Groundwater: comprehensive adjudication.
Summary
The California Constitution requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which applies to all groundwater basins in the state, all basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft, as specified, are required to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020. This bill would establish special procedures for a comprehensive adjudication, which is defined as an action filed in superior court to comprehensively determine rights to extract groundwater in a basin. The bill would authorize the court to determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. The bill would provide that these special procedures governing comprehensive adjudications do not apply in certain cases that do not involve a comprehensive allocation of a basin's groundwater supply. The bill would authorize a judge of the superior court to determine if the action is a comprehensive adjudication, as specified. This bill would require the plaintiff in a comprehensive adjudication to provide notice of the comprehensive adjudication within a specified amount of time after filing the complaint to certain persons including a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin. The bill would require a draft notice and draft form answer, as specified, to be lodged by the plaintiff with the court when filing the complaint. Within 30 days of the assignment of a judge by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, the bill would require the plaintiff to file a motion for approval of the draft notice and draft form answer. Following a court order approving the notice and form answer and authorizing service of landowners, as specified, the bill would require the plaintiff to identify the assessor parcel numbers and physical addresses of all real property in the basin and the names and addresses of all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; mail the notice, complaint, and form answer to all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; and publish the notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation, as specified. The bill would require the plaintiff to file with the court a notice of the completion of the mailing. The bill would deem fulfillment of the service and publication provisions as 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 would authorize a groundwater sustainability agency for the basin or a portion of the basin, a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin, and certain persons to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication. This bill would require the court to convene a case management conference and would authorize the court to consider certain matters, including dividing the case into phases to resolve legal and factual issues, in the initial case management conference or as soon as practicable. In addition, the bill would require each party to serve within 6 months of appearing in the comprehensive adjudication, specified initial disclosures made under penalty of perjury to all other named parties and a special master, if one has been appointed in the action. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the court to appoint one or more special masters in a comprehensive adjudication, whose duties could include, among other things, investigating technical and legal issues, as directed by the court, and compiling a report of the findings, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to request the State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Water Resources to recommend candidates for appointment as a special master or to review the qualifications of candidates. This bill would authorize the court, upon a showing that the basin is in a condition of long-term overdraft, to issue a preliminary injunction that could include, among other things, a moratorium on new or increased appropriations of water. The bill would provide that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication is binding on the parties to the action, their agents and employees, and all their successors in interest. The bill would also provide the court with continuing jurisdiction to modify or amend a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication in specified instances. This bill would require the Department of Water Resources and each county and groundwater sustainability agency that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin to post and maintain the notice and form answer on their Internet Web sites, as specified. By requiring counties to take certain actions related to the comprehensive adjudication, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would provide that it will only become effective if SB 226 is enacted and becomes effective.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2015
Committee Review
Sep 2015
Assembly Passage
May 2015
Senate Passage
Sep 2015
Signed into Law
Oct 2015
Introduced Feb 27, 2015
Signed Oct 9, 2015
Floor votes · Senate Sep 10, 2015 · Assembly May 26, 2015
How they voted
33–0
Passed
Total votes 33
Sep 10, 2015
D
Democratic23
100% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
36
Key actions
9
Committee
14
Amendments
6
Oct 9, 2015
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 10, 2015
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 3082.).
lower
Sep 10, 2015
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (33-0)
senate
Sep 9, 2015
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Sep 1, 2015
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
Aug 31, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (August 27).
upper
Aug 27, 2015
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 24, 2015
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Aug 19, 2015
Committee
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Aug 18, 2015
Committee
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Aug 17, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14).
upper
Jul 6, 2015
Committee
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 24, 2015
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 4, 2015
Committee
Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and JUD.
upper
May 26, 2015
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (68-0-4)
assembly
May 13, 2015
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 13).
lower
May 4, 2015
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 30, 2015
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 29, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 28).
lower
Apr 14, 2015
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 14). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 6, 2015
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on W., P., & W.
lower
Mar 26, 2015
Committee
Referred to Coms. on W., P., & W. and JUD.
lower
Mar 1, 2015
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 31.
lower
Feb 27, 2015
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 18 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Luis Alejo
DDemocratic
Co
Andy Vidak
RRepublican
Co
Anthony Cannella
RRepublican
Co
Ben Hueso
DDemocratic
Co
Cathleen Galgiani
DDemocratic
Co
Devon Mathis
RRepublican
Co
Fran Pavley
DDemocratic
Co
HP
Henry Perea
DDemocratic
Co
Jean Fuller
RRepublican
Co
Jim Cooper
DDemocratic
Co
Jim Frazier
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1390
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1390. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline