Angelus Oaks

Nice report "AOaqua"

I heard you AO people dont have water meters, how does that work? Maybe if funds are needed meters need to be installed and the high usage people pay a bigger share of the pie. It may cost now but pay off later and help the "biz" become more solvent imho.

:
The settlement is what it is. A done deal, so - Deal with it. On the bright side, TK&co. are moot - of no meaning or further consequence. We got what we needed, and paid the price for it. In the end, i think they got less than they speculated on. And don't forget, TK&Co. still has the dam to deal with. !ha

It's also up to the real estate market now to determine the value of whatever TK&Co have. I notice that the asking prices have come down quite a bit, lately. The real estate loan market? On the other hand, the price of lumber is down, too; while the number of unemployed contractors and builders is up. Good luck.

Time to move on to the To-Do List that has been deferred during the litigation; and after too many years of not doing and neglect.

The deal is done. One of the consequences is - just enough money left in the budget to keep the boat afloat and pay the bills for the next eight months. Operate on a shoe-string.

GMMWC can just ride it out until next FY (no money to do anything), or - raise money in the meantime to ensure financial solvency. It won't be popular, but - a one-time Special Assessment of $25, $50, $? per share will at least provide some additional cash reserves and operating capital. You know - help keep the boat afloat.

I remember the Wives of the AO Volunteer FD. They held an annual BAke $ale at the #15 Pancake Breakfast every year. They raised more money than the Junk Sale did. The home-made pies and other goodies were delicious.

Another option is short-term financial assistance from our local elected county and state gov reps. They have 'access' to money; you know - "our" tax dollars.

For example: because GMMWC is a "private" entity, it is not eligible to even apply for any "public" grants, low-interest loans, programs etc that govs offer. Except! - that GMMWC can 'partner' with any gov/agency in the form of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA agreement), and that gov/agency can then serve as our public-partner surrogate (proxy) in applying for said $$, on our behalf. The 'county' (Special Districts) gets 10% of the pie for "administering" the contract; GMMWC gets the $.

County Special Districts can also provide "technical assistance". Things like - how to manage and run a successful mutual water company; an operating manual. Or, how-to-do 'templates' of what has to be done to run it right; e.g. current water study; long-range master management plan; CIP; budgeting.

For example - GMMWC has the authority and power to put "conditions" on every Will-Serve letter issued. Those "conditions" can exceed current minimum water conservation requirements for water using appliances, equipment (toilets & water heaters), landscaping, recycling and re-use, etc. IOW - every new home built, or re-model of exisitng bathroom/kitchen/laundry, shall incorporate state-of-the-art water conservation. At least target the biggest water users, both inside and outside, for additional water savings.

bajawhathisname ran the educated guestimate numbers and calcs b4 on how much agua AO gets on the 'average', how much it uses, and how much more is needed to still serve those +120 other vacant lots.

IOW - One of the first things needed is: a new Water Study - so we know exactly what it is; basic data and info - so we know what we have to work with. That is how and what you develop future plans and projects on. A solid baseline of information.

Without facts and data (current Water Study) showing "existing conditions", GMMWC has no legal basis for taking any actions. Without a master "Plan", GMMWC has no legal basis for taking any actions. Both must be updated every five years to be legally valid. If it dont, GMMWC will get sued again.

High-Priority To-Do > In the next 3-4 months, Send out the new Water Study Request For Proposals - to find out how much it is going to cost to do. That cost becomes part of next FY09 Annual Water Bill. It must be done. The shareholders will understand a clear plan-of-action to remedy past oversights, and the steps necessary to make it right. No more guesswork. Set a course to get us there.

Fyi - bajawhathisname took the manhour costs of the 1984 Water Study and applied the current 'rates' charged by the same company. A 2008 Water Study of the same info would cost about $25,000 to do today. It must be done. That cost becomes part of next FY Annual Water Bill.

#2 big cost ticket > A long-range Master Plan: that says - what is needed, why, how it is being addressed, when, how much it will cost, and how it will be paid for. It gets revised and updated every five years, depending on the "existing conditions" at that time. The Capital Improvements Plan and Budget gets updated and approved annually. That is how it gets done.

A long-range Master Plan: That is 'what' gives policy guidance to the Board, no matter who is serving at any particular time. A consistent plan-of-action. It gets put to a vote of the shareholders, so all agree on a common course of action. We know what to expect.

