1. Staff presented three project portfolios, but none was approved. Portfolio 1 combines a mid-sized brackish groundwater replenishment project with injection, proposed C&E East Side recharge, CSIP optimization and 10% agricultural demand management. It was modeled as meeting seawater-intrusion and groundwater-level goals; staff planned further analysis of its combined cost. Portfolio 2 would expand irrigation water delivery over intruded areas without pushing the seawater-intrusion line back to its minimum threshold. Portfolio 3 uses a smaller BGR configuration—with fewer extraction wells and substantially less injection than Portfolio 1—and, in the illustrative model, would supply some BGR water to Salinas, Marina Coast and Castroville to reduce urban pumping. Discussion identified a modified Portfolio 3 and a combination of smaller, lower-cost components for further modeling. Participants questioned whether Portfolio 2 would receive further analysis; no portfolio motion or vote occurred.
2. Demand-management scenarios illustrated substantial costs, not proposed pumping cuts. Staff said demand management alone would not meet seawater-intrusion goals. Hypothetical, subbasin-specific pumping cuts, including cuts modeled in Forbay, totaled about 41,000–61,000 acre-feet in the economic analysis. ERA Economics estimated associated annual losses of approximately $500–$700 million in gross farm revenue, 5,800–8,000 full-time-equivalent jobs and $1.0–$1.3 billion in regional value added. Staff instead discussed targeted demand management alongside projects, including in the deep aquifers, Corral de Tierra and parts of the northern 180/400 area. Members questioned how the geographic scenarios and totals were presented; a public commenter urged consideration of net farm-income effects alongside gross revenue losses.
Already have an account? Sign In
