meeting of the authority
play

Meeting of the Authority Secretary to the Board Saucelito - PDF document

Oct 29, 2022 •237 likes •1.62k views

Agenda Packet pg.1 EASTERN TULE Eric Borba GROUNDWATER Chairman SUSTAINABILITY Steve Kisling AGENCY JOINT Vice-Chairman POWERS AUTHORITY County of Tulare Aubrey Mauritson Legal Counsel City of Porterville Porterville Irrigation District

  1. Agenda Packet pg.7 Director Corkins moved to approve board retreat subject to dates the board members and alternates could attend. Director Kisling seconded and the board unanimously approved. Resolve Update to Master Calendar for Regular Meetings for ETGSA to Return Executive and Stakeholder Committees to 15 E. Thurman Avenue, Suite D Executive Director McAteer provided a report on a proposed update to the master calendar for regular meetings, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #4.h, and recommended that board resolve to return the Executive and Stakeholder Committee Meetings to 15 E. Thurman Avenue, Suite D. Director Corkins moved to approve the update to the master calendar for regular meetings and to return Executive and Stakeholder Committees to 15 E. Thurman Avenue, Suite D. Director Leider seconded and the board unanimously approved the motion. AMENDMENTS TO THE JPA & BYLAWS Consider Recommending that Executive Committee Review the JPA & Bylaws for Potential Revisions. Executive Director McAteer recommended referring to the Executive Committee to discuss and recommend to the board potential revisions to the JPA and Bylaws, per the purpose detailed in Agenda Item #5.a (attached hereto and incorporated by reference). Discussion amongst the board ensued. The board instead recommended an Ad Hoc committee be formed to discuss and recommend potential revisions to the JPA and Bylaws. Director Corkins moved that Director Kisling chair the Ad Hoc committee, with members to be Directors Schneider, Holmes and Corkins. Director Holmes seconded the motion and the board unanimously approved. Financial items discussed under Agenda Item 4d will be tabled due to the formation of the Ad Hoc committee. BILLS AND WARRANTS Review Current Financial Standing (Recently Paid Bills, Unpaid Bills, P&L v. Budgeted, Balance Sheet, and Recent Deposits) Executive Director McAteer provided a report on current financial standing. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6a, Exhibits A-D, and Updated Agenda Items #6a Exhibit E and #6b is a copy of the financial reports. Consider Authorization to Pay the Bills 3

  2. Agenda Packet pg.8 Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the accounts payable. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference is Updated Agenda Items #6a Exhibit E and #6b, a copy of the accounts payable. Director Corkins moved and Director Ennis seconded to approve payment of the bills. The board unanimously approved the motion. TULE SUBBASIN AND REGIONAL REPORTS AND ITEMS Report on the Tule Subbasin MOU Technical Advisory Committee Meeting of August 15, 2018 Executive Director McAteer reported on the latest Tule Subbasin TAC meeting on August 15, 2018, the Agenda of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7a. Matters discussed with the current draft of the Coordination Agreement, distribution of grant monies, and a presentation of Dr. Harder’s groundwater flow model. Presentation from David De Groot on Groundwater Flow Model and Sustainable Management Criteria Consulting Engineer David De Groot provided a presentation on Dr. Harder’s groundwater flow model presented at the August 15, 2018 Tule Subbasin meeting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7b is a copy of his presentation. Consider Approval of Coordination Agreement Policy Points Executive Director McAteer referred the board to Agenda Item #7c, a copy of several policy issues related to the Coordination Agreement. Basin-Wide Minimum Monitoring by a Single Tule Subbasin Consultant Executive Director McAteer recommended the board consider continuing to utilize a single subbasin consultant, Dr. Harder, for subbasin work. Discussion amongst the board ensued. Director Corkins moved to approve the recommendation to continue to use a single consultant. Director Kisling seconded and the board unanimously approved. Monitoring Land Subsidence and Groundwater Quality Executive Director McAteer recommended to include land subsidence and groundwater quality monitoring in the monitoring plan to be incorporated in the Coordination Agreement. Director Corkins moved to approve the recommendation. Director Leider seconded. Discussion amongst the board ensued on reliability of land subsidence data. Consulting Engineer DeGroot commented on current technology and the potential for grant funds to fund more reliable monitoring. 4

  3. Agenda Packet pg.9 The board unanimously approved Director Corkins’ motion. Draft Structure of Coordination Agreement Executive Director McAteer referred the board to Agenda Item #7c Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, a copy of a proposed Table of Contents for the Tule Subbasin Coordination Agreement. Director Corkins moved and Director Leider seconded to approve the draft Table of Contents for use in preparing the Coordination Agreement. The board unanimously approved. Review topics of Sustainable Management Criteria, Coordination Agreement Policies Still Subject to Deliberation, and Prioritization of Wells and Recommend their Review by Executive and Stakeholder Committees Executive Director McAteer reported on Sustainable Management Criteria. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Updated Agenda Item #7d Exhibit A is a copy of a draft discussion paper on sustainable management criteria. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7d Exhibits B-C are maps proposed by Dr. Harder in the draft Monitoring Plan. Director Corkins moved to approve the draft paper for use as a discussion item to help assist with establishing sustainable management criteria. Director Leider seconded and the board unanimously approved. Consider Approval to Post Coordination Agreement Discussion Papers to ETGSA Website, Following Consulting Engineer’s Recommendations Executive Director McAteer recommended posting draft discussion papers on the ETGSA website. The board tabled the discussion as the papers are still in draft form. Consider Approval of Groundwater Flow Model and Sustainable Management Criteria Workshop on September 12, 2018 at 4pm at Transit Center (15 E. Thurman) Executive Director McAteer recommended hosting a groundwater flow model and sustainable management criteria workshop, per the contents of Agenda Item #7f (attached hereto and incorporated by reference), on September 12, 2018. Director Holmes moved to approve and Director Corkins seconded. The board unanimously approved. Report on Meeting with Kern Groundwater Authority of August 10, 2018 Executive Director McAteer reported representatives from the ETGSA held a meeting with KGA to discuss the potential for collaboration and coordination. Executive Director McAteer recommended that the next meeting be held amongst all Tule Subbasin GSAs and the KGA. The next proposed meeting is September 28, 2018, at Semitropic Water Storage District. Report on Friant-Kern Canal 5

  4. Agenda Packet pg.10 Executive Director McAteer reported on recent activities related to the FKC and subsidence issues. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7h Exhibits A-D, which are selected pages from reports previously developed by Friant Water Authority’s discussing the FKC’s subsidence, the FWA’s current alternatives under consideration, timeline for the correction project, and expected cots. GSP DRAFTING Consider Approval of Updated Policy Points and Process of Review Executive Director McAteer referred the board to Agenda Item #8a is a copy of the revised policy points. Executive Director McAteer reviewed with the board the current process of review for such policy points. The committees are discussing the policy points, and then providing recommendations to the board. Discussion amongst the board ensued. Public comment was received from Bill Samarin. Discussion amongst the board ensued. Instruction was given to legal counsel to research if and how economics should be evaluated in the GSP process. Director Corkins moved to approve the revised policy points format for discussion amongst the committees. Director Leider seconded and the board unanimously approved. Report on Eastern Tule White Area Growers, Inc. Policy Point Positions Executive Director McAteer report on recent discussions amongst the ETWAG. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference is Agenda Item #8b is a copy of the Eastern Tule White Area Growers, Inc. policy positions paper. Public comment was received from Mike Smith, a representative of the ETWAG. Consider Recommendations on Policy Point A, Which Recommends a Sharing System for the Sustainable Yield that Would Not Sever the Water from the Land Executive Director McAteer provided a summary of Policy Point A. Director Corkins moved and Director Leider seconded to recommend the Executive Director proceed in drafting a GSP which includes a sharing system for the sustainable yield that would not sever the water from the land. The board unanimously approved. Authorize the Publishing of Updated Policy Points to the ETGSA Website Executive Director McAteer recommended publishing the updated policy points on the ETGSA website. Director Corkins moved and Director Ennis seconded to approve the recommendation. The board unanimously approved. 6

  5. Agenda Packet pg.11 Consider Approval of a Timeline for Draft GSP Creation Executive Director McAteer reported on his creating of a GSP timeline. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference is Agenda Item #8e Exhibits A-B is a copy of the proposed timeline for Draft GSP development. Consulting Engineer DeGroot provided comment on the timeline. Discussion amongst the board ensued. General counsel noted she had not reviewed the proposed timeline. Director Corkins moved to approve the timeline subject to legal review which shall be presented next month. Director Kisling seconded and the board unanimously approved. *Director Hamilton left the meeting at this time. COMMITTEE REPORTS Receive and Discuss Executive Committee Monthly Report Executive Director McAteer reported on the last Executive Committee meeting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #9a is the Agenda of the. The committee discussed revisions to the JPA financing structure, a proposed budget, approval of a stakeholder engagement plan, the potential development of management areas, and an outreach plan. Receive and Discuss Stakeholder Committee Monthly Reports Executive Director McAteer reported on the last Stakeholder Committee meeting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #9b is the Agenda of the meeting. The committee reviewed the master calendar, the draft timeline and the revised format of the policy points. STAKEHOLDERS OUTREACH AND COMMITTEE ENGAGEMENT Review Draft Communication and Engagement Plan and Consider Recommending Plan for Review by Executive and Stakeholder Committees and Interested Parties Executive Director McAteer referred the board to Agenda Item #10a, a draft Communications and Engagement Plan, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Executive Director McAteer recommended that the Board recommend the Draft Plan be reviewed by the Executive Committee, Stakeholder Committee, and other interested parties. Director Corkins moved and Director Leider seconded to approve the recommendation. The board unanimously approved. Consider Approval of Executive Director’s Discretionary Authority to Schedule Stakeholder Meetings, Host Workshops, Distribute Surveys, Create Informative 7

  6. Agenda Packet pg.12 Materials Related to SGMA and GSP Development, and Carry Out Other Outreach- Related Activities (Including the Advertising of Events and Meetings Through Collaboration with Local Organizations Representing Interested Parties) and Expenditures Executive Director McAteer recommended the board approve the Executive Director’s discretionary authority to schedule meetings, host workshops, etc., without the need to seek board approval. Director Leider moved to approve the recommendation. Director Corkins seconded. Discussion amongst the board ensued. The board unanimously approved the motion. Discuss Proposal for Professional Assistance in Revising and Administering Communication Outreach Plan; May Consider Approval of Proposal Executive Director McAteer reported the Stakeholder Committee recommended seeking outside professional assistance for the Communications and Engagement Plan. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Additional Agenda Item #10c is a proposal from Provost and Pritchard. The board did not take action on the proposal for outside services. Consider Approval of Porterville Recorder Advertisement Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the approval of the Porterville Recorder advertisement. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #10d is a copy of the proposal from the Porterville Recorder. Director Corkins moved to approve the proposal as presented in the agenda packet. Director Leider seconded and the board unanimously approved. Consider Approval of Notice Letter to be Sent to All Unique ETGSA Landowners Executive Director McAteer provided a report on a potential notice letter to be sent to all unique ETGSA landowners. Attached hereto as Agenda Item #10e and Agenda Item #10e Exhibit A is a copy of the proposed letter, and cost estimate. Discussion amongst the board ensued on the need for the mailer to grab attention and the possibility of attaching the mailer with another meeting notification. Public comment was received from Sean Geivet, Steve Drumright and Bill Samarin. The board directed the mailer be sent to the Stakeholder Committee for revisions and feedback. Consider Approval of Email to be Sent to all TBWQC Members within ETGSA Boundaries 8

  7. Agenda Packet pg.13 Executive Director McAteer recommended sending an e-mail to all TBWQC members within ETGSA boundaries with information on the ETGSA. The proposed email and map displaying the parcels that would be contacted are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #10f and Agenda Item #10f Exhibit A. Director Corkins moved and Director Ennis seconded to approve the recommendation. Consulting Engineer David DeGroot commented that there has been a lot of confusion among landowners between ILRP and SGMA. The board unanimously approved the motion. Consider Execution of Letter of Support to Self-Help Enterprises Executive Director McAteer recommended executing a letter of support, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #10g, for Self-Help Enterprises regarding Prop 1 funding. Director Ennis moved and Director Corkins seconded to approve the recommendation. The board unanimously approved. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting of the Board of Directors of the ETGSA Joint Powers Authority shall be a regular meeting, set for October 4, 2018, 2:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Borba adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, _________ Bryce McAteer, Executive Director 9

  8. Agenda Packet pg.14 Agenda Item 6.a EASTERN TULE Eric Borba GROUNDWATER GSA Chairman SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT Steve Kisling GSA Vice-Chairman POWERS AUTHORITY Aubrey Mauritson County of Tulare Legal Counsel City of Porterville Bryce G. McAteer Porterville Irrigation District Executive Director Meeting of the Saucelito Irrigation District ETGSA Stakeholder Teapot Dome Water District Transit Multi Purpose Center Vandalia Water District Committee 15 E. Thurman Ave Terra Bella Irrigation District Suite D Thursday, September 13, 2018 Kern-Tulare Water District Porterville, California 93257 Convenes at 2:00 p.m. -----------------------------AGENDA----------------------------- 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Under state law, matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Committee consideration. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes or the Chairman’s discretion. At all times, please use the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 3. MINUTES a. Approval of Stakeholder Committee Minutes of August 9, 2018 4. BOARD MEETING a. Report on September 6, 2018 Board Meeting and actions taken 5. COORDINATION AGREEMENT a. Report on Tule Subbasin MOU TAC Meeting on August 15, 2018 and receive presentation on Groundwater Flow Model & Draft Tule Subbasin Monitoring Plan b. Discuss Sustainable Management Criteria and discuss unreasonable groundwater conditions within ETGSA; may make a recommendation

  9. Agenda Packet pg.15 6. GSP DRAFTING a. Report on ETGSA Timeline for Draft GSP Creation b. Report on ETGSA Policy Points approved by the Board of Directors Report on Eastern Tule White Area Growers, Inc. policy point positions and other public c. comment received regarding ETGSA Policy Points d. Review Policy Points B-G; may make a recommendation e. Discussion regarding other Projects & Management Actions not currently considered in Policy Points 7. OUTREACH a. Report on ongoing ETGSA outreach activities and latest developments b. Review Draft Communication & Engagement Plan and recommend edits and areas for further development c. Review proposal for professional assistance and make a recommendation d. Invitation to Kern Groundwater Authority and Tule Subbasin Coordination Meeting at Semitropic WSD on September 28, 2018 Discuss additional opportunities, venues, and events for near-term outreach e. 8. NEXT MEETING DATE a. Consider additional September meeting and make a recommendation b. Next Regular Meeting – Thursday, October 11, 2018 9. ADJOURMENT A person with a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may request the GSA Authority to provide a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in any public meeting of the GSA Authority. Such assistance includes appropriate alternative formats for the agendas and agenda packets used for any public meetings of the GSA. Requests for such assistance and for agendas and agenda packets shall be made in person, by telephone, facsimile, or written correspondence to the GSA Authority Secretary or to the City of Porterville Public Works Department (559) 791-7804, at least 48 hours before a public GSA meeting.

