Zone 7 Meeting - November 18, 2020

 

Roll Call and Report Out of Closed Session

Citizens Forum

Minutes

Consent Calendar

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stanley Reach Stabilization Project

Arroyo Valle Water Right 101 and Update on Petition for Extension of Time

Continued Participation in the Delta Conveyance Project Process and Funding of the Environmental Planning Process

Reports-Directors

Items for Future Agenda-Directors

Staff Reports

Adjournment


ZONE 7 Meeting


MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

REGULAR MEETING

November 18, 2020

The following were present:

DIRECTORS: SANDY FIGUERS

DENNIS GAMBS

LAURENE GREEN

SARAH PALMER

ANGELA RAMIREZ HOLMES

OLIVIA SANWONG

MICHELLE SMITH MCDONALD

DIRECTORS ABSENT: NONE

ZONE 7 STAFF: VALERIE PRYOR, GENERAL MANAGER

OSBORN SOLITEI, TREASURER/ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, FINANCE

COLTER ANDERSEN, PRODUCTION MANAGER

JARNAIL CHAHAL, ENGINEERING MANAGER

CAROL MAHONEY, INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGER

AMPARO FLORES, INTEGRATED PLANNING MANAGER

JOE SETO, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER

ELKE RANK, WATER RESOURCES PLANNER

ALEXANDRA BRADLEY, COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST

DONNA FABIAN, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

COUNSEL: REBECCA SMITH, DOWNEY BRAND

Item 1 - Call Meeting to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.

Item 2 - Closed Session

a. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54954.5:

Agency Negotiator: Valerie Pryor/Osborn Solitei

Employee Organizations: Alameda County Management Employees Association; Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council, Local 342, AFL-CIO; International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO; Local 1021 of the Service Employees International Union, CTW; Unrepresented Management

b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing litigation pursuant to Gov't Code section 54956.9(d) (1): (1) City and County of San Francisco v. County of Alameda (Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. MSN18-0928), (2) County of Butte v. California Department of Water Resources (California Supreme Court No. S258574, (3) State Water Contractors v. California Department of Fish & Wildlife (Fresno County Superior Court, filed April 29, 2020), (4) Thomason v. Morrow (Alameda County Superior Court No. 18918041)

c. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov't Code section 54956.9(d) (4): 3 cases

d. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated litigation pursuant to Gov't Code section 54956.9(d) (2): 2 cases

Item 3 -

Roll Call and Report Out of Closed Session

The Board came out of Closed Session at 6:55 p.m. and President Sanwong stated that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session. Roll call was taken and all Board members were present.

Item 4 -

Citizens Forum- none

Item 5 -

Minutes

Director Palmer pointed out that the Delta Fix mentioned in Item 6a of the October 7, 2020, Special Board Meeting, is now known as the Delta Conveyance and she wanted to be sure we are using the correct terminology. Director Figuers moved to approve the minutes with Director Palmer's clarification and Director Palmer seconded the motion. The minutes, as amended, were approved by a voice vote of 7-0.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked for the word 'that' be added to page 3, paragraph 2, line 4 of the October 21, 2020, Regular Board Meeting minutes where it states, 'the fees are based on planned projects *that* would have been completed.' Director Palmer stated that Valerie Pryor, General Manager, was mistakeably referred to as Mr. Pryor and that needs to be changed to Ms. Pryor.

Director Ramirez Holmes moved to approve the minutes with the recommended changes and Director Smith McDonald seconded the motion. The minutes, as amended, were approved by a voice vote of 7-0.

Item 6 -

Consent Calendar

Director Palmer moved to approve Items 6a and 6b and Director Figuers seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a roll call vote of 7-0.

Resolution No. 20-63 Adoption of the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (Item 6a)

Resolution No. 20-64 Point of Delivery Agreement Amendments for Semitropic and Cawelo (Item 6b)

Item 7 -

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stanley Reach Stabilization Project

Elke Rank, Water Resources Planner, gave a presentation about CEQA compliance for the Stanley Reach Stabilization Project. She introduced the project, giving its location, and discussed its relationship to the 2013 Stanley Reach project, as well as the schedule and cost. Ms. Rank then discussed the CEQA process. Finally, she stated that staff recommend: 1) to receive public comment on the ISMND and MMRP, 2) to adopt the Resolution, and 3) to direct staff to prepare the notice of determination within five days, which is required by CEQA.

Director Smith McDonald asked what Zone 7's obligation was regarding notifying residents about when the work takes place and the kind of impact it will have on traffic. Ms. Rank replied that door hangers are usually used to notify residents, which contain contact information in case they have any issues. Signs usually get posted near the project that also have contact information. Director Smith McDonald asked how much of the surrounding area requires notification. Jarnail Chahal, Engineering Manager, replied that before starting construction, residents are informed by letter, door hangers, and our website. Once the truck route is approved, residents and businesses along that route are informed, in addition to the residents along the creek. President Sanwong asked if Zone 7 puts up signs. Mr. Chahal replied that, yes, additional signage is required and staff work with the cities to place them.

President Sanwong wondered if this project might be an agenda item on a Livermore City Council Meeting, which could be another method for communicating information about the project. Mr. Chahal replied that we will definitely work with the city.

Director Gambs complimented Ms. Rank on her presentation. He asked if regulatory agencies had any comments that affected the design of the project or if they had any requirements that have been incorporated or needs to be incorporated into the project. Ms. Rank replied that there are three main permits that are needed for a project like this. They come from: 1) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2) the California Regional Water Board, and 3) the Army Corps of Engineers. She explained that the process is fairly straightforward, and we have a good consultant team working with us. We received our Army Corps permit and have received a draft Fish and Wildlife permit. She pointed out a start date typo with Fish and Wildlife's permit and stated that she hoped they will give us that May 1 start date. The outstanding permit is the Regional Water Board. They are always the last permit and the most challenging, often requiring a change to the design. On a positive note, all three agencies permitted the project back in 2013 and were generally supportive of it.

Director Ramirez Holmes noted that, normally, draft CEQA documents are sent to libraries; however, because of COVID that was impossible because they are closed. She asked if, other than the website, paper copies are available anywhere. Ms. Rank replied that an email was sent with the notice and link to the document to interested parties. It has also been advertised as a legal ad in the newspaper twice. Three signs have been posted around the project area that also had a link to the documents. Furthermore, several hundred letters were mailed to residents living in the vicinity of the project. Director Ramirez Holmes asked how someone could obtain a paper copy. Ms. Rank replied that she had paper copies and there were some at the office. Ms. Pryor added that in accordance with state health restrictions due to COVID-19, the document will not be available for public viewing in public places where they normally occur; however, printed copies can be obtained by contacting Zone 7.

Director Palmer moved to approve Item No. 7 and Director Gambs seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote of 7-0.

Resolution No. 20-65 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stanley Reach Stabilization Project (Item 7)

Item 8 -

Arroyo Valle Water Right 101 and Update on Petition for Extension of Time

Ms. Rank gave a presentation entitled Arroyo Valle Water Right "101" to provide information about the Agency's water right. Zone 7 has a water right, which is legal permission from the State Water Board to use a reasonable amount of water for beneficial use. A water right license is a vested right that confirms actual usage and is issued for the specific water. She emphasized that Zone 7 currently has a water right but does not have a water right license. The Agency's water right permits were filed in 1956 and issued in 1958. One was issued to Zone 7 Water Agency (No. 11319) and the other to Alameda County Water District (No. 11320) for a combined maximum annual diversion limit of 60,000 acre feet. Ms. Rank also went over key permit terms and indicated that permits are highly specific, so changes to the terms require an amendment to the water right. She explained that the Arroyo Valle supplies approximately 15% of our total water supply. To maintain the benefit of the water right permit, Zone 7 will need to complete the Chain of Lakes facilities. Before the permit expired in 2007, a petition was filed with the State Water Board to extend the time in putting the water to reasonable and beneficial use to 2024. It is likely that a 10-year extension will be granted from the date of issuance. Both the petition and water right are valid if the Agency is diligent in the environmental review process. Ms. Rank also went over three active protests filed against Zone 7's that are largely based on environmental issues and she included information on special environmental studies to date. Ms. Rank then provided highlights of the next steps, which included actions revolved around regular water right business and the petition for the extension of time. She welcomed questions and comments from the Board.

