[0:03] Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Director Special Meeting.

[0:09] Meeting will be on the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project, agenda following. There's the March 16th, 2023.

[0:22] Please take the roll.

[0:26] Director Bell, Director Eisenberg. She's excused at this moment. Director Estimera?

[0:33] Dr. Shua, here, Dr. Keegan, Dr. Santos, Chevrolet.

[0:38] Here,

[0:43] do we have any members of notice that Public Board of Directors meets in closed session

[0:46] and associated with the graph in Brown Act, following the conclusion of session discussion,

[0:51] the board will return for the remaining items on the regular meeting agenda, and closed session

[0:56] item 2.1, Samantha, can you

[1:03] introduce yourself by the way?

[1:05] Thank you.

[1:06] Good morning.

[1:06] I'm Samantha Zutler.

[1:07] I am special counsel for the district.

[1:09] And I would like to announce in reference to the close session that written claims or communications relating to close session to the close session, not among the agenda are available for public inspection upon request as required by the Brown Act.

[1:26] Thank you.

[1:27] Thank you.

[1:28] To the clerk, do we have anybody that wants to speak to the board at this point before we turn to close session?

[1:43] Sorry, I couldn't see the screen.

[1:44] No, we have no hands raised and I have no speaker cards.

[1:46] Okay, great.

[1:47] So we will adjourn to close session and reconvene here at 11 a.m.

[1:53] Thank you.

[11:38] Good afternoon.

[11:41] Welcome to Value-Water Board of Directors. Could we continue from close session?

[11:49] Local council, do we have anything to report out?

[11:56] Thank you, Chair Varella. Close session was had and there is no reportable action.

[12:03] Thank you. So, Director Santos, would you direct us in the pledge of allegiance this morning?

[12:10] It's

[12:32] just time now for anyone that chooses to present to the board any thing that any item that is not on today's agenda, do we have any public speakers that wish to address the board this morning?

[12:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no hands raised in Zoom and no public speaker cards at this time.

[12:51] Okay, that's good. Thank you. We will move to our item 2.4.

[12:57] We see information on water supply strategy, water supply master plan update, and work study

[13:04] session on the Particle Reservoir Expansion milestone review, project number 9195402, district

[13:11] 1, we're said county.

[13:15] Mr. Hakes.

[13:16] Good morning, Chair.

[13:17] Welcome to the board.

[13:19] Chris Hakes acting ACEO, along with the staff support from Lisa Van Kosh, assistant officer,

[13:25] Acting Deputy Operating Officer Ryan McCartor acting CFO Charlie and Sun and Assistant Officer

[13:33] Kirsten Truff.

[13:34] Today we'll be presenting on our water supply master plan and excuse me, the slides are not

[13:41] advancing.

[13:42] There we go.

[13:44] We'll be presenting on the water supply master plan, the decision framework we use to do that

[13:48] as well as the port previously adopted board strategies, receiving information on the

[13:53] take-o reservoir expansion project, it's associated milestones and what some good review points

[14:00] would be for it. We will recommend that you schedule a future water supply master plan

[14:05] and Pachaco work study session when we reach the 60% design level and then of course direction

[14:10] to staff as needed.

[14:14] So we're going to start off just kind of giving you an overview of the water

[14:17] supply master plan. We feel like in terms of evaluating the Pachaco reservoir expansion project,

[14:22] It's important to understand how it fits into our current water supply master plan portfolio as well as what the process is

[14:30] That we use to evaluate both Chaco and our other projects

[14:33] So Christian Kirsten will start us off.

[14:42] I think your microphone is on. They said it was on is it on now? Okay, there you go

[14:48] Thank you, Chris. Here's the two of assistant officer for the water supply division

[14:53] So I'll talk about the role of the water supply and asked a plan and as you know, that's our guiding documents for long-term water supply investments too

[15:00] Ensure we have water supply reliability for Santa Clara County. The projects and portfolios are

[15:05] valued in the plan, including the ability to meet dry year demands. Next slide.

[15:12] So, the current master plan was adopted by the board in 2019, and includes three strategies

[15:17] to ensure a sustainable water supply through 2040. They are listed here, secure existing,

[15:24] supplies and infrastructure, expanding water conservation reuse and optimizing the operation

[15:29] of the existing system. The plan also includes a level of service goal to meet 100% of

[15:35] demand and normal years and 80% of demand in drought years. Next slide, please. So we'll

[15:42] go through the strategies one by one. The first one is secure existing supplies in infrastructure

[15:47] and it is foundational and an includes taking care of our existing infrastructure such as

[15:53] pipes and treatment plans, securing our local water rights and other projects to maintain the existing

[15:59] system.

[16:01] Next slide.

[16:03] The second strategy is to expand water conservation and reuse.

[16:07] It involves expanding the use of these drought resilience supplies, and then I'm going

[16:12] to be most reliable in the future under a change climate.

[16:15] Our goal is to have 24,000 acre feet per year, portable reuse, and 110,000 acre feet of conservation by 2040 compared to our baseline year.

[16:27] Next slide, please.

[16:29] The third strategy is to optimize the use of the existing system to increase operational flexibility, including diversifying storage.

[16:37] In some years, supplies exceed demands.

[16:41] Additional facilities would increase our flexibility to use or store these excess supplies

[16:46] and therefore value water's ability to respond to outages or operate the system during challenges like droughts or water quality problems.

[16:55] A number of storage projects are listed here that are currently under consideration for diversifying existing storage to support that strategy 3.

[17:04] Pacheco is one of the many options because it is in the county and controlled by Valley

[17:09] Waters, the reservoir may provide greater operational flexibilities than some alternative

[17:14] projects, but other storage projects could provide similar benefits, for example, the loss

[17:19] for carers of reservoir expansion project.

[17:22] And together, these three strategies provide a framework for a sustainable and reliable future

[17:27] water supply and strike a balance between protecting what we have, investing in the future

[17:32] making the most of the existing water supply system. Next slide.

[17:38] These are some of our upcoming

[17:40] project decision points. So in the next couple of years, the board will be asked to make decisions

[17:44] on a variety of projects. Beginning this year, we have started the process of updating our water

[17:50] supply master plan and will evaluate these projects through this update with the focus on their

[17:56] ability to meet future demand. They impact on future water rates as well as other considerations such

[18:03] schedule and the likelihood of success.

[18:06] Pachakos not a standalone decision

[18:07] and through the water supply master plan update process,

[18:10] we will look at all of these potential projects together

[18:12] rather than individually.

[18:15] Next slide, please.

[18:18] As we presented in November and our monitoring

[18:21] and assessment program update,

[18:23] we will have a shortage in the future

[18:25] and need drought proof supplies.

[18:27] With the water supply master plan update,

[18:30] a primary strategy currently under considerations

[18:32] to pair new supply with diversified storage. Under the strategy, a decision tree can be developed

[18:38] to identify different pathways for getting there, you know, to have the new supply and

[18:45] the diversified storage. And the project combination that we might want to consider bringing

[18:51] to the board. So for example, if our primary focus now is to develop alternative supply and diversify

[18:56] storage depending on the status of those projects, we could end up with these various scenarios.

[19:03] And that also illustrates the interdependence of some of our projects.

[19:08] And we will bring this information to help the board make decisions on which projects to invest in.

[19:14] Because of the uncertainty associated with implementing large water project,

[19:18] it is important that we pursue a variety of projects to minimize risk.

[19:23] So basically we're pursuing more projects and we will likely need or can afford

[19:27] because we don't know which ones will be successful and we hope to bring recommendations

[19:31] that show projects in this type of framework to you in the future.

[19:35] Next slide.

[19:37] And this is our rough timeline for our water supply master plan update.

[19:43] And we will focus first because on the upcoming project decisions on refining the project evaluation

[19:49] framework to support the board's investment decisions this year.

[19:53] And we will also engage stakeholders as a regular effort throughout the plan.

[19:57] And then we will update the board further.

[20:00] In June, and in 2024, the efforts will be focused on writing up the plan, continued stakeholder engagement

[20:06] and plan adoption. And with that, I'll turn it back over to. Well, actually, with that, I'll pause for questions.

[20:12] So I apologize in my intro. I should have said that the presentation is broken into three distinct parts.

[20:17] After which the board will have the opportunity to ask questions in each section. This first section was the water supply master plan.

[20:23] the next section will be background, benefits, and partners on Chaco, and then the last section

[20:28] will also be finance and milestones.

[20:31] Okay, so do board members have any questions on the first portion that we've heard at this point?

[20:36] Any, okay, Dr. Schweya?

[20:42] Okay, I see Dr. Gigan, Vice Chair, Regent Gigan.

[20:46] Thank you.

[20:47] So if we look at strategy three optimized use of existing system,

[20:57] so there are four

[20:59] dam-related projects in this slide. I mean, the new groundwater bank is under

[21:06] ground storage, but in terms of, so, so there's the Caros, Patreco, the

[21:13] system raise, and the sites reservoir. And I believe that all of those dams are

[21:19] looking for potential cost-sharing partners. Is that correct?

[21:24] That is correct. And of the four projects, could you tell me what are the partnership participation rates?

[21:32] Uh, I will turn that over to Kristen.

[21:35] Okay. Well, the Lasvakaris Reservoir Expansion Project has a number of local agency partners.

[21:40] So what is reflected in our CIP is just our portion of the cost.

[21:45] So it's a large number of Bay Area agencies.

[21:51] And what percentage are they funding versus external funders?

[21:58] I'm not sure on every single one of these.

[22:01] So we could bring that back.

[22:05] But so they all are pursuing outside funding

[22:08] and then our share is what's reflected in our CIPs.

[22:12] So if I may, each of the projects is a little bit different

[22:15] in terms of the funding that's been acquired to date.

[22:18] Lasbecaros, Pacheco, and Cites Reservoir have all received

[22:21] prop one funding through the CWC, in varying degrees.

[22:26] And BFSisk is actually a add-on project on top of the dam

[22:31] raise that's being conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

[22:34] Stack can come back with the exact percentages

[22:36] and distribution of internal versus external funds

[22:39] at a future date if you don't mind.

[22:41] Okay, I mean the point of my question was to look at the fact that there's a number of water storage projects out there and compare our level of participation with Pachaco to what we're seeing externally.

[22:56] So I think that information would be helpful to the board as we make our considerations.

[23:01] So I appreciate your offer to provide that information.

[23:04] And we will have some upcoming slides on specific partnership

[23:07] in particular itself, which we will have the largest share

[23:10] of those projects that are currently listed,

[23:12] and we can come back with our current levels for the future.

[23:15] Yeah, I almost waited to ask the question,

[23:17] but my question was not just the specific to Pacheco,

[23:20] so I thought this was the appropriate time to ask it.

[23:22] So thank you, Mr. Hanks.

[23:25] So, I appreciate it.

[23:28] Thank you, Chair.

[23:33] I have a more than one question.

[23:35] So since this is a work study session,

[23:38] I guess it's okay for me to just keep asking questions.

[23:43] First of all, just an editorial comment that I noticed that we put data conveyance project

[23:53] under the secure existing surprising infrastructure.

[23:57] I think it makes perfect sense that we put this before under three.

[24:03] That's never made sense to me.

[24:04] So it is a surprising infrastructure

[24:07] that we need to make sure it's working.

[24:10] So I think it's a good move.

[24:14] So my question is primarily on page eight of the slides.

[24:23] We listed a timeline for upcoming project decision points.

[24:29] So these are the project that's currently listed

[24:31] under future opportunities.

[24:37] And every one of those projects on the future project,

[24:39] the opportunity list can or cannot be a realistic project

[24:49] for us to meet our future demand.

[24:53] So, on this chart, we set project.

[25:00] Decision points for the board. So, can you say a little bit more about the kind of project decision? Are we talking about, we're actually selecting a project, we're eliminating a project, or just a review of all the project and then there's post and cons and then continue the process.

[25:26] And I think it's important for people who are listening to this works of the decision to understand that.

[25:37] Yes, definitely. I'd be happy to. So the only one where there's a project commitment really scheduled is the last of a

[25:47] Reservoir Expansion Project. Once those service agreements are executed and currently the schedule calls for a sort of end of 2020-23

[25:55] But we're not sure if you know if it will stay on schedule as well as portable reuse once we enter into a P3 contract

[26:02] Those are those are actual project commitments

[26:05] for Las Vercares after Project Commitment

[26:08] We would need the JPA's approval

[26:11] Basically to pull out all the other ones that are listed in 2020-3 are

[26:16] fund early funding decisions, but not project commitments.

[26:20] So what we are hoping to do as part of the water supply

[26:22] and mass finance support, all of those decisions,

[26:25] and make sure that you have the right information

[26:27] to know which ones are the best ones to invest in.

[26:31] So then that goes to my follow-up question

[26:36] that the water supply master plan that's currently being

[26:42] We revised after five years.

[26:48] So the schedule calls for that plan to your preliminary schedule is end of 2024 to have

[26:57] a new water supply master plan, because we'll call it that way first and second.

[27:02] So then this decision points in 2023 for the board.

[27:06] How does the water supply master plan help help the board's decision?

[27:11] is there a connection, or the board needs to say lots, lots of carousels,

[27:16] more expansion, the board needs to make a decision based just principally on the

[27:20] merit of that particular project, and then not much connection to a lot of supply and

[27:25] master plan.

[27:26] No, we aim to have the analysis complete by the time these decisions need to be made.

[27:31] We will then, you know, obviously there will be more work to do, like writing up the plan

[27:36] getting more stakeholder input. Some of the goals, for example, for portable reuse or water

[27:43] conservation, we may still be working on what those goals should be, but we are hoping to have

[27:48] you know our decision framework and the important things ready for the board to review by the

[27:54] time these decisions come around. Okay, and the board's decision may change the framework of the

[28:04] the supply and national supply and that as soon as you're in the process of working it on

[28:10] and finalize it.

[28:12] Correct.

[28:13] And we will bring an update to the board and June and request your feedback.

[28:21] Okay.

[28:22] Good.

[28:22] Thank you for that.

[28:23] Just thank you for that answer.

[28:25] And for

[28:31] a slide night, it's a model that's designed to help the board to evaluate all these opportunities, including Pacheco as one of those opportunities.

[28:48] So I'm not sure this is the most easier, easy to understand, chart, that maybe you can just

[28:56] say a little bit more so that people who listen can understand.

[29:01] I think for me it's like, so we have alternative supply A and definitely that's probably

[29:09] a portable water or purified water, and alternative supply, B, and I thought, what is alternative

[29:16] supply, B, is that the salonation, okay, that's the salonation.

[29:21] So if you can just say a little bit more about starting with a bucket, me store, it's just,

[29:29] yes, that's right.

[29:32] Well, there is a model that, and people can understand it better, so there is a model

[29:35] that we will be used.

[29:37] We haven't used this yet.

[29:38] No, yeah, and although it's presented to us in November, but I think it's just getting everybody to be all the same pitch and we'll be good.

[29:48] I mean, the main message of the slide is that we need both more supply and storage to be prepared for the future.

[29:56] So the drops are basically new supplies.

[30:00] Alternative supply means, yes, either portable reuse or desalination or something like that, but there's also surface water supplies where we might be able to get additional supplies.

[30:11] So some of the reservoir projects do have additional supplies.

[30:15] And then buckets are storage, and those will help us be more flexible. So in wet years, we can capture more water to then use during dry years.

[30:23] And, you know, we expect rainstorms to be more intense, and so having additional storage

[30:33] to capture that is likely beneficial.

[30:36] And then we would go through and we would make recommendations on what are the best first

[30:41] options to pursue, but that doesn't mean that some of the other options we shouldn't keep

[30:46] going, right?

[30:47] Sometimes we participate in low participation rates, because then if one project isn't successful,

[30:52] we can then call on to the next project, next best project. And that's what this tries to show.

[31:01] And alternative supply could also be increased water conservation beyond the goals that are

[31:06] already in the water supply master plan or a stormwater capture. Things like that.

[31:12] Okay, thank you. Hope that's helpful. Yeah. Sure can have one more. Of course, of course,

[31:22] And the last one, I just, I don't want to distract

[31:26] how the discussion that staff laid out for Pacheco.

[31:32] So I just, I just want to plan to see it

[31:35] and then maybe we can discuss later.

[31:38] So in the Pacheco reservoir part of this presentation,

[31:43] we've laid out a very kind of a detail schedule

[31:48] on moving from today to next year and then the future and this slide A, you can go to slide A.

[32:02] It's listing the board will have a key decision part in 2024, which is that the 60% stage of the design and also, I think,

[32:17] completion of the draft environmental impact report.

[32:23] So my question is that this decision point versus we've laid out a complete schedule

[32:33] all the way to the completion.

[32:38] The way I look at the schedule is that they are multiple decision points for the board based

[32:45] the schedule and then the first decision point is 2024. It could be that in 2024 there's

[32:52] adequately information we can use to determine whether Pachaco is out or not. But then

[33:01] if not then there are other decision points for the board. So I just want to say that and then

[33:08] later when we go through the discussion on Pacheco,

[33:13] if you can elaborate more on that.

[33:17] Because this whole thing is about, we have long list

[33:21] of major project primarily for storage,

[33:26] and it's intended to, it's not like we want to build something,

[33:31] it's intended to intention of it,

[33:33] So that we can deal with a abnormally dry period

[33:41] or a couple of years of just bad conditions,

[33:47] bad weather conditions.

[33:48] So it's about that future.

[33:50] It's not about anything else.

[33:55] So in moving forward that the board's decision

[34:03] And any one of these opportunities, although right now, we're focusing on Pacheco, but then

[34:11] in a way, is any one of those opportunities.

[34:13] So if later, if you can't just elaborate on that, that would be helpful.

[34:17] I think for everybody.

[34:18] Absolutely.

[34:18] Thank you.

[34:19] Pacheco specifically is a unique situation because value water is a control of the project.

[34:24] So we will have constant evaluation points.

[34:26] I think the site says decision points because that was by far the for the external projects

[34:34] that was the best a nomenclature to use. But we'll go more into discussion about what the

[34:39] timeline is for Pacheco and the really board interaction points and we'll cover those.

[34:45] I think what you just said is that it's it's the most clear it's it's really the board

[34:52] to action points for that project.

[34:54] Yeah, so.

[34:55] Okay.

[34:56] Directoration.

[34:57] Thank you.

[35:03] Thank you. So I appreciate this. Although, you know, I made a request that was pretty clear. That was an opportunity for us to vote, whether we're going to continue with the dam today.

[35:20] And once again, I see this decision being pushed down the line and kicked down while tens of millions of dollars are spent on this.

[35:30] And at the rate of my math says $2.7 million a day, almost a billion dollars a year,

[35:38] would you do this if this were your own money? Now, I recognize that there is a belief

[35:44] with among some of my colleagues that first you decide what to do and then you raise the water rates

[35:52] to fund it, but I just want to point out here. That's not an okay way of making decisions.

[35:58] We should never have these kinds of options presented to us as if they're all the same price.

[36:07] It's just, it's irrational, and it is a breach of our fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and to the voters.

[36:16] It's truly an insult to see it presented this way.

[36:20] Especially when one of the projects, the project that I had worked so hard to prepare to be able to vote against today,

[36:27] is truly the most expensive project that this agency has ever contemplated, this agency has no

[36:34] experience doing anything half as expensive and, you know, that who has cost add-ups

[36:41] of money mentally, that even, you know, the cost of the litigation I was told by, you

[36:47] know, as it by leadership, you know, each delay is costing $100 million, just caused by the

[36:57] Can you put those decisions the different reservoirs slide again?

[37:04] No, no, no.

[37:04] That one you had.

[37:05] Can you go back to that please?

[37:06] There you go.

[37:07] So, I actually know the answer to some of the questions asked by, you know, my colleague, director

[37:13] Shua, how many water districts are involved in those for caros?

[37:18] Well, I count at least seven.

[37:21] And because we sit on that JPA.

[37:23] Now, and as to sites, gosh, I mean anywhere between 7 and 20, I mean these numbers are available.

[37:33] I mean, I just did a quick Google search for sites.

[37:35] And by the way, the cost of sites is approximately the same cost as Pacheco.

[37:41] Now, that cost divided by 20 agencies versus that cost with just us, most people would just walk away.

[37:49] They wouldn't say, oh, let's get to 60% before walking away.

[37:55] I mean, seriously, there aren't exit ramps.

[37:59] Every time that we continue down this path, this path is spending billions of dollars

[38:03] of taxpayer money.

[38:05] We're taking an on ramp.

[38:07] Weeding is not cost free.

[38:09] We even could cost us a billion dollars.

[38:12] Once we get those EPA loans, the interest starts, and that interest at

[38:19] at the rate given us an outdated lower rate than what we get,

[38:24] amounted to 300 amounted to 3 billion at that rate.

[38:30] Now it could be 3.5 billion.

[38:33] Continuing is not cost-free.

[38:36] We need to compare prices.

[38:37] And we're not telling you right now is that each and every one

[38:40] of these storage options is as much as little as literally 5%

[38:46] cost of a Chaco. And I know you're going to present agencies that might be interested, but

[38:54] having done work negotiating with large deals for my entire 30-year career, I can tell you

[39:01] that when no one's interested at a $750 million price tag, no one's going to be interested

[39:07] at a $6 billion with interest or $6.5 with interest, not including mitigations price tag.

[39:13] That isn't how it works, it's just not how it works.

[39:18] And I was pretty, you know, I know we're going to get to prices,

[39:21] but how dear we discuss these options without putting price tags

[39:26] without putting costs in front of it.

[39:29] I'll talk more about costs later.

[39:31] But when one of my colleagues asks,

[39:34] how many agencies share in most of the carols,

[39:37] I would have expected the answer to be pretty quick.

[39:40] Seven, because we're one of them,

[39:42] And that's not too many to count.

[39:46] Thank you, Director.

[39:48] So I have a question for you.

[39:51] On the examples of Lasvicheros and Chaco, the of CISC sites, these are all pretty much.

[40:01] Collaborative organizations and water districts that are joining in to fund these. Also, I understand that we are also

[40:07] be a support of a be a CISC, sites reservoir, at an entry level, to pretty much reserve a position to have water supply in the future.

[40:16] My pretty much correct on that, and we do that pretty much on all sort facility projects up and down the state where we can invest in these projects to secure water for our

[40:25] in constituents that we represent. Is that pretty accurate or you are deported?

[40:31] All of these projects are still going through the development process.

[40:33] And we are involved at various stages in order to keep our options open.

[40:37] So that when we do ultimately select this, we do projects and others may fall out.

[40:42] We have the opportunity to participate.

[40:44] We are participating at various levels in all of the different projects.

[40:48] So our costs and storage options are variable depending on the project.

[40:52] And the reason why we do that is, at this particular point in time, we import about over 50% of our water source coming from the Delta from the snow pack and these water source facilities that are north of the Delta as well, is that pretty much accurate?

