SCAC Documents

2/27/12 SCAC audio:

2/27/12 SCAC audio 94 mb

2/27/12 SCAC audio Ed Eby 10 mb

 

2/28/11 Jim Harrison's presentation to the SCAC on WIP Costs, that covered no costs:

Jim Harrison's SCAC handout 2/28/11

Jim Harrison's SCAC audio 2/28/11 5 mb

h:mm:ss Notes on Comments made
0:03:14 Public Comment
0:06:27 Second Public Comment
0:10:01 Jim Harrison Talks on WIP project
0:10:23 Here to talk about cost, not individual costs
0:10:53 Pipe line is going to be 25 million dollars
0:11:05 Situation of on the mesa
0:11:34 NCSD has spent a lot of money to find solutions
0:11:42 The state paid and County paid consultants to do studies
0:11:55 Those consultants find that more water is taken out the replaced in
0:12:05 Must off set uses of everybody or sea water intrusion
0:12:49 in 2009 Oceano had salt
0:12:57 When we got the two wet seasons that water moved off shore, We don't know where it is
0:13:03 We do know it came on shore
0:13:19 We can do nothing
0:13:25 We can assume there is not a problem
0:13:30 in a few years are wells will be poisoned
0:13:37 Those in the NCSD will have to figure how to get water
0:13:55 This pipeline will cost 25 million
0:13:59 We don't know how we can get the money
0:14:08 What we would like to do, if we can legally
0:14:13 is put the amount for infrastructure SM is charging us
0:14:19 Into the assessment
0:14:31 People asked about hooking up to pipe in Town
0:15:41 We looked at Nacmento
0:16:15 Studies paid for by other agencies
0:16:22 There was a lawsuit
0:16:31 That Judge made the stipulation
0:16:37 Everyone of you look on the web and find those studies and read them
0:16:51 Can you clarify the stipulation?
0:17:00 The lawsuit was filled by SM on landowners
0:17:33 court found one aquifer
0:17:36 There are subsections of that aquifer
0:17:48 Would bring in water to offset usage
0:18:01 if there's seawater intrusion The ranchers and farmers can pump 110%
0:18:12 The purveyors don't have any right to pump water
0:18:18 if we are in a major overdraft
0:18:36 Different consulting firms hired by others to look at situation
0:19:01 Cost of water with this pipeline would be $1480 per af
0:19:18 no one knows how much cost per house
0:19:25 Some things occurred with the MOU with SM
0:19:53 Vince, was there actually a mandatory date that this has to be done by?
0:20:01 Harrison, NO
0:20:02 Vince, then in other words this is not mandatory then?
0:20:05 Harrison, I don't know of a date that the judge said this has to be done by tomorrow or next year
0:20:13 What I do know is everyone of those reports said we are taking more out then comes in
0:20:29 Public question on drugs in water
0:21:16 Question of checking how much water is down there
0:21:51 NCSD looks at monitoring wells
0:21:58 There are 7 hydrologist working
0:22:24 They all agree we are pumping water at a level below sea level
0:23:46 Cathy, question on cost
0:24:35 Each year they (SM) increase the cost of the water
0:25:19 NCSD thought that it could take the $900 infrastructure cost
0:25:37 Capitial on assessment, Commodity on rates, We are not sure we can do that anymore
0:26:01 Question, When will this come to a vote by rate payers?
0:26:23 I would be very surprised if it is voted on this year
0:26:46 3,150,000 spent so far on planning only
0:27:34 Question on bonds, No idea
0:28:16 we will have to pay interest on the 25million
0:29:42 Vince, Question on Rural water pipe
0:30:29 The owner of rural water has a developer that will build the pipeline, if the project is built
0:30:54 Question about 25milllion
0:32:11 Winn, on published information
0:33:19 Bill Petrick
0:33:25 Idea of poisoned wells not true
0:33:30 I attend those NMMA meetings for three years
0:35:53 Petrick end

 

SCAC audio of 11/22/10 water section (missing a section of bill's response to Questions, Restarted at Seitz)

11/22/10 SCAC Audio in MP3 format 18mb

h:mm:ss Notes on Comments made
0:00:00 Winn, NCSD Update
0:01:42 Winn, End of NCSD Update
0:11:49 Snyder, Public Comment
0:12:14 Snyder, web Location of "this appeal includes ... any and all Orders"
0:12:56 Snyder, Steal Head Later
0:13:02 Snyder, Winn's "State Penalty” could not be found by NCSD staff
0:13:57 Snyder, on future Litigation text from UWMP
0:14:37 Snyder, UWMP assumption of future litigation inconsistent with Final Settlement
0:14:51 Snyder, UWMP assumption of pumping historical amount inconsistent with WIP Cost paid by existing users
0:15:11 Snyder, UWMP assumption of equal priority inconsistent with cost not equal over all pumpers
0:15:54 Tracy Delreo?
0:18:45 Bill Petrick, Water Intertie Project Report
0:20:48 Petrick, Placed data on www.NipomoWaterFacts.com
0:23:20 Petrick, it's all one basin, Makes "The Court" error stating "the Court divided up, rember it's all one basin, but for administrative purposes they divided up into Santa Maria Valley administrative area, The Nipomo area"
0:24:43 Petrick, TC set conditions or water level trigers
0:25:59 Petrick, Correlation between Rain fall and water level or Key Well index
0:27:32 Petrick, Basin is healthy
0:28:49 Petrick, Annual report trigger points
0:29:54 Petrick, never reached "severe water shortage trigger point"
0:30:28 Petrick, 12 out of 30 years below "potentially severe water shortage conditions"
0:31:39 Petrick, Question of Cost benefit analysis
0:34:39 Petrick, Amount of water Santa Maria gets has dropped in half
0:36:02 Petrick, Costs not spread equaly in different areas
0:36:45 Petrick, "Project" does not cover total costs
0:37:46 Petrick, estimated costs because NCSD did not publish total costs
0:38:28 Petrick, Sweet heart deal for Santa Maria, because we only need water 12 out of 30 years
0:41:53 Questions start:
0:43:26 Question, did you do a linear regression on water level and rain fall graphs
0:44:13 Petrick, ask for data from Technical group graph
0:44:21 Petrick, Members of the Technical Group would not give numbers used to make graph
0:44:55 Question, How do you explain the Salt Water Intrusion in Oceano?
0:45:14 Petrick, this Intertie will do nothing for the Salt Water Intrusion
0:45:34 Petrick, this will do nothing for Rural Water Company
0:46:31 Petrick, Still need to do work to see if Salt Water Intrusion is real
0:47:24 Tape runs out on Bill
0:47:27 Seitz, Start of Comment
0:47:39 Seitz, Want's to talk about experts and history
0:47:59 Seitz, DWR found there was there was no overdraft and would not be until 2020
0:48:36 Seitz, at this time in 2004 purveyors were handing out will serve letters
0:48:52 Seitz, At that time everyone thought the basin could continue to support growth
0:49:00 Seitz, County planning staff, a Professional staff, drafted a staff report saying all the parameters in the DWR report, which was a scientific study of the basin, indicated the basin was in overdraft, yet the DWR report concluded there was no overdraft
0:49:21 Seitz, county
0:49:36 Seitz, Papadopoulos report, independent of the district, San Francisco hydrologic firm, concluded that the basin was in in [overdraft]
0:49:44 Seitz, what we talk of when we saw those maps there, this is some what before and during the groundwater adjudication,
0:49:54 Seitz, that found that the Nipomo sub-area was in overdraft, that was the conclusion that was reached in that report
0:50:02 Seitz, These are Experts, These are not people, at that point and time I was district legal council, when the Papadopulos report came out.
0:50:15 Seitz, that’s when the Board switched direction on it’s philosophy towards the groundwater basin, they now had two reports, independent reports, that indicated this basin was in trouble.
0:50:29 Seitz, When you go back to the General plan that supports development on the mesa, that conclusion said that water was spilling to the North and spilling to the south
0:50:43 Seitz, and there for no overdraft.
0:50:47 Seitz, You just heard Mr. Petrick state that water is now flowing from the south to the North onto the Mesa.
0:50:55 eitz, The Hydrology I don’t think any one in this room that going to say that the Hydrology over the last 15 to 20 years has not shifted.
0:51:04 Seitz, Think about this, everyone of our neighbors imports supplemental water, every one, if this is one big hunky dory basin all one big basin,
0:51:20 Seitz, think about the northern cities they import both State water and Lopez water.
0:51:29 Seitz, think about the city of Santa Maria and the cities to our south they import water
0:51:35 Seitz, think about this, were the only area that borders the Ocean, that is not importing water; we are also the area that support the most growth.
0:51:46 Seitz, Think about this, you saw that graph that Mr. Petrick that’s an accurate graph that goes to 2008
0:51:55 Seitz, 2009 was a wet year not a dry year, and that line stayed below potentially severe water shortage condition
0:52:06 Seitz, So, we are in this situation where we don’t have supplemental, water we have growth, we have increased demand,
0:52:16 Seitz, That graph showed nice rain, a key well index and does not demonstrate growth
0:52:25 Seitz, the fear is that as you have greater demand that the basin is more sensitive.
0:52:32 Seitz, The other thing that was not placed up here is the actual water contours That are available to everyone, that demonstrates a new flow of water, A new regime of water through out the basin
0:52:44 Seitz, what is the concept here, our friends to the north import supplemental, our friends to the south now it all flows in towards us and we do nothing.
0:52:59 Seitz, talk about experts, if as Mr. Petrick says, and I agree with him, we have a very active group in the NMMA Technical group,
0:53:17 Seitz, That report, the last report recommends this supplemental water project based on three or four findings, These are the experts
0:53:27 Seitz, based on declining contours at the coast.
0:53:35 Seitz, based on continuing spread of the pumping of the depressions that are in along the area and the level off of the contours between our Northern neighbors and our southern neighbors
0:53:51 Seitz, These are experts, I am not an expert, but I sure as heck can read those reports to see what the experts have to say.
0:54:09 Seitz, We as a public agency are hamstrung when it comes these types of issues, it is because we can not argue or advocate in favor of a project, so we sit out we are prohibited from doing it.
0:54:25 Seitz, so we sit out as a public agency, and we take shots and we can respond with information, We can’t directly argue especially for assessment, When you are talking about assessment districts and assessment districts formation
0:54:42 Seitz, I do want to talk about the basic fairness this is a regional solution think of all the farmers that signed that stipulation, I can bring you the stack it’s this thick,
0:54:58 Seitz, it contains farmer to the north, Farmers to the south and farmers here on the Mesa. It includes the participation of every major water purveyor on the Mesa, It includes the county of San Luis Obispo, it includes the city of Santa Maria
0:55:20 Seitz, They are all signatory and are all entering in to agreements to bring in supplemental water. That to me is a regional solution.
0:55:30 Seitz, The county board of supervisor, based on the Papadopoulos report and there own expert staff adopted a severity level 3 under the county resources management program for the Mesa
0:55:45 Seitz, meaning that we are at or above or at the maximum we can expect from this basin
0:55:57 Seitz, The county board of supervisors, Talking about fairness, the payment for this project I leave it to you to determine whether or not this is fair.
0:56:10 Seitz, One is our district board of directors when to an assessment district in order to fund its portion of this project based on equity.
0:56:17 Seitz, because if you go through the assessment process you can not only assess existing customers existing properties but you can also assesses vacant properties.
0:56:29 Seitz, and why that is important for two reason,
0:56:32 Seitz, One people who are going to assume the benefit of this project are going to be on vacant properties, right, they are not going to have the water that would allow them to be able to develope with in our boundaries.
0:56:44 Seitz, Two, it takes all the load off our customer base who would normally take water with out an assessment
0:56:51 Seitz, Three with assessment district financing you get a better interest rate on the debt.
0:56:58 Seitz, Because as apposed to being secured by rates and charges, in a prop 218 you now get to have the project secured by property it self so you get a better interest rate.
0:57:12 Seitz, by the way the costs are not 20% it’s 3%, 3% to 4%, The cost of issuance
0:57:24 Seitz, So, I want to get that on the record right away, this is my experience dealing with assessment districts through the county.
0:57:35 Seitz, and going through major assessment districts or major projects.
0:57:41 Seitz, we contracted with county of san Luis Obispo as part of this regional effort for them to form the assessment district not only within the Nipomo CSD but with in woodlands, Golden State and Rural
0:58:00 Seitz, So all four water purveyors are under the same assessment
0:58:06 Seitz, Somebody says that Nipomo is going to bare the load, absolutely correct, no doubt about it, we are taking the lion share of the water.
0:58:16 Seitz, because this is the area that is under a public agency jurisdiction and we are the biggest taker, We pump the most water of all the water purveyors
0:58:30 Seitz, I think out of the 3000 AF we are right around 2000 AF more or less of the total allotment the rest is pursuant to the Judgment.
0:58:44 Seitz, you need to read these Judgments, the court found, and bill is absolutely correct, this is one big basin, that is what the court found, that was a surprise to all.
