Click here to go Home




 03                         PUBLIC HEARING












 13                            HELD AT:     


 14                    PAUL BONDERSON BUILDING


 15                     SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA





 18                   MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997

 18                           9:00 A.M.












 24  Reported by:                      ESTHER F. WIATRE

 25                                    CSR NO. 1564



 01                          APPEARANCES




 03       JOHN W. BROWN   (A.M. ONLY)








 07     COUNSEL:


 08       DAN FRINK





 10       400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor

 11       Sacramento, California 95814


 12                     and 

 12            JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ.







 16       785 North Main Street, Suite E

 16       Bishop, California 93514

 17       BY:  TERRY L. RUSSI





 19       P.O. Box 201

 20       Lee Vining, California 93541





 22       1 Park Plaza, Suite 500

 23       Irvine, California 92610







 01                          APPEARANCES





 03       114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200

 04       San Francisco, California 94014






 07       1416 Ninth Street

 07       Sacramento, California 95814



 09       555 Capitol Mall, Ninth Floor

 09       Sacramento, California 95814







 13       1300 I Street

 13       Sacramento, California 95814








 17       425 Market Street

 18       San Francisco, California

 18       BY:  F. BRUCE DODGE, ESQ.






 21       SCOTT STINE



 23                           ---oOo---







 01                             INDEX    


 02                                                    PAGE






 05            BY MR. DODGE                            1117




 07            BY MR. RUSSI                            1155

 07            BY MS. BELLOMO                          1169

 08            BY MR. HASELTON                         1219

 08            BY MS. ROOS-COLLINS                     1221

 09            BY MS. CAHILL                           1234


 10                           ---oOo---


 11       AFTERNOON SESSION                            1219

















 01                     SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

 02                       FEBRUARY 24, 1997

 03                           ---oOo---

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good morning and welcome back to all

 05  the parties.  Later in the day, we may be joined by Mr.

 06  Stubchaer and Ms. Forster. 

 07       Let me also say before we get into today's proceeding

 08  that some of you been inquiring as to the well-being of Mr.

 09  Del Piero.  I will just let you know that he has been

 10  allowed to go home.  He is home, resting.  The last we heard

 11  on Friday, they do not know yet if he is going to need a

 12  second surgery.  We will try to keep you posted as we find

 13  more things out.

 14       With that, I was going to ask Mr. Frink what the order

 15  is now with regard to conveniencing the parties on their

 16  direct and the cross-examination that we are going to

 17  schedule for today. 

 18       Mr. Frink.

 19       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Caffrey, I believe Mr. Dodge has a

 20  panel of three witnesses who we are going to lead off with

 21  this morning.

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That would then be Mr. Vorster, Mr.

 23  Stine, and Mr. Harrison; is that -- do I have the right

 24  group here?

 25       MR. DODGE:  Yes, you do.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  There had been some discussion

 02  about, perhaps, Mr. Roos-Collins going first with Mr.

 03  Vorster.  I take it that you are going to do all your

 04  witnesses together? 

 05       MR. DODGE:  The way we left it last Friday, Mr.

 06  Roos-Collins and I were to discuss the matter and reach

 07  resolution, and we have.  The resolution is that, on behalf

 08  of Audubon and on the Mono Lake Committee, this panel of

 09  three would go forward and be cross-examined and then be

 10  finished.  Then we would move on to the Cal Trout panel.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Dodge.

 12       I always made, at the request of Mr. Birmingham, a

 13  change in the order of the cross-examination, and there was

 14  no objection last time, and we will take the City of Los

 15  Angeles at the end of the grouping, as we go down through

 16  the list. 

 17       Thank you all for your indulgence.  Let me also repeat

 18  something that I've said a number of times.  First of all,

 19  with all due deference, because it's clear to me that

 20  everybody is making an attempt at brevity.  This is a

 21  complex subject, and sometimes that is not easy to do.  

 22  Nonetheless, I will repeat for those of you who have not

 23  been with us.  We are all here at different times as

 24  different parties appear.  It is essential that you be as

 25  brief as you can.  Not only to the witnesses in your


 01  testimony, but also to the attorneys in their questioning. 

 02  We do allow up to an hour for presentation of direct

 03  testimony.  It is obligatory.  If you don't have an hour's

 04  worth of information in summary form to give the Board, you

 05  don't need to feel that you need to fill up the hour.  I am

 06  sure everybody would appreciate that. 

 07       If I may be so bold as to cite an example, I think the

 08  Board appreciated Mr. Dodge's approach the other day, where

 09  he brought up his expert witnesses, and they each took about

 10  ten minutes to summarize.  Then we could get to the meat of

 11  things in the cross-examination and, of course, there is

 12  always rebuttal to follow.

 13       We noted that the witnesses have a lot of expertise. 

 14  So does the Board to some degree.  We are full-time Board.

 15  We read everything.  Please be mindful of the fact that the

 16  direct testimony is your opportunity to just summarize and

 17  hit the high points.  As I said earlier, it appears as

 18  though that the panels up till now have been making a real

 19  attempt to do that.  It is appreciated, and please do

 20  continue. 

 21       All right then.  Is there anything I need to point

 22  out?  Let me ask, before we get to that, Mr. Frink, have all

 23  of these witnesses taken the oath that are going to appear

 24  today? 

 25       MR. FRINK:  I don't believe so.


 01            (Oath administered by Chairman Caffrey.)

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.  Gentlemen, sit down.   

 03       Mr. Dodge, sir.

 04                           ---oOo---

 05                     DIRECT EXAMINATION BY


 07                          BY MR. DODGE

 08       MR. DODGE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 09       Mr. Vorster, I am going to ask you to confirm that

 10  Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-7 is your written testimony and to

 11  summarize it for the Board.  And then I will ask Mr.

 12  Harrison to confirm that Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-1 is your written

 13  testimony and to summarize that.  And finally, Dr. Stine, I

 14  ask you to confirm that Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-5 is your written

 15  testimony and summarize that.  And we will start with Mr.

 16  Vorster.

 17       MR. VORSTER:  Good morning, Mr. Caffrey, Mr. Brown, and

 18  the assembled staff and others in this proceeding.  My name

 19  is Peter Vorster. I was extensively involved in the

 20  preparation plan through the TAGs, the ad hoc flow

 21  subcommittee, and the submittal of extensive written

 22  comments.  I appreciate that DWP, in particular Bill

 23  Hazencamp, Steve McBain, Dave Allen, Jim Perralt, and Peter

 24  Kavounas, conducted a process in an open and cooperative

 25  manner.


 01      There are a couple of minor corrections in my

 02  testimony, which I compiled in a sheet that is being handed

 03  out currently.  The most important is that Attachment 5A,

 04  which should have been part of Attachment 5, was

 05  inadvertently left out.

 06       My testimony will cover the following subject matters. 

 07  First, water rights in the Mill-Wilson system, Mill-Wilson

 08  hydrology and water management, water requirements for

 09  Thompson and Conway Meadows, a comparison of the different

 10  channel maintenance flow recommendations, the adequacy of 

 11  DWP channel maintenance flow recommendations, and the export

 12  impact of the recommended flow regimes.

 13       First, I want to quickly review the water rights of the

 14  Mill-Wilson system.  I have reviewed the November 30, 1914

 15  Water Rights Decree for Mill Creek and subsequent 

 16  conveyances and compilations of the decree by the 

 17  Department of Water and Power and Southern California

 18  Edison.  I enlarged Attachment 6 from my testimony, which is

 19  behind me here, which is a compilation of the water rights

 20  with minor corrections noted in my written testimony.  This

 21  compilation was prepared by Scott Stine in Appendix F, as in

 22  Frank, in the DWP's Waterfowl Plan. 

 23       The water rights to Mill Creek are held by four

 24  entities: Conway Ranch, LADWP, U.S. Forest Service, and Jan

 25  Simis who has a minor 1.0 cfs right.  The Conway right


 01  consists of both the Conway land and the Mattly lands.  The

 02  Conway lands, as I am showing in R-SLC/DPR-424.  The Conway

 03  lands enclosed by this large figure and the Mattly lands

 04  over here.

 05       The Conway lands have a 14 cfs right, and the Mattly

 06  lands a 4 cfs right.

 07       Southern California Edison does not have a water right

 08  to Mill Creek.  It's obligated to convey the water to

 09  downstream water right holders, although it does have a

 10  right to store inflow above 70 cfs. 

 11       There is no right to flows in Wilson Creek itself. 

 12  Wilson Creek is a conduit for delivering water to irrigation

 13  ditches on Conway and DeChambeau Ranch.  And, in fact, it

 14  was originally referred to as the DeChambeau Ditch.

 15       In recent years, nearly all of the flow in Wilson Creek

 16  through the Conway Ranch is water in excess of the demands

 17  of the water right holders, since the Forest Service is

 18  generally not using its right on DeChambeau Ranch, and the

 19  Conway Ranch has no major diversions from Wilson Creek on

 20  the ranch property itself.

 21       What I mean is that -- this is Conway Ranch. 

 22  Diversions to the ranch historically occurred from the

 23  Conway Ditch, the Upper Conway Ditch, the Lower Conway

 24  Ditch, and there are actually two ditches that take water

 25  from the south of we call Wilson Creek.


 01       Next I want to briefly describe the Mill-Wilson

 02  hydrology and water management.  I compiled a series of 

 03  spreadsheets which Mr. Riese will be flipping over.  They

 04  are just enlargements of the attachments.  These

 05  spreadsheets provide a snapshot of the historic actual flows

 06  and diversions in the Mill-Wilson system in different year

 07  types, and the flows that would be expected if LADWP's or

 08  the Mono Lake Committee's proposal for providing instream

 09  flows in Mill Creek is implemented.

 10       DWP's proposal is to dedicate its Mill Creek water

 11  rights and the dedication of other unappropriative water

 12  that may be available during the fall and winter months to

 13  accomplish the rewatering of Mill Creek. 

 14       The Mono Lake Committee proposal is to restore close to

 15  the natural flows of Mill Creek, but impaired by Lundy

 16  Reservoir, in order to restore the waterfowl habitat in Mill

 17  Creek to the level recommended by the waterfowl restoration

 18  scientists, and to restore a naturally functioning stream,

 19  ecosystem, and bottomlands.

 20       Mono Lake Committee proposes to return all of the water

 21  to Mill Creek except that which is necessary to maintain

 22  Wilson Creek riparian quarter through the Conway Ranch and

 23  to maintain the Simis and Thompson Ranch Meadows and trees.

 24  Mono Lake Committee proposes to accomplish this through the

 25  purchase and dedication of the Conway Ranch water rights,


 01  the dedication of DWP's water rights to Mill Creek, to

 02  instream flow, and to the modification of the Mill Creek

 03  Return Ditch, if necessary, to transport the 70 second

 04  peak.

 05       The spreadsheets, which are behind me, show the mean

 06  monthly flows in cubic feet per second for dry, normal, and

 07  wet runoff year at the available measuring sites for key

 08  points of demarcation in the Mill-Wilson system.

 09       The meaning and derivation of every line in the

 10  spreadsheets is explained in Attachment 5.  Behind me is

 11  actually a summary spreadsheet.  The detailed spreadsheets

 12  are contained in my testimony.

 13       The spreadsheets allow the user to specify certain

 14  variables in order to model alternative water management

 15  scenarios, including the capacity of the Mill Creek Return

 16  Ditch, the losses in terms of percentage of flow in the

 17  return ditch, the amount of DWP's irrigation right required

 18  to keep Thompson Ranch Meadow green in excess of 1.0 cfs,

 19  and, fourth, the amount of water to maintain Wilson Creek

 20  riparian quarter through the Conway Ranch.  These are all

 21  variables that can be specified by the user and changed in

 22  order to model different scenarios.

 23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Excuse me, Mr. Vorster. 

 24       Ms. Bellomo, did you rise for a purpose? 

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  No, thank you, Chairman Caffrey.  I am


 01  trying to look at the -- I am sorry.

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Don't be sorry.  I just wasn't sure,

 03  and that's perfectly all right. 

 04       Anybody who has trouble seeing this, if they want to

 05  draw a little bit closer, please feel free. 

 06       Excuse me, Mr. Vorster.  Go ahead.

 07       MR. VORSTER:  The scenarios are differentiated -- in my

 08  testimony I provided three scenarios, and they are

 09  differentiated by the assumed capacity of the return ditch

 10  and the irrigation water for Thompson Ranch.  Since my

 11  testimony was prepared, we received the testimony from

 12  Southern California Edison, which indicated that they

 13  estimate the capacity of the return ditch is about 12 cfs,

 14  as opposed to 16 cfs I assumed for the purpose of my

 15  testimony.

 16       As a consequence, I prepared a Scenario 4, which is

 17  exactly the same as Scenario 1 except for the return ditch

 18  capacity of 12 cfs.  I do have that available and the

 19  summary spreadsheet is actually up behind Scenario 1.

 20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Caffrey.

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham.

 22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  We would have an objection to the

 23  introduction of Scenario 4 inasmuch as it was not submitted

 24  in the testimony on the date required by the State Board.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is there anybody wishing to offer a


 01  showing as to why I should not sustain Mr. Birmingham's

 02  concern? 

 03       MR. DODGE:  We have always been under the assumption,

 04  and have been told, that the capacity of the return ditch

 05  was 16 cfs.  And then after all the testimony comes, in SCE

 06  comes with its testimony in response to my questions, and

 07  they tell us it is now as low as 12.  So, it is new

 08  information to us, and we thought the Board ought to be made

 09  aware of the implications of that.  We can do it in

 10  rebuttal, if you wish.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Bellomo.

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  Just ask for clarification, Chairman

 13  Caffrey, I didn't understand Southern California Edison as

 14  having provided testimony in this proceeding.  I think we

 15  should be referenced to the documents that is supposedly

 16  testimony.  I think I recall seeing a letter or memorandum

 17  or something, but maybe there is testimony that I am not

 18  aware of.

 19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think the point here is, if I am

 20  understanding your concern, Ms. Bellomo, is that the direct

 21  testimony can, or rather presentation of direct testimony --

 22  well, I am going to correct myself.  I was confusing myself

 23  with procedure for rebuttal from counsel, what I was about

 24  say.     

 25       Mr. Frink, can you remind if and when we had anything


 01  in direct from Southern California Edison?

 02       MR. FRINK:  All I have seen on the subject is a letter

 03  or memo from SCE responding to an inquiry from Mr. Dodge

 04  regarding the capacity of the ditch.

 05       I would say, though, that I don't believe that he

 06  formally asked for that information until shortly before the

 07  exhibits were due, and, certainly, we didn't have any

 08  request to subpoena the information from SCE.

 09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Frink is absolutely correct.  What

 10  happened was Mr. Dodge made an inquiry of Southern

 11  California Edison so that he could submit evidence

 12  concerning the capacity of the return ditch in connection

 13  with his case in chief.  If he did not obtain that

 14  information early enough to permit Mr. Vorster to conduct an

 15  analysis, based upon that information, we should not be

 16  prejudiced because of their failure to get the information

 17  earlier. 

 18       What happened was Mr. Dodge got the information from 

 19  SCE.  He submitted with his direct testimony and Mr.

 20  Vorster's direct testimony, and based upon that new

 21  information, Mr. Vorster apparently has conducted a

 22  different analysis, which should have been presented with

 23  the written testimony at the time Mr. Dodge submitted.

 24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge, you had made an offering

 25  a moment ago.


 01       MR. DODGE:  Excuse me, Mr. Birmingham has misstated the

 02  facts. 

 03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Go ahead.

 04       MR. DODGE:  I did not get the testimony from SCE in a

 05  timely matter, which is why I submitted my Exhibit 3, which

 06  is just the questions I posed to them, and Exhibit 3-A,

 07  which is when I got the answers, which was after Mr. Vorster

 08  had finished his analysis.  And I believe it was Exhibit 3-A

 09  that was filed a couple days late for that very reason. 

 10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  In fact, Exhibit 3-A was filed late,

 11  and I understand Mr. Dodge's difficulty in getting that

 12  information from Southern California Edison.  And so,

 13  therefore, we do not object to his having filed that a

 14  couple days late, because we have had plenty of time to

 15  analyze it for purposes of examination.  But Mr. Vorster,

 16  based upon that, is now offering brand new evidence that we

 17  have not had an opportunity to analyze, and under the

 18  Board's previous rulings concerning the submission of

 19  evidence for party's case in chief, this ought to be

 20  excluded.

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am going to rule here in a second,

 22  but I am going to give Mr. Dodge one more chance to --      

 23       Nothing else, Mr. Dodge? 

 24       MR. DODGE:   Nothing.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos-Collins, do you have


 01  something you wanted to add?

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

 03       If you sustain the objection, then one or several of us

 04  may simply ask Mr. Vorster the same question on cross.      

 05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, I was going to observe that,

 06  and you also have rebuttal as an opportunity.  I am going to

 07  -- Ms. Scoonover, briefly.

 08       MS. SCOONOVER:  Chairman Caffrey, the only point I want

 09  to make, was I believe that the Southern California Edison

 10  testimony is in the record as it was stipulated to when we

 11  met previously.  So that shouldn't be an issue, whether it

 12  is or is not.

 13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I don't know that that is the issue.  

 14  The issue is, it is part of somebody's direct, per se, and

 15  which you can deal with in cross-examination because it is

 16  in the record, I would assume. 

 17       So, I am going to sustain the objection.  I know that a

 18  skilled attorney, such as Mr. Dodge, has perhaps other

 19  avenues to bring his information into the hearing, and I

 20  know --    

 21       MR. DODGE:   Now you are putting me on the spot.

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I know a skilled attorney like Mr.

 23  Birmingham has also the ability to object in the future. 

 24       We are going to sustain the objection as this point.   

 25       Please proceed.


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Thank you. 

 02       The following observations about historic flows and

 03  diversions in the Mill-Wilson system can be made.  First,

 04  the amount and seasonality of historic flows and diversions

 05  shown in spreadsheets are consistent with the recent

 06  measurements and observations, even though they show 1950,

 07  '52 -- '51, '52 and 1960.  Those years were just chosen as

 08  representative hydrology of wet, normal, and dry year. 

 09  However, the way things -- the diversions and SCE's

 10  operations are consistent with what is shown in the

 11  spreadsheets. 

 12       The only exception to this is that in the last decade

 13  the upper Thompson diversions for the irrigation of lands

 14  south of Mill Creek, in particular for Simis Ranch, are 

 15  substantially less and have been entirely eliminated in the

 16  past few years.

 17       Secondly, the differences in the Mill Creek unimpaired

 18  runoff between the different year types is most pronounced

 19  in snow melt months of May through August.  For example, the

 20  mean monthly flow in July, the wet year, is nearly five

 21  times greater than the mean monthly flow of July in dry

 22  year.  Contrast this to the less than 25 percent difference

 23  in the flows in November.

 24       Thirdly, Mill Creek gains an estimated average monthly

 25  flow of 4 to 10 cfs downstream of Lundy Reservoir from a


 01  combination of factors.  Lundy Reservoir would be off the

 02  map here on Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424 in the reach down to

 03  approximately Highway 395.  It gains flow from tributary

 04  inflow and groundwater accretion.  Below Highway 395 down

 05  past the County Road, Mill Creek is a losing stream.  And

 06  then down near the shoreline of Mono Lake itself, down here,

 07  springs would reemerge.

 08       I assume, consistent with available but limited number

 09  of measurements and estimates, the losses are equal to the

 10  gains.  In higher runoff months and higher runoff years, 

 11  losses probably have been slightly less than the gains. 

 12       I would note that if water is flowing consistently in

 13  the multiple channels in the revegetated Mill Creek

 14  bottomlands, the losses will increase in the future over

 15  what I have shown in the spreadsheets. 

 16       Fourth, the diversion in the Thompson Ditches and

 17  Conway and Mattly Ditches occurred on seasonal bases for

 18  irrigation purposes.  Thus, normally there were no 

 19  diversions between November and March, and in many years

 20  there were no diversions between October and April.

 21       Fifth, flows to start discharging from the power plant,

 22  that are not diverted from the Conway and Mattly Ranch

 23  Ditches, flow in Wilson Creek and provide a year-round flow

 24  through the Conway Ranch in most occasions.  A combination

 25  of losses in and diversions from Wilson Creek cause it to


 01  periodically dry up downstream from the Conway Ranch.

 02       So most of the time there is year-round flow from the

 03  power plant through the Conway Ranch, but in this section

 04  there is a losing stream and in the drier months, especially

 05  dryer years, this is often totally dry of surface flow.

 06       An exception to the normal year-round flow in Wilson

 07  Creek occurred during the period 1962 to '68 when the

 08  Lundy Power Plant was not in service, which meant

 09  irrigation water for the Conway, Mattly, and DeChambeau

 10  Ranches had to be diverted from Mill Creek, directly from 

 11  Mill Creek.  More water was diverted from Mill Creek in the

 12  late fall and winter from 1962 to '68.  So Wilson Creek did

 13  not have that supply from the power plant outflow.

 14       I assume a small amount of accretion occurs in the

 15  reach of Wilson Creek through Conway Ranch, but for most of

 16  its length it stayed dry if there was no water being

 17  discharged from the power plant. 

 18       The following observations can be made about the

 19  expected flows in the Mill-Wilson system if Los Angeles

 20  Department of Water and Power or Mono Lake Committee's

 21  proposals are implemented.  First, without the successful

 22  appropriation of the October through April water from the

 23  Wilson system, DWP's proposal to dedicate its existing water

 24  rights result in little or no flow in Mill Creek below the

 25  County Road in the late summer, fall, and winter.


 01       The County Road, again, being down near Mono Lake.  So,

 02  in this reach here, from the bottomlands down to Mono Lake,

 03  that reach would be dry under DWP's proposal just dedicating

 04  its irrigation water right.

 05       The testimony of Scott Stine elaborates the implication

 06  of DWP's proposals for flows and waterfowl habitat in Mill

 07  Creek.  Even if DWP is successful with the appropriation of

 08  the unused water in the October through April period,  the

 09  flows in Mill Creek below the County Road are very, very low

 10  in September, from 4 percent to 44 percent of the impaired

 11  flow at Lundy Reservoir.  September is a key month for

 12  migratory waterfowl in the Mono Basin, according to the

 13  testimony of Fritz Reid.

 14       Because of the assumed limited capacity of the return

 15  ditch and the Conway diversion right, DWP's proposals result

 16  in snow melt season flows that are from one-quarter to

 17  one-half of the available Mill Week runoff.  Upgrading the

 18  ditch, return ditch, allows for greater flows in the snow

 19  melt season.

 20       Flows, however, will always be considerably less than

 21  what is available at the Lundy Reservoir because of the

 22  assumed limitation that DWP cannot dedicate more than 38 cfs

 23  to Mill Creek.  As a result, the flow is insufficient for

 24  rewatering of the bottomland channels as Dr. Stine's later

 25  testimony will discuss.


 01       A restriction in the return ditch capacity to 12 cfs

 02  will reduce the flows in Mill Creek with the DWP proposals

 03  whenever the available runoff is greater than 12 cfs in the

 04  October through April period, or 24 cfs in the May through

 05  September period.  As can be seen, if you compare Scenario 4

 06  with Scenario 1.  But I guess at this point Scenario 4 is

 07  not -- I won't refer to it.  I just would observe that in a

 08  normal year this occurs in 7 out of 12 months of the year.

 09       Next, I want to talk about the water requirements for

 10  the Conway and Thompson Meadows.  A very rough estimate of

 11  the water requirements for the Conway Ranch and Thompson

 12  Ranch Meadows.  Again, Conway Ranch.  I am referring to this

 13  as the Conway Ranch Meadow, both north and south of Wilson

 14  Creek.  And I am going to draw -- this map did not

 15  originally have Thompson Ranch on it, so I am going to draw

 16  it in here.  This County Road is actually the very old 

 17  County Road.  The current County Road comes in about here,

 18  and so, the Thompson Meadow -- I am just going to draw a

 19  circle here to roughly represent Thompson.

 20       So that rough estimate of the water requirement can be

 21  made by multiplying the irrigated acreage times the

 22  consumptive use of the meadow grass, which is approximately

 23  two feet and by doubling that amount to take in account the

 24  relative inefficiency of flood irrigation, you can come up

 25  with a rough water requirement.  For 350 acres of Conway


 01  Ranch, the calculation results in an average growing season

 02  requirement of about 4.5 cfs.  That requirement can be

 03  entirely supplied by the diversions from Virginia Creek,

 04  accretion in the drainage used by the Virginia Creek

 05  diversion and natural spring flow and accretion on the

 06  property, and occasional peak snow melt season supplied from

 07  the ephemeral drainages that drain onto the ranch. 

 08       In other words, no Mill Creek water is needed.  In

 09  fact, the Conway Ranch Meadow north of Wilson Creek, which

 10  represents 85 percent of the total meadow acreage, has not

 11  had any Mill Creek water for the last decade, relying

 12  entirely on the Virginia Creek diversion and natural sources

 13  on the property.

 14       A similar calculation for the hundred acres of Thompson

 15  Ranch currently irrigated results in an average growing

 16  season requirement of about 1.3 cfs, which can be supplied

 17  from a combination of Mill Creek, springs and seepage on the

 18  edge of the property and runoff from the DeChambeau

 19  Creek.  I want to emphasize these are both rough estimates

 20  of the irrigation water requirements; the actual amount

 21  depends on non climatic factors, such as topography and the

 22  water delivery system to the meadows. 

 23       The main point to appreciate is that it takes very

 24  little or no water from Mill Creek to maintain viable

 25  pasture on the Conway and Thompson Meadows.


 01       Next, I want to turn to my stream testimony.  And

 02  first, I want to compare the channel maintenance flows that

 03  have been recommended over the years, and Attachment 10,

 04  which is a blowup from my testimony, compares the channel

 05  maintenance flows.  I would note that DWP's current

 06  recommendations are far greater than their 1994

 07  recommendations, which were based upon analysis by Dr.

 08  Beschta. 

 09       DWP's current recommendations are still guided by a

 10  philosophy as expressed by Dr. Beschta, that providing the

 11  impaired flows is sufficient for restoration.  That

 12  contrasts with a philosophy held by others, including the

 13  stream scientists, Dr. Trush and Dr. Ridenhour and Chris

 14  Hunter, that indicates that the unimpaired flow should be

 15  used as a guide since those are the flows that provide the

 16  habitat that we are trying to restore, in which we see

 17  evolving today because of high flows in 1995, for example.

 18       I do want to emphasize, though, that the stream

 19  scientists' recommendations are not the unimpaired flows. 

 20  They are, in fact, substantially less than the unimpaired

 21  flows in Rush Creek, as can be seen in my Attachment 11. 

 22       On Lee Vining Creek, their recommendations are, by

 23  definition, the specified flow or whatever the peak flows at

 24  the DWP facility, which is impaired flow.  The Southern

 25  California Edison reservoirs on Lee Vining Creek do not


 01  impair the flows nearly as much as on Rush Creek.  So, that

 02  is why the steam scientists were comfortable in stating the

 03  recommendations in those terms.

 04       This then shows the different recommendations in

 05  comparing the cfs magnitude recommendations with the

 06  unimpaired peak flows in the different years types, as well

 07  as the number of days in which flows exceeded the

 08  recommendations.  The number of days that are recommended

 09  are shown in the light characters and the bold are what the

 10  unimpaired regime would provide.

 11       Next, I want to address the inadequacy of DWP's

 12  recommended channel maintenance flows.  The DWP flows are

 13  inadequate both in wetter and drier years.  In wetter years

 14  the magnitude that is recommended is less than what would

 15  mobilize the bed and inundate the low terraces in nearly

 16  every single year.  With the DWP flows, this 500 cfs or

 17  greater flow requirement, as testified to by Dr. Trush, has

 18  the opportunity to occur only about eight percent of the

 19  years, or the extreme year category.

 20                     (Ms. Forster enters.)

 21       MR. VORSTER:  With unimpaired flows, flows of 500 cfs,

 22  occurred in about half of the years.  The second issue in

 23  wetter years is that a delivery mechanism is highly

 24  problematic.  The augmentation of Rush from Lee Vining Creek

 25  must occur in 40 percent of the years with DWP's flow


 01  regime.  There are five major problems with it, as

 02  experienced in 1996 highlights. 

 03       First, is questionable reliability.  Even if DWP fixes

 04  the gates, that makes the conduit overflow, there is still a

 05  problem with the Lee Vining diversion facility.  It is not

 06  responsive to the flow fluctuations that occur upstream of

 07  it, and we saw that in 1996 when Southern California Edison

 08  had to suddenly reduce their flows by a hundred cfs and

 09  DWP's facility did not respond.  And thus there was a

 10  violation of D-1631. 

 11       The second issue is that DWP's plan does not establish

 12  criteria for determining peak flows and diversions.  The

 13  criteria that they provided in the May 1966 letter and

 14  subsequent conference calls were subsequently violated

 15  during the augmentation procedure.  The criteria

 16  transmitted orally included forecasting and backcasting

 17  procedures which may result in the diversion of the actual

 18  peak or waiting so long that the flows dropped to D-1631

 19  minimums and considerably delayed Rush peaks after the 

 20  natural flows have peaked.

 21       Third, it requires coordination with Southern

 22  California Edison, which by the admission of both Southern

 23  California Edison and DWP, they could have done a better job

 24  of coordinating.  And the telemetry system that DWP relies

 25  upon for transmitting data about Lee Vining Creek releases


 01  and diversions, actually had a breakdown right at the point

 02  in time when flows were decreasing on Lee Vining Creek and

 03  diversions occurring.

 04       Fourth, the delays in Rush Creek peak occur because of

 05  the augmentation.  And, for example, in 1996 the peak flow

 06  in  Rush Creek occurred three weeks after the natural peak,

 07  as shown in Attachment 8.

 08       This line, here on Attachment 8, shows the unimpaired

 09  peak occurring in early June and the actual peak occurred

 10  three weeks later in late June, as a result of the

 11  augmentation.

 12       Fifth, it dramatically reduces the backend of the peak

 13  hydrograph on Lee Vining Creek because it shaves off 50

 14  percent or more of the flow and can cause Lee Vining Creek

 15  to be at the D-1631 minimum flow in an extreme year.

 16       The augmentation procedure invites controversy and

 17  potential problems for the restoration of both Rush and Lee

 18  Vining Creek.  I maintain that only the repair of all the

 19  involved facilities, establishment of written operating

 20  criteria, careful monitoring of the creeks and diversions

 21  with real time and publicly accessible data, and the

 22  establishment and enforcement of penalties for violations,

 23  will ensure the proper operation of the augmentation

 24  procedure.

 25       A permanent outlet from Grant avoids these problems and


 01  is the only reliable way to provide the recommended flows in

 02  60 percent of the years recommended by the stream

 03  scientists.

 04       In drier years, there are a number of problems with

 05  DWP's recommendations.  They do not provide restoration

 06  rationale for reducing the recommendations made by the ad

 07  hoc flow subcommittee in over half the years.  The only

 08  rationale they provided is fear of export reduction, which,

 09  as we will see, is possibly unfounded. 

 10       In over half of the years, the magnitude of the DWP

 11  flow is less than the peak flows that nature would provide

 12  in  every single year, and often provides several times a

 13  year.

 14  With the existing facility, only one peak will occur.

 15       In 40 percent of the years with the DWP regime, it is

 16  less than the impaired flows, as Dr. Beschta testified, and

 17  dramatically less than the unimpaired flows as I show in 

 18  Attachment 11.  In these same 40 percent of the years, the

 19  recommended peak will be a hundred cfs or less, which Dr.

 20  Trush stated is necessary to attainment -- excuse me.  In

 21  the same 40 percent of the years, the recommended peak flow

 22  will be a hundred cfs or less, while Dr. Trush stated that,

 23  to attain the attributes of incipient mobility and bankful

 24  flows on average once a year, the flows should be in the

 25  range of 350 to over 400 cfs. 


 01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey. 

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham.

 03       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I wonder if  Mr. Vorster could be

 04  asked to restrict his commentary to the written testimony

 05  that was submitted, as opposed to the testimony that the

 06  Board has heard since the beginning of the hearing.

 07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.  You make a good point.  The

 08  direct should be honed to -- the oral testimony should be

 09  honed to what you submitted in written fashion, Mr.

 10  Vorster.  Going beyond that is something that is reserved

 11  for cross-examination, if you will. 

 12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Well, in fact, sir, I think what he is

 13  trying to do is rebut the testimony that has been submitted

 14  by other witnesses during the oral presentation and their 

 15  cross-examination, and it is our perspective that that ought

 16  to be reserved for rebuttal.

 17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Vorster, please try to stay on

 18  your --

 19       MR. VORSTER:  I will.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  -- actual, direct that you have

 21  submitted.  Your attorneys can get to the meat of some of

 22  the other things through their techniques at a later time.

 23       MR. VORSTER:  I will not refer to Dr. Trush or Dr.

 24  Beschta anymore in my direct testimony.

 25       Lastly, I want to refer to export reduction that would


 01  occur with the different flow regime.  In the transition

 02  period, in particular, the ad hoc flow subcommittee flows 

 03  would cause Grant to drop slightly more in any one year,

 04  approximately 2 to 4,000 acre-feet, but have no export

 05  impact, according to the Grant Lake Operations and

 06  Management Plan submitted by DWP.

 07       With consecutive drier years, Grant would drop with

 08  both the DWP flows and the ad hoc flows, but there would not

 09  be any export reduction unless there was a minimum Grant

 10  storage level, such as the D-1631 target minimum of 11 and a

 11  half thousand acre-feet that needs to be maintained.

 12       So, for example, if Grant started the 1987 to '92

 13  drought sequence at its target operating level of 35,000

 14  acre-feet, the ad hoc flows would maintain the Grant storage

 15  above 11 and a half thousand acre-feet and, thus, would not

 16  require an export reduction.  A 1976-77 drought sequence

 17  would cause Grant to drop slightly below the 11 and a half

 18  thousand acre-feet level.  So, an export reduction of about

 19  a thousand acre-feet would be required to maintain Grant

 20  above that level.

 21       In the post transition period, the export reductions

 22  with the stream scientists' October 1995 flows were

 23  estimated using the Los Angeles Aqueduct Simulation Model,

 24  or LAASM model, to be about 4 cfs or 3,000 acre-feet on an

 25  average annual basis.  I show those calculations in my


 01  comments that are provided on DWP's draft plan. 

 02       I estimate that with the ad hoc flows the export

 03  reduction is on average of about 3 cfs per year, and even

 04  with the current DWP flow recommendations, the export

 05  reduction would be about 2 cfs on average per year.

 06       That is it for my testimony.

 07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Vorster. 

 08       Who is next? 

 09       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Harrison.

 10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Harrison, good morning, sir.

 11       MR. HARRISON:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  My

 12  name is Larry Harrison.  I am a registered civil engineer in

 13  the State of California, and I have been an independent,

 14  consulting engineer since early in 1995 when I left

 15  employment with PG&E. 

 16       Prior to becoming a consultant, I was employed by

 17  Pacific and Gas Electric Company for a period of almost 32

 18  years in various engineering capacities, including project

 19  management, supervision, contract administration, field

 20  engineering, siting settings, some design, licensing,

 21  permits, and economic studies.  The types of projects I've

 22  worked on, all with PG&E, included hydroelectric, fossil

 23  fuel, steam power plants, nuclear plants, liquefied natural

 24  gas, and also sediment management, and erosion control

 25  projects.


 01       I have authored more than a dozen papers on sediment

 02  management, reservoir sediment management, and watershed

 03  erosion control and watershed management.

 04       My experience in Mono Basin is limited.  I conducted

 05  two field trips to the Mono Basin area to observe streams

 06  and facilities.  First trip in March of 1996, March 7th and

 07  8th, and also again October 3rd and 4th in 1996.

 08       While there, I observed tributaries to Mono Lake,

 09  including Lee Vining Creek, Walker Creek, Parker Creek, Rush

 10  Creek, Mill Creek, and Wilson Creek, and also various

 11  structures of the L.A. Department of Water and Power and

 12  Southern California Edison Company.  I looked at the

 13  diversion dams at Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Creeks.  I

 14  looked at portions of the Lee Vining Conduit, Grant Dam, and

 15  its appurtenances at Grant Lake, Mono Gate Return Ditch, 

 16  Lundy Power House and Tailrace Ditch, and also the Mill

 17  Creek Return Ditch. 

 18       Also, on March 8, I participated in a field meeting

 19  with Southern California Edison representatives, Messers

 20  Bruce Almond and Joe Valoma [phon].  They told us about the

 21  operations of the Lundy Power House and the Tailrace Ditch

 22  and the flows, also, at the Mill Creek Return Ditch.

 23       I have reviewed several DWP documents, including the

 24  Mono Basin Stream and Stream Channel Restoration Plan, the

 25  Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan, and the Mono Gate


 01  Number 1 Return Ditch Geotechnical Stability Evaluation.

 02       I have been retained early in 1996 by the Mono Lake

 03  Committee and California Trout, California Trout,

 04  Incorporated, to do three specific tasks.  And my

 05  involvement in the program, Mono Lake, is limited to those

 06  tasks. 

 07       One was to investigate options for providing 600 cfs

 08  channel maintenance flows in Rush Creek.  Second task would

 09  be to investigate options for improving sediment passage at

 10  Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Diversion Dams.  And the

 11  third task area was to investigate options for increasing

 12  flows in Lower Mill Creek by diverting up to 70 cubic feet

 13  per second from Wilson Creek.

 14       In regards to the first task, the Rush Creek channel

 15  maintenance flows, I reviewed DWP's proposals for channel

 16  maintenance flows, and I was also asked to recommend which

 17  alternative would be the most reliable, and to estimate the

 18  conceptual cost of the most reliable option.

 19       DWP proposed four options.  The first to install three

 20  42-inch siphon pipes over the spillway or in the spillway at

 21  Grant Dam.  Pipes 2500 feet long with a capacity, total

 22  capacity of 300 cfs.

 23       I believe this option would be unlikely to pass mustard

 24  before the Division of Safety of Dams in that it would block

 25  the spillway.  And there would be an alternative or burying


 01  the pipes in the spillway, but that is a tough job in the

 02  type of terrain that is there and could jeopardize the

 03  integrity of that spillway structure.  So, I would not

 04  recommend it.

 05       Also, as an operating problem, there is very much

 06  limited range of lake levels over which the siphon could be

 07  operated.  So it's problematic as to whether it would be

 08  available when needed; and also siphons do have a notorious

 09  reputation for not always working when you want them to

 10  work.

 11       The second proposal would be DWP was to install a 300

 12  cfs pumping station in the lake, discharging through a

 13  78-inch diameter pipeline, approximately 2,500 feet to Rush

 14  Creek.  This, I think, would be more reliable than the

 15  siphons.  It's direct.  Looking at DWP's numbers, it is

 16  extremely expensive, costing in excess of 14,000,000; and

 17  that doesn't include operation and maintenance costs, nor

 18  the cost to provide power to a large pump.  There is not --

 19  it appears there is not sufficient existing power at the dam

 20  to power such a large machine.

 21       Also, it does not -- same as the siphons; it does not

 22  provide any water to Reach 1 of Rush Creek on a continuous

 23  basis.

 24       The third proposal of DWP was to construct a new outlet

 25  tunnel at the dam, ten-foot diameter tunnel, approximately


 01  1,700 feet long.  This, obviously, could meet a number of

 02  requirements.  It is very flexible.  It could provide

 03  continuous flows to Rush Creek in the Reach 1 year round, 

 04  be highly reliable due to its simplicity.  It would just be

 05  control of an outlet gate or outlet valve that would control

 06  the flows.  Flows up to 600 cfs could always be met at any

 07  season or time of year, despite what runoffs or without

 08  coordination with any other facilities. 

 09       I chose this option as the one I would recommend as

 10  most reliable out of the lot.  I estimated the cost, a

 11  conserve estimate would be approximately 8.3 million,

 12  including engineering and overheads.  And if we added 30

 13  percent contingency to that, my cost estimate is 10.8

 14  million.  I believe with good project management and good

 15  design and competitive bidding, those costs could probably

 16  be shaved considerably, also.

 17       The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's

 18  recommended proposal is to provide an upgrade of the Mono

 19  Gate Return Ditch to capacity of 380 cfs and to supplement

 20  those flows with releases from the Lee Vining Creek conduit

 21  overflow structure.  This, again, is more so than even the

 22  -- proposals one and two would require close coordination of

 23  operations of the Lee Vining conduit and I'll add the

 24  additional factor of coordinating with high flows in Lee

 25  Vining Creek.  This option would not rewater Reach 1, and I


 01  think the reliability here is questionable.

 02       Going to task two, which is sediment passage at Lee

 03  Vining, Walker and Parker Creek Diversion Dams.  DWP

 04  proposes to draw down the water in the ponds during the

 05  October through March season, which for the hydrology of

 06  this watershed is the low flow season on these streams.  And

 07  then at three- to five-year intervals, to dredge the ponds

 08  and place the sediment dredged on the stream banks

 09  downstream of the ponds where it could be eroded by high

 10  flows back into the stream, to be carried on down to provide

 11  a continuum of sediment passage. 

 12       There is a flaw in this proposal, in that you don't

 13  move much sediment low flows.  There is very little sediment

 14  comes into the ponds on low flows.  I believe that such an

 15  operation would cut a little ditch or gully through the

 16  sediment in the ponds, and that is about all it would do.

 17  It wouldn't really be very beneficial. 

 18       I have suggested three alternatives for improving upon

 19  these plans.  First alternative, simply take the basic

 20  concept of drawdown flushing that DWP has proposed and

 21  improve it to do the drawdowns during the high flow periods

 22  on these streams in the spring, and drawdown only during the

 23  period of time that the flows are very high.  To accommodate

 24  this, some new larger outlets may be needed at the dams.  I

 25  propose in doing some very rough backend of the envelope 


 01  calculations; that's probably four 48-inch gates at sluice

 02  gates at the Lee Vining Creek structure would be adequate to

 03  carry, say, a five-year return flow through the sluice gates

 04  and similarly at Walker and Parker, a 36-inch at Walker and

 05  a 42-inch gate at Parker Creek would do the job.

 06       I estimated the cost for these facilities to be

 07  approximately $124,000 at Lee Vining Creek and 23,000 at

 08  Walker Creek and $27,000 at Parker Creek.  And, again, these

 09  are very approximate back of the envelope-type

 10  calculations.

 11       A second alternative proposed would be the use of Iowa

 12  vanes or similar things.  The term "Iowa vane" is a patented

 13  facility.  There are other vanes that operate similarly that

 14  have a little different shape.  An Iowa vane is basically if

 15  you can imagine one of the concrete barrier rails that the

 16  highway department puts out in traffic, and they move them

 17  around from one position to another,  commonly called a

 18  K-rail, is the highway terminology.  But am Iowa vane is

 19  something that looks similar to that.  Maybe a little taller

 20  and a little shorter in configuration.  They are placed in

 21  the stream and they create turbulences and vortices that,

 22  basically, resuspend sediment and route sediment on through

 23  channel sections, or particularly useful in front of intake

 24  structures and such. 

 25       So, I guess, my testimony isn't here to give a lesson


 01  on Iowa vanes, but this is something to be investigating.  I

 02  have observed some interesting videos showing these vanes in

 03  action, particularly in the modeling tests that were

 04  conducted at Colorado State University for PG&E.  I was

 05  quite impressed with their efficiency in moving sediments

 06  and extending flushing cones stream from reservoir outlets. 

 07  I think it is something that would be very economical to

 08  install.  If they are used, they would probably have a cost

 09  in the order of 10,000 at the smaller ponds, and perhaps

 10  $20,000 at the Lee Vining Creek ponds.  They are -- I would

 11  advise that an expert in this area, like Dr. Jacob Odgaard

 12  from the Iowa Institute of Technology, be consulted on

 13  something like this, to make recommendations.

 14       A third alternative I looked at would be high flow

 15  bypass channels.  I put up a little cartoon here to look

 16  at.  Basically, route sediments around the ponds.  Flow

 17  being in this direction.  This is the pond at the diversion

 18  dam.  You would have to install an upstream headworks, such

 19  that it could divert high flows down that are diverted

 20  around through the bypass channel, and perhaps this could be

 21  adjusted through gates and weirs here that this structure,

 22  to allow just the flows into the pond that are needed for

 23  diversion to the Lee Vining Creek conduit.

 24        So, basically, this is a scheme here for eliminating

 25  -- looking at a cross section of pond, you see a level


 01  surface.  Of course, the pond is what causes the sediment to

 02  fall out and decrease the water velocity, the retention

 03  time, the sediment can fall out, by putting the channel

 04  around it. 

 05       The bottom dotted lines trace the profile of the

 06  channel.  What it's doing is just simply restoring the

 07  gradient of the stream around the dam, bypassing the dam. 

 08  So whatever sediments are carried by the stream would simply

 09  be carried through the channel on around the stream.

 10       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Harrison, so the record is clear, the

 11  drawing that you are referring is Figure 1 to your --

 12       MR. HARRISON:   Figure 1 from my testimony. 

 13       MR. FRINK:  Your testimony was Mono Lake Committee 

 14  Exhibit 1. 

 15       Thank you. 

 16       MR. HARRISON:  Looking at the cost of these options,

 17  we are looking at, for Walker Creek and Parker Creek, I

 18  estimated approximately $50,000 for each channel; for Lee

 19  Vining Creek would be on the order of $250,000.  These were

 20  based on my estimate for a 50-year return flow, which I

 21  extracted from one of the charts in DWP's documents of 110

 22  cfs at Walker and Parker and 680 cfs at Lee Vining Creek. 

 23  Of course, this channel, a big part of the cost is riprap or

 24  other armoring of the channel to make sure it is a stable

 25  channel that doesn't erode during these high flows.


 01       The third task I was asked to review, and that was how

 02  to move 70 cfs from either the tailrace channel at -- put up

 03  another diagram here.

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  While you are doing that, Mr.

 05  Harrison, let me just remind you that there is an hour limit

 06  on direct; and in this case, unless Mr. Dodge is going to

 07  make a showing for more time, there is about 25 minutes

 08  left.  So you still have one more witness.  I just want you

 09  to be mindful of that.

 10       MR. DODGE:  I would advise Mr. Harrison that we are

 11  fine. 

