 Colin, I was having some issues with my sound earlier. Does this sound okay to you? Yeah, it sounds a little bit like a tin can, but otherwise it's very clear. Okay, I'm going to try my headset too. Hold on. How does this sound? It's a little nicer. Okay, thank you. It's very looking good. Your audio cut out there for a second, Colin. Is it okay now? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, thank you. Okay, wonderful. Looking forward to it. Good afternoon, everyone. Hello, John. How are you, Bill? I'm well, thank you. Excellent. Colin, good to see you. Lisa, good to see you. Jennifer, good to see you. Bob, good to see you. Dan, and you're muted, Dan, just to make sure you know. Yeah, Lisa, you're a trooper today. She's over in Europe and she's been on two Zoom meetings today. Wow. Where are you in Europe, Lisa? Well, we're in Denmark. We're in Copenhagen. But five minutes ago, we were in Scotland. So it's the regular family trip with an added wedding in Scotland in the middle. So. Outstanding. My down day and BPU is my favorite way to spend it. You need to get a life. You made my day. That's dedication. Well, I will call the meeting to order. And Ms. Aitha, could you do the roll call please? Yes, Vice Mayor Alvarez, Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member McDonald. Chair Galvin. Here. Vice Chair Anoni. Here. Board Member Battenford. Here. Thank you, Roberta. And please just remind everyone to remain muted unless you're speaking. At this point, let's see. I'm reading my script. So we're now taking public comment on item two, public comment. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom. This is for items not on the agenda. Please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Council member, they'll ask Roberta. Did we have any live, any raised hands or email or voicemail public comments received today? No, we have no public comments. Okay. Thank you very much. So now I will ask Director Burke to introduce item two. Thank you, Chair Sawyer and members. I'm sorry. 3.1 actually. So let's keep this trying to be as accurate as possible. That's as at least as possible. Excellent. So thank you, Chair Sawyer and members of the subcommittee. I'm going to introduce item 3.1, which is our water supply alternatives plan. And call in close. Our senior water resources planner will be making the presentation. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen so that we can see the slides. Just want to verify everybody able to see the slides at this point. Oh, terrific. And my volume is good. Terrific. Thank you so much. So Santa Rosa water would like to increase our local supply resiliency and reliability, particularly given climate change and the vulnerability to more frequent and more severe drought episodes. So we are looking at proposing to do a study and culminating that study in a plan that would provide a roadmap for increasing city owned and operated local water supplies by 2045. So what we want to do today is present to you the overarching strategy, the scope of work we think would be needed, the timeline, and then ask you the committee for your consideration and direction at the end, particularly in regards to the recommendation that we have at the end. So we will review our water supply alternatives plan overall, what it is we mean by that, what we're trying to achieve with it. We'll review our current supply and demand projections out to 2045. Just remind you of some information you've seen before. So we know where we're starting. We'll introduce some initial goals that we've set for water supply planning on this effort, but we think those goals are going to need to be studied in ground truth. So I'll talk a little bit more about that today. We want to point out what we think are some potential sources of water supply and present our proposed strategy, scope of work, draft timeline, and again ask you for your consideration of our recommendation. This slide has some information that is duplicated on the next slide. So I'm going to stay a little bit at a high level here, but essentially we do not have a water supply alternatives plan in place. We've not done this sort of study and plan before. So the point of it is to very purposefully, systematically, and cost effectively look at how we adapt to climate change by increasing our own local supplies. And we think that this can help us mitigate the increasing risk to the vulnerability of severe shortages. It can help us leverage work that's being done regionally and locally. And we're looking at a variety of ways that we could have a path forward so that we could by 2045 achieve some very specific goals. So this is another way of looking at that information I just shared with you. So the purpose of a water supply alternatives plan, as we are envisioning it, would be to enhance our long-term water supply resiliency and reliability so that we can better adapt to climate change and reduce our vulnerability to shortages in very dry periods. So to do that, we would propose doing a study and then documenting a plan that has a path forward. We think we should engage a stakeholder group, not only an internal water interdisciplinary team, but an external stakeholder group. We think we need to establish very clear long-term water supply goals. We need to look at the feasibility of a wide range of water supply sources and see what portfolios or mixes of those water supply sources could best get us to achieve those goals. Then we would prepare and adopt the plan and then implement the plan going forward. We do have existing water plans. The first four are city plans. You're familiar with our urban water management plan and our water shortage contingency plan. We've talked to you about those a number of times over this last year as they have been updated and adopted. We also have a groundwater master plan that provides a roadmap for us to sustainably manage our groundwater resources. We have an incremental recycled water program and with a master plan that has allowed us to ensure that we're adapting and keeping up with what we need in terms of recycled water supplies and uses. We also regionally have a Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency recently adopted that plan and staff and city council member Tom Schwedhelm is on that board and staff are involved in committees and work with the GSA. So we're intimately involved with that and that can help provide quite a bit of information and assistance to us as we move forward. Sonoma water is currently developing a resiliency study and they are working with all of their major contractors. So we are at the table providing input and comments and direction as that moves forward. It's currently focused on drought response, but it's got a bigger mission in terms of looking at water supply resiliency overall. Again, a long-term study. But none of these actually answers the question for us about how does Santa Rosa adapt to climate change and mitigate the risk of prolonged droughts with our own water supplies. So this is the question we're trying to answer in terms of this plan that we're proposing. You probably recall that our current supplies are predominantly from Sonoma Wash. It's about 93% of our supplies. We do have our own drinking water wells, very productive wells that we've had online and used for quite some time. And we have a little bit of recycled water that we use as well in our urban landscape areas. So in total, during average rainfall years and even slightly below average rainfall years, our current supply is about 31,540 acre feet. We don't use nearly that much water. So the good news is in normal years and average and even below average rainfall years, we're in good shape. And so when we look at the demand and compare that to the supply, that's where you can see even after 2045, we're in good shape. So the light bars going across show that normal water supply during average rainfall years, that 31,540 acre feet. The blue line across shows that we do anticipate that the demand for water is going to increase. We're going to have more population, more businesses and industry, potentially more parks and schools. And so we know that we're going to grow as a community. So we have already taken that into account in our urban water management plan when we looked out over that 25 year horizon. And again, in average rainfall years and even slightly below average rainfall years, as you know, we're in really good shape. So that's not our concern at this point. It's these very dry historically dry periods. You've seen a version of this slide before. The orange line shows monthly storage for the average month over the last 30 years. And then this dotted line shows the lowest month in that 30 year period. The red dashed line shows that 100,000 acre feet mark. And you probably recall if storage in Lake Sonoma drops below that 100,000 acre feet, that can trigger a mandatory requirement that Sonoma water provides 30% less drinking water to its customers. So that could put us into a very severe water shortage condition. And this is the actual storage in Lake Sonoma from October 2019 to last week. So you can see we are well below not only average, but well below even the lowest month for each of those 30 year periods. So you can see that this is certainly a more dire situation than we've seen in the past. And we anticipate that climate change is going to mean we're probably going to be back in situations like this in the future. When we look again at this idea of having a 30% shortage, what does that mean for Santa Rosa? Well, 30% would be a stage five water shortage emergency. And you will recall from discussions about the water demand offset, that triggers water rationing. And it can also trigger the offset policy requirement so that new demand has to have a net zero impact on water supplies. So these would be very challenging for our community. So when we look at how much water supply we would expect to have versus the ordinary demand, and ordinary demand is these blue bars, and normal water supply is the lighter bar. This gray would be what we would anticipate to be the amount of water supply available if we had 30% less than this ordinary demand. That's about a shortage of 7,529 acre feet by the year 2045. So this is one element when we were talking about water supply goals. This is one of the drivers for one of two goals that we would like to propose that we start with. But as I said, we do think these need to be studied in ground truth as goals. So this is one of the drivers for why we have one of our goals. We want to basically reduce our vulnerability to stage 5 or worse shortages. The other driver is the restructured water agreement for water supply. This is a contract that the contractors in Sonoma Water signed back in 2008. And it has laid out in it the amount of water that Santa Rosa is entitled to as well as the other contractors, what happens during shortages. It's a pretty robust contract. It also includes a section called local production capacity goal. And what this goal says is that it would be highly desirable for each of the water contractors to be able to produce 40% of their peak demand day requirements. So if we look at July and August, when our community is requiring the most amount of water per day, this is recommending that we be able to meet 40% of that during those peak summer days. So this is the other piece of our goal setting that we initially start with. But again, we think this needs to be ground truth. This was something that was captured in the contract in 2008. And we need to look at whether or not that is actually still a pertinent and viable number and if it's feasible to achieve that. But this does provide a driver for us in terms of where we would start and sort of have an initial goal for our study. So what do we currently have capacity for with our local supplies? Locally, we own and operate two drinking water wells and we have recycled water for our urban landscapes. When we look at the most recent five-year average, we have about 1,382 acre feet a year that those provide. Most of that is from the drinking water wells. That's about 7.8% of our average annual demand. So about 7% is drinking water wells. About 0.8% is recycled water. So we're nowhere near a 30% local production capacity. When we look at the ability to produce water during our peak demand days, we currently can produce about 2.75 million gallons per day with our wells. And that's about 12.5% of the average peak day. So that's nowhere near that 40% mark that I had mentioned previously. So when we look at initial goals, we do think analysis needs to be done. We need to look at whether these really hold up under close inspection. But overall, what we're looking at is reducing our risk for severe shortages and responding to the restructured agreements goal for that capacity during peak summer days. So initially, we would recommend that we start with two goals, that Santa Rosa achieve the capacity to produce with our own supplies 30% of our 2045 annual demand, about 75 acre feet of water per year and 40% of the demand during the peak days. And that would be about 13 million gallons per day production capacity that we would own and operate locally. So those would be the goals we would start with. But a key part of this process, again, would be ground truthing those goals, examining them to make sure that they do in fact make sense, are viable, feasible, and will get us to where we need to go. We also are looking at a wide range of potential local water supply sources. And we'd like to examine those with about 16 different criteria, characterize each of them, and determine which ones are the most feasible sources. And what mix of these sources might most ably provide what we need locally so that we can achieve the goals that we've set. There is aquifer storage and recovery. That's a way of banking water in the ground. Typically it can be storm water, high peak flows during winter that are then stored underground and used later. We would want to look at having collaboration with resiliency projects that SNOMA water and our local contractors around us are working on. Make sure that we're taking advantage of those, working cooperatively in collaboration with our partners. We could look at groundwater. We have done quite a bit of groundwater testing. We have test boreholes. We know a lot about our groundwater basin. So looking at whether or not we need more production wells rather than emergency wells. Look at interties with other water providers. Are there opportunities to take advantage of there maybe times when we have more water than we need or we have less water than we need and could we work cooperatively with other folks through interties? We'd also like to look at reuse of our recycled water from the potable perspective. Currently we do use recycled water for irrigation of urban landscapes. There's also recycled water being used for agricultural customers and recycled water being sent to the geysers. We'd like to look at whether there is any opportunity or potential for potable reuse of that recycled water. How much might that be? What the timeline might be, the cost of benefits, the risks. Needs a full analysis. We'd like to examine that as well. In addition, storm water, there are a number of ways that storm water might be used. We'd like to examine that. We do have some small surface water rights related to Santa Rosa Creek. And again, that could be tied to the storm water and aquifer storage and recovery. Just looking at whether or not surface water is the source of water we might want to use. We could do water trading. We'd need to examine that. That's a legal issue and that has some other kinds of complications with it, but we think that's something that we should open up and look at. And perhaps there are other water supplies that we haven't yet imagined that could come to the fore by working with our stakeholders internally and externally and by working with a consultant. So the strategy would be to study the issues, develop a plan, adopt it, and implement it. In the study phase, we would engage a stakeholder work group. Of course, again, interdisciplinary water team, but also an external stakeholder work group. We would work with all of the folks involved to establish ground truth, reasonable water supply goals that get us where we need to be by 2045, and then study the feasibility of potential water supply sources, characterizing them with about 16 different evaluation criteria. Then we would develop portfolios of options. There may be more than one path forward to achieve what we need to achieve. And so we think by having alternative portfolios at our disposal, that will enable us to adapt over time as we move forward to make the best choices, not only today, but 10 years or 20 years from now. And then we would seek input, obviously, from the internal stakeholders, but also the external stakeholders on a draft of that plan. Then we would propose having a study session, a publicly noted study session, for broad public input, revise the plan as needed, adopt it, and then go forward and implement it. Funding could be through our regular budgeting process. It could also be through grant opportunities. We think one of the tremendous advantages to having a well-designed study and well-developed plan and path forward is that it could position us very well for grant funding. So the proposed timeline would be that we would solicit proposals, probably in the very tail end of May, select a firm and award the contract. That typically can take about three to four months' time to go through that process from beginning to end. We would want to engage a stakeholder group starting around September and our water team as well, conduct the study with our consultant, draft a plan, and that work would be about six months of time. Then the last couple of months, we would want to hold a public study session, get input from the Board of Public Utilities and from the public at large, revise the plan and adopt it. And then moving forward, we would be implementing that plan over time. So we would have a very structured way to look at how to fund it and how to stagger the projects in such a way that make the most sense and are the most cost effective and the most feasible for our operations and for permitting and all of the other issues that need to be considered. So our recommendation to this committee would be to ask you to consider confirming that this is the path forward, that staff solicit proposals, evaluate them and select a firm, that the BPU award that contract, that the firm assist us in conducting the study with stakeholder input and prepare a plan to achieve the goals, that we bring that plan to the BPU for a publicly noticed study session to provide input from the BPU and from the public. And then to revise that plan and bring it back to the BPU to adopt it. And then staff would move forward with execution again through our regular funding and budget processes as well as through grant funding to the extent possible. And then we would report periodically to the BPU on our progress. So with that, I am happy to take any questions. I'm going to stop sharing my screen for now, but if it's helpful for me to bring those slides back up, I will do so. Thank you, Mr. Clos. Again, as per usual, an outstanding presentation. And before I move to questions and or comments, I'd like to welcome Council Member Diana McDonald, who's also a committee member to this meeting. Welcome, Diana. I'm glad you're here. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I was a few minutes late. I'm at our state PTA convention and they keep us running too. So I apologize for my tardiness. Not a problem at all. Thank you for being here. So at this point, I would like to ask if there are any questions or comments from the committee members for Mr. Clos or anyone else at the table. Well, John, I would agree with your assessment. Colin always does an excellent job in his presentations. This seems like a smart move to make, to hire the consultant and develop this plan. And so I'm fully supportive of it. Thanks, Dan. Bill? Well, I would agree on both of your points, Dan. Great job, Colin, and I support the recommendation. This may be a little bit off the wall, but then so was the Geyser project a few decades ago. And since we're looking at a really long planning window, I'm just curious why one of the potential local water supply sources is not that big puddle we have next to our county called the ocean and looking at desalination. Because I know there are a group of Bay Area water districts that are looking seriously at desalination projects, brackish water projects. So I'm just curious whether that's just too far beyond the pale or whether that's something that might be considered as another potential source. No, I've just added it to the list. I think I see no reason why we wouldn't add it to the list. I think that's a really smart idea. And I'm a little embarrassed that it didn't show up on the list originally. Thank you for being here. Thanks, Bill. Any other questions or comments, Bill? No. Okay. Lisa. Always agreed and appreciative. Thank you, Khan, so much. As you went through the presentation, the work we deal with is literally about the integration of unknowns, right? Then the planning around unknowns, unknowns around rain and supply and technology. So I find myself really intrigued around with such a long planning horizon. Hopefully we can only go up when it comes to technological improvements, right? For many, many years, DSAL wasn't an option. It wasn't thought of as an option because of the energy consumption. But as the energy technology changes, what other pieces change? So I'm definitely in support, definitely intrigued. Two quick notes are as much kind of lead and study session and prep time for BPU members, at least for this one is always appreciated. And also on the external stakeholders group, do you envision that to be really focused on the kind of buckets of users, whether it's agricultural, residential, industrial, kind of in that way or more of a general or both? I think so, yes. And also because we are looking at, you know, potable reuse, we want all of our existing categories of users to be involved and at the table. But yes, absolutely. It's really about the stakeholders will be most affected by this and making sure that we have a smart group of folks that are intimately involved in, you know, helping us design those goals, fine tune those goals, also making sure that we're not leaving anything off the table with what we study for water supplies and then reviewing that plan from that stakeholder perspective. We can look at it as a water supplier perspective with, you know, an interdisciplinary team, but it's really important that we get the stakeholder perspective. So yes, a pretty broad audience. I think it probably won't be much more than, you know, I would say eight or nine people visit. If it gets too big, it's not as useful. They don't get to have as much input, but absolutely we are really looking at making sure it's those stakeholders who would be most affected. Fantastic. Thank you very much. That's it for me. Thanks Lisa. Bill, can you hold on just one second? I'm going to go to Council Member McDonald and then I'll come back to you, Bill. Thank you so much for the presentation, Colin. And I know we've spoken before to give me a briefing on the water and this is a newer area for me. So I appreciate it every time getting the tutorial from all of you. A couple things too. I think that as Lisa had mentioned with the technology changing, I'm hearing that there's opportunities to capture perhaps the steam from the geysers so that we're not releasing all of that into the atmosphere as well as some of our ponds by being able to float things over that. So we don't lose so much of our water to evaporate evaporation. So I'm not sure if that's some of what you're considering as part of the study. I think it's a smart move to move forward with a consultant and bring someone in from the outside so that ideas that maybe we aren't even thinking of, they can bring in what's being done in other parts of California as well as maybe even our world. We like to be first as a leader in the North Bay and the bike for us to do that continuously in water use. I do think it's also important to maybe take a look at what we are sending to the geysers currently and seeing if that can maybe be looked at. I know that that's a very long contract but I would be interested in seeing what we could do for that because I know there's an impact on local use that is hurting agriculture and that's concerning to me for multiple reasons. So those would be some of my recommendations as far as what we're looking at but again it's more just me learning from all of you and I appreciate everybody who's involved in this committee and look forward to hearing more in the future. Excellent. Well I definitely took notes on some of the ideas that you had. Thank you so much for those. And yeah, certainly a severe drought has had a significant impact on our agricultural customers. This year I think you're aware that we were able to capture storm water a little bit more efficiently and effectively and so we were able to do provide them with much more water this year thankfully. So but yes, I think all of your comments I've taken notes. I did also if I could just for a moment board member Baden Ford I just wanted to mention you had said something about lead time with the BPU and thank you for that comment. We're very cognizant of the fact that we think this definitely needs lead time. We're planning to come to you all at the May 19th meeting coming up here to talk more about this topic and our proposed approach for an RFP and that sort of thing. So you're going to get into a little bit more of the weeds, a little more of the details as well on how we're designing this RFP and how we're going to be sending it out. We'd like to have a very broad group of folks become aware of this RFP. So I'm working with our admin technology folks to make sure that we're able to alert a whole large group of folks who might be qualified to do this work. So yes, we will be coming back to you on May and then we will be giving you regular updates. We think it's going to be really critical that you and the public have this as something that is understandable, that questions get answered in a timely way. Progress is clearly called out. So absolutely, thank you for that. And if I could just add Chair Sawyer, thank you for the question, Council Member McDonald. And we have already evaluated floating solar for our recycled water ponds. So that is part of our energy optimization master plan. So it is something that we are looking at next steps and it's really about prioritizing projects and identifying what funding we have available. So that is something we've already looked at. It's a potential. We are also aware that CalPine has been in, is following sort of the development of potential improvements related to how energy is produced through a steam-filled production. So they're definitely aware they're looking at that and seeing if that is something that does make sense. My understanding is that technology is still very new. So, but that is something they're following very closely. So just wanted to let you know that that is something that is being looked at on both ends. Thank you for that. Back to you, Mr. Arnone. But if you want to go first, John, go ahead. That's okay. I'll go last. It's always easier that way. I just had a clarifying question. When we were looking at the different sources of supply, you differentiated between aquifer storage and recovery and groundwater. And I don't understand the difference between those two things. So groundwater is naturally occurring water that has percolated through natural processes into the ground. And then aquifer storage and recovery is adding to that groundwater through some artificial means. Okay. Okay. It's artificial adding. Got it. Thank you. Thanks, Bill. So I agree with everything that's been said. That's what makes it easy. Thank you for the great questions and appreciate the answers and responses from staff. And who knows, in the next couple of decades, we might be that brine issue from disalinization. We may be eating that stuff at some point, maybe in our food source. So that would be a good way to get rid of it. It is one of the problems with disalinization. But I'm sure that by then, hopefully, the technologies will be aiding us in our desire to move forward with our water resources. Any other questions or comments from the committee before I go to public comment? Chair Sawyer, just once you've completed public comment, we would just like to get direction from this committee that you support us working through the Board of Public Utilities to submit an RFP. So I just wanted to make sure that we didn't forget that part. I appreciate that. That is important. You are looking for a recommendation. And so we will be able to provide that. How about if I make a motion that we recommend to the Board of Public Utilities that they adopt the proposed study and plan? Dan, let me get public comment before we move to that. And then we'll go to the motion after that. OK. So thank you. Just hold on to it. So I will now open item 3.1 to public comment. And if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. And Madam Secretary, do we have any raised hands or any other comments from the public? No, we have no public comments. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Galvin, could you please put that motion back on the table for us, please? Sure. I would make a motion that we recommend the hiring of a consulting firm to assist in completing the study and developing a water supply alternatives plan. Hannah, looking for a second. I'll second it. I don't know if we need to add additional items so that there was a multi-step recommendation. And I don't know whether we want to have each step be the subject of a motion or just adopt the entire multi-step recommendation as one motion. Director Burr. This is the plan that we plan to follow. And so we were really just looking for direction. If you want to include that we follow this process, I think that's great. And we can if sorry, it's so hard for me to say committee member versus chair Galvin. If committee member Galvin would like to amend the motion, I think that's perfect for us. We really just want to make sure we have the support of this committee to work with the BPU through this process. All right. I'd be happy to amend my motion to make sure that the recommendation includes all four steps in the plan. Thank you. And the second is still in place? Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Arnone. So Madam Secretary, could you take the roll please? Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Committee Member Galvin. Aye. Vice Chair Arnone. Aye. Board Member Baden-Port. Aye. And thank you that passes unanimously. Appreciate it. Thanks again for that great presentation Colin. Great job as usual. And Director Burke, would you introduce item 3.2? Yes. Thank you Chair Sawyer, members of the subcommittee. Item 3.2 is a proposed wheeling of recycled water in our Geysers Recycled Water Delivery Pipeline. And Peter Martin, our Deputy Director of Water Resources will be making the presentation. Welcome Peter. Sorry, I have trouble unmuting myself. I apologize. Let me get myself square away here. Take your time. Okay, I was seeing the right version of that presentation now. No. Okay, let me swap real quick. Yes. All right, how's that look? Better. All right. Yes, thank you members of the committee. My name is Peter Martin. I'm Deputy Director of Water Resources for Santa Rosa Water. As Director Burke mentioned, we're here today to discuss a proposal recently identified by the town of Windsor and representatives from Jackson Family Wines to utilize the Geysers Pipeline infrastructure for recycle water deliveries. I'm going to start the presentation today with a brief introduction on the history of the Geysers Pipeline project for those that may not be fully familiar and talk a little bit about the pipeline operations and then sort of delve into the project proposal and considerations for the city to take a look at. So we'll start with the timeframe of 1970 to 1980, you know, beginning in the 1970s in response to new requirements surrounding the ability of the city to discharge treated wastewater during dry weather. The regional reuse system was constructed. In this timeframe, the city begins to supply recycled water, irrigation to urban areas and local farms and runner park, excuse me, urban areas and runner park and local farms surrounding Santa Rosa. Since then, the system has undergone improvements and many upgrades over the past several decades. It does remain the backbone of our ability to treat and beneficially reuse wastewater in the region as part of our longstanding commitment to environmental stewardship and economic resiliency. So let's talk about the timeframe of the 1980s through 1990s. Beginning in the early 1980s, the regional water reuse system experienced several challenges. It meant increased flows to the facility coming into the Laguna treatment plant and obviously constraints on capacity to store recycled water with that as well. And this all sort of came to a head when unauthorized discharges to the Laguna de Santa Rosa occurred in the years 1985 through 1986. The city was issued a building moratorium and regulatory requirements were tightened for the discharges. Over during that timeframe as well. So the Laguna treatment plant was really forced to find a long-term weather independent solution to reduce and a limit or perhaps eliminate all discharges over time. Many, many feasibility studies were conducted to pursue this goal and ensure the ability of the city to preserve its ability to support the economy and the growth of the region as well. Ultimately the alternative out of those feasibility studies to pursue a partnership to deliver recycled water to the geysers geothermal project was selected. This was at the time the most cost-effective solution and provided the needed flexibility of a year-round recycled water disposal option. Design and construction occurred during this timeframe with the project being brought online in 2003. It includes the construction of 41 miles of pipeline and several pump stations. The project included a $220 million investment by the regional partners in an initial $85 million investment by CalPine. At the time this was the second most expensive project in the Sonoma County history. So anticipating additional treatment and disposal needs at the Laguna treatment plant over time. Several turnouts were constructed along the alignment with the potential for expanded use and those were incorporated into the project. So thanks to this project in most years the regional system reuses 100% of the recycled water produced at Laguna treatment plant for as you know for agricultural and urban water reuse as well as recharge to the geyser steam fields. So as I mentioned in my previous slide the regional reuse system was anticipating significant growth over time in terms of recycled water deliveries. There was an incremental recycle water master plan that was generated in the early 2000s and the plan did anticipate that you know there would be additional growth with as build out continued the various regional partners in the city and so the geyser pipeline was built with additional capacity in mind and that was meant to accommodate this incremental growth and recycle water over time. Since then due to a variety of factors growth and recycle water deliveries has not followed up with this pace and has failed to meet sort of those early projections in the early 90s and 2000s this was what was thought would be sort of the growth over time and I'll cover a little bit more in our next slide as to where the shortfalls have occurred. So since 2004 we've seen significantly below average flows tied to drought and improved water conservation over time and it didn't match up kind of what had been expected in terms of long-term growth and deliveries to agricultural users and the geysers project long-term there was expected to be growth but these are sort of the numbers on average in terms of billion gallons delivered on average 6.7 billion gallons are delivered to the variety of reuse options and in 2021 as you can see those numbers have started to fall below and have been severely affected by this drought that we're in right now that includes allocations to our ag users as has occurred over the last few years there's always demand there but unfortunately you know there are times when they do have interruptions on their side so in terms of the geysers project operations today the pipeline remains a well-run operation and has contract for deliveries lasting through the year 2037 that contract has performance requirements and base annual amounts of recycle water that are to be delivered about two-thirds of the recycle water that's treated and reused as the regional system is sent to the steam fields annually I should note that this contract does have some monetary compensation for on an annual basis for the water received and Calpine does fully cover the cost needed to lift up the water to their facilities in the Myochimus Mountains all this water that has sent to the steam fields produces enough clean and renewable energy to supply 100,000 households in the north bay with electricity every year and today still the geysers project remains the lowest cost wastewater reuse option for the city and our regional partners and this project has saved our ratebares significant money over several decades with this slide I'd like to just point out some of the critical pumping facilities to sort of orient you with how the water gets to the geysers geothermal project and the Lano pump station is a very large pump station that is quite an impressive pump station actually that conveys water to the recycle water nearly 30 miles to Bear Canyon that that pump station is sort of adjacent to the Laguna treatment plant and then conveys that water 30 miles to the Bear Canyon pump station where it begins to send to the geysers project there are three pump stations beyond that that work in a series to move up the water up to the steam fields where it's received by Calpine at what is known as the terminal reservoir so let's delve a little bit into the proposed projects at the beginning of this year staff of the water department were approached about utilization of the excess capacity and the geysers pipeline by Jackson Family Wines as a way to get a water supply to their 90 acres of vineyards at Eastside Road in Windsor these vineyards are very close to one of our turnouts that I referenced in earlier slides so that the pipeline does have turnouts as I mentioned and there is one very close to where this proposed project is it's also within the Town of Windsor's Recycle Water service area and a covered under the Recycle Water permits and at the time the Town of Windsor offered Jackson Family Wines two solutions to providing Recycle Water when they applied to receive Recycle Water and that would be extend a pipeline from at a substantial cost to supply Recycle Water from their system to the vineyard or the Town of Windsor the second option they offered would be to work out a project where water could be this is wheeled from Windsor's Reclamation Facility via the geysers pipeline to the adjacent Jackson Family Wines property this is a very high level photo of the entire system just to orient you where it is along that alignment to this point the water is pumped solely from the Lana Pump Station so it's making all the pushing all the water to this point of the pipeline and it's before those series of pumps that I mentioned in earlier slides this stretch of pipeline as you can imagine is under quite a bit of pressure and these are our large pump stations so this map shows the alignment at a more granular level of the existing geysers pipeline and the turnout on Eastside Road which is at the cross section cross crossroad of Windsor River Road and Windsor and water would enter the pipeline through Windsor's existing wastewater treatment plant next to their high school and be conveyed about two miles to the existing turnout got a little far out of myself here just for reference this is the existing pipeline for Windsor's system it takes a completely different direction from the path of the geysers pipeline in a more southwesternly fashion so as you can see this would be the shortest distance to supply water to Jackson Family Wines property so towards the end of this presentation you know I just the hope was to orient you all with the proposal and really just sort of gather feedback and whether you support proceeding with further evaluation of the project on the city's behalf with that in mind staff have provided some specific considerations for the project really that we'd like to receive feedback from you on today and I'll just go through those over the next few slides so you know what's being proposed right now is the possibility of a three-party agreement between the city of Santa Rosa the town of Windsor and Jackson Family Wines and so some of the higher level policy considerations are of course allowing a third party access to this regional water use infrastructure the acknowledgement that this is a regional project of significance it could be precedent setting and then you know just of course ensuring that there would be full recovery of cost for wheeling this is a rate payer funded project whatever the contribution pumping or moving water around would likely need to be well excuse me would need to be recovered as part of whatever project goes forward and then just you know considering the contract terms that I discussed through earlier slides the existing geysers project contract lasts through 2037 considering that the term and time frame for this contract you know staffer at this time recommending no longer than 10 years sort of to align with negotiations on extension of that contract or other options as well and then you know just including an acknowledgement that there is a prioritization for geysers project operations and that there could be interruptions you know and of course most folks here are known that there are scheduled maintenance requirements when the power shuts down the system goes offline and then there are of course other emergencies that have propped up many times during the operation of this pipeline in you know a variety of ways and then of course some other considerations are as I mentioned there's very high pressure to this turnout there is a turnout there it has not been exercised to my knowledge since 2003 when it was built there is quite a bit of a step down that may be necessary for the pressure questions about who takes ownership beyond that turnout and then just the operational responsibility beyond that turnout as well as something to consider just you know up front center recycle water supplies are fully allocated right now there is no water available from Santa Rosa's limited treatment plant for this project and then of course we all know as we just talked about in the last presentation the geysers and agricultural users desire more water in the future and then just the accounting of Jackson family winds demands versus what Windsor is supplying through their plant into the pipeline would of course require some metered use at that turnout some timeline for truing it up making sure that the inputs and outputs match up it likely request that the scheduling be done by Windsor given that they are in full control of the plant and then just the physical mechanisms to prevent overuse and I'll just give you an example with our agricultural reuse system folks are given allocations their use is metered if they are in danger of extending beyond their allocation they're given notice and up to shutting off their turnout as well and then of course some of the environmental and right away considerations we'd like obviously to have the lead agency determination for any CEQA related requirements established before entering into any agreement this right away the pipeline is the county of Sonoma's easement so they would need to perhaps ensure some encroachment permits are obtained before doing any construction outside of the pipeline so today again I just staff are seeking recommendations and feedback from this subcommittee on the following really just whether to proceed with developing an agreement with town of Windsor and Jackson family wines the comfort with going forward with that and then of course feedback or recommendations on the outlying considerations for a potential wheeling agreement if we do proceed and then of course anything else that we need to consider or evaluate that we may have missed in this presentation and then just really the next steps you know have directed we will return to this same subcommittee in the coming months and provide status updates refined inputs for further direction from the subcommittee as we continue down this path we'll continue outreach to recycle water stakeholders some of that's already being done and then work with the Board of Public Utilities and City Council to eventually pursue a formal agreement so with that I'm happy to kind of take off my presentation and answer any questions or anything else good job Peter excellent presentation thank you very much well very interesting committee members questions at this point or comments you know actually one more thing I did I did neglect to mention that I do have representatives from the town of Windsor and Jackson family wines if there are any questions specifically for them they're available to speak to their support for this and also answering specific questions that they may have as well okay thanks Peter Mr. Arnone helps if I unmute myself okay my understanding is that Windsor currently does add to the flow in the geyser pipeline before any of this proposal occurs please correctly if I'm wrong but if that's the case and if we did consider this kind of a wheeling agreement would we be decreasing the amount of flow going to the geysers and if so would that have an impact on our achievement of the minimum quota is necessary to satisfy our contract with the geysers yeah like I said I do have someone that can speak specifically to Windsor's operations but you know at this time Windsor is is always still exploring options for new disposal sites and new recycle water users they do send some water to the geysers under contract as well as you know their irrigation customers and then they discharge as well but their goal ultimately much like us is to reduce those discharges as much as possible so my understanding is they do have water to serve additional irrigation customers and that's why this proposal is being discussed but I do have Veronica here and I can have her speak to that and also if I could just add committee member Arnau we have a contract with the geysers we would still meet our contract with the geysers as was mentioned we do not have any supply available for this we have a contract with Windsor Windsor has committed they will make their contract obligations and so then it's up to Windsor to determine how they want to potentially provide supply for this so Windsor's contributions don't have any impact on our quotas with the geysers then they're completely independent contract it's factored into how we meet both contract obligations okay good afternoon this is Veronica Sivi I'm deputy director of water and environmental management for the town of Windsor and I just want to reiterate what Jennifer and Peter said I agree with both of their statements Windsor currently on typical year of obviously less two years have been a little unusual but we discharge about a third of our water sent about a third of our water to the geysers and then a third of our waters used for recycled water reuse so we're looking for ways to be able to maximize our recycled water reuse as Santa Rosa is but we do maintain our contract with Santa Rosa for our geysers discharge and we anticipate meeting at least that minimum if not more when possible thank you other questions committee members yeah this is Dan Mike my only issue or concern is are there other ag users vineyards whatever out there that would be either upset with Jackson family winds getting this type of an arrangement or wanting a similar arrangement that might make it difficult for us to accommodate yeah you know I I think these are good questions you know obviously we are have all of our water supplies at Laguna treatment plan are spoken for so they're really this time is no additional water that can be made available for agricultural chasers and we've been pretty plain about that and that there is a prioritization for those customers that currently exist you know I I yeah I think as I mentioned this this could be precedent setting but at the moment that there just really is no additional water that can be supplied on our end but of course you know moving water through a pipeline that has excess capacity at its surface seems like a project that is good for the region and something that that we all would likely support and we talk about regional projects in terms of water supply and this would be a good example of an opportunity to do that as well but I think each one has to be like you said evaluated you know where where is the water supply coming from and to meet those demands thanks Peter Dan did you have it did you wish your question answered okay so I have you know a kind of a general question and I and Peter you mentioned that there's no water currently available if there's so I'm that confuses me now if there's no water currently available then why are we having this conversation so I'm I'm just I think I'm not understanding I think I'm not understanding the concept of how if we don't have water available is it Windsor that's going to use some of their water exclusively for Jackson family and how does so they want to the question is are we willing to let the Windsor use our pipeline to we would to kind of put a straw into our large delivery system and remove a certain percentage of that taking water that the Windsor is has extra and using our system to deliver it to at particular point at which it would they would then take over the delivery to Jackson is that how they're that they would be using our system yeah that's that's accurate I'm sorry if I haven't uh fully you know fleshed out the the concept here but yeah it's um it's truly just wheeling the water there's capacity in the pipeline and not providing any supply but given that it's the distance obviously from Windsor's existing recycled water infrastructure is much further distance than just wheeling it through our existing pipeline there is some an opportunity to just utilize that that pipeline only and not not the supply so yeah just to move Windsor's water to a recycle water user okay thank you for that and I I don't mean to be harsh what's in it for us um you know obviously I think this is a great opportunity to prove up these types of concepts you know I think being a good neighbor and you know just you know I I think that you know I can't speak to we have we have someone I represent from Jackson County Wines too as well but you know they are known as a good partner they've taken a look at things like the the flood manager aquifer recharge studies they are very interested in finding solutions and to many of the water issues that are they're sort of facing snow county right now so I I could we could bring up Suzanne at some point she has a 415 number and she could speak to some of that too as well but and then just of course you know our partnership with Windsor is is important as well well I I appreciate that I think I'm um part of part of my concern well before I'm gonna go to Lisa Lisa go ahead oh council member that mcdonald is is first sorry to come and hear your meeting okay the the hands are popping up council member mcdonald go ahead thank you no problem I think my hands kind of hard to see on this page hotel wall sorry about that so um well I'm really glad you asked those questions first john instead of me since I'm the new girl but I can claim that I'm innocent and not knowing how some of this works but I want to go back in a little bit of the presentation that I saw that we reduced water going to the geysers too I think it was like 4.4 to 4.0 going back into that presentation what's the lowest we can drop our water going to the geysers and the the reason I ask this is are we sending extra water up there that we then on months that we can't have the water going up there we like bank it because what our my concern is santa rosa's ag does not have all of the water that they need and we're pumping extra money extra water up there and so so that's one of my questions is what's the lowest we can drop to and then I do see go ahead and answer that and then I'll go to the next statement so I'm going to jump in here so we currently have a contract with the geysers it's it's extremely valuable for the city it provides us with a weather independent disposal solution without the geysers project we would be discharging and that would be very very expensive to our community and to our ratepayers our agricultural community they are great partners and they provide as flexibility that they cannot solve the problem that the geyser system solves so the geysers contract requires us to deliver them 4.6 million gallons per water of water per year we have to deliver up to 90 percent of that contractual amount during the year there are times when there are constraints outside of our control which is called a force measure such as a wildfire such as a power outages or other shutdowns when that occurs either on their side or on our side that's reduced from the amount that we contractually have to provide them in addition we have shutdowns that need to occur for maintenance and so anytime there's a shutdown that can reduce that amount we still need to make 90 percent so we never over supply unless it's a really wet year and there's a reason for us and there's just no place for that water to go but typically we're going to be discharging so we we meet our contractual obligations every year and we do everything we can to meet them at the bare minimum so as as sort of close to that 90 one 92 percent because my job as the head of this department is to ensure that we are keeping ourselves within contractual compliance and so my staff does an excellent excellent job of trying to keep that as close to that amount as possible but also recognizing the risks so we're usually aiming in that 92 93 percent and maximizing as much water as we can for our agricultural customers on years when we have a lot of water there's more water available for our customers on years where we have drought conditions like now there's less water available for our agricultural cultural customers and they are charged significantly less because they provide that operational flexibility to us so in that case this project is extremely important for our wastewater ratepayers it provides our regulatory certainty for our customers and this project sort of getting back to chair Sawyer's questions about what is in this for us we're always working together within the region to see how best can we optimize our recycled water use you know waters all connected