By Don A. Wright
On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 the California State Senate’s Natural Resources and Water Committee held an informational hearing – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act at 11 Years: Progress and Challenges, scheduled to begin at 9:00am in Sacramento and online. Due to the length of the hearing this report is in two parts. This is part one.
According to its website (yes, the committee has its own webpage) the Natural Resources and Water Committee has jurisdiction over, “Bills relating to conservation and management of public resources, fish and wildlife, regulation of oil, mining, geothermal development, wetlands and lakes, global atmospheric effects, ocean and bay pollution, coastal resources, forestry practices, recreation, parks and historical resources, and water supply management.”
State Senator Monique Limon is Chair and Senator Kelly Seyarto is Vice Chair. Also on the Committee are Senators Benjamin Allen, Shannon Grove, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird and Henry Stern.
Speaking to the Committee were, Richard Frank-UC Davis Law Professor, Paul Gosselin-Deputy Director for Sustainable Water Management Department of Water Resources, Tina Cannon Leahy-Supervising Attorney State Water Resources Control Board, Javier Silva-Water Operator Yokayo Tribe, Lyn Carlisle-Executive Director Cuyama Valley Family Resource Center, Piret Harmon-General Manager Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Arshdeep Singh-President Punjabi American Growers Group. The first part of the hearing was the committee members speaking their minds on the subject.
Panel One: SGMA, What It Is, How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Now?
Frank was the first to speak. He’s been a regular testifier at many legislative hearings regarding water. I don’t believe he’s considered a friend of the farmer. He ran through the harm of the overdraft of aquifers. He thinks groundwater regulation was the third rail of water in California. He listed the Planning and Conservation League as one of the driving forces to get the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act passed. He gave a brief history of SGMA.
Frank noted the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies were formed on time. And then went through the goals of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. He believes the law is two centuries behind when dealing with groundwater. He said most GSPs were submitted on time and it was a heavy lift for DWR to review them. (It was also a very expensive and heavy lift for the growers who funded them.)
Gosselin said it has been a tremendous amount of work to get where we are in SGMA and was only accomplished by the hard work of the local GSAs. He said 2023 was a landmark year for recharge and there is a goal to recharge no less than half a million acre feet annually.
Gosselin said every subbasin has adopted a GSP that is being implemented. When DWR reviews a GSP it looks for substantial compliance with the 20-year time frame to achieve sustainability and avoid undesirable results. Some of the GSPs didn’t make the grade and a six-month period was given to improve the plans. DWR was working with the GSAs and subbasins to get the plans in shape. He said this interaction was a good feedback loop for DWR. He said the Department learned what it needed to do more of, to help SGMA reach its goals.
Gosselin pointed out the GSAs have taken on more care of wells going dry. There are also many questions dealing with how to address the depletion of interconnected ground and surface water. Subsidence has been a big cause of impacts. It’s a continuous problem and a drain on the coffers to keep sinking infrastructure workable. He said the days of deep dives into the written word of planning are about over. The next step is implementation to achieve the goals. All the plans are subject to adaptation as more data is discovered and other conditions such as climate and hydrology change. DWR will continue to monitor the situation and be involved in the helping reach the needed results.
The rubber now meets the road and the easy part is just about over, said Gosselin. He expects SGMA will be a success and good for all concerned.
Leahy spoke next saying intervention is a two step process. The State Board decides if a subbasin needs to go on probation, that’s step one. Step two is after one year if the State Board decides the subbasin hasn’t reached a sustainable path it will impose corrective action. She said SGMA doesn’t require the State Board to develop a staff report but it does so there is transparency. There is a 90-day minimum period for public input before a probation hearing be held.
Leahy said there are virtual and public hearings held by the State Board. She walked the Committee through the Tulare Lake Subbasin probation process. Probation was determined in April 2024. That ruling has been in the courts ever since.
Next the Tule Subbasin was placed on probation but there were carve outs for some of the GSAs within that subbasin were given some slack for net recharge. The Kern Subbasin workshops and hearings included Punjab as well as Spanish interpretation. During the Kern Subbasin probation hearing the State Board found the GSP close enough to ready to postpone a final hearing until June. The Kaweah Subbasin was determined to have improved its plan enough to be removed from probation.
Senator Grove asked Frank if reduction of surface water can harm agricultural area’s aquifers. He kind of said yes. Grove asked about Laird’s statement who had said just two farmers in his district use 70-percent of the water. She asked didn’t those two farmers own 70-percent of the land. Gosselin said although it might not answer the question directly but this is the type of thing a GSA would have say so over.
Grove said she understands all users are supposed to be treated equal and shouldn’t big and small farmers be treated equal. Gosselin said again the local GSA has that responsibility. It has its community considerations to deal with. He said using the best available science will by its nature have a range of adoptions. He said while not being an attorney in his opinion adjudication could undercut approved GSPs.
Grove said she represents three of the largest food producing counties in the United States and has many questions. She’d like to know about the Prop 4 funding roll out. She wants more information from the attorneys and not enough time in this hearing but requested more information and asked them to meet her in the office.
Gosselin said the Prop 4 intent is to update the guidelines before solicitation goes out. But he believes this will be much quicker than in the past. Grove asked if that includes the Governor’s executive order to get more recharge. He said it takes both the budget and the Governor’s goals to get half a million acre feet recharged annually.
Leahy said it is concerning to see a different safe yield in an adjudication from a sustainable yield in a GSP. She said a provision was added to SGMA that an adjudication can’t interfere with an approved GSP. Also SGMA can’t interfere with groundwater rights. Grove asked Leahy her thoughts on pumping restrictions. Leahy said adjudication is a pay for play, a closed process that only involves those who can afford the legal costs to participate. She said SGMA is for everyone. Leahy also said she’s married to a rice farmer so it depends on the crop how much water is used. Gosselin also said he’s willing to meet with the senators outside of this hearing.
Laird was next and asked Frank about adjudication. Frank said there was some legislation passed that was meant to harmonize groundwater adjudication with SGMA. He said the right hand must know what the left hand is doing so the SGMA and the adjudication officials all stay apprised of what is happening. Frank said there are some undergoing the SGMA process who have opted for adjudication.
Stern asked about the motivation to adjudicate and Frank said there are those who have become impatient with SGMA and are moving to adjudication. Stern said this is a problem and hopes DWR will use Prop 4 funds as an incentive to discourage adjudication.
Allen asked how smooth the process has been to get more recharge. Gosselin said there are two bigger recharge matters. The atmospheric rivers could cause flooding and there was an executive order to use recharge as a health and safety measure. There is also the expedited permitting process to get more recharge. He said DWR and other state agencies are working to get public funds into public use. He said there has been a lot of interaction with locals in getting more permitting finished. There is room for improvements.
Allen asked Frank what the legislators need to do to improve SGMA. Frank said the big danger is now that the GSAs and GSPs are formed and written all you have to do is sit around and wait for everything to be fixed in 2040. He said the legislators need to keep oversight to make sure things are moving in the right direction. He also said getting better media attention would help.
Allen asked Frank about additional law helping. Frank said yes in his opinion if a GSA is in probation it’s required to report more data but under the DWR care the GSA isn’t. It sounded like he wants more reporting on groundwater pumping in all situations.
Gosselin said with subsidence – it’s very difficult to stop subsidence and the profound impacts will be on agricultural land. That will need to be a much bigger consideration as land use changes. There are interim milestones to be reviewed every five years and DWR will have to determine if the subbasin is compliant and keeping up with sustainability momentum. This opens the possibility a subbasin could go into probation – even if the GSP was approved.
Leahy said there was a perception SGMA was not going to be a problem until 2040. That of course, is not the case. Limon said hearing that adjudication is pay to play is disturbing. She mentioned a school district that had to lay off staff because it has one well and couldn’t afford to participate in adjudication.
Please see part two for the complete hearing report.
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY; Waterwrights.net strives to provide its clients with the most complete, up-to-date, and accurate information available. Nevertheless, Waterwrights.net does not serve as a guarantor of the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and specifically disclaims any and all responsibility for information that is not accurate, up-to-date, or complete. Waterwrights.net’s clients therefore rely on the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information from Waterwrights.net entirely at their own risk. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not represent any advertisers or third parties.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2025 by WaterWrights.net
