From Injunction to Appeal: The Tulare Lake Subbasin Legal Cases

The Kings County Farm Bureau (“Farm Bureau”) is in a legal battle with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) regarding enforcement of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) involving the Tulare Lake Subbasin. The Farm Bureau sued to challenge the state’s decision to place the subbasin on probation, contending that the State Water Board acted unfairly and inconsistently. A recent appellate court ruling overturned a preliminary injunction against the state, but the Farm Bureau reportedly will pursue an appeal of that decision to the California Supreme Court. The case is captioned as Kings County Farm Bureau v. State Water Resources Control Board with a published opinion issued on October 29, 2025 by the Fifth District Court of Appeal (https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-10-29/f088720).

A related case is involved in which the State Water Board appeals the trial court’s rulings on the State Water Board’s demurrer that sought to challenge the Farm Bureau’s case at its inception. This related case is discussed below. The case is captioned State Water Resources Control Board v. The Superior Court of Kings County with a published decision on October 29, 2025 by the Fifth District Court of Appeal (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/f088909m.html). The Court of Appeal found in favor of the State Water Board on some of the issues.

The Tulare Lake Subbasin is located in the southern part of California’s San Joaquin Valley, primarily within Kings County. It is part of the larger Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and is south of the Kings and Kaweah rivers and north of the Kern River.

Enacted in 2014 and taking effect on January 1, 2015, SGMA mandates sustainable groundwater management through locally developed plans for over-drafted basins, subject to state oversight. The Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin was designated as a high-priority basin, requiring local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSAs”) and submit a groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) to the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”). ​

Five groundwater agencies developed a single groundwater plan for the Tulare subbasin. DWR found the submitted GSP for the Tulare subbasin inadequate in 2020 and again in 2023, leading the State Water Board to designate the basin as probationary during April 2024. The Farm Bureau filed a writ of mandate and complaint in May 2024, alleging multiple legal violations. ​

The Kings County Farm Bureau’s Legal Challenge

The Farm Bureau filed a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint against the State Water Board, alleging the probationary designation was improper and exceeded the State Board’s authority.

The Farm Bureau raised multiple claims, including improper notice, exceeding authority, and violations of constitutional and statutory provisions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the State Water Board from enforcing the probationary designation and related requirements, such as groundwater monitoring, reporting, and fees. The trial court found the Farm Bureau likely to succeed on several claims, including the “good actor exclusion” claim, exceeding authority, notice violations, and underground regulation claims. ​

The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the broad preliminary injunction. It determined that the Farm Bureau was likely to succeed only on the “good actor exclusion” claim, which challenges the State Water Board’s decision not to analyze exclusion requests from two GSAs. ​The other claims were found to lack merit. The appellate court concluded that the injunction was overly broad and not tailored to the harm at issue, as the valid claim only applied to specific portions of the Tulare subbasin. ​

injunction. Costs were awarded to the State Board.

The State Water Resources Control Board’s Legal Challenge

The Court of Appeal is reviewing a case involving the State Water Board and the Farm Bureau regarding the trial court’s rulings on the State Water Board’s demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer for the sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action from the Farm Bureau's complaint. The sixth cause of action alleges underground regulations that violate the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). The seventh cause of action claims the extraction fees imposed are unlawful. The ninth cause of action seeks general declaratory relief regarding the legality of the probationary designation. ​

The sixth cause of action addresses alleged underground regulations by the State Water Board that violate the APA. The Farm Bureau identifies seven specific regulations it claims were not adopted according to APA requirements. The State Water Board argues it is exempt from the APA under Water Code section 10736, which the trial court rejected. ​

The court emphasizes the importance of determining legislative intent through statutory language and context. Courts examine statutory language for its plain meaning and context within the entire statutory framework. If the language is clear, it is generally followed unless it leads to absurd results. ​Ambiguities in statutes allow for consideration of legislative history and public policy to clarify intent. ​

The court concludes that the State Water Board’s actions under Water Code sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 are exempt from the APA.  The court interprets the legislative intent as granting a broad exemption from the APA for actions taken under the specified sections.

These Court of Appeal decisions provide judicial direction regarding implementation and enforcement issues arising under SGMA. Key takeaways are: (1) the State Water Board must provide notice to groundwater extractors before designating a subbasin as probationary and the “good actor exclusion” may be requested as part of the hearing; (2) adequate factual showings that at least portions of a basin or subbasin require those portions be excluded from a probationary designation; and (3) the State Water Board has “broad authority to act” after a subbasin is designated as probationary.