The agricultural impacts of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) are now surfacing, 10 years after the law went into effect.
During a CalMatters panel discussion on “The Battles Over California’s Groundwater,” Tulare Irrigation District General Manager Aaron Fukuda said he’s seeing more and more small and medium family farmers leave behind their operations. This is not only a result of market and inflation changes, he said, but also groundwater allocation cutbacks.
Agriculture was a major topic throughout. Kings County Farm Bureau Executive Director Dusty Ference reflected on the 2012-2016 drought, when domestic and agricultural wells were drying up left and right. He noted he had to wait 14 months before drilling a new well for his farm.
Fukuda spoke about the ag customers in his district, many of whom had to reevaluate their business plans once SGMA was implemented.
“Many thought that groundwater was a property right in an unfettered property right under which you can pump to the extremes,” said Fukuda. “And so to say that will have to be monitored and regulated was very shocking and life changing.”
Looking to the future, Fukuda says he’s prioritizing the maintenance of ag land in his district.
“Because if you look at our communities, we aren't burgeoning Google campuses,” he said. “We are formulated under the ag umbrella, from our businesses to our restaurants to our shopping, so we know we need to minimize that loss of ag.”
When asked if he thinks SGMA goals’ are being met in time to save the state’s water supply, California State Water Resources Control Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel noted improvements in the state’s understanding of groundwater through data collection and said he is seeing more state agency and community coordination. He iterated that there’s “more work to be done,” especially given California’s routine drought cycle.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
Jaoquin Esquivel, California State Water Resources Control BoardBut Esquivel thinks the word “probation” has too negative a connotation and clarified it means the board is simply checking if GSPs are “sound.”
“And, importantly, can we all collectively connect those dots to sustainability in 2040 or are there some additional corrections or approaches that need to be taken within the plan in order for us to have confidence that yes, the plan is one that can be a successful one,” he said.
Ference doubled down on what probation means for farmers, saying that limitations of a board-driven interim plan far outweigh those proposed by local authority.
“We're a deep valley, mostly [the] west side [of the county], that exists because agriculture is able to thrive here … that's why we're challenging things so [hard],” he said. “That's why we're working so diligently to achieve sustainability, to comply with the law, but do so in a way and at a pace that doesn't decimate an industry — which would ultimately turn the county into a ghost town.”
The KCFB lawsuit received an update just hours following the CalMatters discussion, when the Kings County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction against the SWRCB. The ruling, in effect, pauses probationary requirements until the trial is over. The next court date is scheduled for Jan. 25, 2025.
Ference is confident that this case will have greater implications for agriculture across the state, stressing that “decisions have to be made locally with support from state regulatory agencies and input from them,” not vice versa.
“The decision made by the judge should really alter how the state water board considers placing subbasins on probation in the future,” he told Agri-Pulse.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
