 I've been pointing out to myself when it's six o'clock. He's turning into Capitola now. He said start with that. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the SoCal Creek Water District for March 5th. Roll call will show that Director Christensen thought she might be away in teleconferencing, but she's here in person. And at this moment, we're still missing Director Jaffe. The first item on tonight's agenda with no public hearing would be the consent agenda. So any directors have any things they would like removed from consent? Any members of the public? Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner, I would like to pull item number 3.1, the approval of the minutes. OK. Thank you. Thank you. And I would like to just 3.4 a couple of comments on that. Yes. So the rest are up for grabs. I move that we do the rest of the consent agenda. 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, and 3, 6. I second. OK. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That carries. So we'll go to item 3.1, which member of the public has asked to bring forward. 3.1? Yes. Uh-huh. The minutes. Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner, resident of Aptas. I want to point out that how it's recorded that the different directors voted is not accurate. Director Lather did not abstain. Oh, I did. You were silent. And then afterwards, I'm sorry. You were silent. And then afterwards during public comment, I asked you how you voted in, I had noticed, I had observed that you were silent during the vote. So then there was some brief discussion after that item during public comment. But I need to have it clear that Director Lather did not abstain from voting. She was silent. And I believe that there are different legal ramifications of that. Perhaps Mr. Basso can enlighten us. But that needs to be corrected. I also, that's all for now. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I don't know the distinction. I do not either. Parliamentary procedure does not have an entry for, didn't respond. I don't know. Mr. Basso, do you happen to know whether or not? And parliamentary procedure does not have any entry for us. You didn't respond. There's a yes, no, and abstain. OK, no more. So it's discussion from the board. So has any move to approve or deal with the minutes then? Yes, I'll move to approve the minutes. I will second. OK, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Now I'm just trying to find. Sorry, I'm having trouble finding. It's 69. 69, thank you. I don't know why. There's just so many visuals. I'm losing it in there. OK, I always have some. Oh, it was after the schedule. That's why. OK, sorry about that. So what's on tab? So on the first page, which is page 70 of the agenda packet, on the right hand column under the article on Twin Lakes Church Sea Water Intrusion Prevention Pilot, I didn't know whether we might. It says collected soil samples and conducted and conducting a geophysical log. I didn't know whether just a little more explanation that there would be examining the cores and analyzing to help guide the recharge. Or is that good enough? You like it? That's inaccurate. A geologic clog is where you put a wire down the well and you measure. But we're also going to look at the cores. Yeah, but that's not. You can just take this out and put something else in. OK, right, I understand. OK, it was just a suggestion maybe we explain that we are going to analyze the suitability of the geology for recharge and water quality just because it was something we were looking at. Yeah, I mean, that's all. I thought that might be of more interest. And then on the about the metering system upgrade, I just wondered if that might maybe should just a thought whether that should be the first article because it saves 28 million gallons of water. That was the only other possible thought. I don't know what anyone else thinks. It's pretty. I do know that the finance and customer service was very interested in having the billing article. So we could do the billing and the metering system on the front if the board desires that. Maybe I just I just think that's a really cool thing for people to understand. And I don't know if there's a picture of like it has that kind of picture of how it works. But I don't know if there's any way there's a little picture of the interface that people will have as an app. Yeah, yeah, that would be cool because I think that's going to be very different for people to be able to check their water use and really adjust and save water. So anyway, we try to give a little indication of that with the iPad thing, their phone on its side. Yeah, I just I don't know what the real harmony thing will look like. But those are just my suggestions. You can take them or leave them. OK, and I don't think there's anything else. Anybody else have anything on that? OK, all right. So then we will move on as soon as I can get my agenda to come up. There we go. OK, so now it's time for oral communications, which should be on items not on tonight's agenda. My name is Tom Stumball. I'm from residents of resident of Aptos. I do not think that this water district should, under any circumstances, be allowed to contaminate the aquifer with sewage. We do not own the aquifer within the boundaries of this district. Do not own that aquifer. And we are not the only ones who use it. If we truly had a government of, by, and for the people, it's quite possible that you would be required to get written permission from 50% plus 1 of all the people who rely on this aquifer for their water. And you know very well that that would never happen. Please set the Pure Water Soquel System project on hold and work on other solutions until it is known that you can remove all the contaminants from sewer water or it becomes absolutely necessary to do it. We don't need to do it right now because as I understand, there is plenty of water available to go about this recharging of our aquifer without the sewer water project. Now, if we had government of, for, and by the people, it would be better than this because this is of, by, or of the people, by the rich and powerful and for the rich and powerful. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Becky Steinbrenner. Tom inspired me. I'm a resident of Aptos and I depend on the Perisma aquifer too. I'm not a district customer but many people who depend on the Perisma aquifer for their water are not district customers. So I have filed this legal action and I will speak a bit more later in the agenda about it during before closed session. But today I tried to appeal to the court for a temporary restraining order because I see that this district has lost sight of the people. This district has lost sight of the bigger picture. And in the zeal to get the grants, you've lost sight of the people who have elected you and the people who also depend on the Perisma aquifer for safe water. So I would like to submit this for the record and hope that it will be included in the next board packet so that people can see my plea for reason. And sadly, Judge Gallagher, who had worked for Mr. Basso and done work for the district for nine years, denied the temporary restraining order. But what remains to be seen is how, what legal action will come further down the line regarding this. And I hope that the water is safe and that you will reconsider what your actions are here tonight in terms of many things and the people that elected you. Thank you. Thank you. Colonel Terry Maxwell, and I am a rate-paying customer of the Soquel Creek Water District. And I wanted years ago to be enthusiastic about the performance of your board of directors here and your staff. I can't be anything but critical, informed legitimately so. Not long ago at a meeting, Ms. Steinbender arranged an aptos for customers of longstanding, a woman who'd been 40-year resident of aptos and help some of your board members get elected. She mentioned 25 years ago she helped Bruce get elected. And she used the term being very well-informed lady in her radius or so, but very smart and informed. And she said, you have demonstrated nothing referring to the entire board and your staff but negligence. Her word, negligence. Negligence toward the water. Negligence toward the aquifer. Negligence towards your responsibilities to your customers. Negligence towards how you manage the money of other people. It is a balmy, just a ghastly awful. 40 years of negligence by the members of the Soquel Creek Water Board of Directors has demonstrated. And the poop to scoop, water is nothing but another outrage of asking 15,000 water customers to incur $100 to $150 million worth of bond debt to satisfy the scheme, to satisfy most clearly the people who will sell the bonds, once again, probably Goldman Sachs San Francisco affiliates and maybe some other insiders in the county and the construction people involved. And I'm not sure about whether I can excuse any of you for your negligence and failure to protect the public purse, your failure to protect your customers and their interests, and your failure to protect the water resources. 40 continuous years of negligence. And I include Mr. DeFore there and those committing negligence. And I don't say things I haven't seen boxes of evidence for. And speaking of that, I'll be requesting more evidence from you on public records requests and maybe subpoenas. And I darn well expect your attorney to be honest in complying, no more games. And speaking of that, his former law partner for 10 years and a fellow who worked for you guys made a lot of money getting paid by the prior board members here, Judge Gallagher. I was appalled when Gallagher admitted he had a conflict of interest with Mr. Bosso that goes back more than a decade. And Bosso helped him get elected to the court. By every question of judicial ethics, Judge Gallagher should have recused himself. Mr. Bosso should have moved for that recusal. And you should move for that recusal. And it's another example of the continuous corruption, dishonesty, mismanagement, and theft from the taxpayers, citizens, voters, and water customers in this county. You should all be embarrassed. You should all be replaced with the consolidation of Santa Cruz and the other districts here. The sooner that comes about, the better. And water rates could be one half of what they are. Thank you. Anyone else? Your time is up. Anyone else? Good evening. Fox Sloan, Soquel Hills, and I'm a rate payer. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but wow, I just couldn't help myself. John Gallagher, I have had seen him in action. And I am a system-induced trauma survivor of other government agencies here in the People's Republic of Santa Cruz County. John Gallagher has like zero integrity as part of the judiciary from my experience. And having him sit in the CPS dependency court and selling children from families to inappropriate strangers. And that's where I come in as a child and family rights advocate. And to think that this poo poo plant is going to be poisoning children in the future is appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Either don't have children or the children you have you really don't care about. I've studied the alternatives that they have presented. And they're all viable. With all this rain going out into the ocean, it's a shame. It could have been saved. This aquifer could have been recharged with rainwater, not poo poo water. And I'm also, my ancestors are of the seventh generation tribes. We don't think today and only today and maybe tomorrow. We think seven generations down the line. I am responsible today for my great, great, great, great grandchildren. And I hope you are too. So think of the children. Don't poison them with this poo poo water. Thank you. Thank you. All right, looks like no one else. So any board members for oral communications? Yes, sir. Finally, today we have reached 100% of normal for this occasion. So we're supposed to get some more rain tonight. So we may actually go over normal slightly, which is good news, because it was looking pretty dry there for a while. I saw an interesting thing on one of the news services that you may have heard the governor is kind of wanting to see DSAL come back. And the truth is that in the last four years, all eight of the DSAL proposals have made no progress. That shows some of the changes that have been made such that DSAL basically is a pretty unviable system rail. I went to the water commission last night. And that was kind of an interesting thing. It was the quarterly review. So they were talking about the transfer that we have going on right now. And one of the concerns was about, are they going to actually be able to get good data? And it's going to be a challenge, because we've had to turn our system down and up and down which means our wells have been going up and down, up and down. So being able to get clear signals out of that with all that noise in the background is going to be a real challenge. And in the future, that could be another thing that we have to be worrying about. Interestingly enough, they didn't talk about the proposal to give us water at the right time. So that was unfortunate. And they're having a meeting with the Wasek folks in July, sorry, not July, April. And then a city council meeting. Anyone else? All right, then we'll move on. Next item of business is we have no reports. So we'll move on to administrative business. And item 6.1, which is the conditional and unconditional will serve. OK, good evening. We have three will serves before the board tonight. I can answer any questions. There are maybe 6.1.2 could use some further explanation. That is where a change of use is going to occur. And the prior use was a dry cleaner that had much higher water use than what's proposed to be replacing it. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions from board members? I do have a question. So there's been an increase in will serves since we went to the two step process, correct? Or is that not correct? No, that's actually not correct. There's been a processing of all of the projects that were on the wait list. We gave them an opportunity to go ahead and purchase or reapply. As far as new applicants that weren't on the wait list, we've maybe seen four or five in the last, I don't know, a couple months. So most of the ones that have been brought to you were people that were on the wait list. Right. So it's not new applications. But will serves, because they are on the wait list, they weren't getting a will serve. And now they've gotten it. So it might be semantics. But there are more will serves now. So my question is on the timing of tonight, there's one for a motel, 19 rooms, plus a manager's quarters. And so how long typically do these things take to get through the planning process? Sure. We included as attachment three of the will serve item some information on that. We went back and took a look at projects. And we found that for single family homes and ADUs, it's almost three years from the date that they applied to the date that we closed out the project, meaning they got their meter. So the demand would come after 2.8 years. For commercial projects, it's generally much longer. And they're kind of all across the board in terms of timing. I mean, you have Aptus Village, which has taken many years. And we have the offsets already in place before that's even coming online. So we've been saving all of that water for probably 10 years now. So does that answer that question? Yeah, there's just a concern with the timing of the AMI and when that's going to come out. And I did want to kind of point out a couple other things on that attachment. So you can see that there's basically two pie charts. The first is where we thought we would be in terms of offset balance after we processed all of the applicants that were on the wait list. We thought we were going to have about 50 acre feet left. And coming back to you when it gets down around 25 acre feet, instead, we sold about 10 acre feet less than we expected. So our balance is closer to 60 acre feet or was after we worked through all those applicants. The green in that pie chart on the right shows that 27 acre feet's been sold. Six of that was deficit for older projects. And the other 21 acre feet is for all of the new people. And most of those projects now will not be coming online for at least two years. And so we're not going to be seeing their demand for a couple of years. And the AMI project is getting underway. And once we get the first base station and repeater in, and then those registers and new meters within that first pilot test area, we're going to start seeing savings pretty immediately because staff is going to be looking at those every day and assessing the leaks and following up on the leaks based on the severity. So we're going to be seeing early water savings with AMI. It's not going to be that we have to wait until the whole AMI project is complete in two years to start recognizing any savings. It's going to be incremental as we start installing the system. And you'll update us on the savings? Mm-hmm. Good. Wasn't it about this first pilot area? Is it like about a fifth of our district, something like that? It's about a quarter. Quarter. Yeah. All right. Couple thousand services. Okay. Other questions? Okay, members of the public. Tom Stomba apt us. Our aquifer, as you have written, has been seriously overdrafted for years, many years. Yet, it doesn't seem to slow this board down in granting new connections to the system. You have some new ones on this page right here, and you have some new ones on every page when we come to these meetings. You have new connections to grant. So I don't understand. It's just, you have the power to control the population growth here. But you just keep right on issuing new permits. When we went and tried to figure out why you gave so many water offset credits to the apt us village project, they claimed 80 toilets and 40 urinals at Cabrillo College and they produced proof that consisted of one sheet that was signed off by a project foreman. Yet, you can go and replace one toilet and that will produce a record of four pages, up to four pages of information about who, what, where, when, and why, and how much. And one page from the village project people at both Cabrillo and here, the water district in your office down there. One page to prove 80 toilets and 40 urinals. It's really surprising. And it makes me a little confused as to how to understand this whole mess. Thank you, next. Good evening, Becky Steinbrenner. I have a question about item 6.1.3, the 19 unit hotel with manager's apartment. It's not clear on the information on the back what size service connection this would have. And my other question is, would it have a master meter or would there be sub meters? I'd like some information on that issue. Thank you. Thank you. Colonel Maxwell, again, a customer. I'm not confused. I know exactly the flim flam that's going on. It's gone on here for 40 years and it went on regarding the Soquel, the Aptos Village. Good God, how can you all in your staff be so dishonest, Mr. Dufour, about the realities of the Aptos Village project? How can you be so dishonest about the aquifer depletions? How can you cave into the developers like Swenson? Cave in, how can you give away the resources of this water district? So irresponsibly and negligently, again and again. And the 19 unit, how in the hell can you even contemplate approving 19 more hotel rooms with bathrooms, presumably, that will use water by people who don't care if they waste a lot while they're here? How can you, for an instant, even consider this application and why didn't you reject it promptly, consistent with your obligations to protect the water aquifer, to protect the interests of all of your customers and citizens here, and the resources of the limited depleting aquifer. This depleted because of the negligence of this Water Creek District and its board of directors and its senior staff for decades. This is another piece of irresponsibility. I asked you, each of you, address by what justification you could possibly or your staff for a minute, consider adding 19 more hotel units to deplete the water resources here. Mr. DeFour, please answer that. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, more discussion? Yeah. No? I'm not gonna engage. I recommend that all those who have talked look at our Water and Man Offset program. And then after looking at that, I'm sure you'll come back and talk again. Okay. Any other thoughts, motions? I just sort of add, too, it keeps coming back to the Aptos Village, but Aptos Village, those very toilets that you speak of that are so undocumented contributed 20% of the decline in water use from 2003 down to the present. This offset program contributed to the fact that we have the amount of water that we were expected to use at this time, and we have time to figure out the community water plan. So all of this, those efforts that you say are not documented, Gabriel College knows because they're using far less water now than they did. Anyway, we all know we're trying to do our best and for... Yeah, we have to repeat this. We're not gonna have everybody agree with this all the time. Meeting, though. We have to repeat this every meeting, just like you guys come every meeting. We need to really emphasize that every application that is submitted they're required to save 200% of the water that they would have been using in a regular house. Well, that's the idea of the water demand. Okay, no, we're not getting... No more, no more, no more, no more. Okay, so what's your pleasure, board? Any motions? Yeah, I'll move to approval three. Okay, second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Post? Post. Post. And this is, once again, I'm clarifying because you're worried about the AMI not coming on in time. Okay, despite the staff's explanation. Okay, well, we'll talk about that again coming up, I think, in April. So I think that's coming up. All right, next item is Mid County Groundwater Agency modeling presentation. So I think we're gonna turn this over. Yeah, I'm gonna introduce Cameron Tauna from Montgomery & Associates. He's here tonight to present, basically, what was presented the other night to the Mid County Groundwater Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan advisory committee. And then plus some of the work that's been done before that. So basically two things. One are the metrics that are being used to define groundwater sustainability. There's five or six of those and he'll go through those with really one or two being the primary ones. And then the modeling that was done subsequently to the approval of the EIR for Pure Water Soquel, the MGA asked how could it be enhanced within the confines of the EIR to even better protect against seawater intrusion. And that's important to the Mid County Groundwater Agency because they've included the Pure Water Soquel project they voted to include that in their Groundwater Sustainability Plan along with other projects but it's one of their primary projects. So they, with great interest, wanna see how it can be enhanced, so to speak. Cameron? So we'll... Yeah, do we have it on this one, Emma, the presentation? Yes. Okay. Yeah, we got it on your screen. So do you want us to do it for you, Cameron? Run it, might be easier. Whichever way is easiest. Yeah, cause it's kind of down at the lower level. Just tell us to click it. Okay. I think you're up. So, I'll try one more. So give us just a second. Is this PowerPoint here? Melanie. No, that's... Oh, I have it. Oh, it's me. Okay. Okay. All right, so we got it over here. So let's switch screens. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Well, it's good to be back in front of this board. So the outline of my talk is, the presentation as Ron previewed is the first, describe one of the main aspects of defining sustainability for the groundwater sustainability plan and focusing on the major, the principal sustainability indicator for the GSP and that's seawater intrusion. So the packet does include as attachment one for this item, proposed draft seawater intrusion minimum thresholds, which define sustainability around seawater intrusion for the Santa Cruz-Mid County Basin. I'll also describe information from a proposed approach for measurable objectives, which are goals for the basin that was presented at the groundwater sustainability plan advisory committee for the Mid County Groundwater Agency in September 26, 2018. So if you're interested in that information, it's part of that packet. And then I will basically repeat a presentation I gave last Wednesday to the GSP advisory committee about groundwater modeling of pure water circle that has some enhancements that we are looking at as part of the GSP process. That's attachment to that presentation, which I will go over as attachment to in the packet. Next please. So just to review broadly, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SIGMA, the definition of sustainability is based off of the aquifer condition. So to be sustainable, you want to avoid undesirable results. And if you avoid undesirable results, then that means you are using the aquifers within the basin within sustainable yield and you're managing the basin sustainably and meeting sustainability goal. This is very different from adjudication, which is based off of pumping where a total safe yield is estimated and to be sustainable, you just make sure you don't pump more than that amount. So it's important to understand what the undesirable results are and the locals for the basin help define what is undesirable for the basin. Next please. So there are six sustainability indicators in SIGMA that require sustainable management criteria. You can see the six there and the criteria include a qualitative description of significant and unreasonable conditions. And then quantitative information included minimum thresholds and undesirable results which define what is sustainable. And then measurable objectives which are goals that provide operational flexibility for the users of the basin. And interim milestones help guide how you achieve those objectives. Next please. So we'll focus on, I wanna go over specifically the criteria for seawater intrusion because seawater intrusion is the main sustainability indicator for this basin. The basin is listed by the state as being in critically overdraft due to seawater intrusion. And so we'll go through these different proposed sustainable management criteria for seawater intrusion. These have all been proposed, presented to the GSP advisory committee but they have not been approved by the MGA and the County Groundwater Agency Board. Next. So qualitatively the current proposal for defining significant and unreasonable conditions for seawater intrusion. And these are basically the seawater intrusion conditions we want to avoid for the basin. And that proposal is that seawater moving farther inland than has been observed in the past five years is significant and reasonable. The consensus of the GSP advisory committee is that the committee does not want seawater intrusion to advance in a five year period is included because there is one instance of a previously intruded well that has had become unintruded over the last five years. So we don't want that well to become intruded again. Next. Proposed minimum threshold. So taking that qualitative description of what is considered significant and unreasonable and bringing it into a quantitative definition where you can monitor for conditions and say what is this significant and unreasonable or not. The groundwater sustainability plan regulations put out by the state require for seawater intrusion that a chloride isocontour be defined for minimum thresholds. And this is basically a line on the map that the basin agency, the groundwater sustainability agency doesn't want chloride concentrations, salt concentrations to become higher inland of that line. And so that line is defined on this map here and based off and using a drinking water standard of 250 milligrams per liter. So the minimum threshold, what would be considered unsustainable is 250 grams per liter being detected inland of that line. And so where it exists, where seawater intrusion has been observed to date, it's want to prevent that from going further inland but the current condition is not considered unsustainable. This is a slightly different from the policy goals that Soquel Creek Water District has set, especially in areas where seawater intrusion has not been detected, the district selected preventing seawater intrusion onto the coast, but as far as monitoring with the wells that do exist, it is effectively the same. Do you have a question, Vice President Davis? It seems like the line is pretty much with respect to monitoring wells except for the seascape well. And I was wondering why that is treated differently than all the other points on that contour. I mean, have we ever seen saltwater in the seascape well? Why is that? So it's based off of the monitoring well at the seascape well. The deepest monitoring well at the seascape well location SCA 5A does have a high concentrations in salt. So that's about 100 feet below the production well. And we've never seen it in the next monitoring well up, which is also below the production well. And we haven't seen high concentrations in the production well, but a saltwater is or high salt concentrations have been observed 100 feet below. So that's what it's based off of. Okay, so clearly the concern of upconing because that's what tends to happen. So are you saying you don't, is the condition that there's no salt detected in that monitoring well below seascape well, or some, or? So a significant unreasonable result. And this is where the requirement for an ISA contour is potentially insufficient to meet your qualitative definition of what is significant unreasonable or the NGA's definition. And the NGA wants to prevent seawater intrusion from advancing. Advancing could mean upconing into shallower wells. And so for defining undesirable results, a well that isn't at that location, the shallower wells, should be included in preventing higher concentrations in those wells would be considered significant unreasonable before a map to meet the planned requirements. This is how we're proposing to it. So it's not just existence, yes or no, it's concentration categorized as well then. So if the concentration in monitoring well increases, then that would be significant and unreasonable. Above, it would be considered undesirable based off of concentrations going above a threshold, which we will go over. But the threshold could be higher than 250. If it's currently at 1,000, even higher would be significant and unreasonable then. Correct, yes. And I'll describe how we're treating that as well, yep. Or would the threshold be that next screen above that in the monitoring well if it gets over 250, is that? Yeah, I think it would be both. I'm pretty sure it would be both. We can double check that, but I think it would be considered both. And they would be treated differently because one has high concentrations and one has low concentrations. So Cameron, this line applies to all layers of the person aquifer. So one line, but there's. It does. It does. But then once we get into the specific wells, we will treat the wells based off of the information at those specific wells. So if there are wells that are on the coastal side of this, such as the shallow wells at Seascape, it would be evaluated based off of the conditions for that well and that depth. So there would be multiple conditions at a single well location. Right. And for example, some of those monitoring wells down in the southeast of us, some of those are already halfway to seawater levels. So then that would be, if it goes any higher, that would be a significant noise. Yes, and we'll see how we're quantifying that in a few slides. Yeah. Next. Next slide. So that's required to define a chloride isocontorid as a minimum threshold for seawater intrusion. For management purposes, the regulations allow also to set groundwater level proxies for any of these sustainability indicators that aren't specifically groundwater levels if you can prove a connection between your proxies and preventing the undesirable results of significant unreasonable conditions for the indicator like seawater intrusions. And one thing the district did a number of years ago was to make that relationship and to estimate protective elevations to prevent seawater intrusion into the basin based off of the district's policy goals, which are similar in not wanting seawater intrusion to advance. So the proposed minimum thresholds for groundwater level proxies for seawater intrusion at the Soquel Creek Water District monitoring wells are the same as the protective elevations that Soquel Creek Water District has been managing to since that work was done. I want to thank Dr. Daniels for coming up with that methodology because it's been extremely useful and it's simple. Another question we have a SCA4 on the list, though, that's not in the MGA territory. So is that not considered as a significant and reasonable by us? That that is the way we're treating it. It's not in the Santa Cruz-Mid County basin. So hopefully, maybe Power O Valley might consider that. They have never done any remediation in that general area. So that would be tough for them to. It hasn't something they have done up to now, but they haven't had to operate under six months as well. So we'll have to wait and see. There have been no protective elevations established for the deeper units to Prisma AA and TU. If you recall from the SkyTem results, the SkyTem show, Salty Water just offshore in those units, as well as other units. So we will be proposing groundwater level proxies for those units as well. Next please. So this gets a little bit to the earlier questions about the finding undesirable results at monitoring wells and in production wells required to define representative monitoring points for looking for whether conditions are significant unreasonable, whether undesirable results are occurring. And so have proposed this formulation for what would be undesirable. And it's all based on colloquory concentrations and gets into more detail than just the ISA contour where it's at specific wells. So intruded coastal monitoring wells, these intruded, so it's already half high salt concentrations. We don't want those concentrations to go up over time. And so we'll be looking at the last five years maximum for defining what that threshold is. And if it goes over that threshold in two or four quarterly samples, that would be considered undesirable. Under Sigma, you are a permitted option of basically defining how many wells a threshold would be exceeded, how many locations thresholds would be exceeded for it to be considered undesirable. But for seawall intrusion, we are proposing that if for any well where these thresholds are exceeded, that would be considered undesirable. What's the definition of a well in this context? Like we have SCA1, and we sometimes call that a well, but it's actually a cluster of wells with different depths. So are they treated separately in this regard, or are they? They are treated separately. So each of those separate completion intervals are treated separately. Some of those are separable holes. Some of them are all in the same borehole, but have separate intervals. But if it's interval, and we think that it represents an interval separate from the other intervals, those are treated as different wells. So for unintruded monitoring wells, it depends on how close to the coast. So consistent with the Isocontorcosyl unintruded monitoring wells, that threshold is 250 milligrams per liter, and still using the two out of four quarterly samples. We're using two out of four to make sure it's just not one result that isn't consistent with the condition over time, whether it's just want to confirm that that's actually an exceedance of the threshold. And going inland, inland of the Isocontor, that should be below 250, but we don't want that to get close to 250 based off of that. So the proposed minimum threshold is 150 milligrams per liter at the unintruded inland monitoring wells and production wells inland of the Isocontor. And when you refer to these as quarterly samples, for a lot of these wells, we have continuous monitoring. So how do you define? Because a quarterly, we have three months a lot worth of records. And you pick out the worst or the best or the median or the mean. So for water quality sample, they are actually samples at specific times. And so there are a couple wells up, I think, where they sample as frequently as monthly, but mostly it's quarterly or semi-annually or at some wells annually. So these are specific times sampling. What we are monitoring continuously are groundwater levels or what the district is monitoring continuously. And then for undesirable results, where we're monitoring continuously, the groundwater level proxies are based off of a 10-year average of the protective elevations at any well. And we've proposed originally proposed five-year average. It's been moved to 10-year average. The idea behind using multi-year averages is that it is really the long-term groundwater level that prevents seawater intrusion over the long term. So we want to represent that with these groundwater level proxies. We also have the chloride concentration as minimum threshold. So they're tracking that as well. So we think it's appropriate to use this multi-year average. There has been requests to reconsider the length here of 10 years, whether we should go back to five years, especially since the updates of the plan are required every five years. So there's been discussion about going back to five-year average with this one. I think there's also this issue that you can have droughts, which could bring saltwater in. And it might get pushed back out. And the average might be, OK, everything's fine. But you keep bringing salt in it every couple of years or three years or so. Exactly. It's a problem. An average is not indicative of the condition. So I know it's easier to do. But I think it needs to be more stringent. Question about the two or four quarterly samples. Yes. From your experience, Cameron, have there been cases where you get a spike and then it goes back down? Is that what's motivating the requirements? Yes, that has occurred. The other reason why we don't want to consider something, we want to not just say one sample is undesirable is that if that one sample then defines your basin as unsustainable and then you potentially subject the basin to state control. So I think you do need some higher bar that is just not one sample. And it's got to be repeatable to show that the basin is unsustainable. So that's part of the thinking behind the advisory committee to make sure that something is repeatable. Because there is this concern, like if you define something that's very easily defined as unsustainable, then that could lead to state control of the basin. Doesn't the state allow you to rectify the situation? And that's part of the plan for when you do get these indicators that the basin is becoming unsustainable. Doesn't the plan allow you to rectify? It's not totally clear on that point. But I think if you look over the if you get the four quarterly samples, you get that time over the year that does give you a chance to say whether or not give a full accounting of the situation for the basin in your annual report and say this was a repeated event. I think I can go to the next slide. So measurable objectives. Measurable objectives actually are not and enforce most standard of sustainability. They're meant to be a goal that are generally higher than a minimum threshold. So maybe harder to achieve, but to provide an operational flexibility the way I look at it, it is you want your plan to try to shoot for these goals. So for it is required to have a chloride on a second or four measure objectives, as well as minimum thresholds. And so for measurable objectives, we've proposed use the same isocontor line, but use a lower water quality standard, so 100 milligrams per liter for this measurable objective. And all uninsured wells, the chloride concentrations have been below 100 milligrams per liter. Next please. So measurable objectives for groundwater level proxies, if you recall, the protective elevations estimated for the district were said at a 70th percentile protective level. So below that, the district policy was considered at an unacceptable risk of exceeding resulting in seawater intrusion. And for minimum thresholds, as I described, we've proposed using that same level of risk. And some risk is acceptable for these groundwater level proxies, in my opinion, because the minimum thresholds for chloride isocontor more definitively defines whether seawater intrusion is actually incurring. But so the measurable objective is meant to provide a goal higher than that level. And so we are using the same risk evaluation to set the measurable objective at a groundwater level that's higher than 95% protective. And in most cases, that's higher than 99% protective in the evaluation we did of risk. But again, these measurable objectives are more planning goals rather than enforceable standards of sustainability, where if you don't meet the measurable objective, that's not a situation where the state would come in for controlling the basin or taking over management of the basin. Next, please. So we do use the sustainability management criteria. And then the main criteria we've used to evaluate projects and management actions with the basin-wide model. We have used the basin-wide model to look at management actions, like pumping redistribution and reduction in overall municipal pumping, city Santa Cruz ASR project, as well as hypothetical recharge projects in the aromas. And then I will be showing results for pure water so kill. But we're basically take the model output. We can calculate averages from the model output to be consistent with the 10-year average that we've established for evaluating the groundwater level proxies and compare them both to our proposed minimum threshold and measurable objectives. We do need to raise those groundwater level proxies to account for sea level rise because they are relative to sea level, while our model has as a sea level data that doesn't change over time. So we are simulating sea level rise over time. And so therefore, the onshore groundwater levels need to increase a corresponding amount to continue to prevent that sea water from coming in. And so sustainable evaluation, the goal should be to reach the measurable objective by 2040 for this critically overdrafted basin and then continue to meet that minimum threshold going forward to 2070. So that is the sustainability management criteria. And we'll go into how we've looked at results for pure water so kill next. So let me just chime in here. So one of the reasons asking Cameron to come tonight, besides that y'all requested that, was he used to just come to this board and now some of you are seeing it. I know Dr. Jaffe is on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee and the two of you are on the MGA. But it's to provide input back. So I know I just want to point out some of the areas where there was discussion around. And Cameron, correct me if I'm wrong or anybody else that's been involved on the board that's been involved with that. I think the 10-year average was one of those things. Should it be a shorter time or a longer time? Because, again, a 10-year average, is that sufficient? So anyway, I'm going to try to point some of those out if I see them as we go forward. So you can provide input for our representatives to take back to the GSP Advisory Committee or the board. Just a quick question. How are you calculating the sea water rising? We're using the latest projections from the state of California for sea level rise. And so that was a report that was put out last year in 2018. And they provided a range of potential sea level rise over the next 50-plus years for Monterey Bay and a range of probabilities for whether the sea level rise would be at that level. And we're using the 95th percentile of those probabilities. So the 95% chance that it's not going to be as high as the 2.3-feet sea level rise of the 2070 that we're simulating in the model. And that's due to ocean temperatures? Right, so it's due to the climate change that results in temperatures, arctic ice melting, and the factors that are going to happen. Land-based ice and thermal expansion, both things. Yeah, it's just wondering if you would be forced to change the salinity because of the temperature changes at the ocean salinity, particularly in a bay, Yeah, we haven't looked into that specifically. I think because the drinking water standard, 250 milligram per liter of the minimum threshold we're using, is so much lower than fully salty water that you have a concern with your water supply at such a lower level than that that changes in the seawater concentration, I don't think would make a huge difference in how that looks over time. I would have to change the density significantly, I think, to really make a difference. True, but I haven't really looked at it very closely lately. OK, so we do use those. Did want to provide that background to give you update on that important part of defining sustainability for the basin. As I mentioned, we have done groundwater modeling of different sustainability strategies for the MGA. I want to present today specifically the presentation from last week on modeling of pure water soquel. So this presentation is exactly what I presented on Wednesday. And so it has some background information that I'm sure you are very familiar with, such as what is pure water soquel. So skip over that part, but the focus of the presentation is to look at benefits to achieving sustainability for the basin with the pure water soquel project. So as you are aware, the pure water soquel, the main feature are seawater intrusion prevention wells. This figure shows the location of those wells and which aquifer the cross section shows which aquifer units those wells are meant to recharge. You will notice that it's a relatively small area of the district and the basin where these wells are located. And it is only recharging two of the units that provide groundwater supply. But the project does include aspects that help benefit other units than what is being directly recharged in other areas than where these seawater intrusion prevention wells are located. Next, please. And so what was simulated for the EIR included that aspect, which was a pumping redistribution around the recharge at the seawater intrusion prevention wells. So the down arrows are meant to indicate recharge into the basin and into the A and BC units. And recharging that amount is meant to support increase of pumping from those same units from that same area. And so that's what the plus sign indicates is that going to increase pumping from that area with the increase in recharge in that area. What was evaluated for the EIR was that increase would support decreases in pumpings in other areas in other units with the minus sign for a decrease in the BC unit and a minus sign in the aromas area for a decrease in the F unit in the aromas red sands. And so that is meant to spread out the benefits from the recharge to a larger area. Next, please. Oh, sorry. So groundwater modeling for the EIR. The EIR is focused on evaluating environmental effects from the project. So from the groundwater modeling perspective is to compare to projected existing conditions and show that the project raises groundwater levels versus projected existing conditions. And that's the main conclusion for EIR impacts from groundwater levels, from the groundwater level perspective. But the modeling also provided some lessons for sustainability going forward. One is that what was simulated for the EIR was that the project recharge would stop after 20 years. And as you can see, those groundwater levels with the project, which are the two higher curves versus the two lower curves, dropped off pretty quickly after that recharge stopped after 20 years. So the conclusion from that is that a recharge would need to continue instead of stopping after 20 years as modeled for the EIR. It also showed us that additional pumping redistribution is possible. If we recall, we simulated a decrease of pumping in the BC unit. But at the wells in the BC unit, we saw groundwater levels increase while the project was ongoing. So that pumping decrease seemed unnecessary. In fact, the recharge into the BC period to that it could even support an increase in the BC unit. Another thing that's included in the EIR is an evaluation of the fate of the purified water that is recharged, how far it gets in the aquifer. We did a particle tracking in the groundwater model results to see where the results, where the water would go over the long term. And it's important to note that the area where the purified recharge water would travel is much smaller than the area where groundwater levels are affected. So you have recharge water going into a small area, and that effect can raise groundwater levels in a much, much bigger area. You can see that the area where the purified water doesn't quite reach our coastal monitoring wells, but we see groundwater levels increase substantially at those coastal monitoring wells with the model. We go back to the previous slide. So for example, the top one, the A unit. The A unit spatial extent is quite huge. So where in that spatial extent is this supposed to be measuring, is it? So this is at the SC5 A well. And so it is the closest A unit well to the Seward Intrusion Prevention well locations. And SC9C is the closest BC unit well where we have a protective elevation to those Seward Intrusion Prevention wells that are planned of recharging of the BC unit. Well, I believe at SC5 A, completely confined. I mean, there's a layer on top of it that's an aquatard. And so groundwater levels actually can't go up because there's a roof on top of it, right? So really what we're measuring here isn't groundwater levels. It's, quote, head, unquote, right? It's heads in the aquifer, but in the monitoring wells they are groundwater levels. That's right, sure. Yeah, that's right. And I notice when we turn it on, it starts going up, and then it flattens off. Even though we're still putting water in every year, it's not going up anymore. And this is exactly what you see from the monitoring and modeling that's been done in Scotts Valley for their purification. But they had a nice graph then that showed where it was going. Do we know where this excess water we're pumping in that's not causing that thing? I mean, Scotts Valley went to streams. They actually show that stream levels went up and up, and then it flattened out where this flattens out. And in fact, that's why when you turn it off, it starts going down like that. It's that the water is still flowing to where it's been flowing in the past, which is in the streams. Yeah, we did show changes of water budget plots in the AR. Don't have those specific plots here in this presentation, but we will show results for the modeling for the GSP advisory committee that gets to those ideas. And I think we'll answer your question. Do we know how much is going to streams versus how much is going out into the ocean? Because we have both sinks now. Right. So what we'll show is for the basin overall, we can break it down into specific aquifer units. But for the most part, once increase of groundwater levels drops off, the largest increase in outflow is offshore, which is a positive result to prevent seawater intrusion. But we also look because this project includes reduction of pumping in the Romus area, it also includes an increase in net flow to Paro Valley Subbasin, which could be both an increase in flow to Paro Valley Subbasin or a decrease in flow from Paro Valley Subbasin. So those are the main water budget flow results that we're simulating. And I'd just like to add one of the enlightening things about the modeling here, and I'm sure you picked it up when you did the EIR, was the old conceptual model was once you fill the basin up, you're good to go, you can leave it, and we can pump back. And the Scotts Valley modeling shows that. But this shows that very dramatically in the sense that once you stop pumping, what goes up fast comes down very fast. And it also shows that this top is not caused by filling the basin. It's when the outflows equal the inflows, then it stops no matter where it is in the vertical extent. Absolutely, but that was just a shift for us. We realized a constant source is important, and it's not just fill it up and walk away. I just want to make that clear, because some people weren't. I think that was one model, conceptual model theory 10 years ago or five years ago. But it's not the case now. But it also means that if you're trying to fill up the basins to be able to take some out in the drought years, you're limiting what you can put in, because. So for the GSP advisory committee, we did additional runs that evaluated enhancements to Purewater Soquel to see whether the ability to achieve sustainability could be improved. And the main enhancement is to further modify the pumping distribution to enhance basin-wide sustainability. And I'm trying to isolate in these model runs the effect of Purewater Soquel with these enhancements as the main project in action for sustainability, so not combine it with other projects in actions. The other thing is to learn from what we saw in the modeling for the EIR. And let's see what the effective project continuing beyond 20 years. We do simulate this under a scenario that we're planning to use for the GSP climate change scenario that's called the catalog climate, which will go into detail of that. But the last Wednesday's packet does have presentation slides on that and that meeting is online as well. And we're simulating sea level rise with these model runs. Next place. So the different assumptions from the EIR include several different assumptions to meet the goals discussed in the past slide. And one of them is related to Soquel Creek Water District demand. Then the EIR followed the projected demand in the district's urban water management plan. And those projections include an increase in demand at 2020 from the historically low demand you've had for the past few years. But it projects a decrease after that. For these runs, we include the same projected bounce back that is included in the urban water management plan projections. But because there have been questions about whether the decrease will occur based off of what has been learned about efforts to increase housing in the state, land use changes, and also to test the robustness of different projects with simulated stable demand following that bounce back. For these runs. So as I mentioned, we learned from the previous runs and continue the recharge past 20 years. The other thing the EIR included was an assumption that the pilot project of a water transfer from cities of Santa Cruz would continue to evaluate pure water Soquel independently for the GSP. We removed that assumption. That does not preclude actually proceeding with both actions at the same time. This is for evaluating the effects of pure water Soquel for the GSP advisory committee. So pumping distribution previously was based off of some work we did for the district a couple years back. And we updated it for the MGA in advance of this modeling earlier this year is what we're using. The drought curtailment was assumed as a baseline in the EIR. And again, to the test of robustness of the ability of pure water Soquel to meet sustainability goals, don't assume that curtailment under the baseline conditions for these modeling runs that I'm about to show you. So the main enhancement is a change to the pumping redistribution and similar symbols as the previous chart. And it's the same recharge into the A and BC units at the seawater intrusion prevention wells. But now we increase pumping into A as well as the BC unit as opposed to decreasing in the BC unit, which we simulated before learning from those previous results. And because the Soquel's demand is not increased by the project, we can use that increase of pumping near the recharge wells, near the seawater intrusion prevention wells to decrease pumping in other areas and other units. So that includes the TU unit, the F unit in the Romus area, and potentially the A unit in the western part of the district. Ready? The next please. What buys AA not listed there? Is that we're not doing anything with AA? So TU, actually the wells where we decrease TU are also screened in the AA. So that does include a decrease in AA as well. This is a chart of what those volumes look like. And going down are basically meant to be additive to the basin either by recharging or reducing pumping. So it's the 1,500 acre feet per year from Purewater's Soquel seawater intrusion prevention wells in the A and BC unit to 1,500 acre feet per year. And then an additional decrease in pumping in other units, AA, AA, TU, F Romus, that is supported by the equal increase in pumping in the units that are being recharged in the areas where the seawater intrusion prevention wells are planned. Next please. So here are the groundwater level results with and without the project. The green line are the direct modeling results from Purewater's Soquel. The blue dashed line is the 10-year average off of those results. And then the yellow is the baseline without the project. And so the modeling results do show that groundwater levels increase versus the baseline, as we showed in the IR, but also above a sustainable management criteria in the A unit in this district's area. There was a question at the GSP advisory committee about the decline in groundwater levels simulated here around 2020. And I'm going to need to clarify my response to that committee. I described it as an increase of demand at that time. It's actually not an increase of demand at that time. We're actually established an initial redistribution of pumping where pumping was increased in the A unit at 2020. So we can see the results of redistribution without the project before the project is simulated to come on 9 in 2023. So the redistribution has an increase of pumping in the A unit. It drops groundwater levels. And then with the project, after 2023, those groundwater levels are recovered above the groundwater level proxies to prevent seawater intrusion. Next, please. So going further west in the A unit at the city monitoring wells, where they've estimated protective elevations, the effect of the project really is only seen at the eastern monitoring wells, the pleasure point, and where there is a groundwater level increase resulting from the project. If you recall, we do have a reduction pumping in the A unit at the well closest to this well. So that is contributing to this effect. I think it would be interesting to see what kind of effect would be seen without the reduction in pumping at the nearest district well, the what effect just from recharging the A unit would be this far west. But you don't see much of an effect at all at Soquel point, which is Amoran Lake, which are the two wells where the city has observed seawater intrusion in the past or currently. Next, please. So AA and TU units, the deeper units and the bigger effect is seen as the TU unit. Previous modeling showed that previously planned is based off of our model. Previously, plant plan pumping from the TU unit wasn't sustainable. And that's we're seeing in the first few years of this simulation where groundwater levels are just dropping over time and that they would continue to drop without a redistribution of pumping. They would do simulate redistribution of pumping starting in 20 and they do start to stabilize because of that. But the further redistribution of pumping where TU pumping is reduced even further allows groundwater levels to recover in the TU unit. And with what we've done maybe more than is necessary. But that kind of concept is what looks to be necessary to use pure water soquel to have the use of the TU unit be sustainable over the long term. Yes. So I know that pure water soquel was designed to fix the district's problem. So the fact that it doesn't quite work for the upper left one there means that you would have to again do other enhancements like doing some perhaps recharge into the live oak area or something like that. I mean there are options. Yeah. So there are options that it could be recharging to the unit out there. It could be there is some pumping in the unit. It could be trying to just pump from the unit in those wells. Modifying those wells. So there are different options for evaluating that. But as when just in all these simulations just use district infrastructure to shift around pumping there's no change in what the city of Santa Cruz pumping in that area would be. So it doesn't address any issues near those city wells. And I guess by changing the screens we could or they're changing their screens could help this as well. You know you could use less from one aquifer and more from another aquifer. Right it is a balancing act but then yeah but also additional recharge could could help. So that's one of the things I think they'll look at with what there is our project with making trying to make sure that their current pumping is protected and sustainable. Next BC unit. So if you recall we have recharging to the BC unit with the Seward Intrusion Prevention wells but are also increasing pumping from the BC unit. And you can see that with the project even with that increased pumping we're able to raise groundwater levels at the wells near Aptus Creek that may not increase enough so they would potentially take some adjustment of how much the nearest well pumps to do that and that just points to a need for adaptive management with your system around this project that there isn't just going to be one set pumping distribution to move forward with and you'll be able to monitor what the results will be and change operation based off of that not on the modeling that it's been done today. So you'll have actual information when you operate the system. Now in the operation of pure water are we assuming the three recharge wells would all be recharged equally? No so these simulations include recharge in the two of the three wells and the recharge is higher into the well in the Twin Lakes Church Cabrio College area because it's recharging the two units versus the Monterey. So that's one part of the information we hope to get from the pilot well is whether we can refine those estimated capacities. Next yes please. So the Romus area in the southeast of the district and this is not an area where yet you would have seawater intrusion prevention wells recharging these aquifers but the redistribution of pumping is meant to reduce pumping from this area and you can see the positive effect of reducing pumping by redistribution of pumping around the pure water soquel project. So the green and blue lines are higher than the baseline and get up towards the sustainable management criteria to prevent seawater intrusion. Question like on the page before or the slide before or you could potentially like if you weren't getting a fast enough response on the one on the right, the Prisma BC unit, ARC, you could decrease pumping there and get that to respond more quickly, right? Because right now it's not about protective levels to like 2040, so you could make those adjustments I'm assuming. Right, I mean for you could. I mean for SIGMOD their goal is to get to the measurable objectives by 2040 and not have ground water levels below minimum thresholds after that but if you wanted to recover faster you would say okay, we're above, we've achieved what we needed at these other two wells, what can we do closer to this well that's not quite there yet? Next please. So this is a response to an earlier question about what is the change in where water flows to related to pure water soquel? So this is a water budget plot where the positive numbers are represent the net recharge from the project and the net recharge is the amount that's recharging into the seawater intrusion prevention wells of 1,500 acre-free per year because overall the distribution pumping doesn't change to the pumping or just moving the pumping around and balancing it. So the project provides 1,500 acre-free per year what results in the flows because of that. Initially a lot of those flows result in groundwater level increases and these are the black lines that are referred to increase of groundwater in storage during the project but just as those groundwater levels flatten out as pointed out that increase of groundwater in storage decreases over time. And then the other big flows as I mentioned are the yellow bars and increase of flow offshore to help prevent seawater intrusion so that that's meeting the goals of the project and then there are an increase in the net outflow to Palo Valley because you're raising groundwater levels close to the Palo Valley Subbasin. Next please. We also have a plot showing the area of groundwater level increase by pure water soquel with enhancements and this is where looking at all the aquifer units across the basin and where the combination of both recharge at the seawater intrusion prevention wells and the pumping and distribution raised groundwater levels. And because you have a combination of those things in a pure water soquel project you can raise groundwater levels in multiple units throughout the coastal area of the basin. Now this as I showed earlier, these areas are where groundwater levels increase and this area is much larger than where the purified water actually travels. Thank you, Cameron. Nicely done. Well done. I think we asked our questions as we were going in this. Well, I have one other question. Good thing you didn't have to save them all up. I know the city's been doing some look at their either INLU as they call it or ASR. How are those going and what are they showing? So the city has done, they're not as far along with evaluating so it's all a preliminary feasibility study. And so there is no actual project they're evaluating, they're evaluating just ideas for projects. And so it includes INLU, they're looking at INLU, that includes ASR only so where they recharge directly into new city wells and extract from those same wells and then includes combinations of those two. So for one thing about the INLU is that this includes a provision of water supply for Soquel Creek Water District to reduce the pumping, but that takes place across the district and then for what they've evaluated so far and we've helped them evaluate is that the recovery of the water is to the west, mostly either in the city or the very western portion of the district. Actually I think it's all in the city and extracting from that location when INLU recharges occurring throughout the district does not recover that storage that efficiently. So again, that is a first cut at what INLU processes would look like and they do plan to refine it and look at different ways of applying that that might achieve their water supply goals which are very different from the GSP sustainability goals in better fashion. The results where the injection recharges in at specific wells and extraction from those same wells do appear to meet their water supply goals better than the INLU, but that also we've looked at that provides and it provides benefits for sustainability but it's what has been looked at so far isn't something that achieves sustainability in a broad area. And their INLU still is just in the winter months then they're looking at. It's based off of when the water supply is available so it can go beyond the winter months. So it's modeling of surface water flows, the city's demands, the requirements for, requirements for flows keeping flows in the rivers and then what could be available for, what they evaluate is what could be available for meeting their water supply goals. So I'll add that at the GSP advisory committee level that in an upcoming meeting we're gonna see enhanced results of their initial modeling. Remember their initial modeling show when they pulled out it was not good water level so they're going back and improving that. So Cameron at some point will present that and then in addition overlay that run with this run and see kind of coupled together in some sort of fashion what that looks like. Right Cameron. So we are scheduled to present a combination of this run with the city's ASR only project that has been done so far because it's been done so far. Their INLU is not compatible with exactly what Pure Water Soquel because their INLU includes reductions in pumping at some of the same well where these Pure Water Soquel projects have increases in pumping and that does not work together some kind of adjustment would have to be made to how that plan works out. There is our only is new city well so it is possible to simulate what has been simulated are city ASR ones that are pretty close to the seawater intrusion prevention well so we will see what the results we will show what the results of that one. But all these city ones have been with the preliminary evaluation of projects to meet the city's water supply needs during shortages. It hasn't been to meet sustainability goals. All right. Thank you. Can I go ahead? No, I'm just for questions. Go ahead. I think we had a question. Seems like this could be a useful tool for planning how we manage the aquifer in the future or the aquifers. Do you come to the same conclusion that it could be a tool for that? Yeah, I do. Okay. I think this shouldn't be just for the GSP once the GSP is submitted on January 2020 that you're done with using the modeling. I think you can still do some planning as you plan the project to see how to best use the project to meet the goals of the basin and the district and then input new information as we get it. Yeah, correct, right. So the city says you can have X number of acre feet of river water transfer then we can optimize how that's used. Right, right. Yep, that's great. Any other questions? Okay, thank you, Cameron. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to make a comment that my hydrology sides shine. I think the three things that I learned from this, the modeling effort and just going along with pure water was one, the quantity estimated is about right. The 1500 acre feet needed by Soquel Creek Water District is pretty close to on target. Could be a plus or minus a little bit more and the basin obviously needs a little bit more in what I'm seeing. The constant source was the quick drop off so that was another one and the idea of recharging in a small area is a cost effective way combined with the redistribution of pumping I thought was very smart the way, I guess that's what you were getting at Dr. Jaffee to using the model as a tool. So I think it points very positively. I mean, when we saw these results I know I was excited to see them. It just was a good sign. And I think it's good for the Mid County Groundwater Agency as a whole to be able to come up with something that gives us a sustainable plan. Yeah, thank you, Cameron. Thank you. Information only. And but I'll allow for, it's now time for public comment. Colonel Terry again. The big picture is, you have a regional water shortage and a statewide water shortage when you have over consumption and over depletion. And you have, as I've mentioned before, with lots of evidence to support it, 40 years of mismanagement by this Soquel Creek Water Department and its board of directors. What I just saw is a patina. It's a patina it ignores because you're participating in a scheme that is fundamentally fraudulent and fundamentally flawed. And that is the solution is obvious. A regional approach to water resources in California to include consolidation with Santa Cruz, but wider regional statewide consolidation that would respect the preservation of the aquifer, which has been neglected by this board of directors for 40 and especially the last 25 years. That's why you're in the situation we're in. But again, the solution is a statewide control of the water resources and regional consolidation. Plain and simple. And by the way, 82 units for toilets at Cabrillo-Madam hardly justifies the incredible extraordinary depletion for decades of approving the Aptos Village Project, which this panel did irresponsibly and negligently. And your EIR in support of pure water Soquel, which should be called poop water Soquel. I find as somebody who knows about EIRs and worked on billion dollar projects for a couple of them, totally deficient. I find it fraudulent. I also find it really sad that Mr. Basso, your legal counsel who's compensated very handsomely has to hire an expensive lawyer from Southern California to confront Becky Steinbrenner in front of Judge Gallagher in her effort to get a TRO, temporary restraining order to stop your efforts to have a better look at pure water Soquel and the flaws in your EIR process and contents. So you hire a lawyer to come up from Southern California paying her legal expenses and her fees overhead expenses because Mr. Basso hasn't got the competence. Is that the problem? This was a comment on the informational item that we just received. It's related. This is a comment on the last item. And that item overlapped into pure water Soquel. So not on anything of the substance of the actual EIR? And the litigation totally encompasses that, Mr. Doctor. Logically and factually. This was an informational item. Yeah, and he provided it. Hydrologic monitoring. And that information is used as evidence to support your EIR, which Ms. Steinbrenner has very astutely and honorably properly contested. And Judge Gallagher caved in to his former law party. Your time is up. I'd like to, I'd lastly. No, your time is up. Thank you. I'd like Mr. Basso to explain how much was paid for defending that action. Your time is up. Thank you. Sit down, please. Ask Mr. Basso to describe how much he provided, what he paid the lawyer in Southern California. Sit down, please. And why your in-house counsel didn't defend against Ms. Steinbrenner, a non-lawyer who's besting you. I have to have somebody remove you, sir. That can happen. Hi, Becky Steinbrenner. Thank you very much, Cameron, for that report. I always learn so much when you give these reports. And I think it's really interesting information. Thank you very much. I would appreciate, as a citizen, if there were some good delineations. And I think you did have a color diagram there showing that where the charisma aquifer interacts and overlaps with the aromas aquifer, because they are different aquifers. And I think that presenting public information like that would really enhance your presentation. So thank you for that. I had some questions. I'm curious how the Purewater SoCal injection wells could flow into, cause water to flow into the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, the Pajaro Valley area. That's hard for me to understand, unless you extrapolate that you're pumping less from the aromas aquifer in the seascape area. Is that it? So it's not direct correlation. It's just that you're pumping less in there. And so that's helping them. All right, thank you. That clears that up. And how do you know? I like those graphs where you kind of top out, but how do you know that's what happens? How, where do you get the information to create that modeling? And I thought it was, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard you say, Cameron, that the current conditions are not considered unsustainable. So that's kind of double negative, but current conditions as they are could be considered sustainable. I'd like some clarification. Make sure that I heard that properly. I also want to know why there is a projected sudden increase in demand in the year 2020 when Santa Cruz City's projection for water demand are flat. And what would cause specifically in the year 2020 a sudden increase in demand and then it levels out? And I also want to know if you're going to model for the GSP, the water transfers, I saw that you did not, and you said that that was just so you could model Pure Water SoCal for the GSP. And I'd like to know which, if that's the transfers are going to be modeled. My final comment is, were these criteria developed by the executive committee or the GSP advisory committee? Because I've never seen these kinds of very detailed discussions at the committee level. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay, that item was information only. I'd like to clarify one thing. Yeah, sure. The Prisma, all layers of the Prisma go all the way under Watsonville, go around the Bay. In fact, the USGS has done some studies of the ages of those waters. And so the whole thing goes all the way around the Bay. Okay, next is item 6.3. So tonight, item 6.3 is to bring back ordinance 1901 for final adoption. There have been no changes to the ordinance that you saw on February 19th or to the attached schedules. So this evening, we're just asking you by motion and roll call vote to adopt ordinance 19 and the supporting schedules. Thank you, Leslie. Anybody? No questions? Okay. Thank you. Public comment? My name is John Cole. I'm a resident of Aptos and a district customer. From your core values posted on your website, I quote, our values represent the district culture and address the question, what do we stand for? Core questions accompany our core values and should be asked when major policy decisions are being considered by the board, unquote. So regarding your core values of fairness, honesty, and ethics, each of you should ask yourself before voting to adopt ordinance 1901, does the decision slash action treat all concerned fairly, honestly, and ethically? I pointed out a serious flaw in the design of the tier one threshold for SFR and MFR. In an attempt to harmonize the tier structure, you invented a false proxy to twist US census occupancy data. Leslie Strong makes this completely inaccurate assertion, quote, because US census data reflects similar occupancy rates for both SFR and MFR households, the district is proposing that both classes have the same tier thresholds, unquote. The census records do not reflect that. The census occupancy rates are based on owner occupied or runner occupied housing units, but in your rate study, you twist this by insinuating that all SFRs are owner occupied and all MFRs are runner occupied. That's absurd. Equalizing the tier one threshold allotment of MFRs and SFRs actually created a disproportionate cost of service for water consumption between these classes. As I indicated in my email to you, an SFR customer would pay substantially more for consuming the same amount of water as an MFR. That's not fair, not honest, and not ethical. Furthermore, Raftel states that the rate structure results in 94% of MFR water use occurring in tier one. What does that tell you? You're essentially giving MFR accounts a uniform rate at $6.43 per unit since they'll rarely consume tier two water. Of the district's top 10 principal customers in 2018, five were multifamily homeowner associations, not runner associations, homeowner associations. I wonder how many of these multifamily customers are in the 94% bracket. Please don't approve this ordinance right now. Instead, move to request of a policy come back and fix that flaw. Then approve the resulting correct ordinance and therefore your decision action will treat all concern fairly, honestly, and ethically. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbruner and I really suggest that you listen to Mr. Cole. I was here when he came to you before with the problems that he had spotted very diligently and thoroughly and you blew him off. And he took you to court and he won. So I'm asking you to postpone your vote on this to correct the issues that Mr. Cole has very carefully pointed out to you and then go back and do it again. I also ask that you not approve this because it is and was stated at the public hearing to bring in the revenue that is necessary for the Pure Water Soquel Project which is currently under litigation. When an agency takes action like this during impending litigation, you do so at your own risk and you are taking a risk. If you put any faith in the CEQA process, if you put any respect in the public process, then you need to pause on your vote for this project, for this ordinance that would fund the Pure Water Soquel Project. You also need to consider what at your hearing on February 19th, Mr. Boyd pointed out to you. He's also suing you that this unfairly penalizes households with large families. That's not fair. So there are a lot of problems with this and I ask you to not approve this ordinance to fix the problems and above all, listen to your rate payer here, Mr. Cole. He has my deep respect. He's a man that's very astute. He studies things carefully. He has brought to your district many problems, some of which were not really made clear, but when he met with the Raftalis representative and Ms. Strom, he pointed out some things that then Ms. Strom came to you and you corrected them. She didn't give Mr. Cole the credit for it, but it was from his very astute and careful examination that those corrections came. So please do not approve this at all. Thank you. Colonel Terry Maxwell on the same point. I want to compliment Mr. Cole's efforts, both in the litigation he brought before and it's tragic he had to do so. Once again, it's because of the negligence, the irresponsible negligence contrary to your oaths as demonstrated by this board of directors and by your staff and your staff and your lawyer. Okay? Now, in addition, Mr. Cole's current complaint is absolutely correct. I endorse as Becky did that you declined to approve. Also, I still want the evidence supporting the approval of the 17 hotel units in Aptos. And I asked Mr., if Mr. Prakash Patel, the developer there, is a client in any way of Mr. Basso or his law firm, anyone affiliated with him. I'd like to have that answered. And I'd like Mr. DeFord to answer how he justified approval of the 19 units and why you would do so. Again, the only solution seems to be you cannot be trusted to respect the water resources of this district. You cannot be respected to respect the money and the payments made by your customers and you cannot respect the long-term future. That you would even consider approval of pure water soquel, again, when there are other alternatives. It's tragic. The water's available, the Lockifer solution makes it available, River Access makes it of other storage and consolidation regionally of the water resources. Every minute you delay doing that, ladies and gentlemen, is irresponsible negligence on your part and failure to address the real problem and bona fide solutions of the large problem. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, that is all the public comment. Board, we had no questions. Yes, sir. What's the staff's position on this MFR-SFR issue and it was brought up? We think the analysis was done correctly. It's similar to what is done for Santa Cruz and others, is that what you're asking me? Okay, thanks. Okay, any motions? I'll move approval. I will second. Roll call, please. Director Lather. No. Vice President Daniels. Yes. Director Jaffe. Yes. Director Christensen. Yes. And President LeHue. Yes. Okay, we're gonna move on to item, let's see where it's, update 6.4, update on coordination with the city of Santa Cruz. Page 133. Hi, good evening. I'm gonna give a small presentation on this item, which we'll just again quickly highlight the water supply challenges and why we're pursuing Pure Water Soquel, the timeline, the overview of the coordination, which was the main premise for this item tonight to report back from the February 5th meeting on the efforts between the city of Santa Cruz and the district. Give a little bit of images on the full facility down at Santa Cruz. And then Ron is gonna talk a little bit about the Santa Clear site. So again, I think I won't go over too much the things that Cameron talked about in terms of the water supply challenges and the modeling that's been done. But just to reiterate to those who may not know really the background of the project, our basin is in a state of overdraft. It is identified as one of the 21 basins in California critically overdrafted because of the seawater intrusion and a high priority basin because our sole source of water is groundwater. We don't have any other water that's imported or brought in to our area. Again, this problem is real. I know that some people don't quite understand always what the real meaning is. They see the model, but that illustration on the right is a bottle of water. I know it just looks like water, but that is a bottle of water that has 15,000 parts per million of chlorides. And just in what we heard from Cameron in his previous presentation, the threshold is 250 parts per million. So you can see the magnitude of seawater contamination that is occurring in those areas of the coastal monitoring walls where those dots are red and orange. The picture on the left is Mr. Pete Cartwright. He is a district customer who also owns a private well in the Selva Beach area. He came to us late last year to explain to us his issues that he's having and how he has lost his private well because of seawater intrusion. And again, we've known that we've had seawater intrusion at both ends of the district for some time. We weren't quite sure what the extent was along the entire coastline. The data that was collected in 2017 with the SkyTem, which was an aerial geophysical survey, captured really what the extent is along the entire coastline. And this information was presented in 2018 to the Mid County Groundwater Agency by SkyTem and Ramble, the two companies that performed this survey to us. And then we had hydrometrics and now, who's now Montgomery, assess and analyze really what the implications were. And I wanted to highlight just kind of the summary of that analysis. In that report that hydrometrics concluded back in March of 2018, the close proximity of the interface also provides a reason to set a goal to recover the groundwater levels sooner than the 2040 deadline to achieve sustainability required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. And I just wanted to point that out because I know there is a lot of heightened awareness related to the rates and also that the district is pursuing outside grant funding and that is not just the only sole driver. One of them, of course, is fiscal responsibility. We obviously want to try to make a project that's affordable to our ratepayers. But another goal is obviously environmental stewardship. And I think this just illustrates, again, it's not just this state-managed deadline. It's also trying to get ahead of that due to the scientific data that we've collected. Colony, can I just chime in for a second? This may not be known to every board member, but actually Stanford University is working with the outfit that did that analysis there. And I asked them if I could, they're writing a paper on it and I asked them if I could share this result and they said yes. And what their result is, they think that the proximity of the seawater intrusion is even closer to shore than what Ramble has shown. So that paper will be forthcoming. But I just thought it was interesting you have a third-party university, Stanford, analyzing that and thinking that it's actually a little worse than what they portrayed it as. So just really appreciate just kind of setting that premise of the problem and then to go on into really what the item 6.4 is, to discuss the coordination efforts that have been underway with the city of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District staff. As you know, the board took action on December 18th to pursue the tertiary component of the Pure Water Soquel Project at Santa Cruz and then the purification components at Santa Clear. Also to continue coordinating with the city to see if there was the opportunity to develop the full purification down at Santa Cruz. So this is just an illustration of the Santa Cruz wastewater treatment facility over by Neri Lagoon. As we look a little bit closer into that facility site, the blue box that's illustrated here with this white arrow is the 60 by 120 area that is the footprint that the city of Santa Cruz Public Works Department had identified as an area that the district could construct and build a portion of the Pure Water Soquel Project. So within the EIR we looked at three options. One was just to do a pump station only that would then deliver secondary treated effluent over to a satellite or an offsite purification facility. The second option was to do the full facility down there. That would be a two-story facility and I have some illustrations following this slide. And then the third option was a tertiary facility. That would mean just the tertiary components of the microfiltration or ultra-filtration components that would bring the water to a tertiary level. Tertiary is used for non-potable irrigation uses and then that water then would be conveyed to a offsite purification facility. So this is an illustration that we had in the EIR and this is what the full purification facility would look like. This is a two-story facility that would hold the components necessary to purify 1500 acre feet a year for the district's uses. As you can see this is an illustration of what the footprint would look like from the bottom story. This is the bottom level where we would have most of the facilities that would be supplemental to the actual purification but they are necessary and then the actual treatment components would be on the top. So this is a cutaway illustration that shows that the membrane treatments which is the microfiltration reverse osmosis and then the UV light would be on the top and then the ancillary components would be on the bottom. I guess before I get to the recommendation I did want to just reiterate that and give some background it's included in the handout. The city and district staff met and we talked and coordinated on quite a few issues related to what the opportunities and what the constraints were at the site. We talked about issues such as permitting ownership regulations whether or not the facility would change classifications with the purification facility on site. We talked a lot about what kind of projects that they have as well and we talked about what types of expansion or multiple uses there could be. And in those discussions these are some of the findings that came out. So to kind of state go to the conclusion first the city of Santa Cruz and the district staff still recommend at this time that we pursue the tertiary development at Santa Cruz. And really this recommendation is based on the space constraints at that site. That site is very landlocked. It is a very small tight space. There is a lot of traffic that goes in and out. When we cited that 60 by 20 footprint we had to cone that off originally and that really is about the only part available that they are willing for us to develop on with leaving some flexibility for them in the future if they ever wanted to do something they would still have to move and relocate things but they wanted to leave that to their discretion. In terms of construction impacts the city of Santa Cruz is undergoing a master facilities infrastructure planning. They have a 10 year look out in terms of what kind of capital improvement projects are underway. Currently they do about one million two million dollars a year in CIP projects. They're forecasting that that would ramp up to about four four to six million dollars a year. So there is some construction impacts that are going to be underway at the same time as the proposed Pure Water Soquel project. And that was a concern to staff that that level of construction for both the city and the district project as noted in the board memo a two story facility for the full advanced purification down at that site requires piles. It requires a lot of construction and so that was of concern to their staff. Another thing was that once the water was purified down at Santa Cruz that would be purified water and then to purify that water and come over to the Capitola-Aptos Soquel area that would limit the future opportunities for delivering water if they chose to in the future for irrigation purposes. Tertiary water or non potable drinking tertiary water could be used for irrigation. If we were to branch off on the purified line that's that water is a little bit over treated for that level of use. And then of course the last thing as you could see that that two story building doesn't really leave a lot of expansion for either the city or the district. The city and the district just in terms of their collaboration and trying to identify where there were some nexuses or dual benefits for a tertiary facility there. The city did like and I think we're interested in that the tertiary facility would be single story that the construction impacts would be less that there was the opportunity for tertiary to come over to our area and that because of that footprint and in the initial discussions that we've had related to a tertiary facility there in that footprint there is room for them they see as potential expansion if they so choose in the future. I would just like to note our coordination efforts have been far and wide not just with the discussions of the full facility down there. We continue to work with them quite a bit. I did want to note that just last month the city of Santa Cruz was awarded an engineering innovation award by the local California Water Environment Association for the tertiary treatment pilot project that we had there in the summer that was a joint collaboration between the city and the district and they won an award on that so we're very proud of their achievement on that. They've also provided us a letter of support so we've received over 14 letters of support for the Prop 1 implementation grant and the city of Santa Cruz was one of those letters and then they also wanted to reaffirm they recognize that in the MOU which was the memorandum of understanding that they executed between the city and the district in 2017 they recognized two things. One was the delivery of the source water that treated effluent they would provide albeit this district continued and went forward with the environmental review and also they took action and so because of your actions on December 18th they wanted to formalize in a letter that they recognize that you had done that and they are still on a path to provide water and they are willing and interested to continue with the next part that's identified in that MOU which is a project agreement and so the project agreement as outlined in that MOU really discusses more about the terms related to any co-location of the facilities and also just terms of a contract and so we are working on that next piece with them. Okay, yeah I think I'm the next part, is that correct? So there's two components to this. The board asked us to work with the city of Santa Cruz to see the feasibility of the entire facility down there or and in conjunction continue to explore the Santa Clara site so I'm gonna talk about that a little bit but let me just be clear so when the water whatever this is what goes out to the ocean now on average eight million gallons a day I believe secondary effluent water if you open it you can smell it, we've never had anybody say I had any odor, kitchen sink, our water, pond water or the three primary once that gets treated this is it would be treated to this it looks the same I know this is tertiary treated water so that's what is being proposed down at the city of Santa Cruz now take that secondary water and then it goes out to the ocean provide us that water then treat it down there to the tertiary level which you can apply on playing fields, organic crops or whatnot and then at the Santa Clara site these are bottled waters that other agencies provide to us where they purify it and you can actually drink it so that's what this water is so I just I think it's nice to see that visual so with that concept in mind we've and then furthering the negotiations and the discussions on the Santa Clara site we've met with John Leopold and others several times we've met with county economic redevelopment and those folks John Supervisor Leopold asked us to get together and see what value we could bring to Live Oak besides just helping save the basin which is a big lift in itself but so we've done that and here's the site and Highway 1 there the corner of Soquel and Chanticleer the next site so here it is an existing view everybody knows it by the old house that's been there for 30 years and it is what it is right? So right there it's next to the behind the glass shop and so we've been doing that and we've been having conversations not only with the county but here's another site thank you you can see just a re-rendering from the outside however what a lot of people didn't know when we've had discussions with Live Oak folks is that and here's another picture is that for the last I don't know I think it's 10 years the RTC Regional Transportation Commission thank you has been working on an overpass from to help people bicycle or walk over from the other side of Highway 1 on Chanticleer where it dead ends to the Live Oak side maybe both sides are Live Oak but over Highway 1 anyway and so when we engaged the RTC and said hey we're evaluating purchasing this property they said that'd be fantastic because they have just completed the approval of the EIR for this bicycle overpass and this is a rendition I think out of their diagram out of their EIR and so what you're seeing here is the bicycle path coming over Highway 1 and then coming down along Soquel Avenue in front of the property so what happens is on the piece of property where we're evaluating putting the facility this bicycle ramp comes down at an angle pretty much obliterating the whole frontage along Soquel which is frontage along a road is the most valuable for commercial so it kind of puts the it puts it out of running for commercial entities to have stores or what not over there and so it devalues the property in many ways now here's another picture of the overpass the pedestrian bridge is what they call it so the RTC is really excited that we'd be a willing partner in that and I think it's a big asset personally to Live Oak I'm a Live Oak community member to have an overpass there because if you try 41st or down at Soquel it's kind of crazy and I do use my bike a lot on those so that's one aspect but we've also been brainstorming what else could value could be added I know meeting with the Live Oak school people that Melanie and I presented to a couple times the and something that's in the ranks high in the value system of the board is some kind of educational component so that's another potential value we could bring there we have that robustly throughout our system but tours, school models or learning center there and I love that I've said it before because water and wastewater have dual tracks to where you can enter this industry not just with a college education but also kind of an apprenticeship grade one through five so it spans a whole host of ways for people to learn and enter this field and we do believe the purification of water is kind of the future but back go back one slide so here's just a few brainstorm or not actually not brainstorm these are actual facilities go back up to this that you know that are existing that one in the bottom left I believe is A to Z it takes pure wastewater and recycles it to purified water and the other two I think do something similar to what we're looking at actually taking treated water and refining it so a lot of recent coordination efforts I think we've made good progress and we'll continue to do that as we move forward so I wanted to give you that other side of not just working with Santa Cruz but where we're at with progress on the Santa Clara site thank you okay so this is information I had one question and you know this is informational but we were going to you know we had made some had some discussion about proceeding how much to go with planning of a you know design of a project and so I assume that this would mean we would you know give guidance if we wanted to just focus on this one site rather than the other for any expenditure of money or towards design yeah Bruce why wasn't this an action item why is this informational only I mean obviously we're going to take action based on this and it's only from staff so there's no board approval of that action well I think number two is gives it the ability to just direct us to work with the city to and follow down just on this item alone it's not just the city it's our consultants who are doing the design I mean this isn't this is a milestone we're continuing to do that based on it we're doing that from your last meeting I believe we have that mandate already to go forth with that what we're I think saying here is direction to just focus on this site that's right that's what you're saying that's what we're asking do you want to provide we can't we can't do that this is informational only that's what we should have done there should have been action by the board just like yes we accept that we're no longer thinking about putting the facility we can our facility down the city okay well we can definitely do that in the meantime if you'd like to direct us just to focus on this we can bring it back and solidify it more if you like we'd be glad to do that okay that's what should have been done okay I apologize okay other questions comments from the board well I was the one who wanted this to be explored further and I think staff is is very diligent in it and the thing that is new to me is that there's not an economy of scale with having the facility at the the wastewater treatment plant so it's not really probably attractive to Santa Cruz since there's not a benefit to them so I do I think they should take a a backseat at this moment to other locations okay and I'm you know I was in favor of giving it another you know month of investigation and I appreciate all that work and it seems like it's clarified itself pretty well and I think we did make it you know our goals made it if this didn't then we can direct staff I think to go keep proceeding with with the way we're we're going with with that site you know it's um so is any public comment oh yeah so we're this is mostly you're mostly focusing in on tertiary treatment yeah that's the idea is that Santa Cruz thinks it's most advantageous for them to do tertiary treatment down there because then they they can irrigate the most cost effectively if they want to in the future with the line if they chose to all the way to this facility are used to purification water afterwards so um yeah so tertiary treatment down there continue to pursue that and purification at the shana claire facility site so do they have a do they personally have a timetable on an agreement to the yeah yes um we're both shooting in terms of the staff to try to do something and bring it back by late spring early spring a good time to have you know a final discussion on this yeah I was just I'm conferring with um Mr. Basso I think on the action that was taken by the board on December 18th when you approved the project to prioritize development of tertiary at Santa Cruz and the purification at at shana claire while while also coordinating with the city of Santa Cruz as long as no scheduled develops occur um I think we've done that I think that if we were to do something more if we wanted to wait or something they they there's they they prefer us not to do anything so that is a scheduled delay in terms of the full purification so we we feel that there may not need to be a formal action you've already taken that and that the action on February 5th when you did approve the full budget amount but you asked us to come back on on the 5th you can direct us you approve the money you can direct us not to spend that amount and on the additional basis of design report for the full purification at Santa Cruz so that I think it's 300 000 dollars you can direct us without an action to not spend that and we won't be done we can have a motion and a vote to that to direct staff you know to just to clarify um but first any opportunity for public comment thank you becky steinbrunner I um I urge you not to do this this is an end run and I think it violates the Brown Act your your agenda that has been posted says receive update on coordination with the city of Santa Cruz on the pure water SoCal project that does not indicate to the public you're going to take any action to be violating the Brown Act and um I urge you if you value your transparency with the public not to do this um I also want to say just commenting on a few other things I'm stunned that you're trying to do this quite frankly um I want to know on the uh I see that you're proceeding with in closed session the acquisition and lease agreement on the shanticleer property so it seems like um you have in fact made up your mind but um I also want to ask what is the there's an abandoned well or something on the shanticleer property it's visible from the road on SoCal Avenue I want to know what that is there's no record in county environmental health files which don't go back all that far and this property has as director Lathers said some interesting historic use so what is that well there and I I hope that you're doing due diligence to investigate those kinds of issues I also want to know um what are what have been the historic uses of this property it was discussed as new information during the December 18th um public meeting that there are some questions and maybe some questionable uses there that could have brought about contamination um I want to point out that the bottles of water look like the same ones that you had a picture of with the um dangerously high chloride level you know it's not a very good prop um but I understand what you're trying to do um and I really want to point out that uh there are no uh safe drinking water standards for pharmaceuticals and that what you're proposing to put into the aquifer is a chemical soup made in a sewage plant and uh there are a lot of things that react and happen that cannot be tested for or even known regarding the continued work toward getting the plants at Santa Cruz city you've also got to consider the the 11 miles of brine conveyance pipeline that would be saved and those environmental contaminations that could be avoided thank you colonel terry maxwell I agree fully with every comet of miss steinbrunners clearly you should not approve this and again the big picture is why would you impose a hundred million dollar debt on 15 000 innocent unsuspecting hardworking water customers of the soquel creek water district when you don't have to when it's preposterously not necessary there are water resources in this county from the rivers from the rain from storage from surface water recovery well available there are regional approaches that yes would do away with the necessity for the soquel creek water district to exist let it be merged into a state regional solution cut its overhead costs by probably 70 and focus on water delivery not accommodating developers like swensons who bribed and manipulated their way to get approval of so aptos village and other things not this mr perkesh I still want to know whether mr basso represents him also as a lawyer who you're going to approve 17 more hotel units and their water consumption what is wrong with you can't you see the big picture can't you understand that you have an obligation to protect the resources and the interests of all 15 000 current incumbent water customers you're not doing that and becky's a thousand percent correct on why would you add pharmaceutically polluted water when you don't need to on top of a cost of a hundred million dollars do the right thing be honest with the state government we have a polyglot group of water authorities here all of which are burdened with staffs and overhead that overburden your customers turn this down thank you um okay so um i think that yeah i apologize for not making it a motion but i mean i think it's clear i think we've made our our yeah well it's clear on our last on our last at our last meeting so this is informational only and they pretty much we know so you're directing staff to continue as it says in number two we'll we'll go forth on just this item yeah um because of the last meeting we said it had delays i think that that has already been made clear okay thank you um so let's go to item 6.5 professional legal services thanks cameron thanks cameron yes item 6.5 is to approve professional services for special legal counsel to support assistance with the procurement of negotiations and construction for the future pure water soquel activities where we are right now with the project evaluation implementation is that with the approval of the project we're going forward with the preliminary design efforts and the design efforts will lead us to going out to develop and hire affirm that can further that design and the way that we're procuring that at this point for treatment and conveyance would be through a design build process for the injection wells we are foreseeing that we would do that with the traditional design bid build but for conveyance and for the treatment we are looking to do design build because that is something that we want to make sure that the procurement contracts are written we are looking to assist us with some special counsel and so the district did go out and put out an rfq a request for qualifications for a legal firm to assist with that as documented in the agenda item and the staff report it describes the process that we went through that and through that process we are presenting and proposing Hanson Bridget who has demonstrated that they have recent experience with similar projects and similar procurement style the scope of services that we are including for the board's consideration of approval tonight is for assistance with you know obviously getting a familiarity with who we are and what our project is and assisting us with the development of an rfq they also would be working with us and with our general counsel so if there's any questions I'm here to answer questions just basic questions so standard to need a legal guidance on a rfq this scope yes we would like to have some special assistance on this because these types of contracts design and span through both the design and the eventual construction of it so there's different ways to structure a contract and we want to make sure that we're identifying what's in the contract in terms of risks and because there's multiple parties involved there'd be the district as the owner and there'd be the designer and then the contractor or the builder and this budget for this is coming out of the grant that you already have the budget for this right now we're asking to be funded through OCR for the remainder of the year if we are successful in receiving a grant then this could be coming out of that yes the questions that's a great idea I think the grip project in southern California they did the same okay public comment I happen to have some familiarity with such contracts and water issues and construction projects I find I've read the package here I find the need for $110,000 of the $15,000 and some ratepayers of this district to be absorbed to have to pay an addition $110,000 on top of all the money they pay Mr. Basso and his law firm and the environmental lawyer he's brought in and who knows what other consultation I find the numbers here preposterous this contract matter could be written in one or three days of discussions if you needed it which you don't because it's not really justifiable because it's an environmental nightmare but if it had value if the entire pure water project had any value this could be done in three days of competent lawyer effort with presumably if you had competent technical staff so I'd say that's about three thousand to six thousand dollars maximum and legal fees that you should approve for this and I'm a gas Mr. Basso can't bring somebody in on a day who's got extensive experience with these contracts for that period of time this is a hundred thousand dollars of waste of the Soquel Creek Water District customers money plain and simple and why don't you have the astute ability some of you with a business experience and experience with this to see that turn this down and do not waste a hundred thousand dollars and tell Mr. Basso to provide more for what he's being paid for don't you dare approve it I would add this to all the other waste you've incurred incurred here and the miss spending and mismanagement I think you should all be held personally accountable at some point for the waste of the ratepayers money you have it done here by the hundreds of thousands of dollars thank you Becky Steinbrenner I have a question what is OCR operating contingency reserve okay thank you and what I understand that they'll help with this would help with negotiating the contracts necessary for construction what exactly does that mean does that mean because I haven't read the contract I'm sorry but how thoroughly would that be involving the county public works for encroachment permits things like that liability for damage to historic structures along the way where the conveyance pipes are going to be things like that my other question is I had not seen in your agendas before that you were putting out an RFP for this kind of legal how so what I this leads me to wonder is are you now putting out an RFP for the company that would do the design build operate which I know is having attended your special board meetings discussing how to fast track construction of this project that you you were very much favoring a design build operate model are you putting those rps out now I know that Mr. Steven Waite from IDE has been here a couple of times and so they're circling so just if you can just please give me a status report on those issues I would appreciate it very much thank you no there's no RFP out for that no I'm I'm sitting in the audience because I have a cold and I didn't want to share it with the secretary but a couple of comments number one I didn't hire the attorneys that are representing you for in the sequel action best best and Krieger our specialists since he quit and they've been on board since more than a year ago and it's not somebody that I hired number two as to Mr. Patel I don't know anything about Mr. Patel's matter until it shows up on the agenda but I while I'm sitting here I looked and it appears that Patel by the way is the Indian name commonly associated with with the lodging you know if you go and look at the things you'll find that most of the hotels and hotels and Santa Cruz are owned by somebody named Patel not always a first but in the past I have represented a Mr. Patel in a matter in Santa Cruz but I had nothing to do with this particular thing I don't know anything about it I don't know anything about the project I don't even know if it's the same Mr. Patel so let's put that one addressed and finally Judge Gallagher went to great lengths to explain to Ms. Steinbrunner that he had not had anything to do with me or my firm directly for the last almost 10 years he ran for election in 2010 and he had taken a sabbatical shortly before that I appear before Judge Gallagher all the time sometimes I win sometimes I lose Judge Gallagher is a very fair judge he looks at the facts and addresses him and I hate to see him hearing somebody condemn somebody like Judge Gallagher who does his best be as fair as he can be thank you okay so back to our item now any motions or it was moved by director I move to prove all three there's three motions there's three motions I just got so excited they're all parked they're all together yes I moved to approve all three I think this is a great idea I'll second that moved and seconded all in favor hi hi posed okay now we go to item 6.6 this is the AMI yeah so this is a request to authorize the general manager to execute agreements related to our upgrade from advanced meter reading drive by AMR to advanced metering infrastructure or AMI and so just a little bit of background we currently are using a drive by AMR and collecting monthly meter reads our system right now consists of water meters electronic registers that send the signal to the receivers in our trucks and then the receivers themselves so that's how we currently run our system the electronic register component of that metering system is reaching the end of its life cycle and we're seeing a lot of those units fail to send a signal to the receiver in the truck we are so we're having to manually read those meters and that's significantly impacting our staffing levels right now we have about 2200 failed registers and so it's pretty critical that we we take action and the board's directed us to upgrade to AMI based on the earlier leak notification qualities and it's estimated that that alone can save 86 acre feet of water per year and so that's the project itself is being funded through our water demand offset program due to that that water saving capability so that's just a little bit of background we have three agreements here tonight two of them are with master meter who's the manufacturer of our current system and also the manufacturer of the AMI equipment those two agreements one is for software it's called Harmony and the other is for the fixed network infrastructure equipment the purchase of that and the installation of that those are base stations and repeaters or antennas that relay the pick up the signals from the meters and then relay them to a computer and basically the district can then access that data and share it with customers so and then the the second agreement with master meter also is for long-term maintenance of that AMI fixed network equipment which that maintenance would begin about a year after all of that equipment is installed so those agreements are have been negotiated and I think we arrived in a pretty good place through those negotiations we recognize some cost savings and reduce the risk to the district and also inserted a lot of clarity into some of the manufacturer's documents so I think those came a long way and they're final and ready to be executed at this point they did go through BBK legal counsel helped us with those and then Mr. Basso helped in the negotiations and the final agreement so those two are I think in final shape and then the third is an agreement with master meters authorized distributor for meters and registers and that's with corn main LP that agreement we didn't quite get finalized by the time the packet was due and so we're asking for that one to continue negotiations and then execute agreement have the general manager execute the agreement once our legal counsel is comfortable with that since then we did get the feedback from corn main and I've been through that with Mr. Basso and we don't see anything significant in their proposed changes and so he's comfortable with accepting that as is so that's just a little bit of background there yeah so requesting execute the agreements and then execute or authorize us to go ahead and sign purchase orders so we can get this project off the ground starting with installing the first base station and repeater and then ordering the the registers and the the meters that we're going to need for the project so that's it okay any questions you mentioned we're implicitly approving purchase orders tonight though we won't actually see them ourselves and so I'm wondering where the money's going to come from to pay these purchase orders since as you've mentioned we're not going to see any of these things for a couple of years and most all the things we've seen have been like the 10% deposits no one's been paying much the full amount so how we're going to get the money to do these purchase orders we have about a I think it's about a million dollars right now and offset fees which is enough to get us started and so we're hoping that that's going to get us pretty far down the road and that in a year or so we're going to be seeing some more offset fees come in through especially some of the older projects that are still on the books that should be pretty far along we may find that we do have some funding limitations down the road and we're just going to have to deal with them at that time possibly like we've done in the past where the district does pay for things and then we refund ourselves once those offset fees come in but I I was looking at one of the contracts and I think the first one or something's like was it 12 billion dollars or something so no which contractor you're talking about I don't know which one I looked at one of them I don't know which one so as far as the costs go the software costs are are pretty insignificant upfront there's a 2400 dollar training cost there's a 3500 dollar yeah you want to go to the attachment one I'm looking at exhibit B page 194 and there's a okay no there's a thousand so the software training is 2400 dollars it's a one-time fee the mobile software license is 3500 dollars per year and we'll probably still be paying that for the next fiscal year and then once we have the training and get the first base station and repeater in then we'll switch over to their alternate software charges which are based on per endpoint but we're not likely to trigger any significant charges for the first year because we're not going to have that many endpoints installed when they are fully installed that'll be about 20 000 dollars per year in software costs for the fixed network equipment that's 160 000 dollars and that's a one-time charge for the equipment and the installation and then the maintenance charges once everything's all installed and has been in place for a year will be 23 000 dollars a year and then the cost for the registers and the meters themselves is a little bit harder to nail down at this point but it's looking like that's going to run us about two million dollars when it's all set and done and that's for for all customers yes that's for all customers and it includes larger hole meter replacements so all of our meters over one and a one and a half inches and up so one and a half two inch three inch four six and then we have some eights that we've already done we're replacing the meters as well because those have reached or are near reaching their warranty thresholds they have they're different than the smaller meters so we're doing full meter replacements but that makes up about 98 percent of our total meter population so all of the smaller things are register only and I believe that is with about a 40 discount yes and you had a question or is that you got just I remember when this was brought to the board months several months ago or perhaps even a half year ago there was some concerns about the reliability of what we're replacing it with has there been a new information on on that I think that was basically a misrepresentation of what happened in the city San Diego and it wasn't that the meters themselves were faulty it was that the installer and the meter readers were producing errors and that fed into the billing system and so I think that the meter programming didn't get carried over properly into the billing system and that resulted in errors so it wasn't that the meters were misreading or that the equipment was bad it was human error and also the failure to change that in the billing system okay I have a question so since some of the other we've had problems with some of the other registers or meters and well the registers I guess did they give any kind of a guarantee and I didn't find that in there for the how long have a warranty for we will have a warranty for the registers it's basically the same as the amr system so the what's the time period it's 10 years for the register component and the meter bodies themselves are 20 years okay so we're for most of our meter bodies were 10 years into that warranty and we still have another 10 years so okay and another 10 years we'll probably be back to the drawing board and looking at a full upgrade and you know technology will probably be even different than it is now so okay um any public comment on this item seeing none um I'll move approval of all three motions all second which include I did I sorry I said any public comment and I didn't see anybody coming up so go ahead I did say that someone asked me a question thank you thank you for accommodating I didn't hear you thank you Steinbruner um I want to protest this I'm not one of your customers but I do travel through your districts area and I want to protest an added layer of electromagnetic frequency I want to know what your opt-out policy will be just to make clear this is going to decrease the amount of there's the meters are already radio read meters and and so this is going to actually decrease the transmission time by significantly but you're talking about now installing transmitters and repeaters and antenna that is an escalation in your emf footprint over a neighborhood so I would like to know what your opt-out policy will be all utilities are required to offer an opt-out policy for smart meters and that's what these are these are smart meters so um I'd like clarification discussion on that I see that the antennas are on your diagram at least in the what's on tap show that they'll be on your water tanks is that going to be an exclusive location for your antennas or is this just for model design there are some areas where you may not have tanks that would need coverage I would also caution you a bit and sitting having sat in on a Santa Cruz city um capital improvement project discussion they were discussing having to refinish some of their tanks and they did make note that in a tank that had an antenna on top that the level of degradation in the tank was much worse than they had anticipated my question to you is to consider if there could be mild electrolysis that happens when you put an antenna on top of a metal tank I do want to make it clear that the American Disabilities Act does recognize emf sensitive people as a recognized disability and so you must provide an opt-out ability for people like that and you must make it clear to people who will be living and working in these areas of new technology that you're putting in new elements of it that that what they are and what power level they're working on what what are the power levels that these signals would be generated out into the the air thank you very much oh I want to say this does not fit your water demand offset policy they're supposed to have a 20 year life they would not have been done otherwise and you have budgeted money for smart meters thank you and the results must be measurable thank you thank you you're a maximal prompted especially with Mr. Imbrunner's astute comments yes you're not complying with your water demand offset policy as she described another another contradiction another disappointment and another dishonesty perhaps by the board of directors here and your senior staff in addition the electromagnetic pollution is bad in fact the studies on which you relied putting this in I read with Mr. Duncan's office some years ago were miscited and contradictory if you pull those you'll see that some of which they said oh there'll be no problem was contradictory they're based on the stewart report in britain another long extended example of the soak hell creek water department board and its staff not being honest with the technical and engineering facts and the water resources facts and reality in balancing the concerns of your customers the ratepayers who are your customers who in effect own this place and I think they should be ready to have it merged with a regional water management authority probably the state level in sacramento or the u.s. department of interior and do away with all of this waste all of this mismanagement all of these opportunities for corruption influencing apparently this board in prior years approving the aptos village this board approving other things this board caving into developers this board negligently failing to address the water depletion of the aquifer decades as well as recent years and this board not being honest with recognizing there are adequate surface water resources there are adequate rain resources the locker for alternatives available and instead you want to inflict another hundred million dollars in debt on just fifteen thousand customers when this could all be avoided by the consolidations i've made a reference to boxlone soak hell hills yeah i'm really glad i came tonight as child and family rights advocate i can see that there are real issues with the soak hell creek water district not only the water that will be poisoning children but now with the smart meters i hope you've done your research that's been done here in the united states canada and europe on these devices and what damage they're causing to children i will be bringing this issue up with our national organizations that protect children and families so you're impacting them the families negatively with a raise in race that's a financial ding the children are at risk for being poisoned and now they're at risk from these emfs so this is totally unacceptable to children and families i hope you realize that and i'm going to take it higher because this is is a real issue and as a parent and a grandparent let me tell you we are mad as hell and we're not taking this treatment anymore and when it comes to you talk about parts per million when i look at it as parts of corruption you guys really dense really dense well that's uplifting you know it's um we'll move on to the item it just can i say we disagree on some things i will just make a point we do have an opt-out policy that's been in place for a while and that the research is the actual research on electromagnetic radiation is very clear so i'll we'll move on i made a motion for all three of the motions i don't know if anybody had a chance to second i did okay it's moved and seconded all in favor i i posed okay thank you we will move on to the yes the revision of the collection policy page 260 so item 6.7 on the agenda tonight addresses senate bill 998 which was passed into law in september 2018 and for water agencies our size we will have to comply by february of 2020 which is less than a year from now so um this particular policy is taking what um we currently have on the books in terms of administrative order number two um for delinquent accounts and then another procedure number three for our after hours turn on and combining them into a single collection policy and that policy is drafted to incorporate the mandates of sb 998 i won't list them all for you they're there in the memo for you to review but basically um what that um senate bill is asking us to do is asking us to give an extended time frame for our collection process so rather than being able to shut a customer off for non-payment after 45 days we now have to wait until they're 60 days delinquent which means we're going to be probably closer to the 82 day mark before we can actually shut a service off for non-payment and this means they're likely to have two or three bills on file at that point so it's increasing the district's exposure to um bad debt or uncollectible accounts so when we reviewed this we took a look at that timeline process we realized that there were going to need to be some administrative and billing changes as a result that we would need to make some slight modifications to our the format of our bill and since we are now in the process of configuring our new software to go live in may it just seemed to make sense to go ahead and leverage that and make all of these changes at the same time rather than having to go back and hire consultants to assist us in that process at a later date so we're proposing that these be enacted effective may 1st um they will appear in the new billing system then um we're also actually proposing some changes to the fee structure we used to assess a $25 delinquent fee when we were ready to shut a customer off for non-payment and that fee was to cover the costs that that were incurred by staff to follow that collection process through to that 45 day mark and to send trucks out and staff out to a residents and actually shut off the service under this new policy um that's not going to be happening over that won't be happening until 82 days out so we're proposing a delinquent fee instead at the 21 day mark that would be reduced in scope from $25 to $10 and that $10 is just to cover the cost of the notification process and the collection process and it doesn't involve having to send staff out to their premises anymore so we think we can start with a much lower fee for delinquency the service reestablishment fee that the district has always charged to re establish service after cutoff was $40 SB 998 sets a threshold um a maximum threshold of $50 for low income families and that would be low income families whose household um household for a household of four was 200% of the federal poverty level so rather than exceed that $50 threshold and incur additional administrative costs to try and isolate which families meet the low income threshold it makes sense just to keep that at the $50 threshold and not exceed that so we're proposing we move the service reestablishment fee from the existing $40 to $50 keep it under the threshold but allow for the extended um costs that we're going to face with the extended collection timeline then the other proposal is to look at the service reestablishment fee and that fee is uh after hours fee is $60 so if we reestablish service after 5 p.m on weeknights over the weekends or on holidays we're actually having to pay staff overtime and on call time to come out and turn those services on after hours so we re-evaluated the cost of that there is a threshold that they've set under SB 998 of $150 for low income families and again we're recommending that we keep ourselves below that mark so we don't need to try and track those families in our district um so $100 is sufficient to cover the actual costs we believe at this point of sending somebody out and that collection process to get us there the costs of insurance and fuel and um the cost of the vehicles so we think we can cover that with $100 but we can go anywhere from $100 to $150 um $150 would be more of a deterrent mechanism where $100 is a cost recovery mechanism so we're actually um asking the board to kind of give us your recommendation tonight on where you'd like to set that after hours reestablishment fee and we took a look at how the district would compare to other agencies in the area and we're actually pretty conservative in what we're applying I have a hunch once SB 998 goes into effect these other agencies throughout the district or throughout the county will probably be changing their fee structure as well um but tonight our uh possible our board actions would be to go ahead and approve the um amendments to administrative order number two and procedure number three and combine them under the collection policy and then to um give us some guidance on where you would like that after hours reestablishments charge set and then approve the revised fee schedule that would be revised to include your recommendation on the after hours fee thank you questions from the board very clear no questions very clear um any comments from the public on this item thank you Becky Steinbrenner I want to thank you for doing your best to keep costs down for your customers I I talk with a lot of them at the farmers market and I know a lot of them are already struggling and with the increases that your board has improved has approved tonight it's going to make it very difficult for a lot of them so um some of them um had leaks and didn't know it and had their water turned off not because of delinquent fees but um it's it's a tough thing when those the water gets shut off and I really appreciate you're doing your best to keep the costs down and um appreciate that you're doing cost recovery and not deterrent no no penalizing thank you thank you I personally am fine with cost recovery me too I'll make the motions with the hundred dollars instead of hundred fifty all three all three motions all three motions but number two be a hundred dollars okay and I'll second all in favor hi posed great thank you and so now we will go to item 6.8 which is the not too controversial I don't think um we ground water awareness week and um fix a leak week back to back yes that's just to recognize that in this month we have two nationally recognized weeks the ground water awareness week and the fix a leak week are ones that we've traditionally highlighted in the past uh this year we are going to be broadcasting that through our traditional outreach materials and um what our outreach and communications teams like to do is obviously make this a you know a year round type of um outreach and promotion so we will be tying even more of the um ground water awareness um throughout the year questions any comment from public seeing none um what's your pleasure it's a roll call it's a roll call vote moved second moved by um Carlin Bruce second okay director Lather yes vice president Daniel yes director jaffee yes director christiansen yes and president lehu yes ma'am and now um item 6.9 is it's a little more surplus property yes since you approved some uh equipment and vehicles the surplus last board meeting we identified um three desktop scanners um as surplus candidate so we'd like to add that to the surplus sale that we're planning on having later this month questions no okay public comment no all right I'll move approval I'll second well in favor hi hi is a roll call that's roll call well this one's roll call too sorry my bad director Lather yes vice president Daniels yes director jaffee yes director christiansen yes and president lehu yes um last item on uh the agenda is written communications any comments questions public comment this is this is about the written communication yes I've read mrs mcguire's emails to you uh and I concur entirely in it I won't restate the contents but she's totally correct and she's totally correct and accurate in her criticisms of you which you should correct and direct your staff to fix and mitigate failure to do so is continued disregard of your sworn duties okay so we are going to adjourn to a closed session um three closed sessions there's three different items on the closed session if anybody has comments before that this is the time thank you I do have comment um on item 8.1 your um acquisition lease interest in real property located at 2505 shanticleer avenue this is the site for um the pure water so cal advanced water treatment facility and again I do not think you should proceed with this because uh the whole project is under litigation and there has been um some hesitation by director Lather saying she's not real happy about this I um um it's not in your district and the people you you had on on February I forget the date but you had a room full of people here from live oak who had no idea this was coming to their neighborhood and that's one of the sequel violations that I alleged in the lawsuit that you did not um you changed the scope of the project but you did not expand your um scope of public notification and that's violation so you need to stop with this and you need to um back up and pause and and correct this and I know that you have I've heard that you've have had some meetings with some of the live oak people and I did submit a public records act request for I think you said you had 30 meetings or something and I've not had time to look at that information but um I think you need to pause here and uh not pursue at this time acquisition and lease interest in the property and again urge you if you do to do some due diligence about that well that is visible and historic use and so contamination and you're laughing you're you're smiling while I'm trying to give my comment and that doesn't make me feel like I'm being taken very seriously I'm sorry it's a bit disrespectful thank you well my my last comment has to do with 8.3 regarding the litigation that I have against the district case 19 cv 00181 and I urge you to to do take it seriously I do intend to pursue it with vigor and I was disappointed by the um just by the um ex parte judge cunt judge Gallagher's decision today to deny it but um I I do plan to pursue it with vigor and hope that you will honor the sequel process and what it is supposed to allow the public to do and what you are as a public agency required to do thank you very much okay thank you just to follow and comment to miss Steinburner's comment on point uh I observed the proceeding I read the paperwork and judge Gallagher made a decision that was contrary to the california environmental quality law contrary to brown act and other items contrary to the facts and contract to the contrary to the law in general and extremely suspicious and he should have properly recused himself mr basso should have asked him to do so again it's an example of again the fixing that goes on in this county that favors the rich that favors business that favors the swensons that favors others and disregards the interest of the citizens the school children and the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the soquel creek water board why are you so complicit so often on the people who are stealing from your customers water resources and money we are now going to go into a closed session and I will say for one I am very proud to work with this board of directors who's been working for years to try and do the right thing there are always going to be people that disagree and I'm sorry that you disagree but we are all trying to do our best and I I am going to say good night tonight we're going to close session this meeting is adjourned I haven't had the closed session yet