 Okay, then we will call the meeting back from the closed session and there was no reportable action was taken on closed session so we're moving into public session now. And we need a roll call again. We need the roll call again? Yes. Director Daniels. I'm here. Director Jaffe. President. Director LeHue. Yes, here. Director LeHue. I'm here. And President Christensen. Here. Okay, the first, the first item on the agenda is the consent agenda and the members of the public are welcome to speak but I don't see any in our room. We'll move forward. Do we have them, do any of the board members want to pull anything? I want to talk about 13. We could approve it because I can just talk to it. So I want to point out to folks that the trihalomethane is about 40 out of the 80 and last time we did this it was up like 78 or 79 within 2% and what has happened is that we haven't had the city putting their semi-treated sewage into our water supply and I want to point that out is that their stuff has so many organics in it that when it joins with our pouring it produces that poison and we've been very good about not getting even close to the MCLs. We did that with the, what was it? Anyway, it was the MCL was 10 and it was at 5 and we wanted to go even lower and we arsenic that's it and we paid money to go even lower because we care about our customers and I think we should bear that in mind. The city has problems but we should care first about our customers and so putting their stuff back into our system is something we should not just do. I mean if we can come up with a solution that fixes it without causing problems like we've seen in the past that's okay but we shouldn't just dump that in again because that causes those problems. I think there are ways to do that. You're talking about their treated surface water, correct? Yes, yes because when I was on the the Ridgewater Quality Control Board we put the county on notice that the river water was so high in in constituents that that it was a danger and so that's what's it's been improved somewhat but it's still not something we should just dump into our system. Almost any water based on reservoirs and things like that is gonna even the algae has to be the algal blooms and things like that have to be addressed. It's a compatibility issue with our system and anyway thank I thank you for that and it's yeah in previous previous years we've had a further discussion but really the state has approved our report and it's great thing to be proud of the work that's been done. We have a pretty big agenda today. I'll move approval of the consent agenda and and also appreciate the in-depth reports that we've gotten on the meetings and on the finance and the financial report. I know Leslie's not here but that's appreciated. I second it. Right roll call. So with in-person meetings we yeah you can just say I unless it's a resolution or ordinance. Hi. Hi. You don't say all in favor? Okay. All in favor. I'm sorry about that. I'm not used to it. Are you opposed? Are you opposed? Okay. So on to oral and written communications. We don't have anyone from the public here. Do any of the board members have anything to talk about that is not on the agenda? Okay. Move on to reports which is Josh Nelson able to get on a quick break. You can do the resolution at this point. Let's do the resolution. Yes that's true. You don't have any guest speakers. Are you are you able to troubleshoot and take notes at the same time or we'll take we'll take a break of five minutes. That would be better. Okay. Yes. I'm in one more time please. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen boys and girls welcome back to the meeting. That's good. Where were we? Oh yes we're on. Well I don't know. Six point item 6.1 by Josh. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So there have been some updates since the last time we met. Two of which I wanted to note from the board. The first you may have seen that the governor did rescind his declaration of emergency related to the drought that relaxed a number of the requirements but not all of them. Importantly the rescission of the job declaration didn't automatically rescind the state water boards. Emergency water regulations. Although the water board has indicated they won't be enforcing those and you know likely will not be expecting to extend them when they expire. Technically this doesn't apply to us but there's been a fair amount of media attention on this issue and so I just wanted to note it for the board. The second it is definitely that time of year where we're monitoring legislation. As it's as it's proposed. Well I seem to be some of the broken record on this issue. I just wanted to let you know we do have another batch of bills pending that would provide additional flexibility for remote meetings. Similar to the discussion we had last year when we had this. It's very early in the process and you never know what actually has legs and what will move forward. But if you wanted to let you know that yeah there are some bills pending that will provide additional flexibility and will of course continue to monitor them and provide updates as appropriate. Happy answering the questions. Thank you. Josh on those bills. It's is it impossible to predict how long it'll take to move through the system. We have a pretty good idea of the timing. So this picture has pretty strict timelines for me to adopt those. And I would say that why did you didn't mean we'll have an idea of which bills are going to make it out of which houses and which ones then they'll likely have legs and then we'll know I believe it's by October if any of them will actually be adopted. Thanks Josh. Thank you. Thank you Josh. On item seven administrative business. 7.1 additional wealth and unconditional will serves. We don't have any. Now ready for 7.2. The presentation on the Santa Cruz Mid County based in Water Year 22. 