right so we get water from the Russian river we get water from groundwater if we can reduce the amount that we're taking from the Russian river by using other sources that's helpful for all of us because that makes more water is available for us as contractors to provide for water supply so in this case we right now Jackson family winds I believe has some water rights to the Russian river they're thinking if there's ways that they can help reduce that by having a different source of supply that could provide benefit to the region as we've mentioned we don't have recycled water supply but we had envisioned that there might be growth in the future which is why those turnouts were put in when the geysers pipeline was built if at some point we start to see recycled water go back up there's going to be more supply available we'd first deal with our existing customers but we could come to a point where we need even more resiliency to prevent discharge so I think this is a potential great opportunity to see if this is a possibility and we would make sure we are not doing anything to harm our existing customers and the supply needs to come solely from Windsor so Windsor has as Veronica had mentioned in normal and wet years they have a need to provide recycled water to more customers they were given Jackson family lines was given the option to either look to have a direct connect and extend to their property but everyone recognize that our pipeline goes right by their property so if they want to take advantage of our infrastructure it is very much on Jackson family lines to even figure out if that's feasible so we're not they have to hire the engineering studies and get all the information and provide it to us but if that's a feasible opportunity I think it's to the benefit to the region for us to explore it so hopefully that helps them yeah that helped I wanted to ask also if we've connected with city of Hillsborough to see if there's any potential for them joining into the pipeline to send some of their water up so that we can look at things regionally for distribution because although I'm a firm believer in supporting Jackson lines and do so on a consistent basis I just want to make sure that we are being equitable because I I think that that's where you're saying the precedent setting is really around equity not just for this vineyard but for all of our vineyards and for all of our agricultural use in Sonoma County so those would be my like concerns or just questions around that to see if we we can make sure that we're looking at it from a equitable approach so we we have had previous conversations with city of Hillsborough they were looking to see if they could do something similar we told them all the information and and you know again back to Chair Sawyer's question about what's in it for us you know we have to make sure that we're not absorbing costs that are not appropriate for us to pay for right so if they want to use our pipeline to move water we say sure and here's what the costs would be we still have to figure that out and that's what would be part of the wheeling agreement but you know it's on you as the one who wants to connect to pay for what that connection would be just like Windsor did when they connected to our system and so we had a meeting with city of Hillsborough they appreciated the time and effort it was myself and deputy director Walton and I think deputy director or Bannock kind of explained the system and they said we are not sure this is very feasible we'll get back to you if we think it is and they never got back to us so we we had a feeling that it would be more costly than other alternatives they were looking at but we are we're open to having those conversations again costs have to be borne by those that are interested in connecting to our system because it is not a direct benefit to our rate payers as such Lisa thank you my questions are actually related both to to both council members in that not just what is the benefit to this city but also in the potential risk I regardless of the the recycle water kind of supply now and into the future does because there's a private company essentially in the mix even though Windsor is not a private company that's also in the mix is there are there any legal or or frankly political precedence that that the city would need to grapple with around how did we choose this right it's essentially the use of infrastructure I think that the world probably you know we have plenty of expertise in contracting and forecasting potential risk and loss and and cost recovery in the event of something going really afoul or something going really well I guess what keeps coming back for me is this seems one at least a new request at least since I've been here a new type of request but not a type of request that I think I think we'll see more of them in the future the infrastructure is massive it's valuable it's incredibly difficult for other entities to create and so because our system is so large looking at existing infrastructure to pipe into just seems like a rational thing right this the the the Healdsburg for example came and knocked on the door so I think it's good for us to to grapple with I guess I keep coming I keep wandering around other than you know a simple a simple contracting agreement around this is the infrastructure this is the value of it this is what would happen if something went wrong do we feel like that's that we can cover the risk to the city in that and does that create any potential precedence whether legal or political that the city might have to grapple with around how do we make those choices we being the city council thanks I think I would say those are all great points and those are all things that we will continue to explore based on your questions I think you know as Peter mentioned there there is the possibility for some precedent so we want to make sure we're entering this carefully we started technical discussions because that was the right thing to do but that's why we brought this to you as a policy board early to really say is this something you want us to pursue or not because at the end of the day this is a policy decision you know I would say yes this is unique in that this is the first time that this has been really looked at more than an initial discussions as I mentioned with city of Healdsburg but I would also say that you know our our work with Windsor to have them connect up to the geysers was an initial step and so I think this is a sort of a next step similar to to you know they they already have an injection point we are grateful for their partnership in their contract and and providing the water to geysers and if it helps Windsor be able to not discharge and it would make sense that it would be a wheeling agreement in my mind but again these are things that we'll have to continue to explore with our attorneys it's it's similar to the contractual agreements that we have with our existing customers it's just now we're we're one more piece to the puzzle so we are joining in with what would typically be Windsor's contractual relationship with their customer but you're right it is it is new and it's definitely things that we will continue to explore and get answers to you for so great comments thank you so much thank you and thanks for clarifying that at least the kind of base that you're that we're jumping from even in the exploration is around that the just the allocation of our current supply is completely allocated so thank you that was a that was a long couple of years getting there thanks any other questions or comments at this point Bill go ahead first a quick question how much overhead do we have how much excess capacity do we have in the pipeline are we anywhere near it's maximum capacity and has someone to call it I think if I recall correctly it's I think it's built for up to is it 12 I actually have to get back to you on that unless unless Director Burke knows right offhand but it there is there was quite a bit of you know excess capacity I think it's maybe less than 60 percent so it's not an issue but basically not an issue for capacity so that's what I'm hearing and that's really all I wanted to know in that and I guess the other question I had was when we built the pipeline and put in the turnout what was the anticipation for how they would be used were the turnout intended for water to be inserted into the system or were they intended for water to be you know taken out of the system and if it's for taking it out isn't this exactly why we put the turnouts in to accommodate requests just like this yeah so there's six turnouts that were constructed as part of the pipeline this is one of them and they were specifically considered for agricultural use there are some other points of entry but they were not specifically considered for for that use there were more for other you know configurations but those also could be utilized too as well but those six particular points of entry or turnouts were considered for agricultural use okay and then I guess the last comment and I think I know the answer because I've heard your implicit answer to the question but I'll ask it anyway is that I'm assuming that the cost associated if we come down to the point of figuring out