Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

OKAY. IT'S 2:00 P.M.,

[00:00:04]

SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

FIRST ITEM IS A ROLL-CALL.

SUBMISSION COLUMN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, HAPPY TO MEET EACH OF YOU.

WE'LL START WITH MR. PARK.

PRESENT.

MR. UPTON.

HERE.

MR. GALLO.

HERE.

MR. MARKINI.

PRESENT.

MR. KELLY.

PRESENT.

SIR, YOU AND MR. PEREIRA IS CURRENTLY NOT HERE BUT I BELIEVE HE'S MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO GET HERE AS QUICKLY AS HE CAN. SO YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IF WE CAN HAVE, UPTON, DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

THIS IS THE POINT WHERE PUBLIC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

SO IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN IT UP.

OKAY, C9 WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING MINUTES.

[Item 4]

IT'S OPEN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

I DID NEED TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC AND SEEING THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MOTION.

ALL IN FAVOR?

[Item 5]

NEXT ITEM IS THE BUDGET UPDATE.

STAFF MAY HAVE SEEN IT BUT I WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 218 LANDOWNER FEE, AND THE GSP DEVELOPMENT BUDGET.

OKAY. SO THE LANDOWNER FEE FOR SGMA COMPLIANCE WAS APPROVED THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING ON JULY 23RD, 2019.

THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 BUDGET APPROVED BY THIS BOARD IN JUNE INCLUDED APPROXIMATELY $392,000 THAT WAS TO BE FUNDED THROUGH THIS LANDOWNER FEE.

THE MAJORITY OF THE FEES WERE INCLUDED IN THE MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILLS THAT WERE SENT OUT IN AUGUST ON SEPTEMBER OF 2019.

THREE MEMBER AGENCIES DID CHOOSE TO PAY THE GSA DIRECTLY FOR THE LANDOWNERS AND THEIR FEES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE AGENCIES.

SOME AGENCIES WHO DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES, NOT MEMBER AGENCIES, BUT JUST OTHER AGENCIES IN THE SUB BASIN WHO DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES WERE INVOICED DIRECTLY BY THE GSA SINCE THIS FEE COULD NOT BE INCLUDED ON A PROPERTY TAX.

SO MERCED COUNTY HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED ONE INSTALLMENT OF THE FEES COLLECTED AND YOU'LL SEE ON THE TABLE BEFORE YOU FROM MERCED COUNTY, $261,915.74 WERE INCLUDED IN AS FEES ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS, $18,206.62 HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS AN INSTALLMENT AS THE REST OF THE FEES COLLECTED BY MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTIES ARE PROCESSED, THEY WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GSA.

SO OUTSTANDING FROM MERCED COUNTY AND MARIPOSA COUNTY ARE $243,709.12 IN MERCED COUNTY AND $1,228.84 IN MARIPOSA COUNTY.

NEXT ON THIS TABLE, YOU'LL SEE THE THREE AGENCIES, LE GRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICT, SANDY MUSH MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, AND LONE TREE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY.

ALL THREE WERE INVOICED FOR LANDOWNERS WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES AND ALL THREE HAVE MADE PAYMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE GSA.

OF THE 18 OTHER AGENCIES THAT WERE DIRECTLY INVOICED, WE HAVE EIGHT THAT ARE OUTSTANDING AND SO

[00:05:04]

THE GSA DOES CONTINUE TO SEND STATEMENTS TO THOSE AGENCIES AND THE PAYMENTS ARE CONTINUING TO COME IN BUT WE HAVE $1949.22 THERE THAT'S CONTINUING TO COME IN.

SO OUT OF THE $391,724.79 THAT WAS INVOICED OR INCLUDED ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS, WE HAVE $246.887.18 THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING, MOST OF THAT COMING FROM THE COUNTIES? YES.

THIS UPDATE WAS AT MERCED COUNTY NUMBER, IS THAT UP TO THIS LAST WEEK OR IS THAT UP TO SO THAT IS A SMALL NUMBER AND THAT'S THE INSTALLMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED AS OF MID DECEMBER.

THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IN MERCED COUNTY WAS THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WOULD COME IN CLOSER TO JANUARY.

SO I WAS ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT WE HAD EVEN RECEIVED A PAYMENT BY DECEMBER.

HAVE $388,000 OF THE BUDGET FOR THE GSP IS REMAINING AND IT IS FOR WORK THAT OUR CONSULTANTS HAVE YET REMAINED TO DO IN THE GSP, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS TABLE, BUT YES.

OKAY.

WE DO HAVE FUNDING IN THE GSA'S BUDGET THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT ON THE UPCOMING SLIDES.

OKAY.

OKAY. SO IF YOU'RE READY, WE CAN MOVE ON TO JUST AN UPDATE ON THE BUDGET STATUS FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE PHASE TWO OF MERCED GSP.

THIS IS THE BASIN WIDE GSP.

SO THIS INCLUDES COSTS THAT ARE SHARED BY ALL THREE GSAS IN THE BASIN.

PHASE TWO STARTED AFTER THE PROP ONE GRANT APPLICATION BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2017 AFTER ALL OF THAT WAS COMPLETED.

SO THERE WAS A PHASE ONE OF MERCED GSP THAT WAS BEFORE THE MERCED SUB-BASIN RECEIVE THAT $1.5 MILLION GRANT AWARD.

MERCED SUB-BASINS GSA'S SHARE OF PHASE ONE WAS APPROXIMATELY $82,000 AND THAT HAS BEEN INVOICED BY MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT WHO WAS ADMINISTERING THAT CONTRACT WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN AND WE'VE PAID THAT.

THAT WAS NOT REIMBURSABLE BY THE GRANT.

SO PHASE TWO STARTS GSP DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT MOSTLY IS REIMBURSABLE BY THE $1.5 MILLION GRANT.

SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE BOTTOM THE TOTAL OF THIS CONTRACT WAS APPROXIMATELY $1.6 MILLION.

THIS IS A CONTRACT THAT WAS STARTED IN 2017 LIKE I MENTIONED.

