 Take the time seconds to spare Go ahead and come back in You got your timing down pretty good this time Ruth It's like All right, it is six o'clock Welcome everyone to the April 2nd meeting of the Sokka Creek Water District Roll call shows all of our board of directors are here There is no public hearing tonight There is Next on the agenda is the consent agenda So is there anyone of the directors that wishes anything to be taken off of consent? Anyone in the public? Hearing none. I move all the consent agenda Yes, ma'am Hi, my name is Becky Steinburner. I wonder if you could pull item 3.6 from the consent agenda. Sure. Thank you All right, so I will move all the other five second moving in second in all in favor Opposed all right so item 3.6 since we were ready to proceed go ahead miss Steinburner Thank you very much Becky Steinburner resident of Aptos I wanted you to discuss a little more item 3.6 which involves approving an additional $50,000 for Guterres consulting To help you get Additional grant funding and manage grant funding for the Pure Water SoCal project. I I am aware that she Already has this substantial contract with you. I Think I read in the material that this $50,000 was not amount was not Really in the budget for this, but it's being taken out of the reserves and I want to register protest regarding this because the project is under litigation and Normally when agencies have legal agents action filed against them they stop Because it is risky to proceed and so I just want to protest that your board would consider spending an additional $50,000 To move the project forward at a time when it is under litigation Thank you. Thank you All right, I move approval of 3.6 moved and seconded with motions Public comment periods over there the public comment period was already we already Know we'll go ahead then You're something constructive to say Terry Maxwell and I'm a rate payer And I'm a pretty smart guy about observing organizations failing to comply with things like the California Environmental Quality Act the Brown Act and also simply comply with fiduciary standards of management of the money millions of dollars of ratepayers money who trust you with it the 3.6 item why would you approve a contract? Why did you approve a hundred and ten thousand dollar contract that was inflated and from my own professional experience? preposterous to mr.. Basso proposed to hire a law firm to look at contracting Arrangements that are out two to three years perhaps never before you have an environmental quality approval Which you didn't do properly before you're free of the litigation restraints of a restraining order Why would you waste the money of your ratepayers time after time after time? Some of you have been in business You know what it is to be responsible for stockholders money the ratepayers are your stockholders and you are negligent as blazes Watching their money preserving their money Committing their money and wasting it in many cases. This is a waste Absolute as miss Steinbrenner points out the hundred and ten thousand dollars to the law firm was a waste Those fees should have been more than six thousand if any Again, it is just tragic how you've wasted the stock that your your your customers money and and Again another example of it. Do not approve this Do not approve anything until you have if you ever will and you won't have as any justice Succeeded with an environmental impact review that is satisfactory according to California and also Indirectly albeit federal law which you have not done your environmental impact review is a total fraud to anybody Intellectually informed about its requirements and anybody informed about the water realities, which are there are alternatives to poop water Soquel do not approve that a moment longer All right, so We are you I'm just gonna I just want to mention one thing just you know We can agree to disagree, but I I don't I get a little bit tired of you coming up here and yelling every time So if you could just tone it down, I'd appreciate that Thank you, and I have another request that you keep your comments to the pertinent item. Yes I Okay, all right all in favor I I posed okay, that carries all right next on the agenda is Oral communications for items not on tonight's agenda So if anyone from the public wishes to address us on something that is not on tonight's agenda now is the time Thank you Becky Steinbrunner resident of Aptas We have many times agreed that there is a real disconnect between water policy water use and land use and In my research regarding legal matters. I Came up on something that I had not been aware of before and it's SB SB 601 I think and SB 2 2 1 They were laws passed in 2001 that requires Water agencies to submit to the planning jurisdictions Water availability Reports when there are developments on the table and I've never seen that before So I wanted to Also bring to your attention that that is a requirement when a city and or a county is going to amend a general plan And that is exactly what the county of Santa Cruz is in the process of doing now up Updating their 1994 general plan And I want to just let you know that there are big changes planned for this county and I hope that you will Take an active part in submitting these reports and analyses which must be detailed and thorough and That they are submitted in a timely manner so that there is not a disconnect between land use and water policy And availability. I'd like to use the balance of my time To read into the record maybe not The lawsuit that I have filed there are a number of public act causes of action and I think I left them at my chair, so I will just list them They are that The board certified an EIR that did not properly address and respond to agency comment specifically trustee agencies Namely Fish and Wildlife Department of Water Resources and the Regional Water Quality Control Board There are 18 stream crossings proposed for this project and those agencies should have commented on this project and been involved Consulting to come up with the mitigations that are enforceable In the draft EIR it says that your agency will be the one that Enforces the mitigations, but that's not possible when Fish and Wildlife has not had a hand in Making sure that those are enforceable. Thank you. Thank you. All right anyone else on an item not on tonight's agenda Okay. All right. Anyone any board members? Good From all the Sessions that I went to in Aqua I mean sorry And I was looking at them and I just wanted to share some things that I typed out One is that the Montebello for Bay has been replenishing their groundwater with tertiary water since 1962 and That was interesting to me because I thought it was something a lot newer than that and also That LA Department of Water Empowers goal is to use a hundred percent Recycled water or reuse water as part of their 2020 urban management plan. That's what their goal is I Actually, I tended from grand to gradual implementing groundwater replenishment in LA. It was very interesting Um maximizing groundwater use in the central and west coast basins through recycled water from Hyperion and Then I also looked at some stormwater presentations and You know that I'm totally into stormwater and using it somehow And they're talking about urban runoff being looked at as the next frontier for water For drinking water and if this water can be stored and released into the sewer system. They could use it for Purified water or you could you could treat it work if you had it in a basin somewhere that you could treat it there and then add it to drinking water one of the course one of the ideas that I was thinking is that Aptos Beach at the Esplanade All the water goes down into that parking lot and if somebody would put in a big retention base in there It could be stored and we wouldn't have the flooding in that area and then later It could be pumped into either the if we run out of poop water. We can use that water to to do our Purification some there's lots of people looking because there's not enough water out there And sewer water is an important source because it's mostly water right, okay All right, then the next item on the agenda is Updates from the MGA or GSP advisory committee meetings Yeah, I just put this on the agenda in case any of the board members that attended the Either the last MGA or GSP meeting. I will give a brief introduction But in case they wanted to talk about it at the MGA It may confuse the two meetings, but the main item there was the budget and It's going to be much less than last year I'm looking to see if I Got those notes in front of me. I don't but I think it's around we're still doing the 70 1010 split And I think it's around Half a million will be the district's share going next year and of course, you know We got the 1.5 million dollar grant for the GSP so that helps all the agencies and then at the GSP committee Or was it the MGA? I can't remember. I'm sorry been so many meetings lately Cameron Tana of Hydra of Montgomery and Associates presented some modeling results that were interesting and And just what it was was, you know, we've gone through a couple different iterations they have of modeling pure water soquel and asr then pure water soquel to the MGA eyes and you know enhanced and ASR enhanced and brought those together a little bit and showing the impacts of the Improved ASR aquifer storage and recovery the city's looking at and Pure water soquel and I think the take-home lesson for me was as our helps in the this area of the basin, but Still there's there's issues even with both projects, and I think when we go on to the next item that'll that'll show forth even more Yeah, I'd like to talk about the GSP meeting I thought was very exciting. I mean for the first time you saw one graph with Pure water by itself and ASR by itself and both together as well as if you don't do anything that baseline as they call it so four different possibilities on one graph and baseline and Aquifer storage and retrieval ASR both failed multiple times many times they'd go below the line for protective levels and pure water and then if you add in ASR with pure water It made it even a tiny bit better, but that worked for most of the areas in the in the district and elsewhere it didn't work for the very far east part of our basin, you know the La Selva in that kind of area and it also didn't work in the very far west and of course the very far west Was kind of reasonable because when we originally designed it it was just to protect the district and wasn't meant to protect the city's basin area and But I'm very excited about it because it That was the first time we put it together and we haven't adjusted things and so where we place the various wells and how much we pump it into or out of the wells and That that hasn't been modified yet. I mean just like we've done with our our pumping Basis changes we have you know took a rough cut at that too. So I think it's exciting We're we're Delta close. I think to having a complete solution that works And so I was very excited about that when when will we see that graph? Oh, yeah, I can pull it up if you I mean I have it on a chip here if we want to do that Why don't you pull that up? We if you want to proceed I'll talk way you're doing that. Okay. Go for it. So likewise it It was a quantum leap forward in that instead of separate projects, how do they interplay with each other and There were hints at optimization, you know where you can Increase by by having The recharge from the recycled water you could decrease pumping in other areas Like the aromas and the selva And Yeah, no, it's it was pretty exciting Another thing that that why Ron's pulling that up is that We're getting a little closer and to Coming up with a climate change. That's one scenario Yeah, the five-year averages are really good and But one thing that that struck me and hadn't thought about this As much as much since I'm focused on seawater intrusion is that the effect of climate change on the Sam and Renzo river flow they had a sea mip 2.1 Which is admittedly a dry scenario where the the amount of The average amount of river water in the next 50 years would be only 59% of what it's been in the past 30 years So it's pretty jostic and that that would limit what you can do with river water Also makes me worry a little bit about the salmon or the steelhead or yeah, I think I was trying to So Dr. Daniels you want me to take a crack at this or you okay? So I'll just go through a couple of these and people can chime in but what you see here are two wells circle where Recharge would be happening this dotted line is the level we need to get to to be Sustainable this is groundwater elevations and then this shows the different model projections so asr and Pure water on this end of the basin pure water helps a little bit but not as much as the asr now here they go over There's some of the other aquifer so you can see the yellow is if you do nothing so we're below this dash line which is sustainability and then Here asr is in this color. These are five-year averages, so it's a little deceiving. I thought Our directors did a really good job of bringing that out And I think we'll discuss it on the next slide and here's pure water Up here and then this is the combo of pure water and asr But even if you go back to even that one you can see the dotted green line Which is just asr goes below protective levels in a number of years there it goes going up and down up and down Some years it's below protective levels even a five-year average, right right and does the next one That's a five-year average Yes, I think it's earlier on is it earlier. Okay. Yeah, so Chose it without yeah, so let me see something weird. Yeah, so here it is so here are the kind of Year-by-year and the this blue is the combo But the if you focus on the what is this light blue you can see when it dips down below this line Anytime it does that basically see water intrusion takes a step four Yeah, and so this this I don't think would be so that's when that that's when they're pumping out And whether it's the peaks or where when they're it recharging which is great get it up there You know, there'll be some push out and pull in but it's I described it as two steps forward one step back But and they and they make the comment that the asr wells are located much higher up in the basin if you can go up just those three Those three triangle like things is where they put the asr wells And clearly they need to move at least one of them down closer to those wells there Yeah, so they realize that this is a is a work in progress and you know modification needs to be done I mean they don't even have the water rights to do this yet, but You know, this is this is a way that it moves and then there's just a couple others Went through here's where and I think we looked at that one's below the entire time Here over time we we get it In these wells here and then here's another Scenario you can see you're above and then below in this well So there's a lot of configuration to try to make some of this water come over to help in that layer and that sort of thing and this is just on the far east Western side of the basin where Their asr really doesn't have much influence. I mean it has an influence and pure water has less influence So that it doesn't asr doesn't help on the other side of the basin so to speak. So anyway Here we go a pie quite there. So You see that you even even the daily the yearly thing for the one up in the upper right-hand corner Stays above the dotted line the entire time Yeah, when it's combined when it's combined. Yes Either pure water which is the green stays just flat up and when you add the combo It's it's much more up and down But even so the down never goes below the protective level where it's a light blue like just it stays down most of the time So it would be violating it all the time. So the district doing more in lieu Pumping less in other areas creating kind of an iron curtain and pumping more in a recharge area Would be something we would adjust there and it goes on and so it basically shows that asr in most of the Entire basin only works when it's combined with pure water. That's the only Yeah works right and then here it's really protected. So basically pure water Enables the city to come in and do their asr. Otherwise they couldn't yeah, because this is almost completely dominated by By pure water. Yeah, otherwise otherwise it's down there and it's violating Yeah, they don't they don't do any yeah on the next item was going to mention that I I told the city water commission and the The Wasak people who were also there. I mentioned about Sigma and that one of the things that is required is that you have a plan that's Sustainable that they determine can be done and that you actually do it and that if you fail to do that They've already said that the state is required to come in and take over your basin and what they have Implied it's not in the law, but they've implied that this is going to be so complicated their solution for every basin will be Just cut backs. Yeah So And then here's more more of it Some people misunderstood these graphs I think but For the most part a lot of people got them it is it is complicated It's it's high-level groundwater modeling and that last one is something that we'll have to work on Because it's very very far east. Yeah, so we need to either cut back pumping more there or move some of our recharge Wells further that way, but that needs to be So that's I'll just that's great. Yeah, and there you can see it again. Thank you very much for sharing that. Yeah, yeah We'll pull that one out six bits. It's exciting And do we should we transition right into the water commission meeting then we can't hear Did you have something you wanted to say on the on the related to the MGA meeting? Yeah Thank you. I was there too. Thank you and what I'm noticing here that I didn't notice that the MGA meeting is that different wells within The same unit have different protective levels and I hadn't noticed that at the presentation, but I'm seeing that here tonight that's because the Formation slant so if you do it here, it's much further down than if you do it there. I see okay All right. Thank you What I thank you for explaining that What I took away and and was quite surprised to hear Cameron Tana from Montgomery and Associates say is that it looked like to him in the modeling that the cities ASR Wells were We're too close to the proposed pure water. So Cal injection Wells and that it would actually overcharge The groundwater and it would bring the groundwater level up to surface can levels and That didn't make a lot of sense to me. But again, that's what rosemary Minnard said again last night. So I've never heard that said before I've always heard that if you you can recharge to a point and then you get leakage out into the streams and the bay so that was an interesting bit of news that that I learned and Also that The models presented did not include in lieu only Which I thought was interesting because at the enrichment workshop for modeling Cameron Tana had said that he really felt that in lieu presents the most flexibility for addressing Seawater intrusion at various sites over time and changing conditions so I thought it was interesting that that was not even modeled and He has also said that Cameron Tana has also said that current Groundwater levels are not unsustainable. So that's kind of a double negative But what he was saying was that in some areas what we have now is sustainable Well, there are problem areas that in some areas of the Aquifer things are okay. I Just want to make that clear. Thank you. It was a very good meeting. I enjoyed it too. I like to respond to that sure so Just second. I'm responding. Please you'll get your chance. I'm waiting So I think there might be confusion about the term in lieu You might be thinking that's in lieu River water transfers, but it's in lieu with with any scheme whatsoever So if the district decides not to pump from a well that's in lieu and Takes water from a different well So yeah, I agree with Cameron that you can you can adjust water levels by not pumping from an area and then The other thing and I did hear what Cameron said about its potential to If the wells are too close to each other to have though the water level actually Go above the surface and to me That that's very encouraging that means that you can use you can redistribute pumping or you can choose not to To recharge in those areas as much so Of course, it's not something that Operationally you would do it's just it to me it shows the potential for redistributing pumping for instance pumping closer to the to the recharge of the purified water and Reducing pumping in the aromas where there's Seawater intrusion occurring actively now The other possibility is since we only have one on recharge well in the ground now and the others are still to be done is Move them around to the right places. Now that you see that they're conflicting. Okay, put one elsewhere Right, spread them out. Yeah, there was talk about the city putting their aquifer storage and recovery wells closer to the belts wells Which for example one of them is just across the river from the Main Street well So in summer both of them will be pumping out and therefore that would Perhaps de-water the creek. You don't want that. You don't want that. So that's a mistake Yeah, to me the whole presentation was You know, these are our possibilities and here's the facts and it's the first step in in in Deciding how to proceed to to get the most benefit out of out of the two two projects But right out of the door doing this well is a good sign Yeah, we haven't done any of the redistribution We haven't moved wells around to better places and all those are possible It's and the model can keep helping us optimize it I'm sure yeah as we go forward and the data once it comes in Check the model also like it's worth pointing out to people to Customers that this is what the water district was Water districts do they are constantly monitoring all their wells with pumping levels making adjustments this Model is enabling the general basin all the all the water operators in the basin to fine-tune what they And really narrowed down where it will be optimal to change pumping levels inject The ideal spot for an ASR project, you know Put an ASR project into the wrong place It will just flow out to the ocean it won't store water for you that you have in a during a drought period so there's a lot of information that came and I thought it was really worthwhile myself and That it's a lot more tools for water managers now Yeah Yes, sir colonel Terry Maxwell again. I also attended that meeting Heard mr. Tanner's presentation and all the others and I spoke with him and others at breaks and afterwards and Frankly miss Steinburner's comments are quite accurate but in addition to that Once again, you have failed to consider the locker for alternatives I talked to people who are on the city advisory group and they said we were never informed about the locker for alternative very interesting, mr. Basso showing your clients failed to consider alternatives in their EIR, which is Technically a fraud on the public In addition to that mr. McGill voice Scott McGill voice they seem to do with the meeting last night Yes, that came up the alternatives came Okay, mid-counting. I attended the whole meeting. I've got notes. I'll be happy to show them to you So it came and I brought up the question had they considered and informed about the locker for alternative mr. McGill voice surface water recovery on the north no The other thing I learned there from people who've attended that and been appointed to it They said they were being spoon fed favorable information to approve pure water poop water so Cal and Not anything about the alternatives That astonished me They and they said they've been spoon fed to the point of ignorance that has disappointed me Once again, I urge you to consider the locker for alternative in a meaningful intellectually honest Scientifically honest way, which you've never done Consider mr. McGill voice proposals in parallel with that what you've never done and Don't even consider adding a hundred million dollars plus On the backs of all of your Customers and right you're going off topic again. Okay. No, well, that's relates to what the topic was there vaguely. Okay, okay All right, so we need to wreck get the record straight again on who has the decision making I mean Yeah, I'd power for it seems like we've said it like a hundred times Section seven of the air lays out the requirements for what an alternative is and it's something that the Agency has some control over we have no control over the aquifer or the river, right? Any project having to do with those over the locker? We have to come to us from the city We have right. We have influence perhaps but not control. It's not nothing we can consider in Yeah, so two things I'll just note after that before we move on the next item I believe this detailed modeling of the ASR To the GSP advisory committee is is pertinent Information, I'm not sure I understand the comment that they're not being Shown information on that so I'm not sure I understand that and I will say And speaking with Cameron Tana, he did say that he feels that people misunderstood And it's it's not unexpected. It's complicated stuff the the term in lieu that it was only applied to the river And that's certainly not the case. So anyway So we kind of oozed into the water commission meeting Right, so I mean they overlap because that's I mean I have something from that. Yeah, so Gary Fisk presented a slide that I took a picture of I think we have it here. Do you have it the one with the With the percentage time. Yeah, so that so What this there is historical and then three different climate change? Scenarios and It's looking at what The number the percentage of years where You would be able to achieve Both What river water transfer and it has 1500 acre feet 500 acre feet and 300 acre feet and the target that the city has which was originally 3.2 billion gallons and in 2016-2018 they reduced it But if you if you look at without infrastructure, which is the whole the three columns To the left You're talking about anywhere from zero to 45 percent of the time 45 percent of the years you would be able to both meet the city needs and and Transfer 1500 acre feet to Soquel so Couldn't happen even half the time it gets better if you improve the Graham Hill water treatment plant But it only gets up to 55 percent of the time With the 1500 but it there are There's both of them have Columns of 300 acre feet, which is what the pilot program is and that is able to Depending on the climate change scenario able to meet more Still it's only 3% of the time for the severe climates with the 3.2 billion gallons But up to a hundred percent of the time for less city demands That 2016 to 2018 and with less severe climate change a Lot of uncertainty, right? So I mean not only is our Typical program that we've been trying to do now not possible in every year gets much more dire if we needed more water right The other thing that they mentioned with these these that came from the what the name of the model is Confluence model the Confluence model is just bloody wrong He assumes for one thing that if they put 1,000 gallons into the basin they immediately lose 20 percent of it So it's 800 gallons and then that stays in the basin forever So it could be a century and it would still be sitting there waiting for them clearly that's wrong also isn't that wrong in that crazy and Then they also assume that That's the maximum that ever gets lost that you know it they can put as much in as they want and actually fill up the basin and That'll still be sitting there waiting for them and there'll be no lossage and that's wrong In fact what happens is that as you fill up the basin more and more of it flows to the streams and in our case the oceans the Scots Valley did a model like this for their Pure water and it showed that it came up and flattened off in fact our model shows the same thing it comes up and flattens off and the flatten off is because You know you're adding water to the basin, but water is flowing out of the basin at the same rate Yes, exactly. So so those numbers are actually Overestimating. Oh, yes. Yes, so instead of Zero to 45 percent without modifications to the gramio water treatment plant. It's significantly less Yes, so can I so I mean what they did is a modeled Confluence model first dispatches water. That's the the minimum necessary required by the State and federal government for the streams So for the habitat and then next is what they use in Santa Cruz and then third to as our aquifer and storage and recovery and We're last on the in line if there's any water left over. So that's what that Chart here is is representing this Catalog climate model is the one that the MGA is using so if they were to use The MGA is to use their numbers. It would be impossible to meet will give us any water at their Projected demand their long-term projected demand. This is their near-term forecast right here. There is some availability I think You know if you if you read these two things by out of the report the table indicates that in none of the options considered Can the city reliably provide the full amount of so of what soquel has identified as it's need Is needed to meet in its goal to protecting the aquifer from the threat of seawater intrusion The analysis does show that lower volumes of water are more readily available for transfer to Soquel Creek and then I'll come back to that in a minute But I think this statement is important because there's been a lot of discussion around this the analysis has been the basis for statements made by the city's water director that with available water right constraints There isn't enough water to meet both the city's needs for drought supply and soquel Creek's need for a highly reliable supply water supply to use in addressing the ongoing Seawater intrusion paraphrased just slightly in fact one of the things that happened is Rosemary announced that they have solved the fish problem with NOAA that they now have Basically a tacit agreement for the HCP the habitat conservation plan Which is a requirement to go ask for water rights changes. So it looks like they have that It's not signed and sealed at this moment But basically it means more water has to go to the fish less water is available to the city Yeah, so as bad as these things are when they apply these new constraints, they'll be even worse Yeah, and Melanie, maybe you can come up for a second because I'm gonna ask something so I think what this indicates with If it was legal to transfer this water, which is in currently but hopefully in the near future. We all have our Believe it will be with the actions of the city that That there potentially is some amount of water that that'll be transferable during some periods of You know like let's take the climate change model that we were using for the mid county 20% of the time or 85% of the time would be for 300 acre feet and it goes up you know, there's their numbers there and Do you want to mention anything about We modeled some of that or you want to just not talk about that right now No, we can talk about it. Okay. I might I think in Some of the modeling that we had done for pure water so Cal we have evaluated Runs where we did assume that the pilot transfer volume would continue past the pilot phase So even ongoing past 2020 we could get a small amount of water From the city in years that weren't critically dry. Yeah, so that's what we've been modeling hoping for this best case And the city indicated us they were you know, they asked us do you want us to see this and it was about a year and a half ago Or a year ago and we said absolutely. This is you know, if there's water, let's take it I think what the take-home message for this chart is that in order for the city Do well to protect the streams for the city to meet its demand During droughts and to reach ground water sustainability Your we need two fairly large projects You know ASR and pure water so Cal. I mean that's that's the the message Ron, I I would also say I think from the meeting that we went to last night. It's it's maybe Two projects in an expanded project so that the city was pretty clear in their explanation that right now they're looking at Kind of a project to do a look back at a short term Shortfall the 2016 to 2018, but then their actual long-term solution. They're gonna have to go back look at Water demands through the urban water management plan and then see what that second gap So it does appear there, you know some water agencies go out based either on funding Abilities or maybe they just want to roll out a project in a phased approach That I think that was a take-home message that I got last night was that the city is approaching their water supply shortfall in a phase Approach so phase one and phase two So I Do to do to the lower near term demand and the cost being prohibitive to do I mean just one project was over a hundred was a hundred million dollars I think they upgrade to Grand Hill. She she quoted that's an important point because it plays in the one of the committee members Asked well, what about if this water that's available is cheaper than pure water so Cal and she said in her Estimation that The water would not be cheaper at less expensive would probably be at that around that cost or more So that'll be something else, but I do think there's opportunity Sometimes even if water is a little bit more expensive, you know, there's a there's a gain Reliability and diversification so the board will have to weigh that when the time comes but it just seems to indicate That both agencies are on the right track to help in the community as a whole We still have to harrow to to get up on its feet, but you know, they're working on that too Okay You have anything on anyone else? Yes, Bob as soon as you're through with this, there's one thing I want to interject Thank you. Good evening Becky Steinbruner Small water company customer. I was at last meetings last night's meeting, too And I thought it was very interesting in in this little booklet that they had the San Cruz City 2018 annual report it says on page three that the Even with projected growth water use is expected to remain flat Due to price conservation and new plumbing and building codes So I've heard Rosemary Menard say that too and it's interesting that's actually in print here that the city of Santa Cruz Does not see their water demand going up at all or very little so that interesting piece of information combined with the amended water rights place of use for the San Lorenzo River which does include Soquel Creek water district and central water district that It could be possible That we could just use a more regional approach and I propose to you that the district consider helping Santa Cruz City Fund the improvements to infrastructure making a bigger inner tie improving the Graham Hill water treatment plant so that you can Have these larger water volumes Available it's like Rick Longenotti pointed out some of these climate change models things actually did better there was another graph that wasn't included in here, but It it was to me quite encouraging that maybe not one hundred percent of the time But a good amount of the time there there could be plenty of water To send in a regional approach to the district. I thought it was interesting that the Demand from the WASAC the confluence Information did go down a lot to two point six acre feet a year for the 2016 2018 and The the common thread in all of these different climate change models is that this area is projected to actually become wetter The the model that the gfdl that the WASAC group used is the hotter drier of The models that have been considered here, but but even with that There is at least 50 percent of the time 55 percent of the time With an improved Graham Hill water treatment plant that the district needs could be met with surface water and Existing infrastructure if you were to help them fund now I realize that's not in your district, but neither is the shanticleer site. Thank you for pure water. So Cal Colonel Terry Maxwell on the same points. Ms. Steinberger mentioned in the same points mentioned from the panel and the same points in the paperwork and the reports referred to and the same mentioned to the comments last night The big picture is Consolidation of city of Santa Cruz water in Soquel Water Creek District and the region cannot happen fast enough It cannot happen fast enough environmentally It cannot happen fast enough to save your rate payers from the burdensome hundred million dollars You're proposing for poop to scoop or pure water Soquel Which is completely unnecessary if one takes an intellectually honest An evidentiary based approach looking at the locker for proposal mr. McGill voice Proposure and the regional resources the regional water resources and also learns the lessons from 40 years of negligence especially in the last 20 Demonstrated by the board of directors and the senior staff of the Soquel Creek water district I'll be happy to support that with boxes of materials once again The solution is a regional consolidation The solution is to look at all the water resources have perhaps the same as this related to last night's meeting The those resources came up mr. Longinati mentioned those resources The fact that the city's got adequate resources perhaps the climate change issues and the fact we may in fact have more water Than here to for has been the history But even without that here to for climate change additional water There is no legitimate need if an honest analysis is applied to consider the locker for proposal Consider mr. McGill voice proposal and third to look at the consolidations of the water resources here I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, but you are all redundant You are redundant because of the negligence demonstrated by the board of Soquel water characteristic, especially in the last 25 years And you are redundant because of the water resources are adequate to provide for other There's no need to impose a hundred million dollar a hundred million dollar Obligation on your customers and ratepayers with pure water. Soquel It's a preposterous fraud if one looks at the big picture in an intellectually honest and disciplined way Which you're not doing You should put in place a management arrangement to petition the state to take over the water resources of the region or the US Department of the Interior That is the solution you're redundant to addressing the water resources here and you have been Irresponsible towards your customers and ratepayers money in all of the contracts you've put out to look at Dsal and all the other contracts You're done Can I need to respond? Yeah I'm afraid these two last speakers have Dilligently decided to ignore At that meeting Rosemary got up and said exactly there is not enough water In our basin in our in our supply to both So our problem and to solve Soquel's problem. She said that explicitly and She's written that as well very clearly and the water commission accepted it Most of the Wasak people accepted it and they said go ahead and do all this So I'm afraid we've got some folks who just Want to ignore science want to ignore facts and want to live on Never Neverland but and keep saying the same thing over exactly But it's just not going to happen. All right. I'm ready to move on I wanted to mention because there was a prior comment about Senate bill that was referred to as 601 at 610 and also Senate bill 221 which do require that agencies deal with the With the kit with the projects But a project is defined in those sections is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units a proposed shopping center of more than 500,000 square feet a commercial office building a more than 250,000 square feet a proposed hotel of more than 500 rooms Etc. So none of those have ever come up in before this board in The time since those have been enacted Yeah, that's addressed in the um, we that I do want to say because it's something. Thank you, Bobby You don't you could thank you for explain that that there's this Misconception I've heard it out there and it's easy to understand why people might think it that if the consolidation were to happen all The water issues would be solved and matter of fact a man from the Sierra Club got up last night and said Based on that table and that information It's my understanding that Being one whole district a consolidation would not solve The issue in the way people think like water and and rosemary Menard and responded to the Sierra Club member Yes, that is correct. That is not have any bearing on the solution So I just want to make sure that's understood and we are all working together as part of the MGA anyway All right, shall we move on to Item 6.1 Taj is ready. Good evening. Only one will serve letter for you to consider It's a minor land division and in that newly created lot. They're proposing to build a duplex off. So tell drive Okay, questions anyone Okay I knew anyone from the public have comment okay And any motions move approval. I'll second all in favor. I Okay, motion carries Next would be update on the 6.2 update on the water year rainfall totals Good evening Tonight we've brought the board a first look at the rainfall totals for the 2018 2019 weather year So that it can help inform a decision on a water shortage stage declaration at the public hearing that we have scheduled for April 16th There just a little refresher. There are six water shortage stages outlined in our water shortage contingency plan Which is included in attachment one Stage zero is considered our default conservation stage and stages one through five Indicate increasingly serious water shortage situations and each has an associated curtailment target and emergency rates And the district has been in a stage three emergency water shortage with a curtailment target of 25% for several years and The trigger conditions for each stage include rainfall totals over the previous five years a declared groundwater emergency or other hydro geological condition or a reduction in production capacity and So we declare a water shortage stage in April because it coincides with the end of the weather year a period of time between October 1st and March 31st when a majority of our rainfall occurs and So for this weather year, we received a total of approximately 33.65 inches of rainfall and that was as of March 25th Which is above average for the same time period when we compared this against the water shortage stage triggers For rainfall that were provided to us from our hydro geology consultant We can see that we're very close to falling into a default stage zero and so this is summarized in attachment to and so as I said earlier, we will bring this back to the board on April 16th with additional information regarding the other trigger conditions and The complete rainfall total as of March 31st, so I would be happy to answer any question The water shortage So we do it as part of the urban plan and so we will look at revising that for the 2020 urban plan board that it was the criteria maybe were sort of based on kind of a surface water Basis that rainfall is absolutely critical from year to year to measure that and then turn Determine whether an emergency phase that we're kind of in a we're in an emergency phase regardless of whether we have a rainy year or a dry year or whatever until we Find a separate amount of water supply So I was just wondering whether there's any move to actually acknowledge that Yeah, so I think our our water shortage a contingency plan keeps evolving further away from more of a surface water model This the current plan incorporates recharge with rainfall So that was a step in the right direction and I think the next time around We're actually going to take a look at some different Different methodologies possibly water levels and key wells protective protective levels and so The the urban plan for 2020 is actually due in 2021 But we're gonna go ahead and get started Probably this coming fiscal year on starting to take a look at that and yeah come up with some ideas and just for historical Perspective this was a step. I mean when I first came on the board It was all just completely surface water base in just one year. Yeah in one year So it was a step and you know we added things like well except for that's why we have the thing about a groundwater emergency in there too so that Anyway, so the the reason why we're not at at higher stages is because of the big wet year that we had 2016-17 over 50 inches of rain But all these stages You the can be declared based on either the cumulative rainfall or Groundwater emergency in place where there's also some production capacity triggers Well, I guess the only reason to do it is I've had been approached by Right, I think it is Levels of our groundwater Right Yeah, I mean that the rainfall is really a proxy ultimately for protective water elevations and we know that while we have decent rainfall over that whatever that average is five years that and our Customers have been in stage three curtailment and done an excellent job of cutting back all the water usage