President Sanwong asked when the protests were received, if there was a deadline to resolve them, and how they would impact the 2040 extension. Ms. Rank explained that they were received around 2010 and meetings were currently taking place to address specific concerns. There is no deadline if the entities continue to be responsive with the State Water Board and progress is made in the studies. It is likely that another petition for an extension would need to be submitted even if the protests are resolved in the next couple of years even if the extension is granted.

Director Ramirez Holmes expressed concerns about the timeline and asked why the protests have not been resolved since they were submitted. Ms. Rank explained that this was due to several factors; a change in management had taken place, it is sometimes challenging to meet with some of the entities, and some of the studies can take a couple of years to conduct to gather a fair amount of data. Director Ramirez Holmes then asked at what point is the petition is outdated. Ms. Rank explained that they are in good shape if the entities continue to actively work on them. Carol Mahoney, Integrated Water Resources Manager, stated that after meeting more frequently with the protesters, certain protests get brought up regardless of the project. Each time there is a new water right, there could be a group of environmental fisheries groups that become concerned and want to submit a petition to ensure their voices are heard. A protest also provides more time to review it and the studies must take place to arrive at a resolution.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked if 30,000 acre feet was subject to conditions. Ms. Mahoney explained that was the assumed maximum with a combined total of 60,000 acre feet between the two sister permits. Ms. Rank stated that the Agency can only take from its allocation, as Alameda County Water District (ACWD) gets half of what comes in and the lake must keep a certain portion. A reparative loss then gets calculated in addition to the wet stream and livestream requirements. Director Ramirez Holmes asked if the Agency was not in violation by continuing to maintain the water right and drawing water even through there was no current permit in place. Ms. Rank stated it was current and active if they continued submitting annual reports, there was progress towards resolving the protests and generally being a good citizen on the water right front.

Director Figuers asked how much ACWD takes annually and inquired about their maximum historical draw. Ms. Pryor stated that Zone 7 does not monitor ACWD activities, but staff could find that answer and get back to the Board.

Director Palmer asked if any portion of the 30,000 acre feet could be transferred to banking in Cawelo or Semitropic. Ms. Mahoney explained that State Water Project water would be transferred, and the local water right would be used instead. Director Palmer then asked if 7,000 acre feet was the maximum that could be taken without the Chain of Lakes. Ms. Rank stated that was an average, but there have been a couple higher years when 15,000 acre feet was taken. Ms. Mahoney explained that the water can be used after a certain amount of time and can be used at the water at the treatment plants.

Director Gambs stated that since the permit was created in 1957, it was initially issued to Pleasanton Township and not to Zone 7, so he asked to include that detail for accuracy. He then requested a copy of the memo when the Agency came to an agreement with ACWD. He also asked if David Lunn's questions could be answered prior to filing for the extension. The Chain of Lakes pipeline project is taking longer than anticipated, that a focus on building Lake A would increase the ability to divert water with a pipeline. He believed it was important to conduct a study to get the range of theoretical amount of water that can be diverted, which would require work to be done on the Chain of Lakes planning.

Director Ramirez Holmes agreed that public questions on this topic needed to be answered. She then asked if the water right impact is associated with the ownership of watershed lands and if the purchase of them will change or affect the split of water rights. Ms. Rank indicated that it would not.

Director Green wanted to gain a better understanding of the process by which the Agency deals with the protests. She asked if it was up to the Agency to resolve them and the timeline of the studies. Ms. Rank confirmed it is done at an official capacity with the State Water Board when all the steps have been deemed completed and the petition could be granted. The robust steelhead habitat assessment and the amphibian and riparian studies have been completed, however, studies like temperature study being conducted in-house and the habitat management opportunities study are ongoing. Staff received favorable feedback on the completed studies, and both are available on the website.

President Sanwong then welcomed questions and comments from the public. The first question was about ownership of watershed lands, another was to post the most recent existing Lake Del Valle reservoir operations annual report described in the Zone 7 1987 statement of groundwater management on the website. In addition to the agreement with DWR on the use of Lake Del Valle storage by ACWD and Zone 7. The last question was from Livermore resident David Lunn about why Lake Del Valle has not been lowered below 30,000 acre feet this year and in recent years. Donna Fabian, Executive Assistant, stated that emailed questions and comments from the public and the additional materials are all posted on the website.

Mr. Lunn said that in answering his question about the water right, he gathered that it meant there was no impact on the Zone 7 water right when purchasing the Del Valle watershed land. He felt that was important because the entry cattle ranch would not impact the water right. Regarding Director Figuers' questions about the historic use, he remembered that this was all compiled in a routine annual report reviewed each year. Since Zone 7 had the data, it would be helpful if it were published online so people could get the answers to their questions. He then asked if staff could confirm the date of November 15th as when the Agency negotiated with DWR to lower the lake.

Ms. Mahoney explained that staff puts together a Monthly Water Inventory that keeps track of the lake level at any given time. Data is no longer distributed on how others may be using the lake in the Groundwater Report, as staff typically only reviews the amount that the Agency has used over the year. Information on how much water is being taken or used from Lake Del Valle is available in the Monthly Water Inventory that is distributed to the Board each month. The Army Corps of Engineers uses the operations manual to track specific lake levels and she could email it to Mr. Lunn. There was nothing specific to the November 15th date, as it was only used as a guideline, and there was still a plan to lower the lake down to the 25,000 acre feet this year. However, it was taking a little longer due to water operations challenges like taste and odor issues and a drier year. Mr. Lunn added that it would be helpful if Zone 7 would include direct usage in its annual report, as it was one of the critical factors.

Director Palmer had read about water management and it was said that the cutoff date was less important than the ability to predict when atmospheric rivers were coming along, which might determine more accurately if or when water would be released from dams and reservoirs. Ms. Pryor added that DWR is very much into that program.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked if the Agency no longer does an annual operations report for Del Valle. Ms. Mahoney explained that it was included in a different way because of the Monthly Water Inventory generated for the Board. Director Ramirez Holmes then requested for a timeline of historical dates/items and future progress on when items would be completed. She wanted an action plan in settling protests that meant meeting and checking in on a regular basis. She understood that there were ongoing items but would like to know an estimated time of completion, when meetings are going to take place with the protestors, and when a CEQA document would be completed.

Director Gambs stated that the water right issue was extremely important, and that the Agency needs to be diligent in pursuing it. In addition to developing pipeline information and diversion point discussions since more water is imperative and getting water that is cost effective and developed or increased from 6,000 to 7,000 acre feet is unlikely. He also felt that the timeline was important, but also thinking on how to develop the water right license to get more water as part of the Agency's portfolio.

The Board took a 6-minute break.

Item 9 -

Continued Participation in the Delta Conveyance Project Process and Funding of the Environmental Planning Process

Amparo Flores, PhD, Integrated Planning Manager, gave an overview of the Delta Conveyance Project benefits, its relevance to the Tri-Valley, and the importance of continuation in the process and funding of the environmental process.

President Sanwong thanked Dr. Flores and asked for clarification on the size of the tunnel. She stated that in the beginning of the process it was to be two 40-foot tunnels, but she asked what size the single tunnel would be. Dr. Flores confirmed that the single tunnel would be 36 feet.

Director Smith McDonald asked if our share of the funding is a fixed cost or is it possible that our share could go up after two years. Ms. Pryor stated that with the current proposal, it would be the balance of the $7.5 million. Director Smith McDonald then asked if we were not to continue with the Delta Conveyance Project, how could we maximize our groundwater to make up the gap that we would possibly be taking on if we were not going to move forward with this project. Ms. Pryor responded that staff are looking at some additional options. Dr. Flores responded that staff are looking at the Sites Reservoir project that could potentially bring in 10,000 acre feet of new supply and as mentioned potable reuse where there is a potential of 4,000 to 7,000 acre feet. Los Vaqueros is largely a storage project, but there will be a potential for yield from there.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked if the $2 million would come from Fund 100 and $800,000 from Fund 310, and is that the amount of money that was budgeted for projects. Osborn Solitei, Treasurer/Assistant General Manager - Finance, replied that $1,500,000 would come from water rates and the $500,000 would come from the fund balance. Director Ramirez Holmes asked if there would be any money left over for Sites and Los Vaqueros from the water rates money and Mr. Solitei confirmed that there would not. Mr. Solitei added that the Board approved $1,000,000 to come out of Fund 310 for Los Vaqueros, and $1,000,000 came from Fund 130 for Sites, so those monies will not come out of the water rates fund. Director Ramirez Holmes asked through what years those are paid. Dr. Flores stated that the Sites Reservoir and Los Vaqueros Reservoir agreements both run through 2021. Mr. Solitei added that Fund 310 has $3,600,000 and staff may come to the Board to use that money to fund the next projects.

Director Ramirez Holmes expressed her concern that staff did not notify the public more specifically about this project and do enough public outreach. She also asked that while it says a yes vote does not confirm participation, they are being asked to confirm a participation level greater than what the Agency currently has with the State Water Project, and secondly, does a no vote mean that they could not participate in the Delta Conveyance Project. Ms. Pryor confirmed.

Director Ramirez Holmes also expressed concern that she does not know how the community feels about the Delta Conveyance Project. She asked if the Agency commits now, are they expected to pay for two or four years. Ms. Pryor confirmed a commitment of two years and it would require Board action to commit to years three and four.

Director Ramirez Holmes said it stated a commitment to participate is not required, but it does ask to choose an amount, so could staff talk about those two different directions; adopting a level of participation versus not agreeing to participate completely. Ms. Pryor stated that for DWR to move forward, they must know what commitments they have and the funding for the next phase. They cannot move forward if they do not have commitments for 100% of the funding.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked why this was not published in the newspapers. Ms. Pryor responded that knowing that this vote was coming up, it has been featured in the monthly GM reports in the Board packets a number of times, and at last month's Board meeting, she verbally discussed that it would be coming to the Board in November for a vote. Further, there were two Water Resources Committee meetings on the subject.

Director Gambs asked about the impact of not entering into this agreement with DWR in terms of our water supply reliability. Ms. Pryor stated that the State Water project water supply reliability is going down and the studies coming out on climate change is not predicting a good future for the Delta and its conveyance for our water supplies. Dr. Flores stated that some of the preliminary modeling results show a potential increase in reliability up to 25% over what would happen without the Delta Conveyance project in place.

Director Gambs felt that was important. The committee did recommend a two year period, as they felt there was no downside in doing it in two years. He then went over an article in the Independent newspaper, regarding a lawsuit about whether the Delta Conveyance Project could use bonds for the cost of improvements. He then asked if it would affect the Agency's decision on doing the project. Ms. Pryor stated that DWR filed an action to validate their authority to issue revenue bonds for the project in the future for capital costs. Currently, the funding for the environmental planning phase is cash funded by the various participating agencies.

Director Smith McDonald asked what is past practice in terms of press releases when the Board makes significant decisions. Ms. Pryor replied that in her limited time at Zone 7, that has not been a normal practice, but she could not speak before that time.

President Sanwong mentioned that a couple of letters were received from members of the public and that those letters are on Zone 7's website. There was no comment from the public.

Director Palmer stated that she believes that the Agency has kept public informed with what is going on with two committee meetings on the topic, it has been brought to the Board, it has been agendized, and they have not gone against any policy established at any other time with other important votes that have been taken. She felt that the Board should go ahead with it.

Director Figuers agreed with Director Palmer and said that this is not anything new. This has been going on for six months to a year and he feels the Board should pass it. It would be a grievous error, both the Board and for the Valley if the Agency did not. Director Smith McDonald stated that she supports moving forward as well. President Sanwong stated that she is inclined to continue it to the December 2 Special Board meeting.

Director Green stated that she is a little on the fence in terms of continuing the item to December 2, and does not feel that there would be more response at the next meeting, nor would it make much of a difference.

Director Palmer agreed with Director Green and did not believe they would get much more input from the public with the holiday coming up. She also stated that she remembers when people voiced their concerns in the past when the Agency first approved the twin tunnels, people were upset because Zone 7 was one of the first agencies to get on board, but now we are one of the last to participation the single tunnel. She added that she thinks that we should respect the needs of DWR and make a decision this month.

Director Gambs stated that he is also on the fence, but he likes Director Smith McDonald's comment that we should do a press release. If approved, that would explain the problem of not opting in and not having that reliability.

Director Palmer moved to approve Item No. 9 and Director Smith McDonald seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a roll call vote of 5-2 with Director Ramirez Holmes and President Sanwong opposing.

Resolution No. 20-66 Continued Participation in the Delta Conveyance Project Process and Funding of the Environmental Planning Process (Item 9)

Item 10 -

Reports-Directors

President Sanwong stated that she has noticed a lot of disposable masks on the ground, and while she said it is great that people are wearing masks, she asks that everyone please help protect our environment and ecosystem by throwing them in the trash.

Director Ramirez Holmes reported that she attended the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development & Government Relations Committee on October 27. There was a lot of discussion regarding PFAS, water distribution and transmission, and Pleasanton's wells.

Director Smith McDonald suggested since there are a lot of new elected officials in the Tri-Valley, if Zone 7 might think about hosting a Zone 7 101 webinar or a road show as an opportunity for engagement and education for some of our newly-elected officials.

Director Gambs reported attending an ACWA webinar hosted by Region 8 on regional recycling water projects.

Director Palmer summarized her written report that was not available at the time the agenda packet was distributed, but asked that it be included in the minutes.

Director Palmer's Report:

10/26 DCA Special Board meeting to appoint Fire chief David Walsh from Clarksburg as Ex officio member of Stakeholder Engagement Committee (SEC) and Gia Moreno as SEC member representing the town of Hood. Since Hood is potentially one of the most impacted communities in construction of the Delta Tunnel, she is an important addition to our perspectives.

10/26 ACWA SB200 workgroup. Working on ACWA/CMUA input to: ACWA and CMUA Comments regarding Draft Final White Paper Discussion On: Evaluation of Potential Indicators & Recommendations for Risk Assessment 2.0 for Public Water Systems - October 7, 2020 Version

10/27 ACWA Regions 6/7 presentation. This dealt with the challenges affecting the South Delta and the San Joaquin Valley. Developing a Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley:

Scott Hamilton, Technical Committee Chairman, Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley

Management Zones (Nitrate Compliance) & Data Consolidation: Charlotte Gallock, Director of Water Resources, Kings River Conservation District Eric Averett, General Manager, Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District Bridging the Gap between Agriculture and Disadvantaged Communities: Brian Skaggs, Civil Engineer, Summer Engineering

10/28 ACWA Listening session. This was a meeting with ACWA President, Vice-president, and Executive Director with Region 5 (our ACWA Region) members to check in with each other and voice concerns and updates.

