BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Version: July 6, 2015
Hearing Date: July 14, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Groundwater: Adjudication
DESCRIPTION
This bill would establish special procedures for comprehensive
adjudication actions filed in superior court to determine the
rights to extract groundwater from a basin. Specifically, this
bill would, among other things:
require certain defendants to be named in an adjudication
action;
require the complaint to be served and published in a
specified manner;
authorize specified entities to intervene in an action;
provide a draft notice and form answer that substitutes for
the summons otherwise required in civil actions;
limit the ability of the parties to disqualify judges;
specify the initial groundwater basin boundaries;
require parties to make specified initial disclosures;
require parties to disclose specified information about expert
witnesses;
authorize the submission of written testimony in lieu of live
testimony;
authorize the appointment of a special master to report on
specified legal and factual issues;
authorize the stay of an adjudication for up to one year,
subject to renewal, to allow the parties to develop a
groundwater sustainability plan; and
authorize the court to determine if a final judgment is
consistent with the sustainability goal of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 2 of ?
BACKGROUND
Groundwater adjudications -- civil cases to determine rights to
groundwater in a particular area -- are among the lengthiest
court proceedings in California. These cases typically involve
hundreds if not thousands of parties, often with conflicting
claims over the right to extract groundwater. According to one
commenter:
There is a joke among lawyers that working on one groundwater
adjudication can make your career. The laborious court
process settles fights over rights to the state's increasingly
overtapped aquifers and sets out long-term management plans
for them. And while they are crucial to resolving water
rights disputes, getting there is not easy.
Case in point is an adjudication of the Antelope Valley
groundwater basin, which has been sitting in a trial court for
15 years. The case is enormous, involving a multitude of
public agencies and landowners large and small who hold
groundwater pumping rights. Parties include cities, farmers,
the federal government, and a class of 85,000 property owners
who hold groundwater rights but who have never pumped water.
There are 9,404 docket entries in the case so far and more
than 100 lawyers listed on the case . . .
There are several reasons these cases take so long, and
attorneys agree some parts of the process could be improved to
speed them up. Finding a way to expedite the service process
is one. Identifying all the parties and getting them
personally served is "a very lengthy and expensive and not
very reliable process," said Thomas S. Bunn, with Lagerlof,
Senecal, Gosney & Kruse LLP, who is involved in the Antelope
Valley adjudication. He said it took six years to serve the
parties in that case.
Discovery is also a real headache because a lot of time is
spent trying to figure out the basic information in the case -
who is pumping, how much they are pumping, how much water they
are claiming a right to and how they use the water . . .
Requiring litigants to provide that information up front could
cut a big chunk off time and expense . . . (Fiona Smith, State
Looking to Speed Groundwater Lawsuits, Daily Journal (Oct. 29,
2014).)
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 3 of ?
This bill would create special procedures in adjudication
actions for comprehensively determining rights to extract
groundwater in a basin. This bill states that the special
procedures established to determine groundwater rights in such
adjudications shall not alter groundwater rights or the law
concerning those rights. The procedures established for
comprehensive adjudications in this bill would operate
separately from the development of a groundwater sustainability
plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, but would
authorize a court to stay an adjudication to facilitate the
development of a plan under that act.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing case law recognizes a right under the common law to
adjudicate disputes between overlying landowners concerning
water for use on the land in cases where the supply is
insufficient for all. Such disputes between landowners with an
equal right to water are to be settled by giving to each a fair
and just proportion. (Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 136
(Cal. 1903).)
Existing law , the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
requires all groundwater basins designated as basins subject to
critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a
groundwater sustainability plan by January 31, 2020, and
requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or
medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to
be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan by January
31, 2022, except as specified. (Wat. Code Sec. 10720 et seq.)
Existing law defines "undesirable result" to mean one or more of
the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring
throughout a groundwater basin:
chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a
significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued
over the planning and implementation horizon, as specified;
significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage;
significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including
the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water
supplies;
significant and unreasonable land subsidence that
substantially interferes with surface land uses; or
depletions of interconnected surface water that have
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 4 of ?
significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial
uses of the surface water. (Wat. Code Sec. 10721(w).)
This bill establishes special procedures to comprehensively
determine rights to extract groundwater in a basin, whether
based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of
right. These procedures apply to an Indian tribe and the
federal government, to the extent authorized by federal law.
These procedures shall not alter groundwater rights or the law
concerning groundwater rights.
This bill states that other provisions in the Code of Civil
Procedure apply to procedures in a comprehensive adjudication to
the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of this
bill.
This bill states that a court's final judgment in a
comprehensive adjudication, as to the right to groundwater of
each party, may declare the priority, amount, purposes of use,
extraction location, and place of use of the water.
This bill specifies that a complaint in a comprehensive
adjudication shall name all of the following persons as
defendants:
all general or special districts managing or replenishing
groundwater resources in the basin in whole or in part;
the operator of a public water system that uses groundwater
from the basin to supply water service; and
the operator of a state small water system that uses
groundwater from the basin to supply water service.
This bill requires, within 30 days of filing the complaint, the
plaintiff to serve the complaint on all named defendants and all
cities and counties that provide water service and overlie the
basin in whole or in part. Notice of the complaint shall also
be published once a week for two successive weeks.
This bill requires a court to allow a county or city identified
in the complaint, or a person holding fee simple ownership in a
parcel in the basin, to intervene in the adjudication.
This bill requires, after determining that the action should
proceed to comprehensively determine rights to extract
groundwater within the basin, that the court shall issue an
order authorizing service of notice of the complaint to
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 5 of ?
landowners.
This bill provides a draft notice summarizing the causes of
action alleged in the complaint and the relief sought, as well
as a draft form answer to respond to the complaint, that parties
must lodge with the court after it issues an order authorizing
service of notice of the complaint to landowners.
This bill provides, following court approval, that the tax
collector or tax collectors of the county or counties in which
the basin to be adjudicated lies shall include the
court-approved notice and form answer with the next annual
property tax bill sent to each landowner.
This bill requires the court-approved notice to include a
statement advising anyone claiming the right to use groundwater
within the basin to file an answer with the court within 30 days
after service by mail.
This bill additionally requires service by personal delivery or
by mail on any known person that pumps groundwater that would
not otherwise be served, as well as on named parties in the
complaint.
This bill provides that on the 60th day following completion of
the mailing and the fulfillment of other specified service
provisions, these service provisions shall be deemed effective
service of process of the complaint and notice on all interested
parties of the comprehensive adjudication for purposes of
establishing in rem jurisdiction and the comprehensive effect of
the comprehensive adjudication.
This bill provides that failure to join the United States or an
Indian tribe to a comprehensive adjudication shall not deprive
the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
This bill limits each side to moving only once for the
disqualification of a judge hearing the comprehensive
adjudication action.
This bill provides that a comprehensive adjudication shall be
presumed to be a complex case within the meaning provided in
Rule 3.400 of Title 3 of the California Rules of Court.
This bill provides that the initial basin boundaries for a
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 6 of ?
comprehensive adjudication shall be the basin boundaries
identified in the Department of Water Resources' report entitled
"California's Groundwater: Bulletin 118."
This bill requires, except as otherwise stipulated or ordered by
the court, and without awaiting a discovery request, all parties
to provide to the other parties, initial disclosures containing,
among other things:
the name and contact information of each party;
the quantity of any groundwater extraction from the basin by
the party during each of the 10 calendar years immediately
preceding the filing of the complaint;
the claimed right and beneficial purpose of any use of
groundwater;
the identification of all surface water rights and contracts
that the party claims provides the basis for its water right
claims in the comprehensive adjudication; and
the quantity of any replenishment of water to the basin that
augmented the basin's native water supply, resulting from the
intentional storage of imported or non-native water in the
basin, managed recharge of surface water, or return flows
resulting from the use of imported water or non-native water
on lands overlying the basin by the party during each of the
10 calendar years immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint.
This bill states that a party shall make its initial disclosures
based on the information then reasonably available to it, and
that a party is not excused from making its disclosures because
it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges
the sufficiency of another party's disclosures or because
another party has not made its disclosures.
This bill states that in addition to the other required
disclosures, a party shall disclose to the other parties the
identity of any expert witness it may use at trial to present
evidence.
This bill provides that, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered
by the court and except as provided, the disclosures pertaining
to expert witnesses shall be accompanied by a written report,
prepared and signed by the expert witness, if the expert witness
is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in
the case or whose duties as the party's employee regularly
involve giving expert testimony.
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 7 of ?
This bill would specify that the report shall contain all of the
following:
a complete statement of all opinions the expert witness will
express and the basis and reasons for them;
the facts or data considered by the expert witness in forming
his or her opinions;
any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the
opinions of the expert witness;
the expert witness' qualifications, including a list of all
publications authored in the previous 10 years;
a list of all other cases in which, during the previous five
years, the expert witness testified as an expert at trial or
by deposition; and
a statement of the compensation to be paid to the expert
witness for testimony in the case.
This bill states that a court in a comprehensive adjudication
may require the parties to submit written testimony of relevant
witnesses in the forms of affidavits or declarations under
penalty of perjury in lieu of presenting live testimony.
This bill authorizes the court to appoint a special master to
report on legal and factual issues designated under a specific
order, and sets the qualifications for individuals who may be
selected as special masters. This bill also specifies certain
duties that may be performed by special masters.
This bill authorizes the court to stay a comprehensive
adjudication for a period of up to one year, subject to renewal
in the court's discretion upon a showing of good cause, in order
to facilitate, among other things, the timely development of a
groundwater sustainability plan under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act that may serve as the basis of a
stipulated judgment setting forth a physical solution for
management of the basin. This bill states that the total time
period a comprehensive adjudication may be stayed shall not
exceed 5 years.
This bill provides that before the court issues a final judgment
in a comprehensive adjudication, a party may file a motion for
an order determining that the judgment is consistent with the
sustainability goal of the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act. If the court determines that the judgment will achieve the
sustainability goal for the basin established by the Sustainable
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 8 of ?
Groundwater Management Act, this bill provides that the judgment
shall be considered an alternative to a groundwater
sustainability plan and shall be deemed to satisfy the
objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations
related to groundwater adjudications.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
AB 1390 will streamline the process as to how a court
determines water rights within a groundwater basin.
Last year the California legislature passed and the Governor
signed into law comprehensive groundwater management
legislation. One of the issues left undone in the package of
the three groundwater bills was taking steps to improve our
groundwater adjudication system. The Governor in his signing
message indicated interest in streamlining the adjudication
process. Currently this process is longer and less efficient
than it could be if certain procedural rules are established.
AB 1390 will:
Clarify the court procedures applicable to comprehensive
groundwater adjudications in order to reduce the time and
improve the efficiency of these actions. This does not
mean groundwater adjudications will be fast and simple, but
that the process will be significantly more efficient.
Encourage early settlement and avoid unduly disrupting
local groundwater planning efforts.
Three of the most significant improvements are: 1) a
preliminary hearing to ensure that a comprehensive
adjudication of groundwater rights is appropriate; 2) clear
rules on proper service of process to all overlying
landowners; and 3) early disclosures of groundwater use.
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 9 of ?
Other improvements address designation of adjudication
actions as complex, phasing of the litigation, efficient
identification of groundwater basin boundaries, assistance
to the court of a special master, among other changes.
AB 1390 will make our groundwater rights adjudication system
more efficient. The legislation will be focused on procedural
matters and not address any substantive principles of water
law or local groundwater planning under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
1.Impact on Groundwater Adjudications
This bill would introduce a number of new procedures to common
law groundwater adjudications that would likely improve their
speed and efficiency. Chief among these new procedures are
requirements that direct all parties to disclose through
discovery specific limited information about their claims in a
groundwater adjudication, as well as information about expert
witnesses that will provide testimony on their behalf, without
waiting for a discovery order from the court. As noted in the
Background above, the discovery process in groundwater
adjudications leads to significant delays as parties wait for
each other to submit information about their claimed rights to
groundwater. The processes implemented by this bill, analogous
to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would
require all parties to provide basic information about their
claimed interest in the adjudication and about the expert
witnesses they plan to have testify on their behalf very early
in the proceedings. The provision of this information at the
beginning stages of an adjudication will allow the court and the
parties to more quickly frame the issues to be addressed, and
should reduce delays associated with parties strategically
waiting to produce discoverable evidence.
Aside from other procedural changes, such as designating initial
basin boundaries, and authorizing the appointment of special
masters, this bill would also provide that Section 389 of the
Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply to any failure to join
an Indian tribe or the United States to a groundwater
adjudication. Section 389 provides that a person who is subject
to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the
court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) in his absence
complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties;
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 10 of ?
or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the
action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in
his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his
ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the
persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If such a person
cannot be made a party, Section 389 empowers the court to
dismiss the action if it determines the non-joined party is
indispensable to resolution of the matter. In California,
groundwater basins are shared by a multitude of people and
entities, including federally recognized Indian tribes and
instrumentalities of the United States. Since these entities
might have a claim or interest in a groundwater basin, and since
California may, in some instances, be unable to compel them to
become a party in a groundwater adjudication, this provision of
the bill ensures that the non-joinder of those parties would not
result in the dismissal of the adjudication.
The California Farm Bureau Federation, sponsor, writes:
The goal of AB 1390 is to address the time sinks that occur in
current groundwater adjudications by clarifying the processes
that must be followed. Particular challenges exist in
groundwater adjudications including determination of venue,
identification of basin boundaries, disqualification of
judges, notice and service of parties, discovery, and [the]
ability of parties to reach settlement. This bill would
reform procedural rules to improve the functioning of each of
those areas by providing tools to the court and claimants to
move more efficiently through the adjudication process, such
as trial phasing, deadlines for disclosures of water usage and
submission of written testimony and expert disclosures. All
of these reforms will significantly reduce costs associated
with the courts, claimants, and local groundwater management
entities.
2.Impact to Due Process Rights
One of the procedural efficiencies proposed in this bill is to
streamline the process of notifying affected parties of a
groundwater adjudication. Under this bill, notice of an action
calling for the comprehensive adjudication of a groundwater
basin would be accomplished by including a copy of the
complaint, along with a court approved form answer, with the
annual property tax bill mailed to each overlying landowner.
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 11 of ?
Under this bill's streamlined notification procedure, anyone
receiving notice via their tax bill that claims a right to use
groundwater within the basin would be required to file an answer
with the court no later than 30 days after receiving the notice.
While efficient, this proposal for streamlining the process of
notifying landowners of a pending adjudication may not be
sufficient to meet constitutional due process requirements.
According to the United States Supreme Court, "[a]n elementary
and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding
which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections. The notice must be of
such nature as reasonably to convey the required information,
and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to
make their appearance." (Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust
Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 314 [internal citations omitted].)
"[W]hen notice is a person's due, process which is a mere
gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as
one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably
adopt to accomplish it." (Id. at 315.)
