May 14, 2026 GSA Meeting

[00:00:08]

GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE

[1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

BOARD MEMBER GALLO? HERE.

BOARD MEMBER PARK? HERE.

BOARD MEMBER GIAMPAOLI? HERE.

BOARD MEMBER KELLEY? VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI? PRESENT.

CHAIRMAN PAREIRA? PRESENT.

MR. CHAIR YOU HAVE A QUOROM.

THANK YOU. ITEM 2 IS CLOSED SESSION. WE HAD A CLOSED SESSION AT 1 O'CLOCK WITH A POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

MIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US? BRAZIL? 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.

THAT'S HOW WE KEEP THE BACK OF THE ROOM PAYING ATTENTION, SEE? WE ENGAGE YOU IN THE PROCESS. THANK YOU.

[4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ]

GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD. I'M HERE TODAY TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED PHASE 2 FEE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ENGINEERS REPORT WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE STRICT PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS OF PROP 218. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OTHER LANDOWNERS TO SUPPORT AND CHALLENGING THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEES UNLESS THESE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED, I URGE ALL LANDOWNERS, AGAIN, PLEASE REJECT IT AS IT IS OUTLINED. THE TWO MAIN PARTS FOR ME IS THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PLAN AND THE PROPORTIONAL COST FOR IRRIGATED AND OPT-IN PARCELS. OUR ATTORNEYS, JENNA AKOS AND JUSTIN BOGDA AT BROWNSTEIN, HYATT, FARBER, AND SCHRECK, A NATIONAL LAW FIRM, SHARE OUR CONCERN THAT THIS FUNDING MECHANISM IS FLAWED AND HAS SOME SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS. BY ASSUMING WITHOUT ANALYSIS THAT ALL ELIGIBLE PARCELS WOULD RECEIVE AN IDENTICAL BENEFIT FROM PAYING THESE FEES DESPITE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE ALLOCATION RULE AMONG EACH PARCEL, THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FAILS TO CONDUCT THE PARCEL-BY-PARCEL ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY PROP 218.

WE HOPE TO WORK WITH THE GSA TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF ANY FEE. IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHOOT ME A TEXT OR A CALL.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD. DAVE NERVINO, MERQUIN, STEVENSON. JUST A QUICK NOTE, SIGNING UP FOR AND MITIGATING THE NON-CROP WATER USAGE TYPE OF SITUATION. WE'VE GOT SOME REAL SANDY GROUND AND IF WE DON'T HAVE COVER CROPS ON IT IT'S GONNA BLOW AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DECIDE IF WE WANT TO CROP THAT YEAR OR NOT AND IF WE ONLY ARE ABLE TO ASSIGN THAT ONCE A YEAR IN JANUARY YOU COME TO THIS TIME OF THE YEAR, FERTILIZER COST AND YOUR PRODUCTION COST COMPARED TO WHAT YOU CAN MAKE OFF THE CROP. WE MAY NOT WANT TO FARM IT AND AT THAT POINT IT'S HARD FOR US TO COME AND APPEAL I GUESS TO YOU KNOW DESIGNATE THAT LAND AS GOING TO BE FALLOW INSTEAD OF FARMED AS WE MIGHT HAVE INTENDED BUT WITH COST OF LIVING AND THINGS WE CAN'T FARM IT AND WE NEED A COVER CROP ON IT SO IT DOESN'T BLOW SO WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO IN AND APPLY TO HAVE THAT FALLOWED OR NOT FARMED AT ANY POINT DURING THE YEAR.

MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT ALLOWS THIS. AND SO, WE'RE JUST HOPING WE COULD FOLLOW SUIT WITH OURS. JUST CONSIDERING SINCE THE GSP IS STILL A DOCUMENT IN PROGRESS, NOW'S THE TIME TO BRING IT UP. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

OKAY, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WELL, PUBLIC COMMENT

[00:05:01]

[5. CONSENT CALENDAR ]

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. DO I HAVE A SECOND? MINUTES AND CONSENT CALENDAR? I THOUGHT I HEARD.

YES. YEAH, THE MINUTES AND THE INVOICES. SO, IT IS CONSENT, THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I'LL SECOND. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. OKAY,

[6. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM ]

GO AHEAD. I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH SOME JUST PROGRAMMATIC UPDATES. AND AS THINGS CONTINUE ON, WELL, JUST BY THE NATURE OF THINGS, THESE THINGS WILL COME IN PULSES. RIGHT NOW, FOUR OF THE FIVE PROJECTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PORTFOLIO ARE CONTRACTED. FOUR OF THEM ARE ACTIVELY MOVING IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES. AGAIN, THE BEAR CREEK RANCH HAD BEEN SEEDED ALREADY. IT'S IN A STATE OF WEED MANAGEMENT. VALLEY ECO AND RIVER PARTNERS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD A WEED MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL FOR THE NEXT YEAR. AND SO, WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT PROJECT. IT IS HUGE, RIGHT, SO THAT PROJECT. SMALL DECISIONS MAKE BIG LANDSCAPE CHANGES, AND SO WE'RE WORKING PRETTY TIGHTLY WITH RIVER PARTNERS OVER THE NEXT PROBABLY MONTH HERE ON THEIR NEXT YEAR'S PLAN.

ADDITIONALLY, ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE, THE AMSTERDAM SLASH JOHNSON RECHARGE PROJECT IS AWAITING, AGAIN, AWAITING SOME UPDATED SOIL CORING. I'LL HAVE SOME IMAGES WHEN WE GET INTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

VALLEY ECO ACTUALLY RECOMMEND AFTER DOING SOME ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING WELLS AND SOIL CORING, WE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED A MODIFICATION OF THAT PROJECT SIDING. AND SO, THE LANDOWNER AND THEIR CONSULTANTS ASKED FOR SOME SUBSEQUENT DUE DILIGENCE TO RECITE THAT SITE, WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

HAVE THE SAMPLES BEEN TAKEN? THE UPDATED SAMPLES HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN. THERE ARE A LOT OF DATA. THERE'S A LOT OF DATA NOW. I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO SIZABLY CHANGE, AT LEAST THE INFILTRATION MEASUREMENTS. THEY'RE BETWEEN PITS, WELL DATA, SOIL CORES. I WOULD SAY WE HAVE PROBABLY OVER A DOZEN DATA POINTS ON THAT SITE, WHICH IS A LOT FOR THAT SIZE OF A PROJECT. I DON'T EXPECT ANY SURPRISES, AT LEAST NEW SURPRISES ON THAT ONE. THE LA GRANDE COMMUNITY PROJECT RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM MERCED COUNTY TO BEGIN DESIGN AND PROCEED WITH ITS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.

AND IT HAS AN EASEMENT DRAFT UNDER REVIEW. AGAIN, THIS IS THE LA GRANDE COMMUNITY PROJECT OUT ADJACENT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL. AND THEN ONE PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN SURPRISINGLY GREAT TO OPERATE ON HAS ACTUALLY BEEN THIS NEVADA RANCH. COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN GREAT. THEY'VE, WE'VE ESSENTIALLY GOT IN TOUCH WITH THEM ON THEIR SEEDING EQUIPMENT, THEIR CONTRACTORS' FENCING STRATEGIES, WEED MANAGEMENT.

THEY'RE JUST SO RESPONSIVE.

THIS PROJECT, I'D SAY, IS CRUSHING IT ON IMPLEMENTATION. THE BIGGEST THING ON THIS ONE IS THAT IT WILL REQUIRE AN APPRAISAL.

SO, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING THEM IN THIS VERY LONG PAID SORT OF LAND IMPINGEMENT, I THINK IT'S 50 YEARS ON THAT SITE, THAT HAS A CORRESPONDING APPRAISAL ACTION.

THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION IT'S GONE PRETTY GREAT.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE FIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EITHER IN CONTRACT OR GOING INTO CONTRACT. THOSE FIVE CONTRACTS INCLUDE THE DEAD MAN CREEK RECHARGE PROJECT, THE MYERS RANCH BEAR CREEK PROJECT, AND HUNT FARM PROJECT. ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE FULLY EXECUTED.

THE LAST TWO ARE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND HOPEFULLY AT THE END OF THE DAY TODAY THEY'LL BE EXECUTED AND ALL OF THESE PROJECTS WILL BE IN THE WORKFLOW. SO, IT'S GOOD TO SEE ALL THESE THINGS GOING FORWARD. THE NEXT THING I WANT TO KIND OF TOUCH BASE ON IS JUST SORT OF TRACKING THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND THIS IS PERTAINS TO SOME OF THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTS ON THE BACK OF THIS SORT OF PRESENTATION. THERE ARE A COUPLE UNEXPECTED, I SHOULD SAY, YEAH CERTAINLY UNEXPECTED INVESTMENTS IN THIS PROGRAM THAT WE'VE HAD TO SORT OF DANCE AROUND AND THE BIGGEST BY FAR IS THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

SO, WE OPENED UP A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AT THE POINT OF RELEASING THE SOLICITATION.

[00:10:02]

WE DID THAT IN BOTH DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION.

ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE PROVIDING RIGHT NOW SORT OF A SECOND WAVE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WHICH IS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS THAT ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. I TOUCHED A LITTLE BIT ON THOSE COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WE ARE GOING OR SORT OF JUST PRESENTED ON THIS IS CANDIDLY, I THINK AN UNEXPECTED SORT OF RESULT OF MLRP. IT'S NOT JUST MERCED SUB-BASIN.

THAT'S GOING TO EXPERIENCE THIS MERCED IS JUST IN FRONT, SO MERCED AND CAHUILLA BOTH HAVE A LOT OF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS AT SCALE AND THEY'RE STARTING TO CREATE COMPLEXITIES FOR LANDOWNERS, THEY'RE JUST HARD TO DO AND I THINK THE REST OF THE MLRP PROGRAM STATEWIDE IS GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT. JUST TO KIND OF PROVIDE LIKE SOME OF THE, SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS ACTUALLY A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF ONE OF THE PROJECTS. THIS GETS INTO THE PROJECT SITING. SO THIS IS AN INITIAL 15-ISH ACRE RECHARGE BASIN THAT WAS APPLIED FOR IN THE PROGRAM. LOOKS GOOD AT FIRST WITHIN THE WITHIN THE PROPOSAL, BUT AFTER PULLING TOPO DATA SOIL CORES FROM THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. WE KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DUE TO SOME POTENTIAL LOW, LIKE AT LIKE 20 FEET HERE, SOME POTENTIAL LOW CLAY HORIZONS AND THE TERRACE NATURE OF THIS SITE, WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE COULD GET THE LEVEL OF RECHARGE WE WERE HOPING ACTUALLY COULD CAUSE AGRONOMIC PROBLEMS POTENTIALLY ON THAT SITE. BASED ON THAT SITE WE ACTUALLY MOVED IT, RECOMMENDED THAT IT MOVED DOWN INTO THIS TERRACE. THERE'S SOME SORT OF SAND VEIN THAT RUNS SORT OF HERE ADJACENT TO THAT TERRACE AND THESE ARE THE TYPE OF MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING ON PROJECTS KIND OF IN REAL TIME. LANDOWNERS HAVE BEEN SUPER RESPONSIVE, THEIR TECHNICAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SUPER RESPONSIVE, BUT IT DOES SLOW THINGS DOWN QUITE A BIT WHEN YOU GET INTO THESE THINGS.

ADDITIONALLY, BESIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WE'RE ENGAGING RIGHT NOW WHICH IS ACTUALLY KIND OF FUN, WHICH IS THE MONITORING. SO, WE'RE TAKING GPS OR GEO REFERENCE SITES THROUGHOUT THESE, EACH OF THESE MLRP PROJECTS, CHECKING WITH THE LANDOWNERS IDEALLY 48 HOURS BEFORE WE GO OUT TO THE SITE. BUT EACH OF THESE ARE GEO REFERENCE PHOTOS TO CAPTURE BEFORE AND AFTER CONDITIONS ON ALL MLRP PROJECTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THESE ARE ACTUALLY GOOD PLANTS.

ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE KIND OF TRACKING VEGETATION RECRUITMENT IN THESE MLRP AREAS. NOT ALL OF THEM, ARE CRUSHING IT BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY DOING PRETTY COOL SORT OF HAVING EARLY RESPONSES TO SOME OF THESE MLRP ACTIONS WHICH IS ENCOURAGING SO IT'S THOSE TWO AND I'LL GET INTO BOARD ACTIONS IN JUST A SECOND BUT IT'S THOSE TWO ELEMENTS THAT ARE KIND OF TRIGGERING THE SECOND OF THESE WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN AMENDMENT FOR VALLEY ECO BEFORE WE GET TO DO THAT I WANT TO TOUCH BASE ON THE CURRENT OR THE FIRST BOARD ACTION WHICH IS TO SUBMIT REQUESTS FOR A BUDGET MODIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. SO, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD APPROVED A LETTER TO SUBMIT TO DOC TO EXTEND THE MLRP PROGRAM BY A YEAR. SO INITIALLY, WELL CURRENTLY WITHOUT THAT MODIFICATION, THE MLRP PROGRAM AND ALL THESE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BY NEXT MARCH, SO MARCH OF 27, WHICH IS A PRETTY TIGHT TIMELINE. WE PUT IN A REQUEST AND IT'S BEEN INFORMALLY APPROVED BY DOC SUBJECT TO A BUDGET MODIFICATION. THIS IS SOMETHING OF A CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITHIN THIS MODIFICATION ARE A FEW AND I'LL JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH SINCE THERE'S ONLY SEVEN-LINE ITEMS. THE FIRST, I'LL ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THEM. I'LL START WITH THIS BIGGEST ITEM WHICH IS THE PARTNER CAPACITY FUNDING. THAT POOL OF MONEY BEFORE VALLEY ECO TOOK OVER THIS PROGRAM, THAT POOL OF MONEY WAS ACTUALLY I WOULD CALL IT A RELATIVELY FLEXIBLE POT OF MONEY, BUT IT WAS ASSIGNED TO ALL THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT WERE CO-APPLICANTS WITH THE GSA WHEN THEY APPLIED TO THE DEPARTMENT. EACH OF THOSE ESSENTIALLY HAD A ONE-PAGE SCOPE OF WORK. IT FUNCTIONALLY WAS ABOUT A PARAGRAPH SCOPE OF WORK, AND THE FIRST THING OUR TEAM DID WAS WE RECONTRACTED WITH ALL OF THOSE PARTNERS. WE BUILT OUT THEIR SCOPES OF WORK, AND WE MOVED ALL THEIR PROJECT MONEY OUT OF THAT CAPACITY POOL AND INTO TARGETED TASKS. IF THEY WERE BILLING HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, IT WASN'T HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OF CAPACITY. IT WAS PLANNING, OUTREACH, IMPLEMENTATION, ET CETERA.

SO, THE FIRST, THAT BIGGEST ITEM, THAT $875,000, OR THAT SHIFT FROM $895,000 DOWN TO $20,000, THAT SHIFT IS THE REDISTRIBUTION

[00:15:02]

IT'S LARGELY JUST REASSIGNED ELSEWHERE IN THE PROGRAM. THE BIGGEST REDISTRIBUTION, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT HERE, IS ACTUALLY MOVING IT FROM PARTNER CAPACITY TO THE OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT.

WE HAD, AGAIN, MOST OF THAT MONEY WAS ASSIGNED TO CO-APPLICANTS IN MLRP INITIALLY. WE SORT OF RECOLORED IT IN THE BUDGET MODIFICATION EARLY ON. THIS IS LARGELY SORT OF A RECTIFICATION BUDGET ACT, BUDGET RECTIFICATION ACTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT. GOING TO SORT OF THE NEXT BIG ITEM, AND THIS IS KIND OF ALLUDED TO IS THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING WE MOVED A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS POOL THIS THERE'S TWO REASONS WHY WE'RE MOVING IT ONE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT AS WE GO THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION AND WE'RE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THESE LANDOWNERS WE INITIALLY TRIED TO DO THAT THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION DOLLARS RIGHT SO RUNNING OUT THERE WITH TRACTORS WITH ENGINEERS WITH RESTORATIONISTS ETC. AND USING IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS TO DO THOSE THINGS THEY ACTUALLY ASKED US TO NOT DO THAT UNDER IMPLEMENTATION SO WE HAD TO RECOLOR THAT MONEY UP INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING SO THERE'S A FUNCTIONALLY ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF PREVIOUSLY ENCUMBERED FUNDS THAT ARE GETTING PUSHED UP AND IT FROM THREE TO TWO AND THOSE ARE LOTS OF NUMBERS I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS IN JUST A SECOND.

ADDITIONALLY, SOME MONEY WAS MOVED INTO PLANNING FROM THE AGAIN THIS IS COMING FROM THE CAPACITY POOL. AND THEN LASTLY, THE BIGGEST ITEM IS JUST A POOL OF FUNDS FROM MONITORING. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEPLOY ALL THAT MONITORING MONEY WITHIN THE TIMELINE.

IN NET, THERE ARE CURRENTLY 200, ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS OKAY WITH A POTENTIAL BOARD ACTION, ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THERE ARE STILL $276,000 OF MLRP FUNDS THAT ARE NOT ENCUMBERED. RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE SPREAD ACROSS THIS PROGRAM CATEGORICALLY WITH DOC WE HAVE ABOUT $800,000 OF PROGRAMMATIC FLEX SO WE'RE WELL WITHIN RANGE OF WHAT WE CAN MOVE AROUND CATEGORICALLY BUT AGAIN THERE'S EVERYTHING ELSE IS EITHER IN CONTRACT OR ASSIGNED TO GRANT OR WILL BE ASSIGNED TO GRANT GRANTEES I'LL PAUSE HERE THE BOARD ACTION WOULD BE TO FORMALIZE AND I THINK IT'S IN THE PACKET AS WELL BUT FORMALIZE THIS BUDGET MODIFICATION REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS, AGAIN, COINCIDING WITH THE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE MLRP PROGRAM INTO MARCH 2028. ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS A LOT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YEAH, MY QUESTION IS, UNDER TASK 5, THE $451,000, PRIMARILY WHERE IS THAT MONEY GOING? WHAT ENTITY IS RECEIVING THAT MONEY? YEAH, WE CAN PULL, THERE ARE SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVING THAT MONEY. THE TWO OUTREACH LEADS ARE, AND I WOULD PUT VALLEY ECO VERY CLOSE WITH THOSE OUTREACH LEADS, BUT THEY'RE AN ORGANIZATION CALLED SEEDS, WHICH IS A REGIONAL COMMUNITY-BASED OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ORGANIZATION.

ZANJERO, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF THE GROWER OUTREACH, AND OUR TEAM IS ALSO DOING A LOT OF THE OUTREACH.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S MONEY SPRINKLED IN FOR, AGAIN, THOSE PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED ORGS, INCLUDING RIVER PARTNERS AND, OH, I'M MISSING, THE LOCAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

SO, BUT THE MAJORITY ARE IN THOSE TOP THREE ORGANIZATIONS, AND I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THAT ALLOCATION IS WITHIN SEEDS AND ZANJERO AND VALLEY ECO SECONDARILY. IS THERE A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT? SORRY, BOB. AS FAR WHAT THE I CAN ELABORATE ON WHAT THAT FUNDING IS UTILIZED FOR AS WELL. YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN TO US, I MEAN AT THIS POINT, WHY ARE WE STILL NEEDING TO DO OUTREACH? YEAH, RIGHT AND YEAH, I SO UNDERSTAND SO THERE'S AND I THINK A LOT OF IT HAS ACTUALLY EXPENDED.

AGAIN, SOME OF THIS IS RECTIFYING THE MAJORITY, VAST MAJORITY OF THIS IS RECTIFYING WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING WITH DOC INFORMALLY. SO, A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE FORMALIZATION OF THAT ACTION.

SO THEN MAYBE ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND IT MIGHT STOP US FROM NEEDING TO GO FURTHER.

HOW MANY DOLLARS ARE SPENT AND HOW MANY ARE LEFT TO BE SPENT THAT AREN'T CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED? IN THIS ONE CATEGORY OR THE WHOLE THING? WELL, MIGHT AS WELL DO IT ALL IF YOU KNOW IT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. IT IS ENCUMBERED, SO VIRTUALLY THAT ENTIRE POOL OF FUNDING IS EITHER SPENT OR ENCUMBERED ON YOUR CONTRACT. THE MAJORITY

[00:20:02]

WE'RE NOT SENDING OUT A WHOLE LOT OF POSTCARDS UNLESS WE GET MORE MONEY FROM DOC, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT DOING A WHOLE LOT ON THAT FRONT. THERE'S STILL ONGOING OUTREACH THROUGH COMMUNITY EDUCATION, AND THAT'S THROUGH THE SEEDS PROGRAM PRIMARILY. AND A LOT OF THAT IS THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

THERE'S ALSO A SCHOOL CURRICULA THAT ARE RUN THROUGH SEEDS. SO, LEARNING ABOUT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT, HOW WELLS AND RECHARGE WORKS, THAT'S INCORPORATED INTO THAT PROGRAM TOO. SO THAT OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT INCLUDES THAT SCHOOL EDUCATION COMPONENT AS WELL. ANYTHING ELSE, BOB? AND THEN ONE THING I'LL MENTION IS, IS THIS IS STILL A BUDGET MODIFICATION? IT'S NOT AWARDING THE MONEY, RIGHT? THAT THAT'S WE'RE JUST CHANGING POOLS. WE'RE NOT GIVING ANYBODY ANY MORE MONEY. THAT'S NOT ALREADY BEEN GIVEN. SO, I'M JUST SURPRISED THAT YOU CAN MOVE MONEY AROUND BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, WE HAVE TO ASK DOC. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SAYING, IS IT OKAY IF WE ASK DOC IF WE CAN DO THIS? RIGHT, BOARD'S APPROVAL.

OKAY. YEAH, SO AGAIN, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LOOSENESS IN THE DISCUSSION, THIS ACTION IS LARGELY A SQUARING UP OF THE BUDGET WITH THE DEPARTMENT. SO, A LOT OF THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED INFORMALLY, PARTICULARLY THE REALLOCATION OF THE CAPACITY MONEY IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT THIS IS THE FORMAL MODIFICATION LARGELY TO COME SORT OF CLEAN UP THE BUDGET AGAIN VIRTUALLY ALL THIS MONEY IS ENCUMBERED ALREADY IT'S JUST NOT LABELED APPROPRIATELY BUT IT IS LARGELY ENCUMBERED UNDER SOME CONTRACTS AND GRANTS.

ALL RIGHT WELL THEN NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. SECOND ACTION THAT I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO EVALUATE IS THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE A BUDGET MODIFICATION TO VALLEY ECO.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SIMPLE REQUEST. THE FIRST, I'M GOING TO START ON AN EASIER ITEM. THE FIRST IS THIS MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING.

A LOT OF THIS IS JUST ASSOCIATED WITH THE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PROGRAM. SO, THIS IS JUST A PROJECTION ON WHAT THE PROGRAM WILL UTILIZE IN THAT ONE-YEAR SORT OF UPDATE. ADDITIONALLY, VALLEY ECO HAS TAKEN ON BASICALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE PROGRAM MONITORING. AND SO THAT BETWEEN MONITORING AND THE TIMELINE EXTENSION, VALLEY ECO IS REQUESTING THIS.

THE LAST ITEM IS THE BIGGEST ITEM AND IT'S THIS TECHNICAL, IT'S BASICALLY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LANDOWNERS. SO RIGHT NOW, THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING THAT'S ALLOCATED TO VALLEY ECO, IT'S NOT, IT'S ALL THIS SOLICITATION AND CONTRACTING AND WORKING WITH DOC AND BUILDING CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS THAT ALSO INCLUDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

INITIALLY WE HAD THIS POOL OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LANDOWNERS DURING IMPLEMENTATION. AGAIN, THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ASKED THAT WE REALLOCATE THAT FUNDS OR THAT POOL OF FUNDS TO TASK TWO. SO, EVEN WITH THAT RE ANTICIPATED REALLOCATION OF TASK THREE TO TASK TWO VALLEY ECO IS ALREADY OPERATING ESSENTIALLY AT A NEGATIVE BASICALLY OVER THE BUDGET AND IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THESE WITH THE TECHNICAL WORK FRANKLY SO THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY I CAN JUST BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY THE AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT THIS PROGRAM NEEDS FAR EXCEEDS OUR EXPECTATIONS GOING IN AND I THINK THE STATE'S EXPECTATIONS AS WELL. SO, WE HAVE FIVE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS, WE ALSO HAVE THOSE FIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, ALL OF WHICH I ANTICIPATE A SIZABLE INVOLVEMENT FROM OUR TEAM. ANY QUESTIONS? SO, RAND, SO PART OF THIS ISSUE IS JUST PURELY THE EXTENSION OF TIME. SO AGAIN, THIS MANAGEMENT REPORTING, I WOULD SAY, IS ALMOST ENTIRELY TIME, THE TIME EXTENSION. THE MONITORING IS BOTH A COMBINATION OF TIME EXTENSION, BUT ALSO SORT OF MULTIPLIED TIMES THE FACT THAT VALUE ECO IS ESSENTIALLY DOING ALL THE PROGRAM MONITORING IMPLICITLY.

SO THOSE ITEMS I'D SAY ARE HEAVILY TIED TO TIME. TASK TWO,

[00:25:01]

BUT INDIRECT INCLUDES, SOME OF THAT IS BEING PAID THROUGH THOSE PROJECT PARTNERS.

AT THIS POINT, IT INCLUDES.

EIGHT ORGANIZATIONS. SO, SOME OF IT'S GOING THERE, THE MAJORITY OF IT ACTUALLY IS ASSIGNED TO THE GSA. IT CAN BE USED FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT ON THE PROGRAM AND JEANNIE'S BEEN FUNDAMENTAL TO WORKING OUT BUGS IN THESE CONTRACTS SO SOME OF THAT CAN GO FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO COUNCIL. A LOT OF IT COULD ACTUALLY GO TO PAY FOR STAFF TIME FROM THE COUNTY TO REIMBURSE FOR LACEY'S TIME.

THERE ARE TIME TRACKING NUANCES THAT ARE TRICKIER WHICH IS WHY WE HAVEN'T PULLED THAT FUND YET FOR THE GSA HAS TO DO WITH HOW THE GSA AND COUNTY STAFFING AGREEMENT IS SET UP, BUT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE POOL IS LARGELY GSA ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR COUNCIL AND OTHER INCURRED COSTS. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO VALLEY ECO, IT'S ALL.

POTENTIALLY, FRACTIONS OF IT GO TO VALLEY ECO, BUT IT'D BE MINIMAL, IT'S VIRTUALLY NONE. SO, THIS BECOMES, AND BOB, I'M NOT PULLING ANY WOOL OVER ANYONE'S EYES.

FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS JUST SOMETIMES SOME OF THESE FUNDS GET RECATACOLORED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SO, THEY'LL SAY, YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT INVOICING ACTION FOR A PARTNER. THAT'S NOT A TASK ONE ITEM. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM. SO, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE NET CONTRACTING ALLOCATION AT ALL FOR WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

BUT THE MODIFICATION TO YOUR NEXT SLIDE, THAT'S ALL VALLEY ECO? CORRECT. THIS POOL RIGHT HERE IS A VALLEY ECO MODIFICATION, 100%. SO, THE 235 COMES OUT OF WHICH POT? IT WILL COME OUT OF TASK TWO. IT WILL COME OUT OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING. IT WILL COME OUT OF MONITORING. IT WILL COME OUT OF MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING.

THIS IS REALIGNING IT LIKE THE OTHER ONE. THIS IS BUILT INTO THIS BUDGET. THIS WILL HAVE TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. SO EVEN IF YOU'RE LIKE VALLEY ECO, YOU GUYS ARE DOING A POOR JOB, WE WANT TO GO WITH A DIFFERENT ONE, OPEN UP AN ALTERNATIVE SOLICITATION, THIS PROGRAM WILL STILL REQUIRE THESE THINGS. IT WILL CANDIDLY BE AT LEAST AS COSTLY. SO, IT'S NOT THE COST WILL STILL BE THERE WITHOUT THIS ORGANIZATION.

SO, THERE WILL NEED TO BE $235,000 APPLIED TO THESE THINGS OUT OF THE PROGRAM BUDGET ANYWAY.

AND I GUESS I'LL CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT KIND OF WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS ONE IS THAT THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND THE PROJECTS IS MORE LIMITED THAN WE ANTICIPATED TO THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T GET ENOUGH PROJECTS OR DIDN'T HAVE SOME THAT MET OUR CRITERIA WE WENT BACK OUT FOR A SECOND SOLICITATION HAS ADDED ON TO THE BURDEN SO YOU KNOW I GUESS MAYBE I'M, I'M IN A SPOT RIGHT I DON'T I DON'T LIKE HAVING TO PUT MORE MONEY TOWARDS YOU KNOW MANAGEMENT VERSUS DOING PROJECTS BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE NATURE OF THIS. AS TIME GOES ON, HOPEFULLY OUR APPLICANTS WILL BE, THE PROJECTS WILL BE, I DON'T KNOW, BETTER PREPARED, IF I CAN SAY IT THAT WAY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE, ANYWAYS, I'LL JUST, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE? OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? RIGHT, THAT'S IT.

YOU'VE COVERED BOTH. I GUESS

[00:30:01]

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ONE, WE'LL VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN WE'LL LOOK FOR ANOTHER MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF THE BUDGET TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ALSO TO THE AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY ECHO.

OKAY, SO BOTH OF THEM. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR MARCHINI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. ALL

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

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE HAD THIS AS A DRAFT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION LAST MEETING.

SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU NOW AGAIN RESTATES THAT REPAIRING AREAS ARE NATURALLY NON-CULTIVATE A BOWL VEGETATED AREAS ALL LOCATED WITHIN A PARCEL SUCH AS VERNAL POOLS ARE AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL WATERCOURSES INCLUDING RIVERS CREEKS STREAMS OR DRAINAGE THERE'S MORE DETAILS THERE ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GROUND THAT YOU'RE NOT FARMING AT ALL THAT MIGHT BE CONSUMING WATER FROM A NUMBER OF SOURCES AND YOU, YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT IT IS CONSUMING MORE OR MAY NOT BE BEING REFLECTED CORRECTLY IN THE USES OF TOOLS LIKE OPENET. SO, WE WANT TO CARVE IT OUT. RIGHT NOW, THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM DOES NOT LET YOU CARVE OUT WITH THIS DESIGNATION. IT'S ONLY THE DESIGNATION OF I'M NOT GOING TO FARM IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE INACTIVE THIS PARTICULAR YEAR AND THAT HAS TO BE REDONE EVERY YEAR. SO, THIS LANGUAGE PUTS THAT DEFINITION OUT THERE AND THEN ADDS A NEW SECTION 2.5.2.2 WHICH THEN SHIFTS THE EXISTING 2.5.2.2 TO BECOME 2.5.2.3 AND THAT AFFECTS A COUPLE OF SUB ITEM NUMBERS THROUGH THE REST OF THAT SUBSECTION, BUT NOTHING BEYOND THAT. SO, IN THE ADDITION OF THE NEW 2522, IT STATES THAT YOU CAN, IN AN IRRIGATION STATUS OF AN ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL PARCEL WITH RIPARIAN AREAS, YOU MAY AS A PARTY GO IN THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND DESIGNATE THAT PORTION THAT IS RIPARIAN. SO, YOU CAN MAKE THAT AS A ONE-TIME DESIGNATION AND THE INTENT IS THAT IT'S CONSIDERED PERMANENTLY INACTIVE AND SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE REDESIGNATED AS IRRIGATED AG. SO THIS IS LANDS YOU WANT TO JUST PERMANENTLY EXCLUDE FROM BEING MONITORED. YOU WOULD STILL GET THE ALLOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE LANDS BECAUSE THAT'S ON A GROSS PARCEL AREA. THIS IS JUST TO TRY AND MAKE SURE IT'S NOT BEING MONITORED BY REMOTE SENSING IF YOU'RE NOT OTHERWISE USING THE METER APPROACH.

YOU'LL GO ACTUALLY MARK IT THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND THEN COMPLETE A ATTESTATION FORM WITHIN 15 DAYS. AND THE RULES ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A RIPARIAN AREA IS IT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF SEVEN ACRES. BUT THAT COULD MAKE UP MULTIPLE RIPARIAN AREAS THAT ARE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE THAT MIGHT BE WITHIN YOUR PARCEL. AND IN SOME CASES WHERE THERE'S CONTIGUOUS PARCELS, IF THAT RIPARIAN AREA CROSSES THOSE PARCELS, YOU CAN COUNT THOSE THAT TOTAL AREA AS A CONTIGUOUS RIPARIAN SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A SMALL PORTION MAYBE EVEN A HALF-ACRE THAT MOVES INTO ANOTHER PARCEL BUT IT'S THREE ACRES WITHIN THE, THE ATTACHED PARCEL WELL YOU CAN COUNT ALL

[00:35:01]

SO, IF YOU APPROVE IT TODAY IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN GO TOMORROW AND BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. WE HAVE TO GET YOUR, YOUR ACCOUNTING PLATFORM COMPANY TO MAKE THE CHANGE.

ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US? YEAH, I WANTED TO FIRST I APPRECIATE THE JOB THE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS HAVE DONE WITH RESPECT TO THIS LANGUAGE. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING TO LACEY ABOUT IT FOR OVER A YEAR BECAUSE IT AFFECTS US IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY BECAUSE WE SIT ALONG ACTUALLY THREE RIVERS. THAT BEING SAID, WE HAD A CONVERSATION, SUBSEQUENT PHONE CONVERSATION.

AND WAS NOT ABLE TO GET ANYWHERE WITH REGARD TO DESIGNATING RIPARIAN FOR MAN-MADE CANALS, EASTSIDE CANAL. I BROUGHT THAT UP LAST MEETING, BUT WE DIDN'T GET ANY RESOLUTION TO THAT. SO, I'VE LOOKED AT IT CLOSELY, AND I WANTED TO MOVE TO FLOW MONITORING OFF OF WELLS AND AWAY FROM OPENET.

BUT I CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE I ALREADY MISSED JANUARY 31ST DEADLINE. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I'M GLAD WE HAVE THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE. NOW WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND GO THROUGH ALL KINDS.

AFTER IT'S SET, WE'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH ALL KINDS OF DELINEATIONS AND FILLING OUT OF ATTESTATION FORMS. BUT MY POINT IS THAT, WELL, I'VE SAID IT. OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANKS, BOB. ANY OTHERS? YEAH. IS THERE A NEED OR IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A REPAIRING AREA INACTIVE FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WANTS TO REMOVE IT, IS THERE ANY LIMITATIONS, OR IS IT? IT'S AS SIMPLE AS CLICK OF THE BUTTON. THAT MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CURRENTLY BEING SET UP AS THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REDESIGNATE THAT. SO, IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO DO THAT, THEY'D HAVE TO COME MAKE AN APPEAL TO YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE AND STATE THEIR REASONING FOR THAT.

OTHERWISE, I WOULD JUST MARK IT AS INACTIVE FOR THE YEAR, AND IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY COME BACK UP AS ACTIVE UNTIL YOU ENACT IT AS INACTIVE EACH YEAR. SO, THE RIPARIAN IDEA WAS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DO THIS EVERY YEAR LIKE YOU MIGHT WITH INACTIVE FIELDS THAT MIGHT SHIFT AROUND, IT'S TRYING TO GIVE SOME PERMANENCE. SO, YOU CAN HANDLE IT THAT WAY.

BUT IF YOU'RE OUT MARKING IT INACTIVE, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR FARMED GROUND. I THINK THE BEST THING IS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, YOU COME MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD AND STATE YOUR REASON.

ANYONE ELSE? I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. OKAY, SEEING NONE, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE TO RECOGNIZE RIPARIAN AREAS INACTIVE IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GALLO AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR PARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY

[00:40:02]

[8. FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PHASE 1 BUDGET ]

SO, LOOKING AT THE SCREEN HERE WE HAVE THE AND WHAT'S IN THE AGENDA PACKET WE HAVE THE GSA'S ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT REVENUE RIGHT HERE AT THE TOP. REVENUE COLLECT IS COLLECTED THROUGH THE 2019 CINEMA COMPLIANCE FEE. IT'S PARTIALLY COLLECTED THROUGH THE PROPERTY TAX BILL THROUGH DIRECT INVOICES TO SELECT MEMBER AGENCIES AND DIRECT INVOICES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE GSA. THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT TO COLLECT UNDER THE 2019 FEE IS $750,000 AND THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED COLLECTION IS APPROXIMATELY $330,000 AND THAT TOGETHER WITH YOUR FUND BALANCE WHICH IS BASICALLY YOUR REMAINING DOLLARS AT THE END OF THE 2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR, THOSE TOGETHER WILL FUND THESE BUDGETED EXPENSES. THE MULTI-PURPOSE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM, MLRP GRANT, WILL REIMBURSE ALL OF THE MLRP EXPENSES SUBMITTED THROUGH THE GRANT AND SO UNDER THIS BUDGET MLRP REVENUE MATCHES THE ANTICIPATED MLRP EXPENSES. AND WE DO HAVE A IN 2025-2026 THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR WE HAD AN UNANTICIPATED REVENUE THAT WE DID NOT BUDGET FOR AND THAT'S FROM THE MISCLASSIFICATION AND OPT-IN REVENUE FROM PAYING THOSE BACK FEES.

THIS YEAR THE GSA POLICY ALLOWED OPT-IN AND RECLASSIFYING OF MISCLASSIFIED IRRIGATED LAND, WHICH RESULTED IN APPROXIMATELY $250,000 IN BACK FEES TO COME IN AS REVENUE. THE $550,000 IN REVENUE WILL BE PROPORTIONED OUT TO THE SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE AND THE PHASE 1 FEE. THE PHASE 1 PORTION WILL ONLY BE USED FOR PHASE 1 ACTIVITIES, AND THE PROPORTION IS APPROXIMATELY 20% SGMA COMPLIANCE LANDOWNER FEE 80% PHASE ONE BUT THE TOTAL AMOUNTS WILL BE FINALIZED IN JUNE IT'S NOT QUITE SO EASY AS JUST APPLYING THE PROPORTION DIRECTLY TO ALL OF THAT REVENUE SINCE THERE IS SOME SLIGHT DIFFERENCES WITH THE WATER RIGHTS FEE SOME OF THESE PARCELS PAID THEIR FEES THROUGH 2025 BUT THEY PAID THEIR 2026 FEE ON THEIR PROPERTY TAX FEE BILL SOME OF THEM PAID THEIR 2026 FEE THROUGH THIS THROUGH CHECKS THROUGH THIS IN THIS REVENUE LINE ITEM.

SO, IT'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER, BUT THAT'S ABOUT THE PROPORTION. SO, IF WE START LOOKING AT OUR OPERATING EXPENSES, WE'RE STARTING WITH LEGAL

[00:45:01]

SOME OF THESE NUMBERS ARE WHAT ACTUALLY CAME IN, AND SOME OF THEM ARE ESTIMATED AS WE'RE TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WHAT A FEW FUTURE INVOICES, TWO OR THREE INVOICES, MONTHS OF INVOICES THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED YET.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 26-27.

SO, FOR LEGAL SERVICES, WE'RE PROPOSING $200,000 FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG.

LEGAL EXPENSES ARE, WE DO EXPECT THEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN USUAL IN THIS UPCOMING YEAR DUE TO NEEDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALLOCATION POLICY, THE PHASE 2 PROPOSITION 218 PROCEEDING, AND ALLOCATION IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THE NUMBER IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BUDGETED THIS YEAR THAN WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING IN THE CURRENT YEAR. IT'S PROPOSED TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FOR THOSE REASONS. NEXT, WE HAVE TECHNICAL SERVICES. SO, ARE UNDER PROP 218 FEE MODEL MAINTENANCE. THIS IS A CONTRACT YOU HAVE WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN TO UPDATE THE FEE MODEL EACH YEAR WITH THE MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTY ASSESSORS UPDATED RULE, AND THIS IS IN PREPARATION FOR DETERMINING THE FEES PER PARCEL. THE FEE MODEL CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED THROUGH 2029. AND GENERALLY, THAT COMES IN AT ABOUT $5,000.

HYDROLOGY AND MODELING UPDATE, WE BUDGET HERE TO POTENTIALLY HAVE DOLLARS IF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA WANTS TO REQUEST WOODARD AND CURRAN TO DO SOME POTENTIAL MODEL RUNS OF THE WATER, THE MERCED WATER RESOURCES MODEL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE $5,000 ARE. WE DID NOT SPEND ANY OF THOSE DOLLARS IN THIS CURRENT YEAR. THE PHASE TWO FEE PROCEEDING WAS BUDGETED THIS YEAR AND SPENT THIS YEAR.

IT'S PROPOSED TO BE ZEROED OUT FOR NEXT YEAR BECAUSE ALL OF THE PHASE TWO FEE PROCEEDINGS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026. SO, THEY'RE NOT BUDGETED FOR 26-27. THE PUBLIC HEARING TAKES PLACE IN JUNE, WHICH IS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE 1 AND 2 STUDIES AND ANALYSIS. THIS IS TECHNICAL AND POLICY SUPPORT FUNDING THAT'S BUDGETED FOR PHASES 1 AND 2 OF THE TWO-PHASE GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH.

THAT'S A RESOLUTION THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THIS INCLUDES POLICY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR ZANJERO AND EKI. AND THE AMOUNT HERE, THE $150,000, REFLECTS THE REMAINING AMOUNTS ON THE ZANJERO AND EKI CONTRACTS.

LOOKING AT THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, THESE ARE MAINLY YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. SO, YOU HAVE YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BUDGETED FOR THE COUNTY SUPPORT CONTRACT, THE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT AT $75,000. AS PER THE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WHEN THE COUNTY STAFFING EXPENSES GO OVER $75,000. THE REMAINING EXPENSES COME FROM THE PHASE ONE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FUNDING.

AND SO, THIS YEAR WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT APPROXIMATELY 25,000 TO COME FROM THE PHASE ONE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FUNDING.

AND THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THE COUNTY SUPPORT SERVICES WILL PULL FROM THAT PHASE ONE FUNDING.

WE'VE HAD THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT FOR A COUPLE YEARS, BUT WE'VE NEVER EXPENDED BASICALLY ALL OF THE BACK APPROVED DOLLARS UNDER THE COUNTY CONTRACT UNTIL THIS YEAR. THE AUDIT COMES IN AT $10,000 EACH YEAR AND WE BUDGET $10,000. OFFICE EXPENSES, SO THIS INCLUDES YOUR GENERAL OFFICE EXPENSES INCLUDING POSTAGE AND IT SUPPORT, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE.

PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION, $2,000 BUDGETED FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING THE SGMA COMPLIANCE FEE ON THE MERCED AND MARIPOSA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILLS. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE IS THE $2,000 BUDGETED FOR OUR ACWA GPIA INSURANCE AND THAT IS IN COORDINATION WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP. WE'RE BUDGETING $7,000 FOR THE GSA'S AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP WITH ACWA AND THIS MEMBERSHIP ALLOWS THE GSA TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LIABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM. THE AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP DUES ARE BASED ON REVENUE. SO AS LONG AS WE'RE COLLECTING HIGHER REVENUE, WE'RE PAYING THE HIGHER AMOUNT OF DUES. SO, YOU'VE SEEN WITH OUR AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP THE DUES KIND OF JUMP A LITTLE BIT IN THIS LAST YEAR AND THAT WAS DUE TO REVENUE. WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE

[00:50:01]

AND THE ACTUAL COST REALLY ONLY CONSISTS OF DOMAIN AND HOSTING EXPENSES AT THIS TIME. SO, THIS IS YOUR MERCEDESSUBBASINGSA.ORG AND MERCEDESSUBBASINGSA.COM AND THEN THE HOSTING OF THAT.

LEGAL NOTICES IS $1,000 BUDGETED FOR LEGAL NOTICES AND CEQA RECORDING EXPENSES. WE HAVE $3,000 IN PUBLIC OUTREACH. WE SPENT A LITTLE BIT THAT THIS YEAR PAYING FOR, SAY, ROOM RESERVATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKSHOPS. GRANT WRITING, WE'VE INCREASED THE AMOUNT BUDGETED FOR GRANT WRITING IN THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.

PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS $25,000. WE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY GRANT APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR. NEXT YEAR, THIS UPCOMING YEAR, WE HAVE IT BUDGETED AT $50,000, AND THAT'S BECAUSE PROPOSITION 4, THE WATER BOND, WILL HAVE FUNDING FOR SGMA IMPLEMENTATION AND MLRP. WHICH I ANTICIPATE THE MSGSA WILL NEED TO SPEND SOME DOLLARS PUTTING GRANT APPLICATIONS TOGETHER FOR THAT GRANT FUNDING. AND THEN WE HAVE A CONTINGENCY RESERVE AT $4,000. YOU DON'T SEE THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE UNDER YOUR APPROVED BUDGET IN 2025-2026 BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY USED IT. WE MODIFIED THIS BUDGET MID-YEAR BECAUSE IN 25-26 WE HAD 4,000 IN CONTINGENCY AND WE WERE SHORT IN OUR MEMBERSHIP LINE ITEM. WE ONLY HAD 3,000 IN MEMBERSHIP SO WE BUMPED THAT 04,000 UP TO MEMBERSHIP IN ORDER TO PAY FOR YOUR ACWA MEMBERSHIP. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT NOW BUT YOU DID SEE IT THEN AND WE'RE JUST CONTINUING TO HAVE THAT 4,000 IN CONTINGENCY. IT WAS HELPFUL THIS YEAR. NEXT ARE YOUR GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN EXPENSES. THESE ARE THE BASIN-WIDE EXPENSES THAT ARE SHARED AMONG THE THREE GSAS ACCORDING TO THE COORDINATION AGREEMENT. THE MSGSA'S PORTION OF THE COORDINATION EXPENSES IS 58%. SO, FOR GSP DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE BUDGETING $50,000 FOR WOODARD AND CURRAN EXPENSES SUCH AS ANALYZING ANY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT COME OUT, THE GUIDANCE THAT IT'S IS EXPECTED TO BE RELEASED ON INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS.

THIS INCLUDES SUPPORT FOR THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ON-CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT. THE $38,000 IN ESTIMATED EXPENSES, THAT IS AN INVOICE THAT WE JUST RECEIVED FROM MIUGSA, WHO HOLDS THE CONTRACT WITH WOODARD & CURRAN FOR THESE SHARED BASIN-WIDE EXPENSES, AND THAT INVOICE ONLY GOES THROUGH MARCH. SO I DO EXPECT THERE'S PROBABLY THREE MORE MONTHS OF ESTIMATED OF ACTUAL EXPENSES THAT ARE GOING TO COME OUT OF THAT. SO, WE SPENT 38,000 THROUGH MARCH.

WE'RE BUDGETING FOR 50,000.

THE GSP ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR UPDATE, WE BUDGETED 50,000 FOR THE WATER YEAR 2026 ANNUAL REPORT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO EARLY NEXT YEAR. AND THEN WE'RE SETTING ASIDE $100,000 FOR THE NEXT FIVE-YEAR UPDATE.

AND WE'RE DOING THIS, THIS WILL BE THE SECOND YEAR THAT WE'VE SET ASIDE $100,000, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE BIG COLLECTIONS THAT THE GSA HAD TO DO PREVIOUSLY.

SO, THE GSP ESTIMATE FOR THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE WAS $800,000. THAT PUTS THE MERCED SUB-BASIN GSA'S COST AT AROUND $400,000. AND SO INSTEAD OF HAVING SOME REALLY HIGH COLLECTIONS IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE, WE'RE COLLECTING $100,000 IN ADVANCE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. GSP IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELING, WE HAVE $50,000 BUDGETED FOR THE BASIN-WIDE MODELING COSTS. THEY'RE COMING IN LOWER THAN EXPECTED. WE HAVE $7,000 IN MODELING COSTS THIS YEAR, BUT WE'VE BEEN BUDGETING $50,000 FOR THAT. SO, THE FUND BALANCE AS OF JUNE 30TH, YOU'VE GOT KIND OF TWO NUMBERS OF FUND BALANCE THERE. ONE IS $989,000 AND ONE IS $438,000.

THAT $989,000 INCLUDES THE REVENUE FROM THE OPT-IN AND THE MISCLASSIFIED, BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PROPORTION OF THE OPT-IN AND MISCLASSIFIED THAT WERE COLLECTED THAT WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE PHASE 2 BACK FEES WILL GO TO THE PHASE 2 ACTIVITIES. AND SO, I JUST SUBTRACTED ALL THAT OUT TO GIVE YOU A BALLPARK FUND BALANCE FIGURE OF $438,000. SO THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET, AND UNLESS THERE ARE SOME BURNING QUESTIONS, I CAN ROLL RIGHT

[00:55:01]

QUESTIONS? YEAH. LACEY, WE ARE PAYING, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS, $2,000 FOR GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE. WHAT DO WE GET FOR THAT? WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S YOUR DNO TYPE INSURANCE? YES, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. WE HAD TO HAVE INSURANCE IN ORDER TO RENT SOME OF THESE ROOMS WHEN WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS.

THEY WANT TO SEE A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE, AND SO THAT GIVES US INSURANCE FOR THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL.

WE DON'T HAVE, LIKE, AUTO INSURANCE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE VEHICLES. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INSURANCE THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYEES BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES. I GUESS I ONLY ASKED THIS BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING $7,000 AT ACWA SO WE CAN GET A $2,000 INSURANCE POLICY. YES, WE ARE. IS THERE A WE DID SO WHEN WE GOT THAT INSURANCE TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, WE GOT QUOTES FROM OTHER POTENTIAL INSURERS THAT WERE MUCH HIGHER. WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AGAIN. I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME AROUND. SO, IT'S ABOUT $9,000. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE BALLPARK OF WHAT WE WERE SEEING BEFORE.

BUT I CAN LOOK AROUND THAT AGAIN IF YOU WOULD LIKE, IF YOU THINK MAYBE TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THERE ARE MORE INSURANCE AGENCIES WHO ARE WILLING TO INSURE GSAS THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WE RAN INTO WHEN WE GOT THE ACWA INSURANCE WAS THAT THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF ENTITIES THAT WERE INSURING GSAS AT THE TIME EXCEPT FOR ACWA AND ANYBODY ELSE WAS REALLY HIGH BUT TIMES HAVE TIMES HAVE CHANGED. LACEY, IT'LL BE HELPFUL WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS OUR MEMBERSHIP TO ACWA WHEN WE FIRST STARTED. OH, IT WAS LIKE 02,500. SO, SEE IT WAS YOU KNOW, WAS BASICALLY $4,500 VERSUS $9,500. NOW BECAUSE OF THE MLRP DOLLARS, WE'VE JUMPED INTO A MORE EXPENSIVE BRACKET.

SO, IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE INSURANCE AGAIN. OKAY, GOOD QUESTION. OR AFTER THE MLRP DOLLARS ARE EXPIRED AFTER NEXT YEAR. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH. IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR BILLS TO ME, AGUSA, THERE WERE 78,600. I DIDN'T SEE A BREAKDOWN OF THAT INVOICE.

BUT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE GSP, CORRECT? CORRECT. WHAT IS THE 78,000? SO, IT'S RIGHT HERE IN THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN EXPENSES. 38,000 PLUS 3341 PLUS 6963 THAT ALL ADDS UP TO THE 78,601 AND AS I MENTIONED WE SET ASIDE $100,000 WE SET ASIDE TO FUND THE FIVE-YEAR THE PERIODIC REVIEW THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE SO I'M MARKING THAT $100,000 AS, AS ACTUAL SPENT BECAUSE WE SET IT ASIDE AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO FUND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET BECAUSE WE WANT TO HANG ON TO IT TO FUND THE PERIODIC REVIEW IN 2028. DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? I JUST, I DIDN'T FOLLOW YOUR MATH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO. SO LET ME HELP. SO, THE $178,000 IS THE MIUGSA BILL, LESS $100,000, WHICH IS IN AN ACCOUNT TO PAY FOR THE ANNUAL REPORT IN FIVE YEARS. WE'RE COLLECTING MONEY TO PAY IT WHEN IT'S DUE VERSUS COLLECTING $500,000 IN ONE YEAR. SO, GOOD. YEAH.

THANK YOU. I JUST, OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE A NUMBERS GUY. I GET IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. SO, REAL QUICK, PHASE 1.

SO, THE PHASE ONE FEE SUNSET THIS YEAR. SO, THERE IS NO COLLECTION. THERE'S NO REVENUE IN THE PHASE ONE FEE. ANY EXPENDITURE OF THE PHASE ONE FUNDING IN THE PHASE ONE EXPENSES OR THE ACTIVITIES WILL COME FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF REVENUE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED. SO, YOU DO SEE EXPENDITURES HERE AND THAT IS ALL REVENUE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED UNDER PHASE ONE.

SO, IN 2026, 2027, THE LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM.

$1,437,480 IS THE AMOUNT THAT WILL BE PAID IN NOVEMBER OF 2026 TO THE LRP AGREEMENTS.

THREE LRP AGREEMENTS ENDED IN NOVEMBER OF 2025. SO, YOU SEE THAT THIS AMOUNT IS LESS THAN LAST YEAR BECAUSE NOW LRP AGREEMENTS ARE STARTING TO EXPIRE AND GO AWAY. WE'RE

[01:00:03]

IT'S JUST A PORTION OF THAT.

DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION WERE PROPOSING EXPENDITURES OF APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION FUND THIS YEAR, WE HAVE $800,000 SET ASIDE FOR DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION. UNDER THE DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED IN JANUARY, THIS AMOUNT COULD FUND 15 WELL MITIGATIONS AT THE CAP OF $30,000.

FOR PARCEL-BASED WATER BUDGETS, THIS AMOUNT INCLUDES $48,000 FOR THE ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND $50,000 IN CUSTOMIZATION OF THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM FOR MSGSA POLICIES. AND THEN THE WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION IS CURRENTLY BEING MODIFIED, AND SO THIS IS JUST AN ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF WHAT COULD BE SPENT TO MODIFY THE WATER RIGHTS FOR THE CREEKS. AND THEN YOU DO SEE YOUR FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS THERE. AND IS ON TRACK TO PAY OUT WHAT WAS COLLECTED IN OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS OF THE PHASE 1 BUDGET. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THOSE ARE THE TWO PROPOSED BUDGETS THAT I HAVE FOR YOU. YOU WILL SEE THESE IN JUNE. YOU WILL NOT SEE ANYTHING ABOUT A PHASE 2 BUDGET BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT ADOPTED, YOU AS A BOARD HAVE NOT ADOPTED THE PHASE 2 FEE.

YOU WON'T DO THAT UNTIL JUNE.

AND SO, WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE THERE. ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. LACEY, DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF WHAT THESE COSTS PER ACRE ON THESE BUDGETS? HAVE YOU BROKEN DOWN HOW MUCH THE FEE IS? I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. I DID NOT. I KNEW THAT QUESTION WAS GOING TO COME. SORRY. AND I DIDN'T DO THAT. AND LAST YEAR, OUR IRRIGATED ACRES WERE ABOUT 170,000 IRRIGATED ACRES.

BUT WE DID HAVE SOME OF THE OPT-INS, WE HAD THE RECLASSIFICATIONS, THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THAT NUMBER. AND SO, I DON'T HAVE THE CURRENT NUMBER FOR YOU. BUT LET ME GO UP. I KNOW IT JUST LOOKS SCARY SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GET THE MLRP THING IN THE BUDGET. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING FOR IT, BUT I DON'T. NO, YOU'RE NOT.

YEAH, YOU'RE NOT. SO, THE COLLECTION IS $330,000. LESS THAN $2 AN ACRE. YEAH, OKAY.

YEAH, THAT'S FOR IRRIGATING.

YEAH. OKAY. I'LL LET YOU DO THE MATH. YEAH, THANKS. CLOSE ENOUGH. I WENT TO PLAINSBURG, SO I DON'T KNOW. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. OKAY. AND I'LL HAVE THE MORE PRECISE RATES FOR YOU IN JUNE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO, THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM, RIGHT, ON THIS? RIGHT. YEP, NOT UNTIL NEXT MONTH. SO, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE, BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026. LACEY? SO, THERE'S TWO ITEMS HERE. YOU HAVE DONE THESE, YOU'VE SEEN THESE APPEALS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. AND SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD APPROVED A POLICY IN THE ALLOCATION POLICY THAT ALLOWS GROWERS TO SUBMIT AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE REGISTRATION AND ALTERNATE RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT FORM THAT HAD A DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 15TH, 2025. NOT EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF THE DECEMBER 15TH 2025 DEADLINE AND SO AS WE GO ALONG WE'RE GETTING A FEW OF THESE APPEALS COMING IN ASKING THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THE CREDIT OF RECHARGE OR DIRECT USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE WATER THAT THEY COMPLETED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST BUT THEY DID NOT MAKE THE DEADLINE AND SO THE FIRST ITEM IS FOR GOMES FARM THEY DID RECHARGE USING FLOOD WATER PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, THEY DID IT IN 2023 AND THEY WOULD LIKE RECOGNITION OF THAT CREDIT. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HELPFUL, BUT I'LL ALSO SAY YOUR SECOND APPEAL AS WELL IS ALSO FOR A RECHARGE USING FLOODWATER IN 2023 THAT DID NOT SUBMIT THE FORM IN TIME, BUT THEY DID SUBMIT IT TO THE STATE IN TIME. IF YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THESE,

[01:05:03]

IF YOU CHOOSE TO DENY THESE, WE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE AT A FUTURE MEETING SINCE THESE ARE APPEALS TO THE BOARD. SO, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS IS AN ACTION TO APPROVE THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL? RIGHT. YOU KNOW, LEGALLY, THE STAFF HAD TO DENY THEM BECAUSE THEY MISSED THE DEADLINE. YEAH, SO WE'RE REVERSING THE STAFF DECISION.

YEP. APPROVE THE STACK. OKAY.

IT JUST READS LIKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO REVERSE THEIR OWN DENIAL.

IT IS. IS IT? IT IS. OKAY.

YES. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I WENT TO PLAINSBURG ONCE AGAIN. YEAH. OKAY. NO EGO WITH LACEY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. I HAVE A, IT RELATES TO THIS. THOSE OF US THAT HAVE SUBMITTED OUR ALTERNATE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.

WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET CONFIRMATION THAT THAT WAS RECEIVED. MY CONCERN IS, WELL, YOU MAY THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT INFORMATION THERE, BUT MAYBE IT WASN'T. MAYBE IT DIDN'T GET ACCEPTED. I DON'T REALLY KNOW. ARE THOSE ALL LISTED ON THE PLATFORM YET? SO, THEY WERE WORKING ON PUTTING THEM INTO THE PLATFORM, WE'RE WORKING ON DOING A BIG BATCH BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THEM. NONE OF THEM WERE, I'M TRYING TO THINK, NONE OF THEM WERE NOT ACCEPTED.

THERE ARE A HANDFUL THAT WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THEM ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION, BUT THOSE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THOSE AND THE REST OF THEM WERE ALL ACCEPTED AND SHOULD SHOW UP IN THE PLATFORM SHORTLY.

BUT IF PEOPLE SENT ONE IN, THEY DIDN'T GET CONFIRMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED IT? THAT IT WAS EVEN RECEIVED? YEAH. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, BOB? WELL, BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE PLATFORM.

RIGHT. IT'S NOT ON THE PLATFORM YET, BUT IT WILL BE ON THE PLATFORM BEFORE TOO LONG. BUT IT'S ALSO NOT THE MOST URGENT NEED FOR THE PLATFORM BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE CREDIT UNTIL.

I GET THAT. YEAH. IT GOES TO A BIGGER PROBLEM CONCERN I'LL MENTION THAT THE DECISION TO STAY WITH OPEN ET OR GO TO ALTERNATE METHODS IS BASED UPON WHAT THAT GAP PLATFORM SAYS AND THE GAP PLATFORM HAS BEEN LAGGING WITH INFORMATION AND AS THE PARTY MANAGERS IS TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION, YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION. AND SO, I FIND IT HAS BEEN FRUSTRATING.

MAYBE 2027 OR 2028, IT'LL BE BETTER. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE MISS DEADLINES TO FILE CERTAIN THINGS, MAINLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH NOT JUST YOU KNOW, THE DECISION BETWEEN MOVING FROM OPENET TO FLOW METER MEASURING, BUT IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH THE STATUS OF INACTIVE PARCELS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, OR WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, REPAIRING OR NOT, BECAUSE AS YOU LOOK AT THE WAY IT EXISTED IN 2025, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON, WE'VE BEEN IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT METHOD OF CONSUMPTIVE USE WE WANT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

AND SO, WHILE I APPRECIATE THE DIFFICULT JOB THE STAFF HAS IN DOING ALL THIS, IT'S, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LATITUDE WITH REGARD TO THESE FIXED DATES IN OUR POLICY ABOUT LETTING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE TO DO.

WE NOT ONLY HAVE TO LET YOU KNOW, BUT WE HAVE TO LET GAP KNOW, AND WE'VE GOT TO FILE THIS REPORT OR THIS ATTESTATION AND THAT ATTESTATION. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, ON OUR END, IT'S

[01:10:04]

OH, YEAH. NO, I MEAN, I 100% APPRECIATE WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE DECISIONS THAT THIS BOARD HAS MADE, WE HAVE ALWAYS ERRED ON THE SIDE OF THE GROWER, RIGHT? WE'VE ALWAYS GIVEN DEFERENCE TO WHERE WE FALL SHORT, AND WE'RE NOT PENALIZING OUR GROWERS IS HOW I SEE OUR DECISIONS BEING MADE. SO, YOU'RE NOT WRONG, BUT AND I CAN'T PREDICT A VOTE IN THE FUTURE. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT THIS BOARD HAS WORKED WITH THE GROWERS TO BE FAIR AND HONEST, I BELIEVE. SO, I KNOW THAT DIDN'T HELP YOU. THEN IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL PARTY TO FILE A REQUEST FOR A PROTEST. SO, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER WHOLE STEP TO GET THIS RESOLVED. YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGNATION OF INACTIVE, WE'RE ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION JANUARY 31ST WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT OUR ALTERNATE SOURCE IS GOING TO BE THERE OR NOT. WE DON'T KNOW OTHER MANAGEMENT, FARMING MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, YEAH, I WANT TO FARM OR I DON'T WANT TO FARM. WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BY JANUARY 31ST.

SO, WE'RE ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. SO, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT MY ANSWER WOULD BE WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT SOME KIND OF LATITUDE ALLOWED HERE FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTIES TO GET ACCUSTOMED TO ALL THE THINGS THEY'VE GOT TO DO. FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT, BUT THIS THIS IS ALL FOR PRIOR YEARS USE ANYHOW RIGHT? NOT NEW.

YEAH, THIS IS NOT GOING, YEAH WELL BOB, I'M JUST SAYING WE, WE HAD TO MAKE JANUARY 31ST DECISION FOR 2026 BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT WAS INCOMPLETE IN, IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM, OH.

MR. KELLEY JUST GRINDING AN AXE AND I LIKE THAT I APPRECIATE IT, YEAH BUT I DO I DO AGREE WITH DAVE, AND YOUR POINT AS WELL, THE INACTIVE FIELDS, MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE DATE, RIGHT? THE JANUARY 3RD IS MAYBE TOO EARLY EVERY YEAR, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. I CONCUR WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN I'M PLANTING IN A CERTAIN FIELD. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING CORN SILAGE OR TOMATOES OR SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT, BY THAT POINT. BUT KEEP GOING ON THAT X, BOB. I LIKE IT. I DON'T REALLY LIKE ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS SOMEWHAT ON THE AGENDA TO GET. IT RESOLVED FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROWERS.

NOW, I FULLY APPRECIATE THE JOB THAT LACEY AND HER STAFF HAS TO START TO TRACK ALL OF THE THINGS THEY'VE GOT TO TRACK. SO, YOU'VE GOT A BIG JOB, TOO. BUT THE JOB THAT WE HAVE IS FAR BIGGER THAN WE RECOGNIZE ANTICIPATED GOING INTO 2026. SORT OF LIKE WE'RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT WE'RE HERE TO HELP. RIGHT SO ALL RIGHT BUT WE SHOULD OH. MAYBE WE OUGHT TO SEND IT TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND YEAH. THERE MUST BE A LOT MORE SITUATIONS RIGHT BECAUSE I MEAN I THOUGHT IT SORT OF CAME ABOUT FOR SOME PEOPLE AT THE WELL THE EAST SIDE THEY BOUGHT THAT 10-YEAR WATER. OKAY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET CREDITS FOR EVERYTHING UP UNTIL THE NEW JANUARY 2026, AND THEN IT GOES AWAY. YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY MORE CREDITS ON THAT WATER. RIGHT. IT'S DONE. IT'S ONE AND DONE, RIGHT? BUT NOT EVERY SITUATION IS LIKE THAT THEN. NO, EVERY SITUATION IS THE DEADLINE. THEY JUST MISSED THE DEADLINE. THESE TWO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THEY JUST MISSED THE DEADLINE TO REPORT IT. SO, I MEAN, WE'VE TAKEN THESE TWO ITEMS AND KIND OF HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A FURTHER OUT DISCUSSION. I GUESS I WAS GETTING CONFUSED WITH JANUARY 31ST NEXT YEAR AGAIN, BUT ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE

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

OR DO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THEM TOGETHER? EITHER WAY.

GOMES AND JT. AND SEPARATELY.

OKAY. ARE WE AT A POINT WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO REVERSE THE STAFF'S DECISION.

SECOND.

FOR WATER ACCOUNT NUMBER 16443? YEAH, FOR ITEM 9. WE'RE ON ITEM 9. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GALLO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY

[01:15:01]

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

SEEING NONE, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE THE SAME MOTION ON THIS APPEAL ALSO. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY

[11. STAFF REPORT ]

LACEY? TWO QUICK ITEMS FOR YOU. ONE IS A SUBSIDENCE MITIGATION MEETING WITH DWR.

SO LAST FALL, DWR RELEASED THEIR SUBSIDENCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND THEY HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN ASKING TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SUBSIDENCE BMP.

SO, STAFF FROM MSGSA, MIUGSA, AND TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT, ALONG WITH OUR BASIN-WIDE CONSULTANTS AT WOODARD AND CURRAN, ARE GOING TO MEET WITH DWR ON FRIDAY TOMORROW TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBSIDENCE BMP AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT THE MERCED GSP.

THE SECOND ITEM I WANT TO MENTION TO YOU IS ON PROPOSITION 4 GRANTS. SO DWR HELD A WORKSHOP LAST MONTH REGARDING THE WATER BOND, PROPOSITION 4'S SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM, AND THE WATERSHED RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM. DWR IS WORKING ON GUIDELINES FOR THESE PROGRAMS WHICH ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE OUT IN FALL OF 2026 WITH APPLICATIONS BEING ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS IN 2027 AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO START THINKING ABOUT PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE AND PUT IN APPLICATIONS TO APPLY FOR THE FUNDING UNDER THESE PROGRAMS AND AS WITH OTHER SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS THIS WILL BE ONE APPLICATION PER BASIN SO WE WILL COORDINATE WITH THE OTHER GSAS IN THE MERCED BASIN ON THESE. PROP 4 APPROVES. $10 BILLION IN BONDS, THE WATERSHED RESILIENCE PROGRAM, WHICH FOCUSES ON CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED RESILIENCE, WILL HAVE $125 MILLION IN LOCAL ASSISTANCE. AND THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, WHICH WILL SUPPORT SGMA IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS AND PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT CONJUNCTIVE USE AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE, WILL HAVE $320 MILLION IN LOCAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.

ANY QUESTIONS, FOR LACEY? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 12, BOARD REPORTS. GEORGE? NO. BOB? NO. BOB? NO. ALL

[13. FUTURE MEETINGS ]

HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS. AND WITH THAT, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.