 everyone. Good morning, Drew. Good morning, Drew. We'll get started and just leave it on another minute here. We have an attendee just showing a phone number ending in 5 4 3 3. If we allow that person to talk, can you please identify and we can change the name perhaps? Is there an attendee with a phone number ending in 5 4 3 3? You are unmuted, but I'm not hearing anything from that participant. Mike Elmarini, City of Petaluma. Thank you very much. You got your housekeeping in order for when we can get started. I believe so. I think we're just missing four TAC members from what I know maybe three. Yeah, I've got. So we definitely have a quorum. I got we're still waiting for city of Sonoma. And maybe Marin municipal. I think Craig joined. So he's here. Okay, great. All right, let's. Let's go ahead and we've got enough for a quorum. I'm sure. Oh yeah, there's Craig. Morning, Craig. So let's go ahead and get started. This is the December TAC meeting. Welcome everybody. Start of a new week. And Roberta would use this is for check in during roll call. Is that you or Easter? That's me. Okay, please. City of Katari. Thanks Scott. City of Katari here. City of Petaluma. Mike Elmarini, City of Petaluma. City of Rohnert Park. Very great. City of Santa Rosa. Yeah, Peter Martin, City of Santa Rosa. City of Sonoma. North Marin Water District. Drew McIntyre, North Marin Water District. Town of Windsor. Christina Lars, Town of Windsor. Valley of the Moonwater District. And Marin Marin Municipal Water District. Paul Celia Marin Municipal. And other attendees include Brenda Edelman, Chelsea Thompson, Claire Nordley, Colin Close. Kimberly Zunino, Matt Wargula. Paul Selsky, Steven Hancock and Tony Williams. Okay, thank you Roberta. Next thing on the agenda is just to go ahead and continue to adopt a resolution to authorize continued remote or teleconference meetings. So we have this essentially on each agenda. Pretty similar to the ones we did before. So I'm just, are there any questions from the tack on this item? Seeing none, I'll open it up for public comment. Again, this is agenda item number two. If you wish to make a public comment, please raise your hand via zoom or dial star nine via phone. And if you wish to make a public comment from Brenda Edelman, I will unmute you. Go ahead, Brenda. Good morning. You hear me? Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you very much. I have a question to ask. And basically a friend of mine sent me an IJ independent journal article a few weeks ago. It mentioned that I believe it was North Marin was planning on purchasing extra water from the water agency. I had the sense it was in the near future. Perhaps it's happened already. And the idea being that they wanted their reservoirs to be full at the start of the winter. And the Lake Mendocino has been pretty much running at 20% in terms of the amount of water in spite of the big rains in October. Brenda. Yeah, this is, this is, we're actually on agenda item number two, which is just adopt the resolution and continue to. Reauthorize. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I thought we were in public comment. No, so that'll be coming right up. Okay. I'm very sorry. No problem. No problem at all. Any other public comment on agenda item number two to reauthorize meetings by teleconference. I do not see any hands raised. Okay, then I'll bring it back to the tack then I'm looking for a motion in the seconds. Okay, thank you. I'll approve. Frank Scott, city of Kattadi. Okay. Thank you. Or as we received a motion by Kattadi, seconded by. Roner Park. And then Roberto, could you please do a roll call for the vote city of Kattadi, great Scott city of Kattadi. Yes. City of Petaluma, yes. City of Rohnert Park. City of Rohnert Park. I call for the City of Rohnert Park, yes. City of Santa Rosa. Peter Martin, City of Santa Rosa, yes. City of Sonoma. Holy Ferguson, City of Sonoma, yes. North Moonwater District. Drew McIntyre, North River Water District, yes. Town of Windsor. Christina of Lart, Town of Windsor, yes. Valley of the Moonwater District. That motion passes. Okay, thank you, Roberta. Okay, now we're going to move to public comment. agenda item number three. So Brenda, are you still there? Yes, I'm still here. Okay, and I didn't mean to cut you off there. I want to just save some of your... I heard the two words public comment and I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. I apologize for that. No problem. So at any rate, I saw this IJ article that spoke about, I'm pretty sure it was North Marin, was planning or has done already a purchase in order to fill the reservoir in advance of the winter rain since season. And I don't know what amount of water they were going to purchase or what impact that would have on the 20% that's currently in Lake Mendocino. But I know there's a lot of concern both at the state and local regional levels about maintaining water supply through next year because the predictions have been very dire in terms of the expectation for rainfall in the coming four months or so. And I'm just wondering what is happening with that? What are the plans to move forward? Are there any other water agencies that are planning on doing something similar? And if new limit should be kicked in because of the need to conserve more water, the state has been coming down really hard statewide in terms of new requirements and cutting people off from water supplies because of their concern for having enough water for health and safety purposes. And I have a lot of concerns about large purchases of water before we have a better idea of what's happening this winter with rainfall. So I'd like more information on it, what the plans are, how this is going to impact Lake Mendocino, et cetera. And if you can't tell me much today, I'd like to get more information in the near future about this. So I think that's the main point of what I wanted to say on this right now. Okay, I can answer some of your questions, Brenda, as it relates to Northburn Water District. So yeah, you're correct. There was an article in the Marine IJ indicating that we're looking at starting to purchase excess natural flows that are in the Russian River during the wintertime. And this is similar to what we did last year. We did it last year in late February and we're looking at starting it earlier this year and in December. The total amount, I don't know yet. Last year, the total amount over the season was about 1,000 acre feet. And by purchasing these natural flows that's in the Russian River, when there are natural flows, it allows us to store the water and then use it in the summer months. And actually when we have it available in the summer months then we don't need to purchase as much from Sonoma County Water Agency when flows in the Russian River are more critical. So that's kind of, and we've been doing this as part of the restructure agreement that when water is available in the wintertime we've been doing it off and on for over 30 years depending upon the actual water year obviously. As far as how that impacts Lake Mendocino Reservoir, I mean, I could speak to that but I think I'm probably best to let Don see more Jay Jaspers since the agencies kind of managing the Russian River to speak on that. Yeah, I'd be happy to, Drew. So, Brenda, the key comment that Drew made, it's natural flow. This is unimpaired inflow from the tributaries. We're making minimum releases from the reservoirs right now. The water that Drew would be purchasing would not be stored water out of either Lake Sonoma or Lake Mendocino. So, and they're able to do that right now because flows that pass into a bridge are over 250 cubic feet per second and that's basically comprised of water coming from the watershed, still from that big October atmospheric river event that we experienced. And I'll just add in, Brenda, that the State Water Resources Control Board has suspended their curtailment so that all water users, including Sonoma water, can utilize this natural flow to help with potential persistence of the drought. So this has all been done in close coordination for the approvals of the State Board also. Can I say one more thing? I have the numbers, I think at one point, the river hit around 22,000 CFS in October. It's now down to under 300 and it's been going down rapidly. And at what point do you say the lower river needs some water? 250 isn't much and there are all kinds of impacts to the lower river as that water gets lower and lower. And I'm just wondering if you consider any of that when you take this water away from us? Well, right now, Brenda, under the order for the approving or temperature change petition back in May, the minimum stream flow requirement up until December 11th is 35 cubic feet per second. And in that order where Sonoma water is also was required to coordinate with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on a water quality monitoring plan to ensure ensure that we were looking for any type of water quality impacts. And we report on that weekly to in a hydrologic report that we submit to the State Water Resources Control Board that's also a requirement of that order. So yes, we do consider impacts from our diversions on the lower river. Excuse me, Don, but I went on your website and was looking for water quality data and couldn't find any. It's contained in those hydrologic reports. Well, I was looking through everything and couldn't find it. If you can send me a link, I'd appreciate it. Yeah, we certainly could do that, Brenda. Thank you, Brenda. One other thing I've been trying to get is the water sales data since about June of this year has not been entered on your charge. You have not been keeping up the water. I think it's referred to as water sales under the contractors. The chart is empty since about June of 21. So I'd appreciate if you could keep that data updated as well. Yeah, I'll look into that. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Brenda. Any other comments from the public? Again, we're on agenda item three, public comments. I do not see any other hands raised. Okay, as I close the public comment, I do wanna take this opportunity to make a comment myself on something that I heard on Friday from Colleen, a.k.a. Furry Ferguson, who is going to be retiring at the end of this month. So I would be remiss to not take a moment here as part of our TAC meeting and tell Colleen, how much I've enjoyed working with you and your participation and the TAC over these years and we will miss you, but at the same time, I'm really excited for you, for your own personal endeavors and opportunities that lie ahead for you in 2022. So I just wanna wish you the best and let you know that you know how to keep us informed of whatever you're doing as you go beyond the city of Sonoma there. So I don't know if anybody else wants to make any comments as well, but now it'd be the opportunity. Thank you so much, Drew. It's very kind and I'm working with everybody here and I'm looking forward to more time playing in water than sitting at a desk talking about it. So. Great, great. Well, we wish you the best. So don't be a stranger. Thank you. Okay. All right, let's move on now to agenda item number four. This is the FY 2020-21, Sonoma County Water Agency Water Transmission System budget year-end report. I believe this is going to be a presentation by Lynn Roselli. Good morning, TAC members. This is Lynn Roselli, I'm gonna go ahead and, okay, so you're gonna show those slides. Okay, that's fine. So you'll advance them for me then. So, let's go ahead and start. So the water transmission system, we are providing you with the water transmission system budget recap. It took Jake Spalding, finance manager, myself, and working with a lot of project managers to get updated information on fiscal year ending 2021, which was June 30th of 2021. To put this together, so many thanks to the whole team. I'm Lynn Roselli, I'm the division manager for administration and finance. Jake Spalding is the finance manager. We put together this information for you. We do it on an annual basis, and this is the first presentation that we do. We're in the midst of preparing the next fiscal year's budget. Water deliveries make up the backbone of the water transmission system budget. Water deliveries were 8,100 acre feet more than budgeted. The budget was based on 12 months of deliveries ending December 31st, 2019, and were required to take the lower of the 12 months and the three year annual average. And so for 2021, the lowest was the 12 months of deliveries that is particularly low, I believe, because we had a very wet winter, that particular year. And so deliveries, actual deliveries came in, budgeted deliveries were, I'm sorry, budget deliveries were low for that 12 month period. Deliveries are very sensitive to weather, climatic events, flood, drought, other natural hazards, the economy, and how much the water contractors are using their own sources versus using Sonoma water sources. And so it does vary quite a bit, but we're looking at the data for the next budget cycle, and it looks as though it is going to be the three year annual average and maybe in the range of about 46,000 acre feet. And we'll have to have discussions ongoing regarding whether or not, because of the drought conditions, if it persists, whether or not we want the WAC to approve a lower budgeted water deliveries going forward. Next slide, please. So the revenues and expenditures are shown here. Revenues for the water transmission system make up 90, more than 95%, water sales make up more than 95% of the revenue that we receive. And in this particular fiscal year, we also saw revenue from interest income, very little, and from grants, but more than 95% is from water sales, and thus we sold more water. The reason the revenues are a little bit lower there is because we had budgeted a lot of revenue from FEMA, but because two projects did not go to construction, we did not receive that revenue, so the actuals are lower than what we would have anticipated. And on the expenditure side, we spent less, we spent 23% less than we had budgeted, and that we believe is in part due to the fact that there were shifts in resources because of working under COVID conditions. We had fires in the fall of 2020, and so resources were shifted somewhat away from the water transmission system, but then they got shifted back as the drought emergency began to take hold, and we began to spend more money in water transmission system to address the drought conditions. And I'll go into more detail about the revenue and expenditures as we go forward here. So next slide, please. So this is just a chart to give you a visual of the expenditures and where they are. So the revenue that comes in is spent on 57%, is spent on operations and maintenance, followed by capital projects and compliance with the biological opinion and doing all of the water use efficiency outreach and education both for the community as a whole and for our students in the schools, and then debt service. And so this is what the revenue is spent on and in what proportions. Next slide, please. And so here's a breakdown by category of where we spent the money. And you can see here that it's almost equal parts reductions in operations and maintenance, capital projects and biological opinion. In the operations and maintenance section, we saw expenditures exceed budget for fuel, which is not a surprise for equipment rental and for laboratory testing, but overall we saw much lower expenditures for contract services because we weren't able to get the contracts encumbered for the tank recode project and for a few other projects, we worked on them, but we did not get them to that point. So that is why operations and maintenance is a little bit lower for capital projects. We did advance a number of projects and award them for construction this fiscal year, but the Mark West Creek Crossing and the Santa Rosa Creek Crossing seismic hazard mitigation projects didn't go to construction, so that accounts for that lower number there. And then on the biological opinion and water use efficiency, the sub funds, the core did not advance mile four to construction. They did not award the construction contract, so that accounts for that reduction there. Next slide, please. And so the next several slides are going to show you what we actually did with the money. We did quite a bit of work on cathodic protection maintenance and there is more to come. It's critically important that we do this. It saves the water contractors a lot of money going forward if we are able to keep up with cathodic protection maintenance and keep the pipelines protected. We completed the Forestville Tank Recode Project and we worked hard to get the tank maintenance program underway, but there's a lot more work to go there. There's a number of tank recodes that are critically important that need to get done. And then on the studies, we advanced some of the studies. The Regional Water Supply Resiliency Study had to pivot from the work plan that had originally been established to focusing primarily on drought this past spring and working closely with the water contractors on that study and drought resiliency. Next slide, please. And then on the capital project side, again, we advanced the designs for a number of hazard mitigation projects and we awarded the Russian River Crossing Seismic Hazard Mitigation Project. It's under construction now. The Mirabelle Dam Ladder Replacement was awarded last fiscal year and the Todd Road Well Improvement got underway very quickly during the drought, supported by the water contractors' need for additional water supply reliability. So we jumped on that very quickly. We got that under contract and we moved that project forward so that it could be completed during the drought. Next slide, please. And on the sub funds, there are four sub funds, but the Recycle Water Local Supply Sub Fund didn't have any expenditures associated with any projects associated with it. So we haven't listed it here, but we did complete the Urban Water Management Plan and submitted that to the Department of Water Resources. So there were expenditures there. We did a lot of outreach and education on water use efficiency and conservation around the drought, both with Sonoma Marine Saving Water Partnership. We did a lot of work with water education, both for the community and for our students. And on the watershed planning and restoration side, we spent funds on estuary management and moving forward the various projects associated with that. We worked on a number of change, temporary urgency change petitions and that have been discussed here previously. And we did some landscape resiliency work, which was fuels management work to protect our facilities. And then the Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement, we worked on right away primarily, but we're somewhat in a holding pattern waiting for the Corps to award mile four construction. Next slide, please. And this is just a list of the bonds and loans that are outstanding. There are four of them. And so these were the actual expenditures versus the budget expenditures. The actual expenditures are a little bit lower because this represents what we actually paid out in debt service, but the restructured agreement requires a 15% surcharge. That surcharge is maintained in the funds and is spent on capital projects. The first of these loans and bonds to mature will be the State Revolving Loan Fund. And that will be beginning in 2028 and the others follow in the subsequent years after that. Next slide, please. And so here are the proposed next steps. And this is a draft of what we think we're going to be able to do. We plan to try to get a draft budget to the TAC Ad Hoc Budget Subcommittee by January 14th. And as required by the restructured agreement, we will develop the budget with the subcommittee. If the subcommittee is formed by the TAC, in January and February, that will happen. And then the draft budget goes to the TAC Ad Hoc on Monday, February 7th with their review. Then there will be a TAC vote on Monday, March 7th. And then we present the budget to city councils and district boards if that is requested during the month of March, if that becomes needed. And then there will be a vote by the WAC on Monday, April 4th, followed by adoption by Sonoma Waters Board. And that is all I have. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Go back to the last slide just, okay, that's fine. Would you like me to put the last, the second to last slide back up? Oh, that's okay. Okay, unless someone requests it. Thank you, Lynn. Appreciate this presentation. First thing I'll do is open up the questions from the TAC. Don't see any hands raised from the TAC. A couple, a question and a comment, Lynn, that I have with respect to the TAC budget subcommittee, yes, we will be forming one. So rest assured, we'll have a committee put together in time for the schedule that you've laid out. And then is there anything, Lynn, I mean, this schedule is pretty similar to what we've done in the past. Any changes at all that we need to have a heads up on this year versus just the process in previous years that you're aware of? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. It should be similar to the process in prior years unless there's a request to do something differently. Okay, all right, good. And then on the debt service. So the debt service is 9%. Is there, I can't recall and I don't know if you remember, is there a certain policy or a maximum percentage in the budget that the debt service cannot be any higher than? Not that I'm aware of. I mean, the debt service is the highest priority in the restructure agreement for water supply and is the first that has to be paid in the event of any revenue shortfall. We maintain a triple A rating with Fitch. And so the amount of debt that we are carrying is consistent with the expectations of the bond rating companies. And so we believe we're doing quite well in terms of managing debt versus Pago construction capital expenditures. Okay, all right, thanks, Lynn. Any other questions from the TAC before I open this up for public comment? Seeing none, we'll now we're on agenda item number four, the year in budget review, open it up for public comment. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine via phone. I do not see any raised hands. Okay, great. Thank you for that. And just let the record reflect that I have, I did not receive any live comments or any previously recorded comments or emails on any of the agenda items that we have this morning. So this is just an information item, there's no action. So we're going to move to agenda item number five, water supply conditions and temporary urgency change or update, this will be provided by Don Seymour. Good morning, Drew, good morning members of the TAC. So starting off with the water supply update, Lake Medesino is currently a little over 21,000 acre feet. It's gaining about a little under 50 acre feet a day and that's primarily from due to imports from the Power Valley project. And as I mentioned earlier, we're at a minimum release of just under 30 cubic feet per second. So that's good news that we're gaining a little bit. Unfortunately, the reservoir's still at a very low level. Lake Sonoma is at about 120,600 acre feet. It's actually losing just a little over 100 acre feet a day. We're not seeing much inflow from runoff and we're currently releasing the absolute minimum of 75 cubic feet per second from the reservoir. So hopefully we'll see some storm events and be able to gain some storage. We are going