Kings County Farm Bureau
SGMA Defense Lawsuit
Executive Summary
This white paper outlines developments in the Kings County Farm Bureau’s (KCFB) legal challenge to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) probationary designation of the Tulare Lake Subbasin (TLSB) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). KCFB filed a writ of mandate on May 15, 2024, in Kings County Superior Court to contest SWRCB’s April 2024 probation action. In July 2024, the Superior Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting enforcement of SWRCB’s metering, reporting, and fee requirements. In September 2024, the court issued a Preliminary Injunction (PI) pausing those probationary sanctions pending appeal. The SWRCB has appealed, and the interlocutory appeal is pending before the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The City of Lemoore filed an amicus curiae brief in support of KCFB, and several stakeholder groups have publicly supported the effort. This litigation has drawn statewide attention to SGMA enforcement practices and spurred GSAs to increase transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Since issuance of the preliminary injunction, the State Water Resources Control Board pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. On October 29, 2025, the appellate court issued an opinion reversing the preliminary injunction and remanding the matter to the Kings County Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with its decision. The appellate court did not reach a final determination on the merits of Kings County Farm Bureau’s underlying legal claims. Following the appellate decision, Kings County Farm Bureau filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking discretionary review of legal questions raised by the appeal. The underlying causes of action remain pending in Kings County Superior Court.
1. Introduction
In April 2024, the SWRCB placed the Tulare Lake Subbasin (TLSB) on probation, effective April 16, 2024, citing deficiencies in local Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) under SGMA. That action required growers within the TLSB to meter and report groundwater pumping, to register wells, and to pay extraction fees as set by SWRCB’s published fee schedule. On May 15, 2024, the Kings County Farm Bureau filed a writ of mandate in Kings County Superior Court challenging the SWRCB’s probationary designation and asserting that the board exceeded its authority under SGMA.
2. Background
2.1 The Tulare Lake Subbasin and SGMA
The TLSB covers most of Kings County and is critical for agricultural production. Under SGMA, local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) must submit GSPs designed to achieve sustainable groundwater management by 2040. If a GSA’s GSP is deemed deficient, the SWRCB may place the underlying subbasin on probation, triggering requirements for metering, reporting, and fees to fund state-imposed management activities.
2.2 SWRCB’s Probationary Action
On April 16, 2024, SWRCB adopted Resolution 2024-0012, placing the TLSB on probation after finding that the GSPs submitted by GSAs in Kings County were incomplete. Under that resolution:
Groundwater pumpers were required to register wells.
Pumpers were required to pay $300 per well to register wells.
Pumpers had to report groundwater extractions.
Pumpers had to pay an extraction fee of $20 per acre-foot.
Potential interim GSP implemented by SWRCB
2.3 KCFB’s Legal Challenge
On May 15, 2024, KCFB filed a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief against the SWRCB in Kings County Superior Court (Case No. 24CU0198). KCFB’s eight causes of action alleged:
No factual support for declaring TLSB probationary;
“Good Actor” determination omissions—failing to distinguish compliant GSAs;
Equal Protection violations under California’s Constitution;
SWRCB exceeded the authority granted by SGMA;
Lack of required notice to landowners prior to probation hearing;
Probationary Regulations relied on “underground” rules—violating the Administrative Procedure Act;
Groundwater extraction fees imposed without proper statutory authority;
Declaratory relief regarding validity of probation designation.
On July 15, 2024, the Superior Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (restraining Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Resolution 2024-0012). On September 12, 2024, the Court granted a Preliminary Injunction (PI) on Causes 2, 4, 5, and 6—confirming KCFB’s likelihood of prevailing and halting fee collection, well-registration requirements, and pumping reports through appellate review.
3. Legal Proceedings
3.1 Writ of Mandate
Filing Date: May 15, 2024
Court: Kings County Superior Court
KCFB filed a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief on May 15, 2024, naming the SWRCB as respondent and challenging the probationary designation on multiple grounds, including alleged statutory overreach and lack of sufficient evidentiary support. citeturn0search0turn0search7
3.2 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
Date Issued: July 15, 2024
Judge: Hon. Kathy Ciuffini (Kings County Superior Court)
On July 15, 2024, the court granted a TRO that enjoined SWRCB from enforcing its metering, reporting, and fee requirements against any landowners or pumpers in the TLSB pending further hearing. The TRO specifically restrained SWRCB and its agents from implementing Resolution 2024-0012.
3.3 Preliminary Injunction (PI)
Date Issued: September 12, 2024
Judge: Hon. Kathy Ciuffini
The court subsequently issued a PI that extended the TRO’s prohibitions—pausing all probation-related enforcement (metering, reporting, and fees) through the appellate process.
