WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:08.280 Suzanne Scott: Welcome, everybody. Thank you all so much for all the great work that y'all had been doing is committes. I really greatly appreciate 00:09.000 --> 00:17.699 Suzanne Scott: all the work of the committees and the committee chairs y'all have done great work. And we're that we see that evidence in the report that we've all been reviewing 00:18.150 --> 00:29.760 Suzanne Scott: and that we're going to spend our time going through today. So we're just going to essentially say that the work of the committees based on today's meeting the work of the committees is now completed 00:30.510 --> 00:38.130 Suzanne Scott: and we are now going to review the work and the recommendations as the Council as a whole 00:38.580 --> 00:54.780 Suzanne Scott: and work through these issues, collectively, so that we can come together for a final report that we can hopefully adopt at the meeting on September 30th. So I again. I appreciate the committees and are there those chairs. 00:56.010 --> 01:10.320 Suzanne Scott: Mark and Steve and Gail, thank you so much for your leadership and for bringing forward the great work of your committees and we're going to be hearing from you as we move through this report, but 01:12.030 --> 01:21.180 Suzanne Scott: what we're going to do today before we're going to, we're going to start here in just a minute with public comment and I'm going to let Suzanne sort of go through, Suzanne Schwartz go through the 01:21.750 --> 01:33.450 Suzanne Scott: the agenda for the day. And what documents you need in front of you, but we are going to be trying to get through more of the substantive comments that have been 01:34.620 --> 01:44.370 Suzanne Scott: put forth as it relates to the report, the draft report that we had. We really don't want to spend a lot of time or anytime really at all on the word smithing 01:45.150 --> 01:54.930 Suzanne Scott: or the grammatical issues, those sorts of things. We know there are some that need to be corrected for sure. And one of the things that Kelley and I 01:55.620 --> 01:59.160 Suzanne Scott: as we've been reviewing this document with Suzanne and Temple and Matt. 01:59.760 --> 02:05.850 Suzanne Scott: We understand there's probably some readability issues kind of the flow, you know, we sort of came up with an outline 02:06.150 --> 02:13.440 Suzanne Scott: before we knew what the content was going to be so that we can at least understand how the content would come together with the committee work. 02:14.340 --> 02:28.170 Suzanne Scott: So we're going to ask at the end of this meeting for some flexibility from y'all to allow for us to make sure that the document reads well, that it flows well, that it makes sense to the reader. 02:28.590 --> 02:36.750 Suzanne Scott: In the way that the, the information is organized, not to change the content. But really, just to make sure that it reads well so 02:37.410 --> 02:48.510 Suzanne Scott: as we conclude today's meeting, I'm going to make sure that we get an action from y'all to allow for Kelley and I and Suzanne and Temple to to hopefully be able to, again, 02:49.680 --> 02:58.170 Suzanne Scott: focus on the presentation of the material that we will finalize hopefully today. So any questions about the that process so far? 03:01.320 --> 03:07.980 Suzanne Scott: Okay, great with that I'm going to let Suzanne sort of go through what you should have in front of you and then we'll open it up to public comments. 03:09.030 --> 03:21.780 Suzanne Schwartz: Great. Well, as Suzanne said the main focus we're going to have today is on items three and four, which is basically takes us through the report and I think we'll probably take it, make it in 03:22.440 --> 03:32.130 Suzanne Schwartz: essentially as a way to go through the draft report and get everyone's comments on that that you know again as Suzanne said substantive comments, not word smithing. 03:32.790 --> 03:40.290 Suzanne Schwartz: And then Agenda Item number five will be to discuss how we're going to move forward with the final development of the report, 03:40.680 --> 03:55.170 Suzanne Schwartz: with the goal, we hope of depending obviously on discussion today. But the goal of trying to get a final report before the Council on September 30th and that could be your final. So that's the main focus for today. 03:57.120 --> 04:07.560 Suzanne Schwartz: And then, oh, the documents, obviously, you'll want you'll want to have the draft IPC report before you that was posted on the Web. Temple, I just did some updating 04:07.920 --> 04:16.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Kevin Ward sent some comments in just this morning before the meeting your those included and what's on the web? 04:16.470 --> 04:18.780 Temple McKinnon: We're trying to get that posted on the Web. 04:19.860 --> 04:24.540 Suzanne Schwartz: And yeah, those will be on the documents that you see in front of the 04:24.540 --> 04:25.830 Temple McKinnon: On the screen, for sure. 04:25.890 --> 04:32.040 Temple McKinnon: Yeah, there's just a little bit of delay on posting things on our website. We got some comments close to this meeting so they should be up. 04:32.760 --> 04:45.090 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay but there at least is a document up that that you all had access to before this that posted on Monday morning that included all the comments we had received by them and they'll also be 04:45.660 --> 04:59.280 Suzanne Schwartz: Something on report completion process that was posted on the Web. That will be item number five. So that's really the main things you want before you took all the committee reports have been rolled into the draft Council report. 05:02.130 --> 05:07.680 Suzanne Scott: Great. And we will depending on how long we we've got this agenda is until five today. 05:08.490 --> 05:19.080 Suzanne Scott: So I promise you we will take a couple of breaks if necessary to get you up and let you stretch your legs for a couple of minutes during this if because we may go the whole time today. 05:19.860 --> 05:28.440 Suzanne Scott: But we'll see how it goes. As we move through the report so I promise we'll take some breaks so you don't have to worry about that. 05:30.450 --> 05:38.610 Suzanne Scott: So Suzanne, would you like to. I know we had an individual sign up for public comment. So we may need to go through the the 05:39.960 --> 05:41.520 Suzanne Scott: Instructions for public comment. 05:45.240 --> 05:47.340 Suzanne Scott: You're, you're muted Suzanne. 05:50.310 --> 05:58.200 Suzanne Schwartz: Thank you. Yes, we do have Heather Harward wanted to make some comments to the Council and she's also provided some written comments to us. 05:59.010 --> 06:15.960 Suzanne Schwartz: So we will, what we'll do is Vicki, if you could unmute Heather, so she can make her comments and then we will again, we're trying to limit the comments to three minutes and then following Heather. We'll see if anyone else wanted to make comments. 06:19.080 --> 06:19.620 Suzanne Scott: Ok, Heather. 06:20.100 --> 06:21.960 Heather Harward: Hi, is my microphone live? 06:22.320 --> 06:23.070 Suzanne Scott: We can hear you. 06:23.550 --> 06:40.470 Heather Harward: Okay, great. Thank you. Madam Chair, in the interest of time, I wanted to defer to you with respect to whether you'd like to hear my comments now or at the close of the meeting is completely whatever your pleasure. 06:41.070 --> 06:46.560 Suzanne Scott: I think reading the letter that you sent. I think that it would probably be good that you offered your comments 06:47.820 --> 06:53.160 Suzanne Scott: at the beginning of the meeting because it could help inform the deliberations moving forward. 06:53.610 --> 07:02.010 Heather Harward: Okay, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Madam Chair and members of the Council and the Water Development Board, for the record 07:02.370 --> 07:13.050 Heather Harward: my name is Heather Harward and I will be providing comments on the September 4, 2020 draft Interregional Planning Council report to the Texas Water Development Board. 07:13.470 --> 07:22.740 Heather Harward: And I'll be doing so, on behalf of the Texas Water Supply Partners. By way of background the Texas Water Supply Partners are a group of like minded entities 07:23.190 --> 07:30.450 Heather Harward: who share a commitment to advancing and influencing state policy related to the development of water supplies throughout the state 07:30.840 --> 07:40.380 Heather Harward: with a particular emphasis on implementation of the Texas State water plan our partners include the North Texas Municipal Water District, San Jacinto River Authority, 07:40.800 --> 07:53.100 Heather Harward: Texas Business Leadership Council and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. Before I go any further, on behalf of the partners, I want to extend our 07:53.730 --> 08:05.880 Heather Harward: sincerely profound gratitude to you, Madam Chair, the other 15 members of the Council and the Water Development Board for your truly exceptional work and the inaugural meetings of this Council. 08:06.720 --> 08:16.260 Heather Harward: You've all dedicated a tremendous amount of time and dedication and we believe that your processes is going to result in a report 08:16.590 --> 08:22.140 Heather Harward: that will benefit and improve the regional water planning and state water planning process for decades to come. 08:22.950 --> 08:31.290 Heather Harward: Our comments and in terms of policy issues fall into four categories, regional water planning, interregional conflict, 08:31.710 --> 08:39.300 Heather Harward: interregional and visionary projects and then funding. And I'm going to be as brief as possible in each of those four areas. 08:40.260 --> 08:49.890 Heather Harward: As you all mentioned we have submitted written comments and provide more detail. And I would be happy to answer any questions should, should you have those 08:50.400 --> 09:04.050 Heather Harward: With respect to regional water planning your IPC process confirmed that our nationally acclaimed state water planning process is working well at the regional level, and as designed by Senate Bill 1 in 1997. 09:04.710 --> 09:13.950 Heather Harward: Within that process however there sometimes seems to be a struggle to create strategies that reach beyond the individual 16 regions of the state. 09:14.670 --> 09:21.480 Heather Harward: As a result interregional projects, as well as those that benefit the state as a whole, we would argue remain limited. 09:21.930 --> 09:41.580 Heather Harward: And also that challenges associated with interregional conflicts persist. And that brings me to interregional conflicts. Your Council deliberated about the definition of IRCs, who should resolve interregional conflicts and and how the process for doing so could be improved. 09:42.900 --> 09:51.480 Heather Harward: We contend as the Water Supply Partners that the legislature should provide a definition of interregional conflict in statue. 09:51.960 --> 10:00.150 Heather Harward: And also provide clear direction and authority to the Water Development Board with respect to resolving interregional conflicts. 10:00.690 --> 10:07.200 Heather Harward: It is our firm position that as long as ambiguities remain with respect to resolving interregional conflicts, 10:07.770 --> 10:18.540 Heather Harward: that our state water planning process will be vulnerable to resolution by the judicial system and the Water Supply Partners would argue that this should be the venue of last resort. 10:19.500 --> 10:27.510 Heather Harward: Perhaps our most substantive comments were in the area of interregional and what you all have identified as visionary projects. 10:27.960 --> 10:42.210 Heather Harward: Again we can we commend the Council's commitment to planning beyond the current planning cycle and for considering ways to advance visionary projects that benefit not only multiple regions, but also the state as a whole. 10:43.140 --> 10:53.250 Heather Harward: We would offer up for your consideration and something that you all referenced and Chairman Evans committee that prior to Senate Bill 1, 10:53.460 --> 11:02.910 Heather Harward: there was more of an emphasis on planning statewide. That's not to say that our current planning process is not stellar and envy of the nation. 11:03.210 --> 11:12.660 Heather Harward: And we have no way would suggest supplanting the current regional water planning process, rather rather adding a module or a layer 11:12.990 --> 11:20.190 Heather Harward: that would complement that process and would call on the expertise of those of the Water Development Board 11:20.580 --> 11:30.720 Heather Harward: to look beyond the regional water process and to consider larger scale projects and potential long potentially longer planning horizons. 11:30.990 --> 11:39.810 Heather Harward: And that's something that would happen again at the Board level and would interface with that which have which is happening at the regional water planning level. 11:40.980 --> 11:54.390 Heather Harward: Finally, the last comments that we have related to funding. If the Interregional Planning Council is to continue to function in a manner that it did during your inaugural meetings, 11:54.840 --> 12:04.200 Heather Harward: we would strongly urge the Texas legislature to make an appropriation to support and the Water Development Board's facilitation of that process. 12:04.620 --> 12:20.040 Heather Harward: Again, you all have all done extraordinary work also made a tremendous investment of time and resources and we would wholeheartedly support general revenue to support your efforts and the future. 12:21.060 --> 12:31.530 Heather Harward: That does conclude my comments. Again, this are high level additional details can be found in our written comments and I just want to extend my personal 12:31.860 --> 12:38.460 Heather Harward: and sincere thank you to your Madam Chair and other 15 members of the Council and the Water Development Board. 12:39.330 --> 12:54.570 Heather Harward: But personally and on behalf of the Water Supply Partners for your dedication to Texas water and the future of our great state. It was really tremendous, inspiring and enlightening work. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. 12:55.200 --> 12:56.730 Suzanne Scott: Thank you, Heather. Appreciate that. 12:57.930 --> 13:08.910 Suzanne Scott: We, we do have her written letter, and I don't know Temple, if it's appropriate to have that posted of as submitted, since it was submitted for the record. 13:09.600 --> 13:10.140 Suzanne Scott: What issues. 13:10.230 --> 13:10.800 Temple McKinnon: Sure, I will do that. 13:11.490 --> 13:18.990 Suzanne Scott: Or it can be added to the Minutes for this meeting. I don't know how you normally do that. But I think it'd be good. Is there anybody else that has public comment. 13:19.860 --> 13:20.670 Mark Evans: Madam Chair. 13:21.450 --> 13:27.480 Mark Evans: Yeah, this is Mark, I would like, if you would to forward Heather's comments to the Planning 13:29.160 --> 13:30.720 Mark Evans: Council members. 13:30.870 --> 13:33.480 Suzanne Scott: Yes. Absolutely. And we'll do that. 13:36.060 --> 13:36.750 Suzanne Scott: Any other 13:38.010 --> 13:39.300 Suzanne Scott: Any other comments. 13:42.000 --> 13:49.050 Suzanne Scott: Technically we can't have a dialogue with Heather, just because she's a public citizen giving information but I think her letter does give us some more detail. 13:50.460 --> 14:04.440 Suzanne Scott: That will allow for you to ponder that and I do think that we could possibly, that's why I wanted her to go first, because maybe some of her. We can use some of their her comments as we deliberate on the document before us. 14:06.420 --> 14:09.450 Suzanne Schwartz: Vicki is anyone wanting to speak that you can see? 14:09.930 --> 14:14.010 Vicki Read: I'm not seeing any and everyone is unmuted so they have the opportunity. 14:17.610 --> 14:18.180 Suzanne Scott: All right. 14:19.260 --> 14:24.900 Suzanne Scott: Well, you have another opportunity at the end of the meeting in case someone decides that they would like to have a comment. 14:25.500 --> 14:26.820 Suzanne Scott: At the end of the meeting. 14:27.810 --> 14:39.330 Temple McKinnon: This is Temple. I'm emailing those public comments received to the individual members now so that you do have them as you're working through this document. Okay. 14:39.870 --> 14:40.290 Suzanne Scott: Thank you. 14:42.930 --> 14:48.300 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Next we have the meeting minutes from the August 12 meeting. 14:49.590 --> 14:50.730 Suzanne Scott: I would entertain a motion. 14:51.060 --> 14:52.170 Temple McKinnon: I have not received any edits. 14:52.620 --> 14:53.940 Suzanne Scott: I'm sorry, do we have any edits. 14:54.750 --> 14:56.310 Temple McKinnon: I have not received any. Suzanne Scott: Okay 14:57.570 --> 15:01.440 Suzanne Scott: All right. Can I have a motion to accept as they were submitted. Steve Walthour: So moved. 15:05.100 --> 15:06.720 Suzanne Scott: Steve moved. Do I have a second? 15:07.260 --> 15:16.860 Melanie Barnes: Second. Suzanne Scott: Oh, I got Tomas' hand. So I'll take his second. All right, just for the sake of making sure we don't all have to yell through the, through this, if 15:16.980 --> 15:18.540 Suzanne Scott: anyone that is opposed 15:18.630 --> 15:20.850 Suzanne Scott: to the approval of the Minutes, please signify 15:21.240 --> 15:22.800 Suzanne Scott: by saying that 15:22.830 --> 15:24.600 Suzanne Scott: you would like to oppose. 15:26.880 --> 15:29.490 Suzanne Scott: All right, good. The minutes are adopted. 15:30.540 --> 15:31.020 Suzanne Scott: Thank you. 15:32.370 --> 15:34.650 Suzanne Scott: Alright, so I think now we want to just 15:35.670 --> 15:42.780 Suzanne Scott: get into the document, the committee's have we sort of agendized this as you remember sort of generically 15:43.410 --> 15:48.870 Suzanne Scott: because we had to post it and we didn't know for certain how all this was going to come together so 15:49.350 --> 15:55.230 Suzanne Scott: All of the recommendations that we have received from each of the committees, again thank you all very much for your hard work. 15:55.830 --> 16:08.040 Suzanne Scott: Have been submitted and now have been integrated into the draft documents that we will be going through today. So I think we're going to go ahead and get that up on the screen. And when we get to the 16:09.600 --> 16:11.130 Suzanne Scott: get to the respective 16:12.420 --> 16:18.240 Suzanne Scott: areas of each of the committees then we would like to hear from the committee chairs 16:19.260 --> 16:30.990 Suzanne Scott: regarding any additional information that you would like to provide, any explanations of the recommendations or the or the observations as we go through the deliberation on this. 16:32.310 --> 16:32.970 Suzanne Scott: So, 16:34.980 --> 16:38.310 Suzanne Scott: Again, we're going to start at the beginning here and 16:39.930 --> 16:50.670 Suzanne Scott: a couple of things that we noted, both Kelley and I noted as we were going through this document. And I think Suzanne Schwartz is sort of captured that here at the very beginning is 16:51.420 --> 17:01.920 Suzanne Scott: as you all know, and you recall, not only did we get the charge from the Legislature for the work of this Council, we also did get a letter from 17:02.700 --> 17:16.830 Suzanne Scott: Chairman Larson regarding some things that he would like for us to address and we have both Kelley and I sort of noted as we went through this document that we may not have 17:18.570 --> 17:23.100 Suzanne Scott: addressed specifically two things that 17:24.510 --> 17:42.090 Suzanne Scott: Chairman Larson brought forward. One being the he asked us to look at the how this how the Council would look at the reviewing the viability and justification of projects included in the work state water plan. 17:43.410 --> 17:57.750 Suzanne Scott: And then also at the, the issue of how drought contingency plans align with planning multi regional water supply projects. So those two things I want to keep in mind as we go through this document. 17:58.290 --> 18:04.650 Suzanne Scott: One of the items, the first one, reviewing the viability and justification of projects included in the state water plan. 18:05.160 --> 18:17.370 Suzanne Scott: Suzanne Schwartz went back through some of the notes during the deliberations and Suzanne, would you note your comment there as it related to that one that we can again incorporate in as we're moving forward. 18:18.390 --> 18:21.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Certainly, the language, the 18:23.790 --> 18:39.390 Suzanne Schwartz: Council as a whole, did make, have some discussion but and and did not reach an agreement. There was no attempt to reach agreement on this topic, but some of the comments that had been made included that the Council 18:40.200 --> 18:53.010 Suzanne Schwartz: did not consider it appropriate, some members of the Council did not consider it appropriate for the Council or regions to determine the viability and justification of another regions projects. 18:53.550 --> 18:59.820 Suzanne Schwartz: Given the bottoms up approach to planning. That was pretty much from, I think, from some of the minutes that 19:00.510 --> 19:13.620 Suzanne Schwartz: we took. I know there is probably going to be some discussion on this as we specifically, but so given that I inserted that as possible language in the document for further discussion today. 19:14.220 --> 19:23.130 Suzanne Scott: So what I would like to do today is because these two are pretty big substantive change, questions and we don't really have text to kind of go through 19:23.490 --> 19:27.150 Suzanne Scott: what I'd like to be able to do is go through the rest of the report, 19:27.540 --> 19:40.560 Suzanne Scott: kind of indicating the comments that we have so far on the report, the recommendations from the committees and then leave these two items so that we can make sure that we how we want to address these two 19:41.280 --> 19:54.870 Suzanne Scott: comments from Chairman Larson, I'd like to do that at the end of this because we could spend a lot of time on that at the very beginning of this meeting and we may not make it through the rest of the document. So what I would like to do is is on those two doc on those two 19:56.370 --> 20:09.930 Suzanne Scott: issues let's table those to the end of the meeting, so that we can make sure that as we go through the document we can note where we could possibly address these two things and then 20:11.520 --> 20:26.640 Suzanne Scott: we also have some discussion some more discussion on the interregional conflict issue that I think we're going to want to address as well. We have some of that that was addressed relative to the work of Gail's committee. 20:27.660 --> 20:35.610 Suzanne Scott: But we may want to look at that in a little bit more detail as we go through this document. 20:36.390 --> 20:53.340 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne, I will note that you had have a suggestion at the end in the comment at the end of the document that we have taken and actually put into language that we could be included in the report, it's actually the last paragraph of the drafts that you'll see here today. 20:54.270 --> 21:09.930 Suzanne Scott: Yes. So we can, we'll add that and go through that but i just so these three big issues we're going to kind of tuck in at the end. Let's go through the rest of the document. Hopefully we can make it through and then deal with these larger issues. So with that, 21:11.400 --> 21:14.640 Suzanne Scott: Suzanne, could you kind of highlight how you've 21:15.690 --> 21:25.920 Suzanne Scott: categorized the different comments in here with the different colors, etc. And hopefully we can make it through those more substantive comments and not the word smithing. 21:26.070 --> 21:35.820 Suzanne Schwartz: Certainly, so you'll note underlined language which actually reflects where I made textual changes based upon your comments. 21:36.810 --> 21:51.480 Suzanne Schwartz: And I didn't, it didn't appear to me that they were largely substantive they were language changes obviously we'll have a chance if you disagree with that categorization, you can certainly raise that and we can discuss them. 21:52.860 --> 22:03.090 Suzanne Schwartz: There's also the aqua blue highlights which reflected what I felt were substantive comments substantive discussion, the Council might want to have 22:03.630 --> 22:19.680 Suzanne Schwartz: And then there were some yellow highlights that reflected where people had questions about portions of the report. So that's what you've got, underlined language. Again, I welcome you to speak up if you feel that that that is something you'd like to discuss. 22:20.730 --> 22:29.970 Suzanne Schwartz: If you feel like there's something gravely wrong with it, please let us know. But hopefully we'll focus on the the items that are highlighted in blue or yellow 22:31.590 --> 22:36.870 Suzanne Scott: Okay, everyone understand? Thumbs up. Alright, we're moving on. 22:37.920 --> 22:39.630 Suzanne Scott: So let's get into the meat here. 22:40.800 --> 22:41.400 Suzanne Scott: So, 22:43.080 --> 22:44.730 Suzanne Scott: Suzanne, you want to talk us through as we get to 22:45.900 --> 22:46.440 Suzanne Scott: Each one of these 22:46.530 --> 22:46.740 Suzanne Schwartz: Um, 22:48.780 --> 22:57.600 Suzanne Schwartz: maybe it's easiest if we just scroll through slowly people we're basically on the history and background. If anyone 22:58.140 --> 23:09.060 Suzanne Schwartz: unless anyone has changes in the that and again not word smithing changes. But if you have concern about meaning of the if meaning was changed and you don't like it, let us know. 23:09.480 --> 23:25.290 Suzanne Schwartz: Otherwise, I think we should should work down through to the first blue highlighted area, which would be on page five under the summary of the Council charge and legislative guidance. 23:25.710 --> 23:29.520 Temple McKinnon: Do I need to make this screen bigger or anything. This, how's the visual? 23:30.450 --> 23:43.050 Suzanne Scott: You may want to make it a little bit bigger. That would be great. And again, I hope y'all have this in front of you, because it's you know it's a little challenging to read, but hopefully y'all printed it out and read it and noted, where these comments were 23:43.320 --> 23:51.090 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. And actually this first set regards viability and justification of projects which we've already said, we would 23:51.810 --> 24:01.950 Suzanne Schwartz: talk about later. So I don't really and also drought contingency. So I think that will come at later discussion. I think we can go ahead and scroll further down into the document. 24:03.630 --> 24:10.380 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so we'll come back to the Chairman Larson's direction on at the end. 24:12.120 --> 24:13.200 Suzanne Scott: Sorry, did someone have a comment. 24:13.620 --> 24:16.560 Carl Crull: We had some yellow markings up there. Back up a little bit. 24:17.160 --> 24:19.020 Suzanne Schwartz: Is something in yellow. Sorry, it's 24:19.290 --> 24:21.330 Suzanne Scott: Over there. How many meetings we've actually had. Carl Crull: Oh, ok. Nevermind. 24:22.770 --> 24:23.790 Temple McKinnon: We're going to the next blue. Blue is what we're 24:24.900 --> 24:30.870 Suzanne Schwartz: The yellow actually has two functions. It also was a placeholder for things we might want to change and review. 24:32.490 --> 24:35.400 Suzanne Schwartz: And I'm not sure also, Temple, 24:36.480 --> 24:42.420 Suzanne Schwartz: Anything Kevin had suggested, which was today whether it has blue. I don't know. So we'll just want to make sure we 24:42.780 --> 24:43.020 Temple McKinnon: Sure. 24:43.380 --> 24:44.730 Suzanne Schwartz: catch that too. Um, 24:48.660 --> 24:49.260 Suzanne Schwartz: Let's see. 24:50.850 --> 24:52.650 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay, so the first thing 24:52.710 --> 24:57.420 Suzanne Scott: I do want to note, just real quickly on page seven, 24:59.760 --> 25:11.850 Suzanne Scott: Kelley asked, he's going to, Kelley Holcomb is going to add a paragraph here that I thought was a really good catch. When he was reviewing the document. 25:13.290 --> 25:24.990 Suzanne Scott: You know, we changed the way that the committee that the Council was going to operate. If y'all recall in reading this, we, we had at the beginning, just the decision had been made that we were going to operate as a Council as a whole. 25:25.350 --> 25:36.120 Suzanne Scott: And not chair and not have chairs and not have committees, then as we moved into it we quickly realized that would probably be more efficient for us to do 25:36.690 --> 25:44.370 Suzanne Scott: as we are now in operating with the committee structure and we we also appointed the chair and the vice chair. 25:45.000 --> 25:59.550 Suzanne Scott: And Kelley wanted to go add a couple of paragraphs here regarding kind of the thought behind that why we felt that was important those individuals who have served as chairs, etc. Although there's a there's a 26:00.390 --> 26:17.040 Suzanne Scott: Appendix at the end that identifies everybody's roles and what committee they sat on, he was going to add a couple of paragraphs here that would add give some information to the reader as to why we chose to go in this direction. Kelley would you like to add anything to that. 26:17.340 --> 26:19.200 Kelley Holcomb: No ma'am. Great summation. 26:19.800 --> 26:29.460 Suzanne Scott: So we will. So he will do that. And that will be submitted in the next version of this document that he is paragraph or two on why we did that. 26:30.270 --> 26:32.730 Melanie Barnes: So before we go on, Suzanne. I have a question. 26:32.940 --> 26:33.690 Suzanne Scott: Yes 26:33.750 --> 26:40.200 Melanie Barnes: Are we focusing on all the places, there are comments or we're focusing on only certain colors of comments. 26:40.680 --> 26:45.450 Suzanne Scott: Well, currently, I mean a lot. If you have issues with any of the underlined, 26:46.260 --> 26:51.270 Suzanne Scott: word smithing changes, then you can make those comments as we're going through the document. 26:51.540 --> 27:05.730 Suzanne Scott: We wanted to focus on the bigger comments. But if you have issues with anything that's been highlighted here, I would suggest that you bring it up because if we don't hear about that as we're going through. We're going to assume that you're okay with the word smithing changes we're 27:05.940 --> 27:16.800 Suzanne Scott: highlighted based on our review what we felt were substantive changes that really need deliberation by the Council, but you're welcome to comment on anything you want. 27:17.580 --> 27:18.090 Melanie Barnes: Thank you. 27:21.000 --> 27:21.600 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so this 27:22.590 --> 27:23.250 Temple McKinnon: Next blue 27:23.850 --> 27:25.290 Suzanne Scott: We're going to keep moving on. 27:25.410 --> 27:28.590 Suzanne Schwartz: Real quick, before you go further. We also also note that 27:29.640 --> 27:44.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley had suggested that we change the title of these observations and recommendations to the names of the committee's to more closely align and keep some continuity in the document, just as an FYI about why that change was made. 27:52.770 --> 27:54.000 Suzanne Scott: So there are several 27:55.320 --> 28:03.600 Suzanne Scott: kind of word smithing changes on here. Again, I hope that the, I hope Gail looked at some of these word smithing changes that were offered 28:04.440 --> 28:16.620 Suzanne Scott: to see if she has any concerns or anybody on the committee have any concerns about these word smithing changes on page eight, as that were in some of your observations before we move into 28:17.880 --> 28:25.650 Suzanne Schwartz: And I think we should pause on anything that has a yellow, yellow that was asking for clarification too. I think that is worthwhile. 28:27.990 --> 28:33.330 Suzanne Scott: So your observations on a where there's a few word smithing changes and 28:34.380 --> 28:37.950 Suzanne Scott: then moving into the problem statement on page 9. 28:37.980 --> 28:40.530 Temple McKinnon: Sorry, I went too fast. 28:41.070 --> 28:43.170 Suzanne Scott: That's okay, I just wanna make sure everyone's kind of seeing 28:45.090 --> 28:46.020 Suzanne Scott: there was 28:48.690 --> 28:55.530 Suzanne Scott: I noted, again, Gail. Hope you're looking at this, there seemed to be a repetitive sentence in there so 28:56.880 --> 28:57.630 Suzanne Scott: we were trying to 28:58.980 --> 29:03.180 Suzanne Scott: fix that a little bit. But again, if you don't like how that's been fixed, please let us know. 29:04.710 --> 29:11.460 Gail Peek: I think the first comment I have is, did the Council actually adopt the problem statement for the committee? 29:12.330 --> 29:18.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Gail, we actually edited this report ahead of it in anticipation 29:18.900 --> 29:19.470 Gail Peek: Okay. 29:19.680 --> 29:24.750 Suzanne Schwartz: Look like if it was adopted today. So that's why it says that. No, they have not 29:25.950 --> 29:27.990 Suzanne Schwartz: that has not been done and 29:28.260 --> 29:30.120 Gail Peek: I just wanted to make that clarification. 29:30.270 --> 29:31.020 Suzanne Schwartz: And I think that's a 29:31.440 --> 29:36.180 Suzanne Schwartz: good point. Because on this, this is the one problem statement that was not 29:36.810 --> 29:51.030 Suzanne Schwartz: approved by the Council, so I think it's probably a good idea for that we look and I'm sorry I probably shouldn't have highlighted this in blue for that reason. But yeah, this is the one. And thank you for bringing that up. It's the one problem statement, not yet approved by the Council. 29:51.570 --> 29:53.250 Melanie Barnes: And I have a question is 29:53.280 --> 29:56.070 Melanie Barnes: this is not the version we were sent yesterday. Correct. 29:57.750 --> 29:58.860 Melanie Barnes: Or the day before. 29:59.070 --> 29:59.550 Suzanne Schwartz: This is. 29:59.790 --> 30:01.860 Melanie Barnes: Because this does 30:01.860 --> 30:03.450 Melanie Barnes: not match what I was sent. 30:06.540 --> 30:11.700 Suzanne Schwartz: It does not? Melanie Barnes: No it doesn't seem to, maybe it's just shifting pages. 30:12.930 --> 30:17.100 Suzanne Schwartz: It may be shifting pages because we did add, there were some things that you know 30:17.820 --> 30:31.590 Suzanne Schwartz: come up. Yeah, I'm guessing it's just page shifts. The only thing that changed from the version you had will be found at the very end relating to interregional conflict and then notations from Kevin ward on his comments. 30:33.000 --> 30:36.450 Melanie Barnes: Documenting coordination between planning groups is not the same. 30:36.600 --> 30:40.110 Melanie Barnes: There's a whole bunch of cross out different wording and everything. 30:41.790 --> 30:42.660 Temple McKinnon: From what was sent? Melanie Barnes: Yep. 30:43.080 --> 31:02.700 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, this was posted on Monday online. We sent an email, Temple sent an email out saying that the that the we had made revisions based upon comments that people had sent us and this, this should this should reflect what was posted Monday morning. 31:02.970 --> 31:10.800 Suzanne Scott: Is anybody else seeing that there's the version that you have is not matching what we're seeing on the screen. I'd like to know other people are having that same concern. 31:14.430 --> 31:24.060 Melanie Barnes: It's I guess what I'm saying is that the version on the screen has the crossed out where's the version we were sent none of the deleted is showing just what was added. 31:24.450 --> 31:27.360 Melanie Barnes: It might just be a cleaned up version that we were sent 31:27.660 --> 31:32.910 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, it may just be, kind of, I think we sent it with the crossed out language, maybe your view. 31:34.140 --> 31:34.710 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 31:36.030 --> 31:36.420 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 31:36.750 --> 31:39.690 Melanie Barnes: So my computer is thinking for me. Okay, thank you. 31:42.390 --> 31:42.960 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 31:43.200 --> 31:43.770 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 31:47.610 --> 31:47.910 Allison Strube: Sorry Kelley. 31:49.980 --> 31:50.190 Kelley Holcomb: That's alright. Go ahead. Allison, go ahead. 31:50.250 --> 31:57.990 Allison Strube: I was just gonna say in the track changes, you have to say show all changes and it will show you the crossed out versions Melanie. 31:58.230 --> 32:03.960 Kelley Holcomb: That's where I was headed. It depends on how you have Track Changes shown in the version of Word that you have open at the time. 32:04.440 --> 32:05.730 Melanie Barnes: Thank you guys. 32:05.760 --> 32:06.840 Melanie Barnes: I guess being retired I've 32:06.840 --> 32:08.010 Melanie Barnes: forgotten these things. 32:08.580 --> 32:09.120 Kelley Holcomb: We all endeavor to 32:10.170 --> 32:11.520 Kelley Holcomb: get there Melanie so 32:12.780 --> 32:13.320 Kelley Holcomb: you're in good company. 32:13.710 --> 32:14.430 Melanie Barnes: Yeah, okay. 32:15.210 --> 32:27.360 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so, Gail. I want to get back to your comments because this is your section of your committee, so I want to make sure that we're all kind of on the same page reviewing this work. So you're saying that your version. It is 32:29.130 --> 32:29.850 Suzanne Scott: different. 32:31.260 --> 32:33.600 Gail Peek: No, I think it was Melanie, who said it was different. 32:34.980 --> 32:39.720 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so you're fine. So you want to look at. Do we want to go through this problem statement and 32:39.720 --> 32:43.590 Suzanne Scott: See if there was. Gail Peek: My point is that we probably have to adopt it before 32:44.280 --> 32:45.420 Gail Peek: before too long. 32:46.800 --> 32:48.900 Gail Peek: Suzanne was a was it 32:49.200 --> 32:57.420 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Since this one was had been I think anytime we have changes in language in either problem or goal statement, it might be worth 32:57.780 --> 33:04.260 Suzanne Schwartz: looking at all of those for each of the three committees, just to make sure every everybody's in agreement with any changes. 33:04.800 --> 33:09.330 Suzanne Scott: Okay. So then why don't we go through this problem statement here then. 33:11.130 --> 33:11.460 Suzanne Scott: And 33:15.000 --> 33:17.340 Suzanne Scott: And see if we all agree so 33:20.490 --> 33:21.780 Kelley Holcomb: Gail, are you okay with problem statement as it's written 33:22.920 --> 33:23.280 Kelley Holcomb: now? Suzanne Scott: Are you okay? 33:23.400 --> 33:34.830 Gail Peek: I'm comparing it to what because I'm not seeing some of the points that I think were important when the community met on the 28th of August. 33:37.530 --> 33:50.430 Gail Peek: So bear with me one minute because I like Melanie have to flip through a couple of versions of this of the document to make sure that we've gotten it because I don't see the yeah 33:51.270 --> 34:05.010 Suzanne Schwartz: Gail. I think the intent on this was that the crossed out language, the last sentence is crossed out but the any new idea from it was put up into earlier portions of the draft. 34:05.040 --> 34:05.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Just as Gail Peek: and 34:05.910 --> 34:13.050 Gail Peek: that's what I was looking for in the early portions. Yeah, because I know we we spent some time in the committee talking about 34:15.270 --> 34:21.480 Gail Peek: water resources what product use and we tried to capture a variety of 34:26.340 --> 34:39.780 Gail Peek: ways in which water planning occurs. And so I'm just being a bit more careful here because as I said I think we need to approve the Council to approve the statement so that we don't miss that toward the end. 34:45.600 --> 34:45.990 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 34:47.400 --> 34:49.260 Gail Peek: Bear with me as I find that section. 34:52.020 --> 34:55.230 Gail Peek: As I'm now looking in the minutes of the 34:59.880 --> 35:04.200 Gail Peek: our committee because it was captured in the minutes of the committee that Ron sent. 35:09.030 --> 35:13.170 Suzanne Scott: Is that something that Ron could put on the screen or that Temple has access to? 35:15.330 --> 35:16.230 Gail Peek: That I'm not sure. 35:18.930 --> 35:19.320 Suzanne Schwartz: Um 35:19.410 --> 35:22.170 Temple McKinnon: I'm looking for the minutes now for the committee. 35:23.670 --> 35:32.070 Suzanne Schwartz: Gail. I know that what you're seeing if you if you have access to the full edition and strike out if 35:32.310 --> 35:34.380 Suzanne Schwartz: You can tell what the original 35:34.830 --> 35:38.280 Suzanne Schwartz: problem was that the committee forwarded. 35:38.970 --> 35:41.490 Gail Peek: That's where I'm looking at now Suzanne. 35:41.700 --> 35:42.150 Suzanne Schwartz: Uh huh. 35:43.980 --> 35:48.870 Gail Peek: Because I actually printed out the version that you are presenting on the screen. 35:49.140 --> 35:49.560 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 35:59.130 --> 36:04.860 Temple McKinnon: All right, I think I have the committee minutes up. Is that what you're wanting me to show? 36:05.880 --> 36:12.660 Gail Peek: I think it falls under identifying issues and opportunities. So maybe in the problem statement. 36:15.600 --> 36:17.400 Mark Evans: Madam Chair, I have a question. 36:17.430 --> 36:18.780 Suzanne Scott: Please, yes. 36:19.260 --> 36:25.740 Mark Evans: Is this problem statement is this not this problem statement that the committee approved for its work? 36:26.670 --> 36:28.260 Gail Peek: That's what I'm trying to confirm 36:28.320 --> 36:33.270 Suzanne Scott: She's trying to confirm with this matches up with what the Committee approved 36:33.510 --> 36:35.250 Suzanne Scott: for submittal to us. 36:35.430 --> 36:36.450 Melanie Barnes: There's a document 36:37.500 --> 36:39.480 Melanie Barnes: Suzanne, there's a document on the web 36:41.040 --> 36:46.170 Melanie Barnes: dated August 12 that has proposed changes to committee problem and goal statement on it. 36:46.920 --> 36:47.820 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, that would be 36:49.890 --> 36:50.940 Suzanne Schwartz: let me see 36:54.420 --> 36:57.210 Gail Peek: Is you have in the problem statement is not 37:01.050 --> 37:05.310 Gail Peek: clear and I think the committee not clear or consistent and the committee 37:06.330 --> 37:07.950 Gail Peek: did not approve that addition. 37:10.080 --> 37:10.740 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 37:12.090 --> 37:23.130 Suzanne Scott: Okay, well, why don't we do this, why don't we go through this statement and and in meantime Temple, if you could be looking at their, their minutes from that meeting and trying to see 37:23.790 --> 37:29.580 Suzanne Scott: if there are some differences, but for the sake of this is what we want to have in front of us. So let's see 37:30.180 --> 37:36.630 Suzanne Scott: what we have here. And let's see if we can get some consensus on this statement if we can't, then we'll, we'll 37:37.680 --> 37:39.450 Suzanne Scott: we'll table this and try to work it out. 37:40.470 --> 37:44.520 Suzanne Scott: But I don't want to, I want to get through as much of this as we can so 37:46.200 --> 37:56.670 Suzanne Scott: let's, let's read this problem. Suzanne why don't read this problem statement as it is written with the track you know with in its version that it would be as edited. 37:56.940 --> 38:10.440 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. In creating regional water plans that comprise the state water plan, the expectations for the scale at which planning groups coordinate is not clear or consistent throughout the state. 38:12.120 --> 38:20.790 Suzanne Schwartz: Coordination and optimization requirements among regions and with TWDB are not fully formalized in statute or rule. 38:21.330 --> 38:29.370 Suzanne Schwartz: Coordination roles of consultants, sponsors, stakeholders, liaisons and members of the regional water planning groups 38:29.910 --> 38:39.540 Suzanne Schwartz: tasked with considering water management strategies and the impacts among and between regions are not fully specified or uniformly practiced. 38:40.230 --> 38:50.580 Suzanne Schwartz: Moreover, regions are not considering opportunities and issues of cooperation and coordination early enough in the water planning cycle process. 38:51.630 --> 39:04.440 Suzanne Schwartz: Further, while there have been few interregional conflicts, regions may not be coordinating early and effectively on issues related to shared water resources and the development of multiregional projects. 39:08.070 --> 39:08.460 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 39:09.000 --> 39:25.530 Gail Peek: Okay, and I would only note Chairman Scott that the underscored red lettering of the new additions that Suzanne made that are different from the one that committee had and so that that's the only 39:25.800 --> 39:26.700 Gail Peek: only difference. 39:26.730 --> 39:41.010 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, and Gail those were made based upon Suzanne Scott had suggested that the last sentence be deleted and that the ideas in it be interspersed in the rest of the problem statement. So that's why 39:41.040 --> 39:42.990 Gail Peek: That's fine, but the 39:43.110 --> 39:45.870 Gail Peek: language I'm talking about is or consistent 39:46.890 --> 39:56.400 Gail Peek: and the impacts among and between regions, or uniformly practice. Those are additions that we're not in the version that was approved by the Committee. Suzanne Scott: Right. 39:56.670 --> 39:57.360 Suzanne Schwartz: That's correct. 39:57.420 --> 40:06.030 Suzanne Scott: And that was because and and I think it's just to try to clarify those words seem to be to clarify what the statement was trying to say so. 40:06.360 --> 40:18.480 Suzanne Scott: Again, no one likes those words, we can take them out. It was just adding because you were saying that it wasn't clear but it, nor is it consistent i mean it's it's so that's why we added that and 40:20.100 --> 40:25.470 Suzanne Scott: this impacts among in between regions, you were kind of talking about 40:26.880 --> 40:30.990 Suzanne Scott: that coordination. So again, if those don't add or if they don't 40:32.670 --> 40:37.710 Suzanne Scott: they're not germane to the problem statement, we can take them out. It's just editing. Editing. 40:39.270 --> 40:41.610 Suzanne Scott: Your call Gail, whatever you like. 40:41.940 --> 40:57.570 Gail Peek: The clarity that I think we're looking for here is that if the Council approves it, then Council approves it. I just wanted to make sure from my committee members, it's slightly different. I don't think it is a substantive difference. 40:57.870 --> 41:04.410 Melanie Barnes: Doesn't look like it. Gail Peek: So I'm comfortable with what the group provides if any of the committee members feel differently, they can speak up. 41:05.760 --> 41:08.820 Suzanne Scott: Is there any concerns about this statement as it is written now? 41:10.230 --> 41:13.740 Patrick Brzozowski: Madam Chair I served on the committee and approve those changes. 41:13.980 --> 41:24.900 Suzanne Scott: Okay, thank you. Alright, so we should we take in a separate action on this or can it be a, I guess that's what y'all really want. So let's take an action on 41:26.040 --> 41:28.200 Suzanne Scott: this problem statement for 41:29.370 --> 41:34.140 Suzanne Scott: the committee. Can I have a motion to accept this problem statement as edited here. 41:35.130 --> 41:35.520 Gail Peek: I so move. 41:36.660 --> 41:38.520 Suzanne Scott: Okay, you move any second. 41:41.100 --> 41:41.550 Gail Peek: I'll second. 41:42.210 --> 41:43.320 Suzanne Scott: Patrick, you want to second. 41:43.620 --> 41:43.800 Patrick Brzozowski: Yes ma'am. 41:44.490 --> 41:52.920 Suzanne Scott: All right, thank you. So any opposition to this to these edits. Any opposition, please let us know if you're opposed. 41:54.300 --> 41:59.010 Suzanne Scott: Okay, great. Then we will consider that adopted. Thank you. Now the goal statement. 42:01.740 --> 42:02.460 Suzanne Scott: The 42:03.780 --> 42:06.810 Suzanne Scott: there was a couple of wordsmiths here again. 42:11.460 --> 42:12.780 Suzanne Scott: Why don't you read it, Suzanne. 42:13.170 --> 42:15.570 Suzanne Schwartz: Sure as it has the proposed revisions 42:15.600 --> 42:15.990 Suzanne Scott: Yes. 42:16.050 --> 42:25.710 Suzanne Schwartz: would say. Regions should coordinate early and throughout the planning cycle to identify and share knowledge of areas of mutual interest, 42:26.280 --> 42:38.220 Suzanne Schwartz: potential impacts, identification of water management strategies that impact more than one region. And I think we need a little edit, Kevin pointed out an edit, should probably have an and in that sentence. 42:39.720 --> 43:00.330 Suzanne Schwartz: In addition, regions should cooperate to address water supply needs of their regions to benefit the implementation of the State Water Plan. Planning groups should utilize consistent methods as identified by the Texas TWDB to achieve coordination in meeting these goals. 43:03.390 --> 43:05.160 Suzanne Scott: Any concerns about that statement. 43:10.260 --> 43:13.080 Suzanne Scott: Okay, can I have a motion to accept this goal statement. 43:16.770 --> 43:18.690 Patrick Brzozowski: So moved. Suzanne Scott: Was that Patrick? Okay. Can I have a second 43:20.460 --> 43:21.720 Gail Peek: Second by Gail Peek. 43:22.110 --> 43:28.500 Suzanne Scott: Okay, Gail seconded. All right. Any opposition to this goal statement. 43:30.720 --> 43:33.840 Suzanne Scott: Alright, hearing none, we will move on. 43:34.920 --> 43:37.290 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so now we get into, then the 43:40.890 --> 43:48.750 Suzanne Scott: the issue recommendations from the committee if we want to move on. There was a few wordsmithing changes that were made. 43:53.340 --> 43:55.110 Suzanne Scott: Any concerns 43:56.790 --> 44:00.120 Suzanne Scott: about any of these wordsmithing changes. 44:05.250 --> 44:21.720 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne, I will know and Council, I will know, we will be getting a clean a revised version of this out. And if you do have additional word Smith changes you'd like on the document we send out, you will have an opportunity to let us know that. 44:24.000 --> 44:36.570 Suzanne Scott: OK. And then so moving down in into the regional water planning group, you know, each of the recommendations kind of has, you know, a section and there is some highlighted blue language there. 44:37.950 --> 44:42.600 Suzanne Scott: And this was, I think, an issue that 44:44.640 --> 44:51.540 Suzanne Scott: I brought up so I will take responsibility for this and it could be easily removed. I remember in one of our meetings 44:52.680 --> 44:56.160 Suzanne Scott: somewhere, there was a discussion that if 44:57.540 --> 45:11.640 Suzanne Scott: if we were to make more use of these interregional liaisons that we wanted them to have more of an official role on agendas of planning groups so that if there are actual 45:12.570 --> 45:22.620 Suzanne Scott: interregional liaisons that is supposed to be one of the key roles to have to promote interregional coordination that should we have them have a 45:24.330 --> 45:36.300 Suzanne Scott: place on an agenda to make a report, either they report and or the Water Development Board could report in their stead. If there would be anything that should be reported between the 45:37.080 --> 45:42.840 Suzanne Scott: regions, where we would have these interregional liaisons. So I just brought that up because I remembered it was a comment 45:43.200 --> 45:53.430 Suzanne Scott: that someone had said at one point, and I didn't see it in any of the recommendations. So this would be the regional water planning group should include standing agenda items for reports from interregional liaisons 45:53.970 --> 45:58.080 Suzanne Scott: to promote a formal exchange of information between regional water planning groups. 45:58.650 --> 46:16.710 Melanie Barnes: So would this be that the liaisons reporting both back to their own water group from the region that they went to about the region they went to listen to and also reporting to the region they are listening to about their own water group. 46:18.000 --> 46:18.150 Or 46:19.350 --> 46:21.090 Suzanne Scott: It could be either way, and 46:21.150 --> 46:21.510 Melanie Barnes: Okay. 46:21.720 --> 46:30.210 Suzanne Scott: I think the idea is that if there are interregional liaisons and there may not be reports that needs to take place. It could just be a standing item 46:30.600 --> 46:39.030 Suzanne Scott: any reports from any interregional liaisons. They don't necessarily need to be listed. But then that would give those interregional liaisons an opportunity to have 46:40.170 --> 46:43.080 Suzanne Scott: time to give feedback back to the respective committee, 46:44.490 --> 46:45.030 Suzanne Scott: planning group. 46:46.620 --> 46:57.030 Gail Peek: Madam Chair one of the concerns that the committee had was, I don't know if we all understand what role various 46:57.480 --> 47:09.840 Gail Peek: parties are performing and there are a number of vacancies for liaisons. And so we thought that was something that needed to more exploration before we started making recommendations, because 47:10.290 --> 47:23.550 Gail Peek: it really, the liaisons, many of them are spread very thin and they need more clarity as to what the roles are they were there may be more of them. So we were concerned about trying to 47:24.060 --> 47:35.520 Gail Peek: put too many legs on what they do from the enhancing regional coordination standpoint and thought that was be something that can be 47:36.630 --> 47:39.960 Gail Peek: reviewed for the next Interregional Council. 47:41.490 --> 47:53.460 Suzanne Scott: So would we want it then to put it under the interregional then you could move that same statement, instead of it being under the regional water planning group, we could put it under Future Interregional Planning Councils could 47:54.810 --> 48:10.410 Suzanne Scott: review the roles of interregional liaisons. We had discovered through this process that the interregional liaisons, it's actually a requirement of each regional planning group to have appointments. I know in Region L we did not have 48:11.580 --> 48:15.330 Suzanne Scott: appointments for all of our regions that we should have had. So we are now 48:15.810 --> 48:22.800 Suzanne Scott: through this process fixing that going forward. And I don't know if there's other regions that had the same vacancies are voids 48:23.160 --> 48:31.020 Suzanne Scott: because they just weren't highlighting the roles of these liaisons but we've sorted learned through this process that there is a mechanism, 48:31.470 --> 48:44.190 Suzanne Scott: they're just not being used. It may not be effective and that may be maybe Gail's right, maybe we move it into Future Interregional Planning Councils should look at the roles of these in a interregional liaisons, maybe that's not the right 48:45.300 --> 48:54.630 Suzanne Scott: mechanism by which to to promote interregional coordination, but they currently exist and we're not using them. That's that was the point I was trying to make. 48:55.650 --> 49:00.180 Mark Evans: So Madam Chair, it's also an issue of a time commitment 49:00.750 --> 49:09.270 Mark Evans: for those liaisons because now they have an additional planning group meeting to attend, which involves travel so we have vacancies as well. 49:11.010 --> 49:14.910 Mark Evans: With liaison to the other regions, just for that for that reason. 49:15.090 --> 49:15.600 Suzanne Scott: So do we. 49:16.860 --> 49:23.490 Suzanne Scott: So maybe Gail's right, maybe it's a better, maybe it's a better idea to put under Future Interregional Planning Councils 49:23.550 --> 49:30.330 Suzanne Scott: could review the roles of the interregional liaison. Does that seem to be more fit based on the conversations here. 49:33.120 --> 49:43.140 Suzanne Schwartz: Does anyone object to moving the idea of that that had been added into C into D. Temple has some suggested language. She's already added. 49:44.190 --> 49:52.590 Kelley Holcomb: Well, I don't know that we can, if it's currently a requirement. So why would we want to remove it from a list if we're not all doing it and it's requirement 49:53.280 --> 50:07.230 Kelley Holcomb: then we all need to be encouraged to continue to do it and then look at the future potential use of liaison between regions. I mean, I think both are important today. 50:07.650 --> 50:10.860 Suzanne Scott: Kelley is saying, since it's a requirement, maybe we do need it, 50:11.040 --> 50:13.890 Suzanne Scott: we need to see if they were, you know, how do we get them to have a role in 50:13.950 --> 50:14.970 Suzanne Scott: in the regional planning. 50:15.600 --> 50:19.530 Suzanne Scott: And then, then maybe also, is it an effective way of doing it. 50:19.590 --> 50:20.790 Kelley Holcomb: Exactly. 50:20.880 --> 50:24.090 Carl Crull: I think I think part of this is 50:26.430 --> 50:30.810 Carl Crull: identifying and clarifying what the role of 50:32.910 --> 50:33.300 Carl Crull: the 50:34.680 --> 50:46.110 Carl Crull: liaisons are. I'm the liaison for region to Region N to Region. L and when I was appointed, I was told, all you have to do is monitor 50:47.250 --> 50:58.530 Carl Crull: the, the agendas and the work products that are being done. And if there's any conflicts with anything that's going on in Region N and report it back to 51:00.420 --> 51:15.480 Carl Crull: the group. But I mean that was pretty loosey goosey and and I think part of this should probably be further defining what the roles of the liaisons are. 51:16.020 --> 51:28.740 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Melanie Barnes: So yeah, for example, the way that our group does it if there's somebody on the planning group who is in another region, either because of their job or something like that, then they report 51:29.910 --> 51:38.280 Melanie Barnes: on about their region. But if there isn't, we try to find someone who can go to the meetings, if possible. So you're right. It's an additional 51:39.870 --> 51:40.410 Melanie Barnes: effort. 51:41.940 --> 51:49.770 Temple McKinnon: Y'all want to add something to perhaps the Board could have a takeaway responsibility on this as well, because I can't remember 51:50.790 --> 51:53.280 Temple McKinnon: in what form I've had this conversation. But, you know, 51:53.460 --> 52:00.810 Temple McKinnon: we have staff that attends every meeting really easy information distribution could be we could you know 52:02.490 --> 52:10.530 Temple McKinnon: look at providing information out to the adjoining regional liaisons just to make sure they have information in case they didn't attend the meeting. 52:11.970 --> 52:13.590 Temple McKinnon: I've given thought to how we can 52:14.370 --> 52:25.470 Temple McKinnon: better inform your liaisons as well. So do y'all want to put a placeholder directs us in the meantime to look at that. We talked about. Again, I don't know if this is the BMP committee or where but maybe having a 52:25.770 --> 52:29.790 Temple McKinnon: equivalent of a chairs conference call with the liaisons or something like that. 52:30.870 --> 52:39.210 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, I think the point here is that if we have them, they're not, I mean, everyone has said that if that is supposed to be the way that we have interregional coordination and 52:39.840 --> 52:53.640 Suzanne Scott: I know that that may not be effective in all cases to utilize those region regional liaisons because of the extra time commitment, because trying to get volunteers to do that, the travel commitments, there are a whole host of things that have been 52:54.180 --> 53:03.210 Suzanne Scott: brought up here. So, you know, maybe there is a discussion under the Water Development Board to look at liaisons and then potentially the 53:05.040 --> 53:07.830 Suzanne Scott: the other two as well. How we going to utilize them. 53:09.120 --> 53:20.160 Suzanne Scott: Anybody have any so it's kind of going to be maybe under the Water Development Board looking at how to ensure that there's better communication between regions, maybe in a report of some sort. 53:20.610 --> 53:27.060 Suzanne Schwartz: I think that Temple suggested some language. Suzanne on number 8. 4 she 53:27.930 --> 53:28.920 Suzanne Scott: Okay, that sounds good. 53:29.190 --> 53:42.600 Suzanne Schwartz: Very end adding at the end of four, including how to better assist liaisons the TWDB will support and facilitate regional water planning groups, including how to better assist liaisons. 53:42.690 --> 53:43.170 Suzanne Scott: That's good. 53:44.820 --> 53:54.480 Suzanne Scott: So do we, do we still wanted. I think Kelley was advocating for we still keep the one under the regional water planning groups and also a future interregional. 53:55.170 --> 53:55.860 Kelley Holcomb: That's correct. 53:57.780 --> 53:59.880 Gail Peek: This is, I'm sorry Patrick. Go ahead. 54:00.210 --> 54:01.770 Patrick Brzozowski: No, I said, I like that as well. 54:02.730 --> 54:04.440 Gail Peek: I was going to say it. 54:04.530 --> 54:15.210 Gail Peek: I think the nature of this conversation says, even if there is a rule, people are not understanding it. And that's why I was saying, we better look at it and see if it's a rule 54:15.570 --> 54:30.000 Gail Peek: and what it says so that all the regions are better placed. It's difficult if we have a rule and tell the region's thou shalt and they can't. I mean, it's something going on that we better understand. Otherwise, we're going to become irrelevant to what the 54:30.000 --> 54:30.630 Gail Peek: regions do. 54:31.110 --> 54:32.640 Gail Peek: And that would be a terrible shame. 54:34.470 --> 54:40.590 Suzanne Scott: Ok. So I think that we can put it in all those locations and figure out the best wording for that. But I mean, it's 54:40.650 --> 54:41.970 Suzanne Scott: I think Gail makes a good point, 54:42.120 --> 54:45.270 Suzanne Scott: if they're there, if there's a rule, we better make it relevant. 54:46.440 --> 54:50.010 Suzanne Scott: Okay that okay for everybody. We can move on. 54:51.450 --> 54:52.950 Suzanne Scott: Then the next 54:54.180 --> 54:56.250 Suzanne Scott: area is 54:57.510 --> 54:59.100 Suzanne Scott: defining roles for participants. 55:00.330 --> 55:13.500 Suzanne Schwartz: There is a question under that what out of clarification question that that was noted in yellow where Temple has paused. Do we need to talk about that, or can we just go on. 55:18.870 --> 55:22.230 Suzanne Schwartz: I think just Suzanne, it was your question. I think that 55:23.430 --> 55:28.200 Suzanne Schwartz: it may be answered by Temple's comment but I just want to make sure we caught that. 55:34.170 --> 55:35.340 Suzanne Scott: Yes, this was that 55:36.300 --> 55:37.020 Melanie Barnes: That's weird. 55:37.110 --> 55:37.890 Suzanne Scott: That list. 55:41.430 --> 55:41.700 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 55:42.630 --> 55:52.290 Suzanne Scott: I guess could you, Gail. Could you look at Temple's note because I was when I read this I didn't understand exactly what this list was, develop and maintain a list 55:53.760 --> 56:07.830 Suzanne Scott: of active regional water planning group committees to all regional water planning group so that each region can best determine the mechanism for water management strategies. I was confused about that statement. 56:07.860 --> 56:09.690 Gail Peek: The way this originally 56:11.130 --> 56:25.800 Gail Peek: came up was at the end of a planning cycle, there are all these water management strategies that are presented, are there some that are going to be carried over to the next planning cycle, because that would give us 56:26.760 --> 56:42.450 Gail Peek: early notice of some plans or options. Now, when we discussed this at the committee level, we were told that the Water Development Board looks at active, active plans and 56:43.980 --> 56:47.580 Gail Peek: we deferred to understanding what the 56:48.900 --> 56:56.610 Gail Peek: Water Development Board collects and can share because some of it, I don't know if all that can be shared, if there might be some confidentiality issues. 56:57.090 --> 57:15.780 Gail Peek: And so that's why we put this language in its kind of cryptic form. But the goal is, if at the end of the planning cycle there are water management strategies that can be used or opportunities for coordination and collaboration we have their early notice. Let's pursue them. 57:17.400 --> 57:17.730 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 57:19.740 --> 57:21.960 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I think I was confused by the term water 57:22.110 --> 57:25.380 Suzanne Scott: regional water planning group committees. 57:27.330 --> 57:30.390 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne, perhaps we can work on wording of that. 57:30.780 --> 57:33.960 Suzanne Schwartz: I think we do that offline probably it that's okay. 57:34.200 --> 57:34.710 Suzanne Scott: I think so. 57:34.770 --> 57:40.470 Melanie Barnes: Isn't that like when a water when a region decides they need to have a committee 57:41.940 --> 57:59.880 Melanie Barnes: for nomination. They need a committee for considering conservation things and so they will identify three or four people. So if somebody were group made a committee to talk about their interregional projects, would that be, is that what this is getting it. 58:03.000 --> 58:04.710 Suzanne Scott: I don't know, I guess we'll work on the wording. 58:05.040 --> 58:07.530 Melanie Barnes: Okay. Suzanne Scott: We'll work. I think 58:07.680 --> 58:09.960 Suzanne Scott: I think Temple understands it. So we'll figure 58:10.080 --> 58:15.690 Gail Peek: And Melanie, from our perspective, from the committee's perspective, we really didn't think in those terms. What we did say is 58:16.080 --> 58:23.490 Gail Peek: some regions have scope of work committees, some regions rely on executive committees. They have a variety of 58:24.090 --> 58:35.910 Gail Peek: techniques for looking at water management strategies and we didn't as a committee, we didn't want to constrain that creativity, but at the same time, we wanted to understand that creativity. 58:36.600 --> 58:36.930 Suzanne Scott: Okay. All right. 58:38.100 --> 58:39.960 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Moving down to the next blue 58:44.130 --> 58:48.540 Suzanne Schwartz: Again, this was a recommendation for additional 58:50.160 --> 59:01.740 Suzanne Schwartz: the committee had no recommendation for future planning councils. This is a recommendation that future planning councils should monitor the effectiveness of enhanced efforts to promote interregional coordination. 59:04.470 --> 59:10.740 Kelley Holcomb: The way I say that that's kind of a given on a lot of these things for there's we should be monitoring all these things on an ongoing basis, but 59:13.230 --> 59:14.040 I don't know if it's 59:15.150 --> 59:20.820 Suzanne Scott: So we can either say no recommendation or just that you continue to monitor, I guess, is the question here. 59:21.330 --> 59:21.780 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, which is better, no recommendation. Go ahead. 59:23.250 --> 59:29.640 Gail Peek: I'm sorry. And I thought, this is also where the issue of the liaisons could go. 59:32.280 --> 59:34.290 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, we put that on the under the other one too. 59:35.550 --> 59:44.820 Suzanne Scott: So I guess the question here is, do we need to, do we just say no recommendation as if we don't have a recommendation or do we just say continue to monitor as sort of the recommendation. 59:45.960 --> 59:46.860 Kelley Holcomb: Which looks better. 59:47.550 --> 59:55.020 Suzanne Scott: Which looks better, which reads better to the to the reader of this report. Anybody have a comment about that. 59:57.930 --> 01:00:18.240 Gail Peek: One of the things that was suggested when the regional coordination committee Matt was that we have consistency in some of the terminology and that's also what you're seeing in some of these. That that it doesn't hurt, for example, it doesn't hurt to say we need state funding. 01:00:19.620 --> 01:00:22.590 Gail Peek: Maybe if it's said three times it will be understood and heard. 01:00:23.100 --> 01:00:38.490 Gail Peek: And so we we did the same similar things with future regional planning that we should keep monitoring this. And and Kelley, you're right, that's like saying, water is wet but I have found in my life and practice of law, it doesn't hurt to keep saying it. 01:00:39.720 --> 01:00:40.020 Suzanne Scott: And 01:00:40.800 --> 01:00:50.670 Suzanne Scott: If it's okay with everybody we'll kind of look at this from a readability perspective, kind of from the readers perspective. And if we will, will it will make sure that it sounds like we're 01:00:52.920 --> 01:00:54.690 Suzanne Scott: being smart here so we'll fix it if we need to. 01:00:56.850 --> 01:00:57.150 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:00:57.900 --> 01:01:00.330 Kelley Holcomb: If we can't be the smartest let's at least sound like we're smart, right. 01:01:02.700 --> 01:01:07.290 Suzanne Scott: Okay, moving to the next one. Documenting coordination between planning groups. 01:01:09.360 --> 01:01:10.260 Suzanne Scott: Looks like 01:01:11.670 --> 01:01:17.070 Suzanne Schwartz: Let's see Temple, can you go up a little bit more just to see what we where we are. 01:01:22.260 --> 01:01:24.150 Suzanne Scott: So this was blue for 01:01:24.480 --> 01:01:33.660 Suzanne Schwartz: I believe this is Kevin Ward's, I think this is a comment, can you go down a little more. And see I haven't put 01:01:37.410 --> 01:01:45.510 Suzanne Schwartz: Oh yeah, this is a this is a comment from Kevin, Kevin Ward had a comment on all of this language that he provided us today. 01:01:47.040 --> 01:02:02.040 Suzanne Schwartz: And so I can either read it, or perhaps, briefly he's basically said, collectively, he looked at this and feels that it discourages interregional water supply project development and that the tone is extremely 01:02:03.240 --> 01:02:16.950 Suzanne Schwartz: alarmist in nature for any project that would touch or impact another region. And he suggests that the tone be changed by adding language that suggests 01:02:17.400 --> 01:02:35.160 Suzanne Schwartz: that these strategies are being identified in an effort to encourage the development of projects that cross regional lines and not to kill them. So that was the comment that that's what all this that it all was relating to this whole all of the all of these 01:02:36.420 --> 01:02:41.580 Suzanne Schwartz: recommendations of the EIC on this particular matrix. 01:02:44.850 --> 01:02:47.700 Kelley Holcomb: I support the concept that that Kevin's bringing forward. 01:02:49.440 --> 01:02:55.830 Kelley Holcomb: Our jobs not to kill them. Our job is to develop water and that means interregional water supplies. 01:02:59.550 --> 01:03:04.890 Suzanne Scott: As I'm sure it wasn't the intent to make it look that it was not promoting that since 01:03:05.280 --> 01:03:09.720 Gail Peek: I can say I'm shocked by the response. But, you know, maybe it's art. 01:03:10.740 --> 01:03:22.350 Gail Peek: That is certainly not the intent. And that's why we had so many people participating in this meeting from various perspectives in terms of what can we do, how can we encourage it. 01:03:24.510 --> 01:03:24.810 Suzanne Schwartz: And 01:03:25.650 --> 01:03:31.950 Gail Peek: Are we talking about some word smithing or or what. I'm just confused at this point. 01:03:32.610 --> 01:03:33.570 Suzanne Scott: Is Kevin on the call. 01:03:34.050 --> 01:03:34.920 Kevin Ward: Yeah, I'm here. I'm right here. 01:03:35.490 --> 01:03:36.000 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Kevin can you explain. 01:03:36.600 --> 01:03:46.290 Kevin Ward: It was mostly from higher up there. I just said, I did finish out by the time you got into regional water planning groups in section C, it sounded a little bit more positive. 01:03:47.130 --> 01:03:59.880 Kevin Ward: But I kept, you know, real, really wanted to identify these things that would potentially impact or use a water resource in another region and it never said anything about 01:04:01.830 --> 01:04:04.590 Kevin Ward: I mean the way it's written, it's it's written like 01:04:06.210 --> 01:04:17.130 Kevin Ward: engage the appropriate parties, I'll say commit timely coordination and collaboration on potentially feasible water management strategies that would develop or use a water resource in another region or otherwise impact another region. 01:04:17.700 --> 01:04:22.320 Kevin Ward: I just felt like there were, it was missing that one element which is, you know, 01:04:24.270 --> 01:04:28.890 Kevin Ward: which is what this whole charge for this committee is is to encourage the development of 01:04:29.970 --> 01:04:33.390 Kevin Ward: interregional cooperation and interregional 01:04:36.240 --> 01:04:49.170 Kevin Ward: projects and I just didn't see that when I read through the whole thing. After I kept reading and every time I come up on that, you know, develop or use a water resource or otherwise impact another region. I mean, those kind of like lightning rod 01:04:51.540 --> 01:04:52.110 Kevin Ward: words. 01:04:53.040 --> 01:05:01.830 Kevin Ward: And and I know you're what you're trying to do. And by starting off with any you know saying any potential regional feasible water management strategy, 01:05:02.400 --> 01:05:22.440 Kevin Ward: but then when it finishes with developer use water resource in or otherwise impact another region. It just seems that it's it's it leaves it open as to why are we so focused on making sure we identify these things we haven't said we're focused on them and then stated that 01:05:23.490 --> 01:05:35.820 Kevin Ward: the follow up, which is and facilitate the coordination to encourage the development of these types of projects. I mean, that's not said. And without that being there. It just seems to 01:05:36.630 --> 01:05:46.260 Kevin Ward: leave the reader more inclined to yeah we got to pick these things off. See what they are. What we're, you know what, what are we using. Why are we using water from somebody else's area. 01:05:49.110 --> 01:05:58.590 Suzanne Scott: It may be that the language is is could be seen as trying to avoid those types of projects versus encourage them earlier in the process. 01:05:58.650 --> 01:06:03.750 Kevin Ward: Yeah, it's just, it's like, what do you call it, it's right now it's just open it doesn't really 01:06:05.640 --> 01:06:07.680 Kevin Ward: believe when we're trying to do. Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 01:06:07.800 --> 01:06:08.880 Suzanne Schwartz: Jim wants to say something. 01:06:08.910 --> 01:06:11.850 Jim Thompson: Yeah, I'm a little bit confused by it too. Of 01:06:11.880 --> 01:06:25.920 Jim Thompson: course two people can read the same words and come up with different understanding with respect to them. But throughout the course of the committee meetings that Gail chaired and the other members there, you know, there was a there was an equal 01:06:26.940 --> 01:06:44.580 Jim Thompson: at least more of a concern about getting people to coordinate, as opposed to impacts. But my understanding from the committee's discussions and talks that we've had before was that we wanted to get these things out as soon as possible in the planning process. 01:06:44.670 --> 01:06:53.490 Jim Thompson: And so that's why the impacts was included in there because that's one of the things we're looking at, but it certainly has 01:06:53.970 --> 01:07:06.330 Jim Thompson: and I think Gail stressed throughout, in fact I think the words are shifted around with somewhat during the course of our committee meetings to try to stress the importance of the cooperation, as well as looking at the impacts. 01:07:07.680 --> 01:07:07.920 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:07:09.780 --> 01:07:10.260 Suzanne Scott: So, go ahead. 01:07:11.040 --> 01:07:13.500 Kevin Ward: Maybe I just was a little more sensitive to it, but 01:07:13.590 --> 01:07:14.490 Suzanne Schwartz: What I'm wondering 01:07:14.700 --> 01:07:26.400 Kevin Ward: I don't think it's tragic, the way it's written. I just hope that the readers don't receive it the way I did as I read through it. I read through it a couple of times I tried to read through it fast and read through it slow and 01:07:27.570 --> 01:07:28.230 Kevin Ward: you know, I 01:07:29.520 --> 01:07:33.960 Kevin Ward: seems to me like, we're really just talking about potentially feasible water management strategy coordination. 