 Well, after six, let's call our meeting to order. So, okay, Water District Board. I would say really sorry, I missed my call. Rocault shows all directors are present. There is no public hearing. There are two items on the consent agenda. Anyone wish to take anything off? I just have a minor spelling correction on the minutes, so I guess so. Okay. That's all it is. All right. Well, then I'll move approval for 3.2. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? I think that's unanimous. Okay. Sorry, but on the minutes on page seven of the entire agenda, under reports, item five, it just says the Water Reuse Conference, it should be begins. No, it begins. That's all. Okay. With that, I'll move approval. I will second. All in favor? Just aye. Aye. Okay. That's gone. Take too long. That's right. Not too bad. So next is oral communication. This is time for anyone in the audience to address us on any item not on tonight's agenda. Welcome back from the baseball trip. Thank you. Thank you. That spring training was wonderful. I wish the results so far this season matched what I saw in spring training, but that's okay. I'm Scott McGilveray. I represent a group called Water for Santa Cruz County. And at your last meeting, Miranda Soll gave a presentation about what we found in the brochure regarding how much more water there is in Santa Cruz that could be directed here through water transfers. And there was a question, I think it was Ms. Lather that had a question about the numbers and what year they came from and the numbers that were in that report. The 211 million gallons between January and May is 2017 water. And Rosemary Menard commented that that was an extremely wet year, which is true. So I looked at the records for 2016 and applying the same factors, 1.4 million gallons a day, limited by the amount of water taken from the North Coast. And in 2016, the number of gallons that could have come here is 211 million gallons, exactly the same. So even in an average rainfall year, the constraint is only the capacity to transfer water. The North Coast water is abundant. And in another minute, I'd just like to sort of expand on that idea because I think there's some numbers that you're not well aware of because you don't think about Santa Cruz much. But there are the key numbers. The first number is 730 million gallons. Because that's the amount of water that the North Coast supplied Santa Cruz in 2017. The next number I'd like to offer is 598 million. That was 2016. And there's a third number, and that's 671 million gallons. That's Santa Cruz projections for the next 30 years coming from the North Coast. So some number 650 plus or minus is what's available and in play. There's only one other number. That's one minute to go. One minute. Only one other number that needs to be kept in mind because the North Coast water is presently used by Santa Cruz. So if it comes here, what do they do? Well, they have a water source called the winter water in the San Lorenzo River. They have 900 million gallons a year. They're entitled to. And the average over the last 18 years is 50 million gallons. So there's 850 million that they have that they can backfill the water that could come here. I think those numbers are important and give you an order of magnitude of what we could do if we can get it together. So again, thank you very much for the opportunities to bring this forward. And we look forward to giving more information. Good. Thank you. Any other questions? No, I just say that. I mean, I think it's good that you're, you know, trying to find an answer. And I appreciate that. And just, you just have to work with the city and have the city present us with something. Has to come through them to their water. Thank you. Anyone else? Which addresses? Good evening, Becky Steinberg, and I also want to thank you for listening to the water for Santa Cruz County and Mr. McGilvray. And I would like to encourage your board to discuss with Santa Cruz City Water the idea of increasing the size of the intertie connection with your district so that water from North Coast could come in greater volumes and go the other way if they needed it. But I think I see that as a bottleneck, really, and that if the North Coast water were to be used to help alleviate the seawater intrusion, having a larger intertie connection could be of great value. Thank you. And I did want to, in terms of the minutes from last time, I'm sorry I'm late. But I do have a question for staff that I'll ask at another time about the exceptions for the Aptas Village Project that were mimicked or also extended to the Rancho Del Mar Center in that there's no monthly charge on master meters. And I have some questions about capacity charges on the sub meters. But I'll talk with staff afterwards. And thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Which address? Seeing no one. Any director comments? Doesn't look like it. Anyone? Wait. We're going to use this to discuss the water release conference. Is that already? No, it's another item. That's another item on there. Okay, good. I think there is, isn't it? There is. Yeah. Okay. So we'll do that then. Okay. Sounds like we're just moving on then. Reports. Five on one. The board planning calendar, please. Yeah. A couple of things to report out. There are three standing committee meetings next week. That's Monday as finance. And then Tuesday's public outreach. Director Lehu will be gone. So director Lathers filling in. And then Wednesday is infrastructure and supply. So just try to make everybody aware of that. We've got a lineup on one, two, three, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. And then also on May 1st, we will have a budget workshop starting at 5 p.m. So our early, probably bring food in for that session. That's all. Okay. Got that written down. So let's see. The report out on the water release conference oral. So, Carly, you want to start? Okay. This is the third time I've been to that water release conference, and it's a scientific and technical conference primarily, not political or, you know, the legal things in it. So I, the overall impression I had, like over that first, is that it was really amazing how much progress has been made. It's just been accelerating over the years of what these scientists have been able to report on improving recycled water projects. It's very encouraging in terms of research on CECs and how to eliminate them from water supply and, you know, a lot of other problem chemicals that are part of our consumer waste load that goes into our groundwater also. As I really did appreciate that, there were a couple of, there was one, the panel I attended, a health issues panel that John Ricker from the health department, the county health department, participated in, and I got, I think there's a room for customer-citizen activism on reducing the load of chemicals that go into the waste stream period, and that would simplify everybody's, including the cities, and their water treatment program, and so Cal's, you know, groundwater issues, these chemicals, if we reduce the load, it would make it a lot easier, and people would be a lot less worried about their, the water that they're drinking. So anyway, that's the, there was a lot of, there was a lot. I was very tired when I got back, but it was very good, very good, uh, conference. Anything, Mr. Jeffey? Yes. So this was my first conference since I'd been on the board, and the reason I went was because we're evaluating water reuse, and I wanted to take the opportunity to talk with the experts on health issues associated with water reuse, and I was looking for, um, issues, and I was not able to find any at all, really. It, I think we're, we benefit from the fact that this has been going on for decades, and, um, they've, you know, they've, it's improved over the decades, the, the, uh, purification of the water. I think the, the, the, the, um, the plants now have redundancy in, in monitoring, so if, if, if systems are out, they quickly can tell that they're out, and then there's, uh, unless the water's going directly into a well right by the plant, if there's any, any travel time whatsoever, even if there was something that was detected, they could stop the water before it's recharged. So, um, there were, there were a lot of talks that were not, um, directly applicable to our district. Um, there were talks on direct potable reuse, instead of indirect reuse where you recharge the aquifer, and, um, I guess one thing that I would, was new to me was that even though there aren't guidelines for direct potable reuse on a case-by-case basis, they are approving it in the state now. So, overall it's a good experience, I agree. It was a tiring experience. Had to, uh, there were concurrent sessions, and oftentimes there were, there were talks in more than one session that I wanted to go to. But, uh, I'm glad I went. Tom, you think? I mean, I, one of the things I wanted to find out about was the redundancy issue, and what happens if, you know, how is, how are any potential problems detected, and if so, how quickly can those, can the system be stopped, and so forth. And I, I felt pretty good. I got, I got a lot of good information on that. That was my focus. For sure. Because I'm an engineer and I've been to a lot of conf, conferences in my career, regarding the engineering aspects, I decided to focus on the public outreach part, because as an engineer I realized that maybe I'm a little inept on that, and I could get some, like, good ideas. And it was amazing what other agencies have done, have taken. I heard there was a trailer being shown down there. There was a trailer being shown, and there was a lot of talk about it. There was a great deal of interest in that, but, um, it was very helpful to understand maybe, um, how I can express myself a little bit differently, and get the message out better. I wanted to talk about three things that I experienced. There was a talk on CECs. It was the last, it was scheduled for the last time slot in the last day, and they mentioned that how things have changed in the last three years, because back then it would be the first session of the conference, and it would be always highly, I mean, they'd fill up the room with people, and now it was the last, and it was fairly lightly attended, and even, like, one or two of the talks weren't even about CECs. They just stuck them in there, because they had no other place. Things have really settled down with that. I think they really think they understand it. They know how to monitor it and how to deal with it, and I think that's good news. There were some talks on a new technique. As you know, the ones that we look at here in California use reverse osmosis, and there's some that are going on the east coast, which use ozone and filtering to do the same sort of things, and they're getting similar kind of water quality out the back end, so it's about half the cost, because the equipment is less and the operations cost is less, and so that's really taking off on the east coast and even overseas some, and so that's good to see that there are alternatives and they're being investigated and pushed forward. It was mentioned that here in California that would be a tough slog, because that's not the thing that our regulators are familiar with now, and so the first one out the gate would have to really, really prove that it really, really, really, really does work and produces an equivalent quality. There was also a talk about stormwater, and of course they were talking about to save money, they put the stormwater, like Monterey is doing, they put the stormwater through the purification process, and so they were doing that, and so that was good to see, not just Monterey, but others are doing the same thing, so that was good, and all in all it was a pretty good conference, I thought. I'd like to add one thing from that same talk, I forgot about that, and one of the processes that they had tested was expanding the secondary treatment for a longer period of time so that it would break down more of the products that were considered problematic, the CECs and larger compounds like ibuprofen and things like that that were still trapped in the water, and they found out that it eased the pressure on the RO membranes and the recycling, the purification process in general to expand the secondary treatment time, and I think that might even be possible to even try to test that out in Santa Cruz, but the results are very promising and it had a net cost benefit also and also more efficiency too. Yeah, so that was just one of those new things and it was not possible to do that study here, they did it in Florida, I believe, but anyway. Okay. All right, so we move on now. Administrative business, conditional and unconditional will serve letters, 6.1. Yeah, Taj will take a lead on this and Shelley can support him if necessary. Hi, good evening. We've got one application under the old WDO program as well as one under the new, and so 6.1.1 has completed their offsets according to the new offset program and they have committed to go green, basically all the go green reductions. And the second one is a single family house with an accessory dwelling unit and that of course, the old program doesn't require them, this is a conditional will serve letter at this stage, a renewal. Any questions? I have a dumb question. Like how do we verify when they do a deed, a deed reduction in irrigation, is it verified later or how do you tell? It's recorded. We get a copy of the deed. What about compliance? I think at this stage, we don't have an official program to monitor and check up on that. We're working on that though, compiling a database of the properties that have done deed restrictions and at some point we will go back and check but we haven't done that yet. That was the main thing because it does result in a significant savings and water fees. Anyone in the public wish to speak on this item? Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, I've had the same question with Director Christensen about verification of these things and long-term verification that they will be adhered to for the long-term water savings of the district in effect on the aquifer. I also have a question about what's being done with $55,000 per acre foot that's collected from these properties. I remember that it was to go to conservation projects that would not have happened otherwise and I'm wondering what is the district exactly doing with this money that's coming in? That's the stormwater program. The stormwater program. We've actually spent some of the money too on some of the projects that the board has approved to date. The Nodes machine was one of the recipients of the funding. We did the school fixture retrofits and now we're looking at stormwater recharge and we have some other ideas too for some projects. And with the stormwater recharge project that will be quantifiable and measurable to make sure that it is doing what it's designed to do. That's what we're working on is evaluating that right now so it's not a for certain thing. Okay, thank you. I'm still against adding more demand on an overtaxed aquifer with seawater intrusion as a problem. So I really do think you need to enforce your groundwater emergency that you declared I think it was in 2014 and to again consider a moratorium because there is a problem and continuing to add more service connections and water demand is not going to help. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to comment. Sure. So if we did not have a water demand offset that more than offset the amount of new water usage then there would be a taxing of the aquifer as it is. There's not. So that's why I vote for it. And I think that concept is a little foreign but the idea is that if a household is going to use 100 gallons per day they have to come up with the water demand offsets greater than that amount so that there's savings to the aquifer instead of a deficit to the office aquifer. So. Okay. What's your pleasure? I'll make both motions. I'll second. Okay. I'll motion a second. All in favor? Aye. Post. So item 6.2 the consumer confidence report. Great. We're going to have Carla present tonight for us. Good evening. I'm pleased to bring you the 2017 Consumer Confidence Water Quality Report. So it's also a joint effort with staff from the outreach who did the formatting and layout design. It's very similar to last year's report. One second. I lost my spot. The report contains all of the required language and the water quality summary table on page six and seven, I believe. Seven and six and seven. We also have a graphic. I just noticed a new graphic that shows the water parts per million, parts per billion, and parts per trillion right there on page. That was nice. And that was Becca who did that. I think it looks great. It's a good visual for people to understand the different concentrations. And there really wasn't too much that needed to be added this year except for adding in the number of schools that had requested the lead sampling of their drinking water. And we had eight schools who requested that sampling, and we have completed that in 2017. Could we put in the results in here? So we are not going to put in results. They don't mandate us to put in results. And part of the language in the actual permit amendment and the new assembly bill 746 was that the schools, they'll disseminate the data to their parents, students, and staff. Are there any questions about anything specific? About that? Oh, no. I mean, about that or in the report itself? Okay. I didn't know, visually, is there any way to make the print darker on the actual? I don't know if it's better on a printed copy, but I thought it was kind of gray instead of black. You know, I have a printed copy here, and it does come out very dark. So it could have just been the way the PDF was generated. I just want to make sure people can see it, okay? It came out dark on mine, too. That was all. Content-wise, it's good. Any other questions? I thought it was good work, as always. Thank you. Do we have a pathogen report in the source water? Do you report that? So we don't. You're talking bacteriological pathogens. So the only thing that we do on source water is check for quarterly for coliform bacteria, total coliform. And if so, we have not had any positives on our source water. I don't know what other kind of pathogens you're thinking of. One of the things that came up in the water reuse conference was the GRDM. They were looking for the effectiveness of the purification process on larger-sized pathogens. Okay, so we're groundwater only, and we don't have any water under the influence of surface water, so we don't test for GRD or crypto or any of those parasites. Any other questions? Well, I have a few. Page 28, just below the map of the water districts, I think there's a little bit of language that needs to be changed a bit. It says, emergency to share of water supplies. And I think the OV is a good grammar. It's the third line below the map. It says, emergencies to share of water supplies. It can be open during... Water supplies would be a better grammar. Take out the OV? Yeah. Oh, yeah, that should be gone. Thank you for finding that. And a number of things on page 32 I had some questions about. I see that we've had, for nitrate, a detection of 5.0, which is half of 10. And I just wondered where that was, what was the circumstance? So that was expected. That's our country club well. And it usually runs about half of the MCL, or a little bit below. And this year, or last year in 2017 we had a couple instances where it came up right at 5. Okay. As nitrogen as in. And down a little bit further, radium, we have a... MCL is 5 and we had a 2.6 hit. I wonder just where that was and is that expected? So the 2.6 pico-curies per liter was at Aptos Junior High and that was part of the initial monitoring that was done when the well was... Aptos Junior High well number two was brought online. Okay. And we took the first well off. And the 2.6 was actually a single quarterly sample. And so the average for Aptos Junior High was actually closer to just two. So it was still above the detection limit. But the 2.6 was a single sample. Yeah. Right. Are we still getting sample values in that range? No. Since the initial monitoring ended, we haven't been prompted to take any further samples. Okay. It's above the detection limit but below the MCL. Right. So the state's not concerned. When things get about half of the MCL, we start getting nervous that a little bit of nudge and we could go over it. And I like to know where they are and what the reason is. So that's why I'm asking. Okay. Yeah. And the next one is iron. There was a 240 hit and the MCL is 300. So for me, that's pretty close to the MCL. So I wonder where that was and what that was about. So that was from our Madeline well and that does not have treatment for iron and manganese. And so we know that it usually runs around 150 to 250 sometimes depending on when it turns on and how much it's been running. And this sample could have been taken closer to its startup. Okay. But it's still... It's below the MCL. It's below the MCL. Yes, it is. Not much. Should we be thinking about doing some treatment there? I don't think that that's something... I think the 240 was a single sample and it wasn't indicative of needing treatment. I think that it's... I know that's just a secondary standard. So it's not a... Right. I mean... Well, continue to look at it. Yeah. Well, we... I'm taking quarterly samples there. Okay. So we do... Good. We monitor it how well it's doing. A little further down the TDS. That's 723. 723. That was at Garnet. And the conductivity was also high on that sample. Conductivity and TDS kind of go together. And so it's just... It kind of bumped up a little bit. Is that from chloride there or...? You know, I can't remember what the chloride value was at Garnet. That was the high value for chloride. The chloride value actually was 76. And that was the high value on the range of detection for chloride 19 to 76. There's other constituents in there that also... In part, you know, total dissolved solids. I don't think it's just the chloride. Yeah, I'm just worried about chloride. It's probably our closest well to the ocean. Oh, that's understandable. One more to go. That'd be that one. And if that's starting to happen, it would be good to know about it. We'll look into that. Thank you. Yes. And the last one is our TCP number. It's gotten up to 11, and the notification level is 5. So that's double the notification level. So I was wondering... So... I know we've had some hits there. But I'm wondering what do we need to do when we go over the notification level? So because the state actually instituted the MCL last year at the very end of the year in December, the DDW gave us the choice of keeping 1, 2, 3 TCP in the unregulated constituent monitoring section with a footnote explaining that the notification level is only... The notification level is only for those constituents that do not have a maximum contaminant level. So we left it as having the notification level, and then the MCL is being not applicable. But next year... But next year we would change it because now it has an MCL. So we would change it and move it up to a primary health standard and it would fall under having an MCL of 5. At some point I'd like to hear about our plan for dealing with the TCP. That's an ongoing effort. Just Country Club Well, right? Country Club Well, yes. Which we're not using... Yeah, Country Club was turned off on July 20th last year. But we were looking into a treatment process, I thought. Yes, and it's... No hurry, but I'd like to hear about that. Yeah, that's coming back later. But that effort has been ongoing and pretty much concluded. Okay. There are no other questions here? I have one. Okay. So along the same lines, the Chlorate, there's not an MCL, but there's a notification level. And it seems like sometimes we detect above the notification level. So... Right? So that Chlorate was in 2013 and that value of 1,400 parts per billion was actually determined by DDW not to be an actual significance because it had to do with bleach that was sitting for a while and the Chlorate level had gone up significantly. And that was taken during the last round of the UCMR3. And so it stays in our consumer confidence report because we need to keep it in there, but it's not of significance. So the Chlorate is that value that you see, that 1,400, and that average amount is because if you average that 1,400 with other sources, it looks like we have that average, but we don't. And that makes sense. So the problem in 2013 is being corrected? Yes, but they do not want us to take it out of our consumer confidence report. And do we have plans to test again? So with the new round right now I'm doing, which is collecting for the UCMR4, it's a whole other collection of constituents. Once we have that data and that's all that's going to be this year, 2018, our 2018 unregulated constituent monitoring would be put on here and I believe that we can remove the older UCMR3 data, but I need to confirm that. Okay, good catch. Okay, anyone in the public wish to address us on this item? Seeing no one. Okay, what do we do with this? Thank you. I think it was informational, I think. Direct staff to make changes, if any. We did. So I think we're done with this. Thank you. Thanks, Carla. Now we go to 6.3, Board Direction on New Applicant Offsets Generating Project Proposal for 5701 in Soquel. So in February we brought you a proposal from Workbench to install the buoy metering systems as a conservation measure and a way for the applicant to meet their offset requirement for their proposed development project. And at that meeting, the Board directed staff to go back and reevaluate the water savings calculations that we had done using our own automated meter reading data, if available. We also were directed to prorate the savings because the buoy device has a lifetime of 10 years and our Water Demand Offset Program requires savings for 20 years. And you also asked that we solicit a draft plan from Workbench to collect a pilot study using the buoy device. So we started on that effort and then as discussed at the last Board meeting, we've had some new circumstances regarding our automated metering system. And that's prompted us to evaluate a quicker migration to AMI or advanced metering infrastructure much sooner than we had anticipated. We have an opportunity there financially, I think, to save some money and do it now as well as staff resources. So we've been talking about that for a while but we're moving ahead with that evaluation to migrate to AMI and we've gotten the information to Master Meter to do the propagation study and to determine how many collectors we might need and that'll help us get an idea of the actual cost of implementing AMI now. That's where we are in our evaluation. We've also been checking in with some other agencies that have installed Master Meter AMI system. Nobody's super far along except for one or two agencies in Texas where they've gotten a full deployment of the system and in California it's been more of a partial deployment and there's no real significant, I guess, red flags there from the people that we've talked to but it is a new and evolving technology just like the AMR was when we started that process. So the reason why we're bringing this particular issue back tonight is because if we did migrate to AMI, the buoy system, the water savings would not happen because they would be happening already through the AMI system. There's a couple exceptions, a couple benefits of buoy that our AMI system wouldn't include and that would be the buoy has an automatic or remote shutoff function and the AMI system does not. The buoy also has a much more robust consumer app that educates people not only how much water they're using whether they have a leak but how that water is being used in their home whether it's showers or clothes washing and that sort of thing so there could be a bit of a benefit there but the main leak detection benefit is not going to provide much more over what the AMI system can provide and so we wanted to come back and get some direction from the board about whether we should continue with the water saving calculation tasks that you've asked us to look into and the pilot study given that we might switch over to AMI and it might be redundant with the buoy. A couple items to note, we're still evaluating whether the buoy product meets the state and federal requirements relating to that NSF certification and it's much bigger than lead, it's basically compounds that might be present in certain types of materials like silicones and metals and that sort of thing. We have heard from buoy that their individual components that go into the product are all certified but there's one particular component, it's a badger meter spud that we stopped using internally several years ago because it has not been NSF certified so that's one issue that we're still going to need to get the burden approved from buoy that the product does meet the regulatory requirements. If that hurdle can't be cleared then this is not a viable option. What we're asking tonight is if you want us to continue with the water savings estimates and the pilot study and if so then that would be contingent upon that regulatory compliance piece with the NSF standards. Any board questions? Yeah, I just, I do. What was the, like say we did get an estimate from master meter and what's the time frame we're looking at to install AMI? We, because we in for the most part can just pop out the registers, the AMR registers and replace them with the AMI registers for most of our 5-8 cm meters which make up about 90% of our meter base. It would only I think take a couple years. We are only really looking at having to replace some of the larger meters and replace the registers for those meters as well. So I think is a two-year time span is reasonable. Okay, thank you. You have questions? I have the same question. So the AMI, the advanced metering infrastructure system, it's two years to replace all of our users? Yeah, two years. And that's because we don't actually have to pull the meters out. It's a simple exchange of registers. And then once you exchange that register, is there additional work in terms of software? Yeah, and so there is a, we would have to upgrade to the harmony software is what they call it. And that's not expected to be real-time extensive. It's pretty similar to the current software that we use for the AMR meters. There would be some training involved there. We could phase in our implementation of this. You don't have to have the base station or the collectors in place. You can still drive by and read these registers until you get those collectors in place. So that's probably the biggest time challenge is making sure you have enough collectors and you're getting, the signals are getting sent. So you'd have to get sites for collectors. Yeah, and luckily we... So is that a couple years or is it...? I think right now what we're doing is we've gotten master meter all of the data that they need about the properties that we own and the elevations of those properties and they're doing the propagation study right now with that information. So that has to be done. And then you also have to apply to the FCC for licensing and they do that for us. And it's not very expensive. The product has to be registered with the FCC. So we're looking at... If we were to say go now, we'd probably be, I would say, two to three months out before we could start exchanging the registers. And then the software... There's software internal, but to me one of the big advantages of all this is that people can look at their usage on an app. Is that the same timeframe? And that is probably the last piece that gets implemented is you want to make sure everything's up and running and then you've got to get people to participate and we would probably do an outreach campaign to get people to download the app and be able to log in to their usage and see how that's working. I know some other agencies that have done it, they have to build up their participation in the app. It doesn't just happen overnight where you have all of your users joining that process. But Shelly, the app is fully developed and being utilized now? Yes. Just to add on to that, just so... But if we detected a leak before people were on checking themselves, we would be able to get to them that day. Yeah. They'd be automatic. Yeah. But they wouldn't know what the leak is. If we're still doing drive-by reading, we would still be once a month. It's not until we get the collectors in place and then yeah, we would be getting the alerts and we could let people know. If it's all in place then we would get an alert. Yes. And then we could forward that to them even if they don't have the app working. Correct. And how many years would that be? I think the app could probably be in place by the end of the two years, realistically. So that's for leaks. But there's the advantage also of changing habits for water usage. And you're right, not everyone is going to get the app right away, but I think people would be very... I think there'd be a number of people who would like to see their water usage and would change their habits. Also depending on what great structure we go on, it could be a real asset to the consumer select. consumer select type of rate structure too. Yes. So which one is more ready to go into a pilot study? Well, I mean, as soon as we get FCC licensing and the board says, and we're able to kind of firm up the costs and come back to you and ask for your direction, I think that'll probably be about another month or two out. Then we could basically start purchasing that product and replacing registers and go from there. You can do it by neighborhood, so you could go ahead and test out. Yeah, you have to do it regionally because you need the tower in that close proximity to pick up those reads. So it wouldn't really work for that other project from the last meeting that we were talking about, the submetering wouldn't work to do a test? Yeah, I mean, we could go ahead and put in those hybrid AMR, AMI registers and then just read them in the regular drive-by mode until we get towers. But those two projects are in close proximity, so we could really look at getting a tower in that area sooner than some other areas if that was going to be our pilot. Well, you started off by talking about needing to investigate before you see if you go down the AMI route. How long do you think that investigation would take? Because I don't want to hold these people up. Yeah. Like I said, we've made some contacts with other agencies. We've talked to three other groups in Southern California that have installed them. I'm really thinking that we ought to possibly take a trip to Texas to look at where the system is fully deployed and they're using the app. So I would say a couple months, and we'll have a really good solid idea of what we think we should do and come back to you and see what you think. That's not long. I have a question. Sure. The Bowie, as I recall, it learns and you could figure out where the leak is easier with it. Yeah. The Bowie is able to establish patterns of use by different devices and they did say that it does learn those patterns and so it can distinguish whether you're using water in your shower or your laundry or your landscape. Whereas AMI systems aren't that advanced. They're not. I mean, you could collect data logs or you could actually collect the data and evaluate it on a case-by-case basis and probably be able to determine, oh, yeah, that's irrigation or that's, you know, something indoors. But it's not the same. So it wouldn't tell you if you had a toilet leak versus a break and you're like that. No. My wall and in my ceiling. I had two bizarre leaks in my house. Could somebody look at their own data on enough of a fine time scale to be able to see when the usage happened? Yes. Okay. The obvious thing you can do is detect what kind of toilets they have because if you see five gallons, five gallons, five gallons, five gallons, five gallons they have a five gallon toilet. You can see when it happened and how much water it was but it doesn't go beyond that. And I think the first question you had about can you actually see where the leak is? The answer is no because it's just, you know, here's your pipe and you've got a meter on the pipe and you don't know where it goes and where it's leaking. So if your toilet's running all the time you wouldn't know that. Well, you would see constant flow. But I had constant flow coming out of my wall and I didn't see it until it broke. Yeah. I mean, we need to hear from the public. Yes, ma'am. So there are no more questions by the board. No. Let's open it up to the public. Come on up. Yeah. How's it going? Okay. How are you? Good. So we just had a few comments and questions about some things that you said and just to talk a little bit more about the buoy product. So in general, it does do leak detection similar to that. Some other benefits that you can do with the buoy is turned off immediately. So I was wondering how does the process go with Soquel Creek if you had the AMI? So say I had a leak at my house. I wasn't home or something. And the AMI was installed already. How would you handle it? Does someone go out there and shut off the water for me? The buoy has the remote shut off, like I mentioned, whereas the AMI system doesn't. The AMI system that we're looking at sends a read every 12 hours. So there is some potential savings there in terms of earlier notification with the buoy. I think the way that it would work is we would notify the customer once we got the alert. And we don't, I think going out to the site and shutting off the water would be dependent upon the volume of water being lost. We're not going to go out if it's a small little leak. I think we even do that now, don't we? Yeah. So you would have a benefit with the buoy of quicker notification and the remote shut off that the AMI system wouldn't have. But you have to recognize that it's going to decrease how much savings you're credited for the buoy against the AMI because you would get 12 hours of savings instead of half a month of savings. Understandable. If someone went out there and shut it off within 12 hours. Right. But if, for example, someone's not home, or I don't know, I'm not sure if you need someone, or if you guys just go turn it off or you need to get a hold of someone, but you know, there's, that goes into it. So we talked about the buoy providing more detail. So with the buoy, you can tell exactly what is running, right? Automatically that happens. There's no need to research it by a member of staff. There's also, the other thing it detects is high usage and waste usage. So if you, if your toilet is running, for example, I'm not sure if the AMI will specifically pick that up or say you have irrigation that's leaking. You're going to have to enlighten me there, but a buoy would tell you that you're using water when you're not home. Whereas the AMI would not necessarily, like, you wouldn't really know, like, yeah, I wasn't home, there shouldn't be any water running unless you were sitting there watching your meter. Does that make sense? Well, the existing system already does that because it can tell you, it's been running 24 hours a day for the last month and so you know there's a leak. Yeah, it's the intermittent high usage that is kind of more harder to detect, but we do monitor that in our office once the reeds come in with our current system. They look at past usage, believe it or not, for 15,000 accounts they're able to pick out quite a few cases of high usage and flag that, but it wouldn't be immediate. Again, it would be once every, you know, 30 days. 30 days right now. Okay, thank you. John, do you have a couple of questions? I just wanted to, that's about it. Regarding, I did want to say, regarding the bachelor coupling device, it is actually an accessory piece to the buoy. It's not required for normal operation. If we can't get confirmed confirmation that it does meet the NSF standards, then we can actually just remove that from the package and it's not something that's actually required. So far as we know, everything does meet the NSF standards and we're still working on getting actual confirmation of that. Okay, thank you. So if I could understand the timeline for you guys, you would want to go check out the other systems in Texas and then time to get everything approved and get a tower and everything in place is still a little ways out, like eight months to a year. I think the evaluation is a couple months and yeah, getting a tower in place is going to be probably the longest timeline. We can go ahead and start switching out registers for existing services or putting those systems in for new services, like we've talked about with Aptos Village and Rancho Del Mar. But getting the towers in place is probably the last step in that pilot, I think, and then the app, but yeah. Well, there would still be some time savings for buoy. We could hit the ground running right now with buoy, right? So we would be able to. Yeah, if we can get verification of the NSF and then we also need some need to come back to the board with the adjusted calculations and have them verify that they want to move ahead with that. And then you, you know, for you to verify that you want to move ahead based on whatever decisions made with how much water can be saved per unit and whether that's cost effective for you or not is, you know, something you'll have to decide. So that's, I think, where we are. Do you know what the cost per unit is? The cost of a buoy right now is 800 and they run some specials last month, I think, was 499. So... 500 to 800. Yeah, 500 to 800. And yeah. I think we also need to, there was the pilot study and so there needs to be a determination about whether the water savings estimate is going to be granted to your project regardless of the outcome of the pilot or if it's going to be dependent upon the outcome of the pilot and we'll have to go from there. That's the tough thing. Because we were talking about what advantage does it give over our current system and that would be one number but now we're talking about maybe the current system won't be the current system, it'll be this other system so the savings of buoy against that would be much less. And you're talking about, you know, putting it in while the buoy, put the buoy in for some areas that won't get it for a while so they might not get it for a year so you get a year's worth of credits and that'll be even less and it'll be complicated but partially it's up to you guys if you think this is not going to give you enough savings right now I'd say wait for two months and see whether we're even doing this or not because against our current system it'd be a lot better savings than against AMI. Right. Another possibility is to target, you know areas that won't get the AMI soon and also users that are high end where you'd probably get more savings for people who use a lot of water like you know, my household you wouldn't get much savings but there are some households where you'd be amazed at how much water is used and I don't know whether this would facilitate an awareness that would then result in a decrease in water use but that's all we're looking for is the decrease in water use any way that it can happen. Right. I think we went over this before but I was wondering if, you know I know there's no consumer report on the reliability and like how well it works because it's the software, it's the pentatoms you know, software not having any glitches or crashing or anything like that is there enough users who've had it for long enough to have a track record on that? Because the essential thing about the Buoy is it is a user, the customer is the user. Yeah, that's a great question Hilary Bryant with Buoy Labs so to your question we've been in pilot testing for over two and a half years we've tested across the country in a variety of different climates and locations just for not just to test the software but to test the product in different installation conditions so it's two and a half years of really rigorous testing both in labs and being back tested against lab equipment and then in actual physical homes across the country and then if I could address the NSF question so it was brought to my attention this afternoon about the couplings they're badger, spuds or meter couplings they're typically not used in any of the in fact most I can think of maybe two that we've used them in but the majority of our installs especially in the state of California are outdoor installs so you're using copper couplings so it's the copper couplings directly to the Buoy and we could certainly take those out of any installation in Soquel Creek and in fact I think they probably wouldn't be used regardless because we're usually doing copper to the Buoy because they're outdoor installations and then in regards to an opportunity for savings you know our software is very robust it's very consumer friendly it's ready to go right now doesn't require towers and we could certainly focus on high users and areas where perhaps we're not going to do the switch out or we're not going to be able to put the tower in immediately and focus a pilot on that and run it against the AMI as you install it so you really could have some true comparison to the product that you're putting in the district and the Buoy product but the biggest difference is not just the real time and the granularity of the information but that ability to shut off your water from wherever you're at I can even tell you a bit embarrassing but the other night, two nights ago I was asleep and got a notification on my watch that there was a leak in the house and my toilet had been running and I probably slept through a couple of those but I caught it at about 110 gallons that had been running for an hour it was two in the morning one of my kids had flushed the toilet and I actually got up and shut the water off so that's an hour and 20 some minutes of use and had it gone all night it would have been close to five or six hundred gallons and for most of us, you know even with the ability of AMI that notification and those push to our devices and alerting people and then giving them the ability to just shut the water off and where they're at it does result in some pretty immediate and impressive savings but I think the challenge for all of us is rather than stories we need to have some data to estimate what the savings actually would be absolutely and that's why I think maybe perhaps running Buoy with against some of these units that you're already if you're able to install them in the next few months could give you a real true pilot in comparison there's an opportunity how's that sound? sounds interesting I'd like to ask a question so I love the innovativeness of the products so thank everybody for who's involved with that my understanding is this signal through your Wi-Fi probably up to the cloud and some magic happens up there and it rains back down so to speak do you ever envision in your business model I mean is it free for that right now is there going to be a subscription rate at some point can you enlighten us on that? so right now to the cost it's $7.99 and that includes an installation by a licensed plumber in fact I think we had a letter from we've been using Santa Cruz plumbing locally for our installs and our vision for any type of pilot like this is that that data is your data for the lifetime of the product so it runs on your Wi-Fi we could certainly work with the district to give the information an aggregate so you can understand about the each device and what is being used but everybody's information is their private information and that would belong right and I respect that I'm just wondering if you envision any sort for the cloud work and all that out in time or is there one currently no no there's not one currently the way our current model is around this the fee is for the hardware and the installation and then the data runs off like I said the customer's Wi-Fi so it's not connected to a if there was a cellular component then there would be a fee but right now that's not okay and that costs $500, $800 that included the labor to install right now we're selling them $7 we had done a special $499 including install but right now we're doing it $799 including installation and our installations typically take about an hour and a half to two hours you mentioned Wi-Fi what if the customer doesn't have Wi-Fi how's that right now it doesn't work we've thought about going to a cellular option for people who are in remote areas but again that would require a fee because it's just an expense so just want to second what President Daniel said about if there's hard data it sounds like you might have some data on just the effect of having the buoy in terms of reduction in water use you know it's probably too small a sample to really get at the leak issue because there's a lot of variety in how leaks can happen and when they can happen but I'd be curious to you know and receptive to if people who do install a buoy by having a greater awareness of their water use decrease their water use and so that to me would be a potential place for a credit thanks guys letters you mentioned we actually have a couple of letters from from Robert Singleton at the Business Council just join your recommendation for the project as well okay I had two other points we had talked about numbers previously when we met after the last meeting is that something that's pertinent now discussing how that you came up with the water savings estimates yeah so we did take a look at that and we found that with our AMR data we're not able to really get at how long on average leaks go on for we kind of have an idea of the most common leak amount and how many leaks that we detected but we don't know how long they went on for so that piece of data is missing and so we would have to make some assumptions there and I think you said cut the billing period in half 14-15 days and base it on that we did look I think we looked at another study the residential end use study which came out in 2016 and that's also a national study of water loss to leaks were actually greater than that 10% of total water that EPA in the WaterSense program touted which is what we used in our initial calculations so we feel that the numbers that we use the first time around are pretty reasonable and conservative compared to some of the other data that's out there and that's kind of where we landed and we're just waiting to see if you want us to kind of finalize that work and bring it back maybe we do that and then you decide if you want us to move ahead with the pilot as opposed to doing both now and I think we should finish the calculations and see what the board thinks and see if the applicant wants to proceed based on what you decide and then if so then initiate the pilot study that pilot study would have to be pretty much developed by the applicant because our staff resources are pretty limited especially since we're really looking at this AMI migration we could of course provide some guidance to them but I think really it's got to be on the applicant to come up with that pilot plan, pilot study we are looking forward to proceeding if possible so I think there's some good points mentioned that we could get some previous data we can talk to other clients of Buoy and get some recommendations and as Hilary said compared to the AMI when that rolls out so I think there's still potential here and we would prefer to continue if possible so one other component of the AMI project that we're looking at is calculating internally how much water we can save if we deploy this district wide and coming up with some estimates there and coming back to the board and asking whether we can use water demand offset fees to fund this implementation of the AMI based on that water savings so it's expected to be a pretty sizable amount we've done some preliminary calculations and there's pretty significant water savings and if that was something that you approved then we could basically reestablish our offset credit bank like we did when we retrofit toilets years ago and probably that would eliminate the need for applicants to go out and do their own projects unless they really wanted to well does anyone else in the audience thank you Becky Steinbruner I have questions I guess for both systems my question about the buoy system is how would it accommodate vacation rentals and water use depending on how many people rent the home and how many people there are and what kind of water use they are and how would it adapt to that how would the buoy system adapt to changes in ownership of the property and then regarding the AMI I'm not really clear about what that is exactly I'm hearing that it's radio transmitting from the towers what exactly does the system mean for the general public what are the towers going to look like what's the power level that will be transmitted from homes and two homes if it goes that direction and I guess also I'm curious with the recent news how safe is this information that's being transmitted wireless to both systems to prevent it from being hacked and maybe put to not a good use those are my questions and thank you very much those are good questions so may I add a few comments for the board's evaluation three things come to mind for me that I just want to make us aware of one is what value will we get out of this that love innovation and think there may be some data that comes out that could be valuable but weighing that against again the limited staff resources so that's another thing I'm not making a pitch one way or the other but you know that we're pretty stretched as it is and then the third thing I think to take into consideration as I sit here because I've been doing the water demand offset program or I did do it for 12 years or something like that and when I first came on it was we really had a zero win on the products that we were giving our customers I mean we actually had it end up going to third party water sense approved for not only performance but for parts insurance and durability and I'm sure the product is great but a concern that I do have to look out for them and express this is you know there's a relatively new product that would be out potentially in our customers homes with our kind of blessing behind it so to speak that you know something could happen in a few years out and you know what would be the recourse then I'm sure through some contractual arrangements we could shift liability wherever but that's another factor to take into consideration well I think it wouldn't replace the AMR or AMI so that would be our portal and then you're right that if the system were to fail the user may have to replace it or just take it out but we would still have an AMR device there that would be our meter I would think so so two questions one what does the cost end up being per meter for the AMI about don't have that with me so if you just buy the register itself I think it's about $120 which is a 40% discount and if you obviously if you buy the register and the meter I think it's that's okay I mainly meant the replacement one and then you mentioned 12 hours is what the frequency of sending the data would be so that's how often the data is actually sent to the collector or tower they're not giant towers that's probably a collector is probably a better description they're only sent every 12 hours but you can actually you can actually collect more reads than that every 30 seconds or something but as far as us getting the data there would be a 12 hour lag between either us or the consumer getting the information about a leak if I understood it correctly when we talked to them it's not a lag well yeah what's the last 12 hours of usage the reason for that is battery life you could do it more frequently but you're going to wear your battery down soon or right so okay and then my last comment is just that you know it's seems like additionality if we do decide we've already kind of decided we wanted to go this way eventually anyway so I think it's going to be hard to meet that additionality standard for more than a couple years if that's the way we may go so that's all and I think we should make the AMI decision just based on our own desire and our own needs we shouldn't be predicated on this or not this no exactly but I think there could be areas where we're not going to do AMI soon and there might be a niche yeah there also may be areas in our mountainous region where the AMI may not have complete coverage so there may be another