[00:00:01]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MERCED
[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
SUBBASIN MAY,13TH MEETING [NOISE].WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? [NOISE]
>> SIR, YOU DO HAVE A FULL QUORUM.
>> GINA, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? [NOISE]
>> [OVERLAPPING] OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. JUST A BRIEF REMINDER FOR THE BOARD AND MOST CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC THIS MAY 13TH, 2021, MERCED SUBBASIN GSA BOARD MEETING IS BEING HELD BOTH IN-PERSON AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT IS ALSO BEING BROADCAST THROUGH A ZOOM MEETING FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE, WHICH WE ARE CERTAINLY ENCOURAGING YOU TO DO.
THAT'S AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER IN-DASH 29, DASH 20.
THE PUBLIC IS ABLE TO OBSERVE THIS MEETING AND PROVIDE COMMENT BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING FROM THE LINK PROVIDED IN THE POSTED AGENDA.
AGAIN, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE BEING ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT THIS MEETING.
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE A COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE, IT'S A PART OF THE PLATFORM, AND YOU'LL BE RECOGNIZED FOR COMMENT BY THE CHAIR.
IF YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND REMEMBER TO RE-MUTE YOUR PHONE OR MICROPHONE TO AVOID ANY BACKGROUND NOISES THAT MAY BE A DISTRACTION TO OTHERS ON THE CALL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
IT IS NOW PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, AND NOT ON THE AGENDA.
AGAIN, A REMINDER FOR THOSE OF YOU ON ZOOM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE WILL GET TO YOU.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO ZOOM.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON ZOOM EITHER.
NEXT, I HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 8 MINUTES.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WERE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE. IS THERE NO MOTION TO APPROVE THEM?>> I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> MOVED BY DIRECTOR PADREDI AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH [NOISE].
NEXT, WE HAVE THE COUNTY OF MERCED GROUNDWATER ORDINATES,
[5. COUNTY OF MERCED GROUNDWATER ORDINANCE]
AND THIS IS A PRESENTATION FROM MERCED COUNTY.WHICH WILL BE DONE BY OUR DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR, STEVEN MAXINE.
HELLO, SIR. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS STEVEN MAXINE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY.
I WAS ASKED TO BE HERE TODAY TO JUST GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR GROUNDWATER MINING AND EXPORT ORDINANCE AS IT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING OR HOPING TO GO IN THE FUTURE.
WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS FUTURE PLANS OF POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTIONS WITH SOME OF OUR PARTNERING GSAS, AND LOOKING FORWARD TO MAYBE TAKING AN ACTION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL TO LOOK AT REVISING OUR ORDINANCE, BUT WE DEFINITELY JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU ALL, AND ALSO GET SOME FEEDBACK AS NEEDED, OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS AS NEEDED.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE PROVEN 2015, IS REALLY INTENDED AS A BRIDGE TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
GSA IS ESTABLISHED, GSP IS ADOPTED AND BEING IMPLEMENTED.
THAT ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO LIMIT WHAT THEY CONSIDERED, OR WHAT THE TIME WAS CONSIDERED ACCESS MINING OF GROUNDWATER, WHICH WAS DEFINED AS EXTRACTION PATTERNS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED OR SEEN BETWEEN 1995 AND 2003.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE PULLING WATER OUT OF THE GROUND AT A CONSISTENT RATE BETWEEN THOSE YEARS, OR IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED THAT BETWEEN THOSE YEARS YOU WERE USING GROUNDWATER IN A CERTAIN WAY, THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO SO,
[00:05:01]
INTO THE FUTURE AND YOU CAN WORK IN THROUGH ANY NEW WELLS AS NEEDED AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A SECOND.HOW DOES OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE ACTUALLY LIMIT THAT ACCESS MINING? THERE'S A FLAT PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF ANY WELL WITHIN THE COUNTY, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, NO NEW WELLS ARE ALLOWED IN THE COUNTY, BUT THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS TO THAT RULE.
ONE WOULD BE FOR ANY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OF A PUBLIC AGENCY, WHERE THAT PUBLIC AGENCY WOULD BE ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME APPROVED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THE SECOND EXEMPTION OR THAT EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION WOULD BE, DOMESTIC DE MINIMIS WELL, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SIGMA DEFINITION.
YOU'RE PULLING LESS THAN TWO-ACRE FEET PER YEAR OUT OF THE GROUND FOR DOMESTIC USE, AND THEN YOU'D BE EXEMPT.
THEN THE THIRD EXEMPTION THAT WE REALLY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK AROUND AND HELP OUR PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE COUNTY HEREWITH, HAS BEEN THE REPLACEMENT WELL EXEMPTION.
WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, THERE'S AN EXEMPTION THAT ALLOWS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO REPLACE A WELL ON THEIR PROPERTY OR PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN.
WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THERE'S NO FURTHER DECLINE OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS.
THERE'S NO CONTRIBUTING FACTOR THAT WOULD COME WITH THAT NEW WELL THAT WOULD ADD TO THE IMPACTS RELATED TO SUBSIDENCE, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
THAT LEAVES US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THIS REPLACEMENT WELL, THAT SOMEBODY'S COMING TO US WITH, MORE OR LESS ALIKE FOR ALIKE, WITH THEIR EXISTING WELL OR THE WELL THAT'S FAILING, OR THAT THEY WANT TO REPLACE FOR WHATEVER REASON.
THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE WITH REGARD TO DEPTH AND, CASING SIZE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S REALLY CASE BY CASE, BUT IN GENERAL, IF YOU'RE REPLACING A WELL, LIKE FOR LIKE, YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM THAT PROHIBITION IN THE ORDINANCE.
IF YOU DON'T FIT INTO ANY OF THOSE THREE EXEMPTIONS, THEN THAT'S WHAT OUR ORDINANCE WOULD CONSIDER A NEW WELL, AND THAT NEW WELL IS A DISCRETIONARY PROJECT BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK.
THE COUNTY'S REQUIRED TO LOOK AND DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WELL.
THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OR CEQA, THAT COVERS ANY PROJECT THAT YOU WANT TO DO ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I GET THE DUBIOUS HONOR OF DEALING WITH THAT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS ON THE LAND YOU SAID AT THE HOUSE, IT'S JUST CREPT ITS WAY INTO GROUNDWATER HERE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT A NEW WELL FOR CEQA PURPOSES, NOT ONLY ARE WE HAVING TO LOOK AT ALL THE ROUTINES SECTORS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK OUT WITH ANY CEQA ANALYSIS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BIOLOGY IMPACTS, NOISE IMPACTS, CULTURAL IMPACTS, THEIR POTENTIAL THAT THERE'S SOME NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACT ON-SITE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR PURPOSES OR IN THE CONTEXT OF GROUNDWATER, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE HEALTH OF THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM AND WHETHER THERE'S ANY POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT WITH OUR GROUNDWATER SYSTEM.
THAT'S, AS YOU'VE ALL EXPERIENCED, IS EXTREMELY DATA-INTENSIVE, REQUIRES A WHOLE BUNCH OF BACKGROUND ANALYSIS, A REALLY INTRICATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM, WHICH THE COUNTY DIDN'T HAVE IN PLACE IN 2015 WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED, NOR DID IT DO ALL THE WORK TO PUT THIS IN PLACE UNTIL EVEN UP TILL TODAY.
REASONS FOR THAT BEING ONE, IT'S VERY TIME INTENSIVE AND VERY COST-INTENSIVE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, RECOGNIZING THAT SIGMA AND ESTABLISHING THE GSAS AND WORKING ON THE GSPS WAS GOING ON IN A PARALLEL TRACK.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS.
IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOR DID WE WANT TO MAYBE COME UP WITH DATA THAT MIGHT CONFLICT AND RAISE QUESTIONS IN EITHER THE ORDINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE OR THE GSPS AS THEY WERE BEING ADOPTED.
AGAIN, THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION, THAT DATA SET WAS NEVER PUT IN PLACE FOR US TO ACTUALLY DO ANY ANALYSIS UNDER CEQA FOR ANY NEW WELL.
THAT'S PUT US, PROPERTY OWNERS, ANYWAY, IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHERE MAYBE THEY DON'T FIT INTO ONE OF THESE EXEMPTIONS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO UNDERTAKE THE LEVEL OF WORK, AND TIME, AND COST THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DROP IN A NEW WELL, AND UNDERGO THE CEQA ANALYSIS PORTION OF IT.
AGAIN, THAT COMES BACK TO THAT FIRST COMMON DOMAIN OF THIS WAS REALLY INTENDED TO BE A BRIDGE TO GET US TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU, EVEN IF WE DID HAVE SOME COUNTYWIDE BASELINE IF THE COUNTY I HAD GONE THROUGH THAT WORK IN 2015 UP TILL TODAY, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.
YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY IS EACH SUB-BASE INDIFFERENT, BUT WE'VE GOT REGIONS WITH EACH SUB-BASE THAT ARE DIFFERENT AND SO TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF DATA OR SOME SORT OF THRESHOLDS OR ANALYSIS OR WAYS TO MEASURE NEW WELLS AGAINST OUR ORDINANCE COUNTYWIDE ISN'T THE MOST EQUITABLE APPROACH.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FAIRLY APPLIED COUNTY-WIDE.
[00:10:01]
IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE UNLESS WE WENT THROUGH THAT WORK FOR EVERY LITTLE POCKET IN THE COUNTY.THAT'S THE BACKGROUND. THEN WITH THAT, WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY, YOU KNOW WITH THE GSAS FORMED, THE GSAS HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER SIGNAL TO REGULATE GROUNDWATER, BUT GSPS ARE ADOPTED AND ALL THAT ONE OF HER BASINS AND THOSE ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED.
THE COUNTY IS IN A SITUATION NOW WHERE WE'RE IMPLEMENTING AN ORDINANCE AND MAKING DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS ON WELLS.
DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO SQL.
AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS ON WELLS WHERE ANOTHER AGENCY THE GSA HAS THE AUTHORITY AND THE DUTY TO REGULATE.
THE COUNTY IS IN A POSITION WHERE NOT ONLY IS THE COUNTY AT RISK AS WE MAKE DECISIONS ON THESE PERMITS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT.
THE COUNTY COULD BE SUED FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A PROJECT.
BUT THERE'S ALSO AN INHERENT RISK OF THE PROPERTY WHERE EACH OF THESE SITUATIONS WHERE IF THE PROJECT WERE CHALLENGED BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS CHOOSING TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING, THAT PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S MAYBE REALLY IN NEED OF THAT WELL, IN THE COMING YEAR OR TWO YEARS IF THAT GETS THE PROJECT GETS SUED, THAT'S NOW DRAWN OUT TO A YEAR OR TWO THREE YEARS DEPENDING ON HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE.
THAT RISK IS JUST THE MOST DIFFICULT PIECE FROM MY SEAT, LOOKING AT IT AS THE COUNTY, BUT THEN ALSO LOOKING AT IT FROM IF I WAS TO PUT ON A GSA HAND, MAYBE UNSOLICITED HERE, BUT THE GSA HAS THAT ABILITY AND THAT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE HOW WELLS ARE BUILT, WHERE THEY'RE BUILT, WHAT THE EXTRACTION LOOKS LIKE, THAT IS A DUTY THAT FALLS ONTO THE GSA THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME AUTHORITY ON.
WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE MOVING INTO THE FUTURE WHERE THE STAFF LEVEL ANYWAY, SEES HOW WE COULD CONTINUE TO WORK AROUND OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE.
ALSO RECOGNIZING THE GSPS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AND ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED, IS THE WELL CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITION THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE WOULD STAY IN PLACE, BUT WE WOULD ADD A NEW EXEMPTION TO THAT PROHIBITION THAT WOULD ADDRESS SIGMA.
THAT NEW EXEMPTION WOULD APPLY TO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ITS GSA WITH AN ADOPTED GSP, AS LONG AS THE BASIN IS NOT DESIGNATED AS PROVISIONARY BY WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.
IF IT FITS WITHIN THAT EXEMPTION, IT WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY OF OUR OTHER EXEMPTIONS THAT I LISTED, AGAIN, REPLACEMENT OR THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
THEN UNDER THAT EXEMPTION, WE AS THE COUNTY COULD THEN ACT ON THAT WELL IN A MINISTERIAL MANNER.
WHAT ARE WELL-ISSUING PROCESS OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCESS LOOKED LIKE BEFORE 2015.
YOU SHOW UP, YOU GOT YOUR WELL-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.
YOU JUST GET TO GO BUILD YOUR WELL AS LONG AS YOU MEET ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR IT.
BUT THAT'S ONLY IF GSA HAS IN SOME WAY, I'LL SAY BLESSED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT WELL.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY THAT MAYBE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS WORK, THIS IS BASICALLY A CANNON WELL SERVE LETTER FROM THE GSA TO A PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO DRILL A WELL.
WE AS THE COUNTY, LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PERMITTING STANDPOINT, YOU'D SHOW UP TO US AS A PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO DRILL A WELL, AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT THAT BLESSING FROM THE GSA WE'LL SAY THAT YOU FIT UNDER THIS EXEMPTION AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PUNCH YOUR WELL.
THE ONE EXEMPTION THAT WE REALLY KEEP IN FOCUS ON WOULD BE THOSE DOMESTIC THE MINIMUS EXEMPTIONS.
I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH SPECIFIC GSAS IF THEY HAD FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
BUT BECAUSE THE DOMESTIC DE MINIMIS IS AN EXEMPTION OR A DEFINED TERM WITHIN SIGMA AND WE IMPLEMENT IT THE SAME WAY AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WE'D RECOMMEND KEEPING THAT AS WELL.
THAT'S WHERE AGAIN, AT THE STAFF LEVEL OF THE COUNTY, WHERE WE THINK IS THE HAPPY MEDIUM FOR HOW GSAS CAN TAKE THAT AUTHORITY AND IMPLEMENTS AND THE COUNTY CAN JUST STEP BACK AND REALLY FOCUS OUR ROLE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PIECE OF WELLS THAT ARE WITHIN GSAS AS THEY IMPLEMENT THEIR GSPS.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT I CAN ANSWER THEM OR PROVIDE MORE BACKGROUND OR INPUT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> WELL, IF YOU DIDN'T CATCH THAT, THE MONKEYS COMING OFF OF THE COUNTIES BACK, COME ON TO OURS.
WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A SYSTEM THAT WE CAN DO THAT AND HOW QUICK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT SOONER THAN LATER IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE POINT, SO YES.
[00:15:01]
>> YEAH. I'D JUST LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE STAFF BECAUSE I WANTED TO DRILL A WELL.
I STARTED LAST YEAR, BUT I DEALT WITH THE COUNTY AND THERE'S A LOT OF HOOPS, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE REASONABLE AND THEY WORKED WITH US.
THE ONE THING I WASN'T CLEAR, I ALWAYS WANTED TO FOLLOW IT AND READ IT, THE REPLACEMENT HAD TO BE WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE ONE THAT WAS BEING ABANDONED AND PLUS THE ONE THAT WAS ABANDONED IF IT WENT, IT HAD TO GO ASK THE CORCORAN CRAY AS WELL SO IT WAS A TRUE REPLACEMENT WELL.
AS FAR AS THIS PROCESS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE COUNTY AND I HOPE THAT GSA HAS A WAY YES, THEY CAN BLESS IT OR DO WHATEVER, BUT I'D HATE FOR US TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH TWO BUREAUCRATIC HURDLES TO DRILL A WELL ONE AT THE GSA AND ONE AT THE COUNTY.
WE SOMEHOW HAVE THE GSA RULES AND FOR THE COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT IT, MIGHT THINK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE GROWERS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT THE WAY SIGMA LAYS IT OUT.
I MEAN WE WILL GIVE A CANNON WELL SERVE LETTER TO THE GROWER OR WHOEVER'S DRILLING THE WELL, AND THEN THEY'LL COME TO THE COUNTY AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF HOW TO DRILL THE WELL DEPTH.
BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE THE APPROVAL.
>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK THE WAY YOU WRITE IT, WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE IT UNNECESSARILY BUREAUCRATIC OR DIFFICULT FOR THE GROWERS.
AS LONG AS WE'RE DOING WHAT THE INTENT OF SIGMA IS I THINK THAT YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT TO DRILL A WELL.
>> [OVERLAPPING] STEVE, IF I UNDERSTOOD THIS RIGHT, IS THIS GOING TO BE ANOTHER EXEMPTION? YOU LIFTED THE ONES THAT FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND WHATNOT.
IS THIS GSA WANTED TO BE ON TOP OF THESE PER SE OR ALL ALONG WITH THEM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE?
>> GOOD QUESTION. THIS WOULD BE IF A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO DRILL A WELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A GSA THAT HASN'T ADOPTED GSP, THIS WOULD BE THE EXEMPTION THAT THEY WOULD USE.
THEY COULDN'T LAYER PROPERTY OWNER COULDN'T NECESSARILY PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH OF THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WOULD FIT UNDER.
BECAUSE AGAIN, THE GSA HAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER [INAUDIBLE].
THAT WOULD BE THE GO-TO FOCUS.
>> IN PLACE OF THOSE SO INSTEAD OF GETTING REPLACEMENT WELL PERMIT, YOU WOULD GET A GSA AGAIN IT WILL SERVE [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT?
>> DID THAT INCLUDE DOMESTIC WELLS?
>> I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE THAT WE'D HAVE TO MASSAGE A LITTLE BIT AND BECAUSE DOMESTIC THE MINIMUS IS CONSIDERED IN SIGMA AND I CAN SPEAK FOR EACH GSP AND HOW IT'S CONSIDERED IN EACH GSP, BUT IT'S IMPLEMENTED OR DEFINED THE SAME WAY IN OUR ORDINANCE.
I THINK HANDLING THE OUTSIDE OF HAVING TO GO FOR EVERY SINGLE, HOW CAN GO TO THE GSA FOR EVERY SINGLE WELL THAT FIT THAT DOMESTIC MINIMUS EXEMPTION MIGHT BE A HARDSHIP ON PROPERTY OWNERS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE OUT OF WATER THEN THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WHERE TO MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THE COUNTY TO CONTINUE TO HOLD THAT PIECE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO DRILL A WELL.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT DOES THIS DO TO THE EXPORT PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE?
>> THIS WOULD ONLY ADDRESS THE GROUNDWATER MINING PIECE.
EXPORT DISCUSSION MIGHT BE A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY.
RIGHT NOW AS IT'S DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE EXPORT OF GROUNDWATER IS MOVING WATER THAT ORIGINATES FROM INSIDE THE COUNTY WITHIN ANY OF THESE SUB-BASINS, EVEN INTO ANOTHER SUB-BASIN OR OF COURSE, OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY.
IF WE WANTED TO OR COUNTY OR GSA WANTED TO TAKE UP SOME DISCUSSION OF HOW THAT MANAGER WANTED TO LOOK LONG TERM AT WATER BANKING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THEN THOSE ARE CERTAINLY TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION.
BUT THIS SPECIFIC CHANGE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS THAT.
>> I'VE ALWAYS GIVE MY OPINION ON THIS THING IF I MAY TO THE REST OF THE BOARD.
MY ONLY FEAR, NOT A FEAR BUT CONCERN WITH THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE AS JINNIE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SIGMA GRANTS US THE RIGHT TO DENY A PERSON ACCESS TO GROUNDWATER.
IF THEY CHOOSE TO GO WITH THIS METHOD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS BOARD COULD SAY TO ANYBODY THAT YOU CANNOT DRILL A WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD EVEN HAVE THAT POWER GRANTED WE CAN TELL THEM HOW MUCH THEY COULD TAKE OR NOT TAKE, BUT MY ALMOST UNWEAVE SOME OF THE GRIT OF THE ORDINATES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN THAT THIS BOARDS AND GET APPLICATION AND WHEN THEY'RE GETTING YOUR RUBBER-STAMPED EVERY TIME AND MOVE ON WITH LIFE.
>> WELL, I THINK THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE WELL, THERE'S GOING TO BE WHERE OUR AUTHORITY LIES.
I MEAN, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE OR FORTUNATE.
JINNIE, DID YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE FOR THAT?
>> NO, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHORITY IS IT TURNS OUT THERE IS
[00:20:03]
POSSIBILITY THAT YOU YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY NO [INAUDIBLE].>> STEVE, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
I KNOW YOU SAT DOWN, BUT WHAT DO YOU FORESEE AS THE TIMING, THAT PLANNING WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GSA BOARD UNDERTAKE THIS NEW EFFORT?
>>LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. WE'RE REALISTIC IN THAT WE UNDERSTAND STAFF-LEVEL, WHAT THAT LEVEL OF WORK LOOKS LIKE, AND HOW THAT ANALYSIS TAKES PLACE.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION AND THAT PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH WITH GSA HIGH-STAFF IN A COUPLE OF INSTANCES IN THE COUNTY, BUT OTHERWISE, JUST MAKING SURE THAT MAYBE GSA LEGAL COUNSEL IS AWARE OF WHAT OUR PROCESS LOOKS LIKE, AND HOW THAT MIGHT ROLL OUT.
THAT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING WE CAN BE FLEXIBLE, BUT WE ALSO REALIZE THAT AGAIN, THERE'S A RISK COMPONENT TO THIS.
THE FASTER THAT WE CAN REMOVE THAT RISK FROM THE COUNTY, THE BETTER.
REALISTICALLY, 3-5 MONTHS WOULD BE IDEAL.
CERTAINLY, BY THE END OF THE YEAR, I THINK WOULD BE A FAIR TARGET.
>>THANK YOU. LACEY, MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, WE APPROVED ACTION TO SECURE A CONSULTANT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 IN FEES.
WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT SUCH A CONSULTANT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO WORK ON THINGS LIKE THIS?
>> THE RFQ THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS DID GO OUT, AND IT'S BEEN RELEASED.
IT'S ALL AVAILABLE ON THAT COUNTY-HOSTED GSA WEBSITE.
THAT CAN BE A LITTLE CONFUSING.
WE'RE TRANSITIONING TO ANOTHER SITE THAT'S NOT QUITE BUILT YET.
IT'S ON THE COUNTY-HOSTED GSA WEBSITE THAT CLOSES ON JUNE 9TH.
THE DEADLINE IS JUNE 9TH, AND THEN FROM THERE, WE'LL GO THROUGH AN EVALUATION PROCESS, AND WE'LL HAVE TO BRING WHOEVER THE SELECTED RESPONDENT IS BACK TO THE GSA BOARD FOR ACTION.
THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IS ON JUNE 16TH.
IT'S A TIGHT WINDOW, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET A RECOMMENDATION IN THAT WINDOW.
IF NOT, WE CAN BRING THIS AT THE JULY MEETING OR WE COULD BRING IT AT A SPECIAL MEETING IN BETWEEN IF THE BOARD FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO GET THAT TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONSULTANT ON BEFORE THE JULY MEETING.
>> STEVE, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
GSA RIGHT NOW DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION AS FAR AS REPLACEMENT WELLS, AND STUFF.
WILL THE COUNTY STILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE GSAS BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE THE DATABASE OF ALL THE WELL INFORMATION, AND THEY STILL FILL OUT THE PERMIT WITH YOU GUYS, AND IT HAS TO GET APPROVED BY THE GSA? THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE NEW PROCESS WITH A THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT OF GETTING ALL THIS INFORMATION IN THE DATABASE GOING?
>> PASS THAT ONE OFF TO MISS MCBRIDE.
>> BECAUSE WE FEEL OUT RIGHT NOW YOU GUYS LOOK WHETHER IT'S A LIKE AND KIND WELL, AND I THINK AS A GSA BOARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION WHEN WE'RE APPROVING A WELL IF WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT, TO BEGIN WITH.
>> IT MAKES SENSE AS THE COUNTY TO SHARE WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AGAIN TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS.
BUT AGAIN, I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF ABOUT WHAT EXACT AUTHORITY WE HAVE, AND HOW WE COULD GO ABOUT SHARING THAT STUFF, WHAT UNITS MIGHT BE IN PLACE TO LET US JUST TURN THAT STUFF OVER. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY, THE PROCESS THAT STEVE OUTLINED ENVISIONED THE APPLICANT GOING TO THE GSA FIRST.
PERHAPS THE SOLUTION WOULD BE HAVING A VERY SIMILAR LOOKING REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT THE GSA HAS TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT SINCE THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT STEVE OUTLINED, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ALREADY GONE TO THE COUNTY AND PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ROUND OF PROVIDING THE INFORMATION WOULD BE AT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE THE COUNTY, WHEN YOU GUYS GET AN APPLICATION, YOU DOUBLE-CHECK WITH YOUR RECORDS.
IF THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE REPLACING A WELL, WHAT THAT WELL WAS, AND THE LIKE AND KIND WERE, THE GSA DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
WE'RE IN GOOD FAITH OF WHATEVER THE GUY FELL DOWN ON THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT DAY IF WE'RE THE FIRST ONE THEY COME TO YOU WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION.
