Background: SGMA and Probation Authority
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, requires local agencies, not the State, to bring groundwater basins into long-term balance. When local plans are deemed inadequate, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) can place a basin on probation, triggering an interim plan that includes well registration, metering, fees, and the State's ability to impose an interim groundwater management plan that overrides local control.
In the Tulare Lake Subbasin, Kings County Farm Bureau (KCFB) secured a court order preventing the SWRCB from implementing this interim plan while litigation proceeded.
Timeline: How the Tulare Lake Subbasin Reached Probation
Following repeated findings by the Department of Water Resources that portions of the basin’s Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were inadequate, the SWRCB voted in April 2024 to place the entire subbasin on probation. This required basin-wide well registration, metering, and reporting, along with a $20 per acre-foot pumping fee and a $300 per well registration fee.
Probation also opened the door for a State-run interim groundwater management plan, an unprecedented level of top-down operational control in the region, prompting widespread concern among landowners and local agencies.
Legal Action: KCFB Case and Court Rulings
In May 2024, KCFB filed a writ of mandate challenging the legality of the probation decision. The Kings County Superior Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) that halted all probation requirements and prevented the SWRCB from implementing an interim groundwater management plan.
In late 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined that the TRO and PI needed to be further reviewed and adjusted. The court’s published opinion clarified how SGMA interacts with Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and addressed procedural issues surrounding fee challenges.
Several core claims remain active and continue before the Kings County Superior Court, including KCFB’s renewed request for injunctive relief
On January 7, 2026, the SWRCB issued guidance specific to the subbasin and its interpretation that the most recent appellate court action allows it to proceed with mandatory extraction reporting and fee collection. In response, the KCFB Board of Directors noted:
KCFB believes that the State Board’s apparent interpretation of the appellate court decision and its effect on reporting and fee obligations is bold and oversteps the appellate court decision and the law. To the extent members are interested in reporting earlier than the deadline, that would not be an approach we recommend at this time because there is no apparent benefit and our litigation may affect that deadline. We understand and appreciate your frustration, as well as your continued support of our efforts on your behalf.
On January 20, 2026, KCFB requested that the Kings County Superior Court reissue the TRO and Preliminary Injunction while the trial court considers the matter in light of the Fifth District’s direction. The court ordered a briefing on how the case should proceed, with opening briefs filed February 13, reply briefs filed February 27, and a hearing held March 12, 2026.
Immediately following that hearing, counsel for the SWRCB filed a motion to disqualify the assigned judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The motion was granted, and the case now proceeds before a newly assigned judge in Kings County Superior Court.
At the April 15, 2026, appearance, the Kings County Superior Court addressed procedural scheduling related to KCFB’s renewed request for injunctive relief. Due to court calendar constraints, the court scheduled a hearing on KCFB’s motion for June 3, 2026.
The court did not rule on the merits of KCFB’s claims or the request for injunctive relief at the April 15 appearance. In the meantime, existing State reporting deadlines remain in effect pending further court action.
California Supreme Court Update
Following the Fifth District’s decision, KCFB filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On February 11, 2026, the California Supreme Court declined to hear the matter. The Court’s decision does not resolve the underlying merits of KCFB’s claims and returns the case fully to the Kings County Superior Court for further proceedings.
Statewide Implications of the Appellate Decision
The appellate ruling affects every groundwater basin in California. How the remaining claims are resolved will determine the limits of State authority under SGMA, the due process owed to landowners, the obligations of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, and when the State may impose an interim management plan.
Decisions made in Kings County now shape groundwater governance statewide.
Contact Us
If you have any questions or would like more detailed information about the current phase of the lawsuit, do not hesitate to contact:
Dusty Ference, Executive Director
Dusty.ference@kcfb.org
559-303-1885
As of April 15, 2026