AB 709 amends Water Code section 10733.4 to make explicit that groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that prepared multiple groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for a single basin may amend their coordination agreement after the Department of Water Resources (DWR) issues its assessment of those plans. The bill leaves intact the existing submission rules — GSAs must jointly submit all GSPs and the coordination agreement once the entire basin is covered — and DWR retains its 60‑day public comment window and two‑year evaluation timeline.
This technical change matters because it removes a procedural ambiguity that previously discouraged or complicated post‑assessment adjustments to how GSAs split responsibilities, share data, or allocate projects and funding. For practitioners, the key effect is increased local flexibility to respond to DWR‑identified deficiencies; for stakeholders, it raises new questions about when amended agreements must be posted, whether amendments trigger further review, and how accountability for corrective actions is preserved.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds subsection (f) to Water Code §10733.4 to state expressly that GSAs with multiple GSPs for a basin may amend their coordination agreement after DWR issues its assessment of the plans. It does not change the requirement to jointly submit plans once the basin is fully covered or DWR’s duties to post plans, accept 60 days of comments, and evaluate within two years.
Who It Affects
Groundwater sustainability agencies in basins covered by multiple GSPs, their member water districts and counties, consultants who prepare GSPs and coordination agreements, and DWR staff responsible for plan review. Third‑party permittees and large groundwater users also face practical effects where amendments reallocate management obligations or funding responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The change reduces procedural rigidity and creates a formal pathway for post‑assessment negotiation and correction among GSAs, which can speed adaptive responses to DWR recommendations. But it also introduces uncertainty about transparency, potential re‑review, and the finality of commitments that stakeholders use to plan projects and investments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, basins classified as medium or high priority must be managed via groundwater sustainability plans. When multiple GSAs cover a single basin, those agencies submit their separate plans together with a coordination agreement explaining how the plans will work in concert.
DWR posts submitted plans, opens a 60‑day public comment period, and must evaluate the submission within two years, issuing an assessment that can include recommended corrective actions.
AB 709 inserts an explicit sentence into the statute saying that, when multiple GSPs exist for a basin, the GSAs may amend their coordination agreement after DWR issues its assessment of the plans. Practically, that means local agencies can revise the written arrangement that divides tasks — for example monitoring, project responsibilities, funding allocations, or groundwater extraction accounting — in direct response to DWR’s findings without running afoul of the statute’s submission timing rules.The bill does not direct DWR to re‑open the two‑year review clock, nor does it spell out whether post‑assessment amendments must be re‑submitted to DWR or re‑posted for public comment.
It also leaves intact two related flexibilities that already exist in statute: GSAs may implement plans before DWR completes its evaluation, and the joint submission requirement still waits until the basin is fully covered by GSPs. That combination creates an operational environment where agencies can both implement and later reshape coordination terms based on DWR feedback.For practitioners, the immediate effect is administrative: expect more negotiated adjustments among GSAs after an assessment, and plan for legal and technical work to draft and document those changes.
For water users and funders, the change may affect when responsibilities and funding commitments become stable enough to support long‑lived projects. The statute’s silence on re‑submission and notice procedures leaves those implementation details to DWR guidance, interagency practice, or future litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Water Code §10733.4 by adding a new subsection (f) that allows GSAs with multiple GSPs for one basin to amend their coordination agreement after DWR issues its assessment.
DWR must still post submitted GSPs on its website and accept 60 days of public comments on the plans.
DWR retains a two‑year deadline from submission to evaluate the plans and may include recommended corrective actions in its assessment.
Existing law that allows GSAs to implement GSPs before DWR completes its evaluation remains unchanged by this bill.
The statute does not require amended coordination agreements to be re‑submitted to DWR or re‑posted; AB 709 is silent on whether post‑assessment amendments trigger additional review or public comment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Submission requirement upon adoption of a GSP
This subsection preserves the baseline obligation: once a GSA adopts a GSP it must submit that plan to DWR for review. Practically, that keeps the formal trigger for DWR’s procedural responsibilities — posting, public comment, and evaluation — tied to GSP adoption. For compliance officers, it means that plan adoption remains the event that starts DWR’s review timeline and public notice obligations.
Joint submission when multiple GSPs cover a basin
Subsection (b) continues to require that if a basin is managed by multiple GSPs, the agencies must wait until the entire basin is covered before submitting their plans together, and include an explanation showing how the plans satisfy specified SGMA requirements and a copy of the coordination agreement. This provision preserves the idea that DWR evaluates how separate plans function as an integrated program, not as isolated pieces.
Public comment and departmental evaluation process
These paragraphs codify DWR’s procedural duties: once DWR receives a GSP submission it posts the plan, opens a 60‑day comment window, and must complete its evaluation within two years, issuing an assessment that can recommend corrective actions. Those deadlines and transparency steps remain untouched by AB 709 and thus continue to set the rhythm for state oversight.
Implementation before evaluation allowed
Subsection (e) reaffirms that a GSA may implement its GSP prior to DWR’s assessment. That operational allowance has practical upside — agencies can begin projects and monitoring — but it also creates a risk that implementation choices made before DWR’s recommendations will need to be adjusted later, a risk AB 709 implicitly acknowledges by enabling coordination agreement amendments after assessment.
Explicit authorization to amend coordination agreements after assessment
The new subsection is narrow in text but potentially broad in consequence: it authorizes GSAs that produced multiple GSPs to amend their coordination agreement following DWR’s assessment. It does not specify procedural steps for amending, require resubmission or re‑posting, or limit the scope or timing of permissible amendments, leaving those implementation mechanics to future administrative guidance or interagency practice.
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
- Groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) — The bill gives GSAs formal latitude to renegotiate responsibilities and funding arrangements after DWR identifies issues, enabling local adaptive management instead of waiting for statutory barriers to be clarified.
- Local water districts and municipalities — They gain practical flexibility to shift obligations or funding commitments in response to DWR‑identified deficiencies, which can speed corrective projects or reallocate costs among members.
- Project implementers and technical consultants — Post‑assessment amendments will generate demand for legal, engineering, and technical work to redraft agreements, update monitoring plans, and align projects with revised responsibilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small or resource‑limited GSAs — Negotiating and documenting amendments requires staff time, legal counsel, and technical studies, which can strain smaller districts and special districts that lack budgetary capacity.
- Department of Water Resources (DWR) — Although the bill does not require re‑review, DWR may face increased administrative burden if amended agreements prompt questions, requests for interpretation, or informal review, particularly where stakeholders contest post‑assessment changes.
- Groundwater users and permittees — Amendments can create short‑term uncertainty about monitoring, allocation, or fees, complicating planning for agricultural operators, industrial users, and municipalities that base investments on prior commitments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing local flexibility to adapt coordination after DWR feedback against the need for regulatory finality and public accountability: amendments can make plans more workable and locally tailored, but they can also undermine the certainty that DWR’s assessment is meant to create and complicate enforcement of corrective actions.
The statute’s new allowance for post‑assessment amendments fixes a procedural ambiguity but leaves key implementation questions unresolved. The law is silent on whether an amended coordination agreement must be submitted to DWR, re‑posted for public comment, or subjected to a fresh evaluation.
That silence creates two practical pathways: agencies may treat amendments as internal reallocations that take effect immediately, or they may proactively seek state confirmation, producing inconsistent practice across basins.
Another trade‑off is accountability versus adaptability. Allowing edits after assessment helps GSAs respond to DWR recommendations without legislative or regulatory gymnastics, but it also opens the door to strategic behavior — agencies could use amendments to shift obligations in ways that dilute corrective measures or delay implementation.
The bill also increases transaction costs: renegotiation requires legal, financial, and technical resources, so smaller GSAs risk falling behind. Finally, transparency is not addressed; absent clear posting and notice rules, stakeholders and ratepayers may lose visibility into how responsibilities and costs change after an assessment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.