AB 1044 makes a structural change to how Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are established in some California basins by presuming that certain statutorily created groundwater entities are the exclusive GSAs within their statutory boundaries. The bill requires a public hearing after notice under Government Code Section 6066 before a local agency decides to become a GSA, and it lets any listed agency opt out by notifying the Department of Water Resources, which the department must post online within 15 days.
The measure also preserves an alternative compliance path by allowing listed agencies to meet the requirements of Section 10733.6 instead of formally becoming a GSA, and it constrains agencies with special “principal acts” so they cannot use powers under SGMA that conflict with those principal acts unless the agency’s governing board finds the conflict prevents sustainable management. For water managers, districts, and county counsel, the bill reshapes who can claim authority in overlapping jurisdictions and creates a fast, documentary opt‑out track that other local agencies must monitor.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill designates a specific list of statutorily created groundwater entities as the default, exclusive GSAs inside their statutory boundaries, but permits those entities to opt out by notifying the Department of Water Resources. It also requires public notice and a hearing before a local agency decides to become a GSA and offers an alternative compliance route under Section 10733.6.
Who It Affects
Named agencies on the bill’s list (including the Tulare Basin Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency) are directly affected, as are any other local agencies or combinations of agencies operating inside the same statutory boundaries, county boards, water districts, and consultants who advise on SGMA formation and basin coordination.
Why It Matters
By creating presumptive authority for specific statutory entities, the bill reduces uncertainty and competing claims in overlapping jurisdictions but shifts the battleground to opt‑out notices and board findings under principal acts — a change that will influence basin governance, legal risk allocation, and the workload for DWR and county clerks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1044 rewrites the starting point for who can act as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency in certain California basins. Instead of leaving the decision to any local agency overlying a basin, the bill lists particular statutory groundwater managers that will be treated as the exclusive local agencies within their statutory boundaries unless they take affirmative steps to relinquish that status.
The list includes a mix of county districts, water districts, and existing GSAs, one of which is the Tule East entity in the Tulare Basin.
The bill adds procedural controls as well: before any local agency can decide to become a GSA under the standard route, it must publish notice under Government Code Section 6066 and hold a public hearing in the county or counties that overlie the basin. For an agency on the bill’s list that prefers not to be the default GSA, the path is administrative: send a notice to the Department of Water Resources declaring the opt‑out, and the department must make that notice publicly available on its website within 15 days.Finally, the statute recognizes that some agencies operate under a separate principal act that limits their powers.
Those agencies may comply by following Section 10733.6 (an alternative compliance mechanism) or by becoming the GSA, but they cannot exercise SGMA‑granted authorities in ways that contradict their principal act unless the agency’s board formally finds that it cannot sustainably manage the basin without the disputed powers. The bill therefore both centralizes presumptive authority and leaves space for statutory constraints and voluntary opt‑outs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes a fixed list of statutory groundwater agencies the presumptive, exclusive GSAs inside their statutory boundaries (a list that includes the Tulare Basin Tule East GSA).
Before a local agency may decide to become a GSA the bill requires publication under Gov. Code §6066 and a public hearing in the county or counties overlying the basin.
A listed agency can opt out of exclusivity by sending notice to the Department of Water Resources; the department must post that notice on its website within 15 days of receipt.
A listed local agency can comply with SGMA either by meeting the requirements of Section 10733.6 (alternative compliance) or by formally opting to become a GSA under this section.
If an agency’s principal act limits use of SGMA authorities, the agency must not exercise conflicting powers unless its governing board makes a finding that it cannot sustainably manage the basin without those powers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Local agencies’ option to become a GSA
This subsection preserves the baseline rule that any local agency (or combination of agencies) overlying a groundwater basin may elect to become that basin’s GSA. Practically, it keeps voluntary formation available where the bill’s prescribing list does not apply or where a listed agency has opted out.
Public‑notice and hearing requirement
Before an agency takes the step to become a GSA via the standard route, it must publish notice under Government Code §6066 and hold a public hearing within the county or counties overlying the basin. That ties the GSA decision to a formal local record and creates a discrete administrative step that opponents or neighboring agencies can monitor and challenge if notice or hearing requirements aren’t followed.
List of agencies deemed exclusive GSAs
The bill enumerates specific statutorily created groundwater entities that are 'deemed the exclusive local agencies' within their statutory boundaries. This clause effectively preempts competing formations inside those boundaries unless an opt‑out occurs. For areas where multiple local actors had previously competed or coordinated to form GSAs, this changes the governance default and reduces ambiguity about who has primary responsibility for SGMA compliance.
Opt‑out and Department posting process
A listed agency can abandon the default exclusivity by sending notice to the Department of Water Resources; the department must post the notice on its website within 15 days. That creates a narrowly administrative opt‑out mechanism — no legislative or election step — and shifts the burden onto other local agencies to file the necessary Section 10723.8 notice if they want to take GSA status after an opt‑out.
Alternative compliance and principal‑act limits
This provision gives listed agencies two compliance paths: meet Section 10733.6’s requirements (an alternative SGMA conformity route) or formally become a GSA under the bill. It also draws a line for agencies whose governing statutes (principal acts) restrict certain powers: they may not exercise SGMA authorities inconsistent with those statutes unless their governing board finds that the limitations prevent sustainable basin management. That forces an evidentiary board decision before a statutory conflict can be overridden.
Effective‑date mechanics
The bill defers the operative timing of a local agency’s decision to become a GSA to the procedures set out in Section 10723.8. In practice, that means the statutory mechanics and timelines already used to record and give effect to GSA decisions will apply here as well, so counsel and clerks should watch 10723.8 for filing and effect‑date details.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Named statutory groundwater managers (e.g., Tulare Basin Tule East GSA): the bill grants them presumptive authority inside their statutory boundaries, reducing jurisdictional competition and clarifying who leads SGMA planning in those areas.
- County boards and clerks in listed jurisdictions: the centralized default status reduces the need for counties to mediate multiple overlapping formation processes, simplifying administrative oversight.
- Water‑supply planners and consultants who already contract with listed agencies: they gain a clearer client and contracting environment because the agency with statutory status will likely control basin planning and implementation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Other local agencies or cities within the statutory boundaries: they lose the unencumbered option to assert GSA status unless the listed agency formally opts out, potentially limiting local control over basin plans.
- Department of Water Resources and county counsels: DWR must process and post opt‑out notices within a short 15‑day window, and county counsels may face more administrative and legal work documenting compliance with Gov. Code §6066 hearings and recording changes in governance.
- Landowners and stakeholder groups in overlapping jurisdictions: where a listed agency assumes exclusivity, stakeholders may have fewer entry points into governance; if the listed agency lacks capacity or local trust, that can raise compliance and engagement costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades decentralized, negotiated formation of GSAs for legal certainty by imposing a presumptive, statutory default: that clarity reduces formation disputes but concentrates power in named entities and forces other local actors either to accept the default, trigger a narrow administrative opt‑out, or litigate — a trade‑off between governance stability and local choice.
Implementation will hinge on a handful of administrative frictions. First, the 15‑day posting requirement for opt‑out notices is short and mechanical; DWR and clerks must track notices precisely or risk disputes over whether an opt‑out was timely posted.
That creates a race to the clerk’s inbox: absent a centralized, verified filing system, conflicting claims about effective governance could produce litigation.
Second, the bill’s interaction with 'principal acts' is a practical fault line. Agencies that have limited powers under their founding statutes will face a choice: pursue alternative compliance under §10733.6 or make a formal board finding that the principal‑act restrictions prevent sustainable management.
The finding is a politically and legally significant step — it invites scrutiny and potential challenge about the factual basis for overriding statutory limits.
Finally, the presumed exclusivity reduces local bargaining space. In basins where cooperative multi‑agency GSAs formed to balance interests, imposing a single statutory default can speed decision‑making but also remove incentives to build cross‑jurisdictional consensus.
The bill shifts conflict from formation to opt‑out and to litigation over principal‑act exceptions, which could simply change the form of disputes rather than resolve them.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.