2022 annual report and 2023 for water shortage stage evaluation. Me. Shelly flock water resources manager. Good evening everyone. Good to be back of feeling a little rusty. This item combines a presentation on the Santa Cruz Mid County based in Water Year 2022 annual report with the interrelated 23 24 water shortage stage evaluation and declaration. First I want to give some background information on how these two topics fit together. So every spring about this time we conduct an evaluation to determine the need for a water shortage stage declaration in accordance with our water shortage contingency plan and that plan is part of our most recent urban water management plan for 2020. The purpose of the contingency plan is to conserve and protect available water supply for domestic use sanitation and fire protection and to preserve public health welfare and safety and the event of short and long term supply shortages. Shown in table one of the memo at the bottom here there are six shortage stages in our plan each with a percent shortage range and associated actions to be implemented to achieve those reductions. The actions that we implement in each stage are included as attachment one to the memo. As you know the district's been in a stage three water shortage emergency for quite some time since 2014 due to groundwater overdraft and sea water intrusion interspersed with several low years of drought and low rainfall and corresponding recharge. We use three trigger conditions to inform our annual shortage stage evaluation and declaration. First is production data which is really more of a short term trigger condition but we work with our operations manager and implement anything any actions needed for production related shortages. We look at rainfall totals for the five year period including the four prior full water years plus the current rainfall year which extends from October 1st through March 31st. And those totals are correlated through modeling that our hydrologist has done and they link to estimated recharge to groundwater. And then the last trigger condition and probably the most important to us is groundwater conditions. And for that trigger condition we look at the annual water year report for the basin that's required under our groundwater sustainability plan. We don't currently have any production related shortages in effect or anticipated so really our evaluation this year just focuses on the groundwater conditions and rainfall. And to provide supporting information for our evaluation on those two conditions we have tonight with us Cameron Tana of Montgomery and Associates. He's our hydrologist as well as the hydrologist for the Mid County Groundwater Basin and Cameron's joining us remotely. Thank you Cameron for bearing with us. He's going to be presenting key findings from our annual water year report for the basin coupled with some more recent well data that's been collected after the water year report and following this winter's heavy rainfall. You'll also discuss the rainfall and groundwater recharge relationship because there's been a lot of questions like didn't this rainfall solve all of our problems so we'll be touching on that. Following Cameron's presentation. I'll be summarizing the findings of the shortage stage evaluation recommendations and revealing the possible motion so with that background I'm going to turn it over to Cameron to share his screen and presentation. Thank you. Hopefully. So you would like me to share my screen. Yes, please. So you have a slide showing you the slide up here with the title slide. There might just be a lag. Correct. We're seeing the title slide. Not yet now. Okay, hold on. See you though. It's green. That's good. We'll just slide up. Oh, here we go. There we go. All in favor. Thank you. So we have the title slide up hopefully for you. Yes. So it's going to be here even as virtually I'd be looking forward to rejoining in person as you get this meetings going again. In person. Thank you for the introduction. I'll be presenting on the mid County basins. Report. 2222, which is a requirement after adopting a. Groundwater sustainability plan and submitted to California State Department of Water Resources by April 1st of every year. So this report has been submitted to DWR. Cover monitor 2022. So many of these slides were presented to the mid County groundwater agency back in March. So those of you who are on that board. We have seen some of this information. But we've also added information from this part water year. 223 through March, because that information is useful as you consider the water shortage evaluation, which is the proposed board action for this item. So. So, in this presentation, we'll cover information from the annual report with updated information through March 2023. I'm going to mention on rainfall and shelly mentioned to discuss what is estimated for recharge with the different rainfall amounts per year. Go over the water, your type classification and water use. The groundwater conditions and shelly mentioned being important for the water shortage contingency plan. Shortage stage declaration is primarily related to the sea water intrusion sustainability indicator. So provide an update of that status through March 2023. Then we'll go through the status of the other sustainability indicators covered in the groundwater sustainability plan for water year 2022. Briefly describe the progress on the GSP implementation, as well as share what was presented to the. Board for as key takeaways for the water year 2022 and report. Some additional comments as well. So starting with rainfall one in the type and water use for 2022 and the report that was submitted. There was a below average precipitation year, as you can see this time series with the blue bars representing rainfall and in the last three years below the black line representing the historical average. But it was actually a lot of your classification because the GSP defines the water is based off of sand or runs a little water flow because city of Santa Cruz as a bumper from the basin amount of the pop is related to what the surface water supply is. And the flow last year guest ticked in the normal classification so 222 was normal year under the GSP for water use the basin. The estimated amount of total groundwater use was the second lowest since 1984 only one more is 2019. And that's mostly driven by so Cal Creek water district usage so Cal Creek water district is the largest user of groundwater in the basin and so Cal Creek water so the second lowest groundwater usage going back to the early 1970s. So again, the only year that was lower was 2019. This did offset was actually higher use estimated for non municipal pumpers, which was estimated to be the highest amount since 2014 prior to the passing of the Santa Cruz Water Management Act. The expectation and updating it through March 2023 for comparison with the rainfall containment target rainfall targets for what a shortage stage declaration. The last five years or four and a half years that are considered and multiple multi year periods are considered with the kingdom of rainfall over those multi year periods evaluated against different trigger levels. And the multi year periods, potentially trigger stage two is the lowest stage, based off of multiple rainfall, and all of them exceeded the trigger level going back to 234 and five years. You can see that basically the rainfall last year. If you look at the orange line which is you know departure from me in a precipitation can turn to see over what periods were close to average precipitation. And this year's this winter's where whether, and it is classified as a one year basically made up from the last two dry years. The back five years is being basically an average rainfall period for the last five years. And so that's what this one rainfall has done is kind of gotten back to an average rainfall over a five year period. And given that the basin was already overdraft over the last before the last five years before the last two three years. They're overdrafted just make sure that it isn't worse than it was a few years ago as far as the rainfall condition is concerned. The report does include results from the groundwater basin, the model of the basin. And this is a modification of the figure in the report for the water budget, except it only shows the recharge portions of the water budget once it's entering the basin. And this is only through one in 2022, but given that 2023 is a wet year, you can estimate that recharge for a wet year is similar to average recharge over previous right years, although there was a wide range and estimated recharge for previous wet years. And even if you add that this was recent one year to the time series, look over the last five year period, the average total recharge would still be less than the long term average, and also less than what you would see on average in a normal year. So what this wet year has done has gotten us closer to our conditions over a recent period, but it isn't making it a wet period recently, and certainly isn't something that will overcome what already existed as overdraft in the basin. And we'll actually see that even you don't really see the effect in the groundwater conditions as we look at groundwater levels in the next section. And the next section is discussing a seawater intrusion status through March 2023 for evaluating a lot of shortage contingency plan. And as a reminder, in the groundwater sustainability plan, how sustainability is evaluated is comparing basin conditions to what's defined in the plan as sustainable management criteria at different locations. The representative monitoring points usually wells and what these conditions include include groundwater levels and concentrations related to water quality, as well as pumping numbers. So for seawater intrusion, the main thing to track seawater intrusion are water concentrations, what are the salt concentrations are any well due to those concentrations indicate that the salt is increasing or decreasing and rising above what's defined as criteria and unreasonable seawater intrusion. In the GSP, it's basically seawater intrusion advancing past where it's been is significantly unreasonable. And based on the chloride concentration, this occurred for the last two years, we are seeing higher chloride concentrations in the enormous area in the shallowest unit of the personal formation, the F unit and concentrations are above the minimum thresholds defining sustainability to representative monitoring points. And there's an indication of increasing trends in these wells as well. So that was what we saw in the 2022. We're updating it for 2023. We do see continued increase in one of those two wells as CA5B, but no other empty exceedances. In any case, this is something that's evaluated for the water shortage contingency plan that there are a chloride concentrations above minimum threshold exceedances. There's actually another set of metrics in the GSP that look for rising concentrations that aren't quite as high as a minimum threshold exceedances. There's really only at those two wells that have the concentrations above minimum thresholds where there's a clear increasing trend and more early management action. And in that area of the basin, which you can see in this map is the seascape area, the closest municipal well is Soquel's seascape well, which has been pumping very low amounts for a number of years, less than 58 acre per feet per year. The recommended action in GSP is to evaluate non-municipal pumping in the area to try to understand why we're seeing these increasing chloride concentrations. Let's see what intrusion being the reason the basin is considered a critical overdraft and really the problem that the district has been working to solve for many years and is really getting close to implementing that solution has many metrics. And one of the metrics that help with management of the basin and planning for management are groundwater elevation proxies. And these are groundwater elevations that are meant to be high enough over the long term to prevent seawater intrusion. And being the seawater intrusion is a long term concern and condition it's evaluated based off of a five year average where you want to five year average to be higher than your minimum thresholds to achieve sustainability. It has been the case for a number of years of groundwater levels are below where they need to be to prevent seawater intrusion over the long term. In other words, they're in the personal F unit, but also in the deeper Prisma units that provide the greater supply for the district as well as the deepest unit below the Prisma, the TU unit. And so, as noted here in the key finding and presenting to the NGA Board, all principal aquifers of the basin have at least one representative monitoring point with five year average elevations below minimum thresholds. Now when we look at how this has changed over the winter with the wet weather, we have data at four of the five district wells with minimum threshold exceedances. And updated through work, we do see an increase in groundwater levels, but they're not enough to raise the five year average above the minimum thresholds. So we've still seen these minimum threshold exceedances where we, where we have the data in 2023. So the wet winter has not solved the problem and there's still work to be done to achieve sustainability. And the GFP also has additional metrics that are not required under the sustainable groundwater management accuracy mark because of the importance of seawater intrusion to catch problems before they become long term issues where 38 day average groundwater elevations if they drop a lot of one or two feet above sea level that warrants early management action. And in 2022, there were two wells that dropped the one two feet in sea level as C-13A and TUNA and SCARB and the BC unit. But in one year 2023 so far, these groundwater levels have increased and we've no longer seen those low groundwater levels. The concern is that they would come back during the peak pump season in late summer and fall. At belts 12 or at the NT unit at C-13A, groundwater levels have been increased. You can see like increased rate increase and that's what responds with the senior Santa Cruz's demonstration study of ASR at the belts 12 well in the TUNE unit. They had the single demonstration study last year that pumping dropped below that two foot level. This year they do not plan to pump as much as part of that demonstration study. So we do not expect it to drop below this level in this coming year. You can also see the size of SCARB, but it's actually lower than it was in the previous year in the same date. So it's something that the BC unit pumping will need to be managed over the summer and fall and try to avoid this early management action trigger. So bringing up the information into what Shelley introduced as groundwater condition triggers for the water shortage contingency plan, but basically two sets. One is based off of the signal required undesirable results primarily for sea water intrusion and how many minimum threshold exceedances there are or how many representative monitoring points have minimum threshold exceedances. Another one is how many representative monitoring points have early management action triggers activated and addressed. So first with the undesirable results, there are a number of representative monitoring points or wells with minimum threshold exceedances. There are five based on groundwater levels throughout the personal area to personal F unit and two in the room this area in the F unit with a lot of concentrations exceeding minimum thresholds. So the seven representative monitoring points does fall into what is the current shortage stage because this this condition really hasn't changed as far as the number of minimum threshold exceedances occurring in the basin. So that falls into keeping the same shortage stage three were based off of groundwater conditions. And then for early management action triggers the floor of some monitoring points that have only management actions that would actually fall into stage two. But this actually because there are plans to address all these conditions it's something that doesn't necessarily fall into any stage. So that's really the undesirable results for lack of sustainability for preventing seawater intrusion in the long term that that drives the highest stage proposed in the board memo. So moving away from seawater intrusion and what's used for the waters shortage contingency plan. We have summarized the rest of the GSP and the status of other sustainability indicators. One of the indicators is chronic low water levels and really related to the ability to provide groundwater supply from wells being able to pump groundwater levels for high enough for wells to pump from. And there has been some declining elevations of these representative monitoring points that do remain above the minimum thresholds that define sustainability. So this indicator is indicating sustainability. The production of groundwater in storage is a bit of a misnomer because it's set up based off of net pumping numbers and the net pumping is a sustainability yield that will achieve sustainability for other indicators, especially seawater intrusion. So it's how much pumping of managed recharge do you need to achieve sustainability, at least what is estimated for that. And right now the net pumping is greater than what is needed to achieve sustainability and prevent seawater intrusion. And as a result is exceeding the minimum thresholds and undesirable results are occurring. And so it's considered unsustainable at the moment. The great water quality is basically based off of drinking water standards and there are some concentrations of drinking water standards, but they are generally preexisting conditions that are not a result of basic management so this is not considered an undesirable result. Finally interconnected surface water was groundwater pumping resulting in significant unreasonable depletion of surface water that's connected to the groundwater. The GSP sets up ground water elevation proxies that are meant to be high enough in groundwater to prevent is what's defined as significant unreasonable depletion of interconnected surface water. And in the past, there have been more represented modern points below the level required to achieve sustainability now it's down to just one well that's below the minimum threshold. So that's still an undesirable result, but we are seeing improvement for this indicator. To summarize the sustainability status for one year 2022, two of the five applicable indicators are showing sustainability while three of the five are not but we are seeing improvement in the interconnected surface water depletion indicator. As a reminder, the McKenna groundwater agency has until 2040 to achieve sustainability so still have a number of years to make progress for all these indicators. All kind of progress has been done so far and implement implementing the GSP. Just one slide to summarize. A lot of it is collecting better data and filling the data gaps and identifying the GSP so then included monitoring deep coast rock furs wells have been put in the team unit by the city of Santa Cruz in the district and a number of wells and string to train gauges have been installed to evaluate interconnected surface water. Management system coordinated with the district's data management system has been developed. The McKenna groundwater agency was awarded the implementation grant from DWR and projects under the grant are underway. And of course, the main projects defined to achieve sustainability are pure water so cal and city of Santa Cruz aquifer storage and recovery. The key takeaways that were presented to the NGA board for one point 22, including that demonstration study on city of Santa Cruz ASR's success. I would also in addition to look at the seascape area just reinforce that ground water innovations throughout the basin along the coast are to go to prevent seawater intrusion in a long term so there are undesirable and personal exceedances and undesirable results throughout the coast of the basin. And it's not confined to one local area where it's an issue. Finally, the brexit improvement and interconnected surface water elevations was a key takeaway for the 22 report. So that concludes my summary of the 22 report with additional information from 2023 to inform you as you consider the board action presented in the minimum. But I think now would be a great time to take any questions on the report and what I've presented. Are there any questions from the board on the Water Year report? Any discussion or questions I cannot hear. Yeah, they're just being hang on a second. I have one question if you can hear me. Can you hear me? And this is related to our description of our wells. I don't think he can hear. Can you hear Cameron? I don't know what changed. Cameron, can you hear us? There are no answers. Cameron, can you hear us? Everyone's voice sounds different. Are you calling them up? Maybe if you stop sharing the screen. Can you hear Cameron? No. I'll stop sharing. Are we muted? Josh, can you hear us? Yeah, I'm going to go check. They were all muted. Yeah, I'm going to have trouble formulating. It was one of the slides that you... Did he look like he could hear me? Cameron? Yes. It was one of your slides on that showed the groundwater levels and the saltwater intrusion levels. And I was just wondering since our Pure Water SoCal project is currently directed downstream from those indicator wells, whether it would redress the southern southwestern part of our district concerned about the other half of the district and those groundwater levels would have to be done to address the groundwater levels there. Yes. So Pure Water SoCal is designed to address all through the entire coastal area of the district, including their own this area in the southeast. Even though Pure Water SoCal will recharge directly into the deeper person units in the west, the A and the BC unit, the idea is that that will facilitate increasing pumping from those units. And by increasing pumping in the west, in the person A and BC, the district will be able to reduce the amount of pumping in their own this area and the person F unit to the southeast. And with that reduction of pumping in that area, that Pure Water SoCal will help raise groundwater levels in the southeast and prevent the water intrusion over the long term. Can you hear me, Cameron? In the memo there was the 2013 memo that you and Georgiana provided the board. And I was confused by that. It seemed like at least the formula that, or the plot that was shown, the greater the rainfall, the greater the recharge. And can you talk on that? Because my impression is that the intensity of the rainfall also matters. So maybe that analysis didn't take that into account. It is a relationship, and I think the figure shows some scatter. So the scatter does represent variations that can be related to intensity and just the timing of when the rainfall occurs. But in general, greater rainfall is going to result in more recharge. The greatest estimated recharge years are the very, very wet years. So even though there might be more that runs off, there is more recharge in even those years. And just to continue to see that there is more variation in the amount of recharge in the higher rainfall years, but compared to the lower rainfall years, there is going to be more recharge. When customers ask me how much these rains have helped, what do I tell them? Well, I think they definitely help. And that they haven't solved the problem. I think that's the short answer, is that groundwater levels still need to be increased to prevent seawater intrusion, especially at the coast. It's really the pumping that drives the ability to raise groundwater levels and prevent seawater intrusion in the long-term. And the solution the district is developing is the net-pumping that you're able to put in releasing the net-pumping by adding recharge through pure water. This is Bruce Daniels, the other bee. And we're looking at the graph here from the plot, and it shows almost a linear increase in the length. That's just wrong. So I think the model is wrong. Because if you get more and more rain, the ground becomes saturated, as you know. And so the additional rain you get doesn't cause more recharge, at least linearly more rate recharge. Instead, now that the ground gets saturated, much more it tends to run off. And that's not beneficial. So I think the model is a little aggressive in its thinking about recharge. Because at some point, recharge drops considerably. Well, I think you also have to think about it on the other hand. Also, I'm kind of the low rainfall amounts. And with the low rainfall amounts, you get the higher percentage that is evaporated, and so that also reduces recharge. So you do have that competing factor. And I think that's why you see kind of more of a cluster at the lower rainfall amounts and way more variation at the higher amounts, where there is dependent on factors like intensity. I should note, though, that what is the rainfall recharge relationship here is from an older model. The current basin model has new calculations of rainfall and recharge. And also for consideration for today, what's really driving the recommendation for the water shortage stage, all of the groundwater conditions defined by groundwater levels and chloride concentrations is not dependent on the rainfall or rainfall criteria. Rainfall and recharge criteria. So I think over the last five years in close to average rainfall, that's estimated to be some more close to average recharge. And that is not driving the shortage stage recommendation. It's really the risk of seawater intrusion and the lack of achieving sustainability for preventing seawater intrusion over the long term. And that's what I was just going to say. It's not a perfect relationship and there may be better models, but I really appreciate that we've evolved to the point where we're using the groundwater criteria to make these decisions. Going forward, one of the things that the other thing is going to be related to the major rain success of a project or a pure water supply, and it's really going to be based off of the groundwater conditions, like groundwater levels and chloride concentrations to indicate whether the project is preventing seawater intrusion in the way it's intended. I have another question. I just wanted to know how you talked about the Soquel Creek Water District was responsible for most of the demand on the basin, water consumption, but we were decreasing in our pumping and then the extra municipal, like the private well owners, were responsible for more pumping. How did you measure that? Yeah, so the district and the municipal agencies, San Cruz Central Water District, we have metered data for to find how much is pumped. For non-municipal pool pumpers, it is primary estimates. So it is based off of, there's estimates based off of how much of the weather, an estimated level of transportation, how much it would need to meet the outdoor demand, and then an estimate based off of the number of households in the basin and the indoor use from that. So we update that every year and I think the main change is related to the weather and it being a low average precipitation year, I think for a consecutive year when it was below average rainfall, it was potentially as well as on our temperatures to a higher estimate of non-municipal use. There is some data as well, but I don't know the breakdown to when it was estimated and when it was measured. Hi Cameron, this is Ron. Hi Ron. I always get the same question too, from the press now, do the rain solve the issue? And we say no. And I think what I've realized in this graph is always stuck in my mind since 2013. What I think I realized tonight is that this analytical model versus your numerical model that you use, this model doesn't really take into account so much the way it rains. So short term, high intensity type rains like we've been seeing the whiplash and in that kind of situation when it just rains on in, I think Dr. Daniels is right, proportionally more runs off. And is that a fair statement, a fair way to look at the model that's up on the screen, the figure one in the attachment? Think about it. Well the basis of this model is the same as the basis of the base model that we currently use. So back in for this 2013, even prior it was we were just modeling the watershed while now we take what is the same total and evaluation of watershed processes and add it to a model of groundwater flow. It was recalibrated for the GSP. So it's not the same model but it is basically the same construct of how watershed processes are calculated. If there is interest in seeing what the current model does with respect to this relationship we can provide something like this on that but it is, I think one thing that this misses is it's really important to really understand what are the other components where rainfall goes, how much is ET and how much is runoff and how much is recharged and that is information we can provide from the current model. I think you will see and we do see greater rainfall greater recharges during this greater rainfall and so and that is something that is observed in the results of our basic model from the watershed output but it is updated to what you see here. Can you hear me now Cameron? What mics I should turn on and when I should turn it on and when I should. But in the current model does it get down to the daily scale or the hourly scale or is it some type of average? So as far as climate inputs it is input on a daily time step so we input in the basic model a daily max temperature a daily minimum temperature and daily rainfall defined at two stations in the basin so that's daily and so the watershed processes are calculated daily when we input groundwater information like pumping that is done at a monthly stress period so there is information on the groundwater side is on a one more time scale which is appropriate given the time scales of the two different processes. I've just been looking at what's up on the screen there's some strange things like the October through March rainfall you get more recharge or lesser amount versus a full water year rainfall and that's true because you still get rainfall after March so that's why you end up with an estimate for annual recharge for the whole year recharge that's greater for the same amount of rainfall that occurs in six months versus something that would occur in 12 months I think it's critical to look at timing for rainfall as I've always told folks there are 30 inches of average and distributed over the entire year so you get less than a tenth of an inch every day for 365 days you would get zero recharge because you would just have a little drizzle every day and nothing would go in and if you did the opposite extreme and dumped 30 inches of rain in one day and the rest of the year was dry you would get massive floods and it all went off and you'd get some recharge but not bloody much and so looking at it and even looking at it in months if you got all the rainfall in the month in one day you would get again some huge floods like we've seen and it would saturate and it would mostly run off if it was averaged over distributed over the entire month much more would be recharge so it's critical to look at how that comes not just how much comes in total and the model does do that and I think that's why and I think this is still representative of what we've seen from the current model and that's why you see a greater variation at the higher rainfall because it's just basically a greater variation but with the increased water that's provided by even big rainfall events it does saturate the scenarios and you do result in more recharge on average it's pretty just unlikely if you have a very wet year like this year compared to a normal year to have the timing be perfect on a normal year where it would have more recharge just the additional water that has resulted in more recharge on average it's a bigger variation based off of the very valid points made that affect it but the additional water does result in more recharge in how it's simulated based off of disunderstanding of watershed processes and then how since ground temperature is related to the duration of the rainy season does that get factored into this model also yes it's a very important factor of the evapotranspiration is the mean that's a big amount of what happens to the rainfall how much evapotranspiration occurs so it's basically evapotranspiration driven by temperature runoff and then basically how it's calculated as a recharge we've looked at this graph many times but it always prompts more questions I think certainly going forward we should probably update this graph because it isn't the current model just not going to say that it's going to look that much different if you're just going to see a recharge in the higher rainfall years and the time series it showed that that's what was generally indicated but there was a big variation in how much recharge is estimated in even much considered white years