[00:00:01] >> I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 13TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA, [1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL] WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> BOARD MEMBER GALLO. >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER PARK? >> HERE. .>> BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER KELLY. >> HERE. >> CHAIRMAN PEREIRA. PRESENT. >> MR. CHAIR YOU HAVE THE QUORUM. >> IF YOU WOULD STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD AND NOT ON THE AGENDA. TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. YES. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I READ ALL THAT FOR NOTHING. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? >> NONE ONLINE. >> I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4, CONSENT CALENDAR. [4. CONSENT CALENDAR ] DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? THEN THERE WAS A FEW FOUR ADDITIONAL INVOICES. JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE WE VOTE THAT WEREN'T IN THE AGENDA PACKET. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE ONE. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [5. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM] WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5, WHICH IS THE MULTI BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM. REN'S IN THE HOUSE. HELLO. >> HOW ARE YOU DOING? >> DOING GOOD, REN. REN'S WITH VALLEY ECO, AND HE'LL MAKE A PRESENTATION FOR US. >> GO NOT HAVE AUDIO. THERE WE GO. I'M GOING TO START OFF BY MAYBE TOUCHING BASE ON WHAT'S REALLY BEEN A BIGGER PROGRAMMATIC QUESTION UNDER MLRP. IN A PRIOR MEETING, I HAD BROUGHT TO THE BOARD THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION HAD PROVIDED UPDATED GUIDELINES AROUND RECHARGE AND HOW VALLEY ECO AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BELIEVE THAT TO BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE FATE OF THE PROGRAM. THE DOC IN MY ASSESSMENT, AND I BELIEVE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF MY PEERS, I BELIEVE THAT THEY RESPONDED VERY WELL. SOME ELEMENTS, I THINK THEY DID A FULL 180 ON THEIR INITIAL ASSESSMENT AROUND RECHARGE. I THINK IT PUTS THAT IF THE PUBLIC PUBLISHED GUIDELINES ARE WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO US, I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL BE BACK ON TRACK. WE'LL BE ABLE TO SINK WATER THROUGH THE MLRP PROGRAM IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW LANDOWNERS AND GSA TO UTILIZE CREDITING SYSTEMS AND DO INTERMITTENT STORAGE FOR CREDITING AND WITHDRAWAL LATER ON. PRETTY BIG WIN, PRETTY FLEXIBLE, JUST TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, SUPER FLEXIBLE THINKING ON THEIR SIDE. I THOUGHT IT WAS OVER. ONCE IT'S IN WRITING, I'M ALWAYS AFRAID THAT IT CAN'T BE UNDONE. BUT UNDER THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WE EXPECT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, WE BELIEVE THIS TO SOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS OR QUESTIONS AROUND RECHARGE UNDER MLRP. PLEASE, I'LL START OFF WITH GOOD NEWS. ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AROUND THAT? IF THE BOARD LIKES, I COULD READ A MORE FORMAL STATEMENT. IT'LL TAKE ANOTHER COUPLE OF MINUTES OR WE CAN JUST DIVE FORWARD. [BACKGROUND] DIVE IN. DIVE INTO THE STATEMENT OR DIVE INTO THE NEXT ITEM. >> NEXT ITEM. >> SOUNDS GOOD. THE NEXT ITEM IS A QUICK REMINDER THAT THE MLRP PROGRAM IN MERCED HAS A APPLICATION DEADLINE OF 12:59 PM TOMORROW. AGAIN, THAT RFP IS CLOSING. IT'S BEEN OPEN FOR A FEW MONTHS NOW. UNDER THAT RFP, WE'VE OFFERED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, BOTH THE ZAN HARO TEAM, THE VALLEY ECO TEAM, AND THE EKI TEAM HAVE ALL PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THAT PROGRAM. ABOUT 24-ISH APPLICANTS HAVE COME THROUGH THE TA PROGRAM. SOME JUST CHECKING IT OUT AND NOT REALLY FOLLOWING UP WITH PHONE CALLS AND SUCH, BUT JUST WANTED TO FILL THAT OUT. [00:05:02] FROM THAT 24, ABOUT A DOZEN WE RECEIVED SOME FORMAL REPORT FROM THE VALLEY ECO TEAM OR FROM THE ZAN HARO TEAM, WHERE THEY GOT TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THEIR SITE AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE MLRP PROGRAM. NOTHING FORMAL, BUT JUST SORT OF AN IDEA OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN AND INFORMING THEM OF HOW THE PROGRAM COULD WORK. LASTLY ON THE DOCKET IS PROJECT SELECTION REVIEW UNDER MLRP. IN YOUR BOARD PACKET, YOU SHOULD SEE JUST FOR YOUR OWN INTERESTS A DOCUMENT THAT LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS. UNDER THE MLRP PROGRAM, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THERE, THE PROJECT SELECTION REVIEW EXCELLENT. UNDER THE MLRP PROGRAM, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A SERIES OF PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD PRIOR, BUT WE WANTED TO FORMALIZE GUIDANCE FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC. AS OF NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS GUIDANCE UNLESS THE BOARD WANTS TO FORMALLY APPROVE THE GUIDELINES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S NECESSARY, THOUGH. THERE'S NO ACTION HERE. IT'S JUST FOR THE BOARD'S REVIEW. >> CAN I ASK? I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. WHERE IS THAT IN ALL THE PAPERS HERE? WHAT YOU JUST SHOWED US. >> IT'S IN THE AGENDA PACKET. >> I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'M JUST. >> NO PROBLEM. I HAVE MY OWN. >> DOWN TO 32? >> I CAN WALK US THROUGH IT VERBALLY IF YOU'D LIKE, TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW, BOB. >> WELL, GO AHEAD. THAT'S FINE. I'LL GET DOWN TO IT. >> ESSENTIALLY, AFTER APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED, TOMORROW, NOT DIRECTLY AFTER, BECAUSE THAT'S FRIDAY NIGHT. BUT ON MONDAY MORNING, THE VALLEY ECO WILL BE GIVING A FIRST INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH PROJECT, MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE PROGRAMMATIC CRITERIA BEFORE FORWARD TO GET ON TO PROJECT SELECTORS. THERE'LL BE TWO PHASES OF PROJECT SELECTION. WE HAD BROUGHT THIS UP PRIOR, BUT JUST A REMINDER, THE FIRST IS THE PROJECT SELECTION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDES NO ONE THAT'S PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON THESE PROJECTS OR HAS A PROJECT, ANY CONFLICTS WILL BE PART OF ANY PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS. JUST A QUICK REMINDER THERE. THE FIRST PROJECT SCORING WILL BE PERFORMED BY A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. THIS WILL INCLUDE ONE MEMBER OF THE ZAN HARO TEAM, ONE MEMBER OF THE EKI TEAM. THEIR JOB IS TO INFORM OTHER APPLICANTS ABOUT THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING OF WATER IN THE AREA. ADDITIONALLY, I THINK, DANIEL TOES WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, WILL BE SITTING ON THIS INITIAL REVIEW TEAM ALONG WITH A MEMBER OF THE SEEDS TEAM. THIS FIRST SET OF SCORING WILL RESULT IN FOUR SCORES FOR EACH PROJECT. ONCE IT GOES THROUGH THE TECHNICAL MEETING, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER MEETING OF THE BOARD SELECTION COMMITTEE. THREE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD WILL DO ANOTHER SELECTION AND PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL THREE SCORES ON THESE PROJECTS. THERE WILL BE SEVEN SCORES ON EACH PROJECT THAT GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THOSE WILL BE AVERAGED OUT, AND THE TOP SCORES WILL BE SELECTED FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE. THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW THEM, MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEMS OR RECOMMENDED CHANGES BEFORE THEY'RE SUBMITTED BACK HERE TO THE BOARD FOR FINALIZATION. I'M ON STEP 5 RIGHT NOW. ONCE THIS BOARD SELECTS THE PROJECTS, THEY'LL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THEIR PROGRAM GUIDELINES, AND WE CAN PROCEED. IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. IT'S A LOT. I SHOULD TAKE THAT BACK. IT'S A LOT, BUT IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE A LITTLE OVER A MONTH TO GET THESE OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. THAT'S THE END OF WHAT WE CAN ACCELERATE IN THIS WORKFLOW. ANY QUESTIONS ON SELECTION PROCESS, STAKEHOLDER REVIEW, COMMITTEE, CONSTRUCTION, ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES? >> NO QUESTIONS. NOPE. KEEP GOING. >> AWESOME. I COULD KEEP GOING, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M GOING BUT UP THERE. >> THAT'S IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON MLRP FROM THE BOARD? EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 5? SORRY ABOUT THAT. ANY ONLINE? >> I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT ONLINE. IT SAYS I WAS INTERESTED IN HEARING IF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION GUIDANCE ON PROJECTS THAT GENERATE RECHARGE HAS BEEN RESOLVED. >> THE ANSWER WAS YES. >> I'LL SPEAK TO THAT OFFICIALLY TBD. THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION PROVIDED A VERBAL AND POWERPOINT UPDATE TO ALL SUBBASINS. [00:10:04] IF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SUBMITS THAT WHAT THEY PRESENTED IN WRITING. IT WILL BE RESOLVED IN MY OPINION. GREG SANDHAR, I BELIEVE, SEEING THAT SAME INFORMATION. IF HE HAS SOME ANCILLARY THOUGHTS, I'D WELCOME HIM TO PROVIDE THEM DURING HIS PRESENTATION AS WELL. >> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING, GREG TO ADD? NO. ANY OTHER COMMENT ONLINE? >> NO MORE ONLINE. >> WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE TO ITEM 6. [6. WATER YEAR 2024 ANNUAL REPORT] THIS IS OUR WATER YEAR 2024 ANNUAL REPORT, AND CHRIS HUGHES WITH WOODARD AND KERN, WILL GIVE US A PRESENTATION ONLINE. >> HELLO MEMBERS. >> HELLO. >> AM I SPEAKING OKAY? >> YES. >> THAT'S NICE. I'M CHRIS HERNE, HELPED PREPARE THIS WATER YEAR 2024 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN, WHICH THE GSA IS PART OF. WE RECENTLY DRAFTED THAT REPORT. IT'S UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW. >> EXCUSE ME, CHRIS, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU? >> CHRIS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, I CAN. >> THIS IS NO SLIDE ON YOU, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE YOUR PICTURE SMALLER AND THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THE SCREEN A LITTLE LARGER? [LAUGHTER] THERE YOU GO. LOOK AT THAT. YOUR SMILE IS THE SAME SIZE, BOTH PICTURES. THANK YOU. >> EXCELLENT. THIS REPORT IS DUE EVERY YEAR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ON APRIL 1ST. IT CONTAINS TWO PARTS, SAME AS IT ALWAYS HAS A BASIN CONDITION UP DATE WHERE WE UPDATE THE MERCED WATER RESOURCES MODEL. THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE REPORT ON PUMPING AND SURFACE WATER DIVERSIONS, AND WE ALSO PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL THE SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA FOR GROUNDWATER LEVELS, STORAGE, QUALITY AND SUBSIDENCE. THE OTHER HALF ALSO HAS AN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS THAT PROVIDES A SNIPPET AND AN UPDATE OF ALL THE PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, INCLUDING MSGSAS DEMAND REDUCTIONS, AS WELL AS OTHER GRANT FUNDING AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE GONE ON IN THAT PRIOR YEAR. THE KEY SUMMARY TABLE, WE USUALLY INCLUDE AT THE BEGINNING IS A SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA STATUS UPDATE. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE VERY QUICKLY, BUT ONE BY ONE, GROUNDWATER LEVELS IS THE FIRST ONE. YOU RECALL, OUR MINIMUM THRESHOLD IS BASED ON FALL 2015 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS, WHILE THE MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE OR OUR LONG-TERM GOAL IS BASED ON NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER 2011 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS. THE UNDESIRABLE RESULT IS DEFINED AS MORE THAN 25% OF THOSE REPRESENTATIVE WELLS FALLING BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS. WHAT WE SAW FOR THIS MOST RECENT REPORTING PERIOD IS THAT SIX OF OUR 29 WELLS, ABOUT 21% UNDER THAT THRESHOLD DO HAVE GROUNDWATER LEVELS BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD. MOST WELLS ARE STILL BELOW THEIR MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE, BUT NOT ALL. KEEP IN MIND THAT 28 OF THE 29 WELLS, ALL OF THE MELT WELLS THAT WERE MEASURED WERE STILL ABOVE THEIR 2025 INTERIM MILESTONE. THE GSP EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ONGOING GROUNDWATER LEVEL DECLINE WHILE WE FIGURED OUT THINGS LIKE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND STARTED IMPLEMENTING PROJECTS. WE'VE ACCOUNTED FOR THIS. GROUNDWATER LEVELS GOING BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD TEMPORARILY. BUT LONG TERM, THE INTENT IS THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO START INCREASING SOON AS WE MAKE OUR WAY TO 2040 WHEN WE NEED TO HIT THAT SUSTAINABILITY GOAL. WE'RE IN A GOOD SPOT SO FAR, TRACKING TOWARDS 2025 WHERE THIS UPCOMING REALLY KEY MILESTONE OF 2025. GROUNDWATER STORAGE NEW THIS YEAR, GROUNDWATER LEVELS ARE USED AS A PROXY FOR THIS SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR. THAT IS A SIMPLE ONE. SKIPPING AHEAD TO DEGRADED WATER QUALITY. YOU CAN SEE THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD IS 1,000 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER OF TDS, WHILE OUR MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE IS 500 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER OF TDS, 14 WELLS OUT OF THE 43 REPRESENTATIVE WELLS WERE SAMPLED THIS YEAR. NONE OF THEM EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD, WHICH IS GOOD. THREE OF THEM WERE BETWEEN 500 AND 1,000 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER, MEANING THEY EXCEEDED THE MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE. QUICK REMINDER, THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK IS BASED SOMEWHAT OPPORTUNISTICALLY ON THE MEASUREMENTS THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED BY THE EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN WATER QUALITY COALITION. THEN LASTLY, DOWN HERE, WE'VE GOT LAND SUBSIDENCE AND DEPLETION OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS. LAND SUBSIDENCE, LONG-TERM GOAL. DGR WANTED US TO ADHERE TO 0' PER YEAR OF LAND SUBSIDENCE. [00:15:01] WE DO HAVE SOME BUILT-IN INTERIM MILESTONES AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE HERE. NEGATIVE 0.75 FEET PER YEAR, 0.5, 0.25' PER YEAR THROUGH THOSE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHERE WE SAW THREE OUT OF FOUR SITES EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD JUST WITH THE NEW THRESHOLDS. ALL THE SITES THOUGH ARE FORTUNATELY WITHIN THEIR INTERIM MILESTONES. I'LL HAVE A MAP THAT'LL EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WHAT WE SAW LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES. >> I WANT TO GO THROUGH ONE MAP OR PRINCIPAL AQUIFER FOR THE CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS. THIS FIRST ONE IS THE ABOVE CORCORAN CLAY. SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS YEAR, WE'VE GOT RED, YELLOW DOTS AS WELL AS PLUS ICONS SHOWING THE LOCATIONS WHERE GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE RECORDED, THE CIRCLES OR PLUS SIGNS, WHERE THEY WERE ESTIMATED IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONSISTENT MEASUREMENT OR THAT MEASUREMENT HAD A QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE. THE COLORED LINE. THE COLORS ON THIS MAP SHOW MORE DARKER, WARMER, REDDER COLORS INDICATE AREAS OF GROUNDWATER DECLINES, WHILE BLUER, COOLER COLORS SHOW AREAS OF INCREASED GROUNDWATER LEVELS. A LITTLE HARD TO TELL EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS ONE BECAUSE THE COLORS ARE RIGHT IN THAT MIDDLE ZONE. I TOTALLY GET IT. IN GENERAL, THE ABOVE CORCORAN CLAY SHOWED SLIGHT NET INCREASE IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS, SLIGHT POCKETS OF DECREASE, BUT VERY LITTLE NET CHANGE OVERALL, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL. THE BELOW CORCORAN IS MOSTLY IN A SIMILAR BOAT. GROUNDWATER LEVELS INCREASED IN SOME AREAS, DECREASED IN OTHERS. BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY WONDERING, WHAT THE HECK IS THAT GIANT RED BULL'S EYE RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE OR THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SUBBASIN. THAT'S REALLY BEING DRIVEN BY ONE PARTICULAR POINT, WHICH, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, IS A REAL MEASUREMENT, THAT IT IS VERY CONSISTENT, BUT IT IS SHOWING SOME ODDITIES THAT INDICATED A BIG DECREASE FROM LAST YEAR. LET ME EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE HYDROGRAPH OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE. THIS IS A HYDROGRAPH SHOWING TIME FROM 2015 THROUGH PRESENT, WHERE THE AXES SHOW EITHER THE DEPTH BELOW GROUNDWATER SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER ELEVATION ON THE OTHER AXIS. THE LITTLE TRIANGLES SHOW THE OBSERVED MEASUREMENTS WE SAW AT THIS SITE. ORANGE MEANS IT WAS A FALL MEASUREMENT, AND THOSE ARE TYPICALLY THE ONES WE USE FOR THESE FALL GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGE MAPS, WHILE THE BLUE ONES ARE OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR. I'VE BASICALLY CIRCLED OVER HERE, THE FALL 2023 MEASUREMENTS WERE PRETTY HIGH COMPARED TO FALL 2024. THE LEVELS ARE ROUGHLY MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. >> CHRIS? >> YES. >> ON THE SCREEN, IT SHOWS THE, I GUESS, THE SHALLOWEST ORANGE TRIANGLES ON 2024. NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE DECEMBER JANUARY. NEVER MIND. FIGURED IT OUT. GO AHEAD. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF CHRIS? >> GO AHEAD. >> BACK ON SLIDE ABOVE, CORCORAN CLAY, IN OUR AREA OF STEVENSON, YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PLUSES? >> YES. >> THERE'S NO EXPLANATION. I SEE. THAT'S JUST A WELL LOCATION. WHAT ARE THOSE? >> THE PLUS SIGNS INDICATE THAT EITHER FALL 2023 OR FALL 2024, EITHER WAS MISSING A MEASUREMENT OR THE MEASUREMENT HAD SOME QC ISSUE THAT WAS NOTED IN THE DATA, SO IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE USED. WE USED AN ESTIMATION METHOD TO FILL IN THAT TO AVOID HAVING SOME ODD GAPS IF WE'RE JUST TOTALLY NOT HAVING ANY MEASUREMENT. >> THANK YOU. \. >> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT'S ON FOR THOSE PARTICULAR SITES. >> THEN GOING BACK TO THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, YOU MENTIONED THAT 28 OF 29 ARE ABOVE THE 2025 IN MILESTONE. WHAT IS THE INTRA MILESTONE ON GROUNDWATER LEVELS, 2025? >> IT'S DIFFERENT FOR EVERY SITE. BUT IN GENERAL, I CAN TELL YOU IT HAS THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT WE'VE APPLIED TO EACH SITE. IT BASICALLY TAKES SOME LEVEL. IT TOOK THE MOST RECENT MEASUREMENT WE HAD AT THE TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2020 AND 2023. IT SAID, LET'S PROJECT FORWARD WHAT WE THINK THE ONGOING DECLINE IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL IS AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE BASED [00:20:02] ON HISTORICAL CONDITIONS, I THINK 2015-2020. THAT MAY NOT BE QUITE RIGHT. IT'S IN THE GSD, BUT BASICALLY IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY AND ONGOING DECLINES AND PROJECTS IT FORWARD. IT'S CUSTOMIZED PER SITE, BUT WITH THE SAME METHODOLOGY. >> WITHIN EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE, IS DIFFERENT, CORRECT? >> IT'S UNIQUE TO EACH REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING WELL. >> UNIQUE TO EACH REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING WELL. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> I GOT A QUESTION ON THAT SLIDE. THE WELSH 25% FALL BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD IN TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS. WHAT'S CONSIDERED BELOW AN INCH. >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK WE TAKE IT GENERALLY PRETTY LITERALLY, AND WITH SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT ERROR, WE WOULD I THINK TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A ROUNDING ERROR, PROBABLY NOT WORRYING ABOUT, BUT IT STILL MEANS LEVELS ARE RIGHT AROUND THAT THRESHOLD, AND IT'S NOT A PLACE WE WANT TO HANG OUT WITH LEVELS. THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY IN THOSE MEASUREMENTS WHICH YOU COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. IT'S ALL A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PER DEPENDING ON HOW THE LEVELS WERE MEASURED AT THAT SITE. >> BUT IT'S INDICATED WITH EACH SITE AS TO HOW MUCH IT'S BELOW. >> IT'S MORE DEPENDING ON HOW THE MEASUREMENT WAS RECORDED AND EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME A MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN. THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HAS SOME INHERENT UNCERTAINTY IN IT. BUT THEY TEND TO BE RELATIVELY SMALL. >> BUT IT'S INDICATED IN THE DOCUMENTS, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING, HOW MUCH IT WAS BELOW. >> YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THE HOW MUCH BELOW. >> IN EACH CASE. >> THE MOST RECENT MEASUREMENT WAS BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD. >> WELL, AS YOU WERE SHOWING US, 25% OF THE WELLS, AND SO EACH WELL, I PRESUME, YOU SHOW HOW MUCH IT'S BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR EACH WELL. >> EXACTLY. FOR AN EXAMPLE, AND THERE'S ALSO HYDROGRAPHS FOR EVERY SINGLE WELL, AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE, BUT HERE IS THE MOST RECENT FALL 2024 MEASUREMENT. WE CAN SEE THAT THIS MEASUREMENT IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD IN THIS CASE. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SITE THAT'S DOING PRETTY WELL. THERE MIGHT BE OTHER SITES THAT HAVE A MEASUREMENT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DEEPER BELOW THE RED LINE. >> THERE'S ONE OF THESE GRAPHS FOR EACH OF THE WELLS IN THE DOCUMENT. >> AND A TABLE. WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT IT BOTH WAYS. >> THANK YOU. >> CHRIS, ON THAT SAME SLIDE. THE WINTER 2023, AND I GUESS, VERY EARLY WINTER 2024, YOU HAD THIS SORT OF ANOMALY UP THERE MEASUREMENT, BUT YOU DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S RELATED TO THE FACT THAT 2023 WAS A VERY WET YEAR. THERE WAS A LOT OF SURFACE WATER IN THE ENTIRE AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF WELLS THAT DIDN'T EVEN GET PUMPED THAT YEAR. >> IT'S POSSIBLE THAT'S THE CASE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH AND TALKING TO THE FOLKS WHO TOOK THAT MEASUREMENT TO SAY, ANYTHING ODD, IS IT POSSIBLE THERE WAS WATER IN THE CASING OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD EXPLAIN THIS. BUT WE'VE GENERALLY PUT A NOTE TO SAY THAT THIS DIDN'T TECHNICALLY HAVE A QC ISSUE, BUT IT IS HIGHLY ANOMALOUS, AND IT PROBABLY DOES NOT REALLY REPRESENT THIS LEVEL OF DECLINE IN THAT AREA. BUT BECAUSE OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THOSE MEASUREMENTS TAKING OVER SEVERAL MONTHS, IT'S HARD TO COMPLETELY THROW THEM OUT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO NOTE IT. THAT'S WHY THAT'S THERE. >> BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT REVERTS BACK TO A NORMALITY OF THE PRIOR YEARS. THANK YOU. >> THE LAST ONE HERE IS THE CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR THE OUTSIDE CORCORAN CLAY. A SIMILAR STORY ACROSS THE BOARD THIS YEAR. IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO TELL. THE COLORS ARE NOT VERY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. BUT IN GENERAL, GROUNDWATER LEVELS WERE FOUND TO ROUGHLY INCREASE, WITH AGAIN, SMALL POCKETS OF DECREASE. HUGE AMOUNT OF CHANGE THIS LAST WATER YEAR. ALL OF THIS TRANSLATES TO SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT, [00:25:02] A CHANGE IN STORAGE. THIS IS A GRAPH YOU'VE SEEN SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE BRIEF GIST IS THROUGH TIME. THIS IS THE OUTPUTS FROM THE MERCED WRM, THE MODEL FROM WATER YEAR 1996 TO WATER YEAR 2024. THE COLORED BARS ARE THE INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES OF OUTPUTS COMING FROM THE MODEL, WHERE THE BARS ABOVE THE Y-AXIS OR THE POSITIVE SIDE INDICATE WATER THAT'S ENTERING THE SUBBASIN. THE BARS BELOW INDICATE WATER LEAVING THE SUBBASIN, THE LARGEST OF WHICH, OF COURSE, IS THAT GRAY BAR FOR PUMPING. THE BLACK LINE IS REALLY WHAT WE MOST OFTEN FOCUS ON THIS GRAPH AND THAT INDICATES THE CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN STORAGE IN THIS CASE FROM 1996 THROUGH TIME. YOU CAN SEE, OF COURSE, IT HAS THIS LONG TERM DECLINE. WE ASSOCIATE WITH OVERDRAFT CONDITIONS, AND I'VE CIRCLED IN RED ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE. BETWEEN '22 AND '23, WE SAW A BIG INCREASE. LAST YEAR, I WAS TELLING YOU, NO SURPRISE. THIS IS A VERY WET YEAR, THE HYDROLOGY INDEX, SO WE SAW AN INCREASE IN STORAGE. LAST YEAR, BETWEEN '23 AND '24, IT WAS ABOVE NORMAL YEAR, SO ONE STEP BELOW, VERY WET YEAR. YET, THE CHANGE IN STORAGE WAS ALMOST NOTHING. IT WAS ABOUT FLAT. TECHNICALLY, THE MODEL PREDICTS PLUS 6,000 ACRE FEET. BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, IT'S PROBABLY MORE WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR. THAT'S THE RESULT. AFTER YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE PUMPING, ALL OF THE HYDROLOGY, PRECIPITATION CHANGES, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE COMING OUT WITH THE MODEL. THE LONG TERM AVERAGE ANNUAL REDUCTION IN STORAGE IS ABOUT 103,000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR. THAT'S FROM 2006-2024, THE PERIOD OF TIME WE CONSIDERED IN THE GSP IS INDICATIVE OF LONG TERM AVERAGE. ANOTHER GRAPH WITH A BIT OF A CHANGE FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. THIS IS A SUBSIDENCE MAP FROM DECEMBER 2023 TO DECEMBER 2024, WHERE THE DARKEST GREEN COLOR INDICATES WHERE THE LAND SURFACE HAS SLIGHTLY INCREASED OR HAS BEEN ABOUT ZERO, WHERE ALL THE OTHER COLORS INDICATE MORE NEGATIVE CHANGES OR INCREASINGLY NEGATIVE CHANGES IN LAND SURFACE ELEVATION. IT'S INDICATIVE OF SUBSIDENCE. THOSE ARE MEASURED BY THE TURQUOISE OR TEAL COLORED DOTS AND SQUARES ON THE MAP, WHICH ARE THE CONTROL POINTS FROM THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, SUBSIDENCE MONITORING NETWORK. LAST YEAR, WE SAW A MAP THAT WAS VERY DARK GREEN, FROM 2022-2023, DECEMBERS WERE POSITIVE. WE HAD A VERY WET WINTER DURING THAT PERIOD, PROBABLY SHOWING SOME REBOUND FROM ELASTIC SUBSIDES. BUT WE'RE SEEING A REVERSAL OF THAT CONDITION THAT'S MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN LONG TERM IN THE MOST RECENT YEAR WHERE THOSE REPRESENTATIVE STATIONS THAT WE DESIGNATED IN THE GSP DOWN HERE, THE SQUARES, THREE OUT OF THE FOUR OF THEM ARE IN THIS YELLOW ZONE INDICATING WE'RE STILL SEEING LAND SURFACE GO BACK DOWN AGAIN IN LINE WITH THE LONGER TERM TRENDS WE'VE BEEN SEEING EVERY YEAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRIOR VERY WET YEAR. REMINDER FROM HERE IS THAT THE LONG TERM GOAL IS ZERO FEET PER YEAR, AND I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT TO UPDATE THIS SLIDE, BUT THE 2025 INTERIM MILESTONE IS -0.75, NOT 0.25. WE'VE LEFT OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM THAN THAT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERROR ON THE SLIDE HERE. THAT IS ALL THE SLIDES I HAVE. WE'LL BE GETTING COMMENTS FROM THE GSA STAFF SHORTLY AND FINALIZING THAT, IT WILL BE POSTED TO THE GSPS WEBSITE AND SUBMITTED TO DWR LAST WEEK OF MARCH BY APRIL 1ST. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN TAKE RIGHT NOW? >> I'VE GOT ONE FOR YOU. UP ON WHAT WOULD BE HIGHWAY 140, SO THE TOP RIGHT PORTION. IS THAT SUBSIDENCE UP THERE AS WELL? >> THAT'S A NEW ONE THAT I NOTICED THIS YEAR. WE TYPICALLY DON'T SEE A LOT OF CHANGES IN THIS AREA OR AT LEAST NEGATIVE CHANGES IN THIS AREA, BUT THAT PARTICULAR POINT APPEARS TO HAVE HAD SOME LEVEL OF DECREASE IN THE LAST YEAR. I'M THINKING THIS MAY BE AN ANOMALY OR MAYBE A DATA ERROR THIS YEAR, AND IT'LL BE A LITTLE HARD TO TELL UNTIL WE SEE THE NEXT MEASUREMENT COMING UP DECEMBER 2025. >> COULD YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, LLOYD? >> WELL, IF YOU FOLLOW HIGHWAY 140 OUT TO THE END OF THE YELLOW. [00:30:06] >> EAST. >> THERE'S A GREEN DOT THERE. THEN THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF BROWN AROUND HERE. >> IS IT POSSIBLE, CHRIS, TO SHOW '22-'23, DO YOU HAVE THAT THERE, JUST A COMPARISON? >> ANDY, UNFORTUNATELY. >> I DIDN'T THINK SO. >> GENERALLY IMAGINE IT'S A PRETTY PRETTY DARKER GREEN COLOR THROUGHOUT. WE'VE REALLY SAW NO CHANGE OR A SLIGHT INCREASE IN LAND SURFACE ELEVATION. AGAIN, MOST LIKELY, THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE VERY WET YEAR AND SOME ELASTIC SUBSTANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> CHRIS, AND THEN BACK ON THE SLIDE THAT HAD THE BIG RED BULL'S EYE. >> GOT IT. >> ALSO TO THE EAST AND A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF THAT, THERE'S ANOTHER BULL'S EYE. THERE'S ONE WELL THERE THAT HAD SOME DECREASE IN THE PAST, OR IS THIS AN ANOMALY AS WELL? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THIS IS, I BELIEVE, ONE OF THE RELATIVELY NEW MONITORING WELLS THAT WERE PUT IS ACTUALLY A MULTI-COMPLETION LEVEL MONITORING NETWORK WELL. AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THAT ONE. IT IS LESS OF AN INTENSE DECLINE IN ELEVATION THAN THE ONE IN THE WESTERN SOUTHERN WEST SOUTHWEST PORTION. BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO KICK OUT THE MEASUREMENTS OR INDICATE THAT THEY WERE BAD MEASUREMENTS. IT'S JUST WHAT WE SAW AT THAT PARTICULAR SITE. THIS IS RIGHT ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE EDGE WHERE IT'S THINNING OUT OF THE CORCORAN CLAY, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THERE'S SOME ODDITIES OF LIKE, PERCHED WATER LEFT OVER FROM A WET YEAR THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO SOME ODDITIES, BUT THERE WERE NO NOTES. WE HAVE NO OTHER INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO SAY FOR SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. >> ANY ONLINE? >> NOT SEEING ANY ONLINE. >> WELL, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT. LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHRIS. >> THANK YOU-ALL. >> WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 7, [7. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP] WHICH IS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP UPDATE, AND THIS WILL BE AN ACTION ITEM. LACY? >> THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY MEETING BI-MONTHLY, AND THIS IS A BOARD APPOINTED COMMITTEE. IT'S A BOARD CREATED COMMITTEE, AND IT'S A BOARD APPOINTED COMMITTEE. IT'S INTENDED TO BE A THIRD PARTY COMMITTEE OF STAKEHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBER AGENCIES TO GIVE FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THEY'VE MET OFTEN TO PROVIDE VALUABLE INPUT AND FEEDBACK, ESPECIALLY DURING THE ALLOCATION RULE DEVELOPMENT. AT THIS TIME, WE'VE HAD SOME CHANGES IN THE BOARD SEATS THAT HAS IMPACTED A COUPLE OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS WELL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING UPDATING THE MEMBERSHIP WITH A COUPLE OF CHANGES. TWO OF THE TACK MEMBERS ARE NOW PRIMARY BOARD MEMBERS, AND SO THEY WILL NO LONGER BE ON THE TACK, BUT THEY MAY HAVE A A REPLACEMENT REPRESENTATION ON THE TACK, AND SO YOU'LL SEE ONE OF THE NEW ADDITIONS IS DAVE MILLER FROM THE STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER BEING ADDED WHO WILL BE REPRESENTING THE AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT AREA OF THE BASIN, WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST, BEN CRANE. THE UPDATED MEMBERSHIP LIST IS HERE. IT'S ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF MEMBERS AS YOU HAD BEFORE. MEMBERS CAN BE ADDED OR CHANGED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE AS WELL. THIS IS FOR NOW, AND UPDATING IT NOW ALLOWS THE COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO MEET THEIR QUORUM CHALLENGES THAT THEY SOMETIMES HAVE AS LONG AS WE HAVE AN UPDATED LIST. THE ACTION FOR TODAY IS TO APPROVE THE NEW MEMBERSHIP LIST. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> WELL, ONE QUESTION. HOW DO YOU ADVERTISE THIS TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHO WANTS TO BE ON THIS? >> UP TIL NOW, ALL OF THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE CHANGES HAVE COME FROM THIS BOARD. THE MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD HAVE IDENTIFIED WHO THE MEMBERS ON THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS? [00:35:02] WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPEN CALL FOR MEMBERSHIP OR A APPLICATION. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN THE PAST YET. >> IF DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, SOMEBODY WANTS TO BE ON THIS BOARD, WOULD THEY COME INDIVIDUALLY TO YOU TO ASK ON IT, OR IS IT JUST ONCE A YEAR, WE VOTE ON IT, AND THAT'S IT? >> AS THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST IN THE COMMITTEE, THEY'VE EITHER COME TO THE BOARD MEMBERS OR THEY'VE COME TO STAFF AND EXPRESSED INTEREST. I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVER BEEN SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN TURNED DOWN TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE. >> I JUST WANTED TO ASK. FINALLY, ARE YOU HAVING ANY PROBLEM GETTING A QUORUM FOR THOSE MEETINGS? >> NOT LATELY. AS YOU RECALL, WE MADE AN UPDATE TO THIS IN THE FALL, I BELIEVE, JUST LAST YEAR, BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING SOME QUORUM CHALLENGES, BUT LATELY WE HAVE BEEN GETTING A QUORUM. THEY HAVE BEEN MEETING MONTHLY, AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW MEETINGS SINCE NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THE ALLOCATION. WE'VE HAD GOOD ATTENDANCE IN THOSE FEW MEETINGS. FEBRUARY, WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM, BUT JANUARY, THEY DID. THEN THEY'LL GO BACK TO BUY MONTHLY MEETINGS EVERY OTHER MONTH AFTER THE LATEST CHANGES TO THE ALLOCATION RULE WRAPS UP AROUND APRIL. >> THANK YOU. >> IT'S BEEN BETTER. >> JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IF ALONG THE WAY, SOMEBODY EITHER WANTED TO JOIN OR A BOARD MEMBER WANTED TO PUT SOMEBODY ON, WE COULD ADD IT TO ANY AGENDA AT ANY MEETING? >> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. [NOISE] IS THERE ANY ONLINE? >> NOT SEEING ANY ONLINE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE UPDATED TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST. >> SECOND THAT. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI, SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO. ALL THOSE IN [NOISE] FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. IN THE MINUTES, DID YOU NOTE THAT DIRECTOR MARCHINI CAME IN? THANKS. >> SHE MARKED [INAUDIBLE]. >> MARKED [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER] TIME OUT, SIR. >> IS THERE A $10 FINE FOR THAT? >> I LIKE THAT BETTER? I WAS GOING TO PUT YOU IN TIME OUT, BUT WE'LL DO 30. WELL, INFLATION. >> SO MOVED. [8. OPT-IN AND MISCLASSIFIED LAND USE FEES CONTRACTS] >> WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 8, WHICH IS AN OPT IN AND MISCLASSIFIED LAND USE FEE CONTRACT. I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO GENIE [INAUDIBLE]. >> NO. [LAUGHTER] MAYBE. >> I DON'T. I CAN. IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY ONLINE DOES HAVE A HAND RAISED. >> GO AHEAD, KEVIN. >> THANK YOU. I HAD [NOISE] COMMENTS ON ITEM 8, IF AND WHEN THE BOARD IS READY TO RECEIVE COMMENTS. >> WE'LL DO THAT IN A BIT. THANK YOU. >> THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PUTTING TOGETHER DOCUMENTS TO FLESH OUT THAT PORTION OF THE ALLOCATION RULE THAT DEALS WITH OPTING IN FOR NON-IRRIGATED PARCELS, AND ALSO REQUESTING RECLASSIFICATION FOR MISCLASSIFIED PARCELS. ORIGINALLY, STAFF HAD PREPARED FORMS FOR LANDOWNERS TO FILL OUT, WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THEN A DETERMINATION, WHEN STAFF MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, AND THEN A CALCULATION OF THE BACK FEE THAT'S OWED. WE HAD RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD THAT THAT BE PUT TOGETHER AND FINALIZED THROUGH A CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER, THAT CONFIRMED THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THAT PAYMENT, AND THAT THEY WOULD ABIDE BY THE RULES. WE HAD SOME COMMENTS AFTER THE AGENDA WENT OUT FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND CLIENTS REPRESENTED BY KEVIN, WHO YOU JUST HEARD FROM, THAT HAD SOME CONCERNS THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE RULES, AND SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DIFFERENT AND UNEXPECTED. AFTER THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT WE DON'T DO A SEPARATE CONTRACT. INSTEAD, I RECOMMEND, AND THIS IS THE FINAL FORM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NOW AND THAT I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THAT WE TAKE THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT [00:40:01] AND ADD THEM TO THE FINAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM. THIS FORM IS THE BACK PAGE OF EACH DOCUMENT, THE SECOND PAGE, AND IT GOES THROUGH THE STAFF HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED. IF THEY APPROVE, IT CALCULATES THE FEE THAT'S OWED. THEN THERE ARE THREE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THAT THE LAND OWNER HAS TO AGREE TO. THESE ARE THE PROVISIONS FROM THE CONTRACT THAT I HAVE PULLED OUT AND ACTUALLY PUT IN THIS DOCUMENT. THEN THE LANDOWNER WOULD SIGN AND DATE. THIS WOULD BE YOUR CONTRACT. THIS GOVERNS THE PAYMENT. IT STATES IT WILL BE PAID BEFORE THE ALLOCATION IS GIVEN, OR IF THERE'S A PAYMENT PLAN, IT WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAYMENT PLAN. THEY ARE KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY AGREEING TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ALLOCATION, AND THE WAIVERS AND INDEMNIFICATIONS ARE INCLUDED. I THINK THIS APPROACH MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. IT DOESN'T HAVE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, A SEPARATE CONTRACT IN THAT WASN'T CALLED FOR IN THE RULES. THESE ARE JUST THE DOCUMENTS THAT STAFF NEEDS TO PUT TOGETHER TO DO THE CALCULATION, MAKE SURE THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, AND THEN CALCULATE THE FEE. AS TO THE FEE, DEFERRED PAYMENT, THAT'S SOMETHING I KNOW YOU HAD DISCUSSED AND WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BECAUSE SOME OF THESE FEES CAN BE QUITE LARGE. EITHER THE BOARD NEEDS TO DETERMINE HOW THOSE FEES ARE GOING TO BE PAID, OR A COMMITTEE CAN BE APPOINTED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY YEARS YOU'RE GOING TO LET IT BE PAID OVER. IT MAY BE A SHORTER TERM FOR LOWER FEES, A HIGHER TERM FOR HIGHER FEES. YOU CAN PUT TOGETHER A PAYMENT BRACKET OF IF IT'S OVER THIS MUCH, YOU GET THIS MANY YEARS, ETC. SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER SO THAT WE CAN PLUG THEM IN, DO A PROMISSORY NOTE FOR THE LANDOWNER WHO WANTS TO DO IT OVER TIME OR IS ALLOWED TO DO IT OVER TIME. THAT DOES NEED TO BE DECIDED, AND THAT IS NOT IN HERE TODAY. QUESTIONS ON THE FINAL FORM OF THE DOCUMENT? >> I QUESTION, GENIE. I DON'T EXPECT THIS SITUATION TO HAPPEN, BUT IF SOMEONE, AN ABSENTEE OWNER, REALIZE THAT THEY'VE BEEN GETTING CHARGE FEES AND THEY SAY THEY ARE A GRAZER AND THEY WANT TO GET REFUND, DOES THIS CONTRACT WORK AS SUCH? IT'S A GRAZING PARCEL CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED. I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. I DON'T THINK OUR RULES ANTICIPATE THAT RIGHT NOW, SO THIS FORM WOULD NOT ADDRESS THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MIKE? >> IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD PAY THESE FEES OVER TIME, BUT BENEFIT FROM IT BEFORE THEY'VE PAID THE FEES. >> THAT'S UP TO YOU. WE HAD DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, AND I KNOW THE BOARD HAD SEEMED ACCOMMODATING IN THE PAST TO PAYMENT OVER TIME, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED BY THE BOARD AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE BOARD. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, BUT YES, WHAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED WAS THAT YOU WOULD PAY OVER TIME, AND ONCE YOU MADE THE FIRST PAYMENT, YOU WOULD RECEIVE YOUR ALLOCATION. BUT IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS AS DUE OVER TIME. THAT'S A DECISION THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE. >> AS TO THAT POINT, IS IT ANTICIPATED THAT THE BOARD WOULD ADOPT A POLICY ON THAT? >> YES, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A RECOMMENDATION OF HOW MANY YEARS YOU WOULD GET FOR WHAT AMOUNT, IF ANY. IT SHOULD BE IN WRITING, YES. >> I HAVE ONE. ON THE THREE BOXES THAT YOU BROUGHT OVER, SO THE MIDDLE ONE SAYS,"I, THE APPLICANT, AGREE TO NOT CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY." IS THERE A REASON WHY IT SAYS IT THAT WAY INSTEAD OF THEY'RE AGREEING THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY VERSUS TO NOT CHALLENGE THAT WE DO? >> NO, IT COULD BE EITHER WAY. [LAUGHTER] IF YOU PREFER IT THAT WAY, WE COULD DEFINITELY CHANGE IT. >> I PREFER IT THAT WAY. I AGREE TO THE AUTHORITY OF. THAT WAY, THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION UP FRONT. OKAY. >> WE'LL TWEAK THAT. >> ANY OTHERS? >> I'M SORRY, HELP ME OUT HERE. [00:45:02] RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS OPT-IN, BUT WE HAVE NOW NEXT TO DISCUSSION OF THE INCORRECT ASSESSORS. >> NO, I'M REFERRING TO BOTH. BOTH WOULD BE CHANGED IN THE SAME MANNER. >> COULD YOU HELP ME DETERMINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? THEY'VE BEEN RECOGNIZED, THEY'RE IN THE GSA. HOW DOES IT DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S INCORRECT OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE OPTING IN? >> I'M NOT GOING TO QUOTE THE CRITERIA, BUT IF IT'S INCORRECT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU HAD HISTORICALLY IRRIGATED OR THAT YOU HAD PARTIALLY INSTALLED AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM OR SOMETHING TO START IRRIGATING. YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING SHOWING THAT THERE'S A MISCLASSIFICATION. IF THERE'S NO HISTORY OF IRRIGATION, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO OPT IN. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> THANK YOU. >> I AM RECOMMENDING THIS ON BOTH FORMS. WE HAD ADDED THE LANGUAGE ON BOTH FORMS. WE WOULD MAKE DIRECTOR PERES' CHANGES ON BOTH FORMS. WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADOPT THE FORM AS PRESENTED RATHER THAN THE FORM AND THE CONTRACT. >> ON THE ON THE RECLASSIFICATION, IF LAND WAS SHOWN AS NOT IRRIGATED, BUT IS, IN THAT CASE, I GUESS IT'S THE SAME EITHER WAY, BECAUSE BOTH FORMS HAVE A SCHEDULE OF FEES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE PAID. >> THE FEES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, YES. >> IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THAT CASE WHICH FORM THEY'RE ON? >> IT'S JUST THE ADDED CRITERIA THAT TO OPT FOR THE MISCLASSIFICATION, YOU WOULD NEED TO SHOW THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS. >> ONE MORE QUESTION. FOR PARTIALS THAT HAVE BECOME IRRIGATED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, SAY IN 2023, WOULD THEY BE OPTING IN, OR WOULD THEY BE INCORRECT CLASSIFICATION JUST SO WE KNOW WHICH ONE YOU'RE GOING TO USE. >> [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE RULE. I DON'T RECALL UNDER THE RULE WHAT THE MISCLASSIFICATION SAYS, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN IRRIGATED BY. >> IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN IRRIGATED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE RULE ON OCTOBER 10, 2024. >> IF IT STARTED IRRIGATING LAST MONTH, IT WOULD BE AN OPT IN. >> BUT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2024, IT WOULD BE A MISCLASSIFICATION? >> IF IT WAS A PARCEL THAT WAS IRRIGATED, BUT THE ASSESSORS LAND USE DATA SAYS IT WAS A GRAZING PARCEL, AND SO ALL OF THE PAST YEARS IT HAS NOT BEEN PAYING THE IRRIGATED FEES, IT'S BEEN PAYING THE GRAZING FEES, THEN THAT WOULD BE A MISCLASSIFICATION THAT YOU WOULD CHANGE AND WOULD PAY THE MISCLASSIFICATION FEES. >> JUST FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME, THE YEARS THAT IT CHANGED CLASSIFICATION? >> YEAH. THE FEES ARE FROM 2019-2025 FOR THE 2019 SGMA COMPLIANCE FEE BECAUSE THAT STARTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR '19/'20. AND THEN FOR THE PHASE 1 FEE, IT DATES BACK TO FISCAL YEAR '22/'23, WHICH IS WHEN THOSE FEES WENT INTO PLACE. IT WOULD BE THOSE YEARS OF FEES UP TO CURRENT. >> WAS THAT IT BOB OR? >> YEAH, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> IF LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED AND IT IS NOT, THEN THE INCORRECT ASSESSORS DETERMINATION. THEN WE'VE GOT FEES ON HERE, SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EXPECT THE FEES BACK TO NICK'S POINT. IT DOESN'T STATE THAT IT'S ONLY COMING TO THESE FEES. IT DOESN'T SAY THEY'RE JUST COMING TO THE GSA. IF I'M READING THIS, I WOULD SAY, WELL, THEN THE TOTAL FEES DUE ME FROM THE GSA ARE THESE. HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? >> A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST, A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN [00:50:02] THE OPTING IN VERSUS THE MISCLASSIFIED IRRIGATED, IF YOU OPT IN LAND, YOU'RE CLASSIFIED GRAZING, YOU'RE OPTING IT IN, YOU GET THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER, YOU DO NOT GET APA. IF YOU'RE CLAIMING YOU OR MISCLASSIFIED, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO CLAIM THE APA, ALSO. THERE'S ONE OF THE VARIANCES THAT OCCURS IF THAT. MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. ALSO, TO ADDRESS NICK'S POINT, WHICH I THINK YOU'RE ALSO ASKING, ON YOUR EXISTING WEBSITE, SOMETHING THIS BOARD ADOPTED YEAR OR TWO AGO OR SOMETHING. THERE IS A PHASE 1 APPEAL PROCESS FOR BEING MISCLASSIFIED. IF YOU'RE PAYING AND YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, I'M NOT IRRIGATING, I HAVEN'T BEEN IRRIGATED, BUT I'VE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED, YOU CAN APPEAL THAT, AND THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A REFUND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT APPEAL PROCESS. THERE WAS ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHRINK YOUR FOOTPRINT IF YOU HAD LAND CLASSIFICATION THAT WAS MAYBE I KNOW THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS OUT IN THE MERCED RIVER, AND HAD A BUNCH OF GRAVEL DEPOSITS THERE FROM PRIOR MINING OPERATIONS, AND IT'S LIKE, THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE IRRIGATED, SO WE CAN APPEAL A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THOSE PROCESSES YOU HAD ADOPTED ALREADY A WHILE BACK AND THEY ARE ON THE WEBSITE AVAILABLE TO DOWNLOAD AND MAKE THAT APPEAL PROCESS. THERE'S A FORM THERE AND THERE'S A PROCESS STATED. FOR THESE FORMS HERE, THIS IS A TALKING ABOUT GOING FORWARD AND GETTING INTO OPTING IN AS GRAZING LAND OR OPTING IN AS MANAGED WETLAND AND GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER OR STATING THAT, HEY, I HAVE BEEN IRRIGATING PRIOR TO THAT DATE, AND THAT WAY YOU CAN ALSO GET ACCESS TO THE APA. DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL THREE OF THOSE SITUATIONS? >> SOUNDS LIKE TWO OF THEM OR ONE OF THEM IS ELIGIBLE ON TWO DIFFERENT FORMS? >> IF I'VE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED, AND I WANT TO APPEAL THAT AND I FILL OUT THE APPEAL FORM. >> IT WOULDN'T BE THIS APPEAL FORM. THERE'S ALREADY THE SEAL FORM ON THE WEBSITE FROM THE PAST RULE. >> THIS MISCLASSIFICATION IS I'VE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS GRAZING, BUT I'VE BEEN IRRIGATED. THE OTHER ONE THAT YOU ADOPTED A WHILE A YEAR OR TWO YEARS AGO, 2022, LACEY'S INFORMING CORRECTLY, THAT THAT IS IF I WAS CLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED, BUT I'M ACTUALLY GRAZING. IT FLIPPED IT. THAT WAS THE ONE WE COVERED BEFORE. NOW WE'RE COVERING BECAUSE YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AN ALLOCATION, AND YOU'RE WANTING TO SAY, HOLD ON A SECOND, I'VE BEEN WRITTEN AS GRAZING, BUT NOW I'M GOING TO MISS OUT ON THE APA. I WAS ACTUALLY IRRIGATING PRIOR TO THAT DATE. HERE'S MY PROOF OF THAT. THAT'S THAT MISCLASSIFICATION FORM. OR I AM GRAZING, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO OPT IN FOR A SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER, HERE'S MY OPT IN, AND I'LL BE PAYING THESE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TO NOW ACCESS GROUNDWATER THROUGH ALLOCATION RULE. >> WE'LL HAVE THREE FORMS. >> THERE ARE THREE FORMS FOR THREE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. >> TWO YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY, ONE YOU'VE ALREADY. >> THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION. >> WELL, I WOULDN'T LISTEN AND I APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE THREE FORMS NOW? >> WE ARE PROPOSING TWO FORMS TODAY TO OPT IN AND THEN WE HAVE A FORM ON THE WEBSITE FROM 2022 THAT ADDRESSES BASICALLY OPTING OUT. GETTING MONEY BACK. I HAVE NEVER IRRIGATED. I'VE BEEN MISCLASSIFIED AS IRRIGATED. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD. >> JUST CURIOUS. I'M A LITTLE NEW HERE. IS THERE EXPECTED A BIG DEMAND FOR THIS THAT PRECIPITATED THIS? DO YOU EXPECT A VOLUME OF PEOPLE MAKING THESE REQUESTS? >> WE REALLY, AT THIS POINT, DON'T KNOW HOW MANY. WE KNOW THERE IS A DEMAND. IT WAS PUT TOGETHER BECAUSE OUR NUMEROUS WORKSHOPS THERE WERE REQUESTS ON HOW COULD THIS BE DONE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY AT THIS POINT. >> WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IN LEGRAND, AND IT'S QUITE INTERESTING WHAT COMES OUT. >> NICK. >> NO, I THINK THE OPT IN IS GOING TO BE WHAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE MOST INTEREST. I DON'T THINK THE MISCLASSIFICATION IS GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE. >> WE KNOW THERE ARE A FEW MISCLASSIFICATIONS, SOME THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, AND SOME THAT PROBABLY EXIST THAT WE'VE SEEN ON SATELLITE, LOOKS LIKE IT'S IRRIGATING AND HAS A CROP THERE, BUT IT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS GRAZING. THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OUTREACH TO ADDRESS THOSE, BUT I THINK THOSE WERE A LOT OF SMALLER PARCELS, LIKE 10 ACRE PARCELS OR OTHER THINGS. TO YOUR POINT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO WANT TO OPT IN GOING FORWARD, AND THAT'S THE PRESERVATION OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS GROUNDWATER UNDER THE ALLOCATION. THEN THERE ARE SOME MISCLASSIFIED. [00:55:01] THE VOLUME OF THAT IS PROBABLY NOT EXTENSIVE, BUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MAYBE MORE THAN JUST A COUPLE, BUT THE TOTAL ACRES IS PROBABLY NOT GINORMOUS IF THAT IS A WORD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THIS IS KEVIN BERCY AGAIN. IS THE BOARD READY TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE ARE. >> WE REPRESENT LANDOWNERS IN SUBBAYS AND AS JEANIE ALLUDED TO BEFORE. THE OPT IN PROCESS AND THE PARCEL MISCLASSIFICATION APPEAL PROCESS ARE BIG DEALS FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO RELY ON THAT FOR THEIR SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY INTO THE FUTURE. WE DON'T KNOW THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY, BUT FOR THOSE WHO WILL NEED THAT OPTION, IT'S VITAL. AS TO THE SUGGESTIONS OR THE NEW RECOMMENDATION THAT JEANIE'S PUT BEFORE YOU, IT'S HARD TO COMMENT ON THE FLY. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF CARRYOVER FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS PROPOSED INTO THE NEW FORM THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, ALTHOUGH THE FORM BEING PROPOSED NOW SEEMS LIKE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT IT'S HARD TO COMMENT ON THE FLY, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED FOR LAND OWNERS TO REVIEW BEFOREHAND, AND OUR CLIENTS HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST THE NEW FORM YET, LET ALONE, THE CONTRACTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE REMOVING OR AT LEAST, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAD REMOVED SECTION 4 FROM THE CONTRACT, WHICH WAS TITLED NO GUARANTEE OF WATER. WE HAD SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT CONTRACT OR REQUIREMENT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S BEEN REMOVED, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT ALSO HAD UNDER SECTION 3C, A LIABILITY WAIVER, AND I THINK THAT HAS BEEN CARRIED OVER INTO THE NEW VERSION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT STILL THAT PROVISION IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT'S OVERLY BROAD. IN ESSENCE, IT TAKES AWAY A LANDOWNER'S ALLOCATION IF THEY WERE TO CHALLENGE THE GSA'S AUTHORITY ANYTIME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GSA IS ACTING LEGITIMATELY. LANDOWNERS ALREADY HAVE GROUNDWATER RIGHTS SO WHETHER YOU GET YOUR ALLOCATION OR NOT, SHOULD ONLY DEPEND ON FORMS AND FEES. IT SHOULDN'T DEPEND ON SIGNING A WAIVER OF ALL FUTURE LIABILITY CART WATCH. MORE GENERALLY, REQUIRING THAT LAND OWNERS SIGN THESE CONTRACTS, WHETHER IT'S ON A FORM OR IN A MORE FORMAL LOOKING CONTRACT, IT PRESENTS A ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. THOSE WHO HAVE TO OPT IN WILL LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE GSA IF THEY SIGN IT, AND THEY WOULD THEREFORE LOSE THEIR ALLOCATION. WHEREAS OTHER LANDOWNERS WHO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN A CONTRACT. THOSE WHO ARE OPTING IN OR APPEALING A PARCEL OF MISCLASSIFICATION, THEY WOULD GET TO APPARENTLY RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO SUE THE GSA OR CHALLENGE THE GSA AND KEEP THEIR ALLOCATION. THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR. LAST FEW COMMENTS, THAT THE CONTRACTS FEEL A BIT COERCIVE BECAUSE IT LEAVES LANDOWNER WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. YOU EITHER SIGN THIS CONTRACT OR FORM, OR YOU DON'T RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION, EVEN IF THAT'S YOUR ONLY POTENTIAL SOURCE OF WATER. THAT DOESN'T REALLY LEAVE THEM WITH A CHOICE EXCEPT TO SIGN THE CONTRACT, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO WON'T BE RECEIVING AN ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE UNDER THE RULE. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYBODY WANTS TO SUE, WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT A LAND OWNER SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO DO SO IN THE EVENT THAT THE SITUATION WARRANTS IT LATER, WHETHER YOU RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION IT SHOULDN'T ONLY DEPEND ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, NOT WHETHER YOU SIGNED A WAIVER OR NOT. OF COURSE, IF A LAND OWNER BREAKS THE RULES, THE GSA CAN ENFORCE THEM, BUT THAT ASSUMES THAT GSA IS ALSO ACTING PROPERLY WITHIN THE RULES AND ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SGMA. YEAH. MOST OF THE PROVISIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE RULE THAT YOU ALREADY ADOPTED PROVIDES REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTING FORMS AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND ALL THAT. REALLY, THE CONTRACTS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL THAT WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO PUBLISH [01:00:01] THE NEW VERSION THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT'S GOING FORWARD. AGAIN, IT'S A VITAL ISSUE FOR THOSE WHO WILL DEPEND ON THOSE OPT IN AND PARCEL APPEAL BENEFITS THAT THE RULE PROVIDES THEM. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENTS FOR ITEM 8. >> THANK YOU. >> IT LOOKS LIKE LOU HAD A COMMENT TO YOUR COMMENTS, KEVIN. IT SAYS, I DO NOT SEE A WAIVER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THIS NEW CONTRACT, AS KEVIN BERCY STATED. CAN YOU PLEASE EDUCATE US WHERE THIS WAIVER IS? >> A PUBLIC COMMENT ISN'T FOR A DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION, WHICH IS FINE THAT PEOPLE CAN SAY THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT ANYWAYS, LACEY, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> ELLEN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANKS FOR REVIEWING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF SEVERAL WETLAND LAND OWNERS WHO WILL BE UTILIZING THE OPT IN PROCESS, IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO GET A COPY OF THE FULL CONTRACT. I MUST AGREE WITH THE PRIOR COMMENT THAT I'M QUESTIONING HOW MUCH A CONTRACT IS NEEDED AND HOW STRICT IT HAS TO BE. I WOULD ALSO REALLY ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO EITHER APPOINT A COMMITTEE OR CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY FOR A LONGER TERM PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PROPERTIES THAT OPT IN. THE REASON WHY I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. ON BOARD MEMBER SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE GETTING THE ALLOCATION BEFORE THEY PAID ALL OF THEIR FEES. BUT IN REALITY SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE SIMPLY CHARACTERIZED BY THE COUNTY UNDER CERTAIN LAND USE CODES, AND SO THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED TAX BILLS, LIKE OTHER IRRIGATED LANDS HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE BOARD DIDN'T ADOPT ITS ALLOCATION POLICY UNTIL LATE LAST YEAR, AND SO THERE REALLY WASN'T AN OPT IN PROCESS ESTABLISHED UNTIL LATE LAST YEAR, AND I DON'T THINK THE LAND OWNERS THAT NEED TO OPT IN REALLY HAD ANY CHOICE, BUT TO JUST KEEP PAYING WHATEVER TAX BILLS THEY RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEIR LAND WAS CLASSIFIED. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, I THINK IN A 200 ACRE PROPERTY. THOSE FEES ARE OVER $5,000 A YEAR. ASKING A LANDOWNER WHO'S BEEN RECEIVING ITS BILLS AND PAYING ITS BILLS EVERY YEAR, AS THE COUNTY HAS ASKED, MAYBE IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS GRAZING AND IT'S A WETLAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO PAY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF BACK FEES IN ORDER TO OPT IN. WE WOULD ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE PERIOD FOR THOSE LANDOWNERS WHO CHOOSE TO USE THE OPT IN PROCESS. THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? >> LOU. >> THANK YOU. I WILL MAKE A BRIEF PUBLIC COMMENT. I DO AGREE WITH THE PRIOR TWO SPEAKERS THAT AN ADDITIONAL CONTRACT IS PROBABLY NOT NEEDED. I WILL JUST ECHO ONE THING THAT KEVIN SAID. I THINK THAT JEANIE AND/OR THE BOARD HAS MADE HUGE STRIDES IN THIS NEW CONTRACT. I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB, BUT IT LOOKS ACCEPTABLE TO ME. MAYBE YOU GUYS NEED MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, NOT SURE. BUT I THINK KEVIN WAS PROBABLY SPEAKING AS TO THE PRIOR VERSION OF THE CONTRACT. THE NEW CONTRACT LOOKS GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THERE. >> ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? >> NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE. >> WELL, I HAVE IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT. >> HEY, BOARD. BEN CRANE. I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. DITTO FOR THE LAST THREE SPEAKERS. THE ONE THING I DO WANT TO SAY IS WHAT I'M LOOKING UP, SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT IS 11.1.1.1. THE OWNER MUST SUBMIT REQUIRED MSGSA PROVIDED FORMS, IDENTIFYING THE MISCLASSIFIED PARCELS AND PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, DEMONSTRATING THAT EITHER, ONE, THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT GREG WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH SATELLITE OR TWO, SIGNIFICANT CROP OR AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024. I KNOW THAT APPLIES TO MYSELF AND A FEW OTHERS. I HEARD SOME COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF THE CROP OF WHAT WOULD BE NUMBER ONE IS THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED, BUT SOME THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CROP INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED. I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR GUYS' ATTENTION. IT'S NOT JUST ME, BUT OTHER LAND OWNERS THAT I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THANK YOU. [01:05:03] >> PULL A COMMENT? COME ON UP. >> ANYWAY, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN STRAIGHTENED OUT THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY. IF THERE WAS OTHER FEES OR THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH, IT SOUNDED LIKE WE'RE STUCK WITH IT. THEN AT THIS POINT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ALL THE RULES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FIGURED OUT. I GUESS THERE HAS BEEN A NEW CONTRACT, BUT I FELT LIKE THAT. I GUESS MONDAY, IT HAPPENED THAT THOSE THINGS SHOULD PROBABLY BE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT DOOR THERE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE OTHER PAPERWORK. I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT DOWN THE ROAD, HOW MUCH THESE FEES COULD POSSIBLY, GO UP, IF YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THEM TO MAYBE RELATIVELY STABLE. IT'S HARD TO PLAN WHEN WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WATER WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ALLOCATED TO US WITH THE RANGE-LAND. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT TYPE OF DEADLINES OR I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ON THESE APPLICATIONS. ARE WE ANTICIPATING THESE THINGS TO BE DONE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO THOSE WERE THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN. THEN IT WAS JUST FRUSTRATING RIGHT NOW. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO GUARANTEE WATER, BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT'S HUGE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED A, BECAUSE YOU'RE GUARANTEEING AT THIS POINT THAT YOU GET PAID. OR THE SUB BASIN GETS PAID FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE THAT WE KNOW WHAT WATER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SO WE CAN PLAN MOVING FORWARD, SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. LACY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WERE THESE UPDATED FORMS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET? >> THE PACKET INCLUDED THE OLD FORMS THAT WAS EMAILED OUT ON FRIDAY AND POSTED ONLINE. THESE NEW FORMS WERE JUST ACTUALLY FINALIZED TODAY. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC ON THE TABLE OUT FRONT HERE IN PERSON, AND IF WE'VE RUN OUT, WE CAN MAKE COPIES FOR YOU. BUT WE WILL POST THE NEW FORMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY FOR THE PUBLIC. WE'LL POST THOSE ONLINE. UNDER THE MEETING MATERIALS? >> I GUESS WAS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENT? IN LIEU OF THE FACT THAT THE FORMS ARE JUST CAME OUT, IT IF ONE OF YOU WANTED TO MOVE THIS TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING, I THINK THAT'D BE PRUDENT. >> SO MOVED. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AS THEIR SECOND? MIKE GALLO. IT'S BEEN MOVE BY DIRECTOR PARK AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR GALLO TO TABLE ITEM 8 TO OUR NEXT MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 9, [9. PUBLIC WORKSHOP: GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE UPDATE] WHICH IS A PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE UPDATE. GREG YOUNG, ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE US A REVIEW OF THE DRAFT MONITORING AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES LANGUAGE? >> YES, I AM. DID YOU WANT TO DO ANY INTRO LACY? >> OF COURSE, SHE DOES. >> NO DRUM ROLE TODAY. THIS IS FOLLOWING UP ON THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED IN THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING. THERE ARE A LIST OF ITEMS IN THAT RULE THAT ARE TO BE DRAFTED BY APRIL 1ST. THIS IS BASICALLY THE FIRST BOARD MEETING RELEASE OF A COUPLE OF THOSE SECTIONS. [01:10:04] THERE THE IMPORTANT SECTIONS UNDER 1.8 MONITORING. WHICH IS MONITORING OF CONSUMPTION AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE, SO WE HAVE WALKED THROUGH THESE ITEMS WITH THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE OF BOARD MEMBERS, WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SOME CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING. AD HOC COMMITTEE COMMENTS. THEN I THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME COMMENTS FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT I WOULD SAY ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. NOW I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO GREG. WE HAVE SOME SLIDES THAT OUTLINE THESE SECTIONS, AND WE CAN ALSO PULL UP THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE ITSELF THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER AND THE TWO NEW SECTIONS OF LANGUAGE THAT WERE IN THE AGENDA PACKET THAT WAS RELEASED ON FRIDAY AND THAT WAS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. WE CAN PULL THOSE UP AS WELL. AND OF COURSE, THE ORIGINAL ALLOCATION RULE IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. >> THANK YOU, LACY. ALL RIGHT, GREG. FOLLOWING ON THAT, IF ANYBODY DOES WANT TO GO LOOK ON THEIR OWN, ON THE WEBSITE, THE MSGSAS WEBSITE UNDER GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION, AND THEN SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM IS THE FINAL OCTOBER RULE. I WAS REFRESHING MY OWN MEMORY ON THAT AND IF YOU RECALL, THAT'S A MULTI-PAGE DOCUMENT, AND IT STARTS WITH SECTION 1, GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE AND SECTION 1.1 ALL THE WAY THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER SECTIONS TO 112, AND I THINK, WHAT IS THE BOTTOM OF THIS THING, GET TO 111, 1.12. WHICH WAS A VARIANCE. THERE WAS A LOT IN THERE, AND WITHIN THAT WAS SECTION 1.8, WHICH WAS MONITORING. SECTION 1.8 IN THE OCTOBER DRAFT INCLUDED 1.8.1, AND ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WELL, ALL THE WAY UP 1.8.1, WHICH INCLUDED SEVERAL SUBSECTIONS. THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE OCTOBER DRAFT. IT'S PART WE'RE SHOWING HERE. WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD TOGETHER TODAY INCLUDES THAT SAME PART, SO THAT'S NOT NEW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR AND THAT WHAT WE'RE ADDING STARTS ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS MONITORING SECTION UNDER 1.8.2 TRACKING OF CONSUMPTION. IF THAT'S CLEAR, WE'RE GOING TO START GOING THROUGH ALL OF THOSE PIECES. [NOISE] YOU CAN SEE ON HERE AS SHOWING UP HERE, LACY SHOWING, 1.8.2 SAYS BY APRIL 1, 1.8.3 BY APRIL 1. THERE'S SOME CHANGES IN THE NUMBERING WE HAVE HERE. THAT'LL MAKE SENSE AS WE TALK THROUGH SOME OF THIS. THESE WERE JUST CALLING OUT MAJOR PARTS THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING AND BRINGING FORWARD TODAY THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD'S AD HOC COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITHIN THE TAC AND ARE BEING BROUGHT FORWARD HERE FOR MORE PUBLIC DISCUSSION. IF YOU WANT TO JUMP OVER TO THE AGENDA PACKET VERSION, LACY, OR ACTUALLY, MAYBE WELL, LET'S GO TO THE AGENDA PACKET VERSION. WHAT WE SEE HERE, MAYBE MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. THIS IS THE 1.8.2. SORRY. I HAVE MY HARD COPY VERSION HERE WITH SOME THINGS TO BE ABLE TO HIGHLIGHT. >> GREG, IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOU FOR JUST A MOMENT. FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU PICKED UP THE BIG THICK AGENDA PACKET, THE PAGES UP ON THE SCREEN ARE IN THERE. >> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IN WHAT WE ADOPTED BACK IN OCTOBER, UNDER SECTION 1.8.1.3.4, WHICH IS ALSO ON THIS NEW DOCUMENT HERE. IT MIGHT BE UP JUST A LITTLE BIT IF YOU SCROLL UP ON THIS PAGE. SCROLL THE DOWN UP, WHICH WAY? THERE WE GO TOP OF THAT PAGE RIGHT THERE. YOU WENT TOO FAR. RIGHT THERE, 1.8.1.3.4. CONSUMPTIVE USE FOR EACH YEAR WILL BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL AVAILABLE ALLOCATION UNLESS THE PARTY ELECTS TO UTILIZE AN APPROVED ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER DEFINED IN SECTION 1.8.4. TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT 1.8.2, BUT ALSO 1.8.4, WHICH IS THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE. BOTH OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE HERE. THIS IS WHERE IT TIES IN WITH WHAT YOU HAD ADOPTED PREVIOUSLY. >> A QUESTION. MAYBE IT'S NOT OF GREG NECESSARILY. [01:15:06] BUT 1.8.2.1.1 TO EACH YEAR, YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE A PARCEL AS INACTIVE BY JANUARY 31ST OF THE YEAR. WHEN DOES CITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TELL THE GROWERS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE WATER AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE? DO YOU KNOW? >> I AM NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, BUT OFTEN, I THINK IT HAPPENS IN FEBRUARY, MAYBE INTO MARCH I THINK MARCH IS MORE ABOUT QUANTIFYING. THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH VERSUS WHETHER OR NOT THERE AND WHEN THE IRRIGATION SEASON STARTS. I DON'T KNOW THOSE TIMELINES, SO TO YOUR POINT, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO THE DIRECTION OF IF I HAVE A FIELD IN MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND, THAT THEY SAY, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER FOR YOU, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO MAKE THAT LAND INACTIVE, OR IF THEY SAY I DO, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE THAT LAND ACTIVE, CORRECT? THAT HAPPENS AT A POINT IN TIME, AND POSSIBLY YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO ALIGN THOSE POINTS IN TIME. IF I'M JUMP [OVERLAPPING]. >> WELL, THAT'S MY THINKING BECAUSE IT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, OBVIOUSLY AND OF COURSE, THOSE THAT ARE RECEIVING SOI WATER THAT'S ALSO AN ISSUE BECAUSE THEY MAY BE GETTING ENOUGH SOI WATER THAT THEY CAN INACTIVATE SOME OF THEIR LAND AND THAT THING. >> UNDERSTOOD AND WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE. THAT DATE SHOWS UP IN A FEW PLACES, BUT THE IDEA IS, I THINK I'M GOING TO JUMP TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, 1.8.2.1.7. A PARTY CAN ELECT TO CHANGE THE STATUS AT ANY POINT DURING THE YEAR BY NOTIFYING US. WE MIGHT MAKE IT A NON-ISSUE BECAUSE YOU COULD JUST LET US KNOW, "HEY, WE'RE PLANNING TO HAVE THIS FALLOW." IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TREES YOU'VE JUST PULLED OUT OR YOU HAVE SOME PLAN, AND THEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR SOMETHING. OH, I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS IRRIGATED. WE HAVE THE ROOM FOR MAKING THAT CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW WHICH WORKS BETTER ON A TIMING PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THE GSA AND TRYING TO MANAGE INTO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, IF THESE THINGS GET FLAGGED EARLIER IN THE YEAR, IT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL. BUT THEN YOU CAN FLIP IT BACK IF SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. MAYBE THAT MAYBE WE HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE ALREADY. >> NOW THAT I READ THAT, IT MAKES SENSE. >> ON THIS FIRST SECTION 1.8.2.1, THE DESIRE FOR HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A PARCEL OWNER AND ACCOUNT. I'M GOING TO REMIND US OF THE TERMINOLOGY. ALLOCATION MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT IS AN AMA, AND IT CAN INCLUDE SEVERAL PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN A SUSTAINABILITY ZONE. THAT OWNER OF THAT AMA MAY SAY, "HEY, THIS PARCEL IS GOING IT IS NOT GOING TO BE IRRIGATED, SO PLEASE DON'T COUNT IT IN THE MONITORING FOR THE COMING YEAR." THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE'S STILL ONGOING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY AND THE EVALUATION OF REMOTE SENSING DATA, AND THAT SHOWED UP IN YOUR LAND RE-PURPOSING PROGRAM A LITTLE BIT. WHILE WE ARE ADDRESSING EFFECTIVE PRECEPT, THERE IS THE RISK THAT A PARCEL THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOLLOW STILL SHOWS UP AS EXCEEDING THE EFFECT OF PRECEPT WE GRANTED, AND THEREFORE, IT'S SHOWING A CONSUMPTION THAT'S GOING TO GET SUBTRACTED OFF OF YOUR ACCOUNT. THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO JUST SAY, DON'T INCLUDE THAT PARCEL. I'M NOT IRRIGATING IT, AND THEN IT WON'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE. THERE IS THE POTENTIAL. IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT A FIELD. BECAUSE THERE ARE PORTIONS OF FIELDS WITHIN PARCELS, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESSENTIALLY GEO-FENCE OFF A PORTION FIELD. BECAUSE THOSE THINGS CAN CHANGE YEAR-TO-YEAR, YOU CAN IRRIGATE THIS FIELD THIS YEAR IN THAT FIELD, THIS NEXT YEAR WITHIN A PARCEL. WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT DATA TO BE UPDATED ANNUALLY, AND THE DEFAULT IS IT'S BEING IRRIGATED. >> GREG, NOT THAT PEOPLE WILL, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO GAME THE SYSTEM AND THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO USE A LITTLE BIT OF WATER ON A FIELD TO FINISH A CROP OR SOMETHING, THEY COULD OPT IT OUT, NOT OPT OUT. THEY COULD DESIGNATE IT OUT [OVERLAPPING] SO THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, [01:20:02] WE QUIT LOOKING AT IT, BUT THEY MAY HAVE USED FOUR 6" OF WATER ON IT. >> THE GSA WILL NEVER QUIT LOOKING AT IT. AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE'LL STILL DO A QUICK SCREEN OF EVERY PARCEL TO SEE IF SOMETHING IS FLAGGING AND IT'S SHOWING UP OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER REASONABLE. >> WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO US? IF THEY FLAG IT AS I'M NOT GOING TO IRRIGATE IT THIS YEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? >> I THINK IT HELPS REMOVE SOME ARGUMENTS ABOUT NUMBERS, ULTIMATELY. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE FIVE PARCELS AND YOU SAY, THIS ONE, I'M NOT IRRIGATING, AND WE RUN THROUGH, AND BY LEAVING THAT OUT, WE'RE ABLE TO SEE THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE USED, CONSUMED, HERE THAT'S GOING TO GET SUBTRACTED OUT OF YOUR AVAILABLE ACCOUNT. WE ALSO JUST DOUBLE CHECK AND WE SEE, HOLD, THAT ONE'S GOT LIKE A 10 INCH OR A 15 INCH SIGNAL OF ASSUMPTION, AND IT'S GOT, 6 INCHES OF THAT IN JULY WHEN THERE WASN'T ANY RAIN. HOLD ON A SECOND. DID YOU REALLY OPT THIS OUT? WE NEED TO TALK, AND WE MAY HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT ONE BACK IN. >> BUT IF THEY DIDN'T OPT IT OR IF THEY DIDN'T DEEM IT UNIRRIGATED TO BEGIN WITH, WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING. THAT WATER OUT OF THEIR ACCOUNT, AND THEN THEY WOULD COME AND SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T IRRIGATE. >> WE MAY END UP IN THIS PLACE OF A COUPLE OF INCHES GETTING SUBTRACTED OUT THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SUBTRACTED OUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE'RE ADDRESSING EFFECTIVE PRECEPT. >> OKAY. >> I GET YOUR POINT. IT'S LIKE TRYING TO ERROR TO THE SIDE OF THE LAND OWNER THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON THEIR FARMING OPERATION FOR THE YEAR. HOPEFULLY, THAT MINIMIZES SOME OF THE INTERACTION AND THE APPEALS AND DISPUTE CHALLENGES WE HAVE TO FACE. THIS FIRST SECTION 1.8.2.1 ALLOWS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DESIGNATE A PARCEL OR A FIELD AS INACTIVE FOR THAT COMING YEAR. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO I OBVIOUSLY MADE A MISTAKE ON MY STATE POINT, MAYBE. NO. YES. SORRY. I'M GOING TO TAKE APART MY STAPLE BECAUSE I'VE HAD THINGS SEPARATED, AND THEN I STAPLED THEM IN THE WRONG ORDER AGAIN [LAUGHTER]. BEAR WITH ME. >> I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT [INAUDIBLE] >> THEY WEREN'T. SORRY ABOUT THAT. CAN THEY GO ONLINE? >> YES. >> HELP THEM, LACY. >> THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THEY'RE ONLINE. YOU CAN GO ON YOUR PHONE IF YOU HAVE IT, AND THEY WERE EMAILED OUT, BUT WE DID NOT PRINT OUT THE BIG THICK COPIES OF THE AGENDA PACKET IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE TREES. >> BUT THE AGENDA PACKET THAT WE RECEIVED ON THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE WHOLE THING? >> YOU HAVE IT ON. YOUR LOOKING AT IT ON YOUR COMPUTER. >> THEN IF YOU PRINTED IT OUT YOURSELF, YOU HAVE YOURS. >> IF YOU DO GO TO THE ONLINE AGENDA PACKET, IT ALL STARTS AT PDF PAGE 50 IN THAT PACKET, IF ANYBODY'S FOLLOWING ALONG. I'M BACK IN ORDER NOW, SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUING ON TO 1.8.2.2 STANDARD METHOD FOR CALCULATING CONSUMPTIVE USE. THIS IS BASICALLY THE MAIN APPROACH THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT USING FOR DETERMINING THE CONSUMPTIVE USE FOR EACH AMA FOR EACH YEAR. THAT SAYS THAT THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF THE IRRIGATED LANDS WITHIN A PARTY'S AMA WILL BE CALCULATED AS THE ANNUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AS DETERMINED BY THE DEFAULT REMOTE SENSING IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. GAP IS GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. WHICH CURRENTLY IS OPEN ET MINUS THE EFFECTIVE PRECEPT, WHICH WILL BE DEFINED AND DISCUSSED LATER. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ET SIGNATURE FROM A REMOTE SENSING SOURCE. IT'S GOING TO SUBTRACT AN EFFECTIVE PRECEPT, AND THAT'S YOUR CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER. THAT VALUE IS GOING TO BE SUBTRACTED OUT PURSUANT TO THE SECTION PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU ADOPTED LAST OCTOBER, WHERE IT SAYS, YOUR AVAILABLE BUCKET IS GOING TO SUBTRACT OUT WHAT YOU CONSUMED IN 2026. THE END OF 26, YOU'RE GOING TO SUBTRACT OUT WHAT YOU CONSUMED IN 2026, AND YOU'LL START INTO 2027 WITH THAT FIFTH YEAR NOW ADDED IN TO YOUR BUCKET PER ALL THE DEFINITIONS WE ADOPTED BEFORE. GENERALLY, AND IN MOST CASES, [01:25:04] YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE DETERMINING BASED ON THE ET MEASURED BY OPEN ET MINUS EFFECT OF PRECEPT. HOWEVER, WE NOW HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO TRY AND BE AS ACCOMMODATING AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE GSA. NOW WE MOVE INTO 1.8.2.3 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR CALCULATING CONSUMPTIVE USE. HERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE ANOTHER METHOD BESIDES THE DEFAULT METHOD THAT'S IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. THAT GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM CAN ACCOMMODATE THESE OTHER METHODS. IT'S JUST WE'LL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION UP TO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, WHICH OVER TIME WILL GET SIMPLER AND SIMPLER. THOSE ALTERNATIVE METHODS ARE FIRST METHOD ONE. YOU DON'T LIKE OPEN ET. YOU USE ANOTHER REMOTE SENSING TOOL AND SERVICE. MAYBE YOU HAVE THAT CONTRACTED. THERE ARE SEVERAL LARGE FARMING OPERATIONS WHO CONTRACT WITH ENTITIES LIKE LAND IQ OR OTHERS THAT HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE DATA. THEY PROVIDE THAT TO US AS WITH A BUNCH OF THE DETAILS THAT ARE LISTED UNDERNEATH THAT ALTERNATIVE. ALTERNATIVE 2, YOU USE A FLOW METER. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAY, I DON'T TRUST THIS REMOTE SENSING. I WANT TO USE A METER. WE'LL LET YOU USE A METER. BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT METER VALUE, AND FIRST OF ALL, THAT METER NEEDS TO MEET CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE US DATA MONTHLY ON THAT SO WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE RECORDING THAT INFORMATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE MULTIPLYING IT BY WHAT WE'RE CALLING AN EFFICIENCY FACTOR BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU TAKE 100 UNITS OUT OF THE GROUND AND YOU PUT IT ON YOUR FIELD AND YOUR CROP. NOT ALL 100 IS GOING TO CONSUMPTION. A PORTION OF THAT IS GOING BACK DOWN THROUGH PERCOLATION ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR SOIL TYPE AND YOUR IRRIGATION METHOD. THERE'S A FAIRLY SIMPLIFIED APPROACH THAT WILL JUST TAKE A MULTIPLIER. IF YOU PULLED 100 UNITS OUT OF THE GROUND, MAYBE 90 OR 85 OF THAT IS GOING TO BE COUNTED AS YOUR CONSUMPTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THOSE ARE THE BASIC TWO OPTIONS WE HAVE. THEN THERE WAS A THIRD OPTION THAT WAS SUGGESTED FOR, YOU MIGHT HAVE A PARCEL OR AN AMA, AND THIS IS THE CASE OF DIRECTOR KELLY, WHERE THEY'RE OPERATING ENTIRETY OF STEVENSON AREA. SOME OF THOSE FIELDS MIGHT BE MEASURED BY METERS, SOME OF REMOTE SENSING, SO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMBO EFFECT IS BEING ALLOWED. THAT TAKES US ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH 1.8.2.4. NOW WE GET TO NONPRODUCTIVE AREAS AND USES, SO 1.8.2.5. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE AREAS WITHIN THESE PARCEL DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OCCURRING. ONE IS ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS, WHETHER IT'S YOUR DAIRY, WHETHER IT'S POULTRY, WHETHER IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION, AND THAT WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS, WHICH WE'LL DESCRIBE IN JUST A MOMENT LATER ON THE NEXT PAGE. YOU WILL HAVE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS THERE OF HOW YOU REPORT DATA BECAUSE REMOTE SENSING CAN'T MEASURE WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. THE OTHER NON-FIELD PRODUCTION AREAS OF END USES, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING FACILITIES. YOU MIGHT HAVE A HAULING OPERATION, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME PACKING FACILITY ON YOUR AG DESIGNATED PARCEL, WHICH IS GIVING YOU SUSTAINABLE YIELD, AND YOU'RE PUMPING WATER TO RUN THAT OPERATION. WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO GIVE US DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. YOU MIGHT HAVE A GREENHOUSE, OR YOU MIGHT HAVE A MANAGED WETLAND HABITAT WHERE YOUR TIGHT SOILS IN THAT HABITAT, AND YOU'RE RELEASING WATER AS A SPILL EVENT AT THE END OF THE SEASONS AS PART OF YOUR MANAGEMENT. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN ONE THAT YOU'RE CONSTANTLY PUSHING WATER ONTO, AND IT'S SEEPING INTO THE GROUND. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE DID DISCUSS AND HAVE TALKED WITH EVEN ELLEN, REPRESENTING A LOT OF THE WETLAND INTERESTS, TALKED THROUGH THESE VARIOUS THINGS TO HELP BUILD MORE OF THIS OUT AND HAVE LOOKED AT SOME SITUATIONS TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT PROPERLY. THEN FINALLY, TRANSPORT OF PUMPED GROUNDWATER, SO THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE YOU ARE TAKING GROUNDWATER OUT OF THE GROUND AND YOU'RE PUMPING IT, TRANSPORTING IT OUTSIDE OF THE SAME AMA TO A DIFFERENT AMA. YOU MIGHT BE PUMPING TO A NEIGHBOR, FOR SOME REASON, THEY'RE USING YOUR SAME WELL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. ALL THOSE CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO USE ONE OF, WELL, ONLY THE ANIMAL FACILITY CAN USE THE FIRST OPTION. ALL THOSE OTHERS HAVE TO USE THE SECOND OPTION. THE FIRST OPTION FOR AN AFO WILL BE A PREDEFINED STANDARDIZED CONSUMPTIVE USE. FOR EXAMPLE, FOUR CREEKS HAS DONE AN ASSESSMENT A FEW YEARS AGO THAT SEEMS TO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF SUPPORT WITHIN A LOT OF THE DAIRY COMMUNITY THAT SAYS, FOR EVERY ACRE, BY THE TIME WE LOOK AT LAGOON EVAPORATION, SILAGE, FOR PUTTING WATER ON SILAGE, DUST CONTROL, PUSHING CLEANING OF THE PARLORS, [01:30:03] MISTING, ALL THIS STUFF ON A FOOTPRINT OF A DAIRY OPERATION, IT'S USING AND ACCOMMODATING LIQUID GOING OFF, SO TAKING THE MILK PRODUCTION OFF. IT'S CONSUMING A HALF A FOOT PER ACRE EQUIVALENT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MAY WANT TO CORDON OFF AND SAY THIS PORTION OF MY PARCEL IS MY ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION, AND IT'S GOING TO USE THE COMMON NUMBER OF A HALF A FOOT, 6 INCHES PER ACRE AS THE CONSUMPTION THAT'LL BE SUBTRACTED OFF. IF YOU'RE POULTRY, THERE'S SOME VALUES WE ARE DISCUSSING WITH LIKE FOSTER FARMS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF POULTRY OPERATIONS. WE WILL HAVE A SET OF THEY'RE NOT DEFINED YET, BUT THEY WILL BE INCOMING A SET OF NUMBERS THAT YOU COULD PRE-USE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE US FLOW METER DATA, FOLLOW ALL THE FLOW METER REQUIREMENTS, HAS TO BE A CERTIFIED FLOW METER. ALL THESE THINGS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT DATA TO US MONTHLY. FOR ALL OF THIS OPTION 2, THERE IS NO DISCOUNTING FOR THE EFFICIENCY FACTOR. WHATEVER YOU PULL OUT OF THE GROUND IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSUMED, SO 100% OF THAT 100 UNITS I PULLED OUT OF THE GROUND IS CONSUMED. THAT TAKES US ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO 1.8.3. ANY QUESTIONS TO THIS POINT? SINCE YOU HAVE THIS AS A WORKSHOP, HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE ANY INTERACTION? WE GOING THROUGH OR PAUSE OR? >> WE COULD PAUSE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? THIS IS A WORKSHOP, SO IT'S NOT REALLY PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU ASK A QUESTION. >> I DO, AND FOR SOME REASON, I GET TO A POINT IN RECEIVING INFORMATION WHERE THE BRAIN STARTS PUSHING BACK. THE EFFICIENCY FACTOR THAT YOU TALK ABOUT, DOES THAT BASICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMPTIVE USE THAT YOU ARE BEING TRACKED BY THE GSA? >> LET ME GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS AND SEE IF THIS HELPS ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU AND I HAVE THE EXACT SAME CROP, EXACT SAME FIELD SIZE, EXACT SAME IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SAME SOIL TYPE. YOU PULL 1,000 UNITS TO GROW YOUR CROP. I PULL AND PUMP 800 UNITS TO GROW MY CROP. WE ARE BOTH GOING TO HAVE AN EFFICIENCY FACTOR OF, LET'S JUST SAY 80% FOR EASY NUMBER, 80% OF YOUR THOUSAND MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO GET 800 UNITS IS GOING TO GET SUBTRACTED AS YOUR CONSUMPTION. YOU PUMPED 1,000, 800 IS GOING TO GET SUBTRACTED. I MANAGED MAYBE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENTLY, OR MAYBE I'M EVEN DEFICIT IRRIGATING. I WAS ONLY PULLING 800 OUT OF THE GROUND. I'M GOING TO GET 80% OF THAT 800, WHICH DO THE MATH. THAT'S 160 OFF OF THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT? 640. MY CONSUMPTION NUMBER THAT GETS SUBTRACTED OUT OF MY BUCKET WILL BE 640 BECAUSE MY METER SAID 800. YOUR METER SAID 1,000, YOU GET 800 PULLED OUT, I GET 640 PULLED OUT. IT'S BOTH OF THOSE ARE LESS THAN THE METER NUMBER. NOW, IF WE WENT TO REMOTE SENSING AND WE DOUBLE CHECK THAT, WE MIGHT SEE YOU ARE CONSUMING MORE, OR WE MIGHT SEE THAT YOUR INEFFICIENCY IS JUST POURING MORE WATER DOWN THE GROUND IN DEEP PERCOLATION, AND YOU'RE BEING PENALIZED. BUT UNLESS YOU WANT TO USE REMOTE SENSING OR TIGHTEN UP YOUR SYSTEM THAT NEXT YEAR, YOU'LL PUMP LESS AND STILL HAVE THE SAME CROPPING RESULT. DOES THAT ILLUSTRATION HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OR CLARIFY IT AT ALL? >> I GUESS IT DOES. WHERE I GET BLOCKED IS YOU TALK ABOUT THE AMOUNT THAT YOU EXTRACT OUT OF THE GROUND, 01,000 ACRE FEET, AND THE OTHER ONE IS JUST 800. BUT YOU'VE EXTRACTED OUT 1,000. WHATEVER THE EFFICIENCY IS, THE EFFECT UPON THE AQUIFER IS 1,000? >> THE CORRECT, AND THE EFFECT ON THE AQUIFER IS 1,000 MINUS WHAT'S PERCOLATING BACK IN, BECAUSE DE PERCOLATION. IT IS PART OF OUR RECOGNIZED SUSTAINABLE YIELDS IN ALL THE MODELING AND EVERYTHING. >> THE EFFICIENCY IS WHAT PERCOLATES IN, NOT WHAT EVAPORATES? >> CORRECT. WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO A PROXY OF WHAT'S BEING CONSUMED BY THE CROP AND EVAPORATING OFF THE GROUND BY USING THAT FACTOR. FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FACTOR THAT SAYS IT'S EITHER FLOOD, IT'S MICRO DRIP OR IT'S SPRINKLER. THEN IT'S EITHER ON TIGHT SOIL, MEDIUM TIGHT SOIL, OR SUPER SANDY SOIL, THOSE WOULD RESULT IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. IF I'M FLOODING ON TIGHT SOIL, I MIGHT HAVE LESS PERCOLATING DEEP PERCOLATION. PROBABLY MORE OF WHAT I'M PUMPING IS BEING CONSUMED. IF I'M FLOODING, DOING FURROW IRRIGATION ON SANDY SOIL, [01:35:02] I LIKELY HAVE A LOT GOING DOWN. UNLESS I'M THAT EXAMPLE OF YOU PUMPED 1,000, I PUMPED 800. I'M BEING A LITTLE MORE TIGHT WITH HOW I'M DOING IT, I MIGHT BE DOING SURGE IRRIGATION OR WHATEVER. THAT'S HOW WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE COMPLEXITIES OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT YOUR SYSTEM IS, EXACTLY WHAT YOUR SOIL TYPES ARE, EXACTLY WHAT YOUR MANAGEMENT SITUATION IS. WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY A LITTLE BIT AND SAY, WE'LL TAKE YOUR METER, WE'LL MULTIPLY IT BY A FACTOR. IF YOU'RE REALLY POORLY IRRIGATING, YOU MIGHT BE BEING PENALIZED FOR YOUR ACTUAL CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE CROP AND EVAPORATION OFF THE FIELD. >> THANK YOU. >> WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? ANY ONLINE? >> DISAGREE WITH SOIL ANALYSIS. >> NOT ONLINE. >> COME ON. >> I'M GOING TO JUMP TO WHERE I KNOW YOUR QUESTION IS GOING. WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE ONE UNIQUE SOIL TYPE FOR EACH SUSTAINABILITY ZONE OR A FACTOR, AND JUST KNOWING THAT EVERY PARCEL, THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS OUT THERE. WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY. AS WE'VE ALWAYS SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, THE BOARD'S GOING TO CONTINUALLY PROBABLY TWEAK SOME OF THESE THINGS AND IMPROVE THEM AS WE LEARN. LIKELY EACH ZONE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SOIL MAPS ON THE ZONES, THERE'S A PREDOMINANCE. EASY FOR ME TO SAY, OF A SOIL TYPE IN A LOT OF THOSE ZONES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE WHOLE ZONE IS THAT WAY. DO WE NEED TO START GETTING WHERE EACH PARCEL IN AMA GETS A FLAGGED NUMBER? THAT JUST ADDS COMPLEXITY AT THIS POINT. WE'RE TRYING TO PROBABLY KEEP IT SIMPLE WHERE IT'S TO EACH ZONE. IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> THE WIZARD. NEXT. >> MOVING TO ACCOUNTING FOR EFFECT OF PRECIPITATION. AS WE KNOW THE REMOTE SENSING, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT PART, WE'RE BACK TO WE'RE USING REMOTE SENSING AS OPPOSED TO A FLOW METER. IF I'M USING A FLOW METER, IT'S THE AMOUNT THE FLOW METER SAYS, MULTIPLIED BY SOME EFFICIENCY FACTOR THAT'S GOING TO DISCOUNT IT. IF I'M USING REMOTE SENSING, IT'S GOING TO MEASURE TOTAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. WELL, WE KNOW WATER THAT MEETS ET IS MET WITH ONE OF TWO SOURCES. RAIN OR APPLIED WATER. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE RAINS BENEFIT. WE'RE ADDRESSING EFFECT OF PRECEP BY AGAIN, A SOMEWHAT TRYING TO MANAGE HERE BETWEEN COMPLEXITY AND SIMPLICITY. WE COULD GO ONE NUMBER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A WET YEAR OR DRY YEAR, WHERE THE WATER FALLS, OR SOMETHING THAT GETS AS COMPLEX AS EVERY FIELD IS GOING TO BE TRACKED, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE USING VERY COMPLEX INFORMATION. THE CHOICE HAS BEEN TO FOLLOW A MODEL THAT'S GOING TO USE ONE OF THREE VALUES. HERE WE GO. I THINK I'VE GOT MY ORDER BACK. WE ARE GOING TO SET THIS UP WHERE WE ARE GOING TO DETERMINE AN ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MARCH 31. LOOK BACK TO OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, AND THROUGH A COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM NOW, THERE'S A QUANTITY OF WATER THAT GENERALLY REFLECTS THE MAJORITY OF THE RAINFALL SEASON THAT WE HAVE. THAT AVERAGE NUMBER IN MERCED IS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IS NINE INCHES. THE AVERAGE, WHEN YOU INCLUDE APRIL AND MAY, GOING BACK OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO, ADDS ANOTHER INCH AND A HALF ON AVERAGE. BUT WE KNOW SOME YEARS YOU GET SIX AND SOME YEARS YOU GET 23. 2022 HAD A REALLY WET SEASON. WE'VE SET UP THREE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS, STARTING WITH IF YOU ARE LESS THAN NINE INCHES OF THAT VALUE BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, LAST YEAR, AND MARCH 31, THIS YEAR, AND THE BOARD WILL MAKE THIS DETERMINATION ON EACH APRIL MEETING. YOU WILL GET 100% OF WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS. RIGHT NOW, JUST FOR TO MAKE IT REAL, AND WE'RE REFERENCING THE RAIN GAUGE OUT AT THE AIRPORT. WE ACTUALLY CHECKED THAT GAUGE THIS MORNING. WE COMPARED IT WITH SOME PRISM DATA THAT'S OUT THERE. THE AIRPORT GAUGE IS NOT UPDATED, IT'S A MONTHLY VALUE, SO IT'S NOT UPDATED THROUGH MARCH YET. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DATA OF WHAT'S HAPPENED AND LOOKED LIKE THROUGH FEBRUARY, USING A VARIETY OF SOURCES, A COUPLE OF OTHER RAIN GAUGES, THE NUMBERS ARE ALL PRETTY CLOSE. WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY TODAY BECAUSE IT'S RAINING NOW, HOPEFULLY. IF YOU RAN THROUGH A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, WE WERE A LITTLE OVER SIX INCHES IN THIS ENTIRE AREA. [01:40:05] AT ALL THOSE GAUGES, ONE WAS LIKE JUST OVER SIX, AND THEN MAYBE A LITTLE CLOSER TO SEVEN DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU WERE IN THE REGION. IN THIS CURRENT SITUATION, UNLESS WE GET A LOT MORE RAIN IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE PROBABLY ARE GOING TO GIVE 100% OF WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS. IF THAT NUMBER NETS OUT TO 7.5, I THINK WE ROUND UP TO EIGHT, EVERYBODY WILL GET EIGHT INCHES OF EFFECTIVE PRECEPT CREDIT FOR THIS YEAR. IF WE ARE ABOVE NINE INCHES, BUT LESS THAN 12, WHICH AGAIN, OUR AVERAGE IN THIS IS NINE, SOMETIMES WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU WILL GET NINE INCHES PLUS 50% OF ANYTHING WE GET ABOVE THAT. POTENTIALLY ANOTHER INCH OR TWO ADDED TO THAT AS EFFECTIVE. IF WE ARE ABOVE 12 INCHES, WHICH SEVERAL YEARS WE'VE HAD ABOVE 12 INCHES, YOU GET 12 INCHES PLUS 50% OF WHATEVER IS ABOVE THAT. I HAVE THE DATA HERE JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. IN 2022, WE RECEIVED 20 INCHES OF RAIN BETWEEN OCTOBER AND THE END OF MARCH. THAT WOULD BE 12 INCHES, PLUS NOW THERE'S 10 MORE OF A DELTA, SO YOU'D GET 50% OF THAT 10 MORE, ANOTHER FIVE INCHES. YOU'D GET A TOTAL EFFECTIVE PRECEPT OF 17 INCHES. THAT'S TRYING TO TRACK A LITTLE BIT BETTER WITH WHAT WE ARE SEEING FOR HOW MUCH IS BEING CONSUMED BY FIELDS THAT ARE LIKE PEOPLE ARE SAYING, I DIDN'T EVEN IRRIGATE, AND YET THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSUMPTION SIGNATURE OFF OF THAT THAT WAS MET WITH RAIN. WE'RE TRYING TO GRAB THIS PERIOD OF TIME, SAY, THAT'S IN YOUR BUCKET NOW FOR THIS COMING YEAR, AND THERE'S JUST THREE THRESHOLDS, AND THAT VALUE WILL BE DETERMINED BY YOU EACH APRIL. THEN THE GROWERS WILL KNOW WHAT CREDIT THEY'RE GETTING INTO THIS NEXT YEAR AND HOW THEY WANT TO MAYBE MANAGE A VARIETY OF THINGS. ONE ADD ON, SORRY, ON TOP OF THAT. IF APRIL AND MAY SUDDENLY CREATE A WET STORM SEASON THAT EXCEEDS AN INCH OR THE COMBINED EXCEEDANCE BETWEEN APRIL AND MAY OF AN INCH AND A HALF. YOU MIGHT HAVE GOT THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH IN APRIL AND THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH IN MAY, WE CAN GIVE ANOTHER INCH OR MORE OF WATER AT THIS BOARD'S DISCRETION. IF SOMETHING DID HAPPEN AND PEOPLE ARE LIKE, OH, SHOOT, I ACTUALLY BENEFITED. I DIDN'T HAVE TO TURN PUMPS ON AGAIN OR SOMETHING, WE CAN GIVE MORE CREDIT AFTER THE END OF MARCH SITUATION. IT GIVES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE BOARD. NOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO ACCOUNTING FOR ALTERNATIVE SOURCES UNLESS ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION ON EFFECTIVE PRECEPT. >> ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC HAVE A QUESTION? YOU'RE OKAY OR YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YOU'RE OKAY. ANYBODY ONLINE? >> NONE ONLINE. >> KEEP GOING THERE COWBOY. >> WE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH TAC AND IT SEEMED TO HAVE GOOD SUPPORT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ALTERNATIVE SOURCE. I'M GOING TO POINT YOU BACK TO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW CONSUMPTION IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUCKET OF WATER, AND YOUR CONSUMPTION IS GOING TO SUBTRACT FROM THAT BUCKET OF WATER. THAT BUCKET OF WATER IS YOUR ALLOCATION OF GROUNDWATER, SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER OR APA. UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, THEN YOU CAN USE THAT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE INSTEAD OF YOUR ALLOCATION. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE? NOW WE GET TO WHAT AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE IS, AND WE START OFF WITH THESE, THERE'S A SERIES OF DEFINITIONS. THESE WILL BE ADDED TO THE MAIN ADOPTED OCTOBER VERSION UNDER SECTION 1.3. SOME OF THESE ARE NOT FULLY DEFINED YET, BUT WE GENERALLY KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN, SO WE CAN DISCUSS SOME IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, BUT THERE'S A SERIES OF ADDITIONAL TERMS THAT WE WILL INCORPORATE INTO THE DOCUMENT. ACCOUNTING FOR ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER, WE ARE SAYING YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER CAN BE ONE OF THREE THINGS. IT CAN BE A CONTRACTED SURFACE WATER, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES RECYCLE WATER AND SEEPAGE CONTRACTS. WHEN WE'RE SAYING RECYCLED WATER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WATER SOURCE THAT'S COMING OUT OF A TREATMENT PLANT, LIKE A CITY TREATMENT PLANT, COMMUNITY TREATMENT PLANT OR POSSIBLY LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY TREATMENT OPERATION. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOVERNED BY A REGULATORY BODY, LIKE THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, AND THERE'S SOMETHING CONTROLLING THAT, AND IT'S GOT A POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND SOMEBODY HAS CONTRACTED TO RECEIVE THAT WATER. SERVICE WATER, A CONTRACT OF SERVICE WATER, OR A CONTRACT OF RECYCLE WATER, OR A SEEPAGE CONTRACT, OR A SERVICE WATER RIGHT, OR FLOODWATER DIVERTED CONSISTENT WITH WATER CODE SECTION 1242.1 OR OTHER RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT MAY COME INTO THE FUTURE OR MAY PLAY IN SOME WAY. 1242 IS THE MANIFESTATION OF THE 2023 EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT [01:45:06] ALLOWED DIVERSION OF FLOODWATER AS ESSENTIALLY THE REALLY HIGH FLOWS THAT WERE SHOWING UP FOR A FEW WEEKS IN A FEW OF THE CREEKS. THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DIVERT THAT OFF. THIS BOARD RECOGNIZED SOME OF THAT HAPPENING IN 2023 AND CREATED A FORM TO BE ABLE TO TRACK THAT. THAT WAS FORMALIZED INTO WATER CODE SECTION 1242. IT WILL SUNSET IN 2029 RIGHT NOW, BUT SOMETHING ELSE MAY MANIFEST. YOU HAVE THAT AS A SOURCE OF WATER. ONCE WE IDENTIFY THAT THAT SOURCE IS A VALID SOURCE OF WATER. YOU CAN EITHER DO ONE OF TWO THINGS. YOU CAN USE THAT SOURCE OF WATER REAL TIME IN THAT YEAR. LET'S SAY WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY RIGHT NOW, AND I HAVE A WATER CONTRACT FROM MID, AND I'M USING THAT SURFACE WATER INSTEAD OF PUMPING. THAT IS A DIRECT USE OF YOUR SURFACE WATER THAT ALLOWS YOU TO PRESERVE YOUR ALLOCATION OF GROUNDWATER. THAT WAY YOU CAN ROLL THAT ALLOCATION OF GROUNDWATER FORWARD, AND YOU'LL USE YOUR SURFACE WATER THAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE THAT YEAR FOR THAT IRRIGATION ACTIVITY. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY TAKE THAT SURFACE WATER SOURCE, WOULD MIGHT ALSO BE THAT SAME MID WATER SUPPLY AND PUT IT IN THE GROUND FOR A USE IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THAT'S CONSIDERED TO CREATE A RECHARGE AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT. WE'RE TERMING THAT. YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO USE THAT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE THE CURRENT YEAR YOU'RE IN, OR YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN THE GROUND AND GARNER A CREDIT WITH IT THAT WILL NOW BE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN A FUTURE YEAR THAT YOU CAN USE. THOSE TWO DISTINCTIONS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH, ESPECIALLY THE CREATION OF THOSE CREDITS. CREATING A CREDIT WITH THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO DIRECT RECHARGE, OR THERE'S GOING TO BE THE POTENTIAL FOR INDIRECT RECHARGE. DIRECT RECHARGE WILL REQUIRE THE PARTY TO USE ONE OF SEVERAL RECHARGE FACILITIES AND GET THAT REGISTERED AND REFLECTED SO THAT THE GSA KNOWS IT EXISTS AND CAN HELP TRACK THAT FOR YOU. OTHERWISE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S NECESSARILY GETTING BROUGHT INTO YOUR ACCOUNT. THOSE WOULD BE PERMITTED AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELL, A RECHARGE BASIN, A PERMITTED DRY WELL, MAYBE A SUB LATERAL RECHARGE SYSTEM, OR POTENTIALLY OVER IRRIGATION, SUCH AS DESCRIBED OFTEN AS FLOOD-MAR. THAT'S AN ACTIVITY THAT WILL BE HAPPENING GENERALLY NOT IN THE IRRIGATION SEASON. THIS WOULD BE THE APPLICATION OF WATER IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO TRY AND REALLY PUSH MORE WATER DOWN INTO THE GROUND. INDIRECT RECHARGE REQUIRES A PARTY TO OWN OR CONTROL OR BE THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY OF THE OWNER OF A CONVEYANCE FACILITY. THERE ARE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES THAT HAVE RECOGNIZED RECHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN TRACK THAT, AND IN THE BIG PICTURE, WHOEVER IS GETTING THAT CREDIT NEEDS TO SAY IT'S GOING TO THESE SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS. IT CAN GET DESIGNATED AND WE CAN TRACK IT. TRACK IT MOSTLY AGAIN, IF YOU WANT THIS ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TO COUNT INSTEAD OF USING YOUR GROUNDWATER, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT US TO KNOW THAT IT BELONGS TO YOU, AND IT'S CREDIBLE. THEN WE CAN SAY, OKAY, YOU USE THAT. GREAT. THAT MEANS YOUR GROUNDWATER NUMBER IS CARRYING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE. THEN WE GO INTO THE NEXT SECTIONS, 186 TALKS ABOUT HOW YOU REGISTER THIS INFORMATION. THEN 187, WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DETERMINE THIS CREDIT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE TO US, YOU HAVE THIS. HERE'S YOUR MID CONTRACT RECEIPT. THEY'RE GOING TO SEND SOMETHING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HERE'S HOW MUCH WE DELIVER TO YOU. MAYBE YOU HAVE A WATER RIGHT THAT YOU'RE FILING WITH THE STATE BOARD. YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION. ALL OF THESE THINGS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND RULES SO THAT WE AREN'T, AS THE GSA POTENTIALLY INVOLVED IN SOME CHALLENGE ABOUT ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF WATER AND GETTING A CREDIT FOR IT. THAT'S A CAVEAT THAT'S IN THERE TO PROTECT THE GSA. WE'RE GOING TO GO NOW TO 1.8.8, DETERMINING LEAVE BEHIND. ANYTIME WE PUT WATER INTO THE GROUND IN DIRECT RECHARGE, A PORTION OF IT IS ESSENTIALLY LOST IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. IF YOU'RE MEASURING IT GOING INTO A RECHARGE BASIN, THERE'S SOME EVAPORATION THAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING. THERE MIGHT BE SOME WEEDS AROUND THERE. THERE MIGHT ALSO BE LEAK. AS IT PERCOLATES DOWN, IT'S ALSO GOING TO PERCOLATE LATERALLY AND JUST TO BE LOT. A TRADITIONAL TERMINOLOGY IS CALLED A LEAVE BEHIND. THE DETERMINATION IS THAT FOR DIRECT RECHARGE FACILITIES, IT'LL BE A 10% LEAVE BEHIND ON DAY 1. IF YOU BRING 1,000 UNITS INTO YOUR RECHARGE BASIN, YOU NOW HAVE 1,000 -10%, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 900 UNITS OF CREDIT AVAILABLE TO YOU GOING FORWARD. [01:50:04] I DID THAT. LET'S JUST PRETEND WE'RE IN 2030, JUST TO PUSH US, WE'RE IMPLEMENTING, WE'RE ALL RUNNING ALONG. I DID THIS ACTION IN 2030. I HAVE 1,000 UNITS I PUT INTO MY RECHARGE FACILITY. THE GSA RECOGNIZES 900 OF THAT IS NOW AVAILABLE IN 2031. THAT SAME AMOUNT, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT IN 2031, BECAUSE MAYBE YOU HAVE A GOOD YEAR, IT'S WET, OR WHATEVER OTHER CONDITIONS. MAYBE YOU ALSO STILL HAVE SURFACE WATER, YOU GET TO KEEP CARRYING THAT 900 FORWARD. I'M JUMPING AHEAD A LITTLE BITS. I'LL COVER THAT IN A SECOND. BUT THERE'S BASICALLY A TIME FRAME, THAT IF YOU LET IT GO TOO LONG AND YOU DON'T USE IT, YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE IT. WE'LL TOUCH THAT IN A MINUTE. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT. THERE'S A 10% RIGHT OFF THE BAT ON A DIRECT RECHARGE FACILITY. AN INDIRECT RECHARGE FACILITY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE THE GSA ADDRESS THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS BECAUSE THE FACILITIES ARE ALL UNIQUE. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING IN AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO BEST ACCOUNT FOR THE QUANTIFICATION. LIKELY IT WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR LEAVE BEHIND. CHARGE OF 10% APPLIED TO IT. BUT THERE MAY BE REASONS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT. IT'S LIKE IN A SUPER SANDY CHANNEL, AND THERE'S A BUNCH THAT'S GOING DOWN. WELL, MAYBE THERE'S A LESS OR MORE OF A NUMBER. THAT WILL BE TREATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT GENERALLY WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A DIRECT RECHARGE AS FAR AS A LEAVE BEHIND. WE ARE LEAVING OURSELVES THE POTENTIAL FOR A LEAVE BEHIND PERCENTAGE TO BE MODIFIED AFTER FIVE YEARS, OR BASICALLY EVERY FIVE YEARS WHEN WE'RE UPDATING THE GSP. UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP IN BETWEEN, AND WE'RE LIKE, OH, WELL, HOLD IT. WE MADE A MISTAKE. YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THAT AS YOUR DISCRETION. THE REASON THE BOARD HAS CHOSEN TO DO THAT, AND PRIOR DISCUSSIONS IS THIS IS GOING TO HELP ENCOURAGE MORE RECHARGE PROJECTS TO GO FORWARD AND PEOPLE TO REALLY TRY AND CAPTURE SURFACE WATER, TO HELP FACILITATE ONGOING FARMING OPERATIONS IN OUR GSA. THAT WAS WHAT'S BEING SET UP HERE, BUT THERE IS IF IT'S NOT WORKING RIGHT AND WE NEED TO ADJUST, WE HAVE A FLAG TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THAT ADJUSTMENT. >> ACCOUNTING FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT. WHAT WE SAY HERE IS BEGINNING AND THIS IS WHERE WE GO INTO A RESTRICTION OVER TIME TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, BEGINNING IN THE YEAR 2027 AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER. IF YOU DID SOMETHING IN 2026, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT CREDIT AVAILABLE TO YEAR AND 2027, AND YOU WILL HAVE THAT REGISTERED VALUE AVAILABLE IN YOUR ACCOUNT, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO ULTIMATELY, WE'LL GET TO THAT PART, TELL US THAT YOU USED IT OR NOT USED IT. WHERE WE GET IN THE BOTTOM 189.3 CARRY OVER RESTRICTION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT. AFTER THE SIXTH YEAR, IF YOU STILL HAVE LET'S SAY I GOT THAT 900 THAT I INITIALLY PUT IN, AND I'VE USED 400 OF IT, SO I STILL HAVE 500 SITTING THERE, THAT I HAVEN'T HAD TO PUT TO USE YET OR WANTED TO PUT TO USE YET. IN THE START OF THAT SIXTH YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO KNOCK 20% OFF OF THAT 500. THE START OF THE SEVENTH YEAR, IF YOU STILL HAVE WATER LEFT, ANOTHER 20% COMES OFF, THE START OF THE EIGHTH YEAR, ANOTHER 20%, SUCH THAT YOU HAVE THAT CONTINUE TO SHRINK. ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE GIVING YOU FIVE YEARS OF TIME TO TRY AND USE ALL THAT. NOW, EACH RECHARGE YOU DID. IF YOU DID ONE THIS YEAR, IT'S AVAILABLE STARTING NEXT YEAR, THAT CLOCK STARTS. IF YOU DO ONE IN 29, THE CLOCK STARTS THAT POINT IN TIME. EACH ONE WILL HAVE ITS OWN CLOCK GOING FORWARD SO YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ENCOURAGED TO TRY AND USE THAT RECHARGE WATER WITHIN FIVE YEARS. GIVEN OUR HISTORIC HYDROLOGIC VARIABILITY, THE LIKELIHOOD OF NEEDING TO USE THAT AND WANTING TO USE THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS IS REALLY HIGH. THEN LET'S GO DOWN TO RECOGNITION AND USE OF THAT CREDIT, A NEW PIECE HERE GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. IF YOU TOOK AN ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GSP FOR THE MERCED SUB-BASIN BY THIS BODY AND BY MAGOA AND BY TURNER ISLAND ON JANUARY 28TH, 2020, AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, THIS COMING JANUARY 1. SOMETIME BETWEEN BACK IN THE END OF JANUARY 2020 AND WHAT'S COMING UP IN NINE MONTHS, IF YOU TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WAS BEING TAKEN FOR THE ANTICIPATING WHAT THE ALLOCATION IS GOING TO CAUSE YOU FROM A FARMING OPERATION, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GENERATE A CREDIT FOR THAT PRIOR ACTIVITY. YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO DOCUMENT WHAT'S HAPPENED. THERE'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR APPLICATIONS OF LEAVE BEHINDS AND A DECAY SO IF YOU DID SOMETHING IN FEBRUARY OF 2020, [01:55:02] YOU ESSENTIALLY ARE ALREADY IN YEAR FIVE. THAT'S WHEN THAT HAPPENED, BUT IF YOU DID SOMETHING IN LIKE THE EO WATER IN 2023, THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN '24. YOU'RE NOW IN YEAR TWO, AS '25. IT'S ALL GOING TO BASED ON THAT, AND IT WOULD APPLY SIMILARLY, YOU CAN GET THAT CREDIT EITHER BY HAVING ACTIVELY PUT WATER INTO RECHARGE, OR ALSO BY ACTIVELY USING THE WATER INSTEAD OF GROUNDWATER IN THAT YEAR. IF YOU SIGNED SOME OF THE MID CONTRACTS THAT WERE BROUGHT BACK OUT AFTER 2020, I'VE FORGOTTEN THE EXACT YEAR THAT SOME OF THOSE CAME FORWARD, DIRECTOR MARTINI, 2021. THERE WERE SEVERAL FOLKS WHO SIGNED CONTRACTS WITH MID THAT ARE TAKER PAY TYPE CONTRACTS, EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS TO GET WATER, THOSE WOULD BE AND WHEN THAT WATER WAS AVAILABLE, AND IT'S BEEN AVAILABLE IN 2023, AND YES, LAST YEAR, ALSO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AVAILABLE THIS YEAR OR IT'S BEEN DESIGNATED YET. THOSE WATER SUPPLIES WOULD COUNT AS A DIRECT USE IN LIEU OF GROUNDWATER THAT YOU COULD GENERATE SOME CREDIT FOR. THAT'S THE INTENT OF 18.10 IN THIS SECTION. IF WE NOW MOVE TO 1811, THIS TALKS ABOUT YOUR USE OF THAT WATER AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO, AS THE GSA, COLLECT THAT INFORMATION AND USE THAT INFORMATION. AND AGAIN, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO APPLY THAT SAME EFFICIENCY FACTOR BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW EITHER DIRECTLY PUMPING THAT WATER ONTO YOUR FIELD. IF MID SAYS, HEY, WE GAVE YOU X ON EACH OF THESE MONTHS, WE'RE GOING TO APPLY A FACTOR BECAUSE IT'S GOT THE SAME PERCOLATION EFFICIENCY THING. IF YOU'RE PUMPING IT OUT OF THE GROUND AND APPLYING IT AS YOUR SOURCE OF WATER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE METER DATA BECAUSE YOU NEED TO TELL US HOW MUCH YOU'RE PUMPING OUT OF THAT RECHARGED CREDIT, AND WE'LL APPLY THAT SAME EFFICIENCY FACTOR SO THAT FACTOR SHOWS UP AGAIN IN THIS SECTION. YOU CAN CARRY OVER THESE CREDITS WITHIN YOUR AMA IF YOU DO HAVE THESE CREDITS. AGAIN, THEY HAVE THAT DECAY ELEMENT TO THEM. YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS, NO IMPACT, AND THEN YEARS SIX THROUGH NINE ARE GOING TO SHRINK IT SO THAT BY THE TIME YOU HIT YEAR 10, IT'S PRETTY MUCH NOT AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVEN'T USED IT YET. THAT IS OUR WALKTHROUGH OF A COMPLICATED PIECE, BUT I THINK IT IS VERY THOROUGH TO ADDRESS A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND HELP TRY AND ENCOURAGE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FARMING OPERATIONS AND RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES. OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS, DIALOGUE FROM THE BOARD OR FROM PUBLIC. >> LET'S START WITH THE BOARD. THEN WE'LL MOVE TO PUBLIC. COME ON UP. [OVERLAPPING] >> WITH THE DECAY FEATURE, I'M IN MY MIND, DUMB DIRT KICKER. KEEP THIS IN MIND. THIS IS JUST A SEPARATE BUCKET. CAN I USE THIS WATER THAT WE'VE USED IN 2023 FIRST AS MY FIRST BUCKET TO ELIMINATE THE DECAY AND THEN ONCE THAT'S DONE, I CAN START MOVING TOWARDS MY OTHER TWO BUCKETS. >> THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD BE, YES, IT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED, BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DICTATE WHICH ONE YOU WOULD USE. IF YOU DID A CREDIT, SO AGAIN, THIS WAS TO THE SECTION OF LOOKING CREDIT FOR PAST ACTIVITIES, RECENT ACTIVITIES, BUT RELATED TO THE ALLOCATION. YOU DID SOMETHING IN 2023, AGAIN, IN '24, AND AGAIN, IN 2025. THE CLOCK STARTS ON EACH OF THOSE SEPARATELY. YOU'RE ENCOURAGED TO PROBABLY USE WHAT WAS THE OLDEST TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T RUN AGAINST A DECAY CHALLENGE EARLIER. SAME THING GOING FORWARD, BUT THIS IS WHERE YOU START TO MANAGE. YOU MIGHT BE LIKE, I'M DOING SOME CROPPING THINGS. I'M TAKING SOME LAND OUT. I'M SWAPPING SOME CROPS OUT. I'D ACTUALLY WANT TO MINIMIZE SOME OF MY CONSUMPTION THIS YEAR AND HOLD MY RECHARGE CREDITS, HOLD MY GROUNDWATER, AND OTHER THINGS AS I'M MANAGING SOME OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT I'M DOING IN OVERALL FARMING OPERATION. WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY TO THE GROWER WITHIN THEIR AMA, AS WE CAN DO, WHILE STILL GETTING AFTER THOSE THINGS THAT CHRIS SHOWED EARLIER, WHICH IS TO GET US ABOVE MINIMUM THRESHOLDS FOR ALL OUR REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING WELLS AND KEEP DWR OUT OF OUR BACKYARD. >> THEN ONE COMMENT MAYBE TO THAT IS, IF YOU HAVE SURFACE WATER, YOU CAN'T SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T USE MY SURFACE WATER, I USED MY CREDITS, [02:00:01] EVEN THOUGH YOU USED YOUR SURFACE WATER. THAT STUFF. >> IF YOU SURFACE WATER, SO IF I HAVE AN MID, GOOD EXAMPLE. IF I HAVE AN MID CONTRACT AND I DELIVERED WATER IN MARCH, APRIL, MAY, THAT I AM APPLYING TO MY FIELD, THAT'S NOT CREATING A RECHARGE CREDIT. THAT'S JUST ALLOWING YOU TO NOT USE YOUR SUSTAINABLE YIELD BUCKET. IF I TAKE SOME OF THAT WATER AND I ACTUALLY PUT IT IN A REGISTER RECHARGE FACILITY, I CAN GENERATE A CREDIT OUT OF THAT, OR I CAN DO SOME COMBO OF THE TWO. APPLY IT ON MY FIELD, AND ALSO RECHARGE SOME DEPENDING ON THE VOLUMES AND THE TIMING AND YOUR SITUATION. >> BUT IF YOU HAD A RECHARGE CREDIT FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR, YOU COULDN'T SAY, I USED THAT RECHARGE CREDIT INSTEAD OF A SURFACE WATER. >> I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE SILLY BECAUSE YOUR SURFACE WATER WOULD JUST BE GONE THEN. >> I KNOW IT'S SILLY, BUT SOME PEOPLE SILLY. ONCE THE ALLOCATIONS REALLY HIT, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY TO SURVIVE. A REMINDER, AGAIN, THE ALLOCATION IS 13 INCHES, AND THERE'S AN APA OF 11 THAT'S GOING TO RAMP DOWN TO ZERO UNLESS YOU'RE ABOVE THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD VALUES, AND THEN THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY FOR IT TO FLATTEN. THAT'S OFTEN NOT ENOUGH TO MEET CONSUMPTIVE USE OF A LOT OF THE CROPS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO MAINTAIN CURRENT OPERATIONS. I THINK THAT'S JUST THE REALITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS TO GET GROUNDWATER LEVELS TO RECOVER AND REMOVE THAT OVERDRAFT SITUATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS ONLINE? >> I HAD ONE MORE. >> HOLD ON, JUST A MINUTE, BOB. >> NOT SEEING ANY ONLINE. >> GO AHEAD, BOB. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIRECT RECHARGE USING A CONVEYANCE FACILITY, THERE'S A LIMITATION TO IT HAS TO BE USED WITHIN THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONE THAT THE CREDIT IS BEING GENERATED. MY QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT ONE IS A BIT UNIQUE, BUT, WE'VE GOT A 24 MILE CONVEYANCE FACILITY, AND IT GOES THROUGH PERHAPS MAYBE PERHAPS TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT SUSTAINABILITY ZONES. THE MAPS THAT I'VE SEEN OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES ARE NOT IN ANY SUFFICIENT DETAIL WITH PARCELS TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY THE LOCATION OF THE LOSS. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, DO WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO SHOW THESE SUSTAINABILITY ZONES ON WHERE YOU CAN DRILL DOWN TO JUST EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE IS BETWEEN ZONES AND WHAT THE AFFECTED PARCEL AREAS ARE? >> YES, ON YOUR GSA WEBSITE, ON THE HOME PAGE, AND THERE'S A BIG BLUE BAR THAT SAYS, CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR SUSTAINABILITY ZONE. IT GOES OUT TO A INTERACTIVE MAP THAT YOU CAN SEE AND DRILL INTO ACTUAL PARCELS. I THINK TO MORE SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR SITUATION, WE MAY SAY THIS MUCH OF THE RECHARGE CREDIT ASSOCIATES WITH THIS ZONE AND WITH THIS ZONE, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE WATER IS COMING IN, BECAUSE YOU GET WATER, I THINK, COMING INTO THAT FACILITY FROM DIFFERENT ENTRANCE POINTS FROM MID. MAYBE THAT'S PART OF OUR ACCOUNTING PROCESS, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT OF WHERE THAT'S GOING AND WHERE THE CREDITS BECOME AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU. I CAN DRILL DOWN ON THAT FROM THAT WEBSITE LINK. >> YES GREG, AND HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH IT IN MORE DETAIL IF ANYBODY NEEDS IT. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, COULD YOU JUST TEXT HIM THE LINK TO GET HIM RIGHT WHERE HE NEEDS TO BE TO START WITH LACI. THAT WAY YOU HAVE AT BOB. >> HAPPY TO GET ON A PHONE OR, YOU KNOW, THE ZOOM CALL OR WALK THROUGH IT OR WHATEVER. WE CAN EVEN DO IT AFTER THIS MEETING IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT SOME THINGS, BUT POINT YOU THERE FOR NOW. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR QUESTIONS. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDES FOR THE MEETING? I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THESE ARE THE OTHER SECTIONS WE ARE STILL WORKING ON. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT TRACKING THE CONSUMPTION, ACCOUNTING FOR PRECEP, THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE RULE. THOSE ARE MAJOR PIECES. THERE ARE STILL SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO DRAFT SOME OF THOSE PARTS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE AD HOC, [02:05:03] THE BOARD'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THIS SOON AND THEN ALSO OUT TO THE TAC AND SO WE'RE WORKING ON VARIOUS PIECES OF THAT, BUT THESE SECTIONS WE JUST TALKED THROUGH ARE BASICALLY THE MAJOR PIECES THAT WE NEEDED TO WORK ON. >> WELL, THANK YOU, GREG. >> THANK YOU. [10. STAFF REPORT] >> WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM TEN, STAFF REPORT, LACI. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR YOU. I WANTED TO LIGHT. YOU KNOW, AS A BOARD ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORING BASINS, SO DWR RELEASED SOME RESULTS OF THEIR RE REVIEW OF THE INCOMPLETE 2022 GSP SUBMITTALS AND THE TURLOCK SUB BASINS GSP WAS APPROVED, AND SO YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH HAS AN APPROVED GSP AS WELL. OUR OTHER TWO NEIGHBORS IN THIS BASIN, TO THE SOUTH AND DELTA MENDOTA TO THE WEST ARE WORKING HARD TO RESUBMIT TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, AMENDED GSP TO GET TRANSFERRED BACK TO DWR PRIOR TO HAVING A PROBATIONARY HEARING AT THE STATE WATER BOARD. THAT IS STILL HAPPENING IN THOSE TWO BASINS. NUMBER 2, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT THE FORM 700 ARE DUE BY APRIL 1ST. STARTING THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FPPC IS REQUIRING THAT YOU FILL OUT THOSE FORMS ONLINE SO YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN YOUR EMAIL THE PASSWORD TO LOG IN TO THE ONLINE FILING SYSTEM, AND GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. YOU WILL NOT BE SUBMITTING THOSE FORMS TO DAME LIKE YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. THANK YOU. >> YOU CAN THANK ME FOR THAT. I'VE BEEN FIGHTING THEM FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS. THAT WAS IT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LACI. BOARD REPORTS. STARTING ON MY LEFT, ANYTHING? NO. I'M GOING TO, I GUESS, TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GO OVER THE COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. COORDINATION COMMITTEE IS NICK MARTINI AND MIKE GALLO, AND THEN BOB KELLY IS REPLACING DAVE NARVINO, AND THEN THE ALTERNATE IS GEORGE PARKS/GINO PEDREI. >> THIS IS A SUBS COORDINATION COMMITTEE. >> CORRECT. I CAN GET THESE EMAILED TO YOU BOB, IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU HAVE TO WRITE THEM ALL DOWN. PHASE 2 FEE COMMITTEE IS MYSELF, BOB KELLY IS GOING TO REPLACE NICK MARTINI, AND THEN BOB JIMPOLY. THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS NO CHANGE. GINO PEDREI IS STILL AN ALTERNATE AND IS ELIGIBLE TO STAY ON THAT COMMITTEE. THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION IS NO CHANGE AS WELL. THAT'S GINO PEDREI NICK MARTINI, AND MIKE GALLO. I HAVE NO OTHER REPORT. THE TAC MEETING IS MARCH 25TH AT 2:00 PM. OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS APRIL 10TH, ALSO AT 2:00 PM. AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T HAVE A CLOSED SESSION, BUT, KEEP CHECKING. WITH THAT, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.