HELLO. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE JANUARY 13TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA.
[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
[00:00:09]
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.WOULD WE PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MARK? SURE. OK, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH MR. PEDRETTI TODAY.
AND I BELIEVE MR. GALLO IS ON ZOOM.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. GALLO? WE MAY COME BACK TO HIM, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE.
AND SO CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW WE ARE EXPECTING MR. MARCHINI, BUT HE IS NOT CURRENTLY PRESENT.
BUT YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM AND YOU'RE ABLE TO PROCEED.
IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MR. SECRETARY DO YOU HAVE A NOTICE FOR US? YES, SIR. SO JUST AGAIN, AS A QUICK REMINDER, AS WE DO WITH EACH MEETING, DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID 19 CRISIS AND AGAIN, AS AUTHORIZED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361, THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST VIA CONFERENCE CALL.
IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS, PHYSICAL LOCATION.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENT OR OBSERVE THE MEETING MAY JOIN IN PERSON OR ON THE CONFERENCE CALL, AND WE CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO DO SO.
AND JUST AS A BRIEF REMINDER FOR THOSE WHO ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS, DO US A QUICK FAVOR AND USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE ON ZOOM, AND WE WILL BE MONITORING THAT TO ADVISE THE CHAIRMAN THAT THERE'S SOMEONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE READY TO PROCEED.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE STATE OF EMERGENCY
[3. STATE OF EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS]
TELECONFERENCING FINDINGS.MRS. MCBRIDE. SO SIMILAR TO THE FINDINGS THAT THIS BOARD MADE IN DECEMBER DUE TO PASSAGE OF AB 361, WHICH THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE PASSED IN SEPTEMBER 2021 THAT ALLOWS LOCAL AGENCIES TO USE TELECONFERENCING WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE TELECONFERENCING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE BROWN ACT.
DURING A DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY, THE LOCAL AGENCY HAS TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EMERGENCY EVERY 30 DAYS AND MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF THE MEMBERS TO MEET SAFELY IN PERSON.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THE LAST TIME THE GSA MADE THESE FINDINGS WAS DURING THE NOVEMBER 2021 MEETING, WHICH ALSO WORKED FOR YOUR DECEMBER MEETING.
SINCE THEN, THE 30 DAYS HAS EXPIRED, AND THE GSA NEEDS TO AGAIN MAKE FINDINGS THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF THE MEMBERS TO MEET SAFELY AND IN PERSON. AND THIS WILL ALLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO JOIN THIS MEETING AND ANY OTHER GSA MEETING OVER THE NEXT 30 DAYS VIA TELECONFERENCE.
AND SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR YOU TO MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF MEMBERS TO MEET SAFELY IN PERSON.
ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD OR A MOTION THEREOF? I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE TO THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES DIRECTLY, IMPACT THE ABILITY OF OUR MEMBERS TO MEET AND THAT WE SHOULD ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION.
AND THIS IS EVIDENCED BY ONE OF OUR DIRECTORS NOT BEING HERE TODAY.
SO, ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON, SECONDED BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ANY RAISED HANDS ON ZOOM? MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT AT THIS TIME.
WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. SECRETARY. I'LL BE HAPPY TO.
OKAY, MR. GALLO. HOW ABOUT WE COME BACK TO MR. GALLO. HOW ABOUT MR. PEDRETTI.
AYE. AND WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. GALLO. AYE.
THANK YOU, SIR. SIR, THE ITEM DOES MOVE FORWARD.
I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, NOT ON THE AGENDA.
IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT AND YOU ARE ON ZOOM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE WILL DO THE ZOOMS RIGHT AFTER WE DO IN HOUSE.
OK? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OK, SEEING NONE ANY ON ZOOM.
NO, NONE ON ZOOM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL MOVE TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 10TH MEETING MINUTES.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WERE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES?[00:05:07]
IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM.I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER.
I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI SECONDED BY DIRECTOR UPTON.
SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? YES SIR. MR. PEDRETTI.
I'LL GO WITH CHAIRMAN PAREIRA FIRST ON THIS ONE.
THANK YOU, SIR. AND YOUR MINUTES ARE PASSED.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM SIX, WHICH IS THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ROADMAP.
[6. LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ROADMAP]
DO WE HAVE CHRIS HEPNER WITH EKI ON THE LINE? YES, I AM HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON.AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR EDUCATING US ON ON SOME POSSIBILITIES.
YES, GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
TODAY, WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP THAT WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER. THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO OUTLINE A SEQUENCE OF STEPS AND DECISION POINTS OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TO ULTIMATELY GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE IMPLEMENTABLE PROGRAM BY MIDYEAR. THIS IS A SOMEWHAT AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE, BUT REFLECTS THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PROGRAM IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF ITEMS TO BE FLESHED OUT DURING THIS PROCESS, AND THERE'S REALLY NO ONE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT.
BUT WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS ORGANIZE THESE TOPICS INTO CATEGORIES THAT THE MSGSA OR MERCED SUBBASIN GSA BOARD AND FOCUS ON FOR EACH OF THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, AS SHOWN IN THE TOP ROW. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE FOCUS TOPICS ARE PROCESS AND GOALS, WHICH WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MONTH IN JANUARY, NEXT MONTH, MOVING TOWARDS ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM.
CONTINUING DISCUSSION AND FUNDING IN MARCH, ALONG WITH THE TOPIC OF MONITORING OF THE PROGRAM. ADMINISTRATION TOPICS IN APRIL, STARTING TO LOOK AT SOME DRAFT CONTRACT LANGUAGE IN MAY FOR LAND REPURPOSING CONTRACT AND THEN HOPEFULLY MOVING TOWARDS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IN JUNE AND BEYOND.
THE ROAD MAP HERE SHOWS MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS IN BLACK AND ACTION ITEMS IN RED.
IN MOST CASES, THE BOARD DECISIONS AND ACTION ITEMS ARE SLATED TO OCCUR IN THE MONTH AFTER THAT ITEM IS FIRST DISCUSSED.
THIS IS TO GIVE THE BOARD SOME TIME TO CONSIDER THINGS BEFORE HAVING TO TAKE ANY ACTION.
THE ROW AT THE TOP IN GREEN TEXT SHOWS THE DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THAT MONTH, AND THESE ARE GENERALLY TOPICS THAT ARE THEN DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT MONTH'S BOARD MEETING. THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKELY EITHER BE THE EXISTING DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE OR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR ANOTHER COMMITTEE IF THE BOARD CHOOSES.
THE BOTTOM ROW IN BLUE SHOWS VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ACTIVITIES, AND THESE TEND TO FOLLOW THE BOARD ACTION DECISION ITEMS. SO OVERALL, YOU HAVE A SEQUENCE PROGRESSING FROM THE TOP ROW AND DOWN INTO THE RIGHT TOPIC IS FIRST DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE, THEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN PUT FOR ACTION OR DECISION BY THE BOARD AND THEN ANY ASSOCIATED OUTREACH TO STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT THAT TOPIC. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT TO TAKE IN HERE AND HOPEFULLY THIS ROAD MAP PROCESS MAKES SENSE AND WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR INPUT AND DIRECTION ON THIS TODAY AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS IN THE FUTURE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, TODAY'S DISCUSSION ITEMS, ACCORDING TO THIS ROADMAP ARE THIS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND TIMELINE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AS WELL AS TO DISCUSS THE PROGRAM'S GOALS AND PRIORITIES AND THE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH STRATEGY.
SO I'LL MOVE ON TO THOSE NEXT TWO ITEMS AND THEN WE CAN CIRCLE BACK TO DISCUSSION.
SO MOVING ON TO THE DISCUSSION ITEM OF PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES, WE'VE LAID OUT A FEW CONCEPTS HERE TO JUMPSTART THIS DISCUSSION, SUCH AS THE EXCERPT AT THE TOP FROM THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN DECEMBER, ADOPTING THE TWO PHASED GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH, WHICH STATES THAT UNDER PHASE ONE, THE GSA WILL PURSUE AND ACHIEVE THE WATER YEAR 2025 OBJECTIVE TO REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER BY 15,000 ACRES PER YEAR, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE JULY 8TH, 2021 RESOLUTION.
THE CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION IS PLANNED TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH A COMBINATION OF LAND REPURPOSING FOR DEMAND REDUCTION AND INCREASED USE OF SURFACE WATER TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. SO THAT'S A BASIC, OVERARCHING QUANTITATIVE GOAL FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND THEN CONTINUING BEYOND 2025, THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER USE REDUCTION INCREASES FURTHER
[00:10:05]
UNDER PHASE TWO. BUT BEYOND THIS QUANTITATIVE GOAL, WE WANTED TO EXPLORE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ACHIEVING THAT GOAL ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND AND IN THE BASIN, AND HOW THIS WILL AFFECT LANDOWNERS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.WE'RE ALSO SHOWING HERE THE LIST OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT WERE FIRST PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT LAST SEPTEMBER'S GSA BOARD MEETING, INCLUDING MINIMIZING ECONOMIC IMPACTS, MAINTAINING LANDOWNER FLEXIBILITY, LEVERAGING OUTSIDE RESOURCES FOR FUNDING, CONSIDERING IMPACTS TO RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY, AND REALIZING MULTIPLE BENEFITS.
THESE PRINCIPLES ARE KIND OF LIKE GUARDRAILS THAT CAN HELP DIRECT HOW THE PROGRAM IS DESIGNED.
IN TERMS OF PRIORITIES THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD.
ARE THERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE OR PRIORITIZE IN THE PROGRAM, SUCH AS TARGETING CERTAIN AREAS BASED ON EITHER GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, HOT SPOTS, LOCATION RELATIVE TO COMMUNITIES THAT RELY ON GROUNDWATER FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES? WHETHER OR NOT TO INCORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP PREVIOUSLY, WHETHER TO TARGET LAND REPURPOSING ON CERTAIN LAND USE TYPES OR ANY OTHER SPATIAL FACTORS. AND ALSO, IS THERE A NEED OR DESIRE TO TRY TO LAY OUT INTERIM TARGETS FOR LAND REPURPOSING AS IN A NUMBER OF ACRES OR ACRE FEET OF CONSUMPTIVE USE? I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE GSA DID RECEIVE ABOUT 22 RESPONSES TO THE LAND REPURPOSING SURVEY THAT WAS PUBLISHED LAST YEAR, AND THE RESULTS ARE BEING COMPILED AND REVIEWED AND WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL AND THEN AT NEXT MONTH'S BOARD MEETING.
THOSE SURVEY RESPONSES WILL INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS THOUGHTS ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIORITIES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE LAST DISCUSSION ITEM FOR THE LAND REPURCHASING AGENDA ITEM TODAY IS THE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH STRATEGY.
OUTREACH ABOUT THE PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO GET LANDOWNERS TO PARTICIPATE. AND SO THE STRATEGY OUTLINED BELOW AND IN THE ROADMAP IS GEARED TOWARDS THE OVERALL GOAL OF INFORMING AND EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PROGRAM IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE LANDOWNERS TO PARTICIPATE.
TO DO THIS WE WILL NEED TO WORK WITH THE EXISTING COMMITTEE, SUCH AS THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MERCED SUBBASIN STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE AND OTHERS.
TO HELP AMPLIFY THIS, OUTREACH, COMMUNICATIONS AND MESSAGING WILL NEED TO EMPHASIZE THE BENEFITS OF LAND REPURPOSING, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT OF GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO A NO ACTION SCENARIO, HOPING TO AVOID POTENTIALLY COSTLY AND INTRUSIVE STATE INTERVENTION IN THE BASIN UNDER SGMA AND HELPING TO ACHIEVE THE DEMAND REDUCTION GOALS SET OUT IN MSG SA'S RECENT RESOLUTIONS AND IN THE GSP.
THE MAIN OUTREACH METHODS WE ANTICIPATE AS PART OF THIS STRATEGY ARE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND IN-PERSON WORKSHOPS AND COMMUNICATIONS WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE POSTS, UPDATES TO THE MSGSA WEBSITE, EMAIL UPDATES TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES MAILING LIST, AS WELL AS SHARING WRITTEN UPDATES WITH OTHER LOCAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE MERCED FARM BUREAU, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS WHO CAN THEN SHARE WITH THEIR MEMBERS. AS FAR AS IN-PERSON WORKSHOPS, THE PROPOSED OUTREACH PLAN CALLS FOR AT LEAST TWO OF WORKSHOPS IN THE FIRST SIX MONTH PERIOD.
ONE IN EARLY SPRING FOCUSED ON THIS LAND REPURPOSING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES TO DATE, COVERING SUCH THINGS AS GOALS, ELIGIBILITY, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COSTS, AND THEN ONE IN LATER SPRING OR EARLY SUMMER TO PRESENT THE FINAL ADOPTED LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AND TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION.
WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO MAKE USE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH TO POSSIBLE. I HOPE TO HEAR THE BOARD'S THOUGHTS ON THIS PROPOSED APPROACH.
ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE? SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT BACK TO LACEY OR BOARD TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION ON THESE LAND REPURPOSING ITEMS. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
CHRIS, I YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY GOING TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHAT WE DO HERE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO DEVELOPING THIS WITH OUR TEAM HERE AND WITH THE TAC AND YOUR ORGANIZATION.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WHAT CHRIS HAS SHARED WITH US SO FAR? DIRECTOR SWENSON I HAVE A QUESTION AND THEN I HAVE A COMMENT.
AS FAR AS QUESTIONS, THE CHART THAT GIVES THE INDICATION OF LANDMARK DEVELOPMENTS MILESTONES FOR THE DIFFERENT MONTHS.
IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE WORKING ON THE PROP 218 COMMITTEE TO KNOW WHEN AN ACTUAL FINAL BUDGET FOR THIS LAND PURCHASING PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.
[00:15:03]
IT'S GOING TO BE IN ADDITION TO OTHER ITEMS AS PART OF THAT 218 PROCESS.SO I WONDER IF WE CAN ACTUALLY ESTABLISH A TARGET DATE, NOT JUST A MONTH, WHETHER THAT BE IN APRIL OR MAY, WHEN THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM WOULD ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED. YES, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
THIS PROGRAM WILL BE ONE OF THE MAIN ELEMENTS IN THE PROP 218 PROPOSAL AND THEREFORE THE NEED TO COORDINATE COST ESTIMATION TO INFORM THAT PROPOSAL IS VERY MUCH ON OUR AGENDA HERE. AND SO YOUR QUESTION IS, CAN WE ESTABLISH A SORT OF MILESTONE OR DEADLINE DATE TO HAVE THAT COST INFORMATION? AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN TRY AND WORK WITH THE SMALLER COMMITTEE ON THE COMMITTEE LEVEL TO ESTABLISH THAT KIND OF MORE SPECIFIC DATE TO HELP INFORM THE 218 PROCESS.
SO YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
OK. AND THEN UNDER YOUR DESIRE FOR INPUT ON PRIORITIES, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, THE DWR HAS REQUESTED A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO THE GSP BEFORE THEY COMPLETE HOPEFUL APPROVAL OF THAT DOCUMENT.
I THINK THE REVISED GSP IS GOING TO INDICATE AREAS, PARTICULARLY THE SUBSIDENCE AREAS, ARE GOING TO NEED MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT ACTION THAN WAS PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL GSP.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WAIT UNTIL THE REVISED GSP IS SUBMITTED TO DWR BEFORE WE DEVELOP PRIORITIES BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO, I THINK, TARGET AREAS TO MEET THE REVISED GOALS IN THE GSP.
WE WON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE EXACTLY ARE UNTIL THAT REVISION IS COMPLETE.
THERE'S DEFINITELY A KIND OF A BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE GSP REVISION PROCESS AND THIS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I THINK THE TWO WILL NEED TO KIND OF TALK TO EACH OTHER.
WE'RE WORKING IN COORDINATION.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TARGETING THE AREAS IN A MANNER THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE GSP PROVISIONS ALSO CONTAIN.
WE MAY NEED TO MOVE SLIGHTLY FASTER THAN THE GSP REVISION PROCESS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A 180 DAY SORT OF CLOCK TO REVISE UPON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL LETTER.
AND THAT WOULD CONSUME MUCH OF THIS FIRST SIX MONTHS.
SO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE CAN SORT OF BE WORKING SLIGHTLY BEFORE THINGS ARE FINALIZED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM ALIGN WELL WITH WHAT THE GSP REVISED GSP [INAUDIBLE].
WELL, IN MY REVIEW OF THE DWR COMMENTS TO DATE, IT APPEARS THAT THE SUBSIDENCE AREA IS ONE OF THEIR HIGH AREAS OF CONCERN.
AND THE SECOND THING IS POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS NEEDS TO BE BETTER CHARACTERIZED. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE TWO VERY HIGH PRIORITY AREAS THAT THEY HAVE TARGETED.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM LIKELY WOULD NEED TO AT A MINIMUM TARGET THOSE TWO AREAS.
YEAH, I JUST HAD THE COMMENT, WHICH IT SOUNDED LIKE OFF OF WHAT ERIC WAS SAYING IS THAT WE CAN STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE CONCEPTS IN MIND BECAUSE WE DO KNOW.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN WAIT TILL WE HAVE A REVISED GSP PLAN WITH DWR BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOO LATE THEN TO START TAKING THIS INTO EFFECT.
BUT WE CAN KEEP THOSE CONCEPTS IN MIND.
ERIC, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THAT THERE DEFINITELY SUBSIDENCE AREA AND, WELL, DOMESTIC WELLS IS A BIG ISSUE AND HOW THOSE CONCEPTS IN THIS PLAN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS SAME TIMELINE YOU PROPOSED RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, THAT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE, RIGHT, TO KEEP THAT IN THERE.
YOU KNOW, ON THE SORT OF COMMITTEE LEVEL, WE WILL NEED TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN COORDINATION WITH THE GSP REVISION TEAM.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE DWR COMMENTS, WE HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHERE THEIR EMPHASIS AND WHERE THEIR CONCERNS LIE.
YOU KNOW, WITH THE BOARD'S DIRECTION, WE CAN KIND OF BUILD THAT INTO OUR GOALS AND
[00:20:06]
PRIORITIES EVEN PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE REVISED GSP.WAS THAT IT? YOU KNOW? YEAH. OK. DOES MIKE HAVE HIS HAND RAISED? NO RAISED HANDS ON OUR ZOOM.
CHRIS, THE TIMELINE FOR FUNDING THAT THE PROP 218 IS GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS.
I MEAN. WELL, LET ME ASK THIS HAVE HAVE YOU? WHAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE BEEN WITH LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS? IS THIS YOUR FIRST ONE OR HAVE YOU DONE SOME IN THE PAST? WE HAVE NOT DONE SPECIFIC LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS IN THE PAST.
WE'VE DEFINITELY WORKED IN DEVELOPING, YOU KNOW, MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR DEMAND REDUCTION AND OTHER OTHER TYPES OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, AND WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER SUPPORTING OTHER PROP 218 PACKAGES.
NO, YEAH, NO. I KNEW THAT PART.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ON THIS THE REPURPOSING PART, YOU KNOW, SO YOU KNOW, LIKE DIRECTOR SWENSON SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW THE MATH, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING AT OUR FEBRUARY MEETING, BUT IT SEEMS MORE LIKE LIKE OUR MARCH MEETING, MAYBE BEFORE YOU COULD HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. AND ANYWAY, SO JUST YEAH, I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO WORK ON AS QUICK AS YOU CAN, BUT I DON'T EXPECT SOMETHING IN 30 DAYS.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT ANYWAYS, OK? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC.
DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU, CHRIS.
YES. THANK YOU. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, A CONSTANT, YOU KNOW, TWO WAY COMMUNICATIONS HERE TO KEEP RECEIVING YOUR DIRECTION AND FEEDBACK.
AND WE'LL PRESENT INFORMATION TO YOU AND WORK TOGETHER TO MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG AND REACH THE GOALS. SORRY, CHRIS, I GOT ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION I JUST THOUGHT OF.
SO ON THE PROP 218 PACKAGE YOU HAVE DOWN HERE FOR MAY IS THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD PUT IT OUT TO A VOTE OR IN JUNE IF THE BOARD APPROVES IT.
OR WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE? BECAUSE NO ONE HERE, THE COUNTY NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY JULY.
WHAT'S YOUR GUYS OR STAFF TIMELINE YOU HAVE IN MIND FOR THAT? I CAN JUMP IN ON THIS ONE AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.
YEAH, A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S OK.
THE TIMELINE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A 218 THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS MID-JULY.
AND SO ANY NOTIFICATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT IN JUNE.
AND SO WE'D WANT A LOT OF THESE THINGS WRAPPED UP IN THAT MAY TIMELINE.
YEAH, I WAS GOING TO DEFER TO LACEY BECAUSE I KNOW THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS SPECIFIC TO THAT PROP 218 PROCESS.
YEAH. CHRIS, WE HAVE ANOTHER EITHER COMMENT OR QUESTION FROM DIRECTOR UPTON.
YEAH, I THINK ALL THIS IS CENTERED ON ONE ASSUMPTION AND IS THAT IS WE'RE GOING TO SET ASIDE LAND AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO OUR PART TO GET SUSTAINABLE.
THE PROBLEM IS, AS I SEE IT, IS IF WE LOSE THE 40 PERCENT OF UNIMPAIRED FLOWS, I KNOW I'M BEATING THIS DRUM AGAIN THAT THE STATE BOARD IS PROPOSING FOR MERCED, STANISLAUS AND [INAUDIBLE]. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LAY ASIDE A LOT MORE LAND THAN THAT BECAUSE THE 40 PERCENT IS INTEGRAL TO MOST OF US IN TRYING TO MEET THESE GOALS BECAUSE WE HAVE PROGRAMS LIKE THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR GRANT, WE GOT IN LE GRAND-ATHLONE TO BRING WATER IN HERE. BUT IF THAT WATER TURNS OUT TO BE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN WE CAN.
WE MAY AS WELL DECIDE TO LAY ASIDE, YOU KNOW, 30, 40, 50,000 MORE ACRES THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I GUESS I'M ASKING THE CONSULTANT.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB ON THIS, BUT ARE YOU IGNORING THE OTHER FACTORS ON PURPOSE BECAUSE YOUR ONLY GOAL IS TO SHOW US WHAT WE HAVE TO DO ON LAND REPURPOSING AND THE CURRENT CONDITIONS? AND YOU'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FUTURE ACTIONS OF THE STATE BOARD OR PEOPLE THAT
[00:25:05]
ARE BASICALLY COMING AFTER OUR WATER.WELL, YES, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, CRITICAL POINT YOU'RE RAISING ABOUT THE SORT OF LONG TERM CHALLENGES THAT THE GSA AND THE BASIN ARE GOING TO FACE, NOT ONLY FROM THE NEXT FEW YEARS IN GETTING THIS PROGRAM UP OFF THE GROUND, WHICH IS ONE PIECE OF THE SORT OF SGMA AND SUSTAINABILITY RESPONSE THAT THE BASIN GSA'S ARE UNDERTAKING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN BEYOND 2025 INTO PHASE TWO, THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND REDUCTION THAT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE 15,000 THAT IS THE SORT OF TARGET FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS.
AND WITH THREATS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF IMPORTED SURFACE WATER, THOSE SORT OF DEMAND REDUCTION NUMBERS ARE THEY HAVE A POTENTIAL TO BE EVEN GREATER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY THINK. SO IT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY AND OTHERS IN SIMILAR POSITIONS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY WILL HAVE TO BE DEALING WITH IN LIGHT OF THE THREATS TO THE SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES.
SO I GUESS WE TRY TO BITE OFF THIS PIECE IN A MANAGEABLE WAY TO DO THIS FIRST PHASE OF THE TWO PHASE APPROACH AND SORT OF GET THE PROGRAM SET UP AND RUNNING SO THAT IN THE FUTURE IT CAN BE EXPANDED AS IT [INAUDIBLE] NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED.
THAT IT. WELL, I JUST I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLANNING ON OR CONTEMPLATING ANY ACTION TO DEFEND THE RESIDENTS OF MERCED COUNTY AGAINST THE STATE COMING IN HERE AND TAKING OUR LIFEBOAT AWAY FROM US. YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T SET POLICY THAT WAY.
OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE NEED TO FIGHT WITH MID.
AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SENT LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND THEIR PLAN, THEIR SAFE PLAN.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT LIKE PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR ANY OF THAT. WE'VE BEEN WILLING TO FIGHT WITH THEM.
BUT AS UP TO THEIR FLANK, I GUESS, IS THE WAY TO PUT IT.
I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] MONEY IS AN ISSUE.
I GOT IT, BUT YOU GOT THE BULLY PULPIT FOR THE PEOPLE OF MERCED COUNTY.
YOU REPRESENT ALL OF US, OK? AND IF THEY TAKE 40 PERCENT OF THE WATER, THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT ALL OF US.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE AN ECONOMIC INTEREST AS WELL AS A PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRYING TO DEFEND THIS AREA AGAINST THESE KIND OF ATTACKS.
I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE A MOTION.
OK, WHAT I MEAN, DO WE NEED A MOTION? I MEAN, DO WE NEED ACTION WHICH ARE? WELL, I GUESS LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
RIGHT? WELL, I RECOMMEND THAT WE DIRECT STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT TO MOVE FORWARD AS PRESENTED TODAY WITH DEVELOPING A LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AND TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING, AN ESTIMATED DATE AT WHICH THE FUNDING LINE ITEM FOR THIS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM FOR PURPOSES OF THE 218 WOULD BE PRESENTED.
