Yolo County Farm Bureau

1. Yolo County Farm Bureau July 30, 2008 7:00 to 8:30 pm

2. Introductions & Meeting Guidelines • Tim Miramontes, YCFB President • Chuck Dudley, YCFB 1st Vice President • Eric Paulsen, YCFB Exec Board Member

3. Statement • Farm Bureau is opposed to the proposal passed on May 2008 by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to • Update the Groundwater Ordinance • Charge fees on in-county & out-of-county water transfers • Create a new county-wide Water Agency controlled by the Board of Supervisors

4. County Wide Water Agency • 3 Supervisors support, 2 oppose, proposal as written • McGowan, Thomson, Yamada support • Chamberlain, Rexroad oppose • 2 Supervisors want new water agency modeled after Solano County Water Agency • 1 Supervisor wants a new agency • 3 are adamant about forming a new water agency

5. County Wide Water Agency • Proposal made without consulting any existing water agencies • Yolo County Flood Control • Reclamation Districts • Cities • Existing county water agency, Yolo County Water Resources Agency (WRA), not acceptable to Supervisors because they want total control

6. County Wide Water Agency • Where did this come from? • We’re told it’s been on a back burner for years • Recent water issues brought to forefront • Water District from Southern California purchased land in the bypass • Drought, Delta issues causing Southern California to find ways to take more of Northern California’s water • Farm Bureau AGREESYolo County water should be protected • Farm Bureau DISAGREES with Board of Supervisors proposal to handle problem

7. In-County & Out-of-County Water Transfers • Fees should not be charged for in-County water transfers • Current out-of-County water transfers help local farmers – don’t want blanket restrictions

8. Problem • We understand Supervisors’ frustration over ownership transfer of large land parcels presenting possibility of water transfer out of county • Supervisors cannot control who landowners sell land to • The Governor’s emergency proclamation directs the Department of Water Resources…..to transfer groundwater through the California Aqueduct to benefit farmers in the affected counties and…to review water transfers as quickly as possible

9. YCFB Suggestion • Need input from all existing water agencies before forming a new agency • Cannot overlap existing AB 3030 plans

10. Groundwater Ordinance • Proposal is unacceptable • Burdensome • Participation must be solicited from Cities, the YCFCWCD and Reclamation Districts • Expensive, open ended, adds an additional element of risk into our farming operations

11. What Has FB Done? • Met With Individuals and Groups Concerned About Proposal • CFBF lawyers • Davis, Winters, Woodland City Managers • Reclamation Districts • California Ground Water Association • Downey Brand (Water Attorneys) • Northern California Water Association

12. What Has FB Done? • May 08 mailed postcards to FB members (1,350) • June 08 mailed meeting notice to FB members (1,350) • June 15th public meeting held • July 08 mailed meeting notice and flyer to FB members, members of Irrigated Lands Program and Growers (2,700) • July 30th public meeting held

13. What Has FB Done? • CFBF lawyers working with groups • Worked with CFBF lawyers to propose a groundwater initiative the Yolo County Public can support • Met with water specialist lawyer to explore legalities and costs of possible initiative

14. What Are Options? • If the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance that is unacceptable Farm Bureau Directors voted to: • Look into a referendum = voters will decide if the ordinance is acceptable • Look into an initiative (which would be our own ordinance) = voters would decide • Look into filing a lawsuit to block the ordinance

15. Initiative • Have 6 months to gather signatures (actually closer to 4 months) • Need agreement of landowners, Reclamation Districts, cities and others • Too late to qualify for Nov 08 ballot (papers have already been printed) • Next vote is scheduled June 2010. May be able to take advantage of county/district school board elections in November 2009

16. Costs • Referendum & Initiative projected costs to be between $25,000 and $100,000 • Mailings to all residents of Yolo County • ………. registered voters • If this goes to a ballot, very detailed reports must be kept and submitted – someone will have to be hired to keep the records • Lawsuit • Minimum of $100,000

17. Next Steps • County plans to hold stakeholder meetings in August, using a facilitator • 3 Supervisors say to bring them a proposal we find acceptable • Join other groups who are opposed to ordinance • Yolo County Taxpayers Association • Yolo Landowners Association • Others

18. Next Steps • Farm Bureau will begin to solicit donations in order to be ready in the event an unacceptable ordinance is passed • Farm Bureau will continue to meet with lawyers to be prepared to respond with a referendum and or an initiative in the event an unacceptable ordinance is passed • Farm Bureau will consult with attorneys regarding the feasibility/necessity for a lawsuit in the event an unacceptable ordinance is passed

19. Next Steps • Gathering names with permission to run ads in local newspapers opposing the ordinance • Davis Enterprise • Daily Democrat • Winters Express • 2 West Sacramento publications • Solicit donations to cover projected expenses

20. What Can You Do? • Add your name to those who publicly oppose the ordinance • Make a donation • Make sure your neighbors, friends, relatives are aware of this issue • Join the Farm Bureau!!!