State Water Board pauses decision on probation for Kern County subbasin, requires GSAs to bolster outreach and submit revisions

The State Water Resources Control Board on Feb. 20 continued a decision on whether to declare the Kern County Subbasin probationary under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), adopting an alternative resolution that requires local agencies to strengthen outreach and submit revised plan materials for board staff review.

The continuance follows a full-day hearing in which board staff summarized a final staff report identifying remaining deficiencies in the subbasin’s 2024 groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) — in particular coordination across the 20 GSAs, groundwater-level monitoring and minimum thresholds, land subsidence attribution and mitigation, and groundwater-quality protections. Board staff and Department of Water Resources presenters described technical findings, then allowed panels from the subbasin’s GSAs, water banks, municipal purveyors and community groups to respond.

BOARD ACTION AND WHY IT MATTERS

Chair Joaquin Esquivel moved to adopt the alternative resolution continuing the probationary hearing; board member Sean Maguire seconded. The board recorded unanimous “aye” votes from board members Nicole Morgan, Sean Maguire, Laurel Firestone and Chair Esquivel. The motion carried and the board adopted additions to the staff resolution that require the GSAs to enhance community outreach and to submit outreach plans and technical updates to board staff for review.

The continuance preserves the staff’s option to bring the basin into probation later if the remaining deficiencies are not resolved. A probationary designation would trigger reporting and fee requirements for most extractors in the basin and could lead to further State Board action — including development of an interim plan with possible pumping limits — if deficiencies are not corrected.

WHAT STAFF FOUND

State Water Board staff summarized the final staff report (released 2025-01-21) and described five major categories of deficiencies identified in the GSPs: coordination across GSAs; groundwater-level sustainable management criteria (SMCs) and monitoring network gaps; land subsidence analysis and mitigation; groundwater-quality monitoring and response; and assessment of interconnected surface water. Staff noted that the December 2024 adopted plans address many earlier concerns but that key technical gaps remain and that some issues likely need more than the preliminary review to confirm whether they are fully resolved.

Staff presented two choices for the board: (1) designate the subbasin probationary at the hearing, or (2) continue the hearing to allow GSAs time to submit revised materials. Staff emphasized that probation is intended to be temporary and that SGMA requires the State Board to return basins to local control once plan deficiencies are remedied.

WHAT LOCAL AGENCIES SAID

Representatives of the Kern County Subbasin GSAs — coordinated through the Kern County Subbasin Coordination Committee — described a multiyear, basin‑wide effort to produce the 2024 GSPs, emphasizing new coordination across 20 GSAs, common data and methods, and a portfolio of projects and management actions (including demand management and recharge/banking). The GSAs told the board they had engaged extensively with staff since the draft report, had revised the plans, and proposed a schedule to provide amended drafts for review and to adopt corrected plans before a continued hearing date. The GSAs asked the board to continue the hearing so local agencies and state staff could finish the exchange and finalize amendments.

STAFF CONDITIONS ADDED TO THE CONTINUANCE

Before voting, board staff read proposed additions to the continuance resolution that the board adopted. The new language requires that, as a condition of the continuance, GSAs (a) enhance community outreach and engagement so affected communities and municipal drinking water customers receive clear information about the GSPs’ effects on their systems; (b) work with local community organizations to create and implement additional outreach plans tied to the GSP amendments; and (c) provide staff, no later than one month after the resolution is adopted, with those outreach plans and include a description of outreach activities in their plan submittals by the June 2025 milestone staff requested. (Staff previously recommended GSAs submit draft corrected plans by mid‑June 2025 and adopt them before the continued hearing; the board adopted the staff resolution with the added outreach language.)

KEY TECHNICAL AND POLICY POINTS RAISED

- Groundwater overdraft and water budgets: Staff and DWR presenters showed the basin is critically overdrafted. DWR’s estimates cited by staff put the basin’s long‑term sustainable yield near 1.3 million acre‑feet per year, while recent pumping reached about 2.3 million acre‑feet in the critically dry water year 2022 (falling to about 900,000 acre‑feet in the wet 2023 water year). Staff reported an average basin overdraft around 274,000 acre‑feet per year.

- Monitoring network and SMCs: Staff flagged gaps in monitoring-well construction details (depths and screen intervals), incomplete representation of shallow domestic wells in monitoring networks, and hydrogeologic variability that can create disproportionate local impacts. Staff recommended GSAs refine minimum thresholds and strengthen monitoring, including nested or depth‑targeted wells where needed.

