[00:00:01] HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? BOARD MEMBER GALLO HERE. BOARD MEMBER. PARK HERE. BOARD MEMBER JIM PAULEY HERE. BOARD MEMBER KELLY HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI HERE. CHAIRMAN PAREIRA PRESENT. MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO ITEM THREE, WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA. THE TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. [4. CONSENT CALENDAR] WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? ANY QUESTIONS ON THE INVOICES? AND YOU SEE THAT THAT WE HAVE NEW INVOICES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. MIKE. MIKE, PLEASE. YES. JUST A MINUTE HERE. I MEAN, LOOK AT ALL THESE. I COULD PROBABLY FIND IT QUICKER IF I DO IT THIS WAY. HOW ABOUT THE BACK PAGE WITH THAT? YEAH. DID YOU FIND IT? IT HAD TO DO WITH PARTICULAR CONSULTANT THAT. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF INVOICES HERE. WELL, I APOLOGIZE. IT HAD TO DO WITH A STUDY FOR A PERCOLATING BASIN, AND I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPROVAL WAS. WILL THEY STUDY MY PERCOLATION BASIN TO IT? DOESN'T. THERE WAS NO DETAIL WITH WITH RESPECT TO THAT. OKAY. WE'LL GIVE LACEY A CHANCE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YES. SO I THINK THE INVOICE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE INVOICE IS THE LAVERNE JOHNSON TRUST. SO THIS IS AN INVOICE FROM A PROJECT. IT'S THE AMSTERDAM JOHNSON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BASIN PROJECT. SO THAT'S A PROJECT WITH A EXECUTED AGREEMENT. AND THIS IS THE INVOICE THAT YOU ARE PAYING AS THE GSA IS TO THE FROM THE LAVERNE JOHNSON TRUST IS WHO YOU HAVE THE AGREEMENT WITH. BUT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SECOND PAGE THERE'S A SEES CONSULTING AND TESTING INC.. SO JOHNSON PAID THE CONSULTANT AND TESTING. AND THEN NOW THEY ARE REIMBURSED BY THE GSA THROUGH THE MLP GRANT TO DO THIS SOIL INVESTIGATION. AND THAT IS FOR THE RECHARGE BASIN PROJECT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT? YES. OKAY. SO IT'S AN MLP PROJECT THAT YOU'VE APPROVED AND ARE NOW PAYING FOR. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS THIS THIS WAS A PROJECT THAT CREATED A RECHARGE BASIN. AND THIS IS PART OF THE SOIL INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT RECHARGE BASIN. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR JIM POLLEY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO. [00:05:05] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS THE MULTI-BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM. [5. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM] REN FROM VALLEY ECHO. I HAVE A PRETTY HEAVY DOCKET TO GO THROUGH TODAY, SO I'M GOING TO START US OFF WITH A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS THAT WILL BE REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. AND THEN I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO A SWEEPING MOTION OR NOT. SO THE FIRST ACTION THAT WE'LL LOOK AT TODAY IS QUESTION PLEASE. SHOULD I LEAVE NOW? THAT'S A TRICKY QUESTION. YES. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON ONE OF THE ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED, SINCE WE'RE DOING THIS AS A JOINT PRESENTATION, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE. YEAH. YOU CAN JUST GO THROUGH THERE IF YOU WANT. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. NICK, HELP HIM OUT. APOLOGIES FOR NOT FLAGGING THAT IMMEDIATELY. NOT YOUR NOT YOUR PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. SO WE WILL HAVE ONE PROJECT FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR APPROVAL BY THIS BOARD. ADDITIONALLY, WE'LL ASK TO TERMINATE TWO COMPENSATED CONTRACTS. I'LL EXPLAIN. IT'S NOTHING CRAZY. IT'S JUST A SORT OF A FORMALITY. WE'LL ASK FOR SOME DIRECTION AND AND AND DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ABOUT COSIGNING A LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. AND THEN WE WILL BE ASKING FOR APPROVAL AND RESIGNING OF THE NEVADA RANCH PROJECT CONTRACT OR RE-APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT, AS THAT PROJECT HAS GONE UNDERGONE CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME THE BOARD HAS SEEN IT. SO WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS AND I WILL RUN US THROUGH AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. REGARDING PROJECT NINE, JUST A REMINDER ON PROCESS WHERE WE ARE ON PROJECT NINE IS ON FIVE ON STEP FIVE. SO IT'S GONE THROUGH AGAIN. I'LL JUST I KNOW THIS IS SOMEWHAT AD NAUSEAM, BUT IT'S GONE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. IT'S GONE THROUGH THE TECHNICAL TEAM. IT'S GONE THROUGH A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS BOARD. IT'S ALSO GONE THROUGH STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE WHERE WE ARE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS ON STEP FIVE, AND WE'RE ASKING TO SUBMIT IT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR FUNDING APPROVAL. THE PROJECT IS PROJECT NINE. IT'S AT THE BOTTOM HERE. AND WE'LL JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SPEED, WE ALSO HAVE PROJECT SIX, WHICH WILL LATER BE REVISITED FOR RE-APPROVAL BY THIS BOARD. ALL RIGHT. UNDER PROJECT NINE. PROJECT NINE IS A PROJECT SUBMITTED BY A LOCAL MUTUAL WATER COMPANY. THE PARTNERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT ARE RIVER PARTNERS, DUCKS UNLIMITED US FISH AND WILDLIFE, MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TW HARVEY, ETC.. THE TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED UNDER THIS PROJECT IS $1 MILLION. THE TOTAL PROJECT COST, INCLUDING ALL THOSE PARTNERS THAT ARE BRINGING FUNDING TO THE TABLE AND IN DIFFERENT WAYS, IS ABOUT $10 MILLION. BUT WE ARE ASKING UNDER THE MLP PROGRAM IS TO FUND A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY TO PERPETUALLY RETIRE THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATIONS ON THE SITE. THIS IS LARGELY IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC REQUEST ONGOING IN THE MLP PROGRAM TO FIND PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO PERMANENTLY FOREGO THEIR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATIONS. THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A BROADER FLOODPLAIN WETLAND RESTORATION HABITAT PROJECT IN CONJUNCTION WITH DUCKS UNLIMITED AND THE RIVER AND RIVER PARTNERS. THE FUNDING FOR THIS SPECIFIC MONEY IS TARGETED DIRECTLY AT EASEMENTS, SO THIS IS DIRECTLY ON THAT LAND IMPINGEMENT. THE GOAL IS TO PUT 77 ACRES OF IRRIGATED TO RETIRE WHAT IS 70 CURRENTLY 77 ACRES OF IRRIGATED ROTATIONAL CROPS. THE LAND, WATER OR THE GROUNDWATER WILL BE FORFEITED UNDER THIS PROJECT. AND WILL ALSO BE FORFEITED ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT WE WILL NOT BE PAYING FOR THROUGH THE MLP PROGRAM. I KNOW THIS IS A LOT TO CONSUME, SO I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. AS YOU THIS IS A MAP OF THE PROJECT. I'M GOING TO USE A POINTER. I'M AWARE IF PEOPLE ONLINE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THIS, I GUESS IN THE ROOM IT'LL BE HARD AS WELL. SO THE LAND THAT THIS PROJECT MLP PROJECT WILL FUND IS UNIT C, W 31 AND CW THREE ZERO. IN THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM, THE DIAGRAM ON THE LEFT, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WHO ARE VIEWING THIS ONLINE, THESE TAN OR BEIGE COLORED PARCELS, THESE ARE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IMPINGED UNDER THE BY THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT. BECAUSE OF THE IMPINGEMENT OR I APOLOGIZE THIS LARGER RED POLYGON IS THE PROJECT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN ITS ORIGINAL ENTIRETY TO THE MLP PROGRAM. [00:10:08] BECAUSE OF THESE TAN PARCELS ALREADY BEING IMPINGED UNDER US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE MLP PROGRAM REQUESTED THAT WE SHRINK THE IMPACT OF THE MLP INVESTMENTS AND LIMIT IT TO THESE TWO UNITS. THE CONCERN BEING PRIMARILY THAT THOSE UNDERLYING FEDERAL EASEMENTS COULD SORT OF, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, MUCK UP SOME OF THE LAND OR GROUNDWATER RETIREMENT ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE. THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE STILL PURSUING SORT OF AT THE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE OR OUR GROUNDWATER RETIREMENT ACTIONS ON THESE SORT OF GREEN HIGHLIGHTED UNITS. WE'RE ASKING THAT THAT PROJECT SORT OF IN KIND, EITHER THROUGH FUNDING OTHER FUNDERS OR THROUGH DONATION OF THE LANDOWNER RETIRE THOSE ADJACENT APOLOGIES THOSE ADJACENT LANDS GROUNDWATER AS WELL. SO AGAIN, IN SUMMARY OF OF ALL THAT, THE PROJECT ITSELF IS ONLY DIRECTLY FUNDING ACTION ON PARCELS 31 OR CW 31 AND CW 30. THE PROJECT IS CONTINGENT OR THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT IS CONTINGENT ON SOME CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION OR TO THE CONTRACT AT. AGAIN, THIS HAS GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS RELATIVELY FAST. SO EACH AT EACH STAGE FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD COMMITTEE TO THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REQUESTS COME IN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PROJECTS. ONE THE REQUEST IS THAT EVEN IF THE APPRAISAL APPRAISES VERY HIGH ON THOSE 77 ACRES OF MLP LANDS, THAT WE STILL PROTECT THAT ONE OF THE CONTINGENCIES THAT WE WILL STILL PROTECT ALL 77 ACRES, OR WE WILL STILL IMPINGE ALL 77 ACRES. AND ADDITIONAL REQUEST IS A SIGN OF COMMITMENT FOR THE RETIREMENT ON THOSE SORT OF GREEN POLYGONS ON THOSE ADJACENT LANDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, THOSE GROUNDWATER LANDS OR GROUNDWATER RIGHTS ARE RETIRED THROUGH THIS ACTION. WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES, A LETTER FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONFIRMING THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE. LASTLY OR NOT. LASTLY, THERE'S ALSO A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THOSE GRANTS PRIOR TO PRIOR TO GOING INTO CONTRACT. SO ESSENTIALLY DOING SOME DUE DILIGENCE, PULLING TITLE ON THOSE LANDS TO ENSURE THAT IT'S JUST A SOMETHING WE WOULD DO ANYWAY. BUT THAT IS A REQUEST OF THE PROGRAM. THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST TO EVALUATE SUSTAINABLE GRAZING ON THE PROJECT. THERE'S A REQUEST TO RECALCULATE ESTIMATED WATER SAVINGS OF THE PROJECTS. AND THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR THE EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION ON THE PROJECT. SOME OF THESE THINGS, YOU CAN KIND OF FEEL LIKE THE SCATTERSHOT NATURE OF THEM, AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DETECT WHICH ELEMENTS MIGHT BE SUBMITTED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP AND SOME BY THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. BUT THESE ARE THE CONTINGENCIES THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING ON THE PROJECT. SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, SOFTER, LIKE EVALUATING THE USE OF THE SITE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION. OH, I GUESS THAT'S IT. SO I'M GOING TO BEFORE WE GO INTO THE NEXT ACTION OF THE BOARD, THE NEXT REQUESTED ACTION OF THE BOARD, I'M GOING TO PAUSE HERE AND MAYBE FIELD QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC COMMENT. YEP. QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? NO. YEAH, I DO, I. TO BE HONEST, THERE'S SO MANY CHANGES IN THIS AND SO MANY CONTINGENCIES. I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND ITS IMPACTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THERE. HE, HE THEY MENTIONED TWO PARCELS, G AND L, BUT THEN THEY'VE GOT OTHER PARCELS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I, I THINK I CAN HELP I'M SORRY. I'M BUT I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO DIGEST IN ONE ONE FELL SWOOP. RIGHT. SO CAN YOU JUST I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE PRETTY TECHNICAL. JUST SAY THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS UNDER IS UNDER AN EASEMENT, AND THEN. AND THE 77 ACRES ARE DIFFERENT. SO JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN THE NUTS AND BOLTS. NON-TECHNICAL, PROVIDE A QUICK RESPONSE AS FAR AS CURRENT IMPINGEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. SO AGAIN AND AND THAT'S A GOOD FLAG. SO THESE PARCELS HERE WERE INITIALLY ROLLED INTO THE APPLICATION. HOWEVER THEY ARE CURRENTLY IMPINGED BY US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, US CONSERVATION OR AGRICULTURAL EASEMENTS. SO JUST LIKE WE'VE ENCOUNTERED IN PROJECTS ALONG SANDY MUSH THAT HAVE BEEN SORT OF POTENTIALLY IMPINGED BY THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THESE PARCELS IN THIS TAN ON THIS MAP ARE CURRENTLY IMPINGED BY BY THE FEDS. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO BECAUSE OF THIS, WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO SHRINK DOWN THE FOOTPRINT OF WHAT'S FUNDED UNDER MLP TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN DELIVER WHAT WE WANT TO DELIVER ON THOSE [00:15:08] SITES. SO WHAT THIS PROJECT IS PAYING FOR DIRECTLY ARE LAND IMPINGEMENTS ON UNIT 30, CW 30 AND THIS CROSSHATCH, THIS YELLOW CROSSHATCH, CW 30 AND CW 31. SO FUNDING FROM THIS PROGRAM WILL ONLY BE DIRECTED AT THOSE PARCELS TO AVOID ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ARISE, ALTHOUGH DON'T EXPECT THEM. I WOULD RATHER NOT GAMBLE WITH THEM, AND I THINK THAT WAS LARGELY AGREED UPON THROUGH DIFFERENT GROUPS SO ATTACHED TO MLP. AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THESE PARCELS AFTER THE PROJECT? WHAT THEIR STATUS? THESE PROJECTS ARE SLATED TO BE RESTORED AS WELL. SO THESE THIS IS SORT OF THAT BIGGER PICTURE PROJECT OR PROJECT THAT'S HAPPENING WITH DUCKS UNLIMITED AND RIVER PARTNERS. HOW MANY TOTAL ACRES. AND THIS IT'S ACTUALLY BIGGER THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS 239 THAT WE ARE EITHER DIRECTLY WORKING ON OR REQUESTING SORT OF A MATCH ACTION FROM THE LANDOWNER. THE ACREAGE BEYOND OUR SCOPE IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THAT. YEAH. SO AND THAT'S ALL OF THESE PARCELS. THE REQUEST THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THAT THE LANDOWNER CONCURRENTLY RETIRE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATIONS ON G1, G2, G3, LP THREE, LRP4, LRP5 AND LRP6. WE'RE NOT FUNDING THE RETIREMENT OF THAT ACTION BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPINGED. AND WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT MAY NOT LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ALWAYS STEP IN AND BUT THEY ARE IMPINGED, MEANING RETIRED. OH, THEY ARE UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT. YEAH. GOOD QUESTION. THE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME. SO ALL OF THE LAND THAT'S IN THE RIGHT SLIDE THAT'S HATCHED IS GOING TO BE NON-IRRIGATED. CORRECT. EVERYTHING IN HATCHED. TECHNICALLY EVERYTHING THAT IS HATCHED TOTAL IS THE LARGER PROJECT COMMITMENT. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT WE ARE FINANCIALLY COVERING, WE ARE ONLY COVERING THESE TWO UNITS. AGAIN, IT'S FOR SIMPLICITY FOR BEING ABLE TO TRACK MLP ACTIONS. SO FOR OUR FINANCES WE ARE ONLY FUNDING THOSE TWO BLOCKS. SO WE'RE FUNDING 77 ACRES, BUT A TOTAL OF 239 ACRES ARE BEING TIED UP. THROUGH OTHER ACTION. YEAH. OTHER ACTIONS? NOT OURS. BUT. BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IRRIGATED. AND WE. AND THE ENFORCEABILITY IS WE HAVE LESS ENFORCEABILITY BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS OR TITLE RESTRICTIONS. AND THEN BOB, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE VOTE TODAY WOULD BE TO SEND IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND THEN A FINAL APPROVAL WITH ALL THE DETAILS LOCKED IN, WOULD COME BACK TO US AFTER THAT. AND I'LL SHOW THAT SLIDE REAL QUICK FOR YOU, BOB. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE THE CONVERSATION QUITE A BIT. AND I KNOW THIS IS AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF VOLUME. SO THE PROJECT STATUS RIGHT NOW IS THAT OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR REVIEW, FOR APPROVAL. BEFORE WHEN THAT COMES BACK FROM THE DEPARTMENT, WE'LL HAVE A FULL SCOPE, ALONG WITH A CONTRACT FOR THIS BOARD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE. SO THIS ISN'T AN APPROVAL OF CONTRACT, THIS IS JUST AN APPROVAL TO GET DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION APPROVAL. APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL. A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. THIS SAYS APPROVAL REVIEW. SO WE'RE REVIEWING IT TODAY AND THEN VOTING TO SEND IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR APPROVAL. THERE'S NO CONTRACT IN PLAY IN TODAY'S ACTION FOR PROJECT NINE. IT IS SIMPLY FOR SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR A FUNDING REQUEST. AND IF THEY APPROVE IT, THEN IT COMES BACK TO US TO APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT. WE STILL HAVE TO FINALIZE THE SCOPE GO THROUGH CONTRACT, BUT WE DON'T DO THOSE THINGS UNTIL DOC APPROVES THEM, BECAUSE A LOT OF WORK THAT DOC CAN OFTEN REVISIT. DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER SAVINGS PER YEAR? SO BASED ON DIRECT ALLOCATIONS. AGAIN, I HESITATE TO INCLUDE THESE OTHER UNITS, BUT IF WE'RE SAYING THAT THOSE ARE TWO FEET PER ACRE, APPROXIMATELY IN THE NEAR TERM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ACCORDING TO THE RULE, SUSTAINABLE LONG TERM ALLOCATION 13 IN AND IN PERPETUITY. RIGHT. SO SO IT'S EASY TO CALCULATE ANNUALLY IF WE SAY THIS THING GOES IN PERPETUITY. IT'S SO HYPOTHETICALLY UNMEASURABLE 85 ACRE FEET A YEAR. WHEN WE WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF OUR, OUR DROP DOWN. YEAH. IF, IF SUCCESSFUL IN THE THIS PERIPHERAL ACTION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING OF THE LANDOWNER AND THE RETIREMENT OF THOSE GROUNDWATER THAT IT'S OVER DOUBLE THAT [00:20:05] ANNUALLY. I WILL JUST NOTE ONE MORE, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT ON THE SLIDE THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO DGS APPROVAL APPRAISAL. WHENEVER THE STATE FUNDS A LAND ACQUISITION THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC APPRAISAL PROCESS THAT IS APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT MEANS THAT STATE DOLLARS CANNOT EXCEED THAT APPRAISAL AMOUNT IF IT COMES BACK FOR $1 AN ACRE, IF IT COMES BACK FOR $10,000 AN ACRE, WHATEVER THE VALUE IS DETERMINED, THE STATE IS NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF THAT APPRAISAL. AND THAT WILL SORT OF CORRESPOND WITH THIS. SO IF THE APPRAISAL NUMBER IS LOW, WE WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO APPRAISE THAT UP TO AMOUNT THAT DGS APPROVES. WHAT IS THE THE LAST BULLET POINT IS TALKING ABOUT COMMUNITY ACCESS FOR RECREATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL USE. YEAH. AND THESE ARE OFTEN MORE DIFFICULT TO SUCCEED IN. SO OFTENTIMES THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL REQUEST ESPECIALLY THIS GEOGRAPHY IS A LITTLE HARDER. BUT IN AREAS WHERE IT'S CLOSER TO COMMUNITIES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO, LIKE, PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS, IF IT'S LIKE A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE LA GRANDE PROJECT, ACTUALLY, WHERE THEY'VE REQUESTED PUBLIC ACCESS. THIS WILL LIKELY PROVE INFEASIBLE AT SORT OF IN THAT MANNER. BUT THERE'S A PROBABILITY THAT, AT LEAST FOR FIELD TRIPS AND DOING LIKE RECHARGE STUDIES THOSE THINGS WOULD BE, I THINK, A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THE LANDOWNER. SO JUST ALLOW. YEAH. MY ONLY MY ONLY POINT THERE, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH QUITE A FEW PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET DOWN TO THIS PIECE SO YOU CAN SEE IT JUST SAYS REQUEST TO ACCESS. SO OUR SS SS. SO WHEN THEY WHEN THEY GET THERE IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PERMISSION FOR THE NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS TO GET IN THERE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS. IT'LL ONLY BE TO AGENCIES THAT HAVE ACCESS. WE WILL DO THAT. LIKE WE WILL WORK WITH THE LANDOWNER. WE WILL NOT. WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THAT ACCESS IS GRANTED. RIGHT. REQUEST TO ASSESS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN REQUIREMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LETTER. SO THERE'S JUST LIKE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF LINGUISTIC REQUESTS. OKAY. AND THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT APPROVING COMMUNITY ACCESS AT THIS POINT. NO, NO. I THINK THAT'S THE BULK OF MY, MY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT ON THIS ONE. THIS I UNDERSTAND I KIND OF REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME THIS CAME THROUGH. IT WAS $2 MILLION. NOW IT'S JUST 1 MILLION. NO. WHAT WAS THIS? THIS IS THE SECOND TIME WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS. CORRECT? NO, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD. THE FOLKS WHO HAVE SEEN THIS PROJECT SO FAR INCLUDE THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH AMOUNTS IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE TO, I THINK, 12 ISH ATTENDEES. A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS BOARD WHICH INCLUDES MR. GEORGE PARK, MR. LLOYD PAREIRA, AND MR. NICK MARCHINI. SO THOSE FOLKS HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND SCORED IT. IT ALSO WENT TO, FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OUR TECHNICAL PARTNERS THAT INCLUDES THE NATURE CONSERVANCY SEEDS. ZANJERO. AND I BELIEVE, IF I'M RECALLING CORRECTLY. SO THOSE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS ALSO REVIEWED AND SCORED THIS PROJECT. SO YOU'RE SEEING IS SORT OF THESE REQUESTS, I GUESS IT WAS PROJECT 1 OR 2 THAT WAS IN THE SAME AREA THAT I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING OF. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, ANY ONLINE? NOT SEEING ANY ONLINE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS, BOB. OH, SORRY. OH, YEAH. BOB, YOU DID SEE THIS PROJECT AS PART OF PROP 68 GRANT APPLICATION, PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. TWO YEARS AGO. AND THEN IT'S ON. IT'S ALSO BEEN FUNDED BY THE ALMOND ALLIANCE FOR POLLINATOR PROGRAM RECENTLY AS WELL, JUST AS AN FYI. SO THERE'S NOW FOUR DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT FUNDING STREAMS FOR THIS PROJECT TWO ALMOND ALLIANCE AND POTENTIALLY NOW THE MIP. YEAH. JUST FOR CLARITY, WHEN WE SAY THIS PROJECT, WE DON'T MEAN THIS CONTRACT. WE MEAN THAT BROADER. YEAH. THAT GIANT PROJECT. RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THEN I THINK THAT I'D LIKE FOR US TO VOTE ON THIS PROJECT SEPARATELY. [00:25:06] THAT WAY MIKE CAN COME BACK IN THE ROOM BECAUSE HE'S. YES, HE CAN BE INVOLVED IN ALL THE REST. SO. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO ADVANCE IT TO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO I NEED TO GO BACK OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? JEANNIE. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. DO I NEED TO SAY ONE? ABSTENTION OR NO OR ONE RISK? YEAH. PERFECT. OKAY. WOULD YOU. DANIELLE, COULD YOU GRAB HIM, PLEASE? ALRIGHT, I WILL PAUSE. I DO WANT TO JUST SAY WHILE WE WAIT FOR CHAIRMAN MIKE GALLO TO COME BACK, I WILL PAUSE AND JUST NOTE THAT THESE ARE COMPLICATED. SO, AND ALTHOUGH IT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE REVIEWS BEFORE IT HITS THIS BOARD I DON'T THINK I DON'T. WE'LL NEVER HAVE RESISTANCE IN GOING THROUGH THESE OR HESITATE TO RE-INVESTIGATING ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT BY THE BOARD. AND I THINK IT'S A WELCOME OVERSIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM AND THIS ONE WILL HOPEFULLY BE QUICK IS A REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF TWO MLP CONTRACTS UNDER THE THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLAY UNDER THE MLP PROGRAM WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED. GO AHEAD. SORRY, BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH LA PALOMA AND SANDY MUSH. I THINK THERE'S. OH, SHOOT. BACK OUT. I'LL GET YOU FOR THE NEXT ONE. KIND OF GET THE STEPS IN TODAY. THANK YOU. JEAN. YEAH. AND THEN I KNOW I'VE HAD TO STAND OUT IN THAT HALLWAY BEFORE, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S NO FUN. I'M OKAY. OKAY. IN THE OLD DAYS, HE COULD JUST GO DOWN THERE AND HAVE A BEER AND WAIT FOR US. BUT NOW YOU JUST GOT TO STAND THERE. WE AT LEAST HAVE COFFEE. OH, I DON'T THINK MIKE DRINKS COFFEE. OKAY. SO THIS WILL BE HOPEFULLY A RELATIVELY QUICK ACTION. WHEN THE MLP PROGRAM WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AT ITS INITIAL INCEPTION. THIS LIST OF PARTNERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE CONTRACTORS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM. THESE CORE PARTNERS LISTED IN THAT PARTNERS SECTION, WERE WERE SORT OF CO-APPLICANTS OR SUBMITTED ON THE OR ON THE APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. SINCE THEN, THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS HAVE CHANGED WITH LA PALOMA AND SANDY MUCH BEING MORE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAN INITIALLY ANTICIPATED. BECAUSE OF THAT, AND TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WE'RE ASKING THAT THOSE TWO CONTRACTS BE TERMINATED. THEY'RE CURRENTLY $25,000 APIECE TO SUPPORT THEIR WORK. NO, NO FUNDING HAS BEEN DRAWN THROUGH THOSE CONTRACTS. SO WHAT THE ACTION WOULD BE WAS TO JUST SEND A TERMINATION NOTICE FORMALLY INFORMING THOSE, THOSE TWO PARTNERS THAT THEIR CONTRACTS WILL BE TERMINATED. THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE TO THOSE PARTNERS. THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEIR ROLE HAS TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. SO AGAIN, THE ACTION UNDER THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS TO TERMINATE TERMINATION NOTICE TO BOTH LA PALOMA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY AND SANDY MUSH MUTAL WATER CO COMPANY. SHOULD WE TAKE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ON? YEAH, WE MIGHT AS WELL. WHAT'S IS WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE TERMINATE THE THE TWO CONTRACTS WITH LA PALOMA AND SANDY. MUSH. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. PATIENCE. A LOT OF HOUSEKEEPING. NEXT ITEM. YEP. WE HAVE A. LACEY. OH, OKAY. NEXT ITEM IS REGARDING NEVADA RANCH PROJECT SIX OR. EXCUSE ME. NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER QUICK ONE FUNDING LETTER AND AN UPDATE ON MLP FUNDING UNDER PROP FOR $200 MILLION. MAYBE IT MIGHT BE MORE THAN THAT, BUT $200 MILLION WERE ALLOCATED UNDER PROP FOUR TO THE MLP PROGRAM. WE'RE EXPECTING $32 MILLION OF THAT TO BE ALLOCATED THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR IN 2026. BECAUSE OF THIS IT IS OUR POSITION AND THE POSITION OF MOST SORT OF PARTNERS IN THE REGION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SHOULD PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO EXISTING SUBBASINS TO STABILIZE WORK UNDERWAY. AS A REMINDER, NOT ONLY ARE WE DOING PROJECTS UNDER MLP, BUT THERE'S AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF EDUCATION AND OUTREACH THAT GOES ON. [00:30:01] THERE'S A LONG TERM PLAN. THERE'S PROCESSES THAT WE BUILD TO IDENTIFY AND SELECT PROJECTS. AND IT IS OUR POSITION THAT AND I BELIEVE THE POSITION OF STAFF, IF I'M NOT MISSTATING THAT, WE SHOULD SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION REQUESTING ONGOING FUNDING FOR MLP IN CURRENT SUBBASINS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROGRAMS ARE STABILIZED. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A LETTER IN THE BOARD PACKET POTENTIALLY. NOW, IF NOT, WE WILL HAVE TO DRAFT ONE. THERE THERE IS NO LETTER IN THE BOARD PACKET, BUT THE BOARD WAS IT WAS SHARED WITH THE BOARD. A LETTER THAT A GROUP LETTER THAT THE GRANTEES ARE CONSIDERING WITH THIS SIMILAR REQUEST HERE. SO YOU CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO JOIN THAT GROUP LETTER WHEN IT IS FINALIZED, OR SYNDROME INDIVIDUAL LETTER FROM THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. AND OR THE THE LETTERS DUE BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING OR. WE COULD POTENTIALLY WAIT TO SUBMIT IT. THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT WE COULD WAIT TO SUBMIT IT. ADDITIONALLY, IF WE HAVE A CORRESPONDING AND I DON'T KNOW THE FORMAT OF THIS BOARD, BUT WE COULD ALSO PASS A MOTION THAT REQUIRES THE CIRCULATION OF THAT LETTER TO THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LEGAL. BEFORE SUBMISSION, I THINK THE TIMELINE WAS IF YOU WANTED TO JOIN THE GROUP LETTER, THEIR TIMELINE HAD BEEN TO LET THEM KNOW IN NOVEMBER. AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEND YOUR OWN LETTER AND SEE THAT DRAFT BEFORE YOU APPROVE IT AND SIGN IT IN DECEMBER, YOU CAN DO THAT TOO. OKAY. SO EITHER I BELIEVE EITHER PATHWAY, REASONABLE PATHWAY, WE CAN RUSH AND SIGN THIS CURRENT LETTER OR WE CAN HAVE A FORMAL LETTER IN DECEMBER. REN, WHAT HAPPENS TO IF THESE PROP FOUR FUNDS IN 2026 DON'T AREN'T DIRECTED TO THE TO THE SUB-BASIN. I MEAN, YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON IS FUNDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE GSA. RIGHT. SO THIS WOULD BE WHAT? THAT THERE WOULD BE OTHER NO ADDITIONAL GRANTS IN THE FUTURE AVAILABLE, OR WE BELIEVE WE'LL STILL BE ABLE TO GET FUNDING TO DO PROJECTS. THERE'S ALWAYS PROJECT FUNDING AVAILABLE. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO OPERATE LIKE IN THIS COHESIVE MANNER. RIGHT. AND SO THE OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO STABILIZE, USE THAT FUNDING TO STABILIZE THE MLP PROGRAM, THE WEBSITE, THE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION MATRICES SUPPORTED DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUPS TO KEEP ALL THOSE MACHINES IN PLACE. THAT'D BE THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE WITH POTENTIALLY MORE SOME OF THAT IMPLEMENTATION FUND COMING THROUGH THAT 32 MILLION. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'D BE FULLY GRIMM GRIM WITHOUT IT. BUT I DO THINK STABILIZING FUNDING IN THESE SUBBASINS IS THE MOST. I MEAN, IT'S THE MOST CRITICAL WAY TO GUARANTEE LIKE THAT LANDOWNERS CONTINUE TO STAY ENGAGED, AND THEY DON'T JUST SEE THIS AS ANOTHER FLASHY THING THAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, IN THE EARLY 2020S. AND THAT WAS A RIDE. AND THEN I'LL JUST SHARE. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH WREN AND LACEY THAT AT, AT I WOULD LIKE FOR US AS FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE AND WE GO FORWARD BECAUSE THERE MAY BE POTENTIALLY FUNDING FOR MLP FOR, YOU KNOW, QUITE A WHILE INTO THE FUTURE OR MAYBE NOT, BUT IF THERE IS THAT WE WOULD, AS A GROUP KIND OF FIGURE MORE PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE DONE, LIKE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND HELP PEOPLE THAT HAVE MAYBE SMALL PARCELS THAT COULD DO RECHARGE, THAT AREN'T GOING TO DO A GREAT BIG PROJECT TO TO GET THOSE DONE SO THAT THAT WE CAN START USING THIS MONEY TO HELP OUR BASE AND RECHARGE. YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE GETTING YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, THE FIRST PROJECTS WE APPROVED, THERE WAS NO NO VACATING OF THE NATIVE SUSTAINABLE YIELD, RIGHT? WE DIDN'T GET ANY REALLY GET ANY WATER. NOW WE'RE STARTING TO GET POTENTIALLY SOME WATER. AND IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S WHAT I WANT US TO DO, WAS TO DEVELOP, RECHARGE AND BRING WATER INTO OUR BASIN THAT, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY WOULD GO OUT THE RIVER THAT WOULD PROVIDE ONE, MAYBE ONE MORE UPDATE TO YOUR POINT, GEORGE. JUST AS A PERSONAL ANECDOTE MYSELF AND A MEMBER OF THE ZANJERO TEAM WERE IN A MEETING LAST FRIDAY AROUND MLP LEADERSHIP INDIVIDUALS WITHIN DNR, WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. WE'RE THERE AND LARGELY RECEPTIVE OF LIKE CROSS PROGRAMMATIC OR DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR CROSS PROGRAMMATIC FUNDING FOR MLP. THAT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY. FRANKLY, AS SOON AS YOU TOUCH DIRT, THAT MONEY BECOMES VERY SMALL. AND SO THERE'S HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS STABILIZED FUNDING IN THESE BASINS TO SORT OF COINCIDE WITH FUNDING FROM CDFA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR [00:35:06] RECHARGE PROJECTS. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR FOR LIKE HABITAT AND ECOLOGICAL PROJECTS. BUT THE IT IS IMPORTANT TO STABILIZE THE PROGRAM IN MY PERSONAL ASSESSMENT BUT THROUGH THESE FUNDS. SO OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE POSITION OF THE CHAIR, I I'M. BASICALLY NOT A BIG FAN OF CONTINUING TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY. I THINK THAT THE THE BENEFITS HAVE BEEN LIMITED IN TERMS OF WHO'S BENEFITING AND THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER THAT'S BEING ACTUALLY CONSERVED VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, MONEY THAT'S BEING SPENT. I THINK YOU TEND TO GET A FAR MORE BENEFIT FOR THE PERIPHERY PARTIES INVOLVED, CONSULTANTS AND THAT KIND OF THING THAN ACTUAL. BENEFIT TO, TO GROUNDWATER SAVINGS. SO I'M NOT PERSONALLY IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY ON ON THIS THIS KIND OF A BASIS HERE. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I WILL SHARE. I MEAN, WHEN THIS STARTED, I HAD THE EXACT SAME SENTIMENT THAT YOU DID, BUT I SEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF OF THE PROJECTS, THE LAST TWO PROJECTS THAT WE'VE APPROVED HAVE HAD WATER SAVINGS IN THEM. SO WE'RE THE FIRST ONES HAD ZERO. NOW WE'VE GOT SOME. AND I THINK AS WE GET MORE MONEY AND DEVELOP OUR ABILITIES HERE IN THE BASIN, THAT THAT WILL BECOME BETTER THAT WE WILL DEVELOP WATER. SO I MEAN, I GET YOUR POINT AND I'VE BEEN THERE, BUT I THINK WE'RE HEADED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND AND A GOOD DIRECTION FOR US. BUT I RESPECT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AS WELL. SO ANYBODY ELSE. IN REGARDS TO, IN REGARDS TO THIS LETTER. IF IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER WE JOIN THEIRS AND JUST DO THAT OR MAKE OUR OWN. I MEAN, MIGHT AS WELL JOIN. YEAH, MIGHT AS WELL JOIN THEIRS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO JOIN THE LETTER. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. A SECOND BY DIRECTOR JIM. PAULIE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED I OKAY. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ONE. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. OH. OH, OKAY. SO MOTION CARRIES FOUR ONE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. DIRECTOR GALLO. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. BOB. SO GOING ON TO THE LAST ITEM OF TODAY'S SORT OF ACTION AGENDA, THE NEVADA RANCH PROJECT WAS HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BY THIS BOARD. WE SUBMITTED IT TO DOC WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES. THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION APPROVED THAT PROJECT IN THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING. WE APPROVED THAT CONTRACT SUBJECT TO NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. RIGHT. SO. AND WE RECEIVED RED LINES WITH EDITS OR WE RECEIVED EDITS SLASH RED LINES TO THAT AGREEMENT. SINCE THEN THAT WAS FOUND THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIVE. AND SO I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO JEANNIE. HOPEFULLY TO RESCUE ME WITH THIS LEGAL STUFF. BUT REALLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ARE WITHIN THAT AGREEMENT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED FOLLOWING THAT UPDATE. AND IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD, WE WILL ASK FOR AN ACTION, A CORRESPONDING. OKAY. COUNCIL. THANK YOU. WE APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING THIS BACK. NORMALLY UPON YOUR APPROVAL, IF THERE ARE NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, WE JUST PROCEED. HOWEVER, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WERE SOME MINOR SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, SO I FELT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU. AS FAR AS SUBSTANTIVE, I ONLY REALLY IDENTIFY THREE AND SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY MINOR. SECTION FOUR, THEY ASKED FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS, WHICH IS REASONABLE. BUT YOU'RE A PUBLIC AGENCY. SOMETIMES IT TAKES MORE TIMES TO GET THE BILLS IN AND PROCESSED. SO WE PUT IN 45 DAYS. SECTION 11 THERE WAS AN INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION AND THEY ASK THAT IT BE RECIPROCAL. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAD THE LANDOWNER INDEMNIFYING US. THEY HAVE ASKED THAT WE ALSO INDEMNIFY THE LANDOWNER. AGAIN, THAT IS EMINENTLY REASONABLE. I EDITED THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY EQUAL, AND IT'S VERY ACCEPTABLE [00:40:03] AND A STANDARD PROVISION. FINALLY, IN SECTION 20, THEY HAD ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE ANY DEFAULT. AGAIN, THIS IS VERY STANDARD. INSTEAD OF JUST BEING ABLE TO TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT IF SOMEBODY IN DEFAULT, THIS REQUIRES THAT YOU GIVE NOTICE AND THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO CURE THE DEFAULT BEFORE YOU CAN TERMINATE. EMINENTLY REASONABLE. SO I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUESTS AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OF JEANNIE. NO. OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? OR. YEAH. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AS AS AMENDED. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. THANK YOU. LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR THEIR PATIENCE. AND JUST REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT MIGHT BE LISTENING HERE IN THE ROOM OR ONLINE THAT THERE IS AN OPEN SOLICITATION FOR MLP RIGHT NOW FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. FOR THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN LOOKING FOR OR LOOKING FOR DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR ENGINEERING, PERMITTING OR DESIGN FOR LAND REPURPOSING ACTIONS, THIS CAN INCLUDE GROWERS OR NONPROFITS OR LOCAL AGENCIES. THEY CAN GO TO MERCED MLP ORG, AND THEY'LL HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THAT PORTAL IF THEY SO DESIRE. THEY'LL ALSO HAVE ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THEIR FOR APPLICATIONS. ONE CAVEAT IS APPLICATION. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROBABLY WON'T START FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS, SO GET IN THE QUEUE. AND YOU'LL GET A LITTLE HEAD START. SO THANK YOU ALL. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. [6. FY2025/26 BUDGET AMENDMENT] WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM SIX. THIS IS FISCAL YEAR 2025 OR 20 2526 BUDGET AMENDMENT. LACEY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THIS ITEM IS A MODIFICATION TO THE GSA'S FISCAL YEAR 2526 PHASE ONE BUDGET. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT, AND IT'S AT THE REQUEST OF THE FISCAL TEAM OF THE COUNTY, WHO IS THE GSA'S TREASURER. SO BECAUSE THE REVENUE COLLECTED UNDER THE PHASE ONE FEE IS ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES EACH YEAR, IT'S MOVED INTO A FUND SET ASIDE FROM THE GENERAL REVENUE COLLECTED UNDER THE SIGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE. WHEN THE LRP PAYMENTS ARE MADE OR OTHER PHASE ONE ACTIVITY EXPENDITURES ARE MADE, THE DOLLARS ARE MOVED OUT OF THE SET ASIDE FUND INTO THE PHASE ONE BUDGET. SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, ARE TWO LINE ITEMS THAT SHOW THE REVENUE COLLECTED IN 2526 THAT IS TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE BUDGET UNIT INTO THE SET ASIDE FUND. AND THEN THE BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM THE SET ASIDE FUND INTO THE BUDGET UNIT TO BE USED. AND SO THESE TWO ADDITIONAL LINES IN THE BUDGET, THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO REVENUES OR EXPENDITURES THAT WERE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD IN JUNE. AND THE ACTION FOR TODAY IS TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT, WHICH ADDS THE TWO LINES THAT YOU SEE HERE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS. AND EXCUSE ME, WHICH TWO LINES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. SO YOU HAVE YOUR OPERATING TRANSFERS IN YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED AREAS. YES. THAT'S OPERATING TRANSFERS IN. AND THEN YOU HAVE OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT. AND IN IS WHEN WE BRING THE DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND INTO THE BUDGET UNIT IN ORDER TO PAY THEM OUT. AND THEN OUT IS WHERE WE COLLECT THE DOLLARS THROUGH THE REVENUE. AND THEN WE PUT THEM IN A SET ASIDE FUND. THERE'S MORE. THIS IS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE. YES, ABSOLUTELY. 100%. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO A MOTION. ALSO MOVED. I'LL SECOND. THAT WAS BOB. DID THE SECOND. BOB'S TWO BOBS. BOB SQUARED. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR JIM PAULEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. [7. GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM CONTRACT] MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM CONTRACT LACEY. OKAY, SO IN 2023, THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA JOINED THE DWR FUNDED GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AS A PILOT GSA. AND THROUGH THIS GRANT, A GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM WAS DEVELOPED FOR THE GSA PARCELS SUSTAINABILITY ZONES. ALLOCATIONS ACCORDING TO THE GSA'S POLICIES WERE ALL ADDED IN TO THE PLATFORM, AND IT WAS ROLLED OUT TO GROWERS IN 2024. [00:45:09] THE GRANT FUNDING THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTING THIS DEVELOPMENT ENDS IN NOVEMBER 2025. AND SO MOVING FORWARD, SUPPORT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE ESA, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES AND HOSTING AND SUPPORTING THE TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLATFORM WILL BE BI ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION. AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE, THAT IT'S GOING TO TRANSFER TO A SUBSCRIPTION. SO THE TIME HAS COME. THIS CONTRACT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY ESTABLISHES A SUBSCRIPTION FOR THE PLATFORM HOSTING STARTING IN JANUARY 2026, AT THE ANNUAL COST OF $48,000. THE CONTRACT IS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS, WHICH COINCIDES WITH THE FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE ALLOCATION AMOUNTS THAT'S IN THE RULE AND ALSO THE ROLLING FIVE YEAR BUCKET. SO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT GIVES GROWERS CONFIDENCE THAT THIS TOOL WILL CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR A LONGER TERM. THE SECOND PART OF THE CONTRACT IS AUTHORIZING SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED CUSTOMIZATION FOR THE PLATFORM DURING THE 2026 ALLOCATION IMPLEMENTATION, AND THAT'S IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000. AND SO THE CUSTOMIZATIONS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE ARE IN THAT $50,000, THE FIRST TWO ARE REALLY BIG BANG FOR YOUR BUCK CONFIGURATIONS. ONE IS THE, WELL, REGISTRATION WORKFLOW. THERE IS ALREADY A WELL REGISTRATION WORKFLOW IN THE PLATFORM. AND SO THIS WILL JUST CONFIGURE THAT FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. AND SO THOSE USERS WHO WANT TO REGISTER THEIR WELLS IN THE PLATFORM AND REPORT THEIR METERS WILL BE ABLE TO USE THIS. AND ALSO THE FACILITIES LIKE THE DAIRY FACILITIES OR YOUR POULTRY FACILITIES, WHICH CANNOT BE REMOTE SENSED. THEY WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER WELLS AND REPORT THOSE AS WELL. AND SO THEY WOULD USE THAT WELL CONFIGURATION. THE SAME THING WITH SURFACE WATER SELF REPORTING. THERE IS SURFACE WATER SELF REPORTING WORKFLOW ALREADY IN THE PLATFORM. AND WE WOULD JUST CONFIGURE IT TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. WE WOULD INCLUDE OUR EFFICIENCY FACTOR. AND A LINK TO A SAGB MAP WHICH YOUR GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE REFERS TO. THE UPDATE OF THE WATER MEASUREMENT CALCULATIONS WOULD CONVERT THE SURFACE WATER DELIVERED TO SURFACE WATER CONSUMED ACCORDING TO THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE, WE'D CUSTOMIZE WHAT THEY'RE CALLING A FALLOWED LAND SELF-REPORTING WORKFLOW. IN YOUR ALLOCATION RULE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY FOR GROWERS TO TAKE A PARCEL OR A FIELD AND AND DEEM IT AS INACTIVE. AND SO THIS IS BASICALLY FOR YOUR INACTIVE FIELDS. BUT IT'S ALSO, AGAIN, FOR YOUR FACILITIES WHERE THE USER WOULD GO IN BASICALLY OUTLINE THE FIELD THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE REMOTE SENSED BECAUSE IT'S FALLOW OR INACTIVE OR THE FACILITY THAT CANNOT BE REMOTE SENSED. SO THAT'S CUSTOMIZING THAT. AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU WOULD RECALCULATE YOUR ET FOR THOSE SELF-REPORTED FIELDS. YOU WOULD RECALCULATE YOUR ET IF YOU REPORTED A FIELD AS INACTIVE AND YOU DID NOT WANT TO COUNT THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO COUNT THAT ET OF THAT INACTIVE FIELD IN THE WATER ACCOUNT. AND THEN THE LAST THING ON HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF DOLLARS SPENT TO SUPPORT CREATING A STREAMLINED REPORT THAT WOULD SHOW SUPPLY AND USAGE BY MONTH BY MONTH FOR LARGER WATER ACCOUNTS. SO THIS IS IN CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH MARCHINI COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. THEY'RE CONSIDERING BUYING THEIR OWN LARGE WATER ACCOUNT, AND THIS WOULD GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO MANAGE A LITTLE BIT EASIER THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM TO SEE SOME OF THE USAGE BY MONTH. OF ALL THE APN, IF THEY HAD A LOT OF PARCELS IN ONE ACCOUNT. AND SO THESE ARE THESE ARE THE CUSTOMIZATIONS THAT THE $50,000 WOULD SUPPORT. AND THESE WOULD ALL COME INTO PLAY HERE IN 2026. I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE POTENTIAL FUTURE CUSTOMIZATIONS COULD BE. AND SO THIS LIST IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. IT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD. BUT I JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SEEING IT. THE MOST REQUESTED THING THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM GROWERS IS THEY WANT TO UPLOAD THEIR SURFACE WATER IN THE ACCOUNT AND THEN SEE IT APPLIED AGAINST THEIR EAT IN THEIR WATER ACCOUNT EARLIER THAN WHAT THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE IS, IS GOING TO APPROVE IT. SO ACCORDING TO THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE, SURFACE WATER WILL BE REPORTED IN DECEMBER. AT THE VERY END OF THE YEAR, THE GSA WILL GO IN, APPROVE IT. AND THAT WILL TRUE UP ESSENTIALLY THEIR WATER ACCOUNT. WELL, SOME GROWERS WANT TO UPLOAD THEIR SURFACE WATER AS THEY USE IT. [00:50:04] AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO ADD IN SOME FUNCTIONALITY THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SEE IT PROVISIONALLY IN THEIR WATER ACCOUNT AS WE GO. AND THEN THE GSA CAN COME IN AND APPROVE THAT ALL AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AS WE'VE ALREADY BEEN PLANNING ON DOING. AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD. AND THEN THESE OTHER THINGS. HERE ARE SOME NOTIFICATIONS AND EMAILS WHEN AN ACCOUNT IS GETTING CLOSE TO REACHING ONE OF THE THRESHOLDS. SOME META DATA SELF-REPORTING AND NOTIFICATIONS. THE ABILITY FOR A USER TO SEE AND DOWNLOAD THEIR OWN USAGE STATEMENT AND TO BE ABLE TO EMAIL OUT USAGE STATEMENTS. RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO PRINT AND MAIL HARD COPIES OF USAGE STATEMENTS. BUT IF WE ADDED THIS ABILITY IN, WE COULD JUST EMAIL THEM OUT TO THE USERS ON THE PLATFORM. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE LIST OF POSSIBLY FUTURE FUNCTIONS. I'M SURE THAT LIST WILL GROW AS WE TALK MORE, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING JUST TO SEE WHAT COULD BE ON THE HORIZON FOR THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS JUST THESE ITEMS ON THE SCREEN. LACEY WHAT BUCKET DOES THIS MONEY COME OUT OF? OH, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. THIS COMES OUT OF YOUR PHASE ONE FEE PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS. AND SO YOU HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED DOLLARS FOR THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. WE CALLED IT PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS. AND SO YOU ALREADY HAVE A SET ASIDE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR THIS EXACT USE. AND THAT'S WHERE THIS WILL COME FROM. SO THIS CONTRACT IS $290,000. YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY $320,000 SET ASIDE ALREADY FOR PARCEL BASED WATER BUDGETS. AND SO THIS WILL TOTALLY COVER THROUGH THE PHASE ONE FEE ACTIVITY THAT YOU'VE ALREADY COLLECTED FOR THIS CONTRACT. THANK YOU. A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THESE POTENTIAL FUTURE CUSTOMIZATIONS THAT YOU OUTLINED. YOU DID SAY IT WAS NOT BEING AUTHORIZED AT THIS MEETING. AND YET IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PART OF OF THE OF THE BUDGET FOR, THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM CONTRACT. KNOW THE BUDGET FOR THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING CONTRACT IS $48,000 PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS, PLUS $50,000 IN CUSTOMIZATIONS, WHICH ADDS UP TO 290,000. OH, OKAY. SO BASICALLY WE'RE PUTTING THE 50,000 IN A AN AGREEMENT IN CASE WE NEED IT. YEAH. SO THAT'S TIMES FIVE. AND THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL 50,000. YEAH OKAY. WASN'T WASN'T CLEAR. CLEAR. YEAH. SORRY. AND THAT TOTALS A 290,000. YES. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. YES. YES, SIR. AND THEN LACEY. I MEAN, I KNOW THIS ISN'T A PART OF THIS ACTION. HOWEVER, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF JUST SHARE WITH YOU GUYS. SO IT'S LET ME THINK ABOUT IT MAKES ME A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS THAT PEOPLE CAN UPLOAD THEIR SURFACE WATER EVERY MONTH, AND THEN IT'S NOT APPROVED TILL THE END OF THE YEAR. SO THERE MAY BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE UPLOAD WATER THAT THEY THINK THEY HAVE IT, AND THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME IT DOESN'T COME. AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR WE GOT A MESS. SO JUST TO KIND OF PROCESS THAT AND I MAY BE ALL WET AND MAYBE NO ISSUE, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST DON'T WANT TO GET TO A PROBLEM AFTER SOMEBODY THINKS THEY'VE GOT WATER FOR SIX MONTHS AND IRRIGATES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'VE GOT A PROBLEM. SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. AND THEN ON THE ON ITEM SIX, WHO DID YOU HAVE FOR THE SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT, RULE ONE. [8. RULE 1: WELL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS MODIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE REORGANIZATION] WELL. CONSISTENCY. DETERMINATION. MODIFIED DETERMINATIONS. MODIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION. RULE REORGANIZATION. GREG YOUNG. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR. BOARD. LAST MONTH WE WENT THROUGH EDITS AND [00:55:01] REFINEMENTS TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE NOW IN YOUR PACKET, AND YOU SEE A TABLE OF CONTENTS ON SCREEN. WE HAD INDICATED THAT THERE WERE VERY LITTLE CHANGES OTHER THAN THIS ORGANIZATION IN THAT VERSION THAT WE WENT THROUGH LAST MONTH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION THREE, WHICH IS THE SORRY, YOU JUST JUMPED. CAN YOU GO? THERE WE GO. SORRY. SECTION THREE WAS THE CONSISTENCY CRITERIA FOR, WELL, CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT WAS THE THE NEW ADDITION THAT CAUSED THE REORGANIZATION OF THE REST OF THE PEOPLE PIECES. SO IN SECTION THREE THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT WAS ALL NEW LANGUAGE. OTHERWISE THERE WAS MAYBE A WORD OR TWO IN A PLACE, BUT OTHERWISE IT WAS ALL JUST REALIGNMENT TO THIS NEW SECTION AND MAKING SURE EVERYTHING POINTED TO THE RIGHT ELEMENTS. SO THAT WAS READ THROUGH AND DISCUSSED LAST MONTH. SO THERE'S BEEN NO ADDITIONAL EDITS TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. ONE THING THAT I DID WANT TO RAISE WAS IN SECTION THREE. IN THAT CONVERSATION, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT METERING AND TRYING TO ASSURE THAT THEY WERE METERS THAT WERE ACCURATE. AND WE WERE WORKING ON A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU, INDEPENDENT OF THE RULE THAT COULD BE A STANDALONE DOCUMENT TO BE USED FOR ACCURACY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU PUT FORTH FOR GROWERS WHO WANT TO USE METERS AND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF THE AD HOC LATER LATER THIS MONTH, I BELIEVE IN THE AD HOC MEETING. AND THEN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AS A SEPARATE STANDALONE DOCUMENT IN DECEMBER AND THAT WAS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING ABOUT ACCURACY AND FIELD VERIFICATION AND SOME OF THAT MATERIAL, AND GRANDFATHERING IN OR GIVING SOME ROOM FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE METERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE IT CERTIFIED AS, AS ACCURATE WITHIN A CERTAIN ACCURACY RIGHT OFF THE BAT. SO NEXT SLIDE NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST TAKE THIS CONSIDERATION. SO THE ORIGINAL MODIFICATION OR THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL RULE ONE MODIFICATION WAS IN APRIL OF 2022. SO THIS PORTION THAT'S IN SECTION THREE IS THE UPDATE OF THAT RULE MODIFICATION FOLDED INTO SECTION THREE TO ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE CHANGES FROM THE PRE-ALLOCATION SITUATION, WHERE WE WERE BEING ASKED BY THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE A WELL, CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WHEN WE HAD NO ALLOCATION AT THAT POINT IN TIME. IT HAS NOW BEEN UPDATED TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN ALLOCATION, AND ESSENTIALLY WE ARE SAYING ANYBODY WOULD BE CONSISTENT SO LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOCATION AND THE REST OF THE RULES SET FORTH BY THIS GSA. SO THOSE THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN CHAPTER THREE. I WAS NOT INTENDING TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE A REFRESHER, WE COULD GO BACK THROUGH SECTION THREE AT THIS TIME. ANYBODY NEED A REFRESHER ON ANY OF THAT? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. JUST BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. AND I WANT ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE. SO ANYWAYS, I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. GOT A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. SO NOW THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE HAVE AN ALLOCATION AND NOW THAT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY WELLS YOU HAVE IS ARE WE STILL GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS ISSUES OF HOW MANY ACRES OF THIS YOU'RE GROWING AND THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER, AND HOW MANY ACRES YOU GREW TWO YEARS AGO AND THREE YEARS AGO. IS THAT ALL GOING TO STILL BE INVOLVED IN THIS, IN THIS WELL APPLICATION AND THIS? WELL, CONSISTENCY? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF BUSY WORK FOR NO REASON. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THAT IS THE COUNTIES FORM. AND SO MAYBE WE SHOULD APPROACH THE COUNTY WITH MODIFICATIONS, BECAUSE THAT FORM IS. YEAH. WHAT DID YOU USE THE LAST THREE YEARS? GROWN USE. AND THEN WHAT ARE YOU PROJECTING GOING FORWARD? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING. YEAH. IT'S YEAH, THERE'S THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT SCHEDULES ON THIS THING TO FILL OUT. THOSE ARE NOT THIS GSA SCHEDULES. THOSE ARE THE SCHEDULES. I BELIEVE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE RELYING ON THESE SCHEDULES FOR MAKING YOUR CONSISTENCY, OR AT LEAST IT WERE UP TILL NOW, CORRECT. UP TILL NOW, WE WERE RELYING ON THOSE. AND THE ZANJERO TEAM WAS PUTTING TOGETHER LETTERS THAT OUTLINE THE HISTORIC USE, WHAT THE CAP IS, AND IT WAS A LOT MORE DETAILED. IT WORKED, BUT IT DID TAKE TIME TO PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER. SO I DO BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE STREAMLINED BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, UNDER THIS RULE YOUR CAP IS WHAT THE ALLOCATION IS. [01:00:03] IT'S NO LONGER YOUR, HISTORICAL USE, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUTTING TOGETHER THOSE THOSE LETTERS AND THOSE THINGS. THE REAL CHECK IS MAKING SURE THAT THE PARCEL THAT THE WELL IS ON, AND THAT THE WELL IS SERVING IS ENROLLED IN THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM. RIGHT. BECAUSE IT WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH, THERE'S A LOT OF COST INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THESE THINGS ON THE ON THE PREVIOUS METHOD. SO THAT SHOULD BE PRETTY CUT AND DRIED HOPEFULLY OKAY. THE INTENTION. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. GREAT QUESTION. ANYBODY ELSE. ALL RIGHT I'LL GO OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. ANY ONLINE. NOT ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE UPDATES TO RULE ONE. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. ALL RIGHT. [9. PHASE 2 FEE PROCESS UPDATE] DON'T LEAVE. GREG. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NINE, WHICH IS THE PHASE TWO FEE PROCESS UPDATE. GREG. THANK YOU. SO AS WE HAD RECOGNIZED FROM THE VERY GET GO OF OUR, GOSH, BACK IN 21, I THINK WHEN WE ORIGINALLY STARTED THE PROCESS ON SOME OF THE FEES, WE SAID THERE WOULD BE A PHASE ONE FEE THAT WOULD SUNSET AFTER FIVE YEARS, AND THAT WAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND GET US MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WHILE WE WORKED ON AN ALLOCATION. AND THEN SECONDARILY, THAT WOULD ALL BE REPLACED WITH A PHASE TWO FEE. SO THE PHASE TWO FEE WE ARE AT THAT TIME OF OF PUTTING TOGETHER SOMETHING FOR A PHASE TWO FEE FOR CONSIDERATION TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE PROP 218 PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND AND HOPEFULLY GET APPROVED, A FUNDING MECHANISM TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE THE NECESSARY STEPS AND ACTIVITIES THAT ARE THIS GSA WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO UNDERTAKE INTO THE FUTURE. THE. THERE IS AN AD HOC GROUP THAT IS WORKING WITH THE STAFF AND US UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE TWO FEE TO START DEVELOPING SOME OF THESE PIECES. BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO BRING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS AN UPDATE ON THE PLANNED SCHEDULE, SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE TIMELINE TO ASSURE THAT WE ARE ACCOMMODATING THE NECESSARY STEPS IN ORDER TO HAVE A PHASE TWO FEE ADOPTED PRIOR TO YOU GOING THROUGH YOUR BUDGET PROCESS NEXT SUMMER AND ADOPTING A NEW BUDGET SO THAT THEN THE THE NEW FEE STRUCTURE CAN BE PUT FORWARD TO THE COUNTY TO TO INCLUDE ON THE TAX BILLS GOING FORWARD AND GOING OUT LATE NEXT SUMMER. SO I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY ASK ADRIEL RAMIREZ FROM OUR OFFICE TO WALK THROUGH THE THE TIMELINE PROCESS. WE HAVE THIS PRETTY GRAPHIC BECAUSE WE ALWAYS THOUGHT SOME COLORS WOULD BE NICE. THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET. THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE OF PAGES ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT HAVE MORE DETAILS. AND ADRIEL SHOULD BE ONLINE AND AVAILABLE TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF THE DATES HERE THAT ASSOCIATE WITH EACH ONE OF THESE, THESE PIECES. SO, ADRIEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. THANK YOU. SO, AS GREG MENTIONED, THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE KEY COMPONENTS AND MILESTONES THAT WILL TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT SEVEN AND A HALF MONTHS AS WE APPROACH THE BUDGET ADOPTION DEADLINE OF JUNE. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THIS GRAPHIC THAT WILL TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT COMING MONTHS ARE MEETINGS OF THE PHASE TWO FIAT HAWK, WHICH WILL OCCUR IN EARLY DECEMBER AND EARLY JANUARY, AND WE'LL BE WORKING ON DEVELOPING THE ENGINEERS REPORT THAT IS REQUIRED TO ADOPT THE PHASE TWO FEE AND FLOATING THAT TO THE AD HOC LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE A DRAFT COMPLETE OR FIRST DRAFT COMPLETE RATHER IN EARLY JANUARY. SO IN JANUARY, WE WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND PROVIDE AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PHASE TWO FEE. ENGINEERS REPORT ANNOUNCED THE UPCOMING RELEASE OF THE DRAFT AND WORKSHOP DATES THAT WOULD ALL TAKE PLACE IN FEBRUARY. SO THAT WILL BE THE PINK DATE THERE. IN FEBRUARY. WE WOULD BRING THE PHASE TWO FEE ENGINEERS REPORT TO THE BOARD ON FEBRUARY 12TH AND. ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE ITS RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC. [01:05:03] FROM THERE, WE WOULD HOST TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AT THE END OF FEBRUARY AND THEN COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH THE FINAL REPORT FOR ADOPTION ON AT YOUR MARCH MEETING. AT THAT MARCH MEETING, WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, SETTING THE DATE OF THE 218 HEARING, AND APPROVE MAILING OF THE 45 DAY NOTICE THAT IS REQUIRED BY PROP 218. SO, ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD MAIL THE NOTICE THE FRIDAY AFTER THE BOARD MEETING, THE 45 DAY NOTICE WOULD BE UP ON APRIL 20TH. SO WE WOULD HOST THE ADOPTION HEARING ON APRIL 20TH, THE WEEK OF APRIL 20TH, ESSENTIALLY. SO AT THAT MEETING, YOU WOULD CONSIDER ADOPTING A PER ACRE FEE BY RESOLUTION OF LESS THAN 50% OF THE PROTESTS ARE RECEIVED. AND THEN WE WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN MAY WITH THE ACTUAL RATES THAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR. AS A REFRESHER, THE ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT WILL CRAFT DISCUSSES THE MAXIMUM THAT YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO FUND FOR ANY GIVEN ACTIVITY OR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT YOU HAVE. BUT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS NEED TO COLLECT THE MAX GIVEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE. I THINK THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, RIGHT? THERE'S ALREADY PHASE ONE FEE MONIES THAT ARE SET ASIDE FOR THAT THAT WILL CARRY IT THROUGH FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO COLLECT THAT FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF THE FEE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT'S ALL I GOT. MAYBE JUST TO ROUND OUT SOME OF THE SCHEDULE, THAT THEN YOU WOULD BE ADOPTING THAT FEE AS PART OF YOUR JUNE 11TH BOARD MEETING AND BUDGET. AND IN AUGUST, THOSE FEES WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE FOR INCLUSION IN THE TAX BILL. THANK YOU, ADRIEL, FOR WALKING THROUGH ALL THAT. I THINK WHAT'S SUPER IMPORTANT, AND THIS HAS ALL BEEN RUN BY JEANNIE, ALSO TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT CAME FORWARD WITH THE ASSEMBLY BILL THAT WAS PASSED. WHICH IS WHY THE TIMING OF THE WORKSHOPS ARE GOING TO BE IN MIDDLE TO END OF FEBRUARY, AND WE'LL DISCUSS WITH THE AD HOC AND THEN ALSO THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER THOSE WILL BE BACK TO BACK OR WHETHER THEY'LL BE, YOU KNOW, SAME LOCATION, DIFFERENT WEEKS APART OR HELD THIS MAYBE THE SAME WEEK, BUT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND EXACTLY HOW WE WANT TO CONFIGURE THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER. BUT THE KEY IS TO GET THE REPORT AVAILABLE, GET THE 45 DAY NOTICE PERIOD STARTED SO THAT YOU CAN THEN HAVE THE OFFICIAL HEARING THAT'S NECESSARY FOR A PROP 18 TO 18 CONSIDERATION. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF GREG OR ADRIEL? I'M SORRY, WHICH WHICH FEE WOULDN'T NEED TO BE COLLECTED THE FIRST YEAR? SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, I THINK AND APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, GEORGE, THAT'S THIS GETS INTO THE THE NUANCES OF ANY KIND OF FEE STRUCTURE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IN THE ENGINEERS REPORT, LAY OUT THE MAX FEE. AND THE EXAMPLE WAS THE GAP PROCESS IS GOING TO HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION FEE. RIGHT NOW IT'S $48,000 A YEAR. SO WE'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO COLLECT $48,000 A YEAR IN THIS BUDGET, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED IN WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT IN YOUR YEAR ONE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY CHARGE, YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, HOLD IT. WE HAVE SOME MONEY FROM PHASE ONE THAT'S FUNDED THAT. SO WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE TO LET'S SAY THAT ACCOUNTED FOR A DOLLAR PER ACRE. I'M JUST MAKING UP A NUMBER FOR FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES. SO YOU COLLECT A DOLLAR PER ACRE OR $0.50 MIGHT BE A BETTER ANALOGY. SO $0.50 PER ACRE TO FUND THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. WELL, IN YEAR ONE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT OR ASSESS THAT $0.50 BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE MONIES PRE COLLECTED THROUGH THE PHASE ONE THAT WILL PAY FOR THOSE FIRST SEVERAL YEARS ACTUALLY. SO YOU WON'T NEED TO COLLECT THAT. BUT BY YEAR SIX YOU WILL HAVE RUN DOWN THAT ACCOUNT THAT YOU CARRIED FORWARD FROM PHASE ONE THAT LACEY HAD JUST BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU. AND YOU'LL NEED TO THEN START MAKING SURE YOU'RE COLLECTING THAT. BUT BY THEN, MAYBE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE OF THE FEE THAT YOU NEED TO COLLECT, LIKE FOUR DATA GAPS AND DRILLING NEW WELLS. MAYBE YOU'VE DRILLED THE NEW WELLS IN AND CLOSE THE DATA GAPS, SUCH THAT WE DON'T NEED TO COLLECT THAT COUPLE OF BUCKS AN ACRE. THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THAT. SO THOSE $2 DROP OFF. BUT WE NOW ADD $0.50. SO YOU WHEN YOU DETERMINE YOUR ANNUAL PER ACRE COST OR FEE, IT WILL BE LOOKING AT THESE DIFFERENT PIECES AND WHICH [01:10:08] MAY NEED TO GET ASKED FOR IN EACH YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER'S REPORT HAS TO PRESUME YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ASK FOR ALL OF THEM IN ANY PARTICULAR YEAR. SO WE HAVE TO REPRESENT IT AS THE MAX, AND THEN YOU HAVE DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO ASK FOR UP TO THAT MAX OR NOT IN EACH YEAR. RIGHT. OKAY. DOES THAT HELP YOU? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION ITEM. SO. ALRIGHTY. DO YOU WANT TO DO? I'LL DO PUBLIC COMMENT SINCE IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT. SURE. DO YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? DAVE. LET'S GO TIME, GUYS. HEY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC. I'M JUST KIDDING. OKAY. DAVE. QUINN. THERE'S JUST GOING TO HAVE A SUNSET. MY QUESTION. OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO GO ON AND KIND OF HAVE TO END IT AT SOME POINT AND REEVALUATE IF WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE AGAIN? WILL THERE BE A PHASE THREE ON THAT? THIS IS GOING TO BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, I WOULD ASSUME, AND RUNNING THE OPERATIONS OF THE GSA NOT TO DO ANY PROJECTS OR BE GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENTS TO ANY PARTICULAR ZONES. SO IT'S GOING TO JUST BE STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERYBODY AND ONLY FOR ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ONLINE? NOT ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU GREG. [10. DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM UPDATE] WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM TEN WHICH IS DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM UPDATE LACEY MCBRIDE. ALL RIGHT. SO DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION. SO WHILE NOT REQUIRED BY THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT, DOMESTIC MITIGATION HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY DWR TO THE MERCED BASIN AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN 2022 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN IN THE 2025 AMENDED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN. THE GSA HAS INCLUDED A TIMELINE THAT HAD THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM DRAFTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025, AND THE GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE THIS PROGRAM ADOPTED IN TIME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WATER YEAR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH IS DUE IN APRIL OF 2026. SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS MAP HERE IS FROM SEPTEMBER, AND IT IS THE CURRENT LOCATIONS WHERE SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES IS PROVIDING EMERGENCY WATER SERVICES IN MERCED COUNTY. SO THIS IS COUNTY WIDE. YOU CAN IGNORE THOSE ON THE FAR WEST SIDE. THIS ALIGNS WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN ALIGNS WITH THE DOMESTIC WELL DENSITY MAPS THAT SHOW DOMESTIC WELL DENSITY IS HIGHEST AROUND THE URBAN COMMUNITIES. SO WE HAVE A SUBBASIN OR I'M SORRY, WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDES BOARD MEMBERS MARCHINI, GALLO AND PEDRETTI THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PUTTING TOGETHER A FRAMEWORK FOR DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION SINCE 2024. AND WHAT I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH HERE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND THE BASIN WIDE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TWICE THIS YEAR. AND THEY INCORPORATED FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEES AFTER THE FIRST PRESENTATION. SO THIS IS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY OR THE PROGRAM. WE DO HAVE DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR IT. THE DETAILS OF WHO DOES WHAT DURING THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THIS PROGRAM IS STILL BEING WORKED OUT BY THE GSA'S THOUGH. SO THIS STARTS WITH THE WELL, ELIGIBILITY. AND WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A DOMESTIC WELL TO BE MITIGATED UNDER THIS PROGRAM. SO THE WELL WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE MERCED SUBBASIN. THE WELL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ADOPT THE PROGRAM IN DECEMBER, THE WELL THAT YOU'RE MITIGATING WOULD HAVE HAD TO EXIST BEFORE DECEMBER 2025, OR THE WELL IS DRILLED TO A GSA RECOMMENDED DEPTH IF CONSTRUCTED AFTER ADOPTION OF THE PROGRAM. SO A LITTLE FLAG I WANT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THE GSA'S ARE COMMITTING TO PROVIDING RECOMMENDED DEPTHS FOR DOMESTIC WELLS GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. I THINK THE IDEA IS WE WE DO NOT WANT TO GET A SHALLOW DRILLED WELL AFTER THOSE DRILLED AFTER 2025 AND THEN HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT REALLY SOON IN THE FUTURE. OH, AND ANOTHER NOTE ON THAT IS WE ALREADY GET REQUESTS FROM SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES ASKING US HOW DEEP THEY SHOULD BE DRILLING THEIR MITIGATION WELLS THAT ARE FUNDED BY [01:15:05] THE STATE IN THE MERCED BASIN. AND USUALLY WE TELL THEM WHAT THE DEEPEST INTERIM MILESTONE IS. AND AS LONG AS WE FOLLOW OUR INTERIM MILESTONES AND OUR GROUNDWATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE THAT, THEN THOSE WELLS SHOULD NOT GO DRY. AND SO WE WE DO THIS ALREADY AT A REALLY SMALL LEVEL. BUT DEVELOPING A RECOMMENDED DEPTH IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO. THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS PROBABLY THE THIRD BULLET HERE. THE CAUSE OF THE WELL FAILURE IS DECLINING GROUNDWATER LEVELS RESULTING FROM OVERDRAFT PUMPING THAT OCCURRED AFTER JULY 19TH, 2022 AND IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT UNDER THE GSP. SO THE KEY DATE HERE IS JULY 19TH, 2022. THIS IS WHEN YOUR 2022 GSP WAS ADOPTED BY ALL THE GSA'S. AND THE 2022 GSP IS THE FIRST GSP WHERE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION WAS CONTEMPLATED. AND SO THE IDEA IS IF A WELL HAS FAILED AFTER JULY 19TH, 2022, IT COULD BE MITIGATED UNDER THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE THE PROGRAM WAS CONTEMPLATED AT THAT TIME. THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE GSA'S MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO THE WELL'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE POTABLE WATER. THE WELL DOES NOT SUPPLY WATER FOR NON-DOMESTIC USE. SO THIS IS FOR DOMESTIC WELLS, AND THIS IS FOR DOMESTIC DE MINIMIS WELLS. THE WELL DOES NOT ATTRACT MORE THAN TWO ACRE FEET. AND ALSO THE PROGRAM WANTS TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE ARE NOT MITIGATING WELLS THAT HAVE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY BEEN MITIGATED BY SOMEBODY ELSE. SO IF THE WELL IS ELIGIBLE FOR MITIGATION AWARD, THE PROGRAM WOULD PROVIDE A COMBINATION OF A LONG TERM MITIGATION MEASURE AND AN AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. SO THE PROGRAM WOULD ISSUE REIMBURSEMENT IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR MITIGATION OF $30,000. WELLS REPLACED AFTER JULY 19TH, 2022, BUT BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE PROGRAM MAY BE REIMBURSED AT A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $30,000. THOSE WELLS WOULD JUST NEED TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE, AND THEN THEY COULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $30,000. THE MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDE AN EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY, SO THIS IS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDING BOTTLED DRINKING WATER FOR THOSE DOMESTIC WELLS THAT ARE OUT OF WATER AND POTENTIALLY PROVIDING A TANK SUPPLY OF WATER, AND THEN THE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS COULD INCLUDE CONNECTING TO A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, MODIFYING AN EXISTING WELL SYSTEM WHICH MIGHT BE DEEPENING A PUMP, A DEEPENING THE WELL, OR REPLACING THE WELL. SO THE AS YOU SEE, THE FRAMEWORK IS PRETTY TIGHT, BUT THE FLEXIBILITY COMES IN. IN YOUR APPEALS PROCESS, THERE IS AN APPEAL OF ANY DECISION OF THE PROGRAM THAT CAN BE MADE IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS TO AN APPEAL COMMITTEE. SO IF AN APPLICANT WAS DEEMED NOT ELIGIBLE, THEY COULD APPEAL THAT TO THE COMMITTEE. IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE WELL MITIGATION MEASURE, THEY COULD APPEAL THAT TO THE COMMITTEE IF THEY THINK THEY NEED TO BE MITIGATED FOR MORE THAN THE CAP OF $30,000, THAT TOO, COULD BE APPEALED TO THE COMMITTEE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE KIND OF THE FLEXIBILITY COMES. SO I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL THE SLIDES I HAVE. THE NEXT STEPS WILL INCLUDE FINALIZING THE PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND BRINGING THAT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD, EITHER IN THE DECEMBER OR JANUARY BOARD MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT PHASE TWO, THOSE FEES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING. YES. SO THERE YEAH, THERE WOULD BE A BUDGET LINE IN PHASE TWO FOR BOTH YOUR LIKE, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND YOUR EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY, AND THEN ALSO A SEPARATE LINE ITEM FOR JUST CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WELLS, WHICH IS GOING TO BE YOUR HIGHER COST ITEM. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. NO. OKAY. HEY, ONE QUICK ONE. I HAVE LACEY ON THE APPEALS. IT SAYS SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF MITIGATION AWARD. YEAH. WOULDN'T THEY APPEAL IT IF THEY DIDN'T GET AN AWARD? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING? IF THEY IF THEY. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT PROBABLY SHOULD NOT SAY MITIGATION AWARD. IT SHOULD PROBABLY USE SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE LIKE MITIGATION DETERMINATION. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OR NOT AWARD AN AWARD? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO NUMBER 11. [11. STAFF REPORT] STAFF REPORT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US? LACEY? I DO, I HAVE TWO QUICK ITEMS. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A QUICK UPDATE THAT WE HAVE ADDED A LOT TO THE ALLOCATION PAGE ON THE [01:20:04] GSA'S WEBSITE. AND THIS IS WHERE GROWERS WILL FIND ANY OF THE NECESSARY FORMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE ALLOCATION RULE. A LOT OF FORMS HAVE BEEN ADDED. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE RECHARGE FACILITY AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCE REGISTRATION FORM, AND THE RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 FORMS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AND THOSE WOULD BE DUE DECEMBER 15TH. SO THIS IS IF YOU IF A GROWER HAS USED A ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER BETWEEN 2020 AND 2025, OR RECHARGED AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER BETWEEN 2020 AND 2025, THEY CAN BE RECOGNIZED TO RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THAT USE. UNDER THE ALLOCATION RULE, THEY JUST NEED TO TURN IN BOTH OF THOSE FORMS AND REMEMBER THAT THE REGISTRATION FORM NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE CREDIT FORM. THOSE CAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE FORMS AT MERCED SUBBASIN EMAIL ADDRESS. THE SECOND. OH, WHAT WAS THE DATE AGAIN? DECEMBER 15TH IS THE DEADLINE FOR BEING RECOGNIZED FOR PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026. RECHARGE OR ALTERNATIVE USE CREDIT. SECOND QUICK ITEM IS GOOD NEWS ABOUT OUR QUEST TO LOCATE A STATION IN THE MERCED SUBBASIN. MAYOR HAS BEEN WORKING WITH MERCED COLLEGE AND RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL TO PLACE THE STATION AT MERCED COLLEGE, AND SO THIS REPLACES AN OLD STATION THAT WAS TAKEN OFFLINE A COUPLE YEARS AGO. AND HAVING A STATION ADDS AN AUTOMATIC WEATHER STATION TO THE BASIN. SO THIS IS GREAT DATA THAT WE'LL BE GETTING. WE'LL BE WORKING WITH GUZA TO PROVIDE WHATEVER SUPPORT THEY NEED IN GETTING THIS PROGRAM. THIS PROJECT COMPLETED AND ONLINE. SO JUST AN UPDATE FOR YOU GUYS. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME STATIONS IN THE PAST, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? YEAH. WHAT HAPPENS TO CREDITS THAT ARE GENERATED BETWEEN DECEMBER 15TH AND JANUARY 1ST? GOOD QUESTION. YEAH. LACEY. THAT THAT IS A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT YOU YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR CREDITS FOR, LET'S SEE, ALTERNATIVE SOURCE WATER THAT IS USED OR RECHARGED IN THE TWO WEEKS BETWEEN DECEMBER 15TH AND JANUARY 1ST. I WOULD SAY IN THOSE INSTANCES, LET US KNOW DIRECTLY AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU TO DO THAT. BUT THE THE RULE ALLOWS YOU TO RECEIVE A CREDIT UP TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. OKAY. SO LET ME KNOW. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WAS SHEA. TOUCHE. BUT ANYWAYS. ALRIGHT. BOARD REPORTS. I'LL START TO MY LEFT. [12. BOARD REPORTS] NOTHING. NO NO, NO. MR. KELLY ANY TO LACEY AFTERWARDS. BUT I DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I I HAVE NOTHING OTHER THAN TO ANNOUNCE THAT DECEMBER 11TH AT 2 P.M. [13. FUTURE MEETINGS] IS OUR NEXT MEETING. HAPPY THANKSGIVING. YEP. YEAH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.