Board reviews cash‑flow model for GSP work and debates frequency of periodic evaluations

Julia, reporting on cash‑flow projections, told the board that using current bank balances and projected quarterly income and expenses, the agency could fund the scheduled GSP implementation and monitoring-well program. "If you're looking at the spreadsheet...I looked at kind of the income that we would expect each quarter...and then took the expenses similarly for the quarters," Julia said, noting that monitoring wells Jordan will help with are expected by spring and that the running balance ends only slightly lower than the starting point.

Directors questioned how often the five‑year periodic evaluation should occur and whether a smaller basin could trigger an evaluation only when a criterion is exceeded. One director said, "We're charging these people $10 an acre foot just for this study," referring to costs borne by pumpers; another urged outreach to state legislators to explore options to streamline requirements for small GSAs.

A consultant on the line and other directors reiterated that sustainability under statute is an ongoing obligation and that DWR has technical requirements that are expensive to meet. Board members suggested drafting a letter with specific points for legislators and asked staff to coordinate with Dudek and other small GSAs. Julia also noted the agency might consider reducing the GSP extraction fee after the five‑year evaluation period if requirements ease.

No board vote was taken on fees or evaluation frequency; directors agreed to pursue coordinated legislative outreach and to return with options.