State board approves return of Kern subbasin plan to DWR pending three fixes

The State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously on Sept. 5 to accept staff’s recommendation to return the Kern County subbasin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Resources for final review conditioned on three outstanding items being resolved. The action followed a four‑hour staff presentation and public testimony in Bakersfield and by Zoom.

Board staff told members the draft 2025 GSPs broadly remedy many of the deficiencies identified in earlier reviews but still leave three priorities unresolved: (1) a sufficiently detailed mitigation program for drinking‑water wells affected by contaminants including 1,2,3‑TCP; (2) a clear funding and mitigation path for small state water systems and small public systems affected by declining groundwater; and (3) removal of an agreed sunset provision in a joint powers agreement that would otherwise end coordination in May 2026. Staff said those items must be addressed before the department completes its conformity review.

Why it matters: The Kern subbasin covers a large and hydrologically complex area that supplies drinking water for towns and irrigation for extensive agriculture. The board’s conditional referral is the step the State Water Board can take to return a basin to DWR oversight for final conformity review while keeping local management in the lead for implementation — but only if the three priorities are resolved.

Staff described edits in the 2025 draft that staff said strengthen protections compared with the 2024 materials. The plan raises many minimum groundwater level thresholds, tightens definitions of “undesirable results” for groundwater levels and quality, and expands technical monitoring and investigation procedures for water‑quality exceedances. Staff reported monitoring network improvements (an expanded representative well network and a hexagon‑based evaluation of data gaps) and said the GSPs now identify timeline targets for filling monitoring gaps and installing new monitor wells.

On mitigation, staff outlined two existing pathways for addressing impacts to wells: a mitigation track for domestic wells (wells with fewer than five service connections) that can include replacement wells and emergency water supplies, and a technical‑assistance track for small public systems. Under the draft, the domestic‑well pathway offers up to $90,000 per well for replacement, while the technical‑assistance option for public systems provides up to $50,000 for feasibility studies or grant development. Staff said GSA participants are developing a new financial assistance pathway that could provide up to $100,000 per affected small public system and additional emergency potable water supplies.

The staff presentation also recapped subsidence safeguards. The GSPs include criteria to detect and respond to subsidence near the California Aqueduct and a moratorium already enacted by one GSA on new groundwater extraction and new or replacement well drilling within 2.5 miles of the aqueduct between mileposts 195 and 215. Staff urged stronger methods to distinguish subsidence caused by groundwater management from subsidence caused by oil and gas extraction, noting that infrastructure impacts (canals, roads, rail) require clearer project‑level mitigation plans.

Board members who spoke during the hearing praised the level of local coordination since February and emphasized that the referral to DWR should not be seen as the end of state oversight: the board will continue to track implementation and expects local GSAs to complete the three items staff identified. The board adopted the staff‑proposed resolution with a roll‑call vote; the motion passed unanimously.

What comes next: Staff said it will verify that the three priority items are addressed in the final adopted GSPs and will then send the department a letter requesting DWR’s final review and return of the subbasin to local oversight. The board emphasized continued monitoring, public outreach and coordination among GSAs and state agencies during implementation.

Speakers in the record included State Water Board staff presenters and local GSA representatives who participated in the multiagency coordination; residents and community groups also testified later in the hearing about local water‑quality and access concerns.