An act to amend Section 10721 of, and to amend, repeal, and add Sections 10726.4, 10727.4, and 10730.2 of, the Water Code, relating to water.
AB 929 would make targeted, temporary changes to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to protect two categories of water users: small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities and managed wetlands. The bill defines “managed wetland” and “small community water system” for SGMA purposes, and it would limit groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) from setting extraction allocations for those users in the same way they do for other pumpers, so long as their use stays at historically required levels. It also requires GSAs to account for the water supply and economic impacts of SGMA plans on those users, and to include lists of affected small community systems and managed wetlands in groundwater sustainability plans.
The bill would also restrict GSAs from charging groundwater extraction fees to those systems and wetlands for historically consistent use, while allowing fees on any usage above historic levels. If a small community water system or managed wetland extractor increases pumping beyond historic needs, the GSA could regulate or fee that additional use. The bill includes a similar carveout for managed wetlands in the allocation provisions, but preserves GSA authority to address direct harms such as land subsidence or groundwater quality degradation caused by wetland pumping. These provisions are temporary: the bill’s substantive changes are set to sunset on January 1, 2029, with a new, operative version of some provisions taking effect on that date.
AB 929 would amend Water Code provisions governing SGMA, especially Sections 10721, 10726.4, 10727.4, and 10730.2. In practical terms, it would narrow local GSA discretion over allocations and fees for certain disadvantaged-community water systems and managed wetlands, while expanding the required contents of groundwater sustainability plans to include impacts on those users. It would also add statutory definitions that distinguish managed wetlands from commercial crop production and certain artificial water bodies, and it would preserve county authority over well permitting.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committees and the Assembly with majority support, including a 45-16 Assembly floor vote, suggesting broad interest in protecting drinking water access for disadvantaged communities and recognizing wetlands as beneficial groundwater users. At the same time, the fact that it was later ordered to the inactive file indicates the measure did not complete the legislative process in 2025.
The main points of contention likely centered on how far SGMA carveouts should go and whether exempting certain users from allocations and fees could complicate local groundwater management. Supporters would emphasize human right to water concerns, the vulnerability of small community systems, and the ecological value of managed wetlands. Opponents or skeptics would likely worry about limiting GSA flexibility, creating preferential treatment among groundwater users, and potentially undermining basin-wide efforts to achieve sustainable yield, especially if exemptions reduce local agencies’ ability to manage shortages or recover costs.
AB 929 would amend the Water Code to create temporary SGMA exemptions and reporting requirements for managed wetlands and small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities. It would limit GSAs’ authority to assign groundwater extraction allocations and impose fees on those users for historically necessary pumping, while preserving regulation and fees for growth above historic use and for direct harms caused by pumping. It would also require groundwater sustainability plans to identify affected systems and wetlands and analyze their water supply and economic impacts. Most of these changes would sunset on January 1, 2029, with a replacement operative structure for some provisions beginning that date.
Legislative sentiment appears generally supportive, especially around protecting disadvantaged communities’ drinking water supplies and recognizing managed wetlands as a beneficial groundwater use. The bill moved forward on majority votes in committee and on the Assembly floor, indicating substantial backing. However, its eventual placement on the inactive file suggests unresolved concerns or insufficient momentum to finish enactment in 2025.
The central controversy is the balance between groundwater sustainability agency control and carveouts for specific users. Supporters likely argued that small community water systems and managed wetlands should not be penalized for historically necessary groundwater use, particularly where communities face drinking water insecurity and wetlands provide habitat and other public benefits. Critics likely focused on the risk that exempting these users from allocations and fees could weaken SGMA implementation, create inequities among pumpers, and limit local agencies’ ability to manage overdraft, recover costs, and respond to basin conditions. A secondary point of tension is the bill’s temporary nature and repeated sunset/operative-date structure, which may reflect compromise but also adds complexity.