With the recent celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), it seems appropriate to look back at one of the fundamental elements on which it was founded: local control. Many fought for local control when the legislation was being developed prior to its passage in 2014, arguing groundwater management is best accomplished at the local level. This is contrary to how new state regulations are implemented, from the top down.
This foundational concept of local control captures the essence of SGMA: granting first authority to locals to create and maintain sustainable groundwater conditions. From the formation of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to developing the groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to completing projects and implementing management actions, the onerous effort is put on the locals. Of course, SGMA accounted for and includes a state back-stop, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), for when the locals struggle and need temporary oversight through the probationary process.
While locals fought for and ultimately won local control as the default setting under SGMA, the costs incurred so far have been a reality check. Achieving groundwater sustainability in the critically over-drafted basins in the Central Valley is a challenging endeavor that requires hefty investment. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) recently reported that there are 86 basins with approved GSPs and seven (7) with inadequate GSPs. Whether approved or inadequate, the cost to achieve groundwater sustainability is significant and comes in many forms.
The Kings Subbasin is one of the 86 basins with an approved GSP. The cost of local control in the Kings Subbasin has mostly been focused on the construction of groundwater recharge basins and projects with more than 600 acres of basins either complete or under construction since 2020, at a cost of more than $50 million. Much of the Kings Subbasin is situated in parts of Fresno County where the soil conditions are sandy and prime for getting significant amounts of water into the aquifer. The groundwater recharge basins allow for surface water to be captured and percolate to replenish the groundwater aquifer, which pays dividends in wet years like 2023, when historic amounts of groundwater recharge were realized. A remarkable 500,000 acre-feet of recharge within the Kings Subbasin footprint, just shy of one million acres, was accomplished in 2023. That is the equivalent of a Millerton Lake (capacity of about 500,000 acre-feet) being stored underground to replenish the aquifer in the Kings Subbasin boundary. And there are more basins planned to be able to do even more when there is available surface water.
Unanticipated Cost of Local Control:
While much activity has been focused on the recharge projects, other costs of maintaining local control have become evident. One of those with a significant price tag is the requirement to develop, launch, and fund programs mitigating impacts to domestic wells that run dry due to declining groundwater levels. While the Kings Subbasin, and other subbasins, would argue the SGMA timeline allows 20 years to reach sustainability and begin mitigating for impacts to groundwater uses and users, DWR had a different determination, which required the mitigation program to be implemented and funded by the time the first periodic evaluation was submitted in January 2025. Public entities make up many of the GSAs in the Kings Subbasin and are limited by Proposition 218 to be able to increase fees and generate revenues, creating a significant challenge to funding a brand-new program far ahead of the previously anticipated schedule and one with a significant price tag. The Kings Subbasin GSAs scrambled to demonstrate to DWR its commitment to maintaining local control by launching its domestic well mitigation program in October 2024 with dedicated funding.
Other Costs:
GSA managers across the Central Valley and the State may argue there are some elements of SGMA which would be easier to implement by mandate rather than a delegated local issue. However, you would not have to search too far to find a GSA manager of a basin in the probationary status with the State Board to find a counter argument for holding local control sacred. Change is hard, and meaningful stakeholder engagement…of all stakeholders…takes time, but both are essential elements to maintain local control and achieve groundwater sustainability. More changes and more costs are coming, including the following:
- Oversight Over Groundwater Pumping/Extractions
- Well Locations/Registration
- Increasing Existing Reservoir Capacity
- Expanding Recharge Capabilities
- New Regulations to Comply With
Whether change is required by the GSA or prompted by local landowners wanting to do their part to help achieve groundwater sustainability, every action results in being one step closer to the goal. Much has already been invested in developing GSPs which cost as much as $1M funded by locals and through DWR Proposition 1 grant dollars and includes the necessary outreach and technical support to develop the GSPs, the roadmap to sustainability.
Why It’s Worth It:
The attacks on local control have begun and will continue as GSAs navigate to chart their path to groundwater sustainability. Attacks have already started including those launched through proposed well permitting legislation, which sought to strip local control from county permitting agencies and GSAs for issuance of new well permits. The regulation would have applied across all high and medium priority basins designated by DWR and removed local control from the newly formed GSAs. Each year, there are multiple legislative bills proposed to modify SGMA, and most are aimed at removing local control and replacing it with requirements by regulation. While SGMA granted local control, it does not address every issue.Local GSAs, their elected boards, and stakeholders are committed to continuing implementation and avoiding the State Board probationary status in which everyone’s attention is focused on meeting regulatory deadlines rather than stepping appropriately through designing management actions. Local control is worth protecting and defending because the alternative is far more costly and doesn’t eliminate the need for change.
Final Thought:
A reminder of why SGMA is different and why maintaining local control is the far better alternative: when the pain of local control seems unbearable, it’s good to remember why local control is integral to the foundation and concept of SGMA. Local leaders, working day in and day out on SGMA, bring local knowledge and connections honed by years of experience functioning within the landscape of local elected officials, technical professionals, public agencies, and special district staff who are all motivated to achieve success by 2040. These leaders face the challenging responsibility of local control which means decisions must be made to address the conditions, concerns, and restraints of all stakeholders who are directly impacted. Fact: The next 15 years will be filled with pain points. Navigating and overcoming those… together… are necessary to keep the Central Valley thriving for generations to come. Yes. The costs will be significant. But the alternative is far more costly.
