May 30, 2024

A challenging groundwater bill, AB 2079 (Bennett), continues to move through the legislative process. This bill would restrict local control of groundwater, previously guaranteed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), by mandating the denial of permits for large-diameter, high-capacity wells within a quarter mile of a wells supplying domestic water

A Second Bite at the Apple?

AB 2079 would fundamentally redirect groundwater management from the SGMA’s original intent, which allowed for flexible local control based on hydrologic conditions. All basins above a medium priority are currently required to be managed under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) under Water Code Sec. 10720.7 (a)(2). Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) must annually report to the Department of Water Resources on progress towards sustainability (Water Code Sec. 10728). SGMA anticipated development of new locally-managed rules culminating with final approval and adoption of GSPs by 2025 in all required basins.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has already had an opportunity to review GSPs and to make recommendations to approve and adopt, or to reject and move these basins to probationary hearings at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). DWR will continue to review progress made towards these approved plans annually. This process is clearly set out within the SGMA legislation and subsequent guidance documents. Those basins that have moved to the SWRCB will move through the SGMA outlined probationary hearing process and will be afforded due process through a public hearing schedule. CSAC, along with partner GSAs and water agencies, is closely following these probationary hearings.

Counties and GSAs have expended significant sums in their efforts to comply with SGMA and prepare paths forward toward sustainability. By essentially replacing the local control element of SGMA related to well interference and subsidence mitigation with a statewide, inflexible mandate, this bill makes these expenditures superfluous. Keeping the focus on a holistic approach to groundwater sustainability that is driven by local knowledge will maintain meaning behind the public funds already invested in SGMA and will ensure that locals can tailor their strategies to local conditions.

Notifications Cumbersome and Expensive

The notification process outlined in the legislation is cumbersome and expensive—and may be difficult to achieve. The notifications are overly complicated and unnecessary in some cases. Counties are often the lead agency but are not always the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). The bill includes confusing notification language requiring a LEA to also notify all other LEAs administering well programs within a basin regardless of whether that LEA is within the jurisdiction of the LEA or not. The legislation requires LEA to notify by written US Postal Service all owners or agents of all parcels within a one-mile radius—including in areas where rural postal service is challenged by closed post offices and services. Failure to meet any of these multiple requirements would likely result in lawsuits.

Opposition and Call for Amendments

CSAC maintains an Oppose unless Amended position on the legislation which could be heard as early as mid-June in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. Our robust coalition includes farming and ranching, water agencies, groundwater management agencies, and business and manufacturing representatives. CSAC encourages counties to engage by writing letters on the bill or by contacting Catherine Freeman, CSAC Senior Legislative Advocate at cfreeman@counties.org.