[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
[00:00:02]
HELLO, EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE JUNE 8TH MERCED SUBBASIN MEETING.
AND CAN I PLEASE HAVE THE SECRETARY OR SOMEONE CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? BOARD MEMBER GALLO HERE.
AND CHAIRMAN PAREIRA DID EXCUSE HIMSELF.
ALL RIGHT. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
GINO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? SURE. READY? SALUTE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? THERE'S NONE ON ZOOM.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
[4. CONSENT CALENDAR]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR CONSENT CALENDAR.CONSENT CALENDAR. IT INCLUDES THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 11TH, 2023, AND APPROVAL OF INVOICES.
SO THERE WERE SOME THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT, BUT THEY ARE IN THE PACKET NOW, CORRECT? OKAY. DOES ANY MEMBER BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO DISCUSS ANY ITEM? MR. VICE CHAIR, I HAVE ONE ITEM FROM THE MINUTES AND THAT IS UNDER ITEM SEVEN PROPOSAL FOR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS.
WELL, I DID RECOMMEND AND IT WAS ADOPTED TO ADD A TASK, BUT THAT IN ADDITION TO JUST REVIEWING SUPPLEMENTAL DATA, IT PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDWATER DATA FOR 30 DAYS.
OKAY. THAT'S FINE ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? RECALL. OTHERWISE, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ERIC'S CHANGE TO THE MINUTES.
OKAY. I GOT A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PEDRETTI A SECOND BY MR. GIAMPAOLI. YEAH.
WE DON'T NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THIS, DO WE? NOPE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. OPPOSED. SAME SIGN.
[5. 2023 LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ]
UM, SO THIS IS AN ACTION TO PROVE UPDATED PROGRAM APPLICATION TEMPLATE AGREEMENT AND FAQ DOCUMENTS AND APPROVE OPENING THE APPLICATION PERIOD FOR THE 2023 LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM FROM JUNE 15TH TO JULY 31ST.[INAUDIBLE] CHRIS WON'T BE WITH US TODAY.
CHRIS IS WITH US AND HE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT STAFF AND THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE CONSIDER THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM AND A FUTURE ALLOCATION PROGRAM, AND INCLUDE THOSE CONCEPTS IN THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE 2023 LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.
SO AFTER WORKING WITH COUNCIL, THE DEMAND REDUCTION AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAINTAIN THE TWO PROGRAMS AS COMPLETELY SEPARATE DURING ANY OVERLAP YEARS.
ESSENTIALLY, THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM IS BUYING THEIR ALLOCATION DURING THOSE OVERLAP YEARS.
ONCE THE TERM OF THE LRP AGREEMENT HAS ENDED, THE PARTICIPANT WOULD THEN RECEIVE THEIR FIVE YEAR ROLLING BUCKET ALLOCATION, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER ELIGIBLE PARCELS WHO RECEIVE THEIR BUCKET FOR THOSE YEARS.
[00:05:02]
THE GSA WOULD RECOGNIZE THE REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION AS AGREED TO IN THE LRP AGREEMENT, SINCE THE ALLOCATION WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE PARCELS AND THERE WOULD BE NO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE REDUCTION UNDER THE ALLOCATION AND THE REDUCTION UNDER THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.10.2 IS AN ADDITION AND IT SAYS THAT THE PROPERTY WILL NOT RECEIVE A GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION AND THEN IN THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, IT'S ON PAGE 12 AND IT'S THE THIRD BULLET THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PLAINER LANGUAGE THAT THOSE LANDS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AND WILL NOT RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION DURING THE TERM OF THEIR AGREEMENT.
WITH THE BOARD'S APPROVAL TO OPEN THE APPLICATION PERIOD TODAY, WE'LL ALSO BE MAILING OUT A POSTCARD SIMILAR TO THE ONE LAST YEAR NOTIFYING LANDOWNERS OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION LACEY AND I AND I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT IF THIS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE, BUT I KNOW WE'LL HAVE A SOFTWARE PROGRAM THAT WILL BE TRACKING PEOPLE'S FIVE YEAR BUCKETS.
SO I'M WONDERING IF IN THAT PROGRAM, PEOPLE IN THE LRP PROGRAM, IF FOR THE FIRST YEAR OR 2 OR 3, IF THEY'LL GET ZEROS PUT IN THEIR BUCKET FOR THAT YEAR OR IF THEIR BUCKET WON'T START UNTIL AFTER THEY'RE OUT OF THE LRP PROGRAM? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND IT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION THAT WE'LL WORK ON AS THE GSA IS REFINING WHAT THEIR WATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM LOOKS LIKE, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DECIDE.
A QUESTION LIKE FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
YEAH. SO I GUESS IT DEPENDS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR PARCELS.
AND I GUESS MAYBE IT'S JUST MESSAGING ON IS THIS YOU RECEIVE A ZERO ALLOCATION OR IS THIS YOUR ALLOCATION HAS NOT STARTED? AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A MESSAGING QUESTION.
I THINK I JUST THINK FROM AN ACCOUNTING STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE EASIER AND SIMPLER TO PUT ZEROS IN FOR THOSE YEARS THAT ARE IN THE LRP FOR THOSE ACREAGE THAT ARE IN THE LRP.
IS THE BUCKET WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EVER ROLLING BUCKET.
SO EVERY YEAR JUST ADDS ANOTHER YEAR AND YOU LOSE A YEAR, RIGHT? SO SO, YEAH, SO.
I GUESS, COULD BE THE SAME THING.
THERE SHOULD BE ZEROS IN THERE.
I AGREE, BECAUSE WE'RE TSA IS PAYING THEM TO NOT PUMP OR USE WATER.
RIGHT. SO WHEN WHEN THEY START, THEN THEY WILL HAVE THE YEAR THAT THEIR LRP ENDS AND THEY'LL HAVE FIVE YEARS WORTH OF [INAUDIBLE].
IN SAY 2028, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A 20, 28, 29, 31, 32 BUCKET AND THEY'RE GOING TO START THEN OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE SOME CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEARS, 2025 WHENEVER THEY START.
YEAH, WHENEVER WE START THE WHOLE GSA STARTS, THEY START THE SAME TIME JUST WITH ZEROS YEAH, I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE I THINK IT'S ALL SAYING THE SAME THING.
I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING. YEAH, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE GETTING HAMMERED OUT ON THE COMMITTEE.
THAT'S GOOD. GET IT HAMMERED OUT.
YOU'RE DOING GREAT. DOING GOOD WORK.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC? MR. GALLO. NO QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ANY ONLINE, NONE ONLINE.
OKAY. CHRIS GOT OFF EASY TODAY.
SO WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE UPDATED APPLICATION AND TO OPEN IT FOR THE LRP PROGRAM.
OKAY GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I'LL SECOND THAT. AND I GOT A SECOND.
[00:10:02]
I'M GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. ROLL CALL.IF YOU WOULD, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
AYE. VICE CHAIR MARCHINI, AYE.
IT'S QUITE THE AGENDA PACKET NUMBER SIX.
LACEY WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE US A START US OFF ON THIS ONE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
THIS IS THE SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER COMPANY, RESERVOIR STORAGE PROJECT AND CEQA DETERMINATION.
MR. CHRIS HEPNER DOES HAVE HIS HAND RAISED.
OH, SURE. LET'S HEAR FROM CHRIS.
I KNEW HE HAD TO SAY SOMETHING.
GO AHEAD, CHRIS. OH, POINT ONE THING OUT WITH REGARD TO THE LAST ITEM, I BELIEVE IN, THE MOTION THAT MADE IT JUST SAID MOTION TO APPROVE THE LRP APPLICATION.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
IT'S AN APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE UPDATED AGREEMENT [INAUDIBLE].
HOW'S THE MAKER OF THE MOTION FEEL? YEAH, WHATEVER.
YEAH. DO WE VOTE ON THAT? I THINK IT'S FINE. RIGHT. MIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? LET'S JUST SAY FOR THE FOR THE SAKE OF RECORD KEEPING, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONSULTANT MADE A GOOD SUGGESTION.
SOUNDS LIKE THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IS AGREEABLE TO THAT.
IS THE SECONDER FINE WITH THAT AS WELL? SURE. OKAY. SO IF NOTHING ELSE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECORD KEEPING, WE DO HAVE CONSISTENCY OF UNDERSTANDING WITH OUR WITH OUR MOTION AND SECOND, AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED FROM THE COLLECTIVE BOARD, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
[6. SANDY MUSH MUTUAL WATER COMPANY RESERVOIR STORAGE PROJECT AND CEQA DETERMINATION]
LACEY NUMBER SIX.THAT'S THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
SANDY MUSH IS A MEMBER ENTITY OF THE GSA.
SO THE SGSA IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS PROJECT.
BECAUSE THIS PROJECT HAS RECEIVED STATE GRANT FUNDING FROM THE INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, DWR IS REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA.
AND BRAD SAMUELSON, A CONSULTANT WITH SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER CO WATER COMPANY, WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT AND SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS. AFTER YOU HEAR FROM MR. SAMUELSON, THE ACTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ARE TO CONSIDER THE COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT.
SO AT THIS POINT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MR. SAMUELSON FOR A PRESENTATION.
THERE WE GO SO THIS ISN'T THE PROJECT THAT'S A PICTURE OF A RESERVOIR.
SO THIS THIS SITE HAS BEEN STUDIED FOR MANY YEARS.
I THINK I FIRST LOOKED AT IT WITH THE LANDOWNER IN PROBABLY 2008.
SO SINCE THEN HE'S APPLIED FOR WITH SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER COMPANY, APPLIED FOR A COUPLE GRANTS AND DID NOT MEET THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER CEQA EXEMPTION FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BECAUSE IT, ONE OF THE INTENTS IS TO MEET CROP DEMAND.
SO WE THE CEQA COMPLIANCE IS THEREFORE WAS DETERMINED TO BE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IS JUST OFF HIGHWAY 59, JUST SOUTH OF THE CITY OF MERCED AND THE
[00:15:10]
CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.DOES THIS HAVE A POINTER ON IT? WELL, YOU CAN SEE THE RED DOT THERE.
I THINK MOST MOST OF YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS ON IN SOUTH OF MERCED.
SO THE THE LANDOWNER HAS A HAS WATER RIGHTS ON BOTH OWENS CREEK AND MARIPOSA CREEK.
THEY'RE BOTH 20 CFS RIGHTS OVER 1400 ACRE FEET A YEAR.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE SOURCE OF THE WATER.
THAT DOES ADDRESS COMMENT LETTER THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED FROM I THINK IT WAS STEVENSON STEVENSON WATER DISTRICT REGARDING WATER RIGHTS SIMILAR TO THE WATER RIGHTS CONCERNS THEY HAD FOR THE TEMPORARY WATER RIGHT PERMIT APPLICATION WHERE YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT IT DIDN'T INFRINGE ON STEVENSON WATER RIGHTS.
WELL, THIS PROJECT WON'T EITHER.
THIS PROJECT WON'T BECAUSE IT HAS IT RELIES ON ITS OWN WATER RIGHTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN DESIGN NOW.
THE CURRENTLY THE LAND IS IN ROW CROP PRODUCTION, SO IT WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF PRODUCTION, SAVING APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRE FEET A YEAR FROM THAT AND THEN WOULD HAVE A CAPACITY OF ABOUT 250 ACRE FEET.
AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING FILLING IT THREE TIMES PER YEAR, NOT EVERY YEAR, BUT MOST YEARS.
SO THERE'S DEFINITELY LOCATED IN THE HISTORICAL SUBSIDENCE AREA OF THE REGION.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS SITS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY OF EL NIDO AND SOUTH MERCED.
SO DEFINITELY HELPS DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
THE POINTS OF DIVERSION ARE EXISTING WITHIN THE CREEKS, SO THERE WON'T BE ANY HABITAT, ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES OR THAT OBVIOUSLY I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE FIELDS ARE CURRENTLY ROW CROPS, SO IT'S NOT NATIVE PASTURE OR ANY VERNAL POOL ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND THE OWNER HAS WATER RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.
SO ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE LACEY? THERE WAS ALSO A COMMENT FROM THE DWR DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT? YES.
SO SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING WE WERE AWARE, MOSTLY FARMERS ARE AWARE WHEN BUILDING RESERVOIRS IF YOU BUILD THEM CERTAIN HEIGHT, I THINK IT'S SIX FEET ABOVE GRADE, THEN YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DAM SAFETY.
AND THEY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DAM SAFETY SUBMITTED A LETTER SAYING THAT IF THE DESIGN MEETS THAT CRITERIA, THEN WE NEED TO SEEK A PERMIT.
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN MADE SURE TO KEEP IT UNDER THAT CRITERIA SO IT WILL NOT BE DESIGNED TO MEET TO NEED A PERMIT.
AND THE LETTER DOESN'T ASK US TO RESPOND UNLESS WE MEET THE CRITERIA.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED TO RESPOND.
ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU BACK UP TO THAT POWERPOINT SLIDE OF THE 750 REAL FAST? I DIDN'T KNOW. ARE THOSE LIKE GENERAL NUMBERS OR IS THERE A LOSS THAT'S 750 ACRE FEET TO USE TO IRRIGATE? VERY, VERY GENERAL.
IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN FULLY DESIGNED YET.
BUT IT'S A 30 ACRE SITE, YOU KNOW.
YEAH. FAMILIAR WITH THE RESERVOIR PROGRAM.
YEAH. AND THEN THE 150 ACRE FOOT IS A FIVE ACRE CROP.
YOU SAID YOU'RE PULLING OUT 30 ACRES.
YEAH. DOUBLE CROPPED, RIGHT? DOUBLE CROPPED. YEAH. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THANKS, BRAD. ANYONE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY I'M GOING TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS MOMENT.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC HAS A COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
NONE. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.
SO JUST FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG ITEM FOR THE GSA.
IS JEANNE ON? JEANNE IS ON. OKAY.
[00:20:09]
? SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO IT EITHER WAY.AS LONG AS THEY'RE IN THAT ORDER, YOU CAN DO IT UNDER ONE MOTION.
OKAY. DOES THE MAKER OF THE MOTION HAVE TO READ? SHOULD HE SHOULD THEY SPELL THEM ALL OUT OR DOES IT MATTER? NO, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU CAN JUST SAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOUR ITEMS LISTED IN THE AGENDA.
ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. THANK YOU, GENIE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND WANTS TO GIVE ONE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER COMPANY RESERVOIR STORAGE PROJECT THAT WE VALIDATE THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSE NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER CEQA THAT WE ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT WE APPROVE THE PROJECT AND WE DIRECT STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION, OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT.
OKAY. DOES THIS ONE, JEANNE, DOES THIS REQUIRE A ROLL CALL VOTE OR CAN IT JUST BE A UNANIMOUS? NO, IT DOES NOT, BECAUSE ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE IN THE ROOM.
YOU CAN JUST DO A REGULAR VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON NUMBER SEVEN.
[7. FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 GENERAL OPERATING AND PHASE 1 BUDGET]
THIS IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-024 GENERAL OPERATING AND PHASE ONE BUDGET.LACEY WILL PROVIDE WILL PRESENT A THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2023-24.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK ALONG THE WAY.
SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 23-24.
I'M GOING TO REVIEW THE BUDGET, THE REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND THE PER ACRE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH BOTH THE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET AND THE PHASE ONE BUDGET.
SO THIS FIRST IS THE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET.
THE REVENUE COLLECTED IS THROUGH THE 2019 SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE.
IT'S PARTIALLY COLLECTED THROUGH THE PROPERTY TAX BILL, PARTIALLY THROUGH DIRECT INVOICES TO SELECT MEMBER AGENCIES AND DIRECT INVOICES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE GSA.
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE IS ALLOWED TO COLLECT IS $750,000, AND THAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT PROPOSED TO COLLECT UNDER THIS BUDGET. SO WE'LL BE COLLECTING $297 SHORT ACTUALLY, I SHOULD CORRECT THAT.
SORRY. SO UNDER THE OPERATING EXPENSES, WE'LL START WITH THE LEGAL SERVICES AND THE TECHNICAL SERVICES, $75,000 IS BUDGETED FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY HIRAM CRABTREE, SUNTAG.
LEGAL EXPENSES ARE EXPECTED TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN IN THIS UPCOMING YEAR DUE TO THE ALLOCATION, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, RECHARGE POLICIES AND THE POTENTIAL NEW PHASE TWO FEE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S POSSIBLY STARTING IN 2024.
UNDER TECHNICAL SERVICES, THERE IS A PROP 218 FEE MODEL MAINTENANCE.
THIS IS A CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN, WHO UPDATES THE FEE MODEL EACH YEAR WITH THE MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ROLE INFORMATION. THEY DO THIS IN PREPARATION FOR DETERMINING THE FEES PER PARCEL TO THIS YEAR 2023 IS THE LAST YEAR ON THE CURRENT FEE MODEL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT.
A HYDROLOGY AND MODELING UPDATE.
THIS IS FUNDING BUDGETED FOR POTENTIAL MODEL RUNS OF THE MERCED WATER RESOURCES MODEL.
THIS COULD BE BY WOODARD AND CURRAN OR ANOTHER CONSULTANT.
IT'S IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.
SO IT'S ESTIMATED WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SPENT MODELING UPDATE DOLLARS IN THOSE PAST YEARS.
THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ONE AND TWO STUDIES AND ANALYSIS ITEM LINE ITEM IS THE TECHNICAL AND POLICY SUPPORT FUNDING BUDGETED FOR IMPLEMENTING PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO OF THE TWO PHASE GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH.
[00:25:06]
THIS INCLUDES POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR ALLOCATION DEVELOPMENT, THE RECHARGE POLICY RULE ONE WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS, ASSISTANCE WITH PHASE ONE FEE APPEALS WHEN NECESSARY.THE BUDGETED FUNDS IN HERE INCLUDE $200,000 FOR THE STRATEGIC POLICY CONSULTANT.
AT A LATER AGENDA ITEM, YOU WILL HAVE A CONTRACT THAT'S A TWO YEAR CONTRACT.
UNDER THIS UNDER THIS LINE ITEM.
AND THEN YOU HAVE $145,000 FOR EKI'S ALLOCATION, TECHNICAL SUPPORT ALSO BUDGETED IN THIS LINE ITEM.
NEXT ARE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.
THIS IS BUDGETING FOR THE COUNTY SUPPORT CONTRACT, WHICH IS $75,000 PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $75,000.
THIS COULD BE FOR A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A FAIRLY ENTRY LEVEL SALARY.
SO THIS COULD ALSO BE PART TIME SUPPORT FOR A MORE ADVANCED PERSON.
THE AUDIT IS AN ANNUAL BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT OFFICE.
EXPENSES ARE BUDGETED AT $6,000.
THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION IS $2,000 BUDGETED FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE FEE AND THE PHASE ONE FEE ON THE MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILLS.
THE GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE IS YOUR AQUA JPIA INSURANCE.
THIS YEAR'S ACTUAL PAYMENT RATED SO IT'S LESS THAN WHAT THE FULL AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR.
YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS THE AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP TO AQUA IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE INSURANCE.
IT WAS ALSO PRORATED FOR THIS YEAR AND IS ANTICIPATED TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER NEXT YEAR.
WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE.
ACTUAL COSTS RIGHT NOW ONLY CONSIST OF THE DOMAIN AND HOSTING EXPENSES.
LEGAL NOTICES ARE AS THE GSA STARTS TO MAKE MORE CEQA ACTIONS LIKE THE ONE YOU JUST TOOK, THERE WILL BE MORE LEGAL NOTICES POSTED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR USING THIS BUDGET LINE ITEM.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AT LEAST SEVEN PUBLIC OUTREACH WORKSHOPS DURING THE COURSE OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ALLOCATION POLICY, AND THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH NECESSARY IF THE PHASE TWO FUNDING DEVELOPMENT STARTS IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.
GRANT WRITING IS $40,000 SET ASIDE FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS.
THIS PAST YEAR'S ACTUAL DOLLARS WERE USED FOR THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM APPLICATION AND DWR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT APPLICATION. AND THEN THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE IS THERE AT $12,000.
THE NEXT ARE THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN EXPENSES.
THESE ARE BASIN WIDE EXPENSES THAT ARE SHARED AMONGST THE THREE.
SO THESE NUMBERS ARE ALL 58% OF WHAT THE TOTAL WOULD BE FOR THE WHOLE BASIN.
WITHOUT A HISTORY OF THE 2015 MINIMUM THRESHOLD, SUPPORT FOR THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
THE GSP, THE GSP ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE YEAR UPDATE ITEM BUDGETS FOR THE WATER YEAR 2023 ANNUAL REPORT AND THAT'S BUDGETED AT $50,000 AND THE GSP AND THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE.
THE GSP ESTIMATES THAT THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE COST WOULD BE ABOUT $800,000.
THIS BUDGET STARTS TO COLLECT FUNDING TO COVER THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE COSTS AT $230,000, WHICH IS HALF OF THE MSGA SHARE OF THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE.
AND SO THOSE DOLLARS WOULD BE COLLECTING IN THIS YEAR.
AND WE DO ANTICIPATE TO START SPENDING THEM IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.
AND THEN THE SECOND HALF WOULD BE COLLECTED IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
AND OF COURSE, WE WOULD ONLY SPEND WHAT'S SPENT BY WOODARD AND CURRAN.
[00:30:02]
AND THEN FINALLY THE GSP IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING.RIGHT NOW WE HAVE $70,000 BUDGETED FOR QKS BASIN WIDE MONITORING COSTS.
AT THIS TIME, THE CONSULTANT HAS NOT BEEN SPENDING THEIR EXPECTED COSTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDING ALL OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED. AND SO SHOULD THIS CONTRACT CHANGE TO ANOTHER CONSULTANT WHICH THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING, IT'S EXPECTED THE COSTS WOULD GO UP BECAUSE THE ANNUAL WORK PRODUCT, THE ADDITIONAL WORK PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE GSA'S.
THE FUND BALANCE AS OF JUNE 30TH IS ESTIMATED TO BE AT $428,000.
AND SO UNDER THIS BUDGET, THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE FEES PER ACRE BASE RATE WOULD BE $0.50 AN ACRE AND THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL $3.50 AN ACRE FOR IRRIGATED ACRES, WHICH COLLECTS THE MAXIMUM SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE OF $750,000.
