 I'm going to go ahead and start. Can everybody hear me OK? You can. I'm just going to not use the microphone. Do I have to use the microphone? Talk to the audience. Could you guys hear me OK? Yes. I can hear you OK. OK. I'm not going to use it. Because what happens with this microphone, you go in and out, or keep it right up there. Are you bringing up the presentation? I am. I'm going to bring it up for two years. Yes. I will do that. Do I need the button? Anyway, along with our advisory committee, we are being assisted in our efforts at our advisory committee meetings by Kerns and West. And Kerns and West are here tonight, or representatives of Kerns and West, Eric Honsolay and CeCe Vu, who have really been helping us run the advisory committee meetings, get organized, get organized three or four months in advance, and really help us work through the whole process. I guess I can stay over here. So tonight, the idea is that we are going to talk about projects, what's been going on. There's been a lot going on. We haven't just been sitting around waiting to have a groundwater sustainability agency. We've been working on water supply projects for years, either as a region or as individual agencies. So we wanted to give the board and also the advisory committee at the same time a sense of what's going on. Sort of in parallel, actually preceding this effort and now in parallel with these efforts, that the advice that we would be working on with our groundwater sustainability plan. And that there's going to be some convergence as we identify projects and as we develop the implementation plan. So I'm going to give a brief review of the prior efforts. And then Rosemary and Ron are going to go into more details in terms of what the city and what the Soco Creek Water District are doing. Rosemary's going to talk a little bit about how that comes back and ties into our groundwater sustainability planning process. And then there'll be opportunity for some public input, some suggestions as to projects that maybe we should be considering and maybe we haven't or just some suggestions. And then opportunity for board discussion and discussion, including the advisory committee and going forward. So it's basically an informational meeting tonight. We're not asking the board to take any action, but we're trying to get to provide the information in the context for you as we go forward in this process. So the county and the local water agencies really have been working together since the 1950s. And there's a more detailed PowerPoint presentation in your packet. So I'm just trying to summarize the key points of that here, but there are more details on this in your packet. The early studies really focused on reservoirs and water storage. The later studies realized that the water storage studies realized that maybe reservoirs weren't such a great idea. Let's look at the use of groundwater that's with the water conservation and let's look at development of supplemental supplies. But a lot more emphasis on groundwater storage. For mid-county, the overdraft and the threat of seawater intrusion was actually recognized in the first USGS report in 1968. And interestingly, recycled water and desalination was considered as early as 1960s. I didn't realize that until we went back and looked at some of the old studies. The county's first water master plan, 1957, identified a whole bunch of different reservoirs. And then there were subsequent updates to that water master plan. Some of you may have been around back in the 1980s. That's when we got everybody together in the fourth county water master plan. Both the land use agencies and the water agencies all met together in the Civic Auditorium. It was quite the event. They contributed money, they developed a plan, and then it pretty much went on a shelf, it seems like. We still weren't quite ready to start working together. But in about the late 1990s, early 2000s, we really did start to work together in earnest in a meaningful way. The various agencies talking together and working for regional projects. One of the big ones was SCWD Square, Sweet Square, the collaboration between the City of Santa Cruz and Circle Creek Water District on the desalination project. Our integrated regional water management plan pulled together water supply, storm water, environmental protection, conservation issues, and put it all together into one place. And out of that came some of these storm water recharge projects that we've done on a small scale. And we're continuing these regional efforts. We're continuing to work together, consult with each other, and look for opportunities for regional collaboration. In the Midtown area, of course, we had the Basin Implementation Group that was formed in 1995, Circle Creek Water District and Central Water District. The Circle Act of Groundwater Management Committee brought in the City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz, and then we formed the Mid-County Groundwater Agency in 2016. This is just a map showing the six different reservoirs that were suggested throughout the county. And one of them was developed. The No Creek Reservoir Lockroom Reservoir was the only one that was developed. The other ones were all on the books. Some of them were carried over into subsequent water supply plans, but we haven't seen too much progress on those more recently. City of Santa Cruz did develop the Lockroom Reservoir. That was somewhat of a regional project. Santa Ana Valley Water District has a piece of the view of that reservoir. But it's primarily a City of Santa Cruz project. And then the city also developed the Felton Divergent Dam. Interestingly, with the exception of the Scotts Valley Recycled Water Facility, that really seems to be the last water supply project that's been developed in the northern part of the county. 1977, that's a long time ago. We've been working on managing what we have more efficiently, drilling more wells, moving our wells around, but we really haven't developed any new water supply. The city went through a series of water supply plans, looking at more details of what they could do. And most recently, the Water Supply Advisory Committee brought together numerous diverse interests and laid sort of the groundwork for the city to move ahead and we're gonna hear more about that from Rosemary. Soquel Water District, again, 1968, the US Geologic Survey, to the first characterization of the Midtown Basin, the Soquel Aptos Basin, and actually identified the threat of overdraft at that time. There were some other reports that came out in the 1980s that the USGS did that were a little bit contradictory, but then we moved on ahead. Soquel Creek District formed a public advisory committee that developed a first draft integrated resources plan of process very similar to our advisory committee that we have here. And then that plan also was updated in a series of years. Soquel also participated with Central in developing the first groundwater management plan, the AB33 plan for this basin. And then most recently, in 2015, the district worked with the community to develop the community water plant and is now implementing the various aspects of that. So that's it for the overview. I forget who's on next. What are you gonna do? I don't know. I thought I was on the agenda next question. Who'd be next? I'm happy to let you be. All right. Thanks, John. That was a really good overview and I heard a lot of really good comments about the document that's in the packet, which gives a lot of details about that and shows that we do have a long history of working together and working as individual agencies on water supply issues. So the fact that we're all here doing it again, I guess maybe that's a good thing to think that we'll all be smarter this time. We can actually get something done or hopefully this is not just the 2015, 18, 20 version of the thing that will be on this thing the next time. So what I wanna talk about a little bit is what our water supply augmentation strategy is. It came out of the water supply advisory committee and I wanna give you a little bit of background about that and some updates on where, quick updates on where we are with implementation. So let's see if I know how to work this. No, that's a pointer. But that was right. All right, all right. So we had a 14 member city council appointed water supply advisory committee. They met from April of 2014 to October of 2015. They were a very diverse group and they were citizens much like the folks in the advisory committee, the groundwater sustainability planned advisory committee coming together. They had different levels of understanding so they learned really a lot and they did really a great job of putting their arms around what the issues were and what a strategy was for going forward. Among the things that we developed during that planning process and that has since been reflected in our urban water management plan from 2015 is the fact that Santa Cruz's water demand for the next 20 years is flat, slightly declining. And it's flat and slightly declining for three reasons. One is existing on the books, building and plumbing code changes that will require for remodels, new development, what have you, more efficient fixtures. The second one is price elasticity of demand that was built into this forecast to recognize the fact that we're gonna be raising our water rates. We have raised our water rates and that's going to affect demand particularly in the peak season when there's more discretionary use. And then the third thing was a little bit of additional, not a little, 200 million gallons of additional water conservation from programmatic conservation over the 20 year period. So a lot of that conservation work is in place and I'm going and I'm not gonna talk too much about that tonight because that's a detail that I'm happy to talk about but doesn't sort of rise to the occasion of some of the things we're talking about here tonight. Can you speak up please? Oh sure. Is this better? No. You have to get it really close for it to work. Well, it wasn't on. It wasn't on. That's right, it wasn't on. All right, so another thing is that in the projected worst year drought, given historic hydrology and some projections about climate change, the gap that we have built is big. It's 1.2 billion gallons up about a three and a 3.2 billion gallon estimated annual demand for our whole system. So this graph shows basically our various sources. Their key is over there and you can see that in the worst case kind of situation which for us historically is 1977, 2014 was pretty darn close. We do not have enough water to reliably meet demand through the peak season. In fact, our reservoir is depleted, highly depleted during that situation. So the problem statement that the Water Supply Advisory Committee came up with and that we've been working with is the main problem is we have limited storage. We're a surface water system that is affected by low precipitation in the kinds of situations like we had in 2014 and 2015 and we get into trouble pretty darn fast. But once we get reasonable range, normal range, we get right back out of it. And but the limited storage is a really big problem for us particularly for multi-year droughts. We have a major commitment to fish flow requirements on all of our surface water sources, the San Lorenzo River, the North Coast sources and we are implementing those fish flows and that is making a big dent in our supply also. We have this big gap and water conservation alone is not enough to solve this problem. I think that was a really important kind of conclusion that the Water Supply Advisory Committee came to because in historically we've had a lot of great success with conservation and so the sense was, well more of that will solve the problem but unfortunately that doesn't actually work. We haven't tapped it out but we've done a lot in that and we can't fill the kind of gap that we have at 1.2 billion gallons a year with conservation. We did several things I think I mentioned in the memo that's in the packet that we did a very thorough and highly public review of many options for looking at supply. This was the 2016, October 2014, excuse me, Water Supply Convention. There were over 40 different projects of different kinds of water supply alternatives that were showcased in this event and following that with these 40 plus a bunch more we looked at over 100 alternatives of different configurations, different parts of the various reuse approaches for example, potable, non-potable reuse, desal, sort of the regional desal with the deep water desal kinds of things versus the local ones, gray water decentralized systems, river catchments, those kinds of things. So it's been, it was a very thorough process and we ended up with a set of recommendations involving implement additional conservation. Look at the possibility of what's called sort of winter water harvest. There's more flow in the system in the winter time that is used to meet current demand or fish flows. Can we capture some of that and store it either passively through in lieu service to some of our neighbor in utilities that use groundwater that'll stop pumping their wells and water levels will rise and then we could get some of that back in a drought event or active storage through storage and recovery. And so we have been working on these two as well as the alternatives to that, to the river water harvest which are recycled water in desal and the proposal is to have apples to apples comparable, comparable information in 2020 so that the city can make a decision about which project or portfolio project would make sense for us to meet our water supply needs for the next, you know, increment. So just in terms of implementing, I wanna talk a little bit about some of the assumptions. I know there's been a lot of several of you heard about water transfers and water exchanges and some possibilities there. So I wanna kind of talk a little bit about some of the assumptions we're working on and the background about what we're taking into account is we're doing our evaluations. We are looking at the possibility for in lieu transfers and exchanges and the difference between transfers is, transfers is one way. We don't expect to get anything back. Exchanges is we give something and then we create a water bank for us that we could get back at a later date. We've looked at all of the jurisdictions that we're contiguous to in one form or another. We're looking at these sort of average winter storage volumes. We know these are a little bit lower now because most of us have had some kind of a depression particularly in winter demands based on the 2014, 2015 restrictions that were in place. But this was the sort of total that we've been looking at, four and a half million gallons a day. Demand that if we met, then we could potentially build some storage for our drought supply in those kinds of volumes. Awkward storage and recovery is taking winter water, treating it to drinking water quality, putting it down by actively injecting it into a well, creating kind of a bubble of water and then in drought events, taking that water out of regional aquifers and so we've been doing quite a bit of work on that as well. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the assumptions that we've used in some of the analytical work on the INLU and the ASR options. So we are assuming, again, until we have better pilot test work to document one way or another, that we would be able to return 80% of whatever we put in the ground, either passively or actively, that all available flows within existing water rights in excess of fish flow requirements and Santa Cruz demand may be diverted year round. So it's whatever is available and the way that the modeling work is done for this, it's a 70 plus year record. So it's every year it's looked at and then we come up with kind of an average that you could depend on. Obviously the worst years you can't divert much here but in the worst years there might be some water and that year round, so we're basically taking everything there is to harvest in the system within our existing water rights and within the fish flow constraints, some of the constraints of existing infrastructure and water rights requirements like the 20 CFS requirement for diversions from Felton and we're diverting that into storage and I'll tell you in a minute kind of where that gets us. I'm not gonna go through these in detail, I think there's a hand out there and there's plenty of extras and people want to see these but these are additional assumptions that we've used in developing the analysis for INLU and ASR. We've been allowing three years to fill the basin so to the three billion gallons and you'll see in a minute a graph that shows kind of how that would work under kind of a five year scenario with two years of drought at the back end and we've refined the magnitude of the problem looking at multi-year droughts. So in a, assuming historical flows and the two year worst case drought which for us was 76, 77, the worst year shortage is about that 1.2 billion but the two year shortage is 1.9 billion so you need a bigger supply to get you through bigger amount of water in storage to get you through a two year drought. In our climate change scenarios which we've developed the worst year drought is a three year drought. It's not quite as bad in the single worst year but the three year drought is two and a half billion gallons shortage. So it's that longer, the longer it goes with the limited storage that we have in our systems the size of the shortage gets bigger. This is the graph I was gonna, I was mentioning looking at kind of how we would jointly operate the groundwater storage and the reservoir storage. The reservoir storage is the red line so fills and empties and what have you in the three years we're diverting water to fill the storage and then you can see that once you get into the drought of 76, 77 for example the reservoir storage comes down and the aqua storage comes down and that's how we use us to conjunctively to help meet our long term needs in that situation. So the conclusion of the work that we've done and this work has been presented at the water commission it's been presented at the Sokka Creek Water District are basically in the two year drought scenario in lieu alone can't meet our needs because the demand that we would fill with just in lieu doesn't make enough supply for us to the demand we'd offset doesn't make it enough supply for us to get what we need during the drought event. ASR would meet our needs at a combination of ASR and in lieu would meet our needs. One of the purposes of this work and you'll see the climate change the same slide here next but the purpose of this work is also to help us evaluate the sizing of the infrastructure. How many injection wells or how much injection well capacity do we need? How much withdrawal capacity do we need to meet the whatever the size of the gap is? And so that's what the 5MGD of injection 4.5MGD of withdrawal under the ASR scenarios. And you can see that because you're only the limited amount of water that's actually in the aquifer that you can take out and the in lieu only strategy is why the amount of supply there is the MGD withdrawal capacity is smaller. This is the climate change scenario. You can see again that the injection capacity changes a little bit but the withdrawal capacity is bigger because the size of the gap is bigger. And again in this situation in lieu only can't solve the problem but combination of either in lieu and or ASR will solve the problem according to this analysis. So the current status of in lieu is that we're planning for work with Soquel in some kind of a transfer to Soquel that began in the winter of 1819. I think there was a presentation earlier this week of the results of the water quality compatibility analysis between surface water and groundwater. There are some other issues to iron out but if it rains this winter we should be in a position to open the valve at the O'Neill pump station and send water to Soquel and try this in a full scale testing for at least the 308 feet that has in the existing agreement that we have a ability to change that agreement. Additional CEQA work would need to be done and obviously to do that. We're continuing discussions with other agencies about ongoing interest in water transfers, water exchanges of Scotts Valley and San Lorenzo Valley Water District and then we're working to refine the groundwater modeling to help us really understand the benefits to the aquifer of this kind of a strategy plus what water we could depend on to be returned to Santa Cruz because it can't be just about the benefits to the aquifer for us. We have to also solve the problem that we have which is we need water in storage or we need another source that would meet our drought supply. An aquifer storage and recovery we've completed a phase one technical analysis and looked at a whole range of parameters that need to be met and there are no fatal flaws in any of that work. We've performed system modeling to assess the availability of water for ASR and infrastructure sizing. You've seen some of the results of that and then we're setting up to pilot test active injection at least in the Belts 12, Belts 12 probably this winter and also hoping to find a location up in the Santa Margarita where we can get going. We don't have a well up there that belongs to us. So a little bit hard to ask someone to take a well up line and give it to you so you can try aquifer storage and recovery when it's one of their operating wells that are not very cooperative with that. I don't get it. And then we're continuing to work on groundwater modeling. So there's quite a bit of work going on looking again at how these aquifers would respond to this kind of activity and whether that would contribute to the return to sustainability of some of these aquifers. We do have a recycled water study we've just finished. We're looking at a variety of about 40 alternatives of potable and non-potable reuse. It's finished and we submit it to the state. There are two small projects, non-potable reuse that are being recommended and potable reuse options are continuing to be evaluated. So we're not where Soquel is on their potable reuse project but we are looking at, you know, we're continuing to look at this option. This is a graphic showing the two big basins, Santa Margarita Basin and the Soquel or the Santa Cruz-Vit County Basin. The water districts are shown there and there's been some whole variety of different analytical things looking at how you could use recycled water in our system to help meet our water supply, drought supply needs. There's more information about this. Again, we can talk more about it if you have questions. These are the two small projects around the park which is right above our wastewater plant. We're looking at a bulk water station there and switching that park over to recycled water, non-potable tertiary treated wastewater basically for irrigation. And then we're looking at a possibility of a pipeline that would take recycled water tertiary treated wastewater up to UCSC to use for irrigation. They also have a number of buildings that have dual plumbing so that they could use that water for toilet flushing, for example. Neither of these produce enough of a demand offset to by themselves make much of a difference in the size of the problem that we have to solve but they might make sense to do, they do make sense to do anyway. Finally, we've looked at seawater decal. We've done a, John mentioned that there was a study that the city and Soquel were working on a number of years ago that got paused and then the Water Supply Advising Committee work happened but we were looking at updating some of the basic assumptions about that decal project and with a focus on cost, timeliness and change conditions. One of the biggest changes in the conditions is a requirement by the Coastal Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all heavy hitters, that you need to use subsurface intakes for seawater decal unless you can prove they are not feasible and there's no definition for what's feasible and not feasible so it's a little bit of a bring me a rock, no I don't like that rock bring me a different rock. But the work on this update of the basic decal project that we've had and kind of some changes to it based on what the definition of our current needs are is going to be completed next month and it's going to be presented to the Water Commission so there'll be more information on that. So the finding for the decal project is it could produce the amount of water that we need to meet the work steer shortages. Costs are refined based on changing conditions and of course they got bigger and the timeliness of implementation of this project is a big deal. It's probably not feasible to get done in the window that we're trying to reach which is to have a supplemental supply online by 2025. So this is just my closing slide to give you a little bit of additional work that we're going to do. I'm not going to go through all of this because you can sort of see it here but we're actively working to bring forward these three options with a lot of detail that will be presented to the Water Commission and the community in a very public process that will then make some recommendations to the City Council in 2020. So we've got a lot of work to do but we've been making really good progress and I'd be happy to take your questions when the time comes. To everybody in this row and in the second row and then there's copies for the public. So this is a copy of our presentation that we're showing here. As Melanie does that and we get set up we'll give ourselves a minute. I have here the first bottling of purified water in the Western Hemisphere. I actually had three bottles but I forgot my water bottle so I'm almost like one. So I'm going to give, we'll do a contest and the first one to get it right. How much groundwater does Santa Cruz use? How much in percentage? Can anybody give me a number? Want to win a bottle? Is it? Is it Santa Cruz? Is it Santa Cruz? Is it Santa Cruz? Is it Santa Cruz? Is there groundwater supply? Is it supplies? How much versus surface water? Is it? 458, 50 years. Well let's give it percentages. Like we can't. 45% Okay, 5% that's it. That's it. We're going to go to John Kennedy here. And then how much Soquel Creek water district? How much surface water does it use for, is supplied by it? How much surface water can, Zero, zero. Over here. Over here. Zero. Soquel Creek water district was developed as a flood control agency. That's why it has its name Creek in there but it's actually a 100% ground one. So we're going to present basically our community water plan which the district developed in conjunction with our community. Here is our staff and a couple board members there. What's the problem? It's overdraft. We're designated as a critically overdrafted basin by the state. As you can see here in the red down in Marina, this is all seawater intrusion that's occurred. It goes in about eight miles into Salinas. That started in the 40s. In the 50s it hit Los Landy. And we detected it at a couple of places here and right at Pleasure Point and then La Selva Beach. And then if y'all are familiar with the Denmark study that we did, very innovative. They flew off coast and they found out that the seawater intrusion is right at the coastline. So no time to waste. I point this out because this is a very different problem than what Santa Cruz has. They're almost all surface water. So when it doesn't rain, they're hurting. And they don't really have seawater intrusion. Except for a small portion up there, it's so called point or pleasure point. So that's the problem. Now it's easy to look at a map like this and go, OK, I get it. I see it. And this has happened all around the world. Most populated regions of the world that rely on groundwater have seawater intrusion. You give me a place and I can tell you. So let's put a little face to this. So about a month ago, a month and a half ago, this gentleman right here, Mr. Cartwright, walked into our office and we'll call Taj Dufour, one of my colleagues, and said, I've got a problem. I need to talk to you. And he said, what is it? He goes, my well's been hit. So Mr. Cartwright has a place down in the Selva Beach and he's supplied water by us. But he has a well that provides water to about 10 acres of land and he leases out for farming. And it's a 60-year-old well. About a year and a half, two years ago, it started getting seawater intrusion. He had to refund the farmer who leases his land. I think it was about $25,000. Give it back to him because it's seawater intruded. It got hit. And these are two quotes by Mr. Cartwright. It's a small problem for each farmer, but a large problem for the county. Ultimately, it will impact the availability of safe drinking water. And just to drive the point home, here was his farm, no longer farmed. And there in the background looking inland is probably the next to get. So what's the solution from the district's perspective in our community? Well, we developed what we call the Community Water Plan. And it consists of really these icons right here. Conservation, is there a laser on it? Yeah, there it is. A little button. A little button? OK. Does that work, John? I understand. This is conservation. We're all doing a fantastic job. Everybody should get up and take a bow in this room. We're using about 50, 55 gallons per day per person. That's maybe almost a third of what the state average is. Way to go. Groundwater well management. Easy to underestimate the power of this. Positive 4 has actually headed up this our effort. We've been moving wells inland and seeing a dramatic response to higher water levels at the coast. I have a graph that shows move wells inland, pump less, water levels at the coast go up. Very good technique. But we can't really do much more with that. So then these two will solve the problem. So we have this host of supply options that I'm going to roll into. And that's really going to be the focus of the presentation. I want to say here one thing. I think this is important to give you a little insight to Soquel Creek Water District's mindset. Everybody seems to develop a favor. I had a letter on my desk last week from a man that said he just bashed all these options. He says D-cell is the only way to go. And it reminds me of that cartoon from the New York Times when we were in the drought and I had a picture of California. Oh, poor California in a drought. And it had a big error to the Pacific Ocean. It was saying hello like this. So there's parts of the country that think D-cell are the option. Other people, there's some people here tonight who are really big on river water exchanges. I know Jerry's coming and presented to our agency about that. The people who are big on water reuse, they say let's stop taking and start reusing, recycling. And I think everybody has a sweet spot. This is our icon for stormwater recharge right here. That's a noble cause, but it won't solve our problem that we need. So we developed some mantras out of this. One is fall in love with sustainability, not a project. And I mean that because when you work hard on something or if you start getting focused, you tend to just get narrowed and they can cause biases that aren't best for our community. The other one is have a mission, not an agenda. And a couple of other things that have popped out recently are this isn't an optimization situation, which is engineers, which is the bulk of our industry. We tend to just try to nail it to the point. This is more of a risk mitigation because there's a lot of unknowns here. So to think we're gonna nail this just perfectly, it's probably not good thinking. So a little bit of insurance as we go along the way might be a healthy thing. Redundant supplies like Mother Nature gave us two eyes, two lungs to protect us. Little redundancy. So our community water plan, as Rosemary showed with the WASAC, very good effort there. We did something parallel, process matters. We took about a year and I think 14 months or a year and a half to explore the options, evaluate and select. We had numerous meetings with our public. Every board meeting or once a month at each board meeting we open it up to the public and discuss this item throughout that entire period. I know some of y'all presented that are in the crowd tonight. But what came out of this, what our community said was in this timeliness, that was the number one thing. They said, dad, gum it, just do something. I think if you look at John's presentation, how long we've been going through this, you can see a sense of frustration on our public, our customer's faces. Water quality, everybody wants good water quality. We're not gonna sacrifice that. Our board's always gone beyond the call of duty and cleaning up things. We have nationally occurring arsenic and chromium six and they've always done that. In reliability, they said it's paramount. We cannot afford to have seawater intrusion or game over there. You notice cost is not on here. It's important but it didn't rank in the top three. So new water supplies. So I'm gonna go through each of these as you saw in the icon real quickly. River water transfers, desalination, from water capture and water purification, where we are in that. And again, it may not be one of these, it may be a combination that gets our community to where we need to be. So river water transfers. I'm a very physical guy, I have to see it. So my wife and I went up and looked at the creeks where we have a contract or an MOU with the city of Santa Cruz to do this water exchange. We call it the short term, but it's the smaller water exchange for about 300 acre feet a year. Here are the creeks. Here's Laguna Crete, Lydell Crete, beautiful thing if you can get in there. I just, first time I've done that. And then Major's Crete. So a couple of years ago, we sat down and we came up with an agreement. We split the cost on the sequel analysis and we have that rolling. And, you know, it's some people, I just wanna show how serious we are about the water transfer. So we have what we call guiding principles. And to me, they're more important than really anything we have, more important than our strategic plan. Cause really when I have a question, I go back to this. And this is in our guide, our guiding principles. You know, the district is evaluating river transfers for two different options, North Coast, the San Lorenzo continue to work with the city on the North Coast and continue to work with them on the San Lorenzo River. So we're serious about this. If that's not enough, the cooperative agreement that we have in place with the city of Santa Cruz says, hey, this is really about a pilot to see if there's any beginnings of a longer term process. So not just the 300 acre feeders are more to be had there in developing a longer term agreement. So what have we done on that? Well, last week, Taj gave a presentation which you'll hear in August to your commission. And we've worked with top notch people, Mark Edwards, a guy who from Virginia Tech did the Flint, Michigan, thank you. And many other, couple other places anyway, assisted black and beach on the analysis. So we developed, these are a couple of the studies, did a desktop analysis, a Sequa analysis, did some bench scale testing, jar testing, which go back and look at our last agenda and that item. You'll see all these cool pictures of how it worked out. And then we're hoping to do the full scale pilot test come this winter, as Rosemary said. The bench scale seems to suggest that, hey, the waters are fairly compatible. You don't wanna adjust this too much or this way or that way. So we'll take it to the pilot, full scale pilot test, hopefully in December or November if there's enough water and we get meet some of the conditions that the regulators are asking us for. So, river water transfers, now let's transfer to deep water desalination, really should just be desalination. But what's going on down in Moss Landing? There's a private agency looking to do a large desalination plant right at the heart, right at Moss Landing there, you know where the canyon goes out. And one of our other mantras is keep as many options on the table as long as possible because you never know how it's all gonna turn out, right? That as long as it makes sense. So we're keeping all these options open, even deep water desalination option. We signed a memorandum of interest with them in 2015, our board did for 1500 acre feet. That's what we think we need to stop the overdraft and keep seawater at bay. It's a non-binding obligation, just says we're interested. We did contribute I think $10,000 to the EIR to include the pipelines, 15 mile long pipeline from Moss Landing to us and we purchased that water. I say this is, it's definitely literally and maybe figuratively a long shot, but again we don't wanna take anything off the table. So stormwater capture, we've been working with UCSC, RCD, the county's been very involved with this. Our board asked us to go back and look at our whole area. Where could we recharge water and how much could we get? So we, this is just a little sample map. This background map is something that UCSC and Fisher developed and from that we developed, we looked at areas and there were about 30 of them and we scaled it down as such as example where hey it's possible we might get good, good infiltration. Then again we relied on the Denmark folks. They have this little nifty device you can pull behind you that looks down into the ground and tells you is it a good place to actually recharge water. Net result of this, we found two or three sites that may recharge 30 or 40 acre feet. So again it's not gonna solve the problem but there's multiple benefits to stormwater recharge. So we're still looking at that option too. So now I'm gonna transition to recycle water and what I'm really talking about tonight is recycle water in the form that it gets purified and not that you can drink it directly. All of the state's working on those regulations now and obviously you see they allow it to some degree but where you take it, you put it down back in the ground and then you pull it out and that's called potable reuse. So I'm gonna use that term potable reuse so taking what happened, well I'll show you the process here, we'll walk through it. There are regulations developed, the state board has regulations to do this and so does the World Health Organization, Texas actually already has regulations for direct potable in a couple of places down there been doing it and our state is working on that now but our project is not for direct potable, it is only to take the water, purify it, put it in the ground, let it sit for a while, let some of it create a barrier and then pull some of it out, is that clear? So potable water reuse has been happening, it's been happening in Orange County since I don't know about 40 or 50 years, that's who did these bottles of water and gave them to us and then there's all these other places around the state that it's getting ready to go. I read a statistic a couple months ago, 75% of the water agencies are looking to do this now. Silicon Valley's doing it, they've got a rather big plant. Monterey is doing it too, they just started construction on their plant, very similar to ours, they take ag runoff also. So I'm doing this because I feel like I'm trying to correct some, or put out some information where we hear the biggest concerns regarding recycled water because what we found, and this is a study we did and it's replicated everywhere, is about 55% of the people are generally for recycled potable water like this, but what happens is when you give them just a few facts, that number jumps up to the high 70s. So I think we got 75% acceptance once we educated. So we feel that's very important, and otherwise we feel we put