It may not be popular, but that is what needs to be done in the next 2-3 years, to make it right; and to make it work like it is supposed to.

Make it so. That is the price we must now pay.
:

:
- MeeTerz? we don got to show u no stinkin water meTerz!
:
BTW - It aint over just quite yet; sorry. As i understand it, New state law will soon "require" mutual water companies to install water "meters". Yep. It shall be done. Add that cost to the next X# years of Annual Water Bills, too. There is going to be no other choice but to do it.

Who knows if the state legislators will provide any funding to help do it (like, low-interest gov loans/bonds); or not (unfunded mandate). At say - $125 per meter = $42,000, just to buy 335 of connects ; plus installation costs. Put that on the 2011 FY Annual Water Bill.

A new Water Study is needed next year in FY/09. A long-range Master Plan is needed in FY/10. Water meters will be in FY/11. Do what it takes to get it done. It is going to cost money. Budget for it, and bill for it.

So - water 'meters' is pretty much a moot issue; it shall be done, sooner or later. The real issue will be: rate structure; How much for how much. Right now, the cost of the actual water itself is included in the overall O/M costs of the Annual Water Bill. With meters, it is possible to establish a seperate cost (charge) for the water itself, and base those prices on how much water is used; a tiered rate structure.

Tier 1: you get a basic amount of water for a basic price. Once an "average" consumption rate per connection is established for the whole, that will be the baseline (Tier 1) amount of water (cubic feet;gallons) every shareholder will get at a base rate (price). That 'average' consumption rate also needs to consider and incorporate what the 'average' Safe-Annual-Yield (SAY) is, too. Water is not 'free' anymore.

Right now, that 'average' consumption in AO (both full and part timers) is about 101,500 gallons per connection per year (8500 gallons per month); including commercial uses. With meters, it will also be possible to establish appropriate rate structures for residential and commercial uses.

Tier 1 - you get a basic amount of water for a basic price. Tier 2: if you use one drop more than the basic T1 amount, your price rate goes up exponentially; 1000% increase. That is one way to encourage conservation, and get results. They more you use, the more it is going to cost you; a lot more.

You take a survey of every other mutual water company's rate structures; how much for how much. That gives you a pretty good idea of the actual 'price' of the water itself. It ain't free anymore. Remember, TK said it was worth 5-6 times what we are paying for it. Charge accordingly.

Another way to look at it is > how much would it cost to buy 101,500 gallons of water DTH & have it delivered to AO? You gota balance the average annual wet received, with the average annual amount consumed; basic supply:demand, and price it accordingly. The goal is enough water every year to meet minimum needs.

The reality is: there is not a whole lot of choice about what needs to be done, or when. It just gotta be. If someone see's or knows a different or better way or solution, please speak up & ty.

By rough and off-the-cuff ballpark estimates, it is going to take a minimum of +$50-75 per share to raise the money to do: see above and previous posts; for each of the next 3-4 years. Financial need bites. We're all in this boat together. It takes leadership and purpose to navigate the boat to safe harbor.
:

I see baja racer is BACK! your emails read like a fingerprint

:
bajawho? huh, who dat?

The deal is done, and it is what it is. For the most part, TK&Co are no longer relevant. We got what we needed, and paid the price. Deal with it.

The next item on the Agenda is: taking care of all that other still need To-Do List. bajawhathisname can only hope there is no longer a need to rant or rave or to jump upNdown & wave his arms about.

What is not acceptable is no or untimely action; excuses, foot dragging, etc. Leadership is about solving problems. The Board was elected to get it done.

The present time is an opportunity to chart the course, and get the ball rolling. The share holders should expect or accept no less; imho, of course.
:

Well welcome to the bore hole Mr. Aqua...

:
Thanks for the welcome AOSwampfox > a fresh start. Congrats (and condolences) to the Board on finding a final settlement to a tough situation. Make sure you check for teflon ink. !ha

I can only hope the stage is now set for taking care of all the other biz that has been neglected during, prior to, and as a result of, the litigation. Its a long laundry List of To-Do's.

I'll post what i believe are actions needed to be taken, to get GMMWC back on sound footing and on a new course of action to bring solution to what needs doing. It won't be a particularly popular topic, but it needs doing, nonetheless.

> a fresh start. The Board has a unique opportunity to involve the shareholders in finding mutually acceptable solutions to difficult issues. No easy task - self goverance. Open meetings with shareholder input. Form a Fund Raising working group; a Planning group. Involve those shareholders who want to be active participants. Leadership is taking action to solve community needs and problems.

I've rambled enough, for now. I'll continue to post ideas and options; your comments and feedback are appreciated. Glad to be back.

P.S. hehehe - "borehole" is a mostly South African term generally meaning a water well.

:

What do we do now, now that the litigation is finally settled? Maybe: no more executive sessions. Run it like the biz that it is. Open meetings with shareholder input and participation. The Board has a unique opportunity to do the right thing, or the shareholders can do it for ourselves.

What needs doing? Imho:

- A new Water Study RFP: Pretty ez to do, really. Use the Table of Contents from the 1984 Water Study to id major work tasks. Add any other items of importance or data/info needed to prepare a long-range Master Management Plan. Send it out to professional consultants and find out how much it actually will cost to do. Do it. Add that cost to the FY09 GMMWC budget.

There isn't any other way or any reason not to. No excuses this time. Bite the bullet and pay the piper's price. Get it done. A solid baseline of data and info reflecting the "existing conditions" of the AO water machine. That is the basis and facts upon which informed decisions can be made.

That baseline of data and info is useless unless it is put in the context of a Plan. The Water Study identifies the resources available to meet the community's needs. A long-range Master Plan identifies those needs, and outlines a blueprint for managing the available resources to meet those needs.

A long-range Master Plan is not anything new or mysterious - they have been required of large water companies since the early 1990's. The contents and requirements are spelled out in detail in state Code; ref "Urban Water Management Plans". The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that adequate and reliable water supplies will be available to serve future needs. You know, the basis for issuing a Will-Serve letter, or declaring water conservation requirements.

A new Water Study. A long-range Master Plan. These are not new ideas or unknown quantities, except maybe in AO. They are what is needed to do it right after so many years of neglect. They take the guess work out of how-we-gonna-do-that?

They cost money to do. Based on my past experience in doing such things and current consultant rates, i guestimate it will cost about $25,000 to do each. Don't take my est however. Send out an RFP and find out.

Hint to GMMWC: there are shareholders who have real-world experience in doing such things. Enlist their active participation, but get it done. For example, for most of my 30+ years career, i wrote "Plans" of every conceivable kind; goals, policies, implementation actions. Helped draft legislation, too. I is good at it, Toot-toot > i authored the Bear Valley Communities Plan for SB County in 1986. The BVCP fore_warned of a pending water supply crunch; demand will exceed known available supplies if something isnt done about it. BVCP also established implementation actions to address the issue: a 150% water conserving toilet retrofit program; a limit on creating more new lots (existing supply is adequate to meet historical growth rates for next 20+ years); etc. The BBC_CSD just spent $308,000 to do a new Water Study.

Hint: there are other GMMWC shareholders with similar experience who are willing to help, too.

A long-range Master (Urban) Water Management Plan is pretty straight forward: what are the future water demands/needs in 5-10-15-20 years? What resources are available to meet those needs? How are we going to do that?

One option is: we can do it ourselves. Save a bundle of money, too. Form a Planning Working Group, with volunteer shareholders. Divide up and dole out the work tasks needed to do it. A smart consultant would enlist the assist of citizen 'stake holders' from the get-go > participation builds 'ownership'. 'Look what we did ourselves', is a powerful tool for getting it done with citizen [sic:"shareholder"] support.

Let the people have an active say and a hand in helping to build it; 'we built this city'. Powerful stuff.

It takes leadership to do it, no matter how it gets done. Leaders are elected to get it done; the peoples biz.
:

:
good points to ponder, HawgRider. My incentive is to maintain local control. Yes, the gov can do it to us, and they will. They will fix it, and then sell it to the highest bidder. We will pay whatever that price is.

The incentive is: Once local control is gone, it is gone for good.

My stick is our family's four GMMWC shares (votes). My stick is being Major Payne N. Diaz, if need be. My stick is to keep asking, and suggesting options and ideas. My stick is to elect people to the Board who will take pro-active action.

Hint: one per month Board meetings that last 1-2 hours, is not going to get it done. Imho - The Board needs to do whatever needs to be done to get it done. What needs doing? Make a List. Roll up our collective sleeves.

