Indian Wells Valley Water District. Board of Directors Meeting

Transcription

1 Indian Wells Valley Water District Board of Directors Meeting April 11, 2016

2

3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 11, :00 P.M. BOARD OF DIRECTORS HEARING ROOM 500 W. RIDGECREST BLVD., RIDGECREST (Pursuant to Government Code section , any materials relating to an open session item on this agenda, distributed to the Board of Directors after the distribution of the agenda packet, will be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution at the following location: Indian Wells Valley Water District, 500 W. Ridgecrest Blvd., Ridgecrest, CA). 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. POSTING OF AGENDA DECLARATION 5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION 6. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS RESERVED FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA AND OVER WHICH THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA. NON-AGENDA SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO LIMIT THEIR PRESENTATION TO FIVE MINUTES. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA WILL BE ACCEPTED AT ANY TIME THE ITEM IS BROUGHT FORTH FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD. WHEN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD). 7. CURRENT BUSINESS/COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Consent Calendar Description: Approval of Board Meeting Minutes and Accounts Payable Disbursements. 1. Approval of Minutes: a. March 14, 2016 Regular Board Meeting 2. Approval of Accounts Payable Disbursements

4 B. Water Management Committee 1. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Description: Report and discussion regarding the most recent conference call Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. Committee Recommendation: Board discussion. 2. Retrofit Requirement for Resale Homes Description: Discussion and consideration of a concept requiring home listed for resale to be equipped with water efficient fixtures. Committee Recommendation: Staff make recommendation to City and County to review codes for consideration of water efficient fixtures mandatory upon resale. C. Plant and Equipment Committee 1. Acceptance of Contract Work: Destruction of Wells 7 and 19, Layne Christensen Company Description: Board consideration to accept Contract Work for Destruction of Wells 7 and 19 by Layne Christensen Company in the amount of $38, Committee Recommendation: board accept Contract Work for Destruction of Wells 7 and 19 by Layne Christensen Company in the amount of $38, D. Administration/Executive Committee 1. Vehicle Replacement Program Description: Board consideration of the Vehicle Replacement Program Objectives and Scope. Committee Recommendation: Board approve the Vehicle Replacement Plan as presented. E. Salt/Nutrient Management Plan Description: The State Water Resources Control Board adopted Resolution No in February 2009, which establishes a statewide Recycled Water Policy that requires the State Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to encourage the use of recycled water, consistent with state and federal water quality laws. Status report. F. Response to Editorials Description: Board discussion on responses to editorials. G. General Manager Compensation Description: Board consideration to adjust the General Manager s compensation. H. General Manager and Staff Update (The Board will consider and may take action on the following items): 1. Water Production, New Services, and Personnel Safety Record Description: Water produced from all District wells, report of the new services installed in the District, and personnel safety record for the preceding month. 2. Public Outreach

5 Description: Public Outreach Report. 3. July 15, 2014 Special Board Workshop Action Items Update Description: Update on the items below: Wells 18 and 33 Safety Showers: Safety item. 4. Water Supply Improvement Project Update Description: Update on the Water Supply Improvement Project. 5. East Side A-Zone Tank and Pipeline Easement from the Navy Description: Update on east side A-Zone Tank and pipeline easement. 6. Gateway Pipeline Replacement Project Description: Update on the Gateway Pipeline Replacement Project. 7. Solar Project Update Description: Update on the Solar Project. 8. Financial Status Description: Report on the District s current financial status. 9. Cost of Service Study Update Description: Update on the Cost of Service Study. 10. Voluntary Contributions to Assist Low Income Customers Update Description: Report on voluntary contributions to assist low income customers. 11. AMI Pilot Project Update Description: Update on the AMI Pilot Project. 12. Conservation Description: Update on the Conservation Program and discussion on water conservation related items. 13. Arsenic Treatment Facilities Description: Update on the Arsenic Treatment Facilities. 14. Operations Description: Staff report on operations. 8. BOARD COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 9. CLOSED SESSION A. Pending Litigation One Matter (Pursuant to Government Code Section (d)(4)) B. Real Property Negotiations Property Located in Inyo County, California Approximately 38 Acres

6 District Negotiator: Don Zdeba Negotiating with: Cindy Freeman (Realtor) on behalf of Jeffrey C. Stiefel (Pursuant to Government Code Section ) C. Real Property Negotiations Property Located in Inyo County, California Approximately 200 Acres District Negotiator: Don Zdeba Negotiating with: Cindy Freeman (Realtor) on behalf of Juanita Life Est (1) and John B. and April J. Hunter (2) (Pursuant to Government Code Section ) D. Conference with Labor Negotiators District Representatives: Don Zdeba and Jim Worth Employee Organization: General District Employees (Pursuant to Government Code Section ) E. Public Employee Performance Evaluation and Compensation Position: General Manager (Pursuant to Government Code Section and ) 10. ADJOURNMENT Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services may be made by telephoning or contacting Rose Koch at the District offices. Please attempt to make such requests known at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting.

7 Approval of Minutes

8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT March 14, 2016 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Indian Wells Valley Water District was called to order by President Cortichiato at 6:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Hearing Room, 500 West Ridgecrest Boulevard, Ridgecrest, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Don Zdeba. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: President Donald J. Cortichiato Vice-President Peter E. Brown Director Charles F. Cordell Director Leroy H. Corlett Director Charles D. Griffin None. Jim Worth, Attorney; Chuck Krieger, Consulting Engineer; Don Zdeba, General Manager; Jason Lillion, Operations Superintendent; Jennifer Keep, Chief Financial Officer; Travis Reed, Associate Engineer; Rose Koch, Recording Secretary; Lauren Duffy, Executive Secretary ROLL CALL AGENDA DECLARATION Recording Secretary, Rose Koch, reported that the agenda for tonight s Regular Board Meeting was posted on Friday, March 11, AGENDA DECLARATION None. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Don Zdeba introduced Lauren Duffy as the District s new Executive Secretary. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public making comments was Renee Westa-Lusk. Ms. Westa-Lusk was questioning the current watering restrictions. 1

9 CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: was made by Vice-President Brown and seconded by Director Corlett to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 2016 Regular Board Meeting and to approve payment of Accounts Payable totaling $473, Motion was carried, unanimously. (Ayes: Brown, Cordell, Corlett, Cortichiato, Griffin. Nays: None.) CONSENT CALENDAR ADMINISTRATION/EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Board had no recommendation for California Special District Association (CSDA) Board of Directors, Seat B. ADMIN/EXEC CSDA NOMINATION Due to OpTerra Representative Conrad Newbury and Project Manager Jeff Woldhuis being present for item 7.D. OpTerra Solar Project, Don Zdeba requested that this item be presented before 7.B.2. Groundwater Sustainability Agency. OPTERRA SOLAR PROJECT OPTERRA SOLAR PROJECT Don Zdeba reported that staff has reviewed the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the OpTerra Solar Project. The document was sent to the Board of Directors last week for review. Staff is asking the Board to release the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and comment, commencing a thirty (30) day comment period. MOTION: was made by Vice-President Brown and seconded by Director Corlett authorizing staff to release the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and comment, commencing a thirty (30) day comment period. Motion was carried, unanimously. (Ayes: Brown, Cordell, Corlett, Cortichiato, Griffin. Nays: None.) Don Zdeba provided an update on the solar project. Staff and legal counsel have reviewed and commented on the final redline of OpTerra s Energy Services Contract. Staff has not reviewed Opterra s response with legal counsel. Kern County Planning Department responded to a memorandum prepared by District legal counsel regarding applicability of Government Code Section to provide an exemption for this project to the requirement for a building permit. Kern County has accepted the District s position that it is, in fact, exempt based on Water Code authorizing a water district to provide-generate and deliver electric power. Bond counsel (Hawkins, Delafield & Wood) provided revised drafts of the Installment Purchase Agreement and Trust Agreement, incorporating comments from the last conference call and comments received from bank counsel (Mission Bank). The District s legal counsel has reviewed the agreements. A conference call is scheduled on March 16 th to discuss comments. 2

10 The Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will be made available for 30-day public comment period on the District s website no later than Friday, March 18 th. ADMINISTRATION/EXECTIVE COMMITTEE CONT D Vice-President Brown presented Resolution 16-03, Supporting Formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in the Indian Wells Valley Basin using a Joint Powers Agreement whose Members consist entirely of GSA Eligible Public Agencies. ADMIN/EXEC CONT D GSA Director Griffin distributed information regarding legislation from the Department of Water Resources website to address his concerns about mutual and stakeholders role in the GSA. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was created by California s Governor Brown for everyone to work together to create a sustainable basin. Throughout the laws of SGMA, it encourages involving stakeholder decision making. Jim Worth responded that Resolution involves the meaningful participation of major stakeholders specifically Department of the Navy, the Bureau of Land Management, Searles Valley Minerals Mojave Mutual Water Company, Meadowbrook Mutual Water Company and private well owners. Jim Worth reported that Resolution addresses four issues, three of which are fairly settled by the GSA public agencies: 1) The GSA should be formed by way of a Joint Powers Authority. 2) The GSA will be comprised of public agencies only. 3) Elected member of the Water District Board will represent the District on the GSA Board. The County has passed a resolution that the representative should be an elected representative of each public agency situated within Kern County. 4) The meaningful participation of major stakeholders within the Indian Wells Valley Basin. The Kern County Concept Paper dated February 9 th is included in the Board Packet and has not been approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The Concept Paper is identifying the major stakeholders role on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Development Committee and to provide adequate assurances so that they can support the process going forward with the negotiation on the actual JPA agreement. The debate is who should be on the development committee. A redline of the February 9 th Concept Paper, prepared by agriculture entities and Searles Valley Minerals, was distributed. The redline included changes to the GSP Development Committee Members and that the members of the GSP Development Committee and their representatives would be allowed to meaningfully participate during the GSA Board s consideration of any GSP Proposal. Resolution is consistent with the March 10 th Concept Paper. 3

11 MOTION: was made by Vice-President Brown and seconded by Director Corlett adopting Resolution Supporting Formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in the Indian Wells Valley Basin using a Joint Powers Agreement whose Members consist entirely of GSA Eligible Public Agencies as presented. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: RESO President Cortichiato: Yes Vice-President Brown: Yes Director Cordell: Yes Director Corlett: Yes Director Griffin: Yes MOTION: was made by Director Griffin and seconded by President Cortichiato supporting the March 10 th Concept Paper as written and redlined. Motion was carried, unanimously. (Ayes: Brown, Cordell, Corlett, Cortichiato, Griffin. Nays: None.) Due to illness, Director Griffin excused himself from the meeting at 7:10 p.m. GENERAL MANAGER AND STAFF UPDATE General Manager Don Zdeba updated the safety record to 426 consecutive days without a recordable injury. Metered water production at the wells for the month of February was 110,881,500 gallons (340.3 acre-feet). The number the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is using for comparison is metered water through the distribution system or consumption, and non-revenue water which is water lost to leaks, flushing activities, blow-offs, etc. For the month of February, the number is 83,117,000 gallons (255.1 acre-feet). This is a 33.7% decrease compared to February 2013, the baseline year the SWRCB is using for comparison. For the seven-month report period, the District is at 24.2%, 11.8% below assigned conservation rate of 36%. Beginning March 1 st, the District s assigned conservation rate is 32%. The reduction is the result of a 4% credit for climate allowed by the SWRCB under restrictions enacted to extend urban water conservation measure to October The SWRCB does have the ability to make further revisions to the conservation rates as appropriate following the April 1 st measurement of Sierra snowpack. GENERAL MANAGER & STAFF UPDATE SAFETY, PRODUCTION & NEW SERVICES For the month of February, the District s reported R-gpcd was 78. There were five new connections during the month of February. Total number of new connections for this fiscal year is 24. Don Zdeba reported that due to a conflict, he was unable to attend the monthly Community Collaborative meeting at City Hall on March 1 st. PUBLIC OUTREACH The District had a staffed booth at the Home Show held at Desert Empire Fairgrounds on March 5 th and 6 th. Judging by observations and the amount of items given away, attendance appeared to be down compared to last year. Don Zdeba recognized employees for their participation: Rose Koch, Lauren Duffy, Cory Krausman, Arty Blanco, 4