opportunity there and we won't know that till the evaluation study and in that case you can put in repeater devices which are pretty small devices you can install those to transmit the signal in those hard to reach areas so so it sounds like we need a couple months to get a little more info so what is the staff commitment if we decide that we want to you know tell them to proceed is it days, weeks? well finishing the calculations and bringing that back to you won't be that time consuming but the pilot study I have some concerns about how long how much staff time that might take you know what's acceptable and what's not you know we just we haven't done maybe before I don't think except for maybe irrigation irrigation controllers the irrigation controllers we actually did it when we installed the AMR yeah initially about a six month pilot study it would involve that it would probably involve some legal paperwork just for protection like Ron said the liability release if somebody is going to install it like for what we do for toilets now is they have a release of liability that the applicant has to get the customer to sign that you know doesn't implicate the district if anything goes wrong yeah so that would all have to be part of the process to the pilot process and there's another railroad track here too which is we have this special deal some of our AMRs are failing and we need to replace them and we replace them with another AMR AMI in which case we could still do the drive-by for years and then the separate decision is do we install the infrastructure to be able to do the 12-hour reads and that's a different decision because we can install the AMI meters everywhere in our district and just not using for that and then some time later we could install the infrastructure to do the reads you know it's hard to give you a number to the original question the staffing but you know there's just these ramifications of you know legal to the website to the calculations you know I'll throw a number out there I'm gonna say it's gonna be about 80 hours of staff time you know and that's a ballpark estimate with no real data behind it but just having worked in that seat for a long time do you think that's even reasonable Shelly it might be low it might be low let's go back to Texas yeah I was talking about for the buoy okay I mean even designing the pilot study would be a little bit problematic because you'd have to get a wide enough area to make it I mean you have the before and after but it has to be a wide enough area since the leaks don't are random mostly and then we're going to want to track consumption of the properties where it is installed for our own purposes and to compare to what data we can get from buoy which is going to be like Hillary said not customer specific but it's probably just going to be looking at the whole pool of people that are participating in the pilot we're going to want to kind of compare that information and so there will be some time spent there on setting that spreadsheet up and tracking that generating reports and evaluating that information but even that is going to be tricky to use because we probably don't have previous data on these customers that have the buoy units now so we don't know whether they're saving or how much they're saving you would only want to install the buoy in customers homes that are established homes and there's at least a couple years of baseline data that you can compare to if we did a pilot here yes but if you look at the but beta isn't that they've been doing I don't know whether we have they have the customer data from previous years that allow you to do a comparison otherwise you say because we talked about it'll let you know whether it's the toilet or it's the washing machine but we can't know whether that's saving anything knowing that information unless we had right and that 80 hours didn't include a post pilot analysis you know in my mind the way I envisioned it and I may be off but it'd be less quantitative and more qualitative interviewing those recipients seeing if they found it of value if they felt it changed their habits you know we look and see what we could but there's going to be a lot of variable to that so I think it'd be more of a qualitative nature than the quantitative it has to be part of our criteria right and you may have to rely on those statistics that come up that Shelley promoted earlier the EPA number of 10% of usage is leaked devoted to leaks and I don't know if you'll ever get to a true number unless we invest you know you're talking I mean just statistically you would need a lot you don't think that like other places who have used it whether it's Texas or somewhere else have prior data and can compare what they're doing now we've been asking we asked the people in Southern California if they had gone through any analysis of water savings before they employed the AMI and if they've done anything after and they're in Southern California no one has the same issues that we have here apparently so there's not a lot to go on and we haven't talked with the people in Texas yet they do have some pretty significant water issues so maybe they've done some more studies and estimates and evaluations I thought you were talking about the buoy system you were talking about the AMI system oh I thought you were talking about taxes wherever they have data there's got to be some data that shows where they put it in and the AMI so you can kind of compare what's happened I'm not quite sure what data buoy has but I mean the AMI system too they should be able to have data on water use before and after installation yeah and you can and we can estimate you know we did the back of the envelope we know roughly how much is lost through that and if we detect every month and it stops and we can do it you know and then if we're going to detect every 12 hours that's the kind of the back of the envelope we've done with AMI that's assuming no behavioral changes just leaks yes so there could be problems with this but do we want to say no at this point I think it's pretty cool that they're trying to come up with a good idea like this I don't think I think it would be worth myself investigating where we are with AMI and do I don't know how long it takes to do the calculations and figure out I'm worried that it won't be enough to be worth it for them if we choose to go to AMI well that's really up to them right but I don't know I think it's worth investigating a little further we need to know about AMI anyway we do but I don't know what to tell them now as to how much credit they could have because I don't either if we start doing this the buoy installation and then six months later they get AMIs go back and take away some of the credit we've given them no we have to have an estimate and make a decision of whether we're going forward with my decision exactly about the consensus I'm personally intrigued by the whole buoy system but I can see that AMI is more potentially widespread and but I don't think we could have the answer on what the numbers and whether it's really worth it to you yet I agree with that part of it a few more months then or if you just want to go install some on spec and for the fun of it that's fine too but I actually do your own study your own pilot study I mean you don't need to come through the water just I was thinking about getting one for myself or if there's can be identified in area where AMI won't be used soon where the buoy system could have a large start perhaps we come back in a couple months with the update on what we've learned about AMI in terms of cost and implementation plan those sorts of things and then we can you can decide at that time I'd be receptive to seeing estimates I don't want I want the onus really to be more on the applicant then on the staff but I know the staff is going to have to be involved so we just didn't want them to move forward and misstep that's why Shelly brought it back trying to be fair and looking out for them too the right thing something has changed so are we I would tell I guess the consensus seems to be and I don't know if it's not really a motion thing that you proceed and find out about AMI you can't commit to them right now they have to wait a couple months and see where we are on that decision because we don't know how much credit it would be worth and since this credit is going to be a guesstimate even in the best cases it wouldn't hurt to have a guesstimate of their thing versus AMR and their thing versus AMI okay when you do come back okay okay so we've done with that one 6-3 so we move on to 6-4 and I do want to encourage you I like the idea whenever you're doing something so innovative you have to break new ground and it's difficult so we do have to have something that's measurable and additional staff proposal to discontinue tracking enforcement of local retrofit on sale plumbing fixture ordinances and I have Roy Sykes our conservation specialist here tonight to give a summary of this item Roy's been managing and enforcing the ROS program since 2003 in the city of cap for the city of Capitola and since 2013 I believe for the county of Santa Cruz within our service area boundary so go ahead Roy okay good evening yeah so we have been doing the enforcement on behalf of the city of Capitola since September of 2003 and that's a local ordinance that requires older fixtures to be replaced with newer fixtures when the property is sold so the compliance is solved with tracking real estate transactions on a monthly basis that costs about $1,800 a year that information is provided through a private vendor we receive the monthly file and then check that against database and the properties that don't have certificates we send a compliance letter to typically those letters are responded to and they get a certificate a certain number never get a response and so those properties are recorded that's the teeth of the ordinance in those cases now there's a new rub January 1st of 2018 a law was enacted by the state State of California where by $75 they're now assessing those fees on public agencies and that puts us in a bind we really can't recover those costs we'd be required to pay those on behalf of a customer and that could constitute a problem with our operational laws that's pretty important another reality that's occurring is because of our water demand offset program and our rebate program and the waterwise house calls and other manners in which we've distributed toilets, faucet aerators shower heads we've got a pretty good saturation with new fixtures now only about 1% of toilets are now coming up as non-compliant since we've been doing this and we've been doing this as Shelly said since 2003 in Capitola and in 2014 in March of 2014 we expanded that to the county of Santa Cruz so the plumbing codes are kicking in chasing, diminishing returns that's the reason that we're presenting this memo to kind of consider those those realities now kind of the wages of success isn't it I suppose so yeah the efforts being duplicated and in light of the discussions now about staff time and what not about 40% of my time is spent tracking and enforcing this writing letters and going to the county and doing inspections so that's a pretty big chunk of time probably Amazon the dark web I don't know that's a good question you actually can't buy the 1.6 is gallons per flush toilets in the state of California which are okay to be 1.6 is compliant yeah so it's self-limiting and it was inevitable yep we got there pretty fast yeah I had a question of were there any alternatives there are other ideas you had for either encouraging the city and the county or working with them to still not lose that remaining 10% the county um you know has a program in the rest of the county areas that don't include the city of Santa Cruz's service area and they they manage the program but they don't their enforcement is not as vigorous as what we've been doing so I would think that they're going to continue they're going to reincorporate our service area into their program and that the city of Capitola has the option of kind of doing the same it's more of what did you call it Roy trust more of a trust program the realtors you know kind of helping basically people comply with it so you're allowed to get partial credit but not yeah and that's why we took it over from the county is they've been doing it they were the first ones to do it and I think before 2003 but we felt that in 2013 that we could gain some more water savings if we actively started enforcing it we were doing for the city of Capitola and we took that on knowing that it probably wasn't going to be a long endeavor so we're planning to go back and work with those entities to make sure that there's a smooth transition whatever they want to do and that all of the realtors know so they can get the word out to the community and of course all of our outreach materials will be updated to clarify what people need to do yeah I understand it's a lot of time and effort it's a hate to lose any potential savings but like Roy said it's a very small sliver and also I think the memo states that in two years the city of Santa Cruz is going to stop their program and I think we had a more accelerated replacement program than they did by a way of example 1% of toilets is about 160 toilets a year out of 6000 or something like that it's a pretty small I mean it's in that in the shower head count as well is really starting to dwindle where we have to have them change the shower heads out and most of those are in the county and you say the county probably would continue something we need to there's some requirements related to the urban water management plans that requires some sort of a retrofit program those would continue to be administered we would have there's some inertia to the program we do still have 57 properties that have been recorded and we maintain the release forms so there would have to be some maintenance involved with that until the time came when we could convey those to either the county or the city of Capitola so the sunset wouldn't divest us completely of these duties but it would surely make them a lot smaller anyone in the public wish to address us on this item thank you Becky Steinbrenner I just had an idea maybe you could work with the realtors and property managers and offer a carrot that the fixtures that are in the house that's being sold do not meet these and as part of the transaction they are upgraded then it would be a discount or maybe a month of free water or something that would be an incentive for the new owners to do the changes at the time of the transaction it was just a thought I had a positive incentive thank you anyone else is there anyone okay what's the consensus do it I'll move I'll move on number one okay I'll second it good motion is second all in favor aye so that's unanimous so we go on to 6.5 for the finance plan and rate study thanks for all your good work Roy yep as always we'll find some other way to save water so this evening I'm bringing back to you the results of the request for proposals that we sent out for a multi-year finance plan and rate study we had three qualified firms that we sent the submissions to and only one of those actually responded with a proposal we also had two unsolicited proposals that we received so the water rates advisory committee met last week and reviewed all three of the proposals talked over some of the pros and cons of each one of them and the recommendation was made to go ahead and move forward with RAF tell us they actually offered us some really really nice services that were included and kind of made them stand out from the others they are offering the services of a technical reviewer to actually review their work for accuracy and quality of work which is it's a nice feature to have and that wasn't included in any of the other proposals they also were one of the only firms to actually speak to the importance of public outreach as part of the rate study efforts they are going to provide an impact analysis graphic for each of the different bill scenarios and how the impact would be on our customers and we can include that type of information in our proposition to 18 materials they all three of the firms were going to go ahead and provide us with the rate model but RAF tell us was the only one that offered time and training to educate staff on how to use the model so there were a number of different features that we felt they were providing to us irrespective of the work that they had already done on the customer select plan that made them an attractive option for us so the water rates advisory committee made the recommendation to go ahead and do RAF tell us and accept their proposal and so then what we did is we opened up the cost proposals as a result and RAF tell us actually came in higher but when we looked at the way those proposals were being submitted they were being submitted on an hours worked basis so RAF tell us actually had the most hours devoted to the project if the hours aren't worked we won't be billed for those hours so it behoved us then to take a look at it a different way and that's in terms of kind of average hourly cost and so when we looked at it that way we were able to do that so we're recommending that the board goes ahead and considers accepting the proposal from RAF tell us financial consultants how was the proposal from Black and Veet since their hourly rate was the lowest their hourly rate how was it how was their proposal they had some nice features in their proposal as well the one proposal that I wasn't too sure about was the split proposal from the two different firms one doing the finance plan and one doing the rate study Black and Veet was all inclusive they didn't offer some of these other benefits that RAF tell us had offered us it was a good proposal but they didn't speak about outreach efforts they didn't offer to train us on the use of the model they didn't have a technical reviewer in their proposal so those were kind of the things that differentiated the two in our the quality of the base was the quality of the base seemed sufficient yeah it did they were the lowest bid in terms of the number of hours that they were going to devote to the study but they did offer to go ahead and bill us at 295 an hour for any efforts in excess of what they had bid any questions well I just wanted to this thing had come up during the rate rate committee meetings of this customer select plan that we've been trying to evaluate are going to continue the evaluation and RAF tell us Sanjay Gore he was the he participated in the original study that developed this potential that water water utilities could use this as a way of helping customers conserve water RAF tell us did the original modeling but that was their North Carolina office so Sanjay worked on our review of it here when we had him review the original study at North Carolina that was RAF tell us but it wasn't Sanjay's team for what it's worth and I think in the water community RAF tell us is accepted as probably one of the best I mean generally when you talk to people who talk about rates and who they've done they've done some things for metropolitan water of Los Angeles or something California etc and in a recent case that I mentioned to Leslie the court acknowledged them as being the better of the two Bartle wells who had proposed a rate differential it wasn't our kind of rates it was Wheeling rates but still they recognized them so they understand the Prop 218 criteria too pretty well they do in fact they've given seminars on Prop 218 they're probably one of the leading firms understanding Prop 218 they've given talks at Aqua I know the conference Aqua conference they did the last rate study for scott's family too and they were very happy with them and I believe the last rate study for city of Santa Cruz as well that's right so you were on the committee that evaluated do you have anything else to add I never got this so I think there was a meeting and I didn't get it because my email still doesn't work we were at water reuse yeah well we got the three proposals though I agree that the ref telescope proposal is stronger it is the most expensive total thing I don't expect them to work fewer hours and save money that way but on the other hand it could be it's going to be a complicated study I think so it might be worth it to have that expertise and I think the technical evaluation is really good I don't know whether that would have saved us from the error that happened in the last rate study but I am concerned about the possibility of avoiding those simple little errors that didn't cost our customers more money but we lost money on that so just to clarify I know these are proposals or bids so you said that it's only still based on what time they actually spend right it's on an hours worked basis so okay they anticipated I think it was 545 or 595 hours which was more than any of the other firms had anticipated for this project so I mean if you ended up spending that number of hours and the black and beach proposal went over with the 295 per hour did you compare what that would come out to I didn't run those numbers but it probably would have come out very close to the rough tallest proposal also this is a consultant contract so it's not supposed to be based solely on low bid it's supposed to be based on their qualification understood I think it would be about $10,000 to $15,000 less if it was the same number of hours okay that's why I was just trying to figure it out lower rate anyone in the public wish to address us on this item is there no one okay do we have more questions or discussions actually it would be more it would be $54,000 more okay what are you saying so it would be it would be like $132,000 if black and beach had the same number of hours that's about the same then I'll move one and two oh yes one and two I'll second it then we have a motion and a second all in favor aye posed a unanimous okay 6-6 board direction on selection of standing committee members believes and values customer input so a while back the board created three committees that to help facilitate the work of the district and at that time we invited the board open it up to a public member member of one of our customers to participate on each of the committees we actually have one Larry Freeman's in here tonight attending our meeting he's on the water resources management infrastructure committee and now and recently the board up that to two public members and so we have out on the street advertising for two public members or to apply for each of those committees and there's a timeline there for you April 3rd through June 5th the processes will take and really what we're asking the board for tonight is do they want to appoint two members of the board to work with staff to go through the applications and then bring back the recommendation to the full board or have staff review those applications and then bring them all back and go through that process here at a regular board meeting let's see the timelines in here so the process is tonight April 3rd you're providing direction to us regarding whether you want to just create two board members in a selection committee the close of the applications are April 30th and there's advertisements out now and then we would review those applicant public member applications during the month of May come back June 5th for the appointment of those public members to answer your question directly director Christensen it would be sometime during the month of May that if you appointed two board members in a selection committee staff would work with you to help facilitate that to provide a recommendation of the full board having, I know all of you all have gone through this I think staff's recommendation would be to appoint two members to work that may not want to do up front during a full board meeting you still have full knowledge of all applicants and the final decision would come here to decide between a few applicants or just to basically get the selection committee's recommendation to say yay or nay probably I would recommend that the selection committee provide a recommendation to the full board but also lay out you would have full preview of everybody that applied and that sort of thing and the reasons why and if there was a close case then we would explain that too just lay it out for you but with a recommendation always believe in that how many applicants do you anticipate hundreds if not thousands how many do we have Karen 12 thus far and it's relatively new in the process itself you know our community is interested so an average of four persons per committee and I think for the water rates advisory committee we had 11 and so you know shows interest from our customers that is great well I just went through a similar process with the GSA sorry the GSP groundwater sustainability plan advisory committee so against my better judgment I will serve on this and I would want to be able to talk to people on these committees in case they you know if they know the applicants to get feedback on them I will be on it too so you guys both think that's a good idea I don't think we serve together at any committee no no so well I think it would be good to give the subcommittee the ability to remove names if they're just not applicable I mean I don't think having them go through and read them and rank them they all come back to us and we have to review them and rank them I think that's our wasted effort but I still if there's a couple of applicants I'd still like to be able to review those last in fact I think it would be good to have the top two or three come back to us and then maybe just with your recommendation and I'm fine with the two volunteers sure I would I have a couple of changes to attachment one the last paragraph of that the middle sentence says so they can see occurs the district may appointment a public member from the active dot dot so I think it's a point not a point where bottom 119 right there that bottom paragraph in the middle the district may appointment a public member yeah okay I'll take care of that thank you and on the next page I had a question it mentions the chair shall be a member of the board and this chairperson is the one who reports back to the board of the activities but it doesn't say anything about the requirement for the vice person so does that vice person need to be a board member or not it does mention that you know the if the chairperson isn't available then the vice chairperson shall perform the duties the chairperson including reporting back to the board so yeah I'm not sure how that maybe mr. boss could chime in but the way it currently is is that they are the the two board members of the chair and the vice I understand that and it does say that they elect it yeah so this as it's written leaves it open it does it probably should be a board member okay so should we change that alright based on board input we'll change that too we need to bring this policy back since it was already approved by the board yeah or can we take these are we doing it tonight modifications and make that okay we're kind of real this is just a policy yeah alright thank you for asking no care anyone in public wish to address us on this item Becky Steinbruner some people have asked me about this and what the time commitment and I'm sure that would vary by the committee that you served on and the issues before the committee but that's a big question people have that have talked with me and also perhaps the larger question is well how much difference do you think serving on this committee really makes what what recommendations have come from this the citizen the rate payer on these committees that you felt it was important to add another citizen and really what's what is the effect that someone serving on one of these committees could have thank you what was the amazing thing Larry came up with oh Mr. Freeman alerted us to some grant guidelines oh yeah that basically already have made a million dollar difference and have opened the door the state board took the suggested modification and opened the door to many millions more so it was that in itself that was a huge one and then I know in the public outreach committee I know Adele has been really valuable just with her perspective that it helps everyone make better decisions and I think on the rate committee I mean we had some powerhouses there that also really shaped where your journey on that I mean I think at least the two that I've been most associated with it stuff comes from staff and we review it and make some changes and it goes on but the rate committee was you know we started with nothing so we basically built a rate structure just like talking about it thinking about it reading about it yeah and we're really trying to emulate that model we realize the value that came out of that so trying we've had staff had discussions that eventually evolved more into that more feedback instead of just presentation and maybe minor tweaks but getting to the meat of some things too so that was a good question Beckian I think also time commitment I think the meetings are technically about once every other month and their hour hour long plus yeah maybe an hour or two depending on probably a little more since we've expanded the scope of most of these committees yeah the other aspect is that they are often just a sounding board but the people who would participate in that would also get a greater understanding of how things are work in the district so it goes both directions so it's a good way to learn more about how the water system works staff is looking for a motion to direct them I'll make a motion that we have a selection committee and that the members be directors Christensen and Jaffe and that they bring back their recommendations but give us the option of more than just one okay okay I'll second whatever he said okay we have a motion second all in favor aye thank you presentation on sky tamer great the reason for bringing this to you tonight because it was presented at the March 15th MGA meeting of four is for two fold one is to give you another chance to look at this is highly technical information but it's distilled down to a very visual but also not to just inform everybody again but to obtain feedback about if you want to have another presentation where we might invite other members of the community who would benefit from this I was thinking the city of capitol council members or whoever so that's this two part so I am doing the presentation that the gentleman from denmark gave max healthcare and also that the MGA hydrologist Cameron Tana did so I'll be covering both those and I'm using their some of their same slides so I just want to make sure that's clear but before we I'll touch on one this is a slide we created to really touch on the problem just to make sure it's evident especially to anybody on television is we had this until recently about where the seawater intrusion really was in the center part of our district this slide here shows where we detected seawater intrusion in the monitoring wells along the coast so you can see that orange dot those two orange dots they were probably maybe a quarter of the amount of seawater in those wells and those red dots halfway to all the way to seawater so we knew that but what we didn't know was where is it in between those two dots so we said is it at the inner button we said is it there or is it there or is it there and we didn't we didn't know and we didn't know there was a way to find that out until we were approached by people from denmark who said they had the technology to do this so this board and the MGA board decided to invest in that it was about $110,000 effort to find the missing piece of the puzzle and a little bit of gamble whether it would even work it did though and so that's what I'm going to present tonight so if we can go let's go back to the packet and we will have to come back to that and then in the packet we need to go to attachment 3 so and let me run it from here so this is the presentation that was presented and just this is the sky tim apparatus so it's a helicopter flying out over the ocean with an elaborate giant metal detector if you will I know that's underestimating it but I think this is good Shelly and you see it there a little bit more there with the different components what's key because I'm going to go through a bunch of maps here to show you what's going on but this is the key to the whole thing the maps are very colorful what you need to really know is that if it's red it's salt water if it's blue it's fresh water and if it's yellow it's probably fresh water and green is brackish to regular water so that's the key red is bad blue is good and in between is not so good because even brackish water is bad the state considers 250 milligrams per liter the MCL for seawater chlorides and the some vegetation won't even stand that grass some vegetation won't even stand that and full seawater is like 1900 just a little bit of seawater mess you up thank you of chloride so here this is a familiar map to us highway one here this is our coast line and what these lines in red show are the flight lines of the helicopter so it did many lines basically parallel coast coming out and then we did some vertical lines and were able to even go inland and where we went inland once or twice we were able to collaborate that data with monitoring well data and so there was high correlation so we felt confident about the data overall this has been reviewed by several outside people so what I'm going to do is show you the same map I think everybody's oriented here and we're going to go from down through the earth so that zero to two MBSL means zero to two meters remember we're in Denmark time so to speak below sea level and so right now zero to two meters below sea level what would you expect to find seawater and that's why it's red so here we go I'm just going to pull us down through here and then we'll you'll see it visually and then I'm going to come back with what's it really mean so here we go we're four meters down and just to be clear that would be like 12 or 13 feet 3.2 meters or feet per meter right so we're going down through you start to see a little bit of yellow there coming in a little bit more so what we're interpreting that as is more brackish not straight seawater so you're down 30 40 feet keep going down through the earth here horizontal layers if you will oh okay so down about 60 feet 70 feet a little bit of fresh water up here coming out and then a little bit more so there we some fresh water as noted on the map this is down about what 150 feet roughly it's important to note really most of our pumping takes place about 300 feet below land surface we do pump from higher layers but you want to get into what we're we pull most of our water from so now you're getting down about you know 230 feet and and it start that blue starting to go away and it's going a little bit more way back to brackish down 300 meters below sea I mean 90 meters below sea level call that 300 feet and you already got pure seawater along the coast and brackish water here right up against the coast still he's calling that fresh water it might be brackish and now you see as we go deeper you're seeing more seawater becoming more saline there so again and I think that's we get down deeper it turns almost all back to pure seawater not even brackish and so okay so that's going horizontally down through the earth you just layer after layer like pancakes and you're looking down on them now we're going to do it do it a little bit differently these lines we're going to look at those but as cross section vertically cross section so it's like we took one of those lines and went and looking at it sideways now and we'll look at this one first right here this one next and we'll just go through these maps here so in that first line again to orient you right here oops you need to see that again I can come back to this map this one right here yeah section 8 there's a monitoring water yeah so that looks like see Cliff you can see there's fresh water this would be state park drive yeah and the ocean coming in like this and there's a little bit of fresh lens under there but at deeper about 300 feet you see the ocean water but even that is blue it's green right okay are we on the other way okay you want to do that okay thank you slide it over yeah there you go so on the right you're seeing a monitoring well and that was another indication and this next line over going more toward the east or south as some people would say you another cross sectional view you see it there there's fresh water on land that's on land there those are our monitoring wells and then you can see basically seawater that transition zone between the blue and the red is the coastline so you can see saline water goes underneath the land there too okay next cross section please and then here's another one further toward the aromas which we already know we have seawater on land it's duplicating that and let's see what else do we have so this is an interesting one this is looking at the coast as if you were out in a boat and looking back on the coastline I think the left side is I don't know near capitol a little bit to the east or west of capitol and the right is all the way to the far right of our district so now you're looking at a slice basically right at the coastline down and you can see that little bit of blue there to the left and those monitoring wells are projected onto the map they're not in the ocean so it gives you an idea it's mostly red with some brackish water and a little blue up top it's not a pretty picture in the sense of water resources the other thing is that blue section does not go very far off the coast so it's limited both in it's vertical and it's horizontal you'd want to see that plus if you had a healthy offshore flow is that Aptos Creek I think that's near there SCA 3 is that near Aptos Creek where that blue comes out a little bit to the east of it there it is you can see it right there yeah it says La Solva oh it's La Solva SCA 8 SCA 3 SCA 3 oh it's SCA 8 it's 8 yeah there's a gulch that goes through there it's there so it's in the golf course and we are talking I've been communicating with Max the primary author on maybe of course we take this back to the mid-county groundwater agency but flying this again in about four years Marina will probably do it they did it on inland this is the first time this has been done in the United States offshore but just an indication of the success that they're having the Governor State of California assigned a $10 million knowledge exchange with them to pay them for sharing this kind of stuff with us and helping us some of y'all have been there and you've seen the amazing stuff they're doing so next slide please so that's Max he's the one that presented last time and so that in the nutshells of science that member I started with where is it offshore well now we know those maps show us that it's very close to shore everywhere except right in the middle for the limited extent so what does that mean in terms of water resources now if you could flip back to the PowerPoint this is not in the packet it is in the MGA packet what is in the packet is the report that this really stem from so I wanted to make sure everybody had all the reports so the original Sky Tim report is attached to the memo the presentation I just gave you is in the memo and the groundwater hydrologist summary of that is in the memo also this is the presentation they gave on March 15 it's not in the memo but will be part of the minutes for the next meeting so what the take home message again and these maps are very complicated so I'll just take a minute what they tried to do was translate this into what it means for groundwater resources so these are the wells again that we have seawater intrusion detected in and the color coding is for the aquifers that they where the seawater intrusion has been detected these color lines here represent the uppermost aquifer in which the seawater intrusion was detected so it was detected all along the coast here this yellow refers back to the aromas this green color would be another layer in the prisma again and oops didn't realize that was so fancy and and so forth around the bay and then the other on the map show our water wells and their color coded to correspond to which aquifers are tapping so that's it so here's the take home message and if you wanted to look at I can you're going to see that again in just a second I just want to make sure that it's clear so the most landward line shows seawater intrusion it does that's probably 500 feet off shore 500 to 600 feet off shore I believe yep yeah it's as close as a helicopter could fly to shore we're not allowed to fly over people or structures or that sort of thing so yes it is it's about 600 feet off shore it's the closest line and so just to give you a cross sectional view this is what our aquifers look like and so you can see the wells tap different aquifers well it's been too much time on this one because this is really the take home message and maybe you can blow that one up a little bit so what the hydrologist did was then say we see how close it is we know what our protective water level should be to keep out seawater intrusion so what's the risk based on uh 2017 water levels and the proximity of the seawater intrusion detected at the coast and so the bigger the circle the higher the risk those big circles you see there in purple and I think in green down there on the right correspond to a 50% or greater risk of seawater intrusion at the 2017 levels those two big ones so right at Soquel point and then right here with Cabrio being up in here these are the two really vulnerable spots and over here is also and of course we've already got it intruded over here so this result this corresponds to a 30 to 50% risk of seawater intrusion and this is greater than 50 greater than 50 and this is probably between 20 scale just up here the size of the circle and again the colors correspond to what aquifers uh the seawater intrusion is at and what we're pumping can you say a 50% risk is there a time frame or is there how's that evaluated it's you know that's a great question I asked Cameron the same question yesterday I said I need to understand that and it's they didn't give a exact time frame but uh it's strictly dependent upon the gradient how fast that seawater intrusion is moving in the water level depending on the water level here so we're a couple we're a little bit below uh protective water levels here and here they could go back and do some calculations but uh there's just a high probability that we'll have seawater intrusion sooner than later matter of fact they're one of their take home messages is not to try to meet the uh state mandate of sustainability by 2040 but we need to do that earlier otherwise we will have seawater intruded they're doing another map or two to show what these circles would look like or the risk based on um maybe a five year average water level uh protective water levels or even back in 2014 um before we did uh we went to our pumping where the engineering department distributed the pumping in an optimal level to reduce seawater intrusion uh they estimated that if it was at the coast and we had that same pumping regime it would be two years till it hit our main well filled here so that gives you a sense of um scariness I guess if you will um that's not where we have the pumping depression that's right yep that's where we have and then then we redistributed pumping our customers cut back and we did everything we could to get these water levels up as high as we could here probably depressing them a little bit more inland but shifting everything uh so the next map that they produce using whatever average because uh they use whether it's five year or 2014 or previous will show lower protective levels and hence bigger circles here indicating a bigger risk to the aquifer uh so you know it's it's serious it's very serious I would recommend reading the Cameron's report because it really talks about the fact each of our production wells is screened at various intervals and you look at where those intervals are in which aquifer it's in and then you go offshore to see okay is there salt water there is there fresh water there and it's almost always salt water there right so there is some fresh water offshore not very far offshore but it's not where it needs to be to give us fresh water for our wells right like it's right offshore for the ones that already have through our intrusion it's right offshore for the ones that don't have it don't have it yeah you know yeah it's basically the one probably I won't say worst case but uh it's as close as we can measure it and it's there so here's the conclusions from um Cameron's slide presentation that he gave so the close proximity of the interface emphasizes the importance of seawater intrusion as a sustainability indicator in the groundwater sustainability plan so that's a that's a given and reason to recover groundwater levels uh sooner than 2040 to prevent further seawater intrusion uh and then model it in the future um but it really points to uh two things one the great work our customers have done we really can't underestimate that it's probably saved us from having seawater intrusion in the middle and two uh we're on the right path all of us are for attaining supplemental water supplies river transfers pure water sokel stormwater all that um you know this is not a uh I think director daniels enlightened me a couple weeks ago it's not an optimization project this is a risk mitigation uh endeavor to prevent uh these aquifers from being um uh ruined and you know I always quote you know about 70% of the populated coastal regions of the world that rely on groundwater have seawater intrusion you don't have to go far to see it you can go down to paharo it's in three miles and and uh it's already in eight miles moved a couple hundred feet over the last year because of the pumping inland but that just you know on a global scale it's happening next door it's happening in our neighbor in our water community it's happening and we have a chance to be one of the few to um prevent it from ruining the aquifers so that's um and that's I know that's what we're all about uh and this is the data that really kind of supports and uh that our efforts haven't been in vain to pursue these supplies any more board questions I had one I noticed there are references to the groundwater mountain model that hydrometrics is doing and how this data it's there are a couple of there's a lot of information in this report but I saw some references to modifying or having input into the groundwater model to tweak it to make it it to reflect the data that were generated by the sky right they'll put that in there and director Daniel is going to speak to it more than I can since he's got a PHD in it but the they have they have a groundwater model which now they can take a component of that the seawater intrusion component and put that in here and then simulate pumping and see how fast uh it'll model that those scenarios and more and more you know you can get through just analytical equations how fast it's really moving I think what's more important is how do we maximize or optimize pumping to just try to reduce that or where do you recharge like Orange County's done to best prevent it from coming in you know uh this indicates to me you know you want to be doing as much as possible because once you lose it it's it's it's a bad picture it stays that way for a very very long time um so also what I'm looking for is feedback some of you saw the MGA presentation we would probably start with a little bit about what seawater intrusion is we have a couple slides on that I didn't want to run you through that again tonight but I would probably present those if we invite people it has that slide that shows how seawater uh comes in when the water levels and the wells drop and a couple other uh slides so I would I would put those in conjunction with basically what you saw tonight but I like the way you went through the different slides to show the different levels I thought that was good you know and then showed the longitudinal sections yeah no we need to uh I mean for a proof of concept study it surpassed uh anybody's expectations uh in terms of the results but I think we need to work to make sure we disseminated to our community not only the our customers but the rest of the larger community uh it's I don't think people really know that yet and they I don't even if they'd gone to the MGA they might not have really gotten that it was uh the sound system wasn't that good I think this might be a better venue even to schedule a right thing so yeah the uh the slices need to have a line on when you're going beneath the seafloor yeah that would be helpful so anything landward of that line you're now looking beneath the seafloor because the initial slices it's all you're just looking at the seawater and then as you go deeper and deeper what that line of what your imaging will move away from the coast and everything from the line to the coast now looking under the seafloor and I think that that is not intuitive to most people it's not what I can I mean what I can do is is basically find out the the symmetry a little bit and say okay once we're below 20 feet or 30 feet you're all you need to do is basically put contours okay equivalent to the I'll see what I can do I I I'll see what our our staff can how they can do that okay there's another important component of this and are you on the report itself not let's see report attachment one the thing that often took me a while to catch is that they did another type of sensing and what that shows what I was trying to get the actual report to pull up one of the diagrams not the presentation you gave okay what's that it kind of looks like popcorn yeah yeah it looks like popcorn so yeah this is go down a bit let me see something yeah yeah so that's the report so go down about 20 slides 20 pages there's other data and what it shows are features offshore and my point is that in the Monterey area and actually in other areas like in Florida where they have seawater intrusion they go over keep going I'll tell you when to stop preferential pathways and that case slow down there and so you see that a little bit here I mean they're mapping the seafloor you don't see it so much there but this other data also shows maybe maybe we did pass it but anyway my point is that you can't think of this as just a front if you will it's much more complex than that and some of this data right here is showing that magnetic structures so if it's at the coast it could even move faster down a preferential pathway and a preferential pathway would be like an old river bed that's a common one where it's there's gravel maybe 30 40 50 60 feet down and it can move faster through that gravel than it can the more sandstone ish aquifer and faults are another can be a preferential pathway or barrier so just that that's something that max didn't stress but I think it's important to note because you may not you may miss it right along a little at a monitoring well but it could be 60 feet off and going down some preferential pathway so it really speaks to getting a strong barrier against seawater intrusion along the entire coast I believe in multiple aquifers well also couldn't it impact a potential recharge sites too like just the knowledge of some under the low surface breach that would enable water would be flowing out at a higher rate and creating a lens outside of the off the coast if I understand you could recharge like from storm water go down and then push out and would flow out without really ever addressing if there was a fault line yeah I suppose just about anything along those lines is possible I mean certainly once you go subsurface you can't see down there you're working kind of on all the averages so to speak and nature doesn't behave that way though we do know that the creeks there have been around for a long time and they're what's called paleo channels and those were put into the model I specifically asked for that because I know that that's an issue saltwater can come in faster and stuff drains out easier yeah I mean lower sea level during the ice age yeah 130 meters down yeah the boundary between the coast and the ocean was offshore many miles yeah it's changed over time that and then that also I heard somebody mention climate change you know if ocean level rises and there's probably more head or force to push in the seawater intrusion to which I believe the model will account for um yeah I mean what we see will hurt us and what we don't see will certainly probably hurt us too in this that's the another take home because there's a lot even though it's revealed that you can just see how complicated it is with this map right here all kinds of things are happening with the magnetic data so what I hear is defining the sea floor would be a good best way we can do that and then getting us out to the public maybe at another board meeting maybe we'll look into appropriate time to schedule it and try to get as many people as possible to who we think it has relevance to and decision making to attend okay alright the horizontal thank you no motion on this anyone in the public wanted to talk about this Becky Steinbruner thank you for the presentation I was late arriving to that that meeting that night I did see that community television was there filming where is that going to be I didn't see it on any websites when will that be up I believe they're editing it right now it'll be up on the MGA website maybe ours I don't know exact time but a couple weeks max probably okay thank you I have some things that I have questions about first of all I was curious to know why Dr. Rosemary Knight's work doesn't really seem to be at all referenced in here it is in two of the references but it looks to me like it wasn't really incorporated in the data as a snapshot of what has been there and to be able to compare what we see now with this Skytem and I think that's a missed opportunity if the two types of data are compatible and perhaps her data was incorporated into the hydrometrics model I'm not sure but I couldn't tell if that was so by reading the document I also wondered because it says in the survey design when the scope of work is to detect fresh water beneath sea water as well as sediments with saline water the depth to water is a limiting factor and it is found that a depth to water can be a maximum of 15 to 20 meters in order to be able to detect fresh water beneath the sea bottom so I have a couple of questions about that issue was this study done at high tide or low tide and did that influence the pathways and did on page 137 in the study it talks about the geological formation and that there needs to be some boring holes done to really establish the geological integrity of some of these areas and I wonder as well as faults which I think was a very interesting discovery and I have a question about on page 134 it said again going back to Dr. Knight's work no other information was used in the model again no reference to Dr. Knight's work page 130 Rambo has requested additional processing of the initial initially provided magnetic data and so I wonder when that would be happening and I just finish one question what action is your board going to take now that you've got this scenario before you and I'm really happy that you did take the initiative to do the pipe study and I really think this brings home that we've got to move forward with the north coast water transfer as soon as possible I have other questions too but I'll save them for staff, thank you thank you I'd like to make a comment so when you have independent approaches to determining the sea water intrusion as is the case with this study in Roseberry Dr. Knight's study then you're more sure of your results and so it was by design that this study was done independently it was we were advised to do it that way and of course a future step is to compare but if you use the data from another study in this too soon then you're not as sure of your results because you don't have the independent the independent estimates so just wanted to say that anything else? I think it's good work it was a good investment it turns out what are we going to do next? work like the devil to fix the problem yep in multiple ways good job we're adjourned to a closed session we're adjourned to a closed session we're not doing closed session 8.1 we're only doing closed session 8.2 it's been continued to August 24th didn't I talk to you there? yeah thank you thank you everyone nice job