The goal is: to maintain local control by bailing ourselves out; whatever needs to be done to get it done. Its a simple choice, really - if the shareholders choose not to be active participants in solving the problems at hand, or if the Board/shareholders aren't willing to takes the steps necessary to get it done (i.e., raise rates to generate the $ to pay someone else to do it for us) - then we will pay the price for that in the end. However much that is.

I've outlined what i believe is The Agenda to get it done, in the next 3-4 years. The choice is: we do it for ourselves; or the gov will do it to us, on our behalf. We will pay the price for either choice, regardless.

That is the choice for the Board. Let the shareholders decide.
:

:
A good incentive is - money! Pay heap wampum now, or a lot more later.

If we loose local control of GMMWC, that also means "the budget". Yes. They will fix it, and then sell it to the highest bidder. We will pay whatever that price is. And i guarantee, it will not be cheap.

For example, the state/county gov will not spread out the work needed to be done over 3-4 years, but will do it in one year. Including the cost for: new water study, new master Plan, new CIP, install water meters, fix all the old pipes, etc. Ka-Ching!! The buyer can charge whatever they want to. We will get stuck paying the bill.

I don't think so. I would prefer that we do it for ourselves. Pay the price incrementally, but get it done and under our control. We own it now. Free and clear. The land, waters, water rights, the capital improvements - paid for. We owe taxes and insurance every year.

The price is going to go up, no matter who does it. I want the shareholders to control those pursestrings. We know what has to be done, no matter who does it. I want the shareholders to control that process. Water is not free or cheap anymore.

A new Water Study takes professional and specialized expertise to do. I'm educated guesstimating that will cost about $25,000 to do; same basic $8k 1984 study at todays rates. It just has to be done. Thats about $55-75 a share, depending on how many 'shares' share in the cost of doing it.

The next year, a Master Plan needs to be done; the blueprint for doing what needs to be done, based on how much water is available to do it from the Water Study findings. About another $25,000 to have the pro's do.

A Master Plan is not new or mysterious. Most every water purveyor on the planet in CA has to have one, by law; since the early 1990's. The detailed contents can be found in state Code: ref "Urban Water Management Plans". Technically, GMMWC does not have to have one because it serves less than 3000 connections. We need one, nonetheless. It is what is legally valid in Court if you get sued by some 'wingnut'.

It is the Master Plan for how it all gets done; the blueprint and navigation chart. The data that GMMWC does know is part of the info needed to do a Master Plan. The new Water Study should provide the rest. Supply and demand.

What are the Average Day and Maximum Day Demands (needs) now and in 5-10-15-20 years; based on historic/projected growth rates? And in normal, dry, and multiple-dry years? What water supply resources are or will be available to meet those demands? Are those supplies adequate and reliable to meet needs? How is GMMWC going to do that? Connect the dots.

That is pretty much the guts of a Master Water Management Plan. What a unique concept, huh. That is what has been lacking and neglected for so long and too long; no Board ever wanted to bite that bullet - just pass the hot potato and $1 along to the next Board. Well, now is the time it will get done - for and by ourselves; or to us, on our behalf. Each option has its consequences and utimate price tag.

I've got the knowledge and experience to draft a Master Water Plan; the technical details. The policy-related issues need discussion and dialog and consideration and shareholder input to make it work. It gets voted on.

We maintain control of our own destiny. That is my incentive.
:

:
Sorry that took so much to answer. If the answers were easy, we wouldnt be in this particular mess.

It's a lot to digest, but those are the issues and options - imho; The cold, hard facts. Multiple problems to be resolved. Tough choices to make. Deal with it.

That's how i see it; the view from a realist's rear view mirror. My education, training and experience is: solving problems. What are the needs? What are the resources available to meet those needs? connect the dots. Deal with the facts.

It has been my experience that the most pragmatic solutions and succssful examples are the result of active citizen participation; they did it themselves. We know what needs to be done and what the options are.

Find mutually acceptable answers, together - as a community. That takes leadership and affirmative actions by the Board.

You know - like, we own it; the shareholders. We own the controlling interest, and it is in our best interests to keep it that way. We fought for it when somebody else threatened 'our town'. We paid a high price for it, to keep it that way. I can't believe that was all for what? An exercise in futility? I don't think so.

