CA AB 1413
introducedSustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 1413 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 1413 has been introduced as of 2025-09-09 but has not advanced to a vote. Latest recorded action (2025-09-09): Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wahab.
What is CA AB 1413 about?
Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law requires a groundwater sustainability agency to evaluate its groundwater sustainability plan periodically. This bill would require a groundwater sustainability agency to, at least once every 7 years, review, and update if appropriate, its sustainable yield to ensure that the sustainable yield is based on the best available information and best available science, as defined, and will achieve sustainable groundwater management. The bill would also require a groundwater sustainability agency to provide an opportunity for public review and comment before making a determination whether to update its sustainable yield. To the extent that these requirements impose additional duties on groundwater sustainability agencies that are local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided. Existing law provides that actions by a groundwater sustainability agency are subject to judicial review, except as provided. This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would also authorize, for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, a party that has timely appeared in that adjudication to file an action on or before March 2, 2026, under specified circumstances. The bill would require a legal challenge to an action or determination by the groundwater sustainability agency to be filed within 90 days of the action or determination. Existing law requires a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, to manage the proceedings in a certain manner, including in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan. The bill would prohibit a court, in an adjudication action filed after January 1, 2025, for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin, except as provided. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin's safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026. Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency's compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency's compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plan's determination of a basin's sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action. Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management. This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have received a determination from the department that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA AB 1413?
Papan is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1413, joined by 2 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to periodically review the groundwater sustainability plans developed by groundwater sustainability agencies pursuant to the act to evaluate whether a plan conforms with specified laws and is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan. Existing law requires a groundwater sustainability agency to evaluate its groundwater sustainability plan periodically. This bill would require a groundwater sustainability agency to, at least once every 7 years, review, and update if appropriate, its sustainable yield to ensure that the sustainable yield is based on the best available information and best available science, as defined, and will achieve sustainable groundwater management. The bill would also require a groundwater sustainability agency to provide an opportunity for public review and comment before making a determination whether to update its sustainable yield. To the extent that these requirements impose additional duties on groundwater sustainability agencies that are local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan to file a court action to determine the validity of the plan no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan, as provided. Existing law provides that actions by a groundwater sustainability agency are subject to judicial review, except as provided. This bill would instead authorize groundwater sustainability agencies to file those actions within 180 days following the adoption of the plan. The bill would also authorize, for any groundwater basin in which a comprehensive groundwater adjudication was filed prior to January 1, 2025, a party that has timely appeared in that adjudication to file an action on or before March 2, 2026, under specified circumstances. The bill would require a legal challenge to an action or determination by the groundwater sustainability agency to be filed within 90 days of the action or determination. Existing law requires a court, in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, to manage the proceedings in a certain manner, including in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan. The bill would prohibit a court, in an adjudication action filed after January 1, 2025, for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to the act, from establishing a safe yield or sustainable yield for the basin that exceeds the sustainable yield of the basin as established in a valid groundwater sustainability plan for the basin, except as provided. This prohibition would not apply to a comprehensive adjudication in which a court has issued a final determination on the basin's safe or sustainable yield prior to January 1, 2026. Existing law provides that an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated is subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with a comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency's compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This bill would require an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated to be consolidated with a comprehensive adjudication if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency's compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The bill would also require the court hearing the consolidated action to try the cause of action for judicial review of the groundwater sustainability plan's determination of a basin's sustainable yield before trying any other issue in the action. Existing law authorizes a court to enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan if, in addition to other criteria, the court finds the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management. This bill, among other things, would provide that a judgment substantially impairs the ability of those entities to comply with the act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management if it permits more total pumping from the basin annually or on average than the sustainable yield of the basin established in the latest groundwater sustainability plan or plans that have received a determination from the department that the plan or plans are likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin and have been validated by a final judgment or by operation of law when no validation action was filed. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-21
- Latest action
- 2025-09-09 — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wahab.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Papanauthor
- Bennettcoauthor
- Hartcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-21
Introduced. To print.
introduction
2025-02-22
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
2025-02-24
Read first time.
reading-1
2025-03-24
Referred to Coms. on W. P., & W. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-03-24
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on W. P., & W. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-25
Re-referred to Com. on W. P., & W.
referral-committee
2025-04-09
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 4.) (April 8).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-04-10
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-04-21
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-04-22
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-04-30
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-05-14
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (May 14).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-15
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-06-03
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 45. Noes 21. Page 2021.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-06-04
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-18
Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-06-30
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-17
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 3.) (July 15).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-07-17
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-08-13
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-08-25
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-09-02
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-09-02
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 29).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2025-09-03
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-09-09
Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wahab.
Versions
- 02/21/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-21Compare
- 03/24/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-03-24Compare
- 04/10/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-10Compare
- 06/30/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-06-30Compare
- 07/17/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-07-17Compare
- 09/02/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-09-02Compare
- AB1413Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-04-08 · pass · 9-4
Member-level votes (13)
- Bennett: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Papan: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Hart: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Bains: no
- Jeff Gonzalez: no
- Tangipa: no
- Macedo: no
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-29 · pass · 8-3
Member-level votes (12)
- Papan: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Macedo: no
- Dixon: no
- Sanchez: no
- Bauer-Kahan: other
Do pass.
2025-05-14 · pass · 10-4
Member-level votes (15)
- Fong: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Hart: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Solache: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Sanchez: no
- Ta: no
- Tangipa: no
- Dixon: no
- Arambula: other
AB 1413 Papan Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-04 · pass · 45-21
Member-level votes (79)
- Berman: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Fong: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Haney: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Papan: yes
- Addis: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Lee: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Patel: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Gipson: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Hart: yes
- Solache: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: no
- Sanchez: no
- Tangipa: no
- Gallagher: no
- Castillo: no
- Flora: no
- Chen: no
- Ransom: no
- Bains: no
- Ta: no
- Ellis: no
- Alanis: no
- Patterson: no
- Hoover: no
- Lackey: no
- Dixon: no
- Davies: no
- Hadwick: no
- Wallis: no
- DeMaio: no
- Macedo: no
- Quirk-Silva: other
- Arambula: other
- Soria: other
- Blanca Rubio: other
- Ward: other
- Michelle Rodriguez: other
- Nguyen: other
- Krell: other
- Rogers: other
- Pacheco: other
- Valencia: other
- Ramos: other
- Carrillo: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-07-08 · pass · 4-3
Member-level votes (7)
- Allen: yes
- Laird: yes
- Stern: yes
- Limón: yes
- Hurtado: no
- Seyarto: no
- Grove: no
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-15 · pass · 10-3
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Laird: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Stern: yes
- Allen: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Valladares: no
- Caballero: no
- Niello: no
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-25 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Grayson: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Wahab: other
Do pass as amended
2025-08-29 · pass · 5-2
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: no
- Seyarto: no
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1413. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.