OK. THAT'S OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR SWENSON.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI.
YES MS. MCBRIDE. CAN I JUST CLARIFY, DOES THIS INCLUDE SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE, WORKING ON THIS AS THE SMALL COMMITTEE THAT WORKS ON THIS BECAUSE THAT'S THE COMMITTEE THAT STAFF HAD PROPOSED TO WORK ON THIS.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE MOTION.
I WOULD SUPPORT THAT ADDENDUM TO THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? NO, NOT THIS TIME, CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT. AND THERE'S NONE IN HOUSE.
SO MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? BOARD MEMBER PEDRETTI. YES.
[00:30:01]
BOARD MEMBER GALLO. WE'LL COME BACK.CHAIRMAN, PAREIRA. AND I VOTE, AYE AS WELL.
MOTION PASSES, MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL MOVE ON THEN TO ITEM SEVEN, WHICH IS THE PROPOSITION 218 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.
[7. PROPOSITION 218 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING]
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MRS. MCBRIDE. OK, WE TOUCHED ON THIS JUST A LITTLE BIT IN THE EARLIER ITEM.THIS ITEM REQUESTS THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE PHASE ONE FUNDING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING.
IN ORDER FOR THE GSA TO HAVE FUNDING IN PLACE BY EARLY 2023 TO IMPLEMENT THE ELEMENTS OF PHASE ONE, MAINLY THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.
A POTENTIAL LANDOWNER FEE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY OF MERCED BY AUGUST 2022 IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 22 23 PROPERTY TAX BILLS.
SIMILAR TO THE LAST PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THIS BOARD IN 2019.
A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD NEED TO BE HELD BY MID-JULY, WITH BALLOTS MAILED OUT TO LANDOWNERS FORTY FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THAT.
THE AD HOC COMMITTEE POTENTIALLY FORMED BY THIS BOARD WOULD DISCUSS THE ITEMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION FOR POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION IN THIS FEE.
THEY WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH PROPERTIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE FEE, AMONG OTHER ELEMENTS.
THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MAY INCLUDE OTHER MEMBERS IN ADDITION TO BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THERE MAY BE ONLY A MAXIMUM OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO AVOID A QUORUM. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING AND ALSO GREG YOUNG WITH TULLY AND YOUNG IS HERE AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL. I HAVE A QUESTION LACEY.
LE GRAND-ATHLONE IS ALSO CONSIDERING 218 FOR THINGS WE GOT INVOLVED IN.
AND LAST TIME, I THINK LE GRAND-ATHLONE AGREED TO PAY ITS MEMBERS SHARE OF THE COUNTY ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR IF THIS IS ON TOP OF THAT OR WHAT, IS THE SITUATION? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY 218S OR LANDOWNER IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO APPROVE WHAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DOING SO THAT THEY CAN PASS.
I THINK IT'S A REALLY EXCELLENT POINT TO MAKE IN THE FORMER 2019 PROPOSITION 218 FEE, LE GRAND-ATHLONE GROWERS WERE NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE LE GRAND-ATHLONE WAS ALREADY COLLECTING THAT FEE. PERHAPS THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT THE GSA AND LE GRAND-ATHLONE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE TOGETHER ON WHAT FEES WILL BE BEFORE THE LANDOWNERS AND LE GRAND-ATHLONE IF THERE IS AN INTEREST IN DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO 2019, OR IF THESE ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE FEES THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD, THAT THE LANDOWNERS WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON, WOULD LACEY AS FAR AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL STANDPOINT, BE SENDING MOTIONS IN THE SAME BOAT AS LE GRAND-ATHLONE ON THAT? WOULD WE BE ABLE TO SEPARATE THE, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY DID? AND IF THE ORGANIZATION DECIDES THIS, BE SEPARATE FOR THE LANDOWNERS AND GO ON THE TAX, ROLL THIS 218.
INSTEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION PAYING FOR THIS 218, LIKE SOME ORGANIZATIONS BEEN PAYING FOR THE ORIGINAL 218, THAT THIS 218 WOULD JUST GO ON THE INDIVIDUAL.
AND THEN I GOT A SECOND ONE, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SPLIT IT UP.
I THINK THE LET ME GATHER MY THOUGHTS.
THE INTENTION IS THAT THIS WOULD BE A FEE THAT WOULD BE ACROSS ALL THE LANDOWNERS WHOM THE BOARD DEEMS ARE THE ELIGIBLE LANDOWNERS IN THE GSA FOR THIS.
IF IN THE FUTURE, SIMILAR TO THE 2019 FEE, ONE OF THE AGENCIES WHO'S ALREADY COLLECTING WANTED TO PAY THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE BETWEEN THE MEMBERS AND THE GSA IN ORDER TO NOT CHARGE THOSE LANDOWNERS TWICE.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE GOING INTO THIS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THREE AGENCIES WHO PAY INDIVIDUALLY RIGHT NOW FOR ALL OF THEIR LANDOWNERS WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THIS IS A WHOLE NEW PROCEEDING AND WE WOULD START FRESH.
[00:35:01]
WE COULD KEEP THIS SEPARATE, OK? AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION ON THIS AND THIS MIGHT BE GETTING TOO FAR AHEAD IS I KNOW THERE'S PEOPLE WITH THIS IS FOR IRRIGATED ACRES, RIGHT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.THAT IS WHAT YOU AS A BOARD HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF HOW IF THE BOARD DECIDES THAT HOW IN THE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS, THERE ARE SOME APN PARCELS.
IF WE'RE GOING OFF THAT THAT HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IS IRRIGATED AND A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IS NATIVE. I KNOW IT'S NOT A LOT, OF GROUND, BUT HOW IS STAFF GOING TO HAVE A PLAN OR HAVE YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT WHERE IF SOMEONE JUST SAY HAS 300 ACRE, YOU KNOW, PARCEL WITH ONE APN, BUT ONLY ONE HUNDRED ACRES OF IT'S IRRIGATED? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I THINK THAT'S A TOPIC THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD.
AT IN YOUR LAST PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING YOU AS A BOARD CONSIDERED THOSE PARCELS THAT HAD DIFFERENT LAND USES.
BUT IN THE END, YOU WENT WITH THE LAND USE THAT THE ASSESSOR'S ROLL HAS.