 12       MR. HARRISON:   I will show this upper map here, which

 13  is Figure 3 from my testimony, and showing an overview of

 14  Conway.  Some photographs I had that is not in the

 15  testimony, just as a reference point, to help people orient

 16  between the map and where things are actually at.

 17       This is Highway 395 through the -- and this is the

 18  Conway Ranch area.  Lundy Powerhouse is over here.  Mono

 19  City is in this area right above the marker.  Mill Creek is

 20  right there on the other side of Mono City.  Wilson Creek is

 21  coming around this way.  And, anyway, those are not nice 

 22  pictures; it doesn't tell a whole lot in detail. 

 23       But looking down on this area here, here is Mono City. 

 24  Lundy Powerhouse here.  The upper blue is Wilson Creek

 25  traced out, and the lower one is Mill Creek. 


 01       I looked at two different alternatives for moving water

 02  from this stream to this stream.  I'm not arguing this is a

 03  ditch or creek.  This is definitely Tailrace Ditch down to

 04  this point here from the powerhouse.  I've eliminated the

 05  idea of using improved ditches because of the porosity of

 06  the soil in this region, excessive leakage.  And I looked at

 07  the pipelines, solicited prices on pipe -- plastic,

 08  concrete, and steel pipe.  Concrete pipe is much the

 09  cheaper.  From hydraulic calculations I calculated, I

 10  estimated the size of pipe that was going to be needed to

 11  carry from this point to this point; that is, from Wilson

 12  Creek to Mill Creek.  Also --

 13       MR. DODGE:   You said from Mill Creek to Mill Creek.

 14       MR. HARRISON:  I'm sorry.

 15       MR. DODGE:  You meant from --

 16       MR. HARRISON:   From Wilson Creek to Mill Creek.       

 17       MR. DODGE:  From the Lundy Powerhouse to Mill Creek?   

 18       MR. HARRISON:  From the Lundy Powerhouse to Tailrace

 19  Ditch, to Mill Creek.  And as an alternative, we looked at a

 20  pipeline from east of Conway Ranch from Wilson Creek to

 21  Mill Creek, at a point just to the east of Mono City.  Mono

 22  City being here.

 23       Where this line here -- I looked at two different

 24  options.  One was to follow the existing ditch alignment

 25  throughout, which included this little loop of green, back


 01  around; the ditch follows the contour over here.  That was

 02  about 6,000 feet long.  That option would have cost

 03  approximately $878,000, according to my estimate.  And that

 04  was a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipeline. 

 05       The other option was to cut off this loop by putting in

 06  an inverted siphon across this swale here to Lundy Road. 

 07  That would reduce the length of pipeline to 3,800 feet.  And

 08  through that reduced length, we can also reduce the size to

 09  36 inch.  That option would cost on the order of $521,000.  

 10       The other two options over here -- well, I looked at

 11  two over here.  The B-1 and B-2.  B-2 is shown.  B-1 is this

 12  little green line change.  Instead of this direct route into

 13  the Mill Creek, we would angle down slope, across slope

 14  here, and deliver water to Mill Creek, perhaps, a couple

 15  thousand feet upstream from where the other delivery point

 16  would be.  This route is 11,000 to 12,000 feet long. 

 17  Requires a 42-inch pipeline.  And either of these options

 18  would cost on the order of $2,000,000. 

 19       Obviously, if you are going to make a selection on the

 20  basis of cost, option A-2, which is 3,800 feet of pipeline

 21  here, is the choice.

 22       I think that about summarizes my testimony.

 23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Harrison. 

 24       Dr. Stine.

 25       DR. STINE:  Yes, thank you.  You know who I am, and


 01  what my qualifications are.  I will be very brief. 

 02       I have two points that were addressed in my direct

 03  examination for Mono Lake/Audubon, and, as Mr. Dodge asked

 04  me to do, I will confirm this is Exhibit 5.  I really can

 05  dispense with the first of these very, very quickly. 

 06       There was a nomenclature upheaval about what to call

 07  the Rush Creek Reach immediately above Biggest Bend.  There

 08  was some confusion in there for a while.  My understanding

 09  now is that that confusion has been completely cleared up,

 10  and that it seems everyone is on board to rewater this

 11  particular reach immediately above Biggest Bend on Rush

 12  Creek.  That has become, then, a non problem.

 13       The second point, almost equally as brief, regards 

 14  sediment passage on Parker and Walker Creeks.  Larry

 15  Harrison has just addressed this.  My concern here is that

 16  there seems to have been forgotten in all of these

 17  discussions one of the conditions that benefited fishery on

 18  Rush Creek, and that is the springs that existed immediately

 19  below the Narrows on Rush Creek, on the west side of Rush

 20  Creek, the so-called at Vestal Springs.  They have provided

 21  fish habitat.  They were one of the elements that Elden

 22  Vestal said contributed tremendously to the quality of the

 23  fishery through the Rush Creek bottomland. 

 24       Peter Vorster and I did an analysis, a historical

 25  analysis, a couple years back and produced a report on this. 


 01  And our conclusion, I think quite clearly, was that the

 02  springs, which are natural and which have been there for

 03  many hundreds of years, were lost because the distributary

 04  channels on the Parker and Walker Creek fans were dewatered

 05  at the time that, or shortly after the Department of Water

 06  and Power put in their diversion facilities on those two

 07  streams. 

 08       Distributary channels on alluvial fans are common.  

 09  Like in a delta situation, a stream hits an alluvial fan and

 10  it tends to break into several channels.  There were two

 11  channels on Parker Creek.  There were three channels on

 12  Walker Creek.  In both cases, right up at the apex of the

 13  fans on the two streams.  I would argue simply that if we

 14  are going to do a bypass channel similar to what Mr.

 15  Harrison showed as his alternative three, I believe it was

 16  for Parker and Walker Creeks, that it would be possible to

 17  rewater some of these channels, really at the same time,

 18  with little more effort. 

 19       The idea here would be to get water into these

 20  distributary channels and lose it to the ground.  They were

 21  on the earliest maps from the 1880s and '90s, withering

 22  streams.  So, simply get water into those channels, lose it

 23  to the ground.  It then reappears down in the Rush Creek

 24  bottomland. 

 25       And I think that concludes my testimony.  Thank you.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Dr. Stine.

 02       Anything else, Mr. Dodge, from this panel? 

 03       MR. DODGE:   Nothing else.

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 

 05       We will then go to cross-examination, and we will begin

 06  with U.S. Forest Service. 

 07       Is there anyone here for U.S. Forest Service that

 08  wishes to cross-examine these witnesses? 

 09       No one responding --

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  Chairman Caffrey.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, Ms. Bellomo.

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  Can we go off the record for a moment? 

 13  Mr. Bellomo wanted to make a statement.  I think just speak

 14  briefly and, perhaps, off the record in case any party had

 15  any questions about it being proper to be in the record.

 16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I have a question about it.  I have a

 17  question about Mr. Bellomo making a statement to the Board

 18  at all.  He is going to be a witness, and if he is going to

 19  offer testimony, he can offer at that time.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 

 21       Let me say that we had an opportunity for policy

 22  statements.

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  This wouldn't be a policy statement. This

 24  is a factual statement, but we can wait.  That is fine.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That would be more appropriate than 


 01  going on and off the record.  I am not sure what the

 02  justification for something like that to be.  I would prefer

 03  that we keep everything on the record.

 04       Bureau of Land Management, anyone here representing the

 05  Bureau? 

 06       Is that you, Mr. Russi? 

 07       MR. RUSSI:  I made it.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I know you were here earlier.  You

 09  look like a familiar face.  Good to see you.  Welcome back.

 10       MR. RUSSI:  Thank you.  I just had a few questions here

 11  this morning, Mr. Chairman.

 12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed.  You are aware of

 13  the rules on cross-examination?

 14       MR. RUSSI:  I will do my best.

 15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  In terms of time and scope of your

 16  questioning?  Quite a bit different than what is allowed in

 17  recross.

 18                           ---oOo---

 19                       CROSS-EXAMINATION


 21                          BY MR. RUSSI

 22       MR. RUSSI:   My first questions are to Mr.

 23  Vorster.  And I am going to ask that we refer to Mr.

 24  Vorster's direct testimony, R-NSC/MLC-7, on Page 2.  And I

 25  am looking at the first full paragraph, and I am going to


 01  read a couple of sentences here, about the middle of the

 02  paragraph.

 03                 And it begins:

 04            The MLC proposal is to restore close to

 05            natural flows in Mill Creek, impaired by

 06            Lundy Reservoir, in order to restore the

 07            waterfowl habitat in Mill Creek to the level

 08            recommended by the waterfowl scientists and

 09            to restore a naturally functioning stream

 10            ecosystem and bottomlands.  (Reading.)

 11                 Continuing: 

 12            MLC proposes to return all of the water to

 13            Mill Creek, except that which is necessary to

 14            maintain Wilson Creek riparian corridor

 15            through Conway Ranch and to maintain the

 16            Simis and Thompson Ranch meadows and trees.

 17            (Reading.)

 18       Mr. Vorster, how was it determined that all of the

 19  water except for the small amounts you reference for Wilson

 20  Creek and irrigation flows for Simis and Thompson Ranch

 21  meadows and trees, how was it determined that all of the 

 22  water was necessary to restore the waterfowl habitat in the

 23  stream ecosystem and bottomlands for Mill Creek.

 24       MR. VORSTER:  I am not a waterfowl scientist.  As I

 25  stated in my testimony, as you just read, I went by the


 01  recommendations of the waterfowl scientists, as stated in

 02  the waterfowl plans, that said that all or close to all of

 03  the water needed to be restored to Mill Creek in order to

 04  restore the waterfowl habitat.

 05       MR. RUSSI:  If we can go to Page 3, please, part d, on

 06  that page, and I will read the first two sentences.  It

 07            says:

 08            A release of 2 cfs from April through

 09            November to maintain Wilson Creek riparian

 10            corridor through Conway Ranch.  (Reading.)

 11                 Then it says:

 12            Although the exact amount required is not

 13            known, I have been advised by Diana Jacobs,

 14            riparian specialist for the State Lands

 15            Commission, that the release needs to be

 16            enough to keep the root zone of the plants

 17            moist.                           (Reading.)

 18       In your discussions with Dr. Jacobs, what do you mean

 19  by "root zone"?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  What I mean by "root zone," as was

 21  advised to me by Diana Jacobs, and so I think that she would

 22  be the best person to answer it, but the way I understand it

 23  would be the area in the Wilson Creek bed itself, that the

 24  roots have access to, would be kept moist.

 25       MR. RUSSI:  Have you or Dr. Jacobs measured the extent


 01  of the root zone in Wilson Creek?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  I have not measured the extent of the

 03  root zone.  I can't speak for Dr. Jacobs.

 04       MR. RUSSI:  I would like to continue down; the next

 05            sentence says:

 06            I believe that a release of 1 cfs would be

 07            sufficient to keep the root zone moist

 08            through the Conway Ranch because Wilson Creek

 09            gains water as it flows east of Highway 395. 

 10            (Reading.)

 11       How much water have you measured in Wilson Creek

 12  gaining east of Highway 395?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  I myself have not made any measurement. 

 14  I would -- my observations are limited to just visual

 15  observations and measurements that were taken by other

 16  people, including yourself.  And there were measurements

 17  taken by EBASCO when they were doing investigation in that

 18  area. 

 19       So, the amount of gain in the reach of Wilson Creek

 20  below Highway 395 is -- I conservatively estimate it at 1

 21  cfs.  In the Conway Ranch Environmental Impact Report that

 22  was issued in the late 1980s, there was also quite a

 23  discussion of the gains in Wilson Creek.  And in those

 24  discussions, they indicated considerably more gain than I

 25  estimated.  I was being extremely conservative when I said 1


 01  cfs.  I think in those reports they talked about 3 to 5 cfs.

 02       MR. RUSSI:  Are you aware of what time of year those

 03  measurements were taken to establish 3 to 5 cfs gain?       

 04       MR. VORSTER:  I can't remember off the top of my head,

 05  but I think it was -- they did do a monthly water balance. 

 06  And I think they showed greater gains during the irrigation

 07  season and smaller gains in the winter season.  I would have

 08  to refer to those documents to fully answer your question.

 09       MR. RUSSI:  Well, I guess I need to go back and ask you

 10  then if there is apparently some uncertainty here about the

 11  amount of water that is available east of Highway 395 in

 12  Wilson Creek.  And that the root zone itself, to your

 13  knowledge, has not been measured, if I am stating this

 14  correctly, how your statement that you believe that a 

 15  release of 1 cfs would be sufficient to keep the root zone

 16  moist is within the context of known information.

 17       MR. VORSTER:  As I stated in my testimony, the exact

 18  amount required is not known.  There is a lot of uncertainty

 19  associated here.  What I was doing was using my professional

 20  judgment, based upon my own observations and observations of

 21  other people to make those estimates.  There is a lot more

 22  work that needs to be done.  But I do believe that a small

 23  amount of water is necessary to keep the root zone moist in

 24  Wilson Creek.

 25       MR. RUSSI:  Do you believe it would be beneficial to


 01  understand the soil and water dynamics of Wilson Creek

 02  Channel in order to come up with an appropriate flow in

 03  Wilson Creek on an annual situation?

 04       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  More information is obviously

 05  needed.   What the exact information is, I would defer to

 06  people like Dr. Jacobs and yourself and other specialists in

 07  that field.

 08       MR. RUSSI:  I want to go to Page 4 right at the top, in

 09  your testimony.  In the very first complete sentence you

 10            state:

 11            Downstream of the highway, Mill Creek loses

 12            water to the groundwater system down to the

 13            stream reach just below County Road.

 14            (Reading.)

 15       How much water have you measured being lost?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Again, I have not done any current

 17  metering measurements myself.  I have been in the area quite

 18  a bit over the last 20 years, and recently in the last

 19  couple years I have taken the effort to estimate flows above

 20  395, estimate flows down at the County Road.  Something I do

 21  routinely.  Plus in the Mill Creek -- in that stream

 22  evaluation report that Department of Fish and Game released

 23  in the past year has some measurements as well.  Has some

 24  measurements in that case. 

 25       There is also visual measurements -- visual


 01  observations that the Department of Water and Power has

 02  taken at Mill Creek at the County Roads.  So, there is quite

 03  a bit of visual observations and a few stream flow

 04  measurements that were taken to give us a feeling for what

 05  the losses are, which are considerable. 

 06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object and ask that the

 07  answer be stricken on the grounds it is non responsive.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I apologize to the parties.  I was

 09  distracted.  Could somebody repeat what happened for me,

 10  please? 

 11       MR. RUSSI:  I asked the question:  How much water is

 12  lost in the reach of stream downstream of Highway 395 to the

 13  County Road? 

 14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Actually, I would ask that the Court

 15  Reporter go back and read the question that was asked.

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you. 

 17       Would you read the question?

 18                  (Record read as requested.)

 19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  My objection is that Mr. Vorster did

 20  not answer that question.  He answered a completely

 21  different question.  I believe the answer to that question

 22  is, "I haven't measured any."  If that is his answer, that

 23  is what he should state.  And I ask that the remainder of

 24  the answer to the non asked question be stricken.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please read the remainder of that.  


 01                  (Record read as requested.)

 02       MR. DODGE:  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that all of

 03  that answer is responsive to the general subject matter of

 04  the question which was losses in a particular section of

 05  stream.

 06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.

 07       Mr. Birmingham.

 08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The specific question was:  How much

 09  losses have you measured?  And Mr. Vorster answered that in

 10  "I have not measured any."  That ought to be -- we are going

 11  to be here for weeks if every witness responds to 14

 12  different questions in an answer to a very specific

 13  question.

 14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I wouldn't say weeks, but maybe an

 15  extra couple of days, Mr. Birmingham, which is perfectly all

 16  right with me. 

 17       Let me just say to you that I admonished the witnesses

 18  earlier today, before we got started.  I am going to do it

 19  again.  I am going to leave this statement in the record, so

 20  will my admonition be in the record.  I am going to tell Mr.

 21  Vorster, and any other witnesses that are going to appear

 22  today, that you need to be brief and crisp.  And I wish that

 23  you do not take license and dissertate on anything that

 24  could be remotely related to the questions.  So, please be

 25  very precise. 


 01       And please get on the questioning as briefly and

 02  quickly as you can, sir.

 03       MR. RUSSI:  As a follow-up to your statement there in

 04  that first complete sentence, have you measured loss in the

 05  reach continuously, on an annual cycle, or do you know, does

 06  the reach change in its loss of water over an annual cycle?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  As I stated before, my observations are

 08  limited to visual observations, and not measurements.  So, 

 09  if your specific question is measurements with the current

 10  meter, I have not done that myself.  I have visual

 11  observations.

 12       MR. RUSSI:  Thank you. 

 13       Going down to the bottom of the page, on Page 4,

 14  please, under part g, and I am going to refer to the second

 15            sentence there.  You state:

 16            A combination of losses in and diversions

 17            from Wilson Creek cause it to periodically to

 18            dry up downstream from the Conway Ranch. 

 19            (Reading.)

 20                 Skipping down one full sentence, you continue:

 21            No water was diverted from Mill Creek in the

 22            late fall and winter from 1962 to 1968 so

 23            Wilson Creek did not have a supply from the

 24            power plant.                (Reading.)

 25                 Continuing with the last sentence:


 01            A small amount of accretion occurs in the

 02            reach of Wilson Creek through the Conway

 03            Ranch, but for most of its length it stayed

 04            dry.                      (Reading.)

 05       What do you mean by "most of its length"?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  I am talking about Wilson Creek as we

 07  now define it, from the power plant all the way down to Mono

 08  Lake.  We can get the map, but it's -- so if you take that

 09  -- the dot here on Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424 is the Lundy

 10  Powerhouse.  Wilson Creek travels through this whole reach,

 11  as we now call it.  When there is no water discharging from

 12  the powerhouse it is my judgment that the accretion in this

 13  reach might keep this wet, but clearly all of this would be

 14  dry. 

 15       MR. DODGE:  Can you spell out for the record what you

 16  mean by "this"?

 17       MR. VORSTER:  I am sorry.  The reach from approximately

 18  the Conway Ranch boundary all the way down to Mono Lake. 

 19  So, looking at this map, I would say that, in terms of

 20  stream mileage, is most of the length or a majority of the

 21  length of Wilson Creek would be dry if there was no water

 22  discharging from the power plant.

 23       MR. RUSSI:  Continuing with my question, then, from

 24  1962 to 1968, you're stating that the stream would have been

 25  dry.  You're making this determination how?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Again, because there was no discharge

 02  from the power plant, the only source of water for Wilson

 03  Creek would be its natural runoff.  As we have testimony

 04  from a number of people, including Dr. Stine, that indicates

 05  that Wilson Creek is an ephemeral stream and occasionally

 06  would get runoff from its natural drainage.  But that is a

 07  very occasional event.

 08       MR. RUSSI:  Thank you.

 09       I have one question for Mr. Harrison, please.

 10       During your recent oral testimony here, Mr. Harrison,

 11  you stated that there is excessive leakage.  I think you

 12  were referring to water loss in Wilson Creek when you were

 13  discussing that drainage.  And I would like you to tell us

 14  how you determined that there was excessive leakage in

 15  Wilson Creek?

 16       MR. HARRISON:  Well, two factors led me to the 

 17  conclusion that there was excessive leakage.  In our

 18  discussions in field we had in March with Southern

 19  California Edison, Mr. Bellomo and Mr. Almond both, I think,

 20  mentioned that the ditches lost a lot of water en route,

 21  particularly what is now called Wilson Creek lost water and

 22  also the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch.  Also, my observations

 23  of the character of the soils in the area are very coarse,

 24  loose, open drained, pretty much lacking in fine materials. 

 25  Though, my experience is that with soils as these, they are


 01  very permeable soils.  So a lot of water would percolate

 02  into the soils unless it was a lined ditch with some

 03  impermeable material.

 04       MR. RUSSI:  Did you walk the entire Wilson Creek from

 05  its point of diversion down to Highway 167 at the time you

 06  were down there?

 07       MR. HARRISON:  We didn't walk the entire length.  We

 08  did walk a length.  Let me show you on the map, here.

 09       Approximately this point here, we walked down to this

 10  area and back up over, around here.  Approximately to the

 11  County Road, just short of the County Road.  We walked and

 12  then we accessed this area in here on the County Road.

 13       MR. RUSSI:  Did you observe Wilson Creek at all

 14  upstream of the Conway Ranch property to its point of

 15  diversion?

 16       MR. HARRISON:  Wilson Creek upstream of the -- what do

 17  you call the point of diversion sir? 

 18       MR. RUSSI:  Where the ditch of Wilson Creek comes off

 19  the tailrace ditch of the power plant.

 20       MR. VORSTER:  I accompanied Mr. Harrison, so if I may

 21  jump in.

 22       MR. RUSSI:  Go ahead. 

 23       MR. VORSTER:  This is right here where we had -- the

 24  junction of the return ditch with the tailrace is where we

 25  had the meeting with Bert Almond and Joe Bellomo.  I think


 01  we investigated Wilson Creek just downstream of that.  And

 02  the return ditch itself.

 03       MR. HARRISON:  Actually, I don't recall we looked at

 04  this much at all, in this reach, from here to Conway Ranch. 

 05  We did -- we are standing here and visual observations, of

 06  course, for several hundred feet from this point.  We also

 07  walked a short distance down the Mill Creek Diversion

 08  Ditch.

 09       MR. RUSSI:  So, in your reference here, you are saying

 10  that you were at the point of diversion of Wilson Creek with

 11  the tailrace ditch from Lundy Power Plant, but apparently

 12  you were not at any point along that stream down to the

 13  Lundy Power Plant road and east of that point, across

 14  Highway 395, to the Conway Ranch property; is that true? 

 15       MR. HARRISON:   That is right. 

 16       MR. VORSTER:  We just looked down here.  We did look at

 17  the return ditch around the Lundy Road.  So, we looked at

 18  that.  But in terms of Wilson Creek, itself, I think we

 19  didn't walk very far down it from the diversion point

 20  there.

 21       MR. HARRISON:  Of course, I have crossed it on the

 22  highway several times, looked up and down it also. 

 23       MR. RUSSI:  Just for the record, and so I am clear on

 24  this, your statement about the soil type and the loss of

 25  water in the drainage is in reference to that portion of the


 01  drainage downstream from Conway property, primarily?

 02       MR. HARRISON:  No.  I think my reference about soil

 03  percolation and loss of water to the soils is also

 04  applicable to the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch region, as well

 05  as this area downstream of Conway Ranch.  

 06       MR. RUSSI:  Thank you. 

 07       That's all.  Thank you, Mr. Caffrey.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Russi. 

 09       Ms. Bellomo, do you have questions of these witnesses?

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  Yes, I do.  Thank you. 

 11       MR. DODGE:  Would this be a good time to take a morning

 12  break?

 13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  If you will indulge me, Ms. Bellomo,

 14  I think a good suggestion.  Let's take about ten minutes. 

 15  Thank you. 

 16                         (Break taken.)

 17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  On the record. 

 18       Ms. Bellomo, your turn to cross-examine the witnesses. 

 19  You're on Mr. Vorster.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Good morning.

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Welcome back.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Thank you. 

