Feb 10, 2022 Special GSA Meeting

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS VICE CHAIR MARCHINI, I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER OF FEBRUARY 10TH.

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

PRESENT. VICE CHAIR MARCHINI.

PRESENT.

MEMBERS GALLO.

HERE.

SWENSON. HERE.

AND UPTON IS ABSENT, BUT WE UNDERSTAND HE MAY BE ON THE WAY.

YOU HAVE A QUORUM FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

AND THEN JUST TO BRIEFLY MAKE COMMENTS DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 CRISIS AND IS AUTHORIZED BY ASSEMBLY BILL THREE SIX ONE.

THIS MEETING IS BROADCAST VIA VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM, IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS PHYSICAL LOCATION HERE IN MERCED COUNTY.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND PRESENTERS MAY BE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE JOINING VIA ZOOM AND WISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT MAY DO SO BY USING THE RAISE HAND FEATURE, AND THEY WILL BE RECOGNIZED AND ASKED TO UNMUTE BEFORE THEY SPEAK.

THANK YOU! IS THERE AN ACTION ITEM HERE BEFORE WE GO TO CLOSE SESSION LACEY?

[2. STATE OF EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS]

SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

YOUR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE THE FINDING THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THE ABILITY TO MEET IN PERSON.

THE LAST TIME YOU MADE THIS WAS IN JANUARY.

IT'S GOOD FOR 30 DAYS, THE CURRENT MEETING AND THE NEXT 30 DAYS, SO YOU'LL NEED TO MAKE IT AGAIN. OK, IF WE DON'T, THEN LLOYD WILL HAVE TO DROP OFF.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH.

A MOTION ANYBODY? I MOVE THAT WE CONFIRM THAT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY PERMITTING TELECONFERENCING AND REMOTE ACCESSING THE MEETING BE EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS.

I SECOND.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION OF A SECOND.

DO WE A ROLL CALL VOTE OR JUST UNANIMOUS VOTE? UNANIMOUS VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. MOTION CARRIES. OK, WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN IN THE CLOSED SESSION UNTIL THE PUBLIC

[3. CLOSED SESSION]

OK, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

VICE CHAIR MARCHINI, CHAIRMAN PAREIRA IS ON ZOOM WITH US HERE TODAY JUST COULD NOT MAKE IT. AND SO THERE IS A SPECIAL RAISE HAND FEATURE FOR CHAIRMAN PAREIRA.

IF HE WANTS TO RAISE HIS HAND TO HIT ME IN THE HEAD, THAT'S FINE.

HE'S ALLOWED TO DO SO. BUT FOR NOW, THE MEETING IS BACK TO ORDER.

SO FOR ALL YOU ON ZOOM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE, PLEASE.

AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OUT ON ANY MATTER OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST

[5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]

SO IF ANYONE HERE OR ON ZOOM WOULD LIKE TO.

YES, COME ON UP.

[INAUDIBLE].

MY NAME IS DAVE [INAUDIBLE], FARMER IN STEVENSON.

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON YOUR HARD WORK AND DILIGENCE AND PERSEVERANCE DW IN THE STATES PUT YOU IN A POSITION TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

AND THAT'S BECOME SUSTAINABLE WITHOUT GIVING US ANY EXTRA STORAGE CAPACITY.

ONE COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CONTACT WE'RE IN WITH THE OTHER GSA'S. I KNOW THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM IN THE STATE, BUT I WONDER IF WE COULDN'T REACH OUT, GET SOME KIND OF FORUM GOING WHERE WE COMMUNICATE WITH MORE OF THE GSA'S.

FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION FROM THEM, GET INPUT AND AT THE SAME TIME, COLLABORATE AND TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN PUT A LITTLE PRESSURE ON STATE BUDGET TO IF IT'S IN EXCESS TO WHERE THEY SAY, DISTRIBUTE SOME A LITTLE MORE OUR WAY AND GET US MORE FLUID WITH FINANCES SO WE CAN HELP RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

IF THE STATE WOULD PUT MORE MONEY IN OUR DIRECTION DWR, WE COULD WORK TOWARDS A RESOLUTION WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE ANYWAY.

BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD GET TOGETHER SOME OF THE GSA'S AND PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND PUT A LITTLE PRESSURE AS A LARGE GROUP.

WE ARE A BIG GROUP. THEY INITIATED US TO BECOME A GROUP.

SO WHEN WE GET TOGETHER AND THROW A LITTLE BIT BACK AT THEM AND SAY, COME ON, FUND US A LITTLE MORE AND WE'LL DO WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO AND PUSH THEM TOWARDS MORE STORAGE IF YOU GO TO OTHER BIG CITIES.

I MEAN, THESE PEOPLE ARE PAYING EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF WATER IN THEIR METERS THROUGH THEIR HOUSES AND THE COSTS.

THE MAYOR IN MONTEREY SAID JUST TO PUT IN A DESAL PLANT WAS PROHIBITIVE.

THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT TAKES TO PRODUCE WATER, AND THE COST WOULD BE $6000 AN ACRE FOOT TO PRODUCE AN ACRE FOOT OF WATER WITH A DESAL PLANT.

SO MONTEREY IS IN A BIG PREDICAMENT THERE, AND I'M SURE THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER CITIES.

SO IF WE COULD GET TOGETHER AND PUT PRESSURE ON PEOPLE TO WORK IN OUR DIRECTION? APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

[00:05:03]

OK. AND I ALSO LIKE TO GO BACK ONE THING ON THE AGENDA.

I FORGOT TO MENTION A CLOSED SESSION AND NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AND STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION, SO IT ALMOST FORGOT ALSO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

MR. PEDRETTI WOULD YOU PLEASE SALUTE? 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.

ONE OF THE BEST [INAUDIBLE] WE GOT.

ALL RIGHT. OK, WE ARE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE

[6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ANY OPEN ENDS FOR DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMENTS, EDITS, LIKE THEM? DON'T? WHAT'S THE FLAVOR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST JANUARY BOARD MEETING.

OKAY.

SECOND THAT. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ROLL CALL, OR NO? NO.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

PASSES. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND PROJECTS GRANT RESOLUTION.

[7. SGMA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND PROJECTS GRANT RESOLUTION]

THE MERCED GSA'S ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT, SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND PROJECTS GRANT PROGRAM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROGRAM IN PRIOR MEETINGS BACK IN THE FALL UNDER ROUND ONE OF THIS GRANT PROGRAM CRITICALLY, OVERDRAFTS SUB BASINS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS IN COMPETITIVE GRANT FUNDING.

THE GSAS APPLYING HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THEIR PROJECTS ARE, EVALUATE THEIR PROJECTS ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA PROVIDED BY DWR, AND PUT TOGETHER A SPENDING PLAN, ALL WHICH HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BY FEBRUARY 28TH.

IN DECEMBER, THIS BOARD APPROVED WOODARD AND [INAUDIBLE] TO ASSIST WITH PUTTING TOGETHER THE PROJECTS, SPENDING PLAN AND APPLICATION.

REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN MEETING AND EVALUATING THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SINCE DECEMBER.

THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA EVALUATING THE PROJECTS WERE BOARD MEMBERS MARCHINI, SWENSON, AND UPTON.

THE PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FROM THE EVALUATION AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE ARE LISTED ON THESE SLIDES.

DWR IS REQUESTING $10 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS TO BE LISTED IN THE SPENDING PLAN.

THE GRANT IS ANTICIPATED TO ONLY BE 7.6 MILLION.

THAT EXTRA AMOUNT IS FOR AFTER THE BASIN SUBMIT THE SPENDING PLAN AND THE PROJECT'S DWR WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM IF THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT AREN'T ELIGIBLE, THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHERS STILL WAITING TO SPEND THE ENTIRE 7.6 MILLION.

WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SLIDES AND THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO SLIDES OF PROJECTS ON THE RIGHT IS THE CUMULATIVE GRANT REQUEST.

SO YOU CAN SEE AS THE PROJECTS ADD UP TO THAT $10 MILLION AND THIS THE PROJECTS LISTED HERE WERE PROPOSED BY DIFFERENT SUBMITTING AGENCIES.

THEY WERE EVALUATED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND UNDER DWR'S WRITTEN CRITERIA.

AND THEN THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE ALSO MET EARLIER THIS WEEK ON FEBRUARY 7TH AND WAS ABLE TO REPRIORITIZE SOME OF THE PROJECTS WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER THE GRANT.

BASED ON PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE THAT MAYBE WEREN'T WEIGHED IN THE DWR CRITERIA.

SO HERE ARE THE SECOND ROUND AND THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROJECT HITS, WHERE THE GRANT APPLICATION WOULD HIT THAT 7.6 NUMBER AND THEN WHERE IT WOULD HIT THE $10 MILLION NUMBER.

SO THE ACTION REQUESTED TODAY IS TO ADOPT THE REQUIRED RESOLUTION FROM THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA TO AUTHORIZE THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GSA, OR MSGSA TO SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ALL THREE GSA'S IN THE MERCED BASIN.

THE GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE MERCED SUB-BASIN 2022 GSP IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM, WHICH ENCOMPASSES ALL THESE PROJECTS LISTED HERE.

IN THE PAST, MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAS BEEN THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE SUB BASIN GSA'S AND THIS TIME MSGSA IS THE APPLICANT.

AND SO THAT IS THE ONE MINOR CHANGE THAT WAS MADE TO THAT RESOLUTION

[00:10:04]

KIM, ANYONE GOT ANY QUESTIONS? SO LACEY MSGSA HAD ASKED THAT $100,000 BE PULLED OUT OF THE PROJECT LIST FOR PROJECT ADMINISTRATION. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT CAME OUT OF? SO IF YOU SEE PROJECT RANKING NUMBER ZERO GRANT ADMINISTRATION, THAT'S WHERE THE $100,000 IS. SO, LACEY, THESE RANKINGS ARE HOW THEY WOULD BE TURNED, HOW WE WOULD FUND THEM, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MONEY WE GET, WE'D START WITH ONE TWO, THREE, FOUR WRITERS.

THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD TURN IN TO DWR IN THE SPENDING PLAN AND SO I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT'S UNDER THAT 7.6 MILLION WOULD WOULD PRETTY SAFELY BE FUNDED.

HOWEVER, ONCE WE TURN IN THE SPENDING PLAN, DWR HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSULT WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THE PROJECTS, AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME SHIFTING OF PROJECTS DEPENDING ON WHAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING, WHAT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING.

SO DWR DOES HAVE SOME INPUT.

AND LACEY, ARE THESE SET IN STONE? THE GRANT REQUEST, OR CAN THEY BE CHANGED OR IS THAT KIND OF.

THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE ALREADY MADE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE GRANTS FOR THE RANKING AND THE GRANT REQUEST NUMBERS? AND SO IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND MAKE THAT CHANGE. I BELIEVE TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT GSA HAS ALREADY TAKEN ACTION TO APPROVE THEIR RESOLUTION MOVING FORWARD WITH THE GRANT APPLICATION WITH WHAT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED.

ANY QUESTION FROM BOARD MEMBERS? [INAUDIBLE] OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC, EITHER VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON, HAVE A QUESTION? NONE VIRTUALLY. THANK YOU.

WELL, I KNOW WE ARE LOOKING FOR AN ACTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MERCED SUB-BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY TO JOINTLY ENTER TO JOINTLY FILE AND MERCED ID WILL STILL BE THE LEAD AGENCY.

MSGSA WILL BE THE LEAD.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, KIM.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE SGMA, A IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND PROJECT GRANT RESOLUTION LIST AS PRESENTED.

OK, GOT A MOTION? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

MOTION AND A SECOND.

I BELIEVE THIS REQUIRES A ROLL-CALL VOTE.

MR. SECRETARY.

SIR PAREIRA I VOTE AYE.

MR. MARCHINI.

AYE. MEMBERS GALLO.

AYE. PADRETTI. AYE. UPTON.

AYE. AND SWENSON. AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

MOTION PASSES. OK, MOVING ON TO THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, MS.

[8. LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT]

THANK YOU. BEFORE PASSING THIS OVER TO CHRIS HEPPNER FOR THIS ITEM, I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALSO DISCUSSED THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AT THEIR JANUARY 25TH MEETING.

AND SO IF THE BOARD IS OK WITH IT, WE'LL BRING THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 12 ON YOUR AGENDA UP RIGHT AFTER THE PRESENTATION FROM CHRIS HEPPNER, SO YOU CAN INCLUDE THEIR REPORT IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM.

OK. AND OF COURSE, BRAD SAMUELSON WILL GIVE THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT WHEN THAT COMES UP. SO NOW I'LL PASS THIS ON TO CHRIS HEPPNER.

AND FOR CHRIS, HE'S GOING TO SHARE HIS SLIDES SO I WILL EXIT OUT AND STOP SHARING.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN YET OR [INAUDIBLE] SHARED? HOLD ON A SECOND. CHRIS, CAN YOU STOP SHARING FOR A MINUTE? YEAH.

CAN YOU SHARE NOW?

[00:15:06]

OKAY, GREAT. SO AS LACEY MENTIONED, I'LL BE GIVING AN UPDATE ON THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

SO THIS DISCUSSION WILL GO THROUGH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. FIRST WE'LL JUST QUICKLY REVISIT THE REPURPOSING PROGRAM ROADMAP, WHICH IS PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD IN THE JANUARY MEETING, WILL REVIEW CURRENT STATUS ON THAT ALONG THAT ROADMAP.

THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS FROM THE LAND OWNER SURVEY THAT WAS PUBLICIZED IN LATE 2021.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS.

I'LL GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE HAD AT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING RECENTLY.

AND AS LACEY MENTIONED, THERE WILL BE A MEMBER FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BRAD SAMUELSON, WHO WILL BE SUMMARIZING THE DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED AT THAT MEETING AS WELL, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE LAND REPURPOSING TOPIC.

AND THEN WE'LL GET TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS BOARD HAD FROM THEIR JANUARY MEETING, WHICH WAS ABOUT THE TIMING OF LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES.

SO JUST BRIEFLY, THIS IS THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ROADMAP WHICH YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE.

WE HAVE COMMUNITY MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS ALONG THE TOP ROW FOR EACH MONTH FOR SIX MONTHS OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

NEXT, WE HAVE THE THE BOARD MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS SHOWN IN THE SECOND ROW AND BLACK BOARD ACTION ITEMS OR DECISION POINTS ARE SHOWN IN THE THIRD ROW AND READ THE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ARE SHOWN IN THE BOTTOM ROW.

SO IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY OR LATE JANUARY, EARLY FEBRUARY, THERE WERE TWO MEETINGS HELD AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, INCLUDING IN THAT TAC MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON JANUARY 25TH AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2ND.

AND THOSE MEETINGS, WE COVERED MOST OF THE TOPICS THAT WE HAD ON THE AGENDA FOR JANUARY, INCLUDING SURVEY RESULTS AND LAND REPURPOSING TERMINOLOGY TO BE USED, ELIGIBILITY AND THE QUESTION OF TARGETING HOT SPOTS.

WE WERE UNABLE TO DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET TO THE FUNDING OPTIONS ITEM, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING THAT TO OUR FEBRUARY DISCUSSION, WHICH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR, I BELIEVE, NEXT WEEK.

SO TODAY WE'RE HERE AT THE BOARD AND HERE IN FEBRUARY MEETING WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THE SURVEY RESULTS AND THE ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS.

THAT LAST ITEM, THE FUNDING OPTIONS, WE'RE GOING TO CIRCLE BACK ON THAT AT OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING AFTER WE'VE DISCUSSED IT AT THE AD HOC LEVEL.

SO MOVING ON TO THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY, THIS BOARD APPROVED PUBLICATION OF A SURVEY IN LATE 2021.

IT WAS OPEN AND MADE AVAILABLE FOR RESPONDENTS FOR ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BETWEEN NOVEMBER, MID-NOVEMBER AND THE END OF THE YEAR.

IT WAS MEANT TO BE FOR THOSE WHO ACTIVELY FARMLAND AND MSGSA AREA OR WHO OWN LAND IS ACTIVELY FARMED BY OTHERS.

THERE'S A TOTAL OF 18 QUESTIONS IN FIVE GROUPS OF QUESTIONS.

FIRST, RELATED TO SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESPONDENT, HOW MUCH LAND DO THEY FARM, WHAT TYPES OF THINGS DO THEY GROW, ET CETERA.

THEN QUESTIONS ABOUT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND SORT OF HOW THE WHAT THEIR OPINIONS WERE ON HOW THE PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK.

LAND REPURPOSING FUNDING AND INCENTIVES WITH THE NEXT GROUP OF QUESTIONS.

AND THEN SOME SORT OF FILLER QUESTIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION AND THEN SORT OF AN OPEN QUESTION FOR RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. THERE'S A TOTAL OF 21 RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEY, MOST 19 OF THEM WERE LANDOWNERS AND FARMERS.

THERE WAS ONE WHO WAS A TENANT FARMER AND ONE WHO WAS A LANDOWNER WHO DID NOT THEMSELVES FARM THE LAND.

THIS GRAPH HERE KIND OF SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIZE OF THE ACREAGE FARMED BY THE DIFFERENT RESPONDENTS.

SEE, ABOUT ALMOST HALF OF THEM WERE FARMING ZERO TO 1000 ACRES.

SOME, YOU KNOW, BELOW 100 ACRES, SEVERAL IN THE SORT OF SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRE RANGE.

[00:20:02]

SOME EVEN MORE THAN MORE THAN 6,000 ACRES.

THE AVERAGE WAS ABOUT 2,000.

16 OF THESE RESPONDENTS, 16 OUT OF 21 WERE FROM AREAS WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS.

THREE WERE FROM AREAS OUTSIDE OF DISTRICTS AND TWO DIDN'T SPECIFY.

AND NEARLY ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY HAVE BEEN IRRIGATING THEIR LAND FOR ALL OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

SO THEY'RE SORT OF CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT FARMING OF THAT LAND.

SO AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, WE GO INTO THIS SURVEY RESULTS IN QUITE SOME DETAIL FOR THIS DISCUSSION HERE. I'LL JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME KEY TAKEAWAYS.

MOST RESPONDENTS DID EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE LAND [INAUDIBLE] PROGRAM.

IN THEORY, ABOUT 50 PERCENT SAID THEY MIGHT PARTICIPATE, ABOUT 30 PERCENT SAID YES, AND ONLY ABOUT 20 PERCENT SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT.

SO THAT DOES INDICATE THAT THERE IS SOME SUPPORT FOR THIS IN THEORY.

BUT KEY TO THAT IS THAT PARTICIPATION WOULD DEPEND ON THE TYPES OF INCENTIVES THAT ARE OFFERED TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION.

THERE DID SEEM TO BE A STRONGER PREFERENCE FOR THE SHORTER TERM [INAUDIBLE] PROGRAM DURATIONS IN THE RANGE OF TWO TO FOUR YEARS.

RESPONDENTS MOSTLY WOULD REPURPOSE LANDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PLANTED WITH ANNUAL CROPS.

THE QUESTION WAS WOULD IT BE AN ANNUAL CROP, PERMANENT CROP? AND MOST RESPONDENTS SAID IT WOULD BE AN ANNUAL CROP THAT THEY WOULD REPURPOSE FROM.

MOST RESPONDENTS SUPPORTED THE NOTION OF COST SHARING AMONG ALL LANDOWNERS IN THE GSA AREA. THERE WAS SOME HESITATION OR LESS SUPPORT FROM SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT FARM SMALLER AREAS OF LAND.

BUT IN GENERAL THERE WAS THERE WAS A SUPPORT FOR COST SHARING AND THERE WAS ALSO SUPPORT FOR CO-BENEFITS TO ADDRESS LOCALIZED GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, PROBLEMS IN IMPROVING SOIL HEALTH. SO IT DOES SEEM THAT RESPONDENTS WERE INTERESTED IN SEEING, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY THE SORT OF WATER BUDGET BENEFITS FROM LAND REPURPOSING, BUT ALSO SORT OF REAL WORLD GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, BENEFITS AS WELL.

THE NEXT TOPIC HERE IS LAND REPURPOSE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS, AND HERE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, WHAT'S REALLY KEY IS TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM, BUT TO AVOID BOTH EXCESS ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND EXCESS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM CONTRACTS ON LANDS THAT YOU KNOW FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER WOULD BE LESS DESIRABLE OR INAPPROPRIATE.

SO WE TALKED ABOUT SOME DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES, BOTH OF THE SORT OF APPLICANT AND THE LAND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT MAY BECOME, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATIONS IN HOW THE PROGRAM IS ROLLED OUT. YOU CAN SEE THEM LISTED HERE.

SOME OF THE APPLICANT ATTRIBUTES, INCLUDING LAND OWNERSHIP, HOW TO HANDLE FARMING UNITS.

IS THERE ANY ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE FARMING OPERATION? IS THERE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM SIZE OR OTHER ATTRIBUTES LIKE THAT IN TERMS OF THE LAND? SOME CONSIDERATIONS MAY INCLUDE CROP TYPES, LOCATION OF THE LAND IN RESPECT TO TARGETING OF HOTSPOTS, ET CETERA.

MINIMUM CROP ACREAGE OR MAXIMUM CROP ACREAGE.

WHAT TYPE OF WATER THAT THE LAND CURRENTLY USES.

AND HISTORICAL CROPPING AND WATER USE? I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE IS A GENERAL SENTIMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION.

AND SO IN ORDER TO DO SO, THE ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS WILL NEED TO BE KIND OF LOOKED AT IN A FLEXIBLE WAY SO THAT WE CAN NOT REALLY TURN FOLKS AWAY THAT ARE WILLING TO REPURPOSE LAND, ESPECIALLY IN THESE EARLY DAYS AS WE TRY AND GET THE PROGRAM UP RUNNING.

SO THE IDEA FOR A FLEXIBLE SYSTEM TO RANK AND SCORE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVED WHEN THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE SOLICITED, THAT WILL BE ONE WAY TO HELP MEET THE MULTIPLE GOALS HERE. SO WITH THOSE TWO TOPICS KIND OF DISCUSSED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, I'M JUST GOING

[00:25:01]

IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT SOME OF THAT REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER USE MAY BE COMING FROM, YOU KNOW, IMPORTING OF NEW AVAILABLE SUPPLIES, BUT THAT PROBABLY A LARGE PORTION OF IT WOULD COME FROM BANKRUPTCY.

WITH THAT GOAL IN MIND, THE DISCUSSION REALLY FOCUSED ON HOW TO STRUCTURE THE PROGRAM AND THE INCENTIVES TO BRING PEOPLE FROM USING HIGH WATER USE LAND USES TO LOWER WATER LAND USES AND THAT COULD THAT COULD ENTAIL SWITCHING CROPS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO FALLOW OR UNUSED LAND TYPES, BUT SWITCHING FROM A HIGHER ONE TO A LOWER ONE.

OTHER CONCEPTS DISCUSSED INCLUDED ROTATIONAL FOLLOWING WHERE, YOU KNOW, A FARMER MOVES THE PORTION OF LAND THAT IS FOLLOWED SORT OF AROUND THEIR AREA TO LET THE LAND REST.

AND IF IT'S TO REJUVENATING THE SOIL, SWITCHING FROM DOUBLE CROP TO SINGLE CROP, YOU KNOW, THAT CERTAINLY IS ONE WAY TO REDUCE THE WATER USE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, SWITCHING FROM PERMANENT TO ANNUAL CROPS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND OTHER ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED AS WELL.

WITH RESPECT TO HOW THE CONTRACTS OR LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM CONTRACTS ARE ROLLED OUT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WHILE THERE IS A DESIRE MAYBE TO HAVE SOME LONGER DURATION ONES JUST BECAUSE YOU SORT OF SET IT UP AND THEN IT KIND OF PROVIDES THOSE LAND REPURPOSING BENEFITS FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

IT'S ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT SHORTER CONTRACTS MAY BE A WAY TO HELP BUILD UP PARTICIPATION AND THAT THOSE CONTRACTS COULD INCREASE IN DURATION OVER TIME AS THE PROGRAM MATURES OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES, ACTUALLY.

YOU KNOW, WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT THE ALL THESE ALL THESE TOPICS UNDER THE ROADMAP, THEY DO KIND OF BLEND TOGETHER.

AND SO IT WAS SORT OF NOT SURPRISING TO SEE THAT WE STARTED TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THE FUTURE ASPECTS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED FOR FUTURE MEETINGS, SUCH AS HOW WILL THE PROGRAM BE MONITORED? HOW WILL THE CONTRACTS BE ENFORCED AND HOW WILL THE PROGRAM ITSELF BE ADMINISTERED ON A SORT OF LOGISTICAL AND FUNDING LEVEL? AND AGAIN, THE PROGRAM COSTS IN FUNDING AND HOW WE GET TO THE NUMBER OF APPROPRIATE SORT OF REVENUE TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM.

THAT IS A CENTRAL ISSUE.

AND I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOPIC FOR DOMINATING MUCH OF OUR WORK IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. AND I KNOW IT'S ALSO PART OF THE TWO UP TO EIGHTEEN CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE ALSO GOING TO BE DISCUSSED LATER TODAY.

SO I GUESS THAT BRINGS ME TO THE LAST SLIDE HERE, WHICH IS TO REPORT BACK TO THIS BOARD RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WOULD LAND REPURPOSING COST BE KNOWN.

AGAIN, THIS IS TO INFORM THE PROP 218 ELECTION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN THE SUMMER, IN JUNE, JULY TIMEFRAME.

SO ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TRUE MARKET INFORMATION AT THIS TIME, AND THERE WERE DEFINITELY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT TRY AND GAIN THAT INFORMATION, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REALLY COMPILE ALL THAT INFORMATION IN TIME TO SUPPORT THIS TO 218 PROCESS.

SO THE COMMITTEE WILL BE DEVELOPING LAND REPURPOSING COST ESTIMATES BY MID-MARCH TO SORT OF MEET THE UP TO 218 STUDY DEADLINE TARGET.

TO DO THIS, THIS WILL REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, REQUIRED THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION, THE TYPES OF INCENTIVES, INCENTIVES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE LIKE THINGS THAT WE WERE DEFINITELY TALKING ABOUT IN OUR LAST MEETING AND WE'LL TALK IN DETAIL AT OUR NEXT MEETING. THERE WILL LIKELY BE SOME UNCERTAINTY IN THE COST ESTIMATES, AND WE EXPECT WE'LL BE ADDRESSING THIS OR REFLECTING THIS WITH A RANGE OF COSTS.

AND HOPEFULLY AS TIME GOES ON, THE UNCERTAINTY DIMINISHES AND WE HAVE A CLEAR SENSE OF THE TRUE COSTS. SO THAT IS THE END OF THIS ITEM, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.

[00:30:05]

A LOT TO GO THROUGH THERE. BUT RIGHT NOW I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM BRAD SAMUELSON? SURE. FIRST, SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START YOUR BOARD DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION BEFORE BRAD GOES? YOU WANT TO HEAR BRAD? ALL RIGHT, BRAD.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BRAD SAMUELSON, I'M ON THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

[12. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT]

THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE BOARD OR AMONG THE COMMITTEE, MAINLY FROM THE MAIN FARMER ON THE GROUP OR PROBABLY THE FARMER THAT FARMS THE MOST ACRES.

AND HE DIDN'T THINK THAT THE SURVEY WAS VERY HELPFUL, THAT IT WAS TOO CUMBERSOME FOR AND THAT IT WASN'T TARGETED TOWARDS ACTUAL LANDOWNERS.

IT WAS MORE OF LIKE THE GSA STAKEHOLDERS, AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL LANDOWNERS WHO A LOT OF TIME LIVE OUT OF TOWN.

HE SUGGESTED USING THE COUNTY TAX ROLL ADDRESS INFORMATION.

SO IT'S THE ACTUAL LANDOWNER WHO WOULD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S EVENTUALLY WHO'S GOING TO BE SIGNING UP FOR THE DEAL ANYWAY.

SO IN FUTURE COMMUNICATION WITH POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS TO GO FOR THAT TO GO AT THE COMMUNICATION IN THAT ROUTE? AND TARGET WITH SIMPLE QUESTIONS, HOW MUCH ACRES WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE WITH AT WHAT COST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE? THE OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE IS THE SCORING CRITERIA AND THE CONSENSUS FROM THE GROUP. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS LOTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, BUT THE TOP THREE SHOULD BE NUMBER ONE ACRE FOOT SAVINGS OF GROUNDWATER PER DOLLAR SPENT.