THE FINAL GSP WAS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER BY ALL THREE GSAS AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING SUBMITTED TO THE DWR.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE TABLE BEFORE YOU, THERE IS BUDGET REMAINING ONLY IN THREE TASKS.

THOSE THREE TASKS ARE GSP COMPILATION AND PREPARATION, COORDINATION AND OUTREACH, AND INTER-BASIN AGREEMENTS AND COORDINATION.

ALSO, MOST OF THE CONTINGENCY IS STILL REMAINING.

WHILE ALL OF THE GSP DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY DWR FOR THE $1.5 MILLION GRANT THAT WE WERE AWARDED, MOST OF THEM ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES THAT DWR WILL NOT REIMBURSE AND THAT THE GSAS WILL HAVE TO COVER.

ALSO, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS CONTRACT IS 1.6 MILLION, THE GRANT IS 1.5 MILLION.

SO THERE IS A LOCAL SHARE ON TOP OF THE GRANT THAT THE GSAS WILL ALSO HAVE TO COVER.

WHAT INCURRING IS DILIGENT ABOUT SECURING REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ENTIRE GRANT FOR US AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DO GET REIMBURSED FOR ALL $1.5 MILLION.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN,

[00:10:01]

INTER-BASIN AGREEMENTS AND COORDINATION? SO INTER-BASIN AGREEMENTS AND COORDINATION INCLUDES ALL OF THE MEETINGS AND AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH NEIGHBORING BASINS.

WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE TURLOCK GSAS.

WE'VE HAD I THINK TWO OR THREE MEETINGS WITH TURLOCK.

WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH THE DELTA-MENDOTA GSAS.

I KNOW OUR CONSULTANTS HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE WITH THE THE ACTUAL GSA AND WE HAVE A DOCUMENT, A MEMORANDUM OF INTENT TO COORDINATE WITH TURLOCK THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS GSA AND ALL OF THE OTHER GSAS IN MERCED AND TURLOCK.

SO ALL OF THAT COORDINATION IS INCLUDED IN NUMBER 13, INTER-BASIN AGREEMENTS AND COORDINATION SUPPORT FOR THOSE MEETINGS AND FOR THOSE AGREEMENTS.

SO THE LAST SLIDE WAS GSP COSTS THAT WERE BASIN-WIDE THAT WE'RE SHARING ALTOGETHER.

I WANT TO GO A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO COSTS THAT ARE JUST THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.

SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE PHASE 2 GSP DEVELOPMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED BY THE WOODARD & CURRAN CONTRACT WERE $1,600,501.50 AFTER THE $1.5 MILLION DWR GRANT, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA LOCAL SHARE OF COSTS ARE APPROXIMATELY $60,000.

IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S PERCENTAGE OF THE COST THAT WE SPLIT IS 58 PERCENT.

SO THAT APPROXIMATE $60,000 IS 58 PERCENT.

SO IN PREPARATION FOR THE ANTICIPATED CASH FLOW NECESSARY FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT BACK IN FISCAL YEAR '18, '19, THIS BOARD APPROVED COLLECTING FROM MEMBER AGENCIES $413,038.

AT THE TIME WE WERE LOOKING AT THE AMOUNT OF THE $1.6 MILLION GRANT THAT THIS GSA WOULD HAVE TO FRONT SHOULD WE NOT HAVE THE $1.5 MILLION GRANT AWARD OR SHOULD THAT AWARD, SINCE IT WAS REIMBURSABLE, SHOULD IT TAKE TIME TO BE REIMBURSED.

IF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT WAS GOING TO INVOICE US MONTHLY, WE NEEDED CASH ON HAND TO BE ABLE TO PAY THOSE INVOICES AND THEN GET THAT REIMBURSEMENT BACK FROM DWR.

SO THERE WAS A LARGE MEMBER AGENCY CONTRIBUTION BACK IN FISCAL YEAR '18, '19 AND THIS BOARD UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF WHAT THE LOCAL SHARE WOULD BE.

SO AT THIS TIME, MID HAS MINIMALLY INVOICED THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA FOR PHASE 2 OF GSP DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES.

WE'VE PAID ABOUT $5,707 IN GSP DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND THOSE ARE EXPENSES THAT ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE BY THE GRANT.

THEY'RE MAINLY TRAVEL FOR THE CONSULTANTS.

PHASE 1, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PHASE ONE COSTS THAT WE'VE PAID WERE ABOUT $82,000 BUT THAT WAS PAID LAST YEAR, IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR.

WE DO HAVE SOME ANTICIPATED COSTS COMING UP FOR THE PROP 68 GRANT.

IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, WE DEVELOPED A GRANT APPLICATION FOR A $500,000 GRANT UNDER PROPOSITION 68.

THAT GRANT APPLICATION IS NOT ALSO NOT GOING TO BE COVERED BY ANY GRANT FUNDING, SO THAT WILL BE A LOCAL SHARE THAT THIS GSA WILL HAVE TO PAY.

SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE ANTICIPATING AND WE ALSO ANTICIPATED BACK IN 2017 AND '18 THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT $300,000 OF GSP DEVELOPMENT COSTS THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM MEMBER AGENCIES IN FISCAL YEAR '18, '19.

THEY WILL BE REMAINING AFTER THE GSP DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE FINALIZED AND AFTER THE GRANT IS FINALIZED LATER IN 2020.

SO AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION TODAY ARE THE OPTIONS FOR THIS $300,000 IN GSP DEVELOPMENT COSTS THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM MEMBER AGENCIES.

SO THE GSA MAY REFUND THE MONEY BACK TO THE MEMBER AGENCIES IN THE SAME PROPORTION IT WAS COLLECTED OR THE GSA BOARD MAY CHOOSE TO KEEP THE FUNDING AND REALLOCATE IT TOWARDS GSP IMPLEMENTATION.

AGAIN, WHEN THE BOARD DID COLLECT THESE FUNDS IN 2017, THEY DID SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS BOARD WOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE FUNDING ONCE THE GRANT HAD FULLY REIMBURSED ALL THE GSP EXPENSES.

[00:15:03]

SO THAT FULL REIMBURSEMENT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, BUT PERHAPS NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO START A DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THAT FUNDING WHEN IT DOES BECOME AVAILABLE LATER THIS YEAR.

NO DECISION IS REQUIRED AT THIS POINT UNTIL THE GRANT'S FINALIZED LATER.

I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SOME IMPLEMENTATION COST TO HAVE IN MIND AS YOU DISCUSS THIS.

SO WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT VERY LOCAL MERCED SUBBASIN GSA COSTS.

NOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO SOME IMPLEMENTATION COSTS THAT WOULD BE BASIN-WIDE.

THESE WOULD BE COSTS THAT WERE SHARED BETWEEN THE THREE GSAS.

SOME OF THESE OPTIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED BY WOODARD & CURRAN, WE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US SOME SUGGESTIONS ON SOME OF THE WORK TO START IMPLEMENTING THE GSP.

SO FOR THE FIRST YEAR, THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT IS REQUIRED, THEN WE'VE GOT FOUR OPTIONAL ITEMS HERE, DEVELOPING OR I'M SORRY, STARTING WITH COORDINATION AND OUTREACH IN YEAR 1, THIS WOULD INCLUDE FOUR QUARTERLY COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS PLUS FOUR PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND UPDATES TO THE WEBSITE, DEVELOPING A METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA AT NEW WELLS WITH HISTORICAL DATA.

NEW WELLS THAT DO NOT HAVE HISTORICAL DATA IS THE NEXT OPTION.

MANY OF THE DATA GAPS IN THE BASIN OR IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S MANAGEMENT AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT NEW WELLS THAT COME ONLINE THAT DO NOT HAVE HISTORICAL DATA, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR THOSE.

THAT HAS TO BE AGREED UPON BY ALL THREE GSAS IN THE BASIN.

NEXT IS UPDATING THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN.

FOR THIS OPTION, IF YOU REMEMBER, WE DO HAVE SOME REMAINING FUNDING UNDER THE PROP 1 GRANT THAT WAS FOR OUTREACH AND WE COULD USE SOME OF THAT PROP ONE GRANT FUNDING TO COMPLETE THIS TASK.

NEXT IS EVALUATING THE GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEM OR GDE PULSE TOOL.

THIS PULSE TOOL WAS RELEASED BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN THE SUMMER OF 2019.

ESSENTIALLY, THAT WAS AFTER OUR GSP HAD COMPLETED THE GDE SECTION AND SO THE PULSE TOOL WAS NEVER FULLY EVALUATED.

SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED ON OUR GSP FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ENCOURAGED THE EVALUATION AND USING THE PULSE TOOL.

SO THAT OPTION WOULD BE TO USE THE PULSE TOOL.

THEN FINALLY, THERE'S $50,000 FOR BASICALLY WORKING WITH DWR TO CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT THE GSP IS APPROVED.

SO OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, WE'LL BE REVIEWING OUR GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE GSA DURING THE TWO YEARS AND HAVING A LOT OF COORDINATION BACK AND FORTH, OR IF THEY'RE JUST GOING TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF TWO YEARS AND THEN COME BACK TO THE GSA WITH PERHAPS QUESTIONS OR CHANGES THAT THEY WANT MADE AND SO WE DO HAVE SOME FUNDING IN HERE TO PROVIDE FURTHER TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH DWR AND GET THAT GSP APPROVED.

DO YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON JUST AS SECTION, RIGHT? YES.

ON ITEM TWO, THE OPTIONAL GSP PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

HOW MANY COORDINATION MEETINGS, HOW MANY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS WAS THAT? SO THAT'S FOUR QUARTERLY.

SO FOUR COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND FOR PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND WEBSITE UPDATES.

I DO JUST WANT TO SAY THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS BY THE CONSULTANT, BUT ANY OF THIS COULD BE CHANGED IF YOU WANTED TO DO MORE OR LESS OR IF YOU THOUGHT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS TOO HIGH FOR FOUR MEETINGS.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE CHANGED.

SO FOUR QUARTERLY OVER TWO YEARS, SO ACTUALLY EIGHT MEETINGS? NO FOUR MEETINGS OVER ONE YEAR.

OKAY. SO THAT'S JUST ONE.

OKAY, THE YEAR 1 ACTIVE IS OKAY.

WHAT DOES GDE STAND FOR? GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS. OKAY. MY UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS TOOL; IS THAT CORRECT? WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT IT? RIGHT. OUR CONSULTANTS DID NOT EVALUATE THIS TOOL AT ALL WHEN DEVELOPING THE GSP BECAUSE THEY HAD

[00:20:01]

ALREADY COMPLETED THE SECTION BY THE TIME THE TOOL CAME OUT AND SO WE COMPLETED IT WITHOUT THIS TOOL, BUT COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED ON THE GSP FROM SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DID SUGGEST USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE GDES IN THE MERCED BASIN.

JUST ANOTHER QUESTION, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IT.

THESE FOUR OPTIONS PLUS THE NUMBER TEST, NUMBER 6, THESE ARE ALL SUGGESTED WITHIN THE WORK SCOPE THAT WOODARD AND CURRAN HAD FOR THIS FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OR IS THERE SOME OF OTHER STUFF, THESE ACTIVITIES, DID NOT COME FROM WOODARD AND CURRAN? SO ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES, THE OPTIONS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE FROM WOODARD AND CURRAN AND THEY CAME IN RESPONSE TO THE GSA'S ASKING WOODARD AND CURRAN, NOW THAT WE'VE DRAFTED THE GSP, WHAT TASKS DO WE HAVE LEFT IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT AND START IMPLEMENTING THE GSP? SO ALL OF THE TASKS ARE FROM WOODARD AND CURRAN, AND THERE BASIN-WIDE TASKS.

THEY ARE NOT PART OF PREPARING THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT IS A SEPARATE ITEM AND YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT IN THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA.

