Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication.
The passage of AB 560 will alter existing legal procedures regarding water rights adjudications by introducing a requirement for advisory input from the board. This change is aimed at maintaining compliance with sustainable management practices while considering the interests of small and disadvantaged groundwater users. By establishing a process for pre-judgment review, the bill aims to provide better oversight and evaluation of the implications of judicial decisions on groundwater resources.
Assembly Bill 560, introduced by Assembly Member Bennett, aims to amend Section 10737.8 of the Water Code to enhance groundwater management under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill mandates that parties involved in an adjudication action must submit their proposed settlement agreements regarding water rights to the State Water Resources Control Board for a nonbinding advisory determination before final judgment is entered. This requirement is intended to ensure that proposed judgments do not impair the goals of sustainable groundwater management.
The sentiment surrounding AB 560 is generally supportive among proponents of sustainable water management, who advocate for more stringent checks and balances to safeguard groundwater resources. Legislators and environmental advocates argue that this bill will aid in preventing decisions that could significantly hinder local water sustainability efforts. However, there may be some concerns regarding the implications for judicial autonomy, as the bill allows for the board’s advisory determination but does not bind the courts to its recommendations.
Some potential points of contention may arise around the interpretation and application of the nonbinding advisory determination. Critics may argue that requiring court submissions to the board before judgments are made could complicate legal proceedings and extend the timeline for resolving water rights disputes. Additionally, there could be debates about the effectiveness of a nonbinding determination in actually influencing judicial outcomes, especially if courts ultimately chose not to consider these recommendations.