[00:00:02]
>> WE'RE AT A LITTLE BIT PAST TWO O'CLOCK.
I HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE INTERIM CHAIR WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO SHOW UP.
I SHOULD BE JUST A FEW MINUTES.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
FIRST ITEM IS A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.GEORGE WOULD LEAD US FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> ON THE AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 3 IS A PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD AGENDA.
TESTIMONY LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
>> MAYBE DO THE ROLL CALL FIRST.
>> I DIDN'T DO ROLL CALL. I'M SORRY.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL.
>> WE WAITED LONG ENOUGH FOR THE VICE CHAIR, AND NOW HE CAN TAKE OVER.
>> YES, OF COURSE. EVERYONE'S ALWAYS WAITING ON ITALIAN, ALWAYS.
>> CHAIRMAN PAREIRA WILL BE JOINING US MOMENTARILY. YOU HAVE A QUORUM?
>> PERFECT. HAVE WE DONE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE YET?
>> WE DID THAT. PERFECT. NOW WE'RE ON PUBLIC COMMENT NUMBER 3.
[3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]
IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA.THAT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, OR I'LL GIVE YOU FOUR IF YOU WANT. GO AHEAD.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP JUST AT THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING, BUT IT GOT CANCELED THIS MONTH.
SINCE IT'S ON TOP OF HEAD, I JUST WANTED TO BRING THESE FEW ITEMS UP.
I THINK THE BOARD NEEDS TO START PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO IN THE NEAR TERM.
THE PERMANENT WATER APPLICATION WITH MERCED ID.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY STILL LINGERING.
I THINK WE COULD TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN THAT.
THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION WITH BORDER LANDS.
IT'S A VERY BIG ISSUE WITH LOTS OF WHITE AREA FARMERS AND MID FARMERS.
JANUARY 1ST, 2026, IT'S GOING TO BE REAL.
WE NEED TO HAVE THAT ISSUE RESOLVED.
PENALTY FEE FOR OVER-PUMPING, STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET, SINCE WE DO HAVE, IT'S 500? I NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE STARTED TO ADDRESS THE NEW PROP 218 THAT WE NEED FOR THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE ALLOCATION PROGRAM.
THAT'S JUST IN TIME BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COME QUICK, TOO, THE NEED FOR THAT.
BUT THE LAST THING, AND I KNOW IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GSA IS PARTICIPATING, IS COORDINATION WITH DELTA-MENDOTA AND CHOWCHILLA SUBBASINS ON SUBSIDENS.
>> THOSE ARE GREAT. THANK YOU.
WERE THOSE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF YOU OR THE TAC COMMITTEE?
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> I SEE. VERY GOOD.
ALL GOOD POINTS. ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY ONLINE?
>> MOVING ON TO NUMBER 4, CONSENT CALENDAR.
[4. CONSENT CALENDAR ]
MEETING MINUTES AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES.>> THIS INCLUDES THREE ADDITIONAL INVOICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD AND TO THE PUBLIC IF REQUESTED.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR FROM THE PUBLIC? NO?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONTENT CALENDAR.
>> WE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM DR. GALLO.
>> SECOND FROM MEMBER GIAMPAOLI.
>> ALL OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
[5. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM]
MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.[00:05:03]
WE RECEIVED AN UPDATE FROM REN AND [INAUDIBLE].>> THANKS FOR THE TIME TODAY. I KNOW LAST BOARD MEETING, IT WAS LIKE A FULL-ON MLRP FILIBUSTER, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A FULL AGENDA TODAY.
WE'LL TRY TO LIMIT TO BUSINESS ITEMS. I BELIEVE WE MIGHT HAVE SOME SLIDES IN THE DECK, POTENTIALLY.
IF NOT, WE CAN DO A VERBAL DISCUSSION, NOT PERFECT.
NO WORRIES. WE HAVE TWO PRIMARY REQUESTS FOR ACTIONS OF THE BOARD.
TODAY, ONE IS TO APPROVE AN MLRP CONTRACT THAT'S GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE REVIEW PROCESS.
THEN THE SECOND IS ACTUALLY A PRE-CONTRACT APPROVAL, WHICH IS TO SUBMIT A COMMUNITY PROJECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO THE GSA GOING INTO CONTRACT.
JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON WHAT THAT ENTAILS ON PROCESS.
FOR PROJECTS TO GET HERE IN THIS DATE FOR PERSPECTIVE REVIEW TO THE BOARD, FOR PROJECTS TO GET HERE TODAY, THEY HAVE TO, ONE, GO THROUGH AN ELIGIBILITY SCORING THROUGH VALLEY ECO'S TEAM.
THEN THAT GOES THROUGH A TECHNICAL TEAM THAT WAS CONTRACTED OR SIGNED BY THE GSA TO DO AN INITIAL ROUND OF SCORING.
THEN THAT GOES TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD TO REVIEW THOSE PROJECTS.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT COMMITTEE REVIEW.
THIS GOES TO A STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THOSE PROSPECTIVE PROJECTS.
FINALLY, THEY COME HERE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, THEN GSA BOARD.
LOTS OF PROCESSES TO GET HERE TODAY.
THIS IS THE FINAL FOR THIS FIRST PROJECT.
THIS IS THE FINAL STEP IN THE PROCESS.
THE FIRST CONTRACT OR THE FIRST ACTION ON THE DOCKET TODAY IS APPROVAL OF PROJECT 7, THE BEAR CREEK TRANSITIONAL SEEDING PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT, THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, AND I THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES TO THIS POINT, BUT JUST AS A REFRESHER.
THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY.
THE PARTNERS ARE MUGSA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, DUCKS UNLIMITED.
RIVER PARTNERS HAS A HUGE ROLE IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
THE TOTAL FUNDING REQUEST IS $1.2 MILLION.
THE OVERALL PROJECT INTENT IS TO TRANSITION THE PROPERTY OUT OF AGRICULTURAL CROPLAND INTO NATIVE GRASSLAND AND COVER CROPPING ON ABOUT 1,100 ACRES, 01,090 ACRES TO BE EXACT.
THIS IS PART OF A TRANSITIONAL PROJECT.
THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN A SERIES OF ACTIONS ON THAT SITE.
THIS PRIMES IT FOR ECOLOGICAL WORK GOING FORWARD WITH SOME OF THESE PARTNERS.
APOLOGIES THAT THERE'S NO MAP TODAY, BUT THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE BEAR CREEK UNIT WITHIN THE WILDLIFE QUARTER DESIGNATED BY THE MLRP PROGRAM AND WITHIN THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACQUISITION BOUNDARY.
I'M GOING TO PAUSE THERE AND FILL ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR FROM PUBLIC PRIOR TO MAKING A REQUEST FROM THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS CONTRACT.
>> THIS PROJECT HAS ALREADY GONE TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION? DIDN'T THEY GIVE IT A THUMBS UP?
>> THIS IS THE LAST. IT'S GONE THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE TECHNICAL TEAM, THE PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.
IT'S GONE THROUGH THE FIVE LOOPS.
>> I'LL FINISH THIS LEASE AS IT.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ARE WE TAKING BOTH?
>> ONE AT A TIME? ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BEAR CREEK RANCH, APPROVING THAT CONTRACT? SHOULD I OPEN IT TO PUBLIC? SURE. WHY NOT? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS? HEARING NONE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO QUESTIONS? I'M LOOKING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> ONE QUESTION IS, I DIDN'T SEE IT.
WHAT IS THE DECREASED GROUNDWATER FOOTPRINT WITH THIS TASK?
>> THERE ARE NO RIGHT NOW, ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T GET A PROJECT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
NONE OF THE MLRP PROJECTS GIVE UP THEIR WATER RIGHT OR THEIR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATIONS, BUT THEY DO ALL TAKE AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF PRODUCTION.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE PROGRAM.
[00:10:01]
AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT WOULD BE COMING OUT OF PRODUCTION THROUGH THE PROGRAM.>> THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? READY FOR A MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BEAR CREEK RANCH CONTRACT. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. ANY ABSTENTIONS?
>> 5-0-1. >> 5-0-1. GOOD. THERE WE GO.
>> SECOND PIECE OF ACTION TODAY THROUGH THE MLRP PROGRAM IS THE APPROVAL FOR ONE STEP PRIOR TO CONTRACTING, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROJECT IN LE GRAND.
THAT PROJECT IS HERE FOR ACTION TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THEM PRIOR TO MSGSA CONTRACTING.
JUST AN UPDATE ON THAT PROJECT.
THAT PROJECT HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE SAME REVIEW REQUIREMENTS AS THE PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, INCLUDING VALLEY ECO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, THE TECHNICAL TEAM SCORING, THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD SCORING AND REVIEW, THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW.
THAT COMMUNITY PROJECT, THE REQUEST IS TO TAKE AN ACTION TO SUBMIT THAT PROJECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW.
THERE IS NO CONTRACTING ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT YET.
AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PROJECT, SORRY, I DON'T HAVE MY SLIDE DECK WITH ME, THAT PROJECT IS 20 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL IN LE GRAND.
THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MERCED COUNTY.
THE GOAL OF THE PROJECT IS TO TRANSITION THIS SITE TO A PUBLIC USE SITE.
THE LONG TERM WE HOPE WOULD BE TO PUT IT INTO A PARK, LIKE A RECREATIONAL PARK FOR THE AREA, WITH HABITAT ELEMENTS INTEGRATED INTO THAT PERMANENT DESIGN.
THE INTERMEDIATE STEP FUNDED BY MLRP IS THE ACQUISITION OF THAT PROPERTY, THE INSTALLATION OF HABITAT ON THE SITE, COVER CROPPING THE SITE, AND DOING SOME INITIAL TRAIL WORK TOWARDS THAT LONG-TERM PUBLIC USE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY FOREVER WILL GIVE UP ITS GROUNDWATER RIGHTS, AND ITS SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WILL BE IMPINGED TO LIMIT ITS UTILITY ON FACILITIES MANAGEMENT.
WE CAN FIELD QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. THAT ONE IS NEWER.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT ONE AS MANY TIMES AS WE HAVE SEEN THE BEAR CREEK PROJECT.
HAVING TO FILL QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THAT PROJECT TO PROVIDE ANCILLARY COMMENT TODAY AS WELL.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> YES. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE TAC AND THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES THAT LOOKED AT IT?
FROM THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE PRIMARY CONCERNS FLAGGED BY THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WERE PROBABLY MOST PROMINENT WERE FOCUSED AROUND THE LONG TERM FATE OF THE SITE, SO ENSURING THAT THIS PROPERTY COULDN'T BE PURCHASED AND THEN ROLLED BACK INTO PRIVATE POSSESSION, THAT THE WATER ON THE PROPERTY WAS PERMANENTLY IMPINGED ON THE SITE, AND THAT THERE WERE MECHANISMS IN PLACE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE.
THOSE WERE THE CONTINGENCIES THAT WILL BE PUT FORTH IN THE CONTRACT THAT WERE MODIFIED BY THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
>> THE PROPONENTS WERE AMENABLE TO THAT?
>> YES. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M NOT SURE.
>> ANY QUESTION FROM THE BOARD? I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? MS. DIETZ. HERE WE GO.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY NAME IS STEPHANIE DIETZ, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MERCED COUNTY AS THE APPLICANT FOR THE LE GRAND COMMUNITY PARK.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU TODAY AND TALK ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT UNDER THE MLRP PROGRAM.
THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR MEANINGFUL INVESTMENT IN BOTH OUR COMMUNITY AND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
WE WILL BE TRANSFORMING 20 ACRES OF IRRIGATED AG LAND CURRENTLY PRODUCING OR SLATED TO BE BROUGHT BACK INTO PRODUCTION FOR BELL PEPPERS INTO PASSIVE RECREATION SPACE, THAT INCLUDES NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION AND WALKING TRAILS.
IN DOING SO, WE WILL PERMANENTLY RETIRE GROUNDWATER USE ON THE PROPERTY AND FORFEIT ALL BUT WHAT'S NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING THE SITE OF SURFACE WATER USE HERE,
[00:15:06]
AND NO LONGER FARM THE GROUND, AND THAT'LL ALL BE RECORDED WITH THE DEED ON THE PROPERTY.THE DESIGN HAS BEEN SHAPED BY THE COMMUNITY INPUT THROUGH SEEDS, WORKSHOPS, AND THE GRAND, AND IT INCLUDES EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL STUDENTS, CREATING A SPACE WHERE LEARNING, RECREATION, AND CONSERVATION CAN COME TOGETHER.
WE ARE ALSO PURSUING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SOLAR LIGHTS AND ENHANCED SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY.
THE FOUNDATION HAS COMMITTED $100,000 FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OVER THE GRANT PERIOD.
OUR COMMITMENT IS TO KEEP THE SPACE OPEN AND FREE TO THE PUBLIC, TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE MAINTENANCE, AND TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY FURTHER, ALONG WITH TRIBAL PARTNERS, IN THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD, THE PROPERTY WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO A PUBLIC AGENCY STILL YET TO BE DETERMINED TO ENSURE ITS LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP.
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL OTHER GRANT OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED TO US BY THE ECO TEAM, AND WE'RE EXPLORING THOSE AS WELL TO AUGMENT THE FUNDING THAT IS AVAILABLE THROUGH MLRP.
OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH EITHER THE COUNTY AND/OR THIS ORGANIZATION TO DO SOME TYPE OF A LONG-TERM TRANSFER, AND THEN WE'LL COME ALONGSIDE AND SUPPORT WITH MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
WE'VE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE EAGER TO SEE THIS SITE BE TRANSFORMED AFTER THE 10-YEAR PERIOD AND HAVE TALKED ABOUT COMING ALONGSIDE US TO SECURE EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING.
IN SHORT, THIS PROJECT DELIVERS TANGIBLE WATER SAVINGS, LASTING COMMUNITY BENEFIT, AND ALIGNMENT WITH YOUR GOALS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR SUPPORT IN APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF THE PROJECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTION? COMMENTS? I LOVE THE PROJECTS.
THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S MY COMMENT.
I'M GOING TO SAY THAT, IF I CAN, IF I MAY.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU. SOUNDS GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS, OR SHOULD I OPEN UP THE PUBLIC, STILL? I GUESS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? IS THERE ANY ONLINE?
>> OKAY, NICK. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS PROPER PROCEDURE.
JUST RECUSED MYSELF. ABSTAIN AT THE VOTE.
>> YOU ABSTAIN NOW IF YOU LIKE.
>> I WASN'T SURE. BECAUSE LIVE OAK FARMS IS A PARTNER, I'M SORRY.
>> THE BEST THING TO DO IS COMPLETELY ABSTAIN.
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION OR VOTE.
>> HE TECHNICALLY SHOULD IF HE HAS A CONFLICT.
>> HE'S IN YOUR OFFICE? TELL ME HE'S IN THE OFFICE.
>> DEPARTS, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, THE BOARD WILL SEE THIS PRIOR TO GOING TO CONTRACT.
THERE'LL BE ONE MORE CHANCE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE FINALIZATION OF THIS CONTRACT BEFORE APPROVAL PERMANENTLY.
>> WE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
AND WE GOT A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> LAST REMINDER WHILE I HAVE THE MICROPHONE BEFORE NICK CAN BOOT ME.
WE DO HAVE ONE ROOM FOR AT LEAST ONE MORE PROJECT AVAILABLE IN THE MLRP PROGRAM.
WE'LL PROBABLY LEAVE THIS PASSIVE SOLICITATION IN THE UNIVERSE UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT.
BUT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, IF WE DON'T HAVE A HIGH ENOUGH RANKING PROJECT COME THROUGH THE MLRP PROGRAME, WE'LL BEGIN DIRECT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN OUR MLRP PRIORITY GEOGRAPHIES.
YOU MIGHT SEE FLYERS, YOU MIGHT GET PHONE CALLS FROM ME AND JUST CHECKING IN IF FOLKS ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING. THANK YOU ALL.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE ARE DONE WITH NUMBER FIVE.
I'M GOING TO PASS THE TORCH OVER TO CHAIRMAN, PERERA. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR STANDING IN, BOB AND NICK.
JUST AN FYI FOR ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC OR FOR THE BOARD, WE DO HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE PROJECT.
BE THINKING ABOUT IF YOU'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR OR SOMEBODY YOU KNOW THAT HAS SOME LAND THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A PROJECT, THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE FLOODWATER, THE WATER SAVINGS WE'VE BEEN A STRUGGLING ON CATCHING.
IF WE COULD GET SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENHANCE GROUNDWATER, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IT'D BE GOOD.
[6. WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT]
WHICH IS THE WOODARD AND KERN CONTRACT AMENDMENT.ARE YOU GOING TO TEE THIS UP, LACEY?
[00:20:02]
>> I GOT THIS ONE. THIS IS THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT THE GSAS AND THE MERCED BASIN HAVE WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN.
WOODARD AND CURRAN IS THE CONSULTING FIRM THAT ASSISTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GSP AND ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT ANNUAL REPORTS AND THE PERIODIC EVALUATION THAT WE JUST COMPLETED.
THIS AMENDMENT APPROVES TWO NEW TASKS TO BE ADDED TO THE WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT, AND IT UPDATES AN EXISTING TASK, WHICH IS THE ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
THE TWO NEW TASKS ARE THE FISCAL YEAR 25-26 MEETING SUPPORT AND THE WATER YEAR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT.
THE ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT IS FOR WOODARD AND CURRAN TO RESPOND TO INDIVIDUAL GSA DATA REQUESTS, ANALYSIS REQUESTS, AND SUPPORT DISCUSSION OF THE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK.
THIS TASK WILL ALSO SUPPORT INTRA BASIN AND INTER BASIN COORDINATION WITH OUR NEIGHBORING BASINS.
THIS TASK IS BUDGETED FOR $29,880, WHICH IS ABOUT HOW MUCH ON-CALL SUPPORT HAS BEEN USED ANNUALLY.
TASK 38 IS FOR MEETING FACILITATION AND SUPPORT.
THIS IS FOR THE BASIN-WIDE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
THESE COMMITTEES MEET QUARTERLY IN PERSON WITH A VIRTUAL COMPONENT, AND UNDER THIS TASK, WOODARD AND CURRAN SUPPORTS THE MEETINGS, DEVELOPING ALL OF THE MATERIALS, THE AGENDAS, THE SLIDES, THE MINUTES, THEY DO THE MEETING FACILITATION.
WE ALSO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL FACILITATOR COME IN WITH THOSE, AND THEN THEY ALSO PROVIDE SPANISH LANGUAGE TRANSLATION OVER THE ZOOM FOR THESE MEETINGS.
THIS TASK IS ACCOMPLISHED WITH A BUDGET OF $61,133.
THE FINAL TASK IS TASK 39, AND THIS IS THE WATER YEAR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT DEVELOPMENT.
SIMILAR TO PRIOR ANNUAL REPORTS PREPARED BY WOODARD AND CURRAN.
FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN, THE WATER YEAR 2025 REPORT WILL INCLUDE UPDATING INFORMATION IN THE THREE KEY SECTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED, THE GENERAL INFORMATION, THE BASIN CONDITIONS, AND THE GSP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS.
THIS TASK IS BUDGETED FOR $79,753, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST.
ALL OF THESE TASKS TOGETHER, THE BUDGET OF THIS AMENDMENT IS $170,766, AND THIS IS SHARED BY THE THREE GSAS IN THE BASIN.
THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSAS PORTION IS 58%, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY $99,000.
YOU DO HAVE BUDGETED ABOUT 150,000 FOR THE WOODARD AND CURRAN IN THE BUDGET, AND THIS WAS FOR BOTH THE ANNUAL REPORT AND STARTING TO COLLECT DOLLARS FOR THE NEXT PERIODIC EVALUATION, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT REALLY LARGE COLLECTION RIGHT AT YEAR FOUR AND YEAR FIVE, LIKE WE DID THIS PAST YEAR.
YOU HAVE THIS IN THE BUDGET FOR YOU ALREADY, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> LACEY, HOW DID THE AMOUNTS COMPARE TO THE PRIOR YEARS?
THE 79,000 FOR THE ANNUAL REPORT.
THE WATER YEAR 2023 ANNUAL REPORT WAS AT 77,000.
WATER YEAR 2024 WAS IN COMBINATION WITH THE PERIODIC EVALUATION.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE WONKY, BECAUSE WE PAID MORE FOR THE PERIODIC EVALUATION.
BUT TWO YEARS AGO, IT WAS AT 77,000.
THE ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT LAST YEAR, WE STARTED SCALING THIS BACK AND LOOKING AT HOW MUCH ARE THE GSAS USING FOR ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT, AND IT WAS COMING IN RIGHT AROUND 30,000.
LAST YEAR WHEN YOU APPROVED THIS AMENDMENT, BECAUSE AS YOU RECALL, THIS IS AN ANNUAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU DO EACH YEAR FOR WOODARD AND CURRAN, LAST YEAR YOU DID PUT $30,000 IN THE ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THAT AS WELL SO THAT'S VERY CONSISTENT.
THE GSA MEETING SUPPORT, I BELIEVE LAST YEAR, WE ONLY INCLUDED HALF OF THE YEAR, AND SO LAST YEAR'S AMENDMENT WAS AROUND $30,000 FOR TWO MEETINGS.
THIS IS $60,000 FOR FOUR MEETINGS.
AGAIN IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? [INAUDIBLE] ANYBODY ELSE?
>> I'LL OPEN UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. ANY ONLINE?
[00:25:01]
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 7,
[7. ZANJERO CONTRACT AMENDMENT]
ZANJERO CONTRACT AMENDMENT, LACEY.>> THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS WITH YOUR EXISTING TECHNICAL AND STRATEGIC SUPPORT CONSULTANT, ZANJERO, AND IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PHASE TWO FEE.
YOU CURRENTLY HAVE AN EXISTING PHASE ONE FEE IN PLACE, THAT WAS ADOPTED THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING IN 2022.
THE PHASE ONE FEE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE, SUNSETS THIS YEAR.
YOU HAD FOUR COLLECTIONS ON IT; THIS IS THE LAST COLLECTION, AND IT WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH A NEW FUNDING.
THE PHASE ONE FEE WAS FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES LIKE THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS, AND THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION.
WITH THE END OF THE PHASE ONE FEE, AND AS THE GSA TRANSITIONS INTO PHASE TWO OF GSP IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE ALLOCATION PROGRAM, A NEW FUNDING SOURCE NEEDS TO BE IDENTIFIED.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A PHASE TWO FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF BOARD MEMBERS IN PLACE TO REVIEW THE ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED BY THIS FEE, THE BUDGET, AND TO RECOMMEND THE FUNDING STRUCTURE.
THE PHASE TWO FEE WILL BE ADOPTED THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING.
THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY IDENTIFIES ZANJERO TO DEVELOP THE REQUIRED ENGINEERS REPORT FOR THE PHASE TWO FEES PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING, AND TO PROVIDE PROCESS SUPPORT FOR OUTREACH OF THE PHASE TWO FEE PROPOSITION 218 AND AB-22-57 COMPLIANCE, AND TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE COST OF THE ENGINEERS REPORT AND SUPPORT FOR THE PHASE TWO FEE PROCESS IS NOT TO EXCEED $75,000, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR FISCAL YEAR 25-26 BUDGET.
THE FUNDING STRUCTURE WILL BE RECOMMENDED TO THIS BOARD BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH THE BOARD MAKING THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PHASE TWO FEE.
ZANJERO'S SCHEDULE FOR THIS IS 160 DAYS FOR THE ENGINEERS REPORT.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE SCHEDULE IS ALSO DICTATED BY THE TIME NECESSARY FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THAT RATE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE.
AS IT GOES THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS AND THEN COMES BACK TO THE BOARD.
YOUR ACTION TODAY APPROVES BRINGING ON ZANJERO TO HELP SUPPORT THAT PROCESS AND PUT TOGETHER THE ENGINEERS REPORT.
BUT THE FINAL DECISION ON WHAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEE LOOKS LIKE IS GOING TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD.
>> THANK YOU, LACEY. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> WHAT WAS THE TOTAL CONTRACT?
>> IT'S NOT TO EXCEED $75,000.
I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THAT IS NOT TO EXCEED 75,000 FOR YOUR CONSULTANT.
THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE OTHER SUPPORT THAT YOU MIGHT NEED FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR FISCAL YEAR '25-'26 BUDGET UNDER A DIFFERENT LINE ITEM.
>> MY QUESTION IS MORE GENERAL.
WHAT IS IN THIS ENGINEER'S REPORT? ANYBODY TELL ME, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WOULD BE IN A ENGINEER'S REPORT?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK JEANNE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BE IN THE ENGINEERS REPORT.
>> IT'S REQUIRED BY PROP 218 REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING PROVIDES A BENEFIT TO THE PARCELS THAT YOU'RE CHARGING PROPOTIONAL BENEFIT.
WE NEED TO GO THROUGH AND DESCRIBE WHAT'S BEING FUNDED AND HOW EACH OF THOSE ACTION WILL BENEFIT THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE CHARGING FOR THAT ACTION.
THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED BY PROP 218 AND PROP 26.
THAT'S WHAT IT DOES, IS DESCRIBE WHAT'S BEING FUNDED AND WHY IT BENEFITS THE PEOPLE PAYING.
WE DID ONE OF THESE FOR THE PHASE ONE FEE.
>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW SIGMA BENEFITS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING.
>> KEEP TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S GOOD. YOU GET IT.
[00:30:04]
WE PUT YOU ON THE AGENDA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY ONLINE?>> WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
>> WOULD SOMEBODY LET GREG KNOW, BRAD, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO DO THAT TO LET HIM KNOW HE CAN COME BACK IN. THANK YOU.
[8. BOARD APPEAL OF FINAL AGENCY STAFF DENIAL OF INCORRECT ASSESSOR OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL]
WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS A BOARD APPEAL OF FINAL AGENCY STAFF DENIAL OF INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL? THE ONE THING I DON'T KNOW, JEANNE, IS TIME LIMIT.IS THERE A CERTAIN BLOCK OF TIME THAT EACH PERSON HAS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE ON THE APPEAL?
>> NO, THERE'S NOT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH ONE, LIKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE OR IT'S GOING TOO LONG, YOU CAN SET REASONABLE TIME LIMITS, BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.
>> OKAY. SO I'LL SET A HALF-HOUR PER PARTY.
IS THAT HOW LONG YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE? HOPEFULLY, IT'S 10 MINUTES, BUT I JUST FIGURED.
THIS IS MY FIRST APPEAL HEARING, SO BEAR WITH ME.
THE APPELLATE IS BERT CRANE ORCHARDS LP, APN NUMBER 0-5-2-1-5-0-0-1-1 AND 0-5-2-0-7-0-0-1-0.
I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'LL ASK AGENCY STAFF TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION.
THEN THE APPELLANT WILL GET A CHANCE TO SHARE THEIR INFORMATION.
WE'LL DO PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE STAFF.
>> OF COURSE. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT I'VE HAD PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH BEN CRANE, NUMBER ONE, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM COUNSEL AND STAFF TELLING US THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO THE APPELLANT.
I TAKE GREAT EXCEPTION TO THAT.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS, THE WATER USERS, THE FARMERS, AND I'M ACCESSIBLE TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO CALL ME AND ASK ME QUESTIONS OR TELL ME WHAT THEY DON'T LIKE ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE MISTAKES, AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE.
I TAKE EXCEPTION TO BEING TOLD WE CAN'T TALK TO SOMEONE, THIS IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I WANT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.
BUT TO HEAR FROM STAFF ALONE, MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
I SEE NO REASON AND I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT BY HAVING THAT LETTER SENT OUT TO EACH OF US TO TELL US THAT WE CAN'T TALK TO A GROWER, A FARMER, A LANDOWNER, AT ANY TIME, EXCEPT I GUESS, DURING A LAWSUIT?
>> I ALSO MET WITH THE CRANES AND SO I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT.
I GUESS GIA WELL, IS ONCE THERE'S AN APPEAL, WE BECOME JUDGES, WE'RE NO LONGER BOARD MEMBERS, SO IT CHANGES.
>> IS AN ADJUDICATORY PROCESS, QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS.
ONCE THE APPEAL IS FILED, THEN YOU ARE ACTING AS A COURT.
YOU ARE A JUDGE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL.
YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO LISTEN TO WHAT HAPPENS AT THE HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES AND SEE WHAT IS IN THE RECORD.
IF THERE ARE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, THEY NEED TO BE DISCLOSED, WHICH YOU'VE DONE.
[00:35:02]
THAT'S JUST THE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION.IT DOES NOT APPLY AT ANY TIME OTHER THAN THE TINY PERIOD BETWEEN THE APPEAL AND THE HEARING.
>> THAT INCLUDES STAFF AS WELL, THEN? OUR COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF DURING THE SAME TIME?
>> IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH STAFF.
NO DECISION. IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.
EVERYTHING IS AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO AS A JUDGE, HEAR WHAT'S BEFORE YOU DURING THE HEARING.
>> THEN I ALSO SPOKE WITH STAFF.
>> BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, QUASI SO IT'S A SUGGESTION.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS ON THE BOARD DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T TALK TO PEOPLE.
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION ON THAT, BUT I'M JUST TELLING EVERYBODY, THEY WANT TO TALK TO ME, YOU CAN TALK TO ME.
>> I ALSO WAS CONTACTED AND HAD HAD BRIEF CONVERSATION ON THE SUBJECT.
>> WELL, I'M GLAD MIKE BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE, I HAD SEEN THE LETTER.
BEN CALLED ME, BUT I DIDN'T BECAUSE OF THAT, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER FARMERS, THEY'RE NEIGHBORS, AND IT'S HARD. THANK YOU.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT YOU OR GREG?
>> THEN YOU SHOULD PROBABLY GO TO THE PODIUM, I THINK.
>> YOU WANT ME TO GO TO THE PODIUM?
>> WE MIGHT LOSE HER IF SHE BECOME AN ATTORNEY.
>> LET ME GO KEY. I'D LIKE TO START WITH SOME BACKGROUND ON THE POLICY AND THE STAFF DETERMINATION THAT'S UNDER APPEAL HERE TODAY.
THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE WAS ADOPTED ON JANUARY 10, 2024.
IT ESTABLISHES AN ALLOCATION FOR ELIGIBLE PARCELS OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NATIVE GROUNDWATER AND FOR SOME IRRIGATED PARCELS, ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE.
THE OCTOBER RULE, WE'RE REFERRING TO THIS AS THE OCTOBER RULE BECAUSE THIS SPECIFIC POLICY WAS CHANGED IN THE JUNE VERSION, THE POLICY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT, AND THE JUNE VERSION WAS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED.
THIS RECLASSIFICATION OF LAND USE REQUEST INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE.
THIS APPEAL IS UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE.
THE OCTOBER RULE ESTABLISHES A PROCESS FOR LAND OWNERS TO APPEAL AND INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO CHANGE THE USE FROM NOT IRRIGATED TO IRRIGATED.
PARCELS THAT ARE RECLASSIFIED UNDER THIS PROCESS WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL PUMPING ALLOWANCE THAT ANY OTHER IRRIGATED PARCEL WOULD BE ABLE TO RECEIVE.
THE PROCESS FOR CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION THAT WAS INCORRECT, UNDER THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS THAT THE OWNER MUST SUBMIT THE REQUIRED MERCEDESA BASED IN GSA PROVIDED FORMS, IDENTIFYING THE MISCLASSIFIED PARCEL AND PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT DEMONSTRATES EITHER THAT ONE, THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER OR TWO THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024.
ON OCTOBER 14, 2025, BERT CRANE ORCHARDS LP SUBMITTED TWO INCORRECT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL FORMS FOR PARCEL 052150011 AND 052070010.
YOU SEE THESE ON THE MAP. THEY'RE OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT THEY'RE THE PARCELS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN BLUE ON THE MAP.
THESE APPEALS ARE BEING CONSIDERED TOGETHER BECAUSE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION AND THE STAFF DECISION IS BASED ON THE SAME DATA AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BOTH PARCELS.
THE APPEAL FORM CITED THE SAME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, AND THAT ASSERTS THAT SOIL DELINEATIONS COMPLETED BY MORE BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS IN 2022 CONSTITUTES THE SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE OCTOBER RULE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION TO IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE.
[00:40:02]
THIS IS THE MORE BIOLOGICAL MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION, AND IT SHOWS THE SOIL DELINEATIONS ON THE MAP FOR THE TWO PARCELS.ON MAY 14, 2025, STAFF DENIED THE INCORRECT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL FOR THESE PARCELS.
THE STAFF DECISION ALIGNS WITH THE COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE OCTOBER RULE, AND ITS IRRIGATION IS DEFINED AS THE PRACTICE OF SUPPLYING LAND WITH WATER SO THAT CROPS AND PLANTS WILL GROW, WHILE INFRASTRUCTURE IS DEFINED AS THE BASIC SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION AND POWER SUPPLIES THAT A COUNTRY OR ORGANIZATION USES IN ORDER TO WORK EFFECTIVELY.
THE WETLANDS MAP DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
UNDER THE COMMON MEETING, RATHER THE MAP CONSTITUTES THE PRELIMINARY WORK THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO MAKING A DETERMINATION TO INVEST IN AND INSTALL SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE WETLAND MAP ALSO DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT AS BEING INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE WETLANDS MAPPING ISN'T AN IMPORTANT STEP THAT A GROWER MAY TAKE IN PREPARING TO PLANT A CROP.
THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY STEPS AND INVESTMENTS THAT A GROWER MAY TAKE PRIOR TO INVESTING IN THE INSTALLED INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE WETLANDS MAP SIMPLY DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT IN THE ALLOCATION RULE FOR RECLASSIFICATION.
ON JUNE 23, BURT CRANE ORCHARD SUBMITTED AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF DECISION.
IN THE APPEAL, NO NEW OR DIFFERENT MATERIALS OR JUSTIFICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED, AND SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO UPHOLD THE ORIGINAL DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THESE PARCELS AS IRRIGATED.
DENIAL OF THE RECLASSIFICATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE PARCELS ARE LEFT OUT OF THE ALLOCATION PROGRAM.
LIKE ANY OTHER UNIRRIGATED PARCEL, THESE PARCELS ARE ELIGIBLE TO OPT IN TO RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF NEAT OF GROUNDWATER THAT COULD BE SHARED WITH CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON INTEREST, AND THE OPT IN PROCESS WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THESE PARCELS.
I WANTED TO GIVE JEANNE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AS WELL.
YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL, JEANNE LESS BEEN PART OF THIS PROCESS THE ENTIRE TIME AND I'D LIKE YOU TO HEAR FROM COUNSEL ON HER ANALYSIS OF THIS APPEAL AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, LACEY. I JUST WANTED TO FRAME FOR YOU WHAT YOUR JOB IS TODAY.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS A HEARING WHERE YOU ARE TO WEIGH AND BALANCE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, AND THE INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE LANDOWNER.
THE COMMENTS OF STAFF AND THE COMMENTS OF THE LANDOWNER TODAY.
YOU MUST DETERMINE IF STAFF'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THE CRUX OF THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE LANDOWNER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE AS LACEY WENT THROUGH.
STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SOIL DELINEATION MAP DOES NOT MEET THE RULES REQUIREMENT OF SIGNIFICANT CROP OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT IS A VERY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CONCERNING THE PLAIN MEETING OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE RULE.
YOU ARE CLEARLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.
YOU SHOULD, OF COURSE, HEAR FROM THE LAND OWNER AND GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THEN AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE REMAINING.
>> THANK YOU. THAT IT'S FOR STAFF? NOW WE'LL MOVE TO THE CRANES, WHO'S I SEE WE'VE DECIDED WHO'S SPEAKING.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR THIS APPEAL TODAY.
I'M WITH BAKER MANAKIN JENSEN, REPRESENTING APPELLANT BERT CRANE ORCHARD, LP.
I'M CONFIDENT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS LAUREN LANE IN MY OFFICE.
>> EXCUSE ME. IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON?
>> I CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT LOUDER.
>> MAYBE A LITTLE CLOSER BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR.
>> EVERYONE HERE PROBABLY KNOWS LAUREN LE IN MY OFFICE WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY DUE TO A CONFLICTING PRESENTATION, SO I'LL MAKE SURE TO DIRECT ALL DIFFICULT COMMENTS TO HER.
REGARDING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOU TODAY, I WILL TRY AND KEEP IT SHORT, AS I BELIEVE MOST OF YOU ALL ARE FARMERS, AND YOU WOULD RATHER HEAR FROM FARMERS RATHER THAN A LAWYER.
HOWEVER, I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO BURT AND BEN.
[00:45:02]
I DO APPRECIATE THAT LACEY CLARIFIED THAT THE OCTOBER RULE APPLIES HERE AND NOT THE JUNE RULE THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED IN JUNE.AS THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION TO CORRECT THE LAND USE APPLICATION CLASSIFICATION WENT OUT, WE JUST WANT TO DRIVE HOME THAT THE PARCELS DID NOT HAVE TO BE IRRIGATED BY GROUNDWATER TO QUALIFY AS AN IRRIGATED PARCEL IF THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024 DEADLINE.
THAT IS THE CASE HERE, AS BURT AND BEN ARE GOING TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU SHORTLY.
WE JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF'S REPORT ON THIS APPEAL REFERENCES SECTION 1.112.1 OF THE OCTOBER RULE, WHICH IS A LITTLE POTENTIALLY CONFUSING AND MISLEADING.
THAT SECTION ON THE OCTOBER RULE LEADS THE READER TO PLACEHOLDER CAPTION IN THE OLD OCTOBER RULE FOR REFINEMENT OF GIS ACREAGE.
WE JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT REFERENCE TO SECTION 1.11.2.1 IS INCORRECT, AND IT SHOULD REFERENCE 1.11.1 IN THE OCTOBER RULE.
AS I SAID, BURT AND MEN ARE GOING TO GET UP HERE SHORTLY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DESCRIBE TO YOU THE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS INSTALLED ON THESE TWO PARCELS BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
AS YOU WILL SEE, I HAVE A SLIDE. YOU MIND, IF I THERE YOU GO.
THIS IS A SLIDE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER AND SOME INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SHOWS THAT GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER CAN EASILY BE DELIVERED TO THAT LAND VIA EXISTING INSTALLATIONS.
FROM OTHER ACREAGE IN THE RANCH ALSO THERE WAS THE WETLANDS DELINEATION MAP PROVIDED PREPARED IN 2021, WHICH IS THAT VITAL FIRST STEP TO PLANTING AFTER THE JON DUARTE CASE AND DID LEAVE MATERIALS AND INSTALLATIONS IN THE GROUND.
WE APPRECIATE THAT IT IS JUST A MAP, BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO DESCRIBE ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE ON THESE PARCELS.
BURT AND BEN ARE GOING TO DESCRIBE, THOSE ACTIVITIES TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CROP AND IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 2024 DEADLINE.
WE ALSO JUST ALL SAY MY ONE PIECE BEFORE I LEAVE AND GIVE IT OVER TO THOSE GUYS.
WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND GRANT CRANE ORCHARD'S APPEAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH SIGMA, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA RULES AND TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING GROUNDWATER RIGHTS. THANKS VERY MUCH.
SUPPLIED TO YOU GUYS TODAY IS THE MAP THAT OUTLINES THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BERT CRANE ORCHARDS THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10TH, 2024.
THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE STOPS JUST SHORT OF THE APN LINE SO IT'S INADMISSIBLE ANYWAY, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE CURRENTLY.
[BACKGROUND] YEAH, THE BLUE LINE.
JUST TO THE RIGHT, WHERE THE PIN THAT SAYS CRANE MAIN LINE TO LOT 18, LOT 18 IS THE PARCEL IN QUESTION THAT WE DID OUR CROP INFRASTRUCTURE IN PREPARING TO PLANT.
THE RED LINE SHOWS THE PIPE THAT TRANSPORTS MID SURFACE WATER TO OUR RESERVOIR.
ALL THE YELLOW LINES SHOW THE WELL PIPES THAT FILL INTO OUR RESERVOIR.
THE BLUE LINE IS WHAT CARRIES WATER TO THOSE, IT LOOKS LIKE FOUR FIELDS, BUT IT'S THREE FIELDS JUST BELOW THE LAST PIN ON THE MAP.
>> LACEY, IS THERE A LASER ON THERE FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO HELP HIM OUT? DON'T POINT THAT AT ME.
[00:50:01]
[LAUGHTER]>> OR TO SHERIFF'S OFFICE HELICOPTER.
MID POINT DIVERSIONS HERE, PUMPS INTO THE RESERVOIR.
YELLOW LINES GO INTO THE RESERVOIR. BLUE LINE GOES OUT.
CURRENTLY, IT IRRIGATES THIS FIELD HERE, AND IT'S INTENDED TO IRRIGATE THIS BLOCK HERE.
BERT AND I, WE INITIATED THE RECONNAISSANCE WITH DIANE MORE, AND SHE DELINEATED THE VERNAL POOLS, NOT JUST THE ARIAL, BUT DIANE AND MYSELF AND DIANE'S DAUGHTER WENT OUT AND ACTUALLY MARKED THE VERNAL POOLS STAKES, AND THAT WAS DONE IN 2022.
WE ALSO DISCED AROUND THE DELINEATION TO MAKE THE DL EVANS AWARE OF THERE IS A VERNAL POOL THERE.
THERE IS A WETLAND SWALE THERE.
DO NOT CROSS THE DISC LINES., AND THAT WAS WITH THE DELINEATION MAP SUPPLIED BY DIANE MORE.
THIS IS THE PARCEL. ON THE OTHER MAP THAT THE BOARD WAS SUPPLIED, YOU COULD SEE THE DELINEATION MARKS IN IT.
>> BUT EXCUSE ME. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP SO I'M GUESSING AS TO WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF 15011 AND 107010.
IS THERE A WAY TO DELINEATE THOSE ON WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING?
>> THERE WAS ONE, THERE. HERE I SAW.
>> THERE WE GO. HERE'S THE DELINEATION MAP AND WITHIN THAT DELINEATION, THERE'S 30 FOOT BUFFERS THAT GO AROUND THIS, BASICALLY MAKING IT INELIGIBLE TO PLANT.
THAT'S DIANE'S ANALYSIS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE NOW?
>> THE APN, WHAT'S THE NUMBER, AND IS THAT THE WHOLE OF THAT UNUSUAL PIECE THAT HAS THE RIGHT ANGLE ON, WOULD BE LIKE THE SOUTHEAST?
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO BE SURE.
I KNOW WHAT THESE PARCELS ARE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> HERE'S THE FIRST PARCEL AND HERE'S THE SECOND PARCEL.
>> WHERE'S THE PUMP AT AND POINT OF REFERENCE FROM THE OTHER MAP ON HERE? POINT.
>> JUST SHY OF HENDERSON HERE.
>> I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT AS STILL AS I CAN.
BUT THE INTENT OF THAT PIPELINE WAS AND IS TO IRRIGATE THIS HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, BERT CRANE ORCHARDS HISTORICALLY HAS DELINEATED ALL OF THE OTHER GROUND.
YOU CAN SEE HERE'S SOME VERNAL POOLS.
HERE'S A WETLAND VERNAL POOLS HERE.
THIS IS A POINT TO BE PROVEN THAT YES, IT CAN BE PLANTED.
YES, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FARM IT.
LIKE WE WERE SAYING IN 2022, BERT CRANE ORCHARDS, WE DID OUR RECONNAISSANCE, DIANE MOORE IS DOING THE DELINEATIONS.
THE PIPELINE WAS INSTALLED IN 2018.
WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? HOLD BACK, DON'T PLANT.
LET'S SEE WHERE EVERYTHING SHAKES OUT.
IF YOU GUYS RECALL, THAT'S WHEN I REALLY STARTED COMING TO THE MEETINGS WHEN DRAFT RULES WERE STARTING TO COME OUT AND THAT'S WHY I WAS VERY ADAMANT ON RECEIVING FULL WATER ALLOCATIONS FOR OUR NATIVE GROUND, BECAUSE BERT CRANE ORCHARDS DID NOT PLANT THIS ON PURPOSE, HOPING ON A DREAM, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A WATER ALLOCATION.
BY OUR ACTIONS BY DOING THIS, PROVES THAT SOMETIMES DOING THE RIGHT THING IS NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR YOURSELF.
BY NOT PLANTING IT, WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING IN ORDER FOR US TO RECEIVE THE APA AND SUSTAINABLE YIELD, AND IT WASN'T.
[00:55:01]
>> WHAT THOSE PIPELINES BURIED ON TOP OF THE GROUND AND WHAT ARE THE SIZE?
>> UNDERGROUND. I DON'T HAVE MY IRRIGATION MAP IN FRONT OF ME.
I BELIEVE THIS ONE HERE COMES TO ABOUT 15 INCH HERE BECAUSE IT IS A LONG RUN.
>> ONCE THAT GO ACROSS THE PARCEL?
>> AT THIS POINT, YOU DON'T GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE TWO SUBJECT PARCELS.
>> LOOKS LIKE A BLUE LINE THERE.
>> THAT'S A TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS.
>> THE BLUE IS THE PARCEL LINE HERE.
WE STOPPED JUST SHORT OF HENDERSON BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET UNDER HENDERSON IS THE MID APPLICATIONS AND THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT GOES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. [BACKGROUND] THAT WAS MY QUESTION. IT IRRIGATES THIS HERE.
>> THE INTENT WAS TO, FOR SURE, TO IRRIGATE THOSE PARCELS SOUTH OF THERE.
>> WELL, HANG ON. INTENT WAS TO IRRIGATE THESE PARCELS; 01,2, AND 3, AS WELL AS THIS AT A LATER DATE.
THAT LATER DATE HAS COME AND GONE WITH SIGMA, WHY PLANT IT, IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO FOLLOW IT ANYWAY.
>> WELL, YOU CAN STILL FARM IT IF YOU WANT.
NO ONE'S TAKEN THAT RIGHT AWAY? JUST TO BE CLEAR.
WE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR PROPERTY, SO LONG AS YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. I JUST WANT TO BE THAT CLEAR.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
WE PURCHASED CONTRACT SURFACE WATER FROM MID.
WE'VE CALCULATED THIS INTO OUR METRIC TO WHERE WE CAN STILL FARM IT.
THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE THIRSTY, BUT WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO FARM.
>> BERT CRANE, I CAN GIVE YOU THE READER'S DIGEST VERSION.
>>[LAUGHTER] WHATEVER YOU WANT.
HIS MOTHER WAS A CATTLE WOMAN.
HIS MOTHER'S DAD, THE ROAD GUY WAS A CATTLEMAN.
THIS IS A TWO GROUND, ROCKY SLOPES, COBBLE ROCK AND HAD NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED.
IN '94, I WANTED TO PLANT WALNUTS.
IT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE IN MERCED COUNTY BEFORE.
WENT AND TALKED TO WALT DEIRDORF AND WATERFORD.
HE'S DOING IT ALL DAY LONG OVER THERE IN THOSE HILLS, ROCKY SLOPES, SAME THING.
HE CAME DOWN AND SAID, YEAH, YOU CAN.
THEN IN 1997, AFTER I DID THE THREE YEARS OF RECON ON THIS, IN '97, WE PLANTED THE FIRST.
THEY GREW GOOD. THERE'S NO FREE LIME.
EVERYTHING WORKED. THIS WAS STILL UNDER JOINT OWNERSHIP OF BERT MARY AND KAREN.
THE A1 PARCEL OF 4,500 ACRES, THE A ONE SIDE HAD BEEN SPLIT.
I WAS LEASING THIS FROM BERT, MARIE AND KAREN AT THE TIME AND WANTED TO CONTINUE.
IT WENT THROUGH THE COUNTY, WENT THROUGH THE PARCEL SPLIT PROCESS, AND ALL THAT. WE ENDED UP WITH IT.
OUR LONG RANGE GOAL WAS TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE, ROADS, ACCESS, POWER, AND RESERVOIR SYSTEMS TO PLANT ALL OF THIS SO THEN, IF WE GO TO THE BIGGER PICTURE IN 2017, BEN, WHO GETS THIS ALMOND DEAL.
I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ALMONDS, BUT BEN GETS THAT.
WALNUTS, I UNDERSTAND WALNUTS.
BUT BEN WANTED TO EXPAND IT SO WE EXPANDED INTO WALNUTS AND ALMONDS.
YOU CAN SHOW HIM THE THINGS THERE AND THOSE ARE ALL QUARTER SECTIONS THERE AND PUT IN A PUMPING STATION.
THE PUMPING STATION AT THE RESERVOIR IS 900 HORSEPOWER CAPACITY, FOUR PUMPS THERE TO DO IT ALL, WITH THE INTENTION OF EXPANDING AND DOING THE OTHER STUFF WITH IT, THE SMALLER STUFF TO THE EAST.
THAT WAS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAD PUT IN
[01:00:02]
ON OUR LONG TERM PLANTING GOALS WITH THIS RANCH.THEN AS FAR AS INFRASTRUCTURE, THE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE, IN MY DEFINITION, WOULD BE A PLANTED ORCHARD.
THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET THAT, 'CAUSE THAT'S SIGNIFICANT.
OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, WE'VE GOT TOMATOES WITH LAY FLAT HOSE WITH PUNCH IN VALVES.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE'VE GOT ALFALFA WITH A DITCH AND SIPHONS.
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT? YOU KNOW.
I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR FRUSTRATION.
THIS IS OUR FIRST APPEAL, TOO, SO WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME THING.
QUESTIONS WITH ANY OF THAT? WE HAD QUESTIONS EARLIER.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IT? JUST A SIDE NOTE, MY DAD WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION 28 YEARS.
HE THOUGHT IT WAS 25 WHEN ANN KLINGER GAVE HIM THE PLAQUE THAT SAID 28.
NO, HE WENT THREE YEARS EXTRA.
HE WOULD GO OUT AS YOU DO AND SEE THE FIELD, SEE THE PROBLEMS WHEN THINGS DIDN'T ALIGN WITH SUGGESTIONS FROM THE OFFICE AND APPRECIATE STAFF'S HARD WORK AND ALL THIS.
I CERTAINLY COULDN'T DO STAFF'S WORK.
WITH THAT, I THINK, WE'RE DONE.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY ONLINE?
>> THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN AGENCY, OUR STAFF, NOW GIVE A RESPONSE, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION FROM THE APPELLANT.
JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, OF COURSE, IS EVERYTHING POINTED TO WAS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN USED TO IRRIGATE EXISTING LANDS IN PRODUCTION.
THERE WAS NO INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED ON THE TWO APNS IN QUESTION.
THE IRRIGATION PIPELINE WAS IN PLACE AND USED TO IRRIGATE EXISTING LAND.
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH EXISTING RIGHTS.
AS NICK POINTED OUT, OPTING IN WOULD GIVE THEM FULL NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD.
THE ONLY THING MISSING IS, IF THEY OPT IN, IF YOU UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE GETTING THE APA.
AND THE APA IS INTENDED FOR EXISTING IRRIGATED AG TO TRANSITION DOWN TO FULL SUSTAINABLE NATIVE YIELD.
THE PURPOSE HERE IN OUR OPINION WAS THE APA IS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IRRIGATING IT, AND THEY DIDN'T COME OUT OF POCKET WITH SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE TO IRRIGATE THAT WOULD WARRANT THE SIGNIFICANT YIELD.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION, THOUGH. WELL, IT'S RELATED.
IN LOOKING AT THE ALLOCATION RULES, I'M A BIT CONFUSED WITH THE OCTOBER RULE.
I LOOKED AT ONE ITERATION, AND I GUESS, IT WAS BEFORE THE JUNE THAT HAD THE LANGUAGE IN THERE OR NUMBER 2, SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED.
THAT WAS STRUCK OUT IN THE LAST DRAFT, THE FINAL DRAFT, AND THAT DID NOT GET INCLUDED.
IT JUST SIMPLY GOES FROM SUBMIT THE REQUIRED MSGSA PROVIDED FORMS, IDENTIFYING MISCLASSIFIED PARCELS AND PROVIDING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER?
>> PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GROUNDWATER INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN IT'S BEEN STRUCK OUT?
>>THE OCTOBER RULE WAS IN PLACE FOR A WHILE.
BEFORE THE OCTOBER RULE WAS AMENDED TO WHAT YOU JUST READ TO THE CURRENT, APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED UNDER THE RULE AT THAT TIME THAT INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY CAN NO LONGER BE SUBMITTED.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPANTS APPEALING FOR A MISCLASSIFIED LAND USE WITH IRRIGATED INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE WHEN IT WAS IN PLACE AND VALID SO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE APPEALS.
[01:05:01]
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT WAS IN PLACE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.>> THIS APPEAL STARTED BEFORE THE FINAL RULE ON JUNE 4TH, 2025.
>> THERE WILL BE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THEM, BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE LEGALLY APPLIED UNDER THE RULE THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UNDER THE JUNE RULE, THEN, WHAT WOULD THIS PROPERTY BE ELIGIBLE FOR? UNDER THE FINAL RULE YEAH, THE JUNE RULE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
NOW IS OUR TIME TO DELIBERATE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, THAT'S NOW AND THEN AFTER THE DISCUSSION, IF THERE IS ANY, THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
ANY DISCUSSION. TO ME, THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF OPT IN LAND.
THE REASON WHY WE MADE THAT CATEGORY, WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST, BUT I'LL SAY THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? FOREVER IT'S WORTH. I AGREE WITH STAFFS DECISION HERE, JUST WAIT FOR MORE DISCUSSION, BUT.
>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND COUNSEL.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DECISION BE POSTPONED UNTIL WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND COUNSEL IN CLOSED SESSION.
>> WHAT DO I DO, JEANNE? CAN WE DO THAT?
OR IS THE APPEAL HEARING TODAY AND WE HAVE TO VOTE TODAY? >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE COULD EITHER CALL A SPECIAL MEETING THEN AND HAVE CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS IT.
THAT'S LEGAL TO DO A CLOSED SESSION ON AN APPEAL. >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS SIDE, IF WE DON'T, THEN YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TILL THE NEXT MEETING.
FAIR ENOUGH? ANY QUESTIONS OR?
>> PER GEORGE'S REMARK, THEN IF THAT PROPERTY CAME TO US TODAY, THEN IT WOULD BE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, AND MAYBE WE WOULD ONLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A DEEP WILL IN OR SOMETHING.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. ANYTHING TODAY.
>> BUT I BELIEVE JEANNE, IF I'M RIGHT, WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THIS ON THE OCTOBER 24 RULE, NOT TODAY'S RULE. I GET IT.
>> BUT THEY CAN START FARMING IT TOMORROW FOR THAT CASE.
THEY COULD PLANT TREES TOMORROW AND JUST OPT IN.
>> JUST WOULDN'T HAVE THE EPA.
>> NO. IT'S, I KNOW THE CRANES VERY WELL, HOW MANY OTHERS WOULD BE CLOSE TO IT, BUT YEAH, THANK YOU.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEMBER, NICK, THAT THIS WOULD CLASSIFY ITSELF AS AN OPT IN BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T USING ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT MEANS THEY SHOULDN'T BE RECLASSIFYING THEY SHOULD JUST GET TO OPT IN.
BUT WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.
IF MIKE MAKES A MOTION TO TABLE IT, IT COULD FAIL, AND THE VOTE COULD BE TODAY.
>> I'LL WAIT TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION CLOSED.
[01:10:03]
>> WELL, SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF DECISION ON THIS.
CAN DIE WITHOUT A SECOND. THAT'S FINE, BUT I'M GOING TO PUT THAT MOTION OUT.
>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING A CLOSED SESSION AND FURTHER DISCUSSION.
MAYBE I'LL CHANGE MY MIND. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF MEMBER GALLO.
>> I WOULD RATHER APPEAR ON THE SIDE OF GETTING LEGAL QUESTIONS ASKED BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION.
>> FIRST TIME DOING THIS, I'D LIKE TO NOT RUSH YOU.
>> FOR NOW, I THINK, NICK, YOUR MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND UNLESS SOMEBODY'S SECONDING IT. NO.
>> MY OTHER QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE NEXT APPEALS.
IS EVERYTHING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME? I IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, HAVE A DELAY AND SOME QUESTIONS.
>> I GET THAT QUESTION FROM MR. GALLO.
>> YOU NEED TO HAVE THE HEARING MAKE THE PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE IT LATER.
[OVERLAPPING] DELIBERATIONS WILL BE CONTINUED.
THE PRESENTATION AND THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD TAKE PLACE.
>> DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR NO? TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING?
>> MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THE DECISION ON THIS HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AFTER WE'VE HAD A CLOSED SESSION.
>> I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MOTION. ANY ONLINE?
>> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, WE STILL HEARD SOME LANGUAGE REFERENCING THE FACT THAT THIS PARCEL HAS NOT YET USED GROUNDWATER.
AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE JUNE RULE, NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE.
THERE JUST HAS TO BE SIGNIFICANT CROP OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A POSITION ON THE MOTION AT HAND.
>> I'LL MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. I FAILED TO TELL YOU IF YOU GO BACK THROUGH GOOGLE EARTH, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN DELINEATED ON THE GROUND FROM GOOGLE EARTH.
IF YOU GO ON THE TIMELINE, AND WALK IT BACK.
THAT IN OUR OPINION, IS SIGNIFICANT FOR THE INVESTMENT OF THE CROP THAT WOULD GO IN AS PREPARATION OF THE PLANTING.
THAT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
YOU CAN GO THROUGH MULTIPLE YEARS.
IT ONLY HOLDS UP FOR A LITTLE WHILE BECAUSE THE VEGETATION GROWS BACK.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE POOLS COMPARED TO THE EXHIBIT THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN. THANKS.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PARK.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT,
[9. BOARD APPEAL OF FINAL AGENCY STAFF DENIAL OF INCORRECT ASSESSOR OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL]
WHICH IS ITEM 9, WHICH IS A BOARD APPEAL OF FINAL AGENCY STAFF DENIAL OF INCORRECT ASSESSOR'S OFFICE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL.THE APPELLANT IS NANCY M CRANE, TRUSTEE, APN 052-010-008, 052-020-046, 052-050-041 AND 052-060-022.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL ASK STAFF TO PRESENT.
>> THOUGH THIS IS THE SAME BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT WE REVIEWED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES.
[01:15:02]
I'LL NOTE AGAIN THAT THIS APPEAL IS UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE, AND FOCUSING ON THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF EITHER NUMBER 1, THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER, OR TWO SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024.THE SAME REFERENCE THAT JESSIE NOTED AND THE SECTION NUMBERS IS GOING TO BE INCORRECT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
HERE WE GO. YOU CAN NOTE HERE THE FOUR PARCELS ON THE MAP, AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE THIS IS PARDON ME, THE INDALE CREEK RIGHT ALONG HERE.
THE BLUE OUTLINES OF THE APN ARE HERE ONE, TWO, THREE GOES DOWN HERE, AND THEN FOUR IS RIGHT THERE.
I'LL USE A BETTER COLOR NEXT TIME.
AGAIN, LIKE THE LAST APPEAL HEARING, THESE FOUR PARCELS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER BECAUSE THE APPEAL FORMS CITE THE SAME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION.
THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE GSA ASSERTS THAT A PUMP WAS INSTALLED ON APN 052-060-022 TO SERVE SURFACE WATER TO ALL FOUR PARCELS, AND THAT CONSTITUTES THE SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED REQUIRED BY THE OCTOBER RULE.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDES A SURFACE WATER PUMP, MOTOR VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE, WIRE FOR THE PUMP, AND ALUMINUM PIPE TO IRRIGATE A SWEETCORN FIELD IDENTIFIED IN THE RESTRICTED MATERIALS PERMIT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A MAP OF IN A MOMENT.
NOT ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INSTALLED.
THE ALUMINUM PIPE IS CONNECTING THE PUMP TO THE PARCELS IS STORED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
HERE YOU SEE THAT ON THE LEFT IS THE MAP IN THE AG COMMISSIONER'S PERMIT, AND I'VE CIRCLED, THE SWEET CORN FIELD AND THE PARCELS ARE ON THAT MAP.
THEN ON THE RIGHT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS APPEAL, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT SURFACE WATER PUMP IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE OFF THE CREEK, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT YOUR FOUR PARCELS HERE.
ON THIS MAP, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY RIGHT ABOUT IN HERE.
THEN THERE'S YOUR FOUR PARCELS.
ON MAY 14, STAFF DID DENY THE INCORRECT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OF THESE PARCELS.
THE STAFF DETERMINATION CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED ON THREE OF THE FOUR PARCELS.
THAT'S APN 052-010-008, 052-020-046 AND 052-050-041.
THE ALUMINUM PIPING CONNECTING THE SURFACE WATER PUMP WITH THE PARCELS TO DELIVER THE WATER IS STORED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, SO IT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT IN THE RULE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE BE INSTALLED ON THE PARCELS.
THEN ALSO FOR THE FOURTH PARCEL, THE SURFACE WATER PUMP WAS INSTALLED ON THE FOURTH PARCEL AND THE STAFF MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT DID NOT CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE IN THE RULE.
THE SECOND PARENTHETICAL IN THE SENTENCE REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE REFERENCES BACK TO THE FIRST.
NUMBER 2, REFERENCES BACK TO NUMBER 1, WHICH TALKS ABOUT GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION.
THE LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED THAT THE SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO PUMP AND DELIVER GROUNDWATER TO THE PARCELS.
THAT'S THE WAY STAFF LOOKED AT IT, AND READING IT THAT WAY, THE STAFF DETERMINATION WAS THAT THE INSTALLED PUMP DID NOT CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DELIVERING GROUNDWATER.
NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED ON THREE OF THE FOUR PARCELS, BUT THERE WAS NO GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED ON ANY OF THE FOUR PARCELS.
WHEN STAFF LOOKS AT THESE APPLICATIONS, IT'S REALLY DETERMINING, DOES THE APPLICATION MEET WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE RULE? THE DETERMINATION WAS NO, IT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA THAT IS IN THE RULE.
ON JUNE 23, NANCY M CRANE TRUSTEE SUBMITTED AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF DECISION.
AGAIN, NO NEW OR DIFFERENT MATERIALS OR JUSTIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME,
[01:20:01]
AND SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO UPHOLD THE ORIGINAL DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THESE PARCELS AS IRRIGATED.LIKE THE PARCELS IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING, THESE PARCELS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OPT IN PROCESS TO RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION OF SUSTAINABLE NATIVE GROUNDWATER THAT COULD BE SHARED WITH CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON INTEREST, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO RECLASSIFY AS IRRIGATED UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE.
AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOUR COUNSEL, JEANNE TO THE PODIUM TO PROVIDE HER ANALYSIS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, LACEY. I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF.
I APOLOGIZE, BUT THIS IS A SEPARATE HEARING AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
YOUR JOB HERE IS TO CONSIDER THE STAFF REPORT AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND DETERMINE IF STAFF'S CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION IS REASONABLE AND SUPPORTED BY THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THE CRUX OF THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE LAND OWNER APPELLANT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE LANGUAGE.
HERE STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT THREE OF THE PARCELS HAD NO INFRASTRUCTURE AT ALL.
ONE OF THE PARCEL, WHILE IT HAD SOME INFRASTRUCTURE, IT WAS FOR SURFACE WATER AND NOT GROUNDWATER.
WE BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR GROUNDWATER.
BUT EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SURFACE WATER COULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE, THE PUMP THAT WAS INSTALLED IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT CONNECTED TO THE CREEK.
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONNECTION TO THE CREEK TO OBTAIN SURFACE WATER.
IN THE STAFF INFORMATION IN THE RECORD, THERE ARE NO PERMITS TO INSTALL INFRASTRUCTURE TO CONNECT THE CREEK TO THE PUMP.
YOU HAVE A PUMP WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO PUMP WATER FROM THE SURFACE WATER SOURCE.
IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACTUALLY DIVERT WATER.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED DOESN'T MEET THE RULES REQUIREMENT OF SIGNIFICANT CROP OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE SUFFICIENT TO RECEIVE AN APA UNDER THE OCTOBER RULE.
THAT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CONSIDERING THE PLAIN MEANING LANGUAGE OF THE RULE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR LACEY OR JEANNE?
CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, LACEY, HERE ON YOUR THIRD BULLET POINT DOWN, ON SURFACE WATER PUMP AND APPURTENANCES INSTALLED ON THE FOUR PARCELS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT PARENTHETICAL IS REFERRING TO WHAT SENTENCE.
CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> YEAH. THESE ARE THE PARENTHETICALS THAT IT'S REFERRING TO IN THE BLUE.
>> THIS IS TWO, AND THIS IS ONE, AND TWO IS REFERRING TO ONE.
ONE SUGGESTS THAT THEY MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PARCEL IS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER.
WE ARE SAYING IN LINE WITH THAT, THAT THE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN ORDER TO BE SIGNIFICANT WOULD ALSO BE WITH GROUNDWATER.
THAT'S THE THINKING THAT STAFF IS TRYING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN ON THE BULLET POINT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH A PARENTHETICAL WORD.
>> LACEY, ARE YOU ALSO SAYING THAT IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO A WATER SOURCE AT ALL?
>> YES. MY POINT WAS THAT I AGREE WITH STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE, IT NEEDED TO BE FROM GROUNDWATER.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONE PARCEL THAT HAD A PUMP INSTALLED, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO OBTAIN GROUNDWATER.
IT WAS NOT. IT WAS A SURFACE WATER SOURCE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE PARENTHETICAL TWO REFERS TO GROUNDWATER.
EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT TWO SAID, IT'S JUST SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE, AND IT COULD BE GROUNDWATER OR SURFACE WATER.
WE'RE SAYING ALL THAT WAS HERE THAT WAS INSTALLED WAS A PUMP ON THE PARCEL.
THE PUMP IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY WATER.
IT IS NOT ABLE TO PUMP WATER FROM THE SURFACE WATER SOURCE FROM THE CREEK,
[01:25:03]
BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PUMP AND THE CREEK.THAT IS SURFACE WATER THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTALLED.
>> SURFACE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTALLED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE, THE APPELLANT.
>> GO TO THE PARENTHETICAL. IS THAT OKAY? HI. AGAIN, JESSICA JOHNSON, REPRESENTING THE LESSEE OF THE ANTHEM CRANE TRUSTEE PARCELS IDENTIFIED IN THIS APPEAL.
I AM JUST GOING TO MOVE TO THAT ARTIC. DID I GO PAST IT? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE JUNE RULE.
THE OCTOBER RULES DO APPLY TO THIS ONE.
AGAIN, APPELLANT HAD TO SHOW THAT THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER OR THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CROP AND/OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024.
AS WAS JUST BEING DISCUSSED, THERE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR STAFF'S DENIAL.
ONE IS THAT GROUNDWATER APPLIES TO SIGNIFICANT CROP AND OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE, WE AGREE THAT THAT'S AN INTERPRETATION, BUT WE DISAGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION.
FURTHER, IT'S NOT HOW THE RULE WAS WRITTEN, AND IT'S NOT HOW THE CURRENT OR FORMER RULES DEAL WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER.
IF STAFF AND THE BOARD IN THE OCTOBER RULE HAD WANTED GROUNDWATER TO APPLY TO IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED GROUNDWATER BEFORE EVEN OF THE SUBS.
THAT'S STANDARD CONSTRUCTION AND GRAMMAR.
OUR INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT GROUNDWATER DOES NOT MODIFY THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
FURTHERMORE, IT APPEARS AS THIS WAS WRITTEN THAT STAFF AND THE BOARD INITIALLY WANTED GROWERS TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN CASE THE LAND WAS NOT IRRIGATED BEFORE THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT STEPS, BUT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT STEPS TOWARDS IRRIGATION WHEN THE OCTOBER RULE WAS ADOPTED AND WHICH BERT CRANE ORCHARDS RELIED UPON IN CONDUCTING THESE ACTIVITIES AND SUBMITTING THIS LAND USE RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST.
SUPPORTING FLEXIBILITY AND DESIGNING POLICIES TO ENABLE WATER USERS TO ADOPT THEIR OPERATIONS AS BEST FUNCTIONS FOR THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IS ONE OF THIS GSA'S GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED IN 2022.
FURTHER, THE DEFINITION OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS, WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR AN ALLOCATION OF APA, DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER.
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS JUST MEANS PARCELS, GREATER THAN TWO ACRES, AND GROSS ACREAGE, DOES NOT MENTION SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER.
IRRIGATED UNDER THE RULES MEANS LAND THAT IS SUPPLIED WITH WATER BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A CROP.
IN STAFF'S OWN WORDS FROM THE BERT CRANE ORCHARDS APPEAL, IRRIGATION STAFF REPORT, IRRIGATION IS DEFINED AS THE PRACTICE OF SUPPLYING LAND WITH WATER SO THAT CROPS AND PLANTS WILL GROW.
THE DEFINITION OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS THAT CAN GET THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR APA DOES NOT EXCLUDE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS IRRIGATED WITH SURFACE WATER.
IN FACT, SURFACE WATER IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL, SO WE DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S DISTINCTION THERE.
THE SECOND BASIS FOR REJECTING THE APPEAL WAS THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT BERT CRANE ORCHARDS HAD AND HAD INSTALLED THE SURFACE WATER PUMP, PREPARING ALUMINUM PIPE AND LAY FLAT HOLES WERE NOT INSTALLED ON ALL THE PARCELS.
WE'RE JUST HEARING NOW THAT THERE'S THE CONCERN THAT THERE WAS NO NO AVAILABILITY OR POSSIBILITY TO PUMP FROM THE SURFACE WATER PUMP.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CONTRACT WITH AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT TO RECEIVE WATER FROM THAT PUMP.
BENNETT IS PROBABLY GOING TO DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER LATER.
[01:30:03]
FURTHER, REGARDING THE INSTALLATION, THERE WAS THE PUMP INSTALLED ON ONE PARCEL, WHICH IS, I'M SURE, IS YOUR AWARE AS FARMERS, STANDARD PRACTICE.YOU CAN INSTALL A PUMP ON EACH PARCEL.
THE PUMP WAS INSTALLED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLY WATER TO ALL THE PARCELS.
THE PIPES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WERE NOT PUT DOWN AT THE TIME, BUT WERE PRESENT AND READY AVAILABLE TO BE PUT ON THERE.
I BELIEVE THAT BERT AND BEN CAN BETTER EXPLAIN THE ACTIVITIES AGAIN THAT WILL HELP EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD ALL THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT SHOWS THAT INSTALLATION WAS APPLIED.
WE DO HAVE TWO PHOTOS, BUT THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AS THESE TWO.
THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THESE TWO.
WE JUST TOOK THEM FROM THE STAFF REPORT.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT HERE SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IN SPACE THESE LANES ARE. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGAIN, BOARD. BEN CRANE HERE.
BEFORE I START READING THIS, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DID NOT APPRECIATE STAFF'S COMMENTS WHEN SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND WE CAN GO BACK IN THE RECORDING AND WATCH IT, BUT THE GAME THAT STAFF IS TRYING TO PLAY WITH THE GROUNDWATER.
THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. THIS IS MY LIFE.
I WANT TO START OFF BY CHALLENGING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU GUYS TODAY TO YOUR GUYS' GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
THIS BODY ADOPTED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
STRIVE FOR CERTAINTY TO SUPPORT LONG TERM PLANNING AND BUSINESS DECISIONS BY MINIMIZING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
DESIGN POLICIES TO ENABLE WATER USERS TO ADAPT THEIR OPERATIONS AS BEST FUNCTIONS FOR THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES.
TARGET SIMPLICITY, CREATE POLICIES THAT ARE EASY FOR WATER EASY FOR USERS TO UNDERSTAND AND IMPLEMENT AND MSGSA STAFF TO ADMINISTER.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE SWEET CORN PROJECT WAS ALL PURCHASED FROM YEARS 2018-2022 IN PREPARATION TO FARM THIS PARCEL.
OUR TIMELINE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SPED UP BY THE RELEASE OF THE MSGSA OCTOBER 10, 2024 RULE.
I THINK THE PICTURES THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO EVERYBODY IN THE MEETING AGENDA.
THEY WERE LEFT OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED.
BUT I THINK THAT THE PICTURES SUPPLIED IN THE AGENDA SHOWING THAT THE IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT WAS NOT BRAND NEW.
IT HAD BEEN IN OUR INVENTORY SINCE 2018 ALL THE WAY THROUGH 2022, AND WE WERE WAITING FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO PLANT AND THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES TO PLANT AND GATHER MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE THIS VENTURE SUCCESSFUL.
THEN WITH 32 CENT WALNUTS AND $1.80 ALMONDS ALL MIXED IN WITH COVID.
IT WAS HARD TO EXPAND INTO DIFFERENT MARKETS AS WE WERE JUST TRYING TO STAY AFLOAT.
THIS WAS A VERY CHALLENGING TIME, AS I'M SURE WE CAN ALL AGREE.
STAFF CLAIMS THAT THE PUMP MOTOR VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE AND ALUMINUM PIPE ARE NOT CONSIDERED IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS.
STAFF ALSO CLAIMS THAT THE PUMP MOTOR AND VFD IS ONLY INSTALLED ON ONE OF THOSE FOUR APNS.
THAT'S THE CASE. WHO CAN AFFORD TO PUT THAT MUCH MONEY IN INFRASTRUCTURE ON ALL FOUR OF THESE PARCELS? THAT'S COMMON SENSE IN THE FARMING WORLD, AS MANY OF YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND.
WE ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO FARM THIS PROPERTY, NOT WITH ONE ACRE FOOT, BUT WITH TWO.
WE CAN POOL THIS GROUND AND PUT IN A WELL AND CONTINUE TO FARM.
IT'S VERY HARD TO FARM ON ONE ACRE FOOT OF WATER, AS I'M SURE YOU GUYS CAN ALL AGREE.
WE'VE TRIED TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE BY THIS RULE, IN INSTALLING OUR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE'RE TRYING TO ADAPT OUR OPERATIONS ACCORDINGLY TO FORM WITH SIGMA AND THIS MSGSA.
WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN THE LONG TERM PLANNING OF OUR CROPS TO HELP GUIDE US IN OUR BUSINESS DECISIONS AND TO AIDE US IN BEING SUCCESSFUL IN THEM.
IN SUMMARY, WHAT DID WE DO? WE PURCHASED ALL THE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2024.
WE FOLLOW THE RULE TO ITS LETTER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO FARM IN MERCED COUNTY.
[01:35:04]
THIS ALL TIES BACK TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY THIS BODY.MY FAMILY AND I, WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS REVERSE THE DECISION BY STAFF AND CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
I'M OPEN TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
HAVE YOU GROWN SWEET CORN ON THERE, ON THIS 100 ACRES IN THE MIDDLE? DID YOU GROW ANY THIS YEAR ON YOUR PERMIT OR NO?
>> WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT THE STAFF AND THE BOARD IS GOING TO BEFORE WE-
>> BUT YOU HAVEN'T FARMED IT TO THIS POINT THEN?
>> THE INTENT IS TO FARM IT, CORRECT.
>> BUT YOU HAVE NOT TO THIS POINT, RIGHT?
>> IS THE PUMP NOT CONNECTED TO THE CREEK AT ALL? THE PUMP WAS PUT IN OCTOBER 10TH.
THE WATER SEASON FOR MID STOPS OCTOBER 31ST.
>> WELL, YOU DIDN'T DO IT THIS SOON.
HASN'T BEEN RUNNING SINCE MARCH, RIGHT?
AFTER ALL THE STAFF HAS PUSHED BACK AND SAYING, IT HASN'T BEEN IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT.
THE INTENT IS TO IRRIGATE IT EVENTUALLY.
I JUST DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING IN, CONNECTING IT.
I HAVE CONTRACTS WITH AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT FOR WATER.
WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE NOT USING ALL OF OUR WATER THIS YEAR, BECAUSE LAST YEAR, I CONTRACTED AN ADDITIONAL 100 ACRE FEET OF WATER.
I'M GOING TO BE 100 ACRES SHORT, AND THAT'S ALL PREPAID.
I'M LOSING 100 ACRE FEET OF WATER, WHICH IS EARMARKED FOR THIS LOCATION.
>> YOU CAN USE IT. YOU KNOW THAT, RIGHT?
>> WE'RE NOT STOPPING ANY OF THAT. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR.
>> ON THE SURFACE WATER, YEAH.
>> OR JUST ANY OPERATION ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU COULD DO THAT TOMORROW IF YOU WANTED.
>> MAY I SUGGEST INSTEAD OF A DIALOGUE?
>> BECAUSE THIS IT A HEARING, I GUESS.
>> I GUESS THE ONLY LAST COMMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU GUYS IS STAFF IS INTENT ON HAMMERING THAT GROUNDWATER.
WELL, IN THIS RULE, THE PARCEL WAS IRRIGATED WITH GROUNDWATER OR, NOT AND/OR, IT'S OR.
WE HAVE OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2.
WE'RE GOING WITH OPTION 2, THAT SIGNIFICANT CROP AND/OR IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10TH.
STAFF LEFT IT OUT IN YOUR GUYS' PRESENTATION OR IN YOUR GUYS' PACKETS THAT WENT OUT A FEW WEEKS AGO, I BELIEVE WE GOT THE SAME ONES.
IT WAS IN THE AGENDA THAT WAS RELEASED AT FRIDAY AT 4:30, SO THE BOARD HAS HAD A COUPLE DAYS TO REVIEW IT NOW.
TO ANSWER DIRECTOR MARTINI'S QUESTION, NO, THE ALUMINUM PIPE WAS NOT INSTALLED ON OCTOBER 10TH.
CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED JUST BEFORE THAT.
THE INTENT WAS TO PUT IT IN THIS YEAR, APPLY FOR WELL PERMITS THIS YEAR, AND THAT GOES THROUGH ITS COURSE.
WE PUMP THE BRAKES ON EVERYTHING TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THIS BODY DOES, BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO GO AND PUT IN A $250,000 WELL ON ONE ACRE FOOT OF WATER.
SECOND PART OF THAT IS WE HELD OFF ON CONNECTING IT TO THE CREEK AS WELL BECAUSE I HAVE TO HOLD OFF AND WAIT.
WELL, I NEED TO HOLD OFF AND WAIT BECAUSE IT ALL GOES HAND IN HAND.
BERT AND I HAVE INVESTED LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY IN THIS PROJECT.
YOU GUYS KNOW HOW MUCH BULLS FOR PUMPS ARE.
YOU GUYS KNOW HOW MUCH US 150 HORSEPOWER MOTOR IS.
YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND HOW EXPENSIVE THE DRIVES ARE. STAFF DOES NOT.
THERE'S A MASSIVE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE GROWERS AND STAFF IN THIS ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIPHER TODAY.
BERT, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I GUESS.
YOU DIDN'T DO A CONNECTION TO THE SURFACE WATER CONNECTION FOR THE LIFT PUMP?
>> BUT DIDN'T YOU HAVE ALL OFF SEASON AFTER THE END OF THE IRRIGATION SEASON TO GET THAT.
I GUESS I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU NEVER DID IT.
>> WE'RE WAITING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS CASE.
WHEN WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS TO IT, I CAME UP IN A PUBLIC COMMENT SHORTLY AFTER BASICALLY ASKING THE BOARD,
[01:40:01]
HEY, WE NEED TO START GETTING THE FORMS OUT FOR THE APPEALS.WE NEED TO START GETTING THE FORMS OUT FOR US TO FILL OUT IN ORDER TO OPT IT IN.
THAT TOOK SOME TIME BECAUSE THE BOARD AND STAFF AND TAC NEEDED TO REVIEW IT ALL.
THEN THAT WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT.
THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT.
I THINK YOU GUYS MAYBE REMEMBER ABOUT IT.
AS SOON AS WE SUBMITTED IT, WE GOT THE FORM.
WE FILLED OUT THE APPEALS FORM, SUBMITTED TO STAFF.
ROB OF STAFF, THEY WORKED THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY, GOT IT BACK TO US WITH THE INITIAL DENIAL.
THEN WE WENT BACK TO STAFF AND SAID, GIVE US THE APPEAL FORM.
WE WERE PUSHING STAFF, AND I'M SURE STAFF CAN AGREE THAT WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR MOMENTUM THE ENTIRE TIME IN ORDER TO ACCELERATE THIS PROCESS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CERTAINTY.
THAT'S WHY I BRING UP THE CERTAINTY AND THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IS AS A GROWER, WE NEED SOME FORM OF CERTAINTY IN THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.
I KNOW THAT'S A LONG EXPLANATION, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR CERTAINTY.
I'LL GO THROUGH MY DOG AND PONY SHOW AGAIN, SINCE THIS IS ANOTHER APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF NANCY CRANE, MY MOTHER, MULTIGENERATIONAL FARM THAT WAS OWNED BY MY DAD'S GRANDFATHER, MY GREAT GRANDFATHER, AND WAS NOT DEVELOPED AND WAS NOT IRRIGATED.
STARTED PLANNING WALNUTS OR MY DAD DID IN 1973.
RELATIVELY NEW TO THE NET THING.
THEN IN 1994, I DID MY FIRST RECON ON CLASS 2 SOIL TO PLANT WALNUTS ON GROUND SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
A2 GROUND, SLOPES, ROCKY SLOPES, HARD PANNED, AND ALL OF THAT.
IN 1997, PLANTED FIRST ACREAGE.
PUT MORE WELLS IN, PLANTED MORE.
THEN IN 2017, BEN WANTED TO PLANT SOME ALMONDS, AND I HAD NOT PLANTED ALMONDS.
I HAD NO DESIRE TO PLANT ALMONDS. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
WELL, HE DID IT, AND HE GETS THE ALMOND THING, AND ALL OF THE BACKSTORY WITH THE ALMONDS AND THE PROCESSORS, AS YOU KNOW, HOW THAT GOES.
ALONG WITH THAT, WE PLANTED OR WE INSTALLED A RESERVOIR WITH FOUR PUMPS, TOTALING 900 HORSE POWER ON ONE PARCEL.
ONE PARCEL FEEDING 1,500 ACRES.
WE DON'T HAVE A PUMP STATION ON EVERY PARCEL.
AS I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN PUMP WATER UPHILL LIKE WE COULDN'T BEFORE.
DRIVING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY TODAY, I'VE GOT ALFALFA ON ONE SIDE WITH A DITCH AND SIPHON.
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PULLING A DITCH AND RUNNING A SIPHON? IT'S GETTING THE JOB DONE.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, I'VE GOT LAYFLAT PIPE WITH TOMATOES, VERY NICE FRESH MARKET TOMATOES.
LAYFLAT PIPE WOULD PLUG IN VALVES.
VERY SIMPLE, VERY PORTABLE, VERY CHEAP, AND EFFECTIVE.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS CAME UP ABOUT, THE PUMP AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SOURCE OF WATER? ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS PULL A DITCH. WE'RE DONE.
WE DO HAVE POINTS OF DIVERSION WITH MID, AND THIS PARCEL, BY THE WAY, WAS DELINEATED FOR VERNAL POOLS.
WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE THING, BUT WE CAN, IF IT'S REQUESTED.
WE DID TALK TO MID ABOUT POINTS OF DIVERSION, RECHARGES BASINS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT EITHER.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE ADDRESSED ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN JESSIE AND BEN DID.
BUT THAT COMPLETES MY REMARKS UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION HAS THERE BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT CROP ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> ROY THOMASON FARMED DRY FARMED IT.
[01:45:05]
BUT AS FAR AS DRIP LINE.>> THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE FOR OUR FAMILY, AND TURNING THE SPIGOT OFF IS NOT AN ANSWER THAT WILL WORK.
I GUESS WE CAN PUT HOUSES OUT THERE, BUT NO ONE WANTS THAT.
SCRATCH A FARMER DEEP ENOUGH IF YOU FIND A DEVELOPER? THANKS. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU. THEN I'LL COME BACK TO STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF FOLLOW-UPS.
THE IRRIGATION PIPE THAT WAS LOCATED IN A BARN, RECALLED THAT THE RULE REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED.
PURCHASED IS NOT IN THERE; INSTALLED IS THE REQUIREMENT.
LET'S GO WITH NUMBER 2 ALONE WITHOUT THE WORD GROUNDWATER.
EVEN WITHOUT REQUIRING GROUNDWATER, THE SURFACE WATER PUMP WAS NOT CONNECTED TO ANYTHING.
THE PHOTOS THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR AGENDA SHOW THAT THE PUMP SITS ALONE AWAY FROM THE CREEK.
AS ALL FARMERS KNOW, INCLUDING MYSELF, PERMITTING WOULD BE NEEDED TO INSTALL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STREAM TO CONNECT IT TO THE SURFACE WATER PUMP, EVEN PULLING A DITCH IF YOU'RE INTO THE CREEK WOULD REQUIRE PERMITTING.
INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED, AND STAFF'S REPORT, I THINK, IS SUFFICIENT TO BE UPHELD.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, LACEY OR I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER.
>> WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? POSSIBLE ACTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. TABLE OF THE DECISION.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO.
>> NO. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? ANY ONLINE?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
THE MOTION WAS BY GALLO, AND THE SECOND WAS BY JIM POLLY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 10, STAFF REPORT.
[10. STAFF REPORT]
>> I JUST HAVE ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU GUYS, AND THAT'S, I WANTED TO FLAG THAT YOU HAVE A COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING ON MONDAY.
DWR RELEASED THEIR SUBSIDENCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN JULY.
OUR BASIN CONSULTANT, WOODARD & CURRAN, IS GOING TO BE GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE SUBSIDENCE BMPS AT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING ON MONDAY.
IF YOU CAN'T BE THERE IN PERSON, IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO WATCH IT VIRTUALLY AS WELL BECAUSE I THINK THE SUBSIDENCE BMPS ARE GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE MERCED BASIN, AS WE DO HAVE A SUBSIDENCE CHALLENGES IN THIS BASIN, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO FLAG FOR YOU. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR LACEY? WE'LL MOVE ON TO BOARD REPORTS.
[11. BOARD REPORTS]
I'LL START TO MY LEFT. ANYTHING?>> WELL, RECENTLY, I HAD A MEETING AT THE CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AG BOARD, AND WE HEARD FROM BANKERS, APPRAISERS.
SEVERAL INDUSTRIES, INCLUDING ALMOND INDUSTRY AND THE PICTURE WAS VERY BLEAK.
[01:50:02]
THEY TALKED ABOUT THE TROUBLE THE FARMERS ARE HAVING WITH VARIOUS ISSUES, REGULATIONS, LACK OF WATER, HIGH INTEREST RATES, AND PART OF THAT PRESENTATION WAS FROM THE WATER BLUEPRINT FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.WHAT THEY REPORTED WAS THAT THERE'S ALREADY A MILLION ACRES OF PRODUCTIVE FARM LAND THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWED.
INITIALLY, THE THOUGHT WAS THAT SIGMA WAS GOING TO FOLLOW HALF A MILLION ACRES TO A MILLION ACRES, AND THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FOLLOWED A MILLION ACRES.
THEY'RE FORECASTING THAT THE BEST CASE SCENARIO WOULD BE THAT THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WOULD LOSE ANOTHER HALF A MILLION ACRES.
IF NEW WATER DOES NOT MATERIALIZE, THEY'RE FORECASTING THAT THE FOLLOWING ACREAGE COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 650,000 TO ANOTHER 900,000 ACRES IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.
AFTER THAT MEETING, I ATTENDED A ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM CONGRESSMAN MCCLINTOCK, AND HE HAD THERE JOSH COOK, WHO'S THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR EPA IN THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST.
HE GAVE WHAT I CONSIDER GOOD NEWS, WHICH IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PUT TOGETHER A TEAM IN ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, FISH AND WILDLIFE, EPA, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT HAS TO DO WITH WATER, AND THAT IT'S HIS INTENT TO GET THE FEDERAL WATER THAT'S GOING OUT TO THE OCEAN TO THE FARMERS.
THAT THIS GROUP OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS IS TASKED WITH GETTING THAT DONE, AND THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN GET IT DONE.
THEY FEEL THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S BEEN SOME PUSHBACK FROM STATE AGENCIES TO GIVE THAT TO THE FARMERS, INCLUDING THE DELTA, THAT THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO GET FEDERAL PERMITS TO DO SOME THINGS THAT THEY DO.
THE FEELING IS THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE LEVERAGE AND THAT THERE IS SOME HOPE TO GET SOME FEDERAL WATER TO THE FARMERS.
>> ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY ACRE FEET?
>> THEN YOU MENTIONED PACIFIC SOUTHWEST.
IS THAT ONLY CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA? WHAT DO THEY CONSIDER SOUTHWEST? DO YOU KNOW?
>> GOOD QUESTION. NO, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
CERTAINLY, I THINK THEY CONSIDER PART OF NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA.
I DON'T KNOW IF NEW MEXICO IS CONSIDERED PART OF THAT OR NOT.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT MAYBE YOU WOULD INCLUDE THE FARM LAND THAT'S INVOLVED WITH COLORADO RIVER, POSSIBLY.
DIRECTOR JIM POLLY, KELLY, GEORGE?
[12. FUTURE MEETINGS]
OUR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE SEPTEMBER 11TH AT TWO O'CLOCK.
>> THERE MIGHT BE A SPECIAL MEETING IN ADVANCE OF THAT FOR THE FOLLOW-UP TO THIS APPEAL HEARING?
>> I WANTED TO VERIFY THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.