[00:00:02]
HELLO, EVERYONE.[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE MAY 12TH MEETING.WE MADE THE CALL ROLL FIRST OR DO IT AND WILL CALL ME INTO ORDER AT LEAST GET MY PHONE.
OH, IS HE ON THE PHONE? WE'LL DO A QUICK, A QUICK ROLL CALL.
WE'LL START WITH MR. PEDRETTI HERE.
MR. OPT-IN HERE, MR. SWENSON HERE AND, UH, ACTING CHAIR OF MARCHINI CAME HERE.
AND THEN AS SOON AS THAT, OUR BOARD MEMBERS ARRIVE EITHER ON THE PHONE OR IN PERSON, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE MAPS REFLECT, UH, THEIR, THEIR TENANTS AT THAT TIME.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION NOW OR NOT? YES, IT IS BLUE.
WE WAIT A SECOND MAYBE, BUT, WELL, DON'T, DON'T GO THERE.
THE COUNCIL LOOK AT US LIKE WE'RE FUNNY.
SO AT THIS POINT YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A DEBATE IN THE VA.
SO WE'LL DO THAT NOW, GENIE OR THE, UH, THE TELECONFERENCING MOTION.
YOU CAN DO THAT BEFORE, AFTER IS HE MADE EITHER WE AWARE OF ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO BE JOINING CLOSED SESSION REMOTELY.
[2. STATE OF EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS]
YOU RECALL, THIS IS NINE AND WE HAVE TO DO A, EVERY MEETING, WHICH WE WANT TO, UM, YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH ALLOWING THOSE TO, UH, TO PARTICIPATE, UM, IN A VIRTUAL SETTING.SO IN THAT CASE, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU UNDERTAKE, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE STATE OF EMERGENCY FINDINGS FOR A TELECONFERENCE FOR THIS MEETING.
I HAVE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'LL DO A QUICK ROLL ROLL CALL FOR THE VOTE GAME MOTION FOR MR. PEDRETTI A SECOND FOR MR. UPTON.
AYE, MR. UPTON, I, AND VICE-CHAIRMAN MARCHINI.
I HEARD THAT THE ITEM DOES PASS NOW.
YOU'RE FREE TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, RIGHT? JARED YOU'RE CLOSED.
[3. CLOSED SESSION]
THANK YOU.WE RETURNING FROM CLOSED SESSION AND THEN NO ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AND S SCAFF STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION.
SO MR. PEDRETTI, PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
THERE'S A FLAG THAT WOULD BE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TWO DEGREE VALVE FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A, MAYBE THREE QUICK HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. ONE OF WHICH IS JUST TO REMIND THOSE, UM, UH, EXCUSE ME IN THE PUBLIC, UH, THAT DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 CRISIS, AND AGAIN IS AUTHORIZED BY SENATE BILL 360 1.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST VIA CONFERENCE CALL.
IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS, PHYSICAL LOCATION MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHO DO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND PARTICIPATE OR OBSERVE THE MEETING MAY DO SO AGAIN, EITHER IN-PERSON OR ON THAT AFOREMENTIONED VIDEO CALL, UH, THE BOARD, UH, PRIOR TO HEADING INTO CLOSED SESSION, UH, DID MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS AS REQUIRED UNDER AB 360 1 TO ALLOW FOR MEETINGS TO BE DONE, UH, REMOTELY.
SO AGAIN, UH, FOR THOSE THAT DO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, MAKE COMMENTS, ET CETERA, AS A PART OF THE VIDEO CALL, PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND USE THE RAISE.
YOUR HAND FEATURE AND STAFF IS GOING TO BE ACTIVELY WATCHING THAT.
SO THE CHAIRMAN CAN ENSURE THAT THOSE COMMENTS ARE HEARD AS WELL.
A COUPLE OTHER QUICK, UH, ONE OTHER QUICK HOUSEKEEPING ITEM, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MINUTES.
DO YOU WANT TO BE REFLECTED THAT MR. GALLO IS PRESENT? AND I BELIEVE THAT, UH, MR. PERERA IS GOING TO BE CALLING IN, UH, OR, OR HAS, OR WILL BE SOON.
SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE MINUTES REFLECT THOSE IN ATTENDANCE.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE GOOD TO GO.
WE'RE ON NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTERESTS WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, NOT ON THE AGENDA, IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT OR ANY OF THOSE LINES THAT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ON ZOOM, RIGHT? USE THE, RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE TO INDICATE IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK.
MR. VICE CHAIR, NON NONE AT THIS TIME.
[6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 14TH MEETING MINUTES.ANY DISCUSSION ON THEM, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE ONE COMMENT AND THAT IS ON THE PROPOSITION TWO 18 DEVELOPMENT, UM, UNDER THE MOTION AND WHO FORWARDED.
AND SECONDLY, IT TALKS ABOUT THE TWO 18 COLLECTION, BUT ACTUALLY I BELIEVE THE VOTE WAS FOR OPTION ONE FOR THE LAND RE-PURPOSING, UM, FUNDING ONLY.
AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY, IT SAYS CHAIRMAN PARA NOTED HIS PREFERENCE FOR OPTION ONE.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE VOTE WAS FOR OPTION ONE.
I THINK THAT WAS ON PAGE FOUR OF THE MINUTES.
[00:05:01]
FIRST PARAGRAPH.SO, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MINUTES ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT.
SO MR. SWINSON JUST HELPED THE VICE CHAIRMAN A LITTLE BIT.
ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, UH, LESS THAT AMENDMENT OR WITH, UH, WITH THAT AMENDMENT RATHER? YES.
WITH THAT, WITH THAT AMENDMENT, I GUESS.
DO YOU MEAN A ROLL CALL? VOTE SMART.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH MR. GALLOW.
I MR. PEDRETTI I, MR. UPTON, MR. SWENSON, I MR. MARKINI RIGHT.
AND I DON'T KNOW, FLOYD IS, UH, MR. PERERA, ARE YOU, UH, YOU AND THE AFFIRMATIVE? THANK YOU, SIR.
SO MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN, YOU AS LLOYD.
I THINK WE GOT A VOTE FROM YOU.
UH, SO WE DO HAVE A, YOUR MINUTES DID PASS.
[7. LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT]
WE'LL BE ON NUMBER SEVEN, LAMBERT PURCHASING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS ADRIAL AND CHRIS HEBNER WILL GIVE US A GREAT BRIEF SUMMARY.UM, I'LL BE GIVING A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE PLAN RE-PURPOSING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.
UM, CAN YOU SEE THE SLIDE? OKAY.
YES, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE DISPLAYING THE SIGNS.
SO TODAY I'LL JUST REVIEW WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF THE LANDER PURCHASING PROGRAM OR LRP ROADMAP.
UM, AND THEN I WILL INFORM YOU ON UPDATES RELATED TO, UM, DEVELOPMENT OF CONTRACT TERMS FOR THE PROGRAM AND HOW THAT TIES IN TOGETHER WITH THE, UH, APPLICATION PROCESS AND HOW THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE, UH, EVALUATED USING THE SCORING FRAMEWORK.
SO THE LAND PURCHASING PROGRAM ROADMAP YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE, UM, THERE WE ARE IN MAY AND, UM, THINGS HAVE PROGRESSED ALONG.
WE ARE CONTINUING, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP ROW AND THE AD HOC, UM, AND COMMITTEE LEVEL DISCUSSIONS.
WE, UH, BEGAN DISCUSSION OF THE CONTRACT TERMS IN APRIL AND, AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING THAT, UM, IN MAY, UM, THE NEXT ITEM UP THERE, UM, IN TERMS OF THE BOARD LEVEL DISCUSSION, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE DRAFT TERMS TO PRESENT TO THIS BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION, UM, YET, BUT THAT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, HAPPENING IN THE NEXT, UH, FEW MONTHS.
SO BASICALLY THE, THE TIMEFRAME FOR CONTRACT TERM DEVELOPMENT IS, UM, SLIGHTLY PUSHED INTO THE FUTURE.
UM, JUST AS PER THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD AT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE LEVEL, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE WORK THROUGH THE, THE CONTRACT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S REFLECTED HERE IN THIS ROADMAP.
SO, UM, IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, AS I MENTIONED, WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE APRIL AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, UM, THIS MONTH.
UM, AND THIS CONTRACT IS INTENDED TO BE USED TO SIGN PEOPLE UP TO THE LANDER PURCHASING PROGRAM.
IT WOULD BE A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT, UM, AND IT WOULD LAY OUT THE TERMS FOR PARTICIPATION OF THE, OF THE APPLICANTS, UM, AND HOW THEY WOULD BE, UM, INCENTIVIZED THROUGH OR COMPENSATED THROUGH INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.
UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO BE PUBLICIZED TO THE POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE CONTRACT LOOKS LIKE, UM, AHEAD OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING FOR THE 20, 23 GROWING SEASON.
SO THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A, UH, UH, PUBLIC PUBLIC, UH, WORKSHOP TO, YOU KNOW, EXPLAIN THE CONTRACT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, GIVE FOLKS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, UM, IN ITS FINAL FORM, UM, THE WAY WE ENVISIONED THIS LRP PROGRAM TO WORK, UM, THERE WOULD BE A SORT OF OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD, UM, PRIOR TO EACH YEAR'S GROWING SEASON, UM, OR THE DURATION OF THE PHASE ONE PROGRAM.
UM, AND DURING THAT PERIOD, APPLICANTS COULD, UM, SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.
UM, THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE, UH, REVIEWED AND EVALUATED IN THE, USING THE SCORING FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON NEXT.
SO THE CONTRACT, UM, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, HAS THE SECTIONS, UM, THAT YOU SEE HERE, UM, STARTING OUT WITH, YOU KNOW, DEFINITIONS
[00:10:01]
TO MAKE SURE ALL THE TERMINOLOGY IS CLEAR.UM, THE NEXT FEW ITEMS, UH, COME, WOULD COME DIRECTLY FROM THE APPLICATION AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND, AND WHO'S, UH, WHO WAS THE PARTICIPANT, UM, ATLANTA PURCHASING PLAN.
THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE, THE MEAT OF THE APPLICATION IN TERMS OF WHAT LANDS, HOW MANY ACRES WOULD BE REPURPOSED FOR HOW LONG, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE PLANS REPURPOSED USE, UM, AND, UH, INCLUDES THE TERM ABOUT, UM, REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS FOR MITIGATION OF ANY NUISANCE CONDITIONS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, DUST AND WEEDS.
UM, THE NEXT SECTION WOULD BE RELATED TO INCENTIVE PAYMENTS, UM, LAYING OUT THE TERMS FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THOSE PAYMENTS WOULD BE, UM, MADE, UM, AND HOW MUCH, AND THE SCHEDULE FOR THOSE PAYMENTS.
UM, THE NEXT FEW ITEMS HAVE TO DO WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW THE CONTRACT IS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED.
SO THERE, THERE WOULD BE MY PREFERRED ALLOCATION AND MONITORING OF LAND AND WATER USE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S, UH, PROCEEDING AS PLANNED.
UM, THERE WOULD BE A TERM RELATED TO PRO PIVOTING, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPANDING IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE ON OTHER LANDS OWNED BY THE PARTICIPANT, SO THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT SORT OF MOVING, MOVING THE BALL AROUND, UM, AND AVOIDING, UM, NO REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER.
THIS IS REALLY TO HELP, UM, ENSURE THAT THE PARTICIPANTS ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE STATED GOAL OF, UM, REDUCING CONSUMPTIVE GROUNDWATER USE.
UH, THE NEXT FEW TERMS WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH, UM, ENFORCEMENT OR, UM, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ENFORCEMENT MIGHT BE NECESSARY AND WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE TO, UM, TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT, UM, CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE CONTRACT MAY BE TERMINATED OR AMENDED, AND THEN, UM, LEGAL ITEMS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH, UH, ASSISTANCE FROM, UH, FROM THE COUNCIL, UM, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND THE LIKE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THE APPLICATION SCORING FRAMEWORK, UM, WE'VE, UM, BEEN DISCUSSING THAT AS WELL IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS OF THE BOARD LEVEL, AND THEN THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, BASICALLY THIS TAKES THE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICATIONS, UM, PUTS IT INTO A SORT OF A RANKING TABLE AND APPLIES SCORING CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING FACTORS TO CALCULATE A TOTAL SCORE FOR THE APPLICATION.
THE SCORING CRITERIA ARE LISTED ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
UM, WE'VE DEVELOPED A FEW SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATIONS, BUT VARIOUS LAND USES AND DURATIONS AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, OFFERS TO, UH, SEE HOW THOSE PLAY OUT IN THE, IN THE SCORING AND WITH THIS, THE COMMITTEE IS, UM, EVALUATING WHAT THE CRITERIA AND WHAT THE WEIGHTING FACTORS SHOULD BE.
UM, AND AGAIN, WILL BE IMPORTANT TO MAKE THESE CRITERIA AND, UM, TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT PARTICIPANTS, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE FOR THE PROGRAM.
UM, AND SO WHEN THEY PUT TOGETHER THEIR OWN APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE IT MIGHT LAND AND THEY HAVE A, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, UH, PUT IN AN APPLICATION THAT WOULD, UM, SORT OF RIGHT OFF THE BAT, BE A LOW SCORING APPLICATION.