  10. Agenda Packet pg.16 EASTERN TULE Eric Borba GROUNDWATER GSA Chairman SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT Steve Kisling GSA Vice-Chairman POWERS AUTHORITY Aubrey Mauritson County of Tulare Legal Counsel City of Porterville Bryce G. McAteer Porterville Irrigation District Executive Director Special Meeting of the Saucelito Irrigation District ETGSA Stakeholder Teapot Dome Water District Transit Multi Purpose Center Vandalia Water District Committee 15 E. Thurman Ave Terra Bella Irrigation District Suite D Thursday, September 27, 2018 Kern-Tulare Water District Porterville, California 93257 Convenes at 2:00 p.m. -----------------------------AGENDA----------------------------- 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Under state law, matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Committee consideration. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes or the Chairman’s discretion. At all times, please use the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 3. MINUTES a. Approval of Stakeholder Committee Minutes of September 13, 2018 4. GSP DRAFTING a. Review Policy Points B-G; may make a recommendation b. Discussion regarding other Projects & Management Actions 5. OUTREACH a. Make a recommendation on potential Mailer to ETGSA landowners 6. NEXT MEETING DATE a. Next Regular Meeting – Thursday, October 11, 2018 7. ADJOURMENT A person with a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may request the GSA Authority to provide a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in any public meeting of the GSA Authority. Such assistance includes appropriate alternative formats for the agendas and agenda packets used for any public meetings of the GSA. Requests for such assistance and for agendas and agenda packets shall be made in person, by telephone, facsimile, or written correspondence to the GSA Authority Secretary or to the City of Porterville Public Works Department (559) 791-7804, at least 48 hours before a public GSA meeting.

  11. Agenda Packet pg.17 Agenda Item 6.b EASTERN TULE Eric Borba GROUNDWATER GSA Chairman SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT Steve Kisling GSA Vice-Chairman POWERS AUTHORITY Aubrey Mauritson County of Tulare Legal Counsel City of Porterville Bryce G. McAteer Porterville Irrigation District Executive Director Meeting of the Saucelito Irrigation District ETGSA Executive Teapot Dome Water District Transit Multi Purpose Center Vandalia Water District Committee 15 E. Thurman Ave Terra Bella Irrigation District Suite D Thursday, September 20, 2018 Kern-Tulare Water District Porterville, California 93257 Convenes at 2:00 p.m. -----------------------------AGENDA----------------------------- 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Under state law, matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Committee consideration. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes or the Chairman’s discretion. At all times, please use the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 3. MINUTES a. Approval of the Executive Committee Minutes of August 16, 2018 4. BOARD MEETING a. Report on September 6, 2018 Board Meeting and actions taken 5. COORDINATION AGREEMENT a. Report on Tule Subbasin MOU TAC meeting of September 19, 2018 and other Subbasin developments b. Discuss approach to developing Sustainable Management Criteria within ETGSA; may make a recommendation 6. GSP DRAFTING a. Report on ETGSA Timeline for Draft GSP Creation

  12. Agenda Packet pg.18 b. Report on ETGSA Policy Points c. Report on Eastern Tule White Area Growers, Inc. policy point positions d. Review Policy Points B-G; may make recommendations Discussion regarding additional Projects & Management Actions e. 7. OUTREACH a. Review Draft Communication & Engagement Plan; may make a recommendation b. Discuss contents of potential Mailer to ETGSA landowners; may make a recommendation c. Report on KGA & Tule Subbasin Coordination Meeting at Semitropic WSD on September 28, 2018 8. NEXT MEETING DATE a. Next Regular Meeting – Thursday, October 18, 2018 9. ADJOURMENT A person with a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may request the GSA Authority to provide a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in any public meeting of the GSA Authority. Such assistance includes appropriate alternative formats for the agendas and agenda packets used for any public meetings of the GSA. Requests for such assistance and for agendas and agenda packets shall be made in person, by telephone, facsimile, or written correspondence to the GSA Authority Secretary or to the City of Porterville Public Works Department (559) 791-7804, at least 48 hours before a public GSA meeting.

  13. Agenda Packet pg.19 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Agenda Item 7.a Ad Hoc Committee on Bylaws and JPA Purpose: An Ad Hoc Committee was formed by the Board to review the JPA and Bylaws and consider making recommendations on the following topics: • Ensuring parallel structure between Bylaws & JPA • Fiscal agent and financial duties • Process of appointment of Executive Committee members • Operational efficiencies Summary of Recommended Changes to the Bylaws • Minor grammatical, reference, and statement edits (for the sake of clarity) • A change in the appointment process of the Executive Committee, whereby Member entities (as opposed to Directors) appoint the Committee Members • The creation of a Finance Committee for reviewing the financial matters of the GSA and payment of the bills Summary of Recommended Changes to the JPA None

  14. Agenda Packet pg.20 Agenda Item 7.a Exhibit A BYLAWS EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY Adopted May 3, 2018 Revised August 2, 2018 PREAMBLE These Bylaws are adopted and effective as of August 2, 2018, pursuant to the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority Agreement (“Agreement”). ARTICLE 1. THE AGENCY 1.1. Name of Agency. The name of the Agency created by the Agreement shall be the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“Agency”, “Authority”). 1.2. Office of Agency . The principal office of the Agency shall be the 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D, Porterville, CA 93257, or at such other location as the Board may designate by resolution. ARTICLE 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2.1 Board of Directors . The Agency shall be governed by a Board of Directors (the “Board”). Pursuant to Section 3.01(a) of the Agreement, the Board shall consist of nine (9) Directors as follows: one elected member of the governing body of each Member entity (“Member”), and one representative from a landowner and groundwater user in a “white area” (hereinafter referred to as “White Area Representative”. Pursuant to Section 3.01(b) of the Agreement, nine (9) Alternate Directors shall be appointed in the same manner as the Directors. The Directors shall serve for a term at the pleasure of their appointing bodies. 2.2 Procedure for Appointment of Director as “White Area Representative” . Pursuant to Section 3.01(a)(2), the White Area Representative shall be appointed by the County of Tulare Board of Supervisors. 2.3 Vacancies . Any vacancy in any Director or Alternate Director seat because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause will be filled for the balance of the vacated term in the manner prescribed in these Bylaws or Agreement for regular appointment to that seat; provided, however, that such vacancies may be filled at any regular or special meeting of the Board. 2.4 Quorum . Pursuant to Section 3.05 of the Agreement, a quorum of the Board for convening any meeting shall consist of a majority of all Directors, or in the absence of a Director, such Director’s alternate. A quorum of the Board must be present at the time of any vote on any matter before the Board. An affirmative vote of at least a majority of all Directors, or designated alternate Director, present in a quorum of the Board, shall be required for any action of the Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, approval of certain types of matters shall Page 1 of 6

  15. Agenda Packet pg.21 require the approval of two-thirds of the Directors of the Board. The items requiring approval of two-thirds of the Directors of the Board are: agenda items to approve or revise budgets, assessments, litigation, the hiring or termination of the chief executive director, the adoption of bylaws, the adoption of the GSP, the addition of new Members, the termination of Members, and amendments of this the Agreement. Directors representing a Member who is delinquent in any past or present monetary contributions shall abstain from voting on all matters. ARTICLE 3. BOARD MEETINGS 3.1. Meetings . The Board’s regular meeting schedule shall be the first Thursday of every month at 2:00 P.M. at a City of Porterville facility, or at some other time and location as the Board may designate by resolution. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chairman or any Director upon written request. ARTICLE 4. OFFICERS 4.1. Officers . The Officers of the Agency are the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary, pursuant to Article V of the Agreement. Only Directors representing Members of the Agreement are eligible to serve as Chair or Vice-Chair. The Executive Director shall serve as Secretary to the Board, unless the Board chooses to elect a Director from amongst the Board or a consultant or another employee of the Authority to serve as Secretary. 4.2. Election of Officers . At the first meeting of the Board after January 1 each year, nominations for the Officers will be made and seconded by a Director. If more than two (2) Directors are nominated for any one office, voting shall occur until a nominee receives a majority of the votes cast. 4.3. Removal of Elected Officers . An Oofficer may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Board at a regular or special meeting. 4.4. Vacancies . Any vacancy in the offices because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause will be filled for the balance of the vacated term in the manner prescribed in these Bylaws for regular appointments to that office; provided, however, that such vacancies may be filled at any regular or special meeting of the Board. 4.5. Resignation of Officers . Any Officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Board Chair or Secretary. Any resignation takes effect at the date of the receipt of that notice or at any later time specified in that notice. Unless otherwise specified in that notice, the acceptance of the resignation is not necessary to make it effective. 4.6. Responsibilities of Officers . The responsibilities of the Chair and Vice-Chair shall be performed as outlined in Article V of the Agreement. In addition to the duties outlined in Article V of the Agreement, the Secretary shall: 1) keep or cause to be kept, at the principal executive office of the Agency, a book of minutes of all meetings and actions of Directors and Committees of the Agency; 2) Prepare, give, or cause to be given, notice of, and agendas for, all meetings of Page 2 of 6

  16. Agenda Packet pg.22 the Board and committees of the Agency; and 3) exercise and perform such other powers and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him/her by the Board. ARTICLE 5. BOARD ADVISORY COMMITTEES 5.1. Board Advisory Committees . The Board may establish temporary or permanent advisory committees. Through its Agreement, the Board has established two standing advisory committees: the Executive Committee and the Stakeholder Committee. In addition, the Board may establish a Technical Advisory Committee, a Finance Committee, and any other committees the Board may see fit to establish. The purpose of the advisory committees is to provide input, recommendations, and feedback to the Board on specific issues. The Board will seek input, recommendations, and feedback from the advisory committees as needed. All standing committee meetings shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Temporary or ad hoc committees will be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act if so required by law. 5.2. Agenda & Meeting Minutes . The Secretary of the Authority as identified in Section 4.1 of these Bylaws shall prepare all agendas, agenda packets, and minutes of any committee meetings to ensure compliance with all applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to, the Ralph M. Brown Act. 5.3. Executive Committee . 5.3.1. Purpose . The purpose of the Executive Committee is to provide advice to the Board on matters related to SGMA. The Executive Committee is advisory in nature and has no authority to approve, deny, or require modifications to any matter or project under the committee’s consideration. 5.3.2. Chair and Vice-Chair. The Board shall appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Chair of the Executive Committee. The Board shall also appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee. No meetings of the Executive Committee shall take place without the presence of the Chair or Vice- Chair. 5.3.3. Members . Pursuant to Section 4.01(b), each Director Each Member Agencyentity shall be entitled to appoint one staff member of the Member agency to be a member of the Executive Committee, with the exception of the County of Tulare who shall be entitled to appoint two members to the Executive Committee. The member shall serve for a term at the pleasure of their appointing bodies. 5.3.4. Meetings . Regular meetings shall be held monthly, the third Thursday of the month at 2:00 p.m.The Executive Committee shall meet as needed at 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D, Porterville, CA 93257, or at some other time and location as the Board may designate by resolution. A special meeting may be called by the Chair of the Executive Committee, or any two members of the Executive Committee. A quorum of the committee for convening any meeting shall consist of a simple majority of all members. An affirmative vote of at least a majority of those in attendance at the meeting shall be required for any action. Page 3 of 6

  17. Agenda Packet pg.23 5.3.5. Attendance . Executive Committee members shall make every effort to attend regular meetings. Members unable to attend any meeting should contact the Committee Chair or staff at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting and shall be excused provided a valid reason is given for the failure to attend. Three consecutive unannounced absences, or three unannounced absences within one calendar year, shall be grounds for dismissal from the Executive Committee, subject to the discretion of the Board. 5.3.6. Voting . Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. Stakeholder Committee . 5.4. 5.4.1. Purpose . The purpose of the Stakeholder Committee is to provide advice to the Board on matters related to SGMA, and specifically to represent interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater as identified in Water Code Section 10723.2. The Stakeholder Committee is advisory in nature and has no authority to approve, deny, or require modifications to any matter or project under the committee’s consideration. The Stakeholder Committee shall report to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall report recommendations, points of dissension, and other issues as may come from the Stakeholder Committee to the Board of Directors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Stakeholder Committee may at any time request to be placed on the Board of Directors agenda to report matters of interest or concern directly to the Board. 5.4.2. Chair and Vice-Chair. The Board shall appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Chair of the Stakeholder Committee. The Board shall also appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Vice-Chair of the Stakeholder Committee. No meetings of the Stakeholder Committee shall take place without the presence of the Chair or Vice-Chair. 5.4.3. Members. The Stakeholder Committee shall be comprised of eleven (11) members. One seat shall be reserved for a representative of Ducor Community Services District. One seat shall be reserved for a representative of Richgrove Community Services District. One seat shall be reserved for a person or entity representing environmental interests. The remaining eight (8) seats shall represent agricultural interests. Potential members shall submit an application to the Board. The Board shall consider all applications received and then appoint eleven (11) representatives to the Stakeholder Committee. For the purpose of providing staggered terms, seats identified by an even number shall initially serve a term of two (2) years, and thereafter shall serve a term of four (4) years. Seats identified by an odd number shall serve a term of four (4) years upon appointment. Appointments shall occur prior to the first meeting of the Board after January 1 when the term has expired, with the next appointment for the seats identified by an even number to occur prior to the first Board meeting in January 2018, and the seats identified by an odd number to occur prior to the first Board meeting in January 2020. 5.4.4. Meetings . Regular meetings shall be held monthly, the second Thursday of the month at 2:00pm at 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D, Porterville, CA 93257, or at some other time and location as the Board may designate by resolution. A special meeting may be called by the Chair of the Stakeholder Committee, or any two Page 4 of 6

  18. Agenda Packet pg.24 members of the Stakeholder Committee. A quorum of the committee for convening any meeting shall consist of a simple majority of all members. An affirmative vote of at least a majority of those in attendance at the meeting shall be required for any action. 5.4.5. Attendance . Stakeholder Committee members shall make every effort to attend regular meetings. Members unable to attend any meeting should contact the Committee Chair or staff at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting, and shall be excused provided a valid reason is given for the failure to attend. Three consecutive unannounced absences, or three unannounced absences within one calendar year, shall be grounds for dismissal from the Stakeholder Committee, subject to the discretion of the Board. 5.4.6. Voting. Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. 5.5. Technical Advisory Committee 5.5.1. Purpose . The purpose of the Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) is to provide technical advice to the Board on matters related to SGMA. The TAC is advisory in nature and has no authority to approve, deny, or require modifications to any matter or project under the committee’s consideration. 5.5.2. Chair and Vice-Chair . The Board shall appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Chair of the TAC. The Board shall also appoint one Director or Alternate Director to be a non-voting member of and the Vice-Chair of the TAC. No meetings of the TAC shall take place without the presence of the Chair or Vice-Chair. 5.5.3. Members . The Board shall be entitled to appoint up to five (5) members to the TAC. Appointed members shall remain so until the appointing the Board requests the member be withdrawn or replaced. 5.5.4. Meetings . Regular meetings shall be established by the TAC. A special meeting may be called by the Chair, or any two members of the TAC. A quorum of the committee for convening any meeting shall consist of a simple majority of all members. An affirmative vote of at least a majority of all members shall be required for any action. 5.5.5. Voting . Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. 5.6. FinancialFinance Committee 5.6.1. Purpose . The purpose of the FinancialFinance Committee is to review matters pertaining to the finances of the Authority and to make recommendations to the Board. These matters include, but are not limited to, reviewing and payment of bills, interim financial statements, assessments, and budgets. 5.6.2. Members and Chair . The Board shall appoint three members of the Board of Directors to serve on the FinancialFinance Committee. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the board provided they are a director of the Board. Of the three members appointed, the Board shall appoint one director to be chair of the Committee. 5.6.3. Meetings . The Committee shall meet as needed. The Committee only meets when there are items to be heard. Additional special meetings may be scheduled as needed. A quorum of the committee for convening any meeting shall consist of a Page 5 of 6

  19. Agenda Packet pg.25 simple majority of all members. An affirmative vote of at least a majority of those in attendance at the meeting shall be required for any action. 5.5.5.5.6.4. Voting . Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. ARTICLE 6. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 6.1. The Agency shall be subject to the conflict of interest rules set forth in the Political Reform Act (commencing with Section 81000 of the Government Code of the State of California) and Sections 1090, et seq . of the Government Code. The Agency shall adopt a conflict of interest code. ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENT 7.1. These Bylaws may be amended from time to time by resolution of the Board duly adopted pursuant to Article III of the Agreement at a regular or special meeting of the Board. ARTICLE 8. DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION 8.1. Unless specifically defined in these Bylaws, all defined terms shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. If any of the terms within these Bylaws conflict with any term of the Agreement, the Agreement’s terms shall prevail, and these Bylaws shall be amended to eliminate such conflict of terms. Page 6 of 6

  20. Agenda Packet pg.26 Agenda Item 8.a EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWER AUTHORITY _________________ FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2018

  21. Agenda Packet pg.27 CONTENTS PAGES Independent Auditor’s Report 1 – 2 Financial Statements: 3 Statement of Net Position and Governmental Fund Balance Sheet Statement of Activities and Government Fund Statement of Revenues, 4 Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances and Changes in Net Position 5 – 7 Notes to Financial Statements Required Supplemental Information: Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures – Budget and Actual 8

  22. Agenda Packet pg.28 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT To the Board of Directors of Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Power Authority Porterville, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Power Authority (the Authority) as of June 30, 2018 and for the period of December 6, 2016 (date of inception) through June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Authority ’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Authority, as of June 30, 2018, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 1

  23. Agenda Packet pg.29 Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis and budgetary comparison information on page 8 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information, budgetary comparison information on page 8, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses t o our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Management has omitted management’s discussion and analysis . Our opinion on the basic financial statements is not affected by this missing information. Fresno, California September 24, 2018 2

  24. Agenda Packet pg.30 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Statement of Net Position and Governmental Fund Balance Sheet June 30, 2018 Statement of General Fund Adjustments Net Position ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 34,915 $ 34,915 Receivables 45,632 45,632 Total assets 80,547 80,547 LIABILITIES Accounts payables 8,966 8,966 Total liabilities 8,966 8,966 FUND BALANCES/NET POSITION Fund balance: 71,581 Unreserved fund balance $ 71,581 Total fund balance Net position: Unrestricted 71,581 Total net position $ 71,581 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 3

  25. Agenda Packet pg.31 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Statement of Activities and Government Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances and Changes in Net Position for the period of December 6, 2016 through June 30, 2018 Statement of General Fund Adjustments Activities Revenues: Contributions $ 259,709 $ 259,709 Other 7,665 7,665 Interest 432 432 Total Revenue 267,806 267,806 Expenditures: Professional and specialized expense 194,922 194,922 Services and supplies 1,303 1,303 Total Expenditures 196,225 196,225 71,581 Excess revenue over expenditures Change in Net Position 71,581 Fund balance / net position Beginning of year - - End of year $ 71,581 $ 71,581 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 4

  26. Agenda Packet pg.32 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2018 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: The Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (the Authority) is a joint powers authority formed in 2016. The Authority is formed with the purpose and intent of jointly forming a separate entity to fulfill the role of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) consisting of the Members, so that the Members may collectively develop, adopt, and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the sustainable management of groundwater for that portion of the Tule Subbasin underlying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Members, as those boundaries may be amended from time to time. The Authority is to provide for the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water within its represented groundwater basin to ensure the reliability of a long-term water supply to meet current and future beneficial uses. Member Agencies The Joint Powers Agreement was entered into as of December 6, 2016, and between the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Kern-Tulare Water District, Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, and Vandalia Water District. The more significant accounting policies of the Authority are summarized as follows: A. Government-wide and fund financial statements: The Authority is a special-purpose government agency engaged in a single governmental program; the fund financial statements and the government-wide statements are combined. The government-wide financial statements include the statement of net position and the statement of activities and report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the government. B. Measurement focus, basis of accounting, and financial statement presentation: The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the government considers revenues to be available if they are collected within sixty days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. 5

  27. Agenda Packet pg.33 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2018 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, continued: C. Description of Funds: The accounts of the Authority are organized by using a General Fund, which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of the fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures. It is the general operating fund of the Authority and is used to account for all financial resources. D. Use of Estimates: The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. E. Cash and cash equivalents: The Authority considers all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. F. Income Taxes The Authority is a governmental agency and is not subject to federal or state income taxes. G. Subsequent Events Management has evaluated subsequent events through September 24, 2018, the date the financial statements were available to be issued, and has determined that no adjustments are necessary to the amounts reported in the accompanying financial statements nor have any subsequent events occurred, the nature of which would require disclosure. 2. COMMITMENT On June 18, 2018, the Authority entered into an employment contract with the agencies Executive Director. Subsequent to the end of the fiscal year, the Authority entered into a contract with Terra Bella Irrigation District to administer the employment contract of the Executive Director, effective August 8, 2018. 3. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS The Authority reimbursed the City of Porterville in the amount of $42,903 for services that the Authority had accrued during the period after the Authority was established and prior to the Authority becoming self-sufficient. 6

  28. Agenda Packet pg.34 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2018 3. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS, continued The following amounts are included in accounts receivable: County of Tulare $ 44,851 Vandalia Water District 781 $ 45,632 7

  29. Agenda Packet pg.35 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

  30. Agenda Packet pg.36 EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JPA Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget and Actual for the year ended June 30, 2018 Variance with Budgeted Amounts Final Budget- Original Final Actual Amounts Positive (Negative) Revenues Contributions $ 242,550 $ 346,279 $ 259,709 $ (86,570) Other - - 7,665 7,665 Interest - - 432 432 Total Revenue 242,550 346,279 267,806 (78,473) Expenditures Professional and specialized expense 188,000 317,779 187,266 130,513 Services and supplies 22,500 3,000 1,303 1,697 Special district expense 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 Total Expenditures 220,500 330,779 188,569 142,210 Revenue over/(under) expenditures $ 22,050 $ 15,500 $ 79,237 $ 63,737 Budgets and Budgetary Accounting An annual budget is adopted for the General Fund on a modified accrual basis consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the General Fund is included in the required supplementary information above. 8

  31. Agenda Packet pg.37 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Agenda Items 8.b & 8.c Review the Financial Statements and Consider Authorization to Pay the Bills [Financials to be provided on October 4, 2018]

  32. Agenda Packet pg.38 Agenda Item 8.d Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency JPA Revised 2018/2019 Fiscal Year Budget (Annual Budget; July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019) Contribution and Participation Percentages Second Quartlery Call for Funds (10/4/18) Agency Participation Revised 18/19 Fiscal Year Service Area Percentage Q1 Call for Q2, Q3, and Q4 Call for Funds Amounts Agency Budget * (Acres) (%) Funds Amount County of Tulare $366,754.56 83,502 51.81 $ 72,718.56 $ 98,012.00 City of Porterville $49,719.31 11,320 7.02 $ 9,858.14 $ 13,287.06 Porterville Irrigation District $74,653.63 16,997 10.55 $ 14,802.01 $ 19,950.54 Saucelito Irrigation District $86,534.43 19,702 12.22 $ 17,157.68 $ 23,125.58 Teapot Dome Water District $15,640.50 3,561 2.21 $ 3,101.13 $ 4,179.79 Vandalia Irrigation District $6,386.21 1,454 0.90 $ 1,266.23 $ 1,706.66 Terra Bella Irrigation District $66,282.16 15,091 9.36 $ 13,142.15 $ 17,713.34 Kern-Tulare Water District $41,932.00 9,547 5.92 $ 8,314.10 $ 11,205.97 $ 189,180.93 Total $707,902.80 161,174 100.00 $ 140,360.00 * 2018/19 Fiscal Year Budget; per-agency costs capped at amount displayed

  33. Agenda Item 9.a Agenda Packet pg.39

  34. Agenda Packet pg.40

  35. Agenda Packet pg.41

  36. Agenda Packet pg.42

  37. Agenda Packet pg.43

  38. Agenda Packet pg.44

  39. Agenda Packet pg.45

  40. Agenda Packet pg.46

  41. Agenda Packet pg.47

  42. Agenda Item 9.b(a) Agenda Packet pg.48

  43. Agenda Packet pg.49 Agenda Item 9.b(b) September 17, 2018 Tule Subbasin MOU Group c/o Mr. R.L. Schafer, Coordinator 2904 West Main Street Visalia, CA 93291 Re: Proposal to Update the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model and Prepare and Analyze Model Projection Scenarios for the Tule Subbasin MOU Group – Tulare County, California Dear Mr. Schafer, As a follow- up to the Tule Subbasin MOU Group manager’s meeting that was held at Delano - Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) on 4-Sep-18, this letter outlines a proposed scope of work and cost estimate to update the existing groundwater flow model of the Tule Subbasin with new data and analyze additional future projection scenarios using the updated model. The purpose of the update is to incorporate updated land use data that became available in August 2018 and other new data that various Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) made available or have indicated will be available, for updating the model. In addition, the scope of work includes a per scenario cost for conducting future projection scenarios. Finally, the existing project management and meetings budget has been exceeded due to out-of-scope work conducted during the course of this year. A budget is proposed to balance the existing budget and provide budget for meeting attendance through the end of the year. Scope of Work Task 1: Refine Model to Incorporate New Data TH&Co will incorporate new data into the model that has been made available since August 2018. These data include: • City of Porterville groundwater production from 1986 through 1995. • 2014 agricultural land use estimates from the California Department of Water Resources. • Alpaugh ID groundwater pumping and surface water deliveries. Thomas Harder & Co. 1260 N. Hancock St., Suite 109 Anaheim, California 92807 (714) 779-3875

  44. Agenda Packet pg.50 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Proposal to Update the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model 17-Sep-18 • Angiola Water District surface water deliveries and pumping. • Porterville Slough channel losses. All new data will be incorporated into model input files for input to the model. The cost estimate for this task assumes that the data can be transmitted to TH&Co electronically. Task 2: Model Recalibration The revisions to the model will change the pumping and recharge stresses that affect the model calibration. As such, it will be necessary to recalibrate the model to reflect the new data. This will consist of a two-step process: 1. Manually modifying aquifer property values to optimize the fit between measured groundwater levels and modeled groundwater levels as well as measured land surface subsidence and measured subsidence. 2. Conducting an automated parameter estimation process (PEST) to refine the calibration further. The model will be calibrated to industry standards. Statistics of model calibration and hydrographs of model generated vs. measured groundwater levels will be published in the model summary report upon completion (approved under a different scope of work). Task 3: Reevaluate Sustainable Yield and Water Budget Using the Updated Model Upon completion of model calibration, TH&Co will reevaluate the sustainable yield of the Tule Subbasin using the model. The model will initially be run forward in time (2017 to 2070) at the sustainable yield estimated from the preliminary water budget. TH&Co will then review the hydrographs for key wells across the subbasin and the water budget for the forward projection. As needed, TH&Co will adjust groundwater pumping and conduct additional model runs until the hydrographs indicate stable groundwater levels in the majority of key wells and the net change in groundwater storage over the entire subbasin is as close to zero as possible. As part of the Sustainable Yield evaluation, TH&Co will perform an uncertainty analysis to assess the probable range within which the sustainable yield could occur. This will be conducted by assigning ranges of various parameters within the model (e.g. aquifer hydraulic conductivity, mountain block recharge, pumping, etc.) and running the model in PEST to develop a statistically significant range of sustainable yield outcomes. The analysis will result in the probable range of sustainable yield and the most probable sustainable yield value based on existing data. The results of the uncertainty analysis will be published in the model summary report upon completion. 2

  45. Agenda Packet pg.51 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Proposal to Update the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model 17-Sep-18 Task 4: Evaluate the Impact of Individual GSA Pumping on Land Subsidence As requested by the Tule Subbasin MOU Group managers, TH&Co will analyze the impact of pumping within individual GSAs on the land subsidence that occurs in the various parts of the subbasin. For this analysis, TH&Co will run six hypothetical scenarios using the calibrated groundwater flow model. For each scenario, the pumping in one GSA will be turned off and the resulting land subsidence across the subbasin will be analyzed and exported to a Geographic Information System (GIS) for developing graphics. TH&Co will repeat this for each GSA. The results of the analysis will be submitted to the Tule MOU Group as a stand-alone Technical Memorandum. Task 5: Project Management and Meeting Attendance The previously approved scope of work and cost estimate to develop the model had assumed attendance at 15 meetings between July 2017 and October 2018. During the course of that time, TH&Co participated in a number of out-of-scope meetings and conference calls and responded to GSA requests and inquiries that were not included in the original budget. Out of scope meetings attended included: • Conference call with the South Valley Coordination Group (Inter-Basin Model Coordination) 16-Feb-18 • One meeting in Visalia with Mr. Schafer to review comments to the Coordination Agreement - 20-Feb-18 • One meeting with AECOM (Alpaugh ID consultant) 14-Mar-2018 • Conference call with Boswell Farms’ Consultant 12 -Jun-2018 • One meeting with Tulare Basin model consultant 28-Jun-2018 • One meeting with Angiola Water District Consultants in Bakersfield 4-Sep-18 • One additional meeting with the Tule MOU Group managers at DEID 4-Sep-18 The requested budget to cover out-of-scope work performed to date is $13,120, as shown on Table 1. In addition to the out-of-scope work performed to date, additional budget is proposed to cover anticipated meetings and project management in the remainder of September through December 2018. The budget assumed preparation for and attendance at four more meetings in Tipton, California as well as project management time to address Tule MOU Group inquiries and requests for information. The requested budget to cover meetings and project management through the end of the year is $17,540 (see Table 1). 3

  46. Agenda Packet pg.52 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Proposal to Update the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model 17-Sep-18 Task 6: Analysis of Future Projection Scenarios Using the Groundwater Flow Model TH&Co will set up and run future projection scenarios, as needed, by the Tule Subbasin MOU Group or the individual GSAs. The primary purpose of the future projections is to evaluate different projects that the subbasin or individual GSAs want to consider for evaluating future groundwater levels, land subsidence, minimum thresholds, measureable objectives, and sustainability goals. In order to provide information for developing the input files to run the model scenarios, we have developed a scenario description form for your use (attached). In general, for each scenario, we need to know how groundwater pumping and recharge (managed recharge) will change over the 50-yr planning horizon in terms of where, when, and at what rate. The cost estimate to review each scenario, set up the appropriate model input files, run the model, and process the results is approximately $10,920, as shown in Table 1. Graphics to be provided for each scenario include two groundwater elevation contour maps (2020 and 2040), two maps showing changes in land surface elevation (2020 – 2030 and 2030 - 2040), and a map showing projected change in groundwater levels (2020 – 2040). It is noted that the cost of each scenario will depend on the complexity of the scenario and the required output graphics, if different from above. A scenario-specific cost estimate will be developed for each request submitted. Cost Estimate The proposed budget for the above scope of work is $105,060 and will be conducted on a time- and-materials basis in accordance with our billing rates as defined in my Professional Services Agreement with the Tule Subbasin MOU Group, dated November 16, 2016. As noted in Task 6, the cost to setup and analyze forward projection scenarios is estimated to be approximately $10,920 per scenario but may vary slightly depending on the complexity of the scenario and the output graphics needed. 4

  47. Agenda Packet pg.53 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Proposal to Update the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model 17-Sep-18 Schedule The proposed schedule to complete the scope of work described herein is as follows: • The deadline to receive any new data is 28-Sep-2018. Any new data received after this date will not be incorporated into the model in the interest of having model results by the end of November. • Task 1: Model Update – Complete 5-Oct-18 • Task 2: Model Recalibration – Complete 24-Oct-2018 • Task 3: Reevaluate Sustainable Yield and Water Budgets – Complete 9-Nov-18 • Task 4: Evaluate the Impact of Individual GSA Pumping on Land Subsidence – Complete 9-Nov-2018 It is our goal to present the results of the model update, sustainable yield, and land subsidence impact evaluation at the 21-Nov-18 Tule Subbasin MOU group meeting. I appreciate the opportunity to provide consulting services to the Tule Subbasin MOU Group. If you have any questions regarding this scope of work , don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas Harder, P.G., C.HG. Principal Hydrogeologist 5

  48. Agenda Packet pg.54 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 1 Cost Estimate Tule MOU Group - Groundwater Flow Model Update with New Data Principal Project Staff Sub Hydro- Graphics Clerical Total Reimbursable Task Description Total Cost Geologist Geoscientist Task Geologist Labor Expenses $180/hr $120/hr $100/hr $85/hr $65/hr Refine Model to Incorporate New Data 1.0 Revise City of Porterville Groundwater 1.1 Production from 1986 - 1994 Based on 2 4 6 $1,440 $1,440 New Data Incorporate 2014 Agricultural Land 1.2 1 32 8 $4,820 $4,820 Use/Consumptive Use Update Alpaugh ID Water Deliveries 1.3 1 8 12 $2,340 $2,340 and Pumping Update Angiola Water District Water 1.4 6 24 16 $5,560 $5,560 Deliveries and Pumping Incorporate Porter Slough and PID 1.5 2 12 8 $2,600 $2,600 Unlined Canals Subtotal Task 1.0 12 80 50 0 0 $16,760 $0 $16,760 2.0 Model Recalibration Rerun Updated Model and Process 2.1 4 8 $1,680 $1,680 Output; Analyze Model Calibration Initial Manual Groundwater Flow Model Recalibration: Modification of Aquifer 2.2 30 20 40 $11,800 $11,800 Parameters Based on New Data, As Necessary Initial Manual Land Subsidence 2.3 8 8 8 $3,200 $3,200 Recalibration Calibration Refinement Using 2.4 20 24 16 $8,080 $8,080 Automated Methods (PEST) Subtotal Task 2.0 62 60 64 0 0 $24,760 $0 $24,760 17-Sep-18 1 of 3

  49. Agenda Packet pg.55 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 1 Cost Estimate Tule MOU Group - Groundwater Flow Model Update with New Data Principal Project Staff Sub Hydro- Graphics Clerical Total Reimbursable Task Description Total Cost Geologist Geoscientist Task Geologist Labor Expenses $180/hr $120/hr $100/hr $85/hr $65/hr 3.0 Reevaluate Sustainable Yield and Water Budget Using the Updated Model Develop Subbasin-Wide Sustainable 3.1 Yield Estimate and Individual Water 20 72 30 $15,240 $15,240 Budgets for Each of the Six GSAs Conduct an Uncertainty Analysis for a 3.2 Range of Sustainable Yield Estimates 16 40 $7,680 $7,680 for the Subbasin Subtotal Task 3.0 36 112 30 0 0 $22,920 $0 $22,920 4.0 Evaluate the Impact of Individual GSA Pumping on Land Subsidence Evaluate the Cause and Effect of Individual GSA Pumping on Land 4.1 Subsidence in the Tule Subbasin (Six 6 20 48 16 4 $9,900 $9,900 Different Model Runs); Prepare TM Describing Results 5.0 Project Management and Meeting Attendance Budget Overage for Meetings, 5.1 Correspondence, and Project 41 20 34 $13,180 $13,180 Management (through 4-Sep-18) Additional Budget to Attend Meetings, Provide Correspondence, and Project 5.2 68 20 20 $16,640 $900 $17,540 Management for September through December 2018 Subtotal Task 5.0 109 40 54 0 0 $29,820 $900 $30,720 Total 225 312 246 16 4 $104,160 $900 $105,060 17-Sep-18 2 of 3

  50. Agenda Packet pg.56 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 1 Cost Estimate Tule MOU Group - Groundwater Flow Model Update with New Data Principal Project Staff Sub Hydro- Graphics Clerical Total Reimbursable Task Description Total Cost Geologist Geoscientist Task Geologist Labor Expenses $180/hr $120/hr $100/hr $85/hr $65/hr 6.0 Analysis of Forward Projection Scenarios Using the Groundwater Model (Cost Per Scenario)* Coordinate with Basin Managers to 6.1 Finalize Proposed Scenarios for 4 8 $1,680 $1,680 Analysis (1 Scenario) Set Up Pumping and Recharge Input Files, Adjust Boundary Conditions, and 6.2 6 20 16 $5,080 $5,080 Run Additional Forward Projections with the Model (1 Scenario) Prepare Model Output Graphics Including Projection Hydrographs (16), Groundwater Storage Change Maps, 6.3 4 4 16 16 $4,160 $4,160 Land Surface Elevation Change Maps (5), Land Surface Change Profile Along FK Canal Subtotal Task 5.0 14 32 32 16 0 $10,920 $0 $10,920 * Cost based on an assumed scenario involving relatively straight-forward changes in crop consumptive use, boundary conditions, wells, or recharge and includes two groundwater contour maps, two land surface elevation change maps, and one map showing projected change in groundwater elevations. Scenario-specific costs will ultimately be based on the complexity of the inputs and level of output graphics. 17-Sep-18 3 of 3

  51. Agenda Packet pg.57 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Agenda Item 9.b(c) Thomas Harder & Co. Future Projection Scenario Background: The Tule Subbasin Groundwater Flow Model, developed by Thomas Harder & Co. on behalf of the Tule Subbasin MOU Group, can be utilized to analyze future projection scenarios. Thomas Harder & Co. previously ran three scenarios that analyze the effects of Subbasin-wide agricultural groundwater pumping ramp down (to sustainable yield) on groundwater elevations and land subsidence: • 5-year rampdown under average hydrological conditions • 20-year rampdown under average hydrological conditions • 10-year status quo pumping under dry hydrological conditions, then 10- year rampdown under wet hydrological conditions New Scenario Request: • 0-year rampdown under TBD hydrological conditions (likely average) Cost: Cost would be shared by the approving Tule Subbasin MOU Group GSAs. The cost of each scenario run is approximately $10,920 (per TH&Co’s proposed Scope of Work, Task 6).

  52. Agenda Packet pg.58 Agenda Item 9.c Tule Subbasin MOU Group Model Scenario Request Form 18-Sep-18 Model Scenario Request Form Date: Requesting Agency: Contact Information: Project/Scenario Name: Project Description: Project Objective: Projected Changes in Groundwater Pumping (Volume and Location): Projected Schedule (Timing) of Groundwater Pumping Changes: Projected Changes in Managed Groundwater Recharge (Volume and Location): Projected Schedule (Timing) of Managed Groundwater Recharge: 1

  53. Agenda Packet pg.59 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Model Scenario Request Form 18-Sep-18 Hydrological Baseline: Required Model Output: Comments: 2

  54. Agenda Packet pg.60

  55. Agenda Packet pg.61

  56. Agenda Item 9.d Agenda Packet pg.62

  57. Agenda Packet pg.63 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Agenda Item 10.a Committee Recommendations and Public Comment on Policy Points and GSP Development Introduction: ETGSA recently issued a series of Policy Points in order to foster discussion among the stakeholders of the ETGSA so as to supply the Board of Directors with general guidance and recommendations regarding how they might consider developing certain management actions and other components of the GSP. The Policy Points can be found here: http://easterntulegsa.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/9-06-18-etgsa-policy-points-final.pdf The comments and recommendations of the Executive Committee, Stakeholder Committee, Eastern Tule White Area Growers and other members of the public regarding the Policy Points listed below have been provided for the Board’s consideration. Policy Points:  B – Sustainable Yield  C – Allocation Decisions  D – Transitional Allocations & Period  E – Transferability  J – Banking Allocations of Groundwater

  58. Agenda Packet pg.64 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Online Public Comment Form • None Note: Members of the Public are encouraged to provide their comments using the ETGSA Online Public Comment Form - https://goo.gl/forms/hxRPBX0kClqDwoEE3 General Comments, Questions, and Discussion Points Noted during Executive and Stakeholder Meetings and received from Members of the Public : • Would allocation of the sustainable yield based on gross acreage meet the needs of M&I water suppliers? • Should allocations of the sustainable yield be distributed to lands not currently irrigated? What effect might this have? • How far should transfers of allocations or credits be permitted? • Further investigation of ETGSA’s underlying geology and hydrology is necessary to better understand where transfers might be permitted. • Historical use should be considered in an allocation of the sustainable yield. • The sustainable yield should be allocated based on pools. • The sustainable yield may differ across ETGSA’s jurisdiction and management areas may be able to address this. Further research is needed. • Fees should be used to mitigate the effects of transitional pumping; fees should be used to fund projects . • More data is necessary to make good decisions .

  59. Agenda Packet pg.65 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Stakeholder Committee: • Policy Point B: Recommend allocation of the sustainable yield based on gross acreage, based on further consideration on the concept of pools o Majority Yes, One No, One Abstention • Policy Points C and J: Recommend that sustainable yield allocation decisions should be adopted on a five-year interval basis with annual reports (same as Executive Committee) and that any unused portion of the five-year allocation be allowed to be carried over, but only for the most recent five-year block of water (same as Executive Committee). o Unanimous approval • Policy Point D: Recommend that the allocation of transitional pumping be based on historical use, with the caveat that the allocations be purchased and the funds used for projects. o Majority Yes, One No • Policy Point E: Recommend to allow the transfer of allocations. o Unanimous approval

  60. Agenda Packet pg.66 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Executive Committee: • Policy Point B: Recommend allocation of the sustainable yield based on gross acreage, with further analysis to be conducted on a pool concept for M&I use. o Majority Yes, One No • Policy Points C and J: Recommend that sustainable yield allocation decisions should be adopted on a five-year interval basis with annual reports and that any unused portion of the five-year allocation be allowed to be carried over, but only for the most recent five-year block of water. o Unanimous approval • Policy Point D: Recommend that a total block (to be determined) of transitional pumping be established above sustainable yield, which will be made available for purchase to water users up to a limit or cap. o Unanimous approval • Policy Point E: Recommend to approve the transfer of allocations of the sustainable yield within ETGSA with a ratio of 1:1, with further analysis to take place regarding potential impacts. o Unanimous approval

  61. Agenda Packet pg.67 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Eastern Tule White Area Growers: • Policy Point B: The Members of ETWAG voted “Proportional to historical use/current need” to the following statement – “SAFE YIELD ALLOCATION – How should safe yield be allocated ? ” – and identified that it cross- referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point B. • Policy Point C: The Members of ETWAG voted “Five-Year Period” to the following statement – “ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS VS. MULTI-YEAR - Will safe yield be allocated year-by-year or allocated in multi-year “buckets”?” – and identified that it cross-referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point C. • Policy Point J: The Members of ETWAG voted “No” to the following statement – “REDUCTION IN CREDITS CARRIED OVER – Should there be any reduction in groundwater credits if they are carried over to a following year?” – and identified that it cross-referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point J. • Policy Point D: The Members of ETWAG voted “Yes” to the following statement – “BUFFER ALLOCATIONS - Should there be an additional amount of pumping allocated in the first year, to provide drought insurance, assuming it does not reduce transitional pumping?” – and identified that it cross-referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point D.iii. The Members of ETWAG voted “Proportional to historical use/current need” to the following statement – “TRANSITIONAL PUMPING ALLOCATION – How should transition pumping be allocated? How long should the transition period last?” – and identified that it cross-referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point D. • Policy Point E: The Members of ETWAG voted “No” to the following statements – “GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS WITHIN GSA – Should there be any geographical restrictions on transfers of groundwater credits within GSA?” and “GEOGRAPHICAL RESTICTIONS WITHIN SUBBASIN – Should there be any geographical restrictions on transfers of groundwater credits within Subbasin?” – and identified that they cross-referenced with ETGSA’s Policy Point E.

  62. Agenda Packet pg.68 Board of Directors Meeting October 4, 2018 Agenda Item 10.b Discussion of Policy Points B-G [Presentation to be distributed on October 4, 2018] Agenda Item 11.c

  63. Agenda Packet pg.69 Agenda Item 10.b Communication and Engagement Plan Prepared by: Bryce McAteer Executive Director Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority 881 W. Morton Ave, Ste. D, Porterville, CA 93257 1

  64. Agenda Packet pg.70 Agency Background: Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“ETGSA”, “Agency”) is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“GSA”) that was formed via Joint Powers Agreement on December 6 th , 2016 pursuant the requirements of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Agency was approved by the California Department of Water Resources to serve as an exclusive GSA on June 6 th , 2017. Eight member agencies form ETGSA (County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Kern-Tulare Water District, Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District). The Agency is governed by a 9-member Board of Directors. ETGSA is charged with preparing and implementing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) across its 161,174 acre jurisdiction. The Agency is one of seven GSAs located within the Tule Subbasin (Bulletin 118, 5-22.13). Prepared By: Bryce McAteer, Executive Director ETGSA Email: bmcateer@easterntulegsa.com Website: www.easterntulegsa.com Prepared For: Board of Directors ETGSA Dis isclaim imer: This Communication and Engagement Plan is current as of the Adoption Date listed on the Cover Page, but is to be considered “Living” and is subject to continual update and review throughout the development, review, and implementation of ETGSA’s GSP. Members of the Public and Interested Parties are encouraged to provide their feedback to improve this document across the planning and implementation horizon. 2

  65. Agenda Packet pg.71 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank 3

  66. Agenda Packet pg.72 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) ................................................................................ 6 Requirements for Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................................. 6 Communication and Engagement Plan ......................................................................................................... 7 1. Goals and Desired Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 GSA Description and Background ............................................................................................................. 8 1.2 ETGSA’s Decision-Making Process ......................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Goals and Desired Outcomes of GSP Development ............................................................................ 13 1.4 GSP Communication Objectives ............................................................................................................... 13 1.5.1 Phase 1: GSA Formation and Coordination ...................................................................................... 13 1.5.2 Phase 2: GSP Preparation and Submission ................................................................................... 14 1.5.3 Phase 3: GSP Review and Evaluation .............................................................................................. 16 1.5.4 Phase 4: Implementation and Reporting ........................................................................................ 16 1.6 Major Challenges.......................................................................................................................................... 16 2. Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Stakeholder Groups..................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Other Entities ........................................................................................ 18 2.3. Interested Parties List ............................................................................................................................. 23 3. Stakeholder Survey and Overview ............................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Stakeholder Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.2 Regular Meetings and Lay of the Land Overview ............................................................................... 25 3.2.1 “Lay of the Land” Overview ............................................................................................................... 25 4. Messages and Talking Points ......................................................................................................................... 28 4.1. Key Messages and Talking Points .......................................................................................................... 28 4.1.1. Overarching Key Messages .............................................................................................................. 28 4.1.2. Phase 1 (GSA Formation and Coordination) Key Messages .................................................... 28 4.1.3. Phase 2 (GSP Preparation and Submission) Key Messages ................................................... 28 4.1.4. Phase 3 (GSP Review and Evaluation) Key Messages .............................................................. 29 4.1.5. Phase 4 (GSP Implementation and Reporting) ........................................................................... 29 4.2 Common Questions and Answers.......................................................................................................... 29 5. Venues for Engaging ........................................................................................................................................ 33 5.1 ETGSA Regular Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 33 4

  67. Agenda Packet pg.73 5.2 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Meetings...................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Public Meetings and Presentations ....................................................................................................... 33 5.4 Printed Materials, Advertisements, and Postage .............................................................................. 35 5.5 Digital Communication .............................................................................................................................. 37 5.6 Media and News Articles .......................................................................................................................... 39 6. Outreach Timeline ............................................................................................................................................. 40 Phase 1: GSA Formation and Coordination || 2015 through Mid-2017 .............................................. 40 Phase 2: GSP Preparation and Submission || Mid-2017 through Mid-2019 ..................................... 41 Phase 3: GSP Review and Evaluation || Mid-2019 though January 31, 2020 ................................... 43 Phase 4: Implementation and Reporting || Following Submission of GSP to DWR (Mid-2019 to January 31, 2020) and thereafter .............................................................................................................. 43 7. Evaluation and Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 44 7.1 Regular Outreach Reviews by the Board and Committees .............................................................. 44 7.2 Other Tools for Review .............................................................................................................................. 44 7.3 Stakeholder Input as a Part of Evaluation and Assessment ........................................................... 44 List of Tables Table 1: Tule Subbasin GSAs and their Member Entities ............................................................................... 8 Table 2: ETGSA Member Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Organizations and Stakeholder Groups within ETGSA ................................................................. 18 Table 4: Common Questions and Responses ................................................................................................. 29 List of Figures Figure 1: Eastern Tule GSA Boundary ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2: Eastern Tule GSA Disadvantaged Community Populations ....................................................... 11 Figure 3. ETGSA Visual Timeline, Draft GSP Creation Schedule ................................................................ 15 Figure 4. ETGSA Ad with Porterville Recorder, Version 1 ........................................................................... 36 Figure 5. ETGSA Ad with Porterville Recorder, Version 2 .......................................................................... 37 Figure 6. Screenshot of Front Page of ETGSA Website................................................................................ 38 5

  68. Agenda Packet pg.74 Introduction Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”, “Act”) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014 and consists of three bills: Senate Bills (“SB”) 1168, SB 1319, and Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1739. The Act provides a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater within California through the formation of new Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSA”) that will develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”) in order to achieve groundwater sustainability within certain prioritized basins by 2040, at the latest. In order to achieve sustainability, GSAs must manage groundwater so as to avoid causing and/or perpetuating certain significant and unreasonable undesirable results. As defined by the Legislature, these unreasonable results include: • Chronic lowering of groundwater levels; • Reduction in groundwater storage; • Seawater intrusion; • Degradation of water quality; • Land subsidence; and • Depletion of interconnected surface waters. Requirements for Stakeholder Engagement The framework provided in SGMA recognizes that groundwater is most effectively managed at the local level. Moreover, the Act requires that GSAs consider the interests of all beneficial users and uses of groundwater and include them in the GSP development process. California’s Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) further enumerates the public engagement and consideration requirements in its Groundwater Sustainability Plan Regulations (“Regulations”, “Regs.”, “23 CCR”), which were adopted June 30 th , 2017. DWR has broken down the development of a GSP into four phases, each of which has different stakeholder engagement requirements per SGMA’s sections of the California Water Code (“CWC”) and the Regulations: 1. 1. Phase 1 1: G GSA F Formatio ion a and C Coordin inatio ion (2 (2015-2017) a. Public notice and public hearing prior to formation (CWC § 10723 (b)) b. Establish and maintain an Interested Parties list (CWC § 10723.4) c. Describe how Interested Parties may participate (CWC § 10723.8) 2. 2. Ph Phase 2 e 2: G GSP P Prep repara ration a and S Submission (2017-20 2020 20) a. GSP Initial Notification via DWR online portal (Regs. §353.6) b. Encourage active involvement and consider beneficial uses and users of groundwater during GSP Preparation (CWC § 10727.8 and § 10723.2) c. Describe GSA decision-making process and how GSA provided opportunities for engagement and encouraged active involvement (Regs. § 354.10) d. Public notice and hearing prior to adopting or amending a GSP (CWC § 10728.4) e. Summarize communications as part of GSP submittal (Regs. § 354.10) 3. Phase 3 3. 3: G GSP Re Revi view a and Eva Evaluati tion (20 2018+) 6

  69. Agenda Packet pg.75 a. Any person may comment on adopted GSP via DWR online portal during 60 day comment period (Regs. § 353.8) 4. 4. Phase 4 4: I Implementa tati tion and Re Reporti ting (2 (2020+) a. Public notice and meetings prior to amending GSP or imposing new/increased fees (CWC § 10730) b. Encourage active involvement (CWC § 10727.8) In addition to phase-specific requirements, there are outreach requirements that are applicable to all phases: a. Consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater (CWC § 10723.2) b. GSAs may appoint and consult with an advisory committee (CWC § 10727.8) c. Public notices and meetings (CWC § 10730) d. Native American Tribes may voluntarily agree to participate (CWC § 10720.3) e. Federal Government may voluntarily agree to participate (CWC § 10720.3) f. Encourage active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the groundwater basin (CWC § 10727.8) Communication and Engagement Plan Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“ETGSA”) recognizes the importance and requirement of stakeholder engagement throughout the GSP development process. In order to address how ETGSA will fulfill the requirements of the Act and the Regulations, the Agency has developed this Communication and Engagement Plan (“CEP”). The CEP will describe how ETGSA intends to consider all beneficial uses and users of groundwater within its jurisdiction and will further describe how ETGSA intends to encourage active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within its boundaries. Moreover, the CEP will address: • ETGSA’s background; • ETGSA’s major stakeholder groups; • ETGSA’s decision making process; • Methods and venues for public engagement; • Opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement, education, and input; and • Descriptions of how public input will be used to inform the development and implementation of the GSP. The CEP follows the outline set forth by the DWR’s GSP Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Guidance Document, which can be found at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater- Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/Guidance- Document-for-Groundwater-Sustainability-Plan---Stakeholder-Communication-and- Engagement.pdf 7

  70. Agenda Packet pg.76 1. Goals and Desired Outcomes This section of the CEP provides a brief description and background of ETGSA, explains ETGSA’s decision-making process, defines the goals and desired outcomes of the GSP development process, outlines the general communication objectives during each phase of GSP development, and indicates how ETGSA intends to address major regulatory and stakeholder engagement challenges. 1.1 GSA Description and Background ETGSA is one of seven exclusive GSAs within the Tule Subbasin (Ta Table e 1), as defined in Bulletin 118. The Tule Subbasin is a high-priority basin in critical overdraft. Per SGMA, ETGSA is required to submit a GSP to DWR by January 31, 2020. Table 1: Tule Subbasin GSAs and their Member Entities Tule Subbasin GSAs GSA Member Entities Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Delano-Earlimart Irrigation Earlimart Public Utilities District GSA District Alpaugh GSA Alpaugh Irrigation District Alpaugh Community Services District Atwell Island Water District Eastern Tule GSA County of Tulare Vandalia Water District City of Porterville Terra Bella Irrigation District Saucelito Irrigation District Kern-Tulare Water District Tea Pot Dome Water District Porterville Irrigation District Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA Lower Tule River Irrigation District Poplar Community Services District Pixley Irrigation District GSA Pixley Irrigation District Pixley Public Utility District Tri-County Water Authority Angiola Water District Deer Creek Storm Water District Tulare County GSA Areas not managed nor claimed by any other GSA within the Tule Subbasin ETGSA is made up of eight member agencies (Ta Table e 2) joined together via Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”). These agencies initially came together on November 3, 2015 under a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) (Tulare County Agreement No. 27407) with the intent of forming a Groundwater Sustainability Agency. After approximately one year, the member agencies signed a Joint Powers Agreement (Tulare County Resolution No. 2016-0939) officially creating ETGSA on December 6 th , 2016, The Agency began maintaining an Interested Parties List on January 16 th , 2017. Following public notification and comment, ETGSA resolved to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Resolution No. 1-2017) on February 23, 2017 and was recognized as such by DWR on June 6, 2017. 8

  71. Agenda Packet pg.77 Table 2: ETGSA Member Agencies ETGSA GSA Member Agencies County of Tulare City of Porterville Kern-Tulare Water District Porterville Irrigation District Saucelito Irrigation District Terra Bella Irrigation District Tea Pot Dome Water District Vandalia Water District ETGSA’s boundaries encompass 161,174 acres and approximately 70,000 residents (Figure re 1). The land within ETGSA is primarily agricultural in nature, with approximately 85,000 acres under production. Primary crops include almonds, citrus, grain and hay, grapes, pistachios, walnuts and pecans. Permanent crops predominate and make up more than 2/3 of the irrigated landscape. Three major sources of surface water flow from east to west through ETGSA: Tule River, Deer Creek, and White River. The City of Porterville, which is the largest urban area within the Tule Subbasin, sits in the northeastern portion of ETGSA. Unincorporated communities within ETGSA include Ducor, East Porterville, Richgrove, and Terra Bella. All of ETGSA’s unincorporated communities are considered Severely Disadvantaged Communities (“SDAC”). The City of Porterville is considered a Disadvantaged Community (“DAC”). (See Figure 2 re 2) As a Member Agency, the County of Tulare represents a heterogenous land area within ETGSA that covers >50% of the ETGSA’s jurisdiction and is commonly referred to as “white area.” As a GSA serving in a basin with multiple GSAs, ETGSA must coordinate with the other GSAs within the Tule Subbasin pursuant Regs. §353.6. Pursuant an MOU signed by the Tule Subbasin GSAs in late-2017, the Tule Subbasin GSAs formed a TAC that meets regularly in order to coordinate their GSPs’ development and develop a Coordination Agreement. 9

  72. Agenda Packet pg.78 Figure 1: Eastern Tule GSA Boundary 10

  73. Agenda Packet pg.79 Figure 2: Eastern Tule GSA Disadvantaged Community Populations 11

  74. Agenda Packet pg.80 1.2 ETGSA’s Decision-Making Process ETGSA’s JPA and Bylaws govern the Agency’s decision-making process. Three entities are specifically named in the Bylaws and currently serve as standing bodies that contribute to the decision-making process: Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and Stakeholder Committee. These bodies are subject to the Brown Act and open to the public. Their regular meeting times and locations can be found in Section 5.1. The roles and responsibilities of these bodies are outlined below: • Board rd o of D Direc rectors rs: Responsible for all final decisions related to the governance of the GSA, the development of the GSP, GSP adoption, implementation of the GSP, and all other matters related to the administration of the Agency. A quorum of the Board consists of a majority of the Directors or designated Alternates, and a majority of those Directors or alternates present in a quorum of the Board are required for any general action of the Board. Certain matters require a two-thirds majority of the Board for approval, and these matters include: approval or revision of the Budget, assessments, litigation, the hiring or termination of the chief executive director, adoption of the Bylaws, adoption of the GSP, addition or termination of Members, and amendments to the Bylaws. • Ex Executi tive ve C Committe ttee: An advisory committee composed of staff or constituent members of the ETGSA’s member agencies whose role is to provide technical advice to the Board on all matters related to SGMA. The Board often recommends items for consideration by the Executive Committee who, in turn, provides its recommendation back to the Board. The Executive Committee also considers and reports on the recommendations of the Stakeholder Committee. A quorum of the Executive Committee consists of a simple majority of the members, and an affirmative vote of at least a majority of those in attendance of the meeting is required for any action. • Stakeh eholder C er Committee: ee: An advisory committee composed of eleven members of the public appointed by the Board who represent the interests of the environment, Richgrove Community Services District, Ducor Community Services District, agriculture, and all other interests of beneficial uses and users of groundwater. The Board often recommends items for consideration by the Stakeholder Committee who reports its recommendation to the Executive Committee who reports the recommendations of the Stakeholder Committee to the Board. However, the Stakeholder Committee can, if directed by the Board or upon request, report directly to the Board. A quorum of the members consists of a simple majority of the members, and an affirmative vote of at least a majority of those in attendance at the meeting is required for any action. ETGSA encourages stakeholders and members of the public to participate in the meetings of its Board and Committees. While not formalized at this time, the Board will often request that the Executive and/or Stakeholder Committee(s) review major policy points and documents and provide their recommendations to the Board prior to the Board making a decision, allowing for at least a month of consideration by these Committees and members of the public. 12

  75. Agenda Packet pg.81 1.3 Goals and Desired Outcomes of GSP Development The primary goal of ETGSA is to develop and implement a GSP that ensures groundwater resources within its boundaries are stewarded into sustainability, as required by SGMA. By actively and purposefully engaging stakeholders throughout the GSP development process, ETGSA desires to develop the creative solutions that are necessary to allow for the accomplishment of this goal in a manner that causes the least socio-economic disruption to the productive agriculture, communities, and beneficial users and uses of groundwater within its boundaries. 1.4 GSP Communication Objectives Per SGMA, ETGSA’s communication objective is to encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within its boundaries so as to more effectively consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater. ETGSA will provide stakeholders with meaningful opportunities for engagement during each phase of development. Such opportunities, depending on the phase, may include legally required notices and hearings, events, workshops, roundtables, advertisements and educational materials, newsletters, feedback and input surveys, and public comment during the meetings of the Board and Committees. For events where a notice period is not already legally defined, such as outreach meetings and workshops, ETGSA will attempt to finalize general event details 4-6 weeks in advance of the event in order to provide adequate time to conduct outreach and advertisement of such events. ETGSA firmly believes that opportunities for meaningful engagement will allow members of the Board and Committees to better represent the needs and concerns of their local constituents. All input received from the public will be reviewed and considered during the phases of GSP development. 1.5.1 P Phase 1 1: G GSA F Formation a and C Coordin inatio ion Phase 1 is complete. This phase began in 2015 and ended in mid-2017. ETGSA’s eight member agencies initially came together under a Memorandum of Understanding (Tulare County Agreement No. 27407) for the purpose of creating a Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Constituents of each of the member agencies were informed via correspondence and/or notice from their respective member agencies regarding the intent of the MOU group to form a GSA. After over a year of work, ETGSA was formed via Joint Powers Agreement, County of Tulare Resolution 2016-0939. Following formation, the Agency formed its Interested Parties List, distributed applications for the appointment of members of the public to the Stakeholder Committee, advertised in local media regarding its formation and solicitation of Stakeholder Committee members, posted notice and held a hearing regarding its intent to become an exclusive GSA, resolved to become a GSA, notified DWR of its resolve to become a GSA, and was approved by DWR on June 6, 2017 to serve as one of seven exclusive GSAs within the Tule Subbasin. Input from stakeholders and beneficial users of groundwater was received throughout this process during Board and Executive Committee meetings, which were held during this time and open to both the public and to public comment. 13

  76. Agenda Packet pg.82 1.5.2 P Phase 2: G GSP P Preparati tion a and S Submission Phase 2 is ongoing. This Phase began on June 7 th , 2018 (following approval from DWR to serve as an exclusive GSA). On June 19, 2017, ETGSA gave notice to DWR of its intent to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The current goal of ETGSA is to prepare a draft GSP for public review and comment by mid-2019. During the development of the draft, ETGSA will engage with stakeholders directly through a number of venues for the purpose of educating the general public, soliciting feedback and input, ensuring that all beneficial users of groundwater are given the opportunity to have their concerns considered, and developing a draft GSP that is informed by an engaged constituency. The Board of Directors approved a Timeline for Draft GSP Completion at its September 6 th , 2018 meeting that outlines ETGSA’s intended draft GSP development schedule (Figure 3 re 3). The Timeline is posted on the Agency’s website and a link was distributed to ETGSA’s Interested Parties List on September 7, 2018 in an effort to communicate its intended schedule with members of the public and to invite their participation in the draft GSP development process in an up-to-date manner. Additionally, the Board of Directors approved at its September 6 th , 2018 meeting a series of Policy Points for consideration. These Policy Points, and their associated schedule and process for consideration, are intended to assist ETGSA in developing various potential Management Actions and other components of its GSP in a manner that provides for stakeholder participation and input. The Policy Points can be found on ETGSA’s website (http://easterntulegsa.com/resources/). In addition to being discussed at the Executive and Stakeholder Committees, members of the public may also submit their comments using this link (https://goo.gl/forms/BXWrzQf3l5bmS6Ct2). The intent is to receive all comments and recommendations by the December 6 th , 2018 Board meeting. 14

  77. Agenda Packet pg.83 Figure 3. ETGSA Visual Timeline, Draft GSP Creation Schedule 15

  78. Agenda Packet pg.84 1.5.3 P 3 Phase 3: 3: GSP Re Revi view a and Ev Evaluati tion Phase 3 will begin in mid-2019, when ETGSA intends to have completed its draft GSP. Phase 3 will begin the public review process whereby a 90-day comment period will allow stakeholders and other interested parties to comment on the draft GSP prior to the adoption of the GSP. Public notice will be given indicating that ETGSA intends to adopt the draft GSP. ETGSA will distribute the draft GSP via electronic correspondence to its Interested Parties List, will post it online on its website for download and review, and will consider other methods of notifying constituents of the document’s availability and the ongoing opportunity to comment on its contents. Throughout the course of this 90-day period, ETGSA will host a variety of community meetings that will provide a platform for public comment and public forum. An online portal will also be created through which stakeholders may submit comments to the draft GSP. All comments will be considered in any revisions made to the draft GSP during this time period. Following public review and the revising of the draft GSP though the consideration of the public comment received, the Board will adopt the draft GSP after Public Hearing. ETGSA will submit the final version of the GSP to DWR by January 31, 2020, after which stakeholders may submit comments during a second 60-day comment period through the DWR SGMA portal (link: http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/). All comments made will be posted to the DWR’s website. The State will then conduct its evaluation, assessment, and approval process. 1.5.4 Ph 4 Phase 4: 4: I Implementation a and R Reporting Phase 4 will begin following submission of the adopted GSP to DWR, which is expected to occur between mid-2019 and January 31, 2020. ETGSA’s Phase 4 communication will focus on educating constituents of the new policies, ordinances, rules, and long-term plans that will come into effect in order to achieve sustainable groundwater management by 2040. Active involvement will be continually encouraged during the implementation and reporting phase, and ETGSA will provide public notice prior to the imposition or increase of any fees (pursuant SGMA’s requirements). 1.6 Major Challenges The major concerns within ETGSA’s boundaries focus on the impacts of groundwater extraction on the Friant-Kern Canal (“FKC”), the economic effects on the agricultural industry, ensuring clean and adequate water supplies to communities served by public water systems (all of whom are considered Disadvantaged or Severely Disadvantaged), and providing adequate outreach to lands and communities that are represented by the County (“White Areas”). Decreases in Friant- Kern Canal’s flow capacity will adversely affect GSAs that intend to rely on surface water supplies to mitigate the effects of groundwater overdraft in their area. Lack of surface water and the cost of retrofitting the canal have further economic consequences. Groundwater management could adversely affect the agricultural industry through job loss, reductions in cropped acres, diminished tax revenues, and diminished farm income. Communities served by public water systems communities may confront increased costs as they undertake conservation and supplemental supply programs, which may disproportionality effect DACs. ETGSA’s will focus on ways to engage those affected by loss of Friant-Kern Supplies, the agricultural community (particularly those farming in White Areas), and DACs. 16

  79. Agenda Packet pg.85 2. Stakeholder Identification 2.1 Stakeholder Groups The following list identifies stakeholder groups who have an interest in the beneficial use of groundwater, as assessed by ETGSA to date, pursuant to CWC § 10723.2: • Agri ricultura ral u users ers - Approximately half of the Agency's area is composed of agricultural land. Many of those who farm this land use groundwater to irrigate their crops. A significant number of agricultural groundwater users within ETGSA are solely reliant on groundwater for their irrigation needs. Eastern Tule White Area Growers, Inc. is a non- profit group that represents a significant majority of the irrigated agricultural land within ETGSA that is solely reliant upon groundwater. • Domes estic w wel ell o owners ers - Domestic well owners are located primarily in East Porterville, around the edges of City of Porterville’s service area, and across ETGSA in farmsteads and ranches. • Municipal w well o operato tors – The City of Porterville is an incorporated municipal well operator and exists within the Agency's boundaries. • Pu Public Water S er System ems - Public water system operators within the Agency not included in the municipal well operator category above include the California Water Services Company, Del Oro Water Company, Ducor Community Services District, Porter Vista Public Utility District, and Richgrove Community Services District. Terra Bella Irrigation District also provides drinking water to residents within its jurisdiction. • Local l land u use p planning a agencies - Local land use planning agencies include the County of Tulare and City of Porterville. • Enviro ronmen ental u users ers o of gro roundwater er - At this time, the Agency is not aware of any environmental users of groundwater within the Agency's boundaries. Nonetheless, environmental groups are encouraged to partake in the phases of GSP development and a member of the Sequoia Riverlands Trust serves on the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee. • Surf rface w e water u er users ers, i if t ther ere i e is a h hydro rologic c connection b bet etween een s surf rface a e and gro roundwater b er bodies - It is unknown at this time if such users exist in the Tule Subbasin. The Agency will consider and evaluate whether such users do exist. • Th The F e Fed edera eral G Govern ernmen ent, i including, b but n not limited to, t the m e military ry a and m managers ers o of f fed edera eral lands ds – Multiple member agencies of ETGSA hold federal water contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation through the Central Valley Project (“CVP”), largely supplied by the Friant- Kern Canal. These member agencies routinely interact with the Bureau of Reclamation and many ETGSA Board Members also sit on the Friant Water Authority Board of Directors. The operation of the Friant-Kern Canal is affected by unsustainable groundwater use. • Californ rnia N Native A e Ameri erican Tri Tribes es - The Agency has not identified at this time any Native American Tribes located within the boundaries of the Agency. However, the Tule Indian Tribe on the South Fork of the Tule River is located to the east of ETGSA’s boundaries. • Disadva vanta taged communiti ties, i including, b but n not l t limite ted to to, th those serve ved b by p priva vate te domes estic w wel ells o or r small community w water s er system ems -SDACs include the communities of Terra Bella, Ducor, Richgrove and East Porterville. City of Porterville is considered a DAC. 17

  80. Agenda Packet pg.86 • En Enti titi ties l liste ted i in W Wate ter Co Code s secti tion 10927 th that a t are monito toring a and r reporti ting g groundwate ter eleva vati tions i in a all o or p part o of th the gro roundwater b er basin m managed ed b by t the e gro roundwater er susta tainability ty a agency – Deer Creek & Tule River Authority (which includes Lower Tule River Irrigation District, Pixley Irrigation District, Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, and Terra Bella Irrigation District), Kern-Tulare Water District, and the Tule Basin Water Quality Coalition monitor and report on groundwater elevation within ETGSA’s boundaries as part of the CASGEM program. The Agency will continue to evaluate and consider any potential entities which might fall within Section 10927. ETGSA will continue to evaluate the above list of stakeholder groups and add new groups as they are identified. 2.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Other Entities Many entities that may represent and advocate for the interests of the above stakeholder groups have been identified by ETGSA (Table 3). ETGSA sees these entities as a critical part of ETGSA’s outreach plan and will attempt to engage with as many of these entities as possible. When possible and/or when requested by these entities, notices, resources, and other ETGSA materials will be provided to these entities at appropriate intervals and times in order to provide the entities’ members with helpful information and to invite them to participate in the GSP development process. ETGSA will seek to further engage with these entities and their members through: • Co-hosting workshops and events • Sitting in on roundtables • Making presentations • Participating in group or one-on-one discussions Should members of ETGSA’s Committees or the Board also be a member of any of these entities, then ETGSA will encourage those members to undertake additional SGMA outreach efforts through their participation in that entity’s regular events or meetings. The below list of agencies, organizations, and other entities is not exhaustive and will continue to grow throughout the process of plan development, adoption, and implementation. Table 3: Organizations and Stakeholder Groups within ETGSA Orga gani nization n Gr Group up N Name me/ / Sta Stakeh eholder er Conta tact I t Informa mati tion Type pe Enti tity ty Gr Group up Agricultural Almond Board of Agricultural 1150 Ninth Street, Suite 1500, Modesto, CA 95354 California users, domestic Telephone: (209) 549-8262 well owners Email: staff@almondboard.com Website: http://www.almonds.com California Agricultural 1221 H Street, Cattleman’s users, domestic Sacramento, CA 95814 Association well owners Telephone: (916) 444-0845 Email: n/a Website: www.cacattlemen.org California Citrus Agricultural 512 N. Kaweah Avenue, Exeter, CA 93221 Mutual users, domestic Telephone: (559) 592-3790 well owners 18

  81. Agenda Packet pg.87 Email: lauren@cacitrusmutual.com Website: https://www.cacitrusmutual.com/ Eastern Tule Agricultural 4550 California Ave, 2 nd Floor White Area users, domestic Bakersfield, CA 93309 Growers, Inc. users Telephone: (661) 401-7755 Email: jhughes@kleinlaw.com Website: n/a Milk Producers Agricultural 1407 Monsecco St. Council users, domestic Tulare, CA 93274 users Telephone: (909) 730-1240 Email: geoff@milkproducers.org Website: www.milkproducerscouncil.org Tulare County Agricultural 737 N. Ben Maddox Way Farm Bureau users, domestic Visalia, CA 93292 well owners Telephone: (559) 732-8301 Email: tcfb@tulcofb.org Website: www.tulcofb.org Tule Basin Water Agricultural 2904 W. Main Street Quality Coalition users, domestic Visalia, CA 93291 well owners, Telephone: (559) 733-2948 entitles Email: info@tbwqc.com responsible for Website: www.tbwqc.com monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations Disadvantaged Community Water DACs, domestic 900 W. Oak Avenue Center well owners Visalia, CA 93291 Communities Telephone: (559) 733-0219 Email: info@communitywatercenter.org Website: www.communitywatercenter.org Porterville Area DACs, domestic 368 East Date Coordinating well owners Porterville, CA 93257 Council Telephone: 559-793-0213 Email: pacc@ocsnet.net Website; www.pacc12.org 716 E. Success Dr. Porterville United DACs, domestic for Justice well owners Porterville, CA 93257 Telephone: (559) 310-8015 Email: n/a Website: n/a Self-Help DACs, domestic PO Box 6520 Enterprises well owners Visalia, CA 93290 Telephone: (559) 802-1676 Email: mariah@selfhelpenterprises.org Website: https://www.selfhelpenterprises.org Sí Se Puede en DACs, domestic PO Box 225 Ducor well owners Ducor, CA 93218 Telephone: (559) 310-6213 Email: n/a Website: n/a Environmental Sequoia Environment 427 S Garden Street Riverlands Trust Visalia, CA 93277 Telephone: (559) 738-0211 Email: soapy@sequoiariverlands.org Website: www.sequoiariverlands.org 19

