CITY OF SALINAS
One Water Action Framework
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Salinas One Water Roadmap
June 2026 / FINAL
CITY OF SALINAS
One Water Action Framework
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Salinas One Water Roadmap
June 2026 / FINAL
Digitally signed by Inge Wiersema
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Date: 2026.06.18 18:16:00-07'00'
Digitally signed by Lydia A. Holmes
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Date: 2026.06.17 15:39:55-07'00'
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK i
pw://Carollo/CA/Salinas/203884-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/One Water Roadmap/Salinas One Water Roadmap.docx Contents
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2 DATA AND DOCUMENTS REVIEW 1
SECTION 3 INTERVIEWS 5
3.1 Water Management Issues 6
3.1.1 Regional Storage and Conveyance 7
3.1.2 Water Quality 7
3.1.3 Seawater Intrusion 8
3.1.4 Lack of Infrastructure Investment 8
3.1.5 Financial Concerns and Costs 9
3.1.6 Siloed Perspectives 9
3.2 Stakeholder Connections 10
SECTION 4 GAPS AND NEEDS 13
4.1 Data and Document Review Finding 13
4.1.1 Frequently Mentioned Water Management Elements 14
4.1.2 Gaps in Water Management Elements 14
SECTION 5 ONE WATER OPPORTUNITIES 14
5.1 Methodology 14
5.2 City Projects and Programs 15
5.3 Institutional Programs and Initiatives 16
5.4 Studies and Capital Projects 17
SECTION 6 ONE WATER ROADMAP 19
6.1 Introduction 19
6.2 Recommendations 20
6.3 Phasing 22
6.3.1 Near-Term Recommendations 24
6.3.2 Mid-Term Recommendations 24
6.3.3 Long-Term Recommendations 25
Appendices
APPENDIX A DOCUMENT REVIEW REFERENCES
APPENDIX B DOCUMENT REVIEW VISUAL EXHIBITS
APPENDIX C STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS #1 AND #2 NOTES
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK ii
Tables
Table 1 List of Interview Participants 6
Table 2 SVBGSA Board of Directors 11
Table 3 M1W Board of Directors 12
Table 4 Monterey County Board of Supervisors 12
Table 5 MCWRA Board of Directors 13
Figures
Figure 1 Document Analysis Matrix 4
Figure 2 Document Analysis Results 5
Figure 3 Stakeholder Interconnections 10
Figure 4 One Water Recommendations 21
Figure 5 One Water Roadmap 23
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK iii
Abbreviations
Alco Alco Water Service
Cal Water California Water Service
City City of Salinas
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSIP Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project
Farm Bureau Monterey County Farm Bureau
FCA Financial Capacity Analysis
FGA future growth area
GHG greenhouse gas
GSA groundwater sustainability agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility
M1W Monterey One Water
MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
O&M operations and maintenance
RTP Regional Treatment Plant
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SVBGSA Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency WRF water reclamation facility
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
This Salinas One Water Roadmap has been prepared for the City of Salinas (City) to document the initial efforts of its One Water initiative. The purpose of this initial phase of developing a roadmap is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the water management challenges in the Salinas Valley and identify potential future steps the City can take to collaborate with other entities in the Salinas Valley to better manage this precious resource.
This report summarizes the results of a comprehensive document review, interviews with stakeholders, and the two workshops held with regional stakeholders involved in the management of water in and around the City of Salinas. A review of the data and documents provided for this One Water effort is provided, followed by a summary and analysis of the stakeholder interviews building off the Interviews Summary project memorandum and an overview of the gaps and needs are presented as identified from internal analysis. Finally, a One Water Roadmap developed with input from stakeholders is presented for the City to move towards a One Water future.
SECTION 2 DATA AND DOCUMENTS REVIEW
In recent years, the City and the other water-related agencies have prepared many plans and studies that cover various aspects of water management in the Salinas Valley. A total of 30 documents were reviewed to develop an understanding of the previous and ongoing water-related studies, plans, policies, and goals.
These documents, in order of completion year, are as follows:
2002 City of Salinas General Plan.
2009 Specific Plan: Salinas Ag-Industrial Center.
2011 Specific Plan: The Gateway Center.
2014 Produce Wash Water Utilization Agreement.
2015 Agreement for Conveyance and Treatment of Industrial Wastewater by and between the City of Salinas and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. 2019 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. 2019 Specific Plan: West Area.
2020 Specific Plan: Central Area.
2020 California Water Service (Cal Water) Urban Water Management Plan Salinas District. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Update Salinas District (Appendix I of 2020 Urban Water Management Plan).
2021 Cal Water’s Water Supply Assessment for the Downtown Parking Lot and Intermodal Transportation Center Rezone Project.
2022 Industrial Wastewater Capacity Analysis.
2023 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 2
2023 Urban Forest Management Plan.
2024 MS4 Permit Annual Report WY23.
2024 Letter of Agreement for Temporary Diversion of Industrial Wastewater. 2024 Alco Water Service (Alco) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 2024 Letter of Agreement for Temporary Diversion of Industrial Wastewater Effluent from Monterey One Water's (M1W) Pond 3 Pump Station.
2024 Stormwater Master Plan Update.
2024 Cal Water’s Water Supply Assessment for the City of Salinas General Plan Update. 2025 Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project Scenarios Analysis. 2025 2025 180/400 Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Update. 2025 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Concepts to Address Seawater Intrusion Prelim Feasibility Study.
2025 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) Effluent Interim Agreement. 2025 Cal Water’s Water Supply Assessment for the Ferrasci Business Center Specific Plan. 2025 Water Challenges in the Salinas Valley – 2025.
2025 City of Salinas Climate Action Plan: Draft Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory – Summary of Results.
2025 City of Salinas Climate Action Plan: GHG Emissions Reduction Pathway – Draft Results of CAP Strategy Quantification.
2025 City of Salinas Climate Action Plan Attachment A: Draft GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Matrix. N/A Water Conservation Ordinances.
Additionally, there are several other documents that are currently in the process of being updated or finalized, including Visión Salinas 2040, the first comprehensive update to the City of Salinas’ General Plan since 2002, and the City’s first Climate Action Plan.
As noted in the list above, a number of draft excerpts from the Climate Action Plan were provided for this document review effort. A full list of references is included in Appendix A. In addition, the following exhibits from these documents are included in Appendix B to provide visual context for the water management challenges and specific key regional water infrastructure mentioned in this memorandum:
Figure B.1 – 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin and Reservoir Locations (Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency [SVBGSA] and Montgomery & Associates, 2025). Figure B.2 – Water System Map from Cal Water’s Salinas District (Cal Water, 2025). Figure B.3 – Water System Map from Alco’s Service Area (Alco, 2024). Figure B.4 – Seawater Intrusion in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin (SVBGSA). Figure B.5 – Seawater Intrusion Projections Under No Alternatives in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.6 – Concept for Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 3
Figure B.7 – Small Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.8 – Medium Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.9 – Large Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.10 – Injection-Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.11 – Eastside Injection Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.12 – North of River Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
Figure B.13 – Extract from 180-Foot Aquifer, Inject into 400-Foot Aquifer Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025).
The information presented in these 30 documents was cataloged into an analysis matrix to provide an easy visual on what type of information can be found in which plans. The matrix also provides insight into which water management topics are covered in multiple documents and what type of information is only documented in one or a few plans. As shown in Figure 1, the water management elements and factors influencing water management considered in this inventory are:
Water Management Elements:
» Potable Water.
» Wastewater.
» Stormwater.
» Groundwater.
» Conservation.
» Water Reuse.
» Agricultural.
» Water Transfers.
» Water Quality.
» Water Quantity/Supply.
Influencing Factors:
» Housing.
» Growth.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 4
Figure 1 Document Analysis Matrix
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 5
The 30 reviewed documents generated 90 total water management element entries and 15 entries of factors influencing water management. The categorized elements were then examined to identify occurrence trends, providing a quantitative overview of the prevalence of each topic in the provided water management documents. The number of observed occurrences for each element is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Document Analysis Results
SECTION 3 INTERVIEWS
To supplement the document review, interviews were conducted with eight different regional entities that are responsible for different aspects of water management throughout the Salinas Valley, as listed in Table 1. The purpose of these interviews was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the regional water management challenges and collaboration opportunities related to water management.
Building upon the Interviews Summary project memorandum (Carollo, 2025), this report presents summaries of the key takeaways from a comprehensive interview process conducted with regional stakeholders. Interview participants and their roles are listed in alphabetical order in Table 1. The interview questionnaire, summaries, presentation materials, and notes of each interview are also included in the Interviews Summary project memorandum.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 6
Table 1 List of Interview Participants
Organization Name Role
Alco Tom Adcock President
Cal Water Brenda Granillo District Manager
Scott Wagner Director of Water Resources
John Dillard Water Resources Engineer
City of Salinas Dennis Donohue Mayor (M1W Board Rep.)
Jose Luis Barajas Councilmember (SVBGSA Board Rep.)
M1W Paul Sciuto General Manager
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chris Lopez District 3 Supervisor Farm Bureau Norm Groot Executive Director
MCWRA Ara Azhderian General Manager
SVBGSA Piret Harmon General Manager
Sarah Hardgrave Deputy General Manager
Emily Gardner Deputy General Manager
Notes:
Farm Bureau - Monterey County Farm Bureau; MCWRA - Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
3.1 Water Management Issues
The common observations from the interviews are structured around the overarching water management issues stakeholders expressed concern over and provided context for both their organization and within the Salinas Valley as a whole. The six recurring water management issues discussed include the following:
Regional Storage and Conveyance: There is a regional challenge of getting sufficient water quantities to the right places at the right times. This challenge is also referred to throughout the interviews as the “plumbing problem,” although it should be clarified that this problem is about storage and not just conveyance.
Water Quality: Maintaining water quality amidst concerns about contaminants like arsenic, nitrates, and chlorides (salts).
Seawater Intrusion: A significant threat to the region’s groundwater basins, particularly the 180/400 Aquifer Subbasin.
Lack of Infrastructure Investment: Historical underinvestment in water infrastructure at both the city and county scale.
Financial Concerns and Costs: Large costs for existing infrastructure improvements and high capital and operational costs for proposed projects (regional projects to address seawater intrusion) posing a financial burden for both residents and the agricultural community. Siloed Perspectives: A prevalent lack of trust among different entities, coupled with siloed perspectives (agriculture versus urban, north versus south), hindering regional collaboration.
The following subsections elaborate on these six key water management issues, while a summary of the discussions with each stakeholder is provided in the Interviews Summary project memorandum.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 7
3.1.1 Regional Storage and Conveyance
The Salinas Valley faces a significant water supply storage issue, meaning that water resources are not available when and where they are most needed. Although this issue is referred to as the “plumbing problem" in multiple interviews, it should be clarified that this issue revolves around storage rather than just regional conveyance. This challenge was identified by multiple stakeholders in the region. Addressing this issue involves identifying projects to move and store water, infrastructure improvements, and coordinated regional efforts to manage groundwater and surface water resources sustainably. In addition to developing projects, there is a need for clearer understanding of the region’s water supply systems and problems by both the larger community and decision makers that can be addressed with outreach and education.
To address the major issue of seawater intrusion in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin particularly, more water is required to be injected or percolated into the groundwater basin. The Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams and Reservoirs at the southern end of Monterey County also provide releases for groundwater recharge and to deliver water downstream to the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) via the Salinas River Diversion Facility. The operation of the diversion facility helps offset groundwater demands for agricultural irrigation. The locations of the Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs in relation to the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin can be found in Figure B.1 in Attachment B.
In addition to current operations, the rebuilding of existing dams and a potential interlake pipeline between the Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams to transfer overtopping flows to the more slowly filled lake would help better manage surface water storage for the County. Transferring additional flows downstream for recharge or direct deliveries would require addressing many legal (water rights) and infrastructure challenges. The reservoirs are operated by MCWRA, and MCWRA along with SVBGSA have been investigating ways to better utilize the surface water resources in the County.
3.1.2 Water Quality
Apart from the risk of deteriorating water quality from seawater intrusion moving further inland, water purveyors and agricultural users face several other water quality issues and concerns in the Salinas Valley.
Both water purveyors serving City residents, Alco and Cal Water, face high levels of arsenic and nitrates in their wells. The service areas of each water purveyor for the City can be found on Figure B.2 and Figure B.3 of Attachment B.
Agricultural entities in the Salinas Valley are also concerned with more stringent requirements on the application of fertilizers and discharge of pesticides into waterways proposed and adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that would come into full effect by 2051. As it stands, requirements for the use of fertilizer (nitrogen) are set to a level that is deemed infeasible for agricultural production and do not fit agronomically with the crops grown in the Salinas Valley. If the limits are kept, the types of crops grown in the valley would need to change as yields for existing crops would no longer be sustainable, leaving the product unmarketable. The proposed requirements for reducing the tolerance levels of agricultural chemicals used for controlling pests and diseases go far below even drinking water quality standards, which would also affect agricultural yields for growers in the Salinas Valley.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 8
3.1.3 Seawater Intrusion
Seawater intrusion in the Salinas Valley has been documented since 1944 and is the main issue being addressed by the SVBGSA’s sustainability planning for the critically overdrafted 180/400 Aquifer, which includes a majority of the City of Salinas’ land area. The continued inland migration of seawater towards the City and vertical migration happening between the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers presents major challenges for the City of Salinas and surrounding areas, including deterioration of water quality, salt intrusion, and declining groundwater levels. Figure B.4 in Attachment B depicts the inland and vertical migration of seawater into the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin and Figure B.5 shows the projected migration of seawater into the 180/400 Aquifer Subbasin.
Multiple infrastructure projects throughout the Salinas Valley have been constructed in collaboration with various county agencies to help mitigate the issue, including the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project, CSIP, Salinas River Diversion Facility, and the San Antonio and Nacimiento Dams.
The SVBGSA is currently evaluating the feasibility of a portfolio of projects to combat seawater intrusion in the region, including the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project which is estimated to cost between $630 million to $1.5 billion in capital costs in 2024 dollars (Carollo, 2025). Additionally, the project is estimated to cost between $53 to $150 million in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, depending on the scenario selected. Figure B.6 depicts the project concept while Figure B.7 through Figure B.13 depicts the modeling results for the seven scenarios of the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project. The SVBGSA has approved moving forward with the Injection-Only Scenario for comparison with other seawater intrusion mitigation options. More information regarding the project scenarios studied and project updates can be found at the SVBGSA’s website (Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project – Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency).
In addition to needing projects to address seawater intrusion, it is important that there be regional education and awareness of the issue so there can be a true understanding of the severity of the problem.
3.1.4 Lack of Infrastructure Investment
The MCWRA constructed the Nacimiento Dam in 1957 and the San Antonio Dam in 1965 to control floods, enhance groundwater recharge, and mitigate seawater intrusion. It is estimated that Monterey County will need to invest about $200 million to implement dam safety and rehabilitation projects that must be completed by 2031 to comply with new state and federal requirements. Securing funding for these projects has been a challenge, as the Salinas Valley is often overlooked in legislation and for funding because it is an independent water system, meaning it is not tied to the State Water Project system. As of July 2025, about $26 million of state funding has been secured for the project study phase with further federal funding being pursued currently. Surface storage supplies will decrease considerably if the projects are not implemented.
M1W, the regional wastewater utility, is also in the process of long-term planning and has estimated that up to $750 million of investment is needed for rehabilitation and replacement projects for their wastewater treatment and infrastructure.
The City of Salinas itself is facing over $1 billion of capital improvement project needs over the next 30 years, including $200 million for roads and sidewalks and $300 million for stormwater system improvements. The City also needs to improve its IWTF and capacity which requires significant
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 9
investments. In 2023, the City adopted new Industrial User Rates and Fees to help fund needed improvements but has not yet financed and constructed the projects.
3.1.5 Financial Concerns and Costs
Stakeholders in the Salinas Valley have stressed their concerns over the large costs associated with maintaining existing infrastructure like the Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoir Dams, the rehabilitation of regional conveyance infrastructure, ongoing maintenance issues with CSIP due to an aging system and pressure imbalances, improvements needed to M1W’s facilities, and the planned SVBGSA projects required to meet the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements, specifically the seawater intrusion mitigation project(s). The agricultural community worries about bearing the significant financial burden of these projects, and although capital costs could be financed, the ongoing O&M expenses could ultimately drive agriculture out of the area. SVBGSA projects also pose equity concerns for City residents financially burdening the lower-income agricultural inland communities over the long-term, while solving the seawater intrusion issues for the high-income communities along the coast.
There also exists a clear difference in willingness to finance projects between the upper Salinas Valley and lower Salinas Valley. As southern Monterey County is less impacted by seawater intrusion, they have expressed little buy-in interest for these projects compared to northern Monterey County, which is currently feeling the effects of seawater intrusion, including the City of Salinas.
3.1.6 Siloed Perspectives
Water management in the Salinas Valley is characterized by a complex institutional landscape and the associated siloed perspectives among its various stakeholders, which poses a significant challenge to regional collaboration on water management. In addition, the multiple agencies responsible for water management in the region adds to the complication of developing regional agreement and collaboration on water needs and projects.
Past unsuccessful projects, such as the Desal 1 project, have created a culture of mistrust towards public agencies. Some stakeholders believe that decisions are made for political purposes rather than for benefiting the greater good of the region. Within the City, it was noted that communication challenges and shifts in organizational leadership and priorities also create barriers to regional collaboration. This history of mistrust between entities exacerbates collaboration challenges.
In addition, a socioeconomic divide referred to as the “lettuce curtain” exists between the Salinas Valley, whose main industry is based in agriculture, and the Monterey Peninsula, whose industries revolve more around hospitality, with each area wanting to prioritize solving their own water problems. Different sectors, such as agriculture and urban users, have varying needs and priorities, which can lead to disagreements on water allocation and project funding.
A siloed perspective among different entities contributes to the regional challenges. Agencies tend to have their own planning efforts and areas of expertise, which can hinder communication and coordination. The absence of a single authority with overarching influence on the water sector further exacerbates the issue and adds to the complexity of implementing solutions. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has some influence, but its authority is not comprehensive. Both the absence of a singular authority and fragmented institutional landscape ultimately perpetuates the lack of unified understanding and awareness of the water issues in the region.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 10
Solving this problem will require finding common goals between the different agencies and entities and working on collaboration.
3.2 Stakeholder Connections
Figure 3 Stakeholder Interconnections
Although not on the SVBGSA’s Board, the Farm Bureau interacts with the SVBGSA to advocate for agricultural interests on behalf of agricultural stakeholders in the Salinas Valley. The SVBGSA is responsible for developing the GSPs for the Salinas Valley Basin, and their proposed SGMA projects affect groundwater users and suppliers in the Basin. Three of the interviewed stakeholder organizations hold seats on the SVBGSA’s Board of Directors: Cal Water, the City of Salinas, and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors provides oversight over MCWRA’s decisions and assists in implementation of the SVBGSA’s GSPs.
As the City’s water purveyors, Cal Water and Alco regularly interact with the City of Salinas to supply water to customers within their respective service areas. The City of Salinas provides the drinking water infrastructure to convey potable water to City residents; collects and conveys sewage and stormwater to M1W for recycling; and collects and treats industrial wastewater within the City and releases the treated flows into the City’s ponds. Per agreements with MCWRA and M1W, the City of Salinas’ sewage and portions of the industrial wastewater flows are sent to M1W’s Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) for recycling and to the CSIP for irrigation.
As part of managing water resources for all of Monterey County, MCWRA is currently working on an agreement with M1W and the City of Salinas regarding use of the agricultural wash water that currently is disposed of in the City’s industrial ponds but could be reused. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 11
appoints members to the MCWRA’s Board of Directors, including one appointee to represent the Farm Bureau. Both the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and the City of Salinas hold seats on M1W’s Board of Directors. Additionally, M1W assists the City of Salinas by taking excess flows from their ponds (when needed) for recycling and/or disposal via the RTP.
As highlighted in Figure 3, many of the interviewed stakeholders hold positions on the Board of Directors for the SVBGSA, M1W, and MCWRA. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 5 below provide complete lists of all the organizations within Monterey County that currently hold seats on these three boards. Table 4 provides an overview of the various Monterey County District Supervisors, many of whom play a role on each of these boards. The board appointees listed below are current as of May 2026.
Table 2 SVBGSA Board of Directors
Director Seat Representing
José Luis Barajas City of Salinas City of Salinas
Anna Velazquez South County Cities Cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King City
Glenn Church Other GSA Eligible Entity GSA Eligible Entities but not including the Cities of Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, or King City
Ron Stefani Disadvantaged Community, or Public
Water System including Mutual Water
Companies serving residential customers
Unincorporated Disadvantaged Communities, or
Public Water Systems, including Mutual Water
Companies serving residential customers
Brenda Granillo CPUC Regulated Water Company CPUC Regulated Water Companies in the Basin Bridgett Rotticci Agricultural (Eastside) Agricultural interests John Bramers Agricultural (180/400) Agricultural interests Steve McIntyre Agricultural (Forebay) Agricultural interests Grant Cremers Agricultural (Upper Valley) Agricultural interests Janet Brennan(1) Environment Environmental users and interests Caroline Chapin(2) Public Member Interests not otherwise represented on the Board.
Notes:
CPUC - California Public Utilities Commission; GSA - groundwater sustainability agency. (1) Chair of the SVBGSA Board of Directors.
(2) Vice Chair of the SVBGSA Board of Directors.
