronomical cycles. Often series 11 that were statistically undistinguishable from 12 stationary Stohastic processes were decomposed 13 into a limited number of hidden noncommensurate 14 periodicities. However, their extrapolation as 15 to the prediction of future events represented 16 one of the most spectacular failures of past 17 hydrologic investigations." 18 Do you recognize these two books that I have 19 read to you? 20 A. Yes. I know both of them, especially in the 21 later one. Later on you can find that it is very 22 important to analyze the periodicity based on five running 23 year mean of or on sun spot activity for the period of 24 years 11.2, because they can be of practical use. So it's 25 not a new statement. 214 1 Both of the books -- one was published in 1972 2 and another -- I forgot right now. But the latest 3 development in this regard recommends to use the method 4 which these co-authors did not know at that time which was 5 introduced in this report. And was recommended and 6 translated by American Geophysical Union as a new approach 7 to evalulate cyclicity in the water supply of rivers, 8 disregarding the year type of wetness and based upon 9 normalized integral curves of difference of modulus of 10 water supply that excluded short-term noise and 11 fluctuation. And this approach has been used for this 12 work. 13 Q. Are you testifying that they have changed their 14 mind since those documents were published? 15 A. No, no, I don't say about them. Simply this 16 author said that it is important to analyze periodicity of 17 runoff based upon periodicity of sun spot activities 11.2 18 years. But the authors have not done this kind of work 19 except to recommend it. 20 Q. It is still your testimony that they agree that 21 cyclicity is a universal aspect of hydrology? 22 A. Yes. I agree that because if this author tried 23 to evaluate the cyclicity of flow fluctuation of many 24 rivers it would be possible for them to find this 25 cyclicity. 215 1 The problem is that there is discussion among 2 hydrologists what the best way to use or try the 3 correlation between sun spot activity and runoff cyclicity 4 or deviation of precipitation and runoff cyclicity and so 5 on. There is no one -- there are several approaches. 6 So in this report we use two approaches: One 7 the five years running of the runoff change, to evaluate 8 water supply fluctuations; and another the calculation of 9 cycles based on models of runoff deviation. So and they 10 come up with the same conclusion, so I don't have any 11 problem with that. 12 By the way, it's recommended by hydrologists, 13 Sokolov and Chapman, they recommend to use not less than 14 50- or 60-year period of observation to evaluate flow 15 fluctuations and to use running years and so on. 16 Q. I would like to move on to five-year averages 17 for just a moment. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Would you agree that using a moving average as 20 you did would tend to make the data under examination 21 autocorrelated? 22 A. It's not -- in my case it was not, was not the 23 purpose to provide autocorrelation. The purposes of this 24 investigation was to smooth out noise which originates, 25 you can observe for each year and get rid of fluctuations 216 1 do to periodicity. And the second, because of 2 precipitation itself shows very good five-year fluctuation 3 of deviations not more than 25-30 percent from the 4 average, which was proved by Metropolitan Water District, 5 Los Angeles. They use six years. And third, because the 6 mature fish which coming back to the basin to spawn, have 7 the average age about four, five years. So it was very 8 nice to have this type of evaluation to examine what kind 9 of changes were brought by about by man's activity for 10 this span of time. 11 Q. I think you answered as to why you used it. I 12 asked you whether you used autocorrelated data? 13 A. No, I haven't tried to do that. Because it 14 wasn't my purpose to provide autocorrelation. 15 Q. Do you think it would result? 16 A. I think that if you will try to do 17 autocorrelation, you may come up with very interesting 18 information which published in Haan Statistical Methods in 19 Hydrology. He described this kind of work. But it wasn't 20 my task. 21 Q. We will leave that point. 22 MR. WALSH: Cliff? 23 MR. SCHULZ: Yes. 24 MR. WALSH: What is autocorrelated? 25 MR. SCHULZ: My understanding is that 217 1 autocorrelation, what it does is it will reduce the 2 statistical validity of it because by doing it it will 3 result in effect by correlating the data whether it had a 4 statistical correlation or not, automatically correlate 5 any set of data. 6 MR. WALSH: Thank you. 7 MR. SCHULZ: I see some people on staff nodding 8 but I am not a statistician. 9 DR. ROZENGURT: But this is not very important 10 for the future of Delta-San Francisco Bay, this scientific 11 approach. 12 Q. BY MR. SCHULZ: Did you analyze your data using 13 spectral analysis and test results for statistical 14 commitments? 15 A. No. The recommendation for the hydrological 16 investigation said that if you have period of observation 17 at least 50, 60 years you can rely upon calculation of 18 acceptable error, which I put in table here, without this 19 type of test. As usual, this type of test is useful when 20 observation related to runoff or analyized and compared 21 with other climatological characteristics. In the test of 22 runoff routine variables it is not necessary because there 23 are very well worked out procedures and tables which can 24 give you exactly, you can see from the very, very 25 beginning table, the range of errors you may arrive at if 218 1 you use this time series. And that was introduced in 2 recommendation written by UNESCO in connectin with 3 Geophysical International Years hydrological 4 investigations accomplished in 1974. 5 Q. I take it your answer is no? 6 A. No. 7 Q. If I understood your testimony, you were 8 indicating that in your opinion there has been an 9 increased salinization of the Bay and Delta; is that 10 correct? 