State staff outline when board can step in on overdrafted basins; reporting, fees and mitigation plans explained

State Water Resources Control Board staff updated the board on the process and tools the state can use to temporarily manage groundwater basins when local agencies fail to achieve sustainability under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Natalie Store, assistant director for the presentation, said the board’s intervention is intended as a backstop when local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) cannot correct deficiencies in their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs).

The update explained why the state may intervene and how that intervention proceeds. Under the process described by staff, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and board staff review GSPs for completeness and likely achievement of sustainability; if a plan is found inadequate, the board may place the basin under a “probation” or interim management to protect groundwater and infrastructure while local agencies remedy shortfalls. Staff said the board gives agencies time to fix deficiencies, but if insufficient progress occurs the board can adopt a temporary plan and require reporting, measurement and fees.

Board members and state staff framed the issue as urgent for agriculture, domestic wells and infrastructure. Staff noted sustained overdraft and land subsidence in several Central Valley subbasins, and warned that those physical changes can damage infrastructure and raise public-health risks when naturally occurring contaminants become concentrated. Joseph Paul Austin, director at the Department of Water Resources, joined staff remarks describing coordination between state agencies during the review and implementation steps.

Staff summarized recent and expected actions: staff reviewed dozens of GSPs and identified multiple basins with critical overdraft; the Tulare Lake subbasin has already been placed under an interim determination that suspended some actions pending further review, and staff said they expect to produce formal recommendations to the board by the end of 2025. Staff also said the board is planning public hearings in affected counties, with a September 17, 2025 date mentioned for one county-level approval hearing.

Reporting, fees and tools. Staff described the GEARS (Groundwater Extraction Annual Reporting System) online reporting tool and a new Rapid Reporting Assistant and minimis calculator intended to help small extractors determine whether they must report. Melanie (staff member) presented the current fee framework staff has proposed for extractors in basins under probation: a $300 annual well fee plus a volumetric fee of $20 per acre-foot of reported extractive use. Staff said extractors in designated basins must register in GEARS, locate wells, assign parcels to reported wells and file monthly extraction totals in acre-feet for the water year; staff cited a sample timeline where extractors would begin reporting January 1, 2025, submit annual reports by Feb. 1, 2026, and see fees assessed in April 2026, though staff emphasized specific dates depend on the board’s determinations and any subsequent board action.

Mitigation and emergency support. Staff outlined mitigation measures intended to protect domestic water users while GSAs work toward sustainability. The staff presentation described a mitigation program budgeted at roughly $5.8 million annually to support emergency and temporary measures, including delivery of bottled water and temporary tank supplies for households whose domestic wells are impacted. Staff also described guidance and best-practice materials for GSAs to design mitigation plans that facilitate rapid, low-barrier claims processes and prioritize households without other potable sources.

Outreach, language access and equity. Staff reviewed expanded outreach efforts, including translated materials and community workshops, and urged GSAs to do more to reach small agricultural producers, non-English speakers and other groups that staff found were underinformed during initial plan development. The presentation stressed that improved outreach, multilingual materials and coordination with community organizations were essential to both plan development and mitigation design.

Public comment. Four public commenters spoke after the staff presentation. Ángela Islas, a resident and commenter, urged stronger attention to domestic-well mitigation and noted existing emergency programs have limited funds. Darek Rosed, representing a Kern County GSA coordination group, described local outreach and technical work his agency has completed and encouraged continued coordination with state staff. Kashaha Ok urged stricter limits on pumping and robust application of state guidance to protect communities and agricultural users.

What the board did and next steps. The presentation was an informational briefing; staff said no new board regulation or board vote was taken at the session. Staff signaled they will continue working with DWR and local GSAs, refine guidance documents (including scientific guidance on surface-water connectivity), translate on-line tools and publish further guidance and recommendations later in 2025. The board and staff said public hearings and additional workshops will precede any adoption of temporary plans or long-term enforcement actions.