There is only one viable and practical option imho; no other solution will do: We, the shareholders, do whatever is needed to do to make it right. If this Board isn't willing to do that, then get new Directors who are.

Yes, it is going to be a tough job, and there are no easy answers. What needs doing now is called reality. Deal wih it, or get out of the way.
:

;
Sure got quiet in here since bajawhathisname left. And HawgRider is spot right on – what’s in it for “me”? Like, should I care, now? (laugh) I volunteer to drink beer.

Make a To-Do List of everything that needs doing to make it right. Break it down into 2 main groups: management, and physical improvements. Here are some of mine >

Physical:

Remote rain/snow-depth metering/monitoring gauge, way up in high elevation in AO watershed on USFS land.

Another 150,000 gallons of storage capacity – to serve those remaining vacant lots @ 1,000 gallons of storage capacity for each.

A new seal on Well #1.

Another water well.

New 6in water mains – where, how much LF, when.

Water Meters.

**

Conservation management:

A low-flush toilet retrofit program

A ultra-low flush toilet rebate

A lot-merger incentives program

A ‘Landscaping Ideas’ demonstration garden – geee, what a unique idea for ‘landscaping’ the new AO “Capt. Vance” Fire Station (Community center).

So – throw an idea out on the table. How many hats does it take to make a successful mutual water company? I’ve gotten the ball rolling, so just pick up the ball & play: GMMWC For-A-Day. What would be your pet-project if ‘you’ were on the Board?
:

:
Today is Freedom of Information Day – Information Management: A GMMWC web site that has a how-to Conservation page. How about having a real time water gauge that shows annual wet-received to date? Full or empty?

FYI – there are several local AO electronic mini weather stations on weatherunderground dot com @ 92305. Their various locations show how variable the amount of wet-received is throughout AO. Real time too.

It sure would be nice to have a couple of those mini-units in different locations up high in the AO watershed, so we know what the actual wet-received is up there, too. You know, Where the real re-charge happens.

I get bored of re-reading my own rants, and TK&Co aren’t around to duel words with. Make a GMMWC wish: I wish they would – fill in blank. There won’t be any AO ‘community’ without local control of our own water.

OK – even more basic – what is the recipe for ‘carrot’ cake?
:
It takes all of us to tango, but it only takes one (sic:TK&Co) to screw it up. I know some ‘investors’ who will buy it; and run it for their own financial gain, at our expense.

On the other hand, maybe our family trust will buy it, and charge what ever we want to make a butt load of money off AO. Maybe charge 5-6 times as much as we pay now? RentWater in AO, Inc.

Now - how much will you do to maintain local control of our water? Hold a GMMWC Carrot Cake Workshop one Saturday soon, and find out. If it’s a No Show – then $ell it.

Water is the new liquid gold. We won’t even have a **** creek to pissh . . . err, I mean paddle in, without it; under our control.

Incentive, huh? OK – how about Shareholder Awareness & Revolution Day? Distribute that Litigation Summary. Make it perfectly clear what the options and consequences are now. Let the shareholders know all the facts. And then let them vote on it.

That vote will reflect if there are any incentive sentiments or support. Identify what and how much is needed to make it right and to maintain local control: money and peoplepower. Let the shareholders decide. You’ll get an honest answer.
:
Try a little good faith, maybe - Hint > it would be a showing of good faith for the Board to release copies of the 1984 Water Study to any shareholder who wants one.

Shareholders aint a bunch of dummies, but you gotta read it first. Elist the assist of the shareholders or face their wrath.
:

:
I’m outa ideas and wasting my breath. The Board only meets once a month for 1-2 hours, so I guess we have to wait until then to find out what is going on. Funny. Just check out some other local mountain mutual water company web sites; they actually have one!

What a unique concept – the 21_st Century. Hire the same web site designer that made one for one of those other MWC that does have one. Let the GMMWC ‘Secretary’ do the minutes & upcoming Board Agendas; post them on a GMMWC web site.

Where are the GMMWC Info Boards that were previously approved? Put up an electronic bulletin board; a website – already. Let the shareholders know what is going on, what is being done, how they can help, etc; Basic Rocket Science.

Scan the 1984 Water Study and post it as a pdf file, so we can begin building knowledge. Crafton Hills College has a pretty good computer AA program. Hire a student to make a web site. Hire a prof to make a web site. What is so difficult about doing it? Just do it.