11 A. Oh, that is derived from the law of conservation 12 of mass and energy on which all of us managed to survive 13 for last one million years. 14 MR. WALSH: The answer to that is yes? 15 MR. SCHULZ: The answer is yes? 16 DR. ROZENGURT: Yes. 17 Q. BY MR. SCHULZ: I can give short questions but I 18 just can't guarantee the length of the answer. 19 MR. WALSH: We work for the government and we are 20 here to know. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: We would appreciate both 22 short questions and short answers from now on. 23 Q. MR. SCHULZ: Do you have any empirical vendor 24 data between historic periods which would support the 25 conclusion of decreased salinization of points in the Bay 219 1 and the Delta? 2 A. Good question. There is not much data available 3 related to the Bay, although some observations in the 4 Delta took place in 1901-1923. The most complete field 5 observation on salinity was provided by Geological Survey 6 from 1969 up to 1976 along the major channel and some 7 others. 8 So I try to use all this information to compare 9 salinity pre-project and post-project conditions and 10 publish about it. 11 There is increased in salinity. I found it 12 indirectly from field observations. In Central part of 13 the Bay, I found increased salinity for the last 20 years 14 about 0.3 or three percent per liter per year or 0.3 grams 15 per liter per year. So it should be increased about four 16 grams by comparison with in pre-project conditions. 17 In the data in UC Berkeley report of 1964 they 18 say San Francisco Bay had average salinity of 20 grams per 19 liter. My understanding that right now that salinity in 20 San Francisco Bay should be around 25 grams per liter, 21 that is an indirect calculation. 22 Q. Indirect calculation, you haven't done any 23 direct comparisons to say the period 1920 to 1930 versus 24 the conditions in 1970 or 1980? 25 A. There have been such kind of observations. You 220 1 can't compare incomparable things because observation 2 between the first 20 years where incapsulated in some part 3 of the Delta, a very small part near Martinez and 4 observation for the last 20 years were spread over along 5 the axis of the channel. 6 So you may only approximately to calculate the 7 trend of salinization of the bay at this moment. 8 Q. At some time during the San Francisco Bay 9 hearings we will put on some empirical testimony in this 10 area. 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. 12 MR. SCHULZ: That is all I have. 13 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. Then we have the 15 staff, any questions from staff? 16 MR. SATKOWSKI: Yes. Richard Satkowski. I have 17 just one question regarding the source of the unimpaired 18 flow data used in Exhibit 1. 19 Q. BY MR. SATKOWSKI: Are the unimpaired Delta 20 inflows and outflows listed in Exhibit 1, for DWR 1980 or 21 1987 unimpaired flow report? 22 A. No. This was published in 1980, the California 23 Central Valley data about river inflow, Delta outflow in 24 1980. 25 Then they sent us information about for the last 221 1 couple of years and it was compared and differences 2 between them were 0.1 or less or .2 million acrefeet, so 3 we didn't pay attention. 4 Q. Did you use any of the information from the 1987 5 report, DWR in your Exhibit 1? 6 A. No. 1987 has not been used. Only after 1983 7 that was officially published. 8 MR. SATKOWSKI: Thank you. 9 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Any other questions? No more 11 questions, Doctor. Thank you very much. 12 DR. ROZENGURT: Thank you very much all of you. 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: The next -- 14 MS. LEIDIGH: Do you want to do something about 15 the exhibits? 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes, thank you. 17 MS. LEIDIGH: There was one exhibit -- 18 MR. WALSH: Don't push it, Barbara. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: -- started opposite the colored 20 one probably unidentified with the others. 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Yes. I think we need to put 22 some identification mark on it. It's my view that the 23 exhibits for -- were marked should not be included today 24 but all the other exhibits that were offered on a timely 25 basis unless there is an objection I would receive those 222 1 into evidence. That means I guess Exhibit 1, the report. 2 And there are Exhibit 2 and 3. 3 MS. LEIDIGH: One through six would include the 4 presubmittals. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. One through six, 6 any objection to that? 7 Then you will just mark it for identification to 8 compare with the transcript. 9 (Exhibits 1 through 6, were then received into 10 evidence.) 11 MS. LEIDIGH: Color exhibit would then be marked 12 for identification only as Exhibit 17? 13 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. Exhibit 17. 14 (Exhibit 17, was then marked for identification.) 15 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: That completes the 17 housekeeping here? 18 MS. LEIDIGH: I think that completes the 19 housekeeping. 20 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Krautkraemer wants about 21 three minutes and give the Court Reporter just a few 22 minutes here to rest his fingers and to set up before we 23 go into the last part of the testimony. Just three or 24 four minutes so please don't leave. 25 (Short pause.) 223 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Mr. Nelson. 2 MR. NELSON: Anticipating the next break, I know 3 the parking garage closes at 6:00 o'clock. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Go ahead. 6 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Chairman Maughan, and Members 7 of the Board, my name is John Krautkraemer, I am staff 8 attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. 9 I would like to make a short opening statement 10 before we present the testimony of Dr. Philip Williams. 11 Dr. Williams' testimony will address three 12 subject areas. 13 First, the testimony will analyze the Delta 14 outflows under DWR Quantitative conditions and the cases 15 that will result under existing and future water 16 development scenarios that are also developed by DWR. 17 The changes will be analyzed in the annual 18 seasonal and monthly basis. The purpose of this analysis 19 Dr. Williams has used the DWR outflows and DWR 20 assumptions. 21 The testimony will show that large reduction, 22 show large reductions under the existing scenario and 23 further reductions under the future scenarios. These 24 reductions are particularly high in certain seasons and 25 certain year type springtime and dry years. 224 1 The testimony will also show that the average 2 outflows of San Francisco Bay under the existing scenarios 3 approximate those that occur only in dry years under the 4 unimpaired conditions. 5 After discussing changes in Delta outflows 6 Dr. Williams will address what the effective changes have 7 had on salinity in Suisun Bay. 8 Again, this analysis is intended to represent 9 the type of salinities that occur without water 10 development and much higher salinity levels that exist now 11 and could exist under future development. For purposes of 12 analysis Dr. Williams used DWR staff model. 13 Finally, Dr. Williams will do an illustrative 14 comparison of the frequency of large outflows prior to and 15 after construction of large multipurpose reservoirs in the 16 Central Valley. Unlike the first two analyses this last 17 one is based on actual historical outflows for the two 18 periods. The analysis will illustrate the impact of 19 upstream water development on a much shorter time frame 20 measured in days as opposed to the average annual seasonal 21 and monthly changes described under the first two 22 senarios. 23 In responding to the Board's work plan and 24 notice of intent -- excuse me, a notice on the subject of 25 this hearing Dr. William's testimony will be limited to 225 1 the subject of Bay-Delta hydrology and salinity as I have 2 just mentioned. 3 The effect of these changes on the biological 4 resources and other uses of the estuary will be the 5 subject of later hearing topics. This testimony is 6 intended to provide evidence for the Board to use in 7 meeting its obligation to assess the full degree of 8 reductions in outflow and increases in salinity relating 9 to existing and future water withdrawal. We believe it is 10 critical that in carrying out its obligations to protect 11 fish and wildlife and other beneficial uses in the 12 Bay-Delta system that the Board has to start with the 13 understanding that major reductions in port fresh-water 14 flows have already taken place. 15 Now I would like to proceed to Dr. William's 16 testimony. Before I do that I would like note for the 17 record that we have on two occasions made available some 18 corrections to the exhibits which were pre-submitted. 19 The first one May 15, 1987 a letter from 20 Mr. Barringer, which I believe was made available in time 21 that has stipulated the parties in the normal course of 22 the Boards distribution -- Board's staff distribution. 23 And the second is that errata sheet which was 24 dated June 26, 1987. And was made available last week 25 during the hearings. And I am not sure where we got that 226 1 in. I have provided a few extra copies to the Board staff 2 in case there are parties that have not obtained that. 3 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: The only problem I had is you 4 have it dated May 15 on what you just handed out and it 5 must be June something. 6 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: There are two separate items. 7 The first it the May 15th letter which was stamped May 1 8 table. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: These are the errata? 10 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Well, attached to that. 11 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Okay. 12 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: There should be errata sheet 13 dated June 26 which is separate. 14 I would like for purposes of identification, I 15 would like to identify the May 15 cover letter and the 16 corrected table which is corrected table four to Exhibit 2 17 as Exhibit 4-A. 18 (Exhibit 4-A, was then marked for identification.) 19 20 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: And I would like to identify 21 the errata sheet dated June 26, 1987, which contained 22 corrections to Exhibit 2 and 3 as Exhibit 4-B. 23 (Exhibit 4-B, was then marked for identification.) 24 25 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: In presenting the testimony 227 1 Dr. Williams will attempt to summarize to some extent the 2 information that has already been submitted. In other 3 words, we are not going to go through every single, every 4 single figure. But we going to try to make clear that 5 entire report is submitted for the record. 6 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: That is correct. And we 7 would appreciate it because of the chances of questioning 8 you can pick out some of the things of most interest to 9 the people here. 10 PHILIP WILLIAMS, Ph. D. 11 called as a witness by the Environmental Defense Fund, to 12 be sworn later, testified as follows: 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Dr. Williams, I refer you 15 to the copy of EDF Exhibit 1, which is copy of your 16 resume. Was that prepared by you? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is it an accurate statement of your education, 19 experience and qualifications? 20 A. Yes, it is. 21 Q. I would like to refer to you EDF Exhibit 2, 22 which is entitled, a report entitled "Analysis of change 23 in Delta outflow due to existing and future water 24 development Scenarios." Did you prepare this report? 