  82. Agenda Packet pg.88 Irrigation Districts, California Water DACs, public 216 N. Valley Oaks Drive Services (Mullen water systems Visalia, CA 93292 Water Agencies, Service Area) Telephone: (855) 225-9283 CSDs, and other Email: infoVIS@calwater.com Water Providers Website: www.calwater.com Del Oro Water DACs, public Drawer 5172 Company (Tulare water systems Chico, CA 95927-5172 District) Telephone: (530) 717-2514 Email: n/a Website: www.delorowater.com Ducor Community DACs, domestic PO Box 187 Services District well owners, Ducor CA 93218 public water Telephone: (559) 534-2318 systems Email: n/a Website: n/a Deer Creek & Tule Entitles 357 E Olive Ave River Authority responsible for Tipton, CA 93272 monitoring and Telephone: (559) 752-5050 reporting Email: n/a groundwater Website: n/a elevations Kern-Tulare Agricultural 5001 California Ave, Ste. 102 Water District users, domestic Bakersfield, CA 93309 well owners, Telephone: (661) 327-2132 entities Email: sdalke@kern-tulare.com responsible for Website: n/a monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations Friant Water Agricultural 155 E. Shaw Ave, Ste 301 Authority users, federal Fresno, CA 93710 government Telephone: (559) 562-6305 Email: n/a Website: www.friantwater.org Pioneer Water Agricultural 357 E Olive Ave Company users, domestic Tipton, CA 93272 well owners Telephone: (559) 752-5050 Email: n/a Website: n/a Porter Vista DACs, public 1124 E Success Dr Public Utility water system Porterville, CA 93257 District Telephone: (559) 781-7555 Email: n/a Website: n/a Porterville Agricultural 22086 Ave 160 Irrigation District users, domestic Porterville, CA 93257 well owners, Telephone: (559) 784-0716 entities Email: sgeivet@ocsnet.net responsible for Website: n/a monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations Richgrove DACs, domestic 20986 Grove Dr Community well owners, Richgrove, CA 93261 Services District public water Telephone: (661) 725-5632 systems Email: ben@richgrovewater.com Website: n/a 20

  83. Agenda Packet pg.89 Saucelito Agricultural 20712 Ave 120 Irrigation District users, domestic Porterville, CA 93257 well owners, Telephone: (559) 784-1208 entities Email: sgeivet@ocsnet.net responsible for Website; n/a monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations Tea Pot Dome Agricultural 105 W Teapot Dome Ave Water District users, domestic Porterville, CA 93257 well owners Telephone: (559) 784-8641 Email: elimas@ltrid.org Website: n/a Terra Bella Agricultural 24790 Ave 95 Irrigation District users, domestic Terra Bella, CA 93270 well owners, Telephone: (559) 535-4414 entities Email: sgeivet@ocsnet.net responsible for Website: n/a monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations, public water systems Vandalia Water Agricultural 2032 S Hillcrest St District users, domestic Porterville, CA 93257 well owners Telephone: (559) 784-0121 Email: sdrumrightvid@yahoo.com Website: /n/a Municipalities, Ducor Agricultural n/a users, DACs, Counties & CDPs domestic well owners East Porterville DACs, domestic n/a well owners City of Porterville DACs, domestic 291 N. Main Street well owners, Porterville, CA 93257 public water Telephone: (559) 782-7499 systems, Email: mreed@ci.porterville.ca.us municipal well Website: www.ci.porterville.ca.us operator, local land use agencies County of Tulare – DACs, domestic 1115 Truxtun Avenue 5th Floor, Bakersfield, CA Board of well owners, 93301 Supervisors public water Telephone: (661) 868-3601 systems, local Email: board@kerncounty.com land use agencies Website: https://www.kerncounty.com/bos/ County of Tulare – Agricultural 5961 S. Mooney Blvd, Office of users, DACs, Visalia, CA 93277 Economic domestic well Telephone: (559) 624-7000 Development owners, public Email: economicdevelopment@co.tulare.us water systems Website: www.tularecountyeconomicdevelopment.org Richgrove Agricultural n/a users, DACs, domestic well owners 21

  84. Agenda Packet pg.90 Terra Bella Agricultural n/a users, DACs, domestic well owners Service Groups Rotary Club of Agricultural 831 W. Morton Ave Porterville users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93258 domestic well Telephone: (559) 793-6231 owners Email: sk143dwk@gmail.com Website: www.portervillerotary.org Kiwanis of Agricultural 450 N Newcomb St Porterville users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93257 domestic well Telephone: (559) 781-4291 Email: stjohn@ocsnet.net owners Website: https://www.facebook.com/kiwanisofporterville/ School Districts Alta Vista Agricultural 2293 E. Crabtree Ave Elementary users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93257 School District domestic well Telephone: (559) 782-5700 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: www.altavistaesd.org Burton Agricultural 264 N. Westwood St Elementary users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93257 School District domestic well Telephone: (559) 781-8020 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: www.burtonschools.org Ducor Union Agricultural 23761 Avenue 56 Elementary users, DACs, Ducor, CA 93218 School District domestic well Telephone: 559-534-2261 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: www.ducorschool.com Hope Elementary Agricultural 613 W. Teapot Dome Ave School District users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93257 domestic well Telephone: 559-784-1064 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: n/a Porterville Agricultural 600 W. Grand Ave Unified School users, DACs, Porterville, CA 93257 District domestic well Telephone: 559-793-2400 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: www.portervilleschools.org Richgrove School Agricultural 20908 Grove Dr, P.O. Box 540 District users, DACs, Richgrove, CA 93261 domestic well Telephone: 661-725-2427 owners, public Email: n/a water systems Website: www.richgrove.com Terra Bella Union Agricultural 9121 Road 240 Elementary users, DACs, Terra Bella, CA 93270 School District domestic well Telephone: (559) 535-4451 owners, public Email: n/a Website: www.tbuesd.org water systems 22

  85. Agenda Packet pg.91 2.3. Interested Parties List Per SGMA § 10723.4, ETGSA maintains and continually updates an Interested Parties list. Those individuals subscribed to this list receive regular notices regarding meeting announcements, meeting agendas, plan preparation, the availability of relevant resources, and invitations to events and workshops hosted by the Agency. Members of the public can subscribe to this list through a variety of portals on ETGSA’s website. ETGSA also distributes the Interested Parties sign-up link through the emails and newsletters of various community organizations. As of September 28, 2018, ETGSA had over 200 interested parties on this list. 23

  86. Agenda Packet pg.92 3. Stakeholder Survey and Overview Stakeholders will have ongoing opportunities to provide input and perspective throughout the GSP development process. ETGSA will collect stakeholder input through formal surveys, public comment periods at regular meetings, direct correspondence, open discussion at events, and other forms of both direct and indirect communication. Recognizing the broad and diverse area for which ETGSA is responsible, ETGSA will also use its relationships with entities named in Section 2 to inform stakeholders of input opportunities. This section provides a brief overview of the activities ETGSA has undertaken to date to survey stakeholders regarding the GSP development process. 3.1 Stakeholder Surveys Modelled after DWR’s Stakeholder Survey Template, ETGSA has created an initial Stakeholder Survey with the following questions: • Are you familiar with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Regulations? • Are you familiar with ETGSA? • Are you currently engaged in particular activities or discussions regarding groundwater management in this region? • If so, how would you describe your involvement? • Do you own or manage land in this region? • Where are you getting your water supply? • What are your primary concerns about surface water supply in this region? • What are your primary concerns about groundwater supply in this region? • What are your primary concerns about groundwater quality in this region? • SGMA defines 6 sustainability indicators that ETGSA must consider within our region and work to mitigate. Which of the below are concerning to you? (Check all that apply) • What are your primary concerns regarding the indicators that you checked above? • What are your primary concerns about SGMA and future groundwater management in this region? • Do you have recommendations about groundwater management in this region? If so, what are they? • What else should ETGSA consider as it develops its GSP? • What else would you like ETGSA to know? The Stakeholder Survey was made available online on ETGSA’s website in mid-August, 2018. It is being advertised at ETGSA’s regular meetings and has been included in the correspondence and regular newsletters of some of the entities identified in Section 2. The survey can be found at: https://goo.gl/forms/q4uXuK7fmxxzrdY62 The ETGSA has also made available a Policy Points survey that allows members of the public to provide their input with regards to ETGSA’s Policy Points currently under consideration. The survey can be found at: https://goo.gl/forms/BXWrzQf3l5bmS6Ct2 24

  87. Agenda Packet pg.93 Additional surveys will also be considered, developed, and distributed throughout the GSP development process. For example, ETGSA is currently working with 4-Creeks and Thomas Harder & Company to develop a survey that will allow stakeholders within ETGSA’s jurisdiction to submit information regarding their wells that might also be able to serve as monitoring wells. By screening for particular well characteristics that meet minimum criteria, ETGSA’s consultants will be able to identify additional wells for potential inclusion in the Tule Subbasin Monitoring Plan. ETGSA will distribute stakeholder surveys through a variety of media, including printed surveys at events or workshops and links to digital versions of the survey via email blasts. 3.2 Regular Meetings and Lay of the Land Overview ETGSA is composed of a Board of Directors, an Executive Committee, and a Stakeholder Committee. Members of each of these entities are stakeholders in the broader GSP Development process and represent groups such as landowners, municipal purveyors, public water systems, environmental interests, surface water users, disadvantaged communities, small farmers, corporate farmers, property owners. All meetings of these entities, per the requirements of the Brown Act, are open to the public and open to public comment. Furthermore, the Executive Committee and Stakeholder Committee Meetings are carried out in a fashion that facilitates both public comment and public discussion related to the issues on the agenda. Regular meetings have been a key venue for documenting and discussing stakeholder-relevant issues. Additionally, meetings with individual stakeholder groups and stakeholders have provided staff with additional insights related to key issues. To date, the discussions had at these meetings provide ETGSA with an initial “Lay of the Land” that will be described below. 3.2.1 “ “Lay o of t the L e Land” O Overv erview ew A “Lay of the Land” overview is intended to identify: • Types of Stakeholders • Stakeholder key interests related to groundwater • Key documented issues Types of Stakeholders Stakeholders with the greatest interest in ETGSA’s GSP development process include agricultural users, disadvantaged communities, domestic well owners, municipal water purveyors, public water systems, local land use planning agencies, federal government, state government, and entities monitoring and reporting on groundwater elevations. Stakeholders from these groups actively participate in ETGSA’s regular meetings, schedule one-on-one and group conversations, participate in outreach efforts, provide verbal and written input to ETGSA, and seek further collaboration with ETGSA. ETGSA actively engages these groups to expand its outreach efforts. Stakeholder Key Interests Related to Groundwater Stakeholders have identified the following key interests related to groundwater within ETGSA: • Access to groundwater • Economic effects of transition into sustainability 25

  88. Agenda Packet pg.94 • Groundwater quality, domestic and agricultural • Groundwater supply, domestic and agricultural • Lack of access to supplemental surface water • Land subsidence • Land values Key Documented Issues While not exhaustive, ETGSA has documented four key issues that have, are currently, or may in the future affect the key interests of stakeholders within its boundaries. Additional issues will be documented and added to this list as they arise through continued public engagement. • Acce ccess t to Re Reliable, A Affor ffordable, and H d High gh Q Quality Groundwate ter f for D Disadva vanta taged Communit itie ies: Disadvantaged communities within ETGSA struggled with adequate water supply during the most recent drought and, in some cases, faced significant well failures. East Porterville experienced domestic well failures that left 330 properties without running water at the height of the drought. While the City of Porterville, with assistance from DWR, has now extended sits service area into East Porterville, stakeholders from disadvantaged communities note that financing similar projects for other disadvantaged communities within ETGSA may face significant hurdles due to lack of funding and the cost it might incur on residents. Additionally, groundwater quality is of particular importance since the primary use of groundwater in these communities is for domestic and drinking water purposes. In many areas, disadvantaged community residents have limited treatment options due to lack of existing treatment infrastructure, the possibility of un- affordable water rates/costs should new infrastructure be installed, and/or their sole reliance on a domestic well with minimal treatment capabilities. • Well F Failure as a a Re Result o t of U Unsta table and De Declining Gro roundwater L er Lev evels: The Tule Subbasin experienced precipitous drops in depth-to-groundwater during the most recent drought. As a result of this, many wells failed; over 1700 well failures were reported across Tulare County during the course of the drought. As a Subbasin in critical overdraft, it is also recognized that groundwater levels will likely continue to drop (on average) until it is sustainably managed. Stakeholders recognize that there is a significant cost that will be incurred by private well owners should levels continue to drop. • Loss of Pro roductive A e Agri ricultura ral L Land: The preliminary Water Budget for the Tule Subbasin 1 indicates that beneficial users of groundwater within ETGSA will likely need to reduce groundwater extraction by up to 50-70% in order to pump within the threshold of the sustainable yield. Without additional surface water supplies, it is likely that the total number of farmed acres within ETGSA will need to be reduced in order to achieve SGMA’s goal of sustainable groundwater management. Agricultural groups, landowners, and those governments and business that rely on agricultural for their income worry about the future economic effects of this possibility. • Land Subsiden ence n e nea ear C r Cri ritical In Infra rastru ructure: re: The Friant-Kern Canal is a critical piece of infrastructure that supplies service water to Central Valley Project Contractors on the eastern side of the South San Joaquin Valley. Its ability to supply contract water alleviates 1 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin, Thomas Harder & Co. (2017). http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/PublicWorks/documents/Tule_MOU_Report_Final_170801_Vol1.pdf 26

  89. Agenda Packet pg.95 the need, in many areas, to pump groundwater to supply agricultural and municipal water needs. Land subsidence, which accelerated during the drought as a result of groundwater pumping, has reduced the Canal’s capacity by 60% in its southernmost stretch. It is estimated that a fix to the Canal would cost at least $500 million. 27

  90. Agenda Packet pg.96 4. Messages and Talking Points ETGSA understands that clear and consistent messaging is critical during the various phases of GSP development and implementation. The Agency has developed a series of key messages and talking points that will allow the Agency to effectively communicate with various stakeholder groups and will allow the Agency to clearly convey the major themes of SGMA and ETGSA’s GSP development process to all those involved. It should be understood that these key messages and talking points are subject to change and further development as ETGSA progresses through GSP development. This section will describe the key messages, talking points, and answers to likely questions that members of the ETGSA Board, Committees, and staff might encounter. Additionally, ETGSA will develop supplemental materials and events throughout GSP development that will help to address these communication points. 4.1. Key Messages and Talking Points Key messages and talking points will vary from phase to phase. Some of these will be developed and further enhanced at a later date when ETGSA approaches that phase. 4.1.1. O Overa erarc rching K Key ey M Messages es Overarching key messages and their related talking points are those that will remain a consistent focus throughout the GSP development process. They include: • What is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act • What is the role of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency • What is sustainable groundwater management and why is it important • How can stakeholders get involved • Who is Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency • ETGSA Goal: “ ETGSA aims to develop and carry out a program of sustainable management that ensures groundwater resources within its boundaries are stewarded in a manner that minimizes the economic effects of transition and, though innovative projects and management actions, allows for the preservation of productive agricultural operations within the region while also maintaining sufficient, high quality supply for domestic and environmental uses for current and future generations.” 4.1.2. P Phase 1 1 ( (GSA F Formatio ion a and C Coordin inatio ion) Ke Key M Messages Phase 1 is complete. Key messages and talking points during this phase focused on: • What is SGMA • What is a GSA and how are they formed • How will the interests of beneficial users and uses of groundwater be considered in the formation and structuring of ETGSA 4.1.3. P Phase e 2 ( (GSP Prep P Prepara ration a and S Submission) K Key M Messages es Phase 2 is currently ongoing. Key messages and talking points during this phase include: 28

  91. Agenda Packet pg.97 • What is the timeline for GSP development • What are the components of a GSP • How can interested parties and stakeholders be involved • What educational resources, events, and materials will be made available to the public • What are Sustainable Management Criteria and how will ETGSA develop them • What Projects and Management Actions are being considered • What is a Coordination Agreement and implications does it have on groundwater users within ETGSA • What will occur if ETGSA is unable to adopt a GSP, or if DWR does not approve the GSP 4.1.4. P Phase 3 ( (GSP Re Revi view a and Ev Evaluati tion) K Key M Messages Phase 3 will likely begin in mid-2019, following the completion of ETGSA’s draft GSP. Key messages and talking points during this phase will include: • What are the main points and proposals of the draft GSP • How do the Tule Subbasin GSAs intend to coordinate their GSPs • What Projects and Management Actions does ETGSA intend to adopt • What is the timeline for GSP review and submission • How can interested parties and stakeholders be involved 4.1.5. P Phase 4 4 ( (GSP I Implementa tati tion a and Re Reporti ting) Phase 4 will begin following submission of the adopted GSP to DWR, which is expected to occur between mid-2019 and January 31, 2020. Messages and talking points during this phase will focus on the implementation timeline, new policies and their effect on stakeholder groups, and future projects and developments within ETGSA’s jurisdiction. 4.2 Common Questions and Answers Questions that ETGSA expects to encounter, and ETGSA’s response(s) to those questions, have been listed in the table below (Ta Table e 4). The list is subject to further update as ETGSA progresses through the process of GSP development. Table 4: Common Questions and Responses Questi tion Resp espon onse se What is SGMA? SGMA is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. It was passed in 2014 and is composed of three bills: SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739. The Act provides a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater through the creation of new local agencies and implementation of local plans. Who is ETGSA? ETGSA is Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency, one of many agencies formed as a result of SGMA.ETGSA is one of seven GSAs operating in the Tule Subbasin, which is the hydrologic groundwater basin that largerly encompasses the southern half of Tulare County. ETGSA is formed as a Joint Powers Authority with 8 member agencies: County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Kern-Tulare Water District, Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Terra Bella 29

  92. Agenda Packet pg.98 Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District. What does sustainable According to SGMA, sustainable groundwater management is groundwater management the management of groundwater in a manner that can be mean? maintained over the course of a GSA’s planning and implementation horizon without causing six significant and unreasonable undesirable results: 1) Chronic lower of groundwater levels, 2) reduction in groundwater storage, 3) degraded water quality, 4) seawater intrusion, 5) land subsidence, 6) impacts to interconnected surface waters. How is ETGSA working with As the Tule Subbasin is a basin with multiple agencies and other GSAs in the Tule multiple plans, the GSAs within the basin must coordinate their Subbasin? efforts through a Coordination Agreement. The GSAs generally meet monthly to discuss developments to this agreement and to coordinate the development of their plans. How can I stay informed? All regular meetings of ETGSA, as required by the Brown Act, are open to the public and you are invited to attend to stay informed and to provide your input regarding the GSP development process. You can also add your contact information to the Interested Parties list (found on our website) to receive regular updates and notices. ETGSA will also host a number of events and public meetings intended to provide additional education around the GSP development process and to solicit further public input. How is ETGSA involving The County of Tulare is the member agency responsible for all “White Areas” in the GSP ETGSA lands not currently within th jurisdiction of ETGSA’s development process? other 7 member agencies (“White Area”). This White Area encompasses more than half of ETGSA’s jurisdiction. ETGSA is working with the County, White Area landowners, and other community groups to ensure stakeholders in this area are informed regarding ETGSA’s ongoing GSP development. All members of the public are invited to attend our regular meetings and reach out to the Agency with their input. Will ETGSA meter my well? That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. How is ETGSA going to track That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are my groundwater usage? encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. How much groundwater can I That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are pump encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. What if I have a domestic Domestic well owners are considered beneficial users of well? groundwater and ETGSA understands the need for reliable and quality groundwater supplies for domestic users. ETGSA’s GSP 30

  93. Agenda Packet pg.99 will address the needs of domestic well owners in a manner that complies with SGMA. You are encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. What types of projects and ETGSA has not adopted any projects or management actions. management actions is You are encouraged to attend our regular meetings where ETGSA considering? points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. How deep do I need to drill my Minimum thresholds for groundwater elevation have yet to be well to keep having access to determined and many variables related to future expected groundwater? groundwater levels will be discussed at the Subbasin level. Depending on the projects and management actions taken, the subbasin GSAs will likely be able to provide rough estimate of future groundwater conditions, but these estimates should not be construed as a promise of future realty. What is a sharing system and The sharing system is a market-facilitating system of is ETGSA considering it? groundwater management that shares access to the available sustainable yield of groundwater within an aquifer through the use of shares, volumetric allocations of groundwater, and conditions around use, transfer, and banking. Will I be issued a groundwater That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are allocation? encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. Will I be able to trade my That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are groundwater allocation? encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. Will I be able to save my That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are groundwater allocation? encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. Will I receive credit for water That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are that I overapplied on my encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like crops, or that I intentionally this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP recharged? development. Will there be fees related to That is a policy point that has not been determined yet. You are be groundwater use? encouraged to attend our regular meetings where points like this will be discussed as a part of our ongoing GSP development. How long will the transition That is a discussion that will be had at the subbasin level and period be? coordinated by the GSAs within the Tule Subbasin. How are the Tule Subbasin That is a discussion that will be had at the subbasin level and GSAs going to address coordinated by the GSAs within the Tule Subbasin. subsidence? How is ETGSA going to ETGSA actively engages and seeks to engage members, address the needs of DACs? representatives, and organizations of the DAC community. ETGSA does or intends to do this through open meetings, one- 31

  94. Agenda Packet pg.100 on-one conversations, co-hosting events, and engaging with community leaders and members. 32

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

LAKE MANAGEMENT MEETING January 22, 2018 FAIRFAX COUNTY PARK AUTHORITY INTRODUCTIONS

LAKE MANAGEMENT MEETING January 22, 2018 FAIRFAX COUNTY PARK AUTHORITY INTRODUCTIONS

LAKE MANAGEMENT MEETING January 22, 2018 FAIRFAX COUNTY PARK AUTHORITY INTRODUCTIONS PROJECT STATUS UPDATE INFORMATION STATIONS FAIRFAX COUNTY PARK AUTHORITY LAKE ACCOTINK MASTER PLAN TEAM PARK AUTHORITY STAFF ED RICHARDSON

663 views • 32 slides
Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $903,648 966,391 $52,958 Projected June 904,935

Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $903,648 966,391 $52,958 Projected June 904,935

Georgia World Congress Center Authority July 30, 2013 Authority Meeting Finance Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $903,648 966,391 $52,958 Projected June 904,935 3,686,161 233,709 Actual June 1,850,831 15,996,615 30,284

1.05k views • 76 slides
Finance Sales Legislative Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $488,808 $3,771,656

Finance Sales Legislative Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $488,808 $3,771,656

Georgia World Congress Center Authority February 25, 2014 Authority Meeting Finance Sales Legislative Authority Financial Snapshot Profit/Loss $488,808 $3,771,656 $70,272 Projected 175,477 5,721,677 45,784 Actual 782,875 22,608,730

424 views • 27 slides
Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot September 2015

Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot September 2015

Georgia World Congress Center Authority Board of Governors Meeting October 27, 2015 Finance Campus Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot September 2015 Profit/Loss $612,567 $2,540,015 $13,382 Budgeted

572 views • 31 slides
Sacramento Groundwater Authority Fiscal Year 21 Budget SGA Board Meeting April 9, 2020

Sacramento Groundwater Authority Fiscal Year 21 Budget SGA Board Meeting April 9, 2020

Sacramento Groundwater Authority Fiscal Year 21 Budget SGA Board Meeting April 9, 2020 SACRAMENTO GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY Overview Proposed Fees for FY21 Budget policies CalPERS Unfunded Pension Liability Sustainable

412 views • 13 slides
Well Permitting & Approvals Thomas Donohue, PG Authority? Authority? Most of our authority

Well Permitting & Approvals Thomas Donohue, PG Authority? Authority? Most of our authority

Well Permitting & Approvals Thomas Donohue, PG Authority? Authority? Most of our authority comes from: Act 223 Pennsylvanias Oil and Gas Act Act 214 Coal and Gas Resource Coordination Act Act 359 Oil and Gas Conservation Law

764 views • 30 slides
Community Noise Forum Meeting January 9, 2020 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139 In-Brief

Community Noise Forum Meeting January 9, 2020 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139 In-Brief

Community Noise Forum Meeting January 9, 2020 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139 In-Brief / July 15, 2019 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Safety Restrooms : Outside the door you entered on the left. Emergency Exit :

339 views • 19 slides
North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting June 4, 2015 North Carolina

North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting June 4, 2015 North Carolina

North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting June 4, 2015 North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting June 4, 2015 Presentation Agenda 3 rd Quarter Operations Update: Andy Lelewski, P.E. & David Roy

857 views • 38 slides
Georgia World Congress Center Authority BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING August 29, 2017 Financial

Georgia World Congress Center Authority BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING August 29, 2017 Financial

Georgia World Congress Center Authority BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING August 29, 2017 Financial Authority Financial Snapshot July 2017 Actual $462K Profit / Loss Budget $458K > 0.95% H/M Tax FY16 $436K > 5.98% Actual

726 views • 29 slides
Finance Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot March 2015

Finance Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot March 2015

Georgia World Congress Center Authority Board of Governors Meeting April 28, 2015 Finance Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot March 2015 Profit/Loss $1,436,231 $3,396,466 $31,682 Budgeted 1,275,056

733 views • 48 slides
Our Spiritual Authority Part 4: Preparation for Exercising Our Authority Our Spiritual Authority

Our Spiritual Authority Part 4: Preparation for Exercising Our Authority Our Spiritual Authority

Our Spiritual Authority Part 4: Preparation for Exercising Our Authority Our Spiritual Authority Preparation for Exercising Our Authority Seven key areas: 1, Being Strong In Intimacy And Identity 2, Obedience To God 3, The Armor Of God 4,

468 views • 10 slides
Community Noise Forum Meeting September 12, 2019 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139

Community Noise Forum Meeting September 12, 2019 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139

Community Noise Forum Meeting September 12, 2019 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority 139 In-Brief / July 15, 2019 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Safety Restrooms : Outside the door you entered on the left. Emergency

687 views • 19 slides
Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Lesson No. 3 ENV H 471

Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Lesson No. 3 ENV H 471

Lesson 3. Sources of Legal Authority January 14, 2003 Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Sources of Authority Lesson No. 3 ENV H 471 Environmental Health Regulation January 13 & 15, 2004 Case Case Case Groups

228 views • 7 slides
Georgia World Congress Center A h Authority i July 2010 y Authority Meeting Georgia World

Georgia World Congress Center A h Authority i July 2010 y Authority Meeting Georgia World

Georgia World Congress Center A h Authority i July 2010 y Authority Meeting Georgia World Congress Center A h Authority i Sales & Marketing Report Sales & Marketing Update June 2010 GWCCA GWCCA Georgia World Congress

884 views • 52 slides
Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot October 2015 Profit/Loss

Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot October 2015 Profit/Loss

Georgia World Congress Center Authority Board of Governors Meeting December 1, 2015 Finance ACVB Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Financial Snapshot October 2015 Profit/Loss $1,606,131 $3,119,497 $218,701 Budgeted

753 views • 47 slides
North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting March 5, 2015 North Carolina

North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting March 5, 2015 North Carolina

North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting March 5, 2015 North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Meeting March 5, 2015 Presentation Agenda 2014 4 th Quarter Operations Update Andy Lelewski, P.E. 2014

710 views • 26 slides
Here & Where Are We Headed? Daniel J. Zedan Natures Finest Foods 1505 Paramount Parkway

Here & Where Are We Headed? Daniel J. Zedan Natures Finest Foods 1505 Paramount Parkway

The Pecan Market: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Headed? Daniel J. Zedan Natures Finest Foods 1505 Paramount Parkway Batavia, IL 60510 Ph: 630-879-5200 Fax: 630-879-5204 Email: dzedan@nffonline.com website: www.nffonline.com

398 views • 39 slides
Plastics for Infra-structure and Environment protection ( Theme: Plastics never become waste) IPI

Plastics for Infra-structure and Environment protection ( Theme: Plastics never become waste) IPI

Plastics for Infra-structure and Environment protection ( Theme: Plastics never become waste) IPI Seminar Chennai 27/04/2018 A.Thayumanavan, General Manager, RIL- Chennai 1 Indian plastics industry: Indian plastics industry made a

529 views • 40 slides
May 2019 DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS This presentation relates to an entity that is directly involved

May 2019 DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS This presentation relates to an entity that is directly involved

May 2019 DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS This presentation relates to an entity that is directly involved in the United States cannabis industry insofar as its business activities include the cultivation, production, manufacturing and distribution of

605 views • 31 slides
Martin Braquet Supervisors: D. Bol and R. Sadre Master in Electromechanical Engineering 25 June

Martin Braquet Supervisors: D. Bol and R. Sadre Master in Electromechanical Engineering 25 June

Master thesis defense Martin Braquet Supervisors: D. Bol and R. Sadre Master in Electromechanical Engineering 25 June 2020 Internet of Things (IoT): billions of connected smart sensors Currently not environmentally sustainable

631 views • 38 slides
E L N 69 H O W D AR E T E RD 7 A N D E D MANDA CARLSON RD R LA LA W

E L N 69 H O W D AR E T E RD 7 A N D E D MANDA CARLSON RD R LA LA W

FOR LEASE S NEW M AYS ST N VALLEY D F M R F A K RD D 79 1 FM 3349 R RED BUD L C D M E E R L R I A HY C M C CR 405 N L S T ER L 30 7 D P P A E N A R

218 views • 8 slides
Electronic Services on the Internet (PESO) Work Group Presented by: Erin Lawler, J.D.,

Electronic Services on the Internet (PESO) Work Group Presented by: Erin Lawler, J.D.,

Policy Recommendations and Filed Legislation: Issues Relevant to the Public Electronic Services on the Internet (PESO) Work Group Presented by: Erin Lawler, J.D., Accessibility and Disability Rights Coordinator, Governors Committee on

537 views • 39 slides
THE MAYNARD FOOD COOPERATIVE Help make the vision a reality WELCOME What is a Co-op?

THE MAYNARD FOOD COOPERATIVE Help make the vision a reality WELCOME What is a Co-op?

THE MAYNARD FOOD COOPERATIVE Help make the vision a reality WELCOME What is a Co-op? Why in Maynard? How does it work? How can you help? What is a Co-op? A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united

755 views • 33 slides
RETHINKING SHANGRI-LA Revival of the sustainable courtyard dwellings Kathmandu, Nepal Pooja

RETHINKING SHANGRI-LA Revival of the sustainable courtyard dwellings Kathmandu, Nepal Pooja

RETHINKING SHANGRI-LA Revival of the sustainable courtyard dwellings Kathmandu, Nepal Pooja Vaidya Advisor: Prof. David Crutchfield Secondary Advisor: Dr. Doug Schulz Everywhere throughout the world, one finds the same bad movie, the same

579 views • 42 slides

More recommend