Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS JULY 8TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

[00:00:07]

TO ORDER. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES, SIR. MR. GALLO HERE.

MR. PEDRETTI. HERE.

MR. UPTON.

HERE. MR. SWENSON.

HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI.

PRESENT. AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA.

HERE WE HAVE A FULL QUORUM. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. MR. MARCHINI, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LEAD US IN A PLEDGE.

READY, SALUTE.

STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CALL ON MARK HENDRICKSON TO DO THE NOTICES.

YES, SIR. AGAIN, I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR PARTICIPATING IN THESE MEETINGS AND FOR THOSE PARTICIPATING ON ZOOM, WE APPRECIATE YOU AS WELL.

AGAIN, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20.

THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCASTED VIA CONFERENCE CALL.

IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS, PHYSICAL LOCATION.

AGAIN, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENT OR TO OBSERVE THE MEETING MAY JOIN IN PERSON OR AGAIN PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM FOR THOSE ON ZOOM WE ASKED FOR A COUPLE QUICK FAVORS, ONE OF WHICH IS IF YOU ARE, IF YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE. YOU ARE MUTED SO AS TO HELP US ALL AVOID A LITTLE DISTRACTION AND TWO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE AND WE WILL BE TRACKING THAT SO THAT THE CHAIRMAN COULD CALL ON YOU FROM AFAR SO WITH THAT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED.

THANK YOU. MR. HENDRICKSON, WE'LL NOW MOVE TO A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

[3. 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.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEEING NON ANY RAISED HANDS ON ZOOM? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THEN WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, NOW IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

COMMENT ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

I HAVE A COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT POLICY THE COMMENT? NO.

YOU KNOW, WE WILL DO PUBLIC COMMENT AT NUMBER EIGHT, SO THAT'S OK.

OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 16TH MINUTES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED, I'LL SECOND.

MOVED BY MR. GALLO AND SECONDED BY MR. PEDRETTI. OK, IS THERE ANY RAISED HANDS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? NOPE. OK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL, YES SIR.

SO AGAIN, THE MOTION BY MR. GALLO A SECOND BY MR. PEDRETTI, MR. GALLO, AYE.

MR. PEDRETTI, AYE.

MR. UPTON, AYE. MR. SWENSON, AYE.

VICE CHAIR MARCHINI, AYE. AND CHAIRMAN PEREIRO, AYE.

YOU HAVE APPROVED MINUTES.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT.

[5. FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT]

WE WILL GET A SHORT PRESENTATION FROM RYAN NIELSEN WITH BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTING CORPORATION. ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION HE'S ON ZOOM.

OK MY NAME IS RYAN NIELSEN.

I'M THE AUDIT PARTNER WITH BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION, IN CHARGE OF OUR AUDITS OF YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30TH, 2020.

YOU MAY BE AWARE THAT THE AGENCY PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED AND WAS AUTHORIZED TO HAVE A BY AN AUDIT COMPLETED EVERY FIVE YEARS, WHICH WOULD HAVE COVERED THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION AT THE BEGINNING OF 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF 2021.

HOWEVER, THAT APPROVAL WAS GIVEN WHEN THE AGENCY'S ANNUAL REVENUES WERE BELOW A HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

AND SO THE AGENCY WAS INFORMED BY MERCED COUNTY AUDITORS CONTROLLER'S OFFICE THAT NEEDED

[00:05:04]

AN AUDIT FROM INCEPTION OF THE AGENCY THROUGH THE END OF 2020 TO BE SUBMITTED.

SO WE WERE ENGAGED EARLY THIS YEAR TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT FOR THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION AND THE INITIAL PERIOD PRESENTED WAS THROUGH 2019.

AND THEN WE DID A STANDALONE AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30TH, 2020.

AND THEN WE'LL CONDUCT ANNUAL AUDITS AND SHOW COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EACH YEAR AT LEAST THROUGH 2024.

IT'S THE INITIAL TERM OF OUR ENGAGEMENT.

SO THAT'S A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE AUDITS OF THAT OR HOW WE GOT INVOLVED.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR HAVING CONDUCTED AUDITS FOR THE AGENCY AND AS 2021 FISCAL YEAR JUST CLOSED, WE WILL CONDUCT AN AUDIT FOR THAT PERIOD THROUGH 2021 SUBSEQUENT TO FULLY CLOSING THE BOOKS ON THE 2021 FISCAL YEAR.

SO EACH YEAR THE AGENCY WILL PREPARE A FINANCIAL REPORTS WHERE YOU'LL PRESENT TO THE USERS THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE AND ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

AND THEN IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS TO PERFORM AN ENGAGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND TO RENDER AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR ASSERTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS ARE, IN FACT, ACCURATE.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS WE STARTED EARLIER THIS YEAR WITH THE TIME LINE COORDINATION WITH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE AUDIT COMMENCED AND WAS COMPLETED IN A TIMELY BASIS AND HAD REGULAR CORRESPONDENCE THROUGHOUT THE ENGAGEMENT PERIOD.

AND TO UPDATE EVERYBODY AS TO NOT ONLY THE HISTORY OF THE AGENCY, BUT CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE LAST YEAR.

AND YOU KNOW, THE ACTIVITY THAT OCCURRED FROM INCEPTION THROUGH THAT INITIAL 2019 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND ACCOUNTING AND THEN PERFORMING AN EVALUATION OF YOUR INTERNAL CONTROL ITS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES, IF YOU WILL, THAT ALL GETS DOCUMENTED UP FRONT.

WE PERFORM AT A WALK THROUGH THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, PROCESSES.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE AGENCY, THEN WE MOVE TO THE PHASE OF THE AUDIT, CALLED OUR FIELD WORK, WHICH IS DEDICATED TO SUBSTANTIATING THE ACCOUNT BALANCES AND LINE ITEMS THAT ARE PRESENTED AT MOST FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

AND THAT INCLUDES OBTAINING CONFIRMATIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES EFFECTIVELY, THAT'S ACCOUNTING BECAUSE ALL OF THE CASH AT THE AGENCY IS HELD AT THE COUNTY.

AND SO THEN WE REACH OUT TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO ENSURE THAT ALL DISCLOSURES ARE MADE, THAT ANY POTENTIAL COMMITMENTS OR CONTINGENCIES ARE ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AND THEN WE PERFORM WHAT'S CALLED THE SUBSEQUENT EVENT REVIEW ACTIVITY THAT HAS OCCURRED AFTER THE DATE OF THE CLOSING OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THAT PERIOD AND ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT SIGNIFICANT THAT OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THAT THAT IS ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED.

SO THAT BRIEF OVERVIEW BRINGS US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND THAT'S THE RENDERING OF THE OPINION OR PRESENTATION OF OUR RESULTS.

AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE AGENCY RECEIVED A CLEAN OPINION OR WHAT WE CALL AN UNMODIFIED OPINION.

THAT'S THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AN OPINION THAT WE CAN PROVIDE AS INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS EFFECTIVELY.

THAT SAYS THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PRESENTED THEREIN ARE ACCURATE, FAIRLY STATED IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, NOT PRESENT, BUT NOT ONLY THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE AGENCY AS OF JUNE 30TH, 2020, AND THEN FOR THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 2019.

BUT THE CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL POSITION OVER THOSE YEARS AND THE CASH FLOWS AS WELL, AND AGAIN, FAIRLY STATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

WE ALSO ISSUE A SEPARATE REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUDITING STANDARD THAT'S ALSO CALLED A YELLOW BOOK AUDIT.

WE NOTED ONE INSTANCE OF INTERNAL CONTROL RELATED MATTER THAT NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE

[00:10:01]

PUBLIC'S ATTENTION, AND THAT WAS JUST RELATED TO ACCRUAL OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS AND THE PROPER ACCOUNTING PERIOD.

