Adjudication FAQs

What is a groundwater adjudication?
Who filed the adjudication and why?
What will occur in the adjudication?
What are the goals of the OPV Coalition in the adjudication?
How long will it take and how much expense will it entail?

What is a groundwater adjudication?

A groundwater basin adjudication is a type of lawsuit in which the Court defines and determines groundwater rights (i.e., both the amount individuals may use and the total amount available for use), and, often, a Court-supervised groundwater management plan. California Courts have adjudicated approximately 30 groundwater basins. There are an additional four adjudications pending in the State including the adjudication of the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley Basins (the “OPV Basins”). The Court in Santa Barbara recently completed the adjudication of the neighboring Las Posas Basin.  

More information about groundwater basin adjudications can be found on the California Division of Water Resources Website.

Who filed the adjudication and why?

The OPV Coalition and its members initiated the adjudication of the OPV Basins and are therefore the plaintiffs. The OPV Coalition is an association of landowners that own land overlying the OPV Basins and that possess overlying groundwater rights.  The adjudication is venued in the Santa Barbara Superior Court (the “Court”) and has been assigned to Judge Donna Geck.

No one disputes that the OPV Basins are subject to overdraft, and that current use cannot be sustained without harm to this critical resource.  Sustainable groundwater management will require reduction in groundwater use, development of new groundwater enhancement projects, or a combination of these strategies. Disagreements concerning who must reduce groundwater use, who must pay for new projects, and the roles of agencies involved in groundwater management have impeded solutions. The stakeholders need a comprehensive adjudication of groundwater rights (something only the courts can do) and judicial oversight of groundwater management to resolve these disputed issues.   

 The OPV Coalition brought the adjudication because the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (“FCGMA”) rejected a broadly supported allocation plan that the OPV Coalition’s members and other stakeholders developed to meet the sustainability requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”). The legislature passed SGMA into law in 2014 to achieve the goal of sustainably managing and using California’s threatened groundwater supplies. The allocation approach that the FCGMA rejected was a negotiated compromise reflected in the “OPV Whitepaper“. Over 80% of the groundwater users in the OPV Basins supported the OPV Whitepaper, including both municipal and agricultural users. Instead of embracing the compromise reflected in the OPV Whitepaper, the FCGMA adopted an ordinance allocating groundwater in the Basins that many stakeholders opposed. FCGMA’s ordinance allocates groundwater exclusively based on historical use from 2005 through 2014, a period from the past that does not reflect current needs. The ordinance awarded certain users a windfall of allocation at the expense of other users, and effectively penalized those that engaged in conservation. This result is inconsistent with California water rights. The OPV Coalition did not immediately seek to litigate the matter. Rather, it proposed and then engaged in formal, facilitated dialogue.  Unfortunately, some stakeholders and the FCGMA were unwilling to moderate from the one-sided allocation ordinance.  It was only when the FCGMA refused to extend tolling agreements on applicable statutes of limitation that OPV Coalition initiated the adjudication. 

The OPV Coalition recognizes that there are strong legal and equitable claims among different groundwater users—e.g., among agricultural and urban users, high and low per-acre groundwater users, those with consistent use, and those with special circumstances that caused interim reductions in their demand. All of these users’ claims need to be fairly considered and balanced in determining allocations. Likewise, the OPV Coalition appreciates that the FCGMA, the United Water Conservation District (“UWCD”), and other agencies all play a role in managing groundwater to preserve the livelihoods and public welfare of those who rely on groundwater from the Basins. But all the stakeholders must have a voice in the decision-making process, not just the water agencies. The OPV Coalition seeks an outcome in which the agencies, the Court, and the stakeholders work together to foster sustainable groundwater management. This must include improved opportunities for stakeholder participation and appropriate checks and balances.

What will occur in the adjudication?

The adjudication of the OPV Basins is proceeding under a special groundwater adjudication statute. That law streamlines the judicial procedures for processing adjudications and ensures that adjudication judgments are consistent with SGMA’s standards for sustainable groundwater management.

All those who claim groundwater rights in the OPV Basins must appear in the adjudication.  There they will be required to present the factual and legal basis for their claimed rights. The Court may also decide among different proposals concerning the approach for groundwater allocations, replenishment fees and projects, governance and decision-making, and other aspects of a physical solution like carryover of unused allocation and allocation transfers. The Court may decide these issues in separate phases of the case or, if the parties (or at least a substantial majority) are able to negotiate and propose a stipulated judgment to the Court, in a single, combined phase.

Under the statute governing the adjudication (which begins at California Code of Civil Procedure Section 830), the Court may decide all groundwater rights and set allocations for all groundwater users in the Basins, whether or not they choose to participate in the case. The statute requires that the plaintiffs send a notice of the adjudication, by certified mail, together with a copy of the complaint and a form answer, to every owner of property overlying the basins, as well as to all persons pumping groundwater irrespective of whether they are landowners. The required notice, complaint, and form answer were all approved by the Court. OPV Coalition has since mailed the notice packet to all landowners and pumpers. Landowners that desire to participate as defendants in the adjudication may file the form answer with the Court.  Landowners that do not claim rights to groundwater do not need to participate.  Importantly, the adjudication does not seek to determine rights to municipal water service between any municipal water service provider and their retail water service customers. As a result, most recipients of the notice will not be directly affected by the lawsuit.

What are the goals of the OPV Coalition in the adjudication?

The OPV Coalition seeks an equitable allocation of rights to pump and use groundwater and a judgment that promotes efficient management of the OPV Basins in a manner that fully complies with SGMA.  The case is important as it will resolve rights to a significant portion of the local water supply.  Doing so will further efforts to sustainably manage the local groundwater supply consistent with SGMA’s requirements. Management efforts to date have failed to resolve significant challenges facing the basins, notably the intrusion of seawater into aquifers along the coast. Part of the problem is persistent conflicts between various public agencies and private entities over management of the Basins. The OPV Coalition seeks a judgment in the adjudication that will efficiently resolve these conflicts in several important ways. 

First, the judgment should establish well-defined and quantified rights to extract and use groundwater.  Doing so will clarify how groundwater use will be reduced, if necessary, by whom, and in what amounts.  Defining the underlying groundwater rights will also clarify responsibilities among the groundwater users for funding projects to maintain the groundwater supply. The net result will be greater certainty among all groundwater users in the amount of groundwater to which they are entitled and the cost of that supply. This will promote efficient water supply planning throughout the region after many years of disagreement and uncertainty.  

Second, the judgment should help to clarify the roles that the various regional public agencies will play in accomplishing groundwater solutions. These agencies include the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, the United Water Conservation District, the Calleguas Municipal Water District, and various municipal water suppliers.

Third, the judgment should include a detailed framework to ensure transparent and science-based management with thorough stakeholder engagement. Groundwater adjudications commonly appoint a watermaster, a form of special master to the Court, to implement the judgment subject to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction and oversight. The ongoing engagement of the Court incentivizes local collaboration and affords a means to quickly resolve disagreements when they arise. This maintains all the stakeholders’ focus on implementing solutions rather than on prolonged and persistent conflict.

The OPV Coalition hopes that the adjudication will be resolved through consensus, compromise, and settlement. The Las Posas settlement may serve as a model for the efficient resolution of the OPV Adjudication, subject to certain modifications to address unique circumstances within OPV Basins. The Las Posas Basin settlement is reflected in a judgment recently approved by Judge Anderle of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. It adjudicates all groundwater rights in the basin and establishes equitable allocations to use groundwater that adjust in quantity consistent with the available groundwater supply. The judgment also implements a comprehensive basin management framework with Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency as the watermaster, a process for structured stakeholder input, and, if necessary, an opportunity for Court review of watermaster decisions.

How long will it take and how much expense will it entail?

The time and expense will depend on the willingness of the FCGMA, UWCD, and the public and private groundwater users to negotiate a compromise. In past adjudications, the level of conflict and resulting time and expense have varied. For example, in the Borrego Springs Basin, the public agencies and private groundwater users cooperated to negotiate a “friendly adjudication” in which the parties settled on a stipulated judgment. As a result, the adjudication only took about a year to complete. The Court entered the stipulated judgment following a hearing that took about one hour. There were no multiple phases, discovery, competing legal briefing, protracted trial, or similar processes that often cause extensive cost and delay in Court proceedings. Similarly, in the Seaside Basin adjudication, all groundwater users came together to agree to a complete, stipulated judgment. The local water management agency objected to certain aspects of the stipulation, including the requirement that management authority be shared among an array of stakeholders. The trial lasted about two weeks and the Court ultimately entered the stipulated judgment over the management agency’s objection.

On the other hand, the requisite time and expense have been substantial in other cases where there has been extensive conflict, like in the Santa Maria and Antelope Valley adjudications. These cases took many years to complete.  Simply put, adjudications can be short and relatively painless or protracted and combative; the outcome depends on the willingness of all the parties to negotiate and achieve compromise.  The OPV Coalition’s goal is to reduce as much as possible the time and expense necessary to reach a fair solution.  OPV Coalition cannot realize this goal on its own, however.  All the stakeholders in the case will have to cooperate to achieve this goal.