to have some precipitation, some events coming in this week. They aren't particularly significant, I think combined, they're a little less than chemical precipitation of about an inch. However, kind of in the longer range out, starting early next week Monday, both the European model and the national global forecasting systems model from the US are suggesting a really significant shift in the weather pattern. The GFS model is actually predicting about the 13 inches of cumulative precipitation in northern Sonoma and Medesino counties. So if we see anything near that, as you can imagine, that's going to have some very beneficial impacts to both Lake Sonoma and Lake Medesino. So let's keep our fingers crossed that we see those events come in early next week. On the temperature change petition side, as I mentioned earlier, the order we're managing the system under right now expires on December 11th. Sonoma water filed its fourth consecutive temporary emergency change petition since May 2020 on November 16th. State board is working to process those petitions and hopefully have an order in place by from December 11th. So we can continue managing the system based on its actual hydrologic conditions. Unlike the petition we filed in May of 2021, where we actually asked for reduced minimum stream flow requirements, this one is just like the one we filed in January, 2021, where we're requesting that the water supply condition be determined based on storage thresholds at Lake Medesino. And the consequence of not having that order in place by December 11th is under the current storage condition at Lake Medesino, this new order would continue having the system in critical water supply condition. However, when we went into the summer, we were actually in dry, so that would kick us into a much higher minimum stream flow requirement starting December 11th. We would have to start meeting the 75 CFS minimum stream flow requirement on the upper river and 85 on the lower river. And again, to kind of emphasize the consequence of not changing the index from cumulative inflow into Lake Pillsbury versus storage thresholds at Lake Sonoma. Currently there's been enough inflow since October one at Lake Pillsbury. It would put our system in normal water supply conditions at least through February. So really big impacts if we don't see this change. However, the state board is definitely moving quickly to try to get this done. So that's all I had Drew and us and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you, Don. Any questions from the TAC on Don's report? I liked your eight to 14 day forecast out there of the potential of 13 inches of rain. Yeah, I'd love to keep our fingers crossed on that one. Yeah, I would love to see anything close to that. Right, let's see, Peter, you have a question. Yeah, just sorry, Don, if I missed it. What's the inflows from the Potter Valley project again? So the inflow from the Potter Valley project is 45 cubic feet per second. And we're seeing about just under 50 come into the reservoir. So we're seeing a little bit of natural flow and then primarily imports from the Potter Valley project. Any other TAC questions? Seeing none, we'll open this up for public comment. Again, this is agenda item number five, water supply conditions and temporary emergency change or if you wish to make comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine via phone. I do not see any raised hands. Thank you, Easter. Let's move on now to agenda item number six, regional water supply resiliency study update. This would be a verbal update from Jay Gaspers. Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everybody. Just a brief update following up on our update at last month at the last TAC WEC meeting. Work continues to focus on the drought evaluation. And so far now the model, the regional model that goes from Potter Valley all the way down through Marine Municipal, including all of our systems collectively has been developed and has been calibrated. And the worst case drought scenario, they looked at 20 climate futures and looked at historical five-year intervals from 1912 to 2017 and they identified the worst stress test, which was to apply to this year moving forward as a worst case for continuing the drought. And it was found that the worst case is applying this year, starting this year, the 1976 hydrology through 1980. So that would mean we'd had the 2020, 2021, last two years, and then this year it'd be 76, next year, 77, and so forth. That was identified as the worst case, both from a historical, stochastic analysis, but also from a climate futures, all the 20 climate futures that have been modeled and accepted in California. And so the baseline drought impacts for that scenario have been modeled and working with all of you, we've identified, as you know, several different projects or response drought mitigation measures. And so those are being applied to the baseline, both individually and then packages to show how we can move the needle in terms of drought resiliency to reduce any kind of deficiencies for a near term worst case drought. You'll be seeing the results of those very shortly here from Jacob's engineering, who is, as you know, our consultant and looking for in January technical memo detailing this so that we can work together on drought programs and then the seismic, the other major focus of this study, other than drought, is really gonna focus on seismic. And so we're gonna start that after we finish here with the drought. Sonoma water has been working on this nearing completion of its face to seismic hazard assessment or reassessment. We did a seismic hazard reassessment in the, about 15 years ago. And so we've went out updating all of that using new models and new data that's been collected on worldwide events and new modeling that allows us to advance our understanding of risks for seismic. And so that'll be incorporated down the road into this resiliency study. So that's my update, Drew. I've been answering any questions. Okay, thank you, Jay. Questions from the TAC. So Jay, I did hear you say that the Jacobs technical memorandum would be ready and be included in the January TAC agenda, is that correct? That's the plan right now. Yes. All right. Okay, seeing, not seeing any other questions from the TAC. We'll open this up for questions from the public. Again, agenda item number six. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine via phone. I do not see any raised hands. Thank you, Easter. Let's move on then to agenda item number seven, Sonoma Marin's saving water partnership. And we have three different parts of this agenda. The first one is just our regular tally on 2021 water production relative to the 2013 benchmark here and also relative to 2021 river diversion. So there's the regular chart that we have in there. It shows for the month of October, water use was down 32% versus what it was in base for the benchmark year 2013. If you look at the aggregate for the entire year, water use was down 21% versus that benchmark year. And then importantly, just related to the requirement from the state that's temporarily suspended, but we're continuing to track it, the actual cumulative Russian river diversions and reductions. If you can scroll down a little bit further, keep going to the next graph right here, right there. And we're, since July one and we're continuing, the agencies continuing to track that through right at the beginning of December, just shows the total diversions from the Russian river down almost 23%. Again, the order was minimum of 20%. So all the water contractors are meeting and beating that and we'll continue to track that even while this order is currently suspended. So that's agenda item number seven, A, just in terms of summary of water usage overall, we happen to answer any questions from the tack on this item, I don't see any. So I'll move to public comment. Again, this is for agenda item seven, A. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine near phone. Do you have a public comment from Brenda Edelman? I will unmute you. Go ahead, Brenda. Looks like your hand went down, so I no longer see Brenda's hand up. Okay. Any other questions from the comments from the public on this? Again, that's it. Apologies, there are no other raised hands. Okay, thank you, Easter. Let's move on to agenda item seven, B, drought outreach messaging. Gary, are you gonna start this? Yes, I am. Drew, thank you. Can I be allowed to share my screen, Roberta or Easter? Yes, we'll promote you to a co-host one moment. And Drew, it looks like Brenda Edelman did raise her hand again, so I think maybe something happened in the upgrade to letter talk. Okay, is Brenda still there? Gary, if you could just hold on one second, we'll go back to Brenda. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I just have a question. I would like some kind of statement explaining how these numbers are calculated. When I tried to compare these to the water sales to contractors, I couldn't find the same kind of percentages. So I don't need it this minute, but if someone could provide me with an explanation for how you compute these numbers, I would really appreciate it. Okay, Brenda, so just keep in mind that the tables that are shown there in 7A, like table one and two, is total delivery. So it's not only Sonoma County Water Agency, but it's also local supplies from all the contractors. So if you're just looking, if you're trying to get those numbers to match up with what you see with just agency water, I could see where you would have a problem. If you look at the graph that's after that, the one that just says cumulatives, Sonoma Water Russian Diversions, those are actual water deliveries by the agency and the reduction from the aggregate of the contractors. All right, thank you. Okay. Okay, so let's see, we're back on 7B and Barry was asking to be able to share your screen. Thank you, Drew. Are you able to see that now? We are. All right, very good. Thank you, members of the TAC. Barry Duggan from Sonoma Water. I'll be joined by my colleague, Paul Piazza. As you can tell, the partnership and all of his members are right into the holiday spirit here and this will be our report. So this is what we'll cover. We're gonna, ongoing drought is here, messaging is what we're focused on. We'll talk about some, our bilingual advertising and our planning that's underway for the coming winter and upcoming fix a week leak. So this is our bilingual messaging for December and into the winter, fix your flush. So I don't know of anyone who wouldn't welcome that kind of a gift under the Christmas tree. So just an idea for those of you who haven't come up, haven't finished your gift list yet, but this is what we're using for our print advertising, social media, et cetera. Again, more social media ads in English and in Spanish, emphasizing the need to fix your toilet, buy a new toilet, do the simple die tab test. So that's what we'll be focusing on. And now I'm gonna turn it over to Paul Piazza who will talk about our bill inserts and our fix a weekly campaign. Thank you, Barry. Good morning, Drew and members of the tech. So we recently had a three part webinar series on gray water and we're following that webinar series up with some bill inserts to be made available to the partners to message the community about the opportunity to use gray water as a drought proof resource in their home that's captured by the middle panel there that shows the three-way diverter from a clothes washer that can either be directed to put its rinse water into the sanitary sewer, should you be using bleach or other products or to the landscape, should it continue to be dry and the use of gray water can help offset potable water in the landscape for irrigation. We're continuing to message the importance of lawn replacement and the use of mulch and also to emphasize that for those that have the ability to install rainwater capture systems that although rainfall does not occur in the summer months when it's primarily needed, it is an important method to help reduce potable water use in the shoulder months of spring and fall when we do get that occasional rainfall that occurs at a time when there is some irrigation demand and that rainwater can be used to water landscape and then capture an additional storm and be used multiple times during the year. So even a small system can help offset several thousand gallons of water on an annual basis. And when we scale that up, it adds up to a significant amount of savings. Next slide, please. Looking forward into next year, we are starting to work on the EPA WaterSense fix a leak week campaign, which occurs every year during March. We've got some good partners helping with that effort at the city of Santa Rosa and others of the partnership. So we're going to be talking again this Thursday with a full partnership about rolling that out in a little bit more regional fashion than has occurred in past years. Next slide. That's our update for now. We're happy to open up for any questions. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Barry and Paul. But we'll go back to the tack. Any questions from the tack? On the drought outreach messaging. Easter, if we could, there we go. Great. Don't see any questions from the tack. So we'll open this up to public comments. Again, this is agenda item seven B. Please raise your hand via Zoom or dial star nine if you wish to make a comment. I do not see a raise chance. Okay, thank you, Easter. So that'll take us to seven C, the annual report, fiscal year 2021 annual report. Paul, you want to summarize this too, please? Happy to thank you, Drew. I'll wait till Roberta has a chance to put that up on the screen. So every year the partnership undertakes an annual report. The report is on a fiscal year basis. So this year's report covers fiscal year 2020 through 2021. And I know with COVID it seems like it's all been one long day, but just to remind you that activities that occurred in this report are starting in July of 2020, if you're June of 2021. So we were still under shelter in place orders at the early part of this report. We've got to go ahead and advance to the next. So we just include a letter to the community from Director Hopkins and WAC chair Harvey discussing some of the challenges that we faced regionally with not only the pandemic, but kind of the transition from fires to floods and now to drought. And in spite of all the challenges, our community continues to show resiliency, to bounce back, rebuild, recover, and continue our planning to ensure that we're going to be resilient in the future in the face of any of the additional challenges that we might have come our way. Go ahead and advance, please. So by the numbers section here, just detail some of the accomplishments in the last year. It's pretty easy to follow along here, but just pulling out a couple of the metrics, over 150,000 square feet of lawn have been converted to low water use. We continue to reach out to our community even during the COVID period to complete water smart home evaluations. That was done largely by transitioning to do-it-yourself approaches, whether it be through kits or tools that are virtually available to homeowners to do those assessments themselves. Of course, because we were in a low water use here, our water waste enforcements are one of the higher numbers. And then just highlighting our education programs continue to do an amazing job to make curriculum available to all of our schools, even during the COVID shelter in place where a great deal of effort was undertaken to transition to both synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities for schools that were operating virtually. Next page, please. So 2021 marked the