The Salinas Valley Basin GSA board approved Portfolio 3A, but long-term funding and cost allocations remain undecided; preliminary work is funded. Corral de Tierra groundwater levels have declined for roughly two decades, and the Monterey Subbasin had groundwater-level and storage undesirable results in each of the first five SGMA implementation years. Staff reported a recent seawater intrusion advance near Fort Ord; modeling projects further intrusion without new measures.
On August 20, the Salinas Valley Basin GSA Advisory Committee discussed the board’s August 13 selection of Portfolio 3A as its preferred strategy, with nine ayes on an 11-member board; no individual projects were approved. OceanWell presented an early-stage subsea desalination concept with no Monterey Bay price. Members pressed for continued examination of alternatives, including ideas from Monterey One Water and the Salinas Basin Water Alliance, and approved the July 16 minutes subject to corrections.
The board voted 10–1 to select Portfolio 3A as the preferred implementation pathway for addressing seawater intrusion. A draft funding memo showed illustrative costs of roughly $600–$1,200 per irrigated acre per year (2036 dollars) under high external funding assumptions; a director warned these figures could exceed farm profits. Agricultural demand management, assumed at a 10% reduction, drew significant concern, with some directors pushing for flexible, incentive-based approaches.
The Forebay committee heard that the Advisory Committee found three northern project portfolios too costly, voted to drop the largest, and made no preferred-portfolio recommendation. Staff previewed GSP amendment ideas, including drought planning and land repurposing, without committing to implementation. Potential groundwater-dependent ecosystems were flagged in some years, but their causes remain undetermined. The next regular Forebay meeting is October 26.
Langley’s desktop review found no groundwater-dependent ecosystems of concern in 2015 or 2019–2024; one field assessment scored 60 as a baseline, not a finding of harm. The committee discussed recharge and demand management but approved no projects. Staff reported significantly higher per-connection fees, citing depleted grants, subbasin-specific work and revised pumping attribution.