25 A. Yes, I did. 228 1 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Have you been sworn, sir? 2 DR. WILLIAMS: No. 3 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: I am sorry. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Raise right hand. Do you 5 promise to tell the truth at the hearing? 6 DR. WILLIAMS: I do. 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Thank you. 8 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: For purposes of the record 9 would the previous statements that you made prior to 10 taking the oath be a true and accurate statement? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Could you please briefly explain what the report 13 labeled at EDF Exhibit 2 is about? 14 A. Well, the purpose of this report was to analyze 15 the changes in Delta outflow from the unimpaired 16 conditions which I took to be representative of natural 17 conditions with the Delta outflow scenario as developed by 18 DWR that were typical for present day conditions. And for 19 ultimate future conditions. And these two senarios I 20 obtained from the DWR California aqueduct use study. 21 The present-day conditions I utilized DWRs 1985 22 scenario. And for the future conditions I used 2020 B 23 senario. 24 Now I was analyzing the changes in Delta outflow 25 due to water development. And in using the scenarios I am 229 1 using a 58-year sequence of hydrology that is modified 2 according to the operation presence of the water projects 3 either as of 1985 or 2020 B. It is a consistent way of 4 evaluating the changes in the Delta outflow due to the 5 management and presence of the water project. 6 Q. Were the unimpaired flows that you used the same 7 that was submitted by DWR exhibit, that is 1987 unimpaired 8 outflows? 9 A. Yes, that is correct. 10 Q. And do both development scenarios include the 11 CVP and other basin water development projects? 12 A. Yes, they do. 13 Q. How does the 1985 scenario you used to represent 14 existing conditions compare to DWR's 1990 scenario that it 15 has submitted for current conditions? 16 A. Well, the 1985 scenario shows about 1.2 million 17 acrefeet per year on average less Delta outflow from the 18 1990 scenario. Right now we are in 1987 I understand that 19 the water diversions are such that the present level of 20 export that is somewhere in between 1985 and 1990 21 scenario. So in using the 1985 scenario in evaluating 22 changes from unimpaired conditions I am somewhat 23 conservative. 24 Q. Let me clarify that. Did you say that the 1985 25 scenario showed about 1.2 million acrefeet less outflow? 230 1 A. I mean to say more. I am sorry. 2 Q. There has been an awful lot of discussion during 3 these hearings on the terms unimpaired flow and natural 4 flow and how they compare. Could you briefly take into 5 consideration Chairman Maughan's admonition. Could you 6 briefly tell us how you used those terms and why you used 7 unimpaired flows in this analysis? 8 A. Well, the unimpaired flows that were generated 9 by DWR assumes that the existing river system and levee 10 system was in place. I used it rather than trying to 11 construct the natural, the truly natural flow senario 12 because it's rather complex doing that. And I utilized 13 the unimpaired flow scenario as being representative of 14 natural conditions. 15 I should mention there are differences between 16 the truly natural conditions and the unimpaired conditions 17 particularly as they affect seasonal runoff. 18 And DWR's exhibit 26 discusses this in the first 19 page of that exhibit in that it identifies four factors 20 that would affect seasonal, the seasonal distribution. 21 One is the groundwater discharges to the 22 Sacramento and San Joaquin River. 23 Another is the evapotranspiration from the 24 riparian wetlands in the central valley. 25 Another is flood storage in those wetlands and 231 1 the flood plain and another is overflow from the Tulare 2 Lake basin during wet years. And all of these, if you 3 look and examine these factors, the net effect would be to 4 probably underestimate natural flows in the spring if you 5 use unimpaired runoff. And to the extent that my analysis 6 relies on unimpaired flows and I am comparing the 7 reductions then I am being somewhat conservative in that 8 assumption using unimpaired flows. 9 Q. Do you have a basis for your conclusion that the 10 flow storage in the Central Valley probably delayed the 11 runoff from winter and to the springtime and early summer 12 months? 13 A. Yes. The way that would have worked prior to 14 the construction of levees you would have very large flood 15 plains in the central valley which during the high winter 16 and spring runoff would be inundated creating ponded water 17 and high water tables in those areas which would later 18 discharge into the Sacramento River either directly or 19 through seepage. 20 I relied on a statement in Bulletin 27 which I 21 believe has been discussed prior in these hearings. On 22 page 140 of Bulletin 27 there is a statement referring to 23 the role of these -- of lettering off the flood plain 24 areas. And it states that under natural conditions water 25 stored in these basins, and by basins it is referring to 232 1 the riparian flood plains, under natural conditions water 2 stored in these basins from the overflow of the river 3 during winter floods are gradually drained out in the late 4 spring and earlier summer months and augmented the flow 5 into the Delta during these latter periods. 6 That is an example of how the seasonal runoff to 7 the Delta would be influenced by the unimpaired that is in 8 your natural conditions. 9 Q. Let's move onto the analysis itself. Could you 10 very briefly summarize the results of the report which has 11 been submitted as Exhibit 2? 