would it be time to maybe consider moving on from that model and I was even concerned making a motion if you have more to say let's jump back to the actual motion I just want to say thank you to Cameron because I know Dr. Jaffee had requested that as some dialogue around it so and thank you Cameron for presenting tonight I appreciate that I found it I found it very valuable myself even though I've been following we've all been following this for a couple years but still I mean we used to just go by what Santa Cruz was doing with their surface water so we've come a long way sure have so I'll take a quick second to just summarize the evaluation rainfall totals indicate no shortage at any level however our groundwater conditions indicate a continued stage 3 water supply emergency as a result staff recommends the board continue with the current stage 3 under our existing resolution number 1908 which is included as attachment 4 on stage 3 is a 25% reduction over our baseline demand of 3,900 acre feet that translates into a residential water usage goal of about 50 gallons per person per day we always like to kind of convert that savings to something that's more meaningful to people so we've done that staff would continue the key communication and operation actions that are identified in attachment 1 for stage 3 and continue to encourage customers to meet that usage goal we would follow the other stage 3 demand reduction actions and encourage people to continue complying with our water waste rules which are always in effect regardless of any curtailment stage we would also outreach like we've done in the past on our website and the next June quick steps we would provide an update on this curtailment declaration and look for other methods and ways to continue outreaching to customers throughout the year so the motions tonight include number 1 continuing with the stage 3 with no emergency water rates as we are doing now the board could also consider a lesser stage than a stage 3 if you desired or you could direct us to implement some sort of lesser stage with emergency rates tied to those stages I was going to make something for you just based on Cameron Tana's presentation it seems clear that even though we've lost money through our effective outreach effort to reduce consumption I think we need to continue that until we have a completed project and there isn't any evidence and Cameron presented that with other ones that we can encourage our customers to serve as much water as they can so I move number 1 you can yeah is it okay to ask a question after this? I don't know if there's a procedure to close it open it and close it is there somebody there? no and I think we do have a second motion discussion I was just wondering what's the difference between taking no action and moving number 1 not much we would continue doing what we're doing if we took no action and with number 1 we would continue doing what we're doing it just clarifies it I was actually going to make the motion so I'm ready to vote but I think that's why it's important for us to keep up our public outreach to say look this is why we need to keep it at 50 gallons per person per day another thing that's happening if you walked around or they don't and want to not have so many weeds no it can go either way but the MGA's report really indicates that we aren't close to being out out of a water deficit yet just there's a state emergency regulation on prohibiting the irrigation of non-functional turf for commercial institutional and residential HOA common areas and that is still in effect the state did not lift that it does expire I think at the end of June but there is a bill pending legislation to make that permanent we have also considered possibly updating our landscape ordinance to make that a permanent requirement much like Santa Clara Valley Water District recently did so there's also that kind of mechanism to look at we're ready to vote now oh all opposed through selection of a consultant for the water rates and water capacity I'm going to take this one tonight she's losing her voice and I think Ryan Kenny is going to take the budget part 2 for tonight so I'll just dive in with the water rate study bearing down the RFQ consultants and we had 2 return and it's to do the not only the water rate study but a 10 year financial plan and also the water capacity fees and so after putting out the RFQ, sending out to the specific consultants and also putting on our website we received 2 entities responding and they're attached to the memo there what we're recommending tonight is Raftelis be the selected consultant and so that's the one motion we are asking you to entertain and also the second motion is for the general manager to sign a purchase order I will point out and I think this is very important both proposals were very good and some people at the district reviewed them I think either entity actually could do the work and do it well however it was Raftelis was the preferred by all the reviewers and even though they're more expensive significantly more expensive but we think the value there I think it's some in the 80,000, do we have the numbers up there? so you can see the numbers and a large part of the Raftelis cost is related to outreach so that stands out in there we can choose to have them do that or not I do think there's value in people who specifically do that kind of outreach for customers it helps even though we have a fantastic outreach department ourselves the other thing is they have an independent check on the model and that sort of thing and it gives us great reassurance so I'll stop there and see if there's any questions or if you want to see if there's any public comment any questions oh public comment closing public comment does anyone on the board comment question it sounded like it was unanimous you answered my main question was all the people reviewing felt like the additional services they provided were going to be worth the extra cost basically it's correct and I agree also is that reading through this it can be a pretty touchy subject and so more how to present it to the public is important I disagree I think 45,000 dollars I'd have to be convinced it's worth customers money spend 45,000 oh it's 66 there's some other in the budget so I don't know if maybe I'm an outlier would you like to comment Ryan are you participating in this no I can actually comment on this I thought it was also just an independent evaluator not just a public outreach portion it was a technical reviewer training