[00:00:02] RIGHT. OUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED. [1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL] SO LET'S GET GOING. I GUESS COLE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE TILL SIX, I HEARD. THAT'S TRUE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 10TH--. I MEAN, THE APRIL 14TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES, SIR. MR. MARCHINI? PRESENT. MR. UPTON? I'M HERE. RECORDING IN PROGRESS. MR. SWENSON? HERE. AND MR. PAREIRA? MR. CHAIRMAN? HERE. OK, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE NOT HERE. [INAUDIBLE]. AND MIKE SHOULD BE JOINING VIA--. HE'S NOT ON ZOOM YET. OKAY, SO AT THIS POINT--. WE HAVE A QUORUM. YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO TO ITEM TWO, WHICH IS DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY [2. STATE OF EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS] TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS. YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS, IS WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I MOVED TO, THAT WE STATE THAT THE ONGOING EMERGENCY STILL NECESSITATES THE NEED TO DO SOME WORK REMOTELY THROUGH A ZOOM OR SOME OTHER AVENUE, AND SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THAT POSITION. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR UPTON. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? ANY ON ZOOM? NONE NOTED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. YES SIR. MR. MARCHINI? YES. MR. UPTON? YES. MR. SWENSON? AYE. AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA? AYE. SIR, YOU DO HAVE AN ITEM IN THE PAST. OK. ITEM CARRIES FOUR ZERO. [3. CLOSED SESSION] OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM THREE ARE CLOSED SESSION. WE HAVE A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL FOR POTENTIAL LITIGATION FOR SUBDIVISION B OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 54956.9, AND WE HAVE TWO POTENTIAL CASES. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION AT THIS TIME? AND I SEE NONE IN THE ROOM, SO WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADJOURN THE CLOSED SESSION. [INAUDIBLE] GRAB YOUR GLASSES. OKAY. WELL, I WILL CALL US BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION. THE BOARD HAD CLOSED SESSION AND STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. MR. MARCHINI, WOULD YOU PLEASE LEAD US? YES, SIR. AT THIS TIME, MR. SECRETARY, WOULD YOU READ THE DISCLAIMER? MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, SIR. SO, AGAIN, JUST AS A BRIEF REMINDER FOR THOSE YOU PRIMARILY WATCHING ON ZOOM, BUT CERTAINLY HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, THIS IS A GSA THAT DOES ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION, AND AGAIN, DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID 19 CRISIS, AND AGAIN AS AUTHORIZED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361, THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST VIA A CONFERENCE CALL, AGAIN VIA ZOOM, IN ADDITION TO THIS MEETING'S PHYSICAL LOCATION. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENT OR OBSERVE THIS MEETING MAY JOIN IN PERSON OR AGAIN VIA THAT CONFERENCE CALL. IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING VIA ZOOM, WE WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE. WE DO HAVE STAFF WATCHING FOR THAT AND THEN THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL UPON YOU AT THAT TIME. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT. [5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD] THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANY ONLINE? OH, WE GOT ONE. YEAH. I'M BRAD ROBESON FROM THE LE GRAND-ATHLONE IRRIGATION DISTRICT. I'M A BOARD MEMBER AND I USED TO BE THE DITCH TENDER, BUT THAT'S--. WE'RE IN DISSENSION OVER THAT. NO WATER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT AT OUR LAST--. WE JUST PASSED A 218 PROPOSITION FOR OUR DISTRICT CHARGING LANDOWNERS ANYWHERE FROM $80 TO $30 TO $3, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY SIT IN TERMS OF WATER AND SO FORTH. SO I THINK WE'VE OFFICIALLY GOT OUR-- THE NEW INNER-TIDE CANAL NOW FULLY FUNDED TO DO PHASE ONE AND PART OF PHASE TWO. [00:05:03] AND WE'VE PROBABLY GOT THE FUNDING STRUCTURE WITH THIS 218 TO GET ALL THREE-- TO GET THE WHOLE THING BUILT OUT, ALL THREE PHASES, INCLUDING THE UPGRADE ON THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT CANAL LINES. AND AS A SIDE NOTE ON THIS LAND REPURPOSING NOTE, I WANTED TO THROW OUT A REAL QUICK SUGGESTION ON THAT IN TERMS OF ORCHARDS AND SO FORTH. ONE THING I WAS KIND OF PLAYING AROUND WITH IT THIS LAST FEW YEARS IS THAT--. ANYONE HEAR ME? YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. ONE THING TO DO ON POSSIBLE-- THING IS YOU COULD IDLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, 50 ACRES AT A TIME, YOU KNOW, CHIP THE WOOD INTO THE GROUND AND THEN COVER CROP IT FOR FIVE YEARS, NO IRRIGATION. BUT THEN YOU'D STILL GET THE CARBON CAPTURE BENEFITS AND YOU'D STILL GET THE BUILD THE SOIL BENEFITS, AND THAT MIGHT BE A NICE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE SO YOU DON'T HAVE SO MUCH LOSS IN TERMS OF REVENUE AND SO FORTH. THAT'S MY POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM? DO WE HAVE ANY ONLINE? WE DO NOT CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. NEXT IS APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 10TH MINUTES. [6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WHAT'S PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I MOVE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU, I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. IT WAS MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON, SECONDED BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY ONLINE? NONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. YES, SIR. MR. GALLO? WE WILL COME BACK TO MR. GALLO. HE IS ON ZOOM. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH MR. PEDRETTI? AYE. MR. UPTON? YES. MR. SWENSON? AYE. MR. MARCHINI? YES. OK, WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. GALLO. IF YOU CAN HEAR US. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE MINUTES? IS HE MUTED? YEAH, HE'S MUTED. OH, MR. GALLO, YOU'RE MUTED. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. I CAN'T SEE YOU EITHER, BUT IF I COULD HEAR, YOU WOULD BE GOOD. OKAY. MR. GALLO, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES? OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO MR. CHAIRMAN. AYE. OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE--. YOU DO--. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. MOTION. IT DOES CARRY FIVE ZERO. WITH ONE ABSTENTION [LAUGHTER]. OR ONE NO VOTE. ALL RIGHT. NO, HE DIDN'T VOTE. NO, YEAH, EXACTLY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 7, WHICH IS THE WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY. [7. WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY] I CALL ON ADRIEL RAMIREZ AND GREG YOUNG TO SUMMARIZE THIS ITEM FOR US. YEAH, I'LL GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY, BUT BEFORE THAT, I BELIEVE--. [INAUDIBLE]. THE CALLERS ON LINE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING US. OK. SO WE MAY NEED TO GET IT. COULD WE MAYBE TAKE 2 MINUTES? YEAH. TWO MINUTE BREAK. THIS ONE? YEAH, THIS WORKS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE ON ZOOM OR TEAMS? DOES ANYBODY ONLINE HAVE RAISED HANDS? NO, RAISED HANDS AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON TRACK. THANK YOU. THIS IS A DRAFT POLICY THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE [INAUDIBLE] DETERMINED--. SORRY. THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AD HOC COMMITTEE. THIS POLICY WAS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MERCED COUNTY GROUNDWATER MINING AND EXPORT ORDINANCE THAT WERE ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 2020, AND HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 1ST, 2020. ON MARCH 28, 2022, GOVERNOR NEWSOM ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE MERCED COUNTY GROUNDWATER MINING AND EXPORT ORDINANCE, AND THAT IT REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY FROM A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY IN ORDER TO APPROVE WELL PERMITS. EXCEPT FOR THOSE WELLS THAT PROVIDE LESS THAN TWO ACRE FEET OF GROUNDWATER FOR INDIVIDUAL DOMESTIC USERS, OR THAT EXCLUSIVELY PROVIDE GROUNDWATER TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AS [00:10:02] DEFINED IN SECTION 116275 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. THE DRAFT POLICY WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MSGSA WEBSITE SHORTLY AFTER THE MARCH 10TH, 2020 MEETING. NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED, HOWEVER, TWO LAW FIRMS REQUESTED FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT IN ORDER TO BE PREPARED TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTITUENTS WITHIN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA WHO APPROACHED THE GSA REQUESTING CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS FOR THEIR WELL PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND TO COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS BOARD ADOPT THE WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY AS RULE NUMBER ONE OF THE GSA. STAFF IS ALSO SEEKING DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON PUBLIC--. SORRY. ON POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN WE DID MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE POSTED VERSION THAT GREG YOUNG IS GOING TO COVER. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU, ADRIEL. SO A COUPLE OF MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CURRENT POLICY THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE THAT WAS THE PUBLIC VERSION THAT WAS MODIFIED AFTER OUR LAST GSA BOARD MEETING LAST MONTH. FIRST ON PAGE THREE, THERE IS IN THE ADDITION OF SECTION 1.3.6, STATING THAT A CHECK AND THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MSGSA TO COVER THE COSTS OF MAKING THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FROM THE APPLICANTS. WE WILL, AS STAFF, BRING A FEE SCHEDULE BACK FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND THAT WILL DEFINE WHAT THOSE COSTS MIGHT BE. BUT SINCE THERE IS AN EFFORT THAT EITHER GSA STAFF OR OUTSIDE PARTIES WILL HAVE TO UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY WITH THESE CRITERIA PUT FORTH HERE, THE INTENT IS TO COLLECT SOME REVENUE FROM THE APPLICANT TO COVER THOSE COSTS. THE NEXT EDITION WOULD BE ACTUALLY AT THE TOP OF PAGE THREE. IT'S AN ADDITIONAL PHRASE TO SECTION 1.3.3.1, THAT, IN 1.3.3.1, IT STATES RIGHT NOW THE PLANNED BENEFICIAL USE FOR THE GROUNDWATER (E.G. CROP TYPE OR TYPES) INCLUDING AVERAGE ACRES BY CROP TYPE DURING THE PRIOR FIVE YEARS. THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE, AND THEN WE ARE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT SAYS OR FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY, A LIST OF TYPICAL CROPS GROWN WITHIN THE AGENCY BOUNDARY. THEN ON PAGE FOUR UNDER SECTION 1.4.1.1.4, SIMILAR ADDITION RELATED TO PUBLIC AGENCY AND IT CURRENTLY STATES ANNUAL WATER PUMPED FROM THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WELL OR WELLS WILL NOT EXCEED THE HIGHEST ANNUAL TOTAL APPLIED WATER ON THE HISTORIC PARCELS FROM THE EXISTING WELL OR WELLS. AND THEN WE'VE ADDED OR FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY NOT EXCEED THE HIGHEST CUMULATIVE ANNUAL TOTAL PUMPED FROM ALL EXISTING PUBLIC AGENCY WELLS WHEN CONSIDERED WITH THE QUANTITY PUMPED BY THE REMAINING EXISTING WELLS. AND THEN THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH CONTINUES UNCHANGED. THE INTENT OF THAT IS THE PUBLIC AGENCIES MIGHT HAVE MORE THAN ONE WELL, AND THEY MAY BE REPLACING JUST ONE OF THE WELLS, AND SO IT ISN'T ABOUT THAT ONE WELL PUMPING THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT, IT'S ABOUT THAT WELL PLUS THE OTHERS STILL STAYING WITHIN A CUMULATIVE HISTORIC NUMBER. THE FINAL MODIFICATION WOULD BE TO ON PAGE EIGHT, SECTION 1.6.2.4.4, THERE WAS A BLANK. THIS HAS TO DO WITH RULES AND ENFORCEMENT AND THE REGISTRATION INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED. WE HAVE UNDER THAT PROVISION, AGAIN 1.6.2.4.4, 'PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY TO' AND WE NEED TO MODIFY THAT LANGUAGE TO SAY A LOCATION TO BE PROVIDED BY MSGSA. SO WE WILL CREATE SOMETHING, PUT IT ON TO THE GSA WEBSITE. SO THAT WOULD BE WHERE APPLICANTS WOULD SUBMIT THE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY. RIGHT NOW, THAT IS BLANK IN THE CURRENT PUBLIC DRAFT, SO WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE AND THEN WE WOULD PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT ACTUALLY WOULD ALLOW THAT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE GSA. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND ANY QUESTIONS, ADRIEL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THOSE. OK, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO? OKAY. WELL, THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? MR. CHAIR, NONE ONLINE. [00:15:02] OK. NONE IN THE HOUSE? OK, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? IS THERE A MOTION [INAUDIBLE] APPROVE IT? I GUESS IT DIES FOR A LACK OF A MOTION, SORRY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. [LAUGHTER] OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE AS PRESENTED AND MODIFIED MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY GSP CONSISTENCY CRITERIA FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS. IT'S MIKE, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR SWENSON, SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO. CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT? OF COURSE. BEFORE WE CALL THE--. NOW, THIS POLICY WILL BE ABLE TO BE MODIFIED AND CHANGED, CORRECT? IN THE FUTURE? IF WE FIND THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH IT OR THINGS WE WANT TO ADD TO IT OR MODIFY, CORRECT? YEAH. IT'LL DEFINITELY COME BACK TO US. I MEAN, IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, JUST TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF WHERE TO SEND THE INFORMATION BUT--. AND THEN THE FEE SCHEDULE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BUT IT IS--. IT'LL COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, CAN BE AMENDED ANY TIME. AND ONE POINT I WANTED TO GET DISCUSSION ON WAS THAT WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE EKI THAT WAS PUT FORWARD IN 2021. IT IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS, SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN UTILIZE TO GET THESE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS OUT OR WE CAN PURSUE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO GET THAT FIGURED OUT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. YES SIR. MR. GALLO? AYE. MR. PEDRETTI? AYE. MR. UPTON? YES. MR. SWENSON? AYE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI? RELUCTANTLY, AYE. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN? THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. [8. LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT] OK, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM. WHICH IS OUR LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM UPDATE. AGAIN, I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO ADRIEL RAMIREZ AND GREG YOUNG TO SUMMARIZE. [INAUDIBLE]. I'M HAPPY TO JUST GO IF YOU WANT OR--. THIS IS AN UPDATE ON THIS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM. GENERALLY, THESE HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY CHRIS WITH EKI. HE IS UNAVAILABLE TODAY, SO I'M GOING TO STAND IN AND HOPEFULLY DO IT JUSTICE. THERE--. AS YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT THAT HAS HAD A AD HOC COMMITTEE LOOKING AT THE DETAILS AND DEVELOPING THIS PROGRAM, AND SO WE'LL TOUCH ON KIND OF WHERE WE ARE, WHERE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FROM THIS GROUP. THIS REALLY, AGAIN, I WANT TO FOCUS THAT THIS LAND REPURPOSING IS A KEY ELEMENT OF YOUR TWO PHASE-- THE PHASE ONE OF YOUR TWO PHASE APPROACH THAT THIS BOARD HAD ADOPTED LAST YEAR WITH PHASE ONE TRYING TO ACHIEVE A 15,000 ACRE FOOT ANNUAL REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025, POSSIBLY STARTING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT DEFINITELY BY 2025 ACHIEVING THOSE KIND OF OBJECTIVES. THIS LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM IS A PRIMARY TOOL TO HELP US GET THERE THAT WAS INTENDED IN THE TWO PHASE PROGRAM TO ALLOW US TIME TO TALK ABOUT ALLOCATION APPROACHES AND OTHER SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS OUR LONGER TERM OBJECTIVES. SO WITH THAT, YOU'RE IN CONTROL OF SLIDES, RIGHT, ADRIEL? NEXT SLIDE. SO TODAY'S DISCUSSION TOPICS, THE COSTS AND INCENTIVES. THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE UP 218 AD HOC COMMITTEE. RECALL, WE HAVE LOTS OF AD HOC COMMITTEES. THE LAND REPURPOSING ADMINISTRATION, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS A FEW ELEMENTS THERE AND THEN GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION LAND REPURPOSING-- MULTIPURPOSE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS SUCCESSFULLY SUBMITTED ON APRIL 1ST. NEXT SLIDE. WE CAN ALL READ THIS REALLY WELL. THIS IS A ROADMAP THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND THIS JUST SHOWS US MARCHING THROUGH THAT ROADMAP OVER TIME. WE'RE IN APRIL. THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE GOING ON IN APRIL RELATED TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING DISCUSSIONS, THE BOARD MEETING DISCUSSIONS AND BOARD ACTIONS AND DECISIONS. SO IN APRIL WE HAD IDENTIFIED THE LAND REPURPOSING COSTS AND INCENTIVES AND THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ITEMS AND THAT DIRECTION WOULD BE PROVIDED ON ADMINISTRATION AND IN THE INCENTIVE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. THE LAND REPURPOSING AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED A COST ESTIMATE TO [00:20:03] THE 218 COMMITTEE, AND WHEN WE GET TO THE 218 UPDATE, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THAT THE 218 HAS RECEIVED THAT ADVICE AND NOW IS BRINGING THAT ADVICE AS THE 218 AD HOC TO THE FULL BOARD. AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN A MOMENT. THE PHASE ONE COST ESTIMATE WAS DEVELOPED USING TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO KIND OF ADDRESS UNCERTAINTY. ONE WAS A PARTICIPATION BASED APPROACH WHERE INCENTIVES WERE AREA TIMES COST PER AREA, AND THE OTHER WAS MORE OF A WATER SAVINGS TARGET. THAT WAS LOOKING AT HOW MUCH WATER WAS SAVED AND THE COST OF WATER. SO KIND OF A PER ACRE FOOT. COST WAS CALCULATED USING A TOOL THAT EKI HAD DEVELOPED THAT ALLOWED THE COMMITTEE AND A FEW OF THE MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE ARE WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO DISCUSS INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE WOULD NEED TO COLLECT IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM. SO THIS WHOLE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE NEED TO COLLECT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THAT PHASE ONE OBJECTIVE BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025. AGAIN, THE--. AS KIND OF A REPRESENTATION OF THE CALENDAR, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS FURTHER, THERE WILL BE A 218 ELECTION THIS THIS SUMMER AND THEN THERE WILL BE COLLECTION, THERE WILL BE A COUNTY ASSESSED TAX BILL, THAT WILL GO OUT THIS FALL WITH PAYMENTS, THEN, THAT START COMING INTO THE COUNTY IN DECEMBER AND FEBRUARY OF EACH SUBSEQUENT TO PERIOD PAYMENT SCHEDULE. AND THE LAST BILL WOULD GO OUT FROM THE COUNTY IN 2025 WITH THE LAST COLLECTIONS IN THE SPRING OF 2026. IF YOU RECALL, AGAIN, PHASE ONE PROGRAM THAT YOU APPROVED WOULD SUNSET THE 218 IN 2025. AT THE END OF 2025, THAT WOULD BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE TO BE DETERMINED. SO THAT'S WHY THIS, AGAIN, IS SHOWING THIS KIND OF FOUR COLLECTION PHASES, AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT NEXT SLIDE. THE APPLICATION AND SCORING APPROACH. THE INTENT IS THAT THIS WOULD BE A VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION WITH PARTICIPANTS BEING INCENTIVIZED BY THE PAYMENT STRUCTURES AND WE WOULD ALLOW FOR LANDOWNER BIDDING. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF BOTH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S ADVICE AND THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AD HOC'S ADVICE WAS TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WAS ENTREPRENEURIAL. IN OTHER WORDS, FOLKS WOULD SAY, HEY, I'M WILLING TO HAVE YOU REPURPOSE-- OR ENTER MY LAND INTO YOUR REPURPOSING PROGRAM, AND HERE'S MY BID, AND WE'D BE ABLE TO THEN LOOK AT THOSE APPLICATIONS, WE'D HAVE A TRANSPARENTLY DEFINED SCORING PROCESS, AND THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEN AWARDING THE CONTRACTS TO THOSE BIDS THAT ARE MOST SUCCESSFUL TO HELP ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES. SO THE WAY THIS IS SET UP AGAIN WOULD BE, WELL, LET'S DEVELOP SOMETHING, LET'S MAKE IT TRANSPARENT SCORING, LET'S ASK FOR SOLICITATIONS, WHICH WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, GETTING SOME OF THOSE SOLICITATIONS SO WE COULD MAKE DETERMINATIONS AS EARLY AS LATE THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT SPRING PRIOR TO THE 2023 GROWING SEASON, AND ENROLL PEOPLE INTO A PROGRAM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO EKI IS WORKING ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE PART OF A LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE SIGNED BETWEEN THE GSA AND THE PARTICIPATING LANDOWNER. SOME OF THE CONTRACT ITEMS TOO WOULD BE THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION, THE PLAN, TALKING ABOUT THE AFFECTED LANDS DURATION, THEIR PLANNED USES, DEFINING THE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS, VERIFICATION AND MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT ELEMENTS, AND OTHER KIND OF STANDARD LEGAL PROTOCOLS. SO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS ISN'T JUST LIKE, HEY, YEAH, SURE, WE'LL WRITE YOU A CHECK. THERE IS GOING TO BE AN AGREEMENT THAT'S GOING TO HOLD THE PARTICIPANT ACCOUNTABLE TO CERTAIN THINGS. WE ARE TRYING TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT, AS WE'VE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT AND FROM THE TAC AND THE AD HOC THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE PAYING PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE DOING OTHERWISE. THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS JUST UP FOR DURING OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT HAD A GREAT SUGGESTION. THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE'D BE LOOKING AT TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE WAS PROGRAMS THAT WOULD ENTER INTO MULTIYEAR OPERATIONS AND WOULDN'T JUST BE, YEAH, I WAS TAKING MY LAND OUT FOR A YEAR AND I WAS PLANNING TO PLANT THE NEXT FALL AND I'M GOING TO GET PAID FOR THAT INTERIM. WE'VE BEEN DIRECTED FROM OUR AD HOC THAT THAT IS NOT A PROGRAM THEY WANT TO DESIGN. THEY WANT ONE THAT HAS DURATION, THAT DOES ALLOW FOR NEW CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE HAPPENING AS PART OF AN AGRONOMIC PRACTICE. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE FOCUS OF THE LAND REPURPOSING WE JUST TALKED [00:25:10] ABOUT IS REALLY THIS ONE THAT'S GOING TO LOOK AT THIS CURRENT 218 FEE, WHICH WILL SUNSET AT THE END OF 2025. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE COLLECTING FEES TO PAY FOR A PROGRAM THAT HAS, POSSIBLY, 3 TO 5 YEAR CONTRACTS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A FEW MOMENTS. AND THAT IS REALLY A KIND OF A SHORT TERM TO HELP US ACHIEVE THIS PHASE ONE OBJECTIVE. SEPARATELY, THE STATE CAME OUT WITH A MULTIPURPOSE-- OR MULTI BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, REGIONAL BLOCK GRANT, AND WE PREPARED AN APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT APPLICATION, I THINK BY THE 11TH HOUR, BEFORE IT WAS DUE ON APRIL 1ST. IT WAS REALLY LAST MINUTE. EKI DID A WONDERFUL JOB PULLING TOGETHER ALL THE MATERIALS, PUTTING TOGETHER A REALLY NICE APPLICATION. IT WAS SUCCESSFULLY SUBMITTED. WE HAD LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM TWO OTHER MERCED SUBBASIN GSAS, WITH BOTH TURNER ISLAND AND [INAUDUIBLE] HAS SUBMITTED LETTERS OF SUPPORT. WE HAVE LETTERS OF PARTNERSHIP WHICH ARE IMPORTANT FROM THE EAST MERCED RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MERCED, SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER CO COMPANY, LA PALOMA AND REALLY IMPORTANT MERCED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, WHO WAS VERY INTERESTED IN PARTNERING IN WAYS TO HELP ACHIEVE-- GET THIS GRANT AND ACHIEVE SOME OF THESE MULTI BENEFIT REPURPOSING EFFORTS. THIS GRANT APPLICATION HAS A MINIMUM COMMITMENT OF A TEN YEAR ENTRY INTO THAT PROGRAM. SO IF OUR OUR OTHER PROGRAM IS ADDRESSING SHORT TERM KIND OF 2025 OBJECTIVES, SO YOU MIGHT THINK OF AS A 3 TO 5 YEAR PROGRAM, THIS ONE IS A TEN OR GREATER YEAR PROGRAM. THE--. ADRIEL GOT A NOTE FROM THE STATE THE OTHER DAY THAT SAID, THANK YOU FOR THE APPLICATION. WE WANT TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW. THEY'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN INTERVIEW PANEL WITH ALL APPLICANTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE. YEAH. SO WE ARE CONTACTING SEVERAL OF THESE PARTNERS, ESPECIALLY IF WE CAN GET MERCED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TO PARTICIPATE WITH US IN AN INTERVIEW, I THINK THAT WILL GO OVER REALLY WELL BECAUSE THAT WAS A LOT OF THE FOCUS OF THIS GRANT PROGRAM WAS TO LOOK FOR LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL REPURPOSING. SO WE'RE PURSUING THAT, ADRIEL IS SETTING UP THAT INTERVIEW CONVERSATION AND HOPEFULLY WE HAVE SOME GREAT UPDATES FOR YOU AT THE MAY MEETING. IS THAT? I THINK THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. I THINK WE'D HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE BEFORE MAY-- BEFORE THE MAY BOARD MEETING. WELL, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. NEXT SLIDE, IS THERE ANOTHER ONE? BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YOU GUYS ARE QUIET TODAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? OKAY, COME ON UP. NO. [LAUGHTER] I HATE IT WHEN YOU YELL AT ME. JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, AS A PERSON WHO GROWS FOOD FOR A LIVING AND TRIES TO SELL IT, I DON'T LIKE THE WORD REPURPOSE, LAND REPURPOSING. IT SHOULD BE WORD FALLOW AND IT SHOULD IMPLY THAT WE'RE GROWING LESS FOOD AND THAT WHILE WE'RE CREATING ALL THESE WONDERFUL, BRILLIANT SCHEMES TO FIGURE OUT BECOME SUSTAINABLE. YOU KNOW, GROWING LESS FOOD IS REALLY, FROM A SOCIETY STANDPOINT, KIND OF SUICIDAL, IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. HEY, MAN, WE NEED YOU GO TO SACRAMENTO AND SAY THAT EXACT SAME THING. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? NONE, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, THAT WENT QUICK AND EASY. [9. PROPOSITION 218 DEVELOPMENT] I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE PROP 218 DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, ADRIEL RAMIREZ AND GREG YOUNG. DO YOU WANT ANY INTRODUCTION? OKAY. SO THIS ACTUALLY IS A GREAT SPILLOVER FROM THE LAND REPURPOSING AD HOC, THE RECOMMENDATION AND I KNOW THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE PACKET BOTH AVAILABLE PUBLICLY I BELIEVE, RIGHT? IT WAS IN THE THE ONLINE PACKET AND SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU. THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS TABLE IN THE MATERIALS, BUT FOR THE SLIDE WE JUST HAVE THIS TABLE. SO WHAT THE LAND REPURPOSING AD HOC SETTLED ON A NEED TO RAISE $15 MILLION TO BE ABLE TO FUND 3 TO 5 YEAR COMMITMENTS MAXIMUM AND THEY WANT-- AND THEY PROVIDED THAT TO THE 218 AD HOC COMMITTEE AND SAID THIS IS WHAT WE THINK YOU NEED TO RAISE WITH THE INTENT THIS IS A MAXIMUM AND MAYBE IT'S A MOMENT OF OF CIRCLING BACK TO [00:30:09] WHAT WE-- HOW WE HANDLE THE 2019 218 FEE. IF YOU RECALL, THERE WAS AN APPROVAL IN THAT PROCESS THAT SAYS HERE'S THE MAXIMUM BUDGET WE CAN FUND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND THEN EACH YEAR THE BOARD DECIDES WHAT THAT FEE WOULD ACTUALLY BE, BUT IT COULD NEVER EXCEED THAT MAX. THIS IS SET UP THE SAME SORT OF WAY THE LAND REPURPOSING COMMITTEE SAID, WE FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE CONTRACTS THAT HAVE SOME LONGEVITY, AND SO IF WE CAN GET SOME FOLKS TO ACTUALLY SIGN UP FOR THE 2023 GROWING SEASON, ONE OF THE INCENTIVES OF DOING THAT COULD BE OFFERING THEM A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT-- UP TO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT IF THEY WOULD LIKE THAT WOULD TAKE THEM THROUGH THE 2027 GROWING SEASON, RECOGNIZING THAT WE MAY HAVE AN ALLOCATION OR SOME OTHER METHODOLOGY IN PLACE STARTING IN 2026 AS YOU'VE DEFINED IN YOUR TWO PHASE APPROACH. SO THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF YEARS WHERE SOMEBODY WHO JUMPS ON BOARD EARLY IS ACTUALLY BENEFITING FOR A FEW YEARS WHILE THE ALLOCATION APPROACH STARTS TO GET IMPLEMENTED. AGAIN, IF THAT IS WHAT WE DEVELOP AS PART OF THE SECOND PHASE. AND SO THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S MAKE SURE WE COLLECT MAXIMUM. WE HOPE THAT THROUGH THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS AND THE BIDS BEING PUT FORWARD BY LANDOWNERS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO CHARGE ALL OF THIS, BUT AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE 2019 218 FEE PROCESS, IF WE DON'T SET A MAXIMUM, WE CAN NOT--. WE'RE NOW--. WE'RE PUTTING A CAP ON WHATEVER WE CAN CHARGE AND THEN THEREFORE WE POTENTIALLY PUT A CAP ON WHAT WE CAN FUND. SO THIS TABLE IS SET UP WITH FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS BECAUSE WHEN THE OPTION ONE, WHICH IS THE ADVICE OF THE LAND REPURPOSING AD HOC WAS BROUGHT TO THE 218 AD HOC COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THAT COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF OPTIONS THAT ADDRESS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, AND I'LL EXPLAIN THOSE IN A MOMENT, AND TO BRING THOSE OPTIONS TO THE FULL BOARD FOR DIRECTION. IT WOULD THEN COME BACK TO THE 218 AD HOC AND THAT WOULD GET ROLLED FORWARD INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 218 FEE STUDY. SO EACH ONE OF THESE OPTIONS, THERE'S FOUR ROWS UNDER EACH OPTION. THE FIRST ONE IS THE COUNTY TAX BILL AND YOU SEE CALENDAR YEARS ARE IN THE COLUMNS. THE FIRST CALENDAR YEAR IS 2022, THEN 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 27. THE FIRST ROW COUNTY TAX BILL, YOU WOULD BILL THE ENTITIES THAT WOULD BE RECEIVING THE FEE, AND WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY THIS BOARD AND WITHIN THE COMMITTEE IS THAT THAT WOULD BE CHARGED TO IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE. AND SO THAT REVENUE GENERATION THAT WOULD BE BILLED WOULD GO TO IRRIGATED AG. THAT REVENUE WOULD BE BILLED AT A MAXIMUM IN 22, 23, 24 AND 25. THE FUNDS WOULD THEN ROLL FROM THE COUNTY TO THE GSA IN 23, 24, 25 AND 26, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE COUNTY PROCESSES THE COLLECTION OF TAX REVENUE AND SUBMITS IT OVER TO THE GSA. IT'S--. THEY START TO COLLECT FUNDS FROM THIS FALL'S TAX BILL THAT GETS COLLECTED IN DECEMBER, THEY'LL START HANDING THAT TO YOU GUYS AS THE GSA IN THE FOLLOWING SPRING. SO WE WOULDN'T RECEIVE ANY REVENUE FROM THIS FALL'S TAX BILL UNTIL STARTING IN SPRING OF 2023. SO THAT'S WHY THAT SECOND ROW IS FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY TO THE GSA, SO YOU CAN SEE WHEN THOSE DOLLARS COME IN. THEN THE NEXT ROW IS THE GSA EXPENDITURE AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE PAYMENTS OUT TO PARTICIPANTS. THAT FIRST OPTION ASSUMES MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION THAT WE'RE GETTING 15,000 ACRE FEET OF DEMAND OF CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION [INAUDUIBLE] GROUNDWATER IN THAT FIRST YEAR OF 2023. AND THE WAY THAT OPTION IS SET UP IN OPTION ONE, WE HAVE THAT FULL 15,000 ACRE FEET, 23 THROUGH 27. SO THERE IS FIVE YEARS OF THAT LEVEL BEING ACHIEVED. THAT'S WHAT GENERATES THE NEED FOR $15 MILLION. AND THEN THE FINAL ROW THERE IS A FUND BALANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE COLLECTION AND THE EXPENDITURE. SO YOU SEE THAT IT GOES TO ZERO AND WE MAKE THE FINAL EXPENDITURES IN 2027 AND THERE IS ZERO FUND BALANCE. AGAIN, THE COLLECTION SUNSETS AFTER THE 2025 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN IN THE PHASE TWO OBJECTIVE. THE OTHER OPTIONS. NOW, THE TWO THINGS TO LOOK AT, THE FIRST OPTION TWO--. FIRST OPTION TWO, THAT'S KIND OF ODD. SO, I GUESS, OPTION TWO MODIFIES THE OPTION ONE, WHICH WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AD HOC TO SAY THAT THE PROGRAM WILL RAMP UP. [00:35:03] SO IT IS ONLY 50% OF THAT 15,000 WOULD BE MAXIMUM. WE WOULD LIKE, AGAIN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT COLLECTION OF MAX DOLLARS, WOULD BE MAXIMUM WE WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO SIGN UP IN YEAR 2023, 75% IN THE YEAR 2024, AND THEN 100% OF OUR 2025 OBJECTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, 100% OF 15,000 ACRE FEET BEING ACHIEVED IN 25, 26 AND 27. SO YOU NEED TO COLLECT LESS REVENUE AND THEREFORE YOU END UP BILLING LESS REVENUE. THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE UNDER EACH OF THESE OPTIONS, THERE'S A THERE'S A RANGE OF WHAT THE PER ACRE ANNUAL FEE WOULD BE, AND THAT'S--. THE REASON THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A RANGE, WE'RE USING 160,000-165,000 IRRIGATED ACRES. THERE'S NEW INFORMATION THAT COMES OUT FROM THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE WITH UPDATED NUMBERS, SO WE'VE JUST TRIED TO BRACKET IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE AS IRRIGATED ACRES. SO OPTION TWO SIMPLY HAS A RAMP UP OF THAT PROGRAM, BUT STILL HAS UP TO FIVE YEAR CONTRACTS. AGAIN, WE COULD COLLECT--. LET'S GO BACK TO OPTION ONE FOR A MOMENT. WE COULD COLLECT THOSE FULL AMOUNTS IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS, FIND THAT THE BIDS COME IN AND WE ACTUALLY ARE GETTING A LOT ACHIEVED FOR LESS MONEY THAN WE PREDICTED. THAT MEANS WE COULD--. ACTUALLY THIS BOARD COULD THEN APPROVE THE FEE FOR 24 AND 25 TO BE LOWER THAN WHAT THIS MAXIMUM SAYS. SO THE COLLECTION MAY NOT BE $15 MILLION TOTAL, BUT THE IDEA IS TO WRITE THE 218 IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO COLLECT UP TO THAT MUCH. SO OPTION TWO JUST LOOKS AT A RAMP UP TIMING OF THIS PROGRAM. OPTION THREE SAYS WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANYTHING, ANY EXPENDITURES, ANY PROGRAM TO BE SIGNED UP, ANY LAND TO BE SIGNED UP FOR REPURPOSING PAST 2025. SO WE WOULD BE ENTERING INTO A THREE YEAR CONTRACT IF SOMEBODY SIGNED UP FOR NEXT YEAR, 23, 24, 25 AS A MAX, POTENTIALLY A TWO YEAR CONTRACT IF THEY SIGN UP FOR 24 AND 25. AND IF WE ARE STILL--. WE NEED TO MEET OUR OBJECTIVES IN 25, WE MAY BE SIGNING UP FOR ONE YEAR CONTRACTS. THE CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT GOES AGAINST THE ADVICE OF BOTH THE TAC AND THE AD HOC ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAVING SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPENING ANYWAY AND WE AREN'T CREATING A NEW REDUCTION THAT IS MOVING TOWARDS OUR GSP OBJECTIVES. SO THAT IS THE CONCERN OF THAT APPROACH, BUT YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE ON THE DOLLARS PER ACRE. YOU OBVIOUSLY COLLECT A LOT LESS BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY PAYING OUT THROUGH 2025 RATHER THAN CONSIDERING 26 AND 27. THEN OPTION FOUR IS SIMPLY AGAIN A RAMP UP WHERE YOU DO 50% OF IT IN 23, 75% IN 24, AND 100% IN 25, AND THEN IT'S SHUT OFF. SO THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS, AND THE 218 AD HOC COMMITTEE SAW THE FIRST REPRESENTATION FROM THE LRP AD HOC, SAID, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE LOOKED AT SOME OPTIONS? WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN ON KIND OF A ROUGH DOLLAR PER ACRE? LET ME NOTE THAT FOR THE 218 PURPOSES, WE'LL TOUCH ON THIS IN JUST A MINUTE. THERE'S THREE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE FUNDED ALSO, BUT EACH ONE OF THOSE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MAY BE AT ABOUT A $1 PER ACRE PER PROGRAM, AND SO THOSE THREE OTHER PROGRAMS DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY TO EVERYONE, WHICH WE'LL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE, BUT MAYBE ADD ANOTHER COUPLE OF DOLLARS, $2 TO $3 KIND OF RANGE, TO THE NUMBERS YOU SEE HERE ON THE PER ACRE VALUE. SO AGAIN, THE LRP PROGRAM IS THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THIS 218 FEE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE REVENUE FOR. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO OPEN FOR ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, CONVERSATION. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? LEAVE THAT ONE UP FOR NOW. I MEAN, YEAH, IT'D BE UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT WE'RE [INAUDIBLE] MAX PARTICIPATION IN THE FIRST YEAR, RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M A--. I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS OPTION TWO MYSELF, YOU KNOW, JUST SPEAKING OUT LOUD. CAN I--. KEEPS YOU UNDER $20 AT LEAST TOO. AND I'LL MAKE ONE NOTE AGAIN. THIS IS THIS INTERESTING WORLD OF THE 218 WRITING IT TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY VERSUS THE ACTUAL PROGRAM AND HOW IT GETS DESIGNED. SO THERE IS THE POTENTIAL YOU GET THE COMPLETE INVERSE, YOU COLLECT MAX MONEY IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS. YOU FIND THAT YOU HAVE A LIMITED SIGN UP SO YOU HAVE A BIGGER CARRYOVER OF YOUR FUND BALANCE, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN CHARGE LESS THOSE LAST YEARS. SO YOU RESULT IN ABOUT THE SAME MAYBE COLLECTION, BUT YOU'RE MAKING SURE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER BETWEEN OPTION ONE AND TWO IS YOUR [00:40:03] LIMITING--. WHICH IS FINE. THE DIFFERENCE IS YOU WOULD BE LIMITING THE COLLECTION IN YEAR ONE AND WHICH ULTIMATELY LIMITS THE TOTAL COLLECTION. SO YOU ARE PUTTING A CEILING ON YOURSELF FOR THAT. RECALL THAT THIS GSA DID SEND A LETTER TO [INAUDIBLE] RECENTLY CONFIRMING THAT THE PHASE TWO INTENT WAS TO ACHIEVE 25-- OR 15,000 SORRY, 15,000 ACRE FEET OF CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER BY 2025, BUT WE'LL BE WORKING TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO IT WAS PUT OUT THERE. SO AN INTENDED CAP MIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO BE VIEWED AS GOING AGAINST THAT OBJECTIVE, BUT WE MIGHT ACHIEVE THE SAME THING, NICK, WITH WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THAT IF WE COLLECT EARLY BUT THEN HAVE THE PROGRAM COME IN AND PEOPLE ARE BIDDING LOW ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPEND IT, WE END UP CHARGING LESS AT THE BACK END BY DISCRETION CHOICE OF THE BOARD. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. AND GREG, IF WE DO SAY OPTION TWO OR OPTION FOUR OUR RAMP UP DEAL, BESIDES THE LETTER WE SENT TO [INAUDIBLE] WITH THAT COULD WITH US HAVING THE GRACE PERIOD RIGHT NOW TO REDO THE GSP, COULD THAT AFFECT US WITH DWR IN THE FUTURE? I JUST WORRY THAT IF WE'RE NOT SHOWING MUCH REDUCTION RIGHT NOW, THAT COULD HAVE SOME EFFECT AT THE STATE LEVEL TOO, WITH THEM LOOKING AT OUR GSP PLAN. IT'S HARD TO SAY. THE GSP SAYS YOU HAVE A LARGE OBJECTIVE BY 2030. WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO TAKE EFFORTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO START WORKING ON THAT. [COUGH] THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION OF A 2025 KIND OF NEARER TERM OBJECTIVE. IF YOUR ANNUAL REPORTS START TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY EVEN ACHIEVING ANYTHING TOWARDS THAT, WOULD THAT BE CAUSE FOR CONCERN AND EXACTLY HOW WOULD THAT MANIFEST? I'M NOT SURE. IF ASSUMING THE GSP IS ACCEPTED BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN LIMBO RIGHT NOW WITH AN UNACCEPTED GSP. SO I DON'T KNOW. BUT THE MORE YOU SHOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EVERYTHING, IT'S PROBABLY BETTER, BUT I RECOGNIZE FULLY THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOLLARS PER ACRE. AND IT'S REALLY I THINK THE BIG QUESTION IS THE EXTENSION OF CONTRACTS OUT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND IT COULD BECOME AN INCENTIVE FOR EARLY ADOPTION, OR DO WE LOOK AT CURTAILING IT AND NO CONTRACTS PASSED 2025 OR SOMETHING ELSE? YOU KNOW, THESE ARE OPTIONS. THESE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS, I GUESS. THERE'S OTHER THINGS THE BOARD COULD EXPLORE. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WE ALSO HAVE THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION HANGING OVER US, AND IF WE DON'T MOVE QUICK ENOUGH TO START, THEN, THEN WE'RE RISKING SPENDING MONEY ON WELL REPLACEMENTS FOR DE MINIMIS USERS RATHER THAN REACHING OUR GOAL THAT WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] GROUNDWATER REDUCTION. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN I'M NOT INTERESTED IN TAX AND PEOPLE OR FEEING PEOPLE ANY MORE THAN WE HAVE TO, BUT, BOY, IT'D SURE BE EASIER TO ALLOCATE $23 BUCKS AND NOT HAVE A $10 AN ACRE ASSESSMENT DOWN THE ROAD FOR FIXING WELLS. I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS REALLY ARE, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S HANGING OVER OUR HEAD. WELL, DIRECTOR PAREIRA, I DON'T THINK ACTUALLY A 15,000 ACRE FOOT REDUCTION PER YEAR IN PUMPING WITH A FUTURE GOAL OF NEEDING TO REDUCE 135,000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR APPROXIMATELY, IS GOING TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TO THE IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS. SO THAT WOULD BE MY THINKING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS THAT ORIGINALLY WHEN I SUPPORTED THIS MOVE TO DO THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, THE 218, ONE OF MY PRIMARY REASONS WAS BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT ALLOCATIONS AND EXTRACTION FEES PROBABLY COULDN'T BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED UNTIL THE YEAR 2026. I STILL VIEW THAT AS THE ROUTE TO-- MOST EFFECTIVE ROUTE TO REDUCING OVERALL PUMPING. SO I THINK IN THE INTERIM, THE GOAL THAT THE BOARD HAS SET TO REACH 15,000 ACRE FOOT A YEAR REDUCTION BY 2025 IS A GOOD GOAL AND A GOOD STEP, BUT MY THINKING IS THAT DISTRICT AREAS WITHIN THE SUB BASIN THAT USE RELATIVELY LESS GROUNDWATER PUMPING KIND OF END UP SUBSIDIZING THOSE AREAS THAT PUMP MORE WATER RELATIVELY WITH THIS PROGRAM. AND I THINK THAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO MINIMIZE THE COST PER ACRE UNTIL 2026. SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION FOUR. [00:45:06] ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. NO? OK. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. BOB KELLY, STEPHENSON WATER DISTRICT. I JUST NEED TO GET A LITTLE QUESTION ANSWERED. SO WHEN WHEN A INDIVIDUAL FARM SIGNS UP FOR THIS REDUCTION, IS IT DONE ON A PER ACRE BASIS OF PARTICIPATION? AND IF SO, HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH ACRE FEET REDUCTION OCCURS ON THAT ACRE? DON'T YOU NEED THEN A HISTORICAL WATER BUDGET ON THAT ACRE IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO ACRE FEET? I KIND OF WANT TO FOLLOW THAT THAT TRANSACTION IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO VERIFY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAYING MONEY. BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF REDUCTION OF OF ACRE FEET AND HOW HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE MEASURED? ADRIEL, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE WORK EKI IS DOING? YEAH. OK. GREG, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND? OH, YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE COMMENTS FIRST. NOPE, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ,BUT. EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND WE PROBABLY HAVE NOT EXPANDED ON THIS ENOUGH YET. THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT WE DESIGN A PROGRAM, A LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, WHERE A LANDOWNER IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, HEY, I'M WILLING TO TAKE MY THREE ACRE FOOT OF CONSUMPTIVE USE LAND OUT FOR THREE YEARS AT THIS PRICE POINT, SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS, HEY, I'M WILLING TO DO MY TWO ACRE FEET PER ACRE REDUCTION AT THIS PRICE POINT. AND WE HAVE A TRANSPARENT SCORING WHERE THE GSA CAN LOOK AT THOSE AND SAY, WELL, THIS ONE GETS MORE WATER PER DOLLAR, OR MAYBE THIS ONE IS MORE WATER PER DOLLAR PLUS, OR MAYBE THE OTHER ONE'S A LITTLE LESS WATER PER DOLLAR, BUT IT'S IN A MORE DESIRABLE AREA OF GETTING SOME OF OUR OBJECTIVES, LIKE IN SUBSIDENCE AREAS OR AROUND A DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY OR SOMETHING. AND SO THERE'S A SCORING CRITERIA THAT EKI IS DEVELOPING THAT WOULD LOOK FOR THE BIDS THAT COME IN. AGAIN, THIS WOULD--. WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING GOOD OUTREACH OUT HERE TO GET PEOPLE TO OFFER OPPORTUNITIES, AND WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE, WE WOULD RANK THEM AND ESSENTIALLY FUND THE ONES AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO GET US THE MOST BENEFIT. AND THEN, AS YOU NOTE HERE, THERE'S A VERIFICATION AND MONITORING. SO WE WILL NEED TO, BEFORE WE EVEN AGREE, VERIFY A FEW THINGS, MAYBE USING SOMETHING LIKE OPEN ET TO SEE THAT, YEAH, THERE WAS HISTORIC USE AND THEN MONITORING, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO MONITOR DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONTRACT TERM, THAT THE ACTION THAT-- YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY SIGNED UP TO DO IS HAPPENING. AND ONE OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS THE EKI IS TALKING ABOUT IS TO ASSURE THAT THE WATER, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I AGREE TO TAKE THIS LAND OUT AND THEN YOU GO TAKE OTHER LAND THAT'S BEEN OUT OF PRODUCTION AND BRING THAT INTO PRODUCTION THAT ENDS UP BEING A NET ZERO. SO WE ARE--. PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE HOLDING FOLKS ACCOUNTABLE TO NOT GO JUST SHIFT OPERATIONS ELSEWHERE AND USE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF WATER BECAUSE AGAIN, THE OBJECTIVE IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE A TANGIBLE REDUCTION. SO I THINK TO BOB'S QUESTION, THE INTENT WOULD BE TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD SCORE THOSE THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE MOST SAVINGS WHILE ALSO CONSIDERING LOOKING WHERE THOSE SAVINGS ARE OCCURRING. AND WE AREN'T JUST SAVING A BUNCH OF WATER WHERE MAYBE IT ISN'T THE MOST USEFUL FOR OUR NEAR-TERM OBJECTIVES. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT WASN'T ANSWERED? NORMALLY PUBLIC COMMENT ISN'T A BACK AND FORTH, BUT I THINK THIS ITEM IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT--. CORRECT. YEAH. YEAH. NO, WE'RE AWARE OF THE SAME THOUGHTS YOU HAVE AND HAVE KIND OF GIVEN STAFF THAT DIRECTION. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? MY FIRST COMMENT IS DO NOT USE THE PUBLIC RECORDS, THE COUNTY RECORDS FOR IRRIGATED ACRES. I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY AT LEAST OFF BY 10-15%. [00:50:05] I MEAN, I'VE GOT MY NEIGHBOR, SUSIE, SHE'S DOWN AS AN IRRIGATED GROUND AND SHE HASN'T DONE ANY IRRIGATION EVER AND SHE'S HAD THAT GROUND FOR 50 YEARS. SO THAT LIST THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO PLAN ON USING HAS--. I MEAN, IT'S NOT ACCURATE AT ALL, AND IT SHOULD BE ACCURATE BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE EQUITABLE. AND THEN IN TERMS OF YOUR GUYS'S REPURPOSING PROGRAM, IF YOU GOT ONE GUY WITH A REDUCTION INDEX OF TWO AND ONE GUY WITH A REDUCTION INDEX OF THREE, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE SOMEHOW EQUATED TO--. EVERYBODY WHO MAKES THAT SACRIFICE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUITABLY, OK? YOU'RE NOT JUST GOING TO PAY THE GUY WITH THE--. THE SMARTEST GUY WHO'S GOING TO MANIPULATE AND GAME THE SYSTEM TO GET MORE OUT. IT SHOULD BE FAIR ACROSS THE BOARD. THANK YOU. BRAD, BEFORE YOU GO, ARE YOU THINKING THAT THE ASSESSED ACREAGE IS TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW OR JUST OFF BY 10 OR 15% OFF? DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHICH WAY? I JUST HAVE A BUNCH OF GRASS RAISERS COMING INTO MY DISTRICT RIPPING INTO US EVERY TIME-- . WE WENT BUCKS AN ACRE WHEN THEY'VE NEVER IRRIGATED AN ACRE, EVER, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE USE THE WRONG DATABASE, THE COUNTY DATABASE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WRONG. AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THAT OPEN ET THING. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING, YEAH, BE VALID OR GET-- OR HAVE THE WHOLE THING BLOW UP ON YOUR FACE. I BELIEVE THAT THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING WILL ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, YOU'RE WRONG AND THIS IS WHERE, PROVE THAT AND WE'LL MAKE CORRECTIONS. YOU KNOW, THEY COULD GO TO THE COUNTY AND MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS ON THEIR OWN NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING TAXED PROBABLY AT A HIGHER BASE [INAUDIBLE] IT'S IRRIGATED LAND, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE COSTING THEMSELVES MONEY TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE SOME OF THAT CAN GET SQUARED UP. GREG? I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT SAME POINT, CHAIR PAREIRA, THAT THE LAND REPURPOSING-- OR SORRY, THE 218 FEE STRUCTURE, THE WAY THAT WOULD GET SET UP IS IF IT WOULD BE SHARED AMONG THE IRRIGATED LANDS. [INAUDIBLE] HAS A TOOL THEY USE TO DO THE CURRENT 2019 FEE WHICH IF YOU RECALL, IS ONE PRICE FOR IRRIGATED LANDS, ANOTHER PRICE FOR NON IRRIGATED LANDS, AND THIS WOULD BE A TACK ON TO THE IRRIGATED. BUT WE WOULD ALSO TALK ABOUT AN APPEALS PROCESS WHERE IF YOU ARE GETTING A FEE, THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I WOULD FULLY AGREE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN SOME OTHER BASINS I'M WORKING ON, THE ASSESSED DATA HAS SOME CHALLENGES AND THAT'S JUST THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE WORKED THROUGH. AND WE JUST NEED TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT FAIRLY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? YEAH, THIS IS CINDY [INAUDIBLE] FOLLOWING THIS AS WELL AS I SHOULD, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT A LITTLE BIT WHAT HE COMMENTED ABOUT BEFORE IS SOME FARMERS KNOW HOW TO GAME THE SYSTEM REALLY WELL AND SOME ARE USUALLY THE BIG CORPORATE FARMERS HAVE STAFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF IT. SO OUR TRADITIONAL FAMILY SCALE, EVEN MULTIGENERATIONAL FARMERS, AREN'T ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHAT OR KNOWING HOW TO APPROACH THIS. I JUST I'M JUST HOPING THAT THIS IS-- THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT OUR COMMUNITY AND THE LONG TERM AND FAMILY SCALE FARMERS IN ALL OF THESE THAT THEY'RE BEING CONSIDERED AND THEIR STRENGTHS AND WHERE THEY NEED HELP TO BECOME PART OF THIS. THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? NO ONE ELSE, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, SIR? MY NAME IS BRAD SAMUELSON. I JUST SAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'M ON THE PROP 218 COMMITTEE AND THE TAC COMMITTEE, SO I'VE BEEN SPEAKING TO FARMERS GENERALLY IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS A LOT IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, AND I WOULD GENERALIZE THE FEEDBACK I'M RECEIVING THAT THE FARMERS OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T LOVE IT, BUT THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT ABOUT $30 AN ACRE. THEY THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE NUMBER FOR WIDE AREA LANDS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ASSESSMENTS THROUGH THE YEARS, LIKE [INAUDIBLE] AND LE GRAND-ATHLONE AND OTHER GROWERS. AND THEN PART OF GETTING THAT TRUE NET BENEFIT IS WE'LL BE SEEN WITH LONGER TERM AGREEMENTS RATHER THAN SHORTER TERM AGREEMENTS. SO THE MORE LONGER TERM AGREEMENTS, THE BETTER. [00:55:03] THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ADRIEL, COULD YOU FAST FORWARD TO THE THE SCENARIO SCREEN, PLEASE? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. WELL, AFTER GOING OVER EVERYTHING, JUST ME PERSONALLY, SO THE BOARD KNOWS, [COUGH] I LIKE OPTION ONE OR MAYBE OPTION THREE AS A COMPROMISE. I THINK WE NEED TO START SAVING THE WATER, YOU KNOW, NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO HIT 15,000 ACRE FEET IN 2023, BUT DEFINITELY SHOOT FOR THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'LL BE CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T TRY FOR THAT AS SOON AS WE CAN. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AS A BOARD MEMBER RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I WILL--. I'LL OPINE, I GUESS. I THINK THAT IN--. I THINK WE ARE BEHIND SCHEDULE ON THE GOALS THAT THE STATE IS SET FOR US, AND ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, DON'T REALLY CARE TO CHARGE PEOPLE ANY MORE THAN WE HAVE TO. I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HIT THIS AGGRESSIVELY, TRY TO GET SOME WATER SAVINGS. THIS YEAR'S A DROUGHT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT NEXT YEAR HAS IN STORE FOR US. YOU KNOW, WE'RE OVER DRAFTING OUR BASIN, YOU KNOW, AND ULTIMATELY IF WE CONTINUE TO OVERDRAFT OUR BASIN WE'RE HARMING EVERYBODY. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, RIGHT, PEOPLE JUST KEEP DRILLING DEEPER STRAWS AND I THINK WE NEED TO CURTAIL OUR OVERDRAFT. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, I WAS KIND OF UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WOULD TAKE OUR 20 YEARS AND BE SUSTAINABLE AT THE END, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE HAD SO MANY YEARS OF DROUGHT THAT THIS IS EXACERBATED THE SITUATION AND I JUST THINK WE NEED TO GET ON IT. AND I THINK THAT COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT IF WE DO SHORT TERM DEALS, WE'RE GOING TO GET SCREWED, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO GET GROWERS THAT ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, INTEND TO BE OUT OF-- CAN'T GET TREES FOR TWO YEARS. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO FALLOW THE GROUND FOR TWO YEARS AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY THEM WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE REALLY FOLLOWED IT ANYWAYS, RIGHT? AND THE LONG TERM AGREEMENTS KIND OF STOPPED THAT FROM HAPPENING TO SOME DEGREE. AND THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE FALLOW THEIR LAND FOR ONE YEAR AND WE GIVE A CONTRACT. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE LONGER CONTRACTS AND IF YOU ADD THE CAVEAT, IF WE'RE BEHIND SCHEDULE, I WOULD TEND TO THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO THE SCENARIO OR OPTION ONE. THAT'S IT. ANYBODY ELSE? NO? READY FOR A MOTION? YOU WANT TO MAKE IT? OKAY, I'LL MOVE OPTION ONE. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR UPTON AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. I'M GOING TO--. JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, I'M GOING TO GO AND JUST ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ONE MORE TIME BEFORE WE DO THE ROLL. I REALLY--. IS THERE ANYBODY IN HERE OR ANYBODY ONLINE? NO. OKAY. NO CHAIR. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. YES, SIR. OKAY. MR. GALLO? AYE. MR. PEDRETTI? AYE. MR. UPTON? YES. MR. SWENSON? NO. MR. MARCHINI? YES. AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA? YES. YOUR ITEM DOES PASS. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES WITH THE VOTE OF 5 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS APPOINTMENT OF A TECHNICAL ADVISORY [10. APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS] COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ADRIEL RAMIREZ IS GOING TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THIS ITEM. IN 2021, THE GOVERNING BOARD APPROVED THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES INTO A SINGLE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SINCE THEN, THE TAC HAS MET ON A BIWEEKLY-- OR BI MONTHLY BASIS AND PROVIDED THIRD PARTY FEEDBACK ON IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES SUCH AS THE WELL CONSISTENCY POLICY, LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AMONG OTHERS. MEMBERSHIP OF THE TAC IS INTENDED TO BE BROAD IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MEMBERS TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION ON TECHNICAL COMPONENTS, AS WELL AS ASSIST WITH STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS. [01:00:01] THE TAC WILL CONTINUE TO MEET BI MONTHLY AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON GSP IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES. FEEDBACK FROM THE TAC IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD VIA A REPRESENTATIVE WHEN AVAILABLE. THE PROPOSED MEMBERS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF AS RECOMMENDING THE MEMBERSHIP PROPOSED BE APPOINTED. THE TAC NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE EXISTING LIST ARE LARRY [INAUDIBLE], MICHAEL [INAUDIBLE], JIMMY [INAUDIBLE] AND STEPHEN [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. 11 ACTION. SORRY, CHAIRMAN. ONE QUICK QUESTION. IF ANYBODY ELSE IN THE FUTURE WHO'D WANT TO GET ON, CAN WE OPEN THIS UP AGAIN OR IS THIS. YEAH, IT'S OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION UPDATE AND APPOINT THE NEW MEMBERS. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. OK. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI. I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. YES, SIR. MR. GALLO? AYE. MR. PEDRETTI? AYE. MR. UPTON? AYE. MR. SWENSON? AYE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI? AYE. AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA? I VOTE AYE. ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [11. ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES (ACWA) JPIA MEMBERSHIP] WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES, OR ACWA JPIA MEMBERSHIP. ADRIEL RAMIREZ, GIVE US AN UPDATE. AS PART OF PHASE ONE OF GSP IMPLEMENTATION, STAFF WILL BE HOLDING PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND BEGIN VIDEO LOGGING AND MONITORING EXISTING WELLS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. MANY OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THE GSA WOULD HOLD THESE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS REQUIRE THE GSA HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE. IN THE PAST, THE GSA HAS PURCHASED SINGLE DAY COVERAGE FROM THE COUNTY. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION AS IT IS EXPENSIVE. ADDITIONALLY, THE ACCESS AGREEMENT DRAFTED BY THE GSA'S LEGAL COUNSEL, JEANNE ZOLEZZI, REQUIRES THAT THE GSA HOLD LIABILITY INSURANCE AND INCLUDE EACH OF THE MONITORING LOCATIONS IN THE INSURANCE COVERAGE. STAFF HAS REACHED OUT TO THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION AND FOUND THAT GSA'S ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. STAFF IS ALSO CONSULTED WITH LOCAL INSURANCE EXPERTS WHO CONTACTED PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, MANY OF WHICH DID NOT PROVIDE INSURANCE TO GSAS. ADDITIONALLY, LOCAL INSURANCE EXPERTS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE GSA CONSIDER ACWA JPIA INSURANCE AS A TERMS OF ANY OTHER INSURANCE PROVIDER WHO MAY CONSIDER COVERING THE GSA WOULD NOT BE FAVORABLE TO THE GSA. THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP COST IS ESTIMATED TO BE $2,855, WITH ANNUAL LIABILITY COVERAGE COST BEING $2,250. SO ONCE WE'RE A MEMBER OF ACWA, WE WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE'D RECEIVE A DISCOUNT FOR BEING A FIRST TIME MEMBER AND THE AMOUNT WOULD BE PRORATED. SO THE TOTAL COST FOR THE AQUA MEMBERSHIP FOR 2022 WOULD BE $832. IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE GSP IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE GSA SUBMIT AN ACWA MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE GSA TO PURCHASE COVERAGE THROUGH THE ACWA JPIA UPON BECOMING A MEMBER. OK. WOULD THE $2,855 WOULD THAT BE AN ANNUAL ONGOING MEMBERSHIP FEE? YEAH. SO WE'D GET A PRO-RATED DISCOUNT THIS YEAR AND THEN IT WOULD BE THE $2,855 AND THIS WOULD BE ALSO THIS WOULD BE TAKEN TO THEIR BOARD ON JUNE 3RD. AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD BE GRANTED MEMBERSHIP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO. THE GSA ALSO DOES BUDGET FOR BOTH OF THESE INSURANCE AND MEMBERSHIPS EVERY YEAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. NO? ANY ONLINE? NO PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO BECOME A MEMBER OF ACWA. OKAY. AND THEN WOULD THAT INCLUDE PURCHASING LIABILITY INSURANCE TO THEM ONCE--? YES. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT? WAS THAT YOU, SWENSEN OR MIKE? OH, MIKE. OH, ONLINE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. MR. GALLO? [01:05:02] AYE. MR. PEDRETTI? AYE. MR. UPTON? AYE. MR. SWENSON? AYE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI? AYE. AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA? AYE. THANK YOU, SIR. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OK. OUR NEXT ITEM IS STAFF REPORT. [12. STAFF REPORT] JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE FORM SEVEN HUNDREDS ARE DO, PASS TO ACTUALLY, AND THEN STAFF IS WORKING ON CURRENTLY PROVIDING A 90 DAY NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE GSA'S IN THE BASIN TO SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND CITIES FOR THE UPCOMING GSP RESUBMITTAL, SO JUST A 90 DAY NOTICE . AND THEN THE TAC EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BRINGING PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS TO THE BOARD THAT COULD BE USED IN WORKSHOPS TO EDUCATE GROWERS ON WHAT A FUTURE ALLOCATION WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE RESPECTIVE GROWING OPERATIONS. AND THEY'RE ALSO SOMETHING WE COULD BE GENERATING UPON REQUEST FOR OUR MSGSA CONSTITUENTS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF WILL BRING FORWARD AS AN ACTION ITEM IN OUR MAIN MEETING, WHERE THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON CONTRACTING WITH [INAUDIBLE] TO PROVIDE THE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS TO OUR MSGSA CONSTITUENTS. AND THEN I'M GOING TO KICK THIS OVER TO GREG YOUNG TO SHOW A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. YOU RECALL IN THE PHASE ONE-- OR THE TWO PHASE APPROACH, PHASE ONE TALKED ABOUT CREATING ANNUAL WATER BUDGETS FOR GROWERS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE DISCUSSING IN THE 218 AD HOC WOULD BE FUNDING A LONGER TERM PROGRAM THAT WOULD START CREATING THAT ANNUAL TOOL FOR GROWERS TO USE TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF GOING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SET UP BY THE END OF 23, GOING INTO 24, 25, THAT MIGHT BE CONTRACTED WITH A SEPARATE VENDOR WHO THEN WE WOULD USE THAT KIND OF TOOL TO EVALUATE ANY ALLOCATION, TRACKING AND MONITORING SHOULD WE END UP WITH AN ALLOCATION APPROACH STARTING IN 26. SO UNTIL THAT TIME, THE GSA, AT LEAST IN SOME OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS IN THE TAC WERE SUGGESTING THAT TO FACILITATE CONVERSATIONS-- CAN YOU MAKE THAT A LARGER BY THE WAY? TO FACILITATE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE NEED TO START HAVING WITH ALL THE LANDOWNERS ABOUT ALLOCATIONS AS WE KIND OF MOVE FORWARD. BECAUSE PART OF THE PHASE ONE, THE REASON FOR AGAIN DOING LAND REPURPOSING OR FALLOWING, AS WAS SUGGESTED, IS TO GIVE US SOME TIME TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT ALLOCATION. AND PART OF THAT CONVERSATION CAN BE INFORMED WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AM I REALLY USING NOW? WHAT AM I CONSUMING NOW AS A LANDOWNER ON CERTAIN PARCELS? SO I COULD GET A SENSE OF IF WE'RE TALKING OF AN ALLOCATION OF THIS NUMBER OR THAT NUMBER AND SUSTAINABLE NUMBERS VERSUS MAYBE TRANSMISSION, WATER NUMBERS OR OTHER CONCEPTS, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE COMPARED WITH MY CURRENT OPERATION? AND SO USING OPEN ET, WE CAN CREATE THOSE--. LOOK BACK AT ONE YEAR IN PARTICULAR LIKE 2021 AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WAS CONSUMED IN 2021 AND WE'LL SHOW A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THOSE. AND THE THOUGHT WOULD BE, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU GUYS IN NEXT MONTH, IS THAT YOU, INSTEAD OF JUST BLANKETING EVERYBODY WITH THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS TO SET UP SOMETHING WHERE LANDOWNERS CAN REQUEST THAT YOU DO THE ANALYSIS AND WE PROVIDE THEM THEM WITH THE ANSWER UPON REQUESTS. AND SO SOMETHING COMES OUT AND THEY SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M CURIOUS. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT MY PARCEL LOOK LIKE THE LAST YEAR OR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND WE WOULD TAKE THAT INFORMATION. WE WOULD RUN AN EXAMPLE LIKE WE'RE GOING TO--. A PROCESS, LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SHOW ON THESE EXAMPLES AND PROVIDE THAT BACK TO THE LANDOWNER, AND THEY COULD USE THAT AS WE'RE MOVING THROUGH SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ALLOCATIONS. SO THIS IS JUST A COUPLE OF PLACES AROUND THE GSA WHERE WE JUST SAMPLED A FEW THINGS. OBVIOUSLY, OUR GSA IS VARIED AND IT'S GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND HIT THE NEXT SLIDE AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT THESE START TO LOOK LIKE. THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ZOOM--. EXPANDED--. JUST ZOOM IN ON THE MAP PART FOR A MOMENT, IF YOU DON'T MIND ADRIEL. AND WHAT THE INTENT WOULD BE IS WE WOULD GIVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO A GROWER. THIS HAPPENS TO BE A SET OF FIELDS FOR AN ENTIRE APN. SO THE APN IS KIND OF A SQUARE ON TOP WITH A RECTANGLE COMING DOWN THE SIDE. THE VERY BOTTOM OF THAT RECTANGLE HAS NOTHING GROWING ON IT. THE TOP PART OF THAT LOWER RECTANGLE HAS WHAT'S CALLED FIELD SIX, HAS SOME AGRICULTURAL [01:10:02] OPERATION, AND THE WHOLE UPPER SQUARE HAS SOME OPERATION, AND THEN THERE'S A CHANNEL THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE. THE COLORED AREAS ARE ACTUALLY FROM DWR'S CROP LAYER, AND SO THESE WERE DESIGNATED CROP IDENTIFIED CROPS FROM DWR'S CROPPING ANALYSIS. OPEN ET ALLOWS YOU TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL AS ONE PLUS ALL OF THE FIELDS INDIVIDUALLY, AND SO WE COULD PULL THAT INFORMATION. SO NOW SHIFT OVER TO THE RESULTING TABLE, JUST DRAG IT UP THERE, BUT MAKE IT BIGGER SO WE JUST FOCUS ON THE TABLE. WHAT YOU SEE--. SLIDE IT OVER A LITTLE BIT. YOU SEE BY MONTH, THIS IS FOR 2021, THIS IS MONTHLY EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND INCHES. YOU SEE THE ENTIRE PARCEL OVER THERE ON THE FAR LEFT AND IT'S KIND OF HEAT COATED WITH THE GREENER IS THE GREATER AMOUNT OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION THAT'S OCCURRING. THIS IS--. OPEN ET DOES THIS SATELLITE BASED ANALYSIS, REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. SO THIS IS BY FIELD THEN SO YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE PARCEL ON AVERAGE IS CONSUMING 34 INCHES PER ACRE, AND THEN EACH ONE OF THOSE FIELDS YOU CAN SEE DIFFERENT VALUES FROM 38, 42, 39, THERE'S ONE IN 48 IN FIELD SIX, WHICH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IS ACTUALLY A TREE CROP, A PERMANENT CROP OF SOME SORT. THEN YOU GO TO THE NON FIELD OR THE FALLOW FIELD, THAT'S ONLY ABOUT SIX INCHES. WHAT THAT REPRESENTS IS THE ET FROM RAIN. SO YOUR RAIN THAT OCCURS AND FALLS, THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF YOUR NATURAL ET THAT SOMETHING LIKE OPEN ET RECOGNIZES. SO THIS FIRST IS A REPRESENTATION OF TOTAL ET AND THEN ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE HAVE A PRECIP VALUE WITH THE VARIOUS MONTHS OF PRECIP THAT WERE DEFINED UNDER THE CIMIS INFORMATION, THE CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA FROM A LOCAL CIMIS STATION AND THEN A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE ROUGHLY EFFECTIVE PRECIP FROM THE EVENTS IN 2021. SO FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S ABOUT 11 AND A QUARTER INCHES OF RAIN THAT FELL AND WE'RE SEEING ABOUT SEVEN INCHES OF THAT WAS EFFECTIVE TOWARDS ET. SO IF YOU SUBTRACT OFF THE SEVEN INCHES, YOU GET A ROUGH APPROXIMATION FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL AND FOR EACH OF THOSE FIELDS DOWN AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF ET OF APPLIED WATER. NOW, WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL HAD SURFACE WATER OR JUST GROUNDWATER OR SOME COMBINATION, BUT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE VALUABLE TO THE GROWER. AND AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THERE'S NO--. REMOTE SENSING ISN'T SUPER--. ISN'T EXACT SCIENCE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS VARYING, THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT THIS DOES GIVE YOU KIND OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. SO IF WE WERE TO START HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ALLOCATIONS OF AND I'M JUST GOING TO PULL A NUMBER OUT FOR COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL PURPOSES, SO PLEASE DON'T LOCK THIS IN ANYWHERE. LET'S SAY YOU SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 24 INCHES AVAILABLE TO US OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND THERE MAY BE SOME TRANSITION WATER. YOU MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND GO LIKE, WOW, EVERY ONE OF MY FIELDS IS OVER RIGHT NOW. WELL, THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ME TO NEED TO START TAKING SOME ACTIONS AT SOME POINT. HOW DO I WANT TO INFORM MY INPUT TO THE GSA ON AN ALLOCATION APPROACH IF THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I'M LOOKING LIKE? SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER EXAMPLES. THIS NEXT ONE IS A DAIRY OPERATION. SO CAFO, CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY OPERATION PORTION, WHICH ALSO HAS CONTRIBUTING ET. THERE'S ACTUALLY WATER THAT OCCURS ON THE OPERATION, THE DAIRY, THE LOAFING SHEDS, THE LOAFING PENS AND THE MILKING PARLOR AREAS, IN THE FLUSH AND EVAPORATION COMING OFF OF THE LAGOONS, WHICH ARE RECOGNIZED AS FIELD FIVE HERE. SO IF YOU PULL THIS ONE UP FOR THE TABLE AGAIN, YOU GET INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USEFUL, AND YOU SEE SOME OF THOSE VALUES LIKE FIELD EIGHT IS 24 INCHES. AND SO AGAIN, IF WE USE THAT HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF, HEY, A SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF 24 INCHES, YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, WELL, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M USING RIGHT NOW IN THAT KIND OF FIELD. SO THAT STARTS TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, AS A LANDOWNER, WHAT ARE--? HOW DO THESE THINGS KIND OF OPERATE? WHAT IS THIS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? FIELD FIVE, I BELIEVE, WAS THE LAGOONS. AND SO THAT'S SHOWING THE ACTUAL EVAPORATION OFF OF THE WATER SURFACE FROM THE LAGOONS BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO EVAPORATE. YOU'RE PUMPING THEM OUT TO IRRIGATE WITH, BUT THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE EVAPORATION AS AN OPEN WATER BODY. THE FIELD TEN MIGHT SHOW WHERE THERE WAS A CUTTING MADE OR SOMETHING. THAT'S WHY IT GOES KIND OF ORANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER AND THEN STARTS TO HAVE AN INCREASE IN IT. SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME SORT OF FORAGE CROP WHERE IT WAS HARVESTED AND THEN IT'S REGROWING AGAIN AND ANOTHER CUTTINGS TAKEN LATER. SO LET'S GO TO ANOTHER EXAMPLE. THIS IS A, I BELIEVE, THIS IS FULL 100% MATURE TREES BASED ON THE DWR CROP LAYER WITH ONE [01:15:05] FIELD. AND NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA HERE FOR THE PARCEL IN THE FIELD, BECAUSE THE PARCEL IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, 76 GROSS ACRES VERSUS THE FIELD BEING 72 ACRES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE, THERE'S A SLIGHT VARIANCE THERE, BUT THAT 100% IRRIGATED FIELD IS USING ABOUT 41 INCHES OF ET AND ABOUT 34 OF THAT WOULD BE FROM APPLIED WATER. AND THEN I THINK ONE MORE EXAMPLE WE HAVE FINAL EXAMPLE. THIS IS A PARCEL WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS OCCURRING ON THOSE FIELDS, SOME OF IT PERMANENT, SOME OF IT LOOKING LIKE ROW CROP. WHEN YOU JUST LOOK--. AGAIN, VISUAL INSPECTION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S REALLY OCCURRING OUT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE VARIANCE ACROSS THOSE DIFFERENT FIELDS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO THE THOUGHT IS, IS IF LANDOWNERS WERE INTERESTED IN THIS KIND OF INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO THEN BETTER ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ALLOCATION. THE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO JUST PRODUCE ONE OF THESE FOR EVERY PLACE AND SEND IT OUT AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE MIGHT GO, WHAT'S THIS? AND IT ENDS UP IN A CIRCULAR FILE. THAT MAYBE THE GSA SETS UP AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE, AS REQUESTED, THIS KIND OF INFORMATION, IT ONLY TAKES, YOU KNOW, AN HOUR OR TOPS TO PROCESS ONE OF THESE THAT WE COULD PRODUCE THOSE KIND OF THINGS, GET THEM BACK OUT TO GROWERS AND HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A VALUE TO THEM FOR CONVERSATION. SO THIS IS INFORMATIONAL RIGHT NOW. WE WOULD COME BACK IN MAY ASKING FOR SOME DIRECTION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY GET IT ON AS AN OFFICIAL AGENDA ITEM AT THIS POINT FOR THIS MEETING. SO ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I HAD A QUESTION, GREG. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION AND PRECIPITATION? SO WE KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GET A LOT OF RAIN, IT'S GOING TO START MIGRATING BELOW THE ROOT ZONE. AND OF COURSE, EVERY CROP HAS DIFFERENT DEPTHS OF ROOT ZONES. AND WHEN YOU REALLY GET INTO TRUE WATER OR MOISTURE BALANCING MODELING AND ALL THAT STUFF, YOU MIGHT HAVE DEEP ROOT ZONES FOR SOME CROP TYPE, SHALLOW ROOT ZONES FOR OTHERS. AND IF YOU GET CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF RAIN, DEPENDING ON HOW THE SOIL IS SET UP, IT'S GOING TO MIGRATE BELOW. AND THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS UP AS PART OF THE RECHARGE TO THE BASIN AS PRECIP. SO IN THE MODELS THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAS DONE FOR ALL OF OUR WATER BALANCES, THE GROUNDWATER BASIN IS FED PARTIALLY BY PRECIP THAT IS PERCOLATING BELOW THE ROOT ZONE. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECIP AND EFFECTIVE PRECIP IS THE TOTAL RAIN IS PRECIP. THE EFFECTIVE IS THE PART THE PLANT IS CONSUMING. THE REST OF THAT DIFFERENCE IS PERCOLATING INTO THE GROUND. THERE'S A VARIETY OF WAYS TO TRY AND HANDLE THAT. THIS IS JUST A ROUGH APPROXIMATION. THE THERE ARE SOME GSA'S, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, WHO ARE JUST SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A REMOTE SENSE TO ET VALUE, GIVE YOU SIX INCHES OF OF EFFECTIVE PRECIP NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER IT'S A DRY YEAR OR A WET YEAR OR WHEN THE STORMS MAY HAVE OCCURRED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS TRULY BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR CROP SITUATION WHERE IT'S GIVING YOU SIX INCHES, CUTTING THAT OFF THE TOP, THE REST IS WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO WORK WITH. SO THERE'S THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST A WAY TO LOOK AT THAT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT THE JUST KIND OF ON THAT THAT NOTE, WHAT ABOUT WATER THAT RUNS OFF THE PARCEL, HOW IS THAT HANDLED? AGAIN IN THE BROADER WATER BALANCE THAT THE THAT THE COUNTY IS ARE THE SORRY, THE WATER AND KERN IS DONE WITHIN THE GSP. THAT IS THERE IS SOME ACCOMMODATIONS FOR RAINFALL THAT'S RUNNING OFF AND IT GOES TO SOME SORT OF CHANNELS. AND THEN THAT POTENTIALLY LEAVES AS SURFACE RUNOFF COMPLETELY FROM OUR BASIN OR IT PERCOLATES THROUGH THOSE NATURAL STREAMS OR OTHER CHANNELS. SO ALL OF THAT IS PART OF THAT OVERALL WATER BALANCE. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS A FIELD IS CROPPED FOR SOMETHING IT'S HAVING THIS ET INFORMATION IS A COMBINATION OF GROUND SENSING, DATA ON TEMPERATURE AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION AND REMOTE SENSED READINGS OF HEAT INDEX BASICALLY, WHICH IS A WHICH IS A REPRESENTATION OF TRANSPIRATION OF WATER, WATER MOLECULES TO THE ATMOSPHERE. RIGHT. SO THAT HAS A CERTAIN HEAT INDEX EFFECTS. SO WHEN THEY DO THAT INFORMATION, WE'RE SAYING THIS FIELD IS CONSUMING THIS MUCH WATER. NOW, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT WATER WAS EITHER RAIN OR IT WAS GROUNDWATER OR IT WAS SURFACE WATER OR MAYBE LATERAL SUBSURFACE FLOW FROM A A FULL CHANNEL NEXT DOOR OR SOMETHING. IN SOME CASES, YOU DO HAVE THAT SUBSURFACE LATERAL FLOW. BUT RUNOFF IS NOT PART OF THIS PICTURE. IT'S NOT PICKED UP. CRAIG, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR A PUBLIC WATER AGENCY TO REQUEST A AN ESTIMATE FOR THEIR WHOLE BOUNDARY OF THEIR AGENCY? [01:20:02] BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE IS A NEED TO START TO TRY TO GET A SENSE OF HOW MUCH PRIVATE PUMPING IS GOING ON WITHIN THOSE ENTITIES. AND THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST TOOLS TO START TO DO THAT, TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT LOOK LIKE. ABSOLUTELY. WHETHER THAT'S GSA SPONSORED OR WHETHER THAT'S SPONSORED INDIVIDUALLY BY THAT AGENCY, THIS OPEN, ET CAN ALLOW YOU TO GO LOOK AT THIS AND LOOK BACK. THEY HAVE DATA THROUGH BACK THROUGH 2016 OR 17, I THINK IS WHAT THEY'VE COMPILED SO FAR. AND THEY AND AND THERE'S ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS TO ALL OF THIS ANALYZES THE METHODOLOGIES THAT WE ARE USING WHAT'S CALLED THE ENSEMBLE VALUE FROM OPEN ET, WHICH IS TAKING SIX DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES. YOU'VE HEARD OF METRIC, YOU'VE HEARD OF SEA BALL, YOU'VE HEARD OF A COUPLE OTHER ONES. EACH ONE OF THOSE IS IDENTIFIED IN OPEN ET, WHICH IS AN OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM, AND THEN THEY CREATE AN ENSEMBLE THROUGH AN ALGORITHM THAT WEIGHTS CERTAIN ONES DIFFERENTLY, DEPENDING ON THE CROP TYPE AND WHERE IT'S OCCURRING. BUT THIS INFORMATION ABSOLUTELY WOULD HELP YOU GET A SENSE OF MAGNITUDE [INAUDIBLE] MAGNITUDE. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT ANY ENTITY COULD DO IT PRIVATELY. I GUESS WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING THIS INFORMATION FUNDED THROUGH THE 218 PROCESS AS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT IS GOING TO BE ENCOMPASSED IN THAT FEE. LET ME LET ME CLARIFY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO THAT THROUGH THE 218 PROCESS THAT WE WILL BE CONSIDERING LATER, THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE TO SOLICIT A VENDOR LIKE CAL POLY ITRC HAS THE METRIC OPERATION. THEY RUN LAND IQ HAS A SYSTEM, HAS A SERVICE FORMATION AS A SERVICE DOWN IN MADERA COUNTY, THOSE FAMILIAR DOWN THERE, THEY'RE RUNNING EARWATCH. THEY THEY HAVE CONTRACTED WITH THAT ENTITY TO PROVIDE A SERVICE FOR GROWERS ONGOING BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. THIS WOULD JUST BE FUNDED OUT OF THE CURRENT BUDGETS THAT WERE PART OF THE 2019 FEES THAT ARE THAT ARE CAPTURING DOLLARS FOR PLANNING AND AND THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT WE'RE UNDERGOING NOW AS FAR AS MOVING INTO IMPLEMENTATION. AND SO THE GSA WOULD BE USING CURRENT DOLLARS COLLECTED UNDER THOSE BUDGETS TO HELP FUND THIS OR POTENTIALLY LOOK AT IT AS ONE OF THE LINE ITEMS IN THE NEXT THE 2019 BUDGET. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO SORRY, THE JUNE BUDGET YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING IN A FEW MONTHS. BUT IT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE NEXT 218 FEE. I GUESS THAT THAT WOULD BE A VENDOR. THAT WOULD BE US AS THE GSA SOLICITING A VENDOR IN PROBABLY EARLY 2023, ASKING FOR BIDS, CONTRACTING SOMEBODY MAYBE FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SO THAT THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THEY PROBABLY WOULD BUILD A DASHBOARD IN SOME WAY WHERE EVERY ONE OF THE GROWERS COULD GET ON AND SEE THINGS. AND US, AS THE GSA WOULD FUNCTION FOR THE GSA'S MONITORING NEEDS INTO THE ALLOCATION APPROACH. THIS IS KIND OF LIKE ONE OFFS JUST TO HELP THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ALLOCATIONS. SO NOW WITH A PUBLIC AGENCY BOUNDARY WANTING TO FIND THAT SAME THING, YOU KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO DO THE ANALYSIS REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE IT JUST BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE SO MANY FIELDS IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING TO JUST TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE IT ALL AND AND MAKE SURE WE'VE SPOT CHECKED EVERYTHING BUT IT WOULD BE A ONE OFF OPERATING UNDER THE CURRENT BUDGETS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. THANK YOU. OK NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE TO BORDER REPORTS. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST. OH, I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. JUST ONE THING. YOU KNOW, THIS ORGANIZATION LACEY MCBRIDE IS A VERY BIG PART OF THIS ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS A VERY BIG PART OF MY TEAM. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A QUICK, QUICK OPPORTUNITY JUST TO WISH SHE AND HER HUSBAND WELL, WHO JUST BROUGHT BROUGHT IT INTO THE WORLD, LOGAN AARON ON THE ON THE 8TH OF APRIL. AND SO VERY EXCITED FOR HER. AND I THOUGHT THAT THE GSA BOARD WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING THAT MOM AND BABY ARE DOING WELL. THANK YOU, SIR. YOU'RE WELCOME. GREAT NEWS. YES, BOARD PORTS, ANYTHING. [13. BOARD REPORTS] THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. YOU'RE DOING GREAT. HOLDING DOWN THE FORT WELL. THANK YOU. I WAS A LITTLE NERVOUS, YOU KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. GEN. WHAT GEN ARE YOU? X? Z? Y? BUT ANYWAYS. BUT I'LL KICK IT OVER TO GREG. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT YOUNGER LANGUAGE, BUT. NO, NOT. NOT OFFENSIVE, THOUGH. KOLE? GREG? ERIC? NO. WELL, THEN WE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I GUESS I JUST WANT TO PUT UP ONE, ONE COMMENT, I GUESS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ADDING [01:25:02] ON TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEHIND A LITTLE BIT ON THE EIGHT BALL ON THIS, ON THE REDUCTIONS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SOONER THAN LATER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US START ON ON THE PHASE TWO DISCUSSIONS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THE 218 TO PASS BEFORE WE DO THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY NEED TO PUSH HARD ON THAT. SO WITH THAT, WE IT. MIKE I AGREE WITH YOU [INAUDIBLE] OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY FOR FORGETTING ABOUT YOU, MIKE. YOU'RE SO QUIET OVER THERE, BUT APPRECIATE YOU. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY? NO, NO. I JUST AGREE WITH YOU 100% THAT I THINK WE'RE I'VE ALWAYS FELT WE'RE A LITTLE BEHIND AND SO STEPPING THINGS UP IS A GREAT IDEA. YES. YES. AND I AND I THINK BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT AREAS IN OUR IN OUR BASIN HAVE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS AND DIFFERENT OR DIFFERENT ISSUES IN THE SUSTAINABILITY THRESHOLDS THAT THE SOONER WE CAN GET ON TO GETTING THAT MORE ACCURATE, THE BETTER OFF AND THE MORE EQUITABLE REALLY IT WILL BE FOR EVERYBODY. SO WITH THAT WE'LL CALL. [14. NEXT REGULAR MEETING] THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. OUR NEXT MEETING IS MAY 12TH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.