[1:00] I just forget the a two. Hey, you're the boss. I don't care. Well, I see Mr. Hitchie. I believe it is walking in right now. So I don't.

[1:18] I thought we're all supposed to meet at the reservoir. We can only violation of brown act. We can only have two people meet. Okay.

[1:51] It's five

[2:13] o'clock. We're going to get started.

[2:15] And first, I just wanted to remind the commissioners to turn on your microphones when you speak so that those on Zoom can hear.

[2:25] I wanted to thank our guests for being here.

[2:28] They're interested in their contribution to the meeting and thank you for the commissioners attendance as well.

[2:33] With that, we'll go to the roll call.

[2:35] Vanessa?

[2:39] Commissioner Castro is absent.

[2:43] Commissioner Nino?

[2:44] Present.

[2:45] Commissioner Scaglioti.

[2:47] President.

[2:48] Commissioner Grohling.

[2:49] President.

[2:50] Commissioner Adessa is absent.

[2:53] Commissioner Garcia.

[2:55] Here.

[2:56] Commissioner McCullough.

[2:57] Here.

[2:58] Okay, so we have five commissioners present.

[3:02] We do not have quorum, so we cannot make any actions or motions today.

[3:07] Thank you.

[3:07] Thank you for that, Vanessa.

[3:10] Please accept my humblest of apologies.

[3:12] I'm already out of order because we were to begin with the pledge of allegiance, so we will, we will, if you indulge me then we'll do that now.

[3:20] Ready, salute.

[3:22] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[3:35] The

[3:41] next item is to approve the certificate of posting which we are not able to do without our forum, so we're going to move that to the next meeting.

[3:52] From there, we will go to our regular agenda, improving the minutes of May 18th, of May 8th meeting.

[4:00] We'll move that to our

[4:04] skipped one.

[4:09] Okay, thank you for keeping me straight.

[4:14] So we will go to public comment, is there any items for public comment?

[4:19] We do have Ms. Elias Illinus and if you'd like to make a comment on Zoom, please press star 9 or the raised hand icon.

[4:26] Thank you, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and commissioners.

[4:29] I am here to request that in a future agenda, not too far out into the future that you request.

[4:38] I'll report to come before you with regards to how many property owners have cleared out their waterway area that was affected by the floods.

[4:50] And those that were actually not affected either upstream or downstream, we don't know when the rain season is going to come.

[4:57] We know that the county has spent a lot of money.

[4:59] We're getting...

[5:00] I have to wait for the refund from FEMA. So I personally would like to know if there are property owners out there actually cleaning out so that it could prevent flooding for next year and the year after that. So thank you.

[5:19] Thank you very much. So we can put that on our next agenda to discuss. Thank you. I have no further public comment. Thank you very much from there.

[5:32] We will go to our regular agenda and approval of the minutes of the May 8th.

[5:37] We'll have to wait for the next meeting for that.

[5:40] From there, we will go to an update on the same Yusto Reservoir.

[5:46] I think it might be best to start this agenda item with a little history of where we are,

[5:53] and how we got here, and I'm hopeful that Mr. Wittrie can talk to us maybe five or ten minutes about what's going on with.

[6:01] Yes, he was a very culminating commissioner, Scalliode and I met with him and a few other representatives and they really did a beautiful job and were very informative and really seemed to care about the reservoir and I really appreciated his time with that so if you could just give us five to 10 minutes about is a real important item I believe and the more people know about it I think that's a good place to start. If you could do that that would be great.

[6:28] right now. You bet right now at the microphone if you if you would thank you.

[6:35] My ptsd for me to the microphone over here for a little bit.

[6:38] Sorry, it's been a bit since I've had this podium over here. Hello, my name is Steve

[6:42] Wittrie. I'm the new general manager for the same new county water district with

[6:45] those of you who aren't aware. I've been in the role over there since January of

[6:49] this year. Replacing Jack Attaneo who was there for a number of years. I'm not new to

[6:55] community for those of you who don't know me. I've been living here in Hollister for since

[7:00] 1997. It's a public works director for actually City Engineer for Hollister for a number

[7:05] of years. I was a public director here at the county San Benito. I actually started as

[7:10] a public works director in 2009, which was one year after the reservoir actually closed.

[7:16] So in the first hand, how the reservoir closing impacted residents of San Diego County.

[7:21] And, like I said, since January this year, I've come back to work here in the community

[7:26] where I live.

[7:27] So where we're at with the eradication process, and I think that that's where we're at

[7:33] just a little bit of history, 2008 muscles were found in the reservoir.

[7:39] There are a lot of studies that have happened since then.

[7:41] There's been a study commission by the USPR to look at how the United States Bureau of

[7:47] Reclamation, to look at how that muscle could be eradicated.

[7:50] for those of you who are, you know, a little history once again.

[7:53] We are still the only water body west of the Mississippi that has this particular muscle

[7:58] in its confines.

[8:00] So we're blessed with that.

[8:02] We believe that somebody who was voting somewhere else in the United States brought their

[8:06] boat into the reservoir and infected it, and that's where we fully – we have the muscles.

[8:14] The only place that – we're not the only place in America to have these muscles, they

[8:19] are pretty prevalent on the east coast. The only place that has eradicated the muscle from

[8:25] their confines is a small lake in Virginia, I believe. It's a little bit different than

[8:31] our lake because that particular lake is out of a stone quarry and is very rigid, nothing

[8:37] goes in and out. Our system here is a little bit different, as you guys may or may not know.

[8:43] We have about 10,000 acre feet of storage up there, which equates to about 30 million gallons

[8:48] of water. The water is used today even with the muscles in it for agricultural use. It's actually

[8:55] used to supply the city of Hollister and the St. Slope County water district service areas for

[9:00] their drinking water. It's treated at the Salt and West Hills plant in spite of the muscles being

[9:05] prevalent in it. Over the last eight years or so, six, eight years, the district has operated the

[9:15] reservoir in a way that controls the spread of it.

[9:17] We have not eliminated the muscles, but we've actually controlled it, we believe, and

[9:22] it's not expanded to become a nuisance to our overall system on occasion.

[9:28] We still have issues with it, but it's not anything that requires dramatic shutdowns of large

[9:35] valves and things of that nature.

[9:37] We exercise our valves and the way we operate the level of the reservoir goes up and down

[9:41] and that seems to create areas where in oxic and oxic zones, oxygen and rich zones and

[9:49] areas without oxygen, it helps to reduce the ability for the muscles to breed.

[9:55] So we've kept them under control.

[9:57] So, where we're at right in this...

[10:00] That's kind of the history and please ask questions if there's something that pops up. Where we're at right now is recently during COVID, 2019, the Bureau completed an eradication plan, identifying that the way that they could, backing up a little bit. The actual facility itself is owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation, the water districts, indicating where the operators under contract with the USBR to operate that facility. But the ownership is actually USBR.

[10:28] So, any plan for a medication to that facility has to be approved by the U.S.

[10:34] BR.

[10:35] They have come up with a plan that may work.

[10:38] It basically uses podash solution and what they want to do, what they're recommending

[10:43] to do or what their solution would be, would be to lower the level of the reservoirs as much

[10:48] as possible and then they would basically truck in podash and the podash would be put out

[10:53] and barges, and it'll be dropped and mixed into the water

[10:56] within the reservoir, and then what would have to happen

[10:59] is that water would then have to be circulated

[11:01] into the sanitary kind of water distribution system.

[11:05] Just for background, once again, to tell the whole story.

[11:09] The reservoir is not the only place that has the muscles.

[11:11] The muscles are also within our distribution system.

[11:14] So our distribution system is about 92 miles of pipelines

[11:18] that go from basic cost of the fruta to San Juan Batista

[11:21] and several networks between there.

[11:22] It's about 92 miles.

[11:25] There have been times that we have actually when the, it's called bifurcation, when the water

[11:31] source that we get from San Luis Reservoir at Casader Fruta is not available.

[11:36] And we actually charge the system, feed water from San Luis Reservoir to the northern part

[11:43] of the county as well.

[11:44] So we've actually taken that water and pushed it this way to support agriculture and municipal

[11:48] uses as well.

[11:49] So the belief in our understanding is, is that, and the proof that we have some shells

[11:55] every now and again, is that we do have the zebra muscle is in the majority of our system

[12:00] as well.

[12:01] But I can say through operational techniques, we're able to keep it under control.

[12:07] So back to the eradication process, what it would take is lowering the operating level of

[12:13] reservoir as much as possible, and then we would put the pod ash in there.

[12:16] According to the study, the amount of podash would be equivalent to about 2% of the nation's

[12:25] total usage of podash.

[12:28] It's a lachiously large amount, a lachiously large amount, I don't know if you say that online,

[12:34] but it's a lot of podash that we would have to have that doing.

[12:38] There's been some estimates based upon their total estimate for the project that would probably

[12:43] take about a year to a mass that amount in our area so we can actually begin the

[12:48] impatriation.

[12:48] It would be a two-year process to put this into play if that's something that was to

[12:53] go forward.

[12:55] The podash would be put into the reservoir, like I mentioned.

[12:58] It has to sit in there for about 45 days to ensure that it could eradicate the muscles and

[13:05] the villagers, the little eggs and digots, whatever, not a biologist, so I apologize to those

[13:10] to wire biologists to actually completely kill the muscle.

[13:19] Once it's at for 45 days, then that byproduct could be used for agricultural purposes,

[13:24] and hopefully it has been eradicated.

[13:28] That cost is estimated, it was just recently estimated, again, at $6.28 million, between

[13:35] six million dollars, depending on how that could work,

[13:39] depending on the parameters and supply market things

[13:42] like relations with COVID and other kinds of situations.

[13:46] I'm tap dancing a little bit, so I apologize for that.

[13:49] But it's about six, eight million dollars for that.

[13:53] The problem that we also have to face

[13:55] is that this kind of medication has never been done on the scale.

[14:00] And it's never been done with a distribution system.

[14:03] The lake in Virginia was a standalone lake where they took it out of.

[14:08] So our lake has a distribution system which is problematic as well, which if we consider

[14:15] that the initial infestation was a fairly small amount of water that brought that species

[14:23] into the reservoir, if we don't get 100% eradication within a year, it may come back.

[14:30] And that becomes problematic for trying to look at how we would spend those dollars.

[14:36] The other thing which I'm not sure if it's in the Bureau of Estimate of the $6 to $8 million

[14:43] is we have connections to agriculture.

[14:46] We have over a thousand connections to various parcels.

[14:49] Blue valve system, you guys are all aware of the Blue valve system, I believe.

[14:53] we may have to actually retrofit each one of those connections as part of our process because

[15:00] As we want to make sure that those critters that are flushed out don't come back in. And if you picture the interworkings of a valve or press reducing remeter, there's crevices and things like that that might catch something, and if something stays there, it infiltrates the whole system and we're back at square one. So, I don't want to sound like I'm negative on this, but I just want to give the realities of the chances of success for a complete eradication are pretty low.

[15:30] for ultimately. Now, one of the things that we were talking, and I say, we, it was a meeting

[15:36] with the Bureau, actually, it was your first in here yet. No. So we're talking about, I don't

[15:42] want to talk for him for a little bit, but there may be other ways to define a win and maybe

[15:46] other opportunities that may open that may not include boats on the water, but maybe they include

[15:52] some of the kind of operation parameters that may be around it. And actually, I'll step aside

[15:56] for a minute. Do you want to see a few words that I don't know what I can add but you haven't.

[16:01] Okay, so here's what we have. Let me see what else I can say to this. I think that we

[16:12] at the district are committed to try to find a solution. I think that the Bureau was trying

[16:16] to find a solution that makes sense but I think that in order to actually have something happen

[16:21] it's going to take all of the partners between the Bureau, between the district and between

[16:26] I mean a county because the county ultimately has to reopen that as a facility.

[16:31] Looking back at one of the documents and I haven't studied it immensely, but there is

[16:35] an agreement for the park to be up there and be open.

[16:38] And the county has some responsibilities and liabilities that go along with that.

[16:44] So in order to, if we can't eradicate it, is there a way to enjoy it like we have several

[16:51] For reservoirs in the western states and Guaga mussels, they're there, but people are able to enjoy some of those reservoirs in some fashion as well.

[16:59] And maybe there's a way to look at something that's short of what it used to be.

[17:04] And there's still a way to open it for maybe bird watching, maybe some of the kind of other, I'm just going to say short fishing.

[17:11] I don't know some other way to enjoy the facility that does not involve a full blown return to use how it used to be.

[17:19] And the only thing that I would add to that process, the however that goes forward, I would support any kind of public process that this commission wanted to go for, the county wanted to work towards to make sure that the public had a say to what that I'm going to call an alternate win might look like.

[17:36] So we're here to assist, we're here to help.

[17:38] We said the bureaus here, and we're here for any other questions to follow up.

[17:44] Any other questions or any comments by the commission?

[17:49] On the funding, Steve, for that project, is that part of the bureau's responsibility, too, as a fall solely on you?

[17:56] So where it is, it falls to the bureau first.

[18:00] And then what the bureau will do is there'll be some debate, I won't look this way.

[18:06] There will be some debate, but it will fall to the bureau first, they will incur the

[18:11] cost, and then what they would likely do is they will put that cost back on the district

[18:16] through what they call a CAPEX or large capital project that comes back to our particular

[18:20] users.

[18:22] So in all likelihood in some fashion without a grant or something, that cost eventually would

[18:28] be borne by the district and by the residents of the community at some point in time.

[18:33] The initial cost, the initial investment would be done through the Bureau, but it's very likely that cost ultimately we fall back to the residents.

[18:44] Mr. Wittry, if there was a situation in place where there were boats there and they never left the property, rental boats, and people could shorefish, birdwatch, rent a boat that never left the property, would that pose any problems that you can envision?

[19:03] It could and I think that it that's why we have to look to what kind of process would be there to ensure that that the villagers or the muscle doesn't migrate to the facilities at keeping the votes there would go great length towards that.

[19:21] Fisherman being fishermen sometimes they'd like to have their own gear even though the gears provided they might bring stuff in.

[19:26] If something was attached to that fishing gear, be it an ad being something like that and then they took it to another body of water

[19:31] Certainly, they could they could infect that's not to say there couldn't be a protocol a

[19:36] Wash station a some kind of a check-in check-out station that could be beneficial to that

[19:42] It just becomes to what level of risk ultimately the community really is willing to take you know

[19:50] I was actually just talking with with with one of the board members was running a little late today

[19:54] And you know the example was when when someone comes to Monterey the coast over here and they pick up

[20:00] There are shells along the entire perimeter, as we saw up there. And being families going up there, somebody may collect shells and they may collect something that's alive because they're there. And then they may put that somewhere that they shouldn't just because they're getting rid of it. Is that a long shot? Probably, but it could happen, but it's trying to understand what that risk is and how to control that risk and what's an acceptable risk.

[20:29] I mean, it's a long shot to have that actually happen to get it somewhere, but it could happen, and it's what does the risk look like.

[20:35] And that's where I think that public process, that community process, trying to figure out what the risk is, what an acceptable level of risk is.

[20:44] Sure, sure.

[20:45] Sorry, Chair, Congresswoman Lofgren is on Zoom.

[20:50] She is a limited time, so.

[20:52] Okay, thank you, Vanessa.

