By Lisa McEwen, SJV Water
The Kings County Farm Bureau is passing the hat to raise between $1.5 million and $2 million to take its legal claims against the state Water Resources Control Board to the California Supreme Court.
“We’re not stopping,” Executive Director Dusty Ference told a gathering of about 30 farmers Friday.
“We are arguing that SGMA and this probationary designation has statewide implications so broad that it’s appropriate for the (state) Supreme Court to review this,” he said. “Frankly, we didn’t expect the appellate court to review the steps that they reviewed, so we are hopeful that is an indicator of what the state supreme court might do.”
Ference referred to opinions issued last week by the Fifth District Court of Appeal that both sided with the state by tossing out a preliminary injunction and kept the meat of the Farm Bureau’s lawsuit intact for trial in Kings County Superior Court.
The preliminary injunction had halted state sanctions for more than a year after the Water Board placed the Tulare Lake subbasin, which covers most of Kings County, on probation for lacking an adequate groundwater plan.
Those state sanctions would have required farmers to meter and register their wells at $300 each, report extractions and pay the state a $20-per-acre-foot fee.
Additionally, Ference told growers that a memo sent out by the Water Board Oct. 31 that says it will retroactively collect those fees back to April 2024, may not be legal. Farmers are also being required to report their pumping from July 2024 to Sept. 2025 by May 1, 2026, according to a Water Board announcement.
The Farm Bureau has put the state Attorney General on notice that it will request clarification on the retroactive fees when its case is released from the appellate court’s jurisdiction on Dec. 29.
Meanwhile, other causes of action in the lawsuit are expected to be heard in Kings County some time in 2026. Those include whether the Water Board exceeded its authority and imposed sanctions improperly.
Another aspect of the 5th District’s rulings that piqued local interest was a finding that the Water Board failed to analyze whether two groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) qualified for the so-called “good actor” exemption as they had requested.
That applies when certain GSAs are in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) even if other GSAs in the subbasin are not. Instead of making that analysis, the 5th District said, the Water Board improperly lumped all Tulare Lake subbasin GSAs together as out of compliance.
Funding a Supreme Court action will be expensive, Ference said. Just filing the appeal is estimated at $75,000.
The Farm Bureau has already spent $600,000 in legal fees so far, and recently hired a professional fundraiser to target specific donors.
“Our lawsuit is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying the state water board,” Ference said of the costs. “Once that money goes to the state, they will use it against you.”
He said the preliminary injunction saved growers from paying fees during the 2024 and 2025 irrigation seasons. He estimated they would have paid $8 to $12 million in pumping fees to the state without the legal barrier.
Meanwhile, the five groundwater sustainability agencies in the Tulare Lake subbasin continue writing their groundwater plans with a goal of submitting to the state by March 1, said Amer Hussain.
Farm Bureau board member Chad Souza asked when the “five heads of the family” were likely to get around the table to hammer out a coordination agreement. The lack of a cohesive groundwater plan was one factor in the state’s decision to put the Tulare Lake subbasin on probation.
“Getting them all to agree to one method (of allocations), I don’t know if that’s going to happen,” Hussain said.
