Committee advances bills on groundwater adjudication and temporary protections for small water systems and managed wetlands

Two water‑policy items with substantive debate were presented and advanced out of the Appropriations Committee.

AB 1413 (author: Pappen) — Groundwater adjudication and the "size of the pie": The author described AB 1413 as a follow‑up to prior groundwater legislation and said it is intended to preserve the local process for determining sustainable yield and to give validated Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) deference in adjudication proceedings. The Nature Conservancy testified in support, saying the bill "prohibits a court from adopting a sustainable yield in an adjudication proceeding if such a yield allows more total pumping on an annual basis than the average sustainable yield established in a validated groundwater sustainability plan covering the basin." Testimony emphasized that the bill preserves the right to judicial review while reducing duplicative proceedings that could delay plan implementation and increase costs. The author noted proposed amendments and ongoing discussions with stakeholders; the bill was recorded as advanced on a roll call.

AB 929 (author: Connolly) — Temporary protections for small community water systems and managed wetlands: The author said managed wetlands and small community water systems are critical resources and that some basins are "overdrafted." The bill would temporarily exempt historically required groundwater to support these small systems and wetlands from pumping reductions and fines under SGMA, subject to limits and a three‑year sunset in an amended version. Audubon California testified in support describing habitat and water‑supply benefits. The author and witnesses said the exemption is limited to historical uses and that increases above historical amounts would remain subject to Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). The bill was advanced on a committee roll call.

Supporters framed AB 1413 and AB 929 as tools to protect ecosystems and disadvantaged communities while maintaining the SGMA process. Opponents and some commenters raised concerns about due‑process and potential conflicts with long‑term groundwater sustainability goals; authors said judicial review remains available and that the bills aim to minimize duplicative litigation.

Next steps: Both items were moved out of the committee on roll calls as recorded in the hearing transcript; the excerpt does not include complete roll‑call tallies.