[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:03] Okay, we'll call the meeting in the water. Good morning. Good afternoon. Roll call, please.
[0:11] Director Shua, here. Director Keegan. Here. Director Creman.
[0:18] Here. Director Lizaid. Here. Director Santos. Director Varella. Here.
[0:26] Chair, Mr. Mara. All right. We have all members present. Great.
[0:30] Thank you, Madam Clerk, we'll move right along to the Pleasure of Allegiance, Director of
[0:34] Aurella, would you please lead us?
[0:36] Be an honor, thank you, sir.
[0:39] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, of
[0:47] which is standing one nation under guard of the guard, the indivisible, visible, with liberty
[0:52] and justice for us.
[0:58] Thank you, Director Verella. We'll move right along to time open for public comment on any item that's not on the agenda today.
[1:08] So now's the time that the public is welcome to address us on any issue that is not on our agenda today.
[1:14] Do we have any any requests?
[1:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one member of the public who has raised his hand, Roland L.
[1:24] Roland L. Good afternoon.
[1:29] Good afternoon Mr. Chair, I'm both members.
[1:33] How much time do I have here is the two-three minutes?
[1:36] Three minutes, there we go.
[1:37] Three minutes for several minutes.
[1:39] So, what I'd like to do is to follow up on the comments I made yesterday at Council.
[1:45] Is that?
[1:46] I don't know how long you people have been here,
[1:49] but I've been through this before with what's going on in the weekend.
[1:52] It's been back in 1986, okay?
[1:54] It took the, you drain the dam, you took it down, and then we have the tree, you're drought.
[2:02] Rationing was just up to the brutal, our rape went through the roof.
[2:09] The water company said, you went bankrupt.
[2:12] The two marinas, I don't know whether it came back.
[2:15] The two marinas also went bankrupt.
[2:17] And you know, I remember seeing the, you know, the justice of the doctor lying on the side of the late, you know, 25 years ago.
[2:27] But the reason I'm addressing you is, why are you doing what you are doing?
[2:34] I've been for the last five years, I've been up multiple community meetings, I've been contacting your staff and telling you there's a solution out there.
[2:43] There's an Italian company called Trevi.
[2:47] The website is drv.spa.com.
[2:52] We'll do this for business.
[2:55] There is the material dam in Iraq.
[3:00] They are fixing, you know, trailers, who's leaking dams in China.
[3:05] They have the technology.
[3:06] right now, the fixing the Herbert Hoover jetty, I think, is in a Jacksonville.
[3:14] They can do this for a fraction of the cost of what you're proposing here.
[3:20] It'll be a permanent fix and we will get our reservoir back probably within 818 to maybe 24, 24, 24 months.
[3:30] So, my question to you is, if you don't know who these people are, go to the U.S. Army
[3:37] Corps of Engineers, whoever will this multiple contracts to these people, all over the world,
[3:43] and ask them if they think that it will be reasonable for you to reach out to these people
[3:50] and come up with a solution that gonna get us out of this mess we are in right now at the
[4:00] Thank you. Thank you, sir.
[4:09] I have Mr. Chair. I have no other hands raised at this time.
[4:12] Okay. All right. Then we'll go to our agenda.
[4:16] I'd like staff to ask the Army Corps. I know they're involved in the project.
[4:20] They should be told us about this.
[4:23] To make an inquiry regarding Mr. Roland's suggestion.
[4:28] So we'll move right along to 2.1,
[4:30] for Technical Reservoir's Banschen Project, workshop topics.
[4:35] It's an informational item, we start with Chris.
[4:39] Thank you very much, madam.
[4:41] Good afternoon.
[4:42] I am here to present some information on the
[4:45] Technical Reservoir Extension Project that will hopefully
[4:48] help to board in its discussions upcoming
[4:51] for the wide range of processes,
[4:53] as well as the budgetary process of reporting.
[4:55] I will share my screen to get the presentation.
[4:58] And then although I will be giving the presentation,
[5:03] So,
[5:08] we'll be talking about the Chamber of Res Morse branching project today. So, these are policy decisions that the board should need to make in the upcoming months regarding the Chamber of Res Morse branching project. Where does the particular project fit into our overall water supply and ask for plan?
[5:29] As we move forward, are there three different triggers that the Board would like to then have us bring the project back to you for an update on.
[5:39] We do have our CIT process.
[5:41] We do our following.
[5:43] However, because this is a high profile project, there may be some additional points of discussion or, you know,
[5:49] basically as the project evolves a little bit more.
[5:51] You may want more frequent updates than our typically given the CIT process.
[5:56] So it was important to illuminate any of those and possibly set them up for the Y4 to
[6:03] S4 recording committee to review for actor football org and then what level of partnership
[6:08] participation should be assumed for the financial planning purposes?
[6:12] On my next slide I believe a couple of slides down the road will show if you want to write scenario
[6:15] that we currently have for the face case for FY22 which does have an assumption of 20% partnership.
[6:21] And that was said in FY 19, but of course, I'm going to work in liberating on the budget process this year.
[6:27] It's the board's purview at the policy level to decide what target we should have for partnering and moving forward.
[6:35] Just from a perspective, the large board's infrastructure program where we received our prop one grant.
[6:42] The benefits for the project that we very much wear up and then enhance the environmental habitat for strategies,
[6:47] in enhanced water supply, of course emergency water supply. In increasing the reliability of the
[6:53] Delta, resulting in the second dose of water supply issues of water quality, and then of course
[6:57] we do have a reduction of blood potential for downstream communities, disadvantaged communities, specifically.
[7:04] I believe the horn saw a boost, I believe it was January 12th, we kind of cost history estimate for
[7:12] cost as a history for the project where we started 2017.
[7:16] I've got it to here in 2020, so I won't spend a lot of time on it, but just know that the
[7:20] 2.5 billion dollar estimate that's currently projected is what we have in our C.I.P.
[7:26] and by just moving forward.
[7:29] And then the main discussion is to help talk about water rates.
[7:33] Right now, as I mentioned, the base case is at 9.6% for a zone that we need to and I,
[7:40] That's projecting for the next eight years.
[7:43] We've got 20% partnership participation.
[7:45] We are affecting on getting a wifio loan.
[7:47] We have been invited, I believe, just yesterday,
[7:51] with the EGA release, the press release saying that we had officially been received an
[7:56] invitation to participate.
[7:58] And we were originally waitlisted, but now we have been officially invited to apply for wifio.
[8:03] So we are pursuing with it.
[8:04] As you can see, whether or not we received wifio does have a substantial impact on the
[8:09] to water rates associated with the project, we listed a vast kind of, you can see a
[8:15] curve of different partnership, participation levels and how they might impact the
[8:20] water rates. The two and a half percent is kind of the minimal participation
[8:23] from San Bernardo County. They are actually able to increase their participation
[8:26] up to 10 percent, but the two and a half percent you can see that if we were not able
[8:32] to get any other partnerships, we would be at about 10.2 percent as opposed to the 9.6
[8:37] percent this year. Or if with you didn't come through, we'd be able to let them percent.
[8:41] That's kind of the worst-case scenario range. Best-case scenario in terms of partnership
[8:45] participation, we've model 30 and a half percent. That's one scenario. We would facilitate
[8:51] transfers through the San Luis Reservoir. We believe that in a dry year, we could reliably
[8:57] transfer about 50,000 acre feet, which is where that number comes from, and we'll share a little bit
[9:01] more in the upcoming slides. But, you know, theoretically, you can increase that partnership level
[9:06] even more, but it would potentially reduce value
[9:09] water share of that water.
[9:11] And then, of course, there is the base case scenario,
[9:14] which they aren't covered yesterday for rate setting
[9:16] or where there is, or if you can not base case,
[9:19] but non-protaco case for the rate of the state 1,5%.
[9:26] In terms of funding, heavily, the board is also familiar.
[9:28] And you are looking for a way to be alone
[9:30] in about 45%, 49% of the product, which is the maximum.
[9:34] We'll be doing long-term bonds for not 30% roughly.
[9:36] and then we do have all this of the grant.
[9:39] In the partnership scenario that will be outlined in today's 50,000 acre feet,
[9:43] that would equate to about $900,000 and $10,000,000, which is about 36 percent
[9:48] of the overall project cost.
[9:53] In terms of different partnership structures and options,
[9:56] we've got four that we've identified.
[9:58] There is the option where we basically...
[10:00] I think that's a simple ownership of the facility, and then we form a purpose to actually sell the water to the correctal rights. There is a JPA structure, which I can believe the board's money with from the law's precarious sites, et cetera.
[10:12] Partnerships with private entities, those key pretty tight, and you have been looking into potential key three scenarios, although it looks as though the greatest potential for a key three will be through finance and record, we are looking for other entities to possibly partner and move forward.
[10:27] as well as partnerships with federal or state agencies.
[10:30] DWR is actually currently a partner in the project
[10:33] through the WISP grant, but there is also the USB organization.
[10:38] We have had discussions with them.
[10:39] In a similar scenario that we looked at our JPEO company plan,
[10:44] where they may actually own and instruct the portion of the project,
[10:48] and then at least that back to us over time,
[10:50] kind of in a rent to own scenario.
[10:55] So, the example we're talking about is 50,000 acre feet, basically, as you look at the difference,
[11:03] in stradation of this reservoir picture, the 35,000 acre feet is dedicated storage for our
[11:08] list of benefits.
[11:09] That's the number that we've been negotiating back and forth with fish and wildlife,
[11:12] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Water Resources,
[11:16] for the better part of the, probably a year now.
[11:19] We found a got to a number that we could talk with was originally set at 55,000 acre feet
[11:24] But we were able to, through our negotiation, get a down to about 35,000 acre fee.
[11:29] That is why we do feel comfortable now that we would have about 50,000 acre fee available.
[11:33] Our partnership is one of the scenario, including 55,000 acre fee for San Bernardo and San Bernardo,
[11:39] to use basically for our benefit.
[11:44] In this scenario, when we're talking about transfers through the San Luis Resport,
[11:48] we have about 50,000 acre fee that we could see right for the transfer, even in dry years,
[11:54] are out of station through the S, state water project, or the Central Valley project,
[11:59] though obviously those descendants were as well. In wet years, we would take water out of San
[12:03] Lois, put it into take a reservoir, and then in dry years, it would be a virtual
[12:07] transfer so that's when we send the cash line back to San Lois. We wouldn't actually send water
[12:11] back to San Lois, but we would be able to facilitate transfers through San Lois to other
[12:15] partners. This is just one scenario, depending on the partner that we're engaged with,
[12:20] There are other transverse scenarios or other ways to obtain water that would have been
[12:24] looked at deliveries to common customers, possibly sending water down the south, you know,
[12:30] to pass the current through semi-traffic.
[12:32] A lot of different scenarios, but this one is easily as digestible you can see, it's a pretty
[12:37] big chunk of water at 50,000 acre feet.
[12:39] So this is just one of the things that we've been kind of looking at.
[12:43] Some of the feedback that we've gotten when we presented the water storage, it's a laboratory
[12:46] committee, but even though this was one scenario, we did want to do any of the
[12:50] specialized partner pitches, which we are doing.
[12:53] We're currently actually looking into getting a sales and marketing firm on board that
[12:58] would specialize in this type of pitch, so as we go out to potential partners, we want to
[13:02] customize our pitch to each of the individual organizations and FTEs to make sure they're
[13:08] getting the maximum benefit from project and they see the benefit in it for them.
[13:13] Based on this scenario, you're looking at costs. These are unadvertised, capital, construction costs.
[13:20] This is not necessarily an investment, but it's an operation fast as well.
[13:24] This is just once an area, as we said, if you look at what it's in it for the partners,
[13:28] the cost rate, or put at 50,000 acre feet, is about 18,800 per acre foot.
[13:35] We'll compare that in a future slide, some of the other projects out there, of course, the
[13:39] advertised cost.
[13:40] I believe that as we get out, of course, 233 with the debt service as well as we don't
[13:45] have.
[13:45] I think for about 10% share of quates to about $13 million.
[13:49] I think you have Darren on the line to help explain those numbers a little bit more
[13:53] depending on what must be going back.
[13:55] That's just kind of, like I said, one scenario brought over to you.
[14:01] So we have looked at other different types of projects.
[14:04] What we have here is just the cost for either feet of a non-advertised capital cost.
[14:10] You can see that the tickle reservoir expansion is the highest.
[14:14] However, that is because each of the different projects has their own pros and cons.
[14:19] For groundwater banking, for example, I believe the board is familiar with our scientific
[14:22] public bank.
[14:23] There are certain take limitations.
[14:27] We do in critical dry years have some, how shall we say, difficult at times, getting
[14:33] our water back.
[14:35] So from that water, one of you, obviously, particularly in county, is about fake benefits
[14:39] to us.
[14:41] So that increase cost may be worth it.
[14:44] For some of our other partners, we're going to look at what makes sense for them.
[14:48] How can the flexibility of our water system benefit them as well?
[14:52] And so these costs are just, you know, kind of so that you can judge as we look at our overall water supply portfolio.
[14:59] How do you like it?
[15:00] We look together our supply of moving forward.
[15:06] Prior to schedule, this is the schedule we're currently on, release of our environmental documentation draft this year, finalized about 2023 so that we can get our permits throughout 2024 and go to construction in 2025. This is a very aggressive schedule, permitting is always the lot of hard these days. I think everyone is familiar with the permitting process to Anderson is undergoing. So, you know, the time to actually get out to construction could slip a little bit.
[15:32] And it does not jeopardize our whistle funding.
[15:34] And in terms of increase in cost due to construction delay,
[15:38] we believe that our number of $2.5 billion, currently
[15:41] had enough contingency presence,
[15:45] that even the significant delay to the start of construction,
[15:48] wouldn't necessarily increase the overall project cost.
[15:53] Just to show you this slide again after,
[15:55] you've had a chance to look at some of the partnerships scenarios.
[15:59] We can come back to this as we have our discussions,
[16:01] But this is just once again the race.
[16:07] In terms of what can the Chaco do or what could the Chaco do?
[16:11] It definitely increases our operational flexibility.
[16:14] It's local in storage capacity.
[16:17] It would be by far the largest reservoir that the value water has.
[16:21] All 10 of our existing reservoirs to fit within the footprint of the Chaco.
[16:25] It would give us a place to put important water contract supplies when we have extra supply.
[16:31] We won't lose that water, we won't need to sell it on the spot market when the market is advantageous to do so.
[16:38] And then we can use it during a drought now.
[16:41] Of course, the reservoir is a renewable source of water, but it doesn't need to have water to actually put in it.
[16:48] So if we were drawing upon it for a straight 1-2 drying years, there probably wouldn't be a lot of water left for a third or fourth year depending on how long the drought is.
[16:57] It also, of course, provides you around flow to the free downstream of the reservoir.
[17:01] It's about the blood production that's been talked about, you know, environmentally speaking,
[17:06] that is actually the biggest benefit that was awarded through the whistle portion of the grant.
[17:11] So it's a big loss.
[17:14] What doesn't the chamber do, or what won't it do if it is implemented?
[17:18] We're not going to have a significant reduction in water shortage severity during prolonged drought.
[17:22] So as I said, on the coronavirus drought, it'll definitely be there for us to draw from,
[17:26] But as you get into the out years if the droughts are extended in duration of take will obviously be dry at that point
[17:33] So there is no long term drought supply and then there's not really any new water supply
[17:39] We're going to take the RCP or C.R. Project
[17:43] Allocations when we have additional allocations and putting it into
[17:47] The decor is more so it's already our water so we're at that's a place that we can park it and not lose it
[17:52] And we will have some water from the local watershed
[17:55] But it's kind of a low yield watershed, so we're only looking, and we're still fine
[17:59] between the modeling, but the yield and the watershed is not very much probably six to
[18:03] nine thousand acre feet maximum, and that's in the left here.
[18:07] Paul, Paul, may I, through the chair, may I ask you a question about that?
[18:10] But as of what, for the recycling plant, isn't that just 5,000 itself, the graffiti here?
[18:23] The expert at a pure fine project is in the neighborhood of 10,000 a
[18:29] computer year for the whole project or just tell about so.
[18:33] Just tell about so I think I'll end up being 9,000 by the time it's all
[18:37] said and done.
[18:38] A perfectly.
[18:39] Yeah.
[18:39] Okay.
[18:40] Thank you.
[18:44] And so just some of the things with making cool into the
[18:47] Obviously, you can take what is one of several water storage infrastructure projects or moving forward.
[18:53] The board is aware of LVP insights and has participation goals there.
[18:57] So there are a lot of projects out there on the panel.
[18:59] We do a lot of technical partners to kind of look at all of the different options.
[19:03] You know, kind of turning over all the different rocks.
[19:05] So we are one of several, you know, relatively kind of marketplace at this point.
[19:09] And I mentioned to you, I have a nice capital risk cost of restboard storage is about ATA for our partners in the scenario that we look at.
[19:16] But generally speaking, some of them will be 80,000 in $20,000 in April, but and then of course the end all increase in the North County W2 and the high groundwater charge ranges 8.5 is actually without the Jacob, I'll be right along with 11% if we had minimal partnership participation did not proceed with the other plan, not believe we're going to end with a refresher on some of the board policy discussions that we want to have.
[19:45] You know, it doesn't make sense to continue doing food, take a rest of our expansion project,
[19:48] you know, the water supply must be passed, and that's the plan.
[19:50] One of the three tools and triggers is we would like us to come back and then what level of partnership
[19:56] participation should we use from a financial planning perspective.
[19:59] And that's all.
[20:08] Thank you, Chris.
[20:25] We done with, with, with, with, with, staff presentation.
[20:31] Correct. And all the questions. Okay, all right. We can let roll in and take this question, and then,
[20:37] will get with the board. Roll it.
[20:44] Thank you Mr. Trey and this is not a question, this is a comment.
[20:49] Okay. I mean, you see, oh, you got 30 quotes, I guess. Okay.
[20:56] Yes, thank you. So you have to be reasonable here. You can't just come up with this thing up to $200
[21:02] billion dollars. And you know, and you look at the 20k to take a full of storage. I mean,
[21:10] the numbers just don't matter if it doesn't pass out. It's a wrong project. So my recommendation
[21:18] to you, if you want to go to the private sector, don't go wrong telling them, oh yeah, you know,
[21:23] yeah, they are the iron, you got this exact billions of dollars. Have them look. This is what we want to
[21:31] what is your best idea? You basically give them a car to blast. And the best arrangement
[21:37] that you can possibly have, both from your point of view, and our point of view, which is the
[21:43] people who paying for all that at the end of the day, is you basically give them a confession.
[21:50] It's either 30, 50, or 99 years or whatever. And basically, here is the land, and you go around
[21:57] willing whatever it is that you want to do, to build it, you pay for it, and you maintain
[22:06] it, and we will pay you back for whatever service it is that you provide and do it.
[22:12] That's the best arrangement you can for today go for.
[22:15] God go to these people with whatever project it is that you're confident to come up with.
[22:20] That's my two sets. Thank you. Thank you, Roland. I just
[22:23] Roland's talking about a P3.
[22:27] Okay, questions then.
[22:33] Start.
[22:34] Start to show it.
[22:36] Thank you chair.
[22:38] I like us to have to explain this partnership options a little bit more.
[22:46] I've particularly the ones with partnership with private entities.
[22:50] I think that's what our.
[22:58] So, in the, on the slide, says form partnership with private entities to invest in capacity and sell their benefits to others.
[23:06] So I'm not sure how does this work like to understand it better.
[23:10] And also that partnership with federal or state agencies.
[23:14] I assume this is not other water management agency, this is the federal government and
[23:24] stake of the government, so how does that work with the partnership that we're thinking about?
[23:35] Sorry, it's the long mute.
[23:37] So let me go to an easy one of the partnerships with federal or state agencies.
[23:41] As I mentioned, DWR through the state of California has contributed to the product already for
[23:46] emergency supply benefit. What we can go to you is a full benefit that's basically pre-payed
[23:52] for in the times of emergency to stay control on that resource. It can be deployed most likely
[23:59] within our own county because that's where it's the easiest to get. And as that benefit is
[24:03] drawn upon, eventually we'll run after it's basically pre-payed only for a certain amount. They can
[24:09] and then read out and pay for more.
[24:11] In theory, outside of the was a program,
[24:15] we could approach DWR about whether they'd like
[24:18] a larger share of that emergency supply benefit.
[24:21] I believe the governor is very keen on crafting
[24:24] an emergency supply net based on the results
[24:27] of the last draft moving forward.
[24:29] So they are looking for emergency water supply.
[24:31] The cash with that is if we are releasing portions
[24:35] or selling portions of our emergency supply
[24:38] to the state, it wouldn't be available for operation, however, if we're saying that we're gonna
[24:45] let you pre-pay for, let's say, 20,000 acre feet a year, that 20,000 acre feet is dedicated,
[24:51] it must be in the reservoir, it cannot be taken out, so we can't transfer water in and out.
[24:56] From the federal perspective, I think I briefly talked about,
[25:00] U.S. B.R. The fact that they do own our potato pumping fund right now, and we are actually paying for it over time.
[25:07] A similar scenario could be thought about where we would, as part of the project, be constructing a pump station and conduit.
[25:14] If we could make any agreement with the United States Bureau of Reformation, they could actually let that out for construction pay for it out front.
[25:23] and then through the normal mechanisms of repaint, and as we have, as we have with the
[25:27] shape of a public plan, we could theoretically then paint them back over time for that asset.
[25:32] That will be a portion of the projects, you know, equating to the cost of the consultation
[25:36] of the conduit. There is additional potential to actually sell them space in the reservoir or
[25:43] a dedicated portion of the reservoir. That does come with some challenges, there's some water rights,
[25:48] There is some obligation that currently doesn't exist for U.S.
[25:53] Bureau of the Federal Government in that area, but they may be wary to undertake.
[25:57] So the cleanest path for that kind of partnership at a federal level is through the consultation in conduit.
[26:04] In terms of partnerships with private entities, I think everyone is aware of what a P3 is at this point.
[26:11] We were approached initially, but I want to say, get eight to ten months ago about a financing
[26:18] P3 that had looked into the project and knew about the whistful order and how it was structured
[26:23] in some of the different restrictions that were in place in terms of private ownership, and they
[26:30] thought that really the best way to move forward is through a financing P3 portion, right?
[26:37] productivity finance. If we're getting with you, that doesn't really make sense for us, but we are
[26:43] talking to Joe Jacobson, who worked with us on our P3 for our Advanced Certification Center,
[26:49] initiative moved forward on what types of different P3s might be structured for, you know,
[26:56] design, operation maintenance, and of the actual press board movement forward. I believe we have not
[27:04] And then you saw a hitch right now, but there is at least one scenario where there is a Southern California
[27:08] Reservoir that was built by a private entity and is in their own partnership with a local public agency.
[27:16] Charlie may have additional information about that and she has talked to Jill and in terms of partnerships by a third party with the
[27:23] Cultural Rights, that is where we would basically, we would construct the Reservoir out front,
[27:28] Depending on when a partner wanted to come in and execute their agreement, they would be purchasing a certain amount of water for storage, right, in the in the in the rest work.
[27:40] So let's say that we had 130,000, 130,000 HP, 30 or 140,000 HP, 35,000 subside.
[27:48] What's left of that 85, 95,000 would be ours to do with what we wanted in conjunction with
[27:54] Tempening Academy, of course, and we could be ready to sell, okay, and come up with a agreement
[27:59] where we would say in certain types of years, we would have an available water supply,
[28:04] which you would basically contract to purchase. Almost like we do with the state and CBK,
[28:10] where we have an allocation every year that we've contracted for and depending on the water scenario
[28:16] conditions we receive a portion of that allocation. So those are some of the different contractal rights
[28:22] that would be necessary or could be structured. We are still looking into what types of agreements
[28:29] or partnerships are partners interested in or a potential partners interested in because of
[28:34] course we want to make the project as attractive as can be. We don't want to define ourselves to a
[28:40] very separate criteria which may just automatically eliminate some types of partnerships with
[28:45] because one of the open-minded ones comes to looking at it, but actually, this is a very
[28:50] wonderful book.
[28:55] Thank you, Chris, for that detailed explanation. Just one follow-up.
[29:01] So, this P3 type of partnership. So, when we say sell their benefits to others and their
[29:10] others can be us. So, through their finance and structure, they own certain volume of water
[29:18] and then we purchased water from them when we needed.
[29:22] Is that correct?
[29:23] We would sell that water back to us, or if we were not in need of it, you know, basically
[29:28] if we wanted to just have a portion of the allocation, they could then sell that water
[29:33] on the open market to a different party.
[29:36] Now, you know, it's a little bit difficult, because as the private constituency
[29:39] correct now, the water kind of flows one way close from San Luis,
[29:43] we could directly work from the rest of the work into our system.
[29:45] So if they were then going to sell that water to a different party,
[29:50] they might need some changes to the climate structure that is currently in place.
[29:56] Especially since I believe that the Jekyll Pandu...
[30:27] Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
[30:29] when I first read this uh others I did not include us as part of the others so that's
[30:36] keep thinking of others really others and I thought oh there's that work I don't think you will
[30:41] work at least it's not going to work in an easy manner yeah yeah yeah so thank you
[30:50] okay next I don't see any
[30:58] uh
[30:58] up their hand, raise.
[31:01] Director Keegan.
[31:03] Third, Keegan.
[31:05] Thank you very much.
[31:06] And thank you, Chris, for a very thorough presentation.
[31:12] So complicated.
[31:13] Very complicated.
[31:18] You know, I think that one of the things that concerns me
[31:26] is the issues with the part, not that we couldn't mitigate
[31:31] those or deal with them appropriately. But I feel like it adds another layer of regulatory issues.
