November ED Report
State v. KCFB: What the Appellate Ruling Means for Groundwater Rights in Kings County
By Dusty Ference, Executive Director, Kings County Farm Bureau
In a major legal battle that could shape the future of groundwater regulation across California, the Kings County Farm Bureau (KCFB) is continuing its challenge against the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The core of the dispute focuses on how and whether the State can override local groundwater management in the name of complying with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
On October 29, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited decision in State Water Resources Control Board v. Kings County Superior Court. While the appellate court sided with the State on several procedural points, the ruling preserved most of our case. Crucially, our core SGMA claims, those focused on State overreach, local control, and due process, remain active and will now proceed to trial in Kings County Superior Court.
This article breaks down what the ruling means, what’s still in play, and why this case matters far beyond Kings County.
Background: How We Got Here
In April 2024, the State Water Board declared the Tulare Lake Subbasin “probationary” under SGMA. This designation triggered immediate requirements for landowners and agencies, including well registration, metering, water-use reporting, and steep per-acre-foot extraction fees. It also opened the door to direct State control of groundwater allocations if local plans weren’t deemed sufficient.
Within weeks, KCFB, along with two local landowners, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the State’s actions. We alleged that the Board had overstepped its statutory authority, failed to provide proper notice, and ignored SGMA’s own safeguards for compliant local agencies. The lawsuit raised nine causes of action, including constitutional and administrative law claims.
In September 2024, Kings County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the State’s probation-related requirements, effectively freezing the Board’s mandates while the case moved forward. The court also ruled on the State’s attempt to dismiss parts of our lawsuit. The judge dismissed one cause of action (an equal protection claim) but allowed the other eight to proceed.
That’s when the State appealed.
What the Appeals Court Ruled
The appellate court issued two decisions in October 2025; one focused specifically on three of our causes of action and another on the preliminary injunction. The three causes of action on appeal were:
That the State Board adopted “underground regulations” without going through the required public rulemaking process;
That its $20-per-acre-foot groundwater fee was an unconstitutional tax; and
That the Farm Bureau could pursue broad declaratory relief challenging the legality of the entire probationary designation process.
On the first cause of action, the court ruled that SGMA explicitly exempts the SWRCB from California’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when taking actions under its probationary authority. In short, the court held that even if the Board’s probation process resembles a regulation, it doesn’t have to follow APA procedures unless it voluntarily chooses to do so.
On the second cause of action, the appellate court did not determine whether the fee was unlawful, but only determined it was subject to the “pay first, sue later” rule under California law. Since no fees had yet been paid, the court concluded the Farm Bureau couldn’t proceed with that claim at this time.
The decision also struck our broad declaratory relief claim as duplicative of the other, more specific claims in the suit.
Remand on the Preliminary Injunction
The court of appeal set aside the preliminary injunction but left the door open for the trial court to consider whether it would reissue the preliminary injunction, modify the preliminary injunction, or decline to issue it at this time.
Importantly, the court of appeals agreed that the State Water Board acted unlawfully when it failed to consider the good actor clause and whether to exclude parts of the subbasin that were sustainable from probation. This is a critical issue and a win for local control.
What Remains and Why It Matters
Despite this partial setback, our key claims, those focused on the actual merits of the State’s actions, are still alive:
Overreach: We argue the State Board acted beyond its statutory authority under SGMA by bypassing key steps and directly imposing requirements on local agencies without legal basis.
Good Actor Provision: SGMA includes a “good actor” clause that protects agencies implementing valid plans. The Board refused to apply this clause to any part of the Tulare Lake Subbasin, a move we contend violates both the statute and legislative intent.
Lack of Notice: The State failed to give landowners timely, meaningful notice before imposing new groundwater obligations, raising serious due process concerns.
Arbitrary Designation: We believe the Board’s finding that our basin’s sustainability plan was “deficient” lacked sufficient evidence and failed to consider local conditions and ongoing improvements.
These are not technical or procedural points. They go to the very heart of how SGMA is supposed to work: as a law designed to prioritize local management first, with state oversight only as a last resort. If the State can impose sweeping mandates without meaningful review, it sets a precedent that threatens growers across California.
What Happens Next
Now that the appellate court has ruled, the case returns to Kings County Superior Court. We anticipate a hearing on the remaining claims in the coming months.
In the meantime, our Board of Directors is reviewing all available legal options, including actions beyond the trial court process. We will keep our members, supporters, and community informed throughout this important phase.
Final Thoughts
This case isn’t only about fees, forms, or groundwater models. It’s about protecting the voice of local agriculture in decisions that impact our land, water, and way of life. KCFB remains dedicated to defending the rights of our farmers, ranchers, and local groundwater agencies. We appreciate the ongoing support of our SGMA Defense donors and the broader agriculture community.
Whether you manage 40 acres or 4,000, or work for a business in town, this issue affects us all. As we approach trial, we’ll keep fighting for a groundwater policy that’s fair, lawful, and locally driven.