The 180/400 Foot Subbasin committee reviewed draft groundwater plan amendments, including proposed work to develop Deep Aquifers allocations and pumping limits. No allocations or limits were adopted. Staff sought written comments by mid-November but set no deadline. The draft combines two projects into the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project and adds rural residential and well-mitigation actions. New projects may be proposed for this amendment round or considered in future annual reports.
Ron Stefani became chair and Bridget Rotticci vice chair; the committee approved an option for fully remote meetings. August receivables were about $4.7 million, including delayed grant reimbursements. The $3.6 million line of credit included about $3.2 million tied to grants and additional operating borrowing. Preliminary June savings were about $374,000 for reserves. Staff discussed possible revenue studies, but no fee change was approved.
Forebay lacked a quorum and took no action; Upper Valley conducted business. The Board advanced Portfolio 3A for further work amid substantial cost concerns. Staff reported that the groundwater model overestimates winter river flows, with broader effects still under review. A commenter urged staff to identify and rerun affected draft-plan analyses before adoption. Draft Forebay and Upper Valley groundwater sustainability plan amendments are open for comment.
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.