[41:06] Correct, if I recall correctly, it's 55% of our water is imported.

[41:09] Okay, so Pacheco would offer a positive impact for additional water storage for our region, our area, and less than the importance of having to import water in dry years.

[41:19] my correct on that. Correct, ultimately we in wet years we would store water locally, which would

[41:24] help to relieve some of the import and that will be on one of the benefits slide coming forward,

[41:29] but would relieve some of the import demands in future dry years. Thank you for

[41:33] appreciate that. Continue with your report. I have a question.

[41:37] Well, I'm sorry, Tony, I didn't see you. Yeah, just a couple of quick questions. One is,

[41:41] on this particular slide, in 2023 you have a portable reuse of the carols ground.

[41:49] Do we have final costs on any of these?

[41:53] Unfortunately, no we do not.

[41:54] As they are still going through the evaluation process,

[41:57] the cost have not been finalized.

[42:00] A lot of the projects are still to be kind of fleshed out.

[42:04] Loast for care specifically, there's a component that's the transfer of

[42:06] Bethany pipeline that's still early in the design process,

[42:09] so that cost doesn't need to be short up.

[42:11] BFSIST raise is very early in terms of preliminary.

[42:15] There are costs associated with PG&E in highway

[42:18] elements that have not been updated in a while. So I would expect most of the costs of the

[42:24] projects listed to change. But they're still being considered by us. Correct. We don't do

[42:31] all the exact costs. Right. As the Chairman mentioned, we like to keep our options open by investing

[42:38] at a minimal level to keep our as these projects mature. Some may actually die under their own weight.

[42:44] So we do want to, for a lack of a better cliche, not pull all of our eggs in one basket.

[42:50] We like that diversified opportunity just to future proof against anything that may happen that we don't foresee.

[42:56] I would like sort of agree on that approach.

[43:01] The, I was looking at the strategy to expand what a conservation is reused.

[43:06] I hear you talk about conservation, including stormwater capture.

[43:12] Could you tell us a little bit more about what we expect to look at in, you know, where we are and specifically stormwater capture?

[43:22] Yeah, so stormwater capture was one of the no regrets policies that the board adopted.

[43:28] Right now in the water supply master plan we estimated at about 1,000 acre feet.

[43:33] And it includes things like the flat mesh

[43:37] aquifer recharge, which we're doing

[43:39] and feasibility study on, things like that.

[43:44] Our, you know, the best places to capture stormwater

[43:47] are our reservoirs already.

[43:49] So in terms of water supply benefits for sort of urban stormwater,

[43:53] they are very small, because they're not overlaying,

[43:57] you know, where we would recharge.

[43:58] But we are investigating various opportunities

[44:01] to do stormwater capture, but we don't expect those benefits to be that large.

[44:09] Dr. Cassettos.

[44:14] Yeah, thank you, Chair.

[44:15] John, would you rather go through all this, because things became to my head, not to

[44:19] want to jump to gun like this, but we're talking water supply right now.

[44:23] And then, of course, flood came to my mind real quick, because you and I have had a

[44:26] immediate conversation that you contacted the Sahara water and all the folks there

[44:31] really concerned.

[44:31] So, to staff and then jump and in before we get to these other areas, what would be the impact if we had

[44:40] Pacheco right now, 140 Hater Feed, with all that water going to sop Lake, going to Bajaro, what would be the impact?

[44:47] In other words, it would be less and most likely they wouldn't flood. I know you don't have a crystal ball, but when I go up at Director Bell and John, we do constantly in the go up and in the month up there in Las Manus, we see all this water flowing.

[45:00] I know if we had the dam would be recaptured. So it doesn't have the impact that a floody right now that's going on. To this disadvantage community, there's been wrong since 1948.

[45:11] So we do have a future slide that goes into some of the incidental flood protection benefits. I don't want to spoil it for you, but there are some flows that we have currently modeled. Ultimately, we would all depend on operation of the reservoir in the situation that we're in right now, coming off of three consecutive dry years, there would be more space available to attenuate flows.

[45:27] So, it could have a significant impact in decreasing downstream flooding.

[45:32] Thank you.

[45:34] Thank you.

[45:35] The director's way?

[45:37] Thank you, Chair.

[45:38] Just a quick follow-up on the stormwater capture.

[45:44] The water conservation and demand management committee has been receiving regular update on this study.

[45:51] So maybe it's a good idea for the whole board to listen to that.

[45:58] And particularly now that every time there's a heavy storm,

[46:03] this topic comes up, people would ask me about how about stormwater capture.

[46:09] As if we don't know, there's such a thing called stormwater capture,

[46:12] but it doesn't matter.

[46:14] But we're studying it.

[46:17] And so a briefing for the whole board will be good.

[46:20] Yes, we plan to bring it, you know, the study to the water conservation demand management committee again and then to the football.

[46:27] We also have discussions through the Agwater Advisory Committee with the agriculture community on storage as well.

[46:33] So we're ongoing with those discussions.

[46:36] Director Eisenberg.

[46:41] So again, I just wonder how prepared you were for this meeting.

[46:47] Why do I have these answers and you don't?

[46:49] The cost, the stated current-stated cost of low-specaros, that is being shared between seven agencies, is 900 million.

[47:00] That is a sec, that is a fraction of what Pacheco costs.

[47:05] And that is relevant because these costs, I wait till my colleague is, these costs will have an impact on our ratepayers.

[47:15] how much they are forced to pay for water.

[47:18] This cost is important.

[47:20] Additionally, sites is 5.2 billion,

[47:23] and again, it's divided between possibly 20 agencies.

[47:28] There was a slide that I saw not on our materials,

[47:32] but at someone else's materials

[47:34] that actually compared the cost per acre

[47:39] of stored water on these different reservoirs.

[47:42] And that would have been a very helpful

[47:45] saying for you all to present. And I'm looking for it in my materials. I was really hoping to see it there

[47:52] because that's important. Yes, okay, we agree. We need outdoor storage. Got it. But should we be paying, you know,

[48:00] a hundred times more on a per acre basis for Pacheco, then we're pay, then we would pay if we have more storage in

[48:09] for kernels. So really, and those for kernels may actually be closer to us. So this is, you

[48:18] know, price is important, you know, when we go to the grocery store and we see two gallons

[48:24] of milk, of course I'm a vegan, I don't have milk, but you know, for my family with a two

[48:29] gallons of orange juice, and one of them is $3, and one of them is $50. We don't just say,

[48:37] We need orange juice. I'm going to spend $50. We actually look at those two gallons of orange juice differently

[48:47] So it's relevant and it's extremely important how much money we're spending

[48:53] Let's pretend this is our money because it is our money

[48:57] You know what we spend here is relevant and there should be price tags

[49:01] So maybe you know once I find this chart, maybe you could put that chart up to see the

[49:06] Because I assume you don't have that chart prepared for us.

[49:12] At this time, that is part of the water supply master plan for folio, which is a separate answer.

[49:16] So the answer is no. You don't have it in for us.

[49:18] So that would have been really helpful.

[49:21] So we can decide when we go to the grocery store.

[49:23] Whether we want to spend $50 a gallon for orange juice,

[49:28] or maybe buy more of the store brand for $3 a gallon.

[49:32] So, again, we can't look at this without the context of cost and these numbers are available.

[49:40] We know that this is the most expensive storage by many factors than any other storage.

[49:47] Otherwise, other agencies would want to join us in this.

[49:51] So, you know, I'm not very confident in this entire presentation if you made your decisions without any consideration of cost.

[50:04] Thank you. Thank you. Director Schwain?

[50:07] Are you okay? Director of Commander?

[50:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one of the, you know, the, um, the, um, the recycled committee is also

[50:19] looking to stormwater capture in the south. Uh, and one of the things that that I recall is that, um,

[50:28] The district did approach a few years ago, Mayor Sam Ricardo regarding stormwater capture and some kind of partnership with the city since they really are in charge of the sewer system.

[50:47] And obviously that's where the most stormwater's capture, and till we go to some other kind of storage.

[50:57] Are we pursuing anything close to a partnership with the city or other cities regarding stormwater capture?

[51:08] We are partnering with cities on stormwater capture by primarily for its other benefits, like the flood peak reduction and water quality benefits.

[51:18] I think what you're talking about is maybe taking into the purification center, so there was an analysis done by San Jose about the cost of that, and we can certainly include it in our discussions following the execution of the letter of intent regarding purified water, so, but yeah.

[51:41] I mean you had mentioned that before at the Recycle Water Committee that you would like that included and we will.

[51:45] Great, I did want to mention to the Board that the committee, after the Board's discussion,

[51:53] we would respect to D-SAL and also Stormwater Capture.

[51:57] They included as part of our work plan this year and we are looking at getting a very serious

[52:05] look at both in the next few months and then come back to the Board to catch you up with

[52:11] and then continue our discussions on both both of those on diesel and also on stormwater capture

[52:18] so that we can coordinate with the other committees and perhaps approach some of our

[52:24] possible partners once again to see if there's something that we could do to partner on some of these

[52:29] things. But I think with respect to conservation, it's very important. The city of Los Angeles and

[52:37] and other cities in California, but with the lead in being made by the city of Los Angeles who

[52:48] like the city's in San Jose and up here control the stormwater capture system that they have been

[52:56] working very diligently on stormwater capture and then trying to put them into their recycled

[53:04] system and so on and so I want to see us look look at that also some projects that they

[53:10] have in this area working with school districts with their large area of 10 or more acres to

[53:21] have systems under those those fields so that they can capture water and then see how that can then

[53:29] We incorporated into the recycle system, the purification system.

[53:36] So those are things that we want to look at when we talk about this area of conservation

[53:41] and stonewater capture.

[53:43] And just I think it was yesterday that day before Governor Newsom announced that they're

[53:47] going to be capturing more of the stormwater for groundwater and the central value.

[53:53] So we're all talking pretty much on the same messaging at this point.

[53:56] So, Director Eisenberg?

[53:57] I

[54:00] just want to say how much I share my colleagues enthusiasm to explore storm water capture.

[54:07] And although I know that desalination is still considered not ready for prime time, purification of wastewater is there.

[54:19] So the end is actually enabled by the current by current California law.

[54:25] There's systems for it, Orange County, Republican County is hidden in it either park.

[54:30] So, you know, we can be like them.

[54:32] But in particular, I just, you know, I know that my colleague,

[54:37] Director Bell, I always want to say Senator Bell, I know many of this too.

[54:41] Has been very, has been asking a lot of questions, so really, sorry, and this is about how,

[54:48] You know, should we get these 1.5 plus billion dollar loans from the EPA, you know, how

[54:57] that's really going to put a hamper on our ability to...

[55:00] So, for these other projects that were really excited about, I mean, that's a lot of debt to carry, you know, especially at today's interest rates.

[55:09] I mean, again, at a 650 to $800 million price tag, it's sure I could totally get what people were enthusiastic about this program.

[55:18] Yeah, I mean, it made a lot of sense, you know, it's offered a lot of benefits for that cost.

[55:23] I have never seen a price change, a cost change so dramatically upward, without any

[55:29] consequent loss and enthusiasm.

[55:32] You know, it's just, you know, this isn't the same project anymore when it costs so much.

[55:36] Anyway, so I think it's really, really important how acquiring, you know, those types of loans,

[55:44] that size of loans could make it much harder for us to be the leader that we really should be.

[55:50] in technology and in sustainable methods and in lower cost methods of increasing our water supply.

[55:59] You know, we, this is silicon-freaking valley.

[56:02] You know, we have this, you know, we have a history of innovation.

[56:06] And again, you know, at a much lower price tag, sure, this damn, sure.

[56:11] You know, it's, it's wholly different proposition.

[56:13] But I hope that you explore and maybe that'll be in the next slide.

[56:16] But again, I don't think we should be separating costs from all this.

[56:20] But I hope maybe you'll explore like how this type of bottleneck is going to make it much harder

[56:27] for us to do all the things that so many of us are so passionate to do. And just one of the things.

[56:34] So I share, I very much share my colleagues enthusiasm for flood protection.

[56:41] My district has been really suffering for floods and under floods with a lot of people losing their

[56:49] They're families, generational homes, and I know that's the case for so many of us in this

[56:54] room.

[56:54] And it is so heartbreaking and really true, and I maybe will wait, but maybe because one

[57:02] of these people are people I'm trying to direct this to.

[57:05] So I think we all really share this passion for protecting our communities from floods.

[57:10] But what I keep hearing time and time again is that the flood protection of Pacheco is an

[57:18] incidental, you know, result of it. In other words, flood protection is not the point.

[57:24] flood protection is not the goal, the purpose of the stand. So while we spend,

[57:31] sorry, I really

[57:32] hate being, I really, I work really hard to prepare for meetings that it's kind of just when people

[57:37] are talking, well, I'm talking, it just kind of, I don't like it. Anyway, so, you know, this project

[57:43] will incidentally protect communities from floods.

[57:46] But when we do this and take out these loans,

[57:49] that is going to prevent us from doing projects

[57:51] that are intended to protect our communities from floods.

[57:55] Intended to.

[57:56] Why should we value an incidental benefit of flood protection

[58:01] over an intentional benefit of flood protection?

[58:05] Flood protection is something we're supposed to do

[58:08] and that we have been doing

[58:10] but that we really need to do more of.

[58:12] And when we invest in projects for an incidental benefit of flood protection, we're not really doing our best job.

[58:21] So given that flood protection is not any of the stated purposes of this dam, you know, I think we really need to be honest here.

[58:31] That we could do a lot better job protecting our communities from floods with a different project whose goal is to do exactly that.

[58:41] Thank you.

[58:42] Do I trust you, Mayor?

[58:46] Thank you.

[58:48] You just asked me if we should move on, but I just had a question with respect to

[58:53] strategy one.

[58:56] Treatment, treatment plan improvements.

[58:59] I know that direct incentives tonight have raised this over the last 20 years.

[59:06] That sometimes, some day, South County is going to need to build some water treatment

[59:10] plants in South County, and we've always said that now's the time to plan on acquiring

[59:20] property there for that purpose rather than waiting until we really needed and then

[59:26] end up with big bidding war going on down there with landowners, and so it's in here

[59:36] strategy, it's something that we think makes sense, and so I wanted where we are on that

[59:43] if we're making any progress, if we're talking about it or what's going on with that.

[59:49] Well, let me respond to that since I had a meeting with the mayor of Morgan Hill, the new mayor

[59:54] work in health. And he is all in, and in a state of...

[1:00:00] The city announced message last week that we were also, he spent 15 to 20 minutes talking about water resources for South County, specifically the city of Morgan Hill.

[1:00:12] Tonight, I'm attending Ville Royce State of the city address, and I will be meeting with the mayor shortly thereafter.

[1:00:18] So I will say this, that money has always been the issue. We've been looking at this now since I've been, was elected to this board, and it continues to be.

[1:00:27] But what I've heard from the mayor is that they're open to a pipeline.

[1:00:32] They're open to anything.

[1:00:33] We all learned that there was enough waste material to service both the city of Gilroy

[1:00:38] and the city of Morgan Hellan.

[1:00:40] Once that's included, the unincorporated area of San Martín in District 1,

[1:00:44] South County also are going to want to be engaged at some point.

[1:00:48] So it's not out of reality to consider a pipeline.

[1:00:52] From our water purification facilities that we have in San Jose,

[1:00:55] cell 2 and that might be more cost effective. Don't know yet. So it's very much in the conversation and it's very much part of the conversation

[1:01:02] I'm having with the leadership of South County.

[1:01:06] Pregs stuff might have an additional response to director of some areas come.

[1:01:11] Sure, it's not really about treatment plant maybe far.

[1:01:14] Import of water supply, but we're also looking at purification facilities in South County while we do use

[1:01:21] most of the wastewater in the summer peak, you know, if there was storage or more efficient usage,

[1:01:28] we could, you know, we're looking at all of those things as part of our efforts with our

[1:01:31] South County partners. Okay, so we wanted, okay, I didn't see your name, but you have to do it for

[1:01:38] excuse me. You got it? Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank Dr. Esther Maris

[1:01:52] question, but I was soon to raise it later in this presentation. It's about South

[1:01:59] County's wildest supply. And my recollection is at the earlier version, I think,

[1:02:07] of the or map process that we talked about potential purchase of land in South County for

[1:02:22] recharge capacity because South County right now it's a lot of supplies completely dependent

[1:02:29] upon groundwater supply and at the beginning of this drought I was actually very worried about

[1:02:36] on the groundwater, basically in South County, I wore less about

[1:02:40] what's County, but South County.

[1:02:43] So there's either that or treatment plan or recycled or purified,

[1:02:48] we don't remember what it meant.

[1:02:50] And that's also laid out in the water reuse

[1:02:54] master plan, I think.

[1:02:57] So these things, I mean, we have many building blocks that,

[1:03:01] and then the difficulty is always that,

[1:03:04] Now, do we decide from all these building blocks, and it's the most technical, technical

[1:03:13] sound and financial, the sound combination of several blocks so that we can meet our

[1:03:25] demand?

[1:03:26] But I just want to say that, it's not like we don't know these challenges, we do know, and

[1:03:33] and we're conscientiously working on these things, and then these blocks, they're moving

[1:03:38] because of outside environment, because of political reasons, because of many other reasons.

[1:03:44] But our job is to plan for the future, and then we're doing that on the daily basis.

[1:03:53] Thank you.

[1:03:54] Okay.

[1:03:55] Now we're going to move on with our report.

[1:03:56] Do we have a...

[1:03:57] Do I cry, Senator?

[1:03:58] Did you want to...

[1:03:59] Okay.

[1:04:00] Excuse me.

[1:04:01] Continue on?

[1:04:02] My pleasure.

[1:04:03] We will be going into the background section as well as the benefits, partnerships, and I believe

[1:04:08] we'll see how we go.

[1:04:11] Just to refresh everyone who may not be in the audience right now,

[1:04:15] particular reservoirs about seven to nine miles, as the crow flies from tenuous reservoir,

[1:04:19] depending on the water level, right now would be closer to seven.

[1:04:24] The public benefits were enumerated in our application to the CWC in 2017.

[1:04:29] The environmental benefits were listed as enhanced the habitat for federally listed and threatened steelhead, enhanced the water supply to Delta Refuges.

[1:04:38] We also have increased water supply reliability and emergency supply.

[1:04:41] We would resolve the problem that we currently have with the San Luis low point.

[1:04:46] And then it would incidentally reduce flooding along Chaco Creek in disadvantaged communities.

[1:04:52] Just an excerpt from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the determination that there was ecosystem benefit.

[1:05:00] So, what was included in their letter to us back in that finding? Just to refresh the board's memory, we were actually the top rated of the prop one projects. I'm going to came to a benefit ratio perspective.

[1:05:15] Emergency response to this letter from the California Department of Water Resources, affirming that we do have emergency response of benefits from the project.

[1:05:22] And then in terms of Director Santos's question in regards to flooding, what you're seeing is a picture in 2017 of the flooding that happened.

[1:05:30] Basically, we saw a peak of 15,000 cubic feet per second at the walnut avenue gauge.

[1:05:37] As you can see, that area is a disadvantaged community that actually floods quite regularly.

[1:05:41] It doesn't take a 2017 event, it doesn't take an event like we had this year.

[1:05:45] It floods on average every other year.

[1:05:47] So, even though the benefit is incidental in our modeling of the reservoir as an emergency water supply reservoir,

[1:05:54] which means it would be full, you still get a 15 to 24 percent average reduction in flows.

[1:06:01] Now, coming off of a dry air, as I mentioned, or several dry airs, as I've mentioned,

[1:06:05] the probabilities of the reservoir would actually be lower.

[1:06:08] And there would actually be more storage space because we are pursuing partnerships.

[1:06:12] Our partner agencies made a term in that they use best use for their facility is not as emergency water supply, but ordinary operations.

[1:06:20] So depending on that use, there may in fact be more space in the reservoir to blunt flows.

[1:06:26] Looking at the incident that happened along the Pahara River where you had the levy breach.

[1:06:30] We had some hydrographs that were produced that showed the vast majority of that flow did come from Particle Creek.

[1:06:36] So having a way to blunt the flows from Particle Creek, this charges would definitely benefit that community.

[1:06:43] We do have some existing partnerships in place with the San Bernardo County Water District.

[1:06:51] They currently participate at 2.5% that you have an option to participate up to 10% and of

[1:06:55] course the Pacheco Pass Water District who we've entered into an option agreement for

[1:06:58] purchase of facilities.

[1:07:01] How partners would potentially use the facility unless they're directly connected to our

[1:07:06] system?

[1:07:08] We would envision most of the uses would come from transfers out of San Luis Resvore, so

[1:07:12] it's an exchange of water that's a virtual exchange. So if we did have someone who was perhaps

[1:07:17] in Southern California that wanted to partner us with us on this facility, we would use our

[1:07:21] allocation in San Luis, trade it with them, and basically park the water that we needed in Pchaco.

[1:07:30] Partnership status, because this is always a question. As I mentioned, we are partners with San

[1:07:34] Vanita County and Pchaco Passwater District through an MOU. We have received interest and discussed

[1:07:40] this with four separate water agencies comprised of 11 members.

[1:07:44] We have pending discussions with other agencies in the works,

[1:07:47] as well as two letters of interest we receive.

[1:07:50] Part of the reason we have not been able to finalize any partner agreements

[1:07:53] is that the project is not at a sufficient level to finalize our benefits.

[1:07:59] That doesn't even go shaded with the state of California,

[1:08:01] through a negotiation of public benefits, as well as the design.

[1:08:04] We're at 30%.

[1:08:05] We do have a ways to go before we are able to finalize our costs.

[1:08:08] And in future slides, I will have a discussion point on what that means in terms of uncertainty,

[1:08:14] contingency, and whatnot.

[1:08:18] So that's the background section for really quick any questions.

[1:08:22] Yes.

[1:08:24] I'm sorry.

[1:08:25] Do I do I somewhere?

[1:08:25] Thank you.

[1:08:29] What?

[1:08:30] What?

[1:08:31] Sorry.

[1:08:31] I should you like the report.

[1:08:33] Sorry.

[1:08:34] What was the price tag on this dam?

[1:08:37] when you submitted it to, for, to, for, for pre-promp ones funds.

[1:08:43] In 2017, it was priced out $979 million in 2015 dollars, which was per regulation.

[1:08:49] Okay, so it was $900 million something.

[1:08:54] Now, what you said it was the number one ranked from a benefit ratio.

[1:08:59] So the cost has tripled, quadrupled, quintupled, or sextupled, if you include the

[1:09:07] interest, have the benefits also increased by that much?

[1:09:12] The benefits remain the same as calculated by the state of California.

[1:09:16] So, congratulations at the price tag of $900 million.

[1:09:20] This was the top-rated program on a benefit to cost ratio basis, top-benefit to cost ratio,

[1:09:30] But when the cost went up significantly, while the benefit stayed the same, why do you think?

[1:09:41] So therefore making a math, I love math.

[1:09:45] So maybe the ratio before was it had to be above one, right?

[1:09:49] So maybe the ratio before was 1.2.

[1:09:53] But now you take that denominator, right?

[1:09:57] and you have to multiply it by 4, let's say.

[1:10:00] Now, the ratio is only 0.3. So, do you think it's still at this price tag? Would have been ranked number 1 from a cost to benefit analysis?

[1:10:16] I apologize, Director. I may have mispoke in saying that it was the number 1 rated from a cost benefit ratio. It was the number 1 rated from a total cost to project awarded the maximum condition eligibility determination by the state of California.

[1:10:29] However, to answer your question, the cost benefit ratio right now is, this is a policy decision

[1:10:36] that's being made by the board.

[1:10:38] It is not for me to determine whether the product sufficiently benefits value water.

[1:10:42] So you're telling me that we decided, even though this is our meeting to decide, so actually

[1:10:49] we didn't tell you what we thought about a much lower cost benefit analysis.

[1:10:53] I showed in it, I would have told you that it has to have more benefits than it has cost.

[1:10:57] I think most people, I think the boardoff would have said that.

[1:11:01] We expect the benefit to be bigger than the cost.

[1:11:06] So, you know, I don't think the board ever told you to spend, you know,

[1:11:11] all this, these billions of dollars in a, in a project,

[1:11:15] where the cost was so much greater than the benefit.

[1:11:17] I really don't.

[1:11:18] So anyway, I just really, every time I hear that it was the top-rated program

[1:11:22] at literally one quarter of the price, one quarter,

[1:11:25] maybe to one tenth of the price? It gives me hives because again it really depends on the price.

[1:11:34] These ratings depend on the price. They are not price, agnostic. And neither should we be.

[1:11:41] Additionally, what was that other point you just made that I thought? Can you look at your most

[1:11:46] recent slide. Can I see it? Please. Oh yes. So, for water agencies are interested. Express

[1:11:56] interest. In what form do they express interest? We had physical discussions with the water

[1:12:02] agencies and they said to please keep them informed because they would potentially want to partner

[1:12:06] with us in the future on participation in the reservoir. So basically, by physical conversation

[1:12:11] consuming oral in a meeting? Correct. But they didn't send you anything and writing other than

[1:12:17] they want to subscribe to the mailing list. I do not believe the mailing list was-

[1:12:22] Or they want to stay informed. They just want to stay informed. Correct. It was like

[1:12:26] saying both. Right. So they want to stay involved or informed. But they never said they want to

[1:12:31] help pay for this. As I mentioned director is too early to execute a partnership agreement.

[1:12:38] It is never too or so the JPA of most of a caros has seven people completely on board.

[1:12:47] Even though as I just heard you say, those the final cost of that has not been determined.

[1:12:54] So it's actually, you know, under what?

[1:12:58] What is your theory that as the cost of this goes up, other agencies are more likely to participate?

[1:13:08] I do not have a theory on participation of other agencies moving forward, those are elected bodies most likely and they will have those discussions themselves.

[1:13:15] Okay, so really, we have zero agencies that have actually made a firm commitment.

[1:13:23] And as I said, we do have a memorandum of understanding with San Benito County.

[1:13:26] From 2018.

[1:13:29] Correct.

[1:13:29] And what was the price of the project then?

[1:13:32] 2018, I believe the project had escalated to 1.3 billion dollars.

[1:13:37] So still significantly, in 2018, the price was 1.3 billion.

[1:13:42] Correct, as I mentioned, the application in 2017 was done in 2015 dollars, as soon as it was incorporated into our initial capital improvement program.

[1:13:51] In 2018, we escalated the project to the midpoint of construction, at which point the price of the project was 1.35 billion to be exact.

[1:13:58] So, and how much of an interest did they state 2.8 percent?

[1:14:02] Interest was not a topic of discussion in the capital improvement program.

[1:14:06] No, I mean, how much of the participation were they interested in?

[1:14:10] So, once again, somebody who county is currently participating at 2.5 percent

[1:14:14] and has the ability to exercise up to 10 percent prior to construction

[1:14:17] and the particular past water district is a real estate agreement between

[1:14:21] value water and particular past water district for the option of purchase.

[1:14:24] Okay, so I know how options of purchase work and that is not the same as purchase a patient.

[1:14:30] And by using that San Bernardo County, so they so far paid 2.8% of our costs.

[1:14:38] Once again, director, they have spent 2.5% of the cost moving forward, yes.

[1:14:43] So they have contributed money to this. So how much money have they contributed?

[1:14:48] I do not have the total today at my ready. I can get that back to you in a four number of questions.

[1:14:53] Why is that in a part of this? I think maybe Darren has it

[1:14:58] through the chair

[1:15:00] Yes. As far as San Benito goes, San Benito has not contributed any money. As of this point in time, we are in communication with them and kind of telling up the amounts of money that they would pay as soon as we move forward with payments.

[1:15:16] That's what I thought. San Benito County has not paid a dime.

[1:15:20] And I'm not quite sure that what you presented to us is an accurate statement of the reality.

[1:15:28] If San Bernard O'Connor were actually interested, maybe they would have paid something.

[1:15:34] But they're not interested and they haven't paid a dime.

[1:15:36] Again, I sit on the board of two different JPAs and in both situations the various members have paid money.

[1:15:45] This has now been five years, as the price has gone up and up, and you are telling me with

[1:15:51] a straight face you honestly believe there is going to be material participation from other

[1:15:57] agencies.

[1:15:58] Is that what you're saying?

[1:16:01] Director, I believe I said that that was up to agencies in the future and not up to

[1:16:05] I know it's up to them, but do you believe that they are going to participate?

[1:16:14] My belief is irrelevant to this discussion now.

[1:16:16] Your belief is relevant to how are we supposed to make a decision if we don't know if other agencies are ever going to participate in this?

[1:16:24] I would hope that you would look at the presentation and take in the information and provide an evaluation.

[1:16:29] So that's where on our own.

[1:16:32] So I guess.

[1:16:35] So basically what I'm hearing you say is that there's no reason to believe that any other agency is ever going to participate in this.

[1:16:42] I did not say that, man.

[1:16:45] But you also didn't say that there's any reason that they will.

[1:16:47] Please, if they will.

[1:16:49] Correct.

[1:16:49] I've made no determination that regarding agencies for future participation.

[1:16:55] Great.

[1:16:55] I'm going to conclude that.

[1:16:57] If that, at a much lower price tag, no one was interested that,

[1:17:00] probably not going to be interested at a high price tag.

[1:17:03] I'm sorry.

[1:17:04] I don't know what to do when they don't answer.

[1:17:05] I will just...

[1:17:07] Thank you.

[1:17:08] I will move forward.

[1:17:09] Thank you for your comments.

[1:17:10] Thank you.

[1:17:11] CEO, calendar?

[1:17:14] Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[1:17:15] I also was going to ask for the chair to intervene.

[1:17:18] I think everyone can clearly see the attacks coming directly on staff.

[1:17:22] We should be talking about the subject matter, not attacking staff, asking for the personal

[1:17:27] opinions or otherwise.

[1:17:29] So I would ask for the chair.

[1:17:30] I'm not asking for the personal opinion.

[1:17:32] I'm asking for the professional opinion.

[1:17:35] As is relevant to our analysis, how much this is going to work.

[1:17:39] I'm going to ask you with the same respect that you asked of the board and not interrupt me.

[1:17:45] So Mr. Chairman, I would ask for your intervention to protect the staff that's presented.

[1:17:54] So done.

[1:17:54] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:17:55] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:17:56] Thank you.

[1:17:57] Director Keegan.

[1:17:58] Director Keegan.

[1:18:03] Good afternoon, Mr. Higgs.

[1:18:06] So a couple of questions here.

[1:18:08] As I understood your presentation,

[1:18:15] that we are not as far along in formal participation from other agencies because we're not as far along in the process.

[1:18:28] like, for example, Los Ficaros, actually when they designed it, they built in an expansion

[1:18:35] thing in their study, so, and I believe Sites Reservoir has also circulated a draft

[1:18:42] EIR.

[1:18:43] So, what I interpreted what you were saying was that it's our expectation that when we're

[1:18:54] at the conclusion or in the middle of the environmental process,

[1:19:01] enough information would be available to flesh out interest

[1:19:04] on the part of other agencies.

[1:19:06] Was that what you're saying?

[1:19:07] That is correct.

[1:19:08] Out of the eight CWC or California Water Commission projects

[1:19:11] that received prop one funding.

[1:19:13] Pacheco is actually, from a timeline perspective,

[1:19:16] the last in the line in terms of development.

[1:19:18] Las Recuerros expansion actually contemplated

[1:19:21] the expansion that they're doing now in a draft EIR

[1:19:23] that was submitted in 2012.

[1:19:26] So they are definitely further in the process.

[1:19:28] So yes, we are the last project that

[1:19:31] will be going through the timeline with the CWC.

[1:19:33] And so the system raised project is ahead of us as well.

[1:19:36] Correct.

[1:19:37] There was an existing dam safety project

[1:19:39] that had been contemplated as well.

[1:19:41] So that is ahead of the current timeline

[1:19:44] for the particular reservoir expansion project.

[1:19:46] OK.

[1:19:47] And if we could go back to the slide

[1:19:52] that shows partnership status, which is page 19 of 36.

[1:19:58] Here we are. Great. Thank you.

[1:20:01] So our target is 35% and right now we have a 2.5% participation in theory by San Benito County and Water District.

[1:20:16] Are they going to make any payment, like for example, if we're starting to spend money on

[1:20:27] doing, well, we are already starting money on the environmental work, when is that money

[1:20:31] going to come our way?

[1:20:33] I'll turn that over to either around the Carter or CFO, Darren Taylor, who just as an introduction

[1:20:39] as back from jury duty and as a replacement early in son on the panel.

[1:20:44] Welcome back.

[1:20:45] Thank you.

[1:20:46] I should have noticed the difference.

[1:20:50] It's got to be clean.

[1:20:52] Through the chair.

[1:20:55] As I mentioned, we have been tracking the costs that we've been spending on Pacheco

[1:21:03] and we have been notifying San Benito of their portion of the costs

[1:21:08] have been tracked. We have not build them yet. I haven't researched as to when we would

[1:21:16] build them and invoice them and ask them for payment. That's something I would need to research.

[1:21:21] But at this point time I can tell you what we've been doing and that is tracking and informing

[1:21:25] them of their liability as the costs are expended. So your research sounds to me like that's a legal

[1:21:33] issue, like we have some sort of contractual relationship and we need to figure out when we can

[1:21:40] get payment.

[1:21:41] Is that it?

[1:21:42] Well, at this point in time, we have a member of understanding and that member of understanding

[1:21:49] contemplated a future agreement.

[1:21:51] So I believe that what you're saying is a fair characterization is that we would need to

[1:21:57] move into a next step and finalize and I might need other staff to kind of help me with that next step.

[1:22:04] And so does the memorandum of understanding, sorry, I'm an engineer, so sometimes I get a little deep in the details.

[1:22:13] That memorandum of understanding does obligate them to participate in these costs or now.

[1:22:21] to

[1:22:25] the chair if I could weigh in, I'm not sure if this is on.

[1:22:28] Sure, Ryan.

[1:22:29] Is it on that?

[1:22:31] Take your on now.

[1:22:34] On now?

[1:22:35] Yeah.

[1:22:36] Yeah, as CFO Taylor mentioned, the memorandum

[1:22:38] have been understanding doesn't have really the payment provisions in it.

[1:22:42] It really just lines out what the percentage of participation would be.

[1:22:46] So we are having a working with Sam Benito County Water District

[1:22:49] on developing an agreement that's been kind of put on hold

[1:22:51] as we're developing the project more.

[1:22:53] but their net contribution is somewhere around the $700,000 range so far at 2.5% minus what

[1:23:02] we've received from the California Water Commission.

[1:23:04] So, we are tracking that and we do give them annual kind of summaries of how much they do

[1:23:09] else that they can work that into what their kind of liabilities are for their district.

[1:23:13] But they could walk away. I mean, if we don't get to the point where there's an agreement that those

[1:23:18] costs could all be on that strike.

[1:23:19] Potentially they could walk away, and if that's the same for, you know, our involvement with LBE as well.

[1:23:26] I mean, we could walk away at any time as well.

[1:23:30] Okay.

[1:23:32] The other thing I wanted to ask here is we talk about four water agencies comprised of 11 members expressing interest.

[1:23:40] I think it's, and this goes back to kind of my original question, where I was saying,

[1:23:45] how much participation, external participation

[1:23:48] to those other projects have.

[1:23:51] I'm, like I know, Pacheco even got some federal money

[1:23:54] recently, in addition to the cost share amongst the JPA members.

[1:24:00] I think it's important information for us to have,

[1:24:02] because we can say, well, there's all these water agencies

[1:24:06] that are interested, but like Pacheco pass water district,

[1:24:10] they're tiny.

[1:24:11] I don't think they have the ability to come up with any money

[1:24:13] this and then in terms of the four water agencies there I really would like a realistic and I

[1:24:22] I don't expect to get an answer right here today but I would have liked that answer.

[1:24:29] I think that that's important information for us to understand because

[1:24:34] you know we could have a dozen teeny tiny water agencies interested but if they can't make it to that

[1:24:40] 35% that we're counting on, that's problematic.

[1:24:46] So I really think we need to get more information

[1:24:50] about, you know, so I'm so you can show something

[1:24:53] and it's like, here's relatively certain.

[1:24:55] Here's speculative and, you know, here's a little bit worrisome.

[1:25:00] I don't have a handle on that right now and it's something that I'd like to have, so just to bear that in mind.

[1:25:13] Please, my power. Thank you.

[1:25:18] You know, we're talking about partnerships here and we have other partners, obviously, and how we conduct our business.

[1:25:26] And one of the things that I'm now aware of is that the water retailers are not supportive of this project.

[1:25:36] And I think that that's important information that I would have hoped have been part of this presentation.

[1:25:44] My understanding is that yesterday,

[1:25:49] when people, when we had the water retailers meeting,

[1:25:55] that, as I said, water company actually abstained from CIP approval, because of their concerns

[1:26:01] about Pacheco.

[1:26:05] And as I said, water company is one of our largest water retailers.

[1:26:09] So if they have concerns, then I'm going to have concerns as well.

[1:26:16] And lastly, I did think we'd given pretty clear direction that the board wanted to have some kind of decision point on Pacheco.

[1:26:30] And I don't feel that's what we got today.

[1:26:32] And that's a strategy, I guess, a point could be made that will have more information

[1:26:42] in the future, as we move forward with the environmental document.

[1:26:48] But that means that we're spending a lot of public money.

[1:26:52] And sometimes I feel things are like, I don't know, we've all had that experience of losing direction, right?

[1:27:00] go on a detour and it looks like it's going to take you to where you want to be and all of

[1:27:06] a sudden there's no signs, there's no gas stations, there's no nothing and it's like well maybe

[1:27:12] this wasn't a good idea so I originally thought and sometimes we have to turn around and

[1:27:18] make a change and I also want to say I've never been opposed to the Jacob project. I think

[1:27:27] there's some benefits to it.

[1:27:29] I've had constituents tell me that they've had an interest in it.

[1:27:33] But there comes a point when we really have to think about the price

[1:27:37] and the future exposure and all those kinds of things.

[1:27:41] And I feel like I don't want to continue going down a path if our partners

[1:27:52] aren't supportive of it if the price keeps going up and I don't think that waiting until

[1:28:01] 2024 to make an actual decision about this project is in anyone's best interest.

[1:28:08] So I'll just leave it at that.

[1:28:10] Those are more comments than questions.

[1:28:14] I do appreciate that there's room to disagree on this stuff.

[1:28:18] Again, I'm not philosophically opposed to Pacheco.

[1:28:23] I'm just very concerned about the cost

[1:28:26] and I'm very concerned that we might be tying the hands

[1:28:30] of future board members, where they're left in a position,

[1:28:33] where their only options are either to cut projects

[1:28:37] or delay them extensively or raise water rates.

[1:28:40] And that may not be, and I think this is where the water retailers

[1:28:43] are coming from, that may not be palatable.

[1:28:45] And so I think we need to be very conscious of that as we move forward.

[1:28:56] And certainly we have the opportunity to, I believe, to make decisions prior to 2024.

[1:29:07] So that would be my hope that we have other opportunities to really weigh in on this.

[1:29:13] So thank you.

[1:29:14] Thank you chair. I was going to provide some perspectives or my personal experience about

[1:29:30] this sports decision making any project using cost benefit as a criteria. This may or may not

[1:29:41] apply to Pacheco, but then I just want to share with everybody that I've been here

[1:29:48] a long time, and even longer than Dr. Astro-Marie and Dr. Fentos, that, and I spent the

[1:29:58] majority of my career.

[1:30:00] Full Protection Project, resolution, what a supply project. And majority of that experience was dealing with core of engineer on providing full protection on some of these major Guadalupe coyote Creek.

[1:30:14] And the core has this terminology called AED and LLP.

[1:30:23] So AED is a national economic, I don't remember what's D design, but LLP is locally preferred

[1:30:31] project.

[1:30:32] So of course, AED is based on strict calculation of numbers, cost, and for ratios.

[1:30:38] and only the benefit that they can assign a dollar amount to it.

[1:30:44] Many of the benefits they know are because there's a not a good way of assigning a dollar amount.

[1:30:51] The former board and staff under the direction of the board,

[1:30:58] we have always advocate and do our best to do the LLP project because that's locally preferred project.

[1:31:08] that's what our constituent wants.

[1:31:11] It's not the, never the cheapest alternative,

[1:31:14] because any of you, it's the cheapest alternative,

[1:31:18] but the, the, the, the, the board, I was, I was step person,

[1:31:21] but it's always that, uh, whatever the community needs,

[1:31:25] whatever the community wants, uh, is the project

[1:31:27] we're going to, uh, we're going to fight for.

[1:31:30] So, um, I just wanted to share that with all of you,

[1:31:34] And later in my career, we added environmental to our mission, and then we are struggling,

[1:31:46] I think, even today, that when you look at benefits of a project, how do you assign

[1:31:53] a dollar sign to environmental benefits, how do you assign a dollar sign to preserve a habitat

[1:32:01] to help fish, and so it's very, it's, it's, it's, so without a dollar sign as on to it in a way it's like the benefit cannot be strictly calculated based on mass.

[1:32:18] So I mean, my comment may or may not apply to a particular decision the board is going to make,

[1:32:24] But I just want to provide that to, so that we have some perspective on how the

[1:32:34] solar organization has been and how the decision was made.

[1:32:39] It's all about the community.

[1:32:41] So, okay, thank you.

[1:32:43] Dr. Santos.

[1:32:47] Thank you, Chair.

[1:32:48] There's a director, Shua, stated, you know, you can put dollar signs when we always do,

[1:32:53] It's the cart before the horse because and I've said this before I'm just repeat myself and if you heard other colleagues talk about the questionable things

[1:33:01] They have to do for decisions. Well, I see it differently

[1:33:05] When you talk about

[1:33:08] This potential source of water. Why was it built in 1939? Well, it's pretty obvious

[1:33:13] It was floods agriculture

[1:33:16] Food and all the things in 1939 and jobs to help folks got the recession. So here we are today

[1:33:23] A long time later, it's just staying the same issue.

[1:33:26] Here's right here, by Stanford papers.

[1:33:28] Here's what it says.

[1:33:29] Stanford study explores how dams, reservoirs could benefit global food.

[1:33:34] Dams and reservoirs help supply drinking water.

[1:33:37] Hydroelectric power to initials around the world.

[1:33:40] But that water is also critical to another life and death calculation.

[1:33:44] A available, global food supply.

[1:33:47] So I can go on and on and on.

[1:33:49] You know, many of you have went around on 1970,

[1:33:54] six and I've repeat this before, as a fire captain

[1:33:57] during that time, when then the governor Regan

[1:34:01] closed down all the mental health.

[1:34:03] And today they're all living in the creek, huge amounts of them.

[1:34:06] I wouldn't go on and on.

[1:34:07] And at the time, the public was in the same way.

[1:34:09] We got to make the decision.

[1:34:10] It's going to be cost.

[1:34:11] What kind of this reduced welfare?

[1:34:13] But what did we do?

[1:34:15] Recreated damage control.

[1:34:16] That is exceeded, exceeded what we even thought of during that time.

[1:34:22] My calls were 150 and months went to 350 because then the mental population was put in

[1:34:28] halfway houses, no mentoring, no window on or on, today we're paying triple.

[1:34:32] So I go back to the same thing, why was it built in 1339?

[1:34:36] I got mine, I want your great grandchildren to have water, that's going to be the best decision

[1:34:41] I can make.

[1:34:42] It's flow, it's supply, it's food, all the things, and it gives us a great source for South County to have a water available now, not waiting to win.

[1:34:51] When John and I pass away, I think I make me happy.

[1:34:54] If I made this decision today, since I've been in a water board, this is going to be the best decision.

[1:35:00] Decisions, because I can leave your great grandchildren with water, because you'll pay what your lives if you don't have water.

[1:35:07] And what does the Stanford scientific paper say that you will have 10 and 20 year droughts?

[1:35:14] NASA papers says the same thing we're in an area. So right today we're all happy we have four weeks of water.

[1:35:23] And I've been here long enough with Tony that we know we've faced three times we faced

[1:35:28] the droughts or water conservation programs and so on.

[1:35:31] And then when we hear a staff up here, let's remember this, staff does the work of direction

[1:35:35] of the board.

[1:35:38] So, they do a great job and they have to answer the question that we direct them to.

[1:35:43] And Barbara's, right?

[1:35:43] These all these decisions have to be looked at and nice, right?

[1:35:46] We all have to look at these decisions.

[1:35:47] But for me, it's not easy, cost, but you'll pay more at damage control.

[1:35:53] So all I know is this, director of chairman came aboard, he did a great job in doing all that

[1:35:59] legwork out there for this dam, sort of John Vorella.

[1:36:03] I was part of it, proud to be doing it, I'm going to support this project, because that's about

[1:36:07] jobs and water for the future that we may not have.

[1:36:11] And if we did have that water in 2017, I'm excuse me, then most likely we wouldn't have

[1:36:17] the 2017 front, which Bihar was going through now, again, another disadvantaged community.

[1:36:23] So I've been there.

[1:36:24] I've lost everything I own over these things, so it's time, I hope, and I'm sure we have

[1:36:28] more presentation, but it's not that my mind's made up, because it's not the only thing

[1:36:33] that's your life that's most important, and I know if you don't have water in a beast terrible,

[1:36:38] so thank you.

[1:36:40] Thank you, Director.

[1:36:41] We can go on with our presentation.

[1:36:44] Okay.

[1:36:45] So we're going to talk costs.

[1:36:47] Currently, we have an uninflated project cost of 2.2,0006 billion in our CIP inflated.

[1:36:55] That's 2.78 billion.

[1:36:58] As everyone knows, we are at the 30% design level.

[1:37:00] So there is a bit of contingency that's included into the project.

[1:37:04] On our design and construction side, there's about $460 million of the students see that's still in the project.

[1:37:09] That is money that we've included for design elements that we have not properly anticipated.

[1:37:14] it, although we do have 50 million in mitigation in the project right now, we do anticipate

[1:37:19] that that could rise so that we come out of the 460 million as well.

[1:37:23] We also project somewhere between one and five million of operating costs.

[1:37:27] That is outside of our capital improvement program, but we have been modeling it and I believe

[1:37:32] it's listed as a footnote in there because the board has given us direction to include operating

[1:37:36] costs moving forward.

[1:37:39] This is just the rough breakdown of planning of our mental design right away, construction and

[1:37:43] closeout.

[1:37:44] Task 00 is a miscellaneous labor charge, it's just in there because after the fact

[1:37:48] it's a little bit difficult to classify those charges, but the main drivers of cost are

[1:37:55] listed above.

[1:37:58] I will turn this over to Darantailer, there's a lot of information on this slide.

[1:38:03] Good afternoon, members of the board, Darantailer.

[1:38:06] So yes, there is a lot going on in this slide.

[1:38:08] So I'm going to walk through it fairly slowly.

[1:38:11] And we'll start with the table and going down the left-hand column.

[1:38:15] I've divided the years into five-year increments.

[1:38:19] So it shows a projection from FY19 to FY67 and five-year increments.

[1:38:25] That last FY67, 6467 is a four-year increment.

[1:38:32] And then as we go across the top of the table,

[1:38:34] column B is the capital cost.

[1:38:35] That's the inflated capital cost that Chris just referred to,

[1:38:39] totaling $2.78 billion.

[1:38:41] And then moving on to column C, that's the prop one grant at $504 million.

[1:38:47] And that's offset the cost, so that's reflected in a negative number.

[1:38:51] So cost is reflected in positive numbers and offsets in negative numbers.

[1:38:55] And then column D and E.

[1:38:57] Column D is the WIFIA debt proceeds that would help provide upfront funding

[1:39:01] for the project totaling $1.36 billion.

[1:39:05] And then column E is the revenue bond debt proceeds.

[1:39:09] That's $236 million of debt proceeds.

[1:39:13] That's an estimate based on assuming that

[1:39:15] 70% of the net project cost would be financed.

[1:39:20] And so that's where that number comes from.

[1:39:23] And then if we move over to columns F and G,

[1:39:26] column F is the WIFIA debt service.

[1:39:29] And that's a, again, in a positive number

[1:39:32] because that's the cost going out, that's paying for principal and interest associated with

[1:39:37] the WIFIA loan at $4.2 billion over the life of the loan and then column G is the revenue

[1:39:45] bond debt service on that $236 million paying back $566 million over the life of that debt

[1:39:54] and then column H is the assumption of the 35% partner payments recall.

[1:40:00] All back in April of 2021, the board had a fairly vigorous discussion about what to assume with regard to partner

[1:40:07] partnerships and target for staff to go and retrieve in terms of obtaining partnerships.

[1:40:16] So that's $2.2 billion in column H in a negative number that represents partnership payments.

[1:40:22] And then column I is the net cash flow, so when you sum together, columns B through H, you get a net cash flow out of that, and that total is $3.2 billion.

[1:40:34] Now, if we were not successful in getting any partners, the note there shows a total net cash flow of $5.5 billion.

[1:40:43] So that's what it would look like without partnerships.

[1:40:45] As we move to some of the key assumptions that are baked in here, I noted some of the wiffier assumptions on the right hand side of the slide.

[1:40:52] the wiffy of principal payments for construction loan begin in FY55 and you

[1:40:57] can kind of see that if you look down that column F, look at the wiffy of debt

[1:41:01] service payments. It's all interest until we get to FY55 and you see that the

[1:41:06] debt service kick up there to $863 million for that five-year time frame. That's

[1:41:12] when the principal payments would kick in. The other assumptions that I wanted to

[1:41:17] note for you is that the borrowing rate that we're assuming for the wiffy of

[1:41:20] is 4.7% for the initial planning and design loan, and then 5.7% for the construction loan.

[1:41:27] We believe that's a conservative assumption that with the loan borrowing rate would

[1:41:31] be based on the 30-year treasury, which today is at 3.67%.

[1:41:36] So we believe that is a little bit of there's that is a conservative assumption.

[1:41:41] The WIFI alone draws wouldn't start until FY27.

[1:41:45] Now, I am reflecting with the adet proceeds in FY19, that FY19 to 23-time frame.

[1:41:52] What is actually would be happening there is short-term debt being issued, and then

[1:41:58] in FY27 we would refund that short-term debt with the WIFI alone, and that's being reflected

[1:42:05] there in column D. Lastly, what I wanted to talk about was the bottom of the slide, and

[1:42:11] And this gets into rate impacts and sort of that capacity question that the board has asked.

[1:42:18] And so what I've done is translate that net cash flow column I into a North County groundwater

[1:42:24] charge or monthly impact to the average household.

[1:42:28] And so, picked some time frames there to kind of portray that for you for the FY29 to

[1:42:34] FY33 timeframe.

[1:42:36] And this on the left-hand side, it's with partner payments and on the right-hand side,

[1:42:40] with out partner payments. So the impact of that cash flow translates to $387.00

[1:42:47] per foot over that five-year timeframe or an average of $13.35 per month to the average

[1:42:54] household. And that represents about 10% of the overall North County groundwater charts

[1:43:00] in that five-year timeframe. So if one wants to think about capacity, how much is the

[1:43:10] percent. As we move on, into time, that percentage of capacity is going to go down. So in FY34

[1:43:20] FY53, over that timeframe, that's 20 years. You can see that the average is $8.80 per

[1:43:26] month from that timeframe. So it goes down. In FY54 to 67, that's when we have the principal

[1:43:33] payments kicking in for the way feel long. So that monthly charge for the average household

[1:43:39] is going to go up a little bit to $14.75 per month on average.

[1:43:45] The percentage capacity, again, you can think of that 10% as a peak, as the overall

[1:43:51] water rates increase, and as debt service remains relatively level, relatively flat.

[1:43:56] That peak percentage is going to go down, and the next five years is going to be in the

[1:43:59] neighborhood of six percent, and in the time frame, after that, it's going to be in the

[1:44:03] neighborhood of anywhere from two to four percent, in terms of that capacity.

[1:44:07] And then, again, on the right-hand side, you see those monthly payments on average without partner payments, ranging from $15.30 a month for that FY29 to FY33 timeframe to $24.80 per month in that timeframe from FY54 to FY67.

[1:44:27] And with that, I will pause.

[1:44:30] And I think I turn it back over to Chris.

[1:44:32] You have a direct relationship with?

[1:44:33] I'll direct this directly to the CEO so not to make staff feel uncomfortable with my math-based

[1:44:42] questions.

[1:44:44] So Mr. Calendar, that $2.2 billion stated on the earlier slide, can you go back to

[1:44:49] the earlier slide,

[1:44:52] please?

[1:44:53] The earlier slide?

[1:44:54] Is anyone driving?

[1:44:55] I believe this is the earlier slot.

[1:44:58] Okay, 2.2.

[1:45:00] Billion dollars. What percentage participation is that assumed?

[1:45:06] The $2.2 billion is agnostic of participation percentage. That is the total construction cost.

[1:45:14] That is the total construction cost. That is agnostic of participation.

[1:45:17] Okay. Can you go back to the current slide then? So here it is 2.8 billion.

[1:45:26] Correct. That is the inflated cost.

[1:45:28] Define inflated.

[1:45:30] We cost with inflation, man.

[1:45:33] So why do we use a 2.2?

[1:45:35] And happy asking the CEO.

[1:45:36] Why do we use a 2.2?

[1:45:37] Why do we use a non-inflation adjusted price tag on the earlier slide?

[1:45:46] This is how we break down the costs without inflation as because inflation is a time sensitive issue.

[1:45:53] The cost will vary.

[1:45:54] This is the uninflated cost to show you what the true costs are at this moment in time.

[1:45:58] moving forward, our CIP lists both uninflated and inflated costs, so that's why they're both on this life.

[1:46:05] What is the current rate of inflation?

[1:46:07] I will turn that over to Darren Taylor.

[1:46:11] Typically for the CIP, what we would assume is a supplies and services inflation rate of 3%.

[1:46:18] Now, in times like this, we will also add other adjustments for inflation that we're seeing in the near term.

[1:46:26] We also assume labor and benefits inflation rate in the neighborhood of four to four and a half percent

[1:46:34] Okay, thank you, so that's pretty high can you go back to the current slide?

[1:46:39] Okay, so that

[1:46:41] Capit of inflation adjusted capital cost which I'm just going to say actual capital cost is

[1:46:48] 2.8 billion what participation does that assume?

[1:46:53] Once again, ma'am that considers no participation that is just the construction cost and how much

[1:46:57] participation do we have now? I believe we've answered that previously. We do not have current participation.

[1:47:03] Okay, so we don't have participation yet. We're using numbers that assume 35% participation. Why?

[1:47:12] We receive board direction on April 16th, 2021 to target 35% participation in our models and inclusion into our

[1:47:19] Capital Improvement Programme.

[1:47:21] Do we need to vote on using reality instead of targets to make put forth our numbers?

[1:47:28] I think, I mean, do I need to raise a motion saying that we should not assume participation

[1:47:34] when none exists?

[1:47:36] Mr. Chair, I'm going to interject on that question and refer that back to the Board Chair,

[1:47:42] Tans, right?

[1:47:42] I don't believe that's a question for staff.

[1:47:45] That's not a question for the staff.

[1:47:46] question for the board, are you raising the point that you want to make an emotion to

[1:47:52] support the 35% is that which is a guess?

[1:47:54] No, I'm saying that I'm going to clarify your point.

[1:47:57] Okay, I apologize, chair, this has been kind of a thorn in my side.

[1:48:02] These numbers assume that 35% which is more than a third of the costs will be paid for by other

[1:48:12] water districts and agencies.

[1:48:13] to be determined.

[1:48:15] Right.

[1:48:15] But it has nothing to do.

[1:48:16] But exactly.

[1:48:18] And of course that would be something we all would welcome.

[1:48:21] But this step has been trying to get others to sign on for five years, and no one has

[1:48:28] stated a interest beyond a five-year-old memorandum, non-binding memorandum, understanding

[1:48:36] based on a much lower price tag.

[1:48:38] So, I think it's only fair to the public, and to us to have actual numbers given, not numbers that are actually less than two thirds of the cost.

[1:48:49] Well, based on the board decision than 2021, it was as alluded to, these are the board decisions at that time.

[1:48:55] Are you asking to amend those decisions today?

[1:48:58] If not, then we need to get both of them.

[1:48:59] Yes, I guess I can.

[1:49:00] Yes, I am asking that.

[1:49:02] We be given actuals.

[1:49:03] Okay, is that the form of emotion?

[1:49:04] I move that we be given the actual price tag rather than a price tag that is discounted by 35%.

[1:49:14] Okay, is that your motion?

[1:49:16] Yeah.

[1:49:16] Keep talking.

[1:49:17] Do we have a second on her motion?

[1:49:19] Director Eisenberg's motion.

[1:49:21] Do I need to explain this for her?

[1:49:23] No.

[1:49:23] You don't.

[1:49:24] Is there a second on the motion that was just put on to the boards?

[1:49:32] I don't think that that that what's being requested is unreasonable because

[1:49:39] Is that, are you seconding the motion, Director Keegan?

[1:49:43] Can you let us speak please?

[1:49:44] I'm asking for the second to your motion.

[1:49:46] Are you seconding the motion?

[1:49:48] Yes.

[1:49:49] Okay, we have a board decision to make.

[1:49:52] We have a motion.

[1:49:53] Is this decision made by the board?

[1:49:56] So we have a motion to, you want to restake your position on the motion?

[1:49:59] Hi.

[1:50:00] I move that the financial models reflect the current state of actual participation in this

[1:50:11] project, rather than a hopeful participation.

[1:50:17] Okay, are we all clear on the motion? Okay, all those in favour, signify by saying.

[1:50:24] Mr. Chair, though.

[1:50:25] Oh, sure. You want to have a discussion? Let's continue on. Do I have to

[1:50:29] Did you state your position on that already?

[1:50:34] I didn't, but I think that the clerk of the board has something to say.

[1:50:39] I document that as two separate motions.

[1:50:42] Not a difference from the first layer.

[1:50:44] Okay.

[1:50:44] We'll hear it from the board.

[1:50:46] I will second that then.

[1:50:48] Okay, good.

[1:50:49] Do I just wear it?

[1:50:51] We'll find that and then.

[1:50:53] Okay.

[1:50:54] Yeah.

[1:50:55] Thank you chair.

[1:50:56] And I understand completely the motion and then we're a director, I assume we're come from.

[1:51:05] But I've always looked at these assumptions in our financial model as under this assumption,

[1:51:15] things can work.

[1:51:16] If that assumption doesn't come true, then this doesn't work.

[1:51:21] So that's how I look at this.

[1:51:22] And this is not the only assumption we made in our financial model.

[1:51:28] We made many assumptions in our financial model.

[1:51:33] So, if we're going to single out a particular,

[1:51:37] as not having a assumption,

[1:51:41] we should probably apply that in a broader sense that we don't have any assumptions.

[1:51:46] We do have assumptions in our financial model,

[1:51:50] and therefore individual projects.

[1:51:54] So I guess I'm struggling.

[1:51:57] I don't know how we should proceed.

[1:52:01] Direct rest of the mirror?

[1:52:05] Yeah, I wanted to find out what the motion is.

[1:52:09] So I can decide what I want to support it or not.

[1:52:12] I'm going to ask the clerk to restate the motion.

[1:52:15] OK, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:52:16] I actually have two motions out there.

[1:52:19] Two separate motions.

[1:52:20] they're not relevant to each other.

[1:52:22] I do.

[1:52:22] I understand.

[1:52:23] Will this get some clarification?

[1:52:24] So there was a report on this.

[1:52:26] A motion by director, Eisenberg, second by Dr. Keegan, that the board

[1:52:30] be given actual price tag of the Partaco Project versus price tags, that a discount of

[1:52:35] I think was 35% I think is what I wrote down.

[1:52:38] And then the second motion, from director, Eisenberg, second by director Keegan, is that

[1:52:43] the board be provided with actual model reflecting current state of participation.

[1:52:48] Okay?

[1:52:52] Director Bell?

[1:52:59] To the motion.

[1:53:01] Because that's what we have to speak to now.

[1:53:03] I'm looking at the columns here.

[1:53:06] If you add up certain columns, does that answer the question?

[1:53:12] If you can see without partners with partners,

[1:53:15] just which columns do you add up to get it without the partners?

[1:53:21] Simple question?

[1:53:22] I think it's clearly defined in the numbers that are.

[1:53:25] Well, this is down at the bottom. There's an arrow.

[1:53:27] It says 5.5 billion without partners.

[1:53:32] That's quick.

[1:53:33] So that must be in a total of different columns.

[1:53:37] So which columns can you maybe explain that, please?

[1:53:41] Through the chair?

[1:53:42] Yes.

[1:53:42] Happy to answer that question.

[1:53:44] So the 5.5 billion comes from adding,

[1:53:48] or essentially subtracting out column H, which is the 35% partnership

[1:53:52] assumption, you subtract that, and you get the 5.5 billion.

[1:53:57] That was stated. So without partners,

[1:54:02] no partners,

[1:54:05] that's the assumption.

[1:54:06] 2.2 billion partner payments,

[1:54:14] the total cost somewhere, right?

[1:54:19] I suppose the easy math would be columnized.

[1:54:22] I'm always like easy math. I'm big on that.

[1:54:25] Sure, simple.

[1:54:25] So, it's a column E, and subtract out the $2.2 billion, $35% partnership payments, which in effect you'd be adding the absolute number of the 2.2 plus 3.2 equals 5.5.

[1:54:39] Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you.

[1:54:40] That answer is not quite. I think the answer is there on the charts.

[1:54:43] Good. Thank you.

[1:54:46] Do you have any questions?

[1:54:48] I just wanted to know.

[1:54:52] Yeah. I agree. The answer is right there already.

[1:54:55] So I'm voting against both moches.

[1:54:59] The reason.

[1:55:00] Again, why, as I recall, I haven't made a motion with respect to the 35% participation, is because

[1:55:08] at least the board at the time felt that if we didn't have partners, we wouldn't do that.

[1:55:15] We wouldn't make, we would just would not do this project.

[1:55:19] And so, having said that to the public, we wanted to make sure that all of our assumptions included

[1:55:26] that provides you. Obviously, if we can't get 35% of state at a year, then we're going

[1:55:33] to have to look at this 5.5 billion, and I think when we get to that point, the boys

[1:55:39] will say no. So I don't see any problem with carrying these numbers as they are. I don't

[1:55:46] think we ought to keep changing numbers because that's not real healthy. And like any other

[1:55:52] other project, including all of our personal projects, things change, the interest rate changes,

[1:56:02] inflation changes, contractors change, on and on and on. When you first initially investigate,

[1:56:10] again, whether it's the kitchen that you're remodeling or Anderson that you're redoing. When

[1:56:18] If you first look at it, gee, that's what it looks like, but as you go along and start

[1:56:23] trying to figure out, you go to the store and find out that would cause so much more

[1:56:27] than it used to, and on and on and on, and then by the time you get to the store to buy

[1:56:32] it, now it costs even more than when you first went to get the estimate, that doesn't mean

[1:56:37] that you're incompetent in means that you deal with reality, and that's what we're trying

[1:56:41] to do here.

[1:56:42] So, it's very difficult until you have an actual project design and ready to go and bid out exactly what the costs are.

[1:56:51] I mean, that just naturally what happens with construction.

[1:56:54] This is not a secret, it's not a mystery, this is what happens.

[1:56:57] Anyway, that's what this 35% means.

[1:57:03] That's interesting.

[1:57:04] I remember back in the day 1964, I was paying 12 cents a gallon for gas.

[1:57:09] What do we pay for gas today?

[1:57:10] Just, yeah, so I mean, time changes all the numbers and parameters, okay, Dr. Asimberg?

[1:57:20] This should not be controversial. I need to repeat again. This is not like what you all just described.

[1:57:29] This is as if you went to a restaurant, and the restaurant lists a stake, you know, the price of stake at $30,

[1:57:37] When really that stake is $50 and you then order your stake and you eat your stake and you

[1:57:46] receive your bill for $30 and the restaurant tells you, oh, you know, and you say,

[1:57:51] wait, and the menu, it said $30 and the restaurant says, well, that menu price assumed

[1:57:56] that someone else was paying for a, paying for 40% of it. That is what failure to reflect actual

[1:58:07] participation does. It artificially reduces the price by 35 percent. And to my colleague,

[1:58:17] Director Shua, there is no other project in any of our portfolio. And I actually believe

[1:58:27] in any portfolio of any project in our country

[1:58:33] that actually automatically deducts 35% of the cost

[1:58:39] without any basis to do so.

[1:58:43] You know, the question that I was called badgering

[1:58:46] for asking was the question,

[1:58:49] do we have participation?

[1:58:52] And the answer is no.

[1:58:56] We do not.

[1:58:56] And if we didn't so so that is like no, we're not moving. I'm sure no because A we have that head of chance to vote on this

[1:59:07] And D I use layer 5 I'm not done chair, but you this is my motion

[1:59:13] This is your keep stating it over and over but actually I believe strongly that if you understood this

[1:59:20] You would not be opposed to it because I don't see how anyone who understands what I'm asking for

[1:59:26] would object to it. There is no participation after five years. Do we hope for participation

[1:59:34] certainly? But after five years if there was no participation at 900 million, why would there

[1:59:42] be participation at 5.5 billion? Okay, you need to summarize. So we could follow. In summary,

[1:59:56] my

[1:59:56] Reflect the Actuals.

[2:00:00] State of participation. After 5 years of trying, it is time to amend our direction, a direction that does not apply to any other project that we take more than a third of the cost off the top.

[2:00:17] Thank you for your summer.

[2:00:19] So my most specifically is like this.

[2:00:22] I move that our financial staff be directed to use actual numbers of participation, rather

[2:00:32] than hopeful numbers of participation in their base numbers.

[2:00:38] So that 5.5 billion is no longer, well, if we don't get participation, that is just like

[2:00:46] measure a that we were criticized about. Sure, can a reader look through this and say,

[2:00:52] oh, well, if there's not participation, it's 5.5 billion, but really it's 2.8 billion,

[2:00:58] we can't expect that of the readers. We need to make as the baseline, as the default,

[2:01:05] the truth. The truth is right now, it is 5.5 billion. It is not 2.8 billion. And I believe we are

[2:01:13] potentially misleading the public and each other by using a number that is does not reflect the truth

[2:01:20] and I really think this should not be controversial. All I'm asking is that the numbers be accurate.

[2:01:26] Thank you, Director Shoya.

[2:01:30] Thank you, Chair.

[2:01:31] You'll have the last word on this and then we'll look at the rest of you.

[2:01:35] Okay.

[2:01:36] You'll be in that.

[2:01:37] Director Shoya.

[2:01:38] I guess I'm still struggling.

[2:01:41] As I said earlier that I see these assumptions as if we do have the assumption does come true

[2:01:48] then it could, the project could happen. However, if it doesn't happen, the assumption

[2:01:54] then does not work. And so we make many assumptions financial model. That's my point. I don't

[2:02:06] We don't make an assumption of that thing in anything.

[2:02:10] We don't make an assumption of that thing.

[2:02:12] For example, we assume that we're going to sell,

[2:02:14] I don't know, 375,000 acre sheet of water.

[2:02:18] We may not sell that much water.

[2:02:21] We assume that we're going to receive 15 million dollars from

[2:02:25] a station station.

[2:02:27] But they said, no, we don't have money.

[2:02:31] So there's just many of those assumptions in our financial model.

[2:02:35] So I'm struggling that how do, if we're going to do this for one single project, how do we do it across the board?

[2:02:44] So I'm going to abstain from voting on this.

[2:02:49] Thank you very much. Director Keegan, Vice Chair Keegan, correction.

[2:02:53] Thank you. I have a really quick question of staff, but it is related to these project costs.

