>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE FEBRUARY 13 MEETING OF
[00:00:03]
THE MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY TO ORDER.WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CLOSED SESSION ITEMS. PLEASE MAKE A LINE HERE ON THE LEFT.
MY RIGHT. YOUR LEFT. ANYBODY ONLINE?
>> I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE WILL ADJOURN INTO CLOSED SESSION IN THE ATWATER ROOM.
[2. CLOSED SESSION]
HELLO. WELCOME TO THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
>> THEN, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT BOTH DIRECTOR MARCHINI AND DIRECTOR GINO PEDRETTI WERE AT THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING.
WE DID HAVE THE CLOSED SESSION.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ALL TO STAND UP.
WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
NICK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US?
>> THANK YOU, NICK. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 4, WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
[4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]
THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA.TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
I WILL ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON EACH ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM, BUT ONLY FOR THAT ITEM. YEAH.
>> GOOD MORNING, BOARD. BEN CRANE.
REAL QUICK, IN 2025 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR TRIAL YEAR FOR IRRIGATION AND FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN IRRIGATE AND HOW WE CAN IRRIGATE IT.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I SEE ARE GOING TO BE BIG PROBLEMS. ONE IS, AND THIS IS NO FAULT OF THE BOARD AND NO FAULT OF STAFF AT ALL.
THERE'S A LOT TO DO, A LOT TO COVER, AND A LOT TO DRAFT, BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE APPEAL PROCESS TO TRANSFER NATIVE GROUNDWATER TO A CONTIGUOUS IRRIGATED PARCEL.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE OUR WATER BUDGET.
THE SECOND PART IS I SAW IT'S GOING THROUGH THE TAC COMMITTEE NOW, I GUESS, FROM THE WEBSITE IS THE 1.8.
WE'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING IN SOIL MOISTURE PROBES TO HELP US CONSERVE OUR GROUNDWATER, MORE INFORMATION.
IN THERE, I THINK IT'S 1.8.2.1, THE MSGSA HAS TO CLASSIFY OR CERTIFY THAT A COMPANY IS ACCURATE ENOUGH FOR YOU GUYS, IS THE GIST OF IT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER HURDLE ONCE THAT GETS PUT INTO THE DRAFT.
I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS OUR IRRIGATION SEASON IS UPON US.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WATER THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T PUSH THE TRIAL YEAR 2025-2026, AND THEN FULL IMPLEMENTATION IN 2027.
I UNDERSTAND THAT DWR AND MID MAY NOT AGREE WITH THAT, MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY REPERCUSSIONS TO THAT.
ALSO, WITH THAT, I THINK STAFF AND THE BOARD NEEDS A LOT OF HELP, AND THAT COMES FROM THE 218 FUNDING, AND THAT NEEDS TO GET PUSHED THROUGH SO WE CAN GET MORE HELP FOR STAFF TO IMPLEMENT ALL THESE RULES.
IN THE DRAFT, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF STUFF FROM APRIL 1, 2025 TO BE DRAFTED.
IT'S HARD FOR US TO MAKE AN IRRIGATION PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD IN 2025 TO SEE IF WE'RE SET, IF WE'RE GOOD, IF WE NEED TO PURCHASE MORE SURFACE WATER.
IF THERE'S A REASON WHY WE CAN'T PUSH IT FROM 2025 INTO 2026,
[00:05:05]
I'D LIKE TO KNOW.THAT'S ALL MY COMMENT WAS. THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? DON'T BE SHY.
>> HI, [INAUDIBLE] WE WANTED TO OPT IN SOME OF OUR GRAZING LAND.
I KNOW THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT US HAVING TO PAY RETRO FEES ON THAT, WHICH I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT.
BUT WHEN I TALKED TO JEANIE A FEW MONTHS AGO, SHE WAS SAYING THAT MAYBE THERE WOULD BE PAYMENTS AVAILABLE, OR IS THIS JUST GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AND ONE LUMP SUM PAY.
BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT FIVE YEARS IN RETRO PAYBACK, AND WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO OPT IN.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED AT ALL.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE ALL THE PAYMENTS BEFORE WE'RE ACTUALLY OPTED IN IN THE GRAZING LAND.
BUT IS THAT GOING TO BE SET IN STONE AT THAT POINT THAT THAT LAND IS IN, OR IS THERE SOMETHING, IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE? THEN THE OTHER THING, ARE THEY GOING TO TRY TO REASSESS THE PROPERTY, THE GRAZING LAND PROPERTY BECAUSE NOW, I GUESS, TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD SAY WE'RE TAKING WATER FROM IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED OR NOT.
WHEN WE HAVE THESE QUESTIONS I TRY TO REACH OUT TO LACY OR JEANIE HERE, OR WHATEVER.
BUT SOMETIMES WHEN I READ THROUGH THE LAST MEETINGS NOTES, I SEEM TO GET MORE CONFUSED.
THERE'S A LOT OF LAWYER DOUBLE TALK, AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE YOU COULD SUMMARIZE IT WHERE PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE EASIER.
IT'S JUST MY OPINION ON SOME OF SOME OF THE BIG THINGS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE.
BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN MY $0.02 ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL COST TO PUT IN 600 ACRES AND PAY FIVE YEARS OF BACK FEES.
>> GENERALLY, WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, WE DON'T RESPOND.
HOWEVER, I CAN SHARE THAT THOSE ANSWERS ARE STILL IN DRAFT FORM, AND THAT THE BOARD HASN'T MADE DECISIONS.
YOUR INPUT IS GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DECIDED, AND WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
>> ANY OTHERS? NO. ANY ONLINE?
>> THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FIVE, CONSENT CALENDAR.
[5. CONSENT CALENDAR]
DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE.DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE INVOICES? SEEING NONE, CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
[6. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM]
WHICH IS THE MULTI BENEFIT AND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET AN UPDATE FROM REN AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.>> I MIGHT, SO THERE WERE PACKETS OF THE PRESENTATION ON THE TABLE IN THE FLOOR IF ANYBODY WANTED ONE.
>> CAN I CONCLUDE ON THIS RFP REMINDER.
FIRST OFF, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, I NOTED TO THE BOARD THAT THE MLRP PROGRAM HAD RELEASED UPDATED GUIDANCE TO THE STATE AND THE DIFFERENT MLRP REGIONS.
SOME OF THE GUIDANCE, WE BELIEVE TO BE PROBLEMATIC
[00:10:03]
FOR RECHARGE PROJECTS BEING IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE MLRP PROGRAM, JUST A REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE BOARD THAT MSGSA HAD SUBMITTED CONCERNS ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SIMULTANEOUSLY AS PART OF A COLLECTIVE.ALL MLRP SUBBASIN PARTNERS OR REPRESENTATIVES FROM EVERY SUBBASIN ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER OF CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.
THE CUT OFF DATE FOR COMMENT IS TOMORROW, SO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT UNTIL TOMORROW.
I WILL JUST SAY INFORMALLY, FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGE.
THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENED, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE NEED BE THE SORT OF MODIFICATIONS TO THAT RECHARGE LANGUAGE.
I REALLY CAN'T GO AS FAR AS TO PREDICT WHAT CHANGES COME OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION REGARDING RECHARGE UNDER MLRP, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
I'LL HAVE A GREATER UPDATE FOR THE BOARD NEXT MONTH.
I KNOW THAT HAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
THE REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP NOW WITHOUT THAT GUIDANCE IS IT HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE GOING IN TO THE CURRENT RFP.
MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE PUBLIC WOULD BE TO STILL PROVIDE APPLICATIONS TO THE MLRP PROGRAM UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WILL BE SOME EFFECT ON RECHARGE.
THERE'S THE CHANCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT DECIDES THAT THERE IS NO HOLDBACK.
I WOULDN'T EXPECT THAT TO BE THE CASE.
BUT IF I WAS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PUBLIC, I WOULD STILL SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION.
THERE'LL BE WINDOWS TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION SUBSEQUENT TO THAT GUIDANCE.
IF YOU PUT AN APPLICATION AND DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE CLARIFIES THAT, HEY, YOUR RECHARGE PROJECT ISN'T REALLY A GOOD FIT.
YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE MONTHS TO PULL THAT PROJECT OUT OF THE WORKFLOW.
I WOULDN'T DISCOURAGE ANYONE FROM APPLYING, THERE'LL BE OPPORTUNITIES TO WITHDRAW THOSE APPLICATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT GUIDANCE.
GOING FORWARD, ONE MORE ITEM LOGISTICALLY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE ITEM IS IN THE ACTUAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS IN THE BOARD PACKET, BUT THERE IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO THE VALLEY ECO SCOPE OF WORK CONTRACT.
THERE WAS IN THE INITIAL MULTI BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM IN MERCED COUNTY.
GREAT VALLEY SEEDS WAS WRITTEN IN AS A PROJECT PARTNER FOR THE PROGRAM.
THEIR JOB WAS TO PROVIDE NATIVE SEED, GROW OUT SERVICES FOR MLRP IN THE REGION.
ESSENTIALLY, WE WERE GOING TO COLLECT SEED, GROW THEM OUT IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE NATIVE SEED THAT'S MERCED APPROPRIATE FOR THESE LANDS THAT ARE GOING INTO REPURPOSING.
WITH THE CLOSURE OF THE GREAT VALLEY SEED COMPANY, VALLEY ECO HAS PROPOSED TO, ASKED UNTIL MAY TO FIND A NEW GROWER TO GROW THOSE SEEDS FOR THE REGION.
WE'RE ASKING A MODIFICATION TO THE SCOPE TO MOVE THE GREAT VALLEY SEED SCOPE UNDER OUR WORKFLOW, AND THEN WE WILL SUBCONTRACT TO THAT GROWER.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THAT AMENDMENT IS APPROXIMATELY $290,000, BUT THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE PROGRAM BUDGET.
ESSENTIALLY, THAT MONEY WAS PREVIOUSLY OBLIGATED TO GREAT VALLEY SEED COMPANY.
THEN NOW WE'RE ASKING, ESSENTIALLY FOR AN EXTENSION TO FIND AN ANALOGOUS PARTNER ON THE LANDSCAPE TO GROW THAT SAT FOR US.
I THINK THERE IS AN ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OR A REQUESTED ACTION ON THE BOARD.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO INTO THE RFP FROM THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION I'M NEW ON THE BOARD, AND I'VE BEEN IN AUDIENCE PREVIOUSLY, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'VE DEVELOPED THIS AND HAD A GRANT FOR THIS MULTI LAND RE-PURPOSING PROGRAM.
MY QUESTION AND I ALSO SEE IN THE CONTRACT THAT THERE WAS HALF-A-MILLION DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF SEEDS.
MY QUESTION IS, ISN'T THE PRODUCTION OF SEEDS BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF GROUND THAT'S GOING TO THE SEEDS ARE GOING TO BE PLANTED ON? I'M A LITTLE BIT MYSTIFIED WHY THE $300,000 IS NEEDED TO JUST PRODUCE NATIVE SEEDS.
SEEMS LIKE A LOT. NOW, I'M THE FIRST TIME UP HERE, BUT I'M REALLY WONDERING, HAVE WE IDENTIFIED? DO WE HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY ACRES THAT THIS NATIVE SEEDS ARE GOING TO COVER?
[00:15:02]
DO WE HAVE A NUMBER THERE? WE DON'T.>> NO, WE DON'T AND I PERSONALLY SUSPECT THAT WE WILL STILL NEED TO BUY SEED BEYOND WHAT'S IN HERE.
NATIVE SEED PRODUCTION IS EXPENSIVE.
THE REASON THAT WE JUST TO BACK UP, I APOLOGIZE, I'LL PROVIDE SOME GREATER CONTEXT, BOB AND THESE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.
NATIVE SEED IN CALIFORNIA IS A PROBLEM JUST VERY CANDIDLY.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SEED TO COVER THE GROUND THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY MLRP PERIOD.
IT DIDN'T MATTER IF WE HAD $10 BILLION TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SEED IN CALIFORNIA TO COVER MLRP LANDSCAPE.
ONE, WE HAVE A VOLUME PROBLEM.
TWO, WE HAVE A BIOLOGICAL PROBLEM.
A LOT OF THE SEED THAT IS AVAILABLE IS COMING FROM THE COAST ARE COMING FROM SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND AREN'T COMING FROM LIKE ARID ECOTYPES, LIKE THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.
THOSE GENETICS HAVE THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS WITH THEM.
SOME OF THEM ARE GENETIC POLLUTION, LIKE WHERE THAT THOSE GENES AFFECT OUR LOCAL PLANT POPULATIONS.
SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY JUST PRAGMATIC PLANTS THAT GROW ON THE COAST AND IN THE NORTH VALLEY DON'T HOLD UP AS WELL IN CALIFORNIA. THEY TEND TO FAIL.
WE HAVE THESE REAL LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS FOR THOSE THAT WORK IN THE SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE AND HABITAT.
THE LAST AND REALLY FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM IS THE SEED IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD INITIALLY BEFORE MLRP EVEN HAPPENED IN THE REGION AND RULED GREAT VALLEY SEEDS INTO THE PROCESS WAS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T AFFORD TO FLIP LAND LIKE THIS IS SMALL.
BUT PROJECTING FORWARD, WE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO RESTORE THESE LANDS BECAUSE SEED IS SO COST PROHIBITIVE.
ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES IS TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL GENETIC RESOURCE, BUT ALSO HELP THE REGION BUILD ITS OWN SEED RESOURCES SO THAT THE GOAL IS TO GET COSTS DOWN, AND TO YOUR POINT.
ONCE WE GET TO IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS AND WE SEE HOW MUCH IT'S COSTING TO RE SEED HABITAT AREAS, I THINK THE BOARD WILL GET A REAL CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, IF NOT ALREADY ABOUT THE COST OF NATIVE SEEDS.
SO I HOPE THAT PROVIDES SOME CONTEXT, AND IT SHOULD BE MYSTIFYING BECAUSE I'VE WORKED AROUND THAT SPACE, AND AS WORKING AND WORKING IN NATIVE SEEDS, BOTH SEEDS EXPENSIVE FOR NATIVE PLANTS.
>> IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OUR CANAL AND HAVING TO TAKE OUT A STREAM BED ALTERATION AGREEMENT.
THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE PROJECT THAT WE PLANT NATIVE SEEDS, AND THAT WAS A PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
WELL, WE PURCHASED THEM AND WE DID SO.
THE ESTABLISHMENT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.
THE REASON IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE WAS THERE WAS NOT INSUFFICIENT RAIN FOR THEM TO BE ESTABLISHED.
THEY BLEW OFF AND WENT INTO THE CANAL, AND THAT PART OF IT WAS WASTED.
WHAT DID HAPPEN IS THE GRASSES THAT WE HAD THAT HELD THE BANK CAME BACK RIGHT AWAY AND EVENTUALLY, OVER TIME, WHAT WAS NATIVE THERE CAME BACK.
BUT WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS THERE GOING TO BE A PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN THE ESTABLISHMENT ONCE THESE SEEDS ARE PUT IN THE GROUND? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T GET THEM IRRIGATED UP SUFFICIENTLY, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BLOW AWAY.
>> YEAH, YOU BRING UP SOME GOOD POINTS.
IF YOU WANT THE BOARD OR ANYONE ELSE EVER WANTS A FIELD TRIP, THERE'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY CLOSE, SAN LOUIS CANAL, WHERE WE PLANTED NATIVE SEEDS FOR BANK STABILIZATION, AND WE DID WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE DID THAT AS PART OF A BROADER PRESCRIPTION WHERE WE ACTIVELY MANAGED THAT LANDSCAPE, AND MADE SURE SEEDS WERE BLOWING INTO THE CANAL AND TOOK A FEW OTHER INTERMEDIATE STEPS.
YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IS VALUABLE.
RIGHT NOW, THERE'S TWO POTS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE MLRP PROGRAM.
THERE'S THIS PRE-PROJECT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS FOLKS GO THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. IT'S A LOT LIGHTER.
THEN THERE'S A POST PROJECT APPLICATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, WHERE LIKE IF A LANDER WAS LIKE, I'M GOING TO DISC? WHAT'S MY GROUND PREP FOR SEED.
DO I DISC? AM I RING ROLLING? WHAT'S MY DRILL DEPTH? WHAT TEXTURE IF I HAVE A SANDY SPOT DO I SHIFT MY SEED MIX, LIKE THAT TYPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COULD BE ADEQUATELY ACCOMPLISHED, BOTH ROUGH VALLEY ECO AND ANOTHER PROJECT RIVER PARTNERS.
THOSE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE.
THE HOPE THOUGH IS THAT THROUGH THE CONTRACTING WORK AS PROJECTS COME IN, THOSE ITEMS COULD ALSO BE CAUGHT IN PROCESS.
[00:20:01]
SOMEONE COULD SAY, HEY, THAT THIS PRESCRIPTION FOR THIS PROJECT ISN'T QUITE RIGHT.BUT, BOB THESE ARE REAL, THIS IS YOUR NAILING.
I THINK THESE ARE REALLY REAL CONCERNS AROUND NATIVE SEED, AND REALLY RESTORATION AS A WHOLE.
>> TELL US A NATIVE SEED OR TWO AND HOW MUCH PER POUND THEY COST?
>> I'LL CALL IT A WORKHORSE SPECIES.
THERE'S SOME PLANTS THAT HAVE REAL UTILITY, LIKE PRAGMATIC UTILITY.
GOOD ONE IS FOR BANK STABILIZATION ON CANAL BANKS.
IT'S CREEPING WILD RICE SEED RIGHT NOW IT IS PROBABLY AROUND $100 A POUND FOR CREEPING WILD RICE SEED.
IT COULD GO UP TO $140 A POUND.
POLLINATOR SPECIES WHEN YOU'RE GETTING INTO MILKWEED FOR FOLKS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA, AND MILKWEED IS A BIG PART OF THAT PRESCRIPTION.
THOSE SEEDS ARE OVER $200 A POUND.
SOME OF THIS IS DRIVEN AND I WANT TO OVER SPEAK INTO THE MARKET, BUT I SUSPECT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH THE NATIVE SEED MARKETPLACE THAT PROVIDE THAT CONSTRAIN COMPETITION, PERHAPS.
YEAH, IF WE'RE TALKING REAL COSTS FOR THOSE THAT WORK IN PRODUCTION SEED.
THERE ARE WAYS TO GET THOSE COSTS DOWN, NOT ALL THE TIME, BUT A LOT OF THESE COSTS SHOULDN'T BE THAT HIGH.
>> GOING FORWARD, IF WE TRANSFER THIS CONTRACT, VALLEY UPDATES HOW IT'S GOING, WHO YOU PARTNER WITH OR WHAT YOUR PLAN IS TO GET THESE SEEDS PRODUCED?
>> IN THE AGREEMENT, ACTUALLY, WE MARKED IN FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AND I APOLOGIZE, WE BUILT IN A KILL SWITCH INTO THE AGREEMENT, NOT AT THE REST OF THE BOARD, JUST BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE.
SO AT THE END OF MAY, IF WE DON'T HAVE A GROW PARTNER, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S FEASIBLE, THIS AMENDMENT IS JUST GOING TO BE DELETED OFF OF THE VALLEY ECO CONTRACT.
WE WON'T DO IT, THAT MONEY WILL JUST GET ROLLED BACK INTO THE MLRP POT, AND SAY, HEY, WE TRIED, WE'RE GOING TO FIND THE RIGHT PIECES.
THAT IS AT THE END OF THIS MAY, WE BUILT IN THAT.
>> ON YOUR KILL SWITCH, IS THAT A VALLEY ECO DECISION OR A BOARD DECISION OR BOTH OR HOW IS IT WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT?
>> DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT WE SHOULD MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO THE BOARD NOW.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE A BOARD DECISION, BUT IT'S A GREAT QUESTION THEN.
YEAH. THE AGREEMENT STRUCTURE, NOW.
>> THE BOARD NEEDS TO APPROVE THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EXISTING CONTRACT.
>> YEAH, GENIE, BUT REN SAID THERE'S A KILL SWITCH FOR A BETTER TERM.
BUT IT WOULD GO AWAY IN MAY, BUT WHO MAKES THAT DECISION ON THAT? IS IT A BOARD DECISION OR A VALLEY ECO DECISION THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE?
>> I WOULD SAY, I DON'T THINK IT IS. GO AHEAD.
>> THERE'S IN THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IS IF VALLEY ECO CANNOT RECRUIT A GROW OR PARTNER BY MAY 30, 2025, WORK PERFORMED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT WILL CEASE.
>> WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT A KILL SWITCH IN? [LAUGHTER]
>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE BOARD WILL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT, IT WILL BE EXECUTED, BUT IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE TO FILL THE CONTRACT.
>> DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT DECISION NOW OR HEAR THE REST OF US. YOU'RE READY? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SEED CONTRACT.
>> I'LL BRING IT BACK. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED NATIVE SEED PRODUCTION SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO VALLEY ECO'S MLRP CONTRACT.
>> IS THAT PROPER? I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARTINI A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
>> I DO APPRECIATE. I DO RECOGNIZE THE ODDITY IN THAT WORKFLOW, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
IF THE BOARD HAS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT AND WE'LL BE AS RESPONSIVE TO THAT AS POSSIBLE.
[00:25:03]
THE LAST ITEM AND PROBABLY THE MOST CRITICAL ITEM IS THAT JUST A REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC THAT THERE IS A CURRENT REQUEST FOR PROJECTS OUT AND FOR MLRP PROJECTS AND MSGSA.THOSE PROJECTS APPLICATIONS ARE DUE ON MARCH 14.
RIGHT NOW, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, WE HAVE 22 PROJECTS THAT HAVE REQUESTED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
SOME OF THOSE VERY CANDIDLY, AND WE'VE ALREADY INFORMED SOME OF THOSE ARE PROBLEMATIC TO THE MLRP PROGRAM AND AREN'T VIABLE, BUT A GOOD AMOUNT OF THEM ARE VERY INTERESTING, AND I EXPECT SOME PRETTY GOOD WORK TO BE HAPPENING THROUGH THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WORK.
AGAIN, THERE'S TWO BLOCKS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
AS PROJECTS GO INTO APPLICATION, THEY CAN EITHER GO THROUGH THE WEBSITE, WHICH IS MERCEDMORP.ORG, AND THEY COULD REQUEST TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THERE.
THEY COULD ALSO REACH OUT TO US DIRECTLY OR SCAN THOSE QR CODES.
ADDITIONALLY, JUST AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND PROVIDE THE BOARD SOME INSIGHT INTO THE COMING MONTHS.
NEXT MONTH, THE BOARD COULD EXPECT A REQUEST TO FORMALIZE A PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE.
APPLICATIONS WILL BE COMING IN MID MARCH, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT INTO EVALUATION AND PROJECT SELECTION.
AS WE GO INTO THE EXPECT THAT THIS BOARD, WE'LL BE FINALIZING A SELECTION COMMITTEE TO GO THROUGH THOSE PROJECTS.
THEN AS WE GO INTO APRIL, AGAIN, THESE ARE GOING TO HIT BANG BANG WITHIN THE BOARD'S CALENDAR.
IN APRIL, WE'LL BE AIMING TO HAVE PROJECTS FOR APPROVAL IN THIS ROOM SO THAT WE WILL HAVE A PACK OF PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO MOVE TO APPROVAL HERE IN THE BOARD MEETING IN APRIL.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT TIMELINE? COOL. AWESOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT TOPIC, ARE ANY OF YOU GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THAT SELECTION COMMITTEE? NO. WELL, THEN I'LL PICK.
>> I WILL REMIND THE BOARD THAT WE DID A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK, PUT OUT GUIDANCE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
ANY BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE PROJECTS, PROSPECTIVE PROJECTS OR CONFLICTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROSPECTIVE PROJECTS IN MLRP CANNOT SERVE IN THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
IF YOU ARE APPLYING OR YOU'RE CONNECTED TO PROJECTS APPLYING, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SERVE ON THAT SELECTION COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
>> WELL, LET ME KNOW IF THAT CHANGES FOR ANY OF YOU.
>> WE'RE HAVING AN AUDIO ISSUE.
>> IS HE STILL BATTLE WITH THOSE GUYS?
>> STILL A BATTLE. YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> BECAUSE HE GOT OFFERED THAT ONE AS WELL.
THEN SAID, I GOT A CONFLICT, SO THEN HE OFFERED HIM THIS.
HE SAID HE'S GOT TREES TO SELL.
[00:30:19]
>> [BACKGROUND] WE HAD TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THE SOUND. WE'RE BACK ON.
THANK YOU. NO? CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> [LAUGHTER] WE LOST YOU AGAIN.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? HELLO. CHECK. THUMBS UP.
PERFECT. ANYTHING ELSE, LACY ON ITEM 6? MOVE ON TO ITEM 7,
[7. SUSTAINABILITY ZONE MODIFICATION REQUEST]
WHICH IS SUSTAINABILITY ZONE MODIFICATION REQUEST. LACY? THE GSA BOARD ADOPTED SUSTAINABILITY ZONES, FIRST ESTABLISHED IN 2021, THEN AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER 2023.IN 2023, YOU ADOPTED A PROCESS AT WHICH LANDOWNERS COULD CONTACT THE GSA UNDER A CERTAIN DEADLINE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO UPDATE A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE BOUNDARY TO ACCOMMODATE ANY CONTIGUOUS FARMING OPERATIONS.
AFTER DECEMBER 2023, A LAND OWNER REQUESTING A CHANGE COULD SUBMIT A PETITION TO THE GSA BOARD AND THE BOARD WOULD MAKE A CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION.
YOU DID RECEIVE A REQUEST TO UPDATE A ZONE AND INCLUDE A PARCEL THAT'S UNDER CONTINUOUS OWNERSHIP WITH MANY OTHER PARCELS INTO THE SAME ZONE, AND YOU SEE ON THE MAP HERE, THESE ARE THE PARCELS ALL OWNED BY THE REQUESTING LAND OWNER.
THE PARCELS IN GRAY ARE IRRIGATED, THE PARCELS OUTLINED IN BLACK ARE NOT IRRIGATED, AND THE PARCELS IN BLUE ARE NOT OWNED BY THAT LAND OWNER, BUT YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSED TO MOVE INTO THE NEW ZONE AS WELL JUST TO KEEP THE BOUNDARY CLEAN.
>> I'M GOING TO GRAB A REPLACEMENT.
>> CAN YOU PULL IT UP ON YOUR CELL PHONE AND JUST LET THEM HEAR IT THROUGH THAT?
>> IS IT ALL MICROPHONES OR JUST YOURS? IT'S EVERYTHING IN THE ROOM. THEY CAN'T HEAR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I REALLY WANT TO BE DOWNSTAIRS.
THAT'S REALLY WHERE I WANT TO BE. I LIKE IT IN THERE.
FOR HIM TO GO DOWNSTAIRS IF HE WANTS.
>> [LAUGHTER] THAT WAS [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'RE GOOD.
[00:36:30]
WE'RE BACK OPEN. WE'RE BACK LIVE.>> IN THE MAP, YOU SEE HERE, THE CONTIGUOUS PARCEL IS THE PARCEL IN YELLOW.
IT'S IN ZONE 1, WHERE ALL OF THE OTHER PARCELS BY THIS LAND OWNER ARE IN ZONE 2.
THOSE OUTLINED IN GRAY ARE IRRIGATED, THOSE OUTLINED IN BLACK ARE NOT IRRIGATED AND THOSE OUTLINED IN BLUE ARE NOT OWNED BY THIS PARCEL, BUT THEY'RE SUGGESTED TO CHANGE ZONES JUST TO KEEP THE LINE BETWEEN THE ZONES A LITTLE CLEANER.
YOU CAN SEE A CLOSE UP OF THE REQUESTED PARCEL, AND THE TWO PARCELS NEXT TO IT ARE THE LANDFILL PARCELS.
THE MODIFICATION WOULD BE TO MOVE THE ZONE 2 BOUNDARY DOWN TO INCLUDE THOSE THREE PARCELS, INCLUDING THE REQUESTED PARCEL AND THE TWO LANDFILL PARCELS JUST TO KEEP A CLEAN LINE RIGHT THERE.
THIS IS THE REQUESTED SUSTAINABILITY ZONE MODIFICATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS TO LACY? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. IS THERE ANY ONLINE?
>> THE REQUEST IS THE YELLOW AND BLUE PARCELS FROM INTO FROM ZONE 1 TO ZONE 2.
>> WHICH PARCELS IT SAYS ARE GOVERNMENT OWNED?
>> THOSE ARE THE LANDFILL PARCELS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
>> THE GOVERNMENT OWNED PARCELS WOULD NOT BE RECEIVING AN ALLOCATION ANYWAY.
>> THE TWO BLUES. THANK YOU, LACY FOR CLARIFYING THE LANDFILL PARCELS.
>> ARE WE STILL DOING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WE GOOD? YOU CLOSED IT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE?
>> NO. PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED AGAIN. NICK?
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONE BOUNDARY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MCKINNEY AND SECOND BY DIRECTOR JIM PAULEY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORT. LACY.
[8. STAFF REPORT]
>> JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.
THIS IS YOUR LOCALLY IMPLEMENTED LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.
THE FIRST QUARTER REPORTS FROM OCTOBER THROUGH DECEMBER DID GO OUT AND AS EXPECTED, ALL OF THE AGREEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE TOTALS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR YOU.
>> WE'LL MOVE TO DIRECTOR OF BOARD REPORTS. ANYTHING?
[9. BOARD REPORTS]
>> I JUST GOT ONE THING TO REPORT.
[00:40:02]
I WENT TO THE EASTSIDE WATER COALITION MEETING HERE IN MERCED A FEW WEEKS AGO AND I HAD A NICE CONVERSATION WITH PERRY CASON.HE DID MENTION THAT THEIR, I GUESS, REGULATION OF NITRATES IN THE WATER AND ALSO WITH DOMESTIC WELLS.
I BELIEVE HIS REQUEST WAS TO GET SOME MOU WITH THIS GSA AND EVERY OTHER GSA IN THE BASIN. MAYBE I'M ENCOURAGING.
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE EASTSIDE WATER COALITION AND WHAT EXACTLY THEIR INTENTIONS ARE AND IF THEY REALLY DO WANT SOME AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT'S IT.
>> THEY'VE DONE THAT IN THE TURLOCK BASIN.
>> [INAUDIBLE]? NO. MR. KELLY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE?
>> WELL, WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 2:49, AND OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON MARCH 13.
[10. FUTURE MEETINGS]
THEN THE TAC MEETING IS FEBRUARY 25TH AT 2:00 P.M.ANYBODY LISTENING FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.