From the State Water Resources Control Board:
The State Water Resources Control Board Administrative Hearings Office (AHO) is conducting a public hearing about the Delta Conveyance Project. The purpose of the hearing is to gather evidence that the State Water Board will consider to determine whether to approve change petitions filed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR or Petitioner) to add two new points of diversion and rediversion to water right Permits 16478, 16479, 16481, and 16482 (Applications 5630, 14443, 14445A, and 17512, respectively) and, if so, terms and conditions the Board should include in the amended permits.
SCHEDULE:
- Protestants’ rebuttal portion of the Public Hearing will continue on July 8, 2026.
- The surrebuttal portion of the Public Hearing will begin on August 20, 2026, and continue on August 21, 24, 31, and September 3, 2026.
PROCEDURAL RULING:
On April 30, 2026, Local Agencies of the North Delta (LAND) filed subpoenas duces tecum seeking testimony and documents from employees of DWR about golden mussel. (See 2026-05-15 Exhibit A to Motion to Quash.) On May 15, 2026, DWR filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and for issuance of a protective order by the AHO. I granted DWR’s motion on June 5, 2026, based on the lack of substantive testimony or other evidence submitted during the case-in-chief phase about golden mussel. As a result, any testimony or documents obtained through the subpoena would be outside of the scope of proper rebuttal evidence. (2026-06-05 Procedural Ruling on Motion to Quash, p. 2.) I further concluded that an offer into evidence of any relevant documents obtained through the subpoena would be untimely because the deadline for submission of rebuttal exhibits had passed. (Id. at pp. 2-3.)
On June 12, 2026, LAND filed a motion for reconsideration of the procedural ruling. LAND asserts that the subpoena was timely filed and that the information sought is relevant to the hearing issues. LAND does not, however, address the lack of substantive case-in-chief evidence about golden mussel to be rebutted. “Rebuttalevidence is limited to evidence that is responsive to an opposing party’s exhibits or witness testimony previously submitted in this hearing. Parties’ rebuttal exhibits and witness testimony must clearly indicate the opposing-party evidence to which the rebuttal evidence is responsive.” (2025-10-22 Eighth Amended Hearing Notice and Procedural Ruling, p. 3.) Because any evidence regarding golden mussel would be improper rebuttal evidence, LAND’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
