Zone 7 Meeting - December 16, 2020

Call Meeting to Order

Citizens Forum

Regular Board Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2020

Consent Calendar

Independent Auditor's Report and CAFR for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020

PFAS Distribution Assessment Report

Water Resources Committee Meeting Notes of November 2, 2020

Temporary Adjournment/Continuance of Zone 7 Water Agency Meeting

Call Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority Regular Meeting to Order

Roll Call of JPA Board

Citizens Forum

Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority, Water Revenue Bonds, 2018 Series for the Year Ended June 30, 2020 Update

Adjournment of Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority Regular Meeting

Call Zone 7 Water Agency Meeting to Order

Reports - Directors

Items for Future Agenda - Directors

Staff Reports (Information items. No action will be taken.)


ZONE 7 Meeting





December 16, 2020

The following were present:



















The Board went into Closed Session at 6:00 p.m.

Item 1 - 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): 2 cases

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

Item 2 - Open Session and Report Out of Closed Session

President Sanwong stated that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session.

Item 3 -

3. Call Meeting to Order

President Sanwong called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken, and all Board members were present.

Item 4 -

4. Citizens Forum - none

Item 5 -

5. Regular Board Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2020

Director Green stated that on page 9 it says, "Director Green stated that she is a little on the fence on the project" but is should read, "Director Green stated that she is a little on the fence in terms of continuing the item to December 2."

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

Item 6 -

6. Consent Calendar

Director Palmer moved to approve Item 6a and Director Smith McDonald seconded the motion. The item was approved by a roll call vote of 7-0.

Director Palmer moved to approve Item 6b and Director Gambs seconded the motion. The item was approved by a roll call vote of 6-0-1 with Director Ramirez Holmes abstaining stating that although she conferred with counsel and is comfortable that no financial conflict of interest exists, she has done work for the development served by this off-ramp so in the interest of disclosure and avoiding any appearance of impropriety, she abstained.

Resolution No. 20-67 Annual Report on Collection and Use of Development Fees

(Item 6a)

Resolution No. 20-68 Grant Deed to City of Pleasanton - Line F, Alamo Canal (Item 6b)

Resolution No. 20-69 Grant of Easement to City of Pleasanton - Line F, Alamo Canal (Item 6b)

Item 7 -

7. Independent Auditor's Report and CAFR for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020

Osborn Solitei, Treasurer/Assistant General Manager - Finance, introduced Mr. Ken Pun, Managing Partner of The Pun Group, and Zone 7's new auditors.

Mr. Pun presented a summary of the auditor's report for the fiscal year end June 30, 2020. He noted that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is a guideline from the Government Finance Officers Association, and included financial trends, revenue and debt capacities, demographic information, and operating information. Mr. Pun stated that the focus of the audit was financial sections of the report, including government-wide financial statements, governmental activities, business type activities, and a major fund. The audit also includes a report on the Agency's internal control over financial reporting and compliance in accordance with government auditing standards. Any material weaknesses or significant deficiency in internal control would be identified and listed in this report.

Mr. Pun stated that the audit would express an opinion on whether the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in the United States, and to obtain reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance, about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement, due to fraud or errors.

An unmodified opinion on the financial statement was issued, which stated that the financial statement is fairly presented in all material respects, significant accounting policy has been consistently applied, the estimates are reasonable, and the disclosures are properly reflected. Mr. Pun was happy to report that there was no internal control issue to report to the Board.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked Mr. Pun to discuss questions that were asked at the Finance Committee Meeting.

Mr. Pun stated that the audit recommended that the Agency have its own fraud policy, because although the Agency follows the County guidelines policy, the County is large and the Agency is operating as a water agency. Mr. Pun stated that this was only a best practice and not really a finding. A sample would be provided to Mr. Solitei for the Board to consider and tailor to the Agency.

Director Ramirez Holmes stated that the Finance Committee asked for that recommendation to come back to the Committee in 2021.

Director Ramirez Holmes asked Mr. Pun to comment on the pension liability.

Mr. Pun stated that the Agency is a participant in the Alameda County Employee Retirement Association pension plan. $18.6 million pension liability was reported as of June 30, 2020.

Mr. Pun added that as of June 30, 2020, the Agency reported $678,000 in Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability.

Director Ramirez Holmes stated that the Finance Committee were keeping an eye on the unfunded pension liability, noting that it has dropped from the previous year. The Finance Committee has been working on a policy for a trust fund for the unfunded pension liability.

Director Ramirez Holmes added that the audit did not include credit cards or purchasing cards, and that the Finance Committee will review those separately in early 2021.

Director Ramirez Holmes moved to approve the item and Director Green seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a roll call vote of 7-0.

Resolution No. 20-70 Independent Auditor's Report and CAFR for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020 (Item 7)

Item 8 -

8. PFAS Distribution Assessment Report

Colleen Winey, Associate Geologist, introduced BJ Lechler of Jacobs. In December 2019, Jacobs was contracted to do a study on PFAS distribution in the groundwater basin, based on detections in several municipal wells in the service area. Last month, Jacobs presented a draft assessment report to the Water Resources Committee.

Mr. Lechler presented the results and recommendations of the PFAS potential source investigation. Mr. Lechler stated that PFAS had been detected in 12 of the 14 water supply wells in the main basin. Based on these detections, Zone 7 initiated some sampling of monitoring wells, which have confirmed PFAS impacts in both the upper and lower aquifers. Jacobs has been tasked to review existing water quality data and hydrogeological data to better understand the distribution of PFAS, as well as potential sources of PFAS.

Mr. Lechler stated that a review was conducted of various environmental databases for activities or types of facilities that are commonly associated with PFAS usage. There were five different types of sites that represent the most likely sources - airports, fire stations and fire training areas, land disposal sites, military facilities and wastewater facilities.

The Livermore Municipal Airport is in an area that is surrounded by some of the highest concentrations of PFAS in the upper aquifer. Therefore, this ranked very highly as a potential source. There were three fire stations in particular that stood out as potential sources. Las Positas College has a fire training academy, and if using PFAS-containing foams, could have released PFAS that would have potentially impacted groundwater; Livermore Pleasanton Fire Station number 10, which is located at the airport, was historically and currently equipped with firefighting foams, which most likely could and did contain PFAS; the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department's training center is adjacent to Pleasanton well number eight, which has some of the highest concentrations of PFAS of any of the municipal wells.

Mr. Lechler stated that the Water Board recently required the old Pleasanton landfill to conduct a PFAS assessment. PFAS was detected at various levels in two downgradient monitoring wells of the former landfill. However, the distribution of the various PFAS compounds detected is not necessarily a 1:1 match with the municipal wells and the monitoring wells to the north. Although this is not considered a major source of PFAS impacting municipal wells, it could be introducing some levels of PFAS into the groundwater basin.

Mr. Lechler stated that a review of the Camp Parks military reservation suggested that there is a number of open environmental cleanup cases related to this site, and previous activities included things such as fire training, burn areas, dump sites, which are all things that could have contributed PFAS.

Mr. Lechler noted that while wastewater facilities would not necessarily be sources of PFAS, effluent wastewater would likely contain some levels of it. Based on the review of the treatment processes at local wastewater treatment plants, treated effluent could be a mechanism for introducing PFAS that could eventually reach groundwater.

The first recommendation was continued sampling of monitoring wells, and potentially using a slightly different analytical method for the PFAS analysis that would provide a few more different compounds that were currently not reported. Mr. Lechler noted that Zone 7 has started to integrate some of the recommendations in this regard into the plans for future sampling.

Additional recommendations include analysis of wastewater applied from the wastewater treatment of plants, as well as water produced during quarry dewatering as potential mechanisms for distributing PFAS.