[2:02:58] So, and Mr. McCarger, this question actually might come to you, or to Mr. Hakes, it's

[2:03:06] how much do we anticipate expanding to get to what staff is saying is the current decision

[2:03:13] point, which would be, as I understand it, completion of the EIR, unless I'm.

[2:03:21] Yeah, through the chair, I don't have that information in front of me, but I believe the next

[2:03:25] fiscal year, we had around $20 million dollars to be spent in the next fiscal year.

[2:03:31] So adding on to what we spent to date to get to that point.

[2:03:34] And what have we spent to date?

[2:03:36] I think we're around 60.

[2:03:38] Six, zero?

[2:03:38] Yeah, I think.

[2:03:39] Okay, and an additional $20 million.

[2:03:42] And so that would be our actual costs.

[2:03:48] They would never be discounted.

[2:03:51] Well, I don't know, could we get people to buy in

[2:03:54] and ask them to participate in the project cost up to that point.

[2:03:58] I think that would be kind of hard to do.

[2:04:01] So one point of clarification, Dr. Keegan.

[2:04:03] The 20 million is a reimbursement.

[2:04:05] So it's the 60 million currently expanded minus the 20 million

[2:04:08] we've received.

[2:04:09] So we've expanded a total of 40 million

[2:04:10] to date with an additional 20 projected for next year.

[2:04:13] So at the end of next year,

[2:04:14] we will be projecting about 60 million in total expenditures.

[2:04:18] OK, and then if we don't get participation, that's all on us.

[2:04:22] I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that we're going to be dealing with certain costs

[2:04:28] until we get to what is, I believe, staffs recommended decision point, I'm not sure I

[2:04:35] completely agree with that, but would be completion of the EIR and seeing who wishes to participate

[2:04:41] at that time. Is that sort of accurate or, okay? All right, I just wanted everyone to be

[2:04:53] Okay, now I understood what you've done?

[2:04:57] Okay.

[2:04:57] Director Eisenberg?

[2:05:01] Again, I love math. So earlier,

[2:05:06] a staff member said that the portions that would be owed that is currently owed by the water agency that theoretically will pay 2.5%, so this is to answer your question to actor Keegan, so 2.5% is valued at $700,000.

[2:05:26] So I'm really going to math, especially Algebra, so if $700,000 is $2.5% of $28 million.

[2:05:39] So that's actually $28 million, not $20 million.

[2:05:43] So these numbers just fly all over the place.

[2:05:46] I guess $8 million could house a thousand unhoused people.

[2:05:57] You know, maybe we spent 20 million on this, maybe we spent 28 million on this, who knows?

[2:06:05] So should not be an eight million dollar gap between what what staff one staff member says and what the other staff member says.

[2:06:14] That is very frustrating to me because again, and I wrote this down, the amount that the 2.5% theoretical participant would

[2:06:26] Oh, wrote it down $700,000 and that allowed me to figure $700,000 is $2.5% of 28 million.

[2:06:38] So was the $20 million figure given?

[2:06:41] Did that also assume 35% participation?

[2:06:46] There was no participation assumed in the $20 million figure for next year.

[2:06:52] The $700,000 is right back up to the cost have been spent to date.

[2:06:56] So the 20 million is a projection of cost upcoming.

[2:06:59] So I really thought you said that we only spent 20 million last year.

[2:07:04] So again, and that is net.

[2:07:07] We actually think I think I heard you say we spent 60 million,

[2:07:10] but 40 million was reimbursed and arguably that 40 million,

[2:07:14] I mean, I think that 40 million is relevant because with 40 million dollars,

[2:07:19] we could house every single unhoused person.

[2:07:21] We have it's been at 60 million today, up which 20 million has been reimbursed by the state for a net of 40 million total.

[2:07:29] So it's actually 40 million that we've got.

[2:07:33] Okay, so again, my motion is that we use that we...

[2:07:37] Okay, we'll just have to move on with this agenda.

[2:07:41] Okay, but we have it on with the agenda right now.

[2:07:43] We have a third of the board.

[2:07:45] We have a motion on the table, and it has been amended from what I understand.

[2:07:50] Can you please state the motion so we can vote on this?

[2:08:01] I believe it was what Director Eisenberg restated her motion.

[2:08:06] The restatement didn't have a second, but I believe that there was two.

[2:08:10] Again, it was prices, prices given that reflect the actual state of participation,

[2:08:15] which is basically the same as the second motion,

[2:08:18] provide actual models, reflecting current state of participation.

[2:08:21] And then request that staff use actual numbers of participation rather than hopeful numbers of participation in future presentations.

[2:08:30] Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second.

[2:08:32] Did you amend the second?

[2:08:36] I will accept that.

[2:08:38] Okay, so to the first measure.

[2:08:41] All those in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:08:45] All those opposed?

[2:08:46] No.

[2:08:48] So I want to abstention.

[2:08:52] And we have, I didn't hear you, Dr. Bell, I didn't hear your vote.

[2:08:58] Okay, so the majority, no.

[2:09:01] Okay, so do we have another motion to vote on, or is it what we've done on this?

[2:09:07] Are we critical of the board?

[2:09:08] Is there another?

[2:09:10] I believe that Director Eisenberg's substitute motion captures everything that we have.

[2:09:16] Okay, thank you.

[2:09:17] Let's go on with the presentation, Mr. Hakes.

[2:09:20] Thank you.

[2:09:21] Okay.

[2:09:21] So to continue talking about project funding, these are the revenue sources we current are

[2:09:28] either seeking or have in hand.

[2:09:30] The original grant from the California Water Commission for Prop 1 has been increased to

[2:09:34] 504 million to partially account for inflation.

[2:09:37] Of that 24.2 million is eligible to be received in early funding.

[2:09:42] We are in the process of going through an application for a with your loan for up to

[2:09:48] $1.4 billion dollars, those are repaid through groundwater charges as initially noted.

[2:09:54] We are pursuing federal grants first through the U.S. Department or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

[2:10:00] And basically, we've gone through their design environmental and contractability review process, and received no official comments, which is actually something that typically doesn't happen.

[2:10:09] But we do need recommendation or Department of Interior approval to be in line for federal funds through the Infrastructure Act that was passed by the Biden administration.

[2:10:18] And finally, I think we've had a large discussion on this. We are currently targeting 35% partner participation.

[2:10:25] One note on the early funding that we received, this slide is a tad bit out of date.

[2:10:31] We have received approximately 20 million out of the 24.2 million.

[2:10:35] That money is repable to the state if we do not meet the prop one requirements as outlined.

[2:10:43] Just for a little background on that for the board on what that means.

[2:10:47] It means in our discussions with the California Water Commission staff, if we reach a determination

[2:10:51] of infisibility for the project, either through environmental infisibility, technical infisibility,

[2:10:57] or economic infisibility. Basically, if we have facts to back up the fact that we either

[2:11:02] can't afford it, it's too environmentally damaging or it can't be built, then that money will

[2:11:07] not be reimbursed or will not need to be reimbursed to the state. They consider the effort that

[2:11:12] goes into that kind of study and outcome to be worthwhile and beneficial. However, if we were to

[2:11:20] arbitrarily what I would say is for convenience decide to pull out of the project.

[2:11:25] There is the possibility that the state could request that money back.

[2:11:29] So the 20 million we've received today.

[2:11:34] And that takes us to the end of this section for questions.

[2:11:46] Okay. I'm going to go ahead and move along to our last section,

[2:11:49] which is our milestone review.

[2:11:51] Highlight, this is a good snapshot of where we've been.

[2:11:54] And then the right portion of the slide shows kind of where we are.

[2:11:57] Basically, the highlighted portion that says like 2023 are the environmental and biological

[2:12:03] investigations that we'll be doing on site.

[2:12:06] We have suspended our drilling operations due to the winter months and the wet environment.

[2:12:12] But there are still environmental and biological surveys going on on site and that's by foot.

[2:12:18] On this slide, you'll see what we consider to be upcoming board participation points.

[2:12:23] You can see in late 2024 or 60% design will be completed, excuse me, that coincides with the finalization of the water supply master plan, which is why it is staffs recommended point to come back and kind of take another look at the project.

[2:12:36] We will have a recirculation of the draft DIR in mid 2025, the 90% design completed in late 2025, 100% design in mid-26, as well as our final EIR EIS at that time will have our permits in hand, and basically ready to go to construction in mid-27.

[2:12:54] So in terms of the work study session and staffs recommendation, I think you had heard me talk about some of the feasibility determinations

[2:13:03] that would play into repayment of early funding from the California Water Commission.

[2:13:09] We have focused on three areas, technical, environmental and economic.

[2:13:12] In terms of having information on all those areas, 60% design level is the next milestone that will have information available for all three of those areas.

[2:13:23] We'll have our design, basically, advance to the point at which we will know with fairly good substance what will go into the draft EIR.

[2:13:32] We will have an updated cost estimate and from a technical perspective, we'll have kind of short-up some of the PDE and site access issues.

[2:13:42] The remaining slides just illustrate that at the future decision points that you can see there are your future participation points, there will be additional information available.

[2:13:51] realistically speaking, we will not have a finalized cost for the project until we actually

[2:13:56] have our permits in hand and have gone through the process and are ready to go to construction.

[2:14:01] We'll have an engineer's estimate in mid-2027, but we will not have the final cost until

[2:14:05] construction contract award.

[2:14:07] So this is just kind of a summary table, I can go back to any of the particular milestones

[2:14:11] if you would like, but I believe it's the board's desire to kind of reevaluate the project

[2:14:15] on a more frequent basis rather than less frequent basis, which is why a staff is recommending

[2:14:19] that we evaluate the project again within the context of the water supply master plan at the 60% design level.

[2:14:29] That takes us back to our board actions.

[2:14:31] You've gone through the first two. You received information on our water supply master plan.

[2:14:34] You received information on the milestone review for the particular reservoir expansion project.

[2:14:39] Our recommendation is to schedule a future work study session not necessarily today,

[2:14:43] but in the future on the water supply master plan portfolio around the time to take over to 60%.

[2:14:48] But as always, this is an action item.

[2:14:51] The board is free to provide whatever direction they see fit the staff.

[2:14:57] Okay, thank you and I believe.

[2:15:01] Thank you, Vice Chair. Chris, thank you for your presentation, and I have a request for this

[2:15:13] budget schedule that based on our current budget delivery charges is any that's applicable to any capital

[2:15:24] project. The board does not actually approve the project until somewhere between May

[2:15:32] 2026 and May 2027. Is that correct? Yeah. So I think it's important to add that to this chart.

[2:15:41] And then, sometimes,

[2:15:46] anyway, so the board takes formal action to approve a specific

[2:15:54] project and that's for any project that's couldn't in a CIP. So I think that's an important

[2:16:01] point to recognize and

[2:16:09] also that they are the intent of this milestone time timeline is

[2:16:18] You are identified that they are several board decision points leading to the project approval.

[2:16:29] It could be that the first point, which is your staff's proposed time, is 20-24.

[2:16:39] After 60%, maybe if that decision point, a decision is made not to move forward.

[2:16:45] But then still I think it's important that it's a several decision point, but then any of the decision point

[2:16:53] It's not approval of the project, the project based on our project in the real process. It's not until all the, at least the email and the document is complete and circulated.

[2:17:05] That is correct. The board does have to certify our environmental.

[2:17:09] I think this chart probably will be a plenty of opportunities for you to talk to other people,

[2:17:16] which is important to have those things clear in the church.

[2:17:24] Thank you, and now Director Bell.

[2:17:32] This is very informative to me as a new member, and I thank you for a presentation.

[2:17:37] And I am looking for more of a financial decision timeline in a addition to what we have here.

[2:17:50] We have the environmental design timeline.

[2:17:52] I think we need a financial timeline to clarify financial aspects of the project.

[2:18:00] My preference would be if we're going to move ahead here.

[2:18:04] We should have financial points

[2:18:11] of time where we get the financial information.

[2:18:14] I'd like to have the staff come back and develop that and have it discuss perhaps in

[2:18:19] our committee, the capital budget committee, or in some way so that we can refine it as we

[2:18:29] go along.

[2:18:29] We can't wait till it's 60% to determine finances.

[2:18:33] This is what I'm trying to say.

[2:18:33] I think we need to move along and clarify work on the financial aspects.

[2:18:44] All the questions asked by every board member here should be explored.

[2:18:50] We have a finance process with the capital budget reviews.

[2:18:55] This should be maybe an adjunct or in addition to that process.

[2:19:00] Okay,

[2:19:03] types of things I'm looking for is strategic costs, look at the overall strategic

[2:19:10] cost of the strategies we have, we have good strategies, I think we have to identify

[2:19:17] strategic costs that could be over a period of time, longer period of time so we can

[2:19:25] get a good idea of, like somebody said earlier,

[2:19:30] the next generation looking at that

[2:19:32] and find out what they're going to end up paying.

[2:19:37] In terms of the strategy one, I was like,

[2:19:40] well, that should really be a longer term.

[2:19:45] In terms of looking at that, the state and federal water

[2:19:49] distribution costs for both the canals and pumps

[2:19:53] seem to be part of our cost in some way that we should calculate.

[2:20:00] Those are, you know, like we're on joint power's boards and, you know, we put money into those and

[2:20:11] the overall cost of those various projects and decisions obviously made by others that joint power boards in the state and credit government, so like the Bureau of Reclamation, for example.

[2:20:23] And we need to look at full aspects of those Delta conveyance costs, like the Delta Plan keeps changing.

[2:20:35] I just cited as political back and forth in Sacramento for a number of years.

[2:20:41] They had, I'm a strong believer of the state water plan.

[2:20:46] And the adopted plan that we had, where we had the dual supply conservation priorities

[2:20:57] in the 1929 Act, which I think is being

[2:21:04] amended by 1,000 cuts, including our executive

[2:21:11] water we just had from the governor. Climate change aspects are now important to the public.

[2:21:19] We should include those in our strategic viewpoint and cost. What is the cost and from

[2:21:27] climate change, in terms of full cost, federal, state, local,

[2:21:39] those kinds of strategies.

[2:21:41] I'm particularly, when I look at budgets and strategies, I look at what's moving forward

[2:21:47] and what's not moving forward so much.

[2:21:51] Okay, to be honest about it, I don't think the groundwater and the recycling is moving forward

[2:21:56] to my satisfaction.

[2:21:59] I think those aspects of, I think, I think, you know, we had, you know, in our recycling

[2:22:07] committee, we had the aspect of being stymied in the sound as I, and I'm working very,

[2:22:15] very hard to make that change, very hard.

[2:22:20] I'm working with a lot of people in my community that I grew up with that really want to

[2:22:25] that and I'm working with council members, the city administration, the mayor, others, others

[2:22:34] that are legislators that are willing to develop a consensus to the business community,

[2:22:42] to develop a consensus that we move ahead with a recycle project that's equal to other parts

[2:22:53] state in terms of order magnitude. We don't have that in this strategy. We have a maybe a

[2:23:00] two small recycled strategy. It's two small. We got to make it the right side. We have to

[2:23:07] right size that as a goal. So I'm looking at groundwater.

[2:23:15] One thing about groundwater is that

[2:23:18] And there could be a strategic view with partners to do a better job in Santa Clara County

[2:23:25] with groundwater and that will take another strategic view point as well.

[2:23:31] The flooding that occurred recently, for example, what can we do to talk to the share

[2:23:39] about this?

[2:23:40] It was like frightened that we'd have deaths.

[2:23:44] We'd have, you know, this is something we have to, that's one of our main

[2:23:49] goals, you

[2:23:50] to prevent people from dying, you know.

[2:23:54] We have to do that.

[2:23:56] We have to do everything we can and believe me, I natural disasters,

[2:24:06] I know that should be a

[2:24:08] priority.

[2:24:09] So everything we can in terms of, like for example, the Chaco Project, I was looking at what

[2:24:18] What is the watershed of the Chaco Creek and who is responsible for that watershed and are

[2:24:23] they willing to participate in that project because it certainly has a benefit as I found

[2:24:31] out today by your presentation.

[2:24:34] There's a benefit to the watershed and to what extent are they willing to, that's a joint

[2:24:43] hours as I understand between the three counties, the Monterey Santa Cruz and Santa

[2:24:49] Clarke counties, and San Benito counties, the four counties I understand.

[2:24:54] If I'm not wrong, are they wanting to, you know, jointly participate.

[2:25:00] Disappeate and maybe some solutions that might help. And if so, are those projects, those types of projects,

[2:25:10] not from the water supply standpoint, but more of the flood control standpoint, are they willing to participate in preventing potential lives lost property damage and so forth.

[2:25:29] So those are my thoughts on strategic, I think in summary, I think financial aspects, we have to have a calendar, I like to have that come back, maybe add that to the motion, recommendation, have financial aspects come back, and clarify some of the issues and cost, it'll take a lot of work.

[2:25:56] My experience on projects that are jointly funded by various government is that you don't know all the answers about whether or not some other government entity is going to have.

[2:26:05] It's a little bit of a poker game.

[2:26:08] When I worked with Congressman Maneta, what he devised when he was the chair of the House Public Works Committee,

[2:26:14] You see developed a thing called a sort of like a memorandum

[2:26:18] understanding, but it's a full funding grant agreement

[2:26:21] was put into the Federal Transportation Act.

[2:26:24] In the 90s, and what that is is a grant agreement

[2:26:27] that we will presume in this grant

[2:26:31] that we give you from the federal government

[2:26:33] that you will come up with a certain percentage

[2:26:37] and you have to before we will give you the money

[2:26:40] actually come up with the dollars and contribute those participation grant agreements.

[2:26:52] That has been the way major transit projects have been funded around the country in the last 25 years since

[2:26:59] Normandetta Institute that I stole that idea in SB1 we put it in the state grant agreements for

[2:27:09] transportation projects in California.

[2:27:12] So now that is the multi your full funding grant agreement

[2:27:17] concept in transportation projects.

[2:27:20] So you don't necessarily know exactly the project cost,

[2:27:28] but you know that you're going to have a partner

[2:27:30] and you sign an agreement that you're going to have a partner.

[2:27:34] That could be part of a financial milestone

[2:27:37] that we have to pass at a certain point so that we know we have a partner. So what

[2:27:44] point do we need to know we have a partner? And I think that's a key question.

[2:27:52] Mr.

[2:27:53] Sherman, I would like to have a referral with those remarks as part of a motion.

[2:28:05] other, I want to hear what other members have to say about data.

[2:28:09] I think this would improve our understanding of the construction timeline and project

[2:28:16] and especially cost.

[2:28:19] The Delta Convenience Project needs to be included.

[2:28:23] I was wondering on the import water strategy, does the, when you look ahead 20, 30 years,

[2:28:31] Don't we have to, in that period of time, basically replace the state water project, the

[2:28:41] federal water project canals, and so forth, the facilities, the pumps, aren't those

[2:28:46] part of the import water cost, if so, are they included in this, is that something that

[2:28:55] should acknowledge that that's part of, you know, realistically it's part of the cost of

[2:29:04] doing such a project.

[2:29:07] It's fair to look at, even though we might not be the main lead agency, I think those

[2:29:12] costs will accrue to people in Santa Clara County, it's fair to assume, because I believe

[2:29:23] they are in some way now accruing to us.

[2:29:29] So the financial aspects of a little week here,

[2:29:32] we need to prop it up, we need to have milestones

[2:29:35] in that timeline and understand that aspect more

[2:29:40] as we move along.

[2:29:41] I would actually, if I'd like to hear

[2:29:45] what other people have to say about that,

[2:29:47] that's my conclusion after reading all this

[2:29:50] and putting a lot of energy into studying

[2:29:52] had been fair and listening to having various people talk to me about the full-

[2:30:00] All aspects of the project, and I have a lot to learn still, so please bear that in mind. I've only been here, but this is my third month.

[2:30:11] And I'm listening to my colleagues, and I like to hear what they have to see.

[2:30:14] So Mr. Chairman, if that could be added to any approval or process, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[2:30:19] Thank you, Cliff of the Board.

[2:30:21] You've made comment and notes of that.

[2:30:23] Capture that, it's best to cat.

[2:30:25] Mr. Chair, does this have another action item?

[2:30:29] So maybe this could be direction to staff.

[2:30:31] Yes, I'm moving.

[2:30:32] We could do that.

[2:30:34] You give it that direction.

[2:30:36] Yeah, so that, yes, we'll do that.

[2:30:38] Thank you.

[2:30:39] Dr. Bell, you're here with that.

[2:30:39] Thank you.

[2:30:40] Yeah, please go to that.

[2:30:41] And so by the way, I just want to do, oh, sure.

[2:30:51] Your mic is not on, so.

[2:30:54] All right.

[2:30:54] I want to ask something on top of what there are to build a direction to step.

[2:31:01] I know I'm number four, but I just thought I'd go with that.

[2:31:08] So I totally in agreement because again, we have these three strategies and these three strategies.

[2:31:17] They're like a box and then each strategy is building on top of these other strategy and then the foundation of these strategies is really strategy number one secure existing supplies and infrastructure

[2:31:32] So there are to about mention that the Delta Cummings project that's actually under strategy work and my

[2:31:40] My concern in war, it has always been that exactly how big is our retrofit effort in securing

[2:31:52] existing supplies and infrastructure.

[2:31:56] So I'm adding on top of what Director Bell just said that I'd really like to see that

[2:32:03] in the next 15 to 20 years, these Pythramon maintenance damage

[2:32:08] retrofit treatment on improvements.

[2:32:15] I guess the financial schedule, what we're thinking, the best estimate we have in cash

[2:32:28] or the need for these existing infrastructure, I know we're focusing on

[2:32:36] But then assuming 10 years innocent then will be done so the next 10 years there's going to be or even on next starting next five years

[2:32:46] Just so I really like to see that in a longer term a financial planning for infrastructure

[2:32:56] And so that's that's my request that they'll top two director

[2:33:01] Okay, glad you all

[2:33:03] Thank you, director Eisenberg.

[2:33:08] This is directly responsive to director Bout.

[2:33:13] So,

[2:33:16] I have spent a lot of time researching this.

[2:33:20] At least a year, even before I decided to run,

[2:33:24] I was ran a contested campaign,

[2:33:27] and I spent, you know, unlike a couple of my colleagues.

[2:33:31] So I spent a lot of time meeting with all the principals

[2:33:35] and our constituents, because I considered this year

[2:33:38] a club, our constituents.

[2:33:40] I considered the amomlets and tribe, our constituents,

[2:33:43] both of whom are suing us, because they opposed the dam.

[2:33:47] And I did do a bunch of deep dyes into this.

[2:33:52] So I apologize for any frustration I have.

[2:33:58] It's because it's, I just get frustrated when I feel like

[2:34:04] that public isn't given transparency that I promised

[2:34:09] my constituents they would have.

[2:34:12] So, but anyway, directly responsive to Director Bell.

[2:34:17] So, I've worked on projects involving

[2:34:21] joint, here they're called joint power,

[2:34:23] joint JPA's, joint power authorities,

[2:34:26] But literally, for more than two decades, I've worked on projects worth, you know, billion dollar projects, that involves, you know, multiple parties there, including, you know, an IPO, you know, there's different parties involved in these are what multi-party agreements.

[2:34:44] That is what a JPA handles.

[2:34:46] And there's no JPA for this because no one else wants to participate in it after five years.

[2:34:52] And so, my experience across the board, with these JPAs, you know, multi-price.

[2:35:00] Party agreements is that when participants don't want to wait till it's 60% designed to join.

[2:35:09] Participants want to take part in the designing. I mean, across the board, it's participants

[2:35:18] like to take part in designing. And it is, again, I'm faced with this bizarre reality distortion

[2:35:30] field here because it, it is just, it doesn't mesh with external reality that a participant

[2:35:40] would be more likely to join in this project when it's 60% designed than they would when

[2:35:50] it's 30% designed. So I am seeing here that we are apparently not given an option to stop

[2:36:02] this now cut our losses at 30%, rather we are told we should go to 60%, and at that point,

[2:36:13] we apparently will evaluate whether we or not we all have partners.

[2:36:17] So this is really to answer my colleague's question.

[2:36:21] He said, when are we going to say that we have tried hard enough and no one wants to join

[2:36:28] the JPE and do this with us?

[2:36:29] And I think you have answered that, or do we need to make that very clear that if at 60%

[2:36:38] there is no one joining us, then is that what you're saying?

[2:36:45] I just, or a Mr. CEO, is that what you're saying?

[2:36:50] Sure, cheers.

[2:36:51] We will respond to any direction that the board was to provide.

[2:36:55] the board chooses to make a motion that they don't want us to move forward after today.

[2:37:01] We will respect the majority of the board. The board provides us direction to come back at

[2:37:06] 60 percent and to make up for the recommendation, we will abide by the direction of the board.

[2:37:13] So I believe that the director's question is actually a question of the board itself.

[2:37:18] Thank you, CEO. Okay. Well, director Kagan, you have a four.

[2:37:25] Thank you and I actually believe that the way the agenda item is written I don't believe the board can take action today.

[2:37:34] The information only.

[2:37:37] So, thank you to everyone for your input.

[2:37:42] I appreciate Director Bell's fiscal comments because since the financial issues are my big concern,

[2:37:51] I'm interested in those as well and I think that our constituents are also, so I think that this idea of saying when we can make a future decision and I don't want to wait to schedule a future work study session on the water supply master plan portfolio until this project is at the 60% design level, I think this needs to be something that's ongoing

[2:38:20] As we find more information on cost, more information on potential partners, more information and feedback from our stakeholders in general.

[2:38:34] I did just want to point out a couple of things, and I have pointed them out before, but I'll try and be succinct and just say that I want us to be cognizant to the fact that this is a very, very big project.

[2:38:47] and it's bigger than anything we've done before and I so I not only worry about the financial

[2:38:54] issues but I worry about being spread to thin. So the other obvious thing is our water retailers

[2:39:03] don't support this and me that's a pretty big deal and then lastly I don't know if everyone else

[2:39:11] was taken as by surprise as much as I was, maybe I'm naive, but we just recently went through

[2:39:20] this cryptocurrency collapse that was pretty shocking. And though I guess I wasn't

[2:39:27] surprised about the cryptocurrency thing as I was about Silicon Valley bank and bank within

[2:39:31] our own county, a bank that has supported the tech industry which sort of fuels our local

[2:39:40] economy. And so what I'm hearing from constituents is they're very nervous about money

[2:39:47] right now. And so maybe some of our comments and concerns might come across as being a

[2:39:53] little aggressive. And if so, I apologize. But this is what we're here.

[2:40:02] These are the concerns we're hearing and I feel an obligation as an elected official to relay that to staff, because we're that connection between the organization and the community, and I think all of us, I know all of us here on the board take that responsibility very seriously.

[2:40:26] So my request of staff would be similar to what we've heard from the other board members so far is that we need

[2:40:37] frequent check-ins on Pacheco in terms of the schedule, the environmental process and funding and potentially potential funding partners.

[2:40:48] I think.

[2:40:53] You didn't pop up there, Director Santos, but did you want to speak?

[2:40:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:41:01] Most of the constituents that I talked to, is what they tell me.

[2:41:05] We should be don't flood.

[2:41:07] We should open that tap we get water.

[2:41:10] Now and for the future, that's what this board is doing.

[2:41:13] We're asked and elected to make sure we have a reliable source for the rest of our lives.

[2:41:18] I got mine.

[2:41:19] I've said it a hundred times.

[2:41:20] want to make sure that grandkids and the people who let me get water and that's what I'm going to do. Thank you.

[2:41:26] Correct, Mr. Mayor.

[2:41:30] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I certainly agree.

[2:41:32] You know, there's no question what everybody concerned about cost.

[2:41:37] That's what money means.

[2:41:40] It's a short supply and we've got to make sure that we use it correctly.

[2:41:44] But every time that I look at cost, I look at value.

[2:41:48] And it's really important when you look at what's something cost that you ask yourself,

[2:41:54] what is it cost if you don't do it?

[2:41:57] That's what we've got to add to all these estimates that we have.

[2:42:02] 2 billion, 8 billion, 50.

[2:42:04] What is it going to cost if we don't do it?

[2:42:08] We represent, we represent 1.8 million people and served 2 million data bases.

[2:42:17] We house the largest corporations on the face of this planet, and people live here because of the sunshine of the comfort and the fact that they can get water when they turn the spirit on.

[2:42:34] And if they don't get water when they do that, they'll all be gone. Taxes, I don't know, Austin, whatever, so we do have a responsibility.

[2:42:43] We got responsibility to deliver. That means water supply and protection of flooding.

[2:42:50] That's what we got to do. So when we look at our budgets, we also got to look at the other side of it.

[2:42:56] What's it going to cost if we don't do this? What's it going to cost if we don't build for Chaco?

[2:43:02] What's it going to cost if we don't do a lot of these projects that we're talking about?

[2:43:07] That's what we need to look at, along with what it costs.

[2:43:11] We're all concerned about costs, and I represent some of the poorest people in town.

[2:43:15] So yeah, I care about costs, but also care about them being able to live in a place where we provide services and safety so they can live here as well as work here.

[2:43:25] So that's the way we got to look at this, both sides of the coin.

[2:43:29] So I appreciate staff doing the best that you can with estimates.

[2:43:33] You know, as I mentioned before, something costs so much today, tomorrow will be different.

[2:43:40] I guarantee you next week and next month it will be different, it could be more could be less.

[2:43:43] We never know and to get there.

[2:43:45] So I appreciate the exercises that you continue to conduct.

[2:43:50] And I appreciate if we do this a little bit more often.

[2:43:53] But I think we're on the right track here.

[2:43:56] Thank you, Chairman.

[2:43:57] Thank you.

[2:43:59] Do you do a pleasure work?

[2:44:01] I strongly agree with my colleague, Director Estromera's question, and in fact that was what

[2:44:07] I really, really asked for in for this meeting.

[2:44:11] I said, can you please compare the cost of Pacheco with the cost of alternatives?

[2:44:19] And we were not presented that, but I was able to locate some somewhat out of date resources,

[2:44:27] which say that the cost of increasing our water storage in those

[2:44:35] fakeeros would be equal to $400 an acre foot. The cost of holding more water

[2:44:44] in sites reservoir is would be $800 an acre foot and the cost of water in

[2:44:57] the Chaco assuming the 30-

[2:45:00] 5% buy-in is approximately $2700 an acre foot, which makes it pushes it over $5,000 an acre foot,

[2:45:10] which renders it more than 10 times the cost of having more water in most of the caros, which

[2:45:18] is pretty far along,

[2:45:21] and the environmental community is totally fine with, by the way.

[2:45:24] And also sites, it would be more than five times as expensive.

[2:45:32] So again, you don't have to be against dams and reservoirs to conclude that this project is too expensive.

[2:45:42] There are other options.

[2:45:45] Much less expensive options, and I would have asked that they be presented here.

[2:45:51] Under that same analysis, by the way, and again, I wish this would have been up in front of us,

[2:45:56] is that ground water recharge costs $400 to $1,300 in acre foot,

[2:46:03] potable reuse at $4,000, $2,500 as to where foot, $2,000 for injection wells,

[2:46:11] $1,700 for those godos. I mean, there are so many different alternatives, and all of them cost less,

[2:46:20] all of them. So, you know, again, you can agree with everything that you all are saying about

[2:46:26] how much you like dance in reservoirs and just find that this is too expensive and given

[2:46:32] that this is, and it is too expensive even if others participate, which is why they're not going

[2:46:39] to participate. The other thing I really just wanted to say to is now, if I understand correctly,

[2:46:47] And I know you all are pretty good at cracking me when I'm wrong.

[2:46:52] Is that all the positive benefits that is quoted like for wildlife and this and that?

[2:46:58] All of those rely on the mitigations.

[2:47:03] So there's no just to be clear, there's no benefit whatsoever to wildlife in a lot of harm to wildlife without those mitigations.

[2:47:12] But those mitigations haven't been the cost of those mitigations haven't been at all.

[2:47:16] factored into this yet from what I've been told, is that wrong?

[2:47:24] I'm going to, at least my caution answer that question.

[2:47:27] I'm sorry.

[2:47:30] So the, you know, the positive like wildlife benefits that have been quoted by my colleagues,

[2:47:37] my reading of the materials, all of them, is that those rely on the mitigations.

[2:47:45] Am I wrong?

[2:47:47] So Lisa Vankosch, Assistant Officer, Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division.

[2:47:52] So there are positive benefits for steelhead that are associated with this project.

[2:47:58] I'm sorry, with or without mitigations.

[2:48:02] That is actually part of the project that is a project objective to provide an improved habitat

[2:48:06] for steelhead within Pichigel Creek.

[2:48:08] So that isn't included in the mitigations.

[2:48:11] That's cost is built in to the project.

[2:48:13] That's correct.

[2:48:14] I didn't see that line item.

[2:48:20] I don't believe the budget provides specific line items for steel head benefit.

[2:48:27] So, do you have any estimate of what the mitigations would cost on top of what stated?

[2:48:35] So, the mitigations and I'll just state that since 2019 I've been assisting the project and advanced mitigation planning.

[2:48:42] And so we have done significant work to identify mitigation in order to confirm that mitigation is both realistic and achievable.

[2:48:56] However, we're not able to put on a price tag on that right now, and the reason why is because there's actually quite a few different pathways to achieving mitigation,

[2:49:06] as well as we need to negotiate with the regulators until we actually know what the

[2:49:13] race mitigation ratios will be. So none of the work on the mitigation is actually

[2:49:19] really started. There has been quite a significant amount of work and advanced planning

[2:49:25] to identify potential future mitigation. Absolutely. So in the EPA loan documents, they, I,

[2:49:35] You know, was there a line item for the total cost including mitigations?

[2:49:41] Do you know about that or, you know, I, I, I'll let that question go.

[2:49:44] So I have a more important question actually.

[2:49:46] So when we look at the, this might not be for you and I appreciate your answers.

[2:49:50] Thank you.

[2:49:52] When we look at the price of alternatives, we often see certain costs filled in such as the cost of acquiring water.

[2:49:59] And the cost.

[2:50:01] So we see that a lot when we're looking at cost of recycling, a line item in the cost of recycling is the cost of acquiring the wastewater. I've heard that a lot. But we don't have the wastewater, we don't have the wastewater, we don't have to get the wastewater.

[2:50:15] So how much will have we calculated yet the ongoing costs of buying the water will need to buy to fill this reservoir?

[2:50:26] I believe I will throw that question to Chief Operating Officer Baker as to how our state

[2:50:32] water and such a value project to plot our contracts work.

[2:50:36] Right, and Air Maker Chief Operating Officer, what do you tell you in your price?

[2:50:40] A good portion of the annual course in the actual operations plans and all those other things

[2:50:44] are still subject to refinement as we continue on down the line here, but a good portion

[2:50:49] of what we're looking at for this particular reservoir would be to take water from our existing

[2:50:55] contracts or what they call surplus flows like Article 21 or Article 21 or Section 2115 water

[2:51:03] which would be excess water and then storing it and when there's wet excess times and storing it

[2:51:08] in this reservoir for use during dryer times. The cost of these surplus flows waters or water

[2:51:16] that we had in very good or higher allocation years is generally relatively inexpensive, especially on

[2:51:24] particular project there could be some fees to move the water around, but a good portion of

[2:51:29] what they're expecting would be is to use excess flows or unused water that we have in

[2:51:38] our existing allocations moving forward. We're not necessarily looking at acquiring additional

[2:51:43] water rights or other types of water for this particular reservoir. Thank you. So here's my question

[2:51:48] then my final question about this. I really appreciate that helpful answer. Thank you. So

[2:51:54] Sounds like we're using water that pretty much we have to fill that.

[2:51:59] So exactly how much new water will this project bring us?

[2:52:03] How much new water?

[2:52:06] How much will increase our water supply as to pose to say maybe water recycling?

[2:52:15] I will throw that question to Ryan McCartor.

[2:52:21] Thank you, Chris, so that's a really hard answer to give in an exact way,

[2:52:26] Because we're rocking it. Annual averages. I think are we models that we've done

[2:52:31] we're averaging about 6,000 acre feet per year. But that average comes with that could be 80,000 acre feet in one year and it could be zero and another.

[2:52:40] So it all depends on what's happening in the weather, which we cannot predict, and how much water we can store in wet years and use in dry years.

[2:52:47] But that comes whether or not we have the check-up, right? So what's the addition?

[2:52:52] There's no where there's no there's no sorry to interrupt. There's no where to put that additional water is chief Baker was explaining in those wet years

[2:52:59] Well how about when Anderson's done still there there this is we're looking at this is an additional storage to Anderson in the wheat model

[2:53:07] But so you think about what did you say 6,000 acre feet? I believe that's the latest average annual yield that was calculated

[2:53:13] So I read that Orange County is

[2:53:17] Water recycling something like well more than 6,000 acre feet

[2:53:20] Director Eisenberg, that is not relevant to our discussion.

[2:53:23] What is happening in Orange County?

[2:53:25] Could you please summarize your colleagues?

[2:53:26] Okay, so again, I think I take very seriously what director Esfameras that.

[2:53:32] And so, but how can we decide if this is the best project without comparing it to alternatives?

[2:53:39] To have to continue discussion.

[2:53:41] Again, every question that I ask, the answers there are better options, and I'm just, again,

[2:53:47] It's no, maybe this was great and a much lower cost, but I'm confused.

[2:53:55] Thank you.

[2:53:56] We have finished with our report.

[2:53:59] Thank you.

[2:54:00] We have a few people in the public that are waiting to speak.

[2:54:04] And we have some people online.

[2:54:07] Let's talk to the people online first.

[2:54:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:54:13] We've got more hands being raised now.

[2:54:15] We will start with the first hand.

[2:54:16] name I see on the screen a branch mid. Good afternoon Mr. Schmidt.

[2:54:26] Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

[2:54:27] Chair for all. Hello, good evening, please. Here's the only one that you have.

[2:54:31] And it's good to see you. The new directors, the longstanding directors and of course the Valley

[2:54:37] Wants staff, great to see all of you. I do not criticize the original decision to research and

[2:54:43] consider the ChicoDant project. But it's simply past time to stop spending good money after bad.

[2:54:51] A lot of this project is not going to happen, but if it's somehow did, it wouldn't be bad for the county,

[2:54:56] not economically and environmentally. And it brought up better options for one.

[2:55:01] It's a telling that those precarious has many willing payer, it hurts, while we can't find more than token participation for a cheater.

[2:55:09] A point out that there are 60,000 people at all 70 account. They simply can't afford massive costs.

[2:55:16] The now-javoc likes to make this a carry value in all 1,000 dollars per stack time and elected officials' time.

[2:55:23] And for that matter, Valley Walkers time that was lost on a planning for it increasingly unlikely

[2:55:28] development option for Cadi Valley for something that I never had. Your staff's time is

[2:55:34] valuable, have them work on something that is worthwhile and reasonably likely to have.

[2:55:39] The direction that the board should provide to staff is to declare that because of the board's

[2:55:43] interest in terminating this project, that staff should return to the board at the earliest possible

[2:55:49] with an action item, for recommendations on the best process of determining the

[2:55:54] shape of data project, including returning on-spank grant funds, or requesting

[2:55:58] repurposing the remaining funding to other means for ensuring water supply

[2:56:02] resilience for Santa Clara County. Finally, I'll add that staff appeared to

[2:56:07] suggest today that the district might need to repay the state for funds if the

[2:56:12] district determines this project, which at only one certainly will have to bear

[2:56:16] That's all the more reason, not to spend more money now, but to stop the project as soon as possible.

[2:56:23] Thank you.

[2:56:24] Thank you, Brian.

[2:56:25] Good to hear from you.

[2:56:26] So do we have another speaker?

[2:56:29] Yes.

[2:56:30] Mr. Chair, we have several other.

[2:56:31] Good.

[2:56:32] We'll take the next name that I see.

[2:56:34] It looks like it's Lori Eliamo.

[2:56:38] Lori?

[2:56:41] Eliamo?

[2:56:46] Yes, we can.

[2:56:47] Okay.

[2:56:48] thinking for a given as this opportunity to speak.

[2:56:53] I'm not a professional person. I am a basic

[2:56:57] rate payer and I'd like to know what percentage of all these studies will be passed on to

[2:57:03] over the rate fares. Our water, power, garbage, food, and gas, as well as rent prices, go up every

[2:57:16] years for us, wages are not equal in those raises.

[2:57:23] The rate here is cannot afford even a $13 increase right now.

[2:57:29] We're suffering here, especially for a project that may or may not go forward.

[2:57:35] If rate here is will be forced to pay for these studies, I would expect transparency

[2:57:42] such as information that sent out the USPS to each and every rate payer to clearly explain what they are being charged for.

[2:57:56] As a rate payer, I would rather see money spent on conservation, recycling, expansion of flood control, and I would like to see comparisons on alternatives to the Chaco.

[2:58:15] Thank you.

[2:58:16] Thank you.

[2:58:18] This is Aliyama.

[2:58:19] Okay.

[2:58:19] Who else do we have?

[2:58:20] Our next step.

[2:58:21] Beth Fisher.

[2:58:26] Hello.

[2:58:26] We are a good afternoon.

[2:58:28] Chair for a lot of members of the Valley Water Board.

[2:58:32] I'm speaking on behalf of our faculty of faculty and faculty and the stand and

[2:58:36] in San Bernard County's Govian and Construction Trade Council.

[2:58:40] We were, for example, 24 affiliates and over 35,000 members.

[2:58:45] And I'm here to express our strong support for the Chaco Reservoir Expansion Project

[2:58:49] and its speaks of energy.

[2:58:51] This project was delivered much needed water storage via 140,000 acre foot facility for the region.

[2:58:58] Water is life water is vital.

[2:59:00] And the infrastructure that preserves its abundant quantity in quality is essential

[2:59:04] for both the health and after going back by time for the Santa Clara Valley and beyond.

[2:59:10] In 2020, when we went into disappearance, you know how strongly impacted the water supply

[2:59:14] for soil and confiliates. And although the situation has changed due to the machinery of rains,

[2:59:19] we could find ourselves in the same situation again without actual water storage.

[2:59:24] The Pacheco reservoir will be a place to store a water that rains as much as what we just experience.

[2:59:29] And we can consider that if the Pacheco Dammer in place last week,

[2:59:33] A portion of the peak flows might have been cut out of the power of the mirror.

[2:59:37] This could have lessen the impact on the vulnerable living that feels and slightly

[2:59:40] the community impacting homeowners.

[2:59:44] Also, the Pacheco project would not only per 1,000 of well-paid construction jobs for

[2:59:49] members, but it would also establish a new high-floating habitat for the friends,

[2:59:52] staff, central coasts, still a child on the Pacheco Creek.

[2:59:56] So you're carrying water supply for residents and the environment,

[2:59:58] and they're careful when you go to sleep.

[3:00:00] Boarding with Proposition 1 and 2014. The Michigan budget has been ordered with five hundred million dollars in funding, and this is an opportunity we cannot turn our box on.

[3:00:09] We urge the Board to continue its work in setting the feasibility of this proposed critical project with all the environment of benefits, economic benefits, water supply, and water storage benefits. Thank you so much.

[3:00:20] I'm going to go ahead and make it.

[3:00:22] Thank you.

[3:00:22] I appreciate your time.

[3:00:25] I'll just be curious.

[3:00:26] Next name, Lawrence Abbott.

[3:00:30] Mr. Abbott.

[3:00:32] Thank you.

[3:00:33] Yeah.

[3:00:33] I'm going to be tired while I buy all just from a humble state university.

[3:00:37] I just wanted to say that you can write pretty words.

[3:00:41] But, damn.

[3:00:41] So, I've never benefited a natural and a space species.

[3:00:44] Such as this geolette trap.

[3:00:46] You can't eliminate their habitat, take the creak away.

[3:00:49] put a reservoir of it down and say you're helping those fish that need to live in that

[3:00:54] creek that makes no sense at all. And the other two points I want to make are that you

[3:01:01] made a huge, a couple of two huge mistakes when the previous board has started this project.

[3:01:07] One is that when you made your agreements with other agencies and you said you wouldn't do

[3:01:12] this thing out, fiscally without getting agreements from other agencies, you didn't get a contract,

[3:01:17] the side contract. You got an agreement of understanding, which is ridiculous. That's like

[3:01:21] saying, okay, I want to be a remodeled to my house, but I'm going to work with the contract

[3:01:25] and I'm not going to sign your contract. I'm going to give you an agreement that I'll pay you,

[3:01:30] you know, if you do a really good job. That's, that's, that's, that's, that's, absolutely,

[3:01:33] responsible as some of the board members have been saying that that's absolutely ridiculous and

[3:01:38] it lets you work off false numbers. And thirdly, at the very beginning, you shouldn't have reached

[3:01:43] out to groups such as the major conservancy and the Sierra to a, and you should have had lots of meetings before he spent all his money on these studies.

[3:01:51] Because they would have told you how to environmentally sensitive that area is that it's a desert light and becoming more desert light with global warming.

[3:01:58] So a risk place in rural putter reservoir.

[3:02:01] Because of all the threatened and endangered species that live there.

[3:02:05] And because while we're evaporating so quickly there you don't have a lot of snowmelt that runs into a reservoir for all the reasons.

[3:02:10] You should have been doing all your own due diligence before you spent all this public taxpayer money on these expensive

[3:02:19] Surveys you could have found out much of that information a head of time and not needed to do this

[3:02:24] And you know stop the project and it's early as stages before any money was spent on it

[3:02:30] So just shame on the previous board and I hope you guys come to your senses and stop this project now

[3:02:36] where you fill up more and more fees.