 23                           ---oOo---

 24  //

 25  //


 01                       CROSS-EXAMINATION


 03                         BY MS. BELLOMO

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  Good morning, gentlemen.  I just have a

 05  couple questions to start off for you, Mr. Harrison. 

 06       I understood from your testimony on cross-examination,

 07  I believe that you have made only two trips to the Mono

 08  Basin; is that correct? 

 09       MR. HARRISON:  That is correct.  There were other

 10  personal trips.  I have been through the area.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  How long did you spend in the Mono Basin

 12  on each of those trips that you made, related to your

 13  testimony in this case?

 14       MR. HARRISON:  Better part of two days on each trip.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  What locations did you visit on each

 16  trip?

 17       MR. HARRISON:  I testified to the locations I visited. 

 18  I visited the diversion points at Lee Vining Creek, Walker

 19  and Parker Creek, Rush Creek area of the Grant Dam and the

 20  Mono Gate Return Ditch, and Mill Creek in the vicinity of

 21  Lundy Powerhouse, and also Wilson Creek downstream of Conway

 22  Ranch, and Mill Creek at other points where it crosses the

 23  County Road and the highway. 

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  Can you tell me when the visits were,

 25  these two visits?


 01       MR. HARRISON:  One was March 7th and 8th, 1996.  The

 02  other was October 3rd and 4th, 1996. 

 03       MS. BELLOMO:  You described various methods of

 04  returning the water to Mill Creek from the Lundy tailrace,

 05  correct?

 06       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  That includes siphoning and use of

 08  pipelines, and were there other methods? 

 09       MR. HARRISON:  Well, I lightly considered a ditch, but

 10  considering what I was informed about the leakage, loss of

 11  water in the various ditches, and what I observed in the

 12  loss of water in Mill Creek downstream area, I discarded the

 13  idea of using ditches and went to pipelines as being a sure

 14  method of conveying water without loss.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  So, am I correct, that you -- what you

 16  were doing was an engineering analysis of what would it take

 17  to to perform such a project?

 18       MR. HARRISON:  Yes. 

 19       MS. BELLOMO:  Is it your understanding that the purpose

 20  of this engineering project would be to return Mill Creek to

 21  its natural condition?

 22       MR. HARRISON:  I can't really say -- nothing

 23  considered whether it would return to a natural condition or

 24  not.  It would obviously approach more natural conditions

 25  than are there now.


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  You testified about meeting with Mr.

 02  Bellomo and another representative of Southern California

 03  Edison during one of your field trips, correct.

 04       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.

 05       MS. BELLOMO:  Did you meet with Mr. Bellomo on only one

 06  occasion?

 07       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Am I correct that when you referred --

 09  you referred in your testimony to walking on various areas

 10  of Wilson and Mill Creek, that you were not referring to

 11  being with Mr. Bellomo during those times?

 12       MR. HARRISON:   No.  I was with Mr. Bellomo at the

 13  Lundy Powerhouse tailrace area and the upstream portion of

 14  the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch, or return ditch.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  The return ditch.

 16       Thank you.  No more questions for you right now.  Thank

 17  you. 

 18       Mr. Vorster, turning to your testimony at Page 2.  In

 19  the first full paragraph, the middle of the paragraph, you

 20            state:

 21            The Mono Lake Committee proposal is to

 22            restore close to natural flows.  (Reading.)

 23       You go on to describe the proposal.  My question is: 

 24  Is that currently the Mono Lake Committee position? 

 25       MR. VORSTER:  It is my understand that is their


 01  position, yes.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  And you indicate in that second half of

 03  that first full paragraph that your -- the Mono Lake

 04  Committee proposal would provide -- let me rephrase this. 

 05                 I will just quote from your testimony.  You state:

 06            The Mono Lake Committee proposes to return

 07            all the water to Mill Creek except that which

 08            is necessary to maintain the Wilson Creek

 09            riparian corridor through Conway Ranch. 

 10            (Reading.)

 11       Can you tell me how many cfs you are referring to

 12  there? 

 13       MR. VORSTER:  In the testimony that I provided I used

 14  number of 2 CFS from April through November.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you proposing a dedicated water right

 16  to Wilson Creek of that amount?

 17       MR. VORSTER:  Can you repeat the question again?

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you proposing that there should be a

 19  dedicated water right?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  I am not making that proposal right now. 

 21  You have to understand this is the Mono Lake Committee

 22  proposal.  I was doing what they told me to do, so I am not

 23  making the proposal.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  Is the Mono Lake Committee making such a

 25  proposal?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  From what you just said, I take it that

 03  the Mono Lake Committee is not proposing a year-round flow

 04  of 2 CPS in Wilson Creek; is that correct?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  At the current time, the Mono Lake

 06  Committee proposal consists of making a release of 2 cfs

 07  from April through November to maintain the Wilson Creek

 08  riparian corridor.  So I guess the answer to your question

 09  is, no, it is not a year-round.

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  Would a 2 cfs flow in Wilson Creek from

 11  April through November be sufficient to maintain the

 12  self-sustaining wild brown trout fishery that is in Wilson

 13  Creek? 

 14       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.  I am not a fisheries

 15  expert.

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  I have heard your testimony earlier

 17  today, that, in your opinion, if there is no release from

 18  the Lundy Powerhouse, then Wilson Creek dries up below

 19  Conway Ranch; is that correct?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct.  Through Conway Ranch

 21  there is a gaining reach there so there would probably be a

 22  little bit of water through there. 

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  How much are you estimating would be in

 24  Wilson Creek if no water was released from the powerhouse

 25  source between -- well, after November and up to April?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Downstream of the tailrace through Conway

 02  Ranch, it would be a small residual flow; you know, pools in

 03  the Upper Reach, maybe, set up a little flow through Conway

 04  Ranch, and then no surface flow below Conway Ranch.

 05       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you have an estimate of how much flow

 06  this small amount would be in Conway Ranch.

 07       MR. VORSTER:  As I testified, I think it would be -- I

 08  conservatively estimate through Conway ranch it could be 1

 09  cfs, might be.  I think Terry Russi made some measurements

 10  this past fall that indicated the gain was about 2 cfs.  So,

 11  depending on the time of the year and the type of water

 12  year, it would be a small amount of flow.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  You didn't do any analysis to support

 14  this opinion; is that correct? 

 15       MR. VORSTER:  Other than what I testified to, looking

 16  at available documents, including the Conway EIR, my own

 17  visual observations, talking to Terry Russi, talking to

 18  locals in the area.

 19       MS. BELLOMO:  What documents have you looked at that

 20  would provide us with any insight into how much water would

 21  be in Wilson Creek between November and April if you weren't

 22  releasing any water from the powerhouse?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  There are no documents that go

 24  specifically to that question.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  You indicate on Page 2 that the Mono Lake


 01  Committee proposes to accomplish its plan through the

 02  purchase and dedication of the Conway Ranch water right,

 03  among other things. 

 04       Do you see where I am reading in your testimony?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  My question is:  Is it the Mono Lake

 07  Committee's position that all of the Conway Ranch water

 08  right should be dedicated to Mill Creek?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.  You have to ask the Mono

 10  Lake Committee.  I am taking their proposal as they gave it

 11  to me and modeling it for the purpose of this testimony.

 12       And my understanding is that it would be the purchase

 13  and dedication of Conway Ranch water rights and, for the

 14  purpose of the modeling, it was the entire amount.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you aware of any testimony that has

 16  be presented by the Mono Lake Committee which would clarify

 17  the question I just asked, as to whether the intention is to

 18  dedicate all of the Conway water right to Mill Creek?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  I am not aware of any testimony in this

 20  proceeding.  The only testimony that Mono Lake Committee has

 21  provided is what has been submitted by the panelists.       

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Mr. Harrison, you, and Mr. Stine?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  When you say the Mono Lake Committee

 25  proposes to accomplish its goals through the purchase and


 01  dedication of the Conway Ranch water right, does the Mono

 02  Lake Committee plan to purchase the Conway Ranch water right

 03  itself?

 04       MR. VORSTER:  If I understand your question, do you

 05  mean purchase the Conway Ranch water right separate from the

 06  land; is that --

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  Well, let's start with that, then.  Does

 08  the Mono Lake Committee intend to purchase the Conway Ranch

 09  with its water right?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  Actually, I don't know what the Mono Lake

 11  Committee intends to do on any details or specifics on

 12  that.  Again, that is question for the Mono Lake Committee.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  Does the Mono Lake Committee have any

 14  position that they've communicated to you, as their expert

 15  witness, regarding how they propose to have the Conway Ranch

 16  water rights purchased? 

 17       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Chairman, I would raise a question as

 18  to the relevance of this line of questioning.  I mean, the

 19  proposal is the proposal.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Bellomo.

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  I think it is entirely relevant to pursue

 22  the feasibility of the proposal that is being put forth by

 23  one of the parties here.  And a major element of this

 24  proposal is dedicating these water rights.  I think I should

 25  be allowed to probe whether the proponent of the proposal


 01  actually has any idea whether it is feasible or not.

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, the questions do seem somewhat

 03  repetitious as what may be obvious from what is already in

 04  the record and what is direct.  But I am not going to make

 05  that judgment.  But I will observe that you're asking a

 06  number of questions with regard to the intent of the Mono

 07  Lake Committee, and Mr. Vorster has continuously, I think,

 08  made it clear that he doesn't know how to answer specific

 09  policy questions because he is just modeling what they asked

 10  him to model.  Maybe we can all stipulate to that. 

 11       Why don't you proceed and let's see where you are

 12  taking us.  We will hear a little bit more, if you've got

 13  more.

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  The table that you provided in 

 15  Attachments 2a through 4f in your testimony set forth

 16  historic data, which, as I recall, is from 1950s and 1960s;

 17  is that correct?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  The dry year is 1960; the normal

 19  year is 1951; and the wet year is 1952. 

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  My first question for you is:  Why did

 21  you rely on data that is 30 and 40 years old?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  I relied on that data, not because it

 23  was old, because I wanted to get represented hydrologies. 

 24  In other words, what was nature providing, what was the

 25  runoff, and that was the main intent there.  And also, to


 01  get what I consider representative years.  One in ten dry

 02  year, one in ten wet year, and a normal year.  And those

 03  years lent themselves to that representation.

 04       In looking at what the flows and diversions in the

 05  ditches were in those years and comparing it to what has

 06  occurred recently, it was close enough that I felt, in terms

 07  of diversions into the ditches, that it was fairly

 08  representative. 

 09       Ideally, the next step would be to take some recent

 10  years and do the same thing.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Can you tell me how you obtained such old

 12  data?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  Data that I've had for 20 years

 14  that was provided to me by combination of -- data that was

 15  provided to me by the Department of Water and Power as well

 16  as Southern California Edison.  I document in my testimony

 17  in Attachment 5 where all the data came from, where every

 18  single line in these spreadsheets is documented as to what

 19  it means and where the data is from.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you have any problem with sharing

 21  that data with us on an informal basis, with the people from

 22  Mono Basin Preservation?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  I would be more than happy to share all

 24  data I have. 

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  Thank you.


 01       You state on Page 4 that the Lundy Reservoir operations

 02  under Edison's control are not significantly different than

 03  what is shown for the years you have used prior to 1962. 

 04       My question is:  What do you base this conclusion upon?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  That conclusion is based upon seeing how

 06  the reservoir has been operated in the last ten years and

 07  comparing it to how it was operated then.

 08       I think today, currently, there may be a little bit

 09  more reservoir control over the flows than what I showed in

 10  my spreadsheet, but not significant at all.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you saying that the data you

 12  obtained for the 1950s and 1960s, that based upon reviewing

 13  that data you made assumptions about the reservoir

 14  operations?

 15       MR. VORSTER:  No.  The data is, again, on reservoir

 16  impairment of the flow is what actually was done by -- at

 17  the time it wasn't Southern California Edison.  It was their

 18  predecessor.  And the impairment of the flows by the

 19  reservoir and the diversions through the powerhouse, so on

 20  and so forth, is very similar to how Edison today would

 21  operate it.  Again, there may be slightly more reservoir

 22  control or more impairment today, but not significantly

 23  different than what I show.

 24                 MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 4, Point e, you state:

 25            The historical use of the Mill Creek Return


 01            Ditch varied according to the need to

 02            supplement the flows in Mill Creek for

 03            diversion into the main Thompson Ditch. 

 04            Thus, the return ditch flows were greater in

 05            dryer years when there was insufficient

 06            natural Mill Creek flows to satisfy the main

 07            Thompson diversion demands.      (Reading.)

 08       My question is:  Did you get the information -- let me

 09  back up. 

 10       The information that you relied upon for this

 11  conclusion came from whom?

 12       MR. VORSTER:  That was records that I had originally

 13  obtained from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you know if that information was taken

 15  from a gauging station?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  The information is taken from the current

 17  meter site at the head of the return ditch.

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  Was the information for the time period

 19  prior to 1962?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  I had information that goes back

 21  to the '30s, all the way up to 1990s.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Again, on Page 4, Point g, you state

 23            that:

 24            Occasionally zero flow is discharged into

 25            Wilson Creek because of unplanned


 01            interruptions in power plant operations. 

 02            (Reading.)

 03       My question is:  What is your source of information

 04  about this?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  That is mainly talking to Southern

 06  California Edison people over the years and looking at some

 07  records that I have.  So, it is a combination of both, very

 08  occasional shutdowns.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  Can you tell me when the last time that

 10  has happened is?

 11       MR. VORSTER:  I can't recall the specific year.  I

 12  remember in talking to John Fredrickson, he was there and

 13  observed what happened.  I can't.  It was some time, I

 14  think, in the last ten years, 10 or 15 years. 

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt

 16  you.

 17       John Fredrickson is not an Edison employee, is he?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  No, he's not.  I said it was in talking

 19  to Edison employees and local residents.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Can you identify the Edison employee who

 21  informed you that occasionally zero flow is discharged into

 22  Wilson Creek because of unplanned interruptions?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  It probably was Bert Almond and his

 24  predecessor whose name is escaping me.  The hydrogapher,

 25  chief hydrogapher, Dennis Osborn, who I initially had


 01  contact with.  As I said, it was a very unusual

 02  circumstance.  Let's say there was a lightning strike and

 03  there had to be -- the power plant had to shut down.  Then

 04  for a brief amount of time there could be no flow being

 05  discharged from the power plant.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  We are talking a very, very brief period

 07  of time?

 08       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  I would -- a day or less.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  As much as a full day is your testimony?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  I wouldn't want to testify to an exact

 11  amount of time.  It was a very brief time. 

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  If I understood your testimony earlier,

 13  if there was zero flow discharged into Wilson Creek, then

 14  below Conway Ranch the creek would go dry, correct?

 15       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct.

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  If that were to occur, then the fish in

 17  the creek, unfortunately, when it went dry, would die,

 18  correct?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  If it was for a long enough period.  If

 20  it was a short enough period, there would be residual pools

 21  that they would be able to survive in.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  If they happen to be in pools at the time?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  Correct.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you aware of any Department of Fish

 25  and Game investigation into these zero flow episodes?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  On Wilson Creek?

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  Yes.

 03       MR. VORSTER:  I am not aware of.

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 5, you set forth what water

 05  requirements for the Conway and Thompson Meadows and --

 06  rather than me take the time to look through on Page 5, can

 07  you refresh my recollection as to how much your water

 08  requirement estimate is for the Thompson Meadow?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  Yeah.  For the hundred acres that is

 10  currently irrigated, is approximate acreage, the water

 11  requirement is calculated by multiplying the acreage times

 12  the consumptive use and doubling that, results in a gross

 13  demand of 400 acre-feet, which apportioned over the five

 14  month growing season, gives an average monthly application

 15  of roughly 1.3 cfs.

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  So, is this a water requirement for both

 17  Upper and Lower Thompson Meadows?  And by Upper Thompson

 18  Meadow I mean the portion of the meadow that is on the west

 19  side of the highway, and by Lower Thompson Meadow I mean the

 20  portion that is on the east side of the highway.

 21       MR. VORSTER:  No.  This would be just for the Lower

 22  Thompson Meadow, which is to the east of 395.

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  You don't provide for any water for

 24  irrigation of Upper Thompson Meadow?

 25       MR. VORSTER:  That is correct.


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  You did state on Page 2 that your

 02  proposal is if there is sufficient irrigation water to

 03  maintain the Simis and Thompson Rancho meadow and trees. 

 04  The Simis Meadow is adjacent to the Upper Thompson Meadow,

 05  correct?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  Could you describe what you mean by

 07  "adjacent"?  I don't consider them -- they are close.  They

 08  are proximate, but they are not literally right next to each

 09  other.  They are very close to each other.

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  Well, you say that your proposal is for 

 11  sufficient water to maintain Simis and Thompson Ranch meadow

 12  and trees.  Are you referring to sufficient water to

 13  maintain the Lower Thompson Meadow on the east side of the

 14  highway, but not enough to maintain Thompson Meadow on the

 15  west side of the highway?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  That is correct.  Lower Thompson Ranch

 17  is, by far, the larger, very visible meadow.  The Upper 

 18  Thompson is much smaller and not visible from Highway 395,  

 19  or barely visible.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  How large is the Simis Meadow?

 21       MR. VORSTER:  What I refer to as the Simis Meadow, let

 22  me -- Simis Meadow, unfortunately, would be just off the

 23  Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424, would be just off the left-hand

 24  margin where Upper Thompson and Lower Thompson Ditch coming

 25  together.  And it is -- the meadow itself is probably, if I


 01  remember correctly, I am going to say about 25 acres, and

 02  that is based upon what Dave Marquart, who is the ranch

 03  manager, told me.  So, it is a very small meadow.

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  That property belongs to Jan Simis?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct. 

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  I recall earlier in your testimony, I

 07  think in your direct testimony, you stated that Jan Simis

 08  has, in your words I think you said, has a minor 1 cfs water

 09  right?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  1.8 cfs.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  So, Jan Simis has a 1.8 cfs water right?

 12       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  You would agree -- let me restate that.  

 14       Are you aware that Jan Simis' ranch is one of the 

 15  original historic ranches in the area?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  That is my understanding. 

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  You characterize Jan Simis' water right

 18  as being a minor water right, and you have testified that

 19  she has 1.8 cfs.  Would you consider that the 1.3 cfs, then,

 20  that you would allocate to Thompson Meadows is also a minor

 21  amount of water? 

 22       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  Relative to the other water rights,

 23  dWP, Conway, and Forest Service, the 1.8 cfs is a minor

 24  amount.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 6 you refer to infiltration


 01  losses from the main Thompson Ditch, and you propose using a

 02  closed pipeline or, and I quote from you, "some other manner

 03  to reduce those losses."

 04       My question is:  What are you referring to when you say

 05  "some other manner to reduce infiltration losses"?          

 06       MR. VORSTER:  You can line the ditches, for example,

 07  keep it as an open ditch.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Did you measure infiltration losses?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  No.  Again, I have not -- when you -- the

 10  term "measurement" to me means I go out there with a current

 11  meter.  I observed them.  I have observed losses in the

 12  ditches in the north part of the Mono Basin.  Looking at

 13  what the water was at the head and at the downstream end,

 14  and I have been able, through visual observations, to see

 15  what the loss is.  The losses are so high that you can tell

 16  through visual observation how much loss there is.

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you attempted to estimate the 

 18  amount of cfs that is lost?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  For example -- yes.  I have estimated the

 20  loss on the Mill Creek Return Ditch to be --

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Excuse me, I'm asking about your

 22  testimony about the Thompson, main Thompson Ditch.

 23       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  For example, in the past couple of

 24  years, if I remember correctly, about 8 cfs was being

 25  diverted into the main Thompson at Mill Creek.  And by the


 01  time it was discharging into DeChambeau Creek, it was, I am

 02  going to guess, about 5 cfs.  I think there may be some

 03  measurements of that in the Mill Creek Stream Evaluation

 04  Report issued by the Department of Fish and Game.

 05       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you agree that those infiltration

 06  losses help sustain riparian and meadow habitat, if there is

 07  meadow, along the ditch in the area where there is

 08  infiltration loss?  Would you agree that the infiltration

 09  losses help to sustain the riparian and meadow habitat?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  That could occur that the infiltration

 11  -- along those ditches there is some riparian habitat.

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you know if there are any Willow Fly

 13  Catchers in the habitat along the main Thompson Ditch?

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  I am not aware. 

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  You don't know? 

 16       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  You would agree that wildlife can't drink

 18  from a pipeline that is substituted for a ditch, wouldn't

 19  you?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  I agree.

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you reviewed any studies of wildlife

 22  in the area of the main Thompson Ditch?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  No.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you know who has done the irrigation

 25  on Thompson, the Upper and Lower Thompson Meadow in the past


 01  ten years?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  My understanding is that the current

 03  operator, manager of the lease, is a gentleman named Paul

 04  Anderson.  I don't think he is the owner of the herd.  Paul

 05  Anderson is a name that has been given to me as someone who

 06  has the keys, in fact, to the diversion ditches and, thus,

 07  has some authority.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Is it your understanding that for, we

 09  will say, the past ten years, the sheep company and their

 10  employees that have the lease on Upper Thompson Lower Ranch

 11  have been responsible for doing the irrigating?

 12       MR. VORSTER:  I think that is right, yes.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  I assume you talked to Paul Anderson

 14  about his irrigation techniques on the Thompson Meadows,

 15  then?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  I pride myself on being able to talk to

 17  everyone.  I never talked to Paul Anderson, so I am

 18  frustrated.

 19       MR. DODGE:  I think the record should reflect a

 20  historic moment in the Mono Lake proceedings.  Someone has

 21  refused to talk to Mr. Vorster.

 22       MR. VORSTER:  I haven't tried to talk him.

 23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And I might add, someone with a set

 24  of keys.  The sign of authority around the Water Board.

 25       MR. DODGE:  That seems to be getting to the water.


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  I assume that you have talked to Candido

 02  Caldedilla, who is an extremely friendly man, however, have

 03  you not?

 04       MR. VORSTER:   I have not talked to -- I didn't catch

 05  the name.  No, I have not talked to any of the people who

 06  have the leases on Thompson, the Thompson Meadow.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  And you haven't talked to any of the men

 08  who do irrigation out there?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  The only person I talked to who has done

 10  irrigation would John Pelichowski. 

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  We are talking about Thompson Meadows

 12  right now.

 13       MR. VORSTER:  Right.  John Pelichowski was the water

 14  master, so when he was in the area, he actually diverted the

 15  water from Mill Creek into the Thompson Ditches.

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  He did not do the irrigation on Thompson

 17  Ranches? 

 18       MR. VORSTER:  No, he did not.

 19       MR. FRINK:  Excuse me, I wonder if we could have the

 20  spelling of both the names of the last individuals?

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Mr. Vorster, are you familiar with the

 22  Mattly Meadows, the site of the old Mattly Ranch, which lies

 23  to the northeast of the Lundy Powerhouse and above 395?

 24       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  Does the Mono Lake Committee proposal


 01  provide any water for irrigation to sustain this old ranch

 02  meadow? 