01:07:34.860 --> 01:07:50.700 Suzanne Schwartz: So I'm wondering if we might just direct those groups doing the revisions to try to make sure this reflects both, you know, coordination to avoid conflict, but also to potentially include the use of interregional strategies. Is that would that 01:07:51.060 --> 01:07:56.340 Kevin Ward: That would that would certainly address the issue for me if there's some way, you can plant it in there so that 01:07:57.030 --> 01:07:57.570 Suzanne Schwartz: Does that address, does that satisfy 01:07:59.550 --> 01:08:01.410 Suzanne Schwartz: or does that create more problems, Jim. 01:08:01.770 --> 01:08:14.370 Gail Peek: Well, I think capturing and underpinning all of this was the committee's sense that we have a number of voices at the table before anything gets done. We have the consultant. 01:08:14.700 --> 01:08:16.080 Gail Peek: We have the stakeholders. 01:08:16.110 --> 01:08:27.750 Gail Peek: We have the sponsors. And I don't know if it's a matter, Kevin, of reiterating that you have all of these interests, trying to address the problem, because if one group is 01:08:28.320 --> 01:08:31.530 Gail Peek: listening for it and three others they know 01:08:32.070 --> 01:08:45.210 Gail Peek: the three are going to overwhelm the one unless you know that we're talking about bazillionaires. So I think we, we are trying to get that type of input from a variety of sources, before any decision is made. 01:08:45.780 --> 01:08:52.620 Gail Peek: And I don't know if that is coming through as clearly from looking at our statements as we were intending. 01:08:53.670 --> 01:09:06.540 Suzanne Scott: Well we'll work on that. I think we're getting the, the general intent here is to be to to try to encourage and promote early coordination and also opportunities to identify these opportunities 01:09:07.110 --> 01:09:17.700 Suzanne Scott: for interregional work. So we're going to do it, let's do it sooner and earlier and and collaboratively and also in, you know, to try to encourage this kind of activity. 01:09:18.120 --> 01:09:19.170 Melanie Barnes: Suzanne. 01:09:20.700 --> 01:09:28.260 Melanie Barnes: What what I'm hearing you guys say is that, not, not only do we want to 01:09:29.850 --> 01:09:41.700 Melanie Barnes: coordinate when there is a potential conflict or shared use of a water source, water supply, but that we actually want people to actively think 01:09:42.420 --> 01:09:49.410 Melanie Barnes: about are there places where this might happen in the future because of the way our water supplies are. 01:09:50.280 --> 01:09:56.760 Melanie Barnes: And and because i don't think i think we have pointed out in this whole system we've gotten very good at working within our regions 01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:02.190 Melanie Barnes: and we've got very good at planning, you know, between different water user groups and things like that. 01:10:02.490 --> 01:10:09.420 Melanie Barnes: But we don't necessarily ever think outside our regions. I know there are people within the organization that are thinking that way, 01:10:09.780 --> 01:10:15.630 Melanie Barnes: but it's not up front and center. And I guess that's what this whole thing, what it says to me is that 01:10:16.080 --> 01:10:20.820 Melanie Barnes: okay guys, we got to think about this on day one and think about it when we're going to do our scope and 01:10:21.450 --> 01:10:34.470 Melanie Barnes: whatever we're going to look at. And are there things like this that are part should be more than just an afterthought. It should actually might actually end up being 30% of what we think about while doing this planning in this cycle 01:10:35.040 --> 01:10:35.610 Melanie Barnes: type thing. 01:10:35.760 --> 01:10:36.840 Suzanne Scott: I think those are good points. 01:10:37.680 --> 01:10:48.330 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne, could I propose that when we're working on this language, it would be appropriate to run drafts of it by both Jim Thompson, Kevin Ward, 01:10:49.980 --> 01:10:54.180 Suzanne Schwartz: and Gail, just to see before we present it back to the Council. 01:10:54.330 --> 01:10:57.990 Suzanne Scott: Yes, we'll do that. We'll coordinate with you all to make sure that the words 01:10:59.100 --> 01:11:00.600 Suzanne Scott: are appropriately revised. 01:11:01.620 --> 01:11:02.550 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I think that's good 01:11:03.030 --> 01:11:03.300 Suzanne Scott: feedback. 01:11:03.420 --> 01:11:06.540 Mark Evans: And one and two also require documentation. 01:11:09.840 --> 01:11:10.290 Suzanne Scott: Yes. 01:11:15.120 --> 01:11:21.960 Kevin Ward: Documentation of the efforts for sure. I think, you know, if you the general concept is there it's the 01:11:21.960 --> 01:11:23.370 Kevin Ward: I'm more concerned with the 01:11:23.370 --> 01:11:27.360 Kevin Ward: tone than anything else. And I think that if you did adjust it, 01:11:27.990 --> 01:11:37.920 Kevin Ward: it'd be like what, and I know Jim and I have talked about before, that if we start early enough and we have the right interests to table, maybe we can drive the direction with the development of resources 01:11:38.310 --> 01:11:50.730 Kevin Ward: in an adjacent region is is in concert with what the vision would be from the donating region, so to speak. And and perhaps start sequestering those resources in the right direction. 01:11:51.720 --> 01:11:58.440 Kevin Ward: But never, you know, looking at the beginning of it as a conflict in general for even considering going and 01:11:58.950 --> 01:12:17.520 Kevin Ward: Identifying any potential feasible any potential impact necessarily as much as it is you want to identify the potential resource that could be shared and and then hopefully with the stakeholders at the table do it in a manner in which it's amenable to all parties. 01:12:19.080 --> 01:12:21.930 Suzanne Scott: I think that's a good point. That's a resource. 01:12:24.090 --> 01:12:24.390 Okay. 01:12:25.620 --> 01:12:35.520 Suzanne Scott: That's a good point. Okay, well, we'll work on that language and we'll get it out to Jim and Kevin and Gail to look at before we put it back out for the whole group to look at. 01:12:36.990 --> 01:12:41.640 Suzanne Scott: OK, so moving on. Now we're moving into planning water resources for the state as a whole. 01:12:43.380 --> 01:12:44.430 Suzanne Scott: So, 01:12:46.230 --> 01:12:49.200 Suzanne Scott: So I had a general question here that you see on the next 01:12:50.490 --> 01:12:54.180 Suzanne Scott: item. Okay, hold on, let's get to your blue first. 01:12:55.080 --> 01:12:59.040 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, we've got some we've got a clarification and 01:13:00.540 --> 01:13:09.630 Suzanne Schwartz: this was your question about whether we had we adequately addressed Larson's priority to review viability and justification projects. 01:13:10.140 --> 01:13:11.820 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, we're going to talk about that later. 01:13:12.030 --> 01:13:14.850 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, there is a note. Wait, go back. 01:13:16.110 --> 01:13:25.530 Suzanne Schwartz: There was a question. Kelley had, there was a statement. It's not highlighted in blue it's yellow, a yellow comment from Kelley. 01:13:26.580 --> 01:13:27.660 Suzanne Schwartz: Said he didn't know if 01:13:28.740 --> 01:13:38.460 Suzanne Schwartz: If there were, if I if there was a true. If there was a statement that said this process has worked well at the regional level, however, 01:13:39.630 --> 01:13:40.170 Suzanne Schwartz: it 01:13:41.640 --> 01:13:54.030 Suzanne Schwartz: was not designed to address planning water resources for the state as a whole. I made some possible edits to see if it would clarify it. And so the edits now would say this process has worked well 01:13:54.420 --> 01:14:10.170 Suzanne Schwartz: at the regional level. However, it has not functioned effectively to address planning water resources for the state as a whole. I don't know if that is even is an accurate statement is it redrafted or if it takes care of the concerns that Kelley. 01:14:11.010 --> 01:14:19.860 Mark Evans: Well, as chairman, as chairman of the committee, I can tell you that it fundamentally changes the meaning of that sentence and is not the way we drafted it 01:14:20.640 --> 01:14:20.940 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 01:14:21.120 --> 01:14:22.680 Mark Evans: Which it's intent was that the 01:14:22.710 --> 01:14:25.050 Mark Evans: regional planning process was not designed 01:14:26.670 --> 01:14:32.940 Mark Evans: and to change it is not functioned effectively is that's not consistent what the committee 01:14:34.170 --> 01:14:34.860 Mark Evans: discussed. 01:14:35.220 --> 01:14:35.910 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:14:37.260 --> 01:14:39.150 Mark Evans: And I'll certainly 01:14:39.180 --> 01:14:44.160 Mark Evans: let the other committee members weigh in on that but we we talked about this at length. 01:14:46.740 --> 01:14:48.840 Melanie Barnes: I would use the word design. I agree. 01:14:49.350 --> 01:14:59.670 Carl Crull: I agree with Mark that you know the way the regional water planning process is working, everybody's looking at their own region. 01:15:00.780 --> 01:15:06.660 Carl Crull: The stakeholders and the sponsors are looking out for their own interests. 01:15:07.710 --> 01:15:08.580 Carl Crull: And 01:15:09.810 --> 01:15:11.940 Carl Crull: they're not looking at the big picture. 01:15:13.170 --> 01:15:15.330 Carl Crull: It's not. It's the way it's designed. 01:15:16.410 --> 01:15:18.840 Melanie Barnes: Right design is the word you want it was 01:15:18.960 --> 01:15:21.180 Melanie Barnes: it was not designed to address. 01:15:21.960 --> 01:15:34.710 Suzanne Schwartz: So I think we should reject the proposed changes and then ask Kelley if he thinks it and talk about the question. Clearly the edits were not appropriate. So 01:15:36.210 --> 01:15:47.730 Suzanne Schwartz: Temple you can reject the changes there and then look at the statement and then perhaps ask Kelley, you know, Kelley, you were questioning whether the statement was true. 01:15:48.720 --> 01:15:55.680 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, I'm going back to the original creation of the water planning process, Senate Bill one and it was supposed to be, 01:15:56.490 --> 01:16:06.390 Kelley Holcomb: intended to be, designed to be a process that was bottoms up as y'all noted, but that it ultimately rolled up into a state water plan that was supposed to 01:16:07.080 --> 01:16:19.680 Kelley Holcomb: plan for state water resources as a whole. And while I think we all would agree that there are some holes and gaps and inefficiencies in the process, but 01:16:21.900 --> 01:16:27.870 Kelley Holcomb: I don't, I still don't think that I agree with the statement and maybe I'm looking at that one 01:16:28.980 --> 01:16:30.000 Kelley Holcomb: fragment of 01:16:30.060 --> 01:16:40.260 Kelley Holcomb: the last half of that sentence. And that's what's that's what's catching my eye. I think I understand the intent that the regional plans weren't looking at other parts of the state. So I get that, as well. 01:16:40.620 --> 01:16:41.640 Melanie Barnes: Yeah. So Kelley. 01:16:41.670 --> 01:16:43.950 Melanie Barnes: Kelley, you could say it was not designed 01:16:44.460 --> 01:16:51.870 Melanie Barnes: to address multi regional planning of water resources in the state, something like that. 01:16:52.110 --> 01:16:55.410 Kelley Holcomb: I would be more okay with that. Yes. 01:16:55.440 --> 01:16:55.740 Mark Evans: Well let me 01:16:56.280 --> 01:16:56.880 Mark Evans: let me, let me 01:16:56.910 --> 01:17:07.080 Mark Evans: first address Kelley's question, if I could. I think what we're speaking to there Kelley, in using water resources for the state as a whole, 01:17:07.410 --> 01:17:19.830 Mark Evans: is in the context that it's being used and the overall work of this planning council. I mean, our committee and once again they can weigh in. We talked about this, we feel like the regional water planning process 01:17:20.430 --> 01:17:21.750 Mark Evans: does address 01:17:22.020 --> 01:17:35.040 Mark Evans: the state's water needs. But the way that water resources planning water resources for the state as a whole is being used in this councils work that seems to be a little different. 01:17:36.180 --> 01:17:54.030 Melanie Barnes: Are we are you thinking that it should say something more like wasn't designed to look at large state-wide or regional multi regional projects or something like that Kelley in explaining resources for the state as a whole. 01:17:55.320 --> 01:17:55.830 Kelley Holcomb: Well, 01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:02.280 Kelley Holcomb: no, again, I'm hung up on the last half of that and the whole, this whole regional water planning process, 01:18:02.670 --> 01:18:14.580 Kelley Holcomb: its original big picture, 80,000 foot attempt was to plan for water resources for the state as a whole. Now, again, we may not be doing that very effectively or doing it in as 01:18:15.390 --> 01:18:24.780 Kelley Holcomb: coordinated fashion as we should. But that to me seems like that was the real intent of the original Senate Bill one was to do it 01:18:25.560 --> 01:18:37.410 Kelley Holcomb: on a sub regional basis for the state as a whole. So I think I understand you're what you're trying to accomplish by the statement I just think it could be worded better because that to me looks like kind of like a slap in the face of the Leg. 01:18:37.860 --> 01:18:38.730 Melanie Barnes: Well, it 01:18:38.910 --> 01:18:42.810 Melanie Barnes: it is not effectively addressing 01:18:44.070 --> 01:18:44.370 Kelley Holcomb: Well, 01:18:45.720 --> 01:18:47.370 Melanie Barnes: water resources as a 01:18:48.570 --> 01:18:58.800 Suzanne Scott: I think the issue he's trying to get to is that we have, I mean you get back to Chairman Larson's Balkanization that he always talks about you've got these entities these regional 01:18:59.610 --> 01:19:07.590 Suzanne Scott: these regions that are planning for their respective needs and it comes to rolls up into a state water plan. 01:19:08.040 --> 01:19:25.680 Suzanne Scott: But the state water plan is not necessarily looking holistically at planning for the region that the state as a whole, from the perspective of managing water resources. It's a state water plan that's comprised of regional strategies, not 01:19:25.860 --> 01:19:27.900 Kelley Holcomb: That's a statement, Suzanne, 01:19:28.620 --> 01:19:35.610 Kelley Holcomb: that's a statement I can get behind because you know original Senate Bill One was roll the regionals into a state plan and stop. 01:19:35.970 --> 01:19:37.080 Kelley Holcomb: And then there was no 01:19:37.110 --> 01:19:46.020 Kelley Holcomb: look beyond that, which I would agree with that component of the of that argument that that concept. Is that kind of where the committee was headed Mark. 01:19:47.100 --> 01:19:54.000 Mark Evans: Well, it will let me just ask you this then can we then if the second piece of 01:19:55.200 --> 01:19:56.010 Mark Evans: the sentence 01:19:57.690 --> 01:20:07.380 Mark Evans: causes problems for anyone, why not just drop its entirety and just just say this process has worked well at the regional level. Period. 01:20:10.440 --> 01:20:15.000 Melanie Barnes: But don't we also wanted to point out Mark is that, though it was designed 01:20:16.560 --> 01:20:23.070 Melanie Barnes: as has been said that it was designed for planning water resources for the state as a whole, 01:20:24.870 --> 01:20:25.350 Melanie Barnes: there, 01:20:25.590 --> 01:20:28.800 Melanie Barnes: there's not a there's not an efficient mechanism 01:20:29.910 --> 01:20:34.290 Melanie Barnes: to do that over a multi region area or something. 01:20:34.770 --> 01:20:37.950 Mark Evans: Without identified project sponsors, I guess. 01:20:39.570 --> 01:20:46.320 Kevin Ward: So before we go to word smithing too much, I want to just bring something up for Kelley here. Kelley, 01:20:47.970 --> 01:20:50.820 Kevin Ward: If you go back in history to the water plans that we 01:20:51.120 --> 01:20:51.900 Kevin Ward: produced in the 01:20:52.350 --> 01:20:56.310 Kevin Ward: distant past and that's the concept we were trying to gather in here. 01:20:57.870 --> 01:21:03.210 Kevin Ward: Especially if even go back to the original report done that was presented to the 01:21:04.410 --> 01:21:06.870 Kevin Ward: Congress as a matter of fact, back in the 50s. 01:21:07.920 --> 01:21:18.990 Kevin Ward: All of those looked at every resource of water in the state of Texas, whether it was groundwater, surface water on the coast, you know, coastal aquifers, all of it. 01:21:19.890 --> 01:21:28.860 Kevin Ward: And then looked at the growth areas and where in the future the growth was likely to occur, and then applied those resources, at least in concept, 01:21:29.190 --> 01:21:42.390 Kevin Ward: in the best way they could to address the needs for the state as a whole to maximize the ability for the economy to grow and for industry to be provided for, and all that in the areas where they realized it was likely to develop and go. 01:21:43.410 --> 01:21:52.530 Kevin Ward: And that's really what this concept is. We're trying to say that when we went to the purely regional ground up, the reason they did that is because all the ones before 01:21:52.920 --> 01:22:01.560 Kevin Ward: never went anywhere and everyone was mad because it wasn't so they so Bullock said, look, if we'll do it on a regional level grassroots ground ground up 01:22:01.890 --> 01:22:14.070 Kevin Ward: these people will implement these projects. And they did with the unintended consequence has been that we've kind of let go of that concept of where are all these natural resources and how best could they be applied 01:22:14.520 --> 01:22:21.540 Kevin Ward: in the future for the growth theories of the state. So, how we, I understand you don't want to give a slap in the face to the 01:22:22.140 --> 01:22:30.990 Kevin Ward: Legislature or or the especially the members that were there during Senate Bill One and all the deliberations here or one's who amended it and corrected it. 01:22:31.740 --> 01:22:36.810 Kevin Ward: As we've gone on and I know I've gotten that same comment out of some other folks as well 01:22:37.410 --> 01:22:47.970 Kevin Ward: from the outside on this is that, hey, wait a minute, I thought that's what this whole thing was about was, you know, planning, all the water resources. I think it's maybe we're just not maximizing the use of them. So 01:22:49.140 --> 01:22:52.650 Kevin Ward: I don't know that the, as written, it's it's incorrect. 01:22:54.120 --> 01:23:02.430 Kevin Ward: I don't think wordsmith I think word if you'd wordsmith too much, you're going to get away from what the whole charge of this committee was so 01:23:03.480 --> 01:23:11.310 Kevin Ward: maybe you could think of it and concept of your own project in which if we were looking at that resource and how it can best be applied in the state, 01:23:11.790 --> 01:23:17.760 Kevin Ward: you wouldn't have to be out shopping, your, your wares. You wouldn't have to be out trying to sell water and same thing for David 01:23:18.270 --> 01:23:31.050 Kevin Ward: over in Toledo Bend. You you know all these things would be something that would be looked at as potential for providing waters to other areas, and you wouldn't have to go convince other folks to come get your water. 01:23:32.310 --> 01:23:35.160 Kevin Ward: So that's kind of what we're trying to do here. 01:23:35.730 --> 01:23:41.730 Kelley Holcomb: Well and and Kevin I've read some of those documents. It's although it's been quite some time, your memories probably better than mine. 01:23:42.300 --> 01:23:48.660 Kelley Holcomb: And I would generally agree with you. So rather than making that last half of that statement, the way it is, what if we 01:23:49.560 --> 01:24:00.690 Kelley Holcomb: after the comma we crafted some language that encouraged the next step to be taken as Suzanne Scott had alluded to. Because I agree, I think that's what's missing in a lot of these equations 01:24:00.960 --> 01:24:10.380 Kelley Holcomb: as you just kind of described. Kevin. Is that, so let's encourage that next step to be taken, which is the state of Texas needs to make some determinations on where this water is going. 01:24:11.220 --> 01:24:18.570 Kevin Ward: Well, so it's basically however it's not producing large visionary projects that cross multiple regional lines or something like that. 01:24:18.630 --> 01:24:21.150 Kelley Holcomb: I would generally be okay with that. 01:24:23.790 --> 01:24:24.750 Suzanne Scott: And I think we 01:24:24.810 --> 01:24:28.320 Suzanne Scott: say I think they say that and another recommendation. I think that 01:24:29.550 --> 01:24:35.370 Suzanne Scott: the I think somehow that this statement probably needs to be that 01:24:36.930 --> 01:24:50.190 Suzanne Scott: it's worked regionally just not holistically. And I think we need to work on those words. I get what everyone's saying and I don't know Mark, if you want to take a stab. You understand where the confusion is about that statement. 01:24:50.370 --> 01:25:04.890 Mark Evans: Well, I think, I think the statements original intent of the committee was to speak to what the Committee felt like was the effectiveness of the regional water planning process that it has worked. 01:25:05.910 --> 01:25:16.860 Mark Evans: And that's what we were saying there. And at the same time, the, the regional planning group shouldn't be held accountable for not addressing something that they weren't designed to address. 01:25:17.730 --> 01:25:25.740 Kevin Ward: Well, I wonder if you say instead of it was not designed to you just say it has not worked as well to address planning resources to the state is all 01:25:27.660 --> 01:25:28.590 Steve Walthour: Suzanne 01:25:28.950 --> 01:25:38.730 Suzanne Scott: Yes. Steve Walthour: I had a question for the Council since I'm probably one of the newer members of regional water planning. Do regional water planning efforts 01:25:40.110 --> 01:25:45.930 Steve Walthour: allow for interstate development of water for Texas. 01:25:49.020 --> 01:25:50.130 Kelley Holcomb: Interstate, Steve? 01:25:50.190 --> 01:25:51.540 Steve Walthour: Interstate yeah 01:25:52.560 --> 01:25:58.560 Kevin Ward: It does. It does because we're doing it in Region C. It's not prohibited, but it's probably not something encouraged. 01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:00.270 Steve Walthour: By who? 01:26:02.790 --> 01:26:06.120 Melanie Barnes: The state. Kevin Ward: Well that's by the process. 01:26:06.960 --> 01:26:08.850 Kevin Ward: It's not been encouraged by the process, Steve. 01:26:09.570 --> 01:26:29.520 Steve Walthour: So basically it was not designed to work. I think your sentence is correct way it was written in the first place, guys. Yeah, you know, here I'm in the Panhandle really the only place I've got to go for water resources is someplace in New Mexico, Colorado or Kansas or Oklahoma and 01:26:32.100 --> 01:26:50.100 Steve Walthour: it would be good if this process at some level, the state starts supporting and I think the state does, what do we do to reach out across, you know, the Red River and you know into some of these other states to do some trading. Yeah, I don't know, it is 01:26:50.250 --> 01:26:57.060 Kevin Ward: To your point, it took a group of investors to go over to Louisiana to try to get water they're half of the water on the other side. 01:26:57.240 --> 01:27:06.750 Kevin Ward: And it really wasn't a water planning process. It was folks over there, trying to get it sequestered and and available so that it could be plugged into the process. It wasn't something that was done. 01:27:07.950 --> 01:27:09.060 Kevin Ward: Now, since that time. 01:27:09.150 --> 01:27:24.450 Kevin Ward: Since that time, Chairman Larson took the lead on that and jumped out and went to all those states to try to see where there were some partnerships and process in part and ability in the process. So perhaps what you're saying is correct, Steve and needs to be added in. 01:27:24.780 --> 01:27:25.890 Steve Walthour: Well here's 01:27:25.890 --> 01:27:41.280 Suzanne Scott: The group Mark and his committee, really, are they really want to stay with the recommendation of the project that the program was not designed to to address water resources, he's pretty committed to those words. 01:27:41.400 --> 01:27:42.120 Kelley Holcomb: Madam Chair. 01:27:42.930 --> 01:27:54.960 Kelley Holcomb: I'll withdraw my comment in my my objection to the to the phrasing of that if that would help. I'm, I'm not against it. I just thought it was again, kind of a slap in the face to the originators of the state, regional water planning 01:27:55.680 --> 01:28:07.590 Mark Evans: Well, thank you for, thank you for that. But I can assure you, and assure any anyone that's listening that that that was not the intent of the committee's at all. And that was never even 01:28:07.890 --> 01:28:08.280 Kelley Holcomb: Right, and Mark, 01:28:09.180 --> 01:28:16.290 Kelley Holcomb: I never thought that was the intent, Mark, I was just, that was never my thought. So I appreciate the comments. No, I'm good with it. 01:28:16.620 --> 01:28:18.300 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so let's keep going. 01:28:18.750 --> 01:28:20.580 Steve Walthour: Well, one second. I had one 01:28:20.610 --> 01:28:36.330 Steve Walthour: comment to leave. If that sentence said water resources of the state as a whole that might be different but it says for and for means doesn't necessarily mean within the state. And that's the reason why I like that sentence, the way it is. 01:28:37.740 --> 01:28:37.920 Suzanne Scott: So you want 01:28:38.490 --> 01:28:44.370 Mark Evans: Okay, so it would then read it was designed to address planning water resources of the state as a whole. 01:28:44.400 --> 01:28:48.360 Steve Walthour: No, I think you leave it just exactly like that. The way it is written now. For. 01:28:49.830 --> 01:28:50.100 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 01:28:50.430 --> 01:28:53.130 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Okay, so we're going to not change that sentence. 01:28:53.460 --> 01:28:54.930 Kelley Holcomb: Correct. I remove my objection. 01:28:55.200 --> 01:28:56.310 Suzanne Scott: Okay, let's move on. 01:28:56.670 --> 01:28:57.240 Mark Evans: Thank you, Kelley. 01:29:01.680 --> 01:29:11.250 Suzanne Schwartz: Oh, that was someone suggested the next blue with some suggested addition to language. And I thought that went into some substantive questions. 01:29:14.100 --> 01:29:15.960 Suzanne Schwartz: I believe it was a suggested 01:29:17.010 --> 01:29:18.360 Temple McKinnon: That's part of what we were discussing at the end. 01:29:18.810 --> 01:29:19.650 Suzanne Scott: This is what we're going to discuss at then end. 01:29:19.800 --> 01:29:20.130 Suzanne Schwartz: Right. Right. 01:29:23.040 --> 01:29:23.670 Mark Evans: We're going to pass on that, right? 01:29:24.510 --> 01:29:24.810 Suzanne Schwartz: We're going to pass on that now. 01:29:24.840 --> 01:29:26.160 Suzanne Scott: We're going to pass on that for now. 01:29:27.510 --> 01:29:28.020 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:29:32.430 --> 01:29:34.710 Suzanne Scott: Oh, Kelley had another question. 01:29:34.950 --> 01:29:38.670 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, Kelley that next highlighted that the 01:29:39.840 --> 01:29:48.900 Suzanne Schwartz: after the language Appendix F you had some question on asking for clarification, saying, is it in the intent 01:29:49.380 --> 01:29:58.770 Suzanne Schwartz: The statement is the committee noted that historically there was less concentration of multi regional projects in a single area and 01:29:59.700 --> 01:30:12.960 Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley asked the question to say, is it the intent to say that no other area of the state is the recipient of water from multi regional projects and then Kevin Ward also had a comment that said that 01:30:14.550 --> 01:30:21.510 Suzanne Schwartz: This doesn't isn't true of Region C I think is what he was saying I wasn't entirely sure what that meant, Kevin. 01:30:22.740 --> 01:30:37.260 Suzanne Schwartz: So that the question is, is that statement, correct. Does it need any kind of language changes. So perhaps just some guidance on what is needed, and we can wordsmith it outside the process of this meeting. 01:30:38.460 --> 01:30:42.510 Mark Evans: Can, can we go back to Kevin Ward's comment? Kevin. 01:30:43.710 --> 01:30:44.130 Kevin Ward: Yes. 01:30:45.930 --> 01:31:00.600 Kevin Ward: All I'm saying is if there's 10 that weren't out, that were outside the region and 22 that were inside that you know were hardly Region C. That's all. And I don't know that it's an important point to make, quite frankly. 01:31:04.410 --> 01:31:06.810 Mark Evans: As I recall, we discussed this 01:31:08.190 --> 01:31:10.980 Mark Evans: paragraph at great lengths. 01:31:13.260 --> 01:31:14.040 Suzanne Scott: Do you want to keep it? 01:31:15.180 --> 01:31:15.510 Mark Evans: And 01:31:16.980 --> 01:31:19.860 Kelley Holcomb: Okay. Mine was just a question that that's all it was. 01:31:20.160 --> 01:31:22.680 Kevin Ward: Yeah, we wanted to keep it so we could have Appendix F 01:31:22.710 --> 01:31:25.920 Kevin Ward: there for the report because it was a very useful report. 01:31:26.580 --> 01:31:30.570 Mark Evans: Now the language that's on my screen is showing up 01:31:31.650 --> 01:31:41.130 Mark Evans: Well what yeah it's on the screen is in purple. Now that was originally in the in the committee's work or was that added 01:31:42.180 --> 01:31:43.290 Suzanne Schwartz: That was originally on the 01:31:43.350 --> 01:31:44.370 Suzanne Scott: That was original work. 01:31:44.520 --> 01:31:45.330 Suzanne Scott: Just a comment. 01:31:45.480 --> 01:31:47.070 Mark Evans: And Kevin, you're good with that. Right. 01:31:47.490 --> 01:31:51.360 Kevin Ward: Oh, of course. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's the point is that 01:31:52.530 --> 01:32:08.040 Kevin Ward: now, we don't have that. That's the problem. We don't have that report available, but if you look at all the interregional inter basin transfers and all that, that occurred up unto the point of recent times, they were all over the state. And now they're more concentrated in one area. 01:32:08.250 --> 01:32:09.120 Kevin Ward: Out of necessity 01:32:10.170 --> 01:32:14.010 Mark Evans: And Kelley, it wasn't the intent to say that no other region was the recipient of the 01:32:15.390 --> 01:32:16.620 Melanie Barnes: I think the intent was 01:32:17.100 --> 01:32:18.450 Mark Evans: To be spread out more and 01:32:19.920 --> 01:32:21.750 Mark Evans: and concentrate a little more now and see. 01:32:22.440 --> 01:32:22.740 Suzanne Scott: Okay. All right. 01:32:23.700 --> 01:32:34.350 Melanie Barnes: Wasn't the intent, Mark, just to just to make a point that it kind of changes from time to time. I mean, some point it might be some other region that seeing a lot of multi use. Mark Evans: That's right. 01:32:35.280 --> 01:32:36.870 Kelley Holcomb: My thought was is that when you read that 01:32:36.870 --> 01:32:48.420 Kelley Holcomb: paragraph and you're, you know, the flow of this thing is when you read it, it's, you know, doesn't involve Region C planning area and then you read that last sentence that kind of infers that it's only for Region C. 01:32:49.380 --> 01:32:52.410 Kelley Holcomb: That that was my only question was the readability issue more than 01:32:54.300 --> 01:32:59.730 Kelley Holcomb: you know, mild inference, I suppose. But I'm okay with the language the way it is. I just wanted to point it out. 01:32:59.910 --> 01:33:00.390 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 01:33:01.260 --> 01:33:09.600 Suzanne Scott: And new moving on the next one was really my comment, and I now understand I thought because the way this was laid out there were these highlighted 01:33:09.930 --> 01:33:22.500 Suzanne Scott: bolded sections of all these various observations and then there was one recommendation. So I was just getting clarification that there was only one recommendation, several observations. But really, one 01:33:23.160 --> 01:33:27.690 Suzanne Scott: recommendation. We didn't, you didn't make a recommendation in all areas, whereas the next group, 01:33:28.200 --> 01:33:37.110 Suzanne Scott: each bolded area ended up with a recommendation. So that was just an observation, not asking for any more recommendations that was why I just put that there. So, 01:33:37.500 --> 01:33:47.550 Suzanne Scott: I think that, and you in your one recommendation, you do cover some of the other aspects. So that comment can be removed. I was just 01:33:48.900 --> 01:33:53.460 Suzanne Scott: questioning whether or not there were more to come. And I learned that there's not so that's fine. 01:33:55.110 --> 01:33:55.860 Suzanne Scott: Next, 01:33:58.350 --> 01:34:01.740 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so this was one of my questions. 01:34:04.830 --> 01:34:05.310 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne, 01:34:05.460 --> 01:34:06.900 Suzanne Schwartz: Are you going down to 01:34:07.140 --> 01:34:10.200 Suzanne Scott: Project, the project sponsorship. Yeah, that one. 01:34:12.540 --> 01:34:13.200 Suzanne Scott: Let's see. 01:34:17.790 --> 01:34:27.240 Mark Evans: Well, we certainly don't want to suggest that SWIFT funds are not essential to financing projects. We certainly don't want to say anything 01:34:29.940 --> 01:34:34.200 Mark Evans: about the SWIFT program, other than to be supportive of it and so 01:34:35.370 --> 01:34:49.320 Kevin Ward: Can we just put a sentence like that right in front of that last sentence, basically saying that the SWIFT program and other programs have been instrumental and, you know, promoting and for financing projects for 01:34:50.580 --> 01:34:53.040 Kevin Ward: the state, you know, for implementing the state water plan? 01:34:53.040 --> 01:34:58.770 Suzanne Scott: I was confused by the word used by sponsors to gain future water reserves 01:34:59.970 --> 01:35:13.500 Suzanne Scott: for the project sponsors. That word water reserves and it was it was confusing to me about. It's really more about, it's that that it's about 01:35:14.730 --> 01:35:15.150 Suzanne Scott: making 01:35:17.220 --> 01:35:29.970 Suzanne Scott: it's key to the implementation. That word water reserves makes its I was confused about that terminology. What did you mean by water reserves to gain future water reserves versus to meet demand. 01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:32.190 Melanie Barnes: It does both. 01:35:33.480 --> 01:35:50.400 Kevin Ward: And I'm not sure we need to have this point made here, Judge, because I think Mark that this is made better later in the text of this part because we talked about the fact that we used to use those programs, these programs differently. 01:35:51.840 --> 01:35:53.130 Kevin Ward: So I'm not so sure. I think 01:35:53.130 --> 01:35:54.870 Melanie Barnes: But wasn't, wasn't 01:35:55.050 --> 01:36:01.740 Mark Evans: We may have overworked ourselves here on this, you know, so maybe. Maybe we just need to remove that sentence. 01:36:03.900 --> 01:36:08.700 Mark Evans: And make a positive maybe make a positive statement about the SWIFT program being successful. 01:36:08.910 --> 01:36:21.330 Kevin Ward: Yeah, if you go further down it's addressed. You probably take that whole sentence out I think here because I think we address it further later and better context and it doesn't, then give a, 01:36:22.350 --> 01:36:26.520 Kevin Ward: cast any aspersions on the current programs because they're working rather well we don't want to do that. 01:36:26.820 --> 01:36:33.120 Mark Evans: Well, Madam Chair, if it's if it's appropriate, I could ask the committee members are they good with removing this sentence. 01:36:35.280 --> 01:36:38.160 Suzanne Scott: Any opposition's to moving that sentence, removing that sentence? 01:36:39.480 --> 01:36:40.470 Carl Crull: I'm okay with it. 01:36:40.860 --> 01:36:41.310 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:36:41.760 --> 01:36:55.890 Melanie Barnes: I'm okay with it, but I have a comment. Weren't we trying to say that always in the past you this, you always had that you have to have a sponsor and the sponsor either is going after 01:36:56.820 --> 01:37:12.990 Melanie Barnes: to met water needs or also have enough so that they have some future reserves that they can sell to people. And if you're going to do a state wide one you need to kind of the state has to be part of that. And if you feel like we've covered that later on, then that's fine. 01:37:13.530 --> 01:37:14.730 Kevin Ward: We could 01:37:14.880 --> 01:37:16.200 Melanie Barnes: But I think that was our point. 01:37:16.590 --> 01:37:24.270 Kevin Ward: We could do that without saying anything about the SWIFT or state participation programs. We could basically just do what you just said there. 01:37:25.800 --> 01:37:36.000 Kevin Ward: You know project sponsors generally try to gain future water supply, you know, build a project just enough for future water reserves and and maybe to divert costs. 01:37:37.020 --> 01:37:43.380 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah but my only comment Kevin would be is that the term, the phrase water reserves is a trigger point for core regulatory. 01:37:44.130 --> 01:37:45.780 Kevin Ward: Yeah, you're probably correct. 01:37:47.760 --> 01:37:48.420 Kelley Holcomb: Future water supply. 01:37:48.450 --> 01:37:59.010 Kevin Ward: Maybe we go further down and see whether the rest of the language addresses some of these issues because I'm pretty sure and reading and I saw this addressed later because I made an extensive comment on a question. 01:37:59.490 --> 01:38:00.630 Suzanne Scott: Okay, let's move on then. 01:38:01.200 --> 01:38:03.960 Mark Evans: I think it does, but for right now, we would we would just say we'll remove it. 01:38:04.020 --> 01:38:05.580 Suzanne Scott: Remove that sentence. 01:38:05.640 --> 01:38:06.060 I agree. 01:38:07.830 --> 01:38:10.920 Suzanne Scott: All right. Alright, moving on. Um, I think. 01:38:12.270 --> 01:38:14.100 Suzanne Scott: That that was just a 01:38:17.100 --> 01:38:18.060 Suzanne Scott: statement about 01:38:20.280 --> 01:38:21.360 Suzanne Schwartz: Going 01:38:23.370 --> 01:38:25.260 Suzanne Schwartz: down to there. 01:38:28.770 --> 01:38:30.180 Suzanne Scott: Here under 01:38:30.930 --> 01:38:31.320 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 01:38:31.500 --> 01:38:32.190 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, right here. 01:38:32.460 --> 01:38:32.940 Suzanne Schwartz: Right here. 01:38:37.110 --> 01:38:40.260 Suzanne Schwartz: We are in a part about that says, 01:38:41.430 --> 01:38:43.080 Suzanne Schwartz: is asking 01:38:45.420 --> 01:38:53.490 Suzanne Schwartz: saying, the Council would recommend the Board revise the Administrative Code rules and include a new task 01:38:55.470 --> 01:38:57.180 Suzanne Schwartz: to require groups 01:38:58.680 --> 01:39:05.190 Suzanne Schwartz: scope of work to authorize and some you have a list of the items in highlighted 01:39:06.840 --> 01:39:10.380 Suzanne Schwartz: which basically are a visionary effort, beyond the 50 year planning 01:39:11.790 --> 01:39:21.480 Suzanne Schwartz: horizon and long range visionary to consider long term droughts greater than the 50 year record and 01:39:22.680 --> 01:39:40.980 Suzanne Schwartz: Jim Thompson had expressed some concerns about using a planning horizon beyond the 50 year 50 year schedule and then Kevin had some comments. Also, which quite frankly, I haven't digested as well, Kevin, because I just got in here so 01:39:42.180 --> 01:39:43.560 Suzanne Schwartz: I think the question is 01:39:44.700 --> 01:39:52.110 Suzanne Schwartz: is it and maybe we should hear Jim you had you, I don't know if you want to start with your comments and then we can see what Kevin has to say about that. 01:39:52.440 --> 01:39:52.830 Is 01:39:53.850 --> 01:39:54.630 Jim Thompson: Basically 01:39:54.930 --> 01:39:57.330 Mark Evans: Kevin, are you are you addressing you're addressing Jim's 01:39:57.570 --> 01:39:58.650 Mark Evans: comments, are you not? 01:39:59.340 --> 01:40:03.150 Kevin Ward: Yes, that's, that's correct. And so we should 01:40:04.230 --> 01:40:11.070 Kevin Ward: Jim should give them some time to read it. See whether or not that satisfies what he's concerned about. 01:40:12.630 --> 01:40:19.020 Jim Thompson: This gives you the advantage of turning your homework in late. I notice you get to comment on my comment but that's okay. 01:40:19.320 --> 01:40:21.930 Jim Thompson: But I have read it, I understand what you're 01:40:21.930 --> 01:40:31.140 Jim Thompson: saying, and I brought up these points last time, and I, I just want to reiterate, I understand the thinking behind it. 01:40:31.920 --> 01:40:40.560 Jim Thompson: I'm just saying I have a have a problem going beyond 50 years because we're dealing with so many unknowns with respect to technical 01:40:41.340 --> 01:40:51.180 Jim Thompson: innovations, uncertainty with respect to where and when the population growth is going to move or stay the same or decline. 01:40:52.080 --> 01:40:57.240 Jim Thompson: Water usage rates and so forth. So it just makes me a little nervous when we're talking about 01:40:57.810 --> 01:41:04.740 Jim Thompson: things over 50 years and I your points are well taken in your comments and I understand what you're saying. The only other thing I said was 01:41:05.160 --> 01:41:15.540 Jim Thompson: when you use words like mega drought I always flashback to the Mad Max movies and think of some apocalyptic situation with respect to droughts, but 01:41:16.650 --> 01:41:27.270 Jim Thompson: I understand thinking in those times to but you know the statute pretty clearly defined that we're going to look at drought of record and until that's changed, I think that should be the standard. 01:41:27.990 --> 01:41:34.380 Melanie Barnes: I, hey Jim. I think the point the committee was trying to make, if I'm remembering this correctly, 01:41:35.850 --> 01:41:47.190 Melanie Barnes: wasn't that you should change the regional water planning from the 50 years and the drought of record, but when thinking about multi regional projects they shouldn't be boundaries. 01:41:48.300 --> 01:41:58.050 Melanie Barnes: You should allow yourself to be more visionary and then there may be pieces in there that become something that go into the regional plans or multi regional. 01:41:58.620 --> 01:42:13.020 Melanie Barnes: And so it was to try and get people to free up their heads and maybe think of something that had multiple pieces that could be worked on within the plan, and they were out there is the pie in the sky idea. 01:42:13.230 --> 01:42:18.330 Kelley Holcomb: Oh Madam Chair, I've got a question regarding those comments. Was it the intent of the committee to 01:42:19.680 --> 01:42:39.210 Kelley Holcomb: have these larger, more visionary projects be vetted through the planning process as a water management strategy or just to some level of identification and data collection to use them as a placeholder or identify them as a placeholder in some future water planning process. 01:42:40.230 --> 01:42:47.370 Mark Evans: Well, I think, I think our language is, addresses that when we talk about a specific task. 01:42:48.720 --> 01:42:52.710 Mark Evans: This in the contracted scope of work that would authorize this. 01:42:54.810 --> 01:42:56.070 Mark Evans: And then it would be dealt with 01:42:58.260 --> 01:43:00.180 Mark Evans: just as just as you would in the 01:43:01.830 --> 01:43:04.350 Kelley Holcomb: So you're talking a full vetting of water management strategy. 01:43:08.220 --> 01:43:08.700 Mark Evans: No. 01:43:09.750 --> 01:43:16.560 Suzanne Scott: To sort of be able to take spend some time during the regional water planning process to sort of think beyond 01:43:18.090 --> 01:43:18.270 Suzanne Scott: the 50 year 01:43:18.870 --> 01:43:20.190 Melanie Barnes: Outside the box. 01:43:20.760 --> 01:43:23.100 Mark Evans: It's just an outside of the box. That's been the 01:43:24.720 --> 01:43:42.930 Mark Evans: we've talked about that a lot in the planning council meetings and committee meetings about looking at doing some out of the out of the box planning, thinking, visionary, long range. Just wanted to go to the to get outside the 50 year planning horizon and looking at the longer term droughts. 01:43:44.280 --> 01:43:56.460 Kelley Holcomb: Right. But so, so we're not talking about the in depth vetting that we do for projects and strategies within the 50 year planning horizon. This is a much more high level view of those bigger, longer range projects. 01:43:56.490 --> 01:43:57.900 Mark Evans: Yeah, and Kelley, I don't think all 01:43:57.900 --> 01:44:00.900 Mark Evans: the details really have been thought out by the by the 01:44:00.900 --> 01:44:03.600 Mark Evans: Committee, I think this is just more of a recommendation. 01:44:04.020 --> 01:44:15.180 Kelley Holcomb: I like it. I mean, personally, I like if you're talking about big picture, more abstract components of these bigger projects to get them on the books. I think that's not, I think that's a good move. 01:44:17.790 --> 01:44:19.470 Mark Evans: The task would be worked out by the Water Development Board. 01:44:21.090 --> 01:44:27.570 Melanie Barnes: And I think part of the problem that we're seeing is we really do get down in the weeds in the regional group which we need to 01:44:28.350 --> 01:44:33.420 Melanie Barnes: and maybe at the beginning of each planning cycle there needs to truly be some just 01:44:34.020 --> 01:44:47.460 Melanie Barnes: Crazy thinking about big projects and see what falls out, and then you get back down to the business of what you're doing. But if we're not asked to do that as a group, then most people won't. They're going to go to the nuts and bolts of the task. 01:44:47.940 --> 01:44:48.900 Kelley Holcomb: I'll only have 01:44:49.110 --> 01:44:51.750 Kelley Holcomb: one caution and Kevin I'm going to lean on you because of 01:44:52.830 --> 01:45:00.480 Kelley Holcomb: some of your former work. If we put those projects formalized in a plan, are we making them targets? 01:45:02.670 --> 01:45:05.550 Kevin Ward: Well, I don't know that you're putting them formally 01:45:06.180 --> 01:45:06.600 Melanie Barnes: We're not. 01:45:06.630 --> 01:45:20.460 Kevin Ward: There's a whole, there's a whole lot of these types of things hanging around in engineering reports. And I think it's only fair that we continue to document that for generations, going forward is sort of like what's next. 01:45:21.540 --> 01:45:30.720 Kevin Ward: You know, like if you're talking about only moving 40 or 50,000 acre foot of water out of the Sabine over all the way over to Dallas, for instance. 01:45:31.200 --> 01:45:42.210 Kevin Ward: It may not rack up against some of the other projects they want to build in the near term, but if you suddenly throw on top of that, that it's possibility to approach, Louisiana, the state of, about 01:45:42.690 --> 01:46:00.630 Kevin Ward: having an interstate project where we could come up with some arrangement and that suddenly goes from 45,000 acre foot to 120,000 acre foot and you put a bookmark down on the ground on that thing. It's very useful for a lot of people to look at. And, you know, 01:46:00.720 --> 01:46:12.450 Kevin Ward: similarly, with a lot of other projects on the coastline. We talked about Corpus Christi, and a desal project down there that has a much greater chance of 01:46:13.470 --> 01:46:22.860 Kevin Ward: you know, providing water expanded in the future. We don't know if you could pump it all the way up to San Antonio or not, but they're spending a lot of money to desal groundwater right now. 01:46:23.250 --> 01:46:27.450 Kevin Ward: But 100 years from now if that's not going to be sufficient, and they're going to need to go further. 01:46:27.870 --> 01:46:43.710 Kevin Ward: If you start thinking about that, who knows, maybe when you do the component cost of that thing, there's some reason for joint participation in that even at the level now where San Antonio still won't use that water for a while, but they might still want to be in a contract or an 01:46:44.910 --> 01:46:47.970 Kevin Ward: inner local agreement or something like that. So, 01:46:48.330 --> 01:46:49.380 Kevin Ward: that's the kind of concept behind it, just synergies. 01:46:51.300 --> 01:46:58.260 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm wondering if this just needs a little additional language that we could craft outside of this meeting that would explain this, as you know, 01:46:59.370 --> 01:47:01.740 Suzanne Schwartz: further explain visionary nature not vetted 01:47:03.240 --> 01:47:08.670 Suzanne Schwartz: the same as water management strategies for the 50 year plan. Would that be helpful? Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 01:47:09.360 --> 01:47:11.550 Melanie Barnes: I think that's why we used the term visionary. 01:47:11.610 --> 01:47:20.130 Suzanne Schwartz: I know, but I'm hearing some confusion. So I'm wondering if it would be useful to distinguish this from the normal water management strategy. 01:47:20.700 --> 01:47:29.010 Kevin Ward: Well, I think what Kelley's bringing up is even in the current water plan process. There's a lot of thought that some entities don't want to put down 01:47:29.400 --> 01:47:37.260 Kevin Ward: a marker or a stake in the ground on what they might or might not do because they don't want to develop opposition because they know it's going to be controversial. 01:47:37.860 --> 01:47:48.210 Kevin Ward: Well, that's what his statement was and I don't think we have to address that here. I don't, I think you're just making that statement that are you sure you want to go there and that's kind of what you're asking me, right? 01:47:48.450 --> 01:47:57.480 Kelley Holcomb: Well, that's exactly right, Kevin. I mean, I'm thinking of SRA and a couple of projects they've had killed because somebody built a mitigation back right in the middle of it. 01:48:00.450 --> 01:48:04.350 Suzanne Scott: I agree, I'm just concerned about time guys. It's 3:19 01:48:04.470 --> 01:48:06.480 Suzanne Scott: and we still haven't gotten to the big issues. 01:48:07.200 --> 01:48:07.860 Kelley Holcomb: I'll mute myself. 01:48:09.030 --> 01:48:21.720 Suzanne Scott: So I think, I think if we could maybe do some mean that our, our comment today from Heather suggested, you know, this idea that another planning module. She used the word module, but it wouldn't necessarily I'm just 01:48:22.110 --> 01:48:31.830 Suzanne Scott: based on the public input that it wouldn't necessarily be something that would be in a state water plan, it would be maybe something that's kind of a supplemental document of some sort, maybe 01:48:32.190 --> 01:48:33.000 Kevin Ward: Well 01:48:33.030 --> 01:48:33.990 Suzanne Scott: But we can think about that and submit that. 01:48:34.260 --> 01:48:41.160 Kevin Ward: Right. You know how we do the recommendations in the end of each region forwards recommendations to the legislature. Suzanne Scott: Yeah. Chapter 8. 