SO I'LL PAUSE HERE BEFORE MOVING ON TO PHASE ONE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
LACEY YOU MENTIONED FOR THE FIVE YEAR PLAN WOODARD AND CURRAN SAYS IT'S GOING TO BE $800,000 BUCKS.
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AND WE DON'T HAVE A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE WE ARE STILL WAITING TO GET OUR APPROVAL LETTER FROM DWR, WHICH IS GOING TO IDENTIFY THE ITEMS THAT THEY WANT US TO WORK ON IN THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE.
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET THAT LETTER BACK IN MARCH.
WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT TODAY.
AND SO I THINK ONCE WE HEAR FROM DWR WHAT ADDITIONAL WORK THEY WANT US TO PUT INTO OUR GSP, WE'LL KNOW THE LEVEL OF EFFORT THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
ALSO, DWR PUT OFF EVALUATING INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATER UNTIL 2025.
AND SO WE DO EXPECT SOME GUIDANCE FROM DWR.
HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE LATE IN 2023 AND NOT EARLY 2024 BY THE TIME WE GET THAT GUIDANCE.
BUT THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE FILTERED INTO OUR 2025 UPDATE.
AND WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT NUMBER AT GINA? SHE IS NOT, IS IT? ON THIS ONE? IT'S NOT. IT'S PART OF THE $280,000 FOR OUR SHARE.
THE SO THE $428,000 FUND BALANCE IS ADDED TO THE $750,000 REVENUE IN ORDER TO COVER THE TOTAL GSA ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF $1.178 MILLION.
FUND BALANCE IS GOING TO BE ZERO AT THE END OF THIS YEAR WITH THIS BUDGET.
IF IF YOU SPEND IT ALL, IT WOULD BE ZERO WITH THIS BUDGET.
YEAH, THAT'S HOW IT'S BUDGETED RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE AT ZERO IF YOU.
YEAH. EVERY YEAR IT'S BUDGETED FOR THE FUND BALANCE TO BE ZERO.
OKAY. QUESTION? FROM THE SECOND PROP ELECTION WE DID WE HAVE MONEY TO FILL DATA GAPS.
CORRECT. FROM THE MOST RECENT PROP 218 ELECTION WITH THE LRP.
IS THERE MONEY IN THERE FOR? FROM THE PHASE ONE THERE IS.
THERE IS NOT MONEY TO TO FILL DATA GAPS.
BUT YOU COULD YOU COULD USE DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ONE AND TWO, UNDER TECHNICAL SERVICES, YOU HAVE $345,000 THERE.
YOU COULD USE SOME DOLLARS OUT OF THAT.
WHAT ELSE ARE WE PLANNING GAPS? WHAT ELSE WERE WE PLANNING ON USING? WHAT WHAT ALL WAS INCLUDED FOR THE $345,000 LACEY? THE $345,000 IS THE EKI CONTRACT OF $145,000 FOR THE ALLOCATION SUPPORT AND $200,000 FOR YOUR STRATEGIC POLICY.
BUT THAT'S A TWO YEAR CONTRACT, SO I DON'T EXPECT YOU WOULD SPEND YOUR WHOLE $200,000.
OKAY. AND SO YOU COULD HAVE SOME THERE.
ALSO, THE BASIN DID RECEIVE IN THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT.
ROUND ONE AWARD THE BASIN RECEIVED OVER $400,000 FOR FILLING DATA GAPS.
WE'RE ALSO SUBMITTING A TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES APPLICATION TO DWR FOR DWR TO HELP FILL DATA GAPS WITH PUTTING NEW DRILLING NEW WELLS ESSENTIALLY.
[00:35:02]
AND SO WE HAVE TWO OTHER GRANT FUNDED POSSIBILITIES FOR FILLING DATA GAPS.I'D LIKE TO THINK WE CAN WORK AROUND SOME OF THIS BUDGET AND FIND SOME MONEY TO WORK ON THAT, YOU KNOW? OKAY. DO ANY OF THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC? GO AHEAD, MIKE.
UNDER ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION, THAT NUMBER INCLUDES THE HIRING OF AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
THIS ONE INCLUDES YOUR COUNTY SUPPORT, WHICH SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, WHICH IS $75,000.
AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL $75,000 IN THERE FOR ANOTHER STAFF PERSON.
IT COULD BE PART TIME FOR A MORE ADVANCED STAFF PERSON.
SO IT COULD BE A COUNTY PERSON OR NOT.
BUT IT COULD BE ALONG THOSE LINES SHOULD THAT ALL GET WORKED OUT.
AT THIS TIME I WANT TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
THE BUDGET SEEMS PRETTY EXCESSIVE TO ME IN THAT THERE'S $150,000 FOR COUNTY SUPPORT AND THEN ON THE PAGE BEFORE THAT, CAN YOU.
YEAH. AND THEN $345,000 FOR BASICALLY TWO CONSULTANTS.
SO A COUPLE MORE STAFF, A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND, $345,000 AND MORE CONSULTANTS PLUS PAYING THE WOODARD AND CURRAN TO WORK ON THE GSP.
AND THEN THERE'S A PHASE ONE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS WELL.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN SOME NEW STAFF BEING CREATED, AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SUPPORT FOR $200,000.
AND THEN EKI DOES A LOT OF THAT SAME WORK TOO.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME STREAMLINING OF CONSULTANTS AND NEW STAFF.
SO TO CLARIFY, THE $345,000 THAT'S FOR A TWO YEAR CONTRACT, RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE] THE $345,000 IS A IS A PLACEHOLDER FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SPEND THAT IMPLEMENTS PHASE ONE AND TWO AND STUDIES AND ANALYSIS.
SO YOU YOU DO HAVE 100% YOU'VE GOT YOUR EKI CONTRACT FOR THE ALLOCATION ANALYSIS.
THAT'S $145,000 OF THAT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND IN THIS YEAR.
THE OTHER $200,000, IT'S GOING TO BE USED PARTIALLY ON YOUR STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONSULTANT, BUT IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM IF SOMETHING COMES UP DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BUDGET ROOM TO BE ABLE TO DO WORK WITH ANOTHER CONSULTANT OR SOME OTHER WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR EKI CONTRACT THAT YOU APPROVED LAST YEAR, HAD YOU NOT HAD THAT ROOM IN THE BUDGET, YOU WOULD NOT LAST YEAR, LAST MONTH, HAD YOU NOT HAD THAT ROOM IN THE BUDGET, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE AN UNANTICIPATED CONTRACT FOR EKI TO DO SOME TECHNICAL ANALYSIS.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS GIVES YOU IS A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM TO DO ADDITIONAL STUDIES, ANALYSIS WORK THAT WE HAVEN'T CONTEMPLATED TODAY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ONLINE? THERE IS NONE ONLINE.
WE DON'T WE DON'T BUDGET A NEGATIVE BALANCE.
WE BUDGET A PERFECTLY BALANCED BUDGET EVERY YEAR.
AS IN EVERY YEAR, WE'RE BUDGETED MORE EXPENSES THAN REVENUE TAKEN IN.
BUT ON THE BOTTOM YOU SEE FUND BALANCE.
IF EXPENDITURES EXCEED REVENUE, THE DIFFERENCE IS MADE UP BY YOUR FUND BALANCE.
SO YOUR FUND BALANCE IS WHAT'S LEFT IN YOUR ACCOUNT EVERY YEAR.