THIS IS, WE THINK THIS WILL HELP, UM, YOU KNOW, GET PEOPLE UP ON THE RIGHT TRACK FROM, FROM EARLY ON.
SO IN THE DISCUSSIONS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE KEY KEY INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE CONTRACT ON THE CONTRACT SIDE, UH, IT WILL NEED TO INCLUDE, UM, AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO ENSURE THAT PARTICIPANTS ARE, ARE COMMITTED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE WHO SORT OF SIGN UP AND THEN, UM, PULL OUT OF THE PROGRAM, UH, YOU KNOW, AFTER ONE YEAR, WHICH WOULD SORT OF LIMITED ITS EFFECTIVENESS.
UM, WE'VE ALSO GOTTEN INPUT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SORT OF MINIMUM PER ACRE WATER USE SAVINGS.
UM, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY TO NOT ONLY MAKE SURE YOU GET, UH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GOOD BANG FOR THE BUCK, BUT ALSO THAT IT CAN BE MONITORED AND VERIFIED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, THE WATER SAVINGS IS, IS TOO MINOR TO BE SMALL COMPARED TO THE TOTAL WATER USE.
UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO, TO MONITOR VERIFY.
SO WE WANT TO PUT IN SORT OF A MINIMUM PER ACRE WATER YOU SAVINGS, UM, AND THEN MINIMUM, TOTAL WATER YOU SAVINGS.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE SORT OF PER-ACRE VALUE MULTIPLIED.
AND THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW,
[00:15:01]
UM, COST BENEFIT IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE WATER SAVINGS BENEFIT WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION SCORING FRAMEWORK.UM, SOME INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SCORING CRITERIA NEEDS TO BE, UM, INCENTIVIZING OFFERS WITH THE FAVORABLE, I NEED LONGER DURATIONS AND FAVORABLE COSTS, UM, DOLLARS PER ACRE FOOT, UM, AND TO DISINCENTIVIZE OFFERS WITH, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGH, UPPER PRICE PER VOLUME OF WATER SAVED.
UH, AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, BUILDING THOSE, UM, UH, WEIGHTING FACTORS AND CRITERIA ACCORDINGLY.
UH, SO THOSE ARE BASIC UPDATES FROM THE LAST, UM, AD HOC COMMITTEE WORK ON THE, ON THE CONTRACT AND THE APPLICATION SCORING FRAMEWORK.
AND AS I SAID, WE'LL BE CONTINUING TO REFINE THIS IN THE, IN THE NEXT FEW MEETINGS.
AND THAT IS, UH, ALL I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, YEAH.
IS THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE WATER SAVINGS GOING TO BE THE SAME BASIS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT USING FOR ACCOUNTING OF PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE AS TO HOW MUCH WATER THEY USE.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF SOMEBODY SWITCHES TO A MUCH HIGHER EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THEIR GROSS APPLICATION OF WATER COULD DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT THE NET WATER SAVINGS WOULDN'T CHANGE VERY MUCH BECAUSE THERE'LL BE LESS WATER MOVING DOWNWARD INTO THE WATER TABLE.
SO ARE YOU TAKING, ARE YOU GOING TO USE BASICALLY THE SAME ACCOUNTING WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY USING IN 2024 AND 2025 TO CALCULATE WATER USE? THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
UM, WE HAVEN'T WORKED OUT COMPLETELY THE DETAILS OF WHAT WATER USE SAVINGS, UH, VERIFICATION, AND I THINK WE'VE USE IN THE ONCE THE ATLANTA PURCHASING PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT BEING BASED ON THIS SORT OF PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGET, UM, REMOTE SENSING, YOU KNOW, ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRATION APPROACH, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU RAISED A GOOD POINT ABOUT, UH, IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOWER YOUR WATER USE, UM, BY INCREASING EFFICIENCY, UH, YOU MAY NOT ACTUALLY GET THE, UM, THE BENEFITS OF THE AQUIFER BECAUSE WE REDUCING RETURN FLOWS FROM THAT, UM, SORT OF LOWER EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION IN TERMS OF THE, UM, HOW WATER USE SAVINGS WILL BE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE SCORING, UM, FRAMEWORK.
WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STANDARDIZED APPROACH, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE, UM, REPLICATED AND NOW IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR SORT OF A SUBJECTIVE, UM, QUANTIFICATION OF WHAT ARE YOU.
SO IF THERE ARE A FEW SORT OF STANDARDIZED APPROACHES SUCH AS DWR IS, UM, SCIMITAR APPROACH, WHICH BASICALLY USES CLIMATE AND CROP COEFFICIENT INFORMATION TO, UM, CALCULATE, UH, CROP WATER USE.
UM, IF WE WERE TO USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ENSURE THAT THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATER USE AND WHAT YOU SAVINGS ARE, UM, ARE, ARE USED FOR ALL APPLICATIONS.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK AS WE'VE MOVED FORWARD, WE WOULD, UM, CONSIDER USING THE REMOTE SENSING, UM, METHOD AS WELL.
UM, BUT I THINK IN THE TIME BEING, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE USE A, AN APPROACH TO STANDARDIZE IT AND THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US NOW.
SO FOR THE SORT OF EARLY YEARS, OR AT LEAST THIS FIRST YEAR, UM, WE'LL PROBABLY BE RELYING ON SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE HOUSE SUCH AS CALCIUM AND TOD OR, OR OTHER SORT OF PROP COEFFICIENT BASED APPROACHES.
AND THAT'S JUST FOR THE, UM, EVALUATION OF THE, WHAT ARE YOU SAVINGS, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS SORT OF ONE CRITERIA OR ONE ELEMENTS OF THE SCORING, UM, IN TERMS OF THE VERIFICATION OF WHAT ARE YOU SAVINGS? UM, THE PLAN IS TO USE THAT REMOTE SENSING DATA.
I MEAN, SO IT WAS GOING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE I OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC QUESTION? SURE.
UH, SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO, UH, REDUCE THE WATER USAGE, UH, SUPPOSE THEORETICALLY, A GUY SAID, OKAY, I'M GOING TO TAKE 300 ACRES AND I'M NOT GONNA USE ANY WATER ON IT, BUT I'M, I'M GOING TO PUT ON SOLAR PANELS AND YOU CAN USE ANY WATER AND HAVE THAT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
I ASSUME THAT WOULD BE MEET THE STANDARDS HERE OF
[00:20:01]
SAVING THE WATER.AND IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO HEAR YOU, BUT I THINK WHAT, UM, I HEARD YOU ASK IS IF A FARMER WERE TO TRANSITION TO A SOLAR PANEL, UM, LAND USE, YOU KNOW, WOULD THAT BE A VIABLE OR APPROPRIATE RE-PURPOSING, UM, PLAN UNDER THIS PROGRAM? IS THAT THE QUESTION BASICALLY? UM, I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS IT SORT OF MEETS THE GOAL OF REDUCING, YOU KNOW, CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE ULTIMATE GOAL.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE OPTION FOR A LANDOWNER.
AND MR. UPTON, AT THAT POINT FROM THE COUNTY SIDE OF THINGS OF WHAT WE DO, WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DONE THAT IN MANY OCCASIONS WITH SOME OF OUR, OUR AG FOLKS WHO HAVE TRANSITIONED THEIR PROPERTY, UH, TO, TO SOLAR PANELS, WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE HELPING FOLKS GET THAT DONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS RIGHT NOW BEFORE? OKAY.
RIGHT NOW I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PUBLIC HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON PRESENTATION ON ZOOM? NONE MR. CHAIR.
I BELIEVE IN THE PROP TWO 18 DISCUSSIONS IN THE DRAFT ENGINEER'S REPORT, IT DESCRIBED THE MINIMUM TERM OF THE CONTRACTS AS THREE TO FIVE YEARS.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A FUTURE DISCUSSION ABOUT TERMS. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF WHERE THAT STANDS.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE ANSWER FOR THAT YET.
I GO AHEAD, GREG, UH, FIRST, UM, BRIAN, MAYBE A CLARIFIER, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN THE CONTRACT THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TERMS OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER? RIGHT.
UM, THE, THE, THE CONTRACTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO AS EITHER A THREE, A FOUR OR A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, DEPENDING ON WHAT YEAR YOU ENTER INTO IT, BECAUSE WE'LL, WE'RE ANTICIPATING GENERATING REVENUE TO, UH, TO GO UP TO FIVE YEARS, IF YOU SO POTENTIALLY YOU COULD ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR 2023 THROUGH 20, 27 GROWING SEASON FIVE YEARS.
BUT IF YOU ENTERED, THAT'S THE WAY WE HAVE IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE INTO THE CONTRACT TERMS THEMSELVES.
YOU'LL, YOU WILL ENTER INTO ONE OF THOSE DURATIONS, BUT IF YOU ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT IN 2025, THEN IT'S A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT 25, 26 27, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW OUR REVENUE GENERATION AND PAYOUT IS BEING ADDRESSED WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE SUNSET CLAUSE THAT'S IN THE, UH, TWO PHASE RESOLUTION.
SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH.
AS LONG AS YOU'RE UP THERE, SUPPOSEDLY YOU DO GO TO THE SOLAR PANELS AND THEY'RE 25 OR 30 YEAR LIFETIME SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE FROM THE COUNTY'S PERSPECTIVE AND THE LAND PURPOSING, UH, JUST TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THAT.
IT SAVES THE WATER, PICKS THAT OUT OF THE WATER MARKET THING FOR 25 30 YEARS.
UM, ANY LONG-TERM REPURPOSING SHOULD, UH, SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED WHAT WE WOULD SEE IN A CASE LIKE THAT.
AND THIS IS KIND OF PART OF THE, THE INTERESTING INTERSECTION INTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM ABOUT THE ENGINEER'S REPORT.
AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS IS WE HAVE A, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GENERATE REVENUE THROUGH A PROGRAM.
THAT'S GOING TO SUNSET A FEE THAT'S GOING TO SUNSET, SO WE CAN ONLY COLLECT SO MUCH.
AND SO WE CAN ONLY ENTER INTO PAYING OUT SO MUCH.
WE CAN'T MAKE PROMISSORY NOTES TO PAY OUT PEOPLE FOR 15 YEARS IF WE DON'T HAVE REVENUE STREAMS TO ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
BUT I COULD SEE HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEBODY SAY, YEAH, I'M GOING TO CONVERT TO SOLAR PANELS.
SO I'M GOING TO ENTER INTO A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE, THE SHORT-TERM LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AND DO THAT.
AND THEN BY THAT TIME I'M FULLY UP AND RUNNING AND MY SOLAR PANELS ARE IN AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO START GENERATING ALL MY REVENUE ON THAT IN THE LONGTERM, AND POSSIBLY DEPENDING ON HOW THIS BODY WANTS TO ADDRESS THINGS IN THE REPLACEMENT FUNDING STRUCTURE THAT MAY COME THERE MAY BE CONTINUED INCENTIVE PAYMENTS PROVIDED TO THAT PARTY POSSIBLY.
I MEAN, THAT'S A CONTEMPLATION.
SO THE SCORING THAT ERIC, SORRY, ERIC, THAT CHRIS IS SETTING UP WITH AKI WILL LOOK AT THE CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION.
SO IF THEY HAD A HIGH CONSUMPTIVE USE AND THEY'RE GOING TO NOTHING, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SOLAR PANELS, THAT'S GOING TO SCORE WELL.
AND IT MAY ALSO SCORE WELL, IF IT'S IN AN AREA THAT IS WHERE WE WERE CONSIDERING DOMESTIC WELL CONCERNS OR SUBSIDENCE OR SOMETHING.
SO THEY MAY BE ABLE TO SCORE EXTRA WELL WITH THAT KIND OF PROPOSAL.
[00:25:01]
AND I THOUGHT YOU WERE BEING SARCASTIC WITH THAT QUESTION FOR, I DO BELIEVE WE NOW HAVE TO RAISE HANDS.FIRST ONE IS MR. PERERA, WHO HAS A QUESTION? UH, YES.
UM, I, ONE THING THAT'S KIND OF, I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE MENTIONED TO ME AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT OR NOT, BUT I WANT TO SHARE IT AND GET, UH, MY COLLEAGUES, UH, INPUT OR THOUGHTS, BUT, UH, THAT, UH, I'VE HAD, UH, UH, PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA PUT IN THE FIRST YEAR BECAUSE THEY THINK THE FIRST YEAR THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS WILL BE LOWER, YOU KNOW, AND THEN AS WE NEED PEOPLE, THEN THE SECOND YEAR THEY'LL GO HIGHER.
AND, AND SO JUST KIND OF ANYBODY'S THOUGHTS ON HOW, IF THAT, IF THEY REALLY THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE TRUE.
AND IF SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO TO COUNTERACT THAT, I GUESS, WELL, IT IS A POSSIBILITY YOU'RE RIGHT.
SORRY, BOARD FIRST, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE KEY MIGHT BE AS WE, WE PUBLISH IN A COMPETING TABLE OF WHAT OUR TARGETED SAVINGS ARE FOR EACH YEAR.
SO IN ESSENCE, IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SAVE 15,000 ACRE FEET OF PUMPING EXTRACTION EACH YEAR, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO DISINCENTIVE TO APPLY YOUR ONE.
IF WE, IF WE PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT THERE MAY BE A RAMP UP TO THE AMOUNT OF SAVINGS WE WANT, THEN I CAN SEE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT WAIT LONGER.
SO I THINK IT'S IN HOW WE SET UP THE PROGRAM, HOW WE BASICALLY ADVERTISE THE PROGRAM.
AND IF OUR INTENT YEAR ONE IS TO BASICALLY KEEP ACCEPTING BIDS TILL WE GET TO 15,000 OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT WOULD TELL PEOPLE TO STAY OFF THE FENCE AND MOVE IN AND START PARTICIPATING.
SO I WOULD, UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND ADD THE SCORING CRITERIA THAT'S BEING SET UP WILL, UM, BE STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE LOWER OFFERING PRICES.
SO YOU COULD CONTINUE WHILE WHAT, UM, SUPERVISOR PEREIRA IS NOTED, COULD OCCUR.
AND THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WE COULD HAVE, LET'S SAY 50 OFFERINGS IN THE FIRST YEAR AND 45 OF THOSE QUALIFY AS LEGITIMATE OFFERINGS AND 20 OF THOSE GET US 15,000 ACRE FEET AND THEY'RE ALL LOW.
AND THEY ALL WILLING TO SIGN FIVE-YEAR DEALS.
NO ONE ELSE SIGNS UP THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, RIGHT.
SO NOW YOU'RE IN A SITUATION LIKE I'M GOING TO WAIT AND THEN YOU HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY.
SO THERE IS A, A BALANCE CALCULATION, OBVIOUSLY WITH ANY, JUST LIKE ANY DECISION ON BUSINESS.
UM, WE HOPE TO STRUCTURE THINGS SO THAT WE CAN, UH, THE OFFERINGS WILL COME IN AND SAY, LOOK, I'M, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY OFFERING ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE I WANT TO GET SELECTED.
SO THERE'S, UH, WE HOPE THAT WORKS, BUT IT ALSO MAY NOT AS WELL, BUT YOUR POINT ERIC IS, IS APPROPRIATE TO THAT.
WE, THE WAY WE ADVERTISE AND WHERE WE OFFER THAT TO SAY, LOOK, WE REALLY WANT TO GET IT ALL FIRST YEAR.
IF WE CAN SIGN UP EVERYBODY AT FIRST YEAR FOR A FIVE-YEAR DEAL.
NEXT WE HAVE SUSAN WALSH THAT HAS A RAISED HAND, SUSAN, YOU'RE UP.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS PUBLIC MEETING.
AND THIS PROBABLY ISN'T THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, UM, UM, REGARDING THE QUESTION OF SOLAR PANELS OR PERHAPS EVEN EITHER OTHER USES, UH, RE-PURPOSING LAND, THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE RE OF THE, UH, LAND, THE ACRES THAT KIND OF CHANGED THE ZONING DESIGNATION AND INDEED, UH, CHANGED THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.
IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SPEND A HALF TO RULE ON THIS AS WELL.
I MEAN, IF SOMEONE IS PUTTING UP SOLAR PANELS AND IT'S A 30 YEAR USE HIM THAT LEGITIMATELY BE CONSIDERED AG LAND ANYMORE.
SO AS THIS IS MARK, I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER NO WE'VE ACTUALLY SUCCESSFULLY, UM, PERMITTED MULTIPLE, UH, SOLAR PARK OR SOLAR PROJECTS, EVEN LARGE SCALE SOLAR PROJECTS.
UM, THAT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH AG ZONING IN THE COUNTY, BUT IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW UNDER SEQUEL.
SO THERE'S A PATH TO GET THERE, BUT IT MOST LIKELY WOULD NOT, UH, BE IN CONFLICT WITH EITHER
[00:30:01]
THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN OR ZONING THAT JUST, THERE IS A PATH FOR APPLICANTS TO GET TO THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET THERE.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT.
ARE WE LOOKING FOR ANY, ARE WE LOOKING TO GIVE CHRIS ANY DIRECTION OR JUST A GOOD UPDATE? THAT WAS IT RIGHT? MR. CHAIR.
YEAH, THE ONE, THE ONE, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE GET A LOOK AT THAT SCORING CRITERIA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
CAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO USE THAT TO DIRECT, YOU KNOW, UM, WATER SAVINGS AND LEN REPURPOSING IT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW FARMERS THINK.
AND SO SOONER THE BETTER DID YOU GUYS SAY THAT ALREADY? OH, OKAY.
UM, AND WHERE ARE YOU DOING? UH, THE, UH, I KNOW THAT CHRIS AND HIS TEAM ARE WORKING ON RUNNING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS TO GROUND WITH AND CHANGING SOME OF THE SCORING TO BRING BACK TO THE AD HOC, WHICH I THINK IS NEXT WEEK, RIGHT.
SO TO THAT END TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WITHIN THE AD HOC LOOK AT AND REACT TO HOW WE MAY WANT TO WAIT SOME SCORING OF SOME, SOME OF THE CRITERIA, HOW IT STARTS TO LOOK UNDER SOME DIFFERENT SCENARIOS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, BRING THAT FORWARD THEN TO THE BOARD TO FURTHER, UM, DISCUSS AND THEN ADOPT SOME, SOME SCORING CRITERIA THAT WOULD THEN BE, UM, PUBLICLY ADVERTISED.
I BELIEVE SUSAN HAS ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL WHEN SHE DOES SUSAN.
I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THE SCORING CRITERIA WERE GOING TO BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND YOU JUST SAID YES.
AND I, AND I THINK THE, THE TIMING OF THAT, JUST FOR KIND OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AS WE HOPE TO HAVE SCORING CRITERIA AND THE PROCESS, THE APPLICATION THAT YOU WOULD, SOMEBODY WOULD USE TO MAKE AN OFFERING AND THE CONTRACT STUFF ALL, ALL AVAILABLE IN NO LATER THAN EARLY FALL.
SO WE CAN START GETTING LIKE IN AN, AN ENROLLMENT PERIOD, MAYBE OCTOBER, NOVEMBER FIELD TO THEN JUDGE AND SCORE AND MAKE DECISIONS SO THAT WE CAN LET PEOPLE KNOW BEGINNING, UH, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE NEXT GROWING SEASON, WHETHER THAT'S A DECISION IN JANUARY OR SOMETHING AND START ENTERING CONTRACTS FOR NEXT GROWING SEASON.
IS THAT IT FOR LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM UPDATE, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS, CONCERNS, ALL VALID POINTS.
[8. PROPOSITION 218 ENGINEER’S REPORT]
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO NUMBER EIGHT.PROPOSITION TWO 18 ENGINEERS REPORTS.
THIS SAYS WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN ACTION TO APPROVE THE INJURY REPORT FROM XERO ON THE MERCY.
SUB-BASINS GSA IS PROPOSITION TWO 18 FEE FOR PHASE ONE OF SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION.
OH, IN FEBRUARY, 2022, THE NURSES HAVE BASED ON BOARD APPROVED THE CONTRACT WITH ZEN HERO TO PREPARE A REPORT TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION.
TWO 18 PROCEEDING SAN HERRO HAS COMPLETED AN ENGINEER'S REPORT HAS DIRECTED THE REPORT, PROVIDES THE DETAILS SUPPORTING PROPOSED CHARGES TO FUND SPECIFIED PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE TWO 18 AD HOC COMMITTEE.
GREG YOUNG WILL GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL ON THE COMPONENTS OF THE REPORT.
ADRIAL AND UM, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT AND KIND OF THE BASIC IN SUMMARY IT'S IN THE PACKET, UH, IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE, UM, AND IT INCLUDES ALSO AN, UH, AN ATTACHMENT THAT IS 20 SOME ODD PAGES THAT ARE ALL THE APS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE AFFECTED WITHIN THE, UH, THE SET OF IRRIGATED LANDS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES THAT ARE NON-FEDERAL.
UM, THE SUBSET THAT W THAT IS BEING TARGETED WITH THIS.
SO PURPOSE OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IS TO PROVIDE THAT BASIS FOR A PROPOSED NEW CHARGE TO FINANCE SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, WHICH WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED GSP, UH, THE DETAILS IN THE REPORT.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH REVENUE WE NEED TO COLLECT ANNUAL AND THE ANNUAL CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 23, 24, 25 AND 26.
NOTING AGAIN, JUST FOR ALL OUR MEMORY SAKE.
FISCAL YEAR 23 STARTS JULY ONE THIS YEAR.
[00:35:01]
BILL THAT WOULD GO OUT AND IN THE FALL IS CONSIDERED FISCAL YEAR 23.SO THAT LAST FISCAL YEAR 26 BILL WOULD GO OUT IN, IN THE FALL OF 2025.
UM, THIS WOULD ALLOW THE, UH, GSA BOARD TO CALL FOR THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARGES.
NEXT SLIDE, THERE WERE TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE THE DRIVERS FOR THIS CHARGE.
THE FIRST ONE WAS WHAT WE CONSIDER THE TWO PHASED IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION, AND THAT ADDRESSED PHASE ONE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM, WHICH INCLUDES THE TARGETED LAND RE-PURPOSING PROGRAM.
WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING PLUS SOME OTHER ELEMENTS.
AND THEN IT, UH, DURING THE PHASE ONE EFFORT IS WHEN WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT ALLOCATION APPROACHES AND TRYING TO GET AN ALLOCATION APPROACH DESIGNED AND ADOPTED.
UM, IF THAT IS THE CORRECT DIRECTION, THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GO WITH SUCH THAT THAT'S READY BY 2026, WHICH IS PHASE TWO.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER IN THAT, UH, TWO PHASE RESOLUTION THERE'S THIS, THERE WERE A SERIES OF ACTIONS.
IT ALSO THEN STATED YOU HAVE TO SUNSET THE PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM.
THE SECOND RESOLUTION THAT IS THE DRIVER IS THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN FLOOD FLOWS, WATER RIGHTS, AND WATER SUPPLY AMONG, AND THEN IT LISTS MERCEDES IRRIGATION, DISTRICT TURNER ISLAND AND MERCEDES SUB-BASE AND GSA, AND THEN A NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MERCEDES OF BASE IN GSA, SUCH AS THE GRAND AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER ONES, UM, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.
SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A LIST IN THE, IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT OF THOSE PARTIES.
UM, SO THAT RESOLUTION BASICALLY SAYS WE WILL COST SHARE 50% WITH MID, FOR THE COST OF THE WATER APP WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION FOR FLOOD WATER THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, WHERE MID WE'LL CHARGE THE GSA AND THE OTHER SIGNATORIES FOR THAT 50%.
AND THOSE PARTIES THEN HAD A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WHERE WE ALL SAID, HERE'S OUR COST SHARE OF THAT WATER, OR EXCUSE ME, OF THAT, OF THAT EFFORT.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THAT SECOND RESOLUTION IS IT, UH, IS TRYING TO GET TO AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE THAT ELIMINATES DOUBLE PAYMENT POTENTIALLY FOR SOME OF THE PARTIES THAT ARE IN THIS GSS JURISDICTION AND WOULD BE, UH, POTENTIALLY PAYING TWICE UNDER THAT COST SHARE AGREEMENT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE THAT OUT.
SO FUTURE PAYMENTS WILL NOT HAVE A DOUBLE DOUBLE PAYMENT.
UM, SO THIS IS THE, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE SUNSETTING IN THE, THE F TWO PHASE APPROACH RESOLUTION SAY, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THE PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM IS INTENDED TO SUNSET AND MA AND BE REPLACED BY THE PHASE TWO FUNDING MECHANISM.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE DRIVER IS OF WHY THIS PARTICULAR ENGINEER'S REPORT LOOKS AT THE BUDGETS NECESSARY TO FUND THINGS THROUGH THAT FISCAL YEAR, 20, 26, AND HOW MUCH MONEY WE NEED, AND THEN DIVIDING THAT OVER FOUR PAYMENTS, AS OPPOSED TO SAYING HERE'S HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR AS AN ANNUAL PAYMENT, THAT'S GOING TO GO OUT UNTIL, UH, UNTIL IT'S EVER RESCINDED.
SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN THE 2019 FEE THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THIS AND CONSIDER IT AS A CHARGED BY THIS BODY WHERE THAT IS A, A FEE DECIDED BY YOU EACH YEAR AND IT'S IN PLACE UNTIL IT'S EVER, UM, AMENDED NEXT SLIDE.
SO THE CHARGES WILL ONLY BE APPLIED TO LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE GSA BOUNDARIES, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE ALSO FURTHER LIMITED TO IRRIGATED LANDS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES, AND THE FEDERAL LANDS ARE EXEMPT.
SO THIS, UH, THE NECK WE'LL SHOW ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS ALL THOSE LANDS, BUT THIS IS ALL THE, THE GSA BOUNDARY.
ONE OF THE REASONS I WANT TO PUT THIS UP HERE IS, IS FOR ANY LANDOWNER THAT MIGHT NOT BE IN THIS GSA, OR MIGHT BE IN BOTH, IS THAT THIS FEE IS BEING APPLIED TO LANDS ONLY IN THE GSA.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE IRRIGATED PARCELS ARE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE AS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ARE THE IRRIGATED PARCELS BASED ON THE ASSESSOR'S DATA THAT WAS USED FOR LAST YEAR'S 2019 FEE IMPLEMENTATION THAT WAS COLLECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022, THAT WENT OUT ON LAST FALL'S TAX BILL.
SO THESE ARE THE IRRIGATED PARCELS THAT ARE GREATER THAN TWO ACRES THAT ARE NON-FEDERAL, THAT ARE IN THE GSA.
ALL OF THESE WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THIS POTENTIAL CHARGE THAT'S BEING BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY.
SO THESE ARE THE FOUR IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE THE FOCUS OF THIS REVENUE GENERATION, THE PHASE ONE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD BEGIN WITH THE 20, 23 IRRIGATION SEASON.
AND IT WOULD HELP ACHIEVE THE WATER YEAR 2025 OBJECTIVE, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE PHASE ONE OBJECTIVES OF OUR TWO PHASE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS TO ACHIEVE
[00:40:01]
THAT 15,000 ACRE FEET OF CONSUMPTIVE USE REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER BY 2025, BY THE END OF WATER YEAR 2025.SO PHASE ONE LAND RE-PURPOSING IS ONE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.
THE NEXT ONE IS A GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
SO BEGINNING, NO SOONER THAN JANUARY, 2020 FOR HIRING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THIS GSA AND THE ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR HAVING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS WOULD BE THE NEXT ITEM.
AND THAT WOULD BE BY FALL OF 2023 CONTRACTING WITH A QUALIFIED VENDOR TO PROVIDE PARCEL BASED WATER, USE BUDGETS AS BOTH AN INFORMATION TOOL FOR IRRIGATORS AND A TOOL FOR THE GSA TO EVALUATE AND POTENTIALLY IMPLEMENT AN ALLOCATION APPROACH.
SO THIS WOULD BE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT THAT WOULD BE A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE A TOOL, BECAUSE IF WE DO GO TO AN ALLOCATION APPROACH AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE USE AGAINST AN ALLOCATION, AND THEN WE WANT A TOOL THAT LETS IRRIGATORS RECOGNIZE WHAT THEY'RE USING IN CONTRAST TO AN ALLOCATION, WE WILL NEED SOME SORT OF SECURE ONLINE PLATFORM IS PROBABLY THE SOLUTION.
SO THIS WOULD BE LOOKING TO GET A VENDOR IN PLACE, GET THAT CONTRACT START HAVING THAT.
SO IT COULD BE AVAILABLE IN 2024 AVAILABLE 25 AND 26.
UM, THEN THE FINAL ONE IS THAT ITEM, WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION PAYMENT, THEN THAT TIES TO THAT OTHER RESOLUTION WE JUST DISCUSSED.
AND THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ONLY A SUBSET OF THE IRRIGATED PARCELS WITHIN THE GSA BOUNDARY TO SUPPORT THE WATER RIGHTS PROCESS IS DEFINED IN THAT RESOLUTION.
IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, IT'S GOT A LIST OF THE TABLES OF THE PERCENTAGE BALANCES OF THAT 50% THAT WE AS A COLLECTIVE BODY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO.
UM, AND WITHIN THAT SET, THE GSA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 28% OF THAT 50%, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, NOT, NOT HALF OF THE 50%.
SO I DON'T MEAN THAT, BUT A 50% AND CREATES A WHOLE OF THAT WHOLE, THIS GSA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 28%.
THE OTHER PARTIES TO THAT AGREEMENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, UH, 72% OF THAT PAYMENT.
NEXT SLIDE, THE, WHAT YOU SEE IN BLUE NOW, AND, AND WE COULD, IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN TOGGLE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE, BUT WHAT YOU SEE IN BLUE IS THE SUBSET OF LANDS THAT WOULD BE HAVING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PARTY TO THE COST SHARING AGREEMENT AND ALREADY PAIN.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ELIMINATE DOUBLE PANE BY ANY OF THE LANDS IN THE GSA.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL REVENUE NEEDED, WE HAVE THIS BUDGET, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUDGET IS FOR THIS PHASE ONE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THE LAST MEETING, UM, THE GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOOKING AT A FUND OF A HALF MILLION, SO 15 MILLION COLLECTING, UM, FOR THAT REPURPOSING PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD PAY FOR UP TO THREE TO FIVE-YEAR CONTRACTS OUT THROUGH GROWING SEASON 27, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR A FEW YEARS, THE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS FOR A FEW YEARS.
AND THOSE ALL ADD UP TO 16 MILLION AND THEN THERE'S A CONTINGENCY RESERVE.
UH, AND THEN, SO WE ENDED UP WITH A TOTAL COLLECTED BUDGET FOR ALL THE IRRIGATED LANDS OF 16 MILLION, 300.
AND THEN THAT ADDITIONAL LIMITED ELEMENTS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED CHARGES FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION, AND WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT IT WILL TAKE THAT, AND THEN YOU APPLY THAT, UM, AND IT'S ALL LAID OUT IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT.
WE ENDED UP WITH A NEED TO COLLECT ABOUT $600,000.
ALL OF THESE REPRESENT MAX BUDGETS.
WE, THE, THIS BODY HAS THE ABILITY TO SET THE CHARGE EACH YEAR.
IF WE HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE, WE DON'T NEED TO ASK FOR MORE.
SO WITH THE CHARGES, THIS IS ALL SET UP AS A MAX REVENUE TO, TO ACHIEVE NEXT SLIDE.
AND WE'LL SHOW ON THIS SLIDE, THIS NEXT SLIDE HERE ON THE FAR, RIGHT? YOU SEE THE ACTUAL DOLLAR PER ACRE PER YEAR.
THAT'S THE MAX THAT CAN BE CHARGED PER ACRE PER YEAR.
OR YOU MAY, AS A BODY FIND THAT AS THE BUDGET COMES FORWARD, JUST LIKE WHAT THE 2019 FEE STRUCTURE YOU, YOU APPROVE EACH YEAR.
IT WAS APPROVED AT A, BUT A MAX BUDGET OF $750,000 TO COLLECT EACH YEAR.
AND I THINK LAST YEAR WAS 400,000 WAS COLLECTED OR SOMEWHERE ON THAT MAGNITUDE, I BELIEVE.
UM, SO THIS AGAIN IS SETTING THE MAX BUDGET THAT WE NEED.
AND THEN YOU'LL MAKE A DECISION EACH YEAR AS BOARD OF HOW MUCH, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO THE MAX.
THE, YOU CAN SEE IN THE SECOND COLUMN FROM THE RIGHT IS THE MAX TOTAL CHARGE.
SO OVER THAT FOUR YEARS OF COLLECTION, IT WOULD BE $95 AN ACRE FOR THE SHARED COSTS.
AND SIX 70 WOULD BE AN ADD ON COST FOR THOSE OTHER, OTHER IRRIGATED LANDS.
AND YOU SEE THERE IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN, THE TOTAL ACRES THAT WILL BE CHARGED SO THAT WE HAVE 171,400, ACCORDING TO THE TAX ASSESSOR ROLES, THAT WOULD BE GREATER THAN TWO ACRES OF IRRIGATED
[00:45:01]
LAND.NON-FEDERAL THE ADDITIONAL LIMITED ELEMENT WHEN YOU SUBTRACT OUT THOSE THAT ARE PARTY TO THAT COST SHARE AGREEMENT ALREADY, THE REMAINDER IS 89,600 ACRES.
SO THAT'S HOW THE MATH WORKS ON WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
SO THE PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT THE CHARGES, THE BOARD IS GOING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THIS ENGINEER'S REPORT.
YOU WOULD THEN SET A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED TO BE JULY 19TH AT 6:00 PM.
IN THIS CHAMBER, THE STAFF WILL MAIL NOTICES OF CHARGE TO AFFECTED LANDOWNERS THAT THAT DRAFT NOTICE OF CHARGE IS INCLUDED IN THE BOARD PACKET.
UH, LANDOWNERS WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPTION TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN PROTEST WHERE THAT WRITTEN PROTEST MUST IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND STATE THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED FEE OR CHARGE, PROVIDE THE LOCATION, IDENTIFY THE PARCELS, AND, UM, BASICALLY SIGN THAT THEY ARE SUBMITTING THAT AND THOSE PROTESTS WOULD BE MAILED AND THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ON THE CHARGE, NOTICE OF HOW TO RETURN THAT INFORMATION.
THEN THE BOARD WILL HOLD THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE'LL DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S A ENOUGH FOR A PROTEST VOTE.
I'LL DOUBLE CHECK WITH COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE.
UM, SO NEXT SLIDE AGAIN, JUST THAT, THAT AT WHAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED, WHAT'S IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT RIGHT NOW IS PROPOSED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING JULY 19TH, YOU REQUIRED A 40 DAY PERIOD BETWEEN SENDING OUT THE NOTICES AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW US, UM, SOME TIME TO GET THESE NOTICES OUT IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO, AND, UM, BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT, UH, JULY 19TH BOARD MEETING SCHEDULED, OR SORRY, A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE A BOARD MEETING, AND THEN ALSO, CAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU GUYS ALL IN ATTENDANCE, UH, AND THAT PRETTY MUCH WRAPS IT.
SO THE NEXT SLIDE, I THINK, JUST DISCUSSION.
SO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION, ET CETERA.
QUESTIONS, GO AHEAD, MR. GALLO.
SO MY QUESTION, UM, PROBABLY MORE FOR LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THE QUESTION IS, SO IF, IS THERE A PROCESS ADEQUATE SO THAT EVEN IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SUE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET CHARGED THAT WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS AND DON'T GET STOPPED.
IF AT THE PROTEST HEARING MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF THE PARCELS PROTEST, YOU CANNOT PROCEED.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FUNDING MECHANISM, JUST THE AMOUNT OF PARCELS, THE NUMBER OF PARCELS PARCEL ONE VOTE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
NOT ACRES ONE PARCEL ONE, ONE PARCEL, ONE VOTE.
BUT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THEY CAN PROTEST AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
CAN I, CAN I ADD ONE COMMENT TO THAT? SOMETHING WE DIDN'T PUT UP IN THE SLIDES, BUT IT IS IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IS AGAIN, THIS IS A PART OF YOUR TWO PHASE APPROACH TO MEETING THE IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES OF THE GSP AND STARTING DOWN THAT PATH.
IF WE ARE UNABLE TO START MOVING DOWN THAT PATH, SUCH AS IF THIS IS PROTESTED AND YOU CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CHARGE, WE START RUNNING THE RISK OF INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT.
AND WE THEN FACE STATE PROBATION AND THE CHARGES THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO EVERY PRIVATE WELL OWNER WILL NOW HAVE TO PAY ANNUAL CHARGES ON QUANTITY OF VOLUME PUMPED AND AN ANNUAL JUST FEE THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO CHARGE AND THEY'LL START RUNNING THE RULES AND NOT US.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BACKSTOP OF THAT CONCERN WITH THE PROTEST.
I HAVE A COMMENT AS MUCH AS I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMENT.
I THINK IT'S A REALISTIC COMMENT TO MAKE VWR HAS IN THEIR COMMENTARY LETTER, ON THEIR REQUEST FOR US TO MODIFY AND RESUBMIT THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, UM, SOMETHING TO ADDRESS IMPACTS TO DOMESTIC WELLS.
AND I THINK THE FORM OF THAT IS GOING TO BE SOME TYPE OF DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM.
AND I THINK THAT IF THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REVISED GSP, IT'S, IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT DWR WILL NOT APPROVE THE REVISED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO MODIFY THE LISTED ITEMS IN THE TWO 18 TO INCLUDE A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION
[00:50:01]
PROGRAM IN ORDER TO ADDRESS DWR CONCERNS AND TO PROVIDE A REVISED GSP THAT THAT WILL BE APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION.LET ME ADD ONE, ONE BIT ON THAT FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE TWO PHASE APPROACH, THERE WAS A LIST AND IT'S SHOWN ON PAGE NINE OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT OF ALL THE THINGS TO CONSIDER.
AND THEN, UM, OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, THE AD-HOC HAD TALKED ABOUT LET'S LIMIT TO THESE ITEMS HERE.
SUBSEQUENTLY ERIC IS BRINGING UP THAT ONE OF THESE ITEMS THAT WAS MAYBE NOT RECOMMENDED SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.
IT WAS IN THE TWO PHASE APPROACH AS PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISMS SHOULD CONSIDER THESE THINGS, INCLUDING A DOMESTIC WELL ASSISTANT STUDY AND OR ACTIVITIES.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD MOVE IT UP? OKAY.
I'M SUGGESTING WE SHOULD, UM, LIKELY ADD, UH, NOT TO EXCEED $600,000 TO THE TOTAL COLLECTED FUNDS OVER THE TWO 18 PROCESS THAT, UM, WE WOULD VOTE ON IT YEAR TO YEAR, WHETHER OR NOT THAT NEEDS TO BE COLLECTED, BUT WOULD PROVIDE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PROGRAM, HAVE IT FUNDED BECAUSE IT ISN'T GOING TO WORK TO HAVE A PROGRAM WITH NO FUNDING.
KIM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH ERICA.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE DEALS WHERE YOU HATE TO HAVE TO DO IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, BY LAW WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO IT.
AND, AND I THINK, UH, THE FUNDING SHOULD BE LOOKED AT NOW, UM, RATHER THAN LATER.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, 600,000 OVER FOUR YEARS IS ENOUGH MONEY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE'RE TALKING TO THE MAX, WE DON'T HAVE TO COLLECT IT IF WE DON'T NEED IT.
BUT, UM, ANYWAYS, SOME NUMBER OR ORDER FOR A MAGNITUDE CONSIDERATIONS, A 600,000 BUDGET OR THEREABOUTS WOULD BE ABOUT A DOLLAR TO A DOLLAR 25 MORE ON TOP OF THAT PER ACRE CHARGE ANNUALLY, JUST IN TO GIVE AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, YOU CAN GO BACK, GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES TO THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.
SO ON, IN ADDITION TO 2377, IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT, MAYBE THAT GOES TO 25, SO ADD A DOLLAR 30 OR A DOLLAR 23 MORE TO COLLECT THE 600,000.
WELL, BUT THE DOLLAR SOMETHING 67 ON 600 IT'S ON AMAZON, THAT'S ON LESSER ACREAGE.
THAT'S APPLIED TO A SMALLER, A SUBSET ACRES.
THIS DOMESTIC WELL WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE WHOLE SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ACRES.
AND WE WOULD HAVE RULES AROUND THE DOMESTIC MEMO, WELL MITIGATION, RIGHT.
WE COME UP WITH A POLICY AND WE'D HAVE TO, SO, OKAY.
I THINK THE CONSIDERATION IS TO GATHER THE MONEY WHILE YOU DEVELOP THE PLAN.
SO YOU DON'T END UP NEEDING TO FUND SOMETHING AND HAVE NO MONEY AND TRY AND GO BACK AGAIN AND FIND DOLLARS FOR IT.
MR. VICE CHAIRMAN WENT TO THE SHITSVILLE MADERA GSA MEETING YESTERDAY AND IT SEEMS THAT NOBODY IN THE VALLEY GOT APPROVED BY THE STATE FOR ANOTHER PLAN AND ONE OF THE BIG ONES IN OUR AREA.
AND I THINK A LOT AREAS THERE'S DOMESTIC WILMAN MITIGATION.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE SHOWING WHERE WE'RE AT LEAST STARTING TO ADDRESS THAT, UH, THAT PROBLEM.
IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT.
I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT WOULD LIKELY BE TO ADOPT 2015 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS, FALSE STATIC WATER LEVELS AS OUR TARGET.
AND I THINK IN DOING THAT, THE NET NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE MERSEYSIDE SUB-BASIN IS FAR IN EXCESS TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC AFTER YOU'RE DONE.
MR. GALA, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
I GUESS JUST A QUESTION OR ARE WE CALLING FOR SOME ACTION HERE OR WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE FROM HERE? DO YOU NEED, DO WE NEED, DO WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION? I THINK WHAT, WHAT STAFF IS ASKING FOR AT THIS MEETING IS TO DIRECT STAFF, TO PROCEED WITH RELEASING, YOU WOULD ADOPT THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE THE INFORMATION, TO GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO AFTER YOU RECEIVE COMMENTS, THE ACTION I THINK, WOULD BE LOOKING FOR BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING IS TO APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT ADOPTED WITH THE CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE BY X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO FUND THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.
THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE ACTION OF THE BOARD.
[00:55:01]
ADD THAT WOULD MEAN ADJUSTMENTS TO WHAT'S IN THE PACKET, BOTH THE ENGINEERING REPORT WOULD HAVE TO GET ADDED AND MODIFIED TO REFLECT IT.AND THE ASSOCIATED TWO-PAGE NOTICE THAT'S DRAFT WOULD BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE OUTCOME OF THAT.
WE'RE ALSO SEEKING, UM, DIRECTION ON ESTABLISHING A DRAFT POLICY, UM, THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS AN APPEAL PROCESS IF, UH, YOU KNOW, TAXES IMPOSED ON THE LAND.
AT THIS MOMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC SO IT CAN STILL CHAIR ONLINE.
UM, SUSAN WALSH WILL BE, UM, THE ONE THAT HAS THE NEXT QUESTION, RIGHT, SUSAN? YEAH.
I KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO PROTEST MUST SUBMIT THEIR PROTEST IN WRITING, DO THEY ALSO HAVE TO APPEAR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IN PERSON, IN ADDITION TO WRITING, UM, TO SUBMITTING A WRITTEN PROTEST? NO LEGAL'S HAVE AT ADVISING US SAYING NO, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SAME AS I'D LIKE, JUST TO, IS IT INFORMATION ABOUT DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION? I AM WORKING IN THE CHURCHILL OF SUB-BASIN AND UH, MR. UPTON WAS CORRECT OR ACTIVELY PURSUING A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.
THE 4G ESSAYS ARE, UH, SIGNING AN MOU TO WORK TOGETHER, TO FUND, TO WRITE AND FUND A PROGRAM STARTING IN 2023, WE GET INTO 20, 23.
SO, UH, THE WHOLE PROGRAM FOR THE CHURCHILL OF SUB-BASIN THROUGH SUSTAINABILITY IS BUDGETED AT 12.6 MILLION BUCKS.
AND FOR MY CLIENTS IN THE SUB-BASE AND IT'S COMING OUT TO ALMOST 11 BUCKS AN ACRE A YEAR FOR DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.
AND THEY USED THE RATE STUDY THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH GREG FROM THE, UH, MADERA COUNTY PROP TWO 18 RATE STUDY, WHERE THEY WERE LOOKING AT FUNDING LAND RE-PURPOSING DOMESTIC, WELL MITIGATION, THE SAME THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY DID A RATE STUDY WHERE THEY MODELED, HOW MANY WELLS WOULD GO DRY OVER TIME, HOW MANY DOMESTIC WELLS AND THEN BUDGETED REPLACING EACH OF THOSE WELLS OVER TIME.
SO THAT'S WAS THE BASIS OF THE CHILD CHILL UP, UH, SUB-BASINS DOMESTIC, WELL BUDGET, $11 AN ACRE THEY FIGURE, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT'S COMING DOWN TO A HUNDRED, IT'S A 154,000 TO BEGINNING.
ANOTHER THING TO NOTE IS BECAUSE THE GS, WE BASICALLY, UH, SAID IN THE GSP THAT WE TURNED INTO JANUARY 20, JANUARY, 2020, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A DOMESTIC WELL PRO PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM THAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING IS GOING TO BE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1ST, 20, 20.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'RE PUTTING, GOING TO PUT ANY, UH, REQUIREMENT QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS TO, UH, WE'RE JUST BETWEEN NOW AND, UH, 2023 IS WHEN THE, THIS COMMITTEE THAT'S WORKING IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NO LANDSCAPING, NO INDOOR PLUMBING.
UH, WE HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'VE PULLED FROM OTHER PROGRAMS AFTER THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING THE BUDGET IS 30,000 A DOMESTIC.
NOW ONE THING, I MEAN, I WAS JUST GOING TO AGREE WITH GREG ON THE IMPACTS IF THIS DOESN'T PASSES AND IT WAS VERY STRATEGIC TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 19TH WHEN THE GSP HAS TO BE TURNED BACK IN, I THINK JULY 28TH.
SO YOU, BUT YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SHOW DWR THAT YOU HAVE FUNDED NOT ONLY REDUCING DEMAND, BUT ALSO DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE I CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? NOT WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME ACTION SO THIS IS JUST TO RECAP.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS.
ONCE THEY APPROVED THE INCIDENT REPORT WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND THEN ANOTHER, AND THEN WE NEED TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING
[01:00:01]
FOR JULY 19TH AND THEN WE NEED AN ACTION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MAIL NOTICES TO LANDOWNERS.SO MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE IT ALL ON ONE MOTION OR NEEDS TO BE THREE SEPARATE? LET'S GET TOGETHER FINE.
SO MOVED WELL, UH, BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, DO WE WANT TO ADD IN SOME WELL MITIGATION DOLLARS AND IF SO, HOW MANY? WELL, I WAS HOPING I WAS PART OF THE MOTION THAT I WAS GOING TO GO.
IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT CHAIRMAN OR NOT CHAIRMAN TODAY, BUT PRAYER.
UH, WELL I, OR IF WE WANT TO HAVE DISCUSSION FIRST, I'M OKAY.
WITH THE 600,000, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REST OF THE BOARD THINKS BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION OVER FOR THE LIFE OF, UH, THE FOUR YEARS, UH, TOTAL TO ADD IN IT.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION.
WELL THEN I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE PROP TWO 18 FEE WITH A CHANGE IN IT THAT A $600,000 IS ADDED TO THE LIFE OF, UH, THE FOUR YEARS TO THE PROGRAM TO HELP COVER FOR, UH, WELL MITIGATION AND TO SET THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 19TH, UH, 2022 AT 6:00 PM.
AND LASTLY, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MAIL OUT NOTICES TO THE LANDOWNERS ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PROP TWO 18, WELL SAID JUST ONE CLARIFICATION, GENOME DOMESTIC, WELL MITIGATION.
RIGHT? YOU JUST SAID, WELL MAYBE YES.
THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING THAT DOMESTIC.
WELL, MITIGATION THAT, THANK YOU.
SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE TO COME OUT TODAY WITH A, WITH A NUMBER WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A AMOUNT OF MONEY WE'RE GOING TO SET ASIDE OR CAN WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE REPORT COMES IN? SO THE NOTICE THAT'S GOING TO GO OUT HAS TO INCLUDE WHAT THE MAX CHARGES ARE GOING TO BE.
AND RIGHT NOW THAT OTHER TABLE, YOU WANT TO FLIP BACK A FEW, THE NOTICE WOULD GO OUT AND SAYING, THAT'S WHAT THE CHARGES ARE GOING TO BE.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD MORE MONEY TO THE TOTAL POOL TO COLLECT ANOTHER 600,000, THOSE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE.
SO THAT NOTICE NEEDS TO BE REFLECTIVE OF THAT.
AND IT NEEDS TO SAY THAT PART OF THIS MONEY WILL BE FUNDING A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM TO BE DEVELOPED.
NOW YOU CAN DECIDE UPON THE HEARING IF THERE IS, UH, NOT, UM, UH, A MAJORITY PROTEST, YOU CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO SET THAT CHARGE AT THE MAX NUMBER FOR THE, FOR THIS FRISK, FOR THAT FISCAL YEAR OR SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO IF WE NEEDED $25 PER ACRE AND THAT'S WHAT GOES OUT AND YOU DON'T GET A MAJORITY PROTESTS, SO YOU GUYS GO AHEAD AND IMPLEMENT THE FEE, YOU THEN WOULD ADD THAT MEETING, UH, APPROVE WHAT THAT FEE WILL BE FOR THAT YEAR.
SO IT MIGHT BE SHOOT, WE'RE GOING TO GO 24 50 OR SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE MAX.
ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD BE THE, PROBABLY THE STRONG RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE GO FOR THE MAX FOR YEAR ONE, COLLECT THE REVENUE, THEN START ALL THESE PROGRAMS AND SEE WHAT YEAR TWO, WHETHER YOUR TWO HAS TO BE AT THAT SAME MAX.
AND GREG, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU ON THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION IS WHATEVER'S IN THIS PROP TWO 18.
IF WE HAVE A LITTLE LECTURE, IF SOMETHING DOESN'T MEET THE BUDGET, WE COULD TAKE THAT MONEY.
IF WE HAVE EXTRA AND PUT IT TOWARDS WELL MITIGATION OR VICE VERSA, THAT AS LONG AS IT'S IN THIS TWO 18, THE MONEY CAN KIND OF BE MOVED AROUND A LITTLE WITHIN THE BUDGET, CORRECT? WITH THE CAVEAT THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE, THE MONEY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ADDITIONAL ELEMENT THAT'S PAYING FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.
THAT'S GOING TO BE EARMARKED INTO ITS OWN ITS OWN BUCKET, RIGHT.
BUT THE OTHERS IT'S GATHERING REVENUE TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE TALKED ABOUT.
AND IF YOU FIND THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATE REVENUE OR YOU NEED TO SHIFT SOME THINGS AROUND COMPARED TO, WITH WHAT WAS ESTIMATED, YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, UH, ALL THAT.
AND GREG, I MISSED THAT POINT OF GINO'S.
SO IF WE NEED MORE THAN 600,000, IF WE SAY WE NEED 600,000 FOR THE DOMESTIC LOAD REPLACEMENT, THAT'S ALL WE CAN SPEND ON IT, FOR INSTANCE, UH, NO, THAT, THAT IS AN ESTIMATE THAT YOU WERE GOING TO COLLECT.
GO BACK ONE MORE SLIDE, ADRIAN, THE TOTAL BUDGET THERE, WE HAVE 16 MILLION, 300 TO COLLECT.
SO WE WOULD BE SAYING 16 MILLION, 900 IS WHAT YOU WOULD COLLECT.
SO THAT WOULD TURN INTO A MAX PER ACRE, OVER FOUR FOR THE FOUR YEARS, AND THEN A MAX PER ACRE PER YEAR.
AND THEN A FEW THAT'S ALL BASED ON THAT BUDGET.
AND IF IT NEEDS TO GET SHIFTED AROUND
[01:05:01]
WITHIN THAT, YOU CAN HAVE THAT.NOW I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO A LOT OF SHIFTING BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROBABLY START TO LOOK, UM, IN BAD FAITH.
BUT IF THERE'S A NEED TO, TO, YOU KNOW, SPEND 700,000, BY THE END OF THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM, THAT'S PROBABLY A REASONABLE SHIFTING OF FUNDS AROUND, RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO END UP SPENDING 3 MILLION ON WELL MITIGATION, THEN WE RE MISREPRESENTED WHAT THE INTENT WAS.
BUT, BUT THE 600,000 IS FOR FOUR YEARS, CORRECT, BUT THAT'S NOT 200,000 A YEAR.
AND IT WOULD GENERATE A BUCKET OF $600,000 ADDED TO THAT.
IF YOU THINK THE BUCKET NEEDS TO BE BIGGER THAN THE RECOMMENDATION, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT HASN'T BEEN SECONDED.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE IS 600,000.
AND NOW I THINK TO THAT, YOU KNOW, TO ADD TO THAT, THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS TRYING TO GET SOME MONEY INTO THE BUCKET THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE AND YOU WOULD NOW THEN GO START SETTING THE, THE RULES THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEBODY TO SAY, I FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO MITIGATE FOR THE, MY DOMESTIC WELL ISSUE.
SO YOU GOTTA, YOU GOTTA CREATE THAT PROGRAM AND, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE REFINED.
AND THE POINT THAT WAS BEING MADE EARLIER, AS IF WE HAVE THIS IN AND WE'VE SHOWN, IT'S BEEN THAT WE'RE COLLECTING SOME MONEY, THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL IN THE GSPS ADOPTION CONSIDERATION.
BY DWR, WE HAVE LANGUAGE ABOUT A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM BEING DEVELOPED WITH MIA GOOSEY AND WITH TURNER ISLAND.
AND WE, AS THE MS. GSA HAVE STARTED TO COLLECT FUNDS TO, TO ASSIST THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ENOUGH.
IT'S JUST A BUCKET OF MONEY THAT WE'RE STARTING TO COLLECT TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE COME OUT.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, I, I MAY HAVE MISSTATED THAT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IN MIND? SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT ENDS UP.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH IN THE A, AS BRAD, UH, WAS JUST NOTING.
I THINK THEY WERE IN THE MADEIRA SUB-BASIN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT CHILD CHILL, I BELIEVE, BUT IN THE MADEIRA SUB-BASIN THEY ESTIMATED, AND I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE, UH, ANALYSIS OF THE WELLS, BUT THEY HAD A HUNDRED WELLS A YEAR.
THEY WERE POSSIBLY DOING AT 30,000 A PIECE THAT ADDS UP TO A LOT MORE THAN 600,000 AND JOHN CHILLER, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND CHOWCHILLA HAD LIKE 15 WELLS A YEAR.
SO, SO JUST, THAT'S WHY I SAY, YEAH, IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE A PERFECT NUMBER OF USING SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT BUDGET FOR WHAT IS ESTIMATED BY, UM, LOOKED AT BY WATERED KERN, YOUR GSP CONSULTANTS, TALKING ABOUT POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS.
DON'T SEEM LIKE THERE'D BE A LOT OF WELLS.
WE HAVE TO DESIGN THE PROGRAM, HOW THAT PROGRAM WOULD BE WOULD FUND ACTIVITIES WHO QUALIFIES, HOW THOSE THINGS PLAY ARE ALL TO BE DETERMINED.
I THINK THE, THE REASON WHY THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AS AN, AS AN ADJUSTMENT IS THAT ABSENT, THAT RECOGNIZED IN THIS FUNDING MECHANISM, THE FUNDS WOULD PROBABLY, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY CAN COME OUT OF THE TWO 90 TO 2019 FEE, BECAUSE IT DID NOT TALK ABOUT FUNDING A PROGRAM.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE NO FUNDING SOURCE.
IF YOU STARTED TO SAY YES, WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM WITHOUT DOING ANOTHER TWO 18 PROCEDURE.
YOU'VE WON 200,000 A YEAR WHEN I'M IN THE MOTION.
THE MOTION, MR. CHAIR, WE DO HAVE A QUESTION FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
UH, THEY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE, WHERE THEY CAN FIND THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IF IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SO IT IS IN THE MERCEDES SUB-BASIN GSA WEBSITE.
UH, WHAT'S THE ONE, THE WEBSITES UP BASED IN GSA.ORG.
WERE SAID SUB-BASIN GSA.ORG UNDER AGENDAS, MEETINGS, DOCUMENTS, I BELIEVE ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE.
YOU CLICK THAT, YOU LOOK AT TODAY'S MEETING AND THERE'S A PACKET THERE AND IT IS INCLUDED IN THAT PACKET.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSTED SEPARATELY, IS IT IT'S IN THE PACKET? WE CAN POST IT AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT AS WELL, OR WE CAN POST IT AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, BUT IT IS CURRENTLY, IF YOU GO CLICK ON THAT, UH, AGENDA ITEM FOR TODAY'S BOARD MEETING, IT COMES UP WITH THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AS OBVIOUSLY UNDER AGENDA ITEM, WHATEVER WE'RE ON SEVEN, EIGHT.
HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS THE ONLINE QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUICK COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? IT'S A BIG DECISION.
QUESTIONS OF EMOTION, HUH? UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, IF THE BOARD'S OKAY.
AMEND MY MOTION TO 800,000 TOTAL.
[01:10:01]
SO THAT'D BE 200,000 A YEAR FOR THE FOUR YEAR PROGRAM.WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE HERE.
YOU BELIEVE? DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE? NOPE, DON'T EAT SO ALL HERE.
I THOUGHT I HEARD EVERYONE'S VOICE.
I HAD VERY GOOD SENSE OF HEARING.
AND THEN THERE WAS ONE OTHER DIRECTION ITEM THAT STAFF WAS LOOKING FOR ON THIS TOPIC.
BESIDES THAT ACTION YOU JUST TOOK AND THERE'S DIRECTION WE'RE REQUESTING ADRIAL DID YOU WANT TO BRING THAT UP OR I'M HAPPY TO, YEAH.
SO WE'RE SEEKING DIRECTION TO DRAFT A POLICY THAT WOULD CREATE AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR, UM, WHAT WAS IT, WHERE DID WE ESTABLISH GREG? UM, 75%, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU'RE IRRIGATED LAND IS LESS THAN 75% OF THE ASSESSED ACRES THAT YOU COULD APPEAL THAT YOU'RE CHARGED WOULD ONLY BE APPLIED TO YOUR IRRIGATED ACRES, NOT YOUR ENTIRE ASSESSED ACRES.
THAT WAS, UH, AN ADVICE OUT OF THE, UM, AD HOC 2218 AD HOC COMMITTEE.
SO WE'RE SEEKING DIRECTION TO START WORKING ON THAT POLICY.
IF THAT IS A, THE BOARD'S DIRECTION.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? IF, IF YOU'RE A GATE LANDS ARE LESS THAN 75%, SORRY.
I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT, UH, DIRECTION IS GOOD.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WORKED ON AND ADOPTED AFTER THE FEE IS, IS CHARGED.
UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE HEARING, BUT YEAH, I GUESS GREG IS JUST ASKING FOR DIRECTION FOR GETTING STARTED ON BECAUSE THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES TO INCLUDE IN THE APPEAL PROCESS.
WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT PROCESS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FEE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO, WE CAN START WORKING ON THAT.
I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO SOME PARCELS THAT HAVE THAT EXACT ISSUE.
WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S PROBABLY BETTER IF THE BOARD IS WILLING TO VOTE TODAY, THAT MIGHT JUST AVOID SOME QUESTIONS AT THE HEARING OR LATER IF THAT'S ALREADY IN THE WORKS AND PEOPLE KNOW THAT'S THE INTENT.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, REQUEST THAT THEY DEVELOP A POLICY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF ACREAGE, FOR PARCELS THAT ARE LESS THAN 75% BASED ON AREA IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE.
AND EMOTION AND EMOTIONAL MORE SECOND I'LL SECOND THAT EMOTION.
ONE THING YOU GOT TO COME UP MARK OR BRAD, SORRY.
YOU KNOW, THE RULES START YOUR TIMER TWO, YOU GOT THREE MINUTES.
SO JUST ANOTHER POINT FROM EXPERIENCE.
WE IN THE GRAND ATHLON WATER DISTRICT, WE JUST DID A PROP TWO 18 AND WE RELIED ON THE COUNTY TAX CODE FOR IRRIGATED AND NON-IRRIGATED TO APPLY DIFFERENT CHARGES.
AND SO THE
WE PROBABLY HAD, I'D SAY FIVE TO 10,000 ACRES WHERE LAND OWNERS CAME IN AND SAID, I'VE NEVER IRRIGATED.
YOU HAVE ME, A BEER IS IRRIGATED.
AND SO I THINK, I THINK MY COMMENT TO YOU IS ALLOW YOURSELVES IN THIS, UH, AMENDMENT TO, OR NOT AMENDMENT THIS POLICY TO LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST THE 75%, BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GET A LOT OF, UH, DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
AND IN MADERA, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS IS WHAT IS IRRIGATED.
WHAT'S THE START DATE? YOU KNOW, I IRRIGATED FOR 30 YEARS, I HAVEN'T IRRIGATED FOR TWO YEARS.
DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NOT IRRIGATED OR IS IT IRRIGATED? IT MAKES A LOT WHEN YOU START GETTING ABOUT THESE ASSESSMENTS, PEOPLE WILL HAVE THOSE BRING THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES TO THE TABLE.
[9. FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT]
MOVING ON FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORTS.SO THIS IS A INFORMATIONAL ITEM.
UH, THE BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION HAS COMPLETED
[01:15:01]
AN AUDIT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES OF THEM ARE SETS UP BASED IN GSA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30TH, 2021, THE BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTS CORPORATION DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE NO FINDINGS AND THAT THE OPINION IS NEUTRAL, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 THROUGH 2021.COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, THE PROMPT TO THE PUBLIC.
[10. PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS]
10, PARCEL BASED WATER, WATER BUDGETS.SO THIS IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR STAFF REPORT, UM, AT OUR LAST MEETING, UM, IN APRIL, 2022, THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF BRING FORTH THE CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING PARCEL BAYSWATER BUDGETS FOR MSU GROWERS.
UM, SO AS TO HELP GROWERS UNDERSTAND RECENT WATER USE AND FACILITATE PHASE ONE, UM, GS PLYMOUTH, TSP IMPLEMENTATION DISCUSSIONS REGARDING APPROACHES TO POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION.
UM, AND WE HAVE SOME OF THE SLIDES THAT WE SHARED LAST TIME AND GREG CAN PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW.
AND I THINK THE QUICK THING, JUST AS AN OVERVIEW FROM LAST MONTH AGAIN, AND THEN THERE'S A CONSIDERATION, UM, THAT IS GOING TO BE REQUESTED.
AND I, BECAUSE IT, IT DOES INVOLVE MY FIRM.
I WILL STEP OUT FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
UH, NEXT SLIDE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST TIME, UH, IS TO CREATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS MAKE, MAKE AN ONLINE TOOL AVAILABLE.
SOMEBODY COULD REQUEST HERE'S MY APN OR APS.
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THIS BUDGET FOR 2021? FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE PREPARED, SUBMITTED BACK TO THEM.
SO THAT WOULD FACILITATE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO START HAVING NOW ABOUT ALLOCATIONS AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALLOCATIONS? BECAUSE YOU GET AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH WATER YOU CURRENTLY ARE USING TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT FROM THE ENGINEER'S REPORT OF THAT PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGET THAT'S IN THERE THAT WOULD, NOW THIS IS KIND OF A, ONE-TIME JUST TO GIVE INFORMATION.
IT WOULD TAKE A, YOU KNOW, AN HOUR TO MAYBE AN HOUR AND A HALF, DEPENDING ON HOW COMPLEX EACH REQUEST IS.
IT DOESN'T TAKE A LONG TIME, BUT THERE MAY BE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS THAT ARE PUT FORWARD TO DEVELOP THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK.
THIS WOULD BE INFORMATIONAL WHILE WE THEN GO FORWARD WORKING WITH A VENDOR THAT WILL BECOME SOMETHING THAT'S MORE REAL TIME ONLINE PORTAL BASED, SECURE THAT'S WHAT'S TALKED ABOUT IN THE FUNDING OF THE, IN THE TWO 18 ENGINEER'S REPORT, THAT FUNDING MECHANISM IS TO GET BETTER TOOLS THAT ARE MORE REAL TIME.
THIS IS A SNAPSHOT THAT WE'D MAKE AVAILABLE TO HELP GROWERS UNDERSTAND.
SO THE CONSIDERATION IS TO POTENTIALLY BRING A, A, UM, UH, SCOPE BACK FOR YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT, BUT THAT'S A, WHAT ADRIAL, WE'LL NOW HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT, AND I WILL STEP OUT BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO HEAR YOUR DISCUSSION.
ANY DISCUSSION ON BOARD AT, AMONGST THE BOARD.
SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THAT AT THIS TIME, UH, WE'RE SEEKING DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD, I'M BRINGING FORTH THE CONTRACT WITH 10 HERRO, UM, THAT WOULD PROVIDE ANYWHERE BETWEEN A HUNDRED TO 150 BUDGETS FOR OUR GROWERS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ON RICO UPON REQUEST.
UM, AND THE CONTRACT THAT WE BRING FORWARD WOULD REQUIRE THAT THIS BOARD AUTHORIZED, UM, AN EXCEPTION TO BID.
SO JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, AND WE COULD ALWAYS TABLE THIS AND TALK AND ADOPT THIS AT ANOTHER MEETING.
UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, DO WE HAVE FUNDING AVAILABLE IN THE PAST TWO 18? YES.
AND ADRIAN, WHAT'S THE COST OF THE CONTRACTOR? I BELIEVE.
UM, LAST I SPOKE WITH GREG FOR A HUNDRED, 150 PARCELED BUDGETS.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A COST OF 35 GRAND WELL, I KNOW SINCE OPEN ITI IS A PUBLIC DOMAIN, UM, WEBSITE THAT, THAT I'VE USED, UM, SOME OF THIS BASIC INFORMATION CAN BE GLEANED FROM THAT FOR JUST THE TIME YOU SPEND ON THE WEBSITE.
I WOULDN'T THINK WE NEED TO SPEND $35,000 AT THIS JUNCTURE SINCE WE HAVE FUNDING IN THE TWO 18.
I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN INVESTIGATING THAT CAN, CAN DO THAT ON THEIR OWN NOW PRETTY MUCH FOR FREE WITH THEIR TIME INVESTMENT.
[01:20:01]
THINK WHAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT DOING IS HAVING A WORKSHOP AND HELPING TO TRAIN PEOPLE HOW TO USE OPEN ITI.I THINK THAT WOULD BE MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN, UM, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AWHILE UNTIL WE GET A LITTLE FURTHER ALONG BEFORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REALLY HAVE A BURNING INTEREST IN THIS WOULD BE WE, MY THINKING, I STILL THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MAYBE NOT THIS MEETING TO TABLE IT, BUT TALK TO GREG A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE COSTS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COST OF THE CONTRACT IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT HUGE ACTUAL BREAKDOWN.
THE ACTUAL BREAKDOWN, BECAUSE THAT DOES SEEM HIGH COSTS FOR JUST USING AN OPEN ITI OR A DIFFERENT DEAL.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME CONSULTANT AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS AS THIS GETS MORE SERIOUS POSSESS.
YOU CAN USE OPEN ITI, BUT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE IT.
OR AT LEAST IF WE HAVE A CONSULTANT, IT WILL BE A CONSISTENT NUMBER BEING GIVEN BACK TO THEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE MAYBE MAKE A MISTAKE ON THEIR OWN THINKING THEY HAVE EXTRA Y AND WE ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT WAY.
IT'S A PRETTY STEADY BASELINE.
I THINK AT A MINIMUM I WOULD GET A SECOND PROPOSAL FROM I, SINCE THEY'RE ALSO A CONTRACTOR OF OURS.
SO AT LEAST WE HAVE TWO NUMBERS.
I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE A NEED TO NECESSARILY DO A SOLE SOURCE, UH, PROCUREMENT ACTION.
I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER PEOPLES IN THIS SPACE, RIGHT? MADERA COUNTIES USING DIFFERENT ONE.
AND NOT THAT GREG I'M SURE THEY WOULD DO A FANTASTIC JOB ON THE OPENING TEA.
THE LITTLE BIT I'VE DONE ON THERE.
DO THEY, I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND A MONTHLY TOTAL ON THAT.
IT'S JUST AN ANNUAL CORRECT ON OPENING T NO, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE MONTHLY TOTALS AND YOU CAN GO BACK UP TO FOUR YEARS.
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THEM MONTHLY.
SO, YEAH, SO I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINITELY, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THIS AT SOME POINT.
ALL OF OUR GROWERS, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY I JUST FEEL LIKE BY NEXT YEAR WE NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE GUYS YOU'RE RIGHT.
ERIC GUYS, DON'T SOME PEOPLE AREN'T THAT INTERESTED IN THE YET, BUT IT'S GOING TO COME FAST.
SO, I MEAN, MAYBE WE NEED TO DECIDE AS A BOARD, IN MY OPINION, THIS SUMMER, WHICH ROUTE WE'RE GOING TO GO.
SO PEOPLE CAN START SEEING THOSE BUDGETS AND WHAT THEY'RE USING.
I THINK, I THINK AT A MINIMUM WE COULD HAVE LIKE A TWO HOUR WORKSHOP AND PEOPLE COULD BRING IN THEIR APN NUMBERS OR WHATEVER, AND THEY COULD BASICALLY SIT DOWN AND THAT WOULD BE A LOT LESS THAN $35,000 TO DO, DO AN EDUCATIONAL EFFORT.
AND MAYBE EVEN, UM, EXTENSION WOULD BE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING FOR US FOR A FAIRLY NOMINAL FEE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, I, I KIND OF AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID AND, AND, UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO TABLE IT.
I THINK WE COULD JUST ASK FOR IT TO BE ON THE NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA.
AND WE WANT TO OPEN UP A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THERE YET WITH THIS DATA FOR THE GROWER TO, I MEAN, I'D RATHER GET THIS PROP TWO 18 BEHIND US AND THAT'D BE SOMETIME END OF THE YEAR.
WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IS TO GET SOME SORT OF FEEDBACK FROM UKI FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND ALSO MAYBE TALK TO UC EXTENSION AND FIND OUT WHAT EXTENSION MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFER AND MAYBE PRESENT TO THE BOARD, SOME OPTIONS AS TO WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE DONE TO HELP PEOPLE START TO MOVE IN THAT AREA.
OR WOULD IT BE BETTER IF WE, IF WE HAD SOMEONE COMPILE THE DATA FOR THE ENTIRE GSA, NOT JUST 150 OF THEM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT TIME ABOUT MAILING THIS DATA OUT TO GROWERS AND STUFF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO OR JUST UPON REQUEST THE TWO 18 PROCESS.
WE HAVE FUNDING IN THAT IF IT'S APPROVED TO BASICALLY DEVELOP THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNTING.
AND I THINK COMING UP WITH INFORMAL NUMBERS THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT, MAY JUST CONFUSE THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK THE TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT HERE, IF WE KEEP ON TRACK WITH THE TWO 18 DISCUSSES, THAT'LL BE ADEQUATE FOR, FOR MOST GROWERS, I THINK, TO, TO START TO SEE WHAT THEIR NUMBERS ARE AND TO ADJUST, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE, THAT'D BE MY THINKING, BECAUSE IF WE GO WITH SOMETHING ELSE, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER NUMBER THAT MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE FINAL NUMBER IS.
PUBLIC COMMENT, COME ON UP BREAD.
THE, THE TWO 18 PROVIDES FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS OF RAMP UP UNTIL THE REAL ALLOCATION.
SO GROWERS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO A PORTAL FOR TWO YEARS TO GO LOOK AT INFORMATION.
THAT'S NOT THEIR TRUE ALLOCATION.
I MEAN, TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THERE'S 150 GROWERS IN THE SUB-BASIN THAT ARE GOING TO REQUEST THIS.
UM, THEY, THEY HAD A REAL GOOD FEEL FOR WHAT THEY'RE USING ALREADY, YOU KNOW, AND THEN TELL IT REALLY MATTERS DOWN TO THE 0.16.
[01:25:01]
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO YEARS TO GET FAMILIAR WITH THAT DATA WITH FUNDING THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE APPROVED ALREADY.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMENT? I MEAN, QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? NO.
WELL, I JUST WAS GOING TO ASK ADRIAL IF HE, IF HE NEEDED CLARIFICATION ON DIRECTION OR I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH DIRECTION.
SOMEBODY WANTS TO LET GREG BACK IN.
MOVING ON TO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UM, NOW THAT POPPED UP FROM THE PUBLIC, IT SAYS, UM, MAYBE A WORKSHOP TO UNDERSTAND HOW AN APN WILL BE AFFECTED WOULD BE A GOOD START GROWERS, UH, COULD BE ASKED WHAT THEIR NEEDS MAY BE.
AND EXTENSION SEEMS LIKE A GOOD FIT.
[11. STAFF REPORT]
STEPH REPORTS ADRIAL UM, SO STAFF, UM, PARTICIPATED IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION WE SUBMITTED, UM, FOR THE LONGTERM MULTI-BENEFIT LAND, REPURPOSE AND GRANT.UM, I'D LIKE TO THANK, UM, HE KPI FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE DONE IN PREPARING THE GRANT, AS WELL AS, UM, ZAN HERO FOR ZEN HERO, AS WELL AS OUR PARTNERS, UM, FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE GRANT INTERVIEW PROCESS.
UM, THOSE PARTNERS THAT PARTICIPATED, UM, WERE MEMBERS FROM DR.
JOSH BUYER'S RESEARCH GROUP WITH UC MERCED SAID, UM, KIM FORESTS WITH THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, HER SOLE STOCK WITH THE EAST MARCET RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
UM, WE HOPE TO HEAR BACK SOMETIME NEXT WEEK FROM THE DOC, ALTHOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT COULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO HEAR BACK.
UM, MY SECOND, UM, REPORT IS THAT, UM, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REACHING OUT TO WATER DISTRICTS, UM, WITHIN THE MS. GSA TO SET UP INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS THAT WOULD COVER SOME OF THE PHASE ONE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
UM, SO YOU GUYS PROVIDE A GOOD DIRECTION ON, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BRING UP ONE OF THESE NEXT INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS.
UM, MY LAST, UH, STAFF REPORT IS, UH, PERTAINS TO WELL PERMITTING.
UM, STAFF IS CURRENTLY, UM, UTILIZING THE COUNTY'S EXISTING CONTRACT WITH XERO, UM, THE PROCESS, THE POOR APPLICATIONS THAT WE THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY, UM, DURING A TRANSITION PROCESS.
UM, BUT THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UM, AFTER THE COUNTY'S CHANGING PROCESS WAS ESTABLISHED, SO SUBMITTED, UM, AFTER THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER.
AND THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE WAS ESTABLISHED, UM, AT OUR LAST BOARD MEETING, I INDICATED THAT, UM, WE WOULD USE THE EXISTING EK I CONTRACT, UM, TO MAKE THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS.
UM, HOWEVER, AFTER REVIEWING THE SCOPE OF WORK AND THE TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT, UM, STAFF FELT THAT REVIEWING WHILE PERMIT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE LRPS FUNDING.
UM, THEREFORE STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE, UM, ZEN HERE WILL PROVIDE A STOP GAP, UM, AND, UH, AND THEN OPEN UP TO COMPETITIVE A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS TO REVIEW THESE APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO FOR NOW, UM, ST HARA WE'LL REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AND THE COUNTY'S EXISTING CONTRACTS.
SO WE DON'T PREVENT, I MISS GSA GROWERS FROM RECEIVING A LETTER OF CONSISTENCY AND OBTAINING A WELL PERMIT.
UM, WE'LL ALSO IN THE INTERIM FACILITATE, UM, DEVELOP, UH, DOCUMENTS TO FACILITATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, UM, DRAFTING AN APPROVAL LETTER OF WHAT A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, AS WELL AS ADOPT A FEE SCHEDULE OR SORRY, DEVELOP A FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE'D BRING BACK FOR ADOPTION.
I'LL JUST MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT.
UM, I HAVE, UH, ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS THAT, UH, LIVES IN THE TURLOCK SUB-BASIN AND, UM, AND THEIR WELL WENT DRY.
UH, AND, AND SO, UH, OUR STAFF REACHED OUT TO THE WEST SHERLOCK TO GET A CONSISTENCY LETTER AND IT TOOK THEM WHAT TWO, THREE DAYS TO GET BACK TO US, ADRIAN.
YOU KNOW, SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT AS WELL.
ANYTHING ELSE? THOSE STAFF REPORTS, THAT'S IT.
[12. BOARD REPORTS]
ALL RIGHT.BOARD REPORTS, I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS, WE'RE ALSO HAVING STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS.
THERE'S A STAKEHOLDER GROUP THAT,
[01:30:01]
UH, THE CONSULTING AND I'M DRAWING A BLANK ON THE CONSULTING FIRMS NAME RIGHT NOW HAS WHAT WOULD INCURRENT.YES, I SHOULD KNOW THAT, BUT I'D LIKE FROM STAFF, MAYBE WHEN THEY HAVE A MEETING TO GET UPDATES, JUST KIND OF A REVIEW OF WHAT THEY WENT OVER EACH MEETING, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE AND THEY'VE GOT SOME DECENT IDEAS.
AND AS A BOARD, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALWAYS HEARING WHAT GOES ON OVER THERE.
JUST A QUICK REPORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WAS DONE AT THE WOODWARD AND KERN, UH, STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS THAT THEY HAVE, WHAT QUARTERLY RIGHT NOW? UM, WELL, THEY MOVED TO, OR THEY MOVED TO ONCE A MONTH, ONCE A MONTH.
IN ANTICIPATION OF THE GSP BEING DUE SO SOON.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE TO YOU ALL SINCE WE'RE A, BECAUSE OF THE BROWN ACT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GO.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GET AN UPDATE ON THAT.
SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REGARDING THE WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS ONE IS, IS THE FINAL, UM, WELL, CONSISTENCY PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE ON A WEBSITE SOMEWHERE NOW, THE FINAL, ALL THE PAPERWORK SOMEONE NEEDS TO SUBMIT FOR, FOR THE MERCEDES SUB-BASIN GSA.
WELL, CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION.
I MEAN, YOU EMAILED ME SOME DOCUMENTS FOR THE ONE I'M WORKING ON.
IS THAT ACTUALLY ON A WEBSITE NOW WHERE EVERYBODY CAN ACCESS YEAH.
THE UPDATED PERMIT PACKET, UM, THAT MERCY COUNTY CODE CALLS OUT FOR NEEDING TO HAVE, ALONG WITH THE CONSISTENCY LETTER IS ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE.
CAUSE I KNEW YOU WERE WANTING TO GET GOING, BUT THAT IS UP.
SO IS THAT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH THAT IS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PAGE, UNDER APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS I DON'T BELIEVE YET THERE'S A FEE DETERMINATION OF HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST TO SUBMIT THAT PENN TO US OR TO THE COUNTY, TO THE GSA, TO THE GSA, KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL WORK ON DEVELOPING.
UM, BUT AGAIN, FOR THESE COUPLE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR, UM, AND TO NOT HOLD THEM UP, I'D RATHER NOT IMPOSE A FEE AND LET THE COUNTIES CONTRACT.
SO WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL FOR FIDI BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH.
ADD JUST A LITTLE BIT ON THAT TOO.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THAT.
WELL, PERMIT CONSISTENCY PERMIT PROCESS WE DEVELOPED NOT ONLY THE APPLICANT MUST CONCLUDE CERTAIN THINGS.
THERE'S THIS QUESTION AS ADRIAN JUST SAID, WHAT DOES OUR LETTER LOOK LIKE? GOING BACK, WE NEED TO DRAFT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ALL ARE APPROVING OF.
WE ALSO NEED TO START CREATING HOW AND WHERE SOMEBODY REPORTS.
CAUSE IF YOU WERE TO CALL THE WELL, THE CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION INCLUDES PROVISIONS OF REPORTING, MONTHLY WATER USE AND PUMPING.
AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A REPOSITORY NOR A MECHANISM TO RECEIVE THAT.
DO WE JUST, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WRITE A PIECE OF PAPER AND MAIL IT IN AND ADRIAL GETS IT OR DO WE START CREATING SOMETHING? SO THERE'S SEVERAL LITTLE PIECES THAT, UH, ADRIAN AND I WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT TO TRY AND WE GOT TO DEVELOP TOWARDS THAT, THAT END AND LET'S GET THAT GOING.
AND THEN PART OF THAT WILL BE, WELL, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE CAN BRING IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AND HOPEFULLY ADOPT ALL THOSE THINGS AND WE CAN KEEP THOSE, GET THAT PROCESS MORE REFINED.
SO WE'VE GOT A POLICY RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROCESS FORMALIZED WITHIN THAT POLICY.
AT THE LAST, UH, FOOD BANK, BOARD MEETING, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD WAS THERE.
AND, AND, UH, SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT COMMUNITIES NEAR CITIES AND, YOU KNOW, THE, SO THEY WOULD FALL WITHIN, THEY WOULD FALL WITHIN, UH, THESE COMMUNITIES FALL WITHIN THE, UH, NOT WITHIN THE CITY AND THEY'RE NOT FARMERS, SO THEY'RE THERE, BUT THEY ARE DOMESTIC WELLS.
AND, AND, UH, AND SHE SAID, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE BOARD'S FEELING THAT THESE COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE, UH, DO ONE OF TWO THINGS, EITHER PUT IN A, A WELL PUT IN A, WELL THAT FEEDS THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OR TIE INTO THE CITY, THE ADJACENT CITY, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WHERE YOU MAY HAVE 60 OR A HUNDRED WELLS, BUT, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOVERNED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
[01:35:01]
PEOPLE WITHIN THE CITY.THEY'RE LIMITED AS TO OUR WATER USAGE, FARMERS ARE LIMITED TO THEIR WATER USAGE, BUT THESE ONE TO FIVE ACRE, UH, DOMESTIC WELLS THAT ARE IN THESE COMMUNITIES, AREN'T GOVERNED BY ANYTHING.
AND SO I HAVE SEEN, AND I DON'T, I HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIND IT, BUT SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE WATER, ONE OF THE WATER BOARDS THAT SUGGESTED THAT THESE COMMUNITIES SHOULD TIE INTO SOME SORT OF EITHER, EITHER DRILL A WELL AND, AND PUT, UH, FILTERING SYSTEMS ON THEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE WELLS, THE, AROUND HER SAID THE WATER ISN'T ANY GOOD EITHER.
UH, SO IT KIND OF COVERS BOTH THE WATER QUALITY AND, AND, UH, AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF, UH, UH, AGREEMENT AMONGST THEM THAT THEY'RE GONNA LIMIT THEIR USAGE OR TIE IT TO THE CITY.
AND IT WAS SUGGESTED OF COURSE, THAT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO DO THAT NOW.
AND PARTICULARLY IF WE, AS A GSA ARE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE DRILLING OF WELLS, UH, WHERE'S THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS, IS SENDING A LETTER TO THE, TO THE BOARD, SUGGESTING THAT THEY SHOULD SOMEHOW INCENTIVIZE EITHER THE CITIES TO TAKE IN THESE COMMUNITIES, UH, OR THE STATE, UH, INCENTIVIZE, YOU KNOW, THESE LAND OWNERS TO, TO, UH, DEVELOP A SYSTEM THAT MAKES SOME SENSE, OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE DRILLING WELLS FOREVER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FIVE ACRES, THEY CAN HAVE FIVE ACRES, A LONG, YOU KNOW, AND, AND NOBODY GOVERNS THAT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER, UH, FINDING THAT LETTER THAT CAME FROM THE BOARD AND, AND DRAFTING A LETTER BACK, SUGGESTING THAT THE STATE NEEDS TO STEP IN OR GIVE US SOME KIND OF AN AUTHORITY, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US TO INCENTIVIZE ONCE AGAIN, THE CITIES TO, UH, AND THE PEOPLE IN THESE COMMUNITIES TO, TO, UH, HOOK UP TO THE CITY WATER SYSTEM.
SO I'M GOING THROUGH THIS WITH ONE OF MY COMMUNITIES, UH, DELL HIGH, THEY, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE A, UH, UH, WATER DISTRICT, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND THERE'S TWO POCKETS THAT AREN'T IN, RIGHT? THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SMALL LOTS.
AND THEN SOME OF THEM ARE THE ONE TO FIVE ACRE LOTS.
AND SO I WORKED WITH SELF-HELP AND GOT A GRANT, UM, OR GOT THEM TO APPLY FOR A GRANT TO HOOK THOSE FOLKS UP.
SO IT BRINGS THE TRUNK LINE IN AND THEN PAYS TO HOOK THEM UP.
AND EVEN IN THAT WORD ABOUT, I THINK 50% OF GETTING THE PEOPLE TO HOOK UP, RIGHT? CAUSE THEY THERE'S NO INCENTIVE.
THEY THINK I'M GETTING MY WATER FOR FREE, RIGHT.
THEY DON'T CALCULATE THE COST OF ELECTRICITY AND, AND THEY SEE WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE PAYING.
AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.
SO IT HAS TO, IT HAS TO COME FROM TOP DOWN.
OTHERWISE IT'S A, IT'S GOING TO BE A BATTLE THE WHOLE TIME, BUT, BUT THERE IS MONEY AVAILABLE FROM DWR TO FUND GETTING PEOPLE HOOKED UP, AT LEAST IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
MIKE, I, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THE GSA HAS A TOOL IF WE WANT TO USE IT.
AND THAT IS WE CAN USE THE SATELLITE BASED ITI DATA TO ESTIMATE AT LEAST ALL THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION ON THOSE SMALLER PARCELS AND THE EXEMPTION.
NOW OUR PARCELS, I BELIEVE THAT USE TWO ACRE FEET OR LESS PER YEAR.
AND THOSE PARCELS THAT YOU FIND ARE USING MORE THAN TWO ACRE FEET PER YEAR, THE GSA COULD DEVELOP A POLICY AS TO WHAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO.
SO IT'S PARTIALLY A MATTER IF, AS A SUBSET, WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT ON.
BUT I THINK, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT THAT, UM, MOST PEOPLE THAT HAVE ONE ACRE OR LARGER PARCELS AND HAVE THE MOSTLY LANDSCAPED ARE USING MORE THAN TWO ACRE FEET, A YEAR OF WATER.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING IF WE, IF WE SO CHOOSE, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT ONE OF THE, THE EARLY PRIORITY ITEMS FOR ME PERSONALLY,
[01:40:01]
THAT WE DO, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A TOOL TO DO THAT IF WE WANT TO PURSUE IT.AND, AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE ARE IN, THEY DON'T LIVE IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FIVE BAKERS, THE LANDSCAPE.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I THINK THAT CAN PLAY INTO THAT CONSIDERATION.
YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF THE FOCUS HAS BEEN ON AGGING OR IRRIGATION, REDUCING CONSUMPTIVE USE.
CAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE LARGER THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE BIG STEPS, UM, SIGMA DEFINED DIMINIMOUS DOMESTIC USE.
AND THEY PUT THAT TERM IN THERE FOR A PURPOSE BECAUSE DOMESTIC USE DOES NOT INCLUDE AGRICULTURAL, LIKE I'M GROWING AN ACRE OF TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR EVEN LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS.
SO THERE'S WAYS IN, WITHIN THE TOOLS OFFERED TO THE GSES AND THE AUTHORITIES, YOU HAVE, YOU COULD START LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE THINGS ADDED TO THAT IS THE DETERMINATIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES KIND OF REASONABLE DOMESTIC INDOOR AND OUTDOOR USE THAT THERE, UH, THE STATE IS CONTEMPLATING THAT APPLIES TO URBAN WATER PURVEYORS, UH, LARGE-SCALE URBAN WATER PURVEYORS THAT STARTS TO SET THRESHOLD.
SO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY YOU SAY, LOOK, OUR DIMINIMOUS USE DEFINITION STARTS TO BECOME REASONABLE USE ON A PER CAPITA BASIS AND A REASONABLE BOTTLE OF LANDSCAPE.
SO YOUR FIVE ACRE LAWN MAY NO LONGER QUALIFY IN OUR DETERMINATION AS A GSA, AS A DIMINIMOUS DOMESTIC USE.
AND SO THEREFORE, SO THOSE TOOLS ARE THERE, BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY NOT A PLACE TO BE CHASING AT THIS MOMENT.
THE OTHER THING THAT THAT PLAYS INTO THAT IS THIS IDEA OF A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION, AS YOU CAN, AS PART OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF I'M GOING TO FUND YOUR WELL TO, TO FIX SOME ELEMENT OF YOUR WELL AS MITIGATION, BUT YOU ARE NOW GOING TO BE HELD TO A DOMESTIC, WELL, A DOMESTIC USE LIMIT AND BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES IF YOU EXCEED THAT.
RIGHT? SO THAT COULD BE A WAY TO HELP ADDRESS AND SET THAT THOSE THRESHOLDS OF A MITIGATION PROGRAM.
SO IN KEEPING WITH WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON ALL OF THAT DRIVE IN THOSE, THOSE SMALL COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION REQUIREMENTS, THE ONE ADDED PIECE, AND I DON'T KNOW A SUPERVISOR PROVERA PEREIRA, IF YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS, BUT I KNOW ADRIAN WAS TALKING TO YOUR OES DEPARTMENT, UH, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT UNDER SB 5, 5, 2 FOR COUNTIES TO CREATE A DROUGHT PLAN.
AND THAT DROUGHT PLAN INCLUDES SEVERAL TASKS, INCLUDING EVALUATING ALL THE SMALL, UM, SMALL COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATIONS AND TRYING TO PUT FORWARD A PLAN ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT.
SO I KNOW ADRIAN WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW WITHIN THE COUNTY TO LOOK AT HOW TO DO THAT WITHIN THE OES DEPARTMENT, CAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE INCORPORATED EITHER INTO YOUR GENERAL PLAN OR YOUR HAZARD HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OR ANOTHER SPECIFIC PLAN.
THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION AND THERE THERE'S SOME STEPS TO TAKE.
YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO PUSH IT BACK TO THE STATE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK FARMERS SHOULD BE PICKING UP THE TAB FOR ALL OF THIS.
AND I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, THE STATE SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZING DOING THE RIGHT THING, UH, LIKE THEY'RE DOING WITH US.
AND, AND SO THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
KIM, ANY OTHER BOARD REPORTS? NO.
[13. NEXT REGULAR MEETING]
ALRIGHT.NEXT SPECIAL MEETING IS JUNE 9TH.
AND ARE WE ADJOURN? DO I GET TO DO IT SO JOURNEY, I'VE BEEN WANTING TO DO THAT FOR A LONG TIME.