 Good morning everyone. Morning. Good morning. Gina, do we have a quorum yet? We do. We have seven WAC members, but we currently have four TAC members. Okay, with people don't mind, we'll wait a couple more minutes for our TAC members to join us. It's kind of hard on Monday mornings to get everybody up in movement. We're up to 20. Do we have a TAC quorum yet? Just a moment please. Thank you. We do. We have seven TAC members. Awesome. Then I am going to go ahead and call our meeting to order this morning for the WAC and the TAC. And I will be asking Recording Secretary Ledesma to do a roll call. And if you could please state your name and your agency. And I'd also like to remind folks to please have their phones and microphones on mute when they're not speaking. And with that, Secretary Ledesma, could we please have a roll call? Yes, for WAC members, City of Cotadi. Susan Harvey, City of Cotadi here. City of Petaluma. Mike Healy, City of Petaluma. Sam Salmon, City of Brunner Park. Willie Linnatis, Brunner Park. City of Santa Rosa. Palms White Elm, City of Santa Rosa. City of Sonoma. Dakhdeen, City of Sonoma. North Marin Water District. Town of Windsor. Sam Salmon, Town of Windsor. Valley of the Moonwater District. John Foreman, Valley of the Moonwater District. Moran Municipal Water District. Garkypsin, Moran Municipal. And TAC member, City of Cotadi. Greg Scott, City of Cotadi. City of Petaluma. And Herrother, City of Petaluma. City of Brunner Park. City of Santa Rosa. Jennifer Burke, Santa Rosa Water. City of Sonoma. Pauline Ferguson, City of Sonoma. North Marin Water District. I saw it. Drew is mute. Drew, are you there? Easter, should we come back to Drew? We'll come back. Yeah, let's say he just dropped off again. Okay. Town of Windsor. Christina Houlart, Town of Windsor. Valley of the Moonwater District. Matt Fullner, Valley of the Moonwater District. Moran Municipal Water District. Paul Sellea, Moran Municipal. Thank you. Let's see. Did Drew get back on? Let's see, let's see, let's see. Doesn't look like it at this moment. It doesn't look like it to me. He must be having some kind of a difficulty. And he's not hanging out over in the attendees, correct? I know sometimes that happens. We don't see him over there either. So no, don't see him. Well, hopefully he will be able to jump back in. So our next item is public comment. So I'll open public comment. We're taking public comment on non-agenda items. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Then Secretary Perez will ask if there are any live public comments. Do we have any public comments? Secretary Perez, I am not seeing any hands. No, I ignore am I. And I see that Drew is back. Then we will bring it back to Drew. Drew, were there were there any red or voicemail public comments that you received? Yeah, Chair Herbie, sorry for that delay. That's okay. I did not receive any voicemails or emails for any agenda items. Okay, thank you for that. And I'm still not seeing any hands from the attendees. So we will bring it back to the board and close public comment at this point. And we will move on to the April 5th special WAC meeting. And I hope everyone has had an opportunity to read the minutes. Are there any questions or comments about the minutes from April seeing any hands? Then we will now take public comments on the minutes. Wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via phone, dial star nine to raise your hand. And Secretary Perez, are there any comments from the minutes? I'm not seeing any raise hands. I am not either. So I will bring it back and ask, Drew, did you receive any written or verbal comments on the minutes? I did not. Okay. Then I will entertain a motion for the minutes. Everyone? Should I make a motion that we accept the minutes as submitted? Thank you, Tom. Second. Okay. Thank you, Sam. So Secretary Ledesma, did you get the maker of the motion in the second? I did. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Then I would ask you for a roll call of the members. City of Cattadi? Yes. City of Petaluma? Yes. City of Brown Park? Yes. City of Santa Rosa? Aye. City of Sinema? Yes. Northburn Water District? Town of Windsor? Aye. Valley of the Moon Water District? Yes. That's agenda item number three, Namaste approved. Thank you very much for that. Then we will move on to the tech meeting. Drew, will you take this? You're still here. That's good. Yes. I'm still here. Okay. So this is for the tech members recap of the March 1st, 2021 tech meeting minutes. First of all, I'll just ask if there's any questions for the tech members on the meeting minutes? Seeing none. Now is the time that we're taking any public comments on the tech meeting minutes. Again, this is March 1st. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand or dial star nine if you're participating by phone. Do you see any questions from the public, Gina? I'm not seeing any raise cans. Okay, thank you. Now it's time then to go ahead and ask for a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Colleen Ferguson, City of Sinema, need to approve. Jennifer Marks, Santa Rosa, second. Thank you, Colleen. Thank you, Jennifer. Eastern, do you want to do a roll call, please? Yes. City of Catati. City of Petaluma. Yes. City of Burnham Park. City of Santa Rosa. Jennifer Burke, Santa Rosa Water. Yes. City of Sinema. Yes. North Marin Water District. Drew McIntyre. Yes. Town of Windsor. Yes. Valley Zuma Water District. Yes. And this is this is Craig, City of Catati. Yes. Thank you. That's agenda item number four, unanimously approved. Thank you so much for that. Then we will move on to number five, Water Supply Coordination Council. And we met on April 22nd. And before you, we have the agenda that we are going through today. Are there any questions or comments from the board on this? I am not seeing any. Gina, do you see any? I am not. Okay, thank you for that. Then we will see if there's any public comments on this item. We are now taking public comments on item five. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And Secretary Perez, I am not seeing any hands from the public. Are you? I am not. Okay. And then Drew, did you receive any public comments on item five? I did not. Okay. Then I assume that the agenda that you outlined before you is acceptable. And we will move on to the next item, item number six, the Potter Valley Project Relicensing. And I understand that Pam Jean is going to inform us of this item. Good morning. Hi, Pam. Thank you. Hi. So Potter Valley Project, there's sort of two main things going on right now. And I don't think these have changed for a little while. So I may have already spoken about these, but the two main things that are going on include looking at formation of a joint powers authority. So there's a lot of work being done mostly by the attorneys that are involved for each of the partners. Looking at what a JPA formation document would look like. So the attorneys have been through some steps to get to some of the main subjects that would be included in a JPA document. And so they're getting ready to start drafting a document at this point. So that's sort of the next step on that. And then the other thing that is we're spending a lot of time on with our partners is securing funding for completing the studies and the other work that's required under the relicensing process. So our next deadline under the relicensing process under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is, I forget the proper terminology for it, but it's essentially an update on progress on the studies. And that's due in mid-September. So we are still out banging the drum trying to find funding for starting the studies. And we're looking at state money, we're looking at federal money, and we're also looking possibly to get PG&E to help pay for some of those studies that they would otherwise have to pay for. So if they were either in a relicensing or a surrender process. So that's sort of the two main things going on right now with regards to the Potter Valley project. The other thing I'll mention, and that has to do with the actual project transfer and relicensing or licensing of the project, but PG&E did file just in terms of what's going on operationally at the Potter Valley project. PG&E did file a variance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It wasn't just this last week, it was the week before. And they are proposing for this summer, because Lake Pillsbury is very low, that the transfers from the Eel River to the Russian River are going to be very, very low. And in fact, we will see very little water coming into Lake Mendocino, if any, during the summer from that project, from that transfer. So that's not good news for us, not good news for Lake Mendocino, but they also are experiencing the same drought that we are. So just wanted folks to be aware of that. Thank you for that, Pam. How close or far away are we on the funding? What percentage would you say we have of the funding we need? We're pretty far right now. We don't have enough money to get the study started at this point. So we need a couple million dollars to do what we've prioritized that needs to be done first for those studies. And with that, we could get going. But we just don't have it at the moment. Thank you for that. That's a little discouraging. Hopefully we can find the funding so we can get moving, because it probably won't be very good if in September we have to say we can't have those studies. Chair Harvey? Yes. I can tag on to Pam's Potter Valley Summary and just give an update to the group on the most recent Huffman ad hoc meeting that was a few weeks back, I guess April 12th. Thank you. Just a couple things from my notes on that meeting just related to the funding. What I took from that meeting is now that all the studies together are looking to be about $15 million. As Pam had mentioned, they're trying to get at least a couple million dollars. You could start it on the higher priority studies. And as Pam had indicated, the study schedule is being driven by availability of funds. So that is the big push right now. There was a lot of discussion at the meeting. Continued focus on fish passage at Cape Horn Dam. And Friends of the Eel River are focused on that. And they would like to have Cape Horn Dam removal actually included as part of the Burke process and not a separate process. So that's a common comment that Friends of the Eel River makes at these meetings. One of the studies, the social economics study that's been proposed, it is not required by FERC. However, the planet agreement partners recognize that there's a lot of important information to come out of that study. So even though it's not required by FERC, they're going to continue to move that study forward. There's also some discussions just about comparing the proposed project against, you know, what are the baseline conditions? Are the baseline conditions what we currently have known, how it operates, or are the baseline conditions going to be the decommissioning project by PG&E? So that continues to be an ongoing discussion. And I guess the final thing was that, you know, it's everybody knows that two years is not going to be enough time to do about $15 million worth of studies. But they're trying to get a better handle on just how much money they can get initially to kick off these studies before going back to FERC to try to ask for any timeline extension. I just wanted to provide a little bit of an update on that. Puffman, ad hoc meeting, and they anticipate having some more coming up in the not too distant future. Thank you for that addition, Drew. So do any of the WAC attack members have any questions on this report? I'm looking to see if there are any hands. I am not seeing any hands. Gina, do you see any hands? I do not. Okay. Then given that, we will take public comment on this item. I am six. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Press, it looks like I see one hand out there. That is correct. So, Mr. Keller, I'm going to allow you to speak. Please go ahead. Got it. Thank you very much. Good morning. And I appreciate the report, Drew, and Pam. I just want to check, is there any work at this point in looking at funding sources from the Russian River beneficiaries of the water transfers? And if so, how far along is any of that? David, I think the best answer to that is we're looking at all options on the table right now. And we've had coordinated meetings up and down the Russian River watershed. And everyone understands that there's going to be contributions based on the ability to secure funding. But by far, our priorities are to recognize and count the dollars that have already been expended to date to get to where we are, as you probably know, and look for state, federal, and other funding. So I think folks have been saying this for some time, but not unlike other large projects. When you're in a planning stage or early stage, that's some of the hardest dollars to come by. Understood. Yes. Thank you for that, Grant. All right. Thank you. Thank you, David. Let's see. I am not seeing any other hands, Gina, do you? I am not. Okay. Then I will bring it back. Drew, did you receive any written or verbal comments on this item? I did not. Okay. Well, thank you for that. And last chance for anybody on the Wacker TAC, if you have any questions before we move on. And I just want to see you going once, twice, three times. All right. Then we will move on to item seven, the water supply conditions, and TUCO update. And I believe that Don is going to start this off. Yeah. Good morning, Chair Hardy and members of the Wacker TAC. So just to add just a little bit to what Pam mentioned regarding PG&E's variance request they filed with FERC, you know, it's not uncommon that they file these. They've done it many years in the past due to those storage levels at Lake Pillsbury. This year it's significantly more acute to the Russian Riverside. Previously they had kind of placed the burden of trying to reduce releases from Lake Pillsbury and preserve storage on both Eel River below the project and the rest in this year because of the sense that PG&E, both PG&E and FERC felt that if they try to make changes to the reasonable and prudent alternative like they did in the past, meaning flows in the Eel River, that they'd be open to a requirement for section seven consultation which would take months and put off any type of changes and releases, you know, until way into the fall which would basically drain Lake Pillsbury. So the entire burden of reducing releases from Lake Pillsbury is being put on both transfers that to the Potter Valley Irrigation District under the water supply agreement with FERC and then also, I mean, with PG&E and then also the releases they would make for minimum stream flow requirements for these branches. So as Pam mentioned we're forecasting little or no inflow once PG&E receives an order from FERC approving that variance request and they start complying with it. So currently Lake Medesino is about 36,380 acre feet of water. This is, you know, everybody knows is extremely low. It actually hit its maximum storage last week. The reservoir is currently, it's not losing a lot, it's losing about 15 or so acre feet a day. But and just to remind everybody we still are managing the Upper Russian River under a February order from the State Water Resources Control Board approving our January temperature change petition. And that order did put the Upper Russian River in a critical water year type. And based on that we've been able to keep releases from Lake Medesino at the very minimum of 25 CFS because the base flows in the Upper Russian River. However, those tributary inputs are declining really fast. As a matter of fact, we see, you know, I'm sure Pam's operators are pretty much looking to Healdsburg right now as the compliance point. And so probably in the next week or so we're going to see those releases from Lake Medesino start increasing to both, you know, meet those minimum stream flow requirements and downstream demands and really start seeing the reservoir decline. Super it's really concerning because that order expires that's putting a critical water year type expires at the end of July. We're forecasting that we don't extend that order and there's not substantial reduction in diversions on the Upper Russian River. We're projecting Lake Medesino will drain by October 1st. I cannot emphasize what a serious water supply condition the Upper Russian River currently is in. Even with extending those minimum stream flow requirements as a critical water year type, you know, well into the end of the year, we're still seeing Lake Medesino decline below 10,000 acre feet by October. And again, you know, you know, I think we've described this in the past, you know, snow water really has one dial. We can we can go to the State Board and request these minimum stream flow changes, but we don't have control over demands on the Upper Russian River. And so, as I mentioned before, it's going to require a substantial effort by Upper Russian River water users to prevent, you know, Lake Medesino from draining and getting the point where, you know, we're risking water supply for human health and safety needs to communities on the Upper Russian River. There is an effort really led by the State Board right now at the highest level. It's the Deputy Director of Division of Water Rights, Eric Eftoll is really leading it. It's stakeholders from both the Kaia Valley and the Alexander Valley, both Ag and Municipal. Working together, it's called the Upper Russian River throughout response group. And right now, the objective is to try to come to voluntary agreements to reduce diversions to reserve storage of Lake Medesino. I can't say I'm incredibly optimistic about that. It's a heavy lift to get to the reductions they're going to need. But I think, you know, a regional solution is possible. That definitely would be the best approach. So that group is meeting weekly. And then there's also a steering committee group that meets weekly. So a lot of activity in trying to manage the Upper Russian River right now. Lake Sonoma is just under 150,000 