Dusty Ference, executive director of the Kings County Farm Bureau, told the Hanford City Council on Nov. 4 that the Farm Bureau’s lawsuit challenging the State Water Resources Control Board’s decision to place the Tulare Lake Subbasin on probation remains active and will proceed toward trial in Kings County.

Ference outlined the litigation timeline: the subbasin had a probationary hearing in April 2024; the Farm Bureau obtained a temporary restraining order in July and a preliminary injunction at the trial court level in September; the state board appealed those orders and the appellate court issued an opinion that will lift the preliminary injunction 30 days after the ruling. Ference said the appellate decision did not dismiss the Farm Bureau’s case and that the remaining causes of action remain scheduled to be heard in the trial court.

Why this matters: the Tulare Lake Subbasin covers much of Kings County and the Farm Bureau argues the state board applied its rules inconsistently across subbasins. Ference said the dispute centers in part on the Good‑Actor provision of SGMA, which two other subbasins received as favorable treatment while Farm Bureau members in the Tulare Lake Subbasin were denied similar consideration. “This effort is having statewide implications,” Ference said, adding that the controversy reaches beyond farming because agriculture supports roughly one quarter of Kings County jobs and has an estimated 1.4 jobs‑per‑dollar economic multiplier for the county.

Ference urged local governments to join as amici to show courts the regional economic stakes. He told council that cities weighing in “makes a big difference,” and that the Farm Bureau’s website offers updates and an email newsletter to follow the litigation.

Council members asked procedural and substantive questions: they sought clarification about what issues were appealed (the appellate review was limited to the preliminary injunction and certain trial court rulings), what remains for trial (four causes of action, per the trial judge’s earlier ruling), and why the subbasin was placed on probation (the Department of Water Resources initially deemed the subbasin plan incomplete and later insufficient, prompting State Water Board intervention as a last resort). Ference said some agency demands—including a 2023 emphasis on eliminating subsidence immediately—go beyond the statutory SGMA timeline and are, in his view, unachievable and inconsistent with the law’s intent.

Ference also framed the dispute as larger than local policy: “This is bigger than Kings County,” he said, and invited council members to attend upcoming Farm Bureau events where the organization intends to share its next steps.

No formal council action was taken on the request during the Nov. 4 study session; council members asked staff to accept the Farm Bureau’s presentation materials and indicated interest in exploring an amicus request through the city manager and city attorney.