[0:00] Good afternoon. I would like to call this joint one water and adaptation committee and subcommittee

[0:06] on imported water meeting of November 17, 2025 to order at 2.45pm. Before we begin, I would

[0:14] like to check if there are any directors requesting the use of the AB 249 just cause or emergency

[0:20] circumstances to participate in today's meeting via Zoom. Yes, Director Secle is online.

[0:26] Yes, thank you Madam Chair. I'm requesting the use of 244-9 in that I am contagious and wishing not to spread it to the rest of you that are in person and I will continue my Zoom participation today. Thank you so much and nobody's in the room with me.

[0:43] We are ever so grateful for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.

[0:50] Board office, do we have members or non members participating via teleconference?

[0:53] Yes, Director Pressman and Director DeJesus are online.

[0:58] Wonderful. Ms. Harms, would you please administer the roll call for committee membership?

[1:06] Director Ackerman.

[1:08] Yes.

[1:09] Alvarez.

[1:10] Armin.

[1:12] Armstrong.

[1:14] Yes.

[1:14] Camacho.

[1:16] Ethan.

[1:17] Cordero.

[1:18] Yes.

[1:18] DeJesus.

[1:20] Yes.

[1:20] Denham.

[1:21] Yes.

[1:22] Erdman.

[1:23] Garza.

[1:24] Yes.

[1:25] Gold.

[1:26] Here.

[1:27] Cats.

[1:28] Here.

[1:29] Courts.

[1:30] Here.

[1:30] Lueck.

[1:34] Luna.

[1:35] Absent.

[1:36] McMillan.

[1:37] Yes.

[1:38] Here.

[1:39] Miller.

[1:39] Here.

[1:40] Pressman.

[1:41] Pleasant.

[1:42] Quinn.

[1:43] Here.

[1:44] Seco.

[1:46] Present.

[1:46] And nobody's in the room with me.

[1:48] Shefford Romney.

[1:49] Here.

[1:59] We have a quorum.

[2:02] Wonderful.

[2:03] Now I was an opportunity for members of the public to address the committee on matters within

[2:07] than the committee's jurisdiction.

[2:09] Board office, is there anyone in the room

[2:10] that wishes to speak?

[2:12] We have received no request to speak.

[2:14] Thank you.

[2:15] I believe we have one request.

[2:19] Deborah Bloom, would you like to give your comment?

[2:21] Thank you.

[2:24] I apologize, I received one request.

[2:29] Sure, just for quick, can I see, make a comment?

[2:32] Sure.

[2:32] In the, in the quorum, a listing, I noticed that

[2:36] Director Alvarez was Marcus Zapsin.

[2:38] I'm not sure if I saw correctly.

[2:40] Can we re, oh, sure.

[2:41] Can you please bring that back up just for proper credit?

[2:49] Thank you.

[2:50] Thank you.

[2:52] All right.

[2:54] Good afternoon, everyone.

[2:56] I'm Deborah Bloom with Accelerate Resilience Los Angeles.

[2:59] I have to say it's particularly gratifying to be here after several consecutive days of rain.

[3:05] You know, the reservoirs are filling up.

[3:07] You know, the landscapes in Southern California are getting nice and hydrated.

[3:11] not water soaking into the ground. But we know this won't always be the case, so it's incumbent upon us to plan for years where we won't have this abundance of rain.

[3:21] So that's why I'm back here to focus on the stormwater and conservation incentive pilot program that my team and I brought the concepts to you back in May.

[3:31] And today I'm really eager to hear an update from the staff on the pilot concepts.

[3:35] And I want to know I really appreciate the ongoing dedication from the Met staff and this board in exploring this pilot.

[3:44] There's five key items I'm hoping to see reflected in the updated proposal today.

[3:49] The first one is budget assumptions.

[3:52] First, for your in-kind investments, which is amazing, but we need to know what they are to have full-cost accounting.

[3:58] And secondly, for per parcel funding, we're really encouraging Met to match the county's

[4:04] investment per parcel to truly test an equal co-funding pilot program because honestly

[4:11] contributing the same amount on residential as currently offered is not a pilot.

[4:18] Secondly, we're ensuring we'd like to ensure that CBOs leave the outreach for the pilots.

[4:23] So, CBOs as the trusted voices in their communities, they can play a vital role in recruiting

[4:29] and inviting participants to support the program's success.

[4:34] And Arlo would be happy to facilitate introductions to local CBOs once the pilot geographies are

[4:40] known.

[4:42] Third is monitoring of co-benefits.

[4:45] We believe this should be included from the start.

[4:47] Arlo is also willing to bring experts in the field together to determine the best type of

[4:52] monitoring, so we can capture the benefits stemming from these pilot projects.

[4:57] Fourth, we encourage a hub and spoke approach to the program locations.

[5:02] So targeting a large commercial site as essential hub as well as surrounded with residential

[5:08] neighborhoods can allow for efficiencies not only in outreach but construction and implementation

[5:14] while also visually demonstrating the impact of the program to a particular location.

[5:20] And fifth, design templates. There's no need to recreate the wheel. There are existing design templates that can be easily utilized for implementation.

[5:30] By leading this project, Met has the chance to test the potential to have a regional service model and to lay the groundwork for future partnership with other agencies that are looking for a turnkey program delivery.

[5:44] And I know we can all harken back to saving an acre foot as much more affordable than going

[5:50] out in the market to buy a new one, especially when we bring in other agencies who will co-fund

[5:55] in proportion to the benefits they received.

[5:59] Thank you again for your continued leadership and your commitment to testing innovative

[6:03] approaches that can strengthen our collective resilience.

[6:09] Thank you.

[6:11] Board office, do we have anyone on the line that wishes to speak?

[6:18] Yes, we currently have six callers on the line.

[6:21] Callers, you will have three minutes to speak.

[6:23] When your name is called, please dial star six on your keypad to begin your comments.

[6:28] First caller, Gary, please unmute yourself and begin speaking.

[6:34] Great.

[6:35] Thank you.

[6:36] I'm Gary Vaughan, the program director at Friends the River, we're a statewide conservation

[6:42] organization that works to protect aquatic ecosystems like rivers and lakes while promoting

[6:48] long-term sustainability in our water management.

[6:52] I've spoken to you before, I'm going to pretty much say much to what I said last time, it's

[6:58] just that we're gratified that we're getting near to the decision on moving forward with

[7:05] The joint pilot program with the WP on stormwater and summer capture and conservation strongly

[7:15] support that project urging move forward with it.

[7:19] Well, I think this is both building up on the successes of met in promoting conservation.

[7:27] I mean, Southern California has been the leader here, but there's a ways to go.

[7:31] This is a great way to explore the potential for further savings.

[7:34] savings that are much more affordable than trying to go out on the market or develop

[7:40] a new infrastructure to import water. It's the state's policy to reduce our

[7:46] aligns on imported water for a variety of reasons. The environmental impacts, the

[7:51] vulnerability to climate disruption, the impacts on environmental, on aquatic

[7:58] environment throughout the state. This is a really important tool for reducing those

[8:05] impacts and reducing reliance on external sources of water. So I think that in addition

[8:14] to reducing reliance, there's incredible potential benefits for communities in Southern California,

[8:22] Yeah, affordable water instead of the rates that we might see if you go to increasing your

[8:29] alliance on external sources.

[8:32] In order to do it right, I want to echo the comments of Arla that, you know, you really need

[8:37] to make sure that you've got sufficient resources to do this right to match the DWP contribution

[8:44] to be able to make sure that you can quickly move to increase the scale and scope of the project as you see results.

[8:56] Again, this is really the way to go. I'm encouraged by the direction that you continue to take and I hope that you move forward and make the decision to implement this project

[9:06] and then scale it up as you're able to.

[9:12] Thank you.

[9:15] Color number two, Michael, please dial star six on your keypad and begin your comments.

[9:24] Michael, please dial star six on your keypad to begin your comments.

[9:32] Okay, next caller.

[9:34] Color number three, John, please dial star six on your keypad and begin your comments.

[9:42] John, begin your comments.

[9:46] All right, moving on.

[9:47] Color number four, Maura, please unmute yourself and begin speaking.

[9:51] Thank you.

[9:52] Hi, everyone.

[9:53] I'm Monica here from LA Waterkeeper.

[9:56] I'm here to also express support for the stormwater pilot program item 9-3 in partnership

[10:03] with the Department of Public Works.

[10:06] We appreciate all the great work Matt has done in conservation and in addressing climate

[10:11] change with camp for water.

[10:14] Let's see great opportunity for Matt to get more involved in stormwater capture of all the

[10:19] water supply options.

[10:21] Nature-based stormwater capture is one of the best for providing multiple benefits, both

[10:26] for the agency with resilience to climate disruptions and earthquakes, and our communities

[10:31] with cheap local water.

[10:33] And like Deborah was mentioning, we sure have had a lot of stormwater over the last few

[10:37] days, and we'll continue to over the week.

[10:40] But I think for our information and stormwater capture projects can benefit water supply particularly

[10:46] as imported sources become more and more unreliable.

[10:49] water quality, flood control, and various public health outcomes from increased cooling,

[10:55] improved air quality, and many others. This is why this stormwater capture is a major priority

[11:02] for a large number of CBOs, EJ groups, and other organizations, like some of the folks on this call,

[11:09] that we regularly partner with and hear from. This pilot will build on Met's past successes and

[11:14] move us in this more sustainable and equitable direction. We hope Met will invest in this pilot

[11:18] appropriately matching the county's investment to ensure it has the resources to meet its goals

[11:24] and to scale quickly. Thank you. Thank you. Caller number five. So please unmute yourself and

[11:31] begin your comments.

[11:37] So hi. Good afternoon, all. So I am also here to speak in support of the

[11:44] potential storm water pilot program. So my name is Dr. Zoe Conniff and I am the environmental justice

[11:51] is Program Manager of Black Women for Wellness. We are a reproductive justice nonprofit based

[11:57] in South LA, where we work to build healthier communities by addressing issues in the

[12:01] built environment caused and perpetuated by environmental racism. One of the things that

[12:07] we are consistently fighting for is water equity, particularly for Black and Bible communities

[12:13] in Los Angeles. So historically, South LA, where we as an organization are based, has been

[12:19] impacted by under-investment in water infrastructure by a lot of pollution and by persistent environmental

[12:25] racism. This under-investment and persistent environmental racism contributes to a strong lack of

[12:32] trust in tap water among community members in South LA and to corresponding water quality threats

[12:37] across the region. Investments into programs that prioritise water conservation and stormwater

[12:42] capture have the potential to move us towards the future in which black families have access to cleaner,

[12:48] more reliable water resources. So the partnership in question between MWD and

[12:54] public works to prioritize water conservation and stormwater capture is a

[12:58] really important step towards addressing the many stresses on our water

[13:02] resources here in Southern California. Programs like the proposed pilot are

[13:07] particularly important given the negative impacts of climate change on our

[13:10] water supply and are particularly important for neighborhoods that are already

[13:14] vulnerable due to these many years of under-investment.

[13:18] As many others on this call have already mentioned, for the pilot to succeed, there are several

[13:24] things that FWD must move forward with, but in particular, I want to emphasise the importance

[13:30] of investing in the pilot in a way that's commensurate with the counting of the investment so that

[13:36] the program has enough resources for the trial run to actually succeed.

[13:40] And I also want to stress that the pilot's rollout must occur equitably so that no community

[13:47] is left behind.