Under existing law, notice of an adjudication is generally
provided by personal service of a summons and a copy of the
complaint to each party in the action. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
415.10.) Personal service has historically been the preferred
method of providing parties with notice of suit because it is
best calculated to draw attention to the importance of the
information being conveyed, and is highly likely to come into
the possession of the intended recipient. Where a court
determines that a party to be served cannot with reasonable
diligence be served by personal service or in another manner
specified in the Code of Civil Procedure, existing law empowers
the court to order service by other means, including by
publication. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 415.10.) Service by other
methods like publication is useful in giving unknown parties
notice of a proceeding which they may have an interest in, but
it is not nearly as effective as personal service for providing
actual notice. (See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
339 U.S. 306.)
The Rural County Representatives of California and the
California State Association of Counties, in opposition, have
questioned whether notification of an action via inserts
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 12 of ?
enclosed with a property tax bill "comports with due process of
law." They state:
The assessment roll need not - and often does not - include
all current fee owners of real property. For example, the tax
roll often lags recorded changes of ownership, sometimes by
over a year. Further, the tax roll may simply list "unknown
owners" if the identity of the owner is not known to the
assessor. Mailing notice to the address on the tax roll
(especially in the tax bill where people do not commonly look
for litigation summons) may not comply with the due process
standards employed by California courts . . . Additionally,
many landowners do not receive a property tax bill as they pay
their property taxes via an impound account. Due process
issues may also arise if the tax bill containing the notice is
returned unclaimed.
Further, landowners who set aside their annual property tax
bill, knowing payment is not required until some weeks or months
later, or knowing that it will be automatically paid by their
mortgage servicer, may inadvertently miss the 30 day window
established by this bill for filing a response to the enclosed
complaint.
Given the significant due process problems that could arise by
serving notice of a groundwater adjudication through a property
owner's annual tax bill, the Committee may wish to explore other
alternatives to streamlining the process for serving notice.
Potential amendments to this part of the bill would include,
instead of providing notice through annual tax bills,
authorizing a waiver of personal service through a mechanism
analogous to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or
creating a notice procedure that incorporates the process
established for statutory stream adjudications in Water Code
Section 2527.
Suggested Amendments :
strike provisions related to service of landowners
through annual property tax bills;
authorize waiver of personal service; and
authorize service by a combination of methods, including
by certified mail, that together are reasonably calculated
to provide actual notice of an adjudication.
1.Impact to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 13 of ?
In a common law adjudication, groundwater basins are managed
according to the concept of "safe yield," and overlying
appropriators are limited when total basin groundwater
extraction exceeds the basin's safe yield, leading to basin
overdraft. The safe yield of a groundwater basin is "the
maximum amount of water that could be extracted annually, year
after year, without eventually depleting the underground basin.
Safe yield is generally calculated as the net of inflows less
subsurface and surface outflows." (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (
2012), 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.)
The management goal of achieving a safe yield in a common law
groundwater adjudication differs from that in the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which instead seeks to
achieve a "sustainable yield." A sustainable yield is one in
which 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.
(Wat. Code Sec. 10721(v).) In general, an undesirable result
under SGMA is one that results in any of the following: the
chronic lowering of groundwater levels; significant and
unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; significant and
unreasonable seawater intrusion; significant and unreasonable
degraded water quality; significant and unreasonable land
subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses;
or depletions of interconnected surface water that have
significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses
of surface water. (Wat. Code Sec. 10721(w).)
Since the concept of "safe yield" used in groundwater
adjudications could allow parties to extract more groundwater
than would be permitted under a groundwater management plan
crafted under SGMA, it is possible that improving the speed and
efficiency of groundwater adjudications could lead parties not
inclined to participate in the SGMA process to use adjudications
as a way to circumvent that process. Clean Water Action, in
opposition, states:
We need to ensure that adjudications, even expedited ones, do
not delay implementation of SGMA's goal of sustainable
management of groundwater. [This] bill needs to allow for
State Water Board, local groundwater sustainability agency
(GSA), Department of Water Resources, and Department of Fish
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 14 of ?
and Wildlife intervention, particularly when a medium- or
high-priority basin, which is required to implement a
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP), is adjudicated. This
will ensure that there is proper communication and
coordination between all parties to the adjudication and those
who would be consulted or in charge of a GSP. In addition, it
assures that beneficial uses in a basin that are not directly
represented in the adjudication process -- for instance
beneficial uses in groundwater-dependent streams -- will have
the protection of the appropriate regulatory agency. Finally,
if a GSP needs to be created, even an interim one by the State
Board, all parties will have participated in proper
information sharing, expediting implementation of a GSP.
Adjudications should not be used as an avenue to subvert [the]
goals and requirements of SGMA. Safeguards need to be created
to prevent parties from using an adjudication solely to avoid
the creation of a GSP.
Similarly, sections of this bill that authorize a court to
determine that a final judgment issued in a comprehensive
adjudication is consistent with the sustainability goal of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act could encourage parties
to redirect resources from the SGMA planning process to an
adjudication. The Sierra Club of California, in opposition,
states:
The effect of this provision to supersede existing planning
efforts by GSAs and the public would be a lack of adequate
environmental input in the decision making process. The
resulting judicial order that would serve as a GSP alternative
would be made by a judge or through stipulated judgments by
parties, neither guaranteeing that environmental concerns are
considered. AB 1390 has no mandatory requirement that a party
with technical expertise on water supply and environmental
needs be included to assist with the sustainability
determination. It is likely that if water supply in a future
adjudication is so scarce, that all parties to the case would
likely be adverse to curtailment of over pumping of
groundwater likely required by SGMA's sustainability goals.
This could lead to a situation where, without proper
oversight, environmental concerns will not be adequately
addressed.
2.Other Stakeholder Concerns
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 15 of ?
Community Water Center states, "[w]hile we appreciate the
author's previous and ongoing work to address drinking water
barriers for small communities and support the intent of the
bill, the proposed streamlined adjudication process outlined in
AB 1390 does not adequately protect the interests of
underrepresented and disadvantaged communities." To better
represent these communities and enhance their ability to
participate in adjudications under this bill, these stakeholders
suggest that the bill be amended to allow for the awarding of
attorney's fees and costs to those beneficial users who can
prove significant financial hardship, and to require notices
related to an adjudication to be translated in any and all
languages spoken by 10 percent or more of the population
residing in a basin, as well as any other languages as
appropriate.
One individual, writing in opposition, states "[a] bill
streamlining litigation of groundwater rights must be simple to
implement, consistent with current procedural laws, retain the
scientific and legal integrity necessary to evaluate a
groundwater basin . . . and protect the rights of those who
depend on groundwater. AB 1390 is far too complicated, is
inconsistent with current procedural laws, eliminates meaningful
and unbiased scientific review of a groundwater basin, fails to
equally protect the rights of all classes of groundwater users,
and is inconsistent with groundwater case law and statutes."
Support : Agricultural Council of California; Almond Hullers and
Processors Association; Association of California Egg Farmers;
California Association of Wheat Growers; California Bean
Shippers Association; California Cattlemen's Association;
California Chamber of Commerce; California Citrus Mutual;
California Cotton Ginners Association; California Cotton
Grower's Association; California Dairies Inc.; California Fresh
Fruit Association; California Grain and Feed Association;
California Pear Growers Association; California Seed
Association; California Tomato Growers Association; Pacific Egg
and Poultry Association; Western Agricultural Processors
Association; Western Growers Association
Opposition : California League of Conservation Voters;
California State Association of Counties; Clean Water Action;
Community Water Center; Rural County Representatives of
AB 1390 (Alejo)
Page 16 of ?
California; Sierra Club of California; one individual
HISTORY
Source : California Farm Bureau Federation
Related Pending Legislation : SB 226 (Pavley, 2015) would
establish special procedures for courts use in determining
rights to groundwater under the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA). This bill would specify procedures for,
among other things, making determinations of rights to
groundwater under SGMA, for serving notice to unknown parties,
for providing initial disclosure of discoverable information,
including information pertaining to expert witnesses, and for
intervention by the Department of Water Resources and the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 0)
**************