12 and Joe Rivera along with XERIC Ambassadors Marianne Kistler, Jaye Langlois, Ed Schlesinger, Sarah Wersan, Keith Wilkenson, and Marge Vargus. Employees Chris Charlon, Joe Klein, and Robert Peyton assisted with setup and teardown. Mr. Zdeba also participated Saturday morning. Don Zdeba reported that he had provided a General Manager s Column to the Daily Independent and News Review February 23 rd for publication. Mr. Zdeba was invited to appear as a guest on KZGN s Ridgecrest Talk Show. The episode aired February 25 th. Don Zdeba reported on the uncompleted Board Workshop Action Item: Wells 18 and 33 Safety Showers and Eye Wash Stations: Update: Safety Shower at Well 33 is complete and functional. The vessel has been set at Well 18 and some pipefitting remains to be completed as well as electrical work and testing. The contract has been signed with Southern California Edison (SCE) for construction of the powerline to service upgrade of the pumping unit at Well 34 and new Well 35. There are two sections of conduit the District is responsible for installing and SCE will mark the locations where the three poles are to be set. These markers will serve as guides to use for installing the conduit. Staff is planning to install the conduit during the summer with the upgrade at Well 34 to be completed in the fall when demand is lower ANNUAL BOARD WORKSHOP UPDATE WSIP Staff will be preparing the bid document for drilling Well 35. The upgrade of Well 34 will not occur until late 2016/early 2017 when demand is lower. Lead times for delivery are not excessive for the upgraded pump and motor for Well 34. Travis Reed reported easement documents have been sent to San Bernardino County. Mr. Reed also reported that Gateway pipeline has been installed and is live. Notices to customers and tie-ins are scheduled for this week. Jennifer Keep reported that year-to-date revenues as of January 31, 2016 are $6,388,022 and expenses are $5,911,962, so revenues exceeded expenses by $476,060, which exceeds budget by $250,085. EAST SIDE A- ZONE TANK GATEWAY PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS Estimated year-to-date revenues as of February 29, 2016 are $7,034,022 and estimated expenses are $6,588,962, so estimated revenues exceed estimated expenses by $445,060, which is better than budget by $369,708. Ms. Keep reported the General Fund and Capital Improvements and Projects budget development is in progress. Once that is done, staff will begin working on the cost of service options. COST OF SERVICE STUDY Public comments at the Finance Committee Meeting included suggestions to lower fixed rates to help low income customers and charge 5/8 customers lower fixed charges per size until the meter is actually changed to ¾ vs. gradually increasing their fixed rates in anticipation of the meter size change. The 5/8 meter exchange project is in progress. 5

13 Jennifer Keep reported that the updated Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Pilot Project timeline was included in the Board Packet. Valley Wide Construction has submitted their schedule for building the foundations and erecting the three towers (District yard, C-zone and Sunland) for the project. Mobilization will be occurring this week and construction will begin next week. Tower construction should be completed in May. Neptune will be sending new data collectors and the latest updated AMI registers. Jennifer Keep reported on the following conservation items: In February, there were 54 water waste reports addressed verbally or by written notice. There were four that resulted in formal action and none of the formal actions resulted in fines. The District has collected $1,250 in fines that were issued. As of March, there have been 34 water waste reports, contacting 34 customers and issuing one formal written notice. Cash for Grass Thirty five yards have been completed. There are 21 yards pending. Of the $382,000 budgeted ($60,000 plus grant funds) for the Cash for Grass Program, $321,615 remains in the fund. There were 15 yards that did not pass inspection. Seventy applications were withdrawn. Staff did a pre-approval inspection of all remaining properties. Property owners have been notified allowing them to turn water off. XERIC Ambassador Consultations: There were six completed in February and four consultations scheduled for the month of March. AMI PROJECT CONSERVATION President Cortichiato reported that he had attended a conference and the following conservation presentations were discussed: Reduce your water pressure and you will reduce the number of leaks. Consideration of a water supply fee for every customer. This money could be used for water conservation, alternate water supply, etc. Retrofit on resale ordinance. This would require water efficient fixtures be installed before the sale of a home. This item will be placed on Water Management Committee. Jason Lillion reported that effluent pumps are installed. Disinfection of the vessels has begun. Arsenic Plants should be back in service next month. For the month of February, there were three service leak repairs and 12 replacements. There were 81 blowoffs that resulted in 123,151 gallons lost. Zero valves were turned. ARSENIC FACILITIES OPERATIONS REPORT All paperwork has been completed with the SWRCB for the NO-DES Truck. None. BOARD COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS BOARD COMMENTS With no Board or Public comments, President Cortichiato recessed the meeting and adjourned to Closed Session at 7:39 p.m. 6

14 CLOSED SESSION The meeting was reconvened in Closed Session at 7:50 p.m. CLOSED SESSION The meeting was recalled to Open Session at 8:36 p.m. There was no action taken which would require disclosure under the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rose Koch Recording Secretary APPROVED: 7

15 Committee Reports

16 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT THURSDAY, MARCH 31, :00 P.M. BOARD ROOM 500 W. RIDGECREST BLVD., RIDGECREST Attendees: Peter Brown, Chuck Cordell, Don Zdeba, Jennifer Keep, Jason Lillion and Rose Koch 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. Committee/Public Comments None. 3. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Don Zdeba updated the Committee on the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) conference call. The main topic of concern for the Committee was that it was recommended by County counsel any action taken to vote would require the City and County have a strong vote (2-0). The Water District, given it is the largest pumper and will be contributing significantly to funding the GSA, expressed its vote should have equal weight and the requirement should be a 3-0 vote to pass. Director Brown commented that it could be a unanimous vote depending on what is being voted upon. The County has indicated that it is not in favor of the requirement for a unanimous 3-0 vote. Committee recommended Board discussion at April 11 th Regular Board Meeting. 4. Retrofit Requirement for Resale Homes Director Cortichiato had requested this item be placed on the Water Management Committee Meeting Agenda. This item would require the homeowner to retrofit their home for water efficient fixtures as a condition upon resale. The Committee discussed this topic and agreed by consensus that the District does not have authority to make these demands on the homeowner upon sale of the property. The Committee suggested assisting the homeowner with retrofitting to possibly offer rebates.

