Staff is focused on GSP amendments and periodic evaluations due in January 2027. Members discussed how to review project ideas; Harmon suggested revisiting the process in January, but no procedure was approved. Board development, including SGMA education, was raised as a future topic. The committee approved a remote-meeting option, subject to Board authorization renewed at least every six months, the committee’s 2027 quarterly schedule and February meeting minutes.
Five draft groundwater plan amendments are open for comment; Monterey’s is expected October 20. Comments received by November 18 will be included in December board materials; later comments may enter the January hearing record. The board approved an OceanWell study MOU requiring no direct GSA funding and bylaws limiting the chair to three consecutive years, and advanced proposed JPA revisions. Staff discussed deep-aquifer allocation planning and county well policies; no allocations or moratorium were adopted.
The Board chose Portfolio 3A as its preferred portfolio under the Integrated Implementation Strategy. Its modeled 10% agricultural demand reduction across four northern subbasins remains preliminary; no allocations were set. Submit comments on the draft Langley GSP amendment by November 18 to inform revisions. Comments remain open until the January public meeting. Staff calls Langley at risk of overdraft; a commenter cited a differing DWR letter.
The board approved staff finalizing and submitting the updated DWR additional-information response for the 180/400 subbasin GSP evaluation and amendment, with several technical edits. Capital Core Group presented a federal funding due-diligence approach. The GM reported Ocean Well and San Jose Water Company interest in exploring deep-water desal feasibility, with possible agreements to return for board consideration.
At its August 27 meeting, the Salinas Valley Basin GSA’s technical advisory committee discussed evidence of Upper Valley overdraft and a triggered long-term action threshold. An illustrative no-agricultural-pumping scenario raised modeled water levels in some areas but barely changed average annual storage change; its baseline already avoided groundwater-level undesirable results. Members flagged a possible river-flow model discrepancy and adopted no management action.