AGAIN, THESE ARE LANDOWNER FEES THAT CASH HAD BEEN RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AND THEY WEREN'T ACCRUED IN INTO THE FISCAL YEAR THAT THEY WERE CHARGED.

SO THAT ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE.

IT'S NOT NOT CRITICAL, BUT WE HAD A FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BE CORRECTED AND THAT A POLICY BE DEVELOPED TO ENSURE THAT ACCRUALS ARE REVIEWED ANNUALLY.

MANAGEMENT AGREED WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION AND AGREED TO IMPLEMENT A PROCEDURE TO TO CAPTURE THAT INFORMATION.

BUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ENGAGEMENT PERIOD, WE'RE REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE GENERAL ITEMS RELATED TO THE OVERALL AUDIT, INCLUDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, THOSE OF MANAGEMENT, WHICH I HAVE DONE ALREADY TODAY, ALSO TO DISCLOSE ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT WE ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO REPORT.

THERE WERE NO DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED.

THERE WERE NO DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT OVER ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL REPORTING OR AUDITING MATTERS THAT COULD HAVE A BEARING ON OUR ENGAGEMENT.

NO SUCH ISSUES AROSE DURING THE COURSE OF OUR ENGAGEMENT.

AND SO, AGAIN, CLEAN OPINION AND WE EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE.

HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE AGENCY'S STAFF.

THERE WERE VERY GREAT TO WORK WITH, EASY TO WORK WITH, AND RESPONDED TO ALL OF OUR INFORMATION, REQUESTS AND INQUIRIES IN A VERY TIMELY MANNER SO WITH THAT I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR. NIELSEN. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND GIVING US A IN-PERSON UPDATE OR AT LEAST A HUMAN UPDATE.

APPRECIATE THAT. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, IS THERE ANY ON ZOOM? OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN ACTION TO APPROVE THE REPORTS. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT AS PRESENTED.

OK THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SWENSON.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OK, WE HAVE MR. GALLO. AYE MR. PEDRETTI, AYE.

MR. UPTON, AYE.

MR. SWENSON, AYE.

MR. MARCHINI, AYE.

AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA. I VOTEAYE THANK YOU SIR.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[6. LEGAL COUNCIL CONTRACT AMENDMENT]

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS OUR LEGAL COUNCIL CONTRACT AMENDMENT.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM MS. MCBRIDE. THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA HAS BEEN WORKING WITH JEANNE ZOLEZZI WITH THE FIRM HARUM CRABTREE SUNTAG FOR LEGAL SERVICES SINCE 2017.

MS. ZOLEZZI HAS PROVIDED INVALUABLE LEGAL COUNSEL RELATED TO GSP DEVELOPMENT, WATER RIGHTS ALLOCATION DISCUSSIONS, BROWN ACT COMPLIANCE AND CONTRACT REVIEW, AMONG OTHER SUPPORT SHE'S PROVIDED.

THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY EXTENDED THE CONTRACT WITH HARUM CRABTREE SUNTAG IN SINGLE YEAR INCREMENTS, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING EXTENDING THE TERM OF THIS CONTRACT FOR TWO YEARS.

THE CURRENT LEGAL COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL CONTRACT EXPIRES IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE TERM BE EXTENDED FOR TWO YEARS TO EXPIRE IN 2023.

THERE'S APPROXIMATELY SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS REMAINING ON THE CONTRACT.

AND AT THE RATE THAT THE GSA HAS BEEN SPENDING, THIS AMOUNT IS ANTICIPATED TO LAST THROUGH THE END OF THE EXTENSION.

HOWEVER, IF THE GSA BEGINS TO REQUIRE MORE LEGAL SUPPORT OR SPENDS MORE ON THIS CONTRACT AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT MAY BE BROUGHT TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION BEFORE THE END OF THE TERM IF THAT BECOMES NECESSARY.

SO THE ACTION RECOMMENDED TODAY IS TO APPROVE A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE TERM FOR THE CONTRACT WITH CRABTREE SUNTAG FOR LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES.

AND THAT WOULD BE UNTIL AUGUST OF 2003? CORRECT. RIGHT. OK, THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM THE DIRECTORS? LACEY, SO THIS CONTRACT IS TWO YEARS AT SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND, WHAT WE HAVE LEFT IN THE

[00:15:02]

POOL RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO YOU HAD AMENDED THE COMPENSATION BACK IN 2019 FOR IT TO BE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. AND SO YOU'VE SPENT ABOUT THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND OF THAT.

AND SO THERE'S APPROXIMATELY SIXTY FIVE.

IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS.

THERE ARE SOME PENDING INVOICES THAT NEED TO BE PAID.

BUT ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET YOU SAW AT THE LAST MEETING IN JUNE, THIS GSA WAS NOT SPENDING THIRTY THOUSAND A YEAR IN LEGAL SERVICES TO DATE.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO MOVED MR. CHAIR. OK, MOVED BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI, IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ALL RIGHT. GO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WERE THERE ANY RAISED HANDS? OK, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

MR. SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, SIR? MR. GALLO, AYE.

MR. PEDRETTI, AYE.

MR. UPTONAYE.

MR. SWENSON AYE.

MR. MARCHINI AYE.

CHAIRMAN PAREIRA, AYE.

THANK YOU. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS OUR TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

[7. TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT]

MRS. MCBRIDE.

THANK YOU, THIS IS FOR THE TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

SO THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA BOARD APPROVED A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN APRIL.

2021, THE RFQ WAS INTENDED TO IDENTIFY A FIRM WHO COULD PROVIDE THE FOUNDATIONAL DATA AND INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT ACTIONS TO REDUCE DEMAND AND MEET THE GSP TARGETS.

IN THE PAST, THE GSA HAS CONTRACTED WITH DIFFERENT FIRMS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS SUCH AS THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES OR THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING.

THE INTENTION OF THE RFQ WAS TO IDENTIFY THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS A SINGLE FIRM THAT THE GSA COULD GO TO WITH TASKS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE GSA RATHER THAN THESE ONE OFF CONTRACTS WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT FIRMS. THE RFQ CLOSED IN JUNE WITH TWO RESPONSES AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDED BOARD MEMBER ERIC SWENSON, ALTERNATES BOB KELLEY AND GEORGE PARK, A COUNTY PLANNER TIFFANY HO AND MYSELF LACEY MCBRIDE REVIEWED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND INTERVIEWED BOTH OF THE FIRMS. THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE GSA CONTRACT WITH THE FIRM EKI ENVIRONMENT AND WATER EKI PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GSA AND IS WORKING ON GSP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN BASINS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.

THEY CAN BRING THE BEST PRACTICES IDENTIFIED IN OTHER BASINS TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN AS WELL, WHICH HAS BEEN AN INTEREST OF THIS BOARD.

THE STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR EKI WAS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE ANONA DUTTON HAS JOINED THIS MEETING ON THE ZOOM CALL AND SO SHE'LL BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE HERSELF AND HER FIRM TO THE BOARD.

I BELIEVE THE PROJECT MANAGER IS ALSO ON THE ZOOM CALL AND THE ACTION RECOMMENDED TODAY IS TO APPROVE THE NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT WITH EKI AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AT THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR THE TERM OF TWO YEARS AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

SO IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO MS. DUTTON TO INTRODUCE HERSELF.

SURE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY THIS IS ANONA DUTTON I'M VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES AT EKI I'M JOINED TODAY BY CHRIS HEPPNER, WHO'S A SENIOR HYDROGEOLOGIST AT OUR COMPANY. AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? NO. WELL, LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT OFF EASY TODAY.

NO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THANK YOU. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

OK. YEP. WELL, WE GOT YOUR NUMBER.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.

AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE MEETING.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE DIRECTORS TO LACEY? NO. OK, WELL, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[00:20:01]

I MOVE THAT WE AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH EKI ENVIRONMENT AND WATER IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN A TWO YEAR TERM AS DISCUSSED. THANK YOU.

I'LL SECOND, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON, ERIC AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR UPTON, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE WE'LL GO.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE OH, I'M SORRY. YES.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE IN THE ROOM WE'LL GO TO ZOOM NO RAISED HANDS.

OK. THANK YOU, YES SIR.

MR. GALLO. AYE MR. PEDRETTI AYE MR. UPTON AYE MR. SWENSON AYE.

MARCHINI AYE AND MR. PAREIRA AYE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OK, THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CONGRATULATIONS.

NEXT ITEM IS ITEM EIGHT.

[8. FIVE-YEAR OBJECTIVE RESOLUTION]

THIS IS OUR FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE RESOLUTION.

AND WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY LACEY MCBRIDE.

THANK YOU. THIS IS ON THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE.

SO DURING THE COORDINATION DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE GSA'S AND THE MERCED SUBBASIN-, THE GSA'S HAVE AGREED TO EACH IDENTIFY FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES FOR THEIR GSA TO TARGET OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, SETTING THE BASIN ON THE PATH TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE SUSTAINABILITY GOAL IDENTIFIED IN THE GSP.

FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA, THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE WAS IDENTIFIED AS A FIRST SMALL STEP ON THE GLIDE PATH TOWARDS REDUCING THE OVERDRAFT IN THE GSA, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT FOLLOWING YEARS THAT THE FOLLOWING YEARS OF 2026-2040 MUST INCLUDE STEEPER REDUCTIONS IN CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER THAN THIS FIRST STEP.

AS YOU RECALL FROM THE LAST MEETING IN JUNE, GREG YOUNG FROM TABLE WITH THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND THE GLIDE PATH OF OVERDRAFT REDUCTIONS OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. THE ESTIMATED OVERDRAFT IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA IN THAT TABLE WAS ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND ACRE FEET.

AS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY COMMUNICATED TO THE BOARD.

THESE NUMBERS ARE ESTIMATES USING THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN THE GSP AND USING THE HISTORIC ET DATA THAT THE BOARD OBTAINED FROM FORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL.

EVEN THOUGH THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT FIRM, THE BOARD HAS REQUESTED THAT THE INFORMATION BE SHARED PUBLICLY IN MEETINGS TO HELP GET THE WORD OUT TO LANDOWNERS AND WATER USERS IN THE GSA ABOUT THE IMPENDING REDUCTIONS IN THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER.

THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES SETS A TARGET TO OFFSET APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT OF THE ESTIMATED OVERDRAFT IN THE BASIN, STATED AS A RANGE OF TEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THE RESOLUTION ALSO SERVES TO NOTIFY LANDOWNERS AND GROUNDWATER USERS IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA THAT SUSTAINABILITY CANNOT WAIT, AND ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER MUST TAKE PLACE.

THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE IS THE FIRST STEP.

THE GSA DID RECEIVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER FROM THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GSA ON THIS ITEM REQUESTING THE BOARD DELAY THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE LETTER HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THE RESOLUTION ITSELF DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NUMBERS OR DEFINITIONS THAT THE COMMENT LETTER OBJECTS TO WHEREAS IN THE RESOLUTION, THEY ARE ALL FACTUAL.

MOST OF THEM CITE THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY CAME FROM.

AND THE RESOLVING STATEMENT OF THE RESOLUTION IS THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE RANGE, AS DISCUSSED BY THIS BOARD AND COMMUNICATED TO THE OTHER GSA'S IN THE BASIN AT A PREVIOUS AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING. IT IS ACCURATE THAT THE GSA'S HAVE NOT AGREED TO THE TOTAL VOLUME OR OWNERSHIP OF DEVELOPED SUPPLY AND THAT CONTINUED COORDINATION IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THOSE FIGURES AND TO COMPLETE THE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK MANAGEMENT ACTION, WHICH IS IN THE GSP THAT ALLOCATES THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD BY GSA WITHOUT THOSE AGREED UPON FIGURES. THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA HAS ESTIMATED ITS SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH ACTIONS AND GOALS TO START COMMUNICATING AND REDUCING CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IMMEDIATELY RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE FINAL FIGURES TO BE AGREED UPON BY ALL GSA'S.

AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNICATION AMONG THE BOARD THAT THESE ESTIMATES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND THEY'LL BE ADJUSTED AS THE DATA AND INFORMATION IS UPDATED.

THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT LIMIT THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA TO ONLY REDUCING TEN TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET.

HOWEVER, IT IS AN EFFORT TO START COMMUNICATING THE CRITICAL NEED TO REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER TO THE LANDOWNERS AND GROUNDWATER USERS IN THE GSA.

SHOULD THE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE GSA'S PRODUCE UPDATED SUSTAINABLE YIELD FIGURES

[00:25:04]

AGREED UPON BY EACH GSA, THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA IS ABLE TO ADJUST BOTH THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE AND OR THE TOTAL REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTIVE USE NEEDED BY 2040 AS NECESSARY.

SO I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALSO, GREG YOUNG IS HERE, AND HE CAN HELP WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR THE BOARD CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS. WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

LAST MEETING UNDER THAT ITEM, THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.

I MADE THE POINT THAT I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE MOVING FAST ENOUGH HERE.

AND I THINK MR. GALLO AGREED WITH ME.

AND I KNOW YOU DON'T DO VERBATIM COMMENTS, BUT YOU APPARENTLY CHOOSE WHICH ONE YOU CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT AND WHICH ONES DON'T.

SO I ASSUME MY COMMENT DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT.

SO I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.

I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE'RE MOVING FAST ENOUGH RIGHT NOW.

OK, MR. MARCHINI.

I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, I THINK WE HAD ONE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THEY WANT TO SPEAK ON NUMBER EIGHT. OK, YES.

THANK YOU. OK, DIRECTOR PAREIRA, I'D LIKE TO SAY I ACTUALLY HAVE FIVE SUGGESTIONS, OK, TO THE DOCUMENT. WHEN THIS WAS STARTED, THE INTENT WAS, I THINK, TO HAVE FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS THAT WOULD END IN THE YEAR 2040.

SO IT'S A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS WHEN THIS TALKS ABOUT A FIVE YEAR TERM WITH A DOCUMENT THAT MIGHT BE SIGNED IN 2021 IF THAT WOULD THEN BE EFFECTIVE IN 2026.

AND I THINK THE INTENT WHEN ALL THESE WERE STARTED WAS THAT THIS WOULD COMPLETE IN THE WATER YEAR 2025.

SO MY FIRST SUGGESTION IS THAT THE VERBIAGE BE CHANGED TO THE REDUCTIONS WOULD BE AT THIS LEVEL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADOPTING IN 2025.

ALSO, IT DOESN'T SAY ACTUALLY ANNUAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER, EVEN THOUGH I THINK THAT'S IMPLIED.

SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION.

I WOULD AGREE WITH DIRECTOR UPTON THAT WE NEED TO MOVE AND I WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE THE RANGE OF TEN TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND OUT AND JUST ESTABLISH FIFTEEN THOUSAND AS THE MINIMUM REDUCTION TARGET.

AND IN REGARDS TO THE COMMENT LETTER FROM MID, THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, I WOULD JUST REMOVE THE LAST SENTENCE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS WHERE THEIR MAJOR OBJECTION WAS WITH THE VERBIAGE INCLUDED IN THAT LAST SENTENCE. AND THEN THE LAST COMMENT I HAD IS IN THE PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAID BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, I THINK IN THE 2021 WATER YEAR, WE'RE LIKELY GOING TO SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PUMPING.

SO IMMEDIATE REDUCTIONS, I DON'T THINK, ARE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE.

SO I WOULD REMOVE THE WORD IMMEDIATELY AND REPLACE IT WITH IN THE SHORT TERM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WE'RE GOING TO SEE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS FROM HISTORICAL PUMPING OF GROUNDWATER.

AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

OK, ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS? NO. OK, MR. GALLO. WELL, I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION, YOU KNOW, I READ WHAT HAVE DATA GAPS.

AND SO I WONDER IF OUR PLAN ADDRESSES THAT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN GO FORWARD BASED ON A PLAN THAT DOES WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO AND AT THE SAME TIME MAYBE ADDRESS THE DATA GAPS AND SUGGEST THAT ADJUSTMENTS COULD BE MADE BASED ON WHAT WE FIND OUT.

I MEAN, OTHERWISE WE'RE JUST GUESSING HERE.

AND SECONDLY, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT HERE AGAIN ASK THE QUESTION IS WHAT HARM WOULD COME FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING AND HAVING ANOTHER MEETING AND SORT OF TRYING TO HAMMER OUT WHAT WE CAN HAMMER OUT AT THIS POINT AND AT THE SAME TIME ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITH THEM? WHAT I WANT TO DO TO WAIT FOR THAT MEETING, AS LONG AS IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

[00:30:05]

OK, THANK YOU, MR. PAREIRA. WOULD THIS BE LIKE CAN WE CHANGE THE VERBIAGE TO HAVE MINIMUM LIKE WE COULD THE BOARD COULD COME BACK AND DECIDE IF WE DID DECIDE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY, TO UP IT IN A FEW MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS PER SAY, WHEN WE HAD MORE DATA LIKE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OR COME TO A MORE SOLID AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER GSA'S.

I MEAN, PART OF THE REASON I THINK WE WANTED TO DO THIS NOW WAS TO GET FARMERS TO START UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE, EVEN THOUGH THESE AREN'T SOLID, SOLID NUMBERS. BUT THIS IS THE BARE, BARE BONES VERBIAGE IN THEIR BARE BONES MINIMUM AND THE BOARD WILL STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE IT.

ANY TIME. YOU COULD APPROVE THIS AND UPDATE IT IN THE FUTURE.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY, PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER UPTON'S COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD IS NOT MOVING FAST ENOUGH AND THAT THE PUBLIC DOES NEED TO BE MORE AWARE THAT THESE REDUCTIONS ARE COMING AND THAT PRACTICES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE.

AND SO PART OF IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

AND SO WE COULD PUT THE WORD MINIMUM IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT THIS IS THE LOWEST AND IT COULD BE MORE WE COULD CHANGE SOME VERBIAGE TO REFLECT THAT.

IT COULD BE UPDATED IN THE FUTURE OR YOU COULD JUST UPDATE IT IN THE FUTURE.

THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO DIRECTOR SWENSON, I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION, YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE FIVE ITEMS YOU WANTED TO SEE CHANGED WAS THAT THAT WE MAKE THIS AN ANNUAL REDUCTION. COULD YOU RESTATE THAT? SO I MAKE SURE I GET IT LIKE YOU MEANT IT.

SO THE GSP TALKS ABOUT SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN ACRE FEET PER YEAR OF EXTRACTION.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REDUCTION, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A CUMULATIVE ACRE FOOT REDUCTION BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ANNUAL REDUCTION IN PUMPING.

NO, NO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND OVERDRAFT CHART, IF YOU TAKE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, IT'S A THIRTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED ACRE FOOT REDUCTION.

SO WE WOULD START REDUCING, YOU KNOW, AND THEN EACH YEAR IT WOULD BE REDUCED BY TWO PERCENT MORE. AND SO AT THE END OF 2025 THEN WE WOULD HAVE OUR GOAL IS IN DIRECT OF THIS WOULD BE IS TO ONLY PUMP OR ONLY OVERDRAFT ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED ACRE FEET VERSUS ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO THOUSAND THAT WE'RE ASSUMING WE'RE OVER DRAFTING TODAY.

THAT'S AN ANNUAL NUMBER THOUGH.

ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRE FEET A YEAR IS AN ANNUAL YEAH, OVERDRAFT.

OK, SO OH, OK.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE BY FIFTEEN THOUSAND, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT MANY ACRE FEET PER YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REDUCE THAT MUCH IN ANNUAL EXTRACTION.

WELL, SO IF I'M READING THIS AND IT'S A FIVE YEAR DEAL AND WE'VE GOT IT REDUCE BY FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET ANNUALLY, THEN SOMEBODY'S GOING TO THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO REDUCE BY SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND ACRE FEET IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OK, DID YOU HAVE SOME INPUT, MR. YOUNG? IF IT HELPFUL BOARD TO THE SUGGESTION ABOUT ADDING THE WORD ANNUAL, IF WE LOOK AT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA, THAT THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE IS A REDUCTION IN THE ANNUAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IN THE RANGE OF TEN THOUSAND TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND.

SO THAT'S THE POINT IS NEXT YEAR, MAYBE WE'RE AT FIVE THOUSAND YEAR AFTER THAT WE'RE SAVING TEN THOUSAND OR REDUCING TEN THOUSAND AND WE'RE BUILDING UP CUMULATIVELY SORRY, EXPANDING EACH YEAR SUCH THAT OVER TIME, YES, WE ARE HAVING A CUMULATIVE BENEFIT THAT IF WE DO, IF WE WERE TO DO FIFTEEN THOUSAND NEXT YEAR AND WE DID THAT FIVE YEARS IN A ROW.

QUICK, WHAT'S THE MATH. SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND.

THAT WOULD BE SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF REDUCED CONSUMPTION WE HAD OVER FIVE YEARS. SO IF THE WORD ANNUAL WAS INSERTED BEFORE CONSUMPTIVE USE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

I WOULD BELIEVE THAT WOULD ADDRESS DIRECTOR SWENSON'S.

THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

OK, CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? SO ON THE CHART, THE TABLE, IT SHOWS 2 PERCENT REDUCTIONS ANNUALLY FOR THE FIRST FIVE

[00:35:08]

YEARS, WHICH IS WHERE YOU GET A CUMULATIVE 10 PERCENT REDUCTION.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT? CORRECT EACH YEAR IS GROWING BY TWO PERCENT.

THE NEXT YEAR'S FOUR PERCENT.

RIGHT. THE NEXT YEAR'S SIX PERCENT.

OR IN OTHER WORDS, THAT YOU'RE IN THE NEXT YEAR AND YOU NOW HAVE TO REDUCE ANOTHER TWO PERCENT AND THEN YOU MOVE TO THAT YEAR AND YOU REDUCE ANOTHER TWO PERCENT FROM THAT YEAR AND THEN YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT YEAR.

SO THE GOAL IS THAT YOU WILL BE REDUCED BY TEN TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ANNUALLY.

AND AT THE END FIFTEEN THOUSAND IN YEAR TWO IT'S BY THE END OF THE PERIOD IT'S ANNUAL AN ANNUAL REDUCTION OF TEN TO FIFTEEN.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND ACRE FOOT OVER FIVE YEARS BECAUSE IN YEAR ONE, VERY UNLIKELY YOU'RE GOING TO GET FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF REDUCTION BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PROGRAMS OR THE POLICIES IN PLACE.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS A SMALL STEP TO GET THOSE IN PLACE SO YOU CAN RAMP UP AND HAVE THOSE BIGGER REDUCTIONS IN THE YEARS DOWN THE LINE.

DO WE NEED A REFERENCE AT WHAT POINT WE'RE REDUCING FIFTEEN THOUSAND FROM? LIKE A DATE ON 2020 2021.

YOU KNOW WITHOUT IT BEING SO OPEN ENDED WHEN WE'RE REDUCING OR WHAT'S OUR BASELINE I GUESS, YOU KNOW. THAT'S PART OF THE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER GSA'S WE STILL NEED TO DEFINE SOME OF THAT BASELINE CONDITION.

THERE WERE PRESUMPTIONS MADE IN THE MODELING THAT WAS USED TO ESTABLISH THE GSP THAT WAS HAD AVERAGE ANNUALS, HAD A BUNCH OF HISTORIC DATA.

AND AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, ONE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IS POTENTIALLY TO INCREASE THE USE OF SURFACE SUPPLY AS A SUBSTITUTE.

WHILE THE QUESTION THERE IS, WELL, FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BASE CONDITION.

THE SAME APPLIES, I THINK, ACROSS THE BOARD.

WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THESE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THAT WE NEED TO START TAKING ACTION. AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS TO TRY AND MEASURE THAT SUCCESS WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING SECURED WHAT THE BASELINE MEANS FOR ALL THE GSA'S.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WERE TO PURSUE ALSO ANY KIND OF LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS, WHICH I KNOW ARE PART OF CONVERSATIONS ONGOING, THOSE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MEASURED AS THIS PARCEL THAT WAS CONSUMING X IS NOW GOING TO NOT CONSUME X, AND THAT IS A QUANTITY.

AND IF WE ADD SEVERAL OF THOSE TOGETHER, WE COULD ADD UP TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE BASELINE GENERALLY PRESUMED THAT LAND WAS IN PRODUCTION PRIOR TO THE GSP AND WAS CONTRIBUTING TO SOME OF THE OVERDRAFTS.

SO THEREFORE IT WOULD BE COUNTING IN SOME MANNER.

RIGHT. IT'S NOT LIKE IT JUST STARTED GETTING PLANTED LAST YEAR AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO SAVE THAT WATER. SO I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO STILL DISCUSS ABOUT BASELINE AND HOW TO MEASURE IT AND HOW TO ESTABLISH IT.

THERE WERE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THE MODELING TO HELP DIRECT THE GSA'S TO MOVE TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY. BUT EVEN THAT DATA HAS A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS BUILT INTO IT ABOUT WHAT REALITY IS.

AND IT PRESUMES CERTAIN FREQUENCIES OF HYDROLOGIC EVENTS.

AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN A SUPER DRY CONDITION NEXT YEAR, WE MIGHT BE IN A SUPER WET CONDITION, WE DON'T KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS OVER A LONG TERM AVERAGE.

AND SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO START MOVING FORWARD.

BUT YOUR POINT, DIRECTOR MARTINI IS I SAID MARTINI, NOT MARCHINI.

MAYBE I'M THIRSTY.

CONVERSATIONS AND WORK TOWARDS THOSE.

BUT I THINK STILL ESTABLISHING SOMETHING AND IF IT'S OK WITH THE BOARD, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO ADD PART OF THE REASON FOR BRINGING THIS IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, NOT ONLY TO SHOW A DESIRE OF MOVING FORWARD, BUT IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS PRESENTED AT THE CORONATION COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE END OF THE MONTH THAT'S SCHEDULED.

SO YOU CAN SAY, LOOK, WE'RE STARTING TO GET THE WORD OUT HERE.

WE'RE OFFICIALLY MOVING THINGS FORWARD.

WE COULD WE WILL CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE AND SHOULD AND WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE OTHER GSA'S TO MOVE FORWARD.

ONE OTHER POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN REFERENCE TO MIDS PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO THOUSAND ACRE FOOT NUMBER CHANGES, IT STILL DOESN'T REALLY NECESSARILY AFFECT THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET.

[00:40:03]

NO, IF THAT IF THAT SETTLES IN AT ONE HUNDRED FORTY, IT'S STILL FIFTEEN THOUSAND OFF OF THAT. IF IT SETTLES IN AT ONE HUNDRED IT'S STILL FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OFF OF THAT.

SO I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN AND MAYBE WE'LL HEAR MORE IN PUBLIC COMMENT.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE YOU KNOW, MY GOAL AND I AND I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WAS OUR BOARD'S GOAL WAS TO GET SOMETHING STARTED.

AND THEN YOU KNOW, THAT WAY PEOPLE YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK SOMEBODY TO TO CUT BACK AND IN GROUNDWATER PUMPING, THE SOONER WE LET THEM KNOW, THE BETTER. AND THIS TO ME IS A STEP IN DOING THAT.

AND AND I DON'T THINK IT PRECLUDES THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE IF I'M WRONG, YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T BE AFRAID TO SHARE THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT US PASSING THIS RESOLUTION PROHIBITS YOU FROM HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH THE OTHER TWO GSA'S AND COMING TO AN AGREEMENT.

YOU KNOW, I JUST HATE TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD WHEN I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DONE THAT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

AND PART OF THAT IS JUST IN, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING INFORMATION TO USE.

AND I GET THAT THAT IT TOOK US A WHILE TO GET HERE, BUT I HATE TO SEE US CONTINUE THAT PROCESS ANYWAYS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. GALLO. YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP.

I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE THE LAST STEP.

IN OTHER WORDS, TO ME, WE HAVE SOMETHING.

YES, WE CAN GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND WE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S JUST THAT ONCE AGAIN, I MEAN, WE'RE IN THIS BASIN TOGETHER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD HURT.

TO HEAR HIM OUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THEY MENTIONED DATA GAPS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WAS AT THE CDFA BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, AND THERE WAS SOMEBODY THERE THAT SPOKE.

HIS NAME IS GREG AND THEY'RE THE AGENCY THAT'S LOOKING OVER THESE PLANS.

OK, AND HE HAD QUITE A BIT TO SAY, BUT HE FOCUSED ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS HE FOCUSED ON IS THAT THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN ARE THE DATA GAPS ON THESE PLANS. THAT'S THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN.

SECONDLY THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH PLANS THAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR PLAN, BUT THEY'RE PLANS IN GENERAL THAT TALKED ABOUT DOING GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND THEY'RE PUTTING OUT NUMBERS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE.

OK, THEY'RE SUGGESTING, HEY, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE FIXED BY GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND WE ALL KNOW IT ISN'T. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PLANS THEY'VE APPROVED A COUPLE OF PLANS YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE PLANS WON'T BE SITTING BACK UNTIL PROBABLY THIS FALL.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TIME, OBVIOUSLY, TO RESPOND.

I JUST THINK THAT THIS FIVE YEAR PLAN IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE REALLY SELF ANALYZE THE PLAN IN GENERAL AND TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, ON SECOND THOUGHT, MAYBE LIKE IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED ALREADY, INSTEAD OF SEEING TEN TO FIFTEEN TO SAY FIFTEEN, REALLY MAKE A COMMITMENT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE WHETHER IT'S A 100 THOUSAND ACRE FEET OR ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND ACRE FEET, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK OUT IN TIME.

AND ONCE AGAIN, I SAY, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE DO THIS, WHAT WOULD IT HURT TO HAVE THAT MEETING OR THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY? AND IF IN THE END, YOU KNOW, WE DISAGREE WITH IT AND WE STILL FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE CAN DO IT AT THAT TIME AND HAVEN'T LOST A LOT OF TIME IN THE PROCESS

[00:45:05]

BECAUSE THIS IS A OBVIOUSLY A LONG TERM PROCESS AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS RIGHT AS POSSIBLE. OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

AND IF NOT, THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC, ANYBODY IN THE HOUSE LIKE TO SPEAK ? OF BOB KELLY, IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE TRYING TO GET ALL MY THOUGHTS TOGETHER ON THESE PAPERS AND ALL THESE IDEAS TO TO ADDRESS SUCH A BIG, BIG ISSUE.