[31:39] Sometimes even there's financial issues associated with impacts to parks and how the parks
[31:47] were originally purchased and things like that. How deep have our discussions been? The staff
[31:56] report mentions that we've had discussions,
[32:00] but I'm going to say one of the fatal flaws,
[32:03] but what are the issues that are sort of being brought forward that you think you're going
[32:07] to be particularly a challenge?
[32:09] So we have talk to staff, both at the higher level of state level, at low level of some
[32:13] local staff, on what's in the potential improvements might be necessary in order to make this
[32:19] available for proper four state parks.
[32:22] What we're doing right now is talking to state parks about some of the different restrictions during the place.
[32:27] For what we can discern, what we're getting from state parks and people council.
[32:33] If you do eliminate a portion of the park, that portion of land is no longer part of it.
[32:38] It's easy to be a state evacuation area.
[32:40] And if it is a state evacuation area, there are some different restrictions that come along with that.
[32:46] I mean, obviously, as a recreation area, ask the live recreation purposes.
[32:49] It also has to be as an industry, right, so it does have to be management of that evacuation area.
[32:54] So, from the terms of just being as simple as where kind of the land swap is not quite that simple.
[33:02] That's why the option that we're actually presenting right now is the 2.5 billion dollar option,
[33:07] which is actually the downstream location with a person gap, right?
[33:11] If we were to make the part of the upstream location, that's actually a net savings for the product of about $2 million.
[33:17] We know that it's not an easy one, which is why we haven't put it in there as the base base scenario at this point
[33:25] Because it is one that takes some discussion to take parts and it will probably take some creative solutions in terms of our land management and land acquisition
[33:33] So it actually gets that that agreement to be automated if necessary.
[33:41] Well, it sounds like from what you're saying that we not only could be inviting additional
[33:47] regulatory oversight above and beyond just the mechanics of trying to work out the
[33:52] deal, but that that's something that could potentially be on the drawing.
[33:55] That is correct.
[34:00] Okay, so the devil will be in the details in terms of dealing with that.
[34:06] The letter from the Sierra Club questioned the timing of the EIR and suggested that we're
[34:18] being a little aggressive in our schedule and I know what things like environmental documents
[34:24] it's always what comes first, the chicken or the egg, right?
[34:28] And I think we have some lessons from Anderson where we needed additional studies to
[34:36] tell us very significant things about, you know, the project, particularly the subsurface
[34:43] conditions, the existing condition of the dam.
[34:47] Can you explain a little further as to, you know, why we want to go in the direction
[34:54] that we're going in as opposed to what the Sierra Club may be suggesting?
[35:00] I'm sure, so obviously, there is a requirement in the water source of the program, brain, it says that we need to produce a graph, the IAR, why we need to produce here.
[35:09] That is to secure our $407 million funding, at least until we get to the full reward section. That is one of the three requirements. The other is a feasibility report, as well as a commitment to funding up to 75% of the non-state benefits.
[35:25] In terms of producing the UNR, we have that outside of the UNR, the policies in terms of
[35:31] a very respectful analysis of what's required to this first phase of our new
[35:36] system.
[35:36] We're doing our environmental analysis as well.
[35:39] We're going out and doing our annual surveys to see who we're going to have required
[35:42] to be at the different impacts to some of the affected speech keys.
[35:46] As well as our cultural survey, it's kind of the normal pace of operations when it comes
[35:51] to exploration and the EIR production.
[35:55] Of course, I would say that because of the first time
[35:58] training, what was really lost is the ability
[36:01] to go through an extended planning phase.
[36:04] But in this circumstance, this part is a little bit unique.
[36:07] They did kind of go through some preliminary planning
[36:09] 15 years ago when they looked at where
[36:11] the different those boards could be situated.
[36:14] So this kind of the research of an existing project
[36:18] this kind of shell. In addition, at 2017, we actually went through a piece of
[36:23] liberty analysis in order to restart application for our first investment
[36:27] program. And we're basically, you know, being to these significantly
[36:32] feasible at that point, it's basically crossing keys, dotting eyes before we get our
[36:36] full piece of liberty determination. So I would say that we're actually taking this
[36:41] in the proper order and with all new care and diligence, the real question will
[36:45] We found the types of continents that we get from our record, right?
[36:49] Depending on the number and substance of the continents that come in, we could take us
[36:54] along with the finalized or finalized ones.
[36:56] And we're not trying to the part before the force, you know, we've got what we have in terms
[37:01] of schedule is aggressive schedule, but it's also reflecting on the fact that we are
[37:07] engaging with our regular agency's all-written.
[37:11] California, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it is actually a part of the process, not just the regulatory agency.
[37:17] We are actually talking to the National Leadership Service right now.
[37:20] When we engage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to see if they have a conference, right?
[37:24] It would be lessons that we wanted from Anderson to the United States people approach.
[37:28] But what we were taking forward right now and we're hoping that's going to take evidence in the company process.
[37:33] Ultimately, you know, we need to put our money where an office has to get to a company to make sure that we actually can get those things in the time of fashion.
[37:41] And that is one of the largest dumping lots of them comes to a lot of our watershed
[37:44] projects in NR, the Ancicycle Problem, so we're keenly aware of that, and we know
[37:49] what the large hurdle is above us, which is why I mentioned, but even if you have a significant
[37:54] delay to the starter construction, I think the current cost estimate will not significantly
[37:59] increase because we have a couple of different levers before to help bring those costs back now.
[38:04] Well, so we all know how to hope spring's eternal, right?
[38:10] Thank you for that detailed response.
[38:12] Just sort of one follow-up question to that, which would be, you know,
[38:19] we were talking about decision points, right?
[38:22] And so going through this,
[38:26] draft ER process at this time,
[38:29] could allow us a decision point based on what comes to the surface, both in terms of the
[38:37] additional planning and engineering work that's going to happen as part of that effort,
[38:44] but also in terms of the responses that we receive to that draft.
[38:51] So I guess that's something that I would be interested in.
[38:56] I think that that to be a very logical decision point for the board to really be thinking about our level of interest at that point.
[39:08] So, thank you very much.
[39:12] Through the chair.
[39:14] The right to be running.
[39:17] Thank you.
[39:18] So, I was one of the members that we bought a story to explore toward committee.
[39:26] We've heard each of these meetings most recently.
[39:30] from all groups, environmental groups, potential P3 partners that have come to the committee,
[39:41] and from all the various agencies that are interested in wanting to build this project
[39:48] or to minimize it or not build it at all. We've heard it all.
[39:53] But what I'm concerned about is the current price of water.
[40:00] On the spot market that we are currently paying for, and it's exploding. And whether or not you're aware,
[40:09] But California water is now being exchanged, being traded on the open exchange market, through
[40:18] Chicago Market and time.
[40:20] And it's one of the most explosive opportunities to buy water and hold it.
[40:26] Certain public employee retirement service groups are investing in California water.
[40:32] to hedge against future costs so that they have an asset that they enter and can sell
[40:39] to what are utilities such as Valley Water and others up and down the state of California.
[40:45] California Water is a hot commodity product.
[40:51] Here, Valley Water are only hitch against these future increases and costs that we have to
[40:59] pay.
[40:59] We have no choice, is to continue to find resources to build resources, to storm one, to offer some kind of respite against attitude, to buy, continue to buy water of the smart market, and we probably will have to even then.
[41:16] At the same time, continuing our expansion of water recycling water purification, potential
[41:25] desolination, the continuation of conservation levels, and hearing from many of the
[41:34] electives that are on the water commission meeting that I listened in on today.
[41:41] Our advocating, we must find ways to keep our water reach low, to continue to offer affordable
[41:48] water to be agricultural communities, and what about the mandated housing that the state
[41:53] of California is insisting that we build, and what about the water supply, who that?
[41:59] And the only reason where some come with I'm the director of is your moron for 4,000 housing youths in the city of Morgan, the other than you 4,000
[42:15] And there's black clothes not going to be involved in that. No one's going to be involved. The state is bad and it's up and down the state.
[42:23] So, what that being said, I don't really think we have no option, other than to continue developing the chapter.
[42:35] Now, we have options. We can consider downsizing the size of the facility.
[42:44] We can do the same with Anderson. We could look at options that we currently have.
[42:48] But we must build storage for the future, as we continue with all the other water supplies,
[42:57] sustainable options that we are looking at.
[43:01] The cost of water is increasing, so when is it a good time to buy a house?
[43:07] Right now, when is it a good time to invest in water infrastructure?
[43:13] Right now.
[43:14] So, that's my opinion and I think it's important that we continue the conversation to bring
[43:20] Pachea going to the forest with my colleagues.
[43:24] Director.
[43:25] Thank you, Director.
[43:26] Next one.
[43:27] Director, was that in the Vice Chair?
[43:28] Director, was that in the Vice Chair?
[43:36] Chris could just go over again the slide that talked about the financing plan.
[43:43] I did quite follow the funding sources diagram to the allocation of finance.
[43:48] I'll pull it back up and then I'll actually take it to Charlie and if she's going to be the best source of info.
[44:00] Is this a sign you're talking about for her?
[44:02] Yes.
[44:04] Charlie, take away.
[44:06] Good afternoon, chair members of the board.
[44:09] I'm Sean Lee's son, treasuring the officer for value water.
[44:12] Good afternoon.
[44:13] Could you please?
[44:15] Maybe a lot of way I'm with the question is.
[44:18] So I see two scenarios there.
[44:21] actually my slide on the allocation of funding has writing in the report and the report.
[44:32] Okay, so you're talking about the, okay, it seems like the process slide is missing some.
[44:43] Yeah, it shows correctly on mine, but I'm going to see if I can get it up.
[44:47] So, okay, hang on with that.
[44:48] And while you're doing that, my question is, the funding sources, how does that relate to allocation of funding?
[44:57] Okay, Chris, I've got this right now.
[45:00] I'm sorry for my screen if you want to stop here. I can share my screen.
[45:05] Okay, so I can speak to it more clearly. So okay, let me just explain this graph. Can everyone see it now?
[45:13] Yes? Yes. On the left hand side of the graph, it's dealing with the funding sources are. So we have three major funding sources.
[45:22] The WIFI alone, which is a low-cost federal loan, that we're going to be actively pursuing,
[45:28] and of course the WISIT grant, and the funder grant would have to issue long-term bonds to pay for it.
[45:34] So that's the funding sources. On the next to us, so this is probably the entire project, right?
[45:41] So this may be, then, you know, so this may then be, at least at the debt financing portions,
[45:47] then we'll be allocated to partners if we get partners.
[45:51] So that's what the charge on the right-hand side is trying to demonstrate.
[45:56] Right? So in order, and this is the charge on the right-hand side is demonstrating that partners,
[46:04] in the previous line, Chris has talked about that once in their rail,
[46:07] is that we would try to sell 50,000 acre feet or 36% of the reservoir, right?
[46:14] And when you take that into, just you know, a mathematical equation that equals about 91,
[46:21] 91 billion dollars, 36 percent of the entire project. And so,
[46:25] so does that really get rid of the funds?
[46:29] No, so that means that partners will be paying a share of any debt financing.
[46:35] So, in this, for example, in this scenario, we're trying to present is the entire debt financing,
[46:43] You know, the RIP the alone and long-term debt, the total financing cost is 3.8 billion,
[46:50] and that's principal interest, advertised over at 30 or 35 years, and the average annual
[46:56] debt service is around $81 billion. So that means that potentially the other partners would be responsible
[47:03] for a 36% of that 81 billion annual debt service properly speaking, right? So, so this is attempting to
[47:10] there with the cost implications might look like.
[47:13] Now, it may be a different scenario.
[47:15] For example, the partners may want to structure
[47:17] their own financing and come up with cash
[47:20] to pay for the project up front, that may be an unnecessary.
[47:24] But nevertheless, this picture is just trying to show you
[47:27] if we were to arrange the entire financing for the project
[47:30] and just bring partners on to bear
[47:32] the portion of that cost within what look like.
[47:34] And that's the scenario, for example,
[47:36] where you have been in discussion with San Daniel,
[47:38] where they would like us to arrange all of the financing and they just, you know, the invoice for two and a half percent or ten percent or whatever the auction would want to exercise.
[47:47] Does that answer your question?
[47:49] Yeah, none of that makes sense.
[47:51] We're basically going to get all the money and then have partners to help pay us back or their share of the principle of interest based upon what their share of the water they're going to be receiving.
[48:05] All right, in this and there, that would be true, but I'm saying that, you know, there could be other scenarios where the partner wants to do their own financing or bring up with right
[48:15] Your own cash and then would look a little bit different. Nevertheless, that year is so that it would still be paying for up to 36% of the total project cost. However, it's finance whether it's cash or through us or some other means.
[48:27] So we need to, we need to, this scenario, you're suggesting that our partners, our partners, are going to equal 36 percent.
[48:38] And okay.
[48:39] And we don't know who our partners are or what they're going to be willing to come up with.
[48:45] That, that is what is going to be under discussion met by person, Garth and others. Yes.
[48:52] With partners. Yes.
[48:54] This is what we would be going after.
[48:59] What are we going to, but over on the blue side we've got the San Benito and our workers together for 44%.
[49:11] That's not, that's not a partner that's over in the 66% San Benito is in with us on this 44%.
[49:19] Yes.
[49:20] It's not the real capacity.
[49:21] We have an MOU with San Benito, where they are interesting participating in two and a half
[49:26] percent to start with an option to increase that up to 10 percent.
[49:31] Of that 44 percent.
[49:34] Of the 44, right, right, right, right.
[49:36] And like I said, the partners are,
[49:42] yet to be the type of, we're shouldn't open a prayer.
[49:45] Yeah.
[49:45] We need to do that.
[49:46] But if we, I mean, our costs and our liability, our dead service,
[49:52] could be the total if we don't get any partners.
[49:56] That's correct.
[50:00] All right. Thank you. Vice chair.
[50:06] Oh, thank you chair.
[50:10] Meet staff to talk a little bit about. I understand that there might be infrastructure bill.
[50:18] Where this could play in the infrastructure bill.
[50:22] I've heard as low as $1 trillion to as much as $10 trillion.
[50:29] with the team.
[50:30] I'm going to ask John Roach and talk about what he knows about the infrastructure bill that's currently being drafted and what any potential might be or about water.
[50:39] So benefit and it's all those fun.
[50:43] And you please repeat the question, Vice Chair, was that the regard of the federal side?
[50:47] Yes.
[50:48] Well, well, both, I understand that we're covering their potentially, I've heard that there might be more than a dollar.
[50:56] but it's coming here.
[50:58] Is that accurate?
[51:00] Well, I really am.
[51:01] I've heard the number of trillion from Credible Health.
[51:04] Come on.
[51:04] Oh, no.
[51:05] Thank you for the question.
[51:06] I'm going to defer to our room on our state side
[51:09] to see if you can provide anything there on this state.
[51:12] And then as far as the federal side,
[51:14] I'll follow up on that.
[51:17] I'd like to have to.
[51:20] Good afternoon.
[51:23] We're regarding the state side, the opportunities
[51:27] from funding of a dam project are very low, almost none. In fact, in a $2 billion early action budget
[51:42] proposal that was released last week by the Senate Pro-Tem's office based specifically state
[51:51] non-down projects, low-hanging fruit that could be executed quickly for drought response.
[51:58] That's a $2 billion package, none of it will include dam funding.
[52:04] Valleywater is advocating for dam safety funding through bonds that are, there are two major
[52:10] bond bills moving through the legislature now, one of the Senate and one of the assembly,
[52:15] and we are advocating for seismic retrofit of dams funding and but ultimately for the
[52:25] Pachinko project there doesn't seem to be very much opportunity except for through the existing
[52:31] water storage investment program through the California Water Commission. That's the
[52:45] up to $496 million. Those funds are only going to be made available as other wisdom, allocated
[52:58] projects, actually withdraw, and make their funds available for a second solicitation.
[53:06] And so, as a matter of fact, I think that happened.
[53:10] You're ready with Temperance Flaps, as an example.
[53:12] It didn't really happen.
[53:13] It did happen with Temperance Flaps.
[53:15] And basically what the Water Commission decided to do
[53:18] was to allocate 46 million to two groundwater projects.
[53:24] They didn't receive full funding through the first solicitation.
[53:27] And then to allocate $61 million to an inflation adjustment
[53:33] for the existing wizard funded projects
[53:35] of which Pacheco received $12 million additional, and then finally, $64 million has been
[53:42] held for a second solicitation, which Valley Water could pursue either for Pacheco and
[53:50] or Anderson. So, but that's just $64 million. However, if some other visit on the project were
[53:57] to not meet the deadline of January 1st, 2022 for released withdrawal today are 75% of
[54:05] their non-state funding and a feasibility study. If they can't meet those requirements,
[54:10] then there might be more money available for reallocation. However, all of that is an uncertainty
[54:17] at this point. Thank you, Bart. And then on the federal side, Vice Chair. As far as the infrastructure
[54:24] You're building a year mark funding opportunities.
[54:26] Our best chance of funds for Pacheco's understanding is the infrastructure package.
[54:31] And we are advocating for that, of course, and we'd like to include funding for any new storage
[54:35] or I'm sorry, new water storage projects.
[54:38] There could be a new pop this could be our new pot of funding to replace the WINX storage
[54:41] funding, but we still need to go through the feasibility determination process in order to be eligible.
[54:47] While this infrastructure bill may provide an opportunity for your marks, we don't
[54:50] know yet.
[54:51] and negotiate some going on, but as I mentioned,
[54:53] we are of our course trying to advocate
[54:54] for the inclusion of the Jacob already.
[54:58] All right, so I'm glad, guys.
[55:00] I guess they have sent to the board and say, maybe we should move this in that highest legislative
[55:04] priority, at least on the federal side. You know, now's the time to do it. And one of the thoughts I mean, I can
[55:13] put in a form of emotion to make this a question. One can think of a higher priority than this, I'd
[55:19] want to know. Well, let's hold the motions, but we can certainly entertain it, but let's just hold them
[55:30] But definitely.
[55:32] I'll show you.
[55:33] No, don't show it out, either.
[55:36] We didn't go to slide 11.
[55:59] Is this exactly comparing apples and oranges and I'll explain why I'm talking about this?
[56:05] Aren't you going to be a back in the mill or a back?
[56:10] It's more the same problem of water stored in that we can't get back.
[56:15] I think every board member who's here willing to do a first-low challenge is saved by
[56:21] Greens.
[56:22] So I'd say I'll make the comment that that's not campus and orgies at all and also we
[56:29] have known our out of the counties.
[56:31] So if you look at the pre-benefit of emergency water in case of an earthquake which we all
[56:38] So MacMolan, A-Bak, and lots of the parents don't help us all out of MacMolan, says my help us.
[56:47] And I think that's actually a good project, so I just want to make that out of the county, it's pretty far away.
[56:53] And not every thing, emergency water is not the same as normal water, I know that sounds crazy.
[57:00] But we know, we know Earthquakes, we know there can be an accident in the Delta, where saltwater floods, and so I would say,
[57:10] class only is not our only way we look at things.
[57:15] So that's 11, and then if we go to poor team,
[57:22] in the recent 80 comments, if you can start to debate, it's never seen this slide before.
[57:26] I looked at our last place in the game once in a year.
[57:29] So on this slide, what also is missing is the benefits, the disadvantage, the
[57:35] communities, which I think is one of our social injustice, goals, or, you know, is a
[57:40] plug-in foliage and see that's important.
[57:44] Also, no new water supplies, not afterwards.
[57:48] I mean, it would be applicable to how well you would do.
[57:51] So, there's actually some new water supplies, and the second is, it's climate change.
[57:58] Believers, we all know that there's going to be more precipitation, less snow-tastic.
[58:04] So, we're not going to be able to have the snow-tastic, the same kind of storage it would be.
[58:09] So, that water is going to run off the less there's new storage.
[58:13] So, this has been taken into account climate change, which I think we all agree on.
[58:19] So no new water supply, not exactly true, missing disadvantaged community protection and emergency storage.
[58:35] So let's go talk about, sorry, I got a lot to say, but I'm trying to keep the shorter.
[58:42] Is this issue around the parks that directed to you and said, you know, $200 billion is also a big number.
[58:51] And I think we heard from Boston State Senator Kevierro that she's very much in favor as other people are at the recreational backfills.
[59:01] What are the benefits in this area?
[59:06] Was that the slide?
[59:08] What's the slide?
[59:09] This is what we've opened with because you are absolutely correct.
[59:13] There are benefits basically inherent to value water.
[59:15] One of them is flood protection to disadvantaged communities,
[59:19] as well as basic emergency water supply.
[59:22] These, these, oh, I got the water quality problem.
[59:25] Right there.
[59:26] Not in that slide.
[59:27] Yeah.
[59:28] And basically, the benefit is absolutely emergency water
[59:31] is taking county.
[59:32] And that's a benefit that's unique to us.
[59:34] And we're talking partners.
[59:35] Some of those other benefits don't kind of say they don't
[59:37] work, but they may have their own unique benefits as well.
[59:41] Yeah.
[59:41] So just want to bring out these benefits,
[59:45] because these benefits were not as a presentation.
[59:49] And we know that things are getting tougher
[59:51] to get water across the Delta.
[59:53] And if you can store it in above normal years,
[59:57] or because there's no harm, issue that we're not going to do.
[1:00:00] We'll be able to have the snowpacks as our netflix store. So I just want to bring those up to back to the parks issue.
[1:00:07] Maybe that also can be gotten to legislative priorities because I know my students with the head of the parks, who used to be the head of the water commission arm.
[1:00:16] This might be looked at very favorably. Good, because issues around can be felt.
[1:00:22] But we keep, that's all I have to say for now. So I love to hear what other directors have to say.
[1:00:26] Thank you Vice Chair, good comments.
[1:00:29] But I got direct the Santos followed by direct the Liza.
[1:00:38] Thank you, Tony.
[1:00:40] You know, all the colleagues here has made some good points.
[1:00:44] There's no question.
[1:00:45] You know, let's go back to reality.
[1:00:47] I really support what Vice Chair Cremon has said,
[1:00:52] of course, and Director Verella, especially
[1:00:54] Director Verella, on about costs and issues.
[1:00:57] Today, you know, everything's about costs.
[1:00:59] But let's go back with the C-19 liquid as cause society today. We've got robins, killings,
[1:01:06] I can go on and on. It's just increasing every single day when you have an issue.
[1:01:11] Let's go back years ago when there was a fuel shortage. And the same thing happened.
[1:01:16] Could you imagine a society without water? So we don't seem to want to address that issue
[1:01:21] where we pay more damage control and you noble pay triple. So I understand what people have
[1:01:28] concerned by cost, but that's not my motivation.
[1:01:31] My motivation is that we have a source of water for now
[1:01:35] and the next generation that I've repeated
[1:01:37] the same conversation and you'll pay more in damage control.
[1:01:40] 20 years today, some of us are gone.
[1:01:43] That generation is going to look back and say,
[1:01:45] you know those men and women that were elected during that time,
[1:01:48] they stood up and they made sure that we had water.
[1:01:51] Because right now folks were in a drought.
[1:01:54] And as John just got through saying,
[1:01:56] look at the cost that's being elevated right now. I don't see anybody talking about the options
[1:02:01] if you don't have water. That dam was built for a reason and people like ourselves somehow let it
[1:02:07] go to waste or whatever or fall down because they didn't want to subdivide with finances. Well,
[1:02:15] Anderson's going to be down for 10 years. Hello and I keep on hearing for different groups.
[1:02:20] to keep on telling me about water conservation, I agree.
[1:02:23] But if you don't have water, how are you going to conserve?
[1:02:27] So we better wake up and realize that's not about us here today.
[1:02:32] It's how do we guarantee the future for the young cremants and Michelle's
[1:02:37] grandchild and Tony's grandkids and my family and everyone else.
[1:02:41] I got mine.
[1:02:43] If that cost is going to cause you hesitation, it doesn't cost me because we'll pay way
[1:02:49] as John said, what's going on right now, why are people buying water because they know they
[1:02:54] can sell it and make nothing but money? And that's our business. And we must take care
[1:02:58] of the residents who pay the tax. We are in a drought. Hello, everybody here. We are in a drought.
[1:03:07] So we need to make sure there is water. No one comes up in any option if there's no water
[1:03:13] in this society will destroy itself if we don't have a source. Now there's other issues we can
[1:03:18] doing, counter-costal so on, the public can speed those up to make sure we have a good
[1:03:22] supply. I have no problem with that. But this Bacheco is a necessity. It's an alternate source,
[1:03:30] it's a emergency source, and it's water that has run it out to the ocean and we're not allowing
[1:03:35] it. We've got to stop it now before we pay way more damage control. Take this seriously as I know
[1:03:41] you all are when you all have good questions. But don't let this go as the people before us did.
[1:03:47] I'm not for that. If you want to be one-fifth day economy in California, then you've got
[1:03:54] to have water. To have the firm for C-19. To have the food that we eat. We've got to work
[1:04:00] together to make sure there's a source of water for the rest generation. So this is not a
[1:04:04] political speech, it's reality. I'm for this project 100%. There's other things we can do before
[1:04:10] that. I got no problem. This water storage committee is then a great job and we've got it all to you.
[1:04:16] I have no problem taking the insuendos or maybe said on the cost of this net
[1:04:22] But when you don't have water, we're going to see a society that will tear each other to pieces and
[1:04:27] Look at places and you know all we got to do is just bring the folks out from Israel out here
[1:04:32] They'll tell you how to grow stuff in desert
[1:04:34] We keep on forgetting about the experts, so we need to get to get together and all this different people who call in
[1:04:41] But they really don't know about reality.
[1:04:45] I've lived through disasters and my career,
[1:04:49] and at home when I lost everything through floods and so on.
[1:04:52] Today we've got to recapture that water.
[1:04:54] And right now we're trying to make deals for recycling.
[1:04:57] Look at the problems we're going through.
[1:04:58] Just to make sure.
[1:05:00] This Santa Clara County residents have a source of water. And I would commend everybody here to invest in ourselves to have water. So thank you.