our customers at a disadvantage in making probably the best decision they could if we don't give them that. So Pure Water SoCal, what is planned on doing is taking 25% of the 8 million gallons a day of treated wastewater that goes out to the Monterey Bay. It's collected down here near the lagoon and they treat it and push out 8 million gallons a day on average to the sanctuary. So what we wanna do is take some of that treated secondary water that'd be our source right here from the outfall basically, purify it. I'm gonna go through and talk about what that really is just so you sure understand it and then take it in a pipe, put it in a well, let it sit and it infiltrates down and recharges the aquifers below. And this is exactly what some of the other agencies in Orange County does. So let's examine this a little bit more. So what is that middle part, that mysterious middle part of advanced treatment? Well, I'm gonna show you. So right here is what city of Santa Cruz and the county did down near the lagoon. They do primary and secondary treatment and it's pretty good water. You get a bottle of it, it's clear. It doesn't even smell at that stage. Actually the testing we did, this met all the MCLs. I don't know if that's good or scary, but it did. And then all the MCLs, not the pathogens, the MCLs. So the water's in decent shape but not good enough to drink. What we wanna do, and this, we all, by the way, this is the heavy lift. This is a big lift in cleaning up the water. We all pay, if you own a house, you pay $750 a year, at least if you live in the county, for this portion alone, right here. So the big lift's already done. So we wanna take that and put it through all these fancy things, MFU out. This is just microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation UV light, basically. What this is, is a filter 1,300 the size of your hair. It goes through there. It takes out some of the viruses, bacteria, a few things like that. Gets rid of them, physical removal. And then you come up to RO. This is, oh man, this stuff is good. It basically removes everything. Everything except that's really low molecular weight. Like there's a byproduct that people often talk about. MS, in DMA, people are worried about, has a low molecular weight, I think of like 70 atomic mash units or something. Like Sun just had a study for a chemistry test for a college entrance or something going on. Anyway, that does get through. However, this takes care of that. It destroys it. So this process is robust, very robust. And there's years and years, 50 years of data showing this. I don't wanna pull out a bunch of data because you're tired, you're kinda going on. But what I will show you is what kinda changed me. And our whole board was like, okay, if we're gonna look at this, we gotta make sure we're feel comfortable with this. Our customers are expressing curiosity. So we did a couple things. And before I jump to that, here's what the facility would basically look like. This is San Diego's Pure Water Facility that they actually just certified the IAR unanimously through the council down there. But their demo plant is about the size of our plant. This is one million gallons per day or this would be 1.3. So here are the RO units, here are the microfiltration units and on the other side is the UV. So it'd be about a little bit longer and it extends out about half the width of here. Santa Cruz is a combination of people that went on that tour. So there it is. That's basically it. If you wanna see what that facility would look like and struck it, they made it open so people could see it. So going back to water quality, knowing if the concern our board hired a independent panel and we did, we had to hire them. It was our, we paid them. So full disclaimer there. But this is Karen Nelson from UC Berkeley. I won't go through the names, but it's a who's who kind of in this area if you've worked in risk and that kind of thing, which was my previous job. I was so excited to meet some of these people. And they came together, they provided oversight. The bottom line is here's their conclusion. The panel concludes that the project is plausible, plausible, feasible and protective of human health and use of this advanced treatment technologies that I just showed you is proven. It's, and it meets all requirements is protective of health. They did say, hey, it's rather on the small side, but you gotta do what you gotta do. This was the headline and the Sentinel there. So they hired that and they've been oversighting and saying, hey, you need to do X, Y and Z and we've been trying to, we've been following what they said. Now, that was great and I believed it. And then what kind of got me going was this woman from Berkeley on the left, Dr. Nelson, in her presentation here, she talked about these facto water use. And that means, she goes, what, we've been doing this all, Europe's been doing it forever. We've been doing it forever in the United States. And what she meant was all the towns back east and even some around here have been taking water out of a river, using it and dumping their influence back in the river, treated to secondary standards. Then the next town comes out, uses conventional surface water treatment, treats it, uses it and dumps it back in the river, right? And so here's an example. I just wanna give you one example. This is Northern Atlanta. This is the Chattahoochee River. I love that name. He's painted rock and here is a discharge for 25 million gallons a day of secondary affluent into the Chattahoochee. Here they are pulling out 65 million gallons and then down below they're dumping in another 80 million gallons a day. Now, what I don't show is up to here, Lake Lenore. I used to live back in this area. You may detect an accent, about 30 mile drive. There's probably 10 of these places dumping in. I have a map of secondary affluent. So mind you, this river is largely composed of secondary affluent with regular river water. They pull it out and can be treated to conventional treatment. That's okay, but then I thought, we thought, well, we're kinda doing the same thing except we don't have that three to one or four to one or 10 to one dilution of the river, right? Cause we're taking just secondary affluent. But we're treating it more than you would treat surface water, regular surface water treatment. So I wish I had another bottle. That's what this bottle was for. So how many times more stringent is potable use, reuse treatment over surface water treatment for pathogen removal? So we're basically treating similar waters but how much more is it required by the regulators to treat the secondary that comes straight out of the sewage plant there than versus when it comes out of a river? Anybody wanna guess? 10 times, a hundred times? Come on, John. Five hundred. Five hundred, good, good, good. Way off, way off the other place. Anybody else? Come on, give me a number. I mean, just to have fun with it. A million, it would be so foolish. A hundred million. A hundred million times more stringent for the treatment of pathogen. So when I saw this, when we realized this, that was a game changer for me. And I tell you that because everybody's worried about water quality because we haven't seen this much, we haven't seen this done and change is hard for us. So anyway, we'll move on. The other big thing people are concerned about and rightfully so, I'm not here to diminish anything, I'm here to show the science to help aid is if you put this down in the ground, if you do recharge the aquifers and if something did happen, all there's multiple barriers, multiple testing and I've just gone through the water quality, could it impact all of everybody's aquifer throughout the county, could it contaminate us? And the answer's no. Here is the groundwater model results. These are in our draft EIR, which I'm gonna get to in a minute. This is one example. This is over at Twin Lakes and Cabrillo College with a model simulation where we put the water down that's expected to be recharging the well. And this is the particle tracking. The way this model works is the groundwater, they model the groundwater flowing out through a particle tracking method. It's been used for years. And this right here is the, the red is the eight year mark. This is the 25 year mark how the water's moving out. The reason it kind of ingredient, the water naturally flows from up here down to here. So you would expect all the water to go like this except we have some wells here and here that kind of pull it back a little bit, our big wells do. So that's why you see that. So relatively contained in doing exactly what we want it to do. Right here is one of the hotspots determined by the hydrologist over 50%, higher than 50% opportunity for seawater intrusion. And we already have it nearby. So we picked a good spot. So a couple of closing slides. Pure water, Soquel. Cost estimate is $90 million. There's a range there. And I'll say the 90 million because we want to try to be as genuine as we can, that's at midpoint construction. So we've inflated the dollars there. We're not doing today's dollars. And that helps with grant matches. So we've been very fortunate thus far in developing our relationships with grants. All of the Scots Valley, I saw Peret here, Santa Cruz and us came together. We all got this $75,000 feasibility study grant. Very appreciative of that. Thank y'all. And then the Bureau of Reclamation saw what we were doing and we talked to them. And they said, that's an interesting project. This is all state, right? This is Feds. And even though we don't get Bureau of Water, they control half the water in the West, they said it's interesting enough project will give you $150,000 to take that feasibility study and make it up to par for us so you can apply for more grant money. And so then, during that time, recently the state has awarded us $2 million to do a prop one planning grant. But here's where it gets interesting. Here's where it gets fun. The potential grants out there, both these entities actually changed their criteria, partly due to us banging on their door, going to their board meetings and stuff and other agencies too, but especially the state board, to accommodate our type of project. They let us in the door and when they give you the planning grant, they really want to give you the construction money because they've got an investment. So we're in the midst of applying for this grant right now and the Bureau of Rec, we were a couple, Tom LeHue and Bruce Daniels, we went to Denver, I don't know, about a month and a half ago, met with their people there, met with some people in DC. They're putting our project on the name, on a letter to go to Congress, which makes us eligible for this money right here. So that's a good step. I don't think we'll get it all, but I think we'll get it, I have high hopes, I feel good about getting a good chunk. We're certainly gonna try it. It's the best thing we can do for our customers. So with that, most optimistic, 90 minus 70, which is this, is a $20 million project. In reality, I hope we get a large, I hope we get a large chunk of this and this may come out in one or $2 million increments if we're fortunate. That's usually the way it works. So what's the time frame? Pure water, so Cal? Well, we're in the midst of a, the EIR is out and actually I have packets for each of the committee members, advisory committee and the boards, with the community, what do we call it, the community guide of the EIR because the thing's pretty thick and we have some copies for the public and it's online if you want it. We'll give that out right after this. And then, so that's out. It's comment time on that. Please submit your comments. We really do appreciate it. It helped the first time we went out. We got some great comments and the board revised a lot of stuff and we went back out. So the final EIR should be out in the end of the year, roughly. And if the EIR certified, if we would move forward with design and construction with the goal of replenishing the basin in that time frame, maybe having some water to provide back to Santa Cruz too. Thank you. Thank you, Ronald. Next on the list here is a process in relation to the ground water sustainability by the road man. I was so mesmerized, I forgot I was supposed to do this. Okay, so these two graphics, I just want to take a minute on. They're in your packet. I think the mic's not on yet. Oh, I did. Thank you. There you go. All right. These two graphics are in your packet. I don't actually think I could use this because these are connected. This was really to show the relationship of projects to the ultimate product that we have that creates huge technology, right? Okay, so the basic project we have to create is, we have to have a management plan that includes projects and a financing plan, the program implementation. So how are we gonna meet this sustainability criteria? What are they, what do we want them to be? And then what is the projects and management actions that will get us there and what is the plan implementation, including financing? Now, this document does not say that MDA has to do the projects. It does not have to say that. It just has to say how the projects are gonna get done, which sort of gets to Dr. Daniel's questions about, well, who's gonna do them and how do we wanna think