10/30 DCA SEC chairs briefing as prep for upcoming meeting

11/03 ACWA Region 8 presentation. This presented 3 southern California Recycled water projects from large regional to relatively small local.

Regional Recycled Water Program: Deven Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Operation

NEXT: Rafael Villegas, Program Manager, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Pure Water Project: David Pedersen, General Manager, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District

11/05 DCA Stakeholders Engagement Committee.

Meeting presentations available here: https://www.dcdca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-11-05-SECMeetingPr...

WORKSHOP: STAFF PRESENTATION & COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

4a. DCA Responds to Deferred SEC Questions. Check the minutes for this online, we addressed some issues of crucial concern to delta folks.

4b. Bethany Alternative Logistics & Traffic. This alternative would obviate the need for a Southern Forebay and enable the project to avoid using aging State and Federal pumps! More resilience!

4c. DWR Updates. Taking Federal engagement into account with Army Corps of Engineers.

4d. SEC Questions or Comments on September 23rd Meeting Presentation

4e. Public Comment on Item 4

11/10 ACWA Region 5 presentation, Continuing the Discussion: Regional Issues Affecting Our Communities

Join us for a program and virtual tour of Vandenberg Village Community Services District, including a look at its water storage tank rehabilitation efforts, and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Facilities. Program panelists will also continue the discussion Region 5 started at its ACWA summer conference region issue forum on safe drinking water issues affecting disadvantaged communities. Panelists will provide their perspectives on how to effectively and efficiently address these issues and how we can better incorporate underserved groups into statewide policy decisions.

Vandenberg Village Community Services District Virtual Tour: Katherine A. Stewart, Director, Vandenberg Village Community Services District

Los Vaqueros Reservoir Facilities Virtual Tour: Ernesto A. Avila, Director, Contra Costa Water District

Safe Drinking Water Issues Affecting Disadvantaged Communities

Moderator: Ernesto A. Avila, Director, Contra Costa Water District

Panelists:

Horacio Amezquita, General Manager at San Jerardo Cooperative

Ken Sansone, Partner, SL Environmental Law Group

Paul Boyer, Program Director, Community Development, Self-Help Enterprises

Cindy Tuck, Deputy Executive Director, Association of California Water Agencies

The presentation on Los Vaqueros had a short video available that describes how water gets to Los Vaqueros and where it goes from there. Available at the Contra Costa Water site or on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiZjWtcE630&feature=emb_logo

The presentation by Horacio Amezquita of San Jerardo truly brought home the issues of pollution and lack of safe and affordable drinking water for a disadvantaged community.

--end of report

Director Ramirez Holmes requested staff prepare a one page informational sheet in an easy to find location on our website, e-newsletters, NextDoor and Facebook notifying the public how they can access the agency during COVID, where and when they can find the agendas and minutes, how the public can receive meeting notices and participate in the meetings, etc. Ms. Pryor assured Director Ramirez Holmes that staff would take care of it.

Director Ramirez Holmes inquired as to the status of the Liaison Committee and if there are any meetings scheduled. Ms. Pryor responded that there has not been anything to report of late so there are no meetings scheduled. President Sanwong added that she will be following up with the East Bay Regional Parks District to schedule a Liaison Committee meeting with them in 2021. Director Ramirez Holmes would like to see a round table meeting in the first quarter of 2021 even if there is nothing to report out on the studies, other than what we are currently doing. Ms. Pryor stated that she has regular meetings with the other water agency managers, but will do a little staff work prior to scheduling a meeting.

Item 11 -

Items for Future Agenda-Directors - none

Item 12 -

Staff Reports

Director Ramirez Holmes wanted to point out that even though the staff report on Item 12e said that it went to the Finance Committee, Items 12e and 12f did not.

Item 13 -

Adjournment

President Sanwong adjourned the meeting at 10:19 p.m.