[1:05:12] Thank you, Director Santos. Director Lizard?
[1:05:18] Chris, are we on track, we're complying with the January 1st, 2020 regulations under the
[1:05:26] WISP funding?
[1:05:28] I'm particularly concerned about that we have to have 75% of the non-public benefit
[1:05:33] cost share of the project.
[1:05:37] So, as I mentioned, there are three components.
[1:05:39] Two of them are easily on the hand.
[1:05:41] Yeah, this slammed up.
[1:05:42] I'm just worried about the last.
[1:05:44] And that basically what we need is a commitment from the board to fund 75% of the non-state benefits.
[1:05:51] And it's up to the board, how do you get one of the right that commitment?
[1:05:53] But if you're looking for partnerships in hand, then for 25% of the product,
[1:05:58] then we're not on target, but if the board is comfortable saying that regardless of how partnership discussions go,
[1:06:05] you guys are willing to fund 75% of the non-state benefit, then yes, we could do that today.
[1:06:11] And how much is that?
[1:06:14] So that would be about a one and a half billion dollars in our current estimate, I believe.
[1:06:20] Because you have about almost 500,000 or 500 million in prop 1 grant,
[1:06:25] subtracted from the two and a half billion overall costs.
[1:06:28] So you're living at 75% of two billion dollars.
[1:06:34] And that two billion is today's dollar, right?
[1:06:39] But today, as in 2020, I'm at 2020, I'm at 2019.
[1:06:44] It's actually escalated to the midpoint of construction.
[1:06:46] So it's real.
[1:06:48] In terms of, it's not going to get more expensive just because we decided we're going to call 2020 $28.
[1:06:55] Okay.
[1:06:57] Thank you.
[1:06:58] But that's 75 is whatever, whatever combination we have like with your loans and so on, right?
[1:07:04] Correct, we can basically all we have to do is make the commitment to fund that if we get with you for 49%
[1:07:11] That's our personal funding mechanism. Okay, additional partners that end up funding, you know 50 or 60% of the project. That's our business.
[1:07:18] All right, so I thought I thought with me it was not in the 75%
[1:07:23] With it is just a funding mechanism. It's not an actual allocation of additional money, right? Right, so we'll cost mom. So we
[1:07:44] So if we said 75% that includes loans and so on, that's a commitment that will comply and then we have to worry about how that's paid like, you know, if you get a loan, how are we going to pay for that?
[1:07:59] correct. Okay. Directil is not anything further for now. No, no, that was it. Thanks.
[1:08:07] No problem. Let's see. Anybody else I have a few questions myself.
[1:08:13] Sorry?
[1:08:15] Okay. Let me ask a few questions and then I get to the vice chair.
[1:08:20] I want to remind people that, you know, when energy brown,
[1:08:26] fat 90% of the budget to get us where we are today, people freaked out, people were jumping
[1:08:33] out of out of one story, buildings, going nuts, nobody was not only were they running
[1:08:41] around with heron fire and so on, but people were going nuts. Some of them were to the
[1:08:50] that's how bad it was. But where would we be today if that hadn't happened? So I want to remind
[1:08:56] people that looking at cost isn't the only thing that we have to worry about. Yeah, we've got to look
[1:09:04] at cost, but that's a given. I hear people talking about cost just like, you know, the water commission,
[1:09:11] every single person that told us, we should go after federal funding. Like, we wouldn't have thought
[1:09:16] about that. Thank God, they suggested it. You know, so we won't worry, you know, you got
[1:09:22] to worry about cost. Oh, nobody wants rates to be raised. Those were all a given. But
[1:09:30] like I said, you know, if we had not been, for people to do the hard lifting, like the
[1:09:36] recticentals mentioned, if Edmigie Brown had not stood up to everybody who's the only
[1:09:42] God that has done it since then. Nobody's done it since then. But that's why where we are
[1:09:50] because nobody has had the courage to do it and we know it's got to be done. Like the
[1:09:57] The central says, we have...
[1:10:01] But our responsibility is to the future. And I always, you know, I always say, this is why I always say, we are now, where those folks, Epigee Brown, direct the land ahead, those folks then that created all of the infrastructure that we enjoy and benefit from today, that's where we are now.
[1:10:26] That infrastructure is coming to an end.
[1:10:31] The population has tripled since then,
[1:10:34] and so in a different situation,
[1:10:37] but the obligation as I see is the same as the one they had,
[1:10:43] which was to worry about people that will be here in two generations from now.
[1:10:50] So I think we got to look at it that way.
[1:10:52] And I understand we have to talk about numbers and of course we will, but but you know, we have to put this in perspective.
[1:11:00] Everybody wants to talk about COVID. Oh, well, that's going on now.
[1:11:05] Let's, you know, a year ago, nobody imagined we would be dealing with COVID.
[1:11:12] So, we don't know what will happen years from now, but what we do know is as we have tried to tell people,
[1:11:19] There is no new source of water.
[1:11:24] We have to deal with the situation as it is now.
[1:11:27] And remember the reason why we even considered that
[1:11:30] Pachekal was an efficient solution is because when we had
[1:11:38] the reason why our storage capacity is where it is,
[1:11:42] down south, is because of one or two very wet years
[1:11:46] During a new, we're still benefiting from that, from that rain years later, so that's the idea of a
[1:11:55] Pachicle that when we have wet years, we could collect it, then we could store it, and then we have it, and that provides from years now.
[1:12:04] So just to put it perspective what it is, and remind ourselves, why we're even considering this stuff.
[1:12:11] Now, we obviously have already laid out the reasons for it, and so, and so, I think we
[1:12:21] got to look at how we present some of these things.
[1:12:26] Inforicists, on our numbers, we should talk about what the bottom line is for us as a district,
[1:12:37] And then try and get that. So what I mean is if you look at the water-raise structure
[1:12:44] that we've laid out, we've said, with Pacheco, it'll be 1% 1% increase of rates for
[1:12:50] the next, whatever 100 years. Well, I think we have to say that that's not what's going
[1:12:56] to happen because we're going to have to do alternatives. We're going to have to go
[1:13:00] after partnerships. We're going to have to do something else. And then that's the
[1:13:05] that's our commitment as a district. If that doesn't happen, then we can't do it. I think that's what we need to do today.
[1:13:14] It's to say, lay down exactly what we're willing, what it is that we are willing to do as a bottom line
[1:13:24] and then try and find that. If it doesn't come to fruition, then we can't do it.
[1:13:31] I think we've got time for that approach to lay down what the foundation will be
[1:13:38] look. This is how far we're willing to go. We think we can go and then work on
[1:13:45] that. Whatever combination that is, we still not sure how successful we'll be
[1:13:50] a partnerships. I think we'll be very successful with partnerships because there
[1:13:56] are a lot of value organizations that really need the kind of stories that we
[1:14:01] provide. I mean, if we think we're in a bad boat, they're in a much worse boat and they're
[1:14:07] in much greater the need than we have to storage. And so I think that's what we need to do with
[1:14:14] lay down what the bottom line is. We are not willing to pay this amount of water rates. We're only
[1:14:21] willing to do this much. And so on, I think if we do that, we'd be more comfortable talking to our
[1:14:29] community and our constituents about what the commitment is.
[1:14:33] And then when we compare the benefits and the costs,
[1:14:38] I think it will make more sense to people.
[1:14:41] But we got to remind ourselves, what the folks before us did,
[1:14:46] they had the courage to say, yeah, we know it's going to cost.
[1:14:50] But again, cost, there's two sides of the legion cost.
[1:14:55] One is what it's going to cost to do.
[1:14:57] And the other one is what it's going to cost NOT!
[1:15:00] And we never put that up. When we did the report to the city council, we never told them, what's it going to cost? Was Silicon Valley? Silicon Valley? Not to have water. What's that going to cost? What's it going to cost with Google and all these guys? Apple and all these folks are not serviced. What's that going to cost? When people can't watch the hands, you got to take a bath once a week and so on.
[1:15:30] What is that cost? I think we have to spend some time determining what that is and all these charts
[1:15:38] Or to be right next to this chart. It's gonna cost as much. We ought to say yeah
[1:15:43] This is what it's gonna what is it cost you to take a shower once a week instead of daily or whenever you want or whenever you need
[1:15:49] This is what it's gonna cost
[1:15:51] Okay, that's what I think we got it. We got to start talking about so that we could look at this in the right frame of mind
[1:15:57] Anyway, that's my two cents
[1:16:00] Vice chair was next
[1:16:05] is usual. I'm so my thunder. I was really looking at the last time of a big project like this came on it's a big water project like you mentioned. It passed by and I was reading some of the old news articles.
[1:16:20] There was so much opposition. It passed by 20 million votes cast 174,000. That was the margin real small margin on that and people raised the same things.
[1:16:32] Aren't we happy now that our four mothers and four fathers did that and you'll never find one of those no votes around you
[1:16:39] Nobody will ever admit it. They voted against that. If they were alive. Yeah
[1:16:44] So I know it's tough because we're facing this short you know
[1:16:49] I always you know at me I always complain about we do things at water time and doing something to me on water time
[1:16:56] The benefits of doing that are you don't look at this short term where it rates now today
[1:17:01] And if you look at what's going to happen in the future,
[1:17:04] you know, at the water commission today,
[1:17:06] someone who is a suit, I think it was
[1:17:09] the last guy who's Councilwoman Maria,
[1:17:12] Ristau said, well, if you look at the cost of not doing
[1:17:15] could shake away, you're not adding in there,
[1:17:17] is what's going to be the cost of the alternative
[1:17:19] going to buy stuff on this market, rationing,
[1:17:23] companies leaving, et cetera?
[1:17:27] So, I grew a direct rest of Mara, and as of now, I support this project, even though it's painful.
[1:17:40] Man, click, we have it.
[1:17:42] Okay.
[1:17:49] Oh, Mr. Gary raises hand.
[1:17:51] Yes, good afternoon, Andy.
[1:17:57] Are you muted?
[1:17:59] Okay.
[1:18:00] Good afternoon.
[1:18:02] Okay.
[1:18:03] Thanks for having me in recognizing me.
[1:18:06] You know, Senator Water Company is a pre-pick stakeholder in Santa Clara Valley Water
[1:18:12] District Valley Water, we're the largest retailers, so our rate payers essentially purchase
[1:18:18] half the water provided by Valley Water.
[1:18:21] So what do we have?
[1:18:22] We have a great strong interest in how water rates are impacted by infrastructure.
[1:18:27] Now I'll be the first one to tell you, we have to have a resilient water supply and we have
[1:18:32] to make investment in infrastructure.
[1:18:36] But when we see the increases in the cost of this project, you know, it looks like it's approaching
[1:18:42] on economic and that's that's today into the future, at a 2.5% adder to our 8.5% sort of into
[1:18:52] the future of water rate, that's pretty substantial for a project that creates very little
[1:18:59] water, branded ads, flexibility ads, and storage, and my sense is that investment could be
[1:19:06] better made in new water supplies, expanding, direct foldable, indirect foldable. We use
[1:19:13] investment in the most precarious, which, by the way, is north of the pumps north of
[1:19:18] Delta, and provides an avenue to bring valley water supplies into the county, even with
[1:19:25] interruptions to the pumps even if you know water fix doesn't happen. So a lot of advantages
[1:19:33] there and perhaps a bigger participation in that project could be a bigger benefit. This may
[1:19:40] be a viable project at some time. You know it's in something sort of to perhaps keep on a back
[1:19:46] burner but if you look at the way water demand is going now and the district's draft of water
[1:19:52] and plan is showing, you know, a decline in the expectation of water of men and, and that's what
[1:19:57] E.C. is well.
[1:20:00] The timing for this project may not be right, and it's a pretty expensive risk to take, particularly when you look at the need for other partners to kind of come through to, you know, make it even reasonably at now.
[1:20:13] So I want the board to really consider that, you know, half the county is put in the
[1:20:19] build for this through some of the water company and half to the other retailers.
[1:20:23] There's a lot of other beneficiaries downstream, whether it's environmental benefits,
[1:20:27] political benefits, that aren't really, that aren't really paid into the project.
[1:20:31] And so perhaps if there's some other ways to finance it and get the actual capital and
[1:20:35] get service costs off of the water rate payers, it looks a little better.
[1:20:39] But right now, it does not look like an economic project to me.
[1:20:42] Thanks. Thank you.
[1:20:48] Can I ask staff, is it true that there's no increase in supply?
[1:20:55] I mean, if you look at, if you just look back at the weather,
[1:21:02] even if you have one or two dry years at a five or ten,
[1:21:07] and you have substantial storage capacity that can pick up some of that supply
[1:21:14] that nobody's going to use that's going to go to waste. How much is that? Isn't that new supply?
[1:21:19] Isn't new supply water that you're not capturing? Is that new?
[1:21:27] New? I'm going to ask. I mean,
[1:21:28] water that isn't going to end up in the ocean? Isn't that new?
[1:21:35] I'm going to ask a meter or
[1:21:37] to participate and talk about how we model our water supplies.
[1:21:42] Thank you.