 03       MR. VORSTER:  As I currently understand the proposal,

 04  no, it does not.  However, I do think that the meadow would

 05  stay green just from natural high water table in the area, 

 06  but does not receive any supplemental water for meadow

 07  grass.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Your testimony is that the Mattly Meadow

 09  is not irrigated?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  No.  I said it would -- if it did not

 11  receive any water whatsoever, there would be -- grass in the

 12  area would remain.  There would not be a conversion of the

 13  entire area to sagebrush.

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you done an analysis of the Mattly

 15  Meadow soil types?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  I have not.  There is historical evidence

 17  that, I think, other people will testify to. 

 18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey.

 19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, Mr. Birmingham.

 20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Vorster has been doing so well at

 21  answering the questions.  But the last --

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am glad you approve.

 23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  -- the last two questions he is

 24  starting to revert to his habit of responding with more

 25  information than is actually called for by the question.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I will remind the witness again.

 02       MR. VORSTER:  I apologize.  I strayed.

 03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  No need to apologize.  We understand

 04  your expertise and your vast knowledge of the area, but we

 05  do need to stay on point, if we can. 

 06       Thank you, sir.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 6, in the top paragraph, you

 08  refer to the meadow south of Wilson Creek as sitting in a,

 09  you refer to as a, quote-unquote, bowl of high groundwater

 10  levels.

 11       And my first question is:  What studies did you do to

 12  verify this?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  For the Conway Ranch EIR that was

 14  prepared in the late '80s there were a number of

 15  supplemental studies, including groundwater studies,

 16  geotechnical studies, that discuss the groundwater

 17  conditions in that area.  And I think those reports refer to

 18  it as a bowl, as a -- that the ridge just south of the bowl

 19  acts to confine the groundwater.  Groundwater barrier,

 20  actually.

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you done anything to determine what

 22  the recharge source for this alleged high groundwater is?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  The recharge would, under natural

 24  conditions, occur from all of the runoff from the mountains

 25  above the Conway Ranch area, which, when the snow melts and


 01  runs off, as soon as it hits the lower gradient land in the

 02  meadow area, the water gets drunk up.  It is very permeable

 03  soil. 

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you done any other analysis to

 05  determine if there is any other source of recharge for that

 06  area?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  In the bowl area?

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Yes.

 09       MR. VORSTER:  It's possible that the unconfined

 10  aquifer, the top most part of that bowl area, would be

 11  recharged by excess flood irrigation.

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  In what location?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  In the bowl itself.

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  Isn't it possible that the -- let me back

 15  up for a moment, please.

 16       Are you aware that 10 to 12 cfs of water are spread on

 17  Mattly Ranch to irrigate that ranch?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Currently I think 10 cfs is diverted in

 19  Upper Conway Ditch.  Since that water does not go over to

 20  Conway Ranch itself, it must all end up in Mattly, which I

 21  would point out, as the water rights compilation shows, is

 22  far in excess of its water rights.

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  Is it your testimony that the 10 to 12

 24  cfs of water -- let me back up, so as not to get into

 25  dispute with you.


 01       Is it your testimony that the water that you just

 02  testified goes into Conway Ditch over to Mattly Meadows, has

 03  nothing to do with groundwater levels on Conway Ranch?

 04       MR. VORSTER:  I did not say that, no.  If you want to

 05  ask me a question --

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you agree that it is possible that

 07  the water that is spread on Mattly Meadow could be

 08  contributing to the recharge of the bowl that you refer to

 09  on Conway Ranch?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  I don't think so.  And I would allow Dr.

 11  Stine to also answer that question because we have looked at

 12  that and --

 13       DR. STINE:  I will answer that question. 

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  I am very limited on time, so I don't

 15  want to get into Dr. Stine on this point.

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Here is Mattly Ranch, right here.  Here

 17  is the bowl area.  The general direction of flow is in a

 18  southeasterly direction.  I find it, both from an

 19  elevational standpoint and just the direction of flow, it

 20  would be pretty difficult for water applied to here, to get

 21  over to here. 

 22       I am sorry.  I am saying here, I am referring to the

 23  Mill Creek and Wilson Creek vicinity map, which I don't see

 24  has a label, exhibit label, on it.  But I am referring to

 25  Mattly Ranch, which is to the southwest of the bowl of


 01  Conway Ranch.  And given the general direction of flow is

 02  from the northwest to the southeast, I don't think very much

 03  recharge of the bowl would occur from water applied on

 04  Mattly Ranch.

 05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Canaday.

 06       MR. CANADAY:  The map that Mr. Vorster is referring to

 07  is LADWP 65.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  What is your source of being certain of

 10  the direction of flow?

 11       MR. VORSTER:  Combination.  It would be from the

 12  surface topography.  It would be from reading geological

 13  reports and also consulting with the experts, such as Dr.

 14  Stine. 

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  You say that the meadow south of Wilson

 16  Creek could, in theory, be, in theory quote-unquote,

 17  supplied by excess supply tailwater. 

 18       My question is:  When you say tailwater, are you

 19  referring to water coming out of powerhouse?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  No.  I am referring to the excess

 21  irrigation, irrigation water that is applied to the Conway

 22  Ranch north of Wilson Creek that flows off the land.

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  When you say "in theory," I take it that

 24  you haven't studied that? 

 25       MR. VORSTER:   No.  That is correct; I have not studied


 01  it.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  Now with regard to Thompson Meadow and

 03  your evaluation of the water irrigation requirements at

 04  Thompson Meadow, you are not a soil expert, are you?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  I am not a soil expert. 

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  So, I assume you didn't do any soil study

 07  yourself?

 08       MR. VORSTER:  I did not do any soil study.  I did do

 09  extensive research on irrigation water requirements for my

 10  master's thesis and can testify to that. 

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Through that extensive research, I assume

 12  that you learned that it is important to know the soil type

 13  and to explore the soil type in an area before you reach any

 14  conclusion about how much water is needed to irrigation it,

 15  right?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Absolutely, you would want to do that.

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  You did not do that yet? 

 18       MR. VORSTER:  I did not do that.  As I said, my

 19  estimates are rough estimates that are based upon the

 20  consumptive use requirements of the meadow grass in the area.

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Your estimates could be wildly wrong if

 22  the soil types turned out to be, for instance, of a very

 23  high permeability, correct? 

 24       MR. DODGE:   Objection.  Ambiguous.  I don't know what

 25  a wildly wrong thing is.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Would you rephrase the question, Ms.

 02  Bellomo? 

 03       MS. BELLOMO:  Your estimates could turn out to be

 04  inaccurate if there was -- if it turned out that there was

 05  high soil permeability, correct?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  Absolutely.  Could be inaccurate.  If it

 07  was inaccurate by a hundred percent, then the water

 08  requirement would be 2.6 cfs.  Let's just assume that they

 09  are inaccurate, that we double what I estimated, would be

 10  2.6 cfs.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Can we assume that it might be 400

 12  percent inaccurate?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  I would find that hard to believe because

 14  that would be far in excess of the irrigation water

 15  requirements in all the other lands in that area.  I

 16  consulted a number of studies and did my own measurements of

 17  evapotranspiration requirements and that would be -- well,

 18  it wouldn't be a wise use of water, if the irrigation duty

 19  was ten feet per acre is what you are suggesting.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Why would that not be a wise use of water

 21  if that is what the irrigation requirement was?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  Well, we are now venturing into a kind of

 23  policy opinion.  But, I think, given that water is limited

 24  there, that we just have to decide whether applying ten feet

 25  per acre on land is a wise use of water.


 01       Excuse me, I think I said ten feet per acre.  If it was

 02  four times the amount that I estimated, it would be 16 feet

 03  per acre.

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  Am I correct in understanding that you

 05  didn't go to the Natural Resource Conservation Service to

 06  obtain data regarding the soil types in the Thompson Meadow

 07  area?

 08       MR. VORSTER:  I did not do any consultation with

 09  anybody about soil types in the area.

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  You testified on Page 6 of your

 11  testimony, at Footnote 6, about a difference in your

 12  estimate of the acre served by irrigation at the Thompson

 13  and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power figures.  

 14      See where I am referring? 

 15       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, I do.

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  You say that suspect that the disparity

 17  in the numbers is because their lands are no longer

 18  irrigated to the east of existing Thompson Meadow.  Is that

 19  correct?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, that is what I say there.  I am

 21  speculating.  I asked the Department of Water and Power over

 22  a month ago to what their current estimate of irrigated

 23  acreage is, and I haven't got an answer yet.  But the 90

 24  acres, as I state in the footnote, is from measurements that

 25  Scott Stine did off of aerial photographs that I have right


 01  here.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  We are talking about a difference of 80

 03  acres?

 04       MR. VORSTER:   The 170 acres that I have from 

 05  Department of Water and Power documents is from some

 06  lease-type documents.  As I said, I asked them -- I made

 07  inquiries as to what the current irrigated acreage is, but I

 08  haven't got an answer yet.  But I think the question of what

 09  the exact amount of irrigate acreage is could be determined,

 10  one, either by asking the Department of Water and Power or,

 11  I think, measuring it off the aerial photograph is a good

 12  way to get a rough estimate.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  When you look at the aerial photographs,

 14  I am not familiar with that kind of photo, so I am asking

 15  you perhaps -- and it is not a question.  When you look at

 16  that kind of aerial photograph, how can you tell if an area

 17  isn't irrigated?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  You can tell by the color, one way.  You

 19  can see where xerophytic vegetation is in relation to the

 20  greener, irrigated area.  If you want to know exactly how

 21  Dr. Stine did it, I would suggest you ask Dr. Stine.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  I am trying to determine, basically, is

 23  what you see on the photograph an area where there is

 24  vegetation and an area where there is not, or a type of

 25  vegetation that uses water?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  That requires supplemental water, what we

 02  call phreatophytic vegetation.  You can tell by looking at

 03  an aerial photograph what areas would be getting either

 04  supplement irrigation water or spring water, some water in

 05  excess of the their natural -- the water requirement that

 06  vegetation that exists naturally in the area requires.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  In the areas that you testify in your

 08  Footnote 6 no longer receive irrigation, would you agree

 09  those are reverted to sagebrush?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  As I said, it is possible they have.  I

 11  haven't gone out there to specifically look at those areas

 12  that were irrigated before and are no longer irrigated

 13  today.  I have heard from local residents there have been

 14  reversion to sagebrush.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Turning to Page 6, in the middle of the

 16  page, starting with the paragraph, "The 1.3 cfs requirement

 17  can come from several sources," you have an a) and a b).

 18       In b) you state a source could be runoff from Upper

 19  DeChambeau Creek that sometimes is available in the peak

 20  snow melt period.

 21       And my question is:  Are you saying that Thompson

 22  Meadow should be irrigated from DeChambeau Creek water?

 23       MR. VORSTER:  Currently Thompson Meadow is irrigated

 24  with a combination of Mill Creek and DeChambeau Creek water

 25  because -- if I can refer --


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  I am concerned you are going to use a lot

 02  of my time.  My question is:  Are you saying that Thompson 

 03  should be allowed to take water from DeChambeau Creek, not

 04  its Mill Creek water right?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  Thompson currently does take water from

 06  DeChambeau.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  You approve of that; you think that is

 08  okay?

 09       MR. VORSTER:   It is not something that I determine. 

 10  That is how the hydrogaphy, the plumbing system in the area

 11  is; the water from Mill Creek goes into DeChambeau Creek and

 12  then DeChambeau Creek goes to Thompson Meadow. 

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  Let me rephrase that question, then.

 14       My question is:  Are you saying in point b) that

 15  Thompson Meadow should be irrigated from water from

 16  DeChambeau Creek in excess of amounts that are put into Mill

 17  Creek under the Thompson Meadow water right?

 18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object to the question

 19  on the grounds it ambiguous.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am not sure I understood it, to be

 21  quite honest, but I don't want to disallow you from asking. 

 22  Could you try it again, Ms. Bellomo?

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  To clarify for purpose of this Board,

 24  DeChambeau Creek is the conduit for water from Mill Creek

 25  that is used for irrigation on Lower Thompson Meadow,


 01  correct?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  That is true.  DeChambeau Creek runs

 03  along the western edge of Thompson Meadow.  It basically

 04  withers into Thompson Meadow area.

 05       MS. BELLOMO:  You are saying in your testimony that

 06  Thompson Meadow needs 1.3 cfs of water for irrigation,

 07  correct?

 08       MR. VORSTER:  Rough estimate, correct.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  If 1.3 cfs of water is put into

 10  DeChambeau Creek from Mill Creek in order to get it down, to

 11  transport it down to Lower Thompson Meadow, are you saying

 12  in point b) that Thompson Meadow, the irrigator should be

 13  allowed to use more than the 1.3 cfs of water to irrigate

 14  Thompson Meadow.

 15       MR. VORSTER:   No, that is not what I am saying.  I am

 16  just suggesting if you need to fulfill this 1.3 cfs

 17  requirement, or whatever it is, there are a number of

 18  sources that you can look to.  In peak snow melt period

 19  there is water in Upper DeChambeau Creek that might be

 20  available.  Should be looked at as a possible source of 

 21  supply.  I do know that there is an interest by some people

 22  to maintain a year-round flow or continuous flow of water in

 23  DeChambeau Creek through the Thompson Meadow.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  You are saying that at times it wouldn't

 25  -- rather than put 1.3 cfs of Mill Creek water into


 01  DeChambeau and then take it out on Lower Thompson, that that

 02  1.3 cfs could come from the DeChambeau water itself,

 03  DeChambeau Creek water itself?

 04       MR. VORSTER:   It is one thing you might want to look

 05  at.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  Currently the Department of Water and

 07  Power doesn't have the water right to water from DeChambeau

 08  Creek; is that correct?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.  The Thompson Meadow is

 10  riparian to DeChambeau Creek.

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Does the Mono Lake Committee have an

 12  opinion as to whether there should be a minimum flow in

 13  DeChambeau Creek down to the lake at all times?

 14       MR. VORSTER:  I don't know.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you have an opinion?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  What is your opinion?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  It would be nice, although it is

 19  the Thompson -- excuse me, the DeChambeau Creek Channel

 20  through Thompson Ranch is not very well defined. 

 21  Occasionally, water flows in DeChambeau Creek below Thompson

 22  Ranch from irrigation tailwater and flows through the County

 23  Park and down to Mono Lake.  In order to provide a

 24  year-round flow into DeChambeau Creek, you have to restore

 25  the channel and also look at whether, under natural


 01  conditions, whether year-round flow through that reach would

 02  occur.

 03       MS. BELLOMO:  So you don't -- am I understanding you

 04  correctly, that you don't know whether DeChambeau Creek has

 05  a year-round flow down to the lake?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  It is possible in the driest --

 07       MR. DODGE:   I would object to this line of questioning

 08  on ground of relevance.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  I think it is extremely relevant,

 10  Chairman Caffrey, because the recommendation involves using

 11  DeChambeau Creek water to irrigate Thompson Meadow, and this

 12  would impact DeChambeau Creek.

 13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This is kind of a difficult area

 14  because we talked about this at the beginning of the entire

 15  hearing procedure, how much detail are we going to get into

 16  and all this.  I am inclined to let you go ahead.  You have

 17  less than nine minutes to go to complete your

 18  cross-examination. 

 19       MS. BELLOMO:  I am afraid that I am going to have to

 20  ask you for a little extra time for Mr. Vorster.

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Perhaps we can do that this

 22  afternoon.  You can give me a showing when you get to the

 23  end of your time, and we will make a judgment then. 

 24       Why don't you proceed.

 25       MR. VORSTER:  I want to clarify.  As I said in my


 01  testimony, I am looking -- I am recommending that several

 02  different sources of water should be -- could be used to

 03  irrigate Thompson Meadow.  I am not saying -- I am not

 04  making a recommendation that Upper DeChambeau Creek water

 05  should be done.  I am saying it should be looked at,

 06  considered as a possible source of water.  It is currently

 07  -- I will just leave it at that.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  You state on Page 4 that you have

 09  observed diversions into the Upper Thompson Ditch in recent

 10  years, and that the water redirected back to property along

 11  Mill Creek. 

 12       To whose property was the water redirected?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  Page?

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 4.

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  Point c.

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Point c.  You are referring to -- can you

 17  repeat your question, please?

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  I am asking to whose property was the 

 19  water, the Mill Creek water, redirected.

 20       MR. VORSTER:  The water that I observed in Upper

 21  Thompson Ditch that I saw redirected?

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Yes.

 23       MR. VORSTER:   I don't know who the names of the people

 24  are.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  How many times did you observe that?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  I think I saw it twice.  But from talking

 02  to Dave Marquart, it happened for a while. 

 03       MS. BELLOMO:   You're acquainted with Jan Simis' water

 04  right which you testified to. 

 05       And my question is:  What do you base your statement on

 06  that Jan Simis does not use her Mill Creek water right?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  As I stated in my testimony, that in the

 08  last couple of years the water that was diverted in Upper

 09  Thompson Ditch did not go over to Jan Simis' land.  It was

 10  either redirected or the water just wasn't diverted over

 11  there.  She relied on -- her property relied entirely on

 12  DeChambeau Creek water.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  Were you there looking on a daily basis?

 14       MR. VORSTER:  No.  I took a tour of the area with Dave

 15  Marquart, who is the ranch manager, and he briefed me as to

 16  what -- how the water was managed the last couple of years?

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you saying Dave Marquart informed you

 18  that Jan Simis had not used her water rights, her Mill Creek

 19  water rights for several years.

 20       MR. VORSTER:  I think that he said something to that

 21  effect, that the last couple of years they had a hard time

 22  getting water over there because of the problem that people

 23  had been redirecting the water.  To the extent that he was

 24  able to stop that from happening, I assumed he can then

 25  bring water over to his property.  In many years there is


 01  enough water in DeChambeau Creek.  He is able to irrigate

 02  his small amount of meadow with DeChambeau Creek.

 03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Bellomo, excuse me for

 04  interrupting.  We have a request for the spelling of the

 05  name Marquart.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  I think it is M-a-r-q-u-a-r-t.

 07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.

 08       Please proceed.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you suggesting that because Jan

 10  Simis, in your testimony, has not used her Mill Creek water

 11  right recently, that she should lose her water right?

 12       MR. VORSTER:  Absolutely not. 

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  Then what is the relevance of whether she

 14  has been using it or not?

 15       MR. VORSTER:  Because in talking to Dave Marquart, who

 16  has talked to Jan Simis, we talked about the possibility of

 17  her relying upon her DeChambeau Creek water to irrigate her

 18  meadow and taking her right and making it available for

 19  Thompson Meadow and for DeChambeau Creek itself.

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  So, she is considering dedicating her 1.8

 21  cfs to Mill Creek?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  No.  She hasn't stated that.  I haven't

 23  talked to her directly.  I have discussed the possibility

 24  with Dave Marquart that the water that she has a right to

 25  from Mill Creek could be used for Thompson Ranch as well as


 01  keeping a flow in DeChambeau Creek.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  Does Jan Simis have a water right to

 03  DeChambeau Creek water?

 04       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, she does.  As far as I know, she

 05  does.  Dave Marquart informed me she does.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  How much is her water right?

 07       MR. VORSTER:   I am not sure.  Dave looked at the

 08  documents, and it was hard for him to discern the exact

 09  amount.

 10       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you know if it approaches in the

 11  vicinity of 1.8 cfs? 

 12       MR. VORSTER:  No.  It is less than that, clearly less

 13  than that. 

 14       MS. BELLOMO:  Would she be asking -- if she were -- in

 15  your discussions with Dave Marquart, were you discussing

 16  giving up her 1.8 cfs water right, but getting some

 17  additional water right to DeChambeau Creek to make up for

 18  that loss? 

 19       MR. VORSTER:  That possibility came up, but to the

 20  extent that she doesn't need to use that amount of water for

 21  her property, it wouldn't be necessary.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  On Page 6, you state in the Mill Creek --

 23            In the Mill-Wilson spreadsheets I assume

 24            the historic diversions to the

 25            Sylvester-McPhersen Ditch, which  


 01            averaged 1.8 cfs for the three-year

 02            types, would continue to be diverted

 03            from Mill Creek because it is equivalent

 04            to the supply needed to maintain the  

 05            Thompson Meadow and leave a little water

 06            to flow down Lower DeChambeau Creek through

 07            the Mono County Park to Mono Lake. 

 08            (Reading.)

 09       Do you see where I am reading?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  Uh-huh.

 11                 MS. BELLOMO:   And then you state:

 12            It is the amount of the diversion, not who

 13            the right belongs to or whether it is being

 14            exercised that matters.        (Reading.)

 15       And this is what intrigues me.  Are you saying that a

 16  person should be able to use water from a creek whether or

 17  not they have a right to it?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  No.

 19       MS. BELLOMO:  What exactly did you mean by that

 20  statement?

 21       MR. VORSTER:  I assumed in that statement that Jan

 22  Simis' property has a water right to both Mill Creek and

 23  DeChambeau.  And that, what is important, aren't the water

 24  rights.  What is important is -- again, we have to keep in

 25  mind what we are trying to do here, which is to see if we


 01  can maintain the Thompson Meadow, see that we can maintain

 02  the Simis meadow and trees, and maximize the return of water

 03  to Mill Creek.  That is the goal here, in my opinion.

 04       And to the extent that everyone does have a water

 05  right, and the water is getting commingled anyway, it is not

 06  the water right that is important; it is the amount of water

 07  necessary to achieve those ends that I have mentioned.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you aware that below the County Park,

 09  below Lower Thompson Meadow, there is a marsh area that is

 10  maintained by the State Park Department?

 11       MR. VORSTER:  The State Department Park does not

 12  maintain the marsh.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  I stand corrected.  The area that is

 14  owned by the State Park or the State Lands Commission,

 15  rather?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Yeah.  I am not sure exactly who the

 17  landowner is.  DWP owns the land above the County Park, and

 18  since they are a private landowner, I guess, below the

 19  County Park would belong to the State of California.        

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Putting aside either question, you are

 21  familiar with that marsh?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  I am familiar with that general area,

 23  yes.

 24       MS. BELLOMO:  You are aware that DeChambeau Creek flows

 25  through that marsh area down to the lake?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you think it would be important to

 03  determine the effects on that marsh area before allowing Jan

 04  Simis to utilize water off DeChambeau Creek that could

 05  impact the flow down to the lake?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  I just want to reiterate, she is

 07  currently using water mainly off DeChambeau Creek, so it

 08  really wouldn't be any change.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you know how much she is using?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  No. 

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  How much are you proposing that she

 12  should be allowed to use in the future if she gives up her

 13  1.8 cfs?

 14       MR. VORSTER:  I am proposing that she be allowed to use

 15  whatever is necessary to maintain the meadow and the trees

 16  on her property.

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you proposing that regardless of

 18  whether that resulted in the DeChambeau Creek not having

 19  flow down to the lake so that the creek couldn't flow

 20  through the marsh area?

 21       MR. VORSTER:  I know that Jan is interested in

 22  maintaining a flow in DeChambeau Creek, and she is

 23  interested in making her irrigation as efficient as possible

 24  to do that.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  Are you interested in making the flow


 01  into DeChambeau Creek through the marsh below the County

 02  Park? 

 03       MR. VORSTER:  Am I interested? 

 04       MR. BELLOMO:  Yes.

 05       MR. VORSTER:  Sure.  I can tell you that the reach

 06  below the County Park is a gaining reach because of

 07  accretion and spring flow, under natural conditions.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  I assume you have done studies of that?

 09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Bellomo, excuse me.  You have

 10  exhausted the hour, that guidelines that we have for

 11  cross-examination. 

 12       How much more time do you think you need? 

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  I think I need approximately 15 more

 14  minutes, Chairman Caffrey.

 15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am a little concerned about that

 16  because I fear now we are getting into a level of

 17  specificity.  If you recall my instruction that was in our

 18  written documents and also what I have reiterated a couple

 19  times, that if we are getting into a lot of detail about

 20  water rights here, that I think we should have to repeat in

 21  another proceeding.  If this proposal to water Mill Creek

 22  was going to go forward, it would require a water right's

 23  proceeding and an EIR, and I suspect that all this level of

 24  questioning would have to be repeated. 

 25       Is that not the case, Mr. Frink?


 01       MR. FRINK:  I believe it is, Mr. Chairman.

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am reluctant to give you more

 03  time -- you have used the entire hour and you will have

 04  another opportunity to do this if this goes forward.  That

 05  is what concerns me.  I will give you five more minutes if

 06  you can complete five more, and then we will take a break

 07  for lunch.  I really don't want to go beyond that.

 08       MS. BELLOMO:  Chairman Caffrey, I would just like to

 09  put on the record that this is one of the witnesses that is

 10  of most importance to the People from Mono Basin

 11  Preservation and the community in general, that I am asking

 12  questions that have been provided to me by many people from

 13  the local community, that we have spent three days, and now

 14  on our fourth day here, and spent very little hearing time

 15  asking questions of any witnesses.  And I would ask your

 16  indulgence to allow me to ask these questions, and if at any

 17  particular point you find a particular question to be beyond

 18  the scope of what you think I should be asking, that you cut

 19  me off.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  What I am asking for is your

 21  cooperation.  Because if we do it on micro basis, question

 22  by question, these are gray areas.  The point that I want to

 23  focus on is, though, that this is probably all going to have

 24  to be repeated.  And you will have that opportunity.  I am

 25  just interested in proceeding with dispatch, so that we can


 01  get through all this.

 02       MS. BELLOMO:  The problem is that I haven't touched on

 03  certain areas of Mr. Vorster's testimony.  So I am not

 04  intending to spend the next 15 minutes repeating the

 05  subjects I have already covered.  I am going through his

 06  testimony and maybe in more detail than you would have

 07  wished.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I will give you from now till noon

 09  to stay on point, and that will have to be the amount of

 10  time that you are allowed for the cross-examination of these

 11  witnesses. 

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  So, for the record, I am being allowed an

 13  extra seven minutes?

 14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.  I think that is about seven

 15  and a half minutes, if my eyes are serving me correctly.   

 16       MS. BELLOMO:  Thank you very much.

 17       Did you do any studies, Mr. Vorster, to determine what

 18  the effects of reducing irrigation to 1.3 cfs would be on

 19  the land below Thompson Ranch at the County Park and

 20  vegetation in the marsh below the ranch?

 21       MR. VORSTER:  No, I have not.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Am I correct that you didn't do any

 23  studies to determine the source of the water supply and the

 24  vegetation below the County Road below Thompson Meadow?  Did

 25  you do any studies?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, in a broad sense.  When I was doing

 02  my master's thesis, that was one of the things I looked

 03  at.  I look at -- I mapped all the phreatophytic vegetation

 04  around the lake shore to determine what the water loss was. 

 05  So, I have studied that area, and looked at what the natural

 06  supply of water would be and what is supplemental.  I tried

 07  to make that distinction.  That area you are talking about

 08  has a large component of natural spring flow.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  The whole area? 

 10       MR. VORSTER:  Yeah, the area below the County Park that

 11  you are referring to has a lot of springs.

 12       MS. BELLOMO:  Actually, my question was broader than

 13  that.  As to whether you have determined the source of water

 14  supply and the vegetation along the entire length of the

 15  County Road below Thompson Meadow.

 16       MR. VORSTER:  Not in a specific sense, but more in a

 17  general sense.

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you agree that, at times, as much

 19  as 10 to 15 cfs of water is spread on Lower Thompson Meadow?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  I know 10 to 15 cfs was diverted from

 21  Mill Creek.  Whether that amount got to Thompson Meadow, I

 22  don't know. 

 23       MS. BELLOMO:  Have you done any studies to determine

 24  where the irrigation water that is spread on Thompson Meadow

 25  goes, if it migrates anywhere off the meadow?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  I assume that there is -- I have seen

 02  surface water flow across the County Road because of excess

 03  irrigation.  I have also, at times, seen it in the creek

 04  that goes through the park, that has water intermittently

 05  due to the presumed excess irrigation that occurs above the

 06  County Road.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  What environmental changes have you

 08  identified that will result in the north end of the Mono

 09  Basin if your proposal is adopted?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  I am sorry, you are asking what study --

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  What environmental changes have you

 12  identified, if any, that will occur in the north end of the

 13  basin if your Mono Lake Committee proposal that you set

 14  forth in your testimony is adopted?

 15       MR. VORSTER:  That is an open-ended question, and I

 16  don't think -- I see if I can --

 17       MS. BELLOMO:  How can it be open-ended?  I asked:  What

 18  changes have you identified that would occur?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  To the extent that there would be less

 20  water going on the Thompson Meadow and that area, there

 21  would be less surface water just flowing across the County

 22  Road, which I observed at times.

 23       I don't think -- I think the intent of the Mono Lake

 24  Committee proposal is to preserve the basic environmental

 25  structure that we have there: the meadow vegetation, the


 01  cottonwood trees, and the basic components of the

 02  environment there would be maintained.  So I don't think

 03  there would be any -- I do not think there would be any

 04  significant environmental change in the Mono Lake Committee

 05  proposal.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  In the north end of the basin?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  To the extent that 25 acres of the Upper

 08  Thompson Meadow would not be irrigated, that there may be

 09  some change there.  To the extent that Mattly Meadow would

 10  not be as extensive or would not be irrigated, there may be

 11  some change there in terms of the length of the time that

 12  the meadow is green or moist. 

 13       And I would say the other change would be that the

 14  fishery in Wilson Creek might be impacted. 

 15       MS. BELLOMO:  At this point you haven't determined

 16  whether it would or not? 

 17       MR. VORSTER:  I am not a fisheries' expert, but I

 18  consider there would be less water in Wilson Creek under the

 19  Mono Lake Committee proposal, so there might be an impact to

 20  the fishery. 

 21       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you exact any change in the

 22  riparian habitat on Wilson Creek as it passes through Conway

 23  Ranch? 

 24       MR. VORSTER:  I am not a riparian expert.  I think that

 25  would be -- there is testimony to that effect from the State


 01  Lands Commission.  I am not an expert. 

 02       Again, the intent of the Mono Lake Committee's proposal

 03  is to maintain the basic riparian structure through the

 04  Conway Ranch.  There may be some changes.  Again, I am not

 05  an expert.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  Do you have any opinion as to whether

 07  there would be any change in the riparian habitat on Wilson

 08  Creek below the Conway Ranch if your Mono Lake Committee's

 09  proposal were adopted?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  I would answer it the same way.  I would

 11  refer to the experts, and they providing testimony to that

 12  effect.

 13       MS. BELLOMO:  That there would be?

 14       MR. VORSTER:  No.  There is possibly to the extent that

 15  there is not as much water in that reach as there is today. 

 16  Although, those riches don't always surface flow.  But to

 17  the extent that there is less water below Conway Ranch than

 18  there has been historically, it is possible there may be

 19  some change.  Although the riparian vegetation in that area,

 20  it's not extensive at all.  But, again, I would defer to

 21  other experts. 

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  I don't want to abuse your generosity in

 23  letting me have additional time, so I will stop at this

 24  time.

 25       Thank you.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I appreciate you're understanding,

 02  Ms. Bellomo.   

 03       Let me just state the hour of noon having arrived, we

 04  will take a lunch break.  I'd like to take a 45-minute break

 05  so we can get a head start on the afternoon. 

 06       Let me also announce that I don't plan to go beyond

 07  4:30, a quarter to 5 at the latest today.  Before I

 08  absolutely make that the rule I want to check with Mr.

 09  Dodge.     

 10       Am I correct in understanding that Mr. Stine cannot be

 11  here, Dr. Stine cannot be here today; is that right?

 12       MR. DODGE:  My understanding is that Dr. Stine cannot

 13  be here tomorrow and that he can be here until on 1:00 on

 14  Wednesday.

 15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  If we run out of time and haven't

 16  completed with his testimony and cross-examination, for that

 17  matter, we can - we will take it up on Wednesday. 

 18       MR. DODGE:  I am confident we can get through at least

 19  that much.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's be back here at a quarter to

 21  one. 

 22       Thank you. 

 23                    (Luncheon break taken.)

 24                           ---oOo---



 01                       AFTERNOON SESSION

 02                           ---oOo---

 03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good afternoon and welcome back. 

 04       We had finished the cross-examination of this panel by

 05  Ms. Bellomo, and we will proceed from there. 

 06       Is Mr. Haselton here? 

 07       Did you wish to cross-examination these witnesses,

 08  sir?  Welcome.

 09       MR. HASELTON:  Thank you, Mr. Caffrey.  I just have, I

 10  believe, two very quick questions for Mr. Harrison.

 11                           ---oOo--- 

 12                       CROSS-EXAMINATION

 13                      BY ARCULARIUS RANCH

 14                        BY MR. HASELTON

 15  Q.      Mr. Harrison, I am looking at your testimony on Page

 16  3.  Essentially, I have two questions of clarification.  And

 17  that is at the bottom of Page 3 you state what you were

 18  asked to do, and that was to investigate options for

 19  obtaining recommended channel maintenance flows in Rush

 20  Creek and then you qualify that with a series of bullets,

 21  and you go on to the next page. 

 22       My question to you is:  Were you asked by your clients

 23  to review the recommended channel maintenance flow that is

 24  described in Decision 1631?

 25       MR. HARRISON:  Don't recall that I was.


 01       MR. HASELTON:  In preparing your testimony you also

 02  state you reviewed documents, and I guess the next question

 03  is:  Did you have an opportunity or did you, in fact, review

 04  Decision 1631?

 05       MR. HARRISON:  I think I do have a copy of it, and I

 06  did look at, but it's been sometime ago.

 07       MR. HASELTON:  The answer to that question is, yes, you

 08  did review? 

 09       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.

 10       MR. HASELTON:  That is it.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Haselton.

 12       I didn't see Mr. Ridenhour.  Is Mr. Ridenhour here? 

 13       Mr. Ridenhour is not here.

 14       Mr. Roos-Collins.

 15       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Afternoon.  Mr. Chairman, my green

 16  light has started even before I do.

 17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Johns is very anxious.

 18       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Before I begin my cross-examination

 19  I do have -- I need to inform you of certain scheduling

 20  constraints for the witnesses that constitute California

 21  Trout panel. 

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right.

 23       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Mr. Vorster is available today, but

 24  not Tuesday or Wednesday.  Dr. Mesick is available today,

 25  but not Tuesday.  And Dr. Stine is available today, but not


 01  Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon. 

 02       Now, I understand that you have more than your share of

 03  scheduling difficulties to deal with.  I don't propose a

 04  remedy at this time.  I simply note that this is the last

 05  opportunity for Mr. Vorster to testify on behalf of

 06  California Trout as well as the Mono Lake Committee during

 07  the dates that you have currently scheduled for this

 08  hearing. 

 09       I also note that my other witnesses are not going to be

 10  be available again until Wednesday.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We'll do everything that we can to

 12  accommodate, including, if need be, if we get -- we'll take

 13  an assessment this afternoon, and if we are running out of

 14  availability, we may have to take a little time tonight, I

 15  would imagine.  We will try to avoid that if we can.

 16       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Thank you.

 17                           ---oOo---

 18                       CROSS-EXAMINATION

 19                   BY CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.

 20                      BY MR. ROOS-COLLINS

 21  Q.   Mr. Vorster, my questions for you concern Pages 9 and

 22  10 of your written testimony.  Your comparison of channel

 23  maintenance flow schedules and also your Attachments 10 and

 24  11, which also make the same comparison.

 25       Your testimony compares several channel maintenance


 01  proposals to unimpaired flows on Rush Creek; is that correct?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  That is correct.  That is what I show on

 03  Attachment 11.

 04       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Unimpaired means not regulated by

 05  human facility or activity?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  That is correct.

 07       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  When were the flows of Rush Creek

 08  first impaired?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  Irrigation diversions on Rush Creek

 10  probably occurred in the late 19th century, to a limited

 11  degree, and caused some impairment during the irrigation

 12  season.  The most significant impairment occurs -- started

 13  to occur around 1920 when the predecessor to Southern 

 14  California Edison built reservoirs in the upper watershed of

 15  Rush and Lee Vining Creek.

 16       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  By 1949, when Los Angeles received

 17  its water right permits for Rush Creek, flows were already

 18  impaired?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, they were.

 20       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Does Decision 1631 require Los

 21  Angeles' Stream Restoration Plan to compare channel

 22  maintenance proposals with unimpaired flows?

 23       MR. VORSTER:   No, it doesn't.

 24       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Does it even require a channel

 25  maintenance proposal?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  No.

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  So, in preparing your testimony,

 03  what was your purpose in comparing the channel maintenance

 04  proposal now before this Board with unimpaired flows?

 05       MR. VORSTER:  My purpose was twofold, and it was really

 06  guided by the philosophy and testimony provided by the

 07  stream scientists, in particular Dr. Trush.  I think on Page

 08  9 of my testimony acknowledged their commitment and

 09  understanding that the unimpeded flow regimes are

 10  appropriate flows determining contemporary channel dynamics

 11  and potential for recovery.  This is from the October 1995

 12  draft workplan of the stream restoration scientists.

 13       So, the flow recommendations that they provided use the

 14  unimpaired flow regime as, what I call, a guide post.  And

 15  it is because, as the stream scientists themselves

 16  acknowledged, the habitat conditions that were there, that

 17  we're trying to restore, were the result of the unimpaired

 18  flows that had occurred for thousands of years before that, 

 19  before 1941.

 20       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Let me break your answer into two

 21  parts.  In preparing your testimony, then, you assumed that

 22  the channel conditions, which existed in 1941, had been

 23  caused by unimpaired flows?

 24       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, or were the result of unimpaired

 25  flows. 


 01       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:   You also assumed that restoration

 02  of Rush Creek requires something like unimpaired flows?

 03       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  Again, using unimpaired flows as a

 04  guide post.  I think Dr. Trush also articulated the point

 05  that for the streams to function in an alluvial manner that

 06  his observations on the creeks confirmed that they were

 07  functioning alluvially and as a result of the unimpaired

 08  flows, that the unimpaired flows were the flows that would

 09  allow the streams to function in the way that he felt that

 10  they could function

 11       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  You arrived at your assumptions

 12  regarding unimpaired flows in part from Dr. Trush's 1995

 13  report?

 14       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, and subsequent conversations that I

 15  had with him and the monitoring plan that was submitted by

 16  Dr. Trush.

 17       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Let me move on now to a related

 18  issue.  I ask you to assume for the purpose of this line of

 19  questioning, that a flow of magnitude 350 cubic feet per

 20  second is needed to mobilize the channel better.  I ask you

 21  to assume that, not opine that.  Assuming that a flow of 350

 22  cubic feet per second is a desirable flow in the channel

 23  maintenance schedule, how often would that flow occur under

 24  unimpaired conditions?

 25       MR. VORSTER:  In looking at the period of record, 1940


 01  through '89 or '41 through '90, that 50 year period,

 02  approximately three-quarters of the time, a flow of 350 cfs

 03  or greater would occur under unimpaired conditions. 

 04       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Unimpaired? 

 05       MR. VORSTER:  Unimpaired. 

 06       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:   For the purpose of that answer, you

 07  calculated what unimpaired flows would be, on the basis of

 08  impaired flows from 1941 to 1990?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  Right, and adjusting it for the storage

 10  change in the Southern California Edison reservoirs.

 11       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  An unimpaired flow of 350 cubic feet

 12  per second would occur in 75 percent of the years?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  Right.  It would actually occur -- it

 14  occurred in 75 percent of the years.  And in some of those

 15  years, it occurred more than once.

 16       It would occur, perhaps, let's say in late May, again

 17  in middle of June and maybe again in early July.  It would

 18  have multi peaks.

 19       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  For the sake of clarity in the

 20  record, let me ask that you confine further answers to

 21  frequency stated in terms of years, in other words, in how

 22  many -- in what percentage of the years would a flow of this

 23  magnitude occur.  And your answer is 75 percent? 

 24       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, approximately. 

 25       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  How often do impaired flows equal or


 01  exceed 350 cubic feet per second?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  In far less number of years.  I think Dr.

 03  Beschta in his testimony, which I don't have right in front

 04  of me, provided --

 05       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Mr. Vorster, I am providing you Dr.

 06  Beschta's testimony which is Los Angeles Exhibit 27.

 07       MR. VORSTER:  In Dr. Beschta's testimony, Exhibit DWP

 08  Number 27, in Table 2, he gives us some -- we can't answer

 09  that question directly, but he does show that a flow of

 10  somewhere between the wet normal and wet year types the

 11  estimated impaired peak flow for the median year would be in

 12  the 350 cfs range.

 13       A 350 cfs flow, I think, under impaired conditions

 14  would occur, if my memory serves me correctly, probably in

 15  about 20 percent of the years.  But I would have to refer to

 16  documents that I don't have in front of me.

 17       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Under D-1631, how often would the

 18  flow equal or exceed 350 feet per second?

 19       MR. VORSTER:  Under D-1631, there was no requirement to

 20  release flows of that magnitude.  They would occur in wetter

 21  years or very wet and extreme years just because, before,

 22  Los Angeles didn't have the ability to divert the  water,

 23  and so flows in excess of 350 would occur occasionally.  But

 24  there was no requirement in D-1631 to release flows of that

 25  magnitude. 


 01       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Under Los Angeles' proposal, as

 02  stated in its Stream Restoration Plan, how often would the

 03  flow exceed 350 cubic feet per second, equal or exceed?

 04       MR. VORSTER:  They would have flows in excess of 350

 05  cubic feet per second in the normal to wet normal, wet and

 06  extreme years, which represents about 45 percent of the year

 07  type, in 45 percent of the year.

 08       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  On the basis of the document review

 09  you did in preparation for your testimony, do you have an

 10  opinion regarding the comparative durations of a flow of 350

 11  cubic feet per second under the four scenarios we just

 12  discussed, namely unimpaired, impaired, D-1631, and Los

 13  Angeles' proposal? 

 14       MR. VORSTER:  With D-1631 flows of 350 cfs would occur,

 15  as I said, in the wet and extreme years.  And so, it would

 16  be difficult for me to say how often, what the duration that

 17  would occur in those year types.  If I can refer to

 18  attachment 11 --

 19       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Please.

 20       MR. VORSTER:  Just so you understand what Attachment 11

 21  is, I took the different year types that have been used for

 22  Rush Creek, and I took representative years to represent a

 23  typical year in that year type.  And I then looked at what

 24  the recommended channel maintenance flows were for the

 25  different proposals: Decision 1631, DWP proposed flow


 01  regimes, the ad hoc subcommittee's recommendation in 

 02  February 1996, and the scientists' October 1995

 03  recommendations.

 04       And in the lighter type we have the magnitude and

 05  duration of their recommendations.  And I compared the

 06  duration with the unimpaired in that particular year type.

 07  So, for example, if you wanted to look at a 1980 wet year,

 08  you would see that the scientists' recommendation of 500

 09  cfs for five days in that year type, in that particular

 10  year, there were 15 days in excess of 500 cfs.  In fact, the

 11  peak flow was 801 cfs.

 12       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Mr. Vorster, excuse me.  Before you

 13  proceed further with explanation of Attachment 11 to your

 14  written testimony, could you focus specifically on the

 15  magnitude of 350 cubic felt per second and explain to the

 16  Board what this comparison shows with regard to that

 17  magnitude specifically?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Well, we don't have a 350 listed except

 19  for the scientists' flows in normal one and normal two.  So

 20  we will have to use the flows closest to 350 cfs, as

 21  something close to that.

 22       So, for example, in DWP's proposal normal two years,

 23  you have flows of 380 cfs for five days, and in that

 24  particular year, 1979, there were 25 days in excess of 380

 25  cfs.


 01       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  25 days of unimpaired flows?

 02       MR. VORSTER:  Right.  And the ad hoc also recommended

 03  380, and the scientists', in October 1995, recommendation

 04  was 400.  And, indeed, 25 days exceeded 400 cfs.

 05       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Does this attachment show us

 06  unimpaired flows -- excuse me, impaired flow?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  No.  This is comparing proposed channel

 08  maintenance flow recommendations with the unimpaired flows

 09  in these particular years and comparing them both in

 10  duration and magnitude.  It shows the magnitude of the 

 11  unimpaired peak flows in these particular years.

 12       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  I understand that it is difficult

 13  to summarize the duration associated with any given flow

 14  across all of these different proposals. 

 15       Would it be correct, however, to conclude that Los

 16  Angeles's proposal would equal or exceed 350 cubic feet per

 17  second for a shorter duration than unimpaired flows?

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 19       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Let's move on now to a different

 20  flow magnitude, now 500 cubic feet per second.  Again, I ask

 21  you to assume that 500 cubic feet per second.  Is that flow

 22  necessary to start a physical process such as flood plan

 23  inundation? 

 24       Given that assumption, how often would unimpaired flows

 25  equal or exceed 500 cubic feet per second?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  In about half the years.

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  At least once. 

 03       MR. VORSTER:  At least once the flows exceeded 500 cfs.

 04       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  How often did impaired flows -- how

 05  often do impaired flows equal or exceed 500 cubic feet per

 06  second?

 07       MR. VORSTER:  During the period 1941 to 1990, they

 08  exceeded 500 cfs, I think, twice, 1967 and possibly 1983.  I

 09  would have to check that.  So, four percent -- in four

 10  percent of the years.  In 1995 they also exceeded 500 cfs.

 11       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Under Decision 1631, how often would

 12  the flows exceed equal or exceed 500 cubic feet per second?

 13       MR. VORSTER:  The same.  Because in those year types,

 14  if we had years similar to 1967 and 1983 occur in the

 15  future, under D-1631, Los Angeles would have no choice but

 16  to release those flows down the stream into Grant Lake. 

 17  Grant Lake would spill or -- excuse me, in 1967 Grant Lake

 18  would spill and the flows -- if Grant Lake spilled the flows

 19  would be greater than 500 cfs under D-1631.  It's likely

 20  that Grant would spill in those years.

 21       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  You began your answer by saying "the

 22  same."  You mean the same as you prior answer?      

 23       MR. VORSTER:  Yes, I'm sorry.

 24       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Approximately four percent of the

 25  time?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Correct.

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Finally, under Los Angeles'

 03  proposal, how often would flows equal or exceed 500 cubic

 04  feet per second?

 05       MR. VORSTER:   In Los Angeles' proposal, 500 cfs or

 06  more would occur in the extreme year type, which represent

 07  eight percent of the years.  Extreme years are 1983, 1969,

 08  1982, and I think maybe '67.  I can't remember if '67 was

 09  considered a wet or extreme year.  But in 4 out of the 50

 10  years, the flows would equal or exceed 500 cfs.

 11       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Let me turn now to a third issue and

 12  my last with you, which is the impact on Los Angeles'

 13  operations of dedicating more water to channel maintenance

 14  than required by Decision 1631.

 15       Do you have the Grant Lake Operations and Management

 16  Plan in front of you?

 17       MR. VORSTER:  No, but I can get it. 

 18       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Let me show this plan, which is Los

 19  Angeles -- this plan, and specifically Page 51, final

 20  paragraph. 

 21       Los Angeles estimates that compliance with the base and

 22  channel maintenance flow requirement of D-1631 would require

 23  approximately 76,000 acre-feet of water on average during

 24  the transition period, and compliance with the lake target

 25  requirement would require an additional 30,000 acre-feet or


 01  so.

 02       Do you see that discussion?

 03       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  I would slightly clarify your

 04  reading of that.  I think they say the long-term average

 05  release requirement to the Mono Basin streams of 76,000

 06  acre-feet per year.  I think they are representing that as

 07  the base flow requirement, the fish flow requirements, if I

 08  read that correctly.  And during the transition period on

 09  average an additional 30,000 acre-feet above and beyond the

 10  minimum stream flow requirements will be released into the

 11  Mono Basin creeks.

 12       I would have to -- I am not sure that 30,000 does or

 13  not -- does or does not include the channel maintenance flow

 14  requirements of D-1631.  But I think it may not.

 15       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  You are familiar with the plan's use

 16  of the term "lake maintenance water" to describe that block

 17  of 30,000 acre-feet on top of the stream requirements.

 18       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 19       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  If this Board were to adopt a

 20  channel maintenance schedule in excess of the one already

 21  required by Decision 1631, where would the water come from?

 22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Objection.  Calls for speculation.

 23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It probably does. 

 24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:   Mr. Roos-Collins can ask him to

 25  identify sources of the water, but he can't ask him to


 01  identify where the water would come from.

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  I withdraw the question.

 03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is a fair ruling, Mr.

 04  Birmingham.  Thank you. 

 05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  You're welcome.

 06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I was just going to say that.

 07       MR. DODGE:  I am getting a little concerned here.  When

 08  I complained to you about my sources -- my place in the 

 09  cross-examination earlier in this proceeding, I was laughed

 10  out of room.  Mr. Birmingham complains last week, and he

 11  immediately was put where he wants to be.  Now he is making

 12  rulings.

 13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I will let you rule before this

 14  hearing is over. 

 15       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You get one ruling. 

 17       The question is withdrawn, so there is no need to rule

 18  in this particular case.

 19       Go ahead, Mr. Roos-Collins.

 20       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Mr. Vorster, assuming that for the

 21  purpose of this question that water is not imported from Lee

 22  Vining Creek, and assuming further that this Board amends

 23  Decision 1631 to require channel maintenance flows in excess

 24  of those already required, can the additional flows come

 25  from what is characterized here as lake maintenance water?


 01       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.

 02       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Thank you.

 03       No further questions.

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you very much, Mr.

 05  Roos-Collins.

 06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Cahill, good afternoon.

 07       MS. CAHILL:  Afternoon.

 08                           ---oOo---

 09                       CROSS-EXAMINATION

 10                 BY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

 11                         BY MS. CAHILL

 12  Q.   Mr. Harrison, I would like to start with some questions

 13  on your testimony.  On Page 7 of the testimony, you estimate

 14  the cost of a Grant Lake tunnel outlet and you state that

 15  you have added 30 percent for contingency, which you believe

 16  to be conservative. 

 17       Is that right?

 18       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.  I believe the overall estimate to

 19  be conservative. 

 20       MS. CAHILL:  By conservative, do you mean -- would you

 21  explain what you mean by conservative in this case?

 22       MR. HARRISON:   The real costs are likely to be less

 23  than the estimated cost, definition of conservative for this

 24  purpose.

 25       MS. CAHILL:  So, it would be your opinion that an


 01  estimated contingency allowance of 40 percent would be

 02  higher than required?

 03       MR. HARRISON:  Perhaps not.  It depends on the level of

 04  unknowns.  I put on this particular case, easily, since the

 05  contingency is in the range of 30 to 40 percent. 

 06       MS. CAHILL:  But expecting the actual cost to always be

 07  less?

 08       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.

 09       MS. CAHILL:  Further down in Table 1 you cost out three

 10  Howell-Bunger valves.  Can you tell us what size of

 11  Howell-Bunger valves you were costing?

 12       MR. HARRISON:  That I more or less followed DWP's lead

 13  and assumed 30-inch valves.  These are, again, approximate

 14  estimates of the cost. 

 15       MS. CAHILL:  Did you have Los Angeles' figures where

 16  you prepared your testimony?

 17       MR. HARRISON:  I did.

 18       MS. CAHILL:  So, can you explain the discrepancy where

 19  you cost a 30-inch Howell-Bunger valve at $50,000 each, and

 20  Los Angeles costs them at $125,000 each?

 21       MR. HARRISON:  Well, I don't know that is a specific

 22  discrepancy.  I quoted both a price here for valves and for

 23  valve installation.  So there is not that big -- quite that

 24  big a difference as implied by the numbers for the valves

 25  themselves.  I think SCE's figure includes both their


 01  furnishing the valve and installation.

 02       MS. CAHILL:  If you sum your purchase and

 03  installation, what is the total cost?

 04       MR. HARRISON:  It would be $66,667 there from the

 05  document.

 06       MS. CAHILL:  For three of them?

 07       MR. HARRISON:  For three of them, it would be three

 08  times that or $200,000.

 09       MS. CAHILL:  That is still well below Los Angeles'

 10  estimate of $375,000?

 11       MR. HARRISON:  Yes, it is.

 12       MS. CAHILL:  You discussed various methods of achieving

 13  flows of 600 cfs in Rush Creek; is that correct?

 14       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.  I discussed those methods proposed

 15  by DWP.  I did not bring up any new methods.

 16       MS. CAHILL:  With regard to flows of 600 cfs, is it

 17  your opinion that a new release facility would be able to

 18  release those flows more reliably than what we call the Lee

 19  Vining augmentation?

 20       MR. HARRISON:  Yes, that is my opinion.

 21       MS. CAHILL:  You have explained a little bit of what

 22  Iowa vanes are.  And do they result in continuous sediment

 23  passage?

 24       MR. HARRISON:  No.  They would result in sediment

 25  passage when there is sufficient flows of sediment


 01  manufactured in the system.  When there is no sediment

 02  moving in the system, they would not be passing sediment.   

 03       MS. CAHILL:  Would they be passing gravel or just

 04  fines?

 05       MR. HARRISON:  They could pass gravels as wells as

 06  fines.  Depends on the flow velocities and configurations.  

 07       MS. CAHILL:  Would you expect them, for the cost that

 08  you estimated, to pass gravel or would that take additional

 09  engineering?

 10       MR. HARRISON:  My estimate is construction cost.  It

 11  does not estimate the engineering studies or design that

 12  should go into this.

 13       MS. CAHILL:  So, it would depend on the design, whether

 14  they were actually able to pass gravel as well?

 15       MR. HARRISON:  Right.  I feel confident that designs

 16  could be developed that at given flows it would pass

 17  gravel.

 18       MS. CAHILL:  Are you familiar with Iowa vanes that have

 19  actually be installed on various rivers?

 20       MR. HARRISON:  Physically, I've personally never seen

 21  one.  I've seen videos, pictures, and videotapes of model

 22  studies. 

 23       MS. CAHILL:  Do you have any idea what the O&M costs

 24  would be of Iowa vanes solution?

 25       MR. HARRISON:   No.  I would expect it, however, to be


 01  quite low.  They're not a mechanical system.  They are a

 02  fixed and active-passive type device.

 03       MS. CAHILL:  This Iowa vane solution would not allow

 04  the upstream migration of fish, would it?

 05       MR. HARRISON:  It would make no difference.

 06       MS. CAHILL:  The third option, the bypass channel,

 07  could you pull up your graphic?  You mentioned that this was

 08  a high flow bypass; is that right?

 09       MR. HARRISON:  Yes.  I said high flow.  It could also

 10  release -- I would also explain it could release flows 

 11  throughout the year that were in excess of the needs for

 12  diversion. 

 13       MS. CAHILL:  Were you aware that Los Angeles'

 14  proposal is to let Walker and Parker Creeks, basically, flow

 15  through in all years except dry years?

 16       MR. HARRISON:  I am not aware of that specific

 17  statement at this time.  I probably read that and I have

 18  forgotten it.

 19       MS. CAHILL:  Let me ask you if there is another

 20  plausibility.  Assume that on Walker Creek and Parker Creek

 21  the flows that come downstream continue downstream in all

 22  year types except the dry years.  So that they would come

 23  down and make the circle and go on in almost all cases.

 24       MR. HARRISON:  You are stating there would be no 

 25  diversions in this? 


 01       MS. CAHILL:  No versions at all in all year types with

 02  the exception of dry.  So that the high flows for which you

 03  designed would always be going around.  And that in those

 04  dry years it would be necessary to divert on Walker 4 cfs

 05  and 6 cfs, and on Parker 6 cfs and 9 cfs.  I don't know

 06  quite how to ask you this without sort of coming to the

 07  graph. 

 08       If all you needed to pass was a maximum of, let's say,

 09  9 cfs only in dry years, instead of having your division

 10  structure here that divides the flow, could you instead

 11  design the channel so that almost all the time the entire

 12  flow goes in your bypass channel with some sort of

 13  structure, using boards or some other facility, so that in

 14  the 20 percent of the year when those low flows are required

 15  to be released, they could be released to then be put into

 16  the conduit?

 17       MR. HARRISON:  Yes, that is avery easy possibility,

 18  very easy to accomplish.

 19       MS. CAHILL:  Would that tend to be more expensive or

 20  less expensive than what you have designed?

 21       MR. HARRISON:  I think it would probably be about the

 22  same.  Still have to have attach some kind of headwork

 23  structure to accomplish that.  I haven't detailed this

 24  headwork structure in any way. 

 25       MS. CAHILL:  If the headworks structure were here, as


 01  opposed to across this whole channel, would then upstream

 02  fish migration be a possibility at all times?

 03       MR. HARRISON:  Well, I am not a fisheries' expert

 04  either, so I don't think I will respond to that.

 05       MS. CAHILL:  Fair enough. 

 06       There would be no impediment in that hypothetical where

 07  the structure is used to release water into the pond and the

 08  conduit, there would not need to be a barrier across the

 09  bypass channel?

 10       MR. HARRISON:  True.  What I have shown here, it looks

 11  like a dam.  This is a cartoon.  It isn't an engineering

 12  drawing.  So, certainly, in my imagination about what this

 13  thing could look like, it could be designed to allow fish --

 14  unimpeded water for fish, I believe, to swim up.  Expert or

 15  not.

 16       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you very much.

 17       Actually, I think those are the only questions I do

 18  have for you.  One last one.  You indicated that you had had

 19  the opportunity to review Los Angeles' numbers.  Their cost

 20  estimates for a fish and bypass sediment on Walker and

 21  Parker Creek is $1.6 million. 

 22       Do you believe that to be in the ballpark?

 23       MR. HARRISON:  I looked at their estimate.  I really

 24  didn't understand what they were trying to design in costs,

 25  so I really am not in a position to comment on it, other


 01  than it seems very high to me. 

 02       MS. CAHILL:  For the type of facility you have designed

 03  here, which you said would be probably about the same cost

 04  as what I was describing, tell us again what you think the

 05  construction costs of that might be.

 06       MR. HARRISON:  Construction of a bypass channel, as I

 07  estimated, is $250,000 Lee Vining Creek and 50,000 each for

 08  Walker Creek and Parker Creek. 

 09       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you. 

 10       Mr. Vorster I have few questions for you.

 11       In your testimony, you addressed what we call the Lee

 12  Vining augmentation as a method of getting up to flows of

 13  approximately 500 cfs on Rush Creek. 

 14       How often will the Lee Vining augmentation need to be

 15  used if Los Angeles' plan is implemented?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  It would need to occur in 40 percent of

 17  the year types, which is the wet normal, wet and extreme

 18  year types. 

 19       MS. CAHILL:  In your opinion, is the reliability of the

 20  Lee Vining augmentation, is it as reliable as a new release

 21  facility from Grant Dam would be?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  No.  As I testified, it would not be as

 23  reliable.  I think the events in 1996 confirm that. 

 24       MS. CAHILL:  You testified with regard to the timing of

 25  the peak on Rush Creek, that it might be delayed as much as


 01  three weeks the way the plan is described?

 02       MR. VORSTER:   In some years it could be delayed as

 03  much as three weeks.

 04       MS. CAHILL:  What are the impacts then on Lee Vining

 05  Creek of this augmentation plan?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  Well, there are a number of possible

 07  effects.  Depending on exactly how well the forecasting and

 08  backcasting procedure that DWP has outlined were, it is

 09  possible, for example, that the Lee Vining peak flow, the

 10  primary peak, would be diverted. 

 11       Or what we do know is that flows of up to 150 cfs will

 12  be diverted on the backend of the peak flow hydrograph,

 13  which could take out up to three-quarters of flow. 

 14       MS. CAHILL:  So, in other words, when we talk about

 15  magnitude, timing, and duration, at a minimum this might be

 16  affecting the duration of the Lee Vining peak?

 17       MR. VORSTER:  That's correct. 

 18       MS. CAHILL:  What happens in those years when there

 19  might be multiple peaks on Lee Vining Creek?

 20       MR. VORSTER:  In those years where there are multiple

 21  peaks, which is the normal situation, snow melt hydrograph,

 22  such as we see in Lee Vining Creek, you do get multiple

 23  peaks and peaks, secondary peaks, that would occur after the

 24  primary peak, assuming that DWP is able to predict when the

 25  primary peak occurs, would be diverted, and you wouldn't


 01  have the benefit of that secondary peak. 

 02       MS. CAHILL:  So, we would be, in effect, not having the

 03  natural variability that you would otherwise have in the

 04  stream? 

 05       MR. VORSTER:  You would, basically, be restricting the

 06  Lee Vining Creek to a potentially a single peak, similar to

 07  what Grant Lake is going to be doing to the Rush Creek peak.

 08       MS. CAHILL:  Did you attempt to model what the Lee

 09  Vining augmentation might do in certain years?

 10       MR. VORSTER:  I am not sure if I would use the word

 11  "model."   What I did do is, I looked at a couple year 

 12  types, for example 1980, which is a wet year, and 1982,

 13  which is an extreme year.  And I tried to put myself in the

 14  position of being a DWP operator and trying to apply the

 15  procedures that they have outlined that would occur, both

 16  this forecasting and backcasting procedure.  And it's

 17  unclear exactly when they would begin their diversion for

 18  augmentation.  Because when you're actually in that

 19  situation, you don't have the benefit of knowing what is

 20  going to occur.  All you have is the benefit of your

 21  forecast that suggests approximately a window of time when

 22  you expect your peak to occur and the approximate

 23  magnitude. 

 24       But, obviously, in any particular year type the unique

 25  situations will determine those, when they would occur.  So


 01  it is possible, for example, that in looking at 1980 and '82

 02  and it is -- if we had flows, runoff, similar to those, that

 03  in 1982, for example, which is an extreme year where 150 cfs

 04  is required to be diverted, that the flows -- if 150 cfs

 05  were diverted, the flows would drop below D-1631 minimums. 

 06  Of course, DWP would not allow that to occur.  So, you would

 07  not be able to get the full 150 cfs. 

 08       MS. CAHILL:  You wouldn't be able then to get the full

 09  amount, which, added to the upgrade return ditch, would give

 10  500 cfs?

 11       MR. VORSTER:  That is correct. 

 12       MS. CAHILL:  In that year what you did get, would it be

 13  later than the ordinary peak on Rush Creek?

 14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Objection.  Ambiguous.

 15       MS. CAHILL:  In that year that you looked at, when you

 16  did augment with Lee Vining, even though it was less than

 17  the full 150, would that water arrive at Rush Creek at a

 18  time later than the Rush Creek peak?

 19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Objection.  Ambiguous.

 20       MS. CAHILL:  Would it arrive later at the impaired Rush

 21  Creek peak?

 22       MR. VORSTER:  I looked at -- again, it is hard to say

 23  exactly when they would divert.  That is one of the 

 24  problems, because the procedures are not real clear in my

 25  mind in terms of how the forecasting and backcasting


 01  procedures would actually be implemented.  Let's say it

 02  leaves some discretion, obviously, to the operator as to how

 03  to implement them, given as they are stated right now.  So,

 04  it is possible that, depending on when the Lee Vining

 05  diversions occur, that the Rush Creek peak with the

 06  augmented flows would occur after the unimpaired peak.  It

 07  is possible that they could time it to be more closely

 08  aligned.  But then, if they did that, they'd probably be

 09  diverting the Lee Vining Creek peak.  

 10       MS. CAHILL:  Can you just tell me what you mean by

 11  "backcasting"?

 12       MR. VORSTER:  That is actually a term that I think I'll

 13  give Dave Allen credit for it.  Or if he doesn't want to

 14  take credit for it, I will take credit.  Just a term that

 15  the two of us have been using in describing procedure that,

 16  as he explained it to me, that is the way you can tell that

 17  a peak flow has occurred in Lee Vining Creek is in looking

 18  at the historic record, that if there have been seven

 19  consecutive days of declining flow, you would be assured

 20  that the peak has occurred.  In other words, during the peak

 21  flow hydrograph you get flows that go up and down, up and

 22  down.  When they finally start declining for seven

 23  consecutive days, you know, at least based upon historical

 24  records that we have, that you will have passed the peak.   

 25       So, it is only by seeing how many consecutive days of


 01  declining flow that there has been and seeing that it has

 02  been seven or more days, well, you have known that peak has

 03  occurred. 

 04       MS. CAHILL:  Even then, there is uncertainty, is there

 05  not?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  The future can always be different than

 07  the past. 

 08       MS. CAHILL:  Let me switch briefly over to the

 09  Mill-Wilson Creek system.  Given current circumstances, is a

 10  portion of Mill Creek dry with some regularity?

 11       MR. VORSTER:  Oh, yeah.  In those years when there is

 12  not a spill from or release from Lundy Dam, the common

 13  occurrence for most of the year is that Lee Vining Creek,

 14  down around the County Road --

 15       MS. CAHILL:  You mean Mill Creek?

 16       MR. VORSTER:  I'm sorry, Mill Creek.  I had to 

 17  switch. 

 18       Mill Creek, down around the County Road, is dry or has

 19  residual pools because, especially during irrigation season

 20  when the water that is in Mill Creek, this spring flow gain

 21  that is Mill Creek and any water return from the Wilson

 22  ditch by the Mill Creek Return Ditch, any water that is in

 23  Mill Creek is going to diverted by the irrigation ditches.

 24       If there is water left over, which might be, you know,

 25  anywhere from 2 to 5 cfs, if any, by the time it gets down


 01  to the County Road, there is very little, if any, water

 02  left.  It is a fairly common occurrence during the summer. 

 03  It is -- actually, when Larry Harrison and I were there last

 04  October, we, indeed, saw just pools of water down at Mill

 05  Creek.  It's --

 06       MS. CAHILL:  If Los Angeles were to dedicate its water

 07  right and do nothing more, would there still be periods in

 08  which Mill Creek would go dry?

 09       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  If Mr. Reise can turn the folders

 10  back to the first one, Scenario 1, Scenario 1, as it is

 11  currently displayed, says expected the Mill-Wilson flows if

 12  DWP dedicates existing rights and appropriate October

 13  through April water.  So, if we just look at the period May

 14  through September, that is the irrigation period in which

 15  DWP could dedicate their rights, you can see in a dry year

 16  that Mill Creek below the County Road is restricted to less

 17  than cfs here [verbatim].  Again, to me that represents a

 18  condition that it may have water; it may not have water. 

 19       MS. CAHILL:  If they didn't also get the appropriation,

 20  what would happen in the winter months?

 21       MR. VORSTER:  If they did not get the appropriation,

 22  you would just basically take away these numbers and make

 23  them zero. 

 24       MS. CAHILL:  We need to describe what that is. 

 25       This is --


 01       MR. VORSTER:   I'm sorry.  This Scenario 1, and I am

 02  describing Mill Creek below the County Road in any of the --

 03  especially the normal and dry year types, and, in fact, in

 04  the wet year types.  If they do not -- if they are not

 05  successful in appropriating the water from Wilson or from

 06  the power plant discharge, then there will be, essentially,

 07  no water in Mill Creek down around the County Road unless

 08  they are able to -- they have a 1 cfs right that, if they

 09  are able to feel they can bring that over in the wintertime,

 10  there would be that amount of flow they can bring back.  By

 11  the time you get down to the County Road, it would not be

 12  there. 

 13       If they were not successful in getting their

 14  appropriation, then the flow, Mill Creek at County Road,

 15  would be zero or very little flow. 

 16       MS. CAHILL:  From approximately October through --

 17       MR. VORSTER:  October through April.  Basically, any

 18  time the water flow was less than 12 cfs.  The impaired at

 19  Lundy Reservoir was less than 12 cfs, which you can see on

 20  this exhibit for Scenario 1, looking at the impaired at

 21  Lundy Reservoir in all the different year types, it's fairly

 22  uncommon for the flows to be above 12 cfs.

 23       MS. CAHILL:  Wilson Creek, given current circumstances,

 24  does part of Wilson Creek go dry in dry years?

 25       MR. VORSTER:  Yes.  I have observed in dry years Wilson


 01  Creek being dry below the Conway Ranch. 

 02       MS. CAHILL.  If Los Angeles dedicated its water right

 03  to Mill Creek, would you expect that to increase the number

 04  of years in which Wilson Creek might go dry or have not much

 05  impact?

 06       MR. VORSTER:  It would have some impact.  It would

 07  increase the amount of time that Wilson Creek could go dry

 08  below Conway Ranch. 

 09       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you very much.  Thank you all.      

 10       I have questions for Dr. Stine, but they fit more in

 11  his testimony for Cal Trout.  I will hold them till then. 

 12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Cahill.

 13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Caffrey, I would like to ask for

 14  an opportunity of a recess to confer with Mr. Dodge, Ms.

 15  Scoonover, Ms. Cahill on an issue of some importance, and

 16  Mr. Roos-Collins.

 17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  How much time do you all need?

 18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Ten minutes.

 19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's take a brief recess for 10 or

 20  15 minutes.

 21                         (Break taken.)

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We're back from our recess. 

 23       Gentlemen, did you --

 24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Actually, we would like at this point,

 25  Mr. Caffrey, to ask for another recess.  But let us take a


 01  few moments and explain the reasons for it.

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please. 

 03       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The Department of Water and Power of

 04  the City of Los Angeles has been, as you know, talking with

 05  a number of the other parties to this proceeding concerning

 06  a settlement.  It has reached agreement in principle with

 07  the California Department of Fish and Game, California

 08  Trout, Incorporated, the Mono Lake Committee, National

 09  Audubon Society, State Lands Commission, Department of Parks

 10  and Recreation.  But we have not had an opportunity to --

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And U.S. Forest Service.

 12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  And the U.S. Forest Service, excuse

 13  me. 

 14       We have not had an opportunity to talk about our

 15  settlement proposal with the People from Mono Basin

 16  Preservation, nor BLM, nor Arcularius Ranch.  We would like

 17  to ask for another brief recess so we can present it to

 18  them, with the hope that if they think this is something

 19  worth pursuing, we would ask the State Board to continue the

 20  hearing for a period of time to allow us to put the

 21  agreement in writing.

 22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me just tell you that I can't

 23  speak for Ms. Forster, but I suspect that she is going to

 24  agree with me.  We are certainly amenable to help you in any

 25  way we can, to at least present an atmosphere and provide


 01  you the opportunity to reach some kind of settlement. 

 02  Obviously, it has to -- well, it doesn't have to.  The more

 03  parties that you can involve in it, the easier life becomes,

 04  in terms of this hearing process, for all of us. 

 05       MR. DODGE:  Without discussing the details, we are not

 06  free to discuss the details with you.  I have every reason

 07  to believe that this settlement in principle should be

 08  acceptable to the other parties to this proceeding.

 09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You said a brief recess.  Do you

 10  want to come back again this afternoon or take a recess

 11  until tomorrow morning?  I mean, we will try to be flexible. 

 12  What is it that you need?  And recognizing, too, that Ms.

 13  Bellomo and others are on limited time. 

 14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  They are completely in the dark on

 15  this.  I suspect we probably would like to come back this

 16  afternoon, if possible.  What I was thinking was perhaps a

 17  15 minute to half an hour break.  The one condition that we

 18  would ask for is that the terms of the discussions that we

 19  have with them remain confidential.  Because in the event

 20  that we are unable to reach agreement with all the parties,

 21  we would not want the discussions that have occurred to

 22  become public and prejudice the position of any of the

 23  parties to those discussions.

 24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  By that, I assume that if you all

 25  can agree in principle that you have something, you don't


 01  want to tell the Board the details until you pound it out

 02  and come back after a more extended recess. 

 03       MR. DODGE:  And equally important, if we can't agree,

 04  that we don't want the terms of our discussion disclosed to

 05  third parties or to the Board or to staff.  In fact, we

 06  filed with the Board last September or October a stipulation

 07  of confidentiality.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You did. 

 09       MR. DODGE:  We would like any party who wants to

 10  discuss the tentative settlement to agree to the terms of

 11  that stipulation.

 12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Forster.

 13       MS. FORSTER:  What were you going to say, Jerry?

 14       MR. JOHNS:  I was going to ask the parties here, are

 15  they willing to agree to that or not?

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is that agreeable to the parties for

 17  the purposes of discussion, to keep it confidential? 

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  If I could just ask for clarification at

 19  this point.  I know that since we are an organization, I

 20  know principals of the organization, they must have some

 21  circle of people that are allowed to know.  Right?  For

 22  instance, Buddy Hoffman probably knows about the terms of

 23  the settlement.  Again, within your organization we have a

 24  circle of people who are our decision making, you know,

 25  participate in the decision making.  We would like them to


 01  be privy to it as well.  Since we have Heidi Hess-Griffin,

 02  the secretary and treasurer of our group, she should be

 03  privy to it, I would think. 

 04       With that understanding, that would be fine. 

 05       MR. DODGE:  As long as the people who are privy to it,

 06  agree to keep it just to yourselves, that is not a problem.

 07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And, of course if it doesn't go

 08  forward, that confidentiality still abides, so to speak.    

 09       MR. DODGE:  That is actually the purpose of it, of

 10  course.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Absolutely.

 12       Is BLM agreeing?

 13       MR. RUSSI:  I would agree to going along with the

 14  stipulation of confidentiality.

 15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's ask this, is there any party

 16  who objects? 

 17       Mr. Haselton? 

 18       MR. HASELTON:  We agree.  Same concern as Ms. Bellomo

 19  had within -- I represent basically two entities.  That I

 20  just need to have definition of who I can share that with.

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  If I hear this, then you have

 22  confidential circles that you are all separately a part of

 23  which do not extend very far and which you need to share

 24  information with them in order to get authorization to

 25  either agree or disagree, so to speak. 


 01       I don't see anybody objecting to that, so, that being

 02  the case -- I am sorry, Mr. Dodge. 

 03       MR. DODGE:  I was going to add, I think at least within

 04  the group that has this tentative settlement, our feeling

 05  is, subject obviously to Board's decision, but our feeling

 06  is that if there is some party to this proceeding that does

 07  not agree in principle to the settlement, that we ought to

 08  proceed with testimony.  And that if, on other hand, all

 09  parties agree in principle to the settlement that we ought

 10  to defer testimony for a period of time and try to get an

 11  agreement in writing. 

 12       Now, let me say that this is not the simplest

 13  settlement that I have ever dealt with, and, you know --

 14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I don't find that hard to believe.  

 15       MR. DODGE:  There will be many steps between an

 16  agreement in principle and a written agreement.  I happen to

 17  believe that the parties that have been privy to these

 18  negotiations are all acting in good faith, and those steps

 19  can be taken.  But there is no guarantee of that.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Certainly, the reason we are all

 21  here is for one main reason, and that is to provide not only

 22  the protection of the Lake, which we have done to some great

 23  degree, but also protection of the streams and the

 24  waterfowl. 

 25       And anything that we can do to facilitate that and


 01  expedite that is something that this Board is very, very

 02  interested in.  So, I certainly am amenable to -- let's

 03  start out by granting at least a half hour recess right now,

 04  and then see where that brings us, and when we come back we

 05  can have some more discussion. 

 06       Again, I would say, I would want to consult with Mr.

 07  Frink when we get to that point, a half hour from now.  I

 08  can certainly see a situation where it might not make a lot

 09  of sense to continue today if you have an agreement in

 10  principle with everybody.  But we can get to the details of

 11  that in a little while. 

 12       MR. DODGE:  I would think that the rest of the day

 13  would best be spent by Ms. Bellomo and her group and the

 14  Arcularius group and the BLM getting on the phone, to

 15  whomever they have to get on to the phone to, and rather

 16  than testimony.  But, again, it is up to you.

 17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That may very well be.  That is

 18  where I personally come down.  We'll -- why don't you have

 19  your half hour discussion and come back and see where we

 20  are.  I just don't want to jump ahead of everybody and not

 21  allow them to have their say. 

 22       Let's try for a session in about ten minutes to --

 23  let's just make it 3:00.  Will that help? 

 24       Why don't we all come back at 3:00, and we will just

 25  kick it around a little bit and see where we are. 


 01                         (Break taken.)

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right.  Welcome back everybody. 

 03       Do we have a report?

 04       MS. BELLOMO:  May I report for our group?

 05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please, Ms. Bellomo.

 06       MS. BELLOMO:  We need to consult with members of our

 07  group, and we would like to get back to you tomorrow morning

 08  with some sort of response, maybe a final response or status

 09  report.  Until we talk to people, I wouldn't know. 

 10       So my proposal would be that we continue this afternoon

 11  to make use of the time, in the event this doesn't manifest. 

 12  Then we are still going to need to go forward with

 13  cross-examination of people.  Seems like a good time, time

 14  well spent if we did that today.  But anyway, I certainly

 15  would leave that up to you. 

 16       The other questions that I had was without divulging

 17  any of the terms of the settlement, is there any possibility

 18  that there is anyone on the Water Board staff that could be

 19  made available to us just to help us understand what the

 20  process would be like if there isn't a settlement, not to

 21  talk about the settlement itself.  I don't know that we

 22  really understand the proceeding well enough here to know

 23  what is it we are giving up or how a settlement would be

 24  dealt with or anything like that.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It depends on the settlement. 


 01  Depends on the details of the settlement.  I don't know.  Is

 02  that appropriate, Mr. Frink? 

 03       MR. JOHNS:  We can address some of that now. 

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Depends on how the parties felt

 05  about it, obviously.

 06       MR. FRINK:  I would say that everyone should understand

 07  that, even if a settlement is reached among the parties, the

 08  Board still has to be satisfied that the plans or elements

 09  of the plans that it directs to be implemented, meet the

 10  requirements of Decision 1631.  And it is conceivable that

 11  the parties may come up with a proposed settlement that

 12  doesn't do something that the Board wants done or it is

 13  conceivable that they propose that the Board oversee

 14  something that the Board isn't interested in overseeing.  It

 15  can greatly, greatly shorten and simplify the procedure.

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is what I meant by depends on

 17  the settlement. 

 18       MR. FRINK:  Even if a settlement is reached amongst the

 19  parties, it is not the end of the process.  The Board would

 20  put out a proposed decision, and there would have to be a

 21  Board meeting adopting it and so forth.

 22       MS. BELLOMO:  Proposed decision on the settlement?  Or

 23  decision on the settlement or --

 24       MR. FRINK:  They would put a proposed order on the

 25  reclamation plan, maybe based very much on the settlement, 


 01  if the Board decided that is the way to go.

 02       If the Board decided that the settlement did not cover

 03  a lot of things that it thought should be covered and it

 04  wanted more evidence, it could resume the hearing.  But we

 05  wouldn't know that until the Board sees and can discuss the

 06  settlement.

 07       MS. BELLOMO:  If there were a settlement that was a

 08  settlement of some of the parties, but not all of the

 09  parties, then what is the procedure here?

 10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Say potential procedure. 

 11       MS. BELLOMO:  Would you go through --

 12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Some of the parties are -- let's 

 13  say some of the parties settled, and that could be brought

 14  into the hearing record and other parties could examine it,

 15  and the Board can take its final action considering the 

 16  settlement, giving weight of evidence to whatever way it

 17  feels is appropriate.

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  We would go forward with the presentation

 19  of the parties and their original testimony, those that had

 20  not settled?

 21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.  In short, we would -- it

 22  would somehow be folded into this proceeding.  It might have

 23  an impact on who would be interested at that point in

 24  cross-examining or how much they would want to do.  But we

 25  would still see the process to the end, in some fashion.


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  If there was a settlement signed by all

 02  the parties, then would there be no further presentation of

 03  evidence by those parties?  For instance, our group would

 04  then not present our testimony here, or would you go forward

 05  and take all the testimony, enter it into the record that it

 06  already has been offered?

 07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Again, it depends on the details of

 08  the settlement.  If you were to tell us today that all --

 09  this is hypothetical.  If you all would come and say, "Gee,

 10  we think we are real close to something.  We don't know what

 11  value it is to continue going through the process that we

 12  are going through now; we'd like a recess for a week or so

 13  because we think we are going to be able to put this thing

 14  on paper, and we think you are going to like it, Board."  I

 15  can't speak for Ms. Forster, but I think I would be amenable

 16  to that. 

 17       The other thing I would not want to do, though, is I

 18  would not want what we have done here thus far to get stale,

 19  if you will.  I would not want to give too much time. 

 20  Because, if things did not work out among the parties, we

 21  might have to come back in here sooner than later and keep

 22  all this going.  We all have a lot invested in this.  I just

 23  don't want to throw this out.  Some time, some hiatus would

 24  be appropriate if we all agreed to it.

 25       MR. JOHNS:  It also might be helpful if the parties


 01  could dress through their stipulation, or perhaps outside of

 02  that, how they wanted the rest of the hearing to go.  It is

 03  possible, for example, that we could rely on the written

 04  testimony that has been presented, and not have to go

 05  through the oral testimony and the cross and the rebuttal

 06  and all that stuff.  As you guys talk about those kinds of

 07  actions, it would help us a lot to get input from you on how

 08  you thought we should proceed from here.

 09       MS. BELLOMO:  I could ask of the other parties, do you

 10  have rules of practice and procedure that govern settlement

 11  procedures here?

 12       MR. FRINK:  Not really.  I do have -- the Board has

 13  that experience in one other instance in which a proposed

 14  settlement was offered, and everybody thought that it

 15  resolved everything.  It turned out that it didn't, and the

 16  status of the evidentiary record was left very unclear.  I

 17  don't think we want to get into that again.  A number of the

 18  exhibits and a lot of the testimony have already been

 19  admitted into the record. 

 20       It would probably be helpful if, as a part of the

 21  settlement proposal that the parties who made that,

 22  stipulated to submit the remaining exhibits.  That way we

 23  wouldn't be in a bind if there were some loose ends that we

 24  needed some evidence on.

 25       MS. BELLOMO:  That answers my question. 


 01       Thank you.

 02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Bellomo.

 03       Mr. Haselton, were you going --

 04       Where is Mr. Haselton?

 05       I think you wanted to speak, and then we will go to Mr.

 06  Russi.

 07       MR. HASELTON:  I apologize for causing any delay. 

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That's all right.

 09       MR. HASELTON:  I think I might have made a mistake in

 10  using the term "horse trade" with my client who is a

 11  cattleman, and they never use that term.  It goes into a

 12  whole different realm.  Takes you literally.

 13       MEMBER BROWN:  You used the wrong species. 

 14       MR. HASELTON:  I did.  I've been hanging around with

 15  those folks for a long time. 

 16       First of all, I want to extend my appreciation to Mr.

 17  Birmingham, Mr. Dodge, Mr. Roos-Collins, Ms. Cahill for

 18  taking the time to make sure we understood what their

 19  thoughts are and concerns. 

 20       Our concern has always been, as kind of a unique party

 21  of having access to this whole proceeding, and as I

 22  understand it, please anybody interrupt me, as I understand

 23  it, that this idea of a settlement is something that we are

 24  being asked to agree with in principle.  There is going to

 25  be a set time frame until we see something in writing, to


 01  then which we may or may not commit to. 

 02       Is that correct? 

 03       UNIDENTIFIED VOICE:  Correct. 

 04       MR. HASELTON:  With that understanding, we do, on

 05  behalf of my clients, the Arcularius Ranch and United Cattle

 06  Company, to agree to those, that understanding.

 07       With that, thank you.

 08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Haselton. 

 09       Mr. Russi, did you have something?  You were probably

 10  another person that was out on the phone, I guess.  Is that

 11  right? 

 12       MR. RUSSI:  I was talking on the phone, yes.

 13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Keep track in my head who is in and

 14  who is about to come in, or whatever.

 15       Go ahead.

 16       MR. RUSSI:   Thank you.  I cannot say for certain here

 17  today that BLM will agree to be part of the process.  I can

 18  only tell you that there is a high likelihood that once I

 19  talk with people here in Sacramento tomorrow morning that I

 20  will be instructed or someone will be instructed to become a

 21  part of the process or proceeding towards reaching a

 22  settlement. 

 23       As a public land agency, we are basically required to

 24  enter into things like that.  I think that is what is going

 25  to happen for us.


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We certainly want to give you time

 02  to talk to your principals, and certainly Ms. Bellomo time

 03  to talk to the people that she is representing.  I just need

 04  to raise the question with regard to the availability of

 05  these witnesses. 

 06       Does it make any sense to at least finish this panel

 07  tonight, so we can at least have a reasonable cutoff point

 08  on the record?  How about that?  Or is there another

 09  availability? 

 10       MR. DODGE:  Peter and Scott will be back Wednesday

 11  morning.  I would like to finish with Larry Harrison.

 12       MR. VORSTER:  I wasn't going to be back Wednesday

 13  morning.

 14       MR. DODGE:  That's right. 

 15       I would like to finish with --

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We have not yet heard from Ms.

 17  Scoonover for cross-examination, nor from the City of Los

 18  Angeles, Department of Water and Power, and then we would go

 19  to potential of redirect and recross. 

 20       MR. DODGE:  I think the most important thing is for the

 21  People for the Preservation of Mono Basin to use their time

 22  to consider their position.  But, again, if people have

 23  limited questions of Mr. Harrison, maybe we can at least

 24  finish him.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  What that means, of course, is that


 01  if we don't proceed any further today, then we are,

 02  obviously, going to have to come up with a new schedule,

 03  with another day added, because -- is there a problem for

 04  Mr. Mesick, as well?  Maybe I am losing track of all of

 05  this.  If we don't finish with this panel today, and we

 06  don't get to Mr. Mesick today, then, obviously, we are going

 07  to have to add another day beyond Wednesday if, in fact, we

 08  have to continue with the extended hearing, so to speak.

 09       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  We have not yet started Cal Tout's

 10  panel.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Right.

 12       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  Dr. Mesick is not available

 13  tomorrow.  He is available Wednesday.  Dr. Stine is

 14  available Wednesday morning.  However, Mr. Vorster, who is

 15  the third member of the panel, will not be available after

 16  this afternoon on the remaining days we have designated this

 17  week.

 18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Has anybody kept track of this.  I

 19  don't think I am available.  

 20       Ms. Forster.

 21       BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:  I have a question about how this

 22  proceeds.  If there are several parties that are working

 23  towards an agreement on the settlement, why would they have

 24  to continue to cross-examine and do that?  Is it just to put

 25  a closure on this.  I mean, I can see why --


 01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It really isn't necessary.  Just an

 02  attempt at practicality.

 03       BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:  I am not denying anybody.  Maybe

 04  they don't want to do it.

 05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is why I am raising the

 06  question.  It is a question, if people are available.  I

 07  have no problem with adding another day or two for the

 08  entire proceeding.  I would like to hear from all of you. 

 09  We try to be accommodating.  If people have other things to

 10  do with their lives, I realize that. 

 11       Mr. Birmingham is going to help us out here.  I just

 12  feel it.

 13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am not sure I will help you out.  I

 14  do have questions for this panel.  But the reason that I

 15  jumped up at 2:00 this afternoon and asked for the recess

 16  was because I am confident that we will reach an agreement

 17  which, ultimately, the Board will like.  And I don't see any

 18  purpose in going forward with the cross-examination of any

 19  witnesses if the prospects of reaching an agreement is good. 

 20  And from my perspective and, I think, Mr. Dodge and the

 21  other lawyers who have been involved, will agree that there

 22  is very good prospect. 

 23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me put it this way, if anybody

 24  has a compelling need to continue with the cross-examination

 25  of these witnesses, understanding full well that if we don't


 01  come to an agreement, we may have to add extra days.

 02       Any problem with that anywhere?

 03       MS. BELLOMO:  I just have one comment. 

 04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, Ms. Bellomo.

 05       MS. BELLOMO:  Which probably can be accommodated, 

 06  given everyone's schedule here, which is, that in the event

 07  that we don't reach settlement, I don't have any problem

 08  with the idea of going forward with additional days.  But

 09  could we stick with tomorrow, my husband and I testifying? 

 10  I am not sure that he will be able to come back again after

 11  these three days.  And it sounds like, tomorrow, many people

 12  aren't available, anyway.  Would that be possible if we

 13  don't reach settlement and if we don't continue on later

 14  today?

 15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, I think what we might do, we

 16  are all here now, anyway.  I presume we are all going to be

 17  here in the morning.  Why don't we do this, why don't we all

 18  -- you are going to talk to your people, the people you

 19  represent tonight, and maybe that is a question that won't

 20  need to be answered tomorrow morning, and maybe what I

 21  should is maybe we will already have the answer to that by

 22  the reaction that you get.  If we all come back here

 23  tomorrow morning at 9:00, we'll hear from you first, Ms.

 24  Bellomo, on how things went with your folks and maybe that

 25  will give us some enlightenment on how to proceed.


 01       MS. BELLOMO:  Could I ask who will be available

 02  tomorrow to testify, if, in the event we go forward, so we

 03  have some idea if we are testifying tomorrow, if we  don't

 04  settle?

 05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, my understanding is that Mr.

 06  Vorster and Dr. Stine will not be here tomorrow.  Mr.

 07  Harrison will not be here tomorrow; is that correct?

 08       MR. HARRISON:   Can be here tomorrow. 

 09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You can be, sir?  All right.

 10       MR. HARRISON:  It is up to Bruce.

 11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It would mean that the staff is

 12  going to have look at the schedule again and make sure that

 13  we have everybody covered.  We will be as accommodating as

 14  we can.

 15       Mr. Frink or Mr. Johns, excuse me.

 16       MR. JOHNS:  Actually, we could start out tomorrow as

 17  set forth in the February 10th memo.  We can start with

 18  Terry Russi, finish off with the cross of Terry, and then

 19  Ms. Bellomo and then take up Fish and Game.  Skip over the

 20  parties that are currently in agreement and perhaps put off

 21  Fish and Game, depending on how they wanted to proceed.  If

 22  they want to present their case until after they solve what

 23  happened with the negotiations.  We could finish off Terry

 24  and get into the Bellomos tomorrow, if that is agreeable.

 25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  My understanding is that everybody


 01  is going to be here tomorrow except certain members of this

 02  panel and Mr. Mesick; is that right?

 03       So, we will just do the best we can from there.  The

 04  schedule is what it is.  We will hear from Ms. Bellomo

 05  tomorrow, and then we will see where we are.  And if we have

 06  to proceed, we will fashion it as best we can.

 07       Mr. Dodge.

 08       MR. DODGE:  Does the Chairman wish Mr. Harrison to come

 09  back tomorrow or when this panel finishes up?

 10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, I had this sense of order.  I

 11  get the distinct feeling that nobody wants to finish today

 12  when I asked a little while ago.  I don't know.  I leave

 13  that up to somebody wiser than myself.  I am flexible. 

 14       MR. DODGE:  I would suggest that Mr. Harrison not come

 15  back tomorrow, and we start with Mr. Russi tomorrow.

 16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right.  Any objection with that? 

 17  Any problems with that?

 18       MS. BELLOMO:  Followed by the Bellomos? 

 19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Sorry? 

 20       MS. BELLOMO:  Does Mr. Dodge mean, followed by the

 21  Bellomos? 

 22       MR. DODGE:  I would be happy to have the Bellomos come

 23  next.

 24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right. 

 25       You sure you want to ask?  Go ahead, Mr. Haselton.     


 01       MR.  HASELTON:  So, following the schedule, then am I

 02  to understand that Mr. Russi and after the Bellomos, but

 03  then Fish and Game will not present a panel?  Is that my

 04  understanding? 

 05       MR. DODGE:  Time permitting, we will go forward.

 06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will just forge ahead tomorrow if

 07  we don't have strong principles in agreement. 

 08       Hang on just a moment. 

 09                 (Discussion held off record.)

 10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Back on the record. 

 11       Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your indulgence. 

 12  We'll be back tomorrow 9:00, and we will hear from Ms.

 13  Bellomo, and we will proceed in the order we discussed a

 14  moment ago.

 15       Mr. Roos-Collins.

 16       MR. ROOS-COLLINS:  There are two parties you have not

 17  heard from, Trust for Public Land and Dr. Ridenhour.  We

 18  have calls into them to determine their willingness to

 19  follow the process we have discussed.

 20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.  And then you will

 21  perhaps give us some feedback tomorrow morning, as well.    

 22       Thank you all for your patience.  See you at 9:00 a.m.  

 23       MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you.

 24                (Hearing adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)



 01                     REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE




 04                        )    ss.  






 08       I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the

 09  official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein,

 10  and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand

 11  writing those proceedings;

 12       That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be

 13  reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 1114 through

 14  1269 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record

 15  of the proceedings.


 17       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate

 18  at Sacramento, California, on this

 19  6th day of March 1997.






 24                         ______________________________       

 24                         ESTHER F. WIATRE

 25                         CSR NO. 1564


Search | Contents | Home
Copyright © 1999-2020, Mono Lake Committee.
Top of This Page