BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1390 (Alejo) - Groundwater: adjudication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 19, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 8 - 0, |
| | JUD. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes (see staff |
| |comment) |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 24, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill may meet the criteria for referral to the Suspense
File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1390 would create special procedures for the
comprehensive determination of rights to extract groundwater in
a basin.
Fiscal
Impact:
Unknown reduction in costs to the General Fund for the courts
Unknown changes in legal costs to the General Fund for cases
in which the state is a party to a groundwater adjudication as
a holder of a water rights or as an intervener.
Background: Last session the Legislature passed the Sustainable
AB 1390 (Alejo) Page 1 of
?
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which required high- and
medium- priority groundwater basins to be managed pursuant
to a groundwater sustainability plan, with the goal of
achieving sustainability within 20 years. The SGMA does not
determine or change groundwater rights. To define, reduce,
or otherwise change groundwater rights, one must use a
common law process of adjudication which begin with a
lawsuit.
Groundwater adjudications are among the lengthiest court
proceedings in California and typically involve hundreds,
if not thousands, of parties, often with conflicting cases.
As such, these cases often take over a decade of judicial
activity. In order for certain basins to comply with the
requirements of the SGMA, especially in light of the
drought, groundwater rights will need to be determined in a
more timely fashion.
Proposed Law:
This bill would add a new procedure in the Civil Code that
would apply to actions that would comprehensively determine
rights to extract groundwater in a basin, whether based on
appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right. The
process would only apply to actions that involve comprehensive
allocations. Specifically, this process would establish, among
other things, the following:
The persons who would be required to be a defendant in the
adjudication.
The timeline in, and the language with, which the plaintiff
shall serve the defendants.
The right for the following entities to intervene in a
comprehensive adjudication: a groundwater sustainability
agency for the basin, a city or county that overlies the
basin, a person with fee simple ownership in a parcel in the
basin, and the state
The disqualification of a judge of a superior court that
AB 1390 (Alejo) Page 2 of
?
overlies the basin or portion of the basin.
The ability of the court to provide or authorize the use of an
electronic service system.
The revision of groundwater basins by the Department of Water
Resources (DWR)
Requirements for initial disclosures. Judicial Council would
be authorized to develop a form for initial disclosures. To
the extent possible, parties would be required to serve the
initial disclosures electronically.
Requirements for the use of expert witnesses, written
testimony, and special masers. The court may request that DWR
or the State Water Resources control Board recommend
candidates for appointment as a special master or to review
qualifications of candidates.
The ability for the court to issue a preliminary injunction,
stay, or stipulated judgement.
Related
Legislation: SB 226 (Pavley) creates a streamlined legal
process used to assign water rights in a groundwater basin. SB
226 is pending in Assembly Appropriations.
Staff
Comments: To the extent the streamlined processed established
in this bill will reduce the amount of court time dedicated to
an adjudication case, this bill may result in court savings,
though the amount of those savings is unknown. Also, in the
cases where the state is a groundwater rights holder, there will
also be unknown savings to the state as a party to the case.
This bill could also result in unknown new costs by allowing the
AB 1390 (Alejo) Page 3 of
?
state to intervene in a complete adjudication. The state's
involvement could be a simplification or complication of the
case thereby also affecting court courts. Staff notes that even
if the state's involvement results in a complication of the
complete adjudication, the process established under this bill
still will likely be shorter and less costly than a case under
the existing process.
Staff notes that the authors of this bill and SB 266 are
currently in discussions with the Governor's office
regarding reconciling differences between the two measures
and a proposal from the Governor. This bill is likely to be
further amended in the future to reflect these discussions.
This bill constitutes a state mandate as it creates a new crime.
However, under the California Constitution, costs associated
with this mandate are not reimbursable.
-- END --