What does it cost? $1-2 per year per share? It costs more for Frank to take the time to answer the same questions. Called efficient use of available resources for the $. Basic communication of Information; that the shareholders have a right to know.

I’d like to know just what is being done to address the tough issues facing GMMWC. Accountability and Access to Information about our water company. I don’t know why previous Boards chose to basically ignore and stifle shareholder input and participation.

The current Board has a golden window of opportunity to do the right things that have been neglected or just left undone for too long. Engage and enlist the assist of the shareholders. Take affirmative action and make it so.

:
Just how much is GMMWC worth, anyway? How much is the current value of all the physical assets? What was scheduled to get repaired this year that didn’t because $95,000+ was spent on lawyers instead?

If that money didn’t get spent doing the scheduled repairs, that means we still need +$95,000 to do it again; = 55% of the FY08 budget. That is another $284/share (335 shares), or $211/share if all (450) ‘shareholders’ pay equally.

Yep. Imho – the ‘vacant lot’ shareholders should pay an equal share of the legal fees too. As well as a fair-share cost of a new Water Study; and Master Plan.

The standard 10% increase over last years bill will add another $52.50/share. Add $56/share (450 shareholders) for that $25,000 new Water Study. Total of FY09 GMMWC bill/share: $844.50.

That is the min price we now must pay per share to make it right; it will be more in FY10. That is the cost of doing and staying in the water biz in AO. Deal with it. Reality.

Do we have another choice? Yes; just walk away (bankruptcy), or sell it. I don’t think so.

If it really is worth 5-6 times as much as we pay for it, like TK&Co said – the annual GMMWC water bill would be around $3,000/share/year, or $240/month/connection. I don’t think so.

Imho – the responsible thing to do is: find out how much it will cost (total) to maintain control of our own local water and do it right. A new Water Study. A new Master Plan. Water meters. It is not free or cheap anymore, but that is the price we must pay now to do it.

Water is the new liquid gold. We own it now. It is some of the best quality around; pure. Frankly, my goal is to maintain local control of it.

Maybe HawgRider is right, ‘incentive’? From the (not one) responses posted here, I guess so. Apathy reigns.

I guess the early Greeks learned that too. That is why we now elect ‘leaders’; to do the biz of doing for us. The people’s business. What a unique concept.
:

Has the deal been recorded?? anybody know?

:
AOSwampthing > with all due respect and regards to HawgRider, just what is my incentive to know or even care? LOL. Maybe we can meet for some carrot cake to ponder this mysterious secret of the universe.
:

:
Interesting read, HawgRider. Concerns like those raised by Mr. Ollila are usually addressed during review and comment of the Draft document before it is finalized and accepted. If there is a dispute about the accuracy of data used, that should have been addressed during the Scoping sessions as part of the RFP analysis and awarding of the contract.

Accuracy of data is the first thing any good anti-anything will challenge. Mr. Ollila seems firm in his belief that ‘there is plenty of water’, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Where is the evidence to support his claim?

Weather data in Big Bear has been recorded for over a hundred years by every gov agency in biz there; even by the Bear Valley Mutual Water Company that built the dams. The standard statistical margin of error is +/- 3%.

How accurate is the GMMWC weather gauge? Has it ever been calibrated for accuracy? GMMWC doesn’t have any data for how much wet is received up in the higher elevations of the AO watershed; where the real recharge happens.

It’s funny to me because I authored the BVCP 20 years ago that identified the water supply problem in the first place. The EIR done for the BVCP confirmed it, based on the best data available at that time.

All you can do is use the data that is available. If you question that data, then you have other fact-finding studies done to clarify the numbers.

That is why ‘existing conditions’ are re-assessed every five years, because conditions change. That is why you buy the most accurate and reliable rain gauge on the market.

If there are conflicting numbers, you run the numbers both ways. What do the numbers say each way, and which one makes the most sense? Most studies use a range: high and low numbers; and then use the median value for planning purposes.

The important point is: you gota start someplace. GMMWC has one water study, done in the mid-1980’s. We need a new one because conditions and technology have changed since then.

We have forty years of rainfall records. You throw out the driest and wettest years, and use the average. You find out what the low and high ranges are and their frequency of occurrence over time.

The point is: GMMWC needs a new Water Study, using the best data available and the latest technology and know-how.
: