[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.]

[1:54] Good afternoon, everyone. It's 12 o'clock and I will call the water conservation, water supply and demand management
[2:05] committee meeting to order. I'll start with roll call, please. Thank you chair, director Santos.
[2:12] Yes. Vice chair person, ballard, and director Shuai. Here. Thank you, you have a quorum. Thank you.
[2:19] time open for public comment on any item, not on the agenda. Do we have a request to speak
[2:26] to the committee?
[2:28] Thank you, Chair. I have no physical cards and I'm checking online. There are no hands
[2:33] where it's okay. Thank you. Item 3.1 approval of March 24, 2025 while the supply and
[2:41] management committee meeting minutes. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Okay. On
[2:51] February say I, I, yeah, meeting minutes is approved. Okay. We're going on to our regular agenda
[2:59] items. We have by the field today, start with item 4.1. Receive information and discuss
[3:07] proposed storage projects, content in valley waters, water supply, and master plant 2050.
[3:15] Good afternoon, committee.
[3:16] Here's the services and officer for the water supply division.
[3:20] This is what's basically a question by the committee last time how Pacheco fits into storage.
[3:26] So we're going to start off with just generally storage, and Pacheco will have their presentation,
[3:31] and I'll turn this over to Jing Wu.
[3:34] Everyone, Tingu, Senior Water Resources Specialist with Water Supply Planning and Conservation Unit.
[3:42] So my talk to take covers the storage projects that are invalid in the body,
[3:46] what is water supply must plan. This is as a person said is irresponding to the
[3:52] request for additional information on the cost and benefit of storage projects from
[4:05] the
[4:05] surface water storage and ground water storage that allow for capturing access water in wet
[4:14] years to be used during the drought. The storage can compensate for the most important function
[4:23] is to compensate for supply variability to manage California's climate and the hydrologic
[5:00] I, in some cases.
[5:06] So, storage has lumpy a critical component of value water water supply system currently, value water storage programs consists of 10 surface water reservoirs, two local groundwater basins, and a contract with some traffic ground water back, for 350,000 acre, of storage.
[5:28] This country cover is set to expire in 2035.
[5:33] Those storage has played a vital role in
[5:37] the issue of water supply reliability for our community
[5:40] over many decades and into the future.
[5:45] This map shows value water's interconnected water system
[5:49] with storage being a big part of it.
[5:56] So value water system has proven reliable
[6:00] and flexible, but extended draws remain the biggest water supply challenge. The water supply
[6:07] must plan analysis, indicate if rely only on existing supply and infrastructure, value water
[6:15] will experience water shortage during the later years of extended draw mostly driven by
[6:22] change in demand, reduce supply and climate change.
[6:28] Those strategies are large and already take into account meeting
[6:32] broad water use reduction costs and long-term conservation costs.
[6:38] Therefore, valuable energy to invest in your project to ensure long-term water supply
[6:43] reliability for the country.
[6:46] Among investment options, storage is identified as a vital
[6:50] to water supply, reliability, both and the current and the future conditions.
[6:56] And diversify and the further expanding existing storage program is needed to help
[7:03] risk and the Medicaid drought impacts. A storage on coupled with drought resilience supply,
[7:10] in particular, the direct support barriers is effective in eliminating future water shortages.
[7:16] In addition, storage capacity, the put and take capacity of groundwater beds are also
[7:23] quickly important, because they determine how effectively water can be stored and accessed
[7:30] when it's mostly it.
[7:35] This table shows the three storage project options that are invalidated in the water supply
[7:41] mass plan, a particular expansion system
[7:45] raise and order of county groundwater banking.
[7:49] The table include their total storage capacity as well
[7:54] as full cost metrics, oh, expressed in $20, $25.
[8:03] The benefit and risk and challenge of each project,
[8:07] it's also invalidated and summarized in this table,
[8:11] are not going to go over of them, but over all, the evaluation shows
[8:16] e-project has merits and risk and challenges, and the projects are all
[8:21] at the planning stage continue to involve,
[8:24] therefore there are a lot of uncertainty with each of them.
[8:31] Based on project options, the water sub-mama's plan 2050
[8:35] developed three partition investment strategies,
[8:38] lower-cost local control, and diversify.
[8:42] Those strategies represent different approach to water supply reliability, but each comes with
[8:48] trade-offs and risk and the challenges. Also, each strategy requires a certain level of
[8:55] out-of-county ground water banking and ease of particular and the risk.
[9:03] Since many projects
[9:04] are still at the planning stage and will continue to involve, it's hard to predict at this
[9:10] time, which will ultimately be successful.
[9:14] Also, there's uncertainty with forecast future supply and the demand
[9:20] condition, which is a foundation of all those analysis, which
[9:24] bring further challenge in decision making.
[9:27] Therefore, adaptive management approach was developed to provide the
[9:32] board with ability and flexibility to make incremental
[9:36] investment decisions. With this approach, staff recommend lower cost strategy. Why continue to plan for
[9:45] particular and other projects? This is a way to balance flexibility and uncertainty. This will allow
[9:54] the standards of the several projects become clear and afford a board with options.
[10:00] Question, questions from committee members, all the presentations.
[10:08] Okay, go ahead.
[10:12] I have a super basic question.
[10:22] So the difference between the last two columns is what?
[10:28] Well, the one is a total prison-to-value of life cycle
[10:32] cause another is considered a unit cost.
[10:36] All right.
[10:40] Okay.
[10:41] No more questions. No questions.
[10:46] Okay.
[10:47] I have a question or first of all thank you staff for putting this on the agenda.
[10:54] I think it's generated by the question that I asked either at this committee or at the board.
[11:02] When I asked the question, I was thinking that the particular reservoir, if the board decides to go,
[11:16] it becomes value waters facility. So on that facility map, you're going to add another feature.
[11:29] So basically, it's an expansion of our existing infrastructure map.
[11:35] I mean, in a way, it can be thought about that way.
[11:41] Right? So that's where I'm coming from that you've in the benefits of a particular reservoir
[11:51] expansion. You've already included increases operation or flexibility. So that's I was thinking
[12:00] that in the next time that in Hachiko update to the board, if it's not related topic that this
[12:12] aspect can be explained in more detail to the full board. Because I could be, I could
[12:23] be wrong because I don't know the operation in detail of how water goes from there to there.
[12:29] But then I would think that there is a difference of creating storage as part of our existing facility map.
[12:42] And some storage capacity somewhere else, many miles from Santa Card County.
[12:50] And so that's basically where I'm coming from, I'm sure if there is an additional benefit because it's making the entire system more flexible from operation perspective.
[13:08] You guys probably already included in the analysis.
[13:11] but it's just that if I'm my thought process, it's not too far for reality. I think it's
[13:22] something that's worse, the effort to explain to the, to the football board. So that's, that's
[13:31] where I'm coming from. Does that, yeah, that is correct. So under the benefits for a particular
[13:36] So we do list that would be owned and operated by valley water and increases our operational
[13:41] flexibility.
[13:44] But even though it's not ours, the Sun Lewis dam is also on this map and easily connected.
[13:52] Yeah, that's definitely true.
[13:55] So we, I think we all have high hope for the system,
[14:06] damn race, internal, all of us, and then external people,
[14:13] all have high hope for that.
[14:15] But again, things need to be developed.
[14:19] I still have this good feeling about the comfort,
[14:22] the capability of the Highway 152, it's just, I just think it's something that's really,
[14:31] it's going to be really huge. But again, it's a great opportunity, everybody is hoping that
[14:37] will become a reality.
[14:42] So, yeah, so that's where I'm coming from. And I have another comment
[14:51] that in the next update to the full board, I was reminded how lately that
[15:00] A 60% design timeline that's the right timeline for the Board to make a decision. I forgot when
[15:12] the Board said that, but the person who reminded me is correct, I think the Board did say that,
[15:20] And then with this, while the supply mass supply, your adaptive management process, is that still a relevant decision point, if not, I think it's better that we
[15:40] explain to the board sooner rather than later. So that we don't continue carrying this 60%
[15:49] stage decision making point for the board.
[15:53] Maybe Ryan can add, but I would say the relevant decision point is to see which alternatives may work out,
[16:01] and if there are none.
[16:03] Yeah, so 100%. So that's what I'm saying.
[16:07] that it seems like the adaptive management is the way
[16:11] to reach that point instead of this fixed timeline
[16:19] at 60% of the house stage.
[16:23] So, but if that's, I think the board did
[16:28] discuss that and then had a direction on that timeline.
[16:32] So now things changed, it's better that we explain this current process and then I personally think that how the doctor management look at these things, it's a it's a right approach for the board. Yeah, but the board needs to get that information and then
[16:52] Um, discuss it in so that we don't continue carrying this thing. Oh, you said this. I told you this or something like that. Yeah. Okay.
[17:03] So that will be my comment on this. Any public comment. I'll say I see a hands raised.
[17:11] I think you chair. I have a physical cards and there are two hands raised online at when is Peter Van Dyke and caught here. Okay. Well, it's always Peter.
[17:22] Good afternoon, committee members, chair.
[17:28] You know, I'm just looking at the cost, the capital costs, and the total cost for the
[17:31] bechaco. Now, these are based on 20, 25 numbers, and it doesn't seem that they take
[17:37] in mitigation costs, perhaps for, you know, ecological mitigation and impacts.
[17:45] And the, the proposed dam is going to take how long to build. It's going to take
[17:49] at least a decade to even get through the process, I would think.
[17:53] And I don't believe that the costs, the increased costs due to inflation are factored
[17:57] into these numbers, I think, to give a better picture of what this is going to cost.
[18:03] Because this is all seems to be speculative.
[18:05] If you've got to add in all these other costs, which a lot of it's going to be litigation
[18:09] and mitigation and quite a few other things, I think that would be a more transparent outline
[18:16] for what this product is going to cost. Just one other comment on the adaptive management
[18:26] recommendations, you seem to, you propose, so desalination as a possibility. Now that's going
[18:37] to be very expensive and there's going to be a lot of waste involved as I, but you don't
[18:41] mentioned with anything about resisolating it and so I think that's another thing that needs
[18:47] to be considered is the recycling of wastewater too. I'm not sure which processes more
[18:52] expensive or which creates more waste but I know desalination is expensive so I'm not sure if
[19:00] treatment would be a better option. This would offset the need for imported water and even for storage
[19:07] to some extent. Yeah, I thank you for let me comment. Okay, thank you. Well, thank you for your first
[19:16] comment, or taking to consideration. For your second comment, I think maybe staff can provide
[19:25] the explanation. I think I'll get about this now. Box that says start the disability study. But then
[20:00] Right. Local while it's not our business. We support that. Yes. So in terms of portable reuse, we are already working on a project and desalination is a feasibility study, so that the board can have options and explore exactly that question. Right now, in the water supply master plan, because both are at a planning level, both portable reuse and desalination, they actually the same cost.
[20:24] They're expensive for different reasons and so this feasibility study will explore whether desolination is feasible in the South Bay.
[20:33] Also that the first bullet that's in both found says focus on low cost portfolio and you look at the low cost portfolio,
[20:48] the purified water is already in there.
[20:51] So that means we will focus on that in the near term.
[20:57] So, yeah, also I want to end a little bit.
[21:00] We have a assumption of recycled water in the best line.
[21:05] Also, that's in the, also the Dr. Paul Boris in the portfolio.
[21:11] Okay, thank you. Thank you. And Kacha,
[21:16] go ahead.
[21:20] Good afternoon, Chair Shua and committee members.
[21:24] Um, thank you, uh, Terushuifer for, um, bringing up the decision making point, um, it seems
[21:33] like there, it should be clear because I think some of the directors want, want to be able
[21:41] to have an opportunity to decide not to go forward with Pateco at some point, um, I mean that
[21:49] doesn't mean that you're definitely going to do the project that maybe you're definitely
[21:56] not going to do the project at some point before sooner than when there's a decision
[22:06] to me, you know, like, certify that ER. So I think some directors want the opportunity
[22:14] to stop you know developing and paying for Pacheco before that time so hopefully that you know
[22:23] somehow that can be made clear when they would have an opportunity to make that decision.
[22:32] I I just wanted to add that I've brought this up in the past but you know there's always
[22:40] the discussion of how important the put-and-take capabilities are and then the, you know,
[22:48] overall need for storage that Valley Water has. It's not clear yet, it hasn't been made clear yet
[22:55] and I've asked for that before, but it would be good to have a more in-depth discussion of that
[23:04] the water supply master plan, because otherwise it's just endless black box hole for more
[23:13] and more projects. And I think the public has a right to know what is really needed and what
[23:22] they really need to pay for. And I did have a couple of questions. One is about the the
[23:33] the surface water reservoirs that were listed but did not include San Luis Reservoir and I kind
[23:43] of assume that's because the water there has to be removed every year. There's no opportunity
[23:51] for carryover storage. But if there is then that should probably be included. And then the other
[23:59] question was about the present value lifecycle cost of 1.7 billion. I don't know what that
[24:12] includes, but in the CIP, the cost is 2.7, and I'm assuming that's partially inflation,
[24:22] And that's why it's different,
[24:26] but also with Peter's question about mitigation costs, what is included in the present value life cycle cost?
[24:39] Those are my two questions.
[24:42] Okay, thank you for your comment, and as for your two questions, I'll ask staff, if there's
[24:50] so, and sir, if not, how we can always come back to this.
[24:55] In terms of the first question, so the current son of Louis Reservoir would be part of
[25:00] Would be created at San Luis with the partnership project we're pursuing. And in terms of the cost for
[25:06] Pacheco, I referred to Ryan, we used what the Pacheco team provided to us as costs. And I believe it doesn't
[25:12] include a lot of the things mentioned.
[25:20] Yes, so the capital cost does include the construction
[25:29] and the design cost and then I think the other items that were mentioned were included as well.
[25:36] So the what's listed in here is as of this year the estimated project cause
[25:46] what's in the CIP is just every year there's a estimated inflation factor
[25:57] to the previous year. So that's why it's different, right? Okay, and also that I understand
[26:07] mitigation causes we have there's an estimated cause for mitigation and that is included
[26:14] in the total project cost. That is correct, and that number will get refined as we circulate
[26:21] the draft, the IR,
[26:24] and, you know, the, our mitigation requirements more nail down.
[26:31] So at this point, it's just, it's a preliminary estimated and just like construction
[26:37] calls, and then those numbers will be updated as we have no more information about what
[26:43] speed up. Okay. And as for the black box of pudding pool, so down the road that whenever
[26:55] these if there's appropriate genital item, maybe this topic can be a more detailed. Actually
[27:05] in today's agenda item, there's a little bit about the challenges on pudding pool.
[27:12] Yeah, but in the future, when the agenda item is on the board, on the agenda,
[27:24] let's relate it to this open by more information related to that.
[27:29] Is that okay?
[27:32] Well, yeah.
[27:35] You reminded me when you talked about the 152 highway complication or, you know, all of these are complicated.
[27:48] And I guess my question is, given the under this adaptive management framework and given that all of these, there's a lot of risk and there are big projects and something could go wrong.
[28:01] And we saw with Los Vicaros, a beloved project, not move forward.
[28:09] I'm wondering if staff or maybe board members who were a part of that or on the board could maybe comment on,
[28:18] like, what did we learn there in terms of what went wrong or what we could have done better potentially,
[28:25] that can be applied to these very complicated projects, especially the ones that were like,
[28:31] oh, I mean, Cisco seems like people are generally like, this seems good. Let's make sure
[28:37] this happens.
[28:40] I know there are some people who don't, don't feel that way, but I guess fundamentally
[28:45] my question is, LVE was the beloved project. It ultimately crated. Are there things that we learn
[28:53] from that that could be applied to this stuff so that we make sure that this, you know,
[28:58] the same things don't happen, the same mistakes don't happen. And I don't actually know what
[29:02] those are, but and like I said, maybe board members have a, I don't know, staff will do a staff
[29:07] have some better answer, but I'll just say this first before I ask a staff to one challenge is that
[29:14] these are not all a project. There are other people's projects. I mean, I can't have, I can say that
[29:20] I doubt this number, but I really don't know the detail of the project.
[29:27] And it's inappropriate for me to just second-guess other people's presentation, even though.
[29:36] So the huge difference is it's not our project, there's a project team that's managing
[29:45] those activities versus we have these people here that whatever question we have we just ask and then they get get a
[29:54] sensors and that's something to keep me money. Okay kids, sure. Yeah, I mean.
[30:00] And I would say there were no mistakes. It's just sometimes, you know, it doesn't work out. But maybe Cindy can add more.
[30:11] Yeah, I think one of the things that really came through with the loss of carous project, I agree with
[30:19] Kirsten 100% the partnerships are working with people in understanding their priorities and making sure priorities are aligned
[30:27] are really important and that was one of the things for a loss of carous that came through was that the priorities were not aligned
[30:35] among the participants, so contra cost to have certain priorities, other partners had other priorities and they couldn't come together.
[30:47] Yeah, so I think that was the key issue.
[30:51] And then, of course, director Shoé is common about how that was somebody else's project.
[30:58] relative to Pacheco, I mean, that's two totally different dynamics, right, and no very limited control over the project that is, you know, owned and operated by another entity for CISC, that is a project that's going to be owned and operated by the Bureau.
[31:15] There are partnership issues, so there's more, I'd say, there's more of an analogy to lose the carous.
[31:22] But in that project, there is more alignment on the priorities, which is to provide the water supply to the participants.
[31:33] I mean, the Bureau does have other priorities that we don't, that the participants do not necessarily support.
[31:42] And that's going to be a challenge moving forward for this project.
[31:46] So the governance and how we operate, we anticipate there could be some challenges, which is why we try to develop, we're working to develop a robust governance structure, moving forward, right. So that's that's one of the one of staff's priorities taking all that into account, trying to make sure the governance is going to work and the partnership is strong and we're working with the authority to
[32:15] So try and ensure that the bureau maintains a top of their mind that CISC is a priority aligned in many ways with hours.
[32:30] Yeah, good question.
[32:33] Because when I was the alternate, that's the first thing I asked.
[32:37] We're going to publish.
[32:38] So we all know the failures and how make sure it doesn't happen.
[32:41] And the all said, yeah, I think the biggest issue is that
[32:45] The partners change horses in the middle of the stream and I think the risk became a big issue
[32:55] but they should have been up front in the beginning.
[32:58] And so if there's any less to learn, we have to be aggressive and make sure that we address those immediately,
[33:04] which I believe we're taking on Pacheco.
[33:06] Probably the biggest issue we can control it, we're responsible, we're reliable.
[33:10] Right now I believe as Cartesian Cabalero has a couple bills pending.
[33:14] they'll dress 152, they're going to be growth and so you need water.
[33:19] And the thing of it is this, I didn't invent it, neither did the Romans.
[33:23] FDR did it back in 1939, so there was a reason then that same reason
[33:28] there, potential floods, emergency, and whether it be Vandak or whatever.
[33:33] But when you talk, you should be thinking about the next generation,
[33:37] because it was all past to us.
[33:38] And there's said in all these things, so we're not trying to do that.
[33:41] And so when I leave Mama they sure that my family has water and I didn't leave them sitting here
[33:47] Yeah, there's gonna be cost but what's the cost if you don't have water gonna be worse?
[33:52] So the less is I'm sure, you know, we'll learn but when you have your partners we're gonna be a front real quick
[34:01] Because there's that should have never happened and then
[34:04] I don't think it was a big issue. We had a couple chairs and
[34:08] Directors change and things happen there, but that wasn't a big issue. We just got to be when you meet
[34:14] When you buy the car make sure there's four tires.
[34:21] It's a good way to put it. Okay
[34:25] And so we don't there's no more public comment. Okay. Yeah, no more questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you
[34:33] Thank you.
[34:36] Item 4.2, receive an informational update on the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project with
[34:43] the focus on partnerships and the role of the project in the Wadasupply Mass Supply.
[34:50] Yes, good afternoon, committee members, I'm Brian McCartner, Deputy Operating Officer
[34:54] of the Dam Safety and Capital Delivery Division.
[34:57] So, before I hand it over to Julie Ann, just want to say that I was...
[35:00] This is a good segue that the conversation we're just having into this next presentation because we do talk quite a bit about our partnership efforts that we've been undertaking for the last four years for the Pacheco Reservoir expansion project and some of the things we've learned.
[35:13] I think we've learned a lot more about other agencies in the state and it turns out they're just like us. A lot of them rely on important water. Everyone's concerned about climate change and everybody wants emergency storage and sort of a backup plan as we face towards the future.
[35:27] So yeah, just looking at it on to pay for it.
[35:30] Right. Yeah, this it's a, you know, it's an insurance policy, right? And investment and, you know,
[35:34] we've learned that a big investment upfront carries a lot of risk, right? So that's kind of one of the
[35:39] main, main messages we've heard in Julian will talk a little bit more about that. But yeah, we've been
[35:43] working with the the water supply team on this quite a bit and getting their input as well as with our
[35:49] our consultants that do this around the state for for other agencies and are really the experts in this field.
[35:54] And so I'll hand it over to Julianne.
[35:57] There is, through the chair, there is one more important issue.
[36:00] Even when we knew six, once things weren't working prior to the end, we wanted to continue
[36:06] relationship just in case we may have an opportunity to bring water for our residents.
[36:11] So we wanted to try to do damage and put everybody down, and we still ended up, but
[36:18] to get about half of our money back, but again, that relationship wasn't damaged and you never
[36:23] No, because I still believe there's going to be from Tracy, whatever, having the pump station, there's still potential water for the future, and but again, I really believe what we control something we'll be able to keep the costs were relevant.
[36:37] Okay, Julian, go ahead.
[36:40] Thanks, Julianne O'Brien, engineering manager, overseeing the Particle Project, good afternoon, everybody.
[36:49] Okay, so, as we've been kind of sharing in our recent updates, these are some of the past topics that we have presented on Patego both to the committee and then to the board at a later date and the most recent one being the informational project update that focused on the schedule changes.
[37:10] And then we will take this presentation to the full board likely in June,
[37:17] and then future topics still to come review the projects of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, as well as the review and discussion of cost benefit analysis.
[37:27] both of those will likely end up coming, probably later next calendar year just because there's additional
[37:34] information such as the 60% design and the resusculated draft EIR that needs to be completed before we can
[37:43] provide meaningful updates on those topics.
[37:47] And then as always additional topics that come from the committee or the board.
[37:51] We are going to talk about partnerships and a potential change in partnership approach here today,
[37:58] but it's going to be high level and we will plan on bringing that a more detailed discussion on that back and at a later date.
[38:07] Okay, so how did we get to partnerships?
[38:10] In 2021, there was a significant cost increase to the project, and during a presentation to the board, various partnership percentages were presented as a way of, you know, reducing the cost of the project to prep that's to the rate payers for value water that's still being able to move forward with the project.
[38:36] and 35% seemed to be the number that was the best, I guess, option moving forward.
[38:47] And then what we have done since then is we've had seven different agencies expressed interest
[38:54] in the project, six of those we have then met with and had in some cases a lot of meetings,
[39:02] some just a couple. And then two of them have actually sent letters of interest,
[39:07] a couple of the others are still in discussion phase. Thank you.
[39:17] Here's some other work that we have done as part of those discussions. We identified various sources
[40:00] Be call some three. But we've done a lot of work to identify how these different partnerships
[40:08] could work.
[40:13] And yeah, so we had economic evaluation as different scenarios, not getting
[40:20] into really the details on this is more just to show that there's been a lot of effort to go
[40:27] to these potential partnerships.
[40:31] And again, these are some additional areas where we might look to have partners or continue some
[40:40] of these we've already been talking to and we'll continue to some of these are kind of new
[40:45] partners that potential partners that have been identified to us.
[40:50] And feedback to date, like Cindy mentioned earlier, others mentioned earlier, partners
[40:56] it's a heart and that's what we've really learned throughout this process and there's definitely
[41:06] desire from these different partners to show up their shore up their water supply
[41:10] reliability, especially in dry and drought years and they a lot of them have different water types
[41:16] but some of the challenges relate to being able to afford the upfront capital costs.
[41:25] We have heard that value water and the Chaco in particular does provide a lot of potential
[41:32] benefits for these partners such as access to the CBP and state water project supplies
[41:38] and so well as the connection.
[41:40] The project would have to send the list reservoir.
[41:43] The advantage is exchange capacity relative to competing storage projects and we're looking
[41:51] to potentially provide them with flexible contract terms,
[41:56] such as maybe a shorter duration and rental versus
[42:02] high, you know, do more like a rental model,
[42:04] instead of having the owner model where they would have to pay
[42:06] that high upfront capital requirement.
[42:11] Okay, yeah, so talk about some of these already,
[42:14] but so some of the challenges that the partners have had
[42:16] is the relative costs compared to other
[42:17] virtual opportunities and that upfront to additional costs as well as taking on some of that risk.
[42:28] So we've been in conjunction with our consultants. We've identified a couple different conceptual
[42:35] partnership approaches. The first one is that full project partner, which is what we've been kind of
[42:41] moving towards initially where they would pay for a report and share the capital in O&M costs and then
[42:48] of a proportional dedicated storage space.
[42:52] And you know, I'm a project partner is similar,
[42:55] but maybe a shorter duration,
[42:56] so there would be a less upfront cost.
[42:59] Hybrids kind of something in between the full partner
[43:03] and a rental model.
[43:06] Rental would be just kind of annual fees for storage
[43:10] and return with a leave behind component
[43:12] that either value water could use
[43:14] or monetize through third-party sales and then a merchant model would be value-water acquiring
[43:23] surplus supply to store and then we would sell that to other water entities when they would
[43:28] have a need. And these are all pretty high-level conceptual at this point in time. We are asking
[43:35] our consultants to do a deeper dive and we'll come back with some posing columns of each model
[43:40] to then get direction at that point.
[43:46] So some of those impacts that are going to be studied
[43:48] are, you know, the costs in environmental releases
[43:53] and emergency storage are hope is that
[43:57] one of these models will still allow valley water
[44:00] to recruit some of our investment into the project
[44:03] and still with out having some of the same challenges
[44:08] is that a full partnership might have.
[44:14] Okay, then kind of link, going back to the take-os tie-to-war supply master plan.
[44:25] Some of this was already tested upon the jinx presentations, so I'm kind of just going to
[44:30] also over that.
[44:32] But our next, one thing I did want to point out is, our next board engagement point is actually
[44:36] going to be this summer when the board has the opportunity to finalize the EIL for the
[44:41] design level of geotechnical investigations. And we're still trying to figure out exactly
[44:46] when that's coming to the board, but it'll probably relate summer.
[44:52] And then again, just
[44:53] is a highlight some of the prep benefits primary water objective project objectives would be again.
[45:00] A huge objective is to increase the city will habitat and to create for the steelhead. And that is also a part of the grant requirements.
[45:13] And yeah, so emergency water supply, non emergency water supply, water quality. Again, this would allow us to move our water from San Luis earlier in the year.
[45:29] to talk about the creek already, and then additionally we're doing, we have the additional
[45:36] with the benefit of providing water to the refugee just during below normal water years.
[45:48] And I think that takes us to questions.
[45:51] Okay, thank you. Questions from community members?
[45:59] Well, if you have, I'll take a community member question first, and then we'll listen to people
[46:04] people's common, then we can discuss. If you have a question,
[46:16] I
[46:19] mean,
[46:23] I'm interested on the
[46:24] on the partnership piece in particular. I mean, there's the broader question of like,
[46:29] what are the, what are the dealbreakers for this? Under what circumstances would staff be saying?
[46:34] You know what? Actually, this looks like it's not a good idea. What, what are those specific things
[46:40] broadly, but specifically as it relates to partnerships, since that's what we're
[46:45] focused on for this presentation,
[46:49] I'll defer to right on that one.
[46:52] So, yeah, the biggest factor is costs, right? I mean, that's really what it comes down to.
[46:57] There's a large cost increase for some, you know, an unreads and ticker pick of things that
[47:03] can happen that have happened to other projects. That could be probably the biggest factor that
[47:09] would, you know, make it just not feasible anymore. And so that's how we do intend to do a cost
[47:15] benefit analysis is one of our future presentations.
[47:18] Hopefully following our 60% cost estimate update.
[47:22] So I think that's probably one of the biggest factors.