The SVBGSA Board of Directors is comprised of 11 members who represent public and private groundwater users in the Salinas Valley Basin. Seats on the SVBGSA’s Board of Directors include representatives from the City of Salinas (1), South County Cities (1), Disadvantaged Communities/Small Public Water Systems (1), California Public Utilities Regulated Water Companies (1), Agriculture (4), Environment (1), and Public Member (1) according to the SVBGSA website.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 12
Table 3 M1W Board of Directors(1)
Director Organization
Tyller Williamson(2) City of Monterey
Kent Hibino(3) Boronda County Sanitation District
Mary Ann Carbone City of Sand City
Glenn Church Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Scott Donaldson City of Del Rey Oaks
Dennis Donohue City of Salinas
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola City of Seaside
Thomas Moore Marina Coast Water District
Nick Smith City of Pacific Grove
Ron Stefani Castroville Community Services District
M1W Director - Vacant United States Army (Ex-Officio)
Notes:
(1) Board composition as of March 2026.
(2) Chair of the M1W Board of Directors.
(3) Vice Chair of the M1W Board of Directors.
The M1W Board of Directors is comprised of 11 members who represent the residential and business members of their city or district in northern Monterey County.
Table 4 Monterey County Board of Supervisors(1)
District District Supervisor District Area Description
1 Luis Alejo Most of urban Salinas
2 Glenn Church Aromas, Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, North Salinas, Pajaro, Prunedale, Royal Oaks
3 Chris Lopez (2) East Salinas, Spreckels, Chualar, Greenfield, Gonzales, Ft. Hunter Liggett, King City, Soledad, Lake San Antonio, Lockwood, Bradley, San Lucas, San Ardo, Parkfield, Bryson-Hesperia, Mission-Soledad, Arroyo Seco 4 Wendy Root Askew(3) Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Sand City, Seaside, Southwest Salinas 5 Kate Daniels Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Monterey, Highway 68, Las Palmas
Notes:
(1) Board composition as of March 2026.
(2) Chair of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.
(3) Vice Chair of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is comprised of 5 elected officials who represent the various geographical districts within Monterey County. Each District Supervisor appoints a Director to the MCWRA Board of Directors.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 13
Table 5 MCWRA Board of Directors(1)
Director Appointing Agency
Mark Gonzalez Monterey County District 1 Supervisor
Mike Scattini Monterey County District 2 Supervisor
Jon Conatser Monterey County District 3 Supervisor
Deidre Sullivan Monterey County District 4 Supervisor
Ken Ekelund Monterey County District 5 Supervisor
Jason Smith(3) Monterey County Farm Bureau
John Baillie Monterey County Agricultural Advisory Committee Matthew Simis(2) Grower-Shipper Association
Mike LeBarre City Selection Committee
Notes:
(1) Board composition as of March 2026.
(2) Chair of the MCWRA Board of Directors.
(3) Vice Chair of the MCWRA Board of Directors.
The MCWRA Board of Directors is composed of 9 members who are all appointed by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Of the 9 members, 5 are directly appointed by each Monterey County District Supervisor, with the remaining 4 directors being appointed by a majority vote of the Supervisors from nominees submitted by the following groups or organizations: Farm Bureau, Grower-Shipper Association, City Select Committee, and the Monterey County Agricultural Advisory Committee.
As shown through the figure of stakeholder interconnections and tables of Board of Directors’ affiliations above, there is not one sole organization or stakeholder in the Salinas Valley that directly brings all key water-related agencies together. This gap in connectivity presents an opportunity for the City to play a unifying role in the Salinas Valley.
SECTION 4 GAPS AND NEEDS
Observations of the combination of document review and interviews include the following:
Areas with significant, good information already.
Topics that are important for the development of a One Water Plan. Areas of potential data gaps.
Recommendations regarding what additional information should be gathered or developed in Phase 2.
4.1 Data and Document Review Finding
As outlined in Section 3.1, the interviewees identified several issues in water management that need to be addressed for their organizations and to steer the Salinas Valley towards a One Water future. The most frequently mentioned issue is the financial concerns regarding the high cost of both future SGMA projects being studied by the SVBGSA and costs for rehabilitation projects and upgrades of existing infrastructure.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 14
For the data and documents review, the frequency of a water management element is just one tool to analyze existing One Water related data and documentation.
4.1.1 Frequently Mentioned Water Management Elements
The most frequently mentioned water management elements covered in the analyzed documents were:
Wastewater.
Groundwater.
Potable Water.
Throughout the documents examined, there was significant discussion on conveyance and temporary diversion of industrial wastewater and detail on the industrial wastewater and sanitary sewer systems within the City. Multiple documents addressed groundwater and the ability to meet future potable water demands. Elements such as stormwater, water quantity/supply, and conservation were discussed to a slightly lesser extent but still aptly detailed.
4.1.2 Gaps in Water Management Elements
Several water management elements from the matrix analysis were identified as areas where additional future projects could focus and expand including the following:
Water Reuse.
Water Transfers.
Water reuse was mentioned only in draft documents of the City of Salinas’ Climate Action Plan. During one of the stakeholder interviews, it was suggested that the City should consider exploring a public-private partnership for recycled water and requiring developers to install recycled water lines for new developments, thereby reducing potable water demands for irrigation. Water transfers is a crucial water management element for the community and should continue to be included in future water planning efforts. Currently, the City of Salinas has a short-term agreement with M1W to send treated industrial wastewater to the RTP providing the City relief for their percolation ponds. Future efforts by the City might consider evaluating different ways to maximize regional use of the industrial wastewater from the ponds through direct reuse to local agriculture. Any applicable water permitting requirements are to be determined in the planning processes for future efforts. It will take time to develop the necessary agreements including public-private partnerships for implementation of water reuse projects.
SECTION 5 ONE WATER OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 Methodology
Based on the review of the data and documents provided, ideas generated during the stakeholder interviews, and input received during the stakeholders workshops, multiple recommendations were compiled to address the gaps and needs identified for the City of Salinas to move towards a One Water future.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 15
Ideas were developed initially through review of the provided data and documents and directly from the stakeholder interviews.
A total of 15 One Water ideas were categorized into 1 of the following 3 categories:
City Projects and Programs (3 ideas).
Institutional Programs and Initiatives (4 ideas).
Studies and Capital Projects (8 ideas).
Ideas that fell under the City Projects and Programs category could be implemented internally within the City or could be accomplished without additional stakeholder collaboration. All remaining ideas categorized as Institutional Programs and Initiatives or Studies and Capital Projects required collaboration with other stakeholders. A matrix was developed and shared with stakeholders prior to the workshops that identified initial criteria for each idea including implementation timeline, difficulty to implement, and relative cost. These initial ideas were then presented to stakeholders and refined and expanded upon during the workshops. The final list of ideas post-workshops with descriptions is presented by category in Section 5.2 through Section 5.4 below. Additionally, notes from the stakeholders workshops are provided in Appendix C.
At the first stakeholders workshop held in February 2026, all the ideas previously identified as well as new ideas generated at the workshop were presented, discussed, and categorized. Categorization primarily focused on whether the idea fit into the three categories listed above, but also identified the timeline under which these ideas should be or could be implemented: near-term, mid-term, or long-term. Inherent in these timeframes is the difficulty of developing and implementing the ideas. Ideas were further discussed and expanded on during the second stakeholders workshop held in May 2026.
5.2 City Projects and Programs
#1 - Establish the City's Vision for Water Management
The intent for this effort is to develop a clear message about the City’s role in water management in the region and help define the City’s vision for water management. The City can use these messages and vision to educate the City’s elected officials and the public about water issues and the City’s role. This effort will require clear communication with City Council to align elected officials on the near- and long-term goals of this vision, especially as it relates to internal changes such as future staffing recommendations (Ideas #2 and #4).
#2 - Create a Position for the City to Hire a Designated Water Professional This idea was to create a position to have a designated water leader on City staff to represent the City’s water interests throughout the region. In the short term, the City could consider contracting out for a consultant to fill this water leadership position, but the City should strive to add a full-time hire to their City staff. This role would help provide continuity between elected councils and officials and accelerate understanding of water issues when officials are appointed to local board positions (i.e., SVBGSA, M1W).
This role would provide technical and communications support for existing City staff and help coordinate between the City and its potable water purveyors, Alco and Cal Water.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 16
#4 - City to Hire an Additional Designated Water Professional Following the addition of a designated water professional to the City’s staff, it is recommended that the City consider hiring a second water professional to provide the additional support needed for advancing water-related efforts within the City. Depending on the support needed, this position could be part-time or a part-time responsibility of a full-time employee with other duties.
5.3 Institutional Programs and Initiatives
#3 - Establish a One Water Leaders Group
Branching off of this initial One Water effort, the City would lead the establishment of a core regional One Water Leaders Group with stakeholders from the Salinas Valley. Core stakeholders to include in this group would be the City, the City’s water purveyors, M1W, and the SVBGSA. Countywide representatives like the MCWRA should also be included in these conversations. In addition, the Salinas Basin Water Alliance (representing the region’s produce growers) and the Farm Bureau would also be included as the agricultural representatives of this core group.
Although this core group does not include a number of Monterey County water management agencies (located outside the Salinas Valley/on the Peninsula), it is recommended that this core group is kept to a smaller number of stakeholders. Keeping this group smaller will in turn allow for more active participation from each stakeholder.
#5 - Hold Recurring One Water Leaders Group Meetings
Following the establishment of the core group, recurring meetings amongst the One Water Leaders Group should be held to maintain the momentum generated from this One Water Roadmap initiative. The cadence of these meetings could start with bi-monthly meetings in the first year(s) and then be adjusted to quarterly as appropriate. The purpose of these One Water Leaders Group meetings would be for information-sharing and producing recommendations that members could take back to their respective agencies. As the establishing agency of this group and to maintain consistency, the City should own and distribute the agenda (a week prior to meetings), rather than rotating meeting facilitation between member agencies.
A standing agenda for these meetings could include, but would not be limited to, updates on the following topics:
Discussion of possible grant opportunities for future regional projects:
» For capital projects, this would occur once projects are ready to permit. » For studies/planning projects, this would occur right away. Individual member updates on recent decisions/ongoing projects within their agencies. Upcoming agenda items for individual agencies.
Potential partnerships with industry to fund the City’s needed infrastructure improvements and local water management initiatives.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 17
Proactive coordination between water utilities and the City for water infrastructure projects. Coordination of current water utilities’ staff resources (conservation specialists/coordinators) to promote water conservation within the City.
The following list of regional topics could also be items of discussion for this core One Water Leaders Group:
Discussions on ongoing regional projects that could affect the economic vitality of the region (e.g., dam rehabilitation).
Better alignment (and understanding) of the City’s future growth areas (FGAs) land use planning and associated water demand.
Energy-water nexus.
New development guidelines.
Working with community partners to educate the larger community about the challenges and cost of doing nothing.
Because certain regional topics should include direct participation from water management agencies located on the Peninsula, it is recommended that these One Water Leaders meetings be expanded to include the County Board of Supervisors and Peninsula agencies (i.e., Marina Coast Water District, California American Water, and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District) as needed to discuss more countywide topics. For example, if core One Water Leaders Group meetings are held bi-monthly or quarterly, the broader regional meetings could be conducted on a semi-annual basis and then adjusted as appropriate.
