Sept. 4 closed the comment period for the draft emergency basin boundaries rule issued by the California Department of Water Resources under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Of the 34 comments made publicly available, most were from the local agencies that will be directly affected by the regulations. Generally, these agencies support the approach taken by the DWR but feel that, in the words of one commenter, the regulation language could be “improved by strengthening collaboration between DWR, groundwater sustainability agencies, and exclusive local groundwater management agencies during the basin boundary revision process.”

Ultimately, commenters noted appreciation that SGMA gives local agencies some control over the boundaries of the groundwater resources under their management — and wanted to ensure the rules best reflect the intent of the Act.

Major points where commenters found a need to clarify the rules include the following:

• Under what standards would a request for a boundary modification be denied? Many commented that the terms under which the DWR could deny a request would give the DWR broad, arbitrary powers at the expense of the local agencies. In particular, many thought that consideration of the history of groundwater management had no place in creation of future sustainable practices.
• What’s the relationship between the designation of groundwater basins and the Bulletin 118 process? Many commenters thought that the lengthy process of updating Bulletin 118 should be completely separate from the SGMA process, giving local agencies greater flexibility and bypassing errors contained in Bulletin 118. Others thought that the SGMA process should include the creation of new basins.
• Who is responsible for what in regard to CEQA compliance? Local agencies expressed concern that the rules gave the DWR unwarranted control over the CEQA process, leaving local agencies to comply with a vague standard of performance. One commenter noted that “basin boundary modifications are unlikely to be CEQA projects,” while another thought that the provision should be removed entirely, as it “inappropriately predetermines the need for CEQA compliance.”
• Do all local agencies need to agree on requested changes? The draft rule language requires nearly unanimous, formal local support for a jurisdictional boundary modification. Speaking for many, one commenter said that “unanimity is an unrealistic and unprecedented standard,” while another called the formal resolution requirement “needlessly onerous.” However, another recommended that a supermajority (two-thirds) would be an acceptable standard signifying support.