[47:26] I don't see us doing analysis to analyze our way out of needing
[47:30] Pacheco ever, but unless, you know, all these other projects go through and
[47:35] everything, you know, seems like we're going to meet, you know, our supply and demand
[47:38] and somehow there's a emergency storage somewhere that seems
[47:41] feasible, you know, that could be a decision point as well, that the board could decide to, you
[47:46] know, to not move on, but yeah, I think in fact, the costs, you know, if we were to lose the
[47:51] withy of funding, for example, that would be a major hit or a withs of funding with the state,
[47:55] those would be, you know, major implications to the cost of value water and rate pairs.
[48:03] Okay, you have a question, okay. Okay, and we have a public comment, questions,
[48:11] It's always, sorry, cannot see.
[48:15] That Chair, I can help with that.
[48:17] I have no physical cards and we do have three online comments.
[48:20] The first one is Mike Avina.
[48:24] Okay, well, stars, Mike.
[48:25] Please go ahead.
[48:27] Okay.
[48:27] Thank you.
[48:28] Mike, have any of you here with Sillary, Missouri?
[48:31] We represent the staff at Jacob Dam Coalition,
[48:34] and I would just like to reiterate our concerns that we feel
[48:37] that the project benefits are not outweigh
[48:41] by the Environmental Impact, which include inundating,
[48:43] where have attack types, such as Sikomora, Luvio,
[48:46] Udland, and significant impacts on a wildlife movement
[48:49] corridor, as well as impacts to a state park.
[48:53] And we encourage it all I wanted to continue to explore options,
[48:56] such as groundwater storage, or use of future capacity
[49:00] that will be created in San Luis Reservoir
[49:02] by the raising of Sisk Dam.
[49:04] Thank you.
[49:05] OK, thank you for your comment.
[49:08] next one. There are two more comments when the next one is Peter Van Dyke. Can Peter please go ahead.
[49:16] Yes, good afternoon. Again, thank you for letting me comment.
[49:20] You know, I am the president of the Lomer of Credit Resource Conservation District.
[49:23] I'm also on Agwater Advisory Committee.
[49:26] And I know partners getting partners on this project is a serious issue.
[49:31] Because I don't think the rate pairs can afford to finance this whole project on their own.
[49:37] if it ever goes through, so I'm not sure how that's going to be resolved if this project
[49:45] won't, if it just project goes through. The other thing is, I mentioned one of the benefits mentioned
[49:51] of Pacheco was the downstream environmental benefits, but that's not really explained as to what that is.
[49:59] I understand.
[50:00] So I don't understand how putting San Luis water into that system, which could introduce quite a few invasive species on a virgin creek, that the last time I looked at any water samples out of that creek, it was well below all health standards necessary for good water.
[50:21] So I don't know if it's a good idea to put untreated
[50:27] San Luis water into that creek.
[50:30] That San Luis reservoir water is only good for two things
[50:33] and that's perculation and treatment.
[50:37] I'll take your comments offline.
[50:39] Thank you.
[50:41] Hey, thank you.
[50:44] Padja,
[50:51] good afternoon again.
[50:52] I have some questions, several questions.
[50:58] One was talking about 100-year, it's using 100-year project life, and I was wondering if
[51:06] that's typical for dams, and if that's also the number of years are being used for Anderson,
[51:14] the life of Anderson and B.F. Sisk projects that are going forward if they're also assuming
[51:21] a hundred years. And I just another question is, and I'm hoping that the economic evaluation
[51:31] of potential partnerships in areas once that is completed that it will be presented to the board
[51:42] the committee, because I think for transparency, it would be the public would want to know
[51:51] that information also. And the last one question I have for now is about the rental or merchant
[52:03] models for partnership. I've never heard of that before, and so I was wondering if those have
[52:11] you'd used elsewhere and just because it seems if that's a whole brand new concept that could
[52:19] add risk and delay the project. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your questions.
[52:29] Well first of all that up before I ask the committee for the discussion that this is this plan to
[52:38] go to the food board in June, right?
[52:43] Yes, for this presentation.
[52:44] What is for this presentation?
[52:47] Let's make sure that the questions we received today from these public members
[52:54] be listed and then answered.
[52:58] Some are easy answer, but some are probably taking pictures of right up to, too, as well, for I always feel like for a particular project that the more transparent we are the better for the project and that's why we design these categories for the board to have in-depth discussions.
[53:25] so was that additional comment for staff and then one of the reason we're hearing this
[53:35] today is to help staff that so that they can be more prepared and then make sure that's the
[53:44] package meet the full board needs better so anything that's care helps staff in those three
[53:50] the heart to high will be good. Yeah, so.
[53:57] Okay.
[54:01] Okay. Then that's for this item. And thank you, Julian.
[54:12] And move on to item 4.3.
[54:21] Receiving discussing formation regarding the status of potential
[54:25] one while they're banking project. Good afternoon again. I'd like to introduce
[54:30] Kyle how come to give this presentation. Good afternoon, Kyle. Good afternoon, committee.
[54:37] I'm Kyle, com, senior engineer with the important water unit. And I'll be providing an update
[54:42] today on potential groundwater banking projects. This will mostly be in verbal state, but I do
[54:47] have a quick map that I'll be pulling up on the screen here shortly. As you heard earlier today,
[54:53] Currently, so much topic is Valley Waters,
[54:55] only groundwater banking program and now
[54:57] agreement expires in 2035.
[55:00] As she also heard, current water supply master pen analysis suggests that we need to maintain access to groundwater banking to meet future supply needs and diversification of our banking programs, which reduce risk and potentially increase puts and takes allowing us to optimize our water supply contracts.
[55:24] And so in support of that effort, staff is continuing to evaluate groundwater banking projects across the state.
[55:32] As part of that evaluation, we are identifying risk and challenges with potential projects in particular with the implementation of the sustainability,
[55:42] as the sustainable groundwater management act or sigma.
[55:46] But also other familiar issues such as conveys and conveys capacity as well as water quality concerns.
[55:53] And so today I'll start with providing updates on a couple of projects shown on the map.
[56:00] These are previously presented to the water storage laboratory committee in October 2023.
[56:07] The first one is the Sacramento Regional Water Bank being developed by the Sacramento Regional Water Authority or RWA.
[56:16] It is, there are joint powers authority representing, you know, 2000 water agencies in the Sacramento
[56:24] region. You can see that on the map. They include agencies that value water previously
[56:30] partnered with to secure dry year supplies and so we were excited to potentially work with them
[56:37] on a banking arrangement. The goal for the Sacramento Regional Water Bank is to coordinate
[56:44] And expand conjunctive use practices of its member agencies within the local groundwater basins.
[56:52] And in 2023, there were also evaluating potentially inviting south of Delta partners for dispanking program.
[57:03] And so through the RWA value audit developed a draft pilot program, which would have seen
[57:10] us send CBP supplies to one of their agencies in 2023, and we engaged with approving
[57:18] agencies to better understand what that approval process would be like and how we can implement
[57:24] that pilot. And the feedback that we got was, well, moving on to south of Delta to north of Delta
[57:31] it's a new concept and there were some questions that were raised regarding accounting procedures
[57:37] and how to ensure that there's no harm done to other north-of-the-thelter contractors.
[57:44] And so I think that's kind of an example of potential challenges with getting new banks
[57:50] that approve through that approval process. And so while those questions are still being clarified
[57:58] and figured out the project team is focusing on moving forward with the project with their
[58:05] invasive partners while continuing to engage with reclamation to seek recognition as an
[58:11] acknowledged water bank for banking and covering CBP supplies. The second project that was presented
[58:19] previously was at Antelope Valley East Kern or Aevec and there are a high desert water bank
[58:27] phase two. AVAC had partnered with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for
[58:33] face one of that project, and that project had targeted 280,000 acre feet of storage with
[58:40] putts and ticks annually of 70,000 acre feet. And they had suggested that a similar size
[58:49] or even larger scale project could be developed adjacent to that face one project. And so AVAC
[58:56] and value what it did have discussions and exchange preliminary terms, but Vivek ultimately
[59:03] put that project on hold in 2023. At the previous update, we're hoping that there would
[59:10] be new discussions last year, but Vivek's staff has continued to put that project on hold,
[59:17] cited the need to further evaluate that project and focusing on face one, completion of
[1:00:00] Existing facility that is also within AFAC boundary, and so that's why the coordination is needed, and it serves as another banking opportunity.
[1:00:11] The Willow Springs Water Bank has been conditionally awarded grant funding through Pop 1.
[1:00:16] The project team is aiming to make infrastructure upgrades and offer a banking program to partners who can deliver water to the bank through the California Accorduct, the East Branch of the California Accorduct.
[1:00:29] Because there is a prop one project, the project will need to provide equal system and emergency response public benefits and in November of last year they solicited interest from potential parties and value water did submit a non binding indication of interest to secure storage capabilities at that bank.
[1:00:56] Project staff, the Willow Springs Waterbank Project staff, is currently developing program parameters.
[1:01:05] Based on the received interest, they do say that it's going to be an iterative process.
[1:01:14] They're preparing project costs and rules for how partners will contribute to those public benefits.
[1:01:22] Product current timeline, we anticipate that we'll be getting some cost information in the
[1:01:27] middle of 2025 and we'll be providing updates to the committee as information becomes available.
[1:01:35] And so, while today's update is focused on those three projects shown on the map here today,
[1:01:41] you know, staff is continuing to engage and track other projects across the state as well,
[1:01:46] including Akotera and Irvine Ranch, which are a couple of projects that we had previously
[1:01:52] discuss with the committee here. Aquatera is a proposed bank in Fresno County and the project is moving forward with environmental analysis.
[1:02:03] Staff has identified some challenges with the project that still needs to be clarified before we can move forward in developing those conversations further.