Mr. Lechler stated that initiation of a dialogue with the army and regulators regarding activities at the Camp Parks facility was recommended. Zone 7 has made this initial contact and found that there are some level of activities related to PFAS taking place.

A further recommendation is outreach and potential discussions with fire departments, fire training facilities and airports, to better understand historical and current uses of PFAS-containing foams. This would provide an opportunity to start a dialogue to ensure that future activities are cognizant of not releasing PFAS that could impact the environment.

President Sanwong thanked Mr. Lechler for the excellent overview. She noted that the November 2nd Water Resources Committee report provided some focus on the mining area. She was curious why that was not presented tonight, as there could have been some subsequent findings since November 2nd.

Mr. Lechler stated that the focus on mining was to develop an understanding of the hydrogeology and the groundwater conditions of the area. The presentation was intended to focus on the results of identifying sources of PFAS, which was not suspected in the mining activities.

Director Palmer asked what methodology is used in the Agency's lab or whether it would be sent out.

Mr. Gurpal Deol, Water Quality Manager, stated that the contract lab would be used. In-house methods were not currently being developed. Method 537.1 was being used, which included 18 PFAS components.

Director Palmer asked how much more it would cost to incorporate method 533. Mr. Deol stated that 537.1 is the latest and most comprehensive method that is currently available, and that it is not an issue of cost.

Director Palmer asked if the contractors would conduct one or two methods. Mr. Deol stated that the development of in-house methods can be considered, but noted that it is expensive instrumentation, and will likely need quite a bit of expertise and a dedicated person.

Director Smith McDonald stated that the community is going to want to know about the outreach to Camp Parks or to the fire stations. She asked if there were continued efforts in investigating sources to attempt to stop the PFAS.

Ms. Carol Mahoney, Integrated Water Resources Manager, stated that it is important to know the extent of where the plumes are, then to understand where they are heading. Actions could be taken in advance that could potentially prevent that contaminant from ever making it to the wells.

Ms. Mahoney stated that information is gathered about the airport and the firefighting facilities, for example, to understand what is being done to reduce the use of PFAS. Options could be discussed to determine the best way to abate future situations where PFAS would be introduced.

Director Ramirez Holmes noted that words like 'could' and 'suggest' and 'potential' have been used. She asked whether it was fair to say no smoking gun has been found.

Mr. Lechler stated that he would not state that there is evidence indicative of a single point source. In part that is because there is no lateral well-defined extent of where the PFAS are detected. The airport area is probably the most likely source based on current sampling. Mr. Lechler stated that additional sampling to better define the edges of a plume would assist in that.

Director Ramirez Holmes was concerned about including possible source locations in a report based on guesses that could lead to assumptions. She wanted to be clear that this assisted to better define the plume but did not necessarily point to one source; there were a lot of 'possibles'.

Director Ramirez Homes stated that it would be helpful to know how this all fits moving forward, what the Agency is doing differently from the federal investigation, and then being extremely careful with having conclusions drawn.

Director Ramirez Holmes agreed with Director Smith McDonald's point that better contextual understanding about objectives is needed as they do not seem very well-defined. She stated that she could see how words like 'could', 'suggest', 'potential' and 'possible' could lead to a misunderstanding of the Agency's role.

Director Green agreed that in reference to the 'possibles' that it is made very clear that the source is still undetermined, but there are plenty of potential possibilities that have been identified that could eventually lead to the source.

Dr. Green noted that the next step is conducting interviews to try and gather specific information about specific facilities and what takes place there.

Director Green asked Mr. Lechler for a better understanding of the four types of PFAS that were found in the firefighting foam. She asked if it was typical to see four types of PFAS released in that foam or if four separate sources were found. She felt that it was rather important to understand the distinction.

Director Green added that she has been approached with a question with regards to mining. People are wondering whether or not PFAS is a potential ingredient in concrete production.

Mr. Lechler stated that cement batch plants have not been ruled out as potential sources. However, their locations were not such that they ranked very highly as sources with the highest potential.

President Sanwong asked Ms. Mahoney to provide an overview of the next steps.

Ms. Mahoney stated that sampling is taking place at the locations that were previously sampled to help further delineate where those plumes are and to understand where the edges may be. This was happening right now and will take place over the course of the next year.

Ms. Mahoney stated that data from the samples would be analyzed. During this time an evaluation of areas where PFAS-containing materials may have been used in the past is being conducted to determine if they are still being used and how much longer they plan on using them. She stressed the importance in making sure that these areas are aware of the study and to understand the impacts to the groundwater basin.

Director Gambs asked if testing would be done on the Busch Well site to determine whether it will be a potential problem when a well is placed there.

Ms. Valerie Pryor, General Manager, stated that any potential new wells at currently identified sites or any new sites will be extensively tested for PFAS before a decision is made on siting them.

Director Gambs asked if the Busch site was part of this investigation. Ms. Pryor stated that this investigation will continue, and a decision will be made on the next steps regarding the Busch Well site or other well sites.

Director Figuers asked if the stars shown in Figure A of the handout were wells that have been tested, and if those wells contained PFAS.

Ms. Mahoney stated that the image with the stars represents the wells that will be tested. They were identified as a part of the sampling that will take place.

Director Figuers stated that he would like to see a plot of all the wells with PFAS, with a well showing the PFAS at depth as a three-dimensional diagram. Director Figuers stated that it is absolutely critical to understand how the PFAS relates to the subsurface geology.

Ms. Mahoney stated that the intent would be to have an understanding of the way that the plume is delineated within the lithology. Currently, they were looking for how big the plume is; the proximity of the plumes within the groundwater basin; whether there are multiple plumes, or whether it is ubiquitous across the entire basin. There is also a better understanding about the different types of PFAS that have been used in different chemical processes. Beginning with defining this plume would eventually lead to more levels of detail.

Director Figuers disagreed with Ms. Mahoney and felt that it is important to get to that level now, because to delineate a plume is a three-dimensional problem. Director Figuers suggested that once the wells were identified it would be very, very easy to plot the PFAS hits in a three-dimensional diagram. Director Figuers thought that spotting interesting trends would help delineate the sources.

Director Figuers asked if any chromium plating shops, spills of fluid, detailing jobs, fire protection, pesticide manufacturers and countertop manufacturers were found in the area.

Ms. Mahoney commented Jacobs did looked at other types of industrial facilities. That was a part of the analysis, but because those are limited in the Valley, that was not part of the details that were presented.

Director Palmer asked if the samples were being archived.

Director Palmer stated that it was also important to know how the aquifer is flowing, because if it is mitigated it at some point, it is important to pump in the right direction and not pull into an area where it did not exist before.

Director Palmer noted that that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has started the regulatory determination process in terms of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), so there will be a need not just to have suggestions of monitoring these sites, but a requirement to do so. In the second quarter of 2021, the state will be monitoring any military or past military sites within a two-mile radius even if they have been decommissioned.

Director Palmer stated that it may be good to pool resources and to consider collaborating with the City of Pleasanton and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) as they must also conduct testing.

BJ Lechler asked Scott Grieco, Jacobs' leader in global practice leader for emerging contaminants and technology for groundwater treatment, the holding time for typical PFAS. Mr. Grieco stated that the holding time is 14 days. He pointed out that archiving samples for study purposes would be fine, but that the data cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

President Sanwong provided the example of the Intel wafer manufacturing site in Livermore from the early 1970s to the early 1990s in the Tri-Valley and asked if archiving may be used to hypothetically determine if there is an older molecule that might have been used during that time. President Sanwong also asked if that was explored as a possible source for PFAS in the groundwater basin since it is a semiconductor industry.

President Sanwong hypothesized this because it was not known whether it was something to be concerned about, and there was more usage of the chemicals in historical industry sites during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s.

Mr. Grieco stated that the difficulty of fingerprinting, especially in areas where there are a number of contaminants, is that Intel, for example, may have used PFOS or PFOA exclusively as an industry, but those are major components of firefighting foam. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals associated with firefighting foam. Mr. Grieco stated that it is difficult to identify one industry that may have been there in the 70s, when there are other potential sources like fire training areas and airports that would have released more than just one specific chemical.

President Sanwong noted from additional research she did on her own that semiconductors are actually exempt by the EPA in terms of being able to use these PFAS. She asked if historical sites and semiconductors were not included on the list as possible source locations because of the EPA exemption. Mr. Lechler stated that they did not look at it as a specific category, but it would have fallen under manufacturing sites that were reviewed. However, it also may be a bit further east of the focus area. Mr. Lechler stated that while it may be worth looking into that site, he thought that the groundwater data that was reviewed was not indicative of a source coming from that eastern area.

Director Green stated that she was curious about whether the time element related to this is a recent problem or something that has been around for a while. She felt that that was an important question to answer. Director Green also reemphasized that is this is a 3D problem, and it needs to be understood in 3D.

Director Green asked if abandoned wells were inspected in the area as a possible conduit between aquifers. Ms. Mahoney said that had not taken place, however, that is something that could take place in the next phase. Ms. Mahoney stated that they focused on the areas that were adjacent or near the wells that were impacted and expanding from there.

Director Figuers asked what the primary hydrogeological driver for movement is, and how that will affect the PFAS.

Mr. Grieco stated that the primary mobility is aqueous, but if the source is from the surface, such as a fire training area with Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), then percolation from rain and changes in elevation in the vadose zone would continue to allow that to migrate. The PFAS is mobile once it is in the water. What complicates the situation, especially in California, with recharge is the amount of PFAS that has been in our wastewater for so many years. That is a different mechanism for PFAS getting into the sub-surface.

Director Smith McDonald stated that the Agency must be very clear in its objectives in these recommendations. She pointed out that the Board's purview is to provide direction to staff that clear objectives are needed about the next steps and what the Agency is hoping to accomplish. President Sanwong stated that it is important to discuss that very topic as a Board and suggested an item for the Board to discuss its objectives.

Director Green stated that another piece to the issue of wastewater is sludge, which potentially also has PFAS. She asked if the green areas shown on the map were just wastewater irrigation or also sludge.

Mr. Lechler stated that those are areas where there is land application of treated effluent and did not include sludge. Ms. Mahoney added that it is tertiary treated.

Director Figuers said that waste treatment plants used to sell their sludge for gardens. He stated that he did not know if there was widespread scale spreading of the sludge, but that it could be part of the problem.

President Sanwong stated that she would try to determine when the Board could have a conversation about its objectives and what to do with this information. She thanked Mr. Lechler and Mr. Grieco for presentation.

The Board took a 7-minute break.

Item 9 -

9. Water Resources Committee Meeting Notes of November 2, 2020 - none

Item 10 -

10. Temporary Adjournment/Continuance of Zone 7 Water Agency Meeting

The Zone 7 Water Agency meeting was temporarily adjourned at 8:32 p.m.

Items 11-15

11. Call Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority Regular Meeting to Order

12. Roll Call of JPA Board

13. Citizens Forum

14. Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority, Water Revenue Bonds, 2018 Series for the Year Ended June 30, 2020 Update

15. Adjournment of Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority Regular Meeting

[See "Minutes of the Board of Directors, Livermore Valley Water Financing Authority, Regular Meeting, December 16, 2020"]

Item 16 -

16. Call Zone 7 Water Agency Meeting to Order

Item 17 -

17. Reports - Directors

President Sanwong brought up scheduling of Board meetings, especially in relation to Regular and Special Board Meetings, for the Board to be aware of two meetings a month going forward, and for members of the public to know that while it might be named a Special Board Meeting, they would also be conducting some regular business during those meetings. There was a lengthy discussion in this regard. No decision was made, and it was suggested that this would be discussed and coordinated with staff in January.

Director Palmer submitted a written report, and mentioned that Dr. Daniel Swain from UCLA, climate scientist, modelled the whiplash effect of climate in terms of living in a drought but having occasional floods.

Director Palmer stated that regarding PFAS, they would review either the grouping of all of those things together or doing them in separate groups depending on their toxicity levels. The EPA is still looking at this.

Director Palmer noted that MCL development for Chrome Six is imminent right now.

The MCL level was at 50 parts per billion or micrograms per liter, and EPA is going back to potentially 10 parts per billion in terms of Chrome Six. The big holdup on this last time was that they failed to look at the economic or technical feasibility of it. EPA has come out with their white paper on this and the comment period on the MCLs is December 31st. The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) folks are getting a paper together on that. They hope for an expanded compliance period, which is up to the Occupational Environmental Hazard and Health Association (OEHHA). That is something that Zone 7 will deal with in the next year.

Director Ramirez Holmes noted that Chrome Six is included in Item 19d. Although the MCL is no longer in effect, Zone 7 is keeping its delivered water quality target at less than eight parts per billion at its turnouts.

Director Gambs noted that the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority (ACWA JPIA) ratified the acceptance of new agencies and approved virtual voting, which they anticipate will last at least through next spring. They also updated and improved an investment policy. Director Gambs stated Zone 7 obtains its liability and property insurance through the JPIA. The liability looks to be challenging in the next three years, but it seems to be stable for the long term.

Director Gambs stated that he attended the meeting at the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce. They have a monthly business alliance meeting. Josh Thurman, who works for the city in their human services staff, gave a report on the homeless activities. He complimented Zone 7 on its cleanup of creeks and the trash removal.

Director Green commented on a meeting that Director Palmer had mentioned. She noted that there was an interesting comment about detection limits when it comes to PFAS MCLs. The complaint was that some of the levels proposed were below detection limits. That is a real problem because not everybody can detect the levels that exist now. Director Green thought it was rather telling that the levels seemed low.

Item 18 -

18. Items for Future Agenda - Directors - none

Item 19 -

19. Staff Reports (Information items. No action will be taken.)

Ms. Pryor presented the monthly staff reports. Item 19a in the General Manager's report highlighted the upcoming 2020 urban water management process that needs to be adopted by June 2021. The staff have kicked off meetings, but there will be quite a bit of committee and Board activity leading up to its adoption in May. Demand studies and preliminary findings will most likely be reviewed for the Urban Water Management Plan and Water Resources Committee in the January, February, and April meetings, and a public hearing and adoption in May.

Director Palmer noted that in terms of the Sites Reservoir, Valley Water dramatically reduced their project participation level. Director Palmer asked Ms. Pryor if she had any insight as to why they did this.

Ms. Pryor stated that she has not had specific conversations, but that she thought it was a result of financial pressures due to COVID, the recession and understanding the needs of their member agencies. They are looking to appropriately manage costs, and their demand studies may be showing the potential for lower demand than previously anticipated.

Director Figuers complimented the staff on the format of Item 19c, the Monthly Water Inventory. He stated that it is very useful and interesting.

Director Ramirez Holmes referred to Item 19d, the 2020 Water Quality Management Program (WQMP) Report and asked what happens after the report is issued every two years and conducting workshops with retailers, and how it generally gets discussed.

Mr. Deol stated that the retailers share the information with their respective Boards. Although the summary of the report is brought to the Board every two years, the water quality element is shared with the retailers monthly.

Director Ramirez Holmes suggested that this could be something that gets included in the liaison committee meetings. It was probably a good program report to discuss with the other elected Boards. Director Palmer agreed with Director Ramirez Holmes' suggestion, and added that it could be discussed at the Water Resources Committee as well.

Item 20 -

20. Adjournment

President Sanwong adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.