How deep-pocketed groundwater users are stalling California’s sustainability plans

California is at a groundwater management crossroads as legal loopholes threaten to undo the state’s progress toward responsible groundwater sustainability.

At the core of this legal conflict are two legal processes. The first is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the landmark law passed in 2014 to bring order to overdrafting of basins and ensure long-term sustainability of the state’s groundwater resources. The second is groundwater adjudications, a legal tool to determine water rights of who can pump water and how much they can use.  

Increasingly, these two legal processes are clashing. As a result, it is causing confusion, delaying  implementation of groundwater sustainability plans and further putting California’s water future at risk. In fact, nearly a quarter of state-approved groundwater sustainability plans are being challenged in a groundwater adjudication. 

Litigants are using groundwater adjudications to challenge the technical findings of state-approved groundwater plans, data from the Department of Water Resources reveals. These plans are the product of years of science-based research, independent modeling, local stakeholder input and millions of dollars in public investment. 

The lawsuits bypass groundwater management law and are dragging every groundwater user in a basin into costly, years-long litigation, which ultimately is paid for by users who did not choose this water battle. The result? Delayed projects, regulatory uncertainty and a system that favors those who can afford to litigate over those who can’t. 

One of these legal challenges involves the critically overdrafted Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin, 597 square miles spanning Kern, Inyo and San Bernardino counties. As the chair of the groundwater authority responsible for managing this basin, I know firsthand the detriment of these legal loopholes.

Assembly Bill 1413 is sensible, straightforward legislation that would strengthen the state’s efforts to manage this precious resource. AB 1413 is intended to protect the right to challenging a sustainability plan, but at the same time, preserve the integrity of the groundwater law’s process and provide clarity to judges in adjudications.

AB 1413 addresses this growing problem by reaffirming the Legislature’s original intent: To afford the ability to challenge a sustainability plan by first introducing evidence as part of a validation  action. This process would be open, transparent and focused — unlike adjudications, which are  broad, expensive and often heard in a court far removed from the communities they affect.

Clarity is needed now. Judges in current adjudications have voiced frustration at the lack of legal  guidance, noting the difficulty of reconciling state law with the demands of adjudication. AB 1413 gives them the tools they need to respect both processes without compromising either. 

The bill also does not take away anyone’s legal rights. It simply ensures that technical disputes are handled in the appropriate venue, without undermining broader groundwater management law. 

Opponents state that adjudications and groundwater management law are separate and can coexist. But in practice, adjudications are being used to override local efforts and delay  sustainability measures.

This isn’t coexistence — it’s conflict.

Without legislative action, this conflict will only grow, negatively impacting most groundwater users, and leaving it to legal teams who can afford to fight for wealthy clients who simply want to kick the implementation of sustainability plans down the road. 

AB 1413 is not just a legal fix. It’s a defense of public process, scientific integrity and equitable  access to water governance. It ensures that all Californians — not just those with the deepest  pockets — have a voice in how our groundwater is managed. 

If lawmakers pass AB 1413, they can reaffirm California’s commitment to sustainable, community-driven water management. The future of our groundwater and the communities that depend on it are at stake.