Please complete the form below to subscribe and recieve our monthly eAlerts via email.
Hosted by the Groundwater Resources Association of California, the Third Annual Western Groundwater Congress took place on September 14-17, 2020, in a virtual conference format. On September 16, shareholders Aaron Ferguson and Nick Jacobs appeared remotely for live Q&A in conjunction with their pre-recorded session titled “SGMA Isn’t Working – When It’s Time to Adjudicate. Wait, When is it Time?” A transcript of the video follows.
Nick Jacobs (NJ): Good morning, good afternoon, whatever time this session is happening! Our talk today is entitled SGMA Isn’t Working – When It’s Time to Adjudicate. Wait, When is it Time? This is intended as a practical discussion of the key issues to consider if your Sustainable Groundwater Management Act process isn’t working and you or your district is considering the alternative of a groundwater adjudication.
There have been some great and informative presentations over the past couple of years regarding the nuts and bolts of SGMA and the streamlined adjudication process, and really presented towards an attorney audience. Our talk is not that. Our discussion today is intended for non-attorneys and focuses on laying out the key strategic issues and decisions associated with evaluating whether your particular SGMA process is working or if it is time to consider initiating a groundwater adjudication.
So, our talk today is not very technical, but it is important. The decision to adjudicate should be well thought through. Groundwater adjudications are time-consuming – they will take years to resolve. They are very expensive. It is important, therefore, that you consider the key issues and get sound legal advice from water attorneys and top-notch hydrogeologists.
After analyzing these four key factors, you will have a better idea of whether to consider filing a groundwater adjudication.
Aaron Ferguson (AF): So, let’s jump right into it. SGMA is complicated, groundwater adjudications can be complicated, but we’ve identified four key issues to focus on when determining whether the SGMA process has run its course and it is time to adjudicate. Those issues are:
Those are the key issues, and so let’s take a closer look at each one.
NJ: In thinking about all of these issues, you have to consider whether there are factual and/or legal arguments that could convince a judge in an adjudication to reach different conclusions than the GSA or what is in the GSP? This analysis should be done prior to making the decision whether to adjudicate. Be wary of any lawyer who tells you to file the adjudication before you have a thorough understanding of these key issues and whether the GSP got them wrong.
AF: The statute defines sustainable yield as “the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result.”
NJ: “Undesirable results” are:
AF: Understanding the sustainable yield quantity and how it will be applied to your situation is crucial. The sustainable yield quantity is determined differently in various GSPs, and some don’t state a quantity at all. Most determine sustainable yield by developing a water budget using a model or suite of models. Models may be used to evaluate land surface and `surface water processes, soil water balance, and groundwater inflow/outflow. A water budget not only provides a basis for estimating the maximum quantity of water that can be withdrawn without causing undesirable results, but also for setting thresholds intended as triggers for guiding management actions to ensure sustainability is achieved by the statutory deadline.
NJ: You should consult a hydrogeologist to help understand how your GSP determined the sustainable yield, how it applies to you or your district, and whether it rests on reasonable facts and conclusions. This analysis will cost money, but it is necessary to allow evaluation of whether to take the significant step of filing an adjudication. As well, information developed regarding your basin’s sustainable yield will be useful in an adjudication, if necessary.
AF: You may be wondering how the phrase “significant and unreasonable” factors into the establishment of sustainable yield. By requiring impacts to be “significant and unreasonable” in order to constitute “undesirable results,” SGMA provides a fair amount of discretion to GSAs in establishing sustainable yield. This discretion could be relevant in litigation against the GSA regarding its GSP or actions taken by the GSA based on its GSP, such as pumping reductions. It may also be relevant in the context of an adjudication, where, under the “streamlined adjudication” statutes adopted in 2015, judgments issued in an adjudication must be consistent with SGMA and a GSA’s ability to achieve sustainable groundwater management, including any proposed physical solution. (WC 10737.8; CCP 849(b).)
AF: In evaluating whether to adjudicate, you need to understand your water rights and then determine whether the GSP honors those rights. You should consult a water rights attorney to get a formal opinion regarding your water rights. Again, like the sustainable yield analysis from an expert hydrogeologist, this attorney work can also be used in an adjudication.
NJ: The primary groundwater rights are overlying and appropriative. Overlying rights are senior in priority. Groundwater pumped for municipal service is generally characterized as appropriative. A third category of rights, prescriptive rights, arises from historic pumping in an overdrafted basin. Prescriptive rights can also have a senior priority, but SGMA states that no new prescriptive rights can ripen after January 1, 2015. This statutory provision will likely be tested and clarified in judicial proceedings. The basin may also contain supplies that would not otherwise be present in the basin but for a specific action by a party that results in the water accruing to the basin. The party whose actions make such water supplies present in the basin holds the right to that water. Examples include: (1) water “imported” from outside the watershed or (2) which is captured that would have otherwise been lost to the basin, and which is recharged to the basin.
