Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation Adjudication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears legislative update on AB 1413 and AB 1466; debate centers on adjudications and protections for small users
Summary
Capital Corp's Michael McKinney briefed the Groundwater Authority on two state bills intended to reconcile groundwater adjudications with SGMA implementation; board members and public commenters debated due process, de minimis users, and potential effects on financing and basin management.
Michael McKinney of Capital Corp presented a legislative update to the Groundwater Authority on Assembly Bill AB 1413 and AB 1466 and explained how the bills aim to reconcile conflicts between groundwater adjudications and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation.
McKinney said AB 1413 would create a statutory framework to reconcile adjudications with GSPs, clarifying the court’s standard of review and procedural steps so adjudications do not indefinitely delay SGMA implementation or financing of projects. He told the board that code provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Water Code are implicated and that courts have expressed confusion in prior adjudications about how to reconcile the statutory regimes.
AB 1466, McKinney said, would establish a standard review for GSPs and allow courts to request a report addressing small farmers and disadvantaged communities, including de minimis groundwater users, to ensure their needs are considered during adjudication proceedings. McKinney said the bills had committee approvals and some support from local conservation districts; he noted opposition arguments in the packet that contend the bills could limit judicial review or access to due process.
Board discussion included sharply divergent views. Director Griffin expressed concern that the bills would limit the public’s ability to challenge GSPs and could remove procedural due process. Other board members, and presenters, said the bills are intended to avoid lengthy, costly adjudications that can stall GSP implementation and to provide options for protecting small users — for example, by providing reports, class counsel, or other mechanisms for de minimis users who cannot afford to participate directly in court. McKinney and other speakers emphasized the bills do not remove the ability to challenge a GSP; they described validation actions and other statutory mechanisms as available legal remedies.
Public commenters raised similar points. Wes Katzenstein asked that language and implementation ensure protections for domestic shallow-well owners; he asked that reports required under AB 1466 include de minimis users even if they are not “disadvantaged” by financial metrics. George Kroll, general manager of the water district, said the district’s primary concern is the cost of any import pipeline and how a statutory change might affect financing and whether a judicial challenge would lock in a particular sustainable yield value and thereby drive project economics.
Why it matters: Both bills address tension between court adjudications and local SGMA-led planning. Changes to how courts review GSPs or how de minimis users are represented could affect the ability of agencies to finance projects, how allocation rules are settled, and the legal remedies available to small well owners.
What’s next: McKinney reported that AB 1413 and AB 1466 were proceeding through Assembly committees and that stakeholder engagement was ongoing. Several board members urged continued review of bill language and amendments to protect de minimis users and small farmers, and members requested continued updates at future meetings.
