WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:03.030 Suzanne Schwartz: Why don't we plan to get started then. 00:03.300 --> 00:05.759 Temple McKinnon: Okay, let me get this up and going. 00:07.350 --> 00:16.590 Suzanne Schwartz: And then maybe what we should do is I can, once we once we get passed the public comment we'll 00:18.060 --> 00:29.430 Suzanne Schwartz: Rather than, you know, go over the agenda right now. Let's just go into public comments so that if anyone if there's anyone there. Who wants to 00:30.450 --> 00:45.300 Suzanne Schwartz: It. Great. So if anyone is is on the in meeting either who'd like to make a comment please either raise your hand on the screen or press star nine if you're on the telephone. 00:56.400 --> 00:58.230 Suzanne Schwartz: Vicki. Are you seeing anybody? 00:59.220 --> 00:59.940 Vicki Read: Nope, and everybody 01:00.960 --> 01:04.680 Vicki Read: Is unmuted so they can talk if they want 01:04.980 --> 01:08.730 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. Anyone, anyone wanting to make public comment? 01:10.620 --> 01:14.910 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay well without that. Then we'll go ahead and get back to the meeting itself. 01:16.170 --> 01:24.900 Suzanne Schwartz: Let's see, Temple, do you want to go ahead and note, who is here, which are the members are here? 01:30.960 --> 01:33.540 Temple McKinnon: Yes, I need to unmute myself and 01:33.660 --> 01:34.890 Suzanne Schwartz: I need to start my video. 01:36.420 --> 01:37.620 Temple McKinnon: And we started the recording. 01:39.930 --> 01:40.650 Vicki Read: We are recording 01:41.610 --> 01:48.660 Temple McKinnon: Okay, great. Alright, I see Steve Walthour, Region A. Kevin Ward, Region C. 01:50.100 --> 01:51.660 Temple McKinnon: Jim Thompson, Region D. 01:56.250 --> 02:08.520 Temple McKinnon: Allison Strube, Strube Region F. Gail Peek Region G. Mark Evans Region H. Kelley Holcomb Region I. Ray Buck Region, J. David Wheelock Region K. 02:13.230 --> 02:16.770 Temple McKinnon: And Melanie Barnes Region O. 02:20.160 --> 02:22.890 Temple McKinnon: And that's who I'm seeing. Did I miss any council member? 02:26.850 --> 02:30.720 Temple McKinnon: I'm seeing some participants in the panel that aren't council members, though, Vicki. 02:32.010 --> 02:32.760 Vicki Read: I'm working on it. 02:32.970 --> 02:35.700 Temple McKinnon: Okay, got it. Okay, so quorum established 02:42.240 --> 02:43.920 Temple McKinnon: And I will go back to sharing my 02:44.910 --> 02:49.500 Suzanne Schwartz: Great. And are there any council members on the call, who have not 02:51.270 --> 02:52.830 Suzanne Schwartz: Who we didn't recognize 02:55.350 --> 03:09.750 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, we will catch you, then, okay, if anyone. I think we're missing possibly just a few. And if they could come online will acknowledge that when they get here. So thank you all very much everyone for being here and 03:11.130 --> 03:16.080 Suzanne Schwartz: For again greeting us via Zoom today. So I wanted to 03:17.100 --> 03:32.400 Suzanne Schwartz: To go over just a little bit again. Y'all are all doing it but reminder to mute if you're not talking. It just allows the recording to be a lot cleaner when we have to make a transcript for the for the meeting. 03:33.960 --> 03:44.130 Suzanne Schwartz: The, just a quick review of the agenda. It's up on the screen that Temple has shared with you. I won't go into it in detail. 03:45.150 --> 03:46.950 Suzanne Schwartz: But generally it's going through 03:48.300 --> 03:55.680 Suzanne Schwartz: Background on interregional conflict and and also actually I think they're going to do planning water resources for the state as a whole. 03:56.250 --> 04:07.350 Suzanne Schwartz: And then also get into the actual discussion on two of your topics planning water resources for the state as a whole and ways to enhance interregional cooperation. 04:08.190 --> 04:19.500 Suzanne Schwartz: And wanted to, to confirm to each to you all that we have meetings scheduled through June, there'll be two more after today's meeting if you all desire to hold them. 04:21.090 --> 04:38.490 Suzanne Schwartz: We are expecting that you will be working together past June. You had talked in the last meeting about having some sort of an October deadline for an initial report so that any items that needed legislative consideration could be handled and then 04:40.020 --> 04:49.380 Suzanne Schwartz: The open to the possibility of continuing to do your work through the adoption of the next state water plan, which would be through the spring. 04:50.220 --> 05:01.530 Suzanne Schwartz: And so we'll continue to talk about how that works. What we've done to memorialize the work you did, obviously we have meeting minutes but we've also created what we're calling a 05:02.580 --> 05:13.830 Suzanne Schwartz: A working solutions framework that is laying out each of the four major topical areas that you're working within and we're populating that from 05:14.280 --> 05:34.500 Suzanne Schwartz: Materials that we have discussed at the prior meetings you you've all got that, if you haven't looked at it, it's probably it's possibly helpful for you to have that while you're in this meeting and it is under the on the IPC web page under the agenda item under today's agenda. 05:35.520 --> 05:53.610 Suzanne Schwartz: So that document is something will continue to populate and we hope will guide you past the June meetings to actually put a lot of meat on the bones on your discussions about the different topics and how you might solve solve the solve the different problems that we are able to articulate 05:55.260 --> 05:57.480 Suzanne Schwartz: With that, any questions about the agenda? 05:57.480 --> 05:59.100 Mark Evans: Suzanne, can you hear me at all? 05:59.520 --> 06:00.030 Suzanne Schwartz: Yes. 06:02.160 --> 06:04.740 Mark Evans: I do not have any sound on this end for some reason. 06:04.860 --> 06:05.190 Suzanne Schwartz: Oh. Can you not hear us? 06:06.960 --> 06:07.920 Mark Evans: I don't know what 06:09.870 --> 06:16.800 Suzanne Schwartz: Um, I don't know, Vicki, can you be of any help? I don't know what that means. So you haven't heard us? 06:19.200 --> 06:23.130 Vicki Read: Sounds like it's something on his computer. But since we can hear him. 06:23.550 --> 06:24.180 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 06:24.450 --> 06:26.100 Mark Evans: But you can hear me fine? 06:27.660 --> 06:27.840 Temple McKinnon: Yes. 06:30.690 --> 06:32.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Would you Mark, would you 06:34.560 --> 06:41.010 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, I'm trying to think of a way to communicate with you. Vicki maybe, Mark, would you like 06:41.730 --> 06:44.010 Mark Evans: Well, I will exit and call in. 06:44.310 --> 06:44.760 Suzanne Schwartz: OK. 06:50.130 --> 06:59.310 Suzanne Schwartz: OK, we will go on then. If, does anybody have any questions about the agenda about the, the meeting today? 07:02.730 --> 07:17.940 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, well, we'll go on then. I guess the next item, the first main item is consider the minutes. We got several comments that and edit edits that we incorporated on the document that you have posted and were able to see on your web page. 07:19.170 --> 07:39.660 Suzanne Schwartz: In addition, after we had that posted, we got a, Kelley Holcomb suggested some editing on page five under item six to provide some clarification. I've put the language up on the web page. Temple has the language up on the shared screen for you to take a look at and 07:42.300 --> 07:57.840 Suzanne Schwartz: If y'all have, if someone is if. Does anyone else have any changes, you'd like to make to the Minutes and I'd like you to consider the minutes with this change that Kelley has proposed, and then we can see if we have a motion for approval. 08:04.470 --> 08:05.490 Kevin Ward: Looks good to me. 08:07.050 --> 08:08.790 Kevin Ward: I make a motion for approval minutes. 08:09.090 --> 08:11.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, Kevin's made a motion, any one second? 08:12.240 --> 08:13.260 Steve Walthour: I'll second it. 08:13.470 --> 08:14.310 Suzanne Schwartz: Great with 08:15.060 --> 08:15.330 Kelley Holcomb: ... 08:15.660 --> 08:17.280 Suzanne Schwartz: Great, thank you, Steve. Okay, and 08:18.300 --> 08:20.160 Suzanne Schwartz: Just a show of hands, or it 08:21.240 --> 08:24.000 Suzanne Schwartz: Does anyone not wish 08:24.000 --> 08:32.040 Suzanne Schwartz: to approve the minutes? How about that? That's for me. That's the only way I can really reliably 08:33.060 --> 08:41.490 Suzanne Schwartz: See if there's anyone who's, who's not in agreement. Does anyone not want to approve the motion for to approve the minutes? 08:42.270 --> 08:44.790 Ray Buck: Suzanne, I'd like to abstain since so I didn't make that meeting. 08:45.210 --> 08:46.080 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. Who was that 08:46.320 --> 08:46.950 Ray Buck: Ray Buck. 08:47.310 --> 08:49.830 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, great Ray. thank you, we'll note that. 08:51.450 --> 08:59.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, I'm not hearing, anyone who disagrees with motion. So we'll call that unanimously approved with Ray abstaining. 09:04.320 --> 09:13.800 Suzanne Schwartz: Ok. The next item is for some, to get some background information. And that's going to be from the Water Development Board. Matt and Temple. 09:14.640 --> 09:18.870 Temple McKinnon: Good morning, afternoon, everybody. I'm going to start off 09:20.040 --> 09:27.540 Temple McKinnon: With the background on interregional conflict. So we sent council members an email on May 29 and we differentiated between 09:28.260 --> 09:37.500 Temple McKinnon: interregional coordination, interregional conflict in our planning process and we pointed you to the already existing requirements and our administrative rules for planning groups. 09:37.980 --> 09:39.960 Temple McKinnon: To coordinate during their plan development. 09:40.620 --> 09:47.970 Temple McKinnon: And then through those coordination efforts planning groups are encouraged to work cooperatively to avoid potential interregional conflicts during each planning cycle. 09:48.840 --> 09:55.470 Temple McKinnon: An interregional conflict only occurs once the draft plans are completed, and it is determined that either a sources over allocated. 09:55.890 --> 10:05.700 Temple McKinnon: Or that there is the potential for adverse impacts to occur resulting from a project. Situation of an interregional conflict from adverse impacts was added to our rules. 10:06.270 --> 10:10.860 Temple McKinnon: Following the resolution of the conflict between the 2011 Region C in Region D plans. 10:11.340 --> 10:17.040 Temple McKinnon: The process to resolve an interregional conflict requires the involved regions to coordinate and produce a solution. 10:17.430 --> 10:25.620 Temple McKinnon: And if a resolution of the conflict does not occur by the region's coordination, then the Board's executive administrator and the Board will resolve the conflict. 10:26.520 --> 10:36.720 Temple McKinnon: We made an informational sheet on this conflict process last fall and it covers what an interregional conflict is, what coordination should be undertaken prior to identifying a conflict, 10:37.170 --> 10:42.060 Temple McKinnon: how planning groups identify potential conflicts and the process to resolving the conflict. 10:42.630 --> 10:56.340 Temple McKinnon: And I'm recommending that you will read that distillation of information on the subject. We've provided a link to that informational sheet under your resource information or materials on your webpage and I'm happy to answer any questions y'all have about that. 10:57.030 --> 10:57.300 Temple McKinnin: But we 10:58.740 --> 11:09.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Can I break in? I should have set the stage better. We're providing this information today, in part because to be able to kind of give you a set the stage is Temple set to distinguish between 11:10.020 --> 11:18.090 Suzanne Schwartz: interregional coordination and interregional conflict. Our discussion today will, we hope, to keep our discussion today on the coordination. 11:18.360 --> 11:28.710 Suzanne Schwartz: We also wanted to give you background information. So you could review it before the next meeting. So I just, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make sure to set that stage. 11:28.770 --> 11:30.360 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. Good point. I should have done that myself. 11:33.000 --> 11:40.440 Temple McKinnon: We received a request from one the council members to also provide you all with a summary of the conflicts that have been identified during the regional water planning process. 11:40.980 --> 11:43.770 Temple McKinnon: And why they occurred and what was done to resolve them. 11:44.310 --> 11:54.360 Temple McKinnon: So the first conflict was between the 2011 Regions C and D regional water plans. Region C's plan recommended the Marvin Nichols reservoir and Region D's plan stated that 11:54.780 --> 11:57.660 Temple McKinnon: Recommending Marvin Nichols constituted an interregional conflict. 11:58.500 --> 12:06.960 Temple McKinnon: Following Board approval of those plans, a lawsuit was filed and the district court determined that there was a conflict and that TWDB needed to resolve it. 12:07.410 --> 12:18.990 Temple McKinnon: And that opinion was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Board initiated the conflict resolution process, part of which involved Region C submitting quantitative impacts information on agricultural on natural resources. 12:19.620 --> 12:27.720 Temple McKinnon: And then the Board's interregional conflict rules were amended following that process. And that's what's outlined in that informational sheet I just spoke about previously. 12:28.740 --> 12:32.940 Temple McKinnon: The second conflict was between the 2016 Region C and D regional plans. 12:33.360 --> 12:42.000 Temple McKinnon: So following the process that ended up in our rules, the executive administrator had requested the planning groups inform him of any potential interregional conflicts in their draft plans. 12:42.600 --> 12:52.470 Temple McKinnon: Region D submitted that the Marvin Nichols reservoir recommended in the 2016 Region C draft plan posed a conflict due to impact to agricultural and natural resources. 12:53.010 --> 12:58.080 Temple McKinnon: The Board found that an interregional conflict existed in that Regions C and D should engage in mediation. 12:58.650 --> 13:06.930 Temple McKinnon: That conflict was resolved when a mediated agreement was reached and approved by each planning group prior to the adoption of their final regional water plans. 13:07.650 --> 13:23.580 Temple McKinnon: And links to both of the web pages with more detailed information on each of these conflict resolution processes is now on your interregional conflict resources page so that there's previously existing web pages. And we just linked you to them under your resources. 13:24.690 --> 13:29.460 Temple McKinnon: Is there any questions you have for me before I move it over to Matt and his background on 13:31.050 --> 13:33.120 Temple McKinnon: Water Supplies planning water supplies for the state. 13:34.200 --> 13:45.570 Mark Evans: Temple, this is Mark, can you hear me? Temple McKinnon: Yes, I can. Mark Evans: Okay, good. I just want to let you all know that I have joined. I'm on the video or video but I can see the screen, obviously, on the phone. 13:46.050 --> 13:46.410 Temple McKinnon: Okay. 13:47.460 --> 13:50.640 Temple McKinnon: Thanks for coming back. Anybody else have any questions. 13:50.940 --> 14:04.800 Kelley Holcomb: Temple, this is Kelley Holcomb. I'm on the web page for the Board for the Council did you say that you had information on past interregional conflicts on the resources section of it? 14:05.430 --> 14:14.850 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. So if you'll scroll down to the bottom where there's a there's general resources and then we have resources categorized by each topic that y'all will be discussing 14:15.210 --> 14:18.090 Kelley Holcomb: Gotcha. Temple McKinnon: And you see the interregional conflicts section. 14:18.240 --> 14:19.200 Kelley Holcomb: I do. Yes, ma'am. 14:19.230 --> 14:21.930 Temple McKinnon: There's a link to the informational sheet and then the next 14:22.080 --> 14:22.380 Matt Nelson: (coughing) 14:22.530 --> 14:27.600 Temple McKinnon: Or to each of the respective conflict processes I just summarized for you. 14:28.170 --> 14:29.100 Kelley Holcomb: Gotcha. Thank you, ma'am. 14:29.460 --> 14:29.850 Temple McKinnon: You bet. 14:31.830 --> 14:32.550 Temple McKinnon: Anyone else? 14:35.400 --> 14:38.880 Temple McKinnon: Okay, I'm gonna move on, Matt is going to 14:42.420 --> 14:44.640 Temple McKinnon: continue our discussion for you guys. 14:46.290 --> 14:53.340 Temple McKinnon: In the last meeting about water availability when you're looking at planning water resources for the state as a whole. 