California groundwater agencies face fees up to $250,000 for special exemptions

A steep new price for water relief

For some California groundwater agencies, seeking relief from state probation-related reporting and fees could now cost much more. A new application fee can reach $250,000 for agencies requesting certain exclusions under California’s groundwater law.

The State Water Resources Control Board approved the new fee structure on September 15. Application fees range from $50,000 to $250,000 based on the share of groundwater pumping covered by an agency’s request.

Why these agencies want exemptions

California’s groundwater law gives the state a way to step in when local plans fall short. Agencies managing groundwater can seek exemptions from certain state actions. These exemptions can help them avoid additional probation-related charges. They are sometimes described as “good guy” exemptions.

The goal is to recognize agencies that say they are managing groundwater responsibly. An agency must make its case to the Water Board. The review can require significant staff time and resources. The new fees are meant to help cover those costs.

The new fees range widely

The Water Board approved application fees ranging from $50,000 to $250,000. The exact amount depends on groundwater pumping within the relevant subbasin. That means agencies will not all face the same upfront cost. Higher groundwater use can bring a much larger bill.

The fees were approved during a Sept. 15 board meeting. The decision followed reviews of previous exemption requests. State officials said the charges are tied to the work required to review applications. Agencies now have to weigh that cost when seeking relief.

What probation can mean for farmers

Probation under California’s groundwater law can bring new costs for farmers and other groundwater users. Non-exempt pumpers generally must measure and report their groundwater extractions and pay an annual base fee of $300 per well.

They also face a state charge of $20 for each acre-foot pumped in a probationary basin. Some extractors must use certified meters or other approved measurement methods, depending on the requirements adopted for the basin.

Fun fact: California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was signed into law in 2014 to improve long-term groundwater management.

The law behind the changes

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, known as SGMA, is California’s landmark groundwater law. It was created to address long-term groundwater problems across the state. Chronic overpumping can lower water levels and create problems for communities.

SGMA also gives the state power to step in when local management is inadequate. That can include placing a groundwater subbasin on probation. State oversight can then bring additional requirements and fees. The system is designed to push groundwater basins toward more sustainable management.

One subbasin drew major scrutiny

The Tule subbasin has become a major example of the exclusion process. When the Water Board placed Tule on probation in September 2024, it granted reporting-and-fee exclusions to the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District GSA.

Eight additional groundwater sustainability agencies sought similar exclusions in fall 2025. The Water Board reviewed those requests and denied all eight in April 2026, leaving the two earlier exclusions in place.

The state spent $1.3 million reviewing requests

Reviewing the Tule exemption applications required significant state resources. David Ceccarelli, a branch chief with the Division of Water Quality, said the Water Board spent $1.3 million on the reviews. That figure covers the work involved in evaluating the requests. The expense helped shape the state’s new fee approach.

Ceccarelli said the fees are intended to cover appropriate staff costs. He also said the state wants to avoid discouraging legitimate exemption requests. Without application fees, those review expenses would instead be spread across SGMA fee payers. The new charges are meant to change that arrangement.

Some agencies still face annual fees

Winning an exemption does not necessarily mean an agency pays nothing afterward. Some agencies must continue paying fees to keep their exclusions. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District is expected to pay $12,500 each year. The ongoing fee helps support continued state review.

Kern-Tulare also faces a $12,500 annual payment to maintain its exemption. The amount is much smaller than the new application fees. Still, it creates a recurring cost for the agencies. Local water managers must account for that expense over time.

Fun fact: Surface water comes from sources such as rivers, reservoirs and canals, giving farms an alternative to pumping groundwater

Millions in probation fees remain unpaid

The Water Board also provided an update on probation fee collections in Tule. About $7 million in invoices were sent out in August, according to SJV Water. A little more than $2 million had been paid. That left a sizable amount still unpaid.

About 85 farmers were reportedly protesting bills totaling $3.265 million. Another $1.9 million from 107 landowners remained outstanding. These figures show the scale of the financial dispute. They also highlight how groundwater regulation can affect individual landowners.

Nearby farmers face another delay

The neighboring Tulare Lake subbasin has its own groundwater fee dispute. State Water Board data indicated that groundwater volumes reported through the state system amounted to less than 35% of the extraction volume shown in the basin’s annual reporting data.

State invoicing in Tulare Lake has been put on hold pending a court hearing scheduled for October 6. Until that legal issue is addressed, affected groundwater users face uncertainty over when state fee collection will proceed.

Why groundwater matters to California

Groundwater is an important water source for California communities and farms. It becomes especially important during periods of drought and limited surface water. Heavy pumping can reduce underground supplies over time. It can also create problems for wells and ecosystems.

SGMA was created partly to address those long-term risks. The law encourages local agencies to manage groundwater more carefully. State oversight can become involved when local plans do not meet requirements. The current fee dispute shows how those rules can affect local water decisions.

Could groundwater decline be tied to more than just drought and farming? Discover what a new California study says about the connection to major fossil fuel companies.

The cost of seeking state relief

California’s new exemption fees add another financial consideration for groundwater agencies. An agency seeking relief could now face an application charge of up to $250,000. That cost comes before the state decides on the request. Successful agencies may also face ongoing review fees.

The debate centers on how the costs of state review should be paid. Officials say applicants should cover appropriate review expenses instead of all SGMA fee payers. Local agencies, meanwhile, must decide how to handle the new expense.

Could new industries play a role in solving local water challenges? Find out how data centers are being explored as a possible tool for improving water infrastructure.

What are your thoughts on the rising costs of groundwater management? Share your take in the comments and join the conversation.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• How California’s Central Valley led the state in job losses this year
• The state’s biggest reservoir push may not solve California’s water worries
• California rail project faces another round of criticism from Central Valley communities