3.4 Appeals Court Proceedings
Appellant: SWRCB
Court: Fifth District Court of Appeal (Fresno)
Following the PI, SWRCB filed an interlocutory appeal. As of May 2025, the Fifth District has agreed to hear the appeal on the PI (filed in late September 2024) and a related appeal of rulings on demurrers (filed November 7, 2024). All further proceedings in the Superior Court are stayed pending resolution of these appeals.
3.4.1 Fifth District Court of Appeal Decision
After the Kings County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction in September 2024, the State Water Resources Control Board filed an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth District Court of Appeal challenging the issuance of that injunction. On October 29, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing the preliminary injunction and remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision. The appellate court’s ruling addressed the propriety of injunctive relief and did not constitute a final adjudication of the merits of Kings County Farm Bureau’s causes of action.
3.5 California Supreme Court Proceedings
Following issuance of the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion, Kings County Farm Bureau filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. A petition for review seeks discretionary review of legal questions arising from appellate proceedings. The filing of the petition does not constitute a ruling on the merits and does not, by itself, resolve or stay the underlying litigation pending in Kings County Superior Court.
4. Amicus Curiae Briefs and Other Support
The City of Lemoore and several stakeholder groups have publicly supported KCFB’s challenge, underscoring local input on SGMA enforcement. Publicly documented filings include:
4.1 City of Lemoore
On February 4, 2025, the Lemoore City Council adopted Resolution 2025-05 to file an amicus curiae brief supporting KCFB.
4.2 Tulare County Farm Bureau
As reported by SJV Water, Tulare County Farm Bureau provided direct financial support and publicly supported the effort by encouraging it members to contribute.
4.3 Yuba Sutter County Farm Bureau
The Yuba Sutter County Farm Bureau provided direct financial support and publicly supported the effort by encouraging it members to contribute.
4.4 Additional Support
Several groundwater districts and interest groups in the San Joaquin Valley have publicly stated they will monitor the appeal, signaling a regional concern about SGMA precedent.
5. Statewide Implications and SGMA Enforcement Trends
KCFB’s successful TRO and PI have generated attention across California’s GSAs and water communities, leading to greater scrutiny of how probationary actions are handled. Publicly reported outcomes include:
5.1 Deferred Probation Hearings for Other Subbasins
After the TLSB litigation, SWRCB deferred probation hearings for at least two other subbasins in the Central Valley until additional stakeholder outreach and data reviews were completed.
5.2 Increased Transparency in GSP Reviews
In response to litigation and stakeholder pressure, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) began publishing more detailed “Notice of Incomplete” letters for GSPs, indicating specific deficiencies before recommending probation.
5.3 Appellate Proceedings and Unresolved Legal Questions
The appellate proceedings in this matter have highlighted unresolved legal questions regarding the scope of the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority under SGMA, including the procedural requirements applicable to probationary designations and the relationship between state intervention and local groundwater sustainability agency responsibilities. These issues remain subject to further judicial determination.
6. Recommendations
6.1 For KCFB Members and Regional Stakeholders
Stay Engaged in the Appeal
Continue to monitor filings in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Public docket systems will indicate dates for briefs and any scheduled oral argument.
Consider making a financial contribution to KCFB’s SGMA Defense Fund
6.2 Support Local Outreach
Encourage local governments (cities, counties, and GSAs) to maintain transparent data sharing regarding groundwater levels, pumping volumes, and recharge initiatives.
6.3 Participate in GSA Meetings
Attend GSA board meetings in the Tulare Lake Subbasin to provide input on GSP elements, ensuring that any future probation justifications are well documented and based on shared data.
7. Conclusion
As of June 2025, the Kings County Farm Bureau’s legal challenge remains ongoing at the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The TRO (July 15, 2024) and PI (September 12, 2024) continue to halt SWRCB’s probation enforcement, maintaining the status quo while the appeal proceeds. The City of Lemoore’s publicly filed amicus brief signals strong local support for KCFB’s position. Beyond Kings County, this litigation has prompted greater transparency in SGMA reviews, deferred probation hearings for other subbasins, and increased coordination between GSAs and local governments. As of the date of this update, Kings County Farm Bureau’s legal challenge involves proceedings in multiple courts, including ongoing trial court litigation, appellate review, and a pending petition for review before the California Supreme Court. The merits of the underlying claims have not been finally adjudicated and will require further judicial action. Stakeholders statewide will watch closely to see how this case shapes SGMA enforcement moving forward.