about that? And that's certainly a conversation that we will definitely need to have before we can finalize this plan. But nevertheless, the projects are an element. This is the requirement of the project section right here, section four, which has to describe for each project how the majorable objectives that are set will be expected to benefit from the project or action, expected benefits, how they will be evaluated, how they'll be accomplished, what are the estimated costs that management actions and clients meet those costs? So this basic graphic shows that all of those stuff from section two, which is the base and setting, feeds into the conversation that, for example, the advisory committee's been having about minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, undesirable results, thus will come out, this will produce some goals that we'll use, feed the model with, and then in order to solve the problem, you have to have some kind of set of projects that go back into it. And there's an opportunity for iterating this to sort of fine tune the balance between what projects you're doing and how they will achieve these objectives. Until this is all finished, for example, one of the things that I'm gonna ask you to move to the next graphic, please, Kim. And the process funnel graph, which you'll also see here, which was done by our Georgina King, very teasingness, I wanted to say that. Shows the iterative process. So basically, in the first phase of the work that the committee's been doing since the first of the year, they've been working to understand the base and conditions, terminology, and what their role is. They've done an initial design. They haven't really talked too much about projects and management actions until now, but they've been working on preliminary minimum thresholds, impact assessment. This will be modeling, it'll produce a result, they'll have a chance to see how did some of the preliminary minimum thresholds that they chose affect the results here and do they wanna make them more stringent, less stringent? So there's a refinement process here involving the same kinds of activities of looking at the management actions and projects more modeling, obviously refining the projects and management actions and the minimum thresholds, and then to the final design. This will be the process that will occur kind of after the, in the beginning, the first half of 2019, but between now and the end of this year, we're gonna be in this process. So, and finalizing the end of this process. So projects are a key element of the planning process. Again, I wanna clarify. It doesn't require this agency to say we're gonna own and operate these projects, and that's a big question that the MGA board in particular may wanna have conversations about in consultation with the advisory committee or not, but it's really a process where we can't achieve what we need to achieve in putting a plan together that will meet the state's requirements without talking about projects in some detail, because you can see from the other graphic, there's quite a bit of requirements for us to describe how those projects would affect the basin. That's why we're talking about them now, and that's why we'll be talking about them more as in the weeks to come. Thank you. Thank you, Rose Mary. Now, we're gonna have some time for the committee community members who wanted to present their plan. Jerry Hall and those two, okay. So, if you could choose who wants to go first, but you now have that plan, maybe five minutes each, I'm gonna do it, okay? Eight minutes, okay, seven, eight minutes. Okay, so 15 minutes is fine. We'll give you guys 15 minutes, trying to let you know. Yeah. You're gonna get going, that's got plenty. Okay, that's done, okay. Anyway, we are the Water for Santa Cruz County group, and we wanted to study the feasibility of transferring river water so that we can start replenishing the aquifer right away. The transfers would help to achieve the regional water security, of course. It's just one of the many answers to the problem. If anybody has any questions at all about anything that I'm talking about or what's on the graphs or anything, we ask that you do call, I mean, email us at that address, and somebody will answer you within two days. It just depends on what the questions are, who has the expertise in that area, and so on. Next one. The purpose of this presentation, of course, is to make our statement, and the WSAC recommended that water transfers were the top solution, simply because of availability, cost, and safety. The Water Chemistry Study of Santa Cruz Surface and Soquel Creek Water District Ground Water indicates that the waters are compatible, so we won't have any problems per se. There might be slight adjustments and stuff, but nothing radical. The water transfers are a go as far as we know now because Santa Cruz and everyone has been working with Soquel Creek Water to work on the transfers. Next one. Next slide. Oh, there we go. Sorry. These were the three questions that we really were concerned about. We had dozens of them, but we really narrowed it down to three major ones. One was how much water does the North Coast have to ship? Well, you'll see on the next slide, we have the answers, but there's plenty of water to ship now, and it will really get the ball rolling as far as replenishing the water in the aquifer. How much can Santa Cruz replace water sent to the Soquel Creek customers? And then is there infrastructure present and significant enough to treat and transfer the water? Next slide. So as you see here, there's 671 million gallons per year available. The transferred water represents no risk to Santa Cruz per se. I mean, as far as we could figure, it looks safe and everything because Santa Cruz has water rights to 900 million gallons out of the San Lorenzo River. And it typically does not use it. Of course, with droughts and things like that, figures vary, but you'll see a little bit later in this presentation that even during a critically dry year, we can still transfer water. The infrastructure is already in place to treat and transfer 1.4 million gallons a day, which is, of course, 500 million gallons a year. And more can be transferred at a later date just by enlarging the size of the pipes. Next one. Here, this is just a lot of information. It'll give you about Santa Cruz where they get their water, what's available to them and then what's total, what was it? So-Kill Creek right here. And the totals down here will give you everything out of that part. Then these up here are just additional information about where water can come from and that sort of thing. As you read it, it makes a lot of sense, but we simplified it as much as we could. Okay, next one. Santa Cruz has abundant water in wet and normal years. What about the dry years? Next one. A 2018 is a critically dry year and it was declared a drought emergency. Yet even in this year, the San Lorenzo River produced 669 million gallons in two months. So the water could have been harvested, transferred, but instead it just went out to the ocean. So these are just things that we wanna make sure that everybody understands is that we're not taking more water from anywhere. It's just, a lot of it's just water that's already going out to the ocean. Next. This graph here shows the harvest in a critically dry year and it just shows what Santa Cruz, I mean, excuse me, the fish, Santa Cruz, the brown is the Soquel Creek. And so it just shows you how much percentage of the water is used and things. But even in a critically dry year, we found that we won't harm the fish if we take out the amounts that we've been talking about. Of course, if it's a really wet year, we can pump even more water out of the rivers. Next slide. Again, this is just showing the graphs of how much water is available. And you'll see it here, if we got it right, 16, 17, and all in here, this is where this year was right here. And we would still be able to harvest water and not harm the fish. And that just shows you what's there. In here, the classification system just tells you, it shows you in the dry year and wet year and normal and everything. So it's all self-explanatory. But if you have any questions about it, again, give us a call or email us and we'll be glad to take care of any questions that you have about it. And it does, it's simplified from what we originally had and you should be able to get a lot of information out of just that. Next one. So in conclusion, there is water available and the water has been shown to be compatible between the aquifer and the river water. The infrastructure's already exist and the Santa Cruz Water Department has publicly indicated its willingness to transfer water, which this was something we had to overcome because there was some misunderstandings and things, but everybody's worked together. We've got a lot done and we're really happy about all of that. And then given these facts, of course, we urge all parties to double their current efforts to make this a go and get this water moving and get that aquifer filled. This is just one step, but it's doable. It's doable now and hopefully by December this year we'll have water running into the aquifer. Thank you. Oh, I'm hearing this from you, yes. Thank you. I was just doing. You okay? Somebody cared to push, well, no, I need this for pointing. Well, thank you for this opportunity. But pointers on the same thing. So I, thanks anyway. I think I'm in. If you advance one year, it's just one year for pointing. I have a computer, they can advance it. They can advance for you and you can still use the warning. All right. Very good. Thank you. I'm Jerry Paul, resident of Santa Cruz and since about 2010, I've been attending meetings of many agencies, perhaps 15 altogether and harassing people about aquifer alternative for recharging the aquifers very quickly at very low cost. I'm here partly to answer your questions. When I have asked many of you in official positions, what is it about aquifer that is hard for you? You've given me questions and I'm trying to answer them, many of them in this talk. I'm providing 17 pages for the public record. Do you have that? If you don't, would you please distribute those for me? I thought there was somehow electronically there'd be an inbox or something. Well, you need to promise that you would get that. Yes, I'll do that. It's what you see here. What I'm going to do is give the principles, the key points and then use the spots in the talk to answer your questions that I've gathered over the years. One question is or claim or issue is somebody, as several of you have said, I'm responsible to my constituency and no others and it sounds very reasonable and technically legally, that's literally the case. However, I believe that in this situation, your constituency is much better off if you cooperate with each other and incidentally I'm delighted to see all the cooperation that's been displayed on the screen and in the room in these many meetings. So it's something that I'm delighted with and I urge you to do more of. Only with a greater sense of urgency. We lose a well, we lose not just the well, we have to replace it and it means a transportation of the water to the affected area and in the time it takes to do that, it becomes a quintuple wami because we lose other wells in the process of the time we lost. Next please. Lockover in as little as three years should be able to make three years of operation, full operation, should supply, it should make the region drought proof against an eight year drought. And this is a condensation of a longer statement by Gary Fisk, the computer consultant for the convergence model. And since then, slightly stiffer criteria have been applied but the numbers haven't changed much. Similarly, Lockover being huge should fill all the local aquifers in the middle half of the county within about a decade. So it's the biggest thing that's in the forefront right now. It's been said that we have a water shortage problem, what we really have is a water storage problem and we have plenty of storage space. The aquifers collectively are three to six times bigger than La Colman. Next please. This is just Lockover pedigree, are we credible? And it started with a dozen professional civil engineers and geology professors in 2010 and we've been as intimate as possible with Wasak and you'll see that portfolio 70 is the name of Lockover and the Wasak materials. Lockover has improved a lot, it doesn't need as much water treatment as we thought in Wasak and a few other things, the cost has gone down radically. Next please. The values in Lockover don't just have to do with water. Sailing, incursion, sustainability, the people's money is one thing that I haven't heard mentioned here a lot but I believe that Lockover could save this area as much as three or 400 million dollars by providing so much water for such low cost. Certainly will save energy and of course this money makes the prices of local businesses and institutions higher if you spend more on water. It also can help the private pumpers by helping the aquifers. Fish habitat, the lock will be able to be used flexibly for fish in a way that might make fisheries regulators give us water rights more readily and stop the tension and really help improve the ecosystem. One thing that's been said is don't worry, our expensive scheme has grant money and grant money is taxpayer money. Lockover also welcomes grant money but needs a lot less of it. Next please. Here's a comparison general, not to how can I say, not very precise but very instructive, aquifers in the yellow stripe. You look down here, there's not just capital costs but there's the extra operating maintenance costs that RO systems in general have compared to the kind of systems Santa Cruz has today or SoCal has today or Lockover would be and then there's finance costs on all this but some of those three is shown in this column for Lockover we're thinking 45 million. This is 30 year operation in maintenance costs by the way, the excess of it, not just the regular what people have been from water today. So 45 million for Lockover, about 160 million for recycled wastewater like Purewater, SoCal, approximate number and the capacity, million gallons per year for Lockover is 1350 and that includes not just what is sent but also subtract what is sent back to Santa Cruz. So that's the net average in 475. So we've got three and a half times less costs and three times more water, the value comparison then between Lockover and Purewater, SoCal is Lockover's 10 times better, 10 times the band for the bottle. Another thing I'd like to point out here is the rain check for fish. To store water in the lock until May or until when fish need it is one big advantage that we can't do really well right now because we're trying to keep the lock full against drought whereas if the lock job we're given to the aquifers to protect us against drought, the aquifers are many times bigger and it frees up the lock to be used for fish in a flexible way and also the big job is to scoop the winter river water out of the river which you can't do if the lock is already full like it tends to be right now. Right now it's a 96%. If we can, well, let's see one thing, rain check for fish. Notice how low these numbers are. Fish don't carry wallets. It's part of the problem with the fisheries regulators and the water rights. They can stop us from getting water rights if we don't do what they think we should do about the fish. And here we can provide cheap water to fish with Lockover and flexibly any time of year we can also run it through the aquifers around Scotts Valley and have cold, clean water targeted very specifically. So. Okay, Jerry, just let's all ready. Better. Yeah. Thank you. Next please. I believe you're gonna want Lockover anyway even if you do something else. And because there's such a huge amount of water at a small expanse, 10 times better deal. And then because fish don't carry wallets and to stay way ahead of climate change and sea level rise. We're talking one decade instead of three or more. Next please. There's how much water is in various things that the flow of the San Lorenzo River is, Santa Cruz only uses 7% of what's in the river. Soquel demand is 40% of Santa Cruz demand and Santa Cruz demand is about the same as the capacity of the lock. Soquel uses about 40% of what's in the lock. And the way Lockover would work is that that 40% that would go to Soquel, only 30% would come from the lock and 10% would come from the river directly because it would be in winter time in that case. Next please. I just said this part. Besides satisfying all of Soquel's demand most years, we can inject some, you know, once the wells are shut off in Soquel because they get their water from Santa Cruz, we can put water down those wells, use them in reverse, as was talked about earlier. So we can actually supply more than the entirety of Soquel's demand. Fire hoses, this is the biggest issue why people are confused about cost. Most water systems are like a string of 10 fire hoses. If you pinch anyone, you don't get water out the end that you need. Right now for Lockover, four hoses are pinched. The water rights at Felton, diversion device to take more water out at Felton, widening of the pipeline from Felton to the lock and the potable inner time across 41st Avenue from Santa Cruz to Soquel. With those things brought in to be a match set with the others, we'll have 10 fire hoses that are matched and the cost for that is about 35 million altogether. Very cheap. In fact, if Soquel offered to pay it just to 35 million, Santa Cruz would get a water system for free and Soquel could use its grants to reimburse itself for 35 million. We could basically have a water system for free in the entire region. Next please. In Scotts Valley, we have another treatment it's called dry time surface spreading. It lets water going down in the aquifers and what escapes feeds the fish. Next please. So we're gonna install a well wide and two pipelines. Jointly of all apply for water rights and I'm happy to see that that's been started. That's a really key thing. Next please. You've seen this before but I wanted to point out the fish sandwich here. Fish, Santa Cruz, Soquel, the lock and fish. The rent that goes to the lock needs to be 30 MGD. That's what this yellow stripe is. And with that, take that and add it up. That's 1,200 million gallons. It's more than Soquel's annual demand. And this is from 2018, which is a critically dry year, this year. So even in a critically dry year, if we get the water rights to do this, like give the fish the water, share first, then Santa Cruz, then Soquel, then the lock in that quantity. And if the pipe is big enough to the lock we can really make hay. And it's not that risky anymore. I explain? Here's a histogram that you also saw before. 2018 is about right here. On this graph on the blue, that's the important part. Notice that Soquel's entire demand here and then some is being satisfied about wet years and the normal years. And then as a matter of degree, as the years get drier and drier, the amount that Santa Cruz has left over to send to Soquel descends. Then there's a period here with the asterisk where Santa Cruz won't send any to Soquel, but Soquel won't send any to Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz will be getting water from Scotts Valley and from the Belts Wells and other little things. And so it's only in this little area here that Soquel sends water back to Santa Cruz. So it's about a six to one ratio. So we're four steps ahead of Chairman Mao. We're taking six steps forward and one step back. And that is a work of... Thank you. Next one, please. Here is a math on how we get to the numbers. Next one, please. The bottom line is 450, 4,058 or feet or 1,350 mg, a million gallons per year. And that weighted average, in other words, after that includes the water being returned to Santa Cruz. So it's 2.7 times more water than pure water, soquel. So this thing hauls off and just really loads up the aquifer fast. Next three. This is sort of a repeat. Next, please. So what happens is a lot of times in looking at the 10 fire hoses, people are talking about a different set of fire hoses. They'll either leave one off or add something superfluous. And so we get these different answers. And I'd like to invite you to try to stay close to the aquifers back when you're quoting these things. One time there was a quote for, that added $200 million to the aquifer because of raising the locks damp. And it's not needed. Or ASR, injection, don't need to do it in aquifer. Charging more than the necessary boost in supply. There was a Graham Hill treatment plant improvements which pertain to all the water of Santa Cruz, not just the incremental water that would be sent to Soquel. And things like that. So you need to match them up. These are the numbers, how many MTB for each thing. So this is what to check again. Next. Please act. Please write the $100 million letter. You'll save $100 million, get the ball rolling right away. And please talk to people who are decision makers. This is a real deal and we need to act urgently. We're almost ready to go. Thank you so much for letting me speak here. Any other questions for all of your work? Question, Ron Whitman with the Pure Water actually comes online in the projection he had there. What would it actually be starting to do in full capacity? I may need a call for a lifeline of my colleagues. I'm gonna say 2023 is what we're aiming for here. I couldn't see that on the slide. Yeah, I'm doing some questions. Yeah, yeah. Rosemary, the withdrawal from ASR would be in drought periods only or would be regular? No, well, it kind of depends a little bit on the characteristics of the aquifer that we would discover when we did pilot testing. But in general, the idea would be to store quantities of water in wet years or normal in wet years and then use that water in dry years. It's one of the questions that has to be asked. It's how much water then you put down and then how long does it have to, will you be able to get that full volume or what's the volume you can get back over a longer, longer period of time? Right, right. So it was the idea that the injection would take place in wet years? To what months? Yes, normal. Well, the analysis that Gary did took all the water that was available above fish flows and meeting sanitary demands and within water rights constraints and took every drop of water day by day out, 365 days a year and said this water can go into storage or be used for in-loop. That's how it was done. That's probably not a practical application for a lot of different reasons. So there would be, you know, but it was a sort of sizing thing. But the idea would be that you would end up mostly taking it in the wet months when it's available above fish flows and within the water rights constraint. And not necessarily pulling it back out until it was needed. Right. Which would be when it was dry and it was also a lower than normal supply time for the city. Yeah, or I mean it's really, for us the issue is just like this winter, even though it was, you know, we had a really dry December and a pretty dry February. We didn't really have much in the way of pre-sip until about March and April. We're at about half of normal pre-sip in Santa Cruz for this water year, which starts first October. So we get into a trouble situation fairly quickly, even though the reservoir was reasonably full. For us the issue is, what's happening this year? It's gonna rain next year. And if we didn't do something to give a little bit of a highlight to folks about, you know, being aware and we hadn't had that March and April rain, we probably would have been in a more significant stage of curtailment. Not because we didn't have enough water to get us through this year, but it didn't rain the second year in a row or the third year in a row. That's really big trouble for us. And I don't know if you've seen the recent from the state hydrologist looking at what he's called weather whiplash. So it's like multiple years of drought followed by maybe a reasonable year and then really wet, which is kind of what we've had. And they're projecting that the climate may be changing to these more extreme events, which makes us even more vulnerable, right? I mean, it's sort of like too much water in 17, more than, you know, way too much, but way not enough in 14, water year 14 and water year 15. So the one thing I'm just trying to understand with the city's ASR idea is, is it that there would be additional water that would be put into the Mid County aquifer more so than was pulled back to the city except in extreme periods of time? Well, so this is one of the big issues that we're looking for modeling to help us to really understand because for us, if the threat to the Mid County aquifer of seawater intrusion is such that we could put in 10 gallons, but we can only expect to get back one because we need to maintain the, you know, the seawater barrier basically. And, or it might be one in the first five years, it might be, you know, three in the second five years as the basin begins to recover. But in the near term, if we can't get back that 80% of what we're putting in, which may not be a reasonable assumption to make in the Mid County basin, then it doesn't mean we wouldn't do it, but it does mean that we would have to look elsewhere for something else that would help us meet our needs while the basin was recovering so that we could get back. Might be a good long-term investment, but it might be a terrible short-term investment. It's a, this is clearly a very complex issue. And I think the water model indeed is going to be the key to solve this. And by the way, there's going to be a TAT meeting in about two weeks to review some of the model parameters. But I think it's worthwhile to look at what Scott's Valley has done. They've had a model for quite a bit of time and they've looked at some of these kind of issues. And they were talking about, why don't we have a recycle plant and put 600 acre feet of water in our basin every year and then it started off going up and up and up and then it started slowing down and after about 30 years it flattened off. So they put 600 acre feet in every year but the basin doesn't go up anymore. That's because what you've done is by raising groundwater levels it means the flow to the streams has increased and if you turned it off and did put the 600 acre feet in, it would start going back down again. They also did a study said, okay, what happens if a drought happens and we need to actually take some of that water and use it and within three years it had gone down below where it started from. So after 30 years of getting up there, they took water out and in three years it was below zero for people. And so those are tricky things. And as I said, one of the issues about sharing the basin is in a bad year we might not get much of any river water sent to the district's basin or county agency basin. We might not get much recharge from precipitation. And the district would need to take water out for its customers and the city would need to take it's 1.2 billion gallons out for their customers. So the basin would get hit really hard. And what that would do to things, we really need to understand what we're doing for this. We're assuming that the mid-county basin is similar to what happened in Scotts Valley and that you put this amount in and it's going to go somewhere to the ocean or to the streams of people. I wanted to give an opportunity for the groundwater and the advisory committee members to ask questions. Do you have any? I guess I have one just general question that just came up when everybody was talking. And everybody likes to damage control with any of the options or facilities or if there's a disaster or a earthquake or if there's infrastructure, if we're going to make some more baskets or several baskets, how are any of these plans responding to terrorism, contamination, arson, earthquake, all those sorts of things. That's something that's being discussed in the planning and design of these different questions. My first thought, and maybe Ron would take, that's what's so important about having a diversified portfolio. You don't have all your agents on that. You have multiple different. And James, of course. Yeah, and Melanie just wrote a great article on this. It's looking to Mother Nature for how to design a resilient system because obviously species have been evolving in that. And so one is duplication. There goes the two eyes, two lungs kind of thing. Compartmentalization. So different things, different places, so different water supplies. So we've looked at those and that type of, what it suggests in trying to mimic some of those in our solutions to Mother Nature has to offer. You read the last editorial in our article in that talks time, you'll see some of the principles laid out. So the one thing I could add is that the, because of the way the water supply advisory committee recommendations came together, they didn't recommend a specific project, right? They recommended a process going forward for creating more comparable information around a range of projects. And they created a decision process that includes criteria of cost, timeliness, a sort of a, how many yield that you can get, and a series of additional criteria, including sort of robustness, which means ability to adapt. One thing they called adaptive flexibility, which is we don't really know what's gonna happen with climate change, but we probably need to make sure that whatever we do has some adaptability built into it so that we can take what comes. And as we've been doing system design and preparation for really major capital reinvestment in the Santa Cruz water system, we are definitely looking at those questions for the water system infrastructure, as well as the supplies. So those are definitely on the minds of, the folks in our organization who are working on these things. And you can't, I've been about four and a half years and I've had one of the driest years in history and one of the wettest, and those were two years hard, plus a couple of hours sort of somewhat more normal, but there's been a lot of variability and the conditions at the low end of the spectrum in terms of reliability of supply and infrastructure and the high end in that wet year of 17 winter, terms of the reliability of the infrastructure and the sources of supply have been a really big lesson about what kind of variability we might need to be really dealing with and planning for our infrastructure and our supply. Good question, Mitch. I know the hour is late, but it's kind of a multi-pronged question. Ron, I guess you're up first. Just quickly, you talked about the deep water peace out at Monterey County, talked about a 15 mile pipeline. How realistic is that getting access to that, if that were an option down river, so to speak? Well, again, as serious as the implication is you don't want to take anything off the table unless it just costs you too much or there's some force to it as long as it's out there. I would say Monterey has its own set of conditions that might make us look simple in a sense. So what I'm saying is they have a hierarchy of processes they're going through. They have pure water Monterey, which is first on the list. The second one is a Cal D cell and Jonathan, help me, you know better than I do, you work down there. That if that happens, then I would say deep water D cell is much less likely to happen. If the Cal D cell doesn't happen, which is the second problem, then maybe deep water D cell. How about accessibility at 15 mile pipeline? You know, it's doable. It's in public right of way. It is. It's doable. Yeah, we, you know, our engineers have looked at it, cost of it, and like I said, it's in there. That doesn't mean it's cheap. No. And the price of water is quite expensive. It actually doubled from when they first entered the MOI. So that's kind of backed us off a little bit. And then you mentioned the stormwater recharge option. If I understood you right, we just said that you guys identified just two or three spots that you found that broke the charge in a week. We looked out through a whole entire area and when you start overlaying factors like runoff and suitability, you know, you may have to say the whole area looks good. Then you go, well, it doesn't, it's too steep. So take that portion out and what you end up with is not 30 sites. And then from those 30 sites, other factors come into play. So it reduced down to about a handful of sites. Some of them on the golf course, which just went up for sale. So that threw a little monkey wrench into that, but we're still working on it. And then on the potable water reuse, I know I was so close to my estimation. Yeah, you're just gonna borrow. I was so close to half a credit, you're about 500 versus half a million. Yeah. I think we probably have more of these in the ghetto. I can do trips to the moon if you don't mind. No, no, no, he made a hit up in Puerto Rico. I don't know about that one. In terms of the EIR, where are you in terms of narrowing down the likely location? That's a great question. I didn't go into that, but what we have in EIR is called the component-based EIR. So there's three potential sites for the facility. One is at City of Santa Cruz wastewater treatment facility. The one is near Chanticleer, I've been saying Santa Clara. So anyway, and then the other one is next to our facility, we own a piece of property. And it could even be split. Maybe tertiary treatment happens, let's say down at the wastewater treatment facility because that's part of your plan. And we just polish the water at one of these other two facilities. And then once that happens, it gets purified at one of those sites. There's lines that go out toward Cabrillo College. There's a couple of spots along the way where the water would be recharged with us. So, and there's a couple extra just in case we over underestimated the amount of recharge. And so it's, and then there's three pipeline routes. The Railroad, Capitola Road, and Soap Cal Frontage Road. So trying to keep options open and seeing the EIR what kind of might work best. Yeah. I know I'm pushing my timeline in here but if I could ask Rosemary one. Is it appropriate, can I ask the Water for Santa Cruz presentation that was very good and thorough? Can you comment on that? I mean, you're already working. Are you sure you want me to? Well, just short. I know that. I was like, you're working all toward the 300 acre feet. If I understand their plan, they just want to pump up those numbers and just bring a lot more. Can you just comment on that? Well, there are several issues in some of the presentations about the surface water transfers that are being posed by others that are somewhat problematic. One is the analysis that I showed you in my presentation, as I said a little bit earlier, took every drop of water every day. It uses a much longer window. It doesn't pick 2017, which was one of the wettest years of how much water is in the North Coast sources in 2017, which is where that's centered. Well, that's not where that comes from. It comes from the average. But the analysis is based on a number of things. The slide that looked at, that was in both of these presentations, that looked at the availability of water in from the San Lorenzo, for example, in this last spring, the March and April, doesn't show that the bypass has changed from 20 CFS to 40 CFS. So the whole, that pink part that's the, or the part that's in that slide, that's the fish flows has gotten twice as big. And part of the reason that's gotten twice as big is because we haven't really used Felton bypass for a really long time. And when we started talking to the fish agencies about what they would want in the reach between the Felton diversion and Tate Street, which we normally take water out, there were issues about fish passage in the winter time, upstream for spawning and what have you, that had to be dealt with. So the bypass flow got twice as big. And that's not really taken into account here. Another thing is that if you're gonna take the water, there's been a lot of talk about pipe sizes. You might have heard some of this, you know, build a bigger pipe. Well, if you build a bigger pipe and you're trying to send the water into the ground, like for aquifer storage and recovery or even for ASR or inlue, excuse me, the water has to be treated to drinking water standards. So if you build a bigger pipe, then you can't just build a 30MGD pipe, you have to build a 30MGD treatment plant. And you have to build the capacity of 30 million gallons in a given day to put the water into the ground. So transmission to the facility, making the treatment plant bigger, putting the water in the ground. And if you're thinking about maximizing the sizing so that you can take every drop of water that's available that particular day, then you're maximizing costs too in a way that will make your eyes leak big. And so what we're really looking at in our analysis is optimizing the project. Recognizing that we have the variability that you've seen over 70 plus years of record that we have to find the sweet spot in there that's cost-effective and still solves our problem. So it's kind of a different approach to take to it. And I think that. It does a management of the lock. Pardon me? Management of the lock. Yes, and we do recognize that there are some issues that we, once we get additional storage in our system, we might operate the lock in quite a different way. But we haven't changed all the things about that in the way we've modeled this so far because we're not there yet. And so it's kind of, in order to compare where you might be going with where you've been, you can't change all the parameters at once, right? So we're doing it in a little bit of a stepwise fashion. I think that there is a reasonable assumption that there is water that would be available, whether we'll ultimately be cost-effective to do that and whether we can solve all of our problem or part of the problem, whether the member agencies in the community, the Soquel and Scots Valley and San Lorenzo Valley might want to take our water. There's all questions that aren't, automatic answer isn't yes to. And not everybody would want to take water and pour under the right circumstances. So there's a whole bunch of things we're working on. We do have very good cooperative relationships with the other agencies. I think there's a lot of really good work going on on the river transfers. I think some parts of this could probably work, but it's not a simple question. Can I add one thing? And I know Santa Cruz is doing tremendous work on this, but right now it's not legal to take the San Lorenzo water and ship it to us. They can't even store it for more than 60 days and then pull it out, I think it's 60 days. So, and you think that, and I think that'll change, but it hasn't and people have been working on it for a long time in a lot of different places. So it's not even legal. I just want to make that clear right now. It's the, I want to clarify that because you probably don't understand what that means when he says it's not legal. The water rights that we have for all of our San Lorenzo River rights have what are called places of use, established places of use, a map. And Soquel Creek is not in the map of the established places of use of any of our San Lorenzo rights, which we have no creek rights on the Block Lombon Resort. We have Felton diversion permits and we have Tate Street diversion rights. So that has to be fixed in order for us to really sort of maximize what we might be able to send. But again, their wintertime demand or their low demand limits what we could really get to them because it can't take more water that we threw in lieu, for example, than they use. There's no place to put it. What about North Coast, though? Because there's different water, there's no water. North Coast has pre-14 rights, appropriate water rights. They have, they do not have places of use in the traditional way. But they are particularly Laguna, which is the biggest of those sources, has been fairly heavily dedicated to fish flows because of the watershed is in very good shape and it has a long run before it has a sort of a natural blockage to fish passage and the water quality is very good and so it's a very healthy watershed. So a big chunk of our historic North Coast flows is not available for this anymore, dedicated for fish flows. We had a couple other questions. So just to broaden the conversation, you've been focusing on the big projects, which give you a lot of control and there's big agencies involved. But just a question for John and maybe the private law is there consideration of smaller recharge projects, especially in the areas where we know that the recharges do. We are, we have been working with the Resource Conservation District on doing outreach to private well owners in terms of what they can do in terms of water use efficiency and also things they can do on their property to promote more infiltration. I don't think there's a lot of big water there, but I think there's, you know, that's one of the ways to potentially offset the impacts of climate change with reduced recharge. We can capture more of those flows up in the hills and get them into the ground instead of running off and I think we'll benefit from that. So that is one of the things we've been working on and hasn't been baked into a plan yet. We don't have a target for how much water that might involve, but it's certainly something we want to keep looking at. But that could be a part of the power sustainability plan. That's correct. It's not, it's a lot of little things that can add up. Right, right. Yeah. All right. So this has to do with the local water reuse facility wherever it winds up if it happens to be located and so on. I think you mentioned there are eight million gallons a day at FLU. On an average, yes. On an average, and we would, you can boast 25% so two million. Yeah, we have a memorandum of understanding with the city of Santa Cruz and that would leave enough for them if they ever decided to go that route, but it's enough for us, but yes. Okay, so we would have two million a day on average. It's close to that, not quite that. Something like that. Yeah, it's close. Roughly like 700 million a year, which is what, 2,500 acre feet? Well, it's designed, the plan is designed for 1,500 acre feet. That's what the overdraft problem, the portion that we mean, we mean Soquel Creek Water District. However, an important component of the EIR is that the pipe is gonna be much bigger to carry that water. So if it comes to being that some, you know, the NGA says, hey, we need to put more water for there. We're good, the proposal is not to put a pipe just to solve our portion of the problem, but big enough to solve other portions of the problem too. We don't wanna put one, dig up that pipe twice. Right. So the 25% that was chosen on our material, but so throughout the capacity of at least 1,500. Exactly. A acre feet a day. Yep. And just to mention, so far, that's the only one that is potentially dropped as we're looking at insurance. Some recycling or the south, you know, south. How about 1,500 acre feet a year in comparison to what the 20 or 30 from pre-charge? More money to recharge a smaller quantity. Perhaps the smaller locations that you've got. Sure. Is there anyone else that has questions from either the advisory committee or the public? Well, I did have a question related to the needed clarification on the EIR. I haven't really gotten into weeds on it yet, but I did look at the guidelines that were provided, the summary guidelines. And I looked at the alternatives, and alternative number two is the closest that comes to describing the water of the water supply advisory committee's number one recommendation, that is the water, inter-agency water exchanges. And as listed as an alternative, but I was told, and I think my Mr. Belkin, that it wasn't an alternative, it was both. And in fact, your newsletter indicated that it wasn't, these were not alternatives, these were all of the above, or both of those options, but they would be done in conjunction with each other, both the pure water, so-called, and the water exchanges, inter-agency water exchanges. You can see it as listed as an alternative. So I think that probably needs to be clarified. Also in the description, it says that the city and the district would guarantee that water would be available during drought and non-drought conditions. That seems like a drill high bar, seems like a very rigid condition to place on inter-agency exchanges when you don't know what Mother Nature is going to do. So I did like Ms. Menard's statement about the value of adaptability, and I think there needs to be some flexibility in some agreement between the city and so forth. So those are great comments, Jen. Thank you, and I urge you to submit them to the process, to the EIR process, but I'll respond. So when you do that, what you wanna do with the EIR, if pure water is so-called is to produce 1500 feet, you want comparable things that could produce the same amount. That's why you have to have the guarantee. It certainly doesn't mean if the board certified the EIR for 1500 acre feet, that we still couldn't take river water in addition to that. I mean, that's an option that's always there, but the EIR has specific guidelines when you go through that kind of analysis that you gotta compare apples to apples. But we have a community guide for members of the public here, which please see me if you want one tonight. Go on, it's online, please submit comments, anything you said tonight you need to submit through the appropriate process. So I just wanna be clear on that. I'm not writing your comments down, so please submit them or do it at our event coming up at the end of the month. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I'm right in fact there, and then we'll go over to you. This is a short question. Is there anything that way of being able to recharge in an area that when I dump a big bucket of water, it doesn't go into the ground so fast? But is there something to think about in terms of receptivity? Where do you recharge it? Yeah, the problem in most of this region is that it's pancake layer geology. There's some sand and then there's a clay layer. And as soon as the water goes down and hits the clay layer, it goes horizontal. So it's hard to get water down in the prism and down in the Romus where central and Ralph's district and Mr. Vintage, that's more, it's sandy, the Romus red sand. And so it does, and those were those recharge areas that we were looking at. But our aquavers are like 300, 400, 500 feet down below the ground. The water supply. The water supply. First thing. As Dr. Jaffee mentioned, the recharge areas for some of the charisma are higher in the hill where they could be some potential there. Right, where it outcrops in the recharge areas. It depends. Okay. That's all sand. Yeah. It depends. Then there was another question again. I'd like to respond to the questions of Rosemary about my talk on the spanking graph, the hydrograph of the river with the double-strap across it, where Rosemary said that the fish flows have been increased from 20 CFS to 40. That's 1% of the top of the spanking graph. That's a semi-law graph. And it affects the take of the 30MGD. Not at all. I mean, imperceptibly, because of the shape of this pipe. Secondly, when she said earlier that water transfers didn't look like they would satisfy Santa Cruz's demand. She was not quoting Locke with respect. She was quoting of the 10 fire hoses, several of them were still crippled in her model. And I think we owe it to ourselves to have a model where a computation run and convergence was only done with an actual lack of respect, even while SAC hasn't done that yet. And it's a really crime chain. There's a lot of water there and it really doesn't work. I'll let you work that out with the city of Santa Cruz since that would be, any water would have to come through that. So are there any other questions? First of all, I want to say that I scheduled two step ascensions for the public to look over the so-called creek water districts, Pure Water, so-called draft EIR. And there's a flyer out on the table that will be at the Aptos Library. The first one is next Wednesday and the second one will be August 8th. 6 to 8 PM, there's a flyer on the back of people. And the purpose is just to help people. It's as thick as daunting and a lot of people have no idea where to begin or what to do. So it's to assist people who would like to join in but are not sure how. And there is a flyer page community handbook available for people who can join. Yes, I've seen that. The document itself is in like to make no. I have a question for Mr. Ricker. In the recent modeling, was it included to model the effects of shutting off the wells of so-called creek water districts? I think you're referring to the modeling that we are going to be doing with regards to looking at impacts on the stream flow. And I don't think we're modeling shutting off all the wells, but we're looking at shutting off the wells that may be close to so-called creek and to see how that affects the stream flow. Okay. Okay, thank you. I have a question for either Ms. Menard for Mr. Duncan. I saw in the piece about the pilot study for the water transfers that Laguna Creek in the North Coast is not included. Can anybody explain to me why Laguna Creek is being excluded in the pilot studies? Oh, I know what you're saying. All right, so as I, there's been a question about where the 300 acre feet came from, the 100 million gallons. And I think that in some other meeting I've made this comment, the 100 million gallons for the pilot was based on the average flow of Lydell, not Laguna because Laguna has been, as I said earlier, often dedicated completely, even in the wintertime, to fish flows under certain conditions. So the idea was in order for us to sort of meet the standard of being assured that we didn't provide water from other sources than the North Coast, we just took that one piece and we said, let's use the small amount, let's start here, let's do this test. And if it is a successful test, we can figure it out, including dealing with the water rights place of use issue that Ron mentioned and that we are in fact moving forward to address. So it's not that like Laguna was taken out because of the fish flow dedication and my need to be able to tell the state board that I had not given Soquel any more water than was produced by a source which has a very standard 100 million gallons a day flow. Protect the fish, is the short end. Well, it's not protect the fish, it was an accounting thing, but it was also for the fish. Okay. So, now thank you to your team. Rashi Jhada. Can I ask them two more questions? Okay. I'll bring water in this room. Are you going to allow your great peers and the private well owners who will be affected possibly by the impacts of these monitor of these injection wells and possible contamination if things were to go awry? Are you going to allow them a chance to vote at any point before you begin this project as to whether they would accept that risk and also your great peers who will be accepting a huge financial burden? Will you allow a vote? You know, that's a board decision, but I think with the community outreach we did and all the input, that was a vote of confidence and also the survey where it indicated, I think it was 77% supported it. That's a good indication. Thank you. You're not going to allow a thousand votes. That's a board decision and later today it is not part of the EIR process. I see. Thank you. My last question. Last question is how will you verify the two months state required holding times for the water that is injected? If it is injected. That's great. If it's recharged into the aquifer, first you can do modeling and then you go out and you put monitoring wells in, and the state actually verifies. Usually the common ingredient unit is I think bromine. I think it's what's used. And you actually put it in the recharged water. It's numb. It's perfectly fine for humans and fish. We've used it out and even in the ocean. And you actually put it in there and you measure down there to verify, empirically verify the modeling estimates. So that's how you do it. You'll be using bromine? Not bromine. It's another, it's whatever the state tells us to use. I was giving an example of where it's been, chemicals that have been used to other places or ingredients. But it's a completely safe, it's mandated by the state board to put in the well, then you let it flow and you have monitoring wells, physical monitoring wells where you take samples out at designated times to see the travel time. So it's verified, the modeling estimates are verified empirically through measuring the flow and travel times. So ladies and gentlemen, I think we have our next meeting who's here on September 20th, I think September 10th. There was also the DSP advisory committee meeting also planned to be here on August 27th. So until next time, we're meeting. Thank you all very much. We'll see you next time.