police. just speak into the mic so we can hear you. >> and mr. lamb remind me that i am as an owner on that street and i can add two units, too. and one is for privacy for my tenant downstairs and with the possible extension later and facing back on will have another d.r. and for now support this d.r. and i am so tire and i don't want to go through that process later and that is why i requested this and design wise, you can dot not do it. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> for my concern, i want to make sure that this project is

specific to what the height of this roof is because for now it's out of scale, out of scope and is parallel roof to mine and i proved that it's a gap much with a bigger gap than that. it's already in this part is already illegal. and i want to emphasize with the housing crisis at this point, but definitely mr. lamb is a developer, a contractor. this three units definitely would pocket him for three, basically condominiums. that would be breaking out and take away the housing market again. and the houses converted to condominiums and will be a pocket to have the $5 million project and that is why i am opposing this and because it is

for my own right and the corner and what i reserve in my property to the light well. to be built to one and the second and third floor can combine to another housing unit for the housing occupation. if he has a way to show that unit is 30% of the building devoted to housing, you would support that, but to have this into his own space into his own pocket is unfair. >> you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> we are sensitive about the shadow impacts. there are no shadow after noon. most of the shadow is caused

here by 2414 the existing wild building. we can talk about more detail if the commission is interested. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes this portion of the hearing. commissioner moore? >> this is a very interesting solution to make a three-unit building out of a family three-story building is sensitively done and well sized well sized units for feature reference and i don't see that the light well is not really an issue when it comes to matching light wells with critical roles on either side and with that light well against a black well is covered that is the convenience of the owner of the property who has the light well

removes the roof and perhaps also paints a light color will be enough reflectivity to helping with whatever would illuminate. the issue of concerns about where the windows are for bedrooms. and one and two are in the correct space. they align laterally which prevents intrusion of privacy or looking into it. there are many, many buildings just like it around the city. where windows have similar and are separated by the window itself. regarding the d.r. questions on comments and varying heights, nothing in the drawing set that mr. winslow can perhaps shed any light on it which is a misrepresentation because this is an existing building as built. we are looking at as built and

adaptation as built. the fudging of heights, etc., is somewhat unlikely. perhaps mr. winslow could chime in on that particular comment. >> i am not as familiar with the drawings as i should be -- i inherited this project very recently. the project has been raised 17 inches without the benefit of permit. once that was discovered through the 311 notification process, it was addressed with the horizontal addition. so the drawings should be accurate to my knowledge. the photographs most certainly are because they represent an existing condition. >> there is another question about increased demand for parking and an n.c.d. do i not consider that to be an issue and nor is that really addressed with what the planning commission considers. and it's an issue with transit and relate more to neighborhood retail than impacting what residential needs to do here. i am in support of the project.

my own suggestion is not to take d.r., but i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner koppel? >> i think the architect did a good job sensitively designing this to match the rear of the property to the neighbor with the side setbacks and the addition of two units. i'm all in support. >> president hillis: -- >> tell us what the deal was please. >> could the architect come up to get this story? >> i am pretty sure she will agree to everything except one guy balked. the current drawing at the lightwell isn't drawn right. it shows it lines up at the top and the confusion is o that the building was raised 17 inches. the only request that the light well is you squish the roof to the minimum that you can which is doable. at the back of the building, you

squish the roof to the minimum you can so you don't create anymore peak. you flatten it out. the very back, you scoot over 18 inches. that backspace so you can take the window spacing to the west. and you can then put them in the window spacing to the north, so you don't have windows looking at each other. but you have plenty of window looking north. and then there is a little fin off the second floor because two windows are lining up like this. >> could you take a drawing and show us this? >> it is really hard to follow. >> and one neighbor said no and i said, you are wrong. this is a good project. we need three units. the idea would be -- >> pull it down. >> talk into the mic. >> pull it down. you scoot this part of the building over 18 inches, so that you can then put a window right

there. and then you don't need these windows. >> how many windows are in that? >> three windows. >> three win dose, three floors, all turned to the north so that becomes a blind wall. no one is looking at each other. >> less windows, though, right? from three into the east bedroom to one. >> she wants to build on this side, you don't have matching windows looking at each other. and only on the second floor where this window and the other window lines up, put a little fin out so it goes out this far. thats an it. >> commissioners, and from f.s. consulting. i believe what he brought up in my view is the bedrooms are

centered to the sideened a the new project to mitigate that with the direct access from the concern. and i am afraid that is going to add to the shadow that is cast from the d.r. requester's property. what can be done is windows that definitely mitigate any sound transmission. >> they will stop any other appeals.

>> u yo need to speak into the mic. >> the neighbor on the side couldn't accept the squishing down of the roof next to the lightwell because she believed she had access to more light and i had to explain to her you don't have access to the neighbor's property for any light. i think she's come to terms with that is not going to go and work out and we may not take d.r. and the neighbors get nothing. >> motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. >> second. >> and that doesn't preclude you from continuing the discussion and making those changes. so the motion and a second. >> an indeed there is. on the motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. commissioner fong fong. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner koppel. >> a commissioner moore.

>> a commissioner richards. >> a commissioner melgar. >> and commissioner president hillis. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> with that, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> president kwon: good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the tuesday, october 9, meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we haval quorum. >> president kwon: as per rules of order, discussion to elect a new president and vice president of the commission, each to serve a one-year term. an incumbent president or vice president who has served one year is eligible for the same

office. a call for nominations for president. >> i would like to nominate commissioner courtney as president. >> second. >> commissioner courtney: i accept. >> president kwon: is there any public comment? seeing none, all in favor. opposed? congratulations. >> commissioner courtney: thank you, mr. outgoing president. >> president kwon: i will hand it over to you. >> commissioner courtney: okay. >> commissioner courtney: next item of business, we'll need a new vice president. i'd like to open nominations for vice president. >> i would like to nominate

commissioner caen. >> second. >> commissioner courtney: commissioner caen? >> commissioner moller caen: i accept. >> commissioner courtney: all in favor -- >> public comment. >> commissioner courtney: any public comment on nominations for vice president? seeing none, it's closed. all in favor? opposed? ayes have it. welcome aboard. >> commissioner courtney: next item -- before we move on to the next item, president kwon, the commission, the agency, would like to present you with the following memento, marking your term as president. >> president kwon: thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney: congratulations. [applaus

[applaus [applause] the next item on the agenda is approval of the meeting minutes of september 25, 2018. commissioners. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner courtney: any public comment on approval of meeting minutes? hearing none, public comment is closed. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed? ayes have it. item 5, general public comment, i have two speaker cards. can we start with francisco decosta, please? >> commissioners, first and foremost, i'd like to thank commissioner kwon for doing a good job. i look forward to working with commissioner courtney.

congratulations. and congratulations caen. last time i was here, i spoke about water. water is critical it our survival. the native-americans when they look at water, they liken it to blood. because water is life. that's how they say it. so i was looking at this documenta documentary and looking at water all over the world. and in certain places like south

africa, it is drought after drought after drought. and similarly in the sudan and those areas in africa. here in california, we're blessed. one of the ways i'd like to ponder about the hetch hetchy is to read the act, read it slowly and see how it evolved into this, that and the other. this is 2018. from the 1920s until now, we've had a good spell of having water. commissioners, i think we have to delve very deep into the

quality of our water. and guests come here from all over the world, relatives from australia, new zealand, and they taste our water and they find it different and they find it very tas tasty. we have to take it very seriously to maintain that standard because more and more as our rivers dry and we go into the groundwater, will not be able to maintain the standards. so, commissioners, we have our work cut out. we have to do our home work on how best to serve the constituents. thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney: thank you. drew layman? >> good afternoon.

i'm drew layman. that's not my phone. [phone rings] first, i'd like to congratulate you on becoming president of the board. >> commissioner courtney: it was unanimous. >> this last monday at the water environment federation technical conference in new orleans, i want to thank commissioner vietor and megan scott also for joining a convening of the commission and joe king was there, along with delgado community college and shawn corbin. so it was a very nice meeting, very productive. and we had people from the

public sector, private sector, education and community-based organizations. and that -- just to be a little informal to say that i think that san francisco public utilities commission sets a nationwide example for excellent work force development programs, including the bay work consortium and reaching out to community-based organizations. this is a template, i think, that can be used really around the country. and that other people can learn from, perhaps from the systematic infrastructure and steps done in new orleans, like the canal closures system. this is part of an emerging water quality scholars program that i run a number of times in different venues, boston, new orleans, and other projects similar to that in san francisco, to engage members in underrepresented communities.

alberta lima and the boston office of work force development once told me that you cannot be what you cannot see. these are immersive programs, experienceal programs to take young people out to see to meet the operators and the managers. it's very interesting to see the responses from the students and i've shared some of the responses in the photo journal and a tour at west tech. what i would like to offer if i can, hopefully it's not the last of the convenings. hopefully we'll have other meetings circulating around major conferences. if i can be a liaison and bring the people from around the country that i've met together, i would be delighted to do so. thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney: thank you.

>> drew, i would like to thank you for the roundtable that you put together. it was impressive. it was a great group of people. as you mentioned, it represented various stake holders from the college sector educational to work force development to public agencies and it was really a fine opportunity for us to meet each other, learn about what other organizations and institutions are doing and to network and to also hear more of the findings from a report, which is very impressive. i really want to thank you on behalf of the commission for your hard work pulling that roundtable together. and i look forward to hearing what's next. >> i also want to thank you for your communities. i will have a comment after communications, but i want to associate myself with commissioner vietor's comments. i think we'll have a lot of

dialogue and opportunity to do some great work this coming year. >> commissioner vietor: the emerging water scholars program and the young people that we met there in new orleans, 15 of them maybe, and they were a very impressive group and, of course, i tried to recruit some of them for our retiring work force in san francisco. they were an impressive group of people. >> it's the reason i do this. when you get to hear their stories and to hear the leaders talk about the career pathways and share experiences and successes and triumph over failures and persistence, it gives these young people hope in the face of adversity. >> commissioner courtney: any further public comment? seeing none, public item is closed. >> clerk: item 6, communications. >> commissioner courtney: commissioners?

any public comment on commune caution s-- communication? public comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: other business. >> commissioner courtney: i was thinking seriously and i talked it people who i really, really trust that i think are natural-born leaders and i contemplated not taking a seat as the chair because of what you just talked about. because what i believe is the importance and the commitment that we have to make with work force development and getting it right. i've seen the -- the general manager and i were where there was public comment for incoming commissioner at m.t.a. these supervisors were drilling her relentlessly about the agency and its shortcomings and saying, what are you going to do, and how will you fix it?

sometimes that's literally how you feel. on the one hand, we've been successful in the work force development areas, which is a national model. the great work that is done with the summer intern program and then in the private sector with our apprenticeship and preapprenticeship and there's one piece that i've been focusing on. the public sector, the civil service stuff. the stuff i've been talking about for eight years, and as chair four or five years ago. all of a sudden, it's the heaviest lift. and now people are talking and they're questioning whether it's appropriate or not and there are ethical questions and when i

came in here, it was clear from my bio exactly where i came from. it's never changed since day one. i sat on the first public sector apprenticeship program. i developed the first-ever horticultural apprenticeship program and changing the culture and raising the standard of professionali professionalism. public employees get a bad rap. they don't have the best reputation. i've learned through time, it's not necessarily their fault. sometimes it's a lack of commitment to high productivity in mid-management levels. when there is no choice but to show up and dig because your colleagues are digging, they pick up a shovel and start

digging. i was reluctant to sit in the seat because the perception may be that i'm being overly aggressive and too forceful with staff. at the same time, i figure that rather than backing down, we'll double down. we'll try to approach it differently. i have decided that, frankly, it's a human resources thing. the way we operate, we operate in silos. we'll have all kinds of work force. we have not begun discussing the public sector. i'm sure that we will. we have best practices in wastewater that i thought we would hear about, but we haven't yet heard about them, but we have an appropriate career pathway to stationary engineers. plumbers have been doing apprenticeship for a long, long time, but in the classifications that i've been successful at and administering career pathways

for, field work, general maintenance, horticulture and trees in other departments, not as a government official, we haven't had a single preapprentice or apprentice in this agency yet. on the one hand, as disappointing as that sounds, it also lays the foundation for overwhelming success in the next calendar year, as long as my colleagues are not opposed to it and we need to figure out two pathways. the management pathway, where does it belong? it's different than recreation and parks or public works or port or airport. we have power, water, sewer. we have external affairs over here, though we have strategies. it's just -- we'll move that ball up the mountain one way or another. and hopefully it's with your help. please.

>> when we talk about the emerging scholars program, i use water, power, sewer as the first three. so when i was in massachusetts, at a rapid response summit, they have a very strong commitment to preapprenticeships and a gentleman said, a laborer is a skilled worker. it is not an unskilled job. same thing i heard in new orleans. it's not an obstacle. it's a procedure. and you have to work within that framework. >> we'll have plenty of time to talk about this, so we don't have to talk about it all at once. the rate payers and citizens we serve are entitled to be served by professionals that are engaged in a trade.

harlan and i are familiar with the appropriate wage rate. if we're going to do pilot programs, call it what it is. the fear that i have is right now, not just in san francisco but across the country, people are talking about the rate of pay that our people get for cleaning the streets. what they don't recognize is that the folks are connected to a journey-level wage rate set by the state. the task is not recognized by the state. that's a conversation as a labor representative that i'm willing to have, willing to admit and willing to say that we're vulnerable there. thank you. madam secretary, next item. >> clerk: public comment? >> commissioner courtney: public comment? on other commission business. 6.

thank you, francisco. >> you know today all over the nation especially on the west coast, we have our workers making a point very clear that you said in other words but not in the words that i'm going to say. if we have to live as human beings, we need to have preferably one single job that pays good wages. whether it's the city and county of san francisco or enterprise departments, we see any notion of that, that entitlement word that you use is an erosion of

standards that unions and all fought for. i never had three or four jobs. i don't believe in that. now i meet people with six, seven, eight jobs. how can they live like that? the other thing is, the rent that you pay. the rents for a small, single, little room. so the projects we have, we need to pay attention to upward mobility done in the right way. and in an orientation given by

people paying the rents or not people coming from colleges and everything else and speak to them about the workers and they cannot relate to them. when we build scaffolding or fencing. we had to persuade contractors to pay living wages, which they did. persuade them. so it's good that we have somebody like vince courtney, who understands the issues and harlan and when project labor agreements come, but the project

labor agreements also have to have empathy and compassion for the people. thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney: thank you, francisco. any further public comment on item 6? hearing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, next item, please. >> clerk: item 7, report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the first item is the clean water sf update. >> good afternoon, commissioners, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. thank you, commissioner kwon for your presidency, and commissions commissioner courtney and mrs. caen. the clean water sf update will cover service to customers and regulatory activities. we're continuing to serve our customers successfully. program enrollment stats have not really changed since our last report. our opt-out percentage is 3.1%, so 97% retention rate.

super green upgrade rate continues to exceed the opt-out at 3.5%. that's just a 0.1% uptick from the last meeting. at the last meeting, commissioner vietor asked questions about these statistics. and i would like to take a moment to run through those and answer them. the first question was whether a large customer like sales force counted as one in these statistics i'm giving. the answer to that is, not necessarily. customers are counted by service point, as identified in the pg & e system. so counted once for each pg & e service that is enrolled in super green. if a customer has multiple services because they have multiple locations, for example, they will be counted more than once. customers may make different selections in our programs for

the different service points. and we just count those that are enrolled in the system. >> commissioner vietor: so if sales force has 10 buildings, they could opt to have five of the buildings in regular green and five in super green? >> correct. a customer could opt out some of their service points and keep service for other of their service points. >> commissioner vietor: does that happen? does it happen much? >> we're not seeing it happen much. >> commissioner courtney: academy of arts, right, they have so many locations across the city. so we have some. super green some. so it's a certain organization that has so many locations, depending on the locations.

>> it could also be true that they didn't actively enroll and we enrolled them so we may have enrolled a geographic area that includes some of their service points and the other of our service points haven't been auto-enrolled and so they would see service from pg & e in the area that we haven't performed enrollment and service from us where we have. >> commissioner vietor: that will make measurement challenging, right? if sales force, for example, half of it is 50% and half of it is 100%, you will have to know which ones have opted out. maybe it's not that the hard. >> we track them all by their service point numbers in the pg & e system. it allows us to accurately bill month to month. so it's an accurate way to keep track of the accounts. the consumption at each point varies, which may have prompted

your next question, which is, how many megawatt hours does super green enrollment equal? we're forecasting 44,000 megawatt hours of super green sales in 2018. that's almost twice the super green sales of 2017, which was about 24,000 megawatt hours. by comparison, we're projecting 1,156,000 of green product sales in 2018. so our super green sales are projected to be about 3.6% of our total electricity sales in 2018. then you physicaled on with the question of the greenhouse gas? super green is supplied by 100% carbon or greenhouse gas-free

power. renewable energy means it's zero greenhouse gas 'emissions from that supply portfolio. if you compare our super green customers with the service they would have received if they remained on the pg & e service, we estimate that super green customers have reduced emissions by 3,900 metric tons of co2. that's the same as taking about 835 passengers cars off the road for a year. or calculated another way, the same as avoiding 9 million miles driven by an average passenger vehicle. to calculate those, we're using a standard e.p.a. calculator. since we have a larger number of customers participating in the green program, the greenhouse

gas reductions of that customer group is much more significant. for 2018, we're projecting that the green product will be supply by an electricity portfolio that's 90% greenhouse gas-free. 90% of the supply is california r.p.s. generation and 45% from large hydro, including our hetchy system. so that means that the green customers will be reducing the electricity related greenhouse gas emissions by 65,000 metric tons. so that's 65,000 versus the 3,900 for super green. and that's equivalent to 13,900 passenger cars being taken off the road for a year or avoiding 159 million miles driven by a passenger vehicle. any questions there?

i will move on to regulatory. okay. i've been reporting on the activities of reconsidering the methodology and how it's calculated. they're levied by pg & e. california p.u.c. has delivered two proposed decisions in the rulemaking. one issued by a judge and the second a commissioner that leads the proceeding, called an alternate. the commission issued revisions to the alternate and they may be issued this week. we're trying to understand the impact of the revisions to the alternate. it appears to not have changed substantially. and that is the revised rules could impact the service.

we prefer that the commission adopt the proposed decision issued by the judge. together with cal c.c.a., community choice trade association, we're trying to make our preferences known. it's tough. there is no opportunity to make comments. meetings with the commissioners and direct staff are not allowed at this point, so we can't get clarification on the revised alternate through conversation. mayor breed and others have said that they believe there should be more transparent public review of the critical issues being raised. just friday, they issued this revision to the alternate. california p.u.c. is scheduled to vote on thursday, october 11. we're monitoring the activities and prepared to model the

impacts in our proforma to our -- whichever decision is adopted, if that happens on the 11th we expect to have more information soon, so stay tuned. thank you. >> commissioner courtney: thank you. next item. any public comment on the report? hearing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is bay delta water quality control plan update. >> good afternoon, steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water. if we could have the slides, please. this is part of our ongoing updates on the bay delta water

quality control plan update. how can we make up the water supply shortfall, both in terms of projects and potential costs and timeline and how are we following up on the nongovernmental organizations letter of september 24 to the commission where they made three specific requests. just as a reminder, to achieve our level of service objective, it would require -- first, the level of service requires 20% rationing over the 8-year scenario. to accomplish that after the state water board plan might be enacting, we may need 9,000-acre of new storage, 2 1/2 times hetch hetchy reservoir or water supply projects to deliver 100

million gallons of water a day or ability to move that water around. so specific projects that we're working on, which would allow us to deliver roughly about 3 million gallons of water a day, doing potable reuse with silicon valley clean water, wastewater treatment facility at redwood shores. that could produce 6 to 12 million gallons a day, with water being blended into crystal springs water reservoir. part of the water would be potable. the reservoir expansion doesn't have a number next to it because it's a facility that would work

with one or more of the projects to help to make it a reality. we do desalination. that's the next item. that could range from 9 to 20 million gallons a day over time. and, last, san francisco eastside purified water, potable reuse of walter. and so in total, those range from 28 million gallons a day. and some are preliminary. some are advanced. i have to keep reminding myself, along with everybody else, the projects take a long time to develop for lots of different reasons. groundwater storage and recovery project was put forward as an

idea in 1993. so projects do not come easily by any means. the current capital costs range from $1 billion to $1.25 billion and it will likely exceed $2 billion to achieve 50 million gallons a day. so these are -- we're past the days of low-hanging fruit. it's new and different projects. in terms of timelines, they're grouped into three categories. near-term, which may be accomplished within 10 years. and even though it's a reservoir, has been on a fast

track because of project funding from proposition 1 funding. there's been a lot of pursuit of storage projects. and prop 1 provides that it makes it to conclusion. and that would be in conjunction with alameda county water district, where it would forego part of our supply that we could use for another customer. medium-term, again, incorrect potable reuse that would feed their so these are projects that

we estimate could be accomplished within the 10 to 15 years. and could add 18 million to 19 million gallons a day. and longer term, up to 30 years, a second phase in expansion of that. east side purified water, which would be from the southeast water pollution control camp. regulations to do that don't exist at this time. so that one is much further off for lots of reasons. and second phase, silicon valley clean water. so we tried to cluster these in terms of timelines. these are ones that we think are, frankly, optimistic, given our experience with projects. they take a long time to develop. and that's what we off with have

to do to put it into effect. that's roughly the timeline. there are other projects that we can develop, but these are the cream of the crop, as it were. and we did ask finance to run scenarios of what those costs would do to rates. so they gave me the carefully scripted lines and allowed me to say these, on their behalf. "if all of these proposed projects were im mrplemenimplem would require water increases 8% to 17% higher than those planned under the status quo," with everything being equal what it is now, over a 15-year period. for the average single-family residential customer, it would result in $9 to $20 higher bills by the end of the 15-year period. the ranges relate to the low end and high end in terms of the

projects. so, again, these are very rough numbers. it gives you a sense of, you know, the time and the cost of actually implementing the projects, which, again, are on the front of our plate as compared to any other projects at this time. so before i go on to the discussion of meetings with the n.g.o.s, any questions on this information? >> commissioner vietor: so that rate -- the rate payer numbers, does that include public financing? any additional -- i know we've opinion successful getting grants. >> this does not assume grants or anything. >> commissioner vietor: those projects, were they identified by p.u.c. staff or other input or bay work consortium or it has

not been vetted beyond staff, right? >> a number of part of the bay area regional viability project and we just met yesterday morning, in fact. alameda and bawsca, marin municipal among them. we decided as we started the desalination stud iies that it s starting to see opportunities. and so several of these projects, much more forward-thinking. and there are other projects in there -- i joke about as a magic marker line on a map. that would be a second time, for

example. and also the silicon valley purified water is not on the list because that project is going slowly right now because of some disputes in santa clara county over, frankly, whose water it is. so that's circling at the current time. these have been developed cooperatively, except for san francisco east side recycled water, that's purity san francisco. >> commissioner vietor: i do want to express appreciation, because i have been asking for this information and i know it's not a small amount of work to do this and i feel like we are getting there. and this question of how long and how much, really the big question, to really get to meeting our water supply with or without what happens at the state level, because we gnome that the climate is changing and we need to prepare for redundancy. so i am eager to hear next steps

and there will be a meeting of the board november 7? >> that's been talked about. nothing has been scheduled yet that i'm aware of. i do know that as far as the negotiations, there have been a couple of discussions on that count as well, that i'm not able to disclose any information on, but there's been further discussions. and also there's been discussions between the state and federal government relative to the state water project and central valley project, because they're part of this mix and, frankly, they're the two big gorillas in the room. and so people are paying more attention to them than puny old san francisco off here on the side, which we take offense at, but they are the big ones we're talking and where they come out in their conversations may have

ripple effect for us and our tributary diversions. >> commissioner vietor: what about what are transfers and water banking? any program or further conversation on that? >> in terms of transfers there, is a broader sense in that. i cannot get into details here, but people are talking about one question that comes up is releases of water and what happens to that water? can it be diverted by the projects and directed in their service areas, or does it need to flow out to the bay? that kind of question is going on. and if that water were put down, some people have said, we, should the projects pick it up? should they pay for that water? those conversations are going on out there for sure. >> commissioner vietor: and will -- when will that information come before this commission, if

there is a decision to pay or transfer? >> if there is some -- well, i'm sure that we will schedule particularly a closed session if something starts to look like there's some reality there or if it looks like there is no reality there. one way or another, we'll be back certainly at least in a closed session within the next meeting or so. >> commissioner vietor: i just -- i'm feeling the magnitude of this issue and want to express that to my fellow commissioners, because there could be a vote by the state board. and this could have significant consequences for the commission. >> that's correct. >> commissioner vietor: i'm really interested in continuing to refine and define what we're talking about here so that we

can be as prepared as possible to respond as needed. i don't think anybody want to get into a lawsuit if we can avoid it. if there's any way to move the ball down the field relatively quickly so we don't end up in -- whatever the sports analogy might be, fumbling the ball, you know, i for one would appreciate it. if that means further offline conversations to get there, i would be happy to participate and i welcome commissioner moran's thoughts as well, because i know he's been deeply involved in this issue for many, many years. >> commissioner moran: thank you. i want to mick -- make sure that i understand the numbers. you said at the beginning of the