[00:40:05]
BUT YOU BUDGET FOR THERE TO BE NO FUND BALANCE EVERY YEAR.UNSPENT MONEY IT'S UNSPENT MONEY FROM THE YEAR BEFORE.
EVERY YEAR WE'VE BEEN BUDGETING AT A NEGATIVE DEFICIT AND WE JUST DON'T SPEND THAT MUCH.
THAT'S BEEN ROLLED OVER, RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE] EVERY YEAR YOU'VE BUDGETED TO SPEND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SPENT THAT.
PLUS WHATEVER'S IN THE FUND BALANCE.
NO THE FUND BALANCE MAKES YOU PERFECTLY BALANCED.
YES. YOU DON'T BRING IN WHAT YOU BUDGET.
OUR EXPENSES ARE THE $750,000 PLUS THE FUND BALANCE TO GET THE $1.178 MILLION EXPENSES.
YES. THE FUND BALANCE PLUS YOUR REVENUE EQUALS YOUR EXPENDITURES.
THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST BUDGET WE'VE EVER COLLECTED ON THIS.
MAYBE THE FIRST YEAR, THE FIRST YEAR WE COLLECTED FULL RIGHT.
LAST YEAR YOUR PER ACRE FEES ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THEY'RE GOING TO BE THIS YEAR.
NOT FOR THE SIGMA COMPLIANT YEAH. THIS YEAR IS GOING TO BE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.
YEAH. AND THEN FOR YOUR PHASE ONE FEE, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN LAST YEAR.
THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE TO ERIC'S QUESTION, THE $280,000 THAT IS OUR PORTION IT WAS A BIG NUMBER.
AND THESE CONSULTANTS WHO WERE GETTING REALLY PROUD OF THEIR WORK, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THE $280,000 IS THAT JUST FOR THIS YEAR'S PORTION OF THE 2025 UPDATE? SO $280,000 INCLUDES $50,000 FOR THE ANNUAL REPORT.
SO $230,000 IS BUDGETED FOR THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE.
AND THAT'S HALF OF WHAT MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S PORTION OF THE TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST WOULD BE.
SO HALF COLLECTED THIS YEAR HALF COLLECTED NEXT YEAR.
OKAY, SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IT'S EXCITING. I GUESS SO.
WELL, I KNOW WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
OH, I GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR YOU.
OH, WE GOT TO DO ALL OF THEM AS ONE.
I THOUGHT WE WOULD DO THEM ALL SEPARATELY.
OKAY, LET'S DO THEM ALL TOGETHER.
[INAUDIBLE] OKAY, BUT EVERYONE'S GOOD ON THE PHASE.
I MEAN, ON THE FIRST ONE, RIGHT? THE FIRST BUDGET. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, LACEY. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THE PHASE ONE FEE.
SO THIS YEAR, THE REVENUE FOR PHASE ONE ARE FOR ALL THESE EXPENSES.
THE REVENUE IS COLLECTED FROM THE PROPOSITION 218 FEE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN JULY OF 2022, 2022 -2023 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF REVENUE FROM THIS FEE.
LAST YEAR'S REVENUE THAT WAS NOT SPENT WILL REMAIN ALLOCATED TO ONLY THE ACTIVITIES THAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE ONE, PROPOSITION 218 ENGINEER'S REPORT.
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT COMES IN FROM 2023-2024 THIS UPCOMING YEAR WILL INCREASE THE BALANCE OF EACH OF THE ACTIVITIES REVENUE MINUS WHATEVER ACTUAL SPENDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
16 PHASE ONE FEE APPEALS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A TOTAL APPROVED REFUND OF $48,877 FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 22-23 PHASE ONE REVENUE.
THE PROPOSED REVENUE COLLECTION FOR THE PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES IN FISCAL YEAR 23-24 IS $1.93 MILLION.
THIS IS LESS THAN THE APPROVED MAXIMUM, WHICH WAS COLLECTED LAST YEAR.
AND YOU'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE MAXIMUM AS PER THE ENGINEER'S REPORT.
[00:45:08]
THE PHASE ONE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM IS BUDGETED AT $1.5 MILLION TO COVER THE FIRST YEAR LRP AGREEMENTS AND STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE A MAXIMUM OF $3.7 MILLION IN THE YEAR TWO LRP APPLICATIONS LATER THIS SUMMER.SO IT GIVES YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO APPROVE THE MAXIMUM ANNUALLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
IT ALSO COVERS EKI SUPPORT FOR THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, WHICH THAT SUPPORT IS GOING TO COME OUT OF THESE PHASE ONE ACTIVITY ITEMS. THE GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
SO COLLECTING IT, COLLECTING $125,000 THIS YEAR, ALONG WITH WHAT WAS COLLECTED LAST YEAR, GIVES THE BOARD THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHOULD THEY CHOOSE.
THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM IS ALSO COLLECTING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM HERE AT $200,000.
THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PLATFORM IS CURRENTLY GRANT FUNDED, BUT THERE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SOME EXPENSES WITH ROLLING OUT THE PLATFORM AND POSSIBLE OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH SUPPORTING THE WATER DATA CONSORTIUM.
AND SO THE NUMBER HERE IS MUCH LESS THAN IN THE PAST.
IN LAST YEAR'S WHAT WAS COLLECTED LAST YEAR, IT'S $30,000 FOR THE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS.
THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION OR I'M SORRY, THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE.
THIS IS SET ASIDE FOR ONLY PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES.
SO IT'S $25,000 SET ASIDE FOR A CONTINGENCY FOR PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES.
AND THEN THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.
SO THE COSTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE $50,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 23-24.
THIS YEAR WE DID JUST RECEIVE AN INVOICE FROM MID AT $630 FOR 22-23 WATER RIGHTS EXPENSES.
THAT'S THE ONLY INVOICE WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR.
BUT THEY AREN'T COMPLETELY UP TO DATE ON THEIR INVOICING.
THERE ARE STILL SOME MONTHS LEFT AND THIS IS FOR THE PERMANENT WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION, NOT THE TEMPORARY MARIPOSA CREEK APPLICATION THAT WENT THROUGH EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO THE PER ACRE PHASE ONE FEE UNDER THIS PROPOSED BUDGET IS $10.94 AN ACRE FOR ALL IRRIGATED ACRES, AND AN ADDITIONAL $0.55 AN ACRE FOR PARCELS PAYING INTO THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION COSTS.
SO THE ESTIMATED FEES FOR THE PHASE ONE AND FOR THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE, THEY MAY OF COURSE CHANGE SLIGHTLY DUE TO UPDATES IN THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ROLL, AS IF PARCELS CHANGE DUE TO THE END OF THE YEAR FUND BALANCE.
OH, LET ME SHOW YOU ONE MORE SLIDE.
AND THEN WHAT'S PROPOSED IN 23-24, WHICH WOULD BE ADDED TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE AND THEN MINUS ANY EXPENSES, ANY DOLLARS THAT YOU SPEND OUT OF THOSE ON THOSE ACTIVITIES.
AND AT THAT POINT I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. ANYONE GOT ANY QUESTIONS? RELATED TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION? SO WE'RE PROPOSING FOR 22-23 AND 23-24 THE AMOUNT SHOWN.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT WHEN WE IF WE HIRE SOMEBODY WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TELL THEM BEYOND THOSE
[00:50:06]
TWO YEARS? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.SO YOUR PHASE ONE FEE THAT YOU ADOPTED IN JULY OF 2022, IT CAPPED THE AMOUNT THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO COLLECT FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT $500,000 OVER THE FOUR YEARS THAT THIS FEE IS IN PLACE, THIS FEE COLLECTS FOUR TIMES.
THIS IS THE SECOND COLLECTION.
SO YOU WILL HAVE, IF YOU CONTINUE TO COLLECT FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT $125,000 A YEAR, YOU WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF $500,000. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO IDENTIFY ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE TO PAY FOR YOUR SALARY, FOR YOUR OR WHATEVER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
THAT COULD BE THE PHASE TWO FEE THAT WHATEVER REPLACES THIS WHEN IT SUNSETS AT THE END OF THREE YEARS FROM NOW. SO YOU WILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY ANOTHER SOURCE.
OKAY. LACEY SO IN THE PHASE ONE FEE, WE HAVE A GSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUDGET $125,000.
AND IN THE ORIGINAL PROP 218 FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE, WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE AT $70-$75,000.
COULD WE USE THAT MONEY TOGETHER TO HIRE ONE PERSON? IS THAT BEEN DECIDED OR DOES THAT MONEY HAVE TO BE FOR TWO SEPARATE DEALS? SO I WOULD I WILL MAKE MY ANSWER AND THEN I'LL ASK JEANNE IF SHE'LL ALSO JUMP ON WITH THIS ONE.
I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH, BUT WE CAN USE A $75,000 FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO.
LIKE YOU SAID. I HAVE A QUESTION THEN ON THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LINE.
RIGHT. LET'S SAY WE DON'T HIRE AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, RIGHT.
AND WE'VE COLLECTED MONEY FOR IT.
THEN WHAT CAN WE YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN BUDGETED FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN THE FUTURE SAY, WE KNOW BY THE TIME PHASE ONE IS OVER WE QUITE HAVEN'T HIRED BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE SUCH A GREAT JOB LACEY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HIRE AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT MONEY AT THAT POINT? CAN IT GET RE BUDGETED INTO AND COLLECT LESS MONEY AND OTHER LINE ITEMS OR DOES IT HAVE TO GET SPENT? IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE? I BELIEVE IT HAS TO BE SPENT ON AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR GO BACK TO TO WHO PAID IT IN JEANNE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A DESIGNATED LINE ITEM.
JEANNE, A QUESTION OFF OF THAT HIRING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
COULD IT JUST BE A CONSULTANT ACTING AS AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR DO WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY HAVE SOMEONE ON THE PAYROLL IT CAN BE ACTUALLY ANYONE DESIGNATED TO FILL THAT POSITION, WHETHER IT'S A CONSULTANT OR A .
SO IT CAN BE A 1099 INSTEAD OF A W-2 EMPLOYEE.
OKAY. SO JEANNE, IN THIS SCENARIO, WE BUDGETED FOR IT, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WE DECIDE THAT WE DON'T NEED ONE OR WE WILL NEED ONE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVEN'T USED IT YET.
THEN WHAT? LIKE, CAN WE JUST COLLECT LESS UNDER A DIFFERENT LINE ITEM AND MOVE THAT MONEY TO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY WITHIN THE.
BUT WE COULD SPEND IT THE LAST TWO YEARS, CORRECT? ALL OF IT, YES.
RIGHT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR BECAUSE I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING'S IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER BUDGET, RIGHT? IT'S BEEN ALLOCATED ON ON A BUDGET PER SE.
RIGHT. BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE WITHIN OUR WHAT THE PROP ELECTION WAS UP TO CERTAIN AMOUNTS, THE ACTUAL KEY THERE IS WHAT DID YOU ADVERTISE WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO GET THE FUND APPROVED? AND IF YOU WOULD HAVE ADVERTISED IT AS A LUMP SUM FOR IMPLEMENTATION, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THAT AROUND.
SO I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE EXACTLY HOW IT WAS WORDED.
[00:55:02]
ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, I THINK THE IDEA OF A CONSULTANT MAYBE WORKS BETTER BECAUSE IF YOU HIRE SOMEONE, IF YOU CONSIDER ALL THE FRINGE BENEFITS THAT YOU NEED TO PAY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 40 TO 50%.YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT PAYING THE PERSON VERY MUCH IN THE END.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ERIC? I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM LACEY.
SO FOR PROPERTIES UNDER THE PHASE ONE PAYMENT THAT ARE ALSO PAYING THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION FEE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FEE OF $11.49 AN ACRE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT'S IT'S $10.94 PLUS $0.55 FOR THAT'S FOR ONLY THE ACRES THAT ARE PAYING BOTH THE FULL PHASE ONE FEE PLUS THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION COSTS .
FOR THOSE OTHER PARCELS IN THE AGENCIES LIKE LE GRAND-ATHLONE, SANDY MUSH, PLAINSBURG.
LACEY YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SLIDE THAT HAS THAT.
WHAT ARE PER ACRE COSTS WOULD BE FOR BOTH.
YOUR PER ACRE COSTS FOR? PHASE ONE AND FOR THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE 218.
WELL, I MEAN, JUST YOU HAVE THIS ALL LINE ITEM OUT LIKE SO EVERYBODY CAN LOOK AT IT.
I DON'T. BUT FOR THE RECORD, YOU SAID [INAUDIBLE].
SO FOR IRRIGATED ACRES, IT WOULD BE $4 FOR THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE AND $10.94 FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE.
SO THAT'S $14.94 FOR THOSE ACRES THAT ARE NOT PAYING THE WATER RIGHTS THAT ARE IN THOSE DISTRICTS.
AND THEN IT'S $15.49, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT THAT ARE PAYING BOTH THE IRRIGATED SIGMA COMPLIANCE FEE, THE PHASE ONE FEE AND THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.
AND FOR A PARCEL THAT IS UNIRRIGATED IN NATIVE PASTURE, THEY'RE PAYING $0.50.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.
IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING.
ANYONE ONLINE? THERE'S NONE ONLINE.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR DISCUSSIONS? UM. YEAH.
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM IN FRONT OF US, AND IF WE DON'T LIKE THIS, WE CAN CHANGE IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S NOT IF.
IF A BOARD MEMBER HERE HAS A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING, THEY CAN SAY IT NOW AND WE CAN YOU CAN CHANGE ANY OF THE ANY OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
SO. WELL YES, WE NEED A BUDGET.
YES, EXACTLY. AND IF PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SOMETHING THEY CAN SAY.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE SOMETHING.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS BUDGET AS WELL LACEY ONE MORE TIME? YOU CAN CHANGE THE NUMBERS ON HERE.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE AND AMEND THE BUDGET IN THE FUTURE.
THE ONLY CAVEAT WOULD BE YOU'RE COLLECTING REVENUE BASED ON THIS BUDGET.
YEAH, AND UNLESS YOU SENT YOUR OWN INVOICES.
BUT WELL, ME PERSONALLY, I MEAN I'M OKAY WITH THE PER ACRE FEES.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARGING OUR 218 COMPLIANCE BUDGET.
BUT I AS A BOARD MEMBER DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE COLLECTING THE $4 BUCKS AND THEN THE $10.94 PLUS THE $0.55 FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE.
JUST WONDERING WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THOUGHT.
YEAH. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE BUDGET AND THE PHASE ONE FEE BUDGET
[01:00:01]
AS PRESENTED.OKAY. GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IS THERE A SECOND? A MOTION AND A SECOND.
LET'S DO ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES. WE HAVE A BUDGET.
WE ARE ON NUMBER EIGHT, RIGHT?
[8. STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTRACT]
OKAY. STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTRACT.IN APRIL OF 2023, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO COMPLETE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING A CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE STRATEGIC POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT. THIS RFQ WAS RELEASED ON MAY 1ST AND RAN THROUGH MAY 22ND, AND WE HAD ONE RESPONDENT WHICH WAS ZANJERO INC.
THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM ZANJERO AGAINST THE RFQ AND IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE GSA MOVE FORWARD WITH CONTRACTING WITH ZANJERO FOR THESE STRATEGIC POLICY SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE EVALUATORS LIKED THE APPROACH OUTLINED IN THE STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS.
THE CONTRACT RECOMMENDED IS A TWO YEAR CONTRACT FOR A TOTAL OF $200,000, AS NOTED IN THE RFQ.
AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE POLICY SUPPORT, STRATEGIC POLICY SUPPORT, AND THEN EKI IS YOUR MORE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT. THAT KEEPS THEM A LITTLE BIT OF A LITTLE SEPARATE.
OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UM. ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC? NONE HERE. OKAY, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS THERE WAS ONLY ONE APPLICANT, CORRECT? ONLY ONE? ONLY ONE RESPONDENT.
IT WAS SENT OUT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS AT THE GSA HAS WORKED WITH IN THE PAST.
ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS NOT THIS IS JUST A MAX CONTRACT, RIGHT? IF WE DON'T USE IT, WE DON'T SPEND IT.
ALL RIGHT. IT'S A PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO ZANJERO INC.
OKAY. I GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
AND I DO WANT TO SAY THEY WERE ZANJERO WAS LIKED VERY MUCH BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, CORRECT? YES. YEAH. OH, GOOD.
VERY NICE. OKAY, I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
[9. MERCED COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES MOU AMENDMENT]
MERCED COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES MOU AMENDMENT.STAFF SUPPORT INCLUDES PREPARING ANALYSIS REPORTS, AGENDAS, MINUTES SERVING AS SECRETARY AND TREASURER, TREASURER CONTROLLER AND PROVIDING THE FISCAL SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT BEGAN WITH THE GSA IN 2020.
THIS AMENDMENT EXTENDS THE CONTRACT FOR ANOTHER YEAR TO JUNE 30TH, 2024, AND IT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL $75,000 TO THE CONTRACT FOR THOSE SUPPORT SERVICES IN 23-24.
THIS IS A CONSISTENT AMOUNT WITH LAST YEAR'S AMOUNT, THE $75,000.
AND YOU DID SEE IN YOUR BUDGET THAT THIS IS ALREADY BUDGETED FOR IN THE FISCAL YEAR 23-24 BUDGET.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[01:05:01]
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? ANY QUESTIONS ONLINE? NONE ONLINE.IT'S BEEN A LOT OF MONEY TODAY, HUH? NOT A GOOD HATE THESE DAYS.
I MOVE TO ADOPT THE SUPPORT SERVICES MOU AMENDMENT WITH MERCED COUNTY.
[INAUDIBLE] A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
[INAUDIBLE] SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.
OKAY, NOW WE GET TO THE FUN STUFF.
ITEM NUMBER TEN STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.
[10. STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT]
IS ANY MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE WISH TO GIVE A REPORT? YOU DREW THE SHORT STRAW HERE FOR YOU, ERIC.HERE WE GO. IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD.
SO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE ADDRESSED TWO ITEMS DURING OUR MOST RECENT MEETINGS, AND THE FIRST ITEM WE ADDRESSED WAS THE NEEDED TECHNICAL INPUT TO EKI FOR THEM TO START THEIR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION.
AND AS PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL, THEY HAD REQUESTED THAT THE MERCED SUBBASIN PROVIDE BASIN WIDE SUSTAINABLE YIELD THE FRACTION OF BASIN WIDE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, THAT THE MSGA WOULD GET THE IRRIGATED ACRES WITHIN THE MSGA AND THE PROJECTED OR BUDGETED NUMBER OF OPT IN ACRES TO BE PART OF THAT ANALYSIS.
AND WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COME UP WITH ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT EKI HAD REQUESTED IN THEIR PROPOSAL.
AND I THINK LACEY IS GOING TO BE TRANSMITTING THAT INFORMATION TO THEM.
THE SECOND THING THAT WE JUST STARTED DISCUSSION OF IS THE TIMING AND STRATEGY FOR HIRING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ALSO THE QUESTION OF DIRECT BOARD STAFF, WHICH IS THE $75,000 WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
AND WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TIMING OF HIRING AN INDIVIDUAL TO DO THAT AND THE TIMING AND THE AND THE STRUCTURE OF FUTURE FUNDING AFTER THE PHASE ONE FUNDING GOES AWAY IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE HOW THE FUNDING WILL CONTINUE LONG TERM WILL AFFECT MAINTAINING A FUNDING STREAM TO KEEP AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAID FOR.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD.
BUT BUT WE HAVE STARTED THAT THAT DISCUSSION, I THINK BASED ON SOME OF THE BOARD DISCUSSION TODAY, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT, I BELIEVE, IS WHEN WOULD THE MSGA MOVE AWAY FROM PREDOMINANTLY COUNTY STAFF AND HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STAFF? AND HOW CAN WE TO MR. SAMUELSON'S COMMENTS, HOW CAN WE REDUCE CONSULTANT COSTS BY HAVING IN HOUSE STAFF WHO CAN DO SOME OF THOSE TASKS AT A LOWER UNIT COST.
SO THAT'S SOME OF WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
I THINK IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY IF YOU CAN MAINTAIN THAT, BECAUSE IT HELPS THE ORGANIZATION FUNCTION BETTER AND IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE THAT LONG TERM ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY IF YOU HIRE CONSULTANTS TO FILL THOSE ROLES, TYPICALLY.
BUT THAT IS THE END OF MY REPORT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMITTEE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING THAT HE MISSED? SOUNDS LIKE FUN STUFF.
WAS THERE ANY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON WITH THE ALLOCATION? WHAT WERE THE CONSULTANTS WORKING ON? WHAT WERE THEY WORKING ON? YES, THE ALLOCATION.
SO WE CAME UP WITH THE REQUIRED INPUTS THAT THEY NEEDED TO START.
SO JULY 1ST THEY WILL START IN ON THE NEXT TASK, WHICH IS REFINEMENT OF THE EXTENTS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES. NICE.
OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
[01:10:04]
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. OKAY, MOVING ON.[11. STAFF REPORT]
LACEY YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE LEFT TO SAY TODAY? I HAVE ONE THING LEFT TO SAY, AND THIS IS FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT DIRECTOR SWENSON JUST TALKED ABOUT.EKI IS COLLECTING A ANY LOCAL MONITORING DATA THAT GROWERS OR DISTRICTS MAY ALREADY HAVE.
THIS IS LOCAL GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING DATA TO INCLUDE IN AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTOURS IN RELATION TO OTHER ADDITIONAL LOCAL DATA. IF YOU OR ANY OF THE DISTRICTS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU REPRESENT HAVE LOCAL MONITORING DATA THAT YOU WISH TO PROVIDE TO THE GSA FOR THIS ANALYSIS, YOU CAN USE THE WELL INFORMATION SHEET TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ON THE WELLS AND THE MONITORING DATA.
THIS WELL INFORMATION SHEET WAS PROVIDED HERE TO THE BOARD AND OVER EMAIL TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.
THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE FRONT PAGE AND IT'S UNDER THE DOCUMENTS SECTION.
THERE'S NECESSARY INFORMATION ON THE WELLS THAT ARE BEING MONITORED OR THE MONITORING DATA FROM THOSE WELLS THAT WE NEED TO COLLECT, INCLUDING LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND SCREENING IN ORDER TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE CONTEXT FOR THE MONITORING DATA, THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA THAT YOU'RE SUBMITTING.
