A panel overturned an injunction barring Golden State authorities from charging fees for groundwater usage at farms in Kings County, just outside of Fresno.
By Hillel Aron, Courthouse News
California’s water resources control board can regulate groundwater usage by farmers in Kings County, after the state’s appellate court threw out a preliminary injunction and overruled a demurer.
The pair of rulings means that farmers in the county will have to start metering and reporting how much water they draw from the ground, and pay the state fees of $300 per well and $20 per acre-foot of water used.
A spokesperson for the State Water Resources Control Board applauded the ruling, saying in a written statement that it would “allow the board to resume the important work of achieving sustainable groundwater management in the Tulare Lake subbasin while trial court proceedings continue.”
Dusty Ference, the executive director of the Kings County Farm Bureau, a nonprofit advocacy group representing farmers in the area that sued the state agency, said the group remains optimistic.
“The appellate court left standing our central arguments, including that the state overstepped its Sustainable Groundwater Management Act authority and imposed requirements without following proper process,” Ference said in a statement. “We look forward to having those claims fully heard in the trial court.”
In 2014, the Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which mandated that local agencies govern water basins that were in danger of running out of water, and required those agencies to submit plans to achieve long-term sustainability. Though the law intends to keep most regulation at the local level, it does impose state oversight on areas that are deemed “probationary,” giving state regulators the authority to monitor water usage and impose fees meant to pay for the agency’s costs.
The Tulare subbasin, located in the San Joaquin Valley in Central California, provides water for tens of thousands of farms growing a variety of crops, including almonds, pistachios, cotton and tomatoes. After the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act became law, local communities formed five groundwater agencies that worked together to submit a groundwater plan. But the state found that the plan was inadequate, and last year put the Tulare subbasin on “probation,” triggering monitoring and reporting conditions as well as fees.
The Kings County Farm Bureau sued the Water Resources Control Board soon after, seeking to quash the new regulations. In the complaint, the farm bureau claimed the probationary status will “devastate” the local economy with its accompanying fees for water usage.
In July 2024, the farm bureau scored an important legal victory when a judge agreed to issue a temporary restraining order, preventing the state from requiring meters to be installed or charging fees. The court later effectively extended the order by issuing a preliminary injunction. It also overruled a demurrer filed by the state as to all but one of the nine counts in the complaint.
The state appealed both rulings. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel sided with the state on both issues, throwing out the preliminary injunction and reversing the demurrer decision.
“The State Board acted within its authorization and without conflicting with other statutory provisions,” wrote Administrative Presiding Justice Brad Hill in the ruling. “The complaint itself fails to adequately allege a violation of the law, and the evidence submitted by the Farm Bureau does not correct this flaw.”
The Farm Bureau did notch one important consolation win. The State Board had asked the court, if the injunction was thrown out, to order the Farm Bureau to pay $7 million in lost fees. Hill rejected that argument, writing that the State Board did not need those funds to proceed with its groundwater program.
“While replenishing this fund is important, the funds would not be needed to run an enjoined program and would therefore not reimburse costs incurred and expended over the period of the injunction,” Hill added.
The rulings send the case back to the trial court, where the superior judge may consider a narrower injunction, pending trial.