#6 - Strengthen Relationships With Key Stakeholders
The City can work to strengthen existing relationships with key stakeholders by enhancing active participation in current Board positions the City holds and being proactive with existing relationships.
Additionally, as opportunities present themselves, the City can further strengthen existing relationships by seeking positions on more Boards and Committees (i.e., Farm Bureau and other relevant organizations’ boards).
#7 - Investigate Grant Opportunities for Future Projects/Pursuits From the core group of One Water Leaders agencies, a smaller sub-group can be tasked with investigating grant opportunities and identifying sources of funding for future regional improvements. In the near-term, this recommendation would build a strategy for securing grants and funding, which would then set the stage for project implementation in the mid-term. Grant opportunities would be a standing agenda item at the One Water Leaders meetings.
5.4 Studies and Capital Projects
It should be noted that before implementing any recommendations, project teams will need to review the relevant water rights licenses, permits, Water Discharge Requirements/Title 22 Requirements, other state laws, and agreements/contracts between relevant stakeholders, which prescribe the water quality, diversion quantities, places of storage, and use for surface/storm waters and wastewaters in the region.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 18
#8 - Conduct a Collaborative Financial Capacity Analysis With the large amount of investments needed in water infrastructure by various entities, the stakeholders recognized that it could be beneficial to conduct a collaborative Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA) to better understand the regional project inventory, relevant stakeholders involved, and project costs for each project to ultimately develop a plan for how projects will be paid for over time. The FCA can help define a unit cost for water in Monterey County beyond just meter billing. Stakeholders’ collaboration on an FCA can host conversations on how to prioritize different water capital project ideas that all impact many of the same ratepayers, or affordability over time. With the help of a consultant/economist, an FCA should be developed considering time and inflation, and possible regulatory delays. The FCA should also address debt financing and/or other financing strategies, for all inventoried projects across the region. #9 - Coordinate on SVBGSA Studies
The SVBGSA is in the process of completing a number of studies on storage and conveyance of surface water supplies to offset groundwater pumping. Stakeholders can review these studies and build off them to consider storage size and conveyance needs.
Overall, stakeholders can coordinate on implementation of SVBGSA project(s) to incorporate aspects/ sub-aspects of them in order to address the full diversity of issues in the Salinas Valley (i.e., Castroville/CSIP needs).
#10 - Industrial Wastewater Opportunities
The City can conduct a variety of analyses to better manage the treatment and outcomes of the industrial wastewater generated within City limits. First, the City can conduct an alternatives analysis on the feasibility of land application of the IWTF effluent and could potentially build off of CSIP. Additionally, the City can conduct a study with industry partners on the feasibility of on-site industrial wastewater recycling opportunities at agricultural processing facilities within the City to reduce water use as well as wastewater generated. If desired, these studies could be compared to options for treatment and reuse at M1W. #11 - Implement Financial Capacity Analysis recommendations Using the plan developed from the collaborative FCA, multiple party contracts and agreements could be developed to solidify how regional projects can best be paid for over time to manage overall affordability for residents and businesses in the Salinas Valley.
#12 - Graywater Policy Study
The City should consider studying the benefits of implementing a graywater policy to encourage customers to install graywater systems, which can be used to offset potable water needs for landscaping. #13 - Additional Water Studies Within the City of Salinas/Salinas Valley The City and relevant stakeholders can partake in additional water management studies within the City and greater Salinas Valley. For example, this could include, but is not limited to, studies on:
The potential for recycled water delivery to large (groups of) users within the City/Salinas Valley.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 19
More efficient management of the City’s water demands. Whether a satellite water reclamation facility (WRF) could be a cost-effective solution to provide a local recycled water supply source for the City’s FGAs. #14 - Large-Scale Conveyance Project(s)
Stakeholders could begin exploring development (i.e., planning, design, environmental, permitting) of a large-scale conveyance project to help move water where it needs to go, even across agencies and groups, recognizing that any large infrastructure project will take years to implement. #15 - Evaluate Options for the City to Increase Local Water for Agriculture Use and Growth As the City is expected to grow by an additional approximately 15,000 new homes over the next 20 years, the City must continue to provide sufficient water for a growing population and new industries coming in.
The City could evaluate different alternatives to expand the City’s industrial wastewater recycling capacity and better utilize the treated water. For example, converting the ponds into a water recycling facility.
Pursuing this alternative would require treatment, monitoring, and reporting of Pond 3 water and recycled water per state regulations (Title 22) and the Central Coast Basin Plan. Additionally, time and financial resources would need to be allocated to renegotiate local agreements, modify/amend the City’s Stormwater MS4 Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the IWTF, and State Water Resources Control Board water rights permits.
The City could also explore how to keep current municipal wastewater flows within the Salinas valley and produce local recycled water at a satellite WRF. With these additional available recycled water flows, the City could then implement recycled water requirements for new developments and explore potential use for agricultural irrigation. Again, recognizing that these efforts would require significant time for planning, permitting, environmental review, design, and construction.
The City could also pursue various stormwater management/capture projects, such as construction of drywells, in an effort to recharge the groundwater basin.
SECTION 6 ONE WATER ROADMAP
6.1 Introduction
During the first stakeholder workshop, the One Water ideas were initially grouped into near-, mid-, and long-term recommendations based on whether they could likely be accomplished within the next 5 years, between 5 to 10 years, or in 10 or more years, respectively. As the majority of new ideas developed during the first stakeholders workshop were prioritized as near-term, it was acknowledged that this indicated a shared understanding of the urgency of many issues and needed collaboration amongst stakeholders. To provide a more granular prioritization of the near-term recommendations, the near-term ideas were phased into Year 1 through Year 5.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 20
6.2 Recommendations
The final One Water recommendations discussed in detail in Section 5.2 through Section 5.4 are summarized in the matrix presented in Figure 4 below. The information is organized as follows:
Phasing: Each recommendation is categorized by the timeframe under which it can be reasonably implemented (near-, mid-, and long-term). For near-term recommendations, their timeframe is further defined over the next 5 years.
Type: The type of recommendation is also listed according to the categories described previously in Section 5.1.
Cost and Implementation Complexity: Recommendations are further categorized by their relative costs and difficulty for implementation, with recommendations for large capital projects being considered the most expensive ($$$) and recommendations requiring extensive cross-agency collaboration being considered the hardest to implement (H). Partners: The potential collaborating agencies for implementation are also checked off accordingly for each recommendation. Listed agencies include a number of relevant water agencies, regional authorities, and community voices throughout the Salinas Valley and the greater Monterey County.
Water professionals/consultants are also listed as potential collaborators as they will be needed to help study, design, and implement projects.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 21
Figure 4 One Water Recommendations
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 22
6.3 Phasing
The implementation roadmap of the One Water recommendations can be visualized in Figure 5 below.
The timeframe for near-term recommendations is further phased over the next 5 years (i.e., Years 1 through 5). Dashed arrows pointing from one recommendation to another indicate the dependency of the implementation of the first for the subsequent to be triggered. The orange circles indicate the implementation year for each recommendation, with blue bars showing the timespan the recommendation will be implemented. Recurring recommendations are indicated by an “R” within the orange circle, or the initial implementation year.
While all of the near-term projects could be started early in the 5-year period, recognizing the need to spread out the workload, the projects were divided into groups of recommendations starting in Year 1, others starting in Year 2, and a final group of recommendations starting in Year 4.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 23
Figure 5 One Water Roadmap
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 24
6.3.1 Near-Term Recommendations
As acknowledged during the first stakeholders workshop, the shared sense of urgency on many regional issues has led to a majority of One Water recommendations being prioritized as near-term, or recommendations that should be implemented in the next 5 years. The following sections describe the phasing of these near-term recommendations in more detail.
6.3.1.1 Within the Next Year
Within the next year, the City should prioritize establishing the City’s vision for water management (#1) to cement themselves as a key stakeholder on water management in the Salinas Valley and greater Monterey County. Simultaneously, the City should prioritize hiring a designated water professional (#2) to enable them to work on future One Water projects/pursuits and subsequently consider hiring a second water professional (#4) to expand its capacity for working on water-related efforts both locally and regionally. Through the establishment of a One Water Leaders Group (#3) and setting expectations for recurring meetings (#5), the City can begin to strengthen its relationships with key stakeholders (#6) in the region through more active participation both in One Water Leaders Group meetings and on stakeholder Boards. The City, along with other core stakeholders in the region, can also begin to investigate grant and loan opportunities to fund future regional projects/pursuits (#7). Over the next year, the City and other key stakeholders in the region should begin conducting a collaborative FCA (#8). Dependent on the outcomes of ongoing SVBGSA work, regional stakeholders can coordinate on expanding implementation of the SVBGSA studies (#9).
6.3.1.2 Between the Next 2 to 3 Years
Over the next 2 to 3 years, the City can pursue various industrial wastewater opportunities (#10) including conducting a study on the feasibility of land application of IWTF effluent and/or conducting a study on the feasibility of on-site industrial wastewater recycling within the City. The City and other key stakeholders in the region can subsequently implement the recommendations from the FCA to plan how the vast inventory of regional projects are going to be financed over the next several decades (#11).
6.3.1.3 Within the Next 4 to 5 Years
Over the next 4 to 5 years, the City can begin pursuing other local initiatives, such as studying the benefits and challenges of implementing a graywater policy (#12). This timeframe could also be used to conduct additional water studies within the City and greater Salinas Valley (#13), including on the potential for recycled water delivery to large users, efficient demand management for the City, and the potential for satellite WRFs in the City’s FGAs.
6.3.2 Mid-Term Recommendations
In the next 5 to 10 years, stakeholders from throughout Monterey County (both on the Peninsula and in the Salinas Valley) can begin exploring the development of a large-scale conveyance project (#14) to help convey water where it’s needed.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK 25
6.3.3 Long-Term Recommendations
In the next 10 or more years, the City could begin evaluating and implementing different options for the City to increase its local water supply for agricultural use and future municipal growth (#15).
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX A DOCUMENT REVIEW REFERENCES
California Water Service. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Salinas District.
Alco Water Service. June 2024. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Alco Water Service.
City of Salinas. May 2023. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.
City of Salinas. November 2022. Industrial Wastewater Capacity Analysis.
City of Salinas, October 2024. Stormwater Master Plan Update.
City of Salinas. September 2023. Urban Forest Management Plan.
City of Salinas. September 2002. City of Salinas General Plan.
City of Salinas. June 2020. Central Area Specific Plan.
City of Salinas. July 2011. The Gateway Center Specific Plan.
City of Salinas. July 2009. Salinas Ag-Industrial Center Specific Plan.
City of Salinas. December 2019. West Area Specific Plan.
City of Salinas. Salinas, CA Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36A. - Water Conservation.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region. September 2019. City of Salinas MS4 Discharges Order No. R3-2019-0073.
City of Salinas. January 2024. 2022-2023 NPDES Permit Program Annual Report.
SVBGSA and Montgomery & Associates. January 2025. 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2025 Periodic Evaluation.
Carollo. October 2025. Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project: Scenarios Analysis.
SVBGSA and Montgomery & Associates. January 2025. Preliminary Feasibility Study: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Concepts to Address Seawater Intrusion.
California Water Service. October 2024. Water Supply Assessment for the City of Salinas General Plan Update.
California Water Service. March 2021. Water Supply Assessment for the Downtown Parking Lot and Intermodal Transportation Center Rezone Project.
California Water Service. August 2025. Water Supply Assessment for the Ferrasci Business Center Specific Plan.
August 2025. Water Challenges in the Salinas Valley – 2025.
City of Salinas. September 2025. City of Salinas Climate Action Plan: Draft Community GHG Inventory – Summary of Results.
City of Salinas. September 2025. City of Salinas Climate Action Plan: GHG Emissions Reduction Pathway – Draft Results of CAP Strategy Quantification
City of Salinas. September 2025. City of Salinas Climate Action Plan Attachment A: Draft GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Matrix
City of Salinas and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. October 2015. Agreement for Conveyance and Treatment of Industrial Waste Water.
Monterey One Water. February 2024. Letter of Agreement for Temporary Diversion of Industrial Wastewater.
Monterey One Water. August 2024. Letter of Agreement for Temporary Diversion of Industrial Wastewater Effluent from Monterey One Water’s Pond 3 Pump Station.
City of Salinas, Monterey One Water, and Monterey County Water Resources Agency. May 2025. City of Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Effluent Interim Agreement.
City of Salinas and Monterey County Water Resources Agency. July 2014. Produce Wash Water Utilization Agreement.
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX B DOCUMENT REVIEW VISUAL EXHIBITS
Figure B.1 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin and Reservoir Locations (SVBGSA and Montgomery & Associates, 2025)
Figure B.2 Water System Map From California Water Service’s Salinas District (California Water Service, 2025)
Figure B.3 Water System Map From Alco Water Company’s Service Area (Alco Water Service, 2024)
Figure B.4 Seawater Intrusion in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin (SVBGSA)
Figure B.5 Seawater Intrusion and Chloride Concentration Projections Under No Project Scenario in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.6 Concept for Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.7 Small Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.8 Medium Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.9 Large Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.10 Injection-Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.11 Eastside Injection Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.12 North of River Only Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
Figure B.13 Extract From 180-Foot Aquifer, Inject Into 400-Foot Aquifer Scenario Modeling Results for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project (Carollo, 2025)
SALINAS ONE WATER ROADMAP
JUNE 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO
CITY OF SALINAS
ONE WATER ACTION FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX C STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS #1 AND #2
NOTES
pw://Carollo/CA/Cal Water/204237-000000/02 Project Information/02 Meetings/Kickoff Meeting/Min_2025-0529.docx 1
MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF SALINAS, CA
One Water Roadmap
Prepared By: Mayra Lara Issued Date: March 2, 2026
Meeting Date: February 20, 2026, 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Project No.: 203884 Location: Permit Center Large Conference Room; 65 W. Alisal, Salinas, CA 93901 Subject: Stakeholder Workshop #1
Attendees: City of Salinas: Dennis Donohue, Rene Mendez, David Jacobs, Lisa Brinton Carollo: Inge Wiersema, Lydia Holmes, Mayra Lara
Alco Water Company: Tom Adcock
California Water Company: Scott Wagner, Brenda Granillo, Robert Seeley, Albert Sanchez Monterey County Board of Supervisors: Chris Lopez
Monterey County Business Council: Chris Steinbruner
Monterey County Water Resources Agency: Ara Azhderian
Monterey One Water: Steve Carrigan, Rachel Gaudoin, Alison Imamura Salinas Basin Water Alliance: Marc Kelley
Salinas Valley Basin GSA: Piret Harmon
Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce: Colleen Bailey, Leonard Batti
The following is our understanding of the subject matter. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us.
Agenda
Welcome & Introductions.
Project Overview & Workshop Objective.
Water Management Issues.
One Water Project Ideas.
Meeting Close & Next Steps.
Meeting Minutes
Welcome & Introductions
» Mayor Donohue opened the meeting stating that it is critical that the City of Salinas’ (City) economic engine needs are addressed.
» The stakeholders present introduced themselves, as listed in the attendees list. Project Overview & Workshop Objective - Discussion
» Ara (MCWRA) asked what is the problem we are trying to solve? Rene stated that from the City’s perspective, they have the economic development and growth, but they do not have the water direction or policy. There is not a clear definition of
MEETING MINUTES
2 how the City is a player. The City can either go at it alone or collaborate with stakeholders to try to set up a secure water future.
Mayor Donohue stated that finances are a big factor and the City is still left with the question of how they will pay for the future. Salinas is going to grow, and we can either shape that or just let it happen. Financial considerations are a factor for everyone. Agriculture has its own challenges but is critical to the viability of the region and key for economic diversification.
This is a moment to talk about scale.
One Water Project Ideas – Review of Feedback from Interviews » General
Ara (MCWRA) asked whether it is the City’s vision to keep this effort just within the Salinas Valley.
– Rene clarified that all the ideas are solely a reflection of the interviews. What is presented was not modified to fit the City’s vision. Ara (MCWRA) agrees that the City’s role could be expanded but does not think the Gaps and Needs Technical Memorandum (TM) fully addresses the relationships that already exist.
Steve (M1W) asked whether there is anyone missing in the room that should be included in this and future conversations.
– Question was tabled until the brainstorming activity. Scott (Cal Water) suggested including the City as another column on the handout. Piret (SVBGSA) mentioned that focusing on the Valley level could perpetuate the “lettuce curtain” perception and suggests making the effort county-wide. It would make sense to include other water entities on the peninsula (Marina Coast and Seaside are both impacted by seawater intrusion).
» City Internal Projects/Programs
Item #2 – City to create a position for a designated water professional. – Tom (Alco Water) asked what the idea is for having this new staff member. Would they replace the City officials currently on the M1W and SVBGSA boards? Rene and Mayor Donohue clarified that this new position would be to have more staff capacity, not to replace those on the Boards.
– Scott (Cal Water) asked whether the new position would be more communications or technical. Inge answered that it could be both. David explained that the City has not been able to replace an old City staff member since they left. This position would support him since he is already stretched pretty thin. Reorganization made this position a manager. » Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Item #6 – Be more proactive in coordination of water infrastructure projects. – Ara (MCWRA) suggested to reword the description to include private and public water utilities.
Item #5 – Explore partnerships with industry.
– Leonard (Chamber of Commerce, Taylor Farms) expressed his idea that the shipper community (i.e. processors) is important to include in this discussion, not just the growers.
Clarified that shippers buy products from all over, so the north vs south silo does not exist
MEETING MINUTES
3 for them. Ag vs urban does not exist with shippers either because although their work revolves around Ag, they live in the City.
– Industrial waste ponds at capacity. Beneficial to invest in on-site wastewater recycling for ag processors to reduce flow to ponds?
– M1W shared that they should be included as an interested party for #5, as flows to their facilities could be affected.
» Studies & Capital Projects
Item #9 – Collaborative Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA) for the Brackish Groundwater Restoration Project.
– Ara (MCWRA) asked whether the FCA should be that narrow. Noted that the report talked about stagnated investment, like the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP).
Suggested the FCA to be done in the context of all planned projects in the near future so that everyone can be involved.
– Steve (M1W) mentioned that M1W has $750 million in capital investments over the next decade for replacing aging wastewater infrastructure alone. – Ara (MCWRA) mentioned that the costs for some projects not previously implemented have compounded to over $1 million more per month now. Delay (“the cost of doing nothing”) is expensive.
– Piret (SVBGSA) asked how the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) private utilities could be included in the FCA.
Tom (Alco Water) stated that Alco knows their estimates for future investments, but any capital investments would need to get approved by the CPUC to include in their rates. They do not have to do a Prop 218 rate process but must prove to the CPUC that the rate increases are reasonable. Development – can get developers to pay. Scott (Cal Water) stated that the CPUC should be aware of the costs. The time element is important. The CPUC prefers when Cal Water collaborates with other entities.
One Water Project Ideas – Brainstorm New Ideas
» Stakeholders individually brainstormed new ideas in the following categories: 1) Institutional Programs & Initiatives, 2) Studies, and 3) Capital Projects to include in the list of project ideas.
New ideas were then shared with the group and placed in the corresponding timeframe under which they should be implemented.
» Near-Term (i.e. urgent/need to implement soon).
New City water professional position related ideas/comments:
– The City could have a water professional to coordinate with Alco and Cal Water. – The City needs to hire multiple people; the job is too big for just one person. One Water Leaders group-related ideas:
– Have recurring meetings.
– Need to improve communications.
– Suggestions made of additional water entities that could/should be included in future conversations:
Peninsula water entities.
MEETING MINUTES
4 Monterey Peninsula Water Management Department (MPWMD). California American Water.
Agricultural shippers and growers (entire Ag industry to be represented). Marina Coast Water District (MCWD).
City of Seaside.
City of Castroville.
More agricultural entities.
Monterey County Environmental Health.
Monterey County Housing and Community Development.
Topics for Regional Discussions for One Water Leaders Group:
– First address the needs of community and industry above the Peninsula (in the Valley). – Better alignment (and understanding) of Future Growth Area (FGA) land use planning and associated water demand.
– Consider energy-water nexus.
– New development guidelines.
– Need to work with community partners to educate the larger community about the challenges and cost of doing nothing.
Financial Capacity Analysis-related ideas:
– Broader view of FCA to include all regional projects; WRA and GSA cost and funding is the much harder driving unit.
– Define unit cost in the county beyond meter billing. It’s regionally different. – Focus on affordability over time.
– Have conversations on how to prioritize different water capital project ideas that all impact many of the same ratepayers.
– Plan for time/money for multiple party contracts/agreements existing and future. Grant/funding-related ideas:
– Core group of agencies (plus consultant potentially) to investigate grant opportunities. Identify source of grant funding for improvements.
– Building a strategy for grants and funding in the near-term to set the stage for implementation in the mid-term.
Heard in the past that “If you can get your community behind it, there will be different opportunities.”
Additional studies:
– Expand the scope of the SVBGSA project(s) to incorporate aspects/sub-projects to address full diversity of issues in Monterey County. (South County/MCWD/Castroville/ CSIP needs).
– Seasonal storage study (on size and determine conveyance needs). – Plumbing vs Supply (GSA work should help answer this in the next month or so). – Study of recycled water potential to large users or groups of large users. – Study in the near term how to use the City’s water more effectively.
MEETING MINUTES
5 Suggested that recycling would be more feasible in the short term given the lessened hurdles compared to storage.
– Benefits of sewer treatment in the City’s FGAs.
