SGMA at 10 Years: Navigating California’s Groundwater Future

This year marks the 10th anniversary of a major milestone in California water law history: the enactment of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. This landmark legislation signaled a critical step toward regulating groundwater resources across the state by requiring the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage certain groundwater basins identified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). GSAs were required to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) tailored to the needs of their respective basins in order to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. In its 10th year of implementation, this article reviews the progress made, the next steps, and identifies implementation challenges.

Progress and Next Steps

DWR identified 48 medium-priority basins and 46 high-priority basins, of which 21 were designated as critically overdrafted. SGMA required a GSA to be created by June 30, 2017 for all of these basins. In some instances, more than one GSA was formed to co-manage a basin. Next, the GSAs were required to develop and submit a GSP for DWR review that outlines the management policies that will mitigate overdraft and achieve basin sustainability within 20 years. GSAs managing critically overdrafted basins submitted their GSPs in 2020; GSAs managing other high- and medium-priority basins submitted their GSPs in 2022. Among other issues, the GSPs are targeted toward addressing groundwater depletion, land subsidence, seawater intrusion, and chronic lowering of groundwater levels.

The GSAs have a range of tools they can use to respond to those issues, subject to respect for water rights constraints, including imposing limits on groundwater pumping, charging fees for excessive groundwater use, and implementing basin recharge projects. SGMA requires GSAs for critically overdrafted basins to achieve sustainability goals by 2040, and the remaining GSAs must achieve these goals by 2042.

Some local agencies and stakeholders across the state managed to meet SGMA’s deadlines. To date, DWR has approved 71 GSPs. There are nine GSPs that are still under review, 13 that have been designated as “incomplete,” and 23 designated as “inadequate.” GSAs with “incomplete” GSPs can revise and resubmit their plans for a final determination from DWR.

The 23 “inadequate” GSPs correspond to six basins areas, all of which are located in the Central Valley. There is also one unmanaged basin for which no GSA was ever formed and no GSP ever submitted: the Upper San Luis Rey Valley Subbasin. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has intervened in this basin and now requires groundwater users to report on their annual pumping activities and pay fees related to water use.

The GSAs with “inadequate” GSPs will be required to consult with the State Water Board and their basins could be designated as “probationary” through a public process with a public hearing. If this occurs, those GSAs have one year to remedy the issues that led to the probationary designation and groundwater users in these regions could be subject to reporting requirements and fees similar to those imposed on the unmanaged basin. So far, none of the basins have been designated as “probationary.” The GSAs with “inadequate” GSPs will continue to coordinate with DWR and the State Water Board in order to comply with all SGMA requirements.

Outlook

Some GSAs have been implementing their GSPs in their respective basin areas for a few years now, and they did not have to wait for DWR approval before doing so. As a result, some groundwater users in certain basins have experienced restrictions in the amount of water they are allowed to pump. Other groundwater users have been exposed to new fees associated with pumping, and still others have not noticed much change at all. The impacts vary from one regulated basin to the next.

It is a central tenant in SGMA’s provisions that it cannot be implemented in a manner that harms existing groundwater rights. Nevertheless, groundwater users have worried since the Act passed that it would result in such harm. Unsurprisingly, as GSAs finalized and submitted for review or began implementing their GSPs, litigation followed. Landowners in several counties in the Central Valley, Central Coast, and eastern desert regions are challenging the management tools the GSAs are utilizing on the grounds that the tools unlawfully interfere with their water rights to groundwater. Disputes have erupted over volume limitations, priority to sustainable yield, and fees imposed on acreage and water extraction volumes. In some instances, plaintiffs are asking the courts to conduct a comprehensive adjudication of all water rights in the basin area and to impose a physical solution to timely reach mandated sustainable yield goals in order to displace the tools or approach chosen by a GSA.

As these cases make their way through the courts, the decisions will help delineate the extent of a GSAs’ authority to regulate groundwater use under SGMA. There are likely to be more challenges to GSP implementation, modifications to GSPs as groundwater conditions change, and possibly a new role for the State Water Board in regulating basins that fail to comply with SGMA mandates.