[00:00:01]
WILL TAKE WRITTEN COMMENTS, ANY KIND OF COMMENTS AS LONG AS WE CAN UNTIL WE HAVE A FINAL RULE TO BE ADOPTED.[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
THERE IS A WORKSHOP YOU WANNA ANNOUNCE? THE OTHER WORKSHOP? UH, YEAH.[3. PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD]
I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.HI, UM, ELLEN, WE WITH WEIR WATER LAW AND POLICY.
SO I'M REPRESENTING A GROUP OF EASEMENT OWNERS, WETLAND EASEMENT OWNERS IN THE BASIN.
UM, THANKS FOR THE FIRST WORKSHOP.
IT WAS VERY UNDER, UH, EDUCATIONAL.
UM, WE WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED A SHORT COMMENT LETTER TODAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A DEADLINE ON THAT.
BUT, UM, HOPEFULLY CONSTRUCTIVE WAY TO POINT OUT A FEW CLARIFICATIONS WE'D LIKE IN THE POLICY.
SO THE, I'M JUST GONNA QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THEM SINCE I JUST SUBMITTED IT.
BUT THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO, UM, REMOVE A FEW THINGS FROM THE DEFINITION OF MANAGED WETLANDS.
ONE WOULD BE THE, THE LIMITING, UM, CODES, THE SPECIFIC LAND CODES.
'CAUSE WE'VE COME ACROSS EASEMENT OWNERS WHO ARE, UM, DESIGNATED BY THE ASSESSOR AS IRRIGATED AG.
WE'VE COME ACROSS WETLANDS EASEMENT OWNERS THAT LOOK THE SAME.
THE LANDSCAPE IS MANAGED SAME, BUT THEY'RE DESIGNATED AS SOMETHING ELSE.
SO THAT WAS, UH, ONE CLARIFICATION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL MANAGED WETLAND OWNERS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS POLICY OR OPT IN UNDER THE POLICY.
UM, THE SECOND IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP FROM THE SUSPICION WILDLIFE SERVICE.
UM, THE DEFINITION OF MANAGED WETLANDS INCLUDES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, WHICH IS KIND OF CONFUSING BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT IS THAT THE POLICY WILL NOT APPLY TO FEDERAL LAND.
UM, SO THERE'S A CLARIFICATION ASKED FOR IN THERE.
UM, THE THIRD IS THAT MANAGED WETLAND WATER ALLOCATION SECTION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SAYS THAT THAT OWNERS WILL NOT RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION AUTOMATICALLY, THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PARTICULARS.
AND WE JUST FELT LIKE, UM, IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT STRANGE TO JUST PUT THAT ON THE WETLAND OWNERS WHO MIGHT TAKE SOME MORE TIME OR NOT BE AWARE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE'VE ASKED THAT, THAT BE REMOVED.
UM, THE, THE NEXT ONE IS THAT, UM, I THINK YOU HEARD FROM THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AT THE, AT THE WORKSHOP LAST TIME, THAT, UM, THE FEDERAL AGENCIES OR STATE AGENCIES THAT OVERSEE THESE EASEMENT, THEY HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH LAND AND WATER.
AND SO THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT WETLAND OWNERS DON'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR WETLANDS.
AND WE THINK THAT MAYBE INSTEAD YOU COULD JUST SAY THAT IT WOULD DEFER TO THE AGENCY THAT HOLDS THE EASEMENT ON THAT.
UM, AND THEN THE, I GUESS THE LAST COMMENT IS KIND OF THE BIGGEST ONE, UM, THAT WE'RE SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WETLAND EASEMENT OWNERS WHO HAVE LARGER PARCELS WHERE THERE'S AN EASEMENT WHERE THERE'S MANAGED WETLANDS HAPPENING ON ONE PARCEL, BUT THERE MIGHT BE STOCK WATERING OR THERE MIGHT BE AGRICULTURE OR GRAZING ON ANOTHER PART OF THAT PARCEL.
FROM THE WAY WE'RE READING THE POLICY, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS.
YOU EITHER OPT IN FOR YOUR MANAGED WETLAND AND THEN YOU GET JUST NATIVE YIELDS ON THE REST, OR YOU, YOU KNOW, TRY TO ADDRESS THAT OTHER LAND USE.
AND SO WE'RE SEEKING A CLARIFICATION THAT WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT BECAUSE THE MANAGED WETLAND ALLOCATION IS SO SPECIFIC TO THE ACREAGE THAT'S WETLAND, YOU KNOW, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ALLOCATION ON THE REMAINDER OF YOUR SO REAL, I KNOW IT'S NITPICKY, BUT WE WANTED TO, I JUST WANNA SHOW UP HIM PERSONALLY, LET YOU KNOW THOSE COMMENTS CONSIDERING ANY OTHERS.
UM, AND A COMMENT I'VE GOT IS THAT CONSIDER, UH, IMPLEMENTING A FIVE FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE 2015 WATER SO THAT CONDITIONS DURING TIMES DROUGHT, UH, DON'T TRIGGER, UH, ADJUSTMENTS IN THE A P AND AND, UM, RESUMPTIONS OF, OF DECLINES IN THE A P BECAUSE OF THOSE PARTICULAR DROUGHT CONDITIONS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH MY INTERPRETATION REGULATIONS THERE RECOGNIZES MAY DROP BELOW POSITION WITHOUT TRIGGER.
SO THAT'S, UH, BOB KELLY STEVENSON.
UM, MY COMMENT SPECIFICALLY HAD TO DO WITH THE, UH, THE, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE COME ABOUT IN THE VARIOUS DRAFTS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL COMPANY ALLOCATION.
UH, IN FEBRUARY, WHEN WAS JUST BEING DRAFTED, THE, UH, THE STATEMENT WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A, A A,
[00:05:01]
A UNIQUE IDENTIFIED, UH, ALLOCATION FOR E SUSTAINABILITY ZONE BASED UPON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE MAY WHEN WE ACTUALLY SAW THE DOCUMENT THAT THE, THE LANGUAGE SPECIFIED THAT, UM, THERE WILL BE A REEVALUATION OF THE ANNUAL ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOCATION FOR EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FIVE YEAR, POSSIBLY EARLIER CONJUNCTION WITH FIVE YEAR GSP.IT SAYS FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS MAY OCCUR.
THAT'S WHEN, THAT'S, THAT SECTION ENDED IN THE JUNE.
THAT ADDITIONAL SECTION ALSO SAID THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ALLOCATION IS INTENDED TO DISCONTINUE BY 2036, LEAVING JUST SUSTAINABLE.
WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN TOLD, AND WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS JUST A DOCUMENT TALKING ABOUT SUSTAINABLE YIELD NATIVE GROUNDWATER.
THAT THERE'S NO NOTHING IN THIS DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF PERCOLATION OF, OF OTHER SURFACE WATER.
SO WE DON'T KNOW AT ALL WHAT WHAT THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO, TO BE ALL WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IS WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A UNIFORM SUSTAIN SUSTAINABLE YIELD NATIVE GROUNDWATER BY 23 6.
WELL, WHAT RESPOND TO THAT
IT IS, IT'S A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE THAT THIS TRAJECTORY IS NOT RECOGNIZING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN, UH, ACTUAL SUSTAINABLE YIELD, WHETHER IT'S NATIVE GROUNDWATER OR WHETHER IT'S FROM OTHER SOURCES.
AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON AT THIS POINT.
SO IT'S A CONCERN THAT, THAT, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE AN APPROVED, UH, DOCUMENT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS BOARD IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE CONTRIBUTION OF REGULATION ABOVE SURFACE WATER.
AND THAT'S A BIG CONCERN FOR US, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY BIG PART OF, OF, OF OUR, UH, CONTRIBUTION TO THIS.
SO, UM, ASRA, WHAT'S HAPPENED IS A CONCERN YEP.
ON A SIMILAR NOTE RECHARGE CREDITS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO WHAT BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THOSE DETAILS NEED TO BE OBVIOUSLY INSERTED BY THE TIME THIS GOES LIVE IN 2026.
UM, I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT APPEALS PROCESSES THAT COULD USE MORE DETAIL AS WE DEVELOP AND GET INTO THE ACTUAL ALLOCATION.
THE, I THINK THAT THE MONITORING WELLS AND THE METHOD TO, UH, DESCRIBE WHAT THE 2015 LEVEL WAS, NEEDS TO BE CLEAR BEFORE THE ALLOCATION GETS IMPLEMENTED SO THAT ALL THE LANDOWNERS KNOW THE TARGET, UM, AND ALSO THE 2011.
SO, WHICH MONITORING WELLS AND THEN HOW IS OUR CONTOURS DRAWN TO, THEY CAN WORK WITH ENGINEERS AND OTHERS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO BECOME SUSTAINABLE.
I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT INCENTIVE TO HAVE PEOPLE DO THE RIGHT THING.
SO AS A, AS CLEAR A GOAL AS POSSIBLE, BE APPRECIATED.
THE, UH, OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU GUYS ALL KNOW ABOUT THAT'S GONNA BE TELLING THAT'S NEEDED IS THE RULES REGARDING SUBSIDENCE ABOVE BELOW CRAN.
THAT'S HASN'T REALLY BEEN IMPLEMENTED THAT I CAN THINK OF WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT ALLOCATION ABOVE GLOBE CRAN, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT, BUT MAY MAYBE NECESSARY IN SOME AREAS.
UH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE OPT-IN GRAZING WITH, UH, COMMON OWNERSHIP.
UH, IF YOU, IF UH, YOU HAVEN'T DEVELOPED LAND SO THAT YOUR RANCH IS SUSTAINABLE, UH, YOU COULD OPT IN AND GET SUSTAINABLY THAT, THAT BE APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY FLOOR.
I, I THINK THAT, THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE A DATE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP.
THERE WERE, I THINK THERE LIKELY PEOPLE THAT DID BUY RANGE LAND WITH THE IDEA OF, UH, NOT DEVELOPMENT SO THEY COULD MOVE THE WATER.
AND THAT INTENT NEEDS TO BE TED FORWARDED BECAUSE
[00:10:01]
IT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT FOR ANY OF THIS GRAZING LAND THAT GETS SUSTAINABLY ILL, IT REDUCES THE POOL FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.BUT WE TALK ABOUT THAT, YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE OTHER SIDE OF IT.
THERE'S A REQUEST ON ZOOM FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT TO OKAY.
CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT UP AND I, I SEE WE HAVE THESE ISSUES IN WRITING.
I'D SUGGEST THAT THE OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED TODAY BE PUT IN WRITING SO THAT WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THEM.
TO CLARIFY YOUR POINTS, SUBMIT 'EM.
JUST IN CASE YOU KNOW, THE RECORDING ISN'T THAT GOOD OR WE MISSED SOMETHING.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I DON'T, YOU'LL RECEIVE SOMETHING
YEAH, IF THEY DON'T MAKE IT, THEY CAN JUST GIVE IT TO US.
THE TEXT TO ME WAS HOLLY ASKED, I'M LIKE, NO, NO, NO.
WHO SHOULD WE ADDRESS, UM, FOR THE GSA.
ANY OTHERS? OKAY, WELL, SEEING NONE, I'LL, UM, ACTUALLY JUST, MAYBE IT'S A TACK, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO BRING UP ONE MORE THING, THING IN, IN, IN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE EIGHT, THERE ARE JUST TWO RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVE MONTEREY WELLS, MOSTLY WESTERN.
THERE'S NOTHING REPRESENTATIVE MONTEY.
WELL, ON THE VERY EAST SIDE OF OUR DISTRICT, WITHIN OUR SUSTAINABILITY, OUR DISTRICT, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STEVENSON WATER.
WITHIN OUR SUSTAINABILITY ZONE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF LANDS EAST OF US CONTIGUOUS THAT ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT GROUNDWATER.
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT FROM, UM, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ALLOCATIONS TO THOSE LANDS.
WHAT WE WANT IS A RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING WELL ON THAT EAST LINE.
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S OUR, OUR, OUR REQUEST.
SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EFFECT OF, OF, OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION IS.
UM, OH, IS THERE ANY ONLINE, OH, SORRY.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD PROVIDE COMMENT? UH, KEVIN.
I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH ALLISON SCHNEIDER, HARRISON LIN IN SACRAMENTO.
WE REPRESENT, UH, CERTAIN LANDOWNERS SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ROLE.
SO BASED ON, JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A FEW COMMENTS TODAY AND GAVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
UM, FIRST WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BOARD TAKING ACTION ON COMPLETE POOL, UH, WITHOUT PROVIDING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, THERE WILL BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT ON THE FINAL VERSION, UH, IN WRITING, IF NOT ALSO VERBALLY.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO PROVIDING MORE DETAILED FEEDBACK AT THAT TIME.
UM, BUT AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, UH, WE HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULES, RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERRING GROUNDWATER BETWEEN PARCELS, UM, BASED ON ONE, THE PARCELS BEING SEPARATE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES.
AND TWO, WHETHER OR NOT THE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERED, UH, DEVELOPED IRRIGATED LANDS OR UNDEVELOPED GRAZING LAND ON SAND.
UM, THE, THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE LANDOWNER'S RIGHT TO TRANSFER GROUNDWATER ON THOSE BASINS, UH, LANDOWNERS GENERALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER GROUNDWATER BETWEEN THEIR LANDS OVERLYING THE SAME GROUNDWATER BASINS.
SO, UH, IF LANDOWNERS ARE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO, EITHER BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN ZONES OR THE CAP ON ALLOCATIONS FOR GRAZING OR UN BELT PLANS, UM, THAT THEY POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL NEW WELLS
[00:15:01]
ON PARCELS, THEY NEED THAT WATER ON, WHICH COULD COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR EACH WELL ON EACH PARCEL POTENTIALLY.UM, IT'S CONCERNING FROM A STANDPOINT THAT TRADITIONALLY OVERLYING RIDES ARE, UM, PART OF THE OVERLYING LANDS, UH, OVERLYING THE SAME BASIN AND THAT GROUNDWATER MAY BE TRANSFERRED FREELY BETWEEN OVERLYING PARCELS, UM, EVEN IF THE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS VARY BETWEEN THE ZONES.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY IF TRANSFERRING WATER BETWEEN AREAS WOULD ACTUALLY BENEFIT CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE RECEIVING LANDS.
SO, UM, WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CAPPING OF ALLOCATIONS ON GRAZING OR UNDEVELOPED LANDS AND THE RESTRICTION ON TRANSFERRING ALLOCATIONS TO AND FROM THOSE LANDS.
UM, UH, WHICH RAISES CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT JUST THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TRANSFER RULES ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDS, WHETHER THEY'RE DEVELOPED OR NOT, UM, AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT TRADITIONAL GROUNDWATER RIGHTS THAT SIGMA PROCESSES PROTECT.
UM, AND ON THAT POINT, IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT GSAS TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DEFACTO OR EFFECTIVELY SUBORDINATE OR FAVOR CERTAIN GROUNDWATER RIGHTS OVER OTHERS BASED ON WHETHER LANDS ARE DEVELOPED OR NOT.
UH, WHICH THAT SORT OF THING TYPICALLY RESERVE COURT PROCEEDINGS.
UM, SO SOME OF THESE TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS AND AROUND HAPPENING ALLEGATIONS RAISE THAT TYPE OF
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY, UH, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE ISSUES ARE STILL BEING REVIEWED AND, UM, BEING LOOKED AT BY THE BOARD AND MAY CHANGE BEFORE ADOPTION.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT FINAL VERSION, PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENTS AND WORKING WITH YOU ON THOSE AND IN YOUR FUTURE.
UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS HERE TODAY.
AND THANKS FOR, UH, FOR BEING HERE AND, AND MAKING COMMENTS.
THANK, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT FOR HOLDING THIS.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND, AND EFFORT HORSE PUTTING IN ON, ON UNDER A CRITICAL PIECE OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENTIRE SUB BASIC, UH, MY COMMENT WOULD SORT OF ECHO WHAT THE PRIOR COMMENTER SAID WITH REGARD TO, UH, LANDOWNERS THAT OPT IN WHEN THEY HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE A DESIGNATION UNDER THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE THAT THEY ACTUALLY MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF, THAT'S GR UM, GRAZING OR UN IRRIGATED.
AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO OPT IN, UH, TO IRRIGATE IT, I KNOW THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET THE BENEFIT OF THE, UH, ADDITIONAL WATER, BUT THE NATIVE OR THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD.
UM, I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THAT IS USED ONCE THAT PARCEL'S OPTED IN.
WHETHER THEY WANT TO MOVE THAT WATER TO A DIFFERENT PARCEL OR THEY HAVE A WELL ON THAT PARCEL OR THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONNECT IT TO ADJOINING PARCELS.
I THINK THAT RESTRICTION, UM, SHOULD BE REMOVED SO THAT IF LANDOWNERS HAVE JOINT PARCELS FROM THE SAME ZONE AND IF SOME OF THOSE WERE DESIGNATED AS IRRIGATED AND OTHERS AS UH, UN-GATED, BUT THE LANDOWNER CHOOSES TO OPT IN OR IRRIGATED AND, UH, THE, THE LAND ADJACENT CONTINUOUS TO THE REST OF THE LAND, THERE SHOULD BE AN ABILITY FOR THE LANDOWNER TO MOVE WATER FOR SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND PROVIDE A MORE CONNECTED FARMING OPERATION.
WHICH I THINK IN THE LONG RUN AND, AND I THINK, UH, THE PREVIOUS COMMENTER SAID THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT AVOIDS DRILLING OF ADDITIONAL WELLS OR UH, INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING WELLS, UH, THAT WOULD FURTHER IMPACT THE UM, BASIN.
I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING ME OUT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? I'M SEEING THEM.
ANYBODY ELSE? CHANGE THEIR MIND HERE? YEAH.
YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE I STAND ON THIS? I WOULD LIKE A SUSTAINABLE YIELD AN A PA FOR WELL-MANAGED RANGE LAND AND UH, HAVE A LETTER FOR THE CHAIR.
BUR CRANE, UH, SAME AS COMMENTS HAS BEEN, WOULD YOU WANT ME TO REVIEW THEM OR NO,
YEAH, WE GOT AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING 'EM IN WRITING.
THAT JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO THANKS.
ANY OTHERS? JUST YEAH, UM, COMMENTS IN WRITING? WE JUST EMAIL
[00:20:01]
THOSE TO ASHLEY OR WHERE WOULD YOU SEND YEAH, THAT'D BE FINE.MAIL 'EM, YOU KNOW, EMAIL 'EM.
WHATEVER WE WANT THE COMMENTS, RIGHT? YES.
I MEAN WE WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT AND WE WANT EVERYBODY'S INPUT.
'CAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT.
I'LL CLOSE TO SCOTT, I CAN PICK IT UP FOR YOU
I'VE GOT A COUPLE DRAFTS, AT LEAST ONE DRAFT LEFT.
RIGHT? WELL, I, I BELIEVE, AND JEANIE CORRECT ME IF I'M AUGUST 8TH, BUT LEGALLY WE TAKE 'EM UP TILL THE VOTE, RIGHT? EVEN PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT POINT.
SO YOU TAKE THEM UP UNTIL TODAY.
BUT IS THERE A, LIKE ASHLEY AND UH, GREG, I'LL, I'LL ASK YOU, IS THERE A DATE WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL? I MEAN, WE'LL TAKE 'EM BEYOND, BUT IS THERE KIND OF A TARGET YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE? SO, UH, THINKING ABOUT THE AUGUST 8TH AND MAKING THE DRAFT AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE OF THAT, PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO HAVE A DRAFT PUSHED BACK OUT WHOLE WEEK BEFORE, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT AROUND THE 1ST OF AUGUST, WHICH WOULD MEAN, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT OTHER WORKSHOP ON THE 24TH, SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE A GOOD IDEA BY THE 24TH AND HAVE COMMENTS BY THE 24TH AT THAT MEETING.
AND THEN THAT GIVES THE BOARD THAT FINAL WEEK OF JULY TO MAYBE MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL EDITS AT THE WEEKS AND GET THAT OUT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR SOUND REASONABLE IT 24TH? YEAH, AT THE TWO O'CLOCK.
WELL, AT TWO O'CLOCK WORKSHOPS WE HAVE 'EM IN ADVANCE OR DELIVERED AT THAT WORKSHOP IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ADDRESSED IN THIS NEXT VERSION OF THAT, IN THE NEXT DRAFT.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS GOING INTO A PILOT IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY.
IT WILL BEGIN OFFICIALLY JULY, JANUARY 1ST, 2026.
SO I'M NOT TRYING TO USE THAT AS ANY KIND OF EXCUSE, BUT THERE ARE THINGS WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO LEARN AND REFINE AS THIS, AS WE ALL KIND OF TEST THESE CHALLENGES, THESE ISSUES, COMMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AND HOW THOSE GET ADDRESSED AND WHETHER THEY ARE THE ADEQUATE WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS.
AND SO IT GIVES US ROOM, I THINK, TO MAKE FURTHER REFINEMENTS PRIOR TO INITIATING IT.
AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ONLINE.
SO NOW YOUR HAND, MR, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? AND IF NOT THEN KEVIN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO NO, I, I APOLOGIZE.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW I PUT IT DOWN.
KEVIN, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YEAH, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED THIS JUST NOW, BUT WHEN WILL THE NEXT DRAFT BE ISSUED AND WHAT IS THE DATE THAT COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED AFTER THAT AND THE TIME? WELL, SO THE, I WE WOULD INTEND TO HAVE A DRAFT BACK OUT SOMEWHERE RIGHT ABOUT AUGUST 8TH, FIRST OR SECOND OR THIRD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAY OF THE WEEKEND THAT FALLS ON THE EIGHTH.
IS THE BOARD MEETING TRYING TO GET IT OUT MAYBE THE FRIDAY BEFORE OR THAT MONDAY OF THE SECOND? AUGUST 1ST IS A THURSDAY.
SO THE SECOND BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS FRIDAY, THEN YOU HAVE UP UNTIL THE EIGHTH WOULD BE THE PLANNED ADOPTION AND COMMENTS COULD BE BROUGHT VERBALLY AT THE EIGHTH MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS AND ADOPT WITH CHANGE OR WITH EDITS OR NOT.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
ONE MORE CHANCE AROUND THE ROOM.
UM, SO, UH, WE'LL JUST, UH, MAKE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN, UH, BRING IT BACK TO THE, I GUESS THE CHAIR, NOT THE GUYS.
BUT, UH, ANYWAYS, I, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HEARD ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A REMARK TO OR, OR IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS YOURSELVES.
I MEAN, I DON'T EXPECT TO, BUT I GUESS MAYBE BOB, REAL QUICK, AS FAR AS THE TION SURFACE WATER, WOULD THAT GO BACK TO THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT OR THE LAND, ALL THAT INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE, BUT I IT'S PRIMARILY GONNA BE DISTRICT, BUT LANDOWNER MAY BE RECHARGING.
YEAH, I MEAN, SORT OF HAVE SOME THE SAME SITUATIONS.
WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, AND KIND OF TO THE, THE INTENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES
[00:25:01]
WAS TO, TO CAPTURE THAT THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELDS IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE BASIN.AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOUR CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE A P'S GONNA GO AWAY AND YOU'RE LOCKED INTO A NUMBER.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE BOARD.
I, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT THAT NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN AN AREA IS LESS THAN THE AVERAGE FOR THE BASIN.
AND SO, AND IT WILL ALSO BE THE OPPOSITE.
THE IDEA IS THAT THE A, THE ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE WILL DEFINITELY GO AWAY.
BUT AS WE GET INFORMATION OVER TIME, THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER WILL CHANGE FOR EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE.
AND IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE SOME SUSTAINABILITY ZONES WHERE THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD GOES HIGHER THAN IT WOULD'VE BEEN WITH THE A BA AND BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THAT'S IN HERE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT AND EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE THE NATIVE.
IS THAT LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY IN THE DRAFT? YEAH, YEAH.
I'D LIKE POINT OUT WHICH SECTION THAT IS.
I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT.
YOU KNOW SPECIFICALLY SECTION 1 5 1 4 1 1 5 0.2 IS THE ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE ON PAGE 12.
THERE'S COPIES OF THIS OUT ON THE CHAIR OUTSIDE IF YOU WANT COPY PAGE.
BUT 1 5, 1 4 IS THE ONE THAT SAYS THAT IT WILL GO UP OR DOWN.
FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS MAY RESULT IN INCREASES OR DECREASES IN SUSTAINABLE YIELD MADE UNIT FACTOR BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE TO REFLECT THE EFFECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
MAYBE THE BETTER WAY TO DESCRIBE IS UNDER SECTION ONE FIVE IT DESCRIBES SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER SAYS THAT IT WILL CHANGE, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE DIFFERENT BY EACH ZONE.
AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE A PA, WHICH ALSO HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAUSE AND IT OR RESUME OR TO REVERSE.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD GO TO ZERO 'CAUSE THE INTENT OF A PA IS OVERDRAFT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT OVERDRAFT OR SORRY, ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND NATIVE GROUNDWATER GIVEN THE VARIED SPATIAL GEOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND GROUNDWATER.
EVERYBODY'S STARTING THE SAME, BUT THE INTENT IS THAT DATA WILL HELP US SHIFT THAT SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER.
SO YOU WILL START TO SEE VARIANCE AND THERE WON'T BE SOMETHING CALLED OVERDRAFT BECAUSE THE INTENT OF SIGMA IS TO GET RID OF OVERDRAFT.
SO IF WE STILL HAVE OVERDRAFT IN OUR POLICY, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT, BUT GIVEN A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE PUMPING OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND A DA RESULTS IN SUSTAINABILITY AND CONTINUED GOOD GROUNDWATER LEVELS, THEN THE BOARD MAY DECIDE THAT THAT SUSTAINABLE YIELD ON A PERMANENT BASIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE A DA, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD GO UP AND CONTINUE UNLESS THERE ARE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE CASE.
AND AND THEN, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG 'CAUSE I I'M NOT SURE I'M RIGHT, BUT IT'S, WHAT I BELIEVE IS GONNA HAPPEN IS THAT THE, IS THAT RECHARGE WILL BE CREDITED TO THE RECHARGER.
UM, OTHERWISE IT WOULD GO TO THE ZONE, RIGHT? SO IF SOMEBODY IS, IS BRINGING IN SURFACE WATER AND RECHARGING, THEN THEY'LL HAVE A CREDIT FOR THAT AND IT WON'T BE NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, IT BECOMES NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, THEN IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO EVERYBODY IN DESIGN.
AND WE DON'T HAVE A RULE WRITTEN FOR THAT YET.
SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THIS CURRENT PUBLIC DRAFT, IT GETS TOWARDS THAT EXACT POINT.
IT STARTS ON PAGE 19 UNDER MONITORING 1.8 AND SPECIFICALLY UNDER 1 8 1 3 IS WHEN YOU START SUBTRACTING FROM YOUR ACCOUNT A CERTAIN QUANTITY AND IT STATES CONSUMPTIVE USE WILL BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AVAILABLE ALLOCATION UNLESS THE PARTY ELECTS TO UTILIZE AN APPROVED OTHER SOURCE AS DEFINED BELOW.
WE HAVE NOT DEFINED THOSE OTHER SOURCES.
BUT THEY DO INCLUDE, THEY'RE LISTED OUT, THEY WILL BE LISTED OUT HERE.
OTHER SOURCES OF WATER WOULD INCLUDE RECHARGE, WOULD INCLUDE SURFACE WATER, WOULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE SEEPAGE AGREEMENTS, A WATER, RIGHT.
AND SO YOU AS THE ACCOUNT MANAGER, IF YOU DON'T TELL US, WE'RE ASSUMING THE CONSUMPTIVE USE IS ALL PULLING AGAINST YOUR AVAILABLE SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND A PA IF YOU TELL US AND YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION, I HAVE RECHARGE, I WANT TO USE IT THIS YEAR OR RECHARGE CREDIT OR I HAVE A SURFACE WATER AND I WANT TO USE, I'M USING THAT, THEN THAT INFORMATION WILL BE PLAYING INTO THAT DEDUCTION TO SEE WHAT YOUR REMAINING CONTINUED QUANTITY OF AVAILABLE NATIVE YIELD ALLOCATION
[00:30:01]
AND A PA WILL BE GOING INTO THE NEXT YEAR.WE'RE TRYING TO, RIGHT NOW WORKING ON A FEW MORE DETAILS TO AT LEAST ADD SOME OF THAT, UM, MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE APPARENT AND CLEAR.
BOB, TO YOUR POINT, THAT RECHARGE IS ONE OF THOSE SOURCES AND WE'RE, AND POINT IS THAT WILL WE'LL HAVE A POLICY MAYBE DATE ADOPTED BY NEXT THIS COMING SPRING SO THAT IT'S WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE ROLLOUT.
THE OFFICIAL ROLLOUT OF THE ALLOCATION.
DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY ANYTHING? YEAH, ONE THING A POINT OF, FOR ME AND MS. KERN COUNTY, AND SO THEIR MAKING DEAL IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY.
UM, AND OR THE KERN COUNTY STUFF.
AND THEIR DEAL IS KIND OF NATURAL SOURCES OF UM, OH UM, RECHARGE FROM RIVERS AND
SO THAT'S ONE COMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE DEAL.
AND THEN RECHARGE FROM DISTRICT OPERATIONS IS, IS CONSIDERED TO BE A DIFFERENT COMPONENT IN SUSTAINABLE YIELD.
SO, SO THEY MAKE A DISTINCTION.
SO, SO NATIVE, UM, GROUNDWATER IS ONE ELEMENT BUT NOT, NOT KIND OF, UM, EQUIVALENT TO SUSTAINABLE YIELD.
SO WHAT WE HAVE DEFINED ON PAGE 7 1 3 57, SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING IS A SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER.
'CAUSE HERE THE DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SURFACE WATER SOURCES OR RECHARGE.
AND WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT NUMBER AS A SUBSET OF WHAT THE BASIN HAS DEFINED AS SUSTAINABLE YIELD.
'CAUSE THAT SUSTAINABLE YIELD VALUE ADDS SEEPAGE OF SURFACE WATER THAT IS BEING EARMARKED FOR VARIOUS DISTRICTS THAT BROUGHT IN SURFACE WATER.
SO WE HAVE SUBTRACTED THAT OUT AND YOUR ALLOCATION RIGHT NOW, AND THIS RULE IS DEALING WITH JUST THE DATE OF WATER, WHICH COMES FROM PRECIPITATION, PERCOLATION, STREAM, SEEPAGE, LATERAL, UH, INFLOW.
SO THAT'S THE DEFINITION I'M ACCUSTOMED TO FOR YES.
BUT THEN THERE IS AGAIN, THIS OTHER COMPONENT WE'RE TALKING AND, AND WATER THAT COMES OUT OF A RIVER HERE IS REALLY, IT GENERALLY IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S WATER.
SO IT DOESN'T BECOME A PART OF THE NAVY SUSTAINABILITY.
IF SOMEBODY HAS WATER RIGHTS TO IT, THEY DON'T.
WELL THEN, YEAH, SO I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT.
JUST, UM, IF YOU HAVE A, A TREE THAT WATER RECHARGING AND THAT WAS ALL IN THE MODEL FOR THE GSP.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER POINTS BROUGHT UP THAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS? I WOULD JUST SAY ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD, UM, PROBABLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF KEVIN WITH FEL SCHNEIDER, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN HEARING, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT WAYS TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THOSE AND TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, HAVE THE BOARD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE.
SO WE DO APPRECIATE HEARING IT, CLARIFYING IT, GETTING IT IN WRITING.
AND I THINK WE ALREADY ARE THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AS WE HAVE HEARD THEM IN SOME RECENT CONVERSATIONS.
BUT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL SEE SOME REFLECTION OF THOSE INTO THAT FUNNEL THAT NEXT ROUND.
AND YOU STARTED TO SAY SOMETHING EARLIER, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT RECHARGING AND YOU KNOW, WE, WE NEED TO FIND IF PEOPLE HAVE WATER RIGHT TO RECHARGE.
YOU CAN'T JUST RECHARGE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO IT.
OR EVEN RIGHT TO STORE ON THE GROUND.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE THINGS PLAY INTO IT, RIGHT? BUT YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE NEED FLOOD MAR RIGHT, THAT WILL ACTUALLY DEFINE THE RIGHT TO RECHARGE AND AS YOURS TO PUMP OUT LATER.
RIGHT? BUT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE STORAGE RIGHTS ON THE GROUND, RIGHT? SO THESE THINGS ARE ALL VERY COMPLICATED, RIGHT? IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY.
AND YOUR BOARD, THAT IS YOU BOARD HAS ADOPTED AN INITIAL APPROACH THAT SAYS WE NEED TO KNOW THINGS ABOUT THE FACILITY AND YOU NEED TO HAVE A DEFINED SOURCE OF WATER THAT'S RECOGNIZED.
SO THERE'S AN OUTLINE THAT'S JUST NOT THE DETAILS YET TO GET TO MAYBE A QUESTION LIKE BOB HAS OR A QUESTIONS WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS AND ATTACK ET.
ALRIGHT, WELL, UH, SINCE THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT, I'LL UH, ADJOURN THE MEETING.
UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU BROUGHT A GIFT WITH YOU, THERE'S A WAITING AT TWO AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO SEE.