WE CAN HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING THE DEMAND REDUCTION.

BUT REALLY WHAT WE NEED, BECAUSE WE KNOW IF IT'S JUST VOLUNTARY, NOT MUCH IS GOING TO GET DONE UNLESS WE'RE COMMUNICATING EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON.

NOBODY'S GOING TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE CAN COMMUNICATE SOMETHING CONCRETE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF GROUNDWATER, CONSUMPTIVE USE ON A PARCEL OR ON A FARMING UNIT TYPE BASIS, AND THEN COMMUNICATING THAT TO THE PEOPLE AND SAYING YOU GOT X AMOUNT OF TIME VOLUNTARY AND THEN FEES START OCCURRING IN ORDER TO GET TO ACCOMPLISH THE DEMAND REDUCTION. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE EXPECTS A TWO PERCENT REDUCTION IF THERE DOESN'T EXIST SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO CAUSE IT TO HAPPEN.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE BUILT ON ITSELF IN ORDER TO GET WHERE WE WANT TO GET. AND THAT THE TECHNICAL SERVICES BY EKI IS KIND OF A FOUNDATION THAT WE NEED TO USE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT IT.

WE GOT TO DEVELOP AN ALLOCATION PLAN FOR NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD.

AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED THEIR HELP.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO NEED LEGAL COUNSEL HELP TO MAKE IT CORRECT LEGALLY.

AND WHAT WHAT WE'RE DOING, THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CURB GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO IT AND WE'VE GOT TO BUILD A FOUNDATION.

AND SO, I MEAN, I'M NOT TELLING YOU ANYTHING YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW.

IT'S JUST IN ORDER TO EFFECT WHAT MR. GALLO WAS SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET ON THE FIELD OR A PLAN DEVELOPED AND AGREED TO BY THE BOARD THAT IS GOING TO ADDRESS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE USE ON A FARM UNIT BASIS AND THEN COMMUNICATE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE JUST SO MUCH ON A PER ACRE BASIS TO EVERYONE OUT THERE AND YOU GOT X AMOUNT OF TIME TO START. AND SO ANYWAY, I'M SURE YOU ALL REALIZE THIS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO SAY WE CAN TALK ABOUT A RESOLUTION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT DOING SOMETHING. I HOPE THAT THERE'S A TWO PERCENT REDUCTION.

BUT UNTIL WE HAVE THE DEVELOPED FRAMEWORK WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF OUR IT UP. SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.

SURE. APPRECIATE THAT. OK, THANK YOU.

OK, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? 2020 WITH FIVE YEARS ENDING IN 2025 IN COMMUNICATING WHAT COMES OUT OF THE BOARD IS REALLY IMPORTANT IF WE SAY WHEN THINGS ARE GOING TO STOP AND START AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK ON WHEN THIS MIGHT BEGIN WOULD BE HELPFUL.

OK, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, OK, IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO ZOOM.

OK PUBLIC COMMENT, MATT BEAMON, PLEASE, UNMUTE AND SPEAK.

MY NAME IS MATT BEAMON AND I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, AS ITS BEEN MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES.

[00:50:01]

IT'S QUITE APPARENT IN THE DISCUSSION TOO BOARD THIS MORNING. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO SUMMARIZE THE LETTER FOR THE PUBLIC AND THEN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE INTENT.

SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA OTHERWISE REFERRED TO, AS THIS ITEM, NOT FOR THE INTENT OF DELAYING A MOVE TO SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT, BUT IN ORDER TO REFINE AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH MEMBERS AND ENFORCE SUSTAINABLY MANAGING GROUNDWATER MOVING FORWARD IN DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD.

IT WAS VERY VALUABLE TOO I APPRECIATE MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION AND ULTIMATELY BUT THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA IS MOTIVATED AND WE APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF DOING THE REDUCTION AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COOPERATION IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON ZOOM? NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

YOU KNOW, I GUESS THEY'RE WE KIND OF HAVE TWO ITEMS BEFORE US.

ONE IS WHETHER WE ACT ON THIS TODAY OR WAIT TILL NEXT MEETING.

AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE HOW IF WE DO AMEND WHAT WAS WRITTEN.

AND SO I GUESS IT WOULD BE PROBABLY BETTER TO DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DO IT TODAY OR NEXT MONTH. AND THEN IF WE DECIDE TODAY, THEN WE CAN GO THROUGH AND AMEND THE RESOLUTION IF WE'RE SO INCLINED.

SO I'LL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR THE BOARD.

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? HAS THIS RESOLUTION MADE IT TO THE TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE? THEY HAVE NOT SEEN IT.

I MEAN, MY INCLINATION IS AS A MEMBER ON THIS BOARD IS I LIKE THE INTENT OF IT.

I'M JUST WORRIED. I KNOW WE KEEP SAYING WE'RE PUTTING THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST HATE TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE AND THEN HAVE NOTHING ACTED UPON THAT'S MY BIGGEST FEAR ITS NO DIFFERENT THAN MAKING A LAW IN SACRAMENTO THAT NO ONE FOLLOWS. RIGHT.

AND SO IF THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS TO ACTUALLY START DOING THINGS LIKE MR. KELLY REFERENCED AND ACTUALLY DOING THINGS, I'M FINE WITH IT.

BUT IF IT'S JUST GOING TO PUTTING SOMETHING ON PAPER SO WE CAN SHOW EVERYBODY.

AND THAT'S MY HESITATION WITH IT.

RIGHT AND I UNDERSTAND WE CAN GO ON OUR OWN AND HEAD AT IT, BUT SO.

THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. YEAH, NO, AND THAT'S I MEAN, THOSE ARE GOOD COMMENTS.

I YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING TODAY, IT IT DOESN'T REALLY NOTIFY OUR WATER USERS THAT THE PROCESS IS REALLY STARTED.

RIGHT. THEY'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS SINCE 2014.

AND UNLESS THEY COME TO A MEETING, THEY HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT'S HAPPENING OR WHAT'S GOING ON. AND SO I'M YOU KNOW, I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT ANXIOUS TO HAVE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS AND REALIZE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CHANGES IN THE FUTURE TO WHAT THEY CAN PUMP.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO START SHARING THE INFORMATION SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF IT AND CAN SHOW UP HERE AND GIVE US THEIR INPUT.

I MEAN, I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FOLKS COME EVERY MEETING AND HAVE INPUT WHEN THEY FEEL IT'S NECESSARY.

THAT HELPS US. SO ANYWAYS, BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER WE DO IT TODAY OR NEXT MONTH, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE TO THE GROUP.

DIRECTOR MARCHINI I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT A LITTLE BIT WITH SOMETHING I'VE BEEN THINKING OF THAT I WAS GOING TO MENTION AT THE CLOSING COMMENTS.

BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE NOW.

AND THAT IS I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE PLANNING ON A FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT PER YEAR REDUCTION IN ANNUAL PUMPING.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD REQUEST THAT STAFF AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING BRING US AN AGENDA OF WHAT ITEMS WE NEED TO APPROVE AND TAKE ACTION ON BETWEEN NOW AND APRIL OF 2022 IN ORDER TO PUT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO EFFECT THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT PER YEAR REDUCTION BY THE 2025 WATER YEAR.

BECAUSE I THINK TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IN THE NEXT SIX TO TWELVE MONTHS, WE REALLY NEED TO MOVE OUT AND DO SOME THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE YET.

SO WHETHER WE ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION OR NOT, I THINK WE SHOULD STILL DIRECT STAFF TO COME

[00:55:06]

BACK WITH A MILESTONE CHART, BASICALLY, AND IN SOME SENSE OF WHAT ITEMS WOULD BE ON THE MONTHLY BOARD AGENDAS BETWEEN NOW AND APRIL 2022 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

OK, I DON'T MIND SEEING THIS IF WE DO A 15 THOUSAND ACRE FEET TODAY WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IT COULD BE CHANGED AND STILL GIVE THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, SOME MORE TIME TO DISCUSS WITH SORRY. AND IF THEY YOU GUYS COME WITH LITTLE DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS IF WE NEED TO. BUT IF WE DON'T, WE KEEP ON SEEMING LIKE WE'RE PUTTING IT OFF EVERY MONTH TO GET IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING OUT TO THE PUBLIC SOONER THAN LATER IS JUST WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, BECAUSE IT'S COMING.

AND, YOU KNOW IT'S COMING.

AND NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S COMING AND BASICALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO, IN MY OPINION. SO IN SUMMARY, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION? WOULD YOU MIND IF WE TOOK A TWO MINUTE RECESS? I NEED A TWO MINUTE RECESS.

AND THEN DURING THAT TIME, YOU CAN GO THROUGH.

WELL, LET'S DO THAT.

LET'S DO YOUR ITEMS. WHAT? YOU WANT TO HEAR THOSE AGAIN? IS THAT WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS? AND THEN YOU CAN BE THINKING ABOUT IT DURING THE BREAK.

SO GO AHEAD. MR. SWENSON WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR FIVE SUGGESTIONS? OK THE FIRST ONE WAS INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT A FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE OF TALKING ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD BE ACHIEVED IN THE 2025 WATER YEAR WATER YEARS, TYPICALLY THE SUMMER IRRIGATION MONTHS.

SO THAT WOULD BE SAVINGS FROM THE GSP BASELINE IDENTIFIED IN THE 2025 WATER YEAR.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. THE SECOND ONE IS IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED TO PUT ANNUAL IN FRONT OF CONSUMPTIVE USE.

THE THIRD ONE WAS TO DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT TALKS ABOUT THE FIVE YEAR TARGET BEING APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT.

THAT'S KIND OF A STATEMENT THAT I BELIEVE MID DOESN'T AGREE WITH.

AND I DON'T THINK IT ADDS OR DETRACTS FROM THE DOCUMENT TO REMOVE THAT STATEMENT.

AND THEN I TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE VERBIAGE FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET TO THE TARGET BEING FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT REDUCTION.

AND LASTLY, THAT IN THE SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH STARTS WITH, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT IMMEDIATELY WOULD BE REPLACED WITH IN THE SHORT TERM.

AND THOSE WERE MY SUGGESTED CHANGES.

THE AGENDA AND THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET DOESN'T HAVE THE WORD IMMEDIATELY, I THINK BOARD MEMBER SWENSON'S WORKING OFF OUR EARLIER DRAFT.

OH, OK. ALL RIGHT.

SO DO YOU. DO WE HAVE A CURRENT DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT COPY? MAYBE THERE'S ONE IN YOUR PACKET.

AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE WILL RECONVENE THE BOARD MEETING.

SO STAFF HAS HEARD OUR COMMENTS AND THEY ARE REWRITING THE RESOLUTION TO SEE IF IT CAN INCORPORATE WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.

SO WE'LL GIVE THEM JUST A FEW MINUTES TO DO THAT.

IT'S BEING TYPED RIGHT NOW AND THEN WE'LL MAKE SOME COPIES AND GET THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND THEN WE'LL WE COULD ALSO READ IT.

BUT FOR THE PUBLIC.

HELLO. WAS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MEANTIME? I JUST WANT TO WAIT. OK.

I HAVE ONE COMMENT, I GUESS A QUESTION, IF WE'RE STILL IN SESSION IN THIS RESOLUTION, WOULD IT BE TO THE BOARD'S PLEASURE OR IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD IF WE ARE PUTTING A YEAR OF 2025 IN THERE OR WHATEVER, TO ADD YOU KNOW, SOME VAGUE LANGUAGE SAYS IT WILL BE GREATER THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET A YEAR AFTER 2025, JUST SO IT'S I MEAN, PLAINLY STATED GOING IN THE FUTURE.

FIFTEEN THOUSAND FEET UP TO.

IF WE ARE PUTTING THE YEAR 2025 AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER, WHEREAS THAT EXPECT IT TO BE

[01:00:03]

GREATER THAN THAT. AND I THINK THAT FIFTEEN THOUSAND SHOULD BE LIKE A MINIMUM, WE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM IN THERE OR SOMETHING OR AT LEAST FIFTEEN THOUSAND.

SORRY YOU ALREADY PLANNED ON THAT LACEY.

AND ALSO IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE THERE IS IT MIGHT NOT BE AS CLEARLY AS YOU HAD STATED IT BOARD MEMBER MARCHINI, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT THE FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVE IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS REDUCING GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION IN FUTURE YEARS WILL REQUIRE STEEPER REDUCTIONS IF THAT GETS TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

OTHERWISE, WE CAN ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TOO.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR.

[01:10:13]

OK, SO WE HAVE A COPY, WHAT WE'LL DO IS LACEY WILL READ IT FOR THOSE OF YOU ON ZOOM

[01:10:24]

AND THEN WE HAVE, I THINK, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH COPIES FOR EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE? OK, SO EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE GET A COPY, OK.

LACEY WOULD YOU PLEASE.

OK, SO I DO WANT TO NOTE ON PAGE ONE, WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU AS WE CHANGE THE TITLE TO WATER YEAR 2025 AS WAS SUGGESTED.

AND THEN ON PAGE TWO, THE FIRST WHERE AS WE CHANGE THE FIVE YEAR TO THE 2025 OBJECTIVE, WE ADD A NEW WHEREAS THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA GOVERNING BOARD WILL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GSA AND THE TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT GSA NUMBER ONE THROUGH A COORDINATION AGREEMENT TO REFINE THE 2025 OBJECTIVE.

AND THEN THE NOW THERE ARE FOUR PARAGRAPH IS CHANGED TO READ NOW.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA THAT BY 2025 THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER WITHIN THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA WILL BE REDUCED BY A MINIMUM OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET ANNUALLY, WITH THIS MINIMUM TO BE INCREASED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.

AND THEN THERE IS A LAST RESOLUTION, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA GOVERNING BOARD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION TO ACHIEVE THE 2025 DIRECT OBJECTIVE.

OK, SO AS I'M READING THE NEW SECOND, WHEREAS.

IS THE I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE IS GOING TO REFINE THE OBJECTIVE IF THE OBJECTIVE IS TO REDUCE OUR ANNUAL CONSUMPTION BY FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET SO THAT NUMBER THEN IS GOING TO BE CHANGED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE? IS THAT YEAH, OK, SO WHEREAS THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA GOVERNING BOARD WILL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE SO THE LANGUAGE IS SUGGESTING THE BOARD COORDINATE WITH THE OTHER GSA'S FOR THE BOARD TO REFINE THE 2025 OBJECTIVE.

OK, SO THEN IT'S ACTUALLY ACCURATE AS IT'S WRITTEN.

OK, ALL RIGHT.

OK, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM? ARE THERE ANY RAISED HANDS ON ZOOM? NO, RAISED HANDS. OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD AND ASK YOU, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? OK, SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM.

OH, JUST KIDDING. A LITTLE STRESSFUL AFTERNOON.

I FIGURED I'D MAKE US CHUCKLE.

OK, GO AHEAD, DR.

SWENSON. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY RESOLUTION NUMBER 2021-01 AS MODIFIED AND AS READ BY LACEY.

OK, I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT, SO IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON, ERIC AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENT? OH, OK. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL, YES SIR? MR. GALLO, NAY MR. PEDRETTI AYE.

MR. UPTON YES.

MR. SWENSON AYE, MR. MARCHINI AYE AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA, AYE.

SO, SIR, THAT ITEM IS PASSED.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ONE.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU AND THANK FOR INDULGING US AND GETTING IT RIGHT.

OK, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS NUMBER NINE, THE INTERFACE AND COORDINATION

[9. INTERBASIN COORDINATION UPDATE]

UPDATE. WE WILL HAVE AN UPDATE PROVIDED BY LACEY MCBRIDE, A BRIEF UPDATE, THE LAST

[01:15:07]

REGIONAL INTERFACE AND COORDINATION MEETING BETWEEN THE MERCED, CHOWCHILLA, MADERA AND DELTA MENDOTA SUB BASINS WAS HELD ON JUNE 25TH.

AT THAT MEETING, THE GSA'S AND THE BASINS WORKED THROUGH DEFINING THE PROBLEM THAT SUBSIDENCE IS CREATING EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS ON INFRASTRUCTURE.

THEY DISCUSSED HAVING A FOCUS AREA FOR THE SUBSIDENCE.

REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MERCED SUBBASIN- SUGGESTED USING THE U.S.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MAPS OF SUBSIDENCE TO CREATE A FOCUS AREA AND FOR ALSO FOR THE BASINS TO DETERMINE THE LOWER AQUIFER PUMPING IN THE FOCUS AREA.

THE DISCUSSION DID START ON SUBSIDENCE SOLUTIONS.

EACH OF THE BASINS IS GOING TO IDENTIFY PROJECTS IN THEIR AREA THAT ADDRESSES SUBSIDENCE IN THAT THAT FOCUS, THAT PRIORITY AREA.

THE DELTA MENDOTA REPRESENTATIVES WERE INTERESTED IN HOW INTERIM IMPACTS WOULD BE ADDRESSED UNTIL SOME OF THESE LONGER TERM PROJECTS COULD BE IMPLEMENTED AND HOW THERE COULD BE IMMEDIATE RELIEF THROUGH MITIGATION FOR SOME OF THOSE IMMEDIATE THOSE INTERIM IMPACTS. SO THE FACILITATORS ARE SUGGESTING FOUR MORE MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE PRIORITY LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED PROJECTS, THE INTERIM IMPACTS AND POLICY AND POLITICAL APPROACHES, INCLUDING A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY.

SO THAT WAS THE JULY 25TH MEETING.

THEY'RE PULLING FOR THE DATES OF THE NEXT MEETING.

AND I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THERE WERE ANY BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING.

IT WAS ONLINE.

I DON'T THINK THERE WERE. OK, DID YOU MEAN THE JUNE 25TH COORDINATION MEETING? YES, JULY.

JUNE. OK, ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? OK, IT'S NOT AN ACTION ITEM SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 STAFF REPORT.

NO REPORT, GREG OR NO REPORT. MR. HENDRICKSON. NO REPORT.

I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO BOARD REPORTS.

WE'LL START ON MY LEFT. MR.

[11. BOARD REPORTS]

MARCHINI DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO SIR. MR. GALLO? WELL, ONLY ONCE AGAIN, I'LL GET BACK TO THE CDFA BOARD MEETING WE DID TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES WE TALK ABOUT HERE, GROUND WATER ISSUES, OBVIOUSLY. REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE WATER BOARD SPOKE ON IT, AS WELL AS OTHER PEOPLE WHO SPOKE ON POSSIBLE FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR WATER ISSUES, INCLUDING.

WELL, FOR HOMES, YOU KNOW, THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW SERIOUS THIS PROBLEM IS ALREADY THIS YEAR AND HOW THIS YEAR IS STARTING OUT WORSE THAN THE LAST DROUGHT ENDED.

MADERA COUNTY, THEY SAID LAST MONTH, HAD 80 DOMESTIC WELLS GO DRY ONE MONTH IN MADERA COUNTY LAST MONTH.

SO WE ALL KNOW IT'S SERIOUS.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND FUNDING FOR PEOPLE WITH DOMESTIC WELLS BECAUSE BANKS SEEMINGLY DON'T LIKE TO LOAN MONEY TO HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE WELLS GO DRY BECAUSE THE HOME ISN'T WORTH MUCH IF THEY HAVE A DRY WELL AND SO THEY DON'T LEND MONEY.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

BUT THEY'RE AGAIN, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FUNDING.

AND, YOU KNOW, SUPERVISORS FROM OTHER COUNTIES HAVE ALL JOINED TOGETHER HERE IN THE VALLEY AND AND THEY'RE HELPING ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

THEY ALSO MENTIONED THAT LIKE I STATED, VARIOUS SOURCES OUT THERE, USDA FUNDING, THERE'S NRCS FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE STATE AND THE FEDS ARE PUTTING TOGETHER PLANS TO DO FUNDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE CASE OF THE FEDS, POTENTIALLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

[01:20:01]

AND I THINK THAT IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO GET ACCESS TO THOSE FUNDS.

AND SO I GUESS IF I WERE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO STAFF UP.

AND I GUESS MAYBE NOW IS A GOOD TIME AS ANY TO THE BOARD AND DETERMINE WHETHER WE FEEL AS A BODY, THE GSA SHOULD HAVE A STAFF OF OUR OWN IN ADDITION TO THE COUNTY STAFF THAT'S HELPING US OUT.

I THINK IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.

I THINK THAT THE PARTICULARLY SMALL FARMERS ARE GOING TO NEED HELP TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS FUNDING AND GET ACCESS TO IT.

AND SO, ONCE AGAIN, I SAY MAYBE IT'S TIME THAT WE START TO TALK ABOUT STAFF FOR THIS BOARD.

SURE. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY JUST TALKED ABOUT WATER BOARD TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE IN MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD SOMETHING LIKE 18 APPLICATIONS IN AND THEY'VE APPROVED A COUPLE OF THEM WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS. THEY SAID THAT EVEN IF THEY APPROVE THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO EVERYBODY AS TO WHAT THEY THINK, HOW THINGS COULD BE DONE BETTER.

AND THEY THOUGHT THAT PROBABLY NOT BEFORE THIS FALL, WOULD MOST OF THE PLANS BE COMMENTED ON AND THEN YOU HAVE 180 DAYS, AS WE KNOW, TO RESPOND TO THEIR DIRECTION. OK, IS THAT IT, THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, MR. UPTON.

SWENSON, IN RESPONSE TO DIRECTOR GALLO'S COMMENTS, I WOULD THINK THAT FOR THE 2023 WATER YEAR PROBABLY WOULD BE A GOOD TARGET TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT STAFF PRESENCE.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 2025 REDUCTIONS WE VOTED ON TODAY.

SO I THINK THAT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT STAFF REQUIRES PROBABLY MORE INCOME THAN WE CURRENTLY TAKE IN.

SO I THINK IN THE YEAR 2022 FORMULATIONS AS TO HOW TO CREATE THAT INCOME NEED TO BE ADOPTED. AND I ALSO THINK TO GIVE FARMERS AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY'RE USING.

THERE ALREADY WAS SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER IN TODAY'S MEETING, I THINK IN THE 2022 WATER YEAR, A MECHANISM TO TELL GROWERS UNDER WHATEVER SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS GOING TO BE USED FOR CONSUMPTION OF GROUNDWATER, THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN THEIR NUMBERS UNDER THAT SYSTEM FOR THE 2021 WATER YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHAT AT LEAST I WOULD FORESEE AS FAR AS TRYING TO MEET THAT 2025 REDUCTION AND IN THE COMMENTS THAT DIRECTOR GALLO MADE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE DOABLE. THAT'S THE END OF MY MANY COMMENTS FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU, DR.

PEDRETTI, NOPE. WHAT? OK. ALL RIGHT.

AND WHAT'S THAT? MEETING. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.