Path Dependence, Evolution of a Mandate and the Road to Statewide Sustainable Groundwater Management

Abstract

SGMA is a landmark transition in California water policy. For local governments engaged in managing at-risk groundwater basins, SGMA brought a transformation of responsibility and authority. These changes reflect a continuation of California water policy, rather than a disjuncture. This policy analysis describes the changing role of state government in groundwater management in California, explaining that role, including the passage of SGMA, through the lens of path-dependent policy evolution. We identify three phases in state groundwater policy: initially the State enabled, subsequently the State incentivized, and with SGMA the State mandated local action. Later phases built upon previous ones and added to existing state policies rather than replacing them, resembling an evolution within the constraints established by earlier decisions. The changing role of the State in California groundwater management demonstrates how initial decisions can push policy along a trajectory, within which there remain opportunities for adjustment and change.

Keywords:

• California Department of Water Resources
• California groundwater policy
• policy evolution
• path dependence
• SGMA
• State Water Resources Control Board

Notes

1 Throughout this article, “State” refers to the state government.

2 But see Kuenzi (2019), who points out that California courts did not make the groundwater-surface water distinction quite so sharp from the outset. What matters more for path dependencies is that water users and public officials interpreted the courts’ early decisions that way, established a separate State-run system for regulating surface water, and thus reinforced and hardened the distinction in ways that shaped subsequent actions.

3 For example, in the absence of State management of groundwater, the home-rule authority of counties has been understood to encompass groundwater. By 2014, 30 of California’s 58 counties had groundwater ordinances, most of them prohibiting water exports (Water Education Foundation 2015).

4 This phrase was included also in Governor Brown’s statement when he signed SGMA into law.

5 See Supplemental Note 1 for additional details about legislation creating local water governments.

6 In addition to the role of state courts, the State supported some of the early adjudications through additional measures, including through the Department of Water Resources or the State Water Resources Control Board serving as a fact-finding referee during the pre-trial stage and through a court-appointed “watermaster” supporting post-judgment monitoring and reporting.

7 No local agencies exercised their revenue raising authority under the Act, perhaps because state law also required a majority vote in a local election in favor of raising revenue (DWR 2003).

8 See Supplemental Note 2 for additional details about State incentives for local groundwater management.

9 See Supplemental Note 3 for additional details about State monitoring programs developed during the Phase 2 time period.

10 Environmental Law Foundation et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014). In 2018, the trial court decision was affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeals.

11 Participants in that legislative process have published firsthand accounts documenting policymakers’ motivations and frustrations, and how the legislative package came together. See Leahy (2015) and Quinn (2020).

12 High and medium priority groundwater basins are subject to SGMA. See Supplemental Note 4 for an explanation of the prioritization of basins.

13 A county may decline to serve as the GSA, leaving the area for another agency to manage as a GSA, or for the State to intervene.

14 In three locations, groundwater users organized Special Act Districts immediately prior to SGMA taking effect. While those entities are eligible to serve as GSAs, they were not grandfathered into the law.

15 In 2015, follow-up legislation (SB 226 and AB 1390) reformed the groundwater adjudication process to align it with SGMA (Brown 2017; Leahy 2015). This change does not affect previous adjudications.

Additional information

Funding

The research and analysis in this article were supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. 1824066 and the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the many individuals involved in SGMA implementation who talked with us, responded to emails and other inquiries, welcomed us to observe meetings, and shared documents.