1. Hypothetical pumping cuts illustrated substantial economic stakes. The committee reviewed a no-action alternative that examined reliance on pumping reductions rather than an engineered solution. Modeling indicated that even eliminating all agricultural pumping valley-wide would not return seawater intrusion to the existing minimum-threshold line by 2040. The economic analysis associated a hypothetical 30% valley-wide agricultural pumping cut with roughly $1.8 billion a year in lost economic output, and a 50% cut with about $2.8 billion a year. These are not forecasts of state-imposed cuts or losses borne entirely by growers. Commenters questioned the use of economic output rather than profit and the assumption of valley-wide reductions; another cautioned that targeted cuts could have worse local effects. The chair asked staff to consider refining the analysis. The scope of any future state pumping restrictions remains unknown.
2. The portfolio schedule may accelerate, but no summer deadline was adopted. Staff said an October–November finish line might need to move to August–September to accommodate a possible 90-day public-comment period for groundwater sustainability plan amendments and subsequent work before January. Discussion suggested July or August 2026 as a working target for the Advisory Committee’s recommendation to the board. Members discussed four checks for a portfolio: effectiveness in meeting groundwater-level and seawater-intrusion goals by 2040, reliability of supply, flexibility to combine and adapt components, and cost. They expect two more project presentations on April 29 before comparing potential portfolios in May and June.
Already have an account? Sign In