14:54.990 --> 14:56.250 Matt Nelson: Okay. Can everybody hear me okay? 14:57.690 --> 15:06.570 Matt Nelson: Yes. Okay, In the last last meeting, y'all, well, two meetings ago we talked about some of the resources we provide to show 15:07.020 --> 15:13.320 Matt Nelson: Along the way during planning where consultants and regions can look at some of the data sharing. 15:13.800 --> 15:25.260 Matt Nelson: And maps to see who has who's short of water, who might have surpluses of water so they could aggregate projects geographically. That was a geographic exercise to help gather 15:26.040 --> 15:39.600 Matt Nelson: Ideas for grouping things. That was one concept that's already out there, that's a tool we provided this planning cycle and will continue to provide. And then some of the discussion, the last meeting came about, what about additional availability, where might 15:40.920 --> 15:49.110 Matt Nelson: How might planning groups think about that. So this is just a show, just to give a little background for everybody on availability, so that we're on the same page terminology is important and 15:49.590 --> 15:59.130 Matt Nelson: If any of you know this already, sorry. If you don't then hopefully it's it's helpful just to get folks a little bit on the same page. So next slide that couple of the first slide there. 16:00.390 --> 16:00.780 Matt Nelson: Please. 16:02.310 --> 16:12.870 Matt Nelson: So first Temple McKinnon: Sorry. Hold on. Matt Nelson: Yeah. The first. This slide is to show just the concept. This is the water planning terminology. Okay. Are you on still 16:13.440 --> 16:13.920 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. 16:15.330 --> 16:16.650 Matt Nelson: Okay, I'm not seeing the slide. 16:17.070 --> 16:19.920 Temple McKinnon: I know, I'm sorry. My computer's not advancing. So let me redo screen share. 16:20.040 --> 16:27.240 Matt Nelson: So the first slide, you'll see in a minute. It's a Venn diagram. It's the show the concept of 16:30.390 --> 16:45.870 Matt Nelson: Availability versus supply water availability is sort of the is one way to think of it as water availability is the amount of water that. There you go. Thank you. Good thing I'm not doing it, it would have taken longer. 16:47.160 --> 16:47.730 Matt Nelson: So, 16:49.320 --> 16:58.110 Matt Nelson: The blue sort of oval shape is, think of it as that's how much water the model available groundwater of volumes 16:59.430 --> 17:06.870 Matt Nelson: Show in that are adopted by the Board. So for the Carrizo aquifer there's a model available groundwater volume that you can 17:07.860 --> 17:17.220 Matt Nelson: Use per year to meet the desired future conditions. That's a whole, I can talk about the ground water management area process, but I don't think I necessarily have to. I'm happy to do that too, if y'all want. 17:18.300 --> 17:19.680 Matt Nelson: I can give a summary of that if you want later. 17:20.310 --> 17:27.600 Matt Nelson: But bottom line is that the process for ground water management is that, in the end, based on modeling and desired future conditions, there's a certain amount of groundwater 17:27.840 --> 17:37.170 Matt Nelson: that is considered available each each year to meet those desired future conditions. So that's that that's that Blue Oval is the is the concept of. That's how much you could 17:38.220 --> 17:43.350 Matt Nelson: pump, for example, doesn't mean you're connected to it. No one's pumping it maybe. There may not be a single well. 17:44.010 --> 17:49.860 Matt Nelson: But that's how much you could connect to. Then that smaller circle, smaller oval in there. The white oval with 17:50.550 --> 17:55.500 Matt Nelson: is kind of reflects and these are not in proportion to amounts or anything. This is just concept. 17:56.070 --> 18:09.630 Matt Nelson: That's the amount that's actually hooked up and can be used. So that's how much water it from a reservoir, for example, that is actually tapped with a pipeline that can deliver the water to a retail user, for example. 18:11.220 --> 18:23.940 Matt Nelson: Or a wholesaler. So you may have X amount in a reservoir, but you may only be using or capable of even tapping and using half of it. So the availability would be larger than the supply 18:24.690 --> 18:36.180 Matt Nelson: Connected, so that's that's a fundamental thing in water planning that so there's sort of two. There's two sets of books for water. There's availability and then water supply and water supply 18:37.200 --> 18:46.800 Matt Nelson: Is a wholesaler associates water and then the water user groups each city has water associated with it. And that's really where we focus. How much water do cities each, each of the water user groups out 18:47.280 --> 18:55.890 Matt Nelson: And obviously the water supply has to be smaller than availability, otherwise you're over tapping a resource. And that's part of what planning is all about. And that's one of the key things we do. 18:56.160 --> 19:01.140 Matt Nelson: Is we do the accounting to make sure that no one would over allocate a resource which is a really key thing 19:01.590 --> 19:09.090 Matt Nelson: data wise that we provide as far as the backdrop for the regional planning to make sure that accounting works that if a drought hits people are all thinking classic thing is 19:09.600 --> 19:17.220 Matt Nelson: where you getting your water? I'm getting my water from Sally. Where is Sally getting her water? Well, she's getting it from Bob and where is Bob getting his water? He's getting from you. 19:17.580 --> 19:25.980 Matt Nelson: Right. And then suddenly people don't realize they, they, there's not enough water during a drought. So that's kind of why we do the accounting that way. Now you can change that size of that blue that 19:27.060 --> 19:27.870 Matt Nelson: Purple oval. 19:29.190 --> 19:42.540 Matt Nelson: That's kind of represents all availability for example surface and ground. Seawater, theoretically, is kind of unlimited. So it's not really appropriate in this case. Reuse gets a little complicated, but the fundamentals are surface ground water to think about for now. 19:44.100 --> 19:51.150 Matt Nelson: Now that size of that oval can be increased if you for example to the GMA process if they 19:52.650 --> 20:01.620 Matt Nelson: Decide, they have different desired future future conditions or they have more model information or data, they could conceivably decide that the model bill groundwater volume for per year could be higher. 20:02.460 --> 20:09.750 Matt Nelson: Last planning cycle to the previous planning cycle. A lot of them actually went down, especially out in West Texas and actually reduced availability. 20:10.590 --> 20:15.540 Matt Nelson: Because they came up with MAGs that were actually smaller because of the desired future conditions changing. 20:15.900 --> 20:28.500 Matt Nelson: And that maybe is going to settle out after a couple of rounds of the GMA the groundwater management area process will maybe not change very much but that can change the total availability and that same time if you get a new reservoir permitted 20:29.610 --> 20:39.810 Matt Nelson: The very fact that you build a reservoir that stores water that wasn't there before in a basin can increase the available reliable supply in each 20:40.200 --> 20:46.440 Matt Nelson: drought year. So these are focused on drought years, how much can take every year and get through a drought. So the point is 20:47.070 --> 20:57.660 Matt Nelson: That they're not fixed, but those are sort of the parameters, you're working in so you can, the thing to focus on is the purple area is sort of the area that 20:58.320 --> 21:05.100 Matt Nelson: The different points in time and planning, you can look at, well, how much water is allocated folks existing supplies. 21:05.640 --> 21:14.280 Matt Nelson: How much is not allocated to folks from existing availability. I could tap into that. That's a potential project water source. And then you could decide who might be able to share in that project, but that 21:14.550 --> 21:22.950 Matt Nelson: That accounting is always there. We can always provide it. And then the other side of that coin is you know there's existing supplies what people are already connected to that sort of done 21:23.970 --> 21:30.600 Matt Nelson: Then there's the future strategies and the same accounting is done for after you implement your strategies. What does availability look like 21:30.900 --> 21:37.890 Matt Nelson: And who would be connected to those and so on both sides of that you can look at data and consultants can look at data and regions can look at data and they do already. 21:38.640 --> 21:54.480 Matt Nelson: To determine, you know, where's their water that we could incorporate and to make the basis for project. So that is just to kind of give a sense of the basic accounting its availability for supply that that information is available and that you would probably look at geographically 21:55.530 --> 22:04.260 Matt Nelson: I know that you've told them to go. That's very helpful, you need to know is it nearby. Is it is it cost effective to to make a project. So next slide consummate that point. We have the 22:08.070 --> 22:08.490 Matt Nelson: Temple 22:09.930 --> 22:13.920 Matt Nelson: OK, the next slide is just to show that we under interactive state water plan. 22:14.460 --> 22:23.550 Matt Nelson: And the temporary whether the draft regional water plan data set, which is similar to this interactive state water plan, you can look geographically at the pieces of that of 22:23.970 --> 22:31.110 Matt Nelson: The existing supplies for example and see who is using water from which aquifers by in which county who sharing a reservoir. 22:31.710 --> 22:38.760 Matt Nelson: That data is out there. Consultants already know about this. This is not, you know, big news to the group. The planning groups, but to y'all this may not be something that you think much about 22:39.120 --> 22:49.920 Matt Nelson: Day to day. So we wanted to just sort of highlight it. Okay, this, this first slide is actually to this in the state water plan. This just gives you the numbers for 22:51.690 --> 22:57.990 Matt Nelson: The figure that shows groundwater availability versus existing groundwater supplies that are connected and legally available. 22:58.290 --> 23:07.410 Matt Nelson: So you can see the brown bar for the Ogallala at the top. It's quite a large number. It's up approximately four and a half million acre feet per year is your annual. 23:08.100 --> 23:15.540 Matt Nelson: And then the permitted or connected allowable existing supply is something under three million. 23:16.320 --> 23:26.790 Matt Nelson: And that's an existing supplies. Now the future strategies would use some of that additional availability, most likely, and there'll be other strategies to conservation things and that's in the water plan. Maybe can you make those slides large full size. 23:27.150 --> 23:32.070 Temple McKinnon: Yeah, my laptop just kind of freezes up every time I'm in this 23:32.190 --> 23:33.930 Matt Nelson: Oh, we'll just leave it in there. Okay, well, 23:34.260 --> 23:36.150 Matt Nelson: Okay, identical slide. 23:36.270 --> 23:41.010 Matt Nelson: That's that's groundwater shows you build your surface water shows you how much water is available. How much is actually 23:41.580 --> 23:47.550 Matt Nelson: Considered existing supply for water user groups and the difference is water that is potentially 23:48.150 --> 24:04.560 Matt Nelson: Using a strategy or, you know, is a management supply for entities that the plan for some degree of more supply than they might have need in a drought as a buffer. For example, in case there's a drought worse than the data record for example like in Region B, they plan for 24:05.910 --> 24:11.310 Matt Nelson: Not they didn't plan for a drought worse than the drought of record and experienced drought worse than drought of record. So now they want to have some 24:11.730 --> 24:23.430 Matt Nelson: Amount of water beyond what they expect for drought of record available in their system in case of drought worse than drought of record because they know what that was like. So that those are examples of what's in the state water plan 24:23.970 --> 24:28.080 Matt Nelson: that illustrate that point. And the next slide shows the interaction the State water plan 24:28.560 --> 24:37.800 Matt Nelson: has the ability for you to look through and anybody wants to, you know, even, even a consultant, looking at raw data, although it downloads data, you can look and see who's using this aquifer in this county. 24:38.490 --> 24:46.110 Matt Nelson: Is there, you know, if you're interested in that, who else might be using it. And there's a strategy version of this to you can see the strategy side who 24:46.590 --> 24:57.030 Matt Nelson: Has a strategy to use Carrizo and go to the next slide, please. In this case would be, who else is using Carrizo water from Gonzales county all those green dots. 24:57.960 --> 25:09.300 Matt Nelson: Our city's water providers who, as in 2070 anticipate using water out of the Carrizo and the little triangles are the actual project representations for projects. 25:10.680 --> 25:20.670 Matt Nelson: So by looking at that, you can say, hey, maybe we should join that project or, you know, such and such. Anyway, the point being that what's in the plan is now very digestible and you can 25:21.030 --> 25:26.640 Matt Nelson: And also the the water amounts in the background are available. So you can think about you can 25:27.180 --> 25:37.230 Matt Nelson: Use that information, however you want. But those are the kinds of things that are already available that you can, you know, if you're thinking about a certain kind of project, you could string some of your ideas together maybe 25:38.880 --> 25:50.670 Matt Nelson: Explore the, the, what's going on, what's going on in the plan and and that sort of thing. So that's, that's what that's about. The next slide is just another version for surface water. Those are all the entities who are sharing the reservoir system. 25:53.550 --> 26:02.250 Matt Nelson: So that's already that's already out there. So the idea backing up to that first slide is if you're trying to come up with a new project that no one's thought of, 26:02.700 --> 26:13.920 Matt Nelson: and you are having to obviously provide water as the basis for that supply. These are the kinds of things that you have to think about, the kinds of tools that are available to you that. 26:15.060 --> 26:18.150 Matt Nelson: Was that helpful? Makes sense? You have any questions? 26:21.210 --> 26:22.950 Matt Nelson: Did I confuse you? Hopefully not. 26:26.790 --> 26:27.120 Temple McKinnon: I guess. 26:27.690 --> 26:29.490 Temple McKinnon: I was going to add that we were going to 26:31.470 --> 26:44.100 Temple McKinnon: Kind of bundle up some resource information for you on this topic as well. What Matt's presented here. We'll get something on your web page as well with this graphic. But obviously, let us know what other information would help, y'all. And those future deliveries. 26:44.460 --> 26:52.740 Matt Nelson: And to Jim. Jim has mentioned this before you know there's there's water that's assigned you know that's considered an existing supply for 26:53.790 --> 26:56.820 Matt Nelson: A source that a wholesaler says that 26:57.900 --> 26:59.700 Matt Nelson: 5000 acre feet from the Carrizo 27:00.900 --> 27:09.000 Matt Nelson: Are my supply that I'm using as a wholesaler, but doesn't mean they assigned all of that to water user group. So there is another sort of layer of water in there that is water 27:09.480 --> 27:20.190 Matt Nelson: That's considered a supply, but is not assigned in necessarily addressing directly in need of a water user group in a drought of record. So there is some amount of and that's called management supply in our planning. 27:20.820 --> 27:27.810 Matt Nelson: Of water that may not be used or needed yet but is assigned to an entity. So there's, there's, there's a lot of 27:28.980 --> 27:34.740 Matt Nelson: Flavors to that. So I want to make sure I acknowledge that there's there's that fact to that some waters not necessarily assigned to somebody when it's developed 27:36.030 --> 27:50.040 Suzanne Schwartz: So um Temple suggested, you know, asked if there was other information you all would like to consider relative to managing water resources for the state. Can you think of any right now that you'd like to ask for? 27:54.030 --> 27:58.920 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, that's going to be our first topic that we're going to tackle in the meeting so 27:59.160 --> 28:10.560 Suzanne Schwartz: As we go through the meeting, if you are thinking of things you'd like to take notes and we will, you know, you can either email us or we can discuss it at the end of the meeting about additional information you might want. 28:10.590 --> 28:15.690 Kevin Ward: Right. So Suzanne I'd asked last time, and I know Temple and I had an exchange on this. 28:17.280 --> 28:19.080 Kevin Ward: You know there's a lot of folks that really 28:20.400 --> 28:23.670 Kevin Ward: Don't understand groundwater. It's the old mysterious unknown. 28:25.710 --> 28:28.230 Kevin Ward: And Matt, did a great job of 28:29.280 --> 28:35.520 Kevin Ward: Illustrating the difference between the managed available groundwater and then what's in the water plan that's currently connected 28:36.390 --> 28:44.910 Kevin Ward: Logically, I think if you think your way through this to some people didn't make sense, but it it really does make sense, even if it's just a contract or well or whatever. 28:45.540 --> 28:52.290 Kevin Ward: You gotta have you gotta show that difference because otherwise you wouldn't have water plan, you wouldn't know which needed to do to get to it. 28:53.070 --> 28:58.740 Kevin Ward: Even if it doesn't cost any money. It was just an extension of the contract. But when it comes to groundwater. 28:59.490 --> 29:06.750 Kevin Ward: You get the reason we have managed available groundwater is because the groundwater district, you know, we started off in 49 with those expanded those with SB2 29:07.590 --> 29:17.940 Kevin Ward: And other subsequent changes and now they pretty much dictate which is for planning purposes and but that doesn't really even scratch the surface is how much water is under the ground. 29:19.260 --> 29:21.090 Kevin Ward: And, you know, 29:22.680 --> 29:24.360 Kevin Ward: That's always to meet them kind of 29:26.520 --> 29:35.730 Kevin Ward: an impedance, if you will, to having a fallback drought plan that's still doable and we want 29:36.330 --> 29:51.990 Kevin Ward: To do it. I mean, you can mind the just like in Ogallala right now they determined what the 50% rule will be and all that, by individual districts to get to some of these other districts and because of the desired future conditions and what the MAGs have been it can be a delta 29:53.100 --> 30:05.010 Kevin Ward: 10s of millions of acre feet of water that technically available on the ground and might still be available to draw if you hooked up wells to. It might cause lowering in other wells, but it certainly would produce water. 30:06.450 --> 30:19.140 Kevin Ward: You know 30 year drought, where we didn't have any surface water at all for us not to lose the going in there and getting it. The really not long, long term vision. 30:19.980 --> 30:27.060 Kevin Ward: And if you could argue that well, by then the political pressure and everything could force the ground water district to change the MAG and they'll say that it's available. 30:28.680 --> 30:33.510 Kevin Ward: Okay, that's fine. Still what it does, it steals, it hides it from the public, when you do a water plan. 30:34.950 --> 30:35.910 Kevin Ward: Which then makes us look 30:37.290 --> 30:38.430 Kevin Ward: For more damaging to the environment. 30:40.500 --> 30:53.670 Kevin Ward: I just think, you know, having the water in a bucket number in front of us for each of these supply sources is is beneficial maybe only for the fallback plan and drought plan, but yet still 30:54.780 --> 30:55.260 Kevin Ward: Something that 30:57.240 --> 30:57.900 Kevin Ward: is important. 30:58.230 --> 31:00.930 Suzanne Schwartz: So Kevin, go ahead, go ahead, Steve. 31:01.890 --> 31:08.070 Steve Walthour: Kevin, you know, the Water Development Board has developed a number called total estimated recoverable. 31:10.020 --> 31:11.130 Steve Walthour: In in these 31:12.210 --> 31:21.360 Steve Walthour: aquifers for this joint management planning and you know that number says anywhere from 25% to 75% of that water is coverable. 31:22.530 --> 31:33.540 Steve Walthour: Which you can pretty much guess that's that's that's the best guess the Water Development Board could do at the time. And that's generally applied to all aquifers that I know of in the state for that. 31:34.800 --> 31:38.340 Steve Walthour: So total estimated recoverable water. 31:39.960 --> 31:45.390 Steve Walthour: The problem with that number is is that when you whip out the old number of just how much water is in the bucket. 31:45.750 --> 31:53.040 Steve Walthour: There's a lot of water in that bucket that will never come out. It's impossible to get it out because it's not recoverable. It's the amount of 31:53.460 --> 32:04.860 Steve Walthour: Water between this little sand grains. It's not going to run out of the Ogallala. And there's that water that's available for example in the Edwards, which is Edward's Aquifer which is a special thing. 32:05.430 --> 32:20.640 Steve Walthour: There's a whole bunch of water in that bucket. But as long as the federal government, the state believes that there needs to be water coming out of a spring somewhere then that water is going to stay in that bucket. I think, I think the issue you're talking about definitely valid. 32:21.750 --> 32:39.180 Steve Walthour: But every time we whip out the number that's in the bucket, what are you really going to measure. The total estimated recoverable is something that can come out and has no time constraint, meaning that if it takes 1000 years for it to come out. It will take 1000 years. 32:40.320 --> 32:41.790 Steve Walthour: So it is real complicated 32:43.590 --> 32:48.630 Suzanne Schwartz: So I think that the, you know, this is a great segue to our 32:50.040 --> 32:59.610 Suzanne Schwartz: Discussion on planning water resources for the state as a whole. It sounds like you're identifying kind of a something that you all might think about for the future as possible. 33:00.300 --> 33:16.470 Suzanne Schwartz: Something that would help is to be able to describe the amount of groundwater that's available at least possible. I understand this incredibly complicated story. So maybe we can save these ideas for our discussion, unless somebody else, you know, 33:17.520 --> 33:18.780 Suzanne Schwartz: I don't know if Matt wanted 33:19.560 --> 33:24.210 Matt Nelson: We can send it, we can send out and post a link to the TERs that TERs information. 33:24.420 --> 33:31.770 Matt Nelson: The total estimated recoverable that's something you're told us to do, and the agency did it. I'm not going to say much more about that. 33:33.240 --> 33:35.760 Matt Nelson: It'll link so you can all read about the assumptions and what it means. 33:36.270 --> 33:41.280 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, well thank you that I think that was a good segue to the, to the next. 33:42.870 --> 33:49.020 Suzanne Schwartz: Topic, which is really to work on. We've got two basic topics we're working on today. 33:49.740 --> 33:55.830 Suzanne Schwartz: We're going to start with number five today, which is the planning water resources for the state of as a whole, the 33:56.190 --> 34:03.750 Suzanne Schwartz: The and then go back to the ways to enhance interregional cooperation, after we finish it, I hope, I hope we finish it. We'll see. 34:04.530 --> 34:19.860 Suzanne Schwartz: This is definitely a work in progress, about how how much we can progress. The, again what we are just as a review of what we've done so far you all at your last meeting in some in some correspondence 34:20.910 --> 34:33.510 Suzanne Schwartz: To me, between the meetings have brainstormed about what a problem is and what a goal might be for this for both ways to enhance 34:34.080 --> 34:42.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Our planning water resources for the state. Let's just stick with that right now. So we've got some brainstorming ideas and that those are now in the document about 34:43.080 --> 34:55.950 Suzanne Schwartz: The working solutions framework document that is posted on the Web, and that I hope you have. So the thought today was probably not to work more anymore on brainstorming because we got some good ideas. 34:56.610 --> 35:06.960 Suzanne Schwartz: A couple of you sent me some edits on that language and various languages in that working templates working solutions document which we will keep and 35:07.230 --> 35:11.550 Suzanne Schwartz: do word smithing between meetings on that. So we're not going to try to do too much. 35:11.790 --> 35:22.590 Suzanne Schwartz: Specific word smithing on some of the brainstorming ideas, but I'd like to focus on today is is actually developing a problem statement and the goal statement which will let you know 35:22.890 --> 35:31.080 Suzanne Schwartz: what you what you what what you're dealing with. And what you hope to achieve when you're dealing with water resources as a state. 35:31.500 --> 35:43.860 Suzanne Schwartz: Like that, then maybe take a pause you brainstorm some of the issues about the problems, but maybe then have a discussion for for a few minutes about what what we have talking more about the problem. 35:44.970 --> 35:51.450 Suzanne Schwartz: You know what's occurring now. What, you know, what does it look like. You know what's hindering better 35:51.810 --> 35:59.370 Suzanne Schwartz: development as for the state as a whole. And then we'll work on break work on some criteria, just a brainstorming session and then 35:59.700 --> 36:15.300 Suzanne Schwartz: Hopefully again brainstorm some solutions. That will be as far as will go today. There's more steps toward you know working on this problem, but that's where I'd like to see us go today. Any questions on the process that we're proposing to use. 36:19.260 --> 36:31.140 Suzanne Schwartz: Again, this is what I'm hoping is that we're setting setting up the a, a summary of problems and goals and criteria and possible solutions that 36:31.620 --> 36:41.550 Suzanne Schwartz: Can be worked on after the June meetings are finished. So again, it's, you know, there's a there's a fair amount of time between now and October. 36:42.240 --> 36:51.450 Suzanne Schwartz: And that you can choose either to work as a committee as a whole, as a Council as a whole, committees on these ideas, but this will get good 36:52.110 --> 37:05.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Good input from all of the council members into some of these basic issues. So with that, I think what I'd like to do is go ahead to the problem statement. Did anybody have questions for miss anybody? 37:07.050 --> 37:07.470 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 37:09.870 --> 37:20.010 Suzanne Schwartz: This the documents that you see on the screen now and I hope it can everybody view that well enough. Let me just ask that. Anybody having problems with that? 37:24.570 --> 37:27.660 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm seeing some stuff. Okay, I'm not hearing any problems so 37:28.170 --> 37:39.750 Suzanne Schwartz: We're trying to adapt trying to make sure that the documents are, you know in a form you can read it on online as we put it on the screen. So this, this was something we took the 37:40.380 --> 37:46.320 Suzanne Schwartz: Your brainstormed ideas about what's the problem related to planning water resources for the state as a whole. 37:47.550 --> 37:55.200 Suzanne Schwartz: And then we have tried to add into that what we see as 37:56.940 --> 38:07.560 Suzanne Schwartz: We developed a draft problem statement. I got, I got, we got comments from both Kelley Holcomb and Mark Evans about the language they suggested different some 38:08.100 --> 38:27.510 Suzanne Schwartz: changes to the language which we have incorporated into this document, you can obviously read it as it existed or read it on the that the document that originally went out. So what I'd like to do today is see if we can come up with a statement that the group as a whole can live with. 38:30.510 --> 38:44.220 Suzanne Schwartz: So as it's written with the changes proposed by Mark and Kelley, it would say planning water resources for Texas as a whole is hindered by the varied and unique characteristics of different regions of the state, 38:44.820 --> 38:51.780 Suzanne Schwartz: land use patterns and trends, the cost of planning, and the many competing needs for water. 38:54.090 --> 38:58.020 Suzanne Schwartz: I'd love to get your reactions to that. Yeah, I think, Melanie has something. 38:59.790 --> 39:15.840 Melanie Barnes: Isn't the isn't there also a component that goes back to the existing laws and rules under which we develop our water or plan for it? We're all guided by some of those right? 39:16.620 --> 39:19.920 Suzanne Schwartz: So you might, you might want to add legal constraints in there? 39:22.050 --> 39:26.280 Melanie Barnes: Something like that if other people think it's also needed. It 39:26.460 --> 39:27.690 Melanie Barnes: It might just be one 39:27.930 --> 39:31.890 Melanie Barnes: Thing you know it's like a duh thing and it doesn't need to be stated. 39:33.510 --> 39:34.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Thoughts? 39:38.640 --> 39:40.500 Allison Strube: Melanie wouldn't that maybe be covered by 39:40.500 --> 39:42.330 Allison Strube: unique characteristics? 39:49.260 --> 39:50.640 Suzanne Schwartz: Steve wants to say something. 39:51.030 --> 40:06.090 Melanie Barnes: I guess I was thinking of things such as the interbasin transfers and the regulations concerned with that. So I was thinking of more the laws, we've made to deal with water planning with in the state that has unique characteristics in different regions. 40:08.610 --> 40:11.880 Melanie Barnes: But maybe it's so overall, that it's not needed to be said. 40:12.480 --> 40:15.540 Suzanne Schwartz: Steve, what's your thoughts, you need to unmute 40:19.320 --> 40:29.430 Steve Walthour: Okay, I believe that there needs to be something in there about us interstate cooperation, you know, most of these regions are up against another state. 40:30.180 --> 40:46.110 Steve Walthour: The ability, for example, for Region A to actually get water into Region A, will probably have to come from someplace else other than somewhere else in Texas. Is there a way to maybe interstate conflicts of some sort. 40:48.210 --> 40:50.970 Steve Walthour: Into this as far as regional planning is concerned. 40:52.530 --> 41:05.850 Suzanne Schwartz: So, so two different ideas. One related that Melanie brought up about the legal constraints. One you brought up Steve about interstate, the interstate nature of some of the water resources so 41:07.980 --> 41:16.890 Suzanne Schwartz: Any other before we got most of those captured as thinking through right now. I'm wondering if there are other ideas before we try to actually craft any language. Kevin? 41:17.370 --> 41:20.610 Kevin Ward: Yeah, I have a problem going out. 41:26.610 --> 41:33.690 Kevin Ward: Well, I realized that if you look at it from a planning group perspective. Some people would think, as a whole, the planning groups don't have that problem. 41:34.290 --> 41:45.240 Kevin Ward: There have at least an existing conflicts that have ever been in the water planning process, pretty much have parochialism over resources within one area. 41:46.560 --> 41:47.610 Kevin Ward: So I don't know. 41:48.660 --> 41:53.400 Kevin Ward: You know how you leave that is not being as a part of what the problem with 41:55.080 --> 41:56.820 Kevin Ward: You know, looking at larger 41:58.110 --> 41:59.130 Kevin Ward: projects that have an 42:00.630 --> 42:07.080 Kevin Ward: Impact on the state as a whole, without saying something. I'm not sure why Kelley you wanted to take it out completely. 42:09.630 --> 42:10.650 Kevin Ward: So your water but 42:11.730 --> 42:12.690 Kelley Holcomb: Kevin that wasn't mine by the way. 42:15.600 --> 42:22.470 Steve Walthour: Actually Kevin I, I think that actually gets to the interstate problem. Also, it's like, you know, 42:23.070 --> 42:38.520 Steve Walthour: We're gonna have to figure out if we ever do any any projects that moves water in the state of Texas. How in the world, we, you know, handle people not liking the Texas Longhorns not wanting to move water to Texas. So I think there is some 42:40.110 --> 42:45.150 Steve Walthour: You know, there's some protectionism, not just on a regional basis, but at the state level also. 42:45.990 --> 42:47.730 Steve Walthour: So interstate level. 42:49.320 --> 42:50.970 Kevin Ward: The parochialism is less offensive, I think. 42:51.390 --> 42:53.070 Kevin Ward: That's why I used the word they did. 42:54.510 --> 43:02.100 Kevin Ward: Some, some people think parochialism is a good thing and it can be for protecting your turf, so to speak, and 43:03.900 --> 43:05.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Mark, you want to say something? 43:06.180 --> 43:10.620 Mark Evans: Yes, so that Kevin, where are you speaking to the strike of deeply rooted instincts? 43:11.760 --> 43:12.060 Kevin Ward: Yes. 43:13.200 --> 43:17.700 Mark Evans: Yeah, on that one it was more of the language itself. 43:18.810 --> 43:28.680 Mark Evans: You know, when you say deep deeply rooted instincts. I just didn't. I didn't think that was really appropriate. I think it if you want to say something about 43:29.700 --> 43:32.490 Mark Evans: The reason the regions 43:34.050 --> 43:36.450 Mark Evans: protecting their water resources 43:38.490 --> 43:41.280 Mark Evans: that would be different, but to make that kind of statement, I just. 43:44.130 --> 43:44.790 Suzanne Schwartz: What what is 43:45.150 --> 43:46.260 Mark Evans: I didn't care for it. 43:47.220 --> 43:55.170 Suzanne Schwartz: Everybody I'm hearing what if we instead of that struck language, we say something about regions and and 43:58.200 --> 44:04.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Regions and adjoining states seeking to protect their water resources or something like that. 44:04.110 --> 44:04.290 Kevin Ward: One 44:04.860 --> 44:09.540 Kevin Ward: One of our one of our state officials at one point called it volcanism. 44:10.590 --> 44:12.480 Mark Evans: Yes. Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, but 44:13.620 --> 44:13.890 Kevin Ward: But 44:14.130 --> 44:14.400 Suzanne Schwartz: But 44:14.430 --> 44:21.270 Mark Evans: But we are a regional planning process. We're regional planning groups so 44:22.950 --> 44:28.110 Melanie Barnes: So, so one of the the so if we're looking at it from the perspective of 44:28.620 --> 44:31.860 Melanie Barnes: What's one of the problems as working as a whole state. 44:32.400 --> 44:43.080 Melanie Barnes: And one of them is is when someone has a resource. The idea of sharing it with someone else in case you might need in the future. I think that's what we're all thinking it's like well you know I have this bucket 44:43.500 --> 44:51.270 Melanie Barnes: of water and I'm not so sure I want to share it with you because it might not get replenished. And I might need it 10 years from now, it's that kind of 44:53.250 --> 44:53.580 Melanie Barnes: Just 44:53.700 --> 44:59.070 Kevin Ward: That's part. That's part of it, but also as you pointed out, when you go back to the constraints in the law. 44:59.490 --> 45:09.630 Kevin Ward: The law is also clear. It's not just that it's a if there's a significant impact of a project on agricultural and economic agricultural resources of an area. 45:10.200 --> 45:19.680 Kevin Ward: So the type, the way that it's being asked to be shared sometimes presents the conflict. So anyway, so for what it's worth, it's 45:19.680 --> 45:19.920 Kevin Ward: A very 45:20.160 --> 45:22.230 Kevin Ward: complicated issue, but it does get down to 45:24.120 --> 45:39.600 Kevin Ward: We need to say something about it and I agree with Steve. It's the same whether it's for another state that's adjacent to you that has different rules and regs than you got, or that just doesn't like the idea of quote water crossing state lines, even if it does it every day underneath the ground. 45:40.740 --> 45:44.070 Kevin Ward: All the way to of course over the millennia. I realize it's slow 45:46.560 --> 45:54.060 Kevin Ward: Or if it's a large footprint of a project to the surface water intensive project that happens to be in a very sensitive area that's 45:55.350 --> 45:57.930 Kevin Ward: The folks really just believe is not the best for the region. 45:59.700 --> 46:00.030 Suzanne Schwartz: So, 46:00.060 --> 46:07.020 Suzanne Schwartz: Wonder if we could instead of the struck language, oh good Temple's writing language right now that she heard, which is great. 46:18.930 --> 46:25.470 Suzanne Schwartz: How do you, what do you think about that language? The protective nature of regions and states over their water resources. 46:25.800 --> 46:29.700 Kevin Ward: What if you took out the word water and just left it over their resources? 46:33.540 --> 46:36.870 Kevin Ward: Because that would include water and everything else involved. 46:38.250 --> 46:39.270 Mark Evans: Natural resources. 46:39.930 --> 46:42.960 Kevin Ward: Natural Resources. There you go. Did we just lose Jim because he picture disappeared. 46:44.730 --> 46:45.600 Suzanne Schwartz: Jim's still there. 46:46.620 --> 46:50.220 Mark Evans: Okay, I'm fine with that language, Kevin. Steve Walthour: I like that. 46:51.990 --> 46:57.450 Suzanne Schwartz: Does anyone have concerns about that just that changed language we just talked about? 46:57.810 --> 47:11.280 Suzanne Schwartz: And Gail, I want to acknowledge, I can't. Those of you who, Gail and Ray, I am not, if you want to talk just unmute yourself and speak up. I'll try. If you can read, there's a method to raise your hand and I'll try to see that too, but 47:14.520 --> 47:26.010 Suzanne Schwartz: I know that Gail's emailed me with a comment that will go back to a different point about laws and rules we'll talk about that in a minute. Anybody. What do y'all think anybody have any concerns about this language? Kelley. 47:26.640 --> 47:41.280 Kelley Holcomb: I don't have any real concerns I just want to state a possible alternative. What if we make the statement there that simply says the ownership of water supplies and the impacts of water supply development. 47:43.110 --> 47:56.250 Kelley Holcomb: Because either the state owns it, or surface water and groundwater is who owns the property. And as Kevin stated there are definite impacts on both sides of the 47:57.600 --> 48:03.330 Kelley Holcomb: The supplier and the user side of any water supply project. 48:06.840 --> 48:10.200 Suzanne Schwartz: Temple has captured that either as an addition or 48:14.010 --> 48:21.150 Suzanne Schwartz: How does that as an addition look to you or do you need it. How does it look as an addition to you? Kevin Ward: I like it. 48:24.480 --> 48:25.530 Suzanne Schwartz: Anyone object? 48:31.590 --> 48:39.690 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, I'm not seeing anyone concerned with that. The other topic that that Melanie raised was the question of 48:40.860 --> 48:52.530 Suzanne Schwartz: existing laws and rules or you know constraints of existing laws and rules. I want to will add that up there and get a sense from y'all about whether you'd like that added 48:56.010 --> 49:02.640 Kevin Ward: Well since it was one of the charges, I think the Natural Resources committees probably 49:06.030 --> 49:12.900 Mark Evans: Well, if we said that, wouldn't we want to say the constraints of the regional water planning laws and rules? 49:15.780 --> 49:33.690 Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley, what I mean Mark, what I heard from Melanie was beyond the regional water planning rules. It also went to things like interbasin transfers and and, you know laws relating to, you know, problems, there's a myriad of laws relating to water rights, for instance. 49:34.470 --> 49:35.940 Kevin Ward: Chapter 11 provisions. 49:36.600 --> 49:38.790 Suzanne Schwartz: So do you want 49:39.150 --> 49:43.170 Suzanne Schwartz: Do you want, we can certainly add the idea you have. I'm not sure that if 49:44.910 --> 49:51.450 Suzanne Schwartz: That if, if you want, if you want it added, you could say constraints of existing laws and rules, including 49:52.470 --> 49:55.320 Suzanne Schwartz: Including regional water planning rules. 49:59.160 --> 50:03.840 Mark Evans: Well, you know, I certainly don't want every, every time we have 50:05.610 --> 50:18.390 Mark Evans: Some language to feel like we need to put in regional water planning in. I think as we get to developing this document, maybe we make some type of broad statement at the beginning. 50:20.220 --> 50:20.790 Suzanne Schwartz: And we can 50:22.290 --> 50:24.570 Mark Evans: What were charged with doing and that may be 50:25.800 --> 50:28.320 Mark Evans: constrained. Suzanne Schwartz: And maybe we add that 50:28.320 --> 50:29.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Into you know 50:29.730 --> 50:35.160 Mark Evans: Doing regional water planning and trying to solve the water needs in the state as a whole. 50:38.040 --> 50:39.330 Kelley Holcomb: Aren't they one the same though 50:39.330 --> 50:39.750 Mark Evans: Mark? 50:39.780 --> 50:40.260 Kelley Holcomb: I mean, 50:40.320 --> 50:48.660 Kelley Holcomb: It's implied and inferred by the fact that it's an Interregional Planning Commission, which would infer statewide impact. 50:54.960 --> 50:56.910 Mark Evans: This Council. Yes, I agree. 51:02.820 --> 51:17.700 Suzanne Schwartz: So let me suggest right now that, Temple, what if you accept all of these changes and we take a look at it and see if anything, if there's anything else we want to do to this problem statement. 51:32.430 --> 51:34.200 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, I want to acknowledge that this 51:34.200 --> 51:43.290 Suzanne Schwartz: Can continue to evolve as we as we work if someone wants to go back and revise language or to be more precise, we certainly 51:43.290 --> 51:59.790 Suzanne Schwartz: Can take that on, but just get your sense. This as it's worded, is this something you all can live with for right now for a problem statement? You know, so that that which will essentially set the the background for why we're trying to work on this issue. 52:01.920 --> 52:02.190 Mark Evans:Yeah. 52:05.760 --> 52:06.060 Suzanne Schwartz: Does 52:07.200 --> 52:09.960 Suzanne Schwartz: Does anybody have concerns with it as it's drafted? 52:18.810 --> 52:20.790 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, I'm not hearing anyone 52:21.840 --> 52:27.690 Suzanne Schwartz: So with that, let's, I think we've got a draft problem statement, we can work with for 52:28.800 --> 52:37.170 Suzanne Schwartz: At this point in time for where we are. With that, we're going to, I think, move. The next step would be to move to say a goal statement, which is really 52:38.250 --> 52:48.690 Suzanne Schwartz: What we're trying to do with a goal statement is, is basically say what what what will planning water resources for the state as a whole look like if we solve the problem. 52:49.350 --> 53:01.110 Suzanne Schwartz: And again, this was we derived the draft from brainstormed ideas that you all had put together, either at your meeting or that you sent me 53:01.560 --> 53:17.100 Suzanne Schwartz: After this last meeting. And I want to acknowledge that Kelley sent me another brainstormed idea to that that we we can add to the document, to the working solutions document, that would basically say, he thought we also needed to 53:18.690 --> 53:22.920 Suzanne Schwartz: Part of the what it would look like would include long term sustainability. So 53:24.390 --> 53:37.680 Suzanne Schwartz: With that in mind, this is a draft of a goal statement again. The, the proposed strikeout was I think that was a was either Kelley or Mark they proposed that. 53:38.190 --> 53:50.100 Suzanne Schwartz: And so just take a look at it. And again, let's have a short discussion. What do you think, does this have areas of concern to you? Are there is there, are there things missing? How, should it be reworded and 53:51.240 --> 53:56.460 Mark Evans: Suzanne, I'll address the strikes and this is Mark since I'm I am the one that struck holistically. 53:57.270 --> 54:02.580 Mark Evans: I felt like that when you look at the language in the draft goal statement, it was not needed. 54:03.180 --> 54:11.460 Mark Evans: That when you say cooperatively through innovative and multi benefit projects that serve multiple, multiple areas of the state that captures it and 54:12.000 --> 54:23.010 Mark Evans: Using the word holistically is more likely to confuse the issue as to what you're trying to what the goal statement is trying to say. I think without the word, it's, it's very straightforward. That's why I struck it. 54:25.320 --> 54:38.550 Suzanne Schwartz: No problem with the strike I again, we just tried to take what had been some ideas and happy to have an edit to that. So I'm so looking at it with the holistically 54:39.750 --> 54:43.590 Suzanne Schwartz: element struck. What, what would you all like to do with this? 54:51.060 --> 54:52.320 Steve Walthour: I like it as it's 54:53.730 --> 54:58.920 Steve Walthour: I like it as it's written with the word struck holistically and and think looks just fine. 55:00.720 --> 55:01.800 Suzanne Schwartz: Any other input. 55:04.470 --> 55:13.290 Kelley Holcomb: My only question is about the the thought process that we're going to solve all these conflicts cooperatively. 55:14.670 --> 55:18.000 Kelley Holcomb: There's a lot of lawyers in this state to make a whole lot of money. 55:19.410 --> 55:24.090 Kelley Holcomb: Off of those who don't do it cooperatively, I don't know who's winning us or them but 55:25.650 --> 55:26.970 Kelley Holcomb: Just asking a question that's all 55:27.270 --> 55:30.870 Suzanne Schwartz: So maybe we should say sideline all the water lawyers. 55:31.110 --> 55:34.620 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, yeah. I don't know if I want to be the author of that one, but 55:40.290 --> 55:49.290 Steve Walthour: I think for the goal. This is perfect. Yeah, there's gonna be there's gonna be those conflicts, but as a goal, it would be cool to pull that off. 56:02.010 --> 56:17.340 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, well I'm you know I'm gonna do we need to let me ask you this. Do we need motions on these items to or are we okay with just continuing to get thumbs up. Since these are working documents. Okay. 56:17.880 --> 56:18.990 Kelley Holcomb: I'm a motion guy. 56:19.260 --> 56:21.750 Kelley Holcomb: How many on this group are chairs, by the way? 56:23.520 --> 56:24.840 Kelley Holcomb: Chairs of water planning groups. 56:31.440 --> 56:32.940 Kelley Holcomb: That's the way we're used to doing business. 56:33.990 --> 56:35.550 Suzanne Schwartz: With motions. You want a motion. 56:36.450 --> 56:39.540 Kelley Holcomb: My preference, yes. But I was one of 16. 56:40.110 --> 56:46.620 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm fine. You know, the only reason I wasn't on this was one, I didn't think of it, quite frankly, Kelley. The other was 56:46.860 --> 56:53.400 Suzanne Schwartz: since it's working document I just, it felt we have a lot of leeway, but I am happy to 56:53.670 --> 56:55.680 Suzanne Schwartz: Take motions on this to say 56:56.760 --> 56:58.110 Kevin Ward: I still have a comment on it. 56:58.620 --> 56:59.310 Suzanne Schwartz: Oh, Kevin. 57:00.060 --> 57:00.750 Patrick Brzozowski: And I do as well. 57:01.140 --> 57:03.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, great. I'm sorry, I missed you guys go ahead. Oh. 57:05.220 --> 57:12.720 Kevin Ward: I see what it really says, and I'm trying. I was trying to come up with something that when I think we're trying to get out of the goal. It's like almost like 57:13.350 --> 57:23.490 Kevin Ward: Addressing Texas water needs will benefit from cooperative in a development of innovative and multi benefit projects that serve multiple areas of the state. 57:25.260 --> 57:30.030 Suzanne Schwartz: So you would just move language addressing Texas water needs will be 57:30.480 --> 57:32.910 Kevin Ward: Will best be addressed. 57:34.500 --> 57:35.130 Kevin Ward: Through 57:36.600 --> 57:39.120 Kevin Ward: Cooperative development. 57:40.860 --> 57:41.490 Kevin Ward: Cooperative 57:42.570 --> 57:43.260 Development. 57:48.240 --> 57:51.900 Kevin Ward: Innovative and multi benefit projects of serve the state. 57:53.070 --> 57:53.970 Kevin Ward: And I'm trying to 57:55.500 --> 57:55.800 Yeah. 57:57.090 --> 57:59.940 Suzanne Schwartz: And Patrick. I think Patrick. I don't know where Patrick 58:00.090 --> 58:06.330 Patrick Brzozowski: No, just trying to get my hands wrapped around my head wrapped around that statement multiple areas of the state. 58:08.400 --> 58:12.540 Patrick Brzozowski: Trying to get a sense because we're so large, what does that really mean. 58:14.730 --> 58:16.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Anybody have thoughts. 58:19.950 --> 58:27.960 Kevin Ward: Well, of course the benefit the state as a whole. So you could change that whole back end of it to say that benefit the state as a whole. 58:29.490 --> 58:38.760 Kelley Holcomb: I'm with Kevin on that. I mean, having been on this thing for a really long time. That was the whole purpose. It wasn't to necessarily benefit any specific regions is that 58:39.150 --> 58:47.460 Kelley Holcomb: We were supposed to benefit the state of Texas. If one area of the state loses. We all lose in some degree. If one benefits we all benefit to some degree. 58:48.630 --> 58:53.310 Patrick Brzozowski: And I agree with you know I'm thinking region to region because that's where the conflicts are set up. 58:55.860 --> 58:59.640 Patrick Brzozowski: But that's what we're supposed to be doing right there. What you just wrote 59:01.290 --> 59:01.920 Kelley Holcomb: Totally agree. 59:02.970 --> 59:14.580 Melanie Barnes: I have a question by multi benefit projects are you talking about projects that address water supply or flood control or water quality. Kevin Ward: All of the above. 59:16.890 --> 59:20.070 Mark Evans: That's the way I understood it when I read it. 59:22.200 --> 59:23.820 Kelley Holcomb: And don't forget endangered species. 59:25.290 --> 59:26.520 Kevin Ward: We're going to have a lot of that. 59:27.000 --> 59:31.260 Kevin Ward: Ask Michigan how that worked for them on those dams breaking. 59:32.550 --> 59:35.370 Kelley Holcomb: I'm not sure. It depends on what kind of critter you are, I guess Kevin. 59:35.940 --> 59:43.110 Kevin Ward: They were trying to protect mussles up there. They held back water supply. Now, the guys who run the bands are telling everybody because of 59:43.500 --> 59:53.280 Kevin Ward: Those requirements in the state attorney general and a whole bunch of environmental groups to go file in court for them to shut up and take responsibility for it. It's really hilarious. 59:55.320 --> 59:55.830 Kevin Ward: Getting off track. 59:57.180 --> 01:00:00.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Back to the goal statement anyone 01:00:01.260 --> 01:00:03.780 Suzanne Schwartz: Else want changes to this. 01:00:11.670 --> 01:00:15.540 Suzanne Schwartz: Anybody want to make a motion for its approval then? 01:00:17.460 --> 01:00:17.970 Patrick Brzozowski: So moved. 01:00:18.930 --> 01:00:20.730 Suzanne Schwartz: Patrick has moved to approve. 01:00:21.390 --> 01:00:22.230 Steve Walthour: Seconded. 01:00:22.740 --> 01:00:35.160 Suzanne Schwartz: Seconded by Steve. So again, since it's hard for me to require I don't want to go to a roll call. Is there anyone who disagrees with the goal statement as it is now drafted? 01:00:36.840 --> 01:00:38.190 Ray Buck: I have a question, Suzanne. 01:00:38.460 --> 01:00:39.510 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. Hi Ray what? 01:00:40.950 --> 01:00:47.070 Ray Buck: If we're going to do this with them with a motion and a vote. Is there any opportunity to change it later without doing another motion and a vote? 01:00:49.860 --> 01:00:54.660 Ray Buck: It's a working document that I have a little concern that we can't come back and tweak this 01:00:55.410 --> 01:00:58.590 Ray Buck: Yeah, we're formalizing and as we work through it. 01:00:58.800 --> 01:01:14.340 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, and you know what, maybe that's a good point Ray. One, one thought we might have is that it's working a working document we do a final Motion to approve. At some point, but can Kelley. You're the one who was liking the idea of motions. What do you think? 01:01:15.060 --> 01:01:16.620 Kelley Holcomb: I was one of but yes 01:01:17.340 --> 01:01:17.940 Matt Nelson: Can I say something? 01:01:18.840 --> 01:01:19.320 Kelley Holcomb: Sure, Matt. 01:01:19.650 --> 01:01:28.320 Matt Nelson: Maybe helpful. I think it's a little bit like when you do water plans you pass things along the way. But it's not really done until you know y'all can still vote. 01:01:28.740 --> 01:01:32.250 Matt Nelson: I can look at something it's never really done until it's done so. 01:01:33.150 --> 01:01:35.430 Matt Nelson: It's probably similar to that process just 01:01:36.450 --> 01:01:46.170 Mark Evans: What I was gonna say that we're going to have these two items on in interregional coordination and planning water resources for the state of the whole on every agenda. 01:01:47.160 --> 01:01:59.430 Mark Evans: Of our of our meetings, I would assume since that's what we'll be working on. So I think Ray to your point, I think we could come back and reconsider, and change the 01:02:01.290 --> 01:02:02.910 Mark Evans: Change the goal statement in this case. 01:02:03.750 --> 01:02:05.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Ray, are you okay living with motions then? 01:02:07.080 --> 01:02:07.560 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:02:08.370 --> 01:02:19.620 Ray Buck: Yes. Suzanne Schwartz: Everybody else, then let's go ahead and continue with the motion that we have a motion and a second. Does anyone object to the language as it's been 01:02:21.060 --> 01:02:23.790 Suzanne Schwartz: Modified drafted as, as you see it on the screen now. 01:02:27.660 --> 01:02:32.340 Suzanne Schwartz: And Gail, I assume you're okay with it, unless I hear your voice. 01:02:33.390 --> 01:02:42.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, then this will be considered adopted unanimously, I want to go back, since we didn't take a motion on the problem statement. 01:02:44.010 --> 01:02:48.270 Suzanne Schwartz: If it's okay. Can we get a motion on that. 01:02:49.170 --> 01:02:50.310 Kelley Holcomb: So moved. Kelley Holcomb. 01:02:52.170 --> 01:02:52.680 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm sorry. 01:02:53.910 --> 01:02:54.150 Kelley Holcomb: So moved. Kelley Holcomb. 01:02:54.780 --> 01:03:05.100 Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley moved and Melanie is seconding, I think, or, or else you're. Yeah. Okay. Anyone who objects to the adoption of that problem statement? 01:03:08.340 --> 01:03:17.730 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, we'll consider it unanimously approved then. With that, the next step that 01:03:19.410 --> 01:03:31.950 Suzanne Schwartz: I would propose is we work on criteria. So you've just you've already through several meetings, starting at the first generated possible solutions to the, you know, that could satisfy your goal. 01:03:32.700 --> 01:03:42.660 Suzanne Schwartz: Obviously we'll need to revisit that. One of the, one of the things that is, I think, really useful for this process is to say, how are you going to 01:03:43.170 --> 01:04:00.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Evaluate any solutions. And these can become a standard either to set to try to generate solutions that meet those things or to ultimately decide, you know, figure out you know which ones are the most important for you to work on, but it meets the most you know that 01:04:02.370 --> 01:04:17.280 Suzanne Schwartz: That get the highest score so to speak on criteria. So again, I'm hoping we can do this through a brainstorming right now and actually come up with criteria, I want to say that I have actually 01:04:18.930 --> 01:04:34.920 Suzanne Schwartz: Seeded this at this point. And those bullets up there are ideas that I added from things I heard from you at prior meetings about what you'd want to be looking, how you'd be weighing things. And obviously y'all can 01:04:37.620 --> 01:04:43.080 Suzanne Schwartz: nix them, you know, when we get into discussion, but I thought it'd be a good place to start because I've heard you talk about 01:04:43.530 --> 01:04:57.570 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, you need to look at your time frame, what can what can you accomplish by the fall. What can you accomplish into the spring. You know what would be something the next Council could could consider. Those may actually be used more for categorization. 01:04:58.650 --> 01:05:01.230 Suzanne Schwartz: About what you work on first, second, and third 01:05:02.430 --> 01:05:11.400 Suzanne Schwartz: And then again, I heard, we've heard from prior meetings, you know, something should be, we need to address things that are legislatively mandated are mandated 01:05:11.730 --> 01:05:24.930 Suzanne Schwartz: for instance by Representative Larson has set some priorities. So those were some things that I have heard from prior meetings that were important to you and your work. So those were up there only 01:05:25.380 --> 01:05:35.310 Suzanne Schwartz: for that purpose, and we don't need to evaluate them now. What I was hoping is to generate some additional what what you think are what, what do you think is important to judge 01:05:36.060 --> 01:05:45.780 Suzanne Schwartz: Any solutions against. And again, let's just start with some brainstorming and Temple's, Temple's doing our word smithing here and she can capture capture anything that you 01:05:47.220 --> 01:05:50.220 Suzanne Schwartz: You think might be appropriate to weigh solutions. 01:05:51.450 --> 01:05:51.720 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, Kelley. 01:05:52.980 --> 01:06:01.560 Kelley Holcomb: So my question is, are these going to be one set of criteria that we will 01:06:02.910 --> 01:06:09.390 Kelley Holcomb: At a very high level evaluate all of solutions? Are we going to have individual solutions per 01:06:10.920 --> 01:06:11.340 Kelley Holcomb: Per category. 01:06:11.460 --> 01:06:22.380 Suzanne Schwartz: Yes, these will be specific to this category of planning water resources for the state as a whole. We, I propose we go through this process for the other categories too. 01:06:25.200 --> 01:06:26.370 Suzanne Schwartz: Is this that work for y'all. 01:06:28.320 --> 01:06:33.240 Suzanne Schwartz: I guess I should just pause. Is this a Is this useful for your for. Do you think 01:06:36.270 --> 01:06:37.560 Kelley Holcomb: My personal opinion. 01:06:37.650 --> 01:06:44.400 Kelley Holcomb: Is that because we this is the first ever 01:06:45.690 --> 01:06:47.040 Kelley Holcomb: type process. 01:06:48.270 --> 01:06:58.710 Kelley Holcomb: I wonder if it would better serve us our timeline today if we stuck with one group of criteria that are much more generalized 01:07:00.150 --> 01:07:12.810 Kelley Holcomb: But have a fairly large impact on the overall process. And then future Councils can take the work. The, the base layer work that we've done and build upon that, as they move forward in time. 01:07:14.760 --> 01:07:16.710 Kelley Holcomb: I can see getting in the weeds on this in a hurry. 01:07:17.040 --> 01:07:17.400 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:07:18.150 --> 01:07:19.020 Suzanne Schwartz: What other thoughts. 01:07:28.260 --> 01:07:30.300 Suzanne Schwartz: Anybody else have any thoughts on that. 01:07:38.820 --> 01:07:40.230 Mark Evans: Well, if I'm understanding 01:07:42.660 --> 01:07:56.490 Mark Evans: The question it seems to seems to me we should really really close this in initially on the fourth bullet point which is the legislation itself and the legislative mandate that this Council has. 01:07:57.660 --> 01:07:58.320 Mark Evans: And I think 01:08:01.590 --> 01:08:07.470 Mark Evans: Looking at the four bullet points that would be the one that I would prioritize. 01:08:07.950 --> 01:08:18.420 Suzanne Schwartz: Mark. One of the things I would would urge you to think about though is that if you get a myriad let's say you you generate quite a few possible solutions that will 01:08:19.230 --> 01:08:26.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Go into the idea that you know that what the legislature has said they want you to address how we you know which ones are the best ones. 01:08:27.930 --> 01:08:33.060 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, I mean, things that you can use for criteria can also include ease of operation. 01:08:35.430 --> 01:08:35.880 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, 01:08:37.140 --> 01:08:41.490 Suzanne Schwartz: Someone is available to implement them. Things like that so 01:08:41.580 --> 01:08:45.690 Mark Evans: Well, I think that would be, I think that would be our job to evaluate 01:08:48.870 --> 01:08:51.570 Mark Evans: and we would just have to determine which was, which was the best. 01:08:52.650 --> 01:08:53.370 Mark Evans: In our opinion, 01:08:53.610 --> 01:08:55.500 Suzanne Schwartz: I understand yeah I 01:08:56.040 --> 01:09:10.200 Suzanne Schwartz: And I guess the, the, the idea of using the criteria and I will let others I want to let others speak is to provide something up front, where there is some where you can agree on what's important. What do you think 01:09:11.550 --> 01:09:16.020 Suzanne Schwartz: You'll judge it against but maybe you don't need it. So I'd like to hear your 01:09:16.470 --> 01:09:19.260 Mark Evans: Take all for the bullet points good and valid. 01:09:20.400 --> 01:09:20.700 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 01:09:21.510 --> 01:09:22.620 Mark Evans: I'm not saying 01:09:22.800 --> 01:09:36.690 Mark Evans: we shouldn't think about what we can accomplish in the fall and the spring or what the next Council should take up and consider. But all I was saying was, I felt like our focal point should be on what we're mandated 01:09:38.610 --> 01:09:38.970 Suzanne Schwartz: That's most important. Yeah. 01:09:39.270 --> 01:09:39.570 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:09:40.320 --> 01:09:42.600 Mark Evans: To developing this report. Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley. 01:09:43.050 --> 01:09:57.210 Kelley Holcomb: Well, to that end, I mean, I'm looking at HB807, and you've got the three criteria there improve coordination, facilitate dialogue, and share best management practices. I mean, to me, that is the top three at minimum 01:09:58.350 --> 01:10:04.440 Kelley Holcomb: Everything that we talk about we've been mandated legislatively to do one of those three goals or one of those three uh 01:10:04.920 --> 01:10:21.540 Kelley Holcomb: one of those objectives. And again sure, you know, as has been aptly stated Chairman Larson, like a few others requests and recommendations upon us that we need to consider as well, but I don't know that those necessarily 01:10:23.010 --> 01:10:32.430 Kelley Holcomb: They don't supersede what's in the law. It looks to me like that is a secondary layer of what the Chairman would like to achieve, this can be to achieve as we move forward. 01:10:35.160 --> 01:10:36.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. Melanie 01:10:37.980 --> 01:10:38.880 Melanie Barnes: So sounds like 01:10:40.320 --> 01:10:49.830 Melanie Barnes: what was just said is as maybe that's our overarching goal and then these four that are on the screen 01:10:50.910 --> 01:10:55.890 Melanie Barnes: are more assessing the feasibility of a possible timeline. 01:10:58.410 --> 01:11:09.990 Melanie Barnes: So if you come out with a solution and or some recommendations and solutions, then it's how they match what we've been asked to do, do we achieve those three things. 01:11:10.410 --> 01:11:22.770 Melanie Barnes: And then, or four, or five and then the next would be the, our group assessing as to how quickly those can be achieved or put in 01:11:24.450 --> 01:11:25.470 Melanie Barnes: to work. 01:11:28.140 --> 01:11:29.310 Melanie Barnes: I'm not using the right words but. 01:11:32.670 --> 01:11:32.790 Kevin Ward: All the 01:11:33.150 --> 01:11:43.200 Suzanne Schwartz: I mean, it sounds like you're, you know, my thoughts on this, and again, these were just my thoughts as a facilitator process where they might be things like cost effectiveness or 01:11:44.610 --> 01:12:03.390 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, they, they, you know, whether it meets the goal, you know, your goal statement in, you know, for instance, under planning water resources, but it sounds like y'all don't feel like you need things like that at this point. Does anyone want to advocate for developing criteria? 01:12:05.190 --> 01:12:11.070 Melanie Barnes: Aren't we designing with this planning water resources for the state as a whole or haven't we been asked 01:12:14.430 --> 01:12:21.960 Melanie Barnes: How to in a way how to do that, do we use this group do we use, how do we use the regional water planning. 01:12:22.860 --> 01:12:34.020 Melanie Barnes: And and build on it so that we are looking at things a little more holistically, instead of just our own little regions and worrying about whether we have 10 drops of water for next year or not and and so 01:12:37.080 --> 01:12:48.420 Melanie Barnes: In a way, we're developing a process. Correct. We're not necessarily identifying or maybe I have this wrong. I don't. I thought we were developing a process not actually saying, oh, we've got these resources. 01:12:50.310 --> 01:12:54.540 Suzanne Schwartz: I think that's up to you. Probably. What do y'all think, What do y'all think about that? 01:12:56.790 --> 01:12:59.640 Kelley Holcomb: Clarify the question, her statement again, Melanie. 01:13:00.360 --> 01:13:09.870 Melanie Barnes: Well I, I guess I'm thinking of this planning water resources for the state as a whole that it's it's more process than actually identifying 01:13:11.640 --> 01:13:19.650 Melanie Barnes: water resources. Isn't it the process, how to identify water resources that we're supposed, that we've been charged with working out? 01:13:20.610 --> 01:13:21.150 Kelley Holcomb: Yes. 01:13:22.050 --> 01:13:27.930 Ray Buck: Are you, are you Melanie saying strategies or water resources? That's what's confusing. 01:13:29.070 --> 01:13:34.620 Ray Buck: Are you saying we should identify the process rather than identify a strategy? 01:13:37.860 --> 01:13:46.590 Melanie Barnes: I think so, I think, yeah, the processes to how you would look for water resources that are shared by several regions and then how do you address 01:13:47.700 --> 01:13:48.750 Melanie Barnes: Planning to use it. 01:13:50.220 --> 01:13:51.150 Melanie Barnes: Does that makes sense? 01:13:51.240 --> 01:13:51.600 Ray Buck: Yes. 01:13:53.940 --> 01:14:05.220 Kelley Holcomb: Well, I would agree that we are, our job is not to evaluate individual interregional conflicts is to set the protocol that others will 01:14:05.760 --> 01:14:12.390 Kelley Holcomb: Run through walk through and do that work at a much more granular level. 01:14:12.900 --> 01:14:20.520 Kelley Holcomb: But again, the, you know, when you're based the basic problem solving model is what is the problem or the problem is we've been having interregional conflicts. 01:14:21.120 --> 01:14:31.590 Kelley Holcomb: How do you solve that problem. And we're going to, the Leg has told us to improve coordination, facilitate dialogue, and share best management practices and 01:14:32.610 --> 01:14:39.630 Kelley Holcomb: You know, from there it is develop the solutions. And that's the four topics that we've got that we've been working through 01:14:40.140 --> 01:14:49.590 Kelley Holcomb: And now we're looking for the criteria to evaluate them so that we can determine if they're going to actually do what we're supposed to be doing next up is implementation. 01:14:52.200 --> 01:14:55.890 Melanie Barnes: I guess when I was thinking about this, I'm 01:14:57.990 --> 01:15:09.780 Melanie Barnes: In some respects is not the formation of this committee, one of those steps in that maybe this is a place where you could bring conflicts to and then it but but a 01:15:10.440 --> 01:15:25.200 Melanie Barnes: Kind of a first step before that would be, as we all know we hire different consultants and so you know Region A and Region O may not have the same consultant, even though we're working with the same water resource and and so 01:15:25.740 --> 01:15:36.150 Melanie Barnes: Maybe the first step is if you've identified an interregional conflict than a subset of the regional planning group and the two consultants 01:15:36.900 --> 01:15:48.330 Melanie Barnes: Come together and try to flesh out what the issue is and how people want to use it and then bring it to another group to go through a series of steps as to how to work out that conflict. 01:15:51.480 --> 01:15:51.780 Kelley Holcomb: I mean, 01:15:52.500 --> 01:15:55.590 Melanie Barnes: Too much process and that maybe that's all I needed. I don't 01:15:57.870 --> 01:15:58.290 Suzanne Schwartz: So, 01:15:59.820 --> 01:16:12.330 Suzanne Schwartz: Is this something you might want to Melanie want to be checking in on as you as the group continues to work to, you know, I mean, I think you're obviously going to be trying to figure out what you recommend and and or what you do so. 01:16:13.860 --> 01:16:22.230 Suzanne Schwartz: It will it do you think it will help if you do check ins periodically, or is this something that we want to spend more time on today. 01:16:28.470 --> 01:16:29.550 Melanie Barnes: Not sure I have an answer. 01:16:32.700 --> 01:16:35.970 Kelley Holcomb: I really would like to do all this live and in person. It is this is difficult. 01:16:37.050 --> 01:16:37.530 Suzanne Schwartz: It is. 01:16:38.670 --> 01:16:39.030 Kelley Holcomb: Um, 01:16:43.200 --> 01:16:52.860 Kelley Holcomb: Well, I have a basic question, right. So this is, I'm kind of a methodical type person, but all the four criteria are all the four 01:16:53.910 --> 01:16:55.380 Kelley Holcomb: Tools that we have 01:16:56.520 --> 01:17:05.130 Kelley Holcomb: For creating these solutions to this do all four of these address the three mandates the Leg gave us? 01:17:05.670 --> 01:17:07.620 Kelley Holcomb: Or are they geared more toward 01:17:08.010 --> 01:17:14.670 Kelley Holcomb: Our individual solutions geared more toward one or more of the three mandates that have been given to us? 01:17:15.990 --> 01:17:20.340 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, Kelley. I know we tried to, I think that 01:17:21.510 --> 01:17:27.210 Suzanne Schwartz: When you first came up with ideas you tried to look at the statute and you tried to look at Larson's 01:17:28.590 --> 01:17:34.680 Suzanne Schwartz: Emails, and I think, have I continually done that. I think that when you start looking at what you're 01:17:35.190 --> 01:17:50.670 Suzanne Schwartz: At the proposed solutions under that it you know my thought is, you've done a lot of that. That's not to say, you know, I, it seems like it's a a touch base that you ought to be doing through throughout this process, perhaps 01:17:51.630 --> 01:17:52.800 Kelley Holcomb: So, 01:17:54.030 --> 01:17:55.140 Kelley Holcomb: What was the short answer? 01:17:56.070 --> 01:17:57.150 Kelley Holcomb: You said a lot of words. 01:17:57.390 --> 01:18:05.580 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne. I'm not sure I understood we've got four solutions and three mandates. Do all four solutions touch each mandate in the law or are they 01:18:06.240 --> 01:18:17.580 Suzanne Schwartz: so the four, the four topics have multiple possible solutions under them. And in fact Temple, let me, let me let me, Temple can you put the next slide up for instance. 01:18:20.220 --> 01:18:33.060 Suzanne Schwartz: Planning water resources from, oh no, the one. Yeah, the prior one. Yeah. So this, these were ideas about, you, we called them issues that when we first discussed them and 01:18:33.900 --> 01:18:40.110 Suzanne Schwartz: I've now moved to them to the idea of solutions because they seem to be ways you have said 01:18:40.980 --> 01:18:47.490 Suzanne Schwartz: As a group or individually, which again are brainstormed. Nobody's agreed to these. These are just ideas that have been thrown out. 01:18:47.760 --> 01:19:02.130 Suzanne Schwartz: But these are things that have been thrown out and we've we have kind of grouped them under the category of planning water resources for the state as a whole. There are other ideas that are grouped under the other what I'm calling topics. 01:19:03.150 --> 01:19:19.890 Suzanne Schwartz: And I think, you know, my, my gut is that we you have probably come up with ideas that will address all of the things in statute and that Larson have said, but I would think you would want to keep that in mind and keep checking. 01:19:21.750 --> 01:19:33.480 Kelley Holcomb: Right, I'm with you on. But my question is the topic, the solutions that we've identified one of the four planning water resources for the state as a whole. 01:19:34.140 --> 01:19:48.960 Kelley Holcomb: Which one of the three mandates does that topic address one, two, or all 3?Am I am I way off track. If I am somebody call me out on it. Now I'll mute myself but 01:19:50.520 --> 01:19:54.120 Suzanne Schwartz: I would need to, let me pull the statute and maybe other people can speak up. I 01:19:55.980 --> 01:19:56.580 Suzanne Schwartz: Don't know. 01:19:57.060 --> 01:20:00.450 Mark Evans: I don't know. I think you're on point, I think. But what we're 01:20:02.460 --> 01:20:03.510 What we're getting 01:20:04.590 --> 01:20:16.980 Mark Evans: Wrapped up in is you have the language of the bill itself which is we're required to prepare report. And then we have just above that in C the purposes of the Council. 01:20:17.610 --> 01:20:33.330 Mark Evans: You know, that's kind of the achievement of the report of the work of the Council, but the topics and maybe this the possible solutions are contained in the language of Chairman Larson's letter to us when he identifies topics that he would like 01:20:35.400 --> 01:20:38.790 Mark Evans: believes would be beneficial for the Planning Council to take up. 01:20:40.650 --> 01:20:40.980 Kelley Holcomb: Well, 01:20:41.580 --> 01:20:43.350 Mark Evans: We consider these 01:20:43.500 --> 01:20:54.510 Mark Evans: Consider these topics as as part of our work, which can lead to the fulfillment of the purposes of the Council, which will be contained in the report, which would also be contained 01:20:54.900 --> 01:21:04.410 Mark Evans: In the report that we considered, discussed, evaluated all of the bullet points that's in Chairman Larson's letter of April 27 to the Council. 01:21:05.760 --> 01:21:08.940 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, I guess I'm I'm work still in my mind, I'm working through 01:21:08.940 --> 01:21:10.620 Kelley Holcomb: The structure of all this stuff. 01:21:13.230 --> 01:21:32.220 Kelley Holcomb: Chairman Larson's letter doesn't set aside or waive the three purposes under Section 1605.2.c one, two, and three. Right. The way I see Chairman Larson's letter is his recommendations or his request is a 01:21:33.330 --> 01:21:47.760 Kelley Holcomb: a more granular look within the confines of each of those three sections of the law. So, and I'm okay with them. I get all that. My question is, we've got three sets of 01:21:48.690 --> 01:21:54.240 Kelley Holcomb: Criteria here, we're working with. And I'm trying to understand how all three of them relate to each other and 01:21:55.020 --> 01:22:10.650 Kelley Holcomb: If planning water resources for the state is our number one on the solution side, which I'm, I'm okay with how does that relate to Chairman Larson's letter or back to the original bill that set this whole Planning Council process in motion. 01:22:11.550 --> 01:22:12.510 Suzanne Schwartz: So Kelley. 01:22:12.600 --> 01:22:12.840 Melanie Barnes: Oh, 01:22:13.740 --> 01:22:16.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Go ahead. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Oh. 01:22:16.860 --> 01:22:21.330 Melanie Barnes: I just say if you go back to the original May 26 document 01:22:22.830 --> 01:22:31.740 Melanie Barnes: where his things were listed under planning water resources was listed identify new multi regional projects, identify 01:22:32.760 --> 01:22:42.810 Melanie Barnes: undeveloped water projects, but his three things were identify new multi regional projects, review the viability and justification of the projects. 01:22:43.320 --> 01:22:57.750 Melanie Barnes: And make recommendations how to encourage the inclusion of innovative strategies and then identify additional ways that the Board can assist in the interregional coordination and planning, planning, at the state wide level. 01:23:00.210 --> 01:23:12.690 Melanie Barnes: So that would say that with statewide resources we need to identify some projects. We need to say whether there Kelley Holcomb: We don't. Melanie Barnes: If they're statewide they're interregional and we need to say how that's going to be worked on. No? 01:23:12.990 --> 01:23:21.600 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, we don't identify it. We just set up the process of how that may or may not take place, but we don't identify anything as part of this Council. 01:23:23.160 --> 01:23:37.590 Kelley Holcomb: And secondly, I understand that. But Chairman Larson's letter doesn't supersede the law and if it doesn't supersede the law, where does chairman, the bullet points that Chairman Larson gave us fit into the law to give us better clarification on what he's asking for. 01:23:38.220 --> 01:23:57.270 Suzanne Schwartz: So Kelley, just to tell you how we structured it, if you went back to, there's a document we had at some point called possible issues for the Council to consider and in that we listed all your brainstormed ideas and also made sure we included all of Chairman Larson's 01:23:59.520 --> 01:24:06.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Language and his topic. So those are actually all included under the four 01:24:07.290 --> 01:24:10.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Under the four general categories that we've 01:24:11.490 --> 01:24:28.140 Suzanne Schwartz: That we've laid out. So I am confident we've gotten them all included for you to consider and we can continue if you want to highlight that what he what were identified by him. If you want, or they can certainly be discussion points. 01:24:28.260 --> 01:24:33.300 Kelley Holcomb: No, ma'am. I'll yield and I'll do some back end work on my side. 01:24:35.550 --> 01:24:40.320 Suzanne Schwartz: I think those are really good questions. And I think something to that needs to be 01:24:40.620 --> 01:24:53.610 Suzanne Schwartz: Continually looked at, you know, we are you meet you know your forum for some specific reasons, the law, obviously, is that overriding and then you've got some guidance by the House natural chair. So how do you handle those. 01:24:57.150 --> 01:24:58.200 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, David. 01:24:59.280 --> 01:25:00.330 Suzanne Schwartz: You'll need to unmute 01:25:04.230 --> 01:25:04.560 Suzanne Schwartz: Not 01:25:05.670 --> 01:25:05.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:25:06.180 --> 01:25:13.800 David Wheelock: Okay, sorry about that. There's two different mute buttons here I go. I'm really appreciating Kelley's thoughts on this and I never had parsed that sentence 01:25:14.280 --> 01:25:19.260 David Wheelock: C.2. in the law before the facilitate dialogue regarding water management strategies. 01:25:20.160 --> 01:25:36.780 David Wheelock: So the way I'm hearing the question is one way to proceed would be to come up with what some of the strategies are that need multiple regional water planning areas and then facilitate dialogue about those strategies. So that would be that would be a way to proceed. 01:25:39.120 --> 01:25:44.190 David Wheelock: Maybe it's too far down in the weeds and then of course a converse to that would be to 01:25:46.080 --> 01:25:58.260 David Wheelock: Have have a high level dialogue about meeting waters statewide water issues without mentioning any specific strategies. So it would appear that the chairman 01:25:58.890 --> 01:26:09.030 David Wheelock: May have interpreted this sentence to the former of let's have dialogue about what these strategies are, are, let's have a dialogue about these strategies. 01:26:11.010 --> 01:26:14.010 David Wheelock: So yeah, that's a, that's a, that's a pretty good procedural question. 01:26:19.380 --> 01:26:20.130 David Wheelock: End of my comment. Thanks. 01:26:28.200 --> 01:26:41.730 Suzanne Schwartz: Would it, I don't know if we can get it. Would it be helpful to get more clarity from his office about what he means about about that or or are y'all willing to try to sort of go off 01:26:42.150 --> 01:26:44.250 Kevin Ward: I think we should do try to address the question. 01:26:44.250 --> 01:26:54.840 Kevin Ward: The priorities that he said he said by October 14th he wants us to prioritize looking at these three items. And then the other ones. He wants us to attempt to address them as well. 01:26:55.410 --> 01:27:02.580 Kevin Ward: And I don't think they're outside the boundaries of what the legislation says, I think it's just sort of like him clarifying what his thoughts were, and 01:27:03.480 --> 01:27:18.630 Kevin Ward: That's accomplished with the legislation as is described. And since he's the author of it, I think we have to all agree that he's he's got the best view of what it is he was trying to get out when he wrote the bill. 01:27:22.560 --> 01:27:25.710 Suzanne Schwartz: Melanie wants to say something and then I'll see in 01:27:27.300 --> 01:27:37.800 Melanie Barnes: The three things I went back and looked at the three things to improve coordination and facilitate dialogue regarding water management and share best practices of the regional water planning. 01:27:38.550 --> 01:27:44.790 Melanie Barnes: And it would seem that the planning water resources for the state as a whole, this topic that we're discussing right now is the first one. 01:27:45.930 --> 01:27:51.240 Melanie Barnes: To me, improving the coordination and meeting a goal for the state as a whole and so 01:27:55.650 --> 01:28:08.760 Melanie Barnes: I think we've been charged with coming up with a process to do that. And, but it just addresses the first one. It's not talking about water management strategies or best practices in regional water planning. 01:28:11.610 --> 01:28:13.170 Melanie Barnes: Just an idea, guys. 01:28:14.700 --> 01:28:27.750 Kevin Ward: We basically got a good start on what we've done and then want to take it to that next level of maybe getting into what the process on getting into those things for planning for the state as a whole and we'll answer the question. 01:28:28.500 --> 01:28:31.710 Melanie Barnes: Like, who does it and how you do it. Is that what you mean? 01:28:31.980 --> 01:28:32.340 Kevin Ward: Yeah. 01:28:34.950 --> 01:28:39.240 Suzanne Schwartz: I just want to do a process check real quick. We've got half an hour left in the meeting. 01:28:40.890 --> 01:28:44.220 Suzanne Schwartz: I've heard some you that you're not are 01:28:45.930 --> 01:28:52.770 Suzanne Schwartz: We had two items we were discussing the criteria and then the idea was to see if we had additional solutions to 01:28:53.400 --> 01:29:00.690 Suzanne Schwartz: To the planning water resources for the state. And we're still on that one. The item number five, the planning water resources for the state. 01:29:01.140 --> 01:29:17.880 Suzanne Schwartz: Do you, well I heard from you that you're not all that interested in developing criteria beyond those bullet points that were laid out on the prior slide. I want to see if that's where you are and and where you want to proceed with today's meeting. 01:29:19.320 --> 01:29:26.220 Suzanne Schwartz: Do you want to continue to talk to you want to make a decision on whether you want criteria and if the ones that were listed are sufficient 01:29:26.850 --> 01:29:45.930 Suzanne Schwartz: And do you want to continue to try to come up with solutions. That's choice number one. The second choice is do you do, do you want to move and try to do a goal statement and a problem, a problem statement and a goal statement for the interregional coordination between regions. Kevin. 01:29:46.680 --> 01:29:57.360 Kevin Ward: I would like to move on. I think that criteria that you propose looks to me like what Melanie was saying if you just took the last item and put it above an umbrella on the other three items on those 01:29:59.010 --> 01:30:10.500 Kevin Ward: Ones you have listed on the previous page, it kind of gives you. It says that we got to do take care of legislation and legislative mandate, you know, and you might want to say with clarification as provided. 01:30:11.220 --> 01:30:19.140 Kevin Ward: But that's on top, you know. And then underneath that we divide it up into what we list what we can accomplish by fall of 2020. 01:30:19.710 --> 01:30:30.030 Kevin Ward: We look at what we can accomplish by the spring of 2020 and then for the ones that we feel like need to be a future consideration. Maybe they really don't fit within the realm. We think the relative, they don't answer the 01:30:30.840 --> 01:30:38.280 Kevin Ward: Charge, we say it's for the next Council to consider. Maybe the legislature takes that up as to whether they want to do that or not. 01:30:38.880 --> 01:30:50.100 Kevin Ward: But that's kind of what I thought you were trying to do there. I didn't really, you wouldn't care so much as what baskets we put the information in as we get we get going on this. 01:30:51.060 --> 01:30:53.760 Kevin Ward: I don't know, Melanie is that kind of what you were getting at when you were talking about it? 01:30:59.640 --> 01:31:02.040 Melanie Barnes: I think so. I say we move on. 01:31:04.290 --> 01:31:04.530 Kevin Ward: Yes. 01:31:05.730 --> 01:31:08.190 Suzanne Schwartz: So no motions at this point, leave this at 01:31:08.250 --> 01:31:09.510 Suzanne Schwartz: This point where we are. 01:31:09.810 --> 01:31:18.060 Suzanne Schwartz: And I'm hearing what we do you want. Are you ready to move on to try to do a problem statement and goal statement for the interregional cooperation? 01:31:21.150 --> 01:31:23.340 Suzanne Schwartz: I think that's where we are. So let's let's 01:31:25.380 --> 01:31:28.380 Suzanne Schwartz: Let's move to that. So, oh, 01:31:31.980 --> 01:31:35.820 Suzanne Schwartz: I don't, I'm not sure where they are right now. So let's go ahead and yeah let's just go up here. 01:31:37.170 --> 01:31:45.450 Suzanne Schwartz: So again, we were going to move to the topic of enhancing interregional cooperation. 01:31:47.070 --> 01:31:47.790 Suzanne Schwartz: And 01:31:48.990 --> 01:32:07.170 Suzanne Schwartz: On this one. I just don't have any additional information again this was a draft problem statement that was developed from brainstorming and ideas, we'd heard from you earlier. Again, just take a read of it and then have a general discussion about 01:32:43.530 --> 01:32:48.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Anybody have anything you'd like to change on this? 01:32:55.230 --> 01:32:57.810 Melanie Barnes: How important is the problem statement? 01:32:58.980 --> 01:33:00.060 Suzanne Schwartz: It just sort of 01:33:00.780 --> 01:33:01.860 Suzanne Schwartz: I don't know how important is it to y'all? 01:33:02.400 --> 01:33:03.000 Melanie Barnes: It's a 01:33:03.090 --> 01:33:04.710 Melanie Barnes: guide for us. Okay. 01:33:05.460 --> 01:33:09.780 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, it's a guide. What are you looking at, what do you see is the problem. And so you can solve it. 01:33:11.310 --> 01:33:18.990 Kelley Holcomb: Well, I think one of the things I would like to acknowledge and up and I read this, I didn't, I didn't see it. Like I do at the moment. 01:33:19.590 --> 01:33:21.750 Kelley Holcomb: But I think I know it in Region I 01:33:22.020 --> 01:33:30.180 Kelley Holcomb: We have kind of prided ourselves for being conflict free up to this point over the last 22 years 01:33:30.750 --> 01:33:47.070 Kelley Holcomb: And I realize and acknowledge that there are some conflicts that exist amongst regions. That's, that's, you know, to be expected to some degree. But I think that for the State Water planning process, somehow, it would be nice if we could acknowledge that 01:33:48.450 --> 01:33:49.890 Kelley Holcomb: Other there are 01:33:50.940 --> 01:33:54.150 Kelley Holcomb: Interregional conflicts are few, rare and 01:33:56.220 --> 01:34:04.740 Kelley Holcomb: Difficult when they occur. And I don't know how to state that but we ought to pat ourselves on the back because, by and large, we've done a dang good job over the last 22 years. 01:34:08.370 --> 01:34:08.760 Suzanne Schwartz: So, :34:08,820 --> 01:34:12,240 Melanie Barnes: Yeah, I think what you're saying, Kelley is there, there's a 01:34:15.810 --> 01:34:26.340 Melanie Barnes: It's not a severe problem because we have not run into this very often, yet there is no stated process as how to deal with it when it does arise. 01:34:27.270 --> 01:34:28.530 Kelley Holcomb: And when it arises 01:34:29.190 --> 01:34:31.380 Melanie Barnes: What role. Yeah. 01:34:31.800 --> 01:34:35.400 Suzanne Schwartz: And Temple and Matt, I wanted to maybe get you to weigh in. 01:34:35.700 --> 01:34:39.330 Matt Nelson: There, there is a process for dealing with interregional conflicts to be clear. 01:34:39.630 --> 01:34:42.660 Matt Nelson: And Temple's laid it out. And there's resources to describe it. 01:34:42.690 --> 01:34:45.150 Matt Nelson: There is a process so 01:34:45.720 --> 01:34:46.440 Melanie Barnes: So, Matt. Matt Nelson: It should be clear that that exists. 01:34:51.030 --> 01:34:57.000 Melanie Barnes: We were asked to address this. And so based on the fact that I haven't been involved in any 01:34:59.790 --> 01:35:00.960 Matt Nelson: Temple sent out the information, the rules. 01:35:01.920 --> 01:35:03.540 Matt Nelson: that describe the process. 01:35:04.830 --> 01:35:05.250 Melanie Barnes: Pardon? 01:35:05.940 --> 01:35:09.420 Matt Nelson: Temple sent out information on the rules in the process and how it goes and how its 01:35:11.010 --> 01:35:11.880 Melanie Barnes: Right but but 01:35:12.060 --> 01:35:16.920 Melanie Barnes: I'm asking you, as the as the expert staff person, um, 01:35:18.150 --> 01:35:21.420 Melanie Barnes: Do you see places where there are holes that we should work on 01:35:23.610 --> 01:35:24.690 Matt Nelson: We will do what the Leg 01:35:25.260 --> 01:35:32.190 Matt Nelson: tells us. We do now. And so we do not, you know we are the arbiter we are not 01:35:32.640 --> 01:35:44.340 Matt Nelson: proposing any changes to that we are we are responsible for resolving those and we do as directed by the legislature in accordance with our Rules. So we have not proposed any changes to that our board hasn't either 01:35:45.930 --> 01:36:00.240 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah. So just, just to clarify my comment. Mine was this may not even be the appropriate place but to acknowledge that regional conflicts exist, but by and large they don't occur often, but when they do, they are significant. 01:36:00.810 --> 01:36:01.470 Suzanne Schwartz: And Kelley. 01:36:01.830 --> 01:36:02.520 Kelley Holcomb: It's why we're here. 01:36:02.880 --> 01:36:06.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, and Kelley. I want to maybe give perspective, we 01:36:07.800 --> 01:36:13.830 Suzanne Schwartz: Have tried to make a distinction because there is another category of how to how to resolve interregional conflicts. 01:36:14.430 --> 01:36:23.430 Suzanne Schwartz: And it is a separate category that we'll talk about next week. I think that we had tried to make a distinction between this being, how do you work together 01:36:23.730 --> 01:36:36.300 Suzanne Schwartz: kind of proactively to avoid conflict deal with conflict early as opposed to those rare situations where it does actually reach a conflict, formal conflict stage. 01:36:37.080 --> 01:36:48.300 Suzanne Schwartz: And I, you know, one of your goals, one of the legislative mandates was to improve coordination among the planning groups and with the Board to plan for water resources as a state. So 01:36:49.740 --> 01:37:06.900 Suzanne Schwartz: I and I think we should note that, you know, we will get to that interregional I guess my question to you is, do you think that your know what you want to note is that important to note here or is it important to note in the interregional conflict 01:37:08.040 --> 01:37:08.940 Suzanne Schwartz: category? 01:37:11.280 --> 01:37:12.540 Kelley Holcomb: I don't know. 01:37:12.600 --> 01:37:19.890 Kelley Holcomb: Okay, but to make the statement that regions may not be coordinated effectively throughout the state is not 01:37:20.610 --> 01:37:39.120 Kelley Holcomb: As accurate statement as it would appear to be on the face because when you look at it, historically, we're at soon to be five planning cycles over 16 regions and somebody else who's good at math can do the math. We've had two interregional conflicts on two separate occasions. 01:37:39.780 --> 01:37:41.760 Kelley Holcomb: So that's still a relatively low 01:37:41.760 --> 01:37:44.490 Kelley Holcomb: Percentage of occurrences. 01:37:45.420 --> 01:37:49.050 Kelley Holcomb: But while that occurrence has been low. It's been significant in the 01:37:49.590 --> 01:37:57.120 Kelley Holcomb: The impact of those occurrences. And that's, that's all I'm trying to say is that it's a problem. Yes, we acknowledge the problem but 01:37:57.840 --> 01:38:06.420 Kelley Holcomb: We've done a good job. I'm just trying to take the opportunity to say something positive about the process. That's all. And maybe I'm way off target again I'll mute and 01:38:07.950 --> 01:38:08.280 Suzanne Schwartz: David. 01:38:10.140 --> 01:38:15.240 David Wheelock: Well I, Kelley, I would certainly support where you're going on a positive statement because I think it's real helpful. 01:38:16.770 --> 01:38:22.050 David Wheelock: I don't have that positive statement, but I do have a suggestion for the sentence that we're working on. 01:38:22.620 --> 01:38:30.660 David Wheelock: Because it says throughout the state, and to me that's creating a problem statement that's larger than any region can address. So I think it 01:38:31.260 --> 01:38:47.340 David Wheelock: Is kind of diminishing the statement. I'd like to say the regions may not be coordinating effectively in creating regional water plans that affect the entire state or the roll up to the state water plan. Because 01:38:48.600 --> 01:39:00.360 David Wheelock: any, any regional water planning group member, I think, is only going to be wanting to look at their own region and maybe the ones immediately around them, but certainly not the entire state. Well, a few might be involved in the entire state but 01:39:02.310 --> 01:39:08.010 David Wheelock: The throughout the state to me is hard for a regional water planning group to deal with. 01:39:10.440 --> 01:39:13.380 David Wheelock: Now that doesn't, that's, that's not 01:39:14.550 --> 01:39:19.500 David Wheelock: That's not Kelley, you were going on a different track on a positive statement. I certainly support that too. 01:39:21.360 --> 01:39:22.590 Kelley Holcomb: Thank you. 01:39:22.830 --> 01:39:24.600 Temple McKinnon: Let me get y'alls thoughts real quick. So I'm being presumptive. 01:39:27.810 --> 01:39:32.040 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, let's see who's, so I see Kevin wanting to talk. 01:39:33.330 --> 01:39:34.800 Kevin Ward: Well as I looked at all this 01:39:37.980 --> 01:39:46.770 Kevin Ward: I see something of a big hole in this it's missing. I think that if you're really talking about enhancing interregional coordination, you can't talk about it without trying to 01:39:49.080 --> 01:39:55.440 Kevin Ward: Have an enhancement that helps to prevent or head off interregional conflict. 01:39:56.700 --> 01:39:59.010 Kevin Ward: And so we don't want to miss that. 01:40:00.090 --> 01:40:04.110 Kevin Ward: And that really will require us to look at the process itself. 01:40:05.310 --> 01:40:07.830 Kevin Ward: And and to do that you also have to look at 01:40:09.180 --> 01:40:14.520 Kevin Ward: Interregional conflicts that have occurred. I mean, we may not formally have one as of yet. 01:40:15.240 --> 01:40:22.260 Kevin Ward: I still haven't figured out how that would work. I know what the Board has in its procedures right now about the declaration of an interregional conflict. 01:40:22.710 --> 01:40:36.870 Kevin Ward: I don't know that that prevents an interregional conflict from coming up during the approval of the regional plans and then the subsequent approval of the state water plan. Which means that there's more than just one place that an interregional conflict could 01:40:38.310 --> 01:40:48.750 Kevin Ward: Come up, or at least be in, you know, someone would declare or state, they thought is should. So if we don't, I mean, 01:40:49.620 --> 01:40:54.390 Kevin Ward: When Chairman Larson wrote his letter to each of us, he said, you know, take a look at those 01:40:54.870 --> 01:41:05.130 Kevin Ward: those conflicts, you know, any existing conflict. Well, this just happened to have a hall pass for the moment, because the Water Board is not going to take up our, our IPPs for a little while. 01:41:06.030 --> 01:41:20.070 Kevin Ward: And and then a hall pass all the way up until they do the state water plan. But we could be in the middle of everything we're doing right now. And by not looking at the two conflicts we had in the pas, which were the same, some somewhat the same project. 01:41:21.480 --> 01:41:31.590 Kevin Ward: We're missing the boat on trying to do an introspective, look at the regional planning process and what may be a better way to do these this 01:41:32.280 --> 01:41:45.990 Kevin Ward: This work that would identify well in advance the potential for these large strategies to that that are, you know, interregional and maybe have a full statewide effect. 01:41:46.860 --> 01:42:06.240 Kevin Ward: So that they can be vetted in a at the appropriate level in government that prevents there from being a conflict. I've never been an advocate that conflict should be handled within the project of the regional planning process. And in fact, at one point when it was, it went to court so 01:42:07.410 --> 01:42:18.690 Kevin Ward: You know, we were kind of dancing around a subject here that by separating these things in let's just enhance interregional coordination. Well, we can do a lot about that. 01:42:19.620 --> 01:42:27.090 Kevin Ward: And we can and then how do we deal with an interregional conflict. Well, that's two bookends right there in the middle is the fight. 01:42:28.500 --> 01:42:42.330 Kevin Ward: And how it how it how it actually came about. So I'm just saying that we know when you take the letter and in concert with charge you get to, we really 01:42:43.800 --> 01:42:56.670 Kevin Ward: Need to look at interregional conflicts that occurred, how they happened, when it really became evident that it was going to destined to be an interregional conflict, what could have been done in the whole interregional planning process to 01:42:57.930 --> 01:43:11.580 Kevin Ward: to better coordinate interregionally that might have headed it off or might have addressed issues or might have even had a higher group or authority give guidance to the entities involved in a way that 01:43:13.050 --> 01:43:16.290 Kevin Ward: Things would be different and that's just my two bits. 01:43:18.150 --> 01:43:18.630 Kevin Ward: And a half 01:43:19.740 --> 01:43:20.310 Kevin Ward: Million Dollar 01:43:24.150 --> 01:43:31.080 Suzanne Schwartz: Melanie had, I see your hand up. Let me see if anyone else wants to talk that hasn't had a chance to express themselves yet. 01:43:32.100 --> 01:43:34.500 Suzanne Schwartz: Just trying to make sure we catch everybody 01:43:35.520 --> 01:43:37.290 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, Melanie. It's all yours. 01:43:38.790 --> 01:43:45.090 Melanie Barnes: So, so then based on listening and based on quickly reading 01:43:46.350 --> 01:43:48.900 Melanie Barnes: The document that was produced last October. 01:43:50.250 --> 01:43:51.750 Melanie Barnes: It doesn't sound like we have a 01:43:54.660 --> 01:43:57.480 Melanie Barnes: It doesn't sound like we have a problem with the process. There's a process. 01:43:58.650 --> 01:44:14.970 Melanie Barnes: It sounds like what maybe we've identified is if we're going to go to looking at water resources that are more resources of the state as a whole that we we are perceiving that there may be 01:44:16.350 --> 01:44:30.420 Melanie Barnes: regional conflicts and therefore, how do we put looking at these earlier in the process so that they may actually not become conflicts instead regions, working together to develop the source. 01:44:31.440 --> 01:44:33.330 Melanie Barnes: Is so so our problem is that 01:44:34.500 --> 01:44:54.810 Melanie Barnes: Maybe the statement of the problem statement for enhancing interregional coordination is that this is not addressed early enough in the regional planning process. That it's looked at after we've planned our resources, rather than as we are planning our resources. 01:44:57.810 --> 01:45:06.390 Suzanne Schwartz: And I think that last there's a last, the last phrase in the problem statement was not always coordinating early enough in the process is is 01:45:06.660 --> 01:45:15.030 Melanie Barnes: And and I guess what I'm saying is, maybe that's the crux of the whole problem has nothing to do with whether we can handle conflicts or not. We've had two, we've handled them. There aren't that many 01:45:15.480 --> 01:45:26.400 Melanie Barnes: There's a process that the Texas Water Development Board has and it's very clear as to how you address it, but it's addressed towards the end of the planning process after we all have our ducks in a row. 01:45:27.150 --> 01:45:27.480 Kevin Ward: The only 01:45:27.570 --> 01:45:31.530 Melanie Barnes: So maybe the thing is we're not addressing this early enough. And that's it. That's our problem statement. 01:45:33.210 --> 01:45:41.220 Kevin Ward: It is a problem, but you said one thing is as a whole, and I might be the minority report on it. I don't necessarily agree that the process we agree with the process. 01:45:42.300 --> 01:45:54.300 Kevin Ward: Unless you've been through it, you might not, you might just look at it, hey, well make sense. That's good. Good way to do it as any. But the problem you run run into is that the law, there's no law that defines what an interregional conflict is. 01:45:55.590 --> 01:45:58.470 Kevin Ward: It just says if there is one here, here's what you gotta do. 01:45:59.580 --> 01:46:09.270 Kevin Ward: And and that that's a big problem. And then you go past that, in the way that it got decided what is in the Board rule currently and guidance and all that, with regard to that is based on a lawsuit. 01:46:10.140 --> 01:46:17.460 Kevin Ward: And it's you know how hard it is to to write a rule and do things based on a lawsuit. And then the next one comes along, it will change. So 01:46:17.850 --> 01:46:26.130 Kevin Ward: There are some real inherent issues with regard to what an interregional conflict is in first place. We have to deal with what's in rule doesn't mean we have to as a 01:46:27.180 --> 01:46:31.440 Kevin Ward: Council agree to it, to say that we like it. We can say we don't like it. 01:46:32.460 --> 01:46:37.200 Kevin Ward: I don't necessarily think stopping at the appeals court was the way to go, I think it could've gone to the Supreme Court, but 01:46:37.740 --> 01:46:44.910 Kevin Ward: You know, it's just that's that's based on opinion and what people thought the ultimate outcome would be. So for what it's worth, it's it's it's not a 01:46:45.360 --> 01:46:52.860 Kevin Ward: That's a that's, I agree. I think the easiest way for us to deal with it now and move forward is what you just said. Focus on the issue that really 01:46:53.910 --> 01:47:01.350 Kevin Ward: Knowing that this goes back more than a dozen years conflict, the only conflict that we have that might arise. It's another conflict here soon. 01:47:02.910 --> 01:47:10.860 Kevin Ward: We think that that someone should have called it into question,and instead of holding their breath and waiting to see if it happened again. 01:47:13.170 --> 01:47:20.310 Suzanne Schwartz: So I want to just do a process check. We've got 10 minutes left in what we asked you to allocate for your time. 01:47:22.050 --> 01:47:29.820 Suzanne Schwartz: I'd like to spend some time at the end of the meeting before we adjourn to talk about where we're going from here, but 01:47:32.220 --> 01:47:40.980 Suzanne Schwartz: We've kind of got some input that maybe would let us do some additional work on this problem statement and bring it back to you next time. 01:47:42.840 --> 01:47:45.480 Suzanne Schwartz: Would that be acceptable to you and 01:47:49.350 --> 01:47:51.150 Mark Evans: Yes, if you'll work on that first sentence. 01:47:53.040 --> 01:47:54.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Can tell us what 01:47:54.150 --> 01:47:57.120 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, I'm happy obviously we'll work on the whole thing. Um, 01:47:57.870 --> 01:47:58.440 Mark Evans: Well, because 01:47:58.560 --> 01:48:03.630 Mark Evans: The state water plan is the compilation of the regional water plan so 01:48:04.650 --> 01:48:10.680 Mark Evans: I mean, I really don't. Yeah. To me that that language needs to be Suzanne Schwartz: sure 01:48:11.700 --> 01:48:12.540 Mark Evans: For my purposes. 01:48:13.770 --> 01:48:14.040 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:48:14.250 --> 01:48:17.700 Suzanne Schwartz: So that as an idea. The last part there maybe 01:48:20.670 --> 01:48:33.600 Suzanne Schwartz: If you, if there any other immediate thoughts about what you'd like us to capture in this statement we'll just without discussion, just throw them out or send them to me in the next couple of days, and we'll 01:48:34.980 --> 01:48:37.410 Suzanne Schwartz: We'll get you something back, David. 01:48:38.700 --> 01:48:51.000 David Wheelock: Yeah, I have a question for the group. And those of you that have met with the representative, which I have not because we seem to be prioritizing more the interregional conflict item 01:48:52.170 --> 01:49:07.200 David Wheelock: More above what I've heard from the representative and listening to his talking and his comments to us and the letter he seems to be more about the territorialism of the regional groups and he used the word Balkanization. 01:49:08.280 --> 01:49:20.670 David Wheelock: I mean I I thought he kind of wanted us to take down to remove the walls of territorialism so that we can create multiple regional multi region projects. So 01:49:21.750 --> 01:49:25.680 David Wheelock: I mean, there's a difference in focus. Is it is it creating. Is it is it 01:49:27.780 --> 01:49:32.670 David Wheelock: preventing conflicts or is it promoting regionalism or interregionalism? 01:49:33.870 --> 01:49:36.630 David Wheelock: So I think that kind of goes to our problem statement here also. 01:49:37.740 --> 01:49:38.190 David Wheelock: And I'll mute. 01:49:39.990 --> 01:49:43.050 Suzanne Schwartz: So, and any other thoughts before we 01:49:45.120 --> 01:49:47.370 Suzanne Schwartz: We move on to just wrapping the meeting up. 01:49:49.980 --> 01:49:58.350 Patrick Brzozowski: All we're gonna play a little bit off of what they were just saying, because that's what I got from my conversation with him is moving water from areas that have water. 01:49:59.550 --> 01:50:02.280 Patrick Brzozowski: To areas that need water, right? 01:50:04.110 --> 01:50:05.580 Patrick Brzozowski: No matter the distance 01:50:07.980 --> 01:50:11.400 Patrick Brzozowski: So I think that's what we are, or that's what he's focused about 01:50:13.590 --> 01:50:26.820 Kelley Holcomb: And Patrick. I would agree. But that's a problem that is fraught with a lot of problems. I mean, ownership costs and I know y'all know all this. I'm just speaking out loud. 01:50:27.690 --> 01:50:31.290 Patrick Brzozowski: But then that's what creates the conflict in the first place. Right. 01:50:31.950 --> 01:50:35.190 Patrick Brzozowski: You know, I remember the first time I went to legislature. When I first came to work here. 01:50:36.420 --> 01:50:39.450 Patrick Brzozowski: They were talking about your project up there and 01:50:40.470 --> 01:50:45.420 Patrick Brzozowski: You know a group from East Texas was like, why do we need another lake we got plenty of lakes. We don't need another fishing place. 01:50:47.400 --> 01:50:58.020 Patrick Brzozowski: But we need water on this side right so therein lies the conflict. Right. So I don't know if this problem statement really defines what 01:50:59.160 --> 01:51:00.540 Patrick Brzozowski: Is really being sought after. 01:51:01.680 --> 01:51:13.140 Kelley Holcomb: I don't know that does either. I do have a question, though, and it's, I don't need an answer today, but I would like for all of us to consider legislative recommendations as a section in the report, like we do in our regional water plans. 01:51:14.160 --> 01:51:21.900 Kelley Holcomb: Going back to some of Kevin's comments. Let me get it could be a place to vet or explain or 01:51:23.040 --> 01:51:28.440 Kelley Holcomb: Just, you know, talk about the issues that we found that could be solved by legislative action. 01:51:33.990 --> 01:51:36.210 Suzanne Schwartz: Absolutely. Um, 01:51:41.160 --> 01:51:53.340 Suzanne Schwartz: So I think we will get all this in the Minutes and come back to you get you something fairly quickly so that you can review it before our next meeting. 01:51:55.830 --> 01:51:57.210 Suzanne Schwartz: I think I really 01:51:58.920 --> 01:52:08.640 Suzanne Schwartz: Y'all have really done. I think that I feel like the conversations are really been good having you all think through where you want to move and I really appreciate your 01:52:11.010 --> 01:52:16.020 Suzanne Schwartz: You know your openness and your willingness to kind of say, where are we going, what do we need to do. 01:52:16.380 --> 01:52:17.430 Suzanne Schwartz: I think those are 01:52:20.610 --> 01:52:25.830 Suzanne Schwartz: Are are important. I want to take a note, Gail Peek sent me an email saying 01:52:26.880 --> 01:52:34.770 Suzanne Schwartz: Something that she's been she's in a location that requires quiet and she said, we might want to add expeditiously and cost effectively. 01:52:36.540 --> 01:52:42.030 Suzanne Schwartz: That might address some concerns. So I'll just wanted to note that for you all, and get it into in the minutes so 01:52:43.410 --> 01:52:46.470 Suzanne Schwartz: She, she wasn't able to actually chime up so I wanted to say that. 01:52:47.490 --> 01:53:07.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Um, so I want to move on to kind of talk about where are we now, what do we do. One of the things we've got agendas that will have to develop quickly because of posting requirements for your June 22 and June 29 meetings, what we're 01:53:07.140 --> 01:53:12.420 Mark Evans: Suzanne, this is this is Mark, I would like to speak to the June 22 meeting. 01:53:14.550 --> 01:53:17.370 Mark Evans: I would like to have an agenda item placed 01:53:18.600 --> 01:53:31.890 Mark Evans: After the public comment. Agenda item. So it would be the first action item on the June 22 meeting that we would the language would be elect a chair and vice chair of the Interregional Planning Council. 01:53:34.380 --> 01:53:36.360 Suzanne Schwartz: All right, we will add that 01:53:39.600 --> 01:53:40.530 Kevin Ward: I'd also ask that 01:53:41.550 --> 01:53:49.470 Kevin Ward: Most of our agendas that we have groups at the end we have an item that says other business. 01:53:50.760 --> 01:53:54.390 Kevin Ward: Is that not allowable here because 01:53:55.470 --> 01:54:01.290 Kevin Ward: That would be, you know, kind of ability for us to bring up other things. 01:54:02.490 --> 01:54:04.170 Kevin Ward: That we didn't necessarily have 01:54:05.850 --> 01:54:06.480 Kevin Ward: an action item on. 01:54:07.680 --> 01:54:11.430 Kevin Ward: Someone may want to bring up something that is relevant to what we're doing. 01:54:15.270 --> 01:54:18.300 Mark Evans: And Suzanne that would be elect a chair and vice chair. 01:54:18.510 --> 01:54:19.260 Suzanne Schwartz: Right, what 01:54:24.840 --> 01:54:34.860 Suzanne Schwartz: A what we can ask if the other businesses will have to ask the legal to see if that's an acceptable item that can be posted. If that's specific enough. 01:54:38.190 --> 01:54:42.360 Temple McKinnon: As consider election of kind of do that. Is that appropriate 01:54:42.870 --> 01:54:43.500 Suzanne Schwartz: That would be 01:54:43.770 --> 01:54:45.840 Suzanne Schwartz: The way it would be. Yeah. 01:54:49.200 --> 01:54:51.060 Suzanne Schwartz: So we'll check on the other business. 01:54:54.510 --> 01:54:55.050 Suzanne Schwartz: Will 01:54:56.490 --> 01:55:02.670 Suzanne Schwartz: I wonder. I'm wondering if there are a few of you who might want to talk in between in the next couple days about 01:55:03.060 --> 01:55:19.410 Suzanne Schwartz: The structure of the next meetings. Again, I always appreciate hearing from those of you who have some ideas about how we're we go through this. Anybody want to volunteer to have a short, just a phone call about the agenda, ow the meeting is structured. 01:55:21.420 --> 01:55:22.500 Kelley Holcomb: Phone call with 01:55:22.860 --> 01:55:35.880 Suzanne Schwartz: With the Water Development Board and me and I know Melanie and David both did it with us early on the first, for the first or after the first meeting and I just wonder I'm 01:55:36.030 --> 01:55:38.130 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm hearing some concerns about 01:55:38.160 --> 01:55:41.010 Suzanne Schwartz: What we're doing and how we're doing it. And I'd love to. 01:55:41.970 --> 01:55:43.350 Suzanne Schwartz: Get you guys involved if 01:55:43.350 --> 01:55:46.020 Suzanne Schwartz: Anyone would like to input into the 01:55:46.440 --> 01:55:47.970 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, the way the meetings work. 01:55:48.720 --> 01:55:50.190 Suzanne Schwartz: Or how we're moving forward. 01:55:52.740 --> 01:55:54.150 Kelley Holcomb: Well, this is Kelley. My thoughts would 01:55:54.150 --> 01:55:56.400 Kelley Holcomb: Be if there's an agenda item. 01:55:56.940 --> 01:55:58.170 Kelley Holcomb: to elected a chair and a vice 01:55:58.200 --> 01:56:01.170 Kelley Holcomb: Then we should wait postpone that until we get a chair and a vice. 01:56:01.680 --> 01:56:03.330 Kelley Holcomb: And let the chair handle that. 01:56:06.210 --> 01:56:07.800 Kelley Holcomb: In terms of the structured format. 01:56:07.800 --> 01:56:08.640 Suzanne Schwartz: And yeah. 01:56:08.670 --> 01:56:12.090 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, whoever gets elected as chair is gonna be the workhorse for 01:56:12.090 --> 01:56:14.940 Kelley Holcomb: Us, so I'll be happy to pass that buck. 01:56:16.410 --> 01:56:17.700 Mark Evans: I think that's the appropriate 01:56:17.700 --> 01:56:18.450 Mark Evans: Though Kelley. 01:56:21.360 --> 01:56:23.400 Suzanne Schwartz: We'll go ahead and build the agenda and think 01:56:23.670 --> 01:56:25.620 Suzanne Schwartz: Through the meeting and and work on that chair and vice chair 01:56:26.310 --> 01:56:33.750 Suzanne Schwartz: idea. Next question I have is, and I don't think we need an agreement today. But Suzanne Scott brought 01:56:33.750 --> 01:56:35.610 Suzanne Schwartz: Up in an email to me. 01:56:36.120 --> 01:56:40.020 Suzanne Schwartz: That she thought it would be beneficial, especially after June. 01:56:40.920 --> 01:56:48.060 Suzanne Schwartz: To have you all break into some committees to actually tackle some of these things. So you don't, you know, that way you can 01:56:49.110 --> 01:56:52.350 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, with the committee work obviously being brought back to the 01:56:52.620 --> 01:56:54.150 Suzanne Schwartz: To the Council as a whole. 01:56:55.230 --> 01:57:02.790 Suzanne Schwartz: Like early in this process you had some, there had been some concern, y'all were not interested in doing that. And I just 01:57:03.240 --> 01:57:06.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Want to let you know that I think we'll, you know, just 01:57:07.740 --> 01:57:20.070 Suzanne Schwartz: I think it's worth talking about now, having seen what you're tackling and and you know, in deference to the fact that she brought it up. I'd like to just alert you to to start thinking about that. And whether that's beneficial. 01:57:21.810 --> 01:57:28.650 Mark Evans: Suzanne, I would just mention that the planning groups, their committees are subject to the Open Meetings Act. 01:57:28.710 --> 01:57:34.440 Mark Evans: We'll have to see that our committees will be subject to the Open Meetings Act that well. Suzanne Schwartz: That is what she she 01:57:34.470 --> 01:57:37.380 Suzanne Schwartz: She noted that that would be she thought that would be the case too. 01:57:38.310 --> 01:57:39.000 So, 01:57:40.350 --> 01:57:45.150 Steve Walthour: Suzanne. This is Steve. I've got to leave the meeting. I have another meeting. Thank y'all. 01:57:45.210 --> 01:57:45.720 Steve Walthour: I will 01:57:45.780 --> 01:57:46.590 Steve Walthour: Catch you later. Bye. 01:57:47.490 --> 01:57:49.410 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, um, 01:57:49.710 --> 01:57:50.010 And 01:57:52.410 --> 01:57:54.930 Temple McKinnon: I want to add that we still have another public comment that we need. 01:57:54.930 --> 01:57:55.230 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, we 01:57:55.350 --> 01:57:58.110 Suzanne Schwartz: If we could keep a quorum to see if we have 01:57:58.200 --> 01:57:59.820 Suzanne Schwartz: Public comment that would be useful. 01:58:00.210 --> 01:58:02.250 Suzanne Schwartz: And what's just jump to that right now. 01:58:03.330 --> 01:58:04.350 Suzanne Schwartz: Anybody 01:58:05.430 --> 01:58:07.650 Suzanne Schwartz: Who is on the call. Who would like to 01:58:09.690 --> 01:58:10.950 Suzanne Schwartz: Make any public comment. 01:58:16.830 --> 01:58:19.170 Suzanne Schwartz: Think Vicki is unmuting everyone 01:58:28.320 --> 01:58:41.040 Suzanne Schwartz: All right, I'm not hearing, anyone who wants to make public comment. I would encourage everyone to please, we'll be in touch by email, getting your documents back and let us know if there are, if you have 01:58:41.640 --> 01:58:48.750 Suzanne Schwartz: Information you would like to see as background information for the next any of the items that the Council is looking at considering. 01:58:49.980 --> 01:58:56.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody hanging in through this through this virtual process. 01:58:59.700 --> 01:59:00.420 Kelley Holcomb: So we are done? 01:59:01.200 --> 01:59:03.300 Suzanne Schwartz: I think we're done. Is there a motion to adjourn. Kelley Holcomb: So moved. Patrick Brzozowski: I second it. 01:59:07.440 --> 01:59:08.610 Suzanne Schwartz: Any objections. 01:59:11.130 --> 01:59:11.760 Kevin Ward: None. 01:59:13.980 --> 01:59:14.370 Patrick Brzozowski: Suzanne, thank you. 01:59:15.150 --> 01:59:16.620 Suzanne Schwartz: Thank you all very much.