BUT IF THAT'S NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THE WAY THAT THIS FEE LOOKS AT IRRIGATED ACRES VERSUS NON IRRIGATED ACRES, THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT YOU'LL HAVE AS A COMMITTEE AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL GO BACK TO THE BOARD.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU AND MAYBE JEAN COULD TALK WITH OUR WE HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY AT LE GRAND-ATHLONE LAUREN LANE, AND SHE'S REALLY GOOD AND OTHERWISE I CAN SEE A LE GRAND-ATHLONE MEETING LASTING UNTIL MIDNIGHT IF I TRY TO EXPLAIN IT.
SO I THINK WE HAVE THE FACTS ON WHAT TO DO AND WHAT YOU WANT US TO DECIDE THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. WE'LL REACH OUT TO LAUREN.
MR. YOUNG, DID YOU? JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR THAT THE BOARD WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION OF SOME SORT OF FEE QUANTITY.
AND THEN IF AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY LIKE LEGRAND WANTS TO PAY THAT BILL, THEN THAT'S THE SECONDARY QUESTION, IT'S NOT LEGRAND GETS TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH IT WANTS TO PAY VERSUS SOMETHING ELSE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD, ESPECIALLY FOR THE BROADER PUBLIC WHO MAY BE LISTENING TO THESE CONVERSATIONS.
AND GINO, TO YOUR POINT, JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE OF THE QUESTION OF DEALING WITH IRRIGATED ACRES WHERE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT SUBSET OF A PARCEL OF THE APPRAISED PARCEL ACRES.
BY EXAMPLE, ANOTHER GSA HAS DONE THAT WHERE THEY'VE PUT A THRESHOLD OF SOME PERCENTAGE.
IF YOU'RE GREATER THAN SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT IRRIGATED, YOU KNOW YOUR TOTAL ASSESSED ACRES VERSUS YOUR IRRIGATED ACRES ON THE ASSESSED ON YOUR ASSESSMENT IS GREATER THAN SOME PERCENTAGE. IT COUNTS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, AND OTHERWISE IT COUNTS AS JUST THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF THAT LESSER AMOUNT.
THERE'S NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO DO IT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE AD HOC THAT WE ARE ASKING YOU GUYS TO ESTABLISH.
MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED TO SERVE ON THIS PROPOSITION 218 AD HOC COMMITTEE.
OK. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING, TOO.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES BEYOND PLANNED REPURPOSING THAT I HAVE SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN PROVIDING INPUT IN.
ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A I MEAN, THE PROP 218, THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE FAR, FAR MORE DIFFICULT THAN THE FIRST ONE, RIGHT? THE FIRST ONE WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FEE, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO WHAT THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TWO. AND MAN, I, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME TO GET IT HAMMERED OUT AND NAILED DOWN. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T GOT TO A SPOT WHERE WE HAVE ALLOCATIONS OR WE HAVE EXTRACTION FEES, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE WE WON'T GET THERE.
I DON'T KNOW. WE'LL SEE. BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT LOGICAL AND
[00:40:03]
REASONABLE TO THE VOTERS, YOU KNOW? AND I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE FAR MORE, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WORK, I GUESS.AND SO I GUESS THE SOONER WE GET STARTED, THE BETTER WE'LL BE.
OK AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
OK. NO RAISED HANDS OR COMMENTS MR. CHAIR AT THIS MOMENT.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE IN HOUSE.
GO AHEAD. HI I'M DAVE NERVINO FROM STEVENSON FARMING THERE ON THIS ISSUE OF IRRIGATED FOR THE 218 NON IRRIGATED.
WHAT IF YOU HAVE PARCELS CURRENTLY NON IRRIGATED IN YOUR WATER DISTRICT OR WHEREVER AND THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, START IRRIGATING IN THE FUTURE? ARE THEY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO COME IN OR ARE THEY NOW TO GET BACK FEES? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PREPARE, YOU KNOW, REALIZE HOW MANY ACRES COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK IN.
AND IF THERE'S THE WAY TO RESOLVE THIS WITH SURFACE WATER AND WE HAVE SURFACE WATER, BUT IT'S BEING SOLD OUT OF OUR BASIN.
WHY DOESN'T THE SUPERVISOR STEP IN AND PUT A MORATORIUM ON THAT LIKE THEY DID DRILLING AND AT LEAST GET A SURCHARGE OUT OF THESE PEOPLE IF THEY'RE SELLING OUT OF THE BASIN AND SUPPLEMENT SOME OF OUR 218 MONEY? WHY SHOULD WE THE LANDOWNERS THERE, FARMING BEEN FARMING.
I'VE OVER 100 YEARS HAVE TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF IT FOR AREAS THAT YOU KNOW WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, OVER DRAFTING.
WE'RE IN AN AREA THAT'S PLENTIFUL SOMEWHAT, AND I FEEL A BURDEN ON ME AS A FARMER AND MY SON TAKING OVER IN THE FUTURE FOURTH GENERATION THAT WE'RE BEARING THE BRUNT OF EVERYTHING THAT COMES ALONG.
IF YOU WANT TO SPREAD IT OVER THE WHOLE COUNTY, EVERY PARCEL SO THEY LATER ON COULD COME IN, THAT WOULD BE A LOT FAIRER.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITH A 218.
ANYBODY IN THIS COUNTY IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM ALL OF US BECOMING SUSTAINABLE, SURVIVING, ALL GETTING ALONG.
I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU WORK, WHAT YOU DO IN THIS COUNTY, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EFFECT.
I MEAN, IF WE'RE NOT REALIZING THAT AFTER SEEING WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING CURRENTLY IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT THE TRICKLE DOWN IS WHAT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL.
WE CAN'T JUST, YOU KNOW, KEEP DINGING THE SAME PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
IT'S GOT TO BE ALL FOR ONE OR ONE FOR ALL.
THE WHOLE COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE LOST REVENUES IN THE FUTURE IF WE HAVE MORE, YOU KNOW, REPURPOSING AND THAT'S GOING TO TRICKLE DOWN TO YOUR SERVICES AND GOODS.
EVERYTHING'S GOING TO COST MORE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LESS POLICE SERVICES, LESS FIRE, LESS HOSPITAL.
EVERYTHING'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT.
DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE EVERYBODY OUT OF THE STATE? KEEP IT UP. WE CAN'T CONTROL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WAY ABOVE US, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT LOCALLY.
I'M LOOKING TO THE SUPERVISORS IN THIS BOARD TO HAVE A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, CONTINUITY WITH LETTING US TRY AND SURVIVE AND GET ALONG IN THIS, YOU KNOW, WORLD THE WAY THINGS ARE HEADED. SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR YOU ALL FOR SUPPORT FROM YOU AND THE SUPERVISORS TO HELP US. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAD ONE COMMENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF ONE MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE DOING LAND REPURPOSING WAS ALSO ON THE 218 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GROUP SO THAT THEY COULD COMMUNICATE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LAND REPURPOSING GROUP.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO DO BOTH, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S ON BOTH.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, I GUESS I WOULD I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO CREATE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME. AND IF YOU GIVE ME THE THE ABILITY TO PICK THE MEMBERS, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH YOU AND I'LL WORK ON ON GETTING THAT DONE.
THAT WAS A MOTION. YEAH, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
OK, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR GALLO, SECONDED BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI THAT WE WOULD CREATE A AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS OF A 2022 PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING.
AND I GUESS, MIKE, YOU'RE GIVEN ME THE ABILITY TO PUT TOGETHER THE COMMITTEE
[00:45:03]
IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? AND A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF WE COULD HAVE ONE ONE MEMBER FROM THE LAND REPURPOSING ALSO BE ON THE 218, IS THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION OR NOT? YES. OK, YES.ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OK, THEN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OK. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WELL, I'LL NEED TO WORK ON ON THAT.
AS FAR AS GETTING THE COMMITTEE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER AND WITH THE INTEREST FROM DIRECTOR GALLO AND SWENSON ALREADY STATED.
NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOPS.
[8. CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOPS REGARDING GSP IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 ACTIONS]
ITEM EIGHT REGARDING THE GSP IMPLEMENTATION, PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.AND AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MCBRIDE TO PROVIDE US A SUMMARY.
SO THE FIRST OF THE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON THE TWO PHASE GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH TOOK PLACE IN NOVEMBER 2021.
THIS WORKSHOP WAS HELD BOTH IN PERSON AT MERCED COLLEGE'S BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER AND VIA ZOOM. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 17 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE IN PERSON AND WE HAD 10 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE ONLINE.
THE NOVEMBER WORKSHOP INCLUDED VALUABLE DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS ON GSP ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, ELEMENTS OF LAND REPURPOSING, PARCEL LEVEL WATER BUDGETS, USING EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA AND LONG TERM DEMAND REDUCTION.
BUILDING UPON THIS OUTREACH STAFF IS RECOMMENDING HOLDING THREE TO FOUR REGIONAL WORKSHOPS IN COORDINATION WITH THE MEMBER AGENCIES OF THE GSA.
THESE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS WILL ALLOW PARTICIPANTS TO FOCUS ON REGIONAL GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS AND TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK SPECIFIC TO THEIR AREA.
THERE'S A VALUE IN GSA BOARD MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT OTHER REGIONS TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE REGIONAL AREA THAT THEY REPRESENT IN ORDER TO BROADLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ACROSS THE GSA.
THE FOCUS OF THESE SMALLER, IN-PERSON REGIONAL WORKSHOPS WOULD BE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES OF SIMILAR TO THE NOVEMBER WORKSHOP OF THE LAND, REPURPOSING AND ALSO ALLOCATION MAINLY FOCUSING ON THE PHASE ONE ELEMENTS, BUT ALSO PHASE TWO OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
EACH OF THE WORKSHOPS WOULD USE THE SAME AGENDA, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THESE WORKSHOPS TAKE PLACE SOMETIME IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2022.
SO IN WINTER 2022 AND WITHIN ABOUT A TWO WEEK PERIOD OF EACH OTHER, THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING MORE WORKSHOPS IS WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE GOT THE ATTENDANCE IN THE NOVEMBER WORKSHOP THAT THEN STAFF WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN.
AND SO THIS IS A WAY TO JUST OUTREACH A LITTLE BIT MORE AND GET SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK ON THE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.
SO THIS ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD POSSIBLE GUIDANCE TO STAFF REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKSHOPS.
AND ALSO STAFF WOULD REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE MEMBER AGENCIES IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY AND REACH OUT TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE IN-PERSON WORKSHOPS.
OK. YOU KNOW, LACEY, I THINK ALSO THE THE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND CO-OPS, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY TO TO REACH OUT TO PEOPLE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IN ANOTHER AGENCY.
DIRECTOR SWENSON. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, LACEY TO FRAME THIS ALSO AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON THE UPCOMING 218 PROCESS.
I THINK IF WE FRAME IT SUCH THAT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE COMMENTS AND INPUT, WE MIGHT SEE MORE PARTICIPATION FROM THE PUBLIC.
ALREADY HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH BOTH LACEY AND MR. HENDRICKSON AND FEEL THAT THAT'LL DRIVE PEOPLE TO THE TABLE, THAT'S FOR SURE.
SO THE OTHER THING I WAS WONDERING IS IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PIGGYBACK THOSE PRESENTATIONS ON EXISTING AREA WATER BOARD WATER AGENCY MEETINGS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ALREADY BE AT.
OK. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S MAYBE A POTENTIAL WAY, THERE ARE PEOPLE AT THOSE
[00:50:03]
MEETINGS ALREADY, AND MAYBE IT COULD SOMEHOW BE A PART B OF AN EXISTING MEETING OR SOMETHING, AND THAT WOULD HELP WITH PARTICIPATION.JUST SOME IDEAS THAT COULD BE EXPLORED.
YEAH, YEAH. THE SECOND ONE ISN'T ONE I HADN'T THOUGHT OF, BUT BOTH OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY GREAT IDEAS. OK.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, LACEY, WELL, I GUESS I'LL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANY.
YEAH. SO YEAH, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT WHAT YOU NEED, RIGHT? STAFF HAS BEEN GIVEN DIRECTION AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY ACTION.
OK, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NINE, WHICH IS STAFF REPORT BY LACEY MCBRIDE.
[9. STAFF REPORT]
THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO QUICK ITEMS FOR YOU.ONE IS I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE, WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY.
THIS IS JUST A STATUS UPDATE BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THIS POLICY FOR THE PAST COUPLE MEETINGS, AND WE DIDN'T WE DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE YOU AT THIS MEETING.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE AT THIS TIME.
WE ARE WORKING ON THE PROPOSED POLICY, LANGUAGE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS.
WE'RE ALSO WAITING FOR THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES TO THE COUNTY ORDINANCE TO BE MADE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO PROPERLY TIE THE GSA POLICY AND THE ORDINANCE PROCESS TOGETHER.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE MERCED COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HEAR THE FIRST READING OF AN UPDATED PROPOSED ORDINANCE AT THE JANUARY 25TH BOARD MEETING.
THAT'S A TENTATIVE DATE SINCE THE AGENDA HAS NOT BEEN POSTED YET, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING. GSA STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ARE DEVELOPING TEXT TO ADDRESS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE POLICY, THE PROCESS THAT APPLICANTS WOULD GO THROUGH WITHIN THE GSA TO OBTAIN THE WELL, CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION AND THE POLICY FOR BOTH NEW AND REPLACEMENT WELLS.
THIS BOARD DID CREATE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE AT A PRIOR MEETING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON A POLICY, AND WE DO HAVE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING IN JANUARY TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT POLICY LANGUAGE.
AND ONCE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE THAN THE POLICY WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD.
AND SO THAT'S THE STATUS RIGHT NOW OF THE, WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE AWARE OF THE BEHIND THE SCENES HAPPENINGS WITH THAT POLICY.
THE OTHER ITEM I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON IS THE SGMA IMPLEMENTATION GRANT. THIS IS THE CURRENT OPEN GRANT SOLICITATION.
THE THREE GSA'S IN THE MERCED BASIN HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ON IDENTIFYING AND GATHERING DATA ON THE PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT SGMA IMPLEMENTATION GRANT.
THE REVIEWERS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROJECTS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING ALL OF THE PROJECTS AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL DATA THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT SPONSORS THEY'RE REVIEWING, ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA THAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE GRANTS PROPOSAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE.
AND THEY'RE IN THE MIDST OF DOING THAT REVIEW RIGHT NOW.
BY THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING THIS BOARD WILL HAVE AN ITEM BEFORE THEM TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GRANT APPLICATION, WHICH IS A REQUIRED RESOLUTION FOR THE APPLICATION. AND ALSO AT THAT TIME, WE SHOULD HAVE THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED, SO WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT PROJECTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION AS WELL.
SO IT'S JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE GRANT, WHICH IS ALSO MOVING FORWARD IN A SMALLER GROUP SMALLER COMMITTEE.
ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU ALSO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE CALL WITH DWR ON MONDAY? YES. SO THE.
I'M SORRY, I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT ON MY LIST, THE THREE GSA'S REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THREE GSA'S DID HAVE A PHONE CALL WITH DWR ON MONDAY.
THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER THAT THE BASIN RECEIVED IN NOVEMBER.
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DWR INCLUDED CRAIG ALTAIR AND TIM GODWIN, WHO WERE BOTH INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE GSA'S TO HELP THE GSA'S PUT TOGETHER ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DATA OR CHANGES TO THE GSP IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES.
[00:55:02]
SO WE DID DISCUSS THE THREE DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE LISTED IN THAT LETTER.MOST OF THEM ARE RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND THEN ALSO SUBSIDENCE.
THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL DEFICIENCY, OF COURSE, DOES REACH OUT INTO SOME OTHER BROADER TOPICS, LIKE PROTECTING DOMESTIC WELLS.
I THINK WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH DWR.
DWR IS WILLING TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THE GSA'S AGAIN, SO THERE WILL BE A MEETING IN ANOTHER MONTH WITH THEM, AND THEY ARE ALSO WILLING TO REVIEW.
THEY DIDN'T SAY EXACTLY IN WHAT CAPACITY, WHETHER THEY'RE WILLING TO REVIEW, WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OR JUST TO VERBALLY REVIEW HOW THE GSA'S ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE GSP IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THOSE DEFICIENCIES.
BUT THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT.
THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS WAS VERY TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC.
AND SO I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF HESITANCY THERE FOR THEM TO REVIEW WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT MAYBE HAVEN'T BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE GSA'S.
THE REPRESENTATIVES WE HAD ON THE CALL.
HASSHAN MATAELE WITH MSGSA, KEN ELWIN WITH MSGSA REPRESENTING THE URBAN COMMUNITIES.
KEL MITCHELL WITH TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT AND SUPERVISOR PAREIRA AS THE CHAIR OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN- GSA AND THEN A STAFF I WAS ON AND MATT BEEMAN AS WELL.
JIM BLANKE, OF COURSE, WITH WOODARD & CURRAN, WHO FACILITATED OUR CONVERSATION.
AND YOU HAVE THAT CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOODARD & CURRAN AND THEY WILL BE HELPING PUT TOGETHER THE CHANGES IN THE GSP TO RESOLVE THE DEFICIENCIES.
OK, ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? OK, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, AS BOARD REPORTS.
[10. BOARD REPORTS]
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SHARE ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO THE GROUP? ALL RIGHT.I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, ON THAT CALL MONDAY, I WAS KIND OF PLEASANTLY SURPRISED BY DWRS RESPONSE. YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM WHAT I GATHER GENERALLY, THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU GIVE THEM INFORMATION, THEY PROCESS IT, GIVE IT BACK.
THEY WERE WILLING TO HAVE SOME DIALOGS TO HELP US GET THERE.
DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE WERE ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THE OFFICIAL LETTER UNTIL LATER IN THIS MONTH FROM THEM.
THE LETTER WE GOT IN NOVEMBER WAS KIND OF A PRECURSOR TO ALLOW US TO GET STARTED.
WHAT I FELT WAS GOOD NEWS WAS THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE ANY OTHER MAJOR ISSUES.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER COMMENTS, BUT NOTHING MAJOR.
AND THEN THEY THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO CATEGORIZE.
OUR THREE MAIN ISSUES IS CALLING IT AN INCOMPLETE RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER.
THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THEY CAN PUT THEM IN.
AND I THINK INCOMPLETE IS PROBABLY THE MOST FAVORABLE TO US.
THAT ALLOWS US TO GIVE THEM MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE THEM COMPLETE VERSUS SAYING IT'S WRONG OR, YOU KNOW.
ANYWAY, SO I FELT, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T INTERACTED WITH DWR VERY MUCH IN MY LIFE, BUT THE FEW TIMES THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY SEEM ADVERSARIAL AND ON THIS CALL, THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE, WHICH SURPRISED ME BECAUSE I KIND OF EXPECTED THEM TO BE.
AND THEY EVEN MADE THE COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE OVER.
YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL ISN'T TO TAKE OVER YOUR BASIN.
AND YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL IS TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE TO SOLVING YOUR ISSUES AND WHICH I KIND OF APPRECIATED AS WELL.
SO, ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 10TH.
[11. NEXT REGULAR MEETING]
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.