end of the Water Conservation Acts, 20 by 2020 goal. So you'll see here in the upper right part of the screen that the regional alliance that was formed to meet that 20% reduction by 2020 was very successful regionally. Our partners achieved a GPCB of 113, although the regional target was 129. So that is well over a 20% reduction in that 10-year period that occurred between implementation of that goal and the final reporting of 2020. So a great job by all to meet those targets. And we continue to see the development of the new statewide conservation framework. Recently, DWR and the state board did announce that they're recommending to the legislature new indoor standards for residential that'll be a part of the rolled up water conservation targets going forward. So it's great that we had a great achievement to celebrate in the short term and we recognize there's more work to do and look forward to meeting those future statewide framework goals that we expect to come our way in the next year. Just some highlights on the left talking about the outreach campaign. Of course, we had some very successful job drop by events to distribute over 10,000 kits for our customers to save water. We had a great saving water challenge and relied on a trusted messenger video outreach campaign to bring tips and information of the community about how best to continue to save through the summer months. So that kind of sums it up. This report as shown here has been formatted really just for this meeting. We'll be doing some final adjustments to make it ADA compliant. It will take its place among some of the other annual reports on the partnerships website. And we are happy to make this available in print format as well so that we can do a small print run for our partners as was done in previous years. So we'll be reaching out to you all in the coming months for that. So happy to take any follow-up questions. Okay, thank you, Paul. We'll start with questions from the tech. I see a question from Fergie. Hey, thank you, Drew. I actually don't have questions. Just want to say kudos to Paul and Barry and the whole partnership for all the great work, especially through the pandemic and the drought. We've all really relied on their work. And it's impressive to see what's been done in the creativity that continues to come forward. So thank you all. Okay, good comments, Fergie. Any other questions, comments from the tech? Paul, I have just kind of following up with Fergie's comment. You know, just in terms of the garden tour online, there's close to 5,000 clicks or hits or whatever you want to call it. I don't know, that's a pretty impressive number for me during COVID. It looks like that's been great efforts to get some engagement by a lot of viewers. Do you happen to remember what this number was on the previous year, if we had that? Yeah, we've had a lot higher participation numbers in terms of unique page views of the garden tour than would have occurred in person. Although, Drew, often in the past, we had the base participation estimates based on sign-ups. And then on the day of the tour, there was no limitation to who could actually participate. And it wasn't a metric that the garden hosts that were manning the sites were necessarily able to track. So we have seen great participation, though, with the tour, if you recall, the tour that occurred in May of 2020 had to shift very quickly to be virtual because it wasn't anticipated initially to be that. And we had relied on homemade videos by all of the garden hosts that turned out really, really well. And subsequently, based on the success of that, we went forward to hire a professional videographer. And so the tour that occurred most recently in May, although featured a smaller list of gardens, were all professionally videoed and including plant lists. And we continue to get a lot of attention from that. People seem to like it, that we promote it on the day of the tour, and then it continues to be a year-round resource for folks to go back to both the view and to get ideas about what they might be able to implement in their own homes. Okay, good, good to know. Thanks, Paul. Any other questions from the chat on the slide over there? Okay, let's move to public comments. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine via phone. Do not see any raised hands. Okay, so that finishes off agenda item number seven A through C. So we'll move to item number eight, biological opinion status update and Pam Jean with the A to C will be providing that panel. Okay, good morning, everybody. I hope everybody's had a nice weekend. Hopefully everybody received a copy of the document that you can see on the screen right now along with your agenda. So I think this is gonna be pretty quick because there's not a huge amount of changes from the last time that we spoke last month. So I'll just start at the top and work my way down. As far as the fish flow project goes, I don't think there's any changes from the last time we spoke at the WAC tech meeting last month. And just a super quick summary, we do hope to have a recirculated draft of the EIR for this project in 2022. So the next item down is fish monitoring. I think everybody is aware that we ended up having to remove our video monitoring system because of that large atmospheric river at the end towards the end of October. So we have not reinstalled that system. We probably will not install it for the rest of the season. It's a very short monitoring season for us. So it'll be interesting to see as we go out into the future if this happens again. They will be relying on spawner surveys in the main stem and dry creek instead of relying on those counts from the video system. With regards to Chinook spawning. So that will have to be done a little bit differently this year. The next item down is dry creek habitat enhancement work. I think that this may have been a pretty equivalent update to last one you saw about the contractor that was out there working this summer, did complete the phase three reach 5A project work in late September. They were fully demobilized from the site. There was some minor damage to that site from that October 24th atmospheric river. So they have gone back out and reinstalled some erosion control fabric and fixed sort of an eroded area from that project. And we are out there installing more willow cuttings. Hopefully we'll get some more rain. So that those willows can take off. But that's what's going on there. As far as current construction goes, as far as, oh, and there's some really good photos in here so that you can see. Photo on the left here is early October, an aerial view from a drone of that project. And then to the right, the photo on the right hand side is that same project after the atmospheric river event. You can see the blue circle, which shows the bank failure area that circled in blue there and if you go down, you can see a photograph of where that erosion control fabric got sort of ripped away and that bank failure happened and if you keep going, you can see the repaired, same area only repaired afterwards. So this is about mid-November after the repair happened out there. Thank you for always running the slides here. That's great. As far as habitat monitoring and maintenance goes, they do, I think this is a pretty equivalent update to what they've been doing all along, but they do continue to do physical and biological surveys out on all of the sites that have been constructed out in Dry Creek. And as you could have seen from the photographs that were included here, there was a drone flight flown up there in at the end of October or early November to just check to see how things were going after that rainfall in October. So that large rainfall then. Okay, as far as phases four through six go, I don't see any really big updates here. So I think everybody knows that we did complete the bid documents for phase four. We were hoping to go to construction on that this last summer, but that didn't happen so the plan is to go next summer. We are waiting right now for some final comments back or responses back from property owners that the core did change some of the terms that were included in the right of way documents. And so we're waiting for some response back from property owners. I think they're hoping to have those back fairly soon so that they can get this out in the springtime bid and bid and ready to go for this summer. As far as phases five and six go, again, phase five, the plan would be to construct in 2023. Phase six would be for construction in 2024. The designs have been, I think at the same spot, this 99% submittal for a while now. And really the effort is being put into the right of way, which seems to be what takes so long and so much resources. So they are working with property owners on phase five sites on appraisals and compensation estimates for those sites. And they're also working about on phase six with regards to access routes and staging areas and trying to identify those so that they can get offers out to the property owners. Also on phase five, there is this additional site that's being worked on. There's a 30% design that's done and they're hoping to get some of the resource agencies out there to look at this project. But I know that we've had issues with specifically, specifically with National Marine Fisheries Service not being able to go out in the field. So hopefully that log jam will get broken at some point and we can get them out there to look at it. They do have some limited ability to go out in the field but I'm not sure that this qualifies some of their sort of exemptions. So we'll see if they can get out there or not sometime soon. Russian River Estuary Management, the mouth of the estuary did close in late November, day after Thanksgiving, I think it was, it self-breached a couple of days later. This update was done before last week. It also closed again last week and it self-breached over the weekend. So we had actually scheduled to be out there to do a mechanical breach today but since it self-breached over the weekend we don't have to do that. But we are in what we refer to as the sort of the winter season, not the estuary management season which ended on October 15th. And there is water quality monitoring and other things going on in the estuary still at this point. Although I don't know how much of it because I know some of the equipment got pulled during those high flows. Interim flow changes, which is the last item here, Don already gave an update on this. So unless there's any questions I probably just won't mention anything there as it's already been covered. And that's it for me Drew. Okay, thank you Pam. We'll come back to the tack. Any questions from the tack on Pam's report? Let me see anybody raise any hands. Pam, I have a question and I see that David Manning is also participating in this meeting in case you need a backup on the erosion that occurred due to the October 23rd, 24th storm which had in the right up here it talks about 3,000 CFS. Was that expected at that flow? I mean, that to me sounds kind of like a relatively low number compared to what back in February of 2019 when there were some erosion back then. So I just trying to put it in perspective of this event versus kind of the design event or what we saw in that February 2019. Yeah, to me it's kind of a lower on the lower end of higher flows and dry creek also but David, if you're there and if somebody could take him, let him and that'd be great. Sure, yeah, Drew, you're right. It is on the lower end. It's still a significant amount of flow but the project being as young as it is without any of the vegetation to stabilize that particular spot, it was vulnerable. It's also the inlet to one of the side channels so it's sort of a, it sticks out in the flow really and it takes the brunt of the high flow but we agree it should have been more durable than that. Okay, all right, thank you, David. I think my dog already is here. I guess David's dog had more to add but I'm not very good at dog speed, so. I think we're gonna be hearing a lot of that because a lot of people are getting deliveries these days for the holidays. Okay, any other questions, comments from the chat before I open it up for public comment? I don't see any. Okay, so we'll open this up for public comment. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine. I do not see any raised hands. Okay, thank you, Easter. That brings us to agenda item number nine, Potter Valley Project Update and Pam, you're on again. Yeah, again, I don't think there's a huge update from last month, the WAC-TAC meeting, but I do want to make sure to thank all of you, all the water contractors in Marine Municipal for signing this letter that's up on the screen right now. As I spoke to back last month, Water Agency actually was in the process of developing a grant application at that time, but we did submit a grant application. It was on the 17th or 18th of November and it was submitted under this drought grant relief program and we're hoping to get around $2 million to do some work with regards to water supply. Really it's kind of centered around water supply or liability for the Russian River. And I described the application last month, so I'm not going to spend time doing that unless somebody really, really wants to hear it, but that's kind of the biggest thing going on from some of the water's perspective. The partners, the two basin solution partnership, one of the partners, Cal Trout, is also sort of leading the charge on a grant application or some documentation with a grant that we're hoping to get from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is really kind of centered more around fishery and fishery enhancement restoration work. So they're seeking a grant for about $750,000 from CDFW and I think that they're going to be submitting some documentation on that fairly soon. I'm not sure exactly when. So that's what's going on there. Those are sort of two things going on. We have not heard back from FERC. We've submitted a status update report to them in November, when it was due, and we have not heard back from them based on our submittal at that time. So I'm not sure when we'll hear from them, but hopefully we'll hear back from them on that status update. Our next update to FERC is due at the end of January, and that's in accordance with the response they provided to us based on our September letter to them about where we're at in terms of relicensing, so or licensing. So again, in September, we let them know that we weren't gonna have studies done and that sort of thing. So we had a report due to them at the end of, well, sort of middle of November-ish. Another one due at the end of January, and then a license application is due in April, which is when the current license for Powered by Project expires. And so we did provide a status update to them in November, but we haven't heard back on that. And I think that's it, Drew. Unless, okay, the other thing I could cover, Don kind of spoke to this, not so much, but is the operation up there at the project? So as I think we spoke about in November at the WAC-TAC meeting, PGNEE is not generating power at this time. We don't expect they'll be able to generate power for quite some time. And that's assuming that they actually do some repairs, perhaps replacement of some transformers up at their facility. So they are continuing to import water or move water from the yield to the Russian, but they're doing it in accordance with their requirements, regulatory requirements and their requirement for their contract with Potter Valley Irrigation District. So the total diversion is about 45 cubic feet per second. They have the physical ability to do more than that, but since they're not generating power, they are not doing more than that and probably will not be for a long, long time. So that's where we're at on that. We are trying to get support to make a request of PGNEE that they go ahead and exercise their water right, even if they're not generating power and import more water or transfer more water through the project, but that formal or informal as the case may be request hasn't been made at this point. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thanks Pam. Just related to your update on the diversions from the Potter Valley project, do you know if that request to PGNEE will be made sometime during this month? Grant, do you wanna take that? Yeah, I would anticipate that we're gonna try and get a request and we've already made an initial inquiry and we're gonna continue to seek that window that's open once Lake Pillsbury hopefully begins to spill. It's a very narrow period between now and when that what occurs through sometime in March. Okay, yeah, that would be definitely good to stay on that and try to get that approval and other questions, comments from the tack. I don't see any, so we'll open it up for public comment. Again, this is agenda item number nine Potter Valley project update. Please raise your hand via Zoom or dial star nine via phone. We do have a hand raised from David Keller. You are able to speak. Go ahead, David. All right, good morning. Thank you, Pam, for the information. I do have a question about the resuscitation of the Mendocino County Water Agency which looks like primarily focused on addressing drought issues in the county as a unified agency. But I've wondered also whether or not you've heard anything about that potential potentially being used as to create a funding vehicle for future operation and maintenance of a water transfer project after the PVP is decommissioned. It looks like it could be set up for that, but it's unclear. Have you heard anything about that? I have not, David. I don't know if Grant has or not, but my understanding is that water agency is funded via general fund from the county of Mendocino. So I don't know what mechanism they would use to gain additional revenues and potentially provide revenue for something like that. I don't know enough about the way they're set up and what their authorities are. Grant may know more. Yeah, they've recently reactivated that. However, I think it's a much broader purpose than anything like that as a vehicle. We're looking for a vehicle, though, David, that could actually monetize supplies coming through the diversion along the lines of the two basin solution and the run on the river concept. So that's always been, as you know, an ongoing challenge to determine how to put something together that could actually be the entity that helps facilitate that. So, but I'm not sure. I haven't heard that the Mendocino County water agency would be the vehicle. It is broader, it's county specific. I don't think it would be reduced down to a single purpose like we're gonna probably need. Yeah, I'm looking at the contract for coming up with a plan for the eventual operation and structure of the Mendocino County water agency. It looks like they are looking at potential funding vehicles and funding sources. So I was hoping maybe they might be looking at a way to raise revenue from beneficiaries of the water transfer, but nothing clear. And I guess the other question is whether or not Sonoma County water agency has been looking or making any progress in perhaps creating an irrigation district in the middle and upper Russian as a potential funding vehicle for that. I think you're probably aware that it's been a high on our list to find a way to actually provide the mechanism that facilitate the continued diversion under the run of the river and that's a basin solution. There are efforts underway that we're aware of. I'm not sure the exact status, but something clearly that's gonna be able to facilitate the Alexander Valley and points in Mendocino and Power Valley is gonna be required, as you know. It's a challenge. Yes, and David, one of the pieces of the grant application, one of the tasks under that grant application was to help with this issue of funding. And that was to create a Russian River Water Users Forum so that we could educate folks, find out what their interest is, identify beneficiaries, identify whether or not they're willing to pay for that transfer of water. And if so, under, you know, what would that look like? So that is a piece of that grant program if we can obtain that grant. Good, I'm glad to hear those conversations happening. I know in talking to several of the major wine growers, they are anxious to move it forward and are certainly willing to contribute to cost of O&M for no less receiving water for the upper middle Russian. So I hope that makes some progress sooner than later and thank you for the work you're doing. And thanks, David. Any other public comments on this? Again, a general item number nine. We do have a public comment from Brenda Edelman and I will, looks like Brenda's hand went down again. I'll allow you to speak, Brenda, in case you wanted to. Okay, I just had a question on this analyzing and developing concepts for projects necessary to improve water supply, reliability in the river. What kinds of concept, project concepts that you're thinking about and looking at? Is Jay still on the line here? Yes. Okay, do you want to describe a little bit of what the thinking is? Sure. Sorry, having trouble with my video. Yeah, it's, there's a portfolio of options. Certainly one of the key options is forecast and form reservoir operations on Lake Mendocino and we're also, the Corps of Engineers is going to be looking at forecast and form reservoir operations with us and our whole steering committee that was involved with Lake Mendocino at the Lake Sonoma facility also. So that's a key area of activity for resiliency. Use of winter water, conjunctively managed between surface water and groundwater through recharge programs. There's two flavors of that, flood mar, which is taking winter water releases and recharging into the alluvial aquifer for later use during the summer, take demands off of the river and the reservoir system during irrigation season. Certainly in Alexander Valley and Yuccaia Valley has some potential that several are starting to work on. And then also aquifer storage and recovery, which is another flavor of using winter water to recharge down in the deeper aquifers in those two aquifer basins also can help reduce a lot of the demands. And then of course we have recycled water and conservation, which is, we consider a baseline in extending conservation up into the upper river is a key component. So as you might expect, and it is the practice for water management these days is a portfolio approach to help make up for any, reductions in eel river diversions that we encounter. So will any of this consider impacts to the lower river? Yeah, well, any of those measures are gonna help the whole river system including the lower river, that's for sure. And a more reliable upper river is a more reliable lower river including Lake Sonoma will benefit. Thank you. I do not see any raised hands. You're muted, Drew. Sorry about that. That brings us to the last item, agenda 10. Essentially any special items for the January 10th TAC meeting. I've already made a note here that we'll have the Jacobs technical memorandum on the regional water supply resiliency study. Anybody from the TAC have any other things? Again, above and beyond our reoccurring items. I don't see any, we'll go to public comments. If you wish to make a public comment, please raise your hand or dial star nine. I do not see any raised hands. Okay, that brings us to the end of the meeting, 10, 28 p.m. on Monday. Thanks everybody and have yourself a good week. Bye bye. Miss you, Colleen.