>> USUALLY IF IT WAS FOR A REPLACEMENT WELL,
[00:25:03]
WE'LL ASK FOR WELL COMPLETION REPORTS TO THE EXTENT THEY HAVE THEM ON THE FIRST WELL.OFTENTIMES THAT'S AVAILABLE, AND NOT AN ISSUE.
FOR THOSE TIMES WHERE THOSE AREN'T PROVIDED TO US, WE MIGHT HAVE A RECORD AVAILABLE.
THAT MIGHT BE THE TYPE OF THING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH THE GSAS.
THERE IS NO WELL COMPLETION REPORT, HOW DO WE GO ABOUT REQUESTING THAT FROM THE COUNTY? WHO'S OUR CONTACT PERSON? HOW DOES THAT DATA GET TRANSMITTED TO US? THAT SORT OF INFORMATION. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE GSA WOULD WANT TO HOLD ON TO ALL THAT INFORMATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN SHARE INFORMATION ACROSS AGENCIES, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
>> YOU MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING THAT IT MIGHT COME UP TO THE COUNTY BOARD NEXT BOARD MEETING OR DID I MISUNDERSTAND? WHEN DO YOU GUYS PLAN ON KICKING THE CAN DOWN TO US?
>> I SUSPECT WE'RE PROBABLY STILL A COUPLE OF MONTHS OUT.
>> SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
>> NOW, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU MENTIONED THE TERM "APPROVED GSP".
OUR GSP HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET.
WE'VE SUBMITTED IT, BUT IT'S NOT APPROVED.
DO WE HAVE UNTIL THE STATE APPROVES IT?
>> FAIR QUESTION, JUST CLARIFICATION.
NO, IT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED BY THE STATE AS THE GSA HAS ADOPTED THEIR GSP, AND IS IMPLEMENTING THAT GSP.
THAT'S WHERE THIS EXEMPTION WOULD BE VALID.
>> I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IF WE GO PROBATIONARY, THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
>> THEN A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNDER THIS EXEMPTION AS WE HAVE IT WRITTEN TODAY.
>> THEY'D TO QUALIFY UNDER SOME OTHER.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY KEEPING THOSE IN PLACE MAY BE WORTHWHILE.
>> WHAT IS THE BIGGEST RISK TO THE COUNTY TODAY WITH THE WAY THE PROCESS IS NOW? JUST BEING FRANK, I GUESS.
>> YEAH, SAY THE SKY IS FALLING, YOU COME TO ME AND YOU WANT A WELL, AND YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER OR YOUR NEIGHBOR DOESN'T LIKE YOU FOR SOME REASON OR SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE GSA WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR PROJECT IS GOING TO GO FORWARD FIRST, THE GSA'S JURISDICTIONS MUST MAKE SURE THEIR PROJECT IS GOING TO MAYBE HAVE A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF MAINTAINING WATER LONG-TERM.
IF THEY DECIDED TO SUE YOUR PROJECT, THE COUNTY IS ON THE HOOK FOR DEFENDING THAT LAWSUIT UNDER CQL.
THE COUNTY IS ON THE HOOK FOR NOT ONLY OUR COSTS, BUT WE'RE ALSO ON THE HOOK IF THAT LAWSUIT WAS SUCCESSFUL ON THE PLAINTIFF'S SIDE FOR PAYING THEIR LEGAL COSTS AS WELL.
THERE'S SOME FINANCIAL BURDEN THERE TO THE COUNTY, BUT THEN ALSO COUNTYWIDE, THERE'S THAT QUESTION OUT THERE, WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE PROJECT IS SUED? WHAT ELSE DOES THAT RAISE THROUGH THAT PROCESS?
>> STEVE, A FOLLOW ARTISTS IS FOR JINNIE, ACTUALLY.
A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, IF THE COUNTY IS WORRIED ABOUT THEIR LAWSUIT LIABILITY, WHAT WOULD OURS BE IF WE TAKE ON THIS? [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING].
EXCUSE, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP BECAUSE IF THERE'S PEOPLE WATCHING ON ZOOM THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU AND IT'S NOT IF [NOISE] WE TAKE THIS ON.
WE'RE TAKING IT ON IT'S JUST A MATTER HOW.
HOW IS THAT DECISION BEEN MADE? I DON'T KNOW IF THE GSA HAS MADE THAT DECISION THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE LIABILITY ISSUES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONDUCT SEQUEL.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO REACH THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEFEND IT.
>> CAN I ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION?
>> THIS BOARD WOULD ONLY BE APPROVING THE WELLS THAT APPLY UNDER THAT EXEMPTION? IF IT WAS A REPLACEMENT WELL APPLICATION WITH THIS BOARD STILL HAVE A SAY?
>> THAT'S THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD.
>> THIS BOARD WOULD ONLY HAVE THE SAY OR WILL ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT WELLS THAT FIT THAT WELL.
FOR PURPOSES OF WELLS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO OUR ORDINANCE, THIS BOARD WOULD ONLY BE LOOKING AT WELLS THAT WERE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND SUBJECT TO THAT ORDINANCE.
IF THERE WAS SOME OTHER WELL, SOME OTHER ACTION THAT THE GSA WANTED TO TAKE ON ITS OWN, YOU'D BE THE LEAD AGENCY, YOU'D BE DOING YOUR OWN PROJECT.
YEAH, IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO COME IN THE COUNTY FOR THE WELL CONSTRUCTION PIECE OF IT, BUT YOU WOULD BE RUBBER STAMPING YOUR OWN PROJECT THERE.
THEN JUST ONE OTHER THING, THIS IS OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE THIS WOULD BE A GENUINE QUESTION IF THE GSA HAS TO DO SEQUEL FOR EVERY WELL OR IF THIS IS JUST A CONFORMANCE FINDING.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF WHAT'S IN OUR GSP, SO YEAH, GO AHEAD AND CARRY ON.
DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
REAL FAST ON NEXT QUESTION, IF YOU'RE DOING A REPLACEMENT WELL, IS THE COUNTY STILL GOING TO TAKE THAT OR IS THAT FALLING ON THE GSA LEVEL?
>> AGAIN, ONLY IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO COME TO US WITH A NEW WELL APPLICATION
[00:30:05]
AND THEY'RE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A GSA THAT HASN'T ADOPTED GSP, THAT'S THE ONLY EXEMPTION THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT.[OVERLAPPING] WE'D WANT THE GSA [OVERLAPPING].
