May 11, 2023 GSA Meeting

[00:00:01]

WELCOME TO THE MAY 11TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.

I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? AND YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL ADJOURN INTO CLOSED SESSION.

[2. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL LITIGATION (Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9) 1 potential case]

WE JUST CAME OUT OF A CLOSED SESSION AND STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION AND THERE WAS NO REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN.

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

LACEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US? YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE ALWAYS FOUND INTERESTING ABOUT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS THERE'S TWO VERSIONS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, AND THEN THERE'S THE KINDERGARTEN VERSION.

AND I HEARD PEOPLE SAYING BOTH TODAY OH.

ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE PUBLIC, IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.

THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

THE WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT EACH AGENDA ITEM.

THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ON ZOOM, WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE'LL CALL ON YOU WHEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME COMES.

ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE IN THE BUILDING? THEY'RE ALL QUIET TODAY. OKAY.

IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS OUR CONSENT CALENDAR.

[5. CONSENT CALENDAR]

ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS WHO WISH TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE COULD PULL ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? YEAH. I HAVE ONE ITEM, MR. CHAIR, AND THAT IS ON THE MINUTES.

UNDER ITEM TEN BOARD REPORTS.

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I THINK THERE'S A TYPO AND THAT IS WHERE I WAS MAKING A COMMENT AND IT WAS POTENTIALLY TAKE ON AND BEGIN PLANNING, NOT TAKE ONE AND BEGIN PLANNING.

AND THEN AT THAT TIME I HAD BEEN REQUESTING INPUT FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD WANTED THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE TO TAKE ON THE TASK OF STARTING TO LOOK AT PLANNING FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ASKING IF THEY WANTED THE STRATEGIC AD HOC TO DO THAT, OR WHETHER A NEW COMMITTEE SHOULD BE FORMED.

AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THE STRATEGIC AD HOC SHOULD DO THAT WORK.

AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE MINUTES COULD BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS BY ANY OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE'RE ABLE TO CAPTURE THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH DIRECTOR SWENSON CORRECTIONS.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR SWENSON.

I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

OKAY. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

FIVE ZERO.

OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX, WHICH IS OUR FISCAL AUDIT.

[6. FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 FINANCIAL AUDIT]

RYAN, ARE YOU THERE?

[00:07:00]

WHEREVER POSSIBLE, WE CONFIRM AMOUNTS RECEIVED OR CASH BALANCES.

ET CETERA. WITH OUTSIDE THIRD PARTIES, THAT'S A HIGHER LEVEL OF AUDIT EVIDENCE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THEN WE REACH OUT TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO ENSURE THAT YOU'VE DISCLOSED ALL INFORMATION RELATED TO POTENTIAL LITIGATION THAT MIGHT HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY, BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S OUR PROCESS IN A NUTSHELL.

WE TAKE WHAT'S KNOWN AS A RISK BASED APPROACH WHERE WE'RE NOT AUDITING EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION, BUT TAKE A SAMPLE OF OF TRANSACTIONS TO TEST AND ENSURE THAT NOT ONLY ARE YOU FOLLOWING APPROPRIATE INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES, BUT THAT THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE VALID AND AND RELATED DIRECTLY TO EITHER PROGRAMS OR ADMINISTRATION.

SO THAT BRIEF OVERVIEW BRINGS US TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY, AND THAT'S A PRESENTATION OF THE REPORTS.

AS I MENTIONED, OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO RENDER AN OPINION, AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT IN OUR OPINION, THE AGENCY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENT FAIRLY IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.

THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE AGENCY AS OF JUNE 30TH, 2022 AND THE RESPECTIVE CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION AND CASH FLOWS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN ADDITION TO OUR OPINION ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, WE ALSO HAVE AN OPINION ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE BASED ON AN AUDIT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUDITING STANDARDS THAT'S KNOWN AS A YELLOW BOOK AUDIT.

ALSO HAPPY TO REPORT THERE WERE NO INTERNAL CONTROL RELATED MATTERS THAT WERE NOTED DURING THE AUDIT AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AUDIT PERIOD.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE GENERAL ITEMS RELATED TO THE OVERALL AUDIT, WHICH INCLUDES OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND THOSE OF MANAGEMENT WHICH WE ALREADY DISCUSSED, AS WELL AS DISCLOSE TO YOU ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT WE ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE CORRECTED OR UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT OVER ACCOUNTING REPORTING OR AUDITING MATTERS THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THERE WERE NO SUCH ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF OUR AUDIT.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR FOR THAT.

DO MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT SO NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THIS ITEM.

[00:10:02]

AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND AND YOUR EFFORT.

ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE YOU.

AND THANK YOU TO LACEY AND HER TEAM FOR MAKING IT A SMOOTH PROCESS AGAIN.

YOU'RE WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

[7. LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM UPDATE]

AND I WILL HERE SHORTLY TURN IT OVER TO CHRIS HEPNER WITH WHO WILL PROVIDE THE PRESENTATION.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY AT THE BEGINNING THAT WE DID OUR FIRST LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM LAST YEAR.

AND AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE GOT AN A, BUT WE WORKED REALLY HARD BETWEEN THEN AND NOW TO TO MAKE SOME REFINEMENTS.

AND SO, CHRIS, CAN YOU KIND OF SHARE THAT WITH US, PLEASE? YES, GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM JUST PULLING UP MY SCREEN TO SHARE HERE.

SO CAN EVERYONE SEE THE SCREEN? THE SLIDE. YES.

OKAY, GREAT. SO TODAY I'LL JUST BE GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE LAND REPURCHASING PROGRAM FOR THIS COMING APPLICATION YEAR AND THEN TALKING ABOUT NEXT STEPS.

THESE PROPOSED UPDATES WERE SORT OF GIVEN ORIGINAL AIR TIME DURING THE BOARD MEETING A MONTH AGO AND THEN HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WITH THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE.

AND THEY'RE ALL REALLY SUMMARIZED ON THIS ON THIS PAGE HERE.

SO I'LL JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THESE BRIEFLY AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

SO WITH THE APPLICATION FIRST, WE'RE JUST GOING TO UPDATE THE DATES SINCE WE'RE ONE YEAR AHEAD, DATES OF THE SOLICITATION PERIOD AND THE BASELINE PERIOD USED FOR WATER USE CALCULATIONS. WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IN THE INTRODUCTORY PORTION OF THE APPLICATION PAGE ONE THAT THE GSA IS PRIORITIZING APPLICATIONS THAT DO ACHIEVE HIGH WATER USE REDUCTION AT A LOW COST.

JUST MAKE THAT MESSAGE CLEAR.

THE MAXIMUM DURATION IS GOING TO BE UP TO FOUR YEARS AT THIS POINT RATHER THAN FIVE YEARS PREVIOUSLY, JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FUNDING IS STRUCTURED.

WE ARE REPLACING THE WORD CONTIGUOUS WITH THE WORD CONSISTENT IN ONE OF THE PHRASES.

BASICALLY, WE'RE ALLOWING FOR APPLICATIONS TO BE FOR LANDS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY TOUCH EACH OTHER.

SO IT COULD BE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PARCELS THAT ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER.

HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE A CONSISTENT PROPOSED REPURPOSING.

THAT IS TO SAY THEY ALL WILL BE REPURPOSED FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AND THE SAME SORT OF REPURPOSED LAND USE IN ORDER TO BE PUT INTO A SINGLE APPLICATION.

IF YOU HAVE PLANS TO DO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF REPURPOSING, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

IT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE DONE IN SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.

ADDING AN ITEM FOR THE OWNER OF RECORD AND ADDING A QUESTION THAT JUST EXPLICITLY ASKS THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY PLAN TO DO ANY IRRIGATION WITH GROUNDWATER UNDER THE REPURPOSED CONDITION. AS THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, UNCERTAINTY IN THE PREVIOUS WAY IT WAS ASKED.

SO MOVING ON TO THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AGREEMENT, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT THAT GETS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE GSA AND THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY'RE CHOSEN.

THERE ARE SOME NEW SECTIONS THAT REALLY SPELL OUT IN VERY EXPLICIT TERMS THE BASELINE WATER USE AND THE MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER USE ALLOWED ON REPURPOSED LANDS. PREVIOUSLY, IN THE LAST, LAST AGREEMENT, THOSE TERMS WERE NOT EXPLICIT, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE EXPLAINED IN ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT HERE, IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH, MUCH MORE EXPLICIT.

A MINIMUM WATER USE REDUCTION CALCULATION.

WE'VE ADDED A 90% FACTOR TO THE BASELINE WATER USAGE AND THIS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THE DATA UNCERTAINTY AND THE OPEN ET METHODOLOGY, THE SATELLITE BASED WATER USE METHODOLOGY, SO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND SITUATIONS WHERE WATER USE APPEARS TO BE, YOU KNOW, JUST ABOVE THE MINIMUM, BUT WITH A 90% FACTOR THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT DATA UNCERTAINTY.

WE ADDED A LITTLE BIT OF TEXT ON HOW A PARTICIPANT IS, YOU KNOW, ALLOWED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION ON THEIR WATER USE, REDUCTION THROUGH THINGS LIKE PHOTOGRAPHS AND METER RECORDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, ALTHOUGH THAT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE BASIC METHOD OF WATER USE QUANTIFICATION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE SATELLITE SATELLITE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION MEASUREMENT.

WE CLARIFIED THAT THE THE PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF IRRIGATED LANDS REALLY REFERS TO A NET EXPANSION RATHER THAN AN

[00:15:06]

SO THIS ALLOWS WELL, I WON'T GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND GIVE APPLICANTS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY ON HOW THEY MANAGE THEIR LANDS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE PROGRAM.

AND WE ALSO CLARIFIED IN RESPONSE TO SOME QUESTIONS THAT REPURPOSED LAND WOULD NOT REPURPOSING OF LAND UNDER THIS PROGRAM WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT LAND'S STATUS UNDER A FUTURE ALLOCATION, THE STATUS BEING IRRIGATED VERSUS NON IRRIGATED.

THAT CALCULATION OR THAT DETERMINATION BASED ON THE STATUS OF LAND PRIOR TO THE REPURPOSING AND IT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM.

SO THAT'S IT FOR THE AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION SCORING.

THIS IS A PROCESS THAT IS USED.

BY THE GSA TO SCORE AND RANK ALL THE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, ALLOWING THE GSA TO CHOOSE THE HIGHEST SCORING APPLICATIONS THAT MEET THEIR CRITERIA.

SO A COUPLE OF SMALL CHANGES TO THAT, BUT THEY'RE LISTED HERE.

AND I'LL DO MY NEXT SLIDE.

SEE IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO USE THE OPEN WATER USE CALCULATION METHOD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO INCLUDING FOR APPLICATION SCORING, WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY THERE HAD BEEN USING A DIFFERENT WATER USE CALCULATION METHOD AND IT WAS JUST FOUND TO BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO USE OPEN FOR THE WHOLE THING.

AND IMPORTANTLY, THE GSA OR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO INCREASE THE WEIGHT OF THE CRITERIA HAVING TO DO WITH WATER SAVINGS COSTS. SO DOLLARS PER ACRE FOOT OF SAVINGS, AS WELL AS ADD A NEW CRITERIA ABOUT THE OFFER COST, WHICH IS THE DOLLARS PER ACRE.

SO THESE ARE BOTH KIND OF EMPHASIZING THE, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF COST EFFECTIVENESS IN THE APPLICATIONS.

SO THAT'S REFLECTED IN SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO THE SCORING WEIGHTS.

AND THEN THE DOCUMENT IS REVISED TO, YOU KNOW, JUST DESCRIBE ALL OF THESE CHANGES.

SO NEXT SLIDE HERE IS JUST A SUMMARY OF THE SCORING FRAMEWORK CRITERIA.

WE HAVE TEN CRITERIA NOW LISTED IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN, SPLIT INTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES SPATIAL WATER USE OFFER CATEGORIES AND OTHER.

AND YOU CAN BASICALLY SEE THE SLIGHT CHANGES TO THE WEIGHTS HERE OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF CRITERIA. SO SPATIAL GOES DOWN SLIGHTLY.

WATER USE GOES DOWN SLIGHTLY.

AND THIS REALLY KIND OF ALLOWS FOR THIS OFFER CRITERIA, THIS SORT OF COST EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA TO GO UP SLIGHTLY.

AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE FRAMEWORK WILL RANK AND SCORE ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS ON ON ALL OF THESE CRITERIA.

AND THEN THE HIGHEST SCORING APPLICATIONS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOR ACCEPTANCE IN A GIVEN APPLICATION PERIOD.

SO NEXT STEPS, THE GSA WILL FINALIZE THESE CHANGES TO THE REPURPOSING PROGRAM, CONDUCT PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND START SOLICITATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR STARTING JUNE 1ST AND GOING THROUGH MID-JULY AND SELECTING APPLICATION PROCESSING AND SCORING WILL HAPPEN SORT OF ON A ROLLING BASIS AS WE GET THROUGH JULY AND INTO EARLY AUGUST.

AND THEN THE APPLICANTS WILL GET NOTIFIED IF THEIR APPLICATION IS APPROVED AND IF THEY ARE, THEY WILL THEN WORK THROUGH EXECUTING AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE GSA AND THE LANDOWNER FOR IMPLEMENTATION STARTING OCTOBER 1ST, WHICH IS THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT WATER YEAR.

SO THAT IS THE SCHEDULE.

AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY ON THE UPDATE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU THAT.

OKAY. ANY THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? SO, CHRIS, AFTER GOING OVER THIS, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE GROWERS FROM LAST YEAR WHOSE APPLICATIONS THEY DECIDED TO NOT SIGN BECAUSE OF THEIR WORRIED ABOUT THEIR FUTURE WATER USE BEING TAKEN AWAY.

BUT WITH THIS LANGUAGE, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THAT WILL GIVE MORE GUIDANCE TO PEOPLE WITH THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.

YES, LIKE THE CHANGE ABOUT THE TWO OF THE CHANGES IN THE AGREEMENT, I THINK ARE DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT SOME OF

[00:20:07]

BOTH OF THOSE WERE QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP LAST YEAR AND SO HOPEFULLY WITH THESE CHANGES WILL, YOU KNOW, RELIEVE THOSE CONCERNS AND GIVE LANDOWNERS SOME MORE CONFIDENCE TO APPLY.

OKAY, MIKE. HOW LONG A TERM ARE THESE BEING OFFERED? UP TO FOUR YEARS.

AND ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM IS THREE YEARS.

SO IT'S 3 OR 4 YEARS THIS TIME AROUND.

AND THAT'S DRIVEN BY THE THE FUNDING THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROGRAM.

SO. SO THAT'LL RUN PAST THE YEAR 26.

IT WOULD RUN THROUGH WATER YEAR 2027 IF SOMEONE WENT FOR THE FULL LONGEST DURATION POSSIBLE.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT WOULD GET THEM THROUGH WATER YEAR 2027.

AND SO PRICING WISE, IS THERE IS IT VARIABLE ACCORDING TO WHETHER WE'RE.

THAT PARTICULAR LAND IS UNDER SOME ALLOCATION LATER ON.

SO THE PRICE OR THE INCENTIVE PAYMENT THAT GOES INTO EFFECT IS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON IF THAT APPLICATION IS IS SCORES HIGH ENOUGH TO BE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENTS GET FINALIZED AND PAYMENT, IT'S THE FIXED NUMBER FOR THE DURATION OF THE TERM.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY BASED ON THE INCENTIVE PAYMENT OFFER THAT THE APPLICANT PUTS IN IN THEIR APPLICATION AND IT'S FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE OF THE TERM.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO.

SO THE SAVINGS NUMBER THAT WE'D BE REPORTING WOULD CHANGE WITH THE ALLOCATION WHEN THE ALLOCATION IS IMPLEMENTED.

THE SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE, I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD BE CHANGED.

THEY WOULD I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY WHAT THE ALLOCATION DOES.

I THINK THOSE WOULD BE SORT OF TWO DIFFERENT SAVINGS MECHANISMS THAT WOULD BE TRACKED SEPARATELY.

YEAH, MIKE BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.

SO? SO SAY SOMEBODY SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO SAVE THREE AND ONE HALF ACRE FEET, BUT THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THEIR ALLOCATION COMES OUT AT AT THREE ACRE FEET.

THEY CAN'T SAVE THREE AND A HALF.

SO. RIGHT. IS THAT THAT'S YOUR POINT, MIKE? YEAH. SO WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TO ADDRESS THAT.

ANOTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR, MIGHT BE HOW SOMEBODY PARTICIPATING IN LRP, HOW THAT AFFECTS THEIR FIVE YEAR BLOCK OF WATER IF THEY USE NO WATER IN YEAR ONE, IF THEIR ALLOCATION.

DO THEY GET TO USE THAT AFTER THE END OF THE LRP OR DO THEY GET NO ALLOCATION DURING THE LRP PARTICIPATION? WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, THEY SHOULDN'T GET AN ALLOCATION.

I. ARE WE SET UP THAT WAY, CHRIS? ARE WE PROTECTED IN THAT OR DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIS QUESTION? I GUESS FIRST, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT'S BETTER FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, AD HOC AND AND GREG, TO ANSWER HOW THEY ENVISION THE THE ALLOCATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE PART OF THIS PROGRAM.

OKAY. I MEAN, I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

I'M ON THE COMMITTEE. I MEAN, I GUESS I'M ENVISIONING IF WE'RE PAYING THEM NOT TO FARM, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY BUYING THEIR THEIR THEIR WATER ALLOCATION AND THEIR OVERAGE.

SO WHEN THEY WHEN THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR CONTRACT, THEY JUST START FROM THAT YEAR ONE OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE.

RIGHT. THEY DON'T GET TO BANK IT.

YOU GET PAID TO DO NOTHING AND THEN HAVE A BIGGER BANK.

SO YEAH, I'M ON THE COMMITTEE TOO, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT DIRECTOR MARCHINI WAS SAYING.

THE WAY I ENVISION IT IS THAT THEY DON'T LOSE FUTURE ALLOCATIONS LIKE IT'S STILL CONSIDERED FARM GROUND WHEN WE HAVE AN ALLOCATION.

BUT IF THEY'RE IN THIS PROGRAM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO USE THAT WATER, YOU KNOW, 20, 26, 2027 ALLOCATION WILL NOT BE USED FOR THEIR ALLOCATION MOVING FORWARD. THEY'D START OR WHATEVER THEIR TIME FRAME IS, THE YEAR THEIR ALLOCATION ENDED, THEN THEY'D START GETTING ALLOCATION ON THAT GROUND.

SO THEY ARE GIVING UP THE YEARS THEY WERE BUYING THEM NOT TO USE THAT.

[00:25:01]

RIGHT. BUT ULTIMATELY, DOES THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE SPELL THAT OUT AND MAKE IT CLEAR? AND IF YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN THE IN THE INFORMATION THAT THEY SIGN.

SO LACEY, DO YOU HAVE AN INSIGHT THERE? IT IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY SIGN, BUT WE CAN ADD A SECTION IN THE AGREEMENT MAKING THAT CLEAR AND WE CAN PUT IT IN THE FAQ.

I THINK IN THE END THAT'S GOING TO BE A POLICY DECISION MORE RELATED TO THE ALLOCATION, BUT WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR.

SO ANYBODY ENTERING THE LRP PROGRAM IS AWARE OF THAT FUTURE ACTIVITY, RIGHT? OKAY. AND THEN WE STILL HAVEN'T REALLY ADDRESSED MIKE'S.

MIKE'S CONCERN, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD IS, IS IF THERE'S AN ALLOCATION AND THAT IS SMALLER THAN SAY THEY'RE SAVING FOUR ACRE FEET AND THE ALLOCATION IS THREE AND ONE HALF ACRE FEET THAT WE'RE NOT PAYING THEM FOR THE HALF ACRE THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE PUMPED ANYWAYS.

RIGHT. I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THAT POINT, BUT I THINK THAT'S A GRAY AREA WHERE IT MIGHT JUST HAPPEN.

THAT OR WHAT'S THE WAY AROUND IT? WELL, THAT'S YEAH. OR TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE.

THAT'S A VALID POINT.

IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT? WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS ONCE WE HAVE AN ALLOCATION AND IT WILL CHANGE THE RULES OF THE.

WELL, BUT HOW CAN IT I MEAN, LEGALLY, IF I IF WHATEVER, I SIGN UP MY FARM AND I AND I'M GOING TO AND I'M GOING TO GET PAID $300 TO NOT PUMP THREE AND A HALF ACRE FEET IN THE LAST YEAR.

BUT I COULD ONLY THE ALLOCATION IS THREE ACRE FEET.

SO WHY SHOULD THE GSA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ME FOR THAT HALF ACRE FOOT THAT I COULDN'T HAVE PUMPED ANYWAY? SO YEAH, IT'S ONLY GOING TO AFFECT THOSE.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

AND JEANNIE, A QUESTION ON THAT.

SINCE THE MONEY, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE COLLECTED THROUGH 2025.

THE 2018 THROUGH 2025, WE ALREADY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR.

WE'RE ALREADY COLLECTING THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT FOUR ACRE FEE.

THREE AND A HALF. SO HOW WOULD THAT PLAY INTO IT TOO, SINCE WE ALREADY COLLECTED THE MONEY TO PAY THEM THE FULL THEIR FULL WATER LOT.

WATER THAT WE'RE BUYING.

YEAH. YEAH.

I. TIMING OF THE ALLOCATIONS, THE TIMING OF THE.

RIGHT. I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO EVALUATE IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN, WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO, IF THAT CAN BE PASSED ON TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROGRAM. MM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, MIKE? WELL, JUST.

WE'RE GOING TO REPORT THE SAVINGS, RIGHT? TO THE BOARD. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE SAVINGS IS ADJUSTED AS AS IT SHOULD BE.

AND THEN, GINO, TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE COLLECTING THE MONEY.

IF WE SAY THIS YEAR WE GET IT ALL ALLOCATED OR, YOU KNOW, WE'LL ONLY COLLECT WHAT WE SPENT, WE DON'T OVER COLLECT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE COMMITTEE WILL TAKE THAT BACK UNDER CONSIDERATION.

AND AND I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.

WHO DETERMINES CONSISTENT LANDS? WHAT HOW IS THAT DETERMINED AND WHO DETERMINES THAT? I SEE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTIGUOUS IS PLACED WITH CONSISTENT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WHO DETERMINES THAT? RIGHT. I CAN ANSWER THAT.

SO BASICALLY WHAT THAT'S SAYING IS THAT IN A SINGLE APPLICATION, WE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, PUT FORWARD A GROUP OF LANDS, HOWEVER MANY ACRES THEY WOULD LIKE TO REPURPOSE.

AND WE REQUEST THAT THOSE THAT ALL THOSE LANDS SORT OF BE ONE AND THE SAME IN TERMS OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR CURRENT USE AND THEIR PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, REPURPOSED CONDITION, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, REPURPOSED TO A FALLOW STATE OR TO A DIFFERENT LOW WATER USE PROP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND WE ALSO REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME, YOU KNOW, REQUESTED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PAYMENT AND THE SAME DURATION.

AND THE REASON WE, YOU KNOW, ASKED FOR THAT IS THAT EACH KIND OF CONSISTENT PACKAGE OF THOSE SORT OF REPURPOSING

[00:30:01]

AND SO IF YOU HAVE A MIXTURE OF WELL, I HAVE I WANT TO REPURPOSE 80 ACRES, BUT 20 OF THEM FOR THREE YEARS AND 60 OF THEM FOR FOUR YEARS.

AND YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF MIXTURE OF ATTRIBUTES THAT BECOMES REALLY DIFFICULT TO TO SCORE FROM A SCORING STANDPOINT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT A LANDOWNER COULDN'T ACTUALLY DO THOSE SORT OF VARIETY OF LAND REPURPOSING ON THEIR LAND, BUT WE WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT FOR EACH SORT OF DIFFERENT SET OF ATTRIBUTES THAT GIVE US A SINGLE APPLICATION WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO SCORE EACH APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING A MIXTURE OF ATTRIBUTES, WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SCORE.

OKAY. SO, CHRIS, I DON'T SEE CONSISTENT LANDS DEFINED AND IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A UNDER DEFINITIONS.

SINCE THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE FAIRLY IMPORTANT, IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

OKAY. IT'S IT'S IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF ON PAGE ONE, WE'VE SCROLL THROUGH IT, BUT YOU HAVE A SEPARATE EXHIBIT A WITH DEFINITIONS.

WELL, YES, THE TERM CONSISTENT LAND DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAKE IT INTO THE AGREEMENT.

IT REALLY KIND OF JUST PERTAINS TO HOW THE APPLICATIONS ARE BEING SOLICITED.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S DISCUSSED IN THE APPLICATION BUT NOT IN THE AGREEMENT.

IF YOU WANT US TO ADD A, YOU KNOW, A DEFINITION, WE CAN DO THAT TO THE AGREEMENT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT IT PERTAINS TO MOSTLY IS HOW THEY WOULD ACTUALLY PUT IN AN APPLICATION.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S KIND OF DISCUSSED IN THIS INSTRUCTIONS SECTION, EACH ONE OF THE APPLICATION.

YEAH. SO FOR GROWERS GROWING TOMATOES ON HALF HIS LAND AND HE'S GROWING PISTACHIOS ON THE OTHER HALF AND HE WANTS TO LAND REPURPOSE IT ALL, HE'D HAVE TO HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS BECAUSE KIND OF THE WAY HE'S GOING TO DO IT IS DIFFERENT, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? EXACTLY.

YEAH. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT IN THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY MADE SURE IT'S ALL ONE CONSISTENT TYPE OF REPURPOSING.

TWO, WE'RE GOOD. THAT'S RIGHT.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING WE COULDN'T DEFINE IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE IN THE AGREEMENT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BACK TO THAT CONCERN THAT MR. GALLO RAISED ABOUT THE 3.5FT AND, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATION IN TWO YEARS, THREE FEET OR WHATEVER IT IS, YOU KNOW, AND SO WE CAN MAKE THIS AGREEMENT AS COMPLICATED AS WE WANT.

RIGHT. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE TRYING TO BUY OURSELVES 15,000 ACRE FEET OF REDUCTION.

YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THEY COULDN'T THEORETICALLY PUMP THAT IN 2026 MAYBE WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERYONE'S ABLE TO APPLY.

RIGHT. AND THEY CAN APPLY TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW. RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO OVERLY COMPLICATE THE WHOLE PROCESS BY, YOU KNOW, PUTTING SOME ASTERISK IN THERE THAT SAYING IF THERE'S AN ALLOCATION LESS THAN WHAT YOU'RE REPURPOSING, YOU GET DISCOUNTED MONEY.

AND I MEAN, TO ME, IT'S UNNECESSARY.

RIGHT? EVERYONE'S ABLE TO APPLY.

APPLY NOW. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

BUT I'LL ASK JEANNIE.

BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT MONEY FROM SOMEBODY AND GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IF IF IF WE'RE PAYING SOMEBODY TO.

TO REPAIR OR TO PUMP THREE AND ONE HALF ACRE FEET LESS, BUT BECAUSE THE ALLOCATION, IT'S ONLY THREE ACRE FEET, WE SHOULDN'T PAY THEM FOR THAT HALF ACRE FOOT THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE PUMPED ANYWAYS BECAUSE THAT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY.

I MEAN, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT'D BE EASIER, BUT IT'S NOT.

WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO EVERYONE'S PAYING, RIGHT? EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REPURPOSING ARE PAYING.

RIGHT? EVERYONE'S PAYING INTO THIS PROGRAM, RIGHT? I'M APPLYING, WE'LL SAY THEORETICALLY, RIGHT? AND I'M PUMPING THREE AND A HALF ACRE FEET AND I'M GETTING PAID TO NOT PUMP AT ALL.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN A COUPLE OF YEARS IF THERE IS AN ALLOCATION? AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN I COULDN'T HAVE MYSELF REDUCED DOWN TO THREE FEET.

RIGHT? I JUST CUT SIX INCHES OUT AND I MOVE ON.

RIGHT. SO.

YEAH. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, I GUESS.

BUT ON THAT QUESTION, WE ALSO KIND OF I THINK WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT HERE THAT IF YOU'RE PART OF THIS PROGRAM, YOU DON'T GET ANY ALLOCATION.

SO YOU'RE ALSO WE'RE ALSO PAYING THEM TO NOT GET AN ALLOCATION IN THE YEAR 2026 OR 2027, THUS REDUCING.

YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE NOT EVEN GETTING THE BENEFIT OF HAVING AN ALLOCATION BY BEING PART OF THIS PROGRAM FOR THOSE YEARS OR SIGNED UP FOR THE PROGRAM.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LEGALLY MAKES IT ANY DIFFERENT.

BUT IF WE THEY DON'T SAY THEY'RE SIGNED UP FOR 2026, THEY GET ZERO ALLOCATION ON THAT GROUND.

[00:35:01]

THE GSA AS A WHOLE PAID THEM TO HAVE ZERO ALLOCATION ON THAT GROUND.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OH, YEAH. OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

POTENTIALLY, YOU COULD END THE PROGRAM.

AND A YEAR EARLIER.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACT? RIGHT.

THEY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR FOUR YEARS.

LAST YEAR'S LAST YEAR'S PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE SOME OF THEM HAVE CONTRACTS RIGHT THROUGH 2027.

OH, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALSO NEW CONTRACTS.

WELL, YES, FOR NEW CONTRACTS.

BUT THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED LAST YEAR ALREADY.

SO, I MEAN, WE ALREADY.

AS YOU GO FORWARD. OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOTHING, BRAD. I KNOW.

I SAW YOU THINKING WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS.

SO ANYWAYS.

OKAY. SORRY.

ANYBODY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.

OKAY. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO I GUESS WE DON'T PROBABLY WANT TO VOTE TO APPROVE IT YET.

HAVE ONE MORE COMMITTEE MEETING AND CAN WE AFFORD ANOTHER MONTH? THE SCHEDULE HAS THE APPLICATION PERIOD STARTING ON JUNE 1ST.

YOU CAN ALWAYS PUSH THAT BACK TILL YOUR JUNE MEETING, WHICH IS JUNE 8TH, AND MAYBE HAVE THE APPLICATION PERIOD START ON JUNE 15TH AND GO THROUGH THE END OF JULY.

JUST PUSH EVERYTHING BACK TWO WEEKS.

OKAY. YEP.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

SO THEN WE'LL JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY ACTION TO APPROVE TODAY.

WE'RE GOING TO WAIT TILL OUR NEXT MEETING AND CHANGE THE DATE FROM JUNE 1ST TO JUNE 15TH TO APPLY.

OKAY. AND BEFORE WE SCHEDULE THE NEXT AD HOC MEETING FOR THIS, OR BY THE TIME WE HAVE THE MEETING, JEANNIE WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD.

SO WE HAVE LEGAL ADVICE AT OUR AD HOC.

IT'S. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS PROPOSAL FOR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS.

[8. PROPOSAL FOR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS]

THANK YOU. SO THIS PROPOSAL IS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET FOR YOU TO SEE.

AND THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REQUESTED.

THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON RECOMMENDING METHODOLOGIES TO APPLY THE ALLOCATION POLICY TO RECOGNIZE VARIANTS ACROSS THE GSA.

IN THOSE COMMITTEES, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE SUPPORT OF A THIRD PARTY TECHNICAL CONSULTANT WHO COULD ANALYZE THE ALLOCATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND START DETERMINING ALLOCATION AMOUNTS THAT WOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY.

IN THIS WAY, THE COMMITTEE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALLOCATION AMOUNTS THEY'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD UNDER THE METHODOLOGY BEING CONSIDERED WHILE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS AND LOOKING AT THE OPTIONAL METHODOLOGIES THAT USE THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE GSA.

THE COMMITTEE ALSO IDENTIFIED A NEED TO REVISE THE ZONES, ACCORDING TO SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT FACTOR INTO THE ALLOCATION POLICY, LIKE GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN RELATION TO THE 2015 MINIMUM THRESHOLD AND SUBSIDENCE EXTENT.

THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY IS FROM ENVIRONMENT AND WATER, YOUR TECHNICAL CONSULTANT.

IT HAS SIX MAIN TASKS, INCLUDING SUPPORTING THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE AS THEY SUGGEST REVISIONS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES TO ALIGN THE ZONES FOR USE IN THE ALLOCATION POLICY.

ANALYZING THE ALLOCATION PROGRAM FRAMEWORK AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE.

COMPLETING A MODELING ANALYSIS OF THE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK TO DETERMINE IF THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH ACCOMPLISHES THE GOALS OF BRINGING GROUNDWATER LEVELS ABOVE THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD, SUPPORTING THE BOARD AND COMMITTEES THROUGH MEETING ATTENDANCE, PROVIDING A WRITTEN REPORT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

THE ANTICIPATED TIMELINE FOR FOR ACCOMPLISHING THESE TASKS IS FOUR MONTHS.

THERE ARE TWO OPTIONAL TASKS IN THE EAC PROPOSAL FOR STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH WHEN THE TIME COMES TO START RELEASING ACTUAL ALLOCATION NUMBERS BASED ON THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE MULTI AQUIFER SYSTEM.

LOOKING AT ALLOCATION ABOVE THE CORCORAN CLAY AND BELOW THE CORCORAN CLAY AND HOW SURFACE WATER INTERACTS WITH THE ALLOCATION.

THESE TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR ANALYSIS COVER THE SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS, INCLUDING IN THE GSP OF SUBSIDENCE AND GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER INTERACTION.

[00:40:04]

HOWEVER, THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE WILL DIRECT WHEN EKI WILL START TASK TWO BASED ON THEIR RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK AND TASK THREE THE MODELING ANALYSIS, THE OPTIONAL TASKS SIX AND SEVEN WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AT A FUTURE DATE.

THE TOTAL COST FOR THE SIX MAIN TASKS IS 124,000.

KEEPING IN MIND THAT IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL UNANTICIPATED MEETINGS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TASKS OR ADDITIONAL ITERATION OF THE TASKS THAT INCREASE THE TIME AND EFFORT REQUIRED OF EKI THIS ESTIMATE COULD CHANGE.

AND DUTTON AND CHRIS HEPPNER ARE ALSO VIRTUALLY JOINING US IN THE MEETING.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN DIRECT THEM TO CHRIS AND ANNONA AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

SO I HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS PROPOSAL FROM EKI.

THIS IS ACTUALLY, I THINK, VERSION TWO.

WE DID SEE AN EARLIER VERSION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC, AND I THINK IN IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER BACKGROUND, IT TALKS ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PARAGRAPH, THE MSGSA IS SEEKING AN ANALYSIS TO QUANTIFY THE APA FOR EACH OF SIX PREDEFINED SUSTAINABILITY ZONES WITHIN THE MSGSA AREA.

I THINK NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING THEM IN TASK ONE, POTENTIALLY ADJUST THOSE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES, SO I THINK THEY'RE NO LONGER PREDEFINED.

ON PAGE TWO, UNDER CONDUCT A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA.

I THINK IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT IN THIS SPATIAL ANALYSIS IS SURFACE WATER AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENT FARMING PARCELS WITHIN EACH OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES, BECAUSE I THINK THE AMOUNT OF SURFACE WATER THEY RECEIVE DOES AFFECT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS AND THAT WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER PARAMETER TO REVIEW.

A A MAJOR THING IS ACTUALLY UNDER TASK TWO.

ITEM THREE, IT SAYS ANALYZE DATA TO IDENTIFY TRENDS IN GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND WATER LEVEL CHANGES OVER TIME IN EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE.

AND I THINK THAT THIS ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISHED ALLOCATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER PUMPING IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THIS GSA HAS DONE SINCE ITS FORMATION.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT ALL REASONABLE, QUANTIFIABLE DATA ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS TO FILL AS MANY DATA GAPS AS POSSIBLE.

BEFORE ALL OF THIS, THIS WORK IS DONE.

LACEY COULD YOU SHOW THE SLIDE THAT I PROVIDED YOU? WE HAVE COPIES AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC AND WE HAVE COPIES MADE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORRECT? NO. OKAY.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN A SLIDE FORM.

OKAY. SO ONE OF THE AREAS IT'S A SEPARATE LOOSE, THE SEPARATE LOOSE PIECE OF PAPER THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

SO ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DEPRESSION IN THE GROUNDWATER TABLE IS IN THE SOUTH EAST OF THE GSA.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE A FAIR NUMBER OF DATA GAPS.

SO I'M PROPOSING THAT WE UTILIZE SOME DATA THAT IS AVAILABLE TO TO FILL SOME OF THOSE DATA GAPS.

WE ALSO HAVE DATA FROM GALLO FARMS AND MCKEAN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT THAT HASN'T HISTORICALLY BEEN USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER TASK BASICALLY TO ROLL IN ALL DATA THAT MIGHT HELP TO IMPROVE THIS ANALYSIS ON GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE WORK.

SO I AM PROPOSING THAT WE ADD A REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TASK TO THE EXISTING TASK LIST AND ADD A MONTH TO THE TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND ADD $20,000 TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WHICH WOULD BRING THE TOTAL TO $144,000.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH, WELL, THIS WOULD BE PUTTING CHRIS ON THE SPOT FROM EKI, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT HIS OPINION WOULD BE.

IS WE NEED ANOTHER TASK FOR THIS OR COULD IT BE PART OF THE REVISION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES, PUTTING THAT DATA IN THERE FIRST, AS WE'RE

[00:45:02]

KNOW, I THINK AS DIRECTOR SWENSON MENTIONED, THE, YOU KNOW, THE REVISION AND THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF ZONES FOR ALLOCATING PUMPING IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION FOR THIS BOARD AND THE GSA.

UM, NOT SOMETHING TO RUSH OR, YOU KNOW, TAKE A.

TOO QUICK OF AN APPROACH.

SO FOR THAT REASON I DO SEE VALUE IN DIRECTOR SWENSON SUGGESTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL TASK.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR TO GET MORE DETAIL PUT IN DESCRIBING WHAT THAT TASK WOULD ENTAIL IN TERMS OF THE TYPES OF DATA THAT WE WOULD BE PROVIDED AND CONSIDER UNDER THAT TASK.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, NOT RUSH IT AND NOT AND WE WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WHAT TYPES OF DATA THAT REALLY IS AND HOW IT CAN BE WORKED IN.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION OFF THE OFF THE CUFF HERE ABOUT THAT.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION, ERIC? ARE YOU SAYING THESE WELLS ARE NOT IN THE MODEL OR THEY ARE IN THE MODEL? THEY'VE NEVER BEEN INCORPORATED IN ANY OF THE RED ONES.

HAVE NEVER BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE MODEL.

SO THOSE POINTS WOULD ADD FURTHER DEFINITION TO THE EAST, WHICH I THINK IS A SIGNIFICANT AREA OF IMPACT WITHIN THE THE SUB BASIN.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH LACEY. SO THIS THE BUDGET FOR THIS, WOULD THIS BE OUT OF OUR NORMAL OPERATING BUDGET OR OR SOME OF THE MONEY FROM OUR SECOND PROP 218 WHERE WE HAD FOR STUDIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT? OR WHAT'S HOW'S THE MONEY COMING FOR THIS AND HOW DOES IT FIT IN THE BUDGET? YEAH. SO THIS WOULD BE WE'RE COMING TO THE END OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND SO THIS WOULD BE OVER TWO DIFFERENT FISCAL YEARS.

YOU WOULD FUND THIS THROUGH YOUR FIRST PROPOSITION 218 SINCE I DON'T THINK I'M LOOKING AT JEANNIE, I DON'T THINK IT FITS INTO ANY OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE SECOND 218, WHICH WERE VERY SPECIFIC, LIKE LAND REPURPOSING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION.

SO YOU WOULD FUND THIS THROUGH THROUGH YOUR FIRST 218 AND WE WOULD INCORPORATE IT IN YOUR BUDGET, WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN JUNE FOR THE 2023, 20, 24 YEAR.

YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR BUDGET? YES. YES.

BUT WE WANT THE WORK TO START NOW.

NOT IN JULY.

YES. AND YOU HAVE THE FUNDING THIS YEAR.

START NOW. ALL RIGHT. YES.

YEAH. THE WAY YOU SAID THAT.

OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. YEAH. START NOW WITH FUNDING.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THE BUDGET NEXT YEAR WILL COVER THE MAJORITY OF THIS WORK IS GOING TO BE FUNDED IN THE NEXT IN THE NEXT YEAR SINCE IT'S MID-MAY ALREADY, BUT IT'S ALL THROUGH THE ORIGINAL 218.

CORRECT. WE'RE PLANNING ON SETTING IT UP AND WE HAVE THE BUDGET FOR IT.

CORRECT. OKAY.

OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

OKAY. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE IS NONE ONLINE.

OKAY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.

I KNOW, ERIC, YOU KIND OF SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE MAKING A MOTION EARLIER IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT WOULD YOU RESTATE IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AS A MOTION? I'LL TRY MY BEST, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I GET IT.

WITH WITH SOME MINOR VERBIAGE EDITS.

BUT THE PRIMARY EDIT WOULD BE I'M PROPOSING THAT WE ADOPT A $144,000 BUDGET WITH CONSULTANTS THAT WILL NOW CONSIST OF SEVEN TASKS THAT WILL GENERATE AN ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH TO BASE GROUNDWATER PUMPING ALLOCATIONS GOING FORWARD AND WILL INCLUDE ADJUSTMENTS OF PREVIOUSLY DEFINED SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

[00:50:03]

COULD WE JUST CALL THIS TASK NUMBER NINE VERSUS SEVEN BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE AN OPTIONAL SEVEN.

YOU'RE NOT APPROVING THE OPTIONAL TASKS TODAY.

I KNOW. OKAY. BUT BUT THE PAPERWORK HAS THOSE LISTED, SO I JUST DON'T WANT CONFUSION LATER.

OPTIONAL SEVEN AND THIS TASK SEVEN ARE THE SAME.

THAT'S. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF I PROVIDED AN UPDATED PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDED THAT ADDITIONAL NEW TASK THAT'S NOT BENEATH THE OPTIONAL TASKS, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC AND WE JUST POST THAT ONLINE.

CAN WE JUST CALL IT TASK ZERO? ZERO COMES BEFORE ONE AND KEEP IT? I THINK ERIC MENTIONED THAT HE DID.

YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH, THAT'S. I JUST I JUST WANT TO HAVE IT AS ITS OWN NUMBER.

THINK AHEAD. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SECOND IT.

OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE MOTION WAS BY DIRECTOR SWENSON AND THE SECOND WAS BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI.

OKAY, WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM NINE, WHICH IS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.

[9. STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT]

SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE'VE HAD, I THINK, TWO STRATEGIC PLANNING, AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS ALLOCATION OPTIONS, WHICH WE ALL AGREE WITH.

ERIC, AS YOU KNOW, PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE BOARD IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR TO COME UP WITH A METHOD OF DETERMINING ALLOCATION OPTIONS.

WELL, COMING UP WITH A WITH A ALLOCATION.

POLICY TO TO DETERMINE.

HOW MUCH WATER? EACH.

EACH. FARMERS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUMP IN IN THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IN THIS PROCESS IS THAT.

THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.

HAVE A LOT OF VARIANCE AS FAR AS GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY AND.

GROUNDWATER DEPTH, PUMPING AND SUBSIDENCE AND WHATNOT.

SO WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE DETERMINED IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, LOOKING AT THE DATA.

THAT THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES PROBABLY SOME OF THEM NEED TO HAVE.

THE LINES REDRAWN BECAUSE THEY DON'T TAKE IN SOME OF THE AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE IN EACH ZONE.

AND THERE'S ENOUGH VARIANCE THAT WE THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO DO TO HELP DEVELOP THOSE.

ZONES. LINES IN A BETTER WAY.

AT THE SAME TIME.

WE DEVELOPED THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY ANALYSIS OF ALLOTMENTS.

AND WHAT THE ALLOCATION OPTIONS COULD BE.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE BROUGHT IN ICAI WITH THEIR PROPOSAL AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME THE LAST MEETING GOING OVER THAT.

AND ERIC. VOICE WHAT OUR CONCERNS WERE AND THE AMENDMENTS WE THOUGHT SHOULD BE IN THE PROPOSAL.

WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL WELD DATA.

IF AVAILABLE.

WOULD HELP IN THIS PROCESS.

ALLOCATION PROCESS AND AND UPON.

ERIC LOOKING AT THE DATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE, DISCOVERED THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL DATA OUT THERE AND MAYBE THERE'S OTHER DATA AVAILABLE BUT THAT WE FELT THAT WE SHOULD INCORPORATE ALL THE DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE.

BEFORE DOING THIS ALLOCATION.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY WILL STILL BE DATA GAPS.

[00:55:01]

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEE? MUST HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB, MIKE.

WELL, I STUMBLED THROUGH IT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

OKAY. NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE HOUSE.

ANY ONLINE. NONE ONLINE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

THIS BASICALLY A DISCUSSION ITEM AND SO NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

[10. STAFF REPORT]

LACEY MCBRIDE. I'VE GOT THREE QUICK ITEMS FOR YOU.

FIRST, AS DIRECTED AT THE BOARD MEETING IN APRIL, AN RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A STRATEGIC POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED.

IT'S POSTED ON THE GSA'S WEBSITE AT MERCED SUBBASIN DOT ORG AND IT'S BEEN EMAILED TO A HANDFUL OF CONSULTING FIRMS. THE RFQ CLOSES ON MAY 22ND AND AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AT THE JUNE MEETING.

SECOND DWR'S APPROVAL LETTER IN MARCH.

I'M SORRY. IN MARCH, WE HEARD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES THAT THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSP WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND WE WERE SCHEDULED TO RECEIVE THAT APPROVAL LETTER AT THE END OF MARCH.

HOWEVER, DWR APPRECIATES OUR PATIENCE, BUT THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON THE APPROVAL LETTER FOR THE MERCED GSP THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED IN MARCH, SO WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN THAT YET. AND THEN FINALLY, THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING GRANT APPLICATION.

THE MERCED TEAM HAS BEEN INVITED TO INTERVIEW WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM REVIEWERS.

WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING WITH SOME OF OUR PARTNERS ON THAT APPLICATION TO JOIN THE INTERVIEW AND THAT WILL BE TAKING PLACE NEXT WEEK.

SO HOPEFULLY WE INTERVIEW WELL AND HAVE A GOOD RESPONSE OUT OF THAT GRANT APPLICATION.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS WHO IS WHO'S GOING TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE RFQ? YEAH. SO WE HAVE SOME INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS AND I TALKED TO THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR ABOUT THESE.

WE HAVE KRISTY MACKINNON FROM STANISLAUS COUNTY, SARGE GREEN FROM FRESNO STATE'S WATER INSTITUTE, AND BRIANNE RAMOS FROM THE MERCED COUNTY FARM BUREAU.

OKAY. AND THEN COULD YOU REMIND THE PUBLIC HOW MANY DOLLARS WE'VE ASKED FOR IN THE GRANT THAT WE'RE GOING TO? SO THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING GRANT WOULD BE A BLOCK GRANT THAT COMES TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA IN THE AMOUNT OF $9 MILLION, AND THEN IT WOULD BE GRANTED OUT FOR MULTI.

IT WOULD CREATE A PLAN, A MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PLAN AND WE COULD ALSO GRANT IT OUT FOR MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROJECTS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR LACEY? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 11 BOARD REPORTS.

I'LL START TO MY LEFT.

ANYTHING? NOPE.

MIKE? NOPE.

ERIC, DO YOU KNOW? AND I DON'T HAVE ANY EITHER.

SO WITH THAT, OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 8TH, 2:00 HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS.

[12. NEXT MEETING]