AF: A key question is whether the GSP identifies and differentiates groundwater rights consistent with the groundwater right priority rules? If so, are the junior pumpers responsible for paying the costs associated with developing supplemental water supplies, or having their pumping quantities reduced before the senior pumpers? If you have senior water rights, such as overlying rights, and the GSP appears to make no distinction between junior and senior right holders, this should be a cause of concern.
NJ: A particularly thorny issue is if you have a good claim to prescriptive rights. Again, prescriptive rights may arise when a junior pumper is pumping in an overdrafted basin, or when a senior pumper is using more than its correlative share of the overdrafted basin’s sustainable yield. The establishment of prescriptive rights is determined on a case-by-case basis, and so without an adjudication and determination of those rights it may be difficult for a GSA to assess or recognize these rights. Prescriptive groundwater rights have played a major role in certain groundwater adjudications, however, and if you or your district has a good argument for prescriptive rights and those rights are not being honored in the GSP, you might consider adjudication.
AF: Additionally, if you own overlying land, but have not pumped groundwater for application to that land, you may hold valid unexercised overlying rights, if they have not been lost to prescription. Even if not lost to prescription, they are, however, subject to risk of subordination in an adjudication, meaning that they lose their priority status as overlying rights. The California Supreme Court has approved the State Water Resources Control Board’s subordination of unexercised riparian rights to surface water. While the courts have not applied the principle of subordination in the groundwater context to unexercised overlying rights, the streamlined adjudication statutes allow the court to consider applying the principles established by the California Supreme Court. Thus, it is important to understand how your GSA treats unexercised overlying rights in the GSP and carefully weigh whether you may run the risk of a court subordinating your unexercised overlying right in an adjudication.
NJ: Questions you, your hydrogeologist, and your attorney should consider are the following. Pardon us if there is some overlap with the prior discussion, as some of these issues meld together.
AF: GSAs all over California are working to develop supplemental water supplies in the form of groundwater banking and projects to import surface water. If it appears your GSP sets a sustainable yield that will either impose pumping restrictions or require purchase of supplemental water, you need to understand two primary issues: (1) the quantity of supplemental supplies you will be required to purchase; and (2) the estimated cost of these supplemental supplies. The answer to the first question is important because, for instance, you may find that the GSA is requiring purchases of supplemental water by senior groundwater rights holders even though senior demands do not exceed the sustainable yield. This would run counter to the groundwater priority rules that would apply in an adjudication. The answer to the second is important when weighing the costs and benefits of purchasing supplemental supplies versus participating in an adjudication. Adjudications are expensive. If you or your district will not need to buy supplemental supplies, or if the costs appear reasonable, adjudication may not make sense.
NJ: After analyzing these four key factors, you will have a better idea of whether to consider filing a groundwater adjudication.
Generally, an adjudication is intended to result in a conclusive determination of relative rights to groundwater and assignment of responsibility for implementing projects to insure basin sustainable yield (this is referred to as the “physical solution”). While the court certainly has jurisdiction to declare the priority, amount and purposes of use, it is worth mentioning again that the streamlined adjudication statutes introduce some level of uncertainty as to how strictly courts will adhere to the rule of priority in the face of the statutory mandate to issue judgments that respect the SGMA process in the basin. Importantly, an adjudication provides a framework for implementation of actions under continuing court supervision. Often some of the most consequential work and decisions affecting a groundwater basin occurs after the initial judgment. In particular, new realities may emerge in the search for supplemental supplies and the associated cost.
AF: We have focused primarily on groundwater adjudications for resolving potential impacts to your water rights imposed by a GSA. Groundwater rights holders can also directly litigate a GSA’s determinations. SGMA mandates that such litigation proceed pursuant to a standard of review that is deferential to the GSA. (WC 10726.6(e).) Nevertheless, this sort of direct action may provide an adequate remedy much more quickly and at less cost than a groundwater adjudication. So, it is important to consider whether such a lawsuit can provide you with an adequate remedy.
NJ: We are not advocating for more groundwater adjudications. They should be considered a last resort and, in the context of SGMA, only filed where it is apparent that your water rights are not being respected. You should seek objective advice from your hydrogeologist/hydrologist and water attorney regarding whether there are clear errors in the GSP or in how the GSA intends to achieve sustainability.
With an objective assessment of the GSP and future groundwater regulation, an adjudication may be warranted in situations where a GSP does not honor your water rights, and it is apparent that the GSA will attempt to impose pumping restrictions and/or excessive charges for supplemental supplies.
Somach Simmons & Dunn provides the information in its Environmental Law & Policy Alerts and on its website for informational purposes only. This general information is not a substitute for legal advice, and users should consult with legal counsel for specific advice. In addition, using this information or sending electronic mail to Somach Simmons & Dunn or its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship with Somach Simmons & Dunn.Read more news and alerts »