on those three tributaries solve the regulatory crunch which is why the san joaquin authority sued turlock, oak dale and san francisco and m modesto and merced filed on their own. i believe the san joaquin filed on their own. we're a unique set in that we're all the ones that have the actual risk of potentially adverse regulatory action at this time. so there's a lot of work still to be done among all the parties to get somewhere on this. >> thank you. >> i have a couple questions. thank you, for your presentation. i appreciate it. so i had some similar questions around the strategy and plan and time line for early implementation because i feel quite strongly these conversations and though there are short time lines in here could potentially drag on and meanwhile the fish are in trouble. so i would like to hear the next meeting more specifics on what that process would look like if indeed it's an e.i.s. that needs to be released, how that could happen. how quickly can we begin early implementation and what would that look like? >> we can present at the next meeting. >> commissioner: thank

. >> the parties at that point the department of fish and wildlife and department of resources an turlock and modesto irrigation services in san francisco. >> and i know there's been this constant question about stakeholder engagement or n.c.l. participation. i think you put in the next two weeks the conversations will take place as well. will there be an opportunity for and i'd imagine it'd be limited but if there's some significant issue identified or flagged by somebody from the n.g.o. community or another stakeholder within the next couple weeks. >> i'll give you my interpretation of what the state board order means they'd like final agreements by march 1. march 1 is really soon. will that be the final word on this? there's analysis, there's process. the analysis of the agreement may come back and may show that yeah, there are particular things that ned to be done differently. there may be some weaknesses shown there we all have to confront and deal with. i think until the state board adopts something, it's all open to some kind of discussion. i would say i think the advantage of the

my second question is, is the modeling that was produced by the turlock districts being used to support sfpuc staff proposal for non flow measures going to be peer reviewed. i heard someone say it would be. so if so, when? i'm worried that implementing this plan, without peer review, even by february of 2019, would years to see how things will play ut will condemn the salmon in those two depend on it. thirdly, why is this solution to increase and protect salmon populations that failed two decades ago? one that relied heavily on non flow measures, in particular predator habitat reduction being proposed again? i referred to a letter sent to you from the trust in july of this year detailing what happened then. number 4, should any water urban agency be fifth lined with irrigation districts when there are different agendas. they're serving a single industry, agriculture, where sfpuc provides for basic human needs. they have a resource ex traction mentality and they have a conservation mentality. the valley water agencies provide water for profit making leaving out too many of the poor, whol