01:48:41.610 --> 01:48:49.380 Kevin Ward: You open an appendix. So perhaps we're just talking about an appendix. But even if you do an appendix. You still got to have a task in the 01:48:49.530 --> 01:48:50.100 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. Exactly. 01:48:51.690 --> 01:49:04.350 Suzanne Scott: Okay, so it is 3:20 and we have one more section to go through from the perspective of the committees. Do y'all want to take a five minute break now or do you want to get through this and then come back. What's the consensus of the group? 01:49:05.970 --> 01:49:06.570 It's 3:20. 01:49:08.010 --> 01:49:08.640 Suzanne Scott: Keep going. 01:49:10.380 --> 01:49:12.180 Suzanne Scott: All right, let's keep going. I'm not hearing that 01:49:12.660 --> 01:49:14.100 Suzanne Scott: cry for a break at the moment. 01:49:14.220 --> 01:49:15.780 Suzanne Schwartz: This should be quick. I hope. 01:49:16.080 --> 01:49:19.140 Suzanne Scott: So let's go through the general best practices, Steve's group. 01:49:20.400 --> 01:49:21.630 Suzanne Schwartz: We're down page nineteen. 01:49:22.470 --> 01:49:25.320 Suzanne Scott: Not as many comments there. So that's good. 01:49:26.040 --> 01:49:27.660 Kelley Holcomb: Thanks to Steve's wonderful leadership. 01:49:28.560 --> 01:49:29.760 Suzanne Schwartz: Is okay 01:49:29.850 --> 01:49:31.560 Suzanne Scott: And his excellent writing skills. 01:49:34.350 --> 01:49:40.470 Suzanne Schwartz: So the question here was, whether there should be funding needed for enhanced communication. 01:49:41.730 --> 01:49:43.410 Steve Walthour: We discussed that some. 01:49:44.970 --> 01:49:49.680 Steve Walthour: I don't have a problem with the Water Development Board seeking additional funding 01:49:51.600 --> 01:50:00.390 Steve Walthour: to address those issues. We didn't put it in here because we didn't think the Legislature was going to be turning loose a lot more money this next session. 01:50:02.310 --> 01:50:03.420 Steve Walthour: I think that's fair. 01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:09.540 Kevin Ward: Yeah, I think you're right. 01:50:11.700 --> 01:50:14.790 Suzanne Scott: Well, and it could be in the future. I mean, it's just 01:50:16.170 --> 01:50:27.060 Suzanne Scott: sometimes we get these unfunded mandates that we all want to make sure that that because otherwise they could steal from the money that is put to regional water planning and you've already made a comment about 01:50:27.750 --> 01:50:32.190 Suzanne Scott: not trying to steal from the money that's already been allocated for these things. So 01:50:32.790 --> 01:50:36.360 Kevin Ward: Being the political subdivision is an unfunded mandate Suzanne. 01:50:36.600 --> 01:50:37.140 Suzanne Scott: I know 01:50:38.430 --> 01:50:38.970 Suzanne Scott: Believe me. 01:50:40.200 --> 01:50:41.130 Suzanne Schwartz: So, so 01:50:42.390 --> 01:50:44.430 Suzanne Schwartz: Temple had put a note in perhaps 01:50:47.760 --> 01:50:53.130 Suzanne Schwartz: make this a recommendation for funding for future legislative sessions is that 01:50:53.220 --> 01:51:09.180 Temple McKinnon: Yeah. Seems like we've discussed, maybe holistically, how we're going to handle this about any future funding to support any of this. So I propose that this be addressed and the flexibility and however Kelley and Suzanne want to address funding recommendations. Suzanne Scott: Right. 01:51:09.870 --> 01:51:15.420 Steve Walthour: I personally like that idea. Is there any other committee that would object to that. 01:51:18.390 --> 01:51:19.680 Steve Walthour: Sounds like we're on board. 01:51:23.880 --> 01:51:24.510 Steve Walthour: Next page. 01:51:27.420 --> 01:51:28.860 Suzanne Scott: What is the next comments. 01:51:29.580 --> 01:51:31.680 Suzanne Schwartz: Down to page 01:51:32.760 --> 01:51:33.300 Suzanne Schwartz: 21. 01:51:42.510 --> 01:51:45.720 Suzanne Scott: Oh, this is my comment about the regional 01:51:50.730 --> 01:51:51.210 Suzanne Scott: No. 01:51:51.480 --> 01:52:10.170 Suzanne Scott: I made a comment first on the regional water planning groups. Do we need to suggest that they need to make technology available to support virtual meetings because every I have heard from other regional water planning groups that sometimes they don't have, I mean, they don't have 01:52:11.550 --> 01:52:13.890 Suzanne Scott: If you're going to meet in a building, they may not have good 01:52:15.210 --> 01:52:16.200 Suzanne Scott: connections. 01:52:17.280 --> 01:52:23.880 Suzanne Scott: I mean sometimes virtual meetings have not been as as beneficial in more rural 01:52:26.070 --> 01:52:36.420 Suzanne Scott: planning areas because just there may not be the technology. I'm only doing this some sort of an assessment to determine whether or not the technology is sufficient to support 01:52:37.710 --> 01:52:51.900 Suzanne Scott: good participation in virtual meetings. Because sometimes there may not be that opportunity for broadband or good participation from the public. That was my only comment. I've heard that from some of the regional planning groups. They just don't have the 01:52:52.770 --> 01:52:54.360 Steve Walthour: The reason that we didn't 01:52:54.420 --> 01:53:04.560 Steve Walthour: put something under that future interregional planning councils in the first place is I think it's going to require the Legislature making a change to the Open Meetings Act, before we do anything. 01:53:09.060 --> 01:53:09.870 Steve Walthour: Is that correct? 01:53:11.040 --> 01:53:12.030 Kelley Holcomb: It would, yes. 01:53:12.060 --> 01:53:14.250 Suzanne Scott: It would have to be a permanent change. Kevin Ward: Yes, absent an emergency 01:53:14.970 --> 01:53:16.980 Kevin Ward: declared by the Governor. Yes. 01:53:17.100 --> 01:53:18.660 Steve Walthour: Yeah, I think that, you know, 01:53:20.100 --> 01:53:25.110 Steve Walthour: we can recommend that maybe they, you know, not should, but may want monitor that. But 01:53:26.310 --> 01:53:32.760 Steve Walthour: I don't think you make recommendation now to any of these to anyone else until the Legislature makes a change. 01:53:33.060 --> 01:53:34.530 Suzanne Scott: Okay, that makes sense. 01:53:34.800 --> 01:53:36.450 Suzanne Schwartz: No we'll reject those changes under 01:53:36.450 --> 01:53:36.690 D. 01:53:37.920 --> 01:53:44.220 Kelley Holcomb: And then we'll handle that one the same way on all of the recommendations that have no recommendation. 01:53:45.570 --> 01:53:46.680 Kelley Holcomb: That's an oxymoron isn't it? 01:53:48.060 --> 01:53:52.920 Steve Walthour: Okay. I think it's a good idea. It's just not, we're not ripe to do that yet. Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:53:55.650 --> 01:53:57.720 Steve Walthour: Well, we put no recommendation back up there. 01:53:57.750 --> 01:53:58.680 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah yeah 01:54:01.200 --> 01:54:01.830 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 01:54:04.680 --> 01:54:09.540 Suzanne Scott: Next was the group on interregional conflicts, right. 01:54:09.750 --> 01:54:14.640 Suzanne Schwartz: This, I think, is where I think, Suzanne, do you want to break before we get into this? 01:54:15.570 --> 01:54:25.050 Suzanne Scott: We have the three things left now. We've got the two Chairman Larson issues to see if we want to see how we want to address those. And then this 01:54:27.390 --> 01:54:29.490 Suzanne Scott: issue of the interregional conflict. 01:54:32.040 --> 01:54:33.600 Suzanne Scott: So why don't we take 01:54:34.950 --> 01:54:49.740 Suzanne Scott: let's see, how about five minutes. Everyone take a quick five minute it is according to my watch, it is about 3:26. So why don't we say about 3:32 to give you an extra minute. 01:54:51.120 --> 01:54:54.240 Suzanne Scott: Y'all can quickly take a break and then we'll come right back. 01:54:56.550 --> 01:55:00.930 Suzanne Scott: Why don't we start with the conflict first. Let's start there, since we're here. 01:55:02.550 --> 01:55:06.780 Suzanne Scott: This there was a couple of comments made on this section. 01:55:11.100 --> 01:55:17.610 Suzanne Scott: And also I think at the beginning here. Oh, this is where you've added the language right that we talked about earlier. 01:55:21.330 --> 01:55:22.260 Suzanne Scott: So you want to use this, 01:55:24.630 --> 01:55:27.930 Suzanne Scott: so we wordsmithed a little bit here. Okay, this was 01:55:30.930 --> 01:55:43.830 Suzanne Scott: one thing we talked about when we met as a small group, as you remember, there was a smaller task force that included Suzanne, Kevin, Jim, Kelley and we talked a little bit about 01:55:45.240 --> 01:55:50.730 Suzanne Scott: you know, kind of some of these conflict issues. And one of the, one of the comments that was made 01:55:51.420 --> 01:56:00.000 Suzanne Scott: but I didn't see it captured and maybe there was a reason why we didn't want it captured, but I just wanted to make sure we at least made a deliberate decision 01:56:00.960 --> 01:56:12.990 Suzanne Scott: about we had talked about regional water planning groups can require project sponsors to identify potentially impacted stakeholders relating to a potential water management strategy. 01:56:14.010 --> 01:56:22.020 Suzanne Scott: But that the regional water planning group did not have a role in the actual implementation of the projects that that's still 01:56:22.890 --> 01:56:41.820 Suzanne Scott: that responsibility still lies with the project sponsors. But the idea, I think it was mentioned earlier to about there could be some, you know, identification of stakeholders at the regional level, if that's something that we wanted to add. 01:56:47.250 --> 01:56:50.970 Suzanne Scott: And then the next comment in here. You want to get down to that. 01:56:52.290 --> 01:56:54.150 Suzanne Scott: Is this the language that you're recommending yeah 01:56:55.380 --> 01:56:56.340 Suzanne Scott: Why don't you read that. 01:56:57.030 --> 01:57:03.930 Suzanne Schwartz: Alright, well, this comes and we will go back to the comment on on number C, but on on three 01:57:05.460 --> 01:57:09.630 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne had suggested we add in there when when the 01:57:10.860 --> 01:57:21.030 Suzanne Schwartz: When the small work group of Kevin and Jim Thompson met they had suggested an idea of having if there is in fact 01:57:21.780 --> 01:57:33.720 Suzanne Schwartz: an entrenched conflict after, after you've worked, you know, had your normal process or you expect it to occur that that you could have perhaps a process that would allow for 01:57:35.430 --> 01:57:36.390 Suzanne Schwartz: additional 01:57:37.620 --> 01:57:44.880 Suzanne Schwartz: technical studies. So the proposed language for Section three highlighted in blue, said the Council has made recommendations 01:57:45.480 --> 01:57:56.280 Suzanne Schwartz: in section two A Enhancing Interregional Coordination that will improve identification and early exploration of potential interregional conflicts 01:57:56.820 --> 01:58:05.160 Suzanne Schwartz: during the normal regional water planning process. The Council expects this effort to reduce even further the potential for entrenched conflict. 01:58:05.760 --> 01:58:14.730 Suzanne Schwartz: In the event that a conflict exists, or is likely to develop, that appears unlikely to be resolved through this enhanced process, 01:58:15.300 --> 01:58:28.020 Suzanne Schwartz: the Council supports additional methods to bring the affected regions and stakeholders together, including state-funded technical studies to support full understanding of the conflict and mitigation strategies. 01:58:28.410 --> 01:58:33.060 Suzanne Schwartz: Such studies should be performed in a manner that allows the parties to trust the results. 01:58:35.250 --> 01:58:42.840 Suzanne Schwartz: So this would be basically saying, so we made recommendations are made by the Committee already about how to enhance the 01:58:43.530 --> 01:58:52.800 Suzanne Schwartz: things that will hopefully avoid conflict. But in case there is entrenched conflict we recognize the need for additional technical studies possibly and other other methods. 01:58:53.100 --> 01:58:54.360 Suzanne Scott: And funded through the state. 01:58:54.600 --> 01:58:54.930 Suzanne Schwartz: Funded through the state. 01:58:58.380 --> 01:59:00.930 Suzanne Scott: So is there any concerns about 01:59:02.310 --> 01:59:04.320 Suzanne Scott: that statement because I think that, you know, 01:59:07.380 --> 01:59:08.280 Suzanne Scott: there was 01:59:12.660 --> 01:59:17.820 Suzanne Scott: you know, I just, I think it was an important note that was said about 01:59:18.960 --> 01:59:22.230 Suzanne Scott: the state getting engaged and putting some resources into this. 01:59:25.050 --> 01:59:27.960 Suzanne Scott: So I guess Jim and Kevin, do you have any problems with that statement. 01:59:29.580 --> 01:59:31.440 Suzanne Scott: Because it was talked about when we met. 01:59:37.020 --> 01:59:38.760 Suzanne Schwartz: I'm not hearing any any I wonder 01:59:39.300 --> 01:59:42.780 Jim Thompson: I'm sorry I was struggling getting unmuted there. 01:59:44.400 --> 01:59:50.700 Jim Thompson: I do not have a problem with the statement I think that basically set forth what was discussed in 01:59:51.750 --> 01:59:54.330 Jim Thompson: our smaller committee or whatever we're calling 01:59:55.560 --> 02:00:14.550 Jim Thompson: our smaller meeting. And I think it does bring out an important point that was part of our emphasis the subcommittee that I served on, was it, it is our hope and our desire that by getting the parties together and I think that was the the main thrust earlier in the process, and I think 02:00:16.080 --> 02:00:32.400 Jim Thompson: Ron and Matt and Temple helped us a great deal in that effort to try to get it set up so that these issues can be brought to the forefront, the early part of the planning process as opposed to later on. So I don't have a problem with the statement. 02:00:34.410 --> 02:00:45.390 Kevin Ward: I'm good with the statement. I think it's, you know, it's what we were looking for is that we kind of acknowledged that maybe the planning process and any enhancements, we're recommending still may not get it done and 02:00:46.350 --> 02:00:53.400 Kevin Ward: we need to recognize there may be other things that have to occur to make sure that we can avoid these conflicts and resolve them. 02:00:55.110 --> 02:00:57.600 Suzanne Scott: And potential investment necessary so 02:00:59.460 --> 02:01:03.180 Suzanne Scott: All right. So, anybody else have any concerns about this statement being added. 02:01:09.000 --> 02:01:10.620 Suzanne Scott: Okay, good. I'm not hearing 02:01:13.860 --> 02:01:14.610 Suzanne Scott: any so. Anyone want to say anything? 02:01:15.810 --> 02:01:17.880 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I'm not hearing anything. 02:01:19.470 --> 02:01:28.740 Mark Evans: I'm sorry Madam Chair. I was about to ask a question, but I was fine with with that statement. But are you going back up on page 24 or are we leaving page 24? 02:01:28.800 --> 02:01:30.000 Suzanne Schwartz: No, we need to go up. There's 02:01:30.210 --> 02:01:31.050 Suzanne Scott: We need to go back up. Yeah. 02:01:33.120 --> 02:01:37.110 Mark Evans: Okay. Because I have some language in the version I have under C 02:01:37.560 --> 02:01:38.100 Suzanne Schwartz: Yes. 02:01:38.220 --> 02:01:39.240 Mark Evans: that's not showing up there. 02:01:42.660 --> 02:01:42.930 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 02:01:44.130 --> 02:01:52.650 Suzanne Schwartz: So we have some under C, the second bullet there was a comment that Jim Thompson had a question on 02:01:53.970 --> 02:02:10.410 Suzanne Schwartz: on that bullet and I'll certainly left him speak to that. And I don't know if there was other if there were any other, I didn't see any other things that people had had brought up in the edits that they sent me. But so were on C now right above number three. 02:02:10.860 --> 02:02:12.330 Suzanne Scott: Is that the one you're talking about Mark? 02:02:12.780 --> 02:02:21.240 Mark Evans: Yes, I have, in the version I have some language that says, should we mentioned here that the state's involvement in interregional conflict can be considered as 02:02:21.270 --> 02:02:22.500 Mark Evans: part of SWIFT funding. 02:02:24.690 --> 02:02:39.840 Suzanne Schwartz: Mark, that was something Suzanne Scott had had had brought in, had initially commented on and that we we were having a discussion about the meeting beforehand and she said she wanted to remove that language. 02:02:40.710 --> 02:02:41.520 Mark Evans: Oh, good. 02:02:42.000 --> 02:02:42.270 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 02:02:43.410 --> 02:02:45.150 Suzanne Scott: I got further explanation, so I removed it. 02:02:46.530 --> 02:02:48.150 Mark Evans: Well, I'm good then, Madam Chair. 02:02:48.240 --> 02:02:48.480 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 02:02:49.830 --> 02:02:50.520 Suzanne Scott: See, I learn. 02:02:52.920 --> 02:02:53.370 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 02:02:54.840 --> 02:03:08.850 Suzanne Schwartz: So I think the question is looking at C, the second bullet, Jim Thompson had some language in our some questions or concerns. I'm not sure. Maybe just asking him to know whether he wants any changes. 02:03:09.960 --> 02:03:15.600 Jim Thompson: I was just, to me it seems a little bit redundant because I think the provision of the statute 02:03:15.960 --> 02:03:29.820 Jim Thompson: certainly puts a provision in there. One of the things that you look at is further economic development and I know that's not the exact language that's included in here, but my dealing with economic development people over the years that that includes everything. But 02:03:30.960 --> 02:03:38.550 Jim Thompson: to me it just seems a little redundant of something that's already there, but I do not have a problem with the statement if the group wants that statement in there. 02:03:38.940 --> 02:03:48.240 Suzanne Schwartz: And I do want to note that this was a, this is a compilation of some comments and kind of summarizing discussion that the Council had had and is only 02:03:48.690 --> 02:04:00.510 Suzanne Schwartz: meant to be a summary of a statement that an individual member had made with, you know, we didn't identify the member, but it was just we're attempting to show some of the discussion that occurred in the Council about interregional conflict. 02:04:01.140 --> 02:04:02.160 Jim Thompson: I don't have a problem with it. 02:04:04.440 --> 02:04:06.150 Suzanne Scott: Alright, so I think we're through that section. 02:04:07.950 --> 02:04:10.170 Suzanne Scott: So now to go back to the front. 02:04:13.140 --> 02:04:18.120 Suzanne Scott: As we recall and it was in here that Chairman Larson asked us to 02:04:19.590 --> 02:04:29.370 Suzanne Scott: on April 27 he gave us a letter and he asked us to, you know, review and make recommendations regarding any identified interregional conflicts. I think we've done that. 02:04:30.330 --> 02:04:42.420 Suzanne Scott: Review the viability and justification of projects included in the state water plan which we were we're highlighting the fact that we're not sure we've addressed that charge from him. Then he came back 02:04:44.280 --> 02:04:57.000 Suzanne Scott: if you recall, then he came and presented to us. And then on April 29, he also asked the Council to consider how drought contingency plans align with planning multi regional water supply projects. 02:04:57.540 --> 02:05:04.770 Suzanne Scott: So we want to touch on those two items because in our reading of the document, we didn't feel that we were as 02:05:06.150 --> 02:05:17.970 Suzanne Scott: maybe as explicit in our, in our responsiveness to him as we maybe should be. So I'd like to open this up for conversation. I guess, first of all, let's 02:05:19.770 --> 02:05:26.010 Suzanne Scott: the reviewing the viability and justification of projects included in the state water plan. 02:05:27.090 --> 02:05:42.660 Suzanne Scott: Do we feel that is something that would go under, first, stick it in a section first and then we can decide where we think it should go. Would that be something that would be going in planning for the state as a whole or best practices? 02:05:44.250 --> 02:05:45.690 Suzanne Scott: Given the fact that 02:05:46.890 --> 02:06:01.140 Suzanne Scott: you know, I believe in my, in my review of this, I think a lot of the review of the viability and the justification of projects is we do some of that in the prioritization. Remember, we just went all are going through that right now there are certain criteria 02:06:01.740 --> 02:06:21.120 Suzanne Scott: that the Water Development Board and through that process and that prior project prioritization. We're supposed to do some of that there. There's also some of that done in the review for SWIFT funding. But there is an aversion, I think for any region, any individual region to 02:06:22.620 --> 02:06:27.420 Suzanne Scott: get too far into the viability and justifications of projects that are not in their region. 02:06:28.440 --> 02:06:36.510 Suzanne Scott: Nor is there, I mean, there's a lot of the viability and justification for projects that kind of fall outside of the planning process. 02:06:36.960 --> 02:06:42.690 Suzanne Scott: Because oftentimes those are implementation issues that might might fall to the actual project sponsor. 02:06:43.410 --> 02:06:59.310 Suzanne Scott: And not so much the regional planning group because we've always sort of had this conversation about the difference between planning and implementation. So that's where a lot of that viability and justification of projects currently is is is being addressed. So 02:07:01.020 --> 02:07:04.620 Suzanne Scott: we need to figure out if we think it's something that we can talk about in 02:07:05.850 --> 02:07:09.690 Suzanne Scott: The best practices or in planning for the region as a whole. 02:07:10.890 --> 02:07:11.280 Melanie Barnes: So, Suzanne, is 02:07:11.970 --> 02:07:15.300 Steve Walthour: I really believe it should go under planning 02:07:16.410 --> 02:07:19.530 Steve Walthour: for the, for the state as a whole because it's 02:07:22.680 --> 02:07:25.830 Kelley Holcomb: I would agree with that. I mean that's logically where it needs to go. 02:07:26.880 --> 02:07:27.180 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 02:07:27.420 --> 02:07:39.780 Kelley Holcomb: I say logically, like I can feel authoritative expert on that. But my question on that particular topic is what are we supposed to do? Review and keep the information to ourselves, review and report back, review and recommend? 02:07:40.560 --> 02:07:49.230 Melanie Barnes: Is he, is, do you think he's asking us to look at the current projects? Or is he asking is, is this the kind of group that 02:07:49.830 --> 02:08:02.820 Melanie Barnes: would do that? For us to evaluate whether there's a need for group to look at the projects as a whole. Because doesn't that what the state, the Water Development Board does? I'm kind of confused as to 02:08:03.690 --> 02:08:06.930 Suzanne Scott: I think he's trying to get a sense of, is this something that the Council should do. 02:08:07.920 --> 02:08:14.850 Suzanne Scott: Or is this does this need to be done, or is it being done, or is this a role of the Council. I mean, he's just I think putting it out there 02:08:15.300 --> 02:08:28.710 Suzanne Scott: as something that we could either address as far as the, the, you know, existing water planning process or how they how projects are looked at. I mean, he's just asking us to look at it. So I don't want to just ignore it. 02:08:30.210 --> 02:08:42.210 Kelley Holcomb: So is it more of a procedural process that you think he's requesting Suzanne? Or is he wanting us to look back at the prior state water plan and look at those projects? Or is it 02:08:42.510 --> 02:08:45.750 Suzanne Scott: No. I think it's more of a process issue. 02:08:46.020 --> 02:08:48.270 Suzanne Scott: Not so much physically doing it. 02:08:48.540 --> 02:08:58.080 Mark Evans: Well, when you when you have thousands, I assume there's several thousand projects in the state water plan. I know in H there's over 800. 02:09:00.000 --> 02:09:03.660 Mark Evans: To read and all he asked us to do was consider. Suzanne Scott: Right. 02:09:05.670 --> 02:09:21.480 Mark Evans: When you, when you speak to review the viability and justification of projects, you just can't make it just a cursory overview of all those projects and go, yes, no, yes, no. I mean, there has to be some in depth review. 02:09:21.990 --> 02:09:24.060 Suzanne Scott: Right. Melanie Barnes: And wouldn't it be 02:09:24.390 --> 02:09:36.000 Melanie Barnes: some sort of definition as to the size of the project. Because if we're really interregional and we're thinking multi region projects and you're thinking of water is the whole for the state, 02:09:36.930 --> 02:09:43.950 Melanie Barnes: I mean, would it not just be, should there be a process for this committee or committee to Council like this, 02:09:45.930 --> 02:09:59.490 Melanie Barnes: to to look for projects like that and bring them up to all the regions and say, hey, okay, when you're thinking at the very beginning, which is what we're recommending is that people think of multi regional at the beginning before they get into the weeds. 02:10:03.120 --> 02:10:11.130 Melanie Barnes: That might just, I mean I yeah when he just says projects, are we talking multi regional projects are just everybody's because everybody's project 02:10:11.130 --> 02:10:15.450 Suzanne Scott: I think you can interpret it Mark Evans: He says projects included in the state water plan. 02:10:15.480 --> 02:10:24.390 Melanie Barnes: Yeah and you know somebody's dairy needing water for their cows to drink, who, who is somebody along the coast to say whether that's good, bad, or indifferent. 02:10:25.020 --> 02:10:30.030 Suzanne Scott: Maybe. I mean, I feel, I feel like it's more about kind of how 02:10:31.380 --> 02:10:42.510 Suzanne Scott: how are we currently looking at the viability of projects. And I think there's a process that the Water Development Board has outlined to look at, the prioritization looks at it. We look at 02:10:43.590 --> 02:10:50.520 Suzanne Scott: there's some a little bit of the technical evaluation kind of looks at whether the project is viable, I mean at a high level. 02:10:51.150 --> 02:11:07.020 Suzanne Scott: But the so it's really more about, is that enough. I mean, do we does the planning process do enough of that right now. Do we, is there something that needs to be done differently as it relates to those projects that are in the state water plan. 02:11:08.520 --> 02:11:11.160 Suzanne Scott: I mean, I think it's more of just just 02:11:12.210 --> 02:11:12.600 Suzanne Scott: is there 02:11:15.150 --> 02:11:28.560 Mark Evans: For me, Madam Chair, seems to me that it is addressed in the prioritization in the scoring. I mean, those are things that that are looked at the viability of the project and certainly the justification of it. 02:11:30.180 --> 02:11:47.970 Suzanne Scott: So can we maybe think about adding one of your observation areas to talk specifically about how how that's currently handled and that if it from a regional perspective, the projects are ranked, the Water Development Board looks at it, it's included in the SWIFT funding. 02:11:49.350 --> 02:11:53.130 Suzanne Scott: That's how the viability and the justification of projects is sort of done today. 02:11:54.210 --> 02:11:55.530 Suzanne Scott: Right, and then just 02:11:56.760 --> 02:11:57.780 Suzanne Scott: an observation on it. 02:11:58.080 --> 02:12:11.040 Mark Evans: I think we could. Because I think we, to me, we've considered it, we've discussed it, we've looked at it, we weighed the pros and cons, how you could and we we've come to the conclusion that 02:12:12.720 --> 02:12:21.720 Mark Evans: the regional planning groups are through the prioritization project process are looking at the projects on a regional basis. So, but 02:12:22.710 --> 02:12:37.140 Mark Evans: I for myself and for, I guess I'm speaking for Region H now. I don't think we would want to be in the in the business of looking at other region's projects and saying, you know, y'all got a project in your plan. It's not really viable. I don't think there's any 02:12:37.140 --> 02:12:38.220 Mark Evans: justification for it. 02:12:38.700 --> 02:12:45.930 Mark Evans: And I know for a fact, we would not like another region to do that. So it wouldn't, it definitely wouldn't foster interregional cooperation. 02:12:46.890 --> 02:12:47.280 Suzanne Scott: No. And I think that would be the point. 02:12:47.820 --> 02:12:51.060 Mark Evans: I think it could be counterproductive in other ways. So 02:12:51.960 --> 02:12:54.540 Melanie Barnes: So maybe one of the things we want to say is that 02:12:54.570 --> 02:13:10.710 Melanie Barnes: if there's going to be other than the reviews that are happening in the regional water groups, that if there's going to be any other review, it would be multi regional and yes, it might make sense to bring it to an Interregional Council to look at it and get the inputs from the regions. 02:13:11.520 --> 02:13:16.830 Mark Evans: So well and you know you have the scoring done at the state level too. So I think 02:13:17.610 --> 02:13:19.140 Melanie Barnes: That's true. 02:13:20.490 --> 02:13:20.850 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah. 02:13:21.420 --> 02:13:25.140 Mark Evans: I mean, I really think it's it's it's kind of addressed. 02:13:25.740 --> 02:13:27.180 Suzanne Scott: Well, except I mean I think 02:13:27.180 --> 02:13:29.490 Mark Evans: If a projects, not viable. 02:13:29.970 --> 02:13:34.560 Mark Evans: And there's real no real justification of the project, which to me means there's probably 02:13:35.940 --> 02:13:40.380 Mark Evans: you know, there's not a water demand. There's not a need, is being met by the demand. 02:13:42.000 --> 02:13:45.330 Mark Evans: That project is going to fall down low on the scoring. 02:13:45.390 --> 02:13:45.600 Suzanne Scott: Right. 02:13:47.190 --> 02:13:47.400 Suzanne Scott: So, maybe 02:13:48.060 --> 02:13:48.450 Suzanne Scott: we could do this 02:13:48.960 --> 02:13:49.680 Jim Thompson: Go ahead, I'm sorry. 02:13:50.130 --> 02:13:58.350 Suzanne Scott: I'm thinking that we would you be opposed, Mark, for us to add to your section, an observation about project 02:14:00.270 --> 02:14:07.800 Suzanne Scott: review of viability and justification of projects, noting what's currently going on and why we feel that it is sufficient to 02:14:09.600 --> 02:14:20.280 Suzanne Scott: to address the issues of viability and justification of projects through the ranking, through through the process that's going on right now, and that it's, it is important that 02:14:21.600 --> 02:14:26.640 Suzanne Scott: That regions don't, regions, don't try to 02:14:28.290 --> 02:14:32.100 Suzanne Scott: look at the justification or viability of projects in other regions. 02:14:33.330 --> 02:14:34.200 Suzanne Scott: You know what you had said earlier. I'm not saying it well. 02:14:34.230 --> 02:14:35.370 Mark Evans: Yeah, it would 02:14:35.430 --> 02:14:36.780 Mark Evans: be it'd be counterproductive. 02:14:36.810 --> 02:14:38.220 Suzanne Scott: Counterproductive. Yes, thank you. 02:14:38.490 --> 02:14:39.600 Mark Evans: Yes, I think I can. 02:14:39.600 --> 02:14:40.980 Suzanne Scott: Would you be okay with us 02:14:41.040 --> 02:14:58.710 Mark Evans: I'll make sure that the committee agrees with what I say. But I think that the committee, our committee would be okay with with the chair, working with the Water Development Board staff to capture that language that reflected just what we've talked about here in this recorded discussion. 02:14:58.980 --> 02:15:06.090 Suzanne Scott: And then we'll run it by you before we put it back into the full plan the revised plan. Is that fair? 02:15:06.510 --> 02:15:08.910 Mark Evans: Yes. Suzanne Scott: That way we can indicate that we we looked at it. 02:15:09.660 --> 02:15:12.720 Mark Evans: Melanie and Carl and everyone on the committee okay with that. 02:15:14.790 --> 02:15:19.620 Melanie Barnes: Yes. Kelley Holcomb: I only ask for one piece of clarifying language and that would be that we make some sort of statement 02:15:20.490 --> 02:15:32.970 Kelley Holcomb: that outside the bounds of what has already been discussed in terms of viability and justification. We don't feel it's the role of the regional water planning group or the Interregional Planning Council to further 02:15:35.940 --> 02:15:54.090 Kelley Holcomb: investigate viability and justification. That's the role of the Texas Water Development Board in my opinion. They're the state agency that has all the governmental protections and immunities that we probably have but it's a little less clear for planning group members and the IPC. 02:15:57.060 --> 02:15:57.990 Suzanne Scott: I agree with that. Did you get that Temple? 02:15:58.830 --> 02:15:59.580 Suzanne Schwartz: I got that too. 02:16:00.270 --> 02:16:01.650 Suzanne Scott: Okay, I think that's good. 02:16:02.340 --> 02:16:07.740 Mark Evans: Yeah, then the committee is good with that as well. Unless I see otherwise from Melanie. She's giving me the thumbs up so. 02:16:07.920 --> 02:16:08.730 Carl Crull: I'm good with it. 02:16:09.930 --> 02:16:10.260 Mark Evans: And Carl's fine with it. So, yeah. 02:16:11.460 --> 02:16:13.410 Carl Crull: I agree with you that, you know, 02:16:14.970 --> 02:16:31.590 Carl Crull: the Interregional Council shouldn't be in the process of doing the reviews. That's, that's a function of the regional water planning group and the function of Texas Water Development Board. And those viabilities all shake out through the whole process. 02:16:33.360 --> 02:16:42.120 Suzanne Scott: Okay, good. We've got some consensus there. And I think we could at least note that we addressed it. And then the next one is this issue of 02:16:43.680 --> 02:16:47.760 Suzanne Scott: considering how drought contingency plans align with 02:16:49.470 --> 02:16:49.980 Suzanne Scott: planning for multi regional 02:16:50.130 --> 02:16:51.390 Jim Thompson: I'm sorry, Suzanne. 02:16:51.450 --> 02:16:51.750 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. Yeah. 02:16:51.930 --> 02:16:59.910 Jim Thompson: I didn't know, are we going to discuss to the specific language proposed that was set forth in the document? 02:17:01.920 --> 02:17:02.340 Suzanne Schwartz: On 02:17:02.910 --> 02:17:04.320 Jim Thompson: As far as it where it says 02:17:04.620 --> 02:17:14.790 Jim Thompson: nor does the Council consider it appropriate for the Council or regions to determine the viability and justification of another region's projects, given the bottoms up approach to planning. 02:17:17.760 --> 02:17:20.160 Suzanne Scott: Oh, oh that. Yeah. Thank you. That was back in that 02:17:22.920 --> 02:17:40.500 Jim Thompson: Right. I would at a minimum to me, I think we need to take out the words or regions. Saying that no other region, even one where the project would be located could object could object to a proposed project, regardless of the situation and the impacts. 02:17:41.550 --> 02:17:48.150 Jim Thompson: The statute authorizing regional water planning says the State Water plan and regional water plans must meet certain requirements. 02:17:48.750 --> 02:17:57.600 Jim Thompson: I would think that the planning group where the project would be located would have a good deal of input and insight to the impacts of a project 02:17:58.530 --> 02:18:14.970 Jim Thompson: based on the location of the area, the knowledge of the local industries, and the knowledge of the local environmental impacts. And I think saying that we're going to use a bottom up approach to water planning, it cuts both ways. I think 02:18:16.020 --> 02:18:24.660 Jim Thompson: to say that you're going to decide water planning projects on a local level, but not let the region impacted by those projects to weigh in 02:18:25.560 --> 02:18:40.980 Jim Thompson: on that information would be counterproductive. And I think, I think I am I don't have a problem with the language. I just think we need to take out the words or region because you can have more than one region impacted by proposed project. 02:18:44.820 --> 02:18:45.030 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 02:18:46.230 --> 02:18:49.890 Suzanne Scott: So the idea is if it is a multi regional project, 02:18:51.210 --> 02:18:52.710 Suzanne Scott: those stakeholders should be 02:18:53.430 --> 02:18:57.990 Mark Evans: Well, and I think Jim, that's, that this is some work 02:18:59.610 --> 02:19:03.810 Mark Evans: of our committee. So, but I do understand your point, and I think 02:19:05.370 --> 02:19:06.300 To say 02:19:07.350 --> 02:19:09.360 Mark Evans: to remove or regions, if 02:19:10.890 --> 02:19:17.280 Mark Evans: I believe we'll be okay. I certainly I think the the intent here of this language 02:19:18.630 --> 02:19:20.670 Mark Evans: was was for not to have 02:19:21.750 --> 02:19:31.980 Mark Evans: other regions determine the viability and justification of projects. But at the same time, I understand what you're saying about impacted region if the region is actually impacted, 02:19:32.280 --> 02:19:51.780 Mark Evans: if the, if the project is in one region and is being sponsored by an entity in another region, I understand that. So certainly some not impacted language would be fine. But if it's if it's good with everybody just to remove or regions. I don't think our committee will 02:19:52.920 --> 02:19:56.580 Kevin Ward: Mark. Mark, what if it was just the 02:19:58.170 --> 02:19:59.790 Kevin Ward: the, yeah there you go like non-impacted region. 02:19:59.790 --> 02:20:06.180 Mark Evans: Non-impacted region. That's it, you know, if the region's not impacted by the project or the sponsor. Then they really shouldn't, 02:20:06.750 --> 02:20:07.860 Mark Evans: they don't have any reason to. 02:20:07.950 --> 02:20:09.720 Mark Evans: I think that's consistent with what we've said 02:20:09.870 --> 02:20:10.920 Mark Evans: about regions not 02:20:10.920 --> 02:20:12.420 Mark Evans: commenting on other region's project. 02:20:12.420 --> 02:20:13.380 Kevin Ward: Right. Suzanne Scott: I think that's good. 02:20:14.220 --> 02:20:15.480 Mark Evans: So non-impacted 02:20:17.160 --> 02:20:21.120 Mark Evans: I think captures that if Jim's and you're okay with it. And everybody. 02:20:21.660 --> 02:20:22.470 Jim Thompson: I'm fine with it. 02:20:23.130 --> 02:20:24.090 Suzanne Schwartz: And you're 02:20:25.650 --> 02:20:31.710 Mark Evans: And I think my committee and the committee is fine with it as well. Melanie and Carl you're okay with that. And Kevin you are so 02:20:32.670 --> 02:20:41.220 Suzanne Scott: Okay, great. That's a good. That's a good result. So we'll work on the other language about the prioritization process and how that we think addresses the issues that 02:20:42.150 --> 02:20:52.770 Suzanne Scott: Chairman Larson brought forward. Okay, this issue, the last one is this consider how drought contingency plans align with planning multi regional water supply projects. 02:20:54.210 --> 02:20:56.250 Mark Evans: I must admit I don't really understand 02:20:58.530 --> 02:21:04.110 Kelley Holcomb: I think it's beyond the scope of any of the regional water planning processes, unless they're going to throw a lot more money at it. 02:21:06.510 --> 02:21:10.170 Suzanne Scott: You know, it's probably the idea of you know how 02:21:11.220 --> 02:21:14.970 Suzanne Scott: I'm guessing he's saying, thinking about if you have 02:21:16.110 --> 02:21:21.480 Suzanne Scott: drought, you know, the effects the broader area than one region, you know how 02:21:22.800 --> 02:21:26.580 Suzanne Scott: does that factor into multi regional projects. 02:21:29.130 --> 02:21:39.750 Melanie Barnes: Do you think what he's asking, I know when, at the city level as droughts get worse and worse, there are things you can and can't do. 02:21:40.800 --> 02:21:55.740 Melanie Barnes: And is he talking about addressing whether a multi how who has to fall off of a multi regional supply project as droughts get worse, is that this that there's a pecking order? 02:21:57.240 --> 02:21:59.100 Mark Evans: Well see that that's what I don't I don't understand either. 02:21:59.730 --> 02:22:02.610 Carl Crull: I don't understand what he's asking. 02:22:02.640 --> 02:22:07.020 Mark Evans: Are we talking about the stages in a drought contingency, in drought contingency plans. 02:22:09.480 --> 02:22:11.250 Mark Evans: Some regions have it, I don't know. 02:22:11.580 --> 02:22:16.110 Suzanne Scott: How was it managed. Mark Evans: I'm looking for guidance myself, a lot of guidance. 02:22:16.140 --> 02:22:18.690 Melanie Barnes: That certainly is something that you would want 02:22:20.280 --> 02:22:25.320 Melanie Barnes: everyone in that multi regional supply project to have a say in 02:22:26.190 --> 02:22:26.490 Carl Crull: You know most 02:22:26.910 --> 02:22:30.690 Melanie Barnes: Maybe that's all we need to say is that something you would need to bring up to 02:22:30.690 --> 02:22:36.000 Melanie Barnes: a level where the regions were involved. It wasn't just the state deciding what happens. 02:22:36.090 --> 02:22:38.610 Mark Evans: Well, they're all going to have drought contingency plans. 02:22:39.510 --> 02:22:41.250 Carl Crull: Yeah, well, although 02:22:42.750 --> 02:22:51.180 Carl Crull: I mean it's required at each each governmental entity to provide water to have a drought contingency plan, but they're all different. 02:22:52.500 --> 02:22:53.670 Carl Crull: And in certain, you know with the 02:22:54.720 --> 02:23:02.100 Carl Crull: trigger levels and and the implementation and what what gets done. What doesn't get done 02:23:05.100 --> 02:23:20.940 Melanie Barnes: I know at the city level if we're supposed to give water to another entity, there are points at which we say you only get 50% or you don't get any under these conditions, that type of thing, or you will always get this amount. There's a minimum, you always get or something like that. 02:23:21.360 --> 02:23:23.580 Suzanne Scott: I guess the question is, should there be 02:23:24.090 --> 02:23:28.890 Suzanne Scott: common drought contingency plans for people that are sharing a resource. 02:23:30.060 --> 02:23:31.260 Suzanne Scott: So you can't have 02:23:31.260 --> 02:23:33.420 Suzanne Scott: one city that's sharing a resource. I mean, 02:23:33.510 --> 02:23:43.350 Suzanne Scott: the comment being one city that's sharing a common resource have a more liberal ability to use that water during a drought, whereas another one has is more strict. 02:23:43.710 --> 02:23:56.700 Suzanne Scott: Now, people make those decisions for various reasons. But I mean, maybe that's what he's trying to get to is there, does there need to be some common approach to managing how drought effects shared resources. 02:23:57.000 --> 02:23:59.130 Kelley Holcomb: Well, there, there is a plan in place and I think the 02:24:00.150 --> 02:24:11.820 Kelley Holcomb: water code requires that everybody suffer equally in those types of projects. So it doesn't matter if City A has different triggers. If you're buying water from 02:24:12.630 --> 02:24:24.240 Kelley Holcomb: from ANRA, for example, and a specific project. If we go into drought mode and implement those triggers are excuse me, the draft contingency plan based on triggers, everybody suffers equally. 02:24:24.870 --> 02:24:34.410 Melanie Barnes: So, so actually, then that would say that the drought contingency plans do align with multi regional water, that there is a mechanism. 02:24:34.590 --> 02:24:47.580 Kelley Holcomb: It's a different level of it's a different type of drought contingency plan versus an individual municipality having a whole host of measures that it would take at different trigger points. 02:24:48.660 --> 02:25:05.070 Kelley Holcomb: You know, if you're a reservoir owner and you experience drought and your water supplies are are becoming short. You know, Lake Livingston, for example, they're having to let water out for hydro purposes or Toledo Bend, then you're going to make all of your wholesale 02:25:07.380 --> 02:25:13.560 Kelley Holcomb: purchasers, you know, you're going to reduce them all by X percentage or whatever the the triggers require. 02:25:14.610 --> 02:25:18.360 Kelley Holcomb: And I know I'm not saying this as succinctly as it is. But Kevin, you've got a lot of experience in this and 02:25:18.360 --> 02:25:22.830 Suzanne Scott: So you're saying there's requirements that already take that into consideration. 02:25:23.310 --> 02:25:24.690 Kelley Holcomb: I believe I'm right and 02:25:25.830 --> 02:25:26.070 Carl Crull: Well you 02:25:26.430 --> 02:25:27.360 Kelley Holcomb: You guys have been doing this longer than I 02:25:28.650 --> 02:25:29.040 Kelley Holcomb: have. 02:25:29.610 --> 02:25:47.190 Carl Crull: You know, the city of Corpus Christi is a regional water supplier for a lot of municipalities within the region. You know, Alice, Beeville, Mathis, Kingsville, Rockport, you know, etc. And 02:25:48.240 --> 02:26:00.060 Carl Crull: one of the requirements of those contracts is that they have a drought contingency plan that aligns with city of Corpus Christi drought contingency plan. 02:26:01.740 --> 02:26:04.890 Carl Crull: So, I mean, not that that's a multi regional 02:26:06.810 --> 02:26:11.880 Carl Crull: water supply project. But, you know, the City of Corpus 02:26:12.990 --> 02:26:19.770 Carl Crull: took the risk of developing those water supplies and so they feel like they have the 02:26:21.060 --> 02:26:25.860 Carl Crull: wherewithal to dictate to their customers, if you will, 02:26:27.150 --> 02:26:29.760 Carl Crull: that they all have similar 02:26:31.770 --> 02:26:32.700 Carl Crull: drought contingency plans. 02:26:33.420 --> 02:26:47.340 Kelley Holcomb: So, Carl, are you saying that Corpus hits that stage one trigger point and they tell all their customers, okay, we've hit stage one, you're all going to implement odd, even, outdoor watering schedules. 02:26:47.670 --> 02:26:48.420 Carl Crull: Well, 02:26:48.450 --> 02:27:03.150 Carl Crull: it's not really that it's it's that the drought contingency that whatever I'd say Corpus' stage one is to to get a consumption reduction of 10%. 02:27:03.510 --> 02:27:03.810 Kelley Holcomb: Right. 02:27:05.160 --> 02:27:10.740 Carl Crull: Then whatever the other customers have to achieve 02:27:13.020 --> 02:27:18.420 Carl Crull: a 10% reduction also, but how they get there is up to them. 02:27:20.220 --> 02:27:27.960 Kelley Holcomb: Right. So that kind of goes along with what I was saying that if you're a regional supplier or a wholesaler to multiple entities 02:27:28.470 --> 02:27:35.130 Kelley Holcomb: and the wholesale supplier experiences or hits stage one and you require that 10% 02:27:35.970 --> 02:27:40.590 Kelley Holcomb: it's my knowledge, and I'm questioning my own knowledge at this point, that 02:27:41.010 --> 02:27:52.620 Kelley Holcomb: it is stated exactly the way that you're referring to, Carl, and that is that you're all going to help reduce your consumption by 10%. We don't really care how you do it as long as you reduce that consumption by X amount of gallons or X amount of percentage. 02:27:52.710 --> 02:27:56.430 Carl Crull: Well, but you know in practicality, most of the 02:27:58.080 --> 02:28:01.080 Carl Crull: customers have taken Corpus' 02:28:02.190 --> 02:28:02.580 Kelley Holcomb: Right. 02:28:03.180 --> 02:28:09.720 Carl Crull: Things and they've just incorporated them because they're smaller entities and they don't have the time or the 02:28:10.890 --> 02:28:16.920 Carl Crull: expertise to go look at options to achieve that 10% reduction. 02:28:19.350 --> 02:28:22.560 Mark Evans: For the purposes of the Chairman Larson's question, 02:28:25.200 --> 02:28:28.920 Mark Evans: consider how drought contingency plans align with planning, they don't. 02:28:30.600 --> 02:28:30.990 Kevin Ward: Well Mark, Mark imagine 02:28:31.380 --> 02:28:36.840 Mark Evans: When you're talking about multiple regions, we're talking about say G and H. 02:28:38.220 --> 02:28:40.650 Mark Evans: H might not even be in a drought situation. 02:28:42.150 --> 02:28:44.220 Mark Evans: And G was so 02:28:44.520 --> 02:28:54.180 Kevin Ward: Right, Mark. It's sort of like, if you think about the provision in the water code that requires you to do the maximum amount of water conservation or at least the most practical 02:28:54.600 --> 02:29:01.020 Kevin Ward: level of water conservation before you can do an inter-basin transfer, you know project. 02:29:01.650 --> 02:29:01.680 Mark Evans: Right. 02:29:01.740 --> 02:29:10.020 Kevin Ward: I think that's kind of where this one's coming from. It's more that you know when we're looking at multi large multi regional projects and we're moving water, 02:29:11.190 --> 02:29:16.020 Kevin Ward: have we considered how the drought contingency plans within the 02:29:17.160 --> 02:29:18.990 Kevin Ward: receiving basin and region 02:29:20.430 --> 02:29:22.560 Kevin Ward: will be able to respond to drought. 02:29:23.670 --> 02:29:28.530 Kevin Ward: And how in the giving one, you know, they'll be able to respond to drought. And I guess the the 02:29:29.910 --> 02:29:52.080 Kevin Ward: we haven't tried to address it in this Council, but, you know, maybe we we draft something that just states that there needs to be a review of, you know, how those drought contingency plans are stretching the water when they're considering the multi regional water supply project. 02:29:52.080 --> 02:29:52.500 Suzanne Scott: Right, because what's you're saying Kevin is 02:29:53.490 --> 02:29:54.030 Mark Evans: Maybe, 02:29:54.210 --> 02:29:54.840 Mark Evans: just to build on 02:29:54.930 --> 02:30:01.530 Suzanne Scott: Where the weather supply is but not where the demand is. You could have a drought, where the supply is not going to demand is. 02:30:01.560 --> 02:30:01.920 Kevin Ward: Right. Exactly. I mean 02:30:03.330 --> 02:30:04.770 Mark Evans: Is he asking how 02:30:04.830 --> 02:30:05.940 Kevin Ward: He's asking for alignment. 02:30:06.120 --> 02:30:07.620 Mark Evans: Your plans could mitigate 02:30:08.640 --> 02:30:10.800 Mark Evans: the needed water, because I know that 02:30:10.860 --> 02:30:14.850 Kevin Ward: I don't know that it's about mitigation so much as have you at least 02:30:14.910 --> 02:30:15.570 Kevin Ward: looked at 02:30:16.170 --> 02:30:21.420 Kevin Ward: how that impacts it as you're beginning to use and develop those water supplies. I think that's where he's 02:30:21.630 --> 02:30:21.990 coming from. 02:30:23.160 --> 02:30:25.350 Suzanne Scott: We're looking at Kevin Ward: And have we done it 02:30:25.380 --> 02:30:28.110 Kevin Ward: is the question. I don't know that we have when we're doing interregional planning. 02:30:28.620 --> 02:30:29.940 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, so 02:30:30.000 --> 02:30:46.350 Melanie Barnes: So a comment saying that, yes, this is something that needs to be thought about because the comment just made it to the droughts in the supply area as opposed to in the use area or vice versa, then it's going to be slightly different than dealing within your own region. 