Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including, but not limited to, permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction or other regulated activity, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program, and investigations, inspections, compliance assistance, enforcement, and program administration, as provided. Existing law prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing those fees on a de minimis extractor, as defined, unless the agency has regulated the user, as provided.

This bill would authorize a local government, including, but not limited to, a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management, upon making specified findings, to exempt de minimis extractors, including the above-described regulated users, from the payment of the fee, levy, charge, or exaction, as provided.

Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including, but not limited to, permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction or other regulated activity, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program, and investigations, inspections, compliance assistance, enforcement, and program administration, as provided. Existing law prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing those fees on a de minimis extractor, as defined, unless the agency has regulated the user, as provided.

This bill would authorize a local government, including, but not limited to, a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management, upon making specified findings, to exempt de minimis extractors, including the above-described regulated users, from the payment of the fee, levy, charge, or exaction, as provided.

Existing law declares that Californias water infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate and safeguarding Californias supply of clean and safe water for homes, businesses, and farms is an essential responsibility of government, and critical to protecting the quality of life for all Californians.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation related to water delivery infrastructure

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 2728

Author:(Soria)

As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA), that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors, as specified.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur

1. Delete the contents of the bill.
2. Specify that a local government, including, but not limited to, a GSA, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management may exempt de minimis extractors from paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction upon making both of the following findings:
   1. The groundwater monitoring or management activities for which the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed directly benefit parties other than de minimis extractors.
   2. Any benefits received by de minimis extractors as a consequence of providing the groundwater monitoring or management activities occur incidentally and without additional cost to the parties upon whom the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed.
3. Define "de minimis extractor" to have the same meaning in existing law as a person who extracts, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less per year.
4. Specify that 2) and 3), above, is declaratory of existing law, and does not limit the ability of a local government to establish other exemptions from any fee, levy, charge, or exaction when otherwise permissible under specified constitutional provisions.
5. Make numerous technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Local Fees, Taxes, and Charges. The California Constitution requires voter approval for taxes and many other fees and charges. Prior to 1978, local agencies could enact taxes by ordinance. Proposition 13 (1978) amended the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote of the electorate to enact a local special tax. Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes without majority approval of local voters and clarified the 2/3 vote necessary to impose special taxes. Proposition 218 (1996) added Article XIIID to the California Constitution, which imposed voter approval requirements for most "property-related fees"—any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service.

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which tightened up Proposition 218's provisions. Among other things, it required all fees and charges that are not taxes to allocate costs to a payor in a "fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity."

1. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater is water found beneath the land surface in pores and fractures in materials such as rock, gravel, or sand. Underground areas where groundwater flows naturally out of rock materials or where groundwater can be removed by pumping are referred to as aquifers. According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), groundwater provides nearly 40% of California's water supply in an average year and 60% in drought years.

For much of California's history, there was no statewide mandate for the management of groundwater. This led to significant over-pumping (or "overdraft") of groundwater in many regions of the state that resulted in land subsidence (or sinking) that compromised infrastructure, dewatered rivers and streams, led to seawater intrusion in coastal areas, and dried out domestic and agricultural groundwater wells, among other adverse impacts.

In the midst of the 2012-16 drought, California's most severe on record, the Legislature passed SGMA to reverse the adverse impacts caused by groundwater overdraft. Passed in 2014, SGMA is composed of a three-bill legislative package, including AB 1739 (Dickinson), Chapter 347, Statutes of 2014; SB 1168 (Pavley), Chapter 346, Statutes of 2014; and SB 1319 (Pavley), Chapter 348, Statutes of 2014.

SB 1168 required DWR to categorize each basin as "high", "medium", "low", or "very low" priority based on specified criteria including population, rate of population growth, and number of wells. DWR identified 21 basins as "critically overdrafted".

SGMA allows a GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program. SGMA prohibits a GSA from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated the de minimis extractors. De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

According to the Author

"In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State's groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26. However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees. AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors."

Arguments in Support

According to Monterey County, the sponsor of this bill, "The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has almost 80 years of experience monitoring groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley. In 2024, the SVBGSA [Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency] and the MCWRA agreed that it would be better to leverage MCWRA's groundwater monitoring expertise and historical, long-term trend data rather than creating a duplicative program, with additional costs. The partnership established one cohesive Groundwater Monitoring Program (GMP) to comply with the SGMA-driven monitoring requirements, while ensuring efficiency and transparency to produce accurate, timely, and reliable groundwater information. However, it also separated the legal context under which cost recovery fees would be established.

"To identify and recover the reasonable costs of implementing the GMP, the MCWRA initiated a nexus study to establish a regulatory fee under Proposition 26 as a stand-alone program. The GMP per-well cost allocation was proposed for practical reasons. First, not all landowners are well owners. Second, the level of effort necessary to implement the GMP is not dependent upon how much water is extracted, it is dependent upon the number of wells being monitored.

"Proposition 26 does not allow the MCWRA, as a non-GSA, to charge one group of well owners more to offset the costs of others. While legally defensible, the unintended consequence is regressive: a household drawing two acre-feet per year for domestic use pays essentially the same as an extractor pumping a thousand acre-feet. The financial disparity can be significant, especially for lower-income rural households for whom a flat per-well charge is a material cost.

"This bill is a common sense technical fix that falls well within the original intentions of SGMA, that will provide needed reassurance to private well owners that they will not be subjected to fees never meant to be applied to them."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None.

VOTES

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 13-0-0

YES: Papan, Jeff Gonzalez, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Boerner, Caloza, Gallagher, Hart, Muratsuchi, Rogers

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 10-0-0

YES: Carrillo, Ta, Johnson, Pacheco, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Stefani, Ward, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: June 11, 2026

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004350

Date of Hearing: August 27, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2728 (

Author:Soria) – As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

SUBJECT: Groundwater: de minimis extractors: fees: exemption.

SUMMARY: Allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA), that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that a local government, including, but not limited to, a GSA, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management may exempt de minimis extractors from paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction upon making both of the following findings:
   
   1. The groundwater monitoring or management activities for which the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed directly benefit parties other than de minimis extractors.
      
   2. Any benefits received by de minimis extractors as a consequence of providing the groundwater monitoring or management activities occur incidentally and without additional cost to the parties upon whom the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed.
      
2. Defines “de minimis extractor” to have the same meaning in existing law as a person who extracts, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less per year.
   
3. Specifies that 1) and 2), above, is declaratory of existing law, and does not limit the ability of a local government to establish other exemptions from any fee, levy, charge, or exaction when otherwise permissible under specified constitutional provisions.
   
4. Makes numerous technical and conforming changes.
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

None.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary and Author’s Statement. This bill allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors from paying that fee, levy, charge, or exaction, if the local government makes both of the following findings: The groundwater monitoring or management activities that the fee funds directly benefit parties other than de minimis extractors; and any benefits the de minimis extractors receive from the groundwater monitoring or management are incidental to the parties paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction. Monterey County is the sponsor of this bill.
   

According to the Author, “In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State’s groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26. However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees. AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors.”

1. Local Fees, Taxes, and Charges. The California Constitution requires voter approval for taxes and many other fees and charges. Prior to 1978, local agencies could enact taxes by ordinance. Proposition 13 (1978) amended the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote of the electorate to enact a local special tax. Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes without majority approval of local voters and clarified the 2/3 vote necessary to impose special taxes. Proposition 218 (1996) added Article XIIID to the California Constitution, which imposed voter approval requirements for most “property-related fees”—any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service.
   

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which tightened up Proposition 218’s provisions. Among other things, it required all fees and charges that are not taxes to allocate costs to a payor in a “fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.”

1. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater is water found beneath the land surface in pores and fractures in materials such as rock, gravel, or sand. Underground areas where groundwater flows naturally out of rock materials or where groundwater can be removed by pumping are referred to as aquifers. According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), groundwater provides nearly 40% of California’s water supply in an average year and 60% in drought years.
   

For much of California’s history, there was no statewide mandate for the management of groundwater. This led to significant over-pumping (or “overdraft”) of groundwater in many regions of the state that resulted in land subsidence (or sinking) that compromised infrastructure, dewatered rivers and streams, led to seawater intrusion in coastal areas, and dried out domestic and agricultural groundwater wells, among other adverse impacts.

In the midst of the 2012-16 drought, California’s most severe on record, the Legislature passed SGMA to reverse the adverse impacts caused by groundwater overdraft. Passed in 2014, SGMA is composed of a three-bill legislative package, including AB 1739 (Dickinson), Chapter 347, Statutes of 2014; SB 1168 (Pavley), Chapter 346, Statutes of 2014; and SB 1319 (Pavley), Chapter 348, Statutes of 2014.

SB 1168 required DWR to categorize each basin as “high”, “medium”, “low”, or “very low” priority based on specified criteria including population, rate of population growth, and number of wells. DWR identified 21 basins as “critically overdrafted”.

SGMA allows a GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program. SGMA prohibits a GSA from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated the de minimis extractors. De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

1. Arguments in Support. According to Monterey County, the sponsor of this bill, “The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has almost 80 years of experience monitoring groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley. In 2024, the SVBGSA [Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency] and the MCWRA agreed that it would be better to leverage MCWRA’s groundwater monitoring expertise and historical, long-term trend data rather than creating a duplicative program, with additional costs. The partnership established one cohesive Groundwater Monitoring Program (GMP) to comply with the SGMA-driven monitoring requirements, while ensuring efficiency and transparency to produce accurate, timely, and reliable groundwater information. However, it also separated the legal context under which cost recovery fees would be established.
   
   “To identify and recover the reasonable costs of implementing the GMP, the MCWRA initiated a nexus study to establish a regulatory fee under Proposition 26 as a stand-alone program. The GMP per-well cost allocation was proposed for practical reasons. First, not all landowners are well owners. Second, the level of effort necessary to implement the GMP is not dependent upon how much water is extracted, it is dependent upon the number of wells being monitored.
   
   “Proposition 26 does not allow the MCWRA, as a non-GSA, to charge one group of well owners more to offset the costs of others. While legally defensible, the unintended consequence is regressive: a household drawing two acre-feet per year for domestic use pays essentially the same as an extractor pumping a thousand acre-feet. The financial disparity can be significant, especially for lower-income rural households for whom a flat per-well charge is a material cost.
   
   “This bill is a common sense technical fix that falls well within the original intentions of SGMA, that will provide needed reassurance to private well owners that they will not be subjected to fees never meant to be applied to them.”
   

Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Monterey County [SPONSOR]

California State Association of Counties

Rural County Representatives of California

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2728

Author:(Soria)

As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA), that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors, as specified.

Senate Amendments

1. Delete the contents of the bill.
2. Specify that a local government, including, but not limited to, a GSA, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management may exempt de minimis extractors from paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction upon making both of the following findings:
   1. The groundwater monitoring or management activities for which the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed directly benefit parties other than de minimis extractors.
   2. Any benefits received by de minimis extractors as a consequence of providing the groundwater monitoring or management activities occur incidentally and without additional cost to the parties upon whom the fee, levy, charge, or exaction is imposed.
3. Define "de minimis extractor" to have the same meaning in existing law as a person who extracts, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less per year.
4. Specify that 2) and 3), above, is declaratory of existing law, and does not limit the ability of a local government to establish other exemptions from any fee, levy, charge, or exaction when otherwise permissible under specified constitutional provisions.
5. Make numerous technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Propositions 218 & 26. The California Constitution requires voter approval for taxes and many other fees and charges. Proposition 218 (1996) added Article XIIID to the California Constitution, which imposed voter approval requirements for most "property-related fees"—any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service. Immediately after the passage of Proposition 218, the Legislature enacted the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to translate many of Proposition 218's requirements into statutory definitions and procedures [SB 919 (Rainey), Chapter 38, Statutes of 1997].

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which tightened up Proposition 218's provisions. Among other things, it required all fees and charges that are not taxes to allocate costs to a payor in a "fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity."

1. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater is water found beneath the land surface in pores and fractures in materials such as rock, gravel, or sand. Underground areas where groundwater flows naturally out of rock materials or where groundwater can be removed by pumping are referred to as aquifers. According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), groundwater provides nearly 40% of California's water supply in an average year and 60% in drought years.

For much of California's history, there was no statewide mandate for the management of groundwater. This led to significant over-pumping (or "overdraft") of groundwater in many regions of the state that resulted in land subsidence (or sinking) that compromised infrastructure, dewatered rivers and streams, led to seawater intrusion in coastal areas, and dried out domestic and agricultural groundwater wells, among other adverse impacts.

In the midst of the 2012-16 drought, California's most severe on record, the Legislature passed SGMA to reverse the adverse impacts caused by groundwater overdraft. Passed in 2014, SGMA is composed of a three-bill legislative package, including AB 1739 (Dickinson), Chapter 347, Statutes of 2014; SB 1168 (Pavley), Chapter 346, Statutes of 2014; and SB 1319 (Pavley), Chapter 348, Statutes of 2014.

SB 1168 required DWR to categorize each basin as "high", "medium", "low", or "very low" priority based on specified criteria including population, rate of population growth, and number of wells. DWR identified 21 basins as "critically overdrafted".

SGMA allows a GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program. SGMA prohibits a GSA from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated the de minimis extractors. De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

According to the Author

"In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State's groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26. However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees. AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors."

Arguments in Support

According to Monterey County, "The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has almost 80 years of experience monitoring groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley. In 2024, the SVBGSA [Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency] and the MCWRA agreed that it would be better to leverage MCWRA's groundwater monitoring expertise and historical, long-term trend data rather than creating a duplicative program, with additional costs. The partnership established one cohesive Groundwater Monitoring Program (GMP) to comply with the SGMA-driven monitoring requirements, while ensuring efficiency and transparency to produce accurate, timely, and reliable groundwater information. However, it also separated the legal context under which cost recovery fees would be established.

"To identify and recover the reasonable costs of implementing the GMP, the MCWRA initiated a nexus study to establish a regulatory fee under Proposition 26 as a stand-alone program. The GMP per-well cost allocation was proposed for practical reasons. First, not all landowners are well owners. Second, the level of effort necessary to implement the GMP is not dependent upon how much water is extracted, it is dependent upon the number of wells being monitored.

"Proposition 26 does not allow the MCWRA, as a non-GSA, to charge one group of well owners more to offset the costs of others. While legally defensible, the unintended consequence is regressive: a household drawing two acre-feet per year for domestic use pays essentially the same as an extractor pumping a thousand acre-feet. The financial disparity can be significant, especially for lower-income rural households for whom a flat per-well charge is a material cost.

"This bill is a common sense technical fix that falls well within the original intentions of SGMA, that will provide needed reassurance to private well owners that they will not be subjected to fees never meant to be applied to them."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None.

VOTES:

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: Votes not relevant

YES:

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: Votes not relevant

YES:

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Votes not relevant

YES:

ABS, ABST OR NV:

UPDATED

VERSION: June 11, 2026

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003383

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 2728

Author: Soria (D)

Amended: 6/11/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/23/26

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Seyarto

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/26

AYES: Becker, Seyarto, Allen, Cabaldon, Grove, Laird, Stern

Prior Assembly votes not relevant.

SUBJECT: Groundwater: de minimis extractors: fees: exemption

SOURCE: County of Monterey

DIGEST:

This bill allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law grants local agencies the authority to impose various fees, charges, and taxes to pay for public services.

This bill:

1. Allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors from paying that fee, levy, charge, or exaction, if the local government makes both the following findings:
   1. The groundwater monitoring or management activities the fee funds directly benefits parties other than de minimis extractors; and
   2. Any benefits de minimis extractors receive from the groundwater monitoring or management are incidental to the parties paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction.
2. Declares that these provisions are declaratory of existing law and do not limit the ability of a local government to establish other constitutionally-permissible exemptions.
3. Makes conforming changes to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to ensure that local governments have the authority to exempt de minimis extractors.

Background

Local taxes, fees, and charges. Prior to 1978, local agencies could enact taxes by ordinance. Proposition 13 (1978) amended the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote of the electorate to enact a local special tax. Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes without majority approval of local voters, and clarified the 2/3 vote necessary to impose special taxes. Proposition 218 (1996) extended those vote thresholds to charter cities and required local agencies’ to obtain voter approval to levy new assessments, fees, and taxes, which was subsequently limited by Proposition 26 (2010). Local agencies impose taxes, fees, and charges to finance a variety of public services. For example, state law requires local agencies to provide solid waste handling services, or contract with another local agency or solid waste enterprise. If the local agency provides the service, they charge customers directly. Most jurisdictions in the state operate with some form of “franchise,” or contract, that limits solid waste hauling within the jurisdiction to one or more specified companies. Under these agreements, the local agency charges the franchisee for the benefit of operating within the public right-of-way. The franchisee then charges customers for providing waste hauling services. Many local agencies include the costs to cover the wear and tear on the roads from the heavy waste hauling trucks in their fees. A typical car weighs roughly 4,400 pounds, while a loaded garbage truck can weigh as much as 60,000 pounds.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In response to a multi-year drought, the Legislature enacted the SGMA in 2014. Composed of three bills—AB 1739 (Dickinson, Chapter 347, Statutes of 2014), SB 1168 (Pavley, Chapter 346, Statutes of 2014) and SB 1319 (Pavley, Chapter 348, Statutes of 2014)—SGMA comprehensively reformed California’s groundwater laws. Among other provisions, the Act directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to categorize the state’s groundwater basins into high, medium, low, and very low priorities, based on factors such as the population overlying the basin, number of wells in the basin, and overlying irrigated acreage. DWR must also identify basins subject to critical overdraft—where more water is consistently being removed than replaced.

Under SGMA, a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) must manage basins designated as high or medium priority. That agency must develop a groundwater sustainability plan to ensure that by 2040, the basin is in a sustainable condition—there can be no “undesirable results” (such as land sinking) from use of the basin. If a basin does not have a GSA or the agency fails to adopt or implement a plan, the State Water Resources Control Board may designate the basin as “probationary” and can develop its own plan to achieve sustainability for the basin. SGMA allows a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program. SGMA prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated the de minimis extractors. De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

Comments

Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State’s groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26.  However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees.  AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors.”

Between a rock and a hard place. SGMA allows a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, but prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated de minimis extractors. Agencies like Monterey County have not regulated de minimis extractors because their impact on groundwater supplies is by definition minimal, so SGMA does not allow agencies to charge de minimis extractors for the groundwater monitoring program. However, Proposition 26 requires all fees and charges that are not taxes, including those regulating groundwater, to allocate costs to a payor in a “fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” Arguably if a local agency exempts de minimis extractors from paying groundwater monitoring fees so that it complies with SGMA, then it could be charging other extractors more than the burden they place on groundwater extraction. In other words, complying with SGMA could violate Proposition 26, but complying with Proposition 26 could violate SGMA. To avoid this stalemate, AB 2728 allows a local agency to exempt de minimis extractors from groundwater monitoring charges if the agency makes findings demonstrating that the ancillary benefits for de minimis extractors are incidental to the parties paying the fee.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/2/26)

County of Monterey (source)

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/2/26)

None received

Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

7/30/26 14:49:29

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Josh Becker, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: July 1, 2026

Subject: Groundwater: de minimis extractors: fees: exemption

SUMMARY

This bill would authorize a local government that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors from paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction if certain findings are made.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). 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.

SGMA authorizes GSAs to impose fees, including, but not limited to, permit fees on groundwater extraction or other regulated activity, to fund the costs of its groundwater sustainability program, but prohibits a GSA from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the GSA has regulated the de minimis extractors (Water Code (WAT) §10730). De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

Proposition 218. Proposition 218 (1996) imposed constitutional limits on local officials’ ability to impose, increase, and extend fees, including property-related fees. Proposition 218 defined a property-related fee as any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee for a property-related service. The Legislature enacted the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to translate many of Proposition 218’s requirements into statutory definitions and procedures (SB 919, Rainey, 1997).

Before a local government can charge a new property-related fee, or increase an existing one, Proposition 218 requires local officials to:

• Identify the parcels to be charged;
• Calculate the fee for each parcel;
• Notify the parcels’ owners in writing about the fee, the reason for imposing or increasing it, the basis for calculating the fee, and the date of a public hearing on the proposed fee;
• Hold a public hearing to consider and count protests at least 45 days after mailing the notice; and
• Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcel owners protest.

New or increased property-related fees cannot exceed the proportional cost of service to each parcel. They also generally require a majority-vote of the affected property owners, two-thirds registered voter approval, or weighted ballot approval by the affected property owners.

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which tightened up Proposition 218’s provisions. Among other things, it required all fees and charges that are not taxes to allocate costs to a payor in a “fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.”

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Authorize a local government, including a GSA, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or extraction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt di minimis extractors from paying that fee, levy, charge, or extraction, if the local government makes both of the following findings:
   
   1. The groundwater monitoring or management activities the fee funds directly benefits parties other than de minimis extractors; and
   2. Any benefits de minimis extractors receive from the groundwater monitoring or management are incidental to the parties paying the fee, levy, charge, or extraction.
      
2. Declare that these provisions are declaratory of existing law and do not limit the ability of a local government to establish other constitutionally-permissible exemptions.
   
3. Make conforming changes to SGMA to ensure that local governments have the authority to exempt de minimis extractors.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “[i]n 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State’s groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26. However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees, despite normally being exempted under SGMA. AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors consistent with the original exemption provided under SGMA.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received

COMMENTS

This bill is double referred. This bill has been referred to both the Senate Local Government Committee and this Committee for hearing. This Committee is the second committee of referral. This bill was heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 23, 2026, and passed out with a vote of 7-0. Elements of this bill under the jurisdiction of the Senate Local Government Committee are included here for completeness and context only.

Catch 22. As discussed in the Senate Local Government Committee analysis of this bill, “SGMA allows a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, but prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated de minimis extractors. Agencies like Monterey County have not regulated de minimis extractors because their impact on groundwater supplies is by definition minimal, so SGMA does not allow agencies to charge de minimis extractors for the groundwater monitoring program. However, Proposition 26 requires all fees and charges that are not taxes, including those regulating groundwater, to allocate costs to a payor in a ‘fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.’ Arguably if a local agency exempts de minimis extractors from paying groundwater monitoring fees so that it complies with SGMA, then it could be charging other extractors more than the burden they place on groundwater extraction. In other words, complying with SGMA could violate Proposition 26, but complying with Proposition 26 could violate SGMA.”

AB 2728 addresses this conundrum by allowing local agencies to exempt de minimis extractors from such fees, levies, charges, or exactions for groundwater management if certain findings are made, including that any benefits received by the de minimis extractor are incidental and do not result in any additional costs to those who are imposed the fee, levy, charge, or exaction.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: none

SUPPORT

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
County of Monterey
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Groundwater: de minimis extractors: fees: exemption

Allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors.

Background

Proposition 218 procedures. Proposition 218 (1996) imposed constitutional limits on local officials’ ability to impose, increase, and extend fees, including property-related fees. Proposition 218 defined a property-related fee as any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee for a property-related service. The Legislature enacted the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to translate many of Proposition 218’s requirements into statutory definitions and procedures (SB 919, Rainey, 1997).

Before a local government can charge a new property-related fee, or increase an existing one, Proposition 218 requires local officials to:

• Identify the parcels to be charged;
• Calculate the fee for each parcel;
• Notify the parcels’ owners in writing about the fee, the reason for imposing or increasing it, the basis for calculating the fee, and the date of a public hearing on the proposed fee;
• Hold a public hearing to consider and count protests at least 45 days after mailing the notice; and
• Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcels’ owners protest.

New or increased property-related fees cannot exceed the proportional cost of service to each parcel. They also generally require a majority-vote of the affected property owners, two-thirds registered voter approval, or weighted ballot approval by the affected property owners.

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which tightened up Proposition 218’s provisions. Among other things, it required all fees and charges that are not taxes to allocate costs to a payor in a “fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.”

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In response to a multi-year drought, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. Composed of three bills—AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley) and SB 1319 (Pavley)—SGMA comprehensively reformed California’s groundwater laws. Among other provisions, the Act directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to categorize the state’s groundwater basins into high, medium, low, and very low priorities, based on factors such as the population overlying the basin, number of wells in the basin, and overlying irrigated acreage. DWR must also identify basins subject to critical overdraft—where more water is consistently being removed than replaced.

Under SGMA, a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) must manage basins designated as high or medium priority. That agency must develop a groundwater sustainability plan to ensure that by 2040, the basin is in a sustainable condition—there can be no “undesirable results” (such as land sinking) from use of the basin. If a basin does not have a GSA or the agency fails to adopt or implement a plan, the State Water Resources Control Board may designate the basin as “probationary” and can develop its own plan to achieve sustainability for the basin. SGMA allows a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program. SGMA prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated the de minimis extractors. De minimis extractors are people who extract, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less of water per year.

To ensure that local agencies can simultaneously comply with SGMA and Propositions 26 and 218, the author wants to allow local agencies to exempt de minimis extractors from groundwater monitoring charges.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 2728 allows a local government, including a groundwater sustainability agency, that imposes a fee, levy, charge, or exaction for groundwater monitoring or management to exempt de minimis extractors from paying that fee, levy, charge, or exaction, if the local government makes both the following findings:

• The groundwater monitoring or management activities the fee funds directly benefits parties other than de minimis extractors; and
• Any benefits de minimis extractors receive from the groundwater monitoring or management are incidental to the parties paying the fee, levy, charge, or exaction.

AB 2728 declares that these provisions are declaratory of existing law and do not limit the ability of a local government to establish other constitutionally-permissible exemptions.

AB 2728 makes conforming changes to SGMA to ensure that local governments have the authority to exempt de minimis extractors.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the purpose of achieving and maintaining sustainability in the State’s groundwater basins. SGMA implementation throughout much of the State is governed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), working in close coordination with other GSAs, local governments, and the public, to develop and execute Groundwater Sustainability Plans that include several elements necessary to sustainably manage groundwater basins including groundwater monitoring. To fund this monitoring, some local governments have established regulatory fees under Proposition 26.  However, this has created situations where de minimis extractors, those extracting small amounts of groundwater for domestic use, bear a disproportionately large amount of monitoring fees.  AB 2728 resolves this disparity by allowing local governments to exempt de minimis extractors.”

2. Between a rock and a hard place. SGMA allows a groundwater sustainability agency to impose fees, including permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction, but prohibits a groundwater sustainability agency from imposing a fee on de minimis extractors unless the agency has regulated de minimis extractors. Agencies like Monterey County have not regulated de minimis extractors because their impact on groundwater supplies is by definition minimal, so SGMA does not allow agencies to charge de minimis extractors for the groundwater monitoring program. However, Proposition 26 requires all fees and charges that are not taxes, including those regulating groundwater, to allocate costs to a payor in a “fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” Arguably if a local agency exempts de minimis extractors from paying groundwater monitoring fees so that it complies with SGMA, then it could be charging other extractors more than the burden they place on groundwater extraction. In other words, complying with SGMA could violate Proposition 26, but complying with Proposition 26 could violate SGMA. To avoid this stalemate, AB 2728 allows a local agency to exempt de minimis extractors from groundwater monitoring charges if the agency makes findings demonstrating that the ancillary benefits for de minimis extractors are incidental to the parties paying the fee.

3. Gut and amend. As introduced and approved by the Assembly, AB 2728 contained provisions enacting the Open and Transparent Water Data Act. Amendments taken in the Senate deleted the initial contents of AB 2728 and inserted the current language relating to groundwater extraction fees and charges.

4. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 2728: first to the Committee on Local Government to hear issues related to local government powers, and second to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water.

Assembly Actions

Prior Assembly votes not relevant to the current version of the bill.

Support and Opposition

(6/19/2026)

Support: California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
One individual

Opposition: None Submitted

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2728

Author:(Soria)

As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to make certain data on fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027

Major Provisions

1. Requires DWR to make datasets from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.
2. Requires DWR to make datasets from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.

COMMENTS

AB 1755 (Dodd) in 2016 enacted the Open and Transparent Water Data Act that requires California state agencies to create, operate, and maintain a statewide integrated water data platform to support sustainable water planning, support business management, advance water equity, and protect vulnerable communities, species and individuals. AB 1755 was an acknowledgement that effective water management in California at all levels was being hindered by a lack of high quality data and information. Since the passage of AB 1755, state agencies have made a great deal of progress in developing publicly available, open access data platforms, though more work remains to be done. State agencies are making the data specified under the Open and Transparent Water Data Act available on two data portals: (1) the California Open Data Portal hosted by the Government Operations Agency and (2) the California Natural Resources Agency Open Data Platform.

Fish release: This term refers to the number of fish raised at fish hatcheries that are then released into rivers or estuaries to bolster fish populations. In 2023, for example, DFW reported that it had released 23 million fall-run Chinook salmon raised at DFW-managed hatcheries into the wild. This bill requires that data on fish releases is included on the statewide integrated water data platform.

Fish escapement: This term refers to the number of anadromous fish (e.g., steelhead and salmon) that escape the ocean fishery and successfully return to spawn on inland rivers and streams. DFW monitors fish escapement for certain salmon runs and this bill requires that this data is included on the statewide integrated water data platform.

According to the Author

The author argues that ″water and ecological data is crucial to improving management of the state′s water resources,″ but that key data on fisheries is either not available, inconsistent, or difficult to find. The author contends that this bill will provide ″the public and water managers with additional ecological information necessary to improve the management of California′s natural resources by including data hatchery production, release and escapement in the State′s compiled water and wildlife information resources.″

Arguments in Support

None on file.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill has the following fiscal impact:

1. DWR is likely to incur some ongoing costs, potentially in excess of $150,000, to make available and maintain the required datasets on its statewide integrated water data platform.

For its part, DWR estimates annual General Fund costs of approximately $1 million for the first three years (for staffing and software resources) followed by ongoing annual costs of approximately $778,000 for ongoing implementation. DWR notes staff must undertake statewide coordination for the publication of available data from all major California hatcheries, including those managed by USFWS; ensure documentation and publication are made available in a machine-readable format; and update and maintain the data infrastructure and repository.

The Legislative Analyst′s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

2) Minor and absorbable costs to DFW. DFW notes it already publishes the information the bill requires DWR to make available on its platform.

3) Minor and absorbable costs to the State Water Resources Control Board.

VOTES

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 13-0-0

YES: Papan, Jeff Gonzalez, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Boerner, Caloza, Gallagher, Hart, Muratsuchi, Rogers

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: March 19, 2026

CONSULTANT: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0002728

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2728

Author:(Soria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to make certain data on fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1) Expands the purpose of the Open and Transparent Water Data Act to include – as part of improving the management of the state’s water resources – improving the efficacy of management actions.

2) Requires DWR to make datasets from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.

3) Requires DWR to make datasets from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) DWR is likely to incur some ongoing costs, potentially in excess of $150,000, to make available and maintain the required datasets on its statewide integrated water data platform.

For its part, DWR estimates annual General Fund costs of approximately $1 million for the first three years (for staffing and software resources) followed by ongoing annual costs of approximately $778,000 for ongoing implementation. DWR notes staff must undertake statewide coordination for the publication of available data from all major California hatcheries, including those managed by USFWS; ensure documentation and publication are made available in a machine-readable format; and update and maintain the data infrastructure and repository.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

2) Minor and absorbable costs to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW notes it already publishes the information the bill requires DWR to make available on its platform.

3) Minor and absorbable costs to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. The author argues, “water and ecological data is crucial to improving management of the state’s water resources,” but that key data on fisheries is either not available, inconsistent, or difficult to find. The author contends this bill will provide the public and water managers with “additional ecological information necessary to improve the management of California’s natural resources by including data hatchery production, release and escapement in the State’s compiled water and wildlife information resources.”

2) Background. Open and Transparent Water Data Act. Enacted by AB 1755 (Dodd), Chapter 506, Statutes of 2016, the Open and Transparent Water Data Act requires DWR, in consultation with the California Water Quality Monitoring Council, the State Water Board, and CDFW to create, operate, and maintain a statewide integrated water data platform to support sustainable water planning, support business management, advance water equity, and protect vulnerable communities, species, and individuals. According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, since the passage of AB 1755, state agencies have made a great deal of progress in developing publicly available, open access data platforms, though more work remains to be done. State agencies are making the data specified under the Open and Transparent Water Data Act available on two data portals, specifically the California Open Data Portal hosted by the Government Operations Agency and the California Natural Resources Agency Open Data Platform. State agencies have made over 1,000 datasets and numerous data visualizations available on these two portals.

Fish Release. This term refers to the number of fish raised at fish hatcheries that are then released into rivers or estuaries to bolster fish populations. In 2023, for example, CDFW reported it released 23 million fall-run Chinook salmon raised at CDFW-managed hatcheries into the wild. This bill requires data on fish releases be included on the statewide integrated water data platform

Fish Escapement. This term refers to the number of anadromous fish (like steelhead and salmon) that escape the ocean fishery and successfully return to spawn on inland rivers and streams. CDFW monitors fish escapement for certain salmon runs and this bill requires that this data be included on the statewide integrated water data platform.

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

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Diane Papan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2728 (

Author:Soria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Open and Transparent Water Data Act

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to make certain data on fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027. Specifically, this bill:

1. Expands the purposes of the Open and Transparent Water Data Act to include improving the efficacy of management actions.
2. Requires DWR to make datasets from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.
3. Requires DWR to make datasets from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration related to fish hatchery production, release, and escapement available on the statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2027.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, under the Open and Transparent Water Data Act, DWR, in consultation with the California Water Quality Monitoring Council (CWQMC), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), and DFW, to coordinate and integrate existing water and ecological data from local, state, and federal agencies (Water Code §§ 12400 – 12420).
2. Requires DWR, in consultation with CWQMC, the State Water Board, and DFW, to create, maintain, and operate a statewide integrated water data platform by September 1, 2019 (Water Code § 12410).
3. Requires DWR to make specified ecological and water data from federal, state, and local agencies available on the statewide integrated water data platform beginning September 2019 and no later than August 2020 (Water Code §§ 12410 and 12415).
4. Allows DWR to enter into an agreement with a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization to create, operate, or maintain, or any combination thereof, the platform [Water Code § 124109(c)].

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. The author argues that “water and ecological data is crucial to improving management of the state’s water resources,” but that key data on fisheries is either not available, inconsistent, or difficult to find. The author contends that this bill will provide “the public and water managers with additional ecological information necessary to improve the management of California’s natural resources by including data hatchery production, release and escapement in the State’s compiled water and wildlife information resources.”
2. Background. Enacted by AB 1755 (Dodd) in 2016, the Open and Transparent Water Data Act requires California state agencies to create, operate, and maintain a statewide integrated water data platform to support sustainable water planning, support business management, advance water equity, and protect vulnerable communities, species and individuals. AB 1755 was an acknowledgement that effective water management in California at all levels was being hindered by a lack of high quality data and information. Since the passage of AB 1755, state agencies have made a great deal of progress in developing publicly available, open access data platforms, though more work remains to be done. State agencies are making the data specified under the Open and Transparent Water Data Act available on two data portals: (1) the California Open Data Portal hosted by the Government Operations Agency and (2) the California Natural Resources Agency Open Data Platform.
   
   The California Water Data Consortium is a nonprofit organization established in 2019 to help state agencies implement the Open and Transparent Water Data Act. The Consortium is currently working with state agencies and other partners to advance projects on groundwater accounting, using remote sensing to estimate water runoff and supplies, the use of telemetry to automate collection of data on water use, and to streamline reporting of water use by local water agencies.
   
   Fish release. This term refers to the number of fish raised at fish hatcheries that are then released into rivers or estuaries to bolster fish populations. In 2023, for example, DFW reported that it had released 23 million fall-run Chinook salmon raised at DFW-managed hatcheries into the wild. This bill requires that data on fish releases is included on the statewide integrated water data platform

Fish escapement. This term refers to the number of anadromous fish (e.g., steelhead and salmon) that escape the ocean fishery and successfully return to spawn on inland rivers and streams. DFW monitors fish escapement for certain salmon runs and this bill requires that this data is included on the statewide integrated water data platform.

1. Related legislation. AB 734 (Schultz) of 2025 would have required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to make biological resources data it receives during the permitting processes for energy and renewable energy projects available to the public unless disclosure of the data would put species at risk. AB 734 was vetoed by the Governor:

This bill would require [CEC] to publicly release granular biological resources data used in the completion of Environmental Impact Reports, unless [DFW] determines that releasing such data would pose a significant risk of harm to individuals of a species.

Currently, the CEC receives both detailed biological resource maps generated by a project applicant and similar maps that the applicant obtains from [DFW], as part of the environmental impact assessment for proposed energy projects moving through the CEC's site certification permitting programs. The resolution of these maps is governed by data-use guidelines publicly developed by [DFW] to protect the precise location of sensitive species and biological resources, as higher resolution maps risk increasing poaching, collection and habitat disturbance in these locations.

Though this bill is well-intended, the risks associated with this divulgence of information and the added procedural requirement of a [DFW] determination on whether to divulge such information, if found harmful, are unnecessary, add additional process complexity, and likely won't yield additional mitigations or safeguards for species impacted by proposed energy projects.

AB 1755 (Dodd), Chapter 506, Statutes of 2016, enacts the Open and Transparent Water Data Act and requires the DWR, in consultation with the State Water Board, DFW, and the California Water Quality Monitoring Council, to create and maintain a statewide integrated water data platform by August 1, 2020.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

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