[1:02:14] Staff has also previously mentioned a potential partnership with Irvine Ranch.
[1:02:21] So we entered into an agreement for a small program with them that would allow us to send
[1:02:27] water to that bank, food 2035 on a two to one basis at no upfront capital cost that will
[1:02:35] provide up to 10,000 acre feet of storage and we're currently working with partners, much
[1:02:40] positive current water counter, county agency and DWR and conveyance agreements, adjusting some
[1:02:48] comments and hopefully be able to implement that small project.
[1:02:52] And a staff continues to discuss potential partnerships, we're also following to implementation
[1:02:57] of Sigma, in particular within current counting, where some of my topic operates, who
[1:03:03] evaluate the updated GSPs that are expected in June, and follow the probationary hearing
[1:03:09] scheduled for September. And in particular, how those plans may affect
[1:03:15] recharge and recovery operations for the bank. And what that may mean for a
[1:03:21] potential extension of our semi-chronic program. And with that, that concludes my update
[1:03:27] and I've been to questions comments. Okay, thank you, Kyle. Questions from committee members first?
[1:03:38] I guess the one issue is that do we get the water when we want it, I know you're all going
[1:03:43] to work on it, then the quality water is probably the biggest issue with semi-tropics I
[1:03:47] hope we're not facing up there, but I applaud all of you for never stop trying to get us
[1:03:53] a source of water.
[1:03:53] That's what we got to do.
[1:03:57] Thanks.
[1:04:03] I don't think I have a question just kind of a comment and I'm still learning, I'm going to be
[1:04:08] for a long time. But given, so this all, this agenda here all fits together, right? So we looked
[1:04:16] at three of the projects, then we looked a bit at Chaco, and now we're looking a bit at groundwater.
[1:04:23] And so I'm interested in hearing from staff also the board, and again, as I'm learning,
[1:04:29] where we've been and how we think about this stuff, with the adapted management framework,
[1:04:34] We're putting lots of irons in the fire and we're paying to tend to those irons and part of my question about on the Chico about, you know, it's like you, how do we know has the board had had a discussion, have we set some problem?
[1:04:51] I guess I need to hear a little bit more. I'd like to learn a little bit more about when do we know that it's time to stop spending money on something on a particular
[1:05:00] So it says you're real cheap. And so I'm gravitating towards that. I like, I like cheap.
[1:05:08] But how, so how do we know that? Because I think that the memo said something like, we don't really have any projects that really that are in the works.
[1:05:20] But we're keeping the door open. There's a certain amount of work that we have to do to keep the door open so that if something happens, we can jump through it.
[1:05:28] So I'm kind of going around in circles, but I understand it's a hard question to answer, but like when do we know when to staff say like you know what time to pull this iron out of the fire we got to stop spending money on this one and and has the board kind of set those parameters or guidance or do we rely on staff to really tell us like it's time this isn't really going to go anywhere so let's stop spending money on it.
[1:05:56] Well, I would say that it's part of the Adaptive Management Program.
[1:06:00] We would we come back every year with the monitoring and assessment program.
[1:06:04] And so if the board agrees with staff recommendation, for example,
[1:06:09] on the water supply mass plan, and we focus on the lower cost,
[1:06:12] but we continue all these others because we're still in the planning stage on all of these or have nothing.
[1:06:18] And therefore we have to continue to keep more ions in the fire until we know which ones actually will work out.
[1:06:25] And then once we know that, which is likely in the next two or three years, that's when we would come with updates to the board.
[1:06:33] And we do update the water supply master plan every five years as well.
[1:06:37] So they might be new projects to look at, or they might be some, I mean, we have, you know, for example, Los Vercares was in the previous water supply master plan.
[1:06:46] We did analyze it for this one and then it dropped out.
[1:06:50] So these things happen and that's how we would handle it, we would do it in our annual update.
[1:06:58] We plan to actually have sort of each project in the annual update, like what's going on with
[1:07:05] it and what stages it add and to help the board make those decisions. And then each project
[1:07:11] as it comes forward, as you've been seeing with all of them, like you have this in Pacheco,
[1:07:16] always has a reference of the water supply master plan and how it relates. So I think that's how we would handle it.
[1:07:26] Yeah, much share. I think that's always good questions. But you know,
[1:07:30] says I've been here a while and so as night, soon as the drafts come, all the
[1:07:35] expectations and all the anxiety all change. Why don't you guys have more? Why don't you do this?
[1:07:41] So again, I applaud you all for keeping the irons warm. We're not like PG&E of the state
[1:07:49] burning down, but the droughts are going to come again. We prepared to hook up when we needed
[1:07:54] when there's emergency for two million people. You can remember the night when we get into politics,
[1:07:59] but as part of it, when the Anderson came, everybody knew about it, right at a drought. So where's
[1:08:06] our governor? We're the ones that had a face water for two million people and no one's gave us
[1:08:13] other than measure S. So I applaud you again so that three times. Keep those irres warm.
[1:08:22] Keep potential projects because when one fails we had something going on and we didn't have
[1:08:27] to invent the wheel. So being new that's why you would see it. But for me personally everybody keeps
[1:08:35] on cost, cost, cost. Well, we're about the tariffs of Merbat Costco. Water is essential because
[1:08:41] out water, those terrors won't go through.
[1:08:46] Water is vital. COVID-19, whatever. Water is
[1:08:49] essential of life. And we need to invest in it. We've got a continuing investment. And
[1:08:55] JPA, we're over the list of the kernels that just unfortunate means to let the people who
[1:08:59] didn't want to take any more risk. One more time that has set it in the beginning. So less
[1:09:04] has learned. But when you look at it, and I hate to say it, but a couple of million dollars
[1:09:09] and bad. Today's market. When you're talking about 4.2 billion and you're also talking about
[1:09:17] two million people in need of water. So keep doing what you're doing. So far up, you know, I'm
[1:09:23] very pleased. Like you, I want things that faster, but the politics is what it makes us have
[1:09:29] Anderson go on for 10 years. We don't do that 13 regulatory agencies. All the stuff we have to do.
[1:09:35] we do everybody's work but no one gives us the money and we rely on Santa Clara County voters.
[1:09:41] So I think they'd really do understand when I go places. I haven't that had any critics
[1:09:46] other than coming here on people up there saying a couple things. When I go anywhere this thing
[1:09:51] You're going to do a great job because when you turn that tap on, I've been here because water comes out of that tap.
[1:10:00] My comment is similar to my director said to us that sometimes it's frustrating, but you just need
[1:10:10] to keep, keep that, keep working at it. Actually, that that's our life in this organization,
[1:10:18] not while it's supply before protection and also that when it floods everybody's pointy finger at us,
[1:10:25] how come we didn't do this? In the five years after the flood nobody remembers that.
[1:10:30] the flood actually happened. So yeah, we just we have our missions clear and then we
[1:10:42] just keep working at those things. I do have a question, a small question that
[1:10:50] in the right up related to the Sacramento Regional Water Bank, it says the last
[1:10:58] paragraph, the sentences, staff learned of potential challenges, specifically relating to the feasibility
[1:11:06] of storing projects supplies, north of Delta, when we said projects supply, is that the
[1:11:13] CVP, is that CVP project or what is the project supply? You're correct. That was referencing
[1:11:22] CVPCB.
[1:11:23] CVPCB.
[1:11:24] It's a CVP project supply.
[1:11:26] OK, yeah.
[1:11:28] OK.
[1:11:28] Thank you.
[1:11:30] OK, are there any public comment on this item?
[1:11:35] Thank you, Chair.
[1:11:36] I have no cards on their NoHans raised online.
[1:11:41] So just if we minor to staff next time, if we have update on the ground wall
[1:11:52] other banking opportunity, if there's more information about taking pull information, that's
[1:12:01] include those so that everybody can understand what we say, what does that mean?
[1:12:08] I want to make sure the vice chair, because I truly feel what she feels.
[1:12:12] But you know, when we had the relationship, no matter what, with the counter cost, there is potential
[1:12:17] partners, because we left with good relationships.
[1:12:21] We're a very honorable as an organization and we didn't jump a gun, you know, because I remember the CEO telling me six months ago
[1:12:28] Yeah, take the same going good. You know, I said, well, that's easy to say what's the results? Well
[1:12:34] Our talk to our staff is it we're gonna hang in there. We're trying not to spend as much as we can
[1:12:40] But we're still still working because we still have and I really believe down a road. I really might may be gone
[1:12:46] But there'll be some link there
[1:12:48] for emergency waters and something that'll bring the security to our folks that we got elected by.
[1:12:54] So I think that a relationship is going to be good. And some of the people there, they thought
[1:13:00] our staff was great. We had good relationships, and they respect us. And I believe you were talking
[1:13:06] about the Alameda and everybody else, partnerships will come in the drought.
[1:13:18] Okay, so that's
[1:13:21] So, now move on to item 4.4, receive information on the water use projections, water demand
[1:13:30] elasticity, elasticity, and custom mobility study, and provide feedbacks to staff, Darren
[1:13:39] or, yes, I'm in.
[1:13:40] Good afternoon, committee members, Darren Taylor, chief financial officer, and yes, this
[1:13:45] is it's an update for the committee on the consultant study that's underway. It's been underway
[1:13:51] for a little while on those three topics, water use projections, water demand elasticity and
[1:13:56] customer affordability. And so we have our consultants with us today who have a brief PowerPoint
[1:14:02] for you and with that I'll turn it over to Kevin. Okay. Kevin, welcome to this committee. Thank you
[1:14:09] for your time to give us the presentation.
