Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law requires a groundwater sustainability agency to evaluate its groundwater sustainability plan periodically.

Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided. Existing law provides that actions by a groundwater sustainability agency are subject to judicial review, except as provided.

This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would also authorize, for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, a party that has timely appeared in that adjudication to file an action on or before March 2, 2026, under specified circumstances. The bill would require a legal challenge to an action or determination by the groundwater sustainability agency to be filed within 90 days of the action or determination.

Existing law requires a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, to manage the proceedings in a certain manner, including in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

The bill would prohibit a court, in an adjudication action filed after January 1, 2025, for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin. basin, except as provided. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basins safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.

Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plans determination of a basins sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have received a determination from the department that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed.

Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided. Existing law provides that actions by a groundwater sustainability agency are subject to judicial review, except as provided.

This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would also authorize, for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, a party that has timely appeared in that adjudication to file an action on or before March 2, 2026, under specified circumstances. The bill would require a legal challenge to an action or determination by the groundwater sustainability agency to be filed within 90 days of the action or determination.

Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plans determination of a basins sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have received a determination from the department that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed.

Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided. Existing law provides that actions by a groundwater sustainability agency are subject to judicial review, except as provided.

This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would require a legal challenge to an action or determination by the groundwater sustainability agency to be filed within 90 days of the action or determination.

Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plans determination of a basins sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have received a determination from the department that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed.

Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would prohibit the court, in those validation actions, from adjudicating certain matters delegated to the department for evaluation.

Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agencys compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plans determination of a basins sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action or action to invalidate the validation was filed.

Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law authorizes any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to decide to become a groundwater sustainability agency for that basin and imposes specified duties upon that agency or combination of agencies, as provided. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided.

Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law authorizes any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to decide to become a groundwater sustainability agency for that basin and imposes specified duties upon that agency or combination of agencies, as provided.

Existing law establishes various methods and procedures for a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in civil court.

This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would establish a deferential standard for groundwater sustainability plans in a groundwater adjudication and consolidate challenges to a groundwater sustainability plan and a groundwater adjudication when both occur in the same basin.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1413

Author: Papan (D), et al.

Amended: 9/2/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 4-3, 7/8/25

AYES: Limón, Allen, Laird, Stern

NOES: Seyarto, Grove, Hurtado

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-3, 7/15/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello, Caballero, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-21, 6/3/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes various changes to comprehensive groundwater adjudication procedures and to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) including, amongst others, providing that a court’s judgment substantially interferes with the implementation of SGMA if the judgment permits more total pumping from a basin annually or on average than a valid groundwater sustainability plan (GSP); permitting a court to establish a safe yield that exceeds the sustainable yield established in a valid GSP under certain circumstances; requiring a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) to review its sustainable yield every seven years; and requiring that a validation action be filed within 180 days of the GSP’s adoption.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Enacts SGMA, which requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to sustainably manage groundwater in high- or medium-priority basins by 2040 pursuant to a GSP. (Water Code (WAT) §§ 10720 et seq.)
   
2. Requires, prior to initiating the development of a GSP, the GSA to make available to the public, as provided, a written statement describing how to participate in the development and implementation of the GSP. (WAT §10727.8)
   
3. Requires a GSA to encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the groundwater basin prior to and during the development and implementation of the GSP. (WAT §10727.8)
   
4. Requires a GSA to periodically evaluate its GSP, as provided. (WAT 10728.2)
   
5. Authorizes a GSA that adopts a GSP to file an action to determine the validity of the GSP 180 days after the adoption of the GSP. (WAT §10726.6)
   
6. Provides that actions by a GSA are subject to judicial review pursuant to a writ of mandate. (WAT §10726.6(e))
   
7. Requires a GSA to submit the initial GSP to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), upon which the following must occur:
   
   1. DWR must post the plan on its website and provide 60 days for persons to submit comments about the plan;
   2. DWR must review the plan and issue an assessment of the GSP and offer recommendations for any measures necessary to correct deficiencies in the plan. (WAT §10733.4)
      
8. Requires, at least every five years, DWR to review a GSP or alternative submitted, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with SGMA. (WAT §10733.8)
   
9. Outlines process and scope for a comprehensive adjudication of a groundwater basin. (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §830 et seq.)
   
10. Provides that in a comprehensive adjudication, the court may determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. (CCP §834.)
    
11. Requires an action against a GSA that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be coordinated and consolidated with the adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a GSP, or the GSA’s compliance with the timelines in SGMA. (CCP §838)
    
12. Requires a court to impose a physical solution on the parties subject to a comprehensive adjudication when necessary to ensure the water is put to reasonable and beneficial use. (CCP §849 (a))
    
13. Authorizes a court to enter a judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a GSP if the court determines the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a GSA, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management, as specified. (CCP §850(b))

This bill:

1. Requires an action against a GSA in a basin that is subject to a pending comprehensive adjudication be consolidated with the comprehensive adjudication and require the court to resolve the cause of action for judicial review of a GSP’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.
   
2. Provides that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of a GSA, State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA and achieve sustainable groundwater management if the judgment permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the latest GSP or GSPs covering the basin and if the GSP or GSPs meet both of the following:
   
   1. The GSP or GSPs have received a determination from DWR that the GSP or GSPs are likely to achieve the sustainability goal of the basin.
      
   2. The GSP or GSPs have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action; or the GSP or GSPs have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
      
3. Authorizes a GSA that adopts a GSP to file an action to determine the plan’s validity within 180 days of the plan’s adoption, except as specified.
   
4. Requires a challenge to GSA actions be filed within 90 days of the challenged action or determination by the agency. If judicial review is sought of an action or determination that is concurrently being reviewed by DWR or the State Water Board pursuant to SGMA, require the court to consider whether, in the interest of efficiency or justice, to stay the challenge until DWR or the State Water Board completes its evaluation.
   
5. Requires a GSA, at least every seven years, to review, and update if appropriate, its sustainable yield, as provided.
   
6. For adjudications filed after January 1, 2025, prohibits a court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield that exceeds the sustainable yield or sustainable yield established by a valid GSP unless the court determines that the sustainable yield was not made based on the best available information and best available science at the time the GSP was adopted. Provides that a party that claims the sustainable yield was not made based on the best available information and best available science bears the burden of proof.
   
7. Requires a court, if it is found that certain information relating to determining the sustainable yield was not made publicly available for review, to require the GSA to readopt the GSP after making such information publicly available.
   
8. Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this bill, to, among other things:
   
   1. To provide specific terms supporting implementation of existing law to ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin does not interfere with the timely completion and implementation of a GSP.
      
   2. To provide specific terms supporting implementation of existing law to ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and physical solution.
      
   3. To provide specific terms supporting implementation of existing law to ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA.
      
   4. Ensure that the filing of a comprehensive groundwater adjudication not be used as a means of delaying or undermining the implementation of SGMA.

Background

Groundwater 101. Groundwater is a critical source of supply that meets more than 40 percent of water demand in an average year and more than 60% of demand during drought years. There are three types of groundwater rights: overlying, appropriative, and prescriptive. Due to lack of regulation for the management of groundwater for most of California’s history, many groundwater basins in California are in a state of overdraft.

SGMA. In 2014, to address overdraft and other adverse effects of excessive pumping, the Legislature passed SGMA, a statewide framework for groundwater management. Under SGMA, a GSA has broad management authority of the groundwater basin or basins under their jurisdiction including defining the basin’s or basins’ sustainable yield, limiting groundwater extraction, and imposing fees. GSAs are authorized to perform any act necessary to carry out the purposes of SGMA, including adopting rules, regulations, and ordinances and developing the GSP.

A GSP is a roadmap for how a basin will reach SGMA’s sustainability goal for that basin and ensure that the basin is operated within its “sustainable yield,” as determined by the GSA. SGMA defines “sustainable yield” as the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result.

Adjudications. A groundwater adjudication is when parties ask a court to resolve conflicts over groundwater rights. An adjudication is initiated when one or more groundwater pumpers files a civil action asking the court to intervene to determine groundwater rights and/or limit pumping to a basin’s “safe yield” (the amount of groundwater pumped that is equal to the average replenishment rate of a groundwater basin).

Groundwater adjudications can cover an entire basin, a portion of a basin, or a group of basins, and may include non-basin areas. Groundwater rights are defined for the overlying landowners and appropriators within the adjudicated area. The court decides who is allowed to extract groundwater, how much they are allowed to extract, and designates a watermaster who ensures the adjudicated areas are managed in accordance with the court ruling.

Determining who has groundwater rights that could be affected by an adjudication and the scope of those rights is difficult and can be a lengthy process; adjudications typically take more than a decade to resolve. Identifying and noticing every party that may have a right, completing technical work and sorting through disagreements over this technical work, and determining historic groundwater use which could affect the scope of one's rights are all factors that can contribute to increasing the time and expense of an adjudication.

See Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis for additional background information.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,

• “Unknown, potentially significant cost pressures to the state-funded trial courts due to additional workload (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
• To the extent that courts seek additional input or assistance from the State Water Board or Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a result of this bill, there could be additional state costs associated with State Water Board or DWR workload (General Fund).
• The above costs may be at least partially offset by General Fund cost savings elsewhere for the courts, State Water Board, or DWR.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.
City of Ridgecrest
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Community Alliance With Family Farmers
Community Water Center
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority
Leadership Counsel Action
Madera County
Planning and Conservation League
Regional Water Authority
Sacramento Suburban Water District
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
W.A.T.E.R.

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance
Alta Irrigation District
Arvin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Association of California Water Agencies
California Alfalfa and Forage Association
California Association of Realtors
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Farm Bureau
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Groundwater Coalition
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Seed Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Water Association
Cawelo Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Central Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency
East Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
El Rico Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Fresno County Farm Bureau
Golden State Water Company
Henry Miller Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation
Indian Wells Valley Water District
Kern County Farm Bureau
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Kern Non-Districted Land Authority
Kern Water Bank Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Kern-Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Mission Springs Water District
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Monterey; County of
Nisei Farmers League
North Kern Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Ridgecrest Area Association of Realtors
Searles Valley Minerals
Semitropic Water Storage District
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
Tejon-Castac Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency
United Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
West Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Westside District Water Authority Groundwater Sustainability Agency

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Successful implementation of SGMA is of vital importance to California. A minority of pumpers should not be able to use the groundwater adjudication process to get around, delay, or undermine SGMA. AB 1413 will limit abuse of the groundwater adjudication process. To accomplish this goal, this bill prevents pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around a GSP and rehash the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP.

“Unfortunately, it appears this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA. Revisiting the question of sustainable yield in a groundwater adjudication delays sustainable groundwater management and is redundant. While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater water rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin (akin to land use planning and zoning). This administrative planning process is bolstered by review and oversight by the state agencies with technical expertise in water management – DWR and the State Water Board – that take an active and ongoing role in SGMA implementation. To avoid delay in reversing groundwater overdraft and avoid shutting out smaller actors, this bill directs courts to not permit more groundwater pumping than would be allowed under a valid GSP when entering a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-21, 6/3/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Stefani, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Bains, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Ransom, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Carrillo, Krell, Nguyen, Pacheco, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Soria, Valencia, Ward

Prepared by: Genevieve Wong / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

9/3/25 18:31:32

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1413 (Papan) - Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

Bill Summary:

This bill would prohibit a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin’s safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 29, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant cost pressures to the state-funded trial courts due to additional workload (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
• To the extent that courts seek additional input or assistance from the State Water Board or Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a result of this bill, there could be additional state costs associated with State Water Board or DWR workload (General Fund).
• The above costs may be at least partially offset by General Fund cost savings elsewhere for the courts, State Water Board, or DWR.

Committee Amendments:

These amendments would prohibit a court from establishing a safe or sustainable yield that exceeds one established by a valid GSP unless the court makes certain determinations, provide additional opportunities for public review and comment, require that a GSP be readopted under certain conditions, and require a GSA to review and update its sustainable yield, as provided. Specifically, these amendments would:

1. Prohibit a court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield that exceeds the sustainable yield established by a valid GSP unless the court determines that the sustainable yield was not based on best available science and best information available at the time the GSP was adopted.
2. If a party claims that the technical information on which the sustainable yield was based was not available for public review and comment, the court shall require the GSA to readopt the GSP after making the information publicly available.
3. Require a GSA to review and update its sustainable yield periodically to ensure that it is based on the best available information and best available science, and that it will achieve sustainable groundwater management. Require the GSA to provide an opportunity for public review and comment before making a determination on whether to update its sustainable yield.
4. Make other changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1413 (Papan) - Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

Bill Summary:

This bill would prohibit a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin’s safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant cost pressures to the state-funded trial courts due to additional workload (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
• To the extent that courts seek additional input or assistance from the State Water Board or Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a result of this bill, there could be additional state costs associated with State Water Board or DWR workload (General Fund).

Background:

In 2014, to address overdraft and other adverse effects of excessive pumping, the Legislature passed SGMA, a statewide framework for groundwater management with the goal of managing and using groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.

Under SGMA, a local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin may become a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for that basin. A GSA has broad management authority of the groundwater basin or basins under their jurisdiction, including defining the basin’s or basins’ sustainable yield, limiting groundwater extraction, and imposing fees. GSAs are required to consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including, but not limited to, holders of overlying groundwater rights, municipal well operators, public water systems, local land use planning agencies, environmental users of groundwater, surface water uses, the federal government, California Native American tribes, and disadvantaged communities. GSAs are authorized to perform any act necessary to carry out the purposes of SGMA, including adopting rules, regulations, and ordinances and developing the GSP.

SGMA requires GSAs in medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, which includes 21 critically overdrafted basins, to develop and implement GSPs. GSAs may customize their GSPs to their regional economic and environmental circumstances. Thus, while SGMA provides for the sustainable management of groundwater basins, it does so by empowering local agencies to manage groundwater basins, while minimizing state intervention.

SGMA also stipulated that it did not alter surface or groundwater rights.

Validation actions under SGMA. After a GSA has adopted its GSP, the GSA may file an action to determine the validity of the plan. This is commonly referred to as a “validation action.” Similarly, a party may challenge the validity of a GSP by filing a “reverse validation action.”

Validation actions are subject to a substantial evidence standard. Under this standard, if a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the substantial evidence on the record supports the agency, the agency’s decision is validated. In the context of a GSP, the court would examine all studies on the record, public comments, and findings of the GSA to determine if the GSP is supported by substantial evidence.

According to information provided by the author’s office, there appear to be at least two reverse validation actions challenging a GSP, both initiated by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. These are: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (Stanislaus Superior Court, Case no. CV-200-001720) and Butte Subbasin (Butte Superior Court, case no. 22CV0038).

Adjudications. A groundwater adjudication is when parties ask a court to resolve conflicts over groundwater rights. An adjudication is initiated when one or more groundwater pumpers files a civil action asking the court to intervene to determine groundwater rights and/or limit pumping to a basin’s “safe yield” (the amount of groundwater pumped that is equal to the average replenishment rate of a groundwater basin).

Groundwater adjudications can cover an entire basin, a portion of a basin, or a group of basins, and may include non-basin areas. Groundwater rights are defined for the overlying landowners and appropriators within the adjudicated area. The court decides who is allowed to extract groundwater, how much they are allowed to extract, and designates a watermaster who ensures the adjudicated areas are managed in accordance with the court ruling. According to Bulletin 118, as of 2020, there are 30 adjudicated areas, mostly in Southern California, that cover portions of 42 groundwater basins. Five of the 42 basins are covered with two or more adjudications.

According to the Water Education Foundation, “through adjudication, the courts can assign specific water rights to water users and can compel the cooperation of those who might otherwise refuse to limit their pumping of groundwater."

State law gives every overlying property owner a potential right in an unadjudicated groundwater basin. As such, determining who has groundwater rights that could be affected by an adjudication and the scope of those rights is difficult and can be a lengthy process; adjudications typically take more than a decade to resolve. Identifying and noticing every party that may have a right, completing technical work and sorting through disagreements over this technical work, and determining historic groundwater use which could affect the scope of one's rights are all factors that can contribute to increasing the time and expense of an adjudication.

In an attempt to streamline the groundwater adjudication process in the wake of SGMA’s passage, the Legislature passed SB 226 (Pavley, Chapter 676, Statutes of 2015) and AB 1390 (Alejo, Chapter 672, Statutes of 2015). Together the two bills sought to establish the methods and procedures for a comprehensive adjudication. AB 1390 requires that these adjudication provisions be applied and interpreted consistently with all of the following, amongst others:

• Protecting water rights consistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine;
• Conducting adjudication in a manner that promotes efficiency, reduces unnecessary delays, and provides due process; and
• Conducting adjudication that is consistent with the achievement of groundwater sustainability within the timeframes of SGMA.

