Jan 12, 2023 GSA Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

[00:00:09]

THREE. BOARD MEETING.

DO I NEED TO CALL THE ROLL? I CAN CALL THE ROLL.

OK. I'M CALLING THE ROLL.

ERIC SWENSON. HERE.

BOB GIAMPAOLI.

HERE.

RICK DRAYER. HERE.

LLOYD PAREIRA IS ABSENT.

ON HIS WAY. AND GINO PEDRETTI IS ON HIS WAY.

WE ARE GOING TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.

[2. CLOSED SESSION]

WE'LL COME BACK INTO SESSION THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA FOR JANUARY 12TH MEETING.

WE HAD ROLL CALL EARLIER AND WE HAD ROLL CALL EARLIER AND THEN WENT INTO CLOSED SESSION.

THERE WAS NO REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER, BOB GIAMPAOLI.

WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE, PLEASE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

SO, BOB, DID SOMEBODY SHOW YOU THE KEYBOARD HERE? YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN CHAIRS PRIVILEGE, I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE YOU A SECOND TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND JUST YOU KNOW JUST A MINUTE OF BACKGROUND WHO YOU'RE HERE REPRESENTING AND.

I'M BOB GIAMPAOLI, REPRESENTING LE GRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICT.

AND I GOT PUT ON THE BOARD AS KOLE HAS BEEN HERE IN THE PAST, BUT WITH HIS WIFE HAYLEY, FILLING IN FOR HIM AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HELPING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.

[4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]

YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.

IS THERE? AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SURE. COME ON UP. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M ALSO ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

I JUST WANT TO CONVEY AN ISSUE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MERQUIN WATER DISTRICT MEETING.

STEVINSON IS TAKING A LARGE AMOUNT OF FLOODWATER AND OUR GROUND IS SOAKING IT UP.

WE'RE RECHARGING GROUNDWATER IN A BIG WAY.

OUR STATIC WELLS HAVE ALREADY COME UP IN SOME AREAS THREE FEET ONE.

MY POINT IS, IS THAT IF WE DON'T UTILIZE OUR WELLS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WE WILL DROWN IN TIMES LIKE THIS.

SECONDLY, I HAVE A QUESTION MAYBE CAN BE CLARIFIED AT A LATER DATE FOR OUR 218 TAXES.

IF WE CAN'T BENEFIT FROM THEM, THEN ARE WE REQUIRED TO PAY THEM? THE PROGRAM THAT IT'S BEING USED TO FUND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD EVER QUALIFY BECAUSE WE BRING IN SURFACE WATER.

SO WOULD PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE QUALIFY TO BE PAID TO, NOT FARM OR WOULD WE EVEN NOT BE QUALIFIED TO APPLY? SOME PEOPLE ARE THROWING AROUND IDEAS OF BOTH.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ACCURATE.

AND AGAIN, JUST REITERATING THAT WE NEED TO PUMP SO THAT IN TIMES LIKE THIS, WE DON'T FLOOD.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANYONE ELSE? IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

OKAY. THEN I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES THE STATE OF EMERGENCY FINDINGS MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 8TH AND THE APPROVAL OF THE WARRANTS.

[5. CONSENT CALENDAR]

OKAY. ON ITEM FIVE, THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT.

I HAD MADE A STATEMENT THAT I FELT THAT MANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE STEVINSON LANDOWNERS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE MERQUIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND ALSO THOUGHT THAT MANY OF THE CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE STEVINSON'S LANDOWNERS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THOSE LANDOWNERS.

[00:05:04]

AND THEN I ALSO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT ITEM 11, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT THAT GINO DID.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE STATEMENT THAT HE READ COULD ACTUALLY BE INCLUDED BY REFERENCE IN THE MINUTES SINCE IT WAS SIGNIFICANT AS FAR AS PRESENTATION OF HOW THE FIVE YEAR PROGRAM WOULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPLEMENTED AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO. OKAY. YEP.

THEY CAN BE INCLUDED. IS THERE A MOTION THEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIR.

SECOND. OKAY BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI.

SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE.

OKAY I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MARCHINI.

A SECOND BY GALLO.

COULD I GET ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.

DO WE HAVE TO DO ROLL CALLS, JENNY OR? NOT AYE. ANY OPPOSED NAY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE LOWER SAN

[5. LOWER SAN JOAQUIN LEVEE DISTRICT PRESENTATION]

AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO SHANE.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] MY NAME IS SHANE SWARTZ.

I'M HERE WITH THE LOWER SAN JOAQUIN LEVEE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED IN 1955 AS A CONVEYANCE TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY.

FRESNO, MERCED, AND MADERA COUNTY ATTACHED.

YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT WHERE WE'RE AT WITH OUR LEVEE DISTRICT.

SECOND, THINKING ABOUT THIS, ADRIEL, IF YOU COULD GO TO THAT THIRD PAGE AND THAT PDF OF THAT BOOKLET, JUST SO WE HAVE A REFERENCE OF A QUICK HISTORY OF WHERE WE'RE AT. IF YOU'RE UNFAMILIAR.

YEAH, THAT'S A PERFECT ONE.

SO THE LEVEE DISTRICT WAS FORMED AFTER THE FRIANT DAM WAS PUT IN PLACE TO HOLD FLOWS BACK FROM FRIANT DAM.

SO ALL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AND ALSO THE MERCED STREAM GROUPS IS A DIRECT EFFECT INTO THE PROJECTED SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE OVER HERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.

SO THIS SYSTEM IS OVER 80 YEARS OLD, AND IT WAS BUILT BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FINISHED LATE 1965. EVERY YEAR WE RECEIVE FLOOD FLOWS FROM SAN JOAQUIN RIVER STREAM GROUPS AND ALSO OCCASIONALLY FLOWS FROM THE KINGS RIVER.

OUR JOB SINCE 1955 IS TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY.

ALL THE WATER THAT COMES THROUGH THE CITY ENDS UP IN THE FLOOD CHANNEL BYPASS AND TO THE CONFLUENCES OF THE MERCED RIVER.

THIS WATER IS THEN FLUSHED OUT TO THE DELTA TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY, AS I SAID THREE TIMES.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE A FACT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR WITH THE LEVEE DISTRICT.

NOW, WITH THAT, OVER TIME, WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WHERE SUBSIDENCE HAS CAUSED A HUGE EFFECT ON THE LEVEES.

AGAIN, 1955, THEY WERE BUILT, SO THEY WERE PLANNED IN 1945, JUST AFTER WORLD WAR TWO.

NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THESE LEVEES.

OF WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT IS A 50 YEAR OR WHAT IS 100 YEAR PROTECTION, 100 YEARS.

JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL THING THAT THEY SAID IN 1955.

WE AT THE LEVEE DISTRICT WITH THE SUBSIDENCE AND THE SEDIMENTATION, THE AMOUNT FROM OBVIOUSLY KNOWN PUMPING IN THE AREAS WERE DEEPLY AFFECTED TO PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK NOW TO THE SUBSIDENCE DIAGRAMS AND AGAIN, THESE DIAGRAMS ARE FOUND ONLINE.

THESE ARE THROUGH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND IT SHOWS THE HEART OF THE SUBSIDENCE ISSUES.

SO IN THAT BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER, JULY 12TH OR EXCUSE ME, JULY 2012 TO JULY 2022, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE RED AND THE DEEP OF THE SUBSIDENCE.

NOW, IF WE GO TO SLIDE TWO OR THE BACKSIDE OF THAT PRESENTATION, THAT'S A ONE YEAR CHANGE.

SO AGAIN, SO THE LAST THREE YEARS OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE VALLEY AND THE MOST WEST SIDE OF MERCED COUNTY.

[00:10:11]

SO YOU ALL KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IS AFFECTING BECAUSE OF THE PUMPING.

WITH THAT, I KIND OF OPEN IT UP FOR ANY TYPE OF QUESTION THAT YOU MAY HAVE AS THE BOARD.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? SO, SHANE, WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED REDUCTION IN CAPACITY NOW? HOW HAS THE PROTECTION FACTOR CHANGED FOR THE DESIGN EVENTS? WELL, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION, SIR.

AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE WORKING WITH DWR AND CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD TRYING TO CREATE A PLAN AND ALSO THE NEXT STEP OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 1997, 2017.