>> JUST NEW WELLS WOULD FALL BACK TO THE GSA?
>> ANY WELL THAT'S WITHIN [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. ALL WELLS. YES. [BACKGROUND]
>> TO MAKE AN EXEMPTION FOR THE DE MINIMIS.
TO ME, IT'S LOGICAL TO MAKE IT THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD HANDLE REPLACEMENTS AND DE MINIMIS AND THAT ONLY THOSE THAT HAVE A DISCRETIONARY COMPONENTS SHOULD COME TO THE GSA.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I GUESS WE CAN DISCUSS.
>> A PIECE OF NEW ONES THERE IS THAT THE REPLACEMENT EXEMPTION HAS SOME REQUIREMENTS WITH IT WHERE THERE'S NO DECLINING GROUNDWATER LEVELS, THERE'S NO IMPACT OF SUBSIDENCE AND THERE'S NO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
THAT'S WHERE THE COUNTY WOULDN'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE FOR MAKING THAT FINDING ANYMORE.
>> NO, THAT IS NOT REALLY A REPLACEMENT WELL [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU ANSWERED QUESTION [INAUDIBLE].
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.
NOT BEING AT THE PORT AT THE TIME BUT BEING PART OF THE PROCESS OF THE GSP DEVELOPMENT, EARLY ON THERE WAS ESTIMATES OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ACROSS THE SUB BASIN OR ACROSS THE BASIN AND THEY RANGED FROM THREE-QUARTERS OF THE FOOT TO ONE AND A QUARTER FOOT PER ACRE.
I BELIEVE THAT THE GSA WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEW WELLS WHETHER THEY'RE REPLACEMENT OR NOT.
REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO MOVE TOWARDS IS ESTABLISHING WHAT THAT LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE YIELD IS AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PRECLUDE PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK FROM DRILLING A WELL AND HAVING A WELL, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE SURFACE WATER AVAILABLE AS A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARY SOURCE OF WATER.
BUT WHAT WOULD BE MOVING TOWARDS IS WHAT THE PUMPING ALLOCATION WOULD BE FROM THOSE WELLS AND YOU PROBABLY HAVE WHAT THEY CALL TRANSITION WATER BETWEEN NOW AND SOME FUTURE DATE THAT YOU'RE MOVING TOWARD WHAT THAT LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PUMPING LEVEL IS.
I DON'T REALLY THINK THE QUESTION SO MUCH OF WHETHER YOU CAN DRILL A WELL OR NOT WILL BE THE QUESTION, I THINK THE QUESTION WILL BE, ONCE YOU DRILL THAT WELL, HOW MUCH WATER CAN YOU PUMP FROM THAT WELL AND HOW WILL THAT CHANGE OVER TIME? I THINK THAT'S THE REASON I WAS ASKING LACEY ABOUT THE CONSULTANT.
I THINK THE BOARD WILL NEED THE CONSULTANT TO HELP CRAFT HOW WE PHRASE THAT.
WE WILL LIKELY HAVE SOME EYE VIEW, A QUALIFIED APPROVAL OF WELLS WITH LANGUAGE ABOUT PRESENT AND FUTURE PUMPING OF THAT WELL AND HOW THAT WILL BE AFFECTED.
I DON'T THINK THE REPLACEMENT WELL OR NEW WELL ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE TABLE.
WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE TABLE IS MAYBE WHAT DEPTH YOU DRILL THE WELL TO WHETHER IT'S AN ABOVE CORCORAN OR SUB CORCORAN WELL, BUT I THINK THE PUMPING LIMITATIONS IS THE VERBIAGE THAT THE GSA WILL END UP CREATING.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] GOOD ONE AND I AGREE WITH IT.
>> PART OF THE EARLIER PROCESS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
I DON'T THINK THIS REPLACEMENT WELL VERBIAGE IS GOING TO BE REALLY SO IMPORTANT ANYMORE, WOULD BE MY ESTIMATION.
THAT'S WHERE I BELIEVE WE'RE BEHIND.
THAT'S THE TOUGH CALL AND THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS.
LACEY BACK TO ERIC'S QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSULTANT.
IN THE RFQ, WELL NOT THE RFQ, BUT IN THE CONTRACT WILL THAT BE WORK WE CAN ASK THEM TO DO?
>> WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PUT THAT IN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT.
>> OKAY. YEAH. THAT PART DIDN'T GET ANSWERED EARLIER AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
>> MY ANTICIPATION WOULD BE IF THERE WILL BE A POLICY COMPONENT THAT GREG YOUNG'S FIRM MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO HELP SUPPORT US WITH AND CONTINUE SUPPORT.
THEN THERE'S PROBABLY A MORE TECHNICAL INPUT THAT I WOULD ENVISION FROM THIS NEW CONSULTANT.
I WOULD THINK IT WOULD COME AND ALSO WITH THE ATTORNEY.
I THINK ALL THREE ARE GOING TO PLAY INTO CREATE THE PRODUCT THAT THE GSA WOULD ACTUALLY END UP ISSUING.
>> THEN STEVE, IF I COULD GET YOU TO COME BACK UP.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE OTHER GSAS THAT WE ARE INVOLVED WITH, WHERE THEY'RE AT IN THEIR PROCESS?
>> JUST GENERALLY THEY'VE GOT THE SAME QUESTIONS.
I THINK PART OF IT IS FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE? IS THE GSA GOING TO ACTUALLY FORMALLY WEIGH IN ON EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION? IF THEY'VE GOT STAFF, HOW ARE THE STAFF CAN HANDLE THAT?
[00:35:01]
WHERE DOES LIABILITY LIE? THE SAME QUESTIONS ARE OUT THERE, IT'S JUST TAKING THE TIME TO PREPARE THAT THROUGH FOR EACH AGENCY ON ITS OWN.>> YEAH. AS MUCH AS I HATE TO SAY IT, IS WE ARE GOING TO BECOME BORED WITH THE STAFF AND AN OFFICE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
I HATE HAVING A GOVERNMENT LAYER TO OUR LIVES, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED AT SOME POINT.
I JUST DON'T SEE ANY WAY AROUND IT.
IF ANY OF YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW WE COULD GET THERE WITHOUT IT I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.
WE'RE ALL PEOPLE HERE WHO WANT TO GET TO WORK AND DO OUR WORK AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE SOME FORM OF THAT AND WE NEED TO FORMALIZE THAT.
THE COUNTY IS DOING IT FOR US NOW BUT A YEAR FROM NOW OR WHATEVER THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE.
WE'RE GOING TO GET WEANED FROM THE COUNTY AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR OWN GSA, OUR OWN STAFF, OUR OWN EVERYTHING.
ANYWAY, WE'VE GOT TO START THINKING AS MUCH AS WE DON'T WANT DO THAT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO THINK HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT, HOW ARE WE GOING TO SET THAT UP AND SO ANYWAYS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAXI? PROBABLY A COMMENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP? [BACKGROUND]
>> NO. YOU'RE GOING COME UP IF YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION BRAD.
[LAUGHTER] HE'S ON MY TEAM AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THE STEPS IN TODAY.
I DIDN'T HEAR THE FIRST PART OF THE 1993 IF YOU'RE IRRIGATING FROM 1993 TO 2003 WHAT'S OUT.
>> WAS THAT 95 TO 03? DID YOU MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT A TIME FRAME? [BACKGROUND]
>> CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT COMMENT? [BACKGROUND] [NOISE]
>> THE PROHIBITION AND REALLY THE GOAL OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO LIMIT EXTRACTION PATTERNS TO HISTORIC LEVELS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED OR SET BETWEEN 1995 AND 2003.
IF YOU ARE EXTRACTING, IF YOU HAVE A CERTAIN CROP ROTATION AND YOU CAN SHOW WHAT YOU'RE APPLYING ON A SEASON BY SEASON OR YEAR BY YEAR BASIS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE USE THIS KIND OF A BASELINE TO WEIGH AGAINST FOR WHAT YOU'D BE KEPT OUT UNDER OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE.
ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO OUR ORDINANCE.
>> THAT'S THE COUNTY SCOPE BRAT.
>> STAFF ANY OTHER COMMENTS? [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] OKAY. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ZOOM?
>> ALL RIGHT, NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON ZOOM, SO WE WILL [NOISE] GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA,
[6. COORDINATION COMMITTEE UPDATE]
WHICH IS THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE UPDATE, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN TO US BY GREG YOUNG.>> MAYBE [LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU, GREG.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, GREG YOUNG, CONSULTANT TO THE COUNTY INTO THE MADEIRA SUB-BASIN AND GSA.
THERE WAS A COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD. WHEN WAS THAT? BACK IN, SORRY, I'M SCROLLING BACK TO MY POINTS HERE, THAT WAS ON APRIL 26TH AND IT COVERED VARIETY OF THINGS.
IT WAS A PRETTY BENIGN MEETING, I THINK FOR THE MOST PART IT HAD AN UPDATE ON BASIN CONDITIONS AND THEY REPORTED SOME SPRING 2021 CONDITIONS WHERE ESSENTIALLY PRETTY MUCH ALL THE SLIDES THAT THEY SHOW THAT WOODARD AND CURRAN HAD FOR THE DATA SHOWS A CONTINUED SLIGHT DECLINE IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS ABOVE CORCORAN, BELOW CORCORAN, AND EVEN IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF CORCORAN.
WHILE THEY ON THE SCALE THAT THEY SHOW, IT LOOKS PRETTY FLAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THE SPRING IS A CONTINUE DOWNWARD TREND, WHICH IS AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ARREST AND CHANGE AND PUT BACK IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WITH THE GSP.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DATA GAPS PLAN WHICH THEY ARE WORKING ON.
WOODARD AND CURRAN HAVE A CONTRACT TO WORK ON A DATA GAPS PLAN TO IDENTIFY WHERE WE WERE AND HOW TO TRY AND PLACE NEW WELLS FOR ADDITIONAL ESPECIALLY GROUNDWATER DATA COLLECTION AND THEN SOME SUBSIDENCE COLLECTION.
THAT IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND THEY WILL HAVE SOME PLAN PUT FORWARD HERE SOON THAT WAS TRYING TO USE SOME PRETTY OBJECTIVE MODELING TO LOOK AT SEVERAL THINGS.
[00:40:05]
I THINK WE MAY WANT TO AS THE GSA LOOK AT THAT CLOSELY AND SAY, YEAH, BUT WE REALLY WOULDN'T LIKE SOME DATA OVER HERE, AND SO WE'D LIKE TO CONCENTRATE SOME NEW WELL LOCATIONS, WHETHER THAT'S AN EXISTING WELL OR NOT IN THESE LOCATIONS, EVEN THOUGH MAYBE WE HAVE A GAP OVER HERE AND THESE MIGHT BE THE BEST PLACES FOR PURPOSES OF OUR GSA DISCUSSION AND MOVING THAT ELEMENT FORWARD.WE SHOULD MAINTAIN SOME DISCRETION TO ADJUST TO THAT PLAN WITH WHAT THEY COME FORWARD WITH, SO KEEP THAT OPEN.
THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MEADOW BROOK INNER [INAUDIBLE] AN UPDATE ABOUT THE STUDIES AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CONSULTANT ON THAT.
THAT WAS GENERALLY THE CONVERSATION AT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND THEN ANY MEMBERS OF THE GSA THAT WERE ALSO PRESENT CAN ADD TO THAT.
>> I THINK HASHAMATA HAD A COUPLE OF INTERESTING QUESTIONS AND I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THAT RELATED TO MONITORING OF THE GROUNDWATER CONDITION REPRESENTING THE YAGUSA.
THAT WAS ONE TO MOVE THE FALL MONITORING EVENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN OCTOBER HISTORICALLY TILL DECEMBER BECAUSE ACTUALLY THE WAY THE WEATHER HAS BEEN, PEOPLE ARE STILL DOING SIGNIFICANT PUMPING IN OCTOBER IN THE BASIN, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT PROBABLY THE FULL CONDITION.
THE OTHER THING HE SUGGESTED WAS RATHER THAN GOING TO MONTHLY GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AT THIS JUNCTURE TO GO TO QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER SAMPLING.
GIVEN ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE WITH INTERFERENCE FROM PUMPING WELLS, PROBABLY QUARTERLY MAKES MORE SENSE.
I ACTUALLY THINK MONTHLY GENERATE FAIR AMOUNT OF CONFUSION IN SOME PLACES.
BUT THOSE WERE TWO THINGS HASHAM SUGGESTED AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'VE GOT QUITE ENOUGH COMING UP TO START ACTUALLY DOING WELL, DEPTH TO WATER MEASUREMENTS.
IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO RESOLVE THAT QUARTERLY VERSUS MONTHLY AND DECEMBER AS THE ONE OF THE REFERENCE TIMES SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, CERTAINLY BEFORE NEXT FALL.
ANYHOW, THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I PICKED UP THAT YOU DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT I THINK MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANT.
THANK YOU. ANY OF THE OTHERS? MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG.
NEXT WE WILL MOVE TO A STAFF REPORT. MS. MCBRIDE?
[7. STAFF REPORT]
>> THANK YOU, I'VE JUST GOT A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR YOU.
ONE IS THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
I THINK REALLY YOU GOT THE GIST OF THIS.
IT'S ON THE COUNTYOFMERCED.COM/MERCEDSUB-BASINGSA WEBSITE, AND SO THAT LINK CAN BE SHARED WITH ANYBODY TO SHARE THE RFQ.
I'LL BE REACHING OUT TO BOARD MEMBERS CLOSER TO THE DEADLINE TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO WISH TO BE PART OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE.
IF THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER WHO WANTS TO EVALUATE THE RESPONSES, I'LL BE REACHING OUT SOON.
ANOTHER ITEM FROM THE APRIL MEETING IS THE STUDY ON GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND LAND-USE THAT THE BOARD HAD APPROVED.
THE GSA HAS IDENTIFIED WORKING WITH [INAUDIBLE] TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY, AND SO WE DO HAVE A CONTRACT THAT I BELIEVE HAS NOW BEEN EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
WE'LL START THAT WORK IMMEDIATELY.
THEN FINALLY, JUST A HEADS UP THAT YOUR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 25TH.
THE TOPIC OF THIS MEETING IS GOING TO FOCUS ON THE IMPENDING OR THE CURRENT DROUGHT AND THE IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS.
THIS IS GOING TO START THE DISCUSSION ON IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS AND DEFINING THE GSAS RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE GOVERNOR INCLUDED THE SACRAMENTO, SAN JOAQUIN, DELTA COUNTIES IN HIS EMERGENCY DECLARATION FOR DROUGHT ON MONDAY.
WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO START SEEING IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS.
A PORTION OF THE GOVERNOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDED ON A PROPOSED $5.1 BILLION IN DIRECT INVESTMENTS AND ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN GREAT RELIEF FOR DROUGHT RELIEF AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS.
SOME OF THAT IS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER.
OF COURSE, THAT FUNDING IS PROPOSED IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH IN THE END, BUT THAT'S WHAT CAME OUT ON MONDAY, AND I THINK IT'S VERY TIMELY FOR THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO START TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC WELLS.
THEY WILL REPORT BACK TO THIS GSA AT THE JUNE MEETING.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. HENDRICKSON TO MAKE A [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST ACTUALLY HAVE COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE I ACKNOWLEDGE DESIRAE WHO DID A VERY NICE JOB WITH HER FIRST SET OF MINUTES.
[00:45:02]
SHE'S YOU MAY RECALL, RELATIVELY NEW TO MY STAFF AND JUST VERY, VERY PLEASED AND PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH HER.SHE DID A NICE JOB PUTTING THOSE TOGETHER, AND THE TWO I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
EARLY THIS WEEK, CHAIRMAN PAREIRA AND HIS SUPERVISOR ROLE, AND HIS COLLEAGUES ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT REORGANIZATION FOR THE COUNTY WHICH INCLUDED, I THINK, SOMETHING THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY MOST DESERVED AND LACEY HAS ESTABLISHED HERSELF OVER A LENGTH OF TIME NOW AS BEING A LEADING VOICE WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR TRADE.
I AM VERY BLESSED EVERY SINGLE DAY TO WORK WITH HER.
HER NEW TITLE ACTUALLY MORE COMMENSURATE WITH HER LEVEL OF WORK.
SHE IS THE COUNTY PRESENT WATER RESOURCES MANAGER.
SHE'S NO LONGER A COORDINATOR AND I THINK THAT'S THE TITLE MOST DESERVED.
AM VERY PROUD OF HER AND VERY PROUD OF OUR BOARD.
MR. PAREIRA, HELP LEAD THAT CHARGE, SO I'M VERY PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH LACEY AND WANTED TO JUST TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND CONGRATULATE HER ON HER NEW TITLE.
>> CONGRATULATIONS [APPLAUSE].
>> YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS [LAUGHTER].
>> I KNOW [LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT LACEY IS, SHE JUST WANTS TO GET THE WORK DONE AND SHE'S A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THAT, BUT THE ACCOLADES ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT SHE SEEKS.
THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS LACEY.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL MOVE TO A BOARD REPORT.
[8. BOARD REPORTS]
I'LL START TO MY LEFT.ANYTHING MR. GALLO? MR. BAGHDADI, MR. SWENSON.
>> I HAVE ONE ITEM AND THAT IS DWR IS NOW ADVERTISING AN IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM THAT THEY WILL SEND OUT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR THIS SUMMER OF 2021.
GROUND 1 APPLICATIONS THAT WERE MADE ACTUALLY GOT FINAL APPROVAL IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.
FINAL APPROVAL OF THOSE IS TALKING ABOUT HAPPENING BY THE END OF 2021.
I KNOW LAST TIME WE WERE IN SOMEWHAT OF A RUSH TO GET THE ROUND 1 SOLICITATION PACKAGES SUBMITTED, SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO START NOW FIGURING OUT WHAT ROUND 2 MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE SUB BASIN.
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD NOW TO START SOME STRATEGIZING AS TO WHAT TYPE OF GRANT SUBMISSIONS THE GSA MIGHT MAKE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT STAFF, NOTED.
WELL THEN, THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S MEETING.
OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 16TH.
[10. NEXT REGULAR MEETING]
IT IS ON A WEDNESDAY.WE WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.
OUR CLOSED SESSION IS GOING TO BE IN A CONFERENCE CENTER DOWNSTAIRS IN THE BASEMENT.
[9. CLOSED SESSION]
WE JUST [INAUDIBLE] THE ELEVATORS HEAD DOWN.IT'LL BE ON A RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHICH ROOM WE HAVE RESERVED?
>> IT'S IN THE LIVINGSTON ROOM.
>> LIVINGSTON ROOM. WE'LL ALL BE TOGETHER, JUST IN CASE YOU GOT TO STOP AND YOU WONDERED WHERE WE ARE.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION. THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE BACK OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT THAT THE STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION AND AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MERCED GSA MEETING. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.