In AquAlliance v. Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency, (July 30, 2026, C102382) __ Cal.App.5th __, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s dismissal of a reverse validation action arising under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (Wat. Code, § 10720 et seq.). Under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, however, the court held that such actions are subject to dismissal for mootness if the Department of Water Resources (DWR) approves the challenged plan while the action is pending.
Key Takeaways
- Interested parties may bring reverse validation actions under SGMA to challenge adopted groundwater sustainability plans; however,
- These actions may become moot if DWR later approves the challenged plan, depending on the scope of the legal claims and subject to the court’s discretion.
Background
The Legislature adopted SGMA in 2014 to establish a comprehensive process for achieving long-term sustainable groundwater management throughout California. Under SGMA, local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) are responsible for developing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), with assistance from (and oversight by) DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
After adopting a GSP, the GSA must submit it to DWR. Within two years of submittal, DWR must evaluate the GSP’s adequacy under SGMA and deem the plan (a) approved, (b) incomplete, or (c) inadequate.
With respect to judicial review of adopted GSPs and other actions by GSAs, SGMA authorizes validation actions and writ proceedings, respectively.
Defendants Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Rock Creek Reclamation District adopted a GSP in December 2021 and submitted the plan to DWR in January 2022. In February 2022, Plaintiffs AquAlliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance filed a reverse validation action seeking to invalidate the GSP for failing to “achieve sustainable groundwater management.”
Defendants filed a demurrer, arguing in part that SGMA does not specifically authorize reverse validation actions. The trial court disagreed and overruled the demurrer. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, explaining that an administrative record would be required to resolve the dispute but had not yet been prepared.
While the litigation was pending, DWR approved the GSP in July 2023. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ reverse validation action became moot when DWR approved the challenged plan. The court agreed, and thus granted the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed the court’s rulings on their motion for summary judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Defendants appealed the court’s ruling on their demurrer.
Appellate Decision
The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Plaintiffs’ action was authorized under SGMA, but that the trial court had not abused its discretion by dismissing the case as moot.
Reverse Validation Actions
In rejecting Defendants’ claim that reverse validation arguments are not authorized under SGMA, the court interpreted Water Code section 10726.6, subdivision (a), which provides:
A groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a groundwater sustainability plan may file an action to determine the validity of the plan pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure no sooner than 180 days following the adoption of the plan.
The court reasoned that, while the statutory language only explicitly mentions agencies, its incorporation of the Code of Civil Procedure’s validation procedures included section 863, which allows reverse validation actions by “any interested person.” The court pointed to similar statutory schemes routinely interpreted to authorize reverse validation actions and contrasted SGMA’s language with other statutory provisions that explicitly limit reverse validation proceedings.
Legal Doctrines Governing Overlapping Judicial and Administrative Review
Having decided that Plaintiffs’ action was authorized under SGMA, the appellate court nevertheless concluded that the trial court properly dismissed the action as moot after DWR approved the GSP.
As a threshold matter, the court found that there was a complete overlap between the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ action and in DWR’s review. The court explained that Plaintiffs’ action alleged that the GSP did not comply with DWR’s regulations governing the adequacy of GSPs—the very same regulations that DWR applies when reviewing an adopted plan.
Accordingly, the court considered three related doctrines—abstention, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and primary jurisdiction—that inform the appropriate level of judicial deference in situations where judicial review and administrative decisionmaking overlap.
First, the court concluded that judicial abstention, which “applies where the case impacts the administrative agency’s regulatory authority on difficult policy issues affecting nonparties,” was not appropriate. The court explained that the outcome of the case would not have far-reaching effects beyond Defendants and their plan, and noted that the trial court had not found that “complex policy considerations” prevented it from evaluating the plan.
Second, the court concluded that exhaustion of administrative remedies, which prohibits judicial review before the administrative process is complete, also was not appropriate. Given its conclusion that SGMA allows interested parties to bring reverse validation actions to challenge groundwater sustainability plans (discussed above), the court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend for DWR’s review to be exclusive.
Third, and finally, the court concluded that the trial court properly applied the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which applies to claims that “‘can originally be addressed in a court, but would be better addressed first by an administrative body.’” The court explained that, absent any SGMA provision barring the trial court from deferring its decision until after DWR’s review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by doing so. Rather, given SGMA’s “detailed allocation of authority to [DWR] to perform the technical sustainability evaluation and the need for uniform application of this evaluation throughout the state to support [SGMA’s] goals,” judicial deference was entirely appropriate.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the granting of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.