acre feet. It's losing about 175 acre feet a day right now. So we're starting to get a bit concerned about Lake Sonoma. We did not include the Lower Russian River and Dry Creek in our Temporacy Change Petition back in January. We're going to kind of wait and see what was going to happen with the hydrology balance out. Unfortunately, it didn't. And at the time, it really didn't affect our releases because we had Steelhead and Chinook coming into the system. So we really had to manage the Lower Russian River to make it possible for those fish to make their way into the system. However, we're now seeing if we, you know, because we didn't include the Lower Russian River, it's in a dry water supply condition, which means the minimum stream flow requirement on the Lower Russian River is 85 cubic feet per second. So trying to meet, between trying to meet that minimum stream flow requirement, which is really taxing storage in Lake Sonoma, and then in addition, the Delta between the two, the minimum stream flow requirement on the upper Russian River and the Lower. So on the upper, it's 25 and the lower is 85. Trying to make up that 60 CFS difference, we would substantially be out of compliance with the incidental take statement for Dry Creek under the biological opinion. So because of all those reasons, Sonoma water intends to file another temperature change petition likely next week. It'll be requesting that the entire Russian River be placed in a critical water urotype. So it'll be extending that 25 CFS minimum stream flow requirement on the upper Russian River and dropping the lower Russian River minimum stream flow requirement to 35 CFS. Also, in order to best manage releases from the reservoirs and flows to meet those minimums, we're going to request that the compliance be based on a five-day running average of average daily flows with a floor of 15 CFS on the upper Russian River and a floor of 25 CFS on the Lower Russian River to help us out in trying to preserve storage in both reservoirs. And lastly, with regards to the Lower Russian River, in order to help preserve storage in Lake Sonoma, we're also going, snow water is also going to be committing to a 20% reduction in diversions from the Russian River between July 1 and October 31. Also, also help out with storage conditions at the reservoir. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Gee, thank you for that encouraging news, Don. I think that you get the doom and gloom hat for the day, huh? It's already out of the bag, but there was an internal joke that I was the Dr. Fauci of Walker in the Russian River, and it slowly leaked out, so it's no longer a private joke just in Sonoma water. So I'll go ahead and share it with the lack of the time. Thank you, doctor. Thank you, doctor. Grant, did you want to speak a little bit about the governor's visit? Maybe briefly, but I wanted to tag on beyond what Dr. Fauci just recorded out. And that is that we've been working very deliberately in cooperation with all of the LAC members, the technical advisory committee, the water spike coordination council. I mean, this has been a period and I know it's on the agenda later, but I wanted to, with the numbers, the way they are in all the conditions, I just want to emphasize that that's how we're going to get through a whole by working in coordination and in collaboration, which we're currently doing. Yeah, the last week's visit by the governor up to Lake Mendocino, I think is proof and point of what Don is saying in that region. The Upper Russian River is in real dire straits, and our challenge is going to be to see if we can't manage and reduce demands in a very significant way. I think what I see happening, what the governor rightfully said was where he was standing, he should have been about under 40 feet of water, pretty telling example of where we should be at this time of year, and we're not after two critically dry years. So today's efforts and subsequent follow-up. Director Rabbit was the one who led right on the heels of the governor's declaration, our own Sonoma County drought emergency, and I want to thank him for that, because that puts us in position now to take advantage of the attention that the state is putting on Mendocino and Sonoma counties and do a certain degree in Marin County. But in terms of what that means, I think it's largely on us to demonstrate that we can come up with drought agreements that will be seeking diversion reductions and water conservation throughout the Upper Russian River watershed and are going to the State Board later this month is a sign that the entire Russian River watershed needs to be engaged and working together, and that means all of us. Thank you for that, Grant. Supervisor Rabbit, did you want to add anything to this? No, other than just to say thank you to the agency for working so diligently, thank you. We're in it for the long haul here over the next so many months. Hopefully the rains next fall will come early, but until then we definitely have some work to do and appreciate all the cooperation that everyone has given. I do think that there's opportunities for us to go after, quite frankly, in Sacramento and in DC, but those are going to be the longer-term resiliency type wins. It doesn't take the hurt of this drought and the effects of the drought that are going to have on all of our constituents any easier going forward. But I think we need to continue to look over the horizon, try to set ourselves up for success in the future and as much as possible, given the circumstances of climate change and the effects on our county. But again, I want to thank all the staff and thank you, everyone, for being all pulling in that same direction. Thank you for that, David. Yeah, I mean, I've been around long enough now to recognize what a gem we have in Sonoma County. We really, as a group of cities and the county, we, no matter what the subject is, be it water or be it garbage, anything, we really do all pull together and we try and pull in the same direction. So it's really such a refreshing thing to be able to work with one another because we are all in this together. So I appreciate everybody's help moving us in the right direction. And with that, are there any questions on this report from any of the WAC attack members? Please raise your hand. Let's see, Jennifer. Thank you, Chair Harvey. Just a question for Dawn in terms of the upper Russian River. Users and the voluntary agreements are trying to come to you. And I know you mentioned that your Sonoma waters looking to file another temporary urgency change petition with mandatory reductions and diversions for July through October. Is there a sort of timeframe or a deadline that the State Water Board has for the upper Russian River users to come to agreement or they going to look to start curtailing soon? Because it's, I know Mendo's in a much more dire situation and it seems like there's not a lot of time to try to come to agreement on voluntary. So is there some type of timeframe that they're looking at? Hey, Jennifer, they have not set a timetable for when they would move away from this voluntary activity to regulatory activities. They have been very straightforward at the meetings, though, that if this doesn't work, they will come in and they work for tail. They are planning on sending out letters to permittees on the upper Russian River, but well in the entire Russian River that depend on natural flow and transfer from the Water Valley Project that there is likely unavailable water this year. So they are going to be taking some regulatory actions, but they haven't given a deadline of actually curtailing water rights. But I agree with you. There's not a lot of time. There's just not a lot of storage to play around with right now. And it really is a risk to making sure there's adequate water supply for human health and safety needs on upper Russian River communities. Thank you for that. Jennifer, did you have any other questions? No, thank you. That was helpful. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Wacker attack? I am not seeing any other hands. So at this point, we will take public comment on item seven. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Gina, I agree if I see one hand. That's correct. I see Ms. Adelman and I'm going to go ahead and allow you to speak. Thank you. Good morning, Brenda. Good morning. I'm not surprised by this news, but it's pretty hard to take. And I would like to just request that the water agency coordinate with Linda Hopkins and James Gore to do a community meeting as soon as possible on the lower river to inform people about the details of what you were talking about today. I think it's extremely important, and I hope that you will have the ability to do that. Thank you. Thanks. Hey, Brenda. This is Don. I just want to let you know that we already have had presentation to the lower Russian River Mack that Linda, Director Hopkins, was present at. And then we're also working closely with Ed Portner at Sweetwater Springs and will likely be presenting to his board this week. So that coordination is going on, and we're happy to continue without whatever stakeholders are interested in understanding what's going on. I don't think many people in the public go to the Mack meetings. I think there needs to be something specifically geared where there's a lot of publicity to the general public. And it would be really nice, and I would certainly be willing to help with that. Thank you for that, Brenda. So maybe someone can work with Brenda to do some outreach there. And I'm not seeing any other public comment, Gina, are you? I do not. Thank you for that. Drew, did you receive any written or verbal comments on this item? I did not. If the Wacken-Tack members have no other comments on this, which I am not seeing any hands raised, we will then move on. And thank you for that, Dr. Fauci. Hopefully next time you can bring us some better news. We'll get through this. So we'll move on to the Snowmerman Water-Saving Partnership. Drew, I believe that you're going to take the first item. I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go into, Gina, item number eight, though, due to my rough start this morning, I believe that we missed the roll call for the TAP members and the public. So, Gina, could you go ahead and pick up there? And then as soon as you've done that, then I'll come back and start with the agenda item number eight. Thank you, Dr. Easter. I'm sorry, apologies. I'm going to state the staff attendees and public attendees for the meeting notes. So we have just one moment, please. David Rabbit, Don Seymour, Grant Davis, Pam Jean, Paul Piazza, David Keller, Brenda Edelman, A. Rodriguez, Barry Dugan, Bob Anderson, Brad Sherwood, Chelsea Thompson, Claire Nordley, Colin Close, Corey O'Donnell, David Manning, Ellen, Juan Carlos Solis, Larry Russell, Laura Sparks, Lynn Razzelli, Margaret DiGenova, Mary Callahan, Michael Thompson, Peter Martin, Sandy Potter, Steven Hancock, and Tony Williams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Okay. So now we're back on agenda item number eight. This two-part agenda item here through the tax. So the first thing is just another monthly update on water production that we typically include. And it's there in your agenda packet. You can see the comparison for the month of March as well as year to date. Overall water use in this last month, it's down 20 percent versus the 2013 benchmark and down 11 percent year to date. There's a graph of that data in the bottom of that first page. And then on page number two, we continue to show the gallons per day per capita over the last two plus decades. And again, just want to remind the group that the partnership has reduced their water consumption by 28 percent by the end of 2020, which greatly exceeds the state's goal of 20 percent. And that was done even with the population during the region increase. So again, this is regular updates each month. And I'd be happy to guess the first question is, is there any questions on the whack or tack on this item? Don't see any. And then how about opening it up to public? Any comments from the public on agenda item number 8A? Again, if you're participating via Zoom, raise your hand or by phone, hit star 9. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Gina, do you see anything at all either? No, I don't know. Do I? Okay. So we will move from a general item number 8A to drought outreach messaging 8B and call Piazza with the Sonoma County Water Agency is going to present just for me. Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Drew. So the partnerships outreach subcommittee continues to meet twice monthly to work on both the ongoing messaging that is already being put out on multimedia digital placements for advertising, social media campaign broadcast radio and the like. And then we are quickly working to pivot the message away from it's a dry year, save water with us to drought is here, save water. This message probably will be ready within the next couple of weeks. We have a draft ad scheme that has been created by community and government affairs staff and water efficiency staff that has been sent out to the partnership for review and comment. And as soon as we can get buy-in on that and any feedback needed, we'll be working with Flannel, the outreach graphic design firm that's working on the campaign with Sonoma Water to get an advertisement campaign together and approved and launched within the next few weeks. So in addition with the current temporary agency change order, we do have term nine for monthly water conservation reports to the state board. So the second in that series of monthly reports was filed this week. Really just covering all of the outreach efforts of the partnership, providing some information about the variety of different programmings and events that we're hosting to help reduce water use this summer and including just an estimated savings for the efforts on a monthly basis. I want to mention there's an event coming up. Well, I should firstly mention we're planning a region wide event across three counties. We're going to be hosting a drive-up event for a device giveaway similar to what occurred in the last drought. It'll be on a single day on June 12th from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. with locations throughout North Moran, Sonoma, and even Mendocino County. So the outreach campaign is continuing to work to finalize plans for that event. And then every year we do an eco-friendly garden tour. So coming up on May 15th, I just want to give a shout out to the annual eco-friendly garden tour. That will be available virtually again this year. We have professional videographer that helped put together all of the tour videos for that event. And the Sonoma County Master Gardeners in addition have helped to coordinate a webinar that'll be occurring on that same morning on resilient summer dry landscape. So look forward to that. On May 15th, visit the partnerships website at savingwaterpartnership.org. You'll find links and information on how to participate on the annual eco-friendly garden tour. Shout out to the city of Santa Rosa who recently hosted a successful drive-up event for Earth Day. We're coordinating with them on the results of that event to help inform what we're going to be doing later this summer for the region-wide event planned for June 12th. And then just want to thank all the partners for their participation and submittal of information during what is a very busy summer for water conservation staff to provide the information needed to roll up into a monthly report for the State Board. So with that true, I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Any questions from the WAP or TAC on Paul's report? Don't see anyone. Let's go and open it up for any public comments. Anybody participating via Zoom? Go ahead and raise your hand or by telephone. Hit star nine. Gina, do you see anybody indicating they'd like to make a comment? I do not, Drew. Nor do I. All right, great. Okay. Madam Chair, back to you for the next agenda item. Thank you so much and thank you for that presentation, Paul. So we will move on to item nine, which is resolution supporting the efforts and urging reduction in water use. So we sent a memo out to everyone because of the critically low rainfall over the last two years and the water storage levels are at historic lows in both Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. Most critical as Don pointed out is Lake Mendocino, which is currently at 43% of storage capacity and Lake Sonoma supply capacity is currently only at 62%. So at our water supply coordination meeting on April 22nd, we determined that we would bring forward this item to consider a resolution seeking a 20% voluntary conservation from the members of the Sonoma Marin saving water partnership. My understanding is that all the TAC members have had discussions with their respective WAC members and that they are prepared to vote on this item today. So we would like to recommend that the WAC approve this resolution and hopefully everyone has had the opportunity to read this resolution. And I would ask if any of the WAC or TAC members have any questions on this item. I am not seeing any hands. Gina, are you? Me, Jack Dean from Sonoma. Yes, Jack. Yes. Yeah. We definitely support this resolution and basically we don't have many other choices. So we have to take it. And the good thing is our residents in Sonoma County in the city of the Sonoma, they are well educated, smart and then reasonable. So what we can do is just reach out and to raise awareness how the people what's going on. So we will work together with our other staff and try to invite out in the local media, radio station, TV station and a newspaper. And we got an interview and then the better more people know we can do it. We are very optimistic. Thank you. Thank you for that, Jack. Any other questions or comments from the WAC or TAC? I am not seeing any hands. Gina, do you see any hands? I'm not seeing any. Okay, then I will open this up to public comment on item nine. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. I am not seeing any hands raised by the public. Are you, Gina? Nor do I. Okay, then I will bring it back to the board. And if there are no further questions or comments, I would entertain a motion at this point. This is Thank you for that, Mike. Second. Thank you for that. Then with that, we have a motion second. So may we please have a vote? Roll call vote? City of Cotadi? Yes. City of Petalema? Yes. City of Brenna Park? Yes. City of Santa Rosa? Aye. City of Sonoma? Yes. North Marin Water District? Town of Windsor? Aye. Valley of the minority district. Easter, I believe, NMWD director Jack Bakers muted, so you didn't get his vote on this. So if we can just try. Jack, can you unmute? I can see him talking, but can we hit the thumbs up? Jack, can you do a thumbs up? Yes, okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. There's more than one way we can get through this up. All right, that's agenda item number nine, you now see approved. Thank you so much for that. So we will now move on to item number 10. And Drew, do you want to go through this since you guys worked so hard on this? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if the whack will recall at the last meeting in April, there was sort of a history of the temporary allocation methodology that has been used off and on over the years when there are shortages and reductions in diversions on the Russian River. At that time, when I was given the update, I indicated back in 2007 and in 2009, there were actually allocation methodologies used because of reduced Russian River deliveries. And what you heard this morning with Don Seymour's report is the agency will be filing a temporary change petition. They will be indicating a 20% reduction in diversions in the Russian River to help maintain storage in Lake Sonoma. And so it's appropriate that we have an allocation that's approved by the whack, and the agency would then use that allocation allotment, if you will, to achieve that 20% reduction in deliveries. We have been working diligently, the TAC has, on trying to update the 2014 model that was temporarily approved between 2014 and 2017. This year we've been dusting that off and trying to get that updated and approved across the board. We still have more work to do on approving that. We're still targeting coming back to the whack at a subsequent meeting this year, hopefully as early as the August meeting for approval of that allocation methodology. But in the interim, we need to go ahead and finalize a temporary allocation for this summer recognizing we still have more work to do in the 2014 model. So that's essentially what the whack members have in front of you this morning is an allocation allotment for the water contractors that starts off using the 2014 model. But when it comes to the actual allotments by contractor right now, it's just an equal share reduction across the board by all the contractors for this summer. And then again, as I indicated, that we hope to continue to work on the model and get that approved so we don't have to have customized allocation allotment allotments when we have these curtailments and deliveries. But right now, this scenario is one that the TAC has developed and again provides an equal reduction in deliveries for all the contractors. And that's essentially what's in the attached allotment schedule. One other thing to point out is that these monthly deliveries are target deliveries. The actual allocation will be based upon an aggregate four month allotment, which is in the far right column. So while the contractors will be trying to meet these individual targets on a month to month basis, the actual total cap is it's what's all the contractors will be working to stay underneath, which is that four month allocation. So that's it in a nutshell. I'd be happy to answer any questions Susan after I turn it back over to you and you open it up. So we have any questions from any of the WAC or TAC members at this point in time? Please raise your hand. I am not seeing any questions or comments from WAC and TAC members. Are you Gina? No, I'm not. Okay. Thank you for that. Then we will open this item up to public comment on item 10. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And are there any public comments at this point? I am not seeing any raised hands. Gina, do you see any raised hands from the public? I do not. Thank you for that. And Drew, did you receive any written or verbal comments? Madam Chair, I did not. Okay, so last chance for any of the WAC and TAC members to comment on this item? Not seeing anyone rushing to speak on that? Madam Chair, I do want to also just mention that this allocation table has been, as I indicated before, vetted through the technical advisory committee and this information has, to my knowledge, been shared with each respective WAC member. I hope that it has. And I like that you also pointed out the four-month aggregate, because I think that that's helpful to all, all involved. And so with that, I would entertain a motion for this item. Thank you for that, Jack. Do we have a second? Second from Petaluma. Thank you, Mike. So we have a motion and a second. Recording Secretary LaDesma, could we please have a roll call? City of Katari? Yes. City of Petaluma? Yes. City of Renner Park? Yes. City of Santa Rosa? Aye. City of Sonoma? Yes. Northburn Water District? Got a thumbs up? That has a thumbs up. Town of Windsor? Aye. Valley of the Moonwater District? Aye. Thank you, John. That's agenda item number 10 unanimously approved. Thank you for that and thank you for everyone. We will get through this. I know it won't be easy, but we can, we can do this. So with that, I will move on to item number 11, the regional water supply resiliency study update. And I believe that Jay is going to take this from his waterfalls. Could you like share some of those waterfalls with us, please, Jay? You have to go to Iceland to see that. Maybe we can bring some back. Absolutely. Good morning, Black and tech members, Jay Jaspers, Sonoma Water. I just have a very brief update on the regional resiliency study. You may recall, some of you may recall that we presented on this in the past. This is a study that's a collaborative between Sonoma Water and all of the water contractors and Marin Municipal. We've hired Jacobs Engineering to help us basically develop a model, a planning model that will encompass all of our individual systems as well as key features, water supply features, all the way up to Potter Valley. So it essentially will give us a planning tool from Potter Valley down to Saucelito. And the idea is to remove all of the jurisdictional boundaries and just look at how all of our interconnected infrastructure operates if we apply stress tests and what I call stress tests, which are water shortages, and they could be a seismic event or something like that, or climate-driven like drought. The reason why I'm giving you a brief update here is given the drought conditions that we've been talking about, we are looking at expediting the part of the project focused on the drought scenarios. There's two phases to the project. Phase one, which is developing a work plan on how we're going to do all this, has been completed. So we have a roadmap and we've just got the contracts in place recently to start implementing the project. Right now, that model that I mentioned is being developed by Jacobs, and hopefully by this summer we'll be developed. Initially, we were then looking at doing some baseline scenarios of water shortages in the July to September timeframe, and then after that to look at some resiliency options, solutions to help improve our resiliency system. However, with the current conditions that we're dealing with, some of us are talking about, and we're starting to work with Jacobs Engineering to try to fast track that and focus on the water shortages or those stress tests I mentioned that are drought stress tests. We'll set aside the seismic for now and really try to expedite the model and then work together on some drought scenarios. So I just wanted to give you that update and that we're going to kind of shift our emphasis right here and try to expedite the early parts of the project. I don't have a revised schedule yet. We're still working with Jacobs on that, but I just wanted to highlight that for both the lack and the tech. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that, Jay. While it's not great that we're at a drought, it does give us the opportunity to kind of really kind of shore up what that resiliency might look like, because you don't have to guess at it. You have some real life situations that you'll be able to deal with. So while unfortunate, maybe in the long run, it will help us in the future. Any questions or comments from any of the WAC attack members on this study? Madam Chair, I have a question. Sure. We're actually more of a comment. Yeah, thanks, Jay. Just one of the things I'd like to mention for the benefit of the WAC is that the work that's happened so far with Phase One and with the agency and Jacobs, I mean, there have been detailed meetings with all the individual water contractors and technical staff. And I anticipate that with this expedited schedule that there will be some more individual meetings with all the individual water contractors this summer as we try to just increase the overall benefit of the regional water supply resiliency work. And it's just going to be important. This isn't obviously just an agency study, but it's heavily focused on input by all the water contractors as far as local projects, what things can be of regional benefit. So I'm looking forward again for that information becoming from each individual city or water district and feed that in to the agency's work to really strengthen the overall output of the model and have it be as beneficial to everybody as possible. Thank you for that, Jay. Since you're so involved in this aspect as well as the groundwater aspect, is there any, when we look at resiliency, is there any crossover when we look at, you know, how one or the other might kind of crossover and impact? Yes, absolutely. I think part of the scenarios we'll be looking at is what we call conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater recharge scenarios, either surface recharge or flood mar, flood managed aquifer recharge or aquifer storage and recovery or groundwater banking. There's several flavors of kind of that conjunctive management of surface and groundwater. We've done a study, oh, about four years ago, I think maybe five, and we looked at the historical hydrologic record on the Russian River from 1908 until I think it was 2012. And even in the driest years like 1977, which we're rivaling right now, there was still, although it may not seem like it, in the winter times when you could take some of that winter or spring water and really use that for beneficial use of recharge. So even in the worst of years, there's, Russian River still has some potential there, but you know, there's a huge amount of opportunity there just on even dry years, you know, to wet years, of course, obviously. So we see that as really an area where there's a lot of overlap with the groundwater sustainability agencies looking for sigma compliance, whereas in our hats now we're looking for water supply resiliency. And I think there's a lot of synergies there. Thank you, Jay. Any other Whacker attack member comments on this item? I am not seeing any raised hands. So given that, I will open this up for a public comment on item 11. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing your via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And Secretary Perez, I am not seeing any hands raised. Are you? No, or do I? Okay. There are no public comments. Then I will bring it back. Any last comments from anyone on the board? I am not seeing any raised hands here. Last chance. Alrighty then. Thank you for that. And thank you for Jay for all of that information. And hopefully you can help us get to be more resilient. With that, we will move on to the biological opinion status update, which I believe Pam is going to cover for us. Yeah, I will. And just warning, I'm getting warnings that I've got an unstable internet connection. So I may turn off my camera just to help with that. I have been there. I'm going to go ahead and do that right now. So that's where I'm going. So hopefully everybody got the update along with it. Well, it was with the agenda. So if you've got Easter's agenda, then you got the update, the biological opinion update, which is being shown on the screen right now. I'm just going to highlight really the changes from the last time that you got an update. So hopefully it won't take too long. I'm going to start with the fish flow project. This is the recirculated draft environmental impact report that's being worked on right now. We do hope to have a recirculated draft out by before the end of the year. We've been spending a good deal of time talking to some of the resource agencies as well as the State Water Board, the Division of Water Rights, about the project and working through some things like water quality modeling, which has been updated, various other things. The State Water Board is very interested in seeing this recirculated draft EIR get issued as soon as we can. So another thing that has changed here is that we are actually meeting, not myself, but our project manager, is meeting with our assigned State Water Board staff really regularly now to talk about the recirculated draft and updates that are being made and our progress. So that's a good thing. They're very engaged, I think partly because of the drought, but they understand that this is necessary for us to manage our water supply better on the Russian River as well as comply with the biological opinion. So that's the update for the fish flow project. The Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Project, there's a pretty lengthy update in here, so I'm not going to go through all of it, but we do have two remaining elements for our phase three project that are going to be under construction this summer. And that'll happen during the timeframe that we would normally be out there under construction between June and October timeframe. So that's what's going on with regards to construction this summer. And there's also a really nice write-up in here. People have the chance to read it. That talks about the monitoring and the maintenance, and specifically the habitat monitoring that we're doing out there. So in the fall, last fall, there was some good work done to go out and physically look at our constructed enhancement sites and determine whether or not they were built according to plan. So that work happened. The bottom line is, I'm going to skip through the middle of this, but the bottom line is based on that physical monitoring and the biological surveys, which is looking for fish out there, what they determined was that the greatest amount of optimal habitat that's been enhanced or created out there is really been in these off-channel enhancement work. So not the work in the main stem of main channel of the river of Dry Creek itself, but in these off-channel enhancement sites that we've created as part of this project, which is pretty interesting. So the other thing is that we do have some maintenance to do out there. There was some deposition of sediment in 2019 during really high flow events on Dry Creek. So we do have some tentative plans to remove that sediment, and we open those side channels that got cut off as a result of that sediment deposition. And we're either going to do this, they're working on how to do this at this point and what the work is going to look like. They're going to have to do some excavation and other things, and we expect that they'll do that work either this year or next year 2022. In terms of phases three through, I'm sorry, four through six, these are the projects that are being done in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The all three phases, four, five, and six, the designs are really, really far along. In phase four in particular, the big documents are ready. So they're currently working still on some right-of-way issues. Some of the property owners out there have requested changes to the right-of-way agreements that they're having to go back to Washington, D.C. to get approval for those changes. So the Corps is working their way through that process, and it may delay construction at this point. But the project continues to, the phase four continues to move forward, and I just want to mention that we're procuring logs ahead of time for woody debris that would go into these projects, and there was contract that went to our board in mid-March that was approved for that procurement. So our first consultant, Erin Fleuve, is working on phase four. That's really far along. Good documents are ready. ESA is another consultant that's working on phase five of the project. They've got a 99 percent design submittal done, and we expect phase five to be worked on starting in 2023 in terms of construction. So they're working on right-of-way agreements with regards to this and trying to get through that process, which seems to be one of the most difficult parts of this project. Our third consultant, Cardinal, is working on phase six, and they also are at a 99 percent set of plans and specs for that. We expect phase six to start in 2024 in terms of construction, and again they're working a lot on right-of-way right now. There's also a small project that is being done outside of either the first three phases, which are almost complete now, or these next three phases, and they're working on our preliminary design for an additional site immediately upstream of a site that's already under construction and reach high, and they're advancing this work sort of independently of the course work, our collaborative work with the core, to make sure that if something falls through on one of those other projects that we have enough habitat enhancement out there for us to comply with the biological opinion and meet the requirement of the biological opinion. So this is described in there in case anybody wants to take a look at that. As far as fish monitoring goes, there's a really nice write-up in here about how we're doing some of this fish monitoring and why it's important to do it. One of the things that they're focusing on this year is estimating survival of fish that are migrating out to the ocean. This is one of the things that is not super well understood. So they're embarking on a project to do this this year. I think it's being done in coordination with the Corps of Engineers, and they're doing it using some technology that's described in here, including an acoustic tag. There's a photograph of it and also a little fish, as well as the device that they use to monitor those tags as the fish swim by. So it's an interesting project. The fish, of course, need to get out to the ocean to grow, to come back in and spawn again, so or not spawn again, but to spawn. And so it's a good thing to understand what's going on there, and we're trying to get a better handle on that survival rate with those fish that are coming out of tributaries and swimming out to the ocean through the main summer rush river. The rush river estuary management project, the rush, the estuary is currently closed. It closed not last week, but I think it was the week before. And it's, it is just in that state right now that the water surface level behind the closed barrier beach is rising very slowly at this point, partly due to lower flows as we're seeing due to the drought. So we will be submitting an adaptive management plan, a finalized version of the adaptive management plan to the National Marine Fishery Service in California Department Fish and Wildlife by May 15th. That document is currently being reviewed by the resource agencies before we submit it to them in a final version. And we do have a pinniped monitoring, which is monitoring of the seals out there, seals and, okay, harbor seals that are out there, and as well as we started water quality monitoring in the estuary just last week. So all of the equipment that we deploy out there is being deployed right now. We already talked about interim flow changes. So I'm not going to bring that back up again. I can answer questions that are Don can at the end if there's any more questions about that. And just want to make sure that folks know that we did have a public policy facilitating committee meeting in March. And hopefully those who wanted to attend that were in attendance. If you were not able to attend, there is a full recording of the meeting and there's a couple of links that are included in this document, this update to get you to the recording of the meeting itself, as well as the videos that explain the Russian River System that were shared during that meeting. So those videos are also posted and the links are available in this update. They're both, one of them, the videos are on a YouTube channel and the biological opinion meeting or the public policy facilitating committee meeting recording is on our website. So feel free to go to those and check them out if you weren't able to attend. And that's it for me, Susan. Pam, thank you for the very, very detailed report. A lot of stuff going on. I have a question about the sediment on Dry Creek. Is that going to always be an issue in that area? Or will it eventually kind of work itself out? I think in certain places on Dry Creek, there is going to be I don't know if it'll be forever issue, but there's more likely to be an issue. The lower part of Dry Creek specifically is the place where there's just a lot of sediment deposition in general, regardless of our projects out there. So there has been a lot of discussion with our consultants who do this kind of enhancement restoration work all the time about how to deal with that and whether we should be doing something different. And I don't know if David Maying is on or not and wants to speak to this, but they are keeping, definitely keeping this kind of issue in mind with the projects that are being looked at for the next phases, phases four, five and six. And it is something that's a bit concerning, but I think that they're trying to deal with it in their designs. And especially the forward-looking designs. David, do you, I don't know. Sure. Easter, there he is. Yeah, I'm out here. Your answer is accurate. There are some places along the stream where this kind of sediment, the consultants like to call it nuisance sediment, but it's really just a natural stream process in Dry Creek. We'll always necessitate maintenance of the features. So we are, we're trying to keep these floodplain areas in a certain condition that naturally perhaps the stream might erode and create on its own, but with the presence of the dam and the reduction in the power of the stream, we have to go in and manually remove this material periodically. So the long-term maintenance part of the Dry Creek project is something that will be required under the next biological opinion. So after this biological opinion ends in 2023, we believe that all of our construction obligations will be met as we comply like am described with the projects that Core is building. But going on into the future, there are some of these reaches that will just, they will require maintenance, both the sediment and the vegetation. The areas that are closest to the dam, where some of the fish monitoring indicates really great success in the use of these projects, those are sort of sediment starved parts of the creek. So the dam itself cuts off a lot of that sediment supply, but as the tributaries enter Dry Creek along its course, they introduce sediment and down to those lower reaches of the stream, we'll be removing it very oddly, probably in perpetuity. Thank you for that. So I'm assuming that we will have ongoing budgetary considerations for maintenance of this going into the future. Absolutely. And there is a shared maintenance period with the Farming Corps of Engineers projects the first 10 years after construction. It's sort of a warranty period with the Corps, they helped to share in the costs of some of that maintenance, but beyond that, yes. Well, that's wonderful that at least we have that 10-year period. So that's great. So any questions or comments from any other WAC or TAC members? Please raise your hand or jump in. Madam Chair, this is Drew. Yes, Drew. A quick question for Pam or David on the Phase 4 project that's scheduled to go this summer. It's a four month, typically it's a four month construction window. I note here in the report, it looks like it's being delayed to just kind of related to some right-of-way review. Is there a certain go-no-go date where if it gets too late, you'll decide to not actually bid the project this summer? Yes, and we're almost there, Drew. So it does seem at this point like the construction will happen not this summer, but next. Because of that shortened construction window, as you know, as Pam reported, that June 15 to October 15 timeframe, we really can't work outside that. And once projects get underway and the stream is opened and exposed, I'd be very careful not to leave it that way as we go into the winter. Who knows, maybe the next winter will be wet. This winter, there was really no flow at all of consequence in Dry Creek, but we have to be very mindful of that. So it is looking very likely almost certain that construction will commence next year, not this year. Okay, thank you, Dave. I think it's also worth it if I can through the chair. Drew, you're pointing out an issue we lost our long time right-of-way agent, Kevin Campbell, to retirement. These things happen as my colleagues in the other water districts know. Finding talent, replacing talent is going to be an ongoing challenge. We have some wonderful folks on the way that are doing a lot of work, but not enough to make up for the loss of a senior right-of-way agent like Kevin. So that plays into this too, but the good news is, as we reported in prior Black meetings, because the core and the Office of Management and Budget authorized and appropriated funds, you don't jeopardize those directly by not getting underway in that first year, as it would have otherwise if we're going on annual appropriations year after year. So that one of the more signature events for last year was securing that level of funding to be able to plan accordingly and be able to withstand things like right-of-way dialogue and negotiations that can take an orderly amount of time. And David and his team has done phenomenal work on this project. It's really something else. Thank you for that, Grant. Yeah, it's kind of hard when you lose a senior person like that that has spent many years building up those relationships and knowing how to structure all of those. And it is difficult to kind of bring on someone new and kind of rebuild that expertise. So I am not seeing any other questions or comments from the board. So I will move to public comment on this item. We're now taking public comment on item 12. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via phone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And Secretary Perez, there was a handout when we were asking questions, but I'm not seeing it up at this point. I believe it was Mr. Manning. Oh, okay. Alrighty then. I'm not seeing any new hands though. Nor am I. So, Drew, do you have any written or verbal comments on this item? I do not. You do not. Okay. Well, thank you so much, Pam, for bearing with your technical issues with this and the very thorough report as always. And David, thank you for chiming in and adding on that. With that, we will move on to item 13. Does the board have any particular items that they would like to see at our August 2nd meeting? Not seeing any hands raised? Of course, I'm sure that, you know, the status of our water will be up front and on everyone's mind come August. So we will be cognizant of that as well as where we're at with the Potter Valley project and all other items. I am still not seeing any hands. So with that, I will take public comment on item 13. If you wish to comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And are there any public comments on future agenda items on the next agenda that a public would like to see? Secretary Press, I am not seeing any hands. I don't see any raised hands either. Okay. And, Drew? Yes. I hate to do this because you ran such a wonderful meeting today. We made up a little bit of time which is customary. Awesome. We left two items off because of concerns about the packed agenda and timing. Yes. Both of which I'd like to at least raise and then also make a comment. We talked earlier about the governor being up at Lake Mendocino, Mendocino County, Sonoma and a certain degree, Marin County, regionally having to approach the current drought. Director Rabbit has us coming back to the Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors on May 11th. So we'll be taking the resolution items that you put forward today through the WAC, making that part of the presentation. But Director Rabbit is going to be very likely one of the few people testifying in the Assembly of Water Parks and Wildlife Committee on Wednesday, the 5th of Cinco de Mayo. And it's a time to list off sort of the projects and scope and what we're dealing with here as a region while we're the only region that's in an emergency drought declaration. And I think it's a real good opportunity to remind them of the needs that we have in this region, type of support that we can get from the state to make it through looking at things that we're wanting to get a head start on to make us more resilient for that, not just this year, but upcoming years. So that's a real good effort that the states continue to recognize this regional leadership and having Director Rabbit carry the ball for us. This is much appreciated along those lines. The two items that we generally talk about are this ongoing Bay Area integrated water management work that we do. Many of the phone here in the Zoom also worked through the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, which is a similar regional enterprise that works on reclaimed water. We also have the North Coast Resource Partnership up North and both of those, that's a seven county project that we have split. We've got the North and the South and this depending on which region you're in, the Bay Area or the North Coast will depend on where you spend your time. But the two projects I want to highlight up at Lake Amendecino with the governor, he was fully complimentary and recognizing the work that we're doing on atmospheric river research. Jay has talked about how droughts come on relatively slowly and end abruptly. The droughts have record have ended with atmospheric rivers, and we know this. So we've got to understand when those are coming, where they're going to hit, what the conditions are, and if they're going to land above or below our reservoirs. But in addition to that, there's a little known project called AQPI, which is the Advanced Quantitative Precipitation Information. It's the radar projects. And I know Marin Municipal is looking at putting one up in their coverage area. We're looking at five others around the Bay Area. And this is through the Bay Area Integrated Water Management Program of $20 million that Sonoma Water is a fiscal agent to our colleagues. So I just want to make sure that those projects continue to get addressed, time permitting that we bring you up to speed on what the issues are, how much better prepared we're going to be if we continue state support for those technological advances that we need as part of that equation. So I just thought with the extra minutes, we could put those out there, make sure we continue to touch base, and as questions come up or more ideas, we bring that to this body. So thank you. Thank you for that, Grant. David, did you want to add anything to that? David Rabbit? I think I kind of gave the talk before in terms of the opportunities. And again, I think we're looking at the immediate needs right now with what we're dealing with. And that's obviously with our contractors and the campaign to conserve water, obviously. But quite frankly, in this county, we also have agricultural concerns and other concerns that we're all dealing with as well that affect the economy as a whole. So we need to also be advocates there as well. To Grant's point, I think the water agency has been taking this charge in leading the way on these really, I think, great projects. Even that picture of the governor on Lake Mendocino this year, there was more water in that lake this year than there had been in years past because of the work through the water agency. So even with that, it could have been worse. And we need to continue to make these continue to be advocates for these changes and this better science being implemented into our system and be able to manage it that much better. So I think it's important. And again, you know, I think you all know between infrastructure in DC and this localized drought emergency here in our county in Mendocino, there are opportunities that we should capitalize on to ensure that not only for the immediate needs, but for the resiliency building in the future that we all need to put into our system. So I think it's a it's good timing going forward, even though it's very difficult circumstances. Yeah, I think it's sort of difficult, you know, as you point out, you know, the balancing of things, you know, we have the balancing of water and agriculture and housing and, you know, everything is kind of in this kind of precarious position with trying to to balance the needs of everything and make sure that, you know, things don't get lopsided one one way or the other. So we're always in a funny position there. And I see that, Paul, you would like to ask a question or comment. Yes, thank you, Chair Harvey. I did just want to remark. I noticed a couple times Grant mentioned that to a certain extent, Marin County was affected by the dry conditions. And I did want to just reiterate that we are under a declared water shortage emergency here in Marin. And I think the county is planning to, you know, make that more formal in the next couple of weeks here. So as a region, we really are probably as dry as it's ever been, really. And I think we just need to keep that messaging consistent. And to chair rapid supervisor rabbit's comments about agriculture, we of course have had and heard from our own agricultural commission. We're helping out ranchers out in the West Marin water from the Casio. Thank you. Thank you for that, Paul. David, did you have another comment? Well, just reminded me one last comment I thought I would share. My son came home from his shift at Cal Fire, mentioned that the vegetation fuel moisture is the on May 1 was what it typically is on August 1. And they had, I believe he was at the skyfire up in Lake County and over in Mendo, I think. But I think just this in a three day shift, I think they had three vegetation fires one up to 65 acres. So it is going to be a long, long year. It just reiterates what we've all been talking about in terms of where we're at going forward. So it's certainly all related. Everything, everything is connected, as we all know, within what we're working on. So just thought I would mention that because it seemed to be just another thing where it makes you shake your head and hope for the best this year. Thank you for that, David. Yeah, I noted that this morning on the news we already have, because I'm up in the mountains right now, red flag warning. I mean, this early in May, it's it's a little frightening that we're already, you know, getting those. So Paul, did you have another comment or is that a residual hand? Oh, I'm sorry, residual. Oh, that's okay. That's okay. Any other comments? I am not seeing anything else for the good of the order. Seeing anyone raise any hands. Well, I thank you all for your time and your participation and, you know, your work to pass our resolution and our 20% reduction in water. And with that, I will adjourn this meeting and see you all in August. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Bye. Take care.