- Well mitigation: GSAs described a well mitigation program administered with Self Help Enterprises that prioritizes domestic-well users and a separate technical‑assistance track for small community water systems. Presenters said the program is funded by a revolving reserve sized to cover conservative worst‑case scenarios (program presenters described assumptions such as planning for up to about 15 domestic wells per year and an estimated upper cost per full replacement of a impacted well used for planning). GSAs and staff agreed to continue refining the mitigation design and funding assumptions.

- Reporting, measurement and fees if probation is adopted: Staff outlined statutory reporting and fee mechanisms that would apply if the basin were placed on probation. Staff recommended excluding de minimis household extractors (≤2 acre‑feet per year) from reporting and fees, starting extractor measurement and reporting on June 1, 2025, with statutory default annual reporting due 02/01/2026. Staff also recommended certified meters for users pumping more than 500 acre‑feet per year and for extractions within subsidence‑sensitive conveyance corridors. Staff summarized the fee framework (staff’s model: a $300 per‑well base fee plus approximately $20 per acre‑foot volumetric fee, with waivers available for certain small community water systems and low‑income applicants).

- Subsidence and critical conveyance: DWR and staff presented InSAR and GPS data showing subsidence in parts of the basin (maximum cumulative subsidence in the subbasin since 2015 near 2.5–2.75 feet in localized places). GSAs outlined glide‑path SMCs for subsidence and described coordination with Friant Water Authority and California Aqueduct operators on targeted mitigation in reaches of conveyance that are sensitive to land‑surface lowering.

COMMUNITY TESTIMONY

More than a dozen residents and community groups testified (in English and through translators), urging strong, enforceable protections for domestic wells, water quality and disadvantaged communities. Several community speakers asked the State Board not to delay action, saying that past delays had left residents exposed to water‑quality and supply risks. Other municipal water suppliers, small water districts and tribal leaders asked the board to continue the hearing to allow local GSAs time to finish the final technical corrections and preserve local implementation momentum. Tribes, mayors and elected representatives also provided written and oral statements asking the State Board to allow more time for the basin’s GSAs to finish corrections.

WETLANDS AND WATER BANKING

Presenters from federal and state wildlife agencies, conservation groups and private wetlands easement holders asked the board to ensure that managed wetlands and wildlife easements are protected from unintended harm by groundwater actions. Wetlands representatives noted that many managed wetland units rely on groundwater (or on imported surface water that recharges groundwater) and urged application of the state’s “no‑net‑loss” expectations for wetlands during the SGMA review. Water‑banking participants and municipal purveyors detailed active recharge and banking programs (more than 1.1 million acre‑feet reported stored regionally in banking accounts) and stressed that banking and conjunctive‑use projects underpin both local and statewide reliability; bank operators committed to continue coordinating with State Board staff on how recharge and bank accounting interact with SMCs and GSP implementation.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

- The board adopted the continuance resolution with added outreach requirements. The resolution directs GSAs to supply outreach plans to board staff within one month and to include descriptions of outreach and amendments in submittals by the June milestone staff described. Board staff will continue technical review of the December 2024 adopted plans and the revised materials GSAs provide.

- If the GSAs address the outstanding deficiencies to staff’s satisfaction, the State Board can return the basin to DWR oversight. If significant deficiencies remain after at least one year of probation, the State Board may proceed toward an interim plan that could include enforceable pumping limits. Conversely, if GSAs fix the problems while on probation, the State Board can rescind the probationary designation.

Lede close: The continuance gives local agencies more time to refine technical and outreach work while the State Board maintains oversight authority — and preserves the option to adopt probationary controls if plan deficiencies are not corrected.

Nut graf close: The board’s action reflects the tension built into SGMA implementation — balancing local control and the need for enforceable protections for drinking water, infrastructure and environmental values — and sets a clear next phase: technical fixes, expanded community engagement and renewed staff review rather than an immediate onboarding of state intervention.

Ending: Board staff and GSA representatives said they expect intensive technical collaboration over the next months and will return to the board after staff completes its review of amended submittals. Community groups continue to press for enforceable protections for domestic wells and groundwater‑dependent wetlands while municipal suppliers and water banks urged more time for locally driven fixes rather than immediate state intervention.