1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3 --o0o-- 4 5 DIAMOND FARMING COMPANY, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. NO. RIC344436 8 CITY OF LANCASTER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 / And consolidated actions 11 / 12 --o0o-- 13 14 DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. 15 VOLUME III 16 Monday, June 24, 2002 17 2:12 P.M. 18 19 REPORTED BY: ANGELA C. ROSS, CSR 10073, RPR 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 3 EXAMINATION BY: Page 4 MR. ZIMMER ............................ 5 5 MR. JOYCE ............................ 71 6 7 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY: 8 MR. ZIMMER ........................... 97 9 10 --o0o-- 11 12 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 13 14 (No exhibits marked for identification.) 15 --o0o-- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 3 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Plaintiff Diamond Farming: (Appearing by telephone) 4 LEBEAU, THELEN, LAMPE, McINTOSH & CREAR 5 5001 East Commerce Center, Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 6 BY: ROBERT JOYCE, ESQ. 7 For the Plaintiff, WM Bolthouse Farms: 8 (Appearing by telephone) 9 CLIFFORD & BROWN 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 10 Bakersfield, California 93301 BY: RICHARD ZIMMER, ESQ. 11 12 For the Defendant City of Lancaster: (Appearing by telephone) 13 STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH 14 680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, California 92660-6622 15 BY: LIAM CONNEL, ESQ. 16 For the Defendant Antelope Valley Water Company: 17 (Appearing by telephone) 18 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 3625 Del Amo Boulevard, Suite 350 19 Torrance, California 90503 BY: JOHN TOOTLE, ESQ. 20 21 For the Defendants Palmdale Water District and Quartz Hill Water District: 22 (Appearing by telephone) 23 LAGERLOF, SENECAL & BRADLEY 301 North Lake Avenue, Tenth Floor 24 Pasadena, California 91101-4108 BY: THOMAS BUNN, ESQ. 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 4 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 For the Defendants Los Angeles County Water Works District No. 37 and Los Angeles County Water Works 2 District No. 40: (Appearing by telephone) 3 REDWINE & SHERRILL 1950 Market Street 4 Riverside, California 92501 BY: DAVID HUBBARD, ESQ. 5 6 7 8 --o0o-- 9 10 11 12 DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, take on 13 behalf of Plaintiffs herein, at the offices of Luhdorff 14 & Scalmanini, at 500 First Street, Woodland, 15 California, on Monday, June 26th, 2002, commencing at 16 2:12 p.m., before ANGELA C. ROSS, a Certified Shorthand 17 Report of the State of California. 18 19 --o0o-- 20 21 22 23 24 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 5 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E., 2 having previously affirmed to tell the truth, 3 was examined and testified as follows: 4 5 MR. ZIMMER: All Counsel, agree to proceed at 6 this time? 7 MR. HUBBARD: David Hubbard. I'm ready. 8 MR. CONNEL: Liam Connel. Yes. 9 MR. ZIMMER: I think we have everybody. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. ZIMMER 11 Q Mr. Scalmanini, you understand you are still 12 under oath, the same as last time, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And we do not need to go through all of the 15 admonitions about what we do here and how we ask 16 questions, that sort of thing, correct? 17 A Not as far as I'm concerned. 18 Q Mr. Scalmanini, when we left off last time, we 19 were discussing your report. And to make this a little 20 bit easier by telephone, where it's more difficult to 21 ask questions and get responses, if you could do this 22 for us, if you could look at your report starting on 23 page one under the heading introduction. Do you have 24 that with you, sir? 25 A Yeah. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 6 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q And if you could go through the report and tell 2 us, starting there at the first sentence, sentence by 3 sentence or paragraph by paragraph what your opinions 4 are in that report. 5 A Well, my opinion would be the same as exactly 6 what the first sentence, the whole sentence in the 7 first paragraph is. 8 Q And is that your opinion or is that an opinion 9 that was obtained somewhere else? In other words, was 10 that based on your independent analysis or is it based 11 solely on research by somebody else? 12 A I would probably call that common knowledge in 13 the profession. It is my opinion. I suspect it's the 14 opinion or the technical description that others would 15 provide as well. It's not the result of research, 16 unless you want to call 35 years of practice and 17 schooling before that to be, quote, research to get to 18 a conclusion as to what a ground-water basin may be 19 thought of as. 20 Q What about the second paragraph there on that 21 page? I assume the first sentence is just a quote from 22 Todd? 23 A Did you have a question? 24 Q Is that your opinion or is that simply a quote 25 from Todd? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 7 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Well, do you want me to go sentence by sentence, 2 paragraph by paragraph through the whole report and 3 tell you what my opinions are or do you want to 4 interpret? 5 Q You could do that. 6 A All right. Then we will just go through the 7 whole thing sentence by sentence, paragraph by 8 paragraph. 9 Q Okay. 10 A And your question at the beginning was what are 11 my opinions? 12 Q What are your opinions versus what opinions are 13 stated there that are simply a recapitulation of what 14 somebody else said or tested? 15 A I'll tell you what my opinions are. Okay? The 16 first sentence of the second paragraph is one of two 17 definitions that I found in the literature of the term 18 ground-water basin. And it is there for reference. 19 Such as I'd have an opinion, I'd agree that that is a 20 reasonable definition of the term. 21 The third sentence somewhat qualifies the 22 definition and says that the term is loosely defined in 23 practice. And, again, based on 35 years of practice, 24 I'd agree that it is loosely defined. 25 The next sentence is not an opinion. It's just a ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 8 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 statement of fact that in a publication by Schneider in 2 1977 there is a discussion in the appendix of common 3 ground-water terms and concepts, including a number 4 of -- just what it says, it speaks for itself -- 5 vertical and lateral physical, hydraulic and political 6 boundaries that might be used to define a ground-water 7 basin. 8 Q Can I interrupt you there for a second and ask 9 you a question that I was going to ask you later 10 anyway. Did you determine the vertical boundaries of 11 the ground-water basin that you describe in your 12 report? 13 A What do you mean by did I determine them? 14 Q Did you -- have you expressed in there some 15 opinion as to the vertical boundaries of the 16 ground-water basin that you have described? I know 17 there is a cross section and we talked about that. 18 A Okay. Well, let me ask you a question, the same 19 one I asked you last time: Did you read this report? 20 Q Yes. 21 A Can you flip back a page to the table of 22 contents? 23 Q All right. 24 A Can you see the third sub-item under the third 25 large item? The third large item being The Antelope ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 9 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Valley Ground-Water Basin. The third sub-item says 2 Vertical Ground-water Basin Boundaries. 3 Q I see that. 4 A Then the answer to your question is embedded in 5 that paragraph. There is a description of the vertical 6 extent of the ground-water basin. 7 The next sentence which refers to a document 8 prepared by Richter, says what he used to define the 9 term ground-water basin. So such as I'd have an 10 opinion, it would be that yeah, I've read that and that 11 is what it says. 12 Q That is what it says or you agree that that is 13 the definition? 14 A Both. 15 Q Okay. Go ahead. 16 MR. BUNN: Perhaps we can cut this short a little 17 bit. I haven't attended the earlier sessions, but I 18 have read the transcripts. It seems to me that 19 Mr. Scalmanini has said that this report does state 20 conclusions of other researchers but basically by 21 putting them in his report he has adopted them himself 22 and says that he agrees with that opinion. So perhaps 23 it would be easier if he went through the report and 24 came up with anything that he didn't agree with as his 25 own conclusion. Would that make sense? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 10 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 MR. ZIMMER: I think that makes some sense, as 2 long as we additionally indicate that there is 3 something that he came up with on his own, what is his 4 independent opinion based upon his own research or 5 study. 6 MR. BUNN: Well, all of this is his independent 7 opinion based on his own research or study. And he's 8 testified that he didn't do the field work. 9 MR. ZIMMER: The fact that you made that 10 statement points out why I need to do this. I do agree 11 with you that we can go through the report and we can 12 agree, if Mr. Scalmanini agrees, that everything that 13 is stated in the report he adopts and agrees with if he 14 goes through and tells us in addition to that what his 15 independent opinions are above and beyond simply 16 adopting somebody else's opinion. 17 MR. BUNN: Mr. Scalmanini, does that approach 18 make sense to you? 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I guess. I don't know if I 20 can do it or not, but I guess. 21 MR. ZIMMER: If you can't do it, it may be easier 22 to just continue on as we are. Why don't we just do 23 that? 24 I understand what you are saying, Tom, but it may 25 be easier and clearer just to go through it as we are. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 11 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. And we are going to be done 2 by what time this afternoon? 3 MR. ZIMMER: Hopefully sooner rather than later. 4 THE WITNESS: I'll make you a bet that it will be 5 closer to 5:00 by the time I finish doing just this 6 question, but let's go. And I'm going to leave shortly 7 after that. And then just so you remember from last 8 time, you know, I'm basically not available again until 9 late July. So if you guys want to get this done, we 10 need to figure out a little more efficient way for you 11 to ask questions. 12 But the next sentence I believe says that 13 "'Lateral' boundaries refer to the edges of a basin or 14 separations between basins abutting one another on a 15 (more or less) vertical plane, while 'vertical' 16 boundaries refer to the extent (depth) of a basin along 17 a more-or-less horizontal plane." 18 Those, I think, are my words written here, and I 19 agree with them. And that is a description of 20 how -- or what the words "lateral" and "vertical" would 21 mean for purposes of delineating the extent of a 22 ground-water basin. 23 Q So that is your opinion? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Just to make it a little easier for the court ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 12 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 reporter and perhaps to speed it up a little, if you 2 just simply say the first few words of the sentence 3 that you are talking about, that will identify it 4 sufficiently for the record. And if you indicate the 5 page number, I think that would be sufficient, rather 6 than having the court reporter take down the entire 7 sentence. 8 A Do you have any other ways you want me to answer 9 the questions? 10 Q Not at the moment. 11 A Good. Then I'm going to answer them the way I 12 want. Okay? 13 Q I'll let you know. 14 A I don't care how long this takes or when this 15 gets done, I'm going to answer them the way I want. 16 Okay. The next sentence goes on for another page 17 and a half. And it describes or lists the types of 18 potential lateral and vertical boundaries of a 19 ground-water basin or subbasin. 20 Q Is that your opinion or what you take from some 21 particular writing? 22 A This list, I think, was mostly taken from 23 Richter. But I'd agreed with all of it, in that it 24 describes types of features, physical or otherwise, 25 that have been used or could be considered as potential ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 13 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 boundaries of a ground-water basin or a subbasin or 2 more within a ground-water basin. 3 Q So that takes us to page three, to the sentence 4 beginning "prior to considering"? 5 A Yes. And that sentence after the words "prior to 6 considering" goes on to ultimately say "it is 7 appropriate to consider whether any or all of them 8 should be used for accurate depiction of a basin." 9 Those are my words and I agree with them. 10 And the next sentence goes on to say that in the 11 Richter reference potential lateral basin boundaries 12 are divided into three types. One, those with no 13 appreciable underflow. Two, those with restricted 14 underflow. And, three, those with free underflow. 15 That is what Richter said. That is what I read him to 16 say. And I would agree with it. 17 The next sentence says that a key factor in the 18 Richter organization of types of potential basin 19 boundaries is whether any of them affects or to what 20 degree the movement of ground water. The greater the 21 probability for flow across a potential boundary, the 22 less likely that feature is truly a basin boundary. 23 I think it's fair to say those are my words, but 24 they are consistent with what Richter conveyed in his 25 discussion of the various types of potential ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 14 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 boundaries. And I do agree with them. 2 The next paragraph begins with a statement that 3 all potential lateral boundaries which do not impede or 4 obstruct the movement of ground water are noted by 5 Richter to be inappropriate selections for a basin (or 6 subbasin) boundary. That is what he said. I would 7 agree with it, but not to the literal extent that if 8 there is not 100 percent impedance or obstruction of 9 flow that a boundary can't be an acceptable basin 10 boundary. 11 Then there is a list in the next sentence of such 12 boundaries which do not impede or obstruct the movement 13 of ground water. And they include such things as a 14 ground water divide, the limit of a confined aquifer, 15 an alluvial embayment, a topographic ridge or divide, 16 the shoreline of an ocean, bay or lake, a river stream 17 or unlined canal, and a political boundary. Those are 18 examples of the types of potential boundaries which do 19 not impede or obstruct the movement of ground water. 20 I believe that Richter discussed those. These 21 are my words. I agree with them. 22 "Many of these examples" beginning in the next 23 sentence. "These" being the preceding examples. "Are 24 present in the greater Antelope Valley; however, in 25 light of their uniform characteristic that they do not ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 15 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 impede or obstruct ground-water flow, they should not 2 be considered viable basin boundaries." 3 And, as I said a few moments ago, with the 4 qualifier that there is almost never a perfect basin 5 boundary, then I'd agree with what I wrote there. 6 The next sentence says "As discussed in detail 7 below, that has been the case in the historical mapping 8 and description of the Antelope Valley ground-water 9 basin, with one minor exception." 10 That is what I wrote as a way of trying to 11 globally recognize that these inappropriate basin 12 boundaries, if they were used as such, were not and 13 have not historically been used to describe the spatial 14 extent or the lateral extent of the Antelope Valley 15 ground-water basin. There is one minor exception, 16 which we discussed at some length at the extreme 17 southeast corner of the basin, but otherwise that is my 18 description of how those have historically been 19 accounted for. And I agree with what I wrote. 20 The next paragraph: "The two remaining types of 21 potential ground-water basin boundaries are those with 22 no appreciable underflow or with restricted underflow." 23 We have just discussed one of the three general 24 classifications. These are the two remaining ones. 25 The words sort of speak for themselves. I wrote them. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 16 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 I agree with them. 2 "Those with no appreciable underflow are noted by 3 Richter to be most desirable for delineating basin 4 boundaries because they are generally definable over 5 considerable distances, and they do not affect the 6 movement of ground water." 7 Richter did note those things. I agree with 8 them. In considering, I'll call it, the best potential 9 basin boundaries, those with no appreciable underflow 10 would be most desirable. 11 The next sentence, "They include bedrock 12 contacts, zones of low permeability, faults (in this 13 case, where they form impermeable barriers), and 14 syncline rims. 15 That is a list of the types of boundaries or 16 potential boundaries with no appreciable underflow or 17 flow across them. That is what I wrote. I agree with 18 it. 19 Q You say "I agree with it." You mean that is your 20 opinion? 21 A Yeah. I'd call it more a technical conclusion 22 than an opinion, but that is fine. 23 Q What is the difference? 24 A Say again, please. 25 Q What do you mean? What is the difference you are ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 17 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 making there between a technical conclusion -- 2 A I've examined these kinds of features in physical 3 settings and come to conclusions that there are, I'd 4 say in every case I can think of instantly anyway, no 5 appreciable flow across them. And so technically I 6 conclude that they are legitimate boundaries of a 7 ground-water basin. 8 Next sentence, "With regard to potential basin 9 boundaries with restricted underflow, Richter notes 10 that they 'should be used with caution' because they 11 may not be definable over considerable distances and 12 may not affect the movement of ground water." 13 That was Richter's caution, and I would agree 14 with it. 15 Next sentence: "In other words, the mere 16 presence of such potential boundaries does not 17 necessarily define the boundaries of a ground 18 water-basin; some 'caution' (which can be interpreted 19 as the need for detailed technical support to show that 20 the 'boundary' effectively impedes or obstructs the 21 movement of ground water) needs to be exercised in 22 selecting any of them as a viable ground-water basin 23 boundary. 24 That is -- I don't know -- my expression of the 25 kind of -- I don't know -- caution that should be ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 18 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 exercised in selecting a potential basin boundary with 2 restricted underflow as a viable ground-water basin 3 boundary. 4 Q And that is your opinion? 5 A Yes. Next sentence, "Potential basin boundaries 6 with restricted underflow include: buried bedrock 7 ridges, constrictions in permeable materials, faults 8 (in this case, where they retard rather than fully 9 impede ground-water flow, deep underflow constrictions, 10 aquifer contacts, and crests of anticlines." 11 Those are types of physical features that would 12 fit the general description of potential boundaries 13 with restricted underflow. I wrote them as such 14 illustrations, and I agree with what I wrote. 15 Q That is your opinion? 16 A Yes. 17 Q The next sentence, "Again as discussed in detail 18 below, the historical mapping and description of 19 Antelope Valley ground-water basin has apparently 20 considered these factors." 21 That is what I wrote. And that is my opinion. 22 Q When you say "apparently," what does that mean? 23 Did you investigate that or -- 24 A I read the descriptions of the basin by previous 25 investigators, and it appears that they took the ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 19 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 various -- I don't know -- factors and caution that we 2 discussed a minute ago into account when they 3 delineated the subbasins and ultimately enveloped the 4 subbasins with what would ultimately be considered and 5 described as the outermost bounds of the Antelope 6 Valley ground-water basin. 7 Q You are assuming that is what they did? You have 8 not analyzed it independently? 9 A There is sufficient description in what is 10 written on the subject for me to say that they 11 apparently considered these factors. 12 Q Why do you say they considered those factors? 13 A Because they didn't say they considered those 14 factors, per se, one at a time. 15 Q So they didn't say they considered those factors; 16 you are assuming they did because of your approach to 17 the analysis of this matter? 18 A No. From the way they described what they took 19 into account as basin boundaries and as subbasin 20 boundaries, they appeared to take into account the 21 various factors that we just discussed, and that I 22 discussed in my report. 23 Q They did not discuss what they were, would that 24 be correct? 25 A I don't know. What was your question? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 20 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q You're saying that they apparently considered 2 these factors, and you told me earlier that they did 3 not articulate or delineate exactly what factors they 4 considered, correct? 5 A They did not make a list like appears in my 6 report on pages two and three and then say that we 7 checked them off one at a time or anything like that. 8 They described sufficient of the factors listed on 9 pages two and three that it appears to me that they 10 considered various factors and landed on those that 11 were as close to the best outermost basin boundaries 12 that fit the technical criteria listed or discussed 13 earlier in my report as they could. 14 Q Is your assumption based on reading the report? 15 A It is my interpretation, yes. 16 Q In other words, you were not involved in the 17 report itself or the analysis that led up to the 18 report, these other reports, correct? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q You have not done any independent analysis on 21 your own in that respect? 22 A In what respect? What they did? 23 Q Right. 24 A I didn't do any independent work that was 25 associated with any of those reports, no. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 21 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q Okay. Next paragraph. 2 A Okay. Let's see. Next paragraph begins "One 3 final general comment about basin boundary criteria is 4 that published mapping of the Antelope Valley 5 ground-water basin's lateral boundaries includes 6 faults, a narrow ground water divide, exposed contacts 7 between water bearing and non-water bearing rocks or 8 sediments, and the contact between the water table (the 9 ground water body) and non-water bearing bedrock. 10 And that is my -- or call it interpretation of 11 the published mapping. 12 Q That is your opinion regarding the published 13 mapping? 14 A It's my interpretation of the published mapping. 15 Q When you say non-water bearing bedrock, you don't 16 mean completely non-water bearing? 17 A That is correct. In general in the reports that 18 were discussing the so-called basement complex is also 19 called non-water bearing. In that context I think it's 20 intended to mean that it has some potential. Well, 21 maybe even primary, but certainly secondary porosity 22 and permeable in that it can bear some water, but, 23 relatively speaking, insignificant quantities compared 24 to the unconsolidated materials that lie within the 25 basin. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 22 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 That is consistent with the definitions on the 2 first page of my report, which in both the quotation of 3 Todd and the citations in Richter, both use either the 4 term ground water reservoir capable of furnishing a 5 substantial water supply, in Todd's case, and one or 6 more permeable formations capable of furnishing a 7 substantial water supply in Richter's case. 8 Q I think we talked about capable of providing a 9 substantial water supply as an area that you could dig 10 a well and extract significant amounts of ground water. 11 Is that correct? 12 A I don't remember. 13 Q Would you agree with that? 14 A Say it again. 15 Q As an area where you could drill a well and 16 extract significant amounts of ground water. 17 A What is an area that you could drill a well and 18 extract significant amounts of ground water? 19 Q An area where -- well, used in your definition, 20 an area that would not hold sufficient amounts of 21 ground water or significant amounts of ground water? 22 A What is an area that wouldn't hold a significant 23 amount? You're giving me a half a question or half of 24 a definition. 25 Q I think that you said that a ground water ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 23 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 reservoir -- it applied to an area that contained a 2 ground water reservoir capable of furnishing a 3 substantial water supply. Do you recall that term? 4 A A ground water reservoir containing -- capable of 5 providing a significant amount of water for a water 6 supply? 7 Q You said on page one of your report, which you 8 just read back to us a moment ago -- 9 A Yeah. 10 Q -- that in practice the term ground water basin 11 is loosely defined; however, it implies an area 12 containing a ground water reservoir capable of 13 furnishing a substantial water supply. You were 14 quoting that back to us; do you remember? 15 A Yes. 16 Q I think you were tying that into the concept of 17 whether anything is non-water bearing, and you 18 indicated that non-water bearing is kind of a term of 19 art. It doesn't really mean non-water bearing. It 20 means that it is not sufficient to hold a ground water 21 reservoir capable of furnishing a substantial water 22 supply. Correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q The same would be true on page four of your 25 report where you are talking about bedrock contact and ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 24 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 zones of low permeability, faults, and you have in 2 parentheses "in this case, where they form impermeable 3 barriers." Again, you are not talking about 4 impermeable barriers; you are using that as a term of 5 art, areas of low permeability? 6 A Yes. Significantly low impermeability, right. 7 But there are those that say in nature there is nothing 8 that is truly totally impermeable. And for practical 9 purposes, that is probably correct. So to say 10 impermeable and to interpret it to mean totally 11 impermeable, would be an overinterpretation of the 12 word. 13 Q That is why you are using the definition of 14 whether the area on one side or the other is capable 15 of -- is capable of containing a ground water reservoir 16 capable of furnishing a substantial water supply, 17 correct? 18 A I lost you. 19 Q Well, you're looking at either permeability or 20 porosity and asking yourself whether there is any -- 21 whether this substance, whether it's bedrock or whether 22 it's consolidated material, is capable of furnishing a 23 substantial water supply, correct? 24 A Well, I'm not looking at one or the other, no. 25 Q Okay. Let's go back to your report, and I think ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 25 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 we left off with the non-water bearing bedrock on page 2 four, which leaves us at strictly speaking. 3 A Yeah. 4 Q Is that your opinion, that sentence, or is that 5 replicating somebody else's? 6 A So we are back to the line-by-line review? 7 Q Sure. 8 A Okay. Strictly speaking, the latter boundary, 9 which is the contact between the water table or 10 ground-water body and the non-water bearing bedrock, 11 does not conform to any of the potential ground-water 12 basin boundary criteria listed above. And that is what 13 I wrote and that is my opinion, technical conclusion. 14 Q Using that term interchangeably? 15 A Using what term interchangeably? 16 Q Your opinion, your technical conclusion. 17 A Well, in this case I'm not using them 18 interchangeably, but I'll say them both. I'll let you 19 know when they are one or the other. 20 Q I'm not sure I understand the difference you are 21 coming up with between -- 22 A Well, my understanding is that I can opine on a 23 number of things based on as much information as I want 24 to rely on. And a technical conclusion, as far as I'm 25 concerned, is where I've looked at something ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 26 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 technically, either focused or otherwise, over some 2 period of time, either short or long, and I come to 3 some technical conclusion. In your lingo that might be 4 an opinion, but in my lingo that is a technical 5 conclusion. 6 Q In your lingo how does that differ from an 7 opinion? 8 A In an opinion I may or may not have looked at it. 9 I can in effect opine because I have a certain amount 10 of knowledge about some subject, and I can affect -- 11 just that, opine on it because I have some reference on 12 which I can rely. 13 Q So a technical opinion means you have evaluated 14 it? 15 A No. I think you got it backwards. 16 Q So technical conclusion is because you have 17 independently evaluated it? 18 A Not necessarily independently, but evaluated it 19 to sufficient detail to technically conclude whatever I 20 conclude. 21 Q So from a scientific standpoint, which is 22 stronger, a conclusion -- or a technical conclusion or 23 an opinion? 24 A Technical conclusion. 25 Q Okay. Go ahead. Nevertheless -- ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 27 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A I know where I am. "Nevertheless, it is 2 reproduced on the accompany map (Plate 1), which 3 documents the literature published for the study area." 4 So the edge of the -- or the contact between the 5 water table and the non-water bearing bedrock has been 6 mapped as the edge of the basin in part of the Antelope 7 Valley. So it's reflected on Plate 1. 8 Q When you say "which documents the literature 9 published for the study area" have you -- is that a 10 technical conclusion or is it your opinion or is it an 11 assumption of what was done? 12 A It's a reproduction of mapping which has been 13 done on various bases, meaning base maps, at different 14 scales, at different times and for different studies. 15 Q I guess what I'm asking is have you formed a 16 technical conclusion that Plate 1 documents the 17 literature or have you relied on other people who have 18 done those studies to have done it correctly? 19 MR. BUNN: Are you finished with your question? 20 MR. ZIMMER: I didn't hear you, Tom. 21 MR. BUNN: Are you finished with your question? 22 MR. ZIMMER: Yes. 23 MR. BUNN: I'll object as ambiguous. 24 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: Mr. Scalmanini, do you understand 25 the question? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 28 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A No. 2 Q I'll rephrase it. When you say that Plate 1 3 documents the literature published for the study area, 4 does that mean that you have formed a technical 5 conclusion that Plate 1 documents the literature 6 published for the study area or have you relied on 7 other persons who have studied the area and adopted 8 that? 9 A I guess it's closer to the latter than it is to 10 the former. The sentence speaks for itself. It's just 11 a documentation on one map of what has been published 12 in the literature. 13 Q Okay. So this is not your opinion; it's what is 14 documented in the literature, correct? 15 A It's a reproduction of other people's work. 16 Q That is what I'm saying. Okay. Go ahead. 