Batch/Satellite Plants, discussions held previously with Cal Water. » Mid-Term
City could work with Alco and Cal Water on leveraging water rights. Recycling-related ideas:
– Look for water recycling opportunities.
– Land application of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility effluent. – Expansion of the City’s domestic and industrial wastewater capacity including recycling to provide water for Ag.
– On-site industrial recycling.
Large-scale conveyance projects to help move water where it needs to go, even across agencies and groups.
» Long-Term
None of the new ideas generated were placed in the Long-Term category. » Parking Lot
None of the new ideas generated were placed in the Parking Lot. Meeting Close & Next Steps
» Stakeholders were asked to provide any feedback on the Gaps and Needs TM to the City to incorporate.
» The City to follow up on the timing for the next in-person stakeholders workshop. » As the majority of new ideas were prioritized as near-term, it was acknowledged that this indicated a shared understanding of the urgency of many issues and working together. » It was suggested to break down the near-term phase (e.g. next 5 years through the end of 2030) into smaller time periods to guide implementation priorities.
1 MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF SALINAS, CA
One Water Roadmap
Prepared By: Mayra Lara Issued Date: May 15, 2026
Meeting Date: May 7, 2026, 2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Project No.: 203884 Location: Valley Conference Room; 200 Lincoln Ave, Salinas, CA 93901 Subject: Stakeholder Workshop #2
Attendees: City of Salinas: Dennis Donohue, Rene Mendez, David Jacobs, Lisa Murphy Carollo: Inge Wiersema, Lydia Holmes, Mayra Lara
Alco Water Company: Tom Adcock
California Water Company: Scott Wagner, Brenda Granillo, Robert Seeley, Albert Sanchez Monterey County Farm Bureau: Norm Groot
Monterey County Water Resources Agency: Mike Scattini
Monterey One Water: Paul Sciuto, Matt Thompson
Salinas Basin Water Alliance: Marc Kelley
Taylor Farms: Leonard Batti
The following is our understanding of the subject matter. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us.
Agenda
Welcome & Introductions
Project Overview & Workshop Objective
Review of Draft One Water Roadmap
Discussion of One Water Recommendations
Meeting Close & Next Steps
Meeting Minutes
Review of Draft One Water Roadmap
» Recap of One Water Roadmap TM
Paul (M1W) pointed out that most of the ideas were set as near-term and that this meeting should help prioritize and plan next steps.
» One Water Roadmap Breakdown
#3 – Establish a One Water Leaders Group
– Paul (M1W) said that about 10 years ago, the region did have meetings similar to a One Water Leaders Group but has since dissolved.
#9 – Proactive coordination of water infrastructure projects
MEETING MINUTES
2 – Norm (Farm Bureau) said there may be a way to combine this recommendation into one with #3.
#12 – Implement Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA) recommendations – Scott (Cal Water) wondered if some of the projects need to be moved earlier to be included in the FCA; shift #12 out further.
#15 – Coordinate on expanding the scope of Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) studies
– Tom (Alco Water) said the GSA items are moving quickly, this recommendation may need to be pushed to more near-term; GSA projects are being voted on in Fall 2026. #20 – Evaluate options for the City to increase local water for ag use and growth – Approximately 15,000 homes of future growth over the next 20 years; objective is to ensure sufficient water for the growing city and industry. Discussion of One Water Recommendations
» Discussion of each One Water Recommendation included a review of the description of each recommendation followed by an open-ended discussion of the support/coordination that would need to happen for each recommendation, including the Who, What, Where, When, and How for each.
Each recommendation had a table to fill in the answers for each of these questions. The details/responses for each can be found on the attached presentation slides. Input provided during the workshop is shown as bolded and strikethrough text on the tables and red text on the slides.
The first few recommendations’ questions were filled in as examples. » Note that not all 20 recommendations were reviewed/discussed in detail due to time constraints. » Near-term Recommendations – Within the Next Year
#1 – Establish the City’s Vision for Water Management – Norm (Farm Bureau) emphasized the need to clearly communicate to City Council both the near-term and long-term implications of this vision, especially as it relates to subsequent staffing recommendations (#2 and #4).
#3 & #5 – Establish a One Water Leaders Group & Hold Recurring Meetings – Marc (SBWA) cautioned against expanding the core group beyond what's listed — water politics on the Peninsula could stall Valley progress. Only bring in Peninsula agencies (MCWD, CalAm, MPWMD) if the core group is functioning well. – David J. (City) suggested not overloading the County Board of Supervisors; perhaps include them via recommendation #5 instead.
– Norm (Farm Bureau) agreed with Marc—the agricultural agencies already listed are sufficient.
– Brenda (Cal Water) recommended standing agenda items include updates on recent decisions and upcoming agendas from individual member agencies. – Scott (Cal Water) asked whether meetings are for decision-making or information sharing.
Consensus leaned toward information-sharing and producing recommendations that members take back to their respective agencies.
MEETING MINUTES
3 – Marc (SBWA) advocated that the City should own and drive the agenda — don't rotate facilitation between agencies.
– Tom (Alco Water) suggested distributing a draft agenda one week before each meeting. #6 – Strengthen Relationships with Key Stakeholders
– Clarified that this recommendation was more about consistently participating on current Boards and being proactive with existing relationships. #7 – Investigate Grant Opportunities for Future Projects – Marc (SBWA) cautioned against pursuing grants before projects are defined or permit- ready. Start this recommendation after that point (except for planning studies). Make this a standing topic for the Main One Waters Leaders group meetings; sub- groups only formed once the project/players are known.
– Rene (City) noted that the City now has grant support capacity it previously lacked. » Near-term Recommendations – Between the Next 2 to 3 Years #8 – Explore Partnerships with Industry
– Tom (Alco Water) said Alco and Cal Water have CPUC-regulated rate structures; the City could help by securing grants, funding, and removing potential roadblocks. – Add as standing agenda item for main One Water Leaders group meetings (merge into #5); move to start in Year One, recurring.
#9 – Proactive Coordination of Water Infrastructure Projects – This recommendation is to coordinate resources to not duplicate efforts. – Include this as a goal of #3/5, not as a stand-alone One Water recommendation/project. #10 – Promote Water Conservation by Coordinating Staff Resources – Tom (Alco Water) hopes one of the City’s new water professional hires (#2/4) could serve as a conservation specialist.
– Cal Water has recently hired a new conservation specialist — emphasis on leveraging existing resources and coordinating to avoid duplicating efforts. – Add as standing agenda item for main One Water Leaders group meetings (merge into #5).
#11 & #12 – Conduct a Collaborative Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA), Implement FCA Recommendations
– Consensus that this should happen sooner rather than later; move to Year 1 and the City should lead the effort.
– Determined that the FCA would focus on water, would need to hire an economist/consultant.
– Paul (M1W) said that working collaboratively on the FCA will produce the best outcomes. – Marc (SBWA) called this the most important project to come out of the Roadmap: "if you don't understand the money, you don't understand the project". – Scott (Cal Water) referenced Valley Water as a good example (dams, water supply, etc) and stressed the FCA must also address debt financing.
– Norm (Farm Bureau) urged the FCA should factor in time, inflation, and CEQA-related delays.
MEETING MINUTES
4 #13 & #18 – Alternatives Analysis for Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) Effluent Use & Investigate On-Site Industrial Recycling Opportunities – #13 could build off Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP), work with MCWRA for this; hire consultant to conduct analysis
– Marc (SBWA) said the Alliance is already looking to partner with the City on a project much bigger than CSIP; larger distribution system.
– #18 can be combined with #13, move to Years 2-3 accordingly. Industries would need to be highly involved/engaged.
#15 – Coordinate on Expanding the Scope of SVBGSA Studies – Marc (SBWA) said the Alliance has been working with the GSA and has an alternative to the GSA projects they plan to propose — getting this right is critical because it directly affects the City's Future Growth Areas (FGA).
– Consensus to move #15 to Year 1 (recurring); NOT the whole County — rather Salinas Valley.
– Recommendation would coordinate with SGMA implementation, not expand the scope of the GSA’s projects.
#16 – Seasonal Storage and Conveyance Study
– Consensus to merge/group with #15 given the overlap with SVBGSA studies. #17 – Additional Water Studies within the City/Salinas Valley – Tom (Alco Water) said previous discussion from Stakeholder Workshop #1 centered on whether the City would require purple pipe for future development (currently it does not). – Rene said this will likely emerge naturally from the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan — recommended keeping in Years 4–5 until those are adopted. – Scott (Cal Water) noted the crossover with the satellite WRF concept; could pair with #13 and #18.
MEETING MINUTES
5 Revised One Water Roadmap
Meeting Close & Next Steps
» Stakeholders were asked to provide any comments on the Draft One Water Roadmap TM to the City by Friday, May 15th.
Attachments
» Stakeholder Workshop #2 Meeting Slides
One Water
Roadmap
May 7, 2026
Stakeholder Workshop #2
City of Salinas
CAROLLO / 2
updatefooter0323.pptx/2updatefooter0323.pptx/2
Agenda
1. Welcome & Introductions 2:30 - 2:40 pm
2. Project Overview & Workshop Objective 2:40 - 2:50 pm
3. Review of Draft One Water Roadmap 2:50 – 3:00 pm
4. Discussion of One Water Recommendations 3:00 - 4:20 pm
5. Meeting Close & Next Steps 4:20 - 4:30 pm
Adjourn 4:30 pm
1 Welcome & Introductions
CAROLLO / 4
David JacobsProject
Te a m
Director of Public
Works
Inge Wiersema
Project Manager
Lydia Holmes
Technical Advisor
Mayra Lara
Project Engineer
Rene Mendez
City Manager
2 Project Overview &
Workshop Objective
CAROLLO / 6
Salinas One Water Timeline
June
2025
August
2025
December
2025
February
2026
May
2026
Stakeholder Interviews,
Review of Water
Management Documents
Gaps and Needs
Summary from
Document Review
and Stakeholder
Interviews
Stakeholder
Workshop
#1
Final
One Water
Roadmap
We are here
Draft
One Water
Roadmap
April
2026
Stakeholder
Workshop
#2
June
2026
CAROLLO / 7
updatefooter0323.pptx/7updatefooter0323.pptx/7
Ground Rules #1: What we commit to:
1. Listening attentively and with an open mind.
2. Respecting your ideas and perspectives.
3. Keeping good records of discussion and input.
4. Providing information in a timely manner.
CAROLLO / 8
updatefooter0323.pptx/8updatefooter0323.pptx/8
Ground Rules #2: What we expect from you:
1. Contribute to make the group’s time together productive.
2. Listen attentively and with an open mind.
3. Respect the ideas and perspective of others. Give everyone a chance to speak. Don’t interrupt.
4. Maintain focus on the topic currently under discussion.
Avoid repeating issues that have already been raised or recorded.
CAROLLO / 9
updatefooter0323.pptx/9updatefooter0323.pptx/9
Goals and Objectives
City’s One Water Roadmap Goal
Identify how the City can best collaborate with other partners and invest time, energy and money into more sustainable water solutions to help prepare for a changing future.
Today’s Workshop Objective
Collaboratively expand on One Water initiatives documented in the Draft One Water Roadmap.
Discussion Guideline:
Our focus today: solidify collaboration opportunities to help address key water management challenges.
3 Review of Draft
One Water Roadmap
CAROLLO / 11
updatefooter0323.pptx/11updatefooter0323.pptx/11
Recap of One Water Roadmap TM
Stakeholder Connections
• Regional Storage and Conveyance:
Difficulty in delivering adequate water to the
right locations at the right times.
• Water Quality: Maintaining water quality
amidst ongoing contaminant concerns.
• Seawater Intrusion: Groundwater
contamination risk in key basins.
• Lack of Infrastructure Investment:
Historical underinvestment in water
infrastructure.
• Financial Concerns and Costs: High costs
for both existing infrastructure and future
projects.
• Siloed Perspectives: Lack of trust and siloed
perspectives limiting regional collaboration.
Water Management Issues
CAROLLO / 12
updatefooter0323.pptx/12updatefooter0323.pptx/12
Recap of One Water Roadmap TM
Questions?
Paul (M1W): most of the
ideas were set as near-
term and this meeting
should help prioritize and
plan next steps
CAROLLO / 13
updatefooter0323.pptx/13updatefooter0323.pptx/13
One Water Opportunities
• Ideas were developed initially through review of the provided data and documents and directly from the stakeholder interviews. • Ideas categorized into one of the following categories:
o Internal City Projects and Programs
o Institutional Programs and Initiatives
o Studies and Capital Projects
CAROLLO / 14
updatefooter0323.pptx/14updatefooter0323.pptx/14
One Water Opportunities, Continued
• At Stakeholder Workshop #1, all ideas and new ones generated during the workshop were presented, discussed, and categorized. • Timelines for the ideas were ultimately refined to be:
oNear-term
Within the Next Year
Between the Next 2 to 3 Years
Within the Next 4 to 5 Years
oMid-term (in the next 5-10 years)
oLong-term (in the next 10 or more years)
CAROLLO / 15
updatefooter0323.pptx/15updatefooter0323.pptx/15
One Water
Roadmap
While all near-term projects
can be started early in the
5-year period,
recognizing the need to
spread out the workload,
the projects were divided
into groups from Year 1
through Year 5
CAROLLO / 16
updatefooter0323.pptx/16updatefooter0323.pptx/16
Immediate Efforts # 1 – 7 (Y ear 1)
• Establish City vision
• Create and Hire City water
professional position(s)
• Establish One Water
Leaders Group
• Hold Recurring Meetings
• Strengthen Relationships
• Investigate grant
opportunities
Paul (M1W): about 10
years ago, the region did
have meetings similar to a
One Water Leaders Group
but has since dissolved
CAROLLO / 17
updatefooter0323.pptx/17updatefooter0323.pptx/17
Near-term Efforts # 8 – 13 (Y ears 2-3)
• Industry Partnerships
• Proactive Coordination
• Promote Water
Conservation
• Conduct & Implement
Financial Capacity
Analysis
• Alternatives Analysis for
IWTF Effluent
Norm (MCFB): may be a way to
combine #9 into one
recommendation with #3
Scott (Cal Water): wondering if
some of the projects need to be
moved earlier to be included in
the FCA; shift #12 out further
CAROLLO / 18
updatefooter0323.pptx/18updatefooter0323.pptx/18
Near-term Efforts # 14 – 18 (Y ears 4-5)
• Graywater Policy Study
• Expand SVBGSA Scopes
• Seasonal Storage &
Conveyance Study
• Additional Water Studies
• On-site Industrial Recycling
Opportunities
Tom (Alco Water): GSA items are
moving quickly, #15 may need
to be pushed to more near-term;
GSA projects are being voted on
in Fall 2026
CAROLLO / 19
updatefooter0323.pptx/19updatefooter0323.pptx/19
Mid-term and Long-term Efforts # 19 - 20
• Large-Scale
conveyance projects
• Increase local water for
ag use and growth
General comment related to #20:
Approximately 15,000 homes of
future growth over the next 20
years; objective is to ensure
sufficient water for the growing
city and industry.
Any questions or
comments?
CAROLLO / 21
updatefooter0323.pptx/21updatefooter0323.pptx/21
Comments Received (as of 5/6/2026)
• Page 8, Section 3.1.3 – Seawater Intrusion.
o This issue is limited to the 180/400 sub-basin currently … the first sentence seems to indicate that this is a problem in the Eastside and Langley sub- basin. While those basins do have groundwater issues, these issues are not directly related to or impacted by seawater intrusion. • Page 9, Section 3.1.5 – Financial Concerns and Costs. o This should also include on-going maintenance issues with the existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) as it is aging and showing pressure imbalances. This should be included in the “concerns” listed in the first sentence. • Page 11, top paragraph –
o There are multiple GSPs for the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, one for each of the six sub-basins. It is not just one GSP for the entire basin. • Page 11, table – SVBGSA Board of Directors.
o There have been some changes to the Director positions; this table should be updated to reflect recent changes in individuals representing the ‘seat’ positions. • Page 15 (pdf p20) – regarding the City considering “use of industrial wastewater from the ponds through direct reuse to local agriculture” o State regulations (Title 22) and Central Coast Basin Plan will require treatment, monitoring, reporting of Pond 3 water and recycled water. Plan time and money to renegotiate 4-5 local agreements, change/amend both the City Stormwater MS4 and WDR for the IWTF, and SWRCB water rights permits. • Page 16, Section 5.3 #3 – Establish a One Water Leaders Group. o There is an error in the description of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition (their organization does not specifically call out the representation noted in the sentence). I believe this reference should list the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California using the same representation description. • Page 16 (pdf p21) – regarding Salinas Valley Water Coalition o Correct parenthetical, SVWC represents landowners/growers that hold water rights according to their website .. seems like mostly southern Monterey County landowners
• Page 21 (pdf p26), Page 22 (pdf p27) and Page 24 (pdf p29) – regarding timing for a water capital project o It appears the City would like to begin design, environmental, permitting of a large conveyanceproject sometime between 3031 and 3036 after finding funding. Will IWW treatment plant upgrades occur per the Industrial Rate Study? Will a new Title 22 recycling treatment plant also be initiated in that time frame?
4 Discussion of One Water
Recommendations
from the Draft One Water Roadmap TM
CAROLLO / 23
updatefooter0323.pptx/23updatefooter0323.pptx/23
One Water Recommendations - Discussion T opics
• Review description of each recommendation
• Discuss what support/coordination would be needed for each recommendation to occur:
o Who would be involved
o What would each stakeholder need to do
o Where would this take place
o When would this take place
o How would this happen
Near-term
Recommendations
Within the Next Year
CAROLLO / 25
updatefooter0323.pptx/25updatefooter0323.pptx/25
#1 – Establish the City’s Vision for Water Management
City Projects & Programs
Develop a clear message about the City’s role in water management in the region. Help define and communicate the City’s vision for water management. Use these messages to educate elected officials and the public about water issues and the City’s role.
Who What When Where How
City of Salinas Establish vision
for role in water
management
FY 26/27 City Council Staff to develop
position paper;
Council workshop for
direction;
Council approval
CAROLLO / 26
updatefooter0323.pptx/26updatefooter0323.pptx/26
#2 & 4 – Create Positions for Designated Water Professionals City Projects & Programs
Hire a designated water leader on City staff to represent the City’s water interests throughout the region. In the short term, consider contracting a consultant; long-term, strive to add a full-time hire. To provide continuity between elected councils and accelerate understanding of water issues for officials appointed to boards (SVBGSA, M1W). Coordinate between the City and its water purveyors, Alco Water Company and Cal Water.
Following the first hire, consider adding a second water professional to expand the City’s capacity.
Provides additional support for advancing water-related efforts within the City. Position could be part-time or a part-time responsibility of a full-time employee with other duties.
Who What When Where How
City of Salinas Establish position for
water leader/
management
FY 26/27 City Council Staff to develop job description
and classification;
Council approval
City of Salinas Establish 2nd
position for water
leader/ management
FY 27/28 City Council Staff to develop job description
and classification;
Council approval
Norm (MCFB): pointed out
how #1 would affect these;
need to be clear with/relay
to City Council the near-
term and long-term ideas
for these positions
CAROLLO / 27
updatefooter0323.pptx/27updatefooter0323.pptx/27
#3 & 5 – Establish a One Water Leaders Group & Hold Recurring Meetings Institutional Programs & Initiatives
City should lead the establishment of a core regional One Water Leaders group with Salinas Valley stakeholders. Core members: City, Cal Water, Alco, M1W, SVBGSA, Board of Supervisors, and MCWRA plus agricultural representatives Keep the core group smaller to allow for more active participation from each stakeholder. Hold recurring meetings (e.g., bi-monthly in Year 1, then quarterly as appropriate). Standing agenda: grant opportunities, funding updates, individual stakeholder capital project updates. Discussion topics: regional projects, City’s Future Growth Areas, energy-water nexus, new development guidelines. Periodically expand meetings to include Peninsula agencies (MCWD, CalAm, MPWMD).
Who What When Where How
City of Salinas; Cal Water; Alco;
M1W; SVBGSA; MCWRA;
County Board of Supervisors
Ag: SVWC, SBWA, Farm Bureau
Establish One Water Leaders
Group
FY 26/27
Only expand to include the
Peninsula agencies as
needed/if core group goes
well
Include County Board of
Supervisors here instead of
#3
Hold recurring One Water
Leaders Meetings
Meetings will be for
information-sharing and
producing recommendations
Every other month initially,
quarterly at least
[Decide dates later]
Ensure these meetings are set
as recurring calendar invites
In-person City to head and distribute
agendas a week prior
Include in standing agenda:
recent decisions,
opportunities for
collaboration/sharing project
decisions, future agenda
items from member agencies
CAROLLO / 28
updatefooter0323.pptx/28updatefooter0323.pptx/28
#6 – Strengthen Relationships with Key Stakeholders
Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Enhance active participation in current Board positions held by the City. Seek positions on additional Boards and Committees (e.g., Farm Bureau and other relevant organizations). Build trust and collaboration across the institutional landscape of the Salinas Valley.
Who What When Where How
City of Salinas Consistently
participate on
the current
Boards; be
proactive with
existing
relationships
FY 26/27
Clarified that this
recommendation was more
about consistently
participating on current
Boards and being proactive
with existing relationships.
CAROLLO / 29
updatefooter0323.pptx/29updatefooter0323.pptx/29
#7 – Investigate Grant Opportunities for Future Projects Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Form a smaller sub-group from the core One Water Leaders to investigate grant opportunities. Identify sources of funding for future regional water infrastructure improvements. In the near-term, build a strategy for securing grants and funding to set the stage for mid-term project implementation.
Who What When Where How
Main One Water
Leaders group
Sub-groups only
formed once the
project/players
are known
FY 26/27
*start AFTER
projects are
known/ready to
permit (for
construction
projects; planning
studies are an
exception
Rene noted that the City
now has grant support
capacity it previously
lacked.
Make this a standing topic
for the Main One Water
Leaders group meetings
Near-term
Recommendations
Between the Next 2 to 3 Years
CAROLLO / 31
updatefooter0323.pptx/31updatefooter0323.pptx/31
#8 – Explore Partnerships with Industry
Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Begin exploring partnerships with industry to fund the City’s needed infrastructure improvements. Support local water management initiatives through public-private partnerships. Leverage industry collaboration to accelerate infrastructure investment.
Who What When Where How
Add as a standing
item on One
Water Leaders
Group agenda;
Year 1 (recurring)
Tom (Alco Wat er) said
Alco and Cal Water
have CPUC-regulated
rate structures; the
City could help by
securing grants,
funding, and
removing potential
roadblocks.
Merge into #5
CAROLLO / 32
updatefooter0323.pptx/32updatefooter0323.pptx/32
#9 – Proactive Coordination of Water Infrastructure Projects Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Enhance internal coordination within the City on water infrastructure planning. Be more proactive in coordinating with cross-sector stakeholders (e.g., processors). Coordinate planned infrastructure projects with public and private water utilities to avoid difficulties later down the line.
Who What When Where How
Coordinate
resources to not
duplicate
efforts
Scrap this one as a
recommendation; more of
a goal for the One Water
Leaders group (#3/5)
CAROLLO / 33
updatefooter0323.pptx/33updatefooter0323.pptx/33
#10 – Promote Water Conservation by Coordinating Staff
Resources
Institutional Programs & Initiatives
Coordinate and/or provide staff resources to work with Cal Water and Alco Water Company. Conduct community engagement around water issues.
Streamline promotion of water conservation to meet urban water use objectives and increase water use efficiency.
Who What When Where How
(Potentially) the
new City water
professional
Coordinate with
current water
agencies’
conservation
specialists/coordi
nators to
leverage existing
resources and
avoid duplicating
efforts
Cal Water noted they
recently hired a new
conservation specialist.
Add as standing agenda
item for main One Water
Leaders group meetings
(merge into #5).
CAROLLO / 34
updatefooter0323.pptx/34updatefooter0323.pptx/34
#11 – Conduct a Collaborative
Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA)
Studies & Capital Projects
Collaborate with stakeholders on a Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA) to understand the regional project inventory. Identify relevant stakeholders involved and project costs for each project. Develop a plan for how projects will be paid for over time. Help define a unit cost for water in Monterey County beyond just meter billing; host conversations on prioritizing capital projects for shared ratepayers.
Who What When Where How
City should lead
the effort
Fundamentally
water; need to
get the number
on the board;
include how to
handle the debt
financing
Move to Year 1 Define scope
Hire
economist/cons
ultant; build off
of GSA
Paul (M1W): working collaboratively on the FCA will produce the best outcomes
Marc (SBWA): most important project to come out of the Roadmap Scott (Cal Water): Valley Water is a good example of including debt financing
Norm (MCFB): need to consider time and inflation, delays from CEQA particularly
CAROLLO / 35
updatefooter0323.pptx/35updatefooter0323.pptx/35
#12 – Implement Financial Capacity Analysis (FCA) Recommendations Studies & Capital Projects
Use the plan developed from the collaborative FCA to guide implementation. Develop multiple-party contracts and agreements to solidify how regional projects can be financed to manage overall affordability for residents and businesses in the Salinas Valley.
Who What When Where How
See #11 for notes
CAROLLO / 36
updatefooter0323.pptx/36updatefooter0323.pptx/36
#13 – Alternatives Analysis for IWTF Effluent Use
Studies & Capital Projects
Conduct an alternatives analysis on the feasibility of land application of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) effluent.
Who What When Where How
City Feasibility
analysis
Years 2-3 Hire someone
to conduct
analysis
Paul (M1W): Could build off Castroville
Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP), work with
MCWRA on this, can group together with
#18
Marc (SBWA): Alliance already looking to
partner with the City on a project much
bigger than CSIP; larger distribution system
Near-term
Recommendations
Within the Next 4 to 5 Years
CAROLLO / 38
updatefooter0323.pptx/38updatefooter0323.pptx/38
#14 – Graywater Policy Study
Studies & Capital Projects
Study the benefits and challenges of implementing a graywater policy for the City. Encourage customers to install graywater systems to offset potable water needs for landscaping.
Who What When Where How
Skipped
CAROLLO / 39
updatefooter0323.pptx/39updatefooter0323.pptx/39
#15 – Coordinate on Expanding the Scope of
SVBGSA Studies
Studies & Capital Projects
Coordinate with stakeholders to expand the scope of SVBGSA project(s). Incorporate aspects to address the full diversity of issues in Monterey County (South County/MCWD, Castroville/CSIP needs).
Who What When Where How
NOT the whole
County ->
Salinas Valley
Coordinate w
SGMA
implementation
, not expanding
the scope of the
GSA’s projects
Move to Year 1
(recurring)
Marc (SBWA): Alliance working with the GSA
and has an alternative to the GSA projects
they plan to propose — getting this right is
critical because it directly affects the City's
Future Growth Areas (FGA).
CAROLLO / 40
updatefooter0323.pptx/40updatefooter0323.pptx/40
#16 – Seasonal Storage and Conveyance Study
Studies & Capital Projects
Review the SVBGSA’s ongoing studies on storage and conveyance of surface water supplies. Build off existing studies to determine storage size and conveyance needs.
Who What When Where How
Merge with #15
CAROLLO / 41
updatefooter0323.pptx/41updatefooter0323.pptx/41
#17 – Additional Water Studies within the City/Salinas
Va lley
Studies & Capital Projects
Study the potential for recycled water delivery to large users within the City and Salinas Valley. Evaluate more efficient management of the City’s water demands. Assess whether a satellite WRF could cost-effectively provide local recycled water for the City’s Future Growth Areas.
Who What When Where How
Keep in Years 4-
5 Tom (Alco Water): recall last workshop’s
discussion revolved around whether the
City would require purple pipe for future
developments (currently don’t)
Scott (Cal Water): a bit of a crossover wit
the satellite WRF concept; could pair
with #13 and #18
CAROLLO / 42
updatefooter0323.pptx/42updatefooter0323.pptx/42
#18 – Investigate On-Site Industrial Recycling Opportunities Studies & Capital Projects
Conduct a feasibility study on on-site industrial wastewater recycling at agricultural processing facilities within the City
Would result in reduced water use as well as wastewater generated within the City.
Who What When Where How
Collaboratively
w the
processing
plants
Move to Years
2-3
Combine/merge with #13
Mid-term
Recommendations
In the Next 5 to 10 Years
CAROLLO / 44
updatefooter0323.pptx/44updatefooter0323.pptx/44
#19 – Large-Scale Conveyance Project(s)
Studies & Capital Projects
Begin exploring development of a large-scale conveyance and storage project. Help move water where it needs to go, even across agencies and groups. Address the regional “plumbing problem” of getting sufficient water to the right places at the right times.
Who What When Where How
Skipped
Long-term
Recommendations
In the Next 10 or More Years
CAROLLO / 46
updatefooter0323.pptx/46updatefooter0323.pptx/46
#20 – Evaluate Options to Increase Local Water for Agriculture and Growth
Studies & Capital Projects
Evaluate alternatives to expand the City’s industrial wastewater recycling capacity (e.g., converting ponds into a water recycling facility).
Explore how to keep municipal wastewater flows within the Salinas Valley and produce local recycled water at a satellite WRF.
Implement recycled water requirements for new developments and explore use for agricultural irrigation.
Who What When Where How
Skipped
CAROLLO / 47
updatefooter0323.pptx/47updatefooter0323.pptx/47
One Water
Roadmap
• Action Item: Revisit
prioritization and time
periods of the
recommended
projects and initiatives.
Start AFTER projects are known/ready to permitted
(except for planning studies)
Start after completion of #11
Already happening; make recurring agenda item.
Start in Year 1
timing OK (potentially combine with #18)
Make ongoing/standing OWL agenda item
Make ongoing/standing OWL agenda item
Move to year 1, if possible?
Move up to Year 1
timing OK
combine with #15
5 Meeting Close
& Next Steps
CAROLLO / 49
Salinas One Water Timeline
June
2025
August
2025
December
2025
February
2026
May
2026
Stakeholder Interviews,
Review of Water
Management Documents
Gaps and Needs
Summary from
Document Review
and Stakeholder
Interviews
Stakeholder
Workshop
#1
Final
One Water
Roadmap
We are here
Draft
One Water
Roadmap
April
2026
Stakeholder
Workshop
#2
June
2026
CAROLLO / 50
updatefooter0323.pptx/50updatefooter0323.pptx/50
Comments Received (as of 5/6/2026)
• Page 8, Section 3.1.3 – Seawater Intrusion.
o This issue is limited to the 180/400 sub-basin currently … the first sentence seems to indicate that this is a problem in the Eastside and Langley sub- basin. While those basins do have groundwater issues, these issues are not directly related to or impacted by seawater intrusion. • Page 9, Section 3.1.5 – Financial Concerns and Costs. o This should also include on-going maintenance issues with the existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) as it is aging and showing pressure imbalances. This should be included in the “concerns” listed in the first sentence. • Page 11, top paragraph –
o There are multiple GSPs for the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, one for each of the six sub-basins. It is not just one GSP for the entire basin. • Page 11, table – SVBGSA Board of Directors.
o There have been some changes to the Director positions; this table should be updated to reflect recent changes in individuals representing the ‘seat’ positions. • Page 15 (pdf p20) – regarding the City considering “use of industrial wastewater from the ponds through direct reuse to local agriculture” o State regulations (Title 22) and Central Coast Basin Plan will require treatment, monitoring, reporting of Pond 3 water and recycled water. Plan time and money to renegotiate 4-5 local agreements, change/amend both the City Stormwater MS4 and WDR for the IWTF, and SWRCB water rights permits. • Page 16, Section 5.3 #3 – Establish a One Water Leaders Group. o There is an error in the description of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition (their organization does not specifically call out the representation noted in the sentence). I believe this reference should list the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California using the same representation description. • Page 16 (pdf p21) – regarding Salinas Valley Water Coalition o Correct parenthetical, SVWC represents landowners/growers that hold water rights according to their website .. seems like mostly southern Monterey County landowners
• Page 21 (pdf p26), Page 22 (pdf p27) and Page 24 (pdf p29) – regarding timing for a water capital project o It appears the City would like to begin design, environmental, permitting of a large conveyanceproject sometime between 3031 and 3036 after finding funding. Will IWW treatment plant upgrades occur per the Industrial Rate Study? Will a new Title 22 recycling treatment plant also be initiated in that time frame?
One Water
Roadmap
May 7, 2026
Stakeholder Workshop #2
City of Salinas
Thank You for
your input
and
participation!