AND SO WE'RE ASKING THAT ALL OF THIS BE SUBMITTED BY JULY 1ST FOR EKI TO CONTINUE WITH THE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE LOCAL DATA VERSUS THE CONTOURS, THE EXISTING CONTOURS FOR GROUNDWATER LEVELS THAT WE HAVE IN THE BASIN.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM I HAVE FOR YOU, IS PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING DATA AND WHEN YOU SUBMIT IT, INCLUDE A WELL INFORMATION SHEET ON THE WELLS THAT ARE MONITORED. NOW ON THAT, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION LIKE THE SCREENING INTERVALS AND THE WELL COMPLETION, ALL THIS? YEAH. SO THE DEPTH IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW FAR, HOW FAR DOWN THE WELL GOES.
THE SCREENING INTERVALS ARE IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A WELL THAT'S IN THE MULTIPLE AQUIFERS.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE A WELL THAT'S IN BOTH THE THE UPPER AND LOWER AQUIFER, IT'S ABOVE AND BELOW THE CORCORAN CLAY I THINK WE WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WELL IS SCREENED IN BOTH AQUIFERS AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS.
THERE ARE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE CAN MAKE IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA.
IF YOU HAVE A WELL THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CORCORAN CLAY, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION AND NOT KNOW WHERE THE SCREENING IS AND MAKE A PRETTY SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA IS FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE CORCORAN CLAY AQUIFER.
WE CAN MAKE SOME OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WITH MONITORING DATA THAT IS WEST OF 99 WHERE THERE IS THE CORCORAN CLAY, BUT WITHOUT KNOWING FOR CERTAIN, WE'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.
WE DEFINITELY NEED THE LOCATION NO MATTER WHAT.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE WELL IS.
IF WE CAN GET THE DEPTH, THAT WOULD BE BEST.
IF WE COULD GET THE SCREENING, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF GOLD STAR AND THEN THAT WOULD ALSO MAKE IT MAKE US ABLE TO DETERMINE, IS THIS A WELL THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR FOR CONTINUED MONITORING IN THE FUTURE AND NOT JUST THIS FIRST DATA DUMP OF MONITORING LEVEL INFORMATION.
OKAY. ANY OTHER STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NOTHING. BOARD REPORTS.
WHAT WAS THAT ONE FOR? GOOD ENOUGH. SIX MONTHS OF INVOICE INVOICES TO WOODARD AND CURRAN.
SO DECEMBER THROUGH MAY, I BELIEVE, OF WOODARD AND CURRAN INVOICES.
[01:15:02]
AND THAT'S OUR SHARE OF THE BASIN WIDE COSTS.[12. BOARD REPORTS]
RECENTLY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO IN SACRAMENTO, SECRETARY KAREN ROSS, SECRETARY OF CDFA, READ TO US A PRETTY INTERESTING NUMBER.THE NUMBER OF ACRE FEET THAT HAVE BEEN STORED UNDERGROUND OF WATER FROM THIS YEAR'S STORM EVENTS . AND THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES HAD A GOAL OF HALF A MILLION ACRE FEET THAT THEY WANTED STORED THIS YEAR.
AND TO DATE THEY SHE REPORTED THAT THERE'S 3.8 MILLION ACRE FEET WERE STORED UNDERGROUND THIS YEAR.
UH. AND SHE MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CONTINUES TO WANT TO WORK WITH FARMERS TO DO MORE STORAGE AND THAT THEY HAVE A PROGRAM.
ONE SUCH PROGRAM IS THEY CALL IT RIP AND CHIP, WHERE IF YOU HAVE AN ORCHARD THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT AND THEN DO GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ON THAT ACREAGE, THEY'LL PAY FOR REMOVING THE ORCHARD.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE RIPPING THE GRASS, YOU KNOW.
BUT ANYWAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.
HER POINT WAS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO WANT TO WORK WITH FARMERS.
AND SO WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
I KNOW THIS YEAR WE HAD A PROBLEM GETTING THOSE TEMPORARY PERMITS, WHICH WAS DISAPPOINTING, BUT YOU KNOW THAT THOSE PERMITS HAD TO BE THE PERMITS HAD TO COME FROM THE FROM THE WATER BOARD, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT AGENCY.
AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET THE PERMANENT PERMITS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AS A GSA, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO GET THE PERMANENT PERMITS AS SOON AS WE CAN SO THAT PEOPLE CAN DO MORE RECHARGE.
ANY OTHER BOARD REPORTS? I WANTED TO DO A REPORT ON THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING.
OKAY. NIC AND MIKE AND I WERE AT AND OF THE DIFFERENT COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
I THINK THIS ONE IS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT.
AND THE POWERPOINT SLIDES FROM THAT PRESENTATION ARE AVAILABLE ON THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY BASIN WEBSITE. MOST OF THE PRESENTATION DURING THE MEETING WAS FROM DWR AND ITS CONSULTANTS AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING A STUDY ALL THEORETICAL BASED ON MODELING OF THE WHOLE DRAINAGE INTO THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, AND THAT INCLUDES THE MERCED SUBBASIN.
AND THE REPORT IS ACTUALLY DUE OUT IN APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH.
BUT THEY PRESENTED AND THOSE PRESENTATIONS ARE ON THE POWERPOINT YOU CAN VIEW ONLINE.
SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE REPORT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS CHANGING THE WAY RESERVOIRS ARE OPERATED DURING THE WINTER SEASON TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH IS RUN DOWN STREAMS, CREEKS AND RIVERS, WHICH CAN INCREASE THE RECHARGE THROUGH FLOOD-MAR.
AND THEIR SIMULATIONS SHOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE OVERDRAFT OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING IF THESE RECHARGE FACILITIES WERE OPERATED OPTIMALLY AND RESERVOIR OPERATIONS WERE CHANGED.
AND I THINK IT'S ON THE ORDER OF IN THE MERCED AREA, THE MERCED SUBBASIN ON THE ORDER OF DOUBLING THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER AVAILABLE, WHICH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THE STUDY ALSO SHOWED WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF WATER RECHARGED THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT AREA TO THEN PUMP AS A RECHARGE CREDIT DURING UNDER THE CURRENT SCENARIO, THE AVERAGE COULD BE AS LOW AS A THIRD OF THE RECHARGED WATER.
[01:20:03]
BUT I THINK THE STUDY, A LOT OF THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE STUDY ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AS THE SUB BASIN MOVES TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY.BUT ONE QUESTION I ASKED, WHICH IS, IS ANY OF THIS MODELING BEEN VALIDATED WITH ACTUAL DATA? AND THE ANSWER WAS NO.
SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A HEALTHY PUSH TOWARDS VALIDATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE COMPUTER MODELS ARE ACTUALLY BACKED UP, BACKED UP BY REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.
BUT I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO GO OUT AND AND LOOK AT THAT PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE REALLY DOING SOME GOOD WORK THAT COULD HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON THE VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURE.
YEAH. THANK YOU, ERIC. OH, AND ONE THING, LACEY YOU DIDN'T MENTION, YOU SENT OUT AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE, THAT SAID THERE'S A FREE SERVICE FOR ON FARM IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY.
AND MAYBE YOU COULD I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, THAT EMAIL WENT TO THE GSA'S ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION LIST.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONTACT THE CHOWCHILLA MADERA RCD, WHO IS DOING THE SCHEDULING FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER BOARD REPORTS? SEEING NONE. NEXT MEETING JULY 13TH, 2023.
[13. NEXT MEETING]
AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.