By Monserrat Solis, SJV Water
Arguments over a preliminary injunction that has held off state groundwater sanctions in Kings County since last year are set to be heard before the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno Oct. 7.
The State Water Resources Control Board will argue to dismiss both the injunction and the underlying lawsuit, according to an email from Water Board Spokesperson Edward Ortiz.
The Kings County Farm Bureau sued the Water Board after claiming it exceeded its jurisdiction when it placed the Tulare Lake subbasin on probation in April 2024 under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which aims to have local entities bring aquifers into balance by 2040.
The Water Board cited subsidence, dry wells and a lack of coordination between groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for its probationary finding.
“I do not expect any kind of an answer from the appellate court on the seventh; they’ll take into consideration what is said, in addition to the written brief, and then make a ruling and notify us of that ruling sometime after the seventh,” Farm Bureau Executive Director Dusty Ference told SJV Water.
In September 2024, the Farm Bureau won a preliminary injunction preventing the Water Board from imposing sanctions on farmers in the Tulare Lake subbasin, which covers most of Kings County.
According to the injunction, the Water Board exceeded its authority, made unlawful demands of Kings County water managers and lacked transparency in its attempt to reign in excessive groundwater pumping.
Under probation, the Water Board would require farmers to meter and register their wells at $300 each, report extractions to the state and pay $20 per acre foot pumped.
The Water Board appealed the preliminary injunction and the judge’s denial of its motion to dismiss the case to the 5th District.
While the preliminary injunction has kept the state sanctions at bay, groundwater agencies have implemented many of those same measures, including registering wells, reporting extractions and penalties for exceeding pumping allocations.
Policy Manager for the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Nataly Escobedo Garcia expressed her support for the Water Board’s appeal, saying those measures are needed to protect groundwater and ensure sustainability.
“We’re really looking for the courts to reaffirm the state’s ability to enforce SGMA,” Escobedo Garcia said. “It’s not just about Tulare Lake. It’s about the entire Central Valley, which has been overdrafted for decades.”
The Leadership Council had previously submitted comments in support of placing the region on probation for the protection of the “human right to water,” she said.
If the court rules against the Water Board, it could hinder the state’s enforcement of SGMA overall, Escobedo Garcia said.
“It would send the wrong message, that you don’t necessarily have to abide by this law; the way it was written and that it would impede the state’s ability to step in when it’s needed,” she said.
Only two local agencies have publicly shared support for the Farm Bureau’s lawsuit.
In December 2024, the Tulare County Farm Bureau pledged $10,000 to help pay costs of the lawsuit in order to send a “strong message” to the Water Board. The announcement was made after the Water Board also placed the Tule subbasin, which covers the southern half of Tulare County’s flatlands, on probation.
The City of Lemoore submitted an “amicus brief,” or friend of the court motion, in May in support of the injunction. Lemoore called the Water Board’s sanctions “arbitrary and capricious,” questioning the legality of the sanctions.
In response, the Water Board asked the court to dismiss Lemoore’s brief. The response, which included the Attorney General’s office, called the city’s brief “flawed” and “unsupported” due to “flawed legal reasoning.”