the cost would include some contribution towards maintenance and repairs and initial investments so that those kinds of costs would be captured in whatever fee was charged for the wheeling agreement yeah and I think you know we wanted this is the reason why I wanted to come to you today is before we start began that investigation you know we wanted to make sure that that this all these policy considerations were discussed with you all before we went too far into that but yes obviously you know there's costs for pumping some sort of depreciated value for the assets and O&M for the pipeline as well okay thank you thanks Bill yeah I was under the impression that we had those access points for agriculture as well basically straws into the system to withdraw at that time when it was being done of course there were concerns about having more water than we knew what to do with and that was going to help us with our distributing that wastewater that recycled wastewater is to was to have the straws into the system so that we didn't overwhelm even though we had it well as much as we could anticipate the volume we work I believe as as a memory sirs we were concerned with our ability to handle all the wastewater that was being generated generated so I do have so first of all I want to appreciate the staff's desire to work with Windsor and to to be good neighbors I do have concerns that that Lisa brought up in fact I think everyone all the committee members brought up concerns that have to do or circle back to risk and so a major SWAT exercise would be really important for me to understand the the benefits and the opportunities and the risks involved in this agreement I'm curious if given that it is that in any time spent on this would be on the backs of the rate payers and so I'm curious do you have a budget or do you have a sense of how much staff time it's that it would take for peer review of the because they would be doing the analysis you mentioned director Burke that they that the ultimate user or somehow whomever it was it wouldn't the research would not be on the backs would not be on the back of Santa Rosa but on the the the ultimate user but there was there there is still staff time and that is comes from from our rate payers do you have a sense of what the our general our costs would be or is it too early to tell yeah I I don't think we've we've gotten to that point where we are very much and very preliminary discussions between the the three parties right now but you know I think that's something we're very much considering Jackson County Wines has already started they've brought biology and race on board to discuss sort of the design on what it would look like because there is no standard to be honest for what it looks like on the other side of the turnout in terms of our construction standards so that they've already you know started to think about those things and yeah just the coordination and making sure the legal agreements are accurate you know that that will take some time and we'll we'll definitely I think we can come back and flesh that out a little more once we we get to that point okay well I appreciate that and I have a I mean I have a sense of where staff would like to go I think that there I think I think that that and correct me if I'm wrong that this is this is being looked at as an opportunity and that we even though it is there are risk factors involved and we would want to clarify that as much as possible that your your hope at this point is at least preliminary research into moving forward with a a contract with Windsor and Jackson and actually be correct another thing to correct if I'm wrong we are not we're the Jackson family winds is in a sense at arms length are they not isn't this Windsor really they're dealing with Jackson and we're dealing with Windsor or are we direct they're we dealing directly with with Jackson I think we would be working so yeah we need to figure that out I think that's something that's been kicked around a bit but you know definitely it's some of the accounting framework and things like that if water is to enter the pipeline has to be considered between both parties you know then some of the liabilities you know we have legal counsel here but you know I think these are the questions that have to be answered and I can't say exactly what those agreements will look like but we definitely will keep risk and liabilities at the forefront and understanding of the relationships so now this is going to work in come to some sort of you know conclusion on what those agreements will look like okay well I appreciate that and you know from where I sit even though I I am concerned risk always concerns me when guessing what the future looks like and that's kind of part of our challenge but give me a good reason to change my mind and I think you've given me a reason to consider this this kind of exploratory step that we where is where we would find ourselves and I for one would be willing to move forward with that exploration as long as we have a really clear picture as clear as we can have of the future and how this might impact us and have a go in with our eyes wide open is really what I would be looking for so I if there are what I'll do is I'll go to public comment and then bring it back for a motion from the committee so if there are no other questions from our committee I will open public comment and we're now taking public comment on item 3.2 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you are guiding via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand and madam secretary do we have any raised hands at this point or any other comments of any nature we do have one raised hand with a phone number ending in 4908 and you have been allowed to talk so you can unmute on your end so 4908 you could you unmute and your producer your public comment and identify yourself if you might Madam Secretary is there anything I have to do to make this happen no I've given the caller permission to speak and asked them to unmute some might be on their end all right I can confirm that number is Suzanne Zykel from Jackson Valley Wines oh okay yeah Secretary Aitha do you know what is it star six to unmute I do not know I'm so sorry about that I think it made I've heard star six in the past actually there she is star six works thank you so much hi this is Suzanne Zykel I'm Director of Environmental Compliance with Jackson Family Wines I had actually raised my hand a while ago but Jennifer did a great job sort of explaining exactly what I would have said but I do want to take the time to show my appreciation to staff to Peter Emma Veronica at the Town of Windsor and others who've been so easy to work with because we tend to bring programs or new ways of thinking and it's been just really appreciated how receptive everyone's been to be what we're really hoping for like Jennifer said we are trying to get off of river water that is our primary goal here because that will benefit the community and benefit the fisheries but another long-term goal is hopefully if we can make this right we can do this right and create a program working with Brazilian race to come up with the appropriate tie-ins that the city is comfortable come up with mailing agreements that everyone's comfortable we might be the first but as Veronica said a third of their water currently goes to discharge now and it would be great the farmers up and down you know northern Sonoma would be happy to have diversified source of water this drought is not ending anytime soon so I just want to say again thank you for your consideration and if you have any questions for me happy to answer them thank you very much and I'm glad you were able to call in appreciate your comments very much okay I'll bring it back to the committee let's put a motion on the floor and we might need Jennifer to articulate that motion for us just to make sure that we capture the most important elements sorry at this time we're looking from the committee to give us direction to continue to explore this option to address the concerns brought up from the committee today legal constraints and a SWAT analysis and looking at risk and direct us to come back to the committee with additional information as we continue to explore this option if that is what the committee would like us to do well Alex I will make that motion except using your language and we'll be looking for a second I'll second thanks Bill Madam Secretary could you any further discussion questions or comments from the committee before we take the roll call okay Ms. Aitha your could you take the take the the roll please Council Member Sawyer I Council Member McDonald I Chair Galvan I Vice Chair Ononi I Board Member Battenfort I so that passes that passes unanimously um thank you very much and I look forward to updates and then whenever it seems reasonable and you're ready to provide one I'm sure that this this committee etc will be very happy to hear it and if there's no further business to be done I will bring this meeting to an end and adjourn until we see each other again thanks John with great thanks to all thank you very much thank you thank you okay see some of you shortly two minutes to spare I know I'm sorry about that I'm sorry about your work yes