SO THE FLOWS HAVE NOT CHANGED.

OBVIOUSLY, WITHIN THIS LAST WEEK WE SEE THE FLOWS AND WE'RE HOLDING IT'S DOING THE PROTECTION.

BUT AGAIN, THOSE FLAWS ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE UPON TO MAINTAIN GETTING INTO THE PL 8499 WITH THE LEVEE AND ALSO THE ARMY CORPS.

SO THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THEY'RE ONGOING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE KNOW WITH SUBSIDENCE IT'S A HUGE FACTOR WITH OUR LEVEES FAIL OR OUR LEVEES SINKING.

SO WHAT'S THE ANTICIPATED TIME FRAME OF HAVING THAT FIGURED OUT? I WOULD SAY WITHIN 2 TO 5 YEARS.

TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. WELL, THE REASON I SAY THAT SO WE DO REVISE AT THE GSP EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO I THINK THE NEXT REVISE IS IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS OR SOMETHING.

SO HAVING INPUT, MAYBE IN A YEAR AND A HALF TIME FRAME OR TWO YEAR TIME FRAME BECAUSE IT TAKES US PROBABLY SIX MONTHS TO DO A REVISE WOULD PROBABLY BE OPTIMAL.

I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU WANT US TO CONSIDER THINGS, IT WOULD REALLY BE GOOD TO SEE IF THAT INFORMATION COULD BE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN A TWO YEAR TIME FRAME.

SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU JUST CONSIDER AS YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, TIMING OF EVENTS AND TRYING TO ASK FOR MONEY AND PRIORITIZING, IS THAT THEN OTHERWISE YOU'RE YOU'RE PROBABLY INTO ANOTHER FIVE YEAR CYCLE.

SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU TAKE JUST A MOMENT AND JUST KIND OF SHARE HOW THE FEES ARE COLLECTED? WHO'S PAYING AND JUST A QUICK.

ABSOLUTELY. SO WE ARE A BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION UNDER YOUR COUNTY, ALSO MERCED COUNTY AND FRESNO COUNTY.

ADRIEL, CAN YOU PUMP IT TO BACK ON THIS ONE? ON PAGE FOUR? IT SHOULD BE A YELLOW GRAPH RIGHT THERE.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS KIND OF ROUGH, BUT I HAVE A BETTER ONE THAT I CAN BLOW UP A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR YOU.

SO THIS IS OUR AREA OF A BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ON THE RED OR EXCUSE ME, ON THE YELLOW OUTLINE.

THE RED INDICATES OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WHERE COUNTIES THEY SIT.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S ALL THE CONSTITUENTS FROM YOUR COUNTY THAT ARE PAYING FOR FEES FOR THIS LEVEE DISTRICT.

AGAIN, I GO AFTER GRANTS AND FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP MODIFY REHAB.

BUT THIS IS A BIGGER AND WITH THE SUBSIDENCE, THE AMOUNT OF SINKING OF THESE LEVEES THAT IT'S CAUSING, IT'S A BIGGER FEAT THAN WHAT THE LOCAL TAXPAYER ADJACENT TO THE LEVEE CAN HANDLE.

AND WHO'S THE BOARD MEMBER THAT REPRESENTS OUR AREA? MR. BOB KELLY AND MR. ALDO SANSONI. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH.

YOU GUYS LOOKED INTO JUST RAISING THE BANKS TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THESE ISSUES FROM SUBSIDENCE? YES GINO. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

A LOT OF OUR LEVEES ARE STATE EASEMENTS UP IN THIS AREA IN MERCED COUNTY.

SO WITH THAT, IT'S BASICALLY THE SETBACK.

SO NOW RAISING THOSE LEVEES UP TO WHAT ARMY CORPS SAYS 100 YEAR OR A 200 YEAR FLOOD ZONE.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MORE OF YOUR PROPERTY AWAY FROM YOU.

SO THAT FOOTPRINT IS GOING TO TRIPLE IN SIZE OF THOSE LEVEES.

SO WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AS WELL AS AN ALTERNATIVE SCOPE.

IF I MAY, WHAT WAS THE.

WHEN THEY BUILT IT DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WATER WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY? WELL, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SECTION, SIR.

YES. SO WHAT AREA ARE YOU LOOKING AT? WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH IT'S SHRUNK.

I GUESS MAYBE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR 100,000 CSF OR WHATEVER IT WAS, YOU KNOW?

[00:15:02]

PAGE THREE OF THAT PDF HANDOUT.

SO WE'RE TALKING UPPER END MERCED.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 16, FIVE, 16,500 CFS.

WE PUSH THROUGH THAT EAST SIDE FLOOD BYPASS SYSTEM AND THEN ANOTHER 8,000 DOWN THE MARIPOSA PASS OUT TO THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER.

SO WE CAN GET COMFORTABLY ABOUT 20,000 CFS IN THAT AREA.

SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE MERCED STREAM GROUP CREEKS, HOW THEY COME IN AT ONE TIME.

AND THEN ALSO THE FRESNO RIVER OBVIOUSLY IS SOUTH, ANOTHER COUNTY.

BUT JUST SO YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE ALL THIS WATER IS DRAINING TO THE WEST AND PUSHED OUT.

AND HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT'S DIMINISHED THE CAPACITY JUST FROM SUBSIDENCE AND SEDIMENTATION? AND AGAIN, WITHOUT I MEAN, I WOULD SAY NOT FOR THE RECORD, IT'S A 25 TO 30% AT LEAST.

AND AGAIN, THE DETERIORATION OF THE LEVEES, THE EARTH AND SAND, THAT'S ANOTHER MAJOR FACTOR OF OUR LEVEES AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT JUST THE HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE TALKING YOU KNOW, IT'S DEPENDING ON WHAT AREA THAT THEY BUILT AND WHAT CONTRACTOR PUT IT IN IN 1955.

SO BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THIS IS A VERY GOOD SLIDE.

YOU CAN SEE KIND OF OUR CHOKE POINT COMING DOWN.

YOU'VE GOT OWENS, MARIPOSA, DEAD MAN CREEK AND THEN CHOWCHILLA COMING UP ON THAT BACK SIDE.

SO USUALLY YOU NEVER SEE THAT CHOWCHILLA RIVER RUNNING, BUT NOW IT'S GOING TO BE INCREASED EVEN MORE NOW WITH OUR MERCED STREAM GROUP.

SO WE HAVE FOUR MAJOR STREAM GROUPS COMING INTO ONE AT THAT EAST SIDE GOING INTO THAT CONFLUENCE.

OKAY. YOU GUYS HAD MUCH ISSUE AS FAR AS CLEANING SETTLEMENT OUT WITH THE STATE, GETTING THE PERMITS AND STUFF, NOT RAISING THE LEVEES, BUT JUST SETTLEMENT AT THE BOTTOM. HAS THAT BEEN AN ISSUE FOR YOU GUYS, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, OR ARE THEY STILL OKAY WITH DOING THAT? EXCELLENT QUESTION GINO. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A DOUBLE PRONGED QUESTION.

SO UNDER OUR O&M, WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO CLEAN OUR CHANNEL WAYS THAT ARE MANMADE FOR FLOOD PROTECTION WITH OUR EQUIPMENT.

NOW, WITH RIVER RESTORATION COMING ONLINE, THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS, IT'S GONE HARD WHERE WET MAINTENANCE, THERE'S A LOT MORE RULES AND REGULATION THAT OVERSTAKE US.

SO YOU CAN SEE RIVER RESTORATION PATH ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER NOW IS NO LONGER.

WELL LET ME POINT A LITTLE EASIER FOR US.

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RIVER RESTORATION.

EVEN THOUGH THIS IS THE MANMADE CHANNEL FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, THIS IS NO LONGER THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER.

SO. IN THOSE AREAS, SOUTH IN MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTY IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO KEEP IT CLEAN AND THAT NORTH END IF RIVER RESTORATION FLOWS ARE RUNNING.

HANDS OFF I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING THE RIVER RESTORATION THROWS US THROUGH THE EAST SIDE BYPASSES THE OLD SAN JOAQUIN RIVER THROUGH THAT SECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED CORRECT.

I MEAN, THEY WANT THEM TO GO THROUGH THE BYPASS NOW.

THAT IS CONSIDERED THE RIVER.

THAT'S CONSIDERED THE RIVER NOW OFF WASHINGTON.

YOU KNOW THAT SECTION RIGHT THROUGH THERE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY.

THAT MAKES. OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

OH. AND I SUPPORT WELL, IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

I WAS JUST TEASING. OKAY.

I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LOWER SAN JOAQUIN LEVEE DISTRICT FOR 33 YEARS.

MY FATHER BEFORE ME WAS SINCE THE DISTRICT WAS FOUNDED.

YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IN THE FLOOD CONTROL BUSINESS? NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT UNTIL THERE'S A FLOOD.

WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW.

WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS WHEN WHEN THE GSP CAME OUT, THERE WAS, IN MY OPINION, TOO MUCH TRANSITIONAL SUBSIDENCE ALLOWED IN THE GSP.

AND I'VE MADE A POINT OF TALKING TO THAT ON THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE LEVEL.

BUT IT'S REALLY TO THIS BOARD'S LEVEL THAT THIS HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE THE SUBSIDENCE IS HAPPENING IN THE MERCED COUNTY, IN THE LANDS THAT THIS BOARD IT SERVES.

AND THE SUBSIDENCE IS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR OUR SYSTEM.

[00:20:03]

OUR LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBSIDENCE.

SO IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE COLORED MAPS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S THREE INCHES, FOUR INCHES.

WELL, IF YOU ADD THAT UP SINCE 1997, YOU'LL SEE YOU LOST THREE FEET.

WELL, IN 1997, WE WERE WITHIN SIX INCHES OF LOSING THE LEVEE SYSTEM, SIX INCHES WHEN WE LOST THREE FEET NOW.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A 97 FOR US TO LOSE OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM.

IF WE LOSE OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM, WE'LL HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME BUILDING IT BACK UP, BECAUSE TO PUT TO FIND THE DIRT AND TO RUN THE COST IN IN 2022 OR 23 IS NOWHERE NEAR WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN 1960.

WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

BUT THE BIGGER POINT THAT I WANT THIS BOARD TO REALLY THINK ABOUT IS THAT WE NEED THIS BOARD NEEDS TO ADOPT A SUSTAINABLE, MANAGEMENT CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO SUBSIDENCE.

THAT IS THAT IS MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT EXISTS IN THE GSP.

AND BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, IT TAKES A WHILE FOR SUBSIDENCE TO SLOW DOWN.

IT DOES NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

AND SO I RECOGNIZE THAT TO REDUCE PUMPING OR TO NOT ALLOW PUMPING BELOW CORCORAN CLAY HAS REAL TIME IMPACTS UPON ON MANY PEOPLE WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THIS BOARD DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION.

SO THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT THIS BOARD CAN DO SPECIFICALLY TO SLOW THIS DOWN IN A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME THAN IT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE GSP FOR THE ENTIRE SUBBASIN.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

ALSO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE EXTRACTIONS THAT'S OCCURRING, THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.

YOU KNOW, THERE IS A RECHARGE, A PERMIT NOW A TEMPORARY EMERGENCY PERMIT THAT RECENTLY LOOKED AT THAT IS GOING TO PUT SOME, IF APPROVED, IS GOING TO PUT SOME FLOOD WATERS ON MANY OF THE AREAS THAT THIS DISTRICT REPRESENTS, WHICH IS GOOD. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE REPLACEMENT WELLS IN AREAS OF SUBSIDENCE THAT ARE PUMPING BELOW THE CORCORAN, YOU REALLY NEED TO GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT ABOUT ALLOWING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THIS PROBLEM IS BEING GENERATED.

SO IF THIS BOARD IS REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES, THAT'S ONE AREA THAT IT IN MY OPINION, THAT IT CAN HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT UPON.

AND THE OTHER THING IS JUST IS TWO WHEN YOU DEVELOP YOUR ALLOCATION PROGRAM WITH PARCEL BASIS THAT BE SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO THIS AREA, BECAUSE THIS AREA, IT'S NOT JUST OUR FLOOD SYSTEM.

IT'S ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IMPACTED YOUR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IT'S IMPACTED.

WHEN YOU START LOSING ELEVATION THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER IMPACTS.

SO I ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO DEVELOP SOME SERIOUS SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA AND ACTIONS THAT WILL BEGIN TO ADDRESS THIS AND A QUICKER TIMETABLE THAN IS UNDER THE CURRENT GSP.

THANK YOU. OKAY, YOU'RE WELCOME.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO TOWN, SHANE, AND SHARING THAT WITH US.

I KNOW WE MET A WHILE BACK AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS REALLY INFORMED, RIGHT.

I LEARNED QUITE A BIT. AND SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OH, THERE WAS NO OTHER COMMENTS, I TAKE IT.

OH, YEAH, THERE IS NONE. THERE'S NO ACTION.

SO IT'S NOT. WELL, I GUESS WE COULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

YEAH. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? AND NONE ONLINE.

CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX, WHICH IS THE 22 23 BUDGET AMENDMENT.

[6. FY 2022-2023 BUDGET AMENDMENT]

THIS ITEM PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 BUDGET.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM.

[00:25:05]

BUDGETS FOR SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS WILL INCLUDE REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE ORIGINAL 2019 SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE, AS WELL AS THE PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM LANDOWNER FEE THAT PASSED LAST JULY.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADDS A PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM BUDGET LINE OF $4,435,439.

THE PHASE ONE DEMAND REDUCTION ELEMENTS INCLUDED ON THE SLIDE FOR THE 2022 2023 FISCAL YEAR REPRESENT THE ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED PHASE ONE FUNDING MECHANISM ENGINEER'S REPORT.

THE BUDGET AMENDMENT INCLUDES $50,000 IN EXPENDITURES FOR THE PHASE ONE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, WHICH RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY OF THE PHASE ONE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.

EXPENSES FROM THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROGRAM WILL COME ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1ST OF 2023, WHICH IS IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

NO FUNDS WILL BE EXPENDED FOR THE GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AS THIS POSITION WOULD NOT BE FILLED UNTIL JANUARY 2024 AT THE EARLIEST, PER THE APPROVED ENGINEER'S REPORT.

THE BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES $100,000 FOR DOMESTIC OIL AND MITIGATION PROGRAM AND $100,000 FOR SECURING A SERVICE THAT WOULD PROVIDE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS TO MSGSA GROWERS.

$50,000 IS ALSO INCLUDED FOR THE GSA'S PORTION OF THE COST SHARE FOR THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.

AND LASTLY, $25,000 IS INCLUDED FOR A CONTINGENCY RESERVE.

THE PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES A SHIFT OF $5,000 FROM OFFICE, FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNT TO THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT TO COVER ANY PROPERTY TAX RELATED EXPENSES.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS NOT EXPENDED, IT MAY BE REMOVED AND PUT BACK INTO THE OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNT.

AS TREASURER AND FISCAL MANAGER OF THE GSA'S ACCOUNTS, MERCED COUNTY REQUIRES THAT THE GSA HAVE AN APPROVED BUDGET IN ORDER TO PAY INVOICES FROM THESE ACCOUNTS.

THE ACTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY IS TO APPROVE AN AMENDED BUDGET OR AN AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 BUDGET TO REFLECT THE REVENUE AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHASE ONE FEE APPROVED IN JULY 2022.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS OF ADRIEL OR COMMENTS? HEY, WE'RE OKAY.

SO LAST MEETING, WE APPROVED THOSE CONTRACTS FOR THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THIS BUDGET.

ARE WE NOT PLANNING ON PAYING OR WHERE'S THAT MONEY AT? SO WE COLLECTED THE REVENUE, WHICH IS THAT FOUR THAT LARGE AMOUNT, THE $4 MILLION DOLLARS, BUT IT WON'T BE EXPENDED UNTIL WE'VE COMPLETED THE WATER YEAR AND THE REPURPOSING HAS BEEN DONE. SO FISCAL YEAR ENDS AT THE END OF JUNE, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE PAYING OUT USING THAT MONEY THAT WE'VE COLLECTED.

SO SORRY. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THOSE CONTRACTS WOULD GET PAID BEFORE THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON.

SO THAT'S THE PLAN NOW.

RIGHT. YEAH, THE APPROVED DATE WAS NOVEMBER 1ST.

OKAY TO PAY THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE FOLLOWING THIS COMING SEASON.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

OR REPURPOSING. SORRY.