02:30:46.800 --> 02:30:48.930 Kevin Ward: Right, because if we have implemented 02:30:49.410 --> 02:30:59.070 Kevin Ward: you know, the water conservation plans that are there and measures that are the best practicable, right, then that would certainly should be 02:31:01.110 --> 02:31:09.630 Kevin Ward: plan that includes a drought contingency plan that is well thought as well. In other words, we're starting to ratchet down the use of water. 02:31:10.020 --> 02:31:23.610 Kevin Ward: And restrictions of use of water so that we don't have to draft too much water on the interregional project, if it's, you know, if we could save some in advance and stretch that water supply program. 02:31:24.240 --> 02:31:25.200 Kevin Ward: I think that's what it's 02:31:25.380 --> 02:31:35.730 Kevin Ward: I mean, I think it's something we just need to put something down that yes, that does need to be addressed in the form of rule or procedure within the Water Development Board's process. 02:31:36.180 --> 02:31:50.070 Suzanne Scott: So would it fall, Mark, under the the existing multi regional water projects and supplies. One of your observations was looking at, you know, this idea of multi regional, 02:31:51.990 --> 02:31:58.980 Suzanne Scott: looked at existing ones, but maybe that would be something that could say that there there could be the need to further look at 02:31:59.400 --> 02:32:15.390 Suzanne Scott: the more, you know, when you start developing projects that are more multi regional you're going to have to think about these other these issues of drought, planning, etc. I mean, could you could we maybe add something there that would just say that as an observation. 02:32:15.600 --> 02:32:16.980 Mark Evans: Yeah, the committee observed 02:32:17.100 --> 02:32:17.430 Melanie Barnes: Yeah. 02:32:18.690 --> 02:32:18.990 Mark Evans: Yeah. 02:32:22.800 --> 02:32:24.120 Mark Evans: I think our committee would 02:32:24.150 --> 02:32:38.010 Melanie Barnes: Yeah, just saying saying under that existing region water planning that there's a mechanism for drought contingencies. But if you get to a multi regional there's there's going to have to be a little bit more added to that or 02:32:38.070 --> 02:32:46.530 Suzanne Scott: Complications, yeah, that need to be resolved. Okay, we'll come up with something there under that section and of course we'll pass it by you, Mark. 02:32:46.890 --> 02:32:47.370 Mark Evans: Okay. 02:32:47.580 --> 02:32:48.570 Suzanne Scott: To see if you like it. 02:32:50.160 --> 02:32:51.180 Suzanne Scott: Did you get that Temple? 02:32:53.760 --> 02:32:54.810 Suzanne Scott: I can't read what you're writing. 02:32:54.810 --> 02:33:03.510 Temple McKinnon: I've got a good placeholder. I mean when I say it needs to be drafted. I think it's just like the group of Suzanne Schwartz, myself just taking into consideration these comments and then we will 02:33:03.930 --> 02:33:06.630 Temple McKinnon: coordinate reviews with people, respectively. 02:33:06.660 --> 02:33:14.130 Mark Evans: Yeah, and the committee would ask is previously on the previous question that the Chair and working Water Development Board staff to draft that language. 02:33:14.160 --> 02:33:15.930 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. And I've got notes on it too. 02:33:16.230 --> 02:33:20.880 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne, I've got one comment to make on the drought contingency, I was doing some quick Google searching and 02:33:22.920 --> 02:33:38.940 Kelley Holcomb: drought contingency regulations are all over the place. It's in Chapter 11 of the water code for surface water supply and groundwater stuff is captured by Rule through TCEQ in Title 30 and 02:33:39.960 --> 02:33:48.630 Kelley Holcomb: maybe that's one of the comments we should make is that you know that there needs to be some guidance from the Legislature with regard to 02:33:49.080 --> 02:33:57.570 Kelley Holcomb: drought contingency for these multi regional water supply projects because there's not a lot out there just based on this quick Google search that I did. 02:33:58.770 --> 02:33:58.950 Suzanne Scott: Okay. 02:33:59.130 --> 02:34:05.760 Mark Evans: So, so Kelley, you're asking for some type of uniform drought contingency plan standards for multi regional projects? 02:34:06.930 --> 02:34:10.830 Kelley Holcomb: I, I think I am, and I'm scared to say that Mark, but yes. 02:34:16.380 --> 02:34:29.580 Gail Peek: Is another word you might use consistent? That they don't have to be exactly alike but consistent. Because what I'm hearing is we've got things that are all over the map. So that looking into how they can be made more consistent might help in guiding people. 02:34:29.670 --> 02:34:30.390 Kelley Holcomb: Well the need 02:34:31.980 --> 02:34:33.030 Mark Evans: They need to be uniform. 02:34:33.720 --> 02:34:34.410 Kelley Holcomb: Yes. 02:34:35.670 --> 02:34:36.600 Kelley Holcomb: As I think about this 02:34:36.840 --> 02:34:39.180 Mark Evans: I see where you're going because consistent and uniform are not the 02:34:39.180 --> 02:34:39.780 Mark Evans: same thing. 02:34:41.430 --> 02:34:52.110 Kevin Ward: I don't now. I don't know if we should say they should be consistent as much as we should, you know, just make sure we review the best management practices that are applicable to various regions because 02:34:53.280 --> 02:34:53.940 Kevin Ward: who is that 02:34:55.530 --> 02:35:00.090 Kevin Ward: person who said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I mean, 02:35:00.570 --> 02:35:01.620 Kevin Ward: You know, we've got 02:35:01.770 --> 02:35:13.080 Kevin Ward: a lot of creative innovation out there in water conservation in different regions of the state because it's different, whether you're in Houston vs San Antonio. Those are two different places, compared to even Dallas. 02:35:13.350 --> 02:35:13.800 Mark Evans: Right. 02:35:15.060 --> 02:35:15.750 Kevin Ward: So I think we we 02:35:15.900 --> 02:35:30.840 Kevin Ward: need to just go ahead and just we do need more work there. I agree with you, Kelley. It's something that we need to evaluate to make sure that there are sufficient drought contingency plans incorporated in planning for multi regional projects. 02:35:33.330 --> 02:35:34.080 Kelley Holcomb: I think the concept 02:35:34.350 --> 02:35:39.990 Kelley Holcomb: that Larson had was that one regional water supplier can affect the 02:35:41.190 --> 02:35:45.840 Kelley Holcomb: whole lot larger base of water consumer 02:35:45.960 --> 02:35:47.040 Kelley Holcomb: in that context, 02:35:47.130 --> 02:35:57.930 Kevin Ward: We're doing a lot of cost avoidance here in the Metroplex because of the drought contingency planning and the fact that they have gotten the municipalities to incorporate those restrictions early on. 02:35:58.200 --> 02:35:59.250 Kelley Holcomb: Right. Kevin Ward: In the drought stages. 02:36:00.840 --> 02:36:01.350 Kevin Ward: That is 02:36:01.770 --> 02:36:02.730 Kevin Ward: all of the projects. 02:36:03.030 --> 02:36:09.810 Kelley Holcomb: As I recall it saved the City of Dallas a lot of future demand in terms of water supply. 02:36:10.230 --> 02:36:15.180 Kevin Ward: If we can all agree that it's it we need to focus on sufficient 02:36:16.230 --> 02:36:19.380 Kevin Ward: consideration of the drought contingency plans 02:36:20.400 --> 02:36:26.550 Kevin Ward: that area part and parcel of these inner multi regional water supply projects that needs to be done in the planning stage. 02:36:27.000 --> 02:36:33.450 Kelley Holcomb: Kevin, Mark, would y'all think that would be a TCEQ rulemaking process or amend the water code? 02:36:35.670 --> 02:36:39.330 Kevin Ward: He's talking about the water supply. He's talking about the planning process right now. 02:36:39.510 --> 02:36:46.440 Kelley Holcomb: Yeah, I understand. But in terms of developing some standards because water planning process doesn't really have anything to 02:36:47.640 --> 02:36:50.700 Mark Evans: Yeah, let's let's don't get over our skis. 02:36:50.850 --> 02:36:51.180 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. 02:36:53.880 --> 02:36:54.300 Kelley Holcomb: Okay. 02:36:55.260 --> 02:36:56.040 Kevin Ward: Because it snowed in Denver, right. 02:36:57.000 --> 02:37:04.800 Suzanne Scott: Alright, so it looks like, I think we've done some good work here in addressing. I think we're being responsive, which is good, to those comments that he brought forward. 02:37:05.430 --> 02:37:16.620 Suzanne Scott: And we'll put some language together on that. So I think on the substantive comments. It looks like we've got them all addressed. Thank you all very much. And we've got some words, some 02:37:18.120 --> 02:37:26.760 Suzanne Scott: writing to do, but I think we can get that done. So now we wanted to go into the sort of the next steps. Suzanne you wanted to talk about 02:37:27.420 --> 02:37:31.950 Suzanne Schwartz: Temple, do you have the document on the report completion process? 02:37:33.960 --> 02:37:35.820 Temple McKinnon: Yeah, let me get that up real quick. 02:37:40.230 --> 02:37:41.310 Suzanne Scott: Good work, everybody. 02:37:41.520 --> 02:37:43.230 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. y'all did great. 02:37:43.800 --> 02:37:44.520 Suzanne Scott: Really good work. 02:37:49.290 --> 02:37:54.060 Suzanne Schwartz: So I will start by saying that the goal we we have an outline of a 02:37:54.360 --> 02:37:59.310 Suzanne Schwartz: way to complete the report with the goal of having a document for you all to 02:37:59.670 --> 02:38:13.200 Suzanne Schwartz: give final approval to on September 30th. And that's going to require you all to take some looks at a draft or drafts before the meeting. And let me explain how how that's going to happen, 02:38:14.370 --> 02:38:17.430 Suzanne Schwartz: or how we're proposing that that happens. Temple McKinnon: So are you seeing it? 02:38:17.820 --> 02:38:23.760 Suzanne Schwartz: Suzanne Schwartz: Yes, yes. Yeah, so, by Friday, after close of business Friday 02:38:25.350 --> 02:38:45.150 Suzanne Schwartz: I and the Board will and will consult with Kelley and Suzanne. We'll be working on modifications to the report that you've just seen taken into account all the comments, you've made today. And we will email it to you Friday, close of business. We hope, we plan to. 02:38:46.410 --> 02:38:52.470 Suzanne Schwartz: We would then ask you to send any edits, comments to me 02:38:53.940 --> 02:38:58.380 Suzanne Schwartz: by close of business on September 22, which I believe is a Tuesday. 02:39:00.420 --> 02:39:02.640 Suzanne Schwartz: And then 02:39:04.050 --> 02:39:09.750 Suzanne Schwartz: I would take those edits. I will try to accommodate as many comments as possible. 02:39:10.260 --> 02:39:21.360 Suzanne Schwartz: I will, the document I'm going to send you on the 22nd, I propose would be a clean document. It won't have any comments, it won't have any track changes. 02:39:21.750 --> 02:39:31.590 Suzanne Schwartz: You know, we'll just take what you did today and produce a clean document because we're going to do some revisions of how we're going to organize a little bit and Suzanne and Kelley have some ideas about 02:39:31.890 --> 02:39:38.280 Suzanne Schwartz: different ways to make it more readable. So I'd like to ask your indulgence to say it's going to be a clean document. 02:39:38.670 --> 02:39:54.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Keep keep the one you had today, in case you want to review anything but compare it, but we want to give you a clean document for you to review and then you can provide your edits by the 22nd. So let me just stop and ask, is that process acceptable to you all. 02:39:55.800 --> 02:40:06.060 Mark Evans: Well, let me, let me ask this question for our committee, we have a couple of there was a couple of observations that there's going to be some language worked out. 02:40:07.860 --> 02:40:18.510 Mark Evans: What's the timeline on that. I mean is, I mean, that's going to have to be done by the by the chair and the vice chair and the Water Development Board staff, then send it to me for my 02:40:19.560 --> 02:40:24.000 Mark Evans: initial review and, you know, okay, and then go back and then 02:40:25.770 --> 02:40:29.130 Suzanne Scott: That's going to be happening here in the next probably 24 hours or so. 02:40:29.310 --> 02:40:33.180 Suzanne Scott: Yeah, and so that can be then incorporated because we're going to meet 02:40:35.580 --> 02:40:55.500 Suzanne Scott: Suzanne and Temple and and Kelley and I are kind of have a chunk of time that we're going to be trying to put everything put together on Thursday. So hopefully, between now and then, Suzanne and Temple will work on those aspects that need to go pass by Gail and pass by Mark. 02:40:57.180 --> 02:41:04.110 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah, we'll get you those as soon as we can. Hopefully, you know, if possible, by tomorrow afternoon. 02:41:06.270 --> 02:41:06.780 Kelley Holcomb: And in either, 02:41:06.930 --> 02:41:18.930 Kelley Holcomb: in either case, Mark, we've got to have it done by close of business on the 18th. So all these I've got some things I've got to do. It's all got to be given to the Water Development Board as quick as possible so that that document on the 18th can go out. 02:41:19.290 --> 02:41:24.930 Mark Evans: Well yeah, I mean, I mean, I understand that. I mean, we just got in a very compressed timeline right now and 02:41:26.370 --> 02:41:30.210 Mark Evans: if they don't get them to me by the close of business tomorrow. 02:41:31.890 --> 02:41:32.700 Suzanne Schwartz: We will do that. 02:41:33.120 --> 02:41:33.330 Suzanne Scott: Yeah. We will. 02:41:33.390 --> 02:41:37.080 Mark Evans: But still, I mean, then, then y'all are going to meet Thursday. 02:41:37.380 --> 02:41:40.140 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, we don't need that for Thursday 02:41:41.910 --> 02:41:43.260 Suzanne Schwartz: but by Friday noon, let's say. 02:41:44.670 --> 02:41:44.940 Suzanne Schwartz: Kelley Holcomb: Yeah. 02:41:45.000 --> 02:41:55.170 Kelley Holcomb: Our meeting on Thursday is going to be procedural and process oriented Mark, more so than content, knowing that some of these last minute revisions are going to be coming. 02:41:56.130 --> 02:42:01.290 Suzanne Scott: Again, and Mark these these we're going to try to be very frugal in the words 02:42:01.590 --> 02:42:04.740 Suzanne Scott: of the two things that we have to put together for you. So hopefully 02:42:04.950 --> 02:42:13.560 Suzanne Scott: you, it can be put in an email and you may be able to look at it, say it looks good, or make comments right away. I mean, I don't think it's gonna be a long, you know, narrative here. 02:42:14.010 --> 02:42:20.490 Suzanne Scott: It's probably going to be a couple of sentences to address these two issues. These two observations that will be in your section. 02:42:20.610 --> 02:42:22.290 Mark Evans: I like the frugal part of it. 02:42:23.250 --> 02:42:24.120 Suzanne Scott: Real tight. 02:42:26.280 --> 02:42:26.970 Suzanne Scott: The less words the better. 02:42:27.420 --> 02:42:27.750 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay. 02:42:29.280 --> 02:42:34.920 Suzanne Scott: So, in that it just before she goes on. So this, as I said earlier, at the beginning of this meeting, 02:42:37.260 --> 02:42:57.210 Suzanne Scott: Kelley and I and and Temple and Suzanne are asking for your concurrence that we have some flexibility in making sure that the readability of the plan is good and the flow of the plan. I mean, excuse me, the report that the readability and the flow is good. 02:42:58.440 --> 02:43:02.160 Suzanne Scott: So we're not going to change the content of anything you've seen here. 02:43:03.510 --> 02:43:14.430 Suzanne Scott: We just want to make sure it may, you know, change and it's look, feel and flow. Is that okay with everybody. I don't know what that looks like yet, but that's we just like that flexibility from y'all to do that. 02:43:14.460 --> 02:43:16.680 Mark Evans: Yes. Suzanne Scott: Okay. 02:43:17.070 --> 02:43:19.740 Mark Evans: Yes, I mean, you don't need a motion on that or anything do you. 02:43:19.950 --> 02:43:27.660 Suzanne Scott: I think if I can just have general consensus that would be great. Obviously y'all are going to see it again and if you don't like it then we'll, you know 02:43:28.200 --> 02:43:43.230 Suzanne Scott: figure it out. We're also going to have to write some sort of conclusion to this document, which will probably again short but some sort of conclusion about this process. And we'll have to come up with that to between now and the 18th. 02:43:43.890 --> 02:43:47.550 Melanie Barnes: So, as I understand it will see something on the 22nd 02:43:47.850 --> 02:43:50.130 Melanie Barnes: and have till the 24th to comment. 02:43:50.190 --> 02:43:51.870 Suzanne Schwartz: No, you will see something on the 18th. 02:43:51.870 --> 02:43:55.500 Melanie Barnes: On the 18th and have till the 22nd to comment. Suzanne Schwartz: Correct. 02:43:56.580 --> 02:43:59.010 Melanie Barnes: And then we will see something again 02:44:00.240 --> 02:44:01.710 Melanie Barnes: on the 25th. 02:44:02.070 --> 02:44:02.760 Suzanne Schwartz: Right. 02:44:03.600 --> 02:44:05.730 Melanie Barnes: And hopefully have no comments. 02:44:05.970 --> 02:44:14.820 Suzanne Schwartz: Yes, but if you do, obviously what I guess we need to think about if we want to put another deadline in there. Once you get that draft on the 25th, 02:44:15.120 --> 02:44:32.160 Suzanne Schwartz: you have, I think we should put another date in there for you to send back any comments on that draft, that that next draft to me that way we can and hopefully, and compile it before the meeting. So, you have another clean version. So yeah, let me add in what would be 02:44:33.330 --> 02:44:35.280 Suzanne Schwartz: if you get it on the 25th, 02:44:35.280 --> 02:44:40.710 Suzanne Schwartz: and the meeting is on the 30th, could you have it to me by close of business on the 28th? 02:44:42.780 --> 02:44:43.200 Melanie Barnes: Sure. 02:44:44.340 --> 02:44:50.850 Suzanne Schwartz: And then, um, and if you do that, then I can get it probably get it to you by 02:44:52.530 --> 02:44:59.160 Suzanne Schwartz: I'll get something back to everybody by on the 29th on the 29th at by noon. 02:45:01.080 --> 02:45:06.990 Suzanne Schwartz: Which will give you a day to basically look at it before we, you know, before we 02:45:08.370 --> 02:45:09.600 Suzanne Schwartz: Do anything at the Council meeting. 02:45:09.960 --> 02:45:14.250 Mark Evans: So so so you're asking for for comments on the final draft. 02:45:15.480 --> 02:45:16.080 Suzanne Schwartz: Well, 02:45:16.170 --> 02:45:25.110 Mark Evans: Prior to the meeting? Suzanne Schwartz: You know I'm going to have taken edits that many of you, I'm pondering that I'm going to be taking edits that many of you have proposed. 02:45:25.170 --> 02:45:29.190 Mark Evans: Well, the more times, the more times we comment on the language is 02:45:30.060 --> 02:45:33.660 Suzanne Schwartz: Okay Suzanne is saying no and that we just leave it exactly like it is. 02:45:34.260 --> 02:45:35.550 Kelley Holcomb: Exactly like it is Suzanne. 02:45:35.730 --> 02:45:38.430 Kelley Holcomb: We'll make changes as we, if necessary. Yeah. 02:45:38.910 --> 02:45:39.900 Mark Evans: Let it go. Yeah. 02:45:40.110 --> 02:45:40.980 Suzanne Schwartz: Perfect with me. 02:45:41.310 --> 02:45:44.790 Suzanne Scott: We'll do, we'll just make the sausage on the 30th if we have to but 02:45:46.020 --> 02:45:46.620 Mark Evans: That's right. 02:45:47.070 --> 02:45:51.360 Melanie Barnes: So we'll have we'll have one chance to give you comments and then we'll see it on the 30th. 02:45:51.570 --> 02:45:52.350 Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. Melanie Barnes: Excellent. Excellent. 02:45:52.560 --> 02:45:54.630 Suzanne Scott: You'll see it, you'll 02:45:54.720 --> 02:46:00.720 Suzanne Scott: she'll get that report out before the 30th. I mean, right now, it'll be posted on the 25th. 02:46:00.900 --> 02:46:06.750 Suzanne Scott: At the final, final clean version that's out there for the public to look at it then. 02:46:07.080 --> 02:46:10.410 Melanie Barnes: That gives us a chance to think about it before we meet on the 30th. Suzanne Schwartz: Yeah. 02:46:10.890 --> 02:46:24.060 Suzanne Scott: And in the, in your margins those things that are really giving you heartburn. But again, I think at that point, it needs to be substantive concerns about what we're saying. If you don't like the words. If you don't like the 02:46:24.510 --> 02:46:25.020 Suzanne Scott: you know the 02:46:25.530 --> 02:46:31.650 Suzanne Scott: verbiage, I mean we may not be as excellent at English as Steve is, but we will do our best. 02:46:33.690 --> 02:46:34.020 Suzanne Scott: He 02:46:34.350 --> 02:46:38.160 Kelley Holcomb: Just given the nature of the comments all that we've seen already, I don't anticipate 02:46:38.160 --> 02:46:38.940 Kelley Holcomb: this being a 02:46:39.390 --> 02:46:40.080 Melanie Barnes: I don't either. 02:46:42.450 --> 02:46:43.170 Melanie Barnes: I don't either. 02:46:44.850 --> 02:46:58.620 Suzanne Scott: We want y'all to feel because when we, when we adopt this when we take the action on the 30th. We want everyone to feel really good about the product because your name is going to be on it and we really want you to feel good about the work that you're that you're submitting 02:47:00.030 --> 02:47:01.440 Suzanne Scott: when we act on it on the 30th. 02:47:02.430 --> 02:47:09.570 Kelley Holcomb: I do have one small question. Do we want to have a signature page for all of the council members. 02:47:11.490 --> 02:47:14.310 Kelley Holcomb: I would agree, Mark, like we do the regional water plans. 02:47:15.960 --> 02:47:17.310 Temple McKinnon: We can do that we do. 02:47:17.310 --> 02:47:20.820 Suzanne Scott: We could do like a Google Doc or something that we could have people write in. 02:47:21.270 --> 02:47:27.780 Kelley Holcomb: We could electronic signatures. Is everybody good with doing that sending them to 02:47:27.900 --> 02:47:30.060 Kelley Holcomb: Suzanne or Temple? 02:47:32.250 --> 02:47:38.910 Mark Evans: Yeah, I think, I think everyone that that votes in favor of the final report should sign it. 02:47:39.840 --> 02:47:40.200 Melanie Barnes: Yeah. 02:47:41.280 --> 02:47:45.510 Mark Evans: And if you if you don't you don't vote yes. Don't sign it. 02:47:46.890 --> 02:48:02.370 Suzanne Scott: And I know there's a way Temple, because we've done this in a couple of other online meetings that you can put a, like a Google Doc that everyone can access at the same time, and they can put their they could sign it. I don't know how to do that but. Temple McKinnon: I'll figure that out. 02:48:04.020 --> 02:48:04.440 Mark Evans: Yeah. 02:48:04.530 --> 02:48:05.640 Suzanne Scott: Somebody does not 02:48:05.670 --> 02:48:07.650 Temple McKinnon: I don't know, but I'll figure it out. 02:48:09.180 --> 02:48:10.380 Temple McKinnon: I'll track y'all down. 02:48:10.830 --> 02:48:15.090 Suzanne Scott: I don't know how to do that either. But I mean you can insert your signature somehow 02:48:18.300 --> 02:48:20.310 Kelley Holcomb: Some smart guy somewhere will figure it out. 02:48:20.820 --> 02:48:21.900 Kelley Holcomb: Guy or gal. Excuse me. 02:48:22.680 --> 02:48:30.210 Temple McKinnon: We're good with this we're going to add a date so will revise the schedule and post a new one. But you mean and move on to the 02:48:30.630 --> 02:48:33.510 Kelley Holcomb: Didn't we decided not to revise the schedule? Going to leave it as presented? 02:48:33.750 --> 02:48:35.160 Suzanne Schwartz: Yes, you did. 02:48:35.640 --> 02:48:39.060 Suzanne Scott: There's also a way through PDF to do that to FYI, I'm 02:48:39.090 --> 02:48:45.810 Suzanne Scott: just thinking, right anyway. Someone smart we'll figure that out. Alright, so anything else today, its four 02:48:46.200 --> 02:48:47.700 Suzanne Scott: 4:26. 02:48:48.030 --> 02:48:48.780 Suzanne Schwartz: Public comment. 02:48:49.410 --> 02:48:55.110 Suzanne Scott: Any, anything else on the agreement. I mean, on the report before we need to go on to public comment. 02:48:57.030 --> 02:49:03.360 Suzanne Scott: Okay. Well, again, I do want to say, and I said at the beginning, but I want to say it again, thank you so much to all of you. 02:49:03.750 --> 02:49:14.550 Suzanne Scott: All the chairs Steve and Gail and Mark and all your committees, thank you so much for all the time and attention you put to this. I know y'all have met so many times and done such a great work. 02:49:15.030 --> 02:49:32.160 Suzanne Scott: I don't think we could have gotten here. I know we couldn't have gotten here without the good work of the committee's so I really, really appreciate everybody being so diligent and making this a priority for you and your committee. So thank you so much again really appreciate it. Kelley Holcomb: Ditto. 02:49:33.660 --> 02:49:41.310 Suzanne Scott: Alright so public comment. Anybody signed up for public comment or anybody have additional public comment. 02:49:44.370 --> 02:49:48.360 Suzanne Scott: I guess we have to unmute and see if there's anybody can raise their hand. 02:49:50.400 --> 02:49:51.570 Vicki Read: Everyone is unmuted. 02:49:53.370 --> 02:49:54.360 Suzanne Scott: Any public comment. 02:50:00.390 --> 02:50:10.680 Suzanne Scott: All right. Doesn't seem like we have any. So thank you all very much and we will stand adjourned. Just be sure to look for the document on Friday. 02:50:12.120 --> 02:50:14.490 Suzanne Scott: And review it over the weekend. 02:50:17.130 --> 02:50:18.480 Suzanne Scott: Thank you. Thank you. 02:50:22.320 --> 02:50:22.800 Melanie Barnes: Bye. 02:50:23.160 --> 02:50:23.520 Bye.