12 A. Well, I have in that exhibit I have shown in 13 figures one through three the overall reduction in Delta 14 outflows. This just shows the raw data for the annual 15 spring and summer periods. But another way it maybe a 16 little bit more useful to look at this data. Take a look 17 at what the percentage reduction from the unimpaired 18 condition is for the spring and summer. And I wonder if I 19 could have the lights off on the screen there. 20 This graph shows the percent reduction -- 21 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse me. Is that 22 identified in your report? 23 DR. WILLIAMS: This is all the -- 24 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Figure 5. 25 DR. WILLIAMS: All the transparencies I have 233 1 shown are graphs from the exhibits. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Just identify them. 3 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: The figure number for these 4 will be shown in the lower right-hand corner. 5 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: I am sorry. The Court 6 Reporter also has got to write it down. 7 DR. WILLIAMS: Okay. What this shows is the 8 reduction in the spring outflow against the percent 9 average spring unimpaired Delta outflow. So it is really 10 an indication of how much the flow has been reduced in the 11 spring months for wet and dry years. And my definition of 12 the spring is the March-April-May period. I will come 13 back to that later. 14 As you can see, in the very wet years the 15 reduction in the spring runoff is down around 30 percent 16 or so. But as for per average years reference by 100 17 percent line the reduction is very significant it's up 18 around 70 to 80. And for the average to dry years the 19 reduction in spring outflows is very significant, nearly 20 90 percent in some years. So the reduction in this area 21 is for many of the years is in the 70 to 90 percent range. 22 It is a very significant reduction in the spring. 23 MS. LEIDIGH: For the record, you circled the 24 area between the dry and median? 25 DR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. 234 1 MS. LEIDIGH: Thank you. 2 DR. WILLIAMS: Similarly for the summer Delta 3 outflow you see a similar pattern. 4 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Excuse me. That is 5 spring. Future scenario? 6 A. I guess I got things mixed up here. I am not 7 showing the summer. 8 The future scenario this trend is accentuated. 9 You have an even greater reduction in the spring outflow. 10 MS. LEIDIGH: Figure number? 11 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: For purposes of the record, 12 this is figure Number 8 from Exhibit 2. 13 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Dr. Williams, would you 14 please identify the figure numbers as you proceed? I 15 don't want to continually interrupt you. 16 DR. WILLIAMS: Another way of illustrating the 17 changes that have occurred in the Delta outflow is to look 18 at the monthly distribution of flows, the annual 19 hydrograph for dry, normal and wet years. And I have 20 constructed a series of hydrographs. I am going to start 21 off with the one in ten dry-year hydrograph. This is 22 figure number 15 from Exhibit 2 which shows how the 23 spring -- how the Delta outflow has changed from the 24 unimpaired which I am taking as representative of natural 25 condition to the existing condition. And what you can see 235 1 here is that even in a one in ten dry year, which is 2 critical year, under the natural conditions you would have 3 had a flow peak in the March-April-May period. And so in 4 the natural hydrologic conditions the peak would have 5 occurred then. Under existing conditions that peak has 6 been eliminated and you have pretty much a flat outflow. 7 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Is that a specific dry year? 8 DR. WILLIAMS: No. These graphs are not 9 specific dry years. I have constructed these hydrographs 10 by determining the one in ten dry Delta outflow for each 11 particular month. So it's an artificial construction. 12 Well, I will explain as I go. 13 For a median year you see a similar pattern. 14 This is Figure 16 of Exhibit 2. You see under the natural 15 conditions a bi-model hydrograph with the peak in the 16 March-April-May period. And you see that spring outflow 17 peak has been eliminated under existing conditions. 18 And even in the wet years, again, you see the 19 bi-model hydrograph whereas formally in a wet year you 20 would have had the second peak due to the snow melt runoff 21 under natural conditions now because of water development 22 that peak has been eliminated. 23 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: For the benefit of the 24 record, could you identify that? 25 DR. WILLIAMS: Yes. This is Figure 17 of 236 1 Exhibit 2. 2 I summarized the outflow changes in Table 4 of 3 Exhibit 2. 4 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: For the record, I would 5 note that this is one of the corrected tables which we 6 submitted as the table which was submitted with the May 7 15, 1987 letter. 8 A. Now what is interesting to note in this table is 9 how the overall hydrology has shifted. What you see is 10 that conditions that now exist in average years were 11 formerly only occurred typically in very dry years. So 12 the conditions that formerly only occurred in very dry 13 years are now typical of the average Delta outflow 14 condition. 15 Q. Dr. Williams, did you analyze the changes in 16 frequency of various flow levels in more detail? 17 A. Yes. And these are shown in Figures 12 through 18 14 of Exhibit 2. I am going to show Figure 13 of Exhibit 19 2 here. What this is is a plot of Delta outflow for the 20 spring months against the exceedance frequency. And what 21 you can see is that formerly the dry year condition, the 22 one in ten dry year Delta outflow, of around 30,000 cfs 23 only now occurs that where it only occurred once in about 24 every ten years, you can see that that this is now more 25 typical. I don't know if I have drawn that line 237 1 particularly straight. 2 MS. LEIDIGH: Right where the line goes? 3 DR. WILLIAMS: It is supposed to be a straight 4 line coming across and it intersects the existing 5 condition point at the percent 20 percentile point. So in 6 other words, 80 percent of the -- 80 percent of the years 7 now experience a dry year condition. And if you take a 8 look at the median condition -- 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Delta outflow? 10 DR. WILLIAMS: Yes. This is Delta outflow. 11 Flows that used to occur on an average year now occur very 12 infrequently as about ten percent of the time. And flows 13 that used to occur on, well, you can see the trend in the 14 frequency plot here. If you take a look at the summer 15 flow frequency relationship -- 16 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Again, for the record, I 17 would note that this is one of the corrected tables that 18 this one was submitted with the June 26, 1987 errata. 19 MS. LEIDIGH: This is Figure 14? 20 DR. WILLIAMS: This is Figure 14. 21 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Figure 14 of Exhibit 2. 22 DR. WILLIAMS: I have defined the summer flows, 23 the summer period as being June, July, August. So it does 24 catch the tail end of the snow melt in the June period. 25 What you can see here is the shift in the 238 1 frequency. And one thing is interesting to note is how -- 2 previously there would have been something like 35 percent 3 of the years would have had flows that now no longer 4 occur. In other words, the frequency of these high flows 5 in the summer has been eliminated. 6 Q. Thank you, Dr. Williams. 7 I would like now to turn your attention to EDF 8 Exhibit 3 which is a report entitled "Analysis of changes 9 in Suisun Bay salinity due to existing and future water 10 development." Did you prepare this record? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Would you briefly describe the purpose of the 13 report? 14 A. Well, what I was doing was analyzing what the 15 changes in Delta outflow that I described in Exhibit 2 16 meant in terms of overall changes in salinity in Suisun 17 Bay. And I did this using a DWR developed model called 18 Delstack which is a regression model that correlates the 19 salinity at various points in Suisun Bay with the Delta 20 outflow and the previous Delta -- the previous month Delta 21 outflow and previous years Delta outflow. 22 So using this model I developed plots of the 23 average annual spring and summer salinities around Susuin 24 Bay and these are summarized in Figures 18 through 20 of 25 Exhibit 3. 239 1 Now I am going to show Figure 20. This is a 2 plot of the long-term average summer salinity at the four 3 stations in Susuin Bay against distance from the Golden 4 Gate. And as you go upstream at long-term average summer 5 salinity decreases. 6 And the lower line is the unimpaired natural 7 conditions. And the upper two lines the existing and 8 future conditions scenario. 9 Q. This is Figure 20 from Exhibit 3. 10 A. What you see here is that due to reductions in 11 the Delta outflow, the salinity has shifted upstream. 12 There have been a major increase in salinity going 13 upstream and you can see the conditions that formerly were 14 typical of Martinez and now typical more of the central 15 part of Susuin Bay. And the conditions typical of around 16 Port Chicago now typical of up Chipps Island. There has 17 been an overall shift in long-term salinity patterns in 18 the summer. 19 Similarly, you see the same thing in the spring 20 except even more marked in the spring. 21 MS. LEIDIGH: What is the figure number? 22 DR. WILLIAMS: This is Figure 19 of Exhibit 3. 23 And here you again you see the shift in 24 salinity. You can see that it has very low salinity 25 under unimpaired conditions in the spring from the central 240 1 part of Suisun Bay, Chipps Island, and now we have much 2 higher salinity in this area. 3 Q. Dr. Williams, how has water development affected 4 seasonal variation in salinity? 5 A. Well, the seasonal variation as the spring 6 salinity substantially increases due to water development, 7 as was shown in that figure. I guess I skipped over one 8 of my plots here. 9 Q. Perhaps, first, you should discuss how salinity, 10 how spring salinities show variation within the year type. 11 A. Yes. I am emphasizing the reductions in spring 12 Delta outflow and that consequent effect on spring 13 salinity, that is what really stands out here. I do think 14 it is useful to take a look at how the spring salinity 15 changes according to Delta outflows. 16 And I am showing Figure 6 of Exhibit 3 here. 17 And you can see the trend in the average spring 18 salinities. You can see that formerly in almost all years 19 at Port Chicago, about the middle of Susuin Bay, the 20 spring -- average spring salinity was very low except in a 21 few very dry years. And and now you can see that the 22 whole salinity regime has changed so that now under 23 average conditions the salinity is high for the kind of 24 same water that you used to get in very dry conditions. 25 Only in very wet years has there been no 241 1 substantial changes in average spring salinity. 2 Q. Now to repeat my earlier question. How has 3 water development affected the seasonal variation in 4 salinity in Suisun Bay? 5 A. Well, the seasonal variation has been changed 6 considerably. These are shown in Figures 14 through I 7 think 17 of Exhibit 3. I am going to show Figure 14 8 which is a plot of the monthly salinity at Martinez for 9 the one in ten wet and one in ten dry years. 10 And, first of all, looking at the wet years you 11 can -- which are these lower two lines -- you can see that 12 there is not been a hell of a lot change, except maybe 13 June or July in the salinity during a wet year. And that 14 corresponds with my previous plot. But when you take a 15 look at the dry years, which are these two lines, the top 16 two lines, you can see that even in the natural 17 conditions, even in a dry year you would have a low 18 salinity at Martinez in the March-April-May period 19 because of a high Delta outflow. 