creeping up We know that many of the Monitoring wells are below protective water levels and still base of significant Continuing threat of seawater intrusion Yeah, okay Yeah, I would just like to mention that a number of years ago I requested that we have some kind of public display of where our groundwater levels are below protective levels and then and Jaffe joined me a few years ago and That's the kind of thing we need for not only that but for our room water management plan for this You know another way to look at you know The what the kind of graphic to show how close we are to well We can also use that instead of rainfall or in addition to rainfall to say when we have the emergencies and what kind of cutbacks Nobody meant as far as be nice to have some graphic that shows you know here's protective levels. Here's where we are Part of the other reason why we've held off on Changing anything as we're waiting for the groundwater model to be finished because I think that can really inform The next plan and so now that that's complete or almost complete will be able to to use that and Come up with something really solid. It's not an item. We vote on today. It's just informational Just it'll come to us in two weeks to decide where we are Yeah, and I would like to throw in the groundwater model will never be finished correct But it'll be a useful tool all along it's already a useful tool None of us are finished Right, aren't we works in progress? Yeah? Okay, yes, did you want to comment on the item? Thank you Becky Steinbrunner resident of Aptos I would also like to point out to your board that on November 6th 2018 as part of the RAF tell us a Rate restructuring presentation to your board they recommended that if you adopted the rate increase structure That you do away with the stage three Emergency rates you can review that on your November 6th board packet I Remember it because I thought it was odd that let me clarify that you can still be in a stage three for functionally all the Actions that the district is going to do to try and decrease water use while not putting stage three rates in place They do not have to be You don't have to we don't have to mess with rates But we can still have to be in a stage three as far as operationally, okay? Conservation so that's not clear in that presentation that's the that's the clarity of that okay. Thank you so I Just think that's interesting I I also Would like and and think it would behoove the district to establish the criteria that We're used to establish the ground water emergency in 2014 what what were those levels and What were the criteria that? Must be met to remove the ground water emergency stage I Want to remind you that mr. Duncan in Santa Cruz Sentinel article About a year ago said that groundwater levels were at an historic high So I think it would be good and and I appreciate your your discussion about stages of conservation and their increased funding that It brings to the district the higher it goes you get to charge more money for it for water but to link in the stages to the monitoring well levels and Really do present a clear and historic picture of those ground water monitoring well levels throughout I think you You you need to separate those seascape wells those Lasalva wells because they're not in the same aquifer They're in the aromas red sands and those are the ones that always get the big circles on the maps, but It's a different aquifer and I really think we've got to be focusing here and giving clear information on the perisma aquifer Thank you Let me just make one point. I don't think I'm ever going to be comfortable with a Going out of a ground water emergency until we're above protective levels myself Colonel Terry Maxwell again. I underscore mrs. Steinbrenner's points entirely and I point out that what she's exposing is either negligence in collecting your data dr. LaHue or Contrived to not present all of the accurate data that might be consistent with mrs. Steinbrenner's point of view Again, it's disappointing and it's disappointing to me as a customer that I'm paying for Accurate honest performance by your staff and she points out where that didn't occur All right, let's go on to item 6.3 This is on the advanced meeting infrastructure Yeah, so at the last board meeting Director Lather requested and the board concurred that we come back with some more follow-up information on the advanced metering infrastructure upgrade project Specifically is related to that project's generation of water demand offset credits and water savings That can in turn be purchased by new development applicants under our water demand offset program so the specific items of interest or concern Were whether the water savings from AMI would be recognized soon enough relative to the time in which new demand from new water connections is actually coming online and Whether the amount of offset credit approved by the board is conservative enough and protective of the groundwater basin and so Really to address the first concern the memo lays out the progress that we've made to date on the AMI upgrade and We've noted that we still expect to complete that project within two years We as noted in the memo we have a request for proposal out for a contractor to start replacing registers and our schedule calls for Those bids to be in soon and then for that work to actually begin Towards the middle to end of May Staff has also been doing some register replacements as time allows and getting getting ready for that and so We feel like we're gonna meet that target still it could even be sooner we've given the contractors the option to go ahead and Place two bids one is for doing a certain number of Register replacements every month that'll get the project complete in two years And the other is to propose something that will get the project done sooner At kind of the double double the rate of the minimum bid So we'll see how those bids come in I'd also like to note that the water savings We'll begin once we complete phase one, which is the installation of registers within About 25% of our service area and the installation of the first base station and repeater That'll be picking up those reeds and the software that's paired with that So once that is completed, which we're hoping to have a Pretty good start on by the summer and to have that infrastructure in place We'll be receiving that data through the network and staff will be reviewing those leaks as You know they they pick up so the water savings is gonna start much sooner than the completion of the project It's it's really gonna be starting as soon as that first phase one is completed And that is the project expands and we get more registers replaced and meters replaced and More base stations and repeaters installed. It'll be an incremental water savings over time until we get done in in two years So I just kind of wanted to add that So that's yeah, I think that the project's moving along pretty well we have an article in the what's on tap and We've done started doing some outreach on our website about the project And let's see moving on to the other issue of concern Which was is the water savings and the amount of credit that was approved Is that conservative enough to protect the groundwater basin? And so we've referenced The past board items where we've we've brought this to you for reference, but looking back you approved a five percent water savings and That in itself was pretty conservative based on some of the studies and and data that we did find which showed that Probably ten percent was an average And some studies went up to fifteen percent On top of that conservative estimate the it was reduced by fifty percent To account for the specific WDO program criteria of permanence and additionality So that really resulted in 86 acre feet of credit, which We feel is is really Super conservative The other thing I want to mention is that when we're looking at a project's water demand Offset requirement. We're multiplying that by a factor of two So anytime you see that offset requirement or credits being pulled from the bank Keep in mind that we're we're requiring a higher offset than what would be needed to just keep demand level So it should produce some, you know, another hundred percent of savings there And again, I already mentioned the leak detection will really start as soon as those registers get start getting installed Okay, moving on the last thing we have is kind of a summary of the offset credit bank and Where that bank stands and so with the 86 acre feet of credit that the board approved 31.8 acre feet has already been purchased or assigned by applicants and and some of that was the old grandfathered projects under the the first water demand offset program and But the majority of it 27 acre feet was really backlog from people that were on our Kind of our second program, which was the wait listed Program. So that's ended and we expect that the rate of new applications is will now return to its normal frequency So again the 31.8 acre feet of credit represents half of that really represents the new demand And it has a two-time multiplier embedded another thing to consider is that applicants That have purchased credits are not expected to use water for another one to four years, especially if they're in that weightless category because of the amount of time that it takes to get through the land use planning process and What we found is that for the most common development types that we have in our district single family homes and Accessory dwelling units it's taking almost three years From the time that they apply with us to the time that they actually start using so there's a lag there Well, we get a my going will be recognizing savings before a lot of those projects even start using water so that kind of sums up on The AMI project and the water demand offset credits related to that so We're looking for any alternate direction if you have any or can certainly answer any questions that you might have couple of questions so the the the first phase is gonna sit is gonna be Completed this summer, so we'll be starting to get information about how many leaks are detected and Yes, and and Approximately how many Hookups is that we're we'll be getting information so about 25% I think is somewhere around 3,000 services Yeah, that's quite a bit and then another question is just on the re-evaluation Can you remind me? I recall that we were gonna re-evaluate whether or not the actual savings that are Realized or how they compare to the projected savings and that was I remember that happening at half The amount of credits but I see here it's at 25 acre feet Yeah, so what you what you said was when we had sold When that 86 acre feet that we initially started with got down to 25 acre feet You wanted us to raise the red flag and come back and you would re-evaluate Any future will serve applications from that point on Not wanting to get into a deficit situation, so You know what we'll certainly we keep bringing that back as part of the will serve Approvals there's a table. I think it's attachment one or two where we are giving a Breakdown of the balance of the bank with the applications that are on that night's agenda, and that's also covered basically here so Yeah Anyone in the public? Thank you Becky Steinbruner director. Lay there. I was hoping to hear from you because I remember you're losing sleep over this I hope you'll speak up Thank you Thank you for the report. I've been curious about this too, and it bothers me a lot Because it seems sort of like a smoke and mirrors thing Miss flock you did say that water demand offset is at two times The projected use but in item 6.1 point one That customer is only being charged a water demand offset factor of 1.6 so it's not to 0.0 at least in this case and I also Would like a bit of an explanation on page 57 the offset in total offset in Is a hundred and five point three acre feet the offsets out is fifty one point one So I'm just confused about the number I I think I understand that what is yet available to Approve and hand out is fifty four point two acre feet but I'm really nervous too because your water demand offset criteria for Projects to use the money that people pay had these These issues first the water savings must be measurable. I don't see anything really in here It's an estimate. It's a percentage. It's a conservative percentage, but it's not measurable so to me using the smart meters as a way to Qualified for water demand offset projects doesn't meet that criteria because it's not measurable The second criteria was that it had to have a 20-year life. I Don't think the smart meters meet that criteria either And the third was that it would not have been done otherwise This does not meet your criteria because you had in your budget already money Over a million dollars. I think it was to install smart meters So you've shifted it into the water demand offset and now suddenly there 86 acre feet a year to hand out to people and sell to people and bring in money But I'm not seeing this as a really effective way that you're meeting your own criteria And really addressing any water Increase in demand although I have been heartened to see in the graphs of production that your production is down Even though the number of services connections is up. Thank you You want to address a couple of those because I can address I Mean one is that the 20-year Expected lifetime. That's why the amount Estimated was cut in half because we figured it was only 10 years The other thing is that the project wouldn't have gotten started for Ten years and as far as measurable we have estimates now But it is a measurable difference in the amount of water used by customers that we'll be able to analyze and see How it's done that cover those okay, and the Table in attachment one is a historical perspective. So it includes offsets generated from All recent projects including the AMI projects so toilet rebates The no-des hydrant flushing machine and some of the school plumbing retrofits that we've done So it's a combination and a historical perspective versus what's been sold Okay Thank you Mr. Maxwell Colonel actually Like your title I've earned it And and I've also earned an informed view about the performance of the Soquel Creek water board and its directors for the past Can you keep your comments here at AMI project? Please? Yeah, and on the project. I find the Steinbrenners If you will puzzlement more than convincing and what the staff reports In addition to that the smoke and mirrors comment is adequate Many times presented here by this board and by your staff and certainly by your consultants on So I think you get need to do a better job of being forthcoming with all of the AMI information data One comment on Miss Leather is Asking to be here approval to run up for the Lafko board. I find that a terrible conflict of interest because The consolidation of this have to do with this item. I'm sorry, but you're off base Okay, all right, well then before I go I would like to challenge your You're committing terrible conflict of interest regarding Lafko. Yeah, but that's nothing because you guys was on the Another item you have no right bringing that right now and just to make it clear I represented Lafko for the last four years represented the district for Lafko and that is actually the way it works you have a District member from a fire district or a water district or recreational district that is nominated and then runs for election And is elected by all 24 of these special districts in the county There you go so you're asking for Guidance in the form of a motion if you have any alternate direction then what you've already Directed staff to do well I'd like to put some teeth into looking at the data So I don't know is six months a reasonable amount of time. Do you think after the Project comes online to have a first look sure Okay, so I'd like to second that motion that that you bring back to the board after six months Six months after completion of phase one Analysis of what you're seeing in terms of leaks And yeah trans yeah, I'll let you determine What's in that analysis? Yeah But but how it pertains to to water savings Okay I did I seconded it all in favor I posed and then something that that I think that beyond water leaks. I actually think this could affect our Pete how people use water through awareness and I I don't think it's ready for a motion yet, but Unless other directors think so, but I'd like to see as soon as it's feasible an application developed So that people can see what water they're using that's part of it They should be able to have an app as part of this. There is an app and we're trying to kind of plan for when we're gonna be implementing that That'll be a little bit further down the road. I understand. Yeah No need for a motion One other thing because it's something that's been asked for before it's just that we still want to have some way to Alert the public when they see a building site Being built that says that this amount of water use in this development is being offset by such as so much percent Okay, all right We now move to item six point four Hi Sorry to that. Yes, you're right. Hi. I'm pleased to bring you tonight the 2018 consumer confidence water quality report It's in draft form for your questions and comments we would appreciate your feedback and As always the big takeaway with the consumer confidence report is that our water that we've served our customers Has met all state and federal standards This year's consumer confidence report format has not changed very much from last year's it's pretty much the same We've included all the required elements Water system information sources of water all the specified language for the definitions and The reported levels of the detected compounds those are listed in the 2018 water quality table and Compliance with other drinking water regulations and any required educational information like Specific language such as lead and Mostly I'm gonna point out a few typos corrections because I know There's usually a few in there, so first of all I wanted to point out on Page three of the report which is page 62 of the board packet on the bottom left It's supposed to say source water quality and we're going to go into our not sour water quality And then Just there's a few little minor Capitals and lowercase corrections that need to be done and in this year's This year's compilation of the data included the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule for which consisted of two metals sampling these the sampling was based on Assessment monitoring in two two distinct Monitoring efforts that were collected six months apart. So What we did was we collected at the entry point to the distribution system for two metals nine pesticides three alcohols and three semi-volatile organic compounds and then in the distribution system we collected the Brominated halo acetic acids the HA 5s HA a 6s and the HA a 9s and I'm pleased to report that we did not have anything show up except for above the Method reporting limit except for one butanol which was detected at two sources and When the follow-up sampling was done on the second round those samples were non-detect so and and then the germanium is one of the metals that Is not it's unregulated right now, but we also we found detections of that So Other than that we hit we did not have any lead and copper sampling That's going to happen in this summer in 2019 the triennial lead and copper monitoring and We have moved forward with lead sampling in schools, but the lead sampling in schools in 2018 We did not collect any samples, but we have collected some for 2019. So that's why you'll see the 2017 data presented in the report Other than that, I'd appreciate any questions or comments any feedback you have. Yes About the germanium range of detection is non-detect to 1.7 and the average is 0.39 Right, and I don't know how to get an average higher than the maximum The the max was 1.7, but the average because the okay, so the maximum Was 1.7 and then point Which brings up the point is there any way that could be in black and stores that does that gray type or I can check with Becca on that. Um, this is the fonts just to me a little hard Yes, it's very thin. Okay. That's that's good feedback. I can bring that back I also wanted to ask about iron. I see the maximum we've seen is 230 Yes, and for me that's kind of close to the max, which is 300. So what? What was that that hit about so that hit is? Madeline well And It it doesn't have treatment it go I mean it gets coordinated and goes into the distribution system It also pumps directly up to a tank. So it's not going straight into the distribution system, but You know, I just collected a sample there for this first quarter of 2019 and it came back at 200 So I mean it's yeah, it went up to 230, but it's it's still It's not it's not approaching 300 so we're We're okay there I just don't like to see it even close to the maximums because a little glitch and we're over and then we have to report it And tell the customers and becomes a big hula-bola, and I I like to make it be lower. So Ask to see about that getting investigated a little bit to see why that's happening And if there's anything we can do to make it just go away Is that a secondary MCL? Yeah, that is it that is a secondary MCL So it's only based on aesthetics and not health Issues and if you do go over it's a Compliances based on a quarterly annual average. So and there would be no The only reporting that would be necessary would be in the consumer conference Covenant report so it wouldn't be like a primary violation where we'd have to do a mailer and That is and that well does sometimes it does go up into the 200 sometimes it's lower, but We can't do anything about it unless we put an expensive treatment or take that wall offline and it's Going to be needed for the pure water soquel project Any other City the intertide the exchange the large change that some of the customers got. Oh, thank you. Thank you for So we what we did was we put a link in here to the city's water quality And that was something that the Department of Division of drinking water Monterey Division they Have instead of adding the City of Santa Cruz's entire water quality table They we can have a link to their water quality data. So We have that as a separate entity I mean, of course it was in the isolated zone and it was partially blended with some of the wells that were online So, right? So it was You know, but and it was for one month of December 2018 So what was your concern Karla? Oh just Well because it's the water quality Just wondering where that information would be for those Yeah, there's a hyperlink on the electronic version. We are planning to deliver this electronically this year as well with billing inserts in the May bills and the customers If they request a paper copy, they will send it to them But did you did you analyze that the city's data at the same time? Sorry, I said, uh, did you analyze the city's data in comparison to our data? Their water quality report isn't finished the last time I looked there 2018 data isn't there and I didn't request any data from them. So I have not made a comparison But we I mean, we've been extensively Looking we have a water quality monitoring program going on right now during the water transfer where we're looking at Distribution sites as well as the water coming in from the intertice. So we have a lot of that data and that's going to be a further Down the line a report to the board And to our customers based on that water quality itself It's just not it's not going to be included as part of the water the consumer confidence report It will be included in next year's right because you'll be capturing in that blended zone. I Believe so and because it's also for a lot a lengthier time period It's gonna go through, you know January through April So we'll have to go back to DDW and see how they'll you know want us to express that in our report But I believe it'll be it more extensive than this small capture of About one month of water transfer Yeah, okay Any other questions from board? Okay, any public comment? Thank you. Thank you Becky Steinbruner I'm sorry. I had a bit of discussion with my my friend. So I think you were Discussing the source of this halo acetic acid and that it was from the surface water is that what you're saying Small water system in all water systems all water systems, okay All right, thank you. So the disinfection byproducts are higher in surface water because there's more organic matter Yes, that I understand, but I was surprised to see on page 165 of the packet that the one butanol Came up and thank you. You you said that it was just sort of a Spike unexplained spike, which is odd in groundwater But also the halo acetic acids the two of them there have Levels that are these appear to be not regulated under the MCL It says NA so they're not regulated. They must be but in your data collected for your test in 2018 You had some levels reported in the groundwater so I Thought that was interesting and Also, I wanted to point out the one two three TCP level being rather high when the MCL level is 5.0 in 2018 Your wells detected 5.6 to 8.0 With an average amount of 6.9 above the MCL and I thought that the Well that was the main source of that contaminant had been turned off So it has thank you for confirming that So these are just levels that are seeping in from the agricultural use and the other era Contaminant sources. Let me let Carly answer that one because I think we should be okay And and does I don't see mtbe on here at all? I I thought that that should be tested for and I guess finally I want to point out that On Page 67 Something rather curious. It said the presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate the water poses a health risk That's a very odd statement to me, and I think should maybe be rephrased or Explained a little better. I Also want to point out that at the near the O'Neill well. There is a newly discovered series of underground storage tanks that the Wilson tire Significant amount of tanks there that could be affecting or potentially affecting the O'Neill well So I urge you to be on the lookout for those plumes. Thank you Carly can you just clear up the one two three TCP? I'd like to clarify those points starting backwards, I guess the statement on page 67 with the drinking water including bottled water that is verbatim the state From the reference manual has insisted that that Be put in here verbatim. So the presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate the water poses a health risk is a Statement that is true state statement And it's and it's true because you might have a public health goal But then you have an MCL there's lots of different levels So just because something is in the water and it's detectable does not necessarily mean that it poses a health risk I'll go backwards to the one two three TCP comment That that portion of the table if you read the top It is country club. Well, and it's a standby source and it was not used in 2018 and those four sample those those range of detections were from four samples collected on a quarterly basis and We just turned the well on and and pump pump to waste It actually the water gets used for beneficial reuse down by the the golf course when we when we pump that well for sampling and So That well is not has not been used since about I believe July of 2017 and not at all in 2018 it did it did not pump into the distribution system I believe the comment on the halo acetic acids. There's nine acids that are considered In the whole realm of a halo acetic acid you have, you know, bromo chloro bromo di chloro Di bromo chloro all the different combinations of the chloro and the bromo so the state only in the in the feds They regulate the halo acetic acids that are the the five the HA five, which is at the top of the table Those are the regulated HAA's the other and And I the comment was that they they were in groundwater. Well Again this and we can maybe make a footnote these halo acetic acids from the UCMR monitoring are from treated water. So and they're from the distribution system. So They are going we are going to see disinfection byproducts And They are unregulated and this again is this this is the federal government getting a good handle on what's out there This is why they do UCMR. They want to see what's out there and what a current state of they can collect As far as the one butanol the the two sites that that came up Were collected on the same day. They were on the same sample run at the lab I looked back to see I thought maybe it was some kind of a laboratory error We actually had a third sample that was on that same batch That was run through the lab that did not have a hit for one butanol again the the one butanol the reference concentration is 700 and I'll just I'll I'll read you a little bit of what a reference concentration is As part of the UCMR So you can kind of get a handle on the I Know it's in the first part here my apologies. So Reference concentrations are health-based and provide context for the detection of a UCMR contaminant They do not represent regulatory limits or action levels and should not be interpreted as an indication that the agency Meaning the EPA intends to establish a future drinking water regulation. So again, this is Monitoring that is done on an assessment basis to see what is out there and this is these are non-regulated Constituents and we would expect that some of them are going to be found a lot of these laboratory method Detection limits are super low So they're gonna find stuff because they're looking for it at that really really really low level So I believe I answered all of your questions. Thank you Okay Any other comments on the report just the minor I agree with the font and if it's possible to pick a font or You know the darker color that Makes it easier to see where the decimal place is Because I it was difficult so tiny decimal points. Yeah, I don't know if it's there is such a font. I mean Make it clear All right, so we can move on then correct or does that require any approval? That was just guidance Okay, so community water plan would be the next item 6.5 I Good evening. I have just a couple slides. I want to walk us through also just want to say happy birthday to Ron tonight Really Okay, we'll sing to you later So the item tonight is item 6.5 Which is a couple slides and discussion that we'd like staff would like to have with the board related to the community water plan the components within it and also an upcoming 2019 community water plan progress update that the district would like to put out again This is slide here is just kind of a history and background related to how the community water plan evolved basically again starting in 2007 the district embarked on evaluating desalination with the city of Santa Cruz over that six to seven year period We did a lot of evaluation feasibility But in 2013 the project evaluation on that supplemental water supply Was halted and led the district to go into a 13th month process to re-evaluate water supply options At that time we even considered it a backup option because we weren't sure if the city was gonna want to start again the desal concluding in that step Process we evolved and got a lot of community input that drove us to looking at water supply options To create the community water plan and through that as you can see here We did workshops. We had public surveys and we evaluated water supply options through a criteria based analysis In 2015 the district did adopt The community water plan which is shown here. It was this larger document that summarized The multifaceted roadmap that the district wanted to participate in partake in To lead us to base and reliability and sustainability And really that focused on our community values So through that survey process we did identify that we really wanted to focus on timeliness Water quality and reliability That was also around the same time that district embarked and adopted a strategic plan That incorporated our goals and values and our guiding principles. And so in 2015 through this process We identified conservation groundwater management and the evaluation of three water supplies We knew that the evaluation phase was going to take some time again So in 2015 the board said let's prioritize and evaluate water purification for groundwater replenishment using recycled water Exploiting river water transfers with the city of Santa Cruz and still keeping a Watchful eye on desalination that was occurring through a private entity in Moss landing Again the board set a goal of having a project come online in 2022 And then trying to aim towards the sustainability by 2040 In 2017 we put out a progress update and this is the one right here that I'm showing and This one gave an update related to those five components and it also included in this update The addition of the addition of stormwater capture as a supplemental water supply that we were evaluating And that we recognize still in 2017. We were still in an evaluation process The board was very clear that no final determination had been Selected on any water supply option. We were still evaluating them And we also recognize that in 2017 that there had been some some milestones or actions that have occurred Specifically with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that was a statewide mandate that the basin be brought back into balance Prior to that it was something that the state was looking at but it was codified between these two Progress update reports at this point, you know, we come to the board and As staff we go out a lot and I know the board members do as well Out to the community outreach and communication of what we're doing has been one of the main things in terms of Getting out to the people getting out to our community for them to understand what we're doing our water supply Process is very complex And there's a lot of information out there. So we really try to focus on Explaining what we're doing and what the current update is on those things. I would like to point out Well, it's not in a slide. We at the meeting we went to last night. This was the city's update So they are also kind of doing this kind of outreach to their customers sharing with them This is their update for 2018 related to their water supply strategies For us our focus is obviously a Lot on where our water supply options are take a snapshot of 2019 There has been a lot of progress that has been made on all fronts specifically with the pure water soquel project in 2018 the board did Complete and certify the environmental review of the project They approved the project and we are now going forward with seeking grant funding low-interest loans and preliminary design In terms of excess river water purchase, I think we talked a lot about it earlier today with the update from the city's water commission We also are have an ongoing pilot project that We are going to be going through December of 2020 The staff from both agencies have been coordinating quite a bit And I think we'll be met meeting next week and as identified in the staff report We are going to be talking a lot more not just about, you know, whether or not It's about the volume, but it's about the water quality and it's about the assurance of reliability in terms of operational considerations Just in these last couple months of this pilot transfer. We've had to turn it off a couple times related to fish flows We have had some detections of water quality and other constituents that we're gonna have to consider as the board looks to See what they want to do with that water transfer Again in the long-term process for the excess river water purchase or the water transfer The city has been pretty clear about what you guys have identified. There isn't enough water What what kind of instances do we want to participate in putting that into our long-range plan will be things? I think that are ongoing but for our update at this point We may want to just keep it more high level and that this is more of an end project that we do see as regional collaboration Then we still have the other two options that the board has identified for our community water plan Which is desalination and stormwater capture? We did communicate with representatives from deep water desal and the bullet points that are contained in the staff memo Give their current status of the project. They Feel as though they have completed most of these Feasibility and technical studies to inform the environmental review They are in the process right now working with regulators in terms of the needs that They feel that I guess the state has identified as being Still unfulfilled in terms of feasibility of evaluating the intake So they are working through some of those steps with them so at this point the environmental review process is on hold and Their project is still going forward, but it's not going forward yet at the pace that they had originally anticipated In terms of the stormwater capture, I think Shelly provided the information that's in the staff memo for that item again stormwater capture is something that the board identified and asked staff to include in 2017 as a water supply option We do include this and explain that this is small-scale projects the The location of them the evaluation of them was were things that staff worked with the county on over the last two years and There are some there is some potential, but again, these are a little bit smaller in scale So in terms of communicating with our customers We feel staff feels it is a good time for us to continue to go forward and put out a 2019 community progress report to identify and capture the status of the projects thus far and also to Really kind of I think hit on these main points. Let me just talk about them First, I think the district board has always said and we continue to try to be very factual and include information That is based on science and technical information and studies We also want to continue to make sure that we're corroborating with partner agencies Again, it's very important that we're using the information that is generated by other agencies Especially if they're an agency such as the city on their water supply options While a lot of community people want us to you know Take information from other options or alternatives if the city again, I think if the city doesn't Want to incorporate that into their water supply alternatives It's really hard for us to communicate that if it's not something coming from them So we have been working with them and they review our materials as they go out Again, I think we want to be adaptable to the community interest There's certain topics that come out some time to time that need focus and need attention So we do try to make sure that if there is a topic or a question or maybe a A concern we do try to make sure that we include that in our material We also continue to want to clarify misinformation and I think a community progress report will do that It's it's hard for us in terms of outreach To hit all of the pertinent materials that are out there that people want to use so This item here is something that we do would send out not this one. Sorry, that's the city's this one Would be something that we're gonna put out in hard copy. It's also something that we can put out In mailboxes, so we are proposing that this be mailed And again the information contained there and also has to provide that local regional and statewide context We do want to share that a lot of things that are driven here are based on local policy but also statewide policies and then I Think as has been since the first generation of the 2015 community water plan report Is that we want to stay aligned to our community values and our board's guiding principles and there is a path forward So in terms of what we would include or what we're proposing to include in the 2019 progress report first I think I want to just state that we do have our standing committees that we Utilize and leverage a lot and Larry who's in the audience tonight is is on one of them But we do have these committee meetings Upcoming that we will be going back and forth with them in terms of generating what kind of information material You want to share with our customers, but in terms of what happened in 2017 to 2019 I think it's important for us to share that the sky-tem results and Findings from that Reiterated and confirmed that seawater intrusion is not just occurring at both ends of the basin But that it is at the coastline all throughout We also want to talk a little bit more on the sustainable groundwater management act and their upcoming milestones As you know, that was a declaration by the state I know there was a question earlier today related to the declaration of the groundwater emergency When the board did approve that in 2014 that was based on our local hydrologist and a peer review Since then we are one of 21 basins in California identified. It's critically overdrafted So it's important for people to understand that this is not, you know Something that just locally we're illustrating and seeing but it's the state is seeing that and so we need to Explain that to our customers It's also not about water levels It's also about the water quality and so I think that's another thing in terms of the information that we need to share We have seen and I think Well, I think that goes back to clarifying Misinformation, you know, I think in a big picture, let me just segue out and then you can come back in what we're what I think Melanie's leading up to is not only updating with the most pertinent information scientific based information But trying to present it. What do we let go of what do we include to make it as simple and as easy and digestible and genuine to our customers as possible You know an example of how easy it is for people to misconstrue stuff For whatever reasons is the comment that I didn't make to the Sentinel Oh, I don't know a year or two ago where water levels are they were at a all-time high And I think the reporter did a good job of catching that but the second part didn't get incorporated And that was if they are at an all-time high because of the great conservation by our customers and even with that effort We're still well below sustainable levels To prevent seawater intrusion and our hydrologists showed that so it's you know, if you tell part of the story it can get taken out of context so keeping it simple and Not too much because people Tend to take what works for them. And so trying to work that in con and keep it concise And then in terms of the four water supply options In the past we've given equal kind of layout on the page to the water supply options for Pure water so Cal and surface water and then desalination stormwater capture Got about half the page size We are I'm asking for a little bit of input from the board in terms of our water supply options and how we communicate that Out to the community a pure water so Cal We can we can describe that the project is defined now with the tertiary component down in Santa Cruz The we are going forward with design of the treatment purification facility at Shana clear conveyance pipelines and the recharge wells at the identified three locations Willowbrook Monterey and off Cabrillo College Drive and we can also talk about surface water transfer in terms of Continuing to evaluate with the city of Santa Cruz and seeing what water is available From them that we are still interested in that desalination stormwater capture and would like feedback from the board on how we want to Explain and share that and I also want to kind of get a better understanding from the board if they would like us to go into like project details related to cost or Anticipated timelines for the projects to come online. I would propose we take desal completely out of our plan Okay, and can I just take a second so yeah, and that's the kind of thing that's information. We're looking at I think I mean, I think we would probably concur That's not a bad idea or put it, you know in a different category at a minimum I mean when we show this currently to people and this is what we had You know what I ask is this painting the best best picture we can for our customers? You know, they don't have a lot of time to digest this So if you look at this you might think you know You've got three supply options that are all equal and we're not sure that's not that's correct, you know any more at least So And stormwater capture is not even on here and and I'm not sure it should be why it's important It may be the hundred year 150 year plan I believe and we ought to continue with that should it it's on a it's on our update, you know should we take You know should we rearrange these or show them smaller or put them in another category? That's what we're wrestling with that we can come back with ideas But we wanted to just kind of get your sentiment on that I mean, I think that, you know However that whether even those icons are on the front or not I think it's what how much you put about each thing you need to explain In more detail the project that we're proceeding with then you do about You know something like stormwater capture like here's a little blip about what we're working on and the county's working with us And here's and then with this, you know with the water transfer with the city a little more than that because that's something That's ongoing and we're using but Keep out of detail a footnote or something that you know, that's still I Mean, they're not even to their EIR I mean, I mean most people are gonna read, you know, maybe a couple pages and that's all so yeah I mean, I saw I see that you had to read the sky Tim They might read the first part of the sustainable ground and that'll be it So they'll miss the stuff we really want them to know right and that's exactly what we're trying to zero in If they want to get more in-depth we can go we can point them to reports later if somebody's that but trying to capture that 90% of the audience that Which is being accurate with what we're working on, you know, I Would rely upon our Outreach committee pretty heavily on this does the Does the board wanted I guess for Explaining what our water supply options are and Making sure I have the direction right Do we want to keep all four in and just kind of reference that the that desalination and stormwater capture are Not as high a priority do you want to set a priority do you just want to leave all four? Dr. Daniels had mentioned taking desal off. I think just a little bit more glaring on that direction would be helpful What are others think about that I don't think either desal or the stormwater capture Are on the table? The immediate table. I think in future in future Updates We may be Or some other options or some other completely different plan, but right now they are not Fading water. I mean, they're not I thought we were working with seascape We are we're counting. We are working on some stormwater capture So I think that that is in the plan, but when you look at it in terms of Volume relative to other volumes. It's a small Mount so that's what I think clarifying volume is fine We want to look at all I mean we we want to look at all the portfolio that we Technically could use if we're gonna try and keep doing something with the city transfer It's not going to be enough. We know where the majority of our efforts are going with something that can really make a difference with pure water I Don't is desal even possible anymore. I think we can't see it We basically footnote it and then maybe I think we're all in the same way in stormwater capture saying hey This is it has several nexus is to it, you know cleans up stormwater runoff and it can recharge your ground We're a little bit. It's not a cure, but it's something that I think to honor Later in there. Yeah Continue to evolve that process people see all this flooding and they wonder why we're not looking at that water We should be the amount of effort should be with the amount of volume Yeah, so proportion To me it's more of a research project and a development project That's what my point is to it's oh and also way it might succeed at seascape is that it's a flood control project Which is very desirable, but it's not that have to be a kind of solution to What our water supply That's all and we're working with the county, but the county's right, you know, we are That we're still trying to encourage that kind of thing But and we're hoping to pull in other departments from the county. I mean it's really Public works, you know would be a good Agency to be or a good department to be involved in that because they have the stormwater quality objectives and they have the flooding issues So kind of trying to bring Some other folks together. I mean a footnote about desalage that you know something that didn't meet the requirements of timeliness and Reliability that what the community was looking for It's good. I don't know when that would ever happen So do you want to take it off or just leave it on and footnote it would not put any logos on there I would just put a note about that. You know, we were considering that but still it's still in the very early developmental stage Could put a ghost image of it And maybe explain Stormwater catchers one we think will evolve and gain traction over time Okay, well, I think it's gonna be I think it's gonna be so expensive that you know We could go to Sears and buy more Grocery store and buy more water than that but we'll continue to explore and so in all of these things Not only the the advantages, but also the disadvantages Just be have it be balanced and factual. Yes There are downsides to everything Yeah, and if we paint a picture that there's no downsides. I Think that people are gonna say What are they trying to pull over on this but I would use most of the space for pure water because I think that's the thing people need To know more about now Like example water quality. Yeah, that's a good point Like the kind of data that we just got I still say, you know, we're looking we were looking at 2015 and 2017 progress report on this Those things can go back in but we should explain what happened with it the research project into stormwater Captured, but we don't need to go into a full page of detail. Yeah And the decals the same way that is More of an I don't know what's going on with it, but it's not You know, it's not anything that we're putting energy into any longer, so we should explain that yeah kind of our evolution I heard that the information we we heard from the city last night kind of showing that There's not sufficient water. This is okay I think you have the clear points that people were talking about from the meeting last night and from from the GSP meeting that shows You know how these projects can work together and you kind of have to have Your water so Cal I think that information is really important to get out to people and the points you've made about live oak, too That they're using 25% of you know the water there and it's going to help with that area as well So we will work with the committees and we'll try and bring a progress report draft to the board and thank you Really important Public comment yes public comment on this topic dr. You and I agree on one thing The entire portfolio to use your word the entire portfolio should be considered Seriously and honestly the entire portfolio should be presented as information to your customers and implicit stockholders and Anyone else who rely on the accuracy of what you're reporting so I would urge that stormwater capture and D-cell because it remains a legitimate possible alternative if one would consider small micro-sized Solar locations given we have the Pacific Ocean here and that is a prospective prospect in addition. There's a d-cell activity going on South of here At the power plant in fact the former executive director or manager of So Cal Creek Water District facilities and activities is down there working So let's not write it all off, but desets a legitimate alternative stormwater capture Especially the fact that you're just now discussing it with the Santa Cruz County Public Works Agass me you are 10 to 15 years too late and taking that initiative madam I'm just again. Why anything else about the report. There's a net I find that negligent you haven't discussed anything else about the report on The report by all means list all the alternatives list them comprehensively and adequately and take out less Propaganda pushing pure water so Cal and more fact in reality about all of the other alternatives in the portfolio. Thank you Good evening Tom Stumball Aptos In the section that you just finished There was a heading called communicating with customers and the first First thing it said about that was be factual In your publications you never identify pure water so Cal as treated sewage This is not factual as it will not be Pure water Well, the products of waste is mr. Stumball I mean I've looked at the documents and it clearly states that it's wastewater. It's treated Okay, it's not coming as raw wastewater anywhere near well I guess I don't see those documents because I have a visual there to that points out wastewater You're taking up my time treated Let's print it right here the product of wastewater treatment have been found to contain trace amounts of antibiotic resistant DNA These products are often introduced reintroduced into the environment and water supply Potentially resulting in the spread of antibiotic resistance as such researchers at the University of Southern, California at Vi-Turbe school of engineering have been studying the development of these potentially harmful and dangerous jeans in wastewater treatment processes their findings published in environmental science and technology Indicate that even low concentrations of just a single type of antibiotic leads to resistance to multiple classes of Antibiotics, we're quickly getting to a scary place. That's called a post antibiotic world Where we can no longer fight infections with antibiotics anymore because microbes have adapted to be resilient against these those antibiotics at Adam Smith assistant professor of civil engineering and engineering at USC and Lead investigator of the study Unfortunately engineered water Treatment systems end up being sort of a hot bed for antibiotic resistance In an even more dire scenario small amounts of antibiotic resistant bacteria and Free-floating DNA make it through the filtration membrane and come out the other side of the treatment plant in what is called the effluent or The water stream that leads the facility Okay, so just clarifying that's wastewater treatment and not advanced purification None of those and no antibiotic can make it through an advanced purification treatment plant, so that's they're talking about They're talking about wastewater treatment talking about what's down in Santa Cruz right now talking about normal wastewater treatment They are not designed to remove those And in fact that paper in fact underscores what our concern is with secondary treated sewage going out into the ocean That is where the concern is with that kind of paper. It is not a Purified water project that they're talking about they're talking about what happens at Santa Santa Cruz treatment center right now And gets pumped out into the ocean These guys are talking about something that happens Angela trying we're trying to clarify your misinformation and sorry colonel. We're done with this item. No Sorry, we're done. You had your time You had your time you need to sit down You need to sit down Becky Steinbrunner isn't a Baptist this graphic was made by mr. Russell brouche who worked a lot on the the desal alternative campaign and I urge you to really think back to what happened if that campaign There are many similarities to what's happening now with the pure water so Cal Many of your customers are not even aware of this project. Do you have a comment on the on the report? Which is what so I see your sign, but this is an item where we're discussing the community water plan And if you have a comment about that plan, that's fine, but not come up here and wave a sign and get attention Clicking may I speak thank you, but about the topic otherwise. No Thank you. I Like your report that you encourage public participation You know what you guys I would like to point out that the alternative Excuse me stop the timer for a second stop miss Steinbrunner. Thank you To come up here and rant over and over again and waste the public's time and Not stay on topic is not helping anything. So please stay on topic Thank you, I'm going to stay on topic and address your community water plan and Point out that it does not involve the live oak residents that have three pieces of communication in your packet today and Your water rate increase material did not address or even name pure water so Cal In it's the mailing so your customers are not aware of the water so Cal and this relates to the community water plan What you're talking about? Yes So being accurate with your information is important And I feel that there have been some things that have not been accurate namely that the rate increases did not name pure water So Cal in the information I also feel that it is In talking about water quality and the pure water so Cal issue That you do need to address and EMA You do need to address ibuprofen and deet and things that Corolla did say that they can't get out and you do need to address the the National Water Research Institute's Warning in September of 2017 that this project relies upon It working perfectly 100% of the time That's what they said and we all know that human error is always there I Think it would be who you to look at what happened With the diesel alternatives, there is a move afoot this has to do with the community water plans again To you that pure water Monterey in the Monterey Herald was was in the news Regarding that they have pulled back on their pure water Monterey project in favor of diesel So take a look at the Monterey Herald. Okay. Well, you know and I also Want to just point out that you need to address more publicly what the Need to stay on topic more. Yeah, and you need to stop interrupting the public You know, it is so disruptive, you know, all you have to do is Not coming up here and ranting you'll have all the time you want I'm not ranting I am publicly participating as you say you encourage. Thank you very much and Mr. May add to something, you know It's understandable that Until you become knowledgeable about what water reuse and purification just as the board said two or three years ago that you guys Wanted to fully understand it and a good example Until you understand it and become knowledgeable and can make an informed decision a sense of apprehension is fully Anticipated not uncommon as with anything you fear what you don't understand and I think it's demonstrated Demonstrated in with San Diego where probably about 15 years ago About 25% of the people were in favor of purification 75% against and over the last many years, San Diego is Undertaken an effort to educate Truly educate get out there and inform the people day after day and now those numbers are in about the 80% Support it so through education proper education and understanding and learning you can see how the public Embraces it so including environmental organizations And in fact if we want to really fully Educate people we need to tell them how foul the water is in the river and how little it is treated and these people who Scream about water quality just assume. It's high quality when it's not and it's not treated and you want to Basically plaster it all over the district without even having to look at it You go to look you go to the city look at the city's Reports on this and that's foul stuff compared to groundwater and even worse Even better is is pure water because it indeed is pure. I would not call it foul stuff I would say that it is meets all the drinking water standards, but but if you're talking about certain things like ibuprofen or Antibiotics, they're gonna be more in surface water than they are if they're all see they're gonna be in groundwater or purified water, right? All right, so we move on item 6.6 Seems pretty straightforward to me Does that mean you don't want me to present my memo? No, but it sounds like you're in a good situation You have somebody willing to help just straightforward memo so you don't need to present, okay? I'm happy to answer any questions. It does have a roll call on it though. Yes Yes, but yeah, but I mean it's I'm really thankful that John's willing to step back in we are too And we were really thankful for for Troy's assistance over the last three months He was a great addition and we know we applaud him and honor him so yeah So we'll I like the motion And Yeah, sure I didn't imagine there would be much public You're right, okay seeing none Roll call, please Yes Yes, and please thank you. Thank you. Well, we'll we have to wait for CalPERS approval, right? So thank you But for me his willingness All right next is item 6.7 Changes to meter drop-in fees So this is a follow-up memo to the variance that the board granted in January As we were going through the process of evaluating the applications and requests that we receive for customers that had a one-inch meter And wanted to downsize we ran across the question of water capacity fees Typically when a customer downsizes their meter they forfeit their water capacity for the larger meter and so in this instance we have run across some customers who may They could technically qualify for using a five-eighths-inch meter, but they may experience some loss and pressure Especially if they're at elevation So we're asking the board to consider giving us a little bit of a grace period to correspond with the variance grace period for Customers who do downsize to a five-eighths inch Discover that they do have some pressure issues and would like to move back to a month one inch They don't have to pay the one-inch water capacity fees again The other thing that we discovered is that With the new meters that we're putting in the ground we haven't looked at our meter drop-in fees since March of 2013 So we re-evaluated those those meter drop-in fees have increased Because of increases in labor costs and increases in the cost of the meters So we're suggesting new fees for meter drop-in fees We're also suggesting a labor only fee so that we if we do have a customer who downsizes to a five-eighths inch Decides that That's not going to be sufficient to meet their needs and wants to move back to a one-inch meter We can charge them just the labor to install the one-inch meter that they previously have So those are the those are the motions That we're asking you to consider this evening Branding the grace period for water capacity fees and improving the new meter drop-in fee schedule. Okay questions Yeah, just I thought it was odd that the Five-eighth inch restricted was slightly higher than a five-eighth inch the reason for that. It's the equipment cost for the flow restrictor Okay, a five-eighth-inch meter doesn't have that Restricted does have a Public comment Jack Zaworski been a so-called Water Creek District customer for over four decades over three decades where I am right now I'm one of the people that fall into this particular area I know that when and first of all, let me say I've talked to Leslie. I've talked to Taj. I'm can't go injure myself I'd like to thank him by the way for his time He's put a lot of time patience and he's been great on all this and we got into a lot of discussions I'm one of those that's right on the border When the lot was originally developed where I built the home on it So Cal Creek came in and they determined that as borderline we better put a one-inch in and it's been there for over three Decades, you know, and it hasn't been an issue hasn't been a problem When we ran the calculations, I am one of those on the borderline as is my neighbor and a few others The number of people that are under this is very small. I mean considering your handle it like 17,000 people It's well under 100 a lot of those probably doesn't really matter. They can go to a five-eighths, but there are a few of us around that border and What you guys did when you originally came up with this is you came up with particular people such as those with you know Fire suppression equipment other things and you said, you know, we have to allow for this because you know We don't want to mess them over and you took care of probably 99% of the people But there's like a dozen or two of us that kind of got shoved to the side and as a result of this What's going to happen is my rates are going to more than double 90% of my bills going to go towards the meter cost And for someone that conserves and all it's it's kind of concerning for me And what I'm hoping that and and I think what they're what Leslie's trying to do and what dodge You know came up with is they're doing the best with the limitations that you've set to them as to how to be as fair as possible Because they realize it's an issue here. And so I really need to talk to you guys The next level up as they said, you know To see if there's a way maybe you can add another Variance in their grandfather in a few of us that have had these meters forever in This place that have always been at this one inch and just grandfather us in and say going forward We're doing five eighths, but for these people You know that have been here for you know a long time that I've always had this meter And it's always been put in there instead of spending the money To put in a smaller meter and have it costing the Water Creek District money Why not just leave it the way it is grandfather that in and you know and again if there needs to be like I think you're charging an extra dollar fifty because of the fire suppression I'm sure that's probably like a two unique things so you got an administrative fee or something like that You know go ahead and charge the extra dollar fifty four, but put us in with those other ones that you variance And that's what we're requesting Thank you Thank you else Becky Steinbrenner. I just want to point out to you that This anomaly was discovered by your rate pair mr. John Cole Who took you to court and won for illegal rate structuring? So that's John Cole's work that determined this this anomaly and I want to give him credit. Thank you I mean it sounds like to me that would be a different issue to come back with some kind of other variants I mean, I think this is the best solution we have for right now It's like and you could make take advantage of I think couldn't do yeah, you could take advantage of it and try it But if it doesn't work, that's the question. Yeah, right understood We don't know whether it will work or not Fairly certain that it's not going to work So that seems to lend itself to the fact that he does require a one-inch meter and he should pay for it Yeah, well, I mean we can I don't know some some if staff has some idea that somehow Have it be fair to all customers evenly. I I don't know but I think For now, I mean for the people involved. This seems like the best solution You can come up with We don't but let us you know, I mean, I think I mean emotions are prudent now But we will give it some thought let us go back. We do take that. I mean, we just have we just have to be fair We're willing to look at it. We have a couple ideas when I'm ready to discuss But we'll just float by engineering see if they have any okay merit. Okay, but to me it's The meter size is a proxy for how much water you can use But it's not what you do use so that's there's a disconnect there And I know that's what the whole basis of the rate structure is on but I I think it's There's It's not perfect. Yeah Okay, well, I think this still makes sense. I'll make both motions all second All in favor I posed Okay, motion carries and and so staff keep you know see see what we can come up with creatively to still be fair to everyone See we can solve the problem Yeah, and thank you both to Leslie and Taj for working on that all right The last item of the night rebid Yeah, we're excited to get this going As you recall we only received one bid last time we put the granite way well site improvements out since that time we did reject that bid and procured the Electrical cabinet as well as the pumping equipment Pumping equipment has been delayed based on their need for good weather Hopefully if next week is clear, they'll be here to set the pump and pedestal So this this now rebid does not include those two items. It's just the remainder of the improvements the site minor grading Some electrical transformer storm drain Some above ground piping and and some fencing so that we hope to Receive more than one bid and I think we will get more than one bid In May and then hopefully we can proceed this summer and finish in the fall And then get that back online get it online for the first time. Yeah Members of the public Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner resident of Aptos. I go by this site every day and Have wondered what was going on. I do and I do want to bring to your board again the the critical concern of a possible contamination flume in this area and I have been talking with People associated with the project and there is concern there as well So it is Important that this well be sealed Very far down. I think that mr. Dufour has told me it would be sealed to 50 feet It may need to be sealed deeper because of this possible contamination plume. I'm aware that your district did Contamination studies of volatile things that would be associated with a dry cleaner And that would make sense with the former dry cleaner there what was not known at the time those studies were done was that there was leaking fuel tank 1000 to 2000 gallon fuel tank and it's still unknown What was in that tank because of the improper way it was handled the district attorney dealt with that and you can go Look at that case and get the full report of contaminants that were found at the site. They do not match diesel What they do Compart with more is something like a bunker sea oil Which would make sense if you look at the historic use of that land The low threat case closure was improperly and prematurely closed and that has also been verified by area experts So it is very possible and very likely that there is a contamination plume That is following the groundwater flow that is going directly to that well So I urge you to possibly work with the developers And put in some monitoring wells to catch any Tip of a plume that could be headaged your way and to Seal this well at a very maybe abnormally deeper depth than you might because of this Possible and very real threat to the safety of this water. Thank you. Thank you Okay You should listen to this Steinbrenner and you should have the notes reported and you should promptly Have a resolution proposed that you implement Miss Steinbrenner's concerns and her criteria and direct your staff to do that I'm really that's an environmental obligation you have She brings up enough sequel concerns in her statement to make that clear But you have a judiciary obligation as well to your customers and also to that well area So please put a paragraph together that implements her concerns and that your staff is to make corrective action. Mr. Duncan assuredly of those of Compliment as I understand the report here your staff rejected an overpriced bid that was clearly a rip-off of your great payers and your finances And did it its own procurement If that's the case I compliment mr. Do for or whoever did that For saving apparently three hundred thousand dollars or more of your rate payers money from being wasted with a bad buy an overpriced Overpriced sale solicitation for equipment Again, please implement Miss Steinbrenner's concerns Have your recorder type them out and be responsible and do the clear Prudent thing you should do for your right payers and customers have that well monitored or shut it off Okay There are two motions That ended roll call, please Director Lather. Yes, vice president Daniels. Yes, director Jaffee. Yes, director Christensen And president like you. Yes There is only written communications now and then close session So anything about written communications? Anyone in the public on written communications, thank you. Thank you Steinbrenner. I just Would like to reiterate that this Chanticleer Advanced water treatment facility was not properly vetted to the residents in the live oak area Once the scope of the project was changed That's one of the tenants of the lawsuit that I'm bringing against the district for sequel violation And I I'm aware mr. Duncan has made claims that there have been public meetings and I think his responses are interesting, but I really think that you need to go back and do this properly and Address these people's concerns Hold more and frequent more and well-noticed public meetings in the live oak area because these people were essentially left out of the process being customers of Santa Cruz City Water District and this facility is not even within the district's boundary. Thank you Can I make a comment or two about that? I think it's an Informative to the board and also The right thing to do by the people who wrote the letters You get us down there. Yeah, so I think the first letter is by mr And I forgot the mister in there and the haste on a Friday afternoon to get a letter out So I want to apologize, but what he did do was very appreciative if you go down a little bit Shelly He took the main points out of here why Few points that we think what's important to live oak residences and he put that into live oak next door which I'm a member of because I'm I live in live oak and From that it generated a response from the person who wrote the next letter Miss Jackson wrote this letter and And Yeah, the next letter the third one. Yeah, she would she wrote this letter before she saw Mr. Bulger's four comments and that taken from ours and then after she saw mr. Bulger Bulger's comments she Refrain and said, you know, this is this makes much better sense to me now that I see see what Sokel's doing and subsequent to that I met with miss Jackson. I said You know, it's really refreshing so refreshing in today's Society to see somebody Taken from having an opinion but then take factual information and reform their opinion not to support it but to to make an informed decision and That's what she did And the subsequent post in live oak and then I met with her and we went through the The project details and the Shanna Clara site and the why and she actually said, oh, I understand Why, you know, it's not why it's appropriate that locate a facility there because live oak Which draws, you know, hundreds of acre feet of ground water. So they're part of it they have some skin in the game so to speak and that She actually said this is I think this was her exact terms This is a high-tech Environmental project and it should be explained that way. So I just want to give a shout-out to her We're continuing dialogue, but it's just a great example when you are able to disseminate factual information Some people do change their minds and and you know, I it's so refreshing to see that and we do have some meetings More general meetings Coming up Yep, okay, so we now will adjourn to a closed session Is there anyone I wish to make a comment prior to the closed session? Seeing none. We will adjourn and Going to close this