0:58:57 Seitz, Because form history on this has all been considered sub-basins, when you take a look at the political and historical record how these basins were looked at.
0:59:11 Seitz, And we do have technical Management areas that are there.
0:59:17 Seitz, But when the court issued its decision, regarding whether or not there was an overdraft, the court specifically called out the Nipomo Mesa Subarea and the cones of depression.
0:59:32 Seitz, Just because one sub-area is having a problem you can’t apply that basing wide with your entire basin being in overdraft.
0:59:42 Seitz, the last thing that is news, is new, or maybe news, even to the north with them importing all this supplemental water, we still have the interface between the Ocean and the land gradient.
0:59:57 Seitz, It’s reported in there annual report, you don’t need to listen to me, you don’t need to listen to Bill and your sure going to listen to John Snyder in a minute, and you don’t have to listen to him either.
1:00:10 Seitz, You can read just read the report. And take a look at for your own self what is going on in the North.
1:00:22 Seitz, So the assessment district is self unifies all four water purveyors under a single financial mechanism that includes assessing both vacant and current customer properties.
1:00:35 Seitz, The district will pay the lion share because we take the lion share of the water.
1:00:43 Seitz, Bills right the assessments in this district are going to be different then the assessments in Woodlands, going to be different then the assessments in Golden State and certainly be different then the assessments in Rural
1:00:56 Seitz, somebody was talking of the benefits to Rural, you don’t understand, Rural signed the stipulation just like the District did, Just like Black Lake did,
1:01:08 Seitz, Just like, I don’t know, maybe you, some of you might, I think that, maybe Istar probably signed the stipulation, No Ok, maybe not.
1:01:25 Seitz, Rural Water Company has the ability to look at this water project from two different perspectives.
1:01:34 Seitz, One is they pay for the project, They pay for the water and the district uses the water in-lue of us pumping from the basin.
1:01:45 Seitz, where our wells are in the middle of the cone of depression, so that entire basin gets relived to the benefit to rural.
1:01:55 Seitz, That specifically is how our agreement works with Woodlands we reduce our pumping in the cones of depression that they overlie.
1:02:05 Seitz, And we get there water directly from Santa Maria, that’s exactly how the Woodlands operational agreement works
1:02:16 Seitz, You don’t have a direct connection to make these water line projects work. Is it a better deal absolutely, no one is going to argue its not better.
1:02:30 Seitz, The second option is for Rural is to construct an intertie to the district system to provide direct wet water to Rural
1:02:38 Seitz, The District is not going to pay for that connection; it’s not going to pay for that pipeline
1:02:45 Seitz, Woodlands is not going to pay for the pipeline to Rural, GSWC is not going to pay for the pipeline to Rural
1:02:51 Seitz, Rural can build it’s own pipeline or it can use the model as Woodlands is using for in-lue pumping
1:03:08 Seitz, I want to remind you that the technical group does support this project,
1:03:13 Seitz, and I want to remind allot of time people saying the technical doesn’t support the project or at least don’t do it publicly, Now they do it publicly
1:03:30 Seitz, I would like to have you folks read the 2009 annual report.
1:03:41 Seitz, I think it’s a great read, It is a technical document, but I think it’s written in plan English
1:03:51 Seitz, The idea that the health of the basin is good is erroneous me personally think it’s erroneous, I thinks the technical group thinks that would be an erroneous conclusion.
1:04:05 Seitz, I can surly tell you that the people to the North think its an erroneous conclusion, I can tell you the people in the south think it’s an erroneous conclusion
1:04:14 Seitz, Mainly because the shift of the water
1:04:18 Seitz, where as back when the General plan was approved, everybody thought the water, we were spilling water to the North, to the five cities area, we were spilling water to the south the Santa Maria Valley
1:04:33 Seitz, Every contour map now says water is coming in the City or Santa Maria Side and water neutral or now switching back from the North to the south
1:04:47 Seitz, Remember these folks are importing supplemental water, To the North and to the South of us
1:04:54 Seitz, Cost benefit, No clear objective, I want to go through the history for just a minute
1:05:03 Seitz, When the Papadopoulos report came out, and the district took a different view of the water situation here on the Mesa.
1:05:11 Seitz, They contracted directly with the city of Santa Maria for 2000 AF, 2500 AF.