I SEE. SO JUST THE TASK 2 THROUGH 6 ARE ADDITIONAL WORK SCOPE THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT ON OUR PART.

THAT'S NOT, AT THIS TIME, FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION ON.

IT'S NOT A DECISION.

THIS IS JUST A CONVERSATION FOR YOU TO HAVE ON THE OPTIONS THAT THE CONSULTANT HAS BROUGHT UP FOR US TO DISCUSS.

I WOULD SAY, OF WHAT WE SEE IN THE OPTIONS HERE, WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND IF WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS OVER THE NEXT YEAR, IS QUARTERLY THE RIGHT NUMBER FOR THAT? I THINK THAT'S A DECISION FOR THE 3 GSAS TO MAKE.

I THINK OPTION NUMBER THREE, EVENTUALLY THE GSAS WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP THAT METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING NEW SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR NEW WELLS.

OPTIONS 4 AND 5, I WOULD SAY ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPTIONAL, THAT UPDATING THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND EVALUATING THE GDE PULSE TOOL.

THEN NUMBER SIX, HAVING SOME FUNDING ON HAND TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.

IT IS JUST A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ENGAGED IN WORKING WITH DWR IN ORDER TO GET THAT GSP TO COMPLETION.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW OPTIONAL YOU WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER THAT.

THAT'S JUST ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF 50,000, I'M JUST ESTIMATING.

THAT 50,000, I WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN.

MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS THAT THAT WOULD GET US THROUGH TO APPROVAL, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

IT IS IN THE YEAR 1 CATEGORY.

THEY DON'T HAVE IT IN THE YEAR 2 CATEGORY.

YOU'LL SEE LATER ON THAT TABLE THAT THERE'S SOME YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES THAT THEY'VE THROWN OUT THERE.

WE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US A BALLPARK.

THOSE ARE REALLY BROAD NUMBERS.

THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE CORRESPONDING WITH DWR FOR GSP APPROVAL IN YEAR 2.

SO MY FIRST ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT 50,000 WOULD GET US TO APPROVAL.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE A QUICK MENTION OF THIS PROP 68.

THESE PROP 68 TASKS, THESE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

WE SUBMITTED A GRANT APPLICATION FOR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES LATE LAST YEAR AND WE INCLUDED TWO TASKS.

ONE ADDRESSING DATA GAPS AND TWO, DEVELOPING A REMOTE SENSING DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

SO THAT $500,000, INCLUDING GRANT ADMINISTRATION, THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE PROP 68 GRANT, SHOULD WE GET THAT GRANT AWARD.

WE'LL BE NOTIFIED OF AWARDS BY MARCH 2020.

SO WE'LL KNOW BY 2020 WHETHER OR NOT THOSE TASKS HAVE BEEN FUNDED.

IF THEY AREN'T FUNDED, THOSE ARE TASKS THAT THE GSAS DO HAVE TO COMPLETE AND SO THEY'LL HAVE TO FUND THEM THEMSELVES,

[00:25:01]

IF THEY AREN'T FUNDED BY THE GRANT AWARD.

THEN AS I MENTIONED, YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES, THOSE ARE REALLY BROAD NUMBERS AND REALLY BROAD TASKS JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WOODARD AND CURRAN THOUGHT.

AS A BASIN, WHAT COSTS WE WOULD HAVE TO COVER IN YEAR 2.

I ALSO WANT TO GIVE A QUICK MENTION THAT THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA HAS DEVELOPED THIS FIRST FIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

YOU SAW THAT IN NOVEMBER.

THIS WAS A PLAN THAT WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER JUST FOR THIS GSA.

YOUR TECHNICAL COMMITTEE WAS WORKING ON IT ALONG WITH THE CONSULTANT, GREG YOUNG.

THAT FIRST FIVE PLAN INCLUDES PROJECTS, STUDIES, AND TASKS THAT ARE ONLY PROJECTS FOR THIS GSA AND THAT WOULD BE FULLY FUNDED BY THIS GSA.

SOME OF THE FIRST-YEAR PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT FIRST FIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ARE AN INVENTORY OF DOMESTIC WELLS, AN ESTIMATION OF EXTRACTION PER PARCEL, IDENTIFYING LANDS FOR RECHARGE, WATER RIGHTS, PERMITTING, IDENTIFYING SUSTAINABILITY ZONES, FILLING DATA GAPS IN THE MONITORING NETWORK IN THIS GSA, AN OUTREACH ON POTENTIAL DEMAND REDUCTION.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE COST THAT WOODARD AND CURRAN IS SUGGESTING, AND THESE OPTIONAL TASK BY WOODARD AND CURRAN, I DO WANT YOU TO ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE ARE PROJECTS AND TASKS THAT THIS GSA COULD AND WILL ACCOMPLISH OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR THAT WILL BE FULLY FUNDED BY THIS GSA AS WELL.

A QUESTION, A LOT OF TIMES I GET CONFUSED ON HOW THE TERMINOLOGY HERE BUT THE TASK UNDER THE GRANT TASK 3, DEVELOP REMOTE-SENSING DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

NOW, IS THAT BASICALLY A SATELLITE IMAGERY THAT'S DETERMINING A BASIN-WIDE CONSUMPTIVE USE OR WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY A DECISION SUPPORT TOOL? YOU'RE CORRECT.

IT'S A SATELLITE IMAGERY.

IT WOULD BE WORKING WITH CUPOLA IN THE IRTC METRIC TOOL TO DEVELOP THE WATER USE AND DEMAND IN THIS BASIN, AND IT WOULD BE BASIN-WIDE.

WE WOULD DO THAT FOR 2018, 2019, AND 2020.

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE, LET ME STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT.

IS ALL THIS RELATED TO THE GSP, SO IT'S GOING TO BE SHARED BY THE GSA'S OR IS THIS ARE GSA'S EXPENSE? SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE TABLE WOULD ALL BE SHARED BY ALL THREE GSAS.

THE GRANT IS SHARED BY ALL THREE GSAS AND ANY OF THOSE OPTIONAL TASKS, SHOULD WE CHOOSE TO COMPLETE THEM AS A BASIN, THOSE WOULD ALL BE SHARED.

THESE COSTS, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA WOULD PAY 58 PERCENT OF THOSE COSTS.

I GAVE YOU A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS. I HAD STARTED WITH AN INVENTORY OF DOMESTIC WELLS.

THOSE ARE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE ONLY PAID FOR BY THIS GSA, AND THEY WOULD BE ONLY WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT AREA OF THIS GSA.

THAT WAS ANOTHER BUDGET? THAT, I JUST VERBALLY GAVE YOU THAT LIST.

YOU DID GET THAT FIRST FIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACK IN NOVEMBER.

SO YOU DO HAVE THAT.

IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, IT'S A LARGE SHEET.

GOT IT. LACEY, ITEM 6, NO EXCUSE ME.

ITEM GRAND TASK 2, IS THAT ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY NEW MONITORING WELLS OR IS THAT PLANNING FOR NEW MONITORING WELLS? IT'S WHAT THE GSP REQUIRES.

WHAT WE THE GSAS WOULD DEVELOP A DATA GAP PLAN.

SO THAT IS PLANNING FOR NEW MONITORING WELLS.

THAT $359,000 DOES NOT INSTALL NEW MONITORING WELLS BUT IT MAY ADD EXISTING WELLS TO THE MONITORING NETWORK.

IT DOESN'T DRILL WELLS, THOUGH.

SO THERE'S NO ACTION REQUIRED TODAY, BUT A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION FOR YOU,

[00:30:01]

WHAT INTEREST YOU HAVE WITH THE $300,000 REMAINING IN GSP DEVELOPMENT, AND PERHAPS SOME OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE OPTIONAL TASKS FOR YEAR 1.

BUT AGAIN, NO DECISIONS ARE REQUIRED TODAY.

WHAT IS YOUR, I'M GOING TO SAY GUESSTIMATE OF HOW LONG BEFORE WE WON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT 300,000 WE DO HAVE THAT'S EXTRA? WILL WE KNOW BY APRIL? WILL IT BE JUNE? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE YET WITH THAT NUMBER.

YEAH. RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE ABOUT $388,000 IN THE BUDGET OF THAT 400 AND X NUMBER THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED BACK IN 2017-'18, WE HAVE 388,000 REMAINING.

BUT MID DOES CONTINUE TO INVOICE FOR COSTS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE GRANT.

I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THIRD OR FOURTH QUARTER OF 2020 IS WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER NUMBER.

SINCE WE DO HAVE ABOUT THREE TASKS THAT HAD BUDGET REMAINING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE OUT THE GRANT UNTIL WE FINISH UP THOSE TASKS.

SOME OF THOSE TASKS COULD BE USED ON SOME OF THESE OPTIONAL LIKE THE OUTREACH FUNDING THE BUDGET AND THE OUTREACH TASK COULD BE USED TO UPDATE THE STAKE HOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN, AND SO SOME OF THAT COULD DELAY IT A LITTLE BIT.

WE'LL HAVE A BETTER NUMBER IN THE LATER HALF OF THIS YEAR I WOULD SAY.

I GUESS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW IN SUMMARY, IT APPEARS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SURPLUS FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE.

SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT EVEN BY, LET'S SAY OUR NEXT MEETING IN APRIL, TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO BE LEFT OVER.

WELL, NO MORE THAN I GUESS, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE QUITE A FEW ACTIVITIES IN THIS PRESENTATION, FIRST-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION.

SO THAT ESTIMATED 300,000, SO WE GOT TO THE ESTIMATED NUMBER BY KNOWING THAT.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE $388,000 IN GSP DEVELOPMENT.

THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THIS GSA WOULD PAY IS APPROXIMATELY $60,000 OVER AND ABOVE THE GRANT THAT'S NOT FUNDED BY THE GRANT SO WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER TASKS OR NOT TASKS BUT ACTIVITIES THAT THE GRANT WON'T FUND, LIKE TRAVEL, LIKE THAT $5,000 WE JUST RECENTLY PAID THAT WOULD ALSO COME OFF OF THAT 388.

SO I THINK A BALLPARK FIGURE OF 300 IS A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER OF WHAT GSP DEVELOPMENT FUNDS WILL HAVE LEFT.

THESE TASKS THAT YOU SEE IN YEAR ONE, RIGHT NOW THAT $300 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO USE FOR IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE IN 2017-'18 THIS BOARD DECIDED TO COLLECT THAT FUNDING FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN RETURN AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT ONCE WE GOT IT REIMBURSE BACK FROM THE GRANT.

SO IT HAS NOT BEEN REPROGRAMMED FOR OTHER SPENDING UNTIL THIS BOARD DECIDES TO EITHER REPROGRAM IT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OR REIMBURSE IT BACK TO THE AGENCIES.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKED WHEN I WAS GONE BUT WHEN WILL WE KNOW IF WE GET THE PROP 68? GRANT AWARDS ARE EXPECTED IN MARCH 2020.

YEAH. IT MAY HELP MAKE DECISION.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS IN APRIL SO I'M THINKING THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS IN MIND.

IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT SURPLUS AT THAT TIME, THEN THE IDEA OF SENDING SOME BACK TO THE MEMBER AGENCIES IS NOT A BAD IDEA.

BUT I WOULDN'T SUGGEST TO DESCRIBE IT UNLESS WE KNOW A LITTLE MORE AT THIS TIME.

I AGREE.

I WOULDN'T BE IN A HURRY TO DO THAT EVEN AT THE NEXT MEETING.

OKAY.

THAT CONCLUDE THE BUDGET PRESENTATION? THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. YES.

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.

OKAY, SEEING NONE, THERE'S NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME.

SO

[Item 6]

AND THAT IS THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

LACEY IS GOING TO GIVE US A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.

OKAY. THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT HAS A SECTION THAT REQUIRES EACH AGENCY, EACH GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, TO SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES BY APRIL FIRST OF EACH YEAR FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE GSP.

SO THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT WILL BE DUE APRIL FIRST OF 2020.

THE ANNUAL REPORTS INCLUDE COMPONENTS FOR THE PRECEDING WATER YEAR INCLUDING, GENERAL INFORMATION AND BASIN CONDITIONS OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND USE, TOTAL WATER USE, ANNUAL WATER BUDGET AND CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY, LAND SUBSIDENCE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY, AMONG OTHERS.

OUR GSP CONSULTANT HAS DEVELOPED A SCOPE OF WORK TO PRODUCE THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN.

THE TOTAL COST IS A $147,804.

MERCED SUBBASIN GSA IS 58 PERCENT SHARE WOULD BE $85,726.32.

THE TASKS IN THE SCOPE OF WORK WILL BE TO COLLECT AND COMPILE AND ANALYZE THE DATA, UPDATE THE MERCED SUBBASIN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, DOCUMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS OF THE GSP, AND TO PREPARE THE ANNUAL REPORT.

THE COST OF THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT IS HIGHER THAN WHAT FUTURE ANNUAL REPORTS WILL BE FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, THIS IS THE FIRST REPORT AND SO IT WILL BE REALLY CREATING A TEMPLATE FOR THAT GSA IS TO USE IN THE NEXT REPORT.

ANOTHER REASON IS FOR THIS FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES WANTS NOT ONLY THE PRIOR WATER YEAR, BUT ALL PRIOR WATER YEARS GOING BACK TO 2015.

SO 2015 THROUGH 2019 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THIS FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

WHEN WE GO TO DO THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT DUE IN APRIL OF 2021, WE WILL ONLY BE REPORTING ON THE WATER YEAR 2020.

SO THE SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE AND BUDGET ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

THIS WILL BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT WOODARD & CURRAN SCOPE OF WORK.

SO THE ACTIONS BEFORE YOU ARE TO CONSIDER APPROVING, AMENDING THE WOODARD & CURRAN CONTRACT TO INCLUDE THE PREPARATION OF THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT AT A TOTAL COST OF A $147,804, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT.

JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IT, THE GSP WAS DEVELOPED WITH INFORMATION FROM 2015 GOING BACK.

SO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING NOW IS GIVING US FROM '15 FORWARD? RIGHT.

OKAY.

THE DESCRIPTION OF THEIR WORK SCOPE.

MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT IS IT'D BE PRETTY HARD TO DO THIS FOR LESS BY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CONSULTANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE.

SO THAT'S MY OPINION.

I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BUT THIS CORRECTION WAS MADE AFTER THE PACKETS WENT OUT.

SO ON THE THIRD TO THE LAST PAGE, UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED BUT LISTED UNDER THE TASKS.

[00:40:03]

THE GDE PULSE TOOL IS INCLUDED IN THE PREPARATION ANNUAL REPORT AS ITEM H AND THE GDE PULSE TOOL AS YOU REMEMBER IS AN OPTION FOR EVALUATION THAT WE HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO DO YET.

SO THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

SO THAT'S JUST A CORRECTION THAT WAS MADE.

WHERE WAS THAT AGAIN, LACEY? IT'S THE THIRD FROM THE LAST PAGE, SUB-TASK 1.4, PREPARE ANNUAL REPORT NUMBER H, 3H.

OH, OKAY. I SEE UNDER 3H.

OKAY. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY DELETED OFF OF THIS WORK SCOPE.

THAT'S DELETED OFF, YES.

IS THE MODEL GOING TO BE UPDATED AS WELL OR IS THAT WHEN THEY SAY COLLECT, COMPILE, AND ANALYZE DATA? THAT IS NOT AN UPDATE OF THE MODEL.

OKAY.

BUT THEY'LL BE USING THE MODEL TO COLLECT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, THE DATA? THEY'RE NOT ADDING NEW INFORMATION AND RECALIBRATING THE MODEL IN THIS FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, THOUGH.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LACEY.

ON ONE OF THE TASKS, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE THREE AGENCIES ARE ALL PAYING FOR THIS, IS IT CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO THIS IS THE TOTAL MERCED SUBBASIN? CORRECT.

OKAY. I WONDER THE TASK SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND USE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES, PRECIPITATION, STREAM FLOW, LOCAL SURFACE STREAM FLOW, ALL THAT.

WELL, THAT SEEMS ALL THE WATER'S COMING IN AVAILABLE INTO MERCED COUNTY.

IT SAYS THAT DELIVERY IS LOCAL SERVICE ORDERS ARE ASSUMED TO BE PROVIDED DIRECTLY BY THE GSA AND OTHER LOCAL AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE.

SO IF THEY'RE TAKING THIS AS THE TOTAL SUPPLY AND WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR ANALYSIS FOR OUR GSP.

THEN I KNOW THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN BUT SUPPOSE ONE OF THE THREE AGENCIES DECIDES TO SHIP THEIR WATER OUT OF THE BASIN, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, ISN'T IT, AS FAR AS OUR DATA? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I'M TRYING TO THINK IF SURFACE WATER EXPORTS OUTSIDE THE BASIN HAVE BEEN CALCULATED IN THE GSP IN THE FIRST PLACE? THAT'S A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE TO ASK WOODARD & CURRAN IS HOW DO THEY CALCULATE THAT OR DO THEY EVEN CALCULATE IT AT ALL IF IT'S JUST A PAST.

YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE IT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IN OUR GSA, THE COUNTY GSA, AND SURFACE WATER THAT YOU MAYBE HAD PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF DECISION TO SEND IT OUTSIDE THE BASIN.

THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT WHAT OUR AMBIENT ABILITY IS FOR GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND AFFECTS THE GSP.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DATA, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ACCURATE DATA HERE IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION IN OUR GSA ON WHAT WE CAN ALLOW OUR GUYS TO PUMP.

PERHAPS THE DISTINCTION IS UNDER THE WORD DELIVERIES, SO THAT'S DELIVERED IN THE BASIN VERSUS PERHAPS WHAT YOU'RE YOU'RE THINKING OF MEMBER I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST TRYING.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IT SAYS SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES INCLUDE PRECIPITATION, STREAM FLOW, LOCAL SURFACE WATER PRECIPITATION, STREAM FLOW DATA.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S ASSUMING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S COMING INTO MERCED COUNTY, WHETHER IT'S FROM A STREAM FLOW, PRECIPITATION, OR WHATEVER.

THAT'S GOING TO BE OUR TOTAL OVERALL SUPPLY.

THEN WE GOT TO DECIDE IF SOME OF THAT SUPPLY IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S GOING OUTSIDE THE BASIN, THEN WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THAT TO WHATEVER WE'RE DOING IN OUR BASIN.

I MEAN, I THINK IN REGARDS TO THIS, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, MR. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE GSAS AND ASK WHERE DELIVERIES HAVE GONE AND THEY'VE STAYED OR GONE.

I TOTALLY HEAR YOUR POINT.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE HARD PRESS TO START SHIPPING TOO MUCH OUT OF THE BASIN, ANY ENTITY WITH WATER IN THIS BASIN.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T, I MEAN THAT RIGHT NOW, IT'S THEIR DECISION.

IT'S NOT OUR DECISION, BUT IT WILL AFFECT GROWERS.

IF WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY OUT THERE IS PLANNING TO PLANT WALL TO WALL

[00:45:03]

PISTACHIOS IN THE COUNTY GSA, HE BETTER KNOW.

RIGHT.

BECAUSE 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER, HE'S GOING TO LOSE THEM, SOME OF THEM, ANYWAY.

MAYBE WE COULD MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF OUR GSA THAT SHOULD ANY CHANGES IN THE SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THIS SURFACE WATER SUPPLY THAT DID NOT STAY IN OUR BASIN THAT THAT GETS ACCOUNTED FOR.

SOMEHOW I RECOGNIZED IN THE ANALYSIS.

SO THAT WE HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE TO US WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS.

GOOD POINT.

I THINK WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT BACK TO WHEN WE'RE INCURRING THAT.

THAT SHOULD SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES THAT ARE ORIGINALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THIS REPORT, SHOULD THEY NOT END UP IN THE BASIN, THAT IS INCLUDED AND THEN WE'LL SAY A FOLLOW-UP.

I GUESS, THEY'RE LOOKING BACKWARD AT THIS THING.

CORRECT.

SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEY'RE LOOKING BACKWARD.

IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT DID STAY IN THE BASIN, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT TO CLARIFY WITH WOODARD & CURRAN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR HERE, A MOTION? THIS IS TO APPROVE THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT SCOPE OF WORK ON BEHALF OF WOODARD & CURRAN FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF, I THINK IT'S 147,000.

WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT IT NOW, AND IT'S NOT UP FOR MOTION YET.

BUT UNLESS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, THEN IT WOULD BE READY FOR YEAH, I WAS GOING TO OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC.

OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? COULD YOU PLEASE COME UP.

THESE HERE ARE THE MICROPHONE? YEAH, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME.

MY NAME IS KEITH I'M A RESIDENT HERE IN MERCED.

IS THIS A CHANGE ORDER? SHOULDN'T THIS HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN TO DEVELOP THIS KIND OF A THING? IT'S A REPORT REQUIRED GOING FORWARD.

IT WAS NOT PART OF THE GSP.

IT'S A REPORT TO DWR FROM THE PERIODIC CHANGE AFTER THE GSP.

OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A CHANGE ORDER THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT'S NOT.

THAT'S NOT.

OKAY. GOOD.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, AFTER THE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED, OUR FIRST ANNUAL REPORT IS DUE TWO MONTHS AFTER IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, WHICH HASN'T BEEN APPROVED BUT THESE EITHER REQUBUT IT'SRED BY LAW THAT WE SUBMIT OUR FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

GOT IT. SO THIS IS THE BED TO IO THAT? RIGHT. SO THE PLAN IS DONE, NOW WE GOING TO MAKE A REPORT ON THE PLAN.

YEAH, I GOT IT.

JUST A HOAX, RIGHT? WELL, THE PLAN COVERED UP TO 2015.

THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE WHAT YEAR, '15, '16, '17, '18, '19.

SEEING THEN, CAN I HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ANOTHER MOTION? I HAVE ONE QUESTION FIRST, MR. CHAIR. SO IS THIS A NEW MOTION? I KNOW WE MENTIONED AMENDING A CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? ARE WE AMENDING A CONTRACT OR IS THIS A BRAND NEW CONTRACT?

[00:50:03]

I THINK IT'S A NEW CONTRACT.

THIS IS AMENDING THE WOODARD & CURRAN ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO DEVELOP THE GSP.

NOW, THIS IS THE THIRD AMENDMENT.

YOU AMENDED IT ONCE TO DRAFT THE GRANT APPLICATION FOR PROP 68.

THIS IS A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.

MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.

SO I'D MOVE TO APPROVE AMENDING THE WOODARD & CURRAN INCORPORATED CONTRACT TO PREPARE THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE MERCED GSP AT A TOTAL COST OF $147,804 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT.

THEN I'LL SAY THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YES.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? SO CARRIED. THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM IS STAFF REPORT.

[Item 7]

TWO QUICK ITEMS FOR YOU.

THE FIRST IS THE NEXT FORM 700, SUBMISSIONS TO THE FPPC WILL BE DUE ON APRIL 1ST, AND SO YOU WILL ALL AS BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM ANA SO PLEASE, KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT.

THEY'RE DUE APRIL 1ST TO ANNA, A ORIGINAL WITH A WET SIGNATURE IS WHAT'S REQUIRED TO ANNA, SO YOU CAN'T JUST E-MAIL IT IN.

SECONDLY, A QUICK UPDATE ON THE GSP SUBMITTAL.

WOODARD & CURRAN IS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF UPLOADING OUR GSP INTO THE SIGMA PORTAL TO SUBMIT IT TO DWR.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE INVOLVED RATHER THAN JUST GIVING THEM A SINGLE DOCUMENT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT DWR IS REQUIRING, INCLUDING NOT ONLY THE GSP, BUT ALSO THE MONITORING NETWORK IN EVERY SINGLE WELL IN OUR MONITORING NETWORK HAS TO BE INCLUDED AND ALL OF THAT.

SO WOODARD & CURRAN HAS UPLOADED ALMOST ALL OF THE GSP AND THE GSP SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.

THEY'RE WORKING ON THE MONITORING NETWORK AND THEY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS WITH DWR THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH TO CLARIFY THOSE, BUT WE'RE ON TRACK FOR THE GSP TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE JANUARY 31ST, WHICH IS THE DEADLINE.

THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS MORE JUST HOUSEKEEPING AND MORE FOR THE CLERK.

WE SHOULD HAVE THE RECORD REFLECT THAT SUPERVISOR QUERY IS AN ATTENDANCE.

GOOD.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER BOARD REPORT, I GUESS MIGHT NEEDS TO BE ON? THAT'S JUST FINE. OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS APRIL 9TH.

[Item 9]

IS THERE ANY COMMITTEE MEETINGS COMING UP? YES, SO FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA, THE TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO MEET PROBABLY EARLY FEBRUARY.

THE DATE HASN'T BEEN SCHEDULED YET, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING INCLUDING OUR CONSULTANT GREG YOUNG, TO TALK ABOUT THE MONITORING NETWORK AND THE DATA GAPS THAT ARE IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA, AND PERHAPS IDENTIFYING SOME EITHER EXISTING WELLS THAT ARE THERE THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY APPROACH LANDOWNERS ABOUT MONITORING THOSE OR POTENTIALLY IDENTIFYING AREAS WHERE WE WOULD WANT NEW WELLS.

THIS WOULD BE IN COORDINATION, OF COURSE, WITH THE DATA GAP ANALYSIS OF THE PROP 68 IS GOING TO FUND AS WELL, BUT THIS GSA WOULD BE TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF INITIATIVE IN IDENTIFYING WHERE WE WANT WELLS, THE MONITORING NETWORK IN THIS GSA.

SO I DO ANTICIPATE THAT THAT TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

ALSO, I WOULD ALSO ANTICIPATE A COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND A STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETING BEFORE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2020, BEFORE THE NEXT GSA MEETING IN APRIL.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED EITHER.

THANK YOU.

THIS INFORMATION ON MY PART, I WAS CONTACTED BY A COMPANY, I CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME, BUT IT WAS ALSO A REMOTE SENSING AND SATELLITE IMAGERY CONSUMPTIVE USE PROGRAM REQUESTING

[00:55:04]

THAT JUST TO BE ABLE TO MEET AND TALK ABOUT WHAT SERVICES THEY CAN PROVIDE.

IT WAS A FEBRUARY DATE.

I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I DID WANT TO BRING IT FORWARD.

I KNOW THAT WE CAN DO IT ON THE AGENDA OR MAYBE JUST HAVE TWO MEMBERS AND STAFF MEET WITH THIS TO BE ABLE TO JUST PRELIMINARILY JUST DISCUSS WHAT THEIR PRODUCT IS.

WE HAD A PRESENTATION AT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING WITH A GUARD FROM THE CAL POLY SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO IT.

WE HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT THIS.

SO I JUST AM SUGGESTING THAT WE FIND OUT LITTLE MORE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED DOWN THE ROAD.

HOW'S THE PROCEDURE ON THAT? CAN WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR A SMALL COMMITTEE AND A STAFF? MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU COULD DO IT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

ONE, YOU AND THE VICE CHAIR, AS AN EXAMPLE, COULD DO THAT WITH STAFF. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

OR IF YOU, AS THE CHAIR, WANT TO PERHAPS POINT A COUPLE OF AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNDERTAKING THAT, YOU COULD DO THAT AS WELL.

I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU REQUIRED AN AGENDA ITEM OR WHAT NOT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO START DISCUSSING.

SO I'M HAPPY TO BECAUSE I WAS FIRST REACHED OUT BY THIS.

AFTER THAT, I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION ABOUT IT BUT I WILL PROVIDE IT.

IF VICE CHAIR OR SOME OTHER MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ME AND STAFF, WE'LL SET UP A MEETING.

PERHAPS EVEN A THIRD OPTION AS PROFESSOR PERERA REMINDED ME OF, IF WE COULD CERTAINLY ARRANGE WHAT WE REFER TO IS TWO BY TWO BY ONE, SO AS TO AVOID ANY BROWN ACT COMPLICATIONS.

WE COULD HAVE MULTIPLE BRIEFING SETUP FOR ANY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD THAT WOULD BE SO INCLINED.

TWO BY TWO BY TWO.

OR TWO BY TWO BY TWO.

YEAH, CORRECT.

WITH THE SPECIFIC CHARGE TO INTERVIEW A PERSPECTIVE REMOTE SENSING DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

I WOULD FIND THAT BENEFICIAL THAT WE'RE ALL WELL-INFORMED ON IT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON IT DOWN THE LINE, RATHER THAN TWO MEMBERS TRYING TO RELAY ALL THAT INFORMATION.

AGREED.

SO MY THOUGHTS ARE, IT'S REALLY IT'S GATHERING INFORMATION FOR US, RIGHT? IT'S REALLY NOT AN INTERVIEW.

WE HAVEN'T DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING.

SO I THINK IF IT'S JUST AN UPDATE OF INFORMATION TO US STAFF, THAT COMPANY, AND THEN US TWO-BY-TWO WOULD BE OKAY AND WOULDN'T VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT.

THEN IF DOWN THE ROAD WE DECIDED TO MAKE A FORMAL APPROACH, WELL, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AGENDIZED AND COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND FALL UNDER THAT CHARACTERISTICS.

SO WE'LL JUST NOTE THAT IN THE MINUTES, AND WE'LL PROCEED ON THAT BASIS.

ANY OTHER ITEM IN FRONT OF THE BOARD? NO, SIR.

OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS APRIL 9TH, THEN WE'LL ADJOURN. THANK YOU.

HOLD ON.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.