California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 1413 — Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wahab.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 21, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Assembly

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wahab.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 29).

  4. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  5. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  6. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  7. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 3.) (July 15).

  8. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. 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.

  11. Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and JUD.

  12. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  13. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 45. Noes 21. Page 2021.)

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (May 14).

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  17. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  18. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  19. Read second time and amended.

  20. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 4.) (April 8).

  21. Re-referred to Com. on W. P., & W.

  22. Referred to Coms. on W. P., & W. and JUD.

  23. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on W. P., & W. Read second time and amended.

  24. Read first time.

  25. From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

  26. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 28 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 10 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10100
Republican 0200
Total 10300
% of votes cast 77%23%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Nay
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 1413 Papan Assembly Third Reading

Passed 45 Yea · 21 Nay · 13 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 442013
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 01900
Total 4521013
% of votes cast 57%27%0%16%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Nay
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Not Voting
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Not Voting
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Ramos, James C. Democratic Not Voting
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Nay
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Not Voting
Rogers, Chris Democratic Not Voting
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Not Voting
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Not Voting
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Not Voting
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Castillo, Leticia Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Ellis, Stan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Nay
Hadwick, Heather Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10001
Republican 0400
Total 10401
% of votes cast 67%27%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 8 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0300
Democratic 8001
Total 8301
% of votes cast 67%25%0%8%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 9 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8100
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 0300
Total 9400
% of votes cast 69%31%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Nay
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Nay
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Nay
Tangipa, David J. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1413 do?
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 AB 1413?
AB 1413 is sponsored by Papan, Diane (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 1413?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 21, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 1413?
Track AB 1413 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1413

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1413

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →