[00:00:03] GOOD AFTERNOON. I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE JULY 9TH MEETING OF THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. [1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL] WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? BOARD MEMBER PARK. HERE. BOARD MEMBER GIAMPAOLI. HERE. BOARD MEMBER KELLEY. HERE. CHAIRMAN PAREIRA. PRESENT AND BOARD MEMBER GALLO AND VICE CHAIRMAN MARCHINI DID EXCUSE THEMSELVES. AND. MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. BOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE? SURE. READY? SALUTE ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE TO ITEM 3, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER OF INTEREST WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, INCLUDING ITEMS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA. TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. I WILL MOVE TO ITEM 4 WHICH IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS A AND B. [4. CONSENT CALENDAR ] WERE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? I HAD A QUESTION. I THINK IT WOULD RELATE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHO ELSE WAS HERE WAS HELPING YOU WITH VOTING? WITH. ADRIEL RAMIREZ WAS SITTING HERE OKAY. I'LL WE'LL MAKE SURE TO ADD THAT IN THAT HE WAS HERE WITH ZANJERO. YEAH. GREG AND ADRIEL BOTH HERE. OKAY, WE'LL ADD THAT IN. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PAYMENTS OF INVOICES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR A, B. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR KELLEY AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. I WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5 WHICH IS OUR MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM. [5. MULTIBENEFIT LAND REPURPOSING PROGRAM] WE HAVE KARINA MUDD WITH VALLEY ECHO TO PRESENT. HELLO KARINA, ARE YOU THERE? I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN, OH, I CAN SEE YOU TOO. [LAUGHTER]. NICE TO SEE YOU. WE DON'T HAVE SLIDES TODAY. I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF VERBAL UPDATE ON THE PROGRAM, AND I THINK NEXT MONTH WILL PROVIDE SOME VISUALS AND SOME SLIDES ALONG WITH OUR UPDATE. I'LL JUST START OUT BY SAYING AT A PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING, YOU ALL TOOK ACTION TO APPROVE A TIMELINE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THIS PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE MERCED MLRP. THROUGH MARCH OF 2028, A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION. DOC THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM, SAID AT THE TIME THAT THAT EXTENSION WAS AVAILABLE FOR EACH SUBBASIN, AND WE JUST HAD TO PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT REQUEST. SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD SOME NEW INFORMATION COME THROUGH ESSENTIALLY THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT EXTENSION FOR MLRP ACROSS THE BOARD WON'T ACTUALLY BE CONFIRMED UNTIL THIS SEPTEMBER. SO ALL PROJECT CONTRACTS ARE CURRENTLY SLATED TO END WORK IN MARCH OF 2027. SO AND THAT IS THE CURRENT GRANT TERM. WE ARE MOVING FORWARD UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION UNLESS WE RECEIVE ADDITIONAL UPDATES. BUT JUST AS AN UPDATE TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE YOU DID APPROVE THAT TIMELINE EXTENSION REQUEST, WE WON'T HAVE A RESPONSE ON THAT FOR ANOTHER FEW MONTHS. I'LL MOVE FORWARD HERE, BUT PLEASE STOP ME IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS AND I'LL ALSO PAUSE AT THE END. SO IN TERMS OF THE PROJECTS, WE HAVE NOW FIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONTRACT AND WE HAVE SET UP KICKOFF MEETINGS WITH ALL OF THOSE PROJECT LEADS AND MOVING FORWARD REVIEWING SUBCONTRACTORS AND JUST MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR PLANNING ACTIVITIES. IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS ARE ALSO MOVING FORWARD. AND WE'RE NOW WORKING WITH THOSE PROJECT LEADS IN SOME CASES TO JUST REVISIT THEIR TIMELINES AS NEEDED, GIVEN THIS NEW INFORMATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. BUT NO MAJOR UPDATES THERE FOR THE MOMENT. AND I THINK WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN NEXT MONTH'S UPDATE. QUICK UPDATE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES. THE SEEDS TEAM HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK THIS SUMMER ON TWO SUMMER PROGRAMS. THEY'VE DEVELOPED CURRICULUM, ONE ON GROUNDWATER AND ONE MORE FOCUSED ON HABITAT RESTORATION AND THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. [00:05:05] AND SO THEY'VE CREATED THAT CURRICULUM AND THEN IMPLEMENTED IT IN A SUMMER PROGRAM IN WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AS WELL AS EL NIDO ELEMENTARY. THEY REACHED OVER 200 STUDENTS, AND IT WAS A SERIES. IT WAS A COUPLE OF WEEKS IN JUNE THAT THESE TWO SUMMER PROGRAMS HAPPENED. AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL SHOW SOME PHOTOS OF THIS AND SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL UPDATES. THE OTHER OUTREACH RELATED UPGRADE. UPDATE IS THAT WE HAVE OUR NEXT STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THE END OF AUGUST, AUGUST 27TH. INVITATIONS HAVEN'T GONE OUT YET FOR THAT, BUT WE WILL. FOLKS WILL SEE THOSE COME THROUGH IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. I'M ALMOST DONE HERE. PLANNING. WE ARE WORKING ON THIS MULTI-BENEFIT AGRICULTURAL LAND REPURPOSING PLAN, WHICH IS THE LONG-TERM PLAN REQUIRED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, EKI IS LEADING THAT EFFORT. AND A FAIR AMOUNT OF THAT THAT CORE PLAN DRAFT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. THEY'RE SORT OF FOCUSING ON PRIORITY SECTIONS AND KIND OF GOING THROUGH CYCLES OF THOSE PRIORITIES. SO SOME GOOD PROGRESS HAVE BEEN MADE THERE. AND THAT, THAT REPORT, THAT PLAN WILL COME TO THE BOARD IN ANOTHER FEW MONTHS. SO THAT CONTINUES. AND THEN FINALLY WE ARE DEVELOPING, WE HAVE A NATIVE SEED GROW OUT AT THE UC MERCED SMART FARM. AND SO THE VALLEY ECO TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE FOLKS AT THE SMART FARM AND HAVE HARVESTED A COUPLE OF THE FIRST SPECIES THAT WE'RE READY TO HARVEST. AND SO WE WON'T HARVEST ALL THE SPECIES THIS YEAR, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SEED HARVESTED SO FAR. AND SO THAT'S AN EXCITING STEP IN THAT PROCESS. I'LL PAUSE THERE. HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. BUT THAT'S ALL FOR MY UPDATES. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. ALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WELL THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 6, WHICH IS THE WATER YEAR 2026 [6. WATER YEAR 2026 EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION UPDATE] EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION UPDATE. WE HAVE GREG YOUNG FROM ZANJERO. HOWDY, GREG. GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S NOT ON YET CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE WE GO. SEE? IT'S ON. I JUST GOTTA GET SUPER CLOSE. [LAUGHTER]. YEAH. IT'S ON. YEAH. GOTTA USE YOUR BIG BOY VOICE. YEAH. [LAUGHTER]. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY, DIRECTOR, CHAIR. SO THANK YOU FOR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AN ADJUSTMENT FOR EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION VALUES FOR PURPOSES OF MONITORING THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALLOCATION POLICY. I WANT TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THIS ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN TO CONVERSATION RELATES TO WHEN YOU ARE USING REMOTE SENSING FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE USE ON A FIELD OR PARCEL. SO ANY AMA THAT'S ENTIRELY OR PARTIALLY PLANNING TO USE REMOTE SENSING TO DO THE MONITORING. EFFECTIVE PRECIP IS IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE USING METERING OR AS REGISTERED ON METERING, THIS EFFECTIVE PRECIP NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT AGAIN. AND EACH YEAR THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE TO GO TO METERS IF PEOPLE WANT TO OVER TIME. WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO SHIFT. IN APRIL YOU ADOPTED A VALUE OF 10 INCHES OF ELIGIBLE RAIN OR OF THE EFFECTIVE PRECIP ELIGIBLE INCHES, AS WE CALL IT, BASED ON THE OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH VALUES THAT YOU SEE OR SORRY, AT THE MERCED AIRPORT. IT'S A RAIN GAUGE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS. IT'S USED IN A VARIETY OF PURPOSES. IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE, EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND IN THAT CALCULATION, THAT OCTOBER TO MARCH WAS 10.03IN. AND WE HAVE FORMULAS THAT SAY ANYTHING ABOVE A CERTAIN NUMBER, YOU GET X AND THERE'S A CALCULATION. SO THE CALCULATION TURNED OUT TO BE 9.52. I THINK IT WAS IT WAS JUST OVER 9.5IN. AND OUR RULE ALSO UNDER 2.5.3.2. SAYS ROUND TO THE NEAREST INCH. SO WE WENT TO 10 INCHES. SO THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS AWARDED. WE WERE BLESSED IN APRIL AND MAY TO GET ANOTHER 1.7IN RECORDED AT MERCED AIRPORT. AND SO THE SECTION 2.5.3.3. ALLOWS YOU AT YOUR DISCRETION TO ADD ADDITIONAL RAIN OF ADDITIONAL ELIGIBLE INCHES TO THAT ORIGINAL DETERMINATION. SO IF WE LOOKED AT THE TOTAL THAT FELL, WE WOULD GET 11.75IN ALL THE WAY THROUGH FROM OCTOBER THROUGH MAY. BASED ON THE RULE, WHAT WE SAID IN APRIL, WE ROUNDED UP TO 10 INCHES. THIS WOULD ADD UP TO 1.7, WHICH QUALIFIES IT TO BE ABOVE AND ADD ADDITIONAL INCH OF RAIN. [00:10:04] SO THE DETERMINATION AND SUGGESTION IS TO ADD ONE MORE INCH, COMING UP TO A TOTAL OF 11IN OUT OF THE TOTAL. THAT ACTUALLY FELL OF 11.75 IN THIS THAT WAS RECORDED AT THE GAUGE. SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH AWARDING EVERYTHING THAT STILL FELL TO ALL OF THE ELIGIBLE ACRES THAT ARE PARTICIPATING AND ARE USING REMOTE SENSING TO DO THEIR MONITORING. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ALL RIGHT. NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, GREG. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. BOARD MEMBERS. MY CONCERN REGARDING THE RAINFALL AMOUNT BEING CREDITED TO GROWER WATER ACCOUNT SPECIFIC IS FOR SPECIFICALLY APRIL AND MAY. LACEY AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT AND I PROVIDED OUR DATA FROM OUR DAVIS WEATHER STATION THAT'S LOCATED ON OAKDALE IN 59 IN ZONE 2. BASED ON THAT DATA AS GREG WAS SAYING, THE MERCED CDEC STATION REPORTED 1.72IN OF RAIN IN APRIL AND MAY. WHILE OUR WEATHER STATION AT THE RANCH REPORTED 2.08IN DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE MERCED CDEC STATION, AS GREG ALLUDED TO AS WELL, THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE MSGSA BOUNDARY, NOR IS IT SPECIFIC TO ANY ZONE IN THE BOUNDARY, SPECIFICALLY ZONE 2, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE LOCATED. BECAUSE OF THAT, I BELIEVE RELYING SOLELY ON THAT STATION DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE RAINFALL RECEIVED IN OUR AREA. IF THE GSA ONLY CREDITS ONE INCH OF RAINFALL INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL RAINFALL AMOUNT CLOSER TO TWO INCHES, THAT DIFFERENCE WILL EFFECTIVELY BE TAKEN OUT OF OUR WATER ACCOUNT AS PUMPED WATER. I DISAGREE WITH THAT APPROACH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE ZONE SPECIFIC DATA SHOWING A HIGHER AMOUNT. THE SAME ISSUE APPEARS WHEN LOOKING AT THE BROADER RAINFALL YEAR FROM OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH. CDEC REPORTED 10.03IN OF RAINFALL. WHILE OUR RAIN STATION REPORTED 12.32IN INCHES. WHEN APRIL AND MAY'S. APRIL AND MAY'S RAINS ARE INCLUDED, THAT TOTAL FOR CDEC IS 11.75 COMPARED TO OUR WEATHER STATION OF 14.40IN. THAT CREATES A DIFFERENCE OF 2.65IN OF RAINFALL THAT COULD BE INCORRECTLY CHARGED AGAINST OUR ACCOUNT. WHAT I PROPOSE IS THAT THE GSA CREATE OR AMEND A RULE, OR A POLICY THAT ALLOWS GROWERS TO SUBMIT OUR PRIVATE RAINFALL DATA FROM OUR WEATHER STATIONS LOCATED IN OUR RESPECTIVE ZONES, OR SEND IT TO TAC FOR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU GUYS. THAT DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING RAINFALL CREDITS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CURRENT STATION BEING USED IS OUTSIDE THE GSA BOUNDARY AND NOT ZONE SPECIFIC. THIS WOULD CREATE A MORE ACCURATE PROCESS FOR GROWERS, WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE GSA TO VERIFY AND REVIEW THAT DATA THAT IS BEING SUBMITTED. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU ALL AND STAFF TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST SOLUTION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVIEW THIS DATA, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHARE IT WITH YOU GUYS. I BELIEVE YOU GUYS ALL HAVE MY CELL NUMBER, AND I ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE IN THE ONLINE. NONE ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I WILL IF I IF YOU DON'T MIND. SO LACEY HAD MENTIONED TO ME ABOUT MR. CRANE'S CONCERNS, AND SO WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION AND THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT LOOK INTO WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE WEATHER STATION. YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE WELCOME TO PUT IN METERS AND THE RAINFALL AND OUR FACTOR OF, OF WHAT WE DO WON'T AFFECT THEM. RIGHT? THAT'S THEIR REMEDY AT THIS POINT. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION THAT THAT WORKS, I, YOU KNOW, I'D BE INTERESTED IN TAKING A LOOK AT THAT, [00:15:05] BUT BUT BEFORE US TODAY IS TO ADD THE INCH. THAT'S OUR ACTION ITEM. SORRY. GO AHEAD. I'LL MOVE TO ADD THE 1 INCH FOR THIS YEAR. OKAY. I MY COMMENT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO KNOW JUST EXACTLY WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN ELIGIBLE WEATHER STATION, BECAUSE I KNOW BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF AREA AROUND IT, WHETHER IT'S CONCRETE OR WHETHER IT'S GRASS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INFLUENCES TO THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, SAY CERTIFIED RAINFALL GAUGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, BUT I KNOW THAT IT. THAT YOU JUST CAN'T PUT UP A RAINFALL GAUGE UP AND EXPECT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ACCURATE. I MEAN, THAT MIGHT, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, SAY THE, THE CDEC REQUIREMENT OR WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENT FOR A REGISTERED GAUGE. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW GREG? I DO NOT KNOW THE SPECIFICS FOR THAT, BUT THERE ARE QUALIFICATIONS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD CAN CONSIDER AND MAYBE FOR ASK TAC TO LOOK INTO IT SOME IS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE START TAKING SOME AVERAGES ACROSS THE VALUE OF HOW. THE BENEFIT OF HAVING ONE VALUE IS, WE DON'T HAVE TO START SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE. WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE WERE YOU? IF YOU START HAVING A NUMBER, EVEN IF YOU PUT 15 OR 20 STATIONS OUT THERE AND TRY AND COLLECT DATA, NOW YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BETWEEN POINTS AND DID THEY GET IT? DID THEY GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OR NOT? AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET INTO MORE COMPLEXITIES ON ADMINISTERING THIS EFFECTIVE INCHES. ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN QUESTION. SO I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT. AND IF WE WERE TO GO TO THAT, WE'D HAVE TO GET SOMEBODY WHO'S REPUTABLE TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE THOSE THINGS AND SET THEM UP AND HAVE THEM AVAILABLE AS CERTIFIED DATA TO THE BOARD. AND THEN EACH YEAR YOU MAY BE MAKING A DECISION, BUT I STILL THINK WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO MULTIPLE OR DIFFERENT NUMBERS BY ZONE, YOU GET BOUNDARY ISSUES AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET QUESTIONS, RIGHT. AND PLUS YOU'RE GOING TO NEED GROWERS TO RECOGNIZE THAT. WELL, IT WAS HIGH LAST YEAR, BUT IT MIGHT BE LOWER NEXT YEAR. IT WAS HIGH IN THE OTHER PART OF THE BASIN. AND ARE. IS EVERYBODY WILLING TO TAKE THAT THAT RISK? RIGHT. ONE YEAR AVERAGE VERSUS A 5 OR 10 YEAR AVERAGE. OR NO. WELL, I MEAN YEAH, WELL THERE'S THAT RUNNING AVERAGE ASPECT. BUT EVEN IN THE GIVEN YEAR, A STORM TRACK MAY RUN NORTH VERSUS SOUTH OR MAY HIT HEAVIER ON THE EAST OR THE WEST. AND SO ONE YEAR YOU MIGHT BENEFIT BEING HIGHER THAN THE NUMBER YOU DETERMINE. ANOTHER YEAR YOU MIGHT BE LOWER. AND THAT JUST ADDS MORE RISK TO TRY AND TO TRY AND HAVE ONE NUMBER. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. BUT IT'S WORTH CONTINUING TO LOOK AT. THAT'S WHY THE ALLOCATION POLICY IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THESE THINGS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A GREAT ISSUE FOR TAC TO LOOK AT AND INVESTIGATE. OKAY. WHICH IS ALREADY IS HAPPENING ALREADY. OKAY. WELL, IT HASN'T COME TO THE TAC YET, BUT IT'S. IT'S ON ITS WAY TO THE TAC. OKAY, SO I'M STILL LOOKING FOR A SECOND TO THE. SECOND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WILL I HAVE A. OH I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 7. [7. WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT] AND THAT IS WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT. LACEY. GREAT. SO THIS IS THE 11TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT THE GSA'S AND THE MERCED BASIN HAVE WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN. THEY ARE THE CONSULTING FIRM THAT ASSISTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN, THE SUBSEQUENT ANNUAL REPORTS, AND THE PERIODIC EVALUATION THAT WE JUST SUBMITTED IN 2025. THIS AMENDMENT APPROVES TWO NEW TASKS TO BE ADDED TO THE WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT, AND IT UPDATES AN EXISTING TASK. ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT IS THE EXISTING TASK MEETING FACILITATION AND SUPPORT FOR THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE PREPARATION OF THE WATER YEAR 2026 ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH IS DUE NEXT APRIL, ARE THE TWO NEW TASKS. SO NEW TASK 40 INCLUDES SUPPORT FOR ONGOING COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS. THESE ARE ASSUMED TO BE HELD THREE TIMES PER YEAR. THE COST OF MEETING FACILITATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 26-27 MEETINGS IS [00:20:08] $46,331, WHICH IS SHARED BY THE THREE MERCED GSA'S. THIS INCLUDES PUTTING TOGETHER THE AGENDAS, MINUTES, SLIDES, SECURING THE MEETING LOCATION, AND THE FACILITATOR AND TRANSLATION SERVICES. NEW TASK 41 OUTLINES THE STEPS WOODARD AND CURRAN WILL TAKE TO PREPARE THE WATER YEAR 2026 ANNUAL REPORT. THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT REGULATIONS REQUIRE GSAS TO SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. THE REPORT INCLUDES UPDATED INFORMATION IN THREE KEY SECTIONS GENERAL INFORMATION, BASIN CONDITIONS, AND GSP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS. THIS TASK IS ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE AMOUNT OF $69,144 SHARED BY THE THREE MERCED GSAS AND THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA BUDGETED $50,000 FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT COST IN YOUR FISCAL YEAR 26-27 BUDGET. AND FINALLY, TASK 23 IS THE ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR BASIN WIDE TASKS THAT WOODARD AND CURRAN MAY BE REQUESTED TO WORK ON THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE FISCAL YEAR. ON CALL TECHNICAL SUPPORT COULD INCLUDE SUPPORTING INTRA BASIN COORDINATION, DEVELOPING BASIN WIDE GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR PROP 4 FUNDING, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BE RELEASED IN 2027, AND RESPONDING TO DWR'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SUBSIDENCE, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS THAT COME OUT OR POSSIBLY SUPPORTING A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM. SO THIS TASK IS AUTHORIZED FOR $131,220. THIS AMOUNT IS MORE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF THE ANTICIPATED GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE PROP 4 FUNDING. WE EXPECT THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS GOING TO HAVE A ROBUST GRANT APPLICATION, AND THERE IS A WATERSHED RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM THAT WE THINK THE MERCED BASIN MAY APPLY TO. THAT WILL ALSO HAVE A GOOD APPLICATION WE'LL HAVE TO PUT TOGETHER. ALSO, AS I'VE REPORTED IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH DWR ON SUBSIDENCE AND SUBSIDENCE BMP. AND SO WE'LL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH DWR ON THOSE SUBSIDENCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. SO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA COST SHARE OF THIS IS THE 58% THAT WE AGREED TO IN THE COORDINATION AGREEMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF $143,070. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS. ANY QUESTIONS? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY. LACEY I DO HAVE ONE ON TASK 40. YOU SAID THAT WAS $46,000, RIGHT? YES SO WE'VE TALKED WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN THAT IT DOES SEEM HIGH PER MEETING. I THINK PART OF THAT IS WE BRING IN AN OUTSIDE FACILITATOR, NOT SOMEBODY WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN, BUT CHARLES GARDNER WITH CATALYST GROUP TO COME IN AND FACILITATE THOSE MEETINGS. SO THERE ARE SOME EXTRA COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE THAT HELP JUST BRING THAT NUMBER A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED IT TO BE. AND SO IF WE WANT TO, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WAYS TO PERHAPS ONLY USE AN OUTSIDE FACILITATOR WHEN WE THINK WE HAVE TOPICS ON THE AGENDA THAT MIGHT REQUIRE AN OUTSIDE FACILITATION. I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO MAYBE LOWER SOME OF THOSE COSTS. SO DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING TODAY TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN, IF WE APPROVE THIS AND WE SAVE THE MONEY, THEN THE COST WILL BE LESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR? I MEAN, IF WE DON'T BRING A FACILITATOR IN, WE SAVE THAT MONEY, RIGHT? YEAH WE CAN, I CAN TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD RIGHT NOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ACTIONS TO THE GSA'S TOGETHER TO TAKE ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE COST OF THE COORDINATION IN THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND WE CAN PROVIDE THAT DIRECTION TO WOODARD AND CURRAN. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T. ON THOSE MEETINGS, IT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC TO GO WITHOUT A FACILITATOR. OTHERWISE YOU'RE HAVING YOUR THREE DIFFERENT GSA'S THAT ARE THAT ARE GOING TO BE TRYING TO DOMINATE THE CONVERSATION. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S. WE COULD REQUEST SOMEBODY FROM WOODARD AND CURRAN WHO IS ALREADY THERE PRESENTING ON A LOT OF THE ITEMS, FACILITATE THOSE MEETINGS AND NOT BRING THE OUTSIDE FACILITATOR IN. [00:25:02] I THINK THAT'S JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY MIND. THAT IS THE FIRST COST THAT I WOULD THINK OF. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE. SO I'LL TAKE YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE YOUR GUYS' DIRECTION. YEAH. IN THE PAST THEY'VE BEEN QUARTERLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAD THE PERIODIC REVIEW THAT WE WERE PERIODIC EVALUATION WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER. BUT WHEN WE'RE KIND OF IN THOSE IN-BETWEEN YEARS AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE FIVE YEAR EVALUATION, WE DON'T ALWAYS HIT THREE, FOUR PER YEAR. SO THEY'RE ESTIMATING THIS YEAR THAT IT'S THREE PER YEAR. OKAY. WELL WE COULD, WE COULD TRY WITHOUT THE FACILITATOR. WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO IT. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? NOT ONLINE. THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDING WHAT LLOYD HAD MENTIONED. THAT DIRECTION. OKAY, I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. NUMBER 8. [8. SUBSIDENCE BENCHMARKS MONITORING] SUBSIDENCE BENCHMARKS MONITORING. LACEY. SO EARLIER THIS YEAR I'VE REPORTED TO YOU THAT WE FOUND OUT THAT THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION STOPPED THE SUBSIDENCE MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM. THE MERCED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN USES THIS BIANNUAL MONITORING AS ITS SUBSIDENCE MONITORING NETWORK. AND WE ALSO PUT OUR SUBSIDE, OUR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR SUBSIDENCE USING THAT NETWORK. SEVERAL BASINS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ALSO RELY ON THIS MONITORING. SO AS A RESULT, THESE BASINS GOT TOGETHER AND REQUESTED A PROPOSAL FROM PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP FOR THE COST TO CONTINUE THE MONITORING FOR ONE EVENT IN 2026. NORMALLY, THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WOULD DO IT IN JULY AND DECEMBER, AND THIS WOULD JUST BE FOR ONE EVENT. THE TOTAL COST IS $127,300. THIS WOULD BE SHARED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE SIX BASINS IMPACTED IN THE VALLEY. YOU CAN SEE THEM LISTED ON THE SCREEN HERE. MERCED SUBBASIN GSA. THE MERCED SUBBASIN COST WOULD BE $21,216 AND 58% COST SHARE FOR MSGSA IS $12,305. SO CONTINUING THIS MONITORING FOR 2026 WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE MERCED SUBBASIN TO STILL USE THE DATA, ACCORDING TO OUR GSP. BUT WE COULD ALSO START LOOKING INTO CHANGES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO SHIFT TO THE INSAR DATA THAT IS PROVIDED BY DWR. ALSO, DWR IS ENCOURAGING THE USE OF INSAR DATA. WE DID SIGN ON TO A LETTER REQUESTING DWR CONTINUE THIS MONITORING, TAKE IT OVER FROM THE BUREAU. AND THEY DECLINED TO DO THAT. AND THEY PREFERRED TO RECOMMEND THAT WE USE INSAR FOR THAT INSTEAD. SEVERAL BASINS ARE CONSIDERING THIS. WE KNOW CHOWCHILLA HAS ALREADY APPROVED MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. SEVERAL OF THE GSA'S IN THE DELTA MENDOTA APPROVED MOVING FORWARD WITH IT, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE TAKING IT TO THEIR COORDINATION COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK. MIUGSA ALREADY BUDGETED FOR THIS AS WELL. BUT WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR TO HEAR WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER BASINS WHO ARE STILL CONSIDERING IT, WHAT THEIR RESPONSES. THIS IS PROBABLY AN ALL OR NOTHING EFFORT, AS WE WOULDN'T WANT A SUBSET OF IMPACTED BASINS TO PAY FOR ALL OF THE MONITORING THAT THEN EVERYBODY WHO DIDN'T PAY WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM. ALSO, IN ORDER TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, A GSA WITH AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH PROVOST & PRITCHARD WOULD LIKELY CONTRACT FOR THIS AND THEN WOULD INVOICE THE REMAINING GSA. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE CONTRACTED THROUGH ANY OF THE GSA'S IN THE MERCED BASIN. SO AT THIS TIME, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS MONITORING. AND YOU DO HAVE FUNDING IN YOUR FISCAL YEAR 26-27 BUDGET UNDER BASIN WIDE MONITORING THAT COULD FUND YOUR SHARE OF THIS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? LACEY I HEARD ANOTHER GSA'S APPROVAL OF THIS THIS MORNING. OH, GREAT AND THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THIS THAT I THOUGHT HAD A LOT OF VALIDITY THAT THE EXISTING SYSTEM WE'RE USING WITH ALL OF THE GROUND POINTS, IT GIVES US A LOT OF HISTORY. AND, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD JUST ALLOW OURSELVES IN THE FUTURE TO BE PUSHED INTO THE [00:30:05] INSTALLER SYSTEM. I THINK THAT THIS, THIS INFORMATION IS VERY, VERY VALUABLE, CERTAINLY IS FOR US AND WHERE WE'RE LOCATED. AND I'M WONDERING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE COST OF THE CONTRACT, BUT I'M THINKING THAT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN INITIAL CONTRACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT AND ESTABLISH ALL THIS AND THAT WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT A LONGER TERM CONTRACT CONTINUITY WOULD COST, AND MAYBE THE UNIT COST WOULD GO DOWN. BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? I AGREE. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CONTINUITY IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU DON'T YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE A. STARTING FROM A DIFFERENT POSITION IN THE MEASUREMENT OF SUBSIDENCE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE RELIABLE. BASIS. RELIABILITY IN THE DATA. YEAH. I THINK THAT CONTINUITY IS VERY IMPORTANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. ANY ONLINE? ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I'LL MOVE THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN THIS. OKAY. PROVIDED THAT THE OTHER. YES. FIVE BASINS PARTICIPATE AS WELL. OKAY. I WILL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 9. [9. INACTIVE PARCEL DEADLINE MODIFICATION IN GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE] INACTIVE PARCEL DEADLINE MODIFICATION IN GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE. GREG YOUNG FROM ZANJERO. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LET ME GET THE MIC ON. [LAUGHTER]. I HAVEN'T STARTED TALKING YET. THANK YOU, CHAIR. WE WANTED TO BRING IN FRONT OF YOU THE ITEM THAT'S UP ON THE SLIDE ON THE SCREEN NOW FOR A CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY THE DEADLINE ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OF THE SECTIONS, AS IT RELATES TO INDICATING THAT A PARTICULAR FIELD OR PARCEL WILL BE INACTIVE FOR THAT YEAR. CURRENTLY UNDER SECTION 2.5.2.1.7, IF YOU DID MARK SOMETHING INACTIVE LIKE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, AND THEN YOU MAKE IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHATEVER DRIVERS YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY FARM THAT YOU CAN REMOVE THAT INACTIVE AND THAT'S ALLOWED. WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IS IF YOU DON'T TELL US BY JANUARY 31ST THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE INACTIVE, IT IS IT WILL BE ACTIVE REGARDLESS IF YOU DECIDE LATER IN THE YEAR. I REALLY WISH I HAD MADE THIS INACTIVE. WE DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR THAT ADJUSTMENT. SO THE CONVERSATION THAT HAS HAS RESULTED IN A PLANNED A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE CURRENT JANUARY 31ST DEADLINE THAT IS IN SECTION 2.5.2.1.1 OF YOUR POLICY FROM JANUARY 30TH 1ST TO MAY 1ST. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT TWO ELEMENTS, ONE BY APRIL, EARLY APRIL, YOU WILL HAVE MADE YOUR DETERMINATION ON ELIGIBLE INCHES SO PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FROM RAIN THAT YEAR. THEY MAY LIKELY WILL HAVE INFORMATION FROM MID, IF THEY DO HAVE OUT OF DISTRICT CONTRACTS ABOUT WHAT WATER MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO THEM. THERE WILL ALSO BE INFORMATION ON COMMODITY AND LABOR MARKETS AND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT DRIVE A DECISION TO NOT FARM A PARCEL OR A FIELD, AND TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT INACTIVE. AGAIN, THIS APPLIES TO ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO BE USING THE REMOTE SENSING MONITORING ELEMENT. SO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT WE MODIFY THE RULE TO CHANGE THE JANUARY 31ST DATE TO MAY 1ST WITH ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THIS YEAR WE WOULD ALLOW THAT CHANGE TO BE MADE UP TO AUGUST 1ST. RIGHT? SO IN THE NEXT 20, 20 DAYS THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO SAY WE'RE MARKING THIS INELIGIBLE AND USE THEIR GAP ACCESS TO GO INTO THEIR ACCOUNT, MARK A FIELD INELIGIBLE OR INACTIVE. 31ST AND THEN WE STAFF WOULD REVIEW IT AND MAKE THE CHANGES AS A BULK. SO TWO ELEMENTS. ONE IS TO PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE JANUARY 31ST DEADLINE TO MAY 1ST, AND THEN A ONE TIME ALLOWANCE FOR AUGUST 1ST. SO FOR THE REOPENING RIGHT NOW. AUGUST 31ST. SORRY, AUGUST 31ST. LACEY WANTS MORE TIME. OKAY. 50 DAYS. SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR YOU TO, TO TAKE ACTION ON TODAY. AND IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE APPLIED WATER TO THAT PARCEL? [00:35:03] SO THE PARCEL, THAT PARCEL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MARK AS INACTIVE DOES NOT GET RAIN CREDIT. IT JUST BASICALLY GETS BLANKED OUT. YOU STILL DO GET SUSTAINABLE YIELD. AND ANY AP THAT MIGHT ASSOCIATE WITH THAT PARTICULAR ELIGIBLE ACRE IS STILL AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO USE WITHIN YOUR AMA. YOU JUST DON'T GET THE RAIN AT ALL. BUT. ON THAT PARCEL. BUT IS THERE A RESTRICTION TO OF APPLIED WATER TO THAT PARCEL? YES. YOU'RE MARKING IT AS INACTIVE. SO IT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY CONSUMPTIVE USE OF ANY SOURCE OF WATER. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO IRRIGATE IT JUST WITH SURFACE WATER AS AN EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. YOU WOULD LEAVE IT AS ACTIVE AND THEN YOU WOULD SUBMIT TO US. I PUT THIS MUCH SURFACE WATER ON AND WE USE THAT IN THE MONITORING ANALYSIS. YEAH. I GUESS MY REAL CONCERN IS, IS THAT SOMEBODY DECIDES TO IRRIGATE IT APRIL 1ST AND THEN DECIDES, WHOA, I WANT TO CHANGE. AND SO THEY MAKE IT INACTIVE AND YOU KNOW, CAN THEY DO THAT OR NOT? IF THEY DO, THEN HOW DO WE CAPTURE THAT WATER APPLICATION? THAT'S A. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IF THE SOURCE OF WATER THAT WAS USED, YOU KNOW, LET ME LET ME BACK UP THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR MARKING ANYTHING INACTIVE IS YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT THE ELIGIBLE INCHES OF RAIN, GRANTED, IS NOT GOING TO COVER WHAT WOULD NATURALLY WOULD BE THE TRANSPIRATION ON THAT BLOCK OF GROUND. IF IT'S BEEN RAINING OR YOU HAVE RAIN AND WE HAVE A CERTAIN QUANTITY THERE, AND YOU STILL ADDED AN IRRIGATION EVENT SOMETIME, AND THAT IRRIGATION EVENT WAS DERIVED FROM PUMPING GROUNDWATER, THE QUESTION IS, DO WE DO WE MISS THAT ELEMENT AND BE ABLE TO SUBTRACT IT AND ACCOUNT FOR IT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT? THAT RIGHT NOW WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THAT WOULD STILL REMAIN OPEN, BUT WE WOULD. ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DOING IS SPOT CHECKING KIND OF BIG PICTURE, OR NOT EVEN SPOT CHECKING, JUST BIG PICTURE OVERALL AND MAKING SURE THINGS ARE ALIGNING. AND IF WE SEE SOME PARCELS THAT SEEM EXCESSIVE AND THEY'RE MARKED AS INACTIVE, THAT WILL RAISE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TO THEN ASK OR FOR STAFF INITIALLY TO ASK FOR SOME FURTHER INFORMATION, AND WE CAN ADDRESS THAT ON A ONE OFF SITUATION. OKAY. I MEAN, I GUESS THIS YEAR WE WOULDN'T BE GOING BACK AT ALL RIGHT? IF IT'S BEEN IRRIGATED PRIOR AND THEY GO INACTIVE, IT'S JUST. RIGHT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE FOR THIS YEAR, IT'S PROBABLY ALSO CONSIDERING THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR AND PEOPLE ARE JUST KIND OF GETTING USED TO THIS AND SAYING, OH, I WAS SUPPOSED TO GO IN HERE AND MARK SOMETHING AND THEN THEY DIDN'T GET IT MARKED. THAT LAND IS SHOULD BE FALLOW. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING. AND THEY JUST DIDN'T GET IT MARKED IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM YET. SO WE'RE GIVING KIND OF REOPENING THAT OPPORTUNITY. SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IT'LL ALWAYS BE MADE FIRST. SO THEY WILL MAKE THEIR DETERMINATION. SUBMIT IT TO THE TO STAFF AND STAFF WILL REVIEW THOSE AND APPROVE AS APPROPRIATE. SO WE'LL HAVE TO SOMEWHAT MONITOR THAT FROM JANUARY TO MAY AS NEEDED LIKE YOU SAID. YEAH. IF SOMEBODY IS. RIGHT. SO IF SOMEBODY IS SUBMITTING, HEY, I WANT THIS TO BE INACTIVE AND THEY'RE SUBMITTING THAT IN MAY. AND SO STAFF IS LOOKING AT IT SOMETIME IN MAY AND THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, THIS FIELD HAPPENS TO HAVE A LOT MORE TRANSPORTATION SO FAR THIS YEAR THAN ANY OTHER FIELD THAT'S INACTIVE. LET'S RAISE A QUESTION. AND WE MAY NOT APPROVE THAT DESIGNATION JUST BECAUSE THE MARKET DOESN'T MEAN WE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE IT. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND SEE IF THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT MIGHT BE HIGHER. OKAY. NO, I JUST THINKING OF ALL THE SCENARIOS. DROUGHT, YEAR, YEAR [INAUDIBLE] THE PARCEL IN FEBRUARY. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT IT OUT IN MAY. AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LOT OF MONITORING. BUT YEAH. SO ALL PARCELS WILL BE IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM AND WILL BE MONITORED USING THE OPENET THE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION UNTIL THEY GET APPROVED TO BE INACTIVE. SO WE WILL SEE THE MONITORING ON THEM UNTIL THEY GET APPROVED TO BE INACTIVE. AND AT THAT TIME, WE CAN LOOK BACK AT THE FOUR MONTHS OF PRIOR MONITORING AND MAKE A DETERMINATION. WAS THERE ANY APPLIED WATER ON THIS PARCEL? AND IF SO, IT'S LIKELY TO BE QUESTIONED. AND IF NOT, NOT APPROVED. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THAT PART OF THE OF THE RULES AND REGS UP THAT SAYS THAT THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT 2.5.2.1.1 THE PARTY GETS TO DECLARE IT [00:40:06] IRRIGATED OR INACTIVE. SO IS THERE A REGULATION SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT SAYS THE BOARD APPROVES THOSE? I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF NOT, YOU KNOW, CHARGING ANY EXTRA WATER AGAINST A PARCEL THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT IF, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE SOMEBODY'S, YOU KNOW, IRRIGATING IN APRIL AND MAY AND THEN OR. WELL, I GUESS IT WOULDN'T BE MAY, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE APRIL. AND THEN COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, I WANT TO GO INACTIVE. AND THEN AND THEN THEY GET FREE WATER, RIGHT? THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR. THAT'S ALL. YEAH. BECAUSE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WILL DO WHATEVER'S BEST FOR THEMSELVES. AND IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE IT'S BEST FOR THE BASIN. LACEY DO WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE REQUESTS ALREADY OR? SO SORRY. GO AHEAD LACEY. I THINK WE'VE APPROVED FEWER THAN 100, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. AND THOSE ALL HAPPENED IN JANUARY. THE TAC HAS DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC AT MULTIPLE MEETINGS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THE JANUARY 31ST DEADLINE IS JUST TOO SOON. AND GROWERS WON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE A FIELD FALLOW OR NOT BY JANUARY 31ST. AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST FROM THE TAC TO DO THIS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE GOING TO COME BACK BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST 31ST. I'M NOT SURE HOW BIG THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE, BECAUSE HOPEFULLY A LOT OF THEM WERE ALREADY DESIGNATED IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM BY JANUARY 31ST. SO I DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO 2.5.2.1.4. ALSO THAT'S WHERE PARTIES ELECTING TO DESIGNATE A FIELD AS INACTIVE FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR SHALL DEFINE THE FOOTPRINT VIA THE GAP AND SUBMIT THE INACTIVE PARCEL ATTESTATION FORM TO THE GSA BY JANUARY 31ST. SO THAT WOULD CHANGE TO MAY 1ST. THE FOLLOWING SECTION. THE GSA WILL USE AVAILABLE RESOURCES SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AERIAL IMAGERY, SPATIAL DATA, OR SITE INSPECTION TO VERIFY THAT NO IRRIGATION OCCURRED ON THE INACTIVE PARCEL OR FIELD. OKAY, SO WE'RE COVERED THEN. YEAH. SO I THINK THIS IS JUST A YOUR QUESTION IS JUST A FACTOR IN CHANGING THE DATE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHERE WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOOK BACK ON TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY IRRIGATION USED TO CHANGING IT TO MID-YEAR, WHERE WE DO HAVE FOUR MONTHS TO LOOK BACK ON. RIGHT. AND I JUST HOPE THAT ANY OF THE GROWERS WHO ARE CONSIDERING MAKING SOMETHING INACTIVE IN MAY, THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT IN MARCH AND APRIL, BECAUSE IF YOU DO IRRIGATE IN MARCH AND APRIL, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING THAT INACTIVE IN MAY. YEAH. OKAY. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, IT'S MY THOUGHT AND I'M NOT SURE READING IT, BUT WHEN YOU DESIGNATE A PARCEL AS INACTIVE, YOU ARE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE NO CROPS OFF IT. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT IN PRODUCTION. IT'S INACTIVE. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE. THERE'S NO REASON FOR PEOPLE APPLYING APPLIED WATER TO IT. I'M A BIT CONFUSED ON IT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S INACTIVE, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET ANY CONSUMPTIVE USE. BUT IT'S ALSO NOT GOING TO GET ANY APPLIED SURFACE WATER. BUT IT COULD IT COULD USE OR GET APPLIED PUMP WATER. AND THEN LATER THEY DECIDE TO CALL IT INACTIVE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF THEY DO THAT, THAT WHATEVER WATER THEY PUMPED ON, IT IS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR ACCOUNT THAT IT'S NOT. THEN LATER IT CREATES A PROBLEM WHERE THEY SAY, WELL, IT'S INACTIVE AND YET YOU'RE, YOU'RE CHARGING ME MY ACCOUNT FOR WATER. YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT THAT YOU KNOW. THAT IN YOUR CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY METERING WATER ON IT. NOT, NOT CONSUMPTIVE USE. NO, IT COULD BE CONSUMPTIVE USE. RIGHT SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY PLANTS A WINTER CROP AND. ENDING THE DEADLINE, SOMEBODY MAY IRRIGATE MARCH 1ST AND THEN DECIDE TO PUT IT INACTIVE. AND YOU KNOW, HE NEEDS TO BE CHARGED FOR THAT WATER AGAINST HIS ACCOUNT. YEAH. AND I THINK THE WAY THE PROCESS THEY'D MAP IT OUT, WE'D LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WOW, THIS LOOKS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S INACTIVE. SO IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S A WATER. SO THEN THE ASPECT YOU ATTESTED THAT YOU HAVE NOT IRRIGATED THIS AT ALL THIS YEAR. OKAY. AND THEY SAY, YEAH. AND WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, WELL THAT'S INTERESTING. [00:45:04] THE POINT IS, IT'S LIKE, I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO DEFER TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GROWER TO MAKE CHOICES LATER IN THE YEAR BASED ON MARKETS, HYDROLOGY, WATER AVAILABILITY. THERE ARE GOING TO BE THINGS WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT CLOSELY AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS. YEAH, THAT'S INEVITABLE THROUGH ALL OF OUR RULES. AND IT COMES TO THE BOARD FOR A VOTE. SO I MEAN. AND IF WE DENY. IF THERE'S NOT, THEN WE DON'T. AND IF WE DENY AND THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S A WRONG DENIAL, THEY CAN APPEAL THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS AND BRING IT BACK WITH THEIR REASONING. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A. SO THERE'S PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT PROVIDE THE PROTECTION, I BELIEVE, FOR ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS. NO, I BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD THING TO BENEFIT THE GROWERS, FOR SURE. IT'S JUST I GET CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLICING IF IT COMES, WE'LL SEE DOWN THE ROAD, I GUESS. YEAH, I WOULD JUST I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE SECTION 2, THE CURRENT SECTION 2.5.2.1 IS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. IT IS INACTIVE THE WHOLE YEAR. AND SO I DON'T THINK WE ARE MAKING A SUGGESTION THAT BY MOVING THE DEADLINE THAT YOU CAN BE ACTIVE IN THE BEGINNING, THE PARCEL CAN BE ACTIVE AND HAVE APPLIED WATER IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND THEN NOT FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION TO CHANGE THIS. THIS IS STILL A 12-MONTH JANUARY TO DECEMBER. THE PARCEL IS INACTIVE AND THERE IS NO APPLIED WATER. OKAY. RIGHT. OKAY. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE IN THE ROOM. IS THERE ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE I'LL MOVE THAT WE CHANGE THE RULE AS DEFINED. 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 OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 10, WHICH IS A BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATE SOURCE CREDITS [10. BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 STAFF DENIAL] GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 FROM A STAFF DENIAL. SO THIS ITEM IS REGARDING AN APPEAL THE GSA RECEIVED TO A STAFF DECISION REGARDING THE RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE HAS A SECTION TO RECOGNIZE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST. AND UNDER THIS SECTION, THE BOARD HAS A. THE RULE HAS A DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 THAT WHEN PARTIES TOOK ACTION AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE MERCED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN IN JANUARY 2020 AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026 TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE FOR DIRECT RECHARGE OR DIRECT USE IN LIEU OF GROUNDWATER, THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDIT. SUBMISSIONS AFTER DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 ARE NOT ACCEPTED AND CREDITS ARE NOT ISSUED AS THE DEADLINE AND THE RULES HAVE PASSED. THIS FIRST ONE, MODESTO PROPERTIES, SUBMITTED AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF DENIAL DUE TO MISSING THE DEADLINE. MODESTO PROPERTIES PURCHASES SURFACE WATER FROM STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT. THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE DECEMBER 2025 DEADLINE FOR RECOGNIZING THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE USE AND RECEIVING A CREDIT. SO SINCE THIS IS THE INITIAL YEAR OF THE GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION RULE, AND MANY GROWERS THROUGHOUT THE GSA ARE STILL BECOMING AWARE OF THE RULES. IT'S NOT UNUSUAL THAT A GROWER WOULD BE UNAWARE OF THE IMPORTANT DEADLINE. AND SO, AS SUCH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION TO REVERSE THE DENIAL AND RECOGNIZE THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN ACTIONS ON SOME OF THESE, RIGHT? SOME OF THEM YEAH. SHOULD YOU RECUSE YOURSELF ON THIS? I CAN RECUSE MYSELF. YEAH. I MEAN. I'M JUST ASKING YOU YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. OH, THAT'S JEANNE. DIRECTOR KELLEY DOESN'T NEED TO RECUSE HIMSELF, DOES HE? I MEAN, THEY'RE DOCUMENTING THE PURCHASE OF WATER FROM US, AND THAT'S IT. YEAH. STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT IS THE SURFACE WATER SOURCE. OKAY. ANY ONLINE? NONE ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARK AND A SECOND BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. [00:50:01] ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 11, [11. BOARD APPEAL OF RECOGNITION AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2026 STAFF DENIAL] WHICH IS BOARD APPEAL FROM JLP VENTURES, LLC. LACEY. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE APPEALING THE SAME SECTION OF THE RULE REGARDING THE RECOGNITION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026. AGAIN, THE SUBMISSION WAS AFTER THE DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 DEADLINE. AND SO IT WAS DENIED BY STAFF. JLP VENTURES, LLC SUBMITTED AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL. JLP VENTURES LLC ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2026, AND THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTATION TO RECOGNIZE THE HISTORICAL USE OF SURFACE WATER. THE PROPERTY DIVERTS SURFACE WATER UNDER A WATER RIGHT. AND SO AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE BOARD TAKE ACTION TO REVERSE THE DENIAL AND RECOGNIZE THE CREDITS FOR THIS ONE AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS MORE INFORMATION. MOST OF THE ONES WE'VE GOT SHOW ACRE FEET. SEEMS A LITTLE BIT VAGUE ON THIS ONE. I DO HAVE. I DO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT I CAN SHARE THAT WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ACRE FEET DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU OR NO? I DO NOT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHERS? YEAH. SO BOTH OF THESE ARE SUPPLYING BOTH THE REGISTRATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE USE OF THE RECHARGE FACILITY AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, AND THEY ARE SUBMITTING THE RECOGNITION OF THE CREDITS GENERATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2026 FORM. AND SO THE CREDITS FORM LISTS EVERY SINGLE YEAR 2020 THROUGH 2025. HOW MUCH WATER WAS DIVERTED. AND THEN IT ALSO PROVIDES THE DOCUMENTATION, EITHER STATE WATER REPORTS OR RECEIPTS FROM WATER DISTRICTS SHOWING HOW MUCH WATER WAS DELIVERED OR DIVERTED. AND I HAVE ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION FROM BOTH OF THESE AS WELL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. ANY ONLINE? NOT ONLINE. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY DIRECTOR GIAMPAOLI, A SECOND BY DIRECTOR KELLEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVE ITEM 12. STAFF REPORT. JUST A FEW SHORT ITEMS. [12. STAFF REPORT] FIRST, THE RIPARIAN DELINEATIONS. SO THE ABILITY TO DELINEATE RIPARIAN AREAS IS NOW OPEN IN THE GROUNDWATER ACCOUNTING PLATFORM. IT'LL BE OPEN THROUGH AUGUST 31ST. WE WILL ALSO OPEN A NEW ABILITY TO DELINEATE THE INACTIVE PARCELS AGAIN PURSUANT TO YOUR ACTION EARLIER TODAY. AND THAT WILL ALSO BE THROUGH AUGUST 31ST IN THE PLATFORM. TWO DWR HAS REACHED OUT TO THE MERCED SUBBASIN GSA'S REQUESTING A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PERIODIC EVALUATION AND THE AMENDED GSP THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY 2025. SO THAT JUST HAPPENED RECENTLY. WE'LL BE SCHEDULING A MEETING WITH THEM IN THE COMING WEEKS TO HEAR WHAT QUESTIONS THEY HAVE ON THE PERIODIC EVALUATION. DWR ALSO RELEASED SOME ONBOARDING RESOURCES FOR GSA'S TO HELP WELCOME NEW STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS. AS SEASONED BOARD MEMBERS, YOU GUYS ARE LIKELY FAMILIAR WITH A LOT OF THE INFORMATION IN THERE, BUT WE'LL HAVE THAT. WE WILL PUT THAT TOGETHER FOR ANY NEW BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF THAT COME ON, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THOSE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO YOU AS WELL, JUST TO TO SEE IT IN THE COMING DAYS. AND FINALLY, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD DIRECTED THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO MEET TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S COVER CROP MODIFICATION PROPOSAL THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN MAY, JUNE. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SCHEDULING THIS MEETING, BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN IDENTIFYING A DATE THAT WORKS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE AND FOR A SUBSET OF THE TAC MEMBERS. AND SO THIS ITEM WILL BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AFTER THE MEETING IS SCHEDULED AND TAKES PLACE. THAT'S WHY YOU DIDN'T SEE IT TODAY. WE'RE AIMING FOR JULY TO GET THESE GROUPS TOGETHER, BUT WE'RE FINDING SUMMER MONTHS IS DIFFICULT, GETTING LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE TOGETHER. SO HOPEFULLY YOU WILL SEE THE COVER CROP ITEM AGAIN IN AUGUST. THAT'S THE TARGET. AND THAT IS EVERYTHING I HAVE FOR YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF LACEY? NOPE. [13. BOARD REPORTS] ALL RIGHT. ANY DIRECTORS WANT TO DO A BOARD REPORT? NO REPORT. I GUESS I'D COMMENT. GOING BACK TO THAT LAST ITEM, I REALLY WOULD. [00:55:01] ON ANY OF THOSE FUTURE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW AT LEAST THE NUMBER OF ACRE FEET THAT ARE INVOLVED IN. ABSOLUTELY. [14. FUTURE MEETINGS] OUR NEXT MEETING IS AUGUST 13TH, 2026 AT 2:00 P.M. HERE IN THIS FACILITY. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU ALL. THANKS FOR COMING. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.