[1:21:47] Or maybe I could, maybe I could, or be sure, say I'm on.
[1:21:51] Okay, thank you, Sam.
[1:21:53] I was going to say I could, I could answer them.
[1:21:55] Oh, if you'd like to, you could both answer them.
[1:22:00] I'm, I'd say, I'm with a senior water resources specialist with the water supply and planning
[1:22:08] unit. And so the way we look at Pacheco, it's really a surface water thing. The surface
[1:22:16] water that does go in there, the majority of that goes to the fish benefits. So the added
[1:22:22] space that this reservoir is creating is for us to think are existing important water contracts
[1:22:29] of ice. So you're saying that no rain falls in there and no rain will be captured. And
[1:22:37] So when we have a real wet year, we're not going to capture more rain and the storage isn't
[1:22:44] going to increase.
[1:22:47] Is that what we're saying?
[1:22:50] Well, I don't care who benefits because the risk don't benefit from that, we're still
[1:22:55] going to provide it anyway.
[1:22:58] So is there an increase in water supply in a rain year, in a very wet year, taken in a
[1:23:06] year, like we've had before, where we had the capacity to store more water down south.
[1:23:13] What does that give us?
[1:23:14] Why do we would provide to fish then, yeah?
[1:23:17] Doesn't matter who we provide it to, because, you know, my point is, this more water.
[1:23:25] What we do with it is a different issue.
[1:23:27] My point is, that's new water.
[1:23:31] Water that we lose now, but then we'll capture
[1:23:35] Because of what we've done is new water.
[1:23:41] I mean, it doesn't matter what we do with it. We're going to have it to do something with like drink it
[1:23:48] But it's all provided to the fish or whatever, but it's new water, but right now it's lost
[1:23:56] So, you know, maybe we need a new definition. I don't know
[1:24:00] But isn't that true? I mean, when we had a linear wet years, that's how we got the savings to put it in our water bag
[1:24:09] That's what we got the water from. I mean, we didn't just, you know, start paying for more water to bank. We got a lot of it because we had
[1:24:17] What years I was here. I remember every every time we had a meeting it was it was storming outside. It was a wet year. It's overwhelmingly wet. Two years back to back elineal and that's how we put it we put away a lot of that water
[1:24:33] in in the bank. So I don't you know, why why are we talking about?
[1:24:38] What the capacity is, it's an increase in capacity, which means we capture water, that would have been lost.
[1:24:46] Why don't we call that new water? Because it is, it's new water to us.
[1:24:52] You know, I don't know, maybe a new definition.
[1:24:56] Captured water, I don't know, newly captured water.
[1:25:00] Increasing supply, because of the storage capacity.
[1:25:07] So I don't, I mean,
[1:25:11] am I, am I, am I, is that an illusion or,
[1:25:18] or are we looking at it differently?
[1:25:23] Third sense.
[1:25:25] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, not to turn on Samantha here, just it's a matter of, no, no, no, I'm saying for myself.
[1:25:33] And everything you're saying to him, I agree with 100%, let's go back to Anderson, when we
[1:25:39] have people complain, well, the water, you know, Anderson should have held more in blah, blah, blah,
[1:25:44] just think of Anderson wasn't there in the coyote flood.
[1:25:48] We're not talking 4,000 CSFs, we're talking 25,000 if it wasn't there.
[1:25:54] When the pioneers came here, this valley was underwater, and that's where the people before
[1:26:00] We're doing things with fishing and whatever have you and feeding your animals and so we built a van for one reason to store water to supplement all these things
[1:26:09] It helps reduce the flood as well as provide water and so everything is Tony saying is I'm just saying that's a common sense issue
[1:26:16] Right now that water's coming down and it's not going in to
[1:26:22] But check goes that should be it's going to soap lake and that's increasing and then the water is always to watch the bill
[1:26:28] you name it to the ocean we're losing it so we want to recapture it was built there in the
[1:26:32] beginning for that same reason and you can get water comes up on the top of Merced all the way
[1:26:37] down so we need to capture that water it's such a just a common sense issue and you know it's so
[1:26:43] hard to have new dams that either get anything so we have one that's there I just for me personally
[1:26:48] and I'm sure other people have the same feeling why lose something that was there it was there
[1:26:53] purpose to augment water supply and to make sure we have enough and we've got to continue
[1:26:58] with that. Don't lose this because it's we are not able to get new dams today in California
[1:27:04] because of all the infighting, all the different opinions whatever have you. So we've got to keep
[1:27:08] what we got because we'll never get that chance again. So I should hope that's the way of recapturing.
[1:27:14] It's a water source and again, it's for the generation that comes after us. It's our obligation to
[1:27:21] Make sure there's water and like Tony said, let's take a look at all the costs and see what
[1:27:25] could do.
[1:27:25] Look at all the grants, wifey and all the different things and proposition one put them all
[1:27:30] together.
[1:27:30] But today, as the water storage committee has said, partnerships is the only way we're going
[1:27:35] to make it.
[1:27:36] San Jose will have to learn the hard way either.
[1:27:38] They're going to be educated and understand what we're doing because other cities do.
[1:27:43] And we all have the same constituents and Tony said, over and over and over and over.
[1:27:46] It's our obligation to give them water.
[1:27:48] One more time.
[1:27:49] I'm not trying to get a scary picture of society, but I'll tell you, without water, you could imagine.
[1:27:55] And when I hear a person from the Senate, the water company speak and so on, that's what I don't want to hear.
[1:28:02] Because like Tony said, we got to stand up today and make these hard decisions to make sure there's water.
[1:28:07] We've got ours.
[1:28:08] It's the same as today in housing, when I go to meetings, people get up and they go,
[1:28:12] we don't want no more housing and I look at them and I understand the feeling, but then I tell myself,
[1:28:17] How can I tell young people that they can't have the dream that I had?
[1:28:21] I can't.
[1:28:22] I can't.
[1:28:23] I've got to be there and make sure they have water.
[1:28:26] Make sure they have housing.
[1:28:27] They shouldn't live in a creek.
[1:28:29] They should have the same opportunities I have.
[1:28:31] And what's the big issue today?
[1:28:33] Well, if we all should have been, we can make housing and other things a little more reasonable.
[1:28:38] Everybody needs the American dream.
[1:28:40] But first of all, no matter what we do,
[1:28:42] to get folks out of the creek, to bring a quality, you gotta have water. Don't let this opportunity
[1:28:48] slide by folks in regardless of the cost. It's an obligation we have to be neglected to make sure
[1:28:54] our people have water. Thank you.
[1:29:03] Directed with that? Yes, thank you. I'm struggling with
[1:29:12] the new normal of climate change and other investments. So the new normal is what
[1:29:20] we're living in and what we've been living in to the past 10 years. And that's a
[1:29:25] drought. You can have all the storage in the world to pass it if you don't have water
[1:29:32] to put it in the in the reservoir. So my question to step is in the last 20 years.
[1:29:41] to get back the director as the mayor's point the last 20 years look at it. How many times have we
[1:29:52] had went years lost water in the last 20 years how many times have we lost?
[1:30:00] Water, uh, as opposed to being able to put it in the ground or bank it, instead my traffic.
[1:30:07] And we truly lost water, as a gone out to the ocean, or have we been able to bank our contract amount,
[1:30:15] or put it in the ground, uh, in went year.
[1:30:29] I've, uh, attempted to get that question and we might have to answer to a little bit further.
[1:30:32] So, and various times, especially when it's what, you know, as a chair-missionist,
[1:30:37] with a number of things like that, there's significant flows to the bay, and so the
[1:30:43] question would be, is, would you have the infrastructure, or would other things actually
[1:30:47] have been available for us to pull them in, the windows of that time frame are very short, making
[1:30:53] sure that you have the capacity or the infrastructure to capture some of those, and the timing
[1:30:57] it as few and far between. So, just going off of memory here and maybe Steph could help me out
[1:31:05] on with some actual numbers here. When it was very wet, when there's, you know, I hate to say,
[1:31:11] we'll let's not bring up flooding or 2017 or anything like that, but at certain times there is
[1:31:15] available. There is a lot of water available and a lot of it does float to various places. That being said,
[1:31:22] capturing certain flows and being able to do certain things or being able to capture all of it
[1:31:27] are very difficult and very difficult for us to make sure that we have the right places at
[1:31:33] the right time to pull them in. So a lot of the times we're talking about here that would
[1:31:37] be what we'll call the article 21 that the extra water or the things that may be available
[1:31:43] when there are higher flows in the Delta or other places and there are small windows of when
[1:31:48] you can take advantage of it. We've been trying to take advantage of that in the past and where
[1:31:53] their advantages like that in the future with climate change.
[1:31:56] The modeling shows that it's less and less, but it does show that eventually, you know,
[1:32:02] that particular work others would be able to capture and track some of that.
[1:32:06] But you are correct director that it is a smaller and smaller window and we really are just
[1:32:11] trying to capture those final last drops that aren't, let's say earmark for the environment
[1:32:17] and are above and beyond what would normally flow to the bay.
[1:32:21] I don't know staff would like to help me out on many of the numbers.
[1:32:25] Yes.
[1:32:25] It's on May.
[1:32:27] Good job.
[1:32:28] Circulazard.
[1:32:29] Vincent, deputy for Washington.
[1:32:30] Good afternoon, Vincent.
[1:32:31] My understanding is that the question is, how often, in some period of time historically,
[1:32:36] have we been unable to exercise the opportunity to capture excess water?
[1:32:41] There are two answers that one is the modeling theoretical modeling and one is the
[1:32:47] actual dates where we had surplus water available to us.
[1:32:51] But we couldn't take delivery and store that because we did not have the available volume of storage.
[1:32:58] So for the, I think we'll probably need to research out the more to make sure we can actually respond.
[1:33:04] But the general question, Cindy, how are important water manager has some of the plans and thoughts on what years and how often anecdotally we've been able to capture or not capture that surplus water.
[1:33:16] My understanding is most time we have been,
[1:33:19] but there may be a few incidents that we have been.
[1:33:21] And after that, I'd like to see if sand has
[1:33:23] some perspective on our modeling.
[1:33:25] The theoretical, 40 years, I believe,
[1:33:28] 40 something years of data, half
[1:33:29] and that could occur in the model.
[1:33:32] So that, if it's a meaningful church,
[1:33:34] I'd like to turn the floor to send it to you.
[1:33:38] Yeah, so I don't have the specific dates.
[1:33:41] I'd have to research them.
[1:33:42] But in based on my memory over the past 10 years,
[1:33:45] have in a couple of years, the white years, where we were not able to take the flood flows
[1:33:51] article 21 water in that area, and they had spoken about because we didn't have a place to
[1:33:57] story. And we did lose some carrier, we did still carry over that we had stored in San Luis Reservoir
[1:34:05] during a wet year, during a wet winter once or twice because we didn't have a place to put it.
[1:34:11] So it does happen if the future results in more intense winters and periods where precipitation
[1:34:22] is concentrated, then that could happen more frequently, if we invest in the Delta Command
[1:34:28] facility, that could happen more frequently as well.
[1:34:34] So thank you very much. That's what I thought based on what I've read,
[1:34:40] is that it isn't that we're because we don't have storage. We're losing water to the bay,
[1:34:46] we're losing this opportunity. It's it's slim and it's getting slimmer particularly with the new normal.
[1:34:52] So having said that, what,
[1:34:58] what, how much more?
[1:35:00] On an interest in most precarious, could we get, if it's valid, you know, storage capacity, what we would be able to store there, if we took the investment, we were going to make it to check it out and move it into an investment into most precarious.
[1:35:21] Are we even able to buy more space in most precarious at this point?
[1:35:28] We do have those precursors team on the call, and right now we've been primarily looking at those precursors to the operational flexibility of the deafening sense for line.
[1:35:37] But there is a belief still opportunity to increase storage.
[1:35:43] The dedicated storage in LVED was for Carol's expansion project.
[1:35:48] It is a little bit different.
[1:35:51] The location is north of Delta.
[1:35:53] So it's not, obviously the storage is always valuable, but I just want to just mention that it's so difficult to have direct apples to apples comparison.
[1:36:02] But we do have opportunity to invest further in the LDE dedicated storage.
[1:36:10] And with that Sam, I see you're online.
[1:36:12] You're going to be able to have anything to add to that.
[1:36:16] Yes, we can invest further in it.
[1:36:19] reaching the same if we're hoping for 100,000
[1:36:22] acre feet of valley water storage space.
[1:36:26] We couldn't reach that same amount,
[1:36:28] although what I've been hearing is we are
[1:36:29] hoping for partnerships in Bacheco.
[1:36:32] So we could potentially match it, match it,
[1:36:36] uh, apologies, match the storage that we get in
[1:36:39] when we can't remember.
[1:36:41] But that all depends on how much we were
[1:36:42] holding out in Bacheco.
[1:36:45] Right. And to the point about it,
[1:36:48] want to do Delta, it bypasses the pumps because of the transfer of Bethany pipeline,
[1:36:55] right?
[1:36:57] So there is a Bethany transfer.
[1:37:02] And that's why I'm in favor.