17 Water Management Committee Meeting March 31, 2016 Committee recommended staff make recommendation to City and County to review codes for additional water conservation measures, possibly adding to the home inspector check list to retrofit home for water efficient fixtures upon resale. 5. Water Conservation Jennifer Keep reported on the following: Ms. Keep distributed a new report on the following 2016 conservation activities and reported on new issues: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Waster Report There were 73 water waste reports since March All 73 were notified of violation either verbally or written notice, three formal warning actions issued, and no penalties. Don Zdeba added that the District s Conservation Officer and Standby personnel are policing areas during off hours Cash for Grass Thirty eight yards have been completed resulting in removal of 42,986 square feet of turf ($42,986). There are 41 yards pending ($39,978). Of the $382,000 budgeted for the Cash for Grass Program, $299,036 remains in the fund. There were 15 yards that didn t pass inspection and 77 applications were withdrawn. Sixty five yards have been preapproved and have been instructed to stop watering turf, but encouraged to continue to water trees. XERIC Ambassador Consultations: Five consultations were scheduled and completed for the month of March. Total consultations for 2016 is 17. There are three consultations pending. There are eight consultations scheduled for April. Operations Superintendent Jason Lillion reported that the Employee Conservation Committee had their first meeting on March 28 th. This committee is comprised of one employee from every department. The question was asked how the District can fiscally achieve the conservation the State is mandating. Responses follow: a. Current program looks at when the water is used and does not address how much is being used. b. Propose a rate structure that bills the Ready-to-Serve charge for an amount that covers fixed costs and the average amount of water equal to 167 gallons per capita daily (gpd) per person. c. Propose a rate structure that fixed costs are covered with the Ready-to- Serve charge, the water is billed at a fixed cost for each Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF), but after the 167 gpd is reached, there is a conservation penalty for every HCF, possibly escalating. d. Keep current rate structure, but adjust so that tier 2 ends in 18 HCF and raise tiers 3 and 4 rates to promote conservation. Future discussion with the Employee Conservation Committee will include how the GSA may affect the conservation numbers as they relate to the District. 2

18 Water Management Committee Meeting March 31, Future Agenda Items None. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:07 p.m. c: Board Management Committee Binder Koch 3

19 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PLANT AND EQUIPMENT REGULAR REPORT TUESDAY, APRIL 5, :00 PM BOARD ROOM 500 W. RIDGECREST BLVD., RIDGECREST Attendees: Leroy Corlett, Chuck Griffin, Don Zdeba, Jason Lillion, Travis Reed, Renee Morquecho and Jennifer Keep. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. Committee/Public Comments Director Corlett asked questions about the conservation program. 3. Acceptance of Contract Work: Destruction of Wells 7 and 19 Staff presented a memorandum to the Committee recommending acceptance of work performed by Layne Christensen Company to destroy Wells 7 and 19. Work was completed the end of February and record of well destruction was filed with the State for both wells. The Committee Recommended acceptance of Contract Work in the amount of $38, AMI Pilot Project: Update Construction of the towers is well under way. The forms for the foundations are set in the District yard and at the Sunland booster station. Today Valley Wide began work at the C- zone tank site. Staff will be working with the County building inspector to design proper grounding for the towers before the foundations are poured. The District has received all the meter registers for the pilot project except for three larger sized meters. The holes in the meter box lids have been completed for the pilot area. 5. Solar Power Project: Update Closing on financing is expected this week. A conference call with OpTerra to discuss the project was held March 29 th. The next call is scheduled for April 12 th. Staff and legal counsel have reviewed the Energy Services Agreement and are now reviewing redline

20 Plant & Equipment Committee Meeting Report Tuesday April 5, comments from OpTerra. The comments will be discussed in a call to be scheduled. So far no comments have been received following posting of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments will be received until April 20 th. Staff and consulting biologists are working on revisions to the Take Permit application for the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 6. Arsenic Treatment Facilities: Update The pumps are ready and staff is cleaning media from the filter effluent tanks. Staff expects to begin using the plants again the beginning of May to coincide with increased demand. 7. East Side A-Zone Tank: Update The easement documents were mistakenly sent to Kern County instead of San Bernardino County. Staff is waiting for the documents to be returned from San Bernardino County. Once received, a copy will be sent to the Navy for their records. 8. Water Supply Improvement Project: Update Staff will begin work on the bidding documents for Well 35 this month. Staff will be installing conduit for SCE as time permits during the summer. 9. Gateway Pipeline Replacement Project: Update This project is almost complete. Two more tie-in to side streets remain and then the old pipeline will be abandoned. 10. Future Agenda Items Issuance of permits for new construction 11. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:16 pm.

21 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FINANCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING REPORT TUESDAY, APRIL 5, :00 PM BOARD ROOM 500 W. RIDGECREST BLVD., RIDGECREST ATTENDEES: Don Cortichiato, Leroy Corlett, Don Zdeba, Jason Lillion, Renee Morquecho and Jennifer Keep 1. Call to Order The Finance Committee Meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm. 2. Committee/Public Comments None. 3. Cost of Service Study Description: Staff to give progress report to Committee Staff reported the General Fund and Capital Improvements and Projects budget development is still in progress. Once that is done, staff will begin working on the cost of service options. 4. Voluntary Contributions to Assist Low Income Customers Description: Staff to give progress report to Committee Staff met with Brenda Orr of The Salvation Army to discuss partnering with their organization to have a mechanism in which low income customers can aquire funds to help pay a water bill. The plan is for the District to advertise where people can make voluntary contributions, and The Salvation Army would administer the program. The District would work with The Salvation Army to establish parameters for receiving funds (i.e., the amount owed cannot be more than 30 days delinquent, the contribution amount will only cover the cost of no more than 60 gallons per person per day within the household, delinquent penalties will not be covered, setting a limit to the number of times a customer can accept a donation, etc.) and District staff would be tasked with confirming the parameters are met. Ms. Orr discussed the proposal with Headquarters, who stated the local Ridgecrest office would need to pay them an administrative fee related to the program. Ms. Orr is still researching whether or not the administrative fee will be due and payable if no donations are made to the program. During the meeting, District staff noted customers always have the opportunity to set up a payment arrangement to avoid all delinquent penalties. Ms. Orr was unaware of that provision and will advise her clients to work with the District promptly. Director Cortichiato asked if staff has looked into the Round Up program used by other districts in which customers round up their payment to the nearest dollar, and the difference between the

22 Finance Committee Meeting Report April 5, 2016, Page 2 bill amount and the payment is deposited to the Low Income Customer donation account. Staff stated this option has not been investigated yet in favor of working with The Salvation Army and expressed this seems like it would be a very complicated project that will include a programming cost and take up a lot of staff time. A member of the public suggested the District could set up donation jars in the Customer Service area. 5. Solar Financing Update Description: Present Solar Financing status to Committee The District is set to sign the closing documents on Thursday, April 7, 2016 for the $8 million loan to finance the upcoming solar project. In order to secure the 3.5% interest rate quoted by Mission Bank six months ago, the District and Mission have agreed if CEQA is not completed and the solar project is not initiated, the District will pay Mission six months interest and the loan will be dissolved with no other penalty. This equates to a net cost of $110,000 ($150,000 interest less the value of a higher interest rate over the course of the loan). The District s counsel and staff have reviewed the loan documents and feel they are in compliance with IWVWD Resolution 15-09, approved in November 2015, which authorizes the General Manager to approve the financing agreement for the solar project on behalf of the District. 6. Procedures for Post Issuance Tax Compliance Description: Present Best Practices procedures for post issuance tax compliance Although it is not required, the District s bond counsel (Hawkins, Delafield and Wood) advised the District to adopt an IRS-recommended procedure of Best Practices for post issuance (of debt) to ensure tax compliance. Bond counsel provided the procedures, and staff updated them as needed. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure the District monitor and report investment earnings on the debt. 7. Identity Theft Prevention Program Annual Report Description: Per Resolution 09-06, a report will be prepared annually and submitted to the IWVWD Board of Directors to include matter related to the program, the effectiveness of the policies and procedures, a summary of any identify theft incidents and the response to the incident, and recommendations for substantial changes to the program, if any. As required by Resolution Identity Theft Prevention Program, staff gave an annual report on the program. Program issues - None Effectiveness of policies and procedures - Staff that has access to customers personal identification information attended a refresher training session in September - October 2015 that covered the policy in more depth. Staff finds the Personal Information Security Procedures are easy to understand and implement, and they appear to be effective in preventing identity theft incidents. Summary of any identity theft incidents and the response to the incident None. Recommendations for substantial changes to the program None

23 Finance Committee Meeting Report April 5, 2016, Page 3 8. Fraud Risk Discussion Description: Discuss potential or actual fraud risks within the organization. Per the conditions of the Bank of New York Mellon, the institution that will hold the District s reserve fund for the new $8 million debt issue, the District invested in a SSL Certificate. This certificate encrypts s protecting sensitive information. This certificate will be installed this weekend. 9. Financial Statements, February 29, 2016 (final) and March 31, 2016 (preliminary) Description: Presentation to Committee financial reports and a graph depicting current revenue and expense trends compared to previous fiscal year actuals. Year to date revenues as of February 29, 2016 are $7,041,204 and expenses are $6,591,732, so revenues exceeded expenses by $449,472, which exceeds budget by $374,120. Staff presented the following spreadsheet, which compares February 2016 year to date actual to budgeted revenues and expenses by category, and balance sheet. Indian Wells Valley Water District Revenues vs. Expense Actuals & Budget through February 2016 Budget Actuals Δ Revenues Total Water Sales 6,273,000 6,382, ,281 Total Water Service Revenue 179, ,199 12,199 Total Non-Operating Income 255, ,367 92,167 Capital Contributions 79, ,357 41,357 Total Revenues 6,786,200 7,041, ,004 Expenses Pumping Plant 738, ,671-25,275 Arsenic Treatment Plants 323, ,387-78,594 Transmission & Distribution 1,114,811 1,058,060-56,751 Engineering 227, ,340-16,761 Customer Service 230, ,344 5,621 Field Services 281, ,216-14,188 General & Administration 1,019,934 1,074,204 54,270 Legislative 67,695 69,089 1,394 Depreciation 1,803,800 1,803,800 0 Non-Operating, Interest 80,125 91,864 11,739 Non-Operating, Miscellaneous 665, ,656-3,164 Non-Operating, Conservation 29,080 34,698 5,618 Non-Operating, Alternate Water 127, ,402-3,026 Total Expenses 6,710,848 6,591, ,116 Net Revenue Increase (Decrease) 75, , ,120

24 Finance Committee Meeting Report April 5, 2016, Page 4

25 Finance Committee Meeting Report April 5, 2016, Page 5 Estimated year to date revenues as of March 31, 2016 are $7,768,904 and estimated expenses are $7,338,732, so estimated revenues exceed estimated expenses by $430,172, which is better than budget by $487,129.

26 Finance Committee Meeting Report April 5, 2016, Page 6 *Actual Revenues and Expenses are Estimated 10. Accounts Payable Disbursements Description: Presentation to Committee of Accounts Payable Disbursements reports for Board approval. The Committee recommended approval of accounts payable disbursements totaling $999, as follows: Checks through: 3/10/16 3/23/16. Prepaid $ 68, $ 559, Current 288, , Total $ 356, $ 643, Future Agenda Items None. 12. Adjournment The Committee adjourned at 3:28 pm.

27 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION/EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, :30 P.M. BOARD ROOM 500 W. RIDGECREST BLVD., RIDGECREST Attendees: Don Cortichiato, Chuck Cordell, Don Zdeba, Jason Lillion and Jennifer Keep 1. Call to Order The Administration/Executive Committee Meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m. 2. Committee/Public Comments None 3. Indian Wells Valley Water District Vehicle Replacement Plan Jennifer Keep reported on the IWVWD Vehicle Replacement Plan. Ms. Keep expressed the benefits of this plan and how the Vehicle Replacement Plan will be standardized and proactive. Ms. Keep stated that prior to this Plan the Water District had followed this procedure, it is now just on paper. President Don Cortichiato and Director Chuck Cordell approved of the Indian Wells Valley Water District Vehicle Replacement Plan, it will be presented to the Board for final approval at the Board meeting, April 11, Draft Agenda for Regular Board Meeting of April 11, 2016 Committee reviewed the agendas and made changes as necessary. 5. Future Agenda Items None 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

28 7.C.

29 INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM To: From: Board of Directors Travis Reed Renee Morquecho Date: 04/11/16 Subject: Destruction of District Wells 7 and 19 Layne Christensen Company Recommendation of Acceptance of Contract Work All work performed by Layne Christensen Company has been completed and the Contract Amount for same is set forth as follows with no Change Orders: Bid Schedule Amount Destruction of Well 19 $17, Destruction of Well 7 $20, Contract Total $38, The District received release from one Preliminary Notice. Since the Contract Work has been performed in accordance with the Contract Documents, we recommend the District accept said work in the amount of $38, Subsequent to Board acceptance the Notice of Completion will be filed.

30 7.D.