THERE SHOULD BE WE GOT TO BE SAVING THE MOST GROUNDWATER POSSIBLE WITH THE USE OF THIS MONEY, AND THEN WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE OUR EFFORTS TO HELP THE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY AREAS AND THE SUBSIDENCE AREAS.

SO THOSE NEED TO BE THE TOP THREE.

AND THEN THERE'S AREAS LIKE OR OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER, LIKE HABITAT, COMMODITY PRICE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO COMPLY WITH SIGMA AND IMPLEMENT THE GSP, THOSE ARE THOSE NEED TO BE OUR THREE MAIN CRITERIA.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, BRAD. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRAD? OR ANY GENERAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? YEAH, WHO DID THE SURVEYS GO OUT TO? DID IT GO OUT TO THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE ESSENTIALLY THE [INAUDIBLE].

THE SURVEY WENT TO WENT OUT TO ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND WE MADE THE REQUEST THAT THE MEMBER AGENCIES SENT IT TO THEIR GROWER LIST AS WELL.

AND I KNOW I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THEM DID, BUT I KNOW SOME OF THE MEMBER AGENCIES DID DID MAIL THAT OUT OR EMAIL THAT OUT TO THEIR LIST OF MEMBERS, GROWER MEMBERS AS WELL.

WE DID NOT PHYSICALLY MAIL THE SURVEY OUT.

WE DID IT ALL ELECTRONICALLY.

WELL, YOU HAVE ANY DIRECTION FOR WHATEVER ONE THOUGHT, I MEAN, IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS ROLLED INTO THE 218, SOME SORT OF GOOD IDEA.

WOULD IT BEHOOVE US TO TRY TO GET MAILERS OUT TO LANDOWNERS MAY ASK, THAT CAN BE POSSIBLE IN THE NEXT. HAVE THEM SENT OUT IN A MONTH AND TRY TO GET THEM BACK IN A MONTH? WE COULD DO A MAILING.

YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET A RESPONSE BY THE MID-MARCH DATE.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE YOU HEARD FROM, CHRIS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME ASSUMPTIONS MADE FOR THAT. BUT I THINK WE CAN GET SOME MORE INFORMATION FOR A LITTLE FURTHER OUT TO HELP MAYBE NARROW IN ON THE TARGET A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME RANGES IN MARCH. LACEY COULD WE COULD WE PUT UP ON ON A WEBSITE A SURVEY THAT'S ELECTRONIC THAT IF PEOPLE WENT TO THAT WEBSITE, THEY COULD ACTUALLY LOG IN AND FILL IT OUT?

[00:35:01]

WELL, I KNOW, BUT I MEAN, COULD WE CONTINUE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE? WE CAN CONTINUE THAT.

AND WHEN WE DO A MAILING, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO A PHYSICAL MAILING, WE CAN PUT A LINK TO WHERE THAT CAN GO, SO SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE TO SPEND 50 ODD CENTS TO MAIL IT BACK.

THEY COULD JUST GO TO A WEBSITE AND FILL IT OUT.

I THINK WE DO WANT TO BE.

I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME VALUE IN BEING CAREFUL THAT WE'RE HEARING BACK FROM MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA LANDOWNERS WHO ARE YOUR ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS RATHER THAN HEARING BACK FROM MAYBE SOMEBODY WHO WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THE BASIN OR DOESN'T GROW IN THE BASIN? WELL, NORMALLY YOU'D REQUEST THE APN NUMBER THAT THEY'RE BASICALLY COMMENTING ON.

BUT THE ONE OF MY EARLY ON QUESTIONS WAS, I THOUGHT THE SURVEY WAS KIND OF LONG.

I WONDER IF WE COULD JUST PRIORITIZE MAYBE THE TOP THREE THINGS WE WANT FROM THEM.

AND THEN IF PEOPLE JUST DID THOSE TOP THREE OR FIVE THINGS, THEY COULD SUBMIT IT AT THAT POINT INSTEAD OF FILLING THE REST OF IT OUT.

AND THEN WE'D GET THE PRIMARY DATA AT LEAST.

I MEAN, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME.

I THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY ESTIMATE WHAT WE THINK THIS PROGRAM IS GOING TO COST FOR THE 218 AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON GETTING REFINE IT MORE, TRY TO REACH OUT TO THOSE FEW LANDOWNERS WHO HAVEN'T OR [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT YET.

SO BUT I AGREE IT WAS LONG AND IT WAS, YEAH, IT WAS THOROUGH AND IT'S VERY BROAD, WHICH IS ALSO NICE TOO RIGHT. YOU CAN KIND OF EXTRAPOLATE SOME DATA FROM THAT AND WHATNOT.

SO. YEAH.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE THE COST OF A MAILER BE? I MEAN, THAT'S A FEW TWO TO FOUR THOUSAND BUCKS, RIGHT? JUST TO MAIL IT OUT OR ARE WE REALLY GOING TO GET MANY PEOPLE TO RETURN IT THAT HAVEN'T ALREADY FILLED IT OUT.

WHEN WE MAILED OUT THE INFORMATION FOR THE PROP 218? I BELIEVE OUR MAILING WAS ONE THOUSAND PIECES OF MAIL, SO IT WENT TO A ONE THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL OWNERS THAT DID NOT INCLUDE YOUR SMALL TWO ACRES OR LESS, WHICH SO I THINK WE COULD USE A SIMILAR MAILING LIST FOR THAT.

SO IT WOULDN'T COST QUITE $2000.

YOUR RESPONSE RATE IS YET TO BE SEEN ON WHO'S GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT.

ONE THING THAT I THINK WILL BENEFIT FROM IS HAVING A GOOD IDEA OF SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROGRAM.

SO WHEN PEOPLE GET THE SURVEY AND THEY SAY AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S ASKING AND THEY'RE THINKING THAT MAYBE THIS IS A WAY TO SIGN UP FOR A PROGRAM AND THEY CALL, WE'RE ABLE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER WHERE THE GSA IS GOING WITH THIS, RATHER THAN NOT HAVING A LOT OF ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS.

AND SO I THINK AS YOU AS A GSA BOARD AND AS A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, AS YOU START NARROWING IN ON WHAT THE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND WHAT YOUR TARGET AREAS ARE GOING TO BE, THAT'LL BE VERY HELPFUL WHEN YOU SEND OUT A SURVEY AND WE START GETTING CALLS ASKING, WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? OK. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM.

I'D LIKE TO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS POINT ON THIS, ON THIS LAND REPURPOSING ITEM.

NO RAISED HANDS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

SURE. COME ON DOWN. IF I COULD JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE MY POINT.

OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE SOMEONE WAS APPROACHING THE PODIUM.

WANT ME TO GO? OK, DAVE [INAUDIBLE] FROM STEVENSON AGAIN LAND REPURPOSING, PAYING MONEY TO DO NOTHING OR CHANGE YOUR CROPPING PATTERNS OR SOMETHING.

FARMERS ARE SO INDEPENDENT THEY SORT OF LIKE TO DO THEIR OWN THING, AND IT'S AMAZING THAT THEY'LL VOLUNTEER TO, YOU KNOW, GET A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING NEW SURPRISING, BUT PAYING PEOPLE NOT TO WORK.

HOW'S THAT WORKED FOR SO FAR? THE COUNTRY'S, YOU KNOW, SUBSIDIZED EVERYWHERE AND YOU GO TO THE RESTAURANT, YOU HAVE TO WAIT AN HOUR OR MORE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THE KITCHEN TO COOK AND NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE TO WAIT ON YOU.

YOU GOT TO EAT OUTSIDE OR, YOU KNOW, TAKE OUT ONLY JUST GIVING MONEY AWAY JUST ISN'T WORKING VERY WELL AS I SEE IT.

SO AS WATER IS RESTRICTED, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE FOLLOWING LAND OR REPURPOSING IT ON THEIR OWN. I'D RATHER SEE ALL OUR 218 MONEY GO TO ACQUIRING SURFACE WATER LOCALLY HERE TO SUPPLEMENT THE PROBLEM AND HELP EVERYBODY OUT.

THAT'S WILLING TO WORK AND NOT JUST SIT BACK AND WATCH YOU GO TO ANY BOARD MEETINGS, ANY

[00:40:01]

THERE'S NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF US OLD PEOPLE THERE.

YOU DON'T SEE YOUNG PEOPLE GETTING OUT AND WANTING TO GET IN.

YOU'RE SCARING THEM OFF.

AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO DETER YOUNG GENERATIONS FROM GETTING INVOLVED.

THANK YOU. THANKS, DAVE.

BRAD. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT I AGREE WITH LACEY THAT BEFORE WE REACH OUT TO LANDOWNERS AGAIN, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE DEFINITION AROUND A PROGRAM INSTEAD OF JUST SENDING THEM ANOTHER SURVEY WITHOUT ANY MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.

OK. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT, BRAD.

KIM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE ON? I THINK CHRIS HEPPNER HAD A.

OH YEAH. GO AHEAD, CHRIS.

YOU STILL HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.

YES, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE INTENTION BEHIND THE THIS FIRST SURVEY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REALLY TO UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF LAND REPURPOSING.

AND I REALIZED WE ONLY GOT, YOU KNOW, TWENTY ONE RESPONDENTS SO HARDLY A LARGE SAMPLE.

BUT I THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO LEARN SOME THINGS ABOUT WHAT THE PREFERENCES MIGHT BE. IT WASN'T NECESSARILY TARGETED TO BE A QUANTITATIVE EXERCISE AND, YOU KNOW, ASSESSING HOW MUCH ACREAGE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET WITH THIS PROGRAM OR WHAT THE ACTUAL MARKET PRICES ARE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S THAT'S CERTAINLY THE NEXT STEP.

AND I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THE IDEA OF SORT OF SENDING OUT A MORE FOCUSED AND TARGETED AND MORE QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE OR EVEN MIGHT EVEN BE SORT OF AN APPLICATION IS SOMETHING AND WITH A MUCH BROADER DISTRIBUTION, YOU KNOW, ALL THE LANDOWNERS IN THE BASIN OR IN THE GSA AREA, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE NEXT STEP TO SORT OF PUT PUT NUMBERS TO THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE PROCESS.

OK. YEAH.

THANK YOU, CHRIS. YOU'RE WITH THAT.

IT'S A GOOD SEGWAY INTO IF EVERYONE'S DONE WITH THIS ITEM, THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING

[9. PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING TIMELINE AND FEE STUDY]

GREG YOUNG WILL PRESENT THE TIMELINE IN LACEY MCBRIDE WILL PRESENT THE FEE STUDY.

DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING ON THIS? NO, GO AHEAD. SO AS THE BOARD WELL KNOWS AND REFLECTED IN THE TWO PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM THAT YOU PUT FORWARD LATE LAST YEAR.

PHASE ONE WAS GOING TO INCLUDE SEVERAL THINGS TO TRY AND ACHIEVE THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FOOT REDUCTION AND CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER BY THE END OF OUR YEAR 2025 AND THEN PHASE TWO REALLY WORKING TOWARDS HOPEFULLY HAVING AN ALLOCATION IN PLACE, POTENTIALLY THAT GETS IMPLEMENTED BY AROUND TWENTY TWENTY SIX OR LATER AND WORKING FORWARD ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, INCLUDING TRYING TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW SURFACE WATER.

SO DURING PHASE ONE, THE FOCUS NOTING THAT AND I THINK MAYBE A LITTLE CONTEXT IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT. AGAIN, HERE WE ARE IN THE GSP IT WAS ESTIMATED NORTH OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRE FEET OF REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTIVE USE FOR OUR GSA.

IT'S A PRETTY BIG NUMBER. IT'S PROBABLY NORTH OF THAT.

SIGNIFICANTLY, DEPENDING ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER GSA'S.

THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET OBVIOUSLY IS A SMALL STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.

SO THE PHASE ONE EFFORT WAS TO TRY AND FOCUS ON TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, GETTING SOME PROGRAMS IN PLACE, STARTING TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S WHAT'S REALLY OUT IN FRONT OF US. TRY AND BE ABLE TO HAVE DOLLARS AVAILABLE TO DO LAND REPURPOSING AND TO DO SOME OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN THAT FIRST PHASE.

AND IT IS THE FIRST STEP.

ONE OF THE OTHER KEY PARTS OF THAT TWO PHASE APPROACH WAS THAT 218 FUNDING PROCESS FOR PHASE ONE, WITH CLAUSES THAT WOULD SAY IT WOULD SUNSET AND BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING ELSE IN PHASE TWO.

SO GOING BACK TO THE LAND, REPURPOSING FOR JUST A MOMENT, THOSE KIND OF PROGRAMS WOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE AND OR EXPAND INTO PHASE TWO INTO INTO THE FUTURE AS WE TRY AND WORK

[00:45:01]

SO IN THE INTERIM, THIS IDEA OF A PROP 218 FOR PHASE ONE ACTIONS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NOW, AND THERE'S A TIMELINE AND A GRAPHIC THAT WE HAVE GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THAT SLIDE.

THERE'S DETAILS UNDERNEATH THIS GRAPHIC.

THIS IS JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE A QUICK OVERVIEW ON A TIMELINE OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE NEED TO TRY AND DO IN ORDER TO START GENERATING AND HAVING FUNDS IN HAND TO IMPLEMENT THINGS LIKE THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.

AND SO AGAIN, CREATING A LITTLE INTERSECTION BETWEEN CHRIS'S DISCUSSION IN THAT LAST SESSION AND THIS IS THAT WE DO HAVE SOME TIME TO LOOK TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS WITH LANDOWNERS AND GET INFORMATION AND SURVEYS ALMOST LIKE QUASI APPLICATION WISE, BECAUSE WE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE MONEY TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS UNTIL EARLY 2023.

SO AS YOU NOTICE IN THIS TIMELINE, YOU SEE THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE A LITTLE TARGET THERE.

THAT'S WHEN WE EXPECT TO START SEEING FUNDS COMING IN FROM THE ASSESSED FROM THOSE PARTIES IN THE GSA THAT ULTIMATELY ARE ASSESSED THIS PROP 218 FEE.

THAT FEE WOULD SHOW UP ON A BILL SENT IN MID-AUGUST TIME FRAME THAT WOULD COME OUT IN THE TAX BILL SENT TO THE AGAIN THE PARTIES THAT ARE SELECTED TO BE RECEIVING THAT ADDITIONAL THAT ADDITIONAL FEE WITHIN THE GSA.

SO THERE'S THAT TIME LAG YOU'LL START.

PEOPLE START PAYING THEIR TAX BILLS, WHICH WILL INCLUDE A LINE ITEM FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA, AND THOSE MONIES WILL START BECOMING AVAILABLE FROM THE COUNTY TO THE GSA IN EARLY 2023.

SO THAT BIG TIME GAP AT THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS REALLY ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AND THEN STARTING TO RECEIVE DOLLARS.

SO IF WE NEED TO GET INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MID-AUGUST, WE HAVE TO START MOVING BACK FROM THERE AND SEEING WHAT'S ON OUR TIMELINE AND OUR AND WHAT STEPS WE HAVE TO TAKE BY WHEN AND IN AROUND THE MIDDLE OF JULY TIMEFRAME WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT EITHER AT THE AT THE BOARD MEETING ON JULY 15TH OR A SPECIAL MEETING.

THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND PROTEST VOTE ACTUALLY HELD ON A PROP 218.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROCEDURES UNDER PROPOSITION 218 TO IMPLEMENT A FEE.

SO THAT POINT YOU SEE THERE WITH THE GREEN CHECKBOX AND ANY OF THE RED SQUARE WITH A B IS A SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING, THAT THE PROPOSITION 218 FEE WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ACT OR AN ACTION, AND SO THE CHECK MARK IS WHEN THERE'S AN ACTION GOING ON, SO THAT WOULD BE THE PROTEST VOTE.

SO THEN IF WE CONTINUE TO BACK UP FROM THERE, WE NEED SOME TIME IN THE JUNE TIME FRAME, EARLY JUNE THAT WE WOULD BE MAILING BALLOT MATERIALS OUT TO THE AFFECTED PARTIES.

SO THAT'S THAT INFORMATION THAT ICON YOU SEE THERE IN THE JUNE EARLY JUNE TIME FRAME.

SO IN ORDER TO MAIL OUT INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT PROTEST VOTE, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE INFORMATION TO MAIL OUT.

SO WE'VE GOT TO MAKE DECISIONS EARLIER THAN THAT.

SO NOW WE'RE BACKING UP INTO A AN ADOPTION OF A FEE STUDY AND SETTING THE FEES BY THIS BOARD LIKELY AROUND THE MAY 11TH SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING.

SO THAT'S THAT OTHER GREEN CHECKMARK THAT'S AROUND MAY 2020 IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT BOARD MEETING THAT SCHEDULED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

SO THAT WOULD BE A DECISION POINT WHERE YOU WOULD DECIDE HERE IS WHAT THE FEE IS GOING TO BE AND IT'S GOING TO APPLY TO THESE PARTIES.

THEN THAT WOULD ROLL INTO INFORMATION THAT IS SHIPPED OUT THAT THE RESULTS IN THE PROTEST VOTE RULE HAPPENING IN JULY, WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW US TO GIVE INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE IN AUGUST FOR BILLS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO COMING BACK TO IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT DECISION IN MAY, WE ARE LOOKING AT NEEDING TO HAVE CONTINUED INFORMATION PRESENTED OUT TO THE PUBLIC.

AND WE WERE SHOOTING FOR A PUBLIC WORKSHOP PRIOR TO YOUR MAY BOARD MEETING, SO SOMETIME IN LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY.

THAT SAID, OTHER THAT ICON SHOWING THERE IN LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING PUBLIC WORKSHOP WITH ALL THE POTENTIAL IMPACTED PARTIES THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED THE FEE. SO WE COULD DISCUSS ALL THE BIG PICTURE, ALL THE GSA IMPLEMENTATIONS, ALL THESE ELEMENTS.

WE COULD EVEN TALK MORE ABOUT THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THAT FEE THAT WOULD BE HAPPENING IN THAT TIME FRAME SO LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY.

SO AGAIN, COMING BACKING UP FROM THEIR BOARD MEETING IN APRIL, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS SO THAT WE WOULD INFORM THAT BOARD OR THAT PUBLIC WORKSHOP IN LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISIONS AND INFORMATION HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED PRIOR TO YOUR YOUR APRIL MEETING.

[00:50:02]

YOU HAVE TO DO A REPORT IN ORDER TO KIND OF DOCUMENT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO WHAT THE FEES ARE AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SPREAD THOSE FEES.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO ADOPT AS A BOARD AND YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO ADOPT THAT WHERE IT'S CALLED IN THE LAST PROP 218 PROCESS, YOU GUYS DID FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

IN 2019, IT WAS LABELED AS A FEE STUDY.

THAT'S JUST A TERM OF ART.

FOR WHAT IT IS, IT'S A REPRESENTATION OF HERE'S HOW MUCH WE NEED TO RAISE.

HERE'S WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT.

HERE'S WHAT THE ANNUAL FEE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE, AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY USED TO INFORM THE BALLOT DISCUSSION.

SO THERE WOULD BE A FEE STUDY THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR.

THAT FEE STUDY OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE INFORMED BY THINGS LIKE THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED, TOTAL BUDGET AND WHICH TIES TO WHAT THE INCENTIVES MIGHT BE PAID OUT TO LANDOWNERS TO TRY AND TAKE SOME TO TRY AND REPURPOSE SOME OF THEIR LANDS AND REDUCE GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS AS INDICATED BY BRAD, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY AREAS.

SO THAT BRINGS US BACK INTO LATE MARCH EARLY MARCH.

YOU HAVE A BOARD MEETING AGAIN ON THE 10TH OF MARCH SCHEDULED RIGHT NOW.

THAT IS THE NEXT BOARD MEETING FROM THIS ONE.

THAT IS A MONTH FROM RIGHT NOW.

THERE SHOULD BE INFORMATION BROUGHT TO YOU BY AN AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE SET UP THAT HAD ITS FIRST MEETING YESTERDAY.

AND THERE ARE THE M'S ARE REPRESENTATIVE, THE AD HOC MEETINGS.

AND SO THE INTENT IS TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER WEEK TO TALK THROUGH ELEMENTS OF WHAT GOES INTO THE FEE.

IT WILL BE INFORMED FROM THE LAND REPURPOSING AD HOC COMMITTEE AND YOUR BOARD AS TO THAT ELEMENT AND BE INFORMED BY OTHER DISCUSSIONS FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE FEE ELEMENTS.

SO COMING ALL THE WAY BACK TO TODAY ON THE THE TENTHS OF THE FIRST B, YOU SEE THERE IS TODAY'S BOARD MEETING AND THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TALK ABOUT THIS TIMELINE, TO TALK ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTES AND THE BASIS, WHETHER IT'S A PER ACRE CHARGE OR PER ACRE FOOT CHARGE.

AND I THINK THIS BOARD IS DISCUSSED THE PER ACRE.

WE'LL HAVE MORE REPRESENTATION FROM THE AD HOC ON THAT IN A MINUTE RIGHT.

NO. OK, AD HOC BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.

THE BOARD HAS TALKED ABOUT IT THAT MOST LIKELY THIS FIRST PHASE ONE FEE AGAIN, THAT LOOKS TO SUNSET AND AROUND THE 2025 END OF CALENDAR YEAR.

2025 OR FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026, I GUESS, IS REALLY THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY IT FROM ASSESSOR STANDPOINT THAT THAT FIRST ASSESSMENT WOULD LIKELY BE ON A PER ACRE BASIS AND TARGETED TO CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS AND THE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE BEING LOOKED AT WOULD BE THE LAND REPURPOSING SOME INFORMATION WITH WATER BUDGETS, ET CETERA, AS THAT WOULD HELP INFORM CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ALLOCATIONS SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MIGHT START TO AFFECT THEM AND WHAT HOW WE DESIGN AN ALLOCATION APPROACH AND SOME OTHER PROJECTS AND OR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY THE TIMELINE.

SO THERE'S A LOT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN PRETTY QUICK.

AND THEN THERE'S SOME DECISION POINTS, ALL OF THAT LINED UP TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A PROTEST VOTE IN FIRST PART OF JULY.

SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TIMELINE OR ANY POINTS YOU GUYS WANT TO DISCUSS? SO WE GOT OUR WORK CUT OUT FOR US.

ANY QUESTIONS? OK, GOOD, LACEY, YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE STUDY.

THANK YOU, GREG, AND I WILL NOTE THAT THIS GRAPHIC AND THE DETAILS UNDERNEATH IT ARE THEY WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND THERE'S ALSO A STACK ON THE TABLE OUT FRONT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND WE'LL POST IT ONLINE AND MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL. SO AND IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS PROCESS MOVING ON THE ACCELERATED TIMELINE THAT GREG YOUNG JUST DISCUSSED, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER CONTRACTING WITH ZANJORO, WHICH IS A FORMERLY TULLY AND YOUNG FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS REQUIRED FEE STUDY.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING WOULD NOT REQUIRE A FORMAL ENGINEER'S REPORT, BUT DOES REQUIRE A FEE STUDY OR A REPORT TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF PROPOSITION 218.

THIS IS VERY SIMILAR, AS GREG MENTIONED TO THE FEE STUDY THAT THE GSA DEVELOPED IN THE 2019 SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE.

AS A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE GSA DOES HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PURCHASING POLICIES OF THE MEMBER AGENCIES.

AND WHILE THE COUNTY OF MERCED PURCHASING POLICIES DO REQUIRE COMPETITIVE BUILDING BIDDING FOR CONTRACTS OVER TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, THERE IS AN OPTION FOR THE BOARD

[00:55:04]

AND THAT IS THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THIS BOARD USE FOR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONTRACTING A FEE STUDY.

THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FROM ZANJARO WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORT TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING AND DETERMINING THE PROPERTY RELATED FEE METHODOLOGIES AND AMOUNTS, IN ADDITION TO PREPARING THE REPORT TO DOCUMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE 218 REQUIREMENT.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS TO NOT EXCEED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND THIS DOES INCLUDE OUTREACH IN THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP.

SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP THAT MR. YOUNG MENTIONED.

TO DATE, MR. YOUNG HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN WORKING WITH THE GSA THROUGH A CONTRACT WITH MERCED COUNTY ON THE TWO PHASED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH, WHICH IS WHICH THIS 218 PROCEEDING IS FUNDING AND UNDER PHASE ONE.

AND HE'S ALSO WORKED WITH DISCUSSIONS ON THIS 218 PROCESS IN ADVANCE OF TODAY'S MEETING AND PUTTING TOGETHER THE TIMELINE.

HE HAS EXPERIENCE IN PUTTING TOGETHER THESE REPORTS TO MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, AND HE HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE MERCED BASIN.

AND SO THE ACTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY IS TO APPROVE AN EXCEPTION TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH ZANJARO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSITION 218 FEE STUDY AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC? DOES ZANJARO HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE DOING UP 218 FEE STUDIES? [INAUDIBLE] WANTS TO GET UP AND ANSWER THIS, SORRY.

I THINK GREG SHOULD PROBABLY ANSWER THIS, BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES.

THEY DO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN WORKING WITH 218 PROCESSES, BUT ALSO PUTTING TOGETHER REPORTS THAT MEET THESE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO WHAT'S REQUIRED HERE.

GREG, DO YOU WANT TO? I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU MORE.

HMM. WELL, GREG, MAYBE YOU COULD JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, I THINK, YOUR SANTA CLARA EXPERIENCE, WHICH WAS THE ITEM, I THINK THREE A ON YOUR EXPERIENCE LIST YOU SAID.

THAT WAS THE FIRST REFERENCE THAT SEEMED TO BE THE MOST APPLICABLE, I THOUGHT AND GOOD.

YEAH. SO THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON.

I'VE BEEN IN THE WATER RESOURCE CONSULTING BUSINESS FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

MY COMPANY TELLING YOUNG THAT WE NOW FORMED WITH ANOTHER TWO PARTNERS INTO ZANJARO AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.

WE HAVE BEEN IN PARTNERSHIP FOR OVER 17 YEARS, DOING A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE STRATEGIC WATER PLANNING AROUND THE STATE AND ACTUALLY ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERN U.S., INCLUDING THINGS LIKE THOSE KIND OF STUDIES WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT IN SANTA CLARA'S CASE, WE'RE UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYZING WHO ACTUALLY CAN BE CHARGED, WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES OF THE THE WATER AGENCY COULD IMPOSE THE 218 FEE.

I HAD TO DEAL WITH CHALLENGES ABOUT WHETHER THE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THAT AREA.

AND THERE WERE SOME LEGAL BATTLES AND THEY BROUGHT US IN TO BOTH LOOK AT THE APPLICABILITY OF WHO GETS TO PAY FEES, WHO CAN PAY FEES AND IS THE DISTRIBUTION APPROPRIATE. ELSEWHERE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH MASTER PLANS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLANS FOR LARGE WATER PURVEYORS WHERE THOSE DEAL WITH A LOT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. WE ARE LOOKING AT AT FEES, AT ASSESSMENTS THAT FUNDING STREAMS AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT ARE THE THE CAPITAL NEEDS OVER 5-YEAR, 10-YEAR, 15, 20-YEAR PERIODS AND LOOKING AT HOW THOSE NEED TO BE REPORTED OUT SO THAT BOARDS CAN MAKE DECISIONS.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY THIS KIND OF DOCUMENTATION IS STRUCTURING THE INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE BOARD CAN UNDERSTAND THE PLANNED BUDGETARY NEEDS AS IT'S BEING FED FROM THE OTHER AD HOC AND OTHER DECISIONS LIKE LAND REPURPOSING, SAYS WE'RE WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED THIS MUCH MONEY.

THEN IT'S BRINGING THAT IN AND SAYING, ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF THAT'S SPREAD ACROSS THESE PEOPLE AND WE NEED IT FOR THIS MANY YEARS, HERE'S THE MATH AND LAYING THAT KIND OF INFORMATION OUT AND ASSURING THAT WE HAVE THE STUDY YOU CAN POINT TO AS YOUR BASIS FOR WHY IT IS X DOLLARS PER ACRE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT FULLY ANSWERS HAVE WE HAVE I DONE SOMETHING THAT SAYS THIS IS A 218 STUDY. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THEM THAT HAVE HAPPENED, AND WE HAVE NOT AUTHORED A 218 STUDY. WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK, VERY SIMILAR, VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE SAME THING THAT IS IN THIS STUDY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE PRIOR ONE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD.

[01:00:01]

SAME SORT OF SITUATION WITH LOOKING AT FUNDING.