on the rate model as well as outreach services and hiring a consultant for this rate study and work to be done is time and material so this was a proposal for the scope of services and then once selected then Leslie would work to develop a contract with them we weren't sure of the outreach you can you know I think these consultants propose an outreach plan not knowing what the community may need so if the community does need a lot of outreach that's what they propose if we go forward and you know either the community is not as engaged then the scope may be less it's also I think like what Ryan says we do have the opportunity for an outreach team to supplement or compliment this is a time and material contract so we could be mindful of that and the budget yeah so yes I'm pretty sure we're not even supposed to consider price when we choose a consultant I'm not even sure why we put it up there but we're not supposed to be considering the total price and the comparison it's not a bid because they're professional service yeah and I guess my recommendation thank you to echo off what Melanie was saying is my recommendation would be to prove the motions as they are but we'll be obviously there's two board members on the rate committee right so as we move forward they can help inform whether we want to engage the draft tells us outreach people or not or some portion or maybe some of it will not be needed or any of it and we can judge it as we move forward but to give us that flexibility because it is a very outward facing thing rates you know that's where we get our most people and that sort of thing you're just saying we could choose to do a lesser three of outreach depending on the ability and working with the two outreach I mean two board members are on the water rates advisory committee and we have a whole committee on that would it just be their decision or would it be brought back to the board you can direct that however you want bring back come back to the board and report out if you like are we glad to do that it seems like there's a natural place where they present what they've found during whatever that presentation is we could have it at the whole board just come to us once with a finished product there's multiple steps I believe I was on it and I reported back on that and I could also say that draft tell us did do presentations there at the request of the rate cares committee the rate committee I don't know about the composition of the current rate committee I don't know but that first one that I precipitated really needed some authority they asked questions they wanted did do the research and presented back and that probably cost extra money on the other hand at the end of the day those people were in agreement about where the rates ought to be where the rates ought to be so it was very valuable and they came to the final rate setting the hearing at the end and spoke in favor of the process and thought it was very valuable for them and the district and the other just before it was on the board those public hearings can be really contingent that's why they pay us the big bucks what do you so my my experience last couple of years not just with Surewater SoCal but with my job and other things is that the public are getting more and more vocal understanding so that they understand why they're paying more and it's not going to go away and it's good to have at least a budget for that outreach if we need it because I've seen some really interesting things happen the last couple of years that I wouldn't have expected to be so contentious and I wish I'd had the public outreach I'm good with the committee the two members on the committee making the decisions because they'll be more in touch with it so I I support it if in fact we don't need all that outreach I'd like to see a lower cost I'll make the motions echoing I'll second both one and two and just with a request that if there's opportunities to bring it back to the board but we can discuss further investment that would be great I can mention to them in some sense you don't determine how much money you always have to collect enough money the only thing the rates determine how you balance that who pays more, who pays less what category pays more what category pays less what number of the kids we're going to pay more with our current rates families that are just one person of course finally if it's less if it's not fair make it fair it is an important thing and those things are addressed at the rate committee and I had to say that that's when we were first that was when we first confronted with losing some of our tears so that the gradation wasn't fair was less fair than it had been and went through every rate model to see the board to this position an uncomfortable one but one that we could defend are we ready for yes so we just need to vote I just want to make a comment since director Daniels brought it up that's the second that I've heard I talked with the right payer about large families having to pay more and they were very strong that it was a decision of the right payers to have those who have large families to have a large family and they were totally against a structure that was just based on this issue that they see as a fairness issue any more comments voice all in favor aye any opposed okay thank you and I'll just make a note I'm getting a text or two that the mics are a little finicky so I'm getting so much echo we got some feedback I'll let you know we were told to speak close the microphone and then it helps with the feedback correct Tash is that what our audio visual guy has informed us that if we get closer to the mic then it has less reverb so I see it's too high that's the problem I'm just going to scrunch down okay onto something measurable here the retirement resolution appreciation Tera Dominguez 34 years of service to the district so I get the pleasure of again presenting a resolution for another one of our outstanding employees who's given us 34 years of service she really is a bright and shining star and Friday was her last day and I know that she had a fantastic day and had a fantastic party the following day with a lot of staff and her family that were in attendance so hats off Distella I'm presenting Leslie obviously lost her voice so I'm helping her present this tonight and I'm usually when I bring these forward to the board I know these are things that you like to do as well and so I'm happy to present the memo and if you would like me to read the resolution I'm happy to do that thank you