31 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this program are as follows: Indian Wells Valley Water District Vehicle Replacement Program Provide a standardized mechanism to replace vehicles both when in need and in advance of the need while using the Vehicle Replacement Reserve. Improve fleet management related to maintenance, acquisition, specification control, utilization and assignment. Meet Department needs. The Vehicle Replacement Program is a mechanism to provide the users with the correct vehicles, at a higher level of reliability and safety, to meet their specified job functions. Provide for the timely acquisition and disposal of vehicles maximizing the dollar resources available for meeting the needs of a fleet. Right Size the Fleet. Insure the District has the optimum number and type of vehicles to ensure fleet growth is planned and controlled. Promote Standardization to improve efficiencies and lower the total cost of ownership. Improve utilization by reassignment or elimination of underutilized vehicles. Concurrence with the District's purchasing policies and financial procedures. Maximize the financial return to the District at the time of resale. Smooth the outflow of capital funding and the rotation of incoming and outgoing vehicles year to year to prevent the spikes in cash and asset flow from one year to the next. Reduce per unit maintenance costs by eliminating old, expensive to maintain vehicles. SCOPE The Program provides for the planned replacement of all fuel consuming vehicles, their attachments, and implements with a purchase cost of $500 or more. The Replacement Program will be administered by the Warehouse Administrator. The Indian Wells Valley Water District shall purchase vehicles using funds from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve. As the Reserve is reduced, the District shall replenish it at a replacement funding level of $10,000 per month) until reaching a balance of $350,000. )

32 REPLACEMENT PLAN Basis: The Replacement Program is proposed to operate as follows: The Warehouse Administrator will maintain a Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Log for each vehicle (see attached) Departmental staff will review its vehicular needs each January. During this review, staff will consider the following criteria (Criteria): o o o o o o The age and condition of each vehicle Is mileage at least 100,000? Has the vehicle performed reliably? Repair expense history in which the total amount paid exceeds 60% of the purchase price Whether or not a needed repair will cost more than the current value of the vehicle Anticipated life expectancy of the current fleet Reassigning vehicles from other departments Replacing existing fleet with vehicles having different sizes and functionalities. In January, departmental staff will make a recommendation to management for vehicle replacement during the next budget year based on meeting aforementioned Criteria. In February, management will review staff recommendations and the Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Log to identify vehicles that should be replaced. The Warehouse Administrator will get at least three quotes for each vehicle on the replacement list. In March, management will present the list of vehicles identified for replacement at the Plant & Equipment Committee meeting for their recommendation for the replacement vehicles to be added to the upcoming budget, which is reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors. The presentation will include staff considerations plus documentation supporting the need for replacement. o During the annual budget presentation, management will include a presentation identifying the vehicles selected for replacement for approval by the Board of Directors. New vehicles shall be purchased using funds from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve. The list of vehicles to be replaced will be presented to the Plant & Equipment Committee to be added to the surplus list. Proceeds from vehicles sold as surplus will be deposited to the Vehicle Replacement Reserve.

33 7.E.

34 April 6, 2016 Donald M. Zdeba, General Manager Indian Wells Valley Water District 500 West Ridgecrest Blvd. P.O. Box 1329 Ridgecrest, CA RE: Indian Wells Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Loading Analysis Dear Mr. Zdeba: This scope of work is for technical support tasks to further the development of the Indian Wells Valley (IWV) Salt & Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). The RMC team will lead the loading analysis for the SNMP and conducted limited coordination with stakeholders and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of development of the loading analysis. This work is detailed below. Task 1: Loading Analysis To support the Indian Wells Valley SNMP and to better understand the significance of various loading factors, a GIS-based loading model will be developed. The loading model is a simple, spatially based mass balance tool that represents TDS and nitrogen loading on an annual-average basis. Stakeholder coordination will be performed to refine the parameters in the loading model, including land use, applied water, TDS and nitrogen application (in applied water, as fertilizers and amendments), irrigation water source quality, and sewer service areas (to determine septic loads). The sources identified as part of the Draft SNMP will be incorporated. Primary inputs to the model are land use, irrigation water source and quality, recycled water storage pond locations and percolation (if any), wastewater percolation ponds, septic system areas and loading, and soil characteristics. The general process used to arrive at the salt and nutrient loads will be: Identify the analysis units to be used in the model (parcel-based or other). Categorize land use into discrete groups. These land use groups represent land uses that have similar water demand as well as salt and nutrient loading and uptake characteristics. Apply the land use group characteristics to the analysis units. Apply the irrigation water source to the analysis units. Each water source is assigned concentrations of TDS and nitrogen. Apply the septic system assumption to the analysis units. Apply the soil texture characteristics to the analysis units. Estimate the water demand for the parcel based on the irrigated area of the parcel and the land use group. Estimate the TDS load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure load. The loading model makes 101 Montgomery, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA rmcwater.com

35 the conservative assumption that no salt is removed from the system once it enters the system. Other transport mechanisms (such as runoff draining to creeks exiting the basin) may reduce the total quantity of salt in the subbasin. Estimate the nitrogen load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure (e.g. wastewater ponds) load. The loading model assumes that a portion of the applied nitrogen is taken up by plants and (in some cases) removed from the system (through harvest of plant material). Additional nitrogen is converted to gaseous forms and lost to the atmosphere. Remaining nitrogen is assumed to convert to nitrate and to be subject to leaching. Soil texture is used to estimate and account for mobility of leaching water and the efficiency of nitrate transport through the root zone. Provide information to allow for coordination of preliminary assumptions with Stakeholders following the April 2016 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting (no attendance scoped). Assumptions: Loading modeling activities will apply to TDS and nitrate only. Other parameters may be evaluated qualitatively by the District in the SNMP. Land use, source water quality and infrastructure data will be provided electronically to the RMC team. Assumptions will be made for nitrate transformation based on crop type and confirmed with stakeholders through the TAC. All coordination will be completed through conference calls. Task 2: Reporting and Coordination After the initial loading analysis assumptions have been developed RMC will take part coordinating with stakeholders either through a TAC workshop or other meeting (remotely through a conference call) to share presentation slides of the assumptions for the loading analysis and to confirm these assumptions. RMC will prepare an Administrative Draft Technical Memorandum documenting the loading model results and submit the Technical Memorandum to the District and City. Comments will be incorporated and the Draft TM will be shared with the stakeholders. A Final TM will be produced incorporating stakeholder comment. RMC will support the District with coordination on the technical analysis. RMC is including two meetings with the RWQCB (completed remotely via conference call) as part of this task. It is assumed that the District will summarize sections of the TM to include within the SNMP document and utilize the TM as an attachment. If budget is available, after the loading analysis is complete, RMC will support the District with a mixing analysis and review of the final SNMP document. The level of review and support of finalizing the SNMP will be contingent on the budget remaining available. This task also includes progress reporting and invoicing activities along with biweekly coordination with the core project team. A total of 10 hours is allotted for these activities. Assumptions: Stakeholder meetings and RWQCB will be held remotely (via conference call) 2