[1:37:04] So, you know, like I said, this is where I'm struggling with, you know,
[1:37:11] wet ears that aren't going to be happening.
[1:37:12] They'll be happening, but history shows that we haven't been losing that abilities to store.
[1:37:21] We could boost our investment in low-specarols, but what it was supposed to get the same amount
[1:37:27] at a Chaco, at a less cost.
[1:37:31] And then whatever other money we didn't put into the Chaco, we just put into recycled water
[1:37:37] and boost that capacity and talk about new water, tell me there's your new water.
[1:37:42] Yeah, well, you know, you know, this is where I'm struggling, you know, I know it's not
[1:37:47] apples.
[1:37:47] The struggle we've been having with the city of San Jose.
[1:37:50] But what it's, but it's, you know, I think we have a real opportunity with the most
[1:37:55] of the carols and it's, it just seems to make more sense for the investment they are for
[1:38:05] the amount of storage we would get, particularly if we're going to look for partners to, you
[1:38:12] that we will have available to us in the checkup.
[1:38:15] So at this point, I'm still listening, studying,
[1:38:19] and I just wanted to voice my struggles and my concerns
[1:38:23] about investing here versus most most precarious.
[1:38:28] We're doubling our investment in post precarious.
[1:38:31] And just the correction, I'm not opposed to the precarious.
[1:38:38] Well, I can see that.
[1:38:40] What I was saying is that, you know,
[1:38:42] their new water can be made at a recycled water,
[1:38:45] but if we switch the investment from Chaco to Losta Terrace,
[1:38:50] we could potentially get the same additional storage
[1:38:52] that we want, and maybe at a cheaper cost.
[1:38:57] And like I said, we can have all the storage in the world,
[1:38:59] but if we don't have the water to put in it,
[1:39:02] and with climate change and new normal,
[1:39:05] you know, I'm just wondering,
[1:39:08] Losta Terrace is gonna happen when the word involves or not,
[1:39:10] But, you know, for us to lead on Cacheco when we could get the same banking for the
[1:39:17] bucket out of, or similar, at a part-ringing loss of care, so it's going to happen anyway.
[1:39:22] I just think that's a more attractive group of go.
[1:39:26] That may be.
[1:39:28] Do you have any other centres?
[1:39:32] What?
[1:39:33] What?
[1:39:33] Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:39:33] Yes.
[1:39:34] Somebody else go ahead, Tom.
[1:39:36] Would the vice chair next?
[1:39:37] I'm sorry.
[1:39:38] Yeah, go ahead.
[1:39:38] I'm sorry.
[1:39:39] Vice chair next.
[1:39:40] You're
[1:39:44] on mute by sugar.
[1:39:47] You're on mute.
[1:39:48] You're on mute.
[1:39:49] You're on mute.
[1:39:50] You're on mute.
[1:39:50] A couple of comments on this.
[1:39:53] I think the unorl is just natural.
[1:39:56] The unorl is everything.
[1:40:00] I'll see this, it's about volatility, you know, when are winter's drier summer, is it cool?
[1:40:07] And that's the challenge, you know, especially with more precipitation, the biggest thing I know in the modeling for the conveyance project is the snow tap melting sooner.
[1:40:21] And that actually reduces the storage, so we're going to see more spills, not less spills.
[1:40:29] And in a way, our storage is going down, whether it be on the state side is a federal side.
[1:40:36] So even if we did this project, it's not like an additional storage, it's just kind of working contract.
[1:40:41] That's, we're keeping pace with number one.
[1:40:43] So that's what the models from DSA, they spent a lot more money on it than we have.
[1:40:50] Number two is respect the article, 21, I think the article is staff, but if there's a detailed
[1:40:55] article article on article 21, it may have been no book, April 5th, 2018, about article 21.
[1:41:05] And they talk about how it's because of the flashiness, but you know pictures of, you know,
[1:41:14] Sacramento and other places flooding all the time, that's what happens with Art of the 21.
[1:41:18] So we don't need it every year.
[1:41:20] It's just enough years to fill it.
[1:41:24] With respect to our game, demand projections, it's interesting that, you know, we have one set of demand projections.
[1:41:33] historical is staff told us that the meeting that just happened before, but the elected
[1:41:38] almost uniformly said otherwise that they said the man will be going up because of the
[1:41:44] arena numbers and other needs which from what I heard are not part of our model. We basically
[1:41:51] take historical numbers.
[1:41:56] So there might be some issues and is it really going down whether we need
[1:41:59] are not so. And the final thing is, I think there's still a lot of
[1:42:04] cost and certainty in Las Vicaris. Another water district director emailed me
[1:42:09] today saying he thinks the costs are really two X. What they're saying and he
[1:42:15] gave a detailed explanation of what the reimbursements will be, which isn't
[1:42:19] part of the model that's been shared. So how do the Las Vicaris is a
[1:42:24] And I support it, but not PNC.
[1:42:30] Eric Santos?
[1:42:32] Yes, Mr. Chair.
[1:42:32] Thank you.
[1:42:33] To the point of director Lizat speaking on us for Kerosene,
[1:42:38] that it's going to be a done deal.
[1:42:39] I don't disagree.
[1:42:42] The water storage committee has taken a look at this very carefully.
[1:42:45] And as one member, I support that.
[1:42:48] It's the words, the other words you use about recycling,
[1:42:51] so I don't disagree where you take the funding and just put it over there.
[1:42:55] over there is going to be partnerships also. That's why I don't want to lose sight with the
[1:42:59] Pacheco. Let's keep on pursuing the potential partnership because of the benefits it brings.
[1:43:04] But I do agree with you and their storage committee is discussed as very clearly. I really believe
[1:43:09] the list of the kiddos is a good, another good partnership and I believe regulatory and with the
[1:43:15] state and everything is going to be done. So we have a great opportunity and I know that we're
[1:43:20] supporting that not we haven't taken official vote but I would agree with you and I think
[1:43:25] other board members here for the same we should tap into that to make sure our generation
[1:43:30] has a supply all the time but again please we need to take a look at state federal infrastructure
[1:43:38] all these things are going on we got a chance and then with private partnerships to make
[1:43:42] the Czecho reality also but the priority would be yeah I think we should go over there and hook
[1:43:47] but let's forget us due to the partnerships that I believe have enough pool. I think statewide
[1:43:53] politically-wise it's going to go and we need to be part of it.
[1:43:58] Director of the Red Love, the Duke.
[1:44:02] Thank you. So, I want to start with the China and on that as well as the
[1:44:06] graphic schools. We've had through our water storage committee meetings. We have multiple meetings
[1:44:11] where their staff and their leadership attend our meeting and give us constant updates
[1:44:17] as to where they are and the questions that we ask in the reference to cost sharing, etc.
[1:44:23] You know, everything is a work in progress. We're all working through these issues in our
[1:44:28] different service areas. But we look at it, I guess I'm speaking for myself and I think I'm
[1:44:35] speaking for the committee that this would be an ideal continuation of a partnership agreement
[1:44:40] across the campus. Any water storage agreement that's on the table today, inside of
[1:44:48] outside Santa Clara County, we must look at it and consider it. You know, we talked
[1:44:53] about sites, we want to be part of the governance, if that's going to be the case to be part
[1:44:58] of that project.
[1:45:00] These are happening up and down the state. When we attend the Assembly's Delta Mendoza Water Authority, which are primarily central valley water managers, irrigation districts, and agriculture, we listen to all their issues in regards to the sigma and all the different water costs that they're incurring for the farmers, et cetera, from current county up to Sacramento and beyond.
[1:45:24] So, we have a really good understanding as to what's going on with cost and water supply and partnerships.
[1:45:32] So, I think from our perspective, we continue the conversation with the Loss of Kettos,
[1:45:38] and moving towards an ideal working relationship with that organization.
[1:45:43] There are fine group of people that work with, but they're just like us.
[1:45:46] They're no different.
[1:45:47] We're in a competitive market, and we're all looking to maybe, I'll do the other guy.
[1:45:54] But the bottom is, we all have to fly ball together.
[1:45:57] We have to.
[1:45:57] We have no choice.
[1:45:59] Well, we do have a choice.
[1:46:01] But it's not a good choice.
[1:46:02] To have to pay for many of these opportunities,
[1:46:04] I wouldn't support that at all.
[1:46:07] We need these partnerships.
[1:46:08] We want to encourage them.
[1:46:10] And support 100%.
[1:46:14] That's my position.
[1:46:17] Derek Deschua.
[1:46:19] Thank you, Chair.
[1:46:20] I appreciate hearing my colleagues comment, I think they're all very good, and I just
[1:46:31] want to add one more thing that talking about planning for the future, this is our
[1:46:39] And in the 1931, or I think 31, that people in this county doing the depression, the greatest depression of United States history, voted to tax themselves to build all these reservoirs.
[1:47:02] So this is in addition to the chair,
[1:47:05] I just mentioned about how the governor at the time
[1:47:07] and then built everything for the California.
[1:47:09] But then we're seeing the county doing the depression
[1:47:13] people voted to tax themselves so that we have
[1:47:17] Anderson Reservoir, Colorado Reservoir,
[1:47:20] all that recharge pump and the entire system.
[1:47:27] As I said, when I talk to people,
[1:47:29] I always tell people that it's not me
[1:47:31] more about, I don't think I'll live to the date, when we don't have water, but then we're
[1:47:38] really planning for our children and children. So with that said, I just want to provide
[1:47:47] my personal opinion about these board policy decisions that staff asks us to bring it to some
[1:47:56] of, uh, I guess conclusion. Uh, so staff asks us that, uh, can, can we have that slide
[1:48:03] sound? This is the last slide.
[1:48:09] Okay. So first, first bullet is, does it make sense to
[1:48:13] continue including particular reservoir, uh, in one of the supply mass plants? So my personal opinion is,
[1:48:18] yes. Uh, and then, are there, uh, predetermined triggers that require that project be, uh,
[1:48:24] re validated by the board of directors, uh, time partnership, uh, cost schedule, etc. I would say,
[1:48:30] of the above, and in addition to the annual monitoring and plant form, while there is a schedule building that, look at that, look at while there's a plant master plant every year, but then in between anything that's staff consider it's a key factor.
[1:48:56] the board should get a briefing and discussion on that.
[1:49:02] And then the third vote, what level of partnership participation should be assumed for financial
[1:49:07] planning purposes.
[1:49:10] I would recommend that for the particular reservoir that's putting a
[1:49:20] assumption has more
[1:49:21] on the conservative side, because if we're committed to doing
[1:49:28] this project, we should not, I mean, I would say it's my personal opinion that painting a nicer picture
[1:49:38] at this time, I think it may mislead our constituents that I would prefer that a more conservative
[1:49:50] assumption be putting to the financial planning for the financial planning purpose, but also
[1:49:58] So that I think...
[1:50:00] I think that going back to chair's comment earlier that we need to have a discussion about what is the rate that we're willing to pay so that all these opportunities that all the board members just talked about can be looked at.
[1:50:25] that if the money that's invested for a Pacheco, maybe it can be divided into other parts.
[1:50:37] So no matter what this future is going to look like, it goes back to Chair's comment earlier that what is that
[1:50:47] receiving of rates that we are willing to support.
[1:50:54] So I would request that's part of the discussion on the ongoing basis.
[1:51:02] So that would be my personal opinion related to staff as these board policy decisions.
[1:51:11] Thank you.
[1:51:11] Thank you, Director Shua.
[1:51:12] But I think that's a good idea.
[1:51:15] I'll just start from this trip one and go through the list
[1:51:19] and then we can get some feedback.
[1:51:21] But let me just ask, it staff might have some feeling
[1:51:30] about what level of partnership participation
[1:51:38] will lower water rates significantly,
[1:51:41] or if you could give us some indication of what the number might be.
[1:51:47] If you can, I know this is, you know, all the cuff is hard for you to do.
[1:51:50] I don't know if they're in, you guys have discussed this.
[1:51:59] Director of Jamera, the Christians have the slide that shows the sort of the sliding scale.
[1:52:05] Yes.
[1:52:05] Well, we have with the rate projection increases in the North Counties on W2 with different
[1:52:10] levels of partnership participation. Right there in the middle of this slide shows the current
[1:52:15] assumption that's included in the staff recommendation for F522. It seems 20%. Partnership
[1:52:23] participation and that was based on board of directions from a couple of years ago hasn't
[1:52:27] changed since then and that's what derives the 9.6% rate projection that we currently have.
[1:52:35] Now, if we were to go higher, you see the end of the scale there is 38.5%, and that would take that rate projection down to 8.8%.
[1:52:46] And so you can kind of get a feel for the difference that that higher level of partnership participation would make if that helps answer that question.
[1:52:56] It does. Thank you. Yeah, I wanted it for the discussion, so I thank you. I think that we all see then we can all see that.
[1:53:06] Okay, so if I made let me go through with that as I direct to sure suggested and get some feedback we have we can go back to that list on page two or 17 there on the attachment.
[1:53:20] So, let's start with Director Morella and I'll just go down the line, how's that?
[1:53:29] Director Morella, you're on mute.
[1:53:31] Okay, got it.
[1:53:31] Thank you.
[1:53:32] That's sure.
[1:53:32] Listen, first and foremost, I think it's quite obvious to face on my previous statements that
[1:53:38] I'm 100% for this project and I think it's important that we take that position.
[1:53:44] Are you asking me to go through each one of these bullet points on the board?
[1:53:47] What do you want?
[1:53:49] Yes.
[1:53:52] Whatever you say, it could be yes or no, it could be whatever you say.
[1:53:54] No problem.
[1:53:57] Where does the particular reservoir expansion project get into the water supply master plan?
[1:54:01] I think it should be one of the top priority issues on the master plan.
[1:54:05] The pre-determined triggers that require the project revalidated by the Board of Directors,
[1:54:10] time, partnership, participation, cost, schedule, etc.
[1:54:12] I think that's what we've just been discussing for the last potential hour.
[1:54:16] So yes.
[1:54:17] And one level of partnership participation should be assumed for financial planning purposes.
[1:54:22] Again, continuation of discussion that we're having with the community, with our public hearings as we did today with the water commission, to continue that process and have the final discussion and meet as we will be making those decisions, but I support all in front of us as to move this project forward.
[1:54:40] Thank you. Director Kiga.
[1:54:42] First
[1:54:46] I'd like to thank staff for a very comprehensive presentation and for thank my fellow board members for a good discussion on this topic.
[1:55:00] This is obviously a very important potential project to the district, and I think we have all expressed interest in the project and at the same time understanding that the devil is in the details, and so I think in particular, we all have to feel responsibility because the board members that are going to be involved with implementation of this project are not
[1:55:30] to be the same board members that are here today and saying let's go forward with this.
[1:55:36] So, I do think that the Bichaco Reservoir Expansion Project belongs in our current
[1:55:45] water supply master plan. And I also think that we need more information,
[1:55:52] It's given us good information, but we really need to know more of the details, the permitting issues, the part simplifications, the cost, and so that's already moving in that direction, and that's a positive thing, and so that's part of what I really think is going to be important to bring back to the board as more information becomes available.
[1:56:19] And, you know, I don't really, I don't really have a, a good sense of what level of partner
[1:56:26] participation should be assumed that this time, I think, you know, I'm going to ask staff
[1:56:34] to use their best judgment in terms of doing that.
[1:56:38] I certainly just want to make clear, I think it would be very premature to, for us to say that
[1:56:49] that we're not interested in pursuing this project or that they're not going to budget for.
[1:56:53] And I agree with the comments about what we hear from the water commission.
[1:56:59] We've all been, you know, word representatives of the water commission.
[1:57:03] Some of you right now, some of us in the past.
[1:57:07] And what we always hear is, well, we want you to do this.
[1:57:09] And we want recycled water and want environmental enhancements.
[1:57:12] And we want, you know, a gazillion things.
[1:57:15] And we don't want to pay any more money.
[1:57:16] and those are incompatible goals and so and also it's it's short-term thinking to just be
[1:57:25] looking at we want to keep water rates as low as possible when we need to ensure that we have a
[1:57:32] supply for the future including having the ability to you know have water supply for you know
[1:57:42] housing, housing for that next generation, and also to be able to support, you know, a healthy
[1:57:48] economy and having employers staying in the area. So those are my thoughts at this time.
[1:57:54] So thank you.
[1:57:56] Thank you, thank you. There at the TV.
[1:57:58] Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah, the first two is yes, and then the last one is the board
[1:58:02] board determines we're going to continue getting information and look at what the best
[1:58:07] partnership that we need to seek.
[1:58:10] Director Lizard, thank you, Director Santos, Director Santos, Director Lizard.
[1:58:17] Yes, so the first one, yeah, but I'd like to staff to come back with a memo.
[1:58:25] So make this a BMR.
[1:58:27] I like to know what the last 20 to 40 years had shown, but let's just do 20 make it easy.
[1:58:34] I show them with regard to those wet years when we allegedly lost the ability to store as much as we wanted to and how many acre feet did we, in fact, not only not able to store or to be lose.
[1:58:53] And then, secondarily, what would be the tipping point on our partnership participation,
[1:59:08] where I think Cindy alluded to this, where if our partnership participation was high,
[1:59:17] And then we would have the ability ourselves to access the storage of a Jacob that we could get in
[1:59:27] most of the carols if we invested heavily in most of the carols.
[1:59:30] So where's that tipping point of partnership participation where we have the exact same storage
[1:59:38] and most of the carols if we could get it versus what the amount of storage we would have if we had
[1:59:45] high partnership participation.
[1:59:49] So that was a yes for number one without that request for information.
[1:59:54] Number two, the triggers I'd like to see to bring back information to us would be aware.
[2:00:00] The partnership participation, whether it's lower-high, and then the costs, whether they were increasing or decreasing.
[2:00:08] And you know how that affected our investment level.
[2:00:14] And then the level of partnership participation to be assumed. I think staff has assumed conservative, which is where you are right now.
[2:00:24] And I think that's probably good for now.
[2:00:29] I think we obviously, what is higher level of partnership
[2:00:34] participation is possible.
[2:00:36] But as far as assuming right now,
[2:00:38] I think it needs to be conservative as the staff has suggested.
[2:00:43] Thank you.
[2:00:45] Thank you, Director Lizard.
[2:00:48] Thank you.
[2:00:52] Okay.
[2:00:53] A vice chair?
[2:00:58] Are you sure you're on mute?
[2:01:00] I know, I know, I know.
[2:01:02] So the answer to the questions doesn't make sense to include
[2:01:05] in the master plan, yes.
[2:01:08] Are there predetermined triggers?
[2:01:12] I'm not sure we have to set those up front,
[2:01:14] but I think we need to frequently bring this back.
[2:01:18] I think to me, it would be, you know, at the end of the day,
[2:01:22] it's about costs of our share.
[2:01:26] So that's both a combination of the share, the cost of the project,
[2:01:32] and I want to talk about that in a second, and what partners we get, what level of participants would be assumed.
[2:01:39] You know, I think something like 30% I think director, maybe director or else I think, I think staff's pretty conservative on that.
[2:01:48] To me, I'd like to couple this with kind of moving our legislative priority, some priorities,
[2:01:54] we go get some look at infrastructure money, because that will lower cost.
[2:01:59] Discussions with the state are how we can grab some of these costs.
[2:02:03] Prop one projects and look at who else is not going to make it, because there are some other people that might not make it.
[2:02:09] And then move out the part discussion as a priority, because we can say $200 million,
[2:02:15] and we can be a hero of these communities by providing recreation that would be great.
[2:02:21] And then with respect to the partnership discussions, I'd like us to start reporting those
[2:02:28] on a monthly basis. So we know where things are going, maybe every other report meeting, we have an
[2:02:32] item on this. So that's what I have, and I'm maybe made the last step on the form of emotion,
[2:02:38] look at some future. Thank you, Vice Chair. So yeah, you requested to make motion.
[2:02:44] and I think that were to show it did, so I'll give back to you and I basically agree with
[2:02:50] the vice chair, although I think that the level of partnership participation should be
[2:02:56] increased pretty significantly. I'd like to see it at at the 30% to 38%, but maybe 30% is okay.
[2:03:06] Now for two reasons, one is if we don't have the adequate partnerships, I don't think we should
[2:03:11] the project. Secondly, I don't think that is positive for us to carry and what I think
[2:03:22] is a two conservative number on our water rate projections. People react to those projections
[2:03:33] and what I'm hearing is that they're not really realistic but with respect to this particular
[2:03:40] But not only that, like I said, if we can't reach greater partnership participation, we probably shouldn't do this project.
[2:03:48] I mean, it's just, it's just too heavy to live for us.
[2:03:53] So those are my comments.
[2:03:56] And so I'll take advice chairs to take the first shot at emotion.
[2:04:02] And then we'll take it from there.
[2:04:04] People want to mend it and so on.
[2:04:06] We can, I'm happy to call on everybody.
[2:04:08] So, vice chair, you can start.
[2:04:10] Well, actually, director is way ahead of motion.
[2:04:12] Okay, director.
[2:04:13] Okay, director.
[2:04:14] Director.
[2:04:17] I don't have a motion.
[2:04:20] I was just expressing my.
[2:04:22] So, I'm fine.
[2:04:25] Good, vice chair.
[2:04:26] You need a motion.
[2:04:27] Or is it just direction to staff?
[2:04:31] Oh, on the direction.
[2:04:32] We could.
[2:04:33] I'm saying, you know, I was at 30 and director.
[2:04:36] Chair, Mr. Mary's at 38.
[2:04:37] Maybe we can split the difference on 35.
[2:04:40] 35.
[2:04:42] Yeah.
[2:04:42] That's something like that.
[2:04:43] Or 34.
[2:04:45] That's actually the level.
[2:04:47] And I just direction the staff on the federal infrastructure is the highest legislative
[2:04:53] priority that we have along with prop one funds, park discussion, and...
[2:05:01] I guess we can make a director direction to staff.
[2:05:05] Yeah, we don't need a motion, you're right. I mean, at this point, the only reason we all thought
[2:05:11] mentioned a motion is just so that clearly people, the community gets where we're going.
[2:05:17] But that's true. Yeah, and I see the CEO once.
[2:05:20] I just want to, earlier I said that my suggestion is that we're hot.
[2:05:29] our financial planning assumption will be should be more on the conservative side.
[2:05:36] So if we're right now it's 20% probably conservative.
[2:05:42] It doesn't mean we're not a full force pursuing partnership opportunities.
[2:05:47] But then I think raising this partnership assumption,
[2:05:52] even though it's telling a better picture on the water rate for the future,
[2:05:58] However, it seems to me that it's hurting, it's part of your work, our determination to do this project.
[2:06:17] And I think it's come back to the analysis that you mentioned earlier that what is the water rate?
[2:06:27] overall, with all these opportunities, what is the water rate that we're willing to look with?
[2:06:33] So, my suggestion is that's not giving fixed direction to staff. I mean, we can have various
[2:06:40] scenarios. I just think that's a better result. And then what I heard from all the board members
[2:06:48] that how important this future water supply is, whether it's from Pacheco or from Laos
[2:06:53] carries off on recyclable water. So that's my two cents.
[2:06:58] Okay, no, I appreciate it. Thank you. So the CEO wanted to chime in?
[2:07:08] Yes, you know, I just wanted to make sure I summarize. I think what we heard, I think
[2:07:11] direction of staff is really fair. I don't know that emotion is needed. I mean, because very clear
[2:07:17] that we've heard that the board is very supportive of the project moving forward. I think we've
[2:07:21] have been very clear that they want us to pursue any and all infrastructure funding at the
[2:07:26] state as well as federal level. You will definitely be working very hard to pursue everything
[2:07:30] we can and propose Biden at infrastructure bill, etc. I think I definitely heard of 35% as
[2:07:37] over looking at. So we will bring that forward as it relates to the rates of the session on the next
[2:07:42] decision. I believe this will be the board will be the 27th. I would like to bear in the scene to
[2:07:46] turn that around by the stop and the machine which I think is tomorrow. I think that maybe a challenge
[2:07:52] but yeah and Darren can we confirm can we do that by tomorrow? Well no we won't do it by the
[2:07:58] 27. I didn't want to open it. And then clearly in terms of the partnership discussions we will
[2:08:07] make sure we are bringing that information back. We'll probably start with the water storage
[2:08:11] smart to our committee so we can make sure we're having a conversation and then be able to push it
[2:08:16] back to the board. So I think that's summarizing everything that I've heard. I think if I missed
[2:08:22] anything, you know, I look to the chair to the board members that I think the direction has been
[2:08:28] very clear and I think we can respond accordingly.
[2:08:34] Thank you. Okay, if there's nothing further,
[2:08:36] I think we've had a great discussion. Thanks staff for the heavy lifting. I've been very clear
[2:08:43] and I think it's very helpful to the community when staff is as prepared as we are
[2:08:49] with respect to the numbers and exactly where we are in the development of the plan.
[2:08:56] So thank you very much. I know it's a lot of work. We really do appreciate it. We know what it takes
[2:09:01] and we do appreciate it. So thank you and awful lot for everybody being prepared and helping us out.
[2:09:10] If there's nothing further from the board, then we'll go into closed session at this point.
[2:09:17] We do have one item, so let's move into closed session now.
[2:26:05] Okay, we're back. We've got a session before the directors, and we have council, tell us what we did, it didn't do.
[2:26:15] Good afternoon, chair.
[2:26:16] Good afternoon, chair. This is Joseph Miranda, assistant district council. Reporting on agenda item number 2.2, the board met in closed session with legal council to receive real property negotiations.
[2:26:30] direction and pursuant to government code section 54956.8 the board provided direction
[2:26:38] this year. Thank you. Thank you council. So we are
[2:26:49] adjourned please.
[2:26:58] Okay, so we're going to adjourn
[2:27:00] tomorrow night at 7 o'clock to tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. we'll talk about water rates
[2:27:10] And I'm glad you.