WEBVTT 00:02.580 --> 00:11.190 Suzanne Scott: Let me make sure we've got, we're just missing one of our chairs right, we've got Mark and Steve, we just don't have Gail 00:11.309 --> 00:12.179 Suzanne Schwartz: Gail is here. 00:12.809 --> 00:14.280 Suzanne Schwartz: No. No, she's not. Sorry. 00:14.519 --> 00:15.360 Suzanne Scott: I didn't see her. 00:15.599 --> 00:16.590 Suzanne Schwartz: No, she's not. 00:18.630 --> 00:19.350 Suzanne Scott: So, 00:19.620 --> 00:24.900 Suzanne Schwartz: She said she might be a little late. I think she has a Region G some sort of a meeting. 00:25.470 --> 00:26.670 Suzanne Scott: Oh, she did. Okay. 00:27.210 --> 00:28.950 Suzanne Schwartz: But she will be in 00:29.490 --> 00:29.760 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 00:29.820 --> 00:31.440 Temple McKinnon: She said about 15 minutes late. 00:32.190 --> 00:34.680 Temple McKinnon: Yes, you do have a quorum established 00:34.860 --> 00:37.500 Suzanne Scott: Alright, then we'll go ahead and get started. 00:38.970 --> 00:43.080 Suzanne Scott: Welcome everybody. And I saw that Kathleen Jackson is with us so 00:44.670 --> 00:49.740 Suzanne Scott: Welcome again, Kathleen. Did you want to make some opening remarks to the group. 00:50.160 --> 00:59.790 Kathleen Jackson: Just, just again to say thank you. And I think, you know, the work that y'all are doing is extremely important. I know Steve Walthour this morning was on the 00:59.790 --> 01:03.960 Kathleen Jackson: American Groundwater Trust doing a presentation of panel presentation, along with me and 01:04.380 --> 01:05.040 Kathleen Jackson: you know the 01:05.700 --> 01:05.910 Kathleen Jackson: the 01:06.120 --> 01:18.780 Kathleen Jackson: you know, the, the subject kind of came up and I think there are a lot of folks that are following it. So just wanted to say thanks for all the good work. And I'm just here to kind of listen and learn and so thanks for having me. 01:20.640 --> 01:22.290 Suzanne Scott: We're honored to have you with us today. 01:23.790 --> 01:32.130 Suzanne Scott: So I guess we have established that we have a quorum. So Suzanne, would you like to take us through the public comment period, please. 01:32.250 --> 01:33.000 Suzanne Schwartz: Certainly. 01:34.890 --> 01:48.990 Suzanne Schwartz: So for public comment if anyone wants to address the council, you either you need, raise your hand using the connection on the bottom of your computer or press star nine on your phone. If you want to talk. 01:49.710 --> 02:00.210 Suzanne Schwartz: And Vicki Read will also unmute anyone who is on the call, but not a participant him will also do a vision for check verbal check to see if anyone wants to speak. 02:02.940 --> 02:06.030 Suzanne Schwartz: Vicki, are you seeing anyone who wants to talk? 02:07.080 --> 02:09.900 Vicki Read: I'm not and everyone is unmuted. 02:10.290 --> 02:12.150 Suzanne Schwartz: All right. Anyone want to speak. 02:14.400 --> 02:17.880 Suzanne Schwartz: All right, I think, no public comment then at this point. So we're ready to move on. 02:18.210 --> 02:28.050 Suzanne Scott: All right, thank you. So, as you recall from our last meeting we today and we're going to go here in just a second through the agenda, but 02:28.530 --> 02:39.660 Suzanne Scott: after we approve the minutes. This is our first opportunity to hear from the committees regarding their initial recommendations. What we had discussed when we 02:40.500 --> 02:55.500 Suzanne Scott: kind of decided we were going to go through this process. What we'd like to do is to kind of just get some general agreement with the direction that these recommendations are going. We don't need to wordsmith, we don't need to 02:56.550 --> 03:02.340 Suzanne Scott: You know, spend a lot of time, specifically on the actual presentation of the recommendation, 03:02.880 --> 03:05.400 Suzanne Scott: more so the content and the context. 03:06.450 --> 03:11.250 Suzanne Scott: What the recommendation is that will be coming from these various committees. 03:12.240 --> 03:20.850 Suzanne Scott: We would encourage everyone to ask questions for clarification, anything that we would need to make sure that you understand completely the recommendation. 03:21.480 --> 03:37.590 Suzanne Scott: And then that would give guidance back to the respective committees as they start to then put more meat on the bones as it relates to, you know, really putting the narrative around each of the recommendations based on any deliberations, that we may have here today so 03:39.060 --> 03:47.490 Suzanne Scott: With that, let's get into the meeting and first start with the approval of the meeting minutes from July 29 03:49.200 --> 04:02.340 Temple McKinnon: The only edit, I have received to the draft minutes as distributed was from Gail peak and you can see that on my screen here. Hopefully she was correcting a statement, she had made as captured in the Minutes. 04:04.920 --> 04:05.460 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 04:06.480 --> 04:13.740 Suzanne Scott: Again I will entertain a recommendation for the approval of the minutes with this correction. 04:14.640 --> 04:15.540 Jim Thompson: I'll make that motion. 04:16.410 --> 04:19.260 Suzanne Scott: That's Jim, thank you Jim. Can I have a second? Carl Crull: Second. 04:21.000 --> 04:21.780 Suzanne Scott: Was that Carl? 04:23.040 --> 04:36.270 Suzanne Scott: All right, great. I will ask if anyone has any concerns or does not want to approve the minutes, please signify by raising your hand or letting us know that you are opposed to the Minutes. 04:38.910 --> 04:43.170 Suzanne Scott: Alright, hearing none, we will consider the Minutes approved. Thank you. 04:44.400 --> 04:45.450 Suzanne Scott: Alright, moving on. 04:46.650 --> 04:53.640 Suzanne Scott: To the recommendations. Again, we're really just trying to get a sense that you're supportive of the idea that's being generated 04:54.390 --> 05:05.880 Suzanne Scott: through the committees. And this is an opportunity for us to ask questions, make sure we understand what the committee is bringing forward. You should have all seen on the 05:06.930 --> 05:14.130 Suzanne Scott: on the website each of the reports that had been produced by the committees for the purposes of discussion today. 05:15.330 --> 05:30.690 Suzanne Scott: Did everyone have the chance to do that? I know that Temple is going to have, you know, be able to screen share some of it. But if you really want to get into the details, it is there on the meeting materials for this for this meeting. 05:32.100 --> 05:41.250 Suzanne Scott: She also had included as the materials, I believe the compilation of all of the chapter eight recommendations. 05:41.760 --> 05:57.570 Suzanne Scott: For all the planning groups that was also asked, and that is there for everyone to look at as well. If there is anything in those recommendations that seem to be something that could feed into these committees, we invite y'all to all look at that as well. 05:58.620 --> 06:07.650 Suzanne Scott: So we're going to start. We're going to start with planning water resources for the state as a whole, so Mark. 06:08.790 --> 06:13.260 Mark Evans: Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Jackson and members of the Interregional Planning Council. 06:14.370 --> 06:23.640 Mark Evans: The committee has met three times. The committee is includes myself, Kevin Ward, David Wheelock, Carl Crull and Melanie Barnes. 06:24.720 --> 06:33.810 Mark Evans: We at this time, have one recommendation that we will be presenting to the IPC. As you can see, 06:34.200 --> 06:41.460 Mark Evans: a recommendation number one the regional water planning process should include long range and visionary planning. 06:42.330 --> 06:56.040 Mark Evans: I think you can see the observation and Madam Chair, I don't know if you'd like for me to go over this in detail, or just maybe hit some of the specific recommendations. How would you like to, since this is the first time we've done that a 06:57.180 --> 06:59.910 Mark Evans: little guidance on how much detail you want me to go into. 06:59.910 --> 07:00.780 Suzanne Scott: High points. 07:00.840 --> 07:15.420 Suzanne Scott: I don't think that you need to read, you know, read it hopefully people will have the opportunity to do that. But I think providing kind of the context for your recommendation and then the specifics of what you're recommending I think would be helpful for people to understand. 07:15.750 --> 07:25.890 Mark Evans: Okay, we'll just go through the brief observation then The current regional water planning process does not sufficiently facilitate or encourage 07:26.550 --> 07:44.850 Mark Evans: identification and inclusion of multi regional projects, the focus on drought of record, sponsorship of projects and project costs does not facilitate the consideration of interregional and statewide water planning projects. So we will be making a as part of this overall recommendation, a 07:46.650 --> 08:06.060 Mark Evans: recommendation to revise some of the administrative code in Chapter 357 and 358 to include a specific task in the regional water planning groups contracted scope of work to authorize this what we consider long range and visionary planning, but also 08:07.620 --> 08:22.080 Mark Evans: the recommended that the recommending that the legislature should support multi regional and statewide projects developed from a long range and visionary planning and give some specific ways that they can do that. 08:32.400 --> 08:34.680 Mark Evans: One of the things I think we would probably 08:36.090 --> 08:45.540 Mark Evans: highlight would be that that would be the state returning to providing initial sponsorships of projects without guarantees from local sponsors. 08:49.200 --> 08:49.710 Mark Evans: Also 08:51.150 --> 09:01.080 Mark Evans: a process for coordinating and coordination amongst state agencies related to installation of infrastructure during planning and construction of large scale projects. 09:04.500 --> 09:09.060 Mark Evans: And I think as you look at the benefit of this 09:10.410 --> 09:24.360 Mark Evans: long range and visionary planning and looking at multi regional projects and beyond the region centric and 50 year horizon and recorded drought of record, that you can see just by looking at that. 09:25.470 --> 09:45.540 Mark Evans: It could facilitate large scale projects that would require multiple sponsors and our state sponsorship. So we wanted to highlight that it could be feasible, with greater state financial incentives, such as subsidies or state participation, or state partnership and projects. 09:48.540 --> 09:54.510 Mark Evans: I would also add Madam Chair the committee has two more meetings scheduled for the 20th and 27th of this 09:54.510 --> 10:12.870 Mark Evans: month. We'll be discussing any other potential recommendations that we might develop. As I said earlier, at this time we have the one recommendation. We'll also be discussing whether we want to make any observations to include in our portion of the Council's report. 10:15.150 --> 10:15.930 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Well thank you Mark. 10:17.190 --> 10:25.140 Suzanne Scott: I think this is very thorough and I appreciate y'all putting it together. My take on your recommendation at is that 10:26.340 --> 10:41.580 Suzanne Scott: you're kind of seeing the constraints that the current planning process really puts on on all of us, I think, from the perspective of only using drought of record to look at 10:42.330 --> 10:57.750 Suzanne Scott: what projects need to meet a need and doesn't really factor in some of the issues that we've discussed about the mega drought, climate variability, whatever those issues are coming forward. And the idea that projects have to have a sponsor 10:59.310 --> 11:07.740 Suzanne Scott: for them to be really brought forward. It seems like those are kind of it for me, those are sort of big things that kind of came from our earlier deliberations that it seems like y'all are 11:09.210 --> 11:22.080 Suzanne Scott: recognizing and buying having to have a sponsor of a particular project. It really narrows the creativity or the innovation that could come into this process because you're already restricting it 11:23.370 --> 11:31.170 Suzanne Scott: by having to have someone bring projects forward for them to be considered. Is that kind of, am I summarizing your, your, your committees work? 11:31.590 --> 11:36.060 Mark Evans: I think so. Madam Chair, and I think it also the recommendation reflects that 11:36.510 --> 11:45.000 Mark Evans: we believe that this recommendation can work within the framework of the existing regional water planning process that we use. I mean, we have a regional water planning process. 11:45.420 --> 11:57.030 Mark Evans: I know I won't speak for entire committee but it for myself, I think it works extremely well. But at the same time it, you know, we can always suggest tweaks and changes to even successful 11:58.770 --> 12:15.960 Mark Evans: to success and this we wanted to include something that would allow for that. We think we had or have pretty well developed that. We specifically wanted to make sure that it was contracted and funded this 12:17.370 --> 12:30.240 Mark Evans: specific task and the regional water planning process. And as I said, we feel like the regional water planning process, it's obviously regional in nature and by design, but 12:30.930 --> 12:41.970 Mark Evans: we feel like that this recommendation, perhaps would allow the planning groups to do that visionary plan and look at those things that we don't typically look at or don't look at at a regional level. 12:42.780 --> 12:49.380 Suzanne Scott: And it seems too that it also reply really kind of responds to some of the direction that we've been getting even more recently 12:50.070 --> 13:01.170 Suzanne Scott: from some of the legislative intent that they want they want more innovative strategies to be looked at, you know, the I know ASR or Desal, or some of these things that may be 13:02.040 --> 13:10.680 Suzanne Scott: something that sponsors may not be ready yet, or the technology. I know before in ASR has gotten a lot more developed now but at the beginning 13:11.250 --> 13:24.690 Suzanne Scott: you know, people were a little hesitant about taking on something like that as a sponsored project, but it seems like the innovation of looking at things that that technology may not have caught up yet or science may need to be a little bit more 13:26.700 --> 13:33.390 Suzanne Scott: developed that could help in that innovation that you're talking about. So I think appreciate the work the y'all have done here. 13:33.780 --> 13:45.600 Suzanne Scott: Are there any comments from other members of the Council that would like to weigh in on this recommendation and the kind of the context to what Mark has put forward here. 13:47.910 --> 13:54.000 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne, this is Kelley. Mark. I was curious to know if the 13:55.470 --> 13:55.800 Kelley Holcomb: during 13:56.010 --> 13:59.910 Kelley Holcomb: deliberations, if anything regarding state participation or 14:00.510 --> 14:01.950 Kelley Holcomb: other funding, 14:02.460 --> 14:06.960 Kelley Holcomb: streamlining type activities was considered or discussed. 14:07.590 --> 14:15.060 Mark Evans: Yes, Kelley, it was and I think you'll if you'll look at you may refer you to the benefit the brief benefit we do talk about that these 14:16.200 --> 14:27.120 Mark Evans: visionary projects could be become feasible with greater state financial incentive, such as subsidies or state participation, but also state partnership in these projects. 14:28.950 --> 14:29.760 Mark Evans: So we did 14:32.010 --> 14:35.340 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, I see that one sentence now. I read everything but the last sentence, shame on me. 14:35.340 --> 14:37.050 Mark Evans: Well, I'll leave that. 14:41.490 --> 14:42.090 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah. 14:42.180 --> 14:42.900 Kelley Holcomb: It's okay. 14:43.290 --> 14:44.850 Kelley Holcomb: Been a long day. And it's only Wednesday. 14:46.590 --> 15:03.480 Kelley Holcomb: Interesting. Okay, well as part of as a follow up to that question for those of us that are trying to build big reservoir projects, I mean, it's still an issue, trying to reserve those locations and those unique reservoir sites. Was that part of the discussion at all. 15:04.500 --> 15:04.920 Kelley Holcomb: Or 15:06.360 --> 15:08.670 Kelley Holcomb: Not that it necessarily should be. I was just curious. 15:11.310 --> 15:27.090 Mark Evans: I don't recall that we specifically discussed what you're in specifics, what you're referring to Kelley and I would, Madam Chair, if it's appropriate, I would certainly if the members of the Committee of this this committee 15:28.470 --> 15:42.300 Mark Evans: had any comments related to the recommendation to answer Kelley's question. I certainly would appreciate that. But I will say that Kelley that our first two meetings we spent in discussions 15:43.950 --> 15:57.240 Mark Evans: to develop this so we talked about many specific things related to this overall recommendation that we've made. So I would having thought about it a little bit. I suspect we did discuss it. 15:58.320 --> 16:02.310 Mark Evans: Maybe not in detail, but at some point in time during those two meetings because we had four hours. 16:02.760 --> 16:12.000 Carl Crull: I don't I don't think we talked about it in terms of specific sites that I think we talked about it in more general terms. 16:13.410 --> 16:22.710 Carl Crull: Of getting some of these large projects looked at well in advance so that the proper planning can be done. 16:24.360 --> 16:32.160 Mark Evans: Thank you, Carl. Kevin Ward: Yeah, I can't recall if we actually did discuss the specifics of site designation. 16:33.420 --> 16:42.120 Kevin Ward: But the legislature already has a process in place for that. And we did discuss that we wouldn't broaden our range too far. 16:43.170 --> 16:54.540 Kevin Ward: If we already felt there was an existing process in place. And so we didn't have to hit that hot button issue for that we thought it was a hot enough button issue to return back to what they did in the 60s 16:54.960 --> 17:00.900 Kevin Ward: where the state would actually participate in a project that you know and be a partner. In other words, 17:01.590 --> 17:09.120 Kevin Ward: you didn't have to prove that someone was going to pay you back for it or buy it later. You just had to assume that you wanted to build a project to its optimum benefit 17:09.960 --> 17:21.150 Kevin Ward: because there were other needs that were going to be served by currently. The example being Toledo Bend, Conroe, Palestine. I mean, I could go down the list where the state actually bought 17:21.810 --> 17:32.580 Kevin Ward: storage in those and issued bonds and paid them off with general revenues in order to cover the parts of the project that weren't needed in the foreseeable future. For others, but we knew ultimately in the state's 17:33.720 --> 17:48.390 Kevin Ward: needs in the future would be needed. And it made sense to do so at the time. So we talked about that. But we suddenly put it in there in the brief benefits and then up at the top on in one place that you know for the state actually being a 17:49.440 --> 17:53.010 Kevin Ward: participant a partner, not just do state participation. 17:53.370 --> 17:58.320 Kevin Ward: We changed all that stuff when I was there at the board because the legislature at the time didn't want to 17:59.550 --> 18:12.360 Kevin Ward: to do those things. They felt like unless the project could be paid for and it can be purchased back that they wouldn't do state participation, but now we think if you want to do these visionary projects, perhaps they need to open that door. 18:12.990 --> 18:13.140 Mark Evans: Thanks, Kevin. 18:14.670 --> 18:15.090 Suzanne Scott: You're right. 18:15.300 --> 18:19.590 Suzanne Schwartz: Is that captured, this is Suzanne Schwartz, is that captured in 18:21.330 --> 18:23.880 Suzanne Schwartz: little two one returning to 18:23.880 --> 18:28.860 Suzanne Schwartz: providing initial sponsorship of projects without guarantees from local sponsors. 18:32.790 --> 18:47.340 Kevin Ward: I'm nodding my head yes. That was the intent we just, you know, we didn't want to you know get too specific on it. We wanted to just make the note so that folks could pursue it in whichever way they felt was appropriate. But yes, that's exactly what that was intended for. 18:51.060 --> 19:02.820 Suzanne Scott: So, the idea being that if, if the state was involved in projects, sort of, you know, holistically, a project could be developed, maybe 19:03.570 --> 19:20.520 Suzanne Scott: initially without necessarily having a customer base or client or, you know, a city or something that was already agreeing to pay for it, it would need to have some upfront cost to determine whether or not it was going to be feasible. Is that the kind of the idea? 19:20.610 --> 19:23.940 Kevin Ward: It's more the idea of underwriting the portion of a project that's 19:23.940 --> 19:27.630 Kevin Ward: not existing or for the demands aren't there in the next 50 years. 19:28.620 --> 19:38.760 Kevin Ward: So, you know, the example of a go back to Sabine you know they're now buying it on a purchase agreement, they've got with the State of Texas, through the Water Development Board. But when the reservoir was built, 19:39.390 --> 19:50.070 Kevin Ward: they wanted to build it to its optimum development, you know, because you can put a dam in, and if you put it the way it'll work physically, it might produce more water than what to Sabine River Authority at the time was willing to 19:50.850 --> 19:58.470 Kevin Ward: do so, the state had, like, I want to say 23% of the capacity or something like that in the reservoir. 20:00.000 --> 20:11.220 Kevin Ward: So that's, you know, that's, that's one example. There's lots of other ones where there was different levels of the state participated in ultimately other entities came in and bought that capacity. 20:11.760 --> 20:18.390 Kevin Ward: Or it was purchased by the partner that was the the entity that would build the reservoir in that case the Sabine River Authority. 20:19.440 --> 20:29.670 Kevin Ward: Conroe had a similar thing. So just, you can go back to the history on it. It worked back then. We're just saying maybe now for these larger projects not necessarily reservoirs, it could work again. 20:30.150 --> 20:35.640 Mark Evans: Well, and we we just felt like that this would this would facilitate the state having 20:36.690 --> 20:43.620 Mark Evans: as it was said, having skin in the game that this would facilitate the long range planning process. And that's what this recommendation 20:43.740 --> 20:44.400 Mark Evans: is speaking to. 20:46.050 --> 20:52.230 Kelley Holcomb: And thanks, Mark, I support your recommendation, obviously. But one of the problems that we have 20:53.280 --> 20:59.400 Kelley Holcomb: and as a as a holder of a state participation contract. By the way, 37% are like Columbia project. 21:00.120 --> 21:12.180 Kelley Holcomb: You take a reservoir project that costs a half a billion dollars. It's one thing to have the designation and the contractual right to do it. But to get the funding for it is another matter altogether. I mean, the water Development Board can't 21:12.960 --> 21:13.710 Kelley Holcomb: give you money that the Leg hasn't 21:14.100 --> 21:20.970 Kelley Holcomb: appropriated, which is what some of this is addressing. And that was kind of the general direction of my question. 21:22.500 --> 21:24.750 Kelley Holcomb: With regard to state participation. Mark Evans: Yeah. 21:28.980 --> 21:30.240 Suzanne Scott: Any other questions, clarifications? 21:30.630 --> 21:31.440 Jim Thompson: I'm just 21:31.800 --> 21:39.810 Jim Thompson: I've just got a comment. Maybe it's a question, and it maybe I think Mark cleared up some of it by his 21:41.220 --> 21:45.180 Jim Thompson: synopsis of what they've done. But there was at least some language in here 21:45.960 --> 21:57.480 Jim Thompson: that indicated to me more centralized planning. There's a provision there it says utilize state agencies to develop a state level vision of planning resources for the state as a whole. 21:58.230 --> 22:08.250 Jim Thompson: And then there was another place where it said consider where the IPC or the regional water planning groups are appropriate mechanism for planning resources for the state as a whole. 22:08.670 --> 22:13.110 Jim Thompson: I understand the concept is that behind it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. 22:13.590 --> 22:22.140 Jim Thompson: But I think the legislation that passed and the way it was sold to the regional water planning groups is this is going to be a ground up planning process. 22:22.560 --> 22:28.470 Jim Thompson: And have local and regional input with respect to where we are going forward from here. 22:29.010 --> 22:35.850 Jim Thompson: And it seemed to me like I'm not saying we're going in a different direction, but that certainly looked like more centralized planning or 22:36.180 --> 22:43.650 Jim Thompson: thoughts about more centralized planning that is just wanted to point that out and see if you had any comments with respect to that. 22:43.980 --> 22:52.290 Jim Thompson: The only other thing I would say, and I certainly don't disagree with long term planning, I'm just always cautious with respect to it 22:52.680 --> 23:02.760 Jim Thompson: reminding what our history has been and what we think things are going to be 75 years or 100 years from now, are going to be totally different. Whether it be the technology, 23:03.360 --> 23:14.760 Jim Thompson: desalinization, increased water availability through reuse or things of that nature. I'm always just a little skeptical to 23:15.300 --> 23:23.970 Jim Thompson: 50 years is a long time to go out and when you start going further than that, I think you get less into the speculation and more into guessing. 23:24.630 --> 23:36.990 Jim Thompson: That's just my personal opinion. I'm not saying it does not need to be done. I'm just saying, I'm always skeptical when you're looking at things that are so far in the future. We have no idea where we're going to be as a human race at that time. 23:38.280 --> 23:55.440 Jim Thompson: But those were just my comments with respect. I appreciate the work you did I understand the things that you're getting at. It was just, to me, those two things that centralization and a little bit of concern about how far out we're going, we're a little bit of a concern to me. 23:58.050 --> 24:03.270 Mark Evans: I'm sorry, I appreciate your comments and I would say Jim that one of the things that we 24:04.290 --> 24:08.070 Mark Evans: as I understand the process that we're working in where the committee's do their 24:08.070 --> 24:18.720 Mark Evans: work, then we come and report it get feedback from the Interregional Planning Council is that our next meeting will take up, we're going to be looking at this again and we'll certainly discuss 24:19.230 --> 24:27.840 Mark Evans: any concerns any of the IPC members have had about any of the pieces of our specific recommendation 24:29.820 --> 24:41.340 Mark Evans: that we hear during this meeting and certainly understand the point you're making about trying to do planning beyond 50 years and the uncertainties that's involved. 24:41.970 --> 24:52.350 Mark Evans: But I would just say to this this recommendation is designed to work within the process that we actually have now with it with a regional planning process and looking at 24:52.620 --> 25:02.610 Mark Evans: the 50 years. This is just would just be another piece to allow for that long range visionary planning, if it was something that the legislature and the planning groups wanted to do. 25:04.020 --> 25:06.840 Mark Evans: Thanks Jim. I appreciate your feedback. 25:08.430 --> 25:18.150 Suzanne Scott: You know, Mark, one thing that just to kind of highlight maybe something that Jim was saying, and it may be implied here but you know if you're thinking 25:18.690 --> 25:26.970 Suzanne Scott: because all the science that we have in the modeling is sort of backwards looking and then brought forward based on drought of record and when that occurred, 25:27.540 --> 25:36.900 Suzanne Scott: you know there could be some thought about maybe some investment in science or, you know, something that could be standardized to to allow for 25:39.180 --> 25:45.300 Suzanne Scott: groups, regional planning groups to think about the impact of, you know, what we're seeing in the future. 25:45.540 --> 25:55.890 Suzanne Scott: You know that science is, you know, there's, it's all over the map. And no one really knows exactly what to do. I mean, we talked in the last call about what the climate, the state climatologist is put forward. 25:56.460 --> 26:04.200 Suzanne Scott: And I know a lot of people don't necessarily agree with everything. But that's where it gets challenging and gets to Jim's point, you know, are we just 26:05.700 --> 26:14.100 Suzanne Scott: are we just guessing, or is there some, you know, the Water Development Board over the years has been pretty good about trying to provide some sense of 26:15.780 --> 26:25.740 Suzanne Scott: commonality amongst what people are using, you know, like how we use demographic of the population projections, or how we have to use the WAMS and if you're going to ask for a certain 26:27.000 --> 26:28.170 Suzanne Scott: a certain 26:29.730 --> 26:40.710 Suzanne Scott: variation on the WAMS that you're using, then you have to explain that and get permission for that. So everyone there is some sort of understanding that everything that's being used is kind of similar. 26:41.520 --> 26:51.810 Suzanne Scott: We don't necessarily have common data that could help inform the water needs of the future. 26:52.170 --> 26:59.370 Suzanne Scott: And maybe that could be a place to start. Just a suggestion that could there be funding associated with data that would help 26:59.910 --> 27:17.790 Suzanne Scott: determine how to look forward. I mean, I know our WAM is back doesn't go past 89 and then we project forward based on that. And I know some of the WAMS are being updated and that you know funding needs to be done to make those to put in more recent 27:19.170 --> 27:33.630 Suzanne Scott: water either floods or droughts into these water availability models, but I don't know if other regions are having similar concerns, but again the commonality of the data could help as well. And no one knows what that is. 27:34.680 --> 27:42.060 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne this, I got a note from Vicki Read that Bryan McMath had raised his hand. I don't know 27:42.060 --> 27:42.120 Suzanne Schwartz: if 27:42.240 --> 27:45.780 Suzanne Schwartz: we want to entertain that whatever he wanted to say. 27:46.710 --> 27:49.380 Suzanne Scott: And and he is, I'm sorry. 27:49.920 --> 27:52.980 Suzanne Schwartz: Oh, uh, Brian. He's with the Texas Water Development Board 27:53.160 --> 27:54.840 Suzanne Scott: Oh yeah, of course. I'm sorry. 27:58.770 --> 28:00.450 Suzanne Schwartz: Brian did you want to say something. 28:03.090 --> 28:03.870 Bryan McMath: Can you hear me. 28:04.800 --> 28:05.520 Suzanne Scott: Yes, yes. 28:05.790 --> 28:10.110 Bryan McMath: Yes, that was an inadvertent raising of the hand. I apologize. 28:11.280 --> 28:11.700 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 28:13.230 --> 28:15.930 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, Vicki was very alert so. 28:16.950 --> 28:18.690 Bryan McMath: That was a test of the system, please proceed. 28:18.930 --> 28:19.410 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 28:21.390 --> 28:24.840 Suzanne Scott: Any other input on this recommendation. 28:32.370 --> 28:41.100 Suzanne Scott: Alright, I am not hearing anything if there's no hands raised. I think we've had so I guess what I would like to do then is 28:42.510 --> 28:56.640 Suzanne Scott: ask for a, we're going to do this more, not by a vote because we're not asking you to specifically vote yet because we haven't finalized this recommendation because they're going to go back and look at it. But generally, I'd like to have, I'm going to ask for 28:57.750 --> 29:00.630 Suzanne Scott: consensus for the 29:02.910 --> 29:18.540 Suzanne Scott: This group the planning for the water resources for the state of the whole to continue to move forward with this recommendation. So we would like to see if there are any concerns about the recommendation moving forward. 29:25.320 --> 29:26.700 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm not seeing anybody at this point. 29:26.910 --> 29:38.670 Suzanne Scott: So then, because I'm not hearing any concerns then I will take that this Planning Council is supportive of this recommendation moving forward and being developed 29:40.050 --> 29:54.810 Suzanne Scott: more thoroughly with Mark and his, his team and his committee, they will take this the the the deliberations that we've had here and and make any modifications, they see fit. And then we'll finalize this recommendation. 29:56.550 --> 29:57.480 Mark Evans: Thank you, Madam Chair. 29:57.690 --> 29:58.920 Suzanne Scott: Do you have anything else. 29:59.130 --> 30:04.290 Mark Evans: No, I appreciate it Madam Chair, and my appreciation to the members of the IPC for their comments today and their 30:04.290 --> 30:12.030 Mark Evans: support of our recommendation going forward. And we will go back and revisit it so based on the input that we and feedback we've received today. 30:12.540 --> 30:16.440 Suzanne Scott: Okay, great. And thank you to your committee. It was very succinct and well done. Thank you. 30:16.680 --> 30:18.600 Mark Evans: Thanks to the committee as well. Madam Chair for 30:18.600 --> 30:20.010 Mark Evans: their work and deliberations. 30:22.200 --> 30:35.070 Suzanne Scott: Okay, we have Gail with us I see. So, Gail are you ready for to present the enhanced interregional coordination committee recommendations? 30:35.550 --> 30:36.690 Gail Peek: I am Madam Chairman. 30:37.950 --> 30:38.010 Suzanne Scott: Ok. 30:38.850 --> 30:50.160 Gail Peek: The Committee met on August 6, and at that time we focused on the proposed changes to the committee problem and goal statement which Temple has put up. 30:50.850 --> 31:10.320 Gail Peek: As we said on the 6th that we needed to change the mission a bit because of the enhancement of our tasks to include interregional conflict. And so what you have before you is the proposed changes to the problem statement and the goal statement. 31:13.200 --> 31:23.850 Gail Peek: Basically what we said was coordination, the goal is to have coordination collaboration as it impacts regions and expand it beyond complex or beyond 31:25.050 --> 31:34.890 Gail Peek: any kind of issue, but more the concern. So we have coordination requirements are not fully formalized in statute or rule, coordination rules of 31:35.400 --> 31:47.010 Gail Peek: consultants and liaisons and I would add in river authorities, if I had them as stakeholders, but let's add them in as an important component of this as I learned from my Region G meeting that I just just left. 31:48.150 --> 31:50.550 Gail Peek: And see how we can have all of these 31:51.690 --> 32:10.350 Gail Peek: participants think about things in a bigger way but focusing more on as we say, nuts and bolts. That is what can we do now, not the very expansive idea, but what procedures, what policies what practice, can we implement to get more bang for our buck. 32:11.790 --> 32:12.960 Gail Peek: Assuming it is a buck. 32:15.060 --> 32:26.550 Gail Peek: What we did in in the statement is to talk about the other piece of this is that is important, and that is to be aware of the administrative 32:27.630 --> 32:36.360 Gail Peek: timing requirements so that we didn't come up with some grand idea and throw it at Temple and Ron or anyone at the Water Development Board. We wanted to have what I 32:36.810 --> 32:50.670 Gail Peek: talked about earlier, some points of entry, some more clarity and one of the things that we did in thinking about those points of entry was to think about ways that we could have the Water Development Board instill in 32:51.720 --> 33:00.840 Gail Peek: them. In Region G, we have a scope of work committee, it may be an executive meeting when you're doing water management strategies, strategies to really think about 33:01.170 --> 33:12.390 Gail Peek: how you can expand it to include more collaboration of the various stakeholders and parties and interests, so that we're not simply looking in our own bubble and 33:13.260 --> 33:33.720 Gail Peek: then not really taking into account what might be more fruitful in thinking about these problems in that discussion was a fairly lively one as we talked about this. Also I think Ron and Temple have done a wonderful job in looking at options and areas where we can start 33:35.490 --> 33:40.560 Gail Peek: instilling institutionalizing some questions in some of those early 33:41.310 --> 33:56.160 Gail Peek: discussions about water management strategies and how we identify water management strategies in a way that impacts more regions than one region because I think at this stage we really focus on one region, per se. 33:57.600 --> 34:07.290 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so why don't we start with before we get into the recommendations. Why don't we start first with the proposed changes to the problem statement and the goal statement. 34:07.950 --> 34:17.910 Suzanne Scott: So has everyone had the opportunity to look at the underlined and struck changes to the problem statement here in front of us. 34:21.540 --> 34:29.370 Suzanne Scott: Does anyone have any concerns about these modifications to the to the problem statement first 34:33.780 --> 34:34.710 Kelley Holcomb: I do, Madam Chair. 34:34.950 --> 34:35.160 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 34:35.910 --> 34:44.970 Kelley Holcomb: A question I don't necessarily have a problem with the words in her that have been added. It's more of the placement. I think the first sentence that's been added 34:46.410 --> 35:00.120 Kelley Holcomb: does further describe the problem. I think the next two sentences that have been added are recommendations that probably should be placed down in the recommendation section than being placed in the description of the problem. 35:01.800 --> 35:03.060 Suzanne Scott: That's a good observation. 35:04.650 --> 35:13.050 Suzanne Scott: So adding the coordination, ending at process and then maybe picking back up at the 35:17.160 --> 35:19.710 Suzanne Scott: Although just taking both of those sentences out 35:20.400 --> 35:21.990 Kelley Holcomb: Or relocating them. I mean, 35:22.410 --> 35:26.790 Suzanne Scott: I mean taking them out of the problem statement and maybe putting them down. Okay. 35:27.150 --> 35:27.660 Kelley Holcomb: Yes. 35:28.920 --> 35:31.020 Suzanne Scott: Oh, okay. So she's the 35:33.420 --> 35:42.570 Suzanne Scott: She's highlighted down two liaisons and keeping further, it is important to consider the planning process administrative timing requirements that may be 35:43.980 --> 35:46.320 Kelley Holcomb: I would include that in the relocation, yes. 35:47.040 --> 35:49.350 Suzanne Scott: The recommendation. Okay. Kelley Holcomb: There you go. But 35:49.500 --> 35:50.850 Kelley Holcomb: again, that's my observation. 35:52.050 --> 35:52.440 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 35:53.040 --> 35:55.620 Gail Peek: Okay, they would go into the goal statement. 35:56.700 --> 36:04.080 Suzanne Scott: No, go into your recommendations. He's saying that you're stating in your problem statement actually ways to solve your problem. 36:04.440 --> 36:13.560 Suzanne Scott: Versus it just being a problem is I think he's trying to he's saying that you're mixing the the problem with the with the solution in the same statement. 36:16.050 --> 36:21.060 Gail Peek: Well, I guess I was looking at it, I didn't see any solutions in that language. 36:22.110 --> 36:33.420 Suzanne Scott: Well, he's saying because you're saying regions should consider opportunities for coordination and collaboration around the regions affected by the use of the water resource or impacted, you're sort of getting into 36:35.880 --> 36:53.070 Suzanne Scott: the solving of the problem rather than stating the problem in the fact that they are they're currently aren't opportunities to do that. So that's I think were Kelley is is you maybe could reword the red in a way that doesn't sound like a 36:54.270 --> 36:59.160 Suzanne Scott: recommendation versus it's a statement of a problem. Does that make sense? 37:00.510 --> 37:10.890 Gail Peek: Yeah, because I think that I think it makes sense to try to reword that because Kelley I'm very sensitive to your point, and I think later on we deal with the issues of 37:11.760 --> 37:28.200 Gail Peek: recommendations and so we might want to massage that language a bit more to focus on the problem statement as opposed to an implication of a solution. Let me give that some some thought. 37:28.470 --> 37:28.890 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 37:31.020 --> 37:38.010 Kelley Holcomb: Again, I'm not opposed to the wording, it just seems you're wanting us to consider something in the statement of the problem itself so 37:38.040 --> 37:45.330 Gail Peek: Right now I understood that from your position and also Suzanne, it's, it's not should consider it really is, 37:46.290 --> 38:01.140 Gail Peek: maybe a better choice of words. But it's kind of looking at all of these factors that somehow we have to take into account and then later on, you actually see some recommendations that mirror that language. 38:03.900 --> 38:04.440 Gail Peek: So let me just 38:05.430 --> 38:16.740 Gail Peek: Give it some thought. 38:17.820 --> 38:18.480 Suzanne Scott: You have 38:19.950 --> 38:21.570 Suzanne Scott: added here. 38:24.720 --> 38:33.120 Suzanne Scott: The identification of water management strategies that impact more than one region. 38:35.880 --> 38:36.870 Suzanne Scott: That would be a goal. 38:39.150 --> 38:46.050 Suzanne Scott: For interregional planning, I'm sorry, enhancing interregional coordination. 38:46.500 --> 38:48.690 Gail Peek: Right, and then conflict. That's exactly right. 38:49.290 --> 38:51.570 Suzanne Scott: Any concerns about this statement. 38:57.870 --> 39:03.450 Suzanne Scott: All right. Can we get consensus, then I will ask for action, because if we do have an action on this. 39:04.950 --> 39:10.140 Suzanne Scott: Can I get a motion to approve the goal statement wait on a motion on the problem statement. 39:16.140 --> 39:20.940 Kelley Holcomb: I move to approve the goal, the addition of the verbiage to the goal statement. 39:21.390 --> 39:22.590 Suzanne Scott: All right. Do I have a second? Mark Evans: Second. 39:24.180 --> 39:34.080 Suzanne Scott: Mark. All those in favor, I'm sorry. I'll say anyone opposed please make your opposition be known, either by saying something or raising your hand. 39:34.080 --> 39:34.380 Or 39:35.400 --> 39:36.480 Suzanne Scott: Something to 39:37.680 --> 39:40.050 Suzanne Scott: ensure that we know that you are a opposed. 39:42.480 --> 39:43.650 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm not seeing anyone. 39:43.980 --> 39:52.710 Suzanne Scott: All right, all right, then we will consider the goal, the Council goal statement for the purposes of enhancing interregional coordination to be approved. 39:53.850 --> 39:57.930 Suzanne Scott: Alright, so Gail, why don't you move into now your recommendations. 39:58.620 --> 39:59.130 Mark Evans: Madam Chair. 39:59.880 --> 40:00.300 Gail Peek: I'm sorry. 40:01.410 --> 40:01.830 Suzanne Scott: Yes, sir. 40:02.310 --> 40:05.190 Mark Evans: Did, did we finish with the 40:07.260 --> 40:10.290 Mark Evans: Go back. Can we go back up to the to the top. 40:10.350 --> 40:11.220 Gail Peek: The goal statement. 40:11.790 --> 40:14.850 Mark Evans: Oh, back up to the problem. Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 40:15.600 --> 40:17.010 Suzanne Scott: We're not adopting that 40:17.430 --> 40:19.080 Gail Peek: Right, but that's what I was going say that that's 40:19.080 --> 40:32.640 Gail Peek: going back to committee to present more language that doesn't create the impression that that's a recommendation as Kelley had had mentioned, we're just going to massage that language a bit. 40:33.630 --> 40:36.300 Mark Evans: I would like to ask a question, I guess, Madam Chair. 40:36.360 --> 40:37.140 Suzanne Scott: Oh sure, of course. 40:37.620 --> 40:48.420 Mark Evans: Are we trying to get a requirement of the regional planning groups that we document that there's been a coordination between regions because that's 40:52.350 --> 40:57.810 Mark Evans: when it says coordination requirements are not fully formalized in statute or rule. 41:00.180 --> 41:13.740 Mark Evans: And regions are, I'm just, I'm just posing the question. Is that what we're looking for a requirement of planning groups to document that they're coordinating and coordinating early enough in the process. 41:15.870 --> 41:26.010 Suzanne Scott: Well, I think that the idea here is that we're starting to stating the problem. I mean, something that is guiding the reasons why this enhancing interregional coordination 41:26.430 --> 41:34.980 Suzanne Scott: committee is is what are they, addressing? What's the problem they're addressing? And what we had previously adopted here 41:36.570 --> 41:39.090 Suzanne Scott: was that there didn't seem to be 41:40.110 --> 41:56.250 Suzanne Scott: formal ways of coordination and it wasn't real consistent amongst regions is sort of, if I remember the deliberations. I know. Suzanne Schwartz you can help me remember. But that was early on when we were starting these problem statements. 41:59.100 --> 42:18.480 Gail Peek: This is Gail. I think that's correct. And what you see, actually later on, Kelley is the, I'm sorry, Mark, is the not so much a formal process, but rather institutionalizing opportunities for the various units to 42:19.050 --> 42:25.200 Gail Peek: be able to look at these things because at this stage, it's not clear that there's any effort at doing that at all. 42:25.860 --> 42:38.580 Gail Peek: So our goal was to try to encourage that by creating clarity of the opportunities that might present themselves. For example, in Region G, we have the scope of work committee. 42:39.060 --> 42:49.740 Gail Peek: There are certain things that the Water Development Board expects of the scope of work committee that might be clarified and made more 42:51.000 --> 43:04.290 Gail Peek: explicit as they do the deliberations otherwise these things get lost in the shuffle and that's our concern, that they get lost in the shuffle because they don't, there's no clarity that they should be explored. 43:06.240 --> 43:08.580 Melanie Barnes: So, Gail. This is Melanie 43:09.060 --> 43:17.190 Gail Peek: Yes. Melanie Barnes: Basically, then, and you're saying regions aren't directed or don't 43:18.390 --> 43:20.670 Melanie Barnes: consider opportunities for coordination 43:20.760 --> 43:24.300 Melanie Barnes: and collaboration until late in the process. 43:25.500 --> 43:26.100 Gail Peek: That's what we're 43:26.130 --> 43:32.700 Melanie Barnes: And that they're not fully address. So that's part of that's the problem. That's how you could rearrange that second sentence. 43:32.820 --> 43:46.110 Melanie Barnes: And that you're not asked to address how everybody's going to address a conflict until later in the process, because you don't really talk about a conflict until later in the process. 43:46.470 --> 43:51.690 Gail Peek: You don't even know there is a conflict until later in the process, because we're all going in our own bubbles. 43:52.560 --> 44:04.710 Melanie Barnes: Right. So I think you can turn those two sentences around and they would, they would say what you're trying to say just by saying regions aren't considering early enough in the process. 44:06.030 --> 44:07.650 Melanie Barnes: Rather than should consider. 44:11.880 --> 44:14.610 Suzanne Scott: Mark did Gail address your comment. 44:15.090 --> 44:33.420 Mark Evans: Yeah, I think she did with the use of clarity. My concern is just from experience. I think that anytime you talk about changes and statutes and rules you need to be very clear about what changes you're requesting otherwise you may get you might not get the change that you 44:35.010 --> 44:35.790 Mark Evans: are requesting. 44:36.720 --> 44:37.950 Gail Peek: I totally agree. 44:38.970 --> 44:43.800 Mark Evans: I would point to simplified planning as a good example which happened a 44:44.460 --> 44:45.540 Mark Evans: session ago, I guess. 44:47.670 --> 44:48.750 Suzanne Scott: Which we'll talk about in a minute. 44:50.190 --> 44:50.910 Suzanne Scott: So, 44:52.770 --> 45:02.370 Suzanne Scott: does the Water Development Board, did they agree with the statement that there is not coordination formalized in the statute or rule? 45:03.750 --> 45:21.450 Suzanne Scott: I mean, I know that there's liaisons I'm not not saying that's complete coordination, I know you address that earlier. The role is is not really as clear, but the Water Development Board agreed that there's not coordination formalized coordination requirements. 45:22.800 --> 45:32.130 Temple McKinnon: I mean this is Temple. I'm speaking for myself on this. It is the committee's recommendation and I look at it as there's always room for improvement. 45:34.290 --> 45:43.320 Temple McKinnon: There's statements in our guiding principles in Chapter 358 of our administrative rules, speak to the coordination that should occur and 45:44.910 --> 45:47.190 Temple McKinnon: you know, we can always help you all do that better. 45:48.900 --> 45:49.170 Suzanne Scott: So there's room for improvement. 45:50.430 --> 45:58.440 Matt Nelson: This is. Yes, exactly. I think I've heard this, I've been listening to some of the other committees, like there's a recognition that there are things that 45:58.920 --> 46:05.460 Matt Nelson: need to be done, that are already required to be done, that maybe aren't getting done already. And so maybe it's about reinforcing and 46:06.030 --> 46:20.760 Matt Nelson: us supporting reminding and finding ways of talking about communication. There's a lot to do. And it's kind of on us to help emphasize those things. And when you need to do them and how to do them. 46:21.780 --> 46:27.960 Matt Nelson: But there's a balance for us because then it turns into we you know too many presentations and so 46:28.380 --> 46:38.100 Matt Nelson: that whole balance can talk about later. But that's something that I think is a lot of these things are kind of out there required, but how you do them that can vary and of course like Suzanne said, can always do better. 46:38.250 --> 46:39.930 Temple McKinnon: I would point out that 46:40.080 --> 46:48.840 Temple McKinnon: every committee and their own individual workings. I think Melanie made this point as well. Y'all have all identified under your own topics that coordination needs to be happening 46:49.020 --> 46:56.940 Temple McKinnon: better. So we're hearing that and will be working with it. Whatever y'all's recommendations may be, I'm taking that to heart. So yeah, there's always room for improvement. 46:57.600 --> 47:01.590 Suzanne Scott: So sooner and maybe under people understanding what the benefits would be 47:02.220 --> 47:04.110 Suzanne Scott: to do that sooner so 47:04.800 --> 47:13.530 Matt Nelson: And some things could be done as best management practices, not even a rule change. It could just be reinforcing what's already there without a lot of administrative drama, let's say. 47:14.550 --> 47:31.620 Gail Peek: Well, and basically what we tried to do later on in the slides, was to identify additional questions to ask that may help elicit information that's already available that we may not actually see. So I'm very mindful that 47:32.190 --> 47:36.720 Gail Peek: if we're talking about changing rules or regulations we are talking about art. 47:37.530 --> 47:47.550 Gail Peek: But I'm also mindful of the direction from Chairman Larson that we need to look at these things to see where they fit in the process and everybody 47:48.120 --> 47:59.700 Gail Peek: in the committee agreed. If we can get these things earlier than we can address them. One way to address it is there's no issue. At least we thought about it, looked at the information and come to an informed decision. 48:00.150 --> 48:14.250 Gail Peek: But if we're just bypassing it because no one's raised the issue. No one had to even look at it. I think we are doing ourselves a disservice in trying to address some of the questions that Chairman Lawson is posing. 48:14.850 --> 48:26.700 Matt Nelson: If I may, this is Matt again. Gail makes a good point that sometimes you just need to know about the thing that you need to know about so that you can act on it. Sometimes it's just a little awareness can help to spur things along. So, good point. 48:26.760 --> 48:34.890 Temple McKinnon: And I guess I'll add to that that however these recommendations shape out. I'm assuming you know with the Council submits a report to the Board and 48:35.520 --> 48:44.940 Temple McKinnon: we let our Board know about that. Then there's responsive mode in which we work with y'all, and maybe y'all are recommending a change to a rule. And that's like what Matt saying that's when we 48:46.080 --> 48:52.770 Temple McKinnon: propose to y'all how to handle it, and what's already existing. I mean, that's like phase two of dealing with the recommendations y'all are coming up with so. 48:55.560 --> 48:57.480 Suzanne Scott: I think we've done. I'm sorry. Kelley. Go ahead. 48:57.720 --> 49:14.310 Kelley Holcomb: I've got one small question. So what role in this earlier and better do our consultants have? Because honestly, they're the ones that have the data know where the conflicts are across regional lines that planning group members may or may not be aware of. 49:14.580 --> 49:17.520 Gail Peek: Okay, it may be helpful to go into the recommendations. 49:17.520 --> 49:22.650 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, I was just going to do that. So we're going to move on. Again, Gail you've got some good feedback 49:23.100 --> 49:29.820 Suzanne Scott: on this problem statement that it could be enhanced to really direct what the problems are. So let's move down to the recommendations. Now, Gail, 49:30.120 --> 49:42.540 Suzanne Scott: you don't necessarily need to read this verbatim. You can just sort of hit the high points and hopefully everybody has the information in front of them that they can look at. So go ahead with your recommendation number one. 49:43.620 --> 49:47.700 Gail Peek: One was to try to see if they were already processes in place that 49:48.810 --> 49:55.380 Gail Peek: we're not getting information about. And recommendation number one was trying to 49:56.700 --> 50:11.820 Gail Peek: have those explicit requirements as a line item for again regions differ, but in Region G, we have a scope of work that looks at water management strategies. There may be other regions where that's in the purview of a 50:13.230 --> 50:22.110 Gail Peek: Executive Committee, but let's have it clarified that we are looking at that issue. And that's what recommendation number one goes to. 50:27.540 --> 50:32.880 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so you're you're stating that they that the 50:33.900 --> 50:39.660 Suzanne Scott: Water planning groups would get a report of all the recommended and alternative strategies 50:40.680 --> 50:45.960 Suzanne Scott: when the IPP is submitted, but is that still early enough or is that 50:47.580 --> 50:47.910 Suzanne Scott: late? 50:50.970 --> 50:54.210 Gail Peek: I heard that I heard one comment. I was quite sure. 50:55.710 --> 50:56.970 Carl Crull: I don't think it's early enough. 50:58.020 --> 51:03.690 Kelley Holcomb: Not even close. Gail Peek: Is that you Carl? I didn't know, it was a disembodied voice. That's what I was trying to figure out. 51:05.340 --> 51:11.550 Suzanne Scott: When I when I saw that recommendation I was concerned that, that, that's pretty late in the process. 51:12.750 --> 51:14.220 Suzanne Scott: At the IPP stage. 51:16.470 --> 51:18.030 Suzanne Scott: Just, just an observation. 51:18.300 --> 51:19.470 Gail Peek: Okay, yeah. 51:19.500 --> 51:26.340 Kelley Holcomb: I would think the earliest you could do that is when you're considering water management strategies which is still pretty late in the game, but 51:27.420 --> 51:29.640 Kelley Holcomb: certainly sooner than the IPP process. 51:35.820 --> 51:43.950 Gail Peek: I think one of the things we discussed at our meeting was using information that we already have. 51:44.400 --> 51:56.010 Gail Peek: In the Water Development Board as to water management strategies from the past, having those reiterated. Some of them, if you're like Region G, a lot of times we plug the old suspects in. And, you know, 51:56.670 --> 52:16.620 Gail Peek: people say water management strategies, but the habit in having pulled out of a very noisy database may be helpful in getting regions to focus on some of those issues that they might have passed by. And I'm not quite sure if that's that can be done earlier than the IPP or not. 52:21.540 --> 52:24.420 Temple McKinnon: I'll chime in here just because I was helping out this committee. 52:26.460 --> 52:33.840 Temple McKinnon: It's Gail's correct and that's she's basing that on feedback I gave her. As y'all all know and your plans are being developed 52:36.240 --> 52:41.940 Temple McKinnon: data is being developed and there are required data reports that you put in your plans and this 52:43.800 --> 52:46.950 Temple McKinnon: this step right here on recommendation one 52:50.760 --> 52:58.530 Temple McKinnon: where the TWDB provides a full list of strategies back that exactly it can't happen until you'll have your draft plans in place. 52:58.860 --> 53:11.010 Temple McKinnon: There are recommendations further down though Gail, I believe, y'all had talked about at the end of a planning process identifying some projects and working on those at the beginning of the next cycle to address that timing concern. 53:12.300 --> 53:16.860 Suzanne Scott: Could you could it be identified when the needs are identified? 53:18.180 --> 53:28.590 Matt Nelson: May I ask a question. Maybe I'm just a little confused. I don't mean to get in the way. But I were talking about identifying conflicts or working together and develop develop large projects. 53:28.740 --> 53:30.840 Temple McKinnon: So there was, I mean this committee is really focused on 53:30.840 --> 53:35.520 Temple McKinnon: looking at opportunities and issues, two distinct charges. 53:35.580 --> 53:36.000 Matt Nelson: Right. And I think 53:36.690 --> 53:37.410 Matt Nelson: to your point, 53:39.450 --> 53:49.260 Matt Nelson: Madam Chair, the needs information is provided already specifically explicitly for that purpose and was provided explicitly for that purpose this cycle, 53:49.560 --> 53:53.430 Matt Nelson: including an interactive map to show what the needs are. So geographically, you can make some 53:54.240 --> 54:01.980 Matt Nelson: sort of cognitive geographic based links. It's what might work as a project work together. So that was actually explicitly 54:02.640 --> 54:10.740 Matt Nelson: enhanced the cycle. Temple can speak more to it, but that is a very good point. And that is a good place to really start looking at what you're going to do a larger project and 54:10.770 --> 54:12.420 Matt Nelson: and we can emphasize that more. 54:12.870 --> 54:14.640 Temple McKinnon: Yeah and we plan to 54:15.240 --> 54:22.830 Temple McKinnon: carry on with the development of that or provision of that tool each planning cycle and also to your point, Madam Chair yeah, you, you know, 54:23.490 --> 54:30.180 Temple McKinnon: folks can be talking about projects they know about. You don't have to wait until the IPP at all. That was just a listing of 54:30.990 --> 54:41.130 Temple McKinnon: data as entered in support of the plan just to facilitate consumption of what's out there statewide or, you know, for this committee your neighboring regions to be coordinating with. 54:42.030 --> 54:42.600 Patrick Brzozowski: Madam Chair. 54:43.560 --> 54:44.760 Patrick Brzozowski: Gail. Can I say something? 54:45.210 --> 54:49.590 Gail Peek: Absolutely. Patrick Brzozowski: Yeah, so in our committee talking about this, 54:51.330 --> 55:03.570 Patrick Brzozowski: most of us who have a work supply project that we're in the planning or it's on the books or it's just being conceptualized, you know these things take a long time. And most of us 55:04.710 --> 55:06.270 Patrick Brzozowski: as we talk amongst ourselves 55:07.020 --> 55:09.270 Patrick Brzozowski: and there's a lot of information available so 55:10.350 --> 55:16.530 Patrick Brzozowski: you know the discussion about potential impacts, those sponsors 55:17.820 --> 55:27.570 Patrick Brzozowski: have already thought far enough out to where they should have already identified some of these impacts and hopefully they're they're already making those coordination efforts. 55:28.650 --> 55:30.000 Patrick Brzozowski: If not, they probably should be. 55:31.170 --> 55:43.770 Patrick Brzozowski: But where this falls in the planning process. I agree with Carl and everyone else. It needs to happen as early as possible. You know, I think one of the meetings we talked about even moving the identification of potential management strategies 55:45.360 --> 55:51.330 Patrick Brzozowski: up in the process somehow. I don't know how we do that until you know what the demand is going to be or the need. 55:53.730 --> 56:03.240 Patrick Brzozowski: But we do have these lists from the prior plans and I agree, most of these plans go from plan to plan to plan. They just keep getting they might be updated. 56:04.530 --> 56:07.980 Patrick Brzozowski: But a lot of plans have been in those plans, since the beginning. 56:11.550 --> 56:15.150 Patrick Brzozowski: So that's the list that needs to be focused on for that particular region. 56:16.410 --> 56:26.010 Patrick Brzozowski: And understanding of the impacts outside that region or at least asking the question early on in the process. So that was the thought behind some of this. 56:28.440 --> 56:29.550 Patrick Brzozowski: narrative that you have here. 56:31.230 --> 56:33.840 Gail Peek: And I would add that what you 56:34.380 --> 56:46.530 Gail Peek: what you get for that collaborative process, and by the way, that's where the consultants probably know more about this stuff than many of the Region G or region planning members. 56:47.700 --> 56:52.260 Gail Peek: But to also think about, are there funds that could look 56:53.520 --> 57:07.350 Gail Peek: at that we could tap into for some of these bigger thinking projects and impact more than one region. And that that was a goal that early, the better. How soon it occurs, it seems to me if if they were the usual suspects, then 57:09.540 --> 57:19.260 Gail Peek: looking at that list more carefully to see if there are opportunities for collaboration, which may even find them early might avoid conflicts down the road. 57:20.400 --> 57:35.850 Gail Peek: For me, there are so many benefits that come from getting people to go beyond the region idea and more towards multi region or impacted regions and that was part of all the recommendations that that we're putting forward. 57:42.300 --> 57:45.540 Suzanne Scott: Well, I think what we're hearing here it seems 57:45.600 --> 58:01.860 Suzanne Scott: that there's some concern about the timing that you're that's being suggested here. Could it be done earlier. I'm just sort of regurgitating what I'm hearing. Patrick is saying that some of the sponsors probably know are should have 58:03.060 --> 58:15.360 Suzanne Scott: know some of these issues and that should be brought forward sooner. Possibly the consultants should identify those things sooner as the needs are coming out. The Water Development Board 58:15.810 --> 58:29.070 Suzanne Scott: has a process now to identify needs earlier, maybe that needs to be maximized or focused in some way to bring maybe bringing together people from an 58:29.490 --> 58:39.120 Suzanne Scott: adjoining regions when needs are identified. I don't know. I'm just, that's kind of what at the comments that I'm hearing. Am I, have I missed anything 58:39.810 --> 58:46.230 Suzanne Scott: that could help give some guidance to. I don't think there's anyone that suggesting that that the committee is is 58:46.680 --> 58:58.920 Suzanne Scott: off base with a recommendation. The idea is, when is the right time to do it sooner or to get those, identify these projects and issues and opportunities as soon in the process as possible. 58:59.550 --> 58:59.970 Am I missing any comments? 59:03.690 --> 59:03.960 Matt Nelson: I'll wait. 59:06.600 --> 59:07.980 Gail Peek: Matt, were you gonna say something. 59:08.130 --> 59:10.050 Matt Nelson: I want to let folks respond to Suzanne. 59:11.400 --> 59:12.840 Suzanne Scott: And I think 59:12.870 --> 59:14.430 Suzanne Scott: Temple's trying to catch them so 59:14.640 --> 59:16.260 Suzanne Scott: so ideas here. 59:16.350 --> 59:23.520 Matt Nelson: What I just wanted to say. I think that Patrick has a good point about it's a chicken and the egg thing a little bit and they used to try to scope the strategy 59:23.970 --> 59:31.830 Matt Nelson: for the budget before you even had your needs. That was completely not in the right order. So things flow in the right order. Now, maybe it just means 59:32.220 --> 59:38.340 Matt Nelson: you do have to do cycle to cycle and more of this build upon the last plan and maybe that's where some more energy goes. 59:38.700 --> 59:48.360 Matt Nelson: You see what the old plans were, now let's see if we can let's, let's look at our work, had we do on our, on our previous work and we can we make hybrid projects we work to build these 59:49.260 --> 59:59.130 Matt Nelson: Lot more separate projects or plans into more combined projects in the next cycle. And that's something that's already allowable to they can you know regions can team up with their money to do that. 59:59.910 --> 01:00:05.790 Matt Nelson: And I think some of this is frankly from everything I've heard, I just kind of thought of it now is that seems like sometimes 01:00:06.240 --> 01:00:16.530 Matt Nelson: telling consultants, thinking what the consultants are doing maybe different than what you're telling them you really want them to focus on and do and maybe there's some of that too and that's best management practices kind of process. 01:00:17.160 --> 01:00:18.600 Gail Peek: Well, then back to that point. 01:00:18.900 --> 01:00:34.290 Gail Peek: When you look at the succinct recommendations. It was to really go into the administrative contract so that there is an impetus for raising those questions and getting out of that bubble and looking at it and question, I agree with everyone, 01:00:35.190 --> 01:00:43.920 Gail Peek: the earlier, the better. When is the right time. We still have to work on exactly when that happens, but I think from Temple's observation we saw 01:00:44.460 --> 01:00:59.640 Gail Peek: it with some of these plans that have been coming along and getting a little moldy if they're going to be revitalized they're there for everyone to see. No one has to tell you. Take a look, they're right there. And the question is, how do you look at it with a fresh eye. 01:01:02.520 --> 01:01:10.320 Kelley Holcomb: Well, Madam Chair. And if I may. I'm looking at the document again and I'm thinking my way through it and having gone through some of this. 01:01:10.830 --> 01:01:19.620 Kelley Holcomb: I think was in round four we got we were notified very late in the game after the, right before the app IPP came out of a 01:01:20.550 --> 01:01:29.580 Kelley Holcomb: new demand from one region in of Region I and I'm just wondering that we're talking my original comment was about consultants. 01:01:29.940 --> 01:01:38.700 Kelley Holcomb: We state the consultants are part of the problem, but we don't see anything and recommendations where consultants are a part of the solutions. They're the ones that have the data. 01:01:39.870 --> 01:01:48.150 Kelley Holcomb: I'm standing up there in front of the planning group I'm focused on facilitating the meeting. I'm looking at all kinds of other things related to the administration of the planning group. 01:01:48.570 --> 01:01:58.830 Kelley Holcomb: Not so much the details that are being brought to bear as part of the planning process itself and it appears to me that the consultants have got to 01:01:59.580 --> 01:02:11.250 Kelley Holcomb: be a player in making sure that the planning group is aware of these potential conflicts or at least where strategies cross regional boundary lines. 01:02:11.910 --> 01:02:23.580 Kelley Holcomb: And as I'm saying that I'm thinking along the lines of a hurricane tracking spaghetti model, you know, the basin of origin over to the basin of need. And I don't know, but 01:02:24.960 --> 01:02:32.010 Kelley Holcomb: I know that we as planning group members can't do it all. We can't read every jot and tittle of these plans. We've got to have the consultants doing it for us. 01:02:32.790 --> 01:02:43.080 Gail Peek: And Kelley, to your point, I don't disagree with you. And there I need, I think we all need to know what each region does in its water management strategy because 01:02:43.590 --> 01:02:48.720 Gail Peek: in Region G, the scope of work committee works intimately with the consultants. 01:02:48.990 --> 01:03:00.930 Gail Peek: And that's where we come out and and I just need to know more about how each region functions and developing that water manage management strategy to find out where we can identify exactly 01:03:01.740 --> 01:03:13.920 Gail Peek: when the consultant's role starts coming into play. I was assuming it was during the contract negotiation stage, but it may differ from various regions. So that's something that we might want to look at. 01:03:14.310 --> 01:03:16.710 Kelley Holcomb: So Gail which recommendation would that fall under? 01:03:18.930 --> 01:03:23.700 Kelley Holcomb: Or does it and I'm not seeing it as plainly as I in my feeble mind. 01:03:24.270 --> 01:03:35.400 Gail Peek: Well, when I look at the administrative contract rule and requirements, that's where I see it coming in. But I, again, I don't know if every region has gets the 01:03:36.510 --> 01:03:39.750 Gail Peek: consultant involved in that process as Region G does. 01:03:40.980 --> 01:03:41.670 Kelley Holcomb: Well, part of 01:03:42.720 --> 01:03:43.110 Kelley Holcomb: Part of it. 01:03:43.140 --> 01:03:43.530 Temple McKinnon: I just Kelley Holcomb: Go ahead Temple. 01:03:45.330 --> 01:03:50.670 Temple McKinnon: I just want to make clear that these recommendations are structured as recommendation one was 01:03:51.870 --> 01:04:12.900 Temple McKinnon: identifying opportunities and issues and then recommendation two is at collaborating around it. So just to make sure I'm capturing some feedback from you correctly, Kelley. You're saying that and identifying projects that should be further explored for opportunities or issues. 01:04:16.140 --> 01:04:32.010 Temple McKinnon: That's something that you want the consultants. So by way of a required specific more explicit task and the scope of work from the Board to the consultants, so that we're managing that contract and making sure they're doing some sort of action for you that's not happening. 01:04:32.640 --> 01:04:38.550 Matt Nelson: And just to be clear, just so everyone's on the same page. I'll just give you a little background. The contracts, the way they're written 01:04:39.030 --> 01:04:44.580 Matt Nelson: our standard scopes of work. They're very comprehensive there's there's plenty of flexibility. 01:04:44.910 --> 01:04:54.690 Matt Nelson: And really, the only thing that y'all scope is your strategies that you're going to evaluate. Your budgeted funds, and you later once you know what your needs are and what the projects are then you actually 01:04:55.320 --> 01:05:03.390 Matt Nelson: scope and budget for that, but they're pretty standard scopes. That's why we're listening with a keen ear to see what we can you know what might work for all regions to build into the standard. 01:05:04.260 --> 01:05:06.060 Suzanne Scott: So maybe there's a task 01:05:06.090 --> 01:05:07.440 Suzanne Scott: that's earlier on. 01:05:08.910 --> 01:05:20.100 Suzanne Scott: That begins to identify any conflicts or any opportunity. Maybe instead of conflicts, maybe any opportunities for interregional coordination. 01:05:20.610 --> 01:05:24.270 Temple McKinnon: I wanted to draw attention to the part of this recommendation if you go on the 01:05:24.360 --> 01:05:25.950 Temple McKinnon: first recommendation. 01:05:27.270 --> 01:05:37.860 Temple McKinnon: Small, you know, Roman numeral five. Each planning group, it's in our rules everybody has to hold a public input pre planning meeting before any technical work starts. 01:05:38.280 --> 01:05:51.660 Temple McKinnon: And then you also have to hold a meeting to go through what is your regions potentially feasible water management strategy process. How are y'all going to consider and identify potentially feasible strategies. And if you look at 01:05:54.960 --> 01:05:58.440 Temple McKinnon: Roman numeral four. No wait, Roman numeral five 01:06:00.480 --> 01:06:01.530 Temple McKinnon: and six 01:06:03.060 --> 01:06:10.410 Temple McKinnon: is that correct? Roman numeral five gets those two meetings, those two meetings, it's suggesting that those two meetings, specifically have to discuss identified 01:06:10.980 --> 01:06:14.070 Temple McKinnon: opportunities and issues at those public meetings. 01:06:14.940 --> 01:06:22.020 Temple McKinnon: Which are early on. And then Roman numeral six is recommending that your technical memorandum, which are that midpoint deliverable. 01:06:22.320 --> 01:06:26.820 Temple McKinnon: We're still talking two and a half years in the planning process, it's still kind of down the road. But nonetheless, 01:06:27.090 --> 01:06:39.840 Temple McKinnon: You specifically have to document opportunities and issues that you've identified and how you all talked about it. So that's what this first recommendation. A couple of things that's getting that to help planning groups identify issues. Suzanne Scott: That's good. 01:06:40.140 --> 01:06:52.680 Suzanne Scott: And maybe you need to make sure that the maybe it's already part of the requirement that that at that public meeting that the liaisons from from all the adjacent 01:06:54.660 --> 01:07:00.030 Suzanne Scott: all the adjacent regions are specifically invited to that public meeting 01:07:01.650 --> 01:07:07.710 Suzanne Scott: to ensure that that interregional coordination is happening. I mean, at least there's people in the room from a different region. 01:07:09.900 --> 01:07:12.150 Suzanne Scott: So you'd have to have your regional 01:07:13.830 --> 01:07:16.560 Suzanne Scott: lead liaisons appointed before that meeting occurs. 01:07:17.010 --> 01:07:19.170 Matt Nelson: That already happens now. They're already there. 01:07:20.820 --> 01:07:23.100 Suzanne Schwartz: And I also think the recommendation had a 01:07:23.460 --> 01:07:39.540 Suzanne Schwartz: point in it to bring to have the when you're doing your adopted plan, you're identifying anything that should be looked at it the next round of planning. So that sort of brings that forward from the from one round of planning to another. I think was the intent of the committee. 01:07:41.190 --> 01:07:42.630 Patrick Brzozowski: Not that this is on subject but 01:07:44.370 --> 01:07:50.310 Patrick Brzozowski: just point of interest for myself, how many other 16 planning regions, how many different consultants are there? 01:07:56.550 --> 01:07:56.670 Temple McKinnon: Um 01:07:57.180 --> 01:07:59.250 Temple McKinnon: There are, well there's one for each 01:08:01.530 --> 01:08:03.270 Temple McKinnon: There's, I can think of 01:08:03.390 --> 01:08:04.950 Temple McKinnon: Patrick your consulting team 01:08:04.980 --> 01:08:07.620 Temple McKinnon: Is with another region as well. 01:08:07.680 --> 01:08:08.670 Patrick Brzozowski: That I mean unique, I'm sorry. 01:08:09.090 --> 01:08:09.480 Patrick Brzozowski: Unique 01:08:09.930 --> 01:08:11.280 Temple McKinnon: Not the same firm but different people. 01:08:11.280 --> 01:08:16.590 Matt Nelson: And then their subs too that do significant work, but Temple, do you have an idea? A rough number, 10? 01:08:17.430 --> 01:08:18.990 Temple McKinnon: I would say 01:08:21.330 --> 01:08:27.630 Temple McKinnon: 14 yeah there's some repeats and a couple of regions but unique consulting teams. Yeah. 01:08:28.530 --> 01:08:31.080 Patrick Brzozowski: I know just between our region's here K and 01:08:31.080 --> 01:08:32.640 Patrick Brzozowski: P and N and L. 01:08:33.120 --> 01:08:36.840 Patrick Brzozowski: You know there's 2, that's 4 regions and there's two consultants. Right. 01:08:37.590 --> 01:08:39.720 Temple McKinnon: Well, N and L have different teams. 01:08:40.230 --> 01:08:41.550 Patrick Brzozowski: Oh,they do today? Okay. Temple McKinnon: Yeah. 01:08:43.290 --> 01:08:49.080 Matt Nelson: Even when the consultants aren't the same we've found, especially when we see how they're dealing with data and potential conflicts and 01:08:49.620 --> 01:09:01.560 Matt Nelson: over allocations, they work together well. And I would just say that the consultants have delivered plans pretty well in general from, from what I've seen. So they but they coordinate pretty well in general, but they do need direction. 01:09:01.770 --> 01:09:03.780 Patrick Brzozowski: I was just going to point out that 01:09:04.230 --> 01:09:06.330 Patrick Brzozowski: at least for myself, in our region, 01:09:07.530 --> 01:09:13.440 Patrick Brzozowski: you know, we rely on our consultant to coordinate with neighboring consultant groups. And it was in the past that, 01:09:14.700 --> 01:09:27.600 Patrick Brzozowski: you know they had the same one on this side and you had the same on this side. So it's very good coordination and if there was a requirement that said, or if you had a meeting of that group. It seemed like a good opportunity and a fairly easy meeting in conversation. 01:09:29.430 --> 01:09:29.700 Kelley Holcomb: Oh, 01:09:29.880 --> 01:09:30.780 Kelley Holcomb: This is Kelley again. 01:09:30.960 --> 01:09:44.640 Kelley Holcomb: Along those same lines, I don't remember exactly, but we, as the planning group don't actually see a table or other documentation that shows water management strategies outside of the region. 01:09:45.150 --> 01:09:46.020 Patrick Brzozowski: Right. 01:09:49.890 --> 01:09:58.620 Matt Nelson: That depends on if you're what you want information is shared from what we send out to the chair and the consultant and the political subdivision. Is a true Temple? 01:09:58.800 --> 01:10:03.030 Matt Nelson: Because a lot of that goes out to the planning groups, but not necessarily to every member. And maybe that's what we need to start doing. 01:10:05.370 --> 01:10:05.850 Temple McKinnon: So, 01:10:06.900 --> 01:10:15.210 Temple McKinnon: Make sure I'm understanding, you're talking strategies that are being recommended in another region, but that are sourced from not that region recommending them, Kelley? 01:10:15.780 --> 01:10:16.230 Kelley Holcomb: Correct. 01:10:17.370 --> 01:10:18.060 Kelley Holcomb: Water coming 01:10:18.120 --> 01:10:31.980 Kelley Holcomb: from another region. I mean, it seems to me, relatively easy to create a table that would show what those are the region of origin and the region of use and at least call it out. 01:10:33.030 --> 01:10:34.470 Kelley Holcomb: So that it's easier to identify. 01:10:34.860 --> 01:10:38.910 Matt Nelson: Now is that is that to coordinate for a larger projects because 01:10:40.740 --> 01:10:51.240 Kelley Holcomb: I don't see the difference, Matt. Water is water. It doesn't matter if it's a large project or small project if it's interregional does it really matter if it's you know the size or 01:10:51.390 --> 01:10:58.170 Matt Nelson: No, no. What I meant is it to identify conflicts or are you, is it more about seeing if we can, you can build off of that project. 01:10:58.920 --> 01:11:12.570 Suzanne Scott: It's coordination or awareness or impact, it's all of the above. The use the awareness and the impact and the opportunity, all of that I think. 01:11:12.750 --> 01:11:13.290 Temple McKinnon: We could definitely, 01:11:13.470 --> 01:11:21.630 Temple McKinnon: we could format information that way because the recommendation here and then enhancing committee interregional coordination committee report is that 01:11:22.080 --> 01:11:32.550 Temple McKinnon: the Board provide back to the planning groups, a listing of the recommended strategies and we could definitely make sure that is organized in a way that indicates what's outside of a 01:11:35.400 --> 01:11:36.990 Temple McKinnon: Region of recommendation or not. 01:11:37.680 --> 01:11:56.400 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, because I'm just thinking that, you know, if we're counting on the rest of the planning groups, our neighboring regions to be notified publicly through a public comment period and we're hoping they're watching, but they're not because we're all busy doing other stuff as well. 01:11:57.690 --> 01:12:09.150 Kelley Holcomb: I don't think that's good policy or good practice. But if we had a table that calls it out that doesn't require any rule changes or anything. It's just a table that says of the strategies, here's where the water is coming from and here's where it's going. 01:12:09.750 --> 01:12:24.030 Temple McKinnon: Well, in our rules now they're to notify and their IPP distributions, you know Region X needs to notify Region Y that they're recommending a project be developed in that region directly notify that region and provide them that information. So that's 01:12:24.030 --> 01:12:25.140 Temple McKinnon: Currently in our rules. 01:12:25.710 --> 01:12:34.500 Kelley Holcomb: How does it bubble up to the planning groups though Temple? Because we've got some of those in our planning. Well, I guess all of our water is outbound so it's not inbound. 01:12:34.950 --> 01:12:37.110 Matt Nelson: That's going to the political subdivisions, correct Temple? 01:12:37.890 --> 01:12:44.940 Temple McKinnon: I guess I can't speak to. We don't monitor notifications distributed by all planning groups, but it's 357.21. 01:12:47.610 --> 01:12:50.730 Temple McKinnon: That's a notice requirement and that whole process of your IPP. 01:12:50.760 --> 01:12:53.550 Matt Nelson: So at least the chair and the political subdivisions probably getting notice 01:12:53.580 --> 01:12:54.090 Temple McKinnon: I don't know. 01:12:54.990 --> 01:12:56.040 Matt Nelson: And it's kind of a minimum 01:12:56.400 --> 01:13:00.870 Kelley Holcomb: Well there might be your problem, if you're notifying the chairs. I don't remember what I had for lunch today, much less. 01:13:01.320 --> 01:13:02.550 Temple McKinnon: The MP committee. 01:13:03.240 --> 01:13:03.930 Temple McKinnon: Will get y'all next. 01:13:05.580 --> 01:13:06.420 Suzanne Scott: We better move 01:13:07.590 --> 01:13:08.580 Suzanne Scott: down to the next. I think we've gotten this 01:13:09.930 --> 01:13:10.260 Suzanne Scott: one 01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:12.510 Suzanne Scott: covered. 01:13:13.710 --> 01:13:22.200 Suzanne Scott: To the second one I think basically Gail, you, you're going to get some, that first recommendation, I think we need to be a little bit more 01:13:23.340 --> 01:13:44.460 Suzanne Scott: specific on the timing and a little bit more comprehensive in what should be included in some of these notifications and that they are distributed broadly so that the committee knows what's going on and what potential conflicts, opportunities, impacts have been identified. 01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:50.520 Gail Peek: I think basically I sum that up into impact on regions, period. 01:13:50.790 --> 01:13:51.180 Suzanne Scott: Yes. 01:13:52.290 --> 01:13:55.020 Suzanne Scott: Okay, under number two. Why don't you lay that one out. 01:13:59.160 --> 01:14:15.750 Gail Peek: Two is a corollary of what we were just talking about is how do you identify early in the planning process where there are these opportunities. Two really does, the comments that were made about one probably apply to two as well. 01:14:16.110 --> 01:14:22.740 Suzanne Scott: Okay, maybe they can be combined. I don't know depending, look at them from that perspective. 01:14:26.550 --> 01:14:27.090 Suzanne Scott: Alright. 01:14:28.620 --> 01:14:31.380 Suzanne Scott: Because they seem to me when I read them very similar 01:14:31.740 --> 01:14:38.160 Gail Peek: Yes 01:14:39.210 --> 01:14:49.230 Gail Peek: Yes, I think the the useful comment of trying ways to have the information about invite liaisons and create a user friendly 01:14:50.490 --> 01:14:58.890 Gail Peek: access point for the regional board of planning members to know what's going on. I think that, you know, 01:14:59.640 --> 01:15:09.810 Gail Peek: to Kelley's point, if you leave it at the chair level, it may or may not drift down to the members. It might. It may stay in the executive committee, it might. 01:15:10.110 --> 01:15:23.070 Gail Peek: But I think there to the consultants have an important role to play, because more often than not, they will know what's going on before the members of the regional planning groups know what's going on. 01:15:23.430 --> 01:15:24.420 Suzanne Scott: Yes, I agree with that. 01:15:26.910 --> 01:15:29.760 Suzanne Scott: Do we need to go into recommendation number three, then? 01:15:32.280 --> 01:15:45.840 Gail Peek: And I was going to go on to three and three again is like corollary number two by identifying water management strategies. I think we have the same concerns and issues that are heard earlier. 01:15:47.550 --> 01:16:08.730 Gail Peek: The goal being finding ways to get that collaborative or impact on more regions than one. Get that out on the floor early so that we can deal with it so when our backs are against the wall and it becomes a much more adversarial process of my water versus your water. 01:16:14.550 --> 01:16:24.690 Gail Peek: In each case, what we tried to do, and Temple did a very nice job of identifying where in the statutes this has a home if we can marry it 01:16:25.170 --> 01:16:38.640 Gail Peek: and put legs on it so that it is, we're not talking about massive changes, we're talking about tweaking things and making them better and getting information to people that need the information faster. 01:16:41.730 --> 01:16:50.850 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, it seems like there's an awareness issue. I think that's what Matt's trying to say is just if the process is there, it's just it's it's really not 01:16:52.800 --> 01:17:00.420 Suzanne Scott: as deliberate enough maybe in the early phases of the of the planning process and to really utilize those early 01:17:00.990 --> 01:17:13.830 Suzanne Scott: that early time in this process to ensure that this these if there are going to be conflicts or concerns that it's not wait, it doesn't arise so late in the process. So I think 01:17:15.150 --> 01:17:15.900 Suzanne Scott: that would be great. 01:17:17.580 --> 01:17:19.260 Gail Peek: And I think to Patrick's point 01:17:20.430 --> 01:17:32.580 Gail Peek: you, I always hear about HDR or Nichols. I mean, some of the names keep coming up again, and they do coordinate with each other very well. So we need to be able to mine that information. 01:17:33.150 --> 01:17:42.060 Gail Peek: And it struck me that at the contract negotiation period and there you're talking about an administrator for the river authority. 01:17:43.410 --> 01:17:56.880 Gail Peek: More so than all the members of the Region G or region in any region planning group. They may know or have a better feel for some of these issues. So if we can get this kind of interest 01:17:57.960 --> 01:18:08.130 Gail Peek: incorporated into that process that might be the earliest of all because when you talk about the contract, you talk about money and people pay attention when money's on the table. 01:18:12.240 --> 01:18:12.720 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:18:14.970 --> 01:18:22.830 Suzanne Scott: Anything else on these three recommendations. It seems like going to wordsmith this I think you may end up with maybe two recommendations. 01:18:23.880 --> 01:18:28.290 Suzanne Scott: One about kind of communication. And one about timing. 01:18:28.590 --> 01:18:30.090 Gail Peek: Right. And I should say 01:18:30.150 --> 01:18:35.520 Gail Peek: that the committee is going to meet at least two more times before 01:18:36.780 --> 01:18:46.440 Gail Peek: September 12 so we our plan is to try to use this information to fine tune and tailor things. At this stage, we're looking at 01:18:46.950 --> 01:19:02.580 Gail Peek: August 28 and September 9 as additional meetings and we're just trying to make sure we can catch up and fine tune these and make them into concrete recommendations for the entire Council to consider. 01:19:05.280 --> 01:19:05.700 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:19:08.610 --> 01:19:14.730 Suzanne Scott: Any other comments on these recommendations. Anybody have any concerns. 01:19:16.830 --> 01:19:19.500 Suzanne Scott: Any directions that to give to Gail. 01:19:21.330 --> 01:19:36.390 Suzanne Scott: Alright, so then I will put in front of the group we're asking for general support of these ideas so that they can go back in draft them into final recommendations. 01:19:38.220 --> 01:19:42.510 Suzanne Scott: So anyone have any concerns about support for these 01:19:43.830 --> 01:19:44.730 Suzanne Scott: recommendations? 01:19:46.620 --> 01:19:55.890 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I'm not seeing any body say they have concerns. Alright, so, Gail, you have your marching orders. Thank you very much, again thank you to the committee. 01:19:57.300 --> 01:20:02.370 Suzanne Scott: Also Gail mentioned at the bottom here, I'm sorry, but she does have a couple of more 01:20:03.540 --> 01:20:09.390 Suzanne Scott: recommendations that they're looking at the role of the liaisons and 01:20:10.680 --> 01:20:17.730 Suzanne Scott: alternative processes to resolve interregional conflicts outside of the regional water planning process. 01:20:19.050 --> 01:20:22.320 Suzanne Scott: That was sort of, they'll pick up some of the 01:20:23.730 --> 01:20:36.090 Suzanne Scott: the recommendations or thoughts that Kevin and Jim had shared in the effort that Suzanne Schwartz was facilitating between the two of them based on their experiences. 01:20:38.220 --> 01:20:41.880 Suzanne Scott: So that will be brought forward and as part of Gail's committee. 01:20:42.510 --> 01:20:45.330 Gail Peek: Right. Suzanne Scott: Okay. Anything else on this one. 01:20:46.980 --> 01:20:54.690 Suzanne Scott: All right, great. Thank you. And thank you for that to that committee as well. Look forward to seeing those finalized. Alright. 01:20:55.710 --> 01:21:00.150 Suzanne Scott: Last group, but certainly not least, is our best practices 01:21:01.200 --> 01:21:02.970 Suzanne Scott: committee, Steven. 01:21:05.220 --> 01:21:17.460 Steve Walthour: Howdy. I'd like to thank the committee for meeting and having patience with me for about five different meetings over the past couple of months. We still have a couple of meetings scheduled after this. 01:21:18.150 --> 01:21:19.470 Steve Walthour: The proposals that 01:21:19.620 --> 01:21:27.120 Steve Walthour: are recommendations we have in front of you, there's about seven. I'm going to attempt to keep this recommendation and conversation 01:21:27.630 --> 01:21:37.860 Steve Walthour: discussion process to finishing by 7 p.m. this evening, so that we can go to other things. I appreciate listening to the others. To start off 01:21:38.580 --> 01:21:47.430 Steve Walthour: we had, as I said seven recommendations. The first one was on simplified planning. The brief observation, you can read it, it appears that 01:21:47.940 --> 01:21:56.460 Steve Walthour: regardless of the intent of the legislature when it stuck in having to go back and really look at all the data again anyway. 01:21:57.030 --> 01:22:01.620 Steve Walthour: Pretty much made the simplified planning process not functional 01:22:02.160 --> 01:22:09.180 Steve Walthour: Our recommendation would be the legislature either discontinue the requirement to update groundwater and surface water availability values 01:22:09.600 --> 01:22:18.600 Steve Walthour: and those areas that the numbers doesn't change or to just strike simplified planning from the statute all together because apparently it's not working at this point. 01:22:19.500 --> 01:22:29.340 Steve Walthour: The Texas Water Development Board should evaluate alternatives to current simplified planning process that address timing and data concerns. I was just thinking one 01:22:30.630 --> 01:22:32.730 Steve Walthour: and I'm tied with the groundwater, 01:22:34.830 --> 01:22:43.470 Steve Walthour: groundwater areas, groundwater management area one, and by the time that we have the state water plan adopted, 01:22:45.030 --> 01:22:46.890 Steve Walthour: the regional the groundwater 01:22:48.720 --> 01:22:56.610 Steve Walthour: model available ground waters are already five years old so might be an opportunity to get those paired up better know we've tried before. 01:22:57.720 --> 01:23:09.180 Steve Walthour: Those are the evaluations. We believe that it could allow us to spin those financial resources on working on other things like 01:23:11.250 --> 01:23:18.330 Steve Walthour: special projects or studies that we really need to work on. That's a the first recommendation. 01:23:19.380 --> 01:23:20.940 Steve Walthour: Is there any questions about that. 01:23:25.980 --> 01:23:29.640 Suzanne Scott: Any questions on that first recommendation for simplified planning? 01:23:31.380 --> 01:23:32.430 Suzanne Scott: Any concerns. 01:23:33.750 --> 01:23:36.840 Matt Nelson: One piece of background, I'll offer after people have a chance 01:23:42.150 --> 01:23:43.200 Suzanne Scott: Okay, Matt. 01:23:43.500 --> 01:23:54.510 Matt Nelson: In the, in the previous one of the policy recommendations by the Board in the last state water plan was to modify the groundwater availability timing and 01:23:56.160 --> 01:24:06.180 Matt Nelson: it's sort of a perennial problem of it never feels synced up with the water planning process. And I understand it depends on where you are, but the general dates, 01:24:07.230 --> 01:24:16.080 Matt Nelson: that was, it was looked at, we took recommendations by the planning groups into account and that recommendation was was made by the Board already and 01:24:16.770 --> 01:24:25.770 Matt Nelson: as far as I know Temple that change was made. So then an attempt has been made at that but I think it'll never be perfect. It's always gonna feel, yeah, it was by statute. 01:24:26.550 --> 01:24:31.470 Temple McKinnon: So there are issues because there's a time delay, you know, the DFC has to be set, but then 01:24:32.190 --> 01:24:37.680 Temple McKinnon: modeled available groundwaters have to be produced and the timing is indeed always tricky. Yeah. 01:24:37.770 --> 01:24:43.080 Matt Nelson: Right, so that's been addressed as well as we think it can be and it's never going to be perfect and 01:24:44.190 --> 01:24:46.380 Matt Nelson: so just want you to be aware. 01:24:51.630 --> 01:24:54.990 Suzanne Scott: All right, you ready to go to the next recommendation. 01:24:55.590 --> 01:24:59.610 Steve Walthour: Sure enhancing membership engagement and general public engagement. 01:25:00.690 --> 01:25:17.910 Steve Walthour: Kelley guided us through most of this. Brief observation or regional water planning groups are experiencing a variety of communication and engagement issues and we'll deal into the communication issue or bit more later. 01:25:19.230 --> 01:25:32.130 Steve Walthour: You can read through the example. What it comes down to is, we have membership that is not really participating, the way they should be, or at least understanding processes. 01:25:32.520 --> 01:25:37.290 Steve Walthour: And we're finding that there's a lot of good information out there that we're not getting. 01:25:38.010 --> 01:25:53.610 Steve Walthour: And we're not getting it because we're unaware. I think that the Water Development Board staff is providing it to us, we're not paying attention, for some reason. Some of the succinct recommendations from this committee provide funding for better methods of disseminating of 01:25:54.630 --> 01:25:57.600 Steve Walthour: information for regional water planning processes. 01:25:59.130 --> 01:26:01.980 Steve Walthour: We need to work on that and I think 01:26:03.330 --> 01:26:09.930 Steve Walthour: the people that work with us from the Water Development Board are excellent. I think that we need to look at, you know, there needs to be something more. 01:26:10.380 --> 01:26:25.770 Steve Walthour: Authorize the use of one-way conferencing a webinars. This may already be available. But, you know, since these are public meetings, if, if it's not available, which, you know, the legislature should allow at least that one-way conferencing or webinar. 01:26:29.130 --> 01:26:39.570 Steve Walthour: The Water Development Board should provide policy recommendations developed by Interregional Planning Council to all regional water planning groups to inform their planning process. 01:26:40.260 --> 01:26:49.770 Steve Walthour: Provide a distilled policy recommendations report for all adopted regional water plans, supported by topic to the region water planning groups and the Council. 01:26:50.340 --> 01:27:06.270 Steve Walthour: Provide an update to the above report at an appropriate time in the planning cycle of the implementation status of recommendations to the regional water planning groups and Council. And develop a standardized easy to adopt practices and protocols to apply to all regions. 01:27:07.950 --> 01:27:10.020 Steve Walthour: As far as what regional water planning group should do 01:27:12.060 --> 01:27:22.110 Steve Walthour: we need to provide more focus on new member orientations. Utilize educational programs and subject matter speakers in each regional water planning group. 01:27:22.620 --> 01:27:32.220 Steve Walthour: And develop better methods of encouraging public participation, for example, surveys, targeted email blasts, website updates for regional planning groups. 01:27:32.910 --> 01:27:45.120 Steve Walthour: The future Interregional Planning Council should hold work sessions to deep dive into more complicated topics and require regional water planning group chairs to meet at least on annual at a minimum. 01:27:46.800 --> 01:27:48.180 Steve Walthour: We think that this will 01:27:50.160 --> 01:27:55.830 Steve Walthour: provide the membership and the public to be more engaged and increase their understanding the process. 01:27:58.080 --> 01:28:06.810 Steve Walthour: One of the things that and outside of this brief discussion, I was thinking about this over the weekend and this morning, 01:28:08.310 --> 01:28:13.710 Steve Walthour: Ms. Jackson did a really great presentation on the funds that went to 01:28:14.880 --> 01:28:21.720 Steve Walthour: different communities through this regional water planning process. I think the regional water planning groups could do a better job 01:28:22.620 --> 01:28:32.400 Steve Walthour: in disseminating that information. For one gets a lot of funding from the Water Development Board on conservation education that really, I think, 01:28:33.180 --> 01:28:43.920 Steve Walthour: can be marked on this regional water planning process. So our groups need to do a better job talking within its members, how this money is being put together. That's the brief benefit. 01:28:46.410 --> 01:28:48.180 Steve Walthour: Does anyone have any questions on it. 01:28:51.240 --> 01:29:00.300 Suzanne Scott: Seems pretty straightforward. Anybody have any questions or comments on the enhancing membership engagement and general public engagement recommendation. 01:29:04.440 --> 01:29:05.970 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I'm not hearing anything. 01:29:07.200 --> 01:29:09.210 Suzanne Scott: So why don't we move on to recommendation number three. 01:29:10.350 --> 01:29:17.820 Steve Walthour: Okay, communication between Water Development Board, regional water planning groups and members. I think this gets back to a conversation we had earlier today. 01:29:18.630 --> 01:29:25.530 Steve Walthour: Members of multiple regional water planning groups are unaware of educational material, program resources and assistance available at the Water Development Board. 01:29:27.090 --> 01:29:34.410 Steve Walthour: The Water Development Board correspondence is not always distributed to the membership or simply not viewed because of email overload. 01:29:37.740 --> 01:29:43.860 Steve Walthour: We don't think the legislature should do anything about this. We believe that regional water planning groups 01:29:45.660 --> 01:30:02.370 Steve Walthour: require the regional water planning groups to actually do an orientation at the beginning of each cycle, including Water Development Board. This is require regional water planning group chairs and administrative agents to follow recommendations in the Best Management Practices Guide document. 01:30:03.720 --> 01:30:04.200 Steve Walthour: And 01:30:05.970 --> 01:30:16.800 Steve Walthour: invest in inter-agency or intra-agency or professional media consultants to assist the Texas Water Development Board in effectively delivering digital messages to regional water planning group members. 01:30:17.730 --> 01:30:32.850 Steve Walthour: Under the regional water planning groups should follow the recommendations regarding communication with regional water planning group members as outlined in the Best Management Practices Guide and regional water planning group members should read the Best Management Practices Guide and New Member Guide. 01:30:34.440 --> 01:30:40.860 Steve Walthour: And for future Interregional Water Planning Councils should review existing technology and recommend appropriate changes. 01:30:42.030 --> 01:30:52.860 Steve Walthour: We think the brief benefit is implementing the recommendations that will enable regional water planning group memberships to make more informed decisions by increasing members, understanding the process and resources available. 01:30:54.180 --> 01:30:56.250 Steve Walthour: When we talk about some of these things, 01:30:57.450 --> 01:31:07.590 Steve Walthour: you know, as far as the Texas Water Development Board is concerned, what we ran into is that there's lots of good stuff available and has been provided to 01:31:08.160 --> 01:31:13.440 Steve Walthour: our regional water plane groups by the Water Development Board staff. Apparently we're not paying attention. 01:31:14.340 --> 01:31:21.000 Steve Walthour: There was at least of the five members on my committee, two of us, and I'm one of them didn't even know that there was a New Member Guide. 01:31:21.960 --> 01:31:41.250 Steve Walthour: So until I actually joined this group or was put on this council, I didn't know we had a New Member Guide and it's not brand new also the Best Management Practices Guide has been around for a while and I wasn't even aware of that. Now, I'm not a officer 01:31:42.300 --> 01:31:52.650 Steve Walthour: in our regional water planning group and but both of those as we were reading through this Tomas mentioned, hey, if they would just follow this stuff, a lot of our problems would go away. 01:31:53.940 --> 01:31:57.240 Steve Walthour: Kind of paraphrased what Tomas had to say. And I agree. 01:31:58.590 --> 01:32:02.340 Steve Walthour: Also, the regional water planning groups are 01:32:03.780 --> 01:32:07.770 Steve Walthour: in the staff that deals with us. And I've dealt with Sarah, 01:32:09.030 --> 01:32:14.880 Steve Walthour: actually I've dealt with about three or four of the staff that are involved in regional water planning also 01:32:15.630 --> 01:32:22.920 Steve Walthour: they're very professional. They provide information when we asked a question, they go back and find the information for us, works really good. 01:32:23.790 --> 01:32:31.950 Steve Walthour: But for some reason, we're not paying attention to some of the things that they are sending out to us and that's where I think the Water Development Board needs to either 01:32:32.580 --> 01:32:41.730 Steve Walthour: look at inter-agency is there someone, intra-agency someone in the agency that can help develop that message better. 01:32:42.960 --> 01:32:52.680 Steve Walthour: Inter-agency, outside the agency maybe within state government that could help market and show the process or 01:32:54.570 --> 01:33:04.200 Steve Walthour: go out and get a professional consultant that would potentially work with the staff, not just in regional water planning, this is across most 01:33:05.220 --> 01:33:08.790 Steve Walthour: of these programs that can help develop the right 01:33:10.350 --> 01:33:12.660 Steve Walthour: way to reach or 01:33:12.990 --> 01:33:23.250 Temple McKinnon: I'll just throw out there for you, Steve. We're going to be meeting with our communications shop believe tomorrow to see what we can do with the resources we already have. So Sarah can report back to you about her findings. 01:33:24.120 --> 01:33:31.620 Steve Walthour: Okay, and I want to say this is frustrating, me I've got a guy next door to me in the officer here that's our public 01:33:32.850 --> 01:33:42.990 Steve Walthour: public awareness and I can tell you, it's still a struggle with, with the way things change. But that was the biggest, I went a little deeper in that one than I probably needed to. 01:33:43.770 --> 01:33:44.460 Matt Nelson: This 01:33:44.520 --> 01:33:50.460 Suzanne Scott: I think we've all learned through this process that there is an incredible amount of information that the Water Development Board 01:33:50.460 --> 01:33:58.230 Suzanne Scott: prepares and plans and it's all there. And it's just finding it, figuring it out, using it, anything that we can do to 01:33:58.950 --> 01:34:05.130 Suzanne Scott: enhance that would be better. And I think that the point that was made in one of these other meetings, 01:34:05.730 --> 01:34:13.920 Suzanne Scott: is, you know, a lot of these people have other jobs they're coming together to do this, specifically, I mean, it's part of a lot of times it's part of their job. 01:34:14.190 --> 01:34:20.550 Suzanne Scott: But they're coming together on a quarterly basis to do this while they're doing their other jobs and they probably don't give as much attention 01:34:21.240 --> 01:34:37.140 Suzanne Scott: to this job and we need to figure out how to, to ensure that they do and I wasn't, I don't, I don't know if I was aware that there was a New Member Guide or Best Management Practices Guide. I know we have something that we've done in our 01:34:38.700 --> 01:34:45.450 Suzanne Scott: you know in our region, but I'm not sure I was aware of that. I know that I've seen a PowerPoint. I think that mentioned these tools. 01:34:45.780 --> 01:35:00.330 Suzanne Scott: But I don't think I've ever looked at it myself. So that again and and I've been engaged in this for a very long time. So I think those are documents that we as me as the chair and as we go we do an orientation. I think we need to make sure that we 01:35:02.160 --> 01:35:07.410 Suzanne Scott: make sure that people read this information and maybe ask them a couple questions to see if they actually read it 01:35:08.580 --> 01:35:09.990 Suzanne Scott: as part of that orientation. 01:35:10.410 --> 01:35:18.600 Matt Nelson: This is, this is Matt. This is kind of an ongoing issue and y'all, I don't know how you do it as the chairs here. There's so much going on. 01:35:19.140 --> 01:35:27.600 Matt Nelson: And there's so much information and there's a lot of moving parts, and you're, you know, you're expected to direct hand and guiding your consultants. So they're just it's a lot. And so we struggle with, 01:35:28.110 --> 01:35:31.110 Matt Nelson: and we've been told not to send emails to all, all the planning group members. 01:35:32.040 --> 01:35:38.760 Matt Nelson: I don't blame some of those, but so now we're going to recalibrate and look for other ways, maybe we can provide the information as an on you know 01:35:39.210 --> 01:35:44.820 Matt Nelson: at the ready when you need it. So you can just go get it. We're gonna look for just different dimensions of that, but it's just, you know, the kind of 01:35:45.390 --> 01:35:52.920 Matt Nelson: talk to our communications person is sort of the classic look. It's sort of like, yeah, you're not telling me I don't know because this is communication. Communication. Communication is very hard to 01:35:53.250 --> 01:36:00.780 Matt Nelson: maintain it and maintain interest. It's like when I give a talk and you look out and as anyone listening right now because maybe I need to jazz it up, but you can't jazz it up too much. 01:36:01.950 --> 01:36:02.580 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, no it's 01:36:04.080 --> 01:36:08.250 Suzanne Scott: it's a constant challenge I think that we're all experiencing but 01:36:09.060 --> 01:36:23.670 Suzanne Scott: it's not that the information is not there. It's just we need to know it's there. Any other comments on this issue of communication between the Water Development Board, regional planning groups and Members. There was some really good recommendations there. 01:36:26.730 --> 01:36:34.080 Suzanne Scott: Any I'm not seeing anything unless somebody else is. Okay. We'll move on. Next to the recommendation number four. 01:36:36.870 --> 01:36:42.300 Steve Walthour: This recommendation is to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. TCEQ is an ex-officio member. 01:36:42.780 --> 01:36:54.900 Steve Walthour: There is not a regional water planning group out there that doesn't have questions regarding the land, regarding how water issues and how water availability applies, surface water availability applies. Yet, 01:36:55.500 --> 01:37:02.940 Steve Walthour: Only five of the 16 regional water planning groups actually have TCEQ as a ex-officio member. 01:37:04.530 --> 01:37:14.130 Steve Walthour: Recommendations are you know amend the water code to include TCEQ as an ex-officio member to each regional water planning group. 01:37:14.700 --> 01:37:32.010 Steve Walthour: If that doesn't work, the Texas Water Development Board should work out a cooperative agreement where the TCEQ would participate as an ongoing, non-voting member and review and make recommendations to the legislature to regarding additional non-voting members that affect statewide regional 01:37:33.240 --> 01:37:34.530 Steve Walthour: stakeholders. 01:37:35.910 --> 01:37:47.730 Steve Walthour: Three. In the event that the TWC, Texas Water Code can't be changed and TAC is not amended then regional water planning groups should consider adding a TCEQ ex- officio member. 01:37:48.150 --> 01:37:58.680 Steve Walthour: Since that's something a planning group can do and that's that's our primary recommendations. We stayed away from the future Interregional Planning Council looking at this again. 01:38:00.810 --> 01:38:12.150 Steve Walthour: And I think the answer to this brief, brief benefits you can read it there. Actually within our group of five, we had a discussion on on how to apply a particular 01:38:13.050 --> 01:38:32.550 Steve Walthour: amount of water per capita person or per connection that was we discussed for 20 minutes in a meeting. And it was clear that we weren't sure what the TCEQ information would apply to regional water planning. That's why we make this recommendation. 01:38:35.100 --> 01:38:36.570 Steve Walthour: And I'd be open to any questions. 01:38:40.080 --> 01:38:42.270 Suzanne Scott: Any other questions about that recommendation. 01:38:45.720 --> 01:38:49.140 Suzanne Scott: Okay, moving on to item number five recommendation number five. 01:38:51.390 --> 01:38:57.870 Steve Walthour: Okay, reimbursement of labor costs for regional water planning administration agents, administrative agents. 01:38:59.100 --> 01:39:15.750 Steve Walthour: Right now, the role of regional planning groups administrative agency includes significant amount of administrative work. The agencies spend exorbitant amounts of time performing this role in which reimbursement of labor costs are prohibited by the Water Development Board. 01:39:17.400 --> 01:39:25.710 Steve Walthour: We may have that wrong, y'all may need to tell us something different. Our recommendation is that the legislature should provide additional funding for the regional water planning process. 01:39:26.100 --> 01:39:34.020 Steve Walthour: To assess labor costs for administering regional water planning groups so that grant resources are not taken from required planning tasks. 01:39:34.710 --> 01:39:53.130 Steve Walthour: The Water Development Board should consider allowing reimbursement of labor costs for the regional water planning groups designated as administrative agency. And revise the TAC chapter 355 and regional water planning grant contract expense budget limitations to accommodate these expense. 01:39:54.780 --> 01:40:06.630 Steve Walthour: The regional water planning groups should include requests for funding and chapter 8 recommendations of the regional water plans. And that's our succinct recommendation. 01:40:07.650 --> 01:40:09.330 Steve Walthour: You can see our benefits down there. 01:40:10.740 --> 01:40:13.110 Steve Walthour: You can read through that, I won't read it to you. 01:40:14.370 --> 01:40:15.960 Steve Walthour: Does anyone have any questions. 01:40:17.850 --> 01:40:18.480 Steve Walthour: Or comment. 01:40:22.230 --> 01:40:22.890 Jim Thompson: I would like to just say 01:40:24.210 --> 01:40:30.000 Suzanne Scott: Does the Water Development Board agree with this recommendation about labor. Is that, is that not allowed currently? 01:40:33.060 --> 01:40:34.080 Matt Nelson: Yes, that's true. 01:40:35.430 --> 01:40:44.100 Matt Nelson: That, little background on that and Temple can maybe, correct me if I'm mistaken, but that was not consistently 01:40:45.300 --> 01:40:55.770 Matt Nelson: handled previously by across all the regions, who was reimbursing staff and and who wasn't and it became a bit of an issue as far as 01:40:56.220 --> 01:41:00.750 Matt Nelson: the, it can start to become a pretty big cost, depending on how you're using it. 01:41:01.440 --> 01:41:08.310 Matt Nelson: It could vary a lot by region, and it was clear that folks didn't want to spend too much money on administration of the program, but we are 01:41:08.640 --> 01:41:14.040 Matt Nelson: hear you and we have already in the flood the new flood planning program that just launched 01:41:14.460 --> 01:41:19.530 Matt Nelson: new rules are just approved that does allow some reimbursement up to some limited amount to be determined. 01:41:19.920 --> 01:41:26.880 Matt Nelson: And I think Temple, you're looking at that for the next contracts doing something similar. So it won't be a full reimbursement, necessarily, but something to 01:41:27.840 --> 01:41:35.100 Matt Nelson: take some of the pain out. Although, having said that, consultants are already feeling a lot of pain about all the work to do. And this will take out of the budget. So just 01:41:36.420 --> 01:41:36.960 Matt Nelson: a reminder. 01:41:39.090 --> 01:41:40.170 Suzanne Scott: Jim, did you have something 01:41:40.530 --> 01:41:48.300 Jim Thompson: Yeah, I would just like to say I would certainly agree with this recommendation. It's a problem being from a basically rural area. 01:41:49.110 --> 01:41:56.280 Jim Thompson: Not having many large water agencies in our group, we have had an administrator, that it's done it since inception. 01:41:56.760 --> 01:42:04.440 Jim Thompson: And its been eating a lot of these costs and they've notified us that they won't be doing it in the future, or at least for the next plan. 01:42:04.920 --> 01:42:15.960 Jim Thompson: And the number of people that are interested in such a thing. It's very limited because when they come to us and say, well, what about reimbursement costs and things like that and we 01:42:16.380 --> 01:42:24.900 Jim Thompson: kind of sit there and say, well, we're kind of hoping you'd volunteer those costs. So it does limit the ability to get it, and I think it is something 01:42:26.310 --> 01:42:31.560 Jim Thompson: like Steve said, there is just more and more paperwork seems like every planning cycle. 01:42:31.950 --> 01:42:32.820 Jim Thompson: More administrative 01:42:32.850 --> 01:42:35.730 Jim Thompson: costs. So I would certainly agree with the recommendation. 01:42:37.080 --> 01:42:45.960 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. What we do in Region L is we get members of the planning group to help fund the costs. We're the administrative agency and we have a 01:42:46.590 --> 01:42:57.660 Suzanne Scott: funding agreement with members of the planning group to help offset those costs, but again, it's just one way that we've been able to do it over, over time. 01:42:57.990 --> 01:42:59.940 Matt Nelson: Other regions, oh sorry. 01:43:00.420 --> 01:43:03.630 Suzanne Scott: We just track our time against that amount that's approved. 01:43:05.640 --> 01:43:06.570 Steve Walthour: Matt Nelson: Other regions have 01:43:07.380 --> 01:43:08.160 Matt Nelson: Go, go ahead, Steve. 01:43:08.880 --> 01:43:10.140 Steve Walthour: Region A does the same. 01:43:11.220 --> 01:43:17.580 Steve Walthour: There's skin in the game. You can make the argument about our discussion about there's skin in the game from regional water planning areas. 01:43:19.440 --> 01:43:30.660 Steve Walthour: You know, if you're a member of that group or participate in that region and has a very good practice. I believe that Region A started years ago, before I was on board on the planning committee. 01:43:32.130 --> 01:43:40.560 Steve Walthour: You know, if the Water Development Board could look at simplified planning or some of these other options that would, you know, potentially shorten the process, it would 01:43:41.130 --> 01:43:59.370 Steve Walthour: probably alleviate some funding, or that you could push toward administration. And I've been a part of lots of grants and applied for lots of grants, I can tell you that almost every grant we do, they don't want to pay for administration, but without administration the process doesn't happen. 01:44:01.890 --> 01:44:02.310 Suzanne Scott: That's right. 01:44:03.780 --> 01:44:13.260 Matt Nelson: One other thing, the other regions will, for example, another way folks are going about it, just to give another example. Region N, I believe asks each county, 01:44:13.560 --> 01:44:15.900 Matt Nelson: goes by county. I see something from every county 01:44:16.320 --> 01:44:23.700 Matt Nelson: and that goes towards administration costs. But you know that it's going to vary, the ability to do that. And then just a little more history to go way back. 01:44:24.540 --> 01:44:34.740 Matt Nelson: The first round planning groups areas had to provide I think 25% of the funding. So, you know, going from having to provide 25% of the entire planning cost, 01:44:35.190 --> 01:44:47.130 Matt Nelson: then it went to, we the Board provided administrative costs that kind of went back to zero. So it's sort of, it's moved to move from one end to the other. I think it's gonna, we're looking at changing and again to support that. 01:44:50.400 --> 01:44:51.600 Suzanne Scott: Any other comments. 01:44:54.960 --> 01:45:05.550 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, and that's an issue and I mean I think that you know what's evident here is the complexity. And what's happening is, is and and all of these recommendations, 01:45:06.120 --> 01:45:13.830 Suzanne Scott: are are causing the need for, you know, more investment in this process and and I think the challenge is, is that if you're, 01:45:14.310 --> 01:45:24.390 Suzanne Scott: if the amount that's allocated towards regional planning remains the same and you're just cutting the pie up into bigger into smaller pieces and taking the same pie, 01:45:25.620 --> 01:45:26.580 Suzanne Scott: it's, it's 01:45:27.630 --> 01:45:38.460 Suzanne Scott: it's not enough funding to support such a complex process process, it seems. I mean, based on or adding even more roles and responsibilities between communications and 01:45:39.900 --> 01:45:54.180 Suzanne Scott: roles of planning groups and getting them more engaged. So again, you know, that may be something that we need to think about here is that as we become more sophisticated and as as this process becomes more intense, 01:45:55.260 --> 01:45:57.660 Suzanne Scott: maybe more resources are needed to support it. 01:45:59.280 --> 01:46:06.210 Suzanne Scott: Okay, next, next group Open Meetings Act modifications for recommendation number six. 01:46:06.300 --> 01:46:12.960 Steve Walthour: Well, first of all, I appreciate y'all zipping through the first five. The last two should take no more than about three hours, and 01:46:13.470 --> 01:46:14.400 Steve Walthour: we should be done. 01:46:15.780 --> 01:46:25.080 Steve Walthour: Open Meetings Act modification of video conference restrictions. I'm not going to read that, you know, we've been operating under the under, under zooming, I call it zooming, 01:46:26.670 --> 01:46:29.490 Steve Walthour: because of the pandemic and 01:46:30.630 --> 01:46:41.550 Steve Walthour: it's worked fairly well you know there. I was not particularly fond of meeting this way, but it's it's allowed this body to meet statewide. 01:46:42.960 --> 01:46:46.860 Steve Walthour: And you can read my brief observation. I just think this should be 01:46:48.030 --> 01:46:50.820 Steve Walthour: and we think it should be available throughout the state. 01:46:52.770 --> 01:47:02.610 Steve Walthour: I think if you read the, you know, during the process here, you know, during this period that we've been in regardless of where you're located in the world, 01:47:03.060 --> 01:47:12.270 Steve Walthour: you have been afforded the opportunity to participate in public meetings and to provide public comment if you wish in person in those open meetings. 01:47:14.040 --> 01:47:19.350 Steve Walthour: There's no other, without the governor's order, you people would not have been able to do that. 01:47:20.550 --> 01:47:29.910 Steve Walthour: You can see our succinct recommendations. The legislature should amend the Open Meetings Act to allow state and local governments to use electronic media video conferencing 01:47:30.390 --> 01:47:38.520 Steve Walthour: as an alternative to requiring the public and governmental officials to be physically present to make public comment or consider actions during the meeting. 01:47:39.060 --> 01:47:51.600 Steve Walthour: The Water Development Board should evaluate the fiscal impacts associated with technology required for virtual meetings. I believe the costs have gone down substantially since just five years ago. And 01:47:52.800 --> 01:48:00.240 Steve Walthour: I think that, you know, there's nothing I don't have anything down from our group, as far as the regional water planning groups doing anything. 01:48:00.720 --> 01:48:08.550 Steve Walthour: And there's nothing for the future Interregional Planning Council should do. You can read my brief, brief benefits. When I say my 01:48:09.390 --> 01:48:25.530 Steve Walthour: it took the committee crafting these into what they say. One benefit is I think this is a cost savings for those people have to travel, show up and prepare. I'd rather spend my time preparing for a meeting, then driving in my pickup truck to it. 01:48:27.210 --> 01:48:42.300 Steve Walthour: Also, this would create a more efficient process by allowing greater governmental transparency during consideration of items to an agenda. So that would be our brief benefit and I'm open for any questions or suggestions. 01:48:43.620 --> 01:48:46.110 Suzanne Scott: Any comments on that. 01:48:46.740 --> 01:48:47.550 Mark Evans: I would have a comment. 01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:48.300 Suzanne Scott: Yes, Mark. 01:48:49.080 --> 01:48:52.170 Mark Evans: If you could scroll back up to the start of the recommendation. 01:48:55.230 --> 01:49:05.460 Mark Evans: I think when we're making a recommendation, here we if we're going to make this recommendation at the end of the day, we should be specific to the regional water planning process. 01:49:06.060 --> 01:49:16.830 Mark Evans: What what the recommendation is saying now is to allow state and local governments and that's kind of, to me, is not what we're looking at. I mean, that would affect counties, cities. 01:49:17.820 --> 01:49:36.870 Mark Evans: And that's just, to me, much too broad and would not, it just wouldn't have any legs. So if we if we address it to specifically the regional water planning process where we have multiple counties involved, then it might 01:49:38.580 --> 01:49:39.300 Mark Evans: it might be 01:49:40.800 --> 01:49:42.000 Mark Evans: a recommendation that 01:49:43.980 --> 01:49:44.730 Mark Evans: could get a listen. 01:49:46.830 --> 01:49:47.940 Suzanne Scott: Good observation. That's a good 01:49:48.000 --> 01:50:04.680 Mark Evans: And I say that as a retired county judge and I've had a lot of dealings with the legislature related to open meetings and public participation and the ability to the public to see their representatives in person at the at the local level. 01:50:08.250 --> 01:50:09.030 Kevin Ward: I have a comment. 01:50:10.650 --> 01:50:15.960 Kevin Ward: I don't know that I'd be all in on this particular recommendation. I understand it came from the committee but 01:50:18.540 --> 01:50:25.500 Kevin Ward: it's very difficult to conduct business this way and be effective in all aspects of conducting business. 01:50:26.610 --> 01:50:27.150 Kevin Ward: There's 01:50:28.380 --> 01:50:34.710 Kevin Ward: you know when you're in a meeting and you've got people there and you can sign up to speak and things like that, it's 01:50:35.970 --> 01:50:39.180 Kevin Ward: it's a lot more effective way to do business. I, I just 01:50:39.870 --> 01:50:44.400 Kevin Ward: I hesitate to think, what could become of government if it all went virtual. 01:50:45.810 --> 01:50:56.220 Kevin Ward: There's I don't this i don't i won't disagree that perhaps there's a way out and encourage other people to participate by allowing for virtual participation. 01:50:57.240 --> 01:51:04.080 Kevin Ward: Actually say that the way to do it is to go to the ability to use a virtual meeting in lieu of an in person meeting, 01:51:05.760 --> 01:51:10.410 Kevin Ward: is particularly for the regional planning process, I think, is somewhat problematic. 01:51:11.940 --> 01:51:22.140 Kevin Ward: For some committee like this, perhaps, to have a, what do you want to call it, a hybrid where certain committee meetings would be held 01:51:23.490 --> 01:51:32.880 Kevin Ward: in person and at a designated place versus, you know, for key milestones versus other subcommittees and all that, being able to be done virtually. 01:51:33.840 --> 01:51:49.230 Kevin Ward: I'd say that I might be able to get behind. But just as it's written right now, I'm a little bit, I don't know, reticent to say that it would get my vote. Doesn't mean I can't be out voted. I'm just not sure that I would support that approach. 01:51:51.120 --> 01:51:56.910 Suzanne Scott: So the idea that Kevin is suggesting and honestly for Region L, it could be helpful to because 01:51:58.290 --> 01:52:05.400 Suzanne Scott: we used to be able to have people call into our like our staff work groups and that sort of thing. And then everything everyone 01:52:06.030 --> 01:52:10.860 Suzanne Scott: then had to start coming to the meetings. Same with committee meetings. I mean, if you're going to 01:52:11.580 --> 01:52:24.360 Suzanne Scott: you know, have work groups working and you want to have as much feed much participation as you can that those virtual opportunities at least get more participation for people that may not be able to travel 01:52:25.080 --> 01:52:36.900 Suzanne Scott: for the smaller meetings. But when you have the larger group meeting, you're saying that should be an in person meeting that the committee's could possibly be virtual. 01:52:37.560 --> 01:52:37.890 Kevin Ward: Right. 01:52:39.180 --> 01:52:46.020 Kevin Ward: The classic example of how it can go awry is the way the law was written to support the 01:52:49.260 --> 01:52:51.780 Kevin Ward: Energy Commission, you know, FERC. 01:52:53.730 --> 01:53:05.640 Kevin Ward: They don't technically I mean they don't really have I'll call open meetings, you can only attend them if you're invited. You can only testify if you're invited and but they do televise them sometimes. And 01:53:06.960 --> 01:53:17.100 Kevin Ward: that is because of the quote the importance of FERC and its mission that was so I guess just granted to them by the states through Congress. 01:53:17.790 --> 01:53:31.680 Kevin Ward: But it the first time I had to deal with that process, it was very foreign to me. I had never thought that I'd ever see a public commission that you couldn't even go to the hearing, even if your item was on the agenda. 01:53:33.960 --> 01:53:45.390 Kevin Ward: So I just I hesitate to to think of the impression you might leave if you had a controversial decision being made, and you did it in a meeting that 01:53:46.170 --> 01:53:55.170 Kevin Ward: the public could not attend and be there in person to kind of roll with the punches, so to speak. I know Jim had raised concerns about toward the end of the process with COVID-19 01:53:56.700 --> 01:54:00.570 Kevin Ward: that that might have affected them and their ability to 01:54:01.920 --> 01:54:16.290 Kevin Ward: to take certain actions with regard to their, their view of some of the, or at least one project in Region C and I kind of go to that as as an example. I think that there's opportunities that are missed if you're not there in person. 01:54:20.640 --> 01:54:21.990 Suzanne Scott: Any other comments on this one. 01:54:22.470 --> 01:54:35.790 Jim Thompson: I would, I would just like to piggyback on Kevin's statement and and I know the world is changing and everyone pretty much has computers and so forth. We do have, believe it or not, two regional water planning group members in our 01:54:36.540 --> 01:54:53.640 Jim Thompson: in our group, that do not, either they don't have computers, or they won't give out the information. So I'm not sure exactly which one it is. But, but I do think and and I understand desperate times call for desperate measures. But, all things being equal, 01:54:54.720 --> 01:55:04.500 Jim Thompson: I think you get more out of a meeting where everyone sits down and discuss things and I think the public would get more out of meetings, it's 01:55:05.370 --> 01:55:10.920 Jim Thompson: you know, they make plans to come to a meeting, they get to visit with people beforehand and afterwards and 01:55:11.310 --> 01:55:24.780 Jim Thompson: and get to know the people a little bit better. I think it's I think it's better. Now I understand we're in a different situation right now, but given the choice, I would certainly like the option of having the regular public meeting. 01:55:26.790 --> 01:55:38.610 Kelley Holcomb: This is Kelley and Steve, with your permission, I don't think it was the intent of the committee to have virtual meetings in lieu of. We may not have worked it as well as we should have. 01:55:39.750 --> 01:55:52.620 Kelley Holcomb: But it, I don't think that was ever our intent to supplant in person meetings. And I think we're all, I'm in agreement with y'all, meeting in person has a lot of ancillary benefits that you just can't get through a computer screen. 01:55:55.770 --> 01:55:56.910 Steve Walthour: I would agree with 01:55:58.140 --> 01:56:08.820 Steve Walthour: first of all, the recommendations that had been, you know, put out on the table. I will certainly go back to the committee. I'm in general agreement with with these you know comments. 01:56:10.470 --> 01:56:16.860 Steve Walthour: One of the, one of the issues that I see and and this is definitely just me is 01:56:17.910 --> 01:56:30.780 Steve Walthour: where I'm located in Dumas, Texas. It's, I get my pickup and come to this Planning Council meeting. It is eight hours and 15 minutes from my doorstep to Austin. 01:56:32.160 --> 01:56:49.110 Steve Walthour: You take that around that's you know about 16 hours and 30 minutes, 17 and a half hours I stop and get get gasoline. So in the time that we until we started this meeting today one trip to Austin to do this in person meeting, 01:56:50.370 --> 01:56:51.960 Steve Walthour: would have taken more time 01:56:53.100 --> 01:57:07.980 Steve Walthour: than the actual time that if we just met twice, instead of five meetings that have taken up about 13 hours. It we had met twice over two days, it would have been, I would have spent more time driving than going. 01:57:09.840 --> 01:57:19.770 Steve Walthour: That's me. I just think that in the in some point in the future that you may have a Board member that can't meet in person that needs to be there, 01:57:22.050 --> 01:57:23.340 Steve Walthour: for whatever reason, 01:57:24.360 --> 01:57:33.840 Steve Walthour: But I think that that's going to be our future as far as looking at this stuff is concerned. As far as the public providing testimony, I definitely believe that 01:57:35.070 --> 01:57:45.210 Steve Walthour: if you have the ability to take public comment at the beginning or at the end, like we've done, then the public needs, you know, to be able to comment. I think that's a good issue. 01:57:45.840 --> 01:57:54.570 Steve Walthour: But with that said, I'm, I'm okay with those two changes that the that the Council has mentioned so far. We can certainly wordsmith is better. 01:57:58.890 --> 01:58:06.630 Suzanne Scott: So it seems that there's a preference for having in person meetings, at least 01:58:07.830 --> 01:58:16.170 Suzanne Scott: the value of that. Some people don't have also members of some of these planning groups may not have access to a computer to do a virtual meeting, 01:58:16.620 --> 01:58:25.020 Suzanne Scott: which would by its nature already be discriminatory to those that could be participating on the planning group. I think that Jim mentioned that. 01:58:26.610 --> 01:58:33.720 Suzanne Scott: So, and maybe there could be some hybrids about maybe committee meetings could be virtual 01:58:35.310 --> 01:58:35.970 Suzanne Scott: and 01:58:36.990 --> 01:58:43.170 Suzanne Scott: and or the, the large group meetings could have some type of option for virtual. 01:58:46.230 --> 01:58:47.910 Suzanne Scott: Is that everything on this one. 01:58:49.830 --> 01:58:51.720 Steve Walthour: I think we can work on that. Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:58:53.430 --> 01:58:54.000 Suzanne Scott: All right. 01:58:56.370 --> 01:58:57.510 Suzanne Scott: Number seven. 01:58:58.920 --> 01:59:08.610 Steve Walthour: Okay, this we should be done by six o'clock, since we're ahead of schedule. Now, on seven recommendation, improving regional water planning process. 01:59:09.270 --> 01:59:19.620 Steve Walthour: In looking through this, the you know the brief observation is that the process does not adequately allow all regional water planning group members to provide substantial input 01:59:20.010 --> 01:59:30.060 Steve Walthour: on how to make the process better because it it is at the end of the cycle at the time. I won't read the rest of that you can read through it. 01:59:31.800 --> 01:59:38.160 Steve Walthour: It looks like that we have chairs that have conference calls, that don't have time to really discuss how to improve 01:59:38.880 --> 01:59:53.250 Steve Walthour: the regional water planning cycle. Additionally, there's about 300 regional water planning group members out there that do not have direct input to improve the process and we are only really engaging a fairly small subset of the regional water planning group. 01:59:55.560 --> 02:00:07.830 Steve Walthour: That which leads to non engagement to the rest. Maybe that's the reason that I didn't know about the two documents that was was available earlier. Recommendations. 02:00:09.360 --> 02:00:15.600 Steve Walthour: We think the Water Development Board should incorporate a set of management practice to improve the efficiency, effectiveness. 02:00:16.170 --> 02:00:23.880 Steve Walthour: by eliminating waste in the regional water planning process. This includes reducing or eliminating non value added activities and engaging 02:00:24.300 --> 02:00:35.190 Steve Walthour: regional water planning group membership to map out all critical steps in planning. Evaluate the regional water planning group voting and non voting membership cost of time and funding. 02:00:37.980 --> 02:00:50.520 Steve Walthour: I don't have anything for the regional water planning groups to do. We did in fact say that future Interregional Water Planning Council should review materials and meeting notes from the Water Development Board's lessons learned technical meetings. 02:00:53.910 --> 02:00:57.030 Steve Walthour: With the rest of what that says there with the consultants. 02:00:58.380 --> 02:01:14.310 Steve Walthour: Think the brief benefit would be implementing this recommendation should improve efficiency, effectiveness, eliminating waste in the planning process as well as improve productivity of the regional water planning group membership. This gets back to that engagement productivity. 02:01:17.400 --> 02:01:18.240 Steve Walthour: Any questions. 02:01:18.420 --> 02:01:20.250 Suzanne Scott: Any comments on this one. 02:01:30.450 --> 02:01:31.110 Suzanne Scott: All right. 02:01:32.550 --> 02:01:38.310 Suzanne Scott: Looks like we got done with that. So we've gotten some good feedback on all of these. 02:01:39.330 --> 02:01:41.220 Suzanne Scott: So is there 02:01:42.660 --> 02:01:57.630 Suzanne Scott: any concern about providing support for all of these, all seven of these recommendations with the modifications, based on the the deliberations that we've had here today. 02:01:59.310 --> 02:02:02.430 Suzanne Scott: Any concerns about that. 02:02:06.630 --> 02:02:10.770 Suzanne Scott: I don't know, Suzanne, are you seeing anybody that I'm missing. Is there any concerns. 02:02:11.130 --> 02:02:12.270 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm not seeing anyone 02:02:16.320 --> 02:02:19.140 Suzanne Scott: So with that, then 02:02:20.550 --> 02:02:31.380 Suzanne Scott: looks like this, these set of seven recommendations as to be amended by the deliberations today can go forward through the committee for finalization. 02:02:32.400 --> 02:02:36.210 Suzanne Scott: And then, do you have any other recommendations that you are working on at this time. 02:02:38.190 --> 02:02:42.870 Steve Walthour: No, we do not have any recommendations. We're asking, is there anything else that we need to fully develop. 02:02:48.300 --> 02:02:56.880 Suzanne Scott: Now, was this Kelley, the one that we were talking about in our meeting the other day and I may have missed it. It may have been in one of the other group things about the 02:02:57.900 --> 02:02:58.740 Suzanne Scott: taking that 02:03:00.150 --> 02:03:14.520 Suzanne Scott: having some report out on the chapter eight recommendations that come out in one plan to see if they've actually been anything happened on those going forward to start the next cycle. Did we talk about that already. 02:03:15.390 --> 02:03:16.020 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne we 02:03:17.850 --> 02:03:20.580 Carl Crull: I hate to interrupt, this is Carl, I gotta leave the meeting. I've got a client 02:03:20.640 --> 02:03:22.170 Carl Crull: that's got a problem. 02:03:23.340 --> 02:03:25.410 Suzanne Scott: All right. Good luck, Carl. Thank you. 02:03:27.480 --> 02:03:37.110 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne. I remember having a discussion. And I remember talking about the compilation, but I don't remember which committee, it was you were talking about placing it in. 02:03:38.130 --> 02:03:45.270 Suzanne Scott: One of the issues that we had talked about with Temple and Suzanne Schwartz was as we had mentioned 02:03:45.330 --> 02:04:05.190 Suzanne Scott: earlier, one of the documents that they've pulled together is a you know compilation of all the chapter eight recommendations that have come forward through all the various planning groups. But we never know necessarily what of those have been addressed or not. 02:04:06.900 --> 02:04:11.130 Suzanne Scott: As you're getting ready for the next planning cycle, think that's the way we talked about it Temple. 02:04:12.570 --> 02:04:16.830 Temple McKinnon: So that's a recommendation of the enhancing interregional coordination, no 02:04:17.790 --> 02:04:19.230 Temple McKinnon: for the BMP committee. Right, Steve. 02:04:19.950 --> 02:04:21.330 Steve Walthour: Yeah, it's up. We 02:04:21.390 --> 02:04:25.530 Steve Walthour: zipped through it earlier. Suzanne Scott: I thought I read it earlier. And I just, where did I miss that. 02:04:25.770 --> 02:04:26.490 Temple McKinnon: It's 02:04:27.930 --> 02:04:30.630 Temple McKinnon: number, recommendation two, is that right? 02:04:31.740 --> 02:04:32.610 Suzanne Schwartz: Two be two. 02:04:33.660 --> 02:04:36.810 Suzanne Scott: Because I thought I saw it and I just couldn't find it. 02:04:37.110 --> 02:04:38.520 Suzanne Schwartz: Two be two, I think. 02:04:40.350 --> 02:04:40.650 Temple McKinnon: Well, 02:04:44.790 --> 02:04:46.920 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. So on page 02:04:49.020 --> 02:04:54.690 Temple McKinnon: two, top of page two the Board should provide policy recommendations 02:04:56.460 --> 02:05:04.470 Temple McKinnon: from the plans back to the groups and then schedule, you know, at another point later let them know the status of implementation of those recommendations. 02:05:05.700 --> 02:05:06.900 Suzanne Scott: Okay good. I thought it was there. Okay, I just 02:05:06.900 --> 02:05:07.140 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. 02:05:07.590 --> 02:05:19.710 Suzanne Scott: I thought I read it and then I couldn't find it so good, I'm glad it's there. 02:05:23.790 --> 02:05:33.150 Suzanne Scott: All right, I'm not hearing any. Well, great. Well, we got through a lot of good recommendations today. You've gotten support with the deliberations here to develop those into 02:05:34.920 --> 02:05:41.190 Suzanne Scott: Into further refined recommendations and 02:05:43.590 --> 02:05:57.480 Suzanne Scott: So that we've got through that. Now the next thing on the agenda is the consider the Council report developments. Just to kind of give you an update on that, Temple and her team are taking 02:05:58.740 --> 02:06:04.710 Suzanne Scott: some of the deliberations in the conversations that have been had before and trying to develop some of the front end of the document. 02:06:06.570 --> 02:06:18.780 Suzanne Scott: That doesn't necessarily have to do with the specific recommendations coming from each of the subcommittees. So they're going to try to start at least putting together some of the history, some of the 02:06:20.580 --> 02:06:28.200 Suzanne Scott: discussions about the coordinate that the creation of this committee that sort of thing that was all kind of lead in 02:06:30.060 --> 02:06:45.750 Suzanne Scott: in the document so that we can start to get that put together. And then they will each of the staff will be working with y'all on the wording and the formatting for these final recommendations for you. 02:06:47.430 --> 02:06:48.810 Suzanne Scott: Anything else on that Temple. 02:06:50.250 --> 02:06:58.260 Temple McKinnon: No, looking to get that to Suzanne Schwartz to review by the end of this week or early next. So it's definitely in the works. 02:06:59.100 --> 02:06:59.520 Suzanne Scott: Great. 02:07:02.370 --> 02:07:12.510 Suzanne Scott: Okay, does anybody need any additional background materials, any information that would be helpful to any any of your final work that you're working on. 02:07:17.010 --> 02:07:17.340 Temple McKinnon: Sorry. 02:07:18.510 --> 02:07:35.250 Suzanne Scott: I'm not hearing any need for that. So that upcoming meetings, so I know the various committees have already mentioned that they have another meetings scheduled and then our next full council meeting is on the 15th and at that time 02:07:36.540 --> 02:07:39.420 Suzanne Scott: we would want any more recommendations to come forward, 02:07:40.620 --> 02:07:42.660 Suzanne Scott: that are being developed by the committee, 02:07:44.370 --> 02:07:48.330 Suzanne Scott: so that by the 30th we can finalize the report. 02:07:49.650 --> 02:08:03.150 Suzanne Scott: Now we had, Temple had sent out a Doodle Poll to see if for some reason we can't do everything by the 30th, or there still one more meeting that we would need prior to the, the Council report going to the Water Development Board. 02:08:03.630 --> 02:08:08.580 Suzanne Scott: We stuck in another meeting there at the beginning of October, just to make sure that 02:08:09.690 --> 02:08:26.070 Suzanne Scott: as we send this document out if there's some final tweaks, some more recommendations, we feel like we're missing something, We can always include that. So be sure you have all of these meetings on your schedule and they all started that 1:30 time frame. 02:08:29.910 --> 02:08:32.160 Suzanne Scott: Any questions about the schedule going forward. 02:08:35.760 --> 02:08:36.840 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Hearing none. 02:08:38.040 --> 02:08:40.800 Suzanne Scott: Alright, we're back to public comment. 02:08:42.150 --> 02:08:45.480 Suzanne Scott: So Suzanne, would you like to take us through that process, please. 02:08:50.970 --> 02:08:51.990 Mark Evans: Suzanne's muted. 02:08:53.730 --> 02:08:55.260 Suzanne Scott: Suzanne Schwartz. 02:08:57.060 --> 02:09:07.200 Suzanne Schwartz: Sorry, I can I, yeah. So those of you who are participants, if you are, not participants, but are on the meeting. If you would like to address the council. 02:09:07.590 --> 02:09:17.010 Suzanne Schwartz: This is your opportunity just either raise your hand on the bottom of your computer screen or verbally, let us know that you would like to speak, please. 02:09:22.680 --> 02:09:27.030 Suzanne Schwartz: Vicki, you'll be looking at everyone. Are you seeing anyone who wants to 02:09:28.200 --> 02:09:28.830 Vicki Read: I'm not. 02:09:29.910 --> 02:09:35.910 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, just verbally one last chance. Anyone who wants to speak, feel free to chime in. 02:09:37.260 --> 02:09:39.360 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, we're not hearing anyone Suzanne. 02:09:39.570 --> 02:09:48.150 Suzanne Scott: Okay, great. Thank you. Well, it looks like we've got through a good agenda here today and we appreciate all the work of the committee's and the chairs. 02:09:49.080 --> 02:09:57.390 Suzanne Scott: If y'all need anything further as you're going through your deliberations please work with your Water Development Board staff and I know that 02:09:59.040 --> 02:10:12.630 Suzanne Scott: Temple has been putting together some some notes and I think Suzanne has too on these on the conversations. And of course, any of the other staff. So hopefully these can be fed into your next meetings and y'all can finalize these recommendations. 02:10:12.720 --> 02:10:16.860 Temple McKinnon: I will say each each Board staff member with their committees will be getting 02:10:17.850 --> 02:10:32.700 Temple McKinnon: track changes committee reports back to you. I've tried to capture some of it on the screen share but we'll go back and make sure we fully captured all the Council feedback to the committee's in their report. So those will be reissued to you to pick up your work. Suzanne Scott: Okay, great. 02:10:34.050 --> 02:10:36.660 Suzanne Scott: Kathleen, would you like to say anything before we adjourn. 02:10:37.350 --> 02:10:45.000 Kathleen Jackson: Just thanks again. It was great hearing everybody's thoughts and ideas. I thought you brought up some great points and look forward to the report and to seeing it. 02:10:46.410 --> 02:10:52.560 Suzanne Scott: Well, thank you again for joining us today. We really appreciate it. All right, with that we stand adjourned. Thank you. 02:10:53.190 --> 02:10:53.820 Kelley Holcomb: Have a good day. 02:10:53.910 --> 02:10:55.020 Kathleen Jackson: Okay. See y'all later.