A New Challenge Emerging Under SGMA: The Transparency Requirements of Records

The primary focus of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) over the past ten (10) years has been formation of the groundwater sustainability agencies and groundwater sustainability plans. Those statewide efforts were previously unprecedented in California and monumental, to say the least. To a large extent, those efforts succeeded with formation of the agencies and plans. In some instances, the state is challenging the adequacy of the plans, and in other instances, groundwater adjudications have emerged. Also rearing is the extent of transparency of records as required under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). In one basin, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (“Authority”) has been sued by a landowner under the CPRA, contending that the Authority did not comply by not providing records related to groundwater models and associated documents.

The lawsuit is Searless Valley Minerals, Inc. v. Indian Wells Groundwater Authority et al. (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01457804). The case involves Searles Valley Minerals, Inc. (“SVM”) filing a petition for a writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief against the Authority and its Board of Directors. SVM alleges that the Authority failed to comply with the CPRA by not providing requested public records related to groundwater models and associated documents.

Of important note, the lawsuit’s complaint does not contain the Authority’s written responses to the CPRA requests, nor has anything happened yet in the court process given the somewhat recent filing of the lawsuit and the first scheduled court event is a case management conference set for July 10, 2025. Accordingly, the Authority likely will have much to say in response to the allegations and relief sought by SVM.

This case is important in dual contexts of SGMA governance at the local level and more generally with CPRA requirements. SGMA explicitly in its opening statutes declares that California water rights are not changed by SGMA, however, implementation decisions often requiring “ramp downs” or similar measures calling for groundwater extractors to use less water can generate questions of whether water rights are being infringed. Groundwater models and similar technical efforts utilized for making those local governance decisions may lend insight into the water rights aspect. More generally for CPRA purposes are nuanced legal questions as to the boundaries of “public records” and related exemptions such as for privileged records, drafts, and the like. As such, this is an important case to monitor for California water rights and related management efforts by public agencies. All stakeholders, public and private, become implicated by how these rules are utilized.