20 And you see that because of reduction in Delta 21 outflow that lower salinity has been eliminated and you 22 have a fairly constant salinity now one in ten dry years. 23 Q. Was the same trend -- was the trend the same or 24 similar at the other stations that you analyzed? 25 A. Yes, it was. 242 1 Q. I will just briefly show Figure 15. You can see 2 the same pattern in Port Chicago, the elimination of the 3 spring low salinity in the spring. You can see the same 4 pattern in Chipps Island. So you have a substantial 5 change in the seasonal distribution of salinity, 6 particularly, in the spring months due to reduction in 7 Delta outflow. 8 Q. Dr. Williams, I would like now to direct your 9 attention to EDF Exhibit 4, which is a report entitled "In 10 Short Duration Spring Flow Conditions in San Francisco 11 Bay." 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Let me interrupt here. 13 You are going very fast, and he may be able to 14 do this. 15 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: I believe I can finish in 16 about another ten minutes. 17 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Or even less, the way you are 18 going. 19 Let's go ahead. 20 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Dr. Williams, I would like 21 to direct your attention to Exhibit 4, EDF Exhibit 4, 22 which is a report entitled "Changes in short duration 23 spring flow peak into San Francisco Bay upstream water 24 development." Did you prepare this report? 25 A. Yes. 243 1 Q. Could you briefly explain what the report is 2 about? 3 A. Well, here I was analyzing in more detail the 4 changes in short duration flow peaks that occurred in the 5 spring. We have seen these -- 6 MR. WALSH: I am sorry. I missed that. 7 DR. WILLIAMS: I was looking in more detail at 8 how the short duration flow peaks that occurred in the 9 spring have changed due to water development. 10 In my previous exhibit, Exhibit 2, I analyzed 11 the changes in monthly Delta outflow. Here I would want 12 to do to look at the daily Delta outflow. To see how high 13 the short duration flow peaks have changed. 14 Q. BY MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Would you briefly describe 15 the methodology that you used to do this analysis? 16 A. Well, first of all, to give a general sense of 17 the changes in the daily hydrographs due to water 18 development, I compared the daily Delta outflows for the 19 period from 1932 to '43 with the period from 1968 to 1981. 20 Now the reason for selecting those two periods 21 is that the '32 to '43 period was the longer period I 22 could find which I could construct daily Delta outflows 23 prior to the filling of the first large measure reservoir, 24 Shasta in 19 -- late 1943 or early 1944. So that gave me 25 my -- that was indicative of my pre-large water project 244 1 condition. 2 The 1968 to '81 period was selected because '68 3 was when the Oroville Dam was filled and I wanted then to 4 get a sequence of years that had a similar average 5 four-river index to the base period, the '32 - '43 base 6 period. So I ended up with the '68 to '81 base period. 7 Q. Dr. Williams, was there additional large 8 multipurpose reservoirs storage put in place following 9 1968? 10 A. Yes, there was. That is shown in, I think it's 11 Table 2 of my report. To the extent that other large 12 projects came on line in that period, my comparison of the 13 flow peaks may tend to underestimate the effects of large 14 multipurpose reservoir projects on dampening out the flow 15 peaks. 16 Q. Could you briefly describe how you constructed 17 the daily flow that you used in your analysis? 18 A. For the '68 to '81 period. I used the day flow 19 data. I think it's already been submitted. 20 For the prior period I constructed daily Delta 21 outflows in a similar fashion to the day flow using the 22 Division of Water Resources Bulletin 26 I think it is. 23 The tabulation of the daily Delta outflow calculation use 24 are included in Exhibit 4. 25 Q. Dr. Williams, I would like to turn your 245 1 attention to figures one through four in Exhibit 4. Could 2 you briefly explain the purpose of those figures and what 3 they show? 4 A. Well, these -- I prepared these figures as 5 illustrations of the change in hydrographs in the spring 6 period to show how the daily flow pattern of daily Delta 7 outflow pattern has been influenced by the presence of 8 large upstream reservoirs. And I did one graph for each 9 for wet above normal, below normal in a critical year. 10 The Figure 1 is a comparison of the water, of 11 water year 1940 with 1980 which were two wet years. This 12 is Figure 1 of Exhibit 4. What you see here is that in 13 1940 there is a very large spring snow melt peak. And in 14 1980 you don't see such a peak. 15 Q. Dr. Williams, perhaps it would be useful to 16 explain how you selected the -- you compared in the 17 figures? 18 A. What I was trying to do was match up the years 19 that had the same or similar four-river index annual 20 values and also April-July runoff values. So trying to 21 match two parameters here. 22 Q. Did you also refer to the previous? 23 A. Oh, yes. Also taking into account some years 24 had a previous, if one year had a previous critical year 25 we were trying to take that into account too. I am only 246 1 presenting these graphs as illustration. My analysis of 2 the April changes did not handle these graphs. 3 Q. Why did you select the four-river index? 4 A. That was just from, well, because of time 5 constraints. I think in my Exhibit 2, I think it is, I 6 have a plot of a four-river index as opposed to -- as 7 against unimpaired Delta outflow. I think that 8 demonstrates that unimpaired Delta outflow is a better 9 indication of flow conditions than the four-river index. 10 At that time I know I was preparing this simultaneously so 11 I didn't have benefit of that. 12 Looking at above normal year is how -- now I 13 should point out the flow scale changed here. Where the 14 previous one -- 15 MS. LEIDIGH: Would you state the figure number, 16 please? 17 DR. WILLIAMS: This is Figure 2. So you can see 18 that there is still a peak here but there has been 19 reduction. For below normal year comparison Figure 3 20 shows that the peaks have been eliminated. And for a 21 critically dry year you can see that, even a critically 22 dry year prior to construction of these large multipurpose 23 reservoirs had quite high flows, 30,000 cfs or so in the 24 spring. 25 You can also see how this little blip here is 247 1 caused by local rainstorm in the Delta area. 2 Q. Dr. Williams, just to clarify this. For these 3 comparisons were the outflows during the periods that you 4 analyzed for the different years, the same? 5 A. There weren't exactly the same. They -- what I 6 was trying to do is match up the four-river index. 7 When I went to -- the next step in my analysis 8 was specifically to look at the changes in the peak flows 9 in April. Because I looked at the April period and 10 analyzed, went through the two sets of years, analyzed 11 what the one, five and ten day peak flows were prior to 12 1943 and after 1968. And in calculating the others I just 13 wanted to demonstrate how I did that. 14 The peak flow is fairly obvious. Here for the 15 April I would have compared, I guess, maybe this point 16 with this point. For the five day -- 17 MS. LEIDIGH: Could you describe in words what 18 those points are? 19 DR. WILLIAMS: I guess I am showing one point on 20 the 1st of April for the 1939 year. And the other point 21 at around 12th of April for the '76 year. 22 Five day would have been this value here. And I 23 am drawing a line that extends from, I guess, about the 24 8th of April to 13th. And the ten day value would have 25 been something like that. I am drawing a line which is 248 1 from about the 7th to the 17th. 2 MS. LEIDIGH: Those are on the 1976 year? 3 DR. WILLIAMS: Based on the 1976 year. I am 4 showing how -- I then constructed -- analyzed the 5 frequency of those peak flows and that is -- 6 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Excuse me. I am afraid that 7 we are not -- I am a little concerned that these people 8 can't get over there and get their cars out at 6:00 9 o'clock. 10 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: I think we can be done in 11 three minutes. 12 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Well, as I say, as far as I 13 am concerned, you can go ahead. But I hope -- go ahead. 14 I hope they don't have trouble getting their cars out. 15 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: We have a car there too. 16 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You can come back afterwards. 17 Go ahead. 18 DR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, so in analyzing 19 those I just want to summarize the results, the changes in 20 frequency between the pre-project condition and the 21 post-project condition is illustrated in Table 4 of 22 Exhibit 4. And you can see that there is a substantial 23 change in reduction in the frequency of high peak flows in 24 April. Now after I wrote my report there is another 25 factor that comes into play here. After I wrote my report 249 1 I went back and looked at the Delta outflow, the 2 unimpaired Delta outflows for April. And some of this 3 change can be attributed to a kind of a long-term shift 4 in, what seems to be a long-term shift in reduction in 5 springs flows. But that is only a small portion of it. 6 The difference in unimpaired Delta outflows in 7 April in the '68 to '81 period is only 25 percent lower 8 than the '32 to '43 period. So as you can see, 25 percent 9 in absolute value. 10 What that translates to here in terms of 11 frequency is -- it only explains a small amount, small 12 portion of that change between pre-project and 13 post-project frequency in the large flow. 14 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You want another five minutes 15 when we come back, I am not trying to -- 16 MR. KRAUTKRAEMER: Maybe we should. I don't 17 want to have everybody get their car trapped in there, 18 including myself. 19 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Before you leave though I 20 want to see by a show of hands or people standing up how 21 many of you want to put in rebuttal testimony. 22 MR. LITTLEWORTH: State Water Contractors have 23 one witness. 24 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: One witness. 25 MR. SOMACH: Central Valley Project Contractors 250 1 have two witnesses. 2 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: Two witnesses. 3 MS. STEINBERG: Two. 4 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: You have two. Anyone else? 5 That is all that I had counted on before was the 6 three. Anyone else? That is all. 7 MR. NELSON: I didn't answer but I don't want to 8 jeopardize my chances. 9 CHAIRMAN MAUGHAN: All right. That's very nice 10 of you. Okay. Let's come back by ten minutes after 6:00 11 and see if we can't get done before dinner. 12 (Recess taken.) 13 (Thereupon a change of Court Reporters.) 14 --o0o-- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 251 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 3 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 4 5 I, DAVID J. SCHLENKER, certify that I was the 6 official court reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 1 through 250 herein constitute a complete, 11 true and correct record of the proceedings: 12 13 PRESIDING OFFICER: Chairman Maughan 14 15 CAUSE: Delta Water Hearing 16 17 DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: July 14, 1987 18 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 20 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 19th day of 21 August, 1987. 22 23 DAVID J. SCHLENKER 24 CSR No. 1336 25 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 253 1