[1:14:13] Thank you for the welcome.
[1:14:15] Just confirming that you can hear me okay, on my end.
[1:14:19] They'd be a little louder, can you?
[1:14:21] Sure, I'll try and stay in a bit closer to the computer.
[1:14:23] This is good, this is great.
[1:14:25] Well, thank you again for the warm welcome.
[1:14:27] Again, Kevin Costa from our hotelists.
[1:14:30] I've got a couple colleagues from our hotelists on,
[1:14:32] as well as our partner in Hazen,
[1:15:00] Next slide, please. And if we had advanced one or two, we've got an animation here, one more please. So we, we would have shown this, this flow chart to you all the last time we met, showing our overall overarching project goals, to identify how valleys rates affect water demand in the county, as well as affordability of water service.
[1:15:26] And so we're keeping in mind that your rates are just one consideration.
[1:15:31] You have your own cost structure, your own cost incurred to provide wholesale service.
[1:15:36] The retailers similarly have their own cost structure in addition to your costs.
[1:15:41] Capital costs, cost of other sources.
[1:15:44] There's obviously translate into their retail and users bills.
[1:15:47] So we're trying to understand the feedback there between how your rates affect the retailers,
[1:15:51] how the retailers affect the end user's bills.
[1:15:55] So as was pointed out, yeah, we can advance one more.
[1:15:59] As was pointed out in the title slide,
[1:16:01] we've got three discrete tasks today.
[1:16:03] We're going to be talking about the results of the first task,
[1:16:06] which is a review of our water use and demand projections.
[1:16:11] So what we actually did and what we're going to step through briefly here today
[1:16:14] was a review of how the district currently forecast demands
[1:16:21] or purposes of rate settings.
[1:16:23] So we're talking about the demand forecast,
[1:16:25] and we're talking about annual rate setting,
[1:16:26] and we're not talking about a longer term supply forecast.
[1:16:30] So I just want to make that crystal clear.
[1:16:32] So we're talking about district-manage, water, demand,
[1:16:36] for purposes of setting rates.
[1:16:38] Then we looked at how we have expected changes
[1:16:42] in the service area, how those are utilized
[1:16:44] in the demand forecast and for purposes of rates,
[1:16:47] evaluating the performance of the existing approach,
[1:16:49] analyzing alternatives, looking at potential improvements, and then other considerations, so again we'll step through each one of those briefly here.
[1:16:58] Next slide please.
[1:16:59] So summarizing the existing forecasting method at a very high level, year one is our rate setting year, and this uses historical demands.
[1:17:08] So looking back in time, but weighted towards prior year actuals, most recent year of water demands,
[1:17:14] and leaning heavily on staff's institutional knowledge,
[1:17:17] extensive institutional knowledge, and discussions with individual retailers.
[1:17:23] Ineram years, those are years two and three.
[1:17:26] So now we're beyond the initial rate setting year, but in years two and three,
[1:17:29] we're looking similarly at the past, but also the most recent year's
[1:17:33] hydrology, was it dry, was it wet, was it a largely normal year,
[1:17:37] and then again, staff's institutional knowledge and discussions with
[1:17:40] retailers to kind of see what's the trajectory between year one and then the longer term,
[1:17:45] which we define as year four and beyond. That builds from the interim forecast,
[1:17:51] and then harmonizes with the incremental growth rates that are used elsewhere on the supply side.
[1:17:56] So when we think about incremental we're talking about incremental growth in new connections and
[1:18:03] water demands. Okay.
[1:18:08] So looking at historical water demands, we went back nearly 30 years.
[1:18:12] So these are district manage supplies or district water sales demands rather going back to 1996.
[1:18:21] And we've categorized them by three water types. We have North County groundwater, South County
[1:18:27] groundwater, and North County treated water or treated water and North County. And some observations
[1:18:34] are there on the left side of the slide. So the first is that we've seen a substantial decline or
[1:18:40] Excuse me, the first is that we've seen in South County a very stable groundwater use over time.
[1:18:45] So that's the green line you go back to 1996 all the way through 2023 the last year of the actual that we had when we started this analysis and you see very stable trends.
[1:18:55] You see a different story in North County both treated water and North County groundwater have declined over time.
[1:19:02] So not just one offsetting the other, but both have declined.
[1:19:05] And some by a significant margin, so North County groundwater, for example, is declined by roughly half over that it's a 28 year period nearly 30 year period.
[1:19:16] And so what we also see is that water usage is not trended upward, even if we've had changes in population growth and new housing starts, et cetera.
[1:19:25] The last observation here is that we see drought periods, resulting in lower demands or at least in multi-year drought shortages, resulting in lower demands, overall when we return to normal.
[1:19:39] So that is what we refer to as demand hardening. We see a decline and then we see a hardening of water sales or demands at a lower level.
[1:19:48] Next slide.
[1:19:50] So we benchmark what we've seen in your demand trends as well as staff forecasting approach with peer agencies.
[1:20:00] Orty, eSPEA, even though they're largely retailer, they're original peered in a large agency, eSPEA mud, and then
[1:20:08] much policy and water district of Southern California as well. And what we observed is that when we think
[1:20:13] about rate setting purposes or rate setting demand projections, the peers use the similar approach
[1:20:19] to what value-water staff is currently doing, looking at historical data, looking at forward-looking
[1:20:24] adjustments, considering annual hydrology, if drop conditions exist, and localized growth
[1:20:31] estimates. We also see similar trends in water sales over time, and if we go to the next
[1:20:36] side, we have a table that illustrates that.
[1:20:41] So looking back to 2015, which is our start year here, and then comparing, this is the annual
[1:20:49] change relative to prior year. So for example, in 2016, for Metropolitan Water District, we see a
[1:20:56] 16% decline relative to 2015 and then in 2017, another 7% etc. So extrapolating that out to see
[1:21:05] what have been the changes of retirement and we see very significant downward pressure on water sales.
[1:21:12] Metropolitans down over 30%.
[1:21:15] Valley's declined by 16%.
[1:21:18] S.P.C. 7%.
[1:21:20] East Bay mud 5% and San Diego County 3%.
[1:21:23] You see a lot of variability.
[1:21:25] Year to year.
[1:21:25] As we go through drought cycles,
[1:21:30] wet, wet years, and normal conditions.
[1:21:32] But overall, all taken together over those last many years,
[1:21:36] a decline across all agencies and significant ones.
[1:21:42] So I mentioned that we did compare the existing approach against alternatives.
[1:21:47] And the reason we wanted to do that was to simply compare the results that we would see against the existing.
[1:21:52] Also to support staff in identifying in future great setting years, a range of estimates.
[1:22:00] So think of low medium and high demand ranges.
[1:22:04] And then also to provide a foundation if in the future, we wanted to entertain more complex modeling around demand forecasting.
[1:22:16] So we looked at three different methods, three alternatives.
[1:22:21] The first is a weather normalization.
[1:22:23] So we looked at what is the volume of water sales?
[1:22:26] So it would be expected in a typical water year.
[1:22:28] So normal hydrology, normal rainfall, normal annual temperature.
[1:22:34] The second was a regression to look at the relationship between multi-year moving average
[1:22:39] and again hydrology between wet years, drought conditions, et cetera.
[1:22:46] And then the third is the time series analysis, which is really a moving average and then
[1:22:50] categorizing each year based on a hydrology.
[1:22:54] was it abnormally low, abnormally high,
[1:22:57] was it a drought year, was it a wet year?
[1:23:02] So those are the three alternatives.
[1:23:03] And if we go to the next slide, we see the results.
[1:23:06] So again, looking at ranges, low, medium, and high.
[1:23:09] And the first is Valley's method.
[1:23:11] And so what we're looking at here is the range in 1000 acre feet
[1:23:17] and specifically for the current fiscal year, 2025.
[1:23:20] So this is what Staff would have shown in the fall.
[1:23:22] And so, what we see is a low-medium and high range of 200, excuse me, a low range of 200 and 8,000 acre feet up to a high range of 223,000 acre feet.
[1:23:32] Looking at the time series, it's significantly lower, the low to high range, where south of 190,000 and only up to 240,000 acre feet.
[1:23:41] That's largely because it's biased towards the recent past where we've had lower sales.
[1:23:49] Alternatively, the regression method, which considers a longer-term period, shows a range that's
[1:23:55] a bit more than what staff presented in the fall, 220, 1,000, acre-feet on the lower
[1:24:01] age, up to 234.
[1:24:03] What's interesting is the average of the three is pretty close.
[1:24:06] It approximates what staff's estimate was, 250,000 on the low end and 220,000 on
[1:24:11] high end.
[1:24:12] So it tells us that what staff is doing has done is reasonable.
[1:24:21] So some takeaways here, first is that the current approach is consistent with pure agencies that we looked at.
[1:24:29] The second is that when we looked at forecast to actual or think budget to actual water sales,
[1:24:35] they've been largely accurate and in fact we've seen a reduced variance in recent years.
[1:24:39] So staff is increasingly more accurate with their forecasting and that rate setting year compared to what
[1:24:45] actually transpires in that fiscal year. These statistical analyses that we conducted,
[1:24:54] the alternatives, they demonstrate that the current approach has a reasonable book and range.
[1:25:01] Next. So here's a handful of potential refinements. You know, some of it is small in understanding, referencing of our data sources, and just being explicit about our forecasting assumptions, aligning with longer term demand forecasting that we see in the remote management plan.
[1:25:22] And then incorporating any future interest page conservation, either by water type or by retailers as they all have their own requirements under the making conservation and California way of life legislation.
[1:25:38] And then lastly and again that we do have additional statistical methods that could supplement the existing approach if desire to explore that in the future.