THE FUNDING NEEDS AND THEN THE APPLICABLE PARTIES THAT WILL BE PAYING AND PRESENTING THAT INFORMATION. AND I WAS ACTUALLY WE WERE BROUGHT IN TO HELP TWO OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH DISCUSSIONS FOR THAT 218 PROCEEDING.

THANK YOU, GREG. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, EITHER VIRTUAL OR IN THE ROOM ABOUT THIS? COME ON DOWN, DAVE.

THANK YOU. WELCOME.

LIKE YOUR [INAUDIBLE]? EXCUSE ME.

LACEY DID YOU SAY THAT THE LAST [INAUDIBLE] 218 WAS ONLY A THOUSAND MAIL OUTS? WAS THAT OUR LAST 218 PROB? TODAY YOU MENTIONED A THOUSAND.

THE NOTIFICATION, IT WAS A THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS.

YEAH, NOT.

IT WAS BY LAND. IT WAS BY LANDOWNER.

SO OUR PREVIOUS PROP 218.

MANY, MANY PARCELS, THEY ONLY GOT ONE NOTICE.

IN OUR WATER DISTRICT, I HAD NUMEROUS PEOPLE, NEVER GOT A MAILER AND THEY ALL IRRIGATED AND FARMED.

FOR THE LAST PROP 218.

YEAH, IT WAS AT OUR BOARD MEETING [INAUDIBLE] BOARD MEMBERS DIDN'T EVEN GET IT.

SO MY QUESTION IS NEED TO EXPAND YOUR MAILING LIST IF IT'S GOING TO BE PARCELS BY PARCELS OR WHATEVER. MAKE SURE ALL THE PARCELS AND AS I UNDERSTAND, IT'S GOING TO BE ONLY IRRIGATED PARCELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THE 218.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE [INAUDIBLE], YES.

I'M DEFINITELY AGAINST THAT BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOT SOME SKIN IN THE GAME AND THE MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME, THE MORE RESPONSE WE'LL HAVE.

AND HOW ABOUT FUTURE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO DEVELOP OR WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING WITH THEIR LAND LATER ON? THAT ISN'T DOING IT CURRENTLY.

AS YOU TRY AND FIND THESE IRRIGATED PARCELS, HOW DO YOU ALLOW FOR THEM AND HOW DO THEY, THEY GET TO STAY OUT? OR DO YOU FIND THEM LATER ON OR BRING SOME MONEY IN LATER ON? SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SAME PEOPLE BURDEN THIS WITH THE SAME THING.

EVERY TIME YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING NINE DOLLARS AN ACRE, WE'RE PAYING FOR THE EAST SIDE WATER COALITION. WE'RE PAYING TWO DOLLARS FOR THIS BOARD NOW.

I PAY NINE DOLLARS FROM HER [INAUDIBLE] SIX DOLLARS FOR THE EAST SIDE WATER COALITION.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER 218 AND THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A ONE IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW. TAX, TAX, TAX.

LET'S JUST GET EVERYBODY'S MONEY AND PUSH US OUT OF WORK.

PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN LATER ON NEED TO PARTICIPATE.

SO IF THEY HAVE A REASONABLE SIZED PROPERTY, I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM GETTING WATER, YOU'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM DRILLING WELLS IN THE FUTURE.

THEY HAVE NO WATER RIGHTS.

GSAS GOALS NOT TO PRECLUDE PEOPLE'S WATER RIGHTS, IT'S JUST TO CONTROL SO IT CAN GET INTO BALANCE.

THAT'D BE ABOUT IT FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE? HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? NOBODY'S HANDS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. OK.

I AM LOOKING FOR AN ACTION.

YES, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

DIRECTOR SWENSON. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE 218 RATE STUDY THAT ZANJARO BE AWARDED A NONCOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN FOR THAT AGREEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

I'LL SAY THAT. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A ROLL-CALL VOTE ON THIS.

IS IT NECESSARY? YES, YES. ROLL-CALL VOTE.

MR. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MEMBERS GALLO. AYE.

MAJORITY. AYE.

SWENSON. AYE. VICE CHAIR MARCHINI.

AYE. AND CHAIR PAREIRA.

AYE. A MOTION PASSES.

OKAY, THANK YOU. OK, MOVING ON TO, WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, POLICY,

[10. WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY]

I'LL START. THANKS, LACEY.

THANK YOU. THE COUNTY OF MERCED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS BEEN CONSIDERING AMENDING THE GROUNDWATER MINING AND EXPORT ORDINANCE FOR THE PAST YEAR.

THE CHANGES TO THE GROUNDWATER ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES IN THE COUNTY TO EVALUATE WELL, PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON WHETHER THE PROPOSED WELL AND ITS USAGE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE SECOND READING OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED ORDINANCE ON FEBRUARY 8TH 2022 AND ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE WITHIN ENACTMENT DATE OF MAY 1ST 2022.

[01:05:05]

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, CONSISTING OF BOARD MEMBERS PEDRETTI, UPTON, AND SWENSON AND WORKING IN COORDINATION WITH STAFF LEGAL COUNSEL AND CONSULTANTS, ARE DEVELOPING A DRAFT POLICY. AND AT THIS TIME, MR. YOUNG WITH ZANJARO WILL GIVE A A BIG PICTURE OVERVIEW FOR THE BOARD AND PUBLIC'S INFORMATION TODAY.

THE OTHER SLIDE.

SO PROBABLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.

FIRST, THIS IS REALLY THE GSA'S FIRST EFFORT INTO WRITING A POLICY THAT ULTIMATELY GET ADOPTED, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE TO THINK ABOUT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE DETAILS SO THAT WHEN THE AN APPLICANT GOING TO THE COUNTY FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A WELL AND NEEDS TO COME TO US FOR A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, WE HAVE THE THE PROCEDURES AND THE RULES AND THE CRITERIA WELL DOCUMENTED AND CLEAR.

SO THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK TO TRY AND WRITE THOSE THAT POLICY LANGUAGE.

GENERALLY, THE ELEMENTS OF THAT POLICY WILL INCLUDE THE PURPOSE WHICH RELATES TO DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE GSP FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING THAT CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION TO AN APPLICANT WHO IS GOING TO BE COMING IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY FOR A, WELL, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DETERMINATION AND THEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPLICANT.

WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE TO US, WHICH WILL BE GOING BEYOND THE COUNTY'S CURRENT FORM, WILL BE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE COUNTY REQUIRES.

AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CRITERIA TALKING ABOUT CONSISTENCY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE IT FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND REPEATABLE TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES DOMESTIC WELLS, WHICH ARE REALLY LOOKING AT TWO ACRE FEET OR LESS PER YEAR FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES.

AG WELLS THAT ARE EITHER A REPLACEMENT OR A BACKUP.

AND THEN NONAGRICULTURAL REPLACEMENT WELLS.

SO THAT MIGHT BE A COMMERCIAL WELL OR A WELL BEING USED FOR ANY OTHER NONAGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. AND THEN PUBLIC WATER AGENCY WELLS TO ADDRESS THOSE, AS THOSE MAY BE UNIQUE TO SOME OF THE OTHER WELL SITUATIONS, THEN ALSO A CRITERIA AS IT ASSOCIATES WITH WELLS DRILLED WITHIN THE CORCORAN CLAY AND THAT IT REALLY IS LOOKING AT TRYING TO BE A LITTLE PROACTIVE HERE, ANTICIPATING THAT THIS BOARD MAY DISCUSS CONSTRAINTS PLACED ON THE PUMPING ABOVE OR BELOW THE CORCORAN CLAY AS IT RELATES TO SUBSIDENCE OBJECTIVES IN THE GSP. SO JUST TRYING TO THINK OUT IN FRONT OF THAT TO SEE IF THERE SHOULD BE CRITERIA THAT ASSOCIATES WITH WELLS DRILLED IN THOSE LOCATIONS, HOW TO ADDRESS NON CONSISTENT WELLS WITH A POTENTIAL SEQUEL OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR THIS GSA AS A LEAD AGENCY? AND THEN SOME RULES AND ENFORCEMENT WITH REGISTRATION MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING REQUIRED FOR THE WELL OWNER AND PENALTIES AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER SIGMA THAT THIS GSA WILL HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE.

SO THOSE CRITERIA ARE WHAT WILL BE DETAILED IN THE POLICY THAT THE BOARD WILL BE SEEING FURTHER.

ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU BELIEVE WE CAN FORESEE ANY CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THIS GSA'S POLICY AND MSGSA OR TURNER ISLANDS? DO YOU FORESEE ANY SORT OF COLLABORATION MEETINGS? SO WE HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY, DO YOU THINK? JUST A THOUGHT. I THINK BOARD MEMBERS HERE HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN SHARING WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICY READY FOR DISTRIBUTION AND SHARING THE POLICY THAT AS A BOARD YOU ARE CONSIDERING WITH THE OTHER GSA'S IN THE BASIN, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY OUTREACH THAT THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA CAN DO IN THE END AS THREE SEPARATE ENTITIES.

EACH OF THE GSA'S IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN POLICY THAT FITS BEST WITH THEIR OWN JURISDICTION. AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA AND, SAY, THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GSA.

[01:10:05]

SO THAT'S LIKELY SOMETHING THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE DESIRABLE.

GOOD TO HEAR. HMM.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS TO GREG. THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC. COME ON UP.

GREG, I THINK ON SIX A AND B REGISTRATION AND MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING, DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT BEING RETROACTIVE, WE WOULD ASK FARMERS TO COME IN AND REGISTER THE WELLS THEY'RE USING NOW OR JUST THE WELLS GOING FORWARD? OR MAYBE THAT'S FOR THEM.

YES, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IT'S ULTIMATELY TO THE BOARD.

THE THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE AD HOC AROUND SOME OF THIS WOULD BE WHEN SOMEBODY IS COMING FORWARD SAYING, I AM LOOKING FOR REPLACING OR PUTTING IN A BACKUP WELL, OR AS THESE CRITERIA ARE SET UP.

SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF A GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS THAT REGISTRATION.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE DOWN THE ROAD AS THIS GSA CONTEMPLATES AN ALLOCATION APPROACH THAT UNDER THAT THERE WILL BE SIMILAR REGISTRATION AND REPORTING THAT MAY BE RETROACTIVE LOOKING AT OTHER EXISTING WELLS THAT HAVEN'T COME FORWARD.

BUT OTHERWISE, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BE PETITIONING THE COUNTY FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND THEY NEED TO GET CONSISTENCY FROM US.

SO IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE APPLICANTS THAT HELP, KIND OF.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY A WELL INVENTORY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

YOU WOULD. RIGHT.

SO THE POINT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE THE REST OF THE AUDIENCE THAT CAN'T HEAR BRAD, NO, YOU'RE FINE. I'LL JUST COVER IT. THIS SUGGESTION IS THE WELL, REGISTRY IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS GSA, RIGHT? YES. AND WHETHER IT'S PART OF THIS POLICY, HOW WE DEAL WITH RETROFIT OR EXISTING WELLS, THAT IS A DISCUSSION THIS BOARD WILL CONTINUE TO CONTEMPLATE AND WORK ON POLICIES.

I DO KNOW THAT AT LEAST IN THE COME ON OVER AND WE NEED TO MICS UP THERE.

AND I KNOW THAT IN THE CURRENT COUNTY POLICY, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A WELL, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHERE ALL YOUR WELLS ARE.

SO AT THAT TIME, YOU COULD GET YOU COULD GATHER THAT INFORMATION AND START INVENTORY IN IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.

BOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? VERY NICE.

BOB KELLY STEVENSON, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

SO THE WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED APPROVED BY THIS BOARD DEVELOPED BY STAFF. ARE WE ALSO GOING TO BE HAVING GREG YOUNG'S BUSINESS YOU KNOW, BRING US ? I MISSED THAT PART.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE CONSISTENCY ELEMENTS? THERE'S AN AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT THE BOARD CREATED IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER.

OK. BEFORE WHO HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE POLICY WITH SUPPORT FROM STAFF, LEGAL COUNSEL, AND CONSULTANTS. OK, WILL THE CONSISTENCY ELEMENTS BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE ZONES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES? WILL THEY BE DIFFERENT OR AM I KIND OF GETTING AHEAD OF AHEAD OF IT? I JUST MENTIONED THAT, NO, WE HAVEN'T REALLY MENTIONED IT AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOT TOO FAR BECAUSE BUT IT'S IN IT'S IN THE THOUGHT PROCESS, RIGHT? OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I'VE IMPACT. SO.

THREE QUESTIONS. DAVE, WE NEED TWO MICS UP HERE.

DAVE STEVENSON AGAIN, YEAH, I'LL BRING MY OWN MIC NEXT TIME.

JUST I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A BACKUP WELL IS.

COULD SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME? YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.

I MEAN, THE DEFINITION WE'RE LOOKING AT.

WELL, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED IS A BACKUP TO A SURFACE WATER SUPPLY PARCEL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO IF YOU'RE DOING SOME RECHARGE AND YOU HAVE A BACKUP WELL AND YOU'VE GOT SURFACE WATER, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE DURING A DROUGHT, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE THAT BACKUP

[01:15:01]

DISTRICT. WE'VE GOT WELLS THAT ARE REALLY OLD AND DECAYING AND WE NEED TO REPLACE THEM, BUT WE HAVE A NO ABUNDANCE OF LOCATIONS.

AND WITH THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS OF WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME LENIENCY AND WATER DISTRICTS WHICH DON'T OWN LAND.

WE CAN'T JUST MOVE OVER AND DRILL, SO WE NEED A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY AND WHERE WE CAN GO AND WHAT WE CAN DO AND BE REPLACEMENT WELLS.

BUT LOCATIONS ARE HARD FOR US TO FIND AND WE'RE GOING TO BE OUT OF LUCK SOON AND IT'S PUTTING US WAY BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BECAUSE WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD CURRENTLY.

YEAH, WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

KIM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WELL, CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY.

THERE ARE NO COMMENTS OR RAISE HANDS ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT.

NO, ACTION NECESSARY, CORRECT LACEY? OK. NEXT ITEM SURFACE WATER SALES WITHIN THE MERCED SUB-BASIN RESOLUTION LACEY MCBRIDE.

[11. SURFACE WATER SALES WITHIN THE MERCED BASIN RESOLUTION]

SO THIS ITEM IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AT THE REQUEST OF MULTIPLE BOARD MEMBERS.

I'LL GIVE A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION BEFORE GIVING THE BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY. TO SUMMARIZE FURTHER, THE MERCED SUB-BASIN IS DESIGNATED BY DWR AS IN CRITICAL CONDITION OF OVERDRAFT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER WITHIN THE BASIN EXCEEDS THE AVAILABLE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, AS DESCRIBED BY THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.

THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA HAS IDENTIFIED THE CONJUNCTIVE MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY OF SURFACE WATER AS IMPORTANT METHODS AVAILABLE TO ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION AND IN ACHIEVING THE SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.

THE GSA DOES RECOGNIZE THAT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SURFACE WATER, AND THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT REGULATE OR REQUIRE ACTIONS BY ANY AGENCIES, EITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY. THE RESOLUTION ENCOURAGES ALL SURFACE WATER RIGHTS HOLDERS WITHIN THE MERCED SUB-BASIN TO PURSUE SURFACE SURPLUS SURFACE WATER SALES WITHIN THE MERCED SUB-BASIN, RATHER THAN EXPORTING SURPLUS SURFACE WATER OUTSIDE THE BASIN.

IT SIGNALS THAT THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA AND ITS MEMBER AGENCIES ARE WILLING TO ACQUIRE ANY SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE WITHIN THE MERCED SUB-BASIN AND REQUEST THAT SURFACE WATER RIGHTS HOLDERS NEGOTIATE FIRST WITH THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA AND AT THIS TIME, THE MEMBERS REQUESTING THIS RESOLUTION MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A COMMENT ON ONE OF THE MULTIPLE MEMBERS.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION NOW.

SOME OF THE AGENCIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY SENDING WATER TO THE AREAS THAT ARE DEFICIENT, THEY FEEL THAT A RESOLUTION OF THIS TYPE AT THIS TIME WOULD MUDDY THE WATERS AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEFORE THE STATE BOARD BECAUSE THE STATE BOARD HASN'T TAKEN ANY ACTIONS.

SO THEREFORE I WOULD.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT AT THIS TIME, WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL FUTURE DISCUSSION.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? WELL, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

[INAUDIBLE] AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE.

AYE.

AYE. AYE. SO. OK, ON TO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.

THANK YOU, BRIAN. STAFF REPORT LACEY MCBRIDE AGAIN.

[13. STAFF REPORT]

LAST ONE AND YOUR [INAUDIBLE].

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS TO MENTION TO YOU.

FIRST, FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES, THE FPPC ANNUAL FORM SEVEN HUNDRED IS DUE TO THE GSA BY APRIL 1ST, AND SO ANNA MUNIZ-LAGUNA WILL BE SENDING AN EMAIL REMINDER WITH THE FORM ATTACHED SHORTLY.

SO PLEASE SUBMIT A HARD COPY WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE BEFORE APRIL 1ST.

AND SECONDLY, I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, WHO MET ON FEBRUARY

[01:20:02]

SO KEEP AN EYE OUT TO AND EXPECT AN ITEM AT YOUR MARCH MEETING TO APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WOODARD AND [INAUDIBLE].

IN THE MEANTIME, WOODARD AND CURRENT DOES HAVE CONTRACT AUTHORITY TO ALREADY BE WORKING ON THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THESE ISSUES IN THE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SO WORK ON THE DEFICIENCIES AND THE INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAD AT THIS TIME.

OK, THANK YOU, LACEY.

ON THE BOARD REPORTS [INAUDIBLE] REPORTS FROM THE BOARD.

[14. BOARD REPORTS]

AND SO SHE HAS AGREED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH US ABOUT THOSE NEEDS. AND I ASKED ABOUT, WELL, SOME OF THIS FUNDING AMOUNTS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND SHE SAID THAT THEY HAD THE FUNDS AND THAT THE FUNDS WERE SCALABLE TO THE PROJECTS.

SO SHE ASKED ME TO PUT TOGETHER A MEETING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS TO DISCUSS THAT.

MIKE, THIS IS THIS IS A BEYOND THE GRANT FUNDING THAT WAS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.

YES, THIS IS ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT SEEMS TO BE AVAILABLE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT INCLUDES ANY OF THE FEDERAL FUNDING.

THAT'S COMING QUITE A BIT OF MONEY THERE, TOO.

BUT SHE INDICATED THAT THERE WAS FUNDING AVAILABLE AND THEY WERE AWARE OF OUR ISSUES AND WILLING TO DISCUSS IT.

NO PROMISES.

YEAH. IT'S GOOD NEWS.

OK. ANY BOARD REPORTS? NONE. OK.

NEXT, SPECIAL MEETING WILL BE MARCH 10TH, AND THAT IS A SPECIAL MEETING RIGHT IN BETWEEN

[15. NEXT REGULAR MEETING]

OK, THIS ROOM.

ALL RIGHT. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.