WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 16, 2013; 1:00 PM WATER CONTROL CENTER

Transcription

1 WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 16, 2013; 1:00 PM WATER CONTROL CENTER PRESENT Committee Members Jim Hanks, Chairman, Steve Benson, Jim Abatti, Al Kalin, Don Emanuelli, Larry Gilbert, and Larry Cox IID Staff Brian Vanbebber, Mike Pacheco, Darren Fillmore, Dean Currie, Carlos Villalón, Ben Brock, Charlie Sidhu, Ross Simmons, and Kevin Kelley (Those signing attendance sheet) John Pierre Menvielle, Mike Morgan, Alan Jackson, Jim Brock, Rodney Williams, Darren Simon, Antoine Abou-Diwan, and Walter Holtz The meeting was videotaped by Spectrum Advertising. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hanks called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. 2. APPROVE JUNE 27, 2013 MEETING MINUTES The June 27, 2013 meeting minutes were approved. Chairman Hanks asked the Committee if there were any additions to the agenda and there were none FALLOWING The Committee responded that the fallowing program details are still in the works and will have better direction and information from today s WCAB meeting and hope to have finalized by next Tuesday s meeting. Director Benson mentioned the following concerns: Could a farmer take Bermuda crop then do seed and be considered for conservation approval? Could vegetable growers not plant and take the water and ration and apportion on off year? Chairman Hanks requested Mr. Simmons to research crop rotation as applied in the Water Code for water conservation purposes. 1

2 Director Benson asked the cut-off timeline for fallowing; September. Director Benson asked if this timeline is doable. Date is doable considering all applications are received. This issue will be discussed and reviewed at today s WCAB meeting. Mr. Gilbert voiced a concern that we are rushing to get this done and has been asked if a contract has been considered for the fallowing program such as on-farm conservation programs EDP Mr. Cox asked Mr. Silva about contracts signed July 1, June 30, 2014, and onfarm fallowing January end of December Mr. Silva replied that at the next board meeting will ask the board to allow contracts more crop based specific from fall to fall. Crop fallowing or straight line? The conservation measure for fallowing is based on a crop history on a field or could use an average, but is subject to EDP. Mr. Abatti is concerned with EDP straight line base working with different numbers and data history on field are different from on-farm. Mr. Silva confirmed that the starting dates and based on other field history, we need to be on a consistent plan to work with and be completed before end of fallowing Looking at on-farm conservation to be consistent and agree on one or the other. 5. ON-FARM PARTICIPATION Director Benson was asked assuming on-farm rate is the $285/AF for the farm unit fallowing program is more than most people make on a crop and would be an incentive to join the program. The question for legal/farm community is can that money be tied to go back to the ground to use on future conservation projects to kick-start the on-farm conservation, whether you put in pump-back or drip. Pay $1,000 an acre putting money back for future saving technique. Mr. Abatti replied not sure this could be done legally, did encourage investment to be made back to the ground. Also $285/AF is unrealistic. Mr. Cox asked about a previous presentation; water delivered to users increases in 2015, what IID s revenue will be from transfer water versus the amount of water to be paid back. Chairman Hanks replied $285/AF based on San Diego and Coachella numbers, certainly not based on overrun. A price blended from all the sources of revenues. Type of hybrid for different programs. Mr. Silva included Western Farm Lands that IID owns. The purpose of the purchase of those lands is to provide some assistance in payback. A proposal will be prepared to take to the board to help next year and will be on calendar year program. Mr. Abatti said he does not want the Western Farm Lands to be used and jeopardize the livelihood of those who depend on farming. Mr. Silva replied that he and Chairman Hanks are fully aware and have discussed the concerns and will prioritize to not cause harm. A question by Mr. Cox regarding a recommendation to stop the Local Entity on-farm was not received well by the entire board. Any opinion if it can be done? Chairman 2

3 Hanks replied he can t make a legal statement, but there are provisions in the water code to address third party impacts to be considered. To the point of talking about the idea personally of the farm unit fallowing being a flat-type so that the impacts would be spread further apart and revenue distribution the same as far as tenant farmer and ag service people, it would be a strong consideration for them to walk away. 7. PAYBACKS ON EDP Mr. Benson described the current EDP in that farmers over on their allocation have to come up with payback money since they are obligated to pay back the excess water. Issues have come up with some leases hard to define; what is a payback when landowner is on the hook and tenant is gone. Need a plan to force a tenant not to overrun? What is the cost of the tenant that hasn t been quantified? Mr. Cox explained it depends on where you are in a payback year and what are the consequences. Ideally the landowner would have an individual overrun and payback or get cut off or make provisions. Communal accounts and individual accounts were discussed. Director Benson inquired if this required a 218 vote? Chairman Hanks replied, until all is finalized, to consider on the Coachella transfer and paybacks, that we utilize solar projects to currently handle Coachella and utilize the trust lands. It will take some negotiations on our part with tenants on that ground so not to put them out of business to handle paybacks on the river because it has to be a form of fallowing project. Then for the transfer to San Diego those funds generated by San Diego are utilized for the transfer then when finalized be a hybrid for now the best plan. Proposing the board extend the contract another year so we can make it right until we have a better measure. Mr. Gilbert asked legal counsel to research the 218 question DECISION Decision 141 was reviewed and Mr. Simmons noted that he too is learning all the issues and has prepared Q&A fact sheets; distributed copies. Mr. Morgan stated that a public setting is not a place to explain IID s legal strategy to its beneficiaries. Until the final judgment should not put anything in writing and try a strategy for clarity and leverage for the District, this transfer is in trouble. Mr. Simmons replied this is public information and explained the essence of Decision 141 and the motion process. Requested clarification from Judge Connolly on Decision 141. Mr. Simmons will submit descriptions that will have response for clarity. Judge Candee s order may be modified. Mr. Holtz asked about the motion and Mr. Simmons replied that the judge did not have enough information at this early stage, needed more time, and was not prepared for a ruling. Chairman Hanks said Decision 141 does not trump Decision 1600, many have obligations under the 1600 and that has to be visited moving forward. 3

4 Director Benson replied that Decision 141 is being used to curtail sign-up for the EDP. With EDP we are not forcing farms to farm less and water will be available from low water users to high water users. We are not taking water away from people and ensure there is water for the future. We are organized and preparing for the long term and meeting our obligations for Imperial Valley. Mr. Gilbert asked what was the date for the 141 Decision; January SET DATE FOR NEXT MEETING No meeting date was set. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:42 pm. The Committee reconvened as the Agricultural Water Clearinghouse /sc/ceb 4

5 5

6 6

7 7