[13:49] As a representative of a CBO, I want to urge in particular that you all reach out to

[13:55] and compensate local trusted CBOs in leading outreach to Angelinos.

[14:01] And specifically as a representative of Black Women for Wellness, I want to stress the

[14:05] need for increased investment in what is infrastructure in South LA and other environmental

[14:11] justice communities across the region through this pilot program and in general.

[14:16] Thank you so much for your time this afternoon.

[14:20] Thank you.

[14:21] Color number six, Courtney, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

[14:26] Good afternoon.

[14:28] My name is Courtney Brown and I'm a staff attorney with San Diego Coast Keeper.

[14:32] San Diego Coast Keeper is a member supported clean water advocacy organization and a core part

[14:40] of our mission is protecting and restoring clean, reliable water for communities across

[14:44] San Diego County.

[14:46] Communities whose water security is directly shaped by the decisions of this board.

[14:51] I'm going to echo my previous callers and share our Coast Keeper support for the Strong

[14:56] Water Pilot Program.

[14:58] every neighborhood and

[15:00] Every zip code deserves equal access to safe, affordable water and healthy landscapes. Unfortunately, down in San Diego and throughout LA County, we regularly see how stormwater pollution and underinvestment and infrastructure disproportionately affects underserved communities. But we also know that strong local solutions can make a meaningful difference. That's why we're so encouraged to see the seeing that exploring a partnership with public works to expand water conservation and stormwater

[15:29] capture through this pilot. This is a smart, cost effective investment. Reducing local

[15:35] demand is cheaper and faster than developing new supplies, and it helps keep RAID stable

[15:40] for everyone. Investing in local water resources strengthens regional resilience. It protects

[15:46] us from climate disruptions, regulatory uncertainty, and the vulnerabilities that come with depending

[15:51] heavily on imported water. If this pilot performs as we know it can, we urge you to scale it up quickly

[15:56] So it can deliver even greater water savings equity and resilience across the region and hopefully serve as a model for similar projects and other regions like San Diego.

[16:06] Thank you.

[16:08] Thank you.

[16:09] Chair, there are no other callers.

[16:11] This public comment line will now be closed.

[16:13] Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting may do so through our website.

[16:17] Thank you.

[16:19] Thank you.

[16:20] So we will now consider the item listed on the consent calendar under agenda item 2a approval of the minutes of the joint one water and adaptation committee and subcommittee on imported water meeting of September 23rd 2025 one water and adaptation committee of October 13th 2025 and the subcommittee on imported water meeting of October 28th 2025.

[16:43] I ask for a motion and a second to approve this item.

[16:45] I see a motion from Director Miller.

[16:49] Second.

[16:51] I see Director Kurtz.

[16:56] Ms. Harms, would you please administer the vote?

[17:00] Thank you, Chair Quinn.

[17:01] I have a motion by Director Miller, seconded by Director Kurtz.

[17:05] For item 2A, I will be calling on committee members only for the vote.

[17:11] Director Ackerman?

[17:12] Yes.

[17:12] Director Alvarez, Armstrong, Camacho, Cordero,

[17:22] Yes, Edmund, Garza, Gold, Katz, Kurtz, Louis,

[17:33] Do it? Yes.

[17:35] Mcmillan? Yes. Miller? Yes.

[17:38] Pressman? Yes.

[17:41] Quinn? I'm going to abstain as I was absent on October 13th and 28th.

[17:46] Sequel? Yes, and nobody's in the room with me.

[17:50] Shepard Roaming? Yes.

[17:52] The vote passed. We will now display the vote. Back to you, Chair Quinn.

[17:57] Thank you. Yes, I'd like to call on Dr. Jurgle.

[18:04] One of the things that would be helpful, maybe I don't think I'm the only one who probably

[18:09] had this comment on the minutes.

[18:10] And I didn't want to bring it up before the vote because it should be a formality.

[18:15] If it would be possible to maybe add a little bit of content on the discussion, even if it's

[18:21] just a sentence or two, rather than so and so spoke or whatever, there's no way to really

[18:28] clean anything from the minutes other than the agenda which you already have. So for someone

[18:36] who didn't attend who wanted to see what was going on, you really can't get anything out of it.

[18:41] Yeah.

[18:44] I'll just tell you what I do. I go online and I look at the video and the video breaks everything

[18:50] down by topic and you could actually jump to the topic if you want to see what was being referenced

[18:56] And you can actually see what was happening and who said, but just a suggestion.

[19:00] I think one of the things that we've discussed before and we've requested of staff is to at least include when a director is asking for something and there's something that's going to come back or asking the staff to take action.

[19:11] I think having that memorialized in the minutes could be helpful.

[19:15] So I think maybe if there's anyone on staff who could respond, that would be possible.

[19:20] Moving forward, I see Rikita and Ms. Hudson.

[19:23] Thank you for the question.

[19:24] We actually, our minutes are summarized, and like Chair Takea said, the minutes reflect what happened at the meeting.

[19:34] The reason why we are not putting direct-to-request in there is because as Chair Takea has instructed us, he will like a consensus on the board and that information goes in the follow-up or future agenda items.

[19:46] And so if this will be a great meeting, if somebody is asking for something to be brought

[19:51] back to committee, the vice chair of that committee is supposed to gather that information

[19:58] and then act the committee if there is a consensus of the board.

[20:03] Because we do not, as Metropolitan, we cannot bring something to committee based off of one

[20:10] chair's request. It needs to be the committee's request.

[20:16] Thank you for that. I'll see Chair take a little bit.

[20:19] No, but to I think Chair Quint's point, why can't that be noted on the paper agenda,

[20:25] that the committee chair asked if there was any objection and no objection was expressed

[20:31] and therefore it's a follow-up item. I mean it's just a sentence, would that be possible?

[20:36] Yes, we do do that in the follow up items, but at this committee that has not been happy me.

[20:42] Okay, so then I think the remedy is at, you know, the request is if there's no objection, then.

[20:49] Yes.

[20:49] Thank you.

[20:50] Great. Thank you for the helpful information.

[20:53] All right.

[20:55] Moving on, we have no committee items for board consideration and no committee items for board action.

[21:03] We do have two committee informational items for board consideration.

[21:06] Mr. Goshe, would you please introduce item 9-3?

[21:09] Thank you, Chair Quinn.

[21:10] Item 9-3 is titled Information on Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,

[21:15] Potential Stormwater Pilot Program.

[21:18] You just heard a lot of public input about that process that staff has been engaged in

[21:22] in trying to develop a pilot program that builds on our conservation program

[21:28] that encourages or incorporates stormwater capture benefits

[21:33] as part of the program.

[21:34] And so that's what the pilot's about.

[21:36] You heard from Arla back in May

[21:39] and from staff here on a committee item in September

[21:43] on the work and the development of that pilot program.

[21:47] We've been working very hard to discuss

[21:49] the desires and requirements of such a program,

[21:52] taking what we're trying to accomplish

[21:54] and functionalizing it in the administration of our conservation program, we had originally intended to have an action item for consideration by this time, but the details, what is that saying the devil is always in the details, and several details still need to be worked out with the department of public works for being able to bring something for your attention.

[22:17] So we have action scheduled tentatively for January, but again, that will depend on whether or not we can close the books on some of those details.

[22:29] I do or we do want to bring as much information as we can.

[22:33] And so today we have Christa Guerrero, our Senior Resource Specialist from our Water Efficiency Team, to present the item on where we are today and the development of this program.

[22:46] Thank you, Brandon. Good afternoon Chairwoman, members of the committee. Today I will bring you an informational item on the work that we have connected so far and the work still to be completed on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works pilot program.

[23:04] So as has been mentioned, we have engaged with Accelerate Resilience Los Angeles to discuss the turf replacement program benefits and potential co-benefits and partnerships that may exist in our service area.

[23:16] We were given board direction to develop a potential pilot program with public works, which

[23:20] we have been actively working on since then.

[23:23] There have been several meetings between Metropolitan and Public Works to discuss the pilot

[23:27] program goals and refine the draft proposal.

[23:29] This has included understanding and determining this prospective stormwater feature that needs

[23:35] to be a part of that, the potential pilot area, and other options for potential funding,

[23:40] as well as other partnerships that may join in this effort.

[23:45] We've also been meeting with potential third-party vendor, which I will be assessing with

[23:48] you today, to develop the DAC equity portion of the proposal.

[23:52] And part of that work that we've been conducting over the last several months has included numerous

[23:56] due diligence efforts on staff's part to ensure that the vendor that we have selected can do

[24:02] this work properly and has done it successfully in other parts of the country.

[24:07] I give you a board all report in September of 2025 with our progress today and I am back

[24:12] to update you.

[24:15] So as I did mention in previous reports, our potential pilot program structure has four

[24:20] parts.

[24:21] It is a stacked rebate for the pilot area.

[24:24] It also includes enhanced or moderate capture and other features on top of the traditional

[24:29] turf replacement program requirements.

[24:32] It also includes an equity and access portion of the program which I will be discussing in

[24:36] detail today, and of course analysis of the results and a final determination on scalability

[24:42] of such a program.

[24:48] The program itself is an enhanced rebate for turf replacement programs and projects in

[24:54] a selected pilot area.

[24:56] Public works will supplement metropolitan space incentive, and our goal would be to cover

[25:01] 75 to 100 percent of the project costs for a particular applicant.

[25:04] The program itself would be available to both CII, commercial, industrial, and institutional

[25:11] applicants, as well as residential applicants in the selected pilot area.

[25:16] On top of the traditional turf or placement program requirements, we have added and altered

[25:22] a few to enhance the co-benefits potential for this project.

[25:26] One is a prescriptive stormwater feature, so as you know, there is a stormwater feature

[25:30] requirement in the turf replacement program currently, this would be changed to a

[25:34] prescriptive feature that would require construction specifications and more

[25:38] information before conducting. A native only plant pallet, soil amendments to be

[25:44] added to improve soil health, and a minimum four plants per hundred square feet,

[25:49] which is an increase from our current requirement of three plants per hundred

[25:52] square feet. We are also adding an equity and access portion to the program through

[25:58] pilot partnership with a third-party funding vendor, and we will continue to push outreach

[26:03] with our external affairs department or potential member agency partner as well as community

[26:08] based organizations.

[26:10] And of course, we will also have our data analysis.

[26:16] So the equity and access portion of the program, we have started discussions with company known

[26:23] as BrainPlan LLC.

[26:25] This is a stormwater utility management company with services that drive green infrastructure

[26:29] adoption on private property. They offer a number of services but what we are

[26:34] focusing for this pilot are their data insight service outreach and engagement

[26:38] and project fulfillment portion. Staff was able to verify that they've had

[26:44] significant success partnering with NGOs, utilities and other government agencies

[26:50] in Washington, Oregon, Washington, D.C. and North Carolina. So this is a methodology

[26:56] that has been implemented in other areas

[26:58] that are looking to improve their equity and access.

[27:01] And we'd like to see if that can be successful

[27:02] in Southern California as well.

[27:07] So how would Rain Plan fit into our pilot?

[27:10] The first is that Rain Plan would be contracted

[27:12] to do a virtual site visit with all potential applicants.

[27:16] They would verify eligibility and explain the program

[27:19] so that the customer understands exactly

[27:21] what would be what the program entails

[27:23] and how it differs from our traditional turf or placement program.

[27:27] They would help them determine the optimal storm water feature, including selection of

[27:32] that feature and appropriate location on their property.

[27:35] And they would also help to provide design ideas and determine the customer needs.

[27:40] If requested, the customer may then continue to move forward with Rainplan and request contractor

[27:45] matching, where Rainplan will assist them in finding qualified local contractors through

[27:50] our well-DCP certified list and also assist with soliciting bids and assisting with contract

[27:55] development.

[28:02] The most important part of the equity and access piece is this

[28:05] screen spending advance, which is unique to Rainplan. They are able to provide

[28:10] upfront funding to applicants to complete the project. Therefore an applicant

[28:14] would not need to come out of pocket in order to do the project before receiving

[28:17] the rebate. The Rainplan itself would be reimbursed by the applicant utilizing the

[28:23] rebate once they receive that check. The applicant would also normally cover any

[28:28] additional costs as well. So if they tend to pick a design, happen to pick a design, or want

[28:33] more high-end materials that go above the cost that can be provided by the rebate, the customer

[28:38] would cover that cost. There are project fees associated with the service. So there is a service

[28:46] fee that Rainplan charges in order to do the upfront funding advance. And for this pilot,

[28:52] we would recommend that Metropolitan pay that fee for the customer so that they do not have an

[28:57] additional expense. On top of all of that, RAIN plan does provide project

[29:02] assurance, guaranteeing that all projects meet program requirements and terms

[29:05] and conditions and will receive the rebate.

[29:12] As you are aware, metropolitan's current

[29:14] structure creates challenges in providing funding or benefits to a portion of our

[29:18] customer base that is not equally provided to the entire customer base. So the

[29:23] RAIN plan green spending advance reduces barriers for low income customers to

[29:26] participate since metropolitan is not the one providing the upfront

[29:30] funding. We would cover the associated rain plan fees to all participants in the pilot area

[29:35] regardless of income qualification. So while this is intended as equity and access for low-income

[29:40] customers, it would be equally available to all participants. And it gives us the opportunity

[29:47] to pilot a methodology in Southern California that has been successful in other parts of the country.

[29:56] There are still a number of things that need to be decided upon.

[30:00] And received from public works before we can move forward with implementation of the pilot program. The pending items currently are that we are waiting on the pilot area selection from public works. We do understand they have made movement in that direction. They have a list of options, but we have not received that final pilot area selection. We do need the final pilot area selection before we can put together any budget estimates or any understandings of costs so that we once we know the size of that pilot area.

[30:28] We are still discussing in discussions with Rainplan on their scope of work and the associated

[30:33] fee schedule.

[30:34] But again, until we know the size of the pilot area, we also cannot get from them the correct

[30:38] fee schedule, because they do not know how big of an area they'll be servicing.

[30:44] Once we have that pilot area selection, we will also be able to engage with the selected

[30:48] member agency on their potential participation and possible co-funding.

[30:52] We have not been able to reach out to the Member Agencies yet because we do not know which area is selected.

[30:59] Once those items have been addressed, it will take approximately six to nine months

[31:04] to do any adjustments to the pilot proposal to include Member Agency participation

[31:10] to help the agreement development and execution between the Member Agency and Public Works

[31:15] to develop the program materials and make changes to our website including adding a special page

[31:21] just for the pilot participants and to begin doing a request for proposals for a consultant

[31:27] to conduct the final data analysis.

[31:29] We will be doing this at the beginning of the pilot so that we can of course collect

[31:33] the correct data while the pilot is going on for them to analyze at the end.

[31:39] Once all of that is complete, it will be 12, we estimate 12 to 24 months for the actual

[31:45] pilot program.

[31:46] That includes launching and implementation of the program along with any outreach performed

[31:51] by any community-based organizations we partner with in coordination with the member agency

[31:56] at our external affairs department.

[31:58] And we will be collecting data at that time.

[32:01] Once the pilot is complete, it will, we expect another six to twelve months for that final

[32:06] data collection analysis and report back with our final results.

[32:13] So, our next steps.

[32:14] We continue to work very diligently with public works to finalize these pilot details.

[32:20] We are working with them actively on that pilot area selection and some questions and concerns

[32:25] regarding the prescriptive stormwater feature design and the amount of service and assistance

[32:32] that we can provide property owners with putting in a prescriptive stormwater feature.

[32:38] We will also be coordinating with public works and the selected member agency on a potential

[32:43] potential partnership, discussing with them any potential co-funding they may be able

[32:48] to add to the pilot, helping provide that invoicing a memorandum of understanding that

[32:53] will be required in order for public works funds to make it into metropolitan rebate, and

[32:59] the outreach and data collection as the member agency will be the only entity who actually

[33:03] has the customer data that we will need to do the analysis.

[33:08] And we will still be working on developing our scope of work and agreement with Rainplan

[33:12] for the equity and access portion, and we, if necessary, will return for board action on the

[33:17] rain plan agreement in early 2026 as soon as that is ready.

[33:23] And that is my presentation for today.

[33:24] I'm happy to take any questions.

[33:28] See hands. Okay, I'm going to start with Director Kurtz

[33:31] and then Chair Ortega.

[33:38] The chair may always go first. I think it's very good that we're looking at

[33:47] but measure W and money and being able to access that and working with public works.

[33:52] I'm a little concerned that it's only LA County.

[33:55] We talk about the inequities that have been built into our system when we talked about one this morning.

[34:01] And I hope we're not doing that again.

[34:03] So maybe at some point we could also talk about this is a demo.

[34:07] But then how do we make it available beyond LA County?

[34:11] My real questions though come down to our rain plan.

[34:14] And what was the process that went through to select them?

[34:19] It sort of seems like it's sole source,

[34:21] and yet I kind of doubt they're the only people

[34:24] that could do this work.

[34:25] And I think it's so important that even on a demo,

[34:29] we don't violate our own procedures and make sure

[34:33] that we're always going through the correct process

[34:37] as to pick any third-party vendor,

[34:39] both because of the fees that will be charged

[34:42] but also because of the quality of work that we receive.

[34:45] Ms. Gerard, would you like to address that?

[34:47] Yes, of course.

[34:48] There are other entities that can do that virtual site visit, the sizing that is 100% the

[34:54] case.

[34:55] Rainplan is the only company that we have found that does the green spending advance in the

[35:00] format that we are looking for for the equity and access portion.

[35:03] So we have not been able to find another company with the success rate and the track record

[35:08] that we've seen from Rainplan that does green spending advances and combined with the stormwater

[35:15] education. May I follow up Madam Chair? So it's the upfront funding that sort of push them over.

[35:23] Do we know how much that is though and is it worth it to not look at what the fees are since we don't

[35:29] know the fees because we could do upfront funding. They get that back so there'd be different ways

[35:35] the structure that I'm still concerned we don't have numbers in that this and I know you're still

[35:42] working through it, but to solve some one that we don't know the numbers just because they can

[35:47] do upfront funding. It's a little nervous to me. That's an excellent point. We're kind of caught in

[35:54] this spot where we're trying to share information about how we're developing this, intending to you

[36:00] to come back to you for that or with that action item of which rain plan would be part of it. So

[36:05] So we're not selecting rain plan as staff on a sole source basis, we're going to bring

[36:11] them forward to you to show you what services they provide, what it's going to cause, what

[36:16] they're putting forward when we bring the action item forward for you to help us make

[36:22] that decision.

[36:23] And I promise it's the last one.

[36:25] So will we see comparable information because how do we make a decision if the only vendor,

[36:31] or third party vendor before us is rain, rain plan.

[36:35] I keep trying to say rain tree, rain plan, that doesn't really give us a chance to make

[36:41] a decision.

[36:42] Well, yeah, yes or no, but that's not a good decision.

[36:46] We'll bring that information.

[36:49] Thank you.

[36:51] Mr. Chair.

[36:52] Thank you.

[36:53] Thank you for all the thought that you've put into this.

[36:56] In defensive staff, you know, disadvantaged communities in California, even in LA County,

[37:02] experience of Ender Boyd. In many respects, our economies, and I say arc as I

[37:08] work with a lot of them, are so small that they don't allow for the kinds of

[37:15] margins that the larger firms are used to collecting for projects. I've been

[37:21] involved in projects all over the state where you can't find a vendor, for

[37:25] example, to install 25 meters, even though the law requires them to meet

[37:29] or a well-sounder, or to do conservation retrofits.

[37:35] In fact, in California, there was only one company that could help with the DWR grant for

[37:43] small water system conservation type of retrofits.

[37:50] So I believe staff about the limited, especially if you're aiming at this sector of the water

[37:55] market.

[37:56] But my question is, with respect to Alley County, from what you said, San Fernando in

[38:03] Compton wouldn't qualify, because they wouldn't have the ability to put any funding as member

[38:10] agencies.

[38:11] So I'm wondering if you would make an accommodation, for example, because I think it would cover

[38:17] the bulk where San Fernando and Compton maybe pair up with the City of Los Angeles or

[38:24] whether they pair up with the central base municipal water district or another adjacent

[38:29] entity that has the city along beach that has significant numbers of disadvantaged

[38:36] communities.

[38:37] And then my other question is, is the county and designating regions going to limit it

[38:42] to only unincorporated portions of the county, or are they also going to include areas that

[38:49] are incorporated, like San Fernando and Compton?

[38:51] The public works is making, oh, I'm sorry, I read it.

[38:56] Public works is solely making the site selections based on their needs for the storm

[39:02] water benefit they're trying to achieve.

[39:04] So metropolitan staff has not been providing input into those selections other than by letting

[39:09] them know which agencies do provide funding currently to turf replacement and which do not.

[39:14] And also giving them an idea of our boundaries and the member agency boundaries as well so they can make those decisions.

[39:24] It would be up to public works to determine if that was something that they wanted to do as I understand that they are, though, including incorporated areas.

[39:33] Yes.

[39:34] So could we segregate our funding?

[39:38] I think it would be very difficult for me to support this if my member agency is

[39:42] inaligable because it wasn't selected by the county.

[39:45] And while I wouldn't want to stop the benefits of the project, I would expect that metropolitan's

[39:52] portion of the money, which is based on an existing program that we already have.

[39:57] I think that's part of it, not be used in areas that are not part of our member agency.

[40:08] I mean, could that be possible?

[40:09] I mean, is there any, I think it'd be a little, I think our area encompasses unincorporated

[40:14] areas, but I'm struggling on understanding how this could be fair to the two poorest metropolitan

[40:21] member agencies if in fact we are targeting underserved communities.

[40:26] I mean, Mr. Chair, I just, I mean, this is a pilot, so not everyone, you know, I think I certainly understand your point and I think, you know, hopefully this could show success and then it could be more but I think this goes to also to the same thing as as Director Curtis's point of this is not going beyond LA County, I think for me at least I see that, you know, this is just where can we do this pilot so we can get this information about whether effective and then think about how

[40:56] that we pull in other areas with disadvantaged community?

[40:59] Yeah, but I'll tell you, as a representative of this

[41:01] disadvantaged community, that's all we ever get.

[41:04] That always happens to us in the poorest communities

[41:08] that don't have the money to match.

[41:12] And I mean, it's, I was up in Northern California

[41:16] where areas that are poor with low populations are told,

[41:20] well, you're not going to benefit as many people.

[41:21] We're going to go give the money to a larger area.

[41:24] And so, I think that if we're trying to prove that conservation can be equitable and that

[41:30] it can work for disadvantaged communities, we ought to try to find a way to make it work.

[41:34] I'd like to see at least an effort, even if it means pairing up with one of our larger

[41:40] member agencies that could help, because I think we'd have as a co-op all of us together

[41:47] the ability to do that, but I'd like to see at least something, at least an effort to make

[41:53] I think it worked for the poorest in our metropolitan family.

[41:57] Thank you.

[41:58] I see Director Cickel's hand up, but I believe Director Gold wanted to respond directly to something that was said.

[42:03] So, for did I understand that correctly?

[42:05] No, I just want to talk.

[42:07] Well, let's go to Director Cickel's office and then we'll go to Director Gold.

[42:09] Sure, Quinn, can I just add, just for clarification, there wouldn't be any participants in this that aren't in metropolitan service area.

[42:18] I just wanted to make that clear.

[42:19] It's not as though LA County is picking areas outside of our service area, so just wanted to make sure that that was clear.

[42:27] Okay, and then before we go to director's cycle, I think director Gold did want to respond.

[42:30] So, thank you, Chair Quinn, there's a few things, and I'm glad it's being echoed that this is a pilot project.

[42:40] And on this is a pilot project in an area that MWD has struggled with now for about eight years.

[42:48] on, you know, if you really look at looking at stormwater as part of our water supply portfolio,

[42:54] I was on the board last time we tried this in a pretty significant way,

[42:58] and we funded some projects. We still don't have final results on. I think they were funded

[43:02] like seven years ago or something like that, so it's been a long time coming. So the issue the

[43:09] chair or takeer brought up is a great one, and, you know, needs to be taken into consideration,

[43:15] and I think greatly, and so whatever constraints there are in being able to say that hey, look if the partnering local agency can't pony up from match, then there's got to be another way for them to be eligible.

[43:30] I am frankly a little bit shocked that Met is not involved in the discussions in what qualifies as a good highlight area.

[43:38] I mean just as a scientist, I don't get it.

[43:40] You know, I mean you have the expertise from the standpoint of groundwater and groundwater

[43:45] supply, I'd say much better than LA County Public Works.

[43:51] You know, you're not negotiating with the water masters, you're negotiating with Public

[43:55] Works.

[43:55] So they get the surface water side way better than we do from the standpoint of storm water

[43:59] and storm water quality issues.

[44:01] But this goes back to what we were talking about years ago, which is what would even constitute

[44:07] to a benefit to met from the standpoint of local water supply.

[44:11] It has to be quote from my perspective, and I've been saying this forever, new storm

[44:16] water from the standpoint, meaning new water supply.

[44:20] So if it's water that was going to be infiltrated anyway, within a watershed, that's not really

[44:27] what we should be funding.

[44:28] It's new water that's going to be augmenting our local groundwater supplies, which is what

[44:34] that we're all about here is on the water supply side.

[44:37] So if Metz is not weighing in on regional site selection based on looking at criteria

[44:44] about infiltration capacity of soils, productivity, groundwater basins, then I don't understand

[44:52] why we would ever give up on that.

[44:54] We should be absolutely critically involved in those discussions.

[44:58] and guess what, San Fernando...

[45:00] The panel is in a great location in light of the criteria that I just said. So it doesn't even have to get into that from the standpoint of, oh, well, let's choose this versus that because of the NEJ issue. San Fernando would meet the darn criteria, just based on what I know about that area and how permeable the soils are. And you could argue central basin, same thing. And so from that. So I think just as the paying up front, I think is genius.

[45:29] And I commend you completely because that opens it up to folks who would never apply in a million years because they can't afford the capital up front for landscape transformations, especially more expensive ones that are include strong water infiltration.

[45:45] But to add this sort of component where the criteria are taking into account, I'm not talking about average household income.

[45:53] I'm talking about producing groundwater basins, permeable soils, et cetera, and guess what?

[46:00] A lot of the areas that are the poorest areas within the LA region happen to meet those criteria

[46:06] and a lot of the places do not.

[46:08] You would not put this in loss of urgenous because there's no way to infiltrate the runoff.

[46:13] You can't get the groundwater back out, you don't have producing groundwater basins, right?

[46:16] So it's a different project and so I sure hope that we're weighing in on that in a pretty

[46:21] significant way. And if it means, you know, we need to, you know, to deal with, um,

[46:27] sure our take is issue. If it we need, if it means we need to add a few more dollars

[46:32] if the local agency can't match because that's an unfair issue, then we should be talking

[46:38] about that. And frankly, we should be doing dollar for dollar on what county public works

[46:43] is doing anyways from an equity perspective. Thank you.

[46:54] Excuse me, thank you Madam Chair, I still have some confusion on the dollar responsibilities

[47:02] on this and just let me reflect what I think I heard, I think I heard MET is going to

[47:10] pay for the rain plan portion, MET is going to pay for a rebate and MET is going to pay

[47:18] for the data analysis. Are those the three components that met will be paying for?

[47:24] Yes, we were paying for all of those as well as any other administrative, programming,

[47:30] inspection costs. Really all the costs related to implementation of the program. Public

[47:36] works money will only go to their portion of the actual rebate. All other costs are covered

[47:41] by Metropolitan.

[47:42] And is there any estimate of what the total of all those costs would be on a, on a proposal

[47:48] basis or per applicant basis? I guess it can't be applicant. It's got to be proposal

[47:53] or a per project basis. Unfortunately not yet until we know the size

[47:58] of the pilot area. Okay. I was just trying to, when this originally

[48:02] came up, the costs involved in this were extreme. It sounded like they have been paired

[48:09] way back which would be a lot more applicable. I realize it's a demonstration program and sometimes

[48:16] in demonstration programs you will infuse it with extra dollars to get out of it a learning experience.

[48:24] So I'm okay with that aspect. I just wanted to understand when you do bring it back what dollars

[48:31] that would be paying relative to the entire program so the directors can evaluate that. Thank you so

[48:37] much. Thank you, director Teckel. You also touched on my question. I think we had in the previous

[48:44] presentation talked about these sort of the in kind that would be added from met. And so really

[48:50] looking forward, I guess, once we get the size of the pilot on honing in, like director Gold said,

[48:56] I think it does make sense for us to try to match. And I think that when I recall from the original

[49:02] presentation is that this was proposed at about $15 per square foot I think and so I think

[49:10] the closer that we can get to that through the rebate direct dollar per square foot and

[49:16] the in kind would be really helpful so that we can see the full benefits. I think if we're looking

[49:22] at $10 a square foot we're not going to get the full benefits that the $15 model showed so really

[49:30] interested to see what you guys come back with. Since they don't have any other hands raised,

[49:35] I'll just, oh, sure, Director Katz, and then I'll proceed with my questions.

[49:40] Is this program coming out of our turf replacement and our conservation program?

[49:46] Was that a yes? Yes, sorry. And do we use someone like Rain Plan for our own

[49:54] conservation and turf replacement program? We've never used a company like Rain Plan before.

[49:58] or you never done anything like this before,

[50:01] so this is another piece of the pilot that we get to try out

[50:05] and see if it's something we might be able to scale up

[50:08] in the future.

[50:11] It sort of, when this came forward to us in May,

[50:16] it seemed like the committee was in favor

[50:19] of moving forward and wanted met staff to look at it

[50:23] and see how to make this all work.

[50:25] work. I'm just so surprised that it's taken this long and that it's getting to be so

[50:32] complicated. It's coming out of a program that we already have and I don't know why we

[50:40] can't just be doing a demonstration project on storm order which is badly needed and see

[50:46] if it works. And I really am just baffled though why it's taken so long for me until now

[50:53] and they're not coming back until January or February.

[50:59] Director Katz, I appreciate your urgency.

[51:01] Thank you for those comments.

[51:04] And I support them.

[51:07] A couple more questions that I had.

[51:11] We talked about, you mentioned you were looking at other additional partners.

[51:18] Potential funding partners, I hope.

[51:20] I was wondering if you could expand upon the work that's been done to identify additional partners

[51:25] and who you might be thinking of.

[51:28] Oh, that was in reference to potentially the member agency

[51:31] and then any associated, depending on the member agency chosen,

[51:34] retail agencies that may also fall into the selected pilot area

[51:38] so that if they wanted to contribute to this,

[51:41] we would be able to do that as well as any kind work

[51:45] from community-based organizations, nonprofits

[51:49] would also be a part of that.

[51:52] There are a lot of incredible benefits

[51:54] that can come from this project that were identified

[51:56] in the initial presentation, biodiversity, other things.

[51:59] I think it might be worthwhile to contact other agencies

[52:03] that may have grant funding available

[52:05] to help support this work to offset some of the costs

[52:08] or to build up to that, towards that $15 per square foot.

[52:13] I believe some of those were identified

[52:15] in the presentation, I think it would be helpful.

[52:18] I'm not sure if Arla worked with any of those organizations

[52:23] during the report that you paired, but I think it might be helpful for met staff to continue

[52:28] conversations to see if there are additional funding partners that might be able to contribute

[52:32] to the project.

[52:34] Would that be, can I make that direction?

[52:38] Is there any objection to us looking for additional funding partners?

[52:42] Okay, great.

[52:45] I mean, and then I would love a little bit more information on the data, the plans for monitoring and data analysis.

[52:55] So you mentioned hiring a third party firm.

[53:00] Can you talk a little bit more about the monitoring plan and the identification of what, who that data analysis firm might be?

[53:08] Yes, so we do have two firms that we are already under contract with or other teams in WRM

[53:14] do have active contracts with. So we would be probably going to them first to see if this is

[53:20] work that fits within those existing agreements. If not, we'll have to do an RFP for this work.

[53:26] And as I said, we want to get them on early so that we can get the full list of the co-benefits and

[53:32] exactly what it is we're going to be analyzing and the data that we would need to collect.

[53:35] brain plan is going to be part of that. They do data analysis and collection for other entities

[53:41] and other parts of the country. So they have experience in that as well. So it will be a

[53:45] team effort between metropolitan staff, public works, brain plan, and the third-party data

[53:50] consultant that we hire to list out the variables that we will be testing, the methodology that

[53:56] will come from that, and then ensuring that that is what we receive in our final report.

[54:00] Great. I think because of the broad spectrum of benefits that could come from this, it

[54:05] It'll be really great to make sure that there are experts in the room on each of those.

[54:10] So if that goes, some of those benefits go beyond the expertise of our existing data

[54:14] analysis firms or rain plan, I would love to see the addition of experts in those fields

[54:19] to make sure we're quantifying what we're seeing in the results.

[54:24] So thank you for that.

[54:26] Let me just double check my little list here, apologies.

[54:29] That was a great, you covered a lot, so great, great job.

[54:31] I think they're just Eccles-Hen as we begin.

[54:36] Oh, well, thank you for that.

[54:38] While I'm looking through my notes,

[54:40] I will call on Dr. Eccles.

[54:42] Thank you for second shot at this.

[54:45] And this is just a friendly reminder to Director Katz.

[54:50] When this originally came to the committee,

[54:52] there were several of us who were very concerned

[54:58] with the cost proposal of this program and it was somewhere in the order of

[55:04] $15,000 to $18,000 per parcel. If the funding comes from other sources, I guess I

[55:11] don't have a problem with it but that issue was expressed not only by me but

[55:16] other directors. So I just wanted to reflect that the original program did not

[55:23] have full support and that's why I think it was kind of sent back before a review.

[55:30] Now once again it is a pilot program and so there are reasons why you would support

[55:36] a pilot program for benefits but remember we're trying to characterize this as a stormwater

[55:42] capture program and I very carefully read the Arla proposal several times and I think

[55:51] I think that report was a very, very, very, very optimistic prescription of all kinds

[56:01] of benefits.

[56:02] And in my opinion, it was a bit out of line, and that's why I was hoping that staff

[56:08] continuing to work with us, it would be paired back a bit to be something more in line with

[56:13] the stormwater capture program as opposed to all the other benefits that were captured in

[56:20] that original proposal and sort of what I'm hearing today

[56:23] as it's trying to be pulled back the other way now.

[56:25] So just as a single director for the record

[56:30] and for this committee,

[56:31] I'm just gonna echo my opposition to the director

[56:34] direction that this is heading right now.

[56:36] Thank you.

[56:38] Thank you, director Seckle.

[56:39] I think it is appropriate for agencies

[56:41] to put in money that is sort of equivalent

[56:46] to the benefits that they will receive.

[56:48] And that is why I made the suggestion

[56:49] that when we're looking at trying to get to some of these other benefits co-benefits that could come out of this we also look for additional funding partners that focus in those areas so that we could round out the full benefits of a pilot project like this. So I hope that addresses some of your concerns.

[57:09] Yes, do. Hello, Devon. Good afternoon.

[57:17] Gosh, I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate

[57:21] this. The first thing that I would say is I do want to praise the staff team for trying

[57:31] to be aggressive with this and to bend in ways that allow us to do something that we haven't

[57:38] done in the past. I think you guys have been very creative.

[57:43] The taking a step back and trying to sort of act almost like a third party listening

[57:48] to this conversation, I don't see unanimity. And that gives me some concern. When we went

[57:56] out the gate on this, we were trying to be innovative with another party, LA County Public

[58:04] work that was willing to put significant money in, but they need to see the benefits of

[58:08] that money in LA County. That's why it's there. The external funding partner we're working

[58:13] with is only in LA County. So knowing that, the staff team from an equity perspective has

[58:20] tried to craft a program that has our funding largely the same as it is for the funding for

[58:28] other work that's going on in other counties. And then we're piggybacking with the funding

[58:32] from public works to get maybe not to the 15, but significantly higher funding per square

[58:40] foot that helps with the stormwater element.

[58:44] Ellie County is another large bureaucracy, they don't move quickly and that has been part

[58:50] of the challenge here.

[58:53] But there are other ways to cut this, I mean if the board felt so strongly that you wanted

[59:00] to see $15 a square foot going from Metropolitan or partnered, you know, half of that by Metropolitan,

[59:08] we could produce that. But it would be very expensive. And I think the staff team has been reacting

[59:15] to that to try to bring something balanced. So, Director Katz, I hear the sense of frustration in

[59:23] your voice about how long it has taken, and I need you to understand how hard the staff

[59:31] team has been working not only internally but with external partners to try to get this

[59:36] across the finish line in an equitable way, and that's what they're trying to balance.

[59:46] Thank you.

[59:48] Oh, we've got a few other hands.

[59:50] I see Director Sutcle.

[59:51] Your hand is still up.

[59:51] Is that a legacy hand?

[59:54] Okay.

[59:54] Director Pressman?

[59:57] Thank you, Chair.

[59:58] Good.

[59:59] I just want to

[1:00:00] We want to be sure that when we discuss this in the future, this is all placed within the camp for water process. I think it's a mistake for us to consider this independently of the entire portfolio that we're going to be moving forward with. Thank you. Thank you, Director Pressman. And I think if we move beyond a pilot program to a full-fledged program, that does make a lot of sense.

[1:00:29] I'm sorry. My point is as a pilot as well. Money is money. And if we're going to spend it,

[1:00:36] we have to determine whether or not this is where we're going to be moving forward with

[1:00:42] our future water portfolio. So I'm sorry, I don't agree direct to the point that it matters

[1:00:49] that it's a pilot.

[1:00:50] But I want to remind everybody that this is coming from existing budget and this is an unusual

[1:00:59] unprecedented opportunity to get matched.

[1:01:01] So if everybody wants to turn their back on an unprecedented opportunity to partner with

[1:01:09] the largest populated county in California, then fine, I can just tell you having been in

[1:01:16] feel for over 40 years and it can happen again, you know, if that's our mentality here.

[1:01:23] So this is devolved into a pretty disturbing discussion and I think we're better off.

[1:01:32] Let's wait until staff can provide some answers to some questions.

[1:01:37] I think unfortunately staff you're hearing there's no detail too small for this committee to

[1:01:42] review, so make sure that that final report that we all vote on, Brandon, etc., in January,

[1:01:49] really covers all the bases, deals with many of the things Devon was saying, I'm like,

[1:01:55] my gosh, you're asking us to do the impossible here, and pleasing all sides here.

[1:02:00] But also in the context of like the other storm water program, it's a pilot, unlike the

[1:02:06] other storm water program, it's out of existing budget that is already allocated for landscape

[1:02:11] transformation and I we have a lot of other stuff to get to so I hope we can move on quickly.

[1:02:19] Mr. Chair.

[1:02:21] I kind of have to agree with Vice Chair Pressman but from the perspective that I think Chair

[1:02:29] Quint said we need data. I don't know how we evaluate something in avoid and we have data on the traditional

[1:02:38] for placement program, here's another angle to it.

[1:02:43] And I think we get to compare between the traditional one

[1:02:46] and the data yielded by this project.

[1:02:49] And especially when we're dealing with the budget

[1:02:51] and with the future where we have to think about equity,

[1:02:55] I think this is innovative in the way that it's bending

[1:02:57] to try to figure that out from the metropolitan perspective

[1:03:01] because we know we can't do that like through a local

[1:03:04] do

[1:03:08] something here.

[1:03:09] And so I want to give praise to the staff for trying so hard and as Devon said, you know,

[1:03:15] looking at the fact there's no unanimity, but a lot of ideas.

[1:03:19] Thank you.

[1:03:20] Thank you.

[1:03:20] I'll just wrap this up by also sharing our, I'll leave another one.

[1:03:25] Someone else?

[1:03:27] Oh.

[1:03:28] Okay.

[1:03:29] Sorry.

[1:03:29] It's hard with the hands.

[1:03:30] I missed the iPads.

[1:03:31] Sorry.

[1:03:32] I'll be very brief.

[1:03:34] And I'll admit I'm very biased because for sticking from Long Beach and everything she touched

[1:03:39] turned to gold. So I just want to say thank you for your report. I have a question. Is this

[1:03:44] similar in any way to the work that Metropolitan did with Rancho Los Serritos?

[1:03:49] That was more of a one-off program. This is trying to push it into our regional

[1:03:57] turf or placement program and really pilot the possibility of incorporating additional partners

[1:04:03] into regional turf or placement and as the way the program currently exists. So that would be

[1:04:07] the main difference between.

[1:04:08] Okay.

[1:04:09] But there, Metropolitan, we had the city, our utility department wasn't even involved

[1:04:14] materially.

[1:04:15] It was, they did some other labor even.

[1:04:16] But they're in kind.

[1:04:17] Yes.

[1:04:17] That's the port also came in.

[1:04:19] Right.

[1:04:19] We had the beauty of that.

[1:04:21] Going to do a chair or take a question, I understand that.

[1:04:27] If it were to be a situation like, say, Compton and maybe Long Beach partnering, you have to

[1:04:32] look at, are there some costs with regards to labor that have to be looked at too?

[1:04:36] So does a San Fernando does a Compton have the labor that the people that they need to implement this or would that be another consideration that would have to be included in that?

[1:04:47] That would be something we'd have to look at. We do have the expectation from our training classes that we already have professionals that we do have enough professionals to do the labor required in any part of LA County.

[1:05:01] But we do not we won't know that for sure until we push out the pilot.

[1:05:06] Okay, I don't see any downside to this, I'm not really a financial person, so this all

[1:05:10] looks really good to me when I'm reading it over again.

[1:05:13] And I would love to see if we do move forward.

[1:05:15] If we do look at the possibility of having partnerships with an agency that don't have the dollars

[1:05:21] or the wherewithal to do this, there would be some sort of a best practices that we can look

[1:05:25] at.

[1:05:26] Thank you.

[1:05:28] Yes, Mr. Bernarski.

[1:05:29] Thank you.

[1:05:30] So clearly there's been a robust discussion here this afternoon about this program, and I think I would just want to confirm that staff is going to be on the right track to make sure that we meet all of your needs if are coming back in January.

[1:05:44] Typically with this much discussion on an item, we would bring back a secondary info item that would be our best attempt at trying to pull together all of the comments that we've heard here that would set the pathway for an action item the next month after that.

[1:06:00] So, you know, that would leave us with two steps.

[1:06:04] January info item, we try to capture all the comments here and lay out the proposed program,

[1:06:09] followed by say a February action item, or the alternative approach to address Director Katz's question about trying to move quickly would be,

[1:06:16] we'll take our best crack at putting together the comments into a final action item for January.

[1:06:21] I guess what I'm just looking for is to help staff understand what the objective is and the timing for that,

[1:06:27] and how to move forward best to meet your goals.

[1:06:30] I think we've had a couple different presentations on this,

[1:06:33] and I think it might be healthiest for us to have an action item

[1:06:36] for us to discuss with some specifics.

[1:06:38] So we can move towards that.

[1:06:40] Is there any opposition, maybe your opposition to that?

[1:06:43] Okay.

[1:06:44] Thank you so much.

[1:06:47] Christa, Ms. Guerrero, I'm sorry, I'm getting used to this.

[1:06:50] Thank you for all of the hard work for you and your team

[1:06:53] on putting this together.

[1:06:55] I know that it's been a heavy lift

[1:06:57] and we're all really excited to see some of these final details come together, so thank you.

[1:07:08] One more information item, Mr. Goshe, would you please introduce item 9-4?

[1:07:17] Yes, thanks, Chair Quinn. Item 9-4 is an update on the proposed extension of the UBA Accord

[1:07:22] long-term water transfer program and amendment to the agreement with the California Department

[1:07:27] of Water Resources. Just as a quick background, we have a long-standing water transfer agreement

[1:07:33] with that resulted from the UBA Accord.

[1:07:37] That's administered to the State Water Contractors

[1:07:39] through the Department of Water Resources.

[1:07:41] That longstanding agreement is expiring at the end of this year

[1:07:46] and staff has been engaged with the department

[1:07:48] and the UBA parties on an extension to that agreement

[1:07:54] and some new terms associated with that agreement.

[1:07:58] That action is gonna be brought to this board in December

[1:08:00] and so this information item will help prepare

[1:08:03] for that action item. Jessica Arm, who is a resource specialist in WRM's supply acquisition team,

[1:08:09] will present the item on the UBA Corps. Thanks. Thank you, Brennan. Good afternoon, Chair Quinn,

[1:08:15] and members of the committee. Today, I am providing information on the proposed extension of the UBA

[1:08:20] Accord Long-Term Water Transfer Program and the amendment to the agreement with DWR.

[1:08:30] Before we get

[1:08:30] started, I would just like to set the stage by sharing this beautiful image of the UBA River.

[1:08:35] Our UBA transfer program helps to maintain flows in the UBA, meaning that we could continue

[1:08:40] to enjoy these swimming holes and the beautiful views that the UBA has to offer for years

[1:08:45] to come.

[1:08:48] Our UBA transfer program would not exist without the UBA River Accord.

[1:08:52] Implemented by the UBA County Water Agency, it was formed through a settlement to resolve

[1:08:57] issues associated with the UBA River Development Project, which is a hydro power facility.

[1:09:02] and the UBA Accord is made up of several agreements that work together to protect

[1:09:07] UBA River flows. Agreements for river regulations are established to maintain

[1:09:13] in-stream flows for fisheries. Conjunctive use agreements where farmers pump

[1:09:18] groundwater instead of drawing down from the stream leave more water in the UBA.

[1:09:23] As do the water purchase agreements where supplies are left in-stream for

[1:09:28] downstream purchasers, such as DWR and other third parties.

[1:09:33] And the revenue from the water transfers go towards projects and programs that support

[1:09:37] things such as in-stream flows and UBA County's infrastructure needs.

[1:09:45] DWR has a water purchase agreement with UBA and through that agreement DWR purchases storage

[1:09:51] or groundwater substitution supplies and offers those supplies to participating state water

[1:09:56] contractors and the San Luis Delta and Dota Water Authority. And suppliers split 50-50

[1:10:02] between the authority and the participating contractors. Metropolitan is a

[1:10:08] participating state water contractor and we have the Dry Year Water Purchase

[1:10:13] Program Agreement with DWR to purchase UVA supplies. This agreement was authorized

[1:10:18] in 2007 and provides supplies for metropolitan to maintain regional

[1:10:23] reliability and both the DWR UBA Agreement and the Metropolitan DWR Agreement

[1:10:29] terminate at the end of this year.

[1:10:34] UBA County is located just south of Lake

[1:10:36] Orville, which as you all know is a reservoir on the Feather River that

[1:10:40] stores state water project supplies. The UBA River is a tributary to the Feather

[1:10:46] River and joins the Feather just downstream of where Orville Supplies are

[1:10:50] released. UBA County Water Agency regulates flows on the UBA River through new

[1:10:55] Bullards Bar Reservoir.

[1:10:57] And this reservoir can be re-operated to create additional supplies, and these supplies are

[1:11:02] referred to as the storage component supplies in our UBA transfer agreement.

[1:11:07] More water could also be left in the reservoir when UBA's member units substitute groundwater

[1:11:12] for surface water.

[1:11:13] And UBA makes these supplies available by releases through a new Bullards Bar Reservoir.

[1:11:19] The supplies join the feather river and flow into the delta, and when water can flow through

[1:11:24] being pumping plant from July through November, it becomes available for purchase by DWR.

[1:11:31] And DWR sells 50% of those supplies to San Luis Delta Mendoza Water Authority.

[1:11:37] The other 50% are distributed to the participating state water contractors based on their

[1:11:43] table A allocation and metropolitan gets about 24% of the total purchased supplies.

[1:11:51] This slide shows metropolitan's purchases of UBA supplies since the start of the program

[1:11:56] in 2008.

[1:11:58] We have purchased 253,000 acre fee, although a percentage of that is deducted due to delta

[1:12:04] carriage losses.

[1:12:06] And metropolitan only pays for supplies if there is capacity to move those supplies through

[1:12:11] the delta.

[1:12:14] So let's take a look at the agreement terms.

[1:12:18] Our existing agreement terminates at the end of this year.

[1:12:21] Supplies available for purchase are either produced from reservoir re-operation or from groundwater substitution.

[1:12:29] And our storage component supplies currently range from $64 to $470, $447 per acre foot,

[1:12:37] depending on the water year type.

[1:12:39] If we are in a dry or critically dry year, we receive a 20% discount on the initial quantities available for purchase.

[1:12:49] And on the other hand, the groundwater substitution supply costs are negotiated every year.

[1:12:58] The adult to carriage losses of about 20 to 35% are taken out of the purchase supplies.

[1:13:05] And UBA is required to provide 60,000 acre feet to DWR before they're able to sell 10,000

[1:13:11] acre feet to other third parties.

[1:13:16] So in this proposed amendment, you could see the key changes indicated by the green stars.

[1:13:21] The amendment would extend the program out through 2050, and the cost of the storage

[1:13:29] component supplies would increase to $75 to $525 per acre foot, which represents an annual

[1:13:37] escalation of 3.25 percent since the last time the storage component prices were negotiated

[1:13:42] in 2020.

[1:13:44] And one new thing in this amendment is that UBO would be responsible for the streamflow

[1:13:50] So depletion losses associated with the groundwater substitution supplies.

[1:13:54] And in the existing agreement, streamflow depletion losses were not considered at all.

[1:14:00] And finally, UBA would provide 30,000 acre feet to the participating contractors before

[1:14:08] they're able to sell 10,000 acre feet to other third parties.

[1:14:12] And that is a 30,000 acre feet reduction from the existing agreement.

[1:14:15] So

[1:14:20] going forward, staff will be returning to your board in December for authorization

[1:14:24] to amend our agreement with DWR, and if approved, our agreement would extend out through

[1:14:30] the end of 2050.

[1:14:32] We would be required to renegotiate the cost of the storage component supplies every 5 years.

[1:14:40] So in summary, the transfer program is a successful partnership between environmental, agricultural

[1:14:46] cultural and urban interest.

[1:14:48] It provides benefits to the participating state water contractors,

[1:14:52] San Luis Dalton and Dota Water Authority,

[1:14:55] other third parties who purchase supplies,

[1:14:57] UBA fisheries, UBA farmer.

[1:15:00] Members, annuvas, infrastructure.

[1:15:03] Metropolitans agreement with DWR provides valuable, dry-year

[1:15:07] supplies to metropolitan with a total of 253,000 acre-feet purchased to date. And although this

[1:15:15] existing program agreement terminates at the end of the year, the amendment would extend

[1:15:19] the program out through the end of 2050. And staff will be returning to your board in just

[1:15:25] Just a few weeks to request authorization to extend this agreement, and that concludes

[1:15:32] my presentation.

[1:15:33] Thank you.

[1:15:34] Do we have any questions?

[1:15:37] Any hands?

[1:15:39] All right.

[1:15:40] I don't see any.

[1:15:41] Thank you so much for the presentation.

[1:15:44] At this time, I'm going to turn the meeting over to the chair of our subcommittee on imported

[1:15:49] water.

[1:15:50] Director Gold.

[1:15:51] Chair Gold.

[1:15:51] All right, so moving on to committee items, just a reminder to everyone on 60, the update

[1:16:02] on the Colorado River Negotiations and protection of Mets, Colorado River Water Rights.

[1:16:07] That will be taken in a closed session after item 8, so just so everyone can manage that appropriately.

[1:16:18] So that means let's start with 6A, the Delta Convince Project Delta Plan Certification

[1:16:24] of Consistency.

[1:16:26] Thank you, Chair Gold.

[1:16:28] I'm pleased to have Jim Neville present on this item.

[1:16:32] And we thought that this was timely, the DWR just recently in October submitted their

[1:16:37] certification of consistency.

[1:16:40] And we thought we would do a deeper dive because it is a quirky process.

[1:16:44] And so it's not, and some of the quirks are born out of the Delta Reform Act and the Delta Plan.

[1:16:50] And so it's kind of an unusual process that is public and it's happening right now.

[1:16:55] And I did want to highlight the expertise we have with us in the room to answer any questions.

[1:17:01] So Jen Neville's and Robert Horton have worked for many years since the Delta Reform Act passed

[1:17:07] on various provisions of the certification of consistency process.

[1:17:11] And so I'm pleased to turn it over to Jen.

[1:17:16] Thank you, Chair Gold, members of the committees.

[1:17:19] This is item 6A, an update on the Delta Convince Project Certification of Consistency with the Delta Plan.

[1:17:30] As an overview, I'll provide some context in terms of the overall DCP project planning schedule,

[1:17:37] a little bit of background on the Delta Plan, a very high level look at the certification of consistency

[1:17:43] and see that was developed and submitted by DWR

[1:17:46] for the Delta Convince Project

[1:17:48] and an overview of the Delta Stewardship Council certification

[1:17:52] process followed by some next steps

[1:17:54] in what to expect in the coming months.

[1:18:00] In terms of the Delta Convince Project planning schedule,

[1:18:04] here we are coming up on the end of 2025.

[1:18:08] And we have the two remaining processes shown at the bottom.

[1:18:11] So we have the state board water right process,

[1:18:14] which is ongoing and staff provided an update on the water

[1:18:20] rate process in August, so I won't touch on that today.

[1:18:23] And then at the very bottom, we have the Delta Plan

[1:18:25] Consistency process, which is a subject of today's presentation.

[1:18:30] So, according to the planning schedule,

[1:18:33] the consistency process was expected to begin around now,

[1:18:37] and conclude by the end of next year.

[1:18:40] So, currently, things are proceeding along that track

[1:18:43] and along that timeline.

[1:18:47] Starting with a little bit of background, most importantly, the Delta Reform Act.

[1:18:52] So the Delta Reform Act of 2009 did a number of things, including establishing the co-equal goals

[1:18:59] of reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration as a state policy for the Delta.

[1:19:06] It also established the Delta Stewardship Council along with some other related processes and entities.

[1:19:13] And the Delta Stewardship Council was tasked with developing and implementing the Delta plan,

[1:19:20] which is the state's plan for how to achieve those collegal goals.

[1:19:28] One of the ways that the Delta plan is implemented is through the certification of covered action

[1:19:33] projects.

[1:19:34] Covered actions are specific actions or projects that are undertaken by state or local agencies

[1:19:43] and occur in whole or in part in the Delta and that significantly affect one or both

[1:19:50] of those colloquial goals.

[1:19:52] To move forward covered action in projects, most of them is very consistent with all

[1:19:57] applicable Delta plan policies.

[1:20:00] So the Delta Stewardship Council is responsible for that process.

[1:20:07] So DWR developed a certification of consistency for the Delta Convince Project.

[1:20:12] The certification addresses each Delta Plan policy and provides substantial evidence in support of its findings.

[1:20:21] DWR also developed an administrative record that includes all of the documents that relied on in developing the certification.

[1:20:29] The administrative record for the certification is quite large, which is appropriate given the scope of the covered action for Delta Convince Project.

[1:20:38] and this substantial evidence of review standard that's applied.

[1:20:44] This slide lists the Delta plan policies that DWR determined were not applicable to Delta conveyance.

[1:20:52] I won't go through them but just to highlight that some are more apparent than others as to whether or not included,

[1:20:58] such as require flood protection of residential development in rural areas.

[1:21:03] This policy applies to new residential developments,

[1:21:07] so not, you know, something that's included in DCP.

[1:21:10] And some are maybe a little bit less clear,

[1:21:12] such as floodplain protection.

[1:21:15] And so DWR provides a detailed justification

[1:21:17] for each decision in their certification.

[1:21:21] And also the explainer document that is attached

[1:21:23] to the committee report has it like the Cliff Notes summary

[1:21:27] for each policy, and I found that to be pretty helpful.

[1:21:34] So the following two slides list all of the Delta plan policies

[1:21:39] that DWR determined do apply to the Delta Convince Project.

[1:21:43] The consistency analysis for each of these policies includes the Delta Plan policy

[1:21:49] regulatory text, detailed findings that provide in-depth and policies specific analysis of

[1:21:57] the covered actions consistency with the policy in question, direct citations to the record,

[1:22:03] and it concludes clearly stating the DWR's final detailed finding.

[1:22:08] Again, I won't go through them all, but to highlight some of the key ones,

[1:22:12] such as reduced reliance on the Delta,

[1:22:15] here the certification for DCP builds on lessons learned

[1:22:19] from the California water fix certification,

[1:22:22] and it includes analysis of reduced reliance that covers more than 250 urban

[1:22:28] and agricultural water suppliers.

[1:22:30] I would say the Delta flow objectives would be another important one to watch on this slide.

[1:22:39] Continuing with that list of applicable policies, one to highlight here is respect local land use

[1:22:45] when citing water or flood facilities or restoring habitats.

[1:22:49] This is another really complicated policy for this certification.

[1:22:54] DWR has taken a very comprehensive approach that incorporates a lot of lessons learned

[1:22:59] from both the California water fix and the lookout slew certification and appeals hearings.

[1:23:09] So in summary, the Delta Convince Project Certification represents a very comprehensive

[1:23:14] and collaborative effort.

[1:23:16] It builds on lessons learned from previous certifications and represents about six or so years

[1:23:22] of collaborative effort between DWR and public water agency experts, as well as early consultation

[1:23:29] with Delta Stewardship Council staff.

[1:23:33] As I mentioned, reduced reliance was one of the big areas of public water agency collaboration.

[1:23:40] A lot of effort went into outreach to get volunteer reporting in the 2020 egg and urban water management plans.

[1:23:47] And then collecting, processing, and analyzing all of that data to demonstrate consistency with that policy.

[1:23:54] The consistency process is on track with the current Delta Convince Project Planning

[1:24:00] Schedule and I'll go over the sort of the process that the certification goes through

[1:24:05] with the council next in that timeline, all

[1:24:11] right.

[1:24:12] So this little diagram sort of walks you through the process for submitting a certification

[1:24:18] and the subsequent appeals procedures.

[1:24:20] And these are all defined in the California Code of Regulations.

[1:24:24] So unlike some of the other planning processes that, you know, DCP goes through, there's

[1:24:30] a definitive process and timeline to this one.

[1:24:35] Once a project proponent officially submits their certification, so the sort of top right

[1:24:42] box there, the clock starts ticking on the rest of the process and the timeline shown here.

[1:24:48] from that point, the appeal and hearing process takes roughly 150 days or a little about

[1:24:54] five months, and concludes with the decision from the Sturgic Council on either dismissing

[1:25:01] all of the appeals or remanding certain parts of the certification back to the project

[1:25:06] proponent.

[1:25:10] Looking at that process timeline for Delta

[1:25:12] Convants, the steps in blue show the things that have been completed, so there was the

[1:25:17] 10-day public posting, and the 30-day appealed process was actually ends on today.

[1:25:25] So we expect that the Stewardship Council will receive appeals on today, and we will

[1:25:30] see how many and who appealed in the coming days.

[1:25:35] We do anticipate there will be multiple appeals.

[1:25:38] So based on the procedures and deadlines I went over earlier, whoops, jump in a head.

[1:25:50] An appeals hearing would take place around mid-January and the Stewardship Council would issue a decision on appeals around mid-March.

[1:25:59] If that decision includes remands, those specific remanded items would be addressed by DWR and essentially go through that same process again.

[1:26:09] So, that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

[1:26:14] Thanks for your presentation.

[1:26:16] Are there any questions from committee members?

[1:26:22] I'm not hearing one.

[1:26:23] I have one and it's probably going to be a little bit out of left field, deep.

[1:26:30] With the issues on floodplain management and the levies ensuring the map and other flood

[1:26:38] of control issues being deemed in essence or relevant to the process.

[1:26:46] Did we miss an opportunity to sort of at least highlight the importance of the state

[1:26:52] dealing with those issues because they really haven't done much, not as much as they should

[1:26:57] have in those areas.

[1:26:59] Or is it just the process of this, because it's so rare for me to see this consistency process

[1:27:06] for that document. Is it just as narrow as if this was a CEQA document?

[1:27:15] Yeah, generally I think it's fairly narrow. Even on the policies that don't apply,

[1:27:21] there's some discussion that DWR provides their thinking.

[1:27:26] And so it does touch on some of the things that probably not in the way that you're thinking

[1:27:31] or would like to see.

[1:27:33] Yeah, I just looked at the document that was provided earlier today, and it was just like,

[1:27:38] yeah, there's not really much in there other than, nah, we don't think it really applies

[1:27:41] period. And at the same time, I'm going, but they're not. They're not ever applying it,

[1:27:46] you know, to anything they're doing. That's a problem with Delta Management. But,

[1:27:51] anyway, thanks for answering the question. It's kind of what I thought, but I thought I'd

[1:27:54] at least ask you. Yeah, so that would be in the full certification, but... Okay, all right, thank you.

[1:28:00] Yep.

[1:28:01] All right.

[1:28:01] Appreciate the presentation on so next up on web track rights development and potential

[1:28:07] wetland restoration project.

[1:28:10] Thank you, Chair Gold.

[1:28:11] I'm pleased to have Melinda Stalvi present and update on the web track projects.

[1:28:16] And as you'll recall, this item was requested by the board.

[1:28:20] I think ahead of going out to bid for construction on the wetland project.

[1:28:24] So Melinda's here to give you an update.

[1:28:26] So please, Melinda.

[1:28:27] Thank you, Marie.

[1:28:28] Thank you, Chair Gold.

[1:28:29] to your Quinn members of the committees.

[1:28:31] Today's update will provide information

[1:28:35] on the status of the WebTrack Rice Conversion

[1:28:37] and the Wetland Restoration Projects

[1:28:39] with an eye towards informing the board

[1:28:41] about an upcoming release of a big package

[1:28:44] to identify a contractor for the Wetland construction.

[1:28:49] As a reminder, in 2023, Metropolitan Reserve

[1:28:52] awarded a $20.9 million grant

[1:28:55] to convert approximately 1,500 acres to rice

[1:28:58] and up to 3,000 acres to wetland.

[1:29:01] For the rice project, the grant will fund $3,000 per acre,

[1:29:05] up to $4 million to assist a farmer with the significant costs

[1:29:09] to prepare the ground for planting rice.

[1:29:12] For the wetland project, the grant funds design,

[1:29:15] sequa, permitting, and if approved, the construction of the wetland project,

[1:29:19] baseline greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting

[1:29:22] that will be used to generate carbon credits

[1:29:24] from carbon sequestrate sequestered in the rice and wetlands and establishing a baseline

[1:29:29] to measure accretion rates for the subsidence reversal.

[1:29:36] Webtrack is located in Contra Costa County, east of Stockton in south of Highway 12.

[1:29:41] It is completely surrounded by water and accessible only by ferry.

[1:29:49] The board authorized a lease for the rice project in August of 2025.

[1:29:52] Unfortunately, since the board update was posted, these negotiations with the successful RFP.

[1:30:19] We are confident that the new tenant will have enough time to plant the minimum 1,000 acres of rice before the rice portion of the grant expires in the summer of 2020.

[1:30:36] The final design is nearing completion with 99 percent design drawings received today.

[1:30:41] The final design acreage includes approximately 2900 acres of wetland and upland habitat

[1:30:47] that can be used by reptiles, birds, and other species.

[1:30:51] The planned project will meet the goals of the grant that will reverse subsidence, reduce

[1:30:56] greenhouse gas emissions, create food web benefits, and will provide opportunities to explore

[1:31:01] other revenue generating opportunities.

[1:31:03] There

[1:31:06] were a number of design constraints that complicated the design process with the

[1:31:10] most difficult constraint being the access for construction equipment and personnel.

[1:31:18] The wetland was designed with many different depths to maximize the carbon sequestration

[1:31:21] potential.

[1:31:22] One of the unique aspects of this design is that to the maximum extent feasible, the existing

[1:31:28] topography was used to create the berms that hold the water in each of the wetland management

[1:31:33] units, reducing the cost of the project significantly.

[1:31:35] Currently, internal berms were also created with a planned obsolescence in that they will

[1:31:40] hold the water at specific depths to maximize the carbon sequestration potential.

[1:31:46] And as each unit fills in with plant material, the water will overtop those internal berms

[1:31:50] to keep the wetland units expanding, thus the carbon credits that can be generated will

[1:31:55] also increase over time.

[1:32:00] In July, Metropolitan received a statutory exemption through the governor's cutting-the-green

[1:32:04] tape program, and is expecting its first permit from the California Department of Fish

[1:32:08] wildlife to the newly created cutting the green tape restoration management permit within the next

[1:32:13] 30 days. Other permit applications have been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

[1:32:18] the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Regional Board. The federal government shutdown is

[1:32:23] causing a delay in the receipt of some of the federal permits.

[1:32:32] See, two eddy covariance towers were

[1:32:34] purchased through the grant that were installed on WebTrack in 2024, and we've just finished our

[1:32:39] first year of measurements.

[1:32:43] The good news for us and not so good for the environment is that

[1:32:46] greenhouse gas emissions emitted from the islands were higher than were originally expected.

[1:32:52] The revenue estimates shown here use the most recent GHD measurements from the island.

[1:32:57] As an aside, the Department of Water Resources recently finished verification of their GHD

[1:33:02] credits on Twitchell Island, and they reported that there were buyers interested in paying the higher

[1:33:06] end of the $30 per metric ton for their carbon credits. Exceeding our initial conservative estimates

[1:33:13] five about $15 per metric ton.

[1:33:20] We're wrapping up final design now and expect the bid package to be

[1:33:23] complete by the end of December. We'll need to go wait to go out to bid until the permits are

[1:33:28] received but as soon as the permits are received we like to release the bid to open the bid solicitation

[1:33:35] immediately with the goal of awarding a construction contract in late spring and construction beginning

[1:33:40] in late spring or early summer of 2026. This concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer

[1:33:47] any questions.

[1:33:50] Thank you for that. Do we have any questions from the committee members?

[1:34:01] Director Seckle.

[1:34:06] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Melinda did I understand

[1:34:10] that you said the negotiations on the on the rice lease on the rice farming fell through.

[1:34:19] That's correct director Seckle. So what what are the implications of that?

[1:34:25] Well, it sets us back a little bit in timing.

[1:34:28] We had really hoped to get a rice crop on the ground this year,

[1:34:31] well, in 2026 planted in 2026.

[1:34:34] So it has set us back a little bit.

[1:34:36] We are in negotiations or in discussions,

[1:34:38] I'm sorry, not negotiations yet,

[1:34:40] but we are in discussions with other farming interests

[1:34:42] that are also interested in partnering with us on wet track

[1:34:45] and we're hoping to be able to bring that to the board

[1:34:47] as quickly as possible.

[1:34:49] Depending on how quickly we can get that turned around,

[1:34:52] we may be able to get some rice planted this year,

[1:34:54] but likely it will be the following year in 2027.

[1:34:58] As said, it will likely be more around 750 to 800 acres in 2027,

[1:35:03] instead of the initial 550 that was expected this year.

[1:35:07] And then over the course of two years,

[1:35:08] they'll try to plant the full 1,300 acres on web track.

[1:35:14] Okay, thank you.

[1:35:18] A couple of questions for me.

[1:35:24] one would be possible to get to this committee the final wetland design and it

[1:35:33] doesn't have to be in great detail or whatever but just so we have much more

[1:35:37] detail on what what is actually going to occur on that parcel. I know I'm just

[1:35:42] excited to know personally having been involved in wetland restoration a lot in my

[1:35:46] career, so it's not great to have. The other thing is, again, because of scientific curiosity,

[1:35:53] but also you had the table up there. The greenhouse gas emissions, it's interesting in a lot of

[1:36:00] different levels, because as you know, coming up with estimates from anywhere is really a relatively

[1:36:09] new science to come up with accurate estimates. And the variability depending on habitat

[1:36:16] type can be just through the roof. And so it would also be good in the near future or

[1:36:24] if you have that handy now it's fine but I don't want to put you on the spot. You had

[1:36:29] that table on the various different types of CO2 equivalents that were being measured.

[1:36:35] some of which just don't get measured so it might be one of the few times we've

[1:36:40] actually seen such a thing, you know, things like N2O. And so it'd be great to

[1:36:45] sort of have a better understanding of what the admissions were and where

[1:36:50] that, where the increase overall on estimates were coming from. Because I think

[1:36:58] we have a situation and this was something I know I push for quite hard when I

[1:37:03] Deputy Secretary for Coastal Ocean Policy that when it came to natural sources was kind

[1:37:13] of not making them very much for priority and then obviously you know it's weird coming

[1:37:19] back to that and it becomes a huge priority here.

[1:37:22] I thought it already was a huge priority but they didn't really give credence from the

[1:37:28] standpoint of getting carbon credits, et cetera, in their overall CO2 management plan for

[1:37:37] the state.

[1:37:38] They didn't really give natural sources near the credit that they needed to, that completely

[1:37:43] blew off blue carbon 100 percent.

[1:37:46] It kind of had the Delta because of peak discharges, but wetlands as a whole, they kind of blew

[1:37:51] off as well.

[1:37:53] So it would be good to just have that information as well, because I think the

[1:37:58] ramifications of it beyond web track for the entire Delta area are pretty enormous.

[1:38:05] So, thank you for that.

[1:38:07] Thank you.

[1:38:08] All right.

[1:38:10] Let's move on to the next item.

[1:38:13] Thank you so much for your presentation.

[1:38:27] All right.

[1:38:28] So, let's move to the subcommittee items.

[1:38:34] So 7A, the report on the Paila Verde Valley Community Enhancement Collaborative on Director

[1:38:42] Curthes.

[1:38:44] Thank you, Chair Gold.

[1:38:47] Community collaborative, just to remind people, is a group of three members from this board

[1:38:52] and three members from the PVID board that are looking at how to distribute funds from

[1:38:57] bucket won about $8 million to businesses, public agencies, and nonprofits in the PVID region.

[1:39:06] And we are trying to build and fly the plane at the same time.

[1:39:12] We met October 30th.

[1:39:15] We set up a standing monthly meeting zoning to discover that our November meeting would

[1:39:20] be the day after Thanksgiving and our December meeting would be the day after Christmas.

[1:39:25] So we have decided to combine those into a meeting at Cura on the 16th of December and you're all invited if you're interested at one o'clock to come and join us.

[1:39:37] We are continuing to accept applications, but at the same time we've just finished our bylaws for our community advisory committee.

[1:39:45] We've just finished adopting our grant processes.

[1:39:49] We thought we had an office space that didn't end up working out, so we've leased a new

[1:39:55] office space now, it's in the Blythe Cancer Research Center, and it seems like a nice space

[1:40:01] and we're trying to find computers and equipment without spending a lot of the grant money.

[1:40:07] We also thought we had an administrator to staff the office, bring in the applications and

[1:40:13] and help answers questions, people looking to grants,

[1:40:16] but that person decided that it wasn't gonna work

[1:40:20] with their schedules, so we have now interviewed six more

[1:40:23] people to consider as the administrator

[1:40:25] to have time job, it pays pretty well if you know anyone.

[1:40:31] And we're going to continue to interview more people

[1:40:35] as applications come in with the hopes

[1:40:38] that certainly by the end of the year,

[1:40:40] we will have someone in place.

[1:40:44] I don't know if I'm supposed to report on the PUC as well.

[1:40:47] I will because it's on my notes.

[1:40:50] The property management committee

[1:40:52] or is that not here chair?

[1:40:54] Is that here?

[1:40:55] We're also going to be having a problem.

[1:40:57] It's the same directors from Metropolitan,

[1:40:59] they're involved in the Palo Verde property management committee

[1:41:03] and property utilization committee,

[1:41:05] is actually the name.

[1:41:07] And we will also be meeting on the 16th

[1:41:09] and welcome any of your participation.

[1:41:12] And this is the committee that we have

[1:41:15] because we are the largest landowner in Palo Verte

[1:41:18] and so we want to work with the irrigation district

[1:41:21] as we manage our land

[1:41:23] and also learn from them what they're doing with their farmers.

[1:41:28] And with that, I will answer any questions.

[1:41:32] We're working hard, right, Desi?

[1:41:34] And I think we're making progress,

[1:41:36] rest, but it does seem like it's taking longer than we had hoped.

[1:41:41] Thank you for that, Director Kurtz.

[1:41:43] Are there any questions, Chair Ortega?

[1:41:45] I just want to note that this is a very hard working ad hoc committee.

[1:41:50] And it requires Zoom meetings, but also trips out to Pella Verde.

[1:41:56] And if you're one of those who don't like flying on a little airplane,

[1:42:00] you can appreciate what it takes.

[1:42:02] but I want to thank Director the Hussos Courts and Alvarez for all of the time that they're

[1:42:07] devoting to this. Thank you. Thank you for that and thank you to the ad hoc committee for doing

[1:42:13] all that work. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair, can I add something? Yeah. Director Courts, I can't remember if

[1:42:19] we already announced this, but I know that for those that have been in this circle for a while that

[1:42:24] had been working with PVID, they unfortunately lost one of their previous board of trustees.

[1:42:32] Mr. Charles Van Dyke, he passed just a couple of weeks ago and some of you may have worked

[1:42:37] with him and certainly met him and talked with him at Krua in the past.

[1:42:41] So I can't remember if we already mentioned that or not.

[1:42:44] I think apparently none of us have a memory.

[1:42:51] I believe it was announced maybe at a board meeting, but I'm not sure general manager is certainly worth managing again. A lot of us did no trials.

[1:43:03] All right, moving on to item eight on so John Bynarski, if you can give us an overview on what's that?

[1:43:12] Yeah, I'll make this quick. Nothing beyond the written reports you've already received at this point in time. That is quick.

[1:43:17] That is.

[1:43:18] I know everybody is waiting for Bill, so I don't want to steal any more of your giant

[1:43:23] dots.

[1:43:24] All right.

[1:43:24] So now we're on to the Bill Hazing Camp show.

[1:43:27] And so do you want me to read the closed session language first, Bill, or did you want to

[1:43:34] start with your little intro before doing that?

[1:43:37] No, you can do the closed session after because there might be an opportunity for questions.

[1:43:43] The German philosophy Friedrich Nietzsche once said I told you was a show.

[1:43:50] You have your way.

[1:43:51] I have mine as to the correct way, the right way, the only way it does not exist.

[1:44:02] Sometimes in the Colorado River negotiations, it seems like some of the negotiators are looking

[1:44:06] for the right way, and I think that is led to some of the lack of progress in the basin.

[1:44:16] The Federal, this, the Trump administration got fully engaged last summer and set a plan

[1:44:21] for the next year to reach agreement when the existing guidelines expire.

[1:44:28] The first part of their plan was working together with the states on alternatives to be considered

[1:44:33] in the draft EIS.

[1:44:35] That was done last summer to have a wide range of alternatives that would include whatever consensus agreement is reached.

[1:44:45] So when the draft comes out it will have all of it will have some alternatives that have small cuts to met and some that have big cuts to met.

[1:44:54] But the point of that document really is to provide compliance and coverage for

[1:45:00] Or whatever agreement is reached. Then they said we're going to have a November 11th deadline

[1:45:06] for principles of agreement, a February 14th deadline for the agreements to be completed,

[1:45:13] and then we'll spend spring and summer developing possible legislation, board approvals,

[1:45:20] and other things funding, whatever is needed to get these agreements done by next summer.

[1:45:24] It turns out that November 11th and February 14th aren't great days to have deadlines.

[1:45:33] The first one is a holiday and the second one is a Saturday.

[1:45:38] But regardless, the November 11th deadline came and the states did not reach the criteria

[1:45:45] of our principles of agreement that were laid out.

[1:45:47] And we didn't know what the feds would do.

[1:45:49] There was some thought that the feds might say, no deal, we're going to step in and take

[1:45:55] over.

[1:45:56] That's ultimately a threat that the feds have if we don't reach agreement.

[1:46:00] We didn't know that if in November that was going to be the decision or not.

[1:46:06] I think the feds didn't realize how difficult it was to wrangle seven states together to

[1:46:13] reach an agreement where any state could veto an agreement.

[1:46:19] So what they did last week was send out a statement because they felt they made a lot

[1:46:25] of progress, the pieces of the deal are at

[1:46:33] a number of different alternatives.

[1:46:35] So the feds were comfortable enough to say, even though we didn't make that deadline, we've

[1:46:41] made a lot of progress, we're going to keep working with the states and we're going to

[1:46:45] focus on the Valentine's Day deadline to get the agreements done and they

[1:46:50] recommitted to having a schedule between now and February 14th to get the

[1:46:54] agreement done. So we are remaining at the table and committed to try to meet

[1:47:01] that new deadline as well. And hopefully we can be here in next summer with

[1:47:08] agreements for your board to consider. However, there were distractions along the way.

[1:47:16] The State of Arizona Senate letter, which reminds the states that litigation is always a potential

[1:47:24] and a concern. And with that, we want to go into closed session to talk about some of the implications

[1:47:32] of litigation. But before you go to closed session, there's

[1:47:36] an opportunity for any questions about this material, or we can go to class closed session

[1:47:41] when you're ready, Chair Gold.

[1:47:45] Chair Gold, I'm ready for a closed session.

[1:47:47] I assume everyone else is.

[1:47:49] So with that, I'll jump in.

[1:47:51] Thanks for the intro.

[1:47:53] I've been advised by the General Manager and General Counsel that this portion of item 60 requires

[1:47:57] discussion and closed session.

[1:47:59] Those staff are not authorized to be in closed session.

[1:48:02] We'll need to drop off the teleconference or leave the room.

[1:48:05] Unauthorized person still on the teleconference when the meeting is closed will be placed into the zoom virtual waiting room.

[1:48:11] Item 60 is an update on Colorado River negotiations and protection of metropolitan's Colorado River water rights.

[1:48:18] This is a conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate litigation,

[1:48:25] unknown number of potential cases.

[1:48:28] This item will be heard in closed session pursuant to government code section 54956.9D4 and now declare this meeting closed and call on the General Manager and the General Counsel to designate those persons for to remain on the teleconference or in the room.

[1:48:44] Board support team? No, we're not there yet.

[1:48:47] Yeah,

[1:49:04] it's their room.

[2:53:54] Recording in progress.

[2:54:02] I'm sorry back on the question. All right. Good to go. All right. That concludes our consideration of item 60 in closed session. The committee discussed and conferred with its legal counsel regarding item 60. No action was taken in closed session. Thanks for everybody's patience and perseverance on this item. I know people are places to go. Do we have any follow-up items or future agenda items?

[2:54:28] Hearing none, you are well.

[2:54:31] I think we just asked that for the stormwater pilot, they looked into additional funders.

[2:54:36] Okay.

[2:54:37] We have to do that a bit.

[2:54:39] Oh.

[2:54:39] Just a recap.

[2:54:41] Okay.

[2:54:41] To recap, directors, requests to looking into additional funders for the Arla project.

[2:54:48] Okay.

[2:54:48] We are adjourned.

[2:54:49] Thank you, everybody.

Joint One Water & Adaptation Committee and Subcommittee on Imported Water

Agenda

Transcript