[3:02:39] And then discover the environmental impact report

[3:02:41] that is ridiculous to start with.

[3:02:43] Thank you, pass.

[3:02:45] Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

[3:02:46] Are the speaker?

[3:02:48] Our next speaker, Erica Vowen-Tine.

[3:02:51] Good, Ms. Velletine.

[3:02:55] Hello, thank you for your time to speak with me all

[3:02:57] me today.

[3:02:58] I am Erica Vowen-Tine, a U.A. local 3903.

[3:03:01] We represent 3100 cars, pipe,

[3:03:03] food, or steam, colors, and HVCR,

[3:03:05] technicians of Santa Clara and San Diego County.

[3:03:07] I'm here today in support of how I'm in the SAMHSA.

[3:03:10] I ask that all of you will get to continue with this project as well as proceed with your

[3:03:15] cost analysis as you have outlined.

[3:03:17] This project offers us a ability to provide water for our children for such a drought as we have

[3:03:21] faced for many years in the past.

[3:03:24] This project allows us a ability to find mentioning the jobs for skilled and trained workers

[3:03:27] in our area that will stimulate economic growth.

[3:03:30] This project will help us avoid catastrophic emergencies and we face this year with much needed

[3:03:36] Thanks.

[3:03:37] Third probably asking you please support the Bitech Public Health Project to move forward

[3:03:40] to your vote.

[3:03:42] Thank you.

[3:03:43] Thank you Ms. Valentine.

[3:03:45] Our next speaker is Rainie Fisher.

[3:03:50] Rainie Fisher?

[3:03:56] Here we go.

[3:03:59] Good afternoon, Board.

[3:04:01] I speak as a resident of Sonnabail.

[3:04:04] The Pachayman Dam is very little benefit in the way of water supply and a lot in the way

[3:04:11] devastating environment will impact. The DER states that it would cause 13 significant

[3:04:18] and unoboidable impacts. For 1,200 acres of that land that will be flooded, there is no

[3:04:25] feasible mitigation measures available to offset the flooding under Williamson Act contracts.

[3:04:33] Hepatop could be destroyed, including one of the few remaining California's

[3:04:38] more grows in the state, and the flooding of 1500 acres includes old grows oaks, the

[3:04:46] valley of which hosts more native insects species than any other plant. Instead of building

[3:04:53] more dams, valley waters should be looking at sustainable water projects, like water recycling

[3:05:00] The warm water capture, treatment, and groundwater recharge. In addition, the project is expected to lose as much as 4900 a.m., per year, just due to vacuum evaporation.

[3:05:14] Falling water is already admitted that the DEI are circulated in 2022 as inadequate and must be redone, and that the federal and environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act is not even begun.

[3:05:29] Please stop this project. Furthermore, I agree with Director Eisenberg, that staff should have a professional opinion on this project.

[3:05:40] Otherwise, there's simply regurgitating statistics. Thank you.

[3:05:48] Thank you, Ms. Fisher.

[3:05:49] Our next speaker is James Crowder.

[3:05:53] Ms. Crowder?

[3:05:58] working on here. Yeah, we can hear. Good afternoon, Chair. Board members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

[3:06:07] My name is James Crowder. I'm the attorney, it's Lord and Sir. We represent a top of the shape of the handful listen.

[3:06:14] We submitted a written comment to the Board yesterday that describes some of the ongoing financial problems.

[3:06:20] project is gone through, many of which I've heard about the day, didn't want to point

[3:06:27] out as direct and key in when in a very detailed earlier regard in partnerships with

[3:06:32] the partnership situation is always been a real issue to this project. And it's held

[3:06:36] the day the public has been unaware that there's essentially no partnerships.

[3:06:43] And

[3:06:43] but up until this point cost estimates, it's always included as well as direct

[3:06:49] The rest of America pointed out that the original purpose of the 35% assumption was based

[3:06:55] on the idea that the board would not move forward with the project without 35% buying from

[3:07:02] the X-Tara farmers.

[3:07:04] But in five years, there's still no purpose.

[3:07:09] This seems like a good time for the board to abandon the project, especially now that the real

[3:07:15] cost of the project, which is now about $6 billion, has been publicly available.

[3:07:22] So, to be clear here, the amount of water is considering paying $6 billion for a project

[3:07:28] that would add 6,000 acre feet a year to it's supply.

[3:07:32] The reservoir is going to lose near the amount to evaporation of the loan, and you could

[3:07:38] probably buy everyone the same as a rain bear when we collect about 6,000 acre feet.

[3:07:44] Another thing I've said during the presentation was that this project is different from the other reservoir projects because the valley of water would control this project.

[3:07:56] However, something that hasn't been discussed through many of the meetings that I've been to is that valley water doesn't own the land that it intends to flood.

[3:08:06] So, not only water still needs to go through the process of purchasing and likely go through

[3:08:11] imminent domain prior to construction and we have not seen that in any time run that has been

[3:08:19] presented to the board or what that might cause and we think that that should be added into the

[3:08:24] information that is provided to the board of public meetings and the future.

[3:08:30] Also, as briefly discussed earlier, the latter mission meeting yesterday, they went through

[3:08:37] all a project that they found a proper one fund, and if Chaco is now the last to be funded,

[3:08:44] which is, you know, slated now for the end of the 2027, and during this discussion, the

[3:08:50] lot of commission stated that it's beginning to consider whether or not all initially chosen

[3:08:56] project should continue to be considered for funding. And it was determined here I had

[3:09:01] meeting that the commission could receive funding for one project and reallocate it

[3:09:06] to other problem projects. The commission noted that it is concerned often in ways and

[3:09:12] barriers to completion, not just of Chaco, but just in general. But we know that Chaco is

[3:09:19] riddled with delay. Mr. Crowder, please summarize please. You'll be on your three minutes.

[3:09:23] Last, I would like to say the rest of the board record cannot hold them to get the long-term

[3:09:27] water supply or I hope we can get through the routes.

[3:09:31] There are sustainable water projects that can be purchased through this six billion dollars

[3:09:37] that would set up a value of water for long-term loans.

[3:09:41] Thank you for your message.

[3:09:42] Appreciate your time.

[3:09:43] Thank you.

[3:09:43] Next speaker.

[3:09:44] Our next speaker is Nancy Blastos.

[3:09:48] Okay.

[3:09:50] Is Blastos?

[3:09:54] Good afternoon, can you hear me?

[3:09:57] Yes.

[3:09:58] Okay.

[3:09:58] Good afternoon, board members.

[3:10:00] I am opposed to this destructive project. It will enlarge in a fringe on the Henryk California State Park, O'Flaug, O'Trees, and succum, for us.

[3:10:28] It will ruin

[3:10:29] money and industrial project is considered. We should always consider what's going to happen

[3:10:38] to the habitat. Flooding areas emit methane and we know that's terribly destructive to

[3:10:46] human beings. I support this dorm or capture in purification, conservation and I want to say

[3:10:56] And interlainers have say 20 to 30 percent more moral water than they originally were supposed to.

[3:11:09] I think we can fix leaks and that will say 20 to 30 percent more water and punitive measures for people who do not conserve and don't reuse.

[3:11:19] I like you have enjoyed this writing, but it's not going to be there in honest.

[3:11:27] I think we need to secure existing supplies and infrastructure, fix infrastructure.

[3:11:33] Before we embark on this hugely expensive project, water retailers, some water retailers do not support this.

[3:11:44] And I would just bring up to you that it was last summer that the industrial farmers

[3:11:52] during the Chester River and they were only fine $4,000 and they knew it was not what

[3:12:00] they were supposed to do.

[3:12:02] So we have to fight for the tax payers and the water rate payers because we are being squeezed

[3:12:10] by any increases in gas, his tripled, and oil, and fuel, and we can't go on this way,

[3:12:21] installing our environment. That's just as important in this water. Thank you.

[3:12:29] Thank you, Ms. Blastos.

[3:12:30] Excuse me.

[3:12:31] The next speaker, I bring Austin.

[3:12:34] Okay, Frank Austin.

[3:12:38] Straussen? Yes, hello. Thank you all for the time to speak with you today. As was mentioned before,

[3:12:45] my name is Frank Austin, and I'm also a business rep with you in total 33 as mentioned earlier by

[3:12:52] Ms. Valentine. We represent over 3,100 plumbers, pipe-pidders, steam-fitters, and HBAC technicians

[3:12:59] of Santa Clara and Santa New County. I'm here today to speak in support of this project.

[3:13:04] As many of us know, the tracks are familiar to all of us that live here in California, in order to ensure that we have enough water.

[3:13:12] We need to conserve the water when we have the opportunity to do so.

[3:13:17] This recent rainfall is an example of that.

[3:13:21] So much about water has gone down the storm drain, worked its way out to the bay, or has flooded local communities.

[3:13:29] This project would also provide much needed jobs to members of our local community.

[3:13:33] Please support the Chaco being a dean and project, and I thank you all for your time.

[3:13:39] Thank you, Mr. Austin.

[3:13:42] Our next speaker is Ronald Stork.

[3:13:47] Mr. Stork.

[3:13:51] Thank you, Chair.

[3:13:52] Andrews and Board of Directors.

[3:13:54] Planning is Ronald Stork.

[3:13:55] Seeing you fall to be staffed with friends of the river.

[3:14:00] This goes in form of the presentation by staff.

[3:14:03] and informative and spirited conversation amongst the coordinators, and I'm glad I was able

[3:14:11] to see that.

[3:14:15] I wanted to mention briefly one issue that the Board of Mayor may not be aware of, and

[3:14:22] that is the least about the further alternative going into this project.

[3:14:31] the Resident War of Wood in a day part of the Henry Coast State Ark, and in our

[3:14:40] judgment that is not something that the public resources code that governs state

[3:14:46] parks permits. And therefore, at least that project iteration is legally

[3:14:57] It is feasible. I know that so.

[3:15:00] We have the staff, the suggesting that they may have some revised projects, designs, and may get that done early next year, and of course also have a supplemental or a new draft EIR.

[3:15:23] And this project has a lot of issues, but this is one that is relatively easy to avoid.

[3:15:33] And I would suggest that if this project was forward into additional design,

[3:15:44] in additional environmental reviews. That's one issue that I think is easily corrected.

[3:15:53] Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[3:15:57] Thank you, Mr. Stork.

[3:15:59] Next.

[3:16:00] Our next speaker is Molly Colton.

[3:16:04] Excuse me.

[3:16:07] Good afternoon, Board members.

[3:16:09] This is Molly Colton, the Sierra Club California.

[3:16:11] There are a lot of issues with the Pacheco Resorts Genshin project.

[3:16:14] but since I have limited time and there are a lot of speakers,

[3:16:17] I'll just highlight some of our top concerns regarding this project.

[3:16:21] One of the many problems with building new reservoirs in the state and age is that

[3:16:24] all the good sites have already been taking and the refusification for the Pacheco expansion project

[3:16:29] is no exception. When Battlewater was first considering this project 20 years ago,

[3:16:34] the idea was dropped after geologists found rocking for the post project area with some stable.

[3:16:39] It is dangerous and expensive to proceed with the project given this knowledge as outlined in the Water Supply Master Plan.

[3:16:47] But I'm actually really surprised and concerned that this point hasn't been brought up in discussions today or talked about more generally.

[3:16:54] Speaking of cost, the project only keeps getting more expensive every year.

[3:16:57] renowned economist, Dr. Jeffrey Michael, at the University of the Civic Major School of Law,

[3:17:03] didn't announce us on the right-care impacts of the Chaperdam project. You can find Dr. Michael's

[3:17:08] board report at the Tashinar Sierra Club comment letter submitted to the board for today's meeting.

[3:17:13] According to the analysis, Santa Clara County is in a cost of living crisis.

[3:17:18] Twelve monthly bills for Santa Clara County residents are the highest in the United States.

[3:17:22] Overall, cost of living in San Jose is estimated to be 215% above the U.S. average.

[3:17:30] Tens of thousands of Santa Clara Valley households are delinquent on their water bills at current rates,

[3:17:35] according to the state water resources control board, and San Jose water company.

[3:17:39] The number of innovative bills is sure to grow higher if the valley water in poses rate increases for Pacheco Dam.

[3:17:45] Against this backdrop, lowering the cost of living should be the primary focus of every public official in Santa Clara County.

[3:17:51] Instead, value water is considering committing billions of repair dollars to adapt its own staff

[3:17:58] to scrapes as one of the costliest and risky instructions in their own waters supply

[3:18:02] master plan.

[3:18:04] Director San Jose said during this meeting that this will be the best decision he's made

[3:18:09] on this board to ensure water supply for future generations, but he fails to mention how future generations

[3:18:15] will be saddled with this debt for a project that will not produce any new water.

[3:18:19] This is extremely unfair to folks, including the majority of people in my generation who are already struggling to pay their utility bills and even put food on the table.

[3:18:29] This project only made Maddie's worse.

[3:18:32] Further, former San Jose Mayor Samuel Cardo opposed this project, saying that Jacob, Spanish and Project was too expensive, and this money would be better spent on other projects, such as water cycling, stormwater capture, and conservation.

[3:18:44] Current San Jose Mayor, Matt Minham, is also skeptical of the projects, saying I have concerns

[3:18:50] about whether there are several billions of dollars for a project like the Chaco,

[3:18:53] which doesn't mean that we can play it in a lot of supply as a video of scarce resources

[3:18:58] at a time when we have so many other needs.

[3:19:01] Finally, Valley Water is struggling to find partners to share the cost of the project.

[3:19:06] To date, no project partner agreements have been finalized.

[3:19:09] Dr. Asterman is a said if we can't get those partners, then we can't do the check-up.

[3:19:15] And I really hope we can hold him in the rest of the Valley Water to that statement.

[3:19:19] And lastly, I agree with Dr. Bell's comments to the Valley Water could and should do more on groundwater storage and recharge projects as well as water recycling projects.

[3:19:28] The Sierra Club encourages this wholeheartedly and would be happy to support Valley Water in this effort. Thank you.

[3:19:34] Thank you Ms. Colton.

[3:19:37] Next speaker is Casey Hedderley.

[3:19:41] Is that her lead?

[3:19:45] Good afternoon.

[3:19:46] Chair Herwila and Board members.

[3:19:49] My name is Casey Hedderley and I'm the intern with the Center of Valley Autoponse society.

[3:19:54] I'm going to ask that you stop Shuko Resort's Finishing Project.

[3:19:59] We are concerned.

[3:20:00] In fact, the six-plus years of construction will have a new fire. Not only in terms of carbon emissions,

[3:20:07] inflation, but also because of the construction-related light and future permanently in an area

[3:20:13] that is currently dark at night. We are just now appreciating that the artificial light at night

[3:20:18] that we create negatively impacts the health and behavior of a large number of species,

[3:20:23] and throughout and spoke the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem function.

[3:20:27] Delighting from this project will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on a local ecosystem, and we expect less due damage to the current.

[3:20:36] SEPA has supported the adoption of the valid habitat land, which found water is a pertinent.

[3:20:42] This plan covers biological impacts of development, land use decisions, and activities.

[3:20:47] It not only sets aside land to mitigate impacts on our species and ecosystems, but also plans to increase the value of the habitat to research.

[3:20:59] The Dan projects require instrumentation only involve reserving where the impact of the project on the VHP remains significant and unavoidable,

[3:21:09] because the project calls for competition over mitigation land, and its claim on such land will prevent the VHP for using it for habitat restoration in the hands of it.

[3:21:17] Please stop this project for the sake of our Senate clear about the species and the

[3:21:22] systems.

[3:21:23] Thank you.

[3:21:25] Thank you.

[3:21:25] Thank you, Ms. Heldery.

[3:21:27] All right.

[3:21:27] Next speaker is Annie Yang.

[3:21:31] Michelle?

[3:21:33] Good afternoon, Chair Raila.

[3:21:35] Vice Chair Keegan.

[3:21:37] My name is Annie Yang.

[3:21:38] And I'm the chair for the Environmental Action Committee of the Senate

[3:21:41] Chair of Eleanor Mons Society.

[3:21:43] I'm speaking on behalf of the committee to oppose the

[3:21:45] the Reservoir expansion project.

[3:21:47] Our committee is focused on promoting

[3:21:49] a healthy, regional ecology that supports biodiversity,

[3:21:52] diversity, and human will be

[3:21:53] through protecting open space, wildlife, and their habitat.

[3:21:57] This project destroys and habitat,

[3:21:59] wildlife connectivity,

[3:22:01] which we, the Center for Development Society,

[3:22:03] have worked so hard to protect in our county.

[3:22:06] Not only will the Reservoir destroy,

[3:22:08] but will get sick and more a little deal with lens

[3:22:10] and repair and habitat, it will introduce

[3:22:12] poor quality Delta water, and with it,

[3:22:15] Invasive aquatic organisms and pathogens that will be impossible to keep out of our local

[3:22:19] watersheds and modern day in the long term.

[3:22:22] We know that in basis species are one of the primary drivers of species extinction and

[3:22:27] ecosystem class.

[3:22:29] However, we don't need to take this risk, nor flooding the sink habitat, because as other

[3:22:34] speakers have mentioned here, there are other ways to meet water reliability through increased water

[3:22:40] conservation, storm water capture, improved efficiency, and water

[3:22:44] cycling, many of which value water is already engaged in. Let's maximize

[3:22:49] those efforts across those less impactful avenues before building any

[3:22:53] risk for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is

[3:23:00] Evelyn Charmy.

[3:23:05] Okay.

[3:23:08] Yes, we can.

[3:23:11] Thank you very much. I did not

[3:23:13] know that you put the opportunity to speak today. I, of course, agree for a little water

[3:23:19] this, because I've said particularly Nancy Blastos and the Audemns Society, but I just

[3:23:25] wanted to add a couple more things in response to the union. There are many other jobs that

[3:23:33] the union actually have access to. You have the medicine down retrofit, you have the loss of

[3:23:43] all water projects as they recycle water projects that will be coming online, once you receive

[3:23:49] the direction from the state water board with the direct portable reels, the legislation

[3:23:54] that we can all move out on. And you also have lots of water-reformation projects.

[3:24:00] Everyone is talking about Stonewater Capture. Stonewater Capture, you know these are

[3:24:04] surely ready projects that could be done within communities, spreading grounds, also can happen instead

[3:24:11] of building a new dam, not to mention all the environmental logistics effects and the pricing.

[3:24:20] I want you to point out that this is the city valley water that is also considering the delta

[3:24:25] conveys. These are between the delta conveys and the check-o dam expansion project. We are

[3:24:33] talking about two billion dollar projects, many billions, who is supposed to put to the cost

[3:24:41] of these huge projects. So let us think about those things, who bears the cost, who benefits,

[3:24:47] who days and can our people afford to pay those huge rates? There are many other ways which

[3:24:54] women can meet out water, future and when folks speak about it.

[3:25:01] Let's just remember. In this climate crisis that we are in, we have more dry years than we have went yesterday.

[3:25:11] So that means, a lot of the time, this water does not come in, it will not be coming out, so why we spend so much money on a neutral project, when we receive rain, we will be receiving a lot less of it, we will be receiving a lot less snow.

[3:25:27] and because it's going to be so hot, the snow will be minting much quicker that it normally

[3:25:31] would so that it can perpetuate into the aquifers. Instead, let's build cities and streets that

[3:25:38] actually encourage the population of water through those surfaces so that they can go down into

[3:25:45] our aquifers and restart on the ground where there is less evaporation. Thank you so much for

[3:25:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[3:25:56] Our next speaker is Kacha Irvin.

[3:26:00] Mr. Irvin?

[3:26:07] Good afternoon.

[3:26:08] Good afternoon.

[3:26:10] Good afternoon.

[3:26:11] Good afternoon.

[3:26:11] Can you hear me?

[3:26:12] Yes.

[3:26:13] This is Kacha Irvin of this year club

[3:26:15] Blum of Canada Chapter Water Community.

[3:26:19] This year club agrees with many of the already stated reasons

[3:26:22] to stop pursuing the Pacheco Dam project.

[3:26:25] We're especially concerned about the environmental

[3:26:28] manage that will result from both construction and operation of the dam. The destruction of indigenous

[3:26:35] cultural artifacts and the cost burden on low income communities that will only be increasing.

[3:26:43] Alas, the board strongly cares about the demands of hearing to decide whether to just continue

[3:26:48] this project. It seems we're stuck with this project for at least another 20 months.

[3:26:52] Assuming there are 60% design remains on schedule, which is unlikely given the history of large projects at Valley Walk.

[3:27:04] Due to this history, the water storage exploratory committee needs to trap progress towards each milestone in the schedule presented today.

[3:27:13] So potential delays can be identified as soon as possible, and actions can be taken to get back on track.

[3:27:20] Please direct staff to develop set schedules for milestones such as geotechnical explorations, 60% design documents, and draft EIR, EIS, etc.

[3:27:34] It's also important for the storage committee to meet regularly and receive complete and transparent project update at every meeting.

[3:27:43] On another point, it's good to see that BF's damry is now included as a water prime master plan project.

[3:27:53] It's recently suggested several times that the Board requested an initial presentation on this project,

[3:27:59] which has never been presented to the Board.

[3:28:02] Such a presentation should be addressed to the Board in the public.

[3:28:05] I hope there's time after public comment for board members to respond and perhaps refer

[3:28:11] these suggestions to staff.

[3:28:13] Thank you for your consideration.

[3:28:16] Thank you, Mr. Serban.

[3:28:18] Our next speaker is Will Smith.

[3:28:21] Will Smith?

[3:28:23] Good afternoon, Mr. Smith.

[3:28:27] Good afternoon.

[3:28:27] We've heard about it here, and we've heard that we can, as we'll submit them to this

[3:28:31] and represent it for it.

[3:28:33] I will give you double the local three, three, two, represent members, and represent

[3:28:37] the staff of their county over 3,500 members.

[3:28:41] That works here, and staff of their county.

[3:28:44] And we are as a support of the project.

[3:28:48] We are a favorite post, you know, having quality drinking water.

[3:28:53] To pack water that can be stored and preserved, so therefore, we have to

[3:28:57] all of the water flow on children, and all of our grandchildren, and that would be a great

[3:29:02] branch right here.

[3:29:04] We know California is especially the city, we need to have no stranger to drop, so it's

[3:29:09] been nice to have with the mouth of water that we have, but we need to finally make sure

[3:29:14] that we capture and store and secure the water.

[3:29:18] Unfortunately, this can't be kicked out of the road.

[3:29:22] And due to that, this can turn into a bold and bold, but it's not unique to just this project.

[3:29:30] Projects that's been delayed in construction in the past had escalating construction costs.

[3:29:36] So it's something that's kind of common in general, the construction industry.

[3:29:43] Also, this get down and help preserve this advantage of community from the name of the letter.

[3:29:50] Every year, it sounds like.

[3:29:53] So I hope this board will push this project forward, move it forward, and help create several good.

[3:30:04] Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[3:30:08] Our next speaker, Jay Howleron?

[3:30:13] Mr. Howleron?

[3:30:16] Yes. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jill Howleron, and I'm not particularly

[3:30:28] about many things, the cost, the instability of the ground, as Molly pointed out, many things

[3:30:40] about this, but perhaps particularly the destruction of hundreds of bakers of, oh, good

[3:30:47] second or fourth, repair and habitat. This is in some simple black and white issue where,

[3:30:52] Okay, we need more water.

[3:30:54] Let's just really, really decide to expand the reservoir.

[3:30:58] This has to be something that's carefully planned

[3:31:00] and thought out intelligently.

[3:31:02] And there are plenty of other water collection facilities

[3:31:07] in our area.

[3:31:09] And value water has many projects to improve water supply,

[3:31:15] going on right now.

[3:31:17] So, and that it will, this project, I'm concerned,

[3:31:20] about the environmental impacts in Latin, including sending poor quality water into

[3:31:28] Chicago Creek and Monterey Bay, ultimately, I think this thing is a disaster

[3:31:34] rate to happen. So I just want to be on record, you know, I just want you to let

[3:31:38] you know these amount concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Helver.

[3:31:44] That is all the

[3:31:45] hands I have raised on Zoom. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Clerk. We do have some speakers in

[3:31:51] building, Ms. Meg Giberson,

[3:31:57] I see a G-I-B-E-E-R-S-L-M-I.

[3:32:06] Okay, afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, my name is Meg Giberson,

[3:32:10] I'm speaking today for myself and my husband, we believe the district should pivot and

[3:32:15] should eliminate consideration of the Pacheco Reservoir expansion. It's a project that's

[3:32:22] potentially reaching $6 billion, and that doesn't guarantee an increased water supply.

[3:32:28] The only certainty is that the budget will keep going up in the costs will continue increasing.

[3:32:34] But Chaco has rising rates, rising costs, and this will disproportionately impact people

[3:32:40] who are less able to pay, as has been mentioned by other speakers.

[3:32:44] A recent CEO bulletin reported that $60 over $62 million have already been spent on the

[3:32:51] takeout, which is not minimal.

[3:32:55] That money would better have been spent on appropriate water recycling, maintenance of supply

[3:33:00] infrastructure, and use of storm water, which sources are local, drought-proof, reliable,

[3:33:06] and minimized our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long term.

[3:33:12] Dams are not a sure bet with drought and climate change, and that's clear from the past few

[3:33:18] years. And if you look at the status of the largest dams on the Colorado River, which

[3:33:24] are only 23 and 28 percent full. The Pecheco Villians could be spent. Instead, on such

[3:33:31] important local timely projects as cheaper groundwater, a Stanford research, Stanford was

[3:33:38] mentioned by one of the directors, Stanford features research shows that groundwater costs

[3:33:43] five to nine times less than stored water surface storage.

[3:33:49] Groundwater banks could provide $400 to $600 per acre

[3:33:54] foot water for our community.

[3:33:58] As compared with Pachakos, 18,800 per storage,

[3:34:02] which is a staff figure, a Santa Clara Valley

[3:34:04] water district staff figure.

[3:34:06] Groundwater storage, of course, also saves evaporation

[3:34:09] that we lose to the air because of climate change, apparently about two million acre-feet

[3:34:19] a year, are lost in California because of evaporation from reservoirs and canals, and

[3:34:25] that's about one-third of what all urban use in California is, so storing in an open reservoir

[3:34:32] is not a good option.

[3:34:34] Raising existing Bay Area dams could be another good solution and most of the caros has been mentioned.

[3:34:41] We have which has partners and that's all been quite discussed.

[3:34:44] Increasing reuse and recycling, I think Orange County Water District's experience is actually applicable here.

[3:34:51] Their expansion of their wastewater reuse facility will be producing about 112 to 145,000 acre feet a year.

[3:34:59] That.

[3:35:00] That is, as much as or more than what Santa Clara Valley Water District says, they're going to be important.

[3:35:05] So that's a very important figure to consider. We could do that here.

[3:35:11] Pacheco will not drought through our county. It will be subject to the downsides of evaporation,

[3:35:16] siltation, greenhouse gas production, toxic algae buildup, and high cost. We ask you, please,

[3:35:24] cease considering this. And thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[3:35:28] Thank you.

[3:35:31] Thank you.

[3:35:32] David Kennedy.

[3:35:48] Thank you, Chair.

[3:35:48] Thank you, Gordon, for this opportunity to speak with you.

[3:35:52] I don't really have prepared notes.

[3:35:55] I came here as part of the growing, large contingent of folks who do not want you to build this step.

[3:36:05] You should not do this.

[3:36:06] It seems very against common nature,

[3:36:11] against common thought to want to build a dam

[3:36:15] when we have so much drought.

[3:36:18] We can drive around to all our dams now

[3:36:20] and they are basically empty.

[3:36:23] Also, I am a resident of San Jose District 1.

[3:36:28] I definitely will be sharing my thoughts

[3:36:30] about this meeting with all my neighbors.

[3:36:33] It wasn't happy with what I saw here.

[3:36:36] All the stuff that you already heard, you already know all this stuff, buildings, a dam is the worst way to capture water.

[3:36:42] It evaporates. You may help those salmon, but you're killing everything else that you're flooding the area in.

[3:36:51] So, you're choosing your points to make us want this, which is exactly how I felt about that presentation.

[3:37:00] You were all just choosing the points that would make this look wonderful,

[3:37:05] whereas when we wanted to know details where it didn't make it wonderful,

[3:37:09] we had to, we, I'm with you, had to ask lots of detail

[3:37:13] and you had to ask the specific question in order to get the details that,

[3:37:18] well, we don't have any partners.

[3:37:21] We are on our own, basically, and I did think that I saw

[3:37:26] And a little box, a little blue box, it had the partners underneath, the partners of

[3:37:34] how much they were going to participate and give, but above that were the rate payers.

[3:37:40] So if those partners don't come in, it's the rate payers who are going to be on the hook

[3:37:45] for that $2.5 billion or whatever that was.

[3:37:49] It is ridiculous.

[3:37:49] I have a nine hundred square foot house. My PG&E bill went from one 20 a month to

[3:37:56] six hundred dollars a month. Ridiculous. It's crazy. You are going to do that to us

[3:38:04] also. You're going to make our costs go up. There was a comment that was made another

[3:38:12] disingenuous instance of comment about mental health and people work being in the

[3:38:19] creeks because the mental health will let me tell you some of them in the creeks because

[3:38:23] they can't pay the bills the bills were raised up so much they can't pay them and so

[3:38:28] they are out and now they are living in that creek so it's not just because they having

[3:38:36] some mental illness are the living there will cause you some

[3:38:43] no to this project thank you sir

[3:38:48] I appreciate it. That's all the speakers we have.

[3:38:50] Mr. Chair, please.

[3:38:51] Excuse me.

[3:38:51] Sorry. We have one more hand that just raised on.

[3:38:54] So, Sean E. Kleinhouse.

[3:38:57] Okay.

[3:39:02] We'll put up the note, share it with Rela and the right-thru.

[3:39:05] Thank you for letting me speak.

[3:39:06] My name is Sean E. Kleinhouse.

[3:39:08] I'm being promised.

[3:39:09] I look at the Sun and Clara,

[3:39:11] but we want the one society.

[3:39:12] And we're requesting that the right stuff

[3:39:15] to stop, stop to stop working

[3:39:17] on the particular right-of-art expansion project.

[3:39:19] The staff presentation showed that value order experts will continue to spend money on these other

[3:39:25] rates, expenses, and family hardship projects, and it seems that the clear decision

[3:39:32] points will not come to you and let us be specifically set to date with staff.

[3:39:37] Otherwise, if the process will continue, the EERR will be recirculated, also 3 years old,

[3:39:44] both to value rate and re-inside rate and additional tens of millions of dollars.

[3:39:50] Stop in the right way to mention, perfecting downstream communities from scratch

[3:39:54] to one of the benefits of this project.

[3:39:57] And of course, that is very helpful.

[3:40:00] But there are better opportunities by the order to purchase a plan to provide adequate plan function.

[3:40:06] It's far less expensive than this town, moreover the end and provides better than at-based communities and ecosystems.

[3:40:14] So please don't be as flooding as a rain fairings study opportunities for that.

[3:40:18] When the town was proposed, on the bumpy mother pose, it took us time to study the promises to restore so long in migration,

[3:40:26] and location of water to why the refugees in the center of the valley that are really pretty close to mine for three birds.

[3:40:33] So we looked for the silver lining to this immense arm that is part of it,

[3:40:37] could cause and would cause to come to use remain natural landscapes and waterways.

[3:40:44] But we found lots of silver lining.

[3:40:46] It proposed by a large number of benefits for my youth compared to the home.

[3:40:50] Only a meager or water allocation was offered to the center of valley refugees,

[3:40:54] and it was not offered in drivers, and it's needed.

[3:40:58] At the power of operation of the dam is likely to cause significant harm,

[3:41:03] and alternatively it says that we would provide better solutions for some more needs.

[3:41:08] And the harm to the rest here, right here, in aquatic species and ecosystem, is devastating.

[3:41:14] The further your lab is, don't project more forward.

[3:41:17] Don't worry, if it could be stuck.

[3:41:20] Please find a way to stop it today.

[3:41:22] focus on alternative ways to provide water supply and flood protection and the benefits of this one is supposed to bring us.

[3:41:31] Thank you.

[3:41:33] Thank you.

[3:41:34] Any more speakers?

[3:41:36] I have no other hands raised.

[3:41:38] Okay, so I want to acknowledge the online messaging that we received from Elizabeth Smith,

[3:41:46] from Irene Stepanova, and Les Kichler, also an opposition of the reservoir and also letter

[3:41:57] from the Loma Prieta Sierra Club and also the Solori Merced Law firm, also expressing

[3:42:05] opposition, but I also want to express our thanks and gratitude to the Santa Clara County

[3:42:13] labor group that supports this project representing 35,000 members.

[3:42:21] So we are finished with this information.

[3:42:24] I just want to make a couple of comments from the Board,

[3:42:27] the Chair's position.

[3:42:29] So this last couple of months have been extraordinary

[3:42:33] as we have all experienced one atmospheric river after another.

[3:42:38] You should be called a pineapple express somewhere emergent to what we are experiencing today.

[3:42:47] And in a matter of a few months, are reservoirs that were at very low, not completely empty,

[3:42:56] but some of them were, are now full, and some are spilling.

[3:42:59] And we've seen some occurrences that are occurring with local flooding caused by the amount

[3:43:07] of rainfall that we've received, and also the catastrophe that we saw in the Pajaro River

[3:43:14] region of Watsonville and Pajaro, the community of Pajaro, over 2,000 people are homeless

[3:43:21] And out of work, and there are fields that they work on in labor are flooded.

[3:43:28] When I had a conversation, the other day with Director Bell, we spoke and said,

[3:43:33] John, what can we do?

[3:43:35] And I said, well, you know, Director's Santos, and I said,

[3:43:37] I don't know how to river flood protection authority.

[3:43:41] So we had a Director Bell, and I had a conversation.

[3:43:44] And I made a call.

[3:43:45] I called to the Executive Director of who we work with on the board

[3:43:50] said director Sanctus and I sit on and I asked for the name of the person that's actually

[3:43:54] in charge of directing the reconstruction of the Pajaro along with the Army Corps of Engineers.

[3:44:01] And so I left the message and the contact to return a call, so offering our value water resources.

[3:44:08] Well, I didn't get a return call, but then yesterday I saw on the news all the elected

[3:44:13] that were there from the governor to the local elected, et cetera, stating that the one person

[3:44:20] the group that was not there was the Army Corps of Engineers.

[3:44:24] Because in their words, the benefit doesn't calculate for a poverty-stricken community to expedite

[3:44:32] the funding and the process to correct the Paja River breach, which has occurred over the

[3:44:38] past 20 years or 30 years, every five, 10 years.

[3:44:44] So had the Pacheco Reservoir been built, say,

[3:44:49] maybe five, 10, 15 years ago.

[3:44:51] The probability, the probability of that flood

[3:44:55] occurring downstream would not have happened.

[3:44:57] So...

[3:45:00] As we say, you know, we don't want to build these things because they cost too much, you know, everything cost a lot of money these days.

[3:45:06] And what we do here, a value wire, we don't just support the board members that have their representatives come in and tell us what to do and not to not to fund these things.

[3:45:20] We represent almost two million people, the seven directors and seven districts.

[3:45:25] So, they're not all here, you're here and we appreciate your time, but we've got to hear from the two million almost two million people.

[3:45:34] Well, we do.

[3:45:35] We hear from their electives from the City Council of the 15 cities that they represent.

[3:45:40] And we board members sit on the general plan updates, approximately every 5 or 10 years,

[3:45:46] as a former City Council member and mayor of the community that I live in in Morgan Hill,

[3:45:51] We have to sit there and listen to the development, the growth, the population, expansions, et cetera, and all these 15 communities.

[3:46:00] Now, remember, back in the 1970s, the population of Santa Clara County was less than a minute in people.

[3:46:06] Today, we're approaching seven, two minute in people.

[3:46:12] Anderson Dan came up a couple of times.

[3:46:13] So lately, because it's under reconstruction, we've had tours of the dam under reconstruction

[3:46:19] currently.

[3:46:20] And a visual that I ask you every people, everybody that tours the dam, that goes up to

[3:46:25] the very crest, is to look west.

[3:46:28] Look west.

[3:46:29] Don't look up to the dam and east over the photos, which is a beautiful sight, by the way.

[3:46:33] When you look west, I say, what do you envision?

[3:46:37] 50 years ago, before the dam was actually built, what did this area look like?

[3:46:41] Well, he looked west from the dam to the western side of Morgan Hill, 55, 60 years ago.

[3:46:50] There was farms, ranchers, orchards, a valley of hearts to light.

[3:46:57] From Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Samirteen, all the way up to Palo Alto, stretching all the way to San Francisco.

[3:47:04] Well, back in the 1970s, when our community started to grow, cities were growing left and right.

[3:47:09] We're more from processing apricot chips to silicon chips.

[3:47:16] In a matter of a blink of an eye, the population of this region exploded,

[3:47:21] the demands for everything, we need more, whatever.

[3:47:25] One of the things that we do here at Valley Water,

[3:47:28] is we have a agriculture water advisory committee,

[3:47:34] And agriculture still is a viable source for Santa Clara County as it is for the entire

[3:47:41] state of California.

[3:47:43] So in essence, we don't just manage water.

[3:47:45] We manage our food supply.

[3:47:48] California is recognized globally as the world source for growth of vegetables, fruits and

[3:47:56] vegetables, fruit tree, nuts, lettuce, cabbage, apricots, you name it.

[3:48:02] We feed the world.

[3:48:03] So, we don't just supply you with water, we supply you with food.

[3:48:08] So it's important to know these things and we're planning for our future generation.

[3:48:12] This project that we're talking about today, well, maybe I'll see it in my lifetime, I don't

[3:48:18] know.

[3:48:19] I think I'll see the finish of Anderson, hopefully, God willing.

[3:48:23] So that's the importance of what these projects that we look at and what the cost start

[3:48:28] today versus what they were yesterday and what they're going to be tomorrow.

[3:48:34] When you look at what happened in this last couple of weeks,

[3:48:36] the actually from the weekend to today with Silicon Valley bank.

[3:48:43] That sent a title wave effect around the world about concerns for bank's failure.

[3:48:50] Well, bigger banks are securing their doing well.

[3:48:53] This bank, accordingly, there's some speculation

[3:48:56] is the way these things occurred, but it happened and it's sent a shockwave because what

[3:49:00] did it happen right here in Silicon Valley? The home of innovation, the smartest people

[3:49:06] in the world, one of the richest areas on the planet to live, if you have a home and you live

[3:49:11] in this area, congratulations, you made a smart investment. But there are also people that live

[3:49:17] in this community amongst us that are not benefiting from the values of what the riches are

[3:49:23] in Silicon Valley.

[3:49:24] And these are service providers.

[3:49:26] These are people that work in the service industry.

[3:49:29] They're struggling.

[3:49:30] They can't afford to live in this town, but yet they do.

[3:49:32] And their children, their children that we look at

[3:49:35] as our future leaders of our community,

[3:49:38] don't have the same advantages coming from these

[3:49:41] challenge communities, as those that live in Palo Alto,

[3:49:44] they live in Las Gatos or in Morgan Hill.

[3:49:48] The more affluent communities.

[3:49:50] So, when we look at all these things and we measure what water does, what is water all about?

[3:49:59] Water is called...

[3:50:00] Life, the essence of life. Water, food, and air. That's it. So we have to continue the expansion of our projects

[3:50:08] to continue supplying water to our future generations because that's called survivability. And I just

[3:50:15] want to leave you with my comments and my evaluation of the messaging that I'm hearing from the

[3:50:20] people, and the people that are here in support of this, you know, I'm not, I'm not

[3:50:25] gauging this, but I do want to hear from the rest of the two-minute people approximately

[3:50:30] that we represent in our community. So we have to move on with our agenda. We have one more

[3:50:34] item on the agenda today. I've been on hold for a while, Director. Okay, Director Eugen. Sure,

[3:50:41] no problem.

[3:50:45] It will be hard to follow up such an eloquent communication. I just wanted to

[3:50:52] respond to a couple of things that speakers brought up.

[3:50:57] Ms. Irvin of the Sierra Club suggested that we get a support, some updates on the storage

[3:51:03] projects, which I think is a great idea. I would really look forward to doing that. I certainly

[3:51:09] am not opposed to storage projects. I think it's an important part of our water portfolio.

[3:51:14] And I would love to get more information. And then this is just an offer to those folks

[3:51:20] from the unions today that spoke, and particularly Mr. Will Smith brought up the issue of trying

[3:51:29] to deliver these union jobs sooner rather than later, and I certainly am supportive of

[3:51:37] labor and want to make sure that our projects do move forward and provide opportunities for

[3:51:42] people to work. I do think that Pacheco is going to be a project that's further out in the

[3:51:49] And there's important projects that we could focus on right now, particularly in the areas of recycled water and water storage.

[3:51:57] So I'd love to have further conversations with the unions to strategize how we can make sure that things happen quickly.

[3:52:04] And then I just would like to thank we did hear from a lot of people, but we heard from two people today who came here and spoke to us in person.

[3:52:13] I know that requires a lot of effort and energy and I just would like to thank you for that.

[3:52:22] May I speak, Vice Chair?

[3:52:25] I'm sorry.

[3:52:26] If you're next.

[3:52:28] Yes.

[3:52:29] Go ahead.

[3:52:29] Thank you, Vice Chair.

[3:52:31] Yeah, I too want to respond to the Union speakers.

[3:52:34] You know, as full disclosure, I'm from a Union family.

[3:52:37] My sister was literally one of the founders of Justice for janitors.

[3:52:41] And if there's anyone in this room who believes in good jobs for low income people,

[3:52:48] It's me, my sister spent three decades representing women of color, most of whom don't speak English.

[3:52:56] Well, some in the labor union did not want the janitor's joining because it was going to drag down the labor movement.

[3:53:03] But she persevered and justice for janitors is now a thing.

[3:53:07] So, I believe in jobs.

[3:53:09] But there's some job, but as my colleague said, jobs actually need to exist to want them.

[3:53:18] And the possibility of the job creation of this project is, I don't get why that's prioritized over the certainty of job creation from lower hanging fruit.

[3:53:31] That is, I love how someone said shovel already.

[3:53:33] Yeah, Stormwater Capture is shovel ready, but we could get jobs out there immediately.

[3:53:40] The price tag of this project, and its current price tag, is the equivalent of giving $5,000.

[3:53:47] It caught $5,000 to each resident of Santa Clara County.

[3:53:51] That's including that's valuing mitigations of $3 billion and putting in modest $1 billion

[3:53:59] into operations.

[3:54:00] So, at the price tag I cited, we are asking each residence, and I'm not even talking about household.

[3:54:05] Each resident $5,000, which is equal to a typical residence, would then be paying 15 to 20,000 dollars for this damn.

[3:54:15] And it will, I think, as one of the eloquent public speakers said, it is likely to drive more people into a state of being unhoused.

[3:54:24] So, how do we get jobs?

[3:54:26] How do we create jobs?

[3:54:27] Well, what I had asked for in this hearing was not a question of Pacheco or nothing, and I know that some of my colleagues shared this opinion.

[3:54:38] This should have been Pacheco or nothing.

[3:54:41] It should have been, do we do Pacheco?

[3:54:44] Or do we do a project that does not have to, you know, valuable and worthy constituents,

[3:54:51] So we're going to stop us, including the Amma Mutton tribe, and the Sierra Club, it's maybe we could have a project.

[3:55:00] That has a price tag less than in the billions of dollars. You know, that could happen sooner. That doesn't require all these regulatory approvals, like agreement from Fish and Wildlife, that we could do things much sooner to create jobs.

[3:55:13] And I too invite, I'm sorry, I too invite the union leaders to come and speak with us about good safe jobs because last point of all the jobs union jobs in our country and jobs in general construction jobs in the country creation of dams is listed in the top three of most dangerous jobs thousands of people have died in the construction of dams.

[3:55:42] That is not the case for the construction of water treatment plants, you know, upgrading

[3:55:49] pipe systems, plumbing systems, and storm water capture.

[3:55:55] I don't want workers to die.

[3:55:57] I mean, let's do something sustainable and safe.

[3:56:00] Thank you.

[3:56:03] Okay, so we're going to adjourn to co-session and we're going to close this meeting.

[3:56:07] Thank you all for attending this meeting.

[3:56:09] We have an item 3.1, conference with legal counsel existing litigation presumed to cover

[3:56:16] my code section 54956.9D1, subject to take a damn project coalition for Santa Clara

[3:56:24] Bell.

[3:56:26] So we'll come back and re-convene after that post-section,

[3:57:35] board meeting from the close session.

[3:57:38] legal counsel, do we have any, I think, to report out from the closed session?

[3:57:43] Thank you, Mr. Chair, Carlos Sareena, District Council, with respect to the closed

[3:57:47] session item, the board met in closed session with all directors present and no reportable

[3:57:52] action was taken.

[3:57:54] Thank you.

[3:57:54] Board members, any comments?

[3:57:56] With that?

[3:57:57] I adjourned.

[3:57:58] Board of directors meeting to our next meeting.

[3:58:01] I don't have my calendar in front of me for that so.

Closed Session and Special Board Meeting Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project - Mar 16th, 2023

Agenda

Transcript