36 Administrative Draft, Draft TM and Final TM are deliverables. RMC will support the mixing analysis (see Optional Task below) and review of the SNMP and finalization through July 2016 only as budget allows after the loading analysis have been completed. OPTIONAL TASK - Mixing Model Development Following the loading analysis, the RMC team could develop a mixing model of TDS and nitrate to account for basin storage volumes and ambient concentrations, along with volumetric rates of groundwater inflow and outflow in conjunction with source and sink concentrations, and estimate future concentrations based on continued current uses of the basin if the District desires to authorize Task 2. As part of this optional task to further the SNMP development and finalization, the RMC team could develop the quantitative mass balance using groundwater volumetric inflows and outflows based on estimated or metered flow rates and rates simulated with the existing U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW model, coupled with TDS and nitrate concentrations for key basin sources and sinks identified in Task 1. The RMC would run the model with a 20-year planning horizon to understand future trends. The resulting future projections could then be used by the District to develop a simplified anti-degradation analysis for SNMP reporting. Mixing Model Reporting would consist of slides and a spreadsheet for use in the District s comprehensive SNMP write up. Assumptions: Assimilative capacity estimate will be provided by the District to the RMC team Water balance elements can be extracted from Brown & Caldwell model by the District and submitted to the RMC team. No historical analysis will be conducted and model will be uncalibrated (however values will be checked using available data and tools) The anti-degradation analysis is not part of this scope results from the mixing model (future projections) can be used by the District to evaluate potential degradation. Budget for this optional task is currently not included in the proposal estimate. Schedule & Budget Work will commence after NTP expected April 20, The deadline for work is the June 8-9, 2016 RWQCB Meeting in Bishop, California. A fee estimate is attached. Thank you, Christy Kennedy, Sr. Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager 3

37 Water andenvironment Indian Wells Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Technical Support Fee Estimate Tasks Labor ODCs Total Total Christy Kennedy PM2 Jim Blanke Tech Review/Mixin g Model Chris van Lienden Loading Analysis Total RMC Hours Total Labor Costs (1) ODCs Total Hours Total Fee $266 $249 $216 EPS-10 EPS-9 EPS-6 Task 1: Loading Analysis Data collection and analysis, data management $12,494 $0 55 $12,494 Loading Analysis $20,340 $0 88 $20,340 Subtotal Task 1: $32,834 $0 143 $32,834 Task 2: Reporting and Coordination Stakeholder Coordination - 1 workshop, 2 RWQCB Meetings (via conference call) $4,222 $0 16 $4,222 Admin, Draft, Final TM Development $10,138 $0 42 $10,138 Project Coordination $2,660 $0 10 $2,660 Subtotal Task 2: $17,020 $0 68 $17,020 TOTAL $49,854 $0 211 $49,854 OPTIONAL TASK: Mixing Model Development Mixing model development and run for future planning horizon projections $9,304 $0 40 $9, The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit. 2. Other direct costs (ODCs) such as reproduction, delivery, mileage (rates will be those allowed by current IRS guidelines), and 3. RMC reserves the right to adjust its hourly rate structure and ODC markup at the beginning of the calendar year for all ongoing contracts.

38 7.F.

39 Editorial: We must challenge assumptions The information published in last week s editorial How Deep Is the Lake? speaks to the importance of having an open mind regarding our true water availability. Since the Kern County Board of Supervisors took the initiative to declare the Indian Wells Valley as a closed basin in critical overdraft, the News Review has contended that this endeavor has been politically driven. Don t let a good crisis go to waste. Todd Engineering was purportedly hired by the county (at the cost of $250,000) to formulate a report not a study, but a summary of the findings of existing studies that expressed how much water might be available in the IWV basin. The report was sculpted to fit the desired narrative, which was to present as fact that we are a closed basin and in critical overdraft. This is not what the studies show. Although some studies speculate on these assumptions, they are contradicted by an abundance of evidence and reputable peer-reviewed studies. Not one document cited in the Todd Report states these assumptions as proven facts. The Todd Report decreed as the final document that would be the total basis upon which our future was going to be planned, executed and destined was released and stated that our basin was closed and in critical overdraft as fact. It is interesting to note that in our follow-up conversations with Todd Engineering President Dr. Iris Priestaf, she stated that, It is important to have a comprehensive study, not just a review of one conclusion or change in policy. She went on to encourage local stakeholders to move forward with a more comprehensive study. There was no meaningful debate at the county hearings. The initiative was pushed through under the guise of urgency to stop further agricultural development because we are running out of water. The Indian Wells Valley Water District supported the concept by putting up signs promoting that agenda. Good to the last drop then what? The district had been pressing that agenda for decades. These scare tactics worked. The public jumped on board, not knowing the other side of the story. The county s land-use plan was implemented, bringing upheaval to the valley. It jeopardized people s plans for the future, set neighbor against neighbor, drove endless meetings and negatively impacted property values and economic development. The ill-conceived initiative has now placed us into an impossible category of state mandates that will dictate how our groundwater is managed. (Bear in mind, we still have no viable measurements.) And there is no hope on the horizon for solutions. Now with a battery of attorneys on board and new layers of bureaucracy to be defined and implemented, the costs to the taxpayer are incalculable. From the beginning, resolutions indicated that the fiscal impact is unknown (an unthinkable liability to a business person). Elected officials voted to accept the Todd Report s assumptions as fact. Our supervisors knew little or nothing of the history or other studies that speak to the IWV as an open basin with adequate water for decades to come. There were some voices that spoke to the board of supervisors mostly people who had an understanding of the water situation. But that opposition fell on deaf ears. There was an unwillingness to take time for debate or further study on this issue. The willingness to inflict such a negative impact on the valley without pausing was stunning. There was no way to stop the fast-moving train. The editorial published last week came from the records of the IWVWD. If there was a serious effort to solve the problems and find out our true water availability, that information should have been brought to the public. Has the water district been withholding information that would help us to better understand our basin? It substantiates the belief that this whole exercise has not been about resource management, but about control. The future of our valley has been sacrificed on the altar of political power. Story First Published:

40 To the Editor: Defends water district, board Owning a newspaper provides the unique ability to express one s personal views in a very public forum. With that ability comes an obligation to practice responsible journalism. Unfortunately, the editorial entitled We must challenge assumptions appearing in last Friday s edition fails to live up to that responsibility by questioning the motivation and even the integrity of the board and staff of the Indian Wells Valley Water District. I certainly accept that we all view the world through different lenses, and there are diverse views about the status of our groundwater basin. I respect the opinions of those who have a differing view. I do not accept the baseless insinuation expressed in Friday s editorial that the water district has been withholding information that would help us better understand our basin. This statement follows an allegation from another local media outlet that the water district acquired a well in a land transaction with commercial agriculture in order to cap it and prevent others from learning about a supposed underground river in order to further the district s agenda to increase rates to our customers. I will not speak for anyone else, but such statements question my personal integrity, and I take offense to that. IWVWD has a history of cooperation in supporting studies and collecting data to assist in understanding our groundwater basin. I can assure you there is no motivation to pursue a hidden agenda. IWVWD has a responsibility to provide clean, safe water to this community and we take that responsibility very seriously. There is no pleasure taken in passing and enforcing restrictive ordinances to comply with state regulatory actions or increasing rates to cover the cost to provide service. Also, I do not dispute the fact that there remains a significant amount of water in the basin below us. I am on record speaking at the Board of Supervisors meeting, both in Ridgecrest and in Bakersfield, and with local media stating we are not in danger of running out of water soon. The issue of concern is both a decline in water quality that will result in costly treatment as well as increased cost to lift the water as levels decline. There is also a point where, even with thousands of feet of water underneath, it is technically difficult to recover it. Personally, I prefer that we recognize a trend while we have time to address it rather than wait until we face a crisis. Finally, I want to caution readers to not take statements made regarding the well data provided by IWVWD at face value. To fully understand what the data is saying, one must also know the pumping history of the well. Has the well been in full production or is it essentially idle? Is it in an area where significant pumping is occurring or in an area where there is little to no pumping activity? Longtime residents may recall that at one time there were several production wells in the downtown area. The water district, Kerr-McGee (at that time), and the Navy all had wells within close proximity to one another resulting in a significant decline in the water level within that area. One of the first actions undertaken by the IWV Cooperative Groundwater Management Group was to idle some of those wells and spread the pumping to other areas. With time, water levels in that area recovered. In some cases, this is the effect seen in the data provided by IWVWD. A healthy exchange of views and information is necessary, but I would ask that those discussions refrain from bringing into question the integrity of the board and staff of Indian Wells Valley Water District. Donald M. Zdeba General Manager, Indian Wells Valley Water District EDITORIAL?NOTE:?While the News Review welcomes the ongoing discussion provided through Mr. Zdeba s response to last week s editorial, we would like to clarify two points: 1. Contrary to Mr. Zdeba s assertion that this newspaper reserves a special privilege in expressing opinion, that is a courtesy extended to everyone including him. 2. In last week s editorial, the News Review did not accuse the Water District of anything, but publicly asked if the information pertinent to the discussion of water availability has indeed been shared with the residents of the Indian Wells Valley. The News Review takes very seriously its obligation to practice responsible journalism. In a case where a critical counterpoint to the generally accepted narrative is being silenced, it is not only our right to bring that position forward, but also is our responsibility. Thomas Jefferson

41 understood the value of having diverse and independent sources of news and information. He went so far as to state, I would rather have a free press and no government than a government and no free press. Story First Published:

42 Don Zdeba From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Zdeba Tuesday, March 29, :23 AM 'Peggy Breeden'; 'Alan Christensen'; 'Dennis Speer' 'Allan Krauter'; 'Leigh Ann Cook'; 'Steve Gabbitas'; 'Mick Gleason'; 'John Nilon'; 'Denny Kline'; 'Phillip Peters'; 'Phillip Hall'; 'Theresa Goldner'; 'Keith Lemieux'; Jim Worth Chuck Cordell; Chuck Griffin Don Cortichiato Leroy Corlett; Peter Brown; Charles F. Cordell; Chuck Griffin Don Cortichiato; Leroy Corlett Peter Brown RE: Editorial from the News Review FYI... I sent this to the News Review this morning on behalf of IWVWD. Owning a newspaper provides the unique ability to express one's personal views in a very public forum. With that ability comes an obligation to practice responsible journalism. Unfortunately, the editorial entitled "We must challenge assumptions" appearing in last Friday's edition fails to live up to that responsibility by questioning the motivation and even the integrity of the Board and staff of the Indian Wells Valley Water District. t certainly accept that we all view the world through different lenses and there are diverse views about the status of our groundwater basin. I respect the opinions of those that have a differing view. I do not accept the baseless insinuation expressed in Friday's editorial that the Water District has "been withholding information that would help us better understand our basin." This statement follows an allegation from another local media outlet that the Water District acquired a well in a land transaction with commercial agriculture in order to "cap it" and prevent others from learning about a supposed "underground river" in order to further the District's agenda to increase rates to our customers. I will not speak for anyone else, but such statements question my personal integrity and I take offense to that. IWVWD has a history of cooperation in supporting studies and collecting data to assist in understanding our groundwater basin. I can assure you there is no motivation to pursue a hidden agenda. IWVWD has a responsibility to provide clean, safe water to this community and we take that responsibility very seriously. There is no pleasure taken in passing and enforcing restrictive ordinances to comply with state regulatory actions or increasing rates to cover the cost to provide service. Also, I do not dispute the fact that there remains a significant amount of water in the basin below us. I am on record speaking at the Board of Supervisors meeting, both in Ridgecrest and in Bakersfield, and with local media stating we are not in danger of running out of water soon. The issue of concern is both a decline in water quality that will result in costly treatment as well as increased cost to lift the water as levels decline. There is also a point where, even with "thousands of feet" of water underneath, it is technically difficult to recover it. Personally, I prefer that we recognize a trend while we have time to address it rather than wait until we face a crisis. Finally, I want to caution readers to not take statements made regarding the well data provided by IWVWD at face value. To fully understand what the data is saying, one must also know the pumping history of the well. Has the well been in full production or is it essentially idle? Is it in an area where significant pumping is occurring or in an area where there is little to no pumping activity? Long-time residents may recall at one time there were several production wells in the downtown area. The Water District, Kerr-McGee (at that time), and the Navy all had wells within close proximity to one another resulting in a significant decline in the water level within that area. One of the first actions undertaken by the IWV Cooperative Groundwater Management Group was to idle some of those wells and spread the pumping to other areas. With time, water levels in that area recovered. In some cases, this is the effect seen in the data provided bylwvwd. A healthy exchange of views and information is necessary, but I would ask that those discussions refrain from bringing into question the integrity of the Board and staff of Indian Wells Valley Water District Original Message----- From: Peggy Breeden [mailto:pbreeden@ridgecrest-ca.gov] 1