17 A You know, it's exactly what it says it is. 18 The next sentence, "Technically, the basin should 19 extend beyond the edge of the water table, to some more 20 or less fixed limit on the spatial extent of 21 potentially water bearing materials. 22 Q Have you indicated how far the basin should 23 extend beyond the edge of the water table? 24 A I don't think so. But before I answer for sure, 25 the water table when? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 29 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q At any time. 2 A Well, the water table has varied on the order of 3 hundreds of feet vertically in that ground water basin, 4 which means it's also moved laterally probably hundreds 5 of feet, and neither I nor anyone else that I have seen 6 investigate this question has ever documented where the 7 boundary moves to and from as a function of 8 fluctuations in the water table. 9 Q Now, the fluctuation in the water table if it's 10 hundreds of feet, would it be true that the fluctuation 11 of the horizontal limits would be much greater than the 12 fluctuation vertically? 13 A I don't know for sure. 14 Q I'm saying laterally if it increases hundreds of 15 feet vertically it might expect that laterally you 16 would have more extension, you know, more than a couple 17 hundred feet? 18 MR. BUNN: Objection as to whether you are 19 talking about the limits of a ground water body or the 20 limits of the basin, which is the distinction that he's 21 drawn. 22 MR. ZIMMER: We are talking about the basin. He 23 says the basin should extend beyond the edge of the 24 water table, and he's told us that the water table has 25 fluctuated hundreds of feet vertically and that ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 30 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 laterally you would expect fluctuation of the water 2 table hundreds of feet as well. 3 Q And what I'm asking is if you -- if there was 4 fluctuation of the water table vertically hundreds of 5 feet, would it, in fact, be more than hundreds of feet 6 that you would expect the basin to fluctuate laterally? 7 MR. BUNN: Well, and that is the problem, you 8 just changed from water table to basin. The basin 9 boundaries -- he's testified that the basin boundaries 10 don't move. The water table does. 11 MR. ZIMMER: That misstates his testimony. 12 THE WITNESS: No. You are wrong. That exactly 13 states his testimony. The basin boundary doesn't move. 14 The water table does. And the answer to your question 15 is not necessarily. Meaning should it be more or less, 16 should the horizontal movement of a boundary drawn at 17 the contact between the water table and the non-water 18 bearing basement material move more than the vertical 19 movement of the water table, and the answer is not 20 necessarily. 21 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: In any event, you are saying that 22 the basin will extend beyond the edge of the water 23 table, true? 24 A Yes. I'm saying that it can. I'm not saying 25 that it absolutely does, but I'm saying it can. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 31 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q And it can with the change in the water table, 2 correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you have indicated the water table has 5 changed vertically over the years hundreds of feet? 6 A Yes. In places in that basin. 7 Q And you don't know how that -- how -- what 8 correlation there would be between the vertical rise in 9 the water table and the lateral extension of the basin 10 caused by that? 11 MR. BUNN: Objection. Misstates the witness's 12 testimony. 13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. He's right, that misstates 14 my testimony. 15 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: It's a question. I'm asking you. 16 You told us that the change in the water table can 17 affect how far the basin should extend beyond the water 18 table, correct? 19 A No. I've tried to tell you that -- and tried to 20 say here that the location of the water table should 21 not be used to define the extent of the basin. If you 22 choose to use the water table as a -- I don't know -- a 23 measure of the extent of the basin, then you are by 24 definition picking a moving target as a boundary. The 25 boundary will move in and out as the water table goes ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 32 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 down and up, assuming that the bedrock contact is not 2 vertical at the edge. 3 MR. BUNN: Rich, I don't know if you're trying to 4 trap the witness into something or if you don't 5 understand what he's saying or if you want to argue 6 with him, but he has said numerous times, both today 7 and in the transcripts I've read, that the basin 8 boundary doesn't move. 9 MR. ZIMMER: I don't think he said that. I think 10 that is what you're saying. It doesn't sound like an 11 objection, per se, but I understand what you are 12 saying. 13 Q But it sounds like to me you are saying here, 14 Mr. Scalmanini, that whatever the water table is, the 15 basin should extend beyond that edge, the edge of the 16 water table? 17 A No, I didn't say that. I said that it could. 18 But the basin is not defined by the water table. I 19 think I've made that pretty clear. 20 Q It says here technically the basin should extend 21 beyond the edge of the water table. Is that a correct 22 statement? 23 A The way that it's been drawn here, yes. 24 Q You have told us that the water table can and has 25 varied over hundreds of feet over the years, correct? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 33 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Yes. 2 Q And you're saying -- now you're saying that the 3 basin boundary does not change over the years; is that 4 correct? 5 A Well, now we are into the realm of opinion, that 6 in my opinion a ground water basin boundary should not 7 change with time. 8 Q Has it ever changed? 9 A Did you listen to the answers to the questions 10 the last time? 11 Q To the best of my ability. 12 A Did you read the transcript? 13 Q I've read the transcript. 14 A Then you ought to know the answer. It's yes. We 15 discussed at great length in response to your questions 16 going, you know, I'll call it inch by inch around the 17 boundaries how Carlson's work in the late 1990s, 18 Carlson, et al., had suggested that the boundaries 19 should change from what were originally drawn by Bloyd 20 and subsequently embraced and used by Durbin. 21 Q Let's move on then to the word "unless." 22 A "Unless there are detailed issues about water 23 rights, et cetera, beyond the extent of actual ground 24 water in storage, i.e., on lands that do not (but 25 could) have ground-water storage beneath them, the ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 34 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 utilization of the extent of ground-water storage is 2 not significantly flawed in terms of the defining the 3 extent of the ground-water basin." 4 Q Is that your opinion or what someone else has 5 said? 6 A I think in this case that would probably be my 7 opinion. I don't know that I've read that written by 8 somebody else. 9 Q Ground-water storage, why don't you tell me what 10 that sentence means? 11 A If I took the rest of the afternoon I don't think 12 I could explain to you what the sentence means. 13 Q Maybe not, but you will at least get some kind of 14 opinion on the record here. I can ask you a more 15 specific -- 16 A How about I answer the one you asked first. 17 Okay? 18 Q Okay. 19 A What I think is a reasonable explanation is that, 20 strictly speaking, technically the ground water basin 21 should extend to the horizontal extent of water bearing 22 materials and where that contact occurs with non-water 23 bearing materials as described and discussed here and 24 in this report. 25 Q So when you say the extent -- ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 35 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Can I finish? So if you pick a moving target, 2 meaning the water table, and call it or its contact 3 with non-water bearing materials, the extent of a 4 basin, then you are recognizing or you should be 5 recognizing at the outset that you have a moving 6 ground-water basin boundary. As the water table moves 7 up and down, the extent of the ground-water basin moves 8 out and in. 9 Now, whether or not that is a significant flaw or 10 problem, depends to a large extent on what the nature 11 of the question is that you are asking inside the 12 ground water basin. So if, for example, there is no 13 concern about lands that overlie what might strictly be 14 called part of the basin, where those lands lie outside 15 where there are saturated conditions, meaning that over 16 the basin but beyond where the water table extends 17 horizontally, so to speak, then there is not a great 18 flaw in picking the water table contact with the 19 bedrock complex as a boundary. 20 On the other hand, if there is reason to -- I 21 don't know -- investigate said lands, and let's just 22 say, their right to share of the water that is inside 23 the basin in the saturated part, then it might be much 24 more appropriate to get rid of what might be called a 25 flaw and extend the basin boundary all of the way out ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 36 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 to where it belongs. 2 Q You did a pretty good job there, because I think 3 I understood some of what you said. Let's go on to the 4 next sentence there. 5 A The next sentence summarizes what we have been 6 talking about for a few minutes. "The key point to 7 recognize in using such a boundary," meaning in this 8 case the water table, as with other potentially 9 changing boundaries, "is that the extent of the 10 ground-water basin is then potentially variable: as 11 the water table fluctuates, so does the extent of the 12 basin." 13 Q Is that your opinion? 14 A Yes. I'd probably call that more a technical 15 conclusion, but my practical experience is that for all 16 practical purposes there is no such thing as a 17 perfectly vertical basin boundary, and therefore as the 18 water table fluctuates up and down, the extent of the 19 ground-water body also varies horizontally. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Okay. The next section is entitled "The Antelope 22 Valley," and it's a brief discussion to just describe 23 the setting. "The Antelope Valley is a large 24 internally draining topographic basin in the western 25 part of the Mojave Desert in southern California." ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 37 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q When you say internally draining, does that mean 2 within the watershed? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. Is that your opinion or a restatement of 5 what someone else said? 6 A We can probably call that a packaging of both. 7 That is just an attempt to describe it in very very 8 general terms, you know, where it is and how it occurs 9 in a geographic setting. 10 Q Just to make this a little shorter right here, 11 would that be true as to each of the remaining 12 sentences there on page six under the heading "The 13 Antelope Valley"? 14 A I don't know. I'll read them one at a time. It 15 is of the next sentence. It is of the one after that. 16 It is of the one after that. And it is of the last 17 sentence. 18 Q Okay. Moving on to page seven. First sentence 19 begins "in an Open-File Report 20 A Published in 1967 to describe the water resources 21 of the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, (AVEK) 22 area, the U.S. Geological Survey (Bloyd) described two 23 major ground-water basins in the AVEK area: The 24 Antelope Valley and the Fremont Valley ground-water 25 basins." That is a summary introduction to what Bloyd ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 38 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 did in his U.S.G.S. report in 1967. 2 Q That is what his summary says? 3 A I don't remember for sure, but I'd have to go 4 look, but I think he does say to describe the water 5 resources of the area. 6 The next sentence. "Bloyd's description and 7 mapping of those ground-water basins," meaning the 8 Antelope Valley and Fremont Valley ground-water basins, 9 "included subdivision of them into a number of 10 subbasins, eight in the Antelope Valley and six in the 11 Fremont Valley." And that is my description of Bloyd's 12 description and mapping. 13 "Subsequent to that original U.S.G.S. description 14 and mapping...", the sentence continues, "...the 15 U.S.G.S. prepared a mathematical model of the Antelope 16 Valley ground-water basin (Durbin, 1978) in which it 17 used the same subbasin names and boundaries." That is 18 my description of what Durbin did and reported on. 19 Next sentence, "More recent work by the U.S.G.S. 20 on ground-water levels in the Antelope Valley (Carlson 21 et. all, 1998) has been presented on maps that show 22 slightly different outer ground-water basin 23 boundaries." And that is what I interpreted from what 24 Carlson, et al. mapped. 25 Q That is your opinion on what they mapped? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 39 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Well, it's my interpretation of what they mapped. 2 The next sentence, "However, other than a 3 notation that the changes were based partly on a 4 geophysical evidence from a 1960 gravity survey of the 5 western Mojave Desert and some well construction data 6 that indicated consolidated bedrock near the ground 7 surface in two areas (near Rogers Lake in the North 8 Muroc and northeastern Lancaster subbasins, and 9 southeast of Palmdale in the Lancaster subbasin), there 10 is no description of the modified (smaller) 11 ground-water basin boundaries." 12 Q What are ground-water basins? Means what? 13 A Antelope Valley. 14 Q Is it talking about ground-water basins within 15 the Antelope Valley? In other words, did Bloyd's 16 define the Fremont subbasin and did it define the exact 17 ground-water basins? 18 A Just a minute. 19 MR. BUNN: Perhaps I could help a little bit. 20 When he said "smaller," he's talking about the smaller 21 boundaries that Carlson used as opposed to Bloyd, but 22 in both cases was talking about the Antelope Valley 23 ground-water basin. 24 THE WITNESS: I think the question that is 25 pending for me is whether Bloyd defined both the ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 40 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Antelope Valley and Fremont Valley ground-water basins; 2 is that right? 3 MR. BUNN: Mr. Zimmer, he asked you to clarify 4 your question. 5 MR. ZIMMER: I'm sorry. I missed that. I think 6 I did clarify. I said "correct." 7 THE WITNESS: Then the answer is yes. 8 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: What map are you referring to, 9 Mr. Scalmanini? 10 A I wasn't. 11 Q What are you referring to then? You were just 12 checking that. I can't see what you were doing there. 13 I'm just trying to find out what you were referring to? 14 A I was looking at excerpts from Bloyd's report. 15 Q Any particular page? 16 A No. 17 Q What pages are you looking at or what are you 18 looking at? 19 A I already told you; I'm looking at excerpts from 20 his report, pages 1, 2, 3 and then in the introduction 21 pages 3, 5, 6, 8 -- correction, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 22 19, 20, 21, and briefly at page, I think it's, 38. 23 MR. JOYCE: Was that last page reference page 38? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: In terms of the last sentence in ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 41 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 that page seven, there is no description of the 2 modified smaller ground-water basin boundaries. Is 3 that referring to Carlson? 4 A Yes. 5 Q If there is no description of the modified 6 smaller ground-water basin boundaries, how can you tell 7 what factors he considered? 8 A He or they describe in text on their map what is 9 said in this sentence, geophysical evidence from a 1960 10 gravity survey of the western Mojave Desert and some 11 well construction data that indicated consolidated 12 bedrock near the ground surface in two areas as listed 13 in my parenthetical inclusion in that sentence. That 14 is how I know, because that is what they wrote, what 15 they took into account. 16 Q So that is all you know that they took into 17 account were those factors you just described? 18 A Well, I guess you could say that it would appear 19 to me from interpreting how they wrote, what they wrote 20 that they took in account all of the boundaries that 21 had previously been mapped by Bloyd and continued by 22 Durbin and then they made changes based on updated 23 information on geophysics and well construction 24 information that caused them to slightly modify the 25 boundaries in a few places. That is what we went over ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 42 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 in, I thought, great detail the last time. 2 Q You don't know whether they took any other 3 factors into consideration or not because it is not 4 indicated in the report, and, if so, what the factors 5 were? 6 A They did not delineate any factors other than 7 what they said here and what I repeat as a basis for 8 changing what had historically been mapped as the 9 outermost boundaries of the basin. 10 Q Let's go on to the next paragraph. 11 A Why don't we take a break for a little while? 12 Okay? And then we will -- we've been at it about an 13 hour. So we will come back and pick up with this 14 sentence in a few minutes. 15 MR. JOYCE: How much time, Mr. Scalmanini, so we 16 can let everybody know? 17 THE WITNESS: I don't care. Ten minutes. 18 MR. JOYCE: Five minutes? What do you need? 19 THE WITNESS: I don't need absolutely anything. 20 I'm going to take five to ten minutes. 21 MR. JOYCE: Whether you need it or want it, it 22 doesn't make any difference. I'm just trying to find 23 out. Is it five or ten? 24 THE WITNESS: Let's make it ten. 25 (Break taken from 3:14 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.) ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 43 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: Starting on the second paragraph 2 on page seven, beginning with the Bloyd subdivided 3 language. 4 A Yes. 5 Q "Bloyd subdivided the Antelope Valley and Fremont 6 Valley ground-water basin into subbasins (sometimes 7 called subunits in that report); generally consistent 8 with the criteria listed by Richter above, the 9 subdivisions were based on faults, bodies of 10 consolidated rock, ground-water divides" -- and that 11 should be singular -- "and, in some instances, 12 convenient and arbitrary boundaries." 13 That I think is a reasonable one-sentence summary 14 of what Bloyd did. 15 Q In Bloyd's study there was some indication of the 16 factors relied upon? 17 A Yes. 18 Q That is just a recapitulation of what Bloyd said 19 in his study? 20 A He mapped and described boundaries that included 21 those types of boundaries, yes. 22 "In the case" -- next sentence. "In the case of 23 the Antelope Valley ground-water basin, essentially all 24 of the outer basin boundaries are either bedrock 25 contacts or faults." ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 44 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 And I think I went through at some length the 2 last time that he, Bloyd, did not, strictly speaking, 3 describe the outermost boundaries as the boundaries of 4 the basin but rather described the boundaries of a 5 collection of subbasins, which take in an aggregate 6 form or form the Antelope Valley ground-water basin. 7 So the outermost boundaries of that grouping of 8 subbasins or subunits is described by the outer 9 boundaries as listed in that sentence. 10 Q So you have just taken his study, which describes 11 a bunch of subbasins, and then you have taken all of 12 those internal lines out and you are indicating that 13 that is what the external basin boundary is, correct? 14 A No. 15 Q Bloyd didn't come up with an external basin 16 boundary, correct? 17 A He described both the Antelope Valley and Fremont 18 Valley ground-water basins, but one has to examine the 19 collection of subbasins or subunits in order to figure 20 out what he meant when he called the two ground-water 21 basins Antelope Valley and Fremont Valley. 22 And with regard to your last question about me 23 having taken out the internal boundaries, that is not 24 correct; I didn't. 25 Q In terms of the first sentence in that paragraph, ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 45 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 you're simply restating what Bloyd said; this is not 2 your independent analysis, correct? 3 A No. 4 Q Is that correct? 5 A Say again, please. 6 Q In terms of the first sentence? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Bloyd subdivided. Is that what his study said he 9 did or is that what you are saying he did? 10 A He described a collection of subbasins, sometimes 11 called subunits, which collectively formed the Antelope 12 Valley ground-water basin and the Fremont Valley 13 ground-water basin. 14 Q Is that his description of what he did or your 15 description? 16 A Well, he didn't say those words. So I'll call 17 that my description of what he did. 18 Q The second sentence in the case of the Antelope 19 Valley ground-water basin, is that what he said in his 20 study or is that what you are saying about his study? 21 A He didn't say those words, per se. So they are 22 more my description of what he was describing. But he 23 did not go to really any length that I can remember to 24 specifically describe the outermost basin boundaries. 25 Rather he described in more detail the individual ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 46 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 boundaries of the collection of subbasins or subunits 2 which formed the Antelope Valley ground-water basin. 3 Q Is that your opinion where it says in the case of 4 the Antelope Valley, essentially all of the outer 5 boundaries are either bedrock, contacts or faults? 6 A That is my, you know, summary of what the 7 outermost boundaries as described and mapped by Bloyd 8 would be. 9 Q Is that your opinion? You know, other than 10 summarizing him, is that your opinion? 11 A Yeah, I guess you could say that. That is my 12 conclusion that is what they are. The outer basin 13 boundaries are either bedrock contacts or faults. 14 Q The next sentence? 15 A "Two exceptions are the eastern boundary of the 16 small Peerless subbasin and in the far northeast corner 17 of the basin, and the southeastern corner of the 18 overall basin where it abuts the El Mirage dry lake 19 drainage to the east; both those exceptions are 20 discussed as part of the basin and subbasin boundary 21 descriptions below." 22 I think the sentence pretty much speaks for 23 itself. There are two exceptions to the statement that 24 essentially all of the outer basin boundaries are 25 either bedrock contacts or faults, and those exceptions ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 47 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 are discussed below. 2 Q Is that what Bloyd said that there were two 3 exceptions or is that your opinion? 4 A Bloyd did not say anything about exceptions. 5 That is my expression of the fact that where I said 6 essentially all of the outer basin boundaries are 7 either bedrock contacts or faults, the next sentence, 8 the one we just read, deals with the two exceptions 9 that caused me to use the word "essentially" in the 10 preceding sentence. 11 Q Right. So it's your opinion that there are two 12 exceptions? 13 A It's my interpretation of what he described that 14 there are two exceptions from the entire boundary being 15 either a bedrock contact or a fault. 16 Q Aside from your opinion as to what he was doing 17 in his study or what he said, is it your opinion that 18 all of these basin boundaries are bedrock contacts with 19 the exception of two areas that are described there? 20 A No. 21 Q Is it your opinion that all of the basin 22 boundaries are either bedrock contacts or faults with 23 the exception of those two areas? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Moving on to page eight. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 48 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A The next sentence says that the overall Antelope 2 Valley ground-water basin and its eight subbasins are 3 illustrated in the enclosed Plate 1. That is my 4 description of what we drew in Plate 1. 5 Q That is -- is that Bloyd's opinion, that there 6 are eight subbasins? 7 A Yeah. I thought we just went over that. 8 Q Is it Carlson's opinion that there were eight 9 subbasins? 10 A I don't remember. 11 Q When you say eight subbasins, you don't know 12 whether you are talking about Bloyd or Carlson? 13 A Well, I know I'm talking about Bloyd. I do not 14 remember Carlson discussing subbasins. Carlson, as I 15 think I told you the last time in some detail and we 16 had the maps out, you know, took, I won't say 17 exception, but modified in a small number of locations 18 the outermost boundaries based on updated geophysical 19 information and subsurface exploration, drilling, in a 20 few areas on the south and on the east, as I recall. 21 I don't remember whether Carlson focused or 22 included the northeastern most subbasin of Bloyd, which 23 I think it is called Peerless. It seems to me that he 24 may or may not have. But he didn't discuss all of the 25 subunits or subbasins at all in the brief text, which I ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 49 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 showed to you. You know, it was just included on the 2 map or the sheet or sheets, plural, that formed 3 Carlson's work, or work product, I guess. 4 Q Well, when you drew Plate 1 and when you say that 5 there is eight subbasins, which line are you saying -- 6 strike that. 7 Which line in your opinion is the correct line? 8 A Which line of what? 9 Q Bloyd or Carlson. 10 A Well, if I had to pick, you know, today based on 11 the descriptions of boundaries and available surface 12 mapping and, I'll call it, lack of available subsurface 13 information to which Carlson refers, then I would pick 14 the Bloyd lines. 15 Q The bottom line is you haven't done the studies 16 yourself and don't know, correct? 17 A I think I know from available geologic mapping 18 where the contact between unconsolidated and 19 consolidated materials are and where, you know, map -- 20 excuse me -- faults have been mapped in that valley, 21 and those are the features that I would pick today to 22 say that those are the reasonable outermost boundaries 23 of the ground-water basin. If there is local, site 24 specific subsurface information that is, you know, not, 25 I'll call it, generally available in the record, ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 50 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 borings into the subsurface, geophysical exploration 2 from the surface that would suggest that the geologic 3 mapping that is published as to where the 4 unconsolidated materials end and the consolidated 5 materials start, needs to be changed. Then, I would 6 change accordingly, bigger or smaller. 7 But right now, given the description of boundary 8 factors or boundary criteria and available information 9 on the geologic setting, then I'd pick the mapping of 10 the unconsolidated consolidated contact. 11 Q By Bloyd? 12 A Yes. Actually by Dibblee, but interpreted by 13 Bloyd originally. 14 Q You or your office has not personally done any of 15 these studies yourself, correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q You would have to rely on the reports to the 18 extent of what they report, whether it be Carlson or 19 Bloyd, correct? 20 A Yeah. And Dibblee too, as long as you are going 21 there. 22 Q And you said that based on the features described 23 by -- the features that you are aware of, you would 24 tend to dot the line drawn by Bloyd. What features are 25 you referring to? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 51 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A I just told you. 2 Q You told me generally. 3 A No, I didn't. I told you the bedrock contact 4 between unconsolidated and consolidated material and 5 mapping. 6 Q Based on what report? 7 A I told you. Dibblee's mapping of those geologic 8 features. I told you that the last time too. 9 Q Okay. What you're saying is that Dibblee's 10 geologic mapping is more consistent with the line drawn 11 by Bloyd than by Carlson? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Okay. Next sentence. 14 A It's a sub-heading Lateral Ground-Water Basin 15 Boundaries. "The outmost ground-water basin boundaries 16 illustrated in Plate 1 surround the eight subbasins 17 originally described and mapped by Bloyd; the 18 Lancaster, Buttes, Pearland, Neenach, West Antelope, 19 Finger Buttes, North Muroc, and Peerless subbasins." 20 That is exactly what the boundaries illustrated in 21 Plate 1 do. 22 Q Plate 1 is the diagram that your office prepared? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q When you say the outmost ground-water basin 25 boundaries illustrated in Plate 1, that is a line that ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 52 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 your office prepared? 2 A Yes. 3 Q You're saying it surrounds what Bloyd has done in 4 terms of the subbasins or does it include in subbasins 5 as well? 6 A Well, it both surrounds and includes them. I 7 thought that those sort of meant the same thing. 8 Q Let me ask you this. If you took a pencil or a 9 marker and you drew all of the way around the outside 10 of Bloyd's eight subbasins, right? You follow me so 11 far? 12 A Completely. 13 Q And you erase all of the interior lines. Would 14 the line that you have in red on Plate 1 exactly 15 conform to what Bloyd had on his diagrams? 16 A Well, it's immaterial whether you erase the 17 internal boundaries or not. But if you track around 18 the outermost boundaries of the eight subbasins, then 19 you would have, practically speaking, what Bloyd 20 described and mapped as the Antelope Valley 21 ground-water basin. 22 Q That is what you have intended to depict on your 23 Plate 1? 24 A Basically, yes. 25 Q And the only place that that line would not be ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 53 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 the same as Bloyd's, would be in the southeast corner 2 of the diagram where you have the purple line? 3 A Yeah. I think that is right. 4 Q The next sentence. 5 A "In terms of outer boundaries, the 6 western/northwestern boundary of the basin (and the 7 finger buttes subbasin) is the contact between the 8 unconsolidated alluvial aquifer materials and the 9 consolidated rock of the Tehachapi Mountains." 10 So that is an attempt to describe in words what 11 the -- where the line is drawn in that part of the 12 basin. 13 Q Is that from Bloyd's study? Is that where you 14 are getting that information? 15 A Well, I mean -- I'm happy to answer your 16 question, but isn't it abundantly clear that you just 17 asked me if we drew the line around the outermost 18 boundary of Bloyd's subbasins that we would come up 19 with the basin and now I'm describe the outermost line. 20 It's obviously, yes. 21 Go to the next sentence? 22 Q So you have made that statement solely based upon 23 what Bloyd found, since you haven't done any study of 24 it yourself, correct? 25 A I have, I don't know how many times, said that, ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 54 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 you know, the line there, except where we showed the 2 departure from that line that was drawn by Carlson, et 3 al, is what Bloyd described and basically mapped as the 4 outermost basin boundary. 5 Q If -- 6 A Hang on. I don't know where all you're going, 7 but, you know, I'm going to get to the point of being 8 my own defendant here and get worried. I'm more than a 9 little worried about the fact that you are taking me 10 through the same stuff that we went through last time. 11 And I don't want to take a chance on accidentally using 12 some slightly wrong word or one where you say you said 13 this on this date and that on that date and I meant the 14 same thing and you are going to say that I didn't. So 15 I'm about to say that I've answered all of this 16 already. 17 We went around that line, you know, inch by inch 18 with the map open in front of me the last time. So if 19 that is where you are going again, I think I'll preface 20 it now to say that I've already answered all of that. 21 Q Well, if that is the case, you can indicate that 22 that is Bloyd's opinion and move on quickly. You don't 23 even have to read the whole sentence, if you don't want 24 to. Just the first couple of words would be fine. 25 A No. You tried that before, and I'm going to read ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 55 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 the whole doggone thing into the record, you know. 2 Q The point here, Mr. Scalmanini, is not to overly 3 delay the deposition. It's not a game. 4 A It sure sounds like one to me, sir, with all 5 respect. You are doing exactly the same thing you did 6 the last time. And I'm sorry if that is -- you know, 7 if I sound obnoxious about it, but that is exactly how 8 I take it. I think in some cases you have asked me the 9 same question multiple times over the last two days. 10 And, you know, I'm not trying to hide any balls on you 11 or anything like that. It's pretty straightforward. 12 I explained it globally and specifically the last 13 time we were together. And, you know, to be real 14 honest, you said you had a few minutes of questions 15 left, and now you are laboriously going through line 16 and verse. Pretty soon I'll be deciding where I put 17 the commas and why in the sentences. It's frustrating. 18 Q My permeability level is not high enough maybe. 19 All I'm trying to figure out now, to shortcut this, is 20 whether this is from the Bloyd study or if it's from 21 some independent opinion that you have, you know. 22 A I think I told you that globally also. I'll try 23 to tell you again, that basically, you know, I was 24 asked the question, you know, could an Antelope Valley 25 ground-water basin be defined, and, if so, what is it. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 56 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 And I looked through the literature, and it definitely 2 has been historically defined and studied. 3 That without saying so, per se, that elsewhere in 4 the literature there are, you know, criteria which can 5 be selected and used if one starts from scratch to 6 define a ground-water basin or in this case if one 7 looks somewhere along the course of study at what has 8 been identified as a ground-water basin. 9 And what I did was identify those criteria and 10 then apply them sort of after the fact to see whether 11 or not the original investigator and subsequent 12 investigators had applied those criteria or appeared 13 to, and the answer is yes. I told you that in some 14 detail last time. I'll tell you that again. 15 Q Well, we don't need to go over everything you 16 told us last time. Let me try this. 17 MR. BUNN: I agree that going through this report 18 sentence by sentence is not very useful. I think that 19 what Mr. Zimmer is getting at is that you have 20 indicated generally that you adopt the conclusions of 21 these earlier researchers, but it's also true from your 22 earlier testimony that you don't adopt it lock, stock 23 and barrel. For example, the Carlson lines are not 24 something you necessarily adopt. So what Mr. Zimmer is 25 trying to get at with his questions are which of these ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 57 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 conclusions that you report from Bloyd and Carlson and 2 others you adopt as your own conclusions. 3 Is that fair to say, Mr. Zimmer? 4 MR. ZIMMER: Yes. The other side of it is which 5 ones are simply restatements of what these other 6 fellows said. 7 MR. BUNN: So I appreciate that we have been 8 through all of this before, but I think that is a 9 legitimate question that Mr. Zimmer is asking. 10 And I would also comment, Mr. Scalmanini, don't 11 worry about protecting yourself or the integrity of 12 your testimony. We will do that. Even though we are 13 on the phone, we are listening carefully and we will 14 protect you as we go along. 15 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: So under that section, sir, on 16 page eight and page nine there, under Lateral 17 Ground-Water Basin Boundaries, all of that is simply a 18 restatement or adoption of what Bloyd and/or Carlson 19 described; would that be correct? Or is there some 20 independent opinion in there of yours based on some 21 study you did? 22 A I'll tell you in just a minute. 23 With the exception of Phillips, whose name hasn't 24 been said here today, but was discussed in the last 25 session, who, with Carlson, did some work to close the ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 58 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 kind of open-ended boundaries as they had previously 2 been mapped in the southeast corner of the basin, then 3 what is reflected here is basically the mapping as 4 described and more or less literally is mapped by Bloyd 5 and subsequently by the modifications by Carlson. 6 Q Do you disagree with any of the descriptions in 7 that section? 8 A Do I disagree with any of the descriptions in 9 what section? 10 Q In that section, Lateral Ground-Water Basin 11 Boundaries. Is there anything that you have a 12 differing opinion on? 13 A No. That is what I wrote. 14 Q So that means that you do not disagree with any 15 of the information contained therein? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q You have adopted it? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Down at the bottom of page eight, third sentence 20 from the bottom, it says "recently it, has been very 21 generally mapped to show similar but not identical 22 boundaries." Who are you referring to? What study? 23 A I think mostly, as noted on the map, the work by 24 Carlson and Phillips in '98. 25 Q The next section, Mr. Scalmanini, of your report ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 59 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 on page nine is subbasin boundaries. And I assume that 2 you are -- it's your understanding that we are not 3 talking about subbasin boundaries or the effect of 4 pumping in one area versus another area until Phase II? 5 A I just looked at boundary criteria as listed on 6 or potential boundary criteria as listed on pages two 7 and three of my report, and, I'll call it, the 8 translation or extension of pumping impacts isn't on 9 the list. 10 Q I assume you have seen a copy of the stipulation 11 as far as what we are litigating in Phase I? 12 MR. BUNN: I don't think he has. 13 THE WITNESS: I don't remember that I have. 14 Q BY MR. ZIMMER: But in any event you understand 15 that we are not going to be discussing in Phase I the 16 interrelationship of pumping or lack thereof between 17 pumping of one property versus another property in this 18 area that is the subject of the lawsuit? 19 A If that is a matter of fact, then, yeah, I 20 understand it. 21 Q You simply have been asked as your charge to 22 determine the ground-water basin boundaries? 23 A Yeah, I think I've said that a handful of times. 24 Q Let's move on to the vertical ground-water basin 25 boundaries. In that first paragraph there, just to ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 60 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 shorten this up a little bit, in that first paragraph 2 are there statements of yours in there of your opinion, 3 as opposed to other people's opinions? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Which -- 6 A Well, I don't know about as opposed to, but there 7 are certainly statements of mine. 8 Q Which are statements of yours as opposed to other 9 people's opinions? 10 A Well, I just said I don't know about as opposed 11 to other people's opinions. I'm just telling you that 12 based on my experience that the first sentence is 13 exactly on target. The definition of ground-water 14 basin and subbasins has historically focused more on 15 lateral than on vertical boundaries. 16 Q That is your opinion? 17 A Yes, sir. That is my, I'll call it, technical 18 observation and opinion. 19 Q And your second sentence there? 20 A This is consistent with all mapping and 21 descriptions of ground-water basins throughout 22 California where any vertical, quote, boundaries, 23 unquote, have rarely, if ever, been described. Because 24 they aren't. And they are practically always 25 considered to be the extent of water bearing materials ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 61 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 from the ground surface to the base of fresh ground 2 water or to the base of fresh water bearing materials. 3 Q Again, that is your opinion? 4 A Yeah, that is my -- I don't know -- technical 5 observation, you know, over all the years I've done it. 6 Q The second paragraph. 7 A Okay. In the first sentence says that "In the 8 Antelope Valley, the vertical extent of the 9 ground-water basin has been defined as the contact 10 between the underlying basement complex rocks and the 11 overlying unconsolidated continental deposits, older 12 alluvium, and younger alluvium, (Nishikawa and Martin, 13 2001.)" 14 Q Is that a statement taken from that study? 15 A No, it is not. There is no quote. 16 Q Is that your summary of what that study was? 17 A It's a summary, my summary of what they reported 18 the vertical extent of the ground-water basin to be. 19 Q Would the same be true for the last sentence -- 20 paragraph? 21 A Just a second. Yeah. I'd say that that is how I 22 would describe the difference between the consolidated 23 and unconsolidated materials. And they may or may not 24 have said that. I just looked. Nishikawa and Martin 25 were developing a numerical ground-water flow model and ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 62 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 didn't do a, quote, study, unquote, of the extent of 2 the ground water basin. And their work was focused in 3 the Edwards Air Force Base area portion of the overall 4 basin. 5 Q So with regard to that second sentence, is that 6 your opinion or is that the opinion from the Nishikawa 7 study or report, however you want to describe it? 8 A Well, I don't remember whether they said those 9 words or not, to tell you the truth. But it's 10 certainly how they describe it. That is what I said a 11 minute ago. The difference between the unconsolidated 12 continental deposits and alluvium that have a high 13 potential to store and readily transmit water to those 14 underneath those formations that do not. 15 Q The next paragraph, "The Antelope Valley was 16 formed," is that your opinion or are you taking that 17 from somebody else? 18 A I think -- I'm pretty sure that that is taken 19 from some geologic work of others, but I don't remember 20 specifically who might have written up that geologic 21 history. 22 Q Did you look at any other geologic history other 23 than Dibblee? 24 A Dibblee is -- well, it's got geologic history and 25 geologic mapping. There is, I think, a geology ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 63 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 discussion in most of the references, certainly those 2 that specifically relate to the Antelope Valley 3 ground-water basin, in our report. 4 Q In any event, you took that from some other 5 source and adopted it? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The second sentence there, would that be true as 8 to that sentence also, the sentence that begins 9 "basement complex"? 10 A Yeah. That is based on geologic description by 11 others. We did not do any field investigation to 12 identify, confirm, update or otherwise change the 13 fundamental geologic description of the area. 14 Q Would that be true for the remaining description 15 there in that paragraph on page ten? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Going on to page 11, starting with the sentence 18 that says -- I'm not sure I'm pronouncing this 19 correctly -- lacustrine -- 20 A Uh-huh. 21 Q -- deposits. 22 Is that taken from some geologic text or is it 23 taken from that Carlson study that is in the parens or 24 is that your independent analysis? 25 A I think that the reason we cited Carlson was that ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 64 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 they discussed that confining bed or just what it's 2 called there, thick, areally extensive lens-shaped body 3 of fine grained, low permeability sand, silt and clay. 4 It has been recognized in describing the layers 5 of the aquifer system in the basin, I think from the 6 earliest work, Bloyd and on. There have been different 7 names applied to the uppermost and lowermost aquifers, 8 but they -- but that clay layer in effect or confining 9 bed has been recognized by various investigators. I'd 10 say probably from water well drillers on forward to 11 geologists and hydrologists and engineers who have 12 studied the area. 13 Q You don't know because you weren't involved in 14 that study? You didn't come up with that definition, 15 correct, you are simply adopting it from -- 16 A That is correct. 17 Q -- from some other text? 18 In terms of the sentence saying this confining 19 layer lies close to, or at the surface, et cetera, is 20 that from Durbin, Sneed and/or Galloway? 21 A Well, there is no "or" in there, but, yes, it's 22 acknowledged in all of those. 23 Q Again, this is something that you did not study; 24 you just adopted this, correct? 25 A Yeah. It's been, I'll call it, continuously and ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 65 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 consistently reported in depictions geologic cross 2 sections of the basin, derived primarily from 3 interpretation of water well drillers' reports and 4 other borings into the subsurface. 5 Q And that is what your understanding is from, 6 based on looking at the studies? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q I think we talked about the cross sections at the 9 time of your last deposition. And I think you said 10 there was at least two different cross sections, maybe 11 more. 12 A What was your question? Any more? 13 Q Or maybe more. 14 A Yes. 15 Q You said there was one on your diagram. On Plate 16 1 you have one cross section? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q You said there was at least one other. A, B? 19 A I thought it was B, but I think I said at the end 20 last time that when I found it it wasn't B, but I think 21 there was also an A-A prime in some other 22 investigation. 23 Q Are you aware of any other cross sections other 24 than those two, the one you have on your plate and this 25 other one? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 66 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Yeah, I think there are others. I don't remember 2 specifically. 3 Q Who did the other one that you are talking about 4 that is not listed on your Plate 1? 5 A I think Durbin did or had some in his work. I 6 don't remember beyond that. 7 Q At the last sentence beginning with "near the 8 boundary," do you know where that information came 9 from? 10 A Not from instant memory. I don't know. 11 Q It was not your study, correct? 12 A Obviously not. We didn't do one. 13 Q All right. The last paragraph there talking 14 about -- beginning with line "three aquifers have been 15 defined in the Lancaster Basin"? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Those citations there correct as to where you 18 obtained that information? 19 A Yes. I said a few minutes ago that the names of 20 the aquifers have changed with time. What would be 21 called the upper aquifer today was called the principal 22 aquifer by Bloyd and Durbin and in the late '60s and 23 late '80s. The middle aquifer and then the lower 24 aquifer was previously called the deep aquifer by 25 Durbin. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 67 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q You have simply restated there what these other 2 studies indicated? 3 A Those are names that were assigned to the aquifer 4 materials in the subsurface as a function of in general 5 depth from the ground surface down. 6 Q You simply restated what other persons have said 7 in their reports? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Would that be true of that remaining paragraph 10 there on page 11? 11 A Based on the cross sections, one of which here, 12 as our, you know, Figure 1 illustrates, is that the 13 lacustrine clay, you know, bisects the upper and then 14 middle aquifer, such that parts of those two aquifers 15 are locally confined in the north. Meaning they are 16 underneath the clay. And also in the central portions 17 of the Lancaster subbasin. 18 Q What you are doing is verbally describing the 19 Figure 1 geologic cross section, A-A? 20 A To some extent. It's a little more, I'll call 21 it, just global than specifically describing just that 22 cross section, but the cross section was included to 23 illustrate the concepts that if you have an aquifer 24 system that is confined below an overlying confining 25 bed, in this case that lacustrine clay, then it is ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 68 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 considered to be a confined aquifer. 2 And from the, I'll say, the north and the central 3 portions of the Lancaster subbasin that is what is 4 schematically illustrated in Figure 1. So the aquifers 5 below that are confined. And then the lower aquifer is 6 underneath the clay almost everywhere. So it's 7 confined by those deposits, except along the southerly 8 margin of the Lancaster subbasin. If you look at 9 Figure 1, over to the left you can see that the clay 10 pinches out and therefore does not confine the aquifer 11 system that would be below it if it didn't pinch out. 12 Q Are you saying that this is just a cross section 13 drawn on the line A-A prime, as you describe it? 14 A Yep. 15 Q Now within the red Bloyd line are you saying that 16 there is a confined aquifer in that entire area? 17 A No. 18 Q On order to determine whether there was a 19 confined aquifer in the entire area, you would have to 20 determine whether there were cross sections done in 21 every area in order to be able to determine that? 22 A Well, it wouldn't have be to cross sections, per 23 se, but there would have to be some mapping of the 24 aerial extent of that thickness of that clay member or 25 any other one that might form confinement of an aquifer ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 69 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 system anywhere in question. 2 Q Okay. So the next page in your report is simply 3 the Figure 1 we have been talking about. And then you 4 have your references. 5 Since the time of your last deposition have you 6 reviewed any new or different materials of any kind? 7 A No. 8 Q Have you formulated any new or differing opinions 9 since the time of your last deposition session? 10 A No. 11 MR. HUBBARD: I just want to clarify. You are 12 talking with respect to this litigation, of course? 13 MR. ZIMMER: Absolutely. Actually, there has 14 been two depositions in this case, two sessions of 15 Mr. Scalmanini's deposition. 16 Q And, sir, if I understand you correctly, you are 17 saying that you have not looked at any new or different 18 materials after either of those prior sessions, 19 correct? 20 A Not with regard to this subject, no. 21 Q Not with regard to this case; is that correct? 22 A That is what I just said. 23 Q And you have not formed any new or differing or 24 additional opinions since the time of either of those 25 previous sessions, correct? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 70 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A That is what I just said. 2 Q So we now have discussed all of your opinions and 3 conclusions in this case regarding Phase I of this 4 lawsuit, correct? 5 A I don't know. I've answered all your questions. 6 Q Well, if there is a new opinion or conclusion 7 that you have been asked to render that we haven't 8 talked about, I need to know what that is. 9 A I've tried to explain it to you. I don't know. 10 You know, simply and globally it has to do what the 11 extent of the Antelope Valley ground-water basin is. 12 And that is what our report attempts to describe and 13 mapping attempts to show graphically. 14 Q Well, do you have any other opinions or 15 conclusions based on your evaluation of this matter 16 that you have not told us about either in your report 17 or at the time of your depositions in this case? 18 A With regard to the extent of the Antelope Valley 19 ground-water basin? 20 Q With regard to any opinions that you have been 21 asked to render in this case by the defense. 22 A Well, I told you that was the only thing they 23 asked me, and I've described what my answer is. So the 24 rest, no, I don't have any other opinions as to what 25 the extent or description of the Antelope Valley ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 71 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 ground-water basin is. 2 MR. ZIMMER: I think I'm pretty close to 3 finished. I'm going to let Bob go so he gets a chance 4 to ask some questions here. 5 Thank you, sir. 6 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOYCE 8 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Scalmanini. This is 9 Bob Joyce. I don't think I have very many questions. 10 Just a few. 11 Sir, initially and discussing the vertical 12 ground-water boundaries, you talk about the confining a 13 lacustrine clay layer -- is that correct? 14 A That is close enough. I'm know what you are 15 talking about. 16 Q Can you pronounce the word right for me? 17 A Lacustrine. 18 Q And you describe or I think that I -- apparently, 19 that has by other persons been described as a 20 lens-shaped layer? 21 A Yes. 22 MR. HUBBARD: I believe the answer "yes" was 23 given. 24 Q BY MR. JOYCE: In fact, on top of page 11, the 25 first full sentence at the top there refers to a ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 72 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 lens-shaped body. When they refer to a lens-shaped 2 body, can you describe what they mean by that or how do 3 you describe what concept they are trying to 4 communicate? 5 A Probably "layer" would be a good term, if lens 6 isn't clear. 7 Q When they say "lens," are they talking about like 8 an oval or a circular shape? 9 A It's not areally extensive throughout the entire 10 basin. So it has edges. But I don't think there is 11 any implication as to whether it's, you know, oval or, 12 you know, convex or concave or any other shape like 13 that. It's just of not complete areal extent 14 throughout the basin. 15 Q All right. And so based on what you have had an 16 opportunity to review, you do not know whether it's a 17 convex, concave or what the full lateral extent of that 18 is; is that a fair statement? 19 A Well, I didn't investigate that question really 20 at all, because it doesn't come into play in defining 21 the extent of the ground-water basin. So the strict 22 answer to your question is I don't know because I 23 didn't investigate its extent, and the reason for that 24 is that I didn't need to in order to look at the 25 outermost basin boundaries. It's only included -- or ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 73 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 the discussion of it is only included because I thought 2 it would be useful to illustrate with that one cross 3 section that is in there as Figure 1 what the vertical 4 extent of the ground-water basin looks like. 5 So when we are describing vertical boundaries, we 6 are really talking about where the so-called upper 7 middle or lower aquifers encounter bedrock and what 8 the -- I don't know -- thickness and extent of those 9 various individual aquifers or the clay layer that 10 confines some of them or all of them in certain places 11 in the basin is of no consequence to defining the 12 extent of the basin itself. 13 Q Are subbasin internal boundaries a consequence at 14 all in attempting to achieve the same objective? 15 A What, to define the outermost basin boundaries? 16 Q No. To define the significant hydrologic units 17 within the basin. 18 A Well, surely if there were -- I'm not sure what 19 the term significant hydrologic units means. Maybe you 20 could tell me before I go any further. 21 Q I have to assume that someone perceived that 22 there was some rational or reasonable basis for -- 23 well, let's go back to the beginning. Bloyd in his 24 original study, apparently he attempted to define 14, I 25 believe you said last time, subunits at which in total ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 74 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 comprised both the Fremont and Antelope Valley 2 ground-water basins, right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Apparently, there was some rational basis for 5 looking at the subunits from a lateral perspective. Am 6 I correct in that assumption? 7 A Yes. 8 Q I'm just curious as to whether or not there is 9 any necessity to concern ourselves with vertical 10 boundaries of the same nature for the same reason or 11 whether or not it has any interplay in the dynamics of 12 the hydrology of the area? 13 A Well, let's break your question into two parts. 14 Okay. If you go to page three in my report, you'll see 15 at the top of the page, you know, an underlined 16 sub-heading called Vertical Boundaries and then there 17 are factors that could be taken into account as limits 18 of the extent of the aquifer system or the basin 19 vertically for both unconfined and confined aquifers. 20 So in looking at the extent of a ground-water 21 basin, then one would consider these kinds of -- I'll 22 call it -- parameters or factors in defining the extent 23 of the basin. And that is what we attempted to show 24 with our discussion and schematic illustration of the 25 one cross section when we discussed that subject. It's ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 75 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 basically as far as the -- from the surface as the 2 unconsolidated materials extend through alluvium and 3 continental deposits down to the basement complex. 4 Now, as far as anything else with regard to, I'll 5 call it, interaction or whether or not in this case 6 subunits or subbasins, as they have alternately been 7 called, behave as one within the outermost boundaries 8 or how effects of recharge, pumpage or anything else 9 propagate across those boundaries is a whole different 10 subject. If they don't readily fit a good definition 11 for an outermost boundary, meaning if the subbasin 12 boundaries don't fit a good definition for an outermost 13 boundary, then they aren't boundaries of a ground-water 14 basin, per se, but are logical boundaries for 15 subdivision for the study purposes or impact analysis 16 or anything else within the overall basin. But that 17 wasn't what I looked at. 18 Q I noticed in looking at the diagram appearing in 19 your report after page 11 that in that cross section as 20 you move from the left to the right that the clay layer 21 appears to rise from a subterranean level up to 22 manifesting itself on the surface. Do you see what I'm 23 referring to? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Does a clay layer of that nature -- how would you ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 76 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 characterize that as a barrier from a vertical 2 standpoint? Does that wholly impede or practically 3 impede flow? Strike that. 4 Does it retard flow or does it totally impede 5 flow? 6 A Well, I don't know, because I haven't 7 specifically studied the -- I don't know -- the 8 relative permeability or impermeability of that clay. 9 In almost all cases where clays like that occur, they 10 substantially impede but do not totally preclude 11 movement of water across them. 12 Q Have you ever ran across the circumstance where a 13 clay layer of that nature constituted a vertical -- 14 excuse me -- constituted a lateral barrier or a 15 subbasin barrier line? 16 A You mean where the clay was in effect standing on 17 its edge and formed the edge of a basin? 18 Q Or a subbasin. Either or both. 19 A Well, I'm trying to think of one. There are a 20 few, you know, classic massive clays like this in 21 ground-water basins in a few ground-water basins in 22 California. And in almost all cases they result from 23 just the word that you were having difficulty 24 pronouncing, lacustrine, which means they were the 25 result of, you know, fine grain silts and clays being ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 77 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 deposited in a lake-type setting, you know, over 2 geologic time ago. 3 And as a result of that kind of an environment, 4 that they are typically, if you will, flat bottomed. 5 They were like a lake bed along time ago of fine grain 6 materials that later had, in this case where it's 7 underground, more course grain material deposited on 8 top. So you have aquifer materials over and above 9 them. But they are typically flat or, relatively 10 speaking, as compared to on edge or vertical as to the 11 way they were deposited. I can't think of an instance 12 where a clay layer forms the lateral extent of a 13 ground-water basin. 14 Q How about a vertical extent? The sheer thickness 15 of it itself does that play a role in the lateral 16 migration or progression of water within a confined 17 area, i.e., a basin? 18 MR. BUNN: You are asking whether the vertical 19 thickness of the clay makes a difference in the lateral 20 movement of the water? 21 MR. JOYCE: Vertical movement. 22 THE WITNESS: Actually, he's right; you said 23 lateral movement. 24 Q BY MR. JOYCE: I'm sorry. I apologize. I meant 25 to say vertical. Vertical. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 78 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Well, I think I already answered your question 2 when I said that, you know, most of these materials 3 will substantially impede the vertical movement at the 4 locations where they exist, but not physically totally 5 preclude the movement of water. 6 Q And with respect to the boundary line that you 7 depicted on Plate 1, I notice that, apparently, to the 8 northwest, the boundary line apparently splits the 9 Antelope Valley from the Fremont; is that correct? 10 A Say it again. I needed to get it out. 11 Q Look at Plate 1. If I understand it correctly, 12 the northwesterly line is a depiction of Bloyd's 13 division between the Antelope Valley ground-water study 14 area and the Fremont ground-water study area, correct? 15 A Which northwesterly line? 16 Q The one you referred to as the Cottonwood fault 17 and the Willow Springs fault. 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do I understand that it is your assumption -- 20 strike that. 21 You did not do an independent analysis. So I 22 assume that you concluded that Bloyd concluded that 23 both of those fault lines did not retard but fully 24 impeded the flow of water, correct, of ground water? 25 A Did you just say did not retard but fully impeded ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 79 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 it? 2 Q Yes. Well, in your opinion do those fault lines 3 merely retard the flow of ground water or fully impede 4 the flow of ground water? 5 A What I recall, the way they have been described 6 is that they substantially impede with the exception, 7 as I discussed at the last deposition, that toward the 8 eastern end, near Rosamond, there has been, I'll call 9 it, an ability to observe the probability of some flow 10 across that boundary, I think, from north to south? 11 Q And do we know whether or not anyone as 12 undertaken to attempt to quantify that flow at that 13 location? 14 A I think so. Among other things last time, I 15 described the work of the U.S.G.S. that is in 16 publication, which is the results of their preparing 17 and calibrating a numerical ground-water flow model, 18 which I don't know specifically, but I'd be very 19 surprised it if it didn't address that subject, because 20 in order to account for all of those flows, it would 21 need to account for those as well. 22 Q I'm not sure I completely understood your answer. 23 Are you suggesting that it is your expectation that the 24 intended or the contemplated report that has not yet 25 been published will contemplate a quantum of ground ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 80 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 water that can only be explained if you assumed that 2 there were inflow from the north as you have indicated? 3 A I'll go back to, you know -- I don't know -- 4 early on in this particular session, when I was talking 5 about various parameters or factors that one would 6 utilize to describe a basin. Hopefully, whatever 7 investigator would recognize that there is probably no 8 such thing in nature as a perfect or perfectly bounded 9 ground water basin. 10 So choosing this boundary and recognizing that a 11 small portion of it may have some flow through it or 12 across it, however you want to look at it, then 13 recognizing that in any subsequent analysis of the 14 hydrology of the basin, then whatever investigation 15 should take into account what the flow is across that 16 boundary, just like it should take into account any 17 much smaller, probably more insignificant, flows that 18 might be coming across the almost impermeable-type 19 boundaries in looking at anything -- I don't know -- 20 from the water budget to the hydrology of the basin 21 itself. So I expect that they will have done that. 22 Q So you're speculating that they will have 23 addressed that issue; you do not know whether or not 24 they have. But you yourself believe that there is some 25 flow across that line based on something that you have ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 81 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 seen or read. Did I summarize that accurately? 2 A That is pretty good. It's been reported that 3 there is some flow in that area, as there is in at 4 least one other spot on the northeastern part of the 5 basin. And that then anybody recognizing that that was 6 studying it, would, I think, account for that flow. 7 Q Do you know who it was that reported the fact of 8 flow in the location that you referred to? 9 A Not from memory I don't, no. 10 Q Is it included with any of the source material 11 identified in your -- in the table of authorities 12 appended to your report? Did it come from one of those 13 materials? 14 A In the references in our report? 15 Q Yeah. 16 A I'm pretty sure. Yes. 17 Q So somewhere within one of those references that 18 should be available to us, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, with respect to any of the fault line 21 boundaries that you have depicted on your Plate 1, do 22 you know whether or not anyone that preceded your 23 effort to consolidate the information, specifically 24 Bloyd, Durbin or Carlson, assigned any hydraulic 25 conductivity factors to any of the lines at any of the ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 82 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 points? 2 A I don't know for sure. I am pretty sure that 3 Bloyd and Carlson, at least the Carlson that mapped the 4 water levels and the slightly smaller basin boundaries, 5 did not. I'm pretty sure that Durbin did. 6 Q You're sure that Durbin did? 7 A I said that I'm pretty sure that he did. 8 Q How about Bloyd? 9 A I just said I didn't think so. 10 Q And with respect to the mean asphalt line, do you 11 know whether or not anyone assigned a hydraulic 12 conductive factor to that line? 13 A Same answer. Wasn't that the question you just 14 asked me? 15 Q No. I was asking with respect to the external 16 fault line boundaries. 17 A I thought you were asking about any of them. 18 Q No. If your answer is the same as to all fault 19 line boundaries, so be it, whether it be internal or 20 external. 21 A I thought you were asking me about the internal 22 ones. And so I don't even -- I don't know that even 23 Bloyd assigned any conductivities to the outermost 24 fault-type boundaries. I would have to go look. And 25 with regard to the internal subbasin boundary lines, I ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 83 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 think he did, like Neenach. 2 Q You don't know if he did as to the outer; you 3 think he may have as to the internal, correct? 4 A I would expect that he did, yes. 5 Q And you don't think Carlson did either; is that a 6 fair statement? 7 A Well, Carlson is a quicker read, and I don't 8 remember any discussion at all on, I call it, the brief 9 text on his mapping that discusses hydraulic 10 conductivity of faults. 11 Q And with respect to Durbin, is it your belief 12 that Durbin addresses it both internally as well as the 13 outer fault line boundaries? 14 A I'm sure that you Durbin addresses flow across 15 boundaries or subbasin boundaries -- basin boundaries 16 or subbasin boundaries. How he did it, I don't recall 17 in, we will call it, the development and calibration of 18 his model. 19 Q And with respect to the San Andreas fault zone 20 boundary depicted on your Plate 1, which I guess is the 21 southernmost boundary, at least a fair extent of it. 22 Are you with me? 23 A Yeah. 24 Q With respect to that, I notice that there also 25 happens to run somewhat parallel to a change in ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 84 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 elevation to higher elevations and move to the south. 2 Is that a fair statement? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is it your opinion that as to water falling in 5 those foothills and those mountain areas and then 6 penetrating down into the ground and flowing down 7 gradient, are they blocked by that fault zone? In 8 other words, is that fault zone a barrier that fully 9 impedes the inflow of ground water? 10 A Well, I think I've already answered that. 11 Q I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be repetitious. 12 I'm just trying to make sure I understand. If I did, I 13 apologize for asking it again. 14 Do you have an opinion one way or the other on 15 that issue? 16 A I think I've told you that, you know, nothing in 17 nature is considered by most to be, you know, 18 completely impermeable. 19 Q Do I understand that we could expect some degree 20 of underflow across that fault zone line from water 21 hitting in the foothills and the mountains, working its 22 way down into the ground water within those foothills 23 and mountains and migrating down gradient into the 24 Emerald Valley? 25 A Well -- ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 85 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q Can you quantify in any way how much water we are 2 talking about in that context? 3 A Yeah, I probably can. 4 Q And how -- what is it? 5 A I haven't tried to do it yet. You just asked me 6 if I could. 7 Q What is it that we would need to do to know what 8 the significance of that inflow was? 9 A Probably a fairly extensive analysis of how the 10 ground-water basin has reacted to historical, I'll say, 11 precipitation, stream flow run off into the basin and 12 pumpage, and whatever we can derive in the way of, I'll 13 say, water-level type knowledge around the perimeter of 14 the basin that might suggest how the basement complex 15 might be contributing a small amount of water. 16 That would be pretty rigorous and time consuming, 17 but doable. You know, to put it in some context, you 18 know, the number that is likely to come out of it is 19 going to be pretty small in the overall context of, you 20 know, flows into and out of the basin. 21 Q What do you base that upon? 22 A Say again, please. 23 Q Without having had the benefit of having done the 24 study, how is it that you conclude that the impact 25 would be pretty small? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 86 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A Well, in general the hydraulic conductivity or 2 permeability of basement-type materials that lie, in 3 this case, the south, southwest side of the line that 4 you are talking about, are orders of magnitude lower 5 than the hydraulic conductivity or permeability of the 6 alluvial or unconsolidated materials that are on the 7 inside of the basin side of that line. And with that 8 the case, then the flow through that very low hydraulic 9 conductivity material is typically very very low. 10 Q In your efforts to prepare your analysis, did you 11 attempt to ascertain whether or not there were any 12 ground water production within a mile of the fault line 13 to the south? 14 A No. I didn't look at production anywhere with 15 regard to the boundary lines. 16 Q If your description of the composition of the 17 materials to the south is as you have described it, 18 what would be the hydrogeologic explanation for 19 productive ground water pumping south of that fault 20 line? 21 A It could be any one of a number of things. There 22 could be a local, I'll say, you know, valley-type 23 depositional-type environment that has unconsolidated 24 material in it or, for that matter, consolidated 25 material that is highly fractured that could collect ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 87 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 rainfall runoff and infiltration to support a ground 2 water resource and have sufficient hydraulic 3 conductivity or permeability to yield water to wells 4 that would still be isolated from the main Antelope 5 Valley area by enough low-permeability material to 6 where we are talking about separate macroaquifer 7 materials. 8 Q With respect to a consolidated material, which is 9 the outer -- outer material from the line that you have 10 depicted on your Plate 1, do you know whether and to 11 what extent any of that material is composed of 12 fractured rock material that is water bearing? 13 A No. 14 Q And more importantly, as we go to southern area, 15 where the San Andreas fault is depicted, do you know to 16 what extent any of that material is fractured rock and 17 water bearing? 18 A I thought that is what you just asked me. 19 Q Specific to that particular area. 20 A Which particular area? 21 Q South of the San Andreas fault line, fault zone, 22 as you have mapped it, and midway or just to the west 23 of Palmdale. That area. Do you know whether and to 24 what extent that material is fractured and whether or 25 not it's water bearing? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 88 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 A On the south side of the line? 2 Q South side of the line, west of Palmdale. 3 A No, I don't. 4 Q Have you asked any of your clients to provide you 5 with any well data that they operate outside of the 6 lines that you have depicted? 7 A No. 8 Q With expect to the section to the north line, 9 where you indicate that there is some commentary 10 confirming that, apparently, there is some underflow 11 from the north to the south, which would be from 12 outside the line to the inside of the line, is it your 13 opinion that a well placed to the north of the line 14 would have no impact upon the ground water extractions 15 on the south side of the line? 16 A I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I 17 haven't looked at that. 18 Q Again, you can't say within a reasonable degree 19 of scientific certainty that pumping to the north in 20 that area would have no impact on pumping on the 21 southerly side of the line? 22 A I would say that I could craft the question or 23 the answer with a little more detail to say that there 24 is a way to conclude that a well pumping on the north 25 side of the line would have absolutely no practical ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 89 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 impact on the basin to the south. And there is the 2 possibility that you could craft the answer in such a 3 way that a well on the north side of the line could 4 have an impact. I don't know about the magnitude, but 5 could have some impact on the south. And it would have 6 everything to with from aquifer characteristics, to 7 pumping capacity, to pumping duration, to distance as 8 to what the answer comes back. 9 Q I appreciate that. But the question I'm posing 10 to you today is: As we sit here now, based upon your 11 current state of knowledge, can you say with a 12 reasonable degree of scientific certainty that a well 13 placed on the north side of that line within a half 14 mile proximity of the line as you have drawn it would 15 have no impact upon pumping on the south side of the 16 line? 17 A Absolutely, unequivocally any well, period? 18 Q Any productive ground water extraction well. 19 A Well, I just answered your question. 20 Q Is that that you can or you cannot give me an 21 opinion one way or the other? 22 A I could craft the answer in such a way that there 23 are some wells located within a half a mile of a 24 boundary line that regardless of that distance could 25 have no practical effect on the other side of a ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 90 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 boundary line, however leaky the boundary might be. 2 And there are other wells where it's possible that 3 there could be some effect across the boundary line. 4 Q So do I understand then that the boundary line, 5 at least as depicted at the time, doesn't really help 6 us fix or place a line that we can look to where we can 7 conclude with some reasonable degree of certainty, 8 including all factors, that pumping on one side would 9 have no effect on the other? 10 MR. BUNN: Objection. Not really an objection. 11 Are you talking about just the area in the neighborhood 12 of Rosamond where water flows across or the entire 13 boundary? 14 MR. JOYCE: I'm talking about the area where he 15 has conceded that there has been some indication of 16 underflow in the literature that he read. What I heard 17 him tell me is that if I construct the assumption, I 18 can create a set of assumptions where it would have 19 practically no effect, and being the good expert that I 20 am, I could likewise craft a set of assumptions where 21 it could have an effect. 22 THE WITNESS: I didn't say that. 23 Q BY MR. JOYCE: I want to make sure this line is a 24 line that it could be said within a reasonable degree 25 of scientific certainty that a well, assuming natural ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 91 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 conditions, on one side to the north would have no 2 impact on extractions on the other side of line to the 3 south. That is all I'm trying to find out, if this 4 line does that for us or not. 5 A Well, my answer to your question is it's a Phase 6 II question. 7 Q Thank you. With respect to the earlier question 8 I asked you about the quantification of the underflow 9 from the watershed area into the basin from the south 10 side of the San Andreas fault line, you indicated that 11 that could be quantified with more work and a very 12 detailed study. Do I understand that in the context of 13 your answer, the area that you would wish to study 14 would be in the watershed area? 15 A Well, I frankly hadn't thought about that. I was 16 thinking more that I would try to have some feel for 17 what, I'll call it, using the term loosely, aquifer or 18 water-bearing properties, the so-called basement 19 complex or disturbed fault zone would have, and then, 20 hopefully, with some knowledge of water level 21 differences across those either geologic differences or 22 disturbed areas to estimate what the subsurface flows 23 might be. 24 Q I think what I'm really driving at, 25 Mr. Scalmanini, is I have had the opportunity to look ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 92 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 at some of the literature that you looked at and relied 2 upon. I noticed in Durbin's report he mapped and 3 referred to what you called the Antelope Valley 4 ground-water basin as his, quote, unquote, study area. 5 What is a study area? 6 A Well, it's just what it's called. It's an area 7 of study of any investigator for any given purpose. 8 Q Well, I noticed that Carlson also referred to in 9 his legend the same area as a study area and Bloyd did 10 the same. So my question is: If Bloyd and Carlson 11 disagree and to some extent there is a few deviations 12 in Durbin's, and they all call them the study areas, 13 and my question is you want to do the analysis to 14 calculate the impact of underflow through fractured 15 rock south of the San Andreas fault into your map area, 16 would we use the watershed area as a study area for 17 that purpose? 18 A If we were doing an overall hydrologic budget 19 within the watershed area, then yes. If one is trying 20 to analyze the flow across a boundary which is within 21 the watershed, in this case the extent of the 22 ground-water basin, then I'll just say maybe. 23 Q Give me one second. Let me take a look at my 24 notes. 25 One other question real quick. This goes back to ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 93 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 a report. Go back, if you can, to your report on page 2 four. 3 A You're talking about mine? 4 Q Yes. And in the last paragraph on that page 5 you're commenting upon the outermost boundaries and you 6 talk about the ground-water body. 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you make the comment that that is not 9 typically an appropriate point to fix the barrier, that 10 being where the ground-water body contacts the -- or 11 where it actually contacts. And then you make the 12 following comment, "nevertheless, it is reproduced on 13 the accompany map (Plate 1), which documents the 14 literature published for the study area." Do you see 15 that comment? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do I understand that Bloyd and Carlson were 18 mapping the ground-water body level or the water table 19 level? 20 A Bloyd and Carlson? I think Carlson, I'll say, 21 more or less definitely no. And I believe that on the 22 far east to northeast there was some question about the 23 extent of unconsolidated materials beyond where the 24 ground water level was interpreted to abut consolidated 25 bedrock. And I think that is what Bloyd described in ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 94 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 that area. I'd have to look to refresh my memory for 2 sure, but that is what I think I remember. 3 Q Then do I understand then that Bloyd was mapping 4 where there was contact between the water table and 5 non-water bearing bedrock? 6 A Only in one part of the basin. I think to the 7 far east. I might be starting to get a number of 8 things running together from memory, but that is what I 9 think I remember. 10 Q So then is it fair to say that, at least as to 11 that portion, that the concluding portion of that 12 paragraph as authored by you is accurate and should be 13 applied; and, that is, that technically the basin 14 should extend beyond the edge of the water table? 15 A Technically it should, yes, to the extent of 16 unconsolidated materials. 17 Q And yet when you look at Plate 1, if I understand 18 it correctly, you have adopted as the outermost 19 boundary Bloyd's mapping, which is where the water 20 table or the water table meets the non-water bearing 21 bedrock, correct? 22 A I'm trying to remember. I think I described in 23 either the first or second session of this how we 24 attempted by remapping to acknowledge what Bloyd 25 described when overlaying it with the geologic mapping ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 95 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 in the area by Dibblee. And whether we moved that 2 boundary, and that is what I've said all along, that, 3 you know, it maps what Bloyd described and what he 4 mapped, but I don't remember specifically right this 5 second if we moved it out to the geologic contact or 6 not over there. 7 Q So right now you don't know whether or not that 8 Bloyd's line as he originally mapped it, i.e., where 9 the water table met the non-water bearing bedrock, or 10 whether or not he modified the line and extended it out 11 to address your caveat, as we just discussed appearing 12 at the bottom of page four of your memorandum? 13 A Yeah, I don't remember exactly right this second. 14 MR. BUNN: Is there a particular area of your map 15 that you're talking about now? 16 MR. JOYCE: If I understood Mr. Scalmanini's 17 response, he confined that back portion of red line to 18 the upper right-hand quadrant, which would be to the 19 northeast. 20 Is that correct, Mr., Scalmanini? 21 THE WITNESS: Beyond, yeah, the north side of the 22 eastern end. 23 MR. BUNN: Thank you. 24 Q BY MR. JOYCE: Is that the portion using the 25 north Edwards and the Rogers Lake designations? Do you ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 96 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 see those? 2 A Go ahead. The north Edwards and Rogers Lake. Go 3 ahead. 4 Q If you can give me a township reference point 5 moving from the right to the left until we get to the 6 left-hand side of where the area of issue would start 7 and then where it would end as you move clockwise 8 around that section so we know which portion of this we 9 are discussing? Does that help any? 10 A Well, not much, but go ahead and try. In general 11 from about where the Mount Diablo and San Bernardino 12 baseline is on the eastern side. 13 Q Okay. On the eastern side? 14 A Yes. That is probably a little too far north, 15 but, certainly, in the middle of the township, 11 16 north, on the San Bernardino baseline down to the 17 general area of Edwards Air Force Base. 18 Q Which would be -- 19 A Township 9 north. 20 Q Pardon me. 21 A Township 9 north. 22 Q Got you. Okay. Thank you. Let me have just a 23 second. I think I'm just about done. 24 I think I'm finished with Mr. Scalmanini. 25 MR. ZIMMER. Just a few follow-up questions here. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 97 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. ZIMMER 2 Q In terms of the study that you indicate indicated 3 there was some flow on the north side on the faults, 4 the Cottonwood faults, Willow Springs fault area, you 5 don't know what study that was? 6 A Not from memory, no. 7 Q It sounds like the study in terms of movements or 8 flow of ground water across these basin boundary lines, 9 as you described them, has not been studied to any 10 degree, to any significant degree; is that correct? 11 A I don't know. I didn't look into that in any 12 detail. So I can't comment whether it's been studied 13 to any significant degree or not. 14 Q You can't recall seeing any reports as you sit 15 right here right now with your acknowledge and 16 experience where the amount of ground water flow into 17 or out of this basin boundary, as you describe it, has 18 been studied; is that correct? 19 A I know I've seen it mentioned. I can't remember 20 exactly where, but I think there was even numbers that 21 went with it. I just don't remember by whom or how 22 much. 23 Again, it's, you know, recognition of the fact 24 that a boundary is rarely perfect, and in this case 25 there is acknowledgment that there is some flow across ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 98 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 it. 2 Q Because there is flow across it, that is the 3 reason you're saying that if there was a well outside 4 this basin boundary, as you describe it, it could 5 potentially affect ground water inside the basin? 6 A Yeah. That is why it could potentially affect or 7 not affect, depending on a number of parameters. 8 Q Now, in order to go to a point where you could 9 make a statement that it would not affect it, if you 10 went out to the watershed boundary, would that be a 11 point beyond which pumping beyond the watershed would 12 not affect it? 13 A Pumping beyond a watershed boundary would not 14 affect ground water conditions in a ground-water basin 15 inside the watershed? 16 Q Yes, sir. 17 A Yeah. I think you could pretty much figure that. 18 Q You agree with that? 19 A Yes. In other words, embedded in your question 20 is the assumption that you would be pumping from 21 another ground-water basin contained in another 22 watershed on the other side of the watershed line of 23 the basin in question. 24 Q Or from bedrock or somewhere else. You would be 25 pumping -- in other words, if you go out to the edge of ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 99 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 the watershed, if you go beyond the watershed within 2 which your basin boundary exists, pumping outside that 3 watershed is not going to affect, you would agree with 4 that, it is not going to affect pumping inside the 5 watershed? 6 A Yeah. That is generally considered to be the 7 case without, I think, it basically ever being studied. 8 But basically that being the case, yes. 9 Q In terms of the cross section of the aquifer on 10 Figure 1, that is the extent of the actual study in 11 this case in terms of the vertical boundaries of the 12 Antelope Valley ground-water basin as you describe it; 13 is that correct? 14 A It's an illustration in one location of how 15 the -- you know, the basement varies from -- well, from 16 right to left would be more or less from north to 17 south. Yeah. It's an illustration of how thick the 18 water-bearing materials are, yes. 19 Q In one cross section? 20 A In one cross section, yeah. 21 Q We talked about earlier that that doesn't mean 22 that it's the same in cross sections that would be done 23 from east to west or north to south across this entire 24 ground water basin as you describe it, correct? 25 A Say that again? ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 100 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 Q This one cross section is not necessarily 2 representative of what a cross section would be either 3 to the west or to the east or the north or the south of 4 that area? 5 A No, of course not. It's a depiction of right 6 where it's shown to be, which is location prime primed. 7 Q Now, does the vertical makeup of the basin make 8 any difference in terms of ground-water flow from 9 inside to outside or outside to inside of this 10 ground-water basin that you describe in your report? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Why is that? 13 A Well, flow is trying to go through some cross 14 sectional area. Okay. So assuming for purposes of 15 trying to answer your question that water levels are 16 higher on the outside of the basin than they are on the 17 inside of the basin and then flow is trying to go 18 through a cross sectional area, in effect across the 19 line like is shown at the right side of Figure 1. And 20 if flow can go from the bedrock, whatever conductivity 21 that might have, through an area that is, in this case, 22 as thick as, let's say, a couple thousand feet at one 23 location, then it stands to reason that if it was only 24 half that thick with the same kind of head differences 25 that only half as much water could go across it. And ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 101 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 conversely if it was twice as thick then maybe twice as 2 much water can go across it. All things being equal. 3 They usually aren't. But all things being equal. 4 MR. ZIMMER: I think that is all I have. Thank 5 you, sir. 6 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 7 MR. JOYCE: I have nothing further, 8 Mr. Scalmanini. I think you are finally finished. 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 MR. JOYCE: Thank you for your time. 11 I assume you will invoice me accordingly? 12 THE WITNESS: You can rest assured that that 13 assumption is correct. 14 MR. JOYCE: That is the only thing I've been 15 right about so far. 16 MR. ZIMMER: So stipulated. 17 THE WITNESS: We will give you a quiz in a few 18 months and see how much you learned the subject. 19 MR. JOYCE: It's not what I can learn. It is how 20 much I can forget. 21 We need to get a stipulation. Mr. Bunn or 22 Mr. Hubbard, would you like to propose a stipulation? 23 MR. HUBBARD. I'm not as familiar. So maybe 24 Mr. Bunn. 25 MR. ZIMMER: We need to expedite it to some ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 102 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 extent, because I would like to have the transcripts 2 available for Mr. Gorlick's deposition. 3 MR. BUNN: When is his deposition? 4 MR. ZIMMER. The 19th. I don't need it reviewed 5 and signed, but if there is a way to get the transcript 6 a week in advance 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 MR. BUNN: We have agreed that the original 9 deposition transcript will be delivered directly to 10 Mr. Scalmanini. And counsel will notify the other 11 counsel of any changes by July 30th. And that applies 12 to all of the deposition transcripts of all three 13 sessions. 14 MR. ZIMMER: Except one caveat, Tom. I'm just 15 thinking if the deposition is taken on the 19th, I 16 don't know how expedite it's going to be. I would just 17 purpose for my people or, more specifically, 18 Mr. Gorlick, that he should have at least five days, 19 five calendar days post receipt or within 48 hours of 20 trial, just to be clear. 21 MR. BUNN: Okay. 22 MR. HUBBARD: Stipulate to that. 23 MR. ZIMMER: Hang on a second. I have somebody 24 on the line here concerned about the time frame. 25 MR. TOOTLE: I haven't got a transcript so far. ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 103 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 It's probably because I didn't put down to receive one. 2 So can you send me a copy? I wasn't at the last 3 deposition. So I think that is probably why I didn't 4 receive it. 5 THE COURT REPORTER: You want all three of them? 6 MR. TOOTLE: Yes, at this point. 7 MR. HUBBARD: I would like a copy of this 8 transcript. And if for any reason this transcript is 9 not signed, a copy can be used in the full force and 10 effect as the original. Agreed? 11 MR. ZIMMER: So stipulated. 12 (Deposition concluded at 5:11 p.m.) 13 --o0o-- 14 15 I, the undersigned, do herby certify that I have 16 read the foregoing deposition, that I know the contents 17 thereof, and that the same is true and correct. 18 19 Executed on , 2002 at 20 , California. 21 22 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. 23 24 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 104 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF YOLO ) 3 4 I, ANGELA C. ROSS, do hereby certify: 5 That the witness named in the foregoing deposition, 6 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E., 7 was present at the time and place therein specified; 8 That the witness previously affirmed to tell the 9 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under 10 the penalty of perjury; 11 That the said proceeding was taken before me at the 12 said time and place, and was taken down in shorthand 13 writing by me; 14 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 15 State of California; 16 That the said proceeding was thereafter, under my 17 direction, transcribed into computer-assisted 18 transcription; and that the foregoing transcript 19 constitutes a full, true, and correct report of the 20 proceedings which then and there took place; that I am a 21 disinterested person to the said action. 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my 23 hand this 3rd day of July, 2002. 24 ANGELA C. ROSS, C.S.R. #10073, RPR 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337 105 JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E. - VOLUME III 1 DEPONENT CORRECTION SHEET 2 Instructions: If you are adding to your testimony, print the exact words you want to add. If you are 3 deleting from your testimony, print the exact words you want to delete. Specify with "Add" or "Delete" and 4 sign this form. 5 Deposition of: Joseph C. Scalmanini, P.E. Case Title: Diamond Farming v City of Lancaster 6 Date of Deposition: July 26, 2002 7 I, JOSEPH C. SCALMANINI, P.E., have the following 8 corrections to make to my deposition. 9 Page Line Change/Add/Delete 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SIGNATURE: DATE: 23 24 (Signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to CCP 2025(g)(1). 25 ASSOCIATED DEPOSITION REPORTERS (888) 873-8337