SB 226 requires the court, in an adjudication action to determine rights to groundwater in a basin that is required to have a GSP under SGMA, to manage the proceedings in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a GSP, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

1. Prohibit a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin.
   1. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin’s safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.
2. Require a validation action brought against a GSP to brought within 180 days of adoption, and any other action challenging an action of a GSA to be brought within 90 days of that action.
3. Authorize, for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, a party that has timely appeared in that adjudication to file an action on or before March 2, 2026, under specified circumstances.
4. Require an action against a GSA that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the GSA’s compliance with the timelines in the SGMA.
5. Require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the GSP’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.
6. Provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP(s) that have received a determination from the DWR that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed.
7. Make other changes.

Related Legislation:

AB 1466 (Hart, 2025) would, among other things, authorize a court to exempt or treat separately claimants who extract or divert minor quantities of water, and require a party’s initial disclosure to include information relating to agricultural use in a groundwater adjudication.

AB 560 (Bennett, 2024) would have required parties to a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to submit a proposed settlement to the State Water Board for a nonbinding advisory determination regarding its impact on sustainable groundwater management and small and disadvantaged users prior to filing it with the court, among other provisions. AB 560 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 779 (Wilson, Cha. 665, Stats. 2024), made various changes regarding proceedings in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to increase transparency and account for the needs of disadvantaged communities and small farmers in a final judgment, and provided that groundwater pumpers in a basin subject to an adjudication continue to comply with any applicable GSP while the adjudication is pending.

SB 226 (Pavley, Ch. 676, Stats. 2015) integrated and streamlined the groundwater adjudication process for groundwater basins that are subject to SGMA.

AB 1390 (Alejo, Ch. 672, Stats. 2015) established requirements and procedures for a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to ensure the proceedings and final judgment are consistent with sustainable groundwater management.

SB 1168 (Pavley, Ch.346, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

SB 1319 (Pavley, Ch. 348, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

AB 1739 (Dickinson, Ch. 347, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

Staff Comments: It is unknown how many actions will be as a result of this bill. However, the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is approximately $1,000. If additional causes of action are filed that, combined, result in 50 hours or more of court time, then this bill would meet the Suspense File threshold based on court workload cost pressure alone. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure court staff time and resources may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund to perform existing duties. Numerous trial court operations are funded through the imposition and collection of fines and fees. However, the Legislature has reduced and eliminated fines and fees over the past decade. As a result, the 2023-24 proposed budget anticipates an ongoing annual allocation of $109.3 million from the General Fund to the Trial Court Trust Fund in order to address the decline in revenue.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1413 (Author:Papan)

Version: June 30, 2025

Hearing Date: July 15, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

DIGEST

This bill requires a court to use the sustainable yield of a valid groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to determine the physical solution in a groundwater adjudication. The bill requires a validation action brought against a GSP to brought within 180 days of adoption, and any other action challenging an action of a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) to be brought within 90 days of that action.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Groundwater is a critical source of water supply in this state that meets more than 40 percent of water demand in an average year and more than 60 percent of demand during drought years. The adjudication of groundwater rights can be complex and involve many parties and counterclaims. In 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed to establish local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), who are responsible for implementing SGMA by bringing their over-drafted groundwater basins into sustainable yield. However, SGMA explicitly states that it does not alter preexisting groundwater rights.^[1] In 2015, streamlined groundwater adjudication statutes were enacted. (AB 1390 (Alejo, Ch. 672, Stats. 2015.))

An inherent tension has existed between SGMA and the adjudication statutes and several bills have been brought in the past seeking to address this tension. According to the author, this tension has created a situation where it is more appealing to some to seek adjudication over a basin’s groundwater rights than comply with SGMA. This Committee’s analysis of AB 1390 specifically called out this issue and noted the discrepancy between terms used under SGMA (sustainable yield) and the adjudication statutes (safe yield) were the underpinning of this tension.^[2] This bill seeks to address this issue by explicitly prohibiting a court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for a groundwater basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid GSP. Second, the bill requires a validation action of a GSP to be brought within 180 days, and any other action against a GSA within 90 days. The bill also makes various other changes to the groundwater adjudication statutes.

The bill is author sponsored. The bill is supported by Community Alliance With Family Farmers, Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, Sacramento Suburban Water District, and The Nature Conservancy. The bill is opposed by numerous agriculture and business interests, water agencies, and GSAs, including the Western Growers Association, Association of California Water Agencies, and the California Chamber of Commerce. The bill passed the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on a vote of 4 to 3.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Declares that because of the conditions prevailing in this state the general welfare requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare, and that the right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this state is to be limited to such water as is reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water. (Cal. Const. art. X, § 2.)
2. Provides that no water is to be available for appropriation by storage in, or by direct diversion from, any of the components of the California Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as such system exists on January 1, 1981, where such appropriation is for export of water into another major hydrologic basin of the State, as defined by the Department of Water, unless such export is expressly authorized prior to such appropriation by an initiative statute approved by the electors, or the Legislature, by statute passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring. (Ibid.)
3. Establishes SGMA with the goal of providing for the sustainable management of groundwater basins, enhancing local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater, providing local groundwater agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater, and establishing minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management.
   1. Defines sustainable management of groundwater as the avoidance of the following six “undesirable results:”
      1. chronic lowering of groundwater levels;
      2. reduction of groundwater storage;
      3. seawater intrusion;
      4. degraded water quality;
      5. land subsidence; and
      6. depletions of interconnected surface water. (Wat. Code §§ 10720 et seq.)
4. Provides that nothing in SGMA determines or alters surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that determines or grants surface water rights. (Wat. Code § 10720.5(b).)
5. Authorizes the creation of local GSAs and requires GSAs to consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans. (Wat. Code § 10723.2.)
6. Establishes the procedures for a court to use when adjudicating a groundwater basin. (Code Civ. Proc. § 830 et seq.)
   1. Provides that in a comprehensive adjudication, the court may determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. (Code Civ. Proc. § 834.)
7. Provides that a court may enter a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the court finds that the judgment meets all of the following criteria:
   1. it is consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution;
   2. it is consistent with the water right priorities of all non-stipulating parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted in the basin;
   3. it treats all objecting parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted as compared to the stipulating parties; and
   4. it considers the water use of and accessibility of water for small farmers and disadvantaged communities, as provided. (Code Civ. Proc. § 850(a).)
8. Requires a court presiding over an adjudication to manage the proceedings in a manner that minimizes interferences with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA. (Wat. Code § 10737.2.)
9. Provides a court is not to approve entry of judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan unless the court finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a GSA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or DWR to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management. (Wat. Code § 10737.8)
10. Requires an action against a GSA that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be coordinated and consolidated with the adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a GSP, or the GSA’s compliance with the timelines in SGMA. (Code Civ. Proc. § 838).
11. Authorizes a GSA that adopts a GSP to file an action to determine the validity of the plan pursuant to the validation statutes under the Code of Civil Procedure no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan.
    1. Any other action of a GSA is subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil, which provides for a writ of mandamus. (Id. at subd. (e).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a judgment in an adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a GSA, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP or GSPs covering the basin.
   1. Specifies that this is not the exclusive manner by which a court may substantially impair the ability of a GSA, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA.
2. Prohibits the court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a GSP for the basin. A GSP for a basin is to be presumed valid unless the GSP has been ruled invalid by DWR or has been referred to DWR pursuant to Section 10735.2 of the Water Code.
3. Provides that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of a GSA, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP or GSPs covering the basin and the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have received a determination from DWR that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and either of the following apply:
   1. the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action brought pursuant to Section 10726.6 of the Water Code; or
   2. the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
4. Requires a validation action of a GSP to be brought within 180 days, and any other action against a GSA within 90 days.
5. Requires the court, if judicial review is sought regarding an action or determination that is concurrently being reviewed by either DWR or the State Water Board pursuant to SGMA, to promptly consider whether, in the interests of efficiency or justice, to stay that challenge until DWR or the State Water Board has completed their evaluation or related procedure.
6. Requires the court, in an action where consolidation occurs, to try the cause of action for judicial review of the GSP’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Successful implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is of vital importance to California. A minority of pumpers should not be able to use the groundwater adjudication process to get around, delay, or undermine SGMA. AB 1413 will limit abuse of the groundwater adjudication process. To accomplish this goal, this bill prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) and rehash the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP.

Unfortunately, it appears this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA. Revisiting the question of sustainable yield in a groundwater adjudication delays sustainable groundwater management and is redundant. While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater water rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin (akin to land use planning and zoning). This administrative planning process is bolstered by review and oversight by the state agencies with technical expertise in water management – DWR and the State Water Board – that take an active and ongoing role in SGMA implementation. To avoid delay in reversing groundwater overdraft and avoid shutting out smaller actors, this bill directs courts to not permit more groundwater pumping than would be allowed under a valid GSP when entering a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

1. Adjudication of water rights and SGMA

The adjudication of water rights in the state can be complex and involve many parties. According to the State Water Resources Control Board State Water Board) a “water right” is a legal entitlement authorizing water to be diverted from a specified source and put to beneficial, nonwasteful use. Water rights are property rights, but their holders do not own the water itself.” ^[3] Existing state law recognizes three types of water rights—riparian rights, appropriative rights, and groundwater rights. With the impacts of climate change affecting the scarcity and availability of water, via droughts and other conditions, litigation around water rights will likely increase in the near future. Prior to the adoption of SGMA in 2014, there was no statewide oversight of groundwater management. The courts were left to adjudicate groundwater basin cases based on principles of common law and prior case law.

Historically, in groundwater adjudications courts endeavored to find a physical solution to apportion water rights of the groundwater basin subject to the adjudication by determining the safe yield in the basin, which the California Supreme Court has defined as “the maximum quantity of water which can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply under a given set of conditions without causing an undesirable result.”^[4] The concept of safe yield is rooted in the constitutional doctrine of reasonable and beneficial use of water. (Ibid.) A physical solution is the resolution of an adjudication of groundwater rights, whether through settlement or judicial decision, that resolves conflicting claims that “advances the constitutional rule of reasonable and beneficial use of the state’s water supply.”^[5]

1. SGMA

In 2014, the Legislature passed SGMA,^[6] which put in place a statewide framework for groundwater management for the first time. The purpose of SGMA was to address overdraft and other adverse effects of excessive pumping of groundwater by avoiding six specified “undesirable results” ^[7] to ensure long-term sustainability.^[8] SGMA specifically provides that its provisions do not determine or alter surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that determines or grants surface water rights. (Wat. Code § 10720.5(b).) Under SGMA, a GSA is to adopt a GSP to accomplish these goals. The initial and most significant step, in establishing a GSP is determining the “sustainable yield” for the basin. The sustainable yield is the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result. (Wat. Code § 10721(w).) Essentially, how much water is available to be pumped without causing undesirable results. Existing law provides that GSPs adopted by a GSA are subject to the validation statutes. (Wat. Code § 10726.6(a).) Any other action of a GSA are subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for a writ of mandamus. (Id. at subd. (e).)

Under SGMA, a GSA possesses the authority to adopt rules, regulations and ordinances to carry out the GSP. The development of the GSP is required to be developed in a manner that considers the interests of all beneficial water users in a basin. While the statute does not specify the exact manner in which a GSA must engage the public and receive comment on a proposed GSP, the statute does specify the parties a GSA is to seek input from, including holders of overlying groundwater rights, public water systems, the federal government, California Native American, tribes, and disadvantaged communities. (Water Code Section 10723.2.) Once the sustainable yield is determined and the GSP is completed, it is submitted to DWR for review, where the public is entitled to submit comments to DWR regarding the plan and DWR evaluates the plan and issues an assessment of it. (Wat. Code § 10733.4.) Even after a GSP has been approved by DWR and implemented by the GSA, the plan must be reviewed by DWR every five years. (Wat. Code § 10733.8.)

After the enactment of SGMA, the Legislature passed SB 226 (Pavley, Ch. 676, Stats. 2015) and AB 1390 (Alejo, Ch. 672, Stats. 2015) with the intent of streamlining the adjudication process for groundwater rights. Under SB 226, a court must adjudicate rights to groundwater in a basin that is required to have a GSP under SGMA in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a GSP, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA. (Wat. Code § 10737.2.) AB 1390 authorized a GSA for the basin, a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin, and certain persons to intervene in a groundwater adjudication. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 837 & 837.5.) Last session, AB 779 (Wilson, Ch. 655, Stats. 2023) was enacted to, among other things, ensure that the water use of small farmers and disadvantaged communities has been considered by a court before a judgment is entered.

1. Streamlined groundwater adjudication proceedings

Under state law, every overlying property owner has a potential right in an unadjudicated groundwater basin, which makes adjudication of those rights difficult and often a very lengthy process—sometimes taking more than a decade for water rights holders and basin managers to come to an agreement. Prior to the enactment of SGMA, adjudications were the only form of state oversight on groundwater basins. In a common law adjudication, groundwater basins are managed according to the concept of “safe yield,” and overlying appropriators are limited when total basin groundwater extraction exceeds the basin’s safe yield, leading to basin overdraft. The safe yield of a groundwater basin is “the maximum amount of water that could be extracted annually, year after year, without eventually depleting the underground basin. Safe yield is generally calculated as the net of inflows less subsurface and surface outflows.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam ( 2012), 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.) The safe yield is used by the court to decide on a physical solution for the basin.

A year after the enactment of SGMA, the Legislature enacted streamlined groundwater adjudication statutes. (Gov. Code §§ 830 et seq.; AB 1390 (Alejo, Ch. 672, Stats. 2015.) Under these statutes, a court may enter a judgement in a comprehensive groundwater basin adjudication if the judgement is consistent with the reasonable use doctrine, is consistent with the rights of parties exempted from the adjudication, and treats all objecting and exempted parties equitably. (Code Civ. Proc. § 850(a).) Any party to the adjudication may propose a stipulated judgment to the court, and the court may adopt the stipulated judgement if the parties proposing the settlement represent 75 percent of the groundwater pumped in the basin or if 50 percent of the pumpers in the basin agree to the stipulated judgment (Id. at (b).) The party proposing the stipulated judgment may submit the proposed stipulated judgment to DWR for an evaluation and assessment that it satisfies the objects of SGMA for the basin, and DWR can recommend corrective actions. (Wat. Code § 10737.4.) The court may determine it is necessary to amend the judgment to adopt DWR’s recommended corrective actions. (Ibid.). This process, however, is only triggered if a party chooses to submit the proposed settlement. Additionally, a court is not to approve entry of judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a GSP unless the court finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a GSA, SWRCB, or DWR to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management. (Wat. Code § 10737.8.) A court is also required to consider the water use of, and accessibility of water for, small farmers and disadvantaged communities when issuing a judgment in a comprehensive water adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc. § 850(a)(4).)

1. GSPs are subject to the validation statutes

The validation statutes provide for an expedited procedure for challenging certain government actions in order to promptly settle the validity of a public agency’s actions. (McLeod v. Vista United School Dist. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1166; Code Civ. Proc. § 860 et seq.) When made applicable by another substantive statute, the validation statutes provide a 60-day period in which the public entity or any interested person may sue to determine the validity of a governmental act. (Golden Gate Hill Development Company, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 760, 765–767.) Lawsuits brought by the public entity are called “validation actions,” and lawsuits by the public are called “reverse validation actions.” (Id.)

Validations actions were traditionally used to enable public agencies to establish the validity of their bonds and assessments. (City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 335, 340.) “[I]n its most common and practical application, the validation proceeding is used to secure a judicial determination that proceedings by a local government entity, such as the issuance of municipal bonds and the resolution or ordinance authorizing the bonds, are valid, legal, and binding. Assurance as to the legality of the proceedings surrounding the issuance of municipal bonds is essential before underwriters will purchase bonds for resale to the public.” (Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.

App.4th 835, 842, citations omitted [Friedland]) However, the governing statutes apply to “any matter which under any other law is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter” (Code Civ. Proc. § 860).

Under these procedures, once a public agency takes an action, a complaint must be filed within 60 days of the act to be challenged. (Code Civ. Proc. § 860.) Notice of the claim must be served on all interested parties by publication. (Id. § 861.) The claim or action must be given preference over other civil actions. (Id. § 867). Appeal of the trial court’s ruling must be noticed within 30 days of the notice of entry of judgment. (Id. § 870(b).) If not appealed or overturned, the judgment is “‘forever binding and conclusive … against the agency and against all other persons.’” (Santa Clarity Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Abercrombie (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 300, 308, citing section 870(a).)

If no challenge is brought within 60 days, the action is deemed valid and “become[s] immune from attack.” (Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th at 30.) As a result, all matters “which have been or which could have been adjudicated in a validation action, … including constitutional challenges,” must be “raised within the statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq. or they are waived.” (Friedland, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at 846–847.) Courts have concluded the 60-day period is reasonable given the important purposes of the validation statutes, which include “the need to limit the extent to which delay due to litigation may impair a public agency’s ability to operate financially.” (California Commerce Casino, Inc. v. Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420.) “We recognize the statutory period of limitation for commencing a validation action is extremely short but it is not unique in its brevity. ‘What constitutes a reasonable time is a question ordinarily left to the Legislature, whose decision a court will not overrule except where palpable error has been committed.’” (Id., citations omitted.)

The only difference from the validation statutes for a GSP is that an action cannot be commenced any sooner than 180 days after the adoption of the GSP. (Wat. Code § 10726.6(a).) This bill would change this provision to no later than 180 days after the adoption of the GSP.

1. Current pending adjudications

According to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, there are currently five pending groundwater adjudications:

• Santa Clara Valley – Oxnard (No. 4-001.2) and Pleasant Valley (No. 4-006) groundwater basins, commenced in December 2022. A coalition of pumpers, the “OPV Coalition,” initiated this action in December 2022 against the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (the GSA for the basins) asserting six causes of action: (1) seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication; (2) seeking quiet title to plaintiffs’ claims to use groundwater; (3), (4), and (5) writs of mandate challenging the GSP or FCGMA’s efforts to implement the GSP; and (6) alleging a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The court has stayed all causes of actions while it hears the comprehensive groundwater adjudication; this first phase is currently underway. DWR approved the GSPs for both basins in November 2021.
• Cuyama Valley groundwater basin (No. 3-013), commenced in March 2022. Two large agricultural pumpers, Bolthouse Land Company and Grimmway Enterprises, initiated this action in March 2022 seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication and quiet title to plaintiffs’ claims to use groundwater. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in May 2023 and it is currently undergoing its first 5-year review.
• Indian Wells groundwater basin (No. 6-54), commenced in November 2021. A number of legal actions have taken place in this basin in recent years. The Indian Wells Valley Water District (not part of the basin’s GSA) filed the action seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication in June 2021; however, this was a cross-complaint to another action filed by an agricultural pumper, Mojave Pistachios, challenging the GSP for the basin. The crux of the conflict is that various parties in the basin disagree about the basin’s sustainable yield; some pumpers allege the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA), the GSA for the basin, underestimated it. The adjudication is in the first phase to determine the U.S. Navy’s federal reserved rights to groundwater in the basin. It is expected that there will be at least two more phases on safe yield and then individual groundwater rights. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in January 2022.
• Upper Ventura River (No. 4-3.01), Ojai Valley (No. 4-2), Lower Ventura River (No. 4-3.02), and Upper Ojai Valley (No. 4-1) groundwater basins, commenced in November 2019. Santa Barbara Channelkeeper initiated a suit against the City of Ventura in 2014 to limit the city’s use of water from the Ventura River. The City of Ventura filed a cross-complaint in December 2019 alleging nine claims for relief, one of which seeks a comprehensive groundwater adjudication of these basins. DWR approved the GSP for Ventura River in May 2023 and for Ojai Valley in October 2023.
• Las Posas Valley groundwater basin (No. 4-8), commenced in November 2018. A coalition of pumpers, the “Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition,” initiated this action in October 2018 against FCGMA (i.e., the GSA for the basin) seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication. Parties reached a settlement in spring 2023 that the court adopted in July 2023. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in January 2022; this will be supplanted by the judgment in the comprehensive groundwater adjudication. As a separate issue, it is unclear if all the landowners received proper notice of the adjudication.^[9]
  

An additional adjudication in the Borrego Valley groundwater subbasin (No. 7-024.1) commenced in July 2020; the court approved a stipulated judgment to settle this adjudication on April 8, 2021 and the case is no longer active.^[10]

1. Indian Wells groundwater basin adjudication highlights the existing tension between SGMA and the adjudication statutes

The genesis of this bill stems from the Indian Wells groundwater basin adjudication. In that adjudication, the sustainable yield adopted by Indian Wells Valley Water District, the GSA, is being challenged. Indian Wells argued to the superior court that the sustainable yield under the GSP was required to be used as the safe yield in the adjudication to determine a physical solution. The plaintiffs in the adjudication argue that the safe yield must be determined in an adjudication, and that the GSA’s sustainable yield was determined in a non-judicial setting and therefore is non-binding.

It is important to note that the Indian Wells adjudication contains high stakes for both sides. Under the GSP, all groundwater extractors are subject to a basin replenishment fee of $2,130 per acre-foot, with some exceptions for public agencies and de minimis pumpers. Mojave Pistachios, one of the plaintiffs, claims that it if they pay the fees the cost will destroy their ability to continue doing business and if they do not their trees will die and they will be put out of business.^[11] Indian Wells has spent millions of dollars and many years developing the GSP and is expecting funding of $50 million for construction of an augmentation project this year.^[12]

The court stated that a potential question is raised as to whether a physical solution in an adjudication can displace a GSP, and noted the following that are relevant to this analysis: ^[13]

• The concept of safe yield is not explicitly referenced in the adjudication statutes but is a “Critical underpinning” of those statutes and “is integral to developing any physical solution.” (citing Antelope Valley Groundwater Case (2021) 62 Cal.App.5^th 992, 1000-1002.)
• Determining the safe yield is done in an adversarial setting and includes the use of expert witnesses.
• A sustainable yield under SGMA is done via an administrative proceeding, which is not an adversarial setting.
• SGMA specifically contemplates the possibility of replacing a GSP with a DWR approved physical solution. (Wat. Code § 10733.6.)
• No provision of either law specifically address how to handle a situation where a party could undermine a GSP through an adjudication.
• The statute that requires adhering to an existing GSP during an adjudication “suggests that the GSP may be replaced as a result of the proceeding.”
• A safe yield trial is not clearly precluded by existing statutes, as a comprehensive adjudication following implementation of a GSP. (Code Civ. Proc. §849(b).)
• The “thrust of the statues[;]” however, “make clear that the Legislature has attempted to harmonize SGMA” and the adjudication statutes.^[14]

The court determined that a physical solution in an adjudication and a GSP both need a safe/sustainable yield at the outset, that, in the court’s opinion, a safe yield and a sustainable yield are “essentially equivalent terms,” and that this was “well known before the enactment of SGMA” and the adjudication statutes by the Legislature.^[15] The court ultimately concluded that the “Legislature easily could have required a court in an adjudication action to adopt a groundwater agency’s findings on the issue. Since it did not do so, the [c]ourt is hard pressed to read ‘avoiding redundancy and unnecessary costs’ as imposing this requirement.”^[16]

It is important to note that the court specifically points out that there were “data gaps” acknowledged by both Indian Wells and DWR underlying the determination of a sustainable yield in the GSP, and that if the court is going to impose a physical solution it should do so based on the most accurate and up-to-date information available.^[17] The court also noted that the validation statutes apply to a GSP, not an adjudication, and that though a physical solution may differ from a GSP, it is not a direct attack on the GSP as barred under the validation statutes.^[18]

1. This bill seeks to specifically require a court to use the sustainable yield of a valid GSP to determine the physical solution in a groundwater adjudication

Proponents of the bill claim it is clarifying existing law. However, as evidenced by the court’s decision described in 4), above, the issue is not so cut and dried. As noted earlier, this exact issue was pointed out in this Committee’s analysis of AB 1390, stating:

Since the concept of “safe yield” used in groundwater adjudications could allow parties to extract more groundwater than would be permitted under a groundwater management plan crafted under SGMA, it is possible that improving the speed and efficiency of groundwater adjudications could lead parties not inclined to participate in the SGMA process to use adjudications as a way to circumvent that process.^[19]

What is clear, is that the court has invited the Legislature to make a determination on the issue, and this bill seeks to do just that.

• • • 1. Under the bill, a valid GSP’s suitable yield will control in an adjudication

The bill requires a court to use the sustainable yield of a valid GSP to determine the physical solution in a groundwater adjudication by prohibiting the court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a GSP. A GSP for a basin is to be presumed valid unless the GSP has been ruled invalid by DWR or has been referred to DWR pursuant to Section 10735.2 of the Water Code. The bill explicitly states that a judgment in an adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater sustainability plans covering the basin.

The bill provides that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of a GSA, the State Water Board, or DWR to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP or GSPs covering the basin and the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have received a determination from DWR that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and either of the following apply:

• the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action brought pursuant to Section 10726.6 of the Water Code; or
• the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.

The bill in print currently provides differing descriptions of what makes a GSP valid or invalid. Both the SGMA provisions in Water Code Section 1073.2 and adjudication provisions in Code of Civil Procedure Section 850 provide that a GSP that was either validated under the validation statutes, or by operation of law because it was not challenged, is valid. In the SGMA provision it states that a GSP that was referred to the State Water Board is not a valid GSP. Under the adjudication provisions, it says that a GSP that was determined by DWR as likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin is valid. In practicality, a GSP referred to the State Water Board would not have been found by DWR to likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin, and vice versa. However, the Committee strongly advises the author, should this bill pass this Committee, to streamline terms and cross-references used under these two statues to avoid any ambiguity on what approval or determination is needed by DWR to ensure a GSP is considered valid.

• • • 1. This bill affects pending adjudications

This Committee generally disfavors statutes that interfere with pending litigation. It raises concerns of fairness and equity. In this instance, the issue at hand – whether the sustainable yield of a GSP controls in an adjudication – has been an open question since the enactment of the adjudication statutes and one that had not been addressed by the court until recently. However, the Legislature is now squarely faced with this question. If the bill in print were not to apply to pending adjudications, it would result in the scenario where the Legislature has made the policy decision that SMGA is so important to groundwater sustainability that a GSP’s sustainable yield should control in an adjudication, except for the five basins where an adjudication is currently pending. On one hand this seems nonsensical. However, the parties involved, mainly the plaintiffs, made decisions based on their understanding of what their rights in a groundwater adjudication were. This bill would essentially validate a GSP as a matter of law for the pending adjudications, and cut off those plaintiffs’ ability to argue their case as the GSPs have already been adopted and approved by DWR.

To address this concern, the author has proposed to amend the bill to provide for a one-time special reopening of the statute of limitations to permit parties under existing adjudications to contest previously validated GSPs through a validation action. In order to ensure that any final determinations regarding the safe yield made in an adjudication before the enactment of this bill, whether by a court or through a stipulated settlement, are not re-litigated the bill would not apply the one-time reopening of the statutes to those pending adjudications. The specific amendments are provided in Comment 6), below.

• • • 1. Bill may implicate the beneficial use doctrine under the California Constitution

Opponents argue this bill would violate the beneficial use doctrine under the California Constitution. They write:

[…] Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution establishes the principle of reasonable and beneficial use of water. It declares that all water use—including surface and groundwater—must “be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable” without waste or unreasonable use or diversion. This ensures that California’s water resources are managed efficiently to serve the greatest public benefit.

A safe yield in an adjudication tasks courts with determining the appropriate amount of water that can be sustainably withdrawn from the groundwater basin or water source over time without causing undesirable results. AB 1413 would tie the hands of the courts, preventing the establishment of a safe yield that maximizes all beneficial uses of groundwater. This would be an unconstitutional violation of Article X, Section 2.

It is unclear to Committee staff if requiring the sustainable yield to control in a groundwater adjudication would be in violation of the beneficial use doctrine. There is certainly a potential that in a specific situation a sustainable yield determined by a GSP could be artificially low due to faulty data or a myriad of other reasons. In this scenario, one would presume that the review process by DWR would prevent this from occurring. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that this could happen. In such a situation, an artificially low sustainable yield could affect the beneficial use of water in the state because shrinking the size of water available to pump would necessarily shrink the amount of water that can be pumped and, therefore, be put to beneficial use. However, this would be a very fact specific determination.

1. Other changes to SGMA and the adjudication statutes under the bill

Under the bill, the court, if judicial review is sought regarding an action or determination that is concurrently being reviewed by either DWR or the State Water Board pursuant to SGMA, must promptly consider whether, in the interests of efficiency or justice, to stay that challenge until DWR or the State Water Board have completed their evaluation or related procedure. The bill requires the court, in an action where consolidation occurs, to try the cause of action for judicial review of the GSP’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.

In regards to the consolidation provision, the opposition writes:

[…] While consolidation is often the most efficient means of dealing with related cases, courts currently have discretion to consolidate if it is appropriate based on the circumstances. For instance, there could be circumstances where consolidation would not be appropriate because of disparate case status and schedules, among other reasons. By removing judicial discretion, this provision would force consolidation regardless of appropriateness and limit courts’ ability to manage their cases in ways that maximize efficiency and take into consideration the needs of the parties. We suggest that consolidation remains within the court’s discretion, rather than mandating a particular action.

SGMA requires a court to manage adjudication proceedings in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA. (Wat. Code § 10737.2.) In light of these provisions, the consolidation requirement seems consistent with existing public policy.

Lastly, the bill requires a validation action of a GSP to be brought within 180 days, and any other action against a GSA within 90 days.

1. Amendments

The specific amendments to address the concerns raised under Comment 5(b), above, are as follows:^[20]

Amendment 1

Section 850 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:

850. (a) The court may enter a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication if the court finds that the judgment meets all of the following criteria:

(1) It is consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.

(2) It is consistent with the water right priorities of all nonstipulating parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted pursuant to Section 833 in the basin.

(3) It treats all objecting parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted pursuant to Section 833 equitably as compared to the stipulating parties.

(4) It considers the water use of and accessibility of water for small farmers and disadvantaged communities. This consideration shall be consistent with the conditions identified in this subdivision.

(b) (1) The court may enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, if in addition to the criteria enumerated in subdivision (a), the court also finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

(2) A judgment substantially impairs the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans covering the basin and the groundwater sustainability plan or plans have received a determination from the department, pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 10733 of the Water Code), including a determination under Section 10733, that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and either of the following apply:

[…]

Amendment 2

Section 10726.6 of the Water Code is amended to read:

10726.6. (a)(1) A groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan may file an action to determine the validity of the plan pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 180 days following the adoption of the plan.

(2)(A)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any party that has timely appeared in that adjudication may file an action pursuant to paragraph (1) by March 2, 2026.

(B)That action shall be consolidated with the adjudication and have priority over any other issue pending in the adjudication.

(2) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin’s safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.

[…]

Amendment 3

Section 10737.2 of the Water Code is amended to read:

10737.2. (a) In an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan under this part, the court shall manage the proceedings in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by this part.

(b)(1) In an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to this part, the court shall not establish a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin. A groundwater sustainability plan for a basin shall be presumed valid unless the groundwater sustainability plan has been ruled invalid pursuant to Section 10726.6 or has been referred to the board pursuant to Section 10735.2.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin’s safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026.

1. Statements in support

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority writes in support, stating:

[…] SGMA established a local process to determine groundwater management using the best available science, open participation by all stakeholders, and addressing the specific needs of stakeholders. In addition, it established a regulatory process requiring the State (through the Department of Water Resources) to oversee and verify a GSP, including its ability to meet sustainability requirements. Lastly, it established judicial mechanism through a Validation Action process — to challenge a GSP or the actions of a groundwater sustainability agencies in a timely manner; providing further the use of a Writ Process, under Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure that is not limited to a review of the administrative record and involves introducing other kinds of evidence including, discovery, depositions, declarations of witnesses, and other types of evidence typically that are not permitted in a typical administrative mandate case.

Litigants in the current groundwater adjudications are removing this local process in favor of a courtroom — literally hundreds of miles from the stakeholders in the basin — with limited participation by those that can afford such legal action.

AB 1413 establishes a mechanism that prevents the re-litigation of a GSP's "sustainable yield" through an adjudication providing certainty to finance sustainability projects, removing unnecessary and costly delays in the implementation of sustainability measures, and prevents duplicative litigation costs. The bill protects the ability of any party to seek a groundwater right through adjudication and maintains the due process afforded to participants in the adjudication process. […]

The Community Alliance of Family Farmers:

We are concerned that large-scale farming interests have at times filed for adjudication when the process at their local GSA has resulted in lower pumping than they would prefer, and so they aim to achieve a better deal in court. There are instances of large-scale producers asking the court to find that there is a “safe yield” level of pumping that is greater than the “sustainable yield” the GSA has calculated, thus providing more water to be pumped in the future. We support efforts to limit adjudications as a way to circumvent the past ten years of work in creating Groundwater Sustainability Plans.

It makes no sense for the court to re-do an estimate that professionals have already calculated with the GSA. That the court has this “safe yield” charge at all is left over from the pre-SGMA era when there were no GSAs nor sustainable yield calculations. It is time to do away with it. We understand that GSAs cannot assign groundwater rights, but we are concerned that allowing adjudications to assign groundwater rights that exceed that amount of water determined to be sustainable yield will result in significant adverse effects for family farmers, and the undesirable effects that SGMA seeks to avoid.

Small-scale farmers are more likely to have shallow wells at risk of going dry, and generally stand to lose their water access in adjudication proceedings. It is extremely difficult for small farms and rural residents to participate in an adjudication, as they must employ legal representation and the courts are required to provide a venue outside their county. They have neither the money for the attorneys nor the time to attend.

While we know that Groundwater Sustainability Plans are not perfect, we support the public process of amending and improving them, rather than the high bar to entry that adjudications currently represent. Importantly, this approach would still allow for validation actions. This ensures that problems with a GSP can be addressed without putting the entire subbasin through an adjudication. Aligned with our advocacy on AB 1466, we seek to ensure that small scale farmers are appropriately represented in adjudications and have their water rights fairly protected.

1. Opposition concerns

Opponents to the bill include a large coalition of agriculture and business interests, water agencies, and GSAs, including the Western Growers Association, Association of California Water Agencies, and the California Chamber of Commerce, who raise several concerns with the bill. They have proposed amendments that would essentially allow a GSP’s sustainable yield to control in an adjudication unless there was reasonable evidence that the GSA’s sustainable yield is not based on the best available science or where transparency into the process of establishing the GSP was lacking. There amendments would provide that they do not apply to any pending adjudications.

First, the opposition notes issues with only allowing validation actions to challenge the sustainable yield:

AB 1413 essentially states that anyone who disagrees with a sustainable yield determination should file a reverse validation action. The sustainable yield, as defined in SGMA, is “the maximum quantity of water… that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater basin without causing an undesirable result.” A validation proceeding asks whether the agency complied with the law when taking the challenged action. If the court finds that the agency did something wrong, all the court can do is direct the agency to redo the action, this time following the law. The court cannot review the best available technical information outside the administrative record developed by the GSA during development of the GSP or cross-examine witnesses. Unlike in a groundwater adjudication, not all water rights holders are required to participate nor is there a requirement that there has to be proof that all water rights holders were notified. Additionally, since SGMA prohibits GSAs from determining water rights, groundwater users do not present evidence during the GSP development process to prove the extent or validity of their rights. This means that the administrative record does not include evidence of an individual user’s water rights.

Second, they argue that this bill will allow GSAs though a GSP to determine water rights, in violation of SGMA:

AB 1413 would make the GSA the lone arbiter of the size of the pie, and, in effect, determine water rights, which SGMA expressly prohibits. Each water rights holder’s slice of that pie is affected by how big the entire pie is. Appropriative and prescriptive water rights, two types of water rights claims that very frequently arise in groundwater adjudications, are partially if not fully dependent on the safe yield determination for the basin. By forcing courts to essentially defer to a GSP’s sustainable yield, AB 1413 removes the authority reserved to courts to determine water rights and deprives water rights holders of the due process that SGMA guarantees.

They further rightfully point out that agencies can make mistakes, and this bill does not account for any scenario where a GSA may incorrectly asses the correct amount for a sustainable yield:

One of the major concerns with AB 1413 is that it assumes that a GSP will accurately estimate the sustainable yield or the maximum amount of water that can be withdrawn from a basin annually. It does so by saying that a court cannot find a safe yield that exceeds the GSP’s sustainable yield—although it does allow a court to find a smaller number. This declares that a GSP’s sustainable yield number is, in all cases, the maximum amount of water that may be used. It does not contemplate a scenario where a GSA has incorrectly determined this number. It also elevates a GSP from a management document to controlling evidence. This would be analogous to say that a city’s general plan is a piece of controlling evidence in a real property dispute. A general plan may be relevant and useful, but it cannot determine the extent of a property right.

They point out that some adjudications have been borne from a lack of transparency by GSAs in the process of developing the GSP, which creates distrust and demonstrates why a GSP should not be controlling.

Lastly, the opponents argue that this bill should not apply to any pending adjudications. They write:

Finally, no legislation should apply to the five ongoing adjudications. The Las Posas adjudication has already been completed at the trial court level and briefing at the appellate court is complete. Safe yield trials are set for May 12, 2025 in the Cuyama adjudication and September 15, 2025 in the Oxnard-Pleasant Valley adjudication. The safe yield trial in the Indian Wells Valley adjudication is set for June 1, 2026. In all four of these adjudications, all parties have already expended substantial financial resources preparing for these safe yield trials based on the existing law. No legislation should apply to these ongoing cases.

SUPPORT

Community Alliance With Family Farmers

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority

Sacramento Suburban Water District

The Nature Conservancy

OPPOSITION

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance

Alta Irrigation District

Arvin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Association of California Water Agencies

California Alfalfa and Forage Association

California Association of Realtors

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Chamber of Commerce

California Citrus Mutual

California Farm Bureau

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain and Feed Association

California Groundwater Coalition

California Municipal Utilities Association

California Seed Association

California Tomato Growers Association

California Water Association

Cawelo Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Central Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency

East Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

El Rico Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Fresno County Farm Bureau

Henry Miller Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation

Indian Wells Valley Water District

Kern County Farm Bureau
South San Joaquin Irrigation District

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 1466 (Hart, 2025), among other things, authorizes a court to exempt or treat separately claimants who extract or divert minor quantities of water, and require a party’s initial disclosure to include information relating to agricultural use in a groundwater adjudication. AB 1466 is set to be heard in this Committee on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

AB 560 (Bennett, 2024) would have required parties to a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to submit a proposed settlement to the State Water Board for a nonbinding advisory determination regarding its impact on sustainable groundwater management and small and disadvantaged users prior to filing it with the court, among other provisions. AB 560 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 779 (Wilson, Cha. 665, Stats. 2024), made various changes regarding proceedings in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to increase transparency and account for the needs of disadvantaged communities and small farmers in a final judgment, and provided that groundwater pumpers in a basin subject to an adjudication continue to comply with any applicable GSP while the adjudication is pending.

SB 226 (Pavley, Ch. 676, Stats. 2015) integrated and streamlined the groundwater adjudication process for groundwater basins that are subject to SGMA.

AB 1390 (Alejo, Ch. 672, Stats. 2015) established requirements and procedures for a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to ensure the proceedings and final judgment are consistent with sustainable groundwater management.

SB 1168 (Pavley, Ch.346, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

SB 1319 (Pavley, Ch. 348, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

AB 1739 (Dickinson, Ch. 347, Stats. 2014) was part of the three-bill package that enacted SGMA.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 3)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 45, Noes 21)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 4)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 3)

Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 4)

**************

1. Wat. Code § 10720.5(b) stating “nothing in [SGMA], or in any groundwater management plan adopted pursuant to this part, determines or alters surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that determines or grants surface water rights.” ↑

2. Sen. Jud. Comm. analysis of AB 1390 (2015-2016 reg. sess.) as amend July 6, 2015 at p. 11. ↑

3. State Wat. Resources Control Bd., The Water Right Process (updated Aug. 20, 2020), available a https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.html. ↑

4. City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 537 P.2d 1250, 1308. ↑

5. Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App 4^th 266, 287-88. ↑

6. Enacted through a three bill package AB 1739 (Dickinson, Ch. 347, Stats. 2014), SB 1168 (Pavley, Ch.346, Stats. 2014), and SB 1319 (Pavley, Ch. 348, Stats. 2014). ↑

7. These are:

   Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon. Overdraft during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a chronic lowering of groundwater levels if extractions and groundwater recharge are managed as necessary to ensure that reductions in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in groundwater levels or storage during other periods.

   Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage.

   Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.

   Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.

   Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.

   Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. (Wat. Code § 10721(x).) ↑

8. State Wat. Resources Control Bd., The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (updated Aug. 8, 2024), available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sgma/about_sgma.html. ↑

9. Sen. Nat. Res. & Wat. Comm. analysis AB 1466 (2025-26 reg. sess.) as amended Jun. 26, 2025. ↑

10. Ibid. ↑

11. Mojave Pistachios, LLC v Indian Wells Valley Water District, Case No. 30-2021-01187275-CU-OR-CJC, Sup. Court, Orange County, Notice of Ruling from the 8/5/24 Hearing, (Oct. 2, 2024). ↑

12. Ibid. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. Ibid. ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. Ibid. ↑

17. Ibid. ↑

18. Ibid. ↑

19. See Sen. Jud. Comm. analysis of AB 1390 (2015-2016 reg. sess.) as amend July 6, 2015 at p. 11. ↑

20. The amendments may also include technical, nonsubstantive changes recommended by the Office of Legislative Counsel. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1413

Author:(Papan)

As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Provides that a court′s judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication that allows more total pumping from a basin annually or on average than a valid groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) shall be deemed to substantially interfere with implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and makes other changes relative to comprehensive groundwater adjudications and validation actions.

Major Provisions

1. Requires that challenges to a GSP in a groundwater basin shall be consolidated with a pending comprehensive adjudication.
2. Requires that in the event an action challenging a GSP is consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication, the court shall adjudicate the validity of a GSP′s sustainable yield before adjudicating any other issue in the action.
3. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), or the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to comply with SGMA if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP(s) covering the basin and if either of the following apply:
   1. The GSPs have been validated by a final judgment in a validation action; or
   2. The GSPs have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
4. Provides a GSA may file a validation action on a GSP within 180 days following its adoption (as opposed to ″no sooner than 180 days″).

COMMENTS

Groundwater is a critical source of supply that meets roughly 40% of water demand in an average year and more than 60% during drought years. ″Percolating groundwater″ is how the vast majority of groundwater is categorized under California law and groundwater users (pumpers) are not required to obtain a permit or license to use it. There are three types of rights to percolating groundwater: overlying, appropriative, and prescriptive. As it relates to overlying rights California has, to a degree, adopted the English Common Law notion that whoever owns the soil owns the depths, however, as early as 1903, California courts recognized that this state′s climate does not lend itself to a pure application of the common law [Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116]. The Katz court recognized that scarcity is a critical element of California water law and that when a groundwater basin cannot support the needs of all water users each user is entitled to a ″fair and just″ proportion of the water supply (Id. at 134). Appropriative rights applies to surplus groundwater drawn from a basin but not utilized on the overlying land. In this scenario, the court provides that ″first in time first in right″ approach applies to determining water rights [City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1241]. Finally, prescriptive rights are established by showing an adverse use against prior rights holders. These rights are most commonly held by municipal water agencies who pump groundwater for use outside the overlying basin. Because many of the groundwater basins utilized by municipal pumpers are overdrawn, and thus by definition no surplus water exists, the municipalities′ rights are considered ″adverse″ to other rights holders [City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 299-300].

A comprehensive groundwater adjudication is the primary method for determining groundwater rights and occurs when one or more parties file a civil action to resolve conflicts over groundwater rights. According to the Water Education Foundation, ″through adjudication, the courts can assign specific water rights to water users and can compel the cooperation of those who might otherwise refuse to limit their pumping of groundwater. Watermasters are typically appointed by the court to ensure that pumping conforms to the limits defined by the adjudication.″ The overall limit or budget on groundwater pumping is typically referred to as ″safe yield″ in a settlement or judgment resulting from a groundwater adjudication. The first groundwater basin adjudicated in California was the Raymond Basin underlying the City of Pasadena. Out of 515 groundwater basins identified by DWR, 27 basins or sub-basins have been adjudicated. These are predominantly in urban and suburban parts of Southern California.

State law gives every overlying property owner a potential right in an unadjudicated groundwater basin. As such, determining who has groundwater rights that could be affected by an adjudication and the scope of those rights is difficult and can be a lengthy process; adjudications typically take more than a decade to resolve. Identifying and noticing every party that may have a right, completing technical work, sorting through disagreements over this technical work, and determining historic groundwater use, which could affect the scope of one′s rights, are all factors that can increase the time and expense of an adjudication. In an attempt to streamline the groundwater adjudication process, SB 226 (Pavley) and AB 1390 (Alejo) were enacted in 2015. There are five pending groundwater adjudications at present.

Due to a lack of a comprehensive framework for regulating and managing groundwater for most of California′s history, many groundwater basins in California are in a state of overdraft (a condition where average annual pumping exceeds average annual groundwater supply in a basin). SGMA was enacted in 2014 to address overdraft and the adverse effects of excessive groundwater pumping.

According to the Author

″This bill will prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around and delay a GSP while rehashing the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP. Unfortunately, this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA…While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin.″

Arguments in Support

The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) supports this bill arguing that it ″establishes a Validation Action as the correct venue to challenge a [GSP] and clarifies the court′s ability to review a GSP during a groundwater adjudication.″ FCGMA points out that this bill does not ″change the ability of a groundwater user to request″ a groundwater adjudication and asserts ″adjudications should not be used to challenge or overturn the findings of a GSP. In three critically overdrafted basins, parties have used adjudications to seek court reviews of GSP findings without deference to the SGMA process. Some litigants use adjudications and validation actions to delay sustainability measures, continue overdrafting, and remove water rights from small farmers and disadvantaged communities. This trend is inappropriate and undermines SGMA.″

Arguments in Opposition

The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) and a number of trade associations and water agencies have taken an ″oppose unless amended″ position on this bill. CalChamber argues that this bill ″would unconstitutionally insulate agency decisions from judicial review, deprive groundwater right holders of due process, and remove constitutionally granted authority from the courts.″ CalChamber maintains by leaving a reverse validation action as the sole avenue for judicial review of the sustainable yield in a given GSP, this bill deprives groundwater right holders of their due process rights. Further, CalChamber notes that a validation action, unlike a comprehensive groundwater adjudication, does not allow claimants to present evidence of their individual groundwater right claim. Finally, CalChamber maintains this bill violates separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution: ″mandating judicial deference to GSPs amounts to a quasi-legislative branch unduly influencing judicial proceedings, thereby disrupting the balance among government branches.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1) The State Water Board does not anticipate incurring new costs as a result of this bill and notes possible General Fund cost savings. The bill may result in a reduced need for the board to intervene in groundwater adjudications to ensure the proceeding does not interfere with its ability to comply with SGMA.

2) DWR does not anticipate incurring new costs as a result of this bill. DWR does not play a role in groundwater adjudications unless (a) it seeks to offer an amicus brief and provide input to the court, or (b) the court seeks assistance from the State Water Board and DWR under Section 850 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill does not alter or enhance these requirements.

3) Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable costs to the courts. The change from ″no sooner than″ to ″within″ 180 days (as it relates to the requirement for an agency to file an action on the validity of a GSP) may reduce the number of filings as there is less time for an agency to bring an action to the courts. The required consolidation of specified actions related to GSAs may slightly reduce the number of filings received by the court.

VOTES

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 9-4-0

YES: Papan, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bennett, Boerner, Caloza, Hart, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers

NO: Jeff Gonzalez, Bains, Macedo, Tangipa

ASM JUDICIARY: 8-3-1

YES: Kalra, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Dixon, Macedo, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula

UPDATED

VERSION: April 10, 2025

CONSULTANT: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000457

Date of Hearing: May 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1413

Author:(Papan) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill provides that a court’s judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication that allows more total pumping from a basin annually or on average than a valid groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) shall be deemed to substantially interfere with implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and makes other changes relative to comprehensive groundwater adjudications.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Requires a groundwater adjudication involving an action against a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) located in that basin be consolidated with the comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a GSP, or the GSA’s compliance with the timelines in SGMA.
2. Requires the court in an action consolidated pursuant to item 1, above, to try the cause of action for judicial review of the GSP’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.
3. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a GSA, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), or the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSPs covering the basin and either of two specified conditions apply.
4. Prohibits, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a GSP, the court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid GSP for the basin, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) The State Water Board does not anticipate incurring new costs as a result of this bill and notes possible General Fund cost savings. The bill may result in a reduced need for the board to intervene in groundwater adjudications to ensure the proceeding does not interfere with its ability to comply with SGMA.

2) DWR does not anticipate incurring new costs as a result of this bill. DWR does not play a role in groundwater adjudications unless (a) it seeks to offer an amicus brief and provide input to the court, or (b) the court seeks assistance from the State Water Board and DWR under Section 850 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill does not alter or enhance these requirements.

3) Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable costs to the courts. The change from “no sooner than” to “within” 180 days (as it relates to the requirement for an agency to file an action on the validity of a GSP) may reduce the number of filings as there is less time for an agency to bring an action to the courts. The required consolidation of specified actions related to GSAs may slightly reduce the number of filings received by the court.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

This bill will prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around and delay a GSP while rehashing the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP. Unfortunately, this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA…While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin.

2) Background. Due to excessive use of groundwater resources over many decades, many of California’s groundwater basins are experiencing overdraft. The historic passage of SGMA in 2014 created a statewide framework to protect groundwater in the long-term. SGMA requires groundwater basins subject to overdraft to develop a GSP to reverse overdraft and achieve sustainable groundwater management over a 20-year period.

A groundwater adjudication occurs when one or more parties files a civil action to resolve conflicts over groundwater rights. According to the Water Education Foundation, through adjudication, the courts can assign specific water rights to water users and can compel the cooperation of those who might otherwise refuse to limit their pumping of groundwater. The overall limit or budget on groundwater pumping is typically referred to as “safe yield” in a settlement or judgment resulting from a groundwater adjudication.

This bill seeks to build on prior legislative efforts to streamline groundwater proceedings and synchronize the GSP development and approval process with groundwater adjudications. A coalition of local groundwater agencies, environmental groups, and clean water advocates support this bill. Proponents argue that GSPs incorporate greater scientific input and highlight that the purpose of SGMA was to streamline groundwater management and the resolution of disputes. The bill is opposed by a coalition of agricultural and business organizations, who argue that adjudications remain the sole venue for apportioning groundwater rights and question if validation actions are sufficient to evaluate the merits of a GSP in the courts.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1413

Author:(Papan) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

KEY ISSUE: should a sustainable yield determination by a groundwater sustainability agency, that has been validated in accordance with law, serve as the sustainable yield of a groundwater basin if the basin is later subjected to a comprehensive adjudication proceeding to determine water rights?

SYNOPSIS

Under California law, there are three legal classifications of freshwater: surface water, groundwater, and water in subterranean streams. Unlike water flowing in identifiable channels (surface water and subterranean streams), groundwater remained largely unregulated throughout California’s history despite providing between 40 and 60 percent of the state’s annual freshwater needs. As a result of the lack of clear statewide regulation, for much of the last 80 years disputes involving groundwater, and rights to that water, were resolved through costly and time consumer groundwater adjudications. In 2014, seeking to finally manage the state’s groundwater resources, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, local groundwater sustainability agencies were tasked with developing management plans for the most at-risk groundwater basins to ensure that basins were being utilized in a sustainable manner. At the same time, water rights cases are still litigated in groundwater adjudications. Presently, even when a local groundwater agency establishes, and utilizes court processes to validate, a sustainable yield for a given basin, that yield may be re-litigated in an adjudication.

Contending that revisiting valid sustainable yield determination is a waste of time and expenses for litigants, this bill would prohibit a court in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication from adopting a sustainable yield that would result in more groundwater pumping in a basin than established in the groundwater sustainability plan. In order for groundwater sustainability plan’s yield determination to be utilized in an adjudication, the bill requires the sustainability plan to have been valid in court, or by function of law. The bill also makes various findings on the ongoing need to continue to streamline and harmonize the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act with groundwater adjudication actions.

A coalition of local groundwater agencies, environmental groups, and clean water advocates support this bill. The proponents of the bill argue that the groundwater sustainability plans incorporate greater scientific input and highlight that the purpose of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was to streamline groundwater management and the resolution of disputes. This bill is opposed by a coalition of agricultural interests and business organizations. The opposition notes that adjudications remain the sole venue for apportioning groundwater rights and question if validation actions are sufficient to evaluate the merits of a groundwater sustainability plan in the courts. Despite the disagreements, stakeholder discussions and the sharing of proposed language remains ongoing and the author remains committed to receiving input from all stakeholders. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife by a vote of 9-4.

SUMMARY: Prohibits a court from adopting a sustainable yield in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication proceeding if such yield allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest validated groundwater sustainability plan covering the basin. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a groundwater adjudication involving an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in that basin to be consolidated with the comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency’s compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
2. Requires the court in an action consolidated pursuant to 1) to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plan’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.
3. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Department of Water Resources to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plans covering the basin and either of the following apply:
   1. The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action; or
   2. The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
4. Prohibits in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan, the court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin, as specified.
5. State that in enacting this measure, it is the intent of the Legislature to do the following:
   1. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin does not interfere with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan;
   2. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution;
   3. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act;
   4. Ensure that courts shall not determine a basin’s safe yield or sustainable yield to be greater than that of a groundwater sustainability agency’s determination in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for a basin.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to provide for enhanced local management of groundwater resources and to provide for the sustainable management of California’s groundwater resources. (Water Code Section 10720 et seq.)
2. Provides that, unless otherwise specified in law, any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin may decide to become a groundwater sustainability agency for that basin. (Water Code Section 10723 (a).)
3. Authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency to conduct investigations necessary for implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act including the following:
   1. To determine the need for groundwater management;
   2. To prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations;
   3. To propose and update fees; and
   4. To monitor compliance and enforcement. (Water Code Section 10725.4.)
4. Provides that all basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources, as specified, as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft shall be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans. (Water Code Section 10720.7 (a).)
5. Requires a groundwater sustainability plan to include all of the following:
   1. A description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system underlying the basin including historical data, groundwater levels, water quality, subsidence, and projected supply and demand, as specified;
   2. Measurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in increments of five years, to achieve the sustainability goal in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of the plan;
   3. A planning and implementation horizon;
   4. Sections addressing the monitoring and management of groundwater levels, water quality, land subsidence;
   5. Sections addressing overdraft mitigation and potential groundwater recharge;
   6. A summary of the type of monitoring sites, type of measurements, and the frequency of monitoring for each location monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence, streamflow, precipitation, evaporation, and tidal influence, as specified;
   7. Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect changes in groundwater levels, groundwater quality, inelastic surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a potential problem, and flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater extraction in the basin, as specified; and
   8. A description of the consideration given to the applicable county and city general plans and a description of the various adopted water resources-related plans and programs within the basin and an assessment of how the groundwater sustainability plan may affect those plans. (Water Code Section 10727.2.)
6. Requires, prior to initiating the development of a groundwater sustainability plan, the groundwater sustainability agency to make available to the public, the legislative body of any city, county, or city and county located within the geographic area to be covered by the plan, the Public Utilities Commission, as specified, and the Department of Water Resources a written statement describing the manner in which interested parties may participate in the development and implementation of the groundwater sustainability plan. (Water Code Section 10727.8.)
7. Requires a groundwater sustainability agency to encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the groundwater basin prior to and during the development and implementation of the groundwater sustainability plan. (Ibid.)
8. Requires a groundwater sustainability agency to submit the initial groundwater sustainability plan to the Department of Water Resources, upon which the following must occur:
   1. The Department must post the plan on the department’s Internet Web site and provide 60 days for persons to submit comments to the department about the plan;
   2. The Department must review the plan and issue an assessment of the groundwater sustainability plan and offer recommendations for any measures necessary to correct deficiencies in the plan. (Water Code Section 10733.4.)
9. Requires, at least every five years after initial submission of a groundwater sustainability plan, the Department of Water Resources to review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act including achieving the sustainability goal. (Water Code Section 10733.8.)
10. Explicitly exempts 27 groundwater basins that were subject to court adjudication prior to the enactment of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act from the provisions of the Act. (Water Code Section 10720.8.)
11. Establishes the litigation procedures that guide comprehensive court adjudications of groundwater basins. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 830 et seq.)
12. Provides that in a comprehensive adjudication, the court may determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 834.)
13. Requires an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be coordinated and consolidated with the adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency’s compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 8338.)
14. Requires a court to impose a physical solution on the parties subject to a comprehensive adjudication when necessary to comply with 17). (Code of Civil Procedure Section 849 (a).)
15. Authorizes a court to enter a judgement in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act if the court determines the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 850 (b).)
16. Authorizes a public agency to, upon the existence of any matter which under any other law is authorized to be determined, as specified in the Code of Civil Procedure, to bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of such matter, and that such action is to be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 860.)
17. Declares that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which the owner’s land is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained. (Cal. Const., art. X, Sec. 2.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: For much of California’s history, the use of groundwater resources went wholly unregulated. As a result by the 1940s, many groundwater basins in the state were over drafted and at risk of running out of resources. Seeking to protect and allocate groundwater rights, the first comprehensive groundwater adjudication was conducted in 1949. Since then almost 30 groundwater basins across California have been subject to adjudication. Recognizing that basin-by-basin adjudications were both failing to protect water resources and costing Californians millions in legal fees, in 2014 the Legislature adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (AB 1739 (Dickinson) Chap. 347, Stats. 2014, SB 1168 (Pavley) Chap. 346, Stats. 2014, and SB 1319 (Pavley) Chap. 348, Stats. 2014.) In accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) must adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSP), that among other topics must establish a sustainable yield for the basin.

This bill recognizes that some parties in adjudication are seeking to re-litigate the sustainable yield determinations in comprehensive adjudications. By forcing courts to reconsider valid, scientific, determinations by regulatory agencies, the existing process is adding time and expense to groundwater adjudications, and substituting valid scientific determinations with that of a judge. Seeking to avoid duplicative legal proceedings, this measure would prohibit a judge in a groundwater adjudication from adopting a sustainable yield that is in excess of the sustainable yield established in a validated GSP. In support of this common sense measure, the author states:

This bill will prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around and delay a GSP while rehashing the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP. Unfortunately, this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA. This delays sustainable groundwater management and is redundant. While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin (akin to land use planning and zoning). This is even more the case when taking into account the fact that the two state agencies with technical expertise in water management – DWR and the State Water Board – take an active and ongoing role in overseeing SGMA implementation. To avoid delay in reversing groundwater overdraft and avoid shutting out smaller actors, this bill directs courts to not exceed the sustainable yield identified in a valid GSP when entering a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

The state and local agencies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and more than a decade in SGMA implementation to make California more resilient to climate change. SGMA is a landmark law that embodies a collaborative approach to groundwater management and mandates the inclusion of all actors and groundwater pumpers (“interested parties”) in GSP development and implementation. This requirement is meant to ensure everyone has a seat at the table in the management of groundwater. All of the effort that has gone into developing, reviewing, and implementing GSPs to date can be nullified when parties that are unhappy with a GSP’s groundwater budget (i.e., sustainable yield) seek to re-do it via a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

If a pumper believes the GSA has missed the mark on a basin’s sustainable yield and that DWR is incorrect in approving a GSP (and, therefore, the sustainable yield), a pumper can obtain judicial review through a reverse validation action. Revisiting sustainable yield in a groundwater adjudication is inefficient, duplicative, and expensive. If such actions are not halted, SGMA will be undermined.

Finally, this bill directs the court to resolve challenges to the sustainable yield where multiple causes of action have been consolidated into a comprehensive adjudication. This fulfills the Legislature’s intent that a groundwater adjudication minimally interfere with SGMA implementation. It is unclear how a GSP can be implemented if challenges to the sustainable yield are not resolved before the adjudication of individual pumpers’ groundwater rights proceeds. If future groundwater adjudications proceed in a similar manner, it could significantly undermine the state’s ability to meet the goals of SGMA.

What is groundwater? By the time it reaches Californians’ taps, water is indistinguishable regardless of its source. However, under California law there are three distinct “types” or categories or water: surface water (including water from streams, rivers and lakes); percolating groundwater (water found in subterranean basins); and subterranean streams (flowing through recognizable channels). Legally, surface water and subterranean flows are largely treated alike, and both are subject to oversight and permitting from the State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater, however, is governed by a distinct set of statutes and case law that can trace its roots back to English Common Law. Due in large part to the fact that groundwater regularly makes up at least 40 percent of the state’s annual water supply, it is unsurprising that groundwater has been the subject of over a century of contentious disputes that have shaped modern groundwater law.

The right to utilize groundwater is classified in three categories: overlying rights, appropriative rights; and prescriptive rights. As it relates to overlying rights California has, to a degree, adopted the English Common Law notion that whoever owns the soil owns the depths, however, as early as 1903, California courts recognized that this state’s climate does not lend itself to a pure application of the common law. (Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116.) The Katz court recognized scarcity is a critical element of California water law and that when a groundwater basin cannot support the needs of all water users each user is entitled to a “fair and just” proportion of the water supply. (Id. at 134.) Appropriative rights applies to surplus groundwater drawn from a basin but not utilized on the overlying land. In this scenario, the court provides that “first in time first in right” approach applies to determining water rights. (City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1241.) Finally, prescriptive rights are established by showing an adverse use against prior rights holders. These rights are most commonly held by municipal water agencies who pump groundwater for use outside the overlying basin. Because many of the groundwater basins utilized by municipal pumpers are overdrawn, and thus by definition no surplus water exists, the municipalities rights are considered “adverse” to other rights holders. (See, City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 299-300.)

Comprehensive adjudications are the primary method for determining groundwater rights. Given the overlapping priorities of various groundwater rights holders, when a groundwater basin becomes oversubscribed (i.e., the groundwater basin lacks sufficient water supplies to sustainably provide for the needs of all water rights holders), historically, court adjudication was required to establish water rights. The first groundwater basin adjudicated in California was the Raymond Basin underlying the City of Pasadena. Seeking to establish water rights between several municipalities and overlying agricultural water users, the court adopted the doctrine of “mutual prescription” whereby rights were determined based on the highest continuous use during the five-year period in which the basin was over drafted. The court then held that each water users was entitled to a right proportionate to the amount taken during the study period. (Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 933.)

Twenty-five years later the courts were forced to deal with the issue of a groundwater basin in which varying water rights holder held truly unique priorities to a groundwater basin necessitating the appointment of a water master. In Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, the court rejected strict application of mutual prescription and moved toward a “physical solution” whereby the court sought to establish a “true equitable apportionment” through ongoing monitoring of a basin. (Id. at 274.) The Los Angeles court’s preference for establishing a physical solution in groundwater adjudications was reaffirmed in 2000 when the California Supreme Court held that, “If Californians expect to harmonize water shortages with a fair allocation of future use, courts should have some discretion to limit the future groundwater use of an overlying owner who has exercised their water right and to reduce to a reasonable level the amount the overlying user takes from an over drafted basin.” (City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, supra, at 1249.)

Guided by the Los Angeles and Mojave decisions, seeking physical solutions to apportion water rights has been the guiding principal in modern groundwater adjudications. However, the adjudications are time consuming, expensive, and frequently require ongoing monitoring by courts. Furthermore, due to the expense of adjudicating groundwater basins, many small water users are left out of the existing process, as they are unable to afford the expense of obtaining legal counsel and the scientific experts necessary to represent their interests in court. Additionally, the historic practice of adjudicating groundwater basins on case-by-case basis precluded any comprehensive statewide oversight of groundwater management.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ensures that groundwater is used sustainably and seeks to minimize future groundwater basin adjudications. Recognizing that groundwater adjudications are inefficient and do not necessarily produce comprehensive strategies for protecting water and the environment, in 2014, the Legislature adopted the SGMA to provide statewide standards for groundwater management. A critical aspect of the SGMA framework is the adoption of GSPs by local groundwater agencies. The GSPs must be developed locally, with input from public stakeholders, and are subject to review by the Department of Water Resources. Critically, SGMA guides local agencies to avoid six “undesirable results” associated with poor groundwater management: chronic lowering of groundwater levels; significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage; significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion; significant and unreasonable groundwater quality degradation; significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and depletions of interconnected surface water. (Water Code Section 10721 (d).)

Under SGMA, a newly developed GSA has the power to adopt rules, regulations and ordinances to carry out the GSP. The plan itself must be developed in a manner that considers the interests of all beneficial water users in a basin. While the statute does not specify the exact manner in which a GSA must engage the public and receive comment on a proposed GSP, the statute does specify the parties a GSA is to seek input from when constricting a GSP. (Water Code Section 10723.2.)

The critical determination in developing the GSP is the selection of a sustainable yield for a groundwater basin, essentially the amount of groundwater that can be safely pumped on an annual basis without risking an undesirable result. Once the sustainable yield is determined and the GSP is completed, the plan is sent to the Department of Water Resources where the public is entitled to submit comments to the Department regarding the accuracy of the plan and the Department’s experts review the findings of the GSA. Even after a GSP has been approved by the Department of Water Resources and implemented by the GSA, the plan must be reviewed by the Department every five years. Like other public agency decisions, a GSA seeking to legally solidify the GSP may file a validation action to preemptively prevent challenges to an approved GSP.

This bill seeks to build on prior Legislative efforts to streamline groundwater proceedings and synchronize the GSP development and approval process with groundwater adjudications. First, this bill requires a court to consolidate any action against a GSA in a basin subject to groundwater adjudication into the comprehensive adjudication proceedings. Once the proceedings have been consolidated, the bill requires the court to try the issues related to a GSP’s sustainable yield prior to adjudicating other issues. The bill also provides that a judgment in an adjudication impermissibly impairs the ability of the GSA to regulate groundwater if the court’s sustainable yield determination exceeds the amount of total pumping from a basin that is specified in a GSP that has been subject to a validation action or deemed valid by operation of law. This provision essentially applies the estoppel principle to an adjudication when the sustainable yield was previously approved by a court in a validation action. Finally, the bill makes various findings and declarations related to comprehensive groundwater adjudications and these adjudications interplay with SGMA.

How valid are validation actions? Recognizing that some government actions need finality in order to be effective, existing law authorizes a government agency to “validate” their action by bringing an action in court. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 et seq.) In a validation action, the government agency essentially sues itself and then invites interested parties to intervene to challenge the agencies decision making in court. If a court upholds the agency’s decision it is “validated” and therefore becomes binding and conclusive. Members of the public can also file “reserve validation” actions and force the validation proceedings as a means of contesting a governmental decision.

Like other litigation reviewing agency decision making, validation actions adopt a substantial evidence standard. (Community Youth Athletic Association v. National City (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1408.) Utilizing the substantial evidence standard of review, the court is directed to resolve all “reasonable doubts and inferences” in the administrative record in favor of the agency. Based on this standard, if the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the substantial evidence on the record supports the agency, the agency’s decision is to be validated. (Ibid.) As applied to the validity of the GSP, a court would be able to examine all studies on the record, public comments, and findings of the GSA to determine whether or not the sustainable yield is supported by substantial evidence. Typically, these reviews are limited to evidence in the administrative record and extrinsic evidence is disallowed. (County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project (2010) 185 Cal.App. 4th 817, 827.) Of note to this bill, because validation actions generally are tied to the evidence in the agency’s record, persons seeking to invalidate the GSP would have had to raise comments or other concerns at some point during the administrative process, either to the GSA or the Department of Water Resources. The failure to raise concerns through public comment means that the concerns would be on the record and therefore largely outside the scope of evidence permitted in the validation proceedings.

Opponents to this bill claim that validation proceedings fail to properly protect the due process interests of water rights holders. The proponents of this measure, including clean water advocates, environmental organizations, and some GSAs, note that this bill is critical to streamline groundwater litigation and prevent parties for seeking a subsequent review of an otherwise valid, but disputed, sustainable yield determination. To this point, in support of the bill, the Indian Wells Groundwater Authority writes, “groundwater adjudications should not be used as an additional means to challenge or as a means to overturn the technical findings of a GSP.”

However, the coalition of agricultural and business interests opposing this measure contend that validation actions, and their limited scope, provide insufficient reviews of agency decision making as it relates to sustainable yields. The opposition coalition writes on this point, “A validation proceeding asks whether the agency complied with the law when taking the challenged action. If the court finds that the agency did something wrong, all the court can do is direct the agency to redo the action, this time following the law. The court cannot review the best available technical information outside the administrative record developed by the GSA during development of the GSP or cross-examine witnesses.” Furthermore, the opposition points out that at the time most GSPs would have been subject to validation, this bill was not in place and litigating a GSP may not have seemed necessary. The opposition now contends that because the bill would “validate” a GSP though function of law (i.e. no lawsuit was filed in a timely manner) this bill could cost them their day in court. While one could argue that stakeholders should have litigated concerns surrounding the validity of the GSPs regardless of their impact on adjudications, the author may wish to consider a one-time special reopening of the statute of limitations to permit parties to contest previously validated GSPs that would be subject to this bill.

Regardless of the timing issues, the two above outlined positions underpin the fundamental issue surrounding this bill; whether a validation action or an adjudication is the proper venue for establishing a sustainable yield determination for a groundwater basin. Each side’s arguments have merit. The GSP process seeks to incorporate scientific investigation, the opinions of subject matter experts, and public input into a basin’s management then produce a balanced decision that avoids the six aforementioned “undesirable results.” However, as the opposition correctly note, the review of these decisions is generally limited to the official record. If a party failed to raise their objections, while not a due process violation, the party loses the right to raise certain objection. Conversely, while groundwater adjudications offer greater opportunities to present evidence outside of an official agency record, the ultimate decision maker is not a scientific or subject matter expert but a judge who may lack meaningful experience and training in water law. Indeed, in light of the Judicial Council of California’s ability to stymie prior legislative efforts to develop water law training for judges (see, AB 2313 (Bloom, 2022)), deferring to scientific experts and the GSP development process may be the more appropriate approach. Accordingly, while the Committee encourages stakeholders to continue discussions on the topic, the Committee is not proposing amendments at this time.

Opponents contend that consolidating GSP reviews and groundwater adjudications eliminates judicial discretion. The opposition to this measure also argues that mandating the consolidation of GSP reviews and groundwater adjudications removes judicial discretion. The opposition notes that the existing law already permits a judicial officer to consolidate the two proceedings. They note flexibility is especially critical when an adjudication involves a basin governed by multiple GSPs. However, given the Legislature’s prior efforts to streamline groundwater adjudications, the current consolidation proposal appears appropriate.

Opponents proposed amendments seek to utilize sustainable yield determinations while maintaining the primacy groundwater adjudications for determining basin yields. It should be noted that the opposition presented the author with a comprehensive set of amendments that would require a sustainable yield determination from a GSP to be provided presumptive effect in an adjudication. Although this proposal does not give the GSP’s findings the same estoppel effect as provided in the bill in print, the proposal reflects an attempt at compromise. Unfortunately, due to the rapidly approaching legislative deadlines, stakeholders have been unable to reach an agreement before this bill is slated to be heard in Committee. Although the opponents proposed amendments would retain comprehensive adjudications as the preferred venue for litigating groundwater cases, the proposal is not without merit. Thus, should the bill advance, the author and stakeholders are encouraged to continue dialogue in order to reach a solution that streamlines groundwater proceedings and avoids duplicative court rulings in a manner that all parties can agree to.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: As stated, this bill is supported by a coalition of environmental and clean water advocates, as well as several GSAs. A coalition letter in support of the bill states:

Prior to the Legislature’s 2014 adoption of the SGMA, adjudication was the only legal route for settling groundwater disputes. SGMA has created another route, relying on locally established groundwater agencies to develop and implement plans to manage groundwater sustainably, and on the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to ensure that those plans are adequate. SGMA expressly does NOT confer or redistribute water rights, which remain the role of the court through adjudication. Legislation adopted in 2015 attempted to clarify these roles, but adjudication actions continue to challenge the determination of sustainable yield in plans that have been found adequate by DWR.

AB 1413 provides further clarification of these roles in statute by requiring that any litigation of a Plan’s determination of sustainable yield be settled prior to, or as an initial issue in, an adjudication action. This provides clear direction to all parties on the process for addressing issues and concerns. Importantly, this language does not limit the ability of a plaintiff to seek judicial review of all or a portion of a Plan, preserving the rights of interested parties to bring an action if they feel a Plan is inadequate.

We believe that this bill addresses a real need in an appropriately targeted fashion that preserves the legal rights of would-be plaintiffs while ensuring that the adjudication process is focused on the task of appropriating water rights.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of business and agricultural concerns oppose this measure unless amended. The coalition, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau, and the Western Growers Association, jointly write:

Since SGMA prohibits GSAs from determining water rights, groundwater users do not present evidence during the GSP development process to prove the extent or validity of their rights. This means that the administrative record does not include evidence of an individual user’s water rights.

In contrast, a groundwater adjudication is a comprehensive proceeding that requires notice and consideration of all water rights holders. It also asks the court to determine three things: the safe yield (the size of the pie), the relative water rights (how much of the pie each rights holder gets), and a physical solution to assist the basin in being sustainable (how we can refill and sustainably maintain the pie without causing undesirable results). The court evaluates evidence and the arguments of the parties, in its role as a fact finder, to make determinations on these issues. Alternatively, some of the parties can come to an agreement, as has often been the case in adjudications, and propose a judgment that the court may approve. Importantly, existing law requires adjudications to be consistent with the goals of SGMA, ensuring this process results in sustainable groundwater management. Indeed, case law requiring courts to protect the groundwater resource and manage it sustainably existed for more than 65 years prior to the adoption of SGMA and still exists today. A validation action lacks these comprehensive steps, meaning it is not an adequate replacement for the court’s role as fact-finder in a groundwater adjudication.

AB 1413 would make the GSA the lone arbiter of the size of the pie, and, in effect, determine water rights, which SGMA expressly prohibits. Each water rights holder’s slice of that pie is affected by how big the entire pie is. Appropriative and prescriptive water rights, two types of water rights claims that very frequently arise in groundwater adjudications, are partially if not fully dependent on the safe yield determination for the basin. By forcing courts to essentially defer to a GSP’s sustainable yield, AB 1413 removes the authority reserved to courts to determine water rights and deprives water rights holders of the due process that SGMA guarantees.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc.

City of Ridgecrest
Clean Water Action

Community Alliance with Family Farmers (if amended)
Community Water Center
FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority
Leadership Counsel Action
Planning and Conservation League

Regional Water Auhtority
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
W.A.T.E.R.

Opposition

California Association of Realtors

Opposition (unless amended)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance
Association of California Water Agencies
California Alfalfa and Forage Association
Cal Chamber
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Citrus Mutual
California Farm Bureau
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Seed Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Water Association
Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation
Indian Wells Valley Water District
Mission Springs Water District
Nisei Farmers League
Ridgecrest Area Association of Realtors
Searles Valley Minerals
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
United Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1413

Author:(Papan) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

KEY ISSUE: should a sustainable yield determination by a groundwater sustainability agency, that has been validated in accordance with law, serve as the sustainable yield of a groundwater basin if the basin is later subjected to a comprehensive adjudication proceeding to determine water rights?

SYNOPSIS

Under California law, there are three legal classifications of freshwater: surface water, groundwater, and water in subterranean streams. Unlike water flowing in identifiable channels (surface water and subterranean streams), groundwater remained largely unregulated throughout California’s history despite providing between 40 and 60 percent of the state’s annual freshwater needs. As a result of the lack of clear statewide regulation, for much of the last 80 years disputes involving groundwater, and rights to that water, were resolved through costly and time consumer groundwater adjudications. In 2014, seeking to finally manage the state’s groundwater resources, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, local groundwater sustainability agencies were tasked with developing management plans for the most at-risk groundwater basins to ensure that basins were being utilized in a sustainable manner. At the same time, water rights cases are still litigated in groundwater adjudications. Presently, even when a local groundwater agency establishes, and utilizes court processes to validate, a sustainable yield for a given basin, that yield may be re-litigated in an adjudication.

Contending that revisiting valid sustainable yield determination is a waste of time and expenses for litigants, this bill would prohibit a court in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication from adopting a sustainable yield that would result in more groundwater pumping in a basin than established in the groundwater sustainability plan. In order for groundwater sustainability plan’s yield determination to be utilized in an adjudication, the bill requires the sustainability plan to have been valid in court, or by function of law. The bill also makes various findings on the ongoing need to continue to streamline and harmonize the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act with groundwater adjudication actions.

A coalition of local groundwater agencies, environmental groups, and clean water advocates support this bill. The proponents of the bill argue that the groundwater sustainability plans incorporate greater scientific input and highlight that the purpose of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was to streamline groundwater management and the resolution of disputes. This bill is opposed by a coalition of agricultural interests and business organizations. The opposition notes that adjudications remain the sole venue for apportioning groundwater rights and question if validation actions are sufficient to evaluate the merits of a groundwater sustainability plan in the courts. Despite the disagreements, stakeholder discussions and the sharing of proposed language remains ongoing and the author remains committed to receiving input from all stakeholders. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife by a vote of 9-4.

SUMMARY: Prohibits a court from adopting a sustainable yield in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication proceeding if such yield allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest validated groundwater sustainability plan covering the basin. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a groundwater adjudication involving an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in that basin to be consolidated with the comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency’s compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
2. Requires the court in an action consolidated pursuant to 1) to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plan’s determination of a basin’s sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action.
3. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Department of Water Resources to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plans covering the basin and either of the following apply:
   1. The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action; or
   2. The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
4. Prohibits in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan, the court from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin, as specified.
5. State that in enacting this measure, it is the intent of the Legislature to do the following:
   1. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin does not interfere with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan;
   2. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution;
   3. Ensure that a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights in a basin is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act;
   4. Ensure that courts shall not determine a basin’s safe yield or sustainable yield to be greater than that of a groundwater sustainability agency’s determination in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for a basin.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to provide for enhanced local management of groundwater resources and to provide for the sustainable management of California’s groundwater resources. (Water Code Section 10720 et seq.)
2. Provides that, unless otherwise specified in law, any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin may decide to become a groundwater sustainability agency for that basin. (Water Code Section 10723 (a).)
3. Authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency to conduct investigations necessary for implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act including the following:
   1. To determine the need for groundwater management;
   2. To prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations;
   3. To propose and update fees; and
   4. To monitor compliance and enforcement. (Water Code Section 10725.4.)
4. Provides that all basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources, as specified, as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft shall be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans. (Water Code Section 10720.7 (a).)
5. Requires a groundwater sustainability plan to include all of the following:
   1. A description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system underlying the basin including historical data, groundwater levels, water quality, subsidence, and projected supply and demand, as specified;
   2. Measurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in increments of five years, to achieve the sustainability goal in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of the plan;
   3. A planning and implementation horizon;
   4. Sections addressing the monitoring and management of groundwater levels, water quality, land subsidence;
   5. Sections addressing overdraft mitigation and potential groundwater recharge;
   6. A summary of the type of monitoring sites, type of measurements, and the frequency of monitoring for each location monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence, streamflow, precipitation, evaporation, and tidal influence, as specified;
   7. Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect changes in groundwater levels, groundwater quality, inelastic surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a potential problem, and flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater extraction in the basin, as specified; and
   8. A description of the consideration given to the applicable county and city general plans and a description of the various adopted water resources-related plans and programs within the basin and an assessment of how the groundwater sustainability plan may affect those plans. (Water Code Section 10727.2.)
6. Requires, prior to initiating the development of a groundwater sustainability plan, the groundwater sustainability agency to make available to the public, the legislative body of any city, county, or city and county located within the geographic area to be covered by the plan, the Public Utilities Commission, as specified, and the Department of Water Resources a written statement describing the manner in which interested parties may participate in the development and implementation of the groundwater sustainability plan. (Water Code Section 10727.8.)
7. Requires a groundwater sustainability agency to encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the groundwater basin prior to and during the development and implementation of the groundwater sustainability plan. (Ibid.)
8. Requires a groundwater sustainability agency to submit the initial groundwater sustainability plan to the Department of Water Resources, upon which the following must occur:
   1. The Department must post the plan on the department’s Internet Web site and provide 60 days for persons to submit comments to the department about the plan;
   2. The Department must review the plan and issue an assessment of the groundwater sustainability plan and offer recommendations for any measures necessary to correct deficiencies in the plan. (Water Code Section 10733.4.)
9. Requires, at least every five years after initial submission of a groundwater sustainability plan, the Department of Water Resources to review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act including achieving the sustainability goal. (Water Code Section 10733.8.)
10. Explicitly exempts 27 groundwater basins that were subject to court adjudication prior to the enactment of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act from the provisions of the Act. (Water Code Section 10720.8.)
11. Establishes the litigation procedures that guide comprehensive court adjudications of groundwater basins. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 830 et seq.)
12. Provides that in a comprehensive adjudication, the court may determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 834.)
13. Requires an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be coordinated and consolidated with the adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency’s compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 8338.)
14. Requires a court to impose a physical solution on the parties subject to a comprehensive adjudication when necessary to comply with 17). (Code of Civil Procedure Section 849 (a).)
15. Authorizes a court to enter a judgement in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act if the court determines the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 850 (b).)
16. Authorizes a public agency to, upon the existence of any matter which under any other law is authorized to be determined, as specified in the Code of Civil Procedure, to bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of such matter, and that such action is to be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 860.)
17. Declares that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which the owner’s land is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained. (Cal. Const., art. X, Sec. 2.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: For much of California’s history, the use of groundwater resources went wholly unregulated. As a result by the 1940s, many groundwater basins in the state were over drafted and at risk of running out of resources. Seeking to protect and allocate groundwater rights, the first comprehensive groundwater adjudication was conducted in 1949. Since then almost 30 groundwater basins across California have been subject to adjudication. Recognizing that basin-by-basin adjudications were both failing to protect water resources and costing Californians millions in legal fees, in 2014 the Legislature adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (AB 1739 (Dickinson) Chap. 347, Stats. 2014, SB 1168 (Pavley) Chap. 346, Stats. 2014, and SB 1319 (Pavley) Chap. 348, Stats. 2014.) In accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) must adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSP), that among other topics must establish a sustainable yield for the basin.

This bill recognizes that some parties in adjudication are seeking to re-litigate the sustainable yield determinations in comprehensive adjudications. By forcing courts to reconsider valid, scientific, determinations by regulatory agencies, the existing process is adding time and expense to groundwater adjudications, and substituting valid scientific determinations with that of a judge. Seeking to avoid duplicative legal proceedings, this measure would prohibit a judge in a groundwater adjudication from adopting a sustainable yield that is in excess of the sustainable yield established in a validated GSP. In support of this common sense measure, the author states:

This bill will prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around and delay a GSP while rehashing the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP. Unfortunately, this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA. This delays sustainable groundwater management and is redundant. While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin (akin to land use planning and zoning). This is even more the case when taking into account the fact that the two state agencies with technical expertise in water management – DWR and the State Water Board – take an active and ongoing role in overseeing SGMA implementation. To avoid delay in reversing groundwater overdraft and avoid shutting out smaller actors, this bill directs courts to not exceed the sustainable yield identified in a valid GSP when entering a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

The state and local agencies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and more than a decade in SGMA implementation to make California more resilient to climate change. SGMA is a landmark law that embodies a collaborative approach to groundwater management and mandates the inclusion of all actors and groundwater pumpers (“interested parties”) in GSP development and implementation. This requirement is meant to ensure everyone has a seat at the table in the management of groundwater. All of the effort that has gone into developing, reviewing, and implementing GSPs to date can be nullified when parties that are unhappy with a GSP’s groundwater budget (i.e., sustainable yield) seek to re-do it via a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

If a pumper believes the GSA has missed the mark on a basin’s sustainable yield and that DWR is incorrect in approving a GSP (and, therefore, the sustainable yield), a pumper can obtain judicial review through a reverse validation action. Revisiting sustainable yield in a groundwater adjudication is inefficient, duplicative, and expensive. If such actions are not halted, SGMA will be undermined.

Finally, this bill directs the court to resolve challenges to the sustainable yield where multiple causes of action have been consolidated into a comprehensive adjudication. This fulfills the Legislature’s intent that a groundwater adjudication minimally interfere with SGMA implementation. It is unclear how a GSP can be implemented if challenges to the sustainable yield are not resolved before the adjudication of individual pumpers’ groundwater rights proceeds. If future groundwater adjudications proceed in a similar manner, it could significantly undermine the state’s ability to meet the goals of SGMA.

What is groundwater? By the time it reaches Californians’ taps, water is indistinguishable regardless of its source. However, under California law there are three distinct “types” or categories or water: surface water (including water from streams, rivers and lakes); percolating groundwater (water found in subterranean basins); and subterranean streams (flowing through recognizable channels). Legally, surface water and subterranean flows are largely treated alike, and both are subject to oversight and permitting from the State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater, however, is governed by a distinct set of statutes and case law that can trace its roots back to English Common Law. Due in large part to the fact that groundwater regularly makes up at least 40 percent of the state’s annual water supply, it is unsurprising that groundwater has been the subject of over a century of contentious disputes that have shaped modern groundwater law.

The right to utilize groundwater is classified in three categories: overlying rights, appropriative rights; and prescriptive rights. As it relates to overlying rights California has, to a degree, adopted the English Common Law notion that whoever owns the soil owns the depths, however, as early as 1903, California courts recognized that this state’s climate does not lend itself to a pure application of the common law. (Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116.) The Katz court recognized scarcity is a critical element of California water law and that when a groundwater basin cannot support the needs of all water users each user is entitled to a “fair and just” proportion of the water supply. (Id. at 134.) Appropriative rights applies to surplus groundwater drawn from a basin but not utilized on the overlying land. In this scenario, the court provides that “first in time first in right” approach applies to determining water rights. (City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1241.) Finally, prescriptive rights are established by showing an adverse use against prior rights holders. These rights are most commonly held by municipal water agencies who pump groundwater for use outside the overlying basin. Because many of the groundwater basins utilized by municipal pumpers are overdrawn, and thus by definition no surplus water exists, the municipalities rights are considered “adverse” to other rights holders. (See, City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 299-300.)

Comprehensive adjudications are the primary method for determining groundwater rights. Given the overlapping priorities of various groundwater rights holders, when a groundwater basin becomes oversubscribed (i.e., the groundwater basin lacks sufficient water supplies to sustainably provide for the needs of all water rights holders), historically, court adjudication was required to establish water rights. The first groundwater basin adjudicated in California was the Raymond Basin underlying the City of Pasadena. Seeking to establish water rights between several municipalities and overlying agricultural water users, the court adopted the doctrine of “mutual prescription” whereby rights were determined based on the highest continuous use during the five-year period in which the basin was over drafted. The court then held that each water users was entitled to a right proportionate to the amount taken during the study period. (Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 933.)

Twenty-five years later the courts were forced to deal with the issue of a groundwater basin in which varying water rights holder held truly unique priorities to a groundwater basin necessitating the appointment of a water master. In Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, the court rejected strict application of mutual prescription and moved toward a “physical solution” whereby the court sought to establish a “true equitable apportionment” through ongoing monitoring of a basin. (Id. at 274.) The Los Angeles court’s preference for establishing a physical solution in groundwater adjudications was reaffirmed in 2000 when the California Supreme Court held that, “If Californians expect to harmonize water shortages with a fair allocation of future use, courts should have some discretion to limit the future groundwater use of an overlying owner who has exercised their water right and to reduce to a reasonable level the amount the overlying user takes from an over drafted basin.” (City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, supra, at 1249.)

Guided by the Los Angeles and Mojave decisions, seeking physical solutions to apportion water rights has been the guiding principal in modern groundwater adjudications. However, the adjudications are time consuming, expensive, and frequently require ongoing monitoring by courts. Furthermore, due to the expense of adjudicating groundwater basins, many small water users are left out of the existing process, as they are unable to afford the expense of obtaining legal counsel and the scientific experts necessary to represent their interests in court. Additionally, the historic practice of adjudicating groundwater basins on case-by-case basis precluded any comprehensive statewide oversight of groundwater management.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ensures that groundwater is used sustainably and seeks to minimize future groundwater basin adjudications. Recognizing that groundwater adjudications are inefficient and do not necessarily produce comprehensive strategies for protecting water and the environment, in 2014, the Legislature adopted the SGMA to provide statewide standards for groundwater management. A critical aspect of the SGMA framework is the adoption of GSPs by local groundwater agencies. The GSPs must be developed locally, with input from public stakeholders, and are subject to review by the Department of Water Resources. Critically, SGMA guides local agencies to avoid six “undesirable results” associated with poor groundwater management: chronic lowering of groundwater levels; significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage; significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion; significant and unreasonable groundwater quality degradation; significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and depletions of interconnected surface water. (Water Code Section 10721 (d).)

Under SGMA, a newly developed GSA has the power to adopt rules, regulations and ordinances to carry out the GSP. The plan itself must be developed in a manner that considers the interests of all beneficial water users in a basin. While the statute does not specify the exact manner in which a GSA must engage the public and receive comment on a proposed GSP, the statute does specify the parties a GSA is to seek input from when constricting a GSP. (Water Code Section 10723.2.)

The critical determination in developing the GSP is the selection of a sustainable yield for a groundwater basin, essentially the amount of groundwater that can be safely pumped on an annual basis without risking an undesirable result. Once the sustainable yield is determined and the GSP is completed, the plan is sent to the Department of Water Resources where the public is entitled to submit comments to the Department regarding the accuracy of the plan and the Department’s experts review the findings of the GSA. Even after a GSP has been approved by the Department of Water Resources and implemented by the GSA, the plan must be reviewed by the Department every five years. Like other public agency decisions, a GSA seeking to legally solidify the GSP may file a validation action to preemptively prevent challenges to an approved GSP.

This bill seeks to build on prior Legislative efforts to streamline groundwater proceedings and synchronize the GSP development and approval process with groundwater adjudications. First, this bill requires a court to consolidate any action against a GSA in a basin subject to groundwater adjudication into the comprehensive adjudication proceedings. Once the proceedings have been consolidated, the bill requires the court to try the issues related to a GSP’s sustainable yield prior to adjudicating other issues. The bill also provides that a judgment in an adjudication impermissibly impairs the ability of the GSA to regulate groundwater if the court’s sustainable yield determination exceeds the amount of total pumping from a basin that is specified in a GSP that has been subject to a validation action or deemed valid by operation of law. This provision essentially applies the estoppel principle to an adjudication when the sustainable yield was previously approved by a court in a validation action. Finally, the bill makes various findings and declarations related to comprehensive groundwater adjudications and these adjudications interplay with SGMA.

How valid are validation actions? Recognizing that some government actions need finality in order to be effective, existing law authorizes a government agency to “validate” their action by bringing an action in court. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 et seq.) In a validation action, the government agency essentially sues itself and then invites interested parties to intervene to challenge the agencies decision making in court. If a court upholds the agency’s decision it is “validated” and therefore becomes binding and conclusive. Members of the public can also file “reserve validation” actions and force the validation proceedings as a means of contesting a governmental decision.

Like other litigation reviewing agency decision making, validation actions adopt a substantial evidence standard. (Community Youth Athletic Association v. National City (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1408.) Utilizing the substantial evidence standard of review, the court is directed to resolve all “reasonable doubts and inferences” in the administrative record in favor of the agency. Based on this standard, if the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the substantial evidence on the record supports the agency, the agency’s decision is to be validated. (Ibid.) As applied to the validity of the GSP, a court would be able to examine all studies on the record, public comments, and findings of the GSA to determine whether or not the sustainable yield is supported by substantial evidence. Typically, these reviews are limited to evidence in the administrative record and extrinsic evidence is disallowed. (County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project (2010) 185 Cal.App. 4th 817, 827.) Of note to this bill, because validation actions generally are tied to the evidence in the agency’s record, persons seeking to invalidate the GSP would have had to raise comments or other concerns at some point during the administrative process, either to the GSA or the Department of Water Resources. The failure to raise concerns through public comment means that the concerns would be on the record and therefore largely outside the scope of evidence permitted in the validation proceedings.

Opponents to this bill claim that validation proceedings fail to properly protect the due process interests of water rights holders. The proponents of this measure, including clean water advocates, environmental organizations, and some GSAs, note that this bill is critical to streamline groundwater litigation and prevent parties for seeking a subsequent review of an otherwise valid, but disputed, sustainable yield determination. To this point, in support of the bill, the Indian Wells Groundwater Authority writes, “groundwater adjudications should not be used as an additional means to challenge or as a means to overturn the technical findings of a GSP.”

However, the coalition of agricultural and business interests opposing this measure contend that validation actions, and their limited scope, provide insufficient reviews of agency decision making as it relates to sustainable yields. The opposition coalition writes on this point, “A validation proceeding asks whether the agency complied with the law when taking the challenged action. If the court finds that the agency did something wrong, all the court can do is direct the agency to redo the action, this time following the law. The court cannot review the best available technical information outside the administrative record developed by the GSA during development of the GSP or cross-examine witnesses.” Furthermore, the opposition points out that at the time most GSPs would have been subject to validation, this bill was not in place and litigating a GSP may not have seemed necessary. The opposition now contends that because the bill would “validate” a GSP though function of law (i.e. no lawsuit was filed in a timely manner) this bill could cost them their day in court. While one could argue that stakeholders should have litigated concerns surrounding the validity of the GSPs regardless of their impact on adjudications, the author may wish to consider a one-time special reopening of the statute of limitations to permit parties to contest previously validated GSPs that would be subject to this bill.

Regardless of the timing issues, the two above outlined positions underpin the fundamental issue surrounding this bill; whether a validation action or an adjudication is the proper venue for establishing a sustainable yield determination for a groundwater basin. Each side’s arguments have merit. The GSP process seeks to incorporate scientific investigation, the opinions of subject matter experts, and public input into a basin’s management then produce a balanced decision that avoids the six aforementioned “undesirable results.” However, as the opposition correctly note, the review of these decisions is generally limited to the official record. If a party failed to raise their objections, while not a due process violation, the party loses the right to raise certain objection. Conversely, while groundwater adjudications offer greater opportunities to present evidence outside of an official agency record, the ultimate decision maker is not a scientific or subject matter expert but a judge who may lack meaningful experience and training in water law. Indeed, in light of the Judicial Council of California’s ability to stymie prior legislative efforts to develop water law training for judges (see, AB 2313 (Bloom, 2022)), deferring to scientific experts and the GSP development process may be the more appropriate approach. Accordingly, while the Committee encourages stakeholders to continue discussions on the topic, the Committee is not proposing amendments at this time.

Opponents contend that consolidating GSP reviews and groundwater adjudications eliminates judicial discretion. The opposition to this measure also argues that mandating the consolidation of GSP reviews and groundwater adjudications removes judicial discretion. The opposition notes that the existing law already permits a judicial officer to consolidate the two proceedings. They note flexibility is especially critical when an adjudication involves a basin governed by multiple GSPs. However, given the Legislature’s prior efforts to streamline groundwater adjudications, the current consolidation proposal appears appropriate.

Opponents proposed amendments seek to utilize sustainable yield determinations while maintaining the primacy groundwater adjudications for determining basin yields. It should be noted that the opposition presented the author with a comprehensive set of amendments that would require a sustainable yield determination from a GSP to be provided presumptive effect in an adjudication. Although this proposal does not give the GSP’s findings the same estoppel effect as provided in the bill in print, the proposal reflects an attempt at compromise. Unfortunately, due to the rapidly approaching legislative deadlines, stakeholders have been unable to reach an agreement before this bill is slated to be heard in Committee. Although the opponents proposed amendments would retain comprehensive adjudications as the preferred venue for litigating groundwater cases, the proposal is not without merit. Thus, should the bill advance, the author and stakeholders are encouraged to continue dialogue in order to reach a solution that streamlines groundwater proceedings and avoids duplicative court rulings in a manner that all parties can agree to.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: As stated, this bill is supported by a coalition of environmental and clean water advocates, as well as several GSAs. A coalition letter in support of the bill states:

Prior to the Legislature’s 2014 adoption of the SGMA, adjudication was the only legal route for settling groundwater disputes. SGMA has created another route, relying on locally established groundwater agencies to develop and implement plans to manage groundwater sustainably, and on the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to ensure that those plans are adequate. SGMA expressly does NOT confer or redistribute water rights, which remain the role of the court through adjudication. Legislation adopted in 2015 attempted to clarify these roles, but adjudication actions continue to challenge the determination of sustainable yield in plans that have been found adequate by DWR.

AB 1413 provides further clarification of these roles in statute by requiring that any litigation of a Plan’s determination of sustainable yield be settled prior to, or as an initial issue in, an adjudication action. This provides clear direction to all parties on the process for addressing issues and concerns. Importantly, this language does not limit the ability of a plaintiff to seek judicial review of all or a portion of a Plan, preserving the rights of interested parties to bring an action if they feel a Plan is inadequate.

We believe that this bill addresses a real need in an appropriately targeted fashion that preserves the legal rights of would-be plaintiffs while ensuring that the adjudication process is focused on the task of appropriating water rights.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of business and agricultural concerns oppose this measure unless amended. The coalition, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau, and the Western Growers Association, jointly write:

Since SGMA prohibits GSAs from determining water rights, groundwater users do not present evidence during the GSP development process to prove the extent or validity of their rights. This means that the administrative record does not include evidence of an individual user’s water rights.

In contrast, a groundwater adjudication is a comprehensive proceeding that requires notice and consideration of all water rights holders. It also asks the court to determine three things: the safe yield (the size of the pie), the relative water rights (how much of the pie each rights holder gets), and a physical solution to assist the basin in being sustainable (how we can refill and sustainably maintain the pie without causing undesirable results). The court evaluates evidence and the arguments of the parties, in its role as a fact finder, to make determinations on these issues. Alternatively, some of the parties can come to an agreement, as has often been the case in adjudications, and propose a judgment that the court may approve. Importantly, existing law requires adjudications to be consistent with the goals of SGMA, ensuring this process results in sustainable groundwater management. Indeed, case law requiring courts to protect the groundwater resource and manage it sustainably existed for more than 65 years prior to the adoption of SGMA and still exists today. A validation action lacks these comprehensive steps, meaning it is not an adequate replacement for the court’s role as fact-finder in a groundwater adjudication.

AB 1413 would make the GSA the lone arbiter of the size of the pie, and, in effect, determine water rights, which SGMA expressly prohibits. Each water rights holder’s slice of that pie is affected by how big the entire pie is. Appropriative and prescriptive water rights, two types of water rights claims that very frequently arise in groundwater adjudications, are partially if not fully dependent on the safe yield determination for the basin. By forcing courts to essentially defer to a GSP’s sustainable yield, AB 1413 removes the authority reserved to courts to determine water rights and deprives water rights holders of the due process that SGMA guarantees.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc.

City of Ridgecrest
Clean Water Action

Community Alliance with Family Farmers (if amended)
Community Water Center
FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority
Leadership Counsel Action
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
W.A.T.E.R.

Opposition

California Association of Realtors

Opposition (unless amended)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance
Association of California Water Agencies
CA Alfalfa and Forage Association
Cal Chamber
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Citrus Mutual
California Farm Bureau
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Seed Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Water Association

Golden State Water Company
Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation
Indian Wells Valley Water District
Mission Springs Water District
Nisei Farmers League
Ridgecrest Area Association of Realtors
Searles Valley Minerals
United Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Diane Papan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1413 (

Author:Papan) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication

SUMMARY: Provides that a court’s judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication that allows more total pumping from a basin annually or on average than a valid groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) shall be deemed to substantially interfere with implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and makes other changes relative to comprehensive groundwater adjudications and validation actions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that challenges to a GSP in a groundwater basin shall be consolidated with a pending comprehensive adjudication.
2. Requires that in the event an action challenging a GSP is consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication, the court shall adjudicate the validity of a GSP’s sustainable yield before adjudicating any other issue in the action.
3. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication substantially impairs the ability of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), or the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to comply with SGMA if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest GSP(s) covering the basin and if either of the following apply:
   1. The GSPs have been validated by a final judgment in a validation action; or
   2. The GSPs have been validated by operation of law because no validation action was filed.
4. Provides a GSA may file a validation action on a GSP within 180 days following its adoption (as opposed to “no sooner than 180 days”).
5. Provides that review of a GSP by DWR or the State Water Board is not subject to validation or reverse validation actions. Provides that the validation of a GSP shall not be binding on, or applicable to, DWR or the State Water Board.
6. Provides that the court, in an adjudication action, shall not establish a safe yield or sustainable yield for a basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid GSP. Provides a GSP shall be presumed valid unless ruled invalid pursuant to a validation action or referred to the State Water Board.
7. Provides that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication that allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average shall not be the only manner by which a judgment may substantially impair the ability of a GSA, DWR, or the State Water Board to comply with SGMA.
8. Makes technical and conforming changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Declares, under the “reasonable use doctrine,” that the waters of the state shall be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent they are capable, the waste or unreasonable use of water shall be prevented, and waters shall be conserved with a view the reasonable and beneficial use of such waters in the interest of the people and the public welfare. Provides the Legislature may enact laws in furtherance of this policy (California Constitution, Article X § 2).
2. Enacts the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that requires local agencies to sustainably manage groundwater in high- or medium-priority basins by 2040. Defines sustainable management of groundwater as the avoidance of the following six “undesirable results:” (a) chronic lowering of groundwater levels; (b) reduction of groundwater storage; (c) seawater intrusion; (d) degraded water quality; (e) land subsidence; and (f) depletions of interconnected surface water (Water Code §§ 10720 et seq.).
3. Permits a GSA to file a validation action to determine the validity of its GSP no sooner than 180 days following adoption of the GSP (Water Code § 10726.6).
4. Requires the court to manage a comprehensive adjudication in a basin subject to SGMA in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a GSP, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and is consistent with SGMA (Water Code § 10737.2).
5. Stipulates that SGMA does not alter surface or groundwater rights (Water Code § 10720.5).
6. Outlines process and scope for a comprehensive adjudication of a groundwater basin [Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 830 et seq.].
7. Provides that a superior court judge of a county that overlies a basin subject to a comprehensive groundwater adjudication shall be disqualified and that an action against a GSA in a basin subject to a comprehensive groundwater adjudication shall be subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with the adjudication, as appropriate (CCP § 838).
8. Provides that a court may enter a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the court finds that the judgment meets all of the following criteria [CCP § 850(a)]:
   1. It is consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution;
   2. It is consistent with the water right priorities of all non-stipulating parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted in the basin;
   3. It treats all objecting parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted as compared to the stipulating parties; and
   4. It considers the water use and accessibility of water for small farmers and disadvantaged communities.
9. Provides that a court may enter a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication if the court finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a GSA, DWR, or the State Water Board to comply with SGMA and achieve sustainable groundwater management [CCP § 850(b)].
10. Provides that a public agency may bring a validation action within 60 days of a final determination by said public agency and prescribes procedures for a validation action (CCP §§ 860 et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill clarifies the Legislature’s intent in enacting SGMA and the streamlined adjudication statute in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Among other provisions, SGMA clearly provides that groundwater management be led by local agencies (i.e., GSAs) rather than the courts and that the ongoing use of groundwater that results in groundwater overdraft is an unreasonable use of water (per Section 2, Article X of the California Constitution). Further, the streamlined adjudication statute was designed to minimize conflict with a GSP and harmonize the proceedings of a groundwater adjudication with SGMA. Due to a lack of clarity in the streamlined adjudication statute, pending groundwater adjudications are leading to unnecessary delay and redundancy. Due to this, the author asserts that the further clarification provided by this bill is necessary. According to the author:

This bill will prevent pumpers from filing a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to get around and delay a GSP while rehashing the sustainable yield (or groundwater budget) established in a GSP. Unfortunately, this is occurring in pending groundwater adjudications in basins subject to SGMA. This delays sustainable groundwater management and is redundant. While the court has an important role to play in determining individual groundwater rights, the GSP development and implementation processes are the best forums for determining the sustainable yield for a given groundwater basin (akin to land use planning and zoning). This is even more the case when taking into account the fact that the two state agencies with technical expertise in water management – DWR and the State Water Board – take an active and ongoing role in overseeing SGMA implementation. To avoid delay in reversing groundwater overdraft and avoid shutting out smaller actors, this bill directs courts to not exceed the sustainable yield identified in a valid GSP when entering a judgment in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

The state and local agencies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and more than a decade in SGMA implementation to make California more resilient to climate change. SGMA is a landmark law that embodies a collaborative approach to groundwater management and mandates the inclusion of all actors and groundwater pumpers (“interested parties”) in GSP development and implementation. This requirement is meant to ensure everyone has a seat at the table in the management of groundwater. All of the effort that has gone into developing, reviewing, and implementing GSPs to date can be nullified when parties that are unhappy with a GSP’s groundwater budget (i.e., sustainable yield) seek to re-do it via a comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

If a pumper believes the GSA has missed the mark on a basin’s sustainable yield and that DWR is incorrect in approving a GSP (and, therefore, the sustainable yield), a pumper can obtain judicial review through a reverse validation action. Revisiting sustainable yield in a groundwater adjudication is inefficient, duplicative, and expensive. If such actions are not halted, SGMA will be undermined.

Finally, this bill directs the court to resolve challenges to the sustainable yield where multiple causes of action have been consolidated into a comprehensive adjudication. This fulfills the Legislature’s intent that a groundwater adjudication minimally interfere with SGMA implementation. It is unclear how a GSP can be implemented if challenges to the sustainable yield are not resolved before the adjudication of individual pumpers’ groundwater rights proceeds. If future groundwater adjudications proceed in a similar manner, it could significantly undermine the state’s ability to meet the goals of SGMA.

1. Background. Groundwater is a critical source of supply that meets roughly 40% of water demand in an average year and more than 60% during drought years. There are three types of groundwater rights: overlying, appropriative, and prescriptive. The most common of these is the overlying right that entitles “an owner of land overlying groundwater to drill a well and pump groundwater for use of that land, within the basin or watershed” (Littleworth and Garner, 2019). No permit is required to obtain overlying rights and these rights are typically not quantified. Due to this, a landowner may pump as much groundwater as they desire so long as the water is put to beneficial use and the use is reasonable (Section 2, Article X of California Constitution). Overlying rights are “correlative” to other overlying right holders so that in a dispute amongst overlying landowners, all have equal rights. Due to the lack of a comprehensive framework for regulating and managing groundwater for most of California’s history, many groundwater basins in California are in a state of overdraft (a condition where average annual pumping exceeds average annual groundwater supply in a basin). SGMA was enacted in 2014 to address overdraft and the adverse effects of excessive groundwater pumping.
   
   Groundwater adjudications. A groundwater adjudication occurs when one or more parties file a civil action to resolve conflicts over groundwater rights. According to the Water Education Foundation, “through adjudication, the courts can assign specific water rights to water users and can compel the cooperation of those who might otherwise refuse to limit their pumping of groundwater. Watermasters are typically appointed by the court to ensure that pumping conforms to the limits defined by the adjudication.” The overall limit or budget on groundwater pumping is typically referred to as “safe yield” in a settlement or judgment resulting from a groundwater adjudication. Out of 515 groundwater basins identified by DWR in Bulletin 118, 27 basins or sub-basins have been adjudicated. These are predominantly in urban and suburban parts of Southern California.
   
   State law gives every overlying property owner a potential right in an unadjudicated groundwater basin. As such, determining who has groundwater rights that could be affected by an adjudication and the scope of those rights is difficult and can be a lengthy process; adjudications typically take more than a decade to resolve. Identifying and noticing every party that may have a right, completing technical work and sorting through disagreements over this technical work, and determining historic groundwater use which could affect the scope of one’s rights are all factors that can increase the time and expense of an adjudication. In an attempt to streamline the groundwater adjudication process, SB 226 (Pavley) and AB 1390 (Alejo) were enacted in 2015.
   
   The Committee is aware of five recent or pending groundwater adjudications:
   

• Santa Clara Valley – Oxnard (No. 4-001.2) and Pleasant Valley (No. 4-006) groundwater basins. A coalition of pumpers, the “OPV Coalition,” initiated this action in December 2022 against the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (the GSA for the basins) asserting six causes of action: (1) seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication; (2) seeking quiet title to plaintiffs’ claims to use groundwater; (3), (4), and (5) writs of mandate challenging the GSP or FCGMA’s efforts to implement the GSP; and (6) alleging a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The court has stayed all causes of actions while it hears the comprehensive groundwater adjudication; this first phase is currently underway. DWR approved the GSPs for both basins in November 2021.
  
• Cuyama Valley groundwater basin (No. 3-013). Two large agricultural pumpers, Bolthouse Land Company and Grimmway Enterprises initiated this action in March 2022 seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication and quiet title to plaintiffs’ claims to use groundwater. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in May 2023 and it is currently undergoing its first 5-year review.
  
• Indian Wells groundwater basin (No. 6-54). A number of legal actions have taken place in this basin in recent years. The Indian Wells Valley Water District (not part of the basin’s GSA) filed the action seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication in June 2021; however, this was a cross-complaint to another action filed by an agricultural pumper, Mojave Pistachios, challenging the GSP for the basin. The crux of the conflict is that various parties in the basin disagree about the basin’s sustainable yield; some pumpers allege the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA), the GSA for the basin, underestimated it. The adjudication is in the first phase to determine the U.S. Navy’s federal reserved rights to groundwater in the basin. It is expected that there will be at least two more phases on safe yield and then individual groundwater rights. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in January 2022.
  
• Upper Ventura River (No. 4-3.01), Ojai Valley (No. 4-2), Lower Ventura River (No. 4-3.02), and Upper Ojai Valley (No. 4-1) groundwater basins, commenced in November 2019. Santa Barbara Channelkeeper initiated a suit against the City of Ventura in 2014 to limit the city’s use of water from the Ventura River. The City of Ventura filed a cross-complaint in December 2019 alleging nine claims for relief, one of which seeks a comprehensive groundwater adjudication of these basins. DWR approved the GSP for Ventura River in May 2023 and for Ojai Valley in October 2023.
  
• Las Posas Valley groundwater basin (No. 4-8). A coalition of pumpers, the “Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition,” initiated this action in October 2018 against FCGMA (i.e., the GSA for the basin) seeking a comprehensive groundwater adjudication. Parties reached a settlement in spring 2023 that the court adopted in July 2023. DWR approved the GSP for this basin in January 2022; this will be supplanted by the judgment in the comprehensive groundwater adjudication.

An additional adjudication in the Borrego Valley groundwater subbasin (No. 7-024.1) commenced in July 2020; the court approved a stipulated judgment to settle this adjudication on April 8, 2021 and the case is no longer active.

1. Indian Wells Valley groundwater adjudication. A recent order by the trial court illustrates the need for further clarification from the Legislature on how to harmonize SGMA with groundwater adjudications and how courts are to comply with Water Code § 10737.2. In June 2024, the trial court directly confronted the question of whether or not to proceed with adjudicating safe yield in the second phase of the trial. IWVGA argued that doing so was unnecessary and duplicative as it had already determined sustainable yield when developing the GSP. On the other hand, challengers IWVWD, Mojave Pistachios, and Searles Valley Minerals, among others, argued adjudicating safe yield was necessary and that the determination of sustainable yield in a GSP in a non-judicial setting is non-binding.
   
   The court carefully weighed both arguments and relevant statutes: “Although the legislative history of the Streamlined Act acknowledges the possibility that dissatisfied parties potentially could undermine a GSP by filing an adjudication action…, no provision of either law specifically addresses how to proceed in such a situation. That being said, the thrust of the above-referenced statutes [i.e., Water Code § 10737.2 and CCP § 850 et seq.] make clear that the Legislature has attempted to harmonize SGMA and the Streamlined Act. The catch, of course, is the lack of explicit guidance in a case such as the one before the Court.” The trial court ruled in favor of proceeding with adjudicating the basin’s safe yield.
   
   IWVGA filed an appeal of the trial court’s ruling and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief on October 17, 2024 on behalf of DWR and the State Water Board supporting the appeal: “The State Agencies are concerned that two parallel undefined and competing processes—one by the courts in an adjudication and other by public agencies implementing GSPs—for determining how much water is available to be pumped from groundwater basins could frustrate the purposes of [SGMA] and result in significant and duplicative expenditures of resources.” The amicus brief goes on to note that “DWR has provided approximately $500 million in assistance to local agencies to implement SGMA over the past decade.” The Court of Appeal declined to take up the petition for writ of mandate in November 2024.
2. Arguments in support. The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) supports this bill arguing that it “establishes a Validation Action as the correct venue to challenge a [GSP] and clarifies the court’s ability to review a GSP during a groundwater adjudication.” FCGMA points out that this bill does not “change the ability of a groundwater user to request” a groundwater adjudication and asserts “adjudications should not be used to challenge or overturn the findings of a GSP. In three critically overdrafted basins, parties have used adjudications to seek court reviews of GSP findings without deference to the SGMA process. Some litigants use adjudications and validation actions to delay sustainability measures, continue overdrafting, and remove water rights from small farmers and disadvantaged communities. This trend is inappropriate and undermines SGMA.”
3. Oppose unless amended. The California Chamber of Commerce and a number of trade associations and water agencies (CalChamber et al.) have taken an “oppose unless amended” position on this bill. CalChamber et al. argue that this bill “would unconstitutionally insulate agency decisions from judicial review, deprive groundwater right holders of due process, and remove constitutionally granted authority from the courts.” CalChamber et al. maintain by leaving a reverse validation action as the sole avenue for judicial review of the sustainable yield in a given GSP, this bill deprives groundwater right holders of their due process rights. Further, CalChamber et al. note that a validation action, unlike a comprehensive groundwater adjudication, does not allow claimants to present evidence of their individual groundwater right claim. CalChamber et al. maintain this bill violates separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution: “mandating judicial deference to GSPs amounts to a quasi-legislative branch unduly influencing judicial proceedings, thereby disrupting the balance among government branches.” In addition, CalChamber et al. object to this bill’s provisions mandating consolidation of GSP challenges with a groundwater adjudication where both have occurred, arguing this removes the court’s discretion. CalChamber et al. do not propose specific amendments in their position letter, but express that “we believe that, together, we can craft an approach that would balance [the author’s] concerns related to predictability, achievement of SGMA’s goals, and protecting water supply and water rights.”
4. Technical amendments. The Committee proposes the following amendments to clarify whether a GSP is validated and that all elements of a GSP are subject to validation actions:

Amendment 1

CPP § 850….(2) A judgment substantially impairs the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it allows more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plans covering the basin and either of the following apply:

(A) The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by a final judgment issuing from a validation action or an action to invalidate the validation brought pursuant to Section 10726.6 of the Water Code.

(B) The groundwater sustainability plan or plans have been validated by operation of law because no validation action or action to invalidate the validation was filed.

Amendment 2

Water Code § 10726.6. (a) (1) A groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan may file an action to determine the validity of the plan pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 180 days following the adoption of the plan.

(2) Actions brought pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not adjudicate matters delegated to the department for evaluation pursuant to Section 10733 or regulations adopted pursuant to Section 10733.2. A judgment, or groundwater sustainability plan validated through a judgment or by operation of law, shall not be binding on, or applicable to, the department or the board.

1. Double referral. This bill has also been referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
2. Related legislation. AB 1466 (Hart) of the current legislative session requires the court, when hearing a groundwater adjudication in a basin subject to SGMA that has an approved GSP, to request a technical report from a GSA that quantifies and describes the groundwater use of parties that have not appeared before the court in the adjudication proceedings. AB 1466 is also set for hearing before this Committee.
   
   AB 560 (Bennett) of 2024 would have required parties to a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to submit a proposed settlement to the State Water Board for a nonbinding advisory determination regarding its impact on sustainable groundwater management and small and disadvantaged users prior to filing it with the court, among other provisions. AB 560 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 779 (Wilson), Chapter 665, Statutes of 2024, makes various changes regarding proceedings in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to increase transparency and account for the needs of disadvantaged communities and small farmers in a final judgment. Provides that groundwater pumpers in a basin subject to an adjudication continue to comply with any applicable GSP while the adjudication is pending.
   
   SB 226 (Pavley), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2015, integrates and streamlines the groundwater adjudication process for groundwater basins that are subject to SGMA.
   
   AB 1390 (Alejo), Chapter 672, Statutes of 2015, establishes requirements and procedures for a comprehensive groundwater adjudication to ensure the proceedings and final judgment are consistent with sustainable groundwater management.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Ridgecrest
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency

Indian Wells Groundwater Authority

Oppose Unless Amended

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance
Association of California Water Agencies
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau
California Water Association
Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation
Indian Wells Valley Water District
Mission Springs Water District
Ridgecrest Area Association of Realtors
Searles Valley Minerals
United Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096