Sep 16, 2021 Special GSA Meeting

[INAUDIBLE] 19605 STATE HIGHWAY 140.

IN 1990.

I MOVED IN 1996.

I HAD A WELL ON IT WAS [INAUDIBLE] FIFTY FEET IN 1999.

WHEN I TURNED MY HOSES ON, JUST MASSIVE DIRT CAME OUT JUST DIRT.

MY WATER WAS JUST FILLED WITH DIRT.

I CALLED OUT SEVERAL PUMP COMPANIES WELL COMPANIES FINALLY TOLD ME MY PROBLEM WAS THAT I HAVE AN OPEN.

SO THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A COW.

WELL, HAD AN OPEN BOTTOM.

SO BECAUSE OF MY NEIGHBOR, WHO IS A WATER HOG, HAS 18 ACRES, HAS AT LEAST FIVE WELLS, TOOK OUT ALL THE AQUA FILL.

AT THAT POINT, I WAS JUST PULLING DIRT AND SOME WATER.

IN JUNE, JANUARY OF 2020, YOU'RE FINE.

KEEP ON GOING.

I WENT AND HAD A NEW WELL DUG.

WE WENT DOWN ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE FEET IN JULY THAT YEAR.

I PUT A NEW PUMP IN.

AT THAT POINT, MY WATER LEVEL WAS TWENTY FEET.

THEN I IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, IT WAS ON A THURSDAY EVENING ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

I TURNED MY ONE OF MY HOSES ON BECAUSE I HAVE THREE LITTLE GRANDCHILDREN LIVING WITH ME AND WE WERE GOING TO.

THE KIDS WERE PLAYING WITH MUD.

I TURNED MY FAUCET ON NO WATER.

OH, YOU KIDS, YOU STRIPPED MY FAUCET.

SO WE WENT TO THE WELL, WENT TO THE FAUCET IN THE FRONT.

NO WATER WENT TO THE WELL.

THE GAUGE SAID ZERO.

NO WATER OUT THERE, EITHER.

OK, ON THE NEXT DAY, I CALLED MY PUMP GUY.

HE CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT IT AND HAD SAID I HAD DROPPED 30 FEET IN ONE YEAR AT THIS POINT.

HE PULLED MY PUMP.

MY PUMP MELTED SOME OF THE CASING ON MY WELL, SO I HAD TO BUY A NEW PUMP, A THREE INCH PUMP THAT HAD TO COME FROM SANTA ROSA.

THIS WAS FRIDAY AFTERNOON, SO I DIDN'T HAVE WATER AGAIN UNTIL WEDNESDAY BECAUSE THE

[00:05:02]

PUMP WAS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PICKED UP.

BUT IT WAS IT WAS MAILED.

OK, SO I AM NOW MY LEVEL.

CURRENT LEVEL IS 50 FEET.

WE DROPPED IT DOWN.

MY, AS I SAID, MY OLD PUMP.

YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL PUMP COMPANY THAT I WENT WENT TO GET A PIECE OF PC PIPE IN THEM.

AND HE SAID THERE HAS BEEN NUMEROUS CALLS FOR THE STEVINSON AREA, BUT A WEEK BEFORE THAT, THE HOUSE KITTY CORNER FROM ME HAD THE LOCAL PUMP COMPANY OUT.

THEY WERE THERE ON SUNDAY FOR SEVERAL HOURS.

TWO DAYS LATER, WATER HOG HAD HIS HAD THE FOSTER HAD A PUMP COMPANY OUT THEY'RE PULLING HIS PUMPS ONE OF HIS PUMPS.

TWO DAYS LATER, I HAVE NO WATER.

[INAUDIBLE].

THEY DUG WATER AT TWO FEET.

THEY HAD TO PUMP MY HEAD TO PUMP IT NOW.

SO THAT'S HOW FAR MY WATER HAS GONE DOWN IN 15 YEARS.

I LOST 30 FEET IN ONE YEAR FROM JULY OF LAST YEAR TO JULY THIS YEAR.

MA'AM, I'M GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY RUDE.

SO DON'T DON'T KILL ME.

NO PROBLEM.

YOU'VE EXCEEDED YOUR THREE MINUTES, SO DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ONE FINAL ONE FINAL COMMENT.

NO, YOU'RE OK.

YOU WANT TO MAKE ONE FINAL COMMENT FOR THE BOARD.

JUST THAT I DON'T.

I THINK THERE'S SOMEBODY IN MY AREA THAT IS PUMPING UP TOO MUCH WATER.

AND AS THEY SAID, THE PERSON NEXT TO ME HAS FIVE FIVE WELLS.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT THIS AFTERNOON? NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE IS GOING TO BE ONLINE, DESIREE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK, SO GOOD AT THIS POINT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE BOARD.

YOU'VE GOT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST, LOOKS LIKE AUGUST 12TH IN FRONT OF YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

YOUR SECRETARY WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE OR WILL ENTERTAIN ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR EDITS, ET CETERA.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.

OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. GALLO.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. PEDRETTI.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THE MINUTES? ANY OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, AYE.

ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? VERY GOOD.

YOU HAVE APPROVED YOUR MINUTES.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO ON TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH

[5. WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT]

WOODARD AND CURRAN.

AND I THINK I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO MRS. MCBRIDE.

THIS ITEM CONSIDERS A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT WITH THE MERCED GSA'S.

THE PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WAS REQUESTED BY THE GSA'S AND HAS BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION WITH THE GSA'S FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.

THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN IS COMING CLOSE TO THE END OF ITS BUDGET.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT, WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN ADDING ON NEW TASKS LIKE THE ANNUAL REPORTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF GRANT APPLICATIONS.

THIS NEW AMENDMENT WILL SUPPORT A YEAR OF COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS THAT WILL SUPPORT.

THOSE MEETINGS ARE QUARTERLY, SO THAT'S FOUR COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

APPROXIMATELY FOUR STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND SUPPORT FOR THOSE MEETINGS INCLUDES WOODARD AND CURRAN WORKING WITH THE GSA'S TO DEVELOP THE AGENDAS, THE SLIDES FOR THE MEETINGS, PUTTING TOGETHER THE MINUTES, FACILITATING THE MEETINGS AND FACILITATING THE INTERPRETATION IN THE MEETINGS.

IT WILL INCLUDE SOME ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK MEETINGS.

THESE ARE THE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE GSA'S THROUGH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

THERE WILL BE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SUPPORT OF THE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK DISCUSSIONS, AND THERE WILL BE SUPPORT OF PUTTING TOGETHER A ROADMAP FOR THE FRAMEWORK DISCUSSIONS.

THE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT MAY ALSO INCLUDE INTERFACE AND COORDINATION BETWEEN THE MERCED-SUBBASIN AND CHOWCHILLA, DELTA-MENDOTA AND TURLOCK, AND IT ALSO.

THE ON CALL SUPPORT MAY INCLUDE A SUPPORT TO RESPOND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES WHEN THE GSA'S RECEIVE FEEDBACK ON THE GSP IN JANUARY 20, OR AT LEAST BY JANUARY OF 2022.

THE TOTAL COST OF THE AMENDMENT IS $183,615.

THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA'S FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 BUDGET INCLUDES $160000 FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE LINE ITEM WHERE THE WOODFORD AND CURRAN CONTRACT SITS IN YOUR BUDGET.

APPROXIMATELY $110,000 OF THAT IS WAS ANTICIPATED FOR THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT.

[00:10:01]

THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA COVERS 58 PERCENT OF THESE BASIN WIDE SHARED COSTS, ACCORDING TO THE COORDINATION AGREEMENT.

SO THIS BUDGET IS NOT A FLAT FEE.

IT'S ONLY SPENT FOR THE TIME AND MATERIALS THAT THE GSA'S REQUEST OF WOODARD AND CURRAN EITHER IN TECHNICAL OR MEETING SUPPORT.

UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT WOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE GSA BOARDS FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE TIME CONSTRAINTS.

WITH THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE NOT MEETING AGAIN UNTIL OCTOBER AND THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT BEING CONSIDERED AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS CONTRACT GETTING CLOSE TO THE END.

THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS BEING CONSIDERED WITHOUT HAVING GONE TO THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

BOTH [INAUDIBLE] AND THE TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT GSA ONE ARE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT AT THEIR SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETINGS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT [INAUDIBLE] DID APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT AT THEIR MEETING LAST WEEK, SO THE ACTION FOR TODAY IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SO THE BOARD WILL START WITH YOU FIRST, DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOUR STAFF? YEAH.

WHAT'S THE COST AND INCREASE OR IS IT THE SAME AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT? SO THE THE TOTAL COST OF THE AMENDMENT IS $183,615.

THE COST FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA IS 58 PERCENT OF THAT, WHICH IS CLOSE TO $106,000.

THIS IS NEW COSTS TO FUND MEETING FACILITATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT GOING FORWARD.

THOSE THOSE ACTIVITIES WERE FUNDED IN PRIOR CONTRACTS AND CONTRACT AMENDMENTS WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN, SO THEY'VE BEEN DOING THOSE ACTIVITIES ALL ALONG.

THEY'RE JUST COMING TO THE END OF THEIR BUDGET.

SO IT'S NEW DOLLARS GOING FORWARD.

THEY'RE MEETING FACILITATION.

IS THAT LIKE THIS MEETING OR IS IT WITH LANDOWNERS OR WHO'S IT WITH? SO THE MEETINGS ARE THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THERE WILL BE FOUR OF THEIR QUARTERLY MEETINGS.

SO THERE WILL BE FOUR OF THOSE IN 2022.

AND THOSE ARE MEETINGS WITH THE GSA REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

THE OTHER SET OF MEETINGS THAT THEY'LL FACILITATE ARE THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND THOSE ARE QUARTERLY AS WELL IN 2022.

AND THOSE ARE THE MEETINGS WITH ABOUT.

I BELIEVE THERE ARE CLOSE TO 27 OR 30 STAKEHOLDER MEMBERS ARE ON THOSE COMMITTEES AND THEY'LL FACILITATE THOSE GOING FORWARD.

AND THEN THE THIRD MEETINGS THAT THEY MAY FACILITATE ARE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD, AND THEY COULD FACILITATE THOSE AS WELL.

SHOULD THE GSA'S DECIDE THAT THEY WANTED FACILITATION IN THOSE MEETINGS? OK, SO RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING AT 9 MEETINGS FOR THE COST OF THAT SO, SO IT'S ABOUT, I WOULD SAY IT'S ABOUT 10 MEETINGS ALTOGETHER.

AND THE BREAKDOWN IN THE BUDGET FOR THOSE 10 MEETINGS IS $83,555.

AND SO I THINK THEY ESTIMATED IT COSTS ABOUT 6-8 THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MEETING.

AND THEN $100,060 IS THE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

SO YOU ONLY PAY FOR THAT IF YOU REQUEST THAT TECHNICAL SUPPORT FROM THEM BECAUSE IT'S ON CALL.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR SOME OF THIS, OR IS ESTATE DRIED UP ON THAT END? THERE WILL BE GRANT FUNDING COMING FORWARD WE'VE NEVER HAD.

NO, I WON'T SAY NEVER.

WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE MEETINGS, MEETINGS, GRANT FUNDED WHEN THEY'RE A PART OF THE OUTREACH ELEMENT OF ANOTHER GRANT FUNDED PROJECT.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DATA GAPS PLAN WAS A GRANT FUNDED PROJECT, AND THAT PLAN INCLUDED THREE, I THINK, PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WERE A PART OF PUTTING TOGETHER THE PLAN.

AND SO PART OF THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

SO THEY WERE ABLE TO USE THE GRANT FUNDING FOR THOSE MEETINGS BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE DATA GAPS PLAN.

SO IN PLACES LIKE THAT, WE CAN USE GRANT FUNDING FOR THIS, BUT GENERALLY WE HAVEN'T HAD GRANT FUNDING FOR JUST FLAT CONSULTANT SUPPORTIVE MEETINGS.

I DO EXPECT THERE TO BE ANOTHER ROUND OF THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT COMING UP THE SECOND ROUND OF IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING COMING UP IN THE COMING

[00:15:05]

MONTHS, I WOULD SAY.

MR. SWENSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS, I THINK IN GENERAL, IT IS AN EXPENSIVE FEE FOR THE MEETINGS TO HAVE AS MANY STAFF PRESENT AS POSSIBLE.

I GUESS ONE THING WE MIGHT ASK WOODARD AND CURRAN IS IF THERE'S A WAY THEY CAN ECONOMIZE AND INVOLVE FEWER STAFF AT SOME OF THE MEETINGS TO REDUCE THE PER MEETING COSTS.

SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TWO HYDROGEOLOGIST AS PART OF THE GROUP, AND IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THERE WOULD BE A WAY FOR THEM JUST TO HAVE ONE HYDROGEOLOGIST AS PART OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TEAM, AND THAT WOULD REDUCE THE COST OF THE MEETINGS.

SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD ASK THEM IS WHAT STEPS THEY COULD TAKE TO REDUCE THEIR STAFFING AND STILL PROVIDE REASONABLE FACILITATION.

THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENTS, MR. GALLO ANY QUESTIONS? OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? WELL, GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP TO THE TO THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE ANY GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ACTUALLY GOOD, THANK YOU, MR. SWENSON.

DESIREE, IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE THAT WE SHOULD PROVIDE COMMENT? OK, SO THERE IS NOBODY IN THE HOUSE OR ONLINE, SO BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

I MOVED TO ADOPT WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. SWENSON .

SECOND THAT MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. GALLO, THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? OK.

YES, WE DO HAVE A MOTION, WE DO HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. SWENSON AND GALLO.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, AYE.

ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? VERY GOOD.

YOUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH.

[6. GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH]

AND WE'LL GO BACK TO MRS. MCBRIDE.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A QUICK INTRODUCTION AND THEN PASS THIS ONE ON.

THIS ITEM IS PRESENTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON GSP IMPLEMENTATION THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE.

THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF GSP IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS, SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY DECISION OR VOTES ON THIS ITEM TODAY.

BUT DIRECTION TO STAFF WOULD ALLOW US TO RETURN TO THE BOARD AT A FUTURE DATE FOR POTENTIAL ACTION.

THERE ARE TWO PRESENTATIONS FOR TODAY.

THE FIRST IS FROM GREG YOUNG ON THE OPTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THE TWO PHASED APPROACH THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE.

THEN WE'LL STOP FOR A BOARD DISCUSSION BEFORE A SECOND PRESENTATION BY CHRIS HEPNER, WHO'S YOUR TECHNICAL CONSULTANT FROM EKI, WHO'S JOINING US VIA ZOOM TO PRESENT ON LAND REPURPOSING.

BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION WILL RELY ON LAND REPURPOSING FOR SOME NEAR TERM REDUCTIONS, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP INFORM THE DISCUSSIONS TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT LAND REPURPOSING AND THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA WOULD LOOK LIKE.

DURING THIS DISCUSSION ON GSP IMPLEMENTATION, SO AFTER THE PRESENTATION WITH EKI WE'LL RETURN BACK TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS ON LAND REPURPOSING AND KIND OF WRAPPING UP THE DISCUSSION ON THE RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH AND RECEIVE ANY DIRECTION OR FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD.

SO IF THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY, I WILL HAND IT OFF TO GREG YOUNG.

AND.

SO WE'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES, BUT I THINK WE WANTED TO FIRST MAKE SURE WE'VE REFRAMED FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, BOTH IN PERSON AND ONLINE WHAT ARE KIND OF THE BIG PICTURE GOALS HERE AS PART OF THE GSP THAT WAS ADOPTED AND THAT THIS GSA IS A PARTY TOO, I ALWAYS FORGET WHERE DO I POINT THIS? MIGHT ALSO HELP IF I HIT THE ARROW INSTEAD OF JUST THE CENTER BUTTON.

YEAH, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST SLIDE, THEN I DIDN'T GO TOO FAR.

SO I WANTED TO JUST KIND OF RECAST THE MATERIAL THAT WAS IN THE GSP ITSELF THAT WAS ADOPTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE STATE AND IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE STATE FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND IN THAT, YOU CAN SEE THE QUOTE THAT'S PULLED HERE AND IT'S ON ON THE

[00:20:03]

SCREEN, SAYS THE MERCED SUBBASIN-GSA ANTICIPATES REDUCTIONS WILL INCREMENTALLY INCREASE ANNUALLY FOR THE ENTIRE MSG'S AREA UNTIL THE TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTION ACHIEVES THE NEEDED BALANCE.

ACHIEVING THESE REDUCTIONS WILL LIKELY REQUIRE THE MSGA TO UTILIZE AVAILABLE METHODS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE ESTABLISHING A PER ACRE PUMPING ALLOCATION FOR WATER USERS IN THE MSGA, POSSIBLY WITH THE TRADING MARKET ESTABLISHING FEE STRUCTURES TIED TO EXTRACTED VOLUMES AND ESTABLISHING EASEMENT OR CONTRACT PROGRAMS TO PAY FOR REDUCED GROUNDWATER USE.

DURING THE FIRST YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION, THE MSGA GOVERNING BOARD WILL EVALUATE OPTIONS AND ADOPT NECESSARY APPROACHES.

SO THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK AGAIN IS AND THE AD HOC GROUP HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THIS.

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON DEMAND REDUCTION, AS WE HAD SAID IN THE GSP, THAT THIS GSA WAS GOING TO WORK ON SOMETHING OVER TIME IN THESE FIRST FEW YEARS, THAT IT DOES LOOK AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

AND WE WERE GOING TO TRY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE VETTING ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS AND PUTTING TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE MOST WORKABLE FOR THOSE THAT ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO IMPLEMENT, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE MOSTLY THE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL GROWERS.

SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK AGAIN.

WE DID IDENTIFY SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES.

WE SAID IT MAY INCLUDE ALL THESE VARIOUS THINGS AND THAT WILL HAPPEN OVER TIME AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO, AS A GOVERNING BOARD, WORK ON IT IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION.

SO HERE WE ARE IN THOSE FIRST FEW YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION.

OBVIOUSLY, I HIT ONE TOO MANY SLIDES.

SO IF YOU RECALL IN THE COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE ADOPTED THIS NEAR TERM OBJECTIVE.

SO WE ARE STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEMAND REDUCTION OBJECTIVE IS IN ITS ENTIRETY.

WE, AS A SECOND BULLET INDICATES THE LONGER TERM GOAL IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND ACRE FEET BY 2040.

THAT'S ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND ACRE FEET PER YEAR LESS CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA AREA ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BY 2040.

WE HAD ESTABLISHED THAT NEAR TERM OBJECTIVE OF ABOUT FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF THAT, OR ROUGHLY A LITTLE OVER 10 PERCENT OF THAT TO OCCUR BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025.

SO THIS WAS KIND OF THAT CONCEPT OF LET'S HITCH THE WAGON, START MOVING WEST.

WE DON'T ULTIMATELY KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO END UP.

IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT MAGNITUDE THAT'S GOT SIX DIGITS, YOU KNOW, 120, 130, 150.

WE'RE NOT SURE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THIS, IN THIS.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THAT NEAR-TERM OBJECTIVE IS WHAT WE'VE SET FORTH TO START.

SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES THAT WE'LL NEED TO ADAPT THROUGHOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION, SO WE SHOULDN'T FIGURE THAT TODAY.

WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME ANSWER AND I DON'T MEAN TODAY, LIKE TODAY, TODAY, BUT RATHER RIGHT NOW IN THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME ANSWERS THAT WILL NOW WORK FOR ALL THE WAY THROUGH 2040.

WE PROBABLY WILL SEE AN ADAPTATION OVER TIME AND NEED TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY OVER TIME.

THAT SAID, AT THE SAME TIME, THE USERS, THE CONSUMERS OF GROUNDWATER AGAIN, THE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY PRIMARILY NEEDS TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF KIND OF WHERE THAT PICTURE IS, WHERE THAT FUTURE IS.

AND SO THIS IS A BALANCING ACT OF TRYING TO SET FORTH SOME IDEAS OR BUSINESS PLANS CAN BE MADE APPROPRIATELY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING SOME FLEXIBILITY SO WE CAN ADJUST AND ADAPT ON CHANGING CONDITIONS TO PUT FORWARD THE BEST TOOLS TO HELP REACH OUR SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.

SO THE CURRENT FOCUS FOR THE NEAR TERM OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE VOLUNTARY LAND REPURPOSING, AND WE'LL HAVE A FURTHER PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IN A IN A MOMENT HERE FROM EKI.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT JUST BROADLY OPTIONS FOR REDUCTIONS, AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT YOUR BOARD HAD BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY OF JUST ASKING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, WELL, WHAT ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS? AND SO WE'VE LISTED THEM OUT THIS WAY AS KIND OF FOUR PRIMARY AREAS AND THE FOURTH ONE THERE IS REALLY A HYBRID OF THE FIRST THREE.

SO LET'S THINK ABOUT THESE AS WE CAN IMPLEMENT A PER ACRE ALLOCATION LIMIT RIGHT NOW, WE CAN SET FORTH A CAP ON HOW MUCH CONSUMPTIVE USE FROM GROUNDWATER IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED.

AND THAT MIGHT BE A RAMPING DOWN CAP.

BUT WE SET IT TODAY.

WE SET IT FORTH AND WE JUST HAVE SOME PROCESS AND WE MOVE IT AHEAD.

THE PART OF THE CHALLENGE THERE IS WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS AND DESIGN THE APPROACH WE CAN'T.

WELL, WE CAN TALK SOME MORE ABOUT PROS AND CONS AND ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS HERE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO LIST THOSE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THOSE DO BECOME PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.

[00:25:03]

BUT THE IDEA OF DOING AN IMPLEMENTATION ALLOCATION RIGHT NOW MEANS WE ARE FEELING LIKE WE HAVE ENOUGH UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT DECISION ACROSS THE ENTIRE GSA.

AND AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THIS GSA IS VERY DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICALLY ACROSS ITS AREA.

IT'S NOT HOMOGENEOUS.

IT IS, YOU KNOW, EXTENSIVE FROM THE EAST SIDE TO THE WEST SIDE AND NORTH AND SOUTH.

AND WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT UNIQUE SITUATIONS, PLUS SEVERAL WATER DISTRICTS THAT LIE WITHIN AND ARE PART OF THIS GSA.

SO IT'S NOT JUST YOUR TRADITIONAL UNDISTRACTED LANDS, BUT OTHER LANDS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING.

SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF GOVERNANCE, QUESTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION, QUESTIONS OF ACTUAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL CIRCUMSTANCE, QUESTIONS AS TO HOW WE DESIGN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO AGAIN, THE OPTION COULD BE WE IMPLEMENT SOMETHING TOMORROW AND WE SAY IT IS X AND IT GOES DOWN ON SOME PATH AND EVERYBODY JUST STARTS MOVING FORWARD.

ANOTHER OPTION IS WE CAN FULLY RELY ON LAND REPURPOSING.

IF WE THINK ABOUT THAT SLIDE A FEW A FEW MOMENTS AGO WAS ESTIMATING OVER 100000 ACRE FEET OF DEMAND REDUCTION ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT IS CONSUMPTION FROM GROUNDWATER.

SO IT'S CONSUMPTIVE USE FROM GROUNDWATER.

OBVIOUSLY, WE COULD FIND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES, BUT I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OUR HANDS ON FREQUENTLY AND TO ENOUGH VOLUME TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

SO IF WE WERE JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THAT QUANTITY, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT 30 TO 50 THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND NO LONGER IRRIGATING WITH GROUNDWATER IN OUR GSA.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND IRRIGATED ACRES.

SO I MEAN, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, A THIRD OF THE IRRIGATED LAND GOING OUT THERE, A PROGRAM THAT FULLY RELIES ON THAT AS OUR SOLUTION WILL HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE COMPLEMENTARY LAND USES THAT GO ON ON THE ON THE LAND THAT IS NO LONGER IRRIGATING WITH GROUNDWATER? IS IT STILL IRRIGATING WITH SURFACE WATER? IS IT NOT IRRIGATING BUT STILL BEING FARMED? DRY LAND FARMED AS IT TURNED INTO SOME SOME OTHER FUNCTION, LAND FUNCTION, WHETHER THAT'S HABITATS OR WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT LAND PURPOSE ALTOGETHER.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT KIND OF MAGNITUDE OF ACRES CHARGE FEES.

THAT'S THE OTHER OPTION WE CAN LOOK AT.

LET'S JUST CHARGE EVERYBODY A FEE.

THAT FEE COULD BE A PER ACRE COULD BE A PER ACRE FOOT, MAYBE BOTH PART OF THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT ONLY CHARGING FEES TO ACHIEVE THAT LONG TERM OBJECTIVE IS THE QUESTION OF SATISFYING PROPOSITION 218 AND THE MAIN WAY TO LOOK AT 2:18, THE WAY I KIND OF LIKE TO THINK ABOUT IT IS YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE COSTS THAT OF THE BASICALLY THE FUNDING YOU'RE RECEIVING THROUGH THE COST THAT YOU'RE SENDING FORTH HAVE TO BE ABLE TO REFLECT THE SERVICE THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING.

SO IF WE'RE THINKING OF A TYPICAL URBAN PURVEYOR, YOU KNOW A CITY MIGHT BE PROVIDING YOU A WATER SERVICE OR A SEWER SERVICE OR SOME SERVICE LIKE THAT.

IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT SERVICE, YOU'RE PAYING A RATE THE THE ENTITY ISN'T ALLOWED TO BE MAKING PROFITS AND EVERYTHING ON THAT RATE.

SO THIS IS THE SAME SORT OF THING.

IF WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE FEES, WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE.

SO THERE'S A BIG QUESTION ABOUT HOW YOU DESIGN A FEE PROGRAM TO SATISFY A CHALLENGE UNDER PROPOSITION 218.

IT'S AN ONGOING AREA WHERE I THINK PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT.

SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT'S NOT A SOLUTION ON ITS OWN.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR A FAIR AMOUNT OF LEGAL SCRUTINY.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO GET INTO MORE DETAILS ON THAT, MS. LESI IS THE PERFECT PERSON TO ANSWER A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS FOR US.

SO THE THIRD OR THE FOURTH OPTION HERE WE HAVE IS A HYBRID.

SO A HYBRID WOULD USE LAND REPURPOSING FEES AND ALLOCATIONS.

THE IDEA BEING THAT, AS WE JUST MENTIONED IN THE SLIDE BEFORE, NEAR TERM FOCUS MIGHT BE ON THE MORE LIKELY MORE EASILY IMPLEMENTED LAND REPURPOSING TO GET TO ACHIEVE SOME REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN MOVING TOWARDS AN ALLOCATION APPROACH OR COUPLING AND ALLOCATION APPROACH AFTER WE'VE DONE EXTENSIVE, EXTENSIVE OUTREACH AND INTERACTION WITH ALL THE AFFECTED PARTIES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A ALLOCATION THAT MIGHT THEN COME ONLINE IN 2025 OR 2026 AFTER WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REALLY ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS AND THE CONSIDERATIONS OF DIFFERENT

[00:30:01]

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, DIFFERENT CROPPING CONDITIONS, DIFFERENT BENEFITS THAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM PLACING THOSE ALLOCATIONS.

BECAUSE AGAIN, THE INTENT OF AN ALLOCATION OF ASSOCIATED WITH GROUNDWATER IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER BEING CONSUMED OUT OF THAT LOCATION.

SO WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE PLACES THAT ARE SEEN OVERDRAFT OCCURRING AND DOWN AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS THAT ARE LOWERING.

WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO STABILIZE AND OR MAKE SURE THOSE START TO COME BACK UP.

SO THOSE WOULD, WHATEVER THE ALLOCATION NEEDS TO INCLUDE, HAS TO BE RECOGNIZING WHERE THOSE CONDITIONS ARE PREVALENT THE MOST.

AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, I GUESS, IS TO SAY DOING A PUTTING A LIMIT ON SOME AREA THAT THERE IS NOT AN OVERDRAFT ISSUE RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, WHAT'S THE REAL BENEFIT WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THAT.

SO THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS TO CONSIDER, AND I THINK WE NEED THE TIME TO TRY AND HAVE THOSE INTERACTIONS.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE HYBRID APPROACH IS KIND OF SET UP.

AND THEN IT CAN ALSO SET FORTH THE CHARGING OF FEES WHERE YOU CAN TIE THOSE FEES TO THE EXPENSES OF LAND REPURPOSING AND ALSO SOME OF THE THE POSSIBLY PURCHASING OUTSIDE WATER SUPPLIES OR OTHERWISE BUILDING RECHARGE OR OTHER THINGS TO GET ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO OFFSET THAT GROUNDWATER.

SO LET'S TOUCH REAL QUICK ON WHAT OTHER GSA'S ARE DOING.

SO AS I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU ARE AWARE, EITHER ANECDOTALLY OR IN DIRECT CONVERSATIONS OR READING VARIOUS ARTICLES, THERE ARE A LOT OF ACTIVITIES GOING ON UP AND DOWN THE VALLEY, MOSTLY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, IN TRYING TO CONSIDER HOW TO ACHIEVE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF GOALS SET FORTH IN THE GCSB'S THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.

AGAIN, THE CRITICAL BASINS, WHICH YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST DESCRIBE BASICALLY KIND OF FROM PLUS OR MINUS A FEW BASINS FROM STOCKTON DOWN TO KERN BASIN WERE ALL SET UP TO BE CRITICAL BASINS AND HAD TO GET THEIR PLANS IN BY JANUARY 2020.

AS SUCH, THEY'RE ALL IN THE MIDST OF DOING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD.

MUCH OF THE REST OF THE STATE IS ON A SLOWER TIME SCHEDULE WITH THE INTENT OF ADOPTING THEIR GCSB'S IN JANUARY OF 2022.

AND A LOT OF THOSE ARE ALSO CONSIDERED MEDIUM BASINS, WHICH MAYBE DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS OF OVERDRAFT AND OTHER ISSUES.

SO A LOT OF THE ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN GOING FORWARD BY OTHER GSA'S TO CONSIDER HOW TO ADDRESS SUSTAINABILITY HAVE BEEN OCCURRING IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.

SEVERAL OF THOSE ARE USING SOME ALLOCATIONS WITH SOME FEES.

I THINK THE ONE NOTABLE POINT OF THAT IS MOST OF THOSE ARE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN IN SUCH THAT THE GSA THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IS CONCURRENT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.

SO THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANDOWNERS AND THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT THAT THAT LIKELY INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITIES TO PURCHASE A SURFACE WATER, OR AT LEAST BE WITHIN A A BOUNDARY CONDITION THAT HAS SURFACE WATER AVAILABLE TO IT.

AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS, EXISTING SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS FEES ALREADY ASSOCIATED WITH THINGS AND THERE'S A THERE'S A LEVEL OF INTERACTION AND RECOGNITION OF THOSE GOVERNING OVERSIGHT ENTITY OR THAT CONTROLLING ENTITY WITH THE LANDOWNERS.

AND SO SEMI TROPIC IS ONE OF THE AREAS, AND THEY HAVE SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES UNDER STATE WATER CONTRACTS.

PLUS THEY HAVE GROUNDWATER AND THEY DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS, AND THEY'VE SET FORTH ALLOCATION APPROACH THAT HAS DIFFERENT ALLOCATIONS BASED ON DIFFERENT CLASSES OF LAND USERS.

SOME OF THEIR LAND USERS ARE NOT SIGNED UP, NOR DO THEY PAY FOR SURFACE WATER.

SO THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ALLOCATION AND A DIFFERENT RAMP DOWN ON THEIR ALLOCATION COMPARED TO SOMEBODY WHO ALSO HAS BEEN PAYING FOR STATE WATER PROJECT WATER SUPPLIES OVER TIME.

SO THEY'VE SET UP A COUPLE OF THINGS LIKE THAT.

TRI COUNTIES, WHICH IS IN MOSTLY WELL, IT'S IT'S MOSTLY IN TULLY, IT'S IN THE TULLY LAKE AREA.

SO YOU'RE GETTING INTO KINGS COUNTY, A LITTLE BIT OF TULARE COUNTY, A LITTLE BIT OF KERN COUNTY.

I THINK IT JUST KINGS AND TULARE.

THEY HAVE A AN ALLOCATION THAT THEY'RE SETTING FORTH THERE AND THEY'RE REQUIRING EVERYBODY TO SIGN UP ALL THEIR WELLS, SO THEY'RE GOING TO START MONITORING ALL THE WELLS.

THERE ARE AN INTERESTING SITUATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF LANDOWNERS.

THERE'S A LOT OF LARGE LANDOWNERS IN THAT COUNTY AND TRI COUNTY'S WATER AGENCY.

AND SO IT IT HAS AGAIN AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP AS A WATER ENTITY AND HAS LIMITED

[00:35:04]

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS.

SO IT'S PRETTY EASY TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND PUT PUT SOME THINGS TOGETHER.

LOWER TULLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND FIX IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAVE KIND OF DONE A JOINT GSP, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SEPARATE GSA'S, THEY'RE OPERATING SIMILAR PROGRAMS MOVING FORWARD WITH ALLOCATIONS THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING.

AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE AREAS ARE ALSO DOVETAILING ALLOCATIONS OF THEIR SURFACE WATER, COMBINED WITH THEIR WITH THE NATIVE WATER OR YOUR NATIVE GROUNDWATER.

ROSEDALE RIO BRAVO ONE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY HAVE HEARD ABOUT.

THEY'VE BEEN IN THE NEWS A LOT.

THEY HAD PUT FORWARD A WORKING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND AND SOME OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN A WATER MARKET.

AND THAT'S GOTTEN A LOT OF PRESS AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION OUT THERE ABOUT HOW TO MAYBE ESTABLISH WATER MARKETS WITH GROUNDWATER.

BUT WHEN YOU DIG INTO IT A LITTLE BIT AND YOU CHAT WITH THE FOLKS INVOLVED WITH THAT, THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE REALLY ALLOCATED IS THEIR SURFACE WATER THAT THEY DELIVER THROUGH THE GROUND, SO TO SPEAK.

SO THERE'S ALLOCATIONS THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL THE LANDOWNERS, BUT THAT WATER IS EXTRACTED THROUGH THE GROUND.

SO THEY SET FORWARD THEIR ALLOCATION AND THEIR MARKET THAT FOCUSES ON THE ALLOCATION OF SURFACE WATER THAT GETS IN RECHARGE TO THE GROUND AND THAT IS EXTRACTED BY FOLKS PUMPS.

THEY PURPOSEFULLY DID NOT INCLUDE NATIVE GROUNDWATER IN THEIR TRADING MARKET.

YET AT THIS POINT, THE MACMULLAN AREA.

GSA IS ALSO CONSIDERING THESE THINGS ARE LOOKING AT MARKETS, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOCATIONS, BUT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO WHAT EXACTLY IT MEANS WHEN AN ALLOCATION MIGHT LOOK LIKE SOME SOUTH VALLEY GSA'S ARE ALSO INITIATING LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS. THE CAGUIOA REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY IS ONE THAT'S HAPPENING, ACTUALLY.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS SEVERAL OF THOSE THE TWO LISTED HERE ARE ALL DOWN IN TULARE COUNTY.

THE TULLY BASIN LAND AND CONSERVATION TRUST IS OPERATING WITHIN PIXLEY, AND IT IS A TRUST THAT'S BEEN SET UP IN PART COORDINATION WITH AUDUBON NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, WHERE THEY ARE HELPING MANAGE THE LAND AND WORKING HABITAT BENEFITS INTO THE LAND REPURPOSING.

WITH THAT, SO AND THE VALUE OF THAT IS THEY'RE ABLE TO BRING IN OUTSIDE DOLLARS TO HELP INVEST IN THAT LAND REPURPOSING.

AND SO THEY'RE ACTING AS A PARTNER DOWN THERE WITH PIXLEY TO IMPLEMENT THINGS, AND IT'S HAVING SOME, SOME SUCCESS.

SO I THINK AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO BE LOOKING AT.

TALKING ABOUT LAND REPURPOSING, MADERA COUNTY PULLED IT OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE MOST SIMILAR TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA.

THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS THE [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY GSA'S, AND THERE'S THREE OF THEM ONE IN MADERA BASIN AND ONE IN CHOWCHILLA BASIN AND ONE IN DELTA MENDOTA BASIN.

THEY ARE ONLY INCORPORATE OR REFLECTING NONDESTRUCTIVE LANDS.

THERE'S NO WATER DISTRICT WITHIN THAT GSA.

UNLIKE THIS MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA, YOU HAVE A FEW WATER COMPANIES, YOU HAVE A FEW WATER DISTRICTS, IRRIGATION DISTRICTS THAT ARE PART OF THIS JPA THAT OPERATES HERE.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A OF A VARIANCE THERE.

SO YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH LANDOWNERS AND A WATER DISTRICT AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER.

AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME LANDS THAT ONLY PUMP GROUNDWATER OR MAYBE HAVE A RIPARIAN RIGHT OR SOME OTHER WATER SUPPLY.

BUT THEY'VE BEEN ACTING INDEPENDENT.

SO MADERA COUNTY IS JUST ADOPTED ITS ALLOCATION AFTER ABOUT A TWO PLUS YEAR OR TWO OR THREE YEAR STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH PROGRAM.

IT WAS VERY CHALLENGING.

I WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH THAT.

SO I KNOW A LOT OF THE DETAILS, THE MESSY DETAILS.

IT DOES INCLUDE FEES THAT ARE GOING TO BE APPROVED HERE SOON AS PART OF A RATE STUDY WHERE THOSE FEES ARE GOING TO BE ALSO PAYING FOR RECHARGE PROJECTS AND OTHER.

THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED SERVICES THAT THOSE FEES ARE GOING TO BE TIED TO, AND THEY ARE DEVELOPING A LAND REPURPOSING ELEMENT THAT IS BOTH FOR RETIRED OR REPURPOSED IRRIGATED LAND, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT PUTTING EASEMENTS ON CURRENTLY NON IRRIGATED OR GRAZING LAND.

SO THERE'S A COMBINATION THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM MOVING FORWARD.

NOW, WHY DO I NOT WANT TO MOVE? SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEXT PHASING.

SO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, WHICH INCLUDES INCLUDE GINO LLOYD AND NICK, HAVE BEEN SPENDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES, LOOKING

[00:40:01]

AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS, UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT COME FORWARD WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE'VE KIND OF DESIGNED THIS TWO PHASE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD WHERE PHASE ONE, WHICH WOULD BE STARTING NOW THROUGH WATER YEAR 2025 WOULD PURSUE AND ACHIEVE THAT.

WHAT ARE YOUR 2025 WATER YEAR OBJECTIVE OF REDUCING CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER BY FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET PER YEAR? WHERE THAT FOCUS WOULD BE ON LAND REPURPOSING AND FALLOWING AND IMPORTING SURFACE WATER INTO THE GSA, EITHER FLOOD WATER OR PURCHASE WATERS THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE GSP INCLUDED IN ITS BASELINE CONDITIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, HISTORICALLY, THERE'S BEEN WATER THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS GSA SURFACE WATER, SO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S INCREMENTALLY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, DURING THAT FIRST PHASE, WE WOULD ALSO DEVELOP AND RELEASE YEAR TO YEAR WATER BUDGETS FOR GROWERS TO RAISE AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEIR CONSUMPTIVE USE IS ON THEIR DIFFERENT PARCELS TO HELP GET A GOOD UNDERSTANDING AS WE MOVE PLUS POTENTIALLY TOWARDS AN ALLOCATION OF WHAT DO I USE NOW AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THEN? IF THERE'S AN ALLOCATION NUMBER OF SOMETHING ON A PER ACRE BASIS, DESIGN AND ADOPT BY THE SUMMER OF 2022 AN ADDITIONAL PHASE ONE PROP 218 FEE TO FUND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER YEAR 2025 OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD BE A FEE DIRECTED AT MOSTLY DIRECTED AT LAND REPURPOSING, BUT ALSO AT FUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE YEAR TO YEAR WATER BUDGETS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER MINOR ITEMS. EKI TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT FEE MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR WHAT GOES INTO DETERMINING THE MAGNITUDE OF WHERE THAT FEE MIGHT BE.

THEN FINALLY, IN THE PHASE ONE IS HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS TO TALK ABOUT ALLOCATION ELEMENTS AND TO DESIGN AND APPROACH TO TO BEGIN IN 2025-2026 TIME FRAME THAT HAS AN UNDERSTANDING, HAS ACCEPTANCE IS ALWAYS A ROUGH WORD BECAUSE THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, NONE OF THIS IS GOOD.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMAND REDUCTION, SO IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.

BUT WE NEED TO GET PEOPLE UNDERSTANDING AND BUYING IN AND DESIGNING AN APPROACH THAT'S GOING TO BE WORKABLE AND RECOGNIZES THE VARIANCES ACROSS THIS GSA.

THEN THE PHASE TWO, STARTING IN 2026, WOULD BE TO ADOPT BY THE END OF THE WATER YEAR 2025 AND IMPLEMENT BEGINNING IN 2026 AN ALLOCATION APPROACH IN COMBINATION WITH SOME CONTINUED LAND REPURPOSING AND A CONTINUATION OF SOME IMPORTED IMPORTED SURFACE WATER AT THAT POINT.

WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO DO A PHASE TWO TO 18 TO HELP ADDRESS ADDITIONAL FEES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED.

SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME BRIEF DISCUSSION, I THINK, BEFORE WE JUMP TO EKI OR DO YOU WANT TO GO TO EKI FIRST? OK.

SO I WAS KIND OF LONG WINDED, BUT JUST REAL QUICK.

I GET THE PRIVILEGE NOW JUST TO HAND THE MEETING ACTUALLY OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR FOR THE FOR THE MINUTES.

JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO REFLECT THAT THE VICE CHAIRMAN IS NOT PRESENT.

SO MR. MR. MARCHINI THE MICROPHONE'S YOURS.

[INAUDIBLE] EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU, GREG.

FOR THOSE YOU KNOW, BEING A PART OF THAT DEMAND REDUCTION COMMITTEE IS NOT IS NOT BEEN EASY.

I KNOW, YOU KNOW, GREG, WE ALL ATTEST TO IT.

AND YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE STARING AT YOUR DESTINY, RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW A LOT OF MEMBERS HERE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT OTHER BASINS HAVE BEEN DOING.

AS GREG HAS SHOWN, THERE'S THERE'S ONLY BEEN A FEW THAT ARE AHEAD OF US WITH ACTUALLY PUTTING THINGS FORWARD.

BUT AS GREG MENTIONED THERE, FROM ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS THAT HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR LANDOWNERS AND SO STARTING FROM SCRATCH, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE REST OF THE BOARD FEELS ON WHAT WHAT OUR GROUPS COME UP WITH SO FAR.

SO, NIC THE MOST BASIC COMMENT I HAVE AFTER TALKING TO [INAUDIBLE] AND STEVINSON WATER DISTRICTS IS THAT WE THINK THAT THE FEE PER ACRE SHOULD REFLECT THE HISTORICAL RATIO OF SURFACE WATER OR GROUNDWATER USE AND THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DONE THE MOST PUMPING HISTORICALLY SHOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FEE THAN THOSE WHO HAVE NOT DONE SIGNIFICANT PUMPING.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY NECESSARILY A PART OF THE PROBLEM.

STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT BELIEVES THE AMOUNT OF SEEPAGE THEY HAVE AND THE AMOUNT OF SURFACE WATER THEY IMPORT RESULTS IN A NET ZERO EXTRACTION OF GROUNDWATER.

AND IT SEEMS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE THAT THEY SHOULD BE BILLED TO SUPPORT NON FALLOWING OF ACREAGE NON FARMING AT OTHER PARTS OF THE DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S SIGNIFICANT OVERDRAFT OF GROUNDWATER.

SO I THINK MOST BASICALLY THAT IS OUR BELIEF OF HOW A FEE, IF SUCH A FEE WOULD BE STRUCTURED, SHOULD BE STRUCTURED PROPORTIONAL TO HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER TO

[00:45:04]

SURFACE WATER USAGE RATIOS.

YEAH, THANK YOU, ERIC, I MEAN, I AGREE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL HERE TO TALK ABOUT IS DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS FOR THIS, FOR THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL VERY VALID POINTS.

WHY SHOULD SOMEONE WHO HASN'T PARTICIPATED IN PROBLEM PAY FOR THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? AND NO DIFFERENT FOR RANGELAND AND OTHER OTHER OTHER PARTS, RIGHT? AND JUST HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE MAKE THAT? I DON'T KNOW.

MIKE, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS WHOLE THING? WELL, I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS MY QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE UNFOLDED OR ROLLED OUT TO THE BOARD? IS IT JUST GOING TO COME TO US PIECEMEAL OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS OR PART OF THE PART OF THE ORDINARY MEETINGS? IS IT FIRST GOING TO BE APPROVED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE? HOW IS THIS GOING TO UNFOLD AND OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DO YOU THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO? I SEE 21 TO 25.

BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE COMING ON A STEADY BASIS.

CAN I JUMP IN HERE FOR A COUPLE OF ITEMS, AND THEN GREG, I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU.

SO REGARDING KIND OF PROCESS GOING FORWARD TODAY IS JUST DISCUSSION FOR YOU GUYS.

WE'RE LOOKING TO GET SOME, SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU.

IF IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES AND TO THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH AND HAVE STAFF RETURN BACK TO THE BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING, WE'LL DO THAT.

I SEE THE BOARD APPROVING SOME SORT OF IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO REALLY COMMUNICATE TO THE OTHER GSA'S AND TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THE STRATEGY IS GOING FORWARD IN IN THIS NEAR TERM WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOTH THE LAND REPURPOSING AND THE PROPOSITION 218 FEE.

I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE WORKSHOPS WITH THE PUBLIC.

THERE'S GOING TO NEED TO BE PUBLIC MEETINGS TO KIND OF TALK THOSE OUT.

YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT'S THAT CAN BE USED TO TALK TO SOME OF THAT OUT AS WELL AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOUR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SO I DO SEE SOME OF THAT COMING BACK TO YOU AFTER YOU AGREE ON A STRATEGY IN THE BOARD MEETINGS.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PIECES TO APPROVE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH AND SMALL DECISIONS TO MAKE AS YOU BUILD UPON THE 218 VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH BACK IN 2018-19 FOR THAT FIRST FEE THAT THE BOARD DID HAVE TO APPROVE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS BOARD SIGNED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SOME LEGISLATION.

IT'S THAT LAND REPURPOSING LEGISLATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.

IT WAS AB 252, WHILE AB 252 ITSELF DIED IN THE SENATE.

THE MEAT OF THAT LEGISLATION DID PASS THROUGH BOTH THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY FUNDED AT $50 MILLION, AND IT'S SITTING ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK RIGHT NOW.

AS OF TODAY, I DON'T YET THINK HE HAD SIGNED IT, BUT THERE'S $50 MILLION IN A STATE FUNDED PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY FOR LAND REPURPOSING THAT AS STAFF, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS GSA PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THAT FUNDING AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

I KNOW OTHER GSA'S THROUGHOUT THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME THING BECAUSE IT WILL BE A STATEWIDE PROGRAM, BUT THERE WILL BE FUNDING IN THE NEAR TERM TO FUND SOME OF THAT.

I BELIEVE THEY WANT THAT $50 MILLION OUT BY I THINK IT'S 2024.

I'LL HAVE TO I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU JUST TO MAKE SURE ON THE DATE, BUT WE'LL WANT TO BE IN A POSITION TO APPLY FOR THAT.

SO YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS AND KIND OF MOVE THIS PROCESS FORWARD AT A PRETTY GOOD CLIP TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT FUNDING AS WELL.

GREG, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK PART OF MINE WAS COMING BACK AS A QUESTION BACK TO YOU, MIKE, ABOUT WHAT WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING WHAT WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THIS? I THINK THERE'S THE FIRST THING IS, DO WE AGREE WITH A TWO PHASE APPROACH? AND IS THAT THE KIND OF THE RECOMMENDATION THIS BOARD IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO MAKE? AND IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT TO BE MADE AT THIS BOARD MEETING, BUT SOMETHING THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO DO A COUPLE OF PHASES AND IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE THESE FOCUS ELEMENTS.

AND THEN OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS WITH RELATION TO BOTH OF THOSE MATERIALS

[00:50:04]

WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD IN PRESENTATIONS FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, I WOULD ASSUME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU GUYS WOULD ADOPT INTO SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE.

YOU KNOW, WE ULTIMATELY ARE GOING TO NEED TO WRITE THOSE ORDINANCE ELEMENTS FOR THIS JURISDICTIONAL BOARD TO HAVE A IMPLEMENT ITS AUTHORITIES.

SO THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT THAT I THINK OVER TIME WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT WITH YOUR QUESTION, IF WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET AT HOW MUCH DISCLOSURE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT, WHAT WE HAVE, I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND NOT DO SOMETHING TOO FAST.

BUT I MAY BE MISSING WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS COMPLETELY.

NO, YOU KNOW, I THINK LACEY ADDRESSED MOST OF MY QUESTION, WHICH IS THE PROCEDURES OTHER THAN HERE AGAIN, I GUESS GOING FORWARD, THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE IS EVERYTHING COMING, GOING TO BE APPROVED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

YOU MEAN THE ONE THAT OVERSEES THE THREE, THE THREE GSA'S ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

YEAH.

I DON'T KNOW IF FROM A JURISDICTIONAL STANDPOINT, THEY CAN NECESSARILY HAVE AN OVERRIDING ROLE, WE'LL PROBABLY WANT TO INFORM THEM AND GET INPUT ON OUR DIRECTION.

BUT THIS IS THIS GSA'S APPROACH.

IT IS THE ONLY GSA THAT IDENTIFIED DEMAND REDUCTION AS A NECESSARY PART OF ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY AND THE OTHER GSA'S ESSENTIALLY SAID YES, THAT'S WHY EVERYBODY SIGNED THAT GSP.

AND SO THE THE APPROVAL, I BELIEVE, JUST LIES WITH THIS BOARD WHILE ADVICE THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, BUT THAT'S AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THIS BOARD.

I THINK WITH THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, WHICH IS INVOLVING [INAUDIBLE] AND TURNER ISLAND, I THINK THAT'S MORE JUST INFORMATIONAL.

THEY DON'T HAVE A DECISION OR A YAY OR NAY VOTE ON WHAT WE IMPLEMENT.

I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT I THINK, GREG, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

THERE IS A PLACE ON THOSE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AGENDAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF ALL THE MEETINGS WHERE THERE EACH OF THE GSA UPDATES ON THEIR RECENT ACTIVITIES.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE TO UPDATE THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE ON THE DECISIONS THAT THIS GSA IS MAKING.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DECISION MAKING, THERE'S NO DECISION THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE ON YOUR DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE OTHER GSA'S FIRST, THE ALL THE AUTHORITY LIES WITH THIS BOARD.

OK, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MY OTHER QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH DOMESTIC WELLS, AND WE RECEIVED A LETTER RECENTLY FROM THE WATER BOARD, I GUESS, TO THE DWR TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC WELLS AND WANTING TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING DIRECTLY RELATED TO THAT IN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

AND THEN THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDED OR OR DISCUSSED SEPARATELY.

YOU KNOW, THERE THERE ARE SOME MONIES OUT THERE FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

YOU KNOW, I SAW A WEBINAR TODAY TALKED ABOUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT THERE ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES.

OF COURSE, SOME OF THEM IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE COORDINATED THROUGH THE CITIES, IN SOME CASES TAKING OVER SOME WELLS OR SOME AREAS.

AND AND AND THE QUESTION IS, ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT SEPARATELY OR

[00:55:01]

AS PART OF THIS? I MEAN, I I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM DIRECTLY.

I PERSONALLY, I THINK IT IS EMBEDDED IN BOTH IN A COUPLE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, BOTH LAND REPURPOSING AND SOME ALLOCATION APPROACH IN.

WHILE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED THAT WAY, I THINK THEY'RE EMBEDDED IN THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON LAND REPURPOSING ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSED, I THINK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ALSO BEFORE, WHEN WE INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT LAND REPURPOSING, BUT DEFINITELY WITHIN THE AD HOC THAT THE FOCUS COULD BE ON REPURPOSING SOME LANDS FOR FOR ECOSYSTEM HABITAT BENEFITS, BUT ALSO REPURPOSING LANDS THAT FOCUS IN AREAS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR DOMESTIC WELLS.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, FOCUS SOME OF THE LAND, REPURPOSING THE REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER USE IN AREAS WHERE WE SEE A MORE POTENTIAL IMPACT IF GROUNDWATER LEVELS WERE TO CONTINUE TO DRAW DOWN.

SO WE THOSE ARE THE NEAR-TERM AREAS THAT POTENTIALLY FOCUS FROM A LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.

ADDITIONALLY, WITH AN ALLOCATION APPROACH, YOU COULD START TO LOOK AT ALLOCATION WITH OR WITHOUT ANY KIND OF TRADING MECHANISMS. THOSE THINGS COULD CONSIDER HOW YOU ADDRESS ANY THE POTENTIAL TO EXACERBATE ISSUES AROUND DOMESTIC WELLS OR TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE MORE QUICKLY AREAS AROUND RISKY DOMESTIC WELLS SITUATIONS SUCH THAT MAYBE YOUR ALLOCATIONS ARE LOWER OR RAMP DOWN FASTER IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS MORE OF A HOT SPOT POTENTIAL.

AND SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE EMBEDDED IN ALLOCATION CONVERSATIONS AND LAND REPURPOSING THAT CAN HAVE THE INTENDED EFFECT TO NOT ONLY THE SUSTAINABILITY GOALS, BUT WITH A FOCUS ON THINGS LIKE ADDRESSING THIRD PARTY EFFECTS, SUCH AS PROTECTING DOMESTIC WELL CONDITIONS IN IN, ESPECIALLY IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF IF THERE'S DOLLARS WHERE WE CAN DRAFT AND CREATE SOME PROGRAM THAT CAN GET OUTSIDE FUNDING TO HELP A REPURPOSING PROGRAM ON LANDS AROUND SOME DOMESTIC WELLS OR SOME SMALL MUNICIPAL SMALL PURVEYOR SYSTEM THAT'S AT RISK.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE WE FOCUS SOME OF THE INITIAL LAND REPURPOSING.

AND I WOULD ADD ON THE DOMESTIC WELL ISSUE, ESPECIALLY DURING THE CURRENT DROUGHT.

THERE ARE PROGRAMS IN THAT THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF, I GUESS I WOULD SAY, THAT ARE ADMINISTERING THOSE SAFER DRINKING WATER FUNDS IN THIS AREA TO PROVIDE THOSE EMERGENCY WATER SERVICES TO DOMESTIC WELLS THAT FAIL.

AND SO IN MERCED COUNTY, THE ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR OF THOSE FUNDS IS SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES AND SELF-HELP HAS RECEIVED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE STATE WATER BOARD TO ADMINISTER THE TANK WATER PROGRAM.

THEY PROVIDE EMERGENCY TANKS AND WATERS AND.

WATER TO DOMESTIC WELLS WHO HAVE GONE DRY, THEY WILL HELP REPAIR AND REPLACE WELLS, THEY HAVE FUNDING TO REPAIR AND REPLACE DOMESTIC WELLS, AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE FUNDING TO ASSESS WELLS THAT YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY MIGHT CALL AND SAY, I THINK MY WELL IS GOING DRY.

WE'RE IN A DROUGHT.

IT'S IT'S VERY CONCERNING AND THEY HAVE FUNDING TO ASSESS THOSE WELLS AND POTENTIALLY PROVIDE SOME WATER QUALITY FILTRATION AS WELL.

AND SO FOR THE SHORT TIME, WHILE WE'RE IN THIS EMERGENCY DROUGHT, WE KNOW THAT SELF-HELP HAS THAT FUNDING AND PROVIDES THOSE SERVICES TO THE DOMESTIC WELLS IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA.

SO RIGHT NOW, THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT KIND OF RESOURCE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON THAT IN THE FUTURE.

WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER DOMESTIC WELLS AND WAYS TO PROTECT DOMESTIC WELLS AND AND POTENTIALLY PROGRAMS TO WORK WITH THEM TO POTENTIALLY MITIGATE THINGS IN THE FUTURE.

BUT IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE EMERGENCY DROUGHT THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, THOSE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF THIS GSA, BUT IN THE ENTIRE JURISDICTION OF THE GSA, SOME OF THEM ARE INCOME ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND SOME OF THEM DON'T.

THE TANKS DON'T.

I GUESS MY ONLY SUGGESTION IS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT LETTER, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO.

I GUESS MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT JUST AS WE'RE DOING A TWO PHASE APPROACH, MAYBE

[01:00:01]

A TWO PHASE APPROACH TO THAT ISSUE AS WELL, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE STATE IS SUGGESTING THAT THE FIRST PHASE THAT THEY HAVE MONIES AVAILABLE AND THEY HAVE IDEAS WHICH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ARE GOOD IDEAS OF HOW TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE VERSUS DOING IT PIECEMEAL ONE BY ONE.

AS ONE WELL, GOES DRY.

ADDRESS IT.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE A BROADER APPROACH AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE, WHICH WOULD TAKE MAYBE AN EFFORT BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE TO TALK TO CITIES AND AND AND EVEN MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT ABOUT POTENTIAL SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS FOR MONEYS THAT ARE AVAILABLE NOW.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS LIKE WE KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS FOR THAT.

CHAIRMAN, GO AHEAD AND GO.

I HAD SOME QUESTIONS, COMMENTS MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, ERIC, HERE I WANTED TO ASK YOU, DID YOU HEAR THE LADY THAT SPOKE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? I CERTAINLY DID.

WASN'T SHE FROM STEVINSON? SHE WAS OK.

WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CONCEPT IF YOU HAD A GRADUATED SYSTEM, BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL PUT IN THE SAME BASIN BY THE BY THE STATE.

SO WE'VE GOT TO WORK TOGETHER.

SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A GRADUATE, BUT GIVING SOMEBODY A TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM ANYTHING, I THINK INVITES INVITES A PROBLEM OF PEOPLE MAYBE MOVING TO YOUR AREA AND MAYBE JOIN IN THE FUN OF OF GETTING OVER DRAFTED SO I CAN SEE YOUR POINT, BUT I'D RATHER HAVE A GRADUATED SYSTEM RATHER THAN AN EXEMPTION, IF YOU, IF YOU WILL.

THE SECOND THING ON THE FOR THE LAWYER ON THESE FEES THAT HE TALKS ABOUT THAT IF YOU DO A 218 AND THEN THERE'S A PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT MAKE SURE THAT THE FEES THEY'RE CHARGING IS ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM THEY'RE HAD.

BUT ISN'T THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE FEES FOR, SAY, LIKE THEY'RE DOING I'M THINKING ABOUT MADERA COUNTY, WHERE IF YOU PUMP OVER YOUR ALLOCATION, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FEE OR PENALTY BASICALLY FOR DOING THAT, WHICH WOULD WOULD NOT NOT BE INVOLVED WITH 218.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THAT IS IS A 218 FEE AND 218 EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS YOU FROM IMPOSING A FEE AS A PENALTY.

THAT'S GONE TO COURT AND ALREADY BEEN.

WHICH RAISES SOME CONCERN FOR DOING THAT KIND OF CHARGING MORE FOR PEOPLE PUMPING MORE.

BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

AND WE, AS GREG SAID, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE CHARGING WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS YOU TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.

AND IF WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT COSTS US MORE TO DEAL WITH SOMEONE WHO'S PUMPING MORE, WE CAN DO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN SHOW.

I THINK IT'S LOGICAL.

WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE ENGINEERING TO BACK IT UP.

BUT THERE'S A COUNTY HAVE THE AUTHORITY WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING A 218 TO SAY HEY, FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COUNTY.

WE ARE GOING TO CHARGE PEOPLE THAT ARE OVER DRAFTING ABOVE THE ALLOCATION.

WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM A FEE TO DO THAT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THAT FEE OTHER THAN THROUGH PROP 218.

I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE COUNTY WOULD GET ITS AUTHORITY AND IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS.

NOW YOU CAN.

THE FUNNY THING IS YOU CAN PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM PUMPING OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT, BUT YOU CAN'T PENALIZE THEM THROUGH A PAYMENT.

NOW, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT OUR PROP 218 CAN JUSTIFY CHARGING SOMEONE MORE FOR PUMPING MORE, WE COULD ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULTS.

THE PROBLEM WITH A 218 THEORY IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING ONE FOR 2025 AND YOU'RE STARTING OUT AND DOING ANOTHER ONE 2026.

MOST LANDOWNERS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO GET THAT LETTER SAYING, HEY, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RAISING YOUR FEES AGAIN.

AND YOU KNOW, I JUST WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF IT FAILS? THAT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULTY THAT WE FACE.

I THINK WE CAN DO A LOT OF INFORMATIVE WORKSHOPS LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A PHASED APPROACH AND THIS IS PHASE ONE OF THE PROP 218, SO THAT DISCUSSION WILL BE ONGOING.

OK, WELL, I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL, BECAUSE I THINK THE WORK YOU'RE DOING IS GOOD AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO, WHETHER WE WANT TO DO IT OR NOT.

SO I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH.

ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BEFORE I OPEN UP THE PUBLIC? FOR ME, FOR ME PERSONALLY, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AD HOC, I AGREE OR SUPPORT THE

[01:05:04]

TWO PHASE APPROACH BECAUSE THE FIRST INITIAL PHASE TO GET TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET, WE BELIEVE AND AFTER, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS LADY SAID TODAY, WATER TABLES ARE DROPPING EVERYWHERE AND WE CAN'T PROVE YET EXACTLY WHERE THE WATER IS COMING FROM, WHEN WHO TURNS ON WHAT PUMP.

WE NEED TO DO MORE STUDIES INTO THAT WHICH ARE BEING DONE RIGHT NOW.

SO IF WE CAN HIT THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET WITH THE PHASE ONE AND A LOWER PROP 218 FEE, AND THAT BUYS US SOME TIME UNTIL 2025 TO FIGURE OUT GOING FORWARD WHAT'S BEST FOR EVERYBODY IN THE BASIN AND THEN IN THE FUTURE, LOOKING INTO WITH THE ZONES WE ALREADY HAVE DEFINED IN OUR GSA.

LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT AREAS ARE CAUSING MORE OF THE ISSUE, WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE A DECENT IDEA, BUT TO REALLY FINE TUNE THE NUMBERS AND THEN DO MORE OF A TARGETED APPROACH FROM THERE.

SO BUT I THINK TO GET THESE, WE NEED TO START GETTING THESE NUMBERS GOING AND WE NEED TO START SHOWING THE OTHER GSA'S IN THE AREA THAT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THEM HOW THEY DON'T THINK WE'RE MOVING FAST ENOUGH AND WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM TO AN EXTENT.

WE CAN'T GET PUSHED OVER EITHER.

BUT WE NEED TO START DOING SOMETHING IN THIS FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET AND DOING A SIMPLE FEE ACROSS THE WHOLE AREA IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO GET THERE.

IF WE DO AN ALLOCATION OR CHARGE PER PUMPING, WE DON'T HAVE THE METERING SYSTEM RIGHT NOW TO DO IT.

AND FRANKLY, OUR GSA DOESN'T HAVE THE STAFF WITHIN A YEAR TO COLLECT ALL THAT INFORMATION.

IT'D BE REALLY HARD TO START DOING DEMAND REDUCTION IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FEE RIGHT NOW AND TRYING TO DO A FALLOWING PROGRAM, IN MY OPINION.

CAN I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION ON YOUR POINT, THE ZONES WE'VE SUGGESTED THEY'RE NOT DEFINED ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE GENERALIZED, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IF WE DO USE SOME SORT OF DESIGNATION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET MORE EXPLICIT ON WHAT THOSE ARE AND WHAT ROADS THEY FOLLOW.

WHAT PARCELS ARE IN OUT.

WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY FALLS ON EITHER SIDE OF SOMETHING? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL THINKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE SUGGESTED FOR PURPOSES OF STARTING TO ANALYZE THE VARIANCES THAT EXIST.

BUT WE DEFINITELY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY DEFINE THEM.

THEY WERE WELL, ON THAT NOTE, GREG AND LIKE DIRECTOR MARTINI SAID, AND AD HOC.

WE'VE GONE OVER LIKE NIC SAID.

I MEAN, WE JUST SIT THERE AND GO OVER THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THERE'S SO MANY YOU TALK ABOUT X AND Y AND Z QUESTION COME UP TO GET A FULL FLEDGED BASIN DEAL.

RIGHT NOW FOR OUR GSA, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE TWO PHASE APPROACH TO SHOW THE STATE THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING NOW SO WE CAN REALLY FINE TUNE EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF YOU TALK ABOUT X, Y AND Z COME UP, YOU GO BACK THERE, THEN Z CHANGES ANOTHER TWO THINGS ALONG THE WAY AND BRINGS UP OTHER QUESTIONS.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND ACTUALLY START SPENDING HOURS GOING THROUGH THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS THAT YOU REALLY DON'T THINK OF UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND GO WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS PARCEL DOING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CROSS THIS ROAD OR YOU GET OUT OF A SUBSIDENCE ZONE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ACROSS THE STREET WHEN YOU HAVE PARCELS THAT BEEN PIPELINE TOGETHER FOR YEARS AND BECAUSE OF SOME LINE THAT THE GSA DREW UP, HOW'S THAT GOING TO WORK AND WHAT'S HISTORICALLY DONE VERSUS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOW? IT'S JUST IT BECOMES A JUMBLED MESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK THROUGH OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

OK, THANK YOU, GINO.

OK, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANYTHING TO SAY HERE, BUT JUST A FEW MINUTES TO SEE.

ARE WE ON ZOOM TODAY AS WELL? WE'RE ON ZOOM AS WELL.

AND OUR NEXT PRESENTATION WILL BE VIA ZOOM.

OK, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS VIA ZOOM? OK.

WELL, IF YOU SEE SOME, JUST LET US KNOW.

OK, WITH NO ONE ITCHING TO JOIN THE HOT WATER, WHICH IS FINE.

I BELIEVE, ANOTHER PRESENTATION FROM CHRIS HEPNER.

SO IF WE COULD GO TO THAT, PLEASE.

SO FOR CHRIS, I WILL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO HE CAN SHARE HIS SCREEN.

AND THERE IT IS.

HANG ON.

OKAY, GREAT.

SO YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN AND YOU CAN HEAR MY VOICE.

NOT YET.

WE CAN HEAR YOU.

GREAT.

WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON AND WANT TO THANK THE [INAUDIBLE] GSA BOARD FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY AND FOR MR. YOUNG FOR HIS VERY INFORMATIVE INTRODUCTION TO THIS DISCUSSION.

MY NAME IS CHRIS HEPNER AND I'M A HYDROGEOLOGIST AT EKI ENVIRONMENT AND WATER.

WE ARE THE WATER RESOURCES CONSULTING FIRM THAT WAS RECENTLY RETAINED BY THE GSA TO HELP WITH [INAUDIBLE] IMPLEMENTATION, PARTICULARLY WITH SUPPORT FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEMAND REDUCTION MANAGEMENT ACTION.

[01:10:04]

TODAY, I'LL BE PRESENTING AN UPDATE ON SOME INITIAL WORK THAT WE'VE DONE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE GSA REGARDING LAND REPURPOSING OPTIONS.

LAND REPURPOSING IS ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA OF SHIFTING LAND USE ON SELECTED LANDS FROM RELATIVELY HIGH WATER USE TYPES TO LOWER WATER USE TYPES, WITH THE GOAL BEING TO REDUCE OVERALL CONSUMPTIVE USE ON THOSE LANDS.

AS MR. YOUNG SAID, THIS MANAGEMENT ACTION IS ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE TWO PHASE DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.

SO LAND REPURPOSING IS ONE TOOL IN THE GSA'S TOOLBOX THAT COULD BE USED TO REDUCE OVERALL GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTIVE USE.

THE MSGSA HAS SET A GOAL FOR ITSELF REDUCING CONSUMPTIVE GROUNDWATER USE IN ITS AREA BY 15000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025.

THE KEY QUESTION IS HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS AMOUNT OF SAVINGS WHILE MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO LANDOWNERS AND OTHER BENEFICIAL USERS.

SO FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION, I'LL START BY PRESENTING A SET OF PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT THE GSA COULD FOLLOW WHEN DEVELOPING THIS PROGRAM, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT COME INTO PLAY, SUCH AS LAND USE, WATER USE, CROP VALUE FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE, GROUND WATER USE AND CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE GSA AREA AND THE LOCATIONS OF DOMESTIC WELLS AS THEY ARE ONE OF THE MORE VULNERABLE CATEGORIES OF GROUNDWATER USERS.

THEN I'LL PRESENT SOME INITIAL CONCEPTS FOR WHAT A LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

WHAT KINDS OF CROPS AND ACREAGE COULD BE INVOLVED, AND SOME VERY PRELIMINARY POTENTIAL COSTS.

I SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE DEFINITELY STILL IN THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STAGE.

AND SO THE PURPOSE TODAY IS TO SHARE SOME IDEAS AND GATHER FEEDBACK SO WE CAN WORK ON REFINING THINGS AS WE GO FORWARD.

SO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES SHOWN HERE ARE BASED ON THINGS I'VE HEARD MENTIONED IN RECENT BOARD MEETINGS BOTH TODAY AND WHICH I THINK ARE KEY TO ANY KIND OF DEMAND REDUCTION MANAGEMENT ACTION.

THEY INCLUDE MINIMIZING ECONOMIC IMPACT.

AND THIS LEADS US TO THINK ABOUT A TARGETED APPROACH THAT CAN AVOID MAJOR DISRUPTIONS TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY, MAINTAINING LANDOWNER FLEXIBILITY.

WE FEEL IT'LL BE IMPORTANT FOR LANDOWNERS TO HAVE OPTIONS SO THEY CAN SEE THE TRADEOFFS INVOLVED AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM LEVERAGING OUTSIDE RESOURCES.

HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING EXTERNAL FUNDING TO OFFSET SOME PORTION OF LOCAL COSTS, WHICH WOULD ALSO HELP MINIMIZE ECONOMIC IMPACTS CONSIDERING IMPACTS TO RESIDENTS.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTION.

I'VE SHOWN HERE THE GOAL OF AVOIDING A QUOTE UNQUOTE DUST BOWL OUTCOME, BUT REALLY THIS PRINCIPLE COULD COME INTO PLAY IN A WIDE VARIETY OF WAYS.

LASTLY, I'VE GOT HERE, REALIZE MULTIPLE BENEFITS.

I THINK IF THE GSA CAN FIND WAYS TO ACHIEVE SEVERAL GOALS AT ONCE FOR USE OF MAPPING AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND BRINGING IN OTHER LOCAL NEEDS AND PRIORITIES THAT WOULD ALSO HELP MAKE THE PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL IN THE LONG RUN.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE RELATIVELY QUICKLY THROUGH THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WHICH PRESENT THE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS AS THESE MAPS AND DATA ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO STUCK ON THE DETAILS AT THIS EARLY STAGE AS THINGS MOVE FORWARD.

THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE A NEED TO DIVE DEEPER INTO THESE DATA SETS AND RESOLVE ANY DATA GAPS AND DISCREPANCIES.

BUT FOR NOW, I'M JUST HOPING TO SHOW SOME GENERAL PATTERNS AND TRENDS THAT CAN HELP GUIDE OUR DISCUSSION.

HERE WE HAVE A LAND USE MAP BASED ON DWR'S 2016 MAPPING SHOWING WHERE THE LOCATIONS OF MORE PERMANENT CROPS ARE IN THE NORTH AND EAST.

MORE ANNUAL CROPS IN THE SOUTHWEST AND WEST, AS WELL AS THE NON IRRIGATED GRAZING LANDS ON THE EAST AND A MIXTURE OF CROP TYPES IN THE VERY FAR SOUTH.

THIS NEXT MAP SHOWS THE SAME TYPE OF LAND USE DATA, EXCEPT THIS ONE IS BASED ON THE 2018 VERSION OF THE DWR DATASET.

THE GENERAL PATTERNS ARE THE SAME, BUT THE DETAILS CHANGE A BIT AND AS I SAID, IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO DRILL DOWN ON THOSE DETAILS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT NOT SO MUCH RIGHT NOW.

AND I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THESE DWR CLASSIFICATIONS DO NOT IDENTIFY [INAUDIBLE] AS A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CATEGORY.

THIS NEXT MAP SHOWS THE LAND USE CATEGORIES BASED ON THE MERCED, SAID COUNTY ASSESSOR'S DATA.

THE LAND USE CATEGORIES HERE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN DWR'S CATEGORIES ARE MORE GENERAL AND BROAD, BUT ARE MOSTLY IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE BIG PICTURE PATTERNS OF

[01:15:06]

LAND USE.

HERE WE HAVE A FIGURE THAT SHOWS ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS FOR WATER YEAR 2020.

THIS FIGURE COMES FROM THE MERCED SUBBASIN WATER YEAR 2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FOR MUCH OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA AREA SHOWN HERE WITH THE PATCH PATTERN, THE GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION VALUES ARE SHOWN IN VARIOUS SHADES OF BLUE ARE NOT BASED ON ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF GROUNDWATER USE, BUT RATHER ON MODEL ESTIMATES THAT THEMSELVES ARE BASED ON LAND USE ABOUT THE TRANSPIRATION, [INAUDIBLE] DATA AND POPULATION.

THESE ESTIMATED VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE A MEDIAN LEVEL OF ACCURACY AND THEREFORE LESS ACCURATE THAN METER DATA.

SO THESE ARE PROBABLY BEST USED TO JUST REVEAL RELATIVE PATTERNS IN GROUNDWATER USE AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ABSOLUTE QUANTITY AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION.

THIS MAP SHOWS THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS A CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM 2015 TO 2020.

AND IT COMES FROM THE DWR'S SGMA DATA VIEWER WEBSITE.

AGAIN, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY HERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA AREA, WHERE MONITORING [INAUDIBLE] COVERAGE IS LESS DENSE.

THE POINT OF THIS MAP IS TO SHOW THAT ONE CONSIDERATION WILL BE TO LOOK AT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, DATA SUCH AS THIS AND IDENTIFY AREAS WHICH MAY BE SHOWING SIGNS OF OVER PUMPING AND POTENTIALLY FOCUSED LAND REPURPOSING EFFORTS THERE IF POSSIBLE, GIVEN OTHER CONSTRAINTS AS WELL.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE RELATIVE WATER USE CROP VALUE IN TERMS OF DOLLARS PER ACRE BASED ON THE MERCED SAID 2019 CROP REPORT AND THEN VALUE PER ACRE FOOT OF WATER USE FOR SIX DIFFERENT IRRIGATED LAND USE CATEGORIES.

THE CATEGORIES ARE SHOWN FROM HIGHEST VALUE PER ACRE FOOT, I.E.

THE TRUCK MERCED, NURSERY, AND BERRY CROPS TO THE LOWEST, DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, IRRIGATED PASTURE.

WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CROP TYPES IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER USED TO PRODUCE A CERTAIN VALUE OF CROP.

AND SO TARGETING THOSE LOWER VALUE, LOWER VALUE HIGH WATER USE CROPS COULD HELP PROVIDE THE MOST WATER SAVINGS BANG FOR THE BUCK.

THESE MAPS SHOW HOW WE COULD USE SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO HELP FIND LOCATIONS WHERE LAND REPURPOSING COULD BE COMBINED WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVE LAND USES TO CREATE A MULTI BENEFIT SCENARIO.

ON THE LEFT, THE RED OUTLINE IS AN AREA THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY AS A HABITAT CORRIDOR OF INTEREST.

AND SO REPURPOSING SOME LANDS IN HERE COULD SERVE A WILDLIFE OR CONSERVATION PURPOSE.

WE'VE ALSO SHOWED A BUFFER ZONE AROUND ALL THE SURFACE WATER CREEKS, INDICATING WHERE POTENTIAL RECHARGE OFF OF SURFACE WATER COULD COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPLEMENTED.

THE MAP ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE SOIL AGRICULTURAL BANKING INDEX, OR SAGBI RATING, WHICH IS A RATING BASED ON SOIL TYPE TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER FACTORS, AND GIVES THE RANKS THE AREA'S INCLUSIVENESS FOR ON FARM RECHARGE.

WHAT THE MAP SHOWS IS THAT MOST AREAS IN THE MSGSA ARE GIVEN A POOR RATING DUE TO THEIR RELATIVELY LOW PERMEABILITY SOILS, TO A LESSER EXTENT, THE TOPOGRAPHY.

BUT SOME AREAS OUTLINED IN THESE BLACK CIRCLES DO HAVE HIGHER RATINGS AND POTENTIALLY SERVE AS A RECHARGE LOCATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF A MULTIPLE BENEFIT.

THIS MAP SHOWS THE DENSITY OF DOMESTIC WELLS BY TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION.

THE DARKER BLUE BLOCKS HAVE THE GREATER NUMBER OF DOMESTIC WELLS IN THEM.

AS YOU CAN SEE, MOST DOMESTIC WELLS ON THIS MAP ARE IN THE [INAUDIBLE] AREA.

BUT SOME THERE ARE DOMESTIC WELLS LOCATED IN THE MSGS AREA, PARTICULARLY IN PARTS OF THE SOUTHERN AREA AND IN THE NORTHWEST.

THE POINT HERE IS THAT PROTECTION OF DOMESTIC WELLS FROM EXCESSIVE DRAWDOWN COULD AND SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLANNING WHERE TO IMPLEMENT MORE REPURPOSING.

SO EARLIER, I PRESENTED SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT SERVE AS A FOUNDATION FOR THIS REPURPOSING DISCUSSION ON THIS SLIDE, I'VE LISTED OUT SOME OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES AND TACTICS, WHICH I REFER TO AS THE WHY THE WHAT THE HOW, AS WELL AS SOME CONSTRAINTS ON THE BOTTOM.

THE OBJECTIVES ARE REALLY QUITE SIMILAR TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND INCLUDE ACHIEVING THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND PER YEAR TARGET DEMAND REDUCTION BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025, AS WELL AS MINIMIZING ECONOMIC IMPACTS, ADDRESSING UNDESIRABLE GROUNDWATER

[01:20:03]

CONDITIONS AND ACHIEVING CO-BENEFITS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.

THE TWO BIG PICTURE STRATEGIES SHOWN HERE ARE TEMPORARY LAND IDLING AND PERMANENT LAND RETIREMENT CONVERSION.

THESE TWO STRATEGIES EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PROS AND CONS RELATED TO COST AND FEASIBILITY, AS WELL AS EFFECTIVENESS.

THE TACTICS ARE SOME OF THE SPECIFIC WAYS THAT THE STRATEGIES COULD BE IMPLEMENTED, AND I SHOULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT THIS LIST HERE IS BY NO MEANS COMPLETE, AND I HOPE WE CAN GET YOUR IDEAS ON ADDITIONAL WAYS TO IMPLEMENT THESE STRATEGIES.

THE CONSTRAINTS SHOWN AT THE BOTTOM ARE PRIMARILY SPATIAL AND GEOGRAPHIC, BASICALLY RELATED TO THE LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL HIGH WATER USE, LOW VALUE CROPS, GROUNDWATER CONDITION HOTSPOTS AND MULTIPLE BENEFIT OPPORTUNITIES.

PUTTING ALL OF THESE TOGETHER, YOU CAN START TO COME UP WITH SPECIFIC SCENARIOS OF LAND REPURPOSING AND EVALUATE THEM FOR THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY.

SO I'M GOING TO END WITH THIS SLIDE HERE THAT PRESENTS A COMPARISON OF TWO TEMPORARY LAND IDLING SCENARIOS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE TARGET FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT PER YEAR CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION.

THE FIRST SCENARIO SHOWN IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN INVOLVES IDLING OF IRRIGATED PASTURE, AND WE SEE THAT BECAUSE OF PASTURES RELATIVELY HIGH WATER USE, IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ACRES OF AREA TO GET TO THAT FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRES PER YEAR CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION.

WITH A CROP VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE DOLLARS PER ACRE, TAKING THIS LAND OUT OF PRODUCTION WOULD REDUCE OVERALL CROP REVENUE BY ABOUT TWO POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS IF LANDOWNERS WERE INCENTIVIZED TO PARTICIPATE WITH A PER ACRE PAYMENT EQUIVALENT TO AN AVERAGE RENT, WHICH IS ABOUT THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS PER ACRE BASED ON USDA STATISTICS, OF COURSE, WITH VARIABILITY, THIS WOULD END UP COSTING ABOUT $1.4 MILLION PER YEAR IN THESE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

THIS COMES OUT TO ABOUT NINE DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR IF SPREAD OUT OVER ALL OF THE REMAINING IRRIGATED LANDS.

IN THE SECOND SCENARIO THE CROP THAT IS TARGETED IS FIELD CROPS, WHICH ARE SOMEWHAT LOWER, WATER USE AND HIGHER VALUE.

AND SO IT REQUIRES MORE ACREAGE TO BE TAKEN OUT OF PRODUCTION, 6700 ACRES.

CAUSES A LARGER REDUCTION OF ECONOMIC OUTPUT.

ABOUT $2.5 MILLION PER YEAR, WHICH COMES OUT TO ABOUT $16 PER REMAINING IRRIGATED ACRE.

SO HOPEFULLY, THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE SCALE AND ROUGH COSTS FOR THIS TYPE OF REPURPOSING PROGRAM, AND I THINK I'LL STOP THERE AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS.

DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? HAS THIS BEEN DONE? HOW DO WE KNOW--[INAUDIBLE] ASKING WHETHER THIS TYPE OF LAND IDLING SCENARIO WITH EQUIVALENT RENT PAYMENTS HAS BEEN DONE ELSEWHERE? AND SO HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THESE NUMBERS WILL WORK? SO THESE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE $64000 QUESTION AS TO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THESE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS THAT ARE PENCILED OUT HERE AND SORT OF $375 PER ACRE RANGE, WOULD THAT TRULY BE INCENTIVE ENOUGH FOR A LANDOWNER TO FOREGO PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURE ON THEIR LAND? YOU KNOW, IT'S A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED THROUGH OUTREACH TO STAKEHOLDERS TO SEE IF THAT WOULD REALLY WORK.

SO I GUESS THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD ACTUALLY WORK ON PAPER IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AND ACRES.

THIS IS SORT OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE, BUT IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THE LANDOWNERS WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TYPE OF VOLUNTARY PROGRAM TO THIS TO THIS EXTENT.

CAN I ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? WE DID RUN SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DID RECEIVE SOME INPUT ON A VARIETY OF THINGS ABOUT LAND REPURPOSING FROM THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU MIGHT DO IT.

IS IT A PERMANENT THING? IS IT A LONG TERM THING? IS IT A TEN YEAR OR FIVE YEAR? AND I THINK WE REPORT IT BACK IN THE LAST BOARD MEETING SOME OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT, WHICH IS PROBABLY A VARIETY OF OPPORTUNITIES.

[01:25:01]

SOME OF THE DOLLARS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR LAND REPURPOSING THROUGH THE BILL THAT'S SITTING ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK RIGHT NOW LIKELY WOULD BE FOR LONGER TERM ACTIONS AND SO THEY MAY NOT BE MONIES THAT COULD BE USED TO FUND TEMPORARY TYPE OF ACTIONS.

WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAD NOTED WAS THAT DOING SOME SORT OF RENT EQUIVALENT THAT ACTUALLY YOU COULD PROBABLY EVEN DISCOUNT SOME OF IT BECAUSE THE GSA WOULD PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, HAVE GOOD CREDIT, SO TO SPEAK, SO THEY COULD RELY ON THAT PAYMENT AND THEY COULD MAYBE ENTER A THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE YEAR PROGRAM, MAYBE EVEN ROTATING SOME SOME LANDS WITHIN A PARCEL SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE THAT ACTUAL FALLOWING AROUND ON SEVERAL PARCELS AND GET SOMEWHAT OF A GUARANTEED PAYMENT THAT THEY FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH.

WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS AND WHAT CHRIS HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH TRYING TO PUT FORWARD IS STARTING TO GET A BRACKET ON WHAT WE MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT TO GENERATE FUND WISE IN A NEAR TERM 218 IN ORDER TO START TO GET DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT THIS NEARER TERM ACTION.

YOU COULD KIND OF TAKE AWAY LOOK 10 TO $15 AN ACRE MIGHT BE IN THE REALM OF WHAT WE NEED TO GENERATE IN ORDER TO TRY AND HAVE REVENUE TO OFFSET ENOUGH CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER TO REACH THAT FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT TARGET.

WE HAVE ALSO NOTED ANOTHER AREA THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE.

SOME OF THAT 15000 ACRE FOOT REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER IS THROUGH ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER BROUGHT IN AND THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S SEVERAL THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF OF CREDIT WE COULD RECOGNIZE THERE, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THROUGH LAND IDLING AND THEREFORE POTENTIALLY AFFECT HOW MUCH YOU MAY NEED TO CHARGE.

SO WHAT WE REALLY WANTED TO DO AND THE VALUE OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO START TO PUT SOME BRACKETS IN THE BOARD'S MIND ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE OF FEES THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THAT WHILE THERE ARE ENTITIES THAT ARE DOING LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS, SOME OF THOSE ARE PUTTING PERMANENT EASEMENTS ON THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH LIKE THE LAND TRUST THAT WE PRESENTED IN SOME OF THOSE EARLIER SLIDES.

THOSE HAVE DIFFERENT FINANCING ELEMENTS TO THEM AND RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE LANDS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS.

THIS PRICING THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD HERE IS REALLY LOOKING AT IT JUST FROM A LOSS OF RENTS PERSPECTIVE LIKE WE HAVE OUT OF ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND ACRES WE'RE ALWAYS FOLLOWING OR HAVING FOLLOWED MAYBE 5000 ACRES OF LAND.

IT MIGHT ROTATE EVERY YEAR, WHICH COULD HAVE AGRONOMIC BENEFITS.

I KNOW THERE ARE VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE SAC VALLEY LOOKING AT ROTATIONAL LAND RIGHTS FOLLOWING FOR PURPOSES OF AGRONOMIC BENEFIT, KIND OF FALL INTO THESE SAME SORT OF PRICE, YOU KNOW, RANGES OF PRICE.

SO THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN TRYING TO PUT BRACKETS ON NUMBERS.

IT'S NOT TWO DOLLARS, IT'S NOT THIRTY DOLLARS.

IT'S PROBABLY IN 10 TO 15 TO TRY AND DO SOME OF THIS MAGNITUDE OF CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION THROUGH LAND REPURPOSING.

THE DETAILS ARE GOING TO MATTER AND WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT.

WELL, I FOUND OUT THAT ACTUALLY SOMEBODY HAS STARTED DOING THIS IN CALIFORNIA.

GO AHEAD, ERIC.

THE SHAFTER-WASCO IRRIGATION DISTRICT VOLUNTARY ROTATIONAL LAND FALLOWING PROJECT STARTED LAST YEAR, AND THEY'VE DONE TWO BIDS FOR PEOPLE TO NOT FARM IN THEIR AREA.

IT'S A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT.

IT'S ABOUT 10000 ACRES, AND THAT PART OF THE DISTRICT IS 100 PERCENT GROUNDWATER PUMPING.

SO FOR THE COMING 2022 SEASON, THEY'VE RECEIVED BIDS, AND THE AVERAGE COST PER ACRE NOT TO FARM IS SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS PER ACRE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEEN ESTIMATED IN THIS LAST SLIDE.

THEY ARE CURRENTLY PAYING A FEE.

ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS IN THAT AREA OF TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM AND TO SUPPORT THE GSA'S OPERATIONS.

SO I THINK THAT THE SENSE THAT IT MIGHT BE IN THE 9 TO $16 PER ACRE RANGE, I THINK IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE IN THE 15 TO $30 PER ACRE RANGE.

YOU KNOW, BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE THERE AND I ASKED THEM ABOUT THEIR CROPPING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE CROPPING IS NOT SO DIFFERENT THAN THE CROPPING IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN.

SO AT LEAST THEY HAVE TWO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SO FAR, AND THEY HAVE A TARGET

[01:30:04]

LONG TERM TO REDUCE THEIR PUMPAGE BY SEVENTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET PER YEAR.

SO THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT SOMEBODY'S ALREADY MARCHED OUT AND DONE SOME WORK, ACTUALLY PAID OUT SOME MONIES COLLECTING MONIES, SEEING IT HAPPEN.

WE'LL LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT AND GET SOME MORE OF THE DETAILS SO WE CAN HELP SHARE THAT AND LEARN FROM IT.

IT'S BEING ADMINISTERED THROUGH AN ENGINEER AT PROVOST & PRITCHARD, KEN BONESTEEL.

SO I TALKED TO KEN THIS MORNING ABOUT ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND HE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DOWN THERE IN THE KERN AREA.

THAT IS IN KERN COUNTY.

THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT INFORMATION.

SO JUST--OH, SORRY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SORT OF GREATER COSTS PER ACRE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, A LANDOWNER WHO COULD PRODUCE THROUGH CROP PRODUCTION FOUR OR FIVE OR SIX HUNDRED OR MORE PER ACRE, THEY'RE GOING TO DEMAND A SORT OF HIGHER INCENTIVE PAYMENT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THEIR LAND IN AN IDLE STATE.

YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD JUST AS SOON GENERATE GREATER INCOME BY GROWING THEIR CROPS PRODUCTIVELY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE NEEDING TO LOOK AT HIGHER VALUE CROPS TAKING THOSE OUT OF PRODUCTION, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER INCENTIVE FOR LANDOWNERS.

WELL, KEN EXPLAINED TO ME THAT ONE LANDOWNER WAS ROTATING OUT AN ALMOND ORCHARD THAT HE WAS ALREADY PLANNING ON TAKING OUT THE ORCHARD AND JUST LEAVING IT OUT FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR.

AND THE OTHER GROWERS, I BELIEVE, WERE ALL ROW CROP PEOPLE THAT JUST WEREN'T GOING TO BE FARMING FOR THAT YEAR, AND THEY'RE DOING IT ON A ONE YEAR BASIS.

OK, SO JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF GREG, RIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS A BOARD IS TO GIVE STAFF SOME DIRECTION, RIGHT? DO WE LIKE THE CONCEPT OF EXPLORING THE LAND FALLOWING PROGRAM? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE PUBLIC HAS TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

BUT FOR PHASE ONE, I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER EXPLORE, AND IT MAY COST MORE, ERIC.

IT MAY COST LESS AND WE MAY END UP PICKING BACK OFF OF DIFFERENT ZONES THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE YET AND PAY MORE IN CERTAIN ZONES AND NOT AND WHO KNOWS WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, RIGHT? BUT IS THIS THE FIRST, THE THREE YEAR, THE FIRST FOOT FORWARD FOR THIS GSA? SO KIND OF LOOKING FOR A THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN IF I CAN GET IT, AT LEAST TO GIVE SOME.

WELL, I THINK SO.

YEAH, BECAUSE I MEAN, THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT I SUGGESTED IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN YOU HAD THE OLD ASCS PROGRAM WHERE EVERYBODY IDLED 15 PERCENT OF COTTON OR CORN OR SOMETHING.

SUPPOSEDLY YOU GET MORE [INAUDIBLE] FOR IT.

BUT I MEAN, THE CONCEPT IS SIMILAR.

YES.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, YOU KNOW, THE CONCEPT MAKES SENSE TO ANALYZE IT AND MAYBE ALONG WITH THAT TO ALSO LOOK AT INCENTIVIZING FARMERS TO BRING IN SURFACE WATER, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A PROGRAM FOR THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COST SOMETHING.

SO, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT MIGHT CAUSE GROWERS TO TRY TO DO THAT, PUTTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO BRING IN THE SURFACE WATER.

SO, NIC, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INPUT, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE THE CONSULTANT PURSUE SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT ON A PER ACRE BASIS, PROBABLY BASED ON SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT TOTALLY DEFINED, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE AMOUNT OF PUMP AGE ACROSS THE DIFFERENT SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A 218 IN THE SHORT TERM TO, I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WOULD BE COULD THAT FEE BE RETIRED LIKE IN TWENTY TWENTY SIX ONCE AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF ALLOCATION PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE.

SO THIS WOULD NOT BE A FOREVER FEE.

IT WOULD BE AN INTERIM FEE THAT WOULD HAVE A SUNSET DATE ALONG WITH IT.

THE OTHER TWO THINGS I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A 218, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY FUNDING IS WHAT WOULD A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM LOOK LIKE AND HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST? AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PREPARED AS PART OF THAT 218 ANALYSIS.

[01:35:03]

AND ALSO, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT DATA GAP TO FILL TO SUPPORT THE GSP.

AND I THINK THE REALLY HASN'T BEEN A DISCUSSION OF HOW FILLING THOSE DATA GAPS IS GOING TO BE FUNDED, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD APPROVED THE DATA GAPS PLAN.

SO I THINK THAT MAYBE ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE 218 PROCESS BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL THINGS I THINK THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, PROBABLY IN THE NEAR TERM.

AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC, EITHER VIA ZOOM OR HERE IN PERSON IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.

COME ON UP, RICK.

I'M RICK D.

I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD APPROACH.

I REALLY LIKE THIS.

I MEAN, THE NATIVE GROUND LAND, BUT THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF WE CAN REFURBISH SOME OF THIS GROUND AND GET SOME GROUNDWATER BACK.

AND I REALLY LIKE THE PART ABOUT NOT TAXING THE NATIVE GROUND BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TAXED, HELPED STARTED THIS GSA AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE TAXED AGAIN ON IT.

IT FALLS ON THE IRRIGATED GROUND.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD PLAN TO GET STARTED.

GOOD PLACE TO GET STARTED.

THANK YOU, RICK.

WITH THAT, LACEY, DO YOU FEEL THAT'S ENOUGH DIRECTION FROM THIS BOARD? SO, YEAH, SO WHAT I HEARD IS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST IN MOVING FORWARD WITH LAND REPURPOSING FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS TO ACHIEVE THE REDUCTIONS THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF ANNUAL REDUCTION IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS.

I THINK THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER ADDING SOME OTHER ITEMS TO A POTENTIAL 218 FOR THIS FIRST PHASE.

DOMESTIC WELLS AND THE DATA GAPS; I'LL HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT A LITTLE LATER IN THE MEETING.

I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON, AND WE'LL COME BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE POLICY.

I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS DOES THE BOARD WANT TO TAKE A FORMAL ACTION ON THIS IN AN UPCOMING MEETING IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER? WHEN YOU SAY A FORMAL ACTION, WOULD THAT MEAN TO START GETTING INTO A CONTRACT TO DO ENGINEER'S REPORT.

SO WHEN I SAY FORMAL ACTION, I MEAN APPROVING EITHER A POLICY OR WE CAN WORK WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE A RESOLUTION WHICH IS MORE FORMAL, THAT REALLY JUST CEMENTS THE DECISION THAT YOU HAVE MADE TO ON WHAT YOUR IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH IS FOR THE TWO PHASE FOR THE FIRST THREE AND A HALF YEARS.

AND THAT JUST GIVES DIRECTION TO STAFF.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH THE SPECIFICS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

RIGHT.

SO THAT'S APPROVING A POLICY.

IT'S NOT APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY.

I'D SAY YES BECAUSE THE STATE IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT US AND IF WE CONTINUE TO FIDDLE AROUND, THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND DO IT FOR US.

WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS TO START MOVING FORWARD.

I AGREE.

YEAH, I THINK THE KEY IS A FEW MONTHS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK OCTOBER WOULD BE PUSHING IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, MAYBE OR TWO MONTHS.

OK, LACEY, I THINK IF A FRAMEWORK COULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD, I THINK OCTOBER MEETING OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND THEN THE BOARD COULD GIVE DIRECTION FOR A VOTE IN NOVEMBER, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

THE INNER THE INNER BASIN COORDINATION COMMITTEE IS DEFINITELY LOOKING FOR SOME ACTION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO PRESS ON.

I BELIEVE WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

[7. WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY FOR GROUNDWATER WELL PERMITS]

WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY FOR GROUNDWATER WELL PERMITS.

LACEY MCBRIDE WILL PROVIDE A SUMMARY.

ONE MORE LIGHT TOPIC FOR YOU.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A DISCUSSION TOPIC TO PROVIDE SOME BROAD POLICY OPTIONS AND PERHAPS GET SOME FEEDBACK.

[01:40:01]

WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR DECISIONS AT TODAY'S MEETING.

SO AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE THIS BOARD, BEFORE IN EARLIER MEETINGS, MERCED COUNTY IS CONSIDERING CHANGES TO THE GROUNDWATER AND MINING THE GROUNDWATER MINING AND EXPORT ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD SHIFT RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GSA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT NEW OR REPLACEMENT WELL APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MERCED GSP.

THIS CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO APPROACH THE GSA FIRST TO RECEIVE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PROPOSED WELL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GSP, AND WHILE SGMA DOES NOT GIVE THE GSA'S THE ACTUAL PERMITTING AUTHORITY.

THIS CHANGE WOULD GIVE THE GSA A NEW TOOL TO USE IN ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT NEW WELLS WERE CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO BE PREPARED FOR A POTENTIALLY HIGH VOLUME OF PERMIT REQUEST STAFF, WHEN THIS CHANGE OCCURS, STAFF IS PROPOSING SOME POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER SHOULD THE BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ALLOCATION POLICY IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE ALLOCATION POLICY WOULD GOVERN ALL WELLS, SO THIS DETERMINATION COULD ONLY BE AN INTERIM POLICY DUE TO THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ALLOCATION DISCUSSIONS AND WELL PERMITTING.

THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS DISCUSSED THESE ITEMS. TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS FOR AGAIN FOR BOARD DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL POLICY DIRECTION, AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY DECISIONS, BUT WITH SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF ON A BROADER POLICY LEVEL, WE CAN RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH MORE DETAILS IN FUTURE MEETINGS.

ADDITIONALLY, WITH SOME GENERAL DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD TODAY, THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS ANTICIPATED TO DISCUSS THESE CONSIDERATIONS AT THEIR NEXT MEETING AND THEY TOO CAN REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO IF IT PLEASES THE BOARD, I'LL WALK THROUGH THE THREE POTENTIAL APPROACHES FOR NEW WELLS AND THE TWO POTENTIAL APPROACHES FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

SO UNDER NEW WELLS, THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS, AND ONE IS TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING COUNTY POLICY.

SO THE EXISTING COUNTY POLICY WHEN IT COMES TO BRAND NEW WELLS IS THERE IS A PROHIBITION ON NEW WELLS, SO NO NEW WELLS ARE APPROVED.

THE SECOND OPTION IS TO TEMPORARILY CONTINUE THE EXISTING COUNTY POLICY UNTIL THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA HAS RESOLVED SOME OTHER GSP IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING AN ALLOCATION OR MAKING THAT FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD PER ACRE AND COMPLYING WITH SOME CEQA REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEN THE THIRD OPTION IS TO ACTUALLY ALLOW NEW WELLS BUT TO ALLOW THEM WITH PUMPING LIMITED TO A PER ACRE QUANTITY THAT'S TIED TO ALLOCATION CONSIDERATIONS.

AND THIS COULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT SUSTAINABLE YIELD.

NO, THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE ALLOCATION LIMITS BE ESTABLISHED NOW, SO IT'S PUSHING THE ALLOCATION FORWARD A LITTLE BIT FASTER.

AND THERE IS COMPLICATED CEQA COMPLIANCE ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE IF YOU ARE ALLOWING NEW WELLS WITHOUT SHOWING ANY REDUCTION, YOU'RE ACTUALLY INCREASING YOUR OVERDRAFT WHEN YOUR WHOLE GOAL AND PURPOSE HERE HAS BEEN TO REDUCE YOUR OVERDRAFT.

SO THOSE ARE JUST A QUICK, BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE THREE THE NEW WELLS.

SO FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS, THERE ARE TWO POTENTIAL APPROACHES.

ONE IS TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING COUNTY POLICY AGAIN.

THE POLICY FOR FOUR REPLACEMENT WELLS IS A LIKE FOR LIKE REPLACEMENT, SO THE REPLACEMENT WELL WOULD HAVE THE SAME CONSTRUCTION, SAME AQUIFER, SIMILAR LOCATION AND SAME EXTRACTION.

AND IT WOULD JUST BE SIMPLY REPLACED LIKE FOR LIKE.

A MODIFICATION TO THE COUNTY POLICY IS THE OTHER OPTION.

AND REALLY, THAT'S TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT PUMPING WITHIN SUBSIDENCE AREAS SO YOU COULD MODIFY THE COUNTY POLICY AND YOU WOULDN'T BE REPLACING LIKE FOR LIKE EXACTLY.

BUT YOU MAY BE CONDITIONING REPLACEMENTS TO LIMIT SOME PUMPING IN THE SUBSIDENCE AREA THAT'S BELOW THE CORCORAN CLAY.

AND SO THAT'S JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW AND I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR HAVE YOU GUYS DISCUSS.

I GOT A QUESTION.

YES.

ON THE MODIFY THE COUNTY POLICY, WHO'S GOING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION ON THE NEW WELLS [INAUDIBLE] CORCORAN CLAY OR WHETHER YOU EXCEEDED YOUR GSP OBJECTIVES OR WHAT? YEAH, SO YOU AS A BOARD WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE A POLICY THAT WOULD KIND OF OUTLINE WHERE THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE PLACED.

[01:45:02]

I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THE DETAILS, BUT ONE THING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE IS TO LOOK AT WHERE SUBSIDENCE IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND IF SUBSIDENCE IS OCCURRING AT THE MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE THEN ANY ADDITIONAL PUMPING COULD PERHAPS INCREASE SUBSIDENCE.

AND SO THEN YOU'RE NO LONGER ACHIEVING YOUR MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE IN THE GSP.

SO IT COULD BE BASED ON SOME OF THE FIGURES THAT YOU'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN YOUR GSP AND THEN KIND OF APPLYING THOSE TO THE AREA IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN WHERE THOSE--SO DO YOU HAVE THE STAFF TO DO THAT? I MEAN, IF THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO DO IT, WHERE THEY'RE DOING IT NOW THEN SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.

THE GSA IS GOING TO HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT POLICY WOULD BE AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW THAT POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED.

AND THAT MIGHT BE BRINGING ON A CONSULTANT TO HELP LOOK AT THESE WELL APPLICATIONS AND DETERMINE ARE THEY IN THE AREA? DO THEY MEET THE POLICY REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU AS A BOARD HAVE APPROVED? YEAH, I'M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE ON WHY THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE GOT SOMETHING THAT WORKS NOW AND NOW TO DELEGATE IT TO EVERY GSP, I DON'T WANT TO USE BAD WORDS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A CLUSTER SITUATION, OK? WELL, KOLE, I'M MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN YOU ARE, BUT LET ME JUST SAY A FEW THINGS HERE ON MY FEELINGS.

I'VE BEEN INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE CURRENT WELL ORDINANCE AND HOW IT IMPACTS GROWERS AND THE INSTALLATION OF NEW WELLS AND REFURBISHMENT OF OLD WELLS.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP A FEW THINGS IN MIND, WHICH IS WITH THE GSP AND WITH ALL THE CHALLENGES WE'RE FACING, WE NEED TO HAVE AS MANY TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX AS POSSIBLE.

AND I THINK THE REALITY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS PEOPLE HAVE DRILLED NEW WELLS WITH THE SAME WELL DIAMETER, CASING DIAMETER AS THE WELL THEY GAVE UP, BUT TYPICALLY THEY TEND TO BE DRILLED MUCH DEEPER.

SO THE REALITY IS THEY CREATE MUCH LARGER CONES OF DEPRESSION WITH VERY LARGE HP, AND THEY TEND TO DRY UP DOMESTIC WELLS IN THE AREA.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS A TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX IS ALLOWING MULTIPLE WELLS OF SMALLER SIZE, WHICH HAVE LESS OF AN IMPACT ON DOMESTIC WELLS.

I ALSO THINK AS DIFFERENT AGENCIES LOOK AT DRILLING WELLS ABOVE THE CORCORAN CLAY, IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO CONSTRUCT THOSE WELLS WITH THE SAME WELL CASING DIAMETER.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ALLOW LARGER CASING DIAMETERS IN THAT CASE TO ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE WELLS BE MORE SUCCESSFUL.

AND I ALSO THINK, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HAVING AN INCREASED PUMPING CAPACITY SO THAT IN DRY AND CRITICAL DRY YEARS, WE CAN GET BY AND WE ACTUALLY USE GROUNDWATER MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH STORAGE, WITH RECHARGE BASINS.

SO I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS ARE WELL OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE COUNTY ORDINANCE.

AND TYPICALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE STAFF IN THE INTERIM, A PROJECT PROPONENT ENDS UP PAYING A FEE TO PAY FOR A CONSULTANT TO DO THE TECHNICAL WORK, TO SUPPORT APPROVING OR NON APPROVAL OF A REQUEST.

I THINK THE COUNTY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA, WHICH MEANS IF SOMEONE'S CONVERTING ROW CROP TO TREE CROPS, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO THE CEQA DOCUMENTS.

AND IT MAY GET TURNED DOWN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.

BUT, BASICALLY, I THINK THE GSA, I DON'T THINK THE GSP SUPPORTS US NOT ALLOWING TO SOMEBODY PUT IN A WELL.

SO I THINK IF WE BECOME RESPONSIBLE, I THINK THE GSA WOULD BE SUED AND WE WOULD LOSE.

I'M TELLING SOMEONE THEY CANNOT PUT A WELL IN BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE GSP THAT PROHIBITS THAT.

SO I AM TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF BASICALLY COMING UP WITH SOMETHING NEW AND NOT TRYING TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT COUNTY POLICY.

OK, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING MORE POLICY THAN YOUR ORGANIZATION BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN IMPLEMENT EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO DO AND STILL HAVE THE PERMITTING PROCESS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL AND NOT TRY TO REINVENT THE WHEEL HERE AT THE GSP LEVEL.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LIKELY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD BASICALLY SAY, COULD THEY OR COULD THEY NOT DRILL A WELL? ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WOULD ACTUALLY STILL CONTINUE TO DO ALL THE ADMINISTERING OF THE ACTUAL WELL, CONSTRUCTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE WOULD BASICALLY AT SOME POINT BE LIKELY PUTTING LIMITATIONS ON HOW MUCH THEY COULD PUMP.

BUT THE GSA'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SAY BASICALLY, IS THERE WATER THERE FOR THEM TO PUT A WELL IN AND EXTRACT? I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE LIMIT OF THE GSA'S RESPONSIBILITY.

WELL, IT'S A MATTER OF HOW WE, I THINK WE'RE WANTING TO GET TO THE SAME GOAL.

BUT I JUST I DON'T WANT TO REINVENT THE WHOLE WHEEL HERE BECAUSE AND GET US IN

[01:50:05]

THE GSP HERE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'VE GOT AUTHORITY BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL TO DO WITH IT.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND MORE STAFF.

SO I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I STILL THINK THE COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE INVOLVED SOMEHOW IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.

MIKE, GO AHEAD.

WELL, MR. CHAIR, MAYBE WE SHOULD CREATE A WELL CZAR.

I THINK I KNOW THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB.

[CHUCKLING] I'M JOKING, BUT YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT TO THIS, A LOT MORE THAN I KNOW.

I DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL EITHER.

SO POSSIBLY THE TEMPORARY [INAUDIBLE] EXISTING COUNTY POLICY WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE WHILE WE WORK OUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

JEANNIE, OUR LAWYER.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON WHAT LEGALLY CAN WE DO ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE COUNTY IS GIVING US THE FOOTBALL OR HOT POTATO AND SAYING RUN WITH IT WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS? WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT YOU CONTINUE WITH THE EXISTING COUNTY POLICY, AT LEAST ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS TWOFOLD.

ONE, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.

EVEN IF YOU ALLOWED SOMEONE TO DRILL A WELL, YOU COULDN'T TELL THEM HOW MUCH THEY COULD PUMP BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED THOSE NUMBERS YET.

WE'RE NOT THERE YET.

WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

AND SECONDLY, YOU'D HAVE A REALLY SERIOUS CEQA PROBLEM.

YOU COULD OVERCOME THAT.

BUT I THINK YOU'D HAVE A PERCEPTION PROBLEM IF YOU DID.

IF YOU GRANTED A WELL PERMIT, YOU'D HAVE TO DO CEQA AND YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE ALLOWING AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO OCCUR BY ADDITIONAL PUMPING, BUT THAT YOU'RE OK WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT LOOKS GOOD LOCALLY OR TO A STATE TO SAY THAT YOU'RE OK WITH CREATING MORE OF AN OVERDRAFT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY.

SO IF WE TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT ALLOCATION DO WE HAVE AND LET OUR PHASE ONE GO THROUGH AS WE WORK WITH THE PUBLIC, IT MAY BE FIVE YEARS, IT MAY BE LESS THAN FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY CAN PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR ISSUING NEW PERMITS.

BY THAT TIME, YOU WILL HAVE SOME REDUCTION COMING FROM YOUR FALLOWING PROGRAM.

AND SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ISSUE NEW WELLS WITH RESTRICTIONS ON PUMPING THAT WILL KEEP YOU EVEN FROM A, YOU KNOW, OVERDRAFT PERSPECTIVE, AND IT'LL BE MUCH EASIER TO DO A CEQA.

THE POLICY DECISION IS YOURS, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SO THAT YOU'RE CHECKING OFF ALL THE BOXES THAT PROTECT YOU LEGALLY.

AND LACEY, WHAT IS THE IDEAL TIMELINE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS HAPPEN BY? SO THE COUNTY HAS PROPOSED A TIMELINE THAT HAS THIS SHIFT, THIS UPDATE TO THE GROUNDWATER ORDINANCE HAPPENING BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND SO WHAT STAFF IS THINKING ABOUT AS WE'RE STARTING TO BRING THESE TO YOU GUYS FOR DISCUSSION IS THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THIS INTERIM POLICY IN PLACE.

SO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO LANDOWNERS WHO COME TO THE GSA STARTING EARLY NEXT YEAR WANTING TO PUT A WELL IN.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR POLICY IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE.

THAT'S FINE TOO, BUT THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ISSUING ANY STATEMENTS TO THE COUNTY THAT SAYS THIS WELL IS CONSISTENT OR THIS WELL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH MY GSP.

WITHOUT THAT STATEMENT FROM THE GSA, THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO BE ISSUING ANY PERMITS.

SO ESSENTIALLY WITHOUT A POLICY, YOU'RE JUST ON HOLD FOR ISSUING NEW PERMITS OR MAKING ANY OF THOSE DECISIONS ON NEW PERMITS.

AND SO IDEALLY, YOU'D HAVE SOME SORT OF INTERIM POLICY IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO APPLICANTS STARTING IN THE NEW YEAR.

AND THAT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT WELLS AS WELL, CORRECT? THAT WOULD INCLUDE REPLACEMENT WELLS AS WELL.

IS THERE ANY WAY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COULD KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, PER SAY, AND GIVE US A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET, YOU KNOW? YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A QUESTION.

I MEAN, WE CAN'T WE'RE NOT CONTROL THEM.

THEY MAY DO WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY.

SO BUT OK, JUST A QUESTION.

[01:55:03]

YEAH.

ANYWAYS, AT THIS MOMENT, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC IF ANYONE HAS ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THIS.

GEORGE PARK.

GEORGE PARK, LONE TREE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY.

AS AN OPERATOR OF A LOT OF IRRIGATION WELLS AND FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY POLICY AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE POLICY WORKS FOR THE TIME BEING.

AND WHAT I WOULD URGE THE BOARD IS JUST DO NO HARM.

PUT TOGETHER A POLICY IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THINGS, BUT MAKE IT SEAMLESS SO THAT NEXT YEAR, IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OR MARCH, WHEN A GROWER HAS A WELL PROBLEM THAT THEY DON'T ALL OF A SUDDEN RUN INTO A ROADBLOCK AND THEIR CROPS ARE AT RISK.

SO JUST MAKE IT SEAMLESS.

TAKE ENOUGH TIME.

KEEP THE CURRENT POLICY UNTIL YOU HAVE IT ALL WORKED OUT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO FORWARD WITH WHAT'S BEST FOR THE LONG RUN.

THAT'S MY COMMENT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? I DIDN'T HEAR, IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM? COME ON DOWN, SIR.

FRANK AMARAL, STEVENSON, CALIFORNIA.

I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF STEVENSON SINCE 1962, I WAS ON THE ORIGINAL FORMATION COMMITTEE FOR [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY WATER AND ON THE COUNTY POLICY CONCERNING, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION WELLS, HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EAST SIDE OF THE COUNTY AND STEVENSON PER SE.

I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1962.

AT ONE TIME WHEN I HAD A DAIRY, I HAD SEVEN IRRIGATION WELLS THAT WERE PRIVATELY OWNED BY ME.

OK, COUNTY POLICY IS YOU CANNOT DRILL BEYOND THE CORCORAN CLAY.

CORCORAN CLAY IN STEVENSON IS ABOUT 200 FEET, 180 TO 220 ON AVERAGE, DEPENDING UPON IF YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY OR IF YOU'RE CLOSEST TO THE MERCED RIVER VERSUS CLOSER TO THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, THE POORER THE WATER QUALITY, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE MERCED RIVER, THE BETTER THE WATER QUALITY.

WITH CURRENT COUNTY POLICY, WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 50 FOOT [INAUDIBLE] OR SEAL ON AN IRRIGATION ON EVEN A DOMESTIC WELL ON AN IRRIGATION, WELL, SAY, 16 INCH DIAMETER AND YOU CAN'T PERFORATE TO CORCORAN CLAY, YOU'VE GOT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOOT AGRICULTURAL WELL.

AND I THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT.

I HAVE HAD HEATED ARGUMENTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OVER THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IN THE PAST WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT, WE WERE ONLY REQUIRED TO DO A 20 FOOT CONDUCTOR PIPE AND GRAVEL PACK ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THE GROUND.

WE USED TO PERFORATE WELLS AS HIGH AS 30 FEET FROM GROUND LEVEL.

SO, ONE SIZE SHOE DOESN'T FIT ALL CATEGORIES IN THE COUNTY.

SOMEBODY THAT LIVES IN EL NIDO OR SOMEBODY THAT LIVES IN PLANADA-LE GRAND OR SOMEBODY THAT LIVES IN THE SNELLING AREA, THEIR WELL REQUIREMENTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN US OR EVEN, MERCED SAID.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNTY COME UP WITH A BLANKET POLICY THAT TRIES TO ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

I'M SORRY, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

YOU KNOW, NOT WHERE I LIVE.

YOU KNOW, YOU START LIMITING.

YOU START LIMITING YOUR AQUIFER TO 150 FOOT FOR AN IRRIGATION.

WELL, THEN YOU START LIMITING YOUR ABILITY TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT ON THE PRODUCTION SIDE, YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ISSUE IN ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, HAVE AT IT, GUYS.

I'LL TRY TO ANSWER THEM AS BEST I CAN.

HOW LONG HAS THAT 50 FOOT SEAL BEEN IN PLACE? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

IT'S BEEN.

I THINK IT'S BEEN OVER 20 YEARS, PROBABLY CLOSER TO 30.

YOU KNOW, SO YOU KNOW THIS CONCEPT OF, YOU KNOW, YOU COME UP WITH A CODE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO ONE SIZE FITS ALL FOR THE COUNTY.

IT DOESN'T.

ON A DOMESTIC ISSUE.

YEAH, THAT'S OK.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MOST GENERAL HOUSEHOLDS GENERALLY DON'T USE MORE THAN ABOUT TWO ACRE FEET A YEAR IF THEY EXTRACT IT OUT OF THE GROUND.

WELL, MY HOUSE, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I HAVE, I HAVE 160 FOOT WELL, IT'S SIX INCH; IT'S A TWO HORSE SUBMERSIBLE PUMP, AND I GOT IT SET AT 60 FEET.

THE WATER TABLE IN DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY STEVENSON, WHICH ISN'T VERY BIG IT'S A WHITE SPOT IN THE ROAD IS TWENTY FIVE FEET.

IT USED TO BE THREE TO FIVE.

HOW DEEP IS THE CORCORAN CLAY?

[02:00:01]

ON AVERAGE, ABOUT TWO HUNDRED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TO TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET.

BESIDES THAT, IF YOU PERFORATE IT AND GO DEEPER, YEAH, THERE'S WATER THERE, BUT THE QUALITY IS NO GOOD.

AND SO IF YOU WANT TO PUMP SALT? GO FOR IT.

OH, FRANK, I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE 50 FOOT SEAL REQUIREMENT IS FROM STATE DWR, NOT A COUNTY REQUIREMENT.

AND WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.

I DON'T MIND LIVING WITH IT.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE IT.

CORRECT.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT, ERIC, BUT I'M SAYING THIS IS OUR ISSUE IN OUR AREA.

ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ANYONE FROM THE DAIS HERE? DID YOU GET ANY DIRECTION, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR ANY DIRECTION? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BOARD HAS SEEN THIS, THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS SEEN IT, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BOARD HAS SEEN IT.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO FOR A NEXT STEP IS WE'LL TAKE THIS TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TALK WITH THEM OVER ALL OF THE OPTIONS.

YOU HEARD FROM LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THERE'S A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR WITH NEW WELLS FOR TEMPORARILY CONTINUING THE COUNTY EXISTING POLICY.

DID THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THERE? GO AHEAD.

WE AGREE ON THE SECOND ONE.

YEAH, THE AD HOC WE WERE THINKING FOR THE NEW WELLS, DOING IT TEMPORARY UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING IN PLACE.

BUT THIS IS A LITTLE SORRY OFF ON THIS TOPIC.

BUT COULD WE, AS A GSA BOARD, WRITE A LETTER OR STRONGLY WORDED THE COUNTY, WE'D LIKE THEM TO KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING? YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY WRITE A LETTER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D BE INTERESTED IN.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

WELL, I MADE A MOTION THEN.

[CHUCKLING] WELL, A GOOD NEXT STEP IS TO TAKE IT TO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

OH, WELL, YOU ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE AN ACTION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

SO I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THERE'S A POTENTIAL DESIRE TO EXPRESS SOME INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THIS BOARD, TO THE COUNTY BOARD TO MAYBE THINK TWICE A LITTLE BIT, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING.

WHAT I WOULD KINDLY SUGGEST TO THIS BOARD IS GET THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT THE VICE CHAIRMAN WAS JUST SPEAKING OF AND THAT COULD BE A PART OF A FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATION ACTION BY THIS BOARD.

I'D LIKE TO CHAIRMAN TO KNOW WHAT WE DISCUSSED, SINCE HE'S NOT HERE AND BE AWARE.

I THINK, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CHAIRMAN, I THINK HE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.

I BELIEVE YOU'RE UP AGAIN.

LACEY INTER BASIN COORDINATION UPDATES.

[8. INTERBASIN COORDINATION UPDATE]

SO, THIS IS A FAIRLY QUICK ONE.

THE FIFTH REGIONAL INNOVATION COORDINATION MEETING TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST BETWEEN MERCED CHOWCHILLA, MADERA AND DELTA-MENDOTA BASIN REPRESENTATIVES.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO COMPARE WATER BUDGETS BETWEEN CHOWCHILLA MERCED AND THE DELTA-MENDOTA IN THE SUBSIDENCE FOCUS AREA, WHICH YOU GUYS SAW ON A MAP AT THE LAST MEETING.

DOMINICK AMADOR WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN PRESENTED THE WATER BUDGET FOR THE MERCED BASIN PORTION OF THE FOCUS AREA, AND MATT BEEMAN WITH [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTED THE PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES IN THE MERCED BASIN.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON THE BENEFITS OF THE LE GRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICTS INNER TYPE PROJECT ON THE BENEFITS THAT PROJECT WOULD HAVE IN THE SUBSIDENCE FOCUS AREA.

BUT WE ALSO HAD BRAD SAMUELSON ON THE PHONE AND HE WAS ABLE TO REINFORCE THE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE SUBSIDENCE AREA.

DISCUSSION ALSO REVOLVED AROUND THE BEST METHOD OF DETERMINING THE LOWER AQUIFER PUMPING IN THE SUBSIDENCE AREA.

THE DELTA-MENDOTA REPRESENTATIVES PRESENTED A PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDED OUTREACH TO LANDOWNERS TO IDENTIFY WELLS DEPTH AT WHICH PUMPING WAS OCCURRING AND PUMPING AMOUNTS.

THIS METHOD IS POTENTIALLY TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE AND DOES NOT ALWAYS BRING

[02:05:02]

THE BEST RESULTS AND THE MOST RESPONSIVE LANDOWNERS.

AND SO THE BASINS HAVE AGREED TO COORDINATE ON DETERMINING WHAT THE BEST METHOD IS FOR FINDING OUT THE LOWER AQUIFER PUMPING AND IF THE BASINS EVEN HAVE TO USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY AT ALL.

SO THE NEXT STEPS INCLUDE ADDING MORE DETAIL TO THE PROJECTS FOR MERCED AND CHOWCHILLA AND THE BUDGET ANALYSIS, AND THEN RESOLVING HOW THE BASINS ARE GOING TO COLLECT THIS LOWER AQUIFER PUMPING INFORMATION, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO COLLECT THAT INFORMATION.

SO, THE REPRESENTATIVES ALSO AGREED THAT WITH THIS PATH FORWARD, THERE'S NOT A NEED TO MEET AS FREQUENTLY AS THEY WERE MEETING BEFORE.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MEET, BUT NOT AS FREQUENTLY AS THEY WERE BEFORE, WHICH WAS ALMOST EVERY TWO WEEKS.

AND THAT WAS JUST, HAS THERE BEEN ANY MEETINGS WITH OUR NORTHERN OR TURLOCK SUBBASIN? AT THIS AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY INNOVATION MEETINGS WITH TURLOCK YET OR WE'VE HAD THEM, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SENSE.

TURLOCK IS IN THE LAST FINAL PUSH TO COMPLETE THEIR GSP, AND SO I IMAGINE INNOVATION COORDINATION WILL START UP WITH THEM SHORTLY ONCE THEY FINISH THE HARD WORK THEY'RE DOING NOW.

AND JUST FOR EVERYONE HERE IN THE PUBLIC, HOW HAS THE MOOD BEEN ON THE CONVERSATION WITH THE DELTA-MENDOTA AND CHOWCHILLA MADERA SUBBASINS? THEY'RE TOUGH MEETINGS.

THEY ARE TOUGH CONVERSATIONS.

OUR NEIGHBORING BASINS TO THE TO THE WEST AND THE DELTA MENDOTA, THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BEING IMPACTED BY PUMPING AND SUBSIDENCE THAT'S HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THEIR BASIN.

AND SO THEY EITHER WANT TO SEE IT STOP OR THEY WANT TO SEE SOME SORT OF MITIGATION FROM THAT BETWEEN MERCED AND CHOWCHILLA, I THINK HISTORICALLY WE HAD AN INNER BASIN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

SO WE'VE PUT IN HARD WORK WITH CHOWCHILLA.

THIS INNER BASIN PROCESS IS IS, I THINK, MAKING EACH OF THE BASINS A LITTLE DEFENSIVE AS WELL IN IN THAT IN THOSE PROCESSES.

SO THEY'RE HARD MEETINGS, THEY'RE NOT EASY AND--YEAH, BUT, LACEY, I'D SAY THAT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, THE TONE GENERALLY WAS MUCH MORE ENCOURAGING THAN THE PREVIOUS TWO MEETINGS.

SO MY SENSE WAS THAT THEY FELT THAT WE WERE PROPOSING AND DOING MORE THINGS THAN THEY HAD THOUGHT.

SO I ACTUALLY FELT SOME ACCOMMODATION FROM THEM.

IT FELT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS TWO MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO SEE SOME ACTION IN THE NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS.

AND WHILE I'M TALKING, ONE OF THE FOCUSES OF THIS HAS PRIMARILY JUST BEEN ON SUBSIDENCE.

AND BECAUSE THE PRIMARY FOCUS IS ON SUBSIDENCE AND I DON'T REPRESENT AN AREA WHERE SUBSIDENCE IS AN ISSUE AT ALL.

I AM STEPPING BACK FROM THIS INNER BASIN COORDINATION COMMITTEE GROUP TO ALLOW PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHO HAVE A DIRECT REPRESENTATION FOR THOSE AREAS TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT GROUP.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT A RESIGNATION AT THIS POINT? YOU ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY APPOINTED MEMBERS TO THE GROUP, SO--THANK YOU, ERIC, FOR YOUR HELP.

APPRECIATE IT.

NIC, I'M ALSO INVOLVED IN CHOWCHILLA, AS YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT DELTA-MENDOTA.

THEY HAVE THIS THEORY, MOST OF THEM OVER THERE, A LOT OF THEM GET FOUR ACRE FEET OF WATER FREE EVERY YEAR.

SO MY POINT TO THEM, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERDRAFT, WHICH PROBABLY IS IN THE EL NIDO AREA AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, THERE ARE WAYS AND MEANS TO SHARE SOME OF THAT WATER WITH US HERE AND THEN WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

OK, THANK YOU, LACEY, FOR THAT UPDATE.

MOVING ON TO STAFF REPORTS.

ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE NOT COVERED, LACEY.

[9. STAFF REPORT]

I'VE GOT THREE SHORT ITEMS FOR YOU.

SO FIRST HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED HERE.

THIS IS THE STATE WATER BOARD LETTER; BOARD MEMBER GALLO MENTIONED IT.

SO AS YOU'VE ALL SEEN, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SENT A COMMENT LETTER IN AUGUST TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ON THE MERCED GSP.

THE STATE WATER BOARD HAS BEEN SENDING THESE COMMENT LETTERS ON MANY OF THE CRITICALLY OVERDRAFT GASPS.

THE MERCED LETTER FOCUSED ON GROUNDWATER LEVELS, POTENTIAL DRINKING WATER IMPACTS, GROUNDWATER QUALITY, DEPLETION OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATER, WATER BUDGET PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, PROJECTS RELIANT ON NEW OR AMENDED WATER RIGHTS, WHICH I NOTE FOR

[02:10:01]

YOU.

YOU DO HAVE THAT WATER RIGHT APPLICATION IN WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE ON THAT YET AND ENGAGEMENT.

WHILE, THESE ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL COMMENTS FROM DWR ON THE GSP, THEY DO GIVE AN INDICATION OF WHERE THE STATE MIGHT BE REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION OR CHANGES TO THE MERCED GSP.

SO WE'RE STILL AWAITING THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM DWR, WHICH IS EXPECTED BY JANUARY OF 2022 AND THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT THAT YOU APPROVED EARLIER TODAY WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN INCLUDES FUNDING IN THE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT THAT MAY BE USED TO SUPPORT RESPONDING TO DWR WHEN WE DO HEAR BACK FROM THEM ON A LETTER LIKE THIS.

I WILL GIVE YOU A HEADS UP THAT WE DID HEAR FROM WOODWARD AND CURRAN THAT IN OTHER BASINS THAT THEY WORK IN THE OTHER BASINS HAVE RECEIVED TO THE STATE WATER BOARD LETTER.

THEY'VE ALSO RECEIVED THEIR DWR LETTER AND THE LETTERS DON'T MATCH UP PERFECTLY.

DWR WILL INCLUDE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE WATER BOARD, BUT MAYBE NOT INCLUDE ALL OF IT.

AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A GIVEN THAT ALL OF IT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED, BUT IT GIVES A GOOD INDICATION.

ON THE SECOND ITEM I HAVE IS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AN AG EASEMENT.

THE AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST REACHED OUT TO THE GSA, REQUESTING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A GRANT APPLICATION.

LATE LAST MONTH, A GROWER IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA IS APPLYING FOR AN AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY FIVE ACRES THROUGH THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

THE GRANT PROGRAM REQUIRES A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE GSA IN CRITICALLY OVER DRAFTED BASINS, AND AFTER REVIEWING THE PROGRAM AND THE EASEMENT LANGUAGE, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE NO CONSTRAINTS ON POTENTIAL GSA MANAGEMENT UNDER THIS EASEMENT, AND THE CHAIR DID SIGN THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DUE EARLIER IN SEPTEMBER.

SO I WANTED TO GIVE A HEADS UP THAT LETTER OF SUPPORT DID GO OUT FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION.

AND THEN FINALLY, DATA GAPS.

SO I'M FOLLOWING UP FROM THE LAST BOARD MEETING WHERE BOARD MEMBERS HAD ASKED FOR THE MAPS OF THE DATA GAPS AND PARCELS AND LANDOWNERS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

SO THAT INFORMATION DID GO OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

AND WE ALSO SENT IT OUT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE BASIN WHO MIGHT NOT NOT BE HERE, BE ON THE BOARD.

AND I'M JUST ASKING THAT AS YOU REACH OUT TO LANDOWNERS TO HELP IDENTIFY THE WELLS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE, PLEASE FORWARD TO ME THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE LANDOWNER WHO'S WILLING TO ALLOW THEIR WELL TO BE MONITORED.

AND THEN WE WILL PUT TOGETHER OUR BEST LIST OF WELLS TO FILL IN THOSE DATA GAPS.

I'VE HEARD FROM ACTUALLY SEVERAL PEOPLE ALREADY, SO I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HANDFUL OF WELLS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO USE TO FILL THE DATA GAPS.

WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE, DO WE HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION ON THEM.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND? I THINK WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THEM RIGHT, ESSENTIALLY, FOR THE MONITORING PROGRAM, WE'LL KNOW THAT LATER.

THE DATA GAPS PLAN DOES HAVE A SECOND PHASE FOR INSTALLING NEW WELLS AND ESSENTIALLY DOING SOME INVESTIGATION ON SOME WELLS.

AND SO IDEALLY, WE'D BE ABLE TO USE THAT FUNDING TO FIX ANY HOLES THAT WE HAVE IN THE WELLS THAT WE DO IDENTIFY.

SO THIS IS JUST A REMINDER THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE WELLS AND LANDOWNERS TALKING TO YOUR LANDOWNERS AND FINDING PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO ALLOW THEIR WELLS TO BE MONITORED.

AND THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.

[10. BOARD REPORTS]

JUST A HUMBLE REQUEST TO THE STAFF.

I HAVE THE MISFORTUNE TO BE ON THE LE GRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICT, AND THEY'VE BEEN MEETING FOR 30 YEARS ON THE THIRD THURSDAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.

SO YOU SCHEDULED A SPECIAL MEETING AT TWO O'CLOCK TODAY, SO I'M NOT UPSET.

I HAD TO LEAVE THAT MEETING.

[CHUCKLING] BUT YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, I JUST THE CHAIRMAN WAS NOT HAPPY WITH ME.

AND THAT IS THE REGULAR MEETINGS IS THE THIRD THURSDAY AT TWO O'CLOCK.

WE SET THAT FOR THIS BOARD, CORRECT? THIS BOARD'S REGULAR MEETINGS ARE THE SECOND THURSDAY, TWO O'CLOCK.

AND JUST TO NOTE, WE WILL HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR 2022 IN THE COMING MONTHS THAT WILL GIVE YOU THE MONTHLY MEETINGS AND YOU GUYS WILL APPROVE THOSE.

SINCE YOUR REGULAR MEETINGS ARE QUARTERLY, YOU'LL APPROVE SPECIAL MEETINGS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AND WE'LL DO THAT IN AN UPCOMING BOARD MEETING BEFORE JANUARY.