BUT THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING RIGHT NOW.

YES. YEAH.

YEAH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE OK.

I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR ACTION.

I MOVE TO ADOPT THE AMENDED BUDGET AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OH, SORRY.

NO, I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR SWENSON.

A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN, WHICH IS THE COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT.

[7. COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT]

THIS AMENDMENT IS TO THE COUNTY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.

YOU RECENTLY EXTENDED THE TERM AND COMPENSATION FOR THE COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE GSA IN THE SUMMER OF 2022.

[00:30:01]

AND SO BY INCLUDING THIS ADDITIONAL COUNTY STAFF MEMBER WHO PROVIDES SUPPORT TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA, THE COUNTY WOULD BE ABLE TO BE REFUNDED FOR TIME SPENT BY THAT STAFF IN SUPPORT OF THE GSA.

THE UPDATE WOULD COVER STAFF SUPPORT FROM JULY 2022 THROUGH JUNE 2023, WHICH IS THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, AND THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE COMPENSATION OR THE TERM OF THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

SO THE ACTION IS TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT, UPDATING THE RATE SCHEDULE.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF LACEY? SEEING NONE. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ACTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT, UPDATING THE RATE SCHEDULE.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MY FAVORITE DIRECTOR, MARCHINI.

[LAUGHTER] AND SECOND, BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED NAY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.

[8. STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT]

I DON'T KNOW. DID YOU DECIDE WHO GETS TO TALK? ERIC OK.

LET'S TURN IT OVER TO ERIC.

HELLO, EVERYONE. I HOPE YOU FIND THIS INTERESTING.

WE HAVE HAD TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS OF ANIMATED DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, SO THIS IS THE RESULT.

THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING AN ALLOCATION APPROACH FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE THAT WOULD TAKE EFFECT BY WATER YEAR 2026.

NON AGRICULTURAL LAND USES, USES THAT USE GROUNDWATER SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WILL BE ADDRESSED IN SEPARATE POLICY CONVERSATIONS. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD, ALLOCATIONS FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS WOULD INITIALLY INCLUDE A TWO TIERED ALLOCATION, A PER ACRE QUANTITY OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND A PER ACRE QUANTITY OF TRANSITION WATER.

THE TRANSITION WATER IS EXPECTED TO DECREASE TO ZERO OVER SOME PERIOD OF TIME.

THE ALLOCATION APPROACH WOULD USE A FIVE YEAR ROLLING BUCKET CONCEPT THAT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR GROWERS TO MANAGE CHANGE ACROSS TIME.

WE RECOGNIZE THREE PRIMARY TYPES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS DESIGNATED BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE THAT HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN THEIR HISTORIC FUNCTION IN USE OF GROUNDWATER; IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE, MANAGED WETLAND HABITAT, INCLUDING DUCK CLUBS AND NON IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE.

BECAUSE OF VARIANCES IN THESE LAND USE FUNCTIONS COUPLED WITH THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S INTENT TO ACHIEVE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER AS REPRESENTED IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSP, THIS COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING A DIFFERENT ALLOCATION APPROACH FOR EACH AGRICULTURAL LAND USE FUNCTION.

AT THE TIME OF ITS INITIAL ALLOCATION LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WOULD BE LOCKED TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT EXISTED BETWEEN JANUARY 2015 AND JANUARY 2020.

CURRENTLY, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCUSSING THE FOLLOWING FOR IRRIGATED LANDS DESIGNATED BY THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AS EITHER FARMING TREES AND VINES, POULTRY OR DAIRY A PER ACRE ALLOCATION OF BOTH SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND TRANSITION WATER WILL BE MADE.

ALLOCATION QUANTITIES WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE GROSS PARCEL ACRES.

GROUPS OF OR SHARING AMONG LIKE DESIGNATED PARCELS WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER TO BE DEVELOPED RULES.

FOR IRRIGATED LANDS MANAGES WETLANDS SUCH AS NON-CONTRACT DUCK CLUBS OR LANDS WITH EASEMENTS; A PER ACRE ALLOCATION OF WILL ONLY BE OFFERED TO PARCELS THAT CHOOSE TO OPT IN.

SUSTAINABLE YIELD ALLOCATION QUANTITIES WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE GROSS PARCEL AREA.

TRANSITION WATER ALLOCATION WOULD BE GRANTED ONLY FOR A PARCEL THAT RECENTLY BETWEEN JANUARY 2015, AN JANUARY 2020, OR CURRENTLY PUMP

[00:35:04]

GROUPING OF OR SHARING AMONG LIKE DESIGNATED PARCELS WOULD LIKELY BE ALLOWED UNDER TO BE DEVELOPED RULES.

FOR NON IRRIGATED LANDS DESIGNATED BY THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AS GRAZING A PER ACRE ALLOCATION WILL ONLY BE OFFERED TO PARCELS THAT CHOOSE TO OPT IN AND WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS ONLY A STANDALONE PARCEL.

ONLY SUSTAINABLE YIELD WOULD BE OFFERED, NO TRANSITION WATER WOULD BE AVAILABLE.

AN OPT IN OPTION WILL BE OPEN DURING THE INITIAL ALLOCATION PROCESS AND THEN OFFERED ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS IN COORDINATION WITH THE GSP UPDATE TIMING.

ALLOCATIONS COULD NOT BE SHARED WITH ANY OTHER PARCEL.

EXTRACTION WELLS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PARCEL BEING IRRIGATED.

THE GSA WILL ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO APPEAL ALLOCATION DETERMINATIONS TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND THAT IS THE END OF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ARROWS? I MEAN, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

[LAUGHTER] GOOD JOB, ERIC. YOU DID GOOD.

MIKE. THE ONLY COMMENT.

I HAVE A COUPLE. THE FIRST COMMENT.

IT TALKS ABOUT AN ALLOCATION APPROACH FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GROUNDWATER IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE.

RIGHT. SO MAYBE JUST INSERTING THAT SO THAT IT'S CLEAR.

AND THEN AT THE END, WE TALK ABOUT OPTING IN AND WE'RE NOT.

YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF INITIAL DEADLINE RIGHT FOR OPTING IN. SO MAYBE WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

JUST A QUESTION.

I WOULD IMAGINE THIS IS GOING TO BE.

COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.

SWENSON READ IT ALL.

BUT I DIDN'T. YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

IT'S NOT PRESENTED. SO.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW THIS TO ON YOUR MINUTES OR YOUR WEBSITE SO WE CAN ACTUALLY DIGEST IT ALL? THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENT.

I DON'T KNOW. IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN? I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. SO I WOULD THINK, AS I REQUESTED, THAT THE PREVIOUS STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT BE ADDENDED TO THE MINUTES THAT WE SHOULD DO THE SAME FOR THIS.

IF IT'S NOT FINALIZED, THAT'S FINE.

BUT AS SOON AS IT'S YEAH, YOU'VE GOT A FINALIZED RECOMMENDATION WOULD COME OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT I KNOW WILL HAPPEN.

INTERIM I WASN'T SURE.

I WOULD THINK AS A DRAFT WE COULD PUT IT UP ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE IT.

AND I AGREE WITH MR. KELLY THAT IT IS A LOT TO DIGEST AND THERE'S A LOT OF CAREFULLY CHOSEN WORDS AND PEOPLE WILL WANT TO READ THOSE AND MAY WANT TO COME BACK WITH MORE QUESTIONS AFTER THAT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? OKAY. GO AHEAD. COME ON UP.

MR. DRAYER.

RICK DRAYER.

QUESTION, ERIC ON THAT YOU KNOW WHICH MY CONCERN IS RANGELAND.

YOU SAY WE CAN OPT IN TO IRRIGATED LAND POSSIBLY.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE IT'S NOT A DIALOG.

HE'S JUST GOING TO MAKE COMMENT AND QUESTIONS.

WE'LL ADDRESS THAT LATER.

OK SORRY. SO.

OK SO COMMENT ON IT.

THAT'S QUESTIONABLE.

AND OF COURSE OUR OVERLYING RIGHTS, MY MAIN CONCERN IS LIVESTOCK WATER.

DO WE NEED AN ALLOCATION FOR THAT OR DO OVERLYING RIGHTS COVER THAT? SO THAT'S MY COMMENT.

[00:40:03]

YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

WE JUST CAN'T HAVE DIALOG, BUT WE'LL GET YOU ANSWERS.

THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, RIGHT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? YES.

YES. I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

YEAH, I KNOW. I HATE TO BE FORMAL, BUT.

SCOTT MINIFIE, I JUST HAD A QUESTION AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE WELL WITHIN THE PARCEL AND NOT IS THAT A PARCEL LIKE AN APN NUMBER OR IF YOUR FARM CONSISTS OF MULTIPLE APN NUMBERS CAN A WELL BE IN ONE END AND IRRIGATE ANOTHER BECAUSE THAT IS THE SITUATION.

AND IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT.

OKAY. AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS JUST ABOUT OUR BASIC PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE HE'S PLANNING ON TAKING SOME, BUT.

ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? ARE THERE ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. NONE ONLINE.

THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION UP HERE? AND, ERIC, THIS WOULD BE A TIME WHERE YOU COULD DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU FELT THE COMMITTEE HAD ANSWERS.

IF YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS IT, THEN THAT'S OKAY, TOO.

AND WE'LL COME BACK NEXT MEETING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT RANGELAND.

THE COMMENTS ABOUT RANGELAND ARE REALLY FOR RANGELANDS THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IRRIGATED.

WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS PROVIDE AN AVENUE.

IF A LANDOWNER WANTED TO CONVERT RANGELAND TO SOME SORT OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE, WHAT THE RESTRICTIONS ON THAT WOULD BE.

SO IF YOU HAVE EXISTING LANDS THAT ARE IRRIGATED, THOSE AREN'T GOING TO BE CONSIDERED RANGELAND.

SO THIS WAS STRICTLY ABOUT CONVERSION, SINCE THE GSA NEEDS TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE GROUNDWATER PUMPING IN AGGREGATE ACROSS THE WHOLE SUBBASIN, HAVING A LOT OF ADDITIONAL NEW ACREAGE COMING IN TO IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IS GOING TO REQUIRE A REDUCTION SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO THAT'S HOPEFULLY THAT AT LEAST ANSWERS SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, WITH REGARD TO THE APN NUMBER AND THE WELL QUESTION, I MEAN, AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, WE'RE TALKING MORE ABOUT LIKE A MANAGEMENT ZONE.

SO IF YOU DID HAVE APNS TIED TOGETHER, WE DO UNDERSTAND MANY PEOPLE HAVE THAT ISSUE THAT IT WOULDN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO THE ROUTE OF TIED IN TO JUST APNS WELL, PER APN AS LONG AS IT'S IN A CONTINUOUS WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT THE RULES, BUT IT'S NOT FOR MILES AWAY OR WHATEVER.

SO ON THAT, BUT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW AND TALKED ABOUT.

OKAY, MIKE. AND YOUR RIGHTS TO WATER LIVESTOCK HAVEN'T CHANGED.

THIS DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR RIGHTS AT ALL.

OKAY. AND THEN AND JUST BACK TO THE RANGE LAND CONVERSION.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS A BOARD OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND AND THAT ALL LAND HAS A RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO PUMP WATER.

NOW, WHETHER YOU CAN PUMP IT OR NOT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

AND JENNY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE AS A GSA DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE AWAY A WATER RIGHT FROM ANYBODY.

OK. ALL RIGHT NIC.

YEAH. QUESTION AND IN REGARDS TO THE LIVESTOCK QUESTION, IS THERE GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE, YOU THINK, IN LIVESTOCK WATERING WHEN IT PERTAINS TO LIKE A CAFO, LIKE A CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION, LIKE A DAIRY OR A FEEDLOT VERSUS RANGELAND CATTLE WITH A WINDMILL AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND AS IT'S BEING DEVELOPED.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? OR A CHICKEN OPERATION, THEY'RE ALL MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS.

SO NIC POULTRY AND DAIRY ARE ALREADY LISTED IN THE FIRST CATEGORY WE TALKED ABOUT.

OH, GOOD, THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO GET ME PUT IN JAIL, BUT I'M WILLING TO RISK IT.

JUST WANT CLARIFICATION, BASICALLY.

SO THE LIVESTOCK WATERING, WE DON'T WANT ANY DEVELOPMENT EITHER, LIKE THE OPTING IN.

AND SO THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION OF LETTING SOMEBODY OPT IN.

[00:45:03]

WELL, YOU CAN LET ME KNOW LATER.

YEAH. WHEN I SIT DOWN.

SO THAT'S MORE OF A CONCERN IN OUR AREA.

WE'RE ON THAT BORDER OF IRRIGATED LAND OR SO CALLED IRRIGATED LAND, AND IT'S REALLY A DETRIMENT TO EVERYBODY.

SO I'M HOPING THAT SOMEBODY HAS JURISDICTION ON NOT TO LET OUR MARGINAL LAND GET OPTED IN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S HURTING US.

SO. RIGHT. THE WHOLE GSA.

AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE LIVESTOCK HASN'T WATERING HASN'T CHANGED, BUT SO THAT IS ALLOWING OUR OVERLYING RIGHTS TO THAT WATER FOR OUR LIVESTOCK AND DOMESTIC USE.

JUST CLARIFICATION, I KNOW WE CAN'T DIALOG, BUT AFTER YOU SIT DOWN, SOMEBODY MAY TALK ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU.

[LAUGHTER] JEANIE DID YOU WANT TO OPINE IN HERE FOR ANYTHING? I SEE YOU. NO UNLESS YOU HAVE A QUESTIONALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS.

ONE, ONCE YOU SEE THIS POSTED, IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS OF STATEMENTS YOU THINK SHOULD BE ADDED TO THIS RECOMMENDATION, I THINK YOU SHOULD SUBMIT THOSE. EVERYBODY SHOULD.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS WE WERE TRYING TO CRAFT SOMETHING, RICK, TO KIND OF ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY.

AND THAT WAS REALLY BY TRYING TO MAKE A REQUIREMENT OR DISCUSSING MAKING A REQUIREMENT THAT THE WELLS BE ON THE PARCELS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE A, WELL, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILE AWAY, A MILE AWAY IN A GOOD PRODUCING REGION AND THEN PIPE THAT WATER OVER TO A NEW PARCEL OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY IRRIGATED AND START IRRIGATING THAT AND INCREASE THE CURRENT TOTAL PUMPING.

SO MY KNOWLEDGE OF AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, A LOT OF THE AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT ARE EASY TO PUT WELLS IN AND HAVE SUITABLE SOILS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED.

SO A LOT OF THE OTHER AREAS, THE COST TO DEVELOP THOSE GROUNDS IS GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY PUT IN A LOT LARGER NUMBER OF SMALL WELLS TO DEVELOP THAT WATER.

SO WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT CAN'T BE DONE, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT AS THAT NEW GROUND WOULD BE DEVELOPED, ALL THE WELLS TO SUPPORT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND YOU COULDN'T TRANSFER WATER ACROSS.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO NOT SAY YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING WITH THAT LAND, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON IT AS TO HOW THAT'S DONE BECAUSE WE CANNOT PRECLUDE IT FROM HAPPENING EASILY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOPEFULLY.

SINCE WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING SIX YEARS FOR THIS CONVERSATION.

OH, HERE WE GO. HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

HAS THE COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT WHAT TOWEL DRAIN PUMPING IS CONSIDERED? IS IT CONSIDERED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION OR IS IT CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, A NUISANCE WATER, I GUESS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE HASN'T BEEN A DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT IT IS WATER COMING OUT OF THE GROUND.

RIGHT. SO INFORMALLY, NIC, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SOME COMMENTS FROM LONE TREE MUTUAL [INAUDIBLE] THAT HAS SEEPAGE FROM SHALLOW SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCES THAT IS PICKED UP AND PUMPED.

AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE IN WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED SEEPAGE AND WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED GROUNDWATER.

SO. SO SINCE WE'VE BEEN WAITING SIX YEARS, I'M GOING TO.

WELL, GO AHEAD, COME UP, AND THEN I'LL.

JUST.

GROUND DEVELOPED WHERE THEY'RE MOVING WATER, BUT MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED HISTORICALLY, HOW WATER IS BEING MOVED WITHIN FARM UNITS THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS.

YEAH, THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE WELLS ON DIFFERENT APNS THAT ARE MOVED TO OTHER APNS AND THEY'VE BEEN THAT WAY FOR 50 YEARS OR MORE, 100 YEARS OR 150 YEARS OR MORE.

I HAVE A LOT OF THAT. YEAH.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I AGREE.

GO AHEAD.

TO TO COMMENT ON THAT QUESTION.

WHAT I SAID AND WHAT ERIC SAID ARE BOTH CORRECT.

WE'RE TALKING APNS.

WELL, BEING ON AN APN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS IS WHAT THE COMMITTEES KIND OF TALKED ABOUT.

BUT MORE TO THAT QUESTION IS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY HOW IT'S HISTORICALLY BEEN FARMED WHEN ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT ZONES, IF IT'S BEEN HISTORICALLY DONE THAT WAY, WE'RE DEFINITELY PUSHING OR WORKING TOWARDS KEEPING IT HISTORICALLY DONE THAT WAY.

SO WE KIND OF GOING, I'D SAY GOING OFF ON NOT GOING OFF, BUT TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT STUFF IS MAYBE WHERE THE CONFUSION IS COMING FROM.

[00:50:03]

SO WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THESE RULES AND WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE AN AVENUE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO APPEAL THAT AND TRY TO WORK THAT OUT. OK JEANNE I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.

WOULD YOU MIND? AND I JUST WANT TO KIND OF FORM A QUESTION HERE THAT MAYBE GIVES SOME INSIGHT.

SO AS WE TALK ABOUT OUR WATER, WE HAVE THE NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND THEN WE HAVE TRANSITIONAL WATER.

AND SO UNDER STATE.

NOT YET YOU DON'T. WELL, WE COULD.

YES, I AM SORRY.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING ME OUT OF JAIL.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE LIKE SAY THERE'S A NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD.

WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AS A GSA TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM A PROPERTY, DO WE? WELL, LET'S BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A PRO RATA ALLOCATION OF A HISTORICAL YIELD OR A HISTORICALLY USED HISTORICAL YIELD? WELL, I THINK IT'S I MEAN, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT EVERY ACRE HAS ACCESS TO THE NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD AS LONG AS THEY CAN PUMP IT.

RIGHT. THERE ARE AREAS WHERE YOU COULDN'T PUMP YOUR NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD.

THAT'S CORRECT. ON AVERAGE.

WE HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION AS A GSA SO FAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW EVERY ACRE TO HAVE THAT ALLOCATION OF HISTORICAL YIELD.

HENCE, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO OPT IN, THEY WILL BE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THE LAW WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW YOU TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

AND LET ME PREFACE THAT BY SAYING WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW.

THIS IS NEW LAW.

THERE ARE NO CASES ON IT.

WE ARE JUST OPINING.

THERE HAVE BEEN OPINIONS RENDERED BY THOSE WITH EXPERTISE THAT GSA'S COULD PUT A DATE LIMIT ON THOSE THAT HAVE NEVER PUMPED WATER, GROUNDWATER AND SAY YOU MAY OPT IN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE CAN'T CUT YOUR RIGHT OFF, BUT WE CAN MAKE YOU HAVE A LOWER PRIORITY TO THAT WATER.

THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS AS FAR AS A GSA CAN GO.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ARE NOT AS A GSA ARE NOT PROPOSING TO GO THAT FAR.

THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW EVERY ACRE TO HAVE ITS NATIVE HISTORICAL YIELD.

THOSE THAT DON'T USE IT AT THIS POINT WILL NOT USE IT.

BUT IF THEY DETERMINE TO OPT IN AND THEY ARE GOING TO USE IT IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL NOT BE DENIED THAT ALLOCATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS.

THAT HELPS A LOT. NO, THAT'S EXACTLY I MEAN, I JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE KIND OF HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

THE TENSION IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID YOU ARE REQUIRED TO MANAGE THE GROUNDWATER TO REACH THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, WHICH BY DEFINITION IN A BASIN SUCH AS THIS MEANS PUTTING CAPS ON THAT EXTRACTION.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY SOMEONE'S WATER RIGHT.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS TO BE RECONCILED YET.

SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO RECONCILE IT BY SAYING EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WATER.

WE PUT A CAP ON THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUMP.

THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED TO REACH SUSTAINABILITY.

WE HAVE NOT TAKEN YOUR RIGHT TO PUMP THAT AMOUNT AWAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS NINE STAFF REPORT.

CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING REAL QUICK? GREAT WORK ON THE COMMITTEE.

YEAH, GREAT WORK. AND I KNOW THAT WORK DOESN'T COME EASY.

SO A LOT OF HOURS OF WORK.

A LOT OF MEETINGS. SO GOOD START.

UNDER THE STAFF REPORT.

[9. STAFF REPORT]

THE FIRST IS AN UPDATE ON A WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM.

SO STAFF HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING THE WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, EDF HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.

THIS IS THE SAME PLATFORM THAT OUR NEIGHBORING GSA IS MSGSA IS PARTICIPATING IN A PILOT PROGRAM FOR.

[00:55:04]

THIS IS THE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

WE FOUND OUT IN THE FALL OF LAST YEAR THAT MSGSA IS ALREADY PARTICIPATING IN A DWR GRANT FUNDED PILOT PROJECT TO DEVELOP A WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND IN AN EFFORT TO BE CONSISTENT AND USE THE SAME PLATFORM ACROSS THE BASIN FOR GROWERS WHO MAY HAVE PARCELS OR FIELDS IN BOTH THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA AND THE MERCED IRRIGATION URBAN GSA, WE INITIATED SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM AND EDF ON THE ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, ITS FUNCTIONALITY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR MSGSA TO JOIN THE PILOT PROGRAM.

SO AT THIS TIME IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE ARE WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM WOULD NOT EVEN MEET THE NEEDS OF THIS GSA.

AND THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT WE CAN JOIN THE PILOT PROGRAM PAYING FOR THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANDING THE PROJECT TO INCLUDE THIS GSA. WE'RE REACHING OUT TO DWR TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PORTION OF THIS GRANT FUNDED IF POSSIBLE.

ALSO, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE AS A GSA INCLUDED IN THE LATEST SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER.

SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT WAYS TO FUND THIS.

BECAUSE WE EXPECT THERE TO BE A LOT OF INTEREST FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE ON THIS WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND WHAT IT WOULD DO, THIS IS A HEADS UP FOR YOU THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON BRINGING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM OR EDF TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION ON THE WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON ITS FUNCTIONS.

AND WE'LL HAVE DETAILS ON THE TIMELINE AND THE COSTS IF WE'D BE ABLE TO JOIN THAT PROJECT.

SO YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING TO CONSIDER TAKING ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH JOINING THIS PILOT WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE THOSE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS OUT TO GROWERS.

AND SO YOU'LL BOTH SEE A PRESENTATION AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION IN THE FEBRUARY MEETING.

THE NEXT ITEM I WANTED TO GIVE A QUICK UPDATE ON OUR.

WE HAVE ONLY SEEN A DEMO OF THAT PROGRAM GIVEN TO US BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM AND EDF. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN GO TO YOURSELF.

WE CAN ASK THE QUESTION AND ASK IF THERE'S A DEMO TO SEE IT.

ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO DOWN IN SOUTHERN THE SOUTH VALLEY, THEY USE THIS PROGRAM THEMSELVES, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A USERNAME AND A SIGN IN TO TO SIGN ON TO SEE THAT.

WELL, THE REASON I SAID THAT, I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD BE TOO QUICK TO HAVE A PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING AND ASK THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL TO PROCEED.

I THINK THAT A PRESENTATION COULD BE MADE AND IF THEY ALLOW US TO INTERACT WITH THEIR DEMO OR WHATEVER.

BUT I WOULD THINK IT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST, AT LEAST ME, IT WOULD TAKE A WEEK OR TWO TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY PRESENT TO FORM AN OPINION, WHETHER WE SHOULD MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG STEP TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.

OK. WHAT THEY'VE SHOWN US SO FAR THEY ARE ALSO IN THE MIDST OF MODIFYING SIGNIFICANTLY THE USER INTERFACE AND SOME OF THE ASPECTS THROUGH THIS PILOT PROGRAM THAT'S BEING FUNDED BY DWR.

SO WHAT HOPEFULLY I GET YOUR POINT ON THE QUESTION BEING THAT MIGHT BE ASKED TO THE BOARD, BUT WE I THINK WE WILL ALL SEE AND LEARN MORE ON THE FEBRUARY PRESENTATION THAT WE SAW A LITTLE BITS OF, BUT WE'RE STILL IN PROCESS.

THEY SHOWED US ANOTHER PLATFORM, THE ONE THAT ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO, BUT THEY SAID THAT'S GETTING COMPLETE NOT COMPLETELY BUT SIGNIFICANTLY REVAMPED AS FAR AS THE INTERFACE AND THE INTERACTION AND THE TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE AND WHAT YOU SEE.

SO I THINK IT'S A FAIR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE ASK MIGHT BE, BUT I THINK WE CAN'T THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT WE CAN MAKE AVAILABLE NOW FROM WHAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING FROM THEM THAT WOULD HELP US IN THAT PATH FORWARD YET.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MAY I ASK A QUESTION? MID HAS HAD A LOT OF SAY ON HOW THE NEW ONE'S GETTING BUILT? CORRECT. SO THIS IS A PILOT PROJECT THAT IS DWR IS GRANT FUNDING MID AND TWO OTHER GSA'S IN OTHER

[01:00:10]

DWR'S INTENTION IS FOR THIS PLATFORM TO BECOME PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OR OPEN SOURCE.

AND SO ANY GSA, IT'S AN AVAILABLE PLATFORM THAT ANY GSA COULD USE IN THE FUTURE.

SO IT'S NOT READY RIGHT NOW.

IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS.

BUT MSGSA HAS HAD A LOT OF INPUT ON THEIR PLATFORM BECAUSE AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE PILOT, THEY'RE GETTING A PLATFORM BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM.

WE AS STAFF, WE THINK THERE'S A REAL OPPORTUNITY HERE AND HOPEFULLY A DWR WOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE TWO GSA'S WHO ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER, WHO HAVE GROWERS THAT MIGHT HAVE FIELDS IN BOTH GSA'S TO HAVE THE SAME PLATFORM AND SEE HOW THAT INTERACTION WOULD WORK FOR GROWERS BETWEEN THE TWO AND FOR THE TWO GSA'S AS WELL.

AND THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM AND EDF ARE BOTH REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT.

THE TECHNICAL SIDE FOLKS ARE BOTH REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT AS WELL.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE THINKING THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.

BUT I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD MENTION ON THE TIMELINE AND BRINGING THIS FOR A PRESENTATION IN FEBRUARY AND HOPING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION IN FEBRUARY, IS THIS BOARD HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST WE'VE HEARD IT FOR OVER A YEAR IN GETTING THOSE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS OUT AND GETTING THIS INFORMATION OUT.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE QUICKLY.

IF YOU DON'T TAKE ACTION IN FEBRUARY, THEN IT'S DELAYED UNTIL MARCH.

AND SO THIS IS JUST AN EFFORT TO MOVE A LITTLE QUICKER IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO USE THIS WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND YOU DO WANT TO GO OUT FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND HAVE A COMPETITIVE BID AND FIND A FIRM THAT'S GOING TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW SEPARATE PLATFORM AND YOU DON'T MAKE THAT DECISION UNTIL MARCH THEN YOU'RE TACKING ON MORE WEEKS AND MONTHS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET A FIRM IN PLACE TO DO THIS.

AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

BUT KNOWING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST FROM BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL.

YEAH, AND THIS IS MORE LIKE IT'S A PILOT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT SPENDING A BUNCH OF MONEY TO DEVELOP SOMETHING.

SO IT'S MORE LIKE DATING VERSUS GETTING MARRIED.

I THINK SO.

[LAUGHTER] WELL, SHE DID SAY WE HAD TO PAY FOR CUSTOMIZING IT FOR OUR AREA, BUT I WONDER IF THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT MECHANISM TO DO THAT, THOUGH, AND HAVE LIKE A WORKSHOP PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING, MAYBE A WEEK AHEAD OF THAT.

AND THEN IF THE INTEREST IS TRYING TO PUSH THINGS FASTER AND THEN ACTUALLY HAVING AN ACTION ITEM ON THE BOARD AGENDA AND NOT HAVING THE PRESENTATION NECESSARILY AT THE BOARD MEETING.

SO FOR NEXT MEETING IT WOULD BE A PRESENTATION FROM THE WATER CONSORTIUM, CORRECT? A REPRESENTATIVE. OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEM.

YEAH. AND THEN WOULD THERE BE A NUMBER THEY WOULD BRING THAT YOU THINK IT WOULD COST US FOR NEXT MEETING? YES. WE WOULD HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US, YEAH.

OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE.

YEAH, RIGHT. COULD WE HAVE YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE MONEY IN A BUDGET.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO ASK AND THEY MAY SAY NO.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, ALL THEY SAY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I THINK IT'S AT THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO HAVE A PLATFORM THAT WORKS ACROSS THE BASIN.

ME, MYSELF, BEING A LANDOWNER THAT HAS LAND IN BOTH GSA'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF CONTINUITY.

SO I LIKE THE SOUND OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED.

SO YEAH, I AGREE WITH DIRECTOR MARCHINI ON THAT, BOTH HAVING LAND IN BOTH GSA'S THAT IT WOULD IF WE COULD USE THE SAME PLATFORM IF IT WORKED OUT FOR US THAT MSGSA WAS USING AND THERE WAS SOME INTERFACING WOULD MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR A LOT OF FARMERS IN THE AREA.

AND I DON'T MIND SEEING IT BE AN ACTION ITEM NEXT MONTH AND FOR SOME REASON, IF IT DOESN'T SUIT US, WE JUST VOTE THE ACTION ITEM DOWN AND WE CAN MOVE, FORWARD WITH THE NEXT OPTION AFTER THAT, IF STAFF THINKS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT UP.

RIGHT. AND THIS ACCOUNTING PLATFORM IS SATELLITE BASED, CORRECT, ON CONSUMPTION, DO YOU KNOW? SO A COUPLE OF THINGS I THINK ARE IMPORTANT FOR THAT, FOR THAT UNDERSTANDING, THE SATELLITE BASED INFORMATION WITH LOCAL GROUND, LOCAL WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE THE INFORMATION THAT FEEDS INTO THE PLATFORM.

WHAT THEY'RE DESIGNING THE PLATFORM TO DO RIGHT NOW IS PULLING FROM OPEN ET, BUT THEY'RE ALSO OFFERING AND CREATING THE SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD HAVE THAT BACK END COMING FROM LIKE THE LAND IQ OR SOME OF THESE OTHER REMOTE SENSING ENTITIES OR METHODS.

[01:05:07]

FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE MSGSA USES ONE AND WE USE ANOTHER AS FAR AS THE INPUT.

BUT THE PLATFORM THAT THE USER SEES AND THE GSA, WHAT THEY SEE, THE INFORMATION WOULD BE CLEAN AND CONSISTENT.

SO YOU AS POSSIBLY A GROWER IN BOTH, WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A PARTICULAR FIELD AND ONE SEE THE SAME SORT OF LOOK, FEEL INFORMATION JUMP OVER TO ANOTHER FIELD AND ANOTHER.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN INFORMED FROM A DIFFERENT REMOTE SENSING SOURCE, BUT YOUR LOOK AND FEEL EXPERIENCE WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

AND BEING ABLE TO NAVIGATE AND ALL THOSE THINGS AND NOT HAVE TO LOG IN MULTIPLE PLACES.

YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. SO THAT.

SO YES, IT DOES USE REMOTE SENSING, BUT THERE'S THE POTENTIAL.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT IT HAS POTENTIALLY COULD BE FED BY DIFFERENT REMOTE SENSING SOURCES, WHICH I THINK IS ALSO USEFUL BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE LOCKED IN TO WHATEVER MSGSA MAY CHOOSE OR SOMEBODY ELSE OR WHATEVER THE STATE ULTIMATELY CHOOSES.

THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE MSGSA RIGHT NOW WANTS TO USE SOME ET IMAGING, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY ADAMANT ABOUT GOING TO METERS IN THE FUTURE, OR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE ARE OVER THERE. SO I'M SURE THERE WILL BE A MECHANISM TO USE THAT TOO INTO THE SYSTEM.

BUT LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, EVERYBODY, THE FARMER WOULD STILL SEE THE SAME INTERFACE FOR EVERYTHING, EVEN IF IT'S DIFFERENT INFO COMING IN FOR DIFFERENT GSA'S.

RIGHT. AND PART OF THE THING I WANTED TO THE REASON I WAS MAKING THE POINT EARLIER ABOUT WHAT MAY BE ABLE TO BE SEEN RIGHT NOW VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON, IS IT LOOK LIKE THE INTERFACE AND HOW THEY WOULD SHOW MULTIPLE SOURCES OF WATER, WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE A RECHARGE CREDIT, YOU MIGHT HAVE A SURFACE WATER SOURCE, PLUS YOU MIGHT HAVE YOUR SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND A TRANSITION WATER ALLOCATION.

ALL THAT MIGHT SHOW UP MUCH CLEANER UNDER THIS NEW INTERFACE.

AND THEN IF YOU FLIP OVER TO YOUR MSGSA PROPERTY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF WATER SOURCES PRESENTED THERE.

AND THAT FLEXIBILITY IS WHAT BECOMES REALLY KEY FOR US BEING ABLE TO HELP FOLKS UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THEIR SET OF ASSETS THEY MAY HAVE TO DO THEIR FARMING OPERATION.

YEAH. SO, I MEAN, MOVING FORWARD, AT LEAST.

LET'S JUST HAVE OPTIONS. I LIKE IT.

OKAY. YEAH.

I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE, ERIC, WE COULD GET A PRESENTATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE AND HAVE A LITTLE HEAD START ON IT FOR WHEN THE MEETING PRESENTATION HAPPENS.

THAT'D BE GREAT IF WE CAN DO THAT SINCE WE'RE MEETING EVERY TWO WEEKS ROUGHLY, THAT WOULD WORK OUT. KEEP GOING.

OKAY. NEXT IS A FOLLOW UP FROM A REQUEST AT THE DECEMBER MEETING REGARDING THE CANDIDATE WELLS FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONITORING NETWORK. IN DECEMBER, THE BOARD APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH EKI TO INVESTIGATE EXISTING WELLS TO HELP FILL DATA GAPS IN THE MONITORING NETWORK.

SHOWN HERE ON THE MAP IS THE IDENTIFIED DATA GAPS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN.

SO THE CIRCLES ON THE MAP SHOW CIRCLES FOR A OR OUR DATA GAPS IN THE ABOVE THE CORCORAN CLAY.

B LABELED CIRCLES OR DATA GAPS AND BELOW THE CORCORAN CLAY AND O LABELED CIRCLES ARE FOR OUTSIDE THE CORCORAN CAY.

THE STARS ON THE MAP ARE THE GENERAL LOCATIONS WHERE WE'VE IDENTIFIED WELLS THAT ARE NOT IN USE, AND OWNERS HAVE INDICATED A WILLINGNESS FOR THE GSA TO POTENTIALLY MONITOR THEM.

WE DO HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT WITH EKI AT THIS POINT FOR THIS WORK, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THE FIRST TASK OF IDENTIFYING FURTHER DETAILS ON THESE WELLS.

WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON THE ACCESS AGREEMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED EACH OF THE LANDOWNERS TO SIGN TO ALLOW THE GSA TO ACCESS THESE WELLS.

SO THE EXPECTATION HERE IS THAT NOT ALL OF THESE STARS ON THE MAP ARE GOING TO TURN INTO MONITORING WELLS.

THEY MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONITORING NETWORK.

THAT'S PART OF WHAT THIS INVESTIGATION IS.

AND, OF COURSE, AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF OTHER EXISTING WELLS IN THE DATA GAP LOCATIONS, LET US KNOW AND WE'LL ADD THOSE TO THE LIST TO LOOK INTO.

AND USING EXISTING WELLS IS INTENDING TO SAVE THE GSA A LOT OF MONEY RATHER THAN HAVING TO PAY TO INSTALL NEW DEDICATED MONITORING WELLS IN ALL OF THE LOCATIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE DATA GAPS PLAN.

AND SO THE REQUEST IN DECEMBER WAS TO SEE A MAP OF THE CANDIDATE WELLS.

AND THE MAP THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS THE GENERAL LOCATIONS OF THOSE WELLS.

WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS AGREEMENTS SIGNED WITH ALL OF THOSE YET.

OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION.

[01:10:01]

SO SINCE THIS BOARD WAS FORMED IN 2017, OFFICER ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD EVERY TWO YEARS IN FEBRUARY TO ELECT THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY FOR TWO YEAR TERMS. AND UPON REVIEW OF THE BYLAWS, THE BYLAWS STATE THAT OFFICER ELECTIONS WOULD BE HELD THE FIRST MEETING OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE IN JULY.

AND SO A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HOLD YOUR OFFICER ELECTIONS IN FEBRUARY, AS HAS BEEN YOUR PRACTICE, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXTEND THE CURRENT TERMS OF THE OFFICERS UNTIL JULY AS PER THE BYLAWS? AND I CHECKED WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND SHE SUGGESTED THAT THEBOARD DIRECT WHEN THEY WANT TO HOLD THESE ELECTIONS.

SO YOU CAN HAVE ELECTIONS NEXT MONTH OR WAIT TILL JULY.

AND IF WE HAVE THEM NEXT MONTH AND THE CHANGE HAPPENS, THEN IT CAN HAPPEN THEN WE DON'T HAVE? OKAY YEAH.

YEA. YEAH. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE? KEEPING EVERYBODY THE SAME FOR TWO YEARS? OH, THAT WASN'T AN OPTION. [LAUGHTER] I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.

I MEAN, I'M ONE FOR TRADITION, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF OUR BYLAWS SAY, THE FISCAL YEAR, I MEAN, WE CAN GO TO JULY, THAT'S FINE WITH ME EITHER WAY.

NO DIFFERENT. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH JULY.

YEAH. SAME HERE. ALL RIGHT.

OK STAFF HAS BEEN GIVEN DIRECTION.

THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 10, WHICH IS BOARD REPORTS.

[10. BOARD REPORTS]

JUST IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING.

NOPE.

MIKE? NOPE. NOPE. GINO? THE ONLY THING I HAD IS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE TEMPORARY FLOOD RIGHTS OFF OF MARIPOSA CREEK THEIR FISH GREEN ISSUE HAS BEEN CLEARED UP.

RIGHT, LACEY, WE DIDN'T MENTION OR HAVE YOU HEARD? A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE WATER, OOPS A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE WATER BOARD LAST FRIDAY.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS IN IT, BUT A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, FOR THAT MARIPOSA CREEK.

ERIC? OKAY. SO LACEY MERQUIN HAS A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS NEAR THE B 1 SITE AND THE A 10 SITE THAT COULD BE USED AS WELL AS WELLS WE'RE ABANDONING.

SO WHO WOULD WE CONTACT TO TALK TO ABOUT THAT? I'LL EMAIL YOU. OKAY.

THE OTHER THING I LOOKED AT WHEN WE APPROVED THE BUDGET TODAY IS THAT WE ARE GETTING $100,000 FOR THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM IN THAT BUDGET.

I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO START WORKING ON A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM.

HOWEVER, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SHAPE AND FORM.

BUT IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BY MAY OR JUNE TO UTILIZE THAT MONEY SINCE WE'RE COLLECTING THE MONEY.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NOTHING. NOT TODAY.

HOW WAS IT? YEAH.

GOOD. YOU SHOWED UP WHEN IT GOT HOT. THAT'S GOOD.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

I WAS WAITING SIX YEARS HE JUST SHOWS UP.

OH, YEAH.

OKAY. YOU KNOW, I GUESS I JUST.

I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, ALL OF YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FLOODING GOING ON, AND I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW IT'S NOT GROUNDWATER THAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM THIS TIME.

[LAUGHTER] AND WITH THAT WE'LL AND YOU KNOW, AND I MEAN, I DON'T MAKE LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES AND STUFF, BUT I JUST.

ANYWAY, SO THIS WORK FOR US IS IT'S STRESSFUL TO ME AT TIMES.

AND SO I LIKE TO LAUGH A LITTLE ONCE IN A WHILE.

OKAY. WITH THAT.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023, AND I'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.

[11. NEXT REGULAR MEETING]