Spring SGMA Snapshot: Plans, Probation, Litigation, and Legislation

05.09.2025

This alert provides an overview of the ongoing implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). It details the status of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), recent and pending actions by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB or State Board) concerning probationary designations, developments regarding fee and reporting exclusions, SGMA-related litigation, and pertinent legislative activity.

I. SGMA Implementation: A Critical Juncture

Enacted in 2014, SGMA established a framework for local groundwater management with state oversight, aiming to achieve sustainable groundwater resources statewide. The legislation prioritizes local agency action (Water Code § 10720.1(h)), with state intervention as a backstop. Now, over a decade into its implementation, SGMA is at a pivotal stage, transitioning from initial plan development to implementation, enforcement, and, in some instances, state intervention.

GSP Review Status: The Department of Water Resources (DWR) plays a crucial role in reviewing GSPs.
- By early 2025, DWR completed its initial reviews for all GSPs submitted for high- and medium-priority basins. By April 2025, DWR also concluded reviews for low- and very low-priority basins that had voluntarily submitted plans.
- As of February 27, 2025, DWR data indicated that 86 groundwater basins were operating under an approved GSP or an approved alternative plan.
- DWR has deemed 7 basins inadequate, which are progressing through (or beginning to exit) the SWRCB's intervention process.

II. SWRCB Intervention: Probationary Hearings and Basin Status

When a GSP is found inadequate by DWR, the SWRCB may initiate a process that can lead to designating a basin as "probationary." This status triggers state oversight, potentially including mandatory reporting and fee imposition. If deficiencies are not rectified, the SWRCB may ultimately impose an interim operational plan for the basin.

Critically Overdrafted Basins Referred for Intervention: Tulare Lake Subbasin, Tule Subbasin, Kaweah Subbasin, Kern County Subbasin, Delta-Mendota Subbasin, Chowchilla Subbasin, Pleasant Valley Subbasin.
Tulare Lake Subbasin:
- Probationary Hearing & Designation: The SWRCB held a probationary hearing on April 16, 2024, and subsequently designated the entire basin as probationary. At that time, requests from two GSAs for exclusion under SGMA’s "good actor" provision (Water Code § 10735.2(e)) were denied.
- Litigation & Current Status: Following this designation, the Kings County Farm Bureau initiated legal action (detailed in Section VI). A Kings County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction in September 2024, temporarily halting SWRCB enforcement of metering, reporting, and fee requirements within the subbasin. The SWRCB has appealed this injunction to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- One-Year Mark: The initial probationary designation (April 2024) signifies that this basin has surpassed the one-year threshold at which the SWRCB could consider developing an interim plan if deficiencies were not being adequately addressed, although the ongoing Kings County litigation has altered this timeline.
Tule Subbasin:
- Probationary Hearing & Designation: The SWRCB conducted a probationary hearing on September 17, 2024, and designated the basin as probationary.
- Exclusions Granted: The SWRCB granted exclusions from certain SWRCB-mandated fee and reporting requirements to the Kern-Tulare Water District and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, recognizing their existing local groundwater management programs.
- Reporting Requirements: Non-exempt extractors were mandated to commence measuring extractions on January 1, 2025. Initial extraction reports are due to the SWRCB by February 1, 2026. Large extractors (exceeding 500 acre-feet per year) faced a March 1, 2025, deadline for flow meter certification or the approval of an alternative measurement method.
- Ongoing GSA Efforts: SWRCB staff have been actively engaging with GSAs to address identified deficiencies and are reviewing draft GSP submissions from GSAs within the subbasin.
Kern County Subbasin:
- Probationary Hearing Continued: The SWRCB commenced a probationary hearing on February 20, 2025. Acknowledging significant progress by local GSAs while noting remaining deficiencies, the Board continued the hearing to September 17, 2025.
- Revised GSP Required: GSAs in the Kern subbasin are required to prepare and submit a revised GSP to the SWRCB by June 20, 2025.
- SWRCB Rationale: The continuance is intended to provide GSAs additional time to effectively address deficiencies related to declining groundwater levels, water quality degradation, monitoring networks, land subsidence, and the establishment of minimum thresholds for groundwater levels.
Kaweah Subbasin:
- Probationary Hearing Cancelled: On November 15, 2024, the SWRCB cancelled the probationary hearing initially scheduled for January 7, 2025.
- Reason for Cancellation: The SWRCB indicated that GSAs had demonstrated progress in correcting identified GSP deficiencies. The cancellation allows State Board staff adequate time to thoroughly review amended GSPs that were submitted in June 2024.
- Future Action: Should the SWRCB decide to schedule a new probationary hearing for the Kaweah Subbasin, it is required to provide a minimum of 90 days public notice.
Delta-Mendota Subbasin:
- Revised Plan: This subbasin, which originally encompassed 22 GSAs and seven GSPs, has submitted a new, single consolidated GSP.
- SWRCB Review: The SWRCB is currently engaged in reviewing this revised consolidated plan.
- Probationary Hearing Outlook: A probationary hearing date has not yet been formally noticed.
Chowchilla Subbasin:
- Revised Plan & Positive Assessment: The GSAs submitted a revised GSP. On April 25, 2025, SWRCB staff released a largely positive Staff Assessment of this 2025 revised GSP.
- Staff Recommendation: State Board staff have recommended to the Board that designating the subbasin as probationary is unnecessary and that the subbasin should be returned to DWR's jurisdiction for ongoing GSP implementation and periodic review.
- Public Comment & Upcoming SWRCB Action: The public comment period on the Staff Assessment will conclude on May 23, 2025. The State Board is scheduled to consider a resolution to return the Chowchilla Subbasin to DWR’s jurisdiction during its meeting on June 3, 2025.
Pleasant Valley Subbasin:
- GSP Deemed Inadequate: DWR determined the GSP for the Pleasant Valley subbasin to be inadequate in February 2025. As this subbasin is not designated as critically overdrafted, its GSP submission and review timeline differed from those of the critically overdrafted basins. This inadequacy determination triggers SWRCB review for potential intervention.

III. SGMA-Related Litigation

Several GSPs and SWRCB actions under SGMA have faced legal challenges.

Kings County Farm Bureau, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (Tulare Lake Subbasin):
- Background: This lawsuit was filed in Kings County Superior Court following the SWRCB's May 2024 probationary designation of the Tulare Lake Subbasin.
- Court Rulings: In July 2024, the court issued a temporary restraining order, which was followed by a preliminary injunction in September 2024. This injunction currently prevents the SWRCB from enforcing requirements for growers in the basin to meter and register wells, report extractions, and pay certain fees. The court found that the SWRCB had potentially violated the Water Code concerning the Good Actor Provision, notice requirements, adopting "underground regulations," and exceeding its authority by requiring GSA submission of amended GSPs directly to the SWRCB instead of to DWR. The SWRCB’s demurrer to parts of the complaint was also denied.
- Appeals: The SWRCB appealed the preliminary injunction. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has taken up the review. The briefing schedule was complete as of April 17, 2025.
- On November 7, 2024, the SWRCB filed a separate appeal seeking to overturn the trial court's ruling on its demurrer. The Fifth District Court of Appeal accepted this petition and, on November 21, 2024, granted a stay of the original superior court case pending the outcome of this demurrer appeal. This matter has been fully briefed, with oral argument pending.
- Impact: This litigation has created significant uncertainty regarding the scope of SWRCB authority in probationary basins and has effectively paused direct SWRCB enforcement of reporting and fee requirements in the Tulare Lake Subbasin, as well as SWRCB communication with Tulare Lake GSAs.
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) Lawsuits:
- Eastern San Joaquin GSP: CSPA filed a reverse validation lawsuit challenging DWR-approved GSPs. The court ruled that DWR is an indispensable party to the action, requiring CSPA to amend its complaint. Local GSAs adopted an amended GSP in early 2025 for submission to DWR, and CSPA is currently seeking leave to amend and supplement its complaint to include challenges to the amended GSP.
- Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSP: CSPA filed a similar reverse validation action in 2020. This action is being coordinated with an ongoing case in Merced County. In August 2024, the court continued the matter until August 22, 2025, to allow time for a ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- Vina GSA GSP (CSPA and AquAlliance): Plaintiffs challenged the Vina GSA's GSP in 2022. In August 2024, the Butte County Superior Court granted a motion to dismiss, ruling the claim moot following DWR’s approval of the GSP. Plaintiffs appealed this decision in October 2024, and defendants filed a cross-appeal regarding a prior demurrer. The Third District Court of Appeal accepted these appeals as of December 17, 2024; oral argument has not yet been scheduled.
Friant Water Authority & Arvin-Edison Water Storage District v. Eastern Tule GSA (ETGSA):
- Background: Filed in July 2024 in Tulare County, this lawsuit alleges that ETGSA improperly allocated "Precipitation Credits," leading to over-pumping. Plaintiffs claim this over-pumping has contributed to subsidence impacting the Friant-Kern Canal and constitutes a breach of a January 2021 settlement agreement.
- Status: ETGSA’s demurrer was overruled, and its motion to strike parts of the complaint was denied. The parties have been engaged in mediation since August 2024. If no resolution is reached, trial is scheduled to commence on December 22, 2025.
Sandton Agriculture Investments III v. 4-S Ranch Partners (5th Dist. Court of Appeal, March 14, 2025):
- While not a direct SGMA compliance case, this appellate ruling has implications for groundwater management. It clarified that captured floodwater allowed to seep into the ground becomes percolating groundwater and is considered real property, not the personal property of the entity that captured it, unless physically severed. This decision bolsters the rights of overlying landowners to such recharged water and is relevant for GSA-operated recharge projects.

IV. Local Agency Actions and Legislative Update

Legislative Efforts (2025-2026 Session):
- AB 929 (Connolly, Amended): This bill, introduced in February 2025, proposes to:
  - Prohibit GSAs from using groundwater extraction allocation authority in certain ways that adversely affect small community water systems serving Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and managed wetland extractors.
  - Prohibit GSAs from imposing fees on these specified entities under certain conditions.
  - Require GSPs to include analyses of water supply and economic impacts on these vulnerable groups.
  - Reinforce the state policy of achieving no net loss of managed wetland acreage or associated habitat values due to SGMA implementation.
- AB 1413 (Papan, Amended): Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication
  - Introduced: February 21, 2025
  - Summary: This bill aims to refine procedures related to groundwater adjudications and the judicial review of GSPs under SGMA. Key proposed changes include:
    - Authorizing a GSA to file a GSP validation action within 180 days following plan adoption (amending current law which states no sooner than 180 days).
    - Requiring (rather than making subject to transfer/coordination) consolidation of any legal action challenging a GSP in a basin already undergoing comprehensive groundwater adjudication with that adjudication.
    - Requiring the court in such consolidated actions to first address judicial review of the GSP's determination of sustainable yield.
    - Clarifying that a court judgment in an adjudication substantially impairs SGMA compliance if it permits total pumping exceeding the sustainable yield of an approved GSP.
  - Status: Passed out of its initial policy committee and was re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1466 (Hart, Amended): Groundwater adjudication: burden of proof
  - Introduced: February 21, 2025
  - Summary: This bill focuses on the burden of proof and evidentiary standards in groundwater adjudication actions, particularly when a DWR-approved GSP is involved. Key provisions include:
    - Placing the burden of proof on a party seeking judicial review of a GSA action taken pursuant to a DWR-approved GSP (adopted after January 30, 2020).
    - Requiring a court in an adjudication within a basin with a DWR-approved GSP to request a technical report from the GSA(s), quantifying sustainable yield and undesirable results as determined in the GSP.
    - Establishing the GSA's technical report as prima facie evidence of the physical facts it contains.
    - Including provisions for cost recovery related to the preparation of this technical report.
  - Status: Passed out of its initial policy committee and was re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

V. Conclusion and Outlook

The implementation of SGMA is entering a complex and dynamic period, characterized by ongoing GSP refinement, increased state oversight in critically overdrafted basins, and legal challenges that continue to shape the Act’s application. The outcomes of current and future probationary proceedings, particularly for critically overdrafted basins, alongside the results of pending litigation, will have far-reaching implications for groundwater management across California. The SWRCB’s upcoming decision regarding the Chowchilla Subbasin may offer a precedent for other basins that demonstrate substantial GSP improvements and proactive engagement.

Achieving SGMA’s overarching sustainability goals will necessitate persistent and adaptive efforts from local GSAs. Continued stakeholder engagement, collaboration, and a commitment to adaptive management will be required as California strives to achieve long-term groundwater sustainability.