[20:55] Perhaps now we can hear from Congresswoman Lofgren.

[20:58] Well, thank you so much for letting me join you this afternoon.

[21:05] As soon as the redistricting process concluded, it kind of surprised all of us.

[21:10] I started coming down to the new parts of the district to see what people were interested in.

[21:16] And one of the things that people talked to me right away was this reservoir and how much they hope to be able to use it again for recreational purposes.

[21:26] And so that's on my list of how do I help make this happen since so many of our mutual constituents desire that Jimmy

[21:36] Panetta who was still representing your area last year and I sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation pursuing eradication.

[21:46] And Jimmy and I are going to continue to partner on this.

[21:49] We sent another letter this March and we just got an answer from the bureau a couple of weeks ago and I believe it's been made available to each of you commissioners or thought we certainly will do that.

[22:02] I don't disagree with the presentation that you've just been given on the technical issues. I think it's it's quite accurate.

[22:10] But the big issue of course is whether it's possible, but then secondarily the funding.

[22:16] Because, you know, we were exploring how do we get or help get the funds for the eradication.

[22:25] And unfortunately, what we discovered was under federal law, it's the water district that's

[22:33] on the hook or the eradication costs. So, you know, I am very eager to work with you to see if

[22:40] there's any way we can explore either grants or some other cost sharing. But as the law is today,

[22:50] the cost would go to the local, to the locals and it's a lot of money. So I don't know as you've

[22:59] been discussing whether there's a safe way to utilize this wonderful resource without

[23:08] complete eradication. That's something that Congressman Panetta and I would be happy

[23:13] to work with you on with the Bureau. I guess, you know, the final word is we want to make

[23:18] sure that we're doing everything we can to support your efforts and understanding how

[23:25] disappointed local residents are that they don't have this recreational resource available to

[23:31] them now. So that's really the only report I have. I'm looking forward to working with each of you

[23:37] and all of you as we move forward on this and thanks for letting me participate in your meeting this

[23:43] afternoon.

[23:49] In the letter from the Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, excuse me,

[23:55] It says in 2022, Reclamation made funds available for an updated the cost estimate for the 2019 plan.

[24:03] I'm assuming Congresswoman that that was just for the study, not for the treatment, I guess is what I'm hearing from you.

[24:12] Correct, and then they're currently estimating around 6.8 or up for eradication.

[24:20] and as your water district presenter noted, they've never tried to eradicate a body of water

[24:28] this big. This is much more complicated than they've ever been undertaken in the United States.

[24:35] So there's no guarantee it would work and the expenses are quite high, but that doesn't mean

[24:40] that we shouldn't continue to explore the opportunities, understanding that we've got to come up with

[24:45] the source of funding if we're going to try and get into an eradication program.

[24:52] Thank you very much.

[24:54] I guess, Mr. Woodry, my question is, without full eradication,

[24:59] And

[25:00] We co-exist with the muscles in a situation. I understand that people could take shells or, you know, take something in their net. However, as you've mentioned, there's 92 miles, whereas the pipelines right now, that have these muscles in them that are distributing them throughout the county theoretically. And, you know, if we are, so we aren't risk today with 92 miles and hundreds or thousands, I guess, of outlet points. So while I certainly acknowledge your

[25:29] risk, it just seems like there's an unbelievable benefit to our county, to our community, to

[25:35] our future, that there's risk in everything, and could there be ways to mitigate that risk

[25:40] without a full eradication, which seems unlikely?

[25:45] Yeah, and I think that there, that honestly is probably the path to pursue, is try to figure

[25:51] out how to, how to have security as in place for that facility that it can be utilized in

[25:57] some fashion where there's the boats to stay on or some other way that is managed where on-site personnel could manage that facility.

[26:07] And the caveat here, I can't speak for the county proper, but the county is the one who actually has that right to have that park up there.

[26:17] We are not equipped as a water district to police fishing activities and things of that nature.

[26:21] It would be something that I would hope that our partners with the county could step up and and do that portion of it.

[26:28] If I have to jump off the commissioners, I've got my staff on this call.

[26:36] But let me just pledge this, if there is anything I can do to help call on me and let me do it.

[26:41] If we need interface with the with the bureau, I'll do that.

[26:47] And I look forward to being your partner.

[26:50] I can't guarantee results, but I can guarantee my best efforts to help.

[26:56] Thank you very much.

[26:57] We appreciate that sentiment.

[26:58] Thank you.

[27:02] Thank you very much, Steve.

[27:03] You've been wonderful and very informative, and we really appreciate you.

[27:08] Now there would be some risk to the water district.

[27:13] The water district could be conceived, could have a concern about doing this,

[27:19] Yes, because of the risk, the additional risk from opening, even if it was to onsite voting and fishing and so forth.

[27:25] Do you think that that's something that the water district could see, could get behind even though there would be an additional risk to them?

[27:36] I can't speak for the board, of course, but I think that there would have to be some pretty strong language that put the county into that risk factor, probably more than the district itself.

[27:49] one of the things that, you know, to put my district hat on is, and you know I remember

[27:54] the community, and I love the things up there, but to put the district hat on, the facility

[27:59] operates as it's intended, we are able to use it to supply water, it's under control

[28:06] and it meets our purpose right now. To take more risk for this, I'm very willing to be

[28:12] a partner to try to assist that, but I don't know that the district is ready to take risk

[28:17] beyond what it currently has with our system.

[28:20] I think that we're very willing to work with the county.

[28:24] The county does have that agreement in place with the Bureau to operate a park facility up there.

[28:29] And it was a county that actually closed it because of the risk to other water bodies.

[28:35] So I think that's a conversation where all of us have to be in the right room.

[28:39] But I can tell you from the water district perspective,

[28:42] we're really not looking for additional risk on this particular issue.

[28:45] But I think as a member of the community, I think that the way to work through this isn't some kind of a partnership.

[28:52] And understanding where the risk may lie and try to minimize it as much as possible.

[28:57] Just to convey some of the conversation that we were having while we were up inside is other facilities have

[29:02] built washing things and things like that nature.

[29:04] It costs money and it may be a more gate fee to get into the park, but if it allows people to get into the park to fund some kind of those measures.

[29:13] Maybe that's part of how that risk is handled or mitigated.

[29:18] Thank you very much, Mr. Wittry.

[29:23] I'm hopeful that we could hear from Darryl Good from the Bureau, and any thoughts you

[29:29] might have or observations or hopes or dreams or anything you'd like to discuss Darryl.

[29:35] I'm not sure what more I could add to what the district manager has said, so I'm willing

[29:39] to answer questions.

[29:40] If you'd like me to go into a little bit more detail about the eradication plan, I'd

[29:45] be happy to do that, but I think he's covered the issues well.

[29:50] The Bureau of Reclamation obviously is not in a liability concern with the situation

[29:56] because it is going to be on the commission and on the

[30:00] Law to authority to take care of that, and as what's already been mentioned, the bureau reclamation through perhaps the BIL or bilateral infrastructure law could assist with getting things, but it's all on repayment stuff. So, somewhere as it's already been mentioned, it's going to come back to the community to pay that. So, I'll open up the door and say, what more could I answer for you all?

[30:31] So on this eradication plan, did you guys go the vice versa of what damages will be to the ecosystem when you do this eradication plan?

[30:41] I don't understand.

[30:43] So there's fish and there's a lot of wildlife that drinks from that water.

[30:47] There's a white notice of bald eagles now, fishing at the water hole.

[30:52] So we do the potash, and we lower down the water system, what's that going to do to the wildlife around?

[30:58] We've done an environmental assessment, but we are not in the position to say that it's not going to harm the environment.

[31:08] Obviously, it's going to kill the muscles.

[31:10] That's what we're trying to do.

[31:11] I understand that but the thing is at the same point we don't want to kill any off any other

[31:16] Animals this is pot ash. Yeah, we are putting it in in a significant quantity, but it is apparently you are you said 2%

[31:24] Of the of the American

[31:27] production of pot ash. Yeah

[31:30] That's a lot of pot ash. It's a lot of pot ash. Yes, it's a 12% it would be at a 12%

[31:35] and mixture in the water, that's a small body of water compared to the lake or the land is.

[31:42] Correct.

[31:45] So is it going to harm the eagles? Is it going to harm the cats and all the other animals in the area?

[31:52] It's going to be held in the reservoir for 45 days. Once we get that into the reservoir, then it goes into the distribution system.

[32:00] We hopefully address the receiver muscles in the distribution system.

[32:05] A minimum of 45 days is it going to continue to harm the environment after that?

[32:12] Our estimation is no.

[32:14] But during that 45 days, we're trying to kill muscles.

[32:18] We are impacting the environment.

[32:21] I can make, I believe, the environmental assessment is out and available.

[32:26] And I can make that available to.

[32:30] Okay.

[32:33] Anything else for Mr. Good?

[32:36] Yes. Did you guys look at any other alternatives besides Potash or?

[32:43] We did in the environmental assessment.

[32:45] We did not put that together in an estimate.

[32:48] The estimate that we have for the $68 million is the Potash treatment because of discussions

[32:55] with the district and others, this was the selected alternative, and that's the one that was brought forward to a feasibility or estimating level of design.

[33:11] Okay, commissioners.

[33:12] How much water capacity is in that when you're doing that 2% volume, are you talking about doing it full or half full or?

[33:18] Yeah, no, we would take the reservoir in the estimate the intent was to take the reservoir down to elevation five.

[33:26] 44 I believe, 455, at down to elevation 455, and would be treated at that level.

[33:34] I'm not off the top of my head, I'm sorry, I'm not aware of it, off the top of my head,

[33:42] what kind of quantity is left in the reservoir at that point, but it's relatively at a low level.

[33:50] And then the shoreline would be treated so as to address those that are on the

[33:55] a fringe of being in the water and those that are out of the water.

[34:00] With the pot ash?

[34:01] Yes.

[34:05] Mr. Good, would you have an opinion on the better route to go with the bureau in the event that we wanted to coexist with the muscles?

[34:16] We as a community, as a county, and I guess there's concerns to other neighboring water districts and so forth.

[34:23] It might be Mr. Wichries nodding his head because I'm sure he's heard about that from neighboring water districts.

[34:29] I would prefer to see nothing happen, does the Bureau have any opinion on that, would it be better to leave it alone, would it be better to try to do the treatment, or would it be better to try to co-exist?

[34:42] And I know you can't speak for the Bureau, do you have any opinion, anything that you can speak to that?

[34:46] I do very to tell you the truth, I did not know anything about this project up until about three days ago, so I can tell you what's in the eradication plan.

[34:56] Okay, so we thought of natural predators.

[35:01] I did do a little bit of research on my own about that. There are stuff that in Europe that develops

[35:08] or is a predator of the zebra mussels, they are not here in North America. So, like, there are certain species of birds and certain species of fish that are natural predators, correct? Crabbs does what I read. And then, of course, competitors, the quagga mussels and others that are in the very

[35:30] various different water bodies and ducts.

[35:32] So all you're really doing is just putting complication upon complication.

[35:37] Or I said birds, ducts, or one of the list.

[35:41] I did not see that, but again, like I said, I've done some very basic research of my own.

[35:48] Thank you very much.

[35:49] Mr. God appreciate your being here.

[35:55] Is that appropriate for Mrs. Salinas to approach?

[35:58] Please do.

[36:00] Yes, you bet, public comment.

[36:06] Thank you. Although you say you've only, your presenter here has only had three days.

[36:11] I'm a little, I'm questioned, I questioned the fact that he wasn't prepared to answer

[36:17] some questions specifically.

[36:22] What are the environmental ramifications? That's really important.

[36:30] You know, you should have had an answer for that and maybe he should have read the report

[36:34] And I'm sorry, I don't mean this is just the way I am, so you don't know me.

[36:37] But you need to be prepared for these answers, and you're not.

[36:41] And what is the environmental damages that it can cause?

[36:44] Now, I have for years, I've stated the San Husto is therefore one reason and one reason only.

[36:53] And that's for ag, we're cultural use.

[36:57] Recreation came seconds, and it continues to do its job with regards to agriculture.

[37:03] I could care less and I can tell you probably 85% of this community, they don't even know it exists.

[37:11] Then there's that other percent that they know it exists and they've never been there and they don't have any interest in going there.

[37:18] There are some very small percentage who will use it or have used it and will use it.

[37:24] Okay, so $68 million, we don't have it.

[37:29] And I remember Congressman Panetta talking to Mark, a supervisor, Mark Medina a few years ago,

[37:35] and said, oh yeah, we can do this, but you're going to have to pay us back.

[37:39] Well, we don't have the money, San Bernardo County is a pretty poor county.

[37:43] I don't care whether it's the water district, the county, whatever district it is, we don't

[37:48] have the funds and what do they do, they're going to go back and they're going to ask the public.

[37:53] You're going to have to pay it and it's going to be a rate increase.

[37:57] So the only suggestion that I have with regards to, how do we live with it?

[38:02] It stays the way it is.

[38:04] It doesn't cost us any money.

[38:06] And if you want it to become some kind of a park where it can be used by a very small majority of population.

[38:15] Is it really feasible to get something out there for

[38:19] are contracting to someone because it's not the county that's going to do it.

[38:23] You're going to contract for someone to have possibly, the only thing that I can think of right now is renting kayaks, right?

[38:32] So they stay there, the paddles and the kayaks will stay there.

[38:37] And then they get cleaned up and they whatever it is.

[38:40] I don't know if the air hits them for so many periods of time.

[38:44] that this muscle, the eggs, or whatever, die or not.

[38:47] But let's not spend money on something that does not have to happen.

[38:54] Right now, I understand that we're going to get more water from San Luis Dam and

[39:00] we need those places to hold water and it's going to be San Hustodam.

[39:04] I mean, so keep it, keep it the way it is, save money.

[39:07] Thank you.

[39:12] Anyone else for public comment?

[39:14] If you have a public comment in Chambers, please provide a speaker card and on Zoom, please press star 9 or the raised-hand icon.

[39:21] It

[39:25] looks like I have no other public comment.

[39:28] Thank you very much.

[39:31] We'll close that item and we'll move on to item 4c on your regular agenda update on the selling of Fox Pellet at the Renaissance Fair in 2022.

[39:46] and we will, if I could call up Jared Strauss from the California Fish and Wildlife to give us an update on that.

[40:00] I don't believe that he is present. We can move it to the next meeting. And we'll move that to the next meeting. From there, we'll go to Commissioner reports. Are there any commissioner reports?

[40:15] From there, we'll go to agency reports.

[40:20] And Jared Strauss, we'll move him to the next meeting. The San Benito County Sheriff's Office. I believe we have Mr. Kinesz on Zoom.

[40:39] just want to report on in regards to the mayor want to grow is that are going on in the county.

[40:47] We've hit with fishing wildlife and with the help of Santa Clara as well.

[40:55] We've had we've hit three grows in approximately the last month, maybe month and a half.

[41:01] The last grow was as of earlier last week, and it was an embankment warrant.

[41:10] It was a licensed hemp grow, which samples were taken, and it was later determined to

[41:15] be hot plants, meaning that they were marijuana, so we're currently in the middle of that.

[41:21] It's an ongoing investigation.

[41:23] But yeah, over the last month, we've hit three grows.

[41:28] We've been doing multiple flyovers, and we have a couple other targets within the county.

[41:36] Any questions for Mr. Canes for

[41:42] your service, Mr. Canes.

[41:44] Thank you.

[41:47] If anyone else in chambers or online is here from one of the agencies, please feel free to come to the podium.

[42:04] All right, Steve Luke, county engineer, good evening commissioners.

[42:08] I was here to listen in on the discussion regarding San

[42:15] Gisto Reservoir and also to provide a brief update regarding some

[42:19] levy repairs and debris removal for Pachaco Creek.

[42:26] So regarding the Reservoir, the county would absolutely be

[42:33] unbored with reopening that Reservoir to the public.

[42:37] and I do oversee the park's department as well with the caveat that at this point we

[42:44] have to study the risks involved but I think if we limited equipment and use such as

[42:55] paddle boats or whatnot to equipment that stays and remains in that vicinity and not allow

[43:04] to go off site at a minimum at the beginning if we all decide all the agencies

[43:10] that that's appropriate and I think the county would be unbored with that

[43:13] and then if we want to open ourselves to other risks based on corning with all

[43:21] the agencies especially the water district and the bureau then we just have to

[43:26] you know assess those risks before proceeding obviously but at a minimum I think

[43:32] if the equipment boats and whatnot stayed on site, that probably means there would not

[43:37] be fishing initially, but at least the public would be allowed to access a site, maybe

[43:42] do some cattle boating, and not take any equipment off site.

[43:46] I think that might be a good first step, but we'll have to see.

[43:49] It sounds like it's a big undertaking to draw down, bringing the pot ash and $7 million

[43:56] and that might be a bit of a process, so I think we should start the discussion, at least

[44:01] the discussion to open up the reservoir to the public and so I'll coordinate with Mr.

[44:06] Witchry in that regard but I'll pause there for questions and any more comment on the

[44:11] reservoir before I talk about the Pacheco Creek.

[44:17] Any questions or comments?

[44:23] So I think on the prior meeting one of the commissioners requested sort of an update on the clean-up

[44:28] and efforts for the Pacheco Creek which for those folks in our where it's over near Frager

[44:35] Lake and Shore Road kind of parallel shore road and it's perpendicular to

[44:40] San Felipe Road and we had some levy breaches with the recent storms out

[44:44] there. We the county have been working with the Pacheco stormwater district to

[44:50] essentially reactivate it. It's been inactive for approximately three decades and

[44:57] And during that time,

[45:00] There hasn't been a lot of maintenance in the creek for better or for worse. The particular

[45:05] stormwater district for those that aren't familiar with it, it's actually a district that

[45:09] was formed by the local landowners in the area, and it's a self-governing district where

[45:15] those landowners essentially gave each other rights to clean out Pacheco Creek, and for

[45:24] different reasons over the past decades, those efforts have dissipated and ceased.

[45:32] So unfortunately, Creek's pretty much overgrown with vegetation and silt at this point.

[45:38] One of the local farmers, ranchers, mentioned to me that his property in the 90s, there was

[45:44] approximately 13 feet from the top of the bank to the bottom of the channel, and in that

[45:50] area when I walked it, there was approximately three feet from the top of bank to the channel

[45:54] because of all the silt and debris that's built up over the years. So it's less quite

[46:00] a bit of capacity, obviously. And so where we're at with FEMA, FEMA did acknowledge that

[46:08] the particular, particular storm are district is an active agency. It's called a special

[46:12] district. Therefore, they're, they're able to be, they qualify for reimbursement. We're

[46:20] FEMA, and where it's at is the debris removal is one effort that we've segregated, and

[46:27] the levy breaches, and those repairs are a separate effort that we've segregated with

[46:31] FEMA.

[46:33] The debris removal, we're hoping that FEMA will acknowledge that it's purely because of

[46:39] the recent storm events.

[46:40] There's at least five extremely large piles of debris in addition to just all the vegetation

[46:45] that exists in the creek.

[46:46] It's hard to even walk through it quite frankly because there's so much vegetation there and silt build up

[46:53] But there's also five large debris piles and one of them definitely

[46:59] Impacted the one of the major levy breaches the debris pile is probably as tall as a ceiling and half as big as this room

[47:07] It's pretty

[47:09] It's a large debris probably but at that so we're trying where we're at with that is I'm reaching out to contractors. I need to get three quotes

[47:17] Let's just say hypothetically it costs $100,000 per pile,

[47:21] so that's $500,000 to clean up those debris piles.

[47:24] The tricky part is the way the reimbursement works is you do the work

[47:29] and you get reimbursed for debris removal.

[47:33] The district right now I think had $40,000 or $50,000 in their account.

[47:38] And so I think there's discussions or there will be discussions perhaps

[47:43] the county can give the district alone to do the debris clean up and but

[47:47] that's beyond my pay grade so so right now there's not the funding level to

[47:53] do any of that debris removal but we're working we're having those

[47:57] discussions and then for the levy breach there's at least four locations one of

[48:02] them is pretty extensive the levy when I was there was about 12 feet high it went

[48:06] down to approximately four feet and then there is essentially almost no levy

[48:10] there. We've built it up a little bit. A local property owner has just with

[48:15] soil import. So we're on a separate track trying to work with FEMA to we have a

[48:21] site visit schedule for August 24th with FEMA site team. They're going to come to

[48:25] the creek, observe the levy breaches, and see if our cost estimates are about

[48:32] right to restore those locations. And then again, I have to sort of come up with

[48:39] that funding in some respect.

[48:41] So the good news with having FEMA in the state involved is if they obligate a project,

[48:47] they'll essentially approve the project, which means, for example, if we say we need

[48:52] half a million for the debris removal, and they acknowledge that the storms caused all

[48:57] the debris removal, they'll say, okay, you're obligated to be reimbursed, half a million

[49:04] dollars minus 6%.

[49:05] So what's just called half a million dollars?

[49:07] Therefore, if we do the activity to remove the debris, they will reimburse us.

[49:12] That's when we get obligated.

[49:14] With the levy breaches, it's a little trickier because there's construction involved

[49:17] in some of the things.

[49:19] And that, like I said, could be maybe 1.5 million plus or minus.

[49:23] We'll wait and see what FEMA's team says.

[49:25] But we've had five meetings, both of those efforts, with FEMA, we're on meeting number six

[49:32] next, this Friday, excuse me, at one o'clock.

[49:34] and so those efforts are ongoing and I'll pause there for questions.

[49:42] What's the time frame for?

[49:44] So I would love to say yes.

[49:49] That's absolutely the goal for both those activities before winter.

[49:53] Like I said, we're working one of the local property owners that

[49:57] where the breaches occur, they're already restoring

[50:00] Some of the levy today, as it's already occurred, some of the levy has been restored. As far as the debris removal, once we have the three quotes, and FEMA obligates that, that could be another month or so, but then we have to come up with some kind of funding agreement, somehow, to utilize half a million dollars, let's just say hypothetically, to have those debris piles removed. And big picture wise,

[50:29] as we would, this is everyone knows, we would apply it for another grant the county has to do a study of the whole area

[50:36] to try to come up with a game plan to improve the creek, build a parallel creek. I don't know, we're going to have to explore options.

[50:46] What they did in Monterey is they actually, instead of maintaining the Salinas River, they actually built parallel, a parallel tributary adjacent to the river.

[50:57] and when they did that, they got very specific permits

[51:00] to clean out that parallel tributary in that way.

[51:04] They didn't have to go through the permitting process

[51:06] to try to permit the existing waterway

[51:09] and so we might have to go through something like that.

[51:12] But that process will know in about three months

[51:14] if we received the funding to do the study

[51:16] of the whole drainage area.

[51:19] And as far as the levy breaches, again,

[51:22] that might occur, I'd say, in three-ish, four months

[51:26] if we find the $1.5 million, if that's what it cost,

[51:30] but it's a little bit more of a funding issue

[51:33] that we're trying to work with right now, so.

[51:39] Any other questions?

[51:41] Any public comment?

[51:51] I'm just wondering, can you get a fire permit

[51:55] on a burn day to get rid of some of that debris?

[51:58] Would that be more economical?

[52:01] Just thinking out what the box here?

[52:07] Yes, so to answer the public comment,

[52:08] we've explored two options. Both options require us or include removing the debris from the

[52:17] channel as a first step in case we get some storms sooner rather than later. And the two options

[52:22] we've looked at is chipping the debris and then taking it to our landfill, which the county

[52:30] owns. And then the second option is coordinating with Cal Fire for burning the piles. And it has

[52:36] been allowed in other jurisdictions I've been told I don't know by Cal Fire but in California

[52:41] they've allowed burn piles for the similar type of activity.

[52:47] Steve could you put some sort of a timetable on when some of those decisions might be made.

[52:56] When that I know I know you don't know I know that's what you can tell me but you know just

[53:00] just so that we can kind of have an idea of what happens going forward.

[53:06] I know that Commissioner Scalio is worried about the rains coming and being back in the

[53:09] same position, so discounting your best guess.

[53:15] If I had the decisions over the county's loan activities to the district, I could probably

[53:24] give you a better answer to that question.

[53:25] I think those conversations are just beginning.

[53:27] I mean, matter of fact, the meeting after this, I think that trustee board,

[53:32] we're actually having a meeting with Pacheco Stormwater District.

[53:35] They'll be sitting, there's three trustees, they'll be sitting where you are in about seven minutes.

[53:40] But they still have to coordinate that with the county.

[53:44] So I think it's going to be a little bit more of a funding issue,

[53:49] coordination, and I don't want to guesstimate really on those timelines,

[53:53] because my super people above me would be upset with me, I think.

[53:57] Really appreciate you being here and you're working services county.

[54:01] Thank you very much.

[54:02] Thank you.

[54:07] Future agenda items.

[54:09] We have a future agenda item that we discussed earlier.

[54:13] If there's anything else from the commissioners, any future agenda items?

[54:18] There was a part of the item about the Fox Pilts.

[54:24] That's a bobcat, just clarification on the minutes.

[54:31] Okay, clarification item on the minutes of bobcat pelt's from 2022.

[54:36] Thank you, Robert.

[54:39] Thank you from that point.

[54:41] We will go to move to adjournment.

[54:44] I can't move it because we don't have a quorum, but anyway, we will adjourn.

Fish & Games Commission

Transcript