[1:25:49] So some final other considerations would be to entertain retailer specific adjustments into
[1:25:56] man projection.
[1:25:57] So again, what we're looking at and what the rate model that staff uses is looking at
[1:26:01] those water types, again, North County groundwater, South County groundwater and treated
[1:26:06] water.
[1:26:07] So to supplement that, we could look at retailer specific demand projections or geographical
[1:26:14] on sectoral, think residential, commercial, agricultural,
[1:26:18] irrigation, et cetera.
[1:26:21] Another one would be to further analyze
[1:26:24] what to be expected in a drought rebound.
[1:26:27] So obviously over that last 30 years we've had
[1:26:30] multiple multi-year droughts.
[1:26:33] We've seen the demand hardening after a drought.
[1:26:37] But we could do some additional analysis on what might be
[1:26:40] expected to try and dial in those expectations on drought
[1:26:44] rebounds and this a handful of other considerations they're at the end.
[1:26:50] So that is that's a wrap on our first task. We we've drafted a report on that first
[1:26:58] task. It will be incorporated into the larger study report for all three tasks.
[1:27:03] The elasticity analysis and affordability work is ongoing and next we would look to
[1:27:10] come back to your committee with an update on task two and task three on the elasticity, effort and the affordability work.
[1:27:22] And without we'd be happy to entertain your questions.
[1:27:25] Okay, thank you very much for the presentation.
[1:27:29] Questions for committee members?
[1:27:35] Go.
[1:27:36] No, go ahead.
[1:27:37] Go ahead.
[1:27:40] First, thank you.
[1:27:41] This is super fascinating.
[1:27:44] I've lots of questions.
[1:27:45] I don't even know kind of where to begin.
[1:27:49] But I guess the high level takeaway is we're normal.
[1:27:53] The other partner or sibling agencies do stuff the same way that we do.
[1:28:00] And I guess one of the other questions we're trying to get it is, is normal good,
[1:28:05] because it might not be,
[1:28:09] you know, just because we're doing everything the same way that everybody else does.
[1:28:12] That is a good, I think that's a good thing, and we should look at like, is that a good thing?
[1:28:16] is normal good. I had a question on slide 9. So if I understand this correctly, so first one whether
[1:28:33] yeah, whether normalization is we're looking at the previous year mainly. Second one is we're
[1:28:39] looking at a four kind of a four-year average. I didn't understand what the third is. Can
[1:28:44] use that again, what that means.
[1:28:47] I could talk to that.
[1:28:49] So, time's here's analysis.
[1:28:50] The main objective of that is to identify the overall trend.
[1:28:54] So, the overall trend of water usage is going to be downwards from R.8, which was, I think,
[1:28:59] 20 something years of data to today's.
[1:29:02] So, that's kind of goes to further why that was a low one.
[1:29:05] So, you're going to use a moving average, because what on average was a past 30 years
[1:29:09] of usage, that's kind of one of the ways to ex out any abnormality due to weather,
[1:29:14] do drought and so forth. And the next thing is compare how that year performed compared to that moving
[1:29:20] average to then take out the effects of weather to get kind of a weather normalized year as well.
[1:29:27] And then the trending downward update is going to affect the forecast once you identify the trend
[1:29:31] of it goes down x percent each year so that's the forecast.
[1:29:36] All right, I might have to go back and watch you say that a couple more time.
[1:29:41] What I would add to that is that all three of these methods are effectively different approaches to getting at the same normal.
[1:29:52] It should what should or would be expected in normal conditions.
[1:29:57] There are all different approaches to the yield difference.
[1:30:02] Now, we're going back to, I think it's the next slide, the regression yield something that's on a higher end, right, when we look at normal and this time series method, lower and again, that has to do with the variables that are included.
[1:30:21] the bias in the time series towards the the shorter term where we have in the last several years,
[1:30:29] lower demands than if we look at the longer term 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.
[1:30:45] I think that's it. Yeah, we'll go through a look and see it.
[1:30:51] Okay.
[1:30:51] I have a couple of questions on the slides.
[1:31:00] Well, first of all, I'm very happy to see the preliminary result that our methodology is
[1:31:13] or consistent with her first of all other agencies.
[1:31:17] It's exactly based on these other methodology on average.
[1:31:23] It's generated numbers that's pretty close to our methodology.
[1:31:27] So that's really good to know.
[1:31:32] They are a slight number 13 other considerations
[1:31:38] for refinement, potential refinements, can you explain a little better consideration of spatial
[1:31:47] and sectors, segmentation, and treated water contact provision and reserves policies?
[1:31:59] Sure, I'll lead. I'll probably go from the bottom up, and then I'll lean on our friend Luke
[1:32:06] from Hazen on the last one.
[1:32:09] So we talk about reserve policies to say that,
[1:32:13] reserve policies are generally a function of risk, right?
[1:32:18] I mean, cash flow to some degree, but also risk.
[1:32:20] And so in this context, we're thinking about the risk
[1:32:24] of being off in your demand forecast in one year or another
[1:32:28] or a deviation from normal.
[1:32:30] And so in a certain sense, with a more robust reserve policy,
[1:32:35] It's okay to be to have more variants in your projection than what might actually come to pass because.
[1:32:43] Oh, okay.
[1:32:44] Okay.
[1:32:45] That was the consideration.
[1:32:47] Okay.
[1:32:49] The second you mentioned was treated water contract provisions.
[1:32:53] You do you do have contracts with your treated water customers.
[1:32:57] And I know it lays out a schedule of deliveries and they're also subject, at least by the
[1:33:06] letter of the contract to take or pay provisions.
[1:33:09] And so if those take or pay provisions are enforced, then again, that reduces some of the
[1:33:17] experience from the forecast, but if they're not, then that's another consideration into making
[1:33:26] sure the the at least near term forecast is is dialed in so to speak. The last one is about
[1:33:33] spatial and sector segmentation. Luke, would you want to add to that one? Yeah, sure. Thanks. Thanks
[1:33:40] and appreciate, you know, committee having us here today.
[1:33:46] So from a spatial and sectoral segmentation standpoint,
[1:33:51] I mean, really, you know, what we're talking about is,
[1:33:55] you know, how water use and water use trends vary
[1:34:00] you know, throughout the county.
[1:34:03] For a spatial standpoint, you know, you might think about
[1:34:07] from like a retailer to read retailer basis.
[1:35:00] And similarly, from a sectoral standpoint, when we say sectoral, we're talking about, it's kind of like a synonymous with custom reduced classifications, so the way that single family households use this water, it's different from multi-family housing sector, which is different from commercial industrial and institutional use.
[1:35:26] So, you know, there may be an opportunity, you know, to incorporate, you know, and just try to, you know, better understand and represent the variability from both that, you know, spatial and, you know, different sectors of water use, you know, components.
[1:35:48] So,
[1:35:50] You know, hopefully that answers the question.
[1:35:52] Yeah, it does. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you for that. Well, those answer.
[1:36:00] Okay.
[1:36:01] Uh, do we have, uh, if I should do you have a question? No.
[1:36:06] Okay. Are there any public comment?
[1:36:09] Uh, thank you chair. I have no cards but there are two public commenters online.
[1:36:14] Okay.
[1:36:14] Peter Van Dyke? Okay. Peter, go ahead. Thank you folks and just a couple comments.
[1:36:26] It's conservation efforts have been so successful and water use trends seem to be declining.
[1:36:36] How is this going to impact future revenues and how are we going to pay back some of these loans
[1:36:44] that are going into these projects if they're based, if they're revenues, future revenues, and sales are
[1:36:50] put up as the collateral. Will that entail
[1:36:53] drastic rate increases to the rate pairs or is there some other way to mitigate this or as has even been considered at all?
[1:37:01] Thank you
[1:37:02] Okay, thank you for your question. This is the question at Darren. Can you answer this? Okay. Yes, no
[1:37:10] Yeah, hi, Darren Taylor, Chief Financial Officer, and so we're just now taking a look at these results
[1:37:16] that show what's been happening over the past 30 years. And what we have baked into our current
[1:37:22] water use projection is fairly flat, a little bit of rebound after the most recent drought and
[1:37:27] fairly flat water use projections for the next couple of decades that translate to revenue for
[1:37:34] the water utility. And so yes, you're right that that's, you know, that revenue is what would pay
[1:37:39] for the debt and so on and so forth.
[1:37:41] And I also want to point out
[1:37:43] that we do have an annual process
[1:37:45] to set rates, the board must set water rates annually.
[1:37:51] We can't do it on a multi-year basis.
[1:37:53] And so we look at this annually.
[1:37:55] We update the model annually.
[1:37:57] And if water usage is playing out a little bit differently,
[1:38:00] than what we forecast, we update a case
[1:38:03] and point is this past year,
[1:38:04] where we reduce the water use projection by a good 15,000 acre
[1:38:08] feet per year as we look out into the future relative to what it was in the prior year.
[1:38:13] So that's how I'd answer that question is, is we update every year depending on how things are going.
[1:38:22] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Derek. And I'll just add that as I recall that the years ago that
[1:38:30] we used to estimate the projected water demand for the coming years like over 400,000.
[1:38:41] I mean, there's years like that, of course, we never saw that much water, but so it just tells us
[1:38:50] that we are based on what they're in just explained in my sense that we are getting better and better
[1:38:59] every year and then the actual usage and the projected demand to are getting closer and closer.
[1:39:09] Yeah, every year, so the, and that is the total revenue that we're using to, uh,
[1:39:17] for a fountain, all that. So we're not using imaginary numbers for, uh, anything
[1:39:23] spec, how we're using pretty close to actual numbers to do those things. Okay, uh,
[1:39:31] next one is Cacha, go ahead.
