Apr 09, 2026 GSA Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

[00:00:03]

HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE APRIL 9TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA.

WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL. BOARD MEMBER GALLO. BOARD MEMBER.

PARK HERE. BOARD MEMBER. BOARD MEMBER. KELLY.

VICE CHAIRMAN. MARCHINI HERE. CHAIRMAN PAREIRA.

PRESENT, MR. CHAIR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM TWO WAS CLOSED SESSION, WHICH WE HAD AT 1:00, AND STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

AND CRAIG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE? OF 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.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU DID REALLY WELL. BY THE WAY WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMENT.

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 AND TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE.

NONE ONLINE. SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS A CONSENT CALENDAR.

[5. CONSENT CALENDAR]

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SECOND.

OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY MARCHINI AND A SECOND BY, GALLO DIRECTOR GALLO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM SIX, WHICH IS THE MULTI BENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.

[6. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM]

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OH YES. LOVE IT.

ALL RIGHT. JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON ON GROUND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS.

I APOLOGIZE IF YOU SEE SOME OF THE TYPOGRAPHY SORT OF TOPOLOGY ON THE SLIDESHOW BOUNCING AROUND.

WE HAD TO DO A LAST MINUTE LIKE TECH ASSIST AND, AND REFORMAT THIS.

SO YOU MIGHT SEE SOME, SOME SLIDES A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THEY WERE INTENDED.

THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE FOUR PROJECTS. JUST A REMINDER FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS OCCURRING.

WE'RE STILL WAITING ON CONTRACTING FOR THE FIFTH PROJECTS, BUT IT IS NICE TO SEE.

IT IS NICE TO SEE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE PROCEEDING.

THE BEAR CREEK RANCH HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN CEDED.

RIVER PARTNERS CONTINUES TO DO WEED MANAGEMENT ON THAT SITE.

ACTUALLY, I'M SLATED TO DO SOME TECH ASSISTANCE AND GET OUT THERE AND HELP WITH SOME OF THAT WEED MANAGEMENT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE AMSTERDAM PROJECT, WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD, I THINK, ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING OR SORT OF WHERE THE MICRO SITING OF THAT RECHARGE BASIN NEEDS TO GO. BUT AT THE REQUEST OF, OF THE LANDOWNER, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE MORE SOIL CORE SAMPLES BEFORE WE COMMIT TO TO BREAKING GROUND ON THAT SITE AND SORT OF CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE ENGINEER.

THE LAGRANGE COMMUNITY PROJECT IS A COMMUNITY.

THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MERCED IS WORKING ON ITS ENTITLEMENT AND PERMITTING AND GETTING AN APPRAISAL FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN, SO THAT PROJECT IS ACTUALLY QUITE COMPLEX DESPITE THE LACK OF EARTHMOVING OCCURRING ON THE SITE.

AND THEN THE NEVADA RANCH SITE, WHICH I'D SAY IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE SIMPLER ON GROUND TASKS, IS IT'S UNDERWAY NOW. THEY'RE DOING WEED MANAGEMENT ON THE SITE.

AND THEN CURRENTLY LOOKING AT, AT FENCING CONTRACTORS FOR FOR SETTING UP THAT CATTLE OPERATION.

SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE ON GROUND ACTIVITIES? IF NOT, WE CAN GET INTO THE MEAT OF IT. NOPE.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. SORRY.

I HAVE LESS POWER THAN I THOUGHT, WHICH IT TENDS TO BE THE CASE.

SO MY FIRST ACTION ITEM FOR THE BOARD IS THE MLP TIMELINE EXTENSION.

JUST BY WAY OF UPDATE, THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION RECEIVED APPROVAL TO.

IT REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT THEY RECEIVED APPROVAL TO PROVIDE GRANT RECIPIENTS IN THIS PHASE.

AND EXTENSION CURRENTLY OUR GRANT PERIOD ENDS NEXT MARCH.

IT'S GOT A VERY DIFFICULT TIMELINE, PARTICULARLY AROUND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS.

SO RIGHT NOW OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO EXTEND THE PROJECT THROUGH THE END OF MARCH 2028.

THERE'S A00 DOLLAR CHANGE IN THE PROGRAM BUDGET, ESSENTIALLY WITH THIS ACTION.

THIS IS SORT OF JUST A $0 AMENDMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

[00:05:04]

THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO. OKAY, COOL. JUST MAKING SURE IT'S GOING TO WORK GOING FORWARD. THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD IS TO ACCEPT OR TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER AN ACTION, TO SUBMIT A LETTER FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE PROGRAM FOR THAT, FOR THAT FULL YEAR, $0 AMENDMENT.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE EASY ONE. YEAH. WE NEED I'LL MAKE THE MOTION OF ACTIONS POTENTIALLY ON THIS AGENDA.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MARCHINI. I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY COMMENTS HERE? NOPE. CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. BOARD. JUST TO SORT OF BRING US BACK INTO THE FRAY HERE, LAST MONTH, WE REVIEWED FOUR OF SIX PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

A REMINDER THESE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AREN'T ON GROUND.

THEY'RE NOT EARTH BREAKING. THEY'RE ACTUALLY CANNOT BE EARTH BREAKING PROJECTS.

SO THIS IS INTENDED TO DO DESIGN WORK, ENGINEERING WORK, PERMITTING WORK ON THESE PROJECTS.

WE HAVE IF THE BOARD WOULD SO CHOOSE, WE CAN REVIEW SOME OF THOSE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE SLATED.

HOWEVER, WE DID REVIEW THOSE LAST WEEK. AND FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION.

WHETHER OR NOT WE WE DO THAT. WE'LL BE DOING TWO THINGS TODAY.

WE'LL REVIEW TWO PROJECTS THAT THIS BOARD HAS NOT REVIEWED IN OPEN IN OPEN SESSION OR AT A BOARD MEETING.

AND THEN WE'LL HOPEFULLY PUT TOGETHER EITHER A SWEEPING ACTION ACROSS ALL PROJECTS OR IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO EVALUATE EACH PROJECT CONTRACT INDIVIDUALLY.

JUST A REMINDER WE. OH, SORRY, JUST A REMINDER.

I APOLOGIZE, I'M A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER. SO ONE THING TO ADD ON TO THIS DISCUSSION, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT NOW, BUT THIS HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE CONTRACTS TO THIS DATE, WHICH IS SOME LANDOWNERS WERE WERE REQUESTING FUNDING FOR THEIR TIME ON THESE PROJECTS. SOME IT'S PRETTY VITAL. THE WORK THAT IS BEING PERFORMED AND REQUESTED IS POTENTIALLY VIABLE.

AND THEY COULD, BY PROGRAM STANDARDS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, BE PAID FOR THEIR TIME TO WORK ON THESE PROJECTS.

HOWEVER, IT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD WHETHER OR NOT THEIR CONTRACTS ALLOW FOR POTENTIAL REIMBURSEMENT OF THEIR TIME.

DOING WORK ON THEIR PROJECT. AND SO ONE OF THE ITEMS WE HAVE TO PUT TO THE BOARD BEFORE WE CONTINUE IN AN ACTION WOULD BE SORT OF CONTINGENT ON THIS DECISION IS WHETHER OR NOT LANDOWNERS OPERATING UNDER MRP ARE ABLE TO BE PAID FOR THEIR TIME.

WE PUT IN SOME STIPULATIONS IN PROCESS LIMITING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME OR HOURLY RATE TO BE $120 AS THE MAX HOURLY RATE, AND LIMITING THE NET ALLOCATION TO THE LANDOWNERS TIME AS 15% OF THE TOTAL BUDGET.

THE LANDOWNERS WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT TIMESHEETS AND INVOICES FOR THE WORK THAT DESCRIBES THE WORK PERFORMED ON THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE.

THIS IS AGAIN, THIS IS A SHIFT SINCE THE SUBMISSION OF THESE CONTRACTS, AND THIS LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THESE DOCUMENTS.

SO BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THOSE, I WANT TO HAND IT OFF TO YOU, LLOYD, TO OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION AND.

YEP. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO OUT FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT OR DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT FIRST? PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST. YEAH, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

BRAD. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M CURIOUS IF THE $120 PER HOUR LANDOWNER COULD BE USED, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE TRACTOR WORK AND DIGGING DITCHES OR IT'S JUST LIKE LANDOWNERS TIME FILLING OUT APPLICATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IN HINDSIGHT, IF THESE WERE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN A HARD LOOK IN THAT FIRST ROUND AS WELL. I THINK LANDOWNERS

[00:10:01]

WE DIDN'T DO THIS THE FIRST TIME FOR THIS WAVE BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT GROUNDBREAKING PROJECTS.

WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REIMBURSE FOR TRACTOR HOURS OR BACKHOE HOURS.

I THINK SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS OF MLP SHOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S JUST CHEAPER TO HAVE THEM DO IT THEMSELVES.

AND HAND IT BACK TO YOU ON ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

OH ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO THIS CAME AT A REQUEST BY SOME APPLICANTS.

YES. TWO APPLICANTS REQUESTED THIS REQUEST. YES.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED. RIGHT? IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DO THIS.

SURE. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. YES. OKAY. YOU STATED TO START OUT WITH, THIS IS FOR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING. YEP. I DON'T SEE LANDOWNERS BEING IN ANY EXPERTISE IN THAT AREA.

YEAH. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. I MEAN, IF THIS WAS FOR SOME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY INVOLVED, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I, I REALLY DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IN ALL THE MLP STUFF. JUST EXACTLY WHAT THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON BECAUSE I DO HAVE ISSUES.

I'LL BRING THEM UP WITH OTHER THINGS THERE, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.

ANOTHER QUESTION. I KNOW SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAD HAD LANDOWNER MATCHING FUNDS.

YEP. WAS THIS ESSENTIALLY A WAY TO OFFSET THAT, OR DID THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO GET REIMBURSED? THEY'RE LOOKING TO GET REIMBURSED FOR THEIR TIME ON THEIR PROJECTS.

I WILL NOTE TO THE BOARD, THIS IS A REQUEST. THE BOARD CAN TAKE AN ACTION OR THEY CANNOT LIKE OUTRIGHT NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS REQUEST AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE CONTRACTS AS AS ASSIGNED WITHOUT MAKING THESE MODIFICATIONS, WITHOUT CREATING A PATHWAY FOR, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I DON'T I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, RIGHT.

BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY LIVE IN THAT WORLD. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M THINKING THAT GRANT MONEY FOR MLP IS A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY AND THE LANDOWNER. SO THEY'RE GETTING COMPENSATED FOR THEIR EFFORT, IN MY OPINION.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT AS WELL.

AND SO OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN DECLINE MODIFICATIONS OF THIS NATURE AND ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD.

THAT LANDOWNER TIME IS NOT REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE GRANT.

YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT DIED FOR LACK OF EMOTION.

UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. WE'LL CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THESE.

SO THERE ARE SEVEN OR. EXCUSE ME. YES, SIX PROJECTS THAT ARE SLATED FOR CONTRACTING TODAY.

WE CAN REVISIT ANY OF THEM, I BELIEVE. BOARD MEMBER KELLY WAS NOT IN THE LAST MEETING AND MAY WANT TO RUN THROUGH SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS.

THOSE ARE IN THIS DECK AND WE ARE PREPARED TO, TO RUN THROUGH THEM TO BRIEF FOLKS APPROPRIATELY.

TWO PROJECTS THAT BY DEFAULT WE NEED TO RUN THROUGH BECAUSE THIS BOARD HAS NOT RAN AN APPROVAL ON THEM.

IS THIS MARINA HOLSTEIN'S PROJECT AS WELL AS THE ILDEFONSO MENDOZA PROJECT? I'M JUST GOING TO DO A QUICK BRIEFING AND THEN I'LL HAND IT OFF TO THE BOARD TO, TO MANAGE THAT CONVERSATION.

JUST A REMINDER, AND THIS IS THE SLIDE I HAD ANTICIPATED EARLIER AS PART OF THE PROJECT CONTRACTS.

WE, WE REQUIRE THAT ALL THAT THE MSG WILL HOLD SHARED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND SHAREABILITY OF ALL DESIGNS THAT COME THROUGH THESE PROJECTS.

AGAIN, THIS IS SORT OF IN HOPES THAT SOME OF THESE ENGINEERING DESIGNS, SOME OF THESE PERMITTING PATHWAYS HAVE UTILITY IN SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN THE REGION.

SO THE GSA, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE GSA CAN HOLD ON TO OR WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE GSA TO HOLD ON TO THAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS PART OF THE PROJECT SCOPES.

WE ALSO ASKED FOR SOIL SAMPLING FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT INCORPORATE RECHARGE.

JUST TO MAKE SURE THOSE SITES ARE ACTUALLY SUITABLE. SO OFTENTIMES BASED ON SAG OR OTHER DATA SETS, WE THINK THAT THESE SITES WILL BE GOOD RECHARGE SITES.

BUT WHEN YOU GET ON GROUND, THOSE MATERIALS ARE NOT SUITABLE.

SO. AND I GUESS I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT JUST YES, JUST, YOU KNOW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

JUST FOR THE APPLICANTS. THAT'S NOT THAT. AFTER THE PROJECT'S DONE, WE HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR DATA OR WHAT THEY'RE DOING OR JUST THE DESIGN AND AND THE KNOWLEDGE. YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THEY HAVE IT'S THIS SHARED INTELLECTUAL.

I MEAN, THEY CAN USE THE DESIGNS HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT.

BUT AGAIN, THINGS LIKE LIKE BASIN DESIGN, PEOPLE ARE CONTINUING TO INNOVATE AROUND RECHARGE BASIN DESIGN, INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN. THOSE THINGS I THINK HAVE LIKE UBIQUITOUS BENEFIT HABITAT.

AS MUCH AS I LIKE DESIGNING HABITAT PROJECT, THERE'S UBIQUITOUS ELEMENTS THAT COULD BE USED MULTIPLE TIMES.

YEAH. I JUST THINK ABOUT LIKE THE CRANE PROJECT WHERE THERE'S A THREE TIERED RETENTION BASIN, RIGHT? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, TO ME THAT'S SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOU WOULD NORMALLY THINK OF.

[00:15:03]

EXCELLENT. SO THE, THE FIRST PROJECT ON TODAY'S DOCKET IS THE DEAD MAN CREEK RECHARGE FLOOD PROJECT.

THE APPLICANT IS MARINA HOLSTEIN'S. THE PROJECT PARTNERS INCLUDE WEIR WATER AND LAW OR WATER LAW AND POLICY.

THE FUNDING REQUEST IS $95,000 A TOTAL PROJECT COST IS $100,000.

THE PROJECT TYPE IS A GROUNDWATER RECHARGE DESIGN.

THEY'RE EVALUATING 190 ACRES TOTAL. THE LANDOWNER IS THINKING THAT LESS OF THAT 190 WILL BE ULTIMATELY FALLOWED.

BUT WE ASK THAT THEY INCLUDE THAT FULL 190 AS PART OF THEIR EVALUATION.

THE PROJECT LOCATION. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR FLASHING THROUGH THAT MAP, BUT THE PROJECT LOCATION IS JUST NORTH OF SANDY SANDY MUSH THERE.

EAST OF HIGHWAY 59. THE PROJECT SUMMARY IS TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO CONVERT THE IRRIGATED CROPLAND TO RECHARGE AREA INCLUSIVE OF POLLINATOR HABITAT ALONG THAT SEGMENT OF DEAD MEN.

THE PROJECT WILL PERFORM AN ANALYSIS ON THE FULL 190 ACRES FOR THE RECHARGE ASSESSMENT AND POTENTIAL AJMR AND HABITAT RESTORATION.

THE AGMA REQUEST ACTUALLY CAME FROM THE TECHNICAL CONVERSATIONS A LOT, A LOT.

OFTENTIMES WE CAN BOTH DO RECHARGE AND AJMR, AND WE JUST ASK FOR THAT MODIFICATION BECAUSE IT WAS RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE.

DEVELOP DESIGN TO UPDATE EXISTING CULVERTS ON THE CREEK TO POTENTIALLY REDIRECT HIGH FLOWS.

AND THE PROJECT DOES PROPOSE POTENTIAL FLOOD BENEFITS, ADMITTEDLY SMALL FOR A SINGLE PROJECT ON DEAD MAN.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE START TO STACK THESE THINGS UP.

WE COULD POTENTIALLY SEE BENEFITS. THE PROJECT DELIVERABLES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND REFINED DRAWING DESIGNS, HABITAT PLANS AND PLANT PALETTES, ALL PERMITS AND SEQUA COMPLIANCES SUBMITTED TO THE GSA FEASIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.

FOR SECURING A FORMAL WATER RIGHT WITH THE STATE SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT HAD COME THROUGH THE TECHNICAL GROUP OR THROUGH STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REQUESTS, WHICH IS TO ASSESS THE FLOODING ON THE PROPERTY AND DESIGN THE BERMS. TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY OPTIMIZE FLOOD BENEFITS.

THAT THEY INCLUDE WATER QUALITY OR WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN AS PART OF THEIR STRATEGY.

THAT THEY INCORPORATE WILDLIFE FRIENDLY DESIGNS AND THAT THEY EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR POTENTIAL LONG TERM CONSERVATION EASEMENTS.

POTENTIALLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEIGHBORING U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. ANY WELL, I'LL JUST HAND IT OFF TO YOU HERE, LLOYD, BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

ANY QUESTIONS? I. I'M, I'M, I'M, I HAVE A QUESTION AT THIS TIME. IT'S FINE. NO, NOT NOT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. PROCEED TO THE SECOND PROJECT FOR TODAY'S REVIEW.

THE SECOND PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED AS THE MENDOZA PROJECT.

IT'S OUT IN THAT STEVENSON AREA, GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAN JOAQUIN AND JUST NORTH OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THE MERCED OR JUST SOUTH, EXCUSE ME, OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THE MERCED. THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS ILDEFONSO MENDOZA.

HIS FUNDING PROPOSAL REQUEST IS FOR $80,000. THE PROJECT IS A HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT.

SOLAR DESIGN AND CREATION OF EDUCATIONAL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE TOTAL PROPERTY OR PROJECT SIZE IS SEVEN ACRES.

THE PROJECT WOULD REMOVE SEVEN ACRES OF TREES AND ADD COVER CROPS, HABITAT, PROVIDE WILDLIFE LIKE A WILDLIFE PATH AND INSTALL HEDGEROWS. IT WOULD ALSO. AND WHEN WE SAY WE DO THESE THINGS, IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL INSTALL.

IT'S A DESIGN COMPONENT. IT WOULD DESIGN AGRIVOLTAIC SYSTEMS AND EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR USING COMMUNITY LIKE A COMMUNITY SHARED GRID, AND DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEARBY SCHOOLS.

THE PROJECT DELIVERABLES INCLUDE A FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR THE SOLAR DESIGN AND HABITAT RESTORATION, CEQA DETERMINATION WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, HABITAT RESTORATION AND DESIGN PATH HEDGEROW DESIGNS.

SOLAR ARRAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DESIGNS.

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL SCHOOLS, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMING FRAMEWORK AND CURRICULA.

SOME OF THE REQUESTS AND AGAIN, THESE WERE ACTUALLY INCORPORATED, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE CROSSED OUT.

REQUEST AN UPDATED SCOPE. THIS IS DONE IN PROCESS.

[00:20:02]

AND THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE BUDGET CORRESPONDINGLY HAS BEEN LOWERED TO, TO MEET THOSE MODIFICATIONS.

AND THEN THE PROJECT CONTRACT DID CONFIRM THE INTENTION TO FORFEIT, FORFEIT THOSE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATIONS.

SO I'LL HAND THIS ONE BACK TO YOU AGAIN. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY. THE MAP DOESN'T SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I LIVE VERY CLOSE BY THERE. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WHERE THIS TEN ACRE ALMOND ORCHARD IS.

IF I MIGHT, ON THE BOTTOM ROW OF YOUR SPEAKER, THE MIDDLE BUTTON IS ON THE MIDDLE BUTTON.

YEP. PRESS IT. SO NOW THE MAP COMES UP THERE ON YOUR SCREEN.

SEE THE LITTLE RED BOX TO THE LEFT SIDE, KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE.

WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND MAP THAT WE CAN SHOW. YEAH.

DO WE HAVE A WAY OF MAKING THIS LARGER? PRETTY SMALL.

I DO NOT I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW THE ROAD THAT IT'S ON.

IT'S, IT'S SOUTH OF SECOND AVENUE THERE. I WANT TO SAY THAT IS IT ON TEN ACRES FACING THIRD STREET. MY NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE AMOUNT OF ACRE FEET THAT THAT ALMOND ORCHARD RECEIVED LAST YEAR IN THE WAY OF WATER? WE DON'T HAVE THAT DATA ON HAND BECAUSE I'M NOT I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT.

WITH IT. IT IS CONNECTED TO DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE ORIGINAL WHERE THAT DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE LEADS AND WHAT THE ORIGIN OF THE WATER THAT COMES THROUGH, I THINK COULD BE VARIABLE BECAUSE THERE, BUT ANYWAY, THERE'S, THERE'S SURFACE WATER DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THAT PROPERTY.

AND YEAH. DIRECTOR KELLY, I THINK, I THINK YOU WOULD KNOW THAT INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLY BETTER THAN I WOULD. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS AND I'M JUST ONE BOARD MEMBER.

I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MULTI-BENEFIT PROCESS OF OF, OF, OF USING SOME GRANT MONIES AND AND IN THAT THE LANGUAGE IN HERE IS DESIGNED TO SOUND THAT WAY.

AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING TO ME BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.

FOR BETTER OR WORSE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW ACCURATE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS ACTUALLY. GOING TO EVER HAPPEN. I I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THAT FOR, FOR A, A PROJECT OF, OF THIS TYPE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SEVEN ACRES OUT OF TEN AND AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT PLANNING. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE HAVING REMOVED ANYTHING HERE.

YOU'RE JUST PLANNING IT. BUT THAT'S WHAT WHAT IS STATED HERE AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AGRIVOLTAIC AND ECO VOLTAIC CONFIGURATIONS OF, OF SOLAR.

I GET A LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH THIS WITH, WITH THIS PROCESS.

AND I JUST, I, MY, MY SENSE IS THIS IS, THIS IS A WAY TO SPEND GRANT MONEY AND IT WILL, IT WILL MOST LIKELY NOTHING, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO THE OUTREACH IN, IN THE SCHOOLS.

IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY THAT THAT THE SCHOOLS WOULD GO TO THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IN MY OPINION.

THAT THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT A SCHOOL MIGHT TAKE ON THAN, THAN THIS ONE. I, I DON'T SEE FARM WORKERS. I NOTICED THEY NOTICED THEY ALWAYS LIKE FARM WORKERS IN THERE.

IT'S GOING TO EDUCATE THE FARM WORKERS. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT I THIS ONE DOESN'T PASS MUSTER FOR ME. I'LL IF I, IF I MAY. THIS PROJECT CAME TO US IN THE FIRST CYCLE AND THEN AND, AND REALLY DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. CAME BACK TO US THIS CYCLE.

AND I, I, I THINK ON THE, ON THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, YOUR CONCERNS WERE THE SAME KIND OF CONCERNS WE HAD.

[00:25:02]

RIGHT. I MEAN, I, I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU. BUT I THE ONE THING THAT I'VE LEARNED IS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION HAS GOALS THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN OUR GOALS. AND SOMETIMES HELPING THOSE GOALS HELP US GET ADVANCED HELP, HELP THE, THE LARGER GOALS, ESPECIALLY WHEN MORE MONEY IS ALLOCATED. THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO I'LL JUST, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. REN, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

YES WE COULD JUST BY WAY OF MAINTAINING, LIKE WE COULD SPLIT THESE OUT INTO SINGULAR OR BUCKETS OF APPROVALS. IF THE BOARD DECIDES THAT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS MAY NEED FURTHER REVIEW.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS REQUIRED. SO I'LL LET THE BOARD MAKE THOSE DISCUSSIONS OR TAKE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ON, ON, ON THEIR OWN. BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THOSE OTHER FOUR PROJECTS TO DATE I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THIS PRESENTATION, WE NOT TAKE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, HOWEVER.

I'LL HAND IT OFF TO YOU HERE, LLOYD. WHETHER OR NOT WE TAKE AN ACTION.

I WOULD JUST SAY THE OTHER PROJECTS. I CAN SEE IT MORE OF A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE GOAL OF, YOU KNOW, THEIR RECHARGE OR THEIR TAKING GROUND OUT.

I, AND I THINK THEY'RE MUCH FARTHER ALONG IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR.

I DON'T SEE IT IN THIS CASE. YEAH. NO, I GET IT.

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AND THEN WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS ON THE THE RIVER PARTNERS FOR THE MYERS RANCH, BEAR CREEK PROJECT, HUNT FARMS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE LEARNING LANDSCAPE.

MIKE VAN DER DUSSEN FOR THE VAN DER DUSSEN FAVOR RANCH AND THEN THE THE HABITAT CRANE RANCH, HABITAT RESTORATION AND RECHARGE. WE'VE ALL SEEN THOSE BEFORE.

SO HE'S NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM. BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW NOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT IT? FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? THAT'S IT FOR THE PRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD MOVES TO ACTION.

I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE DIRECTOR KELLY'S COMMENTS.

I THINK IT'S AND THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE ACTUALLY ASKED JUST RECENTLY OF ANOTHER BOARD IN THIS SPACE, WHICH IS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO DISCUSS THE CHALLENGES WITH THESE PROJECTS OR DISSONANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE GSA.

IT IS ACTUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR YOU TO VOCALIZE THESE THINGS.

SO I IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN WE RUN INTO CHALLENGES, IT'S BETTER THAT THEY'RE DISCUSSED.

IT ALLOWS ME TO CONVEY THAT EFFECTIVELY TO THE AGENCIES.

AND WE CAN HAVE MORE CANDID CONVERSATIONS AND THEY CAN SEE SORT OF PAIN POINTS OR CHALLENGES WHERE WE COULD BE OPERATING AND OR GETTING TO DISTANCE WITH LOCAL AGENCIES.

SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR COMMENTS. I DON'T, I, IT TAKES A LOT TO, TO PROCESS THESE THINGS.

AND IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY HELPFUL. SO THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT, MR. KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO VOTE ON THAT ONE PROJECT SEPARATELY? BECAUSE I'M GOING TO IF APPROVE ALL BUT THAT ONE PROJECT.

EITHER WAY, VOTE ON THAT ONE. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, IT NEEDS TO COME TO A VOTE.

OKAY. RIGHT. I MEAN, SO SO WE DO THE REST AND THEN BRING THAT ONE SEPARATELY THAT WAY.

THAT'D BE FINE. YEAH. VERSUS. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I'LL I'LL TAKE A MOTION. WELL PUBLIC COMMENT.

I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'D MOVE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROJECTS EXCLUDING THE MENDOZA PROJECT.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, THAT. ALL RIGHT.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. AND THEN WHAT'S THE PLEASURE ON THE BOARD OF THE BOARD FOR THE MENDOZA PROJECT? OKAY. MENDOZA PROJECT. WELL DIES FOR LACK OF MOTION.

THERE WE GO. OKAY. AWESOME. ANYTHING ELSE? SIR? APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR MAKING IT QUICK. WE ARE ON ITEM SEVEN, THE PHASE TWO FEE ENGINEER'S REPORT.

[7. PHASE 2 FEE ENGINEER’S REPORT]

BUT THERE ARE SOME UPDATES IN BETWEEN. AND YOU HAVE AN ACTION AT THIS MEETING.

LAST MEETING WAS INFORMATIONAL, ALLOWING YOU TO MAKE THIS AVAILABLE PUBLICLY AS A DRAFT AND THEN TO SET UP SOME WORKSHOPS WHICH HAVE

[00:30:07]

SO WE WERE GOING TO RUN THROUGH A VERSION OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE THREE WORKSHOPS AND CONCLUDE WITH SOME IMPORTANT DATES.

AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR ACTION.

THANK YOU. OOPS. WHERE IS THE COMPUTER? YOUR FACE OR.

AM I PUSHING THE RIGHT BUTTON? NO, THAT'S A PROBLEM. I WAS JUST PUTTING THE RED DOT ON YOUR FACE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK THROUGH A COUPLE OF ITEMS HERE REALLY QUICK.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PHASE TWO REPORT A DISCUSSION QUICKLY OF STATE INTERVENTION ALTERNATIVES.

SO IT PUTS THE PHASE TWO FEE IN PERSPECTIVE. THE ENGINEER'S REPORT OUTLINE THE FUNDING MECHANISM CATEGORIES, THE ELIGIBLE PARCELS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS FEE, AND THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL CHARGES BASED ON CURRENT ELIGIBLE ACRES. THEN SOME DISCUSSION OF HOW YOU HAVE HANDLED PAST FEES AS A BOARD TO SEE HOW YOU MIGHT LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE MIGHT VIEW THIS FEE INTO THE FUTURE, AND THEN TALK ABOUT THE KEY DATES THAT ARE COMING UP AS PART OF THE TWO PROCESS.

SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT REQUIRED BY STATUTE? ANYTIME YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 FEE PROCESS, YOU NEED TO PREPARE AN ENGINEER'S REPORT.

SO IT DESCRIBES THE PURPOSE THE PROPOSED FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT WE SEEK TO IMPLEMENT DESCRIBES THE TOTAL REVENUE NEEDED AND LIKELY ANNUAL CHARGES TO FUND THE PROPOSED FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES. PROVIDES THE SUPPORTING ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP THOSE FUNDS AND THOSE BUDGETS.

IDENTIFIES THE PARCELS SUBJECT TO THE FEE AND DOCUMENTS THE COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH PROPOSITION 218 REQUIREMENTS AND A NEWER OPPORTUNITY KNOWN AS ASSEMBLY BILL 2257, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT HERE IN ANOTHER FEW MOMENTS.

THAT WAS OFFICIALLY ENACTED IN JANUARY 2025. SO IT'S A VERY NEW CONSIDERATION.

STATE INTERVENTION. THIS IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO JUST KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE FEES ARE THAT WE LOOK AT HERE.

THE STATE, AS YOU KNOW, WITHIN SIGMA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A GSA THAT IS FAILING OR A SERIES OF GSA'S WITHIN A BASIN THAT IS FAILING TO PROBATION AND THEN POTENTIALLY PUT THEM SUBJECT TO AN INTERIM PLAN AND AND TAKE ACTIONS AT THE STATE BOARD LEVEL.

YOU MAY READ IN THE NEWS, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE UNDER THIS PROBATIONARY SITUATION.

ONE OF THOSE, AS OF TWO DAYS AGO, WAS RELEASED FROM THE STATE BOARD BACK TO DWR, AND THAT WOULD BE THE DELTA MENDOTA SUB-BASIN.

SO THEY ARE OUT OF PROBATIONARY STATUS. THE TULARE LAKE AND THE TULE SUBBASINS ARE STILL WITHIN PROBATIONARY STATUS AND ARE FACING A VARIETY OF FEES.

IN FACT, I RECENTLY SAW THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM NOW IN FRONT OF THE BOARD THAT THE BOARD IS DENYING REQUESTS FROM SEVERAL OF THOSE GSA'S TO ESSENTIALLY LET THEIR GROWERS OFF THE HOOK FROM DEALING WITH REPORTING, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE FUNDING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

SO THE STATE HAS THIS SET OF FEES THAT IF YOU GO INTO THEIR PROBATIONARY PROGRAM OR EVEN GET FORCED INTO AN INTERIM PROGRAM, THAT THEY CAN IMPOSE A COST ANNUALLY OF UP TO $300 PER WELL AND UP TO $35 AN ACRE FOOT.

JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, THE ONES THAT ARE HAPPENING DOWN IN TULARE LAKE AND TULE ARE BEING CHARGED $20 AN ACRE FOOT PLUS THE $300 CHARGE.

SO IT'S A LITTLE LESS, BUT THEY ARE CAN GO UP TO 35.

SO AS AN EXAMPLE, WE PUT OVER ON THE SIDE THERE, IF YOU ONLY HAD ONE ACRE FOOT, BECAUSE THE OTHER THING IS UNDER STATE BOARD CONSIDERATION UNDER PROBATION AND POTENTIALLY EVEN AN INTERIM PLAN. THEY MAY JUST SAY YOU ONLY HAVE THIS MUCH.

THERE'S NO RAMP DOWN CONSIDERATIONS, THERE'S NO MANAGING, IT'S JUST A QUANTITY PER ACRE.

THERE'S NO ACCOUNTS AND FIELDS AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO.

HOPEFULLY WE NEVER GET THERE. SO IF YOU ARE LIMITED TO ONE ACRE FOOT, WHICH IS OUR SUSTAINABLE YIELD NUMBER, AND YOU HAD 100 ACRES THAT YOU WERE OPERATING, SO YOU WOULD PAY AND YOU HAD TWO WELLS, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT $40 PER ACRE PER YEAR TO THE BOARD FOR THEM TO IMPOSE UPON YOU SOME SORT OF RULES.

YOU STILL MIGHT HAVE A GSA OPERATING THAT YOU NEED TO PAY FOR.

YOU STILL WILL HAVE GSP REPORTS THAT ARE DUE AND ANNUALLY PAID FOR, AND SO THERE WILL STILL BE OTHER FEES ONGOING.

YOU JUST GET THE PLEASURE OF ALSO PAYING THE STATE. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COSTS HERE.

[00:35:05]

SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION. SECTION TWO ABOUT THE GSA.

SECTION THREE IS THE IS THE CORE PART WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED.

AND THERE'S THREE PRIMARY CATEGORIES OUTLINED CATEGORY ONE ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS, CATEGORY TWO MONITORING, DATA MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL STUDIES, AND THEN CATEGORY THREE, THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM, WHICH THIS BOARD ADOPTED IN JANUARY ALONG WITH MIA GUZA AND TURNER ISLAND GSA'S.

THEN SECTION FOUR IS THE BENEFITS, DETERMINATION AND TALKS ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THIS FEE.

THE PROPOSED CHARGES IN SECTION FIVE. AND THEN THERE'S AN APPENDIX A.

SO IF YOU GO TO THE ONLINE VERSION, APPENDIX A LISTS EVERY CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE PARCEL, INCLUDING THOSE THAT HAVE OPTED IN AS RECOGNIZED THROUGH OUR GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. AND SO IF YOUR PARCEL IS ON THERE, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO THIS FEE FOR THIS FEE.

IF YOUR PARCEL IS NOT ON THERE, YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN ALLOCATION AT ALL.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF YOU DO INTEND TO PUMP WATER, YOUR ACRES ARE ON THAT YOUR APN IS LISTED IN THAT APPENDIX.

SO LET'S GO INTO EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES QUICKLY. YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN THE ESTIMATED MAX BUDGET UNDER THIS CATEGORY, ONE ELEMENT WOULD BE ABOUT $1.25 MILLION A YEAR AS A AS A MAX.

AND IT WOULD COVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL STAFF.

AND THIS IS SALARY BENEFITS, TAXES INSURANCE, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE AND PROGRAMS FOR THEM.

MAYBE THERE'S RETIREMENT PROGRAMS OR SOMETHING. SO IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE GSA OFFICE SPACE, A POOL FOR FUTURE REGULATORY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE RESERVES.

GRANT WRITING. WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING DOLLARS FROM THE STATE OR FEDS.

SO IT TAKES MONEY TO WRITE THOSE GRANTS AND PURSUE THAT WEBSITE MAINTENANCE.

AND THEN ALSO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM SUBSCRIPTION, WHICH RUNS ABOUT.

SO WE JUST APPROVED THAT RECENTLY. YOU FUNDED IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW WITH SOME DOLLARS FROM PHASE ONE.

AND SO THERE'S AN ESTIMATED COST OF $100,000 A YEAR MAX BUDGET.

THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE APPROVED RIGHT NOW. THE SUBSCRIPTION IS ABOUT 50,000 A YEAR AND THEN 50,000 TO CONTINUE TO TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT.

SO THAT'S CATEGORY ONE, CATEGORY TWO TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND STUDIES THAT IS ONGOING ACTIVITIES TO DO, YOU KNOW, ASSESSING THE CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE SET UP IN YOUR RULE ABOUT SHOULD SUSTAINABILITY ZONES START TO CHANGE? ARE WE HOW ARE WE DOING AGAINST OUR MINIMUM THRESHOLDS? A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY THERE OVER TIME.

IT COULD ALSO INCLUDE NEW DWR REQUIRED REPORTS AND STUDIES THAT WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE.

YOU ALSO ALLOW A PROVISION FOR ALTERNATIVE REMOTE SENSING SERVICE SHOULD YOU DECIDE THE OPENET MECHANISM THAT IS FREE TO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM CURRENTLY IS NOT ADEQUATE, AND YOU WANT TO USE A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OR ALTERNATIVE REMOTE SENSING SERVICE AS THE GSA.

SO THERE'S A DOLLAR BUDGET FOR THAT. AND THEN ADDRESSING DATA GAPS.

THERE ARE PLACES WE NEED MORE MONITORING WELLS.

THERE ARE PLACES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS CONTINUED SUBSIDENCE.

SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THE GSP LEVEL AND WE HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE.

SO THIS HAS A MAX ANNUAL BUDGET OF 840,000. AND THEN FINALLY CATEGORY THREE, THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM HAS THREE ELEMENTS.

ONE THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE WHERE YOU MAY NEED TO GIVE BOTTLES OR TANKS WHILE YOU'RE ASSESSING WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR PARTY QUALIFIES FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM, WHICH MIGHT BE CONTRACTED OUT TO A THIRD PARTY LIKE THE NGOS THAT HAVE BEEN.

THE COUNTY HAS BEEN. THE GSA HAVE WORKED WITH HISTORICALLY AND THEN THE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.

SO THIS ANTICIPATES A CERTAIN A POTENTIAL FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF WELLS TO BE REPLACED ANNUALLY.

AND WE ARE LOOKING AT HISTORIC DATA OF WHEN THERE WAS UP TO 20 WELLS AND YOUR, YOUR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM MAXES AT $30,000 PER REPLACEMENT. WELL. SO 30,000 TIMES 20 WELLS, YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF $600,000 A YEAR.

SO THIS IS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BUDGETS FOR THAT.

IDEALLY, IF WE ACHIEVE EVERYTHING WITH THE ALLOCATION, WE NO LONGER NEED A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM.

SO THE DOLLARS UNDER THIS ONE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS OVER TIME.

ELIGIBLE PARCELS. SO EVERYTHING IN GREEN IS THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CURRENT ELIGIBLE PARCELS UNDER THE ALLOCATION RULE.

AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL LISTED IN APPENDIX A THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE GSA'S WEBSITE.

WHEN YOU OPEN THE PHASE TWO FUNDING MECHANISM PDF DOCUMENT, YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM AND YOU WILL START THE FULL LONG LIST OF PARCEL NUMBERS THAT ARE LISTED NUMERICALLY. IT'S ALSO SEARCHABLE, SO YOU CAN SEARCH FOR YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL POP UP.

[00:40:03]

SO THOSE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO COME TO, TO PLAY.

WHEN WE LOOK AT ADDING UP CATEGORY ONE, TWO AND THREE, AND THE DOLLARS THAT ARE UNDER EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES CAN FUND THE THINGS IN THOSE CATEGORIES. BUT THE MONEY CANNOT MOVE FROM ONE CATEGORY TO THE OTHER.

SO THIS IS A MAX BUDGET UNDER EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES TO FUND THE THINGS DISCUSSED IN THOSE CATEGORIES.

THE TOTAL MAX ANNUAL BUDGET IS JUST OVER 2.8 MILLION.

AND WHEN YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 186,315 ACRES, YOU GET $15.11 AS THE CHARGE.

THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT DOES ALLOW FOR A PERIODIC ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION FOLLOWING THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SALARIES AND BENEFITS AND SOMEBODY WORKING HERE FOR A WHILE, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO RAISE AT SOME POINT. SO THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THAT.

ALL OF THIS IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.

WHEN THEY SET THE POLICIES EACH YEAR, WHICH WE WILL NOW TALK ABOUT, THIS TABLE IS USEFUL TO EVALUATE WHAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE HISTORICALLY. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THIS FEE TO LOOK AT THIS AND UNDERSTAND HOW THIS THIS BOARD IS VERY CONSIDERATE AND VERY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE WITH WHAT THEY ARE NEEDING TO FUND.

AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS TABLE WE SEE A MAX ANNUAL FEE, THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR COLUMN IS THE 2019 FEE, WHICH WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2019 THROUGH A PROPOSITION 218 PROCESS, AND THAT HAS HISTORICALLY AND CONTINUES TO FUND AND WILL CONTINUE TO STAY IN PLACE.

THE ANNUAL REPORTING, THE FIVE YEAR UPDATES THAT ARE DONE WITH WATER AND CRAN, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER GSA'S IN THIS BASIN, THE DATA COLLECTION FROM ALL THE MONITORING WELLS AND MANAGEMENT OF THAT.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ALREADY FUNDED UNDER THE THE 2019 FEE THAT WILL CONTINUE.

YOU HAD SET THAT AS A MAX $4 FEE FOR IRRIGATED LAND AND $0.50 FOR IRRIGATED LAND.

SEE, OVER TIME, THE THE BOARD STARTED. ABOUT 50% OF THAT CHARGE WAS DOWN AT ABOUT 25% OF THAT CHARGE.

THERE'S A FEW YEARS THERE WHERE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH AT 100% OF THAT CHARGE.

LAST YEAR, THE BOARD CHOSE TO ONLY FUND TO TO PLACE THE RATE AT $1 INSTEAD OF THE $4 MAX.

SO AGAIN, AT ABOUT 25% BASED ON HOW YOU ARE SEEING THE MONIES AVAILABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SPENT THE PRIOR YEAR WHEN YOU WERE SENDING THE BUDGET.

SO THAT'S PART OF YOUR BUDGET CONSIDERATION EVERY YEAR.

THE NEXT TWO COLUMNS ON THE FAR RIGHT ARE THE PHASE ONE FEE THAT YOU HAD APPROVED BACK IN 2022, AND THAT WAS A PLANNED SUNSET FEE. SO IT AS YOU CAN SEE GOING FORWARD INTO THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR DETERMINATION THAT YOU WILL BE SETTING FORTH HERE IN JULY 1ST OF 2026. IT IS NOT IN EXISTENCE ANYMORE. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT FEE WAS STRUCTURED OVER TIME.

INITIAL FEE WAS THE FULL PRICE THE INITIAL YEAR, AND THEN ABOUT HALF THE PRICE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THEN ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE MAX RATE IN THE FINAL YEAR.

SO WHY IS THAT ALL IMPORTANT? LOOK AT THIS. MAX ANNUAL HERE IS LOOKING AT $15.11.

THE BOARD IS VERY COGNIZANT ABOUT HOW IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO SET THIS FEE EACH YEAR.

AND WE'LL LOOK AT WHAT BUDGETS ARE ARE AVAILABLE.

WHAT THE ANTICIPATED SPENDING IS. ETC. SO THIS GRAPH IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THAT.

THE FUNDING PRIORITIES ARE GOING TO SHIFT OVER TIME AS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESSES AND PROGRAMS NEED PROGRAM NEEDS EVOLVE.

THE EARLY YEARS ARE EXPECTED TO REFLECT CARRYOVER FUNDS FROM PHASE ONE, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT YOU AREN'T LIKELY GOING TO HAVE SEVERAL TECHNICAL STAFF AND OFFICE SPACE AND A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALL IMMEDIATELY.

YOU'LL GET THOSE OVER TIME. SO THAT BAR ON THE FAR LEFT IS THE MAX OF EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES, ADDING UP TO THAT $15.11. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORANGE BAR AS EXAMPLE IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS VERSUS THE NEXT FIVE VERSUS KIND OF OUTWARD PAST TEN YEARS AND BEYOND, YOU CAN SEE IT GROW AND GET CLOSER TO THE MAXIMUM.

YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT AS YOU GET STAFF, AS YOU GET OFFICE FACILITIES.

ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE UNDER THAT CATEGORY. ONE, YOU MIGHT BE CLOSER TO MAXING OUT THAT CATEGORY.

CATEGORY TWO, IS FRONT LOADED, PROBABLY WITH CONTINUED ASSISTANCE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

YOU GOT TO ALSO FUND THE DATA GAPS. YOU GOT TO FUND SOME MORE MONITORING WELLS.

IF WE DON'T HAVE GRANT MONEY. IT'S GOT TO BE PAID FOR OUR SHARE OF IT ALONG WITH THE OTHER GSA'S.

AND YOU YOU INTEND THAT THAT IS GOING TO GET SMALLER OVER TIME.

YOU WILL HAVE WELLS, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THINGS. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT. AND SOME OF THOSE ASPECTS, SOME OF THAT MIGHT BE COVERED UNDER THE 2019 FEE, BUT LIKELY IT WILL STILL COME UNDER HERE UNDER DATA GAPS AND CONSIDERATIONS.

THEN FINALLY, THE GREEN IS YOUR DOMESTIC. WELL MITIGATION MEASURES.

[00:45:04]

AS SUCH, NOBODY SHOULD BE QUALIFYING FOR A DOMESTIC WELL, MITIGATION.

AS SUCH, YOU ONLY NEED TO COLLECT A LITTLE MONEY.

IN CASE PEOPLE ARE STILL SUBMITTING, YOU MAY HAVE TO DO SOME ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS AND MAYBE A BOTTLED WATER PROGRAM HERE OR THERE AS YOU EVALUATE SOMEBODY'S SITUATION.

BUT LIKELY THAT WHOLE FUNDING CATEGORY CAN GET SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED AS WE IMPLEMENT ALLOCATIONS.

SO KEY DATES. MARCH 12TH WAS WHEN YOU DID RELEASE THE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THIS REPORT ON MARCH 26TH.

THERE WAS A WORKSHOP OUT ON LE GRAND IN THE AFTERNOON ON MARCH 31ST.

THE AFTERNOON HAD A WORKSHOP OUT AT THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION FACILITY OUT BY THE AIRPORT, AND THAT WAS A A RECORDED WORKSHOP AND IT'S AVAILABLE.

YOU CAN SEE A LINK HERE ON YOUTUBE. IT'S AVAILABLE.

THAT LINK IS ALSO ON THE WEBSITE. IT IS AVAILABLE TO LISTEN TO.

THE THIRD WORKSHOP WAS OUT AT THE MCQUEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

IN ON THE EVENING OF THE 31ST, TODAY, APRIL 9TH, YOU'LL VOTE TO ADOPT THIS.

YOU'LL CONSIDER A VOTE TO ADOPT THIS PHASE TWO FEE.

AND AS PART OF THAT, YOU WOULD APPROVE NOTICING.

AND THE AND TO SEND OUT THE PROPOSITION 2 TO 18 HEARING DATES OR EXCUSE ME, THE NOTICING.

AND YOU WOULD SET THE PROPOSITION 218 HEARING DATE.

WE ARE ANTICIPATING THE PROPOSITION 218 HEARING DATE TO BE MONDAY, JUNE 15TH.

THERE'S ABOUT 60 DAYS FROM NOW AT 6 P.M. AT THIS LOCATION BY THE 16TH.

SO WE'RE GIVING STAFF SOME TIME IS TO. STAFF WILL HAVE MAILED THE 45 DAY HEARING NOTICES TO EACH ELIGIBLE PARCEL AND POST NOTICES ON THE WEBSITE.

THAT PROCESS WILL ILLUSTRATE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCESS TO DO A WRITTEN PROTEST, AND THOSE MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IN WRITING IN MAIL, THE INSTRUCTIONS WOULD BE IN THE NOTICE THAT GETS SENT OUT.

SECOND, RELATED TO THE ASSEMBLY BILL WE DISCUSSED.

YOU CAN SUBMIT A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE FEE, AND YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR REASONING FOR THAT AND THE BASIS FOR THAT, AND THAT HAS TO BE RECEIVED BY MONDAY, JUNE 1ST AT 5 P.M., SO NO LATER THAN MONDAY, JUNE 1ST AT 5 P.M..

IT ALSO WOULD HAVE TO BE MAILED AND SUBMITTED TO THE GSA.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE GSA NOW HAS TO REVIEW THOSE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND BRING THOSE FORWARD AT THE HEARING TO THIS BOARD FOR ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTION AND HOW WE WOULD ANTICIPATE ADDRESSING THAT OBJECTION.

SO, THEREFORE, THERE'S TWO KEY DATES THAT WOULD BE OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE JUNE 1ST, WHICH IS 45 DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE, AND THEN JUNE 15TH, WHICH WOULD BE THE HEARING WHERE WE WOULD ACTUALLY HOLD PROTESTS.

ANY QUESTIONS? GENTLEMEN? NO. OKAY, I'LL OPEN IT.

I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

GOOD AFTERNOON. BOARD. BEN CRANE FARM AND OAKDALE ROAD IN 59.

I WANT TO START OFF. I'M IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROPOSED FUNDING MECHANISM OUTLINED IN THIS ENGINEER'S REPORT.

THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE DOES NOT REFLECT A PROPORTIONAL COST FOR SERVICES RECEIVED AS IT IS WRITTEN.

IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY INEQUITABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, OFTEN PARCELS RECEIVE 13IN OF WATER AND ARE BEING CHARGED THE SAME RATE AS IRRIGATED PARCELS. IRRIGATED PARCELS RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 11IN OF WATER FOR A TOTAL OF 24, CHARGING THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT.

DESPITE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN WATER AVAILABILITY, WATER AVAILABILITY LACKS RATIONALE BETWEEN THE COST AND THE BENEFIT.

ADDITIONALLY, ZONES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN A SINGLE ABANDONED WELL ARE BEING REQUIRED TO PAY INTO THE WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM.

THIS EFFECTIVELY FORCES CERTAIN LANDOWNERS TO SUBSIDIZE CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT EXIST WITHIN THEIR AREA, WHICH RAISES SERIOUS PROPORTIONALITY CONCERNS.

PLEASE REFERENCE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT ON PAGE 33 THAT ZONES ONE, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, AND EIGHT HAVE REPORTED DOMESTIC WELLS THAT WENT DRY, WHEREAS ZONES TWO, SIX AND SEVEN DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE REPORT OF A DOMESTIC WELL GOING DRY ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2021.

SECTION 2.3.1 OF THE FINAL NOVEMBER RULE STATES THAT THE MSGSA STAFF CAN CONSIDER VARYING CONDITIONS ACROSS ZONES.

[00:50:10]

THIS CONTRADICTION UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS FUNDING MECHANISM.

ANY ADOPTED FUNDING MECHANISM MUST BE PROPORTIONAL AND DIRECTLY TIED TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICES RECEIVED.

WATER ALLOCATION AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PRESENT WITHIN EACH ZONE.

I SUGGEST THAT THIS FEE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE BASED ON ACTUAL GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, NOT A FLAT, UNIFORM APPROACH THAT IGNORES DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARCEL TYPES AND ZONE CONDITIONS.

AND EQUITABLE FUNDING MECHANISM SHOULD ALIGN WITH THE.

ACTUAL EXTRACTION AND ACTUAL IMPACT. I'LL START.

I'LL READ THAT OVER. AN EQUITABLE FUNDING MECHANISM SHOULD ALIGN FEES WITH ACTUAL EXTRACTION AND ACTUAL IMPACTS, RATHER THAN FORCING LANDOWNERS TO PAY WHAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.

IT ALSO SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL FOR THE AMOUNT OF WATER RECEIVED.

I RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS BOARD TO REJECT OR SUBSTANTIALLY REVISE THIS FUNDING MECHANISM MECHANISM TO ENSURE IT IS EQUITABLE AND ALIGNED WITH OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE KEVIN BURSEY ONLINE. OKAY. GO AHEAD. KEVIN.

IS HE UNMUTED? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KEVIN BURSEY. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH JONES HEALTH.

WE REPRESENT LANDOWNERS IN THE SUB BASIN. WE SHARE THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PREVIOUS COMMENTER, AND WE'D ALSO LIKE TO SHARE SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH LEVEL CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED FEE, AS IT'S DESCRIBED IN THE DRAFT REPORT, WHICH WE'D RATHER SHARE WITH YOU RATHER EARLIER RATHER THAN LATER.

FIRST, WE'RE CONCERNED THE FLAT FEE AND THE REPORT'S ANALYSIS DON'T ACCOUNT FOR LANDOWNERS WHO RECEIVE UNEQUAL BENEFITS UNDER THE ALLOCATION PROGRAM. THE RISK OF A FLAT FEE IS THAT IT REQUIRES OWNERS OPTED IN PARCELS TO SUBSIDIZE SERVICES PROVIDED TO OWNERS OF IRRIGATED PARCELS WHO HAVE GREATER ALLOCATION RIGHTS. THE REPORT SUGGESTS A FLAT FEE IS PROPORTIONAL BECAUSE ALL LANDOWNERS IN THE SUB BASIN, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE LANDOWNERS WITH ALLOCATIONS AND LANDOWNERS WITHOUT ALLOCATIONS, EQUALLY ENJOY THE BASIN WIDE BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT. AND THE MAPS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT YOU JUST SAW SHOW THOUSANDS OF ACRES IN THE SUB BASIN THAT BENEFIT FROM THESE GSA ACTIVITIES, BUT WHO ARE NOT BEING CHARGED. ONLY THOSE WITH ALLOCATIONS ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE CHARGED WITH FEE.

SO WE ASK THAT YOU REVISE THE REPORT TO EXPLAIN WHY ONLY LANDOWNERS WITH ALLOCATIONS ARE BEING CHARGED, EVEN THOUGH ALL LANDOWNERS THROUGHOUT THE SUB BASIN APPEAR TO BE RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF BOTH SIGMA COMPLIANCE.

AND, AS STATED EARLIER, AVOIDING STATE INTERVENTION AS DESCRIBED IN THE DRAFT REPORT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ONLY THOSE LANDOWNERS WITHOUT WITH ALLOCATIONS ARE RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE FEES, THEN THE REPORT NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HOW A FLAT FEE IS PROPORTIONAL.

GIVEN THAT LANDOWNERS DON'T RECEIVE EQUAL ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE RULE, AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPT IN AND PARCELS AND IRRIGATED PARCELS IN THE REPORT AT ALL.

SO WE ASKED THAT THE REPORT BE REVISED TO BETTER EXPLAIN THESE ISSUES BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED.

WE MAY PROVIDE FURTHER COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS AFTER THE NOTICE IS SENT OUT TO LANDOWNERS WITH THE APPLICABLE TIME FRAME AND THE DEADLINE.

ONCE THAT IS ISSUED. SO THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO COMMENT AND FOR THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THE REPORT SO FAR.

AGAIN, OUR CONCERNS AT THIS TIME ARE NOT ABOUT THE REASONS FOR CHARGING A FEE, BUT RATHER HOW IT'S BEING SPREAD.

LANDOWNERS AS A FLAT FEE. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

I THINK IT'D BE PRUDENT AT THIS TIME FOR OUR ATTORNEY TO HELP US HERE.

UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CONCERNS RAISED.

YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. NONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED WERE UNEXPECTED TO US.

[00:55:04]

I BELIEVE IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER. I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAIL HERE.

WE CAN DO THAT. AND WE WOULD PUT ANY RESPONSES ON THE ON THE WEBSITE.

SO I HAVE NO CONCERNS THAT WOULD CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO PROCEED WITH THE PHASE TWO REPORT ADOPTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF GINI? NO. OKAY. GREG, DID YOU HAVE HAVE COMMENT OR.

NO, I'M NOT EXPECTING ONE, BUT JUST. I MEAN, YOUR ENGINEER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

WHAT'S WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. I HAVE A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLY. ANY FURTHER COMMENT? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GREG, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT.

[8. EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION FOR WATER YEAR 2026]

GREAT. SO SECTION 2.5.3 OF YOUR RULES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDES THE ACCOUNTING FOR EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION. AND THIS REQUIRES THE GSA TO ADOPT AN EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION AMOUNT AT THE APRIL MEETING OF EVERY YEAR.

SO LAST YEAR, IN 2025, YOU ADOPTED A ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE TEST RUN YEAR.

AND THEN THIS YEAR, TODAY IS GOING TO BE THE EFFECT OF PRECIPITATION THAT YOU'RE ADOPTING FOR 2026.

THE ALLOCATION RULE OUTLINES HOW YOU GET TO THE EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION NUMBER AND THE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN.

WE LOOK AT THE RAIN GAUGE AT THE CITY OF MERCED AIRPORT, AND WE LOOK AT THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH RAIN WAS CAPTURED AT THAT RAIN GAUGE. AND THEN ON THE SCREEN HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE RULE SECTIONS WHERE IF DEPENDING ON WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS AT THE AIRPORT, RAIN GAUGE IS HOW MUCH THE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN, KIND OF THE MATH ON HOW, HOW WE GET TO THAT FOR THIS YEAR IN 2026, WE'RE IN THAT MIDDLE BOX WHERE THE TOTAL RAINFALL ON MARCH 31ST WAS A TEN INCH 10.03IN. SO YOU WOULD RECEIVE YOU WOULD APPLY THE NINE INCHES AND THEN 50% OF ANYTHING ABOVE NINE INCHES, WHICH IS 50% OF 1.03IN. AND THEN WE ROUND UP TO TEN INCHES.

AND SO THE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN FOR 2026 IS TEN INCHES.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? NOPE. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

BRING IT BACK TO TO THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE ELIGIBLE RAIN VALUE AT TEN INCHES.

OKAY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE.

[9. RIPERIAN INACTIVE AREAS MODIFICATION TO THE ALLOCATION RULE]

GREG, GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. I WILL MAKE ONE NOTE ALSO ON THE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN, YOUR RULE HAS A ACCOMMODATION.

IF WE GET MORE THAN ONE INCH IN APRIL, OR MORE THAN ONE INCH MORE THAN AN INCH AND A HALF BETWEEN APRIL AND MAY, YOU MAY BE, AS A BOARD, TAKE ACTION TO ADOPT AN ADDITIONAL INCH POTENTIALLY OR MORE THAN THAT.

IF WE GOT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WATER, YOU CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ONTO THAT.

IF ADDITIONAL THINGS HAPPEN IN APRIL OR MAY AND LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT GET SOME STORMS THE NEXT DAY OR TWO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MUCH, BUT JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.

OKAY. SO RIPARIAN INACTIVE AREA MODIFICATION.

SO BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ALLOCATION RULE COMING INTO EFFECT.

ONE OF THE THINGS WITHIN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM WHERE PEOPLE WILL GO IN AND MANAGE THEIR ACCOUNTS,

[01:00:02]

AND THEN WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS ALSO FOLKS MARKING THINGS THAT WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED, FIELDS THAT WERE BEING FOLLOWED OR NOT IRRIGATED FOR THE YEAR OR ENTIRE PARCELS IN THAT MANNER.

AND THEY WERE MARKING OUT SOMETHING THAT IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF NON CULTIVATABLE AND RIPARIAN TYPE OF LAND.

SO AS A RESULT, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT IT AND STARTED TO LOOK AT SOME OPPORTUNITIES.

AND THIS HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND THE INTENT IS TO JUST PRESENT THIS TO YOU TODAY FOR INFORMATION, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AS A MODIFICATION TO YOUR RULE.

IN THE IN SUBSEQUENT BOARD MEETINGS. SO CURRENTLY THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE RULE.

HERE ARE THE VARIOUS APPLICABLE SECTIONS THAT TALK ABOUT IRRIGATION STATUS.

YOU CAN GO IN AND MARK A FIELD OR A PARCEL AS INACTIVE FOR THE YEAR.

AND THERE'S DEFINITIONS OF WHAT A PARCEL AND A FIELD IS.

AND IF YOU NOTICE ON FIELDS AT THE BOTTOM, IT'S A SPECIFIC AREA OF LAND USED FOR CULTIVATING CROP CROPS.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED TO RUN INTO SOME CHALLENGES HERE.

THIS, THIS ACTIVITY HAS TO BE DONE BY THE ACCOUNT MANAGER EVERY YEAR BECAUSE YOU MIGHT SWITCH WHICH FIELDS ARE BEING IRRIGATED, WHICH ONES MIGHT BE FALLOWED, ETC.. SO THERE WAS IT'S AN ACTIVITY THAT HAS TO BE UPDATED EVERY YEAR.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT BY JANUARY 31ST EVERY YEAR THROUGH THE PLATFORM AND MARK YOUR INELIGIBLE YOUR INACTIVE FIELD FOR THAT YEAR AND YOU MARK IT AS INACTIVE.

THE REASON FOR THIS, AND MAYBE THIS IS A GOOD COVERAGE IF YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO USE REMOTE SENSING AS YOUR METHOD TO MEASURE, YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A FIELD OUT THAT YOU'RE NOT IRRIGATING.

IF YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT THE REMOTE SENSING MAY OVERESTIMATE ITS CONSUMPTION.

WE JUST HEARD THE ELIGIBLE INCHES NUMBER AND IF THE ELIGIBLE.

IF THE CONSUMED NUMBER OUT OF THE REMOTE SENSING READS HIGHER THAN THAT, AND WE SUBTRACT THE ELIGIBLE INCHES, THERE'S A CHUNK OF WATER. WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME YOU PUMPED AND APPLIED AND THAT MIGHT COME OUT OF YOUR ALLOCATION. SO THIS GIVES PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARK THAT FIELD AS NOTHING'S HAPPENING HERE FOR THIS YEAR. IF YOU ARE USING METERS THROUGH THE METHODOLOGY THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE RULE TO USE METERS TO DO YOUR MEASUREMENT.

NONE OF THIS MATTERS. YOU DON'T NEED TO DESIGNATE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE USING METERS.

SO WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TALKING THROUGH WHERE YOU MAY WANT TO MARK A FIELD SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CHALLENGE HERE IF YOU ARE USING THE REMOTE SENSING. SO HERE'S AN EXAMPLE. AND THERE'S REALLY ONLY A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES WE'RE SHOWING HERE OF RIPARIAN LANDS ON AN IRRIGATED APN.

IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A VERNAL POOL DESIGNATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT.

YOU CAN SEE THEM THROUGHOUT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

AND IN PARTICULAR, THEY'RE ALL LAID OUT HERE IN PINK.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REMOTE SENSING DATA, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF ORANGES COMPARED TO OUTSIDE THAT SHAPE.

YOU START GETTING INTO YELLOWS AND GREENS. THE SIZES, THE REMOTE SENSING ESSENTIALLY IS MEASURING 100 FOOT BY 100 FOOT SQUARE.

SO WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, IF IT IS POTENTIALLY MIS MEASURING, IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ORANGE NUMBER COMING UP HIGHER THAN YOUR ELIGIBLE INCHES, BECAUSE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN WOULD OFFSET IT AND IT WOULD BE ZERO EFFECT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW SOME DESIGNATION OF THESE LANDS, BUT WE NEED TO WRITE SOME RULES AROUND IT SO IT DOESN'T GET A LITTLE CRAZY.

SO. THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE BEING PUT FORWARD WOULD BE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT.

THE RIPARIAN AREA MUST BE NON-CULTIVABLE AND NON IRRIGABLE.

THE INACTIVE DESIGNATION WOULD BE PERMANENT. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DESIGNATE EVERY YEAR AND YOU MAY ALSO NOT BE ABLE TO REMOVE IT WITHOUT COMING BACK AND ASKING FOR SOME SPECIAL APPEAL.

SO THE INTENT IS TO TAKE OUT LANDS THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN CORRIDORS OR ON THE EDGES OF A STREAM COURSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE RIPARIAN AREAS WITHIN A SINGLE PARCEL NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF SEVEN ACRES IN SIZE, OR COLLECTIVELY TOTAL, AT LEAST SEVEN ACRES, PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL AREA IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE.

SO YOU MIGHT HAVE SPOTS WITHIN YOUR PARCELS. IT DEPENDS ON HOW BIG PARCELS ARE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME ADEQUATE SIZE. AND THEN WHERE THERE ARE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS WHERE RIPARIAN SPAN MIGHT RUN ACROSS THOSE.

AND THOSE ARE ALL PART OF YOUR OWN ALLOCATION MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.

YOU CAN INCLUDE AND ADD THOSE ACRES TOGETHER WITHIN EACH OF THOSE PARCELS.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SEVEN ACRES WITHIN A PARCEL, BUT IT'S MORE A SEVEN ACRE PIECE THAT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN YOUR ACCOUNT.

SO SINCE WE HAVE A RULE THAT'S GOT LANGUAGE IN SECTIONS, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR THE RULE.

THIS WILL HAVE A DEFINITION OF A RIPARIAN AREA WHICH WE REFER TO NATURALLY NON CULTIVATABLE VEGETATED AREAS LOCATED WITHIN A PARCEL SUCH AS VERNAL POOLS

[01:05:10]

AND THEY THEY MAY ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS DESIGNATED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY AS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR RESTRICTED FROM DISTURBANCE. THESE ARE AREAS. THESE ARE NOT AREAS THAT ARE MAN MADE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES SUCH AS IRRIGATION CANALS, DITCHES, LATERALS, RESERVOIRS, HOLDING PONDS OR ADJACENT ACCESS ROADS.

SO THEN WE HAVE THE DEFINITION HERE OF IF YOU WANT TO MARK THIS AS AN INELIGIBLE OR A NON RED PARCEL, YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, YOU'RE GOING TO MARKET, YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT THAT. AND SO THAT'S SUBMISSION VIA THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THROUGH THAT SUBMISSION AND IMPLEMENTING OR SUBMITTING YOUR RIPARIAN ACRE, EXCUSE ME, YOUR RIPARIAN AREA ATTESTATION FORM.

AND THAT WILL BE APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY STAFF AND THEN APPROVED.

AND THEN THAT WOULD BE NOW ON YOUR GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM ACCOUNT.

AND THE REMOTE SENSING WILL NOT EVALUATE THAT PART OF YOUR BOUNDARY CONDITION.

WE CONTINUE ON WITH SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE WHOLE PROCESS.

RIPARIAN AREAS DESIGNATED WITHIN A SINGLE PARCEL.

THIS IS WHERE WE GET TO THE SIZE RESTRICTIONS THAT SAY THE SEVEN ACRES WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

AND THEN THE RIPARIAN AREAS DESIGNATED WITH A PARCEL INCLUDE AREAS WITHIN NATURAL WATER SOURCES, INCLUDING RIVERS, CREEKS, STREAMS OR NATURAL DRAINAGE.

AND THEY MUST HAVE. THEY SHALL HAVE AN AVERAGE WIDTH OF AT LEAST 150FT.

WE SAW IN THAT ONE EXAMPLE. IT KIND OF GETS WIDE AND GETS NARROW.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS NOT TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST REALLY SMALL AND LESS THAN 150FT WIDE THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF IT, BECAUSE THE PIXEL SIZE AGAIN, IS ABOUT 100FT.

SO YOU'RE MEASURING THE REMOTE SENSING IS GOING TO BE INFLUENCED BY THINGS ON THE EDGES OF THAT.

IF WE START GETTING A SMALLER WIDTH. SO THAT IS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND AVAILABLE NOW TO THE PUBLIC.

AND WE CAN CONSIDER IT AT A LATER DATE. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I DO. I NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

LAST LAST SENTENCE AT FIRST PARAGRAPH. REPAIRING ERRORS DO NOT INCLUDE IRRIGATED LANDS OR OTHER AREAS WHERE WATER IS APPLIED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, NOR DO THEY INCLUDE AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH MAN MADE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES SUCH AS IRRIGATION CANALS, DITCHES, LATERALS, RESERVOIRS, HOLDING PONDS OR ADJACENT ROADS.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO THIS EVERY YEAR, BUT THE EAST SIDE CANAL IS A MAN MADE CANAL.

IT WAS CONSTRUCTED 130 YEARS AGO. WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.

THERE WERE NO TREES ALONG IT. TODAY IT'S VERY WOODED AND IT HAS CONNECTED TO IT LOWLAND AREAS, WE CALL THEM LAKES, BUT THERE ARE AREAS THAT THAT DO RECEIVE RECHARGE THAT DO HAVE A LOT OF TREES.

REMOTE SENSING CANNOT TELL A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TREE AND AN AGRICULTURAL CROP.

SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S HAPPENING IF YOU, IF YOU DO IT IN THE CASE OF THE MAN MADE IRRIGATION EAST SIDE CANAL.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE PICKING UP ALL KINDS OF CONSUMPTIVE USE THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE TO DO WITH APPLIED WATER.

AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS THIS OCCURS THAT OFTEN IN THE REST OF OUR GSA, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR CASE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T SAY WE APPLIED SURFACE WATER THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T.

IT'S A CONVEYANCE FACILITY. SO IN THIS CASE, WE.

WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME CLARITY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR IRRIGATION MAN MADE IRRIGATION CANAL WITH RESPECT TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE. FIRST, WE'D HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S INCLUDED IN EACH PARCEL.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HOW THAT DESIGNATION HAPPENS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A RELATED TO PARCELS THAT ARE IN YOUR ELIGIBLE ACRES.

SO IF IT IS PART OF THE PARCEL, LIKE IT'S ON THE EDGE OF PART OF A PARCEL OR CUTS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A PARCEL.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WE CAN LOOK TO ADDRESS.

ONE IS IF YOU ARE PUSHING WATER THROUGH THERE, THAT SURFACE WATER THAT'S GOING IN THERE WOULD BE PART OF YOUR REQUESTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVE SOURCE WATER. AND THEN ALSO, I WILL NOTE THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE AN APPEALS PROCESS FOR A LOT OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE EDGES.

SO THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS WITH THAT PARTICULAR FACILITY AND POSSIBLY OTHERS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT.

[01:10:07]

SO I, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SEEING THE SPECIFICS OF YOUR EXAMPLE THERE AND HOW THAT PLAYS THAT, THAT CANAL IS LONG. I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR COMMENT THAT IT HAS TO DO WITH, WITH HOW IT RUNS THROUGH A PARTICULAR PARCEL.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WORKED THROUGH THIS IN, IN, IN OUR CASE, WE HAVE A NUMBER THREE RECHARGE BASINS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE EAST SIDE CANAL.

AND THOSE RECHARGE BASINS THEY GROW A LOT OF TREES AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PICKING UP A, A, A CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER WHEN NO SURFACE WATER IS BEING APPLIED.

IT'S, IT'S WATER THAT GOES OUT THERE TO PERCOLATE TO BENEFIT THE GROUNDWATER BASIN.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS, THIS PROCESS IS ABOUT.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU ARE PUTTING WATER INTO A PERCOLATION POND, SURFACE WATER FOR PURPOSES OF PERCOLATING THAT SURFACE WATER BEING APPLIED, THOSE VEGETATION IS USING THAT SURFACE WATER ON TOP OF ANY RAINFALL.

SO IT IS USING PART OF THAT. SO WE'LL GET A MEASUREMENT OF WHAT YOU PUT IN.

AND THEN YOU'LL GET CREDIT FOR THE RAIN OFF OF.

IF ALL THAT'S MONITORED. AND PART OF WHAT YOU PUT IN IS GOING TO BE CONSUMED OUT OF THAT, AND THEN YOU'RE GETTING A CREDIT FOR WHAT'S GOING INTO THE GROUND.

PER THE RULES THAT ARE SET UP ON RECHARGE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR NO, I DON'T.

I IF I DIVERTED A BUNCH OF WATER INTO A POND AND THAT ALL SOAKED DOWN 100% AND NO EVAPORATION, THERE'S A LEAVE BEHIND AND YOU GET THE CREDIT FOR THAT.

IF I PUT WATER IN AND IT'S GROWING, IT'S IT'S GROWING REEDS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SHALLOW POND I'M USING FOR PERCOLATION, PART OF THAT SURFACE WATER YOU PUT IN IS NOT GOING TO THE GROUND.

IT'S GOING TO THE CONSUMPTION OF THOSE PLANTS THAT ARE IN THAT BASIN.

TREES ARE SIMILAR ON THE EDGES. AND THAT'S THE THIS IS THE SITUATION WITH MONITORING AND REMOTE SENSING.

SO THE ANSWER COULD BE WE NEED YOU MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER GOING TO METERS FOR THOSE PARCELS SO THAT WE CAN SEPARATE THAT STUFF AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OVER COUNTING OR OVER OVERVALUING CONSUMPTION.

FROM THOSE VEGETATIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A CONVERSATION FOR RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I SENT AN EXAMPLE OF A PARTICULAR PARCEL THAT IT, IT WAS, IT WAS PICKED UP IN 2025 AS USING 1.9 ACRE FEET PER ACRE. NOW THAT THAT NUMBER CAME FROM A REMOTE SENSING.

AND THIS IS ONE PARCEL THAT'S WHOLLY INCLUDED IN A RECHARGE BASIN CONNECTED TO THE EASTSIDE CANAL.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM ALLOCATED WATER IN OUR CASE, SIR.

I MEAN, I, I THAT'S THAT SEEMS TO BE WRONG. REALIZE YOU DID SEND SOMETHING LATE LAST WEEK.

I BELIEVE IT WAS. HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS.

AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE. THIS LANGUAGE IS AGAIN LOOKING TO THE 90%.

AND WE MAY HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THROUGH AN APPEAL OR A VARIANCE PROCESS BETWEEN NOW AND YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THIS LANGUAGE, WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK MORE DETAILED AT YOUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES YOU SENT AND SEE IF IT HAS ANY, THERE'S ANY WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE. OKAY.

I MEAN, THE RECHARGE BASINS THAT WE HAVE THERE, THEY'VE GOT WATER IN THEM NOW.

THEY DID LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE, WE'RE USING THEM MORE AND MORE AND THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PICKED UP WITH REMOTE SENSING AS, AS A. CONSUMPTIVE USE OF, OF APPLIED WATER. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO HERE IN, IN THE MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER. SO WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK WORK THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

OKAY. NOTED. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GREG? NO, I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? OKAY. SEE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM, SO NO ACTION NECESSARY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM TEN, WHICH IS BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED

[10. BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 STAFF DENIAL]

[01:15:06]

SO THAT WAS A ERROR IN THE STAFF REPORT, I SEE.

SO YOU DIDN'T GIVE A DENIAL ALREADY AS A STAFF MEMBER? NO. TO THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY. PERFECT. OH. I AM CONFUSED, AND I'M CONFUSING YOU.

OKAY, GOOD, I APOLOGIZE. SO THEY THEY DID GET THEY DID GET A DENIAL FOR SUBMITTING THEIR THEIR CREDIT FOR THE 2025 PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS.

THEY DID GET A DENIAL FOR THAT. THE APPEAL RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF IS TO APPROVE ALLOWING THEM TO GET THESE CREDITS GOING FORWARD.

AND SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION THERE. YOU HAVE APPROVED TWO OF THESE SO FAR, ONE IN FEBRUARY AND ONE IN MARCH, AND NOW YOU HAVE TWO IN JANUARY. THEY'RE ALL REGARDING THE SAME SECTION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THAT SECTION 2.5.1.

AND THIS IS THE RECOGNITION USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. SO UNDER THIS SECTION, SOMEBODY COULD WHO TOOK ACTION AFTER JANUARY 2020 TO EITHER DIRECTLY USE OR RECHARGE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER LIKE SURFACE WATER.

THEY COULD RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THAT USE BETWEEN 2020 AND JANUARY 1ST, 2026.

FOR THE FIRST APPEAL, ON MARCH 31ST, WE RECEIVED.

THE FIRST APPEAL IS THE YOU KNOW, NERVE YOU KNOW, APPEAL.

WE RECEIVED A APPEAL FROM DAVID NERVE YOU KNOW,, AND HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THE DIRECT USE OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED SURFACE WATER FROM THE MCKEAN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT EVERY YEAR SINCE 2020, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED A COMPLETE RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT.

ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026.

FORM AND THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE RETURN AND RECHARGE FACILITY REGISTRATION FORM FROM THEM.

SO WE DO HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE THAT WAS USED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST 2026.

SIMILAR TO THE PRIOR APPEALS THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED SINCE THIS IS THE INITIAL YEAR OF THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE.

WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY GROWERS WHO ARE UNAWARE OF SOME OF THE SPECIFIC RULES AND DEADLINES.

THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT FOR THIS CREDIT WAS DECEMBER 15TH, 2025, AND THEY MISSED THE DEADLINE.

AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION TO REVERSE THE ORIGINAL DENIAL OF MISSING THAT DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 DEADLINE AND ALLOW THEM TO FILE THESE FORMS AND RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THIS WATER USE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY. WE'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC. YEAH, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT.

WHAT THE CREDITS DO. BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE A CREDIT INTO YOUR ROLLING BUCKET.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. AND THEY DISAPPEAR AFTER FIVE YEARS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS BOARD HAS MADE DECISIONS ON HOW THEY'RE HANDLING THESE CREDITS.

I THINK IT'S, IT'S CONFUSING. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE POLICY IS.

SO I'M ASKING, SO IF THE CREDITS ARE FOR RECHARGE, THERE WILL BE THE ALL OF THE RETARD RULES AROUND RECHARGE WOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CREDITS. AND SO THERE WILL BE A LEAVE BEHIND AND THEY WOULD HAVE A DECAY AFTER FIVE YEARS, AND THEY WOULD DECAY OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

AND SO ANY RECHARGE CREDITS DO RECEIVE THAT. ANY DIRECT USE CREDITS ARE TREATED THE SAME WAY THAT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE DIRECT USE WOULD BE TREATED AT THE END OF EACH YEAR.

SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY, THAT IS THAT THERE IS A TABLE IN THE RULE. YOUR EFFICIENCY FACTOR IS A TABLE IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.

AND SO WE WOULD BE APPLYING THE APNS SAG RATING AND THE IRRIGATION METHOD TO COME UP WITH THAT EFFICIENCY FACTOR ACCORDING TO THE TABLE.

AND THAT WOULD BE APPLIED TO GET WHAT THE CREDITS ARE.

GREG, I SEE YOU STOOD UP. SO DO YOU HAVE MORE THAT YOU WANT TO ADD? I WAS ONLY GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO SECTION. OH, SORRY, THAT WAS IT ON DIRECTOR KELLY, IF YOU LOOK INTO

[01:20:09]

IN EVERY YEAR. THOSE ARE DISTINCT AREAS THAT USE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE.

THEY'LL BE FILING FOR THEIR. OF LETTING THE GSA KNOW HOW MANY ACRE FEET OF ALTERNATIVE WATER WAS USED IN DECEMBER OF EVERY YEAR IN DECEMBER OF EVERY YEAR.

THEY EFFECTIVELY ARE USED AS A CREDIT AGAINST WHAT COMES OUT OF COMPLETE CONSUMPTIVE USE OUT OF REMOTE SENSING.

CORRECT. AND IF I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU HAVE 20, 25 ALTERNATE SOURCE CREDITS. AND YOU HAVE 2026 ALTERNATE SOURCE CREDITS.

THEY GO GO AWAY EACH YEAR. THOSE CREDITS GOING FORWARD 26 2728.

THAT YEAR'S ALTERNATIVE SOURCE IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY APPLIED TO THE CONSUMPTION OF THAT YEAR.

AND SO THERE IS NO CARRYOVER. THIS RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026, IS A POLICY THAT THE BOARD ADOPTED TO RECOGNIZE THE WORK THAT SOME FOLKS MAY HAVE DONE TO PURCHASE SURFACE WATER. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT TO PURCHASE SURFACE WATER.

KNOWING THAT SIGMUND WAS IN PLACE AND THAT GSP WAS IN PLACE AND THE ALLOCATION WAS COMING.

AND SO IT'S A RECOGNITION OF THAT. SO THOSE CREDITS ARE THERE IN RECOGNITION OF THAT WORK THAT WAS DONE.

AND THEY MAY CARRY OVER, BUT GOING FORWARD, ANY ALTERNATIVE SOURCE YOU USED IS GOING TO BE APPLIED IN THE YEAR THAT YOU USE IT.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT SIMPLE. BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH IN, IN OUR ALLOCATION POLICY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT 25 IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL ALL BY ITSELF.

WHEREAS IN 26 YOUR, YOUR, YOUR TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF REMOTE SENSING CONSUMPTIVE USE WILL SAY IS, IS OFFSET BY THE AMOUNT OF, OF ALTERNATE SOURCE AND WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE IS WOULD COME AWAY FROM YOUR ROLLING BUCKET OF ALLOCATION. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY. I'M FOLLOWING AND ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS IS JUST GIVEN THESE PEOPLE MISSED A DEADLINE.

AND SINCE IT'S THE FIRST YEAR WE'RE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO, TO, TO APPEAL TO US AND US EXCEPT CHANGING THE DEADLINE THERE, YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SENT THEIR INFORMATION IN ALREADY AND HAVE THESE CREDITS.

OKAY. BUT THANK YOU BECAUSE I WOULD JUST I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THESE, THESE CREDITS? BECAUSE IT, IT ISN'T CLEAR. I MEAN, THERE'S.

THANK YOU, LACEY, FOR EXPLAINING THAT, YOU KNOW, RECHARGE CREDITS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE 2025 CREDITS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAT NOW THAT WE'RE IN THE ALLOCATION, YOU GOT 2026, WHICH IS BALANCING TOTAL CONSUMPTIVE USE VERSUS APPLIED SURFACE WATER, ALTERNATE SOURCE WATER. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THERE'S MUD. THERE'S MUD. THAT'S GREAT. GOOD.

ALRIGHT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? APPROVED THE REVERSAL.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? YEAH. ON WATER. ACCOUNT NUMBER 16734.

YES. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. FOR WATER ACCOUNT 1673 FOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 11, WHICH IS A SIMILAR SITUATION.

[11. BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 STAFF DENIAL]

[01:25:04]

THIS IS VERY SIMILAR. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO REVERSE THE DENIAL ON 16216 SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 12.

STAFF REPORT. LACEY. NOTHING TO REPORT AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY BOARD REPORTS? START TO MY LEFT HERE.

OH. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 14, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE MAY 12TH AT 2 P.M..

[14. FUTURE MEETINGS]