1:05:19 Seitz, There was no concept of sharing with anybody, It was just going to come, that water was destine to come right to the district
1:05:30 Seitz, Through the stipulation process the other parties wanted to share and have a part and the district willing did that
1:05:39 Seitz, and we increased the Take from city of Santa Maria to 3000 AF, we thought that was a win-win, Why should the district be sole responsible
1:05:49 Seitz, for all the water the supplemental water that would obviously recharge the groundwater basin because we reduced pumping and return flows
1:05:58 Seitz, and everybody else agreed to do that.
1:06:10 Seitz, All lawyer analysis and back room stuff,
1:06:27 Seitz, First of all when the stipulation came before the board, it wasn’t done in the back room, it was a public meeting, we had our water lawyers up here they reviewed the stipulation and approved it in open public
1:06:42 Seitz, Every court hearing, the fact that maybe black lake or somebody else did not have a public hearing was something the district participate in.
1:07:04 Seitz, One more thing clear, The basic fairness I think I have address that issue between Rural all the other water companies
1:07:18 Seitz, the other thing that out there is the county ordnance 3090 that captures everybody else
1:07:25 Seitz, 3090 says that the NWCA which is pretty much similar to the NMMA says two things
1:07:35 Seitz, you can’t get a general plan amendment with out your own supplement water dedicated to that project, not this water, Future water
1:07:46 Seitz, Two if you want to divide your land under the existing county general plan you have to pay the supplemental water fee.
1:07:55 Seitz, So the pain of this project is going to be painful, there is no drought it’s going to be pain full. But that pain is being spread, we believe, from the district perspective equally or at least equitably
1:08:12 Seitz, amongst all the people, and I will be happy to answer other the questions
1:08:47 Pat Eby
1:14:07 Ed Eby
1:14:12 Ed Eby, No relation to Pat Eby, and will not be comment on anything she said unless you ask me to. Specifically.
1:14:19 Ed Eby, From some of the things I heard to night it sounded like this is a joint presentation from Mr. Petrick and the NCSD, The NCSD is not making a presentation tonight, We weren’t asked to, We didn’t ask to.
1:14:37 Ed Eby, Apparently he asked to make the presentation, I am only here because I read his presentation and I found some serious in it that I thought you should be aware of.
1:14:49 Ed Eby, The NCSD will be holding a workshops and Public presentations on this in the first quarter of 2011.
1:14:58 Ed Eby, After we have our financing strategies finalized and or assessments allocations known.
1:15:05 Ed Eby, We don’t have even a draft even a draft assessment report yet from our contractor the Wallace group, they we tell us the allocation for the different properties and what the benefit units will are different properties.
1:15:21 Ed Eby, we do not have these numbers, so I am not able to project like Mr. Petrick presentation did what these numbers are.
1:15:33 Ed Eby, We have an early earlier concept report where they gave us an example of how you could do that but those are hypothetical and are not in effect.
1:15:45 Ed Eby, So before we make any public announcements we want to make sure we have the story as accurately as possible so we don’t mislead the public with speculative information based on false assumptions like you heard tonight.
1:16:00 Ed Eby, I won’t comment all of Mr. Petrick’s claims because we would be here all night.
1:16:06 Ed Eby, I will focus on some of the more serious errors how ever.
1:16:10 Ed Eby, He said there are no clear objectives for the project, there are clear objectives in the EIR, There are two pages of objectives over 10 probably 18 objectives, in there.
1:16:24 Ed Eby, in those objectives we state clearly what we want to do, when we want to do it, and why we want to do it. and all the project alterative in the EIR are measured against being able to achieve those objectives.
1:16:39 Ed Eby, and I know that’s a fact because I help right those objective.
1:16:43 Ed Eby, The justification for the project is not based on closed door agreements among lawyers.
1:16:50 Ed Eby, It was an agreements, an agreement in the form of a stipulation among the four major water purveyors on the Mesa, an agricultural group and Conco Philips
1:17:05 Ed Eby, The agreement was based on 10 years of studies which Jon Seitz eluded to earlier
1:17:13 Ed Eby, The agreement was and stipulation was approved by NCSD in open session with public input and public comment.
1:17:20 Ed Eby, Nothing was done in secretly it was done in open session.
1:17:23 Ed Eby, The Black Lake Management Association, who Mr. Petrick represents also signed the agreement
1:17:30 Ed Eby, What’s that all about?
1:17:32 Ed Eby, the agreement was approved in open session by the court.
1:17:35 Ed Eby, So there’s nothing hidden about this every step of the way was very very public.
1:17:43 no comment
1:17:53 Ed Eby, The estimated project costs are presented monthly, every month the engineer is do the design of the project gives us a cost report, a project cost report updated regularly
1:18:07 Ed Eby, and it’s published in our minutes of our monthly meetings. You can go to our website and you can look back minutes of the previous meetings and see published cost estimates over the years you can see what they are.
1:18:26 Ed Eby, These cost estimates included the cost of studies we have done, properties appraisals for properties along the pipeline, right of way purchases, design of the project and construction of the project.
1:18:43 Ed Eby, the basis of assessment of the allocations was determined on may 20th in 2009 in an open session by NCSD this is what determines the assessment by parcel size and there likely hood of water use.
1:19:05 Ed Eby, and determining the methodology for determining what the assessment is for each property, we do not have a final number yet
1:19:17 Ed Eby, and by the way the assessment will not be the same for all parcels as is alluded to in Mr. Petrick’s financial analysis
1:19:27 Ed Eby, as far as the poor undeveloped properties this is, there is overwhelming support from the undeveloped properties on the Mesa for the basis of allocation and for the project.
1:19:42 Ed Eby, ¾ of the property owners in the woodlands, developers and the home builders association support the project.
1:19:49 Ed Eby, and when I say ¾ of property owners I don’t mean the people that live in the 300 house that are built, I mean property owners.
1:19:57 Ed Eby, there are approximately 1300 houses that are going to be built in the woodlands and most of that land and parcels are undeveloped those parcels are owned by somebody those some bodies are going to vote on this.
1:20:12 Ed Eby, The biggest flaw I saw in Mr. Petrick’s presentation is the false assumptions in project costs.
1:20:20 Ed Eby, For one thing the numbers gave this horrible example of 1000 dollars per year per house hold
1:20:30 Ed Eby, That looks scary, but lets look at it a little bit, it assumes are only shared by 400 customers, rather 4000 customers, the same number of costumers that the NCSD has
1:20:42 Ed Eby, So this analysis if you want to call it that is based on spreading the cost over just NCSD, the Cost will be spread over all the people who will likely use the water.
1:20:57 Ed Eby, It will be shared by Golden state customers, it will be shared by the Woodlands Customers, it will be shared by the Rural water customers.
1:21:04 Ed Eby, Now if you add all those up you probably have double the customers that NCSD has
1:21:09 Ed Eby, 20% writing fee I thought that was a little stiff so I asked our general manager to check that out, she called the bond underwriter and he said 3%, not 20%, 3%
1:21:28 Ed Eby, and we give you a little bit of refund under certain conditions like paying off the bond early and so forth.
1:21:33 Ed Eby, Here is a cost analysis that gives a 1000 dollars per person per year, a big number right here 4 million is probably wrong
1:21:43 Ed Eby, Bond interest 8%, if you read the Wall Street Journal this Saturday, it said the yield on Municipal bond is, 30 year Municipal bonds have gone up tremendously between October and now they have gone up from 4% to 5%
1:22:02 Ed Eby, 8% is junk bond rating that’s not what we are talking about here
1:22:10 Ed Eby, the 700,000 dollars a year for operating cost, I don’t know if that’s true or not I don’t know where those numbers came from.
1:22:19 Ed Eby, Also there’s the added cost of water because we are paying 3.1 million a year to Santa Maria
1:22:26 Ed Eby, Well the added cost of water, in this calculation assumes that all the water will come from Santa Maria and be charged at the rate Santa Maria charges us.
1:22:35 Ed Eby, When in actuality when we swing on this pipeline and the water coming in, only half the water used on the Mesa by these four purveyors will come from Santa Maria so it won’t be that full cost it will only be apportion of it.
1:22:53 Ed Eby, So given all these erroneous assumptions that give you erroneous numbers, what do you do with 1000 dollars per year, you decide.
1:23:09 Ed Eby, That's really all I have.
1:23:12 We are still on public so
1:23:30 Harrison, the one thing I want to say was, Pat Eby needs to read our MOU from Santa Maria, as long they get water to there customers they will give the water to our customers
1:23:44 Question: Is that a public document is it available on line; Yes
1:23:52 Question: Is that a public document is it available on line; Yes Is it available through the NCSD website, Yes it should be on the NCSD web site? Yes
1:24:00 Harrison, It says specifically in there, that they will give us the water in the same percentages that they give to there people if they are short.
1:24:13 Question It’s a contract? Harrison, it’s a contract
1:24:16 John Snyder
1:27:19 Larry Versaw
1:30:45 Public comment end