|
|
||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
September 4, 1998 Arthur F. Godwin, Esq. Griffith, Masuda & Godwin P.O. Box 510 Turlock, CA 95381-0510
Dear Mr. Godwin: BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING: RESPONSE TO SOUTH DELTA MOTION Thank you for the response you filed on behalf of the San Joaquin River Group Authority (SJRGA) dated August 21, 1998, regarding South Delta Water Agency’s motion to extend the deadline for submitting evidence, including written testimony, for Phase 2A. On August 18, 1998, I advised the parties by letter that Mr. Caffrey had ruled that South Delta Water Agency’s motion was granted, and extended the deadline to September 15, 1998. In your August 21, 1998 response, you questioned the interpretation of Phase 2A that Mr. Herrick stated in his motion, and asked that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reaffirm certain points. In fact, both your interpretation and Mr. Herrick’s interpretation are essentially correct with respect to your own roles in Phase 2A. The statements in the ruling dated July 16, 1998 and the provisions in the August 12, 1998 supplemental notice remain in effect. If you believe there is any conflict between the two documents, the provisions in the August 12, 1998 supplemental notice will prevail. From the perspective of the signers of the San Joaquin River Agreement (SJRA), Phase 2A is an opportunity to provide additional evidence to the SWRCB, supporting establishment of the responsibilities of the proponents of the SJRA as set forth in the SJRA. If necessary, the signers of the SJRA will be allowed to put on their adversarial evidence and legal argument against each other and against other parties later in the hearing when relevant. Fom the perspective of the opponents of the SJRA, if the SWRCB were to adopt a decision consistent with the SJRA after Phase 2A but before the end of the hearing, Phase 2A might be their last and only opportunity (1) to present adversarial evidence about the responsibilities of the water right holders in the San Joaqin River watershed, and (2) to advocate an alternative other than the SJRA. Furthermore, the opponents of the SJRA may consider it necessary to put on evidence about the other alternatives. This is appropriate in Phase 2A. Thus the scope of preparation for Phase 2A differs for the proponents and opponents of the SJRA. If you have any questions about this letter, you may contact Barbara J. Leidigh, Senior Staff Counsel, of the Office of Chief Counsel at (916) 657-2102. Sincerely, /s/ Walt Pettit Executive Director |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