[1:39:39] Hey, hello again. Um, I had a few comments and a few
[1:39:42] questions for a staff the urban water management plan forecast tend to over estimate growth and
[1:39:50] future demand and are quickly out of date. So I think those forecasts should be used with,
[1:39:58] I know it's just for growth.
[1:40:00] You know, with caution, the 2020 urban water management plan forecasted that 2025 demand would be 330,000 acre feet.
[1:40:13] But now we're looking at, you know, at most, 223,000 in actual water usage. So it was just hugely off.
[1:40:23] which seems to indicate that using that projected growth will not provide accurate demand forecasting.
[1:40:32] And hopefully the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan will be different, but we won't know for several years.
[1:40:38] So I'm not sure how these reports can accommodate, you know, incorporate that.
[1:40:49] I would also suggest, or I'm not sure how droughts and demand hardening are being considered
[1:41:01] and so I'm hoping that there'll be more details on that in the report and then my questions
[1:41:08] are to some things I didn't understand in the presentation like what does it mean to review
[1:41:14] how expected changes in the service area are utilized.
[1:41:20] Pat is confusing I don't know what
[1:41:22] that means that was on slide three and then also what are the other considerations related
[1:41:29] to reserve policies that was on slide 13 and I also don't understand what that means. So thank you.
[1:41:41] Okay. Thank you for your question. There's quite a few questions. I don't know if there's any one that can be answered now, or if not, I will keep a record of these questions in there and make sure that next time the update answer that.
[1:42:02] I think initial, okay, go ahead.
[1:42:05] Just one small clarification.
[1:42:08] I think that this happens a lot,
[1:42:11] but the urban water management plan looks at countywide.
[1:42:14] And then when we do rate projections,
[1:42:17] that's just valley water supplies.
[1:42:19] So maybe that's where some of the disconnect
[1:42:22] is coming in and why it's so much higher.
[1:42:25] Because we are in the urban water management plan,
[1:42:28] including the SFPUC.
[1:42:30] Yeah.
[1:42:30] Yeah, okay, and also that's not the only thing we use to project future water, didn't that, right?
[1:42:40] We look at a lot of many things actually on these slides, it's listed under other consideration,
[1:42:46] I think. So, yeah, and then these other questions just, that's make sure that we keep track of them,
[1:42:56] And then at the next update, we'll make sure that we answer those questions, okay?
[1:43:03] Through the chair?
[1:43:04] Yes.
[1:43:05] One other sort of question that we have for you is, you are advice on whether or not we
[1:43:11] should take this update to the full board or whether or not we wait on an update to the full
[1:43:16] board when we advance further on parts 2 and 3 of the study, but appreciate your thoughts
[1:43:23] on that.
[1:43:23] Okay, I'll also what I think, and then I'll ask the committee members,
[1:43:32] if they agree.
[1:43:34] My personal thought is that I think it's easier for the board to digest the information
[1:43:39] if you separate into these three, three, three pieces.
[1:43:46] So to me, this is a good information for the board at this point.
[1:43:52] So, I don't want to come to you, members, have thought on.
[1:43:59] Well, I don't like the waste time, so I rather, when you give them something, give it all to them.
[1:44:04] I just thought that elasticity, analysis can be pretty complex.
[1:44:09] And then it's better to have a time dedicated to that.
[1:44:19] Yeah. So what do you think?
[1:44:24] I probably tend to agree with you. This is it's a lot to digest
[1:44:30] and it's nice to break it down into different chunks, which is also the purpose of the committee
[1:44:35] for us to be able to digest it in smaller chunks and then provide advice, but I think a board update
[1:44:43] would be good.
[1:44:47] I know a lot of these agenda items, it's it's broad, you know, provide feedback
[1:44:51] to staff and I would imagine it would be the same at the board, but are there any more specific
[1:44:57] questions you have of us today?
[1:45:00] First of all, just to give us an update and I know I've been one of those people that has been like, hey, what's going on with the study? Do we have any information we can share? So thank you. I appreciate that.
[1:45:12] And I guess so at this point, it's like, okay, it's moving. Here's what we know at this point, it looks like we when we're forecasting demand. We're on part with other agencies. We're doing it in a normal way.
[1:45:28] But is there any other questions you have for us at this point?
[1:45:32] And I would like to just say, I appreciate Joshua, you're asking about those other considerations.
[1:45:40] And I wanted to ask after there was clarification on this spatial piece.
[1:45:45] Is a different way of saying that that I guess putting it in my career jargon.
[1:45:52] It's a land use, that's a land use consideration.
[1:45:54] Is that a way of characterizing that particular consideration?
[1:45:58] So I'm getting to the weeds.
[1:45:59] One is do you have any other specific questions for us?
[1:46:01] And then on those considerations,
[1:46:03] is that an appropriate way of a different way
[1:46:08] that you could characterize that particular consideration
[1:46:10] is as a land use consideration?
[1:46:14] So as far as the first, I don't think we have any,
[1:46:16] I don't have any further questions for the committee
[1:46:19] and appreciate the feedback and the questions that you have
[1:46:22] And it sounds like that the consensus is to take it to the board and where we can answer some of these additional questions like that we heard from this ribbon and that kind of thing.
[1:46:35] And as far as the spatial and sectoral segmentation, I think that's a way, I mean the way I kind of view it is is, you know, we forecast at a very high level.
[1:46:44] And what they're saying is you could really break that down into lots of different segments, retailers or different things and build a forecast accordingly with all these little pieces.
[1:46:57] And I think that's a good advice and we're excited, frankly, about some of the new tools.
[1:47:04] The analytical tools that they're showing us moving averages and that kind of thing.
[1:47:08] stuff that we haven't done in the past that we could employ to make our projections even better.
[1:47:16] So I'll just add, because I like the idea of this organization being even more involved in
[1:47:27] that land use link to demand and exerting our influence. And I know a lot of, you know, we're not a land
[1:47:40] But maybe there's a, that's a little ahead of this, but I just, I like the notion of, of, of drilling down on land use and this organization saying, oh, we can, we can, and should potentially help cities, the county, when they are putting their general plans in place, they're housing elements in place and help them understand, well, water usage looks like this, if you are growing in this particular way, then that means this.
[1:48:08] And I don't know how much we need to learn how much we actually already do that, but I just
[1:48:14] wanted to highlight, I like the notion of including land use more in what we do.
[1:48:26] Okay, so I guess we'll have two comedy members thinks it's easier for the board to digest
[1:48:36] the information at this point, if I share things we should give a completely report.
[1:48:43] So I guess staff can decide, but personally, because this elasticity analysis, I can guess what it is, but I just think it's going to be a complex concept for the board and it seems like for this to have its own discussion with the board and it will be helpful to the board.
[1:49:14] So that's where I am, so I don't know, you decide.
[1:49:22] And I just, as Director Bylow is talking,
[1:49:26] I just had a thought that as we're potentially
[1:49:31] having these new tools or more breaking down
[1:49:35] into different elements so that we can do a better job
[1:50:00] To a better number of 219 that doesn't mean much. So there needs to be that in our consideration that we're not getting to too much work and not getting the effort that we're looking for.
[1:50:24] Okay. We're thinking we did all of our discussion item. The next one is the review and
[1:50:35] discuss the water supply and dynamic management community work plan and upcoming discussion items.
[1:50:42] Our work plan is on page 77. The last page of the packet for the work plan. We
[1:50:54] We didn't have, we didn't have for meeting in April, correct?
[1:51:01] And so the items that's listed here, the three crosses, X, X is in April, are moved to today's meeting.
[1:51:11] This is May, today's May 5th.
[1:51:14] This is, this is the April meeting.
[1:51:15] This is it, yeah, so I'm trying to, I'm trying to clarify what we're going to do in June.
[1:51:21] So, we did all that on May 3rd,
[1:51:28] and the regularly scheduled main meeting was actually on the holiday.
[1:51:36] And so, we had a special meeting scheduled for June.
[1:51:39] And then, so as it's planned right now, the drew meeting, we have the Jaldri Sons plan and no regret package, stone water floodmar, and sites reservoir and BF-sisk dam.
[1:52:00] We actually will not have BF-sisk.
[1:52:02] So we don't have a need to come back to the committee on that and a question asked to whether we will have the draft response plan, but we definitely will have all the other items.
[1:52:14] Okay, so the job response plan is questionable.
[1:52:19] Okay, and then stormwater resource plan, floodmar, and the sites reservoir, okay update.
[1:52:36] And on my calendar, I actually have a special meeting for two seconds, and then I regularly schedule meeting on June 23, both are on my calendar.
[1:52:47] So my suggestion is that that's just going with our record schedule meeting and then the June 2nd special meeting can be canceled.
[1:52:57] Give all of your more days to put this together.
[1:53:03] We agree because June 2nd is technically the main meeting.
[1:53:06] So yeah, I know, I don't, it took me a while to figure it out.
[1:53:15] So, let's take the two seconds, especially the alpha-order calendar, we'll stay with the regular meeting that's June 23rd with these items.
[1:53:27] That's just talked about.
[1:53:29] So that sounds right.
[1:53:31] Okay.
[1:53:31] It doesn't think each of it, the calendar kind of shifted because of holidays.
[1:53:35] Yeah, the rotating holidays. The main thing became April meeting.
[1:53:39] Yeah, anyway.
[1:53:41] Okay, and the next item is Clark Review and Clarification of